Dilution – Yes, Pollution – No!

<p>Well, the <span class="caps">ADEM</span> hearing on the proposed sewer treatment plant at the lower end of Bayou La Batre is over. No one disputed the critical need for cleaning up the wastewater, domestic and industrial, originating in the community. The latter is largely seafood wash water with an enormous amount of organic &amp;quot;stuff&amp;quot; that requires an awful lot of oxygen to get it back to carbon dioxide and water. 

A large part of our problem is that water has precious little oxygen in it compared to our atmosphere and our little aquatic buddies depend on it just as much as we do. It seems a bit foolish to spend such a precious commodity on treating waste. I’d rather have more shrimp and oysters, but we do have to do something about the waste since it at least smells absolutely awful. Environmentalists have long hated the catchy slogan of wastewater treatment – "Dilution is the solution to pollution." Unfortunately that is a simple truth since what we are really worried about is any and all negative effects that some toxic something may have on either us or some beloved or edible organism. The more objectionable creatures like cockroaches and roadside vegetation are fair game for any designer biocide we can make. Of course there are more enlightened cultures that consider some of these repugnant morsels to be a delicacy, and cattle do eat kudzu. The point is that a pollutant in the water does have to be delivered to us at a level or rate that crosses some physiological threshold that triggers a medical reaction that is either chronically unpleasant and/or eventually shortens our life span. Either way, the classic mechanism dating back to early bipedal hominids or cavemen has been to dispose of our waste, all of it, into running streams. I suspect the practice of peeing on one’s foot eventually became unpleasant and some intellectually advanced Neanderthal realized that by using the local stream, most of the offending material was removed – out of sight, smell and out of mind. It worked unless you were the downstream cavewoman. Our current technology is more complicated and considerably more expensive, but not terribly different. It doesn’t matter if you are on the lake or the 23rd floor of a condo in Gulf Shores – you’re still peeing into the stream. Actually, not so much in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach – I’ll get back to you on that in a moment. A policy/system of surface water waste disposal continued to work pretty well for centuries, although technology for getting the stuff to the stream lagged during the Middle Ages and they had a few population-reducing plagues. But all in all it hasn’t been a bad policy, and both public and ecosystem health have more or less held their own – until the last several decades. Part of the problem is due to the complicated fact that we continue to produce chemicals faster than we make technology to eliminate them if there is any kind of problem with being exposed to them. The natural system has long had the microbes to deal with domestic waste and even things like largely non-toxic seafood wastewater. Even newer exotic pesticides are constructed to self-destruct after a while to minimize risk to us and the afore-mentioned desirable creatures like dogs and salmon. There is a viable and growing technology in genetically engineering very special bacteria willing and able to attack virtually any toxic chemical we make. But it is not yet a requirement that the "antidote" be manufactured before or along with the new industrially valuable chemical – that would raise the cost of producing the new stuff! To return to the communities on Portersville Bay, there is an obvious and pressing need for waste treatment. Obviously no one can avoid domestic waste (that’s techno-talk for going to the bathroom) and the community is deeply and culturally committed to seafood processing and shipbuilding – neither squeaky clean industries. Local management had not demonstrated the ability to operate a conventional plant over the last 20 years and the prospect of a post-Katrina smaller population supporting a cutting edge, technologically advanced waste treatment plant does not evoke great confidence in many. Most opposed to a Bayou La Batre-operated plant are concerned about the vulnerability of the proposed site under the threat of growing tropical storm activity as well as the impact of the partially treated waste on oyster resources. The mayor and treatment plant supervisor, one and the same, is also an oysterman and clearly caught in the squeeze between the conflicting needs. Most of the loyal opposition favor a proposal from MAWSS (Mobile Area Water and Sewer System) that would run lines from the McDuffie Plant at the head of Mobile Bay down to Bayou La Batre. This provides a proven competent operator and would also provide service to the areas east of Bayou La Batre, which would not be served under the current ADEM plan. There are less desirable consequences to this MAWSS proposal however, which may or may not be intentional. Such a plan would open up vast areas of south Mobile County to development through the availability of waste treatment. Economic development enthusiasts see this as highly desirable. But a great deal of this undeveloped land is water-cleansing wetlands of various types with enormous ecosystem service values. Economic benefit attributable to such development must be tempered by a calculation of the eventual cost to society of replacing those services with technology. Besides – what’s the point in paying to haul the stuff to the top of Mobile Bay and adding to its wasteload allocation? The entire project proposed seems to have lacked lack any real alternatives review. Regional treatment systems that would take advantage of local natural features and avoid the wholesale construction of long sewer lines were not discussed during the process. The cornerstone of this approach employs the very successful and proven technologies used on the Baldwin County coast – land application. Green spaces, including golf courses, can really use the partially treated waste and provide those cleansing characteristics at the same time – can you say, "two birds with one stone?" Given our increasing numbers and demands and the diminishing amount of water available to dilute any and all effluents, it seems that surface water disposal of waste is no longer a viable or sustainable management policy! I’d rather drink it (and the stuff we use it in), swim in it (safely), and eat the seafood (including catfish) from it – than waste it on waste.