The ongoing debate over the use of injection wells in Maui County has many people asking: “Are there viable alternatives to disposing of wastewater via injection wells?”
Considering that legally permitted injection wells are linked to coral reef degradation and suspected of causing increasing incidences of staph infections in recreational water users, this is an important question. Considering also that the county’s economy is closely tied to whether or not Maui’s coral reefs can survive the unremitting onslaught of human impacts, the question begs to be answered.
What is absolutely clear at this point is that the daily discharge of over 9 million gallons of semi-treated sewage into injection wells where it eventually reaches the ocean is not helping to preserve coral reefs or improve water quality in our coastal waters. If something isn’t done sooner rather than later, ever-widening algae blooms and coastal cesspools may be all that Maui has left to bequeath to future generations.
Is this overstating the case against injection wells and other pollution sources? Some might debate this—but can anyone prove that there’s really no cause for alarm?
As for the original question about alternatives to injection wells, the answer is a resounding yes. Methods do exist that can be used to clean up our treated sewage to levels that will not harm the marine environment, might even help to provide fresh drinking water and could enhance already existing wildlife habitat and the maintenance of productive green spaces. Here’s a taste of what other communities are doing:
Orange County, California converts its wastewater into pristine drinking water to supply an expanding population in this water-hungry region.
The small town of Weston, Massachusetts uses its wastewater to grow flowers and vegetables in a community-owned and operated greenhouse. The process employed there is called Solar Aquatics.
Communities all over the world rely on artificially created wetlands to either fully or partially handle wastewater and keep harmful nutrients from entering nearby bodies of water. Dollar-wise, they are much cheaper than most other types of technologies at reducing pollutants and they get the job done without massive expenditures for energy that treatment plants require. When properly designed and managed, constructed wetlands can remove up to 100% of nitrogen. They also can be used to recharge faltering drinking water aquifers. Many double as treasured recreational areas and wildlife havens complete with boardwalks, interpretive centers and nature hikes
At Green Cay, Florida, a 125-acre wetland is permitted by the state to filter up to 5 million gallons per day of treated wastewater from Palm Beach County’s Southern Region Wastewater Reclamation Facility. This wetland is a community showpiece that features 86 different species of indigenous plant life.
The Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Refuge is a similar project that lies on the edge of Humboldt Bay on California’s northern coast. It uses a system of treatment marshes thick with cattails and bulrushes to filter its treated wastewater before it gets out into the bay. Concerned citizens fought for this solution over sending their wastewater miles away to a high tech, energy-gobbling, far more costly system proposed by wastewater officials. This refuge has become a model of sustainability and wise use of resources that the community now cherishes and enjoys.
Some communities utilize a combination of natural wetlands such as Maui’s Kealia or Kanaha ponds, and nearby constructed wetlands to create a filtering process that prevents harmful nutrients derived from both injection wells and agricultural land uses involving fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides from entering their recreational waters. Agricultural land uses are another major source of coastal water pollution that may be every bit as harmful as injection well discharges. Barrier-type wetlands can solve both problems.
As for energy costs to reclaim wastewater, Renton, Washington sought and won an EPA grant to generate electricity out of what’s flushed down toilets. The electricity now powers a reclamation plant and the excess is sold to the power grid. The community refers to it as “poop power.”
Alternatives to injection wells are many. What really matters is the level of nutrients and other “bad stuff” that goes down the wells. One way or another anything bad going down an injection well eventually gets out into the ocean or nearby water body, where it can cause serious problems with fragile ecosystems. Injection wells are point sources for pollution, while land uses involving contaminants are considered to be non-point sources.
In 1985, six different states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed region set a goal of reducing nutrients polluting the bay. High nitrogen and phosphorous levels from both point and non-point sources were causing algae blooms and killing fish. Today, Maryland’s injected wastewater contains only 3mg/l or less of nitrogen, and phosphorus is down 100%. The other five states feeding into the watershed aren’t yet that successful but progress is occurring on all fronts.
Maui County’s wastewater is treated to contain no more than 10 mg/l of nitrogen. Wastewater officials claim that average nitrogen levels from all three of Maui island’s plants are actually less—somewhere in the range of 4-8 mg/l—but the plants have not been upgraded to employ what is known as Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR), a higher level of treatment specifically designed to take nutrient levels down to 3 mg/l or less. In recent years, Kahului’s treatment plant occasionally has produced wastewater with reported nitrogen levels in excess of 10 mg/l.
The idea behind ENR is to remove almost allharmful nutrients prior to injection, which is the main reason that states like Maryland have adopted this type of technology. A West Maui study has shown that injected wastewater is indeed getting into the ocean and causing a proliferation of algae that ENR most certainly could address.
Harmful pathogens are another issue. Maui County uses ultraviolet light to kill pathogens in some but not all of its treated wastewater. Maui’s recreational water users report that staph and MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphyloccus aureus) infections are on the rise, indicating that expansion of this strategy to help control outbreaks should be another priority.
Both the EPA and the DOH (Department of Health) set numerical standards for pollutant reductions that states must achieve. Communities that delay or avoid addressing identified problems inevitably draw regulatory crackdowns. When this happens, hefty fines can result for lack of compliance. Even worse, communities are left scrambling to play catch-up in adopting expensive technologies they could have been pursuing all along. Waiting until a situation becomes critical and upgrades are mandatory is not a wise or cost-effective choice.
Maui County currently reclaims roughly 23% of its wastewater for irrigation purposes. The remainder is disposed of through 18 injection wells. Total numbers for countywide private injection wells—at shallower depths and lower treatment levels—are not easily obtained but such wells should be included in efforts to address wastewater issues. Small system users, in particular, will need both outside funding assistance and professional help to mitigate pollution problems they are unable to address on their own.
Where reclamation is utilized, care must be taken to ensure that crops are taking up all of the nutrients in wastewater being used for irrigation. Otherwise, these nutrients will continue to get into the ocean to cause excessive algae blooms that smother reefs. The closer irrigated fields are to the ocean, the more important it becomes to monitor the uptake of nutrients and prevent them from leaching into coastal waters.
The creation of the Kahekili Herbivore Fisheries Management Area in West Maui is intended to keep herbivores busy eating algae in an area where algae growth is fast becoming a problem. Plenty of other areas could benefit from similar attention. But no matter how many herbivores are out there, they can’t keep up with algae production if excessive nutrients and pathogens from whatever sources continue to reach the ocean.
County wastewater officials are looking to increase reclamation efforts. In meetings of the Mayor’s Community Working Group on wastewater issues (CWG) a goal of attaining 40 % wastewater reuse in ten years time has been mentioned, along with other ideas. This would still leave 60 % of the county’s semi-treated wastewaters to be injected.
And what—or who—will tackle the problem of private injection wells and all of the other potential sources of harmful nutrients and pollutants impacting coastal waters? Can our reefs survive if more isn’t done sooner? Will tourists keep coming to Maui if our reefs are dead? How will we pay for all that needs to be done?
Clearly, a “vehicle” is needed to address pollution issues in a more comprehensive manner. A Coastal Clean Water Commission (CCWC) appointed by the mayor might be a good start, especially if empowered to research and recommend “clean water fees” dedicated to reducing harmful nutrients and other pollutants in Maui County’s coastal waters. The state of Maryland has “flush fees” currently set at $2.50 per month per household hooked up to a public system.
Here on Maui, where millions of visitors each year significantly add to coastal water problems, it only makes sense that a clean water fee should be paid by both taxpayers and visitors to clean up Maui County’s waters and preserve our marine heritage for everyone to enjoy. At the very least, a portion of the high taxes already paid by visitors should be dedicated toward reducing marine impacts. A Coastal Clean Water Commission could examine acceptable ways to involve visitors, harbor users, and taxpayers alike, evaluate less costly approaches such as constructed wetlands, make recommendations on how fees should be allocated, look at legislative options and pursue additional funding possibilities.
Barring that solution, we’re left with raising sewer fees, going after a possible second round of stimulus funding and hoping that the Feds will bail us out somehow. The worst possible option would be to keep deferring wastewater problems as our coastal water quality continues to deteriorate and the cost of fixing problems keeps going higher.
Crucial questions for candidates running for office this season should be: 1) What do you propose to do about Maui’s injection wells? 2) How do you propose to clean up Maui’s coastal waters and save our imperiled reefs? and 3) Where should funding come from to pay for improvements in how we handle our wastewater?
These are questions every candidate should have to answer; they are questions that all of us must answer. How far are we willing to go and how much are we willing to pay to allow our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to swim, play, surf, dive and eat fish taken from the ocean?
We either take action now to fix our problems or we plan on telling our grandkids, “Sorry, there’s no more fish, no more coral and no more jumping into the ocean or you’re going to get sick.”
The choice is ours.
Submitted by Pam Daoust
Daoust is a resident of Ma’alaea. She serves on the board of the Ma’alaea Community Association, is a past board member of Maui Unite! and a current member of the CWG.