Leaks of raw sewage into Codornices, Blackberry, and Strawberry Creeks in summer 1999 raise questions about Berkeley’s program for lessening water pollution by modernizing its sewers. The following history gives some insight into that program and how it might be improved.

Berkeley began building sewers in 1885, as the advent of rail service and the University of California began turning scattered settlements ringed by fields and grazing lands into a substantial town. As was common in the pioneer West, these sewers generally combined storm-water runoff and sanitary sewage. This later placed Berkeley and other early settlements, such as Oakland, at a disadvantage compared to later-settled areas such as, say, El Cerrito, where the two systems were separated from the beginning. The early sewer system also was far from complete. Resentment against the "slop wagons" that continued to carry sewage and garbage to dump outside city limits were a

major reason why the city of Albany incorporated itself in 1909.

By the late 1920s, the consequences of dumping raw sewage into the Bay were evident. Sewage formed a stinking shoal off Ashby Ave. In summer, when Berkeley’s canneries were in operation, the Bay water near the sewers turned black and bubbled; fumes ate the paint off buildings near the shore. In 1946, a special district was formed to intercept the various city sewers and provide primary treatment before sewage was discharged to the Bay. While local communities (Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, and the Stege Sanitary District) would still own the trunk sewers, East Bay MUD would own the interceptors and treatment plants.

To provide the interception and primary treatment, sewage had to be separated from storm flows. Separation of Berkeley’s storm and sanitary sewers began in the late 1930s, but was mainly a task of the 1950s. By 1975 it was substantially finished, but the separation has never been complete. Many older roof and yard drains remained connected to sanitary sewers and some new illegal connections were made. The city made a start on removing these connections in the 1950s, but abandoned the effort as property owners objected and flooding continued. Instead, Berkeley built bypasses that shunted high sewage flows from the sanitary sewers to the storm system. This meant that during high flows, raw sewage flowed directly into creeks and/or

the Bay. A study of Berkeley’s sewer system in 1985 found about 200 illegal storm water connections to the sanitary sewers, as well as 72 bypasses. In addition, some undiscovered sanitary sewers probably still drain into storm sewers including creeks.

Another set of problems stems from deterioration of Berkeley’s aging sewers. Old sewer pipes were mainly clay, with the largest pipes of reinforced concrete. Until 1941, all pipes had rigid joints; flexible polyurethane joints were not available until the 1950s. The Bay Area’s constant earth movements from slides and quakes take a heavy toll on the rigid pipes, cracking the deteriorating mortar and misaligning or even breaking the pipes themselves. New construction and undergrounding of other utilities cause more damage. Roots pry into the gaps, flourish in the moist, nutrient-rich interior, and multiply the damage. Thus as Berkeley’s sewers aged, during the winter rainy season, large quantities of rainwater entered the sewers through cracked and broken joints and pipes. Manhole and clean-out covers popped off; sewage ran down streets and into storm sewers and creeks. Berkeley began imposing sewer charges for sewer cleaning and replacement in 1962, but most

of the money went to repairs; there was little progress in replacing aging sewers.

By the early 1970s, growing environmental concern led to federal requirements for more thorough, secondary treatment of sewage. Secondary treatment, however, is expensive. To meet federal requirements and avoid dumping raw sewage into the Bay, the EBMUD plant had to have enough capacity to treat all flows that reached it, even during winter storms. This led to pressure on local communities to reduce the amount of storm water flowing through the sanitary sewers. In the 1980s, the stick of threatened fines was combined with a carrot of federal grants. East Bay communities including Berkeley were required to prepare plans for upgrading their sewer systems to comply with federal standards within 20 years.

The required plan was produced in 1985, in the form of Berkeley’s East Bay Infiltration/Inflow Study (I/I Study), combined with EBMUD’s Wet Weather Facilities Plan Update. The I/I Study found that most of Berkeley’s 250 miles of sewers were badly deteriorated. For example, testing about half the system with smoke found about 3000 serious defects. TV inspection showed an average of 5 defects per 100 feet. Most of the defects were associated with "laterals" -- the approximately 2,800 smaller lines connecting buildings to the sewer mains under streets or in easements. Laterals are more subject to problems than are mains because they are not protected by streets; they are more likely to be penetrated by tree roots or disturbed by construction. An estimated 75-90% of laterals were seriously defective.

The 20-year, $155-million plan to meet federal standards, however, did not call for fixing all or even all the worst of nonfunctional sewers. Instead, it compared, drainage basin by drainage basin, the cost of upgrading sewers with the cost of adding capacity to EBMUD’s treatment plant. For each basin, it then took the most cost-efficient alternative -- upgrading or adding treatment capacity--that would let the whole system handle expected flows in a large storm of a kind expected to recur about every five years.

Using cost efficiency as the criterion, some very badly deteriorated Berkeley sewers were not scheduled for rehabilitation or replacement. In Berkeley’s hill areas in particular, slides and earthquake faults had badly damaged the sewers, and repairs were expected to be costly. Thus most of the hill sewers were not scheduled for rehabilitation or replacement under the plan.

Since implementation of the plan began in 1987, about 25% of Berkeley sewers have been repaired, rehabilitated, or supplemented by new "relief" sewers to increase capacity. The great majority of the bypasses that shunted high sewage flows into the storm-sewer system have been eliminated. When rebuilding of the trunks that run through Albany is complete, expected in FY 99-00, Berkeley will have rebuilt all its trunk sewers -- the main collectors that run to EBMUD’s intercept lines.

However, the work done correlates only generally with the original 1985 plan. Berkeley, like Oakland, has lagged behind the original schedule; both cities have obtained permission to stretch the work over 30 years, rather than the original 20. A more positive difference is that many sewers not included in the plan have been rehabilitated. It was not practical, or politically possible, to simply ignore sewers when deterioration became so bad that, for example, sewage ran in the streets or creeks reeked.

Other variations from the plan deal with connections from buildings to

sewers. The plan called for elimination of illegal connections of roof and yard drains to the sanitary sewer system. But when this was begun in the 1990s, owners protested vigorously. The city’s lawyers ordered the program stopped, and the Engineering Department even re-connected some of the storm drainage to the sewers. The effect of these connections is uncertain -- in 1987, known illegal connections were estimated to account for less than 1% of peak infiltration and inflow of storm water to the sanitary sewer system.

Deteriorated laterals may pose a larger problem. Because laterals were

believed to be generally in worse shape than sewer mains, the 1985 plan

called for including laterals in the rehabilitation program, and for Berkeley to pass ordinances to "implement an effective program for lateral testing, inspection, and repair." This has not been done.

The city is responsible for the "lower lateral," within the public right of way. Berkeley repairs this portion along with mains. The landowner, however, is responsible for maintaining the "upper lateral," the portion on private property. These are not being repaired unless owners choose to do so.

The estimated 75-90% of laterals believed to be leaking, cracked, displaced, or misaligned may seriously weaken the city’s efforts to lessen water pollution. First, even if all the mains are rehabilitated, groundwater can still enter and sewage can still leak out through the laterals. Some sewers then may still overflow, popping manholes and sending sewage down streets and into creeks and the Bay. Second, roots entering through breaks in the laterals can quickly grow down into even the repaired mains, blocking and damaging them.

This 1985 plan suggested several ways to address this problem:

· The city could fix the laterals itself, collecting the cost as fees or assessments. The City of Vallejo has a program of this kind. In Berkeley, however, a pilot program in which the city paid to repair the upper laterals in a lower-income neighborhood was halted as an illegal expenditure of public funds for private purposes.

· The city could pass ordinances requiring repairs and inspect to see that they are carried out. But this would be both expensive and difficult, since inspectors would have to enter private property.

· The city could pass an ordinance requiring inspection and/or upgrading of laterals when buildings are sold or remodeled. Nearby municipalities with ordinances of this kind include Albany, Alameda, and Burlingame. Such an ordinance could also require inspection for illegal sewer connections. Requiring inspection only probably would result in some repairs (from reports to the buyer) and clearer city understanding of problems (from reports to the city).

In July 1999, Friends of Five Creeks began weekly testing of creek water for evidence of sewage pollution, using counts of total coliform and E. coli, bacteria found in the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals. Results of six weeks of testing six locations on Codornices Creek show that none meet the US Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for lightly used recreational waters. Counts of E. coli were highest at Live Oak Park, indicating a possible problem between Live Oak Park and Codornices Park, the next test sites upstream.

Testing of Blackberry Creek is scheduled for late August and September. We are reporting our findings to the cities of Berkeley and Albany. We also are drafting an ordinance requiring inspection and/or upgrading of private laterals in Berkeley and gathering other kinds of background on whether such an ordinance is a good idea.

For more information please email F5creeks@aol.com or call Susan Schwartz, co-president, 510-848-9358.

Considering only open creeks, where sewer leaks could endanger the health of, for example, children playing in the creeks, here is a picture as of April 1999, from north to south: The fact that a street is listed here as not yet rehabilitated down not mean that it should get high priority for rehabilitation. Many other factors are involved, such as the condition of the sewer. And sewer breaks on streets some distance from creeks may pollute creeks, via storm drain connections.

CERRITO CREEK:

· Sewers along upper and lower Cerrito Creek where it forms Berkeley’s north border are under reconstruction.

· Sewers have not been repaired along the south fork of Cerrito Creek, which originates just below Grizzly Peak and flow down (seasonally) through the park at Spruce and Michigan. Sewers along this fork below the park, between Santa Barbara and Boynton and crossing the Alameda, appear to have been largely repaired.

BLACKBERRY CREEK

· Sewers near the middle fork (which flows through Hinkel Park) above the park have not been repaired, but sewers near the south fork (which is intermittently open above and just south of Hinkel Park) have been partly repaired.

· Sewers in John Hinkel Park and following the creek down to Catalina have been repaired.

· Sewers along the creek from Catalina down to Thousand Oaks School are

likely to be repaired soon as a result of the current break along the creek in back yards behind San Pedro.

· Sewers along the north fork (Capistrano Creek) have largely been repaired. Blackberry flows by culvert into Marin Creek, which is culverted to its mouth.

CODORNICES CREEK

· Around the north fork of Codornices Creek, which flows through Remillard Park, most sewers have been repaired, but not those on Cragmont, Keith, or Euclid where this branch crosses.

· Sewers have been repaired along Bret Harte Rd., affecting the south fork of the north fork.

· Sewers have been repaired on High Court, but not on Euclid; the north fork surfaces between these two.

· Except along Keith, sewers on streets crossing the Middle Fork (the one with the spectacular waterfall) have been repaired.

· Sewers along the upper seasonal parts of the south fork (the fork that flows near Codornices Park picnic grounds) have been repaired, down to La Loma Park. Sewers from here down are expected to be repaired soon because of the recent breaks on Shasta and in Codornices Park.

· On the main stem, sewers below Glen Street, down to Colusa, have mostly been repaired (This includes Live Oak Park.) Sewers from Colusa to Stannage are mostly unrepaired. Kains was repaired, San Pablo was not. Below San Pablo, Harrison Street sewers have been repaired; as have sewers on 10th and 5th Streets south to the creek. On other stub streets west of San Pablo, sewers may have been upgraded when new buildings were built.

SCHOOLHOUSE CREEK

· Schoolhouse Creek is not open on public land until one reaches its mouth, at the foot of what would be Virginia Street in the new Eastshore State Park.

STRAWBERRY CREEK

· The north fork of Strawberry Creek is intermittently open along upper Le Conte (sewers not rehabilitated) and Ridge (sewers rehabilitated).

· The University has rehabilitated most of its sewers.

· Sewers in the area of Acton Circle and Strawberry Creek Park have not been rehabilitated, except for Spaulding and Valley.

DERBY CREEK

· Except for a short stretch on Hillside, There has not yet been sewer

rehabilitation work on Panoramic Hill (which drains into the open north fork of Derby Creek). Derby is culverted below this. For that matter, the north fork is virtually inaccessible in its deep canyon.

CLAREMONT CREEK (NORTH FORK TEMESCAL CREEK)

Most sewers above Claremont in Berkeley have been rehabilitated (affecting the open north fork of Temescal Creek.