Sludge Watch ==> Los Angeles Sludge Lawsuit Reeks of Arrogance

[Maureen Reilly]

Price: L.A.'s sludge lawsuit reeks of arrogance
BY ROBERT PRICE, Californian columnist | Tuesday, Aug 15 2006 10:25 PM 
Last Updated: Tuesday, Aug 15 2006 10:34 PM

In mythological Los Angeles, all swimming pools are 82 degrees, the boy always gets the girl, the air is pure and nobody ever has to use the restroom.

In real life, however, L.A. flushes just like the rest of us. And where does that sewage stream flow? North. That's what Kern County is for.

When Kern voters overwhelmingly agreed to ban the importation of outside sludge in March, L.A.'s leaders were forced to consider new options. We all should have seen it coming, because it was as inevitable as the ending of a sports movie: L.A. called in the lawyers.

They came knocking Tuesday, with court papers intended to overturn Kern's sludge ban, which essentially says of processed sewage: You take care of yours and we'll take care of ours.

L.A.'s leaders, and those in its like-minded environs, can't abide that sort of talk. 

They couldn't be bothered with that aspect of municipal management during their inexorable march to world-city status over the past five decades. And why should they, with those easily accessible hinterlands to the north ripe for sludge subjugation?

You can almost hear the thinking as you read between the lines of the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in a Los Angeles County federal courthouse by the city of Los Angeles and a coalition of sewage agencies and private sludge spewers.

We're big; they're small. They have all this open land; we don't. The depth of our pockets is comparatively limitless; theirs isn't. We've got to put this stuff somewhere other than Mulholland Drive; they've got a long, well-documented history as California's favorite trash receptacle.

Never mind that the science of sludge safety is incomplete and inconclusive. Never mind that a credible array of observers believe chemicals, heavy metals and pathogens in treated sewage could taint groundwater.

Never mind that 45 minutes west of L.A., conveniently adjacent via rail and within the confines of presumably more sympathetic eastern Los Angeles County, is plenty of arid land. If sludge is so safe, why not spread it there?

Because the process of rerouting the sludge train would cost far more money than the $850,000 the L.A. City Council is apparently willing to spend in legal fees to beat down this latest uprising in the provinces.

Kern County has a couple of good reasons to vigorously defend itself from this suit. One, obviously, is the need and desire to protect soil, crops and groundwater in the face of continuing uncertainty about the long-term effects of the land application of sludge.

The other reason has more far-reaching implications. What kind of dominion does a county have within its own borders when the issue is public health and safety? 

Does ownership of a tract of land trump the public's right to deny specific uses because of unresolved concerns? Reasonable people would say no. Increasingly desperate people, infused with a bit of arrogance, might say yes.

What we have here is another skirmish in the battle of the two Californias: urban vs. rural, coastal vs. inland, politically powerful vs. politically marginalized. The two have never been further apart.

And now, with L.A. attempting to compensate for past failures to provide for its own inevitable growth, the divide can only get bigger.

Robert Price's column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Reach him at 395-7399 or rprice at bakersfield.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/attachments/20060822/af3ffd06/attachment.htm