🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28517@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>>> If San Diego had emplaced secondary treatment years ago instead
>>> of playing games in court, this break would not even _be_ a
>>> problem.
>
>I seem to recall, but my mind could be failing, that there was strong
>pressure opposing such a plan.

You could say that again!  The most pre-eminent scientists in the
area, including the Scripps folks, are officially on record as
opposing a secondary facility here in SD.  Analysis suggests that
it would increase the amount of treated material from like 70% to
like 80% at a cost of at least a couple of Billion (with a B)
bucks.  For the reasons pointed out by someone a couple of messages
ago (material comes out below the thermal layer, is far enough
from the delicate near-shore eco-system, etc) San Diego's effluent
outfall system (I love that term) is deemed to be pretty good.  I
suspect it's at least as effective as the dozens of other coastal
cities in the US that dump at sea.

I guess if the Scripps Institute of Oceanog. folks are content
with the situation (after it's fixed, of course), that's good
enough for this San Diego resident.

--Jim Price