SF Dumps Millions of Gallons of Sewage During Big Storms. Surfers Say That Needs to Stop

Nina Atkind loves surfing, but she’s also a detective of sorts. During storms — like the massive systems that recently rocked the Bay Area — she cloaks herself in an apple-red rain jacket and pulls up her tan gaiters before wading out into the swirling water at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach.

During one recent storm in mid-December, Atkind dips a glass jar into the ocean as angry waves crash against the beach, frothy brown rollers pushing up towards the dunes at Vicente Street. The jar fills with the cloudy water, and she screws on a black cap.

“It looks yucky with a bunch of debris,” Atkind said. “I see microplastic in there.”

Atkind manages the Surfrider Foundation’s San Francisco chapter and delivers the water to a lab where it will be analyzed.

“We’re testing for poop in the water,” Atkind said. “The water is everything. It’s so important that those who want to go in the water can and not get sick from it. You don’t want to get sick from doing what you love.”

An overwhelmed system

Surfrider publishes the results to alert local surfers of pollution problems. The reporting also serves as a backstop to official tests conducted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which found that the microorganism enterococcus, a bacteria indicating fecal matter, was above the state’s posting threshold in coastal waters on Dec. 14, 2024 — making water recreation that day inadvisable. Those levels subsided the following day, the agency noted.

Atmospheric rivers almost guarantee one thing for San Francisco: millions of gallons of stormwater and raw sewage will get poured into the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay.

In San Francisco, sewage and stormwater flow through the same pipes as part of a combined system. The problem is that large enough storms cause the system to overflow, which the city said typically happens less than 10 times a year.

Back at her car, Atkind wipes the rain off her face before pulling her phone out to check if sewage water is spewing into waterways in any other spots. The SFPUC and the city’s Department of Public Health sample from more than 20 sites each week and monitor discharges from the sewer during storms. The results are posted on a map on its website — if sewage is discharged at any site, it’s indicated with a blinking triangle.

“Every single spot on the map is now flashing red with the little triangle,” Atkind said. “It’s definitely alarming to see this happen so many times per year, especially on the east side where the water doesn’t move as much as it does on the west side.”

Environmental groups and the state of California argue that the city is discharging too frequently and at such high volumes that it taints the waterways with bacteria that can cause illness if people come into contact with it.

“When their system is operating properly, it’s a very well-working system,” said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper. “The problem is when we have heavy rains, their system is not built to hold all those flows. That means the system gets overwhelmed, creating contaminated spots that are harmful for public access.”

Ryan Seelbach, who has surfed Ocean Beach for three decades, said he actively avoids the beach during and right after storms to prevent himself from getting sick, even though the curling waves he sees from the shore taunt him. He said surfers often develop cold symptoms and ear infections after swimming in the polluted water.

‘It gets funky’

“Where the water comes out during storm events, it gets funky and has a musty smell,” he said, wrinkling his nose.

Seelbach wants San Francisco to reduce the number of discharges so he can enjoy the more than 3-mile stretch of water that surfers worldwide flock to in the winter.

“I think every human deserves to be able to access and use a clean ocean,” he said.

But it’s not just surfers upset about water quality. The federal Environmental Protection Agency and California State Water Resources Control Board filed a civil complaint in federal court against San Francisco last May, alleging numerous Clean Water Act violations over the last decade. The agencies are seeking “financial penalties and improvements to remedy San Francisco’s repeated and widespread failures” in operating its sewer systems and water treatment plants.

The suit claims that since 2016, the city has annually discharged more than 1.8 billion gallons of untreated sewage into local waterways. That tainted water can contain pathogens like E. coli and cause severe illness if ingested.

A related but separate lawsuit recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October. San Francisco sued the federal EPA, claiming its discharge regulations were too vague — an argument that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected. The Supreme Court could issue its decision by June.

In a letter to the city last September, environmentalists urged San Francisco to drop the case. They accused the city of trying to dismantle the Clean Water Act, which they argued would “permanently stain the city’s reputation as a protector of the public and the environment” if their effort was successful.

Wastewater experts believe a decision in San Francisco’s favor could have huge repercussions beyond the city’s borders.

“The folks who work for the city of San Francisco would tell you they’re just as committed to the environment as they ever were,” said David Sedlak, a water quality expert and professor of environmental engineering at UC Berkeley.

“But certainly to the outside world, if the case ends up overturning a lot of the approaches that are used now to protect our waters, people will wonder about San Francisco’s role in making that happen.”

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu pushed back on the criticism, arguing the permits don’t limit the number of discharges that can take place in a year. “This case was never about challenging or seeking any change to the Clean Water Act, nor disputing EPA’s ability to enforce environmental protections,” Chiu said in a statement. “I am confident we made the right choice to protect San Franciscans.”

The SFPUC argues that the exact amount of sewage that ends up in waterways varies based on each storm, and some of the pollution could come from other sources. Officials maintain that only a small percentage — less than 10% — of water discharged during storms is partially treated sewage. Most of the year, the system dispenses clean water, they say.

“I liken it to drinking a martini,” said Joel Prather, the SFPUC’s assistant general manager for wastewater enterprise. “I’m drinking the mixture of whatever alcohol I choose and the vermouth. And so, by the same token, there is a mix in there, but it’s designed to settle the solids out. And as it’s being discharged, it is primarily stormwater being discharged.”

‘The problem has definitely grown worse’

During last week’s storms, at least 20 sites discharged polluted water near Ocean Beach, Crissy Field, the Financial District, Mission Creek and Hunters Point, according to the SFPUC’s beach water quality map.

SF Baykeeper captured images of dirty water containing fecal matter and trash overflowing into Mission Creek on Feb. 4.

Choksi-Chugh said these areas are “sacrifice zones” where the city has nowhere else to release polluted water.

“The problem has definitely grown worse,” she said. “They’re not allowed to be discharging this much bacteria and pollution into the bay, yet they are doing it.”

The issue is deepening because storms are often more intense than they used to be and can easily overwhelm the system first established more than a century ago. Scientists predict storms could become up to 37% wetter by the end of the century.

“We are seeing significant storms, and we’re not alone here; the entire world is seeing stronger storms and having to deal with them,” Prather said. “We’re a combined system, so it’s designed to discharge before it floods on the street. But these large storms are overcoming everything.”

Entirely revamping the city’s aging sewage and stormwater infrastructure would cost San Francisco ratepayers well over $10 billion on the bayside alone, which “would require major increases to wastewater bills,” according to the SFPUC.

Chicago significantly reduced its discharges by digging giant tunnels underground to catch stormwater in the days after a storm. However, Prather said digging under densely populated San Francisco is unrealistic and would not pencil out.

“You’re talking tens of billions of dollars. You’re also talking about ripping up every street in San Francisco and putting new plumbing in,” he said.

San Francisco has invested $2 billion to reduce discharges by 80% of the 7.6 billion gallons it released annually half a century ago, Prather said. The agency has planned for nearly $4.9 billion in wastewater projects in its 10-year capital plan, approved in 2023, including sewer system improvements, treatment facility updates and a Treasure Island treatment plant.

‘Best we can with the resources we have’

“At the end of the day, it’s just doing the best we can with the resources we have right now to be prepared for those storms,” he said.

During regular rain storms, the city collects rainwater at its two plants. Collection boxes can hold 200 million gallons of water before spilling. The agency aims to capture a billion gallons of stormwater annually using green infrastructure by 2050.

“Rainwater or street runoff hits the green infrastructure and percolates into the ground before going on to either groundwater or our treatment facilities,” Prather said.

The agency also offers a grant program for residents experiencing flooding on their properties.

“We’re not sitting on our hands doing nothing,” he said.

Sedlak, of UC Berkeley, said San Francisco needs to prioritize its combined sewer overflow problem. “At this point, I’m not seeing the combined sewer overflow challenge as their highest priority,” he said.

He added that storms would only worsen with human-caused climate change, making hydroclimate whiplash — fast swings between alarmingly wet and seriously dry weather — more intense, and said San Francisco would have to make some sort of compromise.

“The real question for San Franciscans and people who enjoy the bay is what are we willing to pay to reduce the number of combined sewer overflows?” he said. “Is it just the people who live in San Francisco who pay the water and sewer bills there? Or is it something the whole state is interested in taking care of?”