While local agencies that discharge wastewater to the Spokane River say they've tentatively been given a more reasonable standard to clean up the river, they say taxpayers' pocketbooks will still be pinched to fund upgrades.

The cities of Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board say their residents should prepare for higher rates or a bond vote, but when those would occur and exactly how much is needed are unclear.

The agencies may first try to recoup the money through a district judge, who could order a bond as ordinary and necessary. If the judge fails to do that, the agencies would seek the bond through a vote.

If the vote fails, the agencies could face a daily fine from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, though improvements could be put in over nine or 10 years, said Sid Fredrickson, Coeur d'Alene's wastewater superintendent.

Raising rates is the only way to pay for the costs, Fredrickson said.

"They're going to be quite a bit much more than what we're paying now," he said "How much? I don't know."

Post Falls and HARSB are exploring similar proposals and face the same situation.

Coeur d'Alene estimates it will have to spend about $50 million in the future on new equipment, testing and construction to meet the new standard and Post Falls and HARSB $25 million to $35 million.

"Regardless of what the people in the community say, we don't have any choice," said Eric Keck, Post Falls city administrator. "We're hopeful that we can borrow some money from the state to implement this."

The three dischargers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency two years ago, claiming the agency violated the Clean Water Act by approving a permit plan for Washington dischargers developed by that state's Ecology department.

However, a tentative compromise between the Idaho agencies and EPA eases the original proposed permit from an average of 36 phosphorous parts per billion to 50 ppb. The agencies discharge between 900 and 1,000 ppb now.

The lawsuit is stayed until the permits are final.

"I think this (compromise) is a good outcome because it allows the EPA to issue the new permits, which will protect water quality in both Idaho and Washington," said Brian Nickel of the EPA.

The proposed permits are expected to go before the public for comment in March or April for at least 30 days after the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality provides EPA with certification that the permits will ensure compliance with Idaho water quality standards.

"Given the amount of public interest we expect in these draft permits, we also plan to hold a public hearing, where any interested person can give oral or written statements and data concerning the draft permits," Nickel said, adding the hearing hasn't been scheduled. "Immediately before the public hearing, we will have also have an informal public meeting where we will explain the draft permit conditions and the public can ask questions."

During the public comment period, the draft permits and the fact sheets that explain the conditions in the draft permits will be available on the EPA's Website, Nickel said.

The new permits are expected to be issued later this year after the comment period.

The Idaho dischargers say they don't oppose cleaning up the river, but have fought for fair and reasonable solutions on both sides of the border.

Craig Wilcox, who has led a citizens' effort seeking affordable sewer rates and staving off possible drastic results such as a building moratorium, said a full resolution in the fight would require the federal Clean Water Act to be changed, but that's unlikely. The group isn't giving up on exploring options despite the tentative permit compromise.

"The federal fight will be time consuming with no clear avenue to success," he said. "Primacy is our only shot to get the ball in our court."

Primacy allows the state to write permits according to Idaho's interpretation of the act.

"Currently the EPA writes Idaho's permits, leaving our state government with no apparent ability to negotiate outside of a lawsuit," Wilcox said.

Coeur d'Alene has already spent $4 million for a pilot-testing facility to meet a new standard and an additional $250,000 on legal and engineering assistance. Post Falls has spent $51,360 on pilot testing and $465,823 on legal and consultants. HARSB has spent about $350,000 on legal and consultants and $150,000 on a new plan for meeting the future standard.

Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls have also done plant upgrades of $15 million and $10.7 million the past two years to meet future growth and additional solids generated for higher phosphorous removal.

Developing new standards for cleaning up the river has been a contentious issue on both sides of the border for 13 years.