Document text
Council differs on sewage options Some opposed to effluent irrigation By DANI DODGE ASHLAND -- A picture of a city council divided emerged Wednesday during a study session on the city's controversial plans for sewage treatment. The meeting was billed as a chance for Public Works Director Paula Brown to explain the increasing costs of the $30 million project. But during the noon session, several council members said they are opposed to a major portion of the project that calls for spraying effluent -- treated sewage -- on a hillside. In the past, neighbors of the site have expressed fear about the potential adverse health effects. Councilwoman Susan Reid said instead of spraying the effluent, the city should put the treated sewage into Bear Creek so it can benefit fish. "I know the best thing is to get water in the creek," Reid said. "It's my goal to do that in the most cost efficient way." Brown said changing course now and putting treated sewage back into the creek will cost at least an additional $2.5 million up front, and $120,000 a year in operating costs. But another councilman's resolve to go with a non-spraying option was strengthened when the city's consultant on the project, Bob Eimstad, of Carollo Engineers, said he couldn't say for sure there were no health risks associated with the spraying. "I'd rather pay more money than take risks with health," said Councilman Don Laws. "I'd say let's continue to move ahead with all options, but make sure to pursue non-spraying options." The city began the process of updating its sewage treatment plant back in 1990 when the Department of Environmental Quality changed its standards on what the city can put in Bear Creek from its sewage treatment plant. After considering a variety of options, the council decided in 1995 to irrigate portions of an 840-acre hillside on the east side of Interstate 5. While owned by the city, the land is in the county. Delays by regulatory agencies -- and interim fixes -- have ratcheted up the cost of the project by more than $1 million. Mayor Cathy Shaw suggested the main reason people are concerned about spraying is because Oregon doesn't have a long history of reusing effluent like California. She said the project is environmentally and fiscally sound. "At this juncture, we should continue in the direction we are going," she said. "What's really important is for people to understand that the treated effluent we are proposing to use for irrigation on the hillside is lower in pollutants than the water currently in Bear Creek, Ashland Creek or the Talent irrigation ditch." About a half dozen community members attended the meeting. One man who lives near the sewage treatment plant and across the street from the spray site commended the council for looking at alternatives. Donna Gilmore Rhee, who recently moved to town from Nebraska where she worked as an environmental chemist and activist, shared with the council some recent scientific developments. She said studies are being done on the potential adverse health effects of chemicals emitted from wastewater storage lagoons. "The council is trying to make the right decision that will never be wrong," Rhee said after the meeting. "But science is an evolving thing. They can't sit and make this great decision that precludes any future problems. They just have to go with the best science they can scare up today." Brown said she would continue to work toward approval of the spraying project. "If DEQ and the health division aren't satisfied, then there's our answer," she said. "If they are satisfied, then it comes down to council ... and it comes down to a political decision to put the water in the creek, then fine, I'd be happy to make that happen." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA