Document text
Ashland thinks twice about spraying waste Some councilors think creek may be better option By DANI DODGE ASHLAND -- The City Council is reconsidering its controversial 1995 decision to spray treated effluent on a city-owned hillside. Thursday -- after a closed-door session discussing a decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals requiring the city to get a permit for the spraying -- several council members said they wanted to consider putting the treated effluent back into Ashland Creek, instead of spraying it. Neighbors to the city's 840-acre proposed spray site east of Interstate 5 have expressed concern over the possible health risks associated with the spraying. "At what cost do we continue down the road we are on?" asked Councilwoman Susan Reid. "What I can't do is put a dollar figure on the fear we have created in those people and their families." The shift reopens a decade of discussion and study about what to do with Ashland's flushings, including treating it with wetlands and shipping it to Medford. With Reid and Councilman Cameron Hanson objecting, a council majority also directed the city attorney to pursue an appeal of the LUBA decision. Reid and Hanson said they thought the money was better spent finding alternatives to spraying. Calling themselves Friends of the Creek, neighbors of the property had appealed a county ruling allowing the spraying without a public hearing or permit. LUBA ruled on the case last week, saying Jackson County should have required a permit for the project, but also saying that the spraying is a permitted use on the land. Friends of the Creek President Jim Elliott said he's thrilled the council is reconsidering its options. "If they would go back in the creek with the water, that would be an excellent choice," he said. "They could move on with their lives and so could we." At Thursday's study session, the council directed Public Works Director Paula Brown to explore what options would be best for the fish in the creek, and get cost estimates on putting the water directly back into the creek instead of spraying it. At the very least, it will cost an additional $1.85 million to treat the water so it is pure enough to go directly into the creek, she said. City staff were taken aback by the retrenchment. "If you are saying you don't want off-site application, that has significant rate impacts," said City Administrator Mike Freeman. He said sewage treatment rates could shoot up 30 to 50 percent. But Reid noted that there are other options, such as going to the voters and extending the food and beverage tax to pay for the cost. Councilman David Fine suggested piping in the city's water, and piping out the city's waste to regional facilities. It could be cheaper because of economies of scale, he suggested, and would avoid the spraying. "Dumping your treated human feces in your neighbor's yard is a terrible way to treat your neighbor," Fine said. "Even though I think it's safe." While saying he would explore any alternative the council desired, Freeman called the suggestion to give up the city water plant, complete with $13 million of recent upgrades, "terribly unrealistic." And not all of the council members were excited to look at alternatives to spraying. Councilman Steve Hauck said changing the city's course now will only add to false fears by giving them credibility. "I refuse to give in to emotional responses," he said. Ashland's wastewater treatment plant discharges into Ashland Creek, a tributary of Bear Creek, and the city is under a state order to comply with state water quality standards for Bear Creek. The city began considering changes in its wastewater treatment in 1990 when the Department of Environmental Quality set a tighter limit on the amount of phosphorus in the treated effluent that could be put into Bear Creek. After considering many options including discharging into the creek and regional solutions, the council decided in 1995 to irrigate city property with the treated effluent. The city has spent about $10 million upgrading the waste water treatment plant, and about $850,000 designing the spray irrigation system. Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA