Document text
Effluent and efficiency Ashland's attempts to alleviate its sewage woes spur lawsuits, uncertainty By Dani Dodge of the Mail Tribune ASHLAND -- With the city mired in a battle over its plan to spray treated sewage on a hillside, wetlands advocates are again promoting their strategy to finish the city's sewage treatment process in ponds. "It is the least costly way of cleaning sewage and bringing it up to useful water standards," said Carl Oates, a founding member of the loosely organized Wetlands Coalition. "We haven't deviated from that belief for 10 years." And some of the city leaders -- who in the mid-1990s funded a small-scale wetlands to determine its feasibility -- continue to dream of a wetlands solution to the city's sewage dilemma. "I would love it," said Mayor Cathy Shaw. "I had always hoped we would have natural wetlands for treatment that ran along the Greenway. By creating wetlands, you create an amazing bird habitat, and to have that feature has always been appealing to me." Since passage of the 1990 federal Clean Water Act, the city of Ashland has been struggling with ways to meet the State Department of Environmental Quality's more stringent limits on what it puts into Bear Creek from the city's sewage treatment plant. The city is completing a $23 million plant upgrade that substantially improves the quality of effluent flowing from the plant, but it still is not meeting a .08 phosphorus level required by DEQ. Since the city hasn't been able to sufficiently lower the phosphorus level to satisfy DEQ, council members decided to spray the treated sewage on an 840-acre hillside outside the city on the east side of Interstate 5. Because they would be taking water away from Bear Creek, they expect to replace it with water they purchase from the Talent Irrigation District. But the plan bogged down in controversy. Neighbors concerned about the potential health effects of the spraying have appealed Jackson County's decision to allow the spraying on agricultural land to the state's Land Use Board of Appeals. The neighbors -- who call themselves Friends of the Creek -- partially won their appeal when LUBA ruled the county must hold a public hearing on the issue. The city is appealing that decision, which will go before the state Court of Appeals on Nov. 23. In the meantime, a staff member from the state health department also expressed concerns over the health implications of spraying treated effluent. Jon Gasik, a senior environmental engineer with DEQ, said he's holding up the project until further study can be done. He wants to explore the effects of the slope and wind on the spraying of effluent, and also further investigate the ultraviolet ray disinfection techniques being proposed. "They went state-of-the-art on a lot of this stuff, and when you go that way it throws in additional uncertainties we need to look at," Gasik said. State agriculture, land conservation and environmental quality agencies filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Court of Appeals siding with Friends of the Creek. While the brief states the agencies don't necessarily oppose the spraying projects per se, the projects must comply with "all applicable procedural land use requirements," and LUBA was correct to require a public hearing. Gasik said, though, he believes spraying is the best way to deal with finishing the treatment of Ashland's effluent. "If you look at it on a more holistic viewpoint, spray irrigating the fields and replacing the water (in the creek) with other water is the best way to go on a bigger picture," he said. Oates and others call this time of controversy and delay a "golden opportunity" for wetlands. "We think now we have a chance of pulling this off because lawsuits always lead to other lawsuits," Oates said. "It will be years before they can spray." But wetlands aren't a sure thing by any means. In the mid-1990s, the council approved $450,000 to build a demonstration wetlands intended to clean the remaining excess phosphorus from the effluent coming out of the sewage treatment facility. The wetlands were built in 1997, between the city's sewage treatment plant and the city's dog park off of Nevada and Oak streets. Using soils from the wetlands and effluent from the treatment plant, scientists have been able to clean the effluent sufficiently in the lab to meet DEQ standards. But, so far, it hasn't worked in the field. "The results that we are seeing on site do show reductions in phosphorus and nutrient loading, but it's not giving us the magic .08 number," said Public Works Director Paula Brown. "But, the bench tests in the lab do show the possibility of getting down to that number." Brown is having the project consultant, Cascade Earth Sciences, prepare a report for the council by the end of the year. It will show the cost of running the demonstration wetlands an additional year. The total cost of consultant fees and lab testing for the first two years was approximately $150,000, she said. Brown hopes that with another year of testing and refinement, scientists will be able to achieve a .08 phosphorus level at the demonstration wetlands. "It still can be viable," Brown said. "Right now we don't have results that say it is viable, but it shows promise." The report also will answer the other question that has become a stumbling block for wetlands: How much land will it really take? A preliminary study before the wetlands were built projected the need for 300 acres. Brown said the true acreage required for wetlands would depend on how much time the water needs to stay within the pond and sand filtering system. "It comes down to -- how much time does it stay in the bathtub?" Brown asked. "You have to build a big enough bathtub for 2 million gallons a day." But Brown said she'd like to continue moving forward both with the wetlands technology and the spraying of effluent. When the city sprays its effluent on the hillside, it must put additional water into the creek to keep the fish healthy. "Ultimately, if we could use the wetlands for even a portion of the flow it would put clean water back in the creek and save us some money from pumping it up the hill," Brown said. "It would be beneficial for the community and the creek." Jim Elliott, the spokesman for Friends of the Creek, said he'd prefer the city buy extra equipment that would allow it to just finish cleaning the effluent at the plant. (Brown said that equipment, though, would cost another $2 to $2.5 million, and isn't guaranteed to meet DEQ standards.) But short of that, Elliott says, anything's better than spraying -- including wetlands. "We'd certainly prefer that over what they are doing," he said. There are council members who agree spraying isn't the best way to deal with the effluent. "I do not find the land application of human waste the most attractive solution," said Councilman David Fine. "If there's another solution I'd like to find it." But Fine isn't ready to jump on the wetlands bandwagon just yet. He said if the demonstration wetlands proves over the next year to be both technologically feasible and economically sound, that's great. If not, he's ready to consider one of the first options discussed in 1990 when DEQ mandated the new standards: shipping Ashland's sewage to the Medford Regional Reclamation facility. To do that, the city would have to build a pipeline to Talent, where it would hook up with Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority pipes. Then the city would pay both the Medford facility for capacity in the plant, and for the use of the pipes. "At some point it may be advantageous to cut our losses and go for a regional solution," Fine said. "In two or three years DEQ could raise the bar again. And, there are real economies of scale to be met in a regional plant." Although shipping to Medford was projected to cost the city approximately the same as the wastewater treatment facility upgrade -- $21 million -- the idea was abandoned in 1995. Council members at the time believed the city's reclaimed water could someday be a resource worth saving. They also didn't want to face the possibility of capriciously raised rates. John Sully, a member of the Wetlands Coalition, said the group will continue to push for wetlands as long as it takes for someone to listen. "First, it's the least expensive way to do it," he said. "Secondly, it's a very natural way and will require less maintenance over time. And third, of course, is it's a way of developing wild life habitat." "It's only been 10 years ... I'm a stubborn person; I'll keep going until they realize it's right." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA