Document text
Ashland faces sewage deadline City must decide on effluent option or risk fines from DEQ By SARA MURPHY ASHLAND -- The City Council is expected to decide Tuesday whether Ashland's wastewater will irrigate a nearby hillside or return to Bear Creek. It's a multi-million dollar question without an obvious answer, but the clock is ticking: The city must make a decision before a June 3 deadline, or face fines imposed by the Department of Environmental Quality. In a report issued Friday, Public Works Director Paula Brown recommended spraying the treated effluent on an 846-acre hillside outside city limits planted as a poplar tree plantation. John Warinner, president of Sylvan Systems in Walla Walla, Wash., presented the poplar proposal to the council May 2. Public hearing Who: Ashland City Council What: Public hearing on Ashland wastewater options. When: 7 p.m. Tuesday Where: Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. The poplar trees, which mature in about eight years, would be sold as hard wood, Warinner said. At an estimated cost of $7.5 million, the recommended poplar proposal is the least expensive of the city's options. But it may also be the most controversial, sparking concerns about safety and the impact of the lost water in Bear Creek. A second option is to install membrane filters in the city's new treatment facility that would lower phosphate levels to meet environmental requirements, then return the treated effluent to the creek. The estimated cost of a membrane filtration system ranges from $11 million to $14.4 million, depending on the method of sludge disposal. Though the filtration system remains an option, Brown said in Friday's report that the temperature of the treated effluent is a "risky" variable. "The real unknown with any move to return treated effluent to the creek is temperature," Brown wrote. In summer months, wastewater averages a temperature of 72 degrees, while the DEQ limit for disposal in the creek is 64 degrees. "Other than some type of refrigeration or cooling, wastewater cannot be reduced to 64 degrees," the report said. While the City Council has not had the opportunity to discuss the project since the option of a poplar plantation was introduced May 2, council members Don Laws and Susan Reid have expressed concerns that environmental regulations may someday require the city to replace the water it takes from Bear Creek. "We're doing this to save the fish, but we're not going to be saving the fish if Bear Creek is down by half (its flow) or more," Laws said. "We're going to have this wonderful chain of green space that runs along what used to be a creek, but we won't have water in the creek," Reid said. "I feel strongly that the right thing to do is to put the water back in the creek." That's the approach favored by Friends of the Creek, a citizens' group dedicated to stopping the city from spraying effluent on the hillside east of Interstate 5. "We feel that the water needs to go in Bear Creek," said Jim Elliot, who heads up the nonprofit group. Elliot on Friday issued his own report, outlining reasons why he believes the water should go back in the creek, as well as listing health and environmental concerns about spraying the city's waste on the hillside. In February, those same concerns led the council to abandon a similar plan for spraying the waste on a grass crop after Elliot and neighbors of the proposed spraying site questioned whether air-bound effluent might blow over their homes or contaminate irrigation canals. The public works report contends that the poplar option may be able to set aside those fears. That plan would use much smaller sprinkler heads than the "big gun" system quashed by the council and an automatic switch would stop the spray if wind speeds reached 14 miles per hour. In addition, the trees would help block airborne effluent from drifting off the site. Councilman David Fine, who indicated an interest in the poplar proposal, said he would like to see further guarantees, including what he calls "double redundancy." Rather than relying on an automated system, Fine's safeguard plan would call for an employee to be present whenever effluent is being sprayed. Fine's greatest concern, however, is that the council has not had adequate time to discuss the issue. He would like to postpone the vote Tuesday to allow more time for public input. "Elected officials do not always know best," Fine said. "That's not what I stand for. This is outrageous." Fine would like the council to seek more information, then hold a special meeting May 30. Other council members say citizens have had plenty of opportunity for input and oppose postponing the vote, which would give staff just three days to submit a plan to DEQ. "I hope we don't get delayed simply because we're concerned the public isn't having a say," said Carole Wheeldon. The city faces daily fines of $250 to $10,000 if the June 3 deadline is not met, but has until the summer of 2002 to implement the plan. Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA