Document text
Sewage spraying goes to county hearing Ashland loses appeal, hopes commission sees farm use By DANI DODGE ASHLAND -- The state court of appeals ruled against the city Wednesday in an ongoing war over spraying effluent on a hillside east of Ashland. The ruling means the county will have to hold a public hearing and determine whether spraying effluent and spreading cleaned sewage sludge as fertilizer is a "farm use" under county land-use ordinances. Farm uses are permitted on the property, which is owned by the city but is in the county. Opponents of the city's spraying plan -- who call themselves Friends of the Creek -- were jubilant about the decision. Jim Elliott, who lives near the spray site, said he believes there's no way the county will be able to find that spraying effluent is a farm use, when it's not really farming. "This is a death blow for them," said Elliott. "This was a major battle -- like Hiroshima." But Ashland's mayor and city attorney downplayed the significance of the ruling. "I don't see it as a huge setback," said Mayor Cathy Shaw. "Once the commissioners make a decision on whether this is a permitted use, then we are done." The city began the process of updating its sewage treatment plant in 1990 when the Department of Environmental Quality changed its standards on what the city can put in Bear Creek from the plant. After considering a variety of options, the council decided in 1995 to pipe the waste to storage reservoirs on the 846-acre hillside on the east side of Interstate 5. The city plans to dry the waste and ultimately spread it on part of the parcel as fertilizer. It also plans to spray treated effluent on the parcel as irrigation. The city initially applied to Jackson County for a conditional use permit for the application of the treated sewage. But after opposition surfaced, the city withdrew the conditional use permit request and instead asked that the county approve its plan as farm use. Friends of the Creek appealed the issue to the state's Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA agreed the decision is properly a land-use one that requires a public hearing and a decision by the county. The city appealed that decision to the state's court of appeals, but lost with Wednesday's decision. "What we felt then was it was a farm use we were doing up there, so we didn't see the need to go through any process when farm use is a permitted use," said City Attorney Paul Nolte. So far no public hearing has been scheduled, and the city will meet in a closed-door executive session today to consider its legal options. Shaw said she's confident the county commissioners will see things the city's way when the issue does get a hearing. She noted the city couldn't have gone forward with the spray plan even if the ruling had gone in the city's favor: The city is still awaiting Department of Environmental Quality approval. "I think the county decision is very clear on this," Shaw said. "In California, 44 percent of their effluent is reused and they irrigate 65,000 acres with it. "It's a common practice and I'm not particularly worried." But Elliott said his group plans to bring in a multitude of experts who will discount Shaw's assertions. And he expects the county commissioners will be swayed. "I just hope the city will come to its senses and do something (else with the sewage)," he said, "so we don't have to keep fighting this war forever." Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA