Document text
Ashland may back away from hillside spraying By DANI DODGE ASHLAND -- A city council majority now says it has no desire to dispose of the city's effluent by spraying it on a hillside. "I ask the city administrator to place on the city council's agenda the matter of identifying a preferred effluent management option other than spray irrigation of the city's hillside property," Councilman David Fine wrote in a memo. "I believe a clear majority of council members will be found to support a change of policy." Council members Susan Reid, Don Laws and Cameron Hanson already are on the record as opposing spraying the city's treated effluent on a hillside east of Interstate 5. Fine, though, had made a big show of support for the spraying as recently as last week when he dumped $5,000 cash on a table at a press conference to demonstrate how much changing plans could cost taxpayers. Fine said Thursday that his attempt to draw attention to the safety of the spray irrigation plan and the cost of alternatives failed. "Instead, a great many Ashlanders have contacted me, and their profound, sincere opposition to the scheme has assisted me to re-evaluate my position," Fine said. "I do not wish to implement a choice which has become indefensible in the community." The city began planning for a sewage treatment update in 1990 when the Department of Environmental Quality changed its standards on what the city can put into Bear Creek. In 1995, the council decided to pipe the waste from the sewage plant to storage reservoirs on an 846-acre hillside outside of the city limits. The city planned to dry the solid waste and spread it on part of the parcel as a fertilizer. Treated liquid effluent would be sprayed in some areas of the parcel as irrigation. But people living near the hillside fear the spraying would make people ill. And so far, the Department of Environmental Quality hasn't approved it because of lingering concerns expressed by a staff member at the state Division of Health. Neighbors also convinced the state Land Use Board of Appeals that the county should hold a public hearing on the matter before the city can proceed. The state court of appeals affirmed LUBA's position Wednesday. At a closed-door session Thursday, the council discussed the city's legal options. The council will vote at its regular meeting Tuesday whether to appeal Wednesday's decision to the state's Supreme Court, to ask the county for a public hearing on the matter or to drop the plan entirely. Before and after the meeting, council members made it clear the mood on the issue is shifting. "Bag the whole thing," Hanson said. But not everyone is completely aboard the new bandwagon. Councilwoman Carole Wheeldon said she believes it would be prudent for the council to continue to seek approval for the spray plan in the county, although she's not opposed to looking at other alternatives. Other council members said they would consider pursuing the plan at the county level, but only as a last resort if every other possible alternative is blocked by state regulatory agencies. Councilman Steve Hauck remained steadfast in his support of the spray plan. He said the other options that have been presented are unfeasible or too expensive: "I think it's a waste of taxpayers' money, but if I'm in the minority, there's not much I can do about it." Mayor Cathy Shaw, who has come to support the spray irrigation plan over the years, said she would not oppose the council if members work toward another solution. Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA