Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2007-1413-Minutes for Meeting March 27,2007 Recorded 8/1/2007
COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS ~J 20o7.14i3 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/01/2007 03;45;19 PM II I I I II I I IIII II IIII I II II I II I III 2007-1413 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book and Page or as Fee Number G 0 { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007 La Pine High School Auditorium, La Pine, Oregon Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Catherine Morrow, Todd Cleveland, and Peter Gutowsky of Community Development; Connie Thomas and Bonnie Baker, Commissioners' Office; and approximately four hundred citizens, including several representatives of the media. The purpose of the meeting was to take additional testimony from the public relating to a proposed local rule regarding La Pine Groundwater and Wastewater Systems Issues. There were a number of people who signed up at the March 20, 2007 hearing but not enough time was available to take their testimony. These people were asked to testify first; and if time allows, others who signed up at this meeting and people who previously testified at the March 20`h meeting will be allowed to speak as well. Commissioner Baney opened the meeting at 6: 00 p.m. Commissioner Baney introduced the Commissioners and others from the County. COMMISSIONER BANEY: Tonight may be the end of the opportunity for us to be here in La Pine; however, it is not the end for public comment. Testimony can be submitted via letter, e-mail, or by telephone and we will take that information and all of it will become part of the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 1 of 29 Pages The next meeting on this issue is with representatives of the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on April 18, 2007 at a Work Session at the Deschutes Services Building in Bend. All meetings are an open process and will be posted on the County website. Tonight's agenda will be public testimony, five minutes, similar to last week. If you do not need the full five minutes, please be courteous and we will just move on to the next person so we can try and hear from as many folks as possible. COMMISSIONER BANEY: I am going to start with last week's list. Some of the people may not be here, I will call their name and if they show up we will just keep rolling through. We have three hot seats right up here, up front. I will call the first three and then one after that so we can keep it rolling. I will also then go on to the sign up sheets from today. If you need to sign up, raise your hand and we will bring you a sheet. Then there are some that would like to testify again, so that would be the last group here. That is the process, so let's go ahead and get started. Commissioner Baney called Jon Jinings, Joe Duncan and Carl Jansen. She also called Dan Varcoe (someone from the audience stated that Dan is out of town.) She then called Albert Bauer. JIM KESTER: Mr. Kester spoke last week but turned in his exhibit tonight (A copy is attached and marked as Exhibit A.) JOHN JININGS: I am Jon Jinings; I am with Oregon Department of Land Conservation Development. I am a regional representative out of our Bend field office. We have been involved and aware of these land use issues and environmental issues for some time. We support this project and we support finding a good solution for the problem. There's going to be some choices that are going to have to be made, they are Deschutes County's choices to make. COMMISSIONER LUKE: The idea of sewering a great area has come up more than once and also is proposed by DEQ. What is the State law concerning sewers in rural areas? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 2 of 29 Pages JININGS: I think it has been brought up several times that Statewide Planning Goal 11 and the Administrative Rule that interprets and carries out Goal 11, creates the policy on providing sewer outside of urban growth boundaries on rural lands. It is a policy of the State of Oregon to discourage community sewers outside. There are some opportunities expressed in the rule and the goal for special circumstances and there are also opportunities to pursue what is called an exception to those rules. It is just what it sounds like, an exception to the rule. It is complicated and not available in a broad variety of cases but I think that kind of sets the tone for maybe available. With regard to this specific area, I was not involved in most of the policy discussion which settled upon one pursuit or another. Generally, sewers are discouraged outside of urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities and in most cases it is very challenging to be able to authorize them. BANEY: Thank you, Jon. Go ahead, and we have Carl. First let's get the next person on board. Commissioner Baney called names going through the list until a person was present. The following did not respond: Keith Harms, Joice Lytle, Fred Lytle, Bill Quinn, and Betty Quinn. Tj Miller was the next name called and she responded and came down and took a seat. CARL JANSEN: Commissioners, my name is Carl Jansen and I am a resident of Spring River community and have been a resident for about 18 years. I would like to remind the Commissioners that we have a cluster system around Spring Lake, about 14 lots. That has been in operation for the last 18 years. I have an associate here Jake Keller; he is going to help me present our proposal. JAKE KELLER: I am Jake Keller; I am from Oregon Water Wonderland Unit II where we do have a sewer system and a collection system. I support what Carl is going to present. JANSEN: I think a couple of weeks ago I presented a one page document regarding exporting all of the nitrates out of the South County area to the farm lands, basically, east of Bend. (Mr. Jansen went over his proposal which is attached marked as Exhibit B) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 3 of 29 Pages KELLER: Some of the benefits that we have come up with are the elimination of the nitrate intrusion problem in Southern Deschutes County by exporting the gray water. This allows more vacant lots to be buildable, therefore increasing property taxes, tax revenue to County and local agencies, expands marketability of affordability housing in southern Deschutes county, and eliminates all nitrate transfers for the Little and Upper Deschutes reducing green vegetation therefore increasing stream flow. It allows for an increase in winter stream flow in the Upper Deschutes reducing bank erosion and increases fish habitat. We feel this is a viable option that should be considered. JANSEN: It is going to require additional study, we do not have all the answers right now but it requires a lot of cooperation with government officials, basically, the environmental community and DEQ. I think a thorough analysis of this option should be evaluated. This afternoon we had a board meeting for the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition and we basically adopted a resolution to encourage the Commissioners to delay adopting a rule for a period of time so that additional projects can be evaluated. Thank you. BANEY: Thank you very much. Joe will be next to testify. Commissioner Baney then called more names from the audience for the next person to come down. Don Randquist and Don Callaway did not respond. She next called Robert (unreadable last name) at P. 0. Box 1258. Robert came down. JOE DUNCAN: I am Joe Duncan. (Mr. Duncan read his statement which is attached marked as Exhibit V.) BANEY: Thank you Joe, thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Mike Neary to come down. ALBERT BAUER: My name is Albert Bower, I live in Newberry Estates. (Mr. Bauer read his statement which is attached marked as Exhibit C.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 4 of 29 Pages COMMISSIONER BANEY: Thank you. We would love to have that, if you don't mind submitting it. We can finish reading it and get back to you if you have questions. Commissioner Baney next asked Shawn Bevins to come down (he did not speak.) Tj MILLER: My name is Tj Miller, that is capital T, smaller j, no spaces, and no periods. I am a resident of La Pine. (No documentation was submitted.) I have something here that another Citizen of La Pine asked me to read into the record. Pollution has been a fact for the last 50 years or more. If all septic systems were removed today, there would still be pollution in the ground, which is not limited to nitrates. To filter only nitrates would be an inadequate process to guarantee safe drinking water. It would seem reasonable to find another method to provide safe drinking water. The County has a ten to eleven year long period to expand the City sewer out a reasonable distance each year. The State owns the water in our wells and they will close down the use of our wells when the pollution exceeds their standards anyway. So, the best solution seems to be to find an area near La Pine where good water can be acquired, where pollution will not take place, drill wells and provide the citizens safe drinking water with a countywide sewer water system. I went over some of the basic assistance mechanisms. The first was a full grant, up to ten thousand dollars per retrofit. It said no eligibility restrictions. Do not let them tell you there are no restrictions on these grants. You look very, very carefully first, please. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BANEY: Thank you very much. GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE (unidentified): Will we be able to ask questions of the speakers? COMMISSIONER BANEY: Unfortunately, no. We will be taking some breaks but we want to make sure we get to everyone and everyone is heard. We just do not have the time to stop and do that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 5 of 29 Pages Commissioner Baney then called Kelly Reesman to come down. She then called Teresa Lee who did not respond and Lynn Hatch (who made a comment but it was not audible - she did not come down) Gerald Olson was then called to come down. ROBERT RAY: My name is Robert Ray; I live here in Newberry Estates, in La Pine. (No documentation was submitted.) First I would just like a little clarification on what a pollution reduction credit is. CATHERINE MORROW: I am Catherine Morrow and I am the Deschutes County Planning Director. A pollution reduction credit is created under the local rule when a septic system is upgraded. Pollution reduction credits are needed in order for developers to develop in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. RAY: Can I buy a pollution credit? Would it be cheaper for me to buy these credits, than to put a system in? MORROW: The $7500 dollars that you are referring to is an amount that was adopted by resolution by the County Board of Commissioners so that people that have the ability to own land or develop in the Neighborhood Planning Area, if there were not sufficient retrofits that could occur out in the area that would require retrofits, they could pay into a fund at that rate for every pollution reduction credit that they needed in order to develop land in the neighborhood planning area. That money, that they would pay, would be used for financial assistance. RAY: So, a pollution reduction credit is to allow a builder to add to the La Pine Special Sewer District? MORROW: If land is developed in the Neighborhood Planning Areas, that land will be served by a sewer. The sewer was expanded to allow for that level of development and it is in the City of La Pine. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 6 of 29 Pages RAY: By the developer paying for this he would be able to put in a house on one of the lots that you intend to sell. Is that what you are saying? MORROW: In order for example, Pahlisch Homes, to develop they either need to, if the rule is adopted, cause septic systems to be upgraded or in lieu of that they can pay into this partnership fund with their final plat. The money in that fund can be used by the County, if the rule is adopted, to assist people in upgrading septic systems. RAY: What is the nitrate footprint in La Pine now? Is there a bloom coming from the La Pine Special Sewer District. TODD CLEVELAND: The sewer district was not part of the study area. It was not a component of the study for the La Pine project. The sewer system is permitted under the DEQ, WPCF Program; they are responsible for the monitoring of that system and the permitting of that system. RAY: Barbara told me that there is now an intergovernmental agreement that would force the sewer districts to meet the same requirements that the homes have. Is that true? MORROW: That is not true. The County has not entered into an agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality at this time. RAY: I believe that someone did say that there was an intergovernmental agreement with the DEQ at the last meeting. BANEY: Not for that in particular. We are meeting with DEQ on the 18th to make sure that we have all of our facts in line. If you could, I would also like your questions in writing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 7 of 29 Pages RAY: I will gladly submit those in writing. Why haven't the sewers in the area, La Pine Special Sewer District, Oregon Water Wonderland, Sunriver and Quail Run, why haven't those figures been included into the plan? They are polluting the aquifer just as I am. MORROW: As Todd Cleveland pointed out, those systems are regulated by DEQ and they are not part of the local rule, however, the County is trying to negotiate an IGA with DEQ to require DEQ to apply the same treatment level to those types of agreements. That agreement has not been adopted yet. RAY: You should not vote on this until you pass that agreement. The Oregon law is a federal law that says you have to disseminate information to the people. People can complain to the DA or the Attorney General and find you at fault. You have not given us this information BANEY: Thank you. We would like to have your questions in writing also. Commissioner Baney was calling the next person when Joice Lytle, who was called earlier but did not respond, came down. MIKE NEARY: My name is Mike Neary. I am a lawyer and moved to La Pine about 2 years ago to retire. (Mr. Neary read his statement which is attached marked as Exhibit D) BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Sunny St. Claire to come down. SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE (unidentified): Can we extend beyond five minutes, people are getting cut short. BANEY: If 30 people here do not want to speak. We are going to stick to the posted 5 minutes. (Audience booing and being rude) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 8 of 29 Pages KELLY REESMAN: Hi, my name is Kelly Reesman; I live in southern Deschutes County. (No documentation was submitted.) I am a stay at home mom with two children. I have heard a lot about the Blue Baby Syndrome. I am here to testify that when I delivered my daughter and got on WIC for assistance, they clearly told me that under no circumstances was I supposed to give my child well water. (Audience booing and being rude.) BANEY: Please, be respectful to other opinions. REESMAN: My questions is, what happens, as growth is inevitable, that La Pine expands and you are stuck, not only buying a new septic but now you are getting hooked up to the sewer because you have ten years to get hooked up. MORROW: In order for La Pine to expand the sewer beyond their current City limits, they would have to expand the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) and I can't predict how or when that might happen. Expansions of UGB's are done after studies are done for the need for expanded commercial, industrial, and residential lands. Those studies have not been done and will not be done for some time. REESMAN: If this passes within ten years that you are given to do the new septic, are you allowing all of us to have it done in ten years or are you breaking it down by sections? BANEY: The actual proposal is has been proposed one way and that is what has been given to the community, however, we as the governing body can decide to either do that or not. We have not even decided that this is the route that we want to do. So, we can't really answer that question because we are still fact finding on whether this is something we need to do right now anyway. We are not there yet. REESMAN: Mr. Luke, does the County plan on imposing the Local Rule on any other townships in Deschutes County? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 9 of 29 Pages MORROW: I can not answer for the Commissioners but it is not proposed at this time. BANEY: It is not currently proposed to be that way right now. LUKE: On a discussion with Barbara she said that they will be looking at the impacts in north County, Redmond, and toward Sisters, eventually. Have you heard anything about that? TODD CLEVELAND: Right now there is no other area that is proposed to install these additional systems. There are areas in the County that may have similar issues eventually. REESMAN: Why is there such a rush to get local rule passed? BANEY: We are actually not in a rush. We have been presented with information and we do not have a time line. That is why we have initiated these three extra meetings and we are meeting with DEQ. We are definitely taking our time and we do not have a deadline for this decision. LUKE: The first meeting down here was in 1995. It has been over 12 years already and it has been going in phases. We had transfer development credits before we had the process that is working now. There was a citizen's committee with many representatives from South County on that committee that helped develop the pollution credits that Catherine talked about earlier, so, it has been going in phases. This is not a rush, it has been going on for a long time, this is just the next step to take testimony and determine what the next step should be. Commissioner Baney called Toby Wilson to come down, no response. Richard Grauer was called to come down. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 10 of 29 Pages GERALD OLSEN: Hello, my name is Gerald Olsen. (No documentation was submitted) I am the owner of Water Right Well Drilling here in La Pine. My son, Sam Olsen, owns TC Well Drilling. We have been drilling in the area for a combined time of 50 years. Since starting drilling in 1968, the nitrates are the same level now as then. We send in 100 samples a year for colliform and nitrate tests and they are all staying the same at 1 or 2 part milligrams per liter. Let's say we do have a nitrate problem here, I'd be the first one to root for doing something but I am not seeing anything like what I am hearing. I would recommend that you resample wells and employ a firm to resample and retest the wells that you folks sampled to see how your results compare. When major decisions have to be made on whatever, you need three opinions. Other than that I thank you folks for coming out and listening to us. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called David Page to come down with no response. She then called Dusty Herbert who came down. She called one more person, Conrad Rule. JOICE LYTLE: My name is Joice Lytle; I have worked with the La Pine Water Cooperative Water Association for 18 years. I have quite a few exotic fish, without the nitrate cycle fish cannot live. Fish and all animals produce ammonia, which breaks down to nitrite, which breaks down to nitrate, which the paramecium eat, which the ameba eat, which the fish eat. Without that cycle the fish die. Why does Japan and China use human waste for plants they raise? Because they are one of the things that plants absolutely need to survive. (Ms. Lytle then read documentation she submitted which is attached marked as Exhibit E.) You are looking at the nitrates in La Pine and my water was one of the test wells. It has not changed in 35 years. (Clapping from the audience) Commissioner Baney then called Pat Watkins who did not come down. Next she called Windy Jones to come down. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 11 of 29 Pages DICK GRAUER: My name is Dick Grauer, I live at Deschutes River Upper 6; I live on the big river. (No documentation was given) Twice I've heard that industrial fertilizers, like lawn fertilizer, don't affect the nitrate level in the water which is surprising to me. At a meeting of Upper Deschutes River, the person who runs Wickiup Dam level said that they noticed there is more aquatic vegetation in the water this year. You need to talk to the person growing his green lawn down river. So we know that there are nitrates getting into the river from agricultural things, such as your lawn. You as a committee need to look into that. If it is really nitrates that we are dealing with here, there are a lot of things we can talk about before we need to do something as drastic as this. Thank you. BANEY: Thank you Dick, very well stated. Commissioner Baney then called Margie Schuenemann to come down. MIKE BRYANT: At this time Mike Bryant turned in documentation but he did not speak. (See documentation which is attached marked as Exhibit F.) CONRAD RUEL: Thank you for coming to the marathon. (Mr. Ruel turned in an exhibit at the last meeting but did not speak at that time.) I want to say I favor clean water and a clean environment. I think there is a consensus that we need to get a third opinion or a neutral party to look at this. If you have to go to a sewer system, I favor that. Somebody made a remark that we can not have a sewer system outside of the urban area but every time a destination resort wants to have a sewer system, they get one. (Clapping and cheering from audience) All I have to say about that is those people do not live here year around and they get the preference of a sewer system, I guess because of the tourist money that comes in. We are going to have to take another look at it and if you are going to move ahead we are going to have to do something to remediate the single family dweller, the people who have put in a system that works before they are required to put in a new system. Thank you very much. (Mr. Ruel turned in an exhibit at the last meeting but did not speak.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 12 of 29 Pages LUKE: People assume that the County has responsibility for a lot of things we don't. They are agents of the State. The destination resorts are able to cite themselves because of State regulations. One of the rules that the State has is that they have to have their own sewer system and their own water system. I do not disagree that a sewer system is the best way to go, it probably is. It is very expensive and we get calls from people at Water Wonderland who are upset about the checks they have to write to do the debt service. Nothing is cheap when it comes to those things. The State sets the rules and there is nothing we can do about them, that is all. RUEL: If we provide more water for irrigation that is like water mitigation. If they have to pay for those credits that would help pay for the sewer system. I do not know if that is feasible. Everyone is talking about water mitigation so they can do some building. This would help do it I would think. LUKE: Even the cities who want to drop wells now have to find a way to mitigate. When they did a major water study a few years ago, if you line the whole canal the run into Crooked River would be affected. The water here is all interconnected. Local government as well as private people have to mitigate to be able to drop any wells anymore. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Tad Sylvester, no response. She then called Bill Wells who came down. DUSTY HERBERT: My name is Dusty Herbert; I have lived her in La Pine for five years. (No documentation was given.) I like Barbara, am an engineer. I spent 35 years in air and water pollution testing and research. I have done work for the EPA and if I were director of the EPA and looked at this study, I would be appalled. (Clapping and cheering from the audience.) There are absolutely no facts to back it up. We had equipment and computers to work with but were not allowed to use a computer model. Where are your log books, where are the facts, where are the real numbers? (Began complaining and being disrespectful to staff) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 13 of 29 Pages BANEY: We are going to be respectful. Thank you, we are going to go on. Commissioner Baney called Mark Donzelli, Larry Willoughby, and Curtis Bauman all with no response. She then called William Benson who came down. WINDY JONES: I am Windy Jones; I live in Sundance properties, between Deschutes River Recreation Homesites and River Meadows. (No documentation was given) When I became aware in January that our property was part of South Deschutes County that would be affected by the local rule I was concerned mostly about my responsibility to provide careful stewardship of the land. I felt that it was important to be informed about this matter and do my part in correcting it. Unfortunately, what I heard was confusing and contradictory. At the first hearing I was shocked by the representation of my neighborhood in the green area. There are no shallow wells and all residents have approved septic systems. River Meadows borders my property with test wells for ground water quality near my property line. I had fought the County over allowing an affluent spray field in the wetlands next to us shown on the USGA topographic maps and lost. DEQ and Deschutes County approved the site three years ago. I thought areas downstream would be concerned but letters to the editor went unpublished. To understand if there was a danger in my area, I asked DEQ for well log reports for last year thinking this would settle my decision for supporting local rule or not. When I got the log and saw the reading for July was .62 to 1.77 parts per million, I was relieved. When I saw Septembers reading vary from 57.4 to 78.6 parts per million. I called DEQ and they said there must be some mistake Upon contacting DEQ they said they would have to find the files. DEQ said the reports are done annually and if there is a high level there is no immediate consequence, it is a self reporting system. In talking to the County, they said a test well adjacent to my property does not accurately reflect the groundwater readings on my property. DEQ stated that I needed to have a ground water test well on my property to accurately reflect what is happening. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 14 of 29 Pages Subsequently I discovered that there are different types of test wells. The ones at River Meadows are ground water test wells and the ones 1/4 of a mile away are both from ground water and from drain fields. A friend with a commercial property in La Pine had his well tested in 1995 and was told he had no traceable levels of nitrate and therefore would not be included in their reports. Is this how the data for the current model was selectively collected in use for determining nitrate levels? These events make the ability to believe the results of the report questionable. Why is not all of Deschutes County included in this decision? Let's stop the sensationalism, get the facts, affectively communicate with the community and apply the same standards to everyone in the County for public and private waste systems. BANEY: Thank you Windy. (Clapping and cheering from the audience.) We are going to take a quick break. LUKE: If everyone will take a seat, we will get started again. BANEY: For those who are wondering, we are on to the pink slips. (Finished up with testimony form those who signed up last week and now on testimony for those who signed up tonight.) Commissioner Baney stated that Charles Clark is in the right spot. She then called Rubin Landau to come down. BILL WELLS: Commissioners, County Planning Board, etc. My name is Bill Wells; my education is statistical science and human resource management with social and psychological business environment. (No documentation was given.) About two decades ago you guys approved an above ground aeration waste disposal system in a timothy field just the other side of Pahlisch Homes. Pahlisch Homes can not build anymore homes unless the entire City of La Pine has a system in. My well is 32 feet and I have had it for 17 years. It has shown zero nitrates continuously Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 15 of 29 Pages As elected officials, I want to see some public response. I want to talk about hypo this, theory and fact. There is no fact that I know of and if there is no fact, there is no theory. I do not care about your 1 minute; I have a constitutional right to speak as long as I want to. If you are all elected officials, how many of you live in La Pine. (No hands went up.) BANEY: Thank you Bill. LUKE: Catherine, please talk about the County contribution for the sewer system; how much money we have put into that and how we are getting that back. WELLS: I don't care about the money. (Lots of grumbling and shouting from the audience) Commissioner Baney called Darrell Gavette who came down. BILL BENSON: My name is Bill Benson and I am a recent resident of La Pine. (No documentation was given) My comment is there has been a disservice done to the residents of La Pine and the South County. To have County staff work on this for five or ten years then give the residents two or three months to refute what they have been working on for years. I understand that this is being done under the funding of a grant. You say you have no time limit but on the project work sheet the last thing to do is June 30th of 2007. Is that when the grant runs out, is that when the vote has to be taken, before then? BANEY: We had asked that question when we heard that as well. I think that is an important point to clarify. The answer is no, that has no bearing on my decision. I can't speak for the other two Commissioners but... BENSON: What happens to this study if the grant runs out and you have not voted on it, doesn't it just die? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 16 of 29 Pages MORROW: If the grant period runs out and we have not spent all the money we might be able to extend it. If the grant is not extended, there is nothing in the grant that forces the Commissioners to make a decision on any timeline. BENSON: Jason Churchill says water quality hasn't changed in 17 years. Maybe we should test again as it's been 3 years ago on the testing for the model. BANEY: The end was `05' and that has been recommended as a suggestion and it has been noted that it is an option we can do. Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Don Habener to comedown. CHARLIE CLARK: Good evening everyone, my name is Charlie Clark and I live here in La Pine. (No documentation was given.) Like a lot of people I have done research on this. I got on the internet and have a 14 page report about nitrate pollution in groundwater. It does point out that nitrogen is the most abundant element on earth. It forms with other chemicals and can rain down and contaminate the groundwater. The report says that in less populated areas septic systems don't really pose much of a threat to groundwater contamination. It goes on to cite that the things that do pose a threat are fertilizers on golf courses, farming, slaughter houses, etc. Once nitrogen enters the atmosphere it can be removed by one of five mechanisms. It can be taken up by plants/trees, it can be stored in the soil, it can be lost to the atmosphere, it can be lost to the groundwater and it can be lost to runoff. In contemplating doing something to the septic system you are treating a minor contributor to the problem by removing one of the five possible sources of removal. We are going to make everyone spend a lot of money to make an insignificant impact on the problem. (Applause from the audience) Farming alone pollutes more of our ground water resources than anything else. I bought my house three years ago. At that time the seller had to sample (by law) the well water which was below 1 part per million. I would voluntarily sample my well every year for the next ten years. Thank you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 17 of 29 Pages BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney next called Steven Rounds to come down. RUBIN LANDAU: My name is Rubin Landau; I am a resident of Wild River Estates and my wife and I have lived in La Pine for about eight years. (No documentation was given.) For 33 years I have been a professor of physics at OSU. My specialty is scientific modeling, especially computer models. I read over the staff report and I will comment on that. The concern is whether the urgency in the paper here is appropriate for the actions that are planned on being implemented. I think what we are looking for here is not the sense of urgency but an improvement maybe on what we are doing but not necessarily the most maximal system because they are never practical. The key part in the staff report is the statement of fact. There was quite a bit made that the paper was published in a referee journal. Referee publications are good but the process is more a test of whether you followed the form, it is not a test of what's published is correct or not. That has to be done by a scientific process. What we need is to develop a causal relation between what has been measured and what you are proposing to change and I do not think that has occurred. As a scientist to have a causal relation is to do an experiment by either releasing something or make some predictions based on the model and see if it holds true. If it does not hold true, then you know the model is no good. If it does hold true, at least you know you have some validation. Thank you again. Let me say again, I think there is good information here but I do not see that it has been a proven case. BANEY: Thank you Rubin. Commissioner Baney then called Monte Harmon to comedown. DARRELL GAVETTE: Darrell Gavette here. (No documentation was given) My wife and I bought 2 acres here in 1984. Jack McGuire put in a standard septic that is still going, still working and no body has come to check it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 18 of 29 Pages As of yet there is no proof about the amount of nitrates in the ground. If it takes $60 million to fix the problem, couldn't the $60 million go toward a sewage treatment facility? In the near future sewers will have to be installed and the $60 million will all be for naught. We will still be paying for the nitrate fix when they assess us for the treatment facility. Tammy, I have talked to all three of these people (Commissioners) and all three of them gave me approximately 25 minutes over the phone. They all agreed there is no rush on this. I told them we need 18 to 24 months at least to look to all the angles. I do not think we have surveyed the situation very well so, back off. BANEY: Thank you Darrell. Commissioner Baney then called Ron Sharbaugh to come down. DON HABENER: I am Don Habener and I live in Ponderosa Pines. (Mr. Habener read his statement which is attached marked as Exhibit G.) Why don't you respond to my emails? BANEY: I respond to every e-mail, I think there are plenty of people here who can attest to that. Commissioner Baney called Karl Rousett to come down. STEVEN ROUNDS: Good evening, my name is Steven Rounds and I live in rural La Pine. (Mr. Rounds read his statement which is attached marked as Exhibit H.) BANEY: Thank you, Steven. Commissioner Baney called Mary Leavitt to come down next. MONTY HARMON: My name is Monty Harmon, I live in Newberry Estates. I am not here to testify, I am here to get a closer look at the people that if this rule is passed, I would be scared to get within 50 feet of them and I will not allow my wife to get there either. Thank you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 19 of 29 Pages BANEY: Thank you, Monty. Commissioner Baney called Jim King to comedown. RON SHARBAUGH: Hi, my name is Ron Sharbaugh; I am a relative newcomer to La Pine. (No documentation was given) I have been here just 2 years and live in the Wild River district. I have spent 20 years in corporate America as a staff scientist doing electrical engineering and computer science research so I no way consider myself an expert in the subject matter al all. I would like to thank the Commissioners for this third meeting. After the first meeting I went away thinking there was a big problem that needed to be solved however, thanks to the diligence of the presenters at the last meeting and this meeting, I am still confused. Starting with the CDD report on page eleven that states; owners are encouraged to test wells annually. I take this to mean that it is the owner's responsibility to handle this nitrate health issue by themselves. Lets just say that I am a La Pine well owner and I got the bad news that my well hit this 50 milligram per liter nitrate. How much spinach does that take (showed bottle of water, bag of spinach.) All Wild River nitrates go into the Deschutes. If all tanks are changed today, it is still twenty years until the problem will hit. It boils down to no justification to change. Maybe just for new homeowners or wait until there is new technology. It is gray water vs. black water. Is the Code against composting toilets? They are $1800.00 to install, $150.00 a year to maintain. We should have that option. Since all of your data of concern is well data, by definition, you have no supporting data to enforce this local rule on Wild River residents. I feel like we are a bunch of porpoises caught in a tuna net. BANEY: Thank you, would you like to leave your testimony with us Ron, and your composting toilet has made the list. SHARBAUGH: I will e-mail it to you. Commissioner Baney called Barbara Carlson to comedown. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 20 of 29 Pages KARL ROUSETT: I am a retired wastewater laboratory analyst from Oregon City. (No documentation was given) There are many questions that have been raised and that deserve your consideration. I wanted to address the ramifications of this particular project or correction to a proposed nitrate overage. That is what pertains to vacation owners, part time residents, whatever. What will happen in relation to nitrate reduction if this proposed measure will go through? About 115 of the people are in fact part timers. The systems that you are recommending are basically are aerobic systems that will attempt to convert the ammonia to nitrate. That is already happening to a high degree. Your concern is converting the nitrate to nitrogen. The systems most people have here are septic tanks and as such, very little oxidation occurs. If you apply the Orenco system, it will still produce nitrate. In a small tank the turnover rate means that you will have a considerable amount of air pumped into the tank on a regular basis. So every two days the tank will be oxygenated. It will stop being an anaerobic digester and it will become an aerobic digester. Being here only a few days a month, I worry about my tank running out of food. Your bacteria population will decrease if not feed. If the tank becomes aerobic, instead of digesting the food in about 30 days, it will digest the food in about seven days. This could lead to starvation of the system, decline the bacterial population, and as a result you will have an over digestion because of the low nitrogen and carbon loading. This could lead to an upset of the process and it will stop working for a period of time. The aerobic digester will not sufficiently de-nitrify because it is aerobic. It is expensive and ineffective. BANEY: Thank you very much. We will take a 1 minute break. Commissioner Baney called Jon Ervin down. MARY LEAVITT: My name is Mary Leavitt and I have lived in La Pine for twelve years. (No documentation was given.) Whenever I built a home I had to be sure to put the well at least 100 feet from the septic. We would not be here already if god had not put in different things to purify the air and water Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 21 of 29 Pages If these nitrates were taken out of the water and rivers, will that kill our fish? Seems that we need to have more study to make sure this is not just theory and find out exactly what is fact. We appreciate what the Commissioners do; we know this is not your only problem. God bless you for giving us time. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney asked Calvin McClure to come down. BARBARA CARLSON: Hi, my name is Barbra Carlson, I live in this town. (No documentation was given.) I have two kids that are fighting for this country. I have two homes; I would lose both homes if this passes. I do not have the money to put a new septic system in. They are trying to do the same thing over in my house in Albany as well. I am in a tax bracket where the funding wouldn't cover us. You aren't thinking of that. Some are lower income than I am. I don't like it. We don't need it; all the information that I have read and checked into is not true. I think you guys need to reevaluate your facts, take more time, and only work on the hot spots, not the places that do not need it. My well is 99.9% pure and I don't like this. BANEY: Thank you very much. It is not easy to get up here so I appreciate those that make the treck. Commissioner Baney called Diane Shuffelberger to comedown. JIM KING: I am Jim King and I have owned property here since 1999. (No documentation was given.) I live near General Patch Bridge. Being a hard core fly fisher I have watched the river very carefully and was devastated when the Upper Deschutes went from one of the regions top notch brown trout fisheries to nothing three years ago. I want to say I appreciate you coming out and engaging in this tough conversation. One positive is that some neighborhoods are getting together and working together. They are not well organized yet but this is positive when we come and talk about these issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 22 of 29 Pages Many of us at the beginning of last summer noticed a lot more vegetation in the river. I had green slime everywhere that I had not seen before. Later in the summer the Department of Water Resources let out the normal amount of water that has been done for years and yet, we had a ten inch flooding phenomenon from Fall River to Benham Falls. Something has changed and the obvious question was could it be nitrates. After meetings with different State agencies about what went on here, we discovered that no one is currently monitoring the water quality in the Deschutes River on an ongoing basis, or the Little Deschutes for that matter. One thing that would be real helpful is to get monitoring going on the rivers so we can at least track if there are other sources. I would urge you to think about working with other affected agencies and do a 24/7 monitoring program to at least see what is happening. Thank you for your time. LUKE: Catherine, didn't Community Development get a federal grant to do water quality in the river? MORROW: We did get a grant and USGS is conducting studies about the effect of the near stream environment on nitrates. That does not do what Mr. King is suggesting. The TMDL program is one way that could be done and that is the DEQ assessment. I support getting that done too. LUKE: Upper Deschutes Watershed council has been working with land owners to plant things along the river to help hold the banks. The river is higher in the summer than in the winter. BANEY: Thank you Jim, great suggestion. Commissioner Baney called Travis Irvin to come down. TRAVIS IRVIN: Thank you for looking into this problem and looking out into the future. (No documentation was given) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 23 of 29 Pages I have lived in this area for the last eleven or twelve years. I appreciate that you are trying to keep a lid on our water quality. No matter what we do, if we are not careful, and those studies are correct and the nitrates go beyond what we are allowed, you are not going to have any say, I am not going to have any say, the federal government is going to step in and they are going to deal with the problem whether we like it or not. So, I think we need to be careful of that. Please don't let a five million dollar study force you to make a hundred million dollar mistake. If those studies are validated and correct, then we need to address the problem. Spend another five million dollars to prove it out before you put the burden on the people here. I wrote down from last meeting or before, the USGS stated that approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of our problem will come from growth. If that is correct, then 2/3 to 3/4 of the revenue to fix that problem should come from those creating the growth. You need to look at those red areas and if that data is validated and those areas need to be addressed, then look at those people hardest pressed for funds and help them first. Is it correct that a new rule is already implemented that new construction is already getting these systems? Is that correct? (From the background, an unknown speaker said yes.) IRVIN: Everywhere? BANEY: Define everywhere. We have not adopted, we have implemented. I do not know that anyone has actually put one in. CLEVELAND: The current policy is with new site evaluations on properties that have never been evaluated or approved for a septic system. We are requiring the best available technology under existing state rule, OAR 340-71 Section 130, for issuing permits for systems that are protective. IRVIN: Thank you. That being the case, you have already solved 2/3 to 3/4 of the problem, leave these people alone. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 24 of 29 Pages BANEY: Thank you Travis. Commissioner Baney called Pat Bodi to come down. JAN ERVIN: (No documentation was given.) You really need to have the people own this project. I have experience of seeing infrastructure grow where we put wells in place, we put water storage systems in place and those helped people. I wish I did not have the memories of the litigation that occurred and wasted dollars on studies and parties bickering with each other that cost a log of money and got nobody any infrastructure. There have been a number of people working on this since 1988. I applaud the County for making attempts for making this thorough. The people of South County need to be the decision makers for anything to work long term. You need to share the cost among the many beneficiaries of the system living in the County. You do not need to do something immediate because of the potential health scare. You need sustainable long term solutions that is for and by the people. I have a belief in special districts because they can focus on specific problems. The affected community could elect representatives to a board of some sort of special district. The idea is that these board members would have the community foremost in their minds as they set policy, higher specialist, engineers, and authorize spending. I believe you will need funding mechanisms for treatment systems that equitably share the cost with all of those who benefit in the new infrastructure, I mean the whole County. You may create a clean water district that overlies all the districts of the County and treat the County equally. BANEY: Thank you, if you would like to submit that you can. IRVIN: By e-mail, I will. BANEY: I love solutions, thank you very much I appreciate that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 25 of 29 Pages Commissioner Baney called Clinton Reeves to come down. DIANE SHUFFELBERGER: My name is Diane Shuffelberger and I live in Ponderosa Pines. (No documentation was given.) Last week the question was posed why Ponderosa Pines was a green area and then last week on the maps it was a clear area. It was answered by Barbara as a computer glitch. My question is how many other computer glitches have been put into this model? Everything said by CDD, USGS, and DEQ are true and any other facts disputing this hypothesis are lies. Mr. Luke, I have a question for you. I have a copy of your KSJJ response. It says quoting you, "it is just a problem of Southern Deschutes County". LUKE: What I meant was it is a County problem on finding a solution. That is why Deschutes County is putting up over 34 million dollars to help solve that problem. SHUFFELBERGER: In your statement it says this is a problem all the way to the Columbia River. So, why is it going on just here? I spoke with someone with new construction who put in an Orenco system and that system cost them $35 thousand dollars. Barbara Rich stated that, on the question of golf courses, nitrates in fertilizers are a different kind of nitrate and they are contained. I would like to know how this is possible. I would like to know if you are going to let us know when you are going to vote on this. BANEY: The answer is absolutely yes and all the steps along the way. CALVIN MCCLURE: Hi, my name is Cal. The bucket let me explain the bucket. The bucket is for Barbara. When you guys started this, telling the people they would have to invest thousands, if you had given them the simple alternative, pee in the bucket and use the urine to fertilize your yard. (Mr. McClure handed in a packet of information which is attached marked as Exhibit I.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 26 of 29 Pages We are spending millions to solve a nitrate problem that does not exist. Nothing mentions nitrates, just bacteria and viruses. The info I gave you is step by step and if you find the time to go through it I would appreciate it. At the end I give you some alternative solutions. The septic system is a band aid; it is a bad idea which passes the problem on to the children and grandchildren. They are the ones that will suffer. BANEY: Thanks, we are happy to have you. Thank you Cal. PAT BODI: My name is Pat Bodi. (No documentation was given.) I have been here since 1992 and in the presentation from the specialists he mentioned nitrates, prescription drugs, and household chemicals. We are addressing nitrates; next year is the hot topic going to be prescription drugs? In the paper Barbara Rich was quoted that it would cost $7 thousand to upgrade the data in the model and they do not have $7 thousand dollars or the time. If you passed the hat around here you'd get the $7 thousand to update the data so they you all are not trying to make a decision on some questionable data. Figuring on the time, I think we have some time due to the fact you have been looking at this for quite some time. Time is of the essence to get it right. Since La Pine just became a city last November, it was on a sewer line in an unincorporated rural area that was an exception to the rule. Oregon Water Wonderland is still a rural unincorporated area and they are an exception. We can make more exceptions to the rule which is at the state level and is bigger than a county decision. I implore you, please do not do this on your own, and get all the data that you can to make a sound decision. It is not going to just impact Deschutes County and Southern Deschutes. We are not the only ones with technology facing the same problems. Seek outside, please. BANEY: Thank you very much. This is our last person as we have to be out by 9:00 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 27 of 29 Pages CLINTON REEVES: My name is Clinton Reeves and I am a resident of La Pine. In prior years someone said logs need to be pulled out of the rivers, now they say leave them alone. The experts shut off water in Klamath Falls then the government said they goofed by a decimal and the farmers suffered. NASA sent a satellite to Mars but missed and $12 billion was gone. So, every time someone says they have research, I really question the government. The government keeps saying Agent Orange does not hurt you, that's why I have diabetes, prostate cancer and am fighting for my life. Please, carry the decimal. BANEY: Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the time to be here tonight. This is not the end of public input; please send us your a-mails and letters. Being no further items to come before the Board, Commissioner Baney adjourned the meeting at 9: 00 p. m. DATED this 27th Day of March 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 28 of 29 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Comments from Jim Kester Exhibit B: Comments from Carl Jansen Exhibit C: Comments from Al Bauer Exhibit D: Comments from Michael Neary Exhibit E: Comments from Joice Lytle Exhibit F: Comments from Mike Bryant Exhibit G: Comments from Don Habener Exhibit H: Comments from Steven Rounds Exhibit I: Comments from Calvin McClure Exhibit J: Letter from Harry Campbell - did not speak Exhibit K: Letter from Sunni Rounds - did not speak Exhibit L: Letter from Steve Wert - did not speak Exhibit M: Questions submitted - no name - did not speak Exhibit N: Questions submitted - no name - did not speak Exhibit O: Questions submitted - no name - did not speak Exhibit P: Questions submitted - Elisabeth Hartman - did not speak Exhibit Q: Deleted due to duplicate - same as Exhibit F Exhibit R: Letter from Judy Forsythe - did not speak Exhibit S: Letter - no name - did not speak Exhibit T: Questions submitted - no name - did not speak Exhibit U: Letter from Liz Harmon Exhibit V: Comments from Jay Duncan Exhibit W: Sign in Sheet and Sign in Slips Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Page 29 of 29 Pages March 27,2007 Good evening Commissioners, Staff, and fellow Residents of Southern Deschutes County. My name is Jim Fester and I have lived in Southern Deschutes County since 1994. I represent no one other than myself. I have attended the meetings on March 13th and March 20th and have reviewed the County web-site and the web-sites for the manufactures of the County approved nitrogen reducing systems. I must admit that I am confused. First I am confused as to whether there is, or ever will be a problem with nitrate contamination in the ground water and surface waters of Southern Deschutes County. We have all heard compelling testimony from a wide range of individuals including people with a scientific background, such as Mr. Churchill, affected citizens such as myself, as well as the presentation from the County Staff. It seems to me that the highest obligation in any scientific study, is to prove the science. At this time I think the science driving the Proposed Local Rule has yet to be proven. We have witnessed different views all from respected sources. Most of them are asking for an extension of time to allow for further study and analysis, and another, the County Staff, seems to be pushing for quick acceptance. Why? Why wouldn't any objective, scientific group welcome the proving of their work? I am also confused as to what system is the best to address the nitrate issue, if in fact, there is one. The official County notice of the March 13' 2007 meeting, requesting written or oral testimony, was posted on the County web site on March 1 st, 2007 at 3:15 PM and states "implementation of the local rule will protect the sole source of drinking water and surface waters of the upper Deschutes River watershed". Does this statement mean that the Proposed Local Rule is the only solution if in fact there is a problem? BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit- At present the proposed Local Rule states, "new development to install systems achieving the maximum nitrogen reduction possible, existing systems to meet a variable nitrogen reduction standard established by the Nitrate Management Model". This seems to be painting with a very broad brush, one that could be changed in the future. Do any of you recall the days when sand filters were the answer? Why not cluster systems? Can't Government deal with Goal 11 ? How will the future Urban Growth Boundary of the City of La Pine effect this Local Rule? Why has this process seemed to lack transparency? Isn't that required in a democratic government? Why was the Public Testimony brought to the process at such a late time? In conclusion, I think it is only fair to the citizens of Deschutes County that this Proposed Local Rule be delayed until such time that an independent study can be performed to answer the many questions that remain unanswered. I do not want my checkbook to become the guinea pig for the Proposed Local Rule. Respecify submitted ; im Kester 52715 Golden Astor Rd. La Pine Or 977399-9738 541-536-6166 idrustfa~att net Dgschutes County Government, Oregon - South County LOCAL RULE Hearing to be He,,, page 1 of 2 Enhancing the lives of citizen, by delivering quality sec vices in a cost-effective manner Deschutes County r--- help I site map I location I contact us i En espanol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT ESERVICES Deschutes County Government: Find out more about Deschutes County goverment. You are here: Homes South County LOCAL RULE Hearing to W Held in March Important :tieWs & Information Inside Deschutes County South County LOCAL RULE Hearing to be Held in March Written or OrW Test/morry Welcome at Hearfirg Deschutes County Oregon - March 01, 207 5:13 PM - On March 13, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners wig conduct a public hearing on a Local Rule to require the use of nitrate reducing onsitee wastewater treatment systems in south Deschutes County. The hearing wmf be held at the La Pine High School Auditorium located at 51633 Coach Road, La Pine. Implementation of the Local Rule will protect time sole source of drinking water and surface waters of the upper Deschutes River watershed, The Local Rule proposal requires: new development to install systems achieving time maximum nitrogen reduction practicable, requires existing systems to meet a variable nitrogen reduction standard established by the Nitrate Loading Management Model, and requires complete upgrades to existing systems within 10 years of the data the Local Rule takes effect. Other programs interacting with the proposal Include financial assistance programs funded by the sale and development of land within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. These programs, existing and planned, include Pollution Reduction Credit Rebates, low interest bans, liens, grants, and cost deferral programs. The Deschutes County Board of County Commission may continue the pubic hearing to take additional testimony on March 20, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the La Pine High School Auditorium. A copy of the Local Rule and staff report will be available on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 for inspection at the Deschutes County Community Development Department located at 117 NW Lafayette, Bend and at the South Deschutes County Services Center at 51340 S. Highway 97, in La Pine. Copies of the draft amendment and findings report can be purchased at the office for (25) cents a page. The document can also be downloaded from the Deschutes County website at: www_desch_ utes.org/cdd/ , Look in "Quick Links" for the Groundwater Protection Project. You may also call Barbara Rich at 617-4713 or e-mail at BarbaraRCco.deschutes.or.us for more information. ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SUBMIT WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. WRITTEN TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR AT THE HEARING. QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE HEARING MUST ALSO BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an Interpreter or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours notice. Materials in afemate formats may be made available with 48 hours notice. Relay Service For other assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State , Featured Links • DlmctDry of Customer Services • Departments Courtly rCommWbnem Meeting Calerlda • County Calendar Additional News Releases March 05, 2007 10:57 AM March 8 Fair Board Meeting AGENDA Sagebrush Arena and RV Park Updates to be Discussed [ March 01, 2007 4:04 PM Adult Suicide Prevention Forum € to be Held March 15 i Community Members, Professionals and Survivors Encouraged to Attend € March 01, 2007 3:15 PM South County LOCAL RULE Hearing to be Held in March V*Men Or Oral Testimony Welcome at Hearhrg March 01, 2007 7.47 AM Community Development In pection System To Go Live in New System to Benefit Inspection Customer Service February 22, 2007 3:15 PM County TV Show Informs You About We" and Learn nabout County Services, Programs February 16, 2007 11:49 AM Safe Sidewalk Nominees Sought for County Awards February 08, 2007 9:03 AM Drunk Driving Victims Sought to Speak on Monthly Panel Parcel Discussions Help Victims to Recover Emotionally January 19, 2007 3:37 PM Visa/MC Payments Welcome at Community Development Department January 19, 2007 3:36 PM Veterans Appreciation Day March 23rd Event Includes Free Workshops, Free Lunch for Vets, Medals Presentation and morel November 17, 2003 1:30 PM Governor Kulongoski Launches Children's Charter October 27, 2003 9:20 AM Renewed Grant Continues to Fund DA's Community 'rosecution Program March 09, 2004 9:43 AM Family Violence Prosecution Sweep Nabs Domestic Violence UPPER DESCHUTES RIVER NATURAL RESOURCE COALITION P 0 Box 3042 Sunriver, OR 97707 March 23, 2007 To: Commissioners Daley, Luke and Baney Subject: Southern Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Rule From: Carl Jansen, Coalition President At today's monthly board of directors meeting, the Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition (representing 18 neighborhoods and about 5000 residents), the BOD unanimously approved the following resolution: "Based on the lack of a thorough analysis of other alternatives to solve the nitrate problem, the BOD recommends an 18-month delay in the decision to adopt the Local Rule Proposal. The impact of this decision to adopt the rule now would significantly burden many homeowners financially. Other lower cost options to maintain current drinking water and stream flow emission standards should be evaluated thoroughly prior to adopting the proposed ru.le" Sincerely, Carl Jansen CJ/mh BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit { i 0~ 3/27/07 61 Revised NITRAT EDUCTION OJECT V PROPOSAL V FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY Project Description I 1 , _ I A Deschutes County is proposing a $30-60MM project upgrade all existing septic systems in southern Deschutes County. This proposal describes a viable alternative - exporting most of the gray water containing nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium to northern Deschutes and Crook Counties for use by the farming community. This project includes constructing pipelines and pumping stations to collect gray wastewater from existing sewage treatment plants and local septic systems in southern Deschutes County and transferring the gray wastewater to a storage lagoon east of Bend to be blended in with irrigation water from the Upper Deschutes and the Wickiup Reservoir during peak summer months. Estimates of daily wastewater volumes range from 2 to 3 million gallons or 6 to 9 acre feet per day. Other sources of surplus gray water in the future could originate from Sunriver, LaPine, Bend and other local collector facilities. This results in exporting between 2,000 to 3,500 Acre Feet per year to northeastern Deschutes County. The pipeline from the gray water storage lagoon located on USFS/BLM lands could deposit the gray water mixed with Upper Deschutes water during high- demand months into the main eastern irrigation canal flowing past 27`h street and north of China Hat Road, east of the Bend city limits. Total transport distance is about 30 miles. Costs Difficult to measure until a detailed feasibility study is completed. Transferring gray water by a pipeline parallel through the natural gas or high voltage transmission corridors may be viable. Cooperation with many governmental, utility, and environmental groups is essential during the feasibility study. Note: A Google search on the internet lists over 755,000 articles regarding the use of sewage wastewater for farming applications. The City of Tucson, Arizona has implemented this approach to support the farming community in the local area. Benefits • Eliminates nitrate intrusion problem in southern Deschutes County allowing for improved drinking water. • Allows most vacant lots to be buildable, increasing property tax revenue to county and local agencies. • Expands the marketability of affordable housing in southern Deschutes County. • Eliminates all nitrate transfers to the Little and Upper D schutes Rivers, reducing green vegetation, thereby increasing stream flow. • Allows for an increase in winter stream flow on the U per Deschutes, reducing bank erosion and increasing fish habitat. Bend's Mirror Pond would not be a major problem area for silt buildup. Submitted by C a en, Spring River, 593-2777 ke Ke ler, Oregon Water Wonderland #2 350-40 1 My name is Al Bauer and I live in Newberry Estates which is approx 2 miles east of Hwy 97 and is not to be confused with the Newberry Neighborhood owned by Deschutes Co. and west of Hwy 97. I have never been to law school or been a politician. I have not mastered the art of word manipulation or double speak. In recent years I have done science on the nitrate levels in water in the south county. Many wells have been tested once and found to have varying low levels of nitrates. I have used this information to develop a computer model and the results have been surprising. The model showed that by 2015 the water will have exactly the same chemical make up as Budweiser beer. This will eliminate the problem of "Blue Baby Syndrome". Utilizing the same standards as the County has, the information regarding well testing - test results, and construction of the computer model is confidential and is not subject to audit or review. If the CDD statements must be accepted as "truth", mine must be accepted also. Perhaps either I, the County or both are not telling the truth. In 2005 much of the U.S. Suffered from deadly hurricanes. A computer model was scientifically developed to forecast the 2006 hurricane season. The computer forecast the 2006 season to be more drastic than the 2005 season. The result: One of the mildest seasons ever recorded. SO MUCH FOR COMPUTER MODELS. Computer models can be manipulated to achieve the desired results. In June 2006, Deschutes Co. passed a declaration of "emergency" regarding Nitrate levels. This declaration allows for a "Local Rule" to be imposed. A "Local Rule" is not subject to a citizen vote or lawsuit. From the Random House College Dictionary an "emergency" is - A sudden, urgent, usually unforeseen occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action The results of the county's study indicates a possible problem of high nitrates occurring in 20-50 years in other words, this is not an ememencv! BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit C The county has not established a baseline of nitrate levels in the area or a trend either up or down of the levels. At one of the meeting's it was asked why the county does not retest their wells to verify their results. Barbara Rich responded that it would be to expensive to do this as the cost would be approximately $9,000.00. This from a group who has spent 5- 6 million dollars on their scientific study already. Of course, a cost of $18,000 per homeowner is no problem As part of science, some facts are missing. "Blue Baby Syndrome": • How many incidents in the past 10 years have been reported? • Percentage per population in south county, rest of county and state of Oregon ? • CDC does not record BBS as they do not consider it a problem • How will we know if these high price systems will reduce or eliminate BBS? New Tanks: On Feb 27, 2007 I called Orenco and talked to Dennis regarding their systems. I asked if a 1,000 gallon concrete septic tank with a good drain field could be utilized with the Orenco system. He stated possibly with some modifications. I asked for the price of the Advantax System only and he referred me to one of their distributors. On March 2, 2007 I called Willamete Greystone and spoke with Jeff Irwin regarding the Orenco systems. He said a 1500 gallon tank would be required. I told him about talking to Dennis regarding 1000 gal tank. Jeff said they were exploring the possibility of adding a 500 gallon tank to the existing 1000 gal tank. Price for the Orenco system alone would be approx $ 5,000.00 plus installation On March 23, 2007 Jeff called me back and informed me the addition of a 500 gallon tank is not practical. The work to modify the 1000 gal tank would not be cost effective and would not function properly. A new 1500 gallon tank will be required. I have talked to at least one honest person regarding nitrates. f 1 Cost to Homeowner: Cost estimates in the bulletin per Barbara Rich are $2,250.00 to $18,250.00 Cost for Advantax Tank only $5,000.00 per Jeff Irwin of Willamette Graystone. $2,250.00 estimate is unrealistic. $18,000.00 cost per system at 6% interest for 10 years will cost the homeowner $246.49 per month and is not tax deductible. $209.00 P&I (principle & interest) $33.33 Maintenance fee of $400.00 per year $ 4.16 Recording fee of $50.00 $246.49 Total cost per month Of course the maintenance fee will only go up. The $50.00 recording fee by the County will generate a minimum of $250,000 per year. I fail to see how this program advances the desire of "Affordable Housing" as clamored for by some politicians and other groups, I read recently in the Bulletin that the county is promoting 178 units of "affordable housing" on 4-5 acres north of BiMart. It would be hard to park 178 cars on 5 acres. This "affordable housing" comes just in time for the people of South County who will loose their homes. I personally would like to submit a bid to do this recording at $40.00 per year. 250 Work Days a Year - - Vacation, holidays and sick days should leave at least 200 days for an employee to work. 200 days X 8 hrs per day--= 1600 hrs. Record 5,000 systems per year = 5000 - 1600 would require an employee to be able to record 3 1 /8 maintenance certifications per hour. 1600 hrs - into $250,000.00 = a cost of $156.25 per hr. I am not aware of the following being included in the "Local Rule" 1. County to waive all permit fees 2. County to waive yearly maintenance recording fees 3. County to waive increased assessment for tax purposes 4. County to grant exclusion for 50 years for further septic or sewer modification To show the County's concern for residents of south county, they should include the above 4 items in the "Home Rule" documents. Unfortunately, the effort & disgust shown by the citizens of South County for this "Local Rule" is to no avail. This and other meetings held by the County were not to inform the citizens or to weigh their views. To many questions were answered by "DON'T KNOW" and "CONFIDENTIAL". True science will stand up to review and this alleged science is not permitted review. The citizens of south county are witnessing a case of "Politicians & Bureaucrats Gone Wild" and will have to provide their own lubricant. Testimony on Deschutes County's Proposed Septic Systems Local Rule for La Pine A. Are Nitrates bad for us? 1. Nitrates are in many of the vegetables that we eat daily. A serving of spinach has more nitrate that 60 liters of water that Deschutes County regards as contaminated with nitrates. Lettuce and many other vegetables are loaded with nitrates. If nitrates really are bad for us, Deschutes County should ban the selling, possession and consumption of spinach, lettuce, and a host of other vegetables. 2. Nitrates are cited as causing "blue baby syndrome". That is an obsolete belief, no longer accepted by health professionals. "Blue baby syndrome" is now believed to be caused by bacterial or viral conditions in the affected baby's stomach, not nitrates in drinking water. B. Whv does Deschutes County think that La Pine is contaminating the a uifer? 1. According to the Report dated March, 2006, by the DEQ Laboratory and Water Quality Divisions entitled "Groundwater Quality Report for the Deschutes Basin, Oregon", there were 17 wells which produced water samples having nitrate levels that exceeded the EPA standards of 10 mg/l. That includes samples taken from 11 counties, not just La Pine. In La Pine, the bad samples were from 4 wells. There was no indication whether these wells were examined to determine whether they were defective, whether they had slotted well casings (as was common in older wells) whether they were in locations contaminated by plumes from defective septic systems or pit toilets, or were otherwise unrepresentative of the septic systems in La Pine. 2. A study was done using a model known as ModFlow. ModFlow is a recognized groundwater flow model used widely by hydrologists, including the USGS and professional engineering firms in the U.S.. However, like every other computer model, its predictive quality depends on the accuracy of the data that BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit p 1 c goes into the model. That includes geological information that accurately represents the geology of the entire region, and also the groundwater input data, that is, information about water that flows onto the land, including snow meltwater, rain fall, rivers, irrigation and sewage treatment inflows. If the data input into the model is faulty or incomplete, the predictive value of the model will be correspondingly faulty. How do we know if the programming of the model is faulty? There is only one way, and it is used by every organization that uses a computer model in a serious way. That is by validating the model. That is, determine a number of parameters that the model would predict if a certain input were to occur, then actually create that input and measure the results. If the measured results match up with the predicted results, that tends to validate the model, at least for that parameter. Has Deschutes County ever attempted any serious validation of the model? If it has, I can find no evidence of it. Without validation, the dire predictions that the model are said to offer are of dubious value. C. If Deschutes Coun is really concerned what should it do? 1. The March 2006 Report by the DEQ Laboratory and Water Quality Divisions recommended that "the county and/or state should establish a program to measure groundwater trends over time." That should also include a detailed study of wells that produce water samples that are below the EPA limits. If the well is too shallow, if it has a slotted well casing, or is in the vicinity of a defective septic system or a pit toilet, remedial measures should be required, and other test wells in the vicinity should be drilled to determine the extent of the contamination. But the County should not rush to impose an unnecessary and hugely expensive requirement to retrofit all septic systems when the only problem may be nothing more that some isolate defective wells of septic systems. This will cost the County more money, but it is not acceptably for the County to impose an unnecessary and expensive draconian solution on the citizens of La Pine just to avoid the expense of doing a responsible study to determine the real extent of the problem, if any. 2. Citizen involvement is important. This effort by the County has been characterized by secrecy and refusal to share the information that the County staff has used to produce its recommendations. That is a grievous mistake. Citizen involvement is a nuisance, but it can provide a useful reality check on tentative conclusions that are drifting in goofy directions, and will ensure citizen support when the conclusions are supported by verifiable information. D. Is this an "emergency"? L No. It will be many years before the predicted problem becomes manifest. Naturally, we should not sit on our hands and do nothing. Groundwater purity is important to everybody, including the citizens of La Pine. But we do have enough time to examine the issue responsibly, determine the extent of the problem (if there really is one), assess the source of the problem, come to a consensus about the steps needed to correct the problem, and then do what is necessary to ensure our groundwater remains pure. 2. La Pine will be in the vanguard of efforts to protect our groundwater if it is verifiably determined that there really is a problem. Nobody is more affected than us. We live here. Our families and our friends live here. We are not going to stand by idly and allow our water to be contaminated. But we are also not going to passively allow the County to impose a monstrously expensive, ill- considered "solution" to a non-existing problem on us just because the County is unwilling to bear the modest expense of a serious investigation into the issue. Respectful submitted. J.' ~ ichael Neary 53939 Pine Grove Road La Pine, OR 97739 (253) 332-9206 q4)1a"I n i to ~a 4'. if n ~,s r r- vU-t_ d~ 6 BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit- s 3-27-07 Was the Oregon state water Resource Dept involved in this process? If not, why not.? If not, since you are sampling State permitted wells, drilled by state licensed well drillers, why is the State of Oregon Water Resources Dept. not involved in this process? Very few wells are inspected as they are constructed. And unlike a framer framing a building that can be inspected, wells cannot be inspected. It is simply an "honor- system-call". Just because a well is suppose to be sealed from contaminates, does not mean this has been done correctly. Many wells in South County, prior to 10 years, were actually nstalled without seals, they were merely 4 " PVC pipe stuck in the ground 10 feet with a pump installed. As very few wells, are now inspected during that phase of construction, 10 years ago, YM few, if any, were inspected in South County. So,to say you sampled wells and rec'd high nitrate counts_o_nly matters if the seals were installed correctly. Because if they were not inspected when they were installed, the only correct way to verify seal depth according to the Oregon state well log, which was filed by the licensed driller, is to sample along side the casing to the determined depth verified on the Oregon state well log. I am just curious if the USGS is the only one who has done the investigation? BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit IF It is troubling that when imposing restrictive nitrate effluent limits, regulators often do not give real consideration to the question of cost-effectiveness; especially as it relates to continued upkeep and servicing needs. Nitrogen Removal Costs Meeting restrictive nitrogen,effluent limits requires fine-tuning both nitrification and denitrification processes. (Nitrification is the conversion of ammonia to nitrate; denitrification is the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas that is released harmlessly to the atmosphere - refer to Figure 1 for details.) Enhanced nitrification is readily accomplished by increasing hydraulic and solids retention time and supplying sufficiently greater amounts of oxygen to accommodate needs of both the heterotrophic organic-reducing microbes as well as the inorganic ammonia-oxidizing autotrophic microbes. This requires increasing the-aerobic treatment capacity by a factor of about 1.5 to 2, which will increase long-term power consumption and operation and maintenance demands. While efficient nitrification is readily achieved in many processes, creating the specific conditions necessary for efficient denitrification is more difficult to accomplish. Denitrification requires additional process capacity, which might include an anoxic chamber sufficiently sized to allow oxygen to be naturally consumed and with sufficient carbon provided to "fuel" the heterotrophic microbes that consume the readily available nitrate. There is typically insufficient carbon available following the secondary treatment process, so methanol, ethanol, wood, sucrose, and other such . carbon sources are commonly supplemented in order to support the denitrification process. Chemical feed systems for augmenting carbon will cost on the order of $800 to $1,200 for a typical single- family residence (250 to 500 gpd with a typical TKN concentration of 65 mg1Q, with a daily chemical cast ranging from 10 to 20 cents. The cost for an anoxic chamber or compartment with equipment for managing solids can range from $1,200 to $2,400 The greatest cost for the single- family user is generally for equipment and chemical servicing and dispensing ($50 to $80 per visit-two to four times per year)- tither denitrifying processes such as passing nitrified effluent dmmgh specially pad wood products may allow lower annual servicing costs, but require much more space and. are more expensive to:install initially ($10,000 and up), and will have a finite life requiring media replacement at some future fine (5,10, 20 yews). Larger systems wsll benefit in installation. costs din= to economy of scale, although the daily chemical costs will tend to rcr aam the same on a unit-cost basis. Systems large enough to require a full time operator will tend. to see a economy-of-scale savings. Other factors that will affect nitrogen removal are temperatures (seasonal swings) and weak alkalinity in the drinking water supply, high-strength waste (e.g., grease and oils), as well as a variety of cleaners and other household chemicals that can be discharged in excessive quantities- The nitrification process requires adequate allm inity. for buffering purpose& if supplemental buf€ is necessary then additional dry and wet chemical feed units may be required, which add more to the upfront costs, atgh.the tong-term operation and maintenance and dispensing will result in the greatest overall expenditures. Typically though, current. onsite treatment processes are capable of achieving nitrogen reduction of 60 to 75% without supplementing carbon or alkalinity; thus some systems currently reduce total nitrogen of about 65 mg/L to levels of 20 mg/L (:t5 mg/L) at end of process. And considering the AH043-LV3-1 Ref 1.0® 8106 orema Systew!s, loc f p21of21 I am assuming they are. independent , non-partisan geo techs groups and hydrologist been assigned to the same task as the USGS to make a complete, comparable study? Is nitrate considered a hazardous waste? If so, And, if they are contaminating the public water supply, why haven't they been addressed by the state and federal governments as hazardous waste site? If so, why haven't/ why werenPt Mike Bryant South county resident Deschutes County Commissioners March 27, 2007 I have listened to the presentation from the USGS/CDD and their theoretical prediction based on a hypothetical model of the LaPine ground water for 30 + years from 1960 to 199(3). I am a retired Aerospace engineer and have dealt with technical issues for over 35 years but I have not heard anything here based on empirical data. Here is a partial definition of the term. Scientific method, empirical approach to research. Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity of approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without falsifv/na observations to accord with some preconceived view. Acceptabibty is &pVed in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentations can be reproduced. It appears to me that the outcome of this so-called research was predetermined and the research adjusted to that outcome. Last week someone testified that he talked to the USGS and they didn't even seal their test wells. In 1986 NASA was scheduled to launch the shuttle Challenger. There was a voice of dissent on the launch. It seems that low temperatures cause the O-rings in the solid rocket booster segments to shrink thereby loosing their seal.... the rest is history. NASA in their infinite wisdom to maintain a schedule ignored or minimized the risk and launched on schedule, at the cost of the Astronauts lives. The flight lasted just over a minute (73 seconds). This Loco-Rule will also affect the lives of the residents of South County financially. It may not kill but for many it may mean choosing between prescription drugs, eating regularly and paying for this new system and the maintenance costs. I would like to know what the chain of command in the county is. To whom is the CDD responsible? Is it the Commissioners? It appears that the CDD is out of control and act prett y much autonomously as evidenced by their in! enientation ofthe local rule nremuturely (July of last year .They were so sure that the Local Rule was a "done deal" they started forcing this system on the public in advance. The attitude of the CDD is total arrogance, ask anyone who has had a requirement to deal with them. I am a victim of their autocracy, last year in July I applied for a permit to build a new house. I could not get a permit unless I installed this new system and signed a 2 year maintenance agreement ($33.33/mo). The cost of a standard septic system was $4,500.00 but this new system cost me $13,800.00. There is no evidence The money involved in the LaPine National Project has and will continue to justify the jobs of the CDD at the expense of the taxpayer. The County through the CDD stands to gain financially, job security and notoriety from this project on the back of the taxpayer. The CDD should use the taxpayer's resources and determine the exact source of the so-called nitrate infusion such as old leaking septic systems and unsealed wells and fix the problems instead of using the "shotgun" approach and burdening the entire population. Donald N. Habener 15375 Ponderosa Loop Ponderosa Pines 2nd addition 536-8097 BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit My name is Stevan Rounds; I live in rural La Pine. I've been reviewing the maps of the well sites and performance standards. These maps need clarification for the following reasons: 1. In the Pierce Tract area on both sides of Sixth Street, the well map shows 4 monitoring wells with nitrate levels of 1.0 - 10.0+ milligrams/liter; however, when comparing to the performance standards map, this area is zoned minimum reduction. 2. At Day Road and Falcon, on the west side of Day, there was a single drinking well tested showing nitrate levels at .99 milligrams/liter or less; yet, the performance standard is maximum reduction. There was a monitoring well at Dawn Road on the east side of Day with nitrate levels between 1 and 6.99 milligrams/liter but that area is required only 58% - 78% reduction. Again, illogical! 3. Only one area south of State Recreation Road on the Little Deschutes River must reduce nitrates by 58% - 78%. All others are being allowed minimum reduction, yet nitrates will migrate more quickly than outlying areas. This is not the only area with septics in close proximity to a river. There are fewer resources for natural denitrification before groundwater reaches the rivers; therefore, common sense would dictate maximum nitrate reduction. 4. Newberry Estates is being held responsible for the contamination in the incorporated area of La Pine north of Burgess Road. We believe nitrates have not had sufficient time to migrate this far, especially since this area has been populated less than 30 years; therefore, this allegation lacks credibility. 5. Half of Ponderosa Pines was being required to reduce nitrates by 58% - 78%. Tom Anderson, at last Tuesday's meeting, stated that because CDD staff was unable to determine where to draw a line, they arbitrarily decided to lower the reduction requirement for the entire area. Why wasn't Dorrance Meadows given the same consideration. Is this as confusing to you Commissioners as it has been for South County residents? Please do not vote on this matter - rather, direct CDD staff to revisit their studies and put forth straightforward information. Then and only then should this matter be taken up for consideration. BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit- Exhibit "A" Nitrate Loading Management Model Performance Standards for Existing Systems Legend Sewered Area C City of La Pine al- 13 County Boundary Nitrate Loading Management Area Minimum 35% reduction (<30 mg/L)' 58% - 78% reduction (20-10 mg/L) - Minimum 79% reduction (10 mg/L) 'FYI areas derided without color are required to meet Minimum 35% reduction. ~ / l kT zi/I I =i~ ' SunrOUT CFNRJRYOR x 1 ; aRRING RIVER RD 1" =1.75 Mi. , wr t f) rJS Idra i~ SiR1RG p1'ERRO _ l ` I~; ( 1 / Springs I~ I I-~„_`"~\~`^~„~~ 1 ! vnNDevERT RD__ OWW~LL ~ ~~I Stage Stop11~ Meadows L~ I SOUTH CENTURY DR " l Pine, ` Fal i ' '-,W CQuntryi ' Estat es y=x- il Estates 1 ' 3 I ■ 5~ -j / a • . q , ~•y "~I.PGINE STg1E RECREgTION ftC - i d ~ N. -L N _ _s I F _ q h Wirdl - 1 River DRDESS RD _ _ - - - , _ ~ 1 9 9"~F ~ "J Y ; Newberry - a. Estates \ r 4 - t ,J - . f wrwa r 3 Q' ~ w ~ Ponderosa w ' ' 1 -Pines w, U City of p t` S r r F a era n La Pine A, ~ s3 I ST Si. RED RD ••J ~ X~ FIR ~acr t ~j IF CI IITHST'~ f IEV UTTERD I4I i3 r7_ far ~•wf•••~w•~ww•w~V ttgq~~ I , hl r--I ASTEN RD__- -1 \ \ Deschutes Co. 6= FebTUary 2 7, 2007 Klamath Co. (Archived) S i'k< k_ k k" Z ~j f PROBLEM #5: Dirty Water WaterHealth's UV treatment plants deliver drinkable water to thousands who don't have it. BY MICHAEL MYSER THE BACKGROUNO: More than a billion people lack access to drinkable water. Theirs is teeming with bacteria and viruses or polluted with raw sewage. The result: Nearly 5,000 children die each day from waterborne diseases such as diarrhea, cholera, and typhoid. The economic impact is also staggering: $170 billion in losses from water- related illnesses. THE SOLUTION: WaterHealth International, based in Lake Forest, Calif., sells miniature water-treatment plants to rural communities in the developing world, where potable water is financially or logistically out of reach. When Water- Health enters a community, it first locates a source-a near- by river or well-and builds a delivery system to get the water to its garage-size WaterHealth Centre. Water is piped through four mechanical filters and a carbon filter, then through a 15-pound ultraviolet disinfection device that removes all but .01 percent of bacteria and viruses. Ashok Gadgil, WaterHealth's VP for scientific affairs, began devel- oping the system after a cholera outbreak killed 2,200 peo- ple in his native India. The system has no moving parts, and the UV lamp needs just 60 watts of power, which can be supplied by a car bat- tery. Installation costs a 6,000-person village about $10 per person. WaterHealth works with local banks and nonprofits to help finance the systems. It also trains and pays villagers to operate and maintain the water centers, which cost each resi- dent about $2 a year. That revenue is initially split between WaterHealth and the community, which can use the money to purchase the systems outright. "We become part of those vil- lages;" says WaterHealth CEO Tralance Addy. "We have as much interest in maintaining the systems as they do." "The safe-water issue is related closely to costs;" says Jim Plonka, vice president STO of Dow Venture Capital, which recently led a $7 million round of funding for WaterHealth. "WaterHealth has a proven technology package and a viable business model:" tr a. 5 . 4V,. 7h l wit .f ~ THE PAYOFF: WaterHealth operates more than 500 sys- tems in Asia, Africa, and Central America, delivering water to an estimated 500,000 people. The privately held company won't disclose its revenue, but its typical installation brings in as much as $50,000. WaterHealth expects to turn a profit next year with plans to install new systems in West Africa and India. THE OPPORTUNITY: WaterHealth estimates that there are about 2 bil- lion people without access to clean water or whose water supplies could be improved with filtering. "We want to play a leadership role in delivering clean water," Addy says, "but the market opportunity is certain- ly large enough to accommodate a ' number of players." BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit W B~-'L ~wr ~r 5-Stage Triple Undercounter w1 Nitrate Removal Option Product LWUC3 Brand. Living Waters Description; Use on private water supplies where reduction of nitrates and guaranteed removal of dangerous microarganisms is desirable, This premium quality system will save counterspace, preserve beneficial alkaline minerals and produce water that is extremely delicious and ideal for drinking or making your favorite beverages. Continuous supply means you cant run out of filtered water. Filtered water travels through an easily resettable meter which shuts off water flow when its time for a cartridge change. This system utilizes our Living WatersT"" 5 stage technology. The first of its triple white polypropylene housings has a pressure relief button and shut-off valve to make cartridge changes easy. It has a lead- free, stainless steel, long-reach spout with chrome trim. It is supplied with one Living WatersT"" 10NRC nitrate reduction cartridge in the first housing, one Living WstersTm 10CERKDF cartridge in the second housing, and one Living WatersT" 10CBR/ST1 Ster- O-Tap® m1croffltradoncartridge In the third housing. Unit is also supplied with a spanner wrench, and extra silicone "O" ring. Like all Living WstersT" systems, the unit employs standard 9-314" cartridges making it easily upgradable as future technology changes. Both the spout and premium saddle valve are fitted with pre-attached polypropylene tubing which simply push into John Guest style fittings making installation a snap. Appropriate components have been tested to comply with NSF Standard 42 for water aesthetics, and NSF Standard 53 for cyst removal. Please Contact Us with any questions you have regarding our products or your water. Retail Price: $649.00 Price: $329.00 H2O PURIFY Double Diamond Marketing Des Moines, Iowa 50320 USA Phone: 515.371-1419 Email this any to a friend Cliek for loraeermmaae adsl to cart Price $329.00 Category Home > Store > Nitrate RemovalSystem > Aqua Treatment Nitrate Removal Filter Email this pane to a friend Aqua Treatment Nitrate Removal Filter Product AF255M-N5 Brand: Aqua Treatment Description: High nitrate levels are a result of fertilizer run- off from griculture operations. The ATS Nitrate Removal System will protect your whole house. High Capacity Nitrate Removal Polyglass Mineral Tank NSF Approved Automatic Metered Control Valve Manual Bypass High Flow Distribution System. Water may need to be softened prior to nitrate removal if above 8 grains of hardness, and neutralized following nitrate removal. Dimension: 10" x 54" 1.5 CU./FT Please Contact Us with any questions you have regarding our products or your water. Click for larger imaae add to cart Price $1,599.00 Price: $1,599.00 Value Nitrate Removal System I ~ r n fi~4 j r - ,~~lrE sa-4~ Cleanco 17 Quart Bucket !.owes, Cleaning Accessories Item # 121154 Model # 43268-2 $7.96 Encore 5 Gallon Bucket Lowes, Misc. Sundries Item # 43774 Model # 6002034 $5.32 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Urine Diversion - One Step Towards Sustainable Development Box 11. Urine diversion where existing piped facilities exist In Eschbom, near Frankfurt, the head offices of the German technical co-operation, GTZ, are situated. During the current renovation of these offices, a modem, ecologically sustainable concept for the management of the wastewater from toilets is being installed. The main building will be equipped with waterless urinals and water-flushed urine diversion toilets, enabling the separate collection of urine and faeces. Through the separate, undiluted collection of urine, the water demand for flushing toilets will be significantly reduced. With this concept, the GTZ not only saves 900 m3 of water per year, but the load of nutrients on the wastewater treatment facilities is also reduced. After treatment the urine will be used in agricultural tests carried out as part of a research project. The information collected from the project will also help to improve agricultural production with fertilizer originating from urine. When finished, the system will serve as a model for similar facilities, not only in Germany, but also in countries where water is scarce and fertilizer is needed in local agriculture. As the building receives thousands `t of overseas visitors per year " from developing countries, a large public relations impact is w expected. For the treatment and reuse of the brown-water originating from the UD- toilets an additional research component is foreseen. Treatment with an activated sludge reactor, followed by membrane filtration, is currently being discussed as one possible technological option. Urine diversion to be installed in GTZ head office. Photos: GTZ. Box 12. Experience gained from organization of municipal systems for agricultural use of urine in Sweden. • Start small and with the easy fractions. This can be done by the municipality collecting e.g. urine for treatment and use on their own land, to create internal experience and external awareness before going to scale with excreta and greywater use. • Clear division of responsibility between the body responsible for control (usually the municipality) and the body executing the excreta and greywater use (could be a local farmer, contractor, farming cooperative etc). • Long-term approach with clear agreements between the body responsible for control and the use executing body, so that the municipality can be confident in having a safe excreta and greywater use scheme. The executing body, on the other hand, also needs to know that the excreta or greywater will be available in appropriate quantities and at appropriate times, especially if they need to invest more cash or to change to crops that take longer to mature. • Flexibility in the system, providing as many degrees of freedom as possible (e.g. allowing for use of urine at the household level for those interested, in parallel with more large-scale approaches). • Functioning quality control of excreta and greywater, which is necessary for protection of public health, for maximizing the use of nutrients, and for creation of confidence in the system. • Strong and continuous information flows between Involved parties. This is important to build trust between the involved parties and to react to and mitigate problems that might develop. 17 White-iipp A 0 ?L 41 .0 O !Y U Q O Here's a sci-fi solution for an age-old problem that leaves 1.1 billion people without access to clean water: Beam ultrasound waves into polluted water, blowing up the cellular walls and carbon bonds of contaminants. What's left is a cool drink of fresh H20- Filters and chemicals are normally used to purify dirty water, but researchers are experimenting with ultra- sound technology as a cheaper alternative. Ultrasound waves have already been used to break up sewage in sanitation systems. Now that the probes that produce the sound waves are getting more powerful, however, scientists are retooling the devices to decontaminate large tanks of water, a process called sonolysis. The goal is twofold. First, portable sonolysis machines could be deployed to isolated villages in developing countries. In urban areas, meanwhile, sonolysis could treat water tainted with industrial pollution. Scientists like Vilianova University's Rominder Sur! are studying how g 'en t6ch, turn to 14 sound waves can break down e + chemicals into less harmful com- ponents, detoxifying wastewater. tr , Old: Save the whales! New: Web 2.0 those whales, and then clone 'em! There are more than 16,000 known threatened animal and plant species; their plights wors- en each year as deforestation, development, and climate change take their toll. Conservationists are looking to tag endangered animals like the Amazon's piglike white- lipped peccary with radio frequency ID tags and GPS sensors, and then use Web 2.0 mashup techniques to overlay their locations and map details of their habitats and habits with other landscape features. The plan is to identify and design better wildlife preserves to ensure the survival of species edging toward extinction. For animals on the brink of oblivion, brave-new-world steps are being contemplated. In 2003, scientists cloned an endangered banteng cow, and XY Inc. of Fort Collins, Colo., has developed sperm-sorting technology that could one day be used for sex selection in endangered species to boost captive breeding programs. India, meanwhile, is setting up a laboratory to cryopreserve the sperm and DNA of rare Bengal tigers and other animals s SONIC WATER PURIFIER rz~ u Call it the networked environment. Picture tiny-we're talking small as a dime-wireless sensors lining lake beds and ocean floors, buried in the ground, and floating in the air. All the time sniffing the air, water, and soil for chemicals and pollu- tants and detecting changes in temperature and pressure. The payoff: real-time data on a variety of phenomena that affect the economy and society-climate change, hurricanes, air and water pollution. Scientists are capitalizing on advances in wireless tech and nanotechnology to build networks of these environmental sensors. Arizona State University scientist Joe Wang has already deployed them in San Diego Bay and the canals of Venice to keep watch on heavy-metal levels and mercury contamination. Researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of California at Berkeley, meanwhile, have creat- ed a coin-size solar cell that could power the transmitters • for sensor networks that one day might monitor a river or a bay for leaking pipelines. Cooler yet are solar-powered sensors that hover in the air. Ensco, a technology company based in Falls Church, Va., is developing a beach-ball-size gadget that gets its juice from thin-film solar panels and would measure weather patterns by probing the curve of a jet stream or the interior of a hurricane. • • • • ~ s F rr Plant a forest, clean up a Superfund site. That's the idea behind phytoremediation, a technology that uses vegetation to absorb hazardous waste from industrial plants and other polluters. The technique has been around for years but hasn't proven very effective. Now there's a new twist that promises to make toxic dumping grounds green in more ways than one. Researchers at York • University in Britain have identified bacteria `'>!y living in the roots of poplar trees that pro- A duce an enzyme that zaps residue from RDX, a chemical compound used by the military and industry. The scientists are working on ways to genetically engineer the enzyme to boost the tree's ability to suck up toxic waste. So don't be surprised if you start seeing forests sprouting on old military bases. Meanwhile, a team from the University of Georgia has transplanted a gene from bacteria that helps neutralize mercury contamination into a common flower. The result: a solar-powered bioremediation system that smells nice too. pFy S F+ h ' 1 i 'f 1 ~J• f PROBLEM #9: Waste Disposal PyroGenesis has perfected the ultimate recycling machine: A superheating furnace that reduces trash to valuable raw materials. BY SIDRA DURST Y O O N CD U O Q a~ IY C 0) E o 0 0 K" t, s. THE BACKGROUND: We're buil, ing bigger and bigger mountains of increasingly toxic garbage. The United States alone annually produces 1.4 billion tons of waste, the majority of which winds up in landfills. Recycling is a noble goal, but not everything can be recycled, and many places lack the infrastructure for it anyway. Incinerators can reduce the volume of trash, but they emit dioxins and toxic ash, which contaminate the water tabl, And while newer systems can trap bot in filters, those filters then require cost) disposal techniques. THE SOLUTION: Montreal-based PyroGenesis has refined a process, called plasma arc gasification, in which solid waste is shredded and fed into a furnace where extreme electrical charges bring the temperature above 3,000 degrees. After an hour or so, waste mate- rial breaks down into its molecular building blocks, leaving three marketable by-products: a combustible synthesis gas, or syngas, that can be converted into steam or electricity; metal ingots that can be resold and melted down again; and a glassy solid that can be processed into material for floor tiles or gravel. Plasma furnaces can safely handle factory and hospital waste, hazardous runoff, and even the oil sludge that comes off ships. The basic technology is not new; torches were used by NASA scientists in the 1960s to test heat shields on Apollo command modules. PyroGenesis was one of the first companies to try to scale the method for widespread industrial use. THE PAYOFF: With clean-tech invest- ment booming, big clients have started knocking. Carnival, the $11 billion cruise ship operator, uses a PyroGenesis system to reduce 5 tons per day of cabin waste and food on one of its vessels into a few pounds of harmless sand. The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, has hired PyroGenesis to develop plasma waste systems for new aircraft carriers due out in 2015. Pyro- Genesis recently sold an industrial system to the University of Athens in Greece for about $1 million and is developing 25-, 50-, and 100-ton systems that will sell for as much as $25 million apiece. w,.w!~..T. iSt"L Z'~ ~^L~'Lk t -•Gr } '.h,.._ a. - JA Giant spinning blades Electrical charges heat The system separates the grind waste into tiny bits. .,2 it to 3,000 degrees. .3 three marketable by-products. THE OPPORTUNITY: The long term market opportunity is immense: An estimated $40 billion is spent annu- ally to transport, incinerate, recycle, and store waste in the United States alone. Although several small waste facilities in Japan use plasma-gas furnaces to incinerate their trash, most industry experts predict that the technology is still several years away from widespread commercial use. Dozens of early-stage startups, meanwhile, have been busy developing related products in niche markets for medical and other haz- ardous wastes. GARBAGE FN, DOLLARS OUT Treatment Process s~~.~ The treatme~rit process 404axxt"ct crM ccoimtaims the follommring pr4:a►cesst=s: IL. CkAlectioll ~Vstemx 0. Clarafiier solacl s col.lectlc im Rotati.~~ Ycs ° cal contactors 9E. ILeratect Lam®a~ s +Chlar3.~,atiox~ I]►ecizlt.y►ri~xatlo~ C30. ~eTd~ater119. f Ck)I :~sost~ A. C~onectaevax S-Yat+eme The collection system includes 7 lift (or pumping) stations and approx. 7 miles of sewer lines. There are approx. 250 connections to the collection system. The yearly sewer rent of a single family dwelling is approx. $280. Special grinders, called "Muffin Monsters"; are located at the treatment plant and Pump Station These grinders grind the incoming material into small pieces which reduces pump clogging and also reduces the observation of plastic materials in the clarifier. 2. Clarifier / solids collection: The purpose of the clarifier is to slow down the incoming raw wastewater and to collect organic and inorganic material for further treatment. Floatable material is collected and removed from the wastewater. Heavier organic material settles to the bottom of the cone shaped tank where the solids settle in the lower section called the digester. This dual function piece of equipment is called a Clarigester The solids that remain in the digester are removed, dewatered, mixed with woodchips and composted at the facility. The clarigester removes approx. 50% of the suspended solids, which are solids that are either floating or suspended in the wastewater. Approx. 90% of the settleable solids are removed, settleable solids are defined as solids that will not remain in suspension during a settling period of one hour. 3. Rotating Biological Contactors: A rotating biological contactor is a "fixed film" biological treatment system using rotating plastic media. The media provides a surface on which micro organisms attach themselves and grow, thus creating a "fixed film". These micro organisms creates a "slime" on the plastic media. The slime is rotated into the settled wastewater and then goes into the atmosphere to provide oxygen for the organisms. As the drum rotates, the media pick up a thin layer of wastewater which flows over the biological slimes on the discs. Organisms living in the slimes use organic matter from the wastewater for food and dissolved oxygen from the air, thus removing wastes from the water being treated. As this slime passes through the wastewater, some falls off the media and is carried to the lagoons in the wastewater. 4. Aerated Lagoons: We have two lagoons, 52' 150' normal operating water level is 11.5$'. The two lagoons together hold approx. 1.35 million gallons of wastewater. The lagoons run in series to each other. Air is added to the lagoons to stimulate the aerobic bacteria and other living organisms in the wastewater. The aerobic bacteria thrives on the abundant oxygen and continues to digest the organic solids in the wastewater. In the lower level of the lagoons, the solids or sludge that has accumulated is without oxygen (anaerobic), but continues to be digested by anaerobic bacteria. 5. Chlorination 1 Dechlorination: Liquid chlorine (hypochlorite), is injected into the wastewater which kills the pathogens (disease causing bacteria). A contact time of approx. 1 hour is allowed to insure that all of the wastewater is mixed with hypochlorite. After this contact time, liquid sodium bisulfite is added. Sodium bisulfite neutralized the hypochlorite so that none is discharged into the river which could result in the death of aquatic life in the river. 6. Dewatering I Composting: We use equipment purchased from Green Mountain Technologies in 1996, and have been using this in-vessel composting n system since 1994. We have a Detainer that is used for dewatering the sludge and a Comptainer that is used for composting the sludge. The sludge is pumped from the lower level of the clarigester, polymer is added and the mixture is pumped into the Detainer. On the floor of the Detainer we lay a layer of woodchips to act as a filter to keep the solids in the Detainer. On the walls and middle compartment there is a fine mesh screen that allows water to drain, put keeps the solids inside. The polymer that is added forces the solids to attach to each other and makes the dewatering process quicker and more efficient. The sludge coming out of the clarigester is approx. 3-5f solids and after dewatering in the Detainer we end with a 20-25% solids cake. The runoff from the Detainer is directed back to the treatment plant for processing. After the sludge is dewatered, we mix it with woodchips at about a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio of woodchips to sludge depending on the moisture content of the sludge and woodchips. After mixing the material is conveyed into the Comptainer. Aeration tubes are connected and a built in computer is restarted to start the composting process. The computer reads data from temperature probes that are inserted into the sludge/woodchip mixture and regulates the temperature inside the Comptainer to insure that a uniform temperature is maintained throughout the Comptainer. To meet EPA regulations, the mixture must reach a temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 F), for three consecutive days. This is known as the "procedure to further reduce pathogens" r (PFRP). The mixture must also maintain a temperature of 45 c or 113 f or 14 consecutive days to obtain proper (VAR) or "vector attraction reduction". The mixture stays in the Comptainer for approx. 21 to 30 days, then is dumped using a roll-off truck and allowed to cure and the necessary laboratory analysis are completed. After curing and analysis are complete, the final product is sold to area residents at a cost of $8.00 per yard with a 5 yard minimum order. Delivery is free to Wilmington residents and a $10 trucking fee is charged to residents of abutting towns. The product is used mostly as a mulch for flower gardens or as a soil conditioner.- It is a class A compost, but is not certified to be used in vegetable gardens. If you have any questions regarding our treatment process, please feel free to drop John or Jeff and email at: IF I ~gS .g Lg R If I was an Attorney at Law and I worked for the County of Deschutes I would be praying that the proposed to Pine home rule rules are passed. Why because I would know that my job security issues for decades to come would be solved. If I was an Attorney at Law that didn't work for the county I would be jumping for joy and praying that the proposed to Pine home rules law is passed/approved. Why because I would know that I stand to make a fortune litigating the effect and necessity of this new law. I would be at the BMW dealer choosing the color and accessories of my new 6-Series luxury coupe right now. But sadly r am not a lawyer. Therefore, I would just lime to point out a few things that don't quite add up to what I would consider a sound decision on the part of our county Community Development Department. 1. Health issues. Nitrate is just one of the causes of what is commonly called "Blue Baby Syndrome" The proposed rules in no way solve this perceived health threat. The new systems proposed only reduce the amount of potential NO3 contamination of the shallow water aquifers. NO3 has already passed through the baby before it gets to these new septic systems. How could they possibly protect the baby's health? They are merely a band-aid that slows the process and passes the problem on to future generations. Processing the baby's water to remove NO3 before it is consumed is the only real solution. This can be done at a fraction of the cost of the proposed new septic systems. You can buy distilled water for sixty-six cents ($0.66) a gallon at Wal-Mart, A 3 to 5 month supply wouldn't cost more that $20.00. 2. Urgancy of new rules. Why wait ten years to force people to replace their old systems. The state hasn't even approved most of the systems that were tested 3. Expert review of reports and research leading up to this point. Expert review does not validate a report's usefulness, it only validates the researchers conclusion based on the evidence given. Every time a researcher runs into data that can't be supported by fact he/she uses a comment like " All the NO3 in to Pine is of human origin. However the NO3 in the groundwater ')nay" be caused by something else. " The expert reviewer takes note that the researcher has made and unsubstantiated assumption and has covered his butt with a good 'may" statement. The often referred to US geological report s1r2005-5055 ver1.1. pdf titled, Aquifer-scale contro/s on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium in ground water near to Pine, Oregon, USA, contains exactly FIFTY (50) '*ay" statements. That is a lot of butt coverage. I did not check for synonyms of the word may, such as, might, could, and possibly. A similar search of other reports used by the CDD resulted in almost as much butt coverage per page as the one just mentioned. I suggest that a review of all the reports on record pertaining to this subject is needed, a review that evaluates the usefulness of the conclusions based on the amount of butt coverage used. I would gladly volunteer to sit on that review committee. 4. New septic systems. I checked out the manufacture user manuals on a number of the systems tested. None of them offered a warranty longer than two years, and most did not warrant components of their systems longer than the manufacturer of the component Electric motors normally come with a one-year warranty. Makers of septic tanks offer a lifetime warranty. Until the makers of these new systems are moved to extend their warranty for all components to at least 30 years I feel that they are too risky for you to force us to buy them. The technology that we are talking about here is moving at lightning speeds. My search for new patents being applied for rele vant to this subject rew/ed /atfer/y hundreds of new applications. Today's great idea may be tomorrows joke. DAPOOP The landlord I worked late last. I was crunching the numbers. You see I own property that I rent. All of my renters are fine hard working people. They take care of my property and pay me promptly every month. Most of them have been with me for years. I charge them what I feel is a fair amount and they seldom complain. But now I am confronted with the possibility of a major expense in the future. I am a strictly cash man. Usury is against my religion. So I am confronted with coming up with the cash to handle this expense. So I spent hours on the computer crunching the numbers. 10 year from now I am confronted with an inevitable, mandated by new law, major expense. In today_s dollars we are talking about 15,000 dollars. Corrected for inflation using the past 10 years as a guide, I arrive at the sum of about 20,000 dollars. I have an old retired couple that rents from me. Their income is fixed and barely sufficient to make ends meet. They pay me 400 a month to rent an old house I own. For me to be able to meet this new expense I am going to have to raise their rent by at least $166.60 a month to $566.60. My heart ached at the prospect of telling them. I went to bed with a heavy heart. I woke up early this morning feeling lousy. The night s sleep had been troubled. The first thought that came to my mind was that $166.60 is one devil of a rent increase. The 666 are almost spooky. What to do, what to do? Only three people I know can stop this from happening. I must appeal to their humanity. But I don[t know them personally. I know a lot about their type. They are hedonists that are on the path of desire, thay think that wealth, power and fame are the answers to all of lifela shortcomings. Power and fame not so much as Wealth. They all have achieved a reasonable amount of wealth or they wouldn4 be doing what they are doing. Service to mankind is their hedonist element; it gives them pleasure to CthinkUthat they are serving mankind. A very noble thought that can entertain the mind in numerous ways. There you have it. I must find a way to satisfy their lust for power and fame and at the same time massage their desire for the pleasure of serving mankind. I would open up there hearts and appeal to there souls but I know that it is being well guarded by a huge over-inflated ego. What to do, what to do? Perhaps if I just tell them that they will be demonstrating how powerful they are, if they go against the powers that be, that want this to happen. Then I could tell them how famous they will be when there decision proves to be true in the long run. Then I could tell them how good they will feel because there wise decision has severed mankind in the noblest of ways. Yep by golly that's what I should do. I will ask them to please vote NO on the proposed La Pine home rule. If 1 was kinder I would tell them that someday they will all come to the point where there soul's will scream at there ego's "DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS ALL THERE IS TO LIFE? YOU KNOW THAT WHAT YOU REALLY "DESIRE" IS INFINITE BEING, INFINITE WISDOM AND INFINITE BLISS. ALL OF THOSE COULD BE YOURS IF YOU WOULD JUST WAKE UP". WEALTH, POWER, FAME AND SERVICE ARE ONLY ILLUSIONS CREATED BY YOUR MIND! WAKE UP STUPID, WAKE UP STUPID, WAKE UP STUPID." But I doubt that they are ready for that reality. I would point to the direct path to that realization but, oh well, Who am L IAM that IAM Dapa©p L bapoop, Question: What is the process involved in the formation of a new county? Answer: The process is generally outlined by statutes, many of which have been in place without change since 1930. While there is a general outline, if the petition and vote is successful, much will end up being resolved through a negotiation and transition process with the new county. Discussion: ORS Ch. 202 outlines the process for formation of new counties. 1 will simply highlight the guidance the statutes provide: Petition Process to Election 1.. ORS 202.020 requires that a petition to form a new county must be signed by a majority of the electors of the territory proposed for the new county. After the signatures are validated by the County Clerk the petition will come to the Board of Commissioners. 2. ORS 202.030 requires that the Board make findings that both the proposed and remaining counties meet the assessed value, area and population requirements of the Constitution. Oregon Constitution Article XV, Section 6 specifies that a county must have a minimum area equal to or greater than 400 square miles and a population equal to or greater than 1200 inhabitants. It says nothing about assessed value. 1 have researched earlier constitutions and. statutes and can only locate one reference to an assessed valuation requirement. The 1930 Oregon Code, Section 26-201 required a. new county have an assessed value of not less than $2 million. Upon making the necessary findings, the Board calls for an election on the next available election date. It will be held for the electors registered within the territory of the proposed new county. http:ffwww.co.la.ne.or.usidocuments/NewCountyf ormationProcess.doc by Teresa J. Wilson V 0 If they are going to refer to us as South ~SChutu Cmmiy ~d treat us like fools, perh~s we shed eke them bp and come SOUTH Da~uta County. R would let us rite our mm p~pr lows, 1 T ~4 Good evening! My name is Harry Campbell and I have been a LaPine resident for two years, having moved from Western Oregon to finally escape seemingly endless, chilling fog. The first 13 years of my work career was spent with Hyland Division of Travenol Laboratories, where I was manager of Human Plasma Fractionation and sterile filtration. The therapeutic biologicals, which we produced, were controlled by the National Institute of Health with extensive record keeping of minute production details necessary. I left the company 35 years ago, as I could no longer tolerate the backbiting politics of corporate America. After moving to Oregon in 1972, and a three-year stint in logging, I entered the plumbing apprenticeship program and eventually became a licensed journeyman plumber/steamfitter, plumbing contractor, and general contractor. I obviously have an extensive scientific background as well as that of the various methods of delivering safe portable water as well as sewage disposal. When I first learned of the supposed nitrate contamination of well water in the greater La Pine area I was quite concerned, as neither I nor my family wants to drink contaminated water. My fear was that if we had groundwater being contaminated with nitrates we could possibly have a problem with a-coli bacteria, and possibly a myriad of other contaminants such as solvents, antibiotics and other heavily used household items. soon learned that the only testing done was for nitrates, and, that from the yet to be determined number of wells tested by D.E.Q., 11 wells were found to be high in nitrates. Since I knew that nitrogen, in reasonable levels, is necessary for our body to grow and to protect our health, I was not overly concerned, but wanted to ascertain what was found and how it was found. First, let me explain. Nitrogen is all around us and is very necessary for life to exist. As mentioned earlier my direct involvement with the scientific community ended over 35 years ago so, due to a use it or lose it memory, I cannot quote exact levels, but will deal in approximate levels. 1. The blood, muscles and organs of all animals including humans are quite high in nitrogen. 2. All plant life is high in nitrogen. 3. The air we breathe is high in nitrogen. 4. When we add organic fertilizer, compost and mulch to our gardens we are adding humus to the soil, but, we are also adding high levels of nitrogen. 5. When we use chemical fertilizer we do not contribute humus but we do contribute mainly nitrogen with lessor amounts of potassium and phosphorus, all necessary for plant growth and health. 6. When animals, including humans, eat this vegetation we absorb this nitrogen, which is used by the body to produce new cells and maintain older cells. Knowing that when the 1.1 acre lots in this area were first being sold in the late 1960's there was little or no control over well and septic materials and installation, and that consequently there now exist many substandard and, by today's requirements, illegal systems, I wanted to ascertain if this was taken into account during the D.E.Q. survey. First let me explain my personal experience. When we purchased our property two years ago, the first item on my list after taking possession was to have the septic tank pumped and inspected. It was found to be a steel tank, which was legally installed in 1978 but now was a sieve rather than a tank as it was literally riddled with thousands of holes allowing untreated sewage to leach directly into the ground. We replaced this unit with a 1,500 gallon double BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit compartment concrete tank. There are hundreds of these leaking tanks out there, and others, which are bottomless cesspools, all of which are contaminating the soil with undigested sewage. Now back to the D.E.Q. survey. I first contacted Mr. Bob Baggett at the Bend, Oregon D.E.Q. office who was involved with the 2000 survey. I asked him if they took the distance of well to septic and the condition of the septic tank into account. His answer was no. I explained to him that prior to approximately 1978 wells could be within 50' of septic systems on a lot with no coordination of neighboring systems. Due to a-coli bacterial contamination this was changed to a minimum of 100' separation and neighboring systems had to be located with distance from these accounted for. I asked if he could supply me with information pertaining to the initial surveys such as notes and data summaries. He said he could after it was sanitized due to landowner confidentiality agreements. He also informed me that there had been a fire at the Bend D.E.Q. office and things were now in serious disarray. After about four weeks and two more phone calls he told me that this information was available on the web. It turned out that this was generic statewide data and did not pertain to the survey itself. I approached Mr. Baggett after the March 6, 2007 South County Water Quality Advisory Committee Meeting and again asked him the distance of the allegedly 11 La Pine high nitrate wells from the corresponding septic systems. His very rapid response was "100 feet." I reminded him that weeks earlier he told me that this measurement was not done. I received no comment other than a reiteration of the web site data being available. When I explained that this was statewide data and did not address the survey he said that "with a little ingenuity information could be obtained." Later that same afternoon (3/6/07) I called Mr. Rodney J. Weick at the Portland, Oregon D.E.Q. office, as he was a co-author of the paper published in the Journal of Hydrology 2007 #333 pp. 486-503. Mr. Weick was closely involved in the U.S.G.S. survey which evolved from the earlier D.E.Q. testing surveys. I asked Mr. Weick if construction method of wells, distance of well to septic systems, or condition of septic tanks were taken into account. He replied that it was not necessary since once nitrates were released into the ground they would migrate to the aquifer eventually. I also asked him if the high ammonium levels in the eleven D.E.Q. wells were probably due to urine leaching down. His reply was "absolutely." I next asked about the construction of the Burgess and Century transect wells. He explained the process to me. I exclaimed that these were not legal domestic wells. Mr. Weick's reply was that they were legal "monitoring" wells as he had written the book on them. When asked if the allegedly contaminated wells were existing wells or D.E.Q. drilled wells he could not remember. The attached bar graphs are broken down into four parts with data taken directly from Table 1 of the aforementioned "Journal of Hydrology" paper by Weick et all. They are separated as Burgess intersect, Century intersect, D.E.Q. (undetermined), and septic effluent plume. Depths in meters are to the top of the open (screened) intervals, nitrate results are shown in blue (N02 and N03 in mg N/L). Ammonium is shown in red (NH4 in mg N/L). The summary of these four groups is as follows: • Septic effluent plumes Nitrate - 3 of 3 high Ammonium - 0 of 2 high F • D.E.Q. (undetermined) Nitrates - 0 of 11 high Ammonium -11 of 11 high • Century intersect Nitrates - 4 of 8 high Ammonium - 2 of 8 high • Burgess intersect Nitrates - 5 of 17 high Ammonium -1 of 17 high To be noted: All high nitrate readings came from very shallow wells as would be expected due to naturally occurring nitrogen. The exception was in the Burgess intersect where wells were deeper but in every case of elevated nitrogen a corresponding high oxygen level was noted. Also in the Century intersect three of the four high nitrate wells had corresponding high oxygen levels. The other interesting point is that in no case did high ammonium levels occur in a high nitrate well. Also of note, if high ammonium is to be attributed to leaching of urine, how is it that all three septic effluent wells had low ammonium levels. It is a widely known fact that nitrogen in oxygenated soil is worked on by naturally occurring bacteria and is, for the most part, taken up by grasses, plants, shrubs and trees. This uptake is somewhat lessened during dormant winter months but still takes place to store energy for spring budbreak. There are evergreen deep-rooted shrubs, which could be planted near drainfields to enhance this uptake, and I believe that state and federal agriculture departments could help in selection of these for our frigid area if this was deemed to be useful. In conjunction with shrub and tree plantings would come invasion of roots into septic leach lines. However early and late summer additions of inexpensive copper sulfate would cause dieback of roots for a short distance keeping lines open and functioning. In summation: • Backup notes and data were unavailable • Data taken from Table 1 are inconclusive and nitrate levels are what should be expected in shallow soils and in septic effluent • Ammonium nitrogen does not go hand in hand with nitrates and is only found in deeper wells and not even in septic effluent. • Ammonium does not appear to be from septic systems, so, where does it originate? • Many wells and septic systems do not conform to existing code and thus do not function properly. They may not be safe. • No tests were performed for a-coli or other contaminants. • More time is needed for additional controlled and truly scientific testing and studying of data. • Removal of surface soil nitrogen (0 - 8') (using hardy plants and trees) is definitely feasible and very inexpensive. I ask you, no, I beg you to vote no on the proposed local rule - extend your decision for two years to allow for an independent and comprehensive survey to be accomplished. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. v J_ Z Z 0) E M E O~ Z = Z 04 O E Z N o 2 E 42- E Z Q N a d W Y r V CL d cn I I i v "IN i.: a . • - O 00 N E a v v M N E Lo N C. d N N FL rn CD `O o 0 0 0 0 CO N r wniuOwwV/GIBJI!N 7, d a A~ W C L d 'C C N I M N 4) H W 0 J _ Z Z m E E M O~ Z = Z O 2 Z c o M E E Z Q ~ 1, y1 I r PR, .x r (D M T- 4.1ri.F co 4 o O O C) O O'. 0 f 5.:1 "i r ~~r r O. k 'rt 3- '''~y' a ~ t r~• W rr F ~~,5 _ ~1. o. - b, r-> 0 0 L v o. 0 'IT M M N N O O wmuowwb/04B4!N r ~ W 0) C) N 1. cc) w d (m L r r ~ ~ r 00 N C M N N N 00 O 00 It u7 0 J Z m z E m M E O v Z = Z O E =1 Z c a) o 2 E Z Q ■ ■ N V d L C C V - t ,i 4.f''~r~ x- er,.~,""„d'+~~~ S ° -ZF'7` S -,.r y `^'".°4 'i' d - . ~ I ~ I f aR . r. ! ~ ~ 1 a c N (D 1 _ O ~ CV. } : O. F~F t~ ~ ~ i.?.t~ y~t,H - ~ 1 • ~_r k , g-~~x~ i~.~ r ~ " ~ .y ~ 1 .c p t k~-i z ' ~,a ~•`+~;M .'K+• k~ . ~ , .s l J f C', . irr ~ ~ , , ~ VV ct ar . i _ f o J~, j O2 ~ t "L ~ r r~ ~ r .;s ~`7~ ,•~tr~i r' r' Y yip °+F r ` 4 'r ~~''4iK~ ~ Y , , (DO ~f - o 0 00 ti CD U*) V M N O wniuowwy/a;eJ4!N N r M N 0) rN N 0) ti r r LO CO N L N W N_ 0) N Q CL N in c0 to N CO r N M_ N _J Z Z E 0) co E O ~ Z = Z N E 7 Z •E a) O N E E Z Q V d L N d 3 m o.. o CD o r> ' Q no O LO. ~ I O O I C co CD. ; O 1D- 7 c-' ~ Ya' .T ' _ are:.- . N - O- N' ? O co I O ~ v av rn ~ ~v C9 Cl? r OD N r .r.V ~ N r ~ t~0 M O v ~ M of 2 N ' ~ CCS ai obi d O N L' C,i : fl. d 0 N 06 n N ~ r v v a ri n ~ p h h 6 Cfl N 00 19 ct N O O O O O wniuOwWV/a;eJIIN Sunni Rounds La Pine, Oregon sunnirounds(a)-coinet.com Please respond to the below comments & questions via e-mail. COMMENTS: CDD staff appears to have used statistics calculated to have the greatest impact based on venue and audience. All the conflicting information put out to the public was pointed out at the March 20, 2007 meeting. CDD staff appears to have an agenda they are unwilling to deviate from. One must question the motives driving them in a single direction and remaining steadfast in refusing to consider other options. Their motive, is seems, is the quest for state and national recognition. What they seem oblivious to is that this community is committed to finding more cost effective and environmentally friendly systems that may preclude the aforementioned recognition. Cluster systems have been proven to be more effective in nitrate reduction that onsite filtration systems. If drinking water and environmental protection is truly driving this legislation, these systems should not be rejected simply because nearly a decade ago, local residents chose not to connect to a sewer system. Research indicates that the KMS study of 1997 looked at the cost of connecting to a central sewer system. Naturally, the cost of connecting to a central system would be much higher than installing a cluster system. In addition, the County has already taken the step of declaring emergencies in 2002 and 2006 which opens the door for a Goal 11 exception. The definition of "Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System" in 13.14.020 is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative power to the Oregon DEQ. The definition requires each applicant to install whatever system permit. This definition essentially delegates to DEQ the ability to amend the County's ordinance to require a different system at any point in the future. Future systems could be significantly more expensive and more difficult to install, and may create other problems not analyzed by the County in this ordinance. This is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative authority. As such times new systems are developed and approved by DEQ, the County must affirmatively amend its code and consider the costs, benefits and efficacy of each such system before it mandates it use. The decision to adopt this ordinance has a significant impact on land use because it effects facilities that impact rural residential development. It should therefore have been analyzed and adopted pursuant to the post-acknowledgement land use process set forth in ORS 197.610 to 197.625. Financial assistance mechanisms should be developed and in place before the County imposes the mandate. The staff report notes that there are many low income residents in the area that will be impacted by the substantial expense, and promises to develop additional assistance programs in the future. The residents can't rely on a promise to do something in the future; they need to know now what assistance will be available. The County should not adopt any mandate, at least as it applies to existing systems until the full assistance program is in place. BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit K I attended the January 30, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. The official minutes of the meeting reflect a number of instances where substantive portions of the discussion was omitted or altered. While public meeting minutes are not required to be verbatim, they must accurately portray the discussion and content of the meeting. Catherine Morrow received a request to correct the minutes; however, she refused stating that the caller was not a committee member and therefore had no authority to have the minutes changed. Steve Wert requested at the March 30, 2007 meeting that the same correction be made. The minutes of that meeting have now be posted on the groundwater project webpage without benefit of correction. Isn't this a violation of Oregon's Public Meeting regulations? How do you propose to handle such a blatant disregard of Oregon regulations? At the March 6, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee meeting, the question "what would the consequences be if the proposed mandate were delayed?" At the close of the meeting, Catherine Morrow stated in addition to continued nitrate loading, additional consequences could be: ➢ PRCs could go away ➢ The systems could cost more ➢ Could postpone development of the retrofit market ➢ Could postpone our (CDD's) work re: financial mechanisms due to lack of staff incentive. ➢ Could delay any monies that might be available due to lack of staff initiative ➢ Could postpone red-lot development The public attendees of this meeting interpreted these comments as a threat! This is the attitude we, the public, have had to endure throughout this process. And you asked us to maintain a professional demeanor! QUESTIONS: • When are you going to vote on Local Rule? Please give a specific date! • The staff report attached to today's agenda states operation and maintenance costs range between $25 and $35 per month depending on the system chosen by the property owner. What choice do property owners have if the County intends to do a site inspection to determine which system and components must be installed? • What treatment standard are we being held to? The County has prepare maps color coded to indicate the level of reduction. Why not use the maps to outline the standard in specific areas instead of stating the standards will be determined by the model? Models do not set standards - people do! It would be appropriate to set actual standards in the proposed County code. • Current nitrate levels are expected to triple in the next 40 years if these systems are not installed. That being the case, wouldn't average nitrate levels remain below 7 mg/I? Doesn't that allow for the time the community is requesting for independent investigation? • Please state all the County fees associated with the installation of these systems! It is unjust to mandate these systems without full disclosure! • Please describe a retrofit scenario with an installation cost of $2,250. DO NOT INCLUDE THE REBATE as Elk Horn Development states these will not be available over the long term per Tom Anderson at the March 6, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. • How does the County define "dense development"? The La Pine National Demonstration Project webpage states that "the degradation of groundwater quality is in process in the densely developed areas." Does this refer to the County's turnkey development, Crescent Creek or an acre lot with more than one (1) inhabitant? • Why did you choose the lease affluent area of the county to initiate this mandate? When do you intend to mandate these systems county-wide? • Why are you considering adopting this legislation before the USGS and EPA reports are finalized? We realize you have a great deal of faith in County staff but, hasn't their credibility been completely undermined in these proceedings? Are you even remotely interested in the welfare of the citizens of rural La Pine? • What is the EPA's standard for drinking water in private wells? We know public water sources must adhere to 10 mg/I, but that doesn't apply to private wells. • What epidemiologic data has CDD staff gathered linking nitrates to the risk of cancer or any other health condition? Have you, our commissioners, done any research to determine for yourselves what nitrate health effects are? • How recent was the last "blue baby syndrome" death in South Deschutes County? • Isn't it true that recent medical studies are inconclusive in linking nitrates to cancer, blue baby syndrome, etc.? • Are those of us with 1,000 gallon septics going to have to replace them with 1,500 gallon tanks? How does that impact the costs of these systems? Is the County going to dispose of the tanks or will that be an additional financial burden on property owners? • Why isn't there time to explore more reasonable options? In all the research we have done, the County is contending that nitrate levels above 1 mg/I equates to contamination, yet DEQ's fact sheet state that levels up to 3 mg/I is considered natural levels. • Explain the emergencies that existed in April 2002 and June 2006. What steps were taken to notify the public of these emergencies? Why weren't potential property owners notified prior to their purchasing in the area? • If emergencies truly existed, why wasn't a moratorium placed on new development? • We understand sewer systems require a Goal 11 exception; but, if your goal is to protect the groundwater and human health, why aren't these viable options? Is it because of the federal earmark grant? • Why should we believe any of the science and test results? It was pointed out at last week's meeting how information has been manipulated based on venue and desired results. • CDD staff claims they were only support staff for the Technical Advisory Commission. If that is the case, why did they facilitate each meeting? Why is staff's position dominant in the meeting minutes? Why wasn't a member at large chosen to chair the meetings? Is their statement of being support staff more "misinformation"? • In Barbara Rich's January 2007 Newberry Eagle article, she states nitrates are not a widespread problem. Because the alleged contamination is limited to isolated locations, what is the urgency of adopting Local Rule? • Did CDD investigate systems used in other areas of the U. S.? Why aren't those systems suitable for South County? • What has CDD gained by withholding the scientific reports from the public? Don't the reports substantiate what we're being told? • The latest staff report states that "ambient conditions in the aquifer are showing total nitrogen and chloride levels are greater than 1 mg/I. When did you test the aquifer and was it a single test or multiple tests over the project period? And, when did EPA or the DEQ change the contaminant level to less than 2 mg/I? • CDD uses retrofit and upgrade interchangeably. Retrofit is defined as "to install in something previously manufactured or constructed"; "upgrade" means to increase the standard of." Why does either of these trigger a repair permit? There is no malfunction of existing systems. Is this a mechanism for raising revenue that County would not otherwise be entitled to? Since this would be County Code, shouldn't these fees be waived? Can the County and DEQ legally charge repair permit fees? • The 200 monitoring wells were placed at the shallowest depths possible. Did you perform any deep well testing that proved your assumptions on the groundwater flow or that reveal the effects of the natural denitrification process? • Why is CDD staff telling you, our Commissioners, that the Board will have a responsibility to honor the financial commitment made by those who complied, by not waiving the requirements of those who have not? Who makes the decisions in Deschutes County? • The ordinance, as written, allows the County to arbitrarily impose maximum contaminant levels as they see fit. Doesn't this infringe on the rights of property owners and allow the County to impose even more stringent standards in the future? • Is this ordinance going to be adopted using the same emergency phrase as the 2002 and 2006 ordinances? • Section 13.14.040 (D) allows the County, at their discretion, to withhold applications indefinitely. This infringes on the rights of property owners and allows for an unofficial moratorium on building. Shouldn't this paragraph be stricken or at least a time limit placed on the County's discretionary powers? • Why is there no variance based on medical necessity? Medications may have an adverse effect on the anaerobic bacteria used in these systems. Others suffer from severe allergies and must use specific household products which may not be compatible with these J systems? Diabetics use bath oils to prevent cracking and bleeding of their feet, a critical part of managing diabetes. Do these people quit taking their medications? Do diabetics become invalids because they can no longer properly care for themselves? Or, will the County impose even more financial burdens in the form of increased maintenance calls. • Why is CDD seeking adoption of this ordinance prior to the release of the scientific reports? Per their 2007-2008 draft work plan, they intend to initiate a grant extension through anyway. • Why have "red lots" been excluded? These property owners have the right to develop their land or be fairly compensated at market value. Why has CDD placed an unwritten moratorium on these parcels? • Why weren't more extensive public outreach efforts made beginning in 2002 when staff knew the direction they were moving? • Have you monitored the test systems performance since completion of their testing? What has their performance rate been in the past 2 years? • Why is a certified installer a benefit over skilled labor? In Orenco's Case Study: La Pine, Ore on, Bijan Pour, Ph. D. of Oregon's DEQ, in discussing the AdvanTex treatment system is quoted as saying "the AdvanTex system is more convenient to install. A sand filter takes skilled labor to build onsite." • Why is CDD stating nitrates cause cancer? DEQ's fact sheet "Nitrate in Drinking Water" states "there is no clear evidence of an increased risk of cancer in humans." • Why is CDD stating nitrate levels of 1 part-per-million (ppm) is contamination? DEQ's fact sheet "Nitrate in Drinking Water' states that "a nitrate level of up to 3ppm is generally believed to be naturally-occurring. What data does CDD possess that evidence current nitrate levels represent contamination? Or, is this just assumption? • What tests were performed to rule out other sources of nitrate contamination? Chapter 23.44.010 B(¶ 3) of the Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County states that 11 onsite septic systems are the only significant source of nitrates in the La Pine area." Without scientific testing to support this statement, it is no more than theory! • Were nitrate levels of 7 mg/I reached in 2005 as stated in Chapter 23.44.010 B (¶6) of Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes? If not, please state the urgency of Local Rule. • Will we be able to file Measure 37 claims for property devaluation if this legislation is adopted? • Are you, our Commissioners, willing to force South County residents from our homes because we are unable to pay the on-going operation and maintenance fees, not to mention the fees CDD states they will impose? • Do current test results substantiate the alleged contamination? Since the EPA report and USGS study results haven't been made public, it calls the results into question. • How can CDD accurately predict population growth for the USGS model when interest in buying in the area, according to local realtors, has dropped 67%? Such a drastic drop is not adequately explained by the real estate cycle. • Is there any concrete evidence that nitrates from each and every septic system will migrate to the aquifer or is this just a best guess from the models? • Why does the County wish to adopt legislation that requires drinking water standards for septic effluent? • How often will these systems need to be replaced? Research into the systems states they will operate satisfactorily for approximately 10 years. Are we to expect an $18,000 expenditure every 10 years? • Is it true that the presence of enteric bacteria rather than nitrates appears to be a more important factor for causing blue baby syndrome? • If, in 1982, groundwater tests revealed nitrate levels ranging from 10 - 40 mg/I, why didn't the state or federal governments assume authority of the region at that time? Were they informed? • Who provided the data the USGS used in their models? • La Pine North: Two Futures makes a reference to low income families who manage to remain - is this legislation designed to cause low-income families to lose their homes? Is this the County's approach to acquiring property without paying market price? • Why is $7,000 too much for CDD to spend to re-visit the USGS model as requested on 1/30/07 when they intend to mandate each property owner to spend $7,500 - $18,000 or more to install these systems? They still have money left in both the National Demonstration Project and Federal Earmark grant funds. • What is the back-up plan if too many of the nitrates are removed from the environment causing vegetation or fish to die out? • How do TDCs and PRCs equate to the immediate preservation of public health, safety and welfare? 5-VI3114 I-)- To: Deschutes County Commissioners March 13, 2007 The four main points I wish to make: 1. Allow time for South County to review Groundwater Plan. 2. South County create an alternative plan that will include community systems. 3. Place the County Plan and the Alternative Plan on a ballot and let the voters decide. 4. Red lots are privately owned and are entitled to the same rights as all other lots. On behalf of South County, I am requesting 12-18 months to review the County Plan after all of the studies are completed. The river study and the USGS Model paper have not been completed. During this 12-18 month period, here are the items that by South County hope to complete: • Objectively review the groundwater model. Preliminary evidence suggests the model may not reflect the conditions of South County. South County should hire a hydro-geologist and the County should pay for this. • Retest 100 wells that were sampled in 1995 and 2000 for nitrates and bacteria. Split samples should be taken with USGS or DEQ. Condition of each of the wells and septic systems should be made. Distance from the well to any septic system should be measured. Type of well, depth, and age should be determined. We need to know what these wells really represent. • Determine if the groundwater model accurately predicts the nitrate conditions of South County. The well samples will provide a 12-year study to determine if nitrates are truly increasing or not. • Provide a comparison of all individual wastewater systems and various kinds of community systems. This should include cost, maintenance, degree of treatment, pollutants that are treated and removed, area required for treatment unit, area required for dispersal of the treated water; possible uses of reclaimed wastewater, and the ability to remove pollutants that may arise in the future. We have several local community systems that have a long track record. There are new data that shows the effectiveness of individual onsite systems to remove nitrates. • Prepare an alternative to the County Plan and let the South County People vote on what plan they want. BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Wert & Associates, Inc.; 2590 NE Courtney Drive, Suite 1; Be: Groundwater Issues - La Pine 't5C'"C'- a-MO I Exhibit L T; • Review State and Federal laws with regard to nitrates. It is my understanding that the correct procedure in the State of Oregon is to monitor a set of wells that all parties agree represent the aquifer. When 50% of those wells reach 7 MG/L of nitrate, a groundwater management area is established (GWMA). DEQ refers to these as GWAMIES. South County does not have a GWMA. We do not have 50% of the wells with nitrates above 7 MG/L. The EPA standard of 10 MG/L applies to community drinking water supplies. EPA does not regulate individual wells. As far as I know, there is no EPA or State mandatory directives that have been written to Deschutes County. The rush to implement the County Plan is driven by Deschutes County alone. After this review, the South County should consider establishing their own GWMA and take charge of the procedure. The County does not have to be the driving force. The people can do this as far as I know. South County will want to involve the County, but they will want to study the law and then decide. • The South County will need the revenue from the sale of the new village. I am not sure that the transferable development credits and pollution reduction credits makes sense. This should also be studied. One of the best things to come out of the County's Plan is the clever creation of the New Village for generating a large sum of money. This is a keeper. The red lots are privately owned. The County acts as if they own them and can do with as they wish without paying for them. The County does not own the red lots. If they want to use them to reshape the old subdivisions, they should buy them at market value. Today, the value is somewhere around $100,000,000. Somehow, the County has taken "ownership" of these lots in their minds to the point that they are writing guidelines and grants to make the red lots open space, wildlife habitat, and riparian zones. All noble goals, but they do not own them. United States law says ownership of land guarantees certain rights. In my opinion, the County has violated property rights. I do not want to be a part of anything illegal or that diminishes personal property rights. If the lots are legal, which they are, then the owner is entitled to the same privileges as any other lot owner. The State laws do allow safe methods of providing wastewater systems on these lots. The County has blocked their use and in my opinion, this is very wrong and perhaps illegal. The County has said for over 14 years that they will not allow the red lots to be developed. They say they are still considering them. This I doubt very seriously. That has been their answer for far too long. These lots are legal and they should be treated equal to all other lots because there are acceptable State systems to allow development. Steve Wert 2 Wert & Associates, Inc.; 2590 NE Courtney Drive, Suite 1; Bend, OR 97701 3-27-07 RE; LOCAL RULE QUESTIONS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS COMMISSIONER'S MEETING WITH SOUTH COUNTY RESIDENTS THIS SAME DATE: MARCH 275 2007 BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit VIN IP • Barbara, this question is for you: If in the future the county decides we need to change out these nitrate- filtering systems for another system because the models you have approved now will not handle bacteria and viruses, who is going to pay for it? Is the county? 13.7 i 03-02-07 QUESTIONS: • How do we know that the increased nitrate levels are not the result of a natural cycle rather than human impact/effect? To date: we have been given NO scientific data to support this statement. On CDD's website it states there was suppose to be NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE inserts in our October, 2006 tax bills. What are they? Where are they? Only a handful of South County residents said they received them. Why is this? Who was responsible for overseeing the `insert project'? Why didn't you see it through to its completion? This same reference is also mentioned in the Local Rule Summary to the Planning Commission. Did you think we wouldn't notice? • Is a grant program being developed for those who are unable to afford a filtration system AND to cover the on-going costs? And, for how long? 1/13 • My question is regarding projected future growth: If the South County area continues to grow as projected and we have to install very expensive filtration systems, wouldn't it be more likely that we would expect to see a decline in growth due the costs of these systems? Realtors have reported that interest in La Pine area properties have already declined. Comments from Portland area realtors are that. "You folks down there. have bad water and potential buyers are backing out of deals because of the proposed Local Rule." 13.5 I if • My question is regarding the threat of BLUE BABY SYNDROME: Barbara Rich keeps hammering that nitrates cause Blue Baby syndrome. Barbara, when was the last reported case of Blue Baby Syndrome in South Deschutes County? For that fact, have there been any? 11.6 3-27-07 RE; LOCAL RULE QUESTIONS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS COMMISSIONER'S MEETING WITH SOUTH COUNTY RESIDENTS THIS SAME DATE: MARCH 27, 2007 BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit ~,J • My question is in regards to "densely developed area. Who can tell me a definition of "densely populated area" in regards to the contamination of groundwater" is in the process in densely populated areas?" So, what is more densely populated? Crescent Creek with its 4-6 homes per acre or an acre lot with 1 inhabitant? • Was there a big, significant difference between the 40 test site systems and the 9 control systems? Weren't the 9 control systems sand filters? 3/13 • In the July 28, 2005 TAC report CDD staff estimated that 300 tons of nitrates would be delivered into the aquifer at build-out, when every build able lot was built on. One (1) month later on August 18, 2005, the model estimated that only 75 tons of nitrates a year would enter the aquifer at this same build-out. That is a difference of 225 tons of nitrate - in less than a month. Now, I would like either a TAC member from the panel or Catherine to address this. Where did 225 tons of nitrates go in less than a month? Was the tactic of using sensational language like 300 tons used just to pull TAC members on board? Even your model assumptions state that 75 tons is a ....MAYBE.... at build-out. Are these exaggerated, huge numbers being used to infer an EMERGENCY? Catherine, can you here?please explain what is going on 13.9 • The EPA can't enforce this ordinance. • So, what authority does the county have to mandate the installation of these systems? 3.10 • This question if for someone who wants to talk about nitrate levels: I am concerned about the discrepancies in nitrate levels between two reports just 18 months apart. The first report is from a TAC meeting on July 28, 2005 where it states that nitrate levels in unincorporated areas of South County were between 20-40 mg/l. Then just 18 months later in Jan 23, 2007, the Local Rule fact sheet reports, and I quote: "68% of nitrate levels in unincorporated areas of LaPine were at 5 mg/I or greater and 22% are at 1mg/I or higher. If my addition is correct, that leaves 10% at less than 1mg/1. So, if in just 18 months between July 05 and Jan 07 the nitrate levels dropped substantially, doesn't this indicate that (1) the filtration systems are not warranted at this time, and (2) that an EMERGENCY NO LONGER EXISTS • WE, collectively REQUEST THE EMERGENCY STATUS BE LIFTED. 13.8 • Barbara, this question is for you: In reference to the USGS 3-dimentional model it states "...the science (embodied in the USGS 3- dimentional and optimization model) is applied in support of the solution. To support something means to brace it up, to shore it up, to add reinforcement to something, or to back up something. • Reading this quotation makes it sound like the solution is already determined, now we just need to apply the science in such a way that it supports the solution. My question to you, Barbara is: What is this quote saying to you, exactly Is that the same thing as manipulation? Is someone trying to influence or control the outcome here? 13.8 3-27-07 RE; LOCAL RULE QUESTIONS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS COMMISSIONER'S MEETING WITH SOUTH COUNTY RESIDENTS THIS SAME DATE: MARCH 27, 2007 BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit _Q • Is there any concrete evidence that nitrates from each and every septic system will migrate to the aquifer? Or, is this, too, just a best guess? Are efficiency levels of the new systems being mandated by population densities of the area? For example, in this area, how many families live here? White areas versus light green areas versus dark green areas 13.4 • Would the County have undertaken this proposed legislation without the benefit of our tax dollars in the form of a grants? • If you hadn't taken millions of our tax dollars, would you still have undertaken this project? 3-12 7 • The County has been heard to say they did not want to play Santa Claus to us here in South County. • Who would like to respond to this statement? Have we asked you to plan Santa Claus? 3.13 f i • Barbara, could you please tell us how many speaking engagements you have had where information in the USGS `optimized' model is used as your subject? • And how many more speaking engagements have you scheduled, when and where? (Listen to answer) Barbara, are you receiving speaker fees for these? • Are these engagements on county time? • You mean to say, you are making your reputation on my time? Let's see if I have it right: You are making money, selling our data in a USGS model/study and NOTHING in that model has been proven? • Did I get it right? Thank you. • Reference: Nov 2-3, 2005 Groundwater Under the Pacific Northwest Conference in Stevenson, WA. • Barbara, could you please tell us how many speaking engagements you have had where information in the USGS `optimized' model is used as your subject? • And how many more speaking engagements have you scheduled, when and where? • Barbara, are you receiving speaker fees for these? • Are these engagements on county time? 3.14 V' • Tom, this question is for you: In the Feb. 28thmeeting with the Commissioners you said,"..... this is a viable system," when asked by Commissioner Daly if there were other systems out there. Viable to me mean," it's working and possibly has a reasonable chance of succeeding." Can you guarantee South County property owners that what you propose is any better than just a "WORKABLE system which has a reasonable chance of succeeding? A 3-27-07 -61 RE; LOCAL RUL QUESTIONS O BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS COMMIISSIONER'S MEETING WITH SOUTH COUNTY RESIDENTS THIS SAME DATE: MARCH 27, 2007 BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit TESTIMO TTl1T T[`IT~T Tl1T l GROUNDWA cil&~ a 7ri SEPTIC I SUE D~ f ~ D, AGES; ARS MA LAPINE; RETIRED/SINGLENVIDOWEDBREAD-VMgNER FOR FAM.Y/EIGHBORHOOD) p A CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITION (FIXED INCOME PERCENTAGE OF INCOME TO MEDICAL FOOD GAS ETC. • `END OF MONTH' AVAILABLE CASH FOR UPGRADE) $ .~,;,4 1, -zz COUNTY "LOCAL RULE" CONSEQUENCES: (HOW WILL GROUNDWATER/SEPTIC UPGRADE AFFECT YOUR HOUSEHOLD IF PASSED?) .mss Signature not required' ~~1c~~ r Date i~ Please return to a committee member a.s.a.p. to be included in a profile sheet of how "un- affordable" this proposed Local Rule is for South Deschutes County residents 2 26 07 i' s March 27, 2007 To be entered into the record of the Commissioner's meeting in LaPine re: Local Rule, this same date: 1. The definition of "Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System" in 13.14.020 is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative power to the Oregon DEQ. The definition requires each applicant to install whatever system the DEQ has determined removes the most nitrogen at the time of permit. This definition essentially delegates to DEQ the ability to amend the county's ordinance to require a different system at any point in the future. Future systems could be significantly more expensive and more difficult to install, and may create other problems not analyzed by the County in this ordinance. This is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative authority. At such times new systems are developed and approved by DEQ, the County must affirmatively amend its code and consider the costs, benefits and efficacy of each such system before it mandates its use. 2. The decision to adopt this ordinance has a significant impact on land use because it affects facilities that impact rural residential development. It should therefore have been analyzed and adopted pursuant to the post- acknowledgment land use process set forth in ORS 197.610 to 197.625. 3. Financial assistance mechanism should be developed and in place before the County imposes any mandate. The staff report notes that there are many low income residents in the area that will be impacted by the substantial expense, and promises to develop additional assistance programs in the future. The residents can't rely on a promise to do something in the future; they need to know now what assistance will be available. The County should not adopt any mandate, at least as it applies to existing systems until the full assistance program is in place. I 'I T My name is Judy Forsythe, and, I am a resident of South County. Thank you, Commissioners and Staff for coming to our town again this evening. Tonight, March 27, 2007, we, the citizens of South County have come out again to tell you, our commissioners, honestly, frankly, candidly and openly we are opposed to Local Rule in South County. I would first like to thank Vic Russell tonight for sharing the following quote by Ted Levitt of the Harvard Business Review: I QUOTE: "Nothing is more wasteful than doing with the greatest efficiency that which should not be done in the first place." How true: nothing iS more wasteful than doing with the greatest efficiency that which should not be done in the first place. This next quote is from my dad, and probably everybody else's dad, too. In raising seven children, he repeated this saying more than once: "If you're going to do IT; do IT right the first time!" My six brothers and I have carried this philosophy into adulthood and through the years we all learned two things the `hard way': (1) if we didn't do it right the first time, where were we going to find time to do it over, and (2) if we didn't do it right the first time, where were we going to get the m, ones to do it over? BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwat Issues - La Pine Exhibit 2,,-, If IT is going to be done at all: SOUTH COUNTY wants the RIGHT thing done at the RIGHT time for the GOOD OF ALL! You, our commissioners have been given authority, BY THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE to act as OUR AGENTS. You have been commissioned to act on OUR behalf; that means here tonight, you are to act on the behalf of EVERY RESIDENT of South County. NOTHING WOULD BE MORE WASTEFUL AT THIS TIME THAN PROCEEDING WITH GREAT EFFICIENCY AND SPEED WITH THE PROPOSED, LOCAL RULE LEGISLATION. LOCAL RULE IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST. IT IS, at best, a TEMPORARY FIX to a POTENTIAL PROBLEM which MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. And, for these reasons: LOCAL RULE SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE! We are not interested in a cruick fix or a bandaid!! We have spent the last two weeks plus tonight testifying and giving supportive documentation to the fact that: IF A POTENTIAL PROBLEM CAN BE PROVEN TO INDEED, EXISU BY A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE COUNTY'S PROCESSES OVER THE PAST DOZEN YEARS), WE ARE WILLING TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. WE WILL, HOWEVER, ONLY CONSIDER THAT WHICH WILL RESULT IN A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ALL! NO QUICK FIXES FOR ANY REASON IS THAT POSSIBLE?? Well, UNTIL ALL DATA IS IN, THE RIVER STUDY IS COMPLETE, A THOROUGH REVIEW HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY (CHOSEN, IN PART, BY THE CITIZENS OF SOUTH COUNTY): We, your constituents in South County are telling you tonight, we do not aaarove of, consent to, sanction, nor Live the ao-ahead to the proposed Local Rule in South County, and, You, our commissioners, DO NOT HAVE our ENDORSEMENT to ENGAGE IN OR IMPOSE UPON SOUTH COUNTY, THIS MOST APPALLING AND DISASTEROUS INITIATIVE. Thank you very much for coming tonight. In closing, if there is anything we, here in South County can do to ASSIST County Staff in providing you with the necessary and essential completed data and river studies, just let us know. We, too, want to see the FACTS! SOUTH COUNTY WANTS: THE RIGHT THING DONE AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THE RIGHT REASON: FOR THE GOOD OF ALL! LA PINE GROUND WATER POLLUTION Septic systems are the primary cause of pollution. Time is a factor in the pollution process. Pollution has been an on-going fact for the past 50 or more years. If all septic systems were removed today, there would still be pollution in the ground. The pollution is not limited to just Nitrates. There are still bacteria, viruses, etc to contend with. To filter only nitrates would be an inadequate process to guarantee safe drinking water. Since pollution is already in the ground and the companies that manufacture the filters can only guarantee 10 M/L of protection, when the State. of Oregon requires 7 M/L, it would seem only reasonable to find another method of providing safe drinking water. Sewer systems would appear to be a much better approach, even though more expensive but better in the long run with the growth of population and the value of our homes. Besides being over 50 years too late to stop pollution, why are sewers not allowed for rural areas in the State of Oregon according to Mike-Dail s? ~Tl e County has a 10-11 lon £'~S° /a '5 L_ g"y-ee r period, to expand the city sewer out a each year. Since the State of Oregon owns the water in our wells, they will close down the use of our wells when the pollution exceeds their standards anyway. So the best solution seems to be to find an area near La Pine where good water can be acquired, where pollution will not take place, duel wells and provide the residents with safe drinking water with a County WateySystem. WATER SYSTEMS IS THE ONLY RIGHT SOLUTION!!!!! BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit S Catherine, this question is for you; it is in two parts: First I would like to give the definition of the word, EMERGENCY. It means, "...an unforeseen event or condition requiring prompt action. " Now I think all of us in this room can remember events in our lives or reports we have heard on the evening news that fit the definition I just share: Hurricane Katrina, The Twin Towers, The Columbus Day Storm of the 60's, or the wild-fires of Central Oregon. All of these fit the definition of an unforeseen event or condition requiring prompt action. Well, in Deschutes County, in just the 7 years I have lived here, not one, but two ordinances have been passed, one in 2002 and another in June of 2006, both of which declared an EMERGENCY in Deschutes County. The wording in both ordinances read the same: "necessary for the IMMEDIATE preservation of the public peace, health and safety; an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance takes effect upon its passage. " WOW! Where was I? Catherine, my question is a long one, but please let me finish before you respond. By what means was the public of Deschutes County notified of these declared emergencies to protect our public peace, safety and health? What was the emergency? Were my invalid neighbors, my friends, families and I in danger? Was there panic, confusion, concern, traffic jams, calls to police and fire-departments; were there instructions to follow on the radio and TV? Was Deschutes County in panic? EMERGENCY means, "an unforeseen event or condition requiring prompt action. Did the county perform as first responders as they have been trained? Were the hospitals and BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 GroundwatIssues - La Pine Exhibit clinics overrun with panic-stricken people? Please, Catherine, first explain what emergencies existed in Deschutes County that threatened public peace, safety and health in 2002 and again in 2006 and secondly, how did you notify the public and how were the emergencies resolved? Has the alert been lifted? 13.7 D A "PC UCe I's e ~e NDaJ 6 9 UES T/ 01( (fu S ~ ~(_,~~0 d,, t r ~t-- M ~:trtc /vc, CDF --He v3~- T p -t -wc- w p 4,s. 5 T4-c- k sWE2, FROM `t ocs l ~ d > _ TES 1 ):5 A Q-O p-v C )F O u , W e ~G rtt-~q se ws C~)UR sec c, f Q, f RAY k4s(EP- s VE k I-W D T ~A C 44 6 A F C2. + TO e VL\1 ~1 - ~ i ~1. a 1 s ~ a ~L-. t~A ~l / coo ! (-lib ~`1 W C L- - - C-V, CoA D Cz 1 No C, a /A G, -f- 1-\ ~ o T (A C- b -C7- ~2 t,~ ~,>1 C- 4 A At D rArt 0 L~ V i IV Rini t ~0A), BOCC Public Hearing #3 March 27, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit- NOTICE TO WATER WELL CON't'-HACTOR Tile original and first copy of this report WATER WELL REPORT are to be filed with the WATER RESOliRCES DEPA SALEM, OREGON 97 within 30 days from the of well completian. G STATE OF OREGON ~J r (Please type or print) (Do not write above this line) (1) OWNER: Name Address (2) TYPE OF WOR (check): New Well J4 Deepening 0 Reconditioning ❑ Abandon C3 If abandonment, describe material and procedure in Item 12. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PRO:7ndu D USE (check): Rotary ❑ fy, riven O Domestic str lal ❑ Municipal C3 t a le Jetted 0 ❑ Bored ❑ Irrigation ❑ . TeAt Well ❑ Other 13 / (5) CASING INSTALLED: Thrreeadd ❑ Welded Q~'~11 C 6_. N Diam. from .._t~......_._ ft. to ..f.G. L.(..._ ft. Gage ...'.S~t.- Diam. from ft. to ft. Gage Diam. from ft. to ft Gage (6) PERFORATIONS: Perforated? ❑ Yes o. Type of perforator used Size of perforations In. by in. perforations from ft. to ft. perforations from it. to St. perforations. Lrom ft. to ft. (7) SCREENS: Well screen installed? 0 Yes Manufacturer's Name Type _ Model No. DiamSlot size Set from ft. to f:. Diam Slot size Set from ft. to ft (8) WELL TESTS: Drawdo to amount water level to lower below static level W a pump test made? n Yes No If yea, by whom? gal./min. with ft drawdown after hrs. M N N N Bailer test 1,2_ gal./min, with ft drawdown after hrs. Alan flow a P.M. g. Temperature of water4/7mpth artesian flow encountered ft (9) CONSTRUCTION: Well seal-Material used - Well sealed from land surface to 01Z....,_.j ...............1n _ ft Diameter of well bore to bottom of sea//t ....1_ _ Diameter of well bore below seal ....._..72 Number of sacks of cement used ip we seal sacks How was cement grout placed? Was a drive shoe used? ❑ Yes o Plugs 31ze • ocatlon ft. Dtd any strata contain unusable water? j] Yes Type of water? depth of strata Method of sealing strata off Was well gravel packed? Yes O 6fie of gravel Gravel placed from ft. to ft. (10) State well No. . -1--c?.1..><1 ~.YQ State Permit No. 15 1:- V. Section 7?/ T.o.z / R. / / W.M. //~V 1. Bears and distance r gm se ion or subdivision comer (11) WATER L: Completed well. Depth at which water was first found ~7 J ft. Static level 7.5 ft. below land surface. Date Artesian pressure . lbs. per square Inch. Date (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below casing ..45 Depth drilled 1,9-6 it. Depth of completed well A" ft. Formation: Describe color, texture. grain size and structure of materials: and show thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. with at least one entry for each change of formation. Report each change in position of Static Water Level and Indicate principal water-bearing strata. Work alerted z y 18 ~Q Completed 3 - - X 18190 Date well drilling machine moved off of well .3 . 3 19 g1v Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: This well was constructed under my direct supervision. Materials used and information reported above are true to my best knowledge pnd f. 'l ~i~"1 [Signed] . Date 1~JQS (Drilling a l e ter) . Drilling Machine Operator's License No...g6 Water Well Contmetor's Certification: This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is true to the b~est_ of my kk~n~owlpdge =4_~elief. Name .......a.. _ . CC ~~-..^^f-i-r~~m uo~1 - or lnj) Address ~.t ).~....7..-._. [Signed] ~-Y.. (wat~r Well contractor) Contractor's License No. (.11... Date C!9.7, 460 (USE ADDITIONAL, SHEETS IF NECESSARY) SP-459 I19 J - o Jay Duncan, Pine Forest Lane La Pine, Oregon This has been a very upsetting time especially for folks that would rather be concerned in figuring out how they are going to buy food and medicine, rather that making sure they catch the nitrates as they come througl in 20 to 50 years (Nov. 25`h Bulletin). It is so hard to imagine that doing 6400 septic, all at one time without tax money being wasted. Citizen's property being subject to a dug up mess, cost of removal, disposing of old system without major contamination, permits, county proposed yearly registration, cost of system, monthly maintenance, any unforeseen cost. What is the cost of all those items? Sounds bazaar? Well, it does to us too. I called on 180 people, in talking with them, there was nobody, rich, poor, fixed income, that was really anxious to go forward with this plan. A young family had just bought there first home. I did not feel good when they explained that everything they had, had gone into getting this house. And they surely would loose their home if the home rule was past. It is hard to see such hardships put on the residents. Many people felt they would not be involved, due to having replaced new septic in very recent years. They could not believe that anyone would take such a backward step. The nitrates do not enter in here, simply because by the time they could be a problem, there is very high speculating that cluster system would be replacing our systems with totally different septic systems, all the while we would still be paying, those that could, on the system proposed today. Have heard County has land for sale. If local rule passes no idea what would come of it. I estimate out of 6400 there would be 3200 that would fall into the category of not being able to pay. So in essence an alternative would be to sell home, use the money, if any from sale, to rent, in order to keep roof over our hea as long as possible. There is no guarantee that the home could be sold until the septic was installed. Who gets the home? I believe that 3200 might be a low figure. It's going to take a lot of money and somirthese people are not able to even pay monthly service charge. Again I think 3200 is a low number. How much dii you come up with? We are close neighbors and friends in La Pine. Too close to see anybody loose their home. It would be a shame for someone to close their eyes to this and proceed. It also begs for a different system. Something that is more affordable. Did anyone one of you get a chance to talk with the local residents, to actually get a feel for how this is goin; to effect people in south Deschutes County? How many Snowbirds have been brought up to date? It is only fair that they be enlightened as they will be affected by this proposal. I cannot tell you what a relief and good feeling it would give us, the citizen of La Pine, to have the county commissioners to be interested in us, in order to make a good decision. As I was visiting with people, I would not inquire about their financial situation. However I would list a few that to a degree offer their situation. Two women in our neighborhood felt they would loose their home, twc men felt the same, a young couple had put everything into getting their home and felt they would loose their home if the local rule passed. I had asked a lady at post office parking lot if she was a home owner in La Pin area and she replied," No thank goodness, she wouldn't be in La Pine very long, She was moving out" Sh was very upset/ A very black eye for La Pine. Three business owners said if local rule past they were out of here. Another lady was moving to another county if local rule passed. One older lady brought her mother BOCC Public Hearing 43 March 27, 2007 Groundwate ssues - La Pine Exhibit V ~tll LL ICJ 2 Ito cJ ~ fo here because they weren't able keep up the cost of living in California. If home rule passes she has no idea what they are going to do. You are already causing La Pine to have property issues. mould jyq"o buy in L-mine? They get bad water. It's so bad they have to replace 6400 septic systems. Gossip spreads fast. Bend, Redmond, Sisters to e north and all areas south . Scare tactic have been applied, blue baby syndrome, spontaneous abortions, cancer, all from nitrates. These have not been medically proven, but still have been passed on as fact. We have found evidence through our investigations that these finding are incorrect. But the county, news media and paper still publish untruths. h. The impact of this program it too great, we need other solutions. There are many more out there, facing v financial ruin. People are scared and confused. This disruption would be devastating because there is no nee L for this project car-hee-to be pushed through without letting the citizens become more involved with finding a better solution. WE HAVE THE TIME. LET'S SLOW DOWN AND CHECK OUT ALL THE AVENUES. LI~FEELARS NOT ONE PER=WE , SHOULD LOOSE THEIR HOME OVER SOMETHING THAT IS 10 TO 50 FROM NOW. HAVE TIME TO FIND A BETTER SOLUTION 0 S l ~d ~c as ~e".4 rt> Ld t,Lc~JS ~T woc - d vs o /1 ~Q aJ I`'t-a'u-~ 120~(tE w n o C " A J S ws t' pe ~,J « 1 s LLB s ~P s g4- e 17- / t:i / o / 2 -1 -Tv, 1 f "/fin e /yL; 5 00aLi 91, r 0 ; ~L 1 6e, C- - -r ~nVL,,De--,T 0-e- &e, a-LL-e 6F 1 ~4 d d C7 L t. 4 c~ u x r- c 0 a c N LL ~l~-C e c d 4P ~6<vo ti v 2 JcdZ 41rz (T~ auk SoYJ yS lam- - ep W ~w 4 6 hJ r~ t 46 Y4 "1 11 0 1 Z ea 'i r _ c k- . ~ ra f ids d cGrL o u s e s/ d If y AXV lac o~ e~ C Me a .U' 06 luQ- ~~b tJeeg ro /it v ca~ r i G 7 ee c 122 6 tO t1 0 e-11A JA See / cc.) -f L: d iJo ~ d / ~ s Be'cevuJ a wte 5 / nJc 9o ~j TO~y()Aj Vo icJ ~ ~i~s. ~2U "(2/S~c- i S ~ Adzixax-A- I/ ~ L1 le d~er~ 6 c•e i CCU e / F/ ~ 4~0~ ~ dz e tJJ~-s G %kf )4 (/e r ALL z. Go►t .9 G~ . h e a 56-" ,mss AA @gs,~~.r 5 L~ Si ILL 41Z ~C 0V ~K./ rile 1'foStor e GJ t.J~u L~Q e Utz GC,~ Le Ash 1 ~(~v 1~~4s ~'e~ o2~~060 s Z B yp IJ`rJ j ~ Zc-- !i~ ✓t-- / L E p c OU/a G I t AZ/t c f 5eV 1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP ~AOv 9-77 q ✓ Gf ✓ J__~ Zd vr1 t C v4 1.x4 ~i►✓L'7 Q1, W 771-> Ctw t~0 y Q ~1 rl'e 77x73 0 t/l rf .c1 r;' 1 f~ pj 6--( 5,- 757 OC4C~ CMP t`~c X17730 J A) 64aO V61( Kee i . ' ~c ~ 15~ 7S c114 L11) LcTou 1~-O- JC~~ C-4Z3 1-7 33 rjO, v\Fe r4L S --rw L n BOCC Sign-In Sheet -412~ 31X7107 E- A "6" f V4- -3ocC ~u 6~i c +iearr~~# 3 MdLrc,~ D7, aad7 6 r-d u n d W a,4 v^ ssu es R~ +1e Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP l! e V c C 7,7 q775 6_0.44>ely A 5TadZ. Gr¢ Oii✓~ °1 77 mac- Cam; s S S q 6 lgv t 5"~ m e) v? J~~Q c2,s s2~~~ ~L) e, '9 7 7-3 Z"-f 31 9 773 l~ 1 2 yt C r'f / ~ G S s ~cw ~ BB q ~ I 7 BOCC Sign-In Sheet aA2eA 7- -3 !2-716V IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in t County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: ~ ? ~_f Lam) 6 ►~e-- Phone ~s-f E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La- Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. ame.-D t~l \1 r4~ Cc~ ' tailing Address: S3046 , tt IQ\r y t' LCD L ~ hone 5 t - ~~S--~f y -mail Address:41, Vavgrlc rll _ caw )ate: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 abject: La Pine On-site Sewer gtems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:~4 Mailing Address: 88o ger+p ~ 2 f Phone CsN,~ 3~0 - 2~9 E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Svstems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a ounty staff person. Name "Mailing Addres C) 990 Phone cvv- E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, Marc 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. turn it in to a County stiff person. <j Name: ~1- Name: Act M i Mailing Address: l~~ 10 cam, oi0 I Mailing Address: a 0~ Wwle 77739 Phone Phone "t-,536- e67), s 36 ~y Address: E-mail Address: )C.,,~ E-mail 0( Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 >ubject: La Pine On-site Sewer Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer >ystems/Groundwater Issues Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: ae 4 Mailin Address: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. D ' dame: 3 -L~i Mailing Address: L© L~ 7 - r si 8° Phone s- -3 c, E-mail Address: 2007 Date: Tuesda March 20 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer 'S stems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU..-WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: o ` t Mailing Address: - Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March-20,2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: i 1 Mailing Address: so - ),Oi_ P, K Phone #:3~ E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: 13, / Q c) A-) /0 Mailing Address: T 3a x s Phone s- C E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: L~;//£2 Mailing Address: roc, /ecx .3s( LX t-Vlf, o,e. 17 773 9 Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: i -o ze , 7 Mailing Address: , g x s` Phone sr3 6 E-mail Address: 'gvr Qa$? 7_1' 11)412 7- Q M"s Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: C~II a-co Mailing Address: pe _ vex y ~ Phone 53 k,, Z.-7`7 E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: C~~wn I~~v; s Mailing Address: Rc/h'or 9>707 Phone y~ -ff3 3732 E-mail Address: ,6c✓;,,s Jfav c~,~ Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County `staff person. Name: ~ ~v ~ i- Mailing Ad ess: ~3qq ID,~e rvv v- ~ Phone ~ 3 _ 3a E-mail Address: IF Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: -i em Mailing Address: cjpcgze _QQ►- 5?4 t+01 dut OTZ q-2 39 Phone S-34, - 6)z_5 Z -mail Address: ~P, 1.._ee 2-ex, ~12 &r►n Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 subject: La Pine On-site Sewer sy tems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: l C~ Mailing Address: 20b Phone E-mail Address: o Date: Tuesday, March 2 , 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer F~ YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:6cl2X I J 0, ~~s~y✓ Mailing Address: Po, ox 902 a ku r , t~:)RF !7 Phone ,S- 6 o,7 6s- E-mail Address: I R,~d/,v~L Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: -To-~. Mailing Address: s- Z76 s f-1- 4 Lg4( y Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a Cou, staff person. Name: b Mailing Address: 527 Phone 5 - ~S E-mail Address: cor,,gd,'~y Date: Tuesday, arch 20, 2007 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: r?Q _ S- Phone E-mail Address: ~~~h@ Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: 5;(Ua~,w6 Mailing Address(: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Z',, ~ Mailing Address: n,_ J Lzzo,, Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 V YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Jame: "L~RA ~Qv Mailing Address: 6A 61, CuNei v~ i; oz. 0-1 'hone - 7 q .-mail Address: )ate: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 subject: La Pine On-site Sewer 'ystems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. - i i j,,o IAI,4, - ~1,1 C lame: tailing Addre s: 14,8073 c4wv ` 0~- .ione 5ql 5q3 /c533 -mail Address: if-A, n4ky- q0 ,L ~ ate: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 abject: La Pine On-site Sewer istems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: 1,S-LLZ 6ahpH, Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn ' in a Coun staff person,, Name: -41--Z Mailin j Addres • l e2 Phone S E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to-a County staff person. game: " Mailing Addre s: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:/ / If - . 'hone g~rl :-mail Address: )ate: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 ubject: La Pine On-site Sewer ystems/Groundwater Issues Mailing Address: T Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer F YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Jame: FRS ~ -~"L,~/ Mailing Address: o. &X20 'hone --3-32 -mail Address: /`'C X )ate: Tuesdav, March 20, 2007 ubject: La Pine On-site Sewer sy tems/Groundwater _Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Jame: Mailing Address .k\3L hone -mail Address: ate: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 ibject: La Pine On-site Sewer stems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to "ounty staff person. Names` Mailing Address: fif> E; Phone e~-~~ &,;2, E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: _/"'~>h i,/-,/ 1, / h v Mailing Addr ss: Phone E-mail Address: z Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems Groundwater Issues -ice Fi T1Trtyl I t' Y Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in togCoG.w4y staff person. Name: (,lji~xl-w~ C3cGJ Mailing Address: s G Phone E-mail Address- waoa Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer ' Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:` Lh,/v Lao ci Mailing Address: /dIl"I"e Phone 536-- 0-4// E-mail Address: vb ,gv Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer 5ystems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: P,-) X)x Phone 7 E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a Count staff person. Name: `5 / 1 1//'^ 0 cam,,- D,S' Mailing Address: ~.x.3 Phone -t;-3 6 - ?,5,5 5- E-mail Address: ,sue,. )ate: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 subject: La Pine On-site Sewer stems Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it into a County staff rson. Name: a z~z e Mailing Address: 1 f75 WCR-C, Loi VoLAk, 1~0~0a X1131 Phone SS 6 6 E-mail Address: l.N-Lye,6,9LL ~q O~c Cc Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Svstems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: i~,~ Mailing Address: ~ Lz Phone 174 E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: D Mailing Address: 977 38 ~~~75 ~~Pti► 6p- Phone --5~~ E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Svstems/Groundwater Issues F YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: & g v Mailing Address: (P-zV4 9 2 r Phone S- /_S'3 6,_ / 3? If E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La. Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a Count staff person. Name: rrQ r1 ~ ~1 Mailing Address: /n.~ qq Phone -4, v E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, 1 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Svstems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a C unty staff erson. Name: c Mailing Address: AAA ZZjo!~_ Phone - E-mail Address: f sy, ~ Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer i rstems/Groundwater I«i iAc IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it i to a C my staff person. Name: Vt~,r \ 1,,&a0 it- Mailing Address:`_~>0 `_twxSg OR C~11)I ~ Phone '503 I a4 - 3k q V_ AMMS0, E-mail Address: LG55 . Ivc T Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Svstems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in v"'x7 unty staff person. Name: X~Zzlz~ Mailing Address: 13~s~~GR / 7707 Phone S 3 5' 3 S~ E-mail Address: (~ivc•~~p~~~-~-~y~i Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer System s/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name• o L Kv1 0 Mailing Address: Pry ~ C C1 Phone E-mail Address: jo*Ie.rUI'A ao/, c~W, Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. dame: 9--,~ v4ailing Address: Tp-a~~ X331 " /I A Nf. f Shone -mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Wbject: La Pine On-site Sewer >ystems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it i a Co my s aff per on. Name: ~,j Mailing Address: ~3s ~zTG~ <<-C` Phone S L// S 3~-Z E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a Cou staff perso . Name: 160. Maiing Adgr5qs`~ Pho 4!p" E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: ~a„/ s VJ4 Mailing Address: T 6,0c% Phone E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: C (I~/ 9W sr=-f,-- - Mailing Address: t32ZL U44 4 (4- r r-- L.l 06.1e cZr 5'7Z39 Phone S`3C 3 E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 c..t- I - n:-- rA- c IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card (please print) & Please complete this card (please print) & turn it in to a Count staff person.` turn it in to a County staff person. Q am e: IjalAw e: Mailing Addr ss: 7 Mailing Addre s: ?OAZ~ 1_4 C;-t __4 Phone a 3(~ - Phone 5~ (e 5O( -E-mail Address: d n Pry E-mail Address: Date: Tuesday, Marc 27, 2007 Date: Tuesday, M rch 27, 007to Subject: La Pine On-.site Sewer Subject: La Pine On-site Sewer Systems/Groundwater Issues Systems/Groundwater Issues /Copq 0 0 f r a"f- Ile d _se-ea-k