Loading...
2008-592-Minutes for Meeting March 19,2008 Recorded 5/28/2008DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK r} 2008-592 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/28/2008 08;10;24 AM 111111111111111111111111111111111111 2008-592 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 tub { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2008 La Pine High School, La Pine, Oregon Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Catherine Morrow, Barbara Rich, Dan Haldeman, Todd Cleveland and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Eric Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; various representatives of the media and approximately 300 citizens. The purpose of the meeting was to take testimony on a proposed local rule relating to South County groundwater protection issues. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., at which time he read a preliminary statement regarding how the hearing world be conducted. (A copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit A.) He pointed out that chairs are located by the microphones, and would like to have everyone be seated there before being called up to the microphone so that testimony can keep moving along. Everyone would be allowed three minutes, and people should stay as close to that time as possible so that others would have a chance to speak. The hearing must be concluded by 9:45 so that the building is vacated no later than 10:00 p.m. MARTHA BAUMAN: Martha Bauman said she is a resident of rural La Pine and a registered voter, and was testifying for a majority of the residents. The government chain of command is citizens as # 1, with the highest authority; the Commissioners are #2 and staff is #3. She asked if the Commissioners are aware of this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 1 of 26 Pages She said that the majority of citizens will no longer tolerate the Commissioners' dictatorial manner of addressing this issue. (Noise from the audience.) She pointed out that this issue is no closer to resolution than it was a year ago. She said that nitrate reducing systems are just a Band-Aid to a problem that may not even exist. The citizens will make a decision on how they want to protect their groundwater, not the Commissioners or staff. She said the citizens will protect it as they see fit. When other contaminants become apparent, a sewer system would take care of that. Nitrate reducing systems cannot do this. She added that the Commissioners work for the citizens and the citizens have spoken. She said that if the Commissioners cannot accept this charge, they should resign their positions tonight. They live in a democracy and the positions won't be hard to fill. The Commissioners are guilty of negligence of duty and a failure to serve its constituents. She stated that the citizens have spoken and do not want local rule, and want it abandoned now. (Exhibit E.) (Lots of noise from the audience.) DEAN FULLER: He said he is retired from being a lumber mill worked and commercial fisherman, due to regulations. When Deschutes County got a grant of millions of dollars, that was a red flag. Freedoms and rights deteriorate at an alarming rate, and the politicians have control. Citizens can only have access to facilities by paying and paying again; it is never-ending. In regard to the sampling that DEQ came up with, they came up with the answers that they wanted to get. He said he can show people where there are no fish when other places have plenty. Some properties should never have gotten permits to build in the first place. This is not the fault of the public. With local rule, you get bigger government and a cost to the citizens. They'll take over the County and take away your property. (Lots of audience chatter) They are assuming build-out on the USGS report. When some politicians are promoting a financial project, just follow the money trail. He concluded that the Board is passing a rule that will assure a continual income to some. He said to wake up and register to vote, the vote might be needed shortly. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 2 of 26 Pages SANDRA NEARY: Sandra Neary of Lazy River South stated that cluster and sewer systems may not apply to all, and septic systems might have to be replaced if local rule is adopted. Passage of the local rule would be a huge mistake. Many people have made a lot of good recommendations at meetings. She said that instead of septic replacement, there should be mandated septic inspections. Inspection programs are in place in many locations in the country. Washington State has it on the books. Every system is pumped and inspected every five years. If a system fails inspection and failure cannot be rectified without replacement, an upgrade can be required. This is easy to adopt and impose, and all will be inspected within five years of the date of sale. If ownership is longer than five years, these could be selected by lottery, with 20% to comply within the first five years, and so on. Those systems with problems would be identified by then. Working, adequate systems would be properly maintained and inadequate systems would be replaced. Within twenty years all would have been upgraded. None last forever. She said she wants clean water in South County. There are a few problem spots; no one questions that. Her proposal would identify those and the process would be gradual and not shoved down their throats. (Exhibit F.) LARRY WALKER: Larry Walker, a resident of La Pine and a registered voter, thanked fellow residents, the Commissioners and staff for coming to the meeting. He asked several questions. How can alleged nitrate problems be considered an emergency, yet allow ten years to correct it. If it is not an emergency, how can it be forced without an opportunity to vote. Local rule emanates from someone who is not local. He is now reading a lot about pharmaceuticals in the water in many places. All treatment options should be reviewed and all sources of contaminates, not just nitrates. He objects to be being force to install an upgrade based on a computer model. He remains unconvinced about the potential hazard. It is said that the grass is always greener over the septic tank, but it is actually over the leach lines. This proves that many nitrates are being absorbed by the grass in the yard. The bottom line is that he hopes the Board will let local citizens deal with the problem. They all want what is best for the County, and he is sorry that some people are disrespectful, but he understands that some people are very upset. They want to implement a solution that solves all the problems and not cause hardship, and he will try to do whatever he can to make that happen. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 3 of 26 Pages GIL SPRAUER: Gil Sprauer said he is a 70-year old Oregon native. He said he received an e-mail from Commissioner Daly saying don't do it, you have ten years. This tells him that there is not a serious problem, but just isolated areas with fixable solutions. Good working systems should be grandfathered, and problem areas can be fixed. Local rule could be applied to all new construction. He added that Commissioner Daly said it is not a financial hardship, but the low end of the cost is $9,000 and the County is offering $3,700. Most citizens cannot come up with the difference. Housing prices are down and they aren't selling. And there isn't an urgent problem. The major issue is the non-truthful hype on blue baby syndrome and nitrates in the water. They are not polluted stupid hillbillies. There was an article in last Saturday's Bulletin regarding Bend-La Pine Schools, and it asked what do you do with a town like La Pine. Then on Monday is was said that La Pine may have pharmaceuticals in the drinking water. The last two years all they have heard is blue baby syndrome, nitrates and polluted streams. The County wasted over $5 million of taxpayer dollars. He thanked Commissioner Daly for changing his thought process, and feels there is no problem. (Exhibit G) JIM KESTER: Jim Kester said he has lived in Deschutes County since 1994. The thanked the Board for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the local rule. He said he hopes it is of some value. Speaking for himself, he remains very skeptical about the justification. He asked if his perception is wrong or right in that the County has not been transparent throughout the process. If the County expects people to support it, all the cards must be on the table. For example, all the work should be published in a scientific journal including the data for the computer model, including peer review. If it is valid, he might feel differently. This could be a life- changing financial burden for some citizens and he doesn't understand how the Board can consider approving this without full validation. The County's hypothesis is that there is no widespread problem at this time. Where is the problem coming from and what should be done about it? Look at the auto industry. Since the 1970's and 80's, emissions from new vehicles do not exist. They allowed for an orderly transition with no unreasonable burden. You don't have to go any further than the cities of Bend and Redmond to see this. The new Wal-Mart store in Redmond paid $2 million to provide infrastructure. Juniper Ridge and Wal-Mart in Bend are on hold until funding is worked out. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 4 of 26 Pages The proposed local rule will require an upgrade of perfectly good systems. This costs $25,000 or more to install and $300 a year for maintenance. This is an unreasonable burden. Problems from future development should be paid by that development. He added that he had his well tested and there was no bacteria and nitrates were far below an acceptable level. (Exhibit H.) JERRY CRISS: Jerry Criss said he moved to the area in 2004. He stated that he did not know many people before but now have friends because of this issue. He said that they won't let this happen without a fight. Systems can't be allowed in the red lot areas, and most of the areas with the highest nitrate levels have the highest number of red lots. The ten-year timeframe should be fifteen due to the looming recession and decline in development. The New Neighborhood has also been pushed out. He said he would like to see a memorandum of understanding that the areas with the highest groundwater will get help now. He wants to see something done now. Staff and the DEQ know the areas well, and should not waste time coming up with a realistic fix and get out of the equation as soon as possible. He would like some kind of testing resumed to disprove or prove the model. He will do what he must. He wasn't willing to cooperate until he received the e-mail. It isn't that he doesn't care; he wants to protect the environment, and is a fly fisherman so takes this very seriously. He wants to ensure that all waters are being properly cared for. He will watch and listen for changes in the groundwater situation and will do whatever is necessary. He will not cooperate with the rule until he sees real leadership. ED CRISS: Ed Criss said he lives in Wild River and has been in Oregon since 2004. He is on the financial advisory committee and is also a liaison to the media. He is concerned about sustainability regarding global warming, family structure, the law and environment. He feels this is a program that is unbelievably unsustainable. All of the systems have to be monitored and cared for, and won't take care of the pollutants that are coming. This is all about expansion of the area. The amount of development taking place won't be slowed without a moratorium to bring about a state of equilibrium in continuing development. He did projects in northern California over a thirty-year period, and had to use it in the tool kit to slow development, but it helped to bring about the development of infrastructure. This was done at a cost to the developers and not the residents. In regard to sustainability, a sewer system is a major solution. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 5 of 26 Pages Some areas do not have a problem. Those don't need to be prioritized when it isn't necessary, so the money could go to others. Sewers are sustainable; septics are not. He doesn't want to see the peoples' money put to use on something that makes no sense. He saw a $39,000 bid on one system. On site systems are not the answer. TED SCHOLER: Ted Scholer said he is against local rule and someone sitting in an ivory tower telling people in South County what to do. False and misleading information has been represented. The study showed plumes of higher nitrates in some areas. When he questioned a CDD staff member, there never were any plumes, just individual systems too close. Dan Haldeman was at the meeting. Unscientific blue baby syndrome information from the 1950's is still being quoted by the Health Department and the USGS. In its ivory tower, the County refuses to hear anything contrary to a preconceived plan. Many statements were made contrary to those presented, and they weren't included in the minutes of those meetings. He asked Commissioner Luke last year what is driving this. This was his question since 1994 when the South County Regional Problem Solving program first started. It has not yet been answered. Staff has difficulties with that question. He said they know there are failing systems; why not fix those specific problems, or does staff want recognition for creating a model for the nation. He said he is glad they inserted septic systems as a fix. (It is assumed that he meant to say "sewer systems The staff agenda has been full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes and the people of South County. DIANE SHUFELBERGER: Diane Shufelberger had a quick question; why not have a fee schedule pertaining to the ordinance published; if the County doesn't need it, the citizens do. A real scientist has to try to disprove his or her own hypothesis to make sure it works. Everyone here is concerned about the water and the environment. Don't ever think they don't care. If the outcome is that it is necessary, they don't want just a temporary fix. When she gets her tax bill she is going to challenge it since property values are going down with this hanging over their heads. She doesn't think her property is worth what it was before this came to light. KEITH SHUFELBERGER: Keith Shufelberger said he is upset; what emergency is so dangerous or disastrous that denies their right to a referendum. As citizens, they have a right to be in on this issue, and a decision should not be made by just three people. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 6 of 26 Pages LIZ HARMON: Liz Harmon said she is not having a power surge; at age 83 she thinks it is global warming. An emergency declaration prevents a referendum period. What about local rule meets that? She asked what part of "no" the Board doesn't understand. MONTE HARMON: Monte Harmon said in regard to financing of the proposed local rule, to satisfy his curiosity, he wondered if the Board was aware of why the people in south County are so upset with them. A year ago at a hearing they allowed people from the USGS two hours to expand on water problems in the area that later were found to be scientifically unsubstantiated. The Board ignored this. Three previous reports put out by the DEQ do not justify this. It took the better part of a year for the USGS to come up with a thorough simulation. There is a disclaimer in the report that simulations are not to be taken as scientific fact. The final report is based on over 80 simulations, and the disclaimer was deleted. One can only conclude that they didn't do the homework, or informed the Board and the Board chose to ignore it. He would like to think that it wasn't the later. He said to let the DEQ take this to the State legislature and let them endorse it. They will be inundated with e- mails and letters as the Board has been. He added that it was good that the Board isn't signing this without input. (Exhibit I.) DEBBIE MCQUARY: Debbie McQuary asked, for the media, a question that she hoped Commissioner Melton would respond to. Her question was, do they have bad water now. Commissioner Melton replied that they can drink the water. There are bad areas and places where well systems are failing. She would have a drink, the water is good, and from information she has, the water is better than good. This is a proactive, preventative plan. Ms. McQuary stated that Tom Anderson has said that they have pristine water, per the Bulletin. They do not have bad water but there is a problem anticipated in the future. She asked everyone in the audience to stand. She asked them to sit down if they are able to afford to use a nitrate reducing system. She asked that anyone who could afford the system with the assistance of a low-interest loan to sit down. (Audience chatter.) Ms. McQuary asked that anyone who can afford the additional cost per year, to sit down; and anyone who can afford the destruction of their landscaping and to relandscape their property to sit down. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 7 of 26 Pages She noted that what is left is the elected officials who are literally putting people out on the street. Citizens cannot afford these systems. She urged the Board to vote down the local rule and give the citizens time to come up with better answers to this anticipated problem, and to remember that they do not have bad water. (Exhibit J.) THOMAS ALBRO: Thomas Albro of Lazy River South said he applied for a program to have a test system put on his lot. He was told her qualified and they would put the system in. He was then advised that they would put in a sand filter system. It is a good opportunity to test the sand filter since one had never been tested. It made him wonder why so many other people had been required to have them over the years. He joined the operations and maintenance advisory committee for septic systems, and worked on it for 15 months. The charge was to recommend a management system for maintenance and operation of systems. This consisted of a set of procedures, education and components to provide for the protection of groundwater. This information would also be transferable to other areas of the state. He was told that there are probably existing systems in the County that are not even registered. The committee met for fifteen months and then presented its recommendation to the Board. This included a plan to deal with existing systems. When property is sold, the system is tested and brought into a maintenance program. Over time they would improve. He said that he understands that this was never implemented. If it was not, five valuable years have gone by. He asked that the Board do it right the first time, and not vote for the local rule. (Exhibit K.) SHARON HARDING: Sharon Harding, a registered voter, said she has lived here less than two years. She has a brand new house and septic system, and wonders why when they moved in and this change was coming, why the County didn't have special systems put in. She is upset as they moved into a cheap, nice little town and are now being told they have to spend thousands of dollars. She does not intend to comply. She was glad to hear that Mr. Daly doesn't think they should. She also wanted to ask if the groundwater protection is the driving force, and why doesn't the County take the lead for a Goal exception and comprehensive plan exception. If something has to be done, it should be sewer systems, a permanent solution and not a Band-aid approach. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 8 of 26 Pages JOHN HARDING: John Harding said he is also a voter and wanted to know why no figures have been given out on what it costs to put in a sewer or cluster system. He said they are trying to compare those with septic systems but no one has given them figures to base this on. Other than that, he pleaded that the local rule not be passed as it is too soon to do so. GEORGE SPIELMAN: George Spielman stated that he lives off the Little Deschutes River, upstream from almost everyone else. One of his neighbors is an absentee owner with two rentals on a single tax lot. He had one septic pumped last year; it had been installed in 1958 and the top is missing. The last time he saw the landlord was two years ago, when the landlord opened the tank only to have it cave in. He covered it with plywood and dirt and seemed satisfied. There is no tank there anymore. There is a hole in the ground less than 100 feet from and twelve feet above the river. He said that when he contacted authorities, he was told that all that could be done is to condemn the system, but it has been nine months. He asked how many other old systems like this are out there, and whether there are any mechanisms in place to evaluate existing systems. He asked if the County is responsible beyond issuing the permit and, if so, what that level is. He stated he believes the Band-Aid approach is not in the best interests of homeowners. He built a cabin in 1986 and expanded it into a home in 1997, at which time he was forced to add a 1200-gallon tank and sand filter, at a cost of $10,000. He asked for proof that the sand filter system works better and was told that they couldn't. He has it inspected and flushed each summer. He wants to see a permanent fix, and sewer is the only answer. (Exhibit L) JOHN BOYLE: John Boyle said he moved to the area in 1988 as he wanted to live in a small town. He said he was told that he has a grudge against the Commissioners, but he happens to like them all, except Tom DeWolf. Never get in the way of your enemy when he is about to destroy himself. He said if he wasn't a friend of the Commissioners he would tell them to go ahead and vote for this. He added that he doesn't want to be a Commissioner. He thinks the Commissioners will be gone and they will finally get someone to listen to the people in South County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 9 of 26 Pages The Federal government will pay for 71% of a sewer system. The County should work with them to get a system that will last. He said he went to the department head and asked about putting in a new system. Planning said it would cost $10,000 to $12,000 but the septic guy said it would cost $20,000. He stated that a man's house is his castle and the Commissioners are messing with something important. Klamath County is watching what is going on. The Feds are watching so they can do the same thing in New England. He added that his house had a metal tank and he knows how they can leak. The water is okay now, but it may not be someday. The County has been studying new systems for twelve years. He asked why tract homes were built there when the County knew this water thing was coming up. He heard that developers were buying up land there six years ago. There are more ready to go, but now the County says the water is bad. LARRY CARLEN: Larry Carlen stated that he lived in Colorado for 42 years and in La Pine for the past sixteen. He is a little surprised this evening to learn that this involves millions of dollars and has been going on for a long time. One question is the aquifer; if there are nitrate problems, a line should be drawn south of town since the aquifer runs under it. He asked why Klamath County isn't here. It is also apparent that all of the local real estate companies and developers already installing systems; how did they get there before now. He doesn't understand that business tactic. He thanked the Commissioners for coming and asked that they reconsider this and vote no on the local rule. BILL ACHATZ: Bill Achatz said he is a newcomer, in the area for five years. He is tired of his property getting screwed up by the County. He owns three parcels and all tested with zero nitrates. Yet his property on the north side is one that is rated as high. He asked for an explanation. He stated that there needs to be a means to solve the problem, but this is not the way to do it. In San Diego and Florida City, and in Texas, big cities are having the same problem. They are investing millions of dollars to build systems to solve the problem and are still not sure if it will work. The County is just playing with tinkertoys. What is left from sewer systems is poured on fields to grow hay and horses pee it back into the ground. His suggestion is a simple one. He spent ten years on the road traveling and retired with $750,000, enough to take care of him and leave some money for the kids. At the rate the County keeps picking on people, he won't have a dime left. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 10 of 26 Pages He has a water filter with a one micron filter in his mobile home. The water is good. If everyone in La Pine puts one on their water source, it will be nitrate free. The County needs to solve the problem before it is dumped back on the ground. Systems in California process 70 million gallons a day, dump it back on the ground and it makes pure water, more pure than distilled. He suggested that the Commissioners halt, stop, and quit screwing around. Everyone in the room will say that there haven't been ten houses sold lately, and partly because the County is telling the media what a terrible problem there is when it is not true. RON SHARBAUGH: Ron Sharbaugh gave bags of spinach to the Commissioners. He said he is a resident of La Pine and is registered to vote, and is an alternate for the Financial Advisory Committee for the Wild River Homeowners' Association. He recommended that another public meeting be held in Sunriver since a lot of the residents there think this is just a La Pine problem. He asked that the local rule not be passed. If it must be, to move it out fifteen years. He said that an e-mail from Dave Morgan states that there is no sample data from Wild River. The nitrate readings from the last five to six years have not been readable, so there is no precursor indicator for that community. It has a different geological basin. This is not an emergency situation. And the Commissioners need to realize the financial burden of the systems. The County failed to include some items in costing. He asked if the systems would be guaranteed for a lifetime, and how much the maximum initial cost of the system might be, as well as the maximum monthly maintenance costs. He asked if there would be a lemon exclusion costs for the owners. The cost analysis shows that a sole source nitrate system costs $40,000 and $1,400 a year to maintain. With a 30- year replacement schedule, the cost ends up at $12,000 ten years from now. He asked how the County can show him that cost will be contained. He added if composting toilets were being considered. The DEQ says they work if properly maintained. If staff can't make it happen, get a different staff. The Commissioners should take the lead in allowing the formation of small sewer districts. Have the Health Advisory Board work with the County on this. (Exhibit M.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 11 of 26 Pages COLLEEN DONZELLI: Colleen Donzelli said she is a resident of Wild River subdivision and was asked by the Homeowners' Association to read a letter from the John Straw, President of the Board of Directors, asking that Wild River be excluded from the local rule. (A copy is attached for reference, Exhibit N.) ROBERT RAY: Robert Ray stated that the Commissioners hold the highest office in the County but time is limited, and asked that the Commissioners take a voice vote, a town hall type of vote as to whether local rule should be proved or disproved. Government, whether city, county or state, is interconnected with avenues that are not easily available to the general public. The County has failed to bring in the DEQ and others to assist citizens with looking at alternatives. The County sits in the stands and watches citizens take on agencies on their own. He asked that the County fight for them and create a solution to deal with an ever-present problem. He emphasized the Commissioners should vote no on home rule. DOUG FARMER: Doug Farmer said he lives in Ponderosa Pines subdivision and has lived in southern Oregon for thirty years. He commended the Commissioners and staff and all who have spoken. He wanted to state the opinion of citizens of the United States. He had concerns and listened a lot, and it appears to be apparent to him that when the facts and hazards now and in the future are analyzed, along with the economic impact of possible solutions, it is obvious that sewers are needed. He said that the emergency clause should not be used as it limits the people's right to a referendum. Because help is needed in this situation, he would like to see everyone put their heads together and address some of the problems. He emphasized that the rule should not be passed and not infringe upon the people's rights, but work needs to be done to arrive at some long-term solutions. ALBERT BAUER: Albert Bauer of Newberry Estates stated that that he hates to accuse anyone of being a liar, but Community Development is fee financed, which pays their salaries. He said County officials should not be discussing money, the $35 million, that they don't have. Local rule should commence when the money hits the bank someday. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 12 of 26 Pages He stated that the DEQ proposed an annual fee of $150. Deschutes County wants a $50 fee to confirm that you had the system checked. The total cost of $5,300 without any nitrates being captured could go a long way towards sewering. He added that in Newberry Estates there are four test wells and the DEQ study shows less than one milligram per liter of nitrates on one, and two others show less than one milligram. (Exhibit O.) WENDELL EVERS: Wendell Evers said that he is also from Newberry Estates, and is retired, with a degree in psychology and a minor in business. He understands numbers, and the numbers the County has presented are not real. He stated that this cannot be forced upon citizens without good data; it is all simulation. This would bankrupt constituents. He is upset and feels that the Commissioners are not doing their job. He would like the Commissioners to work with the citizens to diplomatically find solutions. Continuing this way will cause the County to go broke, borrowing $35 million and then charging citizens interest. The properties in southern County belongs to the people but the County wants to charge citizens for it. DUSTY HERBERT: Dusty Herbert, a local business owner, is sixty years old with the youngest child in college, and can't afford any more major monthly expenses. The question was not sufficiently answered, as 80% of the people in the area will need some kind of financial assistance. Where will the County come up with enough money without breaking the County. The area is in a recession and foreclosures are going up daily. The other question is whether it will work and for how long. This is not representation of government by and for the people, who need something that can work. JUDY FORSYTHE: Judy Forsythe said that citizens of the area requested for over a year some help for them to understand the local rule, to no avail. There is no recourse but to believe that staff departed from the original strategies. Doing nothing at this time may indeed meet some needs, no matter how politically charged it is to do nothing. The County's credibility is in the toilet, and the Board could take the lead and document the process to show why no action at this time may be best. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 13 of 26 Pages The County has failed in the public process. Staff ahs put the Board into a political fix and the Board should have been driving the bus. It is the County's job to convince her and others that it is needed, or park the bus and walk away. The next public hearing should be in Sunriver. They may have to expand their sewer system. This is going to the rest of the County so it not just a South County concern. Republicans have been financially irresponsible. The five-member Commission needs to go and there needs to be more of a public process. Abandon the local rule here and now. WAYNE MOSS: Wayne Moss said he has lived in the area since 1994. He asked why the County adopted the USGS survey. He said he has read a number of estimates and said the facts are not supported. He asked how the County can figure that the average person can afford a $30,000 system plus added maintenance when 40% of them are below the poverty level and can barely make ends meet. He wanted to know what the hidden agenda is on this issue and why the local rule is being pursued. He said that he feels the process needs to be investigated. KAREN DUNCAN: Karen Duncan, a citizen of South County and a registered voter, said it is hard to state anything in three minutes. She does not see this on a time limit. This is not democracy in action. It is discouraging to fight for truth and justice. This was a done deal in the fall of 2006, contrary to the citizens. And staff should not assume that citizens are a bunch of uneducated people and come down there to sugarcoat what they want to saddle the people with, through half truths and manipulations. Having the hearings is a farce, too. They are only being held because the County is forced into a corner and have not done due process. It is just a show this year that they are interested, but are they listening? Commissioner Daly showed his true colors, told people to quit complaining, it will pass and if it is a hardship to just not comply. Shame on him, running for reelection, encouraging them to break the law, a class A violation of local rule that could cost a fine of $600 or more a day until it is done. Commissioner Daly said that in ten years he and others might already be dead, but that is no excuse to pass the local rule so he can get on with his life and keep them from bothering him. Then in ten years someone else has to deal with it. She said that she requests on deaf ears not to pass the rule and look at a more permanent fix. Pharmaceutical drugs are being found in water systems, so more time nees to be spent on research. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 14 of 26 Pages At least the County has agreed that this is a problem that could happen in 40 to 100 years and should not be so stupid as to pass this costly mistake. She said to Commissioner Luke that she has yet to find any of the friends he said he has down there but will keep looking under the rocks. (Exhibit P) (Audience chatter) JOE DUNCAN: Joe Duncan said that things change every day, and there can be new contaminates and new equipment. The Board should start over and do it right. Mr. Duncan went on to talk about the discovery of new contaminants, nitrate levels and the severity of harm, as well as testing data and locations. He asked that his testimony be reviewed before a decision is made. (Exhibit Q.) DAN VARCOE: Dan Varcoe said that he is a real estate broker in La Pine and was born in Bend in 1951. He stated that the goal of protecting the water is mutual, but asked that the Board consider other options and opinions. He said that everyone has seen an overwhelming amount of promotional materials but are still unconvinced that there is a problem. He said that on November 5, 2002 the DEQ stated that up to 3 parts per milliliter is naturally occurring. Private wells have no standards. Little is known about the effect of nitrates. Sellers are required to test their wells for nitrates when they sell, and few test with high levels. There is no imminent health issue and no one is sure when there will be one. The amounts are well below Oregon's red flag of 7 parts per mil. The goals are admirable and he appreciates the effort and the money spent, which was meant in the best interest of the people, but the citizens are just not convinced. The solutions presented to address the problem are possibly inadequate. The biggest issue aside from cost is that they have done their homework and discovered that there have been a lot of errors, misleading presentations and graphics that shifted to trying to sell an idea rather than being factual. The Board needs to do the right thing and take time to think it through. It is a big investment of time, work, energy and money. But the Board should not hesitate to start over and do the right thing. (Exhibit R) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 15 of 26 Pages At this time the Board called for a five-minute break. LUKE: Commissioner Luke said that a question was asked at break that he wanted to mention. The County did not declare the emergency; the DEQ did. They can declare it under a health rules or land use rules. They declared this one under land use rules to make the possible use of sewers somewhat easier, as it may help avoid the Goal 11 exception process. They did this expressly so that sewers might be considered. Dave Kanner added that an emergency clause in an ordinance does not in any way limit a citizen's right to referendum. Commissioner Luke noted that the legislature is guilty of that; when it takes effect citizens have to circulate a petition for an appeal. A citizen asked if they are saying there is no health issue. Commissioner Luke said that they declared an emergency under land use rules to allow for sewering. LEE WILKINS Lee Wilkins stated that people are confused about the administrative emergency that the County passed in 2006. Commissioner Luke replied that the 2006 ordinance was for new construction, which is the only local rule now in effect. This would be included in the new ordinance as well. Mr. Wilkins said that he can't find the section and wants to make sure it is available for public view. He stated that a March 14 letter from Joanie Hammond of the DEQ stated that they are pleased with the addition of language regarding the possible use of sewer systems and view it as a way for the County to explore the formation of districts and to expedite administrative steps and applications, and DEQ is committed to having its staff help. A letter from Dave Kanner dated March 10 says that the County is the reviewing or approving agency for a sewer district. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 16 of 26 Pages Mr. Wilkins said it is appropriate for the County to help applicants through the process, even a comprehensive plan amendment. A full land use process would still be required, as well as a finding of no practicable alternative. Land use actions are also subject to appeal, and no one is to assume that it will be free of legal challenges. However, Mr. Wilkins said that he doesn't see that the County has any intent to help citizens get this work done. (Exhibit S.) SUNNI ROUNDS: Sunni Rounds stated that she is a resident of rural La Pine and a registered voter. The thanked Commissioner Daly for his e-mail, which was the first expression of empathy they have had from anyone at the County. She asked why this is the final hearing on this issue. The public needs details so they can speak intelligently about it. As to the Board being backed into a corner, they can thank their staff s arrogance and deceit. In spite of this, there is nothing to prevent the Board from passing this but making it effective in ten years. This will give technology time to advance. There is no evidence that anyone is suffering ill effects and no current medical research to support this. She vehemently opposes the emergency clause and recommends that it be deleted. (Exhibit T.) HARRY THURSTON: Harry Thurston, a resident from the mid 1990's, said he built a place and has a horse set up. He is against this forced rule. People living north of State Park Road don't have to go through this. To the south in Klamath County, they don't have to either. There will end up being a lot of development in Klamath instead. He said that in the mid-1970's Phoenix wanted to build a fancy ballpark downtown, and seven Commissioners bought up the land. They wanted the kickback. When they were up for reelection, they got voted down. PATRICK MURPHY: Patrick Murphy said this is the fourth confrontation, and it has been a tough year but will get tougher. The ostensible reason for the local rule is to address elevated nitrate levels, now or in the future. A health hazard is not borne out by present medical literature; the citing of old medical assumptions is silly at best. There are some failing systems, but there is no nitrate problem Countywide. This is much ado about nothing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 17 of 26 Pages If they are to assume there are other problems, they have to show that the nitrates are from human waste and not some other source. Removing nitrates does not do anything about the other problems, and the local rule is no fix at all. If cost is a factor, don't do anything for ten years. But by then their properties will have become County properties. The Board is between a rock and a hard place and has been getting bad advice from staff. This opposition will go on and the Commissioners should expect resistance. (Exhibit U.) LAURA HARVEY: Laura Harvey stated that she is a registered voter and has lived outside of Sunriver since 1986. She used to know where she lives but her phone prefix has changed. The County set the line but she is not aware that she lives in La Pine. There are eight citizens that don't know where they live now. She has not gotten any mail from the County except being asked to sign up for a County citizens group. This is illegal because La Pine already selected people prior to the County wasting the taxpayers' money and sending out a mass mailing. It came to her post office box in Sunriver, but got no other mail. She said she got no other mail and doesn't know who the local rule is supposed to work for. She stated that on the radio she heard that the separate systems were $18,000 but up to $39,000 in Deschutes County and northern Klamath County. She asked if someone will work with them to establish cluster systems or sewer systems. There are 450 people from La Pine at the meeting who know where they live and they say they don't want the individual systems. PAMELA COSMO: Pamela Cosmo stated that she is a registered voter who lives in La Pine. Sometimes you have to back off from a problem to see it more clearly. The Board is not in a vacuum and is not alone in grappling with this issue. Mother Earth News published the truth about septic systems. The County has worked extensively on groundwater issues for fifteen years. They have a vested interest in making it more costly than it needs to be. It is unnecessary, given under false pretenses to generate maximum funding, and the players involved are those who promote the systems. There are quotes from other experts who say that the claims of health hazards are vastly exaggerated. There is big money in permits, fees, licenses and maintenance contracts. This will also raise property taxes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 18 of 26 Pages Citizens are fighting the same battles. The County has dollar signs in its eyes. There is now an economic downturn of historic proportions. The finance industry is tanking, jobs are being lost, gasoline keeps getting more expensive, and this won't end anytime soon. It is not the right time to try to squeeze money out of the citizens. This needs to be delayed until the acceptable levels of nitrates is known and whether they are rising. Delay it until new systems are available. One kind in India costs only $500. Delay this until new factors can be studied. It could be years before anything has to be done, so wait until the time is right and a better, more viable option is available. GLEN CLARK: Glen Clark said he has lived in the area for 37 years. He talked about nitrates and how little is produced due to the citizens. Farmers use nitrates to grow crops and the plants along the rivers use it up. The problem with old systems is placement; those put in prior to 1973 have no ventilation or distance. If the USGS had sealed the casings, they would not have found nitrates in the lower levels. Nitrates don't go through clay. Every well has at least one layer of clay. Nitrates want to go up, not down. The Board needs to think about this. NANCY THURSTON: Nancy Thurston, a full-time resident and registered voter, said she has owned property for 15 years. She asked what is motivating the proposed local rule or nationwide action is water problems. The Board should pay attention to the Mother Earth News article about septic systems. She said that nitrates can be a problem but what citizens produce individually is minimal compared with runoff from agricultural uses, feedlots and municipal waste. Most citizens follow the rules and put in septic systems as required. Now the Board is saying they aren't any good anymore. She asked if the Board is singling out and discriminating against South County. These are the most vulnerable citizens, and the mandate to put in the systems has already devalued some of the properties. She asked if the local rule passes, what is next - upgrading the electrical to new standards or putting in new siding - where does it end. Wayne Thompson had signed up to speak but did not respond when his name was called. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 19 of 26 Pages BILL BENSON: Bill Benson stated that he moved into the area in September 2005 from Citrus County, Florida. He checked out the chronology of this issue on line, and said the Commissioners said they would not do anything about this until someone can show there is a problem. The County has known about this for twelve years, and could have stopped development then. Deschutes County considers the La Pine area as the poor, backwards cousins, and anything they can foist off on us is fine. In regard to Day Road, they sealed and chipped the roads. He called the County as there are hardly any chips, but that is good enough for south County. Go to Century Drive, it has asphalt two inches deep. The Commissioners need to get real and realize it is a nice area. HELEN WOODS: Helen Woods said she is new and not yet registered to vote. She will, though. When she bought her house no one said anything about needing to upgrade to about any problem. There was no notice in her tax statement. It was a shock to her. She said that the pamphlet distributed has two maps in, one shows her property in orange and the other shows a computer simulation, population and nitrate problems. Some places do not match up. The other issue is that the handout and the ordinance that makes it seem that the Commissioners have already made up their mind that this is needed. If this is not true, it should have not been distributed. CAROLYN ISSACS: Carolyn Issacs, a citizen for two years, said she had to save quite a bit to move here and wants to retire here. It's where she put her funds and she wants to stay. The area has 47% retired on fixed income who have no other way to generate money. If they can't pay, they lose their homes. In other places people have lost their homes because the County passed laws and changed the rules. That is what is going to happen here. People who worked their whole lives will not be allowed the privilege of owning their property. They have a right to buy and take care of their homes, but it is a concern when someone tells them they have to spend $30,000 more. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 20 of 26 Pages The other problem is that they have not received enough information. She found out about the meeting through an article in the Eagle. Her backyard was dug up so she could have the right kind of drainage, and the system is only two years old. What will happen five or ten years from now. There needs to be a budget and a workable, agreeable plan. KEN GREENHILL: Ken Greenhill says he has owned property for a decade, and is a voter and a certified SAFE professional. He feels that there is a personal responsibility to protect the environment. Deschutes County has an obligation to provide due diligence. The County needs to establish the following. Verify that a real problem exists. Use an unbiased, recognized expert to examine the evidence. Computer models don't work. Questionable conclusions are based on old data. They need to clearly identify a problem then define its scope and range, and the short term and long term impacts. The actual cause of the problem needs to be identified, whether faulty septic tanks, other human activities, excessive population density or other causes. Then they need to determine the options to correct it, the environmental impact of the options, and a cost benefit analysis. This situation could potentially cost residents millions of dollars. They need an unbiased decision by experts, no one with special interests or politicians. For instance, the National Fire Plan resulted in a greater problem. The nitrate problem could be solved but others may come up. There cannot be any potential for personal gain or a personal agenda. If the Board votes for this, it is a disservice to the citizens. The information is inadequate and dated. (Exhibit W.) CALVIN MCCLURE: Calvin McClure said that he is a registered voter and a homeowner for 22 years. He hopes the Board has read his e-mails. He discussed various articles and information about water pollutants and his visit to a test system, which resulted in a severe case of the stomach flu. These systems could result in a potential plague and he doesn't know why the County would want this to happen. (Exhibit X.) ALICE REITENBAUGH: Alice Reitenbaugh said she was born in Oregon and has lived in La Pine since 1985. She is proud of being part of a town that is so involved. She would like the Commissioners to think about that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 21 of 26 Pages In proportion to its size, at least 5% of the citizens are at the meeting. That is involvement, not apathy. These are people who care and have investments to protect. She said if she could rule for a day, no politician would make more than the average constituent he represents. The biggest problem is that they have lost touch with reality and what 95% of the nation has to deal with. This area was originally chosen because that was what was connected with federal funds. Then the DEQ was brought in. The original figures presented for funding were skewed on purpose because a certain criteria was needed. There was not a nitrate problem ten years ago and there isn't today. There is a potential problem, based on growth. The original zoning has dropped from 20 acres for vacation areas to five acres to one acre, and now smaller lots. What happened to the original County protection. She asked why zoning laws changed so much. Money has become the reason. Contractors want the land to be affordable. But is this good for the people living there. She came there because it is rural and that is the lifestyle people want to maintain. This does not mean 5,000 square foot lots. When the zoning changed, was it because of money interests, based on how much money can be made and where. The government was designed to protect people from big business. When did government become big business. She asked if any of the Commissioners live in the area. Commissioner Melton said she used to live in the district. Ms. Reitenbaugh said they have been proposed to death, and want it stopped and changed. The local rule should be by area or subdivision. She asked that the Board back up and go a different way. She added that she is proud of La Pine. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the majority of lots were platted long before land use laws were in place. They would not have them now except urban services are only available in the city. Ms. Reitenbaugh said that she wondered why the City of Bend requires approval for all new developments outside the city limits, which is mandated because of traffic. She asked why all this new construction is coming in when they don't have the jobs or the infrastructure. Commissioner Luke said he does not have sewer service and maybe 25% of Bend doesn't and has already been annexed. Ms. Reitenbaugh asked if they still use drain holes. Commissioner Luke said that most of those are gone. They ran dye tests and didn't find any traces in the water. The groundwater is 300 to 500 feet down, through lava rock. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 22 of 26 Pages Ms. Reitenbaugh stated that one size does not fit all, and there are many people who want to know what the real problem is. SUSAN MURRAY: Susan Murray said she is a registered voter and is against the whole thing. She doesn't speak well and asked that a friend speak for her. She introduced John Boyle. Mr. Boyle said that he wanted to talk about Juniper Ridge, which used to belong to the County who gave it to the City, and it is now valued at billions of dollars. He likes Commissioner Daly, who is always generous and kind to him, about getting that money back. He was told that it can't be done because it belongs to the City, but the County has to approve it. He said he wants to talk about a gaming tax and lottery money. The Commissioners get a certain amount of money to give out to projects. Some of that money should go to La Pine. He went on to give his opinion of big box developments and tract homes. He suggested that the Board take the $35 million and put it with the $75 million to build a sewer system, have La Pine hook up and annex parts to La Pine. He said he saw the news regarding chemicals in the water. He is a lifetime Democrat and wants to run as an independent. Dennis Tooley told him that Les Stiles will run for Commissioner and Mr. Boyle wants to face him in November. Mr. Boyle was reminded that this hearing is not an appropriate place for him to make comments about running for political office. ROBERT METCALF: Robert Metcalf said he moved to the area in 1982, went to college and came back. He thanked the Board for pushing local rule, as he had been waiting for something to bring the town together. If this is voted on, it still won't happen. He drives sixty miles a day to work and loves La Pine, and if he has to dig up his septic tank on a home he just bought he will wait for them to show up with a shovel. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 23 of 26 Pages He asked if any consideration has been given to the economic impact to the low socioeconomic level of people who live there. Many are not educated enough or have not had enough opportunities. A lot of people rent out their properties and will have to raise the rent or sell them. This would force a large number of people in the service industry to move. He doesn't see anything that shows how this will affect them. He said he teaches government and tells people that elected officials are there because people voted to put them there. The Commissioners are there because of the people. Follow the money, as that is where it is coming from. Listen to the constituents. At the end of the day, it is the Commissioners, who don't live there. Listen to the people. Commissioner Luke stated that there are a few minutes left and asked if anyone who had not yet testified wished to do so. ED CRISS: Ed Criss testified again. He said that a hearing should be held in Sunriver as there are a lot of properties up that way. They don't seem to realize that it is their problem also. Everything happens according to development. The economy is imposing a moratorium. This is a grand opportunity to not do the home rule. He is a member of the advisory committee and does not want to see people's money wasted. There is time to come up with a more comprehensive plan, to get good information and prioritize. There is not enough knowledge to make financial decisions. If the local rule does pass, it needs a fifteen year time frame. There is plenty of time to figure out the financials. There is a great group of people on the committee who can work on it. They could come up with a comprehensive plan to work with staff and develop something that works. He wants the disconnect with government to be fixed, as this has gotten out of hand. There is time to do it right. JERRY CRISS: Jerry Criss testified again. He said another issue is the federal government and EPA reviews information every six years and the State reviews it every three years. The amount of money being spent on nitrate research is monumental and far- fetched. It needs to be up to date. Fifteen years is more logical. The economy could be down for years, and technology changes. There is money for testing. There is a good group of leaders here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 24 of 26 Pages MARTHA BAUMAN: Martha Bauman spoke again. She said they will give the Board until Monday, March 24 to answer it. She asked if the Board going to pass the local rule. She said they expect to hear from the Board on Monday. No additional oral testimony was taken. Commissioner Luke stated that public testimony will remain open for thirty days for written testimony, after which the Board will have work sessions. A lot of interesting ideas were presented. The rule can be modified or changed. The Board does not plan to rush into this. Being no further discussion, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. DATED this 19th Day of March 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. P} n*s R. Luke, hair ATTEST: &MV1j_ &h-4_ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 25 of 26 Pages Tamthy-(Bano)/Melton, Vice Chair Attachments Exhibit A: Preliminary Statement Exhibit B: Summary of Changes to Proposed Local Rule Exhibit C: Staff Report, Notice of Hearing and Proposed Ordinance Exhibit D: USGS Report with Questions & Answers regarding Water Quality Exhibit E: Statement given by Martha Bauman Exhibit F: Statement given by Sandra Neary Exhibit G: Statement given by Gil Sprauer Exhibit H: Statement given by Jim Kester Exhibit I: Statement given by Monte Harmon Exhibit J: Statement given by Deborah McQuary Exhibit K: Statement given by Tom Albro Exhibit L: Statement given by George Spielman Exhibit M: Statement given by Ron Sharbaugh Exhibit N: Statement from John Straw (provided by Colleen Ray) Exhibit O: Statement given by Albert Bauer Exhibit P: Statement given by Karen Duncan Exhibit Q: Statement and other information provided by Joseph Duncan Exhibit R: Statement given by Dan Varcoe Exhibit S: Statement given by Lee Wilkins Exhibit T: Statement given by Sunni Rounds Exhibit U: Statement given by Pat Murphy Exhibit V: Statement given by Pamela Cosmo Exhibit W: Statement given by Ken Greenhill Exhibit X: Statement given by Calvin McClure Exhibit Y: Document handed in - do not know from whom Exhibit Z: Document provided by Nancy Sprauer - did not testify Exhibit AA: Document provided by "jaybear" - gives e-mail address only - did not testify Exhibit BB: Sign-in list Exhibit CC: Sign-in cards Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Local Rule Related to La Pine Groundwater Protection Issues Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Page 26 of 26 Pages PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR THE LOCAL RULE HEARING, MARCH 19, 2008 We are here tonight for a public hearing on ordinance 2008-12, more commonly known as the Local Rule. This ordinance would amend the Deschutes County Code by adding Chapter 13.14 regarding alternatives for reducing nitrogen generated by onsite wastewater treatment systems in order to protect groundwater quality in south Deschutes County. We will take both oral and written testimony tonight. This is a continuation of the public hearings conducted in March 2007. All oral and written testimony from that hearing and all written testimony received since that hearing are part of the record and will be considered by the Board. In order to give as many people as possible an opportunity to speak, oral testimony will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Written testimony may be any length. We will continue to accept written testimony for 30 days after this hearing or until 5 p.m. on Friday, April 18, 2008. You are still free to write, e-mail, or contact us on this matter after that date, but this official record that was started in March 2007 will be closed for this proceeding on April 18, 2008. The Board will not deliberate or make a decision tonight. We're here for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposal. We will also not answer questions tonight, but we'll make note of all questions (other than rhetorical questions) and post both the questions and the answers on the county web site as soon as possible after this hearing. I will end the hearing no later than 9:45, so we can vacate the building by 10 p.m. Before we begin, I'd like to point out a few things: First, there has been substantial public input received over the past year in support of making sewers an option under the local rule. The local rule has been amended to clarify that sewers and other nitrate- reducing alternatives to septic upgrades are an acceptable option. Second, there has been a great deal of input regarding the financial burden this rule might create. The County is prepared to commit a substantial amount of money - perhaps $35 million - to financial assistance and a citizen advisory committee is already at work to determine how that money should be used. Third, in the past week, there have been a number of a-mails regarding pharmaceuticals and other contaminants in water supplies. We are an agent of DEQ and the DEQ does not regulate these contaminants, nor does the Environmental Protection Agency have drinking water standards for these contaminants. As an agent of the DEQ, our job is to address the contaminant the DEQ does regulate, and that's nitrates. Fourth, we are the Board of Commissioners, we are not scientists. We leave it to the experts at the DEQ to determine the validity of the science, and the DEQ has clearly stated that the science in the USGS groundwater study is valid and that it provides a sound basis for the modeling that has been done regarding the nitrate problem. DEQ has also made a determination of an existing health hazard and has stated repeatedly that doing nothing is not an option. Therefore, given that doing nothing is not an option, we are here tonight to take your testimony on what we should do and whether the revised language of the local rule provides adequate flexibility in addressing the problem that needs to be addressed. We'll now open the public hearing. BOCC Opening Statement - Legislative Hearing EXHIBIT .1k. v~ES ~ o < Deschutes County Summary of Changes to Proposed Local Rule Public Hearing, March 19, 2008 The US Geological Survey and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have conducted scientific investigations that show that groundwater in the south Deschutes County region will become increasingly contaminated over time by discharges from conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) does not presume to have the same technical knowledge and expertise as the scientists that participated in these investigations and relies on their findings that, as stated by the Oregon DEQ, the science is valid and doing nothing to protect groundwater quality is not an option. The Board, at this hearing, is considering the question of what action can be taken at the local level to address the groundwater pollution issue. Changes based on public comments on the March 2007 proposal: Sewer: To ensure that the proposed rule does not eliminate the possibility of using existing state processes related to the expansion or creation of sewers, the revised proposed rule language (Proposed DCC 13.14.070) and revised staff report both identify the state rule process for expanding or creating sewers in rural areas as a viable option to using onsite systems. The County is working actively with DEQ/DLCD to: o Streamline land use review for the Goal 11 process o Draft policies and language to establish a Health Hazard Sewer Overlay Zone Cost: The Board has established a Financial Assistance Advisory Committee to recommend how best to assist homeowners with the cost of using groundwater protection measures using an estimated $35 million of County-owned assets that are dedicated to this purpose. (Revised staff report, page 21) Sewer district language/map conflict (Proposed DCC 13.14.020) o A conflict exists between the proposed rule language and the draft map proposed for Exhibit A to Resolution 2008-21. The proposed language defines the affected area as, "those portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, and 11, except those areas within existing sewer districts." The map proposed as Exhibit A to Resolution 2008-21 shows the city limits of La Pine as the same as the sewer district boundary, which is untrue. To resolve the conflict, staff recommends that the rule and staff report language, if adopted, be changed to read as follows (added text in underline): "South County" means those portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, and 11, except those areas within existing sewer districts or city li its. • Provision for other wastewater treatment approaches (Proposed DCC 13.14.070) o Added to allow alternative treatment techniques such as composting toilets or other systems that meet the groundwater protection goal but are not defined as an onsite wastewater treatment system or a sewer system. EXHIBIT B • Published reports: The staff report has been updated with information on USGS reports and a fact sheet published since March 2007. (Revised staff report, page 10) • High groundwater lots/Sunset clause: A sunset clause for siting standards has been added to highlight the County's commitment to investigating the potential for new development in high groundwater areas (groundwater less than 24 inches from ground surface). (Proposed DCC 13.14.030) • Compliance date: The staff report has been revised using reports published since March 2007 and provides additional information about the 10-year timeframe for decisions. This compliance period will provide an extended time line during which residents may make decisions and plan for the approach they believe is best for them. (Revised staff report, page 19) Other changes: Additional grammatical and non-substantive changes to the revised staff report may be made while the written record is open. Staff will make any such changes as soon after the record is closed for verbal testimony as possible to ensure the public has as long a period of time to review these changes as possible. For more information: Phone: Barbara Rich, 541-617-4713 E-mail: BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us Web: http://www.deschutes.org/cdd/gpp/ To submit written testimony to the public record: ATTN: Barbara Rich Deschutes County CDD 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 FAX: 541-385-1764 E-mail: BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us E G t U :r p~a~r 7 C a USA F, F 1~ L a 01- it Ell 11 H~ 11. ;lP z ~ FP E W.3;: ~8p~ p¢ _ eM '~n ~i qrN ~ F b V g R 1. i GF~ R EXHIBIT E_ _ DESCHUTES COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL CHAIN OF COMMAND Good evening, Commissioners, staff and members of the audience. My name is Martha Bauman. I am a resident of RURAL La Pine, registered voter and I am testifying for the MAJORITY of the Citizens of South Deschutes County. The Deschutes County Chain of Command goes like this: Citizens are #1. We, the citizens, are in the position of Highest Authority. You, the commissioners are #2. Your staff is #3. Are you aware of this????? Therefore, we the majority of citizens, want you and your staff to understand that we will no longer tolerate your DICTATORIAL attitude. We are no more satisfied today, than we were with what the County Staff proposed a year ago. We suggest you listen carefully to what you are being told tonight. "NO LOCAL RULE". "NO `NITRATE' REDUCING SYSTEMS". These are Band Aid fixes to a problem that may not even exist. We, the citizens, will make the decision as to how we want to protect our Groundwater---NOT YOU OR YOUR STAFF. We want to protect our Pristine Groundwater with Permanent Fixes, as needed, such as "Centralized Sewer" or "Cluster Sewer". When other contaminates such as: bacteria, viruses and medications come our way, our PERMANENT FIX, "SEWER", if needed will be take care of these contaminates. Your "nitrate reducing systems" cannot do this. REMEMBER, you work for us, the citizens. We, the majority of citizens, have spoken. If you feel that you cannot accept this "Charge", then I suggest that you "RESIGN" your positions tonight. You may leave now, go to your offices, clean out your desks and prepare the necessary papers for RESIGNING and turn them in tomorrow morning. Your positions will not be hard to fill. We live in a DEMOCRACY, not a Dictatorship. Do not FORCE us to REMOVE you from office because of your negligence of duty and failure to serve your CONSTITUENTS. We, the majority of citizens, #1 in the Chain of Command and the LEADERS of this county have SPOKEN: `NO LOCAL RULE" "ABANDON IT TONIGHT" END OF DISCUSSION May I have a response to these questions and demands by no later that Friday of this wee14 March 21St, 2008. / wt TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This last public hearing has been called by Deschutes County Commissioners to satisfy the requirement for adequate public input before the proposed Local Rule is adopted. Like many other people here tonight, I have a hopeless feeling that adoption is inevitable. In my opinion this is incredibly sad. So many good suggestions have been made, and it seems they have all fallen on deaf ears. The Notice of this Hearing indicated that they do not with to discuss the science, the testing or the data. They only wish to hear testimony on the proposed Local Rule. In my opinion, passage of the Local Rule will be a huge mistake for the County, not "could be" or "might be" like the possibility of groundwater pollution 50 years from now, but WILL be. South County's economy is already depressed. The La Pine area's real estate market is almost non-existent and has been for over two years. Our property taxes went up, but our land value and our housing value went down over the past two years. Passage of this rule will make a good argument for protest of those unreasonable property tax evaluations. Many people have made good suggestions. I wish to state, or restate one. Why doesn't the County consider mandating septic inspection instead of septic replacement? Inspection programs are on the books in many areas of the country. There are counties, for instance, in the tri-cities area of Washington State that have such a law on the books. It's a simple law - every septic system must be pumped and inspected every five years. If a system fails inspection, because it leaks or is inadequate in some specific way, and the failure cannot be rectified without replacement, then the County could require an "upgrade" to the newer type systems. This rule would be easy to adopt and impose. All homes that were sold within the past five years would have had the septic tank pumped and inspected. Those homes could begin to satisfy the requirement five years from the date of sale. Other homes that have been in single ownership longer than five years could be selected by lottery or through tax numbers and 20% given one year to comply, and the next 20% would come up the following year. This system would establish itself quickly and easily. Working, adequate systems would be property maintained and inadequate systems would be identified for replacement. Over the course of 20 years, it's likely all systems will be upgraded. No system lasts forever. Like everyone present, I want clean water in South County. There are a few problem spots, no one questions that, just as there are in any area where there are septic systems. I think my proposal would identify those problem systems, and with the County's financial help, the homeowners of those systems could be upgraded, and the process would be gradual, not shoved down our throats like some bad medicine but indeed necessary where there is a true problem. Sandra A. Neary 53939 Pine Grove Road La Pine, OR 97739 541-536-5925 EXHIBIT F_ - My Name is Gil Sprauer 70 year old Oregon Native I received an E-mail from someone who received it from Mr. Daly. He says in part if you don"t want to upgrade your septic system don't do it you have 10 years if the local rules passes. This tells me we do not have a serious problem in S County. We have isolated areas with fixable solutions. My proposal 1.Fix problem areas with money Mr.Daly says the County has. 2. Grandfather all other properties with good working existing septic systems. 3. Apply local rule to all new construction. Mr Daly said it would not be a financial problem to the Citizens, here we disagree. Low end costs are around 9K to top and at 28K to upgrade depending which area you live in. County has offered $3750 from credits of sale in Crescent Creek. Most citizens can't come up with the difference also the housing is in the ditch and many houses aren't selling. We don't have an urgent problem and no eminent health hazard. The major problem with this whole issue is the non-truthful hype caused by employees of Deschutes County Planning Dept. Mr. Daly said the new local rule would not hurt anyone financially. It has already reduced our property values. The county employees reporting to the media about Blue Baby Syndrome and nitrate poluted water. This emotional fertilizer has gone on too long. Why would any outsider want to buy here when we are polluted, stupid hillbillies. The Bend Bulletin: This last Sat. article on Front page about Bend Lapine Schools. What do you do with a town like Lapine? Mon. Lapine has pharmaceutical wastes in drinking water. IIINII"NIINII"IIIIIIN"IINIIIIN' Last 2 years Blue baby Syndrome, Nitrates in our drinking water, poluting streams, The list goes on. I'm sorry Deschutes County you wasted over 5 Million of the tax payers money and you were not able to prove we have eminent health hazard. Thank you Mr. Daly for changing my thought process. Commissioners please vote No on the local rule, we do not have a Proven nitrate problem. Thank you Commissioners for hearing me out. PXHIBIT G_ - Deschutes County Board Of County Commissioners My name is Jim Kester and I have lived in Deschutes County since 1994. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony regarding the proposed local rule. I hope that it will be of some value to you. I will comment on two elements regarding the local rule. First. Speaking for myself. I am very skeptical of the assessment, put forth by the County Staff and others to justify this proposed local rule. It is my perception, right or wrong, that the county has not been transparent throughout this process. If you expect the people who are affected to support your position, you must put all your cards on the table, such as publish all your work in a Scientific Journal, including the data used to create the computer model, for peer review. If it is able to withstand that level of scrutiny to prove its validity, I might feel different. Because this "local rule" will place a life changing, "financial burden" on some of the citizens of Deschutes County, I don't understand how you, our elected representatives, can consider approving this proposal, in the absence of such validation. Second. The County's hypothesis indicates that at today's population level, there is no widespread problem with nitrates in the ground water of South Deschutes County. So where is the problem that this hypothesis is projecting coming from, and what should be done about it? To answer that question we can look at the automobile industry. In the 1970s and 80s, when auto emissions were first dealt with, the new standards were required of the new vehicles, not the existing vehicles. This allowed for an orderly transition which reduced emissions, without placing an unreasonable burden on the owners of existing vehicles. You don't need to go any fiuther than the cities of Bend and Redmond to see local examples of how that concept is used today. Take, for example, the new. Wa1-Mart store in Redmond and the proposed Wal-Mart store and EXHIBIT H Juniper Ridge project in Bend. Wal-Mart paid $2,000,000 to the City of Redmond to provide the infrastructure required for their new store, and the Bend project is on hold until such time as the funding for the infrastructure, including the developers is worked out. What the Proposed Local Rule will require, an up-grade of perfectly performing septic systems, at a cost of $25,000 or more to install, and maintenance fees that have already escalated to $300.00 per year, is an unreasonable burden to impose on the residents of Deschutes County. I suggest that you take a page from other Government Agencies and let the problems caused by future development be paid for by that development. Thank you Dated March 19,2008 Jt"Kester 52715 Golden Astor Rd. La Pine Or 97739-9738 541-536-6166 jjkbbr0azcrestviewcable.com Attachment A. ANALYSIS REPORT for 52715 Golden Astor dated 03/03/08 UMPQUA Researeb Company 321 NE Franklin, Bldg. B, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 312-9154 Fax: ($41) 312-9455 E-mail: Behaab a@uRCmail."t Internet Aup.I1CIuwLab.ee ORELAP 1DA ORIODO52 ANALYSIS REPORT Eco'R'ater Attn: Eeo Water PO Box 3534 Suoriver OR, 97707 Sample Point: Kitchen Sampled By: Shawn Chlorinated?: No mg/L 527x5 Golden Astor URC sample 1DN: BSCO408-01 (Drinking water) Analyte Residt Sampled Re=ived Prepared Analyzed Analyst Notes Colifor:ns By 92238 - Colilert-18 Total Coliform Absent 03/03108 16:00 0310410814:12 03/0410817:00 03/05/08 12:30 MET E. Coli (r) Absent 03103108 16:00 03104/08 14:12 03/04/08 17:00 03105/08 12:30 IvXr UMPQUA Research Company The resales in this repot apply to the samples analyad in accordance withthe chain of custody document "Iris anak-tical report must loe reproduced in its entirety. Page 1 oi'3 Teresa Mireks, Client Services i.mbrmUK sulAeS AWV dl6:Zl $3 It JaW UWQUA Research Company 321 NE Franklin, Bldg, B, Beni OR 97701 (341) 312-9454 Fax: (541) 312-9456 E-mail: BendLah@URCwrvAner Internet: hrrp-MchemLab.cc ORELAP 1D# OR100052 yr . v . ~ o~w M.a ANALYSIS REPORT EcoWater project 4 No Prolect Date Reported: 03/11/08 PO Box 3534 Client Contact: Eeo Wailer Date Sampled: 03/03!08 16:00 Saoriver, OR 9774r Sample Location: W.15 Golden Astor Date Received: 03/04108 14:12 Sampled By: Shawn URC Sample BSC0408-01 Matrix: Drinking Waver Analvte Code Result Unto MRL MCL Prepared Aaabwrd Analyst Qualifier Inorganics EPA 300.0 Nitrate as T 1040 0.69 mg/L 0.10 l0 0310SM8 03105!08 TUL Nitrate as N 1040 0.69 mg/L 0.10 10 03/DS= 03/05M TUL L; M PQUA Research Company The results is this report appty to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o1' custody do aivent. This analytical report must be reproduced in its erWiety. page 2 ot3 Teresa Mireles, Client Services L d Ll9Qb£89 Li~i sumo ~twy d L£:Z L 80 LL aBW -"-P-4- 9-MIOU UMPQUA Research Company 321 NE Franklin, Bldg. B, Bend, OR 97101 (541) 312-9454 Fax: (541) 312-9456 E-mail: BendL.abgURCwad.nsr lnuxnet: herp;1'1ChemLob.c4 ORELAP IDd ORIOOO52 Qualifiers and Definitions DET Analyte DETECTED ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the MRL (minimwn reporting limit) NA Not Applicable NR Not Reported dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis RPD Relative Percent Diftrence MRL Minimum Reporting Limit MDL Minimum Detection Limit MCL Mexumum Contamination Level (t) ORELAP Accredited Analyoe D41 J 14 U40U P.3 ANALYSIS REPORT UMPQUA Research Company The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody doctnnent This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. pie 3 of 3 j Teresa Mireles, Client Savices £'d LOOt►£651b5 suineg Auwy dl£:ZL go LL JaW In regards to financing of the proposed local rule and the reasoning behind it. To satisfy my curiosity I would to know if you are aware of why the people of south Deschutes county are so uppset with ,you. I will try to explain this to you as I see it. 1- A year ago you allowed people from the USGS two hours to expound on water problems in this area that later according to their own reports is found to be scientificaly unsubstanciated. Either this fact was hidden from you or you chose to ignore it. 2- Are you aware that there were three previose reports that were not used U SGS to justify the administrative rule put out by the NW, and it took the better part of A year for the USGS to come up with A report that justifide this rule by the use of simulations. 3- Did CDD, DEQ or USQSAnform you that A simulation report 03--4195 has A disclamer on page 65 (copies avalable) that say in effect that simulations are not to be taken as scientific fact. 4- Are,you aware that the final report that the USGS put out is based on over eighty simulations (check the report and count them) and the disclamer has has been deleted. One can only conclude that either your advisers did'nt do their their home work or did inform you and you chose to ignore it. I would like to to think was not the latter. 5- My suggestion is that you refuse to endorse this rule and let the DEQ take this to the state legislature and try to get them to endorse it when they will be inundated with the E mails and other enquirers that you have been inundated with inthe past year. 6- I would also like to compliment you on the fact that you did not cave in and sign this without our input. 14bP1~' o s~✓ 8XHIBIT I Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon F. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4195 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Prepared in cooperation with OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT; CITIES OF BEND, REDMOND, AND SISTERS; DESCHUTES AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES; THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON; and U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Summary of Transient Ground-Water Discharge to Streams The transient model simulates the volumetric distribution and temporal variations in ground-water discharge to streams reasonably well. The match between simulated and measured volume of and varia- tions in ground-water discharge is somewhat depen- dent on geographic scale. Simulated and observed discharge fluxes and variations are most similar for streams that receive regional ground-water discharge. At smaller scales (as would be represented by first- order tributaries), geologic heterogeneities, topo- graphic complexity, and model discretization combine to reduce the accuracy of matches between observed and simulated discharge fluxes and variations. Nevertheless, simulated fluxes and variations are very close for certain small streams, such as Odell Creek. The fit between observed and simulated dis- charge fluctuations is also somewhat dependent on temporal scales. Overall, the fit between simulated and observed discharge fluctuations is best at decadal time scales, which reflect long-term climate cycles (such as droughts). The ability of the model to match the timing of annual fluctuations is somewhat limited by the time discretization, particularly the semiannual stress periods, as previously discussed. The transient model water budget shows a cumu- lative reduction in ground-water storage of about 3.5 x 1010 fP (about 810,000 acre-ft) over the 1978 to 1997 transient calibration period. This is equivalent to about 0.31 feet of water over the model area and is consistent with the water-level declines observed over most of the study area between the late 1970s and mid-1990s. Model Limitations Wr:::... v..M:..w:.ii.....gro.. Numerical models of und- water flow are only approximations of complex natural systems i and, as such, have intrinsic error and uncertainty. Error stems largely from the fact that certain spatially variable properties, such as hydraulic conductivity k and stream stage, must be represented as uniform values in discrete model cells. Simplification can also occur at larger scales within a model, as is the case here, where hydraulic conductivity is represented as "l uniform in zones composed of multiple model cells. ;Model uncertainty stems from random error in the field measurements used for model calibration, which Is translated through model calibration to uncertainty in the calibrated parameter values. Because of intrinsic error and uncertainty, the fit Transient Model Water Budget between simulated and observed hydraulic heads and The transient model water budget can be evalu- fluxes, described in previous sections, is not perfect. ated by observing the instantaneous rates of various f For example, steady-state model head residuals have a budget components at the end of each stress period 1 fitted standard deviation of 76 feet, and a root-mean- (table 7 and fig. 41). The most noticeable feature j square (RMS) error of 78 feet. The RMS error for of the transient budget is the way the ground-water = heads in the transient calibration is 89.6 feet. This system attenuates the wide seasonal and interannual error affects the differences between simulated variations in recharge. Recharge varies interannually = ground-water elevations and stream elevations and, by a factor of nearly 5 while stream discharge varies = consequently, the spatial distribution of simulated by a factor of only about 0.2 (which is consistent ground-water/surface-water exchanges. The compari- with streamflow measurements). The large swings son of simulated and measured stream gains and loss.-,s in recharge are moderated by storage. During the described in preceding sections, however, shows that wet winters of 1982 to 1984, it can be seen that large the model fit is reasonably good, particularly at scales amounts of ground water go into storage (as the water larger than a few to several miles. At smaller scales, table rises), and the amount of ground water going into the fit is not as good. The numerical model also has storage during the winter exceeds the amount coming certain error with regard to transient phenomena. out of storage the following summers. This situation is This can also be evaluated by assessing the fit between reversed during the dry winters of 1990 to 1992, when ' simulated and observed variations in hydraulic head little water goes into storage and a much larger amount and discharge to streams. In general, simulated and comes out of storage the following summers (as the observed responses to regional stresses matched water table drops). The variation in stream discharge within a year or two. In the Redmond area, the mode l over the calibration period is consistent with observed . fit between simulated and observed responses to short- variations in discharge of the Deschutes River near :k term stresses, such as canal operation and irrigation, Madras. was good. 65 r _ , March 19, 2008 My name is Deborah McQuary, Mrs. Melton, Mr. Luke, Mr. Daily, First for the media, if any, Mrs. Melton do we have bad water? Mr. Luke, saute question, Mr. Daily? WE DO NOT HAVE BAD WATER THIS 15 AN ANTICIPATED PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE MAYBEI I would like to try an experiment, would all of the audience please stand up. ✓ Now anyone who CAN afford these Nitrate Reducing Systems please sit down. ✓ Anyone who can afford them with the help of a low interest loan please sit down. ✓ Anyone who can afford just the additional upkeep of these systems suggested please sit down. ✓ Anyone who can afford the destruction of their landscaping and re- landscaping of there property please sit down. What you have left are all the people who you the elected officials are literally putting out on the street because we can NOT afford these Nitrate reducing systems! Now anyone who is res ectfullY refusing to put the systems in no mater what please stand up( I urge you to vote the Local Rule down at this time. Give us more time to come up with better answers to this anticipated problem, remember we do not have bad water nowl Thank You, Deborah McQuary 16255 Dyke Rd. La Pine, Or. 97739 541-536-2397 EXHIBIT ro Ile A-) Commisioners, In 2000 I applied to be included in testing one of the new septic systems. I was told that we would be one of the families included in the program. When it came time to have the system installed, I was told that they were going to install a sand filter. When I asked why they said they had never tested a sand filter and this would be a good time to do it. Makes one wonder why everybody for a number of years were required to install those sand filters. In 20011 was a member of the Operations and Maintenance Advisory Committee that was started by the county and our Mission was to recommend the structure and how to implement a management system for the operation and maintenance of septic systems. The management system would consist of a set or sets of procedures that have a combination of education, voluntary and regulatory components as appropriate to provide for the adequate protection of the groundwater in southern Deschutes County. The management system would also be transferable to other areas of the State or Nation. The County staff said there could be existing septic systems in southern Deschutes County that had never been registered with the County. The committee met for fifteen months and in 2002 we presented the county commissioners with our recommendations. Included in the recommendations, was a plan to deal with existing septic systems. One of the things that we recommended was that when a home would be sold that the septic system would be tested and brought into the maintenance program. Over time this would certainly improve the situation in southern Deschutes County. It is my understanding that this was never implemented by the County and I would like to know if you have or haven't implemented that part of the program, and if not, why not. By the way----Please don't vote for the local rule. (EXHIBIT _ K My name is George Spielman. I live on the Little Deschutes River, upstream from most everyone here. One of my neighbors is an absentee landlord. This man lives in Southern California. He has 2 rental homes here on a single tax lot. This last spring, he had one of the 2 septic tanks pumped. It was a 500- gallon tank. This tank, I understand, was installed in 1958. The top is missing. The last time I saw the absentee landlord was 2 years ago, he was here to make some repairs and to check on his inheritance. I watched as he opened the top of this septic tank. The top simply caved in. When he had covered the top with plywood and dirt, he seemed satisfied. The septic service he employed, had to dig and remove the plywood that covered the top. There is no tank there anymore. This hole in the ground is less than 100 feet from and about 12 feet above the Little Deschutes River. I asked the man from the septic service what he could do to ensure that this system gets fixed. He said all he could do was to condemn the system. This has been more than 9 months and nothing has been done. The septic service said that the property management company indicated that the owner had no intention of investing anything into this system. • How many other old systems are there like this? • What are you doing to remedy this situation? • Are there no mechanisms in place to evaluate the condition of existing systems? • Does the county have responsibilities beyond issuing a permit and inspecting the installation? EXHIBIT L • If so, what is that level of responsibility? • If not, why are you talking about adding another major expense to our homes? I too am concerned about the possibility of the county creating more expense for the homeowners of La Pine. I believe that the band-aid approach of a filter for nitrates is not in the best interest of those homeowners. I built a vacation cabin in 1986. We had a very good working septic. We expanded this into a home when we retired in 1997.1 was forced to add a 1200-gallon concrete tank and a sand filter. I talked at length with the county and DEQ trying not to have to add the then $10K to my building budget. At one point I asked them to prove to me that the sand filter would work better than the septic tank they made me destroy. They all said they couldn't. Evidently they still can't. I have our system inspected and flushed each summer. I don't want to invest more thousands of dollars into a band-aid. I want a fix. Sewers are the only answer. Commissioners, thank for this public hearing. Commissioners, I'm asking you as my representatives to not pass the local rule. Should you spurn my request, please move the compliance date out at least 15 years. USGS REPORT: HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED, HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDANTLY REVIEWED • We have formally been denied Peer Review. • Per 3/19/200811:17am email from Dave Morgan to Ron Sharbaugh/BOCC..: "none of those sample data were from wells located at Wild River". • Attached is Wild River nitrate readings from Avion Inc, going back through 1985. Note: 0 5 of the last 6 years were "Not Detectable" o There has never been a reading above background. • There is NO precursor evidence of this "probable health hazard" in Wild River: that small isolated community which is in a different geological basin than La Pine whose ground water nitrates have a short flow path to the Big Deschutes. • This is not an emergency at Wild River. Fiscal Irresponsibility toward South County Residents: Commissioners, you must realize that the financial burden of these systems is the foremost concern that the South County Residents want solutions to. Here is a list of items you have failed to include in the local rule costing: 1. A guaranteed lifetime (30 years?) 2. A maximum initial system cost from the manufacturer, which is capped by inflation. W 4 3. A max monthly maintenance cost, which is capped by inflation. . A max total government fee schedule which is capped by inflation. 5. A lemon exclusion clause for the owner. I've attached a spreadsheet that is a cost analysis for a sole source nitrex system using a 4% inflation rate and a 4% interest rate for a $40k system with $1400/yr maintenance which will be replaced in 30 years (at a cost of $125k) - you will be out of pocket $40k now, and you will pay $3600 a year that inflates by 4% for the rest of your life (that's $12,000/yr 30 years from now). How can you guarantee these costs will be contained? Freeze your staff maximum costs and put inflation caps on before anybody considers votingif i This is needed before sewering tradeoffs can be started. SPEAKING OF COSTS - WHERE ARE THE COMPOSTING TOILETS? You have completely failed to produce any evidence that they will not work. I've asked the DEQ directly and the response was "properly maintained they work". EXHIBIT _b I. Hiding behind the ridiculous state code that a composting toilet is a "plumbing fixture" is not acceptable. This one of the very cost effective solutions, and if your staff can't make it happen get a different staff. If I'm in the green zone, why should 1 spend $40k when 2 composting toilets is $4k? Monthly costs are well below $300/yr (not $3600/yr). WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? • The county needs to take the lead and change the comprehensive plan to allow formation of small sewer districts. I'd recommend the BOCC put a hold on new construction needing the Max Red Systems, form a health advisory board, and let each community work with the DEQ to get the solutions that each community wants and needs. -Ron S Ir\a r ~p 0.1d. ~1~ Data-Online DWP Data Query Page Oregon Department of Human Services • Program Water w ND = Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Level http:// 170.104.158.45/n itrates.php3'?pwsno=00975 Nitrate Samples - PWS ID: 00975 AVION WC - WILD RIVER Sample Sample Receive Analyte Source Source Results MCL UOM ID Date Date Name Name ID NITRATE (AS EP FOR 871050207 09/04/07 09/25/07 N) WELL #2 & EP-A ND 10.0000 MG/L WELL #1 2004-01 661 12/20/06 12/26/06 NITRATE (AS EP FOR WELL #2 & EP-A ND 10.0000 MG/L - N) WELL #1 51208-10 12/06/05 12/20/05 NITRATE (AS EP FOR WELL #2 & EP-A 0.1600000 10.0000 MG/L N) WELL #1 NB503240-N 03/17/05 03/28/05 NITRATE (AS EP FOR WELL #2 & EP-A ND 10.0000 MG/L N) WELL #1 NB312059N 12/02/03 12/12103 NITRATE (AS EP FOR WELL #2 & EP-A ND 10.0000 MG/L N) WELL #1 N6210314 10/16/02 11/04/02 NITRATE (AS EP FOR WELL #2 & EP-A ND 10.0000 MG/L N) WELL #1 Archived Nitrate Samples - PWS ID: 00975 Sample Receive Analyte Source Source Results MCL Date Date Name Name ID EP FOR 07/31/01 05/06/02 Nitrate WELL #2 & A 0.1600000 10.0000 WELL #1 EP FOR 07/31/01 10/22/01 Nitrate WELL #2 & A 0.1600000 10.0000 WELL #1 EP FOR 07/31/01 05/06/02 Nitrate-Nitrite WELL #2 & A 0.1600000 10.0000 WELL #1 EP FOR 07/31/01 10/22/01 Nitrate-Nitrite WELL #2 & A 0.1600000 10.0000 WELL #1 EP FOR 07/24/00 08/10/00 Nitrate WELL #2 & A ND 10.0000 WELL #1 11/16/99 11126199 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.6700000 10.0000 1 of2 3/19/2038 12:20 PM Data-Online DWP Data Query Page http://l70.104.158.45/nitrates.php3 ?pwsno=00975 EP FOR 11/03/98 01/14/99 Nitrate WELL #2 & A 0.1400000 10.0000 WELL #1 01/27/97 02/13/97 Nitrate WELL #1 AB 0.5000000 10.0000 01/23/96 02/12/96 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.1700000 10.0000 01/23/96 02/12/96 Nitrate WELL #1 AB 0.1700000 10.0000 EP FOR 10/17/95 11/17/95 Nitrate WELL #2 & A 0.1700000 10.0000 WELL #1 10/17/95 11/17/95 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.1700000 10.0000 02/08/91 03/18/91 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.1600000 10.0000 02/08/91 03/18/91 Nitrate WELL #1 AB 0.1800000 10.0000 02/03/88 03/04/88 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.0700000 10.0000 02/02/88 03/11/88 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.0700000 10.0000 09/17/85 09/17/85 Nitrate WELL #2 AA 0.3600000 10.0000 A blank or a 0 in the MCL column indicates that a MCL has not been set for that chemical. For further information on this public water system click on the area of interest below. System Info:: Report for Lenders Alerts Violations Enforcements Contacts Site Visits Public Notice Coliform Summary:: Coliform Results:: Coliform Results Archives (pre 2002) Sampling Schedule for Coliform Chemical Group Summary:: Latest Chemical Results:: Chemical Detections:: Sampling Schedules for Chemicals Single Analyte Results For a System Lead & Copper Corrosion Control(LCR) SWTR Nitrates Arsenic DBPs TOC & Alkalinity DBP/TOC/Bromate/Chlorine Monitoring Radionuclides FANLs Information by county: Inventory Surface Water Systems Sanitary Surveys Alerts:: Violations:. Open Enforcements Cross Connection ASRs Inventory List for all Oregon Drinking Water Systems in Excel or printable screen format SNC Reports for Oregon Drinking Water Systems 2 of2 3/19/2038 12:20 PM M: r- O tD n tD m w 00 w to r~ i w n N to -1 r-+ O M N a a) tD M r-o to O O I cn N N ao tD n rll~ tD ItD n O to N ' 11 ri et m 01 m tT r~ tD O tD O 00 N tD O to - 00 ~ to M 1-1 to to tD to ri tD O O N N N to M M 01 tD I N W J Y M LA I r- m N v n O M t0 m to m m n N n N n m 01 -t rti 00 to I M ri O 6 6 I- I I ± ; V> V> vt I V1 in V1 4^ in V). V1 An I VIP. V1, In V1 in in in V-1. Vf 1/1 t4 An V1 V? 4A r4 V! r4 V? r-4 V? ~4 Vf X o at * t0 M 1-I m l tD f~ to w r- w ~ w a h r4 m ^ e-1 0 O ~ 01 M N rl tD O to 11 r. n 00 n M to 00 lA 00 1A O t0 A c4 N M, at to tD n 00 O rl O A N -e tD co q N w d N O N to m N w 00 m C v t I rl r4 ri r-i ei I r-1 r1 r-1 N N N N N N M M , M M nt et I O Vf V►~ V1 V? in to in V1 V1 in VI` V1. 41 V1 V1 V► An Vf V► V1 V1 Vf 4^ 4A V? V► V$- An in I V) 1 4j ~ I 1 - f . rn O Rt ri o N to 00 w o 1-I O rn V1 to -i to ~ L ^ si w N O to ri to w mt n d' n I I ? t D et M ui V r: w rn q N w a m r-~ M O -4 M Rt cr n N r m to -4 . • -I to o M O o M M o, m M w I 00 w N in tp n! i N i O M t- ! ei e'I r-t N N 1-I N N O M I Rt M a M -4 a -e to a0 o tan D1 to tD w n O o0 I~ 00 u m st q M r-1 II N l i II i U I in I in in , V1 in V! , in in to •tn in V1 to Vf to to Vf V$- in in 4n to in V► to in 4.11 to r to e tn; II O . O a' Rt v rn O Ln H .4 O 00 to to n M n N -it N m N N <7 tD Ol a m m w M N -4 M to 00 v N M w n rl O to , P~ w w a C' tD ! N w ' o N M IA r- m rl m to I• m ' N a v n r O m N w to w w O N M to t 00 ' N N m to d0 m w m m N N N O m O m E M I c6 M tt --i tt to M tri to to d t0 t0 n n n ^ ao o6 00 al ai Di 6 O ri i r.z ri r~ r-1 r-1 ' O ~ I i N N } in' V? Vf I V). N in VT to N in in N N in in Vf in in V1 in in in V) V1 in Vf- in' tn to 40. in V) , i to I v~ Oli cn I w n tD N to rl to M a ri to IN to n tD N 00 N O an N LA a0 00 N M I~% q* N ri 00 rl tD ~ c t n an w w O f~ an 00 00 O " v N I 00 W to O ri I N M q to w n 0>, (N to c4 M w r` 0 O N st n m " M to 0o O N IN = N N,1N! N N N N N! N N O M M M M m m ~ L C' n t!1 to M tf1 t0! t0 ~ u 21 a I ra } V►1 V1 V► V) V1• V► in V1 Vn in in Vt• V1 4111 V1 Vf V1 in in A^ V1 4^ V? V? in V? A^ in V►- V> C7 I U 1 i ! I - - I ri u. CX I. I I I I ( In + I I i I CI I I I a l ~ V► I Vt, I a I V* I O t 01 - 4 N . t Ln I M M e M Q1 0O w m r w - m n et 00 m Rt 00 ri to (n M to o W to M 00 an w O tD o M tD w to tD N 00 tD G) O n r, M n r, W n 00 C) n Cl N o0 en O 00 r` 01 0o M M in O n cn o, O q O L• O N O Ch M O (tD a 1 i W ~ I ' I I I I 1 ~ r i r- r M i l I i 1 l O U Vf 4A V1 in N V1 V1 V? A 4 V1 Vti in V1 V1 A^ V1 in V1 An in 4/10 in V► in in V1 4A in I^ V . ) 4! 0J an * M 01 to M M I n M co co M O i a O N a N 4 M V et N r~ -e r4 m q* ri ri to r-i M to N to to et P% to n rn to N tD tD N n w Q1 rn tD n N n tD to n tD 0o n co r l co O to 00 -i 00 00 o N 0, ` n t to In to m m to m O tD n O 01 M ! C y , 0 Vf V► Vf V1, V1 t 4A Vf V? An V1 l V1 V$- V> 4^ in V? Vf V1 V1 V1 V! in V$- Vf V1. An V1 ( V1• 1 V) I V> i C; O io r I M M T-4 " " w IM p,"~ to io r l v l ri M N rl N N N h N M O ui 00 tD O . m 00 A e-1 to cn co N m T-4 00 n M co m I w tD I cn ri U ri It l -4 r♦ V-1 l 14 e-1 ~ I 101 r I r-1 N I N I N I N' N tV N N' tV N M M " M M M M I R I I 11* Y f V1 { V! in in in V1 V► in in in to to in in in in in in in V1 in in Vf V1 in A^ A^ to 414. n in 1 O I I I I rD o ~ I I a U N , to ~ v► I I vt• 00 Q1 O ;:4. M to tD n co I d1 O ri N M to tD r, a0 01 O ri N M st <n tD n I Q 0 0 0 0 0 ~4 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ri N M to tD n a0 Q1 N M V 0 ~ N N N N M -t r 1 -1 W4 r -4 1 -1 1-4 -I r N N N N N N m cn M ' To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Wild River Owners Board of Directors Subject: Proposed Local Rule -testimony for March 19, 2008 public meeting The Wild River BOD believes the current scientific evidence shows that our community does not contribute any measurable nitrate concentrations (i.e. nothing above natural background levels) to either the aquifer or to the Big Deschutes River [see e##eehed WIZe email 1/29/2008 from Tammy Baney/Ron Sharbaugh]. We therefore request the BOCC to exclude the Wild River community from within the boundaries for the proposed local rule. The Wild River Owners Board of Directors applauds the DEQ for their letter on Jan 4, 2008 to the Board of County Commissioners which has been manifested in the latest draft of the local rule permitting localized sewer systems. I As such, we wish to condemn the BOCC for passing the-1aR44r~ 2006 emergency ordinance which has required new construction within Wild River to install "Maximum Nitrogen Reducing Systems": • We have no knowledge of a public process in which a representative from Wild River was allowed to testify on behalf of this ordinance. • This ordinance was passed very prematurely: the final report from the USGS was not yet published, and the final report from the EPA National Demonstration Project is still not published. • Real costs for these "sole source" systems are far exceeding your staff's projections. Therefore we hold the BOCC as being fiscally irresponsible to the Wild River community for failing to provide cost containment language in this ordinance. • This ordinance should properly have been bundled in with the proposed local rule, and not passed 2 years ago as an emergency ordinance -we see no justification for that action by the BOCC. We feel language of the draft local rule, which gives our community the authority to decide whether we sewer or whether use individual ATT systems, is the correct policy. • The BOCC was grossly in error by accepting their staff's incompetent financial analysis as the determining factor as to sewer or not sewer in the initial draft of the local rule. For example, Sister's spray field as a fire prevention green zone is a factor your staff could never quantify. For a proper public process to proceed, the County needs to convince Wild River residents that their septic systems are polluting. We demand real data, either well data or river data that backs up the 1999 USGS model calibration for the Wild River area. We t~/gS NE vc~R 141111C II Page 1 of 2 3/15/2008 EXHIBIT -,-N then demand 2008 data that confirms concentrations are on the increase as the model predicts. The reason for these demands: • Avion Inc. testing of the Wild River water wells in 2007 showed a "not detectable" amount of nitrates. • USGS verbal testimony claimed Wild River septic output goes into the Big Deschutes, and a TMDL reading for Pringle Falls last year showed a <0.0050 mg N/L reading. When we are convinced with real data, we will accept the challenge of sewer vs. ATT. In Summary: • If you pass the local rule and keep Wild River in its boundaries, we will investigate legal action against the county to force an exemption. • If you pass the local rule and Wild River ends up with an exemption [the easy way or the real easy way], we will advise our citizens who. had to install Maximum Reduction Systems to investigate legal action against the county.. • If you pass the local rule and Wild River ends up forming a sewer district, we will advise our citizens who had to install Maximum Reduction Systems to investigate legal action against the county. • If you don't pass the local rule, we will advise new construction to investigate legal action against the county to block the requirement for a Maximum Reduction System. In hind sight -B000 you have failed to follow a proper public process that has the backing of the Wild River citizens, and looks like, in your haste, you have exposed the county to unnecessary future litigation no matter what course of action you take. ghntraw, President Wild River Owners Association /urn r n y Page 2 of 2 3/15/2008 My name is Albert Bauer and I live at 17683 Manning Ct. in Newberry Estates. This meeting was called by Deschutes Co. officials to discuss how to spend the 35 million dollars which the county does not have. This is the same as my wife and I planning how to spend the 200 million dollars we will have someday when we win the power ball jackpot. Which bank will loan us the money needed to redo our septic system using the power ball winnings as collateral How much of the 35 million does the county have available now ? in 2 years ? in 5 y(mrs ? I propose that the "Local Rule" provision of 10 years to complete the modifications of the septic systems start the day the 35 million is available. As long as the County wants to talk about money, lets do so. Oregon DEQ proposes a yearly license fee of $340.00 for the privilege of installing the upgrade. $340.00 X 6500 upgrades = $2,210,000.00. Deschutes county proposes a yearly fee of $50.00. $50.00 X 6500 = $325,000.00. Minimum yearly maintenance contract at $400.00. $400.00 X 6500 = $2,600,000.00 This is $5,135,000.00 yearly out of the pockets of area residents. ($790.00 ea per yr) This cost will not capture 1 mg of nitrate. Most responsible people will do a type of cost-benefit analysis when making a large outlay of cash. This does not include politicians or bureaucrats. I have a test report from my well which was done March 12, 2008. The reading was less than 1 mg/L. How will my spending 25-30 thousand dollars improve this reading DEQ test well #521 in Newberry Estates also has a nitrate reading of less than 1 mg. The USGS report states that "if' residential development continues as planned it may pose a threat to drinking water. Walmart, Winco & a Mr. Walker in Madras were denied building permits unless they fork over big bucks to resolve any problems they may cause p 'nor to development. In the La Pine area, current residents must pay now to allow for future development to continue. is it that the only "evil" septic systems are in the La Pine area Albert . suer 541-536-7464 Enclosed is a test report for my well EXHIBIT 0 UKPQUA Research Company 321 NE Franklin, Bldg. B, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 312-9454 Fax: (541) 312-9456 . E-mail: BendLab@URCmail.net Internet: http: //C`hemLab. cc ORELAP ID# OR100052 Case Narrative Comments for B8C1202 No Samples in Work Order B8C1202 were SubContracted to an outside Laboratory. ANALYSIS REPORT Bauer, Albert Project # No Project Date Reported: 03/14/08 P.O. Box 1918 Client Contact: Albert Bauer Date Sampled: 03/12/08 08:30 LaPine, OR 97739 Sample Location: 17683 Manning CT Date Received: 03/12/08 09:45 PWS 41 Sampled By: Albert Bauer URC Sample B8C 1202-01 Matrix: Drinking Water Analyte Code Result Units MRL MCL Prepared Analyzed Analyst Qualifier Inorganics 15MN03 D Nitrate as N ND mg/L 1.00 10 03/12/08 03/12/08 JCB UMPOUA Research Comnanv The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. paee 2,f3 Teresa Mireles, Client Services i Karen Duncan A Citizen of Lower Deschutes County And a Registered Voter This Local Rule was a done deal back in the fall of 2006. It WAS just because a few Lower Deschutes Count Citizens got wind of what the county and commissioners were doing that we awaken many other Lower Deschutes County Citizen, Then, the commissioner and county had to start showing at least in action they were trying to the do the due process of the law. This is where the deciept and half truths and manipulations have come into play. There are many, many laws that the commissioners and county are held too, but with a few twist and turns they can change almost anything and put it in their terms and their favor. My husband and I have never been involved with any political or governmental actions like this here in Deschutes County before. But for almost two years now we have attending all the public hearings that were offered down here and have gone up to Bend, many times to set in on the Commissioners meetings and work sessions that had any thing pertaining to the Local Rule. • We have been involved in many ways of getting the Citizens of Lower Deschutes County informed about the Local Rule. I am sorry to say, that my opinions of the Commissioners and their staff, the County, IS to quote a phase "Gone down the toilet". The Commissioners say that they are impartial and although they are elected officials have proven too many, that have been aboard with the county from day one of this Local Rule. They like many in the County staff have personal agendas for this Local Rule being to pass. The number one goal has been money, money and then personal gain. There have been millions of grant money that has been spent on this so called La Pine National Study and there is still more money from grants out there, that they have extended and they, the County, need to show results so as to keep getting the grants and show that the money already spent was done not in vain. It has been the citizens down here that have slowed their process down. They, the Commissioners and their staff, the County, have had to at least show that they were trying to go accordingly by the laws by which we are all govern by. But here with go with the deceipt and half truths and deception and manipulations, They would come down here and hold hearings and take testimony from the citizen of Lower Deschutes County because we are to quote, from their top scientist a uneducated people and that we could be easily with a little sugar coating be gullable for any thing. They came down here and manipulated the hearings by not letting anyone speak but for 5 minutes after their staff took the two hours and a half to again present their side. Only because we put up such a fuss they granted up two more meetings as we had so many people from learned back grounds that had such good information did they have too grant us two more hearing. But did they listen to us NO! They had their minds made up. It is only because we have had such good response from the Citizens of Lower Deschutes County that to save face they have had to make a pretense of a least listening to us. Much of what is going on right now is just a farce. They have no attention of listening to us. They only have to act like they are, so that they are playing by the rules. There is too much revenue to be made from this proposed rule for the county and right now the county is hurting. This Local Rule will be a good source of Revenue for the county for many years to come. We were able to get the Commissioners to put a Citizen Advisory group together only after much pressure from the newly formed Citizen Action Group from Lower Deschutes County. The Citizens Action Group through our many meetings and gatherings tried to get a person from as many of the different housing area in the communities as possible to represent their area and to be able to voice the EXHIBIT P Karen Duncan M(.Ltck\ Registered Voter from Lower Deschutes County I have so many questions that my mind is racing. So I have narrowed it down to two questions for my 3 minutes testimony. 1. What steps have you taken to address the alleged nitrate contamination other than considering the proposed ordinance? 2. Will you be holding another public hearing after the Financial Committee has submitted their recommendation on how to use the so call VAPOR 35 million dollars? And how quickly can we expect that meeting. My other concern is that a couple of days ago Commissioner Mike Daily sent out an email telling those: Lower Deschutes County citizens who don't want to comply with the Local Rule if passed just DO NOT DO IT! ]UST SET TIGHT FOR 1 YQ~EARS!!! SHAME ON YOU MR._ DAILY!!!!!!!!!!! Encouraging g us to commit a Class A Violation gift Local Rule as written_ that could cyst the _us a fi nWof 600 to 1.000 dollars per day and continue until the violation is brought to compliance. i*=W of ou telling us to break the 1aw_ we law abidingsitizens of L &v= Des_ch= County Umc yaj and the other two Commissioner to vote NOT TO PASSS THE LOCAL RULE! ! ! ! ! THANICYOU 3-19-08 Testimony for Submission at Hearing by Deschutes County regarding Implementation of the Local Rule Honored County Commissioners: My name is Dan Varcoe. I am a Real Estate Broker and live here in the La Pine area. Thank you for hearing our area Citizens regarding the "Local Rule" Proposal. The goal of protecting our water is mutual. The reason I am speaking tonight is to attempt to ins ire you to consider options, to think "Outside the Box" and be open to the ideas and recommendations of the community, as well as other experts whose opinion of the proposal may differ from yours. I'm really just asking you to remain "open-minded" and to listen carefully to the testimony submitted by the Public. Your staff has conducted an abundance of studies. You have prepared an overwhelming amount of promotional materials. You have held many presentations and meetings, and performed many modifications to the orginal proposed ordinance and still the Citizens of South Deschutes County doubt the necessity of this Proposal. 1. A State of Oregon DEQ fact sheet dated Sept. 4, 2002 reports the following: "A nitrate level of up to 3 parts-per-million in well water is generally believed to be t~ ugly and safe for drinking." . "Private well owners are not mW*1d to meet my health standards for tl* c disking water supply." It goes on to say... "Little is known abaia the long-term effects of drinking water with elevated nitrate levels" and ..."at this time there is no clear evidence of an increased risk of cancer'in humans." Sellers are required by the State to test for nitrates when they sell their homes and very, very few of them test at excessive levels. Our Real Estate office has seen only one in La Pine since we opened our doors in 1997. It had a shallow well, a leaking, rusted out septic tank and was in a high water area 2. County staff has projected the possibility of increased pollution of our water... they have admitted that we currently have no imminent health risk issues... and no one seems to know for sure when or if we will have excessive or hazardous nitrate levels. We are considerably well below Oregon's "Red-Flag" level of 7 parts per million. 2. County staff has distributed illustrations of our wells drawing water right out of our septic drain fields They issued reports that our Babies will turn "Blue" and die, if we keep drinking this water. (In fairness to the County, I noticed this has been modified in a new brochure stating "Gastro-intestinal illness can be caused in a number of ways (including food borne illnesses, contaminated water supplies, and imorooer personal hygiene"). And... it does say..."High Nitrate levels can be a "CO-FACTOR". But...there is also an admission printed on the County's web-site that there has never been a case of "Blue-Baby" disease reported in all of Deschutes County's history. I wish driving and recreating in Central Oregon were half as safe as drinking our water. 3. Lately, the County has expressed concern about algae developing in our rivers and streams, which cot Id kill fish if... an increased level of nitrates makes its way to the river. Our citizens don't want to hurt the fish habitat either. We are on the "same page Many of us live to fish. But there seems to be conflicth ig EXHIBIT _R studies and reports regarding the actually likelihood of contamination to our rivers considering it's ability to de-nitrify and clean itself up as it moves downstream. This is not... and will never be the Willamette River. I believe the County's goals are admirable, and I appreciate the concern, effort and money spent on this project... But, you have convinced me that we have a problem of the magnitude that has been presented to us... and mostly I am concerned about the solutions the County has choosing in addressing this potential problem. 1. None of us want to shoulder the individual cost of the proposed Nitrate Reduction systems and I'm sure most of us think it's cool that the County is trying to invent ways to come up with financial help by liquidating County owned property. We appreciate that kind of "creative financing" : 2. But... the real and bigger cost May be the Negative Economic Impact to the area, in general... similar to what we have witnessed when the Local Rule was implemented for new construction back in 2006. (Without Public Disclosure or Hearings, by the way) The sale price of 1 acre building lots has dropped over 30% since that rule was implemented. Just knowing that the local rule proposal is on the table has all but stopped real estate sales in the La Pine area. 3. But, all that being said... The cost... in any form is not the biggest issue. It is just that we are not convinced that you are doing "The right thing". We would rather spend MORE MONEY for something that lasts and is proven... rather than just a band-aid with high maintenance costs and... quite possibly a "short-life-span". This May mean investing in long-lasting cluster systems or full sewer systems. 4. And... where is the logic in all this? It seems the rating on these units is not measuring their output, but on their ability to reduce Nitrates by some "percentage". This doesn't make sense if a household already has low or no Nitrate output. How do you justify the same system requirements for the snowbird couple vs. the full time family with 4 kids? What about the family who utilizes electric or composting toilets with absolutely no nitrate contribution? Is there a provision for monitoring the nitrate output of each system to assure us that we are meeting the goals of this huge project? If not, Why Not?.... Let's take a first step of instituting a monitoring system for each existing system and only require those with excess pollution levels to upgrade? 5. The biggest and most important thing is: We, the Citizens of South Deschutes County have done our homework... We have discovered so many errors... mis-information... mis-leading presentations... and changes in "So-Called" Facts. Statements have been produced which appear to be only "scare-tactics 6 Please ask yourself this one question... Am I certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the soils in this area can not properly handle our standard septic systems? What if property owners are willing to ins ct our standard septic systems annually to assure they are not leaking or malfunctioning? By all admissions from Deschutes County, DEQ and any other sources ...We currently have little or no elevated nitrate problems after more than 35 years of utilizing mostly standard steel tank systems, many in areas of high-water tables. All we really have are projections of a problem... based on questionable and limited data and a computer model based on inaccurate and estimated population projections and so-called "Hot Spots" that are quite possibly caused by old and leaking septic tanks. (though no one seems to know for sure) Why are you un- able to determine whether certain existing septic tanks may be leaking and contributing to excessive nitrate levels..., but "Pretty much be certain that sometime between 20-50 years we will have a dangerous and elevated Nitrate issue in the whole region?" Honorable Commissioners: It is time to DO THE RIGHT THING. To dig deep to seek to understand the citizens of South County... and as Commissioner Tammy Melton often offers... to truly be... "Yours in Partnership" You see we are in this together... Let's work together to determine whether we actually have a problem.... Be certain that we are all doing everything we can do to make the existing systems work properly to use logic, as well as scientific computer models... To perform continuous monitoring and make changes as necessary. I hone we convince you tonight to consider.... carefully... the beliefs, the oo i'nions and the careful and tedious research that has been performed by "Our Local Citizens" before implementing a "Local Rule" that we believe undermines and violates our Freedoms and Rights to self-govern through representation, to have a say and then... TO BE HEARD!!! by those in Leadership. A short story and I will finish! I used to be a Building contractor. I set up the forms for a foundation of a home at Indian Ford Ranch near Sisters. Just as the Concrete mixer showed up, I realized I had laid the foundation forms out backward with the front of the house facing West rather than East as it was designed to be. I didn't want to admit the mistake.... To send the Concrete mixer back to town, to tear out the forms, to rip out the footings and "start- over" But... what if I hadn't figured it out before the concrete was poured and finished? What if I had framed and roofed the house before realizing it was all backward? Yes... re-building the foundation forms was... "The right thing to do". I didn't get paid any more for making it right. But... the owner was happy with the finished produc... and so was L Please just take the time and Think this out for yourselves. The investment of time and energy by Deschutes County and the staff has been huge... and it may be difficult to admit the mistake. But... I'm asking that you also recognize that this thing is put together backward. Please do not hesitate to tear it down and start over. I trust that you, too... will "DO THE RIGHT THING".... Before the Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County, Oregon March 19, 2008 La Pine High School Auditorium Re: Adoption of Local Rule Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.14 Commissioners: My name is Lee Wilkins. I am a resident of rural La Pine and a registered Deschutes County voter. I do not expect an answer to my questions this evening. However I will need answers before the Local Rule is voted upon by the Commissioners Question: Is DCC 13.08 Onsite Sewage Disposal and Septic Tanks replaced or amended by this Chapter 13.14? Question: I refer to Chapter 13.14 South County Onsite Wastewater Treatment. Is there an error is Chapter 13.14.050 (f) Performance Standards when it refers to DCC 14.14.050 ( C ) and (D). I cannot find a section so entitled. Does one exist that is not available to public view. If so, what does it contain? I bring your attention to the March 14, 2008 letter from Joni Hammond, Interim Deputy Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Local Rule. I quote, "We are also pleased with the addition of DCC 13.14.070 regarding the use of sewer systems and view it as a firm commitment for the County to promote the use of sewer systems where we determine them to be necessary. We expect this to include assisting citizens in any way possible in exploring sewer options and the formation of sewer or sanitary districts, and to expedite all administrative steps an d related applications to the process. We are committed to having Department staff actively participate in this process as well." I quote snippets of Dave Kanner's March 10, 2008 email responses to Ken and Judy Forsythe concerning the establishment of sewer districts and amendment of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. "...Understand, however, that the county is the reviewing/approving agency for the creation of a sewer district, so our appropriate role is to help applicants understand and get through the process....The comprehensive plan amendments are actually the end of the process... But citizens have the right to pursue the sewer alternative now...However, even with such a comp plan amendment in place, citizens seeking to form a sewer district would still have to go through the full land use process and there would still have to be a finding a no practicable alternative. Also a comp plan amendment is a land usq action that is subject to appeal (as is the creation of a sewer district) No one should assume that the comp plan amendment or the creation of a sewer district will be a smooth ride, free of legal challenges." EXHIBIT S I really didn't hear anywhere in Mr. Kanner's email response where the County has any intent to really change anything in its approach to encourage and/or assist citizens in formation of sewer districts. Sounds to me like the same old, same old.... I am submitting this testimony to become part of the record of this hearing. Lee Wilkins P.O. Box 983 La Pine Oregon 97739 Leewiking28@msn.com C. Existing Development located on sites that do not meet the 24 inch vertical separation to groundwater shall install a Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System. D. Existing Development located on sites that do meet the 24 inch vertical separation to groundwater shall install onsite wastewater treatment systems that reduce nitrogen to at least the level specified for the area within which the property lies. E. The Board shall adopt by resolution the Nitrate Loading Management Model and jnMinimum nitrogen reduction standards gRdicable to this chapter.. 1. The resolution shall also adopt the map depicting where these standards apph-.-slH4J4q the lea . 2. The Deparhnent shall maintain the map depicting where these standards ap-Mv. F. Except as provided in DCC 13.14.050(G). aAJI Existing Development served by onsite wastewater G. '-u wastewa reatment system that was or is operating under a VVPCF Permit from ODEQ shall not be required to meet the performance standards in DCC 1114.050 until such time as a major alteration or major repair is needed in accordance with OAR 340, division 71. these L g Ord. 2008-012 1.2003 13.14.060. Listing Nitrogen Reducing Systems. A. Except as provided in DCC 13.1-1.070. 9f:s- ite-wastewater treatment systems for all Existing and New Development in the South County shall be onsite wastewater treatment systems allowed by the ODEQ. B. Onsite wastewater treatment systems or components designed to reduce nitrogen. including Maximum Nitrogen RedUcing Systems. shall be identified on a list maintained by the Department. 1. The list shall categorize the systems or components by demonstrated nitrogen reduction capability. 2. The nitrogen reduction categories in this list shall correspond to the performance standards shown in the legend ri#egen Fedueti eategafieg on the map adopted under DCC 13.14.050(E) and which shows where the specific performance standards must be achieved. C. Vendors or designers of . b g nsite wastewater treatment systems may apply to the County to behave additional systems listed by the Department as nitrogen reducing systems. 1. Applications must be submitted on a form specified by the Department and shall be accompanied by the fee established by the Board. 2. Applications must include documentation of compliance with DCC 13.14.050(M and 13.14.060(A). D. Data sources submitted by vendors or designers in support of an application to list an additional onsite wastewater treatment system as a nitrogen reducing system shall include at least one of the following: 1. Peer reviewed articles, 2. Third party reports. E. subm. ed oA W ^An application by a vendor or designer to list an additional onsite wastewater treatment system as a nitrogen reducing system shall include but is not limited to the following required data: 1. The quality of the septic tank effluent or wastewater influent received by the treatment system during the performance test 2. The quality of theproposed treatment system effluent:-. 3. The quality of the proposed treatment system total nitrogen concentration of the influent: If thp influent total nitrogen eaReen#atien ig than 65 m" ~ then the System's 114p;#P n pei-Femianee shall be pmi-a4ed b 4. Organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen for treatment system influent and effluent-; and 5. Measurements of wastewater flow during the performance test. F. 1Fdata shows the total nitrogen concentration of the influent to the proposed treatment system is less Chapter 13.14 3 (XX 2008) Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sba Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 503-229-5696 TTY: 503-229-6993 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes County Proposed Local Rule Dear Commissioners: Please consider this letter the Department's official comments regarding Deschutes County's newly drafted Local Rule. As previously stated, we support the County in development and adoption of a Local Rule provided that the rule allows for as many-options for compliance as possible including the use of sewer systems, easements, and the ability of a property owner to modify their property in an effort to meet siting criteria for an individual onsite wastewater treatment system. We are pleased with the addition of the "sunset clause" in DCC 13.14.030(E) and view it as i firm commitment from the County to address concerns surrounding the development of high groundwater lots, also known as "red lots". We understand that the County was recently awarded a grant to be used exclusively to address these concerns and that you will begin this process this summer. We are committed to have Department staffatctively participate in all fimctions of this process. We are also pleased with the addition of section DCC 13.14.070 regarding the use of sewer systems and view it as a firm commitment from the County to promote the use of sewer systems where we determine them to be necessary. We expect this to include assisting citizens'in any way possible in exploring sewer options and the formation of sewer or sanitary districts, and to expedite all administrative steps and related applications to the process. We are committed to having Department staff actively participate in this process as well. We would like to see the word "existing" removed from the definition of "South County" as follows: "...except those areas within eadstig sewer districts." We know that the citizens in South Deschutes County are extremely interested in creating new sewer systems and expanding existing sewer systems. In certain areas of South Deschutes County, we believe that sewer systems will be more protective of public health and the environment, and provide for a longer-term solution than individual onsite systems. In other less densely developed areas of South Deschutes County, we believe individual onsite systems with advanced treatment capabilities will provide the necessary protection. We understand that the process of constructing and maintaining a sewer system may be difficult and costly depending on 0 Deschutes County Local Rule Comments r.. March 14, 2008 Page 2 of 2 numerous factors, however we still encourage the County to do whatever is necessary to accommodate the needs of the citizens in South Deschutes County regarding the use of sewer systems. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need any additional iformation, please do not hesitate to contact Bob Baggett in our Bend Office at (541) 388-6146 extension 230 or via e-mail A.state.or.us. at baggett.rohqV& Sincerely, I, , f Jo ' and Interim Deputy Director cc: Bob Baggett, DEQ - Bend Mike Kucinski, DEQ - Roseburg Doug White, DLCD - Bend Barbara Rich, Deschutes County Community Development Department Tom Anderson, Deschutes County Community Development Director Katherine Morrow, Deschutes County Planning Director Page 2 of 3 See responses to your questions in blue, beiov,-. Regards, Dave Kanner County Administrator Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Ste. 200 Bend, OR 97701 541-388-6570 541-385-3202(fax) From: judybug7669@q.com [mailto:judybug7669@q.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:30 PM To: Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney Subject: Comprehensive Plan According to Commissioner Luke, "Sewers were DEQ s business, not the County's ° I doubt if the County has the expertise to know how to proceed from here, but Catherine Morrow, Tom Anderson and Laurie Craighead have all bold you that any consideration of sewer would take an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Actually, we do have a pretty good idea and we've provided a page on our web site with information on how to proceed with a sewer system: http;//www,deschutes.org/index.cfm?objectid=3CE3206F-BDBD-57C1-9059FAOC9E53E388 Since this nitrate controversy Isn't an "imminent "public health problem, we need a systematic way to approach this issue and Identify the areas that need to be worked on first it may take a sewer system to do the "best of b". In these cases, let's be ready to proceed in a timely fashion. The DEQ letter said the health hazard under OAR 660-11-0060(4) was existing, not imminent. It is that declaration which allows an entity or group to take the .next steps in the process under OAR 660- 011-0060 (4). The test under the rule (660-11-0060(1)) is not whet does the "best job" but rather that there is no "practicable alternative" to sewer. The county needs to come down here and help us; not just tell us to start 'some' process that will keep us'busy for a good long while, only to get to the end and be told, "it will take an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan". The administrative rules established by the state are the process. The county staff is committed, as requested by the DEQ letter, to working with citizens in coordination with DEQ and DLCD to expedite as much as possible the and use requirements related to any proposal for establishment or expansion of an a sewer system. We have already spoken with Oregon Water Wonderland II regarding their request for information about how to procee i with expanding their boundaries to serve Oregon Water Wonderland I. To our knowledge neither the County nor, he DEQ nor DLCD has had a specific request or proposal from other individuals, home owners associations, subdivisions or sewer district to establish a new sewer or expand an existing sewer. We will he happy to set up a coordinated (DI-CD and DEQ) meeting with any entity that wants to explore or initiate this option. Understand,..however, that the county is the reviewing/approving agency for the creation of a sewer district, so our apppropriate role is to help applicants understand and g fThr ug he process. Also, when will the Comprehensive Plan be reviseWamended? Isn't this the "first" step that needs to happen? Have you directed your staff to begin this process, as it applies to sewers? How can you possibly consider passing Local Rule, It you, the County, have not initiated the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which will allow citizens the right to pursue sewers? The comprehensive plan amendments are tualiv at th _ end of the nra~ s (Seethe flow chat at the web site re ce above. ut citizens ave the right to ursue the sewer alternative now. OAR 660-1 1- 0060 establishes a process for al owing sewers to be established in rural lands under-certain circumstances. Citizens who wish to pursue that option can do so today. Right now! 1 should note that at the January 30 work session with DEQ and DLCD I specifically asked Doug White of DLCD if the county could ac opt a 3/14/2008 Page 3 of 3 comprehensive plan amendment that would make any area south of Lava Butte eligible for sewer if the area met ai of the other criteria of the OAR. Doug's answer was yes. Our planning staff will be meeting with Doug soon to ce a better understanding of how this would work. -lawey@r even with such a comp plan amendment in place: citizens seeking to form a sewer district would still have to go through the full land use process and There would still _ r c Ica e a rna tve. Also, a aomo elan amendment is a land use ac lop,._ at is subject to aouPai lS the,creation of.a sewe .driStrict) iJo one_shogJ . assume that'turip. n.amendment nr the ~.._....1. creation of a.sewer district will be a smooth ride, free of legal challenges. This time, please instruct your staff to get the 'horse BEFORE the cart; direct your staff to take the first step: AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANII . Do you, the Commissioners want to see a W6n;Wfin Situation from all this, or do you just want to 'get it over with' and let the chips fall where they may? Your careful consideration of these concerns is both requested and Mpreclated Please enter our concerns into the public record of the REVISED Local Rule Issue. Done. Concerned in South County, Ken and Judy Forsythe 3/14/ X008 My name is Sunni Rounds. I'm a resident of rural La Pine and I am a registered voter. Commissioners and Honorable South County Residents, thank you for coming this evening. Mr. Daly, I'd like to thank you for your e-mail of this past Sunday. Your words were the first expression of empathy we have received from anyone at the County. In speaking of the financial burden, I ask why you are holding what is supposed to be the final "public hearing" tonight. We don't know what strategies the financial committee may recommend and neither do you. The appropriate time for a final public hearing is when the public has the details of any financial assistance that may be available and we can intelligently speak to a proposal or to recommendations that were not embraced. As for being backed into a corner, you can thank your staff. It was their arrogance and, above all, their deceit that has put you in the position you find yourselves this evening. In spite of this, there is nothing to prevent you from enacting the ordinance now (if you feel it is absolutely necessary) and making it effective 10 or 15 years from the date of passage. It demonstrates that you are addressing the problem, allows for finalization of any financial plan and gives time for technology to advance. Currently, there is no evidence that anyone exposed to South County groundwater nitrates are suffering any ill effects because of the exposure and there is no current conclusive medical research that there are any adverse health effects caused solely by nitrates. Since average nitrate levels won't exceed EPA drinking water standards for decades, I want to go on record as vehemently opposing the use of the emergency declaration and recommend you delete it from the proposed ordinance. EXHIBIT T 7 IQ~ jea,7L., 0k 3©C!) 7 AT'S DAFCRATTAT10M F0,_ 11Aornh 10th m►hl;n +~cfimnnv m~~+inn Good evening commissioners; Been a rough year hasn't it? Believe me, it's gonna get worse. Addressing this local rule; The ostensible reason for local rule is elevated nitrates in the surface and ground water. either now or in the future. There are two very basic problems with this piece of public legislation. ] The assumption that nitrates in drinking water are a health hazard is simply not born out by present medical literature, at least in any of the quantities that is being seen in this case. The sighting of old medical assumption that have been showlto be faulty is silly at best. Yes, there are some failing septic systems in the county that need to be taken care of. But a nitrate nroblem county wide. we do not have. As proposed, it is "Much to do about nothing". 2. If we are to assume that nitrates are a precursor to other problems, namely pharmaceuticals. chemicals. viruses or bacteria. you nose two other problems. You first have to show that the nitrates are indeed from human waste and not some other source, which at this time you have failed to do on a county wide basis, specific systems yes. The other problem is that removing the nitrates does not do anvthing to remove those future contaminates that nitrates are a precursor to. So, in either case, the proposed local rule of which sole concern is a nitrogen reduction system is no fix at all. If you are concerned with what contaminates the nitrates are precursors to, then you must be concerned with fixing that,Q If you are only concerned about nitrates in and of themselves, you are creating a problem for those that are unable to deal with the absurd costs of your approved systems and which is not nresenting a genuine area health hazard. . It has been suggested that if cost is a factor, then advice to the public is --don't do anything for the 10 years contained in the proposal. Of course, then our propertyyhOk- becomes the counties property under a class A violation. This is unacceptable! Local rule is bad legislation. At this point it appears to me that you are between a rock and a hard spot. You have opened up a can of worms and now must deal with it. Bad advice from vour staff has lead to bad results. This o_n_nosition will go on. Expect resistance. T~~ 3 1&4 EXHIBIT U Testimony to Deschutes County Commissioners, March 19, 2008 Regarding Groundwater Issues and Local Rule My name is Pamela Cosmo, I live in La Pine - We have met before Sometimes we need to back off from a problem in order to see it more clearly. Sometimes we need to view it from a greater distance to gain a better perspective. After all, we do not live in a vacuum. We are influenced by the historical, political, and economic forces that surround us. We should take these larger issues, as well as the more local, immediate ones, into consideration before making a decision on Local Rule. We are not alone in grappling with this groundwater septic vs. water treatment system issue. The February 2008 issue of the Mother Earth News featured an article entitled, "The Truth About Septic Systems." It was written by a man named Lloyd Kahn, a man who has written what is considered.to be the definitive book on septic systems and their maintenance and has worked extensively with groundwater issues for fifteen years. Mr. Kahn says that "Vested interests are making on-site wastewater disposal more costly than it needs to be." He goes on to say, "Many of these expensive systems are unnecessary and being forced on homeowners under false pretenses in order to generate maximum income - often federal "Clean Water" grant funding." He writes that "the amount of money to be made is just too great for this new industry to slow down on its own accord." The players involved in the money-making are the ones who promote these expensive systems: the Engineers, the Regulators, the Developers, and misinformed Environmentalists. Keep in mind that this is coming from one of the most well-known environmental magazines in the world. Regarding engineers, he quotes another expert, a Ph.D. and consultant on septic systems who says, "Claims of health hazards from failing septic systems are vastly exaggerated, that accusations of pollution are more political than scientific, and that the field is rife with misinformation." Regulators: There is big money in permits, fees, licenses, maintenance contracts and so forth. Additionally, expensive systems have substantially raised property taxes. In Whatcom County, Washington, a property owner reported that after the sewering system was installed, the valuation of his property went up and his taxes jumped from $2,000 to $5,000 per year! Citizens from California, Michigan, Washington, and all over the country are fighting the same battles with engineers, contractors, developers, and county officials - all of whom have dollar signs in their eyes. Now is not the time to try, to raise money this way. We are in the midst of an economic meltdown, just beginning, that will be of historic proportions. The funds counted on to help finance this misadventure are dependent on real estate sales that are moribund. The finance industry is tanking. Inflation is going nuts. People are losing their jobs. The price of gasoline is driving the costs of everything that has to be shipped through the roof. And, it's not going to end anytime soon. EXHIBIT -\7 So this is not the time to attempt to squeeze additional money from an already over- burdened citizenry. If fact, you should be doing something to help the situation like encouraging the formation of local farmer's markets, car-pooling, and increased public transportation. So, what should be done? 1) Delay the decision until we see what the new acceptable levels of nitrates are going to be after next year. 2) Delay the decision until after we see if the actual nitrate levels are rising as the model predicts - say, after 10 or 15 years. 3) Delay the decision so that new, more energy efficient, and less expensive systems are available. There is a new system that has recently been invented in India, for instance, that is reportedly very effective and only costs about $500. 4) Delay the decision until the new factors of bacteria, viruses, and pharmaceutical pollution can also be addressed effectively. If we have an intelligent response to this challenge that is innovative, helpful, and responsive to the will of the people, Deschutes County could lead the way in this national campaign. We look around and it seems sometimes that all we can see is waste and fraud, and diversion of public resources to questionable causes. By your own report's calculations, you probably have years before you have to do anything, and that's at the former rate of growth. Please wait until the time is right, and a better and more viable option becomes available. Thank you. To Whom It May Concern: As a Certified Safety Professional, I am committed to the protection of life, property and the environment as a professional creed and additionally as a fundamental personal value. I hold that we each have a personal responsibility to protect environment for ourselves and our posterity I believe that Deschutes County has an obligation to each of its residents and taxpayer to provide due diligence with respect to the septic issues which it thus far has not done. Before the County takes any steps to require additional expenditure by residents to upgrade or retrofit their septic systems; the County needs to establish the following: • Verify that a real problem exist or is imminent o This needs to be established by unbiased recognized experts in this discipline examining complete, appropriate, verifiable, and contemporary empirical data o Not act on questionable conclusions based on incomplete data dating back to more than a decade. If accurate data showing current conditions is examined by recognized experts and clearly identifies that a problem exists or is imminent o Define the problem ■ Identify the scope/range ■ Identify verifiable short term and long term impacts o Determine the actual cause of the problem by verifying if problem is caused by: ■ Faulty septic tanks ■ Non-human caused contaminants ■ Other human activities • Industrial activities • Agriculture/Forestry activities • Excessive population density for soils conditions • Once a clearly defined problem and its cause has been identified o Determine all practical viable options to correct the problem ■ Determine potential environmental impacts of each option ■ Develop a cost/benefit analysis of each of the options ■ Determine fundamental soundness of each proposed option The aggregate expenditures by individual property owners under the current line of thinking will potentially cost property owners millions of dollars. If a problem clearly exists, the decision on the best corrective action must be based on objective findings by unbiased individuals capable of making such decisions and not by emotionally charged exchanges among property owners, political representatives and/or EXHIBIT W engineering/construction firm representatives that stand to benefit from required modifications or upgrades. Let us not forget the faulty logic that was used in formulating and executing a national fire fighting plan which on the surface appeared to make good sense, but as we now we know ultimately lead to making the problem worse and will take many more decades to resolve. This issue needs to be evaluated and addressed through scientific means by parties that do not have a personal agenda or potential for personal gain from the outcome regardless of what proper examination determine the appropriate solution to be. Anything short of that will surly serve more to advance the cause of special interest groups or individuals than it will to protect the environment. Sincerely, Q~L Ken 6reenhill, CSP CQ[ U; h ` 0- C,Lkfe 1. 1 saw an article on the web about a microbiologist that tested the lemon-wedge that people put in their water in restaurants. She found fecal bacteria, a-coli, and other scary little creatures. Her conclusion was that the lemon-wedge was a serious health risk. Her recommendation, don't put it in your water. Scary, HUH? 2. 1 saw a picture of an aerobic septic system on the DEQs web site. (present copy) I noted that this DEQ approved system had a vent pipe coming out of it. I couldn't help but wonder what came out of that vent pipe. I thought about visiting one the test systems that were installed in this area and looking at that vent pipe. Then I thought about that lemon-wedge. 3. Here are 4 zip lock baggies containing a cotton ball. On those cotton balls may be the water that was observed dripping out of that vent pipe. 4. Although you specifically asked for no more scientific presentations I would like to conduct a small experiment here tonight. (present baggies)I will make this as unscientific as I can. 5. Open the baggie and give it the sniff test. OMG that is pungent! React. 6. Ask Commissioners to run same test. Warn them about stomach flu. Shortly after 1 thought about this brilliant test I came down with the stomach flu. Bad stomach flu. I shared it with my wife. She was not pleased with me. 7. Aerosol cans. Bio-terrorism. Miles Every disease known to mankind. Thousands of little vents spewing out millions of cubic feet of bacteria infested water vapor. 8. Now ask yourself do you want to visit this on the people in this area. 9. You have a choice. Just say no. Cancel the MOU with the DEQ and let matters take their course. The DEQ is required by law to declare this an area of groundwater concern and establish a GWMA. 10. You know and I know that a yes vote only buys into the NDWRCDP's agenda to sell a whole bunch of these systems to anybody they can. It's money pure and simple. Plus the fact that they get to use us as LAB RATS for a lot of further testing. I say BULL to that. 11. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project. EXHIBIT - _X Comments UCER BUSHING 5 S • 4 • r N .o Attachments ~ , Pages C.P2056 CONT'ROL PANEL HIGH LE IEL ALARM FLOAT COMPRESSOR INLET 41-8-Alf Bookmarks 4"VENT ~ rn i i; ( I I< f~ a c> f r" to Q.. I ` Q. T~ L. + WET i TO Dj~ i II o Y f1 z i rn Idgifth. 24" NIAN 'AY 19 6 'OLUME \-STATE OF 1- 6' l PEGON OREGON DF50FF AEROBIC TREATMENT UNIT APPROVED 500 GALLON TREATMENT CAPACITY PUMPING SYSTEM f. VOLUME OF THE SEPTIC TANK WILL BE AS REQUIRED IN OAR 340-07I ~ EXTERIOR PIPE SIZE AS PER OREGON REQUIREMENTS DELTA WHITEWATER 500GflD UNIT Wf OREGONAP ~ IT, DOSING SEPTIC TANK u O NNIENTAL PRODUCTS, IN C ~y(;, N p} ~ DATE: S ~ L L?TMG?L. Ti•.7M1.+tWF. iL.. DENHAM SPRINGS, LA70727 CRACHAL VIGIOT RTS. 1 : r Page 3 of 4 GILLETTE <thebladesd@msn.com>; DON & MARLENE DEISCH, CAG <dldeisch@aol.com>; DOUG & ANITA GADD, CAG <dagcody@aol.com>; Fred Huft <fipines@msn.com>; GAYLA HAYS <gggbb@q.com>; GINGER LAU, CAG <Iarryandginger2003@yahoo.com>; GINNY & RALPH HORAND/CAG <rvhorand@aol.com>; JEANNE MILLER/CAG <millerinlapine@yahoo.com>; JERRY & BARBARA DOWNEY, CAG <jrbadwny@msn.com>; Jerry Criss <tlfly44@msn.com>; JIM & GWEN ULREY, CAG <gwenulrey@hotmail.com>; JIM BROWN, CAG <jabrown2483@msn.com>; JOANN SNIDER, CAG <jtahoejo@aol.com>; JOE & KAREN DUNCAN <jkrvlivin@netzero.net>; ]ON SHARON VURIK <sjmvurik@msn.com>; JUNE RAMEY, AC <jramey8251@aol.com>; LAUREL CORNELIUS, CAG <cornyiris@yahoo.com>; LEE WILKINS <leewikins28@msn.com>; LEONARD MACEY, CAG <macysl@hotmail.com>; LIZ & MONTE HARMON <logerliz@peoplepc.com>; LOUIS & ANNE THORPE, CAG <Ihthorpel931@juno.com>; Margie Schuenemann <dubueg79@aol.com>; Martha and Don Bauman, AC <lapinemac@msn.com>; MIKE & SANDRA NEARY <nearypatents@msn.com>; Neal Henderson <easymca@earthlink. net>; PAM & PAT COSMO-MURPHY <sunrise3@coinet. com>; PAMELA HARVEY, CAG <help4youth@hotmail.com>; Robert Ray, AC <lapinerobert@aol.com>; RON & BARB KLINSKI, CAG <bklinski98@msn.com>; SCOTT FRESHWATERS, CAG <scottfr@cmc.net>; SHARON & JOHN HARDING <sharding42@yahoo.com>; SHIRLEE & FRED PRAWALSKY <pusherboy5l@msn.com>; SUNNI & STEVAN ROUNDS <sunnirounds@hotmail.com>; TERRANCE A. CARPENTER, CAG <mjcoffinsr@yahoo.com>; TOM & LINDA MALMAY <abode_beyond@hotmail.com>; TONY & KATHY DEBONE <tony@littledtech.com>; VICKY JACKSON, AC <vicky@gilchristrealestate.com> ; VONNIE & GLEN NOBLE <vonglen@msn.com>; WALTER & GWENDOLYN DURAN, CAG <duran@uci. net> Sent: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 5:30 pm Subject: RE: UPCOMING MEETING, MARCH 19, 2008 To Concerned Citizens of South Deschutes County I have not commented on any of the hundreds of a-mails we have received on this issue the past few months but I think it is time I did. There is so much miss-information out there about a proposed LOCAL RULE that it is time somebody set the record straight. I am speaking for myself and not as a spokesman for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and these comments are mine only. For those of you who are afraid a proposed local rule will financially break them, that is not the case. The proposed rule gives everybody 10 years to comply by upgrading their septic systems to a new approved Nitra~e reducing system. If you feel like it will be a burden on you financially, DO NOT DO IT. Just sit tight for 10 years, and in the mean time, those who want to upgrade their systems can take advantage of some of the financial help the County will have available if they wish. This is your Community, and this County Commissioner is not going to do anything that will cause any one of you a financial Burdon. The stories of a local rule causing a huge financial Burdon on the people of South Deschutes County are just not true. You are in charge of your own destiny. You may upgrade if you wish or you can ignore it all and go on about your business. I am 65 years old, and I understand how trying to live on social security and a fixed income would he if this Burdon of upgrading my septic system at this point in my life would be. I would not do it either. In 10 years, the Commissioners will all be different, the County Staff will probably all be different, and maybe new technology will have been invented to take care of the Nitrates in the groundwater. I SAY AGAIN, IF THERE IS A FINANCIAL BURDON TO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY, DO NOT DO ANYTHING. No one from the County will come out and arrest you or do anything to cause you any grief. The proposed Rule allows for Communities to look into Sewer Systems if they wish. Again this is strictly your call. The County is not going to require Sewer systems. The Citizens of South Deschutes County will decidf~ if this is their best option, not us. I hope this helps. I will see you all on the 19th. - Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 EXHIBIT Y Qwest Mail Print Message Page 1 of 2 Qwest Mail by r, Windows Live FW: PROPOSED LOCAL RULE From: (filbert Sprauer (smilinrock0q.com) Sent: Fri 3/14/08 8:41 PM To: Dave Kanner (dave_kanner@co.deschutes.or.us); Mike Daly (mike_daly0co.deschutes.or.us) Cc: Tammy Bane Melton (tammy_baney0co.descutes.or.us); Tom Anderson (tom_andersonoco.deschutes.or.us) From: smilinrock@q.com To: board@co.deschutes.or.us CC: judybug7669@q.com; barbarar@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: FW: PROPOSED LOCAL RULE Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:22:42 +0000 From: smilinrock@q.com To: board@co.deschutes.or.us; barbarar@co.deschutes.or.us CC: judybug7669@q.com Subject: PROPOSED LOCAL RULE Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:18:45 +0000 I am urging you 3 County Commisioners NOT pass the proposed Local Rule and this is why : 1. The science on various reports you are using raises serious questions as to the accuracy of the statistical analysis of the data collected and the AGENDAS of the peope collecting the data. 2. The financial burden the Local Rule would place on the residents ( especially the Seniors ) of South County is tremendous I again urge you to revisit ALL the testimony given In past meetings and you will find a TRUE FACT WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE LOCAL RULE As elected be to listen them 11 officials of Deschutes County your job should and fairly serve the citizens ----not dictate to Signed Nancy Louise Sprauer Oregon resident 67 years http://b1124w.blu124.mail.live.com/maii/PrintShell.aspx?type=message&cpids=la9fD5a9F-XHIBIT Z Local k V\ Q- S o JO t 6t . e Q.. vu .500AA (OvuV-,j L-t\A\e- v\o+- k-\AQAt( a f Iy LgUVI. +o 4-t),( ovi e- w WtV PJ J\Q~~y *4,4, tt ~S WO A dose. ~-kIP- to-.vs o+ D esclnc)}-Fes :r,+ -S e(>~A -rO VA'P- *Wlt k(kQ'k tk ~21 e X f 6'111 e all -Nn~e. CA -F ljja~.pY -test wln seW~i e\~r Some O,1'Q,'4 \W,`c Sc~cLU OA - juy~ear_~b Op'e4r-t,)~- - eon EXHIBIT AA_. kc ~0 ma- r o, o, u w\-o- vi ~ ,,rn -,a h e i 6 ,*T I jOr 3 j S0. V\,a-V'q N ecA r 11 _ ~urr~ cc~ °v~ eof-kt b t k 4 ~.a r Yy v~,r vte S VIV\ -71}i Z~=-,rry CrIS-S Avornf--(~ JV, 0101-; Cn a ne J ~ -~-2~ 6-e-,r e- ' Yl0 egzf ,,Jl4 lh no otJi 4ufite~'I V) n ►~`~,,<<~ ~ f--~~fc.`rwt0 /3 If I ~ o Y4c "CcLr m, 0 -m --ter w c c FX h i ~o i'~ /.4 ~~bb ~e N~c Q vt_av - ~~~n~a ~h ~Fb t Ot J f~0.~~ II 't'~'0.~f d,1 V~ct - h.U P~C~'1~ ~'J~ ~ ~rVlac~. t►~ /7 J~VI►'~ CTaI~~IVICt ~J~ IfvO L F 6 eor~ e I--Ooroll Caur I*e11n - r--t, 4►;b.~ v.r+nea ih t vl L 1 ~C_' Y l 04 Mlzo Z di, VA 4 1 r\ M ° 222+,1 ~I Y. UJAn S6 Z Io`oe _ our' Y-VneV- - no .mach b°~ - ,r~~d in r .941 b~ u~.e. Q t h V\j e r\ ►,,o nyh, b e 4,,-k r ne, ~y 1 r\ oZ J ULC1.` ~ 2 e.a.r ds 3/ LJ (VA o S S- YW _QiE.h . b c -fin J vl e d lV1 OR 2 1 1 4'</, 0, ~e n u h e a vt - -~C,t r u e d r Exh'~ b 3 36e ~cA VI - -VvX-(V\e & 1 I a V av'o-o e.-- vawa.,ch, h A \ry\.e& i,- -~3~a LA v q 0++ ' C Q ss . 57 S,rr- .s ~ (!e o S n n( (2,, K SZlCY16 --K~r Y\, e d l V\ 11 ~.1 ~-i- Q rr 1 ~ ~ 1.A, V' S 4 h - rw 9!l~~n.► ~c -fir ~e i n ~ar-~,r P~.~ -ti~_v ute~ 0. ul r a, 1~ q r v e./ - Y\X-)I 1 ~n I~ 6',- 4~v- v~eA i v) Pa m O-a S vn o - l 1l r~ bt T -rim Vie 'Lo vt le VA 'I Y-\ (1 r rw AA t I Wt ~ i IClrn `e `S0~'1 YV.o. _ t\'J~~ tvl G~eh ~oU cLS Y1O ?i~~nc~p,-~vV1ec~ tvt CS- oih i ~v1e~ L K e n G \r eQjv\ rY c c L VA C- Q < t Q V 1 b Ql C~ C` e-d LP - . . 01 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a Count taff person. Name: Mail' ino-_ddres ~~j Phone 5 VI ~ - E-mail Address: 1 'ne Date: Wed., Marc 19, 2008 C_-zt, Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFYQ Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Mailing. Address: Phone 1 E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: pr1~ ~i Eiga-x" Address: 5731 34j Pi .p' a vo 12 J tti. Pme (Nlz2_-~ Phone 4V E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name Mailing Address: & e^,gk Phone 5 E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater 0 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: 5ypll3 Phone E-mail Address.- Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a Count staff person. Name: ,~eaR ors s Mailing Address: SLo 14 14 /,-J C ~S _ ?-:5 Phone s 36, E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a C unt staff person. Name: Mailing Address: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South. County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTI FY® Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: C~; IV ~ ~0_-- Mailing Address: Z4;, oe(, )me' 1y ~ Phone fag' E-mail Address: .Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in _~o a County,staff person. Name: Mailing Address: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY @ Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. N a me:~~ Mai-ling Address: 1,;e&7s' Phone s3~ _ 3 t~ E-mail Address- Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater 60 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: t:-, J_1AQWrA1 Mailing Address: .2 Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater GD IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: IA4av , Mailing Address: P6 6;to Phone f-q/ Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it into a DelCoeun- taff rson. Name: bi-C U" h Mailin Address: Phone t5 h -~3q7 E-mail Address: eve Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater tS. IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this, card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: i~► o _ Mailing Address: Phone q E-mail Addre s: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: w. Mailing Address: to, Bax~ /3 I ~a f k, e 4 O 77731 Phone E-mail Address: S 6 r 'o, a) u466. Date: Wed., March 19, 20 tom Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this `card & turn it in to a County staff person. ,,I~ 6"- Name. Mailing Address: fo Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 fr Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Tg Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: i - Mailing Address: Ro, 66x 73-7 Phone e~~/)_- - E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF 19 Please complete this card & turn it in to.§~ounty staff person. Name: Mailing Address: P. Phone 3 , E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY za Please complete this card & ,turn it in to a County st ff person. Name: L Mailing Addre ~-s m, d _Phone 636 ' ~2d E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY O Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: B /L,) A G# r'z Mailing Address: ;1,A BVX,9o~6 Phone ? grq E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater, IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFYQ Please complete this card & turn it into a County staff erson. Name: W 0 to-[,(43 (-fe-l Mailing Address: S z✓.~,~ Phone 5-3 6 E-mail Address: sk,r i;e e eUe Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:-Co Iletn Pen ze(<< Mailing Address: W,~ ~~zr 0 wne,r5 ~s; Sh), Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater i IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:vi3~ V, Mailing Address: )3 z ) z b Phone 5"36 - 3v G E-mail Address: A U 70 9 Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater v IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: dDoL/G- Mailing Address: 114.,e.~e1 Phone 11 7 - 923S- E-mail Address: vs,~aaLsFnM~~. Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY aD Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name:0&,, Mailing Address: ~a Phone _5-3 45 7y6 E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater ~-7 F YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete'thls card & turn it i to County staff person., Name: manic/ ~~e W Mailing, Address: _ Phone E=mail, Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF ag Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: DkS-71Z A4e~k2~ Mailing Addre : " rr Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF a~ Please complete this card & turn it in to~,unty St ff person. Name: U- Mailing Address: rr~ 3 Y_-~) Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY& Please complete this card & turn it in t a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: c~ 2_6 c)-:3 ~S 7/,).e) Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTI FY 31 Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address:57 ~YYY ' Phone E-mail Address: ~k_ Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater i IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ~Z i Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: -k& r zt, D wv~ Mailing Address: z Q ► cv __5 l CiLL Phone 'S~J E-mail Address: J k- v Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 t Y~Qc~ Subject: South County Groundwater 33 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to unty staff person. Name:~~~ Mailing Address:, gey Zjgq ( I-A Y6,, ©Kay 2z73C Phone j-41( 3'~~ -169~ E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIF 39 Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name• Mailing Address: 5334 , Pj uer v ie"_~ Ov- - Lam- Phone 1 , dress: I (kt y E-mail Ad Date: Wed., March 1 , 2008 Subject: South County GroundwQer 0-3,S IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY j Please complete this card turn it in to a County staff person. Name: `lLP~u I Mailing Address: PO [/30,t 193 r~ ~ o Phone #:p~--31 U s' E-mail Address: t u,41 Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater D34,P IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Narne:1S1wr%.'o U4 Mailing Address: -PA -Pbv_ M6-4 Phone 5q~J.o c 3 U 4 61'336 E-mail Address: v~~:~~~►~ds 1 w ,l.e n Date: - Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater (3_V IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: k,/ Mailing Address: Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in tq a County staff person. Name: 467~~c- c . t10'4 Y Mailing Address: ti1J~7 Phone 53 G 3007 E-mail Address: s.kAt &'oej ~.~e~ev+n Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 341 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in t a County staff person. Name: M fling Address:~(%N(h~y Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater 40 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in t 5a County staff person. Name: C~rY~t COS(yYO Mailing Address: s-/gz7 ~A, L-a- q -7 ? 3 Phone 50o~- E-mail Address: SUnr1z_,G3CWx Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater AAl IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: G ~ 6vk Mailing Address: oe 9772 Phone 53~~~2 E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 'Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY 02- Please complete this card & turn j it in to a County staff person. j Name: Mailing Address: /00 Pn o~ 7~~ 9 Phone E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 ~ Subject: South County Groundwater IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY a Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: 6 Al Mailing Address: 0 / 7 ~ LI, 2729 Phone E-mail Address: OIVV~wo 7/1 'XIIA Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater i IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: 7- b0 Ps ~ Mailing Address: 2.6 . Vic, S p Al kL Phone Sit - f ,!D -4 E-mail Address: Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater 45 " IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: wiz- <-iAeJ Sto-3sk2l",~ Mailing Address: pv bj,:~h 2~k' 3 Phone ~ _3 c-, -L E-mail Address~l3 Date: Wed., March 19, 2008 Subject: South County Groundwater r i n. i i t l O I &aQ V~VA 1S V\ece <4) .f" v F SE` e y. _ ~ Ga _ ~ V i aaP a >5+:•_, ~.s¢ ,t' ~ fl ~l~ /~~let~~~lf _5 36~zy~iP S (SD LC-~ Cv-~-s s li~~D Irl 5