Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLocal Rule Discussion PointsMAJOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY THEMES (Oral & Written, Through 04/08 1. Do Nothing. "Majority" of citizens are opposed and BoC should respect their wishes. Let local citizens decide how to address the problem. 2. There is No Problem. Nitrates are not a health concern. (And even if they are) the science of the groundwater study is flawed/inaccurate. 3. Staff is Dishonest/Incompetent. County is only doing this for the money. 4. Sewers. Better long-term solution. Pharmaceuticals + other pathogens. 5. Affordability. Too many in S. County cannot afford to upgrade. This will bankrupt people and put them out of their homes. 6 Inspection Regimen. Address the problem via an inspection pgm. That focuses on older systems and problem areas. Extend to 15 years. Policy Choice #1: Do Nothing Has the effect of turning the gw protection issue back over to DEQ. (Staff recommends retaining the on-site inspection program.) Pros Cons Klamath Co. may be included in a geographic rule Delays timely action. Possible that no action is taken if legislature does not provide add't'l DEQ resources Groundwater protection is ultimately DEQ's responsibility Lost or reduced coordination with other statewide land -use planning goals. Shifts cost burden to state Possible abdication of BoC responsibility to make a local decision at the Iocal level Allows DEQ to do their own public involvement process Lose coordination between land -use, env. health & building as well as other public values identified in RPS Responds to some public feedback that DEQ would do a better job of groundwater protection than county DEQ has repeatedly expressed support for the County's right to develop a local solution. Shifts liabilities, enforcement responsibilities and appeals to the state DEQ focus on red lots possibly at odds w/work plan Frees up county staff to work on other projects + programs Possibly use revenue from new neighborhood for other purposes identified by RPS Coordination between on-site program and water pollution control facilities program Policy Choice #2: Apply Only to New Construction. Postpone action on existing systems. (Buyout of icred Approvals?)* Pros Cons Rules don't change for current residents Doesn't solve the problem Reduces the financial assistance need. Frees up new neighborhood $$ for other purposes. Allows more time to create financial assistance pgms if needed New construction is the smallest part of the pollution load. (Existing development is the largest) Implementation is easy. OAR 340 already requires nitrate reduction for much new construction. Reflects a portion of public will Policy Choice #4: Extend Time Period to 15 Years Pros Cons Responsive to public testimony Longer time frame allows pollution to get worse, in which case it may not solve the problem Allows more time for alternative (less expensive?) technologies to become available Possibly sends a message that the problem is not urgent Allows more time to develop financial assistance resources and incentives May eliminate variable treatment standards Allows neighborhoods more time to pursue sewer *Front -loaded financial incentives could make longer time frame more attractive Policy Choice #5: Postpone Action Until After FAC Presents Recommendations. Items marked with * in previous policy choices are items the board asked the F.A.C. to examine. Pros Cons Other policy choices may be influenced by FAC recommendations FAC recommendations can be implemented by rule/resolution or retroactively after local rule is adopted. Opp'ty for add't'l public input Postponement cannot be indefinite (can't send a message that FAC can go on working forever.) May want to codify some FAC recommendations. (Could be done via separate ordinance) W/o firm deadline, continues to tap staff & resources *Alternatively, FAC can be put on hold until alter a decision on local rule Policy Choice #6: Refer the Ordinance to the Voters. Pros Cons Strong likelihood it will be referred anyway BoC appears to abdicate its ethical and legal responsibility to make the decision on this issue. Opp'ty to educate entire county on this issue Establishes very bad precedent for similar controversial issues in the future A definitive answer: If approved it's final. If repealed DEQ probably steps in and declares a GMA Voter apathy: Most voters outside of S. County don't know or, in some cases, care about the issue.