HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouth County Groundwater UpdateGroundwater Protection Program Update
BOCC Work Session 4-22-09
I. Ongoing County Actions
a. High Groundwater Work Program
i. Preliminary feedback
b. Ordinance 2008-019
c. Grant Applications
i. Local Wetland Inventory
ii. Stimulus
d. Sunriver Sewer Feasibility
e. Financial Assistance (work session scheduled 05-06-09)
II. Possible Future Actions
a. Meeting with DEQ
i. History of correspondence
ii. Possible DEQ actions:
1. Establish a Groundwater Management Area (voluntary management
approach)
2. Impose a moratorium (prohibit new development until protective action is
taken)
3. Adopt a Geographic Rule (require protective action for all permits — could
include advanced treatment)
4. Pursue public health hazard process to sewers under Goal 11
b. Future groundwater monitoring/testing (FY 2011-12)
i. Funding source unknown
ii. Technical lead unknown (agency, local, state, federal)
c. Ordinance 2008-019
i. New construction and major repairs / alterations
ii. Authorization notices
iii. Variable treatment standards vs. best available systems
d. Financial incentives
e. Other possible actions / directions / ideas
L Return the Onsite Program to DEQ
ii. Return to "Do Nothing"
iii. Go back to the drawing board
iv. Status Quo
v. Expanded Status Quo
vi. Adopt a modified local rule
vii. Re -adopt the local rule
viii. Re -adopt the local rule and refer it to voters during a general election
ix. Focus on sewers
x. Others?
Community Development Department
SUMMARY / / CONS / QUESTIONS
Return all regulatory authority for issuing onsite system permits, including responsibility for
water quality protection (surface and groundwater), to DEQ.
Pros: DEQ becomes the sole regulatory authority over state rules.
Cons: Lose one-stop shopping customer service. Loss of staff expertise and institutional knowledge.
We would need to change our Comprehensive Plan policies.
Questions: Does the DEQ have the capacity to take on the program. Previous communications
indicate they don't. What would the New Neighborhood Funds be directed towards?
Revert to issuing permits for conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems like standard,
pressure and sand filter systems. Additional protective action would fall within the jurisdiction
of DEQ.
Pros: Appears to coincide with the desires of at least a segment of the population.
Cons: No additional water quality protection (surface and groundwater) achieved in view of the
recognized water quality problem.
We would need to change our Comprehensive Plan policies.
Questions: Would the County be liable for not taking action to protect public health and the
environment in Tight of the extensive data and information showing there is a water quality problem
and that the County has the means to ameliorate the problem. Is this a violation of state rule?
TITLE
E
a
m o
L
+s+a
i W
Qi =
reo2
o
° 0)
i =
-' 0
ceZ
OPTION
N
L 2
.= a) C U) O O
i O L U = O.
L v a) co N 73 2 O a)
E> co O a) In O _O V O
r Q O a. :.-' p ' O-
L '-' L
C6 CD
— L a) — N
3 a 0 Ui a °' o w a
1 o n OU)
O C
C = co c
O O ca O 15 CO O cB p a)
a0 13 C � moo)
C R CS) o .` 0 0 E E .c
O U O Q .O 0 p 0
4• Q 0 0 "O C > L
M p o s - al V) ca U)
E 0. L Q Q) C 4--. C C E
tl) O ca
30 C Q. a) E U 1'5 73
O
>N u) O
0 a) _C a) 'a 373 L C O alQ
a) O _aN O O 0 U) U) '-' "O Y •c L
c_
> E O) C "p t C
„,i > C (6 O) L o (6 2. 5 0 2
> C
+' O • LE D 02 0'- a) C a) o) as 'c
•a 'a U U C (6 C O co a)
d RI W CO c O a) O_ p O E
01 0 U U Q CO C C a) a) (6
V
fa p 0 C 'X a) . OU 0'45 >, C 'p o (6 i) �O
00 C .0 a) C O 0ca
R O 0 OU c 0 >, O a c>+ Q) C w C
L O •, , 0 O U) 0. a) .� v -a E a) O N N
N V N O. U) �O U) O C U O C 0-c a)
c .L N 2 -p N N> OU O C Y O o .0
E = ca -0 .c �, U v ° co
." ca
a) la m 3> c . -.c c�
0 3 0 o c�
0)a. 0 C g ui) 0) o a) - U) ami � —
a) — >,
_`•'= o > - cow a) a) o 5' .2 c
•� ;� L (6 C U o ..O U o C 2
° 3 a) O U "0 2° 0 a 0 a) V
d L o i •C -c C C • O a) O C 0. N C_c
3 d+ 4- (n N I— _0 _O i Q E Q O a) 0 .2 .�
U Q O > > (Q
7.c (a = A ii U C .cn
. a) U a) (o cB U 'If; ++ C L_
O 0 O co 0 O O 'Cr �' Q- O O o
0 0 3 a 1– LL 0 H o H 0 H 0. Z a o
a
E -E
E4
0
U
1)
R
N
et
SUMMARY / PROS / CONS / QUESTIONS
Modify the local rule adopted in July 2008 and adopt the new version.
Possible modifications:
• Remove deadline
• Remove the restrictions on development on high groundwater lots
• others
Pros: Depending on the modifications, permit decisions, variances and appeals would be decided at
the local level to provide one stop shopping for customers. A local rule could include a deadline to
ensure that groundwater protection is achieved more quickly than by other options.
Cons: Unclear what the modifications would be considering the rule adopted in July 2008 included
the full spectrum of groundwater protection actions available. No additional groundwater protection
actions are evident that can be taken under County regulatory authority.
Increased negative public feedback on the need to upgrade.
Questions: What would the modifications include because the original rule included using onsite,
sewer and other innovative approaches? Does the County have the resources to undertake this
option? Would the DEQ increase support for a modified rule?
The Board could review the information leading to the July 2008 adoption of the local rule and
adopt it again.
Pros: The original decision was based on sound science and extensive public participation.
Cons: A new petition could be filed for referendum with the potential that the issue is referred to a
non -general election.
Increased negative public feedback on the need to upgrade.
Questions:
TITLE
ITS
0
0
RI '0
m
0 E
0-0 0°'
CC E
7. Re- adopt the
local rule
o
a
0
co
SUMMARY / PROS / CONS / QUESTIONS
The Board could review the information leading to the July 2008 adoption of the local rule and
adopt it again either as -is or with modifications and immediately refer it to the voters for
ratification.
Pros: The original decision was based on sound science and extensive public participation. Referral
by the Board could ensure that the issue is presented to the electorate in a general election.
Cons:
Increased negative public feedback on the need to upgrade.
Questions:
Pursue sewer feasibility studies, creation / expansion of sewer districts, and land use
approvals throughout the affected area. Pursue federal funds for capital construction.
Pros: Increased water quality protection.
Cons: No staff expertise, no current regulatory mechanism to require connection to sewer. Limited
funds available. Complicated and lengthy process to begin protecting water quality. Long time
elapsed before any water quality protection action is taken.
Increased negative public feedback on the need to protect water quality.
Questions: Does the community support this approach?
TITLE
eac
0
=c=c0
-im o = m
L L w
CeC i> D
7 ai
LL y
Others?
OPTION