---

Protect the lakes    Siuslaw News  Opinion Section    11-14-12

I’m having trouble believing this. According to the Siuslaw News (Nov. 7), Dunes City is insistent on destroying clean water protection by a ballot measure.  To me this smacks of the thinking in the late 1800s: Use whatever resources are available, ignoring the long-term effects on the community so a “chosen few” can save a few dollars, while making other people pay for the eventual clean up.  Pretty short sighted. 

In my opinion the city council of Dunes City has shown little constructive effort in the past two years.  This “carefully thought out” volunteer plan, with less oversight, will ensure their continuing track record. 

Extensive effort has been put forth by Dunes City resident volunteers to put together a fair and equitable septic maintenance plan, yet I don’t seem to find any record of this in the new Dunes City’s website. Informing citizens of the long-term reasons for requiring sanitation responsibility seems to me to be a city’s duty.  Erasing the legitimate reasons for such a plan seems fishy! 

Florence’s taxpayer subsidized sewer system, at a very minimum of $600 a year, is far from voluntary.  Disease, mismanagement and property values are among many factors in these sanitation charges.  Imagine Florence with voluntary sewer oversight. 

We all have a stake in this discussion, Dunes City resident or not. It seems likely the population of the Florence area will continue to grow, as will our need for clean water.  The State of Oregon is on record that Woahink Lake will satisfy the needs of this region in the future so we should all be watching this political folly very closely. 

Does the Dunes City Council really believe that a campaign to convince Dunes City property owners of a guarantee of dirty water is a constructive effort? 

Ann Waters    Florence

---

Septic Ordinance    Siuslaw News  Opinion Section    10-31-12

Dunes City residents comprise a community and we all share responsibility for protecting our watershed and drinking water source from preventable contamination.

In our opinion, the main objective of the ongoing septic maintenance discussion in Dunes City is to have impaired systems identified and repaired.

The bottom line is that poorly maintained systems contaminate our drinking water. The LUBA appeal reinstated Ordinance 203, which requires Dunes City residences to have their septic systems evaluated by March 2013.

It certainly would have been more equitable, fair, and cost effective to have addressed the obviously contentious issues in Ordinance 203 prior to the avoidable lawsuit. But now that 203 is back in the driver's seat, we need dialog on potential ordinance changes regarding enforcement guidelines and maintenance schedules, especially before we spend $10,000-plus on a special election to wrestle with this topic again, hopefully avoiding yet another "unpopular" ordinance. Anyone who has a septic tank must budget for maintenance costs; it's part of living expenses. Expense for sewage management is $600-plus per year for a vacant Florence house (higher when occupied), which is comparable to the cost of Ordinance 203's initially required septic mapping, pumping and inspection, then, five years later, an inspection only is required. We all have to pay for our sewage treatment.

In Dunes City, as of August 2011, there were 30-plus impaired septic systems still out there, if you extrapolate the 12 percent impaired rate of the 68 percent (534 of 781 septic systems) of Dunes City residences that have complied with septic evaluation. After multiple requests, Dune City has not provided current data on the status of compliance with 203.

Please do the right thing and make sure your septic system is functioning well and document it with the city. Our volunteer Water Quality Team deserves to know that the community is on board in addressing our first line defense for clean water. Thanks to those who have done so.

Please encourage dialogue on the septic ordinance issue.

Cynthia and Mark Chandler  Florence

---

-

State’s LUBA decides on DC septic ordinance 

BY AMY BARTLETT 

Siuslaw News  6-9-12

DUNES CITY — Dunes City’s old septic ordinance, 203, is still in effect following a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision on June 5.  At issue was the city’s adoption in November 2011 of ordinance 211A, which repealed 203. The appeal to LUBA was filed by Oregon Coast Alliance, Woahink Lake Association and former city councilor Susie Navetta.
Ordinance 203 requires every septic system to undergo initial inspection, including pumping and mapping of the system, followed by periodic inspections with records to be kept by the city. In its stead, ordinance 211A called for a voluntary education program, to be implemented before Nov. 10, 2012. 
The state panel found that to comply with the city’s comprehensive plan, as interpreted at the time the city adopted 211A, the city must establish that the voluntary program will improve septic maintenance when compared to 203’s mandatory program. An alternative is to adopt a different interpretation of the comprehensive plan policy in question, which states: “The city shall adopt a program to improve maintenance of septic systems for the benefit of all residents.”
The LUBA opinion also concluded that to remain compliant with the city’s comprehensive plan, the city must adopt the education program the same time it repeals 203, and not allow the one-year window established under 211A.
An ad hoc city committee has developed the voluntary educational program, however, the program has not been formally adopted by the council. City Recorder Fred Hilden said that LUBA’s decision will be on the city council’s agenda for discussion during its regular meeting, June 14. The city is entitled to a judicial review before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Whether it would decide to spend more money on the issue is another matter. Expenses so far are in the $23,000 range. An appeal is estimated to cost more than twice that amount.
“A remand from LUBA always means the local government has more work to do,” said Cameron La Follette, land use director for petitioner Oregon Coast Alliance (ORCA). Dunes City, which adjoins Woahink and Siltcoos lakes, does not have a municipal water or sewer system. Homes are serviced by individual septic systems. Residents rely on lake or well water. “Fundamentally, what we argued is that a voluntary educational program is not a program of septic maintenance. It could be a valuable addition to a septic maintenance program, but the two are not the same thing,” said La Follette, adding that ORCA had requested three times to meet with the city, but the city did not respond. “Maybe with a remand we can work together,” she said. “We tend to think in the long run the best way to accomplish a goal is to work together. I’m sure no one in Dunes City wants contaminated water. How best can we reach the goal that we all want?” Petitioner Susie Navetta said she was not surprised by LUBA’s decision. “I have been confident about it from the very start,” she said. “This will give Dunes City time to revisit ordinance 203. It was my intention that after we get together, we can make adjustments to 203 to make it more palatable.” “I have children, grandchildren and great-children. To talk about an agenda — I have one — it is to keep the water clean for future generations,” added the former city councilor. 

-------------------------------------------------

Septic debate still awhirl

BY AMY BARTLETT

Siuslaw News  8-6-11

New ordinances undergo second reading at next Dunes City Council meeting.  

Fur has been flying in Dunes City as the council gears up for its next meeting Thursday, Aug. 11. Once again, on the agenda are two proposed ordinances, both of which would repeal the current septic maintenance ordinance.  Proposed Ordinance 210 would make changes to the current requirements, particularly in reference to the mandatory inspections that are set for every five years. If 210 were adopted, it would allow for periodic inspections at “intervals determined by a qualified inspector.”  If owners disagree with the time interval identified by an inspector, they can, at their own expense, get a second opinion. The city would then accept the recommendation that provides for the greatest time interval between inspections.  If Ordinance No. 211 were adopted, it would leave oversight to the county.  Public hearings are scheduled for Thursday night, as well as the second reading of the ordinances. The city council will then have the opportunity to take action on the ordinances.  It could also decide to leave things as is.  Over the past few months, some citizens have claimed that city staff is withholding information about how many property owners have received notices about the septic ordinance and how many have complied.  There have also been claims that the city quit sending out notices and that it has accepted proof of initial septic inspections that were not completed correctly.  Under the standing ordinance, No. 203, every owner must submit to the city proof of an initial septic inspection, including mapping of the system and septic tank pumping. City Recorder Fred Hilden admitted the information was not readily made available, but he stated in a report to the council the reason was “lack of integrity of the data.”  “The last thing I want to do is pronounce that a certain property is in compliance when it is not or pronounce that a certain property is not in compliance when it is!”  Hilden wrote.  He cited many reasons for that lack, one of which was continual updates, which made it difficult for staff to state unequivocally which property owner at a particular time was out of compliance.  Another reason was that the data had included some properties that were out of city limits.  In addition, there is a discrepancy between septic inspections that occurred following the adoption of the original septic maintenance ordinance in 2006, No. 173, and after the current ordinance, which was adopted in  January 2010.

Hilden reported that the first ordinance was unclear about the requirements, but after 203 spelled out the requirements, the septic ordinance’s administration was unchanged, which resulted in owners deemed in compliance when actually their septic systems had never been pumped. Hilden also admitted that, as citizens claimed, septic notices were not sent out during certain periods, but he attributed the delay to the constant need to train new staff.  “As you may recall,” reported Hilden , “we have had three city recorders in the 2.5 years prior to my being hired as the interim city recorder in April of 2010. We also had five administrative assistants in the 1.5 years prior to me being hired as the administrative assistant in May of 2009 ….”

This week, the city recorder sent a copy of the septic data spreadsheet to citizens who had requested the report.  He also sent a notice to all city-approved inspectors asking that they comply with the provisions of 203. The letter, dated July 27, 2011 , stated that no future inspection reports will be accepted by Dunes City without the required pumping and mapping.  Meanwhile, there is concern that if the council chooses to accept Ordinance No. 211, which essentially leaves septic maintenance oversight to the county and state, periodic inspections will be a thing of the past.  According to George Ehlers, Lane County sanitation specialist, after the county has done its inspection during the installation of a new septic system or in the case of a change due to a remodel or other circumstances, “there is zero follow up, except in the case of a valid complaint.”

Ehlers said he thought periodic inspections are desirable.  “The general concept,” he said, “is that everyone who lives on a lake should be proactive and protect their drinking water source. It makes a lot of sense.  It is definitely a more sensitive situation than the average, run-of-he-mill rural spot in Lane County . Water moves down toward the lake and they are drinking the water.”

-------------------------------------------------

Siuslaw News Opinion 8-6-11

 DC septic

Why do some Dunes City councilors want to repeal the septic inspection ordinance? Based upon comments two of them made at a council meeting it seems that they have friends who cannot or do not want to comply with the inspections.  They mention cost of compliance.  I find it hard to believe that any responsible citizen in Dunes City would want to risk pollution to our lakes to save a few dollars.

I suspect the real motivation is those who oppose the inspections either fear that their systems are faulty or actually know their systems have failed.  One citizen stated during the public hearing that the state and county do inspections and prevent pollution based upon their inspections.

This is absolutely false. I spoke to George Ehlers, Lane County Sanitation Specialist, and he reiterated that the only time the county or state have any involvement with septic systems is when a new system is installed or there is a change in the property such as an addition or remodel. Ehlers further commented that the state and county support local regulations that are more stringent than DEQ standards.  One councilor stated that he had first-hand knowledge of seven specific instances in which pumping septic tanks caused the drain field to fail. This statement is untrue. When I spoke to Wally’s, which does inspections and pumping in Dunes City , they said they have never heard such an allegation and it cannot happen. Ehlers said that if the drain field really failed after the tank was pumped it obviously had failed prior to pumping and continued to fail once the tank refilled.  Councilor Duke Wells, the author of Ordinance 211, which would repeal the requirements for any septic inspections, stated that he has signatures from friends and neighbors who do not want to comply with mandated inspections.  He said it is not in the best interest of Dunes City residents to have mandatory septic system inspections. Why not? Should our residents be allowed to pollute our drinking water? I think not.  Wally’s stated that residents are canceling inspections and are saying that they are being told that the ordinance is going to be repealed and they will not need to comply.

Yet at the council meeting we were told that inspections and compliance is continuing. False. Debate on the merits of the septic ordinance is one thing, but presenting false and misleading information as a basis to make an issue is unconscionable. The council is responsible for protecting our water quality. 

 

Del Riesenhuber -  Florence

 

For more on the Dunes City Septic Maintenance efforts please go here