|
|
| A river divides them: A series |
|---|
| Prologue: How the current plan came to be |
|---|
By Jerry Raehal
Back in February of 1980, the Molalla City Council of the time was given a test — choose from one of three bottles using sight, smell or taste.
All of the bottles were clear; however, one contained city drinking water, the other contained well water and the final one had water from the city’s new $2.3 million wastewater plant, which according to a 1980 Pioneer article, had just started running in January (according to a recently released memorandum from the city of Molalla, the plant was built in 1977-1978 and it claims the plant cost in excess of $3 million).
The councilors marveled at how clean the water looked.
Some argue that the same could be said for the city’s current situation. In fact, many issues that the city faces today it faced when the Clean Water Act was first passed in the 1970s.
According to Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Specialist Lyle Christensen, the city had discharge problems in that it couldn’t meet the new standards, and the city had to work with the state to get in compliance.
The big difference between then and now? Opposition centering around the discharge point of Bear Creek, which the city has discharged to either in a tributary or out right since 1955.
Opponents to the city’s current plan don’t want the winter discharge point moved from Bear Creek to the Molalla River, which the city is almost ready to do (the summer discharge goes to irrigate Steve Coleman’s ranch).
Bear Creek first
In response to opponents of the city’s plan for continued discharge to Bear Creek, City of Molalla Public Works Director Dean Madison said the plan initially was to discharge there all along.
“When we went to renew the permit in 2000, we had no concept that we couldn’t discharge into Bear Creek,” Madison said. “We knew Bear Creek was limited, so we asked for a limited discharge to the Molalla River to allow us to continue to put 1 million to 2 million (gallons) a day into Bear Creek, and whatever went over that (would go) into the Molalla River. That was our total concept. The problem was that during the permitting process, DEQ said no — take it all to the Molalla River.”
Part of DEQ’s problem with the city of Molalla’s initial plan was it had two discharge points in different water bodies.
“That is not a good practice,” DEQ Engineering Specialist Garry Sage said. “... You would have different treatment levels for each outfall, and imagine what kind of complications that might produce.
“I think for simplicity’s sake, we said you can’t keep doing what you’re doing in Bear Creek, and if you’re going to move the outfall, then that is the way it should be. That is why the permit is written that way, that Bear Creek should be abandoned as an outfall, not just kept as reserve. It was to keep everything simple and operational.”
“I think they’ve done a lot of good work there,” Sage added.
Opponents disagree
Opponents to the city’s wastewater plan argue differently, saying DEQ is inconsistent with what it says now and what it said during the permitting process.
“It is a bad plan,” opponent’s attorney Chris Winter said. “... DEQ never approved the plan. What DEQ said is we will give you the permit, but they never approved it.”
That DEQ gave the city a permit to discharge to the Molalla but didn’t approve the overall plan is problematical, Winter argued.
“If you look back at the criticisms the agency leveled against the plan, they were very significant, and there were some across the board questions that were never answered,” Winter said. “... Now they’re saying it is going to work despite the fact that they didn’t approve it. We think DEQ has been incredibly inconsistent on this issue, and we don’t think that agency has been a responsible regulator.”
Issues that DEQ brought up during the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan included questions about growth patterns, flow patterns into Bear Creek, and issues with inflow and infiltration in Molalla’s collection system.
DEQ Professional Engineer David Mann explained that the city of Molalla didn’t respond to the agency’s questions and didn’t do the studies that would have helped the agency approve the plan.
“They didn’t feel it was worth it to them, so if they had done the study at the time, then we would have felt assured about their pump stations and their collection system, and their zoning, and their growth patterns,” he said. “We would have had a much better focus on the whole community. But they wanted to focus just on effluent and how it’s treated in between.
“I wouldn’t approve their facilities plan because it didn’t meet our facility planning guidelines. They chose not to pursue having an approved facility plan. They felt that they didn’t get any more bang for their buck spending the other $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,0000 for the engineer time to get an approved facility plan. That was their choice.”
DEQ Section Supervisor Neil Mullane pointed out that even though Molalla’s overall facility plan wasn’t approved, each of the components that Molalla built, by state law, had to have DEQ review and approval.
“So even though the overall plan didn’t meet his approval, he (Mann) has sat down and looked at the components they’ve sent in to make sure they met the standards of those components,” he said.
Sage noted even with an approved plan, the discharge point may not have mattered.
“There is no guarantee that if we had approved the facilities plan that they would have wound up with a different alternative than what they already have,” he said.
Winter countered, saying “DEQ’s position alone, I think, is not enough to support the plan. I think the real question is how did the city respond to questions in DEQ’s original comments, and does DEQ think the staff that made those comments were proper in asking those questions?
“DEQ has come under heavy criticism from in this state in the last 12-18 months for its enforcement and regulatory functions, particularly in the water quality program. We don’t think DEQ’s position on the permit on the plan should be the definitive statement on the validity of the city’s plan.”
The city’s choice
According to the city’s memorandum, released Wednesday night, “major issues driving the planning effort and ultimately the current project included, but were not limited to: 1) past and projected population growth of the city; 2) changes in statutory and regulatory law; 3) continued poor performance of Bear Creek; and 4) a small municipality’s limited financial capability.”
The memorandum also noted that during the permitting process in January 2004, the public was notified that the discharge point is being moved to the Molalla River and that the discharge to Bear Creek will be permanently abandoned. DEQ received no requests for a public hearing on the permit, which was later issued on April 21 of the same year.
Madison also points out that while opponents are critical of the city’s plan and claiming it wasn’t approved, they haven’t brought a plan for DEQ to look at.
“If it is going to Bear Creek, it’s fine to say that DEQ will allow this, but they need to prove that,” he said. “You can’t just say you can do this, but whatever solution they come up with is it permitable by DEQ? They have to have DEQ to buy off on it.”
A copy of the city’s five-page memorandum detailing the city’s stance can be picked up at City Hall. |
| Go to top. |
|
