The citizen advisory committee for DEQ slide show that describe what has transpired and draft recommendations

1. DEQ Citizen Steering Committee South Deschutes &
North Klamath Counties
June 20, 2013
1

2. Agenda
 Introductions
 The Committee Activities
 Solution Scenarios
 Recommendations
2

3. Groundwater concerns over time
Where are you?
3

4. In 1949 "According to a nationwide survey:
More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette."
4

5. How did we dispose of chemicals?
In the 60’s, we disposed of chemicals such as:
 Paint
 Gasoline
 Paint thinner
 Used motor oil
By pouring them on the ground
Seemed like a good way to clean
out the garage!
5

6. We now know
 Substances poured on the ground or otherwise
introduced, often end up in the groundwater
 Substances in groundwater can:
 Flow into rivers
 Flow into drinking water wells
6

7. Where the committee started
 Steering Committee has been meeting at least
monthly for over 2 years
 Our purpose:
…provide recommendations to the DEQ on how to
best protect the groundwater and prevent groundwater
contamination of surface waters in the area …
Committee members are volunteers, working together
to achieve an outcome that is mutually acceptable and
which satisfies, to the greatest degree possible, the
interests of all citizens in the … area
7

8. Committee Activities
 Viewed presentation about:
 Health impacts
 Well test results and data trends
 The local environment
 Possible solutions
 USGS Study
 Toured sanitation systems in the area
 Published outreach articles
 Developed outreach program and held initial outreach
events
 Formulated initial recommendation
8

9. Where we started
9

10. Sources of contamination
 Highly water soluble chemicals, including:
 Phosphates
 Pharmaceuticals
 Household cleaners and personal care products
 Nitrates (a marker for other contaminants at low test cost and
EPA has a maximum allowable level 10mg/l )
 Herbicides
 Potential contributors:
 Livestock
 Fertilizer & Herbicides
 Septic systems
 Ancient buried forests
 Most contaminants in our area come from human septic
waste * * USGS Evaluation of Approaches for Managing Nitrate Loading from On-Site
Wastewater Systems near La Pine OR. Scientific Investigations Report 2007-523710

11. Our environment
 Porous soil
 Shallow groundwater
 Shallow wells susceptible
to contamination
 All onsite septic systems
discharge contaminants:
 Leach line/drainfield
 Sand filter
 ATT
 Any water soluble
substance put on the
ground
11

12. Real estate transaction (RET) well tests
12

13. Impacts
 Health concerns
 Property values
 Ability to sell properties
 Our environment
13

14. What do we do?
Solution Scenarios
1. Do nothing
2. Solve for drinking water only
3. Monitor groundwater
4. Develop a phased approach to
septic solutions
5. “One size fits all”
14

15. Do nothing
Currently, ATT Systems are required to be installed in
most areas as existing systems fail
Possible Outcomes Unknowns
 Government agency may
require earlier deployment
 Ongoing well contamination
 Discharge into rivers may
become a problem
 Public health problems may
occur
 High cost to individuals when
systems fail
 High costs may be incurred if a
management area is declared
 Only ATT options available
 What is the rate of
contamination?
 What is the impact to the
river?
 If groundwater becomes
highly contaminated, what is
the effect on properties,
tourism and economic
development?
15

16. Drinking Water and Groundwater
 Groundwater is found in
layers
 Gravity pulls the water down
 The lowest levels have the
oldest water
 Drinking water can be drawn
from any layer of
groundwater
16

17. Solve for drinking water only
Public water systems eliminate health risk to drinking water
Possible Outcomes Unknowns
 Eliminate risks to drinking
water
 Government agency may require
groundwater protection
 Groundwater contamination
may affect rivers
 ATT systems will still be
required as systems fail
 Can we allow continued
groundwater contamination?
 How will the public water
system be managed?
 How will the cost of a public
water system be covered?
 Would a public system
require a Goal 11 exception? *
* Goal 11 is a State land use rule that prohibits
public systems in rural areas
17

18. Monitor groundwater
Implement a regular groundwater testing program to
reveal contamination trends
Possible Outcomes Unknowns
 More and better data on
groundwater contamination
 Data may indicate something
more must be done
 Data may indicate nothing
more must be done
 What is the design of the
program?
 How will the program be
managed?
 How will the cost of the
program be covered?
18

19. Phased septic solutions
Implement septic solutions base on level of risk
Possible Outcomes Unknowns
 Costs are incurred as needed
 Multiple solutions deployed
(most effective and cost
effective)
 Solutions in one area may
reduce the need for solutions
in other areas
 How will the high risk areas
be determined?
 How will the approach be
managed?
 How will the solution costs be
shared and covered?
 What are the solution
options?
19

20. “One size fits all”
Require all lots to employ the same solution
Possible Outcomes Unknowns
 Inefficient: over-solve some
areas and under-solve others
 High cost
 Why would we choose this?
20

21. Draft Recommendations
 Goal 11 exception to allow public systems
 Groundwater Monitoring
 Governance to monitor, manage and finance
 ATT Moratorium
 Livestock limit per acre
 Monitor point (of contamination) sources
 Community education
 Allow green and sustainable solutions
 Statement of impact to areas outside the affected area
21

22. Recommendation:
Goal 11 Exception
 Allow rural properties to connect to sewers or install
community systems
 Better treatment of contaminants beyond nitrates than ATT
 Maintenance of systems managed by the community
 Why we should be given an exception?
 Lots were platted prior to land use goals
 Now area is zoned for 10 acre lots
 Of more than 14000 lots (without sewer) 58% are 1 acre or less
82% are 2 acre or less
 This goal 11 exception would not mandate a system be
installed.
22

23. Recommendation:
Groundwater Monitoring
 Test groundwater over time
 Design testing to:
 Effectively monitor contamination trends
 Lowest cost
 Pattern after DEQ monitoring approaches used in
other locations
Funding:
 DEQ pursue all sustainable funding options including
statewide monitoring programs
23

24. Recommendation:
Governance Entity
 Groundwater Monitor
 Assist neighborhoods to implement community waste
water systems (goal 11 exception required)
 Provide maintenance for community waste water and
on-site septic systems
 Financing of activities through grants, loans and taxes
 Manage performance based standards (green
solutions)
 Manage the overall basin nitrate (contaminant) load
24

25.  For the next 5 years ATT systems will not be required
 Systems can be repaired without upgrade
 Moratorium end criteria that the community must address
 Goal 11 exception in place
 Monitoring program in place
 Governance entity in place
 The governance entity with DEQ will determine what to do
at the end of the moratorium.
 If the moratorium end criteria are not met. All repairs and
new installs done during the moratorium must upgrade
 The moratorium would apply to new development
25
Recommendation:
ATT Moratorium

26. Recommendation:
Livestock (Deschutes County Only)
 Ordinance: limit number of livestock per acre
(Klamath ordinance is: 2 large animals (horse, etc.) and 24 small
animals (chickens, etc. not dogs or cats) per acre.
 Educate owners how to:
 manage waste
 dispose of deceased livestock
26

27. Recommendation:
Point Sources
 Point Sources (nurseries, golf courses)
 Investigate establishing a permitting/groundwater
monitoring program for all golf courses, nurseries and
other point sources
 RV and Manufactured/mobile Home Parks.
 Require equivalent treatment as residential
 Require a Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit for
new and existing properties.
27

28. Recommendation:
Community Education
 To ensure ongoing community involvement with
groundwater protection an outreach committee
should be formed that will
 Identify and outreach opportunities
 Coordinate outreach delivery. Members from the current
committee may be called on to participate in or lead the
outreach events
 Maintain and improve outreach materials
 This committee should have access to enough
funding to make outreach successful
28

29. Recommendation:
Green Solutions
 There are many innovating approaches being
developed to deal with human waste.
 We must be allowed to use new and better
approaches when they are appropriate to the area.
 Composting toilets as part of the grey water
permitting established in Oregon.
 Other performance based alternative solutions like
contained wetlands should be allowed
29

30. Recommendation:
Groundwater Monitoring Funding
 The DEQ shall pursue all sustainable funding for
groundwater monitoring (including state and
federal programs)
30
Disadvantaged Community Financing
Solutions
 The DEQ shall research how other states have
established financial aid for sewage treatment and
propose an approach for Oregon

31. Long-Term Solution- To a Long-Term Problem
31
Goal 11 Exception
To provide solutions
that will protect ground
& drinking water
Monitoring
To determine where
solutions must be
installed
Governance
To manage and finance
monitoring and
solution installation
ATT Moratorium
Prevent spending on
ineffective systems and
provide time for people
to adopt real solutions
The Solution
Mechanism to Get There

32. Groundwater concerns over time
Where are you?
32

33. Contact co-chair DEQ citizen Advisory committee:
John - jblakinger@gmail.com or 541-593-9394
33