Dear Members of County Council:
I oppose removal of the annual OSS system inspection. It takes the County from a proactive position that prevents water contamination to one that waits until a septic system has failed, and delays necessary repairs until there are citizen complaints, observations by health officials or a home is sold. This is clearly not in the best interests of the majority of Whatcom County residents whom you represent.
Not only is this approach less effective in protecting water quality, it is also more costly. It ignores public health and safety. It threatens fish, wildlife and their habitat. It fails to recognize the County’s growing deficient in water quantity, which requires imposition of stricter, rather than weaker, standards to protect water quality. Although the purpose of this proposal is to alleviate financial hardship to County septic system owners, it contains no provisions requiring even minimal substantiation of financial hardship.
Furthermore, the proposal is legally invalid. It violates the state requirement that gravity systems be thoroughly evaluated a minimum of once every three years, and that other septic systems be evaluated annually. WAC 246-272A-0270(1)(d). It violates a state provision that limits the waiver of inspection requirements to local health officers under proscribed conditions. WAC 246-272A-0420.
As drafted, the ordinance contains statements that are either misleading, or patently false. The ordinance states that “the water quality of Whatcom County is improving”, when in fact, it is an established fact that the water quality of Lake Whatcom, the source of drinking water for 50% of the County, has declined each year. The Health Department has reduced, rather than expanded, the harvest period for Drayton Harbor shellfish. Not one County water body placed on the EPA 303(d) impaired list has ever been removed.
The ordinance states that “All new OSS systems that are installed are extremely well-regulated, engineered and designed, and monitored.” Overlooking the inappropriateness of such an unqualified, blanket statement, the very passage of this ordinance would ensure that new septic systems were not being monitored. Time prohibits me from elaborating on the numerous other problems with the proposed ordinance language, but I can only conclude that it has not had meaningful review by competent counsel.
In summary, this proposal is fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, violates state law, and is a threat to public health and safety. For the sake of all County residents, I hope that members of this Council will vote against the proposal.
Sincerely,
Wendy Harris
Bellingham Resident
So has anyone asked the Prosecutor's office to address the legal invalidity of this, if only in a back channel? Weimer or anyone?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it that the oxygen level has declined in Basin l and partially in basin two and that is a separate finding from the actual water quality as it comes from the treatment plant, which I thought had been upgraded not too long ago?
Lake Whatcom overall is also one of the cleanest bodies in the state but this also goes to your other point about bodies of water on the list statewide. I could be wrong, but isn't that how they get around that while retaining their very tenuous credibility? Not that it's right, but maybe you need a little longer short hand description of the lake.
Also B'ham is half of the population, but just a small fraction of the county. The septics are in the county or the fringe and a ot of those folks are on wells too. Details, details.
Wouldn't distribution rather than adequate supply be a problem? In the not too distant past we used 2/3 of the water supply to flush GP, where did that savings go? Have we used it or is this just so we can have enough for the next 90,000?
Have any impaired bodies of water in the state, once placed on the list ever been removed?
New systems are much advanced over the old ones, but like the nice new overflow lockers they have at Cable and Sudden Valley that occasionally like to spew though new, any mechanical or hydraulic system benefits from a yearly tune up.
Seems there are two choices, fluster and bluster --and that is part of it, but you can pick the argument apart in devastating fashion without declaring it's illegal, which is a court finding and without calling them all nuts, even if it appears apropo, and attacking on multiple fronts to make sure this and the next brainiac scheme they come up with. Of course, we're going to need lots of help.
I meant to add. I agree 100% with your bottom line. Do something for the low income folks and let the rest pay to pollute if you're not going to give them sewers. Has anyone ever sought to know how many of these little gravel mined ponds in the north county are full of effluent from surrounding homes and how is this not getting to the water table they also pump from as the gravel industry likes to claim?
ReplyDelete