Charlie Stoneback, response to Heidelberger, 2008.02.11:
My purpose for being involved in the sanitary district was to get a sewage system of some sort that would eliminate septic systems and waste retention tanks around the lake and water sheds feeding into the lake. I may be wrong, but aren't we on questionable ground when a sanitary district spends money on projects which deviate from that purpose. I have sent our previous email correspondence on to L. Dirks, but I think we need to get him involved before we get too much further
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Lammers: Inspection maybe appropriate; few grants for building central system
Jerome Lammers, response to Heidelberger:
Cory: Yes, those types of proposals are properly discussed in your open meetings, and if you were not going to construct anything, certainly some type of inspection procedures would be well. And you should consult an engineer or someone knowledgeable about septic systems before embarking on any venture. Lake Madison considered that on the short term early on, but largely find out how bad the existing were (and there were many which were totally unacceptable). And, of course, you're going to take some hits even on that type of inspection from those who really don't want you meddling in any of their affairs whatsoever. They frankly don't care whether they're polluting the lake or not.
As for the cost of constructing a public system, I think you would find that there are not many grants out there for actual construction, and that would largely be borne by the residents through some type of low interest state or federal loan. As they say, there ain't no free lunch (at least as these things go).
But again, let me know if I can help you in any way.
Cory: Yes, those types of proposals are properly discussed in your open meetings, and if you were not going to construct anything, certainly some type of inspection procedures would be well. And you should consult an engineer or someone knowledgeable about septic systems before embarking on any venture. Lake Madison considered that on the short term early on, but largely find out how bad the existing were (and there were many which were totally unacceptable). And, of course, you're going to take some hits even on that type of inspection from those who really don't want you meddling in any of their affairs whatsoever. They frankly don't care whether they're polluting the lake or not.
As for the cost of constructing a public system, I think you would find that there are not many grants out there for actual construction, and that would largely be borne by the residents through some type of low interest state or federal loan. As they say, there ain't no free lunch (at least as these things go).
But again, let me know if I can help you in any way.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Heidelberger: Tighten inspection & enforcement on existing septic systems
I don't know how far we can take this conversation without it turning into a telemeeting in violation of open meetings rules, but here's a suggestion: what if we directed at least some effort to dealing with what we have now, i.e., the decentralized, individual septic tanks? Whatever we may pursue for future centralized solutions, perhaps we should take steps now to inspect and certify the existing wastewater treatment systems.
1. Our current installation inspection system appears to be insufficient. I just received the permit and check from Johnsons for the system they installed at Chris Whitethorn's new house on Sunrise Drive back in August. Perhaps we need to beef up enforcement on new systems.
2. Let's also prepare some materials (like what's on the website, maybe with more links, maybe with some info our septic tank installers could direct us toward) to be given to each owner installing a new system and all existing residents. (They're paying their taxes and permit fees; they ought to get something for their money.)
3. Let's enforce some maintenance on the existing systems, just as we would maintain a central system. Let's enact a requirement that landowners submit written proof every three years that they have had their septic tanks pumped (if not fully inspected, if any sort of worthwhile inspection is possible). Also require that the pumpers file with us certification that they did the job, how much they pumped out, where the outtake pipe is located, etc. Upon passage of this requirement, landowners could bring us any written receipt from the past year to meet their obligation; otherwise, they would have until two years after enactment to get the job done and show us the receipt. Any landowner who doesn't present a receipt in required time gets a visit from a pumper truck sent by the district to do the job, followed by a hefty bill from the district.
We can continue to pursue a far-off dream of an expensive, complicated (and, I maintain, unnecessary) system that would be built by money from outside donors (federal govt, IWQC, whoever). But perhaps we should focus some more effort on the here and now. I will offer the above suggestions at our March meeting for formal consideration. Your comments are welcome!
1. Our current installation inspection system appears to be insufficient. I just received the permit and check from Johnsons for the system they installed at Chris Whitethorn's new house on Sunrise Drive back in August. Perhaps we need to beef up enforcement on new systems.
2. Let's also prepare some materials (like what's on the website, maybe with more links, maybe with some info our septic tank installers could direct us toward) to be given to each owner installing a new system and all existing residents. (They're paying their taxes and permit fees; they ought to get something for their money.)
3. Let's enforce some maintenance on the existing systems, just as we would maintain a central system. Let's enact a requirement that landowners submit written proof every three years that they have had their septic tanks pumped (if not fully inspected, if any sort of worthwhile inspection is possible). Also require that the pumpers file with us certification that they did the job, how much they pumped out, where the outtake pipe is located, etc. Upon passage of this requirement, landowners could bring us any written receipt from the past year to meet their obligation; otherwise, they would have until two years after enactment to get the job done and show us the receipt. Any landowner who doesn't present a receipt in required time gets a visit from a pumper truck sent by the district to do the job, followed by a hefty bill from the district.
We can continue to pursue a far-off dream of an expensive, complicated (and, I maintain, unnecessary) system that would be built by money from outside donors (federal govt, IWQC, whoever). But perhaps we should focus some more effort on the here and now. I will offer the above suggestions at our March meeting for formal consideration. Your comments are welcome!
Lammers: New feasibility study, education push worthwhile
[board counsel Jerome Lammers, response to Stoneback, 2008.02.11]
Charlie: I think you are on the right track. Given the possibilities, I would take another run at it. Another consideration is that the state park would be a required hookup, as they were on Lake Madison, and that would bolster the effort. And again, many people just do not realize the tremendous benefit that a public system would provide.
Charlie: I think you are on the right track. Given the possibilities, I would take another run at it. Another consideration is that the state park would be a required hookup, as they were on Lake Madison, and that would bolster the effort. And again, many people just do not realize the tremendous benefit that a public system would provide.
Stoneback: Funding from IWQC for New Central Sewer Feasibility Study
[board member Charlie Stoneback, response to Lammers, 2008.02.09]
Thanks for your very informative advice on my questions. I had not considered the costs and difficulty in reestablishing a sanitary district. I fully agree with the advantages of a sewage system and that it is shortsighted to oppose it. I too have lived with several septic systems and even though we aren't experiencing any problems with ours, I would be happy to pay whatever the going cost would be to get hooked up to a sewage system ASAP. From an environmental perspective I am troubled that DENR would allow some of the septic systems that apparently exist south of Silver Creek and in the Dirks Resort areas of Lake Herman. I know there will always be an element opposed to any progress if they have to pay any amount, but it was particularly distressing at our meeting when the opposition appeared to be led by a former Lake County. States Attorney. At our Thursday Interlake's Water Quality meeting Martin Jarret, East Dakota Water District board member, suggested that a grant on the order of 6 to 8 thousand dollars might be available for us to conduct a sanitary system feasibility study. The study done in the late 90s favored a forced main into the Madison city system, but I see no record where that was ever presented to the Herman district members or discussion entered into with the city. As the Madison sewage system now extends to F&M and Madison is upgrading it's system it might well be a good time to enter into exploratory discussions with them. Also Prairie Village might be interested in sewage hook up as campers appear to be an increasing source of revenue for them. I think we should go out with an informative letter to all those in the current district to determine if there would be support for exploratory discussions with Madison on tapping into their sewage system or pursuing a grant for another feasibility study. Again, thank you Jerry for your excellent response to my questions.
Thanks for your very informative advice on my questions. I had not considered the costs and difficulty in reestablishing a sanitary district. I fully agree with the advantages of a sewage system and that it is shortsighted to oppose it. I too have lived with several septic systems and even though we aren't experiencing any problems with ours, I would be happy to pay whatever the going cost would be to get hooked up to a sewage system ASAP. From an environmental perspective I am troubled that DENR would allow some of the septic systems that apparently exist south of Silver Creek and in the Dirks Resort areas of Lake Herman. I know there will always be an element opposed to any progress if they have to pay any amount, but it was particularly distressing at our meeting when the opposition appeared to be led by a former Lake County. States Attorney. At our Thursday Interlake's Water Quality meeting Martin Jarret, East Dakota Water District board member, suggested that a grant on the order of 6 to 8 thousand dollars might be available for us to conduct a sanitary system feasibility study. The study done in the late 90s favored a forced main into the Madison city system, but I see no record where that was ever presented to the Herman district members or discussion entered into with the city. As the Madison sewage system now extends to F&M and Madison is upgrading it's system it might well be a good time to enter into exploratory discussions with them. Also Prairie Village might be interested in sewage hook up as campers appear to be an increasing source of revenue for them. I think we should go out with an informative letter to all those in the current district to determine if there would be support for exploratory discussions with Madison on tapping into their sewage system or pursuing a grant for another feasibility study. Again, thank you Jerry for your excellent response to my questions.
Counsel: District worth fighting for?
[board counsel Jerome Lammers, response to discussion of dissolution, 2008.02.09]
Charlie & Cory: I have read the comments from both of you on the subject of the future of your sanitary district. All those comments are valid.
First, let me express that the establishment of a district is difficult and expensive enough that if you see even a dim hope of constructing a sewer system, then I would advise leaving it in existence, as the cost would be minimal (annual election/notice) and your meetings could be held only annually, or whatever. If you want to discontinue taxation, you could do that simply by passing a resolution from year to year to not levy taxes for the forthcoming year, notifying the county auditor accordingly.
I have represented sanitary districts at Lake Madison, Brant Lake, Lake Poinsett, Pickerel Lake, Lake Cochran and Wall Lake, as well as other communities, and the frustrations have been largely the same. Most lake dwellers, unfortunately, only want to take from the lake what it has to offer, without any thoughts as to preserving it or giving back to it. They want a pinch penny existence and object to any expenditures such as a sewer system. Board members are understandably reluctant to buck that existence, but those who have done so have been rewarded (along with dodging flack that always comes). Any lake worth its existence, in my opinion, needs a sewer system. Septic tanks are never as good as the day they were installed. I know, I have lived with both. All septics eventually will contribute to the pollution factor of a lake in some degree, whereas a properly constructed public sewer system will not.
That said, if you do not have the population density to support a public sewer system, then the choice is much easier. But that is a different question than the one as to whether one is needed and should be supported. Brant Lake is currently in the thick of combat with residents (most objectors being absentee landowners) but is proceeding with construction efforts. If you wanted to visit with one of their board members, you should contact Jan Nicolay, the chair there, who is a very knowledgeable person with an excellent background. Kathi at our office could give you her phone number if you wish....
CAH Response to CS -- Dissolving the District?
[board member CA Heidelberger, response to Stoneback, 2008.01.31:]
Good morning, Charlie!
I have been wondering the very same thing since I got on the board. There has never been much popular interest in board activities, not even enough to support an actual election. What support there has been seems to come more from a desire for development and increased property values than from water quality, and you know me -- I'm a lot more interested in water quality than packing more houses around the lake. The kinds of water quality projects that you and I are interested in, projects that would address what we suspect are the more significant contributors to poor water quality, don't fit with the statutory authority of the board. The water project district IWQC wants to put together would be a much more active and effective mechanism for protecting water quality.
Right now all the Sanitary District appears to do is transfer money from the homeowners to the insurers (our insurance policy feels more like someone's bad practical joke), our lawyer, the newspaper, and the board members. Were we to eliminate that wasted taxing authority and replace it with the taxing authority of a water project district that could actual get things done, my support for the IWQC's efforts would be that much greater.
SDCL 34A-5-53 provides for dissolution of the district by petition to circuit court of a majority of voters within the district. SDCL 34A-5-54 allows the board itself to dissolve the district, but apparently only when the district is annexed into another municipality. If the water project district is considered a municipality, then when it comes into being, we might be able to just vote ourselves out of existence. It might even be possible in that case to transfer our assets to the new water project district. I'm not sure if statute allows us to up and dissolve ourselves whenever we want. Should we ask Jerry for some legal perspective?
If dissolving the district is doable, we might want to do it before the next tax assessment. Then again, we might find it beneficial to wait until the water project district is formed. Either way, I'm interested in pursuing this idea further. I'll be happy to talk with you about further steps we should take.
CAH
I have been wondering the very same thing since I got on the board. There has never been much popular interest in board activities, not even enough to support an actual election. What support there has been seems to come more from a desire for development and increased property values than from water quality, and you know me -- I'm a lot more interested in water quality than packing more houses around the lake. The kinds of water quality projects that you and I are interested in, projects that would address what we suspect are the more significant contributors to poor water quality, don't fit with the statutory authority of the board. The water project district IWQC wants to put together would be a much more active and effective mechanism for protecting water quality.
Right now all the Sanitary District appears to do is transfer money from the homeowners to the insurers (our insurance policy feels more like someone's bad practical joke), our lawyer, the newspaper, and the board members. Were we to eliminate that wasted taxing authority and replace it with the taxing authority of a water project district that could actual get things done, my support for the IWQC's efforts would be that much greater.
SDCL 34A-5-53 provides for dissolution of the district by petition to circuit court of a majority of voters within the district. SDCL 34A-5-54 allows the board itself to dissolve the district, but apparently only when the district is annexed into another municipality. If the water project district is considered a municipality, then when it comes into being, we might be able to just vote ourselves out of existence. It might even be possible in that case to transfer our assets to the new water project district. I'm not sure if statute allows us to up and dissolve ourselves whenever we want. Should we ask Jerry for some legal perspective?
If dissolving the district is doable, we might want to do it before the next tax assessment. Then again, we might find it beneficial to wait until the water project district is formed. Either way, I'm interested in pursuing this idea further. I'll be happy to talk with you about further steps we should take.
CAH
Sanitary District -- Enough Support to Continue?
e-mail, board member Charlie Stoneback, 2008.01.31:
Corey,
Last nights district meeting which included many residents within the current district boudaries begs two questions: (1) Why was the district established in the first place when there seems to be universal opposition to a sewage treatment system? (2) Is it proper to keep taking tax payer money as a public entity when the public served is in opposition to its only legal function?
While I'm a major supporter of water quality monitoring I feel we may be on shaky ground when we put sanitary district money into it. The 2007 monitoring has pretty well determined that bacteria is coming into the lake from the streams vice lake shore homes.
My first inclination is to recommend disolving the district as a taxing legal entity until such time as there is support or necessity for sewage treatment. The first step in gaining support would be a lake resident home owners association. I'm told that was tried in the past and merged into the air pump maintenance group due to lack of home owner interest, and that goup (Lake Herman Development) has very little lake resident involvement. Pressure for sewage treatment will probably come when land for development becomes costly enough to force housing density which will not support septic systems or environmental regulations make individual septic systems impractical.
Bottom line is that after the response last night I'm a little uncomfortable in maintaining the sanitary district as a taxing entity unless we can come up with a compelling rationale for existence that our tax payers will support.
What are your thoughts? Charlie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)