City Council holds wastewater treatment project workshop

 

May 5, 2022

-File photo

Mayor Zac Weatherford called a workshop for the wastewater treatment project and states "this project is not dead."

DAYTON–Mayor Zac Weatherford scheduled a workshop for the wastewater treatment project on April 27, at the request of the Dayton City Council members, after they voted down the purchase of the Martin and Barker properties for the project at the last regular meeting.

"This project is not dead...," said Mayor Zac Weatherford, "...no matter what, we still have a problem we have to find a solution for."

Weatherford indicated his first solution is a low-slope flood plain type-area, but is not opposed to hear other ideas. He also indicated he wanted the public work to be well versed with the new ideas and options.

"We're all more than willing to talk about it and come up with ideas and options. Moving forward I want to have the public works committee on board at every meeting throughout the whole process so that essentially when we do come up with whatever we want to present to Council, the public works committee can have a recommendation."

Teeny McMunn posed a question to fellow council member Kyle Anderson about information he had on the status of the proposed properties. He said the land owners are willing to work with the city on price. "Pat Barker contacted me...and he wants to see this project go forward...and he's also willing to negotiate on price, so he's open for an offer... Bryan [Martin] lowered his price...and he wants to see what kind of offer we would give him on it."

Anderson then referred to a previous land sale to the Blue Mountain Land Trust of Martin's 35 acres and went on to say that Konen Rock Crushing who has rock pit across the river the Martin property are almost out of rock. They would like to buy a small piece across the river that has a couple hundred tons of rock. They said they would pay the city for the rock or for the land if the sale can be reversed.

Hollopeter responded, "That's part of the area within the conservation easement and in that part would be what's in the riparian portion of the easement which is the most restrictive...The limits of our project are outside of the riparian. There's a conservation easement...there's a portion of that which is a riparian easement which is fenced off – most of it's in the river and on the other side of the river–part of it extends on this side of the river," he said in reference to the design. He also questioned whether BMLT would allow the rock crushing in the riparian zone when they did not want the wetland project to extend into that area.

Councilmember Laura Aukerman spoke of her concerns about the project being in the floodplain. Hollopeter affirmed the design is in the floodplain and clarified that the channel migration zone is signified by a line on the design, but it can be debated how accurate that is. He wasn't involved in how that line was created, but it's a hypothetical line showing where the channel could end up over time. The most recent design layout is configured the wetland project to be a minimum of 200 feet away from the current channel.

The plan includes work in the riparian zone "to encourage the river to not go through the low-slope flood plain." Hollopeter stated that though they could not build their project in that area unless all agencies agreed they could improve the riparian zone to improve the habitat like shading and creating slope stability, to protect the cut bank, and encourage the river to flow in the direction that would protect the infrastructure. He said that was one of the conditions of the approval given by the BMLT. Riparian work would be done after the project was built.

Councilman Tiger Deui suggested that until the city hires a planner, they use the already contracted services of AHBL, Inc. to lead the project forward. Cynthia Wall from the Department of Commerce questioned the agency's experience on such projects and the cost of the services. Deui maintained that in absence of the cost of paying a salaried planner, it is a necessary role to fill since the previous planner worked in that capacity for the project.

McMunn questioned if the $200,000 paid for assessments would be money lost if they pursued other properties. Peterschmidt from the Department of Ecology provided a historical response with some contributions for the mayor. Human consumption crop irrigation option didn't work out as well as the land treatment option which requires many acres that also didn't work out. The Umatilla Tribes and the Washington Water Trust approached the City in 2019 and proposed the third option for the wetlands project as a way "to keep the water in the river...but not in the river," said Weatherford. The mayor said the money was used for feasibility where they gained much information about whether the property would meet the needed requirements. He added the majority of the money was for investigating the specific property and if another property is considered the assessments would have to be done again.

Anderson said property owner Byron Seney from Huntsville contacted him with interest in the project being used to irrigate his land. Hollopeter said that there is an issue of water rights with land treatment. Wall added the land would have to be owned or leased long-term by the City, though ownership is preferred to have control of the ground.

Hollopeter explained land irrigation options for either six months which would require building a new mechanical plant with small holding lagoons before discharging to the river for the other six months. Or the other option is to land irrigate for the whole year which requires many acres to construct lagoons that would clean the water. For this option, there would have to be enough land to hold the lagoons to clean the water and still have pumping and disinfection facility which then be pumped to the land being irrigated. In either case, the holding lagoons would have to be owned by City. Wastewater usage has to be controlled when applied not allowing run-off, pooling or spraying past the root zone of the crop. Managing this can depend on the soil.

Deui pointed out that the treated water doesn't come from the river in the first place, it comes from aquaphors and because of this there shouldn't be an issue if the water does not go into the in the river. It can be applied for irrigation of land that is for non-beneficial use (not for human consumption) such as for alfalfa and hay. Deiu said, "So we can't irrigate our city parks...because it's beneficial use. You can irrigate somebody else's ground. They make their profit out of it. We both have a combined agreement...It's working with our community."

Wall offered the comparison of Deer Park which is a similar size to Dayton where they pump wastewater one mile to store and treat to then irrigate 160 acres. The Deer Park facility design capacity was for 418k gallons per day. Dayton currently puts out an average of 220k per day according to Paulson. Hollopeter said the Dayton project facility plan is for up to 600k per day at a flow rate of .75 (CPUs?) for land application. With pursuing the wetlands project, the need would be reduced to 300k or just over that.

Wall said that if land use application is pursued grant funding would be eliminated from the Office of Columbia River, the Walla Walla 2050, the Umatilla Tribes, and the Water Trust which is estimated around $1 to 3 million. The Department of Ecology can still provide their $5 million grant and their loan funding and other grant funding sources would be available for the irrigation option.

Hollopeter stated that there are three considerations – price, location and concept. Key criteria for location prepared by the Water Trust was proximity to the river and preferred single ownership within a certain distance from Dayton. This limited who was approached for land acquisition. The Martin property came up for sale when discussions were already under way with Pat Barker who is a neighboring property owner. He added based on an earlier meeting with the Department of Ecology they decided to focus on properties on the same side of the highway as the river runs. Other properties were considered on the other side of the highway where the project could still be within reasonable distance. This location would eliminate concerns about the channel migration, the floodplain and insurance costs as well as building the treatment facility to fit in the small space of the current plant. However, at that time six or seven years ago, they were pursuing the land application project which would require many more acres and the property owners had no interest. Regardless of whether the land use application or the wetlands project is pursued (requiring less land) property owners could have interest now.

Aukerman said it is not just a matter about cost of land but she has additional concerns about cost of insurance because of being in the floodplain particularly for any buildings that would be affected by the increased output from the wetland facility.

When the Mayor asked Council for direction on how to proceed, McMunn said she would be in favor of continuing negotiations with Martin and the Barkers because of the unknowns of looking at other property. She is also concerned about the grant funding being lost from the various agencies together along with the money already spent for assessments and the work on the current wetlands design. Councilmen Dain Nysoe and Kyle Anderson were in agreement with her though Anderson said he shares Aukerman's concern about cost of insurance and added he wants to inquire into the possibility of the sale reversal of the land to allow use for the rock crushing. Yost was in agreement with Anderson, but added the price for the current project properties would have to come down. The mayor also agreed and he suggested he could make counter offers on the properties if Council is in support of pursing the project on that property, as well as to talk with other property owners particularly those on the north side of the highway.

Other Council members stated their positions. Deui said he is not opposed to the wetlands entirely and emphasized that he wants to see AHBL involved to represent the City in the capacity of a planner as a project coordinator where they would participate in monthly meetings and provide updates along with the public works committee. He also suggested consulting with other design firms about other ideas. Weatherford agreed that they would have staff contact AHBL for a meeting together with Anderson Perry and have staff also contact the insurance company about the insurance costs of having the project be in the floodplain.

Aukerman told Council that these discussions can happen in regular meetings provided they have all of the information and the time to go through it. She affirmed, "Everyone here wants to make the best decision they can for Dayton."

Mayor Weatherford said the full project information is available online or at City Hall for anyone to review and that he and the Council are available to hear any comments or questions.

All council members were present as well as City Clerk Deb Hays and Public Works Director Ryan Paulson. Also in attendance was Jake Hollopeter representing design firm Anderson Perry, and online was Cynthia Wall from the Department of Commerce and Lucy Peterschmidt from the Department of Ecology.

 
 

Our Family of Publications Includes:

Dayton Chronicle
East Washingtonian

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2024