Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/11/21 - Board of Health MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995 The Board of Health was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairperson Mary Faughender with Board Members Cady and Hunter in attendance. ATTENDANCE: Mary L. Faughender, Chairperson Ben Potter, Olympia William O. Hunter, Board Member Ron Payne, Olympia Mary Jo Cady, Board Member D. Williams, Belfair Brad Banner, Health Services Director Ginger Clark, Grapeview Steve Kutz, Director of Personal Health Bob Lux, Shelton Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Robert Nylander, Shelton Wayne Clifford, Technical Administrator Robert Butler, Shelton Mark Tompkins, Program Manager J. Horn Pam Denton, Environmental Health Specialist Rob Henry, Belfair Jeannette Baneca, DOE Jay Hupp, Shelton Mary & Dale Russell, Grapeview Bill Russell, Union Gloria & Bob McDonald, Shelton Tom Rogers, Puyallup Bill Bruder, Shelton Dave Ghylin, Silverdale Henry Minch, Twanoh Falls Dave Pearson, Silverdale Diane Cooper, Taylor United Duane Fagergren, Shelton Warren Dawes, Shelton Drew Noble, Shelton Arthur Burkholder, Shelton Mike & Tracey Nelson, Shelton Mark Oestreich, Shelton Jim Roundtree, Port Orchard Russ Butterfield, Allyn Mike Anacher, Allyn Stephen Wecher, Tacoma Bill Quiqley, Belfair Phil Rousseau, Shelton R. V. Rogers, Shelton Liz Mrkvicka, Shelton Chet Williams, Shelton Doug Haser, Belfair Don Malkowski, Bremerton Al Adams, Union R. Rogers, Shelton Otto Field, Shelton Al Everson, Belfair A. E. Davison, Shelton John Schumacher, Shelton John & Marilyn Laubach, Shelton Bob Tarlton, Shelton Ralph Wingert, Shelton Dale Tahja, Shelton Dave Kamin, Shelton Rich Crump, Shelton Michael Schmidt, Shelton James Latimer, Shelton Joycelyn Johnson, Union NON-SMOKING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS RECOGNIZED Dr. Trucksess,Health Officer, informed that second-hand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as a serious health hazard. Numerous health agencies recognize that second- hand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke was a carcinogen and did cause lung cancer. It also causes or worsens other respiratory illnesses. The Washington State Legislature has regulated MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995 -Page 2 of 17 tobacco smoke in the work place but this regulation has not been equally applied. Restaurants and bars have been specifically excluded. Nevertheless, many restaurants have declared themselves to be smoke-free knowing that the health of their employees and customers has improved. He made available pamphlets written by the SW Washington Health District which listed 25 reasons to become a smoke-free restaurant and an alert talking about the dangers of second-hand smoke. Dr. Trucksess applauded 'the effort of 27 restaurants in Mason County who have now declared themselves to be smoke-free and are cognizant of the health risks to their employees and customers. Because of their actions, citizens now have the choice of a smoke-free environment in Mason County restaurants. In accordance with the wishes of the Mason County Commissioners, who are also the Board of Health, each establishment would be presented with a framed certificate. The following restaurants were recognized: 101 Cup and Cone, Beach Hut, Burger King, Burgermaster, Cafe Luna, Casa Luna, Crazy Eric's, Dairy Queen, Donna's Garden Court Cafe, Fuddy Duddy's, Hattie Rose Cafe, Hoodsport Marina Cafe, Jazzy's, McDonalds located at Walmart and cities of Shelton and Belfair, Ming Tree, Nita's Koffee Shop, Old Cliffton Town Deli, Pizza Factory, Seabeck Pizza, Subway Sandwiches, Taco Bell, Tea& Crumpets,That Place, This & That, and Victoria's at Robin Hood. Dr. Trucksess noted as more establishments become smoke-free, they also would be presented with a certificate. RECESS Five minute recess held. PUBLIC HEARING/ON-SITE SEWAGE OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM At 8:00 p.m., the public hearing to consider the On-Site Sewage Operation and Maintenance Program was called to order. Chairperson Faughender informed the public that the Board was interested in receiving their testimony immediately following the staff report. Brad Banner, Environmental Health Director, reported that the Mason County On-Site Operation & Maintenance Program (Exhibit A) was a plan addressing how to approach septic system operation and maintenance in Mason County. The plan uses private sector personnel instead of government staff to perform the activities. It stresses education rather than mandates. It would be phased in slowly, with Board of Health approval required to initiate each new phase. If the plan was approved, local ordinances would need to be updated. The plan was written by the Mason County On-Site Advisory Committee which was a group of citizens appointed by the Board of Health, most of whom were present. The authors of the O & M Plan (Exhibit B) were made up of designers, installers, pumpers, representatives from the Totten/Little Skookum and Lower Hood Canal Watersheds, Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association, and Mason County Homebuilders Association. The president was a representative from the Mason County Board of Realtors. The O & M Subcommittee worked intensively, donating their time every two weeks for over one year developing this program. Kitsap County provided representation and information from their plan, and Thurston County submitted information on their experiences. A broad consensus had been reached between all the parties. Five good reasons (Exhibit C) for this consensus were: Systems today were expected to treat sewage not just dispose of it; failed systems must be replaced with systems which meet current codes; more-complex systems were being required; taxpayers have a tremendous investment to protect; and failing, malfunctioning systems were a public health hazard. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 3 of 17 Mr. Banner reviewed the four phases (Exhibit D) of the plan. The waterfront homes and the homes over critical aquifer recharge areas would be phased in starting with Totten/Little Skookum, Lower Hood Canal, Case Inlet and then the rest of the county. The homeowner would have the responsibility to contract with an O & M specialist to get the work done, but the program has been written so the homeowner could share the responsibilities and reduce their costs. A certified maintenance specialist would be responsible for maintaining their certification, performing the O & M services as needed, and help in educating the homeowners. The Health Department would send out reminder letters, manage the data and quality control, educate the homeowners, and maintain the certification program. Inspection frequency (Exhibit E) was outlined. The committee felt this frequency was a minimal approach. Customer notification (Exhibit F) was reviewed. Six certification requirements (Exhibit G) were reviewed. Mr. Banner stated, that in this program, they were proposing that the private sector be utilized. He supported this because the group, which had a variety of interests, developed this plan with one common goal which was the good of the community and because they were dedicated, honest, and set high goals for themselves in the certification program. Board Member Cady asked if there was a RCW requiring that Mason County have an O & M Program. Mr. Banner replied he did not believe there was. She asked, then, what the driving force was in developing this program. Mr. Banner responded that the need for this program was their motivation. Systems need maintenance, and it was even more urgent by the complex systems which were being required by new regulations. Board Member Cady asked why the government has to come in and do this, instead of the citizens doing it for themselves. They have an approximate 10% failure rate, or a 90% non-failure rate in the county. Based on those figures, she wondered why this was being proposed. Mr. Banner answered that the citizens were very capable and with education they could do more and more. They tried to keep the program as voluntary as possible. The extra-sensitive areas were focused in on because their maintenance effects others, public health, and the shell-fish industry. Board Member Cady asked if in Phase 4, in 1999, existing systems which were not in critical areas would not fall under the mandatory requirements. Mr. Banner replied that was correct. Board Member Cady wondered how the Assessor would notify the Health Department if a property was in a critical area. Mr. Banner replied they may have to retrieve that data. There was a code for waterfront homes, but he wasn't sure there was for critical aquifer recharge areas. Board Member Cady asked how they would get the data for homes outside the clean water districts. Mr. Banner answered that would be easy for the waterfront homes because it was in the Assessor's data. However, it would not be easy to identify the critical aquifer recharge areas. Board Member Cady wondered how Mr. Banner's time would be financed. Mr. Banner replied he would spend the time it takes to accomplish the task. The bulk of his time was spent in environmental health, with some in personal health and a portion in water quality. This would be worked on instead of some other environmental project because this was the most important item. Board Member Cady wondered if a portion of the fees generated by the private contractors could come back to the county to finance the department in providing the data base. Board Member Hunter asked how the definition and identification of waterfront properties would be formulated. Mr. Banner stated they could use the Assessor's data or amend it. How and if it was done would be up to the Board. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995 -Page 4 of 17 PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Russell, Grapeview, commented she was speaking for herself and her husband rather than a community group. She had been to several of these meetings in which the Board had to vote without knowing what the citizens wanted. This subject was one in which the Board knows what the public wants because Case Inlet voted on it in the spring of last year. It was 66% against the proposal. When talking with Board Member Cady in July, they had agreed that the rest of the county would have voted no along with the Case Inlet residents. Board Member Hunter has been a dedicated public servant in Mason County for many, many years and has given a lot of time, even when he only received a pittance for it. He has always had their support and he would continue to have their support. One reason was his innate sense, from living in this county all his life, of what people want. Not the special interest groups. Chairperson Faughender has listened to people, which was appreciated, but that has to translate into votes. The reason she was against it was because there were other alternatives. When properties sell, the septic has to be inspected. They have an old-fashioned system which has been pumped regularly. When systems are pumped and something was found to be wrong, it was reported to the county. The county knows when there are failing systems. The new systems have to be repaired or people go without. This proposal differs from what was voted on in Case Inlet because it has a divide and conquer method. The waterfront owners would be done now and maybe the upland people won't care or won't say anything. That was not appreciated. If it was to be done, they should all be in the same boat. They, personally, have been working with Environmental Health for 6 months bringing a well into compliance and it has ran the gambit from arrogance to stupidity. She personally, if she had a choice, would never have another environmental health employee on her property because it has been an assault for 6 months. She did not want to deal with them regarding a septic system. They want the government off their backs. Everyone wants water clean, but this proposal was not the right solution. They were proposing that people have failed systems until it was proved that they did not have a failing system, and that was not right. Bill Bruder, Timberlakes area, stated he was for some control of water pollution. Water was a privilege not a right. It comes from'the ground and anyone can pollute it. Something has to be done even if this entire plan was not adopted. It needed to be started. He was for some'control. An understanding with Kitsap County has to be reached so their affluents do not come down into our critical aquifer recharge areas. Chairperson Faughender answered they were working together and Kitsap County has signed a plan regarding Hood Canal. Board Member Hunter noted they continue to work with Olympic View Landfill. Henry Minch, South Shore, stated he was a retired engineering geologist. Forty years of his professional career was spent working on sites with septic systems. One thing he does not like was septic systems. Most septic systems, over time,have a problem of failure which contaminate our ground water. They fail into streams, lakes, and salt water areas. As a geologist working on a failed site, he usually found a septic system. The system was putting too much water into the ground and, over a period of time, causes a silt stability problem causing landslides. Septic systems, by themselves, were not the real answer in a lot of locations. Mason County has a lot of bad areas, problems occur in the winter. People have failing systems and they do not realize it, and they are real problems. More diseases are being seen and they can be spread by contaminated water. He has also been a member of the On-Site Sewage Advisory Committee since its inception and he has tried to give his honest input. He was also asked by the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 5 of 17 Department of Ecology to serve on their on-site committee to review federal guidelines. They should read what the federal government was proposing for on-site systems. If we have an O & M Program, they would be able to circumvent or dilute a lot of things that the state was trying to circumvent or dilute from the federal government. These federal proposals would really cost a lot of money if they go into effect. They need to take a good look at this. Systems need to be maintained, just like a car engine. A new septic system could cost as much as buying a new car. This was good insurance. Septic systems are on-site wastewater treatment plants and people should be aware of this. They are a very serious part of having your home on a piece of property. They are out of sight and mind of some people, but they need to be operated and maintained so the property can be used and for the most beneficial use of their groundwater supply. Diane Cooper, representing Taylor United Shellfish Company, stated she worked on the On-Site Advisory Committee. Taylor United was a major employer of the county, a land owner, a committed member of the community, and as shellfish growers dependent upon clean water to support economic growth. They encourage the Board to approve an O & M Program to help water quality. The inspection time table indicates compliance for existing systems in sensitive areas. These sensitive areas are defined as critical aquifer recharge areas and shoreline parcels. Shoreline parcels should include what the Shorelines Management Act states and that was all Type I waters. A Type I stream which was contaminated by a failed system flow directly into marine waters and has just as much potential to impact the shellfish as does direct contamination. Sensitive areas should be strengthened in definition or expanded in scope so they were clearly delineated. The plan indicates that Environmental Health would initiate and enhance an educational program and provide incentives to encourage participation. It appears that the key to a successful program, given the voluntary compliance aspect, was based on public education. They want to ensure, if this program was approved, that the public education portion did not fall by the wayside, but instead be given adequate and sufficient attention. Taylor United was supportive of an O & M Program and believe an adequate plan which protects water quality was something that the community should expect and welcome. It provides increased benefits for everyone. This program would be a good first step toward proactive, progressive, preventive water quality policy. Warren Dawes commented he lives on Totten Inlet and was the Totten Inlet Watershed representative on the On-Site Advisory Committee. He was also a member of the Clean Water District at Little Skookum. He believed the most important thing being passed along would be education. Education was sorely needed in the field of septic systems. The problems and technology have changed. They were now dealing with systems which were changing on a yearly basis. They were now much more complicated to be properly operated and maintained to serve their purpose. Their purpose has been expanded. It was now to be a permanent treatment of sewage; to treat as well as dispose. If properly maintained, they would last for as long as they would like. The alternatives to that were costly. Everyone has heard about someone who has had to deal with a septic system failure and have had to look at putting in sewer systems. With the amount of growth they were getting in this county, they have to have septic systems which meet their needs because they cannot possibly afford to put in sewer systems. The new septic systems treat more effectively. They were providing a higher standard of treatment than sewer systems and they were not discharging it to the water, they were discharging into the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 6 of 17 ground. Until now, the maintenance program they have had has been to call a pumper every 3 to 5 years, or if worried, every other year to have the system pumped. However, that only touches part of the problem, and it becomes even smaller as these systems get more complicated. The new inspection program would call for a trained professional, this would be a sideline to an already established business. PeopleAo not see it as a money maker but more of a responsibility to the community and responsibility to the systems they have installed to make sure they were working for the life they were intended. If he received an inspection for $75, he would be told if it needed to be pumped. Pumping was a lot more expensive than $75; it could be 2 or 3 times that amount. This inspection was hoped to identify any failures that needed to be fixed so the system continued to operate satisfactorily and save the costly pumping which was not needed at every inspection. This was not another heavy-handed action coming down from the county, but more of a service to the community. If they were to have a satisfactory inspection program, they need to have the volume so that the private companies who would provide it could be competitive and have standards touching all the areas that need to be accomplished. If they do not have the assist of putting this program in place, he did not see this type of inspection becoming available. They would just be calling the pumper every few years, and they would see a lot more systems failing because of it. Twenty-two percent of the systems along the waterfront were failing along Totten and the Lower Hood Canal. Eight and twelve percent of the upland sites failing. These were people who were doing their best, they were pumping their systems as often as they felt was needed, but they were still failing. There were approximately 20,000 systems in the county and if 10% were being lost, think of the cost involved. Perhaps with an inspection program,that number of failures could be cut in half. A thousand systems saved times $1,000 savings was 1 million dollars. A $1,000 repair was a cheap repair now for a failing system, it could be $15,000. They. need to get involved, be better educated, it was not just pumping anymore. The systems should be checked regularly. Since he lived in Totten/Little Skookum, he would be one of the first to be asking for an inspection of his system because if his system was going to fail, it would be very expensive. He would want the inspection and he would appreciate having people who could assist in seeing that his system continues to work. He was happy to see the large number of people present for this hearing. More detailed presentations were needed so that more people could understand what this program would mean for them. There was a lot of material to cover. He was fully in support of the program because without it there would be more grief. Mark Oestreich, Arcadia Pointe area, commented he supported clean water, education rather than mandates, a quality program which would actually assist them in maintaining their clean water, and fairness. After his first year here, he learned his septic system consisted of two oil drums which fed into a little stream and down into Totten Inlet. That concerned him and without any incentive from the county or his neighbors, he spent thousands of dollars to put in a design system which has worked well ever since. Perhaps many there had done something similar. He hoped there were no oil drum systems owned by people in the audience. The proposal needs to have quality in the certification program because the people who came to test his site were not considered to be qualified. He was a scientist who used to work at Rayonier and he was familiar with chemistry and test procedures. , The individuals who tested his area tested three places in a row. The cross contamination between one of his neighbor's systems and his own was very possible with this testing method. The inspectors used computer printouts but did not know the three properties they were testing were all neighbors. He hoped the new certification and MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 7 of 17 computer system would address proper inspections and testing with intelligence behind it rather than just computer data. In regards to his concern for fairness, as waterfront property owners they were typically the highest assessed in the county and pay the highest taxes. For those who are retired and on a fixed income, those taxes are getting to be a very high percentage of their available funds. The proposed system of fixed scheduled mandated inspections sounds like a new tax. He cares about clean water, but he also cares about the people and fairness. Some people would not be subject to this new inspection fee because they were not on the waterfront. Clean water was considered to be a privilege owned by everyone in the county and if a new system was going in and we would all be asked to contribute through this new inspection system, he would like to see it implemented unilaterally. He also hoped that if the county was going to get a kick back from these inspections, that some of that money goes to help defray the cost of the inspections or the cost of repair activities for those of them who live in the county. Repair activity was very expensive. If the county, as a whole benefits, the county as a whole should help achieve cleaner water. He was concerned that this was education rather than mandates. He believes education was terrific and there was also a point for mandates. But the article in the Journal stated that the Board of Health would decide what enforcement measures to plug into the program. It could be anything from a years worth of nasty letters (which he did not believe would happen) to posting a big sign stating you could not occupy the dwelling because it was out of compliance. He would like to see clean water but he would not like to see people being kicked out of their homes. He hoped it would be a much needed education program with people working together, volunteering, and using the help of the county to make this a good program. Concerned about fairness and enforcement. Phil Rousseau, Walker Park Road, remarked it was the third occasion he has had to appear before the Board to try to keep the government off his back. He lives on the waterfront. Two years ago he voluntarily rebuilt his septic system. He was not having a failure and was not having problems but he decided to rebuild. It cost $700 before he could get bids for permits for perk holes. He has a large amount of money in that rebuild. He wants to take care of it, but it was his responsibility to do this just as it was his responsibility to take care of his other possessions. The issue comes down to personal responsibility. The Journal quoted that it could be up to $300 every year for complex systems. That was scary. Many people with waterfront property have seen their taxes double in the last 5 years. Waterfront people, as a whole, were responsible people.. They want to protect the environment but legislation like this was not the way to do it. He had also read in the paper that Mason County was going to be a leader in this field. This was not a field they should be a leader in. He also heard tonight that this was not mandated by state law. Even if it was mandated by state law, he still might have a problem with it. The federal government was also mentioned and-they should be concerned about that, but it was something that should not be imposed upon them. Education was the way to go. The information he has picked up tonight has been helpful, but he was definitely opposed to the county adopting these ordinances. It should be voluntary and there were other ways to approach it. Liz Mrkvicka remarked her primary residence was in King County, but she has a summer home on Lighthouse Road. She did have a few questions and she apologized if her questions were answered in the documents but she had requested a copy of the document earlier in the day and had been told she could not see it prior to this hearing. King County decided that an item called the wastewater backflow check valve used in sprinkler systems should be inspected each year. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 8 of 17 They send out a list of qualified inspectors and you make phone calls and find that fees for this simple procedure range from $30 to $200. She asked who would regulate the fees in this proposal, and who would regulate increases of these fees. She assumed that there has been a previous program for inspection which means that their tax dollars have been spent in this manner. She wondered if there would be a corresponding reduction in taxes to offset this new fee which she sees as a new tax. They had put in a fairly sophisticated system approximately 3 years ago and now they were being told it would have to be inspected regularly while some of her neighbors who moved in during the 1940's discharge directly into the sound. She wondered why she had to prove her system was working, as being presumed,guilty. There were no provisions to take care of those neighbors who because of age and longevity in the county are discharging directly into the water. She wondered why she had to worry about her system which was working. She has a buzzer which would indicate a problem. Placing the burden on 100% of the waterfront owners for a few failed systems was a bit excessive. There were other ways to find out what the problems were. They also had to perform a well pump test for their bank. It was supposed to be a 6 hour pump test, the pumper was there 15 minutes, signed it off and left. Same charge, but no need to run a 6 hour test. Should consider what the charges could be. Doug Haser, Belfair, stated he lives on waterfront property and he was in favor of dealing with water quality the best they know how. When he purchased his property, he was unsure about his system so he installed a new system. He knows how to take care of it, and he did not need government influence to do that. If 90% of the systems were working and managed correctly, why couldn't the failed systems be tested and deal with those, not lay a tax on the waterfront people who were already paying excessive taxes. If this was not a requirement by RCW, he did not see why they were even considering increasing expenditures for properties, taxes, and government influences for cases in which 90% were working. This would be a ludicrous situation. He has seen inspections done in the real estate business by contractors who approve the work. They indicate there was a problem when there really wasn't one, they do some superficial work and then they bless the sale. He was not saying that the people proposing to do the inspections have that mind set now, but given time he did not really trust that they wouldn't get there. He has been in favor of a sewer system and he did not see why they should be involved in even a year's assessments for these inspections if 90% were working and the systems would be replaced. He has spent a lot of money to prevent problems and he continues to do so to protect his investment, but it was not necessary in this area and that should be taken into account, if the proposal was to be done. He did have a problem that the entire county was not being treated together. Taxing the waterfront people separately, to him, was ludicrous. If it was good for one it was good for all. This should be done by public vote, not by a decision here. In talking with his neighbors, he has not found one who was in favor of this situation. They did ask him to come down and state their case. They do not want to be effected by excess government involvement. Al Adams, Union, stated he was speaking in favor of the concept of O & M. In working as a volunteer with the Clean Water District and the Lower Hood Canal Watershed for the last 5 years, he was very happy that, at least, the Lower Hood Canal had the opportunity to test all the septic systems to find out the failures. They were pleased that of the 2,789 that have been tested, there were 329 failures which have been found. 99% of those failures belong to marvelous people who happen to have a defective system. Without 0 & M as a follow-up on this testing, MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 9 of 17 the value will eventually come of naught. As a citizen of Lower Hood Canal and in talking with residents there, they were very satisfied and happy that testing was going on. They were not concerned as much of the taking of oysters on the beach as they were for the water quality. This also applies to the people on the streams and lakes. He feels strongly that all failing systems in the county should be found one way or another, and perhaps how it was done was not as critical as finding them and seeing that they were corrected. Probably the most important job the Board Members have, and the legacy they would leave Mason County, would be to ensure that the citizens of Mason County have good water quality. That would include drinking water as well as water for recreation and for taking food from. There would be nothing in the future that would be more important than the quality of the water. If they slip backwards and did not maintain the quality, their legacy would not be very good. James Latimer, waterfront owner on Schneider Road, stated he had been a builder for many years and was not up on the new septic tank technology. He really did not understand it, but he would like to see a couple of years spent educating himself and the public on how things are effected, what the problems were, how to take care of them, and then have this proposal put to a vote rather than the way it was being done here. He was concerned because of two systems he knew of which cost $15,000 each to correct. Everyone who lives on the water was not rich. Many came to the water years ago. He came to the water 40 years ago and it did not cost much then. R. V. Rogers, Lighthouse Road, commented he was not so happy if there were 90% of the systems not failing and only 10% failing. They do want to find the systems which were failing. He lives on the water, uses it, and did not want it contaminated. If it was contaminated, as a veteran of 3 wars, 30 years in the military, it was a free country and he as a citizen knows if he can flush his toilet. He keeps it clean. If his system fails, he would fix it. They do not need someone coming to tell them to do this. In respect to the people who would do the inspections, human nature being what it was, even though one individual believed there was not much profit in it. But $15,000 to $20,000 to install a system was one hell of a profit, in his view. The committee was concerned about water quality in this county. If this was the case, why were they still placing creosote telephone poles in the ground and letting leach into the water? Why were there millions of railroad ties creosote soaked that, when it rains, leaches into the water? That soaking would go into the water table, which was all over the county. Over 1 million gallons of sewage was pumped into their bay every day from the City of Shelton. Of course, it was processed sewage but so was affluent if it goes through the tank and drainfield and a little gets down on the beach. They were building septic systems now that were atmospheric venting. If a person has a failed system and it was venting in the yard, it would be no different than several parks. He appreciates the thought, but they were free people. If only 10% were failing, then those people probably want clean water too, and if they cannot afford it, maybe the county should help them so everyone can have clean water. Based on the amount of money which would be involved, he had just been told by the assessor that his appraised value just went up 100%. He said if he could not afford it, he should not own his own home. If he couldn't afford to fix a failing system, you might put a sign on his door that he cannot live there. This was America, people! This was not some gestapo country. He did not mean to get too emotional, but he would like an unbiased opinion as to whether the water in the bay or the beaches were polluted, or was it a few. It seems that the beaches could be tested and if it was polluted, knock on their doors and tell them they have a problem, and let's fix it! MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 10 of 17 Bill Russell, Union, stated he wanted to praise the people who have worked on this job. It was a thankless job. He was an installer and he hears figures for installation and he sees a lot of installations which could be saved had they had some knowledge on how to maintain it. He hears $20,000, but he has seen over $30,000 spent. He was in favor of an on-site maintenance program because there were many people who do not have a foggy idea of what was going on out there. He would also love to see some ty-pe of voluntary way of going about it. He was brought up to take care of his own problems and to help others when he can. This O & M Program was really necessary and there was another item to consider. Anybody who sells property and says their system was good ought to be forced to have at least one year minimum guarantee on it. Education would be extremely necessary. Tom Rogers, NW Cascade from Puyallup, remarked he was in the installation and pumping business and the distribution of septic system components in Mason County and six other Western Washington counties. He was in support of the O & M Program. The question whether it was mandated by RCW and the answer was no, but it was mandated by the Washington Administrative Code by the year 2000. He commends this county for taking a leadership role and doing it ahead of the mandated time. They were one of a few presently in the state doing that. He was Chairman of the On-Site Sewage Advisory Board in Pierce County and that would be their next major undertaking to propose an O & M in Pierce County. They believe it to be important. Presently there was a lot of effort on the part of designers to design septic systems with a lot of thought in mind, technical expertise for what it takes to dispose of and treat sewage effluent. There was a whole lot of energy and effort on the part of installers to install these. There was a whole lot of money spent by citizens in each community served by on-site sewage systems to install them. Then they are covered up and forgotten. They wait for bells and whistles to go off or they wait to slosh through the sewage in their yard and then it was too late. Contrary to some things being heard, the Health Department was doing this for you rather than to you. They want to have a program which would drastically reduce these failures through proper maintenance and operation. Hopefully they wouldn't be hearing the bells and whistles. Being in this business, the costs mentioned tonight were accurate for these sophisticated systems. Those $15,000 figures do not include landscape restoration. This was a good thing. They would be required to have it by the year 2000. Let's get on with it, be leaders, and let the rest of them follow. Duane Fagergren, shellfish grower who has lived on the water all his life, commented his family used to have a system with an iron tank in the ground. It was replaced 15 years ago and the state-of-the-art system then had to be changed due to changes that have taken place. He was present on behalf of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority as a staff member. He encouraged the Board to accept the O & M Program which was being proposed and realize there were some real challenges that lie ahead for all of them. In all honesty, Mason County was out in front of the other Puget Sound counties right now with the proposed program. Since it would be required in the year 2000, they were getting insurance of a few years and cleaning up the water in addition. He appreciated the public process in appointing the committee. These are the hardest types of work that a community does, and the committee struggled. He applauded the people who served on that committee. With the rapid growth which Mason County was experiencing, as was all the other Puget Sound counties, it was evident that people like to reside on salt and fresh water. That was part of the reason they were looking to address these problems at the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 11 of 17 shoreline first and also a matter of where they could monitor systems. It was capable to do this on the waterfront properties. Fresh water entering salt water should be the first ones addressed. The staged program makes sense. The economy of the county does depend a lot upon the shellfish industry. The industry has spoken, and he was a member of PCOGA and he knows this struggle was also going on at the coast. The population was expanding and they need to be responsible for the effect they were having on the water. He had the opportunity to go through the Washington On-Site Association facility in Puyallup which would be the training site for these certified inspectors and that facility was out in front, not only in the state, but in the country in preparing people to do these inspections in a qualified way. With this good training they would not see the problems associated with the building industry. Jeannette Baneca, employee of the Washington State Department of Ecology, was representing the Department of Ecology's Water Quality Program in supporting the adoption of the O & M Program. Ecology believes the program was an important and positive step for the county and its residents and would help to protect human health, water quality and Mason County's valuable shellfish resources on a long-term basis. It would also help the county meet water quality commitments and improve its chances for receiving state grant funding. In 1993, Ecology and Mason County signed a consent order to try to solve existing and threatened water quality problems from failing on-site sewage systems. One of the elements of the consent order was ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring of on-site sewage systems. Adoption and implementation of the September 1, 1995, version of the On-Site Sewage Operation and Maintenance Program would fulfill the O & M requirements of the consent order. In addition, Ecology looks for examples of local commitment to protecting human health and the environment when it decides where to target grant funding. Adoption of,the O & M Program, as written, would demonstrate this commitment. The most immediate funding outcome would be the release of Ecology grant funds for a water quality project in Case Inlet. Ecology commends the On-Site Advisory Committee and county staff-who have put so much time and thought into this proposed program. Ecology was happy to support adoption of this program as written and looks forward to its implementation. Bob Tarlton, Highway 3, stated thai in listening to the experts, it made him think back to 20 years ago when he lived in Clallam County on a 5 acre parcel which he wanted to move a mobile onto. In going through the process with the Health Department, he was given names of contractors who had experience in installing septic systems and drain fields. In hiring one during the summer time, he found in the winter after the rain that he could smell sewage in a brand new system, approved by the county. Therefore, he did not have too much faith in all the training programs. Some people would get stung if this program was adopted. He remembered that when Board Member Cady was running for County Commissioner, she wanted government to be a little bit more friendly and he did not believe this would make it more friendly. He feels like it was just another tax. His property was reassessed this year and it went up 95% in its valuation. He does a fair job of taking care of his place and approximately every 3 years he has his system pumped. It was a small system, but it works. He did not want to degrade the property value of his place, he has spent the last 20 years restoring it. This was just another encroachment by government. In different parts of the country people were getting sick and tired and have had just about all they want of their rights being stepped on. He was against the proposal. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 12 of 17 Ralph Wingert commented he was involved with the committee and was acquainted with some of the professionals in the business of septic systems. Earlier he heard a question about identifying waterfront parcels from the Assessor's Office, but those areas marked aquifers could still be kicked in and looked at a little closer just by the parcel number. The O & M Program would be phased in and by the year 2000 it could be mandated by the state, and if it was phased in now it would be a lower cost burden to the county and to the tax payer. It would be expensive to implement it all at once which would require a lot of manpower. As a taxpayer, he would prefer it to be phased in and the costs kept down. Comments regarding 90% not failing, he was not satisfied that was correct. There were extensive surveys on the waterfront but some properties have not been tested that much. He believed it would probably be higher than the 10% failure rate. The cost of the O & M every year at a rate of $75 to $300 was given to them by someone doing this work in Kitsap County. That was only estimated. The time involved with the inspection would be raising the cost. Existing systems as they were would be on a voluntary basis. They would need good hard information to keep the cost down and the frequency of inspections could be spread out further after getting more information. It would take time and money for someone to go through the training. Being on the advisory and sub- committees, they thought that would be a good way for a specialist to indicate his commitment. During the meetings, the installers and designers talked about failing systems. They were opinionated. They were donating their time to come up with this O & M Program. As far as them making money, the best money they could make was to do nothing and forget it. They make money repairing these failed systems. They have concern and commitment to their customers, and that was why they donated so much of their time for over one year. Bill Quiqley, Old Belfair Highway, stated that when the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District was imposed on them by a state mandate, they had asked the Commissioners to set guidelines and they totally refused. Now they were hearing the word "mandate" again; mandatory inspections without voter approval in North Mason. First encounter with the Clean Water District was at a meeting at the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District in June, 1994. They were told then they could clean up all the sewer systems on Lower Hood Canal and the Canal would still be polluted. We told the Commissioners back in 1994 that they could expect to find a 10% failure rate -and it was costing the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District $1 million to prove that they found a 10%o failure rate, give or take a few percentage points. The North Mason property owners were tired of having government impose mandatory fees,taxes, and assessments. You people were here to help us. We do not work for the County Health Department. He would not let these people on his property. He let them come on once and caught them taking pictures of his neighbor's yard. They asked him to test the water in the Union River. No problem. They were taking pictures of neighbor's property and they were not given permission to spy on his neighbors. These people were not out there to help them. He lost 32 feet of river bank. At the Planning Commission they told him they did not give advice to John Q. Public and told him to hire an engineer. When you want to protect the river and the shoreline then put the funds where your mouth is and improve and maintain the integrity of these rivers and river banks. The Skokomish River floods every year and all the waste comes down to the lower end. There are seals there also, and cow waste comes down the rivers into the Lower Hood Canal. The Hood Canal would not be cleaned by the citizens cleaning up their septic systems. They need to-find the pollution which was still polluting the Canal. Once again they were being threatened with being thrown out of their homes if they do not pay because they would be in noncompliance. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995 -Page 13 of 17 He has not heard anyone talk about the alternative to a wet system. There were dry systems which were available that the state would not approve. They could mandate holding tanks on all waterfront homes. The costs of pumping a 1,000 gallon tank of waste currently was $160. If that rose gradually, for $5,000 he could pump a 1,000 gallon tank for 25 years and no pollution would go in any waterway: He would put a holding tank in, but he would not give money to some inspector or septic person to come out. Ben Potter, Olympia, stated there were a few key issues to discuss regarding the five objectives of the O & M. Septic systems were changing from being just a disposal to a treatment of sewage. The systems were more complex, the cost greater, but this should help the treatment not hurt it. You should be getting better treatment from the new systems, not poorer. He did not want to bash the committee. He believed their intentions were good. Although they needed to look at the political side, the Commissioners were also elected to do the right thing and it was their job to protect the water and public health. The percentage of old systems which fail should be identified and the percentage of the new systems. Part of those five objectives were that the new systems were more complex. He would think that the failure rates would tend to be greater on the older systems. One of the biggest issues was fighting the population increase. There were a lot of things to look at, but they might want to do some large parcel exemptions or possibly go through and do an inspection on all of the systems and grant exemptions to all the systems which meet the ideal situation or come up with a group rating of different types of systems which were more sensitive. The more sensitive systems would have a greater O & M inspection. It was a complicated issue and he did not have all the answers. As the population increases they would have the runoff from the roads and many other things. Mandates coming down also have to be weighed. They could try to induce the public, educationally, to look at their systems. Tax payer protection has to be done fairly. There would be some benefits to all people and you need the dollar part of it spread out as much as possible. Public health was also an obligation. Bob Lux, resident near Taylor Towne, commented there was a situation since two years ago when there was an assessment of $42 that a group in the Kamilche area assessed to have septic tanks checked. They paid their $42 each year but apparently there was a problem. This had to do with compliance and it would be interesting to know how much money was actually paid for the inspections. He did not know how successful they would be with voluntary inspections. His suggestion was that they come up with scholarships to send citizens, not people in the industry, to Puyallup to take the course and set up an adult education class at Olympic College with those people as the instructors. The fees from the people taking the course at about $25 would go to pay the people for their time. You would have people being certified to take care of their own systems. He foresaw a disaster with all the noncompliance. You couldn't throw 85% of the county out of their homes because they disregard their notices. It would be a terrible hassle. Rob Henry,practicing engineer registered in the States of Washington and Oregon, stated he lives in Mason County on the waterfront on the North Shore. He runs a civil engineering group. They practice in wastewater and have for a number of years. They see some of the worse problems in the area and try to deal with those. People complain about their land use issues. He was a strong proponent of responsible development. Part of that was dealing with the waste generated on a person's property. They could put in sewers, which would mean more work for them, but he would not personally want to pay for that cost. They put in a system costing almost $20,000 MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 14 of 17 in the last few years. The land usage was important. If it was not a responsible way to use their property, they take advantage of new technology. These were being seen now because the State Department of Health has recognized them as a viable option of treating sewage on site. They work and they work well, but only if they were properly maintained. Individual homeowners were certainly capable of maintaining their systems. Everyone in this room would be responsible in taking care of their own home or they wouldn't be in this room. At the risk of being a cynic, he sees a lot of people in his professional basis that do what ever they can to avoid having to spend the $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever it was to have a quality system which was treating and disposing of sewage properly on their properties. If people want to take advantage of their properties to the highest and best usage of the land, in many cases it requires sophisticated technology systems. You certainly would not run a municipal wastewater plant without someone maintaining and operating it. Many of these systems were a scaled down version of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. What Brad and his group has proposed was an excellent start, an excellent draft of an O & M Plan. He personally thinks that some issues may be over conservative and other issues were under conservative. Specifically treatment levels I and II in the State Administrative Code talks about the amount of bacteria which was allowed to be discharged to water and yet they were not monitoring for that in the program. In checking for failed systems, they went out and dye tested specifically for leakage and leachate in the waters and if there was indication of that, then there was bacteria tests as a follow-up. People were getting off pretty easy here in what was being proposed. It would be a tax, but it would be a lot less than people paying for municipal wastewater treatment. There were capital costs, but people on municipal treatment were paying monthly as well to run their systems. The proposal was very reasonable. Unless he missed something in the Administrative Code, this really was not an option, so they might as well get on with it. If they wait until the last minute they would be behind the eight ball, with a program which has not been tested, ill conceived and awkward. If what was being proposed was a start-up phase and people were willing to participate on a voluntary basis, let them start. The higher risk areas would be mandatory and then across the board from there. He was all for property rights and also for responsible development. He personally has an O & M on his system in which records were kept, inspections done, testing completed. It was important enough to protect his investment and everyone should consider that it was also good for the county because it would be mandated at some time. Chet Williams, Lighthouse Road, remarked that the speaker representing the Department of Ecology has made him wonder. This concept may be wonderful and it may be the thing the county needs but it was not thought out ideally. This was one of the problems they have with government today. This time frame was a hustle for grant funds. This was a question the Commissions should look into. If they get their act together, then we will get money all of a sudden. That money came from our tax dollars and it was more government waste. The real point was whether we wanted to solve the problem or was it a tool used to get grant money to better solve the problem. If that was the case, it should be presented that way. If the percentage of failures has been determined it was based on knowledge and they must know where they were, so that should be addressed. If they were hustling the state for a grant for those tax dollars, in his opinion it was not right. However, if they were, it should be approached in an honest manner. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 15 of 17 Drew Noble, Lambeth Way, commented that he did not see any problem with this although there were a lot of people present who did. He was looking at it based on ground water. If people do not agree with this, they could set up some sort of super fund to be used when a well was contaminated or a stream contaminated or a failed septic.system. Then that lot owner would be responsible for cleaning up that entire problem. All the new development could create a problem with the aquifer. Acreage being divided, each lot has a septic system. Next thing you know someone may break through that confining layer and there would be a problem with many wells. Somewhere down the line something would have to be done about this. He would rather it be proactive than reactive, after the fact. Robert Nylander, Little Skookum Watershed resident, stated his septic system was put in approximately 15 years ago and most of the people around there had their systems in or put them in around the same time. Today, the county would not even allow them to put those gravity feed systems in because they were outdated. Now, an inspection program would say their systems do not meet the current codes. The systems were working, but the question was what degree would be required. These new systems were treatment centers. Their's was not a treatment, it puts it into the ground. He wondered if they would make him put in a brand new system, which he personally does not believe work that well. He's seen the different designs and when it rains those systems fail. When inspections are done in the winter time, they would fail. He also paid the $42 to have them come and inspect his system, and the person glanced at it and said his system was fine, and it was fine. But it was not a thorough inspection. He did not want to pay out $15,000 for a brand new system because his may not be quite up to snuff, but it was functional and working. Little Skookum always gets nailed first on these things and everyone's septic tanks eventually end up into the water system and it was not just the Little Skookum water system, it was every water system in the county. He wondered why the people around waterfront should be nailed first. Another problem he has was pertaining to the inspectors. They should be trained by the public, not the designers, not the people who put the systems in because individuals can be trained just as easily as them. He has worked for licensed individuals, did the work, and they signed it off. They would end up with the same deal. You would not have licensed individuals, you would have kids doing them and the licensed individual would sign it off. If you were told it had failed, you would wonder if he was telling the truth. Then you would have to prove that the inspector was wrong by getting another inspector and it could be a battle as to who was right and who was wrong and how much work would have to be done. He believes in clean water and agrees that something needs to be done, but he saw a lot of problems with this proposal. It may cost a lot of people a lot of money. People may be paying out for a system which was decent but they don't quite meet the standards. Individual responded regarding mandates for clean water. Everyone wants clean water and no one wants to loose their home on the waterfront. He suggested that a bond issue for the county be done to protect the purity of the water and if people need to improve their system, they could have a very low interest or no interest loan to repair the system. Everyone would be working together to get this done. Stephen Wecher, Pac-Tech Engineering in Tacoma, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to attend the hearing. He was one of the key speakers at the training center in Puyallup. He worked on and helped develop the program there. He has worked in the private and public sector MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995 -Page 16 of 17 and has seen what has been going on. He also served on a committee which developed regulations. He understands the concerns, he heard them when developing the regulations. The fact was that it was required by the year 2000. A lot of the newer sophisticated systems have required monitoring and maintenance and.would continue to. They try to teach in the class that education was needed for the installers, designers and maintenance people. You need a maintenance program because it was set up in the regulation. This would be for monitoring the pulse of the systems. There were ways to stop the need for $15,000 and $20,000 systems. It depends on the people using the system. They need to move toward monitoring and maintenance but they also need to give the Health Department the chance to provide the public education. There are people in his field who would be happy spending the time to educate anyone interested. Jay Hupp, Brigham Court, stated that two years ago he was pushing for the education program in Puyallup and delighted that this committee came together. He was a strong proponent of clean water. He put a lot of money into his property to keep the water clean around it. He was afraid, however, that the details needed to be looked at again before it was implemented. It doesn't seem fair to put the emphasis on the property owners who were only identified on the waterfront areas. For example, he has a neighbor uphill, about 200 feet from the water, and his system would not be subject to inspection but if it failed it would all be in his front yard, and onto the beach. He didn't see any reason not to reach back and include the entire watershed. This.would entail every system in the county. It really was a health issue, and they should be inspected. Everyone should be in the same boat. Jim Roundtree commented he lives in Shelton and builds in the Belfair area and represents one of the aerobic treatment devices which was part of these more-expensive systems. His systems go in with an O & M Program that was mandatory and if his systems were not maintained and operated it would certainly fail in time. Monitoring these other systems with this program was a good plan. They should start with the more exotic systems. They were mechanical and if they were not maintained and operated they would fail. They were finding more failures with the newer more exotic systems than with a lot of the older systems. The older systems have been working for a long time and probably one of the reasons was that the food sources going into them were maintained correctly. People were more responsible and paid attention to their systems. O & M was more monitoring and educational so that the public could be saved a lot of money keeping the systems operating. The systems could be looked at by professionals or the homeowners themselves could learn more about the systems. This was based on education. The proposal was a really good first step and then with continued education they could continue to go forward. Response made that the issue should be brought to an election so the citizens could decide. If the program was initiated and approved by the voters then it should be implemented. If not, leave them alone. Let the voters decide on issues like these. Mary Russell asked if the representative from the Department of Ecology stated it would be easier or possible to receive funding for a sewage system in Allyn if this plan was approved. Jeannette Baneca, Department of Ecology, replied she had said chances for grant funding, not a sewage system, would be increased. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH November 21, 1995-Page 17 of 17 HEARING CLOSED Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the public hearing to consider an On- Site Sewage Operation and Maintenance Program be closed. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH & M. L. Faughender, 6airperson (Absent) William O. Hunter, Board Member Mary No 6aidy, Boar Member Respectfully Submitted, Lorraine Coots