As part of the Wastewater Facilities Planning a public involvement
process was designed, developed and implemented. The goal was to
effectively educate the public about the project, identify community
issues and values, and provide information to the project team to help
them develop recommendations that the community supports. The public
involvement process involved (1) stakeholder interviews, (2) periodic
project newsletters, (3) a questionnaire on wastewater management, (4)
five public meetings, (5) two business forums, and (6) periodic meetings
with the Spokane County Water Quality Advisory Committee. The following
discussion provides an overview of the activities conducted and the
public responses and values provided.
Stakeholders from various sectors of the community were interviewed
during the Basis of Planning phase to gain an understanding of the
various community priorities, issues and concerns regarding wastewater
management. The objective was to understand the variety of community
issues early in the planning process so they could be considered during
the identification and review of wastewater management alternatives.
Twenty-two representatives from various stakeholder groups were
interviewed. The stakeholders represent a variety of agency, business
association, development, industry, and environmental sectors of the
community. A set of fourteen questions were asked, and the following
summarizes the stakeholder comments:
·
Most of those
interviewed felt the County has been providing good sewer service,
however, concerns were raised regarding the current City/County
wastewater management arrangement. There was strong support for both
the County expanding its wastewater management services and for
developing a comprehensive regional wastewater management approach.
·
The top wastewater
priorities were public health, aquifer/drinking water protection, and
Spokane River water quality protection.
·
Support was expressed
for a new effluent discharge to the Spokane River; use of the Liberty
Lake treatment plant; use of reclaimed wastewater for agricultural
irrigation, urban irrigation, creation of wetlands, and underground
storage for irrigation or stream flow augmentation. However, there were
varied opinions and concerns regarding a new effluent discharge to
Little Spokane River, and using highly treated wastewater for irrigation
of school and park landscapes. The majority of those interviewed felt
recharge of the Spokane Aquifer with treated effluent would not be a
viable option due to public health concerns and public perceptions.
·
Most supported
recycling of treated effluent and biosolids, with some concerns
expressed, and most indicated they would pay more to achieve recycling
benefits. Half of those interviewed supported including recreational
enhancements at new wastewater treatment facilities, and many ideas were
shared on how the County might increase public benefit from new
facilities.
A questionnaire was included in the first issue of the project
newsletter, which was sent to 54,000 residences and businesses in the
County’s 20-year sewer service area. The County received 648 responses.
The following summarizes the answers to the questions:
·
67% of the respondents felt the County's sewer program was
fair, good, or excellent, 10% felt it was poor, while 22% indicated that
they were not sure how the County was doing.
·
When asked to indicate their top three wastewater
management priorities and issues, 30% indicated aquifer and drinking
water protection, 20% indicated protection of public health, 17%
indicated Spokane River water quality protection, and 15% indicated
cost.
·
35% of the respondents indicated that they were willing to
pay a higher wastewater rate (equally split on $5 and $10) to achieve
recycling benefits, such as recycling of treated effluent and biosolids
for uses such as irrigation, wetlands creation, and soil amendments. 29%
indicated they were not sure if they would be willing to pay more.
·
40% indicated that if it becomes necessary for the County
to build another wastewater treatment plant at a new site, they do NOT
think the County should consider providing enhancements to the site
(such as a community park, trails, or other such features) if it makes
the project more costly. 35% of the respondents indicated they might
support such enhancements, depending on the site. 7% indicated they were
not sure, and 18% supported such enhancements.
·
27% of the respondents indicated that they think a new
regional entity separate from the City and County (such as a utility
district or regional metro agency) should be established to manage
wastewater in the entire Spokane urbanized area. 11% indicated that they
supported a new regional entity somewhat, 27% were not sure, and 34% did
not support a new regional entity.
·
Numerous additional ideas and comments were provided.
Three sets of public meetings were conducted to solicit comments on the
alternative systems and the recommended plan.
A public meeting was held on September 21, 2000 to provide an overview
of the Wastewater Facilities Planning project and to gather comments on
the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared during
the planning process. Thirty-five people attended the meeting.
Information was presented on the planning schedule and projections,
water resources and water quality, possible wastewater management
alternatives, environmental impact statement scoping, and the County
sewering program. Comments were limited. However, at the meeting the
attendees expressed support for the County’s wastewater planning efforts
and emphasized the need to plan for the long-term and provide adequate
wastewater treatment capacity to continue the septic tank elimination
program and support future growth.
Two duplicate public meetings were held on January 10 and 11, 2001 to
provide an opportunity for County residents and businesses to learn
about proposed wastewater management alternatives and provide comments.
Thirty-nine people attended these meetings, and the key points
identified include:
·
Demand Management – Approximately half of the
commenters indicated that the County should implement specific mandatory
requirements to reduce water consumption and wastewater flows. The
majority of the commenters indicated that the County should not provide
low flow fixtures to homeowners at no cost. Approximately half of the
commenters indicated that the County should not strictly enforce
disconnection of basement sump pumps from the sewer system. 95% of the
commenters indicated that sewer rate surcharges on industries and
businesses that contribute high-strength wastewater are appropriate.
Support and ideas were provided for the County implementing various
measures to increase water recycling and reuse at industry and
commercial enterprises.
·
Effluent End Use – The majority of commenters
supported surface discharge and streamflow augmentation, irrigation of
urban green spaces, irrigation of agricultural lands, industrial reuse,
and wetlands creation or enhancement. The majority of commenters did
not support groundwater recharge. When asked if treated effluent should
be supplied to agricultural lands if Spokane County ratepayers had to
subsidize the cost of the supply to make it economically feasible for
the farmers, the commenters had diverse reactions and responses.
Approximately 80% of the commenters expressed support for paying $5 to
$10 more per month to implement effluent end use measures that increase
beneficial reuse.
·
Wastewater Treatment Plant Configuration – The
majority of the commenters supported the alternative that combined
continued use of the SAWTP for part of the County’s flow, constructing a
new mid-valley plant, and possibly building a new North Spokane plant.
Some supported this alternative only if it did not include a new North
Spokane plant. Many commenters liked the idea of the County working
independently from the City of Spokane.
·
Biosolids Management – The proposed biosolids
management alternatives that were supported by the majority of the
commenters included Class B treatment and land application, Class A
treatment and land application, and composting. Approximately half of
the commenters indicated a willingness to pay an additional $2 to $6 per
month in sewer fees to have Class A biosolids produced. The majority of
commenters indicated a preference for land application of biosolids to
be done on farm lands, away from children access, and not over the
aquifer. Approximately half indicated that they would be interested in
using composted biosolids in home gardening projects, and there was
little support offered for incinerating biosolids.
On May 22 and 23, 2001 two duplicate meetings were held to review the
recommended plan. Forty people attended these meetings, and the key
points identified include:
·
There was strong support for the proposed wastewater
treatment facility and wastewater management concept, which involves
siting and construction of a new treatment plant in the western portion
of the County’s Spokane Valley Service Area with a discharge to the
Spokane River below Upriver Dam (76% supporting, 24% somewhat
supporting).
·
Suggestions were offered on possible new treatment plant
sites in the western portion of the Spokane Valley (e.g., away from
residential areas and/or make it into a park, near Kaiser Trentwood, old
stockyards site, near Felts Field, near Upriver Dam, east of Millwood,
Inland Empire Paper, near Spokane Industrial Park).
·
Suggestions on visual and aesthetic mitigations that
should be applied to the design and construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant were provided (e.g., blend with surrounding community,
attractive architectural features, practical landscaping, develop into a
park/playground, use latest technology to reduce odor impacts).
·
Comments were provided on wastewater volume reduction
(e.g., focus on education not government mandates).
·
Over half of the commenters indicated support for paying
sewer rates that were $1.00 to $1.50 more per month in order to compost
biosolids.
·
Additional ideas and comments were provided (e.g., use of
digesters to produce required facility energy, use of golf courses for
reuse, don’t pursue groundwater recharge, make sure the discharge does
not harm Spokane River, limit amount of discharge to Spokane River).
Two business forums were conducted to solicit comments on the
recommended plan. Nine business and agency representatives attended the
business forum held on May 22, 2001 in the Spokane Valley. Three
business and agency representatives attended the May 23, 2001 business
forum in North Spokane. Key points identified at these forums include:
·
There was uniform support for the proposed wastewater
treatment facility and wastewater management concept.
·
Suggestions were offered on possible new treatment plant
sites in the western portion of the Spokane Valley (e.g., downstream of
Upriver Dam, Felts Field, near Hutton Settlement for reuse opportunity,
former General Electric site, close to agricultural and wetlands reuse
opportunities, old cherry orchard at corner of Fredrick and Upriver
Drive).
·
Suggestions on visual and aesthetic mitigations that
should be applied to the design and construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant were provided (e.g., nicely landscaped and disguised,
blend with surrounding community).
·
Comments were provided on wastewater volume reduction
(e.g., require low flow fixtures, educate public on need for water
conservation before mandating measures).
·
Over half of the commenters indicated support for paying
sewer rates that were $1.00 to $1.50 more per month in order to compost
biosolids.
·
Additional ideas and comments were provided on wastewater
effluent reuse opportunities. Support was expressed for use of hybrid
poplar tree farms for reuse and continued evaluation of groundwater
recharge options.
The Spokane County Water Quality Advisory Committee (WQAC) reviews and
provides recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on issues
and projects relating to water quality of the Spokane Aquifer, Spokane
River and Little Spokane River. During the Wastewater Facility Planning
process, several meetings were held with the WQAC to provide information
on the wastewater alternatives, recommended plan, and public comments.
The WQAC provided strong support for both the planning process and the
proposed wastewater management concept and its associated
recommendations.
