Issues explored at town hall on wastewater treatment project

DAYTON-Newly formed local political action committee Neighbors United for Progress (NUP) held a hybrid town hall meeting at the high school auditorium on June 2. The town hall featured a panel of representatives who have been working on the wastewater treatment plant.

The event was in response to the City Council voting down the purchase of land for a wetlands project twice in recent weeks. The "no" vote has essentially stalled the project while Council and City staff are addressing concerns, and considering other options.

The NUP decided to provide a venue where the water treatment representatives could assemble and provide information and address concerns. The panel included Ethan Lockwood from Washington Water Trust, Anton Chiono, representing the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Cynthia Wall Fuller from the Department of Commerce, Lucy Peterschmidt from the Department of Ecology, Dayton Mayor Zac Weatherford, Linda Herbert from Blue Mountain Land Trust (BMLT), and Jake Hollopeter from Anderson•Perry, who attended online.

Mayor Weatherford responded to a question about the Council's decision and what action they are taking to move forward. "In the past," Weatherford said, "the previous Council was in support of this project and, as with all elected positions, new people come into these roles...we have been working internally to answer a lot of these questions and concerns that Council has brought forth...That's why it's really important that we're having this meeting tonight to get the public's input and for everybody to know that for us to continue to move forward that we have to know which direction the majority of Council is willing to support.

"We're at somewhat of a standstill right now," Weatherford said. "We're absolutely looking at other options. We're still talking about it internally. We're still talking about it as group with all these entities. But with the purchase of the Martin and Barker properties being denied twice by Council, I don't know if those landowners would consider a third attempt."

One public concern was while the project is on hold if there is capacity in the existing system to allow for growth. Wall Fuller answered that there is still the capacity for growth but said if someone wanted to hook up to the current system for industrial use, they would be denied as had been the case already with a business wanting to come into Dayton but had to go elsewhere. Also asked was whether the current treatment of the water is clean enough to put into the river. Wastewater being discharged into the river is treated to current regulation standards but was clarified that the Walla Walla Watershed study by Ecology which includes the Touchet River, found that the current treatment does not meet standards during low river-flow periods.

Another public concern made by Zoom was about the city water being pulled from the aquifers faster than they can be recharged by putting the treated water back into the river. They claimed that it does not recharge the aquifers because the river water flows too fast "which under all other pretenses would be illegal." In contrast, irrigation and penetration methods can recharge.

Brooke Beeler from Ecology, who was also online, replied that the Walla Walla Basin Strategic Plan has determined the project benefits the Dayton water resource.

"The purpose of the low-slope flood plain project is to help keep the water in our water system," Weatherford responded. "If we move to a different idea–if we're using land-use application, if we're looking at draining fields–any other project that is not putting the water back into the water table not only hurts us, it hurts every community and landowner that has water rights downstream from us. I feel the positives of this project outweigh the negatives."

Hollopeter said there are treatment systems that recharge the groundwater which are reuse systems. One hurdle to utilize these reuse systems is RCW 90.46, which requires a Water Rights Impairment Analysis to ensure that the system would not impair downstream water-rights holders.

Weatherford said it took over two years to conduct the needed assessments by the agencies to determine if the proposed properties would be suitable for a wetlands project.

Fuller added if the project does not proceed on those properties, the City will have to go back to the planning stage, and it would cost another $100,000 for assessments. She affirmed funding is available for other types of projects, though because of the innovative nature of the wetlands project, certain funding is available that is not for more traditional approaches.

The question was asked if another piece of property would be a better fit for the wetlands or could be used for land-use application. The mayor answered that other property owners are being approached and one has interest but also has many questions. Hollopeter added that any property that the City owned or leased for land-use application would have to be for crops for non-human consumption which comes with its own regulations and challenges.

Chiono said the wetland project "will really help with the water quality. It will keep the water in the eco-river system. It will allow the water to return to the river-cooler and cleaner...for the fish and wildlife resources which is very important to the Tribes. It's also very important to the downstream water usage that the water comes back to the river. Certainly, from the Tribe's perspective, we're very excited about the wetland treatment option. It's also considerably less expensive than some of the other alternatives that were explored early on...We've provided some funding for some analyses that have been done and we're happy to contribute with grant funding for the wetlands option."

Lockwood talked about the $10- to $15-million project being expensive, but the agencies are working together to keep the cost down while treating the water to meet quality standards and meeting the expectation of keeping the water in the river.

They also provided funding to support the wetlands project and will potentially provide some grant funding towards a land purchase. When asked about a cost comparison for projects, Hollopeter answered that only estimates can be made until a property is chosen and the project is in the design phase.

Wall Fuller and Peterschmidt concurred that funding is available for the project in the forms of grants and a low-interest loan with a 50% principal loan forgiveness from Ecology. The loan expires at the end of the year though a five-year extension can be requested with a possible sixth year.

A May 31 letter from the Ecology to the Mayor stated that the City of Dayton must submit a formal extension request for the project and submit an updated Facilities Plan if an alternative project is pursued that is not already in the plan.

Land-use application for irrigation of crops for human consumption was already pursued before the wetlands but faced multiple obstacles with the largest one being finding a large suitable property for growing crops for this use. Currently Council is considering irrigation of crops for non-human consumption.

One adjacent landowner to the Martin property who was impacted by the Flood of 2020 shared that the multi-agency consensus was that the rapid erosion which occurred on the properties was caused by a problem upstream and asked if any work was being done to improve those issues. Hollopeter said he is not informed about work upriver but that the current project would include riparian work and would redirect flow to other side of the channel to help mitigate erosion.

BMLT and Ecology acknowledged concerns about being in the floodplain, but they said the risks would be mitigated and at the same time provide an aesthetic habitat for wildlife. BMLT holds the easement on the Martin property and has evaluated what use is consistent with the conservation values. They approved the project with conditions based around concerns that the mapping of the river and migration areas are outdated, the need of a levee for the project to constrain the river conflicts with flood plain restoration work which would contribute to the erosion of the rock face of the hill along that portion of the river. Rock already accumulates there from upstream because of the levee system that runs through Dayton.

Also stated was the limited information available at the current stage of design makes it difficult to determine if the project site will be suitable in the long-term. They requested the wetlands be constructed outside of and protected from the channel migration zone "in a footprint no larger than the current proposed footprint" to "ensure no future easement violations," and to hold regular stakeholder meetings to evaluate and discuss mitigation of risks.

It was asked if the Conservation District concerns that were stated in an April 21 letter to the mayor, Council and staff were addressed. These concerns were about the proposed property and the probability of river migration and high-water events, reducing land zoned for agriculture use for the wetlands, and that the project would require a high-cost levee or similar that would interfere with river restoration work. District Board member Clay Hutchens responded to say he is not aware if the concerns were addressed. He added that though the district's role is not as a regulatory agency, they want to work with those who own, use, and manage resources within the district. They are highly involved in the river corridor projects, therefore it's appropriate the district provides feedback.

Councilmember Laura Aukerman said she is attending the town hall meeting as a member of the public. She affirmed that she voted against the purchase of the property for previously stated reasons. Some of the questions have been answered and some have not, and more questions have come up. She said she is limited about what she can say regarding Council business. Mayor Weatherford agreed discussion had to be at an open public Council meeting. It was suggested it be placed on the Council agenda to have discussion about what options they could support and the direction they want to go with the project. The next City Council meeting is June 14 at 6 p.m.