From: HAMMOND Joni

Sent: Thu Jan 29 20:18:14 2015

To: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany; DECONCINI Nina

Subject: RE: Update on work with ODA and city of Molalla

Importance: Normal

 

Tiffany:

I would respond and say that we have followed up to the complaints and are following DEQ's enforcement process. We will continue to do so.

 

Nina:

Your thoughts?

 

Joni

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany <YELTON-Bram.Tiffany@deq.state.or.us>

Date:01/29/2015 8:11 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: DECONCINI Nina <DECONCINI.Nina@deq.state.or.us>, HAMMOND Joni <HAMMOND.Joni@deq.state.or.us>

Cc:

Subject: Fwd: Update on work with ODA and city of Molalla

 

Hello Joni and Nina,

I am trying to decide if Susan' s message should be responded to. My folks and I did respond to complaints she filed. In the case of the application of recycled water last summer, we found no violations.

She would have a point if we had ignored the complaints but we did not. We just came to different conclusions.

Please advise me.

Thanks.

Tiffany

 

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Susan Hansen

Date:01/29/2015 1:05 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany

Cc: DECONCINI Nina ,HAMMOND Joni

Subject: RE: Update on work with ODA and city of Molalla

 

Dear Tiffany,

 

While I appreciate your below report, I have some feedback for you after comparing DEQ's "process" with the way ODA has handled complaints.

 

Unlike DEQ, ODA follows a path certain on complaints - a path that inspects and outlines problems in the first round of interface with a violator, then notes violations and mandates how fix the violations in the second inspection cycle if the problems have not been addressed, then issues civil fines on the third cycle if the mandates are not heeded. That all happened in about nine months on the Coleman violations: first, a gentle ask to consult CC Soil and Water for help with conforming; second, a letter noting Coleman was in violation that spelled out what HAD to be done; third, the civil fines when the second letter was ignored. So Coleman now has been not "asked" to remove cattle, he has been told he must remove cattle and fined for not fixing all the problems in a timely manner. I have read all the documents connected to the Coleman enforcement actions.

 

In contrast, DEQ has been supplied with reams of examples of violations by the City of Molalla (including your own discovery that Molalla had chosen sites, formed contracts and disposed of recycled water on multiple illegal sites for years and "Lyle's" note that the I&I Reports were missing), yet DEQ has never once issued a single fine against Molalla. In late 2013, DEQ told Molalla in a letter it must not create ponding and runoff again - and Molalla created serious ponding and runoff several times in 2014 yet DEQ failed to act with any fines. What do you think violators will do in the face of DEQ's ongoing failure to follow through? They will continue to violate because they know that if they say they "want" to comply, DEQ will again look the other way. ODA's three strikes to civil fines is all that makes sense to force compliance.

 

It looks to the public like DEQ caters to the ability or inability of a given city's financial ability to fix problems. I have now had enough interface with public works and wastewater plant operators to be able to say they are shocked at how DEQ has looked the other way for years at Molalla's violations. The feedback I hear is from those operators and managers from competent cities is that they feel they would never be allowed to get away with all the violations DEQ has allowed Molalla commit without fines all these years.

 

Also, ODA listens to citizen complaints and goes out and re-examines issues quickly when they are informed they failed to fully research the problems. I warned DEQ that Molalla's use of the Bear Creek and Creamery Creek wetlands would result in the exact runoff problems we have seen and that others warned the same in past permitting cycles, but we were all ignored; DEQ went right ahead and permitted those fields and then did nothing when Creamery Creek field was turned into a lake in August 2014 due to heavy discharge. It appears that DEQ is heavily weighted toward giving a city what it wants instead of analyzing whether a site is suitable or not to receive recycled water or what amounts of water are suitable to apply, given soil types (hydric soils will certainly result in over application unless carefully monitored, yet DEQ seems to believe that all "fields" are equal when it comes to recycled water application).

 

DEQ also ignored the input that Molalla's other disposal sites - the "Jorgenson and nursery sites" - were sham sites that are not being used for recycled water application. Why allow a city to pretend it has sites when they have clearly failed to use those sites? Does DEQ monitor the volume of recycled water discharged day by day by cities on a given site? I certainly have examined that issue via two years of almost daily photos of Molalla's discharge practices so there can be no doubt that water was simply dumped on Coleman wetlands because it is easy to get rid of it there. There is nothing "beneficial" about dumping vast amounts of recycled water at the same site, day after day, simply to get rid of wastewater.

 

So your statement below that DEQ will continue to "encourage" the city to find more discharge sites does not exactly inspire confidence that DEQ will solve the problem. "Encourage" has no teeth and the only teeth Coleman and the City of Molalla understand are "teeth" that cost them money, like fines for violations and dates certain for compliance. Your past statements about wanting to get Molalla into compliance instead of issuing fines for violations certainly has not produced results to date. It took the ODA's action with "teeth" to finally produce the possibility of setback mandates.

 

I have hundreds of photos from last summer of recycled water being discharged next to or into Creamery and Bear Creek, causing runoff on those hydric soil wetlands. Ponding begins almost immediately in some wetland/hydric soil sites that DEQ has permitted. Does DEQ ever consult with hydrologists or soil experts to understand how intensive recycled water application will affect different soil types on a given land form? That should be part of your permitting process. Even a lay person can quickly observe how hydric soils are prone to runoff and ponding.

 

ODA was not the responsible agency once the highly contaminated E.coli water left Coleman Ranch - to this day, E.coli water is still flowing in open ditches in Molalla and DEQ has done nothing to inform the neighborhoods about the problem. I question if DEQ has ever bothered to test the levels of E.coli in the neighborhoods. Why is that public health issue still being ignored months after it was discovered by ODA?

 

In summary, many of us are not impressed with DEQ's work to "try" to bring Molalla into compliance. Molalla's budget problems are not our problems, the environmental laws are the laws. If Molalla has to raise rates or dig into other revenue streams to fix the ongoing problems, that should have zero bearing on DEQ's enforcement. It's long overdue for DEQ to put some "teeth" into the mandates, to enforce the Clean Water Act, to listen to local stakeholders (who often know best what is happening in their communities) and to protect the pubic from E.coli flowing through neighborhoods.

 

ODA doesn't "encourage" after the first warning letter - it moves right ahead to mandates and then to fines. It seems long overdue for DEQ to follow that model of a certain path to fines to show DEQ means what it says. The public should not have to be doing the work of tax funded agencies that are supposed to protect us.

 

Sincerely,

Susan Hansen

Bear Creek Recovery

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: yelton-bram.tiffany@deq.state.or.us

Sent: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:56:20 +0000

To: foxglovefarm@inbox.com

Subject: Update on work with ODA and city of Molalla

 

Dear Susan

We have recently discussed the enforcement actions ODA is taking with the Coleman Ranch with our counterparts at ODA. We have a meeting with the city of Molalla in mid-February, which Nina is also attending, to discuss the impact of the enforcement on the city’s recycled water plan. While we will continue to encourage the city to develop more options for the application of the recycled water, as the area available on the Coleman Ranch for irrigation with recycled water, we will also be stressing to the City that they must not create the conditions you have observed and documented and what will occur if this activity continues. Mr. Coleman has been asked to exclude his cattle from certain areas by ODA and a set back from the fence or electric wire he uses will be required in the recycled water plan to account for the removal of those areas.

We also recently replied to Crag Law and the city of Molalla on the draft Infiltration and Inflow Plan. The final plan will be delivered to DEQ by mid February. Unlike, Recycled Water or Biosolids plans, I&I Plan are not put on public notice for comment but we will make copies available on our webpage (through the Permit search function--http://www.deq.state.or.us/wqpermitsearch/) and via public records request.

Tiffany Yelton Bram

WQ Source Control Manager

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

2020 SW 4th Ave., Suite 150

Portland OR 97201

Desk 503 229 5219

Mobile 503 975 0046

This spring, DEQ's Northwest Region Office will be moving to a new location - the 700 Lloyd Building at 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite #600, Portland, OR 97232. The target date for operating at the new location is May 26th, 2015.