I would like an opinion

[OnionPatch]

I consider myself an environmentalist, and yet, I find myself voting against some local measures that would help stop and monitor water pollution.

Here's the situation. We live in a small rural town in southern California in the foothills of a mountain range. Down near the valley below us, several miles away, is another town. This town is along the major interstate and has been one of the fastest growing areas in the country. They have added about 20 new McMansion developments on the uphill side of the town so that the town is getting closer and closer to us. Now they are saying that our septic systems are polluting their water so they want to build a public sewer system for our town. But we will have to pay for it. It is going to cost every resident of our town $135 a month for 60 years! We could probably scrape that amount up, but I know that many, many of my neighbors cannot afford that.

My question is, why don't the McMansion developers and new home owners have to help pay for this? We didn't ask them to come build their subdivisions right downhill from us and it seems unfair that we should shoulder the whole cost of the new sewage system. Am I wrong? Shouldn't the developers have to pay for some of this? I don't really know much about land-planning and such. What is normally done is such a situation? I'd love some insight from an outsider.

[XemaSab]

1. Where do they get their water from?

Environmental documents are supposed to describe where the water will come from for new developments.

My other question is has there been a water quality study done? And can you get the results?

[OnionPatch]

8. I think they are wells

Supposedly they are downhill from us. And excess nitrates have been found in the well test samples. We have a local group who have been crying for years that the developers are not putting forth realistic plans for the water supply and infrastructure. Everyone called them "whiners." They were "trying to block progress." :grr: But the people in charge of approving the plans are buddies of the developers. This is a very red area. All money-grubbing Republicans in practically every local seat.

[XemaSab]

10. I dunno how they can force you to change your sewage systems

I'm no expert though. :shrug:

Private wells are governed by different laws than municipal systems. Also, you say they're miles away? How can they trace the nitrates to you?

[OnionPatch]

14. Actually I'm about three miles away

but the edge of town is closer, about a mile from the new developments. Sorry, I was thinking of my distance from them. I'm not sure how they trace it to us. I was assuming because we're nearby and on septic systems. All I know is what I've been reading in the paper and the notices in the mail.

The vote we're taking is not really to get the sewage system or not, it's to allow our area to be under the control of a local water authority. Of course, if that happens, they will mandate the new system for us.

[Javaman]

24. Nail on head.

this has absolutely nothing to do with pollution. What I would look into is the plans they have for future developments.

Then seen if they have taken into account the water available for these new developments.

I bet you anything, they have and found out that they won't have enough water. So the cooked up this pollution bullshit to take over your water rights only to ship it to the new warehouse homes. In a few years they will be sucking your water dry and you won't be able to do a thing about it, because it will be under someone else's authority.

Get water tests, get development plans, and get water studies for these plans. That will give you the answers and ammo you need to defend your town.

[Mountainman]

2. That is happening in Los Osos too in Morrow Bay.

My in-laws use to live there, They moved away before this happened.

I think you are screwed. The developers have the clout.

[OnionPatch]

19. Did they get to vote?

We actually get to vote on this, but the people in the new subdivisions do as well, so maybe we really are screwed. (Or "screwn", I should say. :) )

[phantom power]

3. I don't think you are crazy, There is growing opposition to developers...

putting up new subdivisions, and dumping the infrastructure costs on the local governments. As Mountainman said, developers tend to have a lot of political clout, but maybe not so much now that the housing bubble is popping, and people are getting fed up with paying for their infrastructure while they get the profits.

We certainly have the same issues here in Arizona, where developers plan subdivisions, and the government usually gets stuck with figuring out how to supply water, gas, electric, etc.

Maybe your community could mount a resistance. Get a bunch of LTEs in the paper, hand out flyers, etc.

[OnionPatch]

6. From what I understand

the local city councils are filled with developers. There has been a lot of outcry for years about their lack of planning. Now they want us to pay for it all. :eyes: There are a lot of letters to the editors of the local papers. I don't think it's going to go through. But I wonder what will be done about the water.

[FREEWILL56]

4. Hmmmm. It seems to me that if pollution is being created

then it must be stopped, but I hardly see how they have the power to insist that all above them be on a sewage system and they do have to prove the pollution, if it exists, is from anybody in your town and those individuals have to fix it. This is equal to somebody moving in downhill from me and when I put another floor on my home that they insist I stop blocking their sunlight and that all in my town limit there homes to one story for them. It doesn't work that way, but in the case of proven pollution the answer is for it to be fixed and not necessarilly the way the other town wants it unless your state is insisting upon it. There are probably a few septic tanks that are leaking and they should be made to fix them, but i don't see how that gives the next town the right to insist your town goes into their sewage system no matter who was there first.

[OnionPatch]

9. I agree if there is pollution it must be stopped

And I have a personal stake in this...my daughter goes to school down there and I'm sure she drinks the water sometimes. But it just seems so unfair that our little quiet town has to pay for it all. I think if some of our septic systems need upgrades, it's fair to require that but it would be nice if there were a little help available to the lower income residents.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Something smells here, and I don't think it's your water.

First off, I doubt that the new homes will drawing water from boreholes in their back yards: More likely they're being plumbed in to the existing town supply, which I'd guess is treated somewhere else and not affected by anything trickling down the hill. And even if it were being affected, I don't see how they are going to make all the wildlife between you and them use little portaloos. And, If there was a problem with the water where these homes are going up, I'm guessing it should have been addressed long before they started construction.

What I'd suspect is happening is the contractors are trying to screw some pork out of the area, and an official or two may be going along with it for some unspecified rea$on.

As Xema said, I'd want to know what independent studies have been done on the groundwater, what the logistics are for getting the houses hooked up to the utilities, and how the two cross paths.

If there really are good reasons for you to "upgrade", then you'd probably have to cough up. But I'll be buggered if I can see what they are: I'd be inclined to knock on some doors, rustle up a fighting fund & consult a good environmental lawyer.

[OnionPatch]

7. The studies done weren't independent

and that's a gripe of a lot of people. There is no wildlife between us and them. It's all pasture and cattle. Hmmmm.....maybe the nitrates are coming from them? :shrug: If I thought I needed to upgrade, I would definitely do that. But $135 a month for new sewers. For 60 years!? I'll be dead before that's paid for.

[XemaSab]

11. Well there you have it....

cattle are one of the biggest sources of nitrate pollution there is. :P

[Dead_Parrot]

15. You're not kidding

The back end of a cow will churn out over 100kg of Nitrogen over a year, compared to ~4kg for a human. Some of this will be taken up by the plants, but a fair chunk will leach out in the water: There's no way in hell they could measure Nitrates at the bottom of the hill and claim it's from the people at the top when there's cows in the middle.

[OnionPatch]

18. Well, they aren't feed lots or anything

Just free-range cattle, not overcrowded. So I'm not sure how much pollution they cause. Some, I'm sure.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Feedlots are worse....

...since unless they are properly contained, the waste will run off in a stream until it hits a watercourse, but the amount produced is pretty much the same (depending on diet and field conditions). I'm working on the assumption your area is "just" suffering from groundwater leaching, so somewhere around a third or a half of the stuff will be taken back up into plants before it hits anything major.

Of course, the same applies to any leakage from your septic systems...

[losthills]

12. I hate developers....

but...

This sounds like a problem of too many septic tanks too close together in soil that can't handle it. You don't really want to compromise your groundwater do you? From the information you posted, it sounds like the "developers" don't have anything to do with this problem, except that they noticed it and brought it to people's attention.

The thing to do is to get the state to help fund bringing your system up to modern standards. There might be a way to float a bond, or get some federal or state grants, or a 1/2 cent sales tax. There are ways to finance these things, and you have to do it. Organize a property owners' association and meet with your assemblyman and a rep from your state senator.

[OnionPatch]

13. If there is a real problem

it seems there must be an easier way to solve it than $135 a month for 60 years! Hopefully we can find another way.

[FREEWILL56]

16. The bad part of getting that sewer line connected is that

they will charge you to treat the sewage too and it will go up in price in the future too. I've seen mine go from about $10 a month to about $80 in about 20 years under the guise of upgrading the system which never seems to get done before they need to raise it again for the same reason. Now around here they're on a kick about the sewers getting too much rain water that the sewage lines and treatment plant supposedly can't handle and yet it handled it 50 years ago and there hasn't been too much building going on and in fact many homes and buildings have gone due to fire or disrepair so they are talking out of their biosewer line terminations. My downspouts going into the sewer line are now regarded as illegal and they will be getting on my case soon too. I don't hear of help for any low income residents in redirecting this water either. It was designed to handle it when they built it, but they squander the money meant to keep up the system and then all of a sudden we have to give them more to do it and they don't do it. They know we aren't blind to this, but we don't know what to do about it either as there's no word from others on it.
Good luck in your fight.

[Kolesar]

17. Definitely begin some "constituent contacts" with your state reps and Der Governor

:nod to losthills:

[OnionPatch]

21. I wanted to update

I just read the info again. The amount of time we'd have to pay the $135 a month, is 20 years, not 60 as I said before. And that includes the monthly service. Still, that's a lot of time to pay $100 extra a month.

[pscot]

22. Maybe you guys need to lawyer up

$135 for sixty years times the number of households involved should buy some first rate counsel. That rate strikes me as confiscatory. If it forces people to sell it might be construed as an illegal taking of your property. That's a hot button wingnut issue all over the West.

[Bigmack]

23. A Little More Research Needed on This One

Altho I'm NO expert on this, it's my understanding that developers have, in fact, often been forced, by community laws and regulations, to shoulder the added costs of their developments to communities - i.e. to pay for added roads and traffic lanes necessitated by the added population caused by their development, to pay for more schools necessitated by the additional families, etc. etc. etc.. My ignorant opinion is that YES, the developers should, and could, be forced, to pay for the additional sewage system costs.