HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog224
..
..
# L9t~TqM
Page. ( . ot 7.-:...
Janet Welch, R.S.
Septic Sense
Box 1221
Hadlock, W A 98339 _
RE(~E IV1E I))
To: Jefferson County Hearings Examiner
Re: MLA 05-276
Date: May 3, 2006
JtHtRSU~ Cnm~\~ n~u
Dear Sir,
Jefferson County adminstrative documents take groundwater protection very seriously.
The Comprehensive Plan goals "Protect the quality and quantity of surface and
groundwater resources, and enhance and restore them where they have been damaged"
(ENG2.0) and "Ensure a sustainable and safe water supply as acritical necessity for
residential, economic, and environmental needs" (ENG 3.0) are accompanied by many
policies to achieve those goals. The Shoreline Management Plan references the Comp
Plan goals, as does the DOC section on Minor Utility Developments.
The existence of seawater intrusion on Marrowstone Island, specifically, is referenced in
the UDC 18.15.255 9b. The authority to govern land use which can impact seawater
intrusion is included in UDC 18.15.250 (3) whereby the balance of saltwater/freshwater
in coastal areas is to be maintained "to the maximum extent". 18.15.255 (10) gives
authority to require additional conditions to assure that "the subject land or water use
action win not pose a risk of significant adverse groundwater quality impacts".
Compliance with these policies necessitates that the installation of the proposed water
system on Marrowstone Island not result in increased groundwater withdrawal. How,
one might wonder, could public water result in increased well withdrawal? The answer is
repeated consistently when property owners casually say that they want to keep their
well to be able to water the lawn or wash the car. They hope to connect to public water
for their drinking water and use "free" water to meet the many outside water demands.
When one must drink the water from one's well, one is likely to be somewhat protective
of that source. When it is only the neighbor who continues to drink groundwater, one is
more likely to keep the grass greener to the detriment of both the groundwater and the
neighbor.
Decommissioning of wells on propeJties which hook up to public water is a condition of
many water system projects. Not this one. By not requiring the decommissioning of
wells when residents no longer drink groundwater, this project actually could adversely
impact the saltwater/freshwater balance and worsen the problem which it is obviously
.,
I.
,II
intended to solve. That result would be noncompliant with the County's many
protection strategies.
There is a second important reason why public water systems must be linked with well
decommissioning. In my work as a septic system designer, I had the very unfortunate
experience of installing a septic system repair almost on top of a well! While I consider
the possibility of the presence of wells throughout the County, neither I nor the owner
had any way of knowing that an old, unused well, continued lurked in a backyard in the
center of Hadlock. When I spoke with Jim Parker, PUD Manager about my discovery, he
responded that yes, there were many wells scattered throughout Hadlock that nobody
knew about.
Whether it is used or not, the mere existence of a well constitutes a risk to the underlying
aquifer. When the well is used, and its location is known, the risk can be mitigated.
When it is no longer used, it is forgotten about and risk factors begin to multiply. For
example, older wells lack surface seals that might have prevented aquifer contamination
when wellhouses turn into storage rooms for pesticides and yard chemicals; and 'lost'
wells get septic systems installed over them (as in my case).
The most critical condition that needs to be put on this Pf~ect is a requirement that on
every property which hooks up to public water, the well(s) serving that property must
be properly decommissioned.
Sincerely
~~~
LOG ITEM
# L-L'1-_
Pag~._~hutL
Janet Welch, R.S.