[Winona Online Democracy]
Thanks for your questions Janice. I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond
but I will answer your questions as best I can as quite a bit of water has
passed under the bridge since our presentation by the kind U of M folks over
two years ago.
There are many rural developments throughout the state that use various
types of septic systems and even some municipalities. There are also many
types of systems ranging from modern traditional systems (most often used by
the city of Winona today), mound systems, and cluster systems. When
designed, installed, and maintained correctly, all are more environmentally
respectful than traditional municipal systems and don't require any
discharge into a public water body.
You are correct in stating that typically a township/county resident in an
area zoned Ag/Natural resource has the opportunity to build one non-farm
dwelling per 40 acre parcel. There are some other considerations and
restrictions as well. However, given what we know today from the
participation of expert biologists, geologist, hydrologists, and the experts
at the DNR and MCEA, it is highly questionable that the sensitive nature of
the proposed Phillips development would allow even one house per 40 acres.
Other area government representatives were invited and did attend the
presentation by the U of M. Council members from the city of Winona
received written invitations and did not attend, which is also true of
skeptics and local personalities from Winona Radio and the Winona Daily
News. A highly respected reporter from the Winona Post did attend and
report on the presentation.
Mr. Nelson was correct in his 5/3/06 post in stating that the spreading of
sewage sludge is regulated (with limited success) by the MPCA. What he
didn't say is that once a field receiving this sludge receives a certain
amount of some elements contained in the sludge, it can NEVER EVER receive
anymore sewage sludge. What does that tell us? This is the reason why the
city of Winona has to find new fields it spread on every few years.
There are more environmentally sound and economically feasible treatment
system options for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems today than we have
fingers and toes.
In answer to some off-the-forum comments I've received; Pooping in a
bucket and burying it in your back yard is still far more environmentally
prudent than a municipal system that discharges "treated" water into a
public body of water and spreads concentrated sewage sludge onto crop lands
growing food. And in answer to that other question; No, I don't think you
should just hold it in, but judging from the tone of your comments,
apparently you have been for far too long.
Mike Kirschmann
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Keith Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daren Engler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] FW: waste planning
Thank you Mike for correcting misguided statements. I believe the public
deserves to know truths not cover-ups.
I know you have been highly involved with the Annexation on the Phillips
property. One of the City's arguments for justifying this development was
that
the City sewer and water was needed to "save" the environment where
septics
would cause outlandish destruction to the environment (according to the
City).
They justified this to a tune of several million dollars of tax payers
money to
run utilities out to a development that is quickly disinagrating and
becoming
harder and harder to justify the taxpayers money. Two failed EAWs point in
the
direction that this land is environmentally sensitive for any development.
My understanding is if the developer used septics, his development would
need
to
be much smaller according to guidelines and ordinances. I recall that we
had
several experts from the University of Minnesota with PHD's behind their
name
and an enormous amount of expertise and experience in septics and the
environment, present the pros and cons of septics. The consensus
was, septics if managed properly in TODAYS standards, are one of the best
ways
to go for rural developments. Notice I say TODAYs standards. Septics
like
everything else have changed enormously over the last 30 years. When they
City
talks of failing septics and using the arguement of that they are bad for
the
environment they are often referring to septics of old and poorly
mangaged.
These experts used several examples of other developments that have run
safely
and securely for now as long as 30 years of collecting data They stressed
one
of the key factors is monitoring these developments and even had several
examples of how this is done which gets "buy in" from septic owners to
have
their septics taken care of.
Can you elaborate more on this as I know you did your research on itand
talked
to the experts at length.
I also do recall that most other governments in our area and agencies
involved
with environmental protection had someone at this presentation. The City
never sent a representative. Must have thought they had more expertise and
knowledge in this area than the Big Guys from the Univ. of MN.
You would think since they are still in the
septic business with several locations including a good part of the old
Winona
Township and Prairie Island, with no immediate plans to change this, they
would
have wanted to learn more about this. UMM....
Janice Turek
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Winona Online Democracy]
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
