04-04-89 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPENDIX A Councilman Williams' comments on the NPDES Permit presented at`the'Apr3l 4, 1989'Cifl Council meeting, First of all, I want to express my sincere appreciation to those members of the City Council, past and present, and to our City staff and to City residents who have worked so hard at hammering out an agreement with the Counties. I believe that they have worked with the best interests of Lake Elmo at heart, and they have gotten as good an agreement as they could from the Counties. I also want to recognize that the Counties have a very nasty job on their hands: they must satisfy demands to control the contamination in a way they feel is fiscally responsible. I do not envy them their task. Now I am faced with the extremely difficult decision whether or not to approve this agreement. I have received many strong comments from many citizens on both sides of this issue, which makes my decision even more difficult. There are cogent arguments both ways, and I feel I have a good grasp of these arguments. The City of Lake Elmo has suffered for many years with the problem of the: Lake Jane Landfill. It continues to be an insult to our land, to our houses, and to our people. Ever since the contamination from the landfill was discovered in 1981, I have publicly stated on numerous occasions that the Counties should face up to their responsibility and physically clean up the sources of contamination. 1, as a County taxpayer, am very willing to pay an extra tax levy to pay for the cleanup. The Counties and the MPCA have instead adopted the method of spray irrigation from reverse gradient wells as a way of containing the spread of contaminants leaking from the site. In reticent years, this spray irrigation has been looked at as a way of actually cleaning up the landfill contamination. However, I will predict right now that none of us in this room will live to see the day that this landfill has been cleaned up by just spray irrigation. Only physically digging it up and destroying the chemicals will actually clean up the site. Lake Elmo has a significant amount of land and a significant number of residents which are at risk as long as the landfill contamination is not removed. As a Councilman, I am faced with the responsibility of making decisions which will, in my opinion, best protect the health, safety and welfare of Lake Elmo's citizens. Can I as a Councilman in good conscience allow development of the land surrounding the landfill, knowing that future residents may be endangered by polluted well water 5 or 10 years from now? On the other hand, is the current plan to move: water off the site essential for the protection of the residents already here? I am certainly sympathetic to the cause of residents whose wells have already been contaminated. How can„a.1.1.,,of these people be protected over the long term? The current need for increased pumping and removal of water off the site is due to a "plume" of contaminants which has erupted beyond the former confinement limits. What will happen next month, or 2 or 5 years from now when the next plume erupts? More pumping and more moving water off the site? And still only the symptoms will be treated, not the disease itself. The surrounding landowners will be no more secure then than they are now. And the