Spokane7
26°
Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, has legislation up for a hearing this afternoon that - as written - would eliminate all sewage- or water-quality-related rules of the Panhandle Health District at the end of next year’s legislative session, force the district to start over from scratch, and allow the replacement rules to be only statewide rules - not North Idaho-specific rules. The Panhandle Health District originally was established decades ago specifically to impose rules on sewage handling in North Idaho, which before the district was formed largely meant septic tanks, in an area that contains a huge underground aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for 400,000 people in the region - most of whom live in Washington, including Spokane.
Anderson was in negotiations right through the noon hour today with Mike Kane, attorney and lobbyist for the state’s seven health districts, and says he now has amendments to soften the blow of his bill. “We’re getting there,” said Kane, as the two headed to lunch together. “We’re turning this into a surgical strike instead of an H-bomb.”
Anderson said he doesn’t want to endanger water quality; he’s the former longtime chairman of the Outlet Sewer District on Priest Lake. “You know what happens when rules become so restrictive that people start cheating? That’s my concern,” Anderson said.
The amendments he’s arrived at with Kane would include eliminating the Panhandle district’s controversial “110 percent” rule, which limits expansions of homes on outdated, non-compliant sewage systems to 10 percent of current square footage. That rule would go away at the end of this year’s legislative session - which could be as soon as a week from Friday - but the district and the state Department of Environmental Quality could then adopt a temporary rule to replace it. Anderson said he’s not convinced that square footage really reflects sewage impact. “There’s other ways to skin that cat,” he said. The amendments also would eliminate Panhandle Health rules that in some cases require a dual drainfield; and would eliminate a $650 fee the district now charges for appeals. Anderson said costs for appeals should be built into original permitting fees, otherwise, “It’s kind of a deterrent to appeal.”
Rep. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, has been fighting with Panhandle Health for two years over a proposed remodel and expansion of his home on the Spokane River. He said his permit was denied due to the 10 percent rule, but then, last Friday - after he angrily confronted district officials at a public meeting last week over the issue - he got a letter from the district saying his home actually isn’t subject to that rule, and he can proceed with his project. “I’m a strong supporter of protecting water quality,” said Nonini, who championed legislation to create an aquifer protection district in North Idaho. But he’s angry over his experience. “What about all the other people that aren’t legislators?” Nonini said. He said he and his wife “spent a few thousand dollars on attorneys and engineers to see if we could appease the health district - now it turns out we didn’t have to do that.”
Anderson said his proposed amendments to his bill also would involve the state DEQ in “anything that’s contested,” providing more recourse for people than just going back to the district that denied their permit. It would do away with the main clause of the existing bill, however, as far as eliminating all North Idaho-specific rules. The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee will meet when the House adjourns its afternoon session; the bill is the second item on its agenda.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
riverlaw on March 18 at 1:25 p.m.
Interesting that the Idaho pollution dischargers are the ones challenging the Spokane River cleanup plan. So, Idaho, what are you going to do to address our river besides gut what little protections you have on the books and sell folks from Spokane phosphorus dishwasher detergent?
lafleur10 on March 18 at 8:49 p.m.
I believe in Idaho, water quality is only important when it doesn’t require them to do anything, change anything, or pay for anything. I love how Nonini champions the aquifer protection group at the same time 3 Idaho dischargers are challenging a cleanup level that they ALL said they could meet 3 years ago. How about he actually works to protect water quality by coming out against the Idaho dischargers’ actions and actually lead for a change. I also find it incredibly convenient that he now doesn’t have to meet the 10% rule after writing a scathing letter and threatening a lawsuit. Gee, I wonder how that happened. What a joke…
jennifer_ekstrom on March 19 at 9:10 a.m.
So disappointed in Representative Anderson. Considering that Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River are already on the EPA’s list of waterways impaired with too much phosphorous, Representative Anderson’s actions undermine the future health of our waterways.
He claims to champion the invasive species issue. Doesn’t he know that nutrients from sewage waste feed the invasive species. We need reduction of nutrients, not an increase!