Why are there no arguments in favor of measure 9-70 in the voters’ pamphlet? It seems like a responsible action to require homes to be connected to a sanitary sewer system or to upgrade existing septic systems. Long-term protection of the quality of our groundwater is essential, and unless we take action, the quality of water available for our children and grandchildren will be affected. Like many other environmental issues, we are too shortsighted to realize that it may not affect us in our lifetime, but fail to see to the consequences of our decisions on future generations. Shouldn’t we deal with our own shit instead of leaving it around for our kids to clean up?
Bea Sunderland, Bend
This article appears in Feb 19-25, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
You are so misinformed. Sanitary systems are no better for the ground water than the well maintained septic systems. The let the other guy pay attitude is very disturbing to me. As a realtor in the south county I can say that if this measure is allowed to pass, many many mortgage defaults will result. These septic systems have been tested as good…many within the last 5 years. A sanitary system is not feasible. All country residents will pay if this measure is allowed to pass. The south county residents will be forced into default as additional “low cost” loan rates are not the answer needed to allow them to keep their already devalued properties. Be informed…look at the real test results from the non governmental testing sources. This is an agenda based issue not a health based issue. Please help them out..don’t allow them to change the rules after the fact. Vote No and save your tax dollar.
wow, I can’t believe you’re attacking a fellow citizen like that. Makes me think you’re hiding something to go on the offensive like that. Maybe I should vote for this thing if it brings out the rabid dogs…
Bea,
A no vote does not mean don’t do anything. It means we from the Southern part of the County want a better solution than the one presented by Local Rule. The County does not currently have in it’s possesion any study that indicates that drinking water wells that supply community water sources in either Sunriver or Bend will ever be contaminated by the nitrates in the area covered by the study. The study indicates the exact opposite the nitrates can not migrate to those deep wells. Please attend the League of Women Voters Forum next Tuesday evening and hear both sides and become an informed voter. Flabbergasted, an informed vote is the right vote.
Robert
…”a realtor”… is giving us advice on a public health issue. That makes sense, I think I will go see my car salesman to help me with my tax return.
I can see it now…”Of course you will save a bunch of taxes if you buy this lovely used Oldsmobile…” I love comments from folks without any self interest.
The county’s proposed Local Rule is not about a health issue in south Deschutes County; it is an attempt to make a commercial land development issue LOOK LIKE a health problem.
Just ask the commissioners for ‘scientific’ facts that prove south county is polluting Deschutes County’s drinking water. You will not be given this information because there isn’t such proof.
Will you be told, (like they told us), that ‘they are the authority and you do not have sufficient education to understand their data? Or will they give you a ‘piece of research study’ that is both invalid and unscientific?
WAKE UP! The county’s Local Rule is not a plan; it is a commercial land use development issue disguised to look like a health issue. Vote NO on 97-0. NO Local Rule.
Yes my vote was informed – just take a look at the information available on-line. The county is saying do anything (septic upgrade, sewer or something) within 14 years and they’ll help pay. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Now I remember, you are that one issue guy that ran in the primary against Alan Unger – my vote was informed in that case too.