[Winona] FW: waste planning

[mkirsch at hbci.com]

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: <jturek at hbci.com>
To: <mkirsch at hbci.com>
Cc: "Keith Nelson" <knelson at cityhall.luminet.net>; "Daren Engler" 
<dengler at hbci.com>; <winona at mnforum.org>
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 mkirsch at hbci.com:
>
>> [Winona Online Democracy]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>