Feds put Eastman sewage plan on hold

June 6, 2005
By S. Heather Duncan
Telegraph Staff Writer

Because of widespread opposition to a proposed sewage spray field outside Eastman, federal funding officials have sent the city back to the drawing board. If Eastman moves ahead with its sewage disposal plan without winning over the community, residents could be paying for it with sewer bills of $89 a month.

Eastman's James Avenue sewage treatment plant currently releases treated wastewater into Roach Branch, which feeds Gum Creek Swamp and eventually the Ocmulgee River.

But in 2003, the state Environmental Protection Division gave Eastman until August 2006 to find a new way to dispose of the wastewater, because it's reducing oxygen in the swamp and river.

Eastman's preferred solution is to spray wastewater onto about 400 acres of a pine plantation owned by Stuckey Timberland, off WPA Road in Dodge County.

The wastewater would be treated first in an aeration pond, and the land would absorb and filter what remains. Startup costs would run about $10 million, according to an engineering study by Macon-based Hofstadter and Associates.

Hofstadter also recommended eventually doing the same with the rest of Eastman's wastewater, now treated at a Sugar Creek plant, which drains to the Little Ocmulgee.

The study concluded that the cost could be covered by raising sewer rates to an average of $89.50. Even customers who use no water could be charged a base rate of $83.50. Depending on water usage, rates currently run $15 to $25.

Opposition to disposal plan may scuttle funding

However, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant could pay the full cost if a grant application is approved. In a May 17 letter, Jerry Thomas of the USDA informed Eastman that its application had been put on hold because of the negative public reaction.
"Rural Development is not committed to funding this project, and costs incurred by the city are strictly at your own risk," he wrote.

Resident Sherry Jones said she sent the USDA a petition against the project signed by 1,000 residents. Jones and Ginger Lowery said the city never answered questions they posed at a public meeting a few months ago.

Thomas wrote that the USDA expects Eastman to investigate new alternatives and respond to residents.

Jones, Lowery and their family members, who own land near the Stuckey Timberland site, worry that spraying the sewage into the pines will contaminate their wells, reduce their property value and harm Gum Swamp.

Along with about 30 other Dodge County residents, they are incorporating as a nonprofit organization called Friends and Restorers of Gum Swamp, said Jones.

James Wright, Eastman city manager, said the opposition is not affecting the city's plans, but city officials have been trying to meet with the leaders of the group. He said the city is still counting on the USDA grant.

James Holland, Altamaha Riverkeeper, said he isn't sure removing the wastewater from Roach Branch is a good idea in the first place.

Recent tests he conducted showed high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the creek, apparently from farm animalsdownstream from the plant. Bacteria levels likely would be higher if they weren't diluted by the 900,000 gallons a day the James Avenue plant adds to the stream, he said.

Holland has warned community members to avoid Roach Branch to protect their health.

Other options suggested

The Hofstadter study examined four additional alternatives for dealing with sewage from the James Avenue plant:

• Upgrading the plant and pumping its sewage to Sugar Creek.
• Constructing wetlands to filter the wastewater into Sugar Creek.
• Upgrading the Sugar Creek plant to handle all the city's wastewater.
• Spraying the wastewater on the Stuckey Timberland site after a mechanical treatment.

Expanding the James Avenue plant isn't feasible because it's surrounded by wetlands and houses, but the city owns enough land to expand its Sugar Creek plant.

Almost all these options are cheaper than the one the city is pursuing. Creating wetlands, which would require buying or leasing 110 acres, would cost $7.4 million, according to the engineering study. Expanding the Sugar Creek plant would cost $8.2 million.

But the study repeatedly dismisses the cheaper alternatives, because the EPD could later forbid the city from using Sugar Creek due to pollution there.

However, despite indications that there might be problems with nitrogen and phosphorus in Sugar Creek, the EPD did not list it among the state's polluted streams.

The creek's health is no obstacle to expanding the city's wastewater discharge there, said David Bullard, EPD unit coordinator for permitting, compliance and enforcement.

Wright said he had not heard that Sugar Creek was not on the polluted list. If that's true, he said, the city might consider other alternatives.

"EPD is pushing spray irrigation, and we were following that line because you don't have to worry about polluting a creek when you're putting it in the dirt," Wright said.

In 2003, the EPD gave Eastman one-year approval for doubling the amount of wastewater it can put in Sugar Creek. The city did not ask for an extension, so the approval ran out, Bullard said.

There are more than 400 municipal sewer systems that release treated sewage into Georgia's waterways, and 118 that apply it to land, Bullard said.

Bullard said regulations for putting wastewater into waterways increase constantly, so land application has fewer restrictions.

However, he said, "If they are going to have a lot of public dissent, I'm not sure if it's going to be the best route for them to take."