Please note that there apparently is a new Board member who appears to know more about the proper running of onsite systems than the Staff. He thinks the staff should use SCIENCE ? Bwa-hahahah. Oh, Dear Lord, he IS new. Yep, behind the woodshed with him! But now a question: Why was anyone with an onsite system sitting on the Board allowed to vote on this in the first place? Wasn’t this all a conflict of interest requiring that they recuse themselves? Wait, what am I saying?
Bev's Brief Report:
They listened attentively, changed "shall" back to "should," and voted unanimously to accept Roger's and Sorrel's harmless characterizations of their amendments.
Luckily, 2 things happened.
1. Dr. Hunter reminded staff publically that economic impacts are as much a part of environmental justice as environmental impacts. So that is on the record.
2. Mr. Hodgin said that he has a septic tank that hasn't been pumped in 16 years and could probably go a few more. So it is now on the record that a water board member hasn't pumped his tank in years and doesn't intend to any time soon. He also said that staff ought to use things like "science" before making pronouncements like requiring pumping every five years. That is on the record. So he was in agreement with at least changing "shall" back to "should" on the pumping requirement. The new guy. He probably got taken behind the woodshed to straighten out his attitude.
Of course, the Trib printed none of it.