Lowman overflow-control controversy: “Technical info” date set

The date is now set for the technical-information meeting promised last month by King County Wastewater Treatment Division after concerned residents demanded more project data on the Combined Sewer Overflow proposals for the area that feeds Murray Pump Station at Lowman Beach Park. Those demands were made loudly and publicly at last month’s Morgan Community Association meeting (WSB coverage here) and have continued as residents kept the pressure on the county via petitions, letters, calls and other avenues (including the meeting planned tonight). According to a news release just in from the county, the information will be made available during an all-day session on June 19th, 9 am-4 pm, at Gatewood Elementary School, including tours of Murray and the newly expanded 53rd Avenue Pump Station at Alki. Read on for the full announcement:

Community members interested in learning more about King County’s
proposals to control combined sewer overflows (CSOs) near recreational
beaches on Puget Sound are invited to attend upcoming technical
information sessions.

The information sessions will focus on the science and engineering
behind the county’s proposed alternatives to build CSO control
facilities in West Seattle and North Beach neighborhoods.

Saturday, June 19, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. — Murray Basin CSO Information
Session, Gatewood Elementary School, 4320 SW Myrtle St., Seattle. Staff
will lead afternoon tours of the new 53rd Street Pump Station as well as
the older Murray Avenue Pump Station in Lowman Beach Park.

Saturday, June 26, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. — North Beach Basin CSO
Information Session, Loyal Heights Community Center, 2101 NW 77th St.,
Seattle.

Project managers and technical staff will answer questions the county
has received to date from community members, including how flows were
calculated, why parks are among the sites being considered for location
of the new facilities, the feasibility of “green” infrastructure, how
much storage capacity is needed to effectively control CSOs, and how a
project might impact a neighborhood during and after construction.

People are welcome to come for the entire day, or attend individual
sessions based on interest level. A detailed schedule will be posted on
the project website at http://www.kingcounty.gov\CSOBeachProjects
in the next few weeks.

While the sessions will present a high level of technical detail, the
presentations will be geared toward anyone with an interest in science
and engineering. Online feedback forms will continue to be available on
the project website for people unable to attend the sessions.

People are also invited to provide feedback by calling Monica Van der
Vieren at 206-263-7301 or by e-mailing CSOBeachProjects@kingcounty.gov.

Just last week, the county lifted the deadline for public comments on the alternatives it was proposing for reducing the 5 million gallons of average yearly overflows at Murray down to about 1 million gallons the reported average of five annual overflows at Murray to one.

13 Replies to "Lowman overflow-control controversy: "Technical info" date set"

  • Duckitude May 10, 2010 (2:26 pm)

    Ummm… not like this is the unexpected continuance of the blitzkrieg, only, apparently, now they will have really done their homework. Until proven otherwise, this is clearly NOT an attempt to involve stakeholders and neighborhoods in the actual planning and siting of the facilities that King County wants for the Barton and Murray CSO fixes.
    .

    They don’t get it. For the Murray facility, it is NOT going in in this neighborhood, period. KCWTD, get used to it.

  • John May 10, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    What is already at Lowman beach? Isnt there already an overflow system there? Can it be repaired?
    If one is needed or if the existing one is not fixable then what is all the fuss about? Lets do it! Overflow water has to flow into the sound from somewhere. Those that are against lowman beach what is your solution. I hear a lot of “its not going here” but not where it should go. Lets face it we may loose an old tree and thats sad but I would rather that then stinky human waste wash up all over.
    Seems like the city has given 3 plans I would choose the least expensive and distruptive.

  • Duckitude May 10, 2010 (3:09 pm)

    WSB: I am not sure where you got your information that KCWTD wants to reduce untreated spills from Murray to “about 1 million gallons per year” BECAUSE the actual goal as clearly stated by State Dept. of Ecology in other places and it is clearly noted http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/Construction/Seattle/BeachCSO/Basins/Murray.aspx is
    .

    “King County’s goal is to reduce the *number* of CSOs each year, with a long-term goal of no more than one untreated discharge per location per year on average to meet state regulations.”

    .
    One spill. Could be 40 gallons (you know, 1 million 40 gallons, with a one million gallon tank = 40 gallons spilled = ONE UNTREATED DISCHARGE, or it could be an event like what took place on December 2, 2007 — 107 million gallons. The declared goal is one untreated event per year per outfall. It doesn’t matter what the size of it is.

    .
    For instance, if they had a 1 million gallon tank in Lowman Beach Park on December 2, 2007, the untreated spillage would have been 103 million gallons. Now that could qualify as the goal of “One Event.”

    .
    Just saying.

    .
    As you can read at my Debate page, a one million gallon tank won’t even come close to one event per year. See http://soundangels.wordpress.com/debate/minimum-needs-for-cso-tank-capacities/ for more information.
    .

    Truth is, given what they are limiting this project to along with their stated long term goal (God only knows what the definition of “long term” is), is, to reach that goal, they will need to build it bigger now, or they will be back to mess with the neighborhoods again.

    .
    Even if they have changed their minds, and now the goal is to spill not much more than 1 million gallons per year from Murray, they wouldn’t come close. Most of the Murray spill events in recent years (close to 80% of them) have been in the 1.8 million to 5.5 millon gallons per spill. Who taught these folks math?

    • WSB May 10, 2010 (3:22 pm)

      Don’t know which meeting, interview, original conversation that came from. However, per this page:
      http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/Construction/Seattle/BeachCSO/Basins/murray.aspx

      In 2008, King County reported that the Murray CSO facility has five overflows per year on average that discharge a total of five million gallons into Puget Sound off Lowman beach.

      King County’s goal is to reduce the number of CSOs each year, with a long-term goal of no more than one untreated discharge per location per year on average to meet state regulations.

      It could be extrapolated that one spill = an average of one million gallons, if they say they’ve averaged five a year and averaged five million gallons total. But I will be happy to change to reduce from an average of five spills to an average of one spill. – TR

  • Duckitude May 10, 2010 (5:51 pm)

    Here’s the actual spill figures, not King County’s misleading data at the CSO website. Check the annual reports, or get the data from them directly. I got the data both ways.
    .

    2006 = 11,077,240
    2007 = 119,620,188
    2008 = 10,311,939
    .

    I don’t know about you, but that hardly comes to about 5 million gallons per year.
    .

    In addition, they won’t release the 2009 figures yet. And the older than 2006 figures are not much different.
    .
    If you, like KCWTD, want to make the spills look less than they actually are to justify some kind of underbuilding, then go ahead, but the figures speak for themselves.

    In addition, we don’t even know for sure how they measure such spills, whether they are producing estimates on average capacity flow per minute and then extrapolate, or they actually precisely monitor with some kind of calibrated, reliable device.

    In other words, crap in crap out when it comes to bad conclusions based on bad data… all puns intended!

  • Sam May 10, 2010 (11:13 pm)

    I went to the meeting tonight and I feel that everyone is delusional and self serving. The best option is to rip down the trees and install the treatment facility. We need to all grow up and realize we are in a recession money is tight. We need to do this.

  • Duckitude May 11, 2010 (10:25 am)

    Sam, sam, sam… this isn’t about us, it’s about the future of the park. Recessions come and go, get used to it. Given what I see out there, people’s values aren’t being affected by the recession much. They still choose to spend lots of money on high-end cars, tons of upgraded and latest gadgets (as if it’s “necessary”) etc. I don’t know about you, but I would rather spend my money on the future of the land and the seas. Recession… could have fooled me when it comes to affecting people’s apparent continuing need to keep up with the Jones’… not a sustainable value system, really.

  • Yardvark May 11, 2010 (4:02 pm)

    I’m really bothered that none of the city’s proposals actually address the problem at all. They just deal with the aftermath, and write off natural solutions some sort of hippy’s dream that can’t even be incorporated.

    But the only real solution to our stormwater problem is natural stormwater management. Any solution that doesn’t employ these techniques isn’t really much of a solution at all.

    My advice to those who would like to save the park is to stop saying “not in my backyard” and to start saying “solve the problem.” Otherwise – if your only strategy is to delay this project -you will end up looking like the people who are causing XX million gallons of sewage to flow into the Sound. I gaurantee it.

    If you bring a gun to the gunfight, though, and propose stormwater management projects as the alternative to park destruction projects and the only real solution to Saving the Sound for future generations, you might just win.

    Best of luck, guys.

  • Duckitude May 11, 2010 (6:27 pm)

    Hi Yardvark: That’s why we call our group, at least the one I originated, “Sound Angels.” Not just “Save Lowman Beach Park.” Obviously, Save Lowman Beach Park is the first priority, because, well, it would be sacrificing a neighborhood and a park for next to nothing, with guarantees of more of the same in the future…. let’s see, once they had a toehold, now they want a leghold, then they will want a bodyhold… geeeezzz…
    .

    At any rate, read my About page at http://soundangels.wordpress.com/about/ and the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-lowman-beach-park-and-neighborhood
    .

    Make sure you read the actual petition letter by clicking on “letter.” Please note “This does not mean that the undersigned does not believe in the necessity for protecting Puget Sound. This does not mean that the undersigned would not accept and even support a different and better solution to the CSO problems in the West Seattle neighborhoods.”

    .
    Current thinking by most of the active group members involved in trying to get a moratorium on the current plans and go back to the drawing board with a truly representative and significantly involved stakeholder group is siting a larger tank in Lincoln Park where there is the possibility of much less disruption of neighborhoods, much better ability for remediation (you can’t replace the heritage trees in Lowman Beach Park), much better siting for hiding the entire facility both under and above ground, and the possibility of one facility serving both Barton and Murray basins.

    .
    In addition, the Barton pump station is the lowest in the system and will need a dike or elevation, or reconstruction sometime in the future due to sea level rise (by King County’s own documents). Murray is very low also and they both are aging. A back up pump station should be considered for this area along with the CSO tank, and that’s even if so-called green solutions can be employed, which is highly arguable except for roof run-off.
    .

    Anyway, we have tons of “guns,” but we need a moratorium and a voting place at the table.

  • Waveroller May 12, 2010 (1:06 am)

    Hey Ducker: treat the readers and writers on this blog with respect. Your “Sam, sam, sam” and your sarcasm toward the county and anyone not agreeing with you makes you appear to suffer from little man syndrome–we don’t care what you’re trying to overcompensate for. Work to use the “I” pronoun less–we don’t care about you….just the saving of the park and environment. And, give us solutions or ideas. Shifting the mess from one park to another doesn’t sound like a win/win nor does stalling the project when all signs lead to an unhealthier sound, the longer we put things off. Lighten up, share solutions and bring everyone together rather than alienating the masses.

  • Duckitude May 12, 2010 (10:07 am)

    I said I was playing devil’s advocate… maybe you should be the “good guy.” As for speaking for the masses, are you claiming that? Love the ducker nom de plume… I can be such a ducker… oh, no, save the world from the ducker…

  • Frank May 12, 2010 (10:39 am)

    I care about the parks in Seattle and the sound.
    I am not sure why those who claim to care about parks would want to put the cso in lincoln park. That makes no sense to me, can you explain? If we are talking park value Lincoln park is more used, more pristine, and more of a gathering place for people. Lincoln Park also has many valuable trees that are equal to those at Lowman beach. To build in Lincoln park would be a disaster and way more destructive than Lowman beach
    The question is is a cso needed? I think we all agree it is. If so then we have to choose a place that causes the least impact to the community, fits within a resonable budget and will provide long term solutions. Lowman beach seems to be the best option. Lincoln Park, beach drive, aquiring houses to build are not resonable options. Nor is placing it up the hill in the city owned property which has a creek and seems to be wetlands and which I find as beautiful and more nautural than Lowman beach.

  • Duckitude May 17, 2010 (7:58 am)

    Hi Frank: No one “wants” to put anything in any parks. “Want” is not a word that can be used for being forced by population overgrowth, a dog population explosion, oil and toxins on roads, and overuse of toxic pesticides and insecticides to have to make human safety and Sound health decisions that will impact any park, whatsoever. So the word isn’t “Want.” This is a lesser of two evils kind of issue.
    .
    It has been said in many other posts, and, it is worth repeating. If you have two parks who are both treasured and contain a number of “heritage trees,” among other things, and your lesser of two evils choice boils down to “how do you make a decision to build in one of them when, potentially, such building could do some irretrievable changes.” It seems pretty rational and straightforward to me. You choose the park that would be less damaged.
    .
    The idea that what would be above ground at Lowman Beach Park, as it is currently planned, if placed in Lincoln Park instead, would be doing any significant damage to Lincoln Park is pretty off the mark, don’t you think? Even if the entire above surface, or the entire remediation surface, constitutes one acre (which it would in Lowman Beach Park), such a surface constitutes less than 1% of the surface of Lincoln Park, but constitutes 100% of the surface of the usable space at Lowman Beach Park.
    .
    Let’s put it to a vote. All those in favor of possibly sacrificing 1% (at the most) of Lincoln Park vote yes for a facility there. All those in favor of possibly sacrificing 100% of Lowman Beach Park, vote yes for a facility there.
    .
    Like you, Frank, I don’t support messing with the Murray Triangle, but, a little rational thinking about Lincoln Park seems in order.

Sorry, comment time is over.