The final report on Brightwater’s environmental impact was released Nov. 19, just weeks before King County is to announce where it will put the sewage treatment plant, whose estimated cost has now risen to $1.4 billion.
The 3,000-page document is pretty much the last step King County needs to take in order to get the project going.
King County Executive Ron Sims will choose where in Snohomish County the new plant will be built. His preferred site is just this side of the Snohomish County line north of Woodinville and Highway 522 on Route 9 at 228th Street SE.
An alternate site is the old Unocal plant in Edmonds, but a Seattle developer in September paid $9.4 million for about half of the land. The developer wants to build a 295-unit condominium complex on the site.
Sims is expected to formally announce the final site the first week of December.
King County officials anticipate the new document will face some resistance.
“We expect to have an appeal,” said Christie True, King County’s project manager for Brightwater. “Frankly, we don’t know who to expect (appeals) from at this point. We just hope people are taking a good, hard look at the (report).”
Linda Gray of the Sno-King Environmental Alliance, a Brightwater opposition group made up mostly of people living near the Route 9 site, said “there’s no doubt” the group will file an appeal.
“My understanding is that it’s just one more document like all the rest, which have been inadequate and poorly put together,” she said. “It really ought to be an embarrassment to King County.”
Gray insists that the new plant isn’t necessary, saying King County’s projected population growth numbers are flawed. She also objects on principle to King County’s placement of a plant in Snohomish County.
“If we need a plant, we want to get a plant of our own where we can hold the people who make the decisions accountable,” she said. “We don’t vote in King County. They can do whatever they want here, and we’re left without any recourse.”
Steve Dickson, who is managing the technical review of Brightwater for Snohomish County, said he and dozens of consultants will pore over the thousands of pages to ensure that the county’s concerns are addressed.
Snohomish County’s main concerns have to do with groundwater at the Route 9 site and how King County would manage construction of the plant atop the Cross Valley Aquifer. The aquifer is the sole source of water for roughly 14,000 people in the area.
Snohomish County is also concerned about groundwater being directed into Little Bear Creek, which is about 150 yards to the west of the proposed plant site.
Dickson said it would likely be next month – but by the Dec. 8 deadline – before Snohomish County announces whether it intends to appeal any part of the statement.
King County insists the new plant must be up and running by 2010 because its plants in Magnolia and Renton are reaching capacity. Those two plants already process sewage from south Snohomish County. Officials say 63 percent of the wastewater Brightwater treats will come from Snohomish County.
The Snohomish County Council last month approved a six-month moratorium on permits for large sewage treatment plants to give the county more time to consider how it decides where they should be built. The moratorium could be extended another six months.
King County officials say they’ve made numerous changes to the project since their November 2002 draft environmental report, which was lambasted by Snohomish County officials and others.
King County has conducted substantial additional testing on the groundwater, and devised plans for dealing with any excess water, True said. If water is found as construction crews dig into the ground, they will build an enclosure to keep the groundwater where it is, she said.
The plant won’t hurt Little Bear Creek, True said, and “most of the water we’re going to have on the site is primarily in the shallow aquifer, not in the deeper aquifer.”
A reflection of how much new work has been done during the past year is the fact that there are 50 new technical appendices included in the final report, True said.
That’s part of the problem, as Gray sees it.
The appeals process doesn’t allow enough time for regular folks to be involved, she said.
“Since all the plans are different and it’s such a huge document, it’s going to be very difficult for the general public to go through and do a thorough job,” she said.
Victor Balta is a reporter for The Herald in Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
