Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 10 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
“I’m a downstream neighbor on the Rush River,” Haskell began her comments. “And I’m here because I have deep concerns about the quality of the Rush River. The Rush River is in my backyard. Literally.”
Haskell said she thought the “least attractive” of the three options being considered is the treatment and discharge to the Rush River, and said she thought the town would have “a much better regulatory chance with a drip irrigation system.”
She elaborated on the “pitfalls” of the Rush River option which included the “arduous process” of securing state permits; the high cost of running a treatment facility; the ability to meet water quality standards—“what comes out of the pipe, fish have to be able to swim in it;” the hiring of a highly qualified operator to keep it up and running properly, visiting each day to take samples; and figuring in the total maximum daily load assessment.
She showed council members photos of the Rush River on her property where it had basically “dried up” one summer.
“They (state environmental officials) are very leery about these small treatment plants . . .because typically they fail. Small towns don’t have the resources to put in to this ultra-high technology equipment. They skimp particularly on operations.”
White, who had made the presentation of the three wastewater options, appeared irritated after Haskell’s
91.4%