A proposed facility that would convert manure into water will not likely be funded in the 2016 county budget despite efforts from the county executive.
A county environmental committee voted 4-0 with 1 abstain last week to cut funding for the facility after confusion regarding the cost to the county. Members of the committee varied in their reasons for cutting the project, but all agreed the county should get more information before making a decision.
The digester technology would separate phosphorus from cow manure, which may damage surrounding lakes, while also creating clean potable water. The county would pay $500,000 in 2016 to build and perhaps partially operate the facility.
Turning poop into water: County proposes new use for cow manure
County Supervisor Tim Kiefer, District 25, said the original estimated cost per pound of phosphorus removed would total $220 a year.
Kiefer said other county efforts have been far more cost effective, such as cleaning leaves off the streets, which only costs $50 per pound of phosphorus.
But Kiefer said after the committee voted down the project, they received a figure that lowered the estimate to around $80 per pound, and received yet another yesterday, which concluded it would cost $120.
“There are a variety of different estimates bouncing around,” Kiefer said. “We’ve gone from ‘it costs too much’ to ‘we don’t even know how much it costs.’”
County Supervisor Kyle Richmond, District 4, said he abstained from the vote because he felt the county needs more answers on the cost of the digester, and because he wants to see the facility. He said taxpayers shouldn’t be responsible for a program if it’s unclear what the end result will be.
Richmond said the committee only learned of the $500,000 needed for the digester three weeks ago. He said the short notice had left many of his colleagues frustrated and blamed the county executive’s office for not communicating with them.
“I’ve been on the committee for 10 years; [the executive] is not supposed to surprise us with big ticket items at the last second,” Richmond said. “We don’t take these things lightly, we argue over $10,000 or $6,000 amendments.”
Richmond said it was possible for the county executive to proceed with the digester this year, but warned there would have to be much clearer limits and expectations set forth.
County Supervisor Carl Chenoweth, District 35, said he voted against the digester because it remains largely untested and appears to have a prohibitive cost.
Chenoweth said he would like to see the county hold off on the technology until the committee can adequately evaluate it. He said it could still be possible for the county executive to add the digester back into the budget resolution.
Kiefer said the committee is currently looking at sending someone to Oregon to inspect another version of the technology and the costs are associated with it.
Richmond said the county must decide how far it is willing to go to invest in lake health.
“I personally think it’s legitimate for local government to spend this money and seed the idea that economic development and environmental quality go together,” Richmond said.
