|
<br />~~8
<br />
<br />2/10/58
<br />
<br />OF SEWAGE BACTERIA (COLIfORM BACTERIA) THESE DOWNSTREAM, WATERS WERE UNSAFE fOR
<br />DOMEST I C OR RECREAT IONAL USES . ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO APPREC I ABLE EFFECT, UPON
<br />THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONTENT OF THE RIVER WATER THE DISCHARGE OF THE EUGENE SEWAGE
<br />TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT DID INCREASE THE ,CONCENTRATION OF ORGANIC MATTER SUFFI-
<br />CIENTLY TO PRODUCE SLIME GROWTHS WHICH ALSO WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS
<br />OF THIS AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO STREAM PURITY. A COpy OF SAID STANDARDS IS IN-
<br />CLUDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
<br />
<br />FROM TABLE VI IT WILL BE NOTED THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF T~ LAST WEEK IN
<br />JULY THROUGH THE fiRST WEEK IN SEPTEMBER THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUGENE SEWAGE
<br />TREATMENT WOR~S BASED ON REMOVAL OF BOD AVERAGED ONLY 23 PERCENT AND RANGED FROM
<br />A LOW OF 12.6 PERCENT TO A HIGH OF 31.9 PERCENT.r BECAUSE OF THE LARGE FLOW Of
<br />INDUSTRIAL WASTES WHICH WAS ~ISCHARGEDINXO THE EUGENE SEWER SYSTEM ,DURING THAT
<br />PERIOD IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN EFFECTIVE DISINFECTION Of THE SEWAGE PLANT
<br />EFFLUENT.
<br />
<br />AT THEIR MEETING O~'J~N~AR~ 24" 19~8;~~E'~~~BERS OF T~E'AuTHO~IT~, AFTER
<br />REVIEWING THE FINDINGS OF THE 1957 SURVEY" DIRECTED ME TO,NOTIFY YOU THAT THE
<br />CITY OF EUGENE MUST:
<br />
<br />I. PROVIDE A DEGREE Of TREATMENT OF ITS COMBINED SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL
<br />WASTE LOADING DURING THE PERIOD OF MAY I TO NOVEMBER I OF EACH YEAR
<br />TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PREVENT GROSS BACTERIAL POLLUTION AND EX-
<br />CESSIVE SLIME GROWTHS IN THE WILLAMETTE RIVER.
<br />
<br />2. OPERATE ITS MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS AT MAXIMUM EffiCIENCY
<br />AND SHALL PERMIT NO BYPASSING OF ANY UNIT OF SAID PLANT DURING THE
<br />PERIOD OF CRITICAL STREAMFLOW, FROM MAY ITO ,NOVEMBER I O,f EACH YEAR
<br />,AND IN CASE O~ EMERGENCY, NOTIFY THE SANITARY AUTHORITY IMMEDIATELY.
<br />
<br />3. DURING THE PERIOD OF JUNE I TO NOVEMBER I OF EACH YEAR MEASURE ONCE
<br />EACH WEEK I is POLLUT I'ON LOAD, I N TERMS OF BOD, BE I NG 0,1 SCHARGED TO
<br />THE RIVER AND REPORT THE SAME EACH WEEK TO THE SANITARY AUTHORITY.
<br />
<br />IT IS REQUESTED THAT AFTER YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE STREAM
<br />SURVEY DATA AND TO CONSIDER THE :REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLiNED ABOVE YOU ADVISE US BY
<br />.. .. - .... . -. . ..
<br />LETTER OF YOUR PLANS TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. A REPLY AT
<br />YOUR EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY,OR BYNQT LATER, THAN APRIL 15, 1958, WILL BE APPRECIATED.II
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. EDMUNDS THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE
<br />COMMITTEE Of THE WHOLE. MOTION 'CARRIED.
<br />
<br />COMMUNICATION DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1958 FROM RICHARD A. LITTMAN RE STREET LIGHT ON GLEN OAK DRIVE
<br />WAS PRESENTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS:
<br />
<br />"I WISH TO REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INVESTIGATE AND TAKE ACTION UPON
<br />THE INSTALLATION OFA STREET LIGHT ON GLEN OAK DRIVE. THIS REQUEST IS MADE
<br />AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR OF DISCUSSION WITH MR. FINLAYSON ABOUT THE MATTER.
<br />
<br />THE HISTORY OF THE SITUATION IS AS FOLLOWS. UPON THE REQUEST OF SEVERAL
<br />RESIDENTS AND PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS OF THE STREET A LIGHT WAS INSTALLED EITHER
<br />IN THE fALL OF 1955 OR THE WINTER OF 1956. As MR. FINLAYSON INfORMED ME, WHEN
<br />I MADE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR THE LIGHT, A STREET LIKE THAT SHOULD HAVE A
<br />LIGHT AND THE CITY HAD BUDGETED ONE FOR IT~ IN THE PERIOD THAT IT WAS INSTALLED
<br />IT PROVED ITSELF TO BE VERY USEFUL, ESPECIALLY IN REDUCING THE CONCERN OF PARENTS
<br />ABOUT SMALL CHILDREN,- OF WHOM THERE ARE VERY MANY ON GLEN OAK DRIVE - PLAYING
<br />OUTSIDE DURING THE TWILIGHT HOURS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT GLEN OAK DRIVE HAS
<br />NO SIDEWALKS AND IS A DOUBLE CURVED ROAD WHOSE STEEPNESS IS APPARENTLY APPEALING
<br />TO THE RACING YOUTH Of EUGENE, BOTH WHEN DRIVING AND LOOKING fOR GASOLINE TO
<br />,SIPHON FROM ,TANKS.
<br />
<br />SOMETIME AfTER THE LIGHT WAS INSTALLED, IT WAS REMOVED. UPON INQUIRY AT
<br />MR. FINLAYSON'S OfFICE" HE, INFORMED ME, THAT A PETITION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED RE-
<br />QUESTING ITS REMOVAL. I TOLD HIM THAT J HAD NO, KNOWLEDGE Of SUCH A,PETITION SO,
<br />THAT,OBVIOUSLY IT,HAD NOT ~EEN CIRCULATED AMONG ALL',THE RESIDENTS OF H!E STREETj
<br />THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER RESIDE~TS WHO WERE ALSO NOT, INYITED TO SIGN, EITHER
<br />THROUGH OVERSIGHT OR BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THEY WO,ULD NOT AGREE. !y1R.,
<br />FINLAYSON SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE THE CITY, ENGINEER LOOK THE SITUAT,ION OVER AND
<br />SEE WHETHER THE LAMP COULD BE REINSTALLED IN ANOTHER LOCATIONj APPARENTLY THE
<br />REASON FOR THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO REMOVE WAS~THAT THE LIGHT SHONE INTO THE
<br />WINDOWS OF SOME PEOPLE. I TOLD HIM THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE
<br />fOR THE LAMP to BE,T8AT I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO HAVING THE STREET LIGHT,LOCATED
<br />NEAR,OUR RESIDENCE. AFTER A PERIOD OF NO ,ACT,ION, I AGAIN CALLED MR. FINLAYSON
<br />AND,HE SAID THAT THE,ENGINEER;HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS;
<br />AFTER SOME INQUIRYj AGAIN, NO INQUIRY WAS MADE AT MY HOME OR THE NEIGHBORS AT
<br />MY END Of THE STREET. MR. FINLAYSON ALSO SAID THAT SINCE THE ENGINEER FELT
<br />THAT THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WAS THE BEST,'LOCATIONON THE STREET IT WOULD BE A
<br />DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO SOLVE. MR. FINLAYSON ,SAID THAT HE WOULD AGAIN LOOK INTO
<br />THE MATTER. .1 WAS ANNOYED AND SUGGESTED THAT I MIGHT WRITE TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT
<br />THE MATTER AND HE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE WASTING MY TIME SINCE YOU WOULD~ OF COURSE,
<br />CONSULT WITH HIM IMMEDIATELY.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />I .
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-
<br />
|