Propaganda show at Supervisors

April 19, 2012

Richmond, Iowa

To the Editor:

I read Linda Wenger?s account of Tuesday morning?s meeting of the Washington County supervisors in the April 17, 2012, edition of The Washington Evening Journal. This meeting appears to be nothing more than a propaganda show by Supervisors Miksch, Rich and Mangold, and I would like to reply to two statements that were reported in the article.

RUSS?s recent Preliminary Report, by which this project is being justified, is based largely on ?assumptions? and does not even suggest that its author has ever set foot in Richmond. Aside from two water samples collected in 2001, a few old certificates from some file cabinet, and assumptions about most of the septic systems in the area, the report tells us nothing about any actually existing sanitary problems.

So now Mr. Hudson of RUSS claims to have found a document that shows a study done in 1970. Even if this 1970 report does contain real substance, it is completely irrelevant today; Richmond is simply not the same town that it was 42 years ago. Many new homes with modern septic systems have been built in and around Richmond, a number of old houses and buildings have been demolished, and some have been replaced with new ones. Also, a number of septic systems for older homes have been upgraded or replaced entirely.

Of course it should be remembered that since 1997, a number of Richmond residents have been prevented by county officials from inspecting or upgrading their systems.

For Mr. Hudson to pull this 1970 rabbit out of a hat in a public meeting was showmanship pure and simple ? as was the whole meeting.

Then Mr. Fincel of Garden and Associates claimed that the majority of the residents who would be hooked up to the system want it to be built. At a public hearing in Kalona in January 2011, I remember hearing Mr. Fincel telling us that anyone refusing to sign away their right to challenge the seizure of their property would be subject to RUSS?s ?easement refusal fee.? The residents were sent letters threatening them with between $5,000 and $6,000 in extra fees if they refused to sign easements.

It really takes a lot of nerve to take easements signed under duress, after what many consider to be illegal threats, and use them to claim that these people ?want the system to be built.?

I have spoken to a number of people who were able to attend the meeting, and it seems that these statements were typical of the meeting in general. It was a combination of bluster and threats, designed to either win Richmond residents over to the project or intimidate them from opposing it.

After speaking to many Richmond residents, I have no doubt that it has done neither. In fact, it seems to have accomplished the exact opposite.

Bette Brant