Telling the residents' side on Richmond lagoon

Nov. 5, 2011

Kalona, Iowa

To the Editor of the Washington Evening Journal:

Your article, ?Richmond project to continue?, of Friday, November 4, 2011, appears to be based on statements made at a board meeting of the Regional Utility Service Systems (RUSS) that same morning. As a result, it presents a one-sided and misleading view of this entire project, and of the opposition to it by Residents for a Better Richmond (RBR).

In the article, statements by Wes Rich strongly imply that the construction of a lagoon sewer system has been mandated by the Department of Natural Resources for the town of Richmond. Nothing could be further from the truth. This entire project is based on two water samples taken in 2001. In fact, the nature and extent of whatever problems may exist in Richmond are unknown, and it is the position of RBR that a $1.8 million lagoon sewer system for Richmond is completely unjustified.

Citizens have the legal right to challenge a government agency which wants to seize their property, and the burden of proof to show that this is necessary is on the government agency. RBR?s present lawsuit concerns what we consider to be illegal threats made by RUSS and our county supervisors against property owners who refuse to sign away their legal rights. This is by no means the full extent of our opposition to this project.

Perhaps the reason it has taken so long to address whatever problems Richmond may have is that our county supervisors handed the matter over to RUSS, which only builds lagoon sewer systems. Because it is located on hilly land, Richmond is probably the last place on Earth where a lagoon system should be built. A centralized sewer system would require numerous pumping stations, high-pressure sewer lines, and a pump in each home. We could expect rising fees and high maintenance costs, with the likelihood of frequent, smelly, and unsanitary breakdowns. Indeed, the problems caused by such a system are likely to be far worse than any that may exist in Richmond now.

All of this is aside from the fact that RUSS is known to have had serious management problems, is unsustainable due to major financial and accounting difficulties, and is associated with serious ethical questions.

Since we know that there are better and cheaper solutions to whatever sanitary problems may exist in Richmond, which we want fixed as much as anybody, we view this whole issue as a reflection of a gross lapse of wisdom and competence on the part of the majority of our county supervisors.

Sincerely,

David H. Rosen

Member, RBR