Loxahatchee River District Water Reclamation | Environmental Education | River Restoration

2500 Jupiter Park Drive, Jupiter, Florida 33458-8964 Telephone (561) 747-5700 •Fax (561) 747-9929 • www.loxahatcheeriver.org D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D., Executive Director

Gordon M. Boggie Stephen B. Rockoff Dr. Matt H. Rostock Harvey M. Silverman James D. Snyder Board Member Board Member Chairman Board Member Board Member

MEMORANDUM TO: Governing Board FROM: Recording Secretary DATE: March 12, 2013 RE: Approval of Meeting Minutes Attached herewith are the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 21, 2013. As such, the following motion is presented for your consideration. “ THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD approve the minutes of the February 21, 2013 Regular Meeting as submitted.“ Admin/Board/MinutesMemo

Ref: #02-2013

LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES

FEBRUARY 21, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Rostock called the Regular Meeting of February 17, 2013 to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

2A. ROLL CALL The Roll was called and the following Board Members were in attendance.

Dr. Rostock

Mr. Silverman Mr. Boggie Mr. Rockoff Mr. Snyder

Staff Members in attendance were Dr. Arrington, Mr. Yerkes, Ms. Williams, Mr. Howard, Mr. DiCarlo, and Mr. Vaughn.

Consultants in attendance were Mr. Muniz and Mr. Koroshec from Hazen and Sawyer, Mr. Shenkman and Mr. Gaskill from DeSantis, Gaskill, Ms. Schaeffer from WGI, Ms. Vargas and Mr. Bennett with Knowlen, Holt and Miner, and Ms. Krasker.

Robyn Maxwell, with Phipps Reporting, was in attendance in the capacity of Court Reporter on behalf of the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony.

2B. PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES

The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 2013 were presented for approval and the following motion was made.

MOTION: Made by Mr. Rockoff, Seconded by Mr. Silverman, Passed Unanimously.

"THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD approve the minutes of the January 17, 2013 Regular Meeting as submitted."

2C. ADDITIONS & DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

Item 5B was pulled from the Consent Agenda and added to the Regular Agenda after Item 6D. Item 4B was moved after Item 6B.

LRD MINUTES PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 21, 2013 3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

No comments were received.

4. STATUS UPDATES

4A. LOXAHATCHEE WATERSHED STATUS

Mr. Howard’s Watershed Status report explained that over the past several years there has been a series of announcements and rulemaking relating to water quality by both the State and Federal government through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and EPA. The foundation for this rulemaking is the Clean Water Act. Today, water pollution may not be as ugly as it was in the days of rivers on fire and industrial waste into rivers. Instead, in Florida, water pollution leads to algae blooms, fish kills, swimming advisories and, more recently, the confirmation of human pathogens killing coral reefs in the Keys. Sources of pollution include pollutants entering the watershed from sources such as: our yards – like fertilizer and dog waste – through the stormwater systems, failing septic systems, discharges from wastewater treatment (but thankfully not here in the Loxahatchee River) , industrial pollution, wildlife, and agriculture activities. EPA and FDEP have two programs, the Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) standards and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, that strive to improve water quality for watersheds throughout the state. The NNC sets “numeric” limits called “criteria” on the amount of pollution allowed to enter Florida’s waters. Related, the TMDL program establishes the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate without causing exceedances of water quality standards for the designated use. The NNC might be thought of as the water quality target, and the TMDL could be considered the acceptable level of pollution, and controls needed to get to the targets. The Numeric Nutrient Criteria rulemaking process has been in the news over the past several years. As a result of a Consent Decree, EPA and FDEP worked to develop Numeric Standards for Inland Waters in 2010. Then in December 2012 EPA proposed Numeric Standards for Estuaries and Coasts. The EPA is obligated to have the proposed standards implemented by September 2013. Mr. Howard summarized the 8 steps of the TMDL process – assessing water quality, TMDL adoption, Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) development, and re-evaluaiton and adaptation. Mr. Howard then showed maps of the waterbodies that comprise the Loxahatchee River watershed, and a summary table of the FDEP and TMDL status for each of the waterbodies. The maps illustrate that all but 3 waterbodies in the maps are designated as impaired for one or more water quality parameters, and TMDL have been developed for two waterbodies (1 by EPA, the other by FDEP and EPA).

LRD MINUTES PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 21, 2013

Mr. Howard then provided tables summarizing the potentially affected stakeholders and the actions needed to achieve the TMDL through the BMAP process. The DEP and EPA BMAP process clearly identifies converting septic to sewer as a proven approach to enhance environmental value of surface waters, i.e. achieving the Ellis Rule 31-3.021(4). Lastly, as part of the TMDL process, we can anticipate programs coming to improve water quality throughout the Loxahatchee River watershed. These may include fertilizer ordinances, like Martin County’s, progressive efforts that help to educate the public and prevent Nitrogen containing fertilizer application during the wet season, June through September. Also, dog waste ordinances can help to educate the public and reduce the amount of bacteria entering the river. Fortunately, there has already been some excellent work in the Loxahatchee River to improve water quality including LRD’s neighborhood sewer program, Martin and Palm Beach County’s natural areas restoration programs, and stormwater improvement projects such as the Town of Jupiter swale rehabilitation program. LRD’s laboratory will continue to closely monitor water quality conditions in the watershed to assess conditions and, hopefully, assess improvement.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION: Made by Mr. Silverman, Seconded by Mr. Rockoff, Passed unanimously. "THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD approve the Consent Agenda of February 21, 2013 as amended to exclude Item 5B."

The following motions were approved as a result of the Board’s adoption of the Consent Agenda:

5A. Tequesta Drive Notice of Intent to Assess (Resolution 2013-02)

"THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD approve Resolution 2013-02, the Notice of Intent to Assess, the Pending Lien Notice, and the Exhibits for the Tequesta Drive Low Pressure System Assessment Area."

6. REGULAR AGENDA

6A. Consent Items Pulled for Discussion

Item 5B was pulled for discussion after Item 6D. 6B. Jupiter Inlet Colony Notice of Intent to Assess

Jupiter Inlet Colony (JIC) Mayor, Daniel Comerford III, distributed a letter to the Board, the Court Reporter and the Recording Secretary formally objecting to the proposed sewering of Jupiter Inlet Colony and the Notice of Intent to Assess. A copy of the letter

LRD MINUTES PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 21, 2013

is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Mr. Shenkman noted Dr. Arrington’s January 11, 2013 memorandum to the Board, which was included in the January Board Notebook and considered by the Board at that time. Mr. Shenkman suggested the memorandum, as well as Mayor Comerford’s initial letter of December 14, 2012, be added to Exhibit “A”. The Board discussed the options of a Gravity Sewer System versus a Low Pressure Sewer System. Dr. Arrington agreed to try and schedule a Joint Meeting between JIC Board Members and the District Board.

MOTION: Made by Mr. Boggie, Seconded by Mr. Silverman, Passed Unanimously. "THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD approve Resolution 2013-03, the Notice of Intent to Assess, the Pending Lien Notice, and the Exhibits for the Jupiter Inlet Colony Assessment Area."

4B. LOXAHATCHEE RIVER DISTRICT DASHBOARD

Dr. Arrington reviewed the District dashboard.

6C. Chapter 31-10, Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges

Dr. Arrington reviewed the proposed revision of Rule 31-10 and the general assumptions used in the annual rate study. The Board discussed various rate scenarios and projections.

6D. Draft Audit FY 2011 an 2012 Mr. Bennett reviewed the Draft Annual Financial Report prepared by Nowlen, Holt & Miner, P.A.

5B. Change Orders to Current Contracts – to approve modifications

Dr. Arrington reviewed the corrected total to the purchase order for Siemens Water Technologies. MOTION: Made by Mr. Silverman, Seconded by Mr. Rockoff, Passed Unanimously.

"THAT THE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD authorize an additional $10,385.55 for Purchase Order #12-0872 to Siemens Water Technologies, bringing the total authorized amount to $157,917.80."

LRD MINUTES PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 21, 2013 7. REPORTS

The following reports stood as written: A. NEIGHBORHOOD SEWERING

B. LEGAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

C. ENGINEER’S REPORTS

D. PUBLIC INFORMATION REPORT

E. BUSCH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

F. FRIENDS OF THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

G. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

8. FUTURE BUSINESS

The Board requested an attorney/client session be scheduled to discuss the pending Cake & Candy litigation.

9. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD

No comments were received.

10. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Made by Mr. Rockoff, Seconded by Mr. Silverman, Passed Unanimously.

"That the Regular Meeting of February 21, 2013 adjourn at 8:51 P.M."

_________________________ _______________________ BOARD CHAIRMAN BOARD SECRETARY __________________________ RECORDING SECRETARY

Loxahatchee River District Water Reclamation | Environmental Education | River Restoration

2500 Jupiter Park Drive, Jupiter, Florida 33458-8964 Telephone (561) 747-5700 •Fax (561) 747-9929 • www.loxahatcheeriver.org D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D., Executive Director

Gordon M. Boggie Stephen B. Rockoff Harvey M. Silverman Dr. Matt H. Rostock James D. Snyder

Board Member Board Member Chairman Board Member Board Member

MEMORANDUM

TO: GOVERNING BOARD

FROM: D. ALBREY ARRINGTON, Ph.D., Executive Director

DATE: JANUARY 11, 2013

SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD SEWERING – JUPITER INLET COLONY

On August 27, 2010 the District sent a letter to all homeowners within Jupiter Inlet Colony notifying

them that sewer facilities would be provided to their home between 2013-2014. On November 27, 2012

I gave a presentation to the residents of Jupiter Inlet Colony regarding the District’s plans to conduct a

neighborhood sewering project for their community. There was a significant amount of concern and

frustration voiced by some community residents at that meeting, and I invited the Mayor, Dr. Daniel J.

Comerford III to write me a letter in which he summarized the main concerns of the residents of Jupiter

Inlet Colony. Dr. Comerford’s letter, dated December 14, 2012, is attached. The remainder of this

memorandum is in response to the Mayor’s letter.

Legal Authority

“In 1971, the Florida legislature, under Chapter 71-822, Special Acts of Florida, created Encon

[Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District]. Encon has jurisdiction in northeastern Palm

Beach County and southeastern Martin County. Encon’s charter gives it power “[t]o construct,

acquire and operate water systems and sewer systems separately or as a system.” Ch. 78-559, §

6(3), at 212, Laws of Fla. It also has power “[to] prohibit the use and maintenance of outhouses,

privies, cesspools and septic tanks, or similar devises….” Ch. 71-822, § 6(10), at 1418, Laws of

Fla.” See Village of Tequesta vs. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, affirmed in

part, reversed in part, and remanded in Village of Tequesta v. Loxahatchee River Environmental

Control District, 714 So.2d 1100 at 1101 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1998).

Encon has the legal right, authority and jurisdiction to prohibit the use of the septic tanks for the

homes located within our service area. The scientific evidence is overwhelming as documented. See

Final Judgment page 12, Findings of Fact ¶s 28, 29 & 30. The point that the septic tanks are

functioning is not a relevant fact under the law as applied. See Final Judgment at Page 22, ¶51 which

states “A city sewerage system cannot effectively function upon a ‘tic tac toe’ system, that is connect

one dwelling, skip a dwelling, and connect the next one. Where one septic tank might not be

injurious to a neighbor, two septic tanks could well be injurious to the health of the community.”

Citing Peoples Water Service v. Adkinson, 184 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) at page 709.

The only limitations to our ability to construct sewer facilities within our service area are stipulated in

our self-imposed Ellis Rule (Chapter 31-3.021 Collection Line Construction and Availability in

Established Neighborhoods), which states:

The Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District shall construct and declare

available, sewerage collection lines and related appurtenances comprising a localized

District sewer system in Established Residential Neighborhoods based upon the

Governing Board’s determination of any of the following:

(1) that 50% or more of the record owners of property to be served by such localized

sewerage system shall desire and consent to the construction of said system; or

(2) that a reasonable alternative to the septic tanks exists for the treatment of the

sewerage, taking into consideration factors such as cost; or

(3) the discharge from the septic tanks is adversely affecting the health of the user or the

public, or the groundwater or surface water is degraded; or

(4) to enhance the environmental and scenic value of surface waters.

Cross Reference: See 31-3.002(2) for definition of Established Residential

Neighborhoods.

Specific Authority F.S. 373.451, F.S. 381.0065, Chapter 71-822, Special Acts of Florida,

1971, as amended. Law Implemented Chapter 71-822, Section 6(10), 6(16), 6(17) and

6(23); Section 6(9) (d) as amended by Chapter 76-429; and Section 6(3) and 6(19) as

amended by Chapter 76-429; and Section 6(3) and 6(19) as amended by Chapter 78-559.

History-new 1-9-85, Formerly 31-3.21, Amended 2-2-94, 6-15-2000.

Annotation: Village of Tequesta v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District,

Case No. 97-4367AD, 15th Judicial ordered August 6, 1987, affirmed in Village of

Tequesta v. Loxahatchee River Environmental control District, 714 So. 2d 1100, (Fla 4th

DCA 1998).

Fifty percent of Jupiter Inlet Colony property owners have not requested sewers, so at this time the first

criteria is yet to be met. That leaves us with criteria numbers 2, 3, or 4. If any of them are true, then the

District will have satisfied the requirements of the Ellis Rule, and can proceed with neighborhood

sewering of Jupiter Inlet Colony.

In my opinion, criteria 2, which states “that a reasonable alternative to the septic tanks exists for the

treatment of the sewerage, taking into consideration factors such as cost;” is absolutely true. Clearly,

there is a reasonable alternative to septic tanks for treatment of sewerage within Jupiter Inlet Colony.

The two reasonable alternatives to septic tanks are (A) low pressure sewers and (B) gravity sewers. For

over 20 years the Loxahatchee River District has implemented these two reasonable approaches to

provide sewer service to thousands of homes throughout our community (see Figure 1), and either of

these systems may be implemented within Jupiter Inlet Colony to provide a reasonable, cost-effective

alternative to septic tanks (see Table 1). Furthermore, we have recently conducted a hydraulic study,

which demonstrated conveyance of wastewater from Jupiter Inlet Colony to our existing wastewater

treatment facility can occur within our existing wastewater transmission system on the island.

Table 1. Estimated costs for provision of septic tank alternatives for Jupiter Inlet Colony.

# Toilets Connection Fee* On-Site Work†

Assessment‡

(low pressure sewers)

Assessment‡

(gravity sewers)

2 $2,650.28 $1,500 $7,000 $15,000

3 $3,280.33 $1,500 $7,000 $15,000

≥4 $3,910.39 $1,500 $7,000¶ $15,000

*Today’s rates, assuming original home built before 3/31/1981 †Paid to plumber, assuming gravity sewers

‡May be paid over 20 years on non ad valorem tax roll.

¶Homes over 5,000 sq.ft. will have a higher assessment amount.

The third critera of the Ellis Rule states “the discharge from the septic tanks is adversely affecting the

health of the user or the public, or the groundwater or surface water is degraded;” As a Ph.D. scientist

whose research has focused around the ecology of aquatic systems, I feel confident in saying that there

is a large body of peer-reviewed literature that has demonstrated adverse effects of septic tank effluent

on aquatic systems. I will not take the time to review the full body of published literature, but I will cite

a few of the most relevant studies:

1. Please watch this brief National Science Foundation video, which discusses the effect of septic

tank effluent on coral reefs in the Florida Keys - http://youtu.be/shntu5MnENY ; Sutherland,

K.P., S. Shaban, J.L. Joyner, J.W. Porter, and E.K. Lipp. 2011. Human pathogen shown to cause

disease in the threatened elkhorn coral Acropora palmate. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23468.

2. “Studies in Jupiter (Lapointe and Krupa, 1995a) and Tequesta (Lapointe and Krupa, 1995b) …

showed that dissolved nutrients and two bacterial indicators of sewage pollution – fecal coliform

and total coliform – were also transported via SGD [submarine groundwater discharge] into

downstram tributaries of the Loxahatchee River and the IRL [Indian River Lagoon]. These

studies also reported high concentrations of sedimentary coprostanol in the receiving waters,

confirming direct inputs of septic tank effluent from human wastewater sources.” Lapointe, B.E.,

L.W. Herren, and B.J. Bedford. 2012. Effects of hurricanes, land use, and water management on

nutrient and microbial pollution: St. Lucie Estuary, Southeast Florida. Journal of Coastal

Research 28(6):1345-1361. (cited references are: Lapointe, B.E. and S. Krupa. 1995a. Jupiter

Creek Septic Tank Water Quality Investigation. Jupiter, Florida: Loxahatchee River

Environmental Control District, 96p. & Lapointe, B.E. and S. Krupa. 1995b. Tequesta Peninsula

Septic Tank / Water Quality Investigation. Jupiter, Florida: Loxahatchee River Environmental

Control District, 87p.)

3. “Current Florida onsite wastewater system regulations do not provide for sufficient removal of

viruses and this impacts underlying groundwater and nearby surface waters connected to

superficial groundwater. … In many communities, sewers and centralized treatment, with the

removal of septic systems, will be the only approach for improving water quality.” Rose, J.B., D.

W. Griffin, and L. W. Nicosia. 2000. Virus Transport from Septic Tanks to Coastal Waters.

Small Flows Quarterly 1(3):20-23.

4. “…anthropogenic enrichment of groundwaters by OSDS [on-site sewage disposal systems =

septic systems] represents a significant and ever-increasing source of non-point source nutrient

pollution to nearshore marine waters. … Elevated nutrient concentrations in groundwaters

associated with OSDS indicates that non-sewered human wastewater is a significant source of

enrichment to groundwaters in the Florida Keys. … ‘tidal-pumping’ of groundwater nutrients

during seasonally-maximum ebbing tides in summer as suggested by our flow studies, would

enhance the lateral movement of OSDS nutrients into surface waters.” Lapointe, B.E., J.D.

O’Connell, and G.S. Garrett. 1990. Nutrient couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems,

groundwaters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida Keys. Biogeochemistry 10(3):289-

307.

5. Failing or malfunctioning septic systems are the most frequently reported source of groundwater

contamination in the U.S. Yates, M.V. 1985. Septic Tank Density and Ground-Water

Contamination. Groundwater 23(5):586-591.

This is not an exhaustive literature review. This is just a brief indication that a significant body of peer-

reviewed literature exists that demonstrates the negative consequences of septic tank effluent on surface

and groundwater quality in coastal environments similar to Jupiter Inlet Colony. Therefore, I believe it

would be an unnecessary expense to quantitatively demonstrate that septic tank effluent specifically

from within Jupiter Inlet Colony is degrading groundwater or surface water quality. Due to the nature of

analyses potentially employed, such a study would likely be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The fourth and final criteria in the Ellis Rule states “to enhance the environmental and scenic value of

surface waters.” The Final Judgement in Village of Tequesta v. Loxahatchee River Environmental

Control District, Case No. 97-4367AD, 15th Judicial ordered August 6, 1987 stated “that the continued

use of septic tanks within the urban portions of the watershed poses an additional potential threat to the

areas waters.” Clearly, if urban septic systems pose an additional threat to the waters, then abatement of

septic systems should enhance the value of those waters. Furthermore, the peer-reviewed literature cited

above and countless other peer-reviewed publications not cited herein clearly suggest that converting

homes within Jupiter Inlet Colony would enhance the environmental value of surface waters. Finally, I

would suggest that converting the 240 homes on the peninsula known as Jupiter Inlet Colony from septic

systems to the regional sanitary sewer would, at a minimum, enhance the scenic value of surface waters.

A Data-driven, Systematic Approach to Converting Homes from Septic to Sewer

Since 1979 the Loxahatchee River District has worked with engineers, scientists and other professionals

to identify and prioritize the conversion of homes from on-site wastewater treatment (septic systems) to

the regional wastewater treatment facility. The first study was provided by Russell & Axon in 1979.

This study evaluated sixteen areas relying on septic systems, and ranked those areas “that present the

worst potential health hazards because of the operation of septic tanks.” The sixteen areas evaluated in

Russell & Axon are shown in Figure 1 (below). While it is true that Jupiter Inlet Colony was the lowest

ranked area (i.e., posed the lowest relative health hazard), it should be noted that Jupiter Inlet Colony

was ranked, and nowhere in the Russell and Axon study is there a recommendation not to convert homes

in Jupiter Inlet Colony from septic to sewers. Reviewing Figure 1 you will immediately notice that the

Loxahatchee River District has been working diligently to convert homes from septic to sewers;

notwithstanding the Village of Tequesta v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, Case,

which delayed our efforts. Figure 1 clearly shows Jupiter Inlet Colony, Turtle Creek, and a few scattered

isolated homes, predominantly on private roads) as the last remaining homes from the 1979 Russell &

Axon study remaining to be connected to the regional sewer.

The District has revised the Russell & Axon study through the years, and the latest iteration is the

Mathews 2010 Septic System Inventory and Assessment Study, which is available on our web page at

http://www.loxahatcheeriver.org/septic_system_inventory.php. The Mathews study was produced “to

provide an updated prioritization plan for sewering.” The Mathews study used the following evaluation

criteria: (1) Soil Association; (2) Depth to Water Table; (3) Potable Water Supply; (4) Flood Zone; (5)

Proximity to Major Water Body; (6) Lot Size; (7) Surface Water Management Criteria; (8) Wastewater

Type (e.g., industrial/residential). Parcels evaluated in the Mathews study are shown in Figure 2. Note,

however, that many parcels evaluated in the Mathews study have already been converted from septic to

sewer (e.g., Heron Hide-a-Way, Jupiter Highlands, Loxahatchee Landings, River Isle, Sierra Square) or

are actively in the process of being sewered (e.g., Toney Penna Industrial, Eagles Nest, West Center

Street). Based on the technical evaluation conducted in the Mathews study, it is apparent that Jupiter

Inlet Colony is the next neighborhood to be sewered. The District’s efforts to move forward and provide

sewers to Jupiter Inlet Colony are consistent with our plans dating back to 1979, and they are consistent

with our rules.

More Studies Needed?

Jupiter Inlet Colony, and many other neighborhoods in the past, requested we prove their impact to

justify our efforts to convert them from on-site wastewater treatment (septic systems) to the regional

sanitary sewer. I believe the information provided above obviates the need to prove the specific impact

due to the specific septic systems located within Jupiter Inlet Colony.

Figure 1. Shaded areas represent neighborhoods relying on septic systems in the 1979 Russell & Axon

Septic Tank Study. Only parcels in red continue to rely on septic systems for wastewater treatment.

Figure 2. Shaded areas indicate homes relying on septic systems for on-site wastewater treatment in

2012. Parcels in red were evaluated in the 1979 Russell & Axon Septic Tank Study (see Figure 1).

The Path Forward

I suggest that ample evidence exists to support moving forward with sewering of Jupiter Inlet Colony. If

we were to treat Jupiter Inlet Colony like the other neighborhoods we have sewered, we would move

forward and provide the Notice of Intent to Assess in February. An estimated schedule would include:

Aug. 2010 – Provision of Sewer letter (Completed)

Feb. 2013 – Notice of Intent to Assess

Mar. 2013 – Engineering Design

Oct. 2013 – Bid

Jan. 2013 – Open House Meeting

Jan. 2014 – Complete Construction (10 months)

Nov. 2014 – Notice of Sewer Availability (Within 1 year must connect and pay fee)

2016 – Assessment on Tax Roll

However, if the Board desires to consider alternate paths, I would offer the following:

A. Decide not to sewer Jupiter Inlet Colony (JIC). Then decide if any other areas will be sewered.

B. Conduct a 2 year study to determine if discharge from JIC septic tanks is adversely affecting the

health of the user or the public, or the groundwater or surface water is degraded. Similarly, we

could conduct a study to determine if sewering would enhance the environmental and scenic

value of surface waters. Do we postpone all sewering activities through these study periods?

Who pays for the studies? Will Jupiter Inlet Colony legally agree to sewering if a study finds

evidence of pollution from their septic systems?

Figure 1 shows the Governing Board of the Loxahatchee River District has worked diligently to

minimize sources of pollution to the Loxahatchee River. Figure 2 shows we have more work to do. This

is an important discussion, and I look forward to hearing your input.

Figure 3. Jupiter Inlet Colony is surrounded by the Indian River Lagoon (west), Atlantic Ocean (east),

and Loxahatchee River (south).

F:\Albrey\Board Memos\2013-Jan_Neighborhood-Sewering_Jupiter-Inlet-Colony.docx