CENTRE — All four Cherokee County commissioners last week said they have no intention of voting for the current version of a sewage ordinance scheduled to be taken up next month.

Commissioners Kimball Parker, Carlton Teague, Elbert St. Clair and Wade Sprouse told The Post they do not plan to support the ordinance as written. The document was released to the public by County Commission Chairman Melvyn Salter last month in advance of an expected Oct. 10 vote.

The declared purpose of the ordinance is to “protect the public's health by protecting the water quality of Weiss Lake,” and to adopt and implement “rules and regulations regarding the abatement of improper or illegal sewage in Cherokee County, including but not necessarily limited to the Alabama Power flood easements around Weiss Lake and its tributaries.”

It is primarily that potential -- of expanding the ordinance beyond the areas adjacent to Weiss Lake and its streams -- that has the commissioners concerned.

“That sounds like the whole county, and that's not what the ordinance was supposed to be about,” Parker said of the language in the document. “The areas not around the lake should be checked on by the Health Department.”

“The way it is right now, I can't support it,” St. Clair said. “If they're worried about the lake they shouldn't have worded it they way they did.”

"I want to clean up the lake as much as anyone," Teague said. "But it's got to be done the right way."

Last week, state Health Officer Dr. Donald Williamson said he would be happy to clear up any language that has the commissioners worried about the intent of the proposal.

“If there are concerns about the greater effect of the ordinance, we would be glad to come and meet with the commissioners and work around those issues,” Dr. Williamson said. “Our goal is to work on specific areas around the lake that do not have access to a sewage system.”

Sprouse said he does not consider the cleaning up of Weiss Lake to come under the purview of the County Commission and said he plans to vote against the ordinance.

“I'm for cleaning up the lake but it's not the Commission's job to do it,” Sprouse said.

Greg Locklier, an attorney with the Alabama Department of Public Health, said the proposed law allows for a unique solution to a unique problem.

“This ordinance will provide a tool that is currently unavailable to us,” he said. “It is a complicated solution but there are no easy answers for cleaning up Weiss Lake. We are begging for a tool that will help us fight this problem.”

But Teague said he needs to see more specific language before he can vote for the law.

"The way it's written now, there is a lack of clarity about the long-term impact of the ordinance," Teague said.

St. Clair said switching responsibility from the Health Department to the Commission is not the right way to get Weiss Lake cleaned up.

“The County Commission has other things it needs to be doing besides being the judge and jury for sewage,” St. Clair said. “If they had been doing their jobs for the last forty years we wouldn't be in this mess.”

The ordinance would comprise the second piece of a system that Dr. Williamson described as having “three moving parts” all intended to end the illegal dumping of sewage into Weiss.

“The first was the variance issued by my department allowing for the annual permitting of temporary holding tanks inside the easement,” Williamson said. “The second step is the fine mechanism, which the county's ordinance would put in place. The third is the permitting mechanism that will be put in place by the local Board of Health after the ordinance is passed by the Commission.”

But Sprouse said the language of the ordinance isn't clear enough for him to feel comfortable voting for it.

“It doesn't tell you what you have to do, how to get permits, how much permits cost,” Sprouse said.

Actually, Section 5 of the proposed ordinance spells out a five-step process for compelling violators to bring their disposal system in compliance that includes issuing a citation “in a form approved by the Cherokee County Commission.”

Dr. Williamson confirmed that it will be up to the commissioners to establish fines. He said the local Board of Health would set permit fees related to the variance for holding tanks.

“It may be $10 or $50, but it will be used to pay for the enforcement of the ordinance,” Williamson said.

Still, Sprouse and St. Clair said they would prefer that the county government stay out of the business of enforcing health regulations.

“Dr. Williamson said he has the tools to enforce this,” Sprouse said.

Sprouse was referring to a statement Williamson made in February 2010.

“If the County Commission doesn't pass regulations the only thing we can do is begin enforcing the process with the tool we have,” Williamson said last year. “That is arrest warrants and going to court with individual people on a one-on-one basis.”

But as Williamson added at that meeting, “… we think that is not the best way to solve this.”

“Without a fine process, no one is going to install the temporary tanks,” Dr. Williamson said last week. “This ordinance creates a way to handle sewage and a strong incentive for individuals to get their permit for a holding tank variance.”
Sprouse said he doesn't see things that way.

“The way I look at it, the lake has been here 50 years and now they are telling us it's OK to put tanks in?” he said. “What do they think people have been doing for all this time? If the Health Department gets out and writes citations and people pay a few fines that will take care of the problem.”

Williamson disputed Sprouse's proposed solution.

“Making a sewage violation a criminal matter, in reality, is not an effective way to achieve long-term compliance,” Williamson said.

Locklier, who has already spoken to the commissioners about the specifics of the ordinance, said would be glad to do so again. He also agreed with the assessment offered by Williamson.

“In my experience, the criminal approach is not popular with judges,” he said.

“They don't want to put someone in jail over sewage, so they keep pushing the case back 30 days, then another 30 days. Eventually, it simply gets left of the docket – and that doesn't solve the problem.”

Locklier, who said he has seen officials in other small communities faced with tough decisions before, offered an observation to the Commission members.

“Passing this ordinance is going to be a hard decision, but not passing it will be disastrous, long-term, for the community,” Locklier said.

Parker said another round of meetings between the commissioners and the attorneys involved in writing the ordinance before Oct. 10 might be a good idea.

“I think we all need a little more clarity before we vote on this,” Parker said.