Depoe Bay councilors and DEQ staff reviewed the status of wastewater service after Gleneden Beach gave notice that it intends to discontinue service to Depoe Bay and pursue its own treatment options, possibly including an ocean outfall.

DEQ regional liaison Anna Cammarata and wastewater permitting manager Renee Amora told the council that Gleneden has completed an initial facility plan and moved away from a site in a state park after parks officials rejected that option; the town is now evaluating a site near the airport and the possibility of an ocean outfall. Cammarata said the rough capital estimate for a new plant and outfall is “somewhere between $35,000,000 and $40,000,000.”

Why it matters: a new outfall or a new treatment plant would require multi‑agency permits, large capital raises and years of design and construction work. DEQ officials said a more detailed facility plan and engineering design are the normal next steps for both Gleneden and Depoe Bay and that those plans are often required by funding agencies before low‑cost loans or grants are approved.

DEQ timeline, funding and permits

DEQ staff told the council that an ocean outfall requires federal and state permits—often coordinated among U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks, State Lands and DEQ—and that ecosystem studies and permitting alone typically take one to two years. Cammarata said full design and construction for a new plant commonly take multiple years and that, based on typical schedules, a new facility would be unlikely to be permitted and constructed in the five‑year window referenced in the termination notice.

Renee Amora described the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (a low‑cost loan program DEQ manages) and other financing sources DEQ helps applicants navigate. She and Cammarata said DEQ can offer planning loans and in some cases principal forgiveness; Cammarata said DEQ currently offers up to $100,000 in principal forgiveness for planning work, and communities can apply for loans to fund engineering and construction. DEQ staff emphasized that securing construction capital for projects in the tens of millions is a major obstacle.

What a facility plan does

DEQ explained that a facility plan (DEQ’s term; sometimes called a preliminary engineering report) compares multiple options, documents costs and environmental review, and produces rate and capital projections that funders require. The agency recommended Depoe Bay commission a facility plan because the city’s treatment plant was last upgraded in 2009 and parts of the collection system are aging and undersized. DEQ staff noted the plan normally covers both the treatment plant and the collection system, and it can identify needs such as upsizing the harbor lift station, repairing or slip‑lining collection lines and rate projections for capital replacement.

Legal, operational and liability constraints

Council members asked about enforcement and about whether the city can simply cut Gleneden off if Gleneden does not meet DEQ timelines. DEQ staff said the agency will cite violations but will not itself order a municipal disconnection; forcibly shutting off a sewer connection could create a public‑health or environmental hazard and expose the shutting party to liability. DEQ staff said the enforcement path is through permits and compliance schedules under the Clean Water Act and that DEQ’s role is to enforce water quality requirements, not to adjudicate contractual disputes between local governments.

Council discussion: sewer district, shared treatment and local costs

Councilors debated whether to push for a larger regional sewer district or to keep Depoe Bay control of its plant. Some councilors urged exploring a sewer district to spread capital costs across more ratepayers and to achieve economies of scale; others noted the political and logistical difficulty of creating a new district and the long history of acrimony between the two communities. Councilors also discussed potentially treating Gleneden as a customer (a contractual approach allowing Depoe Bay to set rates) as an interim mechanism.

Operational details and local impacts

Councilors and staff raised specific maintenance and capital examples: a recent pump purchase cost about $58,000, with a roughly 60/40 cost share noted in discussion; Depoe Bay’s plant was built in 1972 and the collection system contains sections under 15‑inch pipe that may need doubling to meet future flows. Council members stressed concern about local shoreline impacts—near‑shore reefs, kelp and pharmaceuticals in the effluent were mentioned—and asked that any study include evaluation of nearshore impacts and outfall design (diffusers, distance from shore).

Next steps and staff direction

Council members agreed to ask staff to pursue a facility plan study for Depoe Bay and to bring back details on scope, cost and possible funding. The council also asked staff to re‑engage Gleneden Beach for discussions before the city spends substantial study funds, to review contract language that would treat Gleneden as a customer if the parties negotiate a new agreement, and to consult with engineering firms (AKS, ATS Engineering and others were discussed) about a possible RFP or scope. DEQ staff offered to coordinate with state agencies and to help identify funding sources and technical contacts for permit questions.

Ending

DEQ officials warned that even with steady progress from Gleneden, building a new plant and outfall is multi‑year work and that funding availability will be a gating factor. The council directed staff to return with a recommended scope and budget for a Depoe Bay facility plan and to continue discussions with Gleneden Beach and state partners.