Ravalli County commissioners on June 2 heard a preliminary engineering report and public comment on options for a centralized septage receiving and treatment facility, with consultants promoting a receiving station, a rotating-belt primary filter, a bioengineered algal secondary treatment and municipal discharge to the Town of Stevensville or the City of Hamilton as the preferred approach.

The report’s presenter said the meeting’s purpose was “to further develop the alternatives, go through a recap of things that have been updated from the last public meeting, and then discuss potential ranking of how to promote the preferred alternative for a septage treatment facility in Ravalli County.” The consultant identified the bioengineered algal system as the top-ranked liquid-treatment alternative on operational-cost and public-acceptance grounds and recommended partnering with a municipality for effluent disposal.

Why it matters: County staff and consultants said a centralized receiving facility would reduce the county’s current reliance on on‑site land application of septage, a practice that raises local concerns about nutrient loading and emerging contaminants such as PFAS. Commissioners were presented with capital and operating cost estimates, site comparisons and a funding plan that relies heavily on grant awards; several pumpers and Stevensville residents said the per-gallon fees implied by the plan would make the facility uneconomical without additional subsidy or regulatory changes.

Most important details and recommendations
- Recommended system. The consultant described a facility with an enclosed receiving station (headworks), primary screening (a rotating belt filter), and a secondary treatment train based on a greenhouse-enclosed bioengineered algal “wheel” system that the consultant said has lower aeration horsepower and chemical demand than alternatives such as sequencing batch reactors (SBR) or moving-bed biofilm reactors (MBBR). Solids from the algal system would be removed by tertiary filtration and handled as solid waste; the consultant said the algal approach “negates the need for biosolids handling and disposal” compared with other liquid-treatment options that generate more biosolids.

- Site options evaluated. The report evaluated several potential sites: the Town of Stevensville wastewater site, county-owned gravel pits near the Hamilton Airport and on Airport Road, a fairgrounds parcel off Old Corvallis Road, and a privately listed commercial parcel in Stevensville. The Hamilton gravel-pit site scored somewhat higher in the consultant’s ranking because of perceived scalability and lower public-acceptance risk.

- Cost and funding summary. The consultant presented a project cost estimate of about $12,670,000 and total nonconstruction (soft) costs near $3,900,000. A recommended funding approach depends on maximizing grants (the presentation modeled an 80% federal/state grant scenario including potential U.S. House community project funding, state grants, CDBG and other sources) and using loans for the remainder. The presenter said a 20-year loan at an example 4.25% interest rate would add roughly $141,000 per year in debt service; combined with annual operations and maintenance it produced a modeled carrying cost near $570,000 per year in the consultant’s example.

- Per‑gallon costs and sensitivity. Using assumptions in the report (2,700,000 gallons of septage generated countywide per year and an assumption that two‑thirds of that flow would use the new facility), the consultant presented a baseline modeled user rate around $0.32 per gallon that could fall to roughly $0.19 per gallon with additional state grants (CDBG) or to $0.11 per gallon at higher future flow volumes. Presenters repeatedly emphasized the model’s sensitivity to (a) the share of county septage routed to the facility, (b) the amount of grant funding obtained, and (c) whether land‑application sites remain available.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns
- Stevensville residents and the town mayor expressed surprise at the project’s scope and concerns about cost, odor and property impacts. Jim Cruz (Stevensville resident) said, “The town of Stevensville citizens cannot afford this project.” Bob Michaelson, mayor of Stevensville, said the town “cannot put a penny burden on the taxpayers whatsoever.”

- Local pumpers raised strong objections to the proposed fee levels. Conrad Eckert, owner of Patriot Pumpers (Stevensville), told commissioners, “At 32¢ a gallon, I can tell you right now, you've just lost me. I'm done.” He and another pumper argued that many haulers could simply continue using land-application options or drive loads to out‑of‑county facilities unless the county or state restricted those alternatives.

- Several commenters and commissioners raised the regulatory and market context: Missoula’s capacity and rates, the availability and enforceability of land-application (land‑app) sites, and possible state legislative change that could limit land application in the future. Presenters and a number of speakers said the viability of the county facility depended heavily on securing grant funding and on whether land‑application remains a routine, low‑cost option.

Operational and environmental points
- Waste and capacity estimates. The consultant reported a planning-year septage generation of about 2,700,000 gallons per year and estimated solids generation at roughly 0.86 tons per day (screenings and dewatered solids consolidated in roll‑off containers). The consultant recommended designing receiving equipment to process high-rate pumptruck discharges (a proposed 450 gallon‑per‑minute primary receiving capacity and two 200 gpm secondary screens were mentioned).

- Environmental considerations. The report recommended designs and discharge options intended to reduce pathogen exposure and nutrient loading compared with unregulated land application. Potential disposal options covered municipal discharge (Hamilton or Stevensville), a new groundwater discharge permit with on‑site drain field, and seasonal effluent irrigation/land application (the latter would require large land areas and holding ponds). PFAS/PFOA concerns were noted as a complicating factor for compost or land application.

County response and next steps
- Staff directions. Commissioners were told staff will incorporate public comments, update the financial analysis, wait for agency comments on environmental review, and return a revised recommendation to the Board with public input included. The presenter said he would provide different per‑gallon sensitivity runs to show cost outcomes under multiple participation and funding assumptions.

- No final decisions or votes were taken. The meeting recorded no formal motions or votes on site selection, funding commitments or regulatory changes during the hearing; commissioners asked staff to continue outreach and refine the financial model.

For now, the record: The consultant presented a technically detailed package that prioritized a lower‑energy algal treatment train and municipal discharge, but public commenters—particularly local pumpers and Stevensville officials—said the modeled user fees would be unacceptable unless the county secures substantial grants or changes the regulatory environment for land application. County staff will gather written comments and updated agency input before returning to the Board with a final recommendation.