Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Quality Nitrate topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Brookings Utilities urges board to uphold aquifer protection ordinance, cites nitrate contamination

Brookings County and City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment · July 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Brookings Utilities told the joint board it opposes a homeowner—s variance to replace a septic system in a Zone A aquifer protection area, citing existing nitrate contamination above EPA limits in portions of the aquifer and urging limits on new nitrogen contributions.

Brookings Utilities told the Brookings County and City of Brookings Joint Board of Adjustment on July 7 that it opposes a variance request by Taylor Arndt to replace an on-site septic system within a Zone A aquifer protection overlay.

Eric Witt, water and wastewater manager for Brookings Utilities, said the utilities submitted a written objection and recommended the board uphold the ordinance as written to protect the wellhead. "We would support the ordinance as currently written for reasons of, wellhead protection in this area," Witt said. He explained that a sealed holding tank is an available alternative in sensitive areas but "it does come with a nuisance of having to pump it out." Witt emphasized the utilities' focus on limiting additional nitrogen contributions to the aquifer.

Witt told the board that "we do have areas of nitrate contamination above what EPA considers the maximum allowable contaminant level." He framed the objection as preventive: given existing nitrate presence in parts of Zone A, the utilities seek to control further nitrate inputs where possible. Witt also offered to answer board questions and referenced a written letter entered into the record.

Board discussion showed deference to the ordinance's purpose: a board member said the law exists to protect the water supply and that, despite sympathy for the homeowner's hardship, the ordinance should be followed. The board ultimately denied the variance by a 1— vote.