Pine View Estates sewer hearing set |

Pine View Estates sewer hearing set

To see a timeline of EPA documents related to Pine View Estates sewer hearing visit

A hearing on whether the Pine View Estates’ sewer system meets environmental regulations has been set for Oct. 28 in Reno.

Attorneys for the Pine Nut community’s home owners association said a proposed administrative order is being sought for alleged violations of the Safe Drinking Act by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Named in that order are developer PTP Inc., Leon Mark Kizer and the association.

The hearing is before an administrative law judge who will hear from the EPA, the developer, the association and Kizer. Residents who sent in comments when the order was announced in June 2013 will also have an opportunity to speak.

The EPA is asking for a compliance plan to replace a leaky leachfield in 30 days, for residents to stop using the community’s oldest leachfield in 60 days, weekly monitoring for nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform and a final engineering report on the compliance plan.

There have been questions about the leachfields and sewer plant serving the community for more than a decade.

In 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated that it would cost $2.1 million to fix the sewer system. The association believes a more recent cost would be closer to $4.2 million.

Pine View Estates was built on 63 acres of federal trust land in 1997 owned by Kizer. Problems with the leachfields for the sewer system were first noticed in 2003.

The leachfields have been the subject of three EPA violation notices.

A lawsuit naming every resident of the nearly 200 homes in the community was filed last year by Mark Kizer.

An order issued last month permitted most of the lawsuit to go forward, but required the Bureau of Indian Affairs to participate as a defendant.

Key to Kizer’s lawsuit is a 99-year master lease agreement, which he says violates federal law. Under that agreement, residents who bought houses in the development would have an opportunity to purchase their homes.

Under federal law, the longest the agreement should have been was 50 years.

The judge ruled that residents may purchase their homes because no purchase price is listed in the contract.