HomeMy WebLinkAbout790501.tiff BEFORE THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
In the matter of the ) MOTION TO RESCIND
) APPROVAL, FOR
Proposed City of Northglenn ) RECONSIDERATION, AND
Sewage Treatment Works to be ) FOR APPEAL OF
located in Weld County, ) DECISION
Colorado )
COME NOW the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, the Town of Frederick, the City of Ft . Lupton, and
the Weisner Subdivision Preservation Association, and move
for reconsideration, and appeal the decision entered orally
by the Water Quality Control Commission on July 2 , 1979 ,
approving the plans and specifications for the construction
of a sewage treatment plant in Weld County, Colorado , by the
City of Northglenn, and recommending to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency that a construction grant be
awarded to the proposed facility.
These movants request that the Commission conduct a
full adjudicatory hearing regarding the siting, plans and
specifications , and grant recommendations for the proposed
sewage treatment facility, and that the Commission rescind
any and all approvals it has heretofore given the proposed
project .
In support of this motion, and as grounds therefor ,
these movants present to the Commission all reasons cited in
the previously filed Motion of these movants in conjunction
with the Consolidated Ditches Co . of Water District No . 2 .
Further these movants cite the following errors in the
Commission' s actions in this matter to date :
1 . The Commission erred in failing to maintain a
proper record of the hearings of July S and 6 ,
1977 and meeting of August 2 and 3 , 1977 .
-1-
790501
PLO0'19
2 . Priority points were awarded to proposed sewage
treatment facilities while the priority system was
in the process of development .
3 . Assuming arguendo that the 1977 priority point
system was adopted validly on November 1 , 1977 ,
the assignment of the total of 144 priority points
at that time to the City of Northglenn was not in
accord with the Commission' s own priority point
system currently found at S CCR 1002-6 ; 5 . 3 . 0 , for
the following reasons :
a. That the evidence before the Commission did
not support a finding that the City of North-
glenn was entitled to 20 priority points for
treatment of effluent beyond secondary stan-
dards pursuant to 5 CCR 1002 -6 ; 5 . 3 . 4 and
5 . 3. 6 . The Northglenn plan provides for the
discharge of secondarily treated effluent
into an irrigation ditch with no further
control being exercised by the City of
Northglenn over the effluent following dis -
charge . Further , there was insufficient
evidence to establish that a higher degree of
treatment beyond secondary was needed or , in
the alternative , that it was more cost effec-
tive to design and build such a system at the
present rather than at a later date .
b. Evidence presented to the Commission prior to
the November , 1977 adoption of the priority
point system indicated that the Northglenn
facility was not eligible for SO "special
points" for a completed 201 Plan or equiva-
lent justifying a Step II or III Project .
Such evidence before the Commission included
that of the Metropolitan Denver Sewage
Disposal District No. 1 and testimony from
the Water Quality Control Division staff.
-2-
See attachment A : Memorandum to Water Quality
Control Commission from Ron Schuyler , dated
October 5 , 1977 , page 2 , and attachment B :
Water Quality Control Division Staff Analysis
of Northglenn Funding , dated October 19 ,
1977 . Such evidence indicated that construc-
tion or upgrading of a plant to properly
treat Northglenn wastewater would not be
needed until 1985 .
c. The evidence before the Commission did not
justify the granting of 45 "special points"
for a system that reused water resulting in
a subsequent upgrading of the effluent prior
to discharge . Northglenn' s proposed project
does not reuse water in a fashion different
from any other project which discharges
secondarily treated water into a ditch or
stream.
4 . Assuming arguendo that the 1977 priority point
system was adopted validly on November 1 , 1977 ,
the continued listing of the City of Northglenn on
the priority list with 144 points was not in
accord with the Commission ' s priority point sys-
tem. Such evidence includes , but is not limited
to , the original Negative Declaration issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency for the North-
glenn facility and the action of the Environmental
Protection Agency in reopening and reconsidering
the original Negative Declaration .
5 . The Commission erred in refusing to hear evidence
from the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
regarding the priority point system. The priority
point system and the points awarded under the
system are the basis upon which construction
grants are recommended to the Environmental
-3-
Protection Agency . Evidence of a flaw in the
priority system, whether procedural or substantive ,
whether going to the priority system as a whole or
merely to the Northglenn project , should have been
heard by the Commission.
WHEREFORE , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, the Town of Frederick, the City of Ft . Lupton, the
Weisner Subdivision Preservation Association pray that the
Commission schedule and hold a full adjudicatory hearing in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Commission ' s procedural regulations , that all Commission
approvals of the Northglenn project be rescinded pending
such hearing, that notice of such hearing be given to the
public and all interested parties , that sufficient time
prior to the hearing be allowed so that parties may conduct
their discovery and prepare their respective cases , and that
evidence concerning the development of the priority point
system and the award of points to the Northglenn facility be
received into evidence , and that the hearing not be held
until Northglenn has received the local approvals provided
for by the Commission' s regulations and the State ' s Water
Quality Act .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
LEE D. MORRISON #8067
Assistant County Attorney
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
(303) 356 -4000 ext . 369
THE TOWN OF FREDERICK, COLORADO ;
THE CITY OF FT . LUPTON , COLORADO ;
THE WEISNER SUBDIVISION PRESERVA-
TION ASSOCIATION
By :
FRANCIS K. CULKIN #2969
Attorney at Law
720 South Colorado Blvd.
Denver , Colorado 80222
(303) 759-3495
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the above and foregoing MOTION TO RESCIND APPROVAL ,
FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND FOR APPEAL OF DECISION , was placed
in the U. S. mail , postage prepaid to :
John D. Musick, Jr.
Musick, Williamson , Schwartz ,
Leavenworth U, Cope , P.C .
Attorney at Law
75 Manhattan Drive - Suite 1
P . 0. Box 4579
Boulder, Colorado 80360
Sharon Metcalf
Assistant Attorney General
1575 Sherman Street
Denver , Colorado 80203
DATED this day of July, 1979 .
-5-
AT1At UHLN'T A
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Col it Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Water Quality Control Commission
FROM: Ron Schuyler
DATE: October 5, 1977
SUBJECT: Proposed funding list, comments verbally presented at
October 4, 1977, Public hearing.
Because of additional information received and subsequent reconsider-
ation, the staff recommends a number of changes to the proposed funding
list. The recommended changes and rationale are as follows:
1 . Anticipating that certain projects could/would be delayed and
unable to utilize reserved funds , one project (Eastern Fremont
County Sanitation District, 383) was added in the list to uti-
lize unobligated increase reserve funds and funds from other
projects which were unable to proceed for whatever reason. That
project was extremely large and using small amounts of funds for
that project coming from small projects which would not proceed
would make it extremely difficult to provide full funding for the
project. If full funding is not provided prior to FY-79 funding,
we would essentially not be making effective use of funds . Therefore,
it is recommended that other projects besides Eastern Fremont County
be placed in contention for use of funds which may become avail-
able in order to effectively and efficiently obligate grant funds.
Specifically these projects are:
a. Grand County, Upper Fraser - #17 - insert (1 ,200) under
Step III, FY-78 anticipated funds .
b. Leadville - #24 - insert (1 ,000) under Step III, FY-78
anticipated funds.
c. Greeley - #26C - insert (4,400) under Step III , FY-78
• anticipated funds .
d. Carbondale - #49 - insert (50) under Step II , FY-78
anticipated funds .
e. Delta - #51 - insert (1 ,250) under Step III, FY-78
anticipated funds.
f. Granby - #56 - insert (950) under Step III, FY-78
anticipated funds .
- Page 2
October 5, 1977
2. Since the proposed funding list was prepared, we have received
information indicating that hbntro Denver would not be able to
utilize the $2,000,000 out of anticipated FY-78 funds proposed
for use in Step II of the Main Plant Expansion. Therefore, it
is recommended that this Step II project be funded as needed
out of FY-79 or FY-80 funds, and in place of Metro Denver, those
funds should be allocated to Pueblo along with $882,000 set aside
for increases . Pueblo needs the additional funds because of an
oversight on our part. The funding list #18a, Pueblo, Step III,
FY-78 anticipated funds should then read as $7,882.
3. Priority #8 went to Northglenn through point totals based upon
information that Northglenn would inunediately own a sewer system
and that Northglenn had a plan equivalent to a 201 plan developed
which was compatible with Metro Denver' s Lower South Platte Facility
Plan. Since the proposed funding list was prepared, Northglenn
has not obtained ownership to a sewer system (system still owned
by Thornton) . Also, we have received the Lower South Platte Plan
and find the Northglenn proposal to not be directly compatible
with that plan.
The staff feels that these problems may possibly be overcome,
but we feel that the Commission should not allocate $7,640,000
to this project until the referenced items are satisfactorily
resolved. Such resolution must involve the Commission, EPA,
DRCOG, Larimer-Weld COG, Weld County, Metropolitan Denver Sewage
Disposal District #1 , Thornton, Westminster and Northglenn.
Therefore, it is recommended that the $640,000 in FY-77 Northglenn
Step II funds be replaced with:
a. #18a, Pueblo Step II for $523,000.
b. #35, Rifle Step II for $40,000.
Since the funds for a, b & c would then be available, #19, Eastern
Fremont County Sanitation District should be changed to include
$1 ,000,000, Step III of FY-77 anticipated funds, and $6,500,000
in Northglenn Step III FY-78 anticipated funds should be transferred
to #19, Eastern Fremont County Sanitation District FY-78 antici-
pated funds.
Northglenn would not lose priority and could still be funded out
of future year funds when and if they become an eligible municipality.
4. #6, Westminster-Broomfield, Step III FY-77 funds should be increased
to $7,426,000. Superscript b should be added, and at the bottom of
the page the explanation for superscript b should read: The remaining
$1 ,900,000 to complete this project will come from FY-79 funds when
they become available.
5. #34, South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, Step III ,
FY-77 anticipated funds should be increased to $2,500,000.
Page 3
October 5, 1977
6. 1115, Durango Step II , FY-77 funds should be increased to $400,000.
To cover this action #22, Summit: County sludge, should be funded
for Step II out of FY-77 anticipated funds .
7. #5, South Lakewood Sanitation District, Step II, FY-77 anticipated
funds should be reduced to $150,000.
Ron Schuylg/
emf
y
Water Quality Control Division StaII Analysis of Northglenn Funding
Prepared by: Ronald G. Schuyler
The following analysis is presented in four sections : summary of written comments
in response to the public hearing, pertinent facts upon which to base a decision,
conclusions and staff recommendation with rationale. Copies of the referenced
written material are attached.
Summary of Written Comments
1 . City of Northglenn, Richard P. Lundahl , Director of Public Works .
Northglenn supports the funding list as published. Northglenn has
developed a reuse agreement and has passed a bond issue for buying
existing sewer lines and constructing a treatment facility. A request
has been made for amending the unapproved DRCOG 208 plan and the initial
work toward site application submittal is started. A draft plan has
been completed to fulfill 201 requirements, but DRCOG, clearinghouse
and staff review have just begun.
2. City of Thornton - James C. Perry, City Manager. October 4 , 1977,
Thornton requests redesignation of priority and funds proposed for
Northglenn to the benefit of a Thornton-Northglenn system, and feels
this could best be done through Metro Denver' s Lower South Platte 201
plan. Thornton argues that they are presently responsible for iorthglenn's
sewage since Thornton presently owns thin sewer lines in Northglenn.
3. Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District '1 - William Korbitz. Nana ger.
Mr. Korbitz protests the inclusion of 'ferthyleon on the funding list
due to Northglenn's priority points not being included on the draft
priority list dated June 10, 1977, and, thus , not available for comment
at public hearing; and due to the fact that Metro Denver Sewage Disposal
District #1 is the designated 201 planning agency for the area. It is
requested that Northglenn be eliminated from the list to encourage
adherence to formal procedures, but is not intended to prevent Northglenn
from participating in a water reuse system.
4. Colorado Open Space Council - Mary Taylor, President. Colorado Open
Space Council endorses Northglenn' s inclusion on the priority list
adopted September 6, 1977. Eight back-up statements are presented
which basically say that Northglenn' s proposal is consistent with the
goals of PL-92-500 and is an innovative system.
5. Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District. I - Alan Canter, Chairman of the
Board. Mr. Canter requests that thr, R:10,000 in Step II funds listed
for Northglenn be transferred to Memo Denver Lower South Platte project,
the designated planning area. In addition, since no construction could
start on any project until FY-79; he requests that the FY-78 Step III
funds be entirely eliminated from Northglenn and not assigned to either
Metro Denver or Northglenn until the basin planning problems are resolved.
6. City of Westminster - Steve Garman, City Manager. Mr. Garman requests
that the funds reserved for Northglenn be allocated to Metro Denver
which has present responsibility for waste treatment in this area.
His rationale is that the Northglenn plan is an excellent concept, but
is just "a plan, without present demonstrable means of achievement. "
7. City and County of Denver - W. H. Mc Nichols , Mayor. Mayor Mc Nichols
recommends that the proposed Northglenn funding proceed.
8. FRICO - Adolph Bohlender, President. INICO supports the proposed priority
list and funding list and feel that Noithglenn' s plan is very beneficial .
9 . City of Thornton - James C. Perry, Cit.' Manager. October 11 , 1977,
Mr. Perry suggests that Commission action involving Northgienn ' s plen
is premature and allocation of funds at this tune is ill advised.
10. Colorado Department of Agriculture - J. Evan Goulding, Commissioner.
Mr. Goulding expresses support for the eater-sharing concept and funding
support of Northglenn.
11 . Arapahoe County - Charles Pitts , Commissioner; Hoge Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee - Walter Yuunglund , Chairman; City of
Louisville - Mary Di Lorenzo, City Council Representative; Cherry
Hills Village - Beth H. Jenkins (no title given) ; City of Aurora -
William Cobern, Councilman; Agricultural Council of Weld County - Joe
Brantner, Vice-President. All of these individuals supported North�leon
in its quest for funds.
12. City of Northglenn - Alvin B. Thomas, Mayor. October 14, 1977,
Mr. Thomas assured the Conunission that there would be no delay in the
process.
13. City of Northglenn - Richard Lundahl , Project Director. Mr. Lundahl
attempted to answer the concerns voiced at the public hearing.
•
Facts
1 . Completion of construction or upgrading of a plant to properly treat
the Northglenn waste water is not needed until 1985. Metro Denver' s
capacity is suitable until then.
2. Northglenn has developed a draft plan for wastewater and stornwater
reuse. The staff has not yet completed review nor made comments on
the document.
3. Northglenn has an agreement with FRIC0 to provide water to the City.
4. Northglenn has passed a $31 ,000,000 Bind issue to buy and/or construct
collection, treatment and reuse facilities .
5. Northglenn does not own a sewage collection system. Individual Northglenn
residents contract with Thornton for collection services and treatment
is provided by Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District #1 . Negotiations
for Northglenn to buy the system from Thornton are underway.
6. Northglenn is not the presently designated 201 planning agency for that
area, Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District #1 is.
7. Northglenn is not the designated management agency under the draft DRC0G
208 plan but has requested such designation.
8. Northglenn has not completed processing of a site application.
9. Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District ='I has completed a draft facilities
plan for the Lower South Platte area . The staff is completing review
and comments on the draft.
10. The Lower South Platte 201 plan and Clio Northglenn plan are not directly
compatible although both could be combined to make one acceptable plan
with more work.
11 . Condemnation proceedings by Thornton aild Pastminster against FRIC0 arc
still underway and would affect availability of water for Northglenn.
Conclusions
1 . Northglenn has developed a reuse concept which would provide multiple
use of water. In turn a draft plan has been proposed to fulfill the
concept.
2. Actual construction of facilities for treatment of the subject wastewater
is not required to be completed before 1985 when considering water quality.
3. The draft plan has not been finalized, but the following preliminary
steps have been .initiated.
a. - FRIC0 and Northglenn have a multiple water-use agreement.
b. Northglenn residents have approved a bond issue to provide $31 ,000,000
of the funds required for plan implementation.
c. Negotiations to obtain ownership to sewers presently within the
limits of Northglenn are proceeding.
4. Many institutional problems must be overcome before the plan can be
finalized and implemented. Among them are:
a. Actually obtaining the wastewater proposed to be treated and reused.
b. Obtaining agreements among Nori '! i! enn, Thornton, Westminster and
Metro -Denver Sewage Disposal Di ' rict #1 pertaining to authority
to implement the plan and actual Li ea LienL of wastewater generated
in the Big Dry Creek Basin planning area.
c. Determining who the management agency will be consistent with the
• final DRCOG "208" plan.
d. Completion of any court action involving the project.
5. If the Commission acts at this time to allocate funds to an entity other
than the designated "201 " planning agency, it will influence the local
and institutional arrangements which must be finalized. If funding is
provided at this time, the Commission could establish a precedent which
could affect future, similar decisions .
6. Because of all of the problems and unanswered questions associated with
this situation, allocation of funds at this time to the Northglenn project
will tie-up such funds until the problems are resolved. If resolution
is not accomplished within required Lime limits, Colorado could potentially
lose the funds .
7. When and/or if all problems and institutional arrangements are resolved,
the Northglenn concept can be an effective method for ;multiple use of
water.
Recommendations
1 . The staff should work closely with all entities involved in the lower
'Thornton-Northglenn situation to resolve present problems .
2. The Commission should not allocate Step II or Step III funds to Northglenn
at this time.
Hello