Laserfiche WebLink
. � . Page 3S <br /> Metropolitan t�7aste Control Commission <br /> April 10 , 1980 <br /> Page Two <br /> The city believes that the proposed interceptor will have a <br /> materially adverse effect on the environment and there are <br /> numerous feasible and prudent alternatives available ��hich <br /> are less costly in dollars and have less of an adverse effect � <br /> on our natural resources . Even if one or more of the alterna- <br /> tives, other than the interceptor , are more costly in dollars , <br /> which we �)oubt, such an alternative will have less adverse <br /> impact on our natural resources and increased cost is no <br /> excuse for damages to these resources; see N.�innesota Statutes , <br /> §116B .04 . <br /> At the MWCC meeting on Thursday , April 3 , 1980 , we were pleased <br /> to hear Chief Administrator Richard Dougherty ' s recommendation <br /> that the Maple Plain Sewage Treatment Plant be modified immed- <br /> iately to remove the phosphorous discharge at low cost, and <br /> that any decision on an interceptor across rural Orono be <br /> delayed for at least five years . � <br /> Our notes from that meeting show that Mr. Dougherty made <br /> basically the following statement: <br /> "In regard to the Maple Plain plant and the preferred <br /> recommendation of the consultants to construct an <br /> interceptor from Maple Plain to Long Lake , this <br /> recommendation should be changed and any action of <br /> this sort will be placed in Class B category. ( Class <br /> B category is a category of decisions not to be made <br /> until 1986 . ) After reviewing the results of the NPDES <br /> reports", we have more important needs . We can delay <br /> any decision on the Maple Plain plant, but there should <br /> be some Class A efforts ( commitments immediately started <br /> in 1981) to get the City of Maple Plain to undertake <br /> a I & I study because there is a considerable amount <br /> of infiltration and an excessive amount of inflow. <br /> The city must do its own I & I study and thereafter <br /> must reduce the infiltration and inflow at their <br /> expense. It is their responsibility. The plant <br /> generally provides excellent treatment. I believe <br /> that any problems at the plant are due to failures <br /> which can be solved. We will modify the plant now <br /> for phosphorous removal as we did in the cities of <br /> Stillwater and Cottage Grove at very little cost. <br /> Stillwater is now one of our best plants af ter <br />