Laserfiche WebLink
T��I�•�,h��ne 473 73:�7 <br /> � ' . Page 9 <br /> �� _ . <br />� � ;:. � , ��� �;.. CITY of �li�I�TO <br /> �� .� <br /> .':�:��.�.- �. <br /> k-;, „��-, , Post Of'fice Bo:66•Gyetal Bay,Minnesota 553`23•Municipal Offices <br /> �.. ��3'��- <br /> ��� ,��` On �he No�th Shore of Lake Minnetonka _ '` ' •r��, , <br /> ;�.. � � � . <br /> ,. � � '._�""r., <br /> =p S • '.� ' - � <br /> ,4: .{.�,.. Apri 1 9, 1>81 ` " <br /> 1 :` � � o �ga+ ; <br /> , � A <br /> 1 !��'��.,���, ._--.,\ ` <br /> Mr. Will iam L. Downing �, C��� �}�C �t' <br /> 1834 Simpson Avenue � � <br /> Falcon Heights, MN 55113 <br /> Dear Bill : <br /> I apologize for being so late in getting this information <br /> to you as per your request during the last 208 committee meeting. <br /> We had to copy the Narza R�port and then I was out of town on <br /> vacation, but b`tter late then never. <br /> I want to thank you for your help at the 208 comrnittee <br /> meeting concerning the Maple Plain Sewage Treatment Plant. I <br /> just don 't think that the praper information is being supplied <br /> by the Waste Control Commission or the PCA to allow a responsible <br /> decision on the Maple Plain Sewage Treatrr�nt Plant. <br /> I am enclosing a copy of "A Program for Preserving the <br /> Quality of Lake Minnetonka" (Harza Study) , some of the pertinent <br /> pages from the interim report for the Narza Study and a copy � <br /> of the City of Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br /> i <br /> As you know the Harza Report was the engineering ��eport <br /> that was used to justify the decision to install the interceptors <br /> in the Minnetonka Watershed. Of particular note in the Narza <br /> Study, would be Table IV-2 found on page IV-13. I have iden�ified <br /> on this chart the seven sewage treatment plants so you can see <br /> what the actual measured quantities of phosphorus was out of <br /> these plants and how much of that actually got to the lake. <br /> As you can see in the case of the Maple Plain Plant, 68% of <br /> the total phosphorus from the plan and watershed was removed <br /> before it got to the Lake which means that something in excess <br /> of that percentage was removed from the discharge from the <br /> - sewage treatment plant because it has to travel the farthest <br /> of any discharge in the Painter Creek Watershed. This information <br /> is quite a contrast to the Waste Control Cammissions 201 Study <br /> which says that only 30� of the phosphorus from the plant is <br /> removed before entering the lake. <br /> I thought you might be interested in reading the introduction <br /> section and i.he environment section of our recently completed <br /> comprehensive plan. <br />