|
|
Secondary wastewater treatment plant, critical element in the approval of a second water supply source, was built in 1959.
| treatment facilities for $1.3 million. The City Commission failed to agree on a plan of action.
During that period of time when the water supply issue was making headlines, various reports on pollution in the Wichita area were released and meetings held to weigh the alternatives. On May 18, 1956, the City Commission discussed the annexation of an industrial area north of the city which would allow greater control of the pollution problem. In response to requests made at the meeting, City Manager Frank Backstrom submitted a report to the commission on June 22, titled Report Relative to Control of Industrial Wastes, Pollution, and Environmental Sanitation, dated June 21, 1956. A second report, dated June 28, was presented the following week, on the Control of Environmental Sanitation. Both outlined ways to handle the pollution problem in the industrial area. Two committees were formed as a result of the meeting on May 18. One was comprised of staff which prepared the reports, the other was made up of Commissioner Howse and representatives of business and labor, which became known as the 60-day committee. Backstrom prepared another report for this committee, dated August 24, 1956, called City Policy in Regard to Industrial Districts. While these and other investigations were being conducted by the city, the state continued to press for more concrete action.
On November 23, 1956, the Kansas State Board of Health ordered the city to appear at an administrative hearing on December 8 to show why legal action should not be taken against Wichita for failing to comply with state laws and board requirements, and to see if the temporary discharge permits should be revoked. Mayor Howse, representing the commission, explained to the board on December 8 that the proposition for a sewage treatment plant had not been put on the November ballot because of its conflict with the purchase of the Water Company and the Cheney project. The Wichita commissioners feared that if so much was put on all at once, all of the proposals would fail. He assured them that the issue would be placed on the April, 1957, ballot, and secondary treatment would soon be provided. The board accepted the city's explanation and told Howse to proceed immediately with the plans, or permits for sewage discharge as well as for new sewage extensions, would be denied.
The commission followed through by voting on February 26,1957 to schedule a vote for April 2 on a $6,985,000 secondary sewage treatment facility to be financed by revenue bonds, which soon became quite a controversy. The commission also reacted to the research on the industrial pollution, and on March 12, 1957, approved the annexation of the north end industrial area. During the election campaign both revenue bonds and annexation became issues, with city hall opponents pointing to the annexation as a symbol of a domineering government.
An extensive effort was made by the city to win the vote for the plant. The papers supported the new facility and the State Board of Health released a statement on March 27 in an effort to persuade the citizens, calling Wichita the number one pollution problem in the state and announcing Wichita's agreement to meet state orders to begin work by October 1 on the new plant which would be operational in two years. Despite the need, however, opposition to the proposal grew. Also on the ballot were commission candidates John Madden and John S. Stevens, who ran on a philosophy opposing the existing commission, Howse in particular. The political maneuvering linked the proposal to Howse's one-man rule, and defined the new revenue bonds as a "disguise for the new sewer and water well tax," which people didn't want. (Beacon, 4/1/57). Commissioner E.E. Baird also came out against the plant, claiming that revenue bonds were not the cheapest method of financing. All of this resulted in a major victory for Madden and Stevens and a defeat for the plant, 18,633 to 13,823. The entire election demonstrated that the public mood was very antagonistic toward the administration, as a proposal for a city garage and another for three bridges over the Big and Little Arkansas rivers also failed overwhelmingly. Soon after the election, the new commission, on August 13, voted 3 to 2 to reverse the annexation of the north end industrial area.
|
 |
|