compromise by moving for a 60 percent surcharge, but it also failed 3 to 2, with Knight and Brown still opposed. Casado tried again, moving for a 55 percent charge and this time found unanimous support. The change was made and the new ordinance was adopted and signed. (City Commission Minutes). Wynkoop had prepared a memo on September 18, 1979, analyzing the results of the sewer rate ordinance for user charges being approved. He stated that the EPA would: " 1) release $300,000 in grant funds to the city which have been withheld pending adoption of the ordinance...for work already completed and paid for by the sewer utility...2) recognize the city, upon adoption of the ordinance, as being eligible for the receipt of ...construction grant funds...(including)...a) West Street interceptor ($4,800,000), b) secondary treatment plant improvements ($11,920,000) and c) several other major projects." (Water Dept. Files). The change in rates seemed like a minor issue, but clearly it had a major impact on the city's projects. In addition, it demonstrated the time lapse required for federal approval. Six years had been taken to make the changes in the sewer rates. These changes were, of course, made to demonstrate an equitable system to EPA. Once approved, then each of the projects also had to be approved before the grants would be available. The Wichita City Commission had approved the Dry Creek sewer on October 31, 1932, and completed it the next year to service eastern College Hill and the U.S. Veterans Hospital. The sanitary interceptor sewer in the Dry Creek corridor was in a wooded natural drainage area in the city. The interceptor had become hydraulically overloaded, with the structure of the line deteriorated, by 1971. A total replacement of the system was not initiated until a few years later. Then, with federal funds available, the city sought an EPA grant to help finance the improvement of the sewer. On March 23, 1976, PEC was contracted to develop the facilities plan for the Dry Creek interceptor from George Washington Boulevard to Mt. Vernon Avenue and from Pawnee Avenue to Whitney Lane, along with various other projects. The consultants prepared an environmental assessment and a public hearing was held on its facilities plan on June 6, 1977, which was required by the EPA. The environmental assessment concluded, "Construction of the project will not change any population distribution or land usage. The area is committed to its present usage and the project will not cause damage in that pattern. Construction of the project will enhance the current area as the potential of raw sewage discharges will be dramatically reduced and the stream flow will be improved via removal of the existing sewer portions impeding stream flow." The City Commission subsequently held another public hearing and approved the project on August 2, 1977, which called for laying a 36- inch sewer line through the wooded triangular area. Later in the month, a grant application for Dry Creek was submitted to the EPA, at about the same time that Kathleen Q. Camin, a respected Wichita figure and Associate Dean and Professor of Economics at Wichita State University, became the Region VII EPA administrator. Specialized machines, like this auger, and a commitment by personnel, have helped convert sewage sludge from a waste product to a useful material. The facilities plan was approved by the EPA on September 12, 1977, after review of the consultant's report on the need and solution to the Dry Creek problem. In various cases, the EPA would develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) of proposed projects in which an in-depth study of the effects of construction would be performed. However, after reviewing PEC's findings, an environmental impact appraisal was presented by the EPA with a "negative declaration," stating that an EIS was not required. Soon after, on September 30, 1977, a construction grant award was made offering to pay 75 percent of the cost for the project, as described in the facilities plan, or $550,650. The city officially received the offer on October 7, and accepted it on the 24th. Up until that point, a normal procedure had been followed and it appeared implementation of the plan was the next step, but other factors intervened. During the public hearings, various groups had raised objections to the sewer, claiming there was no need for it or that it would destroy the natural habitat of the area. These factors had been considered in the previous studies by the city and the consultants, and generally discounted. In December of 1977, Camin attended a town meeting in Wichita held for public comment on EPA's work. At the meeting, she faced objections to the Dry Creek decision due to the alleged environmental impact of the sewer on the creek's natural wooded area. The Dry Creek Residents Association strongly attacked the project, and as a result, the EPA began to reconsider the need for an EIS, as Camin took a personal interest in the issue. Plans and specifications for the project were approved by the EPA on February 27, 1978, but on March 15, Wichita was advised by the EPA to delay advertisements for construction bids until the EPA could review the findings of a "biological/archeological tour" of Dry Creek on March 20. The letter gave the rationale for the change, "Information has been brought to our attention subsequent to the award of the above grant which indicates the possibility of significant archeological sites being present in the area of proposed construction." (Water Files). Soon after, on July 26, the EPA halted work on the project because of objections from area property owners and withdrew its previous negative declaration, announcing the preparation of an EIS for Dry Creek. Because of the nature of such a study, a significant delay inevitably was the result, regardless of the outcome of the study. The EPA began to prepare the EIS, with more public meetings held in late 1978. The first draft of the study was prepared by April 8, 1979, and was available for public comment by June 29. Initially it only listed alternatives, without preferences, but eventually two alternatives were found to be feasible and the draft concluded a route along Bluff Street should be substituted for what the city proposed. The draft was finally presented to the City Commission on July 24, and the city staff recommended that the commission pass a resolution endorsing the Dry Creek route. The MAPC had endorsed that alternative on July 19, but on the 23rd, the Environmental Resources Advisory Board supported the Bluff Street route. Instead of making a decision, the commission deferred consideration until after an August 1, 1979, public hearing by the EPA on the draft, which was held at St. Christopher's Church in Wichita. During the meeting, the conclusions of the draft were discussed. The EPA considered four alternatives in addition to the Dry Creek proposal. Of the five choices, the Dry Creek and Bluff Street alternatives were the preferred routes, given equal environmental ranking by the EPA. In comparing the two routes, the EPA concluded that construction in Dry Creek could have long-term detrimental effects on the ecological setting of the Dry Creek basin and the metropolitan Wichita area. The Dry Creek woodland was the overruling consideration for the EPA, and it concluded that Bluff Street would offer the least environmental harm. The report therefore, stated that the EPA would require Wichita to amend its grant application to apply to the Bluff Street route in order to receive federal funding. The public hearing included all sides of the issue, including environmentalists and residents against Dry Creek, and Bluff Street residents opposed to that alternative. The comments were theoretically to be used by the EPA to prepare the final report. The city staff and consultant analyzed the EPA's five alternatives and continued to recommend the Dry Creek route as the most cost effective and the one meeting long range environmental objectives. The EPA disagreed. On April 24, 1980, Camin announced the completion of the final EIS and confirmed the selection of the Bluff Street route as the alternative to the Dry Creek route. The EIS stated that the effects on Bluff Street would be short-term and minimal, while "The Dry Creek alternative would have serious detrimental effects in the ecological setting of both the Dry Creek Basin and the entire city of Wichita." The report was officially published on May 9. A 30-day "no administrative action" period was provided to allow the city or other parties to respond. On May 22, the EPA submitted a proposed grant amendment to Wichita incorporating the change. (Environmental Impact Statement). The matter came up on June 3, 1980, and Denton presented three alternatives. First, the Bluff Street gravity interceptor could be constructed at a total estimated cost of $1,320,270. The EPA would pay $990,203, leaving the city's share at $330,067. The Dry Creek route would cost an estimated $637,280, all of it to be paid by Wichita. Or, the commission could vote to take no action and not build the sewer.
compromise by moving for a 60 percent surcharge, but it also failed 3 to 2, with Knight and Brown still opposed. Casado tried again, moving for a 55 percent charge and this time found unanimous support. The change was made and the new ordinance was adopted and signed. (City Commission Minutes).
Wynkoop had prepared a memo on September 18, 1979, analyzing the results of the sewer rate ordinance for user charges being approved. He stated that the EPA would: " 1) release $300,000 in grant funds to the city which have been withheld pending adoption of the ordinance...for work already completed and paid for by the sewer utility...2) recognize the city, upon adoption of the ordinance, as being eligible for the receipt of ...construction grant funds...(including)...a) West Street interceptor ($4,800,000), b) secondary treatment plant improvements ($11,920,000) and c) several other major projects." (Water Dept. Files).
The change in rates seemed like a minor issue, but clearly it had a major impact on the city's projects. In addition, it demonstrated the time lapse required for federal approval. Six years had been taken to make the changes in the sewer rates.
These changes were, of course, made to demonstrate an equitable system to EPA. Once approved, then each of the projects also had to be approved before the grants would be available.
The Wichita City Commission had approved the Dry Creek sewer on October 31, 1932, and completed it the next year to service eastern College Hill and the U.S. Veterans Hospital. The sanitary interceptor sewer in the Dry Creek corridor was in a wooded natural drainage area in the city. The interceptor had become hydraulically overloaded, with the structure of the line deteriorated, by 1971. A total replacement of the system was not initiated until a few years later. Then, with federal funds available, the city sought an EPA grant to help finance the improvement of the sewer.
On March 23, 1976, PEC was contracted to develop the facilities plan for the Dry Creek interceptor from George Washington Boulevard to Mt. Vernon Avenue and from Pawnee Avenue to Whitney Lane, along with various other projects. The consultants prepared an environmental assessment and a public hearing was held on its facilities plan on June 6, 1977, which was required by the EPA. The environmental assessment concluded, "Construction of the project will not change any population distribution or land usage. The area is committed to its present usage and the project will not cause damage in that pattern. Construction of the project will enhance the current area as the potential of raw sewage discharges will be dramatically reduced and the stream flow will be improved via removal of the existing sewer portions impeding stream flow." The City Commission subsequently held another public hearing and approved the project on August 2, 1977, which called for laying a 36- inch sewer line through the wooded triangular area. Later in the month, a grant application for Dry Creek was submitted to the EPA, at about the same time that Kathleen Q. Camin, a respected Wichita figure and Associate Dean and Professor of Economics at Wichita State University, became the Region VII EPA administrator.
Specialized machines, like this auger, and a commitment by personnel, have helped convert sewage sludge from a waste product to a useful material.
The facilities plan was approved by the EPA on September 12, 1977, after review of the consultant's report on the need and solution to the Dry Creek problem. In various cases, the EPA would develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) of proposed projects in which an in-depth study of the effects of construction would be performed.
However, after reviewing PEC's findings, an environmental impact appraisal was presented by the EPA with a "negative declaration," stating that an EIS was not required. Soon after, on September 30, 1977, a construction grant award was made offering to pay 75 percent of the cost for the project, as described in the facilities plan, or $550,650. The city officially received the offer on October 7, and accepted it on the 24th.
Up until that point, a normal procedure had been followed and it appeared implementation of the plan was the next step, but other factors intervened. During the public hearings, various groups had raised objections to the sewer, claiming there was no need for it or that it would destroy the natural habitat of the area. These factors had been considered in the previous studies by the city and the consultants, and generally discounted.
In December of 1977, Camin attended a town meeting in Wichita held for public comment on EPA's work. At the meeting, she faced objections to the Dry Creek decision due to the alleged environmental impact of the sewer on the creek's natural wooded area. The Dry Creek Residents Association strongly attacked the project, and as a result, the EPA began to reconsider the need for an EIS, as Camin took a personal interest in the issue. Plans and specifications for the project were approved by the EPA on February 27, 1978, but on March 15, Wichita was advised by the EPA to delay advertisements for construction bids until the EPA could review the findings of a "biological/archeological tour" of Dry Creek on March 20. The letter gave the rationale for the change, "Information has been brought to our attention subsequent to the award of the above grant which indicates the possibility of significant archeological sites being present in the area of proposed construction." (Water Files).
Soon after, on July 26, the EPA halted work on the project because of objections from area property owners and withdrew its previous negative declaration, announcing the preparation of an EIS for Dry Creek. Because of the nature of such a study, a significant delay inevitably was the result, regardless of the outcome of the study.
The EPA began to prepare the EIS, with more public meetings held in late 1978. The first draft of the study was prepared by April 8, 1979, and was available for public comment by June 29. Initially it only listed alternatives, without preferences, but eventually two alternatives were found to be feasible and the draft concluded a route along Bluff Street should be substituted for what the city proposed. The draft was finally presented to the City Commission on July 24, and the city staff recommended that the commission pass a resolution endorsing the Dry Creek route. The MAPC had endorsed that alternative on July 19, but on the 23rd, the Environmental Resources Advisory Board supported the Bluff Street route. Instead of making a decision, the commission deferred consideration until after an August 1, 1979, public hearing by the EPA on the draft, which was held at St. Christopher's Church in Wichita.
During the meeting, the conclusions of the draft were discussed. The EPA considered four alternatives in addition to the Dry Creek proposal. Of the five choices, the Dry Creek and Bluff Street alternatives were the preferred routes, given equal environmental ranking by the EPA. In comparing the two routes, the EPA concluded that construction in Dry Creek could have long-term detrimental effects on the ecological setting of the Dry Creek basin and the metropolitan Wichita area. The Dry Creek woodland was the overruling consideration for the EPA, and it concluded that Bluff Street would offer the least environmental harm. The report therefore, stated that the EPA would require Wichita to amend its grant application to apply to the Bluff Street route in order to receive federal funding. The public hearing included all sides of the issue, including environmentalists and residents against Dry Creek, and Bluff Street residents opposed to that alternative. The comments were theoretically to be used by the EPA to prepare the final report.
The city staff and consultant analyzed the EPA's five alternatives and continued to recommend the Dry Creek route as the most cost effective and the one meeting long range environmental objectives. The EPA disagreed.
On April 24, 1980, Camin announced the completion of the final EIS and confirmed the selection of the Bluff Street route as the alternative to the Dry Creek route. The EIS stated that the effects on Bluff Street would be short-term and minimal, while "The Dry Creek alternative would have serious detrimental effects in the ecological setting of both the Dry Creek Basin and the entire city of Wichita." The report was officially published on May 9. A 30-day "no administrative action" period was provided to allow the city or other parties to respond. On May 22, the EPA submitted a proposed grant amendment to Wichita incorporating the change. (Environmental Impact Statement).
The matter came up on June 3, 1980, and Denton presented three alternatives. First, the Bluff Street gravity interceptor could be constructed at a total estimated cost of $1,320,270. The EPA would pay $990,203, leaving the city's share at $330,067. The Dry Creek route would cost an estimated $637,280, all of it to be paid by Wichita. Or, the commission could vote to take no action and not build the sewer.
Water Utilities City Hall, 8th Floor455 N. MainWichita, KS 67202