Faced with remodeling their home, how many people would put the toilet in their living room? The question answers itself. But how different is keeping the sewer plant at its present location without seriously looking into possible options?
The City Council should insist that all available options be laid out and fully examined in a public process. City officials may be right about keeping it where it is, but simply accepting their take as to how to handle a more-than $50 million project that could last for generations is not how this should be done.
On March 2, the city’s Utilities Commission questioned whether the city has sufficiently explored the idea of relocating the sewer plant. This was not a haphazard comment. The commission is an advisory board whose members include engineers and others with real expertise on infrastructure issues.
Commission members offered three alternatives for the city’s consideration. The point was not that the alternatives are necessarily the best or that there are not others, but that there should be a public discussion of other possible locations.
What they got was a dismissal. After the Herald reported on the commission’s concerns the next day (March 3), Greg Hoch, the city’s director of Planning and Community Development, and City Manager Ron LeBlanc addressed that evening’s City Council meeting about the proposed alternatives.
Their presentation was not a full discussion of the idea of moving the sewer plant. Rather it amounted to a list of the reasons they do not like the alternatives.
They talked about open-space designations, flood plains and Great Outdoors Colorado money that would have to be returned. They found issues with access and conflicts with other city plans.
There was little acknowledgment that there may be advantages to the other sites – especially the idea that perhaps we do not want the sewer plant right in the middle of town. No one spoke in favor of moving the plant, and there was no one from the Utilities Commission.
It was, for example, said that the other sites would pose problems for the River Trail. Not mentioned was that the city managed to route the trail around the current sewer plant, which was built before the trail was even envisioned.
There also no discussion of cost estimates. Could building at one of the other sites prove less expensive than rebuilding the existing plant?
Nor was the council offered much perspective. The GOCO money that would have to be returned if the Cundiff Park site was used would amount to less the three-tenths of 1 percent of the estimated cost of the new plant. The cost of pumping was stressed if anything was done south of the High Bridge, but there was no mention of whether the city has explored working with the South Durango Sanitation District?
Above all, what has been left out is the cost of not moving the sewer plant. The current plant is next to the city’s most-used park, across the river from the popular Dog Park and adjacent to Whitewater Park. It is near the train yard and just down the hill from Fort Lewis College. When the plant was first built in the 1950s, it was at the end of town; now it is in the middle and in what may be the most visible spot in the city. Is that really what Durango wants folks to see and remember?
The people of Durango appreciate that the Animas River is a precious amenity to be guarded and protected. They deserve a full and public examination of all options for the sewer plant.
