BOARD00725

• Board Meeting Date: 1/18/1973
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

report. Naybe it will work. About ninety percent of our activities
are now directed by federal laws and federal regulations. All the
money that comes into this state has strings attached to it as to
how we use the money. You either do this or you don't get the money.
I agree with this concept that the state should run the water pollu- I
.tion program, but whether they can make this thing stick or not, I "
don't know. We are going the other "'ay. Every year we are more and
more dominated by federal water pollution la"ls and all moneys have
strings attached. And the State Water pollution Board is - some-
times we think we are just a handout agency, almost. I agree with
the concept they recommend. Maybe Herb has some suggestions. He was
on the board too.

i-lr. Vandemoer: i'1ell, I ",ould agree with Si. As we go through this
whole report they say what we should do, but I don't understand what
takes tho place of what we now have when the changes are made. In
the small towns of Colorado, I don't think there would be any water
pollution control in those towns if we didn't do it the way we do
now. ~llio would pay for a small town that has not anywhere near
enough business in the town to put in a water pollution lagoon or
whatever it needs. I wonder what we do in place Of this is what comes
to my mind. I know this sounds fine, but what do we do?

~~. Stapleton: I am going to ask Nr. Ten Eyck, the Chairman of that
committee, to answer that question for us. Inasmuch as we are shooting
for secondary treatment and hopefully talking about tertiary treatment.

fir. Ten Evck: First, I think it is appropriate for the board to rec-
ommend that this be primarily a state responsibility. The state
responsibility that they address themselves to is the administration
of standards, not necessarily the resolution of the prOblems. I
think if I had to advise anybody I would say "Get your sewer treat-
ment plant built before 1982." We were doing a fairly good job, in
my opinion, of getting attention paid to the development of sewage
treatment plants under the 33 1/2 percent of the funding which the
federal government at one time provided. They have just enacted a
new statute which will now provide 75 percent funding. It is inter-
esting to see how many more communities are now interested in solving I
their problems when Uncle will pay three quarters of the cost instead
of one third. I think We had better get everything done we can
before 1982, because it appears to me that many of these communities
will not very voluntarily tax themselves for better facilities.

I think that whole sewage treatment question is such a national concern

-15-