Laserfiche WebLink
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL <br />300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br /> <br />December 18, 1980 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: CAB Facilities Study Committee <br /> <br />FROM: Jim Barton <br /> <br />SUBJECT: End of Year Progress Report <br /> <br />MWCC ADOPTION OF 201 FACILITIES PLAN <br />The MWCC adopted in September the 201 Facilities Plan. This <br />plan has been forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review <br />and response. Of interest to CAB is the timing proposed in <br />the 201 Facilities Report which has created some concern. <br />Specifically, this includes a 1982 date for initiation of <br />plans and specifications for CAB, with a completion date <br />for the facility by 1985. <br /> <br />Procedurally, what will happen is that the Metropolitan <br />Council will respond to the facilities plan through amendments <br />to the Water Quality Plan which we have'discussed earlier. <br /> The schedule for submitting these amendments to the Council <br /> and their adoption is as follows: <br /> <br />208 Advisory Committee completes <br />review of amendments <br /> <br />January <br />March <br /> <br /> Adoption of amendments for <br /> public hearing purposes (allowing <br /> for a 60-day local response) <br /> <br /> Public hearing May <br /> Council adoption June <br /> <br />In January the CAB Study Committee will be given an opportunity <br />to review the proposed amendments prior to their becoming <br />part of the public hearing document. <br />STATUS OF THE METROPOLITAN TREATMENT PLANT <br />The Metropolitan Council.and MWCC have been negotiating <br />with PCA and EPA on a consent decree which, among other <br />things, would specify water quality standards--or at least <br />a portion of the standards--which would have to be met by <br />the Metropolitan Treatment Plant.. The Council is expecting <br />a response in January to the current draft that is being <br />reviewed. To date, some movement has been made relative to <br />standards which appear to be more reasonable than earlier <br />standards proposed. As with any negotiating process, it is <br /> <br /> <br />