Sewers drive development
A city’s wastewater system is one of its most significant infrastructure issues. While it plays an obvious role in public health and the environment, it also helps determine the development and economic future of a city.
Believe it or not, wastewater and land ownership are perhaps the most critical factors guiding our city’s development. In developing areas with available land, sanitary sewers need to be built in a timely fashion for development to occur. If major tracts of land are not available for development, it is not cost-effective to build sewers. With a limited sewer budget, construction of major sewer lines is expensive. For example, the large Dinwiddie, Bass and Spencer farms off Highway 763 in north Columbia, now under development, were not for sale for many years.
In 1967, addressing the Missouri Highway Engineers Association as its president, I suggested that development patterns were changing because of the advent of water districts and would affect Missouri highways, particularly secondary roads around cities like Columbia.
Because of water district grants and federally subsidized electricity, only sewers would control development near the highways. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources began approving sewer lagoons, and over 100 lagoons and small plants sprouted up to serve residential developments just outside Columbia. Partly in reaction to new city standards and lower available land costs, developers built unimproved streets and sewers, ringing the city with temporary lagoons that later were removed when these areas were annexed.
On the commercial side, when an industrial company considers where to locate or expand, the handling of wastewater has always been a basic question. Industry pays user fees based on the strength of a company’s sewage in accordance with EPA guidelines. In Columbia, less than ten industrial users contribute about 9 percent of the inflow into our system. Responsible companies will not locate or expand without knowing about the sewer system. The company looks to see how well the system is operated, whether it is adequate for the company’s needs and whether the city has plans for its future.
Some industries even provide pretreatment before discharging into the city’s system. One such good corporate citizen is 3M, which came to Columbia in the 1960s. Although the site it chose on Route B was at first served only by a temporary lagoon, the company knew that the city’s master plan called for eventually replacing it with a trunk sewer, a promise the city later fulfilled. In fact, a few days after the council approved constructing the wastewater wetlands in 1997 near McBaine, a 3M vice president visited me to discuss the wetland process and how well it would assist in treating wastewater. Some months later, 3M announced a major expansion, which might not have occurred without a satisfactory sewer system.
State agencies keep detailed sewer records, and industries check them before considering locating in a community. When I worked for the state health department in the late 1950s, I remember requests for both water and wastewater records. Some cities may not have known the reason a company dropped them from consideration, but the state can prohibit a connection if it deems a city’s wastewater system inadequate.
It happened here. As Columbia developed, several older facilities became inadequate, and fewer building permits could be issued in the affected drainage areas. In 1961, for example, the state notified Columbia that no more connections could be made in the drainage area served by a temporary lagoon just south of Stadium along County House Branch that had been constructed to serve Russell School and development in southwest Columbia.
When I started working for the city in February 1960, our overall situation called for major improvements in both our collection and treatment systems. Our sewer master plan needed to be updated, and we needed a finance plan.
One major problem for the sewer utility was the lack of total funding available for upgrading and expanding the system: $140,000 was available in the utility, including $19,900 left over from the sale of obligation bonds in 1946. Because our sewer utility was being supported by revenue bonds only (paid by user fees, not taxes), we could issue an additional $795,000 without raising fees, for a total of $935,000.
The council authorized a master sewer plan update, completed in 1961 by William Gibbs, who worked for the Black & Veatch consulting firm. Because Columbia had limited resources and a large number of watersheds, which made sewering expensive, we developed short- and long-range plans and phased in projects using temporary treatment facilities. The size of major sewer lines was based on population projections and the ultimate development of drainage areas.
Black & Veatch also recommended completion of and additions to the Hinkson Treatment Plant, the building of more major trunk sewers, upgrading existing lines and revisions to the building code to prevent stormwater from entering the sewer system from gutter drains, foundation drains and large area drains. These changes continue to be implemented for a better city sewer system.
We needed a new ballot issue for sewers. However, at the same time, the city had an even higher priority: considering revenue bonds to finance a new water source that would come directly from the Missouri River. In 1961, a new city council was elected, led by Mayor Robert C. Smith Jr., and a sewer revenue bond ballot issue passed with 86 percent approval. I recall talking about sewers during the campaign at civic and other clubs during morning, noon and evening meetings. Following approval of the sewer issue and a new master water plan, voters approved shallow wells in the river bottom instead, which was a better solution than direct intake from the river.
We upgraded the Hinkson treatment plant and built the first sludge lagoons in the state because they were less expensive to construct and operate than sludge drying beds, which were cleaned manually instead of mechanically. Sludge drying facilities were easy to detect by the large crop of tomato plants, which thrive in sludge. Major sewer lines were constructed and defective lines replaced. Then DNR again began authorizing building permits, which had earlier been prohibited, in southwest Columbia.
Federal and state grants were not available until the federal Clean Water Act of 1973. Our city fortunately kept detailed records of costs and the process we followed, which made us eligible for large amounts of federal and state funds through grants that helped us keep rates low.
As the city continued to develop, a series of studies and revenue bond issues followed. Walt Foster and, later, John Stovall, working for Black & Veatch, did a great job working with the city to plan the projects and help maximize the state and federal grants received. The city had a great working relationship with the state Clean Water Commission and its staff, Charles Stieferman and Ed Knight, and the EPA’s Paul Walker and Tom Carter.
Potential projects were shown in the city’s five-year capital improvement plan along with other capital projects, and the council reviewed them annually. Ballot issues were planned for about every five years to better coordinate with other capital improvement projects.
Columbia’s 1969 annexation, which doubled the geographic area of the city, brought the small lagoons and plants into the city. The lagoons were slowly removed using “interceptor trunk sewers” that were made eligible for federal and state grants after the lagoons were deeded to the city by homeowner associations and developers, a move that saved city residents millions of dollars. The city’s policy was to construct trunk sewers up drainage areas to the 80-acre point, except in the case of these interceptor sewers funded by grants.
Shortly afterward, the legislature amended its annexation laws, making it extremely difficult for cities to obtain voter approval of city-initiated annexations. Voters approved a regional sewer district, and today regional plants surround much of our city, providing developers with an alternative for handling the treatment of wastewater. The city has various agreements with the regional sewer district for maintenance and specific projects. Since the revised state annexation statutes passed, nearly all annexation into the city has been voluntary, guided by requests for connection to city sewers. In the future, regional sewer plants ringing our city could play a major role in development of our city and its surrounding area.
During the 1970s, the city constructed a number of interim treatment facilities in sub-watersheds, including the 35-acre lagoon constructed south of what is now Chapel Hill on the east side of County House Branch that has since been converted into Twin Lakes recreation area, one of the most heavily used recreation facilities in town. EPA agreed to clean out the lagoons rather than fill them in, and Parks and Recreation Director Richard Green worked with several state agencies to find grants that could be used to add this facility to our parks system.
Likewise, the Bear Creek lagoon, north of Bear Creek and west of Garth Avenue, is now a major addition to the park system that includes the first phase of a trail that connects Cosmo Park to Oakland Park. The lagoon east of State Route ZZ later was replaced by a small treatment plant beside Perche Creek, south of I-70, which was replaced in turn by a large trunk sewer when the city built the regional plant. The farm on which this small plant was located is now part of our open-space park system.
Negotiating the purchase of land rights over the years for trunk sewers and treatment sites has been interesting. I recall purchasing the Bear Creek lagoon site from long-time Circuit Judge W.M. Dinwiddie; the southwest lagoon site from Stanley Ginn and Richard McDonnell; the regional plant site from then-State Senator A. Basey Vanlandingham; the Perche Creek plant site from Mrs. Hazel Schwabe, the widow of Leonard Schwabe; and the west lagoon from a Mrs. Kleinfelter. Of course, the large sewer lines went through many properties, including the university experimental farm along Hinkson Creek, where easements were obtained. We owe these property owners special thanks. Sites that became surplus to the sewer utility have been converted to parks.
In 1973, under the newer federal regulations, the city completed a comprehensive “201 Facility Plan” that addresses the entire metro area and that continues to be updated, most recently in January 2007. That first 201 planning report provided plans for a large geographic area and recommended construction of the regional wastewater plant on land at the confluence of Perche and Hinkson creeks, a location we looked at in 1960. We constructed a large 60-inch trunk sewer along Perche Creek that serves the Bear Creek watershed. We decided it was a better alternative than building a smaller sewer with a treatment plant along the Bear Creek near its confluence with the Perche.
Designed to handle 15 million gallons a day, and a peak flow of 26 million gallons, the Perche Creek plant design included innovative features that used methane gas to generate power for the plant, treated effluent for irrigation and injected sewage sludge in surrounding farmland. In an experimental project, the city and university helped DNR set standards for the rate of sludge injection in cropland that were used throughout the state. The EPA and the state Clean Water Commission provided an additional 5 percent grant for a total of 95 percent of the $22 million cost of the plant. The overall cost for the plant and sewer lines was $55 million, the largest project in city history.
During construction, workers found Native American artifacts, which closed down the project for a while. They are now on display at our award-winning plant.
Although the state and EPA agreed to issue the city an operating permit without the pipeline, DNR reclassified Perche Creek to a higher standard. The City decided on a bolder course, building a series of wetland cells to further treat the effluent before it would discharge into the Conservation Department wetlands or the Missouri River. Columbia’s wetland system would be the largest of its kind in the country.
The wetlands also generated heated public debate because of their proximity to the city’s shallow water wells. A three-party monitoring program continues, funded by the city’s sewer utility, the water and light department, and the Conservation Commission. The ground water in the river bottom is routinely tested to determine any impact on our water supply.
Wetlands had been discussed earlier by the Missouri Water Pollution Association, but federal and state authorities were reluctant to fund this higher-cost alternative. I recall meeting in Jefferson City with a great number of agencies including the Conservation Commission staff. Eventually, commission director Jerry Presley, Norm Stucky and several others agreed to use the effluent. The new wetlands required sign-off by DNR staff, the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Metcalf and Eddy were the design consultants, and Lowell Patterson, director of Public Works, and Richard Malon, director of Water and Light, were heavily involved.
Columbia is blessed with very favorable sewer rates, primarily due to the millions in grants we have received. Mayor G.L. Norvell, who first proposed a Columbia sewer system in 1897, probably would be amazed by the size of our system, which has grown to a $12 million operating budget today. Nevertheless, I have no doubt Columbia’s sewer system will continue to drive development in the future, just as it has in the past.