June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork

Author	Message
Martin Saffer May 30, 2008 8:19 am	June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork I understand the PSD will convene at Slatyfork Community Center on June 3 at 7:00 to discuss site selection for the project. Again, I want to say that "site selection" is a "community" selection not just an "engineering" selection. It is a selection about choices confronting Slatyfork and the County. Ultimately, its a choice about the "blessings" of progress versus the "blessings" we already have.
Martin Saffer Jun 4, 2008 8:17 am	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork Well, all along it seems the best site was at Snowshoe. I think Thrasher and the PSD owe a debt of thanks to Tom Shipley and all those Slatyfork and County residents who had the stamina to put the brakes on this project to allow time to test these sites properly. George Phillips put forward a great idea: two systems with two districts with two rate structures. This would keep the PSD from taking over the Snowshoe plant and would require Snowshoe to accept the obligation of dealing with its own created problems, and it would allow the PSD to create a smaller plant for the bottom area. Plus it would allow discharge back into Shavers Fork for the Snowshoe waste water.
freeholder Jun 5, 2008 1:50 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork But the waste water will be treated before going into Shavers Fork, will it not? Shavers Fork, according to Wikipedia is 95 percent on public land,the National Forest.Also, it flows through Parsons on towards Morgantown, where it forms the vast Cheat Lake. Sewage contamination would be unwelcome anywhere ,but would be obviated by the new membrane system of disposal., right?
Linda gibb Jun 6, 2008 1:57 am	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork So Martin, Are they going to go with the 2 systems? I sure hope so.
Martin Saffer Jun 6, 2008 8:37 am	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork HERE IS THE TWO SYSTEM CONCEPT FROM GEORGE PHILLIPS New centralized Membrane (or SBR/Membrane) plant located at the site of Silver Creek's existing air oxidation plant on Black Run New plant would discharge into Black Run (a tributary of Shavers Fork) New plant would be sized for existing and future Snowshoe/Silver Creek "on mountain" sewage treatment needs Snowshoe / Silver Creek PSD would "take over" existing Snowshoe / Silver Creek facilities (plants/collection system) and operate new facility Snowshoe lagoon and Silver Creek air oxidation ditch would be shutdown after new plant starts up; collection system would still be utilized/maintained by new PSD Existing equalization tank at Snowshoe would be used to load balance the new plant (storage of raw sewage during peak loads; stored sewage processed during the week or low load periods) Sewage from Snowshoe would be pumped from equalization tank to the new plant at Silver Creek. Note the pumping station/pipeline are already in project scope - except they are pumping from Silver Creek to Snowshoe/pipeline off mountain in current project. For this proposal sewage would be pumped from Snowshoe to Silver Creek instead of vice versa. New plant is paid for by property owners at Snowshoe / Silver Creek only - e.g. loan / grant from SRF/IJDC repaid via monthly sewage fees to property owners on mountain. (See Con below) Pros: Eliminates the pipeline coming off Cheat Mountain - this is expensive part of the project that adds absolutely no value - probably $2MM just to move sewage off the mountain when it can be treated on the mountain - 1700 ft elevation drop in 1/2 mile - very steep - will require many manholes of gravity flow system - potential for significant cost savings Valley residents/businesses do not pay for providing sewage treatment for existing / future Snowshoe / Silver Creek. Snowshoe/Silver Creek residents only pay for infrastructure/service on the mountain. Liability / risk of existing Snowshoe / Silver Creek infrastructure/collection system is not transferred to valley residents / businesses New plant will have smaller capacity than regional plant at base of mountain (Option 7) - no need for added capacity for the package plants at base of mountain. Effluent is returned to Shavers Fork - eliminates most of the interbasin water transfer issue; frees up waste load allocation in Cupp Run/Big Spring Fork/Upper Elk for future valley development Thrasher gets to design/build/execute two plants/projects! Cons: (Is this a Con?) Two plant concept may result in higher TOTAL (two project) engineering/project/O&M cost vs a single plant / project ($17-20-??MM) BUT the individual project costs would be less (maybe 10-15MM each) and result in SAVINGS to rate payers! Another way to say this: Project on the mountain that serves Snowshoe/Silver Creek only will have a lower cost than a regional plant at the base of the mountain. Resulting rates to Snowshoe/Silver Creek property owners would be LESS! Linwood / Slatyfork PSD/Project: Description: Develop best solution based on the results of Elk Headwaters Watershed Association Watershed Plan Could be combination of a small centralized plant(s) at key locations AND/OR clustered or single septics/residential aerators. A small Membrane (or SBR/Membrane) at Site 7 to collect existing package plants might be a reasonable answer for the cluster of businesses in the Linwood area. Septics or residential aerators are the likely answer for single family or second home / developments in the valley unless a huge development with significant housing density is planned then perhaps a small package plant or membrane plant (small membrane plant technology for single homes or small communities is becoming more and more accessible). Assuming a small centralized facility at Site #7: New plant would discharge into Cup Run (a tributary of Big Spring Fork) New plant would be sized for existing and future needs in the Linwood area Owned / operated by new Linwood / Slatyfork PSD Existing package plants at Ski Barn, The Inn @ Snowshoee, etc. would be shutdown after new plant starts up New plant is paid for by residents/business owners in Linwood area only Pros: Eliminates pipeline coming off Cheat Mountain Snowshoe/Silver Creek residents/businesses do not pay for providing sewage treatment for existing / future development in the valley Valley residents only pay for infrastructure/service in the Valley. New plant will have MUCH smaller capacity than proposed regional plant - no load from Snowshoe / Silver Creek Effluent is returned to Cup Run; less effluent into Big Spring Fork - less impact on Big Spring Fork / Upper Elk River. More waste load allocation is reserved in Cup Run/Big Spring Fork/Upper Elk for future valley development - not required to be used up by load coming from Snowshoe/Silver Creek No raw sewage pipeline through valley / karst - low risk to groundwater No large regional plant in valley / on karst - low risk to facility (Site #7 is not a high karst risk). Project based on data based / watershed plan - right solution for right environment/needs Thrasher gets to design/build/execute two plants/projects! Cons: (Is this a Con?) While the two plant concept may result in higher TOTAL (two project) engineering/project/O&M cost vs a single plant / project ($17-20-??MM) the individual project costs would be less (maybe 10-15MM each) and result in SAVINGS to rate payers! Another way to say this: Project in the valley that serves Linwood businesses only will have a lower cost than a regional plant at the base of the mountain. Resulting rates to Linwood business / property owners would be LESS!
freeholder Jun 6, 2008 6:08 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork My knowledge of snowShoe topography is vague,but I hope my questions are not:: Is the part of Shaver Fork involved in your explanation on public land? If so, who has jurisdiction over its use? Which is steeper? from snowShoe to Elk River or SnowShoe to Shavers Fork?Which is longer?
Martin Saffer Jun 6, 2008 7:04 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork as to rivers and streams they belong to wv regardless of the property they go through
David Fleming Jun 6, 2008 8:17 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork Snowshoe owns site 7 (along old Snowshoe entrance, adjacent to stables/"Forever Wild" sign). In this "two systems" idea, Snowshoe would have to be willing to sell site 7 to the second PSD. If I understand this correctly. DF
Pat Stump Jun 6, 2008 9:12 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork Martin: I believe the water is owned by the State, but I was always under the impression that if you owned both sides of the river, and nothing was stated in the deed to the contrary, that you also owned the land under the water. Were you not involved in a case on the Elk River addressing this issue? If so, maybe you could expand on your statement. Thanks
Martin Saffer Jun 7, 2008 8:22 am	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork Well frankly its a very merky area about who owns/and or controls what as to rivers and streams. HERE IS AN ARTICLE FROM STATE JOURNAL: Riverbed ownership triggers tax dispute Elkins -- A debate over designating a section of stream for catch-and-release fishing could end up casting a question over the state's tax system. Earlier this summer, Marvin Conrad of Summersville was cited after he posted no trespassing signs on land he owns along the Lower Elk River. He was cited, according to court records, because the no trespassing signs went across the river from one bank to another. According to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, the land beneath the water and between the banks belongs to the state, not Conrad. A DNR officer cited the Summersville man for willfully and unlawfully posting land that does not belong to him. But does it? According to Conrad, he and his family have paid property taxes on the land, including the banks and river bottom, for about 100 years. He has receipts to prove it. And since he's paid property taxes on the land, he owns it, right? The state says no. While the DNR declined to comment on the case, the initial complaint filed against Conrad in Randolph County Magistrate Court is clear about whom the agency thinks owns the riverways. "The land posted includes the streambed of the Elk River, which is land which ownership is vested in the state of West Virginia," the DNR officer wrote in the criminal complaint. Now it's up to a Randolph County Circuit Court to decide the question: If a river runs through a person's property, who owns it? The state or the property owner? And based on that answer, who has to pay the property tax? The answers to those two questions could set a new precedent in West Virginia regarding real estate, property owners' rights and taxation. "The streambed question has never really been answered in West Virginia, but the answer could have huge consequences," said Martin Saffer, a Pocahontas County lawyer who is representing Marvin Conrad. "Think of how many large timber companies own both sides of a stream. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of streambed in this state. What happens to the property taxes?" There could be a lot of money riding on this case. If the circuit court decides the state owns the riverbeds, all of the companies and property owners that own land on both sides of those river ways could be entitled to rebates on past taxes paid, or on lower property taxes in the future, "It's a hugely interesting case, and it all started over the teeniest, tiniest thing," Saffer said. "I can't understand why the state of West Virginia would want to wake a sleeping dog like this, but it's time the question was resolved. To Mr. Conrad's point of view, the land and river are in his deed, therefore he feels he is within his legal rights to post them." Conrad said the dispute started more than a year ago after the DNR posted the section of river flowing through his property as catch-and-release only. He said he doesn't like that type of fishing. He grew up on the river and fished there as a boy. Now his children and grandchildren fish the river. And he wants them to be able to keep a fish they catch if they so choose. Conrad heard about a man on the Upper Elk River who asked the DNR to take the catch-and-release designation off of his section of the river. The DNR obliged. That gave Conrad an idea. "I wrote the DNR a letter asking them to consider doing the same thing for me. They never answered. So I posted my property," he said. That's when the dispute really heated up and became a lot bigger and harder to manage than a fishing issue. The criminal citation was filed against Conrad in May, and his first appearance in magistrate court was in June. Last month, Saffer asked to move the case to circuit court because it deals with property ownership issues. The court agreed. The first scheduling conference for the case is scheduled for Aug. 28. During that scheduling conference, the two sides will try to set a tentative trial date. Conrad is fighting the citation on the grounds that he owns the riverbed and he can post it if he wants because he pays property taxes on it. "My family has paid taxes on that riverbed for more than 100 years," Conrad said. "So I guess we are at odds." But not everyone agrees with Conrad or Saffer. "I've never heard of anyone claiming to be the owner of a streambed," said Jack McClung, counsel for the West Virginia Association of Counties. "Streambeds typically are a natural divider of property. Streams pretty much belong to the state. The DNR has jurisdiction over fish and wildlife, so they own the waterways, too." McClung said as an avid fisherman he sees how the issue could be contentious. "There are some people that put up so many no trespassing signs, the only way you can get into the river is to get dropped in by a helicopter," he quipped. "But the reality, as I understand it, is that a property owner only owns to the top of the bank. He doesn't own anything in the stream."
Linda gibb Jun 7, 2008 11:38 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork Pat, Check your little orange bk. of WV Real Estate law. When I was taking the course this question came up & the answer which I no longer remember, is in there under riparian right-of-ways.
Linda gibb Jun 7, 2008 11:40 pm	Re: June 3 PSD MEETING Slatyfork If I can locate mine in the next day or so I'll look it up & post on here. I don't beliefve that the DNR makes the laws concerning river right-aways.

Back to Topics List Reply