Decision on river-bottom sewage plant delayed — again

RIVERTON — Another Planning Commission meeting, another night ended with no solution on the battle over a proposed river-bottoms sewage treatment plant.

The commission voted once again Thursday to put off the issue until its next meeting, to be held March 10, because votes on approving and denying a conditional-use permit for the plant both failed.

The South Valley Sewer District wants to build the treatment facility between 13100 South and 13500 South on the west banks of the Jordan River. The district says the plant is necessary, will be safe and will save sewage district ratepayers $1 million a year for the next 30 years.

But residents worry about health and safety issues, aesthetics, reduced property values and a host of other issues. And in the latest twist, residents and the Salt Lake County Council believe the city has no right to approve the permit until the county council gives its OK, based on a so-called 208 Plan.

A 208 Plan is a general water-quality plan mandated by a 1970s-era law. The county council this week sent planning commissioners a letter saying the council needed to approve an amendment to the plan that would clear the way for the new treatment plant before the city could approve a conditional-use permit.

"The county does not have jurisdiction . . . on how and when the city can approve anything," city staff representative Jason Lethbridge told the commission Thursday. He said he had discussed the issue with city attorney David Church, who assured him the commission could safely approve a permit before the 208 Plan was amended.

He said the 208 Plan amendment is a necessary part of the process but that it can come after a conditional-use permit is granted. He said the permit is set to include as one of its conditions that all local, state and federal licenses and approvals be met before a final site plan is approved. The wording for the permit has been updated to specify that that includes a 208 Plan.

"There's some validity to their (the district's) position that before they jump into (the 208 Plan process) . . . they know they have a project to proceed with," Lethbridge said of the district's desire to have a permit before paying the costs of a 208 Plan study.

But the county's letter failed to push commissioners, who have been deadlocked for weeks over the permit, to either approve or deny the permit. A motion to deny the permit failed 2-4, and a motion to approve it ended in a tie.