Agenda packet, first session — Trinidad City Council, July 8, 2025

7/7/25, 2:49 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAP5ouwchPu9MuVOf2V6U8I4%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Opposition to Pipeline
From Ted Pease <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/4/2025 6:56 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc Ckelly Trinidad <[email protected]>; Jack Tuttle <[email protected]>; Kati Breckenridge <[email protected]>; Bryce Kenny <[email protected]>; Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]>
1 attachment (60 KB)
HARP re Water Pipeline TCC 7.8.25.pdf;
Please include the attached letter re. reopening the pipeline discussion in the packet of materials and public comment for the City Council’s 7/8 meeting.

Thank you,
Ted
TO: The Greater Trinidad Community
FR: HARP — Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning
RE: Water Pipeline Revisited
July 1, 2025
Dear Neighbors:

This is a heads up that the Trinidad City Council plans to reopen discussion of a water pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) to the city water plant at the Council’s July 8 meeting.

The Council voted three times in 2021 NOT to move forward with a pipeline, and instead to expand conservation measures and other options.

HARP urges the Council and all area residents consider the following concerns that will affect both current Trinidad water customers and the larger Trinidad area north of the Little River:

1. Development: A pipeline would induce substantial growth and development in the greater Trinidad area. Additional homes on either side of the 101 corridor from Westhaven north also would worsen wastewater run-off problems from septic systems, and expand population density and issues that come with it (e.g., traffic, etc.).

2. Proposed Rancheria Hotel: A pipeline would fulfill the Coastal Commission’s requirement of a reliable water source for the Trinidad Rancheria’s proposed 100- room hotel. The California Court of Appeal has imposed a second condition that the Rancheria present a plan showing that the proposed hotel could be defended against fire. This was a result of HARP's successful legal action.

During the recent five-year drought, Trinidad never had to implement any of its emergency contingency plans. Construction of a pipeline will likely mean higher water rates for Trinidad water customers for both construction and ongoing fees for the HBMWD water itself.

4. Dioxin: A plume of dioxin contamination from industrial sites has for years been moving downstream toward Mad River HBMWD water intakes.

5. Luffenholtz Resiliency: As recommended in the 2021 study by Pacific Watershed Associates, Trinidad should develop ponds to store water for use in extreme drought years. Has the city taken any steps to follow the PWA recommendations? Trinidad-area residents and property owners are urged to contact the City Council with concerns about the potential impacts of a water pipeline for the entire area, and to attend (or Zoom to) the Council’s Tuesday, July 8, 6 p.m. meeting at Town Hall (go to trinidad.ca.gov and click on upcoming events for meeting agenda, packet and Zoom info, which should be posted by Friday, July 4). Send comments by 5 p.m. Monday, July 7, to [email protected]. Other Contacts: City office: 707-677-0223; City Council: visit trinidad.ca.gov/city-council.

Please Help! Your feedback can make a difference.
7/4/25, 5:54 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1L…YjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAPimvqvnlCtIs25cetVAvbA%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
Re: water pipeline draft
From Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/4/2025 5:43 PM
To Maria C Bartlett <[email protected]>
Cc Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Hi Maria,
Message received, forwarded to the Council for consideration, and archived in the public comment packet for the upcoming July 08 meeting.

If you'd like to learn more about the topic you've commented on, the meeting agenda, packet, and participation/access information is located on the City's website. The link below will direct you to the page where all this information is accessible:
https://www.trinidad.ca.gov/city-council/meeting/city-council-regular-meeting-15 City Council - Regular Meeting | Trinidad CA
Tue, Jul 8 2025, 6 - 9pm Add to your calendar Google Outlook (ical) Back to Meetings Print
www.trinidad.ca.gov

Also, if you review the information prepared and/or have specific questions, I would be happy try and answer them. We strive to prepare thorough and accurate information to help enrich the public discussion and prepare the Council to make informed decisions.

Thank you,
Gabriel Adams
Trinidad City Clerk
409 Trinity Street
P.O. Box 390
Trinidad, CA 95570
707.677.0223
https://trinidad.ca.gov
7/4/25, 5:54 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1L…YjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAPimvqvnlCtIs25cetVAvbA%3D Page 2 of 2 From: Maria C Bartlett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>; Ckelly Trinidad <[email protected]>; Kati Breckenridge <[email protected]>; Jtuttle Trinidad <[email protected]>; Ted Pease <[email protected]>; Cindy & Richard Johnson <[email protected]>; Jacques Beaupre <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: water pipeline draft
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maria C Bartlett <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:42PM
Subject: water pipeline
To: Bryce Kenny <[email protected]>
To the City Council,
We've been here before, more than once, about the water pipeline and both times the majority has weighed in against this. Why are we wasting valuable time again on the same subject? The HARP group has done an amazing job of researching the pros and cons of this project and the conclusion is the same, we have been through numerous drought conditions and the town has not run out of water. The noxious idea of "growth and development" associated with this should give pause. Just look at the ramifications of allowing all the vrbo's in this town!!! I remember, 30 years ago, when the beach was often and mostly empty, when we had 3 vacation rentals in town and a stable community with full time residents. Now the beach is "polluted and contaminated with dog feces" as a result of Trinidad having become a freaking "destination". I digress but it's really the same issue in regard to "development" which the pipeline portends. I maintain my opposition to the pipeline.

Respectfully,
Maria Bartlett, Ph.D.
828 Edwards St.

Trinidad
7/4/25, 5:43 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAFB4mWTjCYNGjnxCIL2cs7g%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
Water Supply Issue Council meeting. 7/8/2025
From Jacques Beaupre <[email protected]>
Date Thu 7/3/2025 12:41 PM
To Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]>; Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]> July 3, 2025
Dear City of Trinidad,
Trinidad just spent a lot of money and time expanding and improving the storage of water. Trinidad continues to improve its water infrastructure. Water supply is not a problem in Trinidad if we live within our current footprint and water use.

Sorry the Council will have to waste more valuable time on discussion about this topic to connect to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

How many times now have a developer's pipe dream been looked at and REJECTED?
Trinidad residents said no, more than once, to a water line connecting Trinidad to HBMWD already.

Really whoever is pushing for this needs a lesson in democracy.

Reject this idea of an unlimited supply of water. It could turn into a nightmare for the future of Trinidad.

Thank you,
7/4/25, 5:43 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAFB4mWTjCYNGjnxCIL2cs7g%3D Page 2 of 2 Jacques Beaupre
Resident
7/4/25, 5:47 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAC5dwxMV5m1PqXcud4tMqFg%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
Water Pipeline Proposal – No
From Peter Cohan <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/4/2025 8:40 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
(“This Proposal,” he said dryly, “is all wet!”)
Dear People,
We are very strongly opposed to the proposal to build a water pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) to the Trinidad city water plant.

Water is literally flowing out of our Trinidad area hills into the ocean via our numerous creeks.

Luffenholtz, due to its underlying geology, has been a reliable source even in drought years.

So far, there has been no need to connect to HBMWD.

However, let’s assume that Luffenholtz goes dry for two months in the late summer or early fall. What are the possible remedies?

1. Hope that things don’t change. This is simply poor planning: Hope is not a strategy. We need to assume that at some point there will be a need for a backup source.

2. Pay to extend a water pipeline to the city water plant.

The cost to accomplish this increases every year and gets more difficult to execute every year. Rough costs range from $1 million to $10 million per mile for a “typical” pipeline. However, these costs do not contemplate the challenges of the geology and ecology between McKinleyville/Little River and the Trinidad city water plant.

And even if a pipeline is implemented, does it remove the risk of a lack of water? No.

The same drought conditions could similarly impact HBMWD’s water supply. The problem isn’t solved; it is simply kicked down the road.

Additionally, this pipeline would be subject to the risks of drought as well as damage to the pipe through natural or unnatural causes. Earthquakes and ground slumping present major risks and are, again, a case of when not if. Building a pipeline that would survive such slumping, or a major earthquake would likely increase the cost of construction and maintenance sharply.

Finally, Trinidad would be the “end of the line” for the north portion of the system. 7/4/25, 5:47 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…tNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAC5dwxMV5m1PqXcud4tMqFg%3D Page 2 of 2 Trinidad would be the tail trying to wag a comparatively large dog to seek repairs and interim water in case of emergency situations.

3. Build holding ponds or tanks to capture Luffenholtz water during the wet season to serve as backup: This is the overwhelmingly logical choice.

Our understanding is that Trinidad currently has two 150,000-gallon holding tanks for treated water. The rough cost for implementing one additional 150,000-gallon tank ranges from $50,000 to $500,000. While we don’t have rough numbers, we suspect that implementing one or more ponds of the same overall volume would be less expensive.

And this holding ponds or tanks option reduces the risks of system failure dramatically compared to a pipeline approach.

In summary, we are strongly opposed to the proposal to build a water pipeline.

Best Regards,
Peter and Diane Cohan
Peter E. Cohan
1532 Scenic Drive
Trinidad, CA 95570
T: +1 707 677 3764
E: [email protected]
7/4/25, 5:41 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAFDNeucU17NMurIff595GTs%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Humboldt Bay water
From Christina Cunliffe <[email protected]>
Date Thu 7/3/2025 8:33 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear City Council, I have lived in westhaven for 46 years and am opposed to any further development to our rural community that bringing Humboldt Bay water would cause. Any increased traffic to Scenic drive with the proposed100 room hotel at the casino would be detrimental to our fragile coast line which already has major problems with road subsidence and slides. Please do not fund a feasibility study to bring Humboldt Bay water north of Little River! If the casino wants the water, they can pay for it! Yours sincerely, Christina Cunliffe 7/4/25, 5:28 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAMOUhv5SGwxKnYrVjmYaejw%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
(No subject)
From Carolyn Heitzman <[email protected]>
Date Tue 7/1/2025 11:41 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
I oppose the pipeline. I live just north of little river have been here 65 years. This would destroy are small community. We don't need to be come another Mendocino please do not allow that to happen.

Carolyn and Robert H eitzman
7/4/25, 5:39 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAGgyyp4CBHJGiAwhOun0pLI%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Comments re: Water Pipeline, July 8 Mtg.

From Lille Sand <[email protected]>
Date Wed 7/2/2025 3:58 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear City Council,
We are expressing our great satisfaction with the current Trinidad City Water services.

We do not support the development of a water pipeline to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

It is important to maintain local control and stewardship of this precious resource.

We believe the Council has made the best decision for Trinidad the past 3 times they chose not to support a pipeline.

Thank you for your dedication and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Cresta & Mark Schiefer
Trinidad Residents since 2014
Public Comment for July 8, 2025, Trinidad City Council Meeting July 5, 2025
Dear Mayor Kelly and City Council Members:

Please approve the City of Trinidad’s participation in a feasibility study: Agenda Item 2:
“Discussion/Decision regarding Participation in a Feasibility Study to Join the Trinidad Rancheria in a Drinking Water Pipeline Connection project with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.”
During a statewide drought in February 2021, the Trinidad City Council voted 3 - 2 against conducting a water feasibility study to source potable water from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD). Later that year, in October 2021, the same City Council voted 3 - 2 against connecting to a potential future water pipeline from HBMWD. Many of Trinidad's water customers wanted to participate in a water feasibility study and they later expressed the need for a safe and sustainable water supply provided by HBMWD.

At the same October 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council passed a Motion to revisit a connection with HBMWD within 3 – 5 years. Thank you, City Council, for following through on this October 2021 City Council Motion which passed unanimously.

In 2021, the City Council voted to investigate if there were alternative water sources for the Luffenholtz Creek. Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA) proposed the development of water storage ponds above the city to supplement water supplied by Luffenholtz Creek. The study cost the City $10,000 and this project was determined to be unsuccessful. No action plan was implemented from this study. The Trinidad water supply remains solely dependent on a shallow creek whose flow decreases during times of drought.

As the statewide drought worsened, the City’s sole source of water, Luffenholtz Creek, developed seriously diminished water levels. During the 2021 drought, City Council activated its emergency drought response plan requiring Trinidad’s wáter customers to conserve water use.

HBMWD is one of the few water districts that has a surplus of water while other water municipalities are struggling with the challenges of decreased water supplies. HBMWD has a reliable, track record of supplying clean potable water in sufficient volume and pressure to neighboring towns. This supply of potable water can also meet the demands of residences and businesses in Trinidad.

Another major concern is the City’s limited water supply for firefighting. If there were a serious fire in Trinidad, the water storage tanks supplying city fire hydrants would be emptied within just a few hours with no back-up source.

Beyond water scarcity, water quality and fire safety issues, it is now clear that the City of Trinidad can no longer afford to operate its municipal water plant. For the past three years, state-licensed consultants have been required to operate the City’s municipal water plant. Due to very high consultant fees, the City’s accumulated water funds (which were more than $1,000,000) are now depleted and in a deficit.

Starting in early 2022, the City of Trinidad contracted with Coleman Engineering as a consultant certified plant operator (CPO). This spring, Coleman was replaced by a consultant that is charging the City less as acting CPO.

It is unfortunate that Coleman Engineering’s three-year total charges to the City of Trinidad to operate our small water plant were $877,610.78. Coleman Engineering exorbitant charges have resulted in a water fund deficit and the City’s water customers' rates have significantly increased and will continue to increase yearly due to the high cost of managing the City’s municipal water plant and absorbing Coleman Engineering's high consultant fees.

Those who are opposed to a feasibility study and a connection to HBMWD argue that a connection could mean “substantial growth”. Others who oppose a HBMWD connection believe if the City connects to HBMWD, it will support the Trinidad Rancheria’s project to build a hotel with a connection to HBMWD.

Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning (HARP) is a political organization; its mission is to prevent the Trinidad Rancheria from building their hotel. “HARP is totally committed to doing whatever we can to see that the hotel does not come to existence…We will be pursuing that vigorously.” Stated by Legal Counsel for HARP published in the Times Standard on March 2, 2020.

HARP continues to make false claims and inaccurate statements without any evidence to support their allegations. HARP will rally its troops, and you will receive more public comments against the feasibility study, however, please know that HARP does not have Trinidad’s water customers best interests in mind.

Two examples of HARP’s false claims as stated in their July 1, 2025, City Council Public Comment:
“3…. During the recent five-year drought, Trinidad never had to implement any of its emergency contingency plans.” This statement is false, please see comment above. “5. Luffenholtz Resiliency: As recommended in the 2021 study by Pacific Watershed Associates, Trinidad should develop ponds to store water for use in extreme drought years. Has the city taken any steps to follow the PWA recommendations?” HARP was obviously unaware that the City’s attempt to develop ponds was unsuccessful, as mentioned above. “The Council voted three times in 2021 NOT to move forward with a pipeline, and instead to expand conservation measures and other options.” Due to a severe storm in 2021, power was lost during the City Council meeting and technical difficulties were experienced which affected the meeting’s discussions (e.g., council members could not hear one another and due to the pandemic, only Zoom meetings were held) therefore, the Council had to reschedule the meeting for another vote. Also as stated above, the City Council unanimously approved a Motion to revisit the City’s connection to HBMWD within 3 – 5 years.

As of July 5, 2025, the City of Trinidad’s drought status is “abnormally dry” (U.S. Drought Monitor). Climate scientists have determined, with empirical evidence, that due to our climate crisis, drought severity will increase.

Planned water scarcity is a scary way to satisfy those who are making false claims about “substantial growth” and doing all they can to block the Trinidad Rancheria’s hotel from being built. The Trinidad Rancheria is a federally recognized sovereign nation; therefore, their business decisions are independent of the City of Trinidad.

Please move forward with the feasibility study and ultimately connect to HBMWD so that Trinidad can be a water resilient city.

Thank you,
Anita and Bill Thompson
Trinidad Water Customers
7/4/25, 5:45 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAG3uw9TZwsVHqpI3aMItnzQ%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
RE: Opposition to Reconsideration of Water Pipeline Plan From John Waters <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/4/2025 9:26 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc Jim & Ginny <[email protected]>; Ted Pease <[email protected]> July 4, 2025
FROM: John L. Waters, resident of North Trinidad since 1977 RE: Opposition to Reconsideration of Water Pipeline Plan To the Trinidad City Council:

Trinidad area residents are - once again - being subject to the threat of a water pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) to the city water plant.

The Council voted three times in 2021 NOT to move forward with such a pipeline, and instead to expand local water conservation measures in the form of water ponds.

Regarding this proposal, Why hasn’t the Trinidad City Council simply respected 1. the local residents’ points of view and 2. the natural environment, and acted with respect to and in accord with the popular rejection of this disconcerting proposal? Why does this proposal continue to be proposed year after year after year? Indeed, the years keep passing, and over and over the Trinidad City Council keeps on disrespecting 1. the popular vote and 2. the natural environment. At the same time, the residents’ money keeps on being spent in support of the City Council’s business. In terms of practicality and best use of time and money, this fact brings concern.

Today, the same old solid reasons - listed below - against the proposed water pipeline continue to be relevant. Truth does not go away. The objections will not go away no matter how much time, effort, and money anti-environment, anti - nature interests keep throwing at this target. Bear in mind that, as always, nature bats last.

Consistent thinking directs the Trinidad City Council and all area residents to consider the following concerns that will affect both current Trinidad water customers and the larger Trinidad area north of the Little River:

1. Development: A pipeline would induce substantial growth and development in the 7/4/25, 5:45 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAG3uw9TZwsVHqpI3aMItnzQ%3D Page 2 of 2 greater Trinidad area. Additional homes on either side of the 101 corridor from Westhaven north also would worsen wastewater run-off problems from septic systems, and expand population density and issues that come with it (e.g., traffic, etc.).

2. Proposed Rancheria Hotel: A pipeline would fulfill the Coastal Commission’s requirement of a reliable water source for the Trinidad Rancheria’s proposed 100-room hotel. The California Court of Appeal has imposed a second condition that the Rancheria present a plan showing that the proposed hotel could be defended against fire. This was a result of HARP's successful legal action.

3. Cost: While the City Council proposes simply to study the costs of extending the water main, why spend money for a project that is a detriment to the future of the area? There is no evidence that Trinidad's existing water system is not adequate. During the recent fiveyear drought, Trinidad never had to implement any of its emergency contingency plans.

Construction of a pipeline will likely mean higher water rates for Trinidad water customers for both construction and ongoing fees for the HBMWD water itself.

4. Dioxin: A plume of dioxin contamination from industrial sites has for years been moving downstream toward Mad River HBMWD water intakes. Therefore, all residents under the Trinidad City Council’s jurisdiction should be duly concerned for the sake of themselves and their children.

All those who seriously favor the construction and implementation of the proposed pipeline need to also plan for the construction and continual managment of an appropriate long-term sewerage project that daily pumps ALL of the new land developments’ sewerage (including all of the proposed Rancheria’s hotel’s wastewater and toilet wastes) all the way down the coast to be daily processed by the appropriate sewage treatment plant that already exists. (The one in McKinleyville?) On the other hand, that pseudosolution fails to address the problem of dioxin pollution (objection #4) and the problems of wastewater run-off from septic systems, the expanded population density, plus the issues that come with all that (e.g., traffic, etc.)(objection #1.) Sincerely yours,
John L. Waters
7/7/25, 5:46 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAEsnRiEXRkJEtMauazEQNVo%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
July 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
From Don Allan <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 5:35 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
1 attachment (18 MB)
Overview of Luffenholtz Creek Water Resources and Water Availability_PWA Oct 12_2021 (2) (1).pdf; Please convey my comments to the City Council:

Dear Council Members:

One again the City Council is considering funding a feasibility study to investigate connecting to the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD). This is at least the third time that I can think of that the issue has come up since I moved to Trinidad in 1983, but I am probably forgetting some instances. In 2021 the City hired Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA) to follow up on Steve Madrone's recommendation to tap the springs in upper Luffenholtz Creek and build water retention ponds to supplement ground water supplies during the dry season - to have a clean source of water that would avoid picking up the contaminants and sediment the creek picks up by the time it gets to the withdrawal point at Westhaven Drive. PWA confirmed Mr. Madrone's assertion that there is plenty of water in the Luffenholtz Creek watershed - more than enough to supply the City and even allow for some growth (Power Point presentation attached).

Not satisfied with the City's three (or more) previous studies and decisions to rely on its local water supply, there is another push to get the City to consider connecting to HBMWD, driven by a vocal but persistent minority. I strongly urge the City Council to reject his latest proposal to waste limited city funds on a study that will only tell us what we already know - yes, the pipeline could be extended to provide the City with water - but at an astronomical cost that will force the city to greatly expand its customer base by expanding its water service area. Feasible alternatives have been proposed. Why is there not a proposal to fund a feasibility study looking into expanding the City's Luffenholtz Creek water diversion.

The City has failed to follow up on Mr. Madrone's recommendation to negotiate with the landowners to develop the springs and pipe the water to the treatment plant. This would be a much more cost effective, i.e., cheaper, solution than connecting to HBMWD and it would avoid the growth-inducing effects of an unlimited supply of water from HBMWD.

If the City connects to HBMWD it will have to expand its customer base two or three fold to spread the costs out among more customers, or face an astronomical increase in local water bills. This was the finding of one study approximately 20 years ago when Chi Wei Linn was mayor.

The expansion needed to defray the costs of HBMWD water will not occur within the City as there are very few lots left on which to develop. The expansion will occur in the surrounding areas. So it's really the people outside the City boundaries in the outlying areas who have the most at stake here. As one of those people I ask you to please reject this proposal to waste scarce city resources on an unneeded feasibility study.

The inter-tie with Westhaven that will be completed this summer will provide emergency water to the City in the event of emergencies that interrupt the City's water supply. I noted in the staff report that the City is concerned that the City will lose its largest customer when the Trinidad Rancheria completes its pipeline extension of the HBMWD line. That is many years in the future and the City has time to improve its withdrawal sites on Luffenholtz Creek and prepare for the loss of the Rancheria as a customer by looking for new customers along Patricks Point Drive and Stage Coach Road.

I am perplexed that the City and its engineers have not acted on improving Luffenholtz Creek withdrawal infrastructure and negotiating with landowners, including Green Diamond Resource Company, to locate an appropriate withdrawal point and to build water retention ponds that will add to water storage and supplement 7/7/25, 5:46 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAEsnRiEXRkJEtMauazEQNVo%3D Page 2 of 2 summer low flows in Luffenholtz Creek. I encourage the new city council to consider the long history of the City's water management strategy and respect the findings of previous studies. Please reject this latest effort to conduct a feasibility study to connect to HBMWD and spend your limited energy and money on practical solutions that have been presented to you.

We all live here because we love the small town charm and relatively uncrowded neighborhoods we live in. Please don't destroy that by taking an action that will create irreversible momentum towards development.

Thank you for your service on the City Council.

Sincerely,
Don Allan,
Westhaven
(707) 273-8065
7/7/25, 9:49 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQABHYwP6nYbhKpn6RkYZ5cm8%3D Page 1 of 2 Outlook
Trinidad City Council Meeting July 8, 2025 - Agenda Item 2, Resident Comment From Jeff Bairey <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 10:05 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>; Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]> To: Trinidad City Council
July 6, 2025
Trinidad City Clerk
Trinidad City Manager
I oppose bringing Humboldt Bay Muni water to Trinidad because further development of our small village will be a direct result. As sure as day follows night, with more water we will get additional houses, increased density, more cars and further traffic congestion. I don’t think many of us want that. Getting more water sounds nice – but not if the price is too high. And the price we will pay by prompting further development will be steep. A more developed and crowded Trinidad is not what I want.

On the financial cost side, we can expect our monthly water bills to rise if we have to pay for importing water from out of our watershed. Pipelines, pumps, filtration and treatment, and delivery infrastructure are expensive and I have no illusions of who is going to end up paying for it all. The residents will. You and me. And the last thing Trinidad needs to do is get caught in another expensive water entanglement. We are still trying to get out of (and still paying for) the last one.

Lastly, Trinidad’s present water supply is sufficient for our needs. We’ve never had to ration water despite a recent stretch of very dry years, and with appropriate foresight and planning, we can further develop systems and methods to offset dry years in the future. This should be our path. Not piping in water from the Mad that comes with a host of attendant problems.

We do not need to spend money to participate in a study to bring something here that we already know we don’t want. Please vote no on this Agenda item at the city council meeting next Tuesday.

Jeff Bairey
829 Edwards St, Trinidad
Addendum: The Agenda packet contains a 6/10/2025 memo by city manager Tagliaboschi which addresses plans by the Rancheria to move to the HBMWD system and withdraw from the Trinidad water system. Joe’s memo says that Rancheria is the largest or one the largest customers on the Trinidad system, and if it leaves, there will be consequences to the remaining customers. Several questions are raised. What is the timeline for when the 7/7/25, 9:49 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…tNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQABHYwP6nYbhKpn6RkYZ5cm8%3D Page 2 of 2 Rancheria expected to withdraw from the Trinidad water system? When the Rancheria withdraws, how much additional water will then be available for the remaining Trinidad customers, and does this offset resolve the concern about there not being enough water for Trinidad system customers in dry years? And, with the Rancheria out of the system, what are the projected annual additional costs, if any, to the remaining Trinidad system customers? 7/7/25, 9:38 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQABscwT46KORBvDyhW6uZTGc%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
WATER
From Bob Lake <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 6:05 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Hi Gabe..

Just read about the Rancheria Hotel approval and the opportunity for us to participate in securing a vital and reliable water source for the citizens of Trinidad.

Hoping that the city takes a firm position this time and joins with the Rancheria in this terrific opportunity to capitalize on not just the water prize, but also recognizes there is a long list of associated benefits to the community by this going forward for us to take advantage of.

These associated benefits accrue to a major increase in sales tax revenues for us to use towards benefiting the citizenry with public works projects and general operating expenses in running the city; which a one hundred room Hotel will generate through retail shopping, gas station sales, restaurant participation, and vitalize.

The argument against this happening has largely played the role of expanded development which is bogus and without legs, since any development of any kind must go through the planning commission, and the Coastal commission which is where those morons need to go to voice their disagreement. This water issue is not the valid forum for objection.

Remember, Carmel, and Monterey and San Juan Capistrano are just three examples of managing development through planning commissions and permitting and it works pretty darn well. These are all intact one of a kind towns that decide local issues at the city level, and have managed to protect their individual identities.

Additionally, the city won't be tasked with meeting water quality standards, facilities costs, and water rationing including my own concerns about the wash down into Luffenholtz creek of potential toxic runoff from fire retardents and other surface pollutants that get by and wind up in open water sources like Luffenholtz creek.

The naysayers need to be turned away on this issue and the council needs to show the backbone and do the right thing this time. This is a terrific opportunity; don't let it go. We missed out once and the tribe has now shown they would welcome our participation despite the awful opposition the community demonstrated. Actually insulting them if you consider how much generosity they have shown to us in support. School crossing guard for the kids at the elementary school etc.

It's time we show up for the folks and the best interests of the community at large in taking a proactive position at the city level.

Bob Lake
7/7/25, 9:19 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…NDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAOJsEXuftsBCm7Aa6C4%2FvcY%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Water line from mckinleyville
From Trinidad CA <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 9:15 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Name: matt brody
Email: [email protected]
Message: No....and no.. We don't want a huge hotel here. Thankyou

7/7/25, 10:10 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAEOWxn606f5ItwhNWL6sp4I%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Proposed pipeline
From ds12frost <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 1:48 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear Council members,
Please reject any suggestion of the City joining the study of the proposed Mad River Water District pipeline. The City has adequate water from its existing resources to meet all the City's reasonable needs, even in drought years. Bringing in additional water would be a disaster, encouraging local over develppment and making possible the construction of the massive Tribal hotel. Trinidad is a wonderful place, but a fragile one. Please protect it by refusing to join the study.

Dan and Sara Frost
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
7/7/25, 9:49 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…DA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAP3FFhJaCeBAkBSd%2BWpQrbA%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
No on Pipeline
From Cecelia Gawrych <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 9:45 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
As a resident of Westhaven, we are No on the pipeline. Please keep our community the way it is.

We have enough water from the Westhaven Water supply we don’t need this.

Thank you,
Cecelia Linarte
681 Kay Ave
Westhaven, Ca
95570
Sent from my iPhone
7/7/25, 9:35 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAB7zyyMMZiBPoQ3Gqfq6VOk%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
McKinleyville to Trinidad Water Line
From Jeff Georgantes <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 7:22 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Hello,
I own a house in Westhaven and I am against the McKinleyville to Trinidad Water Line Proposal.

Thanks!
Theodore Jeffrey Georgantes
7/7/25, 9:37 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…DA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAHD1Rm0hzsFLhA%2BSGSqVTbY%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Trinidad Water Pipeline Revisited
From hjerpe <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 7:30 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear Trinidad City Council:

I have lived on North Westhaven Drive for 45 years. The issue of a water pipeline from Eureka has come up twice before. On each occasion, the long time residents have opposed this for many reasons, and the proposal has been rejected by the City Council both times. It is incredible that this is coming up again.

The last time this came up, one of the major arguments against a pipeline was that the existing water system was sufficient and would be resilient to any future drought if leaks were prepared and small reservoirs could be incorporated. The city was supposed to assess this option and had been working on it.

If drought resilience concerns can be satisfied by fixing the leaks, it is not reasonable or necessary to pipe in larger volumes of water.

Other concerns remain. Importing large volumes of water from Eureka invites development and development will change the character of this community. What makes this area attractive is the quaint seaside village surrounded by a forest of redwood trees. It is unique and it is why everyone finds it so attractive. We already struggle with downtown traffic during the tourist season. We struggle with the changing population in Trinidad with so many of the houses being devoted to short term rentals. Why encourage the changes that would rob this community of what makes it special?
Please do not open this door again. Please respect the considered decisions the City Council made on two prior occasions. Please rehabilitate the system we have and reject the proposal to pipe in water from Eureka.

Audi Voss Hjerpe
363 North Westhaven Drive, Trinidad.
�
7/7/25, 10:01 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…tNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQACdWywK2d95ArP6OBFBQ8wU%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
HBMWD Water Pipeline Study Comment
From Gail Kenny <[email protected]>
Date Sat 7/5/2025 2:23 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Hi Gabe:

Please forward my comments about the HBMWD pipeline study to the Trinidad City Council members.

I have been a resident of Trinidad for 35 years. I am against the City Council spending money on doing a study about whether to join the Trinidad Rancheria in hooking up to the HBMWD pipeline study. Former Trinidad City Councils have already rejected this idea a few times for good reasons.

In the past year, the City has done extensive work on fixing the leaks in the water pipes from the water plant in Westhaven and has added a water holding tank. More water is flowing in Luffenholtz Creek since illegal pot grows that were tapping into the creek are no longer operational with the legalization of marijauna. Even when we had an extended drought, the water lines were leaking and people were stealing the water, the City did not run out of water.

We are in better shape now.

Hooking up to the HBMWD pipeline would potentially increase our water rates.

Sincerely,
Gail Kenny
462 Ocean Avenue
Trinidad City Water Fact Sheet
Compiled from City water reports on the City website by Steve Ladwig Water right of 0.56 CFS
Bypass <0.15 CFS
Curtailed Extraction 0.16 - 0.71
Full Extraction >0.71
Lowest confirmed creek flow in last 50 years - approximately 0.5 CFS (calculated based on measured values in nearby watersheds) (and represents evening illegal extraction upstream)
Average Peak Use in July - approx 60,000 gallons per day Approximate need for buildout if 3 areas were annexed - 20,000 gallons per day
The Water plant can produce in excess of 170,000 gallons per day (120gpmx60x24)
7/7/25, 9:34 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…A4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAKE6sI%2F%2FUR1OnwaInFRA14g%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Public Comments/ CC agenda item #2. OPPOSED to Water feasibility study for Trinidad and HBMWD
From Kathleen Lake <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 9:14 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc Citymanager Trinidad <[email protected]>
To: Trinidad City Council Meeting
Re: Public Comments/ CC agenda item #2. OPPOSED to Water feasibility study for Trinidad drinking water pipeline and HBMWD
I am opposed to a drinking water pipeline feasibility study. The city council has voted not to approve a feasibility study repeatedly over the past few years. The public has been very vocal in their opposition and reasons why. It appears disingenuous that the City of Trinidad continues to hammer this issue when there is no evidence of need. I strongly support the comments and research of HARP the Humboldt Alliance for Responsible Planning. Please vote with the public in mind and not the dollar signs that developers obviously see with this water connection. Vote NO feasibility study again! And again! And again!
Thank you,
Kathleen Lake
7/7/25, 9:35 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAN2EAFCeWUpDkNZ0rSQfBF0%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
HBMWD Agenda, Public Comments
From paula levine <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 8:53 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
7/06/2025
Dear City Council,
Kudos to your exhaustive documentation provided to the public affirming the reasons for the CC to take affirmative action on Action Agenda #2.

Please expedite the feasibility study. Trinidad City has periodically discussed tying into HBMWD for 60 years. It will never get cheaper or easier to access the advantages of HBMWD compared to relying on Luffenholtz.

None of the Humboldt communities relying on HBMWD for decades have ever regretted their decision and neither will we.

Thank you,
Paula Levine
Mill Creek Lane
Trinidad [SOI B]
PS. Please find a way to communicate with SOI and nearby residents to find out how many existent homes are struggling with insufficient wells and/or substandard homegrown systems pumping water out of creeks.

If we had a more resilient source of water, Trinidad could raise more $$$ to support the water system by providing a needed service to nearby residents. Let's be good neighbors. 7/7/25, 4:04 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQANVGIVlguzlErKabB0AWouM%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Water study
From Madrone, Steve <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 3:17 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
1 attachment (17 KB)
City Council and City ManagerJuly 7.docx;
Here is my letter.

Steve Madrone
County of Humboldt
Supervisor, District 5
(707) 476-2395
City Council and City Manager, City of Trinidad July 7, 2025 Congatulations
First, I want to congratulate the City on securing millions of dollars of funding to replace an old tank and fix leaking pipes. No matter what your source of water is these improvements are good investments. There will always be leaky pipes to replace and water saved in the pipes is water saved in the creek.

Resiliency important
Resiliency is important and there are several other items that can help that as well. Adding more storage be it tanks or reservoirs, and doing forest thinning (not clearcutting) can also help to bring water tables up.

Emergencies
There have been several instances when Emergency water shortages have been declared from drought, due to broken pipes along main lines and under houses during hard freezes (in the 1980’s) when pipes broke and drained tanks. During the drought of 2021-23 there is documentation that illegal cannabis operations in the LuUenholtz watershed dropped the flow in the creek by nearly 50% several times in August. That contributed to the low flows in the creek. These operations have been shut down and monitoring of flows continues.

LA Fires
During the LA fires there was plentiful water but infrastructure issues prevented the delivery of water. Same thing could happen here where storage or a pipeline extension could have plenty of water but if pipes break in an earthquake then that water is not being delivered.

Distributed storage
This is where Distributed water storage can help. 500 households with 5,000 gallons of storage with 3 inch nozzles on the tanks could store 2.5 million gallons of water all over the community right where it may be needed to fight a structure fire. Grants are available to help landowners do this and it would not cost the City anything for construction or for O&M which would be on the landowner.

Reservoirs
The PWA report did recommend additional storage in reservoirs but it is diUicult to site reservoirs in this terrain. PWA also studied the storage capacity of the uplifted marine terrace in just LuUenholtz and found that the sand layers stored from 25-30% of the storage of Ruth Lake. That is a massive amount of water that drains out slowly helping to support a year round flow in LuUenholtz Creek. The creek has never gone dry in recorded history. If there were a future shortage in late summer or fall, distributed storage could go a long way towards bridging that shortage. By October the days get shorter and evaporation/transpiration slow down and the flows in the creeks goes back up.

Pipeline extension
There has been talk for decades about extending the water line from McKinleyville to the Trinidad area. The pros and cons of such a venture have been discussed but never adequately identified and documented. LAFCO made a request of HBMWD for info on the growth inducing eUects for the Trinidad area from unlimited water availability and the eUects on water rates. This was requested as part of their Municipal Service Review and even though the District promised to provide that info it never did. The City would be well advised to request this info from the water district before agreeing to join any engineering studies. This information should be developed at the districts expense.

With tonights discussion by the City about joining the engineering studies for the pipeline extension it begs the question about how the City will pay for these expensive studies.

Given the lack of reserves in the water fund what will be the source of funds to pay for this? It is a well known fact that providing unlimited water can cause growth in an area. Maybe not in Trinidad but certainly the surrounding areas. This will have impacts on density of shoppers at the store and users of trails and beaches. Water rates with HBMWD will need to include the cost of water to McK, then to wheel water to Trinidad and pumping electrical costs to do that. A new line will cost significant amounts of funding for engineering, design, and permits. There will be construction costs as well as O%M ongoing. Add to this the likely drop in sales tax revenue for the City as a source of cheaper gas at the casino gets built.

These cost will likely raise water rates.

There is also a significant unknow whether a pipeline extension can be or will be approved by LAFCO for an out of district pipeline extension. Similar to the Mill Creek Lane water connection issue, it has been stated by LAFCO staU that annexation of that area would be a LAFCO preference before connecting. LAFCO water line extension outside of district will be a complicated issue and may require annexation of areas. If it is only Trinidad and the rancheria that are requesting water then that annexation would be an island unconnected to the HBMWD current boundaries. This goes against LAFCO policy of not creating island annexations and encouraging urban sprawl. Annexation is also subject to the voters approval. On the issue of a pipeline extension from the HBMWD, Westhaven has said no thank you and others have also said no. The City said no 3 times although it was a 3/2 split. 7/7/25, 9:34 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAGP7N2RkZAJOi0pKbLHAAo0%3D Page 1 of 3 Outlook
water ... comments for CC mtg 7/8/2025, Agenda Action Item 2 (please forward to CC) From Dwight <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 10:44 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Cc Dwight <[email protected]>
Hello, Gabe and City Councilors -
Please support the Agenda Action Item 2:

Participation in a Feasibility Study to Join the Trinidad Rancheria in a Drinking Water Pipeline Connection project with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

Here are my thoughts, formed from 10 years as City Councilor (2010-2020) and 2 years as Mayor (2016-2017).
• We need humility ... we (city councilors) are amateurs ... reluctantly involved in politics, and ill-prepared to decide the science and uncertainties that predict the availability of our water.
• We need to be wise. We need the best predictions, from the most sciencebased sources, eschewing emotion as much as possible. A feasibility study is needed to guide us. We cannot decide wisely in an atmosphere of heated emotions.

Of the current water debate:
• One side is concerned about the possibility of diminished quality of life if we access a more certain water supply. They are concerned about growth in our area, mostly Westhaven and Trinidad-North.

I am keenly aware of those feelings ... for several years, I supported that view.

Most of the "community" comments you receive will be from Outer Trinidad.

Some city residents signed a petition circulated in 2021 by (now Councilor) Bryce Kenny, supporting no-water-from-HBMWD (pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District). Those signatories were given a brief personal "pitch" on how HBMWD water would diminish our quality of life. Bryce is very personable and likable (I consider him a friend), but his brief pitch was one-sided. One 7/7/25, 9:34 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAGP7N2RkZAJOi0pKbLHAAo0%3D Page 2 of 3 neighbor who signed that petition later chatted with me about the complexities of this issue ...about how the probability of drought (and more rain) is higher in our heating climate. She said that she would not have signed had she heard more about the climate/HBMWD side of the argument.

In summary, most of the opposition to HBMWD water is emotional. These pleas to stop HBMWD water would have us ignore dramatic predictions of climate science (see further comments below).
• The other side of the debate, a pipeline from HBMWD, would be our choice if we lack confidence that Luffenholtz's flow will be the same as it has been for the period of our records (70+ years). A local Luffenholtz-flow-expert, Steve Madrone (whom I also consider a friend), has testified several times before our council that we do not need to worry ... we have come close but never experienced drought.

However, Steve Madrone's science assumes future variability of flow projected from our past records (ie... similar deviations from the norm).

I taught college statistics for 20 years ... I understand that our predictions are only as good as the data from which we predict.

CLIMATE CHANGE cannot be wished away.
"Mean annual precipitation is projected to increase modestly in the northern part of the
state, but year-to-year variability is also projected to increase, leading to a greater
incidence of dry years in future decades, ...

By the end of the century under the RCP 8.5 scenario, winter precipitation is projected to
increase by up to 20%, but decrease in spring and autumn by up to 20%." Highlight from:

CLIMATE, DROUGHT, AND SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR
CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT, 2018
My conversion in the water debate came as I read from [the above-quoted] 2018 report by California climate experts. They noted that our past data sets are no longer reliable as predictors. With atmospheric heating, there will be greater variability: much more rain at times, and much more drought at other times.

More rain is OK for us ( it will mostly occur in our winters, when we don't need it).

More drought will drop us below the minimum required flow for Luffenholtz. A few more reservoirs will not be enough for our tiny town.

Ruth Lake and its surplus (HBMWD supply) is much greater as a future resource. 7/7/25, 9:34 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAGP7N2RkZAJOi0pKbLHAAo0%3D Page 3 of 3 Communities south of Trinidad contracted with HBMWD in the 1960s and have never regretted it. Why?
Stable water bill costs, resiliency to droughts, and lower risks of running out of water due to fire emergencies are just some of the reasons.

These are my thoughts, summarized from 20 years of this debate.

Please support a science-based evaluation of the merits of these positions. Our GHD team should be empowered to fully explore our options.

Thank you,
Dwight Miller, PhD
7/7/25, 5:55 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAEYcMQ11mCRPnKN7UGiepnA%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Opposed to Water Pipelines - City of Trinidad Resident
From Andrew Orahoske <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 5:00 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
July 7, 2025
I am writing to respectfully oppose the extension of the water supply pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District to anywhere near the City of Trinidad. I understand it to be agenda item #2 in your agenda for discussion/action.

There are multiple reasons why the City should not support this water project.

However, I request, as an initial matter, that anyone currently sitting on the council confirm to the public that they are an actual resident. Simply owning property does not count, and at least one council member no longer meets that critical threshold. Therefore, before any vote on this agenda item, that council member should immediately resign, and not partake in any discussion in the water project item.

Now, onto the real problems:

Insufficient wastewater facilities to deal with the influx of additional water supply. The City of Trinidad would need to build a wastewater treatment facility somewhere in town to deal with the excess runoff.

Pollution coming from upstream sources in the Mad River will soon make it impossible to distribute water to existing communities, nonetheless extend it to new ones.

Growth inducing impacts from additional water supply have not been adequately analyzed in any CEQA document. Should the City desire are course in CEQA compliance, please let me know.

Put an end to this water pipeline. Thank you.

Andrew Orahoske
760 Edwards Street
PO Box 441
Trinidad, CA 95570
7/7/25, 5:48 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…DA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQACttJBOe%2BANBms4LcRaVdQw%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Please forward my email to each council member
From Karen Parker <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 5:04 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear Trinidad City Council Members,
As neighbors directly affected by the proposed development across the street from our home, we are writing to respectfully express our strong opposition to the subdivision of five homes on this small parcel.

We fully understand the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and that the zoning may technically allow for this number of units. However, five homes on this property is simply too dense for the neighborhood and will dramatically impact the character, traffic, and quality of life for those of us who live nearby.

Just because something is allowed by zoning does not automatically make it the right fit for a specific location. We urge you to consider the long-term impacts and listen carefully to the voices of residents who will be directly affected.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Ken and Karen Parker
207 N Westhaven Drive
7/7/25, 5:48 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…DA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQACttJBOe%2BANBms4LcRaVdQw%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Please forward my email to each council member
From Karen Parker <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/7/2025 5:04 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear Trinidad City Council Members,
As neighbors directly affected by the proposed development across the street from our home, we are writing to respectfully express our strong opposition to the subdivision of five homes on this small parcel.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Ken and Karen Parker
207 N Westhaven Drive
7/7/25, 11:31 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQABLX5ZfVXnNPnqL8Yz1B75M%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
HBM Water District study
From Mike Sebring <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 1:19 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Discussion/Decision regarding Participation in a Feasibility Study to connect the City of Trinidad to Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

The City’s continuing attempts to modernize and maintain the current Boutique Water purification facility for Trinidad is not sustainable. Water customers are being saddled with huge increases that still do not cover costs. Those increases are going to continue to rise while the proportion of the city budget going to water grows in relation to the overall budget.

Imagine the city budget as a pie with a large wedge of the pie representing the expenditure for water plant maintenance. That wedge is growing faster than the city can bring in revenue and could very well replace available funds used for many other vital City functions. This fact alone should be sufficient to justify the feasibility study.

Also, this is fundamentally a City of Trinidad problem that has generated a cacophony of noise from outside city agitators spreading false narratives about explosive growth, HBMWD polluted drinking water among other non-facts, nonsense specifically designed to whip up an emotional response to stop a rational fact-based study.

It is time to stop the fear-based nonsense and understand through this study if we can get costs under control and spread them across the entire county. 7/7/25, 10:03 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…tNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQADd7AZvoLkBPuU5%2FYxaqjtI%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Proposed pipeline
From larry Soll <[email protected]>
Date Sat 7/5/2025 11:17 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed water pipeline from Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District to Trinidad. I believe that our water district is doing a fine job and prefer investment in that...Iam opposed to the pipeline also because of that potential for increase development all the waste and impact that would cause potentially negatively impacting quality of life and tourism...thank you
Larry Soll
Trinidad California
Dear Trinidad City Council , Friends, Neighbors,
We seem to have a manufactured crisis- we are not, by any means, running out of water, yet there are many who believe that Luffenholtz Creek is not sufficient for future needs. I have not seen an independent study ( and I stress independent) with the facts that support such a claim.

Even at its lowest point in several six or seven year drought, of which there have been several in the 45+ years we have lived in Trinidad, Luffenholtz Creek continues to supply enough water for the needs of Trinidad. I know this because I get my water from a tributary of Luffenholtz and it has been a steady source. Most communities in California would love to have such a fantastic water supply.

The Issue is really storage for a cataclysmic event. Pacific Watershed Associates suggested one million gallons of storage. Others have suggested ponds, which could be developed, and I believe is the best and most cost-effective idea.

I ask you, why would you indebt yourselves, your children and your children’s children to such a costly and yes, overkill idea of bringing water in a pipeline, over unstable ground for miles? Feasibility study?? Yikes, I can tell you without any study it will cost millions of dollars and the utility will expect Trinidad to pay from the inception. And Trinidad is not a wealthy community.

Secondly, why would you pay for something that will completely change life as we know it in Trinidad? Right now, on any nice day, we are invaded by a large population from out of town trying to evade the heat, get to the beaches, enjoy our small town lifestyle, and possibly slow down from crowds and traffic. Unlimited water, even with restrictions for septic, will allow rampant development both north of Trinidad to Su-Meg Park, throughout Westhaven, and even Scenic Drive. You think it's crowded now? It will become unbearable with the addition of hundreds of suddenly available lots. We have no infrastructure to support this kind of growthour roads cannot take the traffic, parking is limited, and frankly, do you want to support this massive beach town growth that we see in SoCal? Is that the plan from our city officials, those who we elect to watch out for our future?
Our lifestyle is enviable now, and we see that many are drawn to it. After 45 years selling real estate in this area, I have a good idea of why people come to our town. I talk to prospective Buyers every day about Trinidad, and the one constant is the pace of life, the access to our beautiful Bay and State Parks, and our helpful locals who service the tourists.

The Rancheria would love to include Trinidad as a payor for this pipeline. It relieves them of part of the massive debt. What will it cost eventually for a house in town to hook up to this water?? $20,000? $50,000? Is Trinidad going to be a crowded little coastal town for only the super rich? I find that thought very disturbing.

Sincerely,
Patty Stearns
Broker- Coldwell Banker Sellers Realty and long time Trinidad resident 7/7/25, 10:02 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYyYjYtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAMrlRsPplT5Pg9mzLBPRKNQ%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Pipeline Discussion (Item 2 on 7-8-25 Agenda)
From Kimberly Tays <[email protected]>
Date Sat 7/5/2025 12:02 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Hi Gabe,
Will you please forward my email to the City Council and publish this public comment for the upcoming 7-8-25 City Council meeting. Hope all is well with you.

Thank you, Kim
************************************************************************************ Dear Trinidad City Council,
Even though I no longer live in Trinidad, I care very much about preserving the charm and character of Greater Trinidad. If a water pipeline is brought up to the Trinidad area, that will undoubtedly ruin the rural character of Trinidad and its surroundings, because that new, plentiful source of water would open up the area to big developments like the planned 6-story hotel on the Trinidad Rancheria’s property.

Please help us protect Trinidad by voting no on considering the water pipeline plan.

Thank you, Kim Tays
Sent from my iPad
7/7/25, 9:45 PM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWY…YtNDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQAOjtmuPahMVMu0KGcVrAAWw%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
Please vote no on the water pipeline from HBMWD
From Sherry Vanderpool <[email protected]>
Date Sun 7/6/2025 2:35 PM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Dear City Council Members,
We strongly urge you to vote no on the water pipeline from HBMWD, as we feel it will allow considerable future development; changing the character of our small village.

The cost of construction and fees for the HBMWD water will most likely raise water costs for Trinidad residents.

A follow up by the City on other ways to store water for use in drought years is warranted and would be appreciated.

As always, we recognize and respect your willingness to serve the City of Trinidad’s residents.

Thank you,
Sherry and Chuck Vanderpool
4 July 2025
Dear Trinidad City Council Members –
It is depressing to me that the Trinidad City Council appears once more to be considering working with the Trinidad Rancheries to explore the feasibility and costs of hooking up to the HBMWD pipeline for its water supply. In fall 2021, aJer Pacific Watershed Associates gave their fine presentaOon on the Luffenholtz Creek watershed and water supply, I had expected that Trinidad would have made tangible progress developing modest-sized storage ponds in the Luffenholtz watershed, to augment the water supply if necessary if the climate future leads to lower late summer/fall flows in Luffenholtz Creek.

There is no evidence of any substanOve acOon having been taken. Instead, the TCC seems to once again be taking up a very bad idea.

Below, I provide a very brief summary, yet again, of the argument in opposiOon to Trinidad proposing to rely on HBMWD as a water supply.

1. INCREASED DEVELOPMENT. IF Trinidad hooked up to HBMWD, there would be a large increase in development in the Trinidad/Westhaven area (at least), due to the effecOvely "unlimited" availability of water compared to exisOng demand. This development would be largely outside the City of Trinidad and the Westhaven Community Services District, but demand for development would be extreme.

Couple this with the just enacted changes to CEQA: there would probably be greatly reduced opportunity for the wisdom of new growth to be quesOoned.

2. TRINIDAD HAS NEVER YET HAD A SERIOUS WATER SUPPLY ISSUE. Trinidad has NEVER had to request that its customers raOon their use of water, though it has developed conOngency plans (per a State requirement) for a very serious drought situaOon IF that were ever required. There is NO exisOng NEED to hook up to HBMWD.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF WATER STORAGE PONDS WOULD SOLVE ANY FUTURE CONCERNS. In 2021, Pacific Watersheds Associates gave an impressive presentaOon on Luffenholtz Creek and evaluated its suitability as a water supply. They concluded that it is enOrely adequate for the exisOng Trinidad Service Area at present. If future climate in our area reduces rainfall or significantly changes the padern of rainfall, it would be wise to develop some modest-sized storage ponds in the Luffenholtz watershed, to store winter rains/flow for potenOal use during very late summer/early fall during extreme drought years. With such ponds, Trinidad would have absolutely no need to hook up to HBMWD. WHAT HAS TRINIDAD DONE IN THE PAST 3.5 YR TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND COSTS OF DEVELOPING THESE PONDS?

4. COSTS FOR CUSTOMERS. IF Trinidad hooked up to HBMWD, the resulOng COSTS FOR CUSTOMERS WOULD LIKELY BE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED:

A. Trinidad would have to PAY conOnuously for water that is now FREE. (Cost of water would include a charge/volume from HBMWD; a"wheeling" charge from McKinleyville Services District; and electricity costs for pumping water uphill from Clam Beach to Trinidad area); B. Trinidad would have to PAY for an extension of the pipeline from the Trinidad Rancheria (current desOnaOon of proposed pipeline). This would require loans for which payments must be passed on to customers;
C. Trinidad would probably have to pay some "share" of the cost of gehng the pipeline from Clam Beach (or elsewhere) to the Trinidad Rancheria. From a report from HBMWD General Manager Friedenbach to the HBMWD Board on Oct 6, 2021 (“City” refers to the City of Trinidad):

Again, this would require paying off loans which must be passed onto customers; D. Trinidad would have to conOnue to maintain and operate its exisOng water delivery system (pipes, pumps, treatment plant, meters, billing, staffing).

E. The State of Drinking Water has said that if Trinidad hooked up to HBMWD, they would most likely mandate extension of water service up both Stagecoach and Patrick's Point drive all the way to Seawood drive to supply properOes with unreliable water sources. Cost for extension of these water lines would be in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 per mile (Engineering and construcOon).

The city would be unlikely to recover these costs via charges for new services connecOons. This would also certainly create the potenOal for further growth and development (see Concern I. )

5. Fire FighEng. I have consulted with a local expert on firefighOng. He tells me that the recent massive fires that have taken place in Paradise, Palisades, and other CA locaOons, have shown that municipal water supplies are no match for massive conflagraOons. Local fire-fighOng manpower is extremely limited in our area and oJen further limited during the fire season. Access to HBMWD water supply vs Luffenholtz Creek water supply would have lidle or no impact on the ability to fight large fires in the Trinidad area. Fires at individual exisOng homes could be handled by the exisOng system.

I urge TCC Council members to once again reject the proposal for eventual connecOon to the HBMWD pipeline. No good will come from this idea.

Dave Hankin, 756 9th Ave, Trinidad 95570
7/8/25, 10:13 AM
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADkxOWYxMDM1LWYy…NDA4Zi05MTBhLTY4Y2I3NTgyYTFjMwAQADDLC104BxlFnxX%2B9btuvkw%3D Page 1 of 1 Outlook
YIHA development
From Trinidad CA <[email protected]>
Date Tue 7/8/2025 9:48 AM
To Cityclerk Trinidad <[email protected]>
Name: renata olczak
Email: [email protected]
Message: Good morning! My name is Renata Olczak and I am writing to express my strong concern about the proposed 5-house subdivision on North Westhaven Drive in our rural neighborhood. I, as well as my partner, Ian MacDougall, and our 2 children ages 6 and 3 are the direct neighbors of this proposed project. This area is already burdened by traffic and safety issues, and adding five more homes is simply too much for this location. Lessening the amount of homes to 3 or less makes more sense for the area. As a parent of young children, I worry deeply about increased traffic on our already busy street. Many families here rely on the quiet nature of this community. More houses mean more cars, more congestion, and greater risk of accidents. We are also requesting a privacy fence be put up between our property and the proposed housing development and ask this be a condition of approval. Additionally, I would like to mention my concern regarding the sale of the parcel. The Yurok housing authority MAY not have done their due diligence before they bought the property and it seems as if they want to overdevelop it to compensate for their poor choice in acquiring the property. I respectfully urge you to reconsider the scale of this development. A smaller project — fewer houses — would have far less impact on safety, traffic, and the peaceful rural nature of our community. Please prioritize the voices of existing residents who are directly affected. We are counting on your leadership to protect our quality of life. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Renata Olczak, Ian MacDougall Can you please make this comment part of public record? Thanks!

Trinidad City CouncilJuly 8, 2025

Trinidad City Council
July 8, 2025