5-12-2026
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Item 1: Discussion/Decision regarding Trinidad Drinking Water System Comparative Analysis Options.
Hello Council Members. I’ve just become aware that the City of Trinidad is discussing options for its water system, including possible participation in the proposed water pipeline currently being pursued by the Trinidad Rancheria. When I served on Trinidad’s Planning Commission, we vigorously discussed this as part of the on-going General Plan Update. Please allow me to offer some comments, and questions.
Others have suggested that water from the proposed pipeline would still need to be “cleaned” by running it through the existing Trinidad Water Plant. In reading the Staff Report I don't recall any mention of the need to "treat" the HBMWD water via the existing Trinidad water plant. Perhaps I missed it, but my understanding was the "treatment' was required to flush contaminants from Luffenholtz Creek, but no mention was made of the need for treatment of HBMWD water. Can Staff provide clarification? Steve Madrone's plan is very forward-thinking and I like it. Unfortunately it also requires a pilot test program to determine feasibility. It also would require participation or at least permission from multiple private land owners outside the city limits. Does Trinidad really have the time and resources to pursue this plan?
Long range land-use Planning is often fraught with controversy, and sometimes major regrets. When I grew up in San Francisco (1950s-1960s) the bay area began development of a Rapid Transit System. Each County had the option to join or not. Marin County declined, for many of the same reasons some Trinidad residents oppose a new water pipeline. Marin's biggest fear was Growth. Well, it happened anyway but without any transportation plan/system to accommodate that growth. They have no way to expand the freeway (US101) and even if they could the traffic still must be funneled onto the Golden Gate Bridge. (FWIW, my father was a member of the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District from the late 1950s through 1970), The Trinidad Staff Report addresses concerns about Growth in the Greater Trinidad Area and points out that residential growth is constrained by a number of "barriers', most notably the lack of a solid waste management plant. We will be on Septic even with a new water source, and Septic systems serve as a major constraint to development, particularly multifamily residential.
Staff also makes the point that the Rancheria is moving ahead with plans for a hook-up via HBMWD. They have access to the funding and a clear desire to do this. The report notes that Trinidad can either be part of the process of a pipeline expansion, of sit on the sidelines while others make decisions that will greatly impact the future of the Trinidad Area.
Closer to home, look what happened in Arcata when residents of the Sunset District (next to US101) opposed a private project to build mix use multi-family residential (largely student housing). I, and others, warned the Council that if they didn't approve a private project the land could be purchased by the State. If that were to happen, Arcata would have Zero 'say' in how the property was developed. The private developers became so frustrated by Arcata's dithering and changing demands that they gave up and sold the property to the State. The huge dorms next to US101 are the result. Through inaction, Arcata gave it's "seat at the table" and had no say it what would happen on that property.
IMO, this can very easily happen to Trinidad. Don’t lose your seat at the table.
Respectfully
John Graves
Former Chair, Trinidad Planning Commission
Former Chair, Arcata Planning Commission`
677 Driver Road
Trinidad, CA. 95570