Clifton Community Council


Please note that the CCC Board of Directors has approved to changes to the bylaws and, pursuant to our bylaws and Kentucky non-profit requirements, these changes must be voted on by the Clifton Community Council membership.  The changes require approval by two thirds of the members present to pass.
The first request is to change Article VI, Section 1, A that the CCC annual meeting meeting date will be held during the month of May to during the month of May or June.  This change is requested in order to coordinate the meeting and our other activities, and to enable us to provide appropriate communication about these events to the membership.
The second requested change is to add a conflict of interest policy to the bylaws as required by the IRS.  This statement may be seen at

The MSD info:

Summary and Background of potential MSD retention basin (I-64 & Grinstead):

MSD has entered into a consent decree with EPA to clean up our area waterways by having much less untreated sewage flow into creeks and rivers. The entire project is called IOAP (Integrated Overflow Abatement Plan), and a number of sub-projects will be designed to prevent sewage in CSOs (Combined Sewer Overflow areas) from entering waterways untreated. The component that is closest to Clifton is a proposed large retention basin to be built near I-64 and Grinstead Drive (the MSD-favored site is behind Jim Porter's). This basin, once planned to hold up to 2.74 million gallons of liquid, is now planned to hold 15.13 million gallons (better measurements of water flow are now in place). Four CSOs would flow into this basin (from the Highlands, Grinstead Drive, Beals Branch Rd., and parts of southern Clifton; referenced as CSOs 125, 126, 127, 166) and would reduce the amount of sanitary sewer flowthat would enter Beargrass Creek. Currently, during dry or light rain events, all liquid is treated. During moderate to heavy rain events, much of the liquid enters the combined sanitary and storm sewer system and overflows into creeks.

Because of its proximity to Clifton a number of residents (and the CCC) have followed the situation closely and attended several meetings to learn more about the subject.

Everyone's task, led by and mostly performed by MSD, is to determine the best and most cost-effective method of minimizing sewer overflow into the waterways.

The Clifton Community Council has invited a representation of MSD to the Quarterly meeting of the CCC on March 27 to discuss the project.

Some of the questions that we hope the MSD representative will be able to address include:

1. The retention basin has grown in scale from the original 2.74 million gallons to the current plan of 15.13 million gallons. What changed to modify the scale this dramatically? If there was a lack of correct information, what has been the effect on water treated and untreated? If this basin was needed in the past to prevent sewage overflow, what prevented it from being proposed to the public?

2. Assuming that a retention basin of some size will be built, what is the current estimated time frame?

3. Briefly, what other areas close to Clifton have been considered for placement of a retention basin. Again, briefly, pros and cons of each.  Has there been any additional information about the status of the radio tower and its field as a potential place for the basin?

4. The area proposed for a basin now serves as a pass-through park space with the bicycle path, and as a park-adjoining-buffer area between Cherokee Park and I-64. What will be the impact on livability and property values during and after construction of the proposed storage basin?  Heavy equipment access during and after construction?

5. Odor mitigation for such a large project (there have been reports of odor problems currently at Spring St./Lexington Rd. and near theSwift and Opta plants in Butchertown)? What will be done to reduce or eliminate adverse effects on nearly businesses and users of all park-like areas?

6. What could residents and businesses (of Clifton and other areas) do to help reduce the size and cost of the proposed basin? As ratepayers, would it not be in our best interest to take other steps that might reduce or eliminate the need for this basin? Are there changes to the land development code that could be instituted (by Metro Council?) that could help the situation? If every house/business disconnected their downspouts from the combined sewer, what effect would there be on the reduction in size of the proposed basin?

7. What are other possibilities that could reduce immediate storm runoff into the combined sewers? Natural retention areas?

8. What is the effect of having the proposed basin well within the 100-year flood plain? The past flood levels of the Ohio River are available. Are flood levels of Beargrass Creek in this area available?

9. What documents are available on this project (web addresses)?

10. There are a number of substantial rate increases (partially implemented, more to come) that will probably take effect over the next 12 years. What agency approves these increases? What powers might be granted to MSD (in the future) by which government/businesses/residents be required to take steps to reduce storm runoff (in place of rate increases).

11. Is it true that the Morris Foreman Treatment Plant is already over capacity (cannot handle the existing sanitary flow with storm runoff)?

12. Does storm runoff outside the CSO area (from St. Matthews or other areas) feed into these four CSOs and thus increase the required size of the proposed retention basin? If so, what can be done to minimize this upstream contribution to the problem? What about Louisville Water Company discharge? Do they (or can they) stop/reduce this discharge during wet weather?

Posted by johnbaker on 03/25/2012
Louisville, Kentucky 40206