Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming keeps municipal water system, declines Cincinnati connection
Summary
A presentation recounted that Wyoming chose in February to keep its local municipal water system rather than connect to the Cincinnati Waterworks, continuing a pattern of local investment in water infrastructure dating to the 1890s.
A presentation at a Wyoming City Council meeting recounted that in February the city chose to keep its municipal water system rather than connect to the Cincinnati Waterworks, opting to replace its existing water treatment plant instead of joining Cincinnati's system (the transcript did not specify the year of that February decision).
The choice continues a long history of local decisions to develop and upgrade Wyoming's water infrastructure. According to the presentation, early settlers relied on springs, small streams and the West Fork of the Mill Creek; the village pursued a municipal waterworks beginning in 1890 after a successful test well. Construction completed in 1892 and included four wells, a pumping station on Vine Street, about 6.5 miles of water mains and a 3,000,000-gallon open reservoir on Oliver Road.
The presentation said the reservoir at Oliver Road was replaced with a closed tank in 1949 and a single-pedestal spherical water tower — locally known as the “golf ball” — was erected to serve new hilltop subdivisions. In 1959, after a resident poll, the city council voted to spend $1,000,000 to upgrade the water treatment plant rather than connect to the Cincinnati Waterworks. The presentation also noted that during past droughts the system sold water to outside users at 2 cents a barrel.
The account distinguishes discussion points from formal actions: it records council decisions in 1890 to build a municipal waterworks, the 1949 reservoir replacement, the 1959 decision to fund upgrades rather than connect to Cincinnati, and a February decision to replace a 10-year-old treatment plant rather than join Cincinnati’s system. The transcript does not provide motions, vote tallies, or the mover/second information for those decisions.
The presentation did not specify current funding sources, the year of the February decision, or any vote records or motions related to that decision. It also did not specify whether any current required permits or outside approvals would be needed to complete a full replacement of the treatment plant.
