Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skamania County discusses taking ownership of Underwood water tank after PUD replacement; no final decision
Summary
Skamania County commissioners discussed whether to accept ownership of a leaking, bolt‑together water tank in Underwood that the Public Utility District plans to replace; the local fire district declined ownership and no formal decision was made.
The Skamania County Board of Commissioners spent a substantial portion of its Feb. 19 meeting discussing a water tank in the Underwood area that the local Public Utility District plans to replace.
Commissioners said the PUD is replacing an aging metal, bolt‑together tank whose seals are failing and which is leaking. The local fire district told the board it does not want to take ownership of the tank, and the PUD has asked the county to decide quickly because ground prep for the replacement will begin soon.
A county commissioner said they were “inclined towards taking it on and see how it pans out,” citing the value of having a local water supply for fire suppression after recent wildland fires and the operational challenges crews faced when water was not immediately available. That same commissioner and county staff also raised condition and liability concerns: the PUD's assessment and photographs show mechanical and maintenance issues, and staff warned the county would need to be ready to repair and maintain the structure if it accepted it.
County staff reported the PUD indicated a fill cost of $210 to fill the tank; participants discussed using the tank seasonally (for fire season) or filling it for tender operations. Commissioners and staff also discussed whether the tank's outlet and distribution would be adequate for firefighting, whether pumping and connections would need modification, and whether a smaller replacement tank (for example, a shorter‑lived 50,000 gallon option) might be preferable in the long run.
Several commissioners said the fire district's refusal to accept the tank is a “red flag” and urged caution; one commissioner voiced concern that accepting the tank would create a long‑term expectation and must be evaluated against likely repair costs and maintenance responsibilities. County staff and commissioners discussed scheduling additional discussion or a brief workshop later the same day or next week to provide the PUD an answer before ground work begins.
No formal motion to accept or reject the tank was taken at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to seek more technical information, cost estimates and options for phased or limited use (for example, maintaining the tank only in summer months) and to clarify the PUD timeline for construction so the board can respond.
The PUD contact named in the discussion (Randy) told commissioners the decision will affect how the PUD proceeds with ground preparation. Commissioners asked staff to follow up with Randy and the PUD and to report back with a recommendation and cost estimates prior to any formal acceptance.
