Property owner asks Bicknell to consider 8‑inch water line to serve lodge‑area lots

Dave Van Dyke, a local property owner, asked the Bicknell Town Council on April 3 to consider allowing the town’s culinary water to be extended roughly 1.5 miles west of the lodge to serve a planned subdivision of lots.

The request would require upsizing the existing 4‑inch main to an 8‑inch main and adding new service connections. Van Dyke said he is willing to pay for engineering and construction work if the town signals it is willing to take the project through feasibility review and permitting.

Council and staff described the technical constraints. Scott, a town public‑works staff member, told the council the existing Bicknell Bottoms main is 4 inches and “you have a total of 13 connections on that 4‑inch line…our engineers feel we could add an additional 13.” He also said the existing configuration does not meet required fire flow. Van Dyke estimated running an 8‑inch main about five miles could be roughly a million‑dollar scale investment and said he would consider alternatives — notably using a private well and tank — if town service proved impractical.

Why it matters: extending culinary water could enable development of higher‑end lots near the lodge, change the number of connections on the Bicknell Bottoms line, and trigger requirements from the Division of Drinking Water and the county fire marshal for fire flow and chlorination at dead ends.

Details from the discussion: - Existing main: staff said portions of the system feeding the Bicknell Bottoms area are 4‑inch (crossings and stretches noted), with some field crossings narrower than 4 inches. - Connection limits: council minutes and staff memory were cited showing an original 12‑connection allocation later recorded as 13; staff said current records suggest more actual connections than the 1993 minutes list, and engineers believe an additional ~13 connections could be possible if the main is upsized. - Fire flow and chlorination: staff said the line currently “does not meet fire flow.” Multiple speakers noted that any long dead‑end stretch would likely require a chlorination station and other features to meet state rules. - Costs and scale: Van Dyke said upgrading and extending an 8‑inch main “is probably close to a million‑dollar investment” and discussed the prospect that developers or lot buyers would bear most construction costs and impact fees. - Alternatives: Van Dyke and councilors discussed using a private well and tank (he reported a private well drilled on his property with preliminary yields and an estimated need for a large storage tank), coordinating with nearby systems (Teasdale, Torrey), and forming a special service district if needed.

Council action and next steps: councilors did not commit to funding or constructing the extension. Staff said they would refer Van Dyke’s request to the town’s engineers for a feasibility study that would identify required upsizing, potential tie‑in points, scope of work, and a rough cost estimate. Van Dyke said he would pay for an engineering analysis if the town confirms interest in pursuing the project.

No formal motion or vote was taken on the proposal at the meeting.