Several of us met last week at the Prudential Snook offices to review the outcomes and learnings from the unsuccessful campaign for a water pipeline to St. Joseph and completion of the main in the south end of Cameron and construction of a new water storage tower there.
Many believe that the last minute negative phone campaign may have swayed some voters. Some point out that we need to meet with the more vocal opponents and give them opportunity to show (with equally well-researched scientific information) why constructing a much more expensive reservoir is a better approach.
Ultimately, it is up to the Cameron City Council to decide what steps to take next. The consensus of those in attendance was that all of us are in this effort to positively and cost-effectively address the still pressing need for a dependable, alternative source of water for this community.
What ideas do you have?
Bill R-H
10 comments:
I don't think that water line from St. Joseph may be the right way to go. I understand that building a new reservoir may be out of the question but why can't the existing reservoirs be deeper. A know that it would cost money to do this but what are the figures. We have only seen the figures for the pipeline from St. Joseph. We need to see the figures for alternatives including the possibility of drilling wells.
Also I was under the impression that the completion of the main in the south end of Cameron and the construction of the a new water storage tower there was suppose to be taken care of when the 12 inch water main was install in the crossroads corporate center. We were told that the 12 inch water main was to complete the circle round the town. What happened to that concept? I have been told that we don't even use the water from the Grindstone Reservoir, if this is true. Why don't we? These are questions that need to be answered by the Cameron City Council. Then people could cast an educated vote instead of being pressured into voting by bias people.
Great questions, Kathy!
We will have to check with the city about costs for drilling wells. I did hear a regionally renowned hydrology engineer say that Cameron is ourside an alluvial field - that is, there is no deep pool of well water anywhere near here that would be commercially viable, but, we can certainly ask the city about that.
Cost of building a new 900 acre reservoir at Shoal Creek (the only area nearby that offers a depth of up to 14 feet)would be $19 million. (That does not include costs for south mains or water tower, nor does it include costs for increasing water plan capacity that would be required within 10 years to keep up with increased demand beyond current operational capacity.)
Will address your remaining questions soon, Kathy. (Would like to research that with city staff first.)
Thanks! This is the kind of conversation I wish more of us would take part in.
BR-H
thank you answering some of my question. You said it would cost 19 million to build a new reservoir at shoal creek. Isn't it possible to obtain some funding for this through grant money or the corp of engineers. The city of cameron have received grants for the expansion of the water and sewer plants in the past. Why not now.
Kathy,
Thanks for your last post. I'm going to invite Mark Gaugh, City Utilities Director, to help us with some of these questions on this blog.
To you immediate question about the possibility for grants underwriting part of the cost for construction for a reservoir, I can only tell you that I do not know all the details about what the city did or did not do to research that particular option.
I can say with certainty, however, that we were told by the leading regional hydrologist that alluvial wells were the most dependable water source in this region and that he was no longer promoting construction of reservoirs as a first choice for a safe, dependable water source.
I was also informed that the City learned that construction of a reservoir would not qualify for State Revolving Fund fincancing (the lowest interest option available to fund municipal infrastructure projects) but that a pipeline would qualify.
Again, great questions, Kathy. I appreciate your interest and hope that more will take part in this conversation.
Reservoirs are not a good option in NW Missouri, because they are too shallow and they are in agricultural areas. This means that contaminants, such as Nitrogen, Phosphorous and synthetic organic compounds like Atrazine (and others) can easily get into the water body. There is no way to completely protect a surface water supply from runoff contaminants.
As Bill R. mentioned, State Revolving Fund money cannot be used to build a reservoir. This was told to me by Tod Hudson, Environmental Specialist at the Missour Dept. of Natural Resources. The Missouri DNR does not consider reservoirs to be the best option for water supply in northwest Missouri, because they are too susceptible to drought. Cameron, for example, built new reservoir after new reservoir and still cannot withstand a drought. In addition, The State Revolving Loan program will save the city about $5,579,000 dollars in reduced interest cost. Sometimes reservoirs are the only option, but not in Cameron's case. We can obtain supplemental water from a reliable source not impacted by drought. It is the lowest cost alternative, and all options have been explored more than once by many water professionals and citizens.
Another advantage to purchasing additional treated water is that we would have a dual supply for emergencies. Should the water plant have a major problem from equipment breakdown, quality problems, or weather-related damage, we would still be able to provide water from the pipeline until the problem could be corrected. With reservoirs, we still have to run all the water through the treatment plant before we can distribute it to the customers.
Thanks, Mark. I appreciate the careful work that you do.
Kathy raised some other questions in her first comment that I cannot answer. Perhaps you and/or Phil can shed some light on the issues in her second paragraph as they refer to the City's decisions.
Good conversation.
Kathy- Unfortunately, there are many rumors that persist on the water issue. The City DOES use Grindstone Reservoir, just as it does Reservoir #3 and the two small ones. Water is pumped from Grindstone to #3 to keep #3 from getting too low. During severe drought, however, we will need more than the reservoirs can produce. If we are in drought conditions, in two years, we will be 200,000 gallons per day short.
As far as the 12" loop main, the City had plans to complete the loop a few years ago, but does not have the funding to complete it or to build the tower. In addition, the loop or tower will not solve the drought shortage problem; they are part of the overall solution, however, in that they will help with pressures and flows for fire protection.
I hope this helps to clarify the issue.
I would like to Thank Mark Gaugh, City Utilities Director, for answering my questions. I feel that the people of Cameron needs to hear the facts and figures on all the alternative water resources. I would have to agree with the city that the water line would be the most cost affective. Is it possible to receive some grant money as well as the low interestloan to help pay for the water line?
The city of Cameron is growing if the water line is constructed there will be more growth for Cameron and the surrounding areas. Is it not possible that some of the cost of the waterline could be paid off by the increased revenue and lessen the burden of a higher water bill on the public in general as the City grows.
Thanks to Kathy and Mark for a more productive conversation.
Kathy, you raise a good point about grants. By any chance are you aware of a source that the city may have overlooked? Even a small grant would be helpful and there are a number of us with successful grant-writing experience willing to help city staff make some new applications.
Kathy, you are welcome. You raise a very good point. Cameron will continue to grow and the more water we sell, the lower our incremental cost of production. Like a factory, our fixed costs remain the same if our production increases, so the more we sell, the better. We can even partner with other communities, like Plattsburg, who has expressed an interst in partnering. This opportunity will most likely go away, however, if we don't get going on the pipeline. The pipeline will give us 2.0 to 4.5 million gallons per day, additional. The amount depends on whether we add a second pump station in the future. We would always want to maintain a reserve for Cameron's future needs, but could sell off a small portion of the water in the pipeline to another town. That would make our cost share for the project, lower.
As far as grants, the only grants that the Dept. of Natural Resources had, dried up years ago. The City did get a USDA grant to raise Grindstone (to hold more water) and we also were able to buy 2 miles of ductile iron pipe with the leftover funds. This pipe is worth $306,000 and can be used on the pipline project, once approved. There may be some small grants out there from other departments, but I am not aware of any. The SRF program is a good deal, too, as we have already discussed. It isn't "free" money, like a grant, but it is low-cost money.
Post a Comment