Critic, city clash over water plant plans
Lee Smith — Staff WriterFAIRMONT - In the late 1970s, the city of Fairmont faced a drought. Things got so bad, water had to be pumped from Hall Lake into Budd Lake, from which the city still draws its drinking water.
The city also took the step of obtaining a federal grant to drill test wells, in case Fairmont would have to rely on groundwater. What it found was a deep lake beneath town.
A local water commissioner at the time was Richard Bradley, who had moved his business, Weigh-Tronix, to town in 1976. Bradley has since advocated using well water, rather than lake water. Now, with the city planning to build a $31 million water treatment plant in 2011, he is reiterating his stand.
From the perspective of those planning the new plant, Bradley is all wet. But for his part, he believes the city has been sold a bill of goods by a consultant in it for the money.
Here's how the sides differ:
Bradley says Budd Lake is a poor source of drinking water because of summer algae blooms that create taste and odor problems. He says the problems will persist because the watershed draining into Fairmont's lakes is largely ag land. So loads of nutrients, as well as pesticides and herbicides, pour in with the runoff.
He also notes Fairmont is rare in its use of lake water. It is the only Minnesota city south of Minneapolis doing so. The 21 other surface-water systems are up north, where the water is considered "pristine," he says.
Bradley has tasted the groundwater from the "lake" under Fairmont. An 18-inch test well still sits in the front lawn of the water treatment plant along Albion Avenue and he says the water tastes great. While the well water is classified "harder" - having more mineral content - than lake water, Bradley argues well water does not require much treatment, and that technology for treating hardness has improved over the years.
He says drilling another well - to meet the city's capacity needs - is cheaper than building a new filtration plant, and he says this moment in time represents an opportunity for the town to switch to groundwater.
Finally, he argues that the city should keep utilizing its existing plant by fixing it up, rather than building new. He says the city's consultant on the project - Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services of Maple Grove - is in the business of building water plants. The firm will receive 15 percent of the project cost, or about $4.5 million.
"It's like the fox in the henhouse," Bradley said.
n
Bradley summarized his thoughts in a letter to the Fairmont Public Utilities Commission. It, in turn, forwarded the letter to the city's engineer, Troy Nemmers, who responded. The Sentinel has a copy of his response and also sought the opinion of City Administrator Jim Zarling, a lifelong resident and someone who has been involved in City Hall dating back to the mid-1970s.
First and foremost, Zarling made clear that Advanced Engineering was selected as a consultant through a process. This included five finalists interviewed after the city sent out 10 requests for proposals. The city brought in its former public works director, Larry Read, to act as a consultant on the consultants. The goal, Zarling says, was for the city to hire some expertise, not reward a firm. He also noted that any engineer or architect is paid a fee, generally standard.
In his letter to Bradley, Nemmers restates the city's goal: "I would like to reassure you that the City Council, Public Utilities Commission and city staff are doing everything they can to ensure that thorough investigations of all alternatives are completed. This project would be the largest ever completed by the city of Fairmont and no one is taking that responsibility lightly."
The public process that has played out in the past year has shown the city is concerned about its water plant for multiple reasons: the plant is old (built in the 1920s), its piping and equipment are outdated, it has capacity limits, it has trouble ridding water of taste and odor problems and, perhaps most significantly, the plant is deficient when it comes to pending state and federal regulatory requirements for water treatment.
Nemmers notes that the city considered utilizing well water, along with four other options, as it worked with Advanced Engineering on planning a new plant. A report on the city's Web site - www.fairmont.org - details this investigation. Nemmers says planners concluded the price of converting to groundwater is too high because of significant chemical costs; added infrastructure and maintenance costs associated with wells and pump stations; and significant sludge-hauling costs associated with treating well water. The report shows that of five options weighed, using well water creates the highest operations and maintenance costs at $1.76 million annually. This is in addition to a $29 million cost for a water treatment plant under this option. (The cost of renovating the existing plant has been placed at $26 million.)
Nemmers says instead, the PUC chose the $31 million new plant option that will involve new ways of treating the water to eliminate odor and taste problems. An "odor panel" of citizens has helped the city determine which methods work best. The annual operations and maintenance costs of this new plant are estimated at $1.38 million, or $380,000 less than converting to well water.
Answering other questions, Zarling said Fairmont is alone in using lake water among southern Minnesota cities because Fairmont is unique in having enough lake water to serve the populace and industry.
Zarling also says the well water Bradley praises is not so praiseworthy. As noted, treating it for hardness would be expensive, and even then it would be likely to clog pipes throughout town, he said. Citizens, likewise, would face new costs to treat the water in their homes, and all of the salt involved in softening would create problems at the city's wastewater plant, resulting in more costs there, he noted.
Zarling says that far from tasting good, the well water would simply create a new taste and odor problem: Sulfur. So instead of algae odor and taste problems, citizens would notice a rotten egg smell.
n
Nothing has been written in stone yet when it comes to a new water plant, but the the writing is on the wall. The Public Utilities Commission is proceeding as if its intent is to build. It will, at some point, forward a decision to the City Council, which has the final say on whether to issue bonds for the project.
In a related matter, the PUC will vote Nov. 24 on a 25 percent increase in water rates to pay for the new plant. The City Council is expected to address the rate hike Jan. 25.
These ongoing and upcoming meetings offer citizens with an interest in the subject a chance to offer their input.
For those interested, the PUC meets 7:30 a.m. the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month in the upstairs conference room at City Hall.
City Council meetings are held at 5:30 p.m. the second and fourth Mondays of the month. The council meets in its chambers on the first floor of City Hall.
