PRAIRIE CITY – The city will go to bid on construction of a slow sand filter (SSF) system to remedy its domestic water ills, despite continuing opposition by some residents.

The City Council decided last week to take the project to bid as soon as the paperwork can be finalized.

The issue drew heated debate in a Jan. 23 council meeting.

Pat Voigt, who has water rights above the city’s proposed site on Dixie Creek, questioned whether the city should “feel secure” about its water rights.

“Anybody, myself or any user between my place and the gorge, can file an affidavit (challenging the city’s rights) in the next 12 years,” he charged.

The city’s engineer, Brad Baird of Anderson Perry & Associates, said a challenger would need to show harm to the user, supported by documentation, to contest the city’s share.

“I’m not even going to bother filing the paperwork,” Voigt said.

But resident Ed Clark urged the city to move ahead, noting that the city councilors were elected to make a decision and that further delays will only add to the cost of the project.

“The longer we debate this, the worse it gets,” he said. “Pull the plug, make a decision. If it doesn’t work, you can go back and say ‘gotcha,’ and elect them again.”

It is the second time the city has gone to bid on an SSF system that would draw water from subsurface flows at Dixie Creek. The first effort, in 2005, was aborted when the then-mayor and council decided to drop it to pursue a deep well system at Faiman Springs instead.

The council makeup has since changed, and the current members voted last fall to go back to the SSF system. Among other things, they worried that easements to the private site at Faiman Springs would come with too many strings.

Speed of construction was cited as another factor favoring an SSF system. Prairie City’s water system problems go back about a decade, when it was found that the source of the residents’ drinking water was contaminated by surface water.

The state recently issued a new order requiring that the city fix the problem. The latest order calls for the city to begin construction on its new system, as approved in 2005, by June 1. The city is ordered to provide drinking water that meets federal standards by Nov. 30.

Although some residents are skeptical of the state’s intent, the order says that if the city fails to meet the deadline, the state will impose fines of $200 per day.

In the meantime, the city is required to continue monitoring the water quality and chlorinate to treat any contamination.

Last week’s meeting featured charges about the city’s water rights at Dixie Creek and its ability to tap the creek for enough water.

One person in the crowd insisted that the city only has irrigation rights, so can’t expect to tap the source for water in the winter months or for municipal uses.

However, records from the state Water Resources Department show that the city transferred its water right to municipal use in 1999. Asked about the issue later in the week, City Recorder Diane Clingman produced the documents showing city’s water right and the approved change in use.

Kevin Dahlen argued that the SSF system would not eliminate turbidity, e.coli bacteria and heavy metals such as copper. He cited portions of previous reports, but Baird replied that some of that material dated back as much as 12 years.

Baird said he could take “snippets of data” from older reports to support any position.

He also noted that other communities use SSF systems without problems. Joseph, he said, has the same system and it operates year-round, “just fine.”

Residents also questioned the amount of water that the SSF would provide.

Anderson Perry has said that the SSF system would probably need one or two wells to augment supply during dry periods.

Dahlen questioned the sense of that, stating that the city “won’t be able to provide water for the city in adequate levels, when the water is needed.”

Baird said the engineers have consistently said that wells would be needed to supplement the supply, but only for a short time.

“For 10 months of the year, you’ll be absolutely fine,” he said.

The water supply from the wells would not be guaranteed, either, he noted.

Dahlen also questioned the cost of the project, contending that adding wells to the SSF made it much more expensive than the well project proposed in 2005.

Baird said there are too many variables to accurately project the cost of adding wells – or even how many wells might be required.

He said aquifer storage could bolster the supply, and that the city needs to determine if water is being wasted through leaks in the pipelines that serve the town.

Baird also said both the SSF and the well proposal have risks. The best option depends on the city is comfortable with, he said.

“There’s two sets of unknowns, and two different sets of risks,” he said. “Cost is not the only driver.”

He also stressed that Anderson Perry is not pushing one option over another. In fact, he said, the engineering firm stands to make more money with the well proposal, because more of the work is yet to be done.

Council members reiterated their support for the SSF option.

Councilor Bill Harrington said he still felt it was the best possible alternative to address the water quality problems, comply with state requirements, and get a water system in place as soon as next summer.