Tale of two cities

A city spends several years looking at different ways it can address water supply problems.

Its initial step is to blend the water from the city's well field in order to lower the nitrate content. When that solution has outlived its usefulness, the city begins looking at other ways to improve its water.

A water committee is formed. Several ideas on how to treat the water are brought to the table, including one suggestion to use reverse osmosis in the home, another -- drilling new wells -- is also studied.

City leaders decide to treat the water with a reverse osmosis system at a central location at a cost of several million dollars. Water customers are informed that their water bills are going up and a public outcry results.

If you think the story involves McCook -- think again. The scenario comes from the Internet archives of the Seward County Independent, describing the town of Seward, pop. 6,319, in eastern Nebraska.

In fact, there are 18 subdivisions, villages, cities and counties struggling to address a Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Administrative Order to correct high nitrate problems.

Those towns range from the small village of Ragan, population 46, to McCook, 7,996, the largest town on the state's current fix-it list.

According to the local newspaper, Seward, like McCook, has been dealing with water problems for several years. It wasn't until April 23 that the Seward City Council split 3-3 on the issue of treating the city's water.

Mayor Roger Glawatz cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the project, saying "I don't see any other way."

The city is now about one month into construction of the facility.

Seward City Administrator Daniel Berlowitz said not only is Seward dealing with an administrative order for nitrates, it is also under an administrative order for copper.

In 1988, the city of Seward began facing water quantity problems. To address that issue the city drilled new wells. In the early '90s, nitrates in the city water began moving over the accepted level of 10 ppm, then dropping back to acceptable levels -- and the problem worsened as time went by.

The city began looking for a new well field site, but, Berlowitz said, the closest site it could find was 15 miles away. The city's concern with that plan was the distance to a treatment plant if the water became contaminated.

In 1995 the Seward City Council formed a water committee and decided the city would pay to have a treatment plant designed. The engineering firm of Olsson Associates was hired to draw up the plans.

The city continued to conduct test well drilling until 2000, but was never able to find sufficient quality and quantity. In 2001, the Council authorized the city attorney to negotiate on a land purchase and the city moved ahead with the treatment plan.

At that point, the two stories seperate. After agreeing to treat the water in McCook in November, the McCook City Council was informed there was a million-gallon diesel spill under the city's water storage tank.

The Nebraska Department Of Health and Human Services infromed the city it would have to abandon the site. After several weeks of discussion, the city decided to rescind the treatment decision and move forward to find a new water source 18 miles north of McCook.

It is estimated the treatment project will cost the city of Seward around $4 million for a reverse osmosis treatment plant. A new well field would have cost Seward $8-$9 million. Residential customers in Seward are now paying an average of $3.57 per month more on their water bill.

By comparison, a multiple treatment plant using reverse osmosis, ion exchange and green sand would cost the city of McCook $14 million plus an annual cost of $1.5 million for maintenance. It is estimated the additional monthly cost for water users would be $35 a month.

The option approved by the city of McCook in April -- a new well field -- will cost the city between $11.5 million and $13 million and annual maintenance costs would range from $895,000 to $1.1 million, which includes a $100,000 a year to be placed in a reserve fund for possible treatment in the future. The plan will cost water users an additional $19.68 to $24.41 each month.