CAPE GIRARDEAU CONJURES PLAN TO MEET FUTURE WATER SHORTAGE

It is a momentous decision -- spend big bucks now to stop an imminent water shortage or try to beat the clock and find cheaper solutions.

On Monday, the seven members of Cape Girardeau's City Council will do their part in making the determination. Then voters may have the final say.

Under consideration is a $26.5 million bond issue to increase and improve Cape Girardeau's water supply. It would pay to drill 21 new underground wells that tap the Mississippi River, expand treatment capacity at one of two plants and expand the city's water distribution system. The two plants would provide a total of 10 million gallons a day instead of 7.3 million gallons.

It would take about $1.75 million annually for 20 years to pay the debt service on the bonds, which could be generated through a 59-percent water rate increase or a quarter-cent sales tax.

If the council takes no action, the citizens will see a water shortage within two years, water system manager Tom Taggart said. Cape Girardeau simply is outgrowing its system.

Taggart wants councilmen to put the $26.5 million bond issue on the November ballot. According to studies done by Kansas City engineering firm Burns & McDonnell, it is the best solution, he said. Other city staff members have agreed.

But councilmen don't agree among themselves. Some of them, along with other Cape Girardeau citizens, question whether such an investment is prudent. If voters pass another quarter-cent sales tax, it will be the last sales tax the city can request for now, no matter what crises arise.

A recurring question has been whether the same underground water source used by Biokyowa and other Nash Road industries could be tapped for the city. City Manager Michael Miller pointed out that Cape Girardeau already uses the same supply, treating the water at Plant 2.

The main issue, he said, isn't where the city gets the water. The issue is having the capacity to treat the water supply. Water under Nash Road isn't potable and requires extensive treatment. Water Plant 2, located near the Mississippi River Diversion Channel, can't be expanded because it is in the flood plain and is bordered by railroad tracks, a creek, roads and a quarry.

Public Works Director Doug Leslie said expanding Water Plant 2 also would require extensive changes in the distribution system. The current system is designed for most of the water to come from Water Plant 1 on East Cape Rock Drive.

Citizens on the north and west sides of town have asked if passing the bond issue would improve their water pressure. It won't, Taggart said, but there are other reasons for them to pass the issue.

He pointed out that good water pressure is a relative thing. The city strives to provide 40 to 80 pounds per square inch of water pressure. How high a sink or bathtub sits above city water lines and the size of the pipes within a home affect water pressure.

Having low water pressure could present a fire hazard, Taggart said. Water pressure would be improved under Burns & McDonnell's 20-year improvement plan, when booster stations are replaced.

Others have questioned the city's foresight in buying the water system from Union Electric in 1992 when such a huge expense loomed so close. The plant itself cost around $12 million, and it may end up costing citizens between $33 million and $46 million to pay for improvements, depending on financing.

Miller said city personnel didn't go to community leaders for input on a plan before approaching Burns & McDonnell. The engineering firm was charged with finding a plan that would meet the city's needs in the most effective and economical way.

Later, after those plans were presented to the City Council, suggestions were made and researched. The engineering firm, along with city personnel, still maintain that the plan is the best.

Whether councilmen agree remains to be seen.

Q/A

"We got so tied down in the argument of well supply, we forgot we have a shortage in what we can treat. Let's say in a couple of years, we are up to needing 8 million gallons a day, but our plant can treat 7 million gallons a day. Somewhere down the line, you will flat run out of water."

-- Michael Miller, Cape Girardeau city manager

Q: What is the problem with Cape Girardeau's water supply?

A: Cape Girardeau residents have used up to 6.83 million gallons of water in one day. The city's two water treatment plants produce only 7.3 million gallons a day, so a water shortage is imminent.

Also, Cape Girardeau gets most of its water from the Mississippi River. As federal water regulations gets stricter, it will be more expensive to treat river water as opposed to groundwater.

Q: What are the options?

A: A Kansas City engineering firm suggested the city dig 21 alluvial wells near the Mississippi River, then expand Water Plant 1 to treat the additional supply.

To do that, plus improve the city's water distribution system, will cost about $25 million.

Q: How could money be generated?

A: City staff recommends a $25 million bond issue be put on the November ballot. The debt service on the bonds could be paid with a quarter-cent sales tax or a 59 percent water rate increase.

Q: How much money would a 59-percent rate increase or a quarter-cent sales tax generate?

A: Each would generate $1.75 million annually.

Q: What could the city do with just a 10- or 20-percent rate increase?

A: Nothing. Engineers say the project has to be done all at once, and the small rate increase couldn't pay the debt service on the bonds.

Q: Would having bigger water reserves help?

A: No. Storage tanks are designed to ensure peak hourly demands are met, not to store water for long periods of time.

Also, enough water has to be treated to refill storage tanks each night. Treatment ability, not water supply or storage capacity, is the big issue.

Q: Since a shortage is imminent, can the city get state or federal grants for water system improvements?

A: No grant funds are available, but city officials are investigating a loan fund to become available in 1997 through the Clean Water Act. The city could take out a low-interest loan to pay off bonds.

Q: How much would those bonds end up costing over 20 years?

A: About $47 million. If the city qualified for the Clean Water Act loan, the payback would be about $34 million.