A discussion about the state of Osceola’s water and its future was had at the Dec. 5 Osceola city council meeting, including a discussion of why the reservoir project has been held up by key pieces of legislation.
Osceola city administrator Ty Wheeler opened his report with an update from Osceola Water Works Superintendent Brandon Patterson about the levels at West Lake, Osceola’s water source. The lake level as of the meeting was at 1065 MSL (mean sea level), with the new, modified bottom intake at 1056 MSL. The water has been decreasing by two inches a week, but had held steady over the past week. The top intake is reached once the water levels hit 1060 MSL, and the intake will go offline. At 1063 MSL, there are approximately 200 days of water left.
“If we all do our part and do the best we can…the goal would be to keep the lake at a steady level and not see a continue[d] level decline,” said Wheeler. The winter months usually see a reduction in water usage. “At the rate of two inches a week, we should all be taking this very serious now, but once we get to the end of March, if that kind of rate continues…then we’re really going to be in a position where we need to start making a lot of changes, all of us, on how we are consuming water in the community.”
Short-term
In talking about short-term fixes, Wheeler stated that SIRWA (Southern Iowa Rural Water Association), had turned on their new plant, but were not at the time treating finished water. Once SIRWA begins treating finished water, they can take water from the area around their distribution system to pull from their water tower south of Osceola along Interstate 35 and send it to the water tower east of Osceola along Highway 34. They will not be able to fill that tower, but can get water there during the cooler months. Rural Clarke County receives water from SIRWA, fed through West Lake, not Union County sources.
As Osceola Water Works continues work with conservation measures, Wheeler said a lot of concepts that have been looked at before are being looked at again, many from studies done by the Clarke County Reservoir Commission, including data on well water and other potential water sources. A problem that arises is that Osceola does not currently have a treatment facility that can treat water that is of poor quality, such as what could be gained from drilling into the Jordan Aquifer.
“You have to take another look and turn over the stones again and make sure there’s not anything that we can look at. And that is happening,” said Wheeler.
Medium-term
Though it will not help by March, or next summer, the city and water works are continuing their efforts with an effluent recirculation concept, that would take treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant and put it back into the West Lake watershed.
Wheeler presented a wasteload allocation from the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) that showed how the wastewater would have to be treated in order for the DNR to permit the project to move forward. The treatment is more restrictive than what the new wastewater plant can treat. The water that is currently pumped into White Breast Creek is already of high quality, but the treated wastewater that would be recirculated would be of an even higher quality. The DNR also sent a list of constituents that the treatment would have to meet, which engineers Veenstra & Kimm went through and examined, finding many to be of a non-detectable level here.
“Basically, most of the constituents that we have in that treated effluent are going to be in the range of non-detectable, but certainly within the parameters that they’re putting forth,” said Wheeler.
An effluent reuse program like the one being proposed is the first of its kind in Iowa, but Wheeler said he is frustrated that the project is not moving forward with the “level of haste” he thought it would be.
“As I understand it, they want to have a meeting with everyone. The DNR means by that, the wastewater people, drinking water people, before they, I guess, are comfortable with saying ‘okay,’ " Wheeler said.
Councilman Dr. George Fotiadis questioned why the DNR suddenly seems to have taken issue with the effluent, which would be much cleaner than the water that nature provides. He said he understood the DNR’s purpose to protect the public from potential pollutants, but pointed out that the ones they are concerned about, such as atrazine, are not present at the Osceola treatment plant or in consumers’ homes.
Reservoir project
For Wheeler, the effluent reuse is the silver lining of what can be done, it’s just a matter of how to make sure the treatment is meeting permitted limits. However, when making a clarification for councilman Douglas Gay, Wheeler said the reuse is not going to help now should weather conditions not improve, as it’s at least a year of construction once the project is given the ‘go.’
“This is not the resolution to the current drought we’re in right now. That resolution has been proposed for the last three decades,” said Wheeler, referencing the ongoing efforts to build a new reservoir in Clarke County that will help supplement West Lake.
Mayor Thomas Kedley talked about the various political figures who have held up the project, including former state representative Jeff Kauffman, Representative Bobby Kauffman, Representative Joel Fry, Senator Amy Sinclair and Governor Kim Reynolds, saying of Fry and Sinclair,
“Their voices have been deafening cause I haven’t heard it…I highly encourage we reach out to our elected state officials,” said Kedley.
Kedley expressed his frustration with narratives on social media about the reservoir project, pointing out that as a local government, they do not have the power and backing of the state and federal government.
Legislation
Wheeler gave a brief history on why the reservoir project has drawn on as long as it has, including three pieces of legislation that were adopted and hindered the progress of the project, found in Iowa Code 6A Eminent Domain Law (Condemnation).
The first, found in Chapter 6A, section 5-c-(1)(a) took aim at the original recreation component of the reservoir, which was put in place to satisfy part of the NRCS’ (Natural Resources Conservation Service) requirements for federal funding, and was later dropped from the plan:
“If private property is to be condemned for development or creation of a lake, only that number of acres justified as necessary for a surface drinking water source, and not otherwise acquired, may be condemned. In addition, the acquiring agency shall conduct a review of prudent and feasible alternatives to provision of a drinking water source prior to making a determination that such lake development or creation is reasonable and necessary.”
The second piece of legislation, found in Chapter 6A, section 5-c-(1)(b) states,
“For condemnation of property located in a county with a population of greater than nine thousand two hundred fifty but less than nine thousand three hundred, according to the 2010 federal decennial census, prior to making a determination that development or creation of a lake as a surface drinking water source is reasonable and necessary, the acquiring agency shall conduct a review of feasible alternatives to development or creation of a lake as a surface drinking water source.”
During the 2010 census, Clarke County would not have met the population thresholds.
The third piece of legislation, found in Chapter 6A, section 5-c-(1)(c)(ii) does not allow for the inclusion of population growth,
“For condemnation proceedings for which the application…filed after January 1, 2013, for condemnation of property located in a county with a population of greater than nine thousand two hundred fifty but less than nine thousand three hundred, according to the 2010 federal decennial census, which property sought to be condemned… after January 1, 2013, but before January 1, 2014, regardless of whether the petitioner was determined by a court to not be a proper acquiring agency, “number of acres justified as necessary for a surface drinking water source”, as determined under subparagraph subdivision (i) shall not exceed the number of acres that would be necessary to provide the amount of drinking water to meet the needs of a population equal to the population of the county where the lake is to be developed or created, according to the most recent federal decennial census.”
Wheeler acknowledged the issues that came about locally with the eminent domain portion of the reservoir project, stating that the law was followed to the extent it had to be. He said he felt that the language in the code was deliberate towards Clarke County, who had looked at alternative water sources. The reservoir, known as Site 4B, is the most feasible alternative for water supply development in the area.
“The state, frankly, has failed. They don’t have a good handle on raw water inventory…,” said Wheeler. “Can we appreciate the fact that we have had, for the purposes of developing a new water supply, very poor advocates at the state that caused the project [to face] challenge after challenge, some of which we have the luxury of seeing codified in the Iowa code. That’s why people should be frustrated.”
Both Fry and Sinclair were local representations at the time the legislation was being adopted, but ones who those at the meeting felt had failed at being local advocates of the project.
“It shouldn’t be this hard to build a public water supply. Not when the need is so obvious and clear…we can’t abandon objective truth,” said Wheeler, stating the state’s narrative on the reservoir was damaging to the community.
“People on social media need to stop saying, ‘why aren’t we, the city,’ they should be asking ‘why aren’t they, the state,’ " said Kedley.
Council thoughts
Gay added his thoughts on the water and reservoir during the council’s reports.
He said when he first joined the council, he spent time going around Ward One talking with constituents, and one of the number one concerns he heard about was water.
“Many, many, many people within the county and the city of Osceola, constituents, were very, very ardently against this project,” said Gay, who at the time wasn’t sure what side he fell on.
Now, eight years later, he commended Wheeler for his efforts in thinking outside of the box for solutions when the state legislature swooped in and said “no.” He said the public should be furious over what the state did to the project. Due to it being drawn out, the cost has significantly increased, and is only likely to continue to go up. Gay said that the recreational component that was required for the funding at one time is something that some people are still stuck on.
“Guess what, it’s not recreation now, is it?” Gay asked.
Gay, who did not seek re-election and whose term expires Dec. 31 of this year, said he will be just as furious about the water situation when he’s back to being a citizen as he is now being on the council.