By JAMES BELL
Hays Post
ELLIS — Before the regular meeting of the Ellis City Council last week, outgoing Director of Public Works Alan Scheuerman shared with current and potential council members a summary of issues the council will be facing.
Among the issued presented was the continued presence of higher-than-allowed total trihalomethanes, commonly referred to as TTHM, in the water system.
“We do have a TTHM problem, and it’s getting worse,” Scheuerman said.
Trihalomethanes are a byproduct of chlorine interacting with organic material in the water supply and refers to a group of chemicals that include chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and bromoform.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment, following the guidance of the Environmental Protection Agency, mandates TTHM levels under 80 parts per billion in public water supplies.
“We are coming in at 89 and 100, which brought our (running annual average) up to 89 and, unless we can come up with a much lower number – like a 40 in December, we’re going to have another one above 80,” Scheuerman said.
The highest TTHM average in Ellis last year was reported as 73, according to the KDHE consumer confidence report, meaning even with the current high levels the risk to the public is low.
Standard warnings from the EPA for consumers with water high in TTHM indicate health problems only occur after years of ingestion.
“This is not an emergency,” the EPA said in the standard letter to consumers that have high TTHM levels. “If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. Some people who drink water containing trihalomethane in excess of the (maximum contaminant levels) over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.”
Scheuerman said he believes the high TTHM levels are due to bromide leaching into the water system from organic materials while the amount of water in the city water wells is higher than normal.
“When it starts coming in at every test scheduled, which is every quarter, my guess is that the state is going to require us to take some kind of change or alteration to improve that,” he said.
Last year, 27 water systems in Kansas were found to have TTHM over the statutory limit – resulting in 55 violations, and Scheuerman, noting another city in western Kansas is currently facing similar issues.
The city is working with outside companies to find a cost-effective solution that can be worked into the city’s water plan.
Those companies will meet with the council in the future to address the issue, Scheuerman said, warning that if a solution is not found to alleviate the problem, the state could force the city into action.
Iron manganese treatment is a potential option and is likely the most cost-effective as it would only add another chemical feed into the system and the treatment is already used for inflow water, Scheuerman said.
“The other option we could do is a (reverse osmosis) system, which is extremely expensive,” he said. “We are not looking to do that method if at all possible.”
Mayor David McDaniel said at a recent governmental meeting he spoke with agents from two engineering firms that work with the city and was informed they are nearing a solution that would not require the reverse osmosis system.
As the city searches for other water sources, Scheuerman said, adding water into the system might also dilute the TTHM in the water under mandated levels and KDHE grants could cover up to one-third of the cost of adding another source of water to the system if that is used as the TTHM solution.
“There are multiple options there, but the city also needs to keep moving forward, because the state does not like you to sit on your laurels and say ‘We’ve got the water, we’ve got the land, but we are just going to sit there and look at it for the next 10 years,’ ” Scheuerman said. “They want to see you do something with it, which means you are probably going to have to spend some dollars.”
An engineering estimate totaled $3.7 million to $4.25 million two years ago that would secure another water source, including land and construction costs.
Scheuerman said the city could also try to partner with a rural water district to bring in water at a lower cost than securing new wells.
It’s not just what is going out, but what is coming in
Another issue that the council will face in the future will be water entering the sewer system rather than what comes from the taps, Scheuerman told the group, from damaged roads and storm drains.
“If you look at where the most damage is occurring, (it) is underneath the sewer and storm drains,” he said, noting water is infiltrating the sewer system under roadways and sections of roads in several areas of town.
“It’s getting worse,” Scheuerman said, noting repairs and maintenance need to be kept in mind when the council is lining up capital improvement projects.
Current council member Martin LaBarge agreed.
“Sometime, somehow, those streets are going to have to be fixed, because they are getting worse,” he said.
“On Washington Street, it is quite visible,” Scheuerman said. “You can see parts of the street are dropping and part of that is due to the tile breaking and water infiltrating down, going into those openings and taking dirt with it.”
He also noted one storm drain line has already collapsed.
“I know it is collapsing because there is no pipe left underneath there,” Scheuerman said. “We can’t get the sewer machine through it. If you can’t get a 2-inch sewer machine to ream that line, I guarantee … it was collapsed.”
He warned the council that funding is needed to address the problem, and other cities often have a fund specifically for storm drain maintenance, something he has recommended to the council in the past.
“If you have a major break, where you have to redo a section of storm drains, you have set no funding aside for that purpose,” Scheuerman said.
In those situations, the only solution is using tax dollars if no funds are available, which would take away from street repair funds.
“It will come back to haunt you because it will get worse,” Scheuerman said.
He suggests the new council begin accumulating a capital improvement fund to help those kinds of repairs.
“Your cost to repair will continue to rise,” Scheuerman said.
Repair funds, he told the group, are mandated by law to be separated and recommended the council re-evaluate the 2 percent water bill increase that was voted down this year to be used for maintenance.
“With these types of dollar amounts that you are going to need to keep your water safe and usable, I suggest that you reconsider about that 2 percent,” Scheuerman said.
“I think with the kind of dollar amount that you need to continue to put into your water system you can probably not afford to let that drop,” he said. “An annual 2-percent increase is a lot easier to swallow for a lot of people … than a $20 change 10 years from now.”
