Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Voter-approved water plan takes shape

Tarpon Springs residents agreed Tuesday to a water treatment system. Now the real planning begins.

By ROBIN STEIN
Published March 18, 2006

TARPON SPRINGS - It's a proposal that seems to defy dissent.

A treatment system that would improve drinking water quality, save money and end dependence on outside suppliers. How could people say no?

The proposed water treatment system won resounding affirmation from the public this week, when both of the relevant referendum items tallied more than 70 percent of the vote.

Because there were no candidates on the ballot, the city rolled out a campaign intended to raise awareness about the referenda and increase voter turnout. An aggressive outreach effort included a flurry of fliers, public presentations, and print and television messages, all of which touted the unmitigated benefits offered by "water supply independence."

There is little evidence that the effort bolstered voter turnout. In 1997, the last time that city elections were conducted without a race for public office, about 12 percent of registered voters turned out, compared with 13 percent Tuesday.

Notably less prominent in the pre-vote hype was talk about prospective hurdles and controversial details that could undermine the project.

Public officials said there were tests to be completed, permits to be acquired, contracts and proposals that would need to pass the City Commission. They were quick to stress the contingent nature of the plan.

"The referendum are only the first step," Mayor Beverley Billiris said. "There will be much more research done in workshops and much citizen input as we go forward."

The Alternative Water Plan is a "living document," said Robert Oreskovich, the city's utilities administrator. He predicted it would change as study continued.

Among changes not yet fully addressed are some issues likely to spark citizen concern:

The annual operating costs of the reverse-osmosis plant.

The rocky permit process for two fresh-water wells.

The quality and quantity of the supply of brackish groundwater, which is unknown.

The process of discharging of the brine, the salt-filled by-product of the reverse-osmosis treatment process.

The location of the plant.

For instance, when city staff initially presented the plan, which was released in February 2004, the annual operation cost of the treatment system was projected at slightly more than $1-million. Last week, city staff said a recent analysis produced a revised estimate of more than $2-million.

City Manager Ellen Posivach said current projected costs still would not require unplanned rate increases.

Another aspect of the original water plan included the activation of several existing fresh-water wells. Once the wells were retrofitted, it was projected that two of them could produce more than 400,000 gallons of drinking water a day for a fourth of the cost of purchased water. The well water was expected to need only minimal treatment.

Two years later, state health regulators denied the city's application for permits, citing concerns about water quality, proximity to potential hazards and ambiguity of the city's property rights.

State law prohibits drinking water wells within 100 feet of hazards that pose a "high risk" or 50 feet of those presenting "moderate risk."

The proposed wells are 62 feet from one of Progress Energy's hot oil pipelines, a half-mile from a closed landfill and near a site that tested positive for a toxic, banned gasoline additive.

State regulators also requested updated sampling data because the bulk of the results were produced in the early 1990s, when the city last attempted activating the wells. The effort was abandoned when sampling showed several contaminants above permitted levels.

The city is appealing the decision.

Whether the appeal succeeds, Posivach said the fresh-water wells are not central to the water plan, which would treat 6.5-million gallons of brackish water a day and produce enough drinking water to satisfy the city's current and future demand.

It is also anticipated that the process will generate as much as 2-million gallons a day of highly saltly, chemically treated by-product. What will be done with the brine is an issue that city staff called "premature."

But last summer, the City Commission approved a $40,700 contract with consultant Golder Associates, which will help secure permits allowing the city to dispose of the brine in the discharge canal at Progress Energy's Anclote Power plant.

Reverse-osmosis facilities are relatively small and not considered eyesores in an industrial setting. But what the setting will be remained unclear.

City officials said only that the plant would be north of the Anclote River and west of U.S. 19. They could not be more specific because they lacked authority to purchase or conduct formal negotiations for land before the referendum item passed.

But nearly three years ago, they released a map with 12 possible sites highlighted, a map that has been omitted from subsequent versions of the plan on the city's Web site.

When asked about the deleted map, city officials said publicizing the site study would alert property owners of the city's interest, potentially inflating the cost to acquire the property.

In fact, the leading contender is already well aware of the city's interest.

City Attorney John Hubbard said on Monday, the day before the election, that he spoke with three property owners at the request of city officials about buying land for the plant. Only one expressed interest.

The property owner, Hubbard said, is David W. Little, a Realtor in Clearwater whose family owns 38 acres at Anclote Road and L and R Industrial Boulevard. "That was the only possibility," Hubbard said.

After multiple discussions with Little and his lawyer, and a meeting with Posivach, the deal was still tentative.

Little did not return phone calls, but his story suggested his interest.

In 1998, Little's property was among the sites considered by the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (now Tampa Bay Water) for the desalination plant eventually built in Hillsborough County.

At that time, Little strongly supported a water treatment facility at Anclote.

"As long as the environment is protected, I think it's a wonderful thing for the city," Little said.

In order to proceed with negotiations for Little's land, the city needed to get a referendum on the ballot - without specifics.

"The city's caught between a rock and a hard place," Hubbard said. "You can't talk seriously with a property owner until you have authority."

[Last modified March 18, 2006, 02:30:29]