Local Landowners Oppose Water Sourcing Project

By Gordon HopkinsThe Jefferson County Board of Commissioners are in receipt of two letters from landowners opposed to the City of Fairbury’s plan to sink wells for a new water source.Fairbury currently relies on the East Wells and Crystal Springs to provide water to the public. Both the East Wells and Crystal Springs have consistently tested in the higher range for nitrates, meaning greater than seven ppm (parts per million) but less than 10 ppm, over the past several years.While the overall water supply’s average nitrate levels has not reached above 10 ppm, over the years, one individual well has. In quarterly measurements of nitrate levels since 2015, well three has consistently higher levels of nitrates than the others, having reached 10.3 ppm in the third quarter of 2018, 10.4 ppm in the fourth quarter of 2018 and 10.3 ppm in the second quarter of 2021.In July, 2021, the city entered into an interlocal agreement with Little Blue NRD (Natural Resources District) to cost share in a project to identify a new water source with nitrates ranging in the 0-3ppm, under the LBVWS (Little Blue Valley Water Systems) entity. There are four board members in that entity, two of them representing the City of Fairbury, and two of them representing Little Blue NRD.The project is cost shared and based upon projected consumption of approximately 72 percent Fairbury and 28 percent Little Blue NRD respectively.The city has identified a prospective location for the new wells approximately four miles south of Daykin. The route of the pipeline to feed the water to Fairbury would be about 14 miles. The next step is to drill five test wells. Once the water is tested and determined to meet the city’s needs, the project can move forward.Nearby Landowner’s WellsSome landowners near the proposed wellfield have expressed concern that pumping may affect their own wells. In a letter from David Endorf of C&D Endorf Farm, Endorf wrote, “I am very concerned that heavy pumping (1000 to 1500 gpm) from the proposed wells will have an adverse effect on my well, my ability to irrigate and produce crops, and eventually devalue my property. It is just not right for this valued water resource to be mined, exported 14 or more miles away, and then sold.”Endorf noted, “Within 3.5 miles to the North, we have our home, domestic well, and also own and operate seven farms with high capacity irrigation wells. This proposed well field could affect water availability in these wells, and my property values in the long term.”GPM is “gallons per minute.”Susan Thomas, representing a family farming operation to the north and east of the proposed wellfield, also wrote a letter, stating, “The proposed location of the wells is less than ideal for long-term, high volume water extraction. The well field is at the edge of an adequate underground water resource for irrigation, and we believe the water levels are more variable and likely to drop quickly in dry years. We have multiple wells within a half-mile of the location, with the first drilled in 1956. Our family has 50 years of irrigation experience in the area, and we know that the long-term ability for the wells to produce a consistent 1000-1500 GPM is questionable. The proposed wells will pump every hour of every day, whereas our irrigation-only wells pump the equivalent to 20-25 calendar days per year. There will likely be a negative impact on our existing wells and those of our neighbors, both irrigation and domestic.”Owner of the Proposed Well SiteLast year, a property was identified as a potential new water source but the city ran into a snag when they tried to obtain the land. Landowners in the targeted area were approached and indicated they are not willing to sell any acreage to allow the project to move forward. A new site was located and the landowner was amenable to the project. However, the land was farther away from Fairbury, increasing the estimated cost from approximately $4,200,000 to as much as $7,466,760, according to cost estimates presented at Fairbury City Council meetings.The owner of the land where the proposed wells will be sunk is William Glenn, who is vice-chairman of the Little Blue NRD board.Thomas wrote in her letter, “We are concerned that there has been a lack of transparency throughout this project regarding the apparent conflict of interest and private financial gain to be made by an elected official, Mr. Bill Glenn..”FJN has reviewed the minutes of Little Blue NRD board meetings when the Water Sourcing Project was discussed. William Glenn voted “Yes”on April 13, 2021, to approve the interlocal agreement with the City of Fairbury. This would have been before his property was selected as the location for the wells. Glenn abstained when the board voted on land acquisition on October 12 and November 9, 2021. FJN has not learned that any conflict of interest has taken place.Thomas also noted, “Our understanding of the agreement between Mr. Glenn and the LBVWS is to create a conservation area on his property, as well as a perpetual income source. The existing spring-fed creek is vital to the conservation area being preserved, as well as the downstream flow of the Little Sandy Creek. The proposed well field will undoubtedly deplete water from this spring-fed habitat, contrary to the very spirit of conservation.”According to City Administrator Robert Messbarger, “As of right now, William and Mary Glenn have received $5,000 total from the Little Blue Valley Water System. This was for access to their property to drill test wells. They received $1,000 for each test well. No other financial compensation has been provided.”As to how much money the Glenns will receive if the project goes forward, Messbarger said, “At this time discussions of price have not yet taken place.Water Treatment PlantThe alternative to finding a new source of water is the build a water treatment plant to reduce nitrates from the locate water supply. Both Thomas and Endorf favor that idea.“Water resources already exist in abundance for the city. There is currently an excellent supply of water for the City, via the Little Blue river, wells southwest and east of the city, and Crystal Springs. With the high quantity of nearby water, does it make sense for community leaders and resource managers to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to create fifteen miles of new infrastructure - piping, motors, pumps, etc., plus the years of maintenance costs required in perpetuity for a resource that may dwindle away?” wrote Thomas. “We believe that the solution lies in a treatment plant for Fairbury’s current water resources. Has due diligence been done to determine short- and long-term costs for these wells versus a water treatment plant?”According to Project Manager Mary Renn, one reason for not building a treatment plant is cost, “Based on literature values for treatment of constructing a nitrate plant (without going to bid) based upon the quantity of water the City of Fairbury and its outlying customers currently use will run approximately $10,000,000. In addition to the initial cost of construction, there is an on-going annual cost to maintain the plant and dispose of the nitrates estimated at approximately $350,000-$500,000 per year. The cost of a nitrate plant and maintenance thereof will likely result in a higher user (customer) cost as compared to securing a new water source. In the event treatment were ever needed, a larger customer base coupled with a higher water quality to begin with will lower the operation and maintenance costs.”Renn also point out, “The new well site would not be classified as ground water under the influence of surface water and the treatment requirements are less restrictive.”However, Endorf doubts the new wells are a long term solution, “Fairbury has great water resources and the infrastructure to use them. The problem is quality not quantity. The proposed wellfield may be a short term solution but it is not a long term solution as nitrate levels continue to slowly rise in most wells due to nitrogen fertilizer applications to our croplands in previous years. Three of the proposed 5 well sites are on irrigated cropland which has had commercial fertilizer applied regularly for decades.”County CommissionersThe new water source is a City project and Jefferson County is not directly involved. However, County Commissioners previously met with representatives of the City and expressed support for the project.Commissioner Mark Schoenrock said, “Well, we want to do all we can to cooperate and bring this thing to fruition.”Commissioner Michael Dux said, “Absolutely. We will work with you every step of the way.”Thomas and Endorf wrote to Commissioners and then met with them on on Tuesday, February 1 to let them know not everyone was happy with the City’s proposed solution to it’s water problems.

City Approves New Contracts For Use Of Ball Fields

Nice Day For A Bargain

Related Articles

Governor Vetoes Child Abuse Tort Claim Bill

A Remembrance of Thomas Jefferson

Cattle Must Be Tested for Bird Flu Before Interstate Transport

Lawnmower Fire