Water Sourcing Project Awaits Test Results

By Gordon HopkinsThe drilling of test wells for the City of Fairbury’s Water Sourcing Project is now complete, according to Project Manager Marry Renn, who told FJN, “The test well drilling is complete and the LBVWS (Blue Valley Water Systems ) entity is now awaiting test results.”The purpose of the Water Sourcing Project is to locate a new, lower-nitrate water source for both Fairbury and the Little Blue NRD (Natural Resources District).In July, 2021, the city entered into an interlocal agreement with Little Blue NRD to cost share in a project to identify a new water source with nitrates ranging in the 0-3ppm, under the LBVWS 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. Those board members are: Scott Nelson, General Manager - Little Blue NRD; Kevin Orvis, Project Manager - Little Blue NRD; Robert Messbarger, City Administrator, City of Fairbury; Erin Reimer, City Clerk, City of Fairbury.The project is cost shared and based upon projected consumption of approximately 72 percent Fairbury and 28 percent Little Blue NRD respectively.City officials identified a prospective location for the new wells approximately four miles south of Daykin. 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. The route of the pipeline to feed the water to Fairbury would be about 14 miles.Renn told FJN, “The goal of LBVWS is to have five operational wells. LBVWS will share additional information as it becomes available.”Nitrate LevelsFairbury 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.According to the Environmental Protection Agency, drinking water that exceeds 10 parts per million of nitrates is not safe to drink.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.Nitrate testing of these wells for the first quarters of 2022 was completed last week.The results:Crystal Springs: 7.25 ppmEast Well #1: 8.66 ppmEast Well #2: 7.57 ppmEast Well #3: 10.4 ppmCity Administrator Robert Messbarger told FJN, “Please note that East Well #3 never operates by itself, it is always blended with East Well #1 or East Well #2.”The test result of East Well #1 and #3 blended was 9.27 ppm. The test result of East Well #2 and #3 blended was 8.56 ppm.Objections to the ProjectA number of area landowners have objected to the Water Sourcing Project. FJN has been contacted by a number of landowners, including one letter to the editor, published in this issue, signed by 20 different individuals.Some 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.”Another landowner, Tobin Hoffman, spoke at a meeting of the Public Works Committee in February, “I already have issues with a well on my property already, due to some new irrigation wells. And the nitrate levels have been, I’ve been testing my water pretty much since I moved out there in 2003. And it’s been climbing a lot since the farm ground got tore up around me. And you guys got another problem. You got an open old sandpit north of me that’s in the water table. So all the raw fertilizer that’s brought out from the feed yards, chicken plants.”Mary Renn has stated that the new water source will ensure lower nitrate content by pumping, “slow and deep.”Hoffman doubts this approach will work.“And you guys, you’re going to pump 1,000 gallons. Now you guys are going to be doing that 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. You’re really going to start moving water, said Hoffman. “And we do not know how you guys are going to pull from underneath. You might move some more contamination around but we don’t even know is down there yet. I mean, I have iron content in my water. I have kind of a slightly hard water. But when I moved out there, my water was brown.”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. A number of landowners favor that idea.According to 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, Hoffman doubts the new wells are a long term solution, “I think you guys are putting, for what your dollars you’re spending, you’re putting a patch on the nitrate issue, which has been here for years. Because I used to live in Gilead when we started having to get rural water in the 90s due to the nitrate levels. Bruning, they had to drill a well down by Belvidere, and it’s still climbing. I mean, they’re 10 in Bruning.”Hofman said, “I mean to me, economically, you’re going to build the nitrate treatment plant, a water treatment plant sooner or later. Because the nitrate issue is not going away.”

Robert Beetley

Taxing Wind Farms

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