City Mulling Spending Millions on Raw Water Main

As the raw water transmission main connecting the Missouri River with the city of Glasgow’s water treatment plant continues to erode, the city may face costly spot repairs to keep the system running, engineers say.

The current 20” main — stretching 7.8 miles to a valve vault Southeast of town — was installed in 1987, and has experienced seven leaks since 2003, according to Jeff Ashley, Morrison Maierle senior process engineer. Morrison Maierle is a consulting firm which provides infrastructure planning for city, county and state governments throughout the Pacific Northwest.

“I think it really comes down to the risk of failure of the raw water transmission main,” Ashley told The Courier. “It is well over 30-years-old and has been in a deteriorating condition year after year. I think the longer the city waits to take action, the greater the risk.”

The current piping consists of a steel cylinder with a concrete core, wrapped in prestressed wire, and coated with mortar. While in common use in the late 1980s, the materials are considered obsolete as they are prone to serious corrosion in wet environments, Ashley said.

This has led to seven leaks in the system over the past 18 years, Ashley said, which can be costly to repair due to the availability of materials and a construction company with the resources to tackle such projects on the fly.

One such leak happened at one of several places where the main crosses the Milk River as it snakes into Glasgow. Due to contemporary regulations, replacing that section was no small ordeal since it could not be done in a similar manner to how the pipe was first installed in 1987, Ashley said.

“It’s raw water from the river, but it is the only source of raw water to the city,” he said. “If there is a minor leak in that line, the city can keep pumping and the treatment plant can keep making [potable] water and sending it out to customers. But if there is a major leak, then it is a big problem.”

Such catastrophic failure could put the pipe out of commission for days or even weeks, Ashley said.

“Then, there is no water supply to be treated. The city would rely on what is available in their tanks, which is usually a few days worth of water supply. If there is a catastrophic failure that lasts longer than a day, the city is at risk for potential water rationing and maybe even boiled water orders.”

With such a contingency possible, now may be an appropriate time to look into replacing the entirety of the pipeline with new piping made of PVC, which is more corrosion resistant, Ashley said.

“There are potentially financial incentives with COVID dollars incoming from the federal government, so there may be a financial advantage. But mainly, it would just be due to the risk of failure.”

CURRENT OPTIONS

During the regular city council meeting May 1, Ashley gave a public briefing about the issue, and outlined three alternatives the city can consider. The first would be to simply opt out and spot repair the current line as needed. The second would be to replace the line in four phases over the next eight years. The third would be to replace the entirety of the line in one project — beginning in 2023 and spanning through 2024.

There are pros and cons to each plan, Ashley said.

Phase one of the second option would begin with replacing the locations where the pipeline crosses the Milk River, minus the crossing already replaced. The pipes cross under about 15 feet below the river bed. In the 1980s, construction crew simply dug out a channel, placed the piping and refilled the channel.

Such methods are no longer feasible due to governing regulations. Now, piping is pulled in from side to side and connected to existing pipelines after flowing through a butterfly valve.

Phase 1 construction would begin and end in 2022, Ashley said. It would cost about $2.58 million total, including engineering and administrative fees.

Phase 2 construction would begin in 2024 at an estimated total of $3.8 million.

Phase 3 construction would begin in 2026 at an estimated total of $3.82 million.

Phase 4 construction would begin in 2028 at an estimated total of $2.1 million.

Altogether, the phased projects would cost about $12.3 million with engineering, construction, administration and other fees. While a higher long-term cost than an all-at-once project, a phased approach would likely be more apt to be approved for loans, Ashley said.

ALL AT ONCE

The cons for the all at once approach for replacement would be a lengthy permitting process. Pros would include replacement sooner — construction would begin in 2023 and be completed in 2024 — and long-term cost advantages.

According to current estimates, the total cost for the all in one project — including construction and other associated fees — would be about $9.6 million.

HOW TO PAY FOR IT?

While the city would likely qualify for a $500,000 grant from the Department of Commerce, and another $125,000 grant from the Department of Natural resources, a large chunk of the funding would need to be derived from a rural development loan from the Unites States Department of Agriculture.

As such, there likely would be a rate hike for city water customers to help pay off the loan or loans, Ashley said.

“We are not exactly sure yet how the costs will shake out,” he said. “That is what our discussions over the next few weeks will determine and how much grant money the city can get to minimize the impact of rate increases as much as possible.”

Ashley is also keeping an eye on the American Jobs Plan, a $2.3 trillion federal infrastructure plan touted by the Biden Administration currently being considered in Congress.

The Biden Administration proposes funding the plan largely through an increase in the corporate tax rate to 28%, and an expanded global minimum tax set at 21%, according to the Associated Press. But, Biden has said he is willing to accept a rate below 28% so long as the projects outlined in the bill are financed and taxes are not increased on people making less than $400,000 annually.

But, should such a bill pass, there likely would be additional funding available to the city of Glasgow for the water main project.

“We will know more in the next two to three weeks,” Ashley said.

The city council will continue to consider their options on the matter in coming meetings.

Chris McDaniel can be reached at 406-228-9301 or via email at [email protected].