By Sara Strong
The Rock County Rural Water Board wants to pull out of the Lewis and Clark agreement — mostly because of increasing costs, but also because new water won’t reach Rock County until 2014.
While it’s always been known that Lewis and Clark was a long-range plan, the Rural Water Board voted Monday night to try to withdraw from the Lewis and Clark system.
The Rural Water Board vote is a recommendation to the county Board of Commissioners. The Commissioners indicated they’d like to hear a presentation from Lewis and Clark to get the entire picture before voting on Rural Water’s recommendation.
Rock County Attorney Don Klosterbuer is looking into the details, whether Rural Water can sell its share of allocated water or whether it can even break the contract.
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will provide an alternative, backup water supply from the Missouri River to 24 towns and water systems in South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa.
The vote from local Rural Water comes as President Bush’s budget proposal for 2004 gives nothing to Lewis and Clark. The House and Senate can still include it in their budgets, and negotiate the difference.
But with 80 percent of the project funding coming from the federal level, RCRW doesn’t like what it sees.
Luverne Utilities Coordinator Red Arndt, who is also on the Lewis and Clark Executive Committee, said he’s hopeful federal support will come through to some extent, even if it can’t be the $7 million requested.
The current federal budget hasn’t been passed yet, but Arndt still hopes for the $7 million that’s in conference committee.
If Rock County’s rural water system cancels its agreement, it will impact the overall Lewis and Clark project financially, but Rock County is a small portion of the system. RCRW is signed up for a maximum of 300,000 gallons a day from the 29 million gallons that Lewis and Clark will produce.
"They’re a small part of it, but politically, it isn’t good," Arndt said.
New state legislators Rep. Doug Magnus and Sen. Jim Vickerman support Lewis and Clark. On the national level South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is also a project proponent. He called Lewis and Clark board members Monday to express his disappointment in the President’s proposal and to pledge his continuing support.
Arndt said, "When the Minority Leader takes the time to call you, it means a lot."
Arndt said he believes in the merit of Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, considering the cost and timeline.
"This water is for my kids and grandkids," Arndt said. "The total cost seems like a lot, but one year payment isn’t much."
The city of Luverne, for example, is estimating a payment of $36,000 this year for its contracted amount of 750,000 gallons of Lewis and Clark water.
Rural Water’s portion of the agreement for 2003 was $20,000 for the 300,000 allotment.
Rock County’s doubts
County Commissioner Ron Boyenga also sits on the Rock County Rural Water Board. He said, "This is the time to ask the tough questions, not later."
Funding delays, especially from the federal level, have already slowed the project and increased costs.
RCRW Manager Dan Cook said that when the county signed on to the Lewis and Clark project, it was expected to be completed by now.
Since 1993, RCRW has almost doubled its number of wells and has the capacity to pump three times its average use. On peak days Lewis and Clark water would have been most useful.
Cook said, "The funding and the time frame just isn’t as good as we were told initially. If we can maintain our existing water quality we’ll be good."
Contamination of the shallow wells is always an issue in this area. Cook said well field protection areas are helping to avoid nitrate contamination. Along with the increased number of wells, the wells are in different watershed areas, which Rural Water sees as a sign it can handle itself.
"Since 1993, we’ve been working to stave off the problems we identified, which made us want to become members of Lewis and Clark," Cook said.
Lewis and Clark costs are increasing for all members, but RCRW doesn’t want to take it on anymore.
When it signed up, Rural Water was expected to pay $303,018; in 2001 it was estimated at $450,741.
Commissioner Bob Jarchow said that the Rural Water Board should plan to fund future improvement and expansion costs if it doesn’t want to stay with Lewis and Clark.
Cook also said Rural Water is a primary system, but members still need to maintain a backup supply of their own.
The city of Sioux Falls is also considering what Bush’s proposal could mean to its water supply. Sioux Falls will use about 40 percent of the Lewis and Clark supply, so its crucial for the system to continue. It is contemplating looking for another backup water supply in the event that Lewis and Clark can’t deliver when its needed.
In his 2004 budget proposal, Bush didn’t fund any regional water projects.