“In the middle shall you walk the safest.”
If this motto is followed, it may keep you out conflict. Sometimes, though, it takes conflict to get corrective change. I am going to get out of the middle and take a position that calls for change that may be essential for our health and safety.
It is time for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System to be controlled by a Water Authority. Only in this way can we be assured that there is an arm’s length between those hired to oversee the safety of the water and those of us who drink the water. Only in this way can there be an arm’s length between those who make the decisions about the equipment and renovations needed and those of us who have to pay the bills for the equipment and renovations.
If we had had a Water Authority, it is certain that before we spent multi-millions to put in another water intake we would have determined that the present backup was not operational, and it is doubtful that with a Water Authority that the engineering would have been botched. There is much at stake for those of us who count on having good water and have to pay for it.
First, there is the issue of health and safety. The disinfection procedure used in our water system and the chemical composition of the water prior to disinfection allows many different organic chemical byproducts to form. Trihalomethanes (THMs) are a byproduct of chlorine disinfection which our system uses. Total THMs are regulated by the EPA at a maximum allowable annual average of 80 parts per billion.There is a risk when too many THMs are in your water. Some people who consume water with excess THMs over long periods of time may have an increased risk of getting cancer and other liver, kidney, and nervous system problems.
To be sure our water is within the limits of THMs and other harmful agents, tests are required. These test results are public, but I could not find any recent Consumer Confidence Reports on the Kerr Lake Regional Water System Web site. This is the most logical place for the public to search for water information, but the last published reports on their Web site were done in 2004.
On the other hand, the Franklin County 2008 Annual Drinking Water Quarterly Report was available. Since they get their water from KLRWS, their testing results are relevant. They showed a violation of total THMs for one quarter. They had a range from 37 low to 185 high. Remember, the EPA allows 80 parts per billion before they consider it a violation. Included in the the Franklin County report were reports they received from Henderson, and those reports showed no violation of THM from the Henderson plant with a range from 25 low to 126 high for the reporting period of 2008.
So, can the public determine if there is a problem at times with THMs in our water?
At the KLRWS Advisory Board Meeting on January 11, 2010, an employee from Oxford questioned the “pretty high THM” with “six out of eight violated.” This was after a report that Stovall was “in compliance with the last two reading of THMs good.” They implied, but did not state, that Stovall had had a problem with THMs prior to these two good readings. (This was taken from my notes of the meeting.)
Then at the March 8, 2010, KLRWS Advisory Board Meeting there was an update on THMs as an agenda item. The group was told that Mike Acquesta, a consulting engineer, was involved with a pilot study. An employee of Warren County who had attended other water meetings on the state level offered that new evidence might show a different problem causing high THMs. He was not asked to explain, and there was no objection to going forward with a pilot study.
So, the question remains: Do we have a problem with THMs in our water?
My impression (and it was just my impression) is that THMs are a continuing problem. It was also my impression, and it was not encouraging, to realize that the operators of the water system seemed satisfied and relieved with quarterly testing that showed THMs were only marginally safe and that they could come in just under the wire so they did not have to show a violation.
I would have felt far more secure with a serious discussion of how to obtain the safest reading that would insure the safety of our water on each and every test each and every time. Chuckling with relief that the water just got by on the test does not instill confidence. Again, this was my impression. When employees are reporting to employees and one elected official, exactly who is in authority to enact a remedy? This is why we need a water authority.
The levels of THMs can depend on many things, including temperature, the amount of chlorine used, the season of the year, and the amount of plant material in the water. Quarterly tests, naturally, will vary also. When we are all drinking and using the water daily, a quarterly test does not seem sufficient when problems have been noted. When we are drinking and using the water daily, marginal safety ranges are not good enough. When we are drinking and using the water daily, we do not need to pay a consulting engineer for a pilot study; we need a sure and quick fix. Surely other systems have faced these problems and know of effective corrective measures.
It does not matter to me if the water is outstanding in every test but this one. THMs, can and do cause health problems. The argument that the water is safe and good in all other aspects is not good enough. It must be safe and good consistently in all tests.
This is another very good reason to have a professional engineer, but an even better reason to have a water authority that can and will put the public in the driver’s seat. That will put an arm’s length and a safeguard between the operators of the system and the consumers.
Next — to the question of equipment, management and money.
Our water system uses a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition monitoring computer system (SCADA) to meter water use. This system replaced the old analog monitors. At the January Advisory Meeting, Oxford reported that their metered water use went from 1 gallons per day (GPD) a day to 2 million GPD overnight.
At the March meeting, Oxford asked when they could expect their money. Oxford had been overcharged around $132,000. The complete explanation of what happened to the SCADA system was not available on March 11. In an e-mail from the Henderson City Finance Director Sandra Wilkerson, she stated: “The money will not be reimbursed to Oxford, they just won’t pay a bill until it catches up.”
Now this may just be a one-time snafu, but it was one that was lightly passed over by the Advisory Committee. The problem with SCADA should be determined and corrected, and a full report should be made. It leads one to wonder if Henderson has paid too much, or if their water use was not metered correctly… But who would tell us? A water authority would insist on as much.
Another concern that a aater authority would oversee is management . A management concern I had when on the Henderson City Council was that our full time Operational Director of our Regional Water System was also the Director in Clarksville, Virginia. I just could not rationalize how one person could do both jobs. This situation may not be true now, but I do not believe a water authority would have ever permitted this kind of arrangement.
Leaving the management and direction of an entire regional water system that serves customers in a four county region to an advisory committee is not sufficient, adequate, or safe. Our water is too important to leave in the hands of people who can only advise. We need a committee with authority that supersedes employees, management, and elected officials. The middle is not the safest when it comes to our water.