Water talks on again Suburbs will drop their PSC request; city may agree to larger pipeline By Ray Barrington News-Chronicle The Central Brown County Water Authority voted Wednesday to drop its request for the state Public Service Commission to intervene in Green Bay's plans for a new Lake Michigan water pipeline after the city threatened to go alone Tuesday. The move will restart negotiations for a city-suburban deal on use of a new pipeline to the lake, necessary to replace tainted and lowering suburban wells. The authority made the decision the night after Green Bay's water commission decided to drop plans for any new pipeline and instead try to upgrade other facilities to increase flow needed by 2005. "It's good for all Brown County," authority president Len Teresinski of Hobart said. The two sides will resume talks today. A meeting is scheduled for tonight in De Pere at which the authority's board will tell member communities of the options it's pursuing to get water. The recommendation: a "modified contributed capital" system with a shared 66-inch pipeline, with the authority paying for new pumping and intake facilities and part of the new pipeline, donating them to Green Bay. The suburbs would build their own treatment plant and distribution system. The once-preferred alternative, aquifer storage and recovery, took a major blow when updated numbers showed little savings in the untested ASR technology. "It's not just the cost," said Hugh Thomas of Howard. "It's the cost plus the risk." The technology, which stores water in underground aquifers, has failed in one test in Green Bay. It has not been tried in suburban wells. Thomas expressed concern that even if ASR tests are successful, the system could fail five or 10 years down the road with no alternative available. "This is not a luxury; this is something we can't risk," he said. Figures to be presented at tonight's meeting show that by 2030, a system with ASR would cost between $191.2 and $193.6 million, depending on how much testing is done. The modified contributed capital option preferred by the authority would cost $200.6 million by 2030. When extended to 2059, however, the ASR option would cost at least $281 million, while the capital option would be $276 million. By contrast, the cost for the suburbs to build their own pipeline would reach $204 million by 2030, $280 million by 2059. Wednesday's meeting was a rocky one, with a two-hour closed session devoted to the exact language of the authority's letter withdrawing its request to the PSC to intervene in Green Bay's pipeline request. Essentially, the authority has dropped its request to become a party to the PSC's approval of a new Green Bay pipeline, a request for hearings and a request that any new pipeline have the capacity to serve the suburbs. Green Bay broke off negotiations after the request was filed. Tuesday night, the city's Water Commission announced it would withdraw its request for a new pipeline and try to upgrade existing equipment to meet demand. After the closed session, the authority voted to recommend the contributed capital option, surprising those who thought Tuesday's city action had canceled any hope of that option being considered. During the meeting, talks continued via telephone between Teresinski and Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt, with Teresinski saying a 66-inch pipeline was a necessity for the suburbs. A smaller pipe would not provide enough capacity for the city and suburbs. Soon after, the meeting was closed again for almost an hour, before it was opened and Teresinski announced an agreement had been reached to return to the table. "We expect a favorable response after we acceded to their request," he said. The two sides still must reach an agreement by Sept. 1, when the city commission will open bids for a 54- and a 66-inch pipeline and decide which one to build. Meanwhile, authority communities - Allouez, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue, De Pere, Howard, Hobart, Lawrence and Ledgeview - will hear the recommendation tonight and see the member purchase agreement each community's governing board must approve. Teresinski said he would ask the communities to hold special board meetings to discuss the matter. The communities will hear the pros and cons of four options for a water supply. In the modified contributed capital option, costs, the need not to seek permission for land for a new pipeline and the possible tightening of future systems to the Great Lakes are seen, but the authority could face higher rates if Green Bay loses major commercial customers. The stand-alone pipeline is cheaper in the long run than an ASR plan, but has the largest initial construction costs - including land costs - and is most subject to effects from lower usage. The ASR options - one with minimal testing, one with heavy testing - are lower in cost at first, and do not require building of treatment facilities. The risks, however, that ASR would not be ready in time for a 2006 deadline municipalities face to eliminate radium from drinking water are a problem, as are possible future problems with ASR, the loss of control to Green Bay and the higher cost of water.