The city of Springfield figures it needs 12 million gallons of water per day from a backup water source in case of severe drought. A gravel pit near Riverton already owned by the city would produce 3 million gallons, according to a city-funded study released last month. Other pits in the area would produce another 15 million gallons of water each day, the experts say.
All told, that’s 6 million gallons per day more than the city’s target. So what’s the problem?
“I don’t think that, as we look at the gravel pits, that’s going to be the answer because of its effect on the wells in the area,” says Mayor Mike Houston, long a proponent of damming a tributary of the Sangamon River to create Hunter Lake, a would-be 3,000-acre reservoir first envisioned when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House.
Wells used by Chatham, Riverton, New Berlin, Mechanicsburg and Dawson would be drawn down if Springfield takes water from gravel pits, according to the study by Layne Christensen, an Indiana firm, released June 29. How much the aquifer would recede depends on how much water the city takes. But the 18 million gallons of water available each day from the pits is more than double previous estimates.
Layne Christensen, which was paid more than $250,000, based its numbers on pumping water and measuring the effect on the aquifer and the water level in the city-owned gravel pit that contains millions of gallons. In 2008, the engineering firm of Crawford, Murphy and Tilly, using estimates about the aquifer provided by the Illinois Water Survey as opposed to actual test results, projected the pits could produce less than 7.5 million gallons per day.
Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards, who has long said that the pits have sufficient water to supply the city in the event of a drought, said the study shows that Hunter Lake isn’t needed.
“Now we’ve done the pump test, and the pump test told us there’s enough water out there,” Edwards said. “It’s up to everyone to put their emotions behind them, and let’s make a decision here.”
Not so fast, says Houston, who called the study “very technical.”
“What we’re going to have to do is take it and analyze it and develop our plan,” Houston said. “The real question is what impact it has on others who are using this (aquifer) as a source of water.”
Don Hanrahan, a local attorney who has long opposed Hunter Lake, says the mayor is all wet.
Hanrahan said that the city’s own numbers show that no more than 9 million gallons per day would be needed in a worst-case scenario drought, and taking that much water from the pits wouldn’t leave Chatham or any other community without water.
“The study indicates to me, pretty clearly, that Hunter Lake is totally unnecessary and a total waste of money,” Hanrahan said. “Certainly, we have to talk to these other communities and let them know what we’re thinking of doing. However, the study itself seems to indicate there’s plenty of water out there for everybody so long as we don’t hog it all.”
Until partnering with New Berlin to open a new water plant last spring, Chatham had purchased water from City Water, Light and Power, which sold the village slightly more than 1 million gallons per day during the most recent fiscal year, according to CWLP spokeswoman Amber Sabin. All told, communities with wells near the gravel pits use less than 2 million gallons per day.
Del McCord, Chatham village manager, said he hasn’t given the water-supply study a thorough review, but he didn’t disagree with the premise that there is enough water for everyone, provided communities can decide how to divvy it up.
“It would appear that way to me,” McCord said.
One possibility would be pumping water in shifts so that Springfield pumps water at night while use is low and Chatham and other communities take water during the day, McCord said. Ultimately, Springfield would have to demonstrate to the state Office of Water Resources, a division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, that taking water from the pits wouldn’t adversely affect other communities, McCord said.
“This is, frankly, none of my damn business,” McCord said. “Quite frankly, we’re just bystanders in this unless we’re ill-affected.”
Contact Bruce Rushton at brushton@illinoistimes.com.
The 18 million gallons a day Rushton cites is only if CWLP pumps all 6 of these gravel pits dry during an 18 month drought. This would put all the small towns that use this aquifer out of water. Who thinks the 6 gravel pits owners would also go for this, it would put them all out of business too.
From reading the report CWLP can't even pump the 12 million gallons a day they want from these 6 gravel pits without negatively affecting Rivertons, Dawsons, Mechanicsburgs, Chathams and New Berlins wells and watersupplies. And what about down the road when these small towns are using more water, and if other people tap into this aquifer?
3 million gallons of water a day from the Clear Lake gravel pit that Springfield only partly owns? It's a pipe dream, literally. If these guys would read the report thoroughly they will see that it says Springfield can't even pump at a useful withdrawal rate from the Clear Lake gravel pit without possibly having significant impacts on Riverton’s wells.
Am I the only person that can comprehend what this report says?
In the third sentence "This would" should have been "This could". (Probably would)
Sorry, my mistake.
Well, RD - CWLP claims we only "need" 9 MGD in the worst imagineable drought. And we are talking about "needing" that much ONCE A CENTURY, maybe twice - or, NEVER.
So if we "need" only 9, why in hell would you pump them dry and use 18? To "prove" you need a $100 million dam?
And do we "need" 9 mgd, when we are using excess capacity for electricity by using those old wet ash plants that hog 3-4 MGD? Why not shut them down, or convert them to gas? THen we only "need" 4 or 5 MDG - the amount wasted by watering lawns in a drought.
The other users combined pump less than 3 MGD. Guess what? Nine plus three is 12, not 18. Why don't you ask Chatham what kind of pump testing they did - ha! I imagine they knew what they were doing.
It is known that there would definitely be negative impacts and would cost them more money to operate their wells. It's also stated that Springfield can't even pump at a useful withdrawal rate from the Clear Lake gravel pit without possibly having significant impacts on Riverton’s wells.
And lets see, the drought in the 1950's, the late 1980's and now this one. Not exactly every century I would say.
The last cost estimate to build the whole Hunter Lake project was about $80 million, not $100 million.
Your solution to save 3-4 MGD is to shut down all the older CWLP power generating units or spend way more money to use gas? Why don't you tell this to the ratepayers of CWLP and to all the people that work for or at the Elkhart coal mine. You have got to be kidding.
So, 3MGD plus 12MGD is 15 MGD which could equal severe impacts any way you look at it.
No falsifiations here djh486, just what the report states.
Why would Springfield want to use these gravel pits anyway when they could build the Hunter Lake project, have have way more water, own it 100% themselves, and affect no one else?
Still, at some point logic, science and common sense have to be (well, should be) the deciding factors. If this report says that there is sufficient capacity in the gravel pits for the worst case that CWL&P can come up with, then the decision is which option is cheaper and more reliable? Sure sounds like the gravel pits fit that criteria better than the new lake.
IMO the people that stand to lose the most if CWLP goes with these gravel pits are the ratepayers of CWLP.
You talk about logic, science and common sense, so think about these things.
Do you think all these small towns such as Chatham and much less Springfield are going to be using less water years from now?
By reading the latest report there is not even enough water in these gravel pit/aquifers now that if Springfield uses them it wouldn't negatively affect these small towns.
If you go by the amount of water it would produce for Springfield, by the last estimate Hunter Lake is actually cheaper to build than what using the gravel pits would be.
As far as being more reliable? How could Hunter Lake not be, it's a static measureable quantity of water and Springfield would own it all themselves.
If Springfield uses the gravel pits they are going to have to worry about water rights, affecting other communities, and a host of other issues.
And to top everything off if Springfield goes with the gravel pits all the millions CWLP has spent working on the Hunter Lake project will have been wasted, and they will have to start all over again.
One more thing. If you may think I am defending building Hunter Lake because of any of the things you mention, you would be mistaken.
I'm defending it because for over 25 years I have always thought it's the right thing to do for the ratepayers of CWLP and the citizens Springfield, which I am both.
I was involved in city governments of any of these communities, I would get me hands on the study and prepare to protect my constituents.
I would look to see what basic assumptions of water supply were included in the study. Things like industrial uses of water as far upstream as Decatur, for example.
I would look at projections of water use over time by ADM, Tate and Lyle, and others and the effects on the water discharges from Decatur into the Sangamon River watershed.
I would look into projected water usages from proposed industrial projects... like the proposed Taylorville Energy Center proposed by Tenaska. The current plan includes removing between 2-3 million gallons a day of water from Decatur sanitary district discharge, thus removing it from the Sangamon River watershed. The plant is planning for zero discharge... meaning none of this water would be returned to the Sangamon River.
The Sangamon River water gets filtered through rock and earth, and becomes the Sangamon aquifer, which is the source of the water in the rock quarry.
I would certainly read the report and see if water usage and discharge projections of communities upstream from these gravel pits were included.
Because if not, the report may not be worth the paper it is written on... and the smaller communities who rely on the Sangamon aquifer would be at the mercy of industry and Springfield users.
Who would have priority in a drought year?
Just my opinion.