Untitled Document
After years of debate, the city of Springfield may be
close to making a decision on whether to proceed with the construction of
Hunter Lake.
The controversial project, which would result in the
creation of a 7,795-acre lake southeast of Lake Springfield, has been on
the drawing board since at least 1965. The City Council last week received an engineering
study that explored one of the most popular alternatives to Hunter Lake:
the combination of six Sangamon River Valley gravel pits and 14 nearby
wells. The study found that the two sources combined would
meet the city’s 12 million-gallon-per-day minimum water requirement
at a lower capital cost than previously estimated. The new data shows the
project’s total capital cost at $55.2 million instead of the $63
million cited in 2006, thanks to an increase in water volume in the gravel
pits. Aldermen, who have expressed concern about the $89
million price tag for Hunter Lake, say it’s time to move forward and
make a decision, especially in the wake of recent debate about whether to
increase water rates and property taxes. “Most of the council is in agreement,”
Ward 6 Ald. Mark Mahoney says. “We need to look at the alternatives
and we need to make a decision fairly soon so we don’t keep wasting
money.”
Mahoney says the aldermen will most likely form a
subcommittee in the next couple of months and will call on City Water,
Light & Power to make a presentation about Springfield’s various
water-supply options. Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards, chairman of the utilities
committee, has already taken a position and says that he favors the option
of gravel pits and wells. The city needs a supplement to Lake Springfield in
the event of a 100-year drought that lasts for 18 months, he says, and
should pay accordingly. “It’s not our main focus —
it’s a backup,” Edwards says, “so, in other words, if for
99 years everything is hunky-dory do we spend all this money for the 99
years we’re not going to use it or do we come up with an alternative
for that one year?”
The city administration has been cagey about its
recommendation, but Mayor Tim Davlin has previously said that he wants to
move forward with the construction of Hunter Lake. Davlin could not be
reached for comment for this story, but his executive assistant, Jim
Donelan, says that the administration is making sure that CWLP provides
aldermen with all relevant information to enable them to make a decision.
That may not be easy, says Tom Skelly, CWLP’s
water-division manager. Identifying the best second water-supply source has
turned into “a very complicated issue,” he says. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers first accepted and
published the proposed Hunter Lake environmental-impact statement in
November 2000 but cannot award its final permit until the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency issues Springfield its own
water-quality-certification permit. For this to happen, Skelly contends,
the city must pay a $10,000 fee to host a public hearing for residents to
weigh in on the issue. CWLP won’t schedule a hearing until it gets a
green light from the aldermen. “If there’s no intention to move forward
with Hunter Lake,” he says, “why waste the $10,000 on the
hearing?”
But even if the city makes a decision tomorrow, CWLP
estimates, it could be anywhere from two to five years before either of the
popular second water-supply options is available. If aldermen choose Hunter
Lake, Skelly says, they will need to complete the permit process and hash
out such unresolved issues as sewage treatment with Virden, Divernon, and
Pawnee. If they decide to go with the gravel pits and wells
alternative, he says, they’ll face unresolved legal questions over
the transmission of groundwater to Lake Springfield, negotiations with
landowners, and discussions over right-of-way for the pipeline. “There’s a balancing act between design,
permits, and purchasing,” Skelly says. “It’s a
complicated task if we do go in that direction.”
Contact Amanda Robert at arobert@illinoistimes.com.
This article appears in Feb 28 – Mar 5, 2008.
