DES MOINES, Iowa — Deemed one of the world’s largest nitrate removal facilities, the Des Moines Water Works’ (DMWW) board of trustees on May 27 approved a contract for approximately $700,000 for design services for its new plant expansion, located in central Iowa.

 

Laura Sarcone, DMWW communications coordinator, said the estimated construction cost could reach $15 million for the facility’s expansion, which DMWW has contracted CH2M, a construction engineering company in Englewood, Colo., to build.

“The intended expansion will increase treatment capacity of the nitrate removal facility from 10 million gallons per day to 20 million gallons per day,” she said. “We turned on the nitrate removal facility on May 21 and it currently remains in operation.”

In 2016, Sarcone said CH2M completed a nitrate management plan of the Polk County facility, which provides drinking water for 500,000 customers. “The plan included several recommendations needed in order to comply with safe drinking water standards for nitrate, while raw water nitrate concentration increase,” she said.

In March 2015, the board of trustees filed a federal lawsuit against the boards of supervisors in Sac, Buena Vista and Calhoun counties. DMWW alleged the three counties’ 10 drainage districts were leaking nitrates into the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, and thus were point source polluters as defined by the Clean Water Act and Iowa Code Chapter 455B.

As a result, DMWW called for these boards of supervisors to take all necessary actions to comply with the Clean Water Act. In addition, DMWW demanded damages in an amount required to compensate for “the harm the drainage districts caused by their unlawful discharge of nitrate.”

On March 17, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa struck down DMWW’s lawsuit, saying the Iowa legislature should resolve the issue.

“Central Iowa will continue to be burdened with expensive, serious and escalating water pollution problems; the lawsuit was an attempt to protect our ratepayers, whose public health and quality of life continue to be impacted by unregulated industrial agriculture,” said Bill Stowe, DMWW CEO and general manager.

If a bill – House File 316 – introduced in the state legislature in March would have passed, it would have dissolved DMWW, substituting it with a regional water authority placed under the control of local municipalities.

On April 17, the Iowa Partnership for Clean Water (IPCW) said shortly after the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed DMWW’s lawsuit, Stowe threatened double-digit-percent rate increases “and continues to mislead Iowans about the many causes of increasing costs at DMWW facilities.”

Don Kass, IPCW board member, said because DMWW now serves more than 20 communities, which purchase the majority of its water, these communities have no say in decision-making or rate increases that are implemented.

“Unfortunately, as Iowans are trying to move forward to achieve real water quality improvement and explore a regional governance model, DMWW is still blatantly blaming farmers for water treatment costs,” he said, adding the IPCW supports a regional water facility.

But Sarcone said central Iowa will continue to be burdened with expensive, serious and escalating water pollution problems. “The (DMWW) lawsuit was an attempt to protect our ratepayers, whose public health and quality of life continue to be impacted by unregulated industrial agriculture,” she said.

“While many in the agriculture community and state political leadership took issue with the lawsuit, nobody objected to the facts showing drainage districts are polluters. The risks remain and demand immediate accountability to protect our state.”

Last year, the IPCW commissioned former DMWW CEO L.D. McMullen to review the CH2M report that served as the basis for DMWW’s overall capital improvement plan. In his report, McMullen concluded increased demand due to population growth in the metropolitan area is the primary factor contributing to the need for expansion of DMWW facilities – not nitrate content in source waters.

“It is clear that population growth, and resulting demand, is the major driver of infrastructure costs for DMWW,” Kass said. “It is my hope that all contributing factors are taken into account moving forward, rather than blame being placed solely on Iowa farmers upstream for double-digit rate increases that cover a much wider scope.”

The IPCW said DMWW’s infrastructure improvements will need to address capacity issues first and foremost and should be scalable in order for the utility to treat more water, as it is needed.

The IPCW urged water stakeholders in the region to consider these factors as DMWW moves forward in implementing infrastructure improvements with the impending expansion.

“Case in point: It was noted during the Iowa Supreme Court case that the resulting cost to a typical DMWW customer to run the nitrate removal equipment is about 1 cent per day,” Kass said. “DMWW did not dispute those costs. That certainly puts things in perspective.”