Questions and concerns raised at a recent forum about the city’s water system included the nature of the city’s water agreement with the Port Townsend Paper Corp. (PTPC) and the costs of a proposed membrane filter.

About 20 people were present at the forum discussing Port Townsend’s water system Thursday night, Sept. 19. Sponsored by the Port Townsend Air Watchers, the event took place in the Port Townsend Community Center and featured speaker Ian Jablonski, the city’s water quality manager.

According to Jablonski, the city purchased the beginnings of the water system in 1904 from a private owner. The drinking water was originally drawn from springs around town, but that was determined to be insufficient, Jablonski said.

A diversion on the Big Quilcene River was completed in 1928, followed by a diversion on the Little Quilcene River and the creation of the Lords Lake reservoir.

The 144-million-gallon City Lake at Eaglemount, about nine miles from Port Townsend, acts as the city’s primary staging area for the drinking water that comes to town, as well as the water that goes to the paper mill. The screen and chlorine gas injections that currently purify the water take place just downstream of the lake.

“All of the water goes through City Lake before it goes to town,” Jablonski said. “The nice thing about our system is it all flows by gravity.”

PTPC DEAL

The city has 4,735 water service connections in Port Townsend, Jablonski said, with 100 miles of distribution pipes. He said the city uses about 1 million gallons a day, with about 12-13 million gallons going to the mill daily. Jablonski said the mill does not pay for its water usage but instead maintains the pipes bringing the water in from the rivers. He said PTPC has three employees who manage the pipes and diversions out in the watershed.

In response to an audience question about the reasons for the city paying to purify the mill’s water, Jablonski noted that “chlorine prevents other things growing in their system as well.”

The 1956 city-mill agreement (extended in 1983 to end in 2020) also entailed the mill paying off an old capital bond on water pipe repairs. According to Jablonski, the mill consumption averaged 13.5 million gallons per day in 2012.

At the forum, questions were also raised about the nature of the city’s transmission line replacement fund, which is used for major water line repairs. Patrick Moore, a candidate for city council seat 2, asked why the city borrowed $1 million earlier this year from the fund in order to help pay for its ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system. He also asked if the city took a 10 percent management fee out of the loan.

Ken Clow, director of public works, said the $1 million loan would be paid back in full.

David Timmons, city manager, said in a separate interview the transmission line replacement fund only has city money in it. He said the city doesn’t take a management fee out of inter-fund loans.

“On a loan, the principal amount is paid at 100 percent [plus interest],” Timmons said.

“We use it basically for short-term financing,” he said of the transmission line replacement fund. In a water system emergency, a traditional bank loan would be sought to replenish the fund and pay for any repairs, he noted.

According to an Aug. 21 letter from John Watts, Port Townsend city attorney, the city does not need to notify the mill when the transmission line replacement fund is borrowed from.

“The PTPC would have no right to object (or approve) the loan transactions, and the city has no obligation to inform PTPC of the transactions,” Watts wrote.

Port Townsend resident Tamar Lowell said she thought the city-mill agreement should be less generous in 2020. She said she was upset that aside from paying to maintain the system, the mill doesn’t pay for its large water intake.

“Every citizen in this town is having to pay for water,” Lowell said. “We are in fact subsidizing the mill.”

PURIFICATION SYSTEM

Questions were raised about the city’s potentially expensive switch from the proposed UV purification system to a membrane filtration system.

The Port Townsend City Council voted 6-0 Sept. 16 to change plans after a new mandate from the state Department of Health (DOH) was received in August. The UV system was being designed in order to meet a federal mandate, but the state had concerns over the city’s watershed management practices, making UV water disinfection insufficient without better watershed controls.

According to Timmons, the site off Howard Street that was meant to house the UV system can still be used for membrane filtration.

“All the site design is everything else is still useable,” Timmons said. “We still have to put the same road in, the same power line ... our goal is to go forward and get the site started.”

Timmons said the city and DOH need to have a compliance agreement in place by Nov. 22. He said those negotiations have already begun.

According to Timmons, while the city could have pursued stricter watershed management policies, implementation would have been difficult and expensive since portions of the watershed are on the Olympic National Forest. He said pursuing a membrane system gives the city flexibility in responding to future federal pathogen control mandates.

UV was estimated to cost $9 million and was being pursued due to a mandate to prevent outbreaks of the parasite cryptosporidium. A membrane system could cost $14-$15 million.

“Membrane is the best alternative to protect us from that; it will give us broad coverage from a wide variety of pathogens,” Timmons said.

Port Townsend resident David Goldman said preserving the watershed should be more of a priority for the city.

“It’s one of Port Townsend’s most important resources, we’re ... dependent on it,” Goldman said after the forum.

He said he would have to liked to see more consideration for the DOH’s proposed watershed management practices before the decision to move to membrane filtration was made.