Salem-Sun Valley Water Project One Step Closer

[everyman]

Just_Curious wrote:

<quoted text>
No comment on retaining the reservoirs?

City owns the lakes. Don't know of any plan to get rid of them. But, how could you use them as a water source without a functioning water treatment plant?

[everyman]

Interrobang wrote:

<quoted text>
Clarksburg doesn't look so bad on that list, does it
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/Utility_Rankings/W...

If you really want to see low, look at Parkersburg and Morgantown. Hint, look in the 1-10 range.

[everyman]

Israel williams wrote:

<quoted text> we are going to pay out more just so we can pay out more of our money to clarkburg. What is the cost to run our water plant a month. How much will it cost a month to pay for clarksburg water and SVPSD 15 cents fee, how much will it save or cost more??

Roughly, closing the water plant will save $12,000 per month operating expenses. In the first year, the approximate cost of purchased water will be $6,300. Of course, that goes up with time. But, the documentation also projects, that even at the top, full rate of purchase, the water system would still be operating in the black. Too speculative to determine when cost increases will catch up fully and cause a rate increase to Salem customers.

[Just_Curious]

Interrobang wrote:

<quoted text>
Clarksburg doesn't look so bad on that list, does it
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/Utility_Rankings/W...

Rate wise no,but quality of water based on violations is worse than Salem. Look at the EPA violation section.

[Just_Curious]

everyman wrote:

<quoted text>
Roughly, closing the water plant will save $12,000 per month operating expenses. In the first year, the approximate cost of purchased water will be $6,300. Of course, that goes up with time. But, the documentation also projects, that even at the top, full rate of purchase, the water system would still be operating in the black. Too speculative to determine when cost increases will catch up fully and cause a rate increase to Salem customers.

$6300.00 for a years worth of water for the system?

[Just_Curious]

everyman wrote:

<quoted text>
City owns the lakes. Don't know of any plan to get rid of them. But, how could you use them as a water source without a functioning water treatment plant?

I guess your correct on that point,. So recreational use is next on the list.

[everyman]

Just_Curious wrote:

<quoted text>
$6300.00 for a years worth of water for the system?

I wish, but no, that's 6,300 per month. Keep in mind that the total present cost of plant operation is $24,000 per month.

[Max]

At the local Level:

Local officials Guiding Salem West Virginia Water extension Project:

MAYOR
James Plaugher **

City Manager: David Mayle


1ST WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
Al Swiger *
Al Romagnoli **

2ND WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Fisher *
Israel Williams **

3RD WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tim Cork *
Pam Holstom **

[Interrobang]

everyman wrote:

<quoted text>
If you really want to see low, look at Parkersburg and Morgantown. Hint, look in the 1-10 range.

Why is Morgantown on there three times?

[Interrobang]

Just_Curious wrote:

<quoted text>
Rate wise no,but quality of water based on violations is worse than Salem. Look at the EPA violation section.

I'm going all over the place and only found info about Clarksburg which showed no violations recently... Where is the info?

[Max]

Interrobang wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going all over the place and only found info about Clarksburg which showed no violations recently... Where is the info?

Here's 3 in the last 10 years.

1998-06-01 Failure to monitor, Routine Minor (Coliform bacteria)
2002-07-01 Over maximum contaminant level, Single Sample Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
2002-10-01 Over maximum contaminant level, Single Sample Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

[Max]

everyman wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish, but no, that's 6,300 per month. Keep in mind that the total present cost of plant operation is $24,000 per month.

It's my understanding that the water repair job only resulted in
stopping a very small percentage of water loss. This water loss will be expensive when Salem Has to purchase water.

[Max]

Max wrote:

At the local Level:
Local officials Guiding Salem West Virginia Water extension Project:
MAYOR
James Plaugher **
City Manager: David Mayle
1ST WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
Al Swiger *
Al Romagnoli **
2ND WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
David Fisher *
Israel Williams **
3RD WARD COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tim Cork *
Pam Holstom **

A great bunch of public servants that were instrumental in bringing Salem Potable drinking water they all deserve a big hand.

[Max]

Interrobang wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going all over the place and only found info about Clarksburg which showed no violations recently... Where is the info?

http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/yourwater/system_...

[Israel williams]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
A great bunch of public servants that were instrumental in bringing Salem Potable drinking water they all deserve a big hand.

Why don't you call each person on your list and find out how they voted on the Water, bond and loan. I'm still not for Clarksburg water, I'm loseing the war. The idea is that pepole in Salem will forget by the next election. Also the ones in power will reward them and help elect them to a higher office. I just don't give up. I ran on no clarksburg water.

[everyman]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
It's my understanding that the water repair job only resulted in
stopping a very small percentage of water loss. This water loss will be expensive when Salem Has to purchase water.

One misconception needs to be cleared up on this. The state reports measure "unaccounted for water" which is not the same thing as water loss. For example, if your water meters are not reading production or consumption correctly then they would not be accounting properly for production or use or both.

I do know that Salem has had a major problem with water meters not measuring properly, so part of the so-called water loss could actually be in the metering systems.

As to how much actual loss has been corrected by recent repairs and replacements, I am not aware of any accurate numbers on that.

As to the issue of paying for water that is lost, that is an excellent point and one the city has been working to address and will continue to do so. The 6,300 per month purchased water cost presently estimated assumes a 20% water loss due to leaks and metering problems. Every water system has some amount of unaccounted for or "lost" water. The 20% is what is considered acceptable for all systems by the state.

I have seen the state reports on Salem's water system for the last 5 years. They show unaccounted for water varying from as little as 18% to as high as 37%.

The city knows the risk of paying for water that it never gets paid for by the consumer. That is why it has recently done a lot of work on repairs and replacement of lines. It presently has an application pending for a $1.5 million grant to continue to address the problem, has replaced the main meter at the plant to increase production measurement accuracy and has already purchased consumer meters to replace every meter in the system, which it is doing gradually as time permits. So, the city is doing everything it can at present to reduce the unaccounted for water issues without going into more debt that would cause a consumer rate increase.

[everyman]

Interrobang wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is Morgantown on there three times?

That seems to indicate that Morgantown has 3 different approved tariff rates. I assume this means different tariffs for different areas and/or different classes of customers, but don't know for sure.

I do know how Morgantown has kept their rates low for many years. One simple reason. They have never gone into debt for any purpose. All of their expansions and repairs and replacements have been paid for by system revenues solely. Now, that is excellent budgeting, management and decision making. They simply never got themselves in a hole, so they have never had to borrow money to dig themselves out. Of course, this has undoubtedly been aided by expansions at WVU and a booming housing market for several years. It would be interesting to know how the downward turn in the economy has affected their system budget. I would guess not as much as smaller towns like Salem and others because of the size of their customer base, particularly at WVU facilities.

[everyman]

Israel williams wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you call each person on your list and find out how they voted on the Water, bond and loan. I'm still not for Clarksburg water, I'm loseing the war. The idea is that pepole in Salem will forget by the next election. Also the ones in power will reward them and help elect them to a higher office. I just don't give up. I ran on no clarksburg water.

Save yourself a call or two. Israel voted no on every issue in connection with the project. Every other counsel member voted in favor of the present plan to borrow $900,000 and accept a $900,000 ARRA stimulus grant to connect to Clarksburg water supply through Sun Valley. On the other hand, council has been consistently unanimous on not borrowing $1.8 million to connect to the new water source.

[Max]

everyman wrote:

<quoted text>
One misconception needs to be cleared up on this. The state reports measure "unaccounted for water" which is not the same thing as water loss. For example, if your water meters are not reading production or consumption correctly then they would not be accounting properly for production or use or both.
I do know that Salem has had a major problem with water meters not measuring properly, so part of the so-called water loss could actually be in the metering systems.
As to how much actual loss has been corrected by recent repairs and replacements, I am not aware of any accurate numbers on that.
As to the issue of paying for water that is lost, that is an excellent point and one the city has been working to address and will continue to do so. The 6,300 per month purchased water cost presently estimated assumes a 20% water loss due to leaks and metering problems. Every water system has some amount of unaccounted for or "lost" water. The 20% is what is considered acceptable for all systems by the state.
I have seen the state reports on Salem's water system for the last 5 years. They show unaccounted for water varying from as little as 18% to as high as 37%.
The city knows the risk of paying for water that it never gets paid for by the consumer. That is why it has recently done a lot of work on repairs and replacement of lines. It presently has an application pending for a $1.5 million grant to continue to address the problem, has replaced the main meter at the plant to increase production measurement accuracy and has already purchased consumer meters to replace every meter in the system, which it is doing gradually as time permits. So, the city is doing everything it can at present to reduce the unaccounted for water issues without going into more debt that would cause a consumer rate increase.

Good information.

[Judy]

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
It's my understanding that the water repair job only resulted in
stopping a very small percentage of water loss. This water loss will be expensive when Salem Has to purchase water.

All it takes to verify if the expensive repair job fixed the problem is a comparison of the Out flow production of the main meter against the billed water usage,that's why the taxpayers bought these expensive computers and why we pay City administrators to run them.
Im sure we will get excuses and a good spin on the problem for six month's to cover thy butts for a ton of money spent on a problem still not fixed.