Lockport Manager Vies for Chicago Water

Judged:

I watched the tape of the September 23 council meeting about the wells in town, and I could clearly see the town manager and the "expert" from the water dept. strongly suggesting that Lockport should switch to Lake Michigan water, provided by American Water. Any opinions on this subject, or are we all just going to go along with higher rates and being under the taxing thumb of Emperor Daley?

Chan Ho

Judged:

I for one already have a fantastic water softener, a great water filter system, and an additional faucet mount filter for my drinking water. I absoloutely DO NOT need the added cost of Chicago water to flush my toilet, water my garden, wash my car, shower, or even drink. To the Mayor, the city council, the town manager, and the water deptartment; STOP trying to make Lockport into every other town around here. We are not Naperville, Bolingbrook, Plainfield, Homer Glen, New Lenox or Frankfurt. The absolute LAST thing we should be doing is putting additional costs onto the residents of our great town in some hair-brained scheme that ultimately gives good ol' King Richie another source of revenue--US! Whenever Chicago has a hole in its budget(let's face it, that's every year!) they can just raise the rates they charge for water. Same goes for every municipality from Chi-Town all the way to Lockport. Fracaro brought up a great point about medical waste found in Lake Michigan samples, including hormones, and an Army Corps of Engineers study advising against the further depletion of the Lake levels. Don't let these Jokers push this through! There is a December 31 deadline for Lockport to accept its allocation of Lake Michigan water. Call or write or email your alderman AND the Mayor to voice your position on this matter BEFORE it's too late. The town manager and the water department head both knew about this deadline long, long ago, but are just bring it up now to foster a false sense of urgency in this matter. Thanks for reading.

another lockport resident

AOL

Judged:

It will be very expensive to tap into Lake Michigan water now. We should have when Frank Mitchell was mayor, but he was dead set against it. They were lying pipeline and invited Lockport to tap into it. Frank refused. Our water bills will triple. Homer Glen complains about their huge bills, ours will be even higher. Chan I'm with you, we have installed a water filtration system as well as a water softner.

kevindaly

Since: Mar 08

247

Lockport

ISP: Lockport, IL

Judged:

I'm going to get a crack in the jaw for posting this, but I'd do without some things in my budget if I could stop at a gas station for coffee or get a soft drink with my food.

I grew up with Chicago water and I have not transitioned well. I've been called crazy for my inability to drink stuff around here, but I'd rather do without it.

I have no qualms with Lockport water at the faucet, with my clothes, or anything other than my above pickiness. I'm not much of a drinker, so I can't really attest to the beer at the bars.

I'd be down for a transition if a clear majority of voters and businesses thought it was a good idea, but if the city wants to act alone I would be against it.

Chan Ho

Judged:

Thanks for the early responses. ALR, the Chicago water pipe is capped at 159th and Cedar, according to the presentation at city hall on the 23rd. That's part of my concern because I don't want the city to jump on this option because it appears sooooo easy to do. There are several other options, some better than others in water quality and costs. I remember many, many years ago when Chicago water came to Downers Grove. Every friend who I knew living in that town screamed that the bill tripled. Each and every one of them. TRIPLED! Do we want that? And didn't American Water have all kinds of legal trouble just last year, as well as numerous complaints? And they will be the exclusive provider if Chicago water comes to Lockport. Kevin, I respect your opinion, although I whole-heartedly disagree with it. I too grew up on Chicago water, but Lockport's well water, even untreated at the faucet, isn't bad compared to some wells I've drank from, imo. But to address your concern about the majority of voters vs. the city in regards to what direction we go in, well the council and mayor are the ones making the decision. That, coupled with the fact of a December 31st deadline, is why EVERYONE who opposes this option should call, write, or email the council and mayor and vouice their opinion. FOLKS, THIS IS A LOT CLOSER THAN YOU THINK! And once the decision is made it is irreversible.

Chan Ho

Judged:

I've mentioned on other threads that I moved out of Crapcago about 20 years ago for a variety of reasons. The last thing I want is to be beholden to Emperor Daley for my water, or every other municipality between chicago and Lockport, as they also can tax water moving through their towns. To the mayor and council, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Perreta, Fracaro and Van Dyke seemed cautious, so let them and the rest of the council know your postion on this matter. NO CHICAGO WATER!

“Civil War Reenactor”

Since: Sep 08

233

ISP: Lisle, IL

Judged:

I attended the water meeting last week. I didn't get the impression that the City Adiministrator was in favor of one plan or the other. The City is addressing an issue that should have been addressed 40 years ago. Essentially, we have to improve the water and sewer infrastructure. There are three basic concerns that have to be addressed.

First, we have to improve the distribution and removal of water/waste from the older sections of town. We have to replace obsolete and non-code water mains in the older section of town. In many areas of the City we have water mains that are cast iron. Many of these pipes are 75 years old or older. The City current loses 28% of water distributed at the source throughout the entire distribution area. Quite a bit of this water is lost via leaks in the old pipes.

Second, we must improve waste and rain water removal. The first step in that process was recently completed. The City was mandated by the Federal and State EPAs to overhaul and update the waste and water treatment facility. This project was very expensive. Now, we have improve the infrastructure to get water to the water treatment plant.

Third and most important is that we are essentially mandated by the State EPA to improve the water quality at the source. As reported at the meeting there are essentially five options. Do nothing, treat the water with UV light, microfiltration, reverse osmosis and Lake Michigan water.

“Civil War Reenactor”

Since: Sep 08

233

ISP: Lisle, IL

Judged:

Water Cont'd

The City of Lockport, like all other cities in Illinois, must comply with Illinois EPA standards. However, the IEPA currently doesn't have a standard about what they require each community to do to get to their standard. So what does the City do? The City must make a decision based upon what the IEPA requires for water quality without knowing what the IEPA requires to get the job done. Plus, the IEPA could change the standards for water quality at the source at any time. Therefore, we must try to guess what the IEPA may require in the future. The cost of each of these options from 1-5 goes from least to most expensive. Also the "taste" quality of the water improves with each successive option. All of these options include treating water with chlorine.

Because we will be mandated by the State EPA to improve the water system at the source option #1 is out of the question.

Option #2 is treating the water with UV light. It is my understanding that treating water with UV light is very common. This is especially common in a commercial setting like a brewry. The question is, will this be enough?

Option #3 is microfiltration. This will remove almost all of the organic and inorganic particles from the water. The taste of the water will be better. The hardness of the water will also remain.

The cost of option #1 to option #3 is about $.80 per 1000 more. The next two options significantly increase the cost of delivery.

Option #4 is reverse osmosis. The cost of reverse osmosis is approximatly $2.39/1000 gal more than option #1. It is also approximately $1.50/1000 gal more than option #3. But the taste of the water gets us close to Lake Michigan water.

Option #5 is Lake Michigan water. This option provides us with the best "taste" quality but at a very steep price. The cost of delivery is approximately $6.50/1000 gal.

“Civil War Reenactor”

Since: Sep 08

233

ISP: Lisle, IL

Judged:

Water cont'd

So the fundemental question is this. What is more important taste or cost?

I would like the discussion to be something like this. What are the options available to communities throughout Illinois that DO NOT have the Lake Michigan option?

Then, once we get information about what other communites are doing outside of the Lake Michigan umbrella then we can get a pretty good idea about water quality.

There is no question that something should have been done 40 years ago when the cost would have millions of dollars less. But it wasn't done. As a result, they passed the responsibility on to us.

I believe that the best two options available are microfiltration and reverse osmosis. This is where the decision will probably be made. The cost of microfiltration is quite a bit less than reverse osmosis. Which brings us back to the fundemental question. Do we want to sacrifice taste for cost?

My personal preference is microfiltration. I believe that this is the most cost effective way to address this problem.

What does all this mean? We have to pay for these projects that will mandated by the IEPA. We, the City of Lockport, don't have a choice. Currently the funds generated via the water bills will not meet the funds needed to do the projects. This means we will see an increase in our water bills. How much? Who knows? But there will be an increase.

chinefoo

Chicago, IL

Judged:

how bout this, i grew up on this stuff "lived in unincorperated palos park" we all had OUR OWN WELLS!!!
rust and all that crap !!!!!!!!!!

here in locktucky we have a a few wells for each subdivision i have absolutly no issues at all!

what i have is an inline water filter, home depot
89$ filters at 30g galons = 19 bucks, that pulls alllllll the rust out then from there it goes into softener! only problim i have is calceum.

id really like to be able and im going to do this! is reopen or open a new well on my property, not for drinking and all that jazz, but for watering lawn, going to buy a "hand pump" ya know the kind you see in forest preserves and use that for garden.
but as far a michigan water come on plz, the cost to lay the pipes to our respective wells will be astronomical!!! in palos to each house in 1988 money from steet to house was 12000.00 bucks!!!!
grated we are mostly all pluged in but to run and dig all that pipe to each well ntm the streets being dug up, has got to be a fortune. remem this
is the same city that last year did work on the sewers for last 2 years and had a meeting about why they wernt alllll fixed and now are ripping those up again, and the streets STILL FLOOD!
but hay lets talk WATER. snap we cant get it off streets.

Water Boy

Judged:

The reality is that past city councils have passed the buck and failed to make tough decisions to ensure reelection. Tom Kelly is the leader of the pack who put off these decisions and allowed our water system to fall into such great disrepair. Now this council is faced with cleaning up after his mess. Why didn't we know about this sooner? Because we had an incompetent city manager who kept getting reappointed by an irresponsible city council led by Tom Kelly, Mike Kelley, Kelly Turner and Diane Seiler.

Lockport Opinion

Judged:

kevindaly wrote:

I'm going to get a crack in the jaw for posting this, but I'd do without some things in my budget if I could stop at a gas station for coffee or get a soft drink with my food.
I grew up with Chicago water and I have not transitioned well. I've been called crazy for my inability to drink stuff around here, but I'd rather do without it.
I have no qualms with Lockport water at the faucet, with my clothes, or anything other than my above pickiness. I'm not much of a drinker, so I can't really attest to the beer at the bars.
I'd be down for a transition if a clear majority of voters and businesses thought it was a good idea, but if the city wants to act alone I would be against it.

Are you really prepared to spend an additional $100 a month for water just so the coffee tastes better? Ask anyone from Homer, their water bills are triple ours and ours will only be higher because we have to probably go through Homer to get ours. I believe every city that the water goes through tags on some additional charges.

My vote is a loud and clear NO!

Lockport Opinion

Judged:

Water Boy wrote:

The reality is that past city councils have passed the buck and failed to make tough decisions to ensure reelection. Tom Kelly is the leader of the pack who put off these decisions and allowed our water system to fall into such great disrepair. Now this council is faced with cleaning up after his mess. Why didn't we know about this sooner? Because we had an incompetent city manager who kept getting reappointed by an irresponsible city council led by Tom Kelly, Mike Kelley, Kelly Turner and Diane Seiler.

So are you saying that the whole Murphy team was a bunch of idiots too? They were the ones in charge for the last four years and they did nothing about this problem. Tom Kelly was a bug on the wall for the last four years with absolutely no support from anyone on the council. You are delirious to pin this on Kelly and say it was his group - he didn't have a group in the last four years. In fact, he was pretty useless and disruptive.

“Civil War Reenactor”

Since: Sep 08

233

ISP: Lisle, IL

Judged:

I need to add something that was discussed by the City Administrator last week. I thought I put this information in the first couple paragraphs of my first post.

The City of Lockport has until December 31, 2009 to decide whether or not to tap on to Lake Michigan water. I can't remember exactly who imposed this deadline but I believe that it is the company that controls/owns the waterline from Chicago. In the past this company has granted an extension of their imposed deadline. Therefore, the first decision that the Council will probably make is whether or not the City wishes to enter an an agreement with the Lake Michigan water company. That decision must be made by December 31.

Contact your alderman and let him know your opinion.

Trout

Addison, IL

Judged:

Lockport Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>Are you really prepared to spend an additional $100 a month for water just so the coffee tastes better? Ask anyone from Homer, their water bills are triple ours and ours will only be higher because we have to probably go through Homer to get ours. I believe every city that the water goes through tags on some additional charges.
My vote is a loud and clear NO!

As a person who owns a house in Lockport, and a house in La Grange Park I will be fair and list the pros and cons:

Pros:

1. City water doesn't need salt added.

Cons:

1. Cost

There is no concrete evidence that indicates the MWRD of Greater Chicagoland is providing safer water than outlying resources. Although the plus of guaranteed softened water is there, it certainly does not warrant the need to changeover, especially at the cost.

For example, think of all the uses one uses water other than consumption:

1. Washing your car
2. Daily showers
3. Cleaning pots pans, dishwasher
4. Water lawns/plants/etc.
5. toilets, washing hands

When it comes to drinking water, why is it that Hinkley, Ice Mountain, etc. deliver drinking water?

It certainly tastes better in La Grange Park, but I'd trade my La Grange Park water bill for another Lockport bill any day of the week. Case closed.

ollie

Chicago, IL

Judged:

Trout wrote:

<quoted text>
As a person who owns a house in Lockport, and a house in La Grange Park I will be fair and list the pros and cons:
Pros:
1. City water doesn't need salt added.
Cons:
1. Cost
There is no concrete evidence that indicates the MWRD of Greater Chicagoland is providing safer water than outlying resources. Although the plus of guaranteed softened water is there, it certainly does not warrant the need to changeover, especially at the cost.
For example, think of all the uses one uses water other than consumption:
1. Washing your car
2. Daily showers
3. Cleaning pots pans, dishwasher
4. Water lawns/plants/etc.
5. toilets, washing hands
When it comes to drinking water, why is it that Hinkley, Ice Mountain, etc. deliver drinking water?
It certainly tastes better in La Grange Park, but I'd trade my La Grange Park water bill for another Lockport bill any day of the week. Case closed.

The practices listed here is what will make water the oil crisis of 2020.

Why do you have to wash your car? Daily showers? Your dishwasher uses less water than hand washing. Water your lawn?

Posters have all mentioned taste, but is anyone concerned about the health issues associated with Lockport water?

Thanks to Darren for his posts which at least address IEPA standards (or lack of local standards), but you all need to educate yourself on the abuse of water. Try a rain barrel or re-using your gray water to water your plants, but stop watering yoru lawns, washing your cars and unless you are an exercise freak or work in a "dirty" job, skip the daily showers too. Americans waster too much water. Here in the midwest we have the great lakes, but as the rest of the country continues through severe droughts in the west, south, SW and SE, americans as a whole need to conserve water and treat it like the precious natural resource it is. Some day you, or your progeny, will be happy to pay whatever it costs for access to clean drinking water.

Get A Life

Judged:

Water Boy wrote:

The reality is that past city councils have passed the buck and failed to make tough decisions to ensure reelection. Tom Kelly is the leader of the pack who put off these decisions and allowed our water system to fall into such great disrepair. Now this council is faced with cleaning up after his mess. Why didn't we know about this sooner? Because we had an incompetent city manager who kept getting reappointed by an irresponsible city council led by Tom Kelly, Mike Kelley, Kelly Turner and Diane Seiler.

How about a referendum that outlaws anyone with a first or last name of Kell(e)y to hold Lockport office?

Ollies a Drip

Judged:

ollie wrote:

<quoted text>
The practices listed here is what will make water the oil crisis of 2020.
Why do you have to wash your car? Daily showers? Your dishwasher uses less water than hand washing. Water your lawn?
Posters have all mentioned taste, but is anyone concerned about the health issues associated with Lockport water?
Thanks to Darren for his posts which at least address IEPA standards (or lack of local standards), but you all need to educate yourself on the abuse of water. Try a rain barrel or re-using your gray water to water your plants, but stop watering yoru lawns, washing your cars and unless you are an exercise freak or work in a "dirty" job, skip the daily showers too. Americans waster too much water. Here in the midwest we have the great lakes, but as the rest of the country continues through severe droughts in the west, south, SW and SE, americans as a whole need to conserve water and treat it like the precious natural resource it is. Some day you, or your progeny, will be happy to pay whatever it costs for access to clean drinking water.

Because of this post, I have opened up my tap and I'm letting it run into an empty sink and down an open drain. Because you're an idiot, I'm letting 1,000 gallons go down the drain. Think before you post. You are personally resopnsible for wasting 1,000 gallons of water.

Lockport Opinion

Darren Deskin wrote:

Water cont'd
So the fundemental question is this. What is more important taste or cost?
I would like the discussion to be something like this. What are the options available to communities throughout Illinois that DO NOT have the Lake Michigan option?
Then, once we get information about what other communites are doing outside of the Lake Michigan umbrella then we can get a pretty good idea about water quality.

There is no question that something should have been done 40 years ago when the cost would have millions of dollars less. But it wasn't done. As a result, they passed the responsibility on to us.
I believe that the best two options available are microfiltration and reverse osmosis. This is where the decision will probably be made. The cost of microfiltration is quite a bit less than reverse osmosis. Which brings us back to the fundemental question. Do we want to sacrifice taste for cost?
My personal preference is microfiltration. I believe that this is the most cost effective way to address this problem.
What does all this mean? We have to pay for these projects that will mandated by the IEPA. We, the City of Lockport, don't have a choice. Currently the funds generated via the water bills will not meet the funds needed to do the projects. This means we will see an increase in our water bills. How much? Who knows? But there will be an increase.

I think you are correct. The last thing we want to do is to be dependent on the other communities and reliant on Lake Michigan water. I would much rather forgo taste over cost. I can always buy my own filtration for taste, but letting them run wild with the costs is not an option.

Lockport Opinion