Water Treatment Town Hall

From: John MacGregor
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:20 PM
To: Editor Sentinel-Record
Subject: Water Treatment Town Hall

In My Opinion
On Monday night, February 28, 2011, I attended the Town Hall meeting in room 104 of the Civic Center. The topic of discussion, as Hot Springs City Manager and panel moderator, Lance Hudnell so unctuously pointed out, was the proposed Water Treatment Plant. The room was filled to capacity and the natives were restless.
Steve Mallett, the Deputy City Manager, who seemed a pleasant enough fellow, made a presentation of the reasons why we needed an additional water treatment facility. Mr. Mallett maintained his strong support for the Lower Lake Hamilton site as the best possible site for the new water treatment facility.

Doug Smith, a principle at Jacobs Engineering who is doing feasibility studies for the City under a $3,000,000+ contract, presented lots of data and charts showing the pros and cons of several options. The three most obvious contenders were:
- The Lower Lake Hamilton location at Carpenter Dam.
- The Expansion of the existing facility at Upper Lake Hamilton Location on the Quachita River.
- Do nothing.

Mr. Smith, backed Mr. Mallett’s conclusion that there is a definite need for a new facility and presented the case for the Carpenter Dam location as being less expensive than any of the other options (produced numbers to that effect); had water of approximately the same quality as any other location (produced charts showing that conclusion); and that his firm (Jacobs Engineering) had spent roughly the same amount of time on the two main locations and the rest of their time (Approx. ½ of the billed hrs.) on unrelated (to the new water treatment facility site location) engineering work.

The third and final member of the panel was Robert Hart of the Arkansas Health Department, who very ably presented the case for reconsidering the use of the Carpenter Dam site. He pointed out that the AHD was concerned with the Carpenter Dam location meeting the requirements of the Health Department. Of particular concern to the AHD was the quality of the water at the Lower Lake Hamilton Site (Carpenter Dam). Mr. Hart produced Mr. Smith’s charts, on the current location’s water quality, but with overlays of the actual water quality reports submitted by the City to the AHD. To this observer there appeared to be an incredible amount of incompetence or number fudging on the part of Jacobs Engineering and/or the City Managers. Mr. Hart received a standing ovation from the taxpayers who filled room 104. 

Speakers from the floor then rose to express their opinions and there were many. Diane Silverman asked a series of questions directed at Deputy City Manager, Steve Mallette, Jacobs Engineering’s, Doug Smith and City Manager Lance Hudnell about whom on the panel knew about cost overruns, who approved cost overruns and what did the cost overruns accomplish. The panel tried its best to obfuscate. Mr. Hudnell said that since the contract still had money left in it, there couldn’t be any overruns. That was such a condescending statement on its face that Mr. Hudnell had to back down. Steve Mallette allowed that in fact there were line item overruns in Mr. Smith’s billings. Further questioning by Ms. Silverman brought out the fact that the City Board of Directors had not in fact been notified that there were overruns, nor were the Directors asked to approve them, as required.

There were two other major presentations, complete with power points, which totally refuted the whole basis upon which the City Managers and the Consultant came to the conclusion that the Carpenter Dam location was the best location for a water treatment plant. Every major or minor consideration, in the hefty report submitted to the Board, used to justify the report’s conclusions, was based on faulty or self serving data.

 Among the most egregious were:
* The future demand for water estimates used unrealistic population and usage projections and the demand figures they used did not jibe with the actual usage figures which showed that current facilities were not anywhere near the critical usage rates assumed in the report.
* The turbidity and pollution were underestimated at the Carpenter Dam site and grossly over estimated at the existing site.
* The cost estimates were skewed in favor of the Carpenter Dam site particularly if one takes into consideration the huge increases in operational costs at the different sites. The 500’ elevation advantage of the existing site allows for the use of gravity to deliver the required water pressure to the City and the surrounding County. The Carpenter Dam site requires that the water be pumped into storage tanks at higher elevations in order to get the desired water pressure. The pumps, their operation and maintenance are costly and more than overwhelm the cost differentials in constructing the various options. An additional, significant operational cost, not included in the cost estimates, is the treatment of the water necessary to handle the accumulation of pollutants in the basin formed by Carpenter Dam. As one speaker pointed out: water flows down hill and the pollutants will gather at the rear end of the system.

The give and take of the evening was fascinating. As one after another of the report’s positions were refuted, the question became why were the City Managers and the Consultant so adamant about the Carpenter Dam site that they refused to give any real credence to alternatives. They stuck to their position, which was formulated in 2008, as if it were the Holy Grail. The fascinating part came when Steve Mallette’s defense of his decision, to go with Carpenter Dam and damn the torpedoes, was reduced to a single fact; Entergy required 25 feet of water depth for a second water intake. The Carpenter Dam has 25 feet of water depth. Mr. Mallette hung onto this non exclusive fact as if it were a life jacket on the Titanic. This is where the Kabuki dance gets really interesting. The narrower the Deputy City Manager’s position became, the more distance that Mr. Hudnell (I take full responsibility, Steve why did you do that?) and Mr. Smith (I did as I was directed) put between themselves and Mr. Mallette.

Speaker after speaker rose to say that the smell of this rose was not so sweet;  that there was an unknown agenda that did not produce the best water at the best price;  that the project should be put on hold until true estimates of need, location and cost can be assembled by an independent commission of local experts and the contract with Jacobs Engineering be cancelled. Having observed the destruction of the report, I would suggest that the parties involved in this fiasco be re-evaluated to see if their abilities are adequate to the needs of a project of this size.

Each speaker, except for the trio defending the Carpenter Dam site, was given a hearty round of applause. The civility shown by the attendees, in the face of the fabrications presented, is to be highly commended.

Jock MacGregor
Hot Springs, AR 71913
501 463-9395 home
501 627-4803 Cell