Roy City Council selects location of new water reservoir

Skillings, an engineering firm contracted by the City of Roy, issued a recommendation for the site of a new local reservoir on Monday, May 12, at the city’s monthly council meeting.

Before making the recommendation, Patrick Maye, speaking on behalf of Skillings, recapped the need for a new reservoir for the city’s water supply.

“You’ve got one reservoir right now that’s in use,” Maye said. “That needs maintenance, and it needs to undergo the retrofitting … In addition to that, you’re going to need to have a redundancy for your water storage. As your city develops and grows, you’re going to need more water storage, so this is part of that growth strategy, is giving you more reservoir storage.”

Maye said the current system only allows for an abbreviated fire flow that does not meet the standards of the International Fire Code, but having another reservoir will provide the 2,000 gallons per minute for two hours of storage that the code requires.

“And then, as I said, as growth occurs, you will need more storage to accommodate all of the customers that you’ll have,” Maye said.
As part of its study, Skillings evaluated three sites for the potential reservoir located at Well No.1, Well No. 2 and the current reservoir.

“We did a site scoring and then a site analysis … and (Well No. 2) is the most promising site,” Maye said.

As far as specifics, Maye said “there are pros and cons with both a taller and a wider reservoir, and we haven’t made a design decision on that.”

“We will wait until we’ve got an analysis from the geotechnical engineer and the structures engineer to determine what is best for the site,” Maye said, adding that “there are not any significant differences between site one, site two and site three from a structural standpoint, other than the hydric soil that is at (Well No. 1) that may or may not be located in the area of construction.”

As Maye explained, hydric soils act like a sponge that can retain water for 50 to 100 years before releasing it. At some point, the growth in the soil turns anaerobic and does not rely on oxygen to survive. Consequently, an area with hydric soils can change biologically and may, as a result, contain cultural or archaeological resources, which would require a study from the state to determine.

“For site two, as with site one, it is a flat location. The facility does have an existing backup generator, it is the site of (Well No. 2), it’s going to need the iron and manganese treatment site,” Maye said. “Those can be designed together to make sure that everything fits on the property and works well together. So, having the iron and manganese facility at the site doesn’t mean we can’t add the reservoir as well. There is plenty of room for both of those. Having the reservoir down at the south portion of the system does improve both the pressure and the water turnover in the reservoir, so it provides better quality and better pressure to the south end of the system.”

Maye said that site two would require a booster pump to increase water pressure, because gravity alone would not be able to overcome the lower elevation.

“So, the southern location will provide a good balance between the water demand that’s in the southern area and the reservoir location and provide the pressure that’s needed for that area and then provide the water quality by making sure that each portion of the system does provide water and doesn’t sit there for too long,” Maye said. “Another advantage is that the water mains in that area are upsized, so it will not need additional water mains or new upsized water mains in order to provide the function and flow for the water system.”

Maye said that site three, which is the location of the existing reservoir, is small by comparison, and close to the elementary school. Additionally, site three would not improve the water pressure, and would require more manual pumping for water turnover.

“Well site two is the most logical place for the new reservoir,” Maye concluded. “But as the council, you’ve got to take more into account than just the technical feasibility of the site. You’ve got your constituents and you know your city and your people better than any of us will. So, we can make the recommendation to you, but it’s up to you to determine what’s best for you and your city.”

Councilmember Jim Rotondo expressed concern about investing more money into a new reservoir site at this time, considering the city’s current water issues and lack of overall funds.

“I have a hard time putting more money that we don’t have into a well site,” Rotondo said. “We need to be putting good water in our system, not contaminated water, and if you got something with contaminated water or the well’s sitting right next to it, (it’s) hard to believe that they’re not going to get mixed.”

“You made some references to (Well No. 2) that are specific to (Well No. 1),” Maye responded. “The well site two is the one (on the) south end of town off the highway, and that well has high iron and manganese.”

Maye said Skillings has a project report for treating those high levels, and that he wouldn’t categorize them as a contamination.

“I would say it’s just high in minerals and the iron and manganese metals,” Maye said. “So it’s not a health concern. It is an aesthetic and taste issue with the iron and manganese. That’s not going to cause a health issue, and I would not call that a contamination.”

Maye added that Well No. 1 is the site that contains the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), referring to them as an “emerging contaminant,” despite acknowledging they’ve been around for years.

“The understanding of PFAS in the public sector is developing very quickly,” along with the treatment options, Maye said.

“They are not there yet for the best option for you to treat (Well No. 1), but in the next funding round in that ‘27 to ‘29 timeframe would be an optimum time for you to look at well one and treat the contamination at that site,” Maye told the councilmembers.

After the presentation, the Roy City Council made and approved a motion to select the site of Well No. 2 as its new reservoir location. The motion passed unanimously.

Later in the meeting, after hearing multiple citizens’ concerns about the quality of water in Roy, specifically related to PFAS, Mayor Kimber Ivy offered further clarification on the current situation.

“I want to talk about our water as there has been some information that I don’t think is being clearly given to everybody,” Ivy said. “So (Well No. 1) is our PFAS well that has the PFAS contaminant. Department of Health has told us that it is not an emergency status level, it is an urgent issue that we need to address, and that the levels are not great. However, the city utilizes (Well No. 2), which is high in iron and manganese, to fill and operate through the city.”

Ivy said that when the city does have to use Well No. 1, the water is diluted by Well No. 2.

“I know that there’s a thinking that you are drinking the PFAS levels that are detected in (Well No. 1). You are not,” Ivy said. “The Department of Health even offered this as a solution until we can find something even better… ‘Dilution is a solution.’ So the city currently is only using well site two, which does not have PFAS in it. That is what is filling the city’s drinking needs currently.”

“Bringing in bottled water is not a state we are at currently,” Ivy added. “I hope that answers the questions that have been brought up multiple times to this council.”

Ivy hinted at good news regarding future funding for the city’s water contamination issues.

“The city executive branch has put in several requests for additional funding from the legislature, and I have received wonderful news that I’m excited to share once the governor has signed it and put it into motion officially,” Ivy said. “So be looking for that information and funding sources coming as soon as the governor signs that.”

The next Roy City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 9 at 7 p.m.