Dear Editor;
I would like to make some comments on the new municipal water well (SW 17-5-3-W2) that the RM of Moose Creek constructed this last year. The costs have/will include a token machine(s) to control the sale of water; more than a thousand dollars for the tokens themselves; a water meter to record volume withdrawn and a submersible pumping system (capable of maybe more than a hundred gallons a minute); the hydrology report from the consultant; new electrical service; wiring panels; controls; heaters and pump wiring etc ; lawyers and Land Title fees; acquisition of land; councillors compensation; a water well witcher; licence fees; maintenance; ongoing water sampling and analysis; a water well shack or building of some kind; drilling costs; eight inch casing and 8 inch stainless steel screen ( over 40 feet of that expensive item); an observation well which would apparently have been more than sufficient in itself; a high volume 24 hour pump test including generator and pump ( and a similar recovery period); tons of sized gravel pack; developing cost; site preparation; road access; surveying; etc. etc.
We now learn that the Sask Watershed licence has set a continuous pumping limit of only a shade over 1.25 Imperial gallons per minute for this municipal well. The consequence of a maximum withdrawal rate of 100 gallons per minute has not yet been appreciated by Council either. However; a comment was made by one cattleman familiar with hauling 3000 Imperial gallons per day for his 170 animals. He observed that if he were the only person hauling from this well that he alone could require the alloted 661,000 Imperial gallons per year. In fact any single user starting hauling at the beginning of the year and using 3000 Imp gallons per day would be stopped from hauling on August 8; and no other ratepayers would have been able to use this municipal water supply. Obviously it is not a sufficient municipal water source and no one on council did their homework. It is vitally important to determine how the licenced water volume was determined.
Now before anyone begins blaming the Sask Watershed Authority for the totally insufficient water supply licence; you must recognize that that is indeed the amount applied for in the licence request; and the 3 cubic decameters per year is indeed what was granted.
Council hired a consulting hydrologist; and a 24 hour pump test was conducted at rates of 200 Igpm. and someone recorded the recovery water levels; and the final water level was at some 10 cm less than the initial level some 30 hours previous.
Those facts and the hydrologists report should tell the whole story. If council does not comprehend the significance; then it is a financial shame that the municipal well project was placed in the hands of people who do not understand what constitutes a usable municipal well. Lessons have not been learned that need to be applied to the remaining costs yet to be incurred before commissioning. .
A note of interest is that the observation well and the withdrawal well are adjacent to the municipal road allowance. An oil company would have been refused permission to drill this close to a municipal road allowance. Did council follow its own requirements? Indeed why did they take the liberty of drilling on private land without having title to the property?
As for the water quality; this substantially hard water has some 3300 parts per million Total Dissolved Solids; does not respond well to soap; and has the color of orange pop after exposure to air for a short period of time. These aren't qualities that make it the most desirable water supply; in fact it would be anyone's last choice for household use.
At the very least our money should be spent on priority projects; with funds producing projects in a cost efficient manner. Alternate and emergency water supplies are matters that municipal councils should certainly consider; but as it stands; this municipal well is an expensive failure.
Murray C. Johnson
Oxbow, SK
