The floodgates opened wide Wednesday night as more than 100 Melrose residents poured into a special village board meeting to discuss a proposed $2.4 to $2.8 million water project that would more than triple the average homeowner's water rates.

So many people came to the meeting May 21 that it had to be moved from the village hall to the American Legion building, where the village board, representatives from Davy Engineering and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources answered questions about the project.

The project includes adding two new wells, water treatment plant and water tower. A 385-foot well has been drilled and the village has already spent $350,000 on the project. Design specifications are close to approval so bids can be sought in the next few weeks.

The board did not take any action Wednesday night, but will revisit the topic at its regular monthly meeting June 4.

Melrose residents pay $43.32 per quarter for 7,500 gallons of water now, the third lowest in Jackson County. If those rates would triple, the quarterly charge would be about $130. Hixton has the highest quarterly rates in the county at $110.63.

Water history

Melrose has had a long history of challenges finding clean, quality drinking water, said Mark Davy with Davy Engineering. The village installed a new well — well No. 3 — in the early 1980s near the Black River.

Starting in the mid-1980s, the village started getting complaints about water quality, specifically about high iron and manganese levels. Various non-treatment alternatives were tried, including resting the well and flushing the hydrants.

That well was shut down for a while in 1992 after it became contaminated with the corn herbicide atrazine. Davy then completed a report that concluded that construction of a new deep rock well would cost about $488,000.

But when well No. 3 was brought back online when the atrazine levels dropped, the village did not proceed with a new well. Well No. 3 continued to have nitrate contamination. But the levels are below the safety standards set by the DNR and fluctuate from year-to-year.

In 2005 the village retained Davy again to prepare a water report to provide recommendations on how to improve water quality. The conclusion of the report was the current project.

Davy said both iron and manganese are considered secondary contaminants, which may cause offensive taste, odor or staining but have no direct affect on health. Manganese was considered as a primary standard because of some health effects concern, but is not regulated, Davy said.

"The village of Melrose has a water problem," Davy said. "This isn't a problem that any regulatory agency is telling you to solve. The levels of iron are causing staining and the manganese is well over health standards — four times over the health standard posted on the Department of Health Web site.

"The question for residents is: This is the lowest cost solution that will solve your problem. It will never be less expensive to construct than right now. We have grant funding ($500,000 in federal funds) right now, but you can't guarantee grant funding in the future."

Drilling deeper

The aquifer that Well No. 3 taps into is unconfined, which means it gets its water from the surface, said Al Scheer of Davy Engineering. It also is susceptible to surface contamination, he said.

The Mount Simon aquifer, which is a below a layer of shale that is impervious to surface contamination, is the water source that the new well taps into.

But the water still has high levels of water and manganese, which would require a treatment plant to remove the elements, which is what the surrounding communities of Ettrick, Galesville, Taylor, Black River Falls, Sparta and others do, he said.

Residents have questions

Several residents, such as Joel Gilbertson, wondered why the new well was necessary. Gilbertson presented a chart that showed that nitrate levels are still below the safety standard. He said there is no order from the DNR compelling the village to build a new well.

"I think this project is much larger than the village can afford at this time," Gilbertson said, citing the economic slowdown and the project's impact on property values. "I think this is a very poor time to undertake such a large project. I would propose we put this whole project on hold to look at less costly projects."

If the project were delayed, the plans for the project would have to be redone after two years and the well can only be capped for five years and then would have to be abandoned, said Dave Pietz of the DNR.

Resident Jeff Hanson and others said the board should have communicated the scope and the cost of the project more thoroughly.

Village trustee Randy Ebert said the board's intent was to fix the water problem once and for all. "We started planning three years ago and we talked about the things you've talked about today."

Ebert said once the board took into consideration fire protection and the need to replace the aging 1938-vintage water tower, it decided on the new project.

"If you're drinking one or two bottles of water per day, you're already paying for what the project would cost," he said.

The next step

Some residents asked for a straw poll vote by a show of hands, but others said that would be unfair.

Craig said among the options the board will consider is putting the question to referendum or gathering more information through some sort of village questionnaire.

"Our regular board meeting is in two weeks and that will give us more time to make a decision," Craig said.