Meanderings: Water needs require planning
Marion city officials soon must make expensive and far-reaching decisions about improvements to the city water plant.
For decades, water was treated with chlorine. It likely will remain a prime component of any water treatment plan.
However, chlorine can combine with organic materials to form substances that could, in large amounts, pose a health hazard to those who are susceptible.
It makes it sound like Jolt cola or 180-proof alcohol are the best options for fluids, but officials say the water is safe as is. The difference is that new detection methods are detecting smaller amounts of contaminants.
Part of this may be overkill, since the new detection level is 80 parts per billion. Some have argued that just because a substance is present in trace amounts doesn't mean it is a safety hazard as a trace chemical.
That's an argument for Washington and Topeka. For now, the city has little choice but to make the changes.
The issue is how much design work for the future is included.
Consultants are working on various plans. Steps such as ultraviolet treatment, which uses ultraviolet waves to purify water without adding chemicals, should be studied. But that's not the only step.
For Marion, water quality issues begin at Marion Reservoir, the source of drinking water for an increasingly large portion of Marion County. Various agencies and property owners have taken steps to identify sources of pollution and reduce that impact.
Programs that provide cost sharing benefits to install grass buffer strips and other filters between farming operations and water sources that flow into the reservoir are an excellent step.
While the city considers its water future, it should work with the conservation district, extension, and other cities to determine best long-term options. Perhaps we should start banking revenues for (dare we use the buzzword) a regional water plant, large enough to serve the county itself.
Water is a precious commodity, one we have taken for granted. That is a mistake.
A quick note: One reader was upset with my column last week, thinking I said a high school student who returned a checkbook did a stupid and foolish thing, since the second part of the column dealt with people who did foolish and stupid things. Actually, I talked about both because they were such opposites, showing the difference between a wise decision and a stupid one. But if one person misunderstood, others probably did, too, so I hope this makes things more clear.
— MATT NEWHOUSE
