Water treatment plant a go
By Katie Schneider
The Eagle
After a long debate between councillors about water supply options, the town will apply to build a new water treatment plant rather than installing a pipeline to Calgary.
A motion to adopt the pipeline option, as recommended by town staff, was defeated 4-3 at council’s Oct. 23 meeting.
With the water treatment plant option adopted, it was then agreed to have staff submit an application for funding under the Alberta Water and Wastewater Partnership program. If that funding is granted, the town’s portion of the phase one capital costs would be just over $13 million.
Director of Operation Services Jim Anderson presented a report to council based on providing a 40-year supply for the town’s water demand.
Anderson said the pipeline would be divided into two phases, in year one and year 29 of the 40-year timetable, for two pipelines and a reservoir. The water treatment plant would take four phases, constructed in years one, nine, 19, and 29.
He said the town’s current water license would allow for water diversion from the Bow River for 34,000 people to the year 2021, but tying into Calgary’s pipeline would allow the town to use the city’s license when it would need to obtain a new one in about 2021. And as of August 2006, the Bow River basin has been closed to new water licenses.
Calgary has made arrangements and secured licenses that would see the city’s population reach 2,200,000 people. With the city achieving its water conservation objectives, the existing license could serve 4,000,000 people, Anderson said.
The unit cost per person served by the upgrade would be cheaper for the pipeline option, at $354 compared to $638 per person with the plant, he said. The capital cost for phase one of the pipeline would be $25,392,000 for an additional population of 41,000, while the water treatment plant would cost $19,719,000 for an additional 20,700 people.
The pipeline would also be more expensive when looking at the total of capital and operation costs needed to be invested today to pay for all future costs over the 40-year period.
Anderson said the town’s goal is to have a new supply by the peak demand of 2009 so the pipeline option would have been easier to implement. It would essentially provide a second water supply to Cochrane so if the existing plant had to be shut down completely for upgrades, it could act as a back up for the town, he said.
He acknowledged there is also a social factor to tying in to Calgary’s water supply, including employee morale, service level independence and a sense of autonomy.
“From my point of view, I’m very proud of the water treatment operators and system,” he said, adding that though the existing plant will still operate, there is a potential for loss of pride in leaving the town’s water up to the city. Calgary flourites its water, for example, he said.
Coun. Truper McBride, along with Couns. Ken Hynes, Andy Marshall and Mary Lou Davis, voted against the pipeline. McBride said the town has already viewed the benefits of its own water plant. He added he is not comfortable with relying on Calgary for “everything that is our water.”
“I am proud of the leadership we have done here and think we should continue this. People don’t move to Cochrane to become a part of Calgary.”
Hynes, who called the water supply project the “single largest capital project in the history of Cochrane,” said he doesn’t think looking 40 years ahead is necessary and he fears residents will not be credited with water conservation if Calgary sets the rates.
Coun. Jeff Genung said tying into Calgary’s water is no different than using its electricity or gas that Cochrane residents still pay for.
“We need to start thinking differently,” regionally and globally, rather than only what is best for Cochrane, he said.

