A pipeline from the Missouri River to Aberdeen will cost more than $271 million, but state and federal funds are available.

On Thursday afternoon, municipal officials and representatives of rural water districts had the first opportunity to hear detailed information about pipelines and potential costs from representatives of Bartlett & West. The company submitted its report at the Aberdeen Leisure and Cultural Center. 

The proposal focuses on three different sizes of pipes and various materials for the pipes. Using the recommended material-cement mortar lined steel pipe-the cost of constructing this production line is estimated to be between US$271 million and US$334 million. Its annual operating budget is between 1.1 million and 2.1 million US dollars.

"When you start talking about a $300 million project, it's scary, but if we don't do it now, it won't happen," said Joe Gaa, the city manager. "This may be our last chance to do something like this."

Ken Royse, one of the two moderators from Bartlett & West, said that making the project a reality means obtaining state and federal funds that will cover 70% to 80% of the cost. Moreover, he said, obtaining federal funding from the Bureau of Reclamation means that Congress needs to approve the project.

Previous post: Aberdeen can use the Missouri River as a water source

This potential 104-mile pipeline will lead from the Missouri River in Lake Oahe near Mobridge and then be piped to the city's water treatment plant.

Although the report recommends the use of cement mortar lined steel pipes, Doug Mund of Bartlett & West said that due to the recent cancellation of the oil pipeline project, there is currently a surplus of welded steel pipes available. 

"A few months ago, 1,000 miles of pipeline were available," he said. "We can see significant savings in the pipeline between the excess price and the normal price."

The use of excess pipelines will cost an estimated cost of approximately US$291 million.

Aberdeen currently draws water from the Elm River and city wells to meet demand, and currently consumes approximately 10 million gallons of water per day. But according to the report, when the river level is low, the city does encounter processing challenges.

The study also pointed out that the pipeline will not only benefit Aberdeen, which has recently missed development opportunities due to insufficient water supply, but also benefit the regional demand in northeastern South Dakota. Therefore, the report proposes a pipeline that can not only provide raw water to Aberdeen, but also provide raw water to neighboring rural water supply systems (such as WEB and BDM).

WEB Water provides customers with treated Missouri River water. The source of BDM Rural Water is the Middle James Aquifer. 

In recent years, WEB has suspended new connections, but the system has been working on improvements to expand its processing capacity and increase water supply.

According to a written statement provided by WEB General Manager Angie Hammrich, WEB has a US$62 million project plan to resolve the suspension area and expand processing capacity. WEB also identified US$200 million for future infrastructure projects to meet the long-term needs of the region. One of the projects is another Missouri River water intake.

"WEB believes that Aberdeen can join WEB's current efforts as a partner and looks forward to exploring this opportunity," the statement read.  

More: Joe Gaa says that the pipeline from the Missouri River to Aberdeen is a long-term plan

Bartlett & West’s research suggests three pipeline options that transport 28 to 44 million gallons of water per day. Among them, it is recommended to provide the city with 16 million gallons per day, but Gaa said this is a conservative estimate. Other water recipients in the proposal include WEB Water and other companies, although the study clearly stated that no cooperation agreement is in place.

The pipeline infrastructure will include a pumping station, a metering station and two reservoirs. Depending on the maximum flow of the pipeline, a reservoir can hold 2 to 4 million gallons. The second reservoir will hold 4 to 8 million gallons.

The study made several recommendations, including forming a local planning team, evaluating the choice of local partners, and sending the proposed pipeline to local, state, and federal agencies for review.

"We must have state and federal involvement," Royce said.

He said that it is also important to have a proactive construction schedule to complete the project in 10 to 12 years.

Looking to the future, Royce said the city can start work on a number of low-cost projects, including obtaining water rights from the state government, developing partnerships and confirming fast lanes.

He said that once low-cost projects are completed, the city can shift to modest expenditures, such as investigating potential reservoir locations, obtaining environmental and safety permits and approvals.

The pipeline is similar to the WEB water supply pipeline that started operation in 1986. At the time of planning, the city leaders of Aberdeen decided not to join the project, although WEB provides services to other communities in the area.

Several members of the city council attended the meeting, but it was an information meeting and no decision was made.