Commissioners weigh costly pump testing after courthouse heating problems; contractor estimates up to $160,000 for well tests

Okanogan County commissioners spent extensive time on March 25 considering whether to pay engineers and drilling contractors to test the county’s groundwater injection and supply wells after persistent problems with the courthouse heating system.

The central technical question is whether the county’s injection well(s) can accept the volume of water the courthouse loop requires and, if not, what corrective work or replacement capacity will be needed. County leaders and a consultant described a two-step verification: visual/structure checks and camera inspection followed by pump testing and engineering analysis.

Why it matters: the county originally built an open-loop geothermal system for the courthouse and jail; the system is not operating at the expected capacity and earlier adjustments were made to avoid flooding an injection well. Commissioners said fixing or replacing parts of the system could become a much larger capital project. The meeting focused on how much the immediate diagnostic work will cost and whether the county should proceed with it now.

What officials discussed and what consultants proposed

Dan Wolf, the contractor joining the meeting by video, described the planned test work but cautioned the board that the job includes field and engineering tasks. Commissioners and staff discussed multiple price figures: a drilling/engineering proposal in the meeting record was described as $147,000 for injection-well-related work; later in the discussion Wolf presented an overall pump-test and analysis budget that the board summarized as roughly $160,000 to test the extraction well and evaluate injection capacity.

Commissioners asked operational questions: how long the tests would take, whether the system must be shut down during testing, and how the county could step back if the tests show the wells cannot accept additional flow. Wolf told the board the full testing program would require shutting the system down and running 6–10 days of field testing (weather permitting) plus follow-on engineering to calculate required flows, piping and any filtration or injection upgrades.

Board members pressed for a staged approach: several commissioners proposed separating lower‑cost initial checks (for example, camera inspections or a short visual evaluation) from full pump testing so the board could make stop‑go decisions if the early findings show the wells are structurally or hydraulically incapable of accepting injected water.

Potential additional costs and options

Commissioners and staff noted additional likely costs beyond pump testing: automatic or industrial filtration systems to remove fines and silt; possible drilling of a new injection well if the existing geology cannot accept the designed flows; and the longer-term option of converting to a closed‑loop system (boards referenced prior estimates for a full closed‑loop conversion in the high six figures to roughly $1 million). Several participants warned the board that diagnostic testing, filtration upgrades and possible drilling could quickly push total project costs far above the current diagnostic estimates.

Next steps

No appropriation or formal contract award for the testing work was authorized at the March 25 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer staged scopes and firm stop points and to confirm the chosen vendor’s schedule and deliverables so the board can decide whether to authorize the testing and how to stage subsequent work. Wolf said the contractor could provide a more detailed sequence (including a camera inspection as an initial step) and a final schedule for a 6–10 day pump test.

Meeting context and constraints

Staff noted available grant and capital funds previously used for system work and told commissioners they were tracking program reimbursements from the state but had not yet committed to additional capital outlays. Commissioners repeatedly flagged the risk of “throwing money” at a system without first knowing what the wells can accept, and asked for clear breakpoints after each diagnostic task that would require further board approval before proceeding.