Willard hears pitch to buy long-term Stockton Lake water allocation as officials weigh price and timing

Rodney Rogers, a representative of Southwest Missouri Water, told the Willard Board of Aldermen at their meeting that the group has secured Pentagon approval to reallocate storage at Stockton Lake for regional drinking water and industry use and is seeking member communities to contract for portions of that storage.

Rogers said the reallocation was approved by the assistant secretary of the Army in January and that the group is now negotiating contracts to reserve storage. “As of January, reallocation of storage in Stockton Lake for Southwest Missouri … was approved at the Pentagon,” Rogers said. He described the approval as the first step; the next steps are contract negotiations and member pass-through agreements so each city can pay for its share of the storage.

Why it matters: Rogers framed the reallocation as an insurance policy against long-term groundwater decline and rising industrial demand. He said regional planning is needed because groundwater in parts of the region is being drawn down and future shortfalls are likely. “Water is our future. If there’s no water, there is no future,” he told the aldermen.

Key details and cost options

- Project scope and timeline: Rogers described a multi‑decade effort that began with coalition studies in the early 2000s, a formal reallocation request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2007, Corps cost studies completed in 2020, and federal approvals in 2024–2025. He said the Corps’ studies showed a long-term regional gap in supply under drought scenarios and the reallocation addresses part of that gap.

- Total allocation cost and legislation: Rogers said the allocation had been estimated at various points from about $15–20 million to $33 million and that, without recent state legislation, the current figure would be near $50 million. He said recent legislation and potential funding reduce the immediate contract price for the allocation to roughly $27 million (the coalition’s share), and that some state assistance through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) might further reduce a community’s net cost.

- Willard’s estimated share and recurring cost: Rogers presented the local estimate for Willard as roughly 1.3 percent of the reallocation — about 11.95 acre‑feet of storage — which he said would yield roughly a half‑million gallons per day. He gave a recurring payment estimate of about $26,000 per year during the financing term for that share, with an estimated ongoing operations and maintenance charge near $5,000 per year after the allocation is paid off.

- Two payment options: Rogers described an immediate‑payment option (option A) and a deferred option (option B). He said option B would cost roughly 166 percent more than option A over time and that DNR financial support would apply only to entities that select option A. Rogers and staff emphasized that option A is the organization’s preferred and recommended path because DNR assistance is expected to be available only to participants that sign up for the current price.

Questions from Willard officials

City Administrator Wes and aldermen asked whether signing up for a storage contract obligates a city to immediately build new pipeline or treatment infrastructure. Rogers replied that opting to buy storage does not obligate a community to construct delivery infrastructure; infrastructure would be a separate decision and contract. “Committing to the water does not commit you to the infrastructure,” Rogers said. He described likely future work — pumps, roughly 150 miles of pipe and treatment or delivery solutions — and said detailed infrastructure plans would be phased and built only after water is reserved.

Officials pressed on timing and rates. Rogers said the contract execution timeline depends on Corps and Pentagon scheduling; the coalition’s internal target is to have member commitments in place by mid‑year, but he cautioned that Corps and contracting timelines can vary after a 20‑year permitting and study process. He estimated that, if the allocation contract is executed within about a year, local payment obligations would follow and could be incorporated into utility rate cycles or paid from other funds temporarily.

Other context and tradeoffs

Rogers said the project is intended to supplement, not replace, existing well supplies and that the allocation would not eliminate a city’s need for future wells or other local sources. He framed the cost as modest on a per‑household basis for the region — a few dollars per household per year when spread across the entire Southwest Missouri population that the coalition represents — and stressed the long‑term economic value of securing dependable water for growth and industry.

He also said regional partners have run multiple drought scenarios and water‑availability studies; the coalition identified a regional gap of roughly 53 million gallons per day under certain demand scenarios. Rogers described the opportunity as time‑sensitive given favorable contract pricing and potential grant or DNR support that may not be available if communities defer.

What the city must decide next

Aldermen did not take a final vote to authorize Willard to contract for storage at the meeting. The board discussed placing the matter on a future agenda so aldermen and staff can review contract language, DNR funding terms and budget implications. Rogers and city staff recommended that the board treat the membership/contract decision and the infrastructure decision as separate steps: sign up for the storage contract first if Willard wants to secure the current price and grant eligibility, then plan infrastructure later if the city elects to take delivery.

Ending

Rogers said the coalition is prepared to provide detailed cost spreadsheets and contract drafts for Willard staff review, and he offered to meet with city officials to answer follow‑up questions. City staff signaled they will bring additional financial detail back to the board at a future meeting before any formal commitment is made.