Price City hears $20 million estimate to replace failing transmission pipeline; treatment-plant upgrades also flagged

An engineering assessment presented at a Price City work session concluded the city’s springs-to-treatment transmission line is at elevated risk of failure and recommended phased replacement of steel sections and lining of cast-iron sections, with a high-level construction estimate of about $20,000,000.

The report, delivered by consultants who inspected above- and below-ground pipe and conducted soil testing, ranked the upper segments of the line (identified in the study as segments A through C) as the highest priority for repairs because of corrosion, exposure at river crossings and proximity to Highway 6. The consultants recommended open-cut replacement for the steel sections and cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lining or similar for cast-iron sections where suitable.

"It was important for the council to talk about our situation with our water, our transmission lines and our water plant," the Mayor said at the start of the session. Sam Fankhauser, project manager for a2s, summarized the physical findings: "A good portion of this line is an 18 inch steel line" and described exposed pipe, holes and areas where supports are undermined by creeks.

Why it matters: the line delivers spring water to the Price water-treatment plant. Consultants said the steel sections—installed roughly 90 years ago and thinner-walled than modern pipe—are most at risk of a consequential failure. The study team recommended prioritizing Segment A (from the springs down toward Colton Bridge) first, followed by C and B, and treating cast-iron segments (D and E) with lining where feasible.

Cost and scope: the consultants gave a high-level construction estimate of about $20 million to address the recommended work on the transmission line from the springs to the treatment plant. They broke that down roughly as: Section A, $4–5 million; Section B, about the same; Section C, $5–6 million; and lining of cast-iron segments on the order of $2 million per segment as a planning-level figure. The team described the totals as ballpark only, subject to change as design, soil work and permitting proceed.

The presentation included photographs showing sections of exposed pipe in stream crossings, dents and patched holes, and locations where the pipe is close to or suspended above drainage. "There are a number of places where the pipeline suspends the drainage," Fankhauser said. The consultants noted some of the exposed sections were likely a product of shallow bedrock at the time of original installation.

Materials and methods: engineers said high-density polyethylene (HDPE) is the recommended replacement material for much of the alignment because of constructability (fusion welding in the field, flexibility in alignment) though PVC and other methods could be used. For some trenchless installations in difficult terrain they discussed horizontal directional drilling or similar methods; for the majority an open-cut replacement was the preferred approach where feasible. The consultants cautioned that some very steep or constrained bends will be challenging to reconstruct and will require wider corridors or special equipment.

Permitting and property access: presenters warned the project will require coordination with several permitting authorities, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for stream crossings and railroad owners for two crossings in the alignment. The team reviewed recorded easements and said many parcels show rights that would permit moving an alignment within certain areas, but some easement work and property coordination will be needed.

Treatment plant and consolidation: staff and consultants also flagged the Price water-treatment plant as a separate but related concern. Perry Osborne, a consulting engineer, said the plant currently has a single filter and lacks redundancy to backwash and remain online; the plant also is not equipped to reliably handle algal blooms or algal toxins without upgrades. The Division of Drinking Water representatives said a parallel consolidation study with the nearby treatment entity (referred to in the meeting as Priewide/Priwide/Priywide in different remarks) would be prudent, and that a master planning approach could address pipeline, plant upgrades and potential consolidation in phases.

Funding options and timeline: Michael Grange, SRF fund manager with the state Division of Drinking Water, and Carl Larson with USDA discussed funding pathways. Grange said engineering and planning work can be reimbursed through SRF planning funds once a loan or grant closes and that principal-forgiveness (grant-equivalent) subsidies of varying amounts may be possible depending on financial metrics. The Rural Water Finance Agency (a private takeout option referenced by staff) and other lenders were discussed as interim or takeout financing if federal/state funding is partial or delayed.

On schedule, consultants said detailed design could take about a year (or faster if done in focused segments) and that construction for an initial segment could start as early as spring 2026 in a best-case permitting scenario. For a single segment, contractors might install a mile of pipeline in a few months to several months depending on terrain; the presenters estimated a six-month window could be reasonable for some segments once mobilized. Grange noted permitting—especially railroad and federal environmental reviews—can be a critical path item that pushes schedules.

Community impacts and rates: presenters and city staff discussed how the financing would affect rates. Using rough admissions from the meeting, a $20–21 million project amortized across roughly 4,000 connections was discussed as an example that could raise monthly bills on the order of roughly $10–15 per customer for debt service in a simple principal-only example; panelists stressed exact impacts depend on chosen funding mixes (grants vs. loans), term lengths and where interim financing is required. Division staff told the council that the Drinking Water Board expects a credible plan for phased rate increases or other revenue actions rather than fully raising rates before project approval.

Next steps and council direction: there was no formal vote at the session. Presenters urged the council and staff to move forward with preparatory steps: update and convert the vulnerability study information into funding-application formats, begin or authorize preliminary design work (design is reimbursable in many grant/loan programs), and pursue a consolidation study with the neighboring treatment entity. The Division of Drinking Water staff said they could accept an application and that engineering work already performed could be eligible for reimbursement under SRF if included in an approved package.

Quotes used in this article are drawn from the work session transcript and are attributed to the speakers listed below. There was no formal action or vote recorded during the meeting; staff were asked to return with funding options and a recommended phased plan for council consideration.