Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunn County hears multi‑million‑dollar plan to expand Southwest Pipeline; commissioners table decision
Summary
State and Southwest Water Authority staff presented a preliminary engineering report showing multi‑million‑dollar cost estimates to serve wait‑list customers in seven Dunn County service areas, including a $3.6 million project to serve Manning and a $22.7 million estimate for the Holiday area; commissioners raised liability and funding concerns and voted to table further action.
Justin Process, the Southwest Pipeline project manager with the State Department of Water Resources, told Dunn County commissioners the preliminary engineering report studied seven service areas in the county and estimated what it would cost to serve people on the Southwest Pipeline wait list.
"We grabbed all of the wait list users for that reside within Dunn County's political boundaries," said Tyson Decker of Bartlett West/AECOM, the consulting engineer who led the report. He explained the study quantified necessary parallel pipes, pressure‑reducing valves and pump station changes, then generated a planning‑level cost estimate for each service area.
The report lists disparate costs by service area. Decker said the Davis Buttes strategic improvement was estimated at about $711,000 to serve five users. He described a Dunn Center (DC1) improvement to serve the community of Manning at about $3.6 million. For the Holiday service area he cited the figure shown in the report, roughly $22.7 million.
Commissioners pressed presenters on timing, who would pay for on‑site service connections, and how many wait‑list customers would commit to hook up if construction proceeded. Decker said the preliminary design did not call wait‑list customers and that contacting them during final design often changes scope because some decline service and others newly request it.
"If we know which wait list users are on the system and it's set, the final design is fairly quick to design and get out for bid," Decker said, but he warned that the process of calling customers can add new requests and extend schedules.
On funding and risk, Justin Process said the practical options were: 1) pursue the state's prioritization process and wait for a hydraulic improvement slot, or 2) have Dunn County commit funds to move a project forward sooner. He said, preliminarily, any county‑funded project would likely leave the county responsible for overruns unless the state agreement specified otherwise.
Commissioners expressed mixed views. One commissioner questioned whether the county should enter the water‑utility funding business and flagged public perception and long‑term costs; another argued that access to reliable water is a core infrastructure need for residents and agriculture.
After extended discussion about timelines, payback, and potential liabilities, the board moved to table further action on the Southwest Pipeline project pending more analysis and clearer cost‑sharing terms. The motion to table passed by voice vote.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to collect additional local cost information, clarify who would be responsible for individual service line hookups, and to schedule follow‑up discussions if the county wishes to consider financial commitment or a formal agreement with the state and Southwest Water Authority.
