Log in Subscribe

Treated drinking water wasted on road maintenance

Posted 4/16/25

Dear Editor,

I question the proposed Bulk Water Filling Station expected to be constructed at the Nederland Public Works Facility. My biggest concern is that treated drinking water is to be used for road maintenance. The second is to believe...

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Treated drinking water wasted on road maintenance

Posted

Dear Editor,


I question the proposed Bulk Water Filling Station expected to be constructed at the Nederland Public Works Facility. My biggest concern is that treated drinking water is to be used for road maintenance. The second is to believe $100,000 of the community’s Utility Fund is expected to pay for the project. I don’t see the direct benefit for the community. Why then should it be approved? The water filling station that has been used for years… is a fire hydrant.

The Bulk Water Filling Station is intended to make it easier for the Nederland Public Works Department (NPW), Boulder County’s Road Maintenance (BCRM), or commercial contractors to fill water trucks or basins. The most frequent use of the station would be to fill water trucks with drinking quality water. The water is then typically dumped on dirt roads prior to grading. Historically BCRM may take up to 10,000 gallons per day from hydrants on Ridge Road for free. 

Another aspect to the whole ‘bulk water’ use is that the community is paying all expenses to operate the Water Treatment Plant to process the water to drinking water standards. To then have thousands of gallons of the treated water dumped on the ground creates an unnecessary burden of cost to the community. Just getting the water to the Public Works Facility, the water needs to be pumped three times. More cost incurred by the community.

Furthermore, Boulder County Road Maintenance has been  allowed to violate the Town Code for years when operating Town hydrants, freely taking water, and for the potential of damaging the Town’s water distribution system. If the BOT, Town Administrator, and Public Works Supervisor would refer to the Town Code, they would learn that the BOT is required to provide a permit for anyone to operate a hydrant as is stated in the Town Code Chapter 13, Article III, Section 54 (c). Article III, Section 63 prohibits the unauthorized use of Town water. Anyone receiving water from the Town must pay for the volume of water taken as is stated in Article III, Section 70 (2). Section 70 (3) details the penalties for violations of these codes that are now ignored by the Town’s administration.   

There is also an environmental impact to consider. It is a violation of the federal Clean Water Act if the drinking water dumped on the roads drains off into a nearby stream. The chlorinated water is a pollutant harmful to fish and aquatic life. 

A more thoughtful approach would be to set up a non-potable water filling station by the creek. Around ten thousand dollars would buy a pump and water meter that could be used to achieve the same objectives. An environmentally friendly, Town Code complaint, and a fiscally responsible option. 

There are several issues with the Bulk Water Filling Station that need to be addressed before spending $100,000 of the Utility Fund. This is regardless if the project was a ‘budgeted item’ or not. Bad ideas should not be implemented. 

The BOT has the opportunity to devise progressive water use policies that end the wasteful use of drinking quality water in favor of the responsible use of the Town’s water resource. Bulk water can be taken from the creek. A time to set a higher standard for historically flawed practices. When treated drinking water is not permitted to be used for road maintenance, then a Bulk Water Filling Station will not be necessary. 

   It’s rather appalling that someone from the community needs to point out the inherent flaws to the proposed project. The BOT is missing the big picture when considering the unnecessary luxury Public Works filling station. The BOT’s decision will either facilitate and endorse the wasteful use of drinking quality water or decide the more prudent option of a creek water filling station. 

Will you, members of the community, tolerate the allocation of the proposed  $100,000 of the Utility Fund to be spent on a poorly conceived Bulk Water Filling Station? For all who disagree with the proposed project, to express your opinion and let the Town Administrator and the BOT know your thoughts. 

Otherwise, if the illegitimate plan is witlessly approved, expect to receive a bill in the mail. 


Mark Clift

Gilpin County