CULLMAN — The City of Cullman will go ahead with the Duck River Dam plan and not support the county’s proposal to establish a new regional water board and build a new treatment plant at Smith Lake.

“I don’t accept their proposal,” Cullman Mayor Max Townson said on Monday. “The city is going through with Duck River.”

The city’s proposed dam on Duck River would create a 640-acre lake and a six-mile pipeline with a 32-million-gallon-per-day capacity. The reservoir would resemble the one at Lake Catoma, currently the county’s sole water source. The project is expected to generate as many as 1,000 jobs.

The county has proposed upgrading the treatment facilities at Lake Catoma and constructing a new treatment facility that would pump water from Smith Lake. Included in the proposal is the creation a regional water board to oversee water distribution in the county.

Currently, the city — through the Cullman Utilities Board — controls and sells all water distributed from Lake Catoma.

Regardless of which plan is implemented, customer water rates are expected to increase.

The city considered hiring architect Steve Cawood, with Goodwyn, Mills and Cawood, as a facilitator Monday to look at both projects, though Townson said the county has yet to present enough hard data to make mediation necessary.

“We — the city and the county commission — are jointly considering hiring a mediator to help us resolve this issue, but how do you compare an idea or theory with a permitted project?” Townson asked. “Mr. Williams and Mr. Willingham need to come back to the table when they can provide documentation showing their suggestion is something that can be permitted, meet all environmental requirements, fend off legal challenges, justify need, secure financing and gain support of the other water systems. We have requested copies of the county permit application to Alabama Power and all correspondences with APC. We have not been given anything that validates this as a project.”

Townson said there are also some viability questions that have yet to be answered about the Smith Lake project.

“The formal proposal submitted to the City of Cullman and hand delivered to The Cullman Times by County Commissioners Doug Williams and Wayne Willingham is asking us to support the Duck River project or the new county commission proposal to build a treatment plant at Smith Lake to serve the southwest part of their service area,” Townson said. “That information shows the two commissioners are of the opinion that Alabama Power would approve the county's request to withdraw water from Smith Lake and that the power company would forward that request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to seek their approval of the commissioner's proposal. Without that written information and other supporting documentation, we have two commissioners asking us to abandon 18 years of work on the Duck River Reservoir Project under the theory their idea can be approved at the end an 18-month application process.”

Townson said the city has already received necessary government approvals and is prepared to move forward with the Duck River project now.

“We have a permit in hand issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowing us to begin construction of the Duck River dam,” he said. “The Duck River project has resolved all environmental issues and has successfully defended two legal challenges in federal court that the project did not consider all alternatives, was not the most economical option to meet our current and future water needs, and would not meet state water quality standards. The wholesale customers, including Cullman County, have signed contracts currently in place to pay their share of the Duck River project. The Utilities Board of the City of Cullman also has proven it can finance a $60 million bond issue to fund the work.”

Townson said classifying the water debate as simply the “city vs. county” is oversimplifying the issue.

“Four other systems — Vinemont, Anon and West Point (VAW), East Cullman, Walter and Johnson Crossing (serving more than one-third of Cullman County) — are a part of this system and they are independent operations supplying water to approximately 10,000 customers that are not retail customers of the City of Cullman or the Cullman County Commission,” he said. “As an example, Commissioner Williams is provided water at his home by the East Cullman System, while Commissioner Willingham and Chairman James Graves are customers of the VAW Water System.”

Lake Catoma and the current treatment plant provides water to all of the water systems at cost, which is verified by an independent audit at the end of every year and wholesale rates are adjusted based on that audit.

“The city pays the same rate per thousand gallons as the county commission and the other systems,” Townson said. “This region has been providing water from Lake Catoma since the 1960s. That water has been furnished under the same contract agreement for more than 30 years that establishes the per-1000 gallon rate.”

Townson said he also does not agree with the commissioners’ idea to establish a new, regional water board — since a water board already exists.

“I also take exception to the notion that the commissioners’ plan creates a ‘Regional Proposal’ because they offer to buy into the existing lake and treatment plant,” he said. “We would not add a single new customer — not a new home, not a new apartment, not a new barn, not a new farm, not a new poultry house, not a new business or a new industry — except the proposed treatment plant at Smith Lake. However, we become a ‘region’ if we dismiss the current five utility board members who reside in the City of Cullman in Cullman County and allow commissioners to appoint board members. Am I to believe a region is determined by the make-up of the board members?”

The commissioners’ proposal to purchase the existing Lake Catoma treatment plant is also unacceptable, Townson said.

“I also have questions about an idea that recommends paying $25 million for Lake Catoma and the treatment plant and rolling that $25 million into the financing of the county proposal,” he said. “That would require water customers of all of the systems to pay higher water every month for 25 to 30 years to get something we already own. I am certain we would not accept a $25 million offer for Lake Catoma and an existing treatment plant capable of treating 24 million gallons of water a day.”

Townson said the commissioners’ own proposal acknowledges it would take $60 million to duplicate Lake Catoma, referring to the cost of Duck River.

“The county proposal shows a 12 million-gallons-per-day plant at Smith Lake would cost $34.5 million dollars, which means a 24 million-gallons-per-day plant would require an investment of $69 million,” he said. “If the replacement cost is around $129 million, an offer of less than 20 percent of that value seems inadequate.”

The severe drought that affected the area in 2007 is still a threat, Townson said, which is why he believes the Duck River project needs to move forward soon.

“We have not resolved the drought situation we faced only two short years ago when we were within 60 days of running out of water,” he said. “We can move forward with construction of Duck River and are ready to do that if our partners want to participate.”

Cullman City Council President Garlan Gudger, Jr. said he hopes both the city and county can come together for the common good of the area.

“There has to be a working relationship to get the best rates for customers and for a bond rating,” he said. “But, I’m 100 percent behind Duck River and will be until I’m shown a better option.”

However the situation develops, Cawood said both the city and county would benefit heavily from working together.

“You hurt yourself if you don’t stay together,” he said Monday night at the city council meeting.

Cullman County public relations representative Stacy Smith, with Strategic Public Relations, said commissioners Willingham and Williams will issue a response to the city’s comments soon.

* Trent Moore can be reached by e-mail at trentm@cullmantimes.com, or by telephone at 734-2131, ext. 225.