BOULDER -- After more than a decade, Boulder is on the verge of complying with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and treating its water.

The city council approved an engineering plan in March that should reduce copper levels in the water to comply with the SDWA.

However, many citizens recently signed a petition opposing the treatment, and some say it could present more of a health risk than leaving the water as is.

The petition gained 200 signatures in the first three days it was circulated said petition organizer David Kirsch, a former mayor of Boulder.

Boulder has some of the best drinking water in the state, he said, and tests show it's purer than most bottled water on the market.

However, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which enforces federal water quality standards in the state, wants the water treated and took the city to court in February to force compliance with the SDWA.

The problem

Boulder's water contains 1.8 milligrams of copper per liter. To meet federal standards, copper levels shouldn't exceed 1.3 mg per liter.

DEQ filed a lawsuit against Boulder last fall, and Boulder could face fines of $10,000 per day, dating back to 1993. The suit is scheduled to go to trial March 12, 2008, said Boulder City Attorney Steven Shapiro.

City officials thought that replacing the city's old water mains in 2000 would lower the copper levels to acceptable standards.

However, it didn't.

And additional improvements to treat and disinfect the water in 2000, as initially proposed to DEQ, weren't completed, said Shapiro.

In July 2006 Boulder hired Morrison-Maierle, Inc. of Helena to determine the source of the elevated copper and evaluate treatment alternatives.

Tests found the water is corrosive, said MMI engineer Alan Erickson. The engineers believe the water is picking up copper from service pipes and residential plumbing before it reaches the tap.

Engineers can't isolate the problem to a certain part of town, he said.

A household may have a high copper sample one time and three samples later, it could be low.

Typically, 15 to 20 percent of the households test above the allowable limit for copper.

High doses of copper can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, according to an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry fact sheet.

It also could cause a decrease in fetal growth.

Proposed treatment

MMI recommends adding orthophosphate to the water to lower the copper level.

This chemical creates a film, lining the pipes, preventing water from corroding the copper, said Erickson.

The city also would need to disinfect the water with calcium hypochlorite at the well heads.

Anytime a foreign substance is introduced in the water supply, the water must be disinfected, said Erickson.

Disinfecting also will address the city's occasional problems with fecal coliform contamination.

And the city would likely be required to disinfect its water by 2012, anyway, because of new federal standards approved in October 2006, Erickson said.

The recommended chemicals are widely used for water treatment throughout the world. The chemical dosage is minimal, he said, and should have little impact on the taste or quality of the water.

"The treatment will lessen the health risks of what they face now with untreated water," Erickson said.

The proposed cost for installing chemical treatment pumps at two to four of the city's well heads is $75,000 to $170,000, he said.

Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $60,000, said Shapiro.

Opposition

The proposed treatment is too expensive, said Kirsch. "Boulder is a low-income community."

"Why would we have to do something that could be harmful to us?" he asked. "Why don't we leave it alone?"

"It seems that with a miniscule amount of copper, this is a terribly large amount of money for a town that was on the verge of bankruptcy," said business owner Sabrina Steketee. "We don't have this money for something that may not be needed."

"We never know how dangerous a chemical is until it's been used 50-60 years until there is a cancer problem," said Steketee. "We used to think asbestos wasn't bad."

"Why would you add an unknown like that when there is no health risk," she said, referring to what she calls a "miniscule amount of copper."

Local officials and Steketee met with DEQ last Tuesday to discuss alternatives.

However, those attending the meeting may have departed with different perspectives on what took place.

Steketee said it was her understanding that DEQ would consider alternative proposals, but that the city has failed to put any options in writing for DEQ to consider.

However, Attorney Shapiro disagrees. He said any alternatives needed to be proposed 10 years ago.

He's urging the city to continue to move forward with the engineering plan, rather than face a trial next spring and high court fines.

Jon Dilliard, Bureau Chief for the Public Water and Subdivision Bureau, said that alternatives are typically presented early on, when a community is first investigating permanent options for compliance.

"This is not an arbitrary state standard. The city has to comply with federal standards. We don't have the flexibility at the state to adjust health standards," he said.

Water filters?

One suggestion citizens proposed is providing water filters to all residences.

However, the cost of these filters, maintaining them and regularly sampling the water over the years would be too great, said Erickson.

Kirsch suggests residents could just let their water run a few minutes before using it, thus flushing out the pipe.

"DEQ and EPA do not recognize running the tap as a preferred treatment," said Erickson. "There is no way to make sure they (residents) are running their water to flush the pipes. It's not a viable alternative."

"We looked at multiple options," Erickson said. Some of these included replacing the remaining copper service lines and household pipes or installing an aeration system.

The estimates were from a half million to over a million dollars, he said.

Shapiro said MMI heard citizens' concerns before it made its recommendations.

"They tried to find a treatment that would have minimal impact on consumers," he said.

"We thought we were at some consensus," he said, referring to previous public meetings about water treatment.

"The city has known for many years we have to do this," said Shapiro.

The city council has relied on "one of the finest engineering firms in the area" to make a recommendation, he said.

It approved MMI's report in March, which has been submitted to DEQ for review.

If it's approved, the next step would be to run a pilot test for three to five months, said Erickson.

Once the pilot test is completed, the city would bid the job, and construction could begin by winter. The water treatment could be on line by spring 2008, Erickson said.

Boulder Mayor Daryl Deede Craft said the petition is not going to affect the city council and its plans. Council members approved the engineering plan and intend to take the next steps for treating the water.