Chelsea L. McGowan

The Weatherford Municipal Utility Board started looking in a new direction Thursday afternoon, as newly-appointed chair Sherry Watson led discussions about possible improvements to Lake Weatherford.

Watson was nominated to the chair position by boardmember Ken Davis, who said her past service as mayor gave her a “unique perspective” on the utility board, and the ability to look at things from the standpoint both of an elected official and an appointed member.

City engineer James Hotopp presented the results of a Texas Water Development Board volumetric and sedimentation survey. The survey was performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fort Worth District partnering with the Texas Water Development Board. The survey began in February 2008, and was completed in August 2008.

According to Hotopp’s presentation, Lake Weatherford is currently dealing with the loss of 37 acre-feet per year of storage capacity due to the accumulation of sediment. An acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre of land to the depth of one foot, or 325,851 gallons.

“The loss is nothing too significant, but if you look at a useful cross-section of the lake, it does become a greater issue,” Hotopp said.

Danny Lee, engineer and long-time Weatherford resident, took issue with the study presented, as he said it deviated from studies conducted in years past.

“I brought this problem up in 1993, and explained then the seriousness of what we’re seeing,” he said. “In 1957, we had 6.343 billion gallons of water in our lake. By 1987, we had lost down to 4.735 billion gallons. The study in 2003 said we were down to 3.8 billion gallons.”

That’s where Lee said the studies start to diverge. According to Hotopp, the authors of the 2008 surveys discouraged any comparison to previous surveys on the basis of different calculations and improvements in technology.

Lee said the dismissal of past data is dangerous.

“Suddenly, by this report, we have 5.2 billion gallons of water in our lake,” Lee said. “Where did that extra capacity come from? All the other surveys have shown a gradual drop in our capacity due to silt. I believe if we put a pencil to it, you’ll see we need every gallon we can get. When someone tells me to ignore what five engineers have done before, that bothers me.”

Lee encouraged the utility board to take steps toward “rescuing” the lost capacity at Lake Weatherford, and warned of what might happen if the alleged problem is ignored.

“When the City of Waco went to sleep, they lost their lake,” he said. “It all went to silt, and the federal government had to come in and bail them out. It can certainly happen.”

After listening to Lee’s presentation, Hotopp said the need to act was apparent regardless of the veracity of the study.

“I think what Danny said is correct,” Hotopp said. “No matter what side you argue, there’s a continuous loss of capacity, and that’s a problem.”

Hotopp introduced Murphy Parks, an engineer employed by Freese and Nichols, to address the council with the feasibility of dredging Lake Weatherford to regain storage capacity. Parks is currently working with the City of Fort Worth on similar problems plaguing Lake Worth.

“These surveys don’t agree,” Parks said. “There needs to be a reconciliation of the information, first of all. But in any case, a large investment like dredging pays itself forward as far as the future use of the lake.”

Parks explained most of the 1,926 acre-feet of sediment measured at the bottom of Lake Weatherford is classified as “loam,” which is relatively easy to dredge. Parks also suggested a hydraulic method of dredging would be more cost-effective in the long-term.

“Hydraulic dredging is really a large-scale pumping operation for very dirty water,” Parks explained. “The water would then be deposited someplace upstream, so the sediment could de-water, and that water would naturally return to the lake.”

When asked whether or not hydraulic dredging would muddy the water around the work-site, Parks said the process was far preferable to mechanical dredging.

“With mechanical dredging, you’re grabbing dirt and dragging it to the surface, and that can make a mess in the surrounding water,” he said. “With hydraulic dredging, it’s really just a large vacuuming operation. There’s a localized plume of really turbid water, but since you’re sucking the water up, there’s very limited contamination.”

Parks estimated of the 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment in Lake Weatherford, a dredging project would hope to target 1.5 to 2 million cubic yards.

The main issue, though, will be money. Dredging is an expensive proposal, with Parks estimating $10 million as a lump sum for a contracted job. The city has several options, but none are inexpensive.

“One of the major decisions would be the finances,” Parks said. “You can pay a lump sum, contract it out and get it all done as one project over the course of a year. Or you could set up a smaller-scale operation, buy some equipment, staff it with city employees and pick away at it for several years. But that’s going to take a lot longer.”

Utility Director Sharon Hayes reported that city staff would soon be making a trip to Longview to see the in-house dredging operations at Lake Cherokee, which is reported to be a project similar in size to the one proposed for Lake Weatherford.

At any rate, no funds are currently available to begin any size project immediately.

“Currently, there’s not a funding source for any of these options,” Hotopp said.

However, City Manager Jerry Blaisdell said postponing the project could potentially multiply the eventual cost.

“Some of the figures we’ve been given show this as a $20 million project,” he said. “But by the time we save that money, it might be a $40 million project. So how can we begin to make improvements to Lake Weatherford? Had we planned for these improvement costs in 1957, we wouldn’t be here.”

Veteran boardmember T.K. Helm suggested the board start saving money wherever possible, with the idea that dredging will be a priority in the future.

“We should be taking money from these gas leases and put it in the shoebox,” she said.

In other business, the council voted to create an in-house construction crew to complete projects to be funded by Impact Fees and the proceeds of the 2006 revenue bond.

According to Hotopp, the formation of the crew would allow for savings as city engineers could provide design service and staff workers could work on the projects.

Davis expressed doubt the city could, in fact, provide construction services cheaper than those available through contractors.

“At a time when every other city I’m aware of is privatizing their services, I find it interesting that we think we’ve found the secret to doing it ourselves cost-effectively,” he said. “I don’t think we can provide labor as cheaply as we can contract it. And also, if we’re doing our own work, we’re inspecting our own work.”

Davis also said he didn’t understand how current staffing could meet such drastically increased demands.

“If our engineers have their own full-time jobs, and I assume you do, then we’re looking at far greater costs than just engineering,” he said.

Boardmember Heidi Wilder also expressed her reservations, saying she felt the city would suffer if there was no one to warranty the work being done.

“If we contract and something goes wrong, the contractor is held responsible,” she said. “If there’s no warranty, that’s a big concern to me.”

Hotopp said he felt the city was able to sufficiently inspect work done in-house, and Watson said she thought a sense of personal pride might actually encourage a higher quality of work.

“I think if I had to repair something, I’d be real sure it was put in properly in the first place,” she said.

Craig Swancy, a new appointee to the board from the city council, said he was certain the formation of an in-house committee would be a money-saving measure.

“The cost of pipe is the same, regardless of who buys it,” he said. “The cost of labor is about the same. The contractor has a profit he has to turn ... we don’t. Therefore, we’ve got it whipped.”

Ultimately, the proposal was approved, with Davis and Wilder opposing the motion.

Lastly, in the monthly summary, Hayes reported the lake elevation has dropped to 891.4 mean sea level due to increased evaporation as temperatures rise.