Lucke compared the process to making a cup of tea in reverse. Instead of adding herbs and spices, steeping them in the water to alter color, smell, and taste, employees at the treatment plant do the opposite \u2014 adding lime, chlorine, and other chemicals to separate water from the Missouri River from various contaminants.<\/p>\n
The result, about 18 hours after it\u2019s pumped from the river, is clean, clear water coming out of the faucet.<\/p>\n
But Kansas City\u2019s drinkable water is precariously reliant upon a single facility that is set to celebrate 100 years of operation in 2026.<\/p>\n
And, while officials don\u2019t foresee any major interruptions at the current plant, the aging site requires regular maintenance and repairs that are only likely to increase.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s why KC Water officials have launched public efforts<\/a> to garner support for a second water treatment facility, something they\u2019ve been discussing internally for some time.<\/p>\n KC Water leaders said a well-running facility takes away some pressure to build a new facility right away, giving them more time to solicit public comment and make sure everything is done above board.<\/p>\n University of Kansas environmental engineering professor Josh Hutchinson said it’s unusual for a municipality the size of Kansas City to rely solely on one treatment facility. Lawrence, for instance, has two facilities and serves about a sixth of the customers.<\/p>\n The situation makes Kansas City more vulnerable to a disaster like the one last year in Minden, Iowa, where a tornado hit the city\u2019s only treatment facility<\/a>. It may be unlikely, but it\u2019s definitely not impossible.<\/p>\n \u201cBringing in bottled water, bringing in treatment systems for 500 people in Minden is doable,\u201d Hutchinson said. \u201cMobilizing the necessary resources to provide potable drinking water for everybody in Kansas City, now, is a very difficult ask.\u201d<\/p>\n One hundred years of clean water<\/p>\n Lucke said KC Water\u2019s public-facing approach to creating a second facility is necessary, but unusual. Employees are much more used to working behind the scenes.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you hear nothing (from the public), it means you\u2019re doing your job right,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n In November, Lucke gave KCUR a tour of the city\u2019s drinking treatment plant, guiding a reporter up into giant basins \u2014 nearly 10 times the size of an Olympic swimming pool \u2014 filled with calm, blue water that flows almost imperceptibly until it cascades off toward the next phase of cleaning.<\/p>\n After Kansas City\u2019s tap water is sourced from the Missouri River, it\u2019s pumped up to the facility, where gravity guides 240 million gallons of water each day through the purification process.<\/p>\n Each of the six secondary basins holds up to 60 million gallons of water \u2014 10 times as much as an Olympic-sized swimming pool.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re raising the pH up to oxidize and settle out iron and manganese,\u201d Lucke said. \u201cOnce we do, that\u2019s where the magic really starts.\u201d<\/p>\n The water goes through several stops: the massive settling basins where physical particles separate from the water, long channels through which chemicals are piped in, sand filters for final clarification, before ending up in one of two massive underground reservoirs.<\/p>\n There, it sits for a little while, seeping in phosphate, a corrosion inhibitor that protects the plumbing in customer homes, and fluoride, to protect customers\u2019 teeth. Once it\u2019s had sufficient contact time, 7-foot-tall pumps push it out toward the city.<\/p>\n The Northland site also includes a fully-accredited lab to ensure the purification process meets legal guidelines, and to handle any sampling requests KC Water might have.<\/p>\n Finally, the water arrives at the faucets of approximately 87,000 homes and 650,000 people.<\/p>\n \u201cWe want to make sure people are educated and understand the utility that they are paying for, and that they are getting their money\u2019s worth,\u201d Lucke said. \u201cThis service is the lifeblood of the city.\u201d<\/p>\n Toward the end of the purification process, water travels inside to a sand filter stage, which provides an opportunity for final clarification. From here, the water will go to one of two massive underground reservoirs.<\/p>\n According to the most recent consumer confidence report<\/a>, concerns over changing water quality should be minimal. In fact, you have to go back to 2019 to find the most recent violation of drinking water guidelines.<\/p>\n But there is a difference between what is federally mandated for water quality and what other organizations might consider healthy.<\/p>\n Take nitrates, for example. The federal guideline calls for no more than 10 milligrams per liter of water, which Kansas City meets. But the nonprofit Environmental Working Group<\/a>, based in Washington, says Kansas City\u2019s water has 10 times as many nitrates, among other contaminants, as what they consider healthy.<\/p>\n Hutchinson said the discrepancy boils down to why regulations exist in the first place. The federal guideline for nitrates, for instance, are based around the dangers associated with blue baby syndrome. When nitrates exceed 10 milligrams per liter, transporting blood through veins and arteries becomes more difficult, and babies who drink too much of it turn blue.<\/p>\n \u201cWhere you have differences of opinion is when you start talking about acute exposure versus chronic (exposure),\u201d Hutchinson said. \u201cWith acute and blue baby syndrome, when you stop drinking that water, or switch the source, the syndrome goes away.\u201d<\/p>\n By contrast, concerns over chronic exposure center on longer-term effects.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you drink water with less nitrates than the federal limit your entire life,\u201d Hutchinson explained, \u201cwhat happens after 70 years of exposure to those nitrates?\u201d<\/p>\n What about drinking water with unusual smells or tastes<\/a>? Hutchinson said those don\u2019t always correlate to health concerns, although they might be unpleasant.<\/p>\n For Kansas City residents who are concerned about water quality, the Environmental Working Group has recommendations for additional filters<\/a>.<\/p>\n Seeking a second site<\/p>\n Construction on the Briarcliff facility started in the early 1920s, with operations ramping up by 1926. After 100 years, the need for repairs is now fairly consistent, Lucke said. Like one of the hulking, cast iron pumps that push water back out into the city.<\/p>\n \u201cThe one back over there has cost a significant amount of money for us,\u201d Lucke said at one of the final steps of the tour. \u201cBut it\u2019s going to last us another 20 years.\u201d<\/p>\n Because some legacy parts are no longer manufactured, many repairs are made by hand on-site, a laborious and sometimes costly endeavor. And, as with any aging facility, there are certain things KC Water can\u2019t plan for.<\/p>\n After 100 years in operation, Kansas City\u2019s water treatment facility is still running well, but maintenance on and cleaning of equipment is becoming more regular and more expensive. Part of that effort includes periodic draining of the basins.<\/p>\n Facilities engineering division manager Blake Anderson, who helps lead the public effort for a second facility, said concrete is really only meant to last 100 years before bigger issues can arise.<\/p>\n Then there are the ever-changing water regulations \u2014 federal and state \u2014 and the fact the city has grown substantially in the past century.<\/p>\n \u201cWe’re still saving space on this site but that also limits the long-term production,\u201d Anderson said, \u201cover, say \u2014 not 20 years \u2014 but 50 to 100 years.\u201d<\/p>\n That might seem like a lot of lead time, but Anderson said creating redundancy is critical to fending off unforeseen crises.<\/p>\n KC Water has already identified potential sites for a new facility, including one in the East Bottoms. In October, the department held a town hall with residents, and presented their ideas thus far. The proposal was met with some pushback<\/a> from business owners nearby, but Hutchinson said that\u2019s exactly the sort of input they want.<\/p>\n It will also take time to raise the necessary money, especially because the intent is to fund the project via external sources, not by raising people\u2019s water bills. It\u2019s all part of what\u2019s called a triple bottom line approach, focused on cost savings but also on reducing social and environmental impacts.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it takes 10 years to get the money for this: OK,\u201d Anderson said. \u201cThat\u2019s one of the advantages of not having to build a plant for any immediate demands.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can just pursue this consistently the right way,\u201d Anderson said.<\/p>\n Still, any major changes are a ways away. So, for those at the plant and out in the field, it’s business as usual.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n