Nearing the end of a 10-year long process, Ithaca Common Council last night came one step closer to making a final decision about the future of the city’s drinking water source.

While the final vote on whether to fix the current but aging Six Mile Creek water plant or purchase water from nearby Cayuga Lake was deferred until next Wednesday, the Council appeared to lean towards rebuilding the current facility. The Board of Public Works and Planning and Development Board recommended some time ago that the City choose to rebuild the facility.

All Common Council members agree that the current plant that provides Ithaca its water is old, dilapidated and becoming a less safe source of water for Ithaca. However, choosing a way to reconfigure Ithaca’s water source has been contentious. All Council members, other than Daniel Cogan M.S. ’96 (D-5th Ward), expressed their support last night to rebuild the current Six Mile Creek plant, rather than to change to a purchasing plan.

Under the purchasing plan, the city would buy its water from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, more commonly known as Bolton Point. Bolton Point gets its water from Cayuga Lake. On the other hand, the decision to rebuild would mean that the City would hold on to its current Six Mile Creek facility, which was originally given to the city in 1918 by the Robert Treman family. Both plans would cost approximately $40 million.

One major factor in the debate has been the control that the city would have over its water supply if it began to “buy” water from Bolton Point. Ithaca owns the Six Mile Creek water plant, which currently allows the city to have full control over its water. However, if the city were to join the consortium of other towns that purchases water from Bolton Point, it is unclear how much control it would retain.

According to Svante Myrick ’09 (D-4th ward), throughout the city’s negotiations with Bolton Point there was a lot of mistrust and ambiguity. It was unclear whether Bolton Point would make the city a customer, which would give it very limited control over the water, or would make the city a partner, which would give it slightly more control.

The other major consideration that was heavily addressed by the Board of Public Work’s report presented to Common Council last night was the environmental results of each option. Based on its research, the Public Works recommended that the Common Council vote in favor of rebuilding, rather than purchasing.

In addition, some Common Council members, notably Maria Coles (D-1st Ward), said that they value the back-up options that continuing to use the Six Mile Creek plant would allow.

“To be blessed with two substantial water treatment plants for the area is just a wonderful resource,” Coles said. She explained that if something goes wrong, the city would be able to use water from Cayuga Lake as a back up. However, if the city did not rebuild the Six Mile Creek facility and Cayuga Lake were to become contaminated for some reason, the city would have less backup for its drinking water. During last night’s meeting Coles referenced a situation in Syracuse when the drinking water became contaminated and there was a limited backup source for the entire city.

The process has been long and all parties involved seemed to express relief last night that after so many years it could come to a close.

Bill Gray, superintendent of the public works for the city, explained that upgrading the source of the Ithaca’s drinking water has been one of his goals since he was given a tour of the water plants in Ithaca 15 years ago.

“For me and my professional staff it will be nice to come to some decision” he said.

Coles expressed enthusiasm but also some frustration that the vote was held up for another week. “I was very excited thinking it was coming to an end,” she said. She added that this pattern of adding an extra week or an extra month to each vote has been going on for years already. However she also said that she is “overjoyed” about the decision that the Council is leaning towards.

The Council decided to postpone a final vote on the issue upon City Attorney Daniel Hoffman’s ’72 suggestion that the official resolution lacks details about the Council’s decision-making process.

In the meantime, the Council voted in favor of the resolution that adopts the Board of Public Work’s Findings Statement evaluating the two options being considered. This was a necessary step before the final vote next week.