City officials and water planners are scrambling to balance the budget and build a plan with long-term solutions to fulfill the city’s growing demand for water since Norman residents voted against water rate increases Aug. 24.

The proposed increase would have funded day-to-day expenses of the Norman water treatment facility as well as capital projects, salaries and benefits, operating costs, debt from previous projects and the exploration of long-term water sources for the city.

The city finance committee met Sept. 2 to discuss possible solutions on how to shore up the budget but no final decisions have been made, said Anthony Francisco, City of Norman finance director.

“There are some capital expenditures that can be delayed or cancelled, and that will be a short term solution to addressing the financial problems to the rate increase now,” he said.

Some of the options discussed for delay or cancellation include the construction of a water tower in south Norman, improvements to the water treatment facility and the construction of more wells.

There are 10 wells expected to be completed this year as part of the last Norman rate hike in 2006, but this will only bring Norman back to a production level similar to five years ago, said Chris Mattingly, City of Norman Water Treatment plant manager.

The level of water treatment and production was reduced significantly in 2005 when the EPA changed the standard for chemicals in water like arsenic, forcing 16 out of 31 wells to close.

The well construction is only an intermediary solution to Norman’s water supply needs, as there is a limit to the number of wells the city is allowed to drill into the Garber-Wellington aquifer before it would no longer replenish itself, Francisco said.

“We know we’ve got to back off overusing our wells,” said Bryan Hapke, City of Norman Water Treatment plant supervisor.

But as far as long-term solutions for the city, Francisco said the planners will have to go back to the drawing board.

“Any long-term water supply solution is going to be costly and cannot be addressed within our current rate structure,” Francisco said.

“We have to continue to make the case to our customers and citizens that in order to address our long-term water supply needs, more revenue is going to be needed.”

Long-term solutions to Norman’s water needs are especially important because of population growth and city expansion.

“Somewhere, we need more water,” Mattingly said. “If we continue adding more people, homes, businesses, we are not going to like it when we all have to ration in the summer.”

The 2025 land use plan, which maps out how the city will grow in the next two decades, creates water demand issues that the city has not yet experienced. The plan expects the city’s population to grow from 112,208 to 137,147 in 2025, a 22 percent increase.

There are about 20 days every summer when water must be purchased from Oklahoma City at a much higher cost to the City of Norman, said Scott Aynes, City of Norman Water Treatment crew chief.

The current rate is $4.47 per 1,000 gallons and rises each year. The City of Norman also must pay nearly $1,000 each month just to have the connection to Oklahoma City, Aynes said.

The Norman City Council will meet later this month to discuss water solutions for the city. At that point, recommendations will be made and the council will move forward, Francisco said.

No date has been set for another rate increase vote.

“From the standpoint of our younger residents, I would think they would have more concern about the long-term water supply needs of the city than our older residents,” Francisco said.

As the city grows, he said, Norman will not have enough water to meet supply needs, and solutions will take time.

“If we made a decision today with the long-term solutions on the table, it will take 15 years to construct,” Francisco said. “So we have to make decisions now that will affect our long-term future.”