A pipeline to carry water to Aberdeen from the Missouri River would cost upwards of $271 million, but state and federal funding options are available.

City officials and representatives from rural water districts had their first opportunity to hear details about the pipeline and the potential cost Thursday afternoon from representatives from Bartlett & West. The company presented its report at the Aberdeen Recreation and Cultural Center. 

The proposal looked at three different sized pipelines and a variety of materials for the pipeline. Using the recommended material — cement mortar-lined steel pipe — cost estimates range from $271 million to $334 million to build the line. It would have an annual operating budget of $1.1 million to $2.1 million.

"When you start talking about a $300 million project, it's scary, but if we don't do it now, this won't happen," City Manager Joe Gaa said. "This is probably our last chance for something like this."

Ken Royse, one of two presenters from Bartlett & West, said making the project a reality would mean securing state and federal funds that would cover 70% to 80% of the cost. And, he said, getting federal funds from the Bureau of Reclamation would mean needing project approval from Congress.

Previously:Aberdeen could tap Missouri River as water source

The potential 104-mile pipeline would draw from the Missouri River at Lake Oahe near Mobridge and pipe it to the city's water treatment plant.

While the report recommends using cement mortar-lined steel pipe, Doug Mund from Bartlett & West said there is currently a surplus of welded steel pipe available because of recently canceled oil pipeline projects. 

"A few months ago, there were 1,000 miles of pipe available," he said. "We can see a significant pipe savings between surplus and regular price."

Using that surplus pipe would put the estimated cost around $291 million.

Aberdeen currently draws water from the Elm River and city wells to meet demand with current use at about 10 million gallons per day. But the city does run into treatment challenges when river water levels are low, per the report.

The study also notes that the pipeline would not only benefit Aberdeen, which recently missed a development opportunity because of an insufficient water supply, but would also benefit regional needs in northeastern South Dakota. As such, the report proposed a pipeline that would not only provide raw water for Aberdeen but also for neighboring rural water systems like WEB and BDM.

WEB Water provides treated Missouri River water to customers. BDM Rural Water's source is the Middle James Aquifer. 

In recent years, WEB has placed a moratorium on new connections, but the system has worked on improvements aimed at expanding its treatment capabilities and increasing its water supply.

According to a written statement provided by WEB General Manger Angie Hammrich, WEB has $62 million in projects scheduled to address moratorium areas and expand treatment capacity. WEB has also identified $200 million in future infrastructure projects that would serve long-term needs of the region. One of those projects is another Missouri River water intake.

"WEB is confident that Aberdeen could join WEB's current effort as a partner on that intake and looks forward to exploring that opportunity," the statement reads.  

More:A proposal to pipe Missouri River water for use in Aberdeen is a long shot, Joe Gaa says

The Bartlett & West study presented three pipeline options delivering 28 million to 44 million gallons of water per day. Of that, 16 million gallons per day is proposed for the city, but Gaa said that is a conservative estimate. Other water recipients in the proposal include WEB Water and others, although the study makes it clear that no partnership agreements are in place.

Infrastructure for the pipeline would include pump stations, meter stations and two reservoirs. One reservoir would hold between 2 million and 4 million gallons depending on the maximum flow of the pipeline. The second reservoir would hold between 4 million and 8 million gallons.

The study makes several recommendations, including the formation of a local planning team, evaluating local partnership options and sending the proposed pipeline to local, state and federal agencies for review.

"We have to have state and federal participation," Royse said.

He said it's also important to put together an aggressive construction schedule that would complete the project in 10 to 12 years.

Moving forward, Royse said, the city could work on some low-cost items first, including securing water rights from the state, developing partnerships and confirming the fast-track schedule.

Once low-cost items are completed, he said, the city could move toward the moderate expenses like investigation into potential reservoir sites, obtaining environmental clearances and security permits, and approval.

The pipeline would be similar to the WEB Water pipeline that started operation in 1986. When it was being planned, city leaders in Aberdeen decided against joining the project, though WEB serves other communities across the region.

Several members of the city council were in attendance, but it was an informational session and no decisions were made.