Harrisburg sues for control of its well.

Byline: Karen McCowan The Register-Guard

HARRISBURG - The city is going to court to try to claim the site of its most prolific water well - while also trying to win in the court of public opinion about the quality of the well's water.

A real estate agent discovered this spring that Harrisburg erroneously had drilled its Well No. 5 on the wrong side of a property line more than a decade ago, on land now owned by Ellen Leigh of Battle Ground, Wash. The land sits along the banks of the Willamette River just east of the Highway 99E bridge.

The city now faces a legal battle with Leigh, who withdrew an offer to sell the 0.4-acre parcel to the city for $10,000. Instead, she proposed a $200 per month lease agreement, retroactive to 1996, which would mean that the city already would owe more than $25,000 for using the land for its well. The site is part of a larger parcel Leigh inherited from her father, who bought it in a surplus land auction. The Linn County assessor's office lists the real market value of the entire parcel as $500.

In a claim filed last month in Linn County Circuit Court, Harrisburg seeks ownership - or an easement - under Oregon's "adverse claims" law. That statute allows a party to take possession of property it has openly and continuously used for at least 10 years if it can demonstrate "an honest belief" that it owned the land in the first place. Leigh's attorney was not immediately available for comment.

But Well No. 5's misplacement is not the only thing that stinks about it, according to local residents.

Although officials insist that it's safe, the quality of water from the well, which provides nearly two-thirds of Harrisburg's municipal water mix, has some city residents crying foul. Many, particularly those living in a three-year-old subdivision in southeast Harrisburg, say their tap water reeks.

What, exactly, does it smell like?

One after another, neighbors along Siuslaw, Whitledge and South Ninth streets wrinkled their noses and offered their descriptions.

"Fertilizer."

"That putrid smell in the rocks when you clean out a fish bowl."

"Sulphuric - almost a wet dog smell."

Greg Skovbo used a different dog reference when speaking to the City Council earlier this year.

"When we have people over and run hot water to rinse off the plates after dinner, it's almost to the point that they check their feet because it smells like dog poop," he said.

At the same meeting, the council heard an unusual plea from resident Mary Casper: Please raise taxes enough to cover the purchase of city filtration equipment.

"I told them I'd even go door to door to lobby for people to support a tax for it," she said. "I think if you guaranteed fresh, clean water, people would pay to have it done."

It's not just the odor, unhappy residents say. It's also the appearance and taste of the water, which comes from a mineral-rich aquifer.

Troy and Amber Jackson pay to have bottled water delivered each month because their children won't drink their tap water. Casper's husband installed a home filtration system last month because the couple were disgusted by "white, stringy floaties" that melting ice cubes left in their cold drinks.

"It's nasty," agreed Kirsten Campbell, saying "clean" dishes come out of her dishwasher covered in a milky white film.

"My glasses look dirty all the time unless I replace them every three months," she said, adding that she has to "constantly" scrub her dishwasher, sinks and toilets to prevent rust-colored staining.

"If I didn't, I'm afraid they'd look like this," she said, lifting the lid off her toilet tank to reveal what looked like murky black swamp water.

The city is well aware of such "aesthetic" problems, City Administrator Bruce Cleeton said, but also knows that the water is safe for drinking. And some longtime residents, long used to the water, "kind of wonder what the fuss is about," he said.

Indeed, Harrisburg residents last week received their annual drinking water quality report, assuring them that the city's water meets federal and state requirements.

Naturally occurring iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide most likely are causing the smell, taste and staining, said Dennis Nelson, groundwater coordinator for the state's drinking water program. Those elements generally are not harmful and not regulated for health purposes, he said. He added that many area water systems battle hard water problems.

Cleeton agreed, pointing to nearby Junction City and Brownsville as examples. Both Skovbo and Campbell previously lived in Junction City, however, and said Harrisburg's water is far worse.

The taste and smell issues may seem worse there than they used to, Cleeton said, because the city once used Well 5 water sparingly, adding it to the mix only during peak-demand summer months. After growing nearly 25 percent since 2000, however, Harrisburg now needs Well 5 water year-round to serve its 3,500 residents. Even some longtime residents are now voicing concern, he said.

The council this spring directed public works officials to spend up to $50,000 on a pilot project to see if a filtration system would solve the problem. That step was put on hold, however, after bids to drill the city's next well - No. 8 - came in substantially higher than projected. One new subdivision in the rapidly growing city already faces a prohibition on home buyers moving in until the new well comes on line to boost the municipal supply.

Still, the council considers water quality a top priority, Cleeton said, and the filtration trial could go forward as early as this fall, when more water fund revenue becomes available.

In the meantime, some fed-up residents such as Rod Shay have taken matters into their own hands.

"We just spent almost $3,000 on a water filtration system," Shay said.