The change orders keep rolling in on the Fernley water treatment plant, currently under construction at the end of Mesa Drive on the city's west side.

Since April, the city council approved six change orders to the city's water treatment plant cost, which was initially priced at $43 million for the treatment plant and the microfiltration membrane system.

According to figures from Dave and Sandra Mathewson, residents who have openly opposed the plant in their neighborhood, the city approved three change orders in April and May totaling $314,551. Change orders were also approved in June, July and August with the July 16 change order priced at approximately $500,000. All change orders total just over $1 million.

City Manager Gary Bacock said it's not unusual to have multiple change orders on a project of this magnitude, especially if better technology is found which would benefit the treatment plant.

The half-million dollar change order in July reflected the cost to re-engineer the plant from using an open air drying pond system to a closed loop system, something the Mathewsons have fought against for more than a year.

The Mathewsons live next door to the water treatment plant and claimed the open air drying ponds would pose a health hazard because arsenic dust would be released.

After Fernley learned it would not be able to obtain the necessary state air quality permit in a timely manner for the open air drying ponds, the city decided on the closed loop system which does not require a permit from the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection.

Bacock said the Mathewsons' attorney told the state agency he would appeal the air quality permit, which would take time the city does not have.

The city, like many other municipalities in the West, has been ordered to come into compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act that maintains a standard of 10 parts per billion for arsenic. Fernley has received several extensions and now must meet the federal standard by July 2009.

"(NDEP) told us because it would take so long, we would be better off designing a different system where we wouldn't need a permit," Bacock said. "We were trying to cut the time in looking at the closed loop system, that's why we went that route."

At the Aug. 6 council meeting, the Mathewsons presented a chart comparing the costs of Fallon's water treatment plant to Fernley's; however, Bacock said they're comparing apples to oranges because construction costs have escalated since Fallon's plant was completed in 2004, the technology used is different and the size of the cities is different in both population and total square miles served by the systems.

Fernley issued a $50 million bond in Oct. 2007 to fund the water treatment plant's construction and other water and sewer projects. Another $38 million bond was issued to help fund those projects, which include installing water and sewer pipes for several miles through the city to reach the treatment plant.

Bacock said the cost of Fallon's water treatment plant was less expensive than Fernley's, but said Fallon's annual operations and maintenance costs will be higher than Fernley's.

"Yes, it's more money up front for construction and design, but the actual system will be more cost effective to maintain," Bacock said.

The Mathewsons, who along with several neighbors filed a lawsuit against the city regarding the water treatment plant, take solace in knowing that although the Supreme Court ruled against them in December, their appeal has been assigned to three Supreme Court justices and placed on their agenda.

The lawsuit claimed the city violated its own zoning ordinances and its master plan. The Mesagate Homeowners Association, which filed the lawsuit, argued the city doesn't have sufficient rights of way along Mesa Drive and that a secondary access route is not available.

Bacock said the city will obtain a 60-foot right of way along Mesa Drive before the water treatment plant receives its certificate of occupancy.