Traverse City commissioners have agreed to increase Garfield Township’s water supply by an extra one million gallons per day – one of several solutions the two municipalities are exploring as they work to resolve disputes over their bulk water agreement.

Both city commissioners and township officials discussed progress in ongoing negotiations over several water-related issues at their most recent board meetings. Garfield is one of three townships that purchases its water from Traverse City’s water plant, along with Peninsula and Elmwood. The plant has a capacity of just under 20 million gallons per day (MGD), with 10 MGD allocated to the city, 5 MGD to Garfield Township, 1 MGD to Peninsula Township, .75 MGD to Elmwood Township, and 2 MGD in reserve. Garfield Township, which has experienced significant growth in recent years, has been reaching and sometimes exceeding its capacity and requested an increase of 3 MGD, which would bring its capacity up to 8 MGD.

However, the township’s request last year to renegotiate the agreement – which doesn’t expire until 2028 – triggered a review of several other issues by the city. Notably, city staff expressed concerns over various township projects that were approved to connect to the water system over the years without city approval. An expansion of the system into Long Lake Township also occurred without the city’s approval, staff said. Both municipalities questioned the accuracy of water flow data, while a major expansion project underway at the Historic Barns Park – which is overseen by the joint city and township Recreational Authority – has highlighted urgent water pressure issues that need to be quickly addressed at the property.

While tensions have sometimes flared over the various disputes – Garfield Township Supervisor Joe McManus said Tuesday that just a month ago it “wasn’t a pretty picture,” with officials not optimistic about a positive resolution – recent negotiations have brought about significant progress. City Manager Liz Vogel and City Attorney Lauren Trible-Laucht said as much in a recent presentation to city commissioners, where they outlined steps both entities have agreed upon to move forward. While Trible-Laucht said the city didn’t have capacity to give Garfield Township its requested 3 MGD increase, the city could spare 1 MGD – increasing the township’s capacity to 6 MGD, a move city commissioners approved.

The city also agreed to approve four permit applications for projects in Garfield Township that were previously held up in negotiations. The city received reassurances from the state those projects would not jeopardize the water system. Additionally, Garfield Township will upgrade its water meters this spring to provide real-time readings, ensuring both entities have accurate data by which to measure future usage and make capacity decisions. Garfield Township is exploring water storage options – such as tanks or water towers – that would allow it to store excess water and use it during peaks (often in the summer) to “smooth” out those spikes, Trible-Laucht said.

McManus said those steps mean the township and city are now “progressing nicely,” buying both entities more time to resolve other outstanding issues. Those include finalizing an agreement for the Long Lake Township customers being served by the expansion that occurred through Garfield Township, which Trible-Laucht said represented about 100 households. “There’s not an appropriate document that really covers those customers right now,” she said, adding that the expansion occurred improperly. The city and township have agreed that any future water system expansions into Long Lake Township – which doesn’t have a bulk purchase agreement with the city – will require city approval.

The city and township will also need to find a long-term solution for the Historic Barns Park/Recreational Authority area at the Commons. Both entities are cooperating on getting permits in place for the expansion project – which has time-sensitive funding sources attached and risks not qualifying for a certificate of occupancy if the water pressure issues aren’t resolved – but will need to hammer out a larger agreement for its ongoing maintenance. That could include creating a cost-sharing agreement for upgrades and expenses, or the city could alternately transfer ownership and operation of the water infrastructure over to Garfield Township for the Rec Authority area. Trible-Laucht said staff would bring back a recommendation for the property in the future for consideration by city commissioners and township trustees.

The city and township are also likely to have discussions about bigger philosophical issues going forward, such as irrigation management and water conservation. With Garfield Township’s bulk purchase agreement up in three years and agreements for Peninsula and Elmwood townships up in 2029, water-related issues are likely to be an ongoing topic of conversation, Trible-Laucht said. While the existing contract has “served us pretty well,” McManus said, he acknowledged the need for a fresh look. “We’ve been bumping up against that 5 (MGD capacity) for a while, and it’s about time we really dealt with it,” he said.