WINONA — Problems with the Winona water supply have posed a special problem for the volunteer board in charge of its operations over the years.

The problems — low pressure and an aging system — have been difficult to correct since the Winona Water Supply Cooperative Board doesn’t have the money to fix them.

On Friday, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Director Craig Butler visited Winona to speak with the board, as well as state, county and other Ohio EPA officials.

He was there specifically to see if there was anything the EPA or other agencies could do to help correct the problems so that the system could satisfy prior EPA violations and orders.

The water operator for the system was not at the meeting, as that person quit earlier that day, leaving the co-op with yet another matter to address to satisfy the EPA, which had previously threatened fines for not having a water operator back in 2017 after David Hull quit.

“We are as concerned about this system as everybody is. I don’t know what the ultimate answer is, but we do have to lay out a solution,” Butler said.

He added that a solution needs to be in the form of a signed order through the EPA, and must be done quickly, since the system cannot continue operating with violations.

The co-op is having a community meeting at 6:30 p.m. Monday at the Winona Friends Church located at 4615 Whinnery Road, Salem, to discuss the options, and Butler said everyone who is on the system should attend.

The system has not been found in violation of water quality standards, although there is a problem with the chlorine injection system that board trustee Homer Althouse said he is in the process of getting fixed.

Water is provided to 35 customers in the rural community of Winona through privately run co-op that is overseen by the three trustees who work on a volunteer basis and receive no pay.

The co-op routinely has less than $1,000 in its account, as the only revenue is from customer bills, and the problems that need to be corrected to satisfy the EPA are estimated to cost upwards of $200,000.

During the Friday discussion, Butler felt that the best, most cost-effective solution, would be to dissolve the co-op and have each customer placed on their own private well system.

Stivo Di Franco, environmental manager for the division of drinking and ground waters out of the EPA Twinsburg office, said that a groundwater geologist found there is enough water to sustain individual well systems.

“It is a viable option in terms of the amount of water that can be provided out here,” he said.

How to pay for the cost of drilling individual private wells was then discussed, with officials researching a variety of public funding mechanisms that could help cover or at least offset costs for homeowners.

Butler wondered about the possibility of creating a program for Winona customers that would be similar to what is already in place through the county for failing septic systems. Funding for that program is provided by the state and awarded to income-eligible applicants as approved by the county health department.

“We have to come up with an idea on is there a way to fund this? I don’t know if I can. To be flat out honest, I am not sure I can use the funds I have to support the effort. If we can do it we will definitely partner with the county and see what we’ve got,” Butler said.

He added that he needs to look into whether it was legal to do a program for water wells in Winona that is similar to the county’s septic program.

County Health Commissioner Wes Vins also attended the meeting and gave input.

He said that if the county hired contractors to drill the wells, he believed it would be better to award multiple bids as opposed to one bid for the entire project.

The only issue would be how fast the bid process would go and how quickly the wells could be drilled and operational before the winter, or before the system can’t function properly.

“Based on what I have heard today it is barely hanging on by a thread,” Di Franco said of the system.

In addition to the chlorine injection system, there are also problems with the water storage tank, which Althouse said he is getting corrected as well.

At one point during the meeting Butler was on a conference call with County Commissioner Mike Halleck to see if a program to fund the cost of the well drilling would be possible.

When the call was finished, he told the board, “What we won’t be able to do is provide money where everybody gets a free well,” he said, explaining that if the funding is based off income like the septic system funding is, there could be a few customers that would have to pay for their own well.

Republican State Rep. Tim Ginter said there is the option for those not eligible for any potential county funding to get funding through the Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP).

Pam Ewing, senior rural development specialist with RCAP, said that there is a loan available for water well systems that is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service.

Requirements of the program are that a residence must be in a rural town or community with a population not exceeding 50,000, applicants must own and occupy the home or in the process of purchasing the home, and household income may not exceed $55,216.

New home construction and community water systems are not eligible for the loan.

The maximum amount of the loan is $11,000, with a 1 percent interest rate.

Ewing also said she would look into other potential funding options.

While the officials continue researching the possibilities, Butler and Ginter stressed the importance of the community attending the Monday meeting to discuss the options.

Other options include fixing the system, tapping into another public water system –both of which are costly for the co-op–or having each homeowner responsible for the cost of drilling their own well, which is estimated at anywhere from $5,000 to $7,000.