Fort Smith Board yet to tackle funding for significant water system needs

Editor’s note: This is the sixth story in a series addressing identified Fort Smith water system replacement and repair needs with cost estimates that approach $600 million. Link here for the first story, link here for the second story, link here for the third story, link here for the fourth story, and link here for the fifth story.

Despite frequent requests for water system funding and frank warnings from top city engineers about system deterioration and critical needs, the Fort Smith Board of Directors remains reluctant to consider significant new revenue options.

Numerous interviews with city engineers and staff, and private-sector engineers and consultants resulted in a range of thoughts about why the city has not had funding in recent decades to adequately address water system needs. The responses fall into four broad categories, with most interview subjects noting reasons from more than one category.
• There is a lack of political will among various incarnations of the board and city staff to seek higher water rates, impact fees, use of sales tax revenue, and/or a combination of those to raise revenue for a defined plan to annually address maintenance and new investments.

• The city board and city staff have been focused on securing significant funding to address sewer system work mandated by a consent decree issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

• Top city administration has not pressed the board enough, including the consistent presentation of precise information on needs and costs, to address water system needs.

• There have been numerous distractions and projects also requiring significant budgetary outlays, including the response to historic flooding in 2019, COVID-19, road and utilities work with the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT), police and fire funding, and investments at Chaffee Crossing.

SYSTEM NEEDS
The complex and expensive system needs include upgrades at the Lake Fort Smith water treatment plant in Mountainburg, Lee Creek water treatment plant upgrades, completion of a new water transmission line from Lake Fort Smith to the eastern side of Fort Smith, aging distribution lines in the city, and modern water meters for all customer categories.

Water-treatment plans, and completion of a 48-inch water transmission line are estimated to cost between $328 million and $585 million, according to an August 2025 report to the board. That cost estimate does not include replacing aging water lines and modernization of water meters. Existing revenue is not near enough to meet the funding needs.

The board in August 2025 rejected a plan put forth by city staff to begin the process of replacing water meters in the city. The estimated cost for that project ranged between $20 million and $48 million.

The board did on March 17 approve an estimated $5.2 million for the 2026 “Prioritized Capital Improvement Plan for Water.” The work includes $2 million for rehabilitation of a 20-inch water distribution line that crosses Interstate 540 near Euper Lane in Fort Smith, and $1 million to fix a large leak on the 30-inch water transmission line that crosses into Fort Smith and is attached to the U.S. 64 Midland Bridge. The plan also includes $2 million for water line improvements on Race Track Road in southwest Fort Smith, and $250,000 to build water transmission line encasements associated with the ongoing work to build Interstate 49 between Alma and Barling.

WATER SYSTEM FOCUS
Consent decree funding has been secured. Fort Smith voters in May 2025 approved by a wide margin – more than 64% on three questions – a sales tax reallocation plan to provide $360 million over 30 years to fund federally-mandated sewer system work.

While city engineers are engaged in managing the consent decree work, they have turned more attention to what they call ongoing “crisis mode” conditions with the city’s water system. During a Feb. 10 board study session, Todd Mittge, director of engineering with the city of Fort Smith, Lance McAvoy, the city’s director of utilities, Matt Meeker, director of public works for the city, and Jimmie Johnson, deputy director of engineering, issued frank assessments about the aging water system. Johnson told the board that a major system failure could happen at any time.

It’s not just city staff raising the alarm about potential system failures. Studies presented to the board as early as 1993 point to numerous existing and future problems. The aging treatment plant at Lake Fort Smith – located in Mountainburg – and aging water transmission lines from Lake Fort Smith to the city of Fort Smith were identified as a “critical vulnerability” as early as 2010. The 27-inch line from Mountainburg to Fort Smith was installed in 1936.

A new 48-inch transmission line from Lake Fort Smith was identified in 2009 as a critical need. The first of five phases of the work has been completed, with the remaining portion estimated to cost between $280 million and $585 million. The city as of early 2026 had no mechanism to fully fund work for phases 2-5 of the transmission line.

A 2022 Hawkins-Weir Engineers study identified major deficiencies in the city’s water system, including 16 of 20 pressure zones lacking sufficient 24-hour net-effective storage, the need to replace around 30,000 linear feet of small-diameter water lines, the need to replace 250 aging fire hydrants, and the need for a dedicated reduced pressure zone to protect aging infrastructure in downtown Fort Smith.

DIRECTOR HESITANCY
The urgency noted in recent reports and those dating back to the early 1990s have not resulted in aggressive board responses. The board in July 2025 approved a water rate increase that began Aug. 1, 2025, but put off a second increase for 2025. It was the first water rate increase since 2011.

Customers using 3ccf of water in a month, the majority of customer bills, saw rates rise about $2 a month. A water bill for 3 ccf of use is $11.81, and with fees and taxes added it’s $13.37. The new rate increases will bring that water charge on a bill to $13.98 or $15.75 with fees and taxes.

But there has been no interest since in discussing water rate increases or other revenue options to meet the pressing infrastructure needs. In a response to questions sent to members of the Fort Smith board, Directors Christina Catsavis and Neal Martin said they lean toward looking at other options, including reducing water system operational expenses, before raising rates or fees. Catsavis said “reducing waste in the system we already have” should be a focus.

“Innovation and efficiency should come before asking families for higher bills,” she said. “If we can reduce waste, operate smarter, and buy ourselves additional time, we can build a more thoughtful and sustainable long term plan for the future.”

Martin suggested looking at rates charged to contract users, which include the city of Van Buren, the city of Arkoma, Cedarville Waterworks Facilities, the Franklin Sebastian Public Water Authority, Mountainburg, and the city of Winslow.

“From my calculations from 2024, the largest increase in water usage was from contract water users,” he said. “Water is the prime commodity and when the city of Fort Smith is facing days where we are nearing max capacity of the water system, we must ensure we protect it for our residents. All in all, we need to look at options available to us, but we also need to ensure we aren’t overburdening our citizens, who are dealing with extremely high sewer bills.”

Director George Catsavis also said the city should conduct “a revaluation of our utilities system” before raising rates. Director Lee Kemp also suggested the city should pursue other options before considering rate increases.

“However, before the city asks citizens to carry any additional burden, we need to complete important due diligence,” Kemp said. “That includes continuing to reduce leaks and unaccounted-for water loss, testing and replacing faulty meters, updating outdated wholesale water agreements, reviewing the upcoming financial audit, and strengthening the utility’s financial position for future financing options.”

Kemp and Martin also said the city should continue to seek federal and state funding.

“We should also continue building and strengthening relationships with our state and federal partners so Fort Smith is well-positioned for any funding opportunities that may become available,” Kemp said. “But we should be realistic that outside funding alone is unlikely to solve the full scope of the issue.”

Directors André Good, Jarred Rego, and Kevin Settle did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

McAvoy said cost-cutting is not a sustainable path forward in terms of water system funding. He said the city has in recent years reduced costs, including reduced spending on chemicals, delayed new equipment purchases, and reduced maintenance and replacement budgets.

“We’ve squeezed to the point where it’s going to become more of a cost to us in the long run because of equipment and compliance issues,” McAvoy said. “We’ve already cut too much on a system that is as old as it is. The older equipment, the aging equipment, all of that requires more and more just to keep it going. At some point you spend more on it than you would have spent to just replace it.”