Before the Evans City Borough Council makes a final decision about the future of the local water plant, a meeting between borough and state Department of Environmental Protection officials is needed.

The aim of that meeting should be to answer questions and clear up any misunderstandings about the plant’s possible closing.

If the plant is closed, the borough would buy water from Pennsylvania American Water for the next 25 years under a plan approved by the council in October.

The plan was recommended by the borough’s water and sewer authority, although the council, despite the October action, set no date for implementing the plan.

Now, the correctness of the approval is being questioned. Norm Nelson, the borough’s director of public works, believes that the borough should fight a DEP directive that the plant undergo what borough officials believe would be a costly upgrade.

Nelson pointed to instances in the past where the DEP had declared the water plant in violation of standards, only to invalidate directives after further study.

The public works director also noted that since the borough lost BASF as a water customer in 2008 — BASF began buying its water from the Adams Township Water and Sewer Authority — the borough is now treating about 1.5 million fewer gallons of water monthly than prior to BASF’s departure.

With the lower water treatment and output, Nelson said, the plant is running more efficiently, making replacement or upgrading the plant unnecessary.

An article in Tuesday’s Butler Eagle noted that council Vice President Paul Foster expressed the sentiment that he’d prefer the water plant remain in operation, but indicated that the DEP was “kind of forcing our hand in the matter.”

A meeting between borough and DEP officials would be the right step before the council votes on the water plant’s fate. Not only is a review needed regarding DEP’s stance and whether that position should be revised, but the agency should justify what borough officials rightly consider to be DEP’s unfair position on helping the borough obtain a low-interest loan through the Pennsylvania Infrastructure and Investment Authority (PennVEST).

Borough officials believe that DEP has refused to support such a loan application as a tactic to get the borough to buy bulk water from someone else.

DEP needs to clarify its position and clear up any misconceptions held by borough officials.

“If our council would sit back and listen and fight the DEP, we wouldn’t have to replace the plant and/or buy bulk water from someone else,” Nelson said.

Borough water customers deserve a thorough re-evaluation of the issue — with DEP involvement — before the council makes its final decision on the water plant’s future.