Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
SJRA and the Catahoula
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

SJRA and the Catahoula

895

Published on

SJRA and the Catahoula November 7, 2011 …

SJRA and the Catahoula November 7, 2011

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
895
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SJRA AND THECATAHOULANovember 7, 2011
  • 2. Table of Contents• SJRA GRP Plan (2 slides)• What is known or needs to be known about the Catahoula? (12 slides)• How are questions about the Catahoula answered? (11 slides)• How is the feasibility of Catahoula water different from the use of brackish water in other areas of the state? (4 slides)• How is the feasibility of Catahoula water different between an individual water system operator and a regional water system operator? (2 slides)• Conclusions (4 slides)• Questions?
  • 3. SJRA GRP Plan• Objective • Develop and implement the most cost-effective regional strategy to reliably provide quality drinking water in meeting regulatory compliance for all GRP Participants while also developing additional water supplies to supplement and extend existing surface water all in a manner which appropriately and professionally manages risks and protects the health and welfare of all consumers.• Results • LSGCD approval of largest Joint GRP. • Executed contracts with 84 LVGUs representing more that 80% by volume of demand of Montgomery County. • Established active/engaged GRP Review Committee to review all activities. • Design, land acquisition, permitting underway.
  • 4. SJRA GRP Plan• Use of existing known, sustainable, renewable and reliable surface water supply in Phase 1• Meet LSGCD regulatory requirements• Phase 1 Surface Water Facilities - $1.41/1000 gallons • Raw water intake and pump station • Water treatment plant (30 mgd) with robust process • Finished water storage• Phase 1 Delivery System - $1.04/1000 gallons • Finished water pump station • Extensive transmission (57 miles) and delivery network (18 plants)• Thoroughly evaluate alternative strategies for future use • Brackish groundwater (Catahoula Aquifer) • Wastewater reuse • Additional surface water • Conservation • Drought Management
  • 5. What is known or needs to be known about the Catahoula?
  • 6. TWDB Report on Brackish Groundwater• “..almost 2.7 billion acre-feet of brackish groundwater that may be available for use in the state.”• Region H • TDS - 1000 to 3000 mg/L = 60,814,000 acre-feet • TDS – 3000 to 10,000 mg/L = 25,018,000 acre-feet • Productivity “High” • Production Costs “Low to Moderate”• “To be usable, brackish groundwater needs to be treated (desalinated).” Without treatment, brackish water can cause scaling and corrosion problems in water wells and piping..”• “Conclusions ..There are, however difficulties associated with implementing such projects that can be particularly challenging for smaller communities. Chief among them are managing the desalination waste and predicting the long-term performance of brackish groundwater aquifers.”Report 365: Aquifers on the Gulf Coast of Texas, Texas Water Development Board (February2006)
  • 7. Location• Proximity to supply, treatment, storage, disposal, distribution and demand• Impacts from above and below ground interferences• Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas• Community impact necessity and mitigation
  • 8. Conventional Water Plant Distribution System Well Storage Booster(Evangeline Pump or Jasper)
  • 9. Depth • Impacts cost of drilling and energy to produce water • Contributes to quality and temperature of water(feet) (feet) 400 400 0 0 -400 -400 -800 -800-1200 -1200-1600 -1600-2000 -2000-2400 -2400-2800 -2800-3200 -3200-3600 -3600-4000 -4000-4400 -4400-4800 -4800-5200 -5200-5600 -5600-6000 -6000 0 4 8 12 16 MILES
  • 10. Quantity• Unknown long-term consequences• Impacted by pumpage over prolonged period of time• Impacted by ability of aquifer to recharge/replenish• Impacted by number and location of adjacent wells
  • 11. Quality• Unknown long-term consequences• Impacted by pumpage over prolonged period of time• Impacted by contaminants in sands• May degrade over time• Required to meet Federal and State requirements • Inorganics (arsenic, barium, etc.) • Organics • Radionuclides (Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium 226, Radium 228, Uranium, Radon 222, etc.) • Secondary Constituents (aluminum, chlorides, iron, manganese, Total Dissolved Solids, taste, odor, etc.)• Possible risks to consumers (high blood pressure, health conditions)• Requires effective treatment
  • 12. Disposal of Wastes• Deep well injection• Surface water disposal• Hauling to disposal facility• Environmental, permitting, and cost issues
  • 13. Temperature• Potentially > 110OF• Preferable by customers = 68OF• Require cooling towers for reduction to ambient temperature• Additional cooling may be required
  • 14. Reliability• Unknown long-term• Adversely affected by extensive pumpage• Dependent on no deterioration of water quality• Dependent on no deterioration of water quantity• Impacted by interconnectivity of sand layers
  • 15. Regulatory - LSGCD• Protect sustainability of Evangeline and Jasper Aquifers• Currently only 30% reduction by January 1, 2016• Future increased reduction requirement may impact feasibility• Potential restrictions on water withdrawals, well spacing• Possible pumpage fees on withdrawal• State law may force regulation if pumpage impacts neighboring counties
  • 16. Costs• Impacted significantly by facility & infrastructure requirements • Production wells (depth drives pumps/motors, power usage) • Well collection lines (geographical dispersion drives needs) • Water treatment (contaminants and drinking water standards drive process) • Storage (required if blending other water supplies) • Cooling systems (temperature of groundwater drives needs) • Waste disposal (type of waste, environmental constraints and accessibility of disposal sites drives methods) • Transmission/distribution lines (geographical location of end users drives needs)
  • 17. Funding/Financial Stability• Impacted by unproven sources of water supply• Impacted by unknown long-term reliability• Impacted by failed or underutilized system that requires replacement or supplement by proven water source
  • 18. How are the questions concerning Catahoula water answered?
  • 19. Research“Much of the engineering feasibility is dependent on thequality, quantity and reliability of groundwater available forproject implementation. Thus the collection, review, andpreliminary analysis of existing data are critical.”“One of the most important aspects of planning a brackishgroundwater desalination facility is that of accuratelycharacterizing the groundwater source to be used….Evenso, the location, quantity and quality of the brackishgroundwater resources in Texas vary widely and must beevaluated individually.”Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, (TWDB, April 2008)
  • 20. Phased Approach“Due to limited availability of data on brackish groundwaterin Texas, a phased approach to evaluating the feasibility ofbrackish groundwater development provides the greatestchance of ultimate success. This process allows theproject to move forward incrementally so that potential risksand fatal flaws can be identified at the earliest possible timeand with minimal amount of capital investment. As newinformation is developed, the scope of additional work canbe tailored to address project needs and minimize risk.”Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, (TWDB, April 2008)
  • 21. Commitment to Public Health & Welfare“Engineers shall be entrusted to protect the health, safety,property, and welfare of the public in the practice of theirprofession.”“Engineers shall not perform any engineering functionwhich, when measured by generally accepted engineeringstandards or procedures, is reasonably likely to result in theendangerment of lives, health, safety, property, or welfareof the public.”Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules Concerning The Practice of Engineeringand Professional Engineering Licensure, Texas Board of Professional Engineers,September 13, 2011
  • 22. SJRA GRP Contract• Allows Participants to explore for alternative water supplies• No pumpage fees on alternative water supplies• No restrictions on alternative water supplies• If applicable, GRP Participant must take planned amount of surface water
  • 23. SJRA GRP Participation• City of Willis • Two wells in Catahoula • Awaiting Texas Water Development Board Approval• Montgomery County UD 2 • One well in Catahoula • On hold – waiting on results of other Catahoula projects
  • 24. Industrial Water Use Prospect• Feasibility Study due December 2011• Potential demonstration well – Spring 2012• Interim Progress • Constituents of Concern from area pilot/test data (April Sound) • Aluminum – 0.546 to 3.360 mg/L – NDWSS recommends 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L • Chlorides – range of 90 to 330 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 250 mg/L & Texas Secondary Standard is 300 mg/L (max) • Corrosivity – Langelier Index - 0.30 to – 0.70 – Non-corrosive >0 Ryzner Index ranges from 18.5 to 19.5 – Non-corrosive between 5.0 and 7.0 • Iron – 0.434 to 2.10 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.3 mg/L • Manganese – 0.040 to 0.076 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.05 mg/L • Total Dissolved Solids – 584 to 1000 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 500 mg/L, Texas secondary standard limit is 1000 mg/l • Radionuclides – Radium 226 and 228 – 1.3 to 4.3 pCi/L – Primary Drinking Water Standard limit is 5 pCi/L
  • 25. Industrial Water Use Prospect• Interim Progress • Constituents of Concern from area pilot/test data (Bentwater) • Aluminum – 0.404 to 0.704 mg/L – NDWSS recommends 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L • Corrosivity – Langelier Index - 0.34 to – 0.73 – Non-corrosive >0 Ryzner Index ranges from 18.5 to 19.5 – Non-corrosive between 5.0 and 7.0 • Iron – 0.355 to o.383 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.3 mg/L • Total Dissolved Solids – 364 to 504 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 500 mg/L, Texas secondary standard limit is 1000 mg/l • Facilities – if Drinking Water Quality is desired • Production wells from Catahoula Sandstone • Conventional treatment • Reverse Osmosis • Cooling towers • Deep well disposal of RO waste stream
  • 26. Facilities Meeting Drinking Water Standards• Conventional Treatment • Removal of aluminum, barium, chlorides, iron, manganese and turbidity to reduce membrane fouling• Reverse Osmosis • Remove high levels of sodium, chlorides and total dissolved solids • 50% of plant throughput
  • 27. Facilities Meeting Drinking Water Standards• Capital Cost $83,479,000• Annual O & M Cost $ 9,236,000• Annualized Capital Cost $1.99/1000 gallons• Annualized O & M Cost $2.53/1000 gallons• Total Annualized Cost $4.52/1000 gallons
  • 28. Woodlands Water Well 39
  • 29. Woodlands Water Well 39• Production well from Jasper Aquifer• Drill pilot test well below Jasper Aquifer into Catahoula • Additional 2200 feet • Pump water for 8 hours and obtain water samples • Store pumped water • Dispose of pumped brackish water • Total Additional Cost = $495,000• Analyze laboratory results
  • 30. How is the feasibility of Catahoula waterdifferent from the use of brackish water in other areas of the state?
  • 31. San Antonio Water System• Existing, reliable, sustainable, and renewable surface water supply not available• Capacity = 10.5 mgd• Production wells = 1000 feet deep• Salinity = 1500 ppm TDS• Monitoring wells• Well collection system• Treatment facility• Onsite waste injection well• Existing distribution• Capital cost = $121,000,000• Unit cost = $4.77/1000 gallons
  • 32. City of El Paso• Existing, reliable, sustainable, and renewable surface water supply not available• Capacity = 27.5 mgd• Rehab/Repair 17 existing production wells• 17 new production wells screened at 400 to 900 feet deep• Salinity = 900 to 1800 ppm TDS• 15.5 mgd treatment facility• Off site waste injection wells• Pipelines (<0.25 mile transmission)• Capital cost = $93,000,000• Unit cost = $2.56/1000 gallons
  • 33. Aqua Water Supply• Capacity = 2 mgd• Salinity = 1400 ppm TDS• Treatment facility• Injection well or surface disposal• Capital cost = $14,000,000• Unit cost = $3.08/1000 gallon deep well injection or $2.59/1000 for surface discharge
  • 34. Region H – MUD 8 & 9 Brackish Plan• Capacity = 2.0 mgd• Salinity = 1,000 to 5,000 mg/L• Depth of well = 1700 to 2800 feet• Treatment facility• Total capital cost = $12,000,000• Unit Cost = $2.66/1000 gallonsRegion H Water Management Strategy Analysis, Technical Memorandum (TWDB,December 14, 2009)
  • 35. Summary Project / Description Capacity Water Depth Salinity Disposal Treatment Delivery Cost Total Cost Method Cost (per (per 1000 gal) (per 1000 1000 gal) gal)San Antonio Water System – 10.5 1000 feet 1500 ppm Deep well $4.10 $0.67; Integration $4.77brackish desalination study MGD injection to existing distributionEl Paso Water Utility – 27.5 400 to 900 900 to 1800 Deep well $2.56 Assuming no cost $2.56brackish desalination project; MGD feet ppm injection of integration toproject blends fresh water with existingdesalinated water distribution systemAqua WSC, Bastrop – brackish 2 MGD 1400 ppm Deep well $3.08 Assuming no cost $3.08desalination study injection of integration to existing distribution systemMontgomery Co MUD 8&9 – 2 MGD 1700 to 2800 1000 to Not stated in $2.66 Assuming no cost $2.66Region H Technical Memo feet 5000 ppm Tech Memo of integration tosummarizing 2009 brackish (estimated) (estimated) existingdesalination study distribution systemSJRA preliminary cost analysis 10 MGD 3000 feet 1000 ppm Deep well $4.52 $1.00; Assume $5.52for brackish desalination injection similar to GRPproject based on recent distributionCatahoula samplesSJRA Phase 1 GRP Project 30 MGD N/A N/A N/A $1.41 $1.04 $2.45(surface water)
  • 36. How is the feasibility of Catahoula water different between an individual water system operator and a regional water system operator?
  • 37. Risk – Individual System• Possible unacceptable, unaffordable, unreliable water supply contained locally• Affect on public health and welfare• Moderate investment• Limited with no well collection system required for single site• Limited with use of existing distribution system or no distribution system
  • 38. Risk – Regional System• Possible unacceptable, unaffordable, unreliable water supply contained locally• Affect on public health and welfare• Large investment• Extensive network for water well collection• Extensive network for transmission and distribution
  • 39. Conclusions
  • 40. SJRA has done its homework!
  • 41. SJRA GRP Plan• Use of existing known, sustainable, renewable and reliable surface water supply in Phase 1• Meet LSGCD regulatory requirements• Phase 1 Surface Water Facilities - $1.41/1000 gallons • Raw water intake and pump station • Water treatment plant (30 mgd) with robust process • Finished water storage• Phase 1 Delivery System - $1.04/1000 gallons • Finished water pump station • Extensive transmission (57 miles) and delivery network (18 plants)• Thoroughly evaluate alternative strategies for future use • Brackish groundwater (Catahoula Aquifer) • Wastewater reuse • Additional surface water • Conservation • Drought Management
  • 42. Timeline2012 2014 2015 2013 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2030 2023 2024 2026 2028 2029 2021 2025 2027Phase 1 Phase 1 Luce Phase 2 Phase 2 Const. GRP Bayou In Service DelayedBegins Deliver In With No With Surface Service Alternative Alternative Water Water Water Research, Select & Implement Alternative Water Strategies
  • 43. SJRA GRP Plan The most cost-effective regional strategy to reliably provide quality drinking water in meeting regulatory compliance for all GRP Participants while alsodeveloping additional water supplies to supplement and extend existing surface water all in a manner which appropriately and professionally manages risks and protects the health and welfare of all consumers.
  • 44. Questions?

×