City of ClintonLong-Term Water Supply Evaluation           April 17, 2012
Defining the Problem                                                           Clinton Lake                         Rainfa...
Background  The Big Picture  • Garver was contracted to evaluate emergency supply alternatives to    relieve Clinton Lake ...
Population and Water DemandEstimates                   Population                   • 2010 (Census): 9,033                ...
Water Demand Reserve Capacity               6                                        5.28          5.30                   ...
Design Flows   Average Day Demand   • Analysis of water supply on annual basis   • Applicable for terminal reservoir optio...
Water Supply Sources
Water Supply Sources             Source 1: Foss WTP
Water Supply Sources                     Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater
Water Supply Sources                        Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater                     Source 3: Washit...
Water Supply Sources                        Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater                     Source 3: Washit...
Source Raw Water Quality   Foss Reservoir   • High total dissolved solids (TDS)     • Target: 500 mg/L     • Value: 1,315-...
Identifying the Alternatives   Source 1: Foss WTP   • Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”   • Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP c...
Identifying the Alternatives   Source 3: Washita Alluvium Wellfield   • Alternative 3A – Pump alluvial groundwater to Clin...
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”              Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD                          Clinton Lake                       ...
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”Alternative 1A• Two Water Sources                 Foss Reservoir   Clinton Lake  • Foss Reser...
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”Alternative 1A• Two Water Sources                 Foss Reservoir   Clinton Lake  • Foss Reser...
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP             Max. Day: 5.30 MGD                 Foss WTP                  (100%)
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B                                Foss Reservoir   Clinton Lake• Two Water Sou...
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B                                Foss Reservoir   Clinton Lake• Two Water Sou...
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B                                Foss Reservoir   Clinton Lake• Two Water Sou...
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)               Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD                         Cli...
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A                                Foss           ...
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A                                Foss          F...
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A                                Foss          F...
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A                                Foss          F...
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)               Max. Day: 5.30 MGD                            Foss WTP  ...
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B                                Foss                    C...
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B                                Foss          Foss Raw   ...
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B                                Foss          Foss Raw   ...
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B                                Foss          Foss Raw   ...
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)               Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD           Washita  ...
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A                                   Foss...
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A                                   Foss...
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A                                   Foss...
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A                                   Foss...
Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium Water              Max. Day: 5.30 MGD                           Foss WTP     ...
Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B                             Foss          Clinton        ...
Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B                             Foss          Clinton       W...
Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B                             Foss          Clinton        ...
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)                Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD               ...
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A                              Foss ...
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A                                   ...
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A                                   ...
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect Inject               Max. Day: 5.30 MGD                            Foss WTP   ...
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B                             Foss          Clinton• Three ...
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B                                        Rush              ...
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B                                               Rush       ...
Monetary Evaluation Overview   Goal   • Develop costs for the 25-year planning horizon used for capital     improvements  ...
Monetary Evaluation Results                                  90                                                           ...
Non-Monetary Evaluation Overview   Factors   • Identify non-monetary factors   Weights   • Weight the non-monetary factors...
Non-Monetary Evaluation    Draft Results                               7                       Worst                      ...
Plan Alternatives Assembly                                                                Final Rankings                  ...
Recommendations  2012  • Implement/continue Alternative 1A (“Do Nothing”)    • Continue to prioritize use of Foss finished...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options

579 views

Published on

Slide show on options for water sources and processing for the city of Clinton, OK.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options

  1. 1. City of ClintonLong-Term Water Supply Evaluation April 17, 2012
  2. 2. Defining the Problem Clinton Lake Rainfall 100º Days Utilization 80 1000 60 750 Million GallonsInches or Days 40 500 77 961.5 20 27.97 250 20 12.77 219.2 0 0 2011 Actual Required Average 2011 Average
  3. 3. Background The Big Picture • Garver was contracted to evaluate emergency supply alternatives to relieve Clinton Lake Work Order #14 • Evaluated existing water supply infrastructure at the Burns Flats well field • Rehabilitation of the Burns Flats field was found to be unfeasible (high cost, low return) Work Order #15 • Broken into two parts: • A short term emergency study to address immediate needs • A long term master planning study to expand water supply portfolio and prevent future drought crises
  4. 4. Population and Water DemandEstimates Population • 2010 (Census): 9,033 • 2037 (Projected): 9,423 • 2062 (Projected): 9,470 5 4 4.22 4.40 4.42Demand (MGD) 3 Average Day 2 2.16 2.17 Max Day 2.07 1 0 2012 2037 2062
  5. 5. Water Demand Reserve Capacity 6 5.28 5.30 5.06 5 4Demand (MGD) 3 2.48 2.59 2.60 2 1 0 2012 2037 2062
  6. 6. Design Flows Average Day Demand • Analysis of water supply on annual basis • Applicable for terminal reservoir options • 2062 average day demand: 2.60 MGD Maximum Day Demand • Analysis of water supply based on limiting day • Applicable for point-of-use options • Clinton Lake safe yield assumed to be zero pending yield analysis • 2062 maximum day demand: 5.30 MGD • Maximum allocation from Foss: 2.19 MGD • Potential maximum day demand shortfall: 3.11 MGD
  7. 7. Water Supply Sources
  8. 8. Water Supply Sources Source 1: Foss WTP
  9. 9. Water Supply Sources Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater
  10. 10. Water Supply Sources Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater Source 3: Washita River Alluvium
  11. 11. Water Supply Sources Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss RawWater Source 3: Washita River Alluvium Source 4: Rush Springs Aquifer
  12. 12. Source Raw Water Quality Foss Reservoir • High total dissolved solids (TDS) • Target: 500 mg/L • Value: 1,315-1,554 mg/L • Hard water Washita Alluvium (Riverside GC wells) • High TDS: 1,930 mg/L • Very hard water: 1,743 mg/L (target of 100 mg/L) • High sulfate: 1,813 mg/L (target of 250 mg/L) Rush Springs Aquifer • No local data; data is from literature for areas east of Clinton • TDS: 488 mg/L • Hardness: 340 mg/L • Nitrate and sulfate levels may be above desirable levels
  13. 13. Identifying the Alternatives Source 1: Foss WTP • Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing” • Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP capacity Source 2: Raw Water from Foss Reservoir • Alternative 2A – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir into Clinton Lake directly • Alternative 2B – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir into a ground storage tank near Clinton WTP • Both alternatives require upgrade of Clinton WTP
  14. 14. Identifying the Alternatives Source 3: Washita Alluvium Wellfield • Alternative 3A – Pump alluvial groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment • Alternative 3B – Construct new WTP in Clinton proper to treat groundwater Source 4: Rush Springs Wellfield • Alternative 4A – Pump Rush Springs groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment • Alternative 4B – Inject groundwater directly into distribution network with minor wellhead treatment
  15. 15. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing” Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD Clinton Lake (33%) Foss WTP (67%)
  16. 16. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”Alternative 1A• Two Water Sources Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s Foss WTP Clinton WTP 13.6%)• Adjust Resource Management Strategy • Increase reliance on Foss treated water NW Blend Tank • Prioritize maintaining adequate levels in Clinton Lake • Utilize Clinton Lake water Distribution when Clinton Lake is full System
  17. 17. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”Alternative 1A• Two Water Sources Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s Foss WTP Clinton WTP 13.6%)• Adjust Resource Management Strategy Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD • Increase reliance on Foss treated water NW Blend Tank Clinton Lake • Prioritize maintaining (33%) Foss WTP adequate levels in Clinton (67%) Lake • Utilize Clinton Lake water Distribution when Clinton Lake is full System
  18. 18. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP Max. Day: 5.30 MGD Foss WTP (100%)
  19. 19. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake• Two Water Sources • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Increase Foss WTP Capacity • Plant expansion Foss WTP Clinton WTP • Foss can provide maximum day demand (5.30 MGD) • Water quality is NW Blend Tank improved through advanced treatment • City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall Distribution System
  20. 20. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake• Two Water Sources • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Increase Foss WTP Capacity Expanded • Plant expansion Clinton WTP Foss WTP • Foss can provide maximum day demand (5.30 MGD) • Water quality is NW Blend Tank improved through advanced treatment • City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall Distribution System
  21. 21. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTPAlternative 1B Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake• Two Water Sources • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Increase Foss WTP Capacity Expanded • Plant expansion Clinton WTP Foss WTP • Foss can provide maximum day demand (5.30 MGD) Max. Day: 5.30 MGD • Water quality is NW Blend Tank improved through advanced treatment Foss WTP (100%) • City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall Distribution System
  22. 22. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir) Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD Clinton Lake Foss Raw (49%) (24%) Foss WTP (27%)
  23. 23. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A Foss Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake Clinton Foss WTP through a 12-inch line WTP • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water • Upgraded Clinton WTP includes advanced NW Blend Tank treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution System
  24. 24. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake Clinton Foss WTP through a 12-inch line WTP • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water • Upgraded Clinton WTP includes advanced NW Blend Tank treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution System
  25. 25. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Foss Upgraded Waste Evaporation Reservoir to Clinton Lake Foss WTP Clinton Ponds through a 12-inch line WTP • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water • Upgraded Clinton WTP includes advanced NW Blend Tank treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution System
  26. 26. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to ClintonLake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 2A Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Foss Upgraded Waste Evaporation Reservoir to Clinton Lake Foss WTP Clinton Ponds through a 12-inch line WTP • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD • Upgraded Clinton WTP includes advanced NW Blend Tank Clinton Lake treatment Foss Raw (24%) (49%) • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution Foss WTP System (27%)
  27. 27. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand) Max. Day: 5.30 MGD Foss WTP Foss Raw 41% 59%
  28. 28. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B Foss Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Clinton Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP WTP WTP through a 24-inch line • Upgraded Clinton WTP treats combined water NW Blend Tank • Raw Foss water • Clinton Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from Distribution upgraded Clinton WTP System
  29. 29. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Clinton Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP WTP WTP through a 24-inch line • Upgraded Clinton WTP treats combined water NW Blend Tank • Raw Foss water • Clinton Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from Distribution upgraded Clinton WTP System
  30. 30. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Upgraded Waste Evaporation Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP Clinton Ponds WTP through a 24-inch WTP line • Upgraded Clinton WTP treats combined water NW Blend Tank • Raw Foss water • Clinton Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from Distribution upgraded Clinton WTP System
  31. 31. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to ClintonWTP (On-Demand)Alternative 2B Foss Foss Raw Clinton• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake• Pump Raw Water from Upgraded Waste Evaporation Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP Clinton Ponds WTP through a 24-inch WTP line • Upgraded Clinton WTP Max. Day: 5.30 MGD treats combined water NW Blend Tank • Raw Foss water Foss WTP Foss Raw 41% • Clinton Lake water 59% • Majority of finished water comes from Distribution upgraded Clinton WTP System
  32. 32. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir) Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD Washita Clinton Lake Alluvium (49%) (24%) Foss WTP (27%)
  33. 33. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A Foss Clinton• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Washita River Alluvium Clinton• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP WTP Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water (3 production wells) NW Blend Tank• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Distribution Clinton WTP System
  34. 34. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A Foss Clinton Raw Washita• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Washita River Alluvium Clinton• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP WTP Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water (3 production wells) NW Blend Tank• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Distribution Clinton WTP System
  35. 35. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A Foss Clinton Raw Washita• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Washita River Alluvium Upgraded Waste Evaporation• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP Clinton Ponds Washita Alluvium to Clinton WTP Lake • Raw water supplements Clinton Lake water (3 production wells) NW Blend Tank• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Distribution Clinton WTP System
  36. 36. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium toClinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 3A Foss Clinton Raw Washita• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Washita River Alluvium Upgraded Waste Evaporation• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP Clinton Ponds Washita Alluvium to Clinton WTP Lake • Raw water supplements Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD Clinton Lake water (3 production wells) NW Blend Tank Washita Alluvium Clinton Lake• Clinton WTP is upgraded to (24%) (49%) include advanced treatment • Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Foss WTP Distribution Clinton WTP (27%) System
  37. 37. Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium Water Max. Day: 5.30 MGD Foss WTP Washita 41% Alluvium 59%
  38. 38. Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B Foss Clinton Reservoir Lake• Three Water Sources • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake Clinton • Washita River Foss WTP WTP Alluvium• New WTP in Clinton proper • Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank production wells in the Washita Alluvium • Advanced treatment Distribution at the new WTP System
  39. 39. Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B Foss Clinton Washita Reservoir Lake Alluvium• Three Water Sources • Foss Reservoir Waste • Clinton Lake New Clinton • Washita River Foss WTP WTP Clinton Evap. Alluvium WTP Ponds• New WTP in Clinton proper • Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank production wells in the Washita Alluvium • Advanced treatment Distribution at the new WTP System
  40. 40. Alternative 3B – New WTP for WashitaAlluvium WaterAlternative 3B Foss Clinton Washita Reservoir Lake Alluvium• Three Water Sources • Foss Reservoir Waste • Clinton Lake New Clinton • Washita River Foss WTP WTP Clinton Evap. Alluvium WTP Ponds• New WTP in Clinton Max. Day: 5.30 MGD proper • Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank Foss WTP production wells in Washita (41%) the Washita Alluvium Alluvium (59%) • Advanced treatment Distribution at the new WTP System
  41. 41. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir) Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD Clinton Lake Rush Springs (49%) Aquifer (24%) Foss WTP (27%)
  42. 42. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A Foss Clinton• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP• Pump Raw Water from WTP Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake • Raw water from 8 production wells NW Blend Tank supplements Clinton Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from the Distribution existing Clinton WTP System
  43. 43. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A Rush Foss Clinton Raw Springs• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Aquifer • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP• Pump Raw Water from WTP Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake • Raw water from 8 production wells NW Blend Tank supplements Clinton Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from the Distribution existing Clinton WTP System
  44. 44. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquiferto Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)Alternative 4A Rush Foss Clinton Raw Springs• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Aquifer • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP• Pump Raw Water from WTP Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD • Raw water from 8 production wells NW Blend Tank Rush Clinton Lake supplements Clinton Springs (24%) (49%) Lake water • Majority of finished water comes from the Distribution Foss WTP existing Clinton WTP System (27%)
  45. 45. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect Inject Max. Day: 5.30 MGD Foss WTP Rush Springs 41% Aquifer 59%
  46. 46. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B Foss Clinton• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP WTP• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water • Water is pumped from 24 production NW Blend Tank wells • Minor wellhead treatment • Blending in Distribution distribution system System
  47. 47. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B Rush Foss Clinton Springs• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Aquifer • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP Standpipe WTP• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water • Water is pumped from 24 production NW Blend Tank wells • Minor wellhead treatment • Blending in Distribution distribution system System
  48. 48. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs AquiferDirect InjectAlternative 4B Rush Foss Clinton Springs• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Aquifer • Foss Reservoir • Clinton Lake • Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton Foss WTP Standpipe WTP• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water • Water is pumped Max. Day: 5.30 MGD from 24 production NW Blend Tank wells Foss WTP Rush Springs (41%) • Minor wellhead Aquifer treatment (59%) • Blending in Distribution distribution system System
  49. 49. Monetary Evaluation Overview Goal • Develop costs for the 25-year planning horizon used for capital improvements Costs • Capital Improvements • Water treatment plants • Water conveyance (raw and finished) • Annual Costs • O&M • Water treatment • Pumping • Finished water purchase from Foss • Contingency: 30%
  50. 50. Monetary Evaluation Results 90 Capital Costs 80 8 7 Annual Costs 70 6 5 4 25-Year Costs ($ in Millions) 60 50 3 40 2 1 30 20 10 0 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
  51. 51. Non-Monetary Evaluation Overview Factors • Identify non-monetary factors Weights • Weight the non-monetary factors based on variability across plan alternatives Rankings • Rank the plan alternatives based on each of the non-monetary factors
  52. 52. Non-Monetary Evaluation Draft Results 7 Worst 8 7 6Non-Monetary Ranking 5 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 2 1 Best 0 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
  53. 53. Plan Alternatives Assembly Final Rankings 1. 4A. Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake 2. 3A. Washita Alluvium to Clinton Worst Lake 3B 2B 3. 4B. Rush Springs Aquifer Direct 1B Injection Increasing Cost 2A 3A 4. 2A. Foss Raw Water with Clinton Lake as Terminal Reservoir 5. (tie) 4B 1A. Treated Foss Water as Primary Source (“Do Nothing”) 2B. Foss Raw Water to Clinton 4A WTP On-Demand 1A 7. 3B. New In-Town WTP for Washita Optimal Alluvium 8. 1B. Foss WTP Expansion Increasing Non-Monetary Value
  54. 54. Recommendations 2012 • Implement/continue Alternative 1A (“Do Nothing”) • Continue to prioritize use of Foss finished water • Pursue legal agreements for additional rights to treated Foss water • Allow for maximum recovery of Clinton Lake before peak demand period (summer) • Perform a detailed yield analysis for Clinton Lake and develop a water resource management strategy to minimize effects of drought periods • Adopt a council-approved Drought Mitigation Plan Looking Ahead • Alternative 4A (Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake) • Most economical option that reduces reliance on the Clinton Lake watershed • Water quality is a concern due to a lack of information about local RSA water quality • Low capital costs are a result of no investment in new/upgraded/expanded water treatment facilities

×