2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options

City of ClintonLong-Term Water Supply Evaluation

April 17, 2012

Defining the Problem

80

60

40

20

0

Rainfall 100º DaysClinton Lake

Utilization1000

750

500

250

0

27.97

12.7720

77 961.5

219.2

Ave

rage

201

1

Ave

rage

201

1

Req

uir

ed

A

ctua

l

Inc

hes

or D

ays

Mil

lion

Gal

lons

Background

• Garver was contracted to evaluate emergency supply alternatives to relieve Clinton Lake

The Big Picture

• 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 #14

• 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

Work Order #15

Population and Water Demand Estimates

• 2010 (Census): 9,033• 2037 (Projected): 9,423• 2062 (Projected): 9,470

Population

2012 2037 20620

1

2

3

5

4

2.07

4.22

2.16

4.40

2.17

4.42

Dem

and

(MG

D)

Average Day

Max Day

Water Demand Reserve Capacity

2012 2037 20620

1

2

3

5

4

Dem

and

(MG

D)

6

2.60

5.30

2.59

5.28

2.48

5.06

Design Flows

• Analysis of water supply on annual basis• Applicable for terminal reservoir options• 2062 average day demand: 2.60 MGD

Average 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

Maximum Day Demand

Water Supply Sources


Source 1: Foss WTP


Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss Raw Water



Source 3: Washita River Alluvium



Source 3: Washita River Alluvium

Source 4: Rush Springs Aquifer

Source Raw Water Quality

• High total dissolved solids (TDS)• Target: 500 mg/L• Value: 1,315-1,554 mg/L

• Hard water

Foss Reservoir

• 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)

Washita Alluvium (Riverside GC wells)

• 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

Rush Springs Aquifer

Identifying the Alternatives

• Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”• Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP capacity

Source 1: Foss WTP

• 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

Source 2: Raw Water from Foss Reservoir

Identifying the Alternatives

• Alternative 3A – Pump alluvial groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment

• Alternative 3B – Construct new WTP in Clinton proper to treat groundwater

Source 3: Washita Alluvium Wellfield

• Alternative 4A – Pump Rush Springs groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment

• Alternative 4B – Inject groundwater directly into distribution network with minor wellhead treatment

Source 4: Rush Springs Wellfield

Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”

Foss WTP (67%)

Clinton Lake (33%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD


• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake

• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s 13.6%)

• Adjust Resource Management Strategy• Increase reliance on Foss

treated water• Prioritize maintaining

adequate levels in Clinton Lake

• Utilize Clinton Lake water when Clinton Lake is full

Alternative 1A

Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake

Clinton WTPFoss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System



• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s 13.6%)

• Adjust Resource Management Strategy• Increase reliance on Foss

treated water• Prioritize maintaining

adequate levels in Clinton Lake

• Utilize Clinton Lake water when Clinton Lake is full

Alternative 1A

Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake

Clinton WTPFoss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss WTP (67%)

Clinton Lake (33%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP

Foss WTP(100%)

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD



• Increase Foss WTP Capacity• Plant expansion• Foss can provide

maximum day demand (5.30 MGD)

• Water quality is improved through advanced treatment

• City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall

Alternative 1BFoss Reservoir Clinton Lake

Clinton WTPFoss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System








Clinton WTPExpanded Foss

WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System








Clinton WTPExpanded Foss

WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss WTP(100%)

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD

Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)

Foss WTP(27%)

Clinton Lake (49%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

Foss Raw (24%)



• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake through a 12-inch line• Raw water supplements

Clinton Lake water• Upgraded Clinton WTP

includes advanced treatment

• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP

Alternative 2AFoss

ReservoirClinton Lake

Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System







Alternative 2AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss Raw Water







Alternative 2AFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss Raw Water

Evaporation Ponds

Waste







Alternative 2AFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss WTP(27%)

Clinton Lake(49%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

Foss Raw Water

Foss Raw(24%)

Evaporation Ponds

Waste

Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)

Foss Raw59%

Foss WTP41%

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD



• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton WTP through a 24-inch line• Upgraded Clinton WTP

treats combined water• Raw Foss water• Clinton Lake water


Alternative 2BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System






Alternative 2BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss Raw Water






Alternative 2BFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss Raw Water

Evaporation Ponds

Waste






Alternative 2BFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss Raw59%

Foss WTP41%

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD

Foss Raw Water

Evaporation Ponds

Waste

Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)

Foss WTP(27%)

Clinton Lake (49%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

WashitaAlluvium (24%)


• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River Alluvium

• Pump Raw Water from Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake• Raw water supplements

Clinton Lake water (3 production wells)

• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment• Majority of finished water

comes from upgraded Clinton WTP

Alternative 3AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System







Alternative 3AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Washita Alluvium

Raw







Alternative 3AFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Washita Alluvium

Evaporation Ponds

Waste

Raw







Alternative 3AFoss


UpgradedClinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss WTP (27%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

Washita Alluvium

Evaporation Ponds

Waste

Raw

Clinton Lake (49%)

WashitaAlluvium (24%)

Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita Alluvium Water

Washita Alluvium

59%

Foss WTP41%

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD


• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River

Alluvium• New WTP in Clinton

proper• Raw water from 7

production wells in the Washita Alluvium

• Advanced treatment at the new WTP

Alternative 3BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System







Alternative 3BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Washita Alluvium

Evap. Ponds

Waste

New Clinton WTP







Alternative 3BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD

Washita Alluvium

Evap. Ponds

Waste

Foss WTP(41%)Washita

Alluvium(59%)

New Clinton WTP

Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)

Foss WTP(27%)

Clinton Lake (49%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD

Rush SpringsAquifer (24%)


• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer

• Pump Raw Water from Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake• Raw water from 8

production wells supplements Clinton Lake water

• Majority of finished water comes from the existing Clinton WTP

Alternative 4AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System






Alternative 4AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System


Raw






Alternative 4AFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Foss WTP (27%)

Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD


Raw

Clinton Lake (49%)

RushSprings (24%)

Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Inject

Rush SpringsAquifer

59%

Foss WTP41%

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD



• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water• Water is pumped

from 24 production wells

• Minor wellhead treatment

• Blending in distribution system

Alternative 4BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System







Alternative 4BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System


Standpipe







Alternative 4BFoss


Clinton WTP

Foss WTP

NW Blend Tank

Distribution System

Max. Day: 5.30 MGD


Foss WTP(41%)Rush Springs

Aquifer(59%)

Standpipe

Monetary Evaluation Overview

• Develop costs for the 25-year planning horizon used for capital improvements

Goal

• Capital Improvements• Water treatment plants• Water conveyance (raw and finished)

• Annual Costs• O&M• Water treatment• Pumping

• Finished water purchase from Foss• Contingency: 30%

Costs

Monetary Evaluation Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

25-Y

ear C

osts

($ in

Mill

ions

)

1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B

Capital Costs

Annual Costs

1

2

3

5 46

8 7

Non-Monetary Evaluation Overview

• Identify non-monetary factors

Factors

• Weight the non-monetary factors based on variability across plan alternatives

Weights

• Rank the plan alternatives based on each of the non-monetary factors

Rankings

Non-Monetary Evaluation Draft Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B

1

2

35

46

8 7

Best

Wor

st

Non

-Mon

etar

y Ra

nkin

g

Plan Alternatives Assembly

1A

1B

2A

2B

Incr

easi

ng

Co

st

Increasing Non-Monetary Value

3A

3B

4A

4B

1. 4A. Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake

2. 3A. Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake

3. 4B. Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Injection

4. 2A. Foss Raw Water with Clinton Lake as Terminal Reservoir

5. (tie)1A. Treated Foss Water as Primary Source (“Do Nothing”)2B. Foss Raw Water to Clinton WTP On-Demand

7. 3B. New In-Town WTP for Washita Alluvium

8. 1B. Foss WTP Expansion

Final Rankings

Optimal

Worst

Recommendations

• 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

2012

• 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

Looking Ahead

2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options

News & Politics

foss wtp alternative

water supply sources

foss reservoir alternative

water supply sourcessource

water supplyportfolio

foss rawwater source

foss wtpsource

foss wtp capacity source