HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2013-R0076 - Adopt Strategic Water Supply Plan - 02/28/2013 (3)Resolution No 2013-R0076
February 28, 2013
Item No 6.10
RESOLUTION NO.2013-R0076
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the City of Lubbock hereby approves and adopts, the Strategic Water
Supply Plan of the City of Lubbock (the "Strategic Water Supply Plan"), and all related
documents. Said Strategic Water Supply Plan is attached hereto and incorporated in this
Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LUBBOCK:
Passed by the City Council this 28 day of February 2013..
ATTEST:
Rebe ca Garza, City Secret
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ma-�V-Q-QA
Wrslia Reed, P.E., Chief Operating Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0m. i Es, Assi ttorney
as/RES. Strat. Water Supply Plan
2.13.13
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013
m
February 2013
Prepared by:
vbt ity of
hibbo&
TEXAS
City Council
Glen C. Robertson, Mayor
Karen Gibson, District 5 (Mayor Pro Tern)
Victor Hernandez, District 1
Floyd Price, District 2
Todd Klein, District 3
Jim Gerlt, District 4
Latrelle Joy, District 6
Water Advisory Commission
James Collins, Chairperson
Suzanne Baker
Zachary Brady
James Conkwright
Bruce Maunder
Ken Rainwater
George Sell
Maggie Trejo
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013
r.i... R.........................
WOREY A. SPEAR, m
V/8/2-0 t3
Aubrey A. Spear, P.E.
?t.o*-ti'ock
David D. Dunn, P.E.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
Texas Registered Engineering Firm No. 754
HDR was.responsible for conceptual design and
costing of water supply projects, review of water
and wastewater demand projections, and present
value analyses of water supply packages.
'. • ,' ' .•
Section Page
ES Executive Summary................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 History............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose...........................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Description.....................................................................................................1-3
2.0 Water Demand Projections........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Population.....................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Per Capita Consumption................................................................................ 2-3
2.3 Annual Water Demand................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Peak Day Water Demand............................................................................... 2-5
3.0 Decommissioned Water Supplies..............................................................................3-1
3.1 City of Lubbock Well Field........................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Shallowater Well Field...................................................................................3-3
4.0 Current Water Supplies..............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Canadian River Municipal Water Authority(CRMWA)...............................4-5
4.2 Bailey County (Sandhilis) Well Field.........................................................4-10
4.3 Lake Alan Henry......................................................................................... 4-11
4.4 Current Water System Capacity...................................................................4-13
4.5 Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply....................................................4-15
5.0 Water Conservation Strategies...................................................................................5-1
5.1
Overall Water Conservation Trends...............................................................
5-1
5.2
Indoor Water Conservation Trends................................................................5-3
5.3
Current Conservation Rate Structure.............................................................
5-5
5.4
Unaccounted for Water Loss..........................................................................
5-7
5.5
Public Education Effort ..................................................................................
5-8
5.6
Existing Water Conservation Ordinances....................................................5-11
5.7
Potential Water Conservation Strategies......................................................5-11
Strategic Water Supply Plan city of
February 2013 _i- tl'uf-*b'
�JOCk
Section
Page
6.0 Reclaimed Water Strategies.......................................................................................6-1
6.1
Types of Reclaimed Water Uses....................................................................6-1
6.2
Existing Reclaimed Water Infrastructure.......................................................6-3
6.3
Available Reclaimed Water...........................................................................
6-6
6.4
North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 Strategy ..................................
6-10
6.5
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP Strategy .....................................................
6-15
6.6
Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP Strategy......................................................6-20
6.7
South Fork Discharge Strategy....................................................................
6-25
6.8
North Fork Diversion to Lake Alan Henry Pump Station Strategy .............
6-30
6.9
Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Strategy ..........................6-35
7.0 Groundwater Strategies..............................................................................................7-1
7.1 Groundwater Sources.....................................................................................7-1
7.2 Groundwater Usage Regulations.................................................................7-12
7.3 Roberts County Well Field Capacity Maintenance Strategy ....................... 7-14
7.4 Bailey County Well Field Capacity Maintenance Strategy .........................7-19
7.5 Roberts County Well Field — New Transmission Line Strategy .................. 7-24
7.6 CRMWA to Aquifer Storage and Recovery Strategy .................................. 7-29
7.7 South Lubbock Well Field Strategy.............................................................7-35
7.8 Brackish Well Field Strategy....................................................................... 7-41
8.0 Surface Water Strategies............................................................................................8-1
8.1
Developed Water — Supplements to Brazos River Basin ...............................
8-2
8.2
Lake Alan Henry — Infrastructure Expansion Strategy ..................................
8-7
8.3
Jim Bertram Lake 7.....................................................................................
8-12
8.4
Post Reservoir..............................................................................................
8-18
8.5
North Fork Scalping Operation...................................................................
8-23
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u6b'1P6�fS
February 2013 -ii-
Contents
Table of
Section
Page
9.0 Other Strategies Considered.......................................................................................9-1
9.1 Jim Bertram Lake 8........................................................................................9-1
9.2 Jim Bertram Lakes Well Field....................................................................... 9-3
9.3 Linear Well Field — CRMWA Aqueduct....................................................... 9-4
9.4 CRMWA Aqueduct Expansion...................................................................... 9-6
10.0 Supply Strategy Evaluation......................................................................................10-1
10.1 Strategy Scoring Criteria..............................................................................10-1
10.2 Individual Strategy Scoring.........................................................................10-1
10.3 Strategy Rankings......................................................................................10-19
11.0 Water Supply Packages............................................................................................11-1
11.1 Supply Package 1— Baseline......................................................................11-2
11.2 Supply Package 2 — LAH Phase 2 Delayed.................................................11-6
11.3 Supply Package 3 — RCWF Transmission Delayed...................................11-10
11.4 Supply Package 4 — Aggressive Conservation...........................................11-14
11.5 Supply Package 5 —Accelerated Growth...................................................11-18
11.6 Recommended Package of Strategies........................................................11-23
12.0 Financial Impact.......................................................................................................12-1
12.1 Net Present Value Analysis..........................................................................12-1
12.2 12-Year Financial Model.............................................................................12-5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ufl-bo�ftk
February 2013 -iii-
List of Appendices
Appendix
A-1 Historic Data for the City of Lubbock
A-2 Population and Growth Rate Projections
A-3 Per Capita Consumption and Water Demand Projections
A-4 Peaking Factor, Average Annual Day, and Peak Day Demand
B-1 Current Annual and Peak Day Water Supply Projections
B-2 Current Annual Water Demand, Supply, and Net
B-3 Current Peak Day Demand, Supply, and Net
C-1 Lubbock Water Rate Structure, 1980-2012
C-2 Residential Water Bill Comparison for Major Texas Cities during January 2012
C-3 Public -School Program Lessons
C-4 Conservation Calculations: More Stringent Seasonal Water Restrictions Strategy
C-5 Conservation Calculations: Increase Non -Essential Water Volume Rates Strategy
C-6 Conservation Calculations: Toilet Replacement Rebate for Schools and Universities
C-7 Conservation Calculations: Washing Machine Rebate
C-8 Conservation Calculations: Residential Showerhead Rebate
C-9 Conservation Calculations: Landscape Rebate
D-1 Gross Reclaimed Water Projections
D-2 Net Reclaimed Water Projections
E-1 Present Value Analysis (HDR Engineering, Inc. Memo)
F-1 12 Year Financial Water Rate Model: Rate Structure Comparison — Package 1
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l �OCk
February 2013 -iv- real
List of Appendices
Appendix
F-2 12 Year Financial Water Rate Model: Package 1 — Baseline
F-3 12 Year Financial Water Rate Model: Package 2 — LAH Phase 2 Delayed
F-4 12 Year Financial Water Rate Model: Packages 3 & 4
F-5 12 Year Financial Water Rate Model: Package 5 — Accelerated Growth
Strategic Water Supply Plan city of
February 2013 _V_ tl'u4'��}bOCk
List of Fi
Figure Page
ES.1
Lubbock's Historic Water Supplies.....................................................................
ES-1
ES.2
Water Supply Contribution Comparison for 1992 and 2012 ...............................
ES-2
ES.3
Average Annual Demand and Peak Day Demand Projections ............................
ES-3
ESA
100-Year Annual Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply ...............................
ES-4
ES.5 Supply Strategies Sorted by Rank (Highest to Lowest) ....................................... ES-8
ES.6 Net Present Value Comparison of Supply Packages ......................................... ES-10
ES.7 Comparison of Average Monthly Water Bill for Supply Packages ................... ES-11
1.1 Regional Planning Areas.........................................................................................1-2
2.1 Population Projections............................................................................................2-2
2.2 Per Capita Water Consumption...............................................................................2-4
2.3 Annual Water Demand Projections.........................................................................2-5
2.4 Peak Day Demands................................................................................................. 2-7
3.1 Lubbock's Historic Water Supply Usage................................................................3-1
3.2 City Well Field Locations....................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Shallowater Well Field............................................................................................3-4
4.1 Water Supply Contribution Comparison for 1992, 2002 and 2012 ........................4-2
4.2 Current Water Supply Location Map...................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Current CRMWA Member City Allocations.......................................................... 4-5
4.4 Lake Meredith & Sanford Dam, 1967....................................................................4-6
4.5 Lake Meredith Chloride Concentration Trend........................................................4-7
Strategic Water Supply Plan or
February 2013 -Vi- tI'uJ-*bIP6ck
Figure
Page
4.6
Historic Water Levels in Lake Meredith.................................................................
4-8
4.7
Roberts County Well Field.....................................................................................4-9
4.8
Bailey County Well Field......................................................................................4-11
4.9
Lake Alan Henry & John T. Montford Dam, 2007...............................................4-12
4.10
Lake Alan Henry Water Levels.............................................................................4-12
4.11
Current Water Supply Capacity Schematic...........................................................4-14
4.12
Proposed Transmission Line from PS 14 to PS 7.................................................4-15
4.13
100-Year Annual Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply ................................
4-17
4.14
100-Year Peak Day Demand vs. Supply...............................................................4-19
5.1
Lubbock's Historic Per Capita Water Consumption ...............................................
5-2
5.2
Time Delay in Probable Demand vs. Conservation Demand .................................
5-3
5.3
Per Capita Wastewater Usage Trend.......................................................................
5-4
5.4
Average Household Indoor Water Usage...............................................................
5-5
5.5
2012 Residential Water Bill Comparison for Major Texas Cities
.......................... 5-6
5.6
City of Lubbock Water Loss History......................................................................
5-7
5.7
Water Conservation Education Outreach................................................................
5-9
6.1
Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) Layout ...........................................
6-4
6.2
Wastewater Effluent Pipeline System Schematic ...................................................
6-5
6.3
Reclaimed Water Demand Projections...................................................................
6-7
6.4
Net Reclaimed Water Availability..........................................................................
6-9
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf- ' ock
February 2013 -vii- f
Figure
Page
6.5
North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 Map.................................................6-11
6.6
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP Map....................................................................
6-16
6.7
Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP Map.....................................................................6-21
6.8
South Fork Discharge Map...................................................................................
6-26
6.9
North Fork Diversion to the Lake Alan Henry Pump Station Map
...................... 6-31
6.10
Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Infrastructure ..........................6-36
7.1
Major Aquifers............................................................................................I............
7-1
7.2
Minor Aquifers........................................................................................................7-2
7.3
Saturated Thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer..........................................................
7-3
7.4
Saturated Thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer in Lubbock County .......................... 7-4
7.5
Location of Parks with Groundwater Wells............................................................ 7-5
7.6
Edwards -Trinity Aquifer.........................................................................................7-7
7.7
Cross -Section of the Southern High Plains............................................................. 7-8
7.8
Dockum Aquifer..................................................................................................... 7-9
7.9
Base of the Dockum Aquifer................................................................................
7-10
7.10
Dockum TDS Concentrations, 1981-1996............................................................7-11
7.11
Seymour Aquifer...................................................................................................7-12
7.12
Groundwater Management Areas in Texas...........................................................7-13
7.13
Potential New Well Locations for RCWF Capacity Maintenance
Strategy ......... 7-15
7.14
Potential New Well Locations for BCWF Capacity Maintenance
Strategy ......... 7-20
7.15
RCWF — New Transmission Line to Aqueduct Strategy ......................................
7-25
Strategic
Water Supply Plan
��rr
February
2013 -viii-IU�?IJO
�ft
am
Figure Page
7.16
CRMWA to Aquifer Storage and Recovery Infrastructure...................................7-30
7.17
ASR System Schematic........................................................................................7-31
7.18
South Lubbock Well Field Infrastructure.............................................................7-36
7.19
Brackish Well Field Infrastructure........................................................................7-42
8.1
Major River Basins in Texas................................................................................... 8-1
8.2
River Basins in the Lubbock Region...................................................................... 8-2
8.3
Jim Bertram Lake System....................................................................................... 8-4
8.4
South Central & South Playa Lake Drainage Systems ........................................... 8-5
8.5
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2........................................................................................ 8-8
8.6
Jim Bertram Lake 7 Infrastructure........................................................................ 8-13
8.7
Post Reservoir Infrastructure................................................................................ 8-19
8.8
North Fork Scalping Operation Infrastructure...................................................... 8-24
9.1
Location of Proposed Jim Bertram Lake 8............................................................. 9-2
9.2
Jim Bertram Lakes Well Field................................................................................ 9-4
9.3
Linear Well Field — CRMWA Aqueduct................................................................ 9-5
9.4
Additional CRMWA Aqueduct............................................................................... 9-8
10.1
Supply Strategy Ranking and Available Water.................................................10-22
11.1
Package 1: Strategy Implementation Schedule.....................................................11-3
11.2
Package 1: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
................................11-4
11.3
Package 1: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections........................................11-4
11.4
Package 2: Strategy Implementation Schedule.....................................................11-7
Strategic Water Supply Plan
tItl 96) �
February
2013 -ix-
rcas
List of '` '
Figure Page
11.5 Package 2: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections................................11-8
11.6 Package 2: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections........................................11-8
11.7 Package 3: Strategy Implementation Schedule...................................................11-11
11.8 Package 3: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections..............................11-12
11.9 Package 3: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections......................................11-12
11.10 Package 4: Strategy Implementation Schedule...................................................11-15
11.11 Package 4: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections..............................11-16
11.12 Package 4: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections......................................11-16
11.13 Package 5: Strategy Implementation Schedule...................................................11-19
11.14 Package 5: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections..............................11-20
11.15 Package 5: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections......................................11-20
12.1 Net Present Value Comparison for Supply Packages...........................................12-4
12.2 Comparison of Average Monthly Water Bill for Supply Packages ......................12-6
Strategic Water Supply Plan ciryoe
February 2013-X-U�?b4G
Table Page
ES.1
Strategy Explanation............................................................................................ ES-5
ES.2
Comparison of Supply Packages..........................................................................
ES-9
2.1
Historic Peak Day Data...........................................................................................
2-6
4.1
Water Quality Comparison.....................................................................................
4-4
4.2
Demand, Supply, and Net Amounts for Annual vs. Peak.....................................4-20
5.1
Lubbock's Current Volume Rates...........................................................................
5-5
5.2
Summary of Conservation Strategies....................................................................
5-17
6.1
North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 Costs...............................................6-13
6.2
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP Costs...................................................................6-18
6.3
Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP Costs...................................................................
6-23
6.4
South Fork Discharge Costs..................................................................................6-28
6.5
North Fork Diversion to the Lake Alan Henry Pump Station Costs
..................... 6-33
6.6
Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Costs .......................................
6-38
7.1
Potable Water Conserved Due at City Parks...........................................................
7-6
7.2
RCWF Capacity Maintenance Costs.....................................................................7-17
7.3
BCWF Capacity Maintenance Costs.....................................................................
7-22
7.4
RCWF — New Transmission Line to Aqueduct Costs ..........................................
7-27
7.5
CRMWA to Aquifer Storage and Recovery Costs ...............................................
7-33
7.6
South Lubbock Well Field Costs..........................................................................
7-39
7.7
Brackish Well Field Costs.....................................................................................
7-44
8.1
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 Costs............................................................................
8-10
Strategic Water Supply Plan
tl'u"b"96'ck
February
2013 _Xi-
TablesList of
Table Page
8.2 Jim Bertram Lake 7 Strategy Costs....................................................................... 8-15
8.3 Post Reservoir Strategy Costs............................................................................... 8-21
8.4 North Fork Scalping Operation Costs................................................................... 8-26
10.1 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................10-2
10.2 North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 — Strategy Evaluation .....................10-3
10.3 Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP — Strategy Evaluation........................................10-4
10.4 Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP — Strategy Evaluation........................................10-5
10.5 North Fork Diversion to LAH Pump Station — Strategy Evaluation ....................10-6
10.6 Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage & Recovery — Strategy Evaluation ................10-7
10.7 South Fork Discharge — Strategy Evaluation........................................................10-8
10.8 RCWF Capacity Maintenance — Strategy Evaluation...........................................10-9
10.9 BCWF Capacity Maintenance — Strategy Evaluation.........................................10-10
10.10 RCWF New Transmission Line to Aqueduct — Strategy Evaluation ..................10-11
10.11 CRMWA to Aquifer Storage & Recovery — Strategy Evaluation ......................10-12
10.12 South Lubbock Well Field — Strategy Evaluation...............................................10-13
10.13 Brackish Well Field — Strategy Evaluation.........................................................10-14
10.14 Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — Strategy Evaluation................................................10-15
10.15 Jim Bertram Lake 7 — Strategy Evaluation.........................................................10-16
10.16 Post Reservoir — Strategy Evaluation..................................................................10-17
10.17 North Fork Scalping Operation — Strategy Evaluation.......................................10-18
10.18 Water Supply Strategy Ranking by Supply Type...............................................10-20
Strategic Water Supply Plan of
February 2013 -xii- tI'uf--*bV6tYck
Table Page
10.19 Water Supply Strategy Ranking from Highest to Lowest...................................10-21
11.1 Supply Package Schedule Comparison...............................................................11-24
12.1 Present Value Analysis — Assumed Rates Used in Calculations ..........................12-1
12.2 Inflated Project Cost Comparison.........................................................................12-3
12.3 Present Value Analysis Summary.........................................................................12-4
Strategic Water Supply Plan ciyo
February 2013 -xiii- tl'uf-obb�Ck
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
AAD Average Annual Day
ac-ftlyr acre-feet per year
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
AWD Average Water Demand
AWWA American Water Works Association
BCWF
Bailey County (Sandhills) Well Field
BNR
Biological Nutrient Removal
BRA
Brazos River Authority
CCEFN
Consensus Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs
CCL
Candidate Contaminate List
CIP
Capital Improvement Plan
CM
Capacity Maintenance
CR
County Road
CRMWA
Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
DBS&A
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates
DFCs
Desired Future Conditions
ECC
Emerging Constituents of Concern
EID Environmental Information Document
EPS Effluent Pump Station
FM Farm -to -Market Road
GCD Groundwater Conservation District
gpcd gallons per capita per day
Strategic Water Supply Plan ciryof
Lubbock
February 2013 -xiv- ,����
List of Acronyms Abbreviations
i
gpf
gallons per flush
GMA
Groundwater Management Area
gpm
gallons per minute
HET
high efficiency toilet
HLAS
Hancock Land Application Site
hp
Horse Power
ICM
Initial Capacity Maintenance
IFAS
Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
JBLS
Jim Bertram Lake System
kwh
kilowatt hour
LAH
Lake Alan Henry
LAHPS
Lake Alan Henry Pump Station
LLAS
Lubbock Land Application Site
mg
million gallons
mgd
million gallons a day
mg/L
milligrams per liter
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
msl
mean sea level
mw megawatt
North Fork North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River
NFD-LAHPS North Fork Diversion to Lake Alan Henry Pump Station
NFSO North Fork Scalping Operation
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u6b'9toy k
February 2013 -xv- ►cxns
List of Acronyms
tions
t • _ •
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
NWTP
North Water Treatment Plant
PDD
Peak Day Demand
PF
Peaking Factor
PPCPs
Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
PS
Pump Station
psi
pressure per square inch
PPS
Post Pump Station
PV
Present Value
RCWF
Roberts County (John C. Williams) Well Field
RO
Reverse Osmosis
RWD
Reclaimed Water Demand
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SLPS
Southland Pump Station
SEWRP
Southeast Water Reclamation Plant
South Fork
South Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River
SWSP
Strategic Water Supply Plan
SWTP
South Water Treatment Plant
TAC
Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
TPDES
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u6b'bOCk
February 2013 -xvi- sexes
List of Acronymsi1 i
TWDB Texas Water Development Board
UV Ultraviolet
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WAM Water Availability Model
WCET Water Conservation Education Team
WRMWD White River Municipal Water District
µS/cm microSiemens per cm (units for conductivity)
Strategic Water Supply Plan tltb'9o�fk
February 2013 -xvii-
Executive Summary
The City of Lubbock's goal is to provide a "road map," plan, and guidance document for
the development and implementation of its water supplies over the next 100 years. This
document is intended to be updated frequently as conditions change.
Historic Water Supplies
Historically, Lubbock's water supplies have varied between groundwater and surface
water. Some water supplies have been discontinued due to diminished water quality,
reduction in the water availability, and/or more stringent drinking water regulations.
Lubbock's historic water supply usage is depicted in Figure ES.1.
40,000
13.03
35,000
11.40
R
30,000
9.78
/V
o
25,000
8.15
o
20,000
6.52
c
o
>
=
a
15,000
4.89
fo
2
3 10,000
3.26
>
5,000
1.63
W"
3
0
0.00
O O O
ri N M
O O O O O
Iq to W n 00
O O O
O1 O _f
01 01 01
ri r1 ri
M M Cn 01 01
ri ri 1-4 1-4 ri
ON O O
ri N N
Year
-City of Lubbock Well Field -Shallowater Well Field
-BaileyCounty Well Field
-Lake Meredith
-Roberts County Well Field
Figure ES.1— Lubbock's Historic Water Supply Usage
Strategic Water Supply Plan c;tyof
February 2013 ES-1 tl'ulboCk
The sources of Lubbock's water supplies have changed over time. Even within the last 20
years, the profile of Lubbock's water supply has changed dramatically as depicted in
Figure ES.2. Because of the dynamic water supply situation, continuous planning is
essential.
1992 Water Supply
Bailey
Count,
Well Field, 13%
2012 Water Supply
Lake �
Henry, 2%
Figure ES.2 — Water Supply Contribution Comparison for 1992 and 2012
Water Demand Projections
The planning process included in this document begins with projecting the City's water
demand over a 100-year timeframe. Water demand projections are the driving force
behind water supply decisions, and are dependent upon population and per capita
consumption estimates. In Section 2.0, three important annual water demand scenarios are
developed as follows:
Probable Annual Demand = Probable Growth x Probable Consumption
Accelerated Annual Demand = Accelerated Growth x Probable Consumption
Conservation Annual Demand = Probable Growth x Conservation Consumption
Peak demand is also important to consider when planning for new water supplies.
Satisfying peak demand can in some cases accelerate the need for a new water supply.
Peak water demand scenarios are developed as follows:
Strategic Water Supply Plan c� yyofFebruary 2013 ES-2t1'uf--Obbock
Probable Peak Day Demand = Probable Average Day Demand x Probable Peak Factor
Accelerated Peak Demand = Accelerated Average Day Demand x Probable Peak Factor
Conservation Peak Demand = Probable Average Day Demand x Conservation Peak Factor
Projections for these three scenarios for both Average Annual Demand and Peak Day
Demand are depicted in Figure ES.3.
180,000
_ ___, —_
161
160,000
143
140,000
125
120,000
-_®z®_�.___.���,���y.��������
107
d 100,000
89
0 80,000
�,. ,. . i ._.� _ ..
71
a� 60,000
. _�;
_. �._ _ •. _
_
54
O
3
40,000
_
�.�. _._ �r .. _
r }
_,' r __
36
20,000
18
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
00 01 O
`-i N M d' to lD
n W 01
Ot M O
O O O O O O
O O O ei r1
a-i . q N
N N N N N N
N N N N N
Year
Historic Annual
Probable Annual
Accelerated Annual
Conservation Annual
.•.•.••.. Historic Peak Demand
g * Probable Peak
®� ® Accelerated Peak
a � * a s Conservation Peak
Figure ES.3 — Average Annual Demand and Peak Day Demand Projections
Current Water Supply Situation
Lubbock's current water supply sources consist of Lake Alan Henry (LAH), Roberts
County Well Field (RCWF), and the Bailey County Well Field (BCWF) as discussed in
Section 4.0. A comparison of probable water demand (orange line) and the total annual
current water supply is depicted in Figure ES-4. This figure indicates that by 2014,
additional water supplies and/or aggressive water conservation (green line) is needed in
order to preserve the BCWF for a peaking supply during the summer months. Without
additional water supplies by 2025, Lubbock will not be capable of supplying the projected
water demand even with aggressive conservation.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u-f-*b1P6�kFebruary 2013 ES-3
RCWF and BCWF are groundwater supplies. In the Ogallala Aquifer, groundwater
production continues to decline over time if additional wells are not added periodically.
LAH should be a renewable supply of water throughout the planning period as long as its
yield does not change due to dramatic changes in the lake's environment.
100,000
_ . _ _ _ .._ ___r
32.6
...
90,000
29.3
M
80,000
- - -- - _ _ _ - -
26.1
n.
70,000
- - -
22.8
0
u
60,00019.6
�.
m
50,000
c
E
0
40,000
t...
13.0
30,000
3
1
E
20,000
____ _.___ __ _ _____�_
6.5
�►
10,000
r
3.3
M M M M M M M M M M M
ri N M � U1 W r` 00 M O 1-4
O O O O O O O O O rq e-I
N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
I611M Lake Alan Henry Supply 1111111111111111111oberts County Well Field Supply
Bailey County Well Field Supply Probable Demand
-Accelerated Demand Conservation Demand
Figure ESA —100-Year Annual Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply
In order to meet the projected deficit created by an increasing demand and a decreasing
supply of water, multiple supply strategies are developed and evaluated in this plan.
Water Conservation Strategies
Water conservation is considered the least expensive supply of water that we possess. It
appears that the City could potentially delay future water supply projects by as much as 23
years by implementing a consistent and aggressive water conservation program. In Section
5.0, the conservation strategies discussed include public education and awareness, stringent
seasonal watering restrictions, increased water volume rates, indoor water fixture
replacement programs, landscape rebate program, and reducing unaccounted for water
losses. It appears that some of the most effective water conservation programs include
increasing water volume rates and stringent seasonal watering restrictions.
Strategic Water Supply Plan fl'u"�b
cityofFebruary 2013 ES-4bOCk
Potential Water Supply Strategies
Table ES.1 provides a short explanation of each of the 16 water supply strategies evaluated
as part of this plan. These strategies, as described in Sections 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0, are
categorized as reclaimed water, groundwater, or surface water, respectively.
Table ES.1— Strategv Explanation
North Fork Diversion
Reclaimed water discharged at Outfall 001 on the North Fork will be
'
at County Road 7300
re -captured 2.7 miles downstream and pumped to the South Water Treatment
Plant (SWTP) for treatment.
Direct Potable Reuse
Reclaimed water will be treated and blended with other raw water supplies and
to the SWTP
pumped to the SWTP for further treatment.
Direct Potable Reuse
Reclaimed water will be treated and blended with other raw water supplies and
to the NWTP
pumped to the North Water Treatment Plant (NWTP) for further treatment.
{
North Fork Diversion
Reclaimed water discharged at Outfall 001 will travel 67 miles downstream on
to LAH Pump Station
the North Fork to the diversion site where it will be pumped directly to the
Lake Alan Henry (LAH) Pump Station.
Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed water will be treated and injected into the Ogallala Aquifer,
to ASR
recovered down gradient, and transported to the NWTP for treatment.
The existing effluent pipeline to the Hancock Land Application Site will be
South Fork Discharge
extended to a tributary on the South Fork so that reclaimed water can be
discharged and flow into LAH.
RCWF —Capacity
Maintenance
New wells will be installed to maintain the capacity of the existing RCWF.
BCWF — Capacity
Maintenance
F. New wells will be installed to maintain the capacity of the existing BCW
RCWF New
Construction of a second transmission line from the RCWF to the Canadian
-
Transmission Line
River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) Aqueduct will almost double
Lubbock's CRMWA allocation and fill the aqueduct to capacity.
CRMWA to ASR
Water received from CRMWA during winter months will be injected into the
Ogallala Aquifer and recovered from the aquifer during summer months.
South Lubbock
Construction of numerous wells in south Lubbock - collect groundwater and
k
Well Field
treat it near Pump Station 10 before transmission into the system.
SWTP Brackish
Brackish groundwater will be pumped from the Dockum Aquifer and treated at
Well Field
a desalination plant prior to blending with other water supplies at the SWTP.
LAH Phase 2
Expansion of existing infrastructure will double the quantity of water that
Lubbock can transport and treat from LAH.
Jim Bertram Lake 7
A reservoir will be constructed on the North Fork upstream of Buffalo Springs
Lake. Lake 7 water will be pumped to the SWTP for treatment.
F
Post Reservoir
A reservoir will be constructed on the North Fork located east of Post in Garza
County. Post Reservoir water will be pumped to the Post Pump Station.
North Fork Scalping
Stormwater on the North Fork will be captured and transported to LAH,
Operation
increasing the lake's firm yield.
Strategic Water Supply Plan O YU�} pCk
February 2013 ES-5 b ,tYs
In order to evaluate the strategies relative to one another, each strategy has been ranked on
a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) in 10 different categories. Each category is weighted either
1.0 or 0.5, depending on the category's importance. The range of possible total scores is 0
to 40. Section 10.0 describes the ranking process in detail. Figure ES.5 summarizes the
results of the evaluation process.
Combinations of supply strategies in conjunction with the various demand projections were
used to develop five different supply packages that can potentially provide the City with
water for the 100-year planning period. In all supply packages, the BCWF and LAH play
an important role in providing Lubbock with its peaking capacity over the planning period.
In order to preserve the BCWF, efforts should be made to reduce the annual usage from
this source. Many strategies used in these supply packages are interchangeable with
other strategies. Just because a strategy is not used in one of these examples, does not
mean the strategy may not prove to be a more appropriate strategy in the future. Section
11 describes these supply packages in greater detail. The five different supply packages
developed are described below.
Supply Package 1— Baseline
This supply package is considered a baseline package that consists of the following supply
strategies that will be necessary to meet the Probable Demand over the next 100 years:
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance, BCWF Capacity Maintenance, LAH Phase 2, RCWF
New Transmission Line, RCWF Capacity Maintenance, and Direct Potable Reuse at the
North Water Treatment Plant.
Supply Package 2 — LAH Delayed
This supply package is similar to Package 1 except it delays the implementation of LAH
Phase 2 from 2017 until 2031. In addition, this strategy uses an indirect reuse strategy
instead of direct reuse of reclaimed water. This package consists of the following supply
strategies that will be necessary to meet the Probable Demand over the next 100 years:
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance, BCWF Capacity Maintenance, LAH Phase 2, RCWF
New Transmission Line, RCWF Capacity Maintenance, and North Fork Diversion at CR
7300.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u'r--4bVtoy Ck
February 2013 ES-6 �
Package 3 — RCWF Line Delayed
This supply package is similar to Package 1 except it delays the implementation of the
RCWF New Transmission Line from 2025 until 2035. In addition, this package
accelerates the implementation of direct reuse of reclaimed water from 2054 to 2020. This
package consists of the following supply strategies that will be necessary to meet the
Probable Demand over the next 100 years: BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance, BCWF
Capacity Maintenance, LAH Phase 2, RCWF New Transmission Line, RCWF Capacity
Maintenance, and Direct Potable Reuse at the North Water Treatment Plant.
Supply Package 4 — Conservation
This supply package is different from Packages 1, 2, and 3 because its objective is to meet
the Conservation Demand projections described in Section 2. Since the Conservation
Demand projections are less than the Probable Demand projections used in the first three
packages, the implementation of the RCWF New Transmission Line is delayed
indefinitely. Strategies used in Supply Package 4 include: BCWF Initial Capacity
Maintenance, BCWF Capacity Maintenance, LAH Phase 2, RCWF Capacity Maintenance,
and Direct Potable Reuse at the North Water Treatment Plant.
Package 5 — Growth
This supply package is different from Packages 1, 2, and 3 because its objective is to meet
the Accelerated Growth Demand projections described in Section 2. Since the Accelerated
Growth Demand projections are higher than the Probable Demand projections used in the
first three packages, more strategies are needed in Supply Package 5. Strategies used in
this package include: BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance, BCWF Capacity Maintenance,
LAH Phase 2, RCWF New Transmission Line, RCWF Capacity Maintenance, Direct
Potable Reuse at the North Water Treatment Plant, Jim Bertram Lake 7, North Fork
Scalping Operation, and Brackish Well Field at the South Water Treatment Plant.
Table ES.2 compares strategy timelines and implementation dates for each of the five
supply packages discussed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan c�tyof
February 2013 ES-7 tltf-ob'bock
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
LAH Phase 2
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
RCWF - New Transmission Line
North Fork Diversion atCR 7300
Direct Potable Reuse - NWTP
Direct Potable Reuse- SWTP
South Fork Discharge
North Fork Diversion to LAH PS
Jim Bertram Lake 7
Reclaimed WaterASR
CRM WA to ASR
Post Reservoir
North Fork Scalping Operation
South Lubbock Well Field
Brackish Well Field
Weighted Score
0 8 16 24 32 40
1,120
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Volume (ac-ft/yr)
■ Incremental Capacity Increase(ac-ft/yr) ■Weighted Score
Figure ES.5 — Supply Strategies Sorted by Rank (Highest to Lowest)
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u-f'-*W6'Y�fkFebruary 2013 ES-S
Table ES.2 — Comparison of Supply Packages
Supply Package 1
Baseline
Supply Package 2
LAH Delayed
Supply Package 3
RCWF Delayed
Supply Package
Conservation
Supply Package 5
Accel. Growth
2013
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: BCWF CM-1
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2023
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2023: BCWF CM-2
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2031: LAH Phase 2
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF CM-1
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF CM-1
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2033
2033: BCWF CM-2
2035: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2043
2053
2054: Direct Reuse
2055: RCWF CM-1
2054: North Fork
Diversion at CR 7300
2055: RCWF CM-1
2055: RCWF CM-2
2055: North Fork
Scalping Operation
2055: RCWF CM-2
2063
2065: RCWF CM-2
2063: BCWF CM-2
2073
2079: Jim Bertram
Lake 7
2083
2085: RCWF CM-2
2085: RCWF CM-2
2085: RCWF CM-3
2085: RCWF CM-3
2093
2095: RCWF CM-3
2098: Brackish Well
Field
2103
2103: BCWF CM-3
2113
Note: ICM = Initial Capacity Maintenance, CM-1 = Capacity Maintenance-1, CM-2 = Capacity Maintenance-2, etc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt'--b'WotyO if
February 2013 ES-9 ,,,,
Financial Impact to Water Rates
The financial impact of each of the five strategy packages has been evaluated for the short-
term planning period of 12-years. The results of this evaluation are detailed in Section
12.0 and summarized below. Figure ES.6 shows the net present value for each of the five
supply packages. As expected, Supply Package 4 is the least expensive alternative since it
requires the fewest water supply strategies to meet the aggressive Conservation Demand
projections. Conversely, Supply Package 5 is the most expensive alternative since it
requires the implementation of the most water supply strategies in order to meet the
Accelerated Demand projections.
Figure ES.6 — Net Present Value Comparison of Supply Packages
Supply Packages 1, 2, and 3 are all based on satisfying the Probable Demand projections.
Supply Package 2 is less expensive than Supply Packages 1 and 3 for several reasons. This
package draws more heavily upon the existing BCWF supply for a longer period of time.
Heavy usage of the BCWF may not be sustainable. Package 1 implements LAH Phase 2
sooner in order to relieve BCWF. Package 3 implements direct reuse of reclaimed water
sooner in order to relieve BCWF.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-.*bVoCk
February 2013 ES-10 ,tx.:
In order to provide information for water rate planning, the City's Finance Department
created a financial spreadsheet model for the Water Fund that extends over the 12 year
short-term planning period. Models were developed for all five supply packages discussed
in Section 11.0. In each model, volume rates increase more dramatically during the first
part of the modeling period, since the base rates are reduced in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY
2015. This transition was initiated by the City Council to promote additional water
conservation.
Financial models for each supply package are included in Appendix E. Key drivers of
these financial models include debt service, appropriable net asset levels, a RCWF reserve
fund, and increases to the volume and/or base rates. The financial models are used to
estimate how much water rates will increase over the next 12 years in order to fund each of
the supply packages. Figure ES.7 compares a 3/4-inch meter residential monthly water bill
at 2013 water rates (7,000 gallons usage) with projected water bills for each supply
package in 2025. An average water bill is estimated to increase from $49.00 per month to
at least $63.73 per month.
Figure ES.7 — Comparison of Average Monthly Water Bill for Supply Packages
Strategic Water Supply Plan city of
February 2013 ES-11 Lubbock
KIM
The City of Lubbock's City Council approved an initial Strategic Water Supply Plan
(SWSP) in July 2007. The goal of the Water Resources Department is to update the Plan
every five years in order to keep planning information as current as possible. Prior to the
2007 Plan, other water planning documents were prepared as needed by the City or by
consultants hired by the City. Excerpts from these documents are referenced in the 2007
Plans and include:
• 2004 City of Lubbock Strategic Water Plan, Water Texas
• 2001 City of Lubbock Water Supply Evaluation, Black & Veatch
• 1999 City of Lubbock 50-Year Water Plan, Water Staff
• 1992 Comprehensive Groundwater Management Study for the City of Lubbock,
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
• 1975 Plan for Additional Water Supply- Lubbock, Texas, Freese & Nichols
• 1971 Report on Water Supply — Lubbock, Texas, Freese, Nichols & Endress
• 1968 Interim Report on Water Supply — Lubbock, Texas, Freese, Nichols &
Endress
In addition to Lubbock's planning efforts, the State of Texas passed legislation in 1999
which required the creation of 16 Regional Water Planning Areas across the State.
Regional Water Planning Groups were appointed for each area and are tasked with
developing water supply plans for their respective areas. Lubbock is located within the
Llano Estacado (Region O) Water Planning Area as depicted in Figure 1.1, and is currently
represented by two City staff on the Region O Water Planning Group. The first regional
plans were completed in 2001 with subsequent updates to the plans in 2006 and 2011. All
of the regional plans are incorporated into the State Water Plan which is released one year
later (i.e. 2002, 2007, 2012). The Region O Plan includes water management strategies for
Lubbock and surrounding communities as well as for agriculture, mining, and industry.
Strategic Water Supply Plan city of
February 2013 1-1 tl'ul-bbock
irado
Figure 1.1— Regional Planning Areas
(Map courtesy of Texas Water Development Board)
1.2 Purpose
The City of Lubbock's goal is to continuously refine and implement its 100-year strategic
water supply plan. This goal is essential in order to ensure that a sufficient water supply is
available at the time that it is needed. The purpose of this Plan is to provide the framework
for the City to develop sustainable water supply sources that can be implemented within
appropriate time frames and in the most cost efficient manner. This Plan will also be
utilized to support the City's position in the on -going regional water planning process.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u6b" oCk
February 2013 1-2 ,k
' I I
The following steps are involved in the water supply planning process:
Step 1 — Estimate Water Demand
Step 2 — Calculate Long -Term Yield of Current Water Supplies
Step 3 — Determine when Water Deficits Begin to Occur
Step 4 — Evaluate the Role of Water Conservation
Step 5 — Identify New Water Supply Strategies
Step 6 — Evaluate and Rank New Water Supply Strategies
Step 7 — Create Supply Packages to Satisfy Future Needs
Step 8 — Calculate Financial Impact to Water Rates
Step 9 — Plan Implementation
Step 10 — Continuously Analyze and Refine Plan
This Plan follows Steps 1 through 8. Steps 9 and 10 are dynamic steps that will evolve
year by year. The planning horizon in this document includes the next 100 years.
Projections have been made with the following three planning periods in mind:
Short Range Planning
Medium Range Planning
Long Range Planning
12 years
2013
— 2025
50 years
2026
— 2063
100 years
2064
— 2113
In order to meet the projected deficit created by an increasing demand and a decreasing
supply of water, multiple supply strategies are developed and evaluated in this plan.
Potential water conservation strategies with associated costs are evaluated. In addition,
potential water supply strategies are grouped into three categories: reclaimed water,
groundwater, and surface water. These strategies include estimated volumes of available
water and costs to implement each strategy. Sixteen water supply strategies are evaluated,
ranked, and subsequently packaged to meet future needs.
Various strategies are placed into five supply packages to demonstrate ways to meet
Conservation, Probable, and Accelerated Demand scenarios. Three of the supply packages
provide examples of how to meet the Probable Demand projections. The other two
packages provide examples of how to meet the Conservation Demand and Accelerated
Demand. Supply packages are presented for planning purposes only. Many supply
strategies are interchangeable. The attractiveness of each strategy may change over
Strategic Water Supply Plan fl'u4b'V�cf�February 2013 1-3
time. Implementation schedules may change based on a variety of unpredictable
variables including climate conditions, population, per capita consumption, industry
need, changes in regulatory environments, etc. Each package of strategies includes a net
present value financial analysis. In addition, a financial model has been created for each
package that estimates the potential impact to water rates over the next 12 years.
1 2007 Strategic Water Supply Plan for the City of Lubbock, Section 4.0.
2 Texas Water Development Board. 2002 State Water Plan. Volume 3: Fig. 4-1.
Strategic Water Supply Plan eityof
February 2013 1-4 lbbty
Water2.0 ' i Projections
Water demand projections are the driving force behind water supply decisions, and are
dependent upon population and per capita consumption estimates. In this section, the
2013 Plan projections are compared with former projections from the City's 2007 Strategic
Water Supply P1ani and the 2011 Llano Estacado (Region O) Regional Water Plan.2 It is
important to note that the 2011 Region O Water Plan only extends to the year 2060, and
the City's 2007 Plan extends to 2105 while the 2013 Plan extends to 2113. Where
applicable, at least 30 years of historic data are also provided to place future projections
into the appropriate context.
,
The population projections in this 2013 Plan are based on the 2010 Federal Census data3
and the City Planning Department's historical population information.4 This Plan projects
population for the following four communities that receive water from the City of Lubbock
Water System (2010 Census populations included):
• City of Lubbock (229,573 people)
• City of Shallowater (2,484 people)
• Town of Ransom Canyon (1,096 people)
• Buffalo Springs Lake (453 people)
The smaller communities make up less than 2% of Lubbock's total population, which is
well within the margin of error for population projections.
Two population scenarios are presented in this Plan. These scenarios are described below:
Probable Growth — This scenario depicts the most likely scenario for
population growth in the City and closely corresponds to the City Planning
Department's projections for the first 20 years. The Probable Growth
projection consists of a 1.20% per year growth rate through 2033. After this
period, the growth rate drops to 0.80% per year and declines 0.10% every
decade until 2074, at which point it remains constant at 0.40% per year
growth.
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy f
February 2013 2-1 tltlbock
Accelerated Growth — This scenario depicts what would occur if the City
experiences accelerated growth over the next 20 years. The Accelerated
Growth projection starts at 1.20% per year and increases by 0.10% per year
until it reaches a 1.7% per year growth rate that remains constant through
2033. After 2033, the growth rate declines to 1.20% per year for a decade,
1.00% per year for the following decade, and then declines 0.10% per
decade from 2054 through 2093. For the last two decades, the growth rate
declines by 0.15% per decade.
Previous population projections from the 2007 Strategic Water Supply Plan and the 2011
Region O Water Plan were based on 2000 Federal Census data and Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB) projections. Therefore, both of these documents contain
projections that are not as consistent with the City's 2013 Plan as they would have been if
the 2010 Census data had been used. Figure 2.1 compares the population projections from
these three planning documents. Historic and projected population tables are included in
Appendix A-1 and A-2, respectively.
800,000
700,000
600,000
C 500,000
0
3400,000
0.
0
a
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Q1 01 01 a1 Ot Ot 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O
Year
Historic Population
Accelerated Population
2007 SWSP Medium Population
Probable Population
2011 Region O Plan Population
2007 SWSP High Population
Figure 2.1 - Population Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan ]UbbpCk
February 2013 2-2 ,EA
The Probable Growth scenario for this 2013 Plan projects the following populations for the
City of Lubbock and three customer cities in the future:
• 277,586 in the year 2025
• 376,463 in the year 2063
• 464,228 in the year 2113
The Region O Water Planning Group and the State of Texas Water Conservation Task
Force have established realistic municipal per capita consumption goals, urging cities to
implement measures that lower their per capita consumption each year. The Region O
recommended target for municipal consumption is 172 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).5
The Water Conservation Task Force has recommended a per capita consumption goal of
140 gpcd.6
In this 2013 Plan, two per capita consumption scenarios were developed. Each meet the
more stringent goal of 140 gpcd set by the Water Conservation Task Force, but the
scenarios differ in terms of the time in which this is accomplished. The two consumption
scenarios are described below.
Probable Consumption — This scenario starts at 178 gpcd (the per capita
consumption from 2011, the driest year on record) and declines 0.54% per
year until 2033, reaching a gpcd of 160. Over the next 80 years, the per
capita consumption declines at a slower rate, ending at 140 gpcd in 2113.
Conservation Consumption — This scenario demonstrates the effect on water
demand if the City creates and maintains a more aggressive water
conservation program. The Conservation Consumption scenario starts at
160 gpcd (Lubbock's ten year average per capita consumption). This
scenario declines to 150 gpcd in 2015 and 146 gpcd in 2020, meeting the
goals set forth in the City of Lubbock's 2010 Water Conservation Plana By
2033, the gpcd reaches 140. After this period, the per capita consumption
declines at a slower rate, ending at 120 gpcd in 2113.
Strategic Water Supply Plan �►tyof
February2013 2_3 tl'u4b'
bOCk
TE7tA5
A comparison of these two scenarios with the 2011 Region O Plan and the City's 2007
Plan is depicted in Figure 2.2. Historic and projected per capita consumption tables are
included in Appendix A-1 and A-3 respectively.
Figure 2.2 - Per Capita Water Consumption
2.3 Annual Water Demand
Lubbock's Annual Water Demand (AWD) projections consist of three scenarios which
were developed by using different combinations of the two population scenarios described
in Section 2.1 and the two per capita consumption scenarios described in Section 2.2. The
AWD scenarios are as follows.
Probable Demand — (Probable Growth x Probable Consumption) —
This scenario is the most likely projection since it includes probable
population and probable consumption projections.
Accelerated Demand — (Accelerated Growth x Probable Consumption) —
This scenario provides for a water demand projection that reflects an
accelerated population growth combined with probable consumption.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'uf-`*bVtoy k
February 2013 2-4 r�Y�f
Conservation Demand — (Probable Growth x Conservation Consumption) —
This scenario is included to provide an understanding of the impact that
aggressive water conservation efforts may have on the water demand.
A comparison of this Plan's AWD to the 2011 Region O Plan and the City's 2007 Plan is
depicted in Figure 2.3. Historic and projected AWD tables are included in Appendix A-1
and A-3 respectively.
180,000
_ _ .
_ _ .
_ _ _ _ `. _ _ . _
58.7
160,000
_
_
i
52.1
>.
- 140,000
-
i I
-
. ! +, -�
i
45.6
N
120,000
f
39.1
1 '
100,000
�
_
32.6
0
c
N
80,000
26.1
yE
G
i
60,000
-
_-
19.6
3
w
40,000
I
13.0
E
20,000
_.
i _
6.5
0
0.0
3
0 0 0 0 0
00 Ql O r-I N M
0 0
d' to
0 0 0 0 0 0
l0 1, 00 Q1 O
M 01 O O O O
ci r-I N N N N
O O
N N
O O O O •-1 . I
N N N N N N
Year
-Historic Demand
•Probable Demand
-Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
2007 SWSP Medium Demand
2007 SWSP High Demand
2011 Region O Plan Demand
Figure 2.3 - Annual Water Demand Projections
The 2013 Plan's Probable Demand curve is similar to the 2007 Plan's Medium Demand
curve. However, the 2013 Accelerated Demand curve increases more gradually than the
2007 High Demand curve. The 2011 Region O demand curve increases more gradually
than both the 2013 Plan's Probable and Accelerated Demand curves.
2.4 Peak Day Water Demand
Peak Day Demand (PDD) must be considered when designing water system infrastructure.
The purpose of evaluating the PDD in this Plan is to determine whether existing and future
water supplies can be delivered at PDD rates. The PDD is based on the AWD discussed in
Section 2.3. Projections for PDD are calculated as follows:
Strategic Water Supply Plan c►yoFebruary 2013 2-stl'uf--bboCk
Average Annual Day (AAD) in million gallons (mg) = AWD / 365 days
PDD in mg = AAD x Peaking Factor (PF)
The PF is a constant determined using historical trend data. Table 2.1 shows highlighted
years for Lubbock's historic PDD, ADD, and PF. Appendix A-1 includes a more
comprehensive table of historical peaking factors.
Table 2.1- Historic Peak Day Data
Year
DD
Historic Pistoric
(mg)
H AAD
(mg)
Historic PF
Historic Reference
1980
70.85
35.89
1.97
1985
65.18
32.41
2.01
1990
79.00
35.79
2.21
1995
79.54
1 41.32
1.92
2000
67.82
1 39.51
1.72
Last 10 Years
2003
73.61
38.95
1.89
2004
59.94
33.05
1.81
2005
62.54
35.09
1.78
2006
68.77
37.38
1.84
2007
47.30
28.97
1.79
2008
57.18
31.76
1.80
2009
54.23
31.63
1.71
2010
50.40
32.38
1.56
2011
64.12
41.25
1.55
2012
58.07
1 36.23
1.60
Note that PDD, AAD, and PF vary from year to year due to variation in annual
precipitation patterns and temperature fluctuations.
For planning purposes, the following two peaking factors have been developed.
Probable PF - A common rule of thumb employed in the water planning
industry is to assume a PF of 2.0. However, over the last 10 years, the City
of Lubbock's PF has been much lower than 2.0. Therefore, a PF of 1.8 is
used in this Plan. This number is derived from the City's 10-year average
Strategic Water Supply Plan c toy of
February 2013 2-6 tl'u4'�bbck
PF. This means that the City is projecting that the amount of water used on
a peak day will be 1.8 times higher than on an "average" day.
Conservation PF — The Conservation PF shows the reduction in PDD that
may be achieved if the City adopts more aggressive water conservation
policies. The conservation PF begins at 1.8 (the average PF from the
previous 10 years) and then decreases from 1.8 to 1.6 over the 100-year
planning period.
These two peaking factors were used to create three PDD scenarios. The Probable PF was
combined with the Probable AWD to produce the Probable PDD and with the Accelerated
AVWD to produce the Accelerated PDD. The Conservation PF was multiplied by the
Conservation AWD to produce the Conservation PDD.
A comparison of this Plan's PDD to the City's 2007 Plan is provided in Figure 2.4 (see
Appendix A-1 and A-4). The 2011 Region O Plan does not include PDD information.
275
,
250
— 225
?a
e 200
c 175
t
150
v
C 125
E100
75
0 50
Y
d
a 25
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 �
M M o 0
a-i .-i N N
0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N
0 0 0
N N N N N
Year
Historic Peak
—Probable Peak
Accelerated Peak
—Conservation Peak
2007 SWSP Medium Peak
2007 SWSP High Peak
Figure 2.4 - Peak Day Demands
The 2013 Plan's Probable PDD curve is similar to the 2007 Plan's Medium PDD curve.
The 2013 Plan's Accelerated PDD curve increases more gradually than the 2007 Plan's
High PDD.
Strategic Water Supply Plan cf yyof
tl'uflbock
February 2013 2-7 1E7 AS
1 Strategic Water Supply Plan. City of Lubbock. July 2007: section 3a.
2 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 2-8, 2-44.
3 State & County QuickFacts. U.S. Census Bureau. Address:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4845000.html.
4 The City of Lubbock Planning Department projects a 1.12% annual growth rate from
2010-2040. The Planning Department has not generated population projections
beyond 2040.
5 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-110.
6 Texas Water Development Board Special Report: Report to the 79t" Legislature. Water
Conservation Implementation Task Force. Austin, TX. November 2004: 31-33.
7 2010 Water Use Management Plan — Water Conservation Plan and Drought and
Emergency Contingency Plan. City of Lubbock. 2010: Ordinance No. 2010-00055,
section 2.4.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u41V6'YCk
February 2013 2-8 ,tag
3.0 Decommissioned Water Supplies
Water supplies are dynamic natural resources. Over a period of decades, a once productive
and cost effective water supply can become less desirable for a variety of reasons.
Undesirable changes that can occur in a water supply include decreases in water quality, a
decline in the sustainable yield, a depletion of the source of water, or a shift in the
regulations governing water. Figure 3.1 depicts the City's historic water supply usage
since the establishment of the City in 1911.
40,000
13.03
35,000
Itm
11.40
30,000
9.78
_o
�► 25,000
8.15
a,
0
3 20,000
6.52
0
>
15,000
4.89
Zo
1`
3 10,000
3.26
3
>
5,000
1.63
a,
3
0
0.00
O O O O
a4 N rn ct
O O O O
Ln to T, 00
O O O
M O e-4
G1 M M 01
M Cn Cn M
ei
M O O
Year
—City of Lubbock Well Field
—Shallowater Well Field
—BaileyCounty Well Field
—Lake Meredith
—Roberts County Well Field
Figure 3.1— Lubbock's Historic Water Supply Usage
As shown on the graph, two of the City's past water supplies (City and Shallowater Well
Fields) were used for a period of time and later decommissioned. A brief history of each
of these decommissioned supplies is presented in this section.
Strategic Water Supply Plan fI'uf__4b
bc;ock
yyof
February 2013 3_1
TF{AS
3.1 City of Lubbock Well Field
When the first municipal water system was constructed for the City in 1911, it consisted of
one well installed at a depth of 206 feet near the current intersection of 51, Street and
Avenue J. From 1911 to 1954, the City owned 5.0 acres of water rights in and adjacent to
the city limits. The City gradually expanded the number of wells it used. Groundwater
pumped from well fields near the City was the only water supply for the City until the late
1950s when the Shallowater and Bailey County (Sandhills) Well Fields began to be used.
Local well fields owned and operated by the City included the Northeast Well Field, the
Airport Well Field, Pump Station #3 Well Field, Pump Station #6 Well Field, and Pump
Station #7 Well Field. Figure 3.2 shows the location of the wells in the City Well Field.
Figure 3.2 — City Well Field Locations
At its peak, the City Well Field included 61 wells. In the mid-1950s, the City began
reducing the City Well Field production as the Shallowater Well Field and subsequently
the Bailey County Well Field became operational. The City discontinued the use of the
City Well Field when Lake Meredith water became available in 1968. The only local wells
that were in operating condition and could potentially produce water for the City in the
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlh]Po�fjSFebruary 2013 3-2
1990s were the eight wells associated with Pump Station #6. At that time, it was estimated
the combined production of these wells was 8 million gallons per day (mgd).1
The City eventually decided to decommission the City Well Field due to changes in the
water quality of the groundwater under the City as Lubbock became more populated and
urban sources of contamination impacted the groundwater supply. In addition, some of the
naturally occurring minerals (such as fluoride) could not meet the increasingly stringent
water quality standards set by regulatory agencies. These local wells that were once used
for potable purposes are no longer part of the City's water supply. By 2012, all of the
inactive City potable water supply wells had been plugged and abandoned.
In 1953, the City purchased 2,060 acres of water rights in Hockley and Lubbock counties,
about 12 miles northwest of the City of Lubbock, and subsequently constructed the
Shallowater Well Field.2 The well field was used by the City from 1955 until 1968 when
Lake Meredith became the main source of drinking water for the City. It appears that the
City stopped using the Shallowater Well Field in the 1960s due to water quality issues.
Furthermore, the production capacity of the Ogallala Aquifer near the well field had
declined rapidly due to heavy agricultural irrigation practices surrounding the well field
over the past century.
The Shallowater Well Field consists of 17 wells which cover the entire water rights
acreage. The well field location and infrastructure are depicted in Figure 3.3.
In 2011, City staff evaluated whether the well field should be rehabilitated or
decommissioned. Staff recommended that the well field be decommissioned.3 This
recommendation was made for the following reasons:
• Production capacity of the Shallowater Well Field is poor (average well
capacity is 20 gpm);
• Ogallala Aquifer groundwater underlying the well field is of poor quality; and
• Existing water system infrastructure in the well field is in very poor condition.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tltVob
February 2013 3-3 ,E S
Figure 3.3 — Shallowater Well Field
It was estimated that it could cost more than $8,000,000 to replace all of the wells and
upgrade the related infrastructure to meet current regulatory standards. These estimates
did not include the cost of advanced water treatment facilities to correct water quality
problems. Overall, the cost per recoverable acre-foot of groundwater for the Shallowater
Well Field was determined to be at least seven times more expensive than expansions
associated with the Roberts County (John C. Williams) and Bailey County (Sandhills)
Well Fields.
1 Comprehensive Groundwater Management Study for the City of Lubbock. Geraghty &
Miller, Inc. April 1992: Vol. 1, 57.
2 City of Lubbock Water Advisory Commission; Orientation Manual. September 18,
2003.
3 Shallowater Well Field Decommissioning Evaluation Memorandum. April 8, 2011.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf__*bboFebruary 2013 3-4,«as
4.0 Current Water Supplies
The City of Lubbock has relied upon both surface and groundwater for over 45 years.
During this time, the City's main water supplies have consisted of the following sources:
• Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA)
o Lake Meredith
o Roberts County Well Field (RCWF)
• Bailey County Well Field (BCWF)
• Lake Alan Henry (LAH)
Prior to 1968, groundwater withdrawals from the BCWF and local well fields were
sufficient to meet the City's total water demand. In 1968, with the availability of surface
water from Lake Meredith, groundwater withdrawals were reduced substantially. By the
1980s, Lake Meredith provided up to 90% of the City's water demand. However, Lake
Meredith's yield began declining. By the end of 2001, groundwater was being used to
replace a portion of Lake Meredith's supply. By September 2011, Lake Meredith's water
levels had fallen too low for CRMWA's member cities to continue using water from the
reservoir. From the fall of 2011 until the fall of 2012, the City met its water demand with
100% groundwater from the RCWF and the BCWF. Water from LAH became available in
the fall of 2012. Phase 1 of LAH's water supply infrastructure is expected to provide
approximately 17% of the City's annual supply starting in 2013.
Lubbock's water supplies are constantly changing over time. Within the last 20 years, the
profile of Lubbock's water supply has changed dramatically, as depicted in Figure 4.1. In
1992, Lubbock received 87% of its water supply from Lake Meredith, and the RCWF did
not exist. By 2012, Lake Meredith was no longer a supply, and RCWF provided 58% of
Lubbock's water supply. As a result of the dynamic water supply situation, continuous
planning is essential. Figure 4.2 includes a map depicting the locations of the City's
current water supplies.
Strategic Water Supply Plan Of
February 2013 4-1 tIt-Ob'Wock
texas
1992 Water Supply
f
Bailey
County
Well Field, 13%
2002 Water Supply
Bailey
County
G
Well Field, 20%
2012 Water Supply
Lake Alan
Henry, 2%
Figure 4.1— Water Supply Contribution Comparison for 1992, 2002, and 2012
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl �j�j�OC
February 2013 4-2 Tex►:
(_
CRMIVATransmlssion
j —
Pipeline
�
Lake
-#
!
I Meredith
87
_--�
-
' Roberts Countyti
!
Well Field
' l
'a do •
--�--�__.
��
CRMWA
Aqueduct
Ajt
385 �-
7 —
., ,._TO
Bailey County'
Well Field-
i
BCWF Treated
Water Pipeline
jLj
8A
��
LAH
Water
Raw
'pellne �-
r
Lake
Pi_ 20 Mites
��
Alan Henry
—
Figure 4.2 - Current Water Supply Location Map
As depicted in Figure 4.2, Lubbock's closest existing water supply source is Lake Alan
Henry which is over 60 miles southeast of Lubbock. The RCWF is Lubbock's most
distant water supply source, located over 150 miles northeast of Lubbock.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4lUO�fA
February 2013 4-3
Table 4.1 compares the water quality for each of Lubbock's current water supplies. In
general, the groundwater quality in Roberts County is comparable to the City's
groundwater resources in Bailey County and the City's surface water resource at LAH.
Lake Meredith water quality has degraded significantly as the lake's volume of water has
been depleted over the past decade.
Table 4.1 Water Quality Comparison
Selected Water Quality
Parameters
Lake Alan
HenryA
Lake
B
Meredith
BCWF c
D
RCWF
pH
7.8
8.5
7.0
7.8
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)E
167
196
232
192
Turbidity (NTU) F
3.60
7.15
0.80
1.22
Conductivity (uS/cm)G
1,160
4,588
600
1,214
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
633
2,935
319
715
Fluoride (mg/L)
1.10
0.80
1.50
0.75
Chloride (mg/L)
234
1,114
20
219
Nitrate (mg/L)
0.06
0.34
1.33
1.64
Sulfate (mg/L)
84
624
41
84
Potassium (mg/L)
4.6
13.7
5.7
6.2
Sodium (mg/L)
210
934
33
171
Calcium (mg/L)
27.2
100.0
56.8
71.6
Magnesium (mg/L)
8.3
1 94.7
1 18.1
1 33.6
A- Analytical results extracted from the City of Lubbock's 2010 Water Quality Report.
B- Analytical results provided by Rod Goodwin, CRMWA. Sample collected from intake tower 7-7-2011.
C- Analytical results extracted from the City of Lubbock's 2010 Water Quality Report.
D- Analytical results provided by Rod Goodwin, CRMWA. Composite sample for all Phases collected 7-5-2011.
E- mg/L = milligrams per liter
F- NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
G- µS/cm = microSiemens per cm
The water in the Ogallala Aquifer underlying CRMWA's existing well field in Roberts
County becomes saltier with depth. Therefore, total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, and
sodium are higher than the BCWF. Overall, Lubbock's sources of water are generally
compatible with one another.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ofFebruary 2013 4-4tl'u41'96YCk
4.1 Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
CRMWA supplies raw water to eleven member cities which have a combined population
of over 500,000 people in the Texas Panhandle and South Plains. The water supply is
conveyed via a 358-mile aqueduct system. CRMWA was created by the Texas Legislature
in 1953 to provide a source of municipal and industrial water for its member cities. Figure
4.3 depicts the current groundwater allocation of CRMWA water between the member
cities.
Plainview
Pampa 3.691 % Slaton
3.600 /0 ( 1.576% Tahoka
O'Donnell 1, 0.460%
0.278% ,
Lubbock — Amarillo
37.058% ;, 40.621 %
Levelland Borger
2.790% 5.549%
Lamesa Brownfield
2.179% 2.198%
Figure 4.3 - Current CRMWA Member City Allocations
The CRMWA headquarters is located at Sanford Dam about 37 miles northeast of
Amarillo, Texas. Originally, CRMWA was organized to operate Lake Meredith, which
was built and financed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Canadian River
Project. Later, the RCWF was constructed to supplement the lake supply.
Lake Meredith
When construction began on Lake Meredith in 1962, initial estimates placed the firm yield
of the Lake at 103,000 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). After the Sanford Dam was completed
in 1965, water began being stored in Lake Meredith. In 1968, CRMWA began delivering
water to member cities. Lubbock's initial allocation was 38,169 ac-ft (37.058%). Later
studies indicated that the firm yield of the lake was only 76,000 ac-ft/yr. Lubbock's
Strategic Water Supply Plan cityofFebruary 2013 4-5tl'u4%boCk
allocation was adjusted to 28,164 ac-ft/yr. However, the drought conditions over the last
decade necessitated a further reduction in the estimated firm yield of the lake to less than
50,000 ac-ft/yr. By the fall of 2011, insufficient inflows rendered the lake unusable as a
water supply.
Figure 4.4 — Lake Meredith and Sanford Dam,1967
Water quality issues became a concern in Lake Meredith shortly after CRMWA began
delivering water to its member cities. In 1969, CRMWA began preparing a plan to address
the elevated levels of chlorides in the lake. In 1971, the source of the problem was
identified when salt springs along the Canadian River were discovered near Logan, New
Mexico. This problem was eventually addressed in 2001 when the Lake Meredith Salinity
Control Project was placed into operation to mitigate the salt springs. In addition to
salinity, CRMWA also made plans to address the general water quality of the lake. In
2002, the RCWF was constructed to improve the lake's water quality by blending the two
sources in the aqueduct system. In the early 2000s, Lake Meredith's water level began to
decline which led to further water quality issues. Figure 4.5 depicts the increasing chloride
concentration in the lake over time.
Strategic Water Supply Plan Cl'u"Woty�fjSFebruary 2013 4-6
Figure 4.5 - Lake Meredith Chloride Concentration Trend
As a result of the declining water levels in the lake, the allocations to the member cities
were reduced. Groundwater from the RCWF was used to make up the difference as much
as possible. In 2011, during the worst one-year drought of record, Lake Meredith was used
for summer peaking capacity only. After the summer of 2011, water could no longer be
pumped from the lake. Historic water levels in Lake Meredith are presented in Figure 4.6.
In January 2009, the results of a Freese & Nichols, Inc. Lake Meredith report titled Surface
Water Study' was presented to the Panhandle (Region A) Regional Water Planning Group.
The conclusions of this study indicated that the decreased capacity of Lake Meredith was
most likely attributed to changes in the groundwater to surface water interactions and land -
use changes in the watershed. Declines in the Ogallala Aquifer and Dockum Formation
water levels appeared to impact spring flow into the lake. In addition, the increase in shrub
(especially salt cedar) in the watershed appeared to be a factor contributing to reduced
reservoir inflows. The report indicated that the decreased capacity of the lake did not
appear to be meteorological in origin. Precipitation amounts, precipitation intensity, and
evaporation were not considered to be contributing factors. As a result, it is uncertain
whether or when Lake Meredith will recover and resume supplying water to member cities.
Strategic Water Supply Plan flU'bUOCk
February 2013 4-7 1�xas
110
100
90
80
w
70
60
a
0
50
40
3
30
20
10
W
0
r, r,
00 00 M
M
o 0
�
�
0 o 0
14
Year
® Sedimentation Level
■ Streambed to Lowest Gate
■ Water Depth
Figure 4.6 - Historic Water Levels in Lake Meredith
Lake Meredith is not considered a viable water supply strategy at this time. If the lake
begins to refill, this water supply strategy will be re-evaluated.
Roberts County (John C. Williams) Well Field
CRMWA began efforts to supply supplemental groundwater to Lake Meredith's supply as
early as the 1990s. In 1994, CRMWA purchased 42,864 acres of water rights in Roberts
and Hutchinson counties and began construction of the RCWF (also called the John C.
Williams Well Field). Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the RCWF were completed in 2002 and
2006 respectively, totaling 29 wells. A 35-mile, 54-inch diameter transmission line was
also constructed commecting Phases 1 and 2 of the well field to the main CRMWA
Aqueduct that transports water to its member cities. Phase 1 and 2 were initially permitted
to supply up to 40,000 ac-ft/yr. CRMWA began blending the well water with Lake
Meredith water in 2002. Due to the need to replace lost capacity created by Lake
Meredith's decline, Phase 3 of the RCWF was constructed and placed into operation in
2011, expanding the total number of wells to 45.
On June 23, 2011, CRMWA signed a contract with Mesa Water to purchase 144,000
additional acres of water rights that were predominately contiguous to the RCWF. This
purchase increased CRMWA's water rights holdings in the well field to over 400,000
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1hV6�fjS
February 2013 4-8
acres. According to an internal memorandum2 prepared by City staff to evaluate the
purchase of the Mesa Water rights, the strategic value of this purchase included:
• expansion of the RCWF which is one of Lubbock's key water supplies;
• Mesa's water rights' accessibility to the existing RCWF infrastructure;
• Mesa's water rights' volume of water per surface acre that is at least three times
greater than well fields on the South Plains; and
• the high quality of the groundwater in Roberts County.
By the fall of 2011, CRMWA began supplying 100% groundwater when Lake Meredith's
water levels declined below the lowest gate of the intake structure (Figure 4.6). The layout
of the RCWF is depicted in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7 - Roberts County Well Field
CRMWA's goal is to maintain the peak capacity of the RCWF at 92 mgd even though the
54-inch diameter transmission line can only supply approximately 65 mgd. At a 92 mgd
peaking capacity, the RCWF can maintain a 70% load factor giving CRMWA the
operational flexibility to rotate and rest wells. The current capacity of the RCWF is
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-bUiOCk
February 2013 4-9 BEY►:
estimated to be 86 mgd. Without capacity maintenance, the well field capacity will
continue to decrease over time.
Lubbock's 2013 CRMWA allocation is 24,088 ac-ft/yr. CRMWA cannot increase
Lubbock's allocation until an additional transmission line is constructed from the RCWF
to the main aqueduct.
The BCWF (also called the Sandhilis Well Field) is located approximately 60 miles
northwest of the City of Lubbock in Bailey and Lamb counties. In 1954, the City
purchased the initial 53,910 acres of water rights to create the well field. In 1957, the
City's water rights were expanded to 75,041 acres.3 Today, the current water right
holdings for the BCWF are approximately 83,305 acres. Water from the BCWF is pumped
from the Ogallala Aquifer. Most of the wells were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s.4
The 175 active wells are distributed over approximately 50% of the water rights owned by
the City in this well field. Figure 4.8 shows a layout of the BCWF with the associated well
locations and collection system. The number of irrigated fields surrounding the BCWF
indicates that groundwater usage adjacent to the well field for agriculture is extensive.
The City used the well field at an average rate of 6,000 ac-ft/yr from 2000 to 2010.
However, during 2011, with the loss of Lake Meredith as a water supply, the City was
forced to pump over 20,000 ac-ft from the BCWF. Over the past couple of years, the well
field's capacity has decreased from 50 mgd to 38 mgd, dropping below the 40 mgd
capacity of the transmission line that transports water from the BCWF to the City. The
well field capacity will continue to decrease each year unless additional wells are installed.
Since the average well production capacity is 200 gallons per minute, 35 wells would be
required for every additional 10 mgd capacity needed. The goal for this well field is to
extend its useful life by reducing its usage to less than 7,000 ac-ft/yr and using it only
during the summer months to provide peaking capacity as recommended in a 2012 report
completed by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan city of
February 2013 4-10 tl'u4lbock
Figure 4.8 — Bailey County Well Field
4.3 Lake Alan Henry
Construction of the John T. Montford Dam was completed in October 1993. The lake can
hold 94,808 ac-ft of water. According to a 2008 LAH Yield Model memorandum
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., the firm yield of the lake is 22,210 ac-ft/yr and the 2-
year safe yield of the lake is 16,080 ac-ft/yr.
In 2007, the City began the preliminary engineering for the water supply infrastructure
that would deliver treated water to the City's distribution system. Infrastructure for LAH
was designed to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 infrastructure includes two pump
stations, 50-miles of raw water pipeline, a water treatment plant, and finished/treated water
transmission pipelines connecting to the City's distribution system. Phase 1 was
completed in September 2012 and can treat and deliver a peak capacity of 15 mgd and an
annual capacity of 8,000 ac-ft. Phase 2 of the LAH infrastructure project will expand the
system to a peak capacity of 30 mgd and an annual capacity of 16,000 ac-ft. Phase 2 is
anticipated to begin in the near future.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlu4lbcity ocj
of
February 2013 4-11
Figure 4.9 — Lake Alan Henry and John T. Montford Dam, 2007
During July 2010, significant rainfall and flooding filled the reservoir to its capacity and
engaged its spillway for several days. However, during the extreme 2011 drought, the
water level in LAH declined over eight feet due to significant evaporation and low inflows.
Historic water levels are presented in Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10 — Lake Alan Henry Water Levels
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'u4bV6'Y�fS
February 2013 4-12
•
In order to evaluate the amount of water that Lubbock can supply to its customers, the
capacity of various parts of the existing water system infrastructure must be evaluated.
Figure 4.11 depicts Lubbock's current water sources and supply infrastructure with the
corresponding capacity of each item. As the City adds new water supply strategies and
increases the amount of water being delivered, improvements to the supply and distribution
system will be necessary.
Lubbock's raw water supplies are treated at one of three treatment facilities before entering
into the City's distribution system. These treatment facilities include the BCWF
chlorination facility, the North Water Treatment Plant (NWTP), or the South Water
Treatment Plant (SWTP. The NWTP has excess capacity to treat additional water and
transport it into the distribution system. However, the SWTP does not have any additional
capacity. LAH Phase 1 can deliver up to 15 mgd of treated water to pump stations 8, 10,
and 14. These pump stations are operating at maximum capacity. Therefore, additional
quantities of water transported to the SWTP for treatment will need to be routed to a
different pump station, such as PS 7, as depicted in Figure 4.12.
Currently, water from the BCWF is transported to Lubbock and enters the distribution
system at PS 9 and the Lowhead B Pump Station. Plans are in progress to build a 36-in
treated water transmission pipeline that by-passes PS 9 and transports water to PS 7.
These plans include the demolition of the Lowhead B Pump Station. This project is
currently under design. Several of the water supply strategies in this Plan include the cost
of a 4-mile, 42-in transmission line that will connect the existing transmission line at PS 14
to PS 7. This will allow for additional water to be treated and transported from the SWTP
into the distribution system.
Strategic Water Supply Plan citoy
February 2013 4-13 t1'u___ObJCk
Capacity: 1 IS mgd
A Lubbock: 44 mgd
N
Capacity: 65 mgd
Capacity: 103 mgd Lubbock: 24 mgd
Lubbock: 38 mgd
City of Antai
Capacity: 53 mgd
Lubbock: 42 mgd
Amarillo Regulating Reservoir
Capacity: 244 mg
Lubbock Regulating Reservoir
Capacity: 162 mg
F North Terminal Storage Reservoir
Capacity: 390 mg
3`
North Water Treatment Plant
Capacity: 75 mgd
Lubbock: 65 rngd
6.f
Capacity: 40 mgd
.:
South Water Treatment Plant South Terminal
Capacity: 15 mgd%A01
IN Storage Reservoir
Capacity. 225 mg
CapacityPost Pump Station
LAH Pump
Figure 4.11 - Current Water Supply Capacity Schematic
Strategic Water Supply Plan city �fk
f114bbo
February 2013 4-14
Figure 4.12 — Proposed Transmission Line from PS 14 to PS 7
4.5 Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply
Evaluation of both the AWD and PDD compared to available water supply and capacity is
essential in determining when additional water supplies and/or infrastructure may become
necessary. In order to make such an evaluation, current water supply projections have been
made.
Annual Water Supply
Development of the projected AWD scenarios is discussed in Section 2.0 (Appendix A-3).
In order to determine how to meet these projected demand scenarios, the City inventoried
its current water supply sources. Current annual water supply projections were developed
for each of the City's water supply sources as described below. These annual water supply
projections estimate the existing supply capabilities with no expansion or maintenance
over the 100-year planning period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ci yyofFebruary 2013 4-15fl'uf-bUOCk
TEi�f
Lake Alan Henry — Since LAH's 2-year safe yield is 16,080 ac-ft/yr,
Lubbock's current 8,000 ac-ft/yr withdrawal from the lake should be
sustainable throughout the planning period.
Roberts County Well Field — CRMWA's well field is currently at 70%
utilization. This is important for well rotation and maintenance. The 54-
inch transmission line connecting to the main aqueduct is near capacity.
Well field production should keep the transmission line flowing full for the
next 22 years supplying 24,088 ac-ft of water to Lubbock. In 2035, the
RCWF capacity is estimated to drop below the capacity of the transmission
line. The system capacity will continue to decline gradually until 2098
when RCWF will no longer be able to supply the City of Lubbock with
water.
Bailey County Well Field — The City's well field will continue to decline in
capacity due to heavy utilization. It is anticipated that the decline will
continue until the well field is exhausted in 2037.
The current water supply projections for the next 100 years (Appendix B-1) are depicted
with respect to the three water demand scenarios (Appendix B-2) in Figure 4.13.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tyvf
February 2013 4-16U�3�JOC
100,000
32.6
90,000
29.3
80,000
26.1
Vl
o
70,000
__.-�
�.,.�._ __. _
__ _
22.8
0
60,000
i
19.6
c
c
c
�0
50,000
16.3
3
E
[�
40,000
13.0
-o
cc
d
30,000
__
9.8
E
it
3
d
20,000
6.5
3
10,000
3.3
0
v . r
0.0
M M M
r-1 N M
M M M M
It Ln W 1,
M M M M
00 M O r-1
O O O
N 1V N
O O O O
N N N N
O O r-i .-1
N N N N
Year
t �Lake Alan Henry Supply
i•RCWFSupply
11111111111111111BCWFSupply
-Probable Demand
-Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
Figure 4.13 —100 Year Annual Water Demand vs. Current Water Supply
While it appears that the City's current water supplies can be utilized for many more years,
additional infrastructure will be necessary in the near future to either increase capacity or
maintain the capacity of each water supply. A comparison of the Probable Demand to the
total Annual Water Supply in Figure 4.13 indicates that as early as 2013, an additional
water supply will be needed unless BCWF is used heavily or aggressive conservation
efforts are effectively implemented (Conservation Demand). Implementing conservation
efforts could delay additional water supply needs for another decade (2023).
Peak Day Supply
In addition to meeting the AWD, PDD must also be satisfied. Current peak day supply
projections were developed for each of the City's water supply sources as described below.
These peak day supply projections depict the supply capabilities of the City's already
existing water sources with no expansion or maintenance over the 100-year planning
period.
Lake Alan Henry — The SWTP capacity of 15 mgd sets the maximum peak
day capacity that can be delivered to the City's distribution system from
LAH during a given day.
Strategic Water Supply Plan fl'u"tVoty�fA
February 2013 4-17
Roberts County Well Field — The 54-inch transmission line transporting
water from the well field to the CRMWA Aqueduct will set the maximum
peak day capacity for Lubbock at 24 mgd from the RCWF water supply
until the well field capacity declines below the transmission line capacity in
2035. After 2035, the well field capacity will continue to drop until 2098
when RCWF is exhausted.
Bailey County Well Field — The 48-inch transmission line from the BCWF
to Lubbock has a maximum capacity of 40 mgd. In 2012, the BCWF
capacity was 38 mgd. The BCWF will continue to decline in capacity due
to heavy utilization until the well field is exhausted in 2061.
At the end of 2012, Lubbock's water supply could deliver a maximum peak day supply of
77 mgd. The current water supply peak day projections for the next 100 years (Appendix
B-1) are depicted with respect to the three peak day demand scenarios (Appendix B-3) in
Figure 4.14. Development of the projected PDD scenarios is discussed in Section 2.0.
The total terminal storage reservoir capacity is not included in these projections. Terminal
storage reservoir capacity is reserved for emergency situations only. During an emergency
situation, Lubbock has 616 million gallons of storage when the terminal storage reservoirs
are full (see Figure 4.11). This would be an equivalent of 10 days of water supply at a
peak demand of 60 mgd.
Strategic Water Supply Plan lU�?b�OCk
February 2013 4-18 ,:
160
140
120
M
m
E 100
W
80
0
60
a,
a
am
20
0
m m m M M M M M M m M
e-1 N M ct Ln W I1% 00 M O -1
O O O O O O O O O rq ei
N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
LakeAIan Henry Peak lllllllllllllllllRCWF Peak lllllllllllllllllBCWF Peak
•..•Probable Peak Demand � Accelerated Peak Demand Conservation Peak Demand
Figure 4.14 -100 Year Peak Day Demand vs. Supply
Net Water Supply Summary
Based on the projections discussed in Section 4.3, Table 4.2 depicts the deficit amount at
the end of 12 years, 50 years, and 100 years (see Appendix B-3). Based on projections,
additional water supply strategies must be evaluated, recommended, and implemented to
meet the City's future water needs. In addition to the City's current water supplies, several
potential water supply strategies are evaluated in the subsequent sections in an effort to
meet Lubbock's projected water demand in the future. These strategies are grouped into
four main categories: water conservation, reclaimed water, groundwater, and surface
water.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'"� bj9toy k
February 2013 4-19 ,Ex►s
Table 4.2 - Demand, Supply, and Net Amounts for Annual vs. Peak
Annual Demand,
Supply, and Net (ac-ft/yr)
Year
Probable
Annual
Demand
Accel.
Annual
Demand
Conserv.
Annual
Demand
Annual
Supply
Probable
Annual
Net
Accel.
Annual
Net
Conserv.
Annual
Net
2013
47,965
47,965
43,654
47,088
-877
-877
3,434
2025
51,865
54,486
1 44,763
44,088
-7,777
-10,398
-675
2063
64,159
77,418
55,800
21,245
-42,915
-56,174
-34,555
2113
72,956
94,847
62,567
8,000
-64,956
-88,847
-54,567
Year
Peak Day Demand, Supply, and Net (mgd)
Probable
Peak
Demand
Accel.
Peak
Demand
Conserv.
Peak
Demand
Peak
Supply
Probable
Peak Net
Accel.
Peak Net
Conserv.
Peak Net
2013
77.08
77.08
70.15
75.97
-1.11
-1.11
5.82
2025
83.34
87.55
71.18
67.09
-16.25
-20.46
-4.09
2063
103.10
124.41
85.85
28.01
-75.09
-96.40
-57.84
2113
j 117.24
152.41
92.16
15.00
-102.24
-137.41
-77.16
1 Surface Water Study. Freese and Nichols. January 2009.
2 Evaluation of Mesa Water Rights in Roberts County - Memo, City Staff, August 9,
2011.
3 City of Lubbock Water Advisory Commission; Orientation Manual. September 18,
2003.
4 Comprehensive Ground Water Management Study for the City of Lubbock. Geraghty
& Miller, Inc. April 1992: (Vol. 1) 36.
5 Updated Bailey County Well Field Modeling, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
October 2012: 6.
6 Lake Alan Henry Yield Model - Memo. HDR, Inc. January, 24 2008.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tluf'-Wow�fS
February 2013 4-20
Water5.0 Conservation Strategies
Water conservation can be defined as any beneficial reduction in water loss, water use, or
waste of water. Conservation also includes the preservation of water quality. A reduction
in water use can be accomplished by implementation of water conservation or water
efficiency measures.
A water conservation measure is an action, behavioral change, device,
technology, or improved design or process implemented to reduce water
loss, waste, or use.
Water efficiency is a tool of water conservation that results in more efficient
water use and thus reduces water demand. The value and cost-effectiveness
of a water efficiency measure must be evaluated in relation to its effects on
the use and cost of other natural resources (e.g. energy or chemicals).
Water conservation is considered an important water supply strategy because it can
effectively delay expensive water supply projects and decrease the costs of meeting peak
day demand during the summer months. In this section, the City's current conservation
efforts are highlighted and eight potential conservation strategies are discussed for the
future. The water conservation strategies presented in this section are not ranked against
other water supply strategies in this Plan because it is hard to quantify the impact of
conservation efforts. However, conservation is the "least expensive supply of water" that
we can develop.
Lubbock's overall water conservation (combined indoor and outdoor) can be quantified by
calculating the change in per capita potable water consumption (gpcd) from year to year.
The City's per capita consumption has declined gradually over the past 30 years. The
City's per capita potable water demand decreased approximately 26% from 1980 to 2012
as depicted in Figure 5.1 (see Appendix A-1).
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlu"�Woty�fkFebruary 2013 5-1
The City incorporated water conservation goals into its Water Use Management Plan' that
was adopted by City Council on July 22, 2010. These goals were set in accordance with
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) rules that require that water
conservation plans contain specific, quantifiable five- and ten-year goals. The City's
Water Use Management Plan sets a per capita goal for year 2015 of 150 gpcd and a year
2020 goal of 146 gpcd. The State of Texas Water Conservation Task Force has
recommended that cities seek to achieve a per capita consumption of 140 gpcd.3 The Task
Force considers this to be a realistic goal for most cities.
Figure 5.1— Lubbock's Historic Per Capita Water Consumption
Based on a comparison of the projections developed in Section 2.2 for the Probable
Consumption and the Conservation Consumption, continued conservation could reduce the
per capita demand for the City by 20 gpcd by 2033 (see Figure 5.2). This translates into a
reduction of the Probable Water Demand in 2033 by 6,718 acre-feet, or 12%. This means
that additional water supply projects could be delayed as much as 23 years (until 2055).
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 5-2 fl'u'lVoty�ft
65,000 __ _ _
_ _
21.2
60,000
19.6
c
0
55,000
�- -
"`
17.9
$
0
50,000
_
_.�
16.3 c
c
M
23-Year
i=
c45,000Time
Delay
14.7
a�
E
a
3 40,000
13.0
a,
35,000
_
_ _
__ _
11.4 3
30,000
9.8
00 M O
N M
It Ln
CO
1-4 a-1 N
N N N
N N
N
Year
Historic Demand
Probable Demand
-Conservation Demand
Figure 5.2 — Time Delay in Probable Demand vs. Conservation Demand
To continue to achieve its water conservation goals, the City must continue to facilitate and
support cost effective measures that reduce residential and commercial water use year
round. Much of the water conservation achieved thus far can be attributed to the
implementation of a conservation rate structure, conservation education, and water
conservation ordinances.
Treated wastewater usage trends provide insights into the amount of indoor water
conservation that is occurring. Figure 5.3 reveals that the City has experienced a long
history of indoor water conservation, presumably due to more efficient residential and
commercial plumbing fixtures as well as reduced potable water usage in industrial
processes and commercial ventures such as restaurants.
Figure 5.3 shows that the wastewater gpcd decreased by 27% from 1995 to 2012 while the
population served increased by 22% over the same time period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl"Ub9oy Cfk
February 2013 5-3 rEzas
115
:$ 110
a
M
105
m
d
100
a
a
95
M
u
90
d
a
c 85
0
c7 80
75
Ln w r,, w m O a-1 N M c* to lD r` w M O rq N
M m M M M O O O O O O O O O O ri ri .-i
01 Ol Ot 01 Ol O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ri ri ri e-I e-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
Wastewater gpcd
Lubbock Population
Figure 5.3 — Per Capita Wastewater Usage Trend
240,000
230,000
220,000
c
0
r
210,000 3
a
0
a
200,000
190,000
180,000
Much of the indoor water savings has been driven by State of Texas legislative actions.
The State acknowledged the need for indoor water conservation in 1991 when the
legislature passed the Water Saving Performance Standards (Senate Bill 587), placing
stringent water -use standards on indoor plumbing equipment.4 Toilets sold in Texas prior
to January 1, 1992 used between 3.0 to 8.0 gallons per flush (gpf), whereas toilets installed
after January 1, 1992 were required to use 1.6 gpf or less.5 This legislation also set
standards for urinals (1.0 gpf), faucets (2.2 gallons per minute (gpm)), and showerheads
(2.5 gpm). The 2011 Region O Plan estimated that up to 18 gpcd could be saved by
replacing pre-1992 fixtures with the newer, more water efficient models.6 More recently,
the State has passed House Bill 2667 which takes effect in 2014. This bill raises the
standards by requiring that toilets sold in Texas must be high -efficiency toilets (HET) that
use 1.28 gpf or less.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) completed a study in 1999 that
examined residential indoor water usage. Figure 5.4 shows the breakdown of an average
household's indoor water usage based on their findings. As the figure shows, the main
water using fixtures are toilets, washing machines, and showerheads.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tIt-Obb'OCk
February 2013 5-4 ,rya:
1999 AWWA study
Shower
16.8%
Toilet
26.7%
Other
2.2%
Leak
Y-
Bath
13.7
1.7%
Clothes
Faucet
Washer
15.7%
21.7
Dishwasher
1.4%
Figure 5.4 — Average Household Indoor Water Usage?
5.3 Current Conservation Rate Structure
Prior to 1991, the City used a decreasing water block rate. This meant that the cost of
water per 1,000 gallons decreased as a customer used more. In 1991, the City changed the
decreasing block rate to a uniform rate where the customer paid the same rate regardless of
the volume used. In 2007, the City implemented an increasing block, or conservation, rate
structure. The current structure encourages customers to use their water more efficiently
by charging higher rates for the higher volumes of water used. See Table 5.1 for
Lubbock's volume block rates as of December 2012. Additional details regarding
Lubbock's current and historic water rates are located in Appendix C-1.
Table 5.1— Lubbock's Current Volume Rates
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Monthly Rates per 1,000
$4.00
$5.46
$6.55
Gallons
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 5-5 tl'u`�*bgo"�fk
Figure 5.5 compares the City's water rates to those of 16 other major Texas cities with
populations over 150,000 during January 2012 (see Appendix C-2). The monthly water
bills used in this comparison include the base charge, volume charges, and water supply
fees (if applicable). The following cities were used in the comparison:
Amarillo
Arlington
Austin
Brownsville
Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Garland
Grand Prairie
Houston
Irving
Laredo
Pasadena
Plano
San Antonio
Figure 5.5 — 2012 Residential Water Bill Comparison for Major Texas Cities
(rates shown for 5/8" and/or 3/4" meters)
The City of Lubbock's rate structure attempts to optimize three competing goals that all
water systems must seek to balance. These goals are revenue stability, water conservation,
and affordability.
• Revenue stability is strengthened by covering a portion of the City's
debt through the base rate.
• Water conservation is facilitated through an increasing volume block
rate structure.
• Affordability is addressed by seeking to set base charges and Block 1
volume rates at reasonable levels.
Strategic Water Supply Plan (1'u4l'
Vtoy
February 2013 5-6
Overall, Lubbock's water rates have encouraged customers to conserve and use
water more efficiently under normal weather conditions. During drought
conditions, additional conservation measures may be necessary.
5.4 Unaccounted for Water Loss
One important method of conserving water is to reduce the amount of unaccounted for
water lost from the system. The City's water system's historic unaccounted for water as a
percent of the total water used in the system is depicted in Figure 5.6. The figure includes
AWWA's 2007 Distribution System Water Loss benchmark for water purveyors in the
South region of the United States. Over half of the purveyors achieve 8.9% or lower water
loss in this region. The top 25% achieves 3.8% or lower. The bottom 25% achieves
14.1 % or lower.8
Figure 5.6 — City of Lubbock Water Loss History
The City's goal is to keep water losses below 10% for its delivery system.9 As depicted in
Figure 5.3, the City has been successful in meeting this goal. In 2011, water losses were at
9%. The City seeks to continually improve this measure by implementing effective meter
change out, construction meter control, and water main repair and replacement programs.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l'
Vtoy
February 2013 5-7 TEtAf
Water Main Replacement Program
This program attempts to manage the replacement of old water lines that are prone to leaks
and breaks. In the past 5 years, the City has spent more than $20 million on the
replacement of aging pipelines and valves, including the 341h Street and Downtown
Waterline Replacement projects. The City routinely monitors the water system for leaks.
The goal is to repair detected and/or reported leaks in a timely manner.
Meter Change -out Program
The City uses a random sampling technique to test meter accuracy and to determine when
meters need to be repaired or replaced. The City randomly samples approximately 400
water meters each year. Depending on the results of this sample, additional sampling may
be done to target meters of a certain age or meters located within a certain geographical
portion of the City. Meters found to have an accuracy of less than +/- 4% are either
repaired or replaced as appropriate.
Fire Hydrant - Construction Meter Program
This program attempts to meter water used from fire hydrants by construction contractors
and City departments. Contractors lease the fire hydrant meters and are billed at the Block
2 rate for water used. Any City department using water from a fire hydrant must also use a
fire hydrant meter.
Public education is a crucial component of the City's water conservation efforts.
To make wise water -use decisions, customers must be equipped with accurate
information and knowledge about how they can help. The goal of the Water
Conservation Education Team (WCET) is to raise awareness and disseminate
information about water conservation issues in the City. The WCET focuses on
reaching people through public school programs, community outreach events, and
irrigation consultations.
Figure 5.7 shows how the City's water conservation effort has shifted over the last
eight years from public school lessons to TCEQ mandated irrigation inspections.
This shift was necessary due to limited financial resources. Moreover, properly
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l'Vow�fkFebruary 2013 5-8
operating irrigation systems can significantly reduce the amount of water wasted
each year.
Figure 5.7 — Water Conservation Education Outreach
Public -School Programs
The City started the WCET in 1996 to coordinate and implement educational programs
that allow students (kindergarten through 12th grade) to explore the science of water and
become familiar with water stewardship concepts. The program is free of charge and
consists of nineteen interactive presentations (see Appendix C-3). Teachers can either
request that the City's educator give the presentation, or teachers can use the lesson plans
that are available on-line (http://water.ci.lubbock.tx.us/education/allEdu.aspx).
The public school program reached its peak during the 2003-2004 school year. At that
time, the WCET included three educators who gave 1,313 classrooms presentations
reaching approximately 26,260 students. During the 2011-2012 school year, the program
was much smaller with one educator on staff who taught or provided material for 165
lessons.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4"bVock
February 2013 5-9 ��:
Annual Home c& Garden Show
The WCET has participated in the annual West Texas Home Builder's Home and Garden
Show since 2001. Each year 6,000-8,000 citizens attend. The WCET is present to provide
information, answer questions, make presentations, and support the community -wide water
conservation effort through home and landscape design.
SmartScape Promotion Programs
The WCET works with the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce's water conservation council
and Lubbock Master Gardeners to promote Texas SmartScape. The SmartScape program
encourages the use of native, water -efficient landscaping. The Texas SmartScape website
(www.txsmartscape.com) provides detailed information about designing a water -efficient
landscape with a list of over 200 water -efficient plants for the West Texas region. It also
provides landscape design tools that help citizens create blueprints for new landscape
plans.
Demonstration Gardens and Homes
The WCET works with local sponsors and businesses to develop demonstration gardens,
model landscaping, and homes featuring Texas SmartScape materials. Many of the homes
are included in the annual West Texas Home Builder's Parade of Homes, which are on
display for citizens to tour for a two week period. As many as 10,000 citizens attend
annually.
Local Water Conservation Conferences
The WCET participates in annual conferences sponsored by organizations that promote
water conservation and provide a forum for the public to participate and learn about energy
and water efficient home practices and technologies, water -efficient landscapes, and earth -
kind practices.
Irrigation Consultations
The City's irrigation inspectors routinely conduct one-on-one consultations with customers
on the proper use of their sprinkler systems. These consultations typically become
necessary while performing inspections on irrigation systems. The inspectors assist
homeowners and businesses in optimizing their sprinkler system by determining proper
"cycle and soak" run times. When requested, they reset customer controllers to optimal
settings.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ti'u'196"�fjSFebruary 2013 5-10
i i.
The City Council has adopted ordinances that encourage customers to avoid wasting water.
These ordinances include:
A Water Rate Ordinance (Sec. 22.03.081 - 22.03.097) that defines the City's
conservation block rate structure where higher rates apply to higher volumes of
water consumed.
A Waste of Water Ordinance (Sec. 22.03.131 — 22.03.134) that outlines water use
standards for outdoor landscapes. These standards identify the times of day that
sprinklers can be used (between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. from April to
September), as well as recognizing that the City may, at times, enact watering
schedules, limiting the number of times customers can water their landscape during
a given day or week.
A Water Use Management Plan (Sec. 22.08.001 — 22.08.103) that promotes water
conservation by providing an implementation plan for annual water conservation
and drought contingency measures.
Numerous conservation strategies across the United States are used by municipalities in an
effort to reduce their annual water demand and peak summer usage. Conservation
strategies are categorized as mandatory or voluntary measures. Research has found that
mandatory conservation measures tend to result in greater water savings.10 Both
mandatory and voluntary measures can cost a municipality a substantial amount of money
to track and/or enforce. The following potential conservation strategies provide a variety
of ways to reduce water usage.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf--*bV6` �fS
February 2013 5-11
More Stringent Seasonal Water Restrictions Strategy
A large percentage of Lubbock's water is used for seasonal irrigation. Lubbock is situated
in a semi -arid region that requires more water per capita for landscape irrigation than in
many other parts of Texas. Evidence of landscape irrigation demand is apparent when
comparing Lubbock's average summer (April through September) water usage of 177 gpcd
to the average winter (October through April) water usage of 128 gpcd. This means that
approximately 48 gpcd is used during the summer (the difference between average summer
and average winter usages) on outdoor landscape irrigation, swimming pools, etc. This
totals approximately 34 ac-ft/day. Implementing increased seasonal water restrictions
would help reduce the City's non -essential seasonal water usage by limiting the amount of
water applied to outdoor landscapes and by limiting the number of days each household
can water.
Program Details — Implement a year round outdoor water use restriction that limits
each facility to watering landscape with irrigation systems to two days per week on
specified days. The suggested landscape application should be less than 1.5 inches
per week. For detailed calculations on this strategy, see Appendix C-4.
Water Conserved — It is estimated that this program will reduce seasonal water
usage by 15%. This equates to a reduction in water usage of 916 ac-ft/yr.
Program Costs — The cost associated with this strategy includes staff time for
amending the current water conservation ordinance and enforcement of the
ordinance. The City already has code enforcement officers that check for
compliance with water use and conservation ordinances.
Revenue Impact - If 916 ac-ft are conserved each year due to this strategy
(assuming that 75% of the water conserved is from Block 2 and 25% is from Block
3), the City will experience a reduction in revenue of $1,710,781 each year.
Increase Water Volume Rates Strategy
Under Lubbock's current water rate structure, Block 1 usage represents a household's base
or essential water needs, while Block 2 and Block 3 account for a household's seasonal or
non -essential water usage. Increasing Block 2 and Block 3 water rates encourages
customers to reduce their seasonal or non -essential water usage.
L196"�fa
Strategic Water Supply Plan February 2013 5-12
Strategy Details — Increase Block 2 and Block 3 rates by 10% each. Currently, the
Block 2 rate is $5.46 per 1,000 gallons and the Block 3 rate is $6.55 per 1,000
gallons. This strategy would result in increases of $0.55 and $0.66 per 1,000
gallons, respectively. For detailed calculations on this strategy, see Appendix C-5.
Water Conserved — A 2008 water rate study by the National Bureau of Economic
Research revealed that a 10% increase in water rates can result in a 3% to 6%
reduction in water demand.11 Applying a 3% reduction to Lubbock's 5-year
average annual water demand (37,375 ac-ft/yr) results in savings of 329 ac-ft
annually.
Program Costs — This strategy would not cost additional funds for the City to
implement and administer. Using volume rates to promote water conservation does
not require the City to make an investment of time or capital to enforce water
usage.
Revenue Impact —The City will lose revenue on the 329 ac-ft/yr of water that will
be conserved. This loss will be offset by the additional revenue that the City will
earn due to the rate increase from the volume of water that continues to be used
from Blocks 2 and 3 (-10,955 ac-ft/yr). Overall, the City could experience a net
gain in revenue of $1,309,967 per year. Rate changes must be made incrementally
and cautiously to make sure that revenue stability is not disrupted due to dramatic
decreases in water use.
Indoor Water Fixtures Replacement Strategy
This strategy consists of improving water use efficiency by providing rebate incentives for
residential, commercial, and institutional facilities for the replacement of fixtures such as
toilets, washing machines, and showerheads. Potential programs are discussed below.
Toilet Replacement Rebate for Schools and Universities
Program Details — $90 rebate to replace old toilets with new high -efficiency toilets
in public schools and university dorms. For detailed calculations on this strategy,
see Appendix C-6.
Water Conserved — Many of the local schools and dorms have toilets pre -dating
1992 which use between 3.0 and 5.0 gallons per flush (gpf). New toilets use 1.6
gpf. The estimated annual water conserved with this program is 283 ac-ft/yr.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u1__*bV6w k
February 2013 5-13 ,�$�g
Program Costs — This strategy would cost the City approximately $402,030 to
administer.
Revenue Impact — This strategy would reduce revenue each year by approximately
$368,797, assuming the water conserved is from Block 1 usage.
Washing Machine Rebate
Program Details — The City would offer $300 rebates to replace old commercial
washing machines with new high -efficiency machines, and $150 rebates to replace
old residential washing machines in apartment complexes and university dorms
with new high -efficiency residential machines. For detailed calculations on this
strategy, see Appendix C-7.
Water Savings — A case study by Western Resource Advocates found that
conversion from an older commercial washer to a newer high -efficiency
commercial machine saves approximately 37,800 gallons a year.12 Estimated water
savings for Lubbock commercial washers are 76.6 ac-ft/yr. Replacing older
residential washers with new high -efficiency residential machines saves
approximately 8,500 gallons a year per machine.13 However, a typical residential
machine only serves 2-5 people whereas apartment complex / university dorm
washing machines serve 8-10 people. Therefore, estimated water savings are
higher for these washing machines because they are being used more frequently.
Estimated water savings for these fixture replacements are 81.5 ac-ft/yr. Total
water conserved for the washing machine program is 158.1 ac-ft/yr.
Program Costs — The total program cost is estimated to be $463,650.
Revenue Impact — This strategy would reduce revenue each year by approximately
$206,052, assuming that the water conserved is from Block 1 usage.
Residential Showerhead Rebate
Program Details —The City would offer $10 rebates for showerheads to each
residential Lubbock Water Utility customer. For detailed calculations on this
strategy, see Appendix C-8.
Water Savings — The 1992 Water Saving Performance Standards require that all
showerheads meet 2.5 gpm flow rates. It is estimated that an average household in
Lubbock (3.35 people) can save 5,500 gallons per year by switching to these low -
Strategic Water Supply Plan �;tyoe
February 2013 5-14 t1'u'r_'*bUOCk
flow showerheads. With 10% customer participation, Lubbock could save 116 ac-
ft/yr with this program.
Program Costs — With 10% customer participation, this strategy would cost the
City $68,530.
Revenue Impact — This strategy would reduce revenue each year by approximately
$150,880, assuming that the water conserved is from Block 1 usage.
Landscape Rebate Strategy
As discussed above, a large percentage of the City's water during the summer months is
used to maintain residential and commercial landscaping. Landscape rebates are a
voluntary conservation measure with a goal of reducing seasonal water usage.
Program Details —Offer a $0.25 rebate per every 1 ft2 of traditional grass lawn that
is removed and replaced with trees and SmartScape or Xeriscape. For detailed
calculations on this strategy, see Appendix C-9.
Water Savings — Over the last five years, Lubbock's residential water customers
have used an average of 3,741 gallons of water per month per connection during
the growing season (May through September). It is estimated that if a property
installs SmartScape or Xeriscape, the residence's seasonal water usage could be
reduced by 50%.14 Assuming that 10% of residential customers decide to use this
rebate program, it is estimated that this program will reduce the City's water usage
by 106 ac-ft/yr.
Program Costs — This strategy would cost the City approximately $770,951 in
rebates if 10% of residential customers participate in this rebate program.
Revenue Impact — The annual reduction in revenue created by this strategy is
estimated at $198,613, assuming that 75% of the water conserved is from Block 2
and 25% is from Block 3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u-f__*bV6'Y�fS
February 2013 5-15
Public Education and Awareness Strategy
The aim of public education and awareness is to change water -wasting behaviors. This can
often be hard to quantify and measure, but educating the public does help create behavioral
changes in the way water is used. Consider the following examples:
• A Lubbock homeowner that irrigates a 1/4-acre lawn uses approximately 540 —
810 gallons per cycle or watering interval (12-18 gpm x 15 minutes x 3 zones).
If this homeowner irrigates twice a week for 6 months (April -September), he
uses 25,920 — 38,880 gallons per year. By manually initiating each cycle when
needed by the landscape (rather than turning the system to automatic), a
household can save approximately 50% of their outdoor usage.15 In this
example, this homeowner could save 12,960 — 19,440 gallons of water per year.
• On average, the residential faucet runs 8.1 minutes per person per day.16 In
Lubbock, that adds up to 4,090,990 gallons a day. If every person engaged in
water -saving behavior that resulted in a one minute decrease in faucet -use per
day (i.e. by turning the faucet off while brushing teeth or shaving, etc.), the City
could save over 500 ac-ft/yr.
• The average household does approximately 1 load of laundry each day.17 If
every household reduced clothes washing from 7 times a week to just 6 times a
week (this can be accomplished by washing larger loads of clothes at one time),
the City could save approximately 435 ac-ft/yr.
Increased public awareness can be achieved through education and advertising. As
discussed in Section 5.5, Lubbock currently has an education program that reaches all ages
of people through public -school programs, community out -reach programs, and irrigation
consultations. Additionally, as in 2003-2010 when the Water Department had a successful
series of radio and television campaigns, the City may choose to advertise through local
media outlets to bring attention to important regional water issues.
Strategies to Reduce Unaccounted-for Water
The City will continue to look for ways to decrease its water losses. Leak detection
programs and audits will be helpful. At a minimum, the City will conduct a water audit
using the methodology outlined by the TWDB every five years in accordance with current
TWDB rules. Water audits may be conducted on a more frequent basis if the City deems
that action to be appropriate. The City has allocated approximately $1 million per year
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u1__*bV4Ck
February 2013 5-16 T���
over the next 5 years to the replacement of aging water lines that are prone to breaks and
leaks.
Summary of Conservation Strategies
Table 5.2 provides a summary of some of the conservation strategies discussed in this
section. The table compares the amount of water that could potentially be saved each year,
the estimated cost to implement the programs, and the potential impact to the City's
revenues. The More Stringent Seasonal Water Restrictions strategy appears to conserve
the most water annually.
Table 5.2 — Summary of Conservation Strategies
Strategy
Water Saved
Cost to
Implement
Change in
(ac-ft/yr)
Program
Annual Revenue
More Stringent Seasonal
916
$0
-$1,710,781
Water Restrictions
Increase Non -Essential Water
329
$0
$1,309,967
Volume Rates
Public School and University
283
$402,030
-$308,797
Toilet Replacement
Commercial, Apartment,
& Dorm Washing
158
$463,650
-$206,052
Machine Replacement
Residential Showerhead
116
$68,529
-$,150,880
Replacement
Landscape Rebate
106
$770,951
-$198,613
TOTAL
1,907
$1,705,160
-$1,325,156
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf--*b9oCk
February 2013 5-17 ,€,�,
1 City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances; Water Use Management Plan. Article 22.08.034.
2 Texas Administrative Code. Title 30; Part 1; Chapter 288; Subchapter A; Rule 288.2;
section (a); subsection (1) (C).
3 Texas Water Development Board Special Report: Report to the 79th Legislature. Water
Conservation Implementation Task Force. Austin, TX. 2004: 31-33.
4 State of Texas Health and Safety Code; Water Saving Performance Standards. Section
372.002.
5 Waskom, R. and M. Neibauer. "Water Conservation In and Around the Home."
Colorado State University; Consumer Series, Housing: Fact Sheet No. 9.952.
2010: 1.
6 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-108.
7 Mayer, P.W., W.B. DeOreo, E.M. Opitz, J.C. Kiefer, W.Y. Davis, B. Dziegielewski,
and J.O. Nelson. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation
and American Water Works Association. 1999: ES 6.
8 Benchmarking — Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater Utilities: 2007
Annual Survey Data and Analyses Report. American Water Works Association.
2007: 6.
9 City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances; Water Use Management Plan. Article 22.08.034.
to Renwick, M.E. and R.D. Green. Do Residential Water Demand Side management
Policies Measure Up? An Analysis of Eight California Water Agencies. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management. 2000: (40) 51.
11 Olmstead, S. M. and R.N. Stavins. Comparing Price and Non -Price Approaches to
Urban Water Conservation. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working
Paper Series. 2008: 8.
12 Hem, T., T. Hutchins-Cabibi, B. Miller, and N. Theerasatiankul. Smart Savings Water
Conservation: Measures that Make ¢ents. Western Resource Advocates. 2008: ES
4.
13 Hem, T., T. Hutchins-Cabibi, B. Miller, and N. Theerasatiankul. Smart Savings Water
Conservation: Measures that Make ¢ents. Western Resource Advocates. 2008: ES
4.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'�'*Wow�fkFebruary 2013 5-18
14 Hurd, Brian H. Water Conservation and Residential Landscapes: Household
Preferences, Household Choices. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
2006: vol 31(2), 175.
15 Mayer, P.W. , W.B. DeOreo, E.M. Opitz, J.C. Kiefer, W.Y. Davis, B. Dziegielewski,
and J.O. Nelson. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation
and American Water Works Association. 1999: ES 16.
16 Mayer, P.W. , W.B. DeOreo, E.M. Opitz, J.C. Kiefer, W.Y. Davis, B. Dziegielewski,
and J.O. Nelson. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation
and American Water Works Association. 1999: ES 8.
17 Mayer, P.W. , W.B. DeOreo, E.M. Opitz, J.C. Kiefer, W.Y. Davis, B. Dziegielewski,
and J.O. Nelson. Residential End Uses of Water. AWWA Research Foundation
and American Water Works Association. 1999: ES 7.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'90Ck
February 2013 5-19 ,��,
The use of reclaimed water (treated wastewater or effluent) is considered an important
water supply strategy in the 2012 State Water Plan.' The State Water Plan predicts that by
2060, reclaimed water will represent over 10% of the water produced by all water
strategies in Texas. Since Lubbock must import its potable water from such long
distances, reusing water makes economical and practical sense. Using reclaimed water can
reduce dependency on new water supplies. Various types of reclaimed water uses are
discussed in the following section.
Reclaimed water can be used for a variety of beneficial uses depending on the level of
wastewater treatment. This includes both non -potable and potable uses.
Non -Potable Reuse
Non -potable reuse is the process of conveying treated wastewater effluent to an end -user
for beneficial uses such as irrigation, manufacturing, or power generation. The effluent
may need to go through additional treatment by the end user depending on the final use of
the water. Reclaimed water used in this way can reduce demand on the City's potable
water supply, which is more expensive due to the costs to transport, treat, and deliver
potable water to customers. 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 210.32
identifies the following two types of non -potable reclaimed water uses.
Type I Reclaimed Water is defined as using reclaimed water where contact
between humans and the water is likely. Examples of this type of use
include landscape irrigation, public golf course irrigation, fire protection,
and toilet or urinal flushing.
Type II Reclaimed Water is defined as using reclaimed water where contact
between humans and the water is unlikely. Examples of this type of use
include dust control, cooling tower applications, irrigation of food crops
where the reclaimed water is not expected to come in direct contact with the
edible part of the crop, and maintenance of impoundments or natural water
bodies where direct human contact is not likely.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'b'oCk
February 2013 6-1 ,loss
In order for the City to reuse Type I and II reclaimed water, it must maintain an
authorization from the TCEQ pursuant to 30 TAC Chapter 210 (commonly referred
to as a "210 Authorization"). The City is preparing to file an "Application for
Authorization to Use Domestic Reclaimed Water" with the TCEQ expanding the
potential non -potable reuses of its treated wastewater.
The City has not deployed a widespread reclaimed water distribution system since
most potential users have opted to use more economical local groundwater
supplies. Currently the City's non -potable reuse customers include two private
cotton farming operations and the Xcel (Southwestern Public Service) Jones Power
Plant.
Private Cotton Farming Operations — In May 2012, the City entered
into new contracts with two cotton farmers to supply them Type II
reclaimed water under the current 210 Authorization from the TCEQ.
The City is not obligated to provide a specific amount of water to the
farmers. The contracts expire in 2015.
Xcel Energy — Jones Power Plant - In May 1968, the City entered
into a contract with Southwestern Public Service (now Xcel Energy)
to supply up to 7.7 mgd of reclaimed water to the Jones Power Plant
located a few miles southeast of the City's water reclamation plant.
The contract was amended in 1992 to send a total of 7.0 mgd. Then,
in July 2009, the City amended the contract again to supply up to 9.0
mgd to the Jones Power Plant until 2045.2 Jones Power Plant
typically uses less than 5.0 mgd throughout the year.
Indirect Reuse
Indirect reuse is the process of discharging treated effluent into the "bed and banks
of a river" allowing it to flow downstream to a point where it is captured and
pumped back into the raw water supply for treatment to potable standards. Water
that is discharged into a river basin for conveyance downstream requires a permit
from the TCEQ before it can be re -diverted. Several of the City's potential water
supply strategies utilize this process.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt'�bbOClZ
February 2013 6-2 ,�A:
Direct Potable Reuse
Direct potable reuse is the process of transporting treated wastewater through a pipeline
back to the raw water supply used for potable purposes. The wastewater will go through
additional advanced treatment barriers before being injected back into the raw water
supply. The primary concerns associated with the use of reclaimed water to supplement
the water supply include regulatory limitations and public perception. Particular
challenges to public acceptance of reuse projects include: perceptions of health risks, the
source of recycled water, the issue of choice and options, trust and knowledge, and the cost
of recycled water. A successful project will need to address these public acceptance issues.
Direct potable reuse strategies are evaluated in Sections 6.5 and 6.6.
6.2 Existing Reclaimed Water Infrastructure
Over the past decade, specific improvements have been undertaken by the City to improve
the quality of effluent produced at the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) so it
can be discharged into the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River
(North Fork). The SEWRP currently consists of two operating treatment facilities, Plants 3
and 4. Plant 1 was taken out of service and demolished. Currently, Plant 2 is not being
used to treat wastewater. Plants 3 and 4 are connected at the headworks of the SEWRP,
but function independently until the plants discharge into two effluent pumping stations
(EPS-1 and EPS-2). Recent Plant 4 modifications completed in 2012 include a conversion
of the conventional activated sludge process with aeration basins to biological nutrient
removal (BNR) utilizing an Integrated Fixed -film Activated Sludge (IFAS) process.
Effluent from the two plants are filtered through new cloth media units and disinfected
with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system prior to discharge or disposal.
Digester and sludge handling improvements are underway. These improvements will also
improve the quality of the effluent. In order for all of the City's effluent to meet stream
discharge requirements, Plant 3 will need to be upgraded in a similar manner as Plant 4 has
been. The design of Plant 3 improvements is scheduled to begin in 2017. Improvements
are estimated to be completed by 2021. By increasing the quality of the effluent, the City
achieves greater flexibility in how it can beneficially reuse its reclaimed water. The
existing SEWRP layout is depicted in Figure 6.1.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uJI'Vow
February 2013 6-3 �fS
Figure 6.1— Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) Layout
Strategic Water Supply Plan fl'u%'96"�fk
February 2013 6-4
The current location of the effluent pipeline with its associated capacity is important in the
evaluation of potential reuse strategies. Some reuse strategies may require modifications
to the treatment and discharge facilities. Figure 6.2 shows a schematic of the existing
reclaimed water effluent pipeline configuration.
Outfall 007 Southeast Water
Petniitted: Reclamation Plant
14.5 mgd
Plant 4
Capacity:
18 mgd
Capacity: 18 mgd
EPS I
Capacity:
27 mgd
Capacity: 9 mgd
A
;North Fork
Double Mt. fork
Brazos River
Outfall 001
Outfall 004
Xcel Jones Plant
T
Capacity: 9 mgd
Figure 6.2 — Wastewater Effluent Pipeline System Schematic
The permitted outfalls are labeled on the map. Only two of the currently permitted outfalls
allow discharges into the North Fork. Outfall 001 is located at the intersection of FM 400
and the North Fork. Outfall 007 is located next to the SEWRP at the North Fork.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u'tVo�f%k
February 2013 6-5
Reclaimed water volume projections are necessary to determine when associated water
supply strategies will become viable options. Volume projections are developed by
multiplying estimated population by the estimated per capita wastewater effluent usage
each year.
Population
Population projections were calculated using the City's population and growth rates
discussed in Section 2.1. However, the populations of the four communities that receive
potable water from the City were not included in these projections since they operate their
own wastewater collection and treatment systems. The Probable Growth scenario is used
(as described in Section 2.1) to develop the reclaimed water projections.
Per Capita Wastewater Usage
The City has experienced an average decrease of 1.2% per year in its per capita wastewater
usage since 1995. Due to conservation and reuse, most large cities in Texas are continuing
to experience decreasing per capita wastewater flows. Therefore, Lubbock's future per
capita wastewater usage was determined by using 2012's per capita usage of 80 gpcd as a
baseline and reducing the gpcd for 100 years until it reaches 65 gpcd. The City's
wastewater flows have dropped as low as 65 gpcd during some months of the year. This
usage projection is used in determining the reclaimed water demand projections.
Gross Reclaimed Water Demand
Lubbock's annual Reclaimed Water Demand (RWD) projections consist of a scenario
which was developed using the Probable Growth scenario and the per capita wastewater
usage described in the preceding paragraphs.
Probable RWD (Probable Growth x Per Capita Wastewater Usage) — This
scenario is the most likely projection since it includes probable population
growth projections.
A comparison of this Plan's RWD projections to the City's 2009 Wastewater Master Plana
and the 2012 Canyon Lakes Water Reuse Preliminary Engineering Report4 is depicted in
Figure 6.3 (see Appendix D-1).
Strategic Water Supply Plan cif" f
February 2013 6-6 tl'u4b'bock
Figure 6.3 — Reclaimed Water Demand Projections
Note that the City's 2009 Wastewater Master Plan and the 2012 Canyon Lakes Water
Reuse Report only project wastewater demands to 2060. The Probable Demand scenario
projects that the following total volume of reclaimed water will be available for reuse in
the designated years:
• 19 mgd (21,151 ac-ft/yr) by the year 2013
• 21 mgd (23,872 ac-ft/yr) by the year 2025
• 27 mgd (30,084 ac-ft/yr) by the year 2063
• 30 mgd ( 33,379 ac-ft/yr) by the year 2113
Net Reclaimed Water Availability
Electric generation and land application commitments must be subtracted from the total
RWD in order to determine how much reclaimed water will be available for potable water
supply strategies. Therefore, the following assumptions have been made.
Electric Power Generation — It is anticipated that existing electric power
generation demand for reclaimed water will be approximately 9 mgd until
2019. In 2019, additional electric power generation capacity may be added
in the Lubbock region. For natural gas power plants, it is estimated that 1
mgd will be required for each 100 megawatts (mw) of power generated.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlh' Vtoy
ClZ
February 2013 6-7 ,e«+s
The following estimated power generation will require reclaimed water by
2019:
Xcel's Jones Power Plant
LP&L Cooke Power Plant
700 mw 9 mgd
200 mw 2 mgd
New Natural Gas Power Plant 500 mw 5 mad
Total 1,400 mw 16 mgd
It is anticipated that in 2045 (Xcel's Jones Power Plant contract expiration),
the Xcel contract will be renegotiated to match more closely the actual
reclaimed water that is needed for electric power generation. Therefore, the
total electric power commitment drops by 2 mgd in 2045. Within the next
50 years, improvements in technology should reduce the amount of water
needed for power generation. Consequently, in 2063 (50 years), the
allocation of reused water for power production will reduce by roughly one-
third, from 14 mgd to 9 mgd.
Land Application Operations — It is anticipated that it will take a minimum
of 4 mgd of effluent to keep Lubbock Land Application Site (LLAS) and 4
mgd of effluent to keep the Hancock Land Application Site (HLAS)
operational. Projections assume that by 2019, the LLAS will be reduced in
its size and the HLAS site will be decommissioned. Therefore, the
combined reclaimed water commitment to the land application sites will
drop from 8 mgd in 2013 to 2 mgd in 2019.
Figure 6.4 depicts the projected net reclaimed water that will be available for water supply
projects. In addition, it depicts the water reserved for electric power generation and land
application operations. Appendix D-2 includes a table of available net reclaimed water
projections.
Strategic Water Supply Plan c; yo
February 2013 6-8 tl'uf-*bbock
__
39,200
25
28,000
E
i
i
E 20
22,400 Qj
0
> 15
3
16,800 0
3 10
11,200
3
5
5,600
0
0
rn m m m
14 N m 10
cn m m
Ln W r,
m
oo
M m m
M 0 .-+
0 0 0 0
N N N N
0 0 0
N N N
0
N
0 .-i .-4
N N N
Year
M Probable Net Effluent
■ Land Application Sites
■ Electric Power Generation
Figure 6.4 — Net Reclaimed Water Availability
In the following sections, six water supply strategies are presented that rely upon the net
reclaimed water available during a given year. Both direct and indirect reuse strategies are
discussed. Without the availability of reclaimed water, these strategies are not viable
options. Each of the strategies utilizes the same reclaimed water source. As a result, if one
of the strategies is implemented, it may necessitate the elimination or downsizing of other
strategies using the same reclaimed water source.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ulWo"'�fAFebruary 2013 6-9
The North Fork Diversion at County Road (CR) 7300 Strategy is considered an indirect
reuse strategy. The City of Lubbock is permitted to discharge 9 mgd of treated effluent at
Outfall 001 located at the intersection of Farm -to -Market Road (FM) 400 and the North
Fork (see Figure 6.2). With this strategy, the City will construct a diversion facility 2.7
river miles downstream from Outfall 001 to recapture the discharged effluent. After
capture, the water (reclaimed effluent commingled with actual flows) will be pumped
through the transmission line to the SWTP. An expansion of the SWTP and a new
transmission pipeline between Pump Station (PS) #14 and the Low Head B by-pass line
will be necessary to make this strategy viable.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Design flows associated with the intake, pump station, and transmission pipeline
estimated at 5% downtime;
• A new intake structure and a 1,136 horsepower (hp) pump station at the CR 7300
crossing to divert the City's water from the North Fork;
• An 8-mile, 24-in transmission pipeline to deliver the water to the SWTP;
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline to connect PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line that feeds PS #7 (see Figure 4.12); and
• An expansion of the SWTP capacity and the associated high service pump station
by 9 mgd.
Figure 6.5 depicts the relative locations of the CR 7300 infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'uf__.*bV��fkFebruary 2013 6-10
Figure 6.5 — North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 Map
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy is estimated to provide a peak capacity of 9 mgd and an average capacity of
10,089 ac-ft/yr of reclaimed water for treatment at the SWTP. Carriage losses within the
2.7 miles of stream bed of the North Fork are considered negligible. A similar strategy in
the 2011 Region O Plan5 assumes that the City will discharge as much as 16,444 ac-ft/yr in
2060 from Outfall 001. However, current estimates of the net available reclaimed water
for this strategy are less than was estimated in the 2011 Region O Plan.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt-bUOCk
February 2013 6-11 ui�s
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.1. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Existing infrastructure will be used for transmission of treated water from the
SWTP into the City's water distribution system;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 are not included with the transmission
pipeline costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kilowatt-hour (kwh);
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1% return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'_Ub. 9toy fj
February 2013 6-12 ,F:
Table o..t —tvortn cork JJiversion at uoun Koacl "/mu costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Intake and Pump Station (9.5 mgd) $9,644,000
Transmission Pipeline
24-in dia., 8 miles (raw water to line to SWTP) $4,759,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS #14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
SWTP Expansion (9 mgd) $16,522,000
Total Capital Cost $37,633,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $12,598,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $201,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (37 acres) $278,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $3,550,000
Total Project Cost $54,260,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $4,540,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $356,000
SWTP $1,419,000
Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $635,000
Total Annual Cost $6,950,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 10,089
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $689
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $2.11
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l'Vo"'�fk
February 2013 6-13
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $54,260,000. Annual debt service is
$4,540,000; and, annual operational cost, including power, is $2,410,000. This results in a
total annual cost of $6,950,000. The unit cost for 9 mgd or 10,089 ac-ft/yr supply of water
is estimated to be $689 per ac-ft, or $2.11 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The primary environmental issue related to this strategy includes the construction of the
diversion facilities. Therefore, there will be a potential impact on animal habitats which
must be mitigated. Studies will be necessary to determine the actual impact to cultural
resources, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species. However, the construction of
the diversion facilities should have a low to moderate impact relative to most of these
concerns.
Permitting Issues
The City started discharging at Outfall 001 in May 2003 pursuant to Texas Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 10353-002. Outfall 001 is permitted
to discharge a maximum of 9.0 mgd (10,089 ac-ft/yr). In April 2004, the City filed an
amendment to Water Use Permit 3985 with the TCEQ. The amendments approval was
delayed due to a contested case hearing regarding ownership of developed water return
flows. The TCEQ ruled on the case and issued the City the Water Use Permit in December
2012. This permit authorizes the diversion of up to 10,089 ac-ft annually (minus 0.47%
carriage losses) at the CR 7300 facility. Additional permitting will be required to construct
the proposed diversion facility.
Other Issues
Property will need to be acquired at the proposed diversion location. In addition, pipeline
utility easements will be necessary to construct a raw water transmission line to the SWTP.
Strategic Water Supply PlanUbblOCk
February 2013 6-14 ,FAA:
4" I 1 . l ' 1
This strategy includes advanced treatment with multiple barriers before transporting and
discharging up to 9 mgd of reclaimed water into the raw water supply pipeline
immediately upstream of the NWTP. The project processes reclaimed water from the
SEWRP through advanced treatment (reverse osmosis (RO)) to create a water supply that
should be higher quality than the City's other raw water sources. The treated reclaimed
water will be pumped to the NWTP where it will be blended with other raw water from
CRMWA and undergo conventional treatment for distribution to customers. Human health
risks for direct potable reuse are equal or less than those of other water supply sources
when full advanced treatment is used (RO, advanced oxidation, and disinfection). These
processes are effective at removing identified emerging constituents of concern and other
contaminants, including pathogens, from treated wastewater.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• The NWTP has an existing capacity adequate to treat and distribute the additional 9
mgd of reclaimed water. Therefore, an expansion of the NWTP is not necessary;
• A 9 mgd advanced water treatment plant (RO) at the Lubbock SEWRP;
• A Dockum Aquifer well with 200 feet of additional piping to dispose of the RO
concentrate at the SEWRP; and
• A new 636 hp pump station at the SEWRP to deliver the treated reclaimed water to
the NWTP via a new 24-in, 6-mile transmission pipeline.
Figure 6.6 depicts the relative locations of the infrastructure needed for the Direct Potable
Reuse to NWTP strategy.
Strategic Water Supply Plan 1Y f
February 2013 6-15 tItlbock
Figure 6.6 — Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP Map
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy is designed to treat and deliver an average of 9 mgd (10,089 ac-ft/yr) of
treated reclaimed water to the NWTP each year.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'9O�f%k
February 2013 6-16
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.2. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Concentrate reject from the RO plant will be injected into the Dockum Aquifer;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1 % return on investments
over a 2-year period;
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate; and
• The project is assumed to have a 2-year construction period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan February 2013 6-17tl'uol'Voty�fk
Table 6.2 — Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Transmission Pipeline
24-in dia., 6 miles (SEWRP to NWTP) $5,163,000
Pump Station at SEWRP $4,266,000
Advanced Water Treatment at SEWRP (9 mgd, RO) $36,356,000
Dockum Aquifer Injection Well (RO Waste Disposal) $750,000
Total Capital Cost $46,535,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $16,029,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $0
Land Acquisition and Surveying (28 acres) $217,000
Interest During Construction (1 year) $4,395,000
Total Project Cost $67,176,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $5,621,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $166,000
Advanced Water Treatment Plant $2,384,000
Pumping Energy Costs (3,115,767 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh) $356,000
Purchase of Water (ac-ft/yr @ $/ac-ft) $0
Total Annual Cost $8,527,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 10,089
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $845
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $2.59
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uj'��Woty�fAFebruary 2013 6-18
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $67,176,000. Annual debt service is $5,621,000;
and annual operational cost, including power, is $2,906,000. This results in a total annual
cost of $8,527,000. The unit cost for 10,089 ac-ft/yr of supply at the NWTP is estimated to
be $845 per ac-ft, or $2.59 per 1,000 gallons. This cost does not include the distribution of
the potable water from the NWTP to potential customers.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
Since the RO treatment facilities are being constructed on property owned by Lubbock that
is currently being used for similar purposes, environmental issues should be minimal. The
transmission line corridor that will convey the reclaimed water should be selected to avoid
potentially sensitive areas.
Permittiny, Issues
The TCEQ is currently developing potable reuse guidance requirements to be applied to
proposed projects and to be used as the basis for reviewing permit applications. Treatment
requirements for any reclaimed water as a drinking water source may consider the
pretreatment program, influent wastewater quality, vulnerability assessment of the
collection system, results of effluent quality sampling/monitoring data, and wastewater
treatment process.
Monitoring is likely to include Cryptosporidium (or a surrogate organism), other regulated
contaminants, and may include contaminants on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Candidate Contaminate List (CCL), including Emerging Constituents of
Concern (ECCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).
Other Issues
Advanced treatment design considerations should include:
• multiple process barriers;
• redundancy and backup power sources;
• alternate storage or discharge locations to divert reclaimed water from the potable
distribution system during an acute episode; and
• real time monitoring and regular sampling to ensure process performance and avoid
any acute episode of pathogens in the reclaimed water.
Strategic Water Supply Plan c►ryof
February 2013 6-19 Lubbock
This strategy includes advanced treatment with multiple barriers before transporting and
discharging up to 9 mgd of reclaimed water into the raw water supply pipeline
immediately upstream of the SWTP. The project processes reclaimed water from the
SEWRP through advanced treatment (RO) to create a water supply that will be higher
quality than the City's other raw water sources. The treated reclaimed water will be
pumped to the SWTP and be blended with other raw water supplies and treated again prior
to being introduced into the distribution system. Human health risks for direct potable
reuse are equal or less than those of other water supply sources when full advanced
treatment is used (reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation, and disinfection). These processes
are effective for removing identified emerging constituents of concern and other
contaminants, including pathogens, from treated wastewater.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Property for the SEWRP expansion and SWTP expansion is owned by the City;
• A 9 mgd RO water treatment plant constructed at the SEWRP;
• A 1,900 ft. Dockum Aquifer injection well will be constructed to dispose of
concentrate reject water generated from the RO plant;
• A 0.45 mg ground storage tank and 500 hp pump station will be constructed at the
• A 7.5 mile, 24-inch diameter transmission pipeline to deliver RO water to the
SWTP.
• A 9 mgd expansion of the SWTP's treatment facilities; and
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline to connect PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line that feeds PS #7 (see Figure 4.12)
Figure 6.7 depicts the relative locations of the infrastructure needed for the Direct
Potable Reuse to SWTP strategy.
Strategic Water Supply Plan eRyoe
February 2013 6-20 Lubbock
Figure 6.7 — Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP Map
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy is designed to treat and deliver a peak amount of 9 mgd and an average
amount of 10,089 ac-ft/yr of treated effluent to the SWTP.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u%Voy
February 2013 6-21
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.3. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Concentrate reject from the RO plant will be injected into the Dockum Aquifer;
• Right-of-way for pipeline is estimated at $8,712/acre;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1% return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ujI�J�OCkFebruary 2013 6-22,��,:
Table 6.3 — Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Transmission Pipeline
24-in dia., 7.5 miles (from SEWRP to SWTP) $5,924,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS #14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
Transmission Pump Station(s) $2,760,000
Advanced Water Treatment at SEW" (9 mgd, RO) $36,356,000
SWTP Expansion (9 mgd) $16,522,000
Dockum Aquifer Injection Well (RO Waste Disposal) $750,000
Total Capital Cost $68,390,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $23,336,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $285,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (129 acres) $443,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $3,236,000
Total Project Cost $95,690,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $8,007,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $191,000
Water Treatment Plants $3,803,000
Pumping Energy Costs (3,115,767 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh) $280,000
Purchase of Water (ac-ft/yr @ $/ac-ft) $0
Total Annual Cost $12,281,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 10,089
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $1,217
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $3.74
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlubVowCk
February 2013 6-23 ►E„z
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $95,690,000. Annual debt service is $8,007,000;
and, annual operational cost, including power, is $4,274,000. This results in a total annual
cost of $12,281,000. The unit cost for a 10,089 ac-ft/yr peaking supply is estimated to be
$1,217 per ac-ft, or $3.74 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
Since the RO treatment facilities are being constructed on property owned by Lubbock that
is currently being used for similar purposes, environmental issues should be minimal. The
transmission line corridor that will convey the raw water to the SWTP should be designed
to avoid any potentially sensitive areas.
Permittin Issues
ssues
The TCEQ is currently developing potable reuse guidance requirements to be applied to
proposed projects and to be used as the basis for reviewing permit applications. Treatment
requirements for any reclaimed water as a drinking water source may consider the
pretreatment program, influent wastewater quality, vulnerability assessment of the
collection system, results of effluent quality sampling/monitoring data, and wastewater
treatment process.
Monitoring is likely to include Cryptosporidium (or a surrogate organism), other regulated
contaminants, and may include contaminants on the USEPA Candidate Contaminate List
(CCL), including Emerging Constituents of Concern (ECCs) and pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs).
Other Issues
Advanced treatment design considerations should include:
• multiple process barriers;
• redundancy and backup power sources;
• alternate storage or discharge locations to divert reclaimed water from the potable
distribution system during an acute episode; and
• real time monitoring and regular sampling to ensure process performance and avoid
any acute episode of pathogens in the reclaimed water.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'Vow�f%
February 2013 6-24
Another potential indirect reuse strategy includes the discharge of treated effluent into the
South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (South Fork) to increase the
firm yield of LAH.6 The City operates an existing pipeline that transports reclaimed water
from the SEWRP to the Hancock Land Application Site (HLAS) located north of the
community of Wilson, Texas. This strategy extends the existing reclaimed water pipeline
from the HLAS to a tributary on the South Fork enabling the City to discharge up to 9 mgd
of reclaimed water into the South Fork. The discharged water will flow downstream and
be stored in LAH. The additional water will be pumped to the SWTP via the LAH raw
water pipeline.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• A new 9 mgd pump station at the HLAS;
• An 18-mile, 24-in transmission pipeline to discharge reclaimed water into the
South Fork tributary;
• A stilling basin located at the discharge point of the 24-in transmission pipeline;
• Expansion of the LAHPS and Post Pump Station (PPS);
• The construction of the Southland Pump Station (SLPS);
• A 7.3 mgd expansion of the SWTP and associated high service pump station; and
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12).
Figure 6.8 depicts the relative locations of the South Fork Discharge infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ulgotyCk
February 2013 6-25 ,Ex
Figure 6.8 — South Fork Discharge Map
Quantity of Available Water
The City will discharge up to 9 mgd of reclaimed water into the South Fork tributary. The
water will flow 36 river miles to LAH where the water will be stored until it is pumped
back to the SWTP. Carriage losses from the discharge point to LAH are estimated to be
19% or 1.7 mgd. Therefore, this strategy is estimated to provide an additional peak day of
7.3 mgd or an average of 8,183 ac-ft/yr of water supply.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u% b�Ck
February 2013 6-26 TFx4f
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.4. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Expansion costs for the LAHPS, PPS, and SLPS are included in costs;
• Energy costs to transmit water through the LAHPS and pipeline are included;
• Existing infrastructure will be used for transmission of treated water from the
SWTP into the City's water distribution system;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 were not included in transmission pipeline
costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1% return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tltl-1 o` GIC
February 2013 6-27 TEa
Table 6.4 — South Fork Discharge Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Intake and Pump Station (7.3 mgd) $2,730,000
Transmission Pipeline
24-in dia., 18 miles $12,016,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS #14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
Stilling Basin $34,000
LAH Pipeline Pump Station Expansions $9,437,000
SWTP Expansion (7.3 mgd) $13,995,000
Total Capital Cost $44,920,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $14,785,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $433,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (129 acres) $616,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $4,254,000
Total Project Cost $65,018,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $5,441,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $256,000
SWTP $1,201,000
South Fork Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $188,000
LAH Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $1,747,000
Total Annual Cost $8,833,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 8,183
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $1,079
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $3.31
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4'� bbotoyekFebruary 2013 6-28
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $65,018,000. Annual debt service is
$5,441,000; and, annual operational cost, including power, is $3,392,000. This results in a
total annual cost of $8,833,000. The unit cost for 7.3 mgd or 8,183 ac-ft/yr of supply is
estimated to be $1,079 per acre-foot, or $3.31 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
This strategy should have minimal impact on the environment since the return flows will
be discharged into an existing river basin. The discharge parameters dictated by the TCEQ
in the TPDES discharge permit that will be required should ensure that the treated effluent
does not impair this segment of the South Fork. Mitigation for the impact to wildlife
habitats has already been accomplished for LAH.
Permittin Issues
s
The City's existing discharge permit (TPDES Permit WQ0010353002) will need to be
amended to include an additional outfall on the South Fork. If the existing HLAS pipeline
is used, the amendment must include a request to discharge up to 10,089 ac-ft annually into
the South Fork. The current permit only authorizes the discharge of treated effluent at FM
400 and the North Fork (Outfall 001) and at the SEWRP (Outfall 007). A water rights
permit will be required pursuant to the Texas Water Code Section 11.042 to authorize the
conveyance and diversion of the associated return flows associated with the City's
reclaimed water. In addition, authorization to construct the discharge facility will be
required.
Other
Pipeline utility easements will be necessary to extend the existing reclaimed water pipeline
to the South Fork. Easements will also be required for the construction of the stilling
basin.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ujIVOCk
February 2013 6-29 ,s
The North Fork Diversion to Lake Alan Henry Pump Station (NFD-LAHPS) is another
potential indirect reuse strategy. Under this strategy, the City would discharge up to 9 mgd
as permitted from Outfall 001. The water will travel approximately 67 miles downstream
on the North Fork to the diversion site. Due to significant carriage losses, only 6.7 mgd of
the discharged reclaimed water is estimated to be available for diversion. The water will
then be pumped from the diversion site to the LAHPS. From the LAHPS, the water will be
transported to the SWTP near Lubbock via the existing LAH raw water pipeline. The
LAH pipeline's capacity was designed to transport up to 36 mgd of raw water (27 mgd of
water from LAH and 9 mgd of water from other sources).
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Design flows associated with the intake structure adjusted for carriage losses;
• Design associated with the intake, diversion pump station, and transmission
pipeline excludes downtime allocation;
• A new intake structure and a 394 hp pump station constructed at the diversion
location.
• The intake structure and diversion pump station include a small coffer dam to allow
for the diversion of the reclaimed water at low flows;
• A 5-mile, 27-in transmission pipeline to deliver the diverted water to the LAHPS;
• Expansion of the LAHPS and PPS;
• The construction of the SLPS;
• A 6.7 mgd expansion of the SWTP and associated expansion of the high service
pump station at the SWTP; and
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12).
Figure 6.9 depicts the relative locations of the NFD-LAHPS infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u"'�bgo'y�fjSFebruary 2013 6-30
Figure 6.9 — North Fork Diversion to the Lake Alan Henry Pump Station Map
This strategy could be combined with the North Fork Scalping Operation strategy
(diverting storm water flows) described in Section 8.5 since both strategies could utilize
the same diversion dam and lake.
Quantity of Available Water
The strategy is estimated to provide a constant 6.7 mgd or 7,510 ac-ft/yr of reclaimed
water for treatment at the SWTP. This quantity is calculated based on 9 mgd of treated
effluent being discharged by the City at Outfall 001 and being reduced by approximately
26% due to carriage losses between the discharge and diversion points on the North Fork.
A similar strategy in the 2011 Region O Plan assumes that up to 17,444 ac-ft/yr would be
available at the North Fork Diversion location by 2060. However, current estimates of the
available reclaimed water for this strategy are less than was estimated in the 2011 Region
O Plan.
Strategic Water Supply Plan '° cityoe
February 2013 6-31 1UbbOC
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.5. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Expansion costs for the LAHPS, PPS, and SLPS are included in costs;
• Energy costs to transmit water through the LAHPS and pipeline are not included;
• Existing infrastructure will be used for transmission of treated water from the
SWTP into the City's water distribution system;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 were not included in transmission pipeline
costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1 % return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf---b'9OGk
February 2013 6-32 ,�,
i ame o.5—iNortri work Diversion to the Lake Alan HenryFunig Station Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Intake and Pump Station (6.7 mgd) $4,508,000
Transmission Pipeline
27-in dia., 5 miles $3,372,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS #14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
LAH Pipeline Pump Station Expansions $9,077,000
SWTP Expansion (6.7 mgd) $12,976,000
Total Capital Cost $36,641,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $12,320,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $141,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (37 acres) $194,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $3,451,000
Total Project Cost $52,747,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $4,414,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $213,000
SWTP $1,112,000
North Fork Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $220,000
LAH Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $1,601,000
Total Annual Cost $7,560,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 7,510
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $1,007
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $3.09
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 6-33 tl'u4IV�cfA
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $52,747,000. Annual debt service is
$4,414,000; and, annual operational cost, including power, is $3,146,000. This results in a
total annual cost of $7,560,000. The unit cost for 6.71 mgd or 7,510 ac-ft/yr supply is
estimated to be $1,007 per ac-ft, or $3.09 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The primary environmental issue related to this strategy is the change in land use from
ranchland to a low water dam. Therefore, there will be an impact on animal habitats which
must be mitigated. Studies will be necessary to determine the actual impact to cultural
resources, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species. However, the construction of
the diversion lake should have a low to moderate impact associated with most of these
concerns.8 The sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner exist along this part of the Brazos
River Basin and may soon be included on the Federal threatened and endangered species
list. Other threatened species that live in the region surrounding the North Fork include the
Texas horned lizard and black -footed ferret.
Permitting Issues
The City started discharging at Outfall 001 in May 2003 under its existing discharge
permit TPDES Permit 10353-002. Outfall 001 is permitted to discharge a maximum of 9.0
mgd (10,089 ac-ft/yr). In order to implement this strategy, the City would need to submit
an application to the TCEQ for a new water use permit which includes a bed and banks
authorization allowing for the transportation and diversion of up to 10,089 ac-ft annually
(minus carriage losses) of the City's return flows at the diversion location. Additional
permitting will be required to construct the proposed diversion facility.
Other Issues
The existing LAH raw water pipeline capacity is 38,112 ac-ft/yr.9 If the North Fork
Diversion to Lake Alan Henry Pump Station strategy is employed alone, and not in
conjunction with the NFSO (see section 8.5), the capacity of the pipeline should be
sufficient.
Property will need to be acquired at the proposed diversion location to accommodate the
pumping facilities. In addition, pipeline utility easements will be necessary to construct a
raw water transmission line to the LAHPS.
Strategic Water Supply Plan � tyoe
February 2013 6-34 tl'uj";bboCk
6.9 Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Strategy
The Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Strategy will treat and
transport reclaimed water from the SEWRP to an ASR facility located northeast of the
City. The reclaimed water will then be injected into the Ogallala Aquifer and then
recovered approximately 1.25 miles downgradient. The injected water is assumed to flow
in a southeasterly direction. The recovered water will be delivered to the NWTP for
disinfection and blending with other treated water from CRMWA for distribution to
customers.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Ten Ogallala ASR injection wells with spacing of 1,200 feet or greater with one
contingency or standby well;
• Eight 700 gpm ASR recovery wells constructed at about 220 feet deep with
horizontal spacing of 1,200 feet or greater with one contingency or standby well;
• A 9 mgd advanced water treatment plant (RO) at the Lubbock SEWRP;
• A Dockum Aquifer well used to dispose of the RO concentrate at the SEWRP;
• A new 552 hp pump station at the SEWRP to deliver the treated reclaimed water to
ground storage at the well field via a new 24-in, 7-mile transmission pipeline;
• A booster pump station to deliver the reclaimed water from the ground storage to
ASR wells for injection;
• A new 20-in, 2.5 mile pipeline to deliver the recovered water to the NWTP. Due to
the relatively small quantity of water being recovered, a booster pump station and
ground storage were not deemed necessary for delivery to the NWTP; and
• An expansion of the NWTP is necessary for additional chlorine disinfection.
Figure 6.10 depicts the relative locations of the Reclaimed Water ASR wells and
associated infrastructure.
Strategic Water Supply Plan eityof
February 2013 6-35 tIt-'ObboCk
Figure 6.10 — Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Infrastructure
Quantity of Available Water
This Reclaimed Water ASR strategy assumes that up to 9 mgd of reclaimed water will be
sent to the ASR. However, due to nearby Ogallala irrigation wells, an estimated 20
percent of the original 9 mgd will be lost, leaving a final supply of 7.2 mgd (8,071 ac-ft/yr)
for disinfection and distribution at the NWTP.
Strategic Water Supply Plan eiryof
February 2013 6-36 IUbbOCk
T[�4T
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 6.6. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Property for the well field can be purchased for $2,000 per acre, which is twice the
average of rural lands in this part of the state;
• Due to Ogallala irrigation wells in the vicinity of the ASR well field, it is assumed
that 20% of the injected water will be lost to other wells before it is recovered;
• The depth to the base of the Ogallala Aquifer is about 220 feet;
• Additional costs for well field Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA), valves and pump controls were included in the strategy costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs is 30% of pipelines and 35% for other
facilities;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is 4%, and a 1 % return on investments;
• The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5% interest rate; and
• The project is assumed to have a 2-year construction period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan 6)'
February 2013 6-37 Lubbock
Table 6.6 — Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item
Costs
Capital Costs
Advance Water Treatment at SEWRP (9 mgd RO)
$36,356,000
Disposal Well (1 Dockum well, 200 ft of pipeline)
$750,000
Pump Station (from SEWRP to ASR Well Field)
$3,834,000
Transmission Pipeline
24-in dia., 7 miles (SEWRP to ASR Well Field)
$6,161,000
20-in dia., 2.5 miles (ASR to NWTP)
$1,062,000
Injection Booster Station and Ground Storage Tank at ASR
$1,132,000
ASR Injection Well Field
(10 wells, 2.5 miles of distribution pipeline)
$5,184,000
ASR Recovery Well Field
(8 wells, 2.7 miles of collector pipeline)
$3,930,000
ASR Well Field SCADA, Valving, Pumps
$250,000
NWTP Modifications (7.8 mgd)
$315,000
Total Capital Cost
$58,974,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $20,279,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $1,280,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (1,470 acres) $1,752,000
Interest During Construction (1 year) $5,760,000
Total Project Cost $88,045,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $7,367,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $292,000
Water Treatment Plant $2,450,000
Transmission Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $331,000
ASR Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $344,000
Total Annual Cost $10,784,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 8,071
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $1,336
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $4.10
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b' OC�
February 2013 6-38 ,ES
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $88,045,000. Annual debt service is
$7,367,000; and, annual operational cost, including power, is $3,417,000. This results in a
total annual cost of $10,784,000. The unit cost for 8,071 ac-ft/yr of supply at the NWTP is
estimated to be $1,336 per ac-ft, or $4.10 per 1,000 gallons. This cost does not include the
distribution of the potable water from the NWTP to potential customers.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The installation of wells and collection pipelines should be planned and installed so that
sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and other environmentally sensitive areas are
avoided.
PermittingIssues
ssues
The City does not own groundwater rights in the area of interest. Groundwater rights will
need to be purchased so wells can be drilled within the proposed ASR area. The City will
need to acquire permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District
No. 1. The design and construction of public water supply wells and water transmission
facilities must be approved by the TCEQ. In addition, the High Plains Underground Water
Conservation District No. 1 will need to promulgate rules regarding ASR projects. There
may also be permitting obligations pursuant to Texas Water Code Section 11.154
depending upon regulatory characterization of the associated return flows.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4bVow�fAFebruary 2013 6-39
1 Water for Texas : 2012 State Water Plan. Texas Water Development Board. January
2012: 194.
2 Third Amendment to Contract between the City of Lubbock and Southwestern Public
Service for the sale and purchase of treated sewage effluent. July 28, 2009:
Resolution 2009-R0271.
3 Wastewater Master Plan. City of Lubbock, Texas. Jacobs Engineering, Inc. 2009.
4 Canyon Lakes Water Reuse Project: Preliminary Engineering Report. Alan Plummer
Associates, Inc. March 2012.
5 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-199 — 4-213.
6 Strategic Water Supply Plan. City of Lubbock. July 2007: section 12.
7 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-202.
8 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-206 — 4-211.
9 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-179.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf----bV6"'�fAFebruary 2013 6-40
7.0 Groundwater Strategies
Groundwater has always been a vital source of water for Lubbock. When the first
municipal water system was constructed for the City in 1911, it consisted of one well
pumping water from the Ogallala Aquifer. The City relied solely upon groundwater until
1968 when surface water from Lake Meredith was made available (see Figure 3.1).
7.1 Groundwater Sources
The TWDB recognizes 30 major and minor aquifers in the State of Texas. Aquifers that
supply large quantities of water over large areas of the state are defined as major aquifers.
Aquifers that supply relatively small quantities of water over large areas of the state or
supply large quantities of water over small areas of the state are defined as minor aquifers.
Each aquifer has unique characteristics! The major aquifers in Texas are depicted in
Figure 7.1 and the minor aquifers are depicted in Figure 7.2.
Hueco-M"11
Edwards-Tri
Figure 7.1— Major Aquifers (Map courtesy of TWDB2)
rrizo-Wilcox
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-bbOCkFebruary 2013 7-1,E:�:
The Ogallala and Seymour aquifers are the major aquifers in Lubbock's region. The
Edwards -Trinity (High Plains) and the Dockum aquifers are the minor aquifers in the
Lubbock region.
Edwards Trinity (High Plains)
Capitan Reef
Bone Spring-VkAorio Peak
West Texas Bolsons
Ellenburger-San Saba
Figure 7.2 — Minor Aquifers (Map courtesy of TVWDB3)
Ogallala Aquifer
The High Plains of Texas lies above the largest groundwater formation in the State of
Texas, known as the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala has been the main source of potable
and agriculture water in the Lubbock region since the early 1900s. However, only 5% of
the Ogallala groundwater on the Southern High Plains is used for domestic purposes.4
Most of the water is used for irrigating crops. Because of the heavy agricultural activities
on the Southern High Plains for over 100 years, the saturated thickness levels have
dropped significantly. Figure 7.3 depicts the saturated thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer in
2008. The figure demonstrates that the portion of the Ogallala Aquifer to the north of
Lubbock near Amarillo contains the greatest volumes of groundwater in the Texas portion
of the aquifer. Historically, groundwater use in this region has been minor, primarily for
cattle grazing with windmills used to pump relatively small quantities of groundwater for
stock tanks.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlVty
t1bOCk
February 2013 7-2 iEXAf
Oldham I Potter
-, coo
Hall
cruiaress
Hardeman
Motley
Cottle
Foard
Dickens
King
Knox
Garza
Kent
Stonewall
Haskell
Borden I Scurry
Fisher I
Jones
Saturated Thickness
DO-50ft
�eG4�s Mitchell 50.1 - 100 ft
100.1 -150 ft
150.1 - 200 ft
Ector lasscock Stettin Coke 200.1 - 300 ft
Winkler idland g 300.1 - 400 ft
0 60 100
Mies 400.1 - 500 ft
Figure 7.3- Saturated Thicknesses of the Ogallala Aquifer
(Data courtesy of the Center for Geospatial Technology at Texas Tech University, 20085)
Figure 7.4 depicts the saturated thicknesses of groundwater in Lubbock County. Several
studies have evaluated the potential for using the groundwater underlying the City of
Lubbock and Lubbock County. However, the saturated thickness of the groundwater in
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l]%�cfjS
February 2013 7-3
Lubbock County has declined greatly from heavy agricultural irrigation over the past 100
years, and wells in many areas of the county produce less than 30 gpm. There exists little
potential for long-term development of groundwater within Lubbock County.
0-50ft
50.1 -100 ft
100,1 -150 ft
150.1 - 200 ft
200.1 - 300 ft
300.1 - 400 ft
400.1 - 500 ft
Figure 7.4 — Saturated Thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer in Lubbock County
(Data courtesy of the Center for Geospatial Technology at Texas Tech University, 20086)
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uflVty f
February 2013 7-4 lEx.:
The Parks and Recreation Department has historically been among the City's top water
users. In 2006, the City began evaluating ways to reduce the amount of potable water used
to irrigate its parks. In the 2007 Strategic Water Supply Plan, the City indicated that there
were 78 parks with a total water demand of 1.356 billion gallons per year or 4,161 ac-
ft/yr.7 Of these 78 parks, it was determined that it was not feasible to irrigate 20 of the
parks with groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer. Nine parks are irrigated with water
diverted from the Jim Bertram Lake System as discussed in Section 8.1. From 2007 and
2008, 26 water wells were installed throughout 18 different City -owned parks
(encompassing 319 acres) as depicted in Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.5 — Location of Parks with Groundwater Wells
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4lUOCk
February 2013 7-5 TpIAt
Due to the production rates of these wells and time -of -day irrigation restrictions at City
parks, irrigation of the parks requires supplemental supply from the City's potable water
system to operate properly. Over the last five years, this initiative has helped conserve
roughly half of the potable water used to irrigate the 18 parks in which wells were
installed. The total annual amount of water conserved represents less than 1 % of the
City's total potable water demand. Table 7.1 shows the volumes of water saved each year.
Table 7.1— Potable Water Conserved at Citv Parks
Potable Water Conserved
Percent of
Year
(Well Water Used, ac-ft/yr)
Total Annual
Demand
2008
70.8
0.2%
2009
100.7
0.3%
2010
249.4
0.7%
2011
218.6
0.5%
2012
147.6
0.4%
Edwards -Trinity Aquifer
The Edwards -Trinity Aquifer is a Cretaceous -aged minor aquifer located on the Southern
High Plains of Texas and New Mexico (see Figure 7.6). The Edwards -Trinity spans
approximately 9,000 square miles and lies just underneath the Ogallala Aquifer and above
the Dockum Aquifer. Approximately 95% of the water pumped from this aquifer is used
for irrigation.9
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u"�WOCf
February 2013 7-6 zEAs
Bailey
Lamb
Hale
Floyd
Cocfiran
Ho"y
Lubbodc
Crosby
Yoakum
Terry _
Lynn
Garza
----------------
Grains Oawsort
Borden
N
Outcrop 1
40
Miles
Figure 7.6 —Edwards-Trinity Aquifer (Map courtesy of TWDB 10)
Figure 7.7 shows a cross-section of the Southern High Plains. The Edwards Trinity
Aquifer is located within the blue Cretaceous layer (for reference, the Ogallala is yellow
and the Dockum is purple). In certain locations where the soils are permeable and the
dividing formations are thin, water will move between the Edwards -Trinity and the
Ogallala, constituting the main source of recharge for the Edwards -Trinity Aquifer.I I
There is a limited quantity of water in the Edwards -Trinity. The average yield for an
Edwards -Trinity well is between 50-200 gpm, with maximum yields reported at over 1,000
gpm.12 In 2010, the total estimated yield from the Edwards -Trinity was 4,160 ac-ft/yr.
This is expected to diminish to 2,065 ac-ft/yr by 2060.13
Water quality in the Edwards -Trinity varies by location, ranging from fresh to slightly
brackish. The typical range for TDS is between 1,000 — 2,000 mg/L.14 However,
maximum TDS values can reach 20,000 mg/L in extremely low -quality areas.15
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uJI V toy Ck
February 2013 7-7 rr«as
3,600
3,500
3,400
3,300
c 3,200
a 3,100
-4 3.000
LU
2,900
2,800
2,700
2,600
a
3,
V
U
�i M
C 3,4
3,
3.�
uJ 3,1
2,
2,
Gals Yoakum Terry HockleY ! Lubbock
44
1 Wes
Figure 7.7 — Cross -Sections of the Southern High Plains (Map courtesy of TWDB16)
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4'�UbOCk
February 2013 7-8 ,Ex.a
Dockum Aquifer
The Dockum Aquifer is a minor aquifer found in the northwest part of Texas, as depicted
in Figure 7.8. The formation underlies all counties from Castro to Upton, including Bailey
and Lubbock counties. However, the figure does not depict the formation under these two
counties because data regarding the characteristics of the Dockum Aquifer is sparce in
these areas.
N
100
Miles
702
Figure 7.8 — Dockum Aquifer (Map courtesy of TWDB 17)
This aquifer is defined stratigraphically by the Dockum Group and includes four
formations (from oldest to youngest): the Santa Rosa, the Tecovas, the Trujillo Sandstone,
and the Cooper Canyon. The highest groundwater yields come from the Santa Rosa
sandstones at the base of the Dockum. The Dockum is approximately 2,000 feet deep in
Strategic Water Supply Plan (1 tlhVtCt
February 2013 7 iEtAf
the Lubbock area and contains high concentrations of chlorides and TDS. The TWDB's
Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model for the Dockum Aquifer indicates that there
"has not been widespread use of the Dockum Aquifer because of poor water quality, low
yields, declining water levels, and deep pumping depth. ,18 Because of low use of this
aquifer, very little data exist for the Lubbock region.
Figure 7.9 depicts the base of the Dockum Aquifer, and Figure 7.10 depicts the
concentrations of TDS in the formation.
®
Base of Dockurn
Elevation
�.
111031
gE 5.001- 3,200 ® 5,201- 5.400
iState Line
i
Model. -
Downdip Aquifer Limit
County Boundaries
Control Point
Figure 7.9 — Base of the Dockum Aquifer (Map courtesy of TWDB19)
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u"10 OCk
February 2013 7-10 if%4S
..,
• • 7
, 9
'e"'
` •{
R1,01
a
L
•
Eddy
�`
Miles
�.
Kent I Stonewall 1 11
Ion Balance
isher + Unbalanced
Jones
o Balanced
TDS (mg/1)
Taylor C1 ,000
Nolan w' 1,000 - 5,000
Coke Runnels 5,000-10,000
10,000 - 20,000
Tom Green >20,000
State Lines
Model Boundary
t3cNelcner Downdip Aquifer Limit
s,,,,,o„ Counties
Figure 7.10 — Dockum TDS Concentrations,1981-1996 (Map courtesy of T)VDB20)
Seymour Aquifer
The Seymour Formation is one of the nine major aquifers in Texas, but would be a poor
groundwater supply option for the City of Lubbock. The formation is located a
considerable distance to the east of Lubbock, and the water quality and aquifer yield are
very inconsistent.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b"Vovo�fFebruary 2013 7-11t4f
C
Figure 7.11— Seymour Aquifer (Map courtesy of TWDB21)
7.2 Groundwater Usage Regulations
In Texas, groundwater usage is legally recognized as a private property interest subject to
the rule of capture and limited by regulation by local Groundwater Conservation Districts
(GCDs). There are 119 GCDs across the state. Because of the size of many of the aquifers
in Texas, numerous conservation districts manage the resources from a given aquifer. For
example, Lubbock and Bailey Counties are part of the High Plains Underground Water
Conservation District No. 1, while Roberts County is part of the Panhandle Groundwater
Conservation District.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlu4l'Vov�fkFebruary 2013 7-12
In 1995, Groundwater Management Areas (GMAs) were created "in order to provide for
the conservation, preservation, protection, recharging, and prevention of waste of the
groundwater, and of groundwater reservoirs or their subdivisions, and to control
subsidence caused by withdrawal of water from those groundwater reservoirs or their
subdivisions, consistent with the objectives of Section 59, Article XVI, Texas
Constitution..." (Texas Water Code §35.001) Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 933, §2,
eff. Sept. 1, 1995. The creation of GMAs made it possible to establish common
groundwater management goals among multiple GCDs. The TWDB was delegated
responsibility to delineate GMAs, and subsequently divided Texas into 16 GMAs in 2002
(Figure 7.12). These areas correspond roughly to aquifer boundaries in the State and help
State agencies regulate different aspects of groundwater usage.
Figure 7.12 — Groundwater Management Areas in Texas (Map courtesy of TWD1322)
The Texas Legislature mandated that by September 1, 2010, GCDs must establish Desired
Future Conditions (DFCs) for aquifers in each GMA. These DFCs may differ across
GMAs and impact the amount of groundwater that can be pumped from a given aquifer on
an annual basis. Most of Lubbock's current or potential groundwater supplies are located
within GMA # 1 or #2.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf--*bVtY f
February 2013 7-13 �Ex�s
7.3 Roberts County Well Field Capacity Maintenance
Strategy
The RCWF produces water from the Ogallala Aquifer. For operational sustainability and
flexibility, CRMWA maintains a production capacity in the RCWF that is 30% greater
than the capacity of the transmission line from the RCWF to the main CRMWA Aqueduct.
The target capacity of the RCWF is 93 mgd. The maximum capacity of the transmission
line is 65 mgd. As is common in Ogallala well fields, the RCWF's capacity continues to
decline over time with consistent utilization. Eventually, replacement wells become
necessary to maintain capacity.
This RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM) strategy is designed to maintain the RCWF's
capacity at 93 mgd. Modeling by Lee Wilson & Associates (CRMWA's hydrogeologists)
estimates that 11 replacement wells will be needed approximately every 30 years in order
to sustain a production of 65 mgd and maintain the 93 mgd RCWF capacity.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Eleven new wells constructed 950 feet deep;
• On average, each well will operate at 1,768 gpm with a peak production of 2,250
gpm;
• New wells will be located on property where CRMWA holds the interest in
groundwater rights; and
• No additional treatment is included in the costs.
Figure 7.13 depicts the relative locations of the well field and associated infrastructure
needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4lb�OCk
February 2013 7-14 ,E��,
Figure 7.13 — Potential New Well Locations for the RCWF Capacity Maintenance
Strategy
Quantity of Available Water
The RCWF Capacity Maintenance strategy is designed to maintain the target RCWF
capacity of 93 mgd. Under this strategy, the City's allocation from CRMWA will remain
at 24,088 ac-ft/yr and the transmission line from the RCWF to the CRMWA Aqueduct will
remain near capacity (65 mgd) at all times. The wells in this strategy increase the RCWF
capacity by 28 mgd (11 wells producing approximately 1,768 gpm each). Therefore, the
new wells are assumed to provide an annual supply of 7,252 ac-ft/yr, which is equivalent
to 28/93rds of the 24,088 ac-ft/yr supply, based upon the new wells' pro-rata contribution
to the total capacity of the well field.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4�bbtCk
February 2013 7-15 ,Ex.s
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.2. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• City of Lubbock will pay for 37.058% of the costs for this project, which is the
City's allocation of water from CRMWA;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 35% for facilities required by this
strategy;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is 4.0%, and a 1.0% return on investments; and
• The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5% interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan of
February 2013 7-16 tl'u6bV6ck
Table 7.2 — RCWF Capacity Maintenance Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Estimated
Lubbock's
Item
Costs
Portion
37.058%
Capital Costs
Transmission Pipeline (0 miles)
$0
Transmission Pump Station(s)
$0
Well Fields
(11 wells, 2,250 gpm, 950 ft deep; 48,000 ft collection piping)
$18,398,000
Distribution
$0
Relocations & Other
$0
Total Capital Cost
$18,398,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies
$6,439,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation
$277,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (6 acres)
$0
Interest During Construction (1 year)
$878,000
Total Project Cost
$25,942,000
$9,614,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$2,171,000
$805,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station
$184,000
$68,000
Pumping Energy Costs (8,740,445 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh)
$787,000
$292,000
Purchase of Water
$0
Total Annual Cost
$3,142,000
$1,165,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
19,516
7,252
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$161
$161
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)
$0.49
$0.49
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan �tyO
February 2013 7-17 tl'uf--b*
bock
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $25,942,000. Annual debt service is $2,171,000;
and, annual operational cost, including power, is $971,000. This results in a total annual
cost of $3,142,000. CRMWA project and operational costs are shared amongst the 11
member cities. Lubbock's share of the project is 37.058% which will result in an annual
cost estimated at $1,165,000. Based on the annual allocation of 7,252 ac-ft/yr, the unit
cost is estimated to be $161 per acre-foot, or $0.49 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The installation of wells and collection pipelines should be planned so that sensitive
habitats, cultural resources, and other environmentally sensitive areas are avoided.
PermittingIssues
Currently, CRMWA owns the groundwater interests in over 400,000 acres of property.
Wells will be drilled within this area. The City will need to secure well drilling permits
from the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District. The design and construction of
public water supply wells and water transmission facilities must be approved by the
TCEQ.
Other
Wells will be placed on properties where CRWMA owns the water rights which include
the rights to surface improvements to extract and convey their groundwater.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t_1uf_-*bV6'YCk
February 2013 7-18 ,Es
7.4 Bailey County ' i Capacity Maintenane
Strategy
The BCWF produces water from the Ogallala Aquifer. The BCWF's capacity has
decreased sharply the last few years because the City has needed to produce more from the
BCWF than desired in order to compensate for a reduction in supply coming from Lake
Meredith. In 2010, the BCWF's capacity was 50 mgd. In 2012, the well field's capacity
had dropped to 38 mgd. The transmission line from the BCWF to Lubbock's distribution
system can deliver a peak capacity of 40 mgd.
The City has two goals for the BCWF. The first goal is to maintain a 13CWF capacity that
is 10 mgd greater than the transmission line capacity. This will continue to allow the City
to rotate, rest, and repair wells as needed. The City's second goal is to reserve the BCWF
for meeting peak demand during summer months. In order to effectively meet these goals,
it is recommended that the City produce less than 7,000 ac-ft/yr from the BCWF.23 The
City is currently using two to three times more than this recommended production rate.
The proposed BCWF CM strategy consists of two phases (Initial CM (ICM) and CM-1)
that will assist the City in achieving its goals regarding the BCWF. The ICM includes the
installation of 34 wells that will restore the BCWF to a 50 mgd capacity. It is anticipated
that the ICM will maintain capacity for 10 years, after which time additional well field
maintenance will be needed. According to Daniel B. Stephens & Associates' (DBS&A)
October 2012 modeling report,24 10 replacement wells will be required every 10 years after
the ICM to maintain the capacity in the BCWF using an estimated well field production
rate of 10,000 ac-ft/yr. While capacity maintenance will be needed every 10 years, this
strategy only considers a 20 year project period in which the ICM and CM-1 are
implemented in order to compare this strategy to other strategies in this Plan. The major
design features of this strategy include:
• Construction of 34 wells during the ICM;
• Construction of 10 replacement wells 10 years after ICM is implemented (CM-1);
• Wells are assumed to be constructed to 220 feet deep and operate at 250 gpm;
• Wells are located on existing City water rights properties;
• No additional treatment is included in the costs;
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u-1-**bV6v'�'fkFebruary 2013 7-19S
• Approximately 15.5 miles of 6-inch to 24-inch diameter collection pipe is required
for the ICM;
• Approximately 3.8 miles of 6-inch to 24-inch diameter collection pipe is required
for CM-1; and
• Delivery pressure is assumed to be 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the
connection to the original well field.
Figure 7.14 depicts the relative locations of the well field and associated infrastructure
needed.
Figure 7.14 — Potential New Well Locations for BCWF Capacity Maintenance
Strategy
Quantity of Available Water
The BCWF Capacity Maintenance strategy is designed to restore the total BCWF capacity
to 50 mgd (ICM) and then maintain this capacity for at least 20 years (ICM and CM-1).
Under this strategy, the City will produce an average of 10,000 ac-ft/yr of water from the
BCWF. The wells in the ICM phase of the project increase the BCWF capacity by 12 mgd
(34 wells producing approximately 250 gpm each). Therefore, the ICM wells are assumed
to provide an annual supply of 2,400 ac-ft/yr, which is equivalent to 12/50ths of the 10,000
ac-ft/yr supply, based upon the new wells' pro-rata contribution to the total capacity of the
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'uf-'*bbtQf
February 2013 7-20 ,Exx�
well field. These wells are assumed to be utilized during June -September, or about 120
days per year.
Future phases (CM-1, CM-2, etc.) will consist of installing 10 wells every 10 years,
providing 3.6 mgd (10 wells at approximately 250 gpm each) of capacity to offset overall
capacity declines from the system. Future wells will provide an annual supply of 720 ac-
ft/yr, which is 3.6/50ths of the 10,000 ac-ft/yr supply, based on the wells' pro -rate
contribution to the total capacity of the well field. The wells are anticipated to be utilized
during June -September, or about 120 days per year.
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.3. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 35% for facilities constructed for this
strategy;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1 % return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l VOCk
February 2013 7-21 icss
Table 7.3 — BCWF Capacity Maintenance Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item Estimated Costs
Initial CM Future CM Total
Capital Costs
Initial Expansion (ICM)
ICM Well Field (34 wells, 250 gpm)
$8,951,000
Well Collection System
(15.5 miles — 6, 8, 12, 24-in dia.)
$4,387,000
Continued Expansion (CM-1, etc.)
CM Well Field (10 wells, 250 gpm)
$2,633,000
Well Collection System
(3.8 miles — 6, 8, 12, 16-in dia.)
$1,392,000
Total Capital Cost
$13,338,000
$4,025,000
$17,363,00
0
Engineering, Legal Costs, and
$4,668,000
$1,409,000
$6,077,000
Contingencies
Environmental & Archaeology Studies
$388,000
$95,000
$483,000
and Mitigation
Land Acquisition and Surveying (17
$0
$0
$0
acres)
Interest During Construction (1 year)
$644,000
$194,000
838,000
Total Project Cost
$19,038,000
$5,723,000
$24,761,00
0
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$1,593,000
$479,000
$2,072,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station
$133,000
$40,000
$173,000
Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh)
$127,000
$25,000
$152,000
Purchase of Water
$0
$0
$0
Total Annual Cost
$1,853,000
$544,000
$2,397,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
2,400
720
3,120
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$722
$756
$768
Annual Cost of Water ($ per
$2.37
$2.32
$2.36
1,000gallons)
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf---*bV6v�fkFebruary 2013 7-22
Costs are separated into ICM (12 mgd project) and Future CM (3.6 mgd increments). As
shown, the total cost for the first 34 wells (ICM) to provide 12 mgd of capacity is
estimated to be $19,038,000. Annual debt service is $1,593,000; and, annual operational
cost, including power, is $260,000 resulting in a total annual cost of $1,853,000 for ICM
wells. The unit cost for a 2,400 ac-ft/yr supply is estimated to be $772 per ac-ft, or $2.367
per 1,000 gallons.
The cost of future phases (CM-1, etc.) were estimated using the same assumptions and
pricing. Total project costs every 10 years for expansions are $5,723,000. Annual costs
will increase by $544,000 with the future phases. Annual unit costs are estimated to be
$756/ac-ft for future phases.
For evaluation and ranking of strategies (Section 10), costs for the ICM and one future
phase (CM-1) are utilized.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The installation of wells and collection pipelines should be planned and installed so that
sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and other environmentally sensitive areas are
avoided.
PermittingIssues
ssues
The City already owns groundwater rights on 83,305 acres of contiguous property, and
wells will be drilled within this area. The City will need to acquire permits from the High
Plains Underground Conservation District No. 1, and the design and construction of public
water supply wells and water transmission facilities must be approved by the TCEQ.
Other
Wells will be placed on properties where the City owns the water rights, which include the
rights to surface improvements to extract and convey their groundwater. Future CMs
(CM-1, CM-2, etc.) must be implemented every 10 years to maintain the BCWF capacity.
Additional wells will be necessary beyond the 20 year project life under which this
strategy was evaluated.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4��?btGf
February 2013 7-23,�s
7.5 Roberts County Well Field - New Transmission
Line oAqueduct
With the decline in yield from Lake Meredith, CRMWA is planning to expand its
groundwater supplies for delivery through the surface water delivery system. This strategy
consists of expanding the RCWF and well field transmission pipeline capacity for delivery
to the CRMWA Aqueduct. Currently a 54-inch diameter transmission line with a 65 mgd
capacity delivers water from the RCWF west toward Borger and then south to Amarillo. A
new 54-inch diameter transmission line will be constructed using a new right-of-way to
deliver supplies to the CRMWA Aqueduct. Additional wells will also be necessary to
increase the RCWF capacity to match the increased pipeline capacity. Eventually,
replacement wells will be necessary to maintain the proposed RCWF capacity.
Two 54-inch diameter transmission lines delivering water from the RCWF could deliver a
peak supply of 130 mgd to the CRMWA Aqueduct (65 mgd from each pipeline).
Lubbock's portion would be 48.2 mgd (37.058% of the total CRMWA water available).
However, the current capacity of the CRMWA Aqueduct between Amarillo and Lubbock
is 53 mgd, of which Lubbock's allocation is approximately 42 mgd (see Figure 4.9).
Therefore, while this strategy could supply up to 48.2 mgd to Lubbock if the transmission
lines are operating at a full capacity of 65 mgd each, the aqueduct can only deliver a
maximum supply of 42 mgd to Lubbock.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Twenty new Ogallala wells will be constructed to a depth of 950 feet and operate at
2,050 gpm per well;
• All new wells are located on CRMWA property;
• Approximately 72 miles of 54-inch diameter transmission pipeline is required;
• Three booster pump stations sized for 65 mgd; and
• No additional treatment is included in the costs.
Figure 7.15 depicts the relative locations of the well field, new wells, transmission lines,
and associated infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'VOCk
February 2013 7-24 fE,:
Figure 7.15 — RCWF — New Transmission Line to Aqueduct Strategy
Quantity of Available Water
It is assumed that CRMWA will operate the new transmission line between RCWF and the
CRMWA Aqueduct at 80% of its 65 mgd capacity. Thererfore, Lubbock's incremental
increase in annual allocation from CRMWA will be 21,583 ac-ft/yr (65 mgd x 1120 ac-
ft/yr/mgd x 0.8 x 0.37058). Consequently, the CRMWA Aqueduct between Plainview and
Lubbock will be flowing near its peak capacity of 53 mgd with Lubbock's portion of the
peak capacity of 42 mgd. Under this strategy, Lubbock's total CRMWA allocation is
calculated as follows:
Lubbock's current CRMWA allocation: 24,088 ac-ft/yr
Additional supply with new transmission line: 21,583 ac-ft/yr
Lubbock's total new CRMWA supply: 45,671 ac-ft/yr
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u-r1WtGf
February 2013 7-25 Tex,:
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.4. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• The City will pay for 37.058% of the costs for this project;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 35% for facilities required by this
strategy;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is 4.0%, and a 1.0% return on investments; and
• The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5% interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan f1'u1--*bVO�ft
February 2013 7-26
Table 7.4 — RCWF — New Transmission Line to Aqueduct Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Estimated
Lubbock's
Item
Costs
Portion
37.058%
Capital Costs
Transmission Pipeline
54 in dia., 72 miles
$113,802,000
Transmission Pump Stations (9,500 hp; 10,400 hp, 9,600
$46,809,000
hp)
Well Fields (20 wells, 2050 gpm)
$34,409,000
Water Treatment Plant
$0
Distribution
$0
Relocations & Other
$0
Total Capital Cost
$195,020,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies
$62,567,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation
$2,190,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (373 acres)
$3,331,000
Interest During Construction (2 years)
$18,418,000
Total Project Cost
$281,526,000
$104,328,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 30 years)
$23,558,000
$8,730,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station
$2,585,000
$958,000
Pumping Energy Costs (191,602,615 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh)
$17,244,000
$6,390,000
Purchase of Water
$0
Total Annual Cost
$43,387,000
$16,078,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
58,240
21,583
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$745
$745
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)
$2.29
$2.29
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan Lubb. ov k c
February 2013 7-27
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $281,526,000 for facilities to provide peaking
capacity of 65 mgd. Annual debt service is $23,558,000; and, annual operational cost,
including power, is $19,829,000. This results in a total annual cost of $43,387,000. The
unit cost for the average annual supply is $745/ac-ft or $2.29 per 1,000 gallons.
These costs are for delivery of water to Lubbock's terminal storage reservoir and not for
any subsequent treatment or transmission from the reservoir. The supply and costs from
this strategy will be shared by other CRMWA members. Lubbock's annual cost will be
37.058% of the total annual cost or $16,078,000.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The installation of wells and collection pipelines should be planned so that sensitive
habitats, cultural resources, and other environmentally sensitive areas are avoided.
CRMWA should seek to minimize environmental impact when planning the route for the
new 54-inch transmission pipeline.
Permitting Issues
Currently, CRMWA owns the groundwater interests in over 400,000 acres of property and
wells will be drilled within this area. The City will need to secure permits from the
Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District and the design and construction of public
water supply wells and water transmission facilities must be approved by the TCEQ.
Other
Wells will be placed on properties where CRMWA owns the water rights which include
the rights to surface improvements to extract and convey their groundwater. However, an
easement will need to be acquired for the new transmission pipeline.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt bO 9toy k
February 2013 7-28 ,E,:
4' t-
This ASR strategy will store water purchased from CRMWA during the fall, winter, and
spring in the Ogallala Aquifer and recover the water during June through September. The
ASR project aids in balancing the CRMWA deliveries by increasing the deliveries during
periods of relatively low winter demands and decreasing demands on the CRMWA system
during the summer. Such a project could either delay or eliminate the need for additional
wells in Roberts County and/or another transmission line or aqueduct. The raw CRMWA
water will be delivered to the NWTP, treated, delivered, and injected into a new ASR well
field about two miles east of the NWTP. Later, this water will be recovered and delivered
to the NWTP, disinfected, and blended with other treated water from CRMWA for
distribution. The framework for this option follows a 2011 CDM Smith report titled
Canadian River Municipal Water Authority Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facility:
Project Delivery Plan.25
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Raw water from CRMWA sources will be treated at NWTP;
• A new PS at the NTWP will deliver the treated water to ground storage at the ASR
well field;
• A PS to deliver treated water from the ground storage tank to ASR wells for
injection;
• Installation of 45 Ogallala ASR wells. Five of the wells are considered to be
contingency or standby wells. Their spacing is 1,200 feet or greater;
• Pumps will deliver recovered water to the ground storage at the ASR well field.
• A PS will deliver the recovered water to the NWTP;
• The recovered water will be disinfected and delivered to the NWTP for blending
with treated water from the CRMWA supply. Then, the blended water will be
pumped into the distribution system; and
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1-'uf--0W6v"�tFebruary 2013 7-29
Figure 7.16 depicts the relative locations of the ASR wells and associated infrastructure.
Figure 7.16 — CRMWA to Aquifer Storage and Recovery Infrastructure
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u-f-'*bbOCf
February 2013 7-30 TEx,s
Figure 7.17 is a schematic showing how the proposed new ASR infrastructure will interact
with the existing NWTP facilities.
----------
Raw Water
A%c11itLes------------------�.
..----------
'
f
ASR Wel I Flel d
1
Tti,u-ar "Pam
or
CL
v
North
.^
Grourd Pump
ii
WTp
Injection
storage station
To ASR WMa
i
Ground
Recovery
UJ
Storage
p pLan
F
Pump
b
s
i
Station
�_ +�
Wail.
t
it
r
I %
i
i TreatedWa}tern----------------------------------------
Figure 7.17 — ASR System Schematic
Quantity of Available Water
The strategy assumes that the new transmission line from the RCWF to the CRMWA
Aqueduct will be built. As a result, Lubbock's share of the CRMWA water supply will be
45,671 ac-ft/yr. The portion of water available to inject into the aquifer is assumed to be
50% during four winter months each year. This results in an average of 7,612 ac-ft/yr of
water available for storage in ASR. The loss of water in ASR storage is assumed to be
20%. As a result, the average annual recovery is 6,090 ac-ft/yr. Recovery would be during
four summer months. Peak design capacity is assumed to be 40 mgd, which provides a
peaking factor of about 2.4.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'u-r-**bbOCk
February 2013 7-31 ,�„:
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.5. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• A high -capacity Ogallala production well will produce 700 gpm (1.0 mgd);
• The depth to the base of the Ogallala is 220 feet;
• The migration of the injected water will be minimal. However, there are Ogallala
irrigation wells in the vicinity of the ASR well field. For purposes of this plan, it's
assumed that 20% of the stored water would be lost to other wells;
• Raw water treatment will be provided at no cost to the ASR project. Water will be
treated and delivered during November - February when there is unused capacity in
the NWTP;
• Property for the ASR well field can be purchased for $2,000 per acre (inclusive of
water rights), which is twice the average of rural lands in this part of the state;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs is 30% of pipelines and 35% for other
facilities;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is 4.0%, and a 1.0% return on investments; and
• The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5% interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4bWov�fkFebruary 2013 7-32
I able '/.�) — UK1v1WA to
and Kecovery Uosts
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Pump Station at Water Treatment Plant $1,718,000
Pump Station and Ground Storage at ASR Well Field $4,180,000
Pump Station at ASR Well Field to ASR Wells $1,449,000
Transmission Pipeline
48 in dia., 3 miles (SWTP and ASR Well Field) $4,554,000
ASR Well Field (45 ASR wells, 11 miles of collector pipelines) $23,876,000
Water Treatment Plant (40 mgd, chlorination only) $1,710,000
ASR Well Field SCADA, Valving and Pumps $1,000,000
Total Capital Cost $38,487,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $13,243,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $2,880,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (1,470 acres) $3,311,000
Interest During Construction (1 year) $2,028,000
Total Project Cost $59,949,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $5,016,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $451,000
Water Treatment Plant $256,000
Pumping Energy Costs (8,103,764 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh) $234,000
Purchase of Water $0
Total Annual Cost $5,957,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 6,090
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $978
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $3.00
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-'Wo'y�fkFebruary 2013 7-33
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $38,487,000. Annual debt service is $5,016,000;
and, annual operational cost, including power, is $941,000. This results in a total annual
cost of $5,957,000. The unit cost for a 6,090 ac-ft/yr peaking supply is estimated to be
$978 per ac-ft, or $3.00 per 1,000 gallons. This cost does not include the cost of water
from CRMWA nor the water treatment prior to storage in the ASR well field.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The installation of wells and collection pipelines should be planned and installed so that
sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and other environmentally sensitive areas are
avoided.
Permitting Issues
The City will need to acquire permits from the High Plains Underground Water
Conservation District No. 1, and the design and construction of public water supply wells
and water transmission facilities must be approved by the TCEQ. In addition, the District
will need to promulgate rules regarding ASR projects.
Other
The City does not own groundwater rights in this area. Groundwater rights will need to be
purchased so wells can be drilled within the proposed area.
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 7-34 tlu4obgov�fk
Although the City used over 60 Ogallala Aquifer wells located within the city limits from
1911 to 1970 for the potable water supply, all of the wells and water collection systems
have been decommissioned and abandoned (Section 3.2). However, in 2006, the City
initiated a study to evaluate the feasibility of creating a new well field in the southern part
of the City where groundwater levels are relatively high and the saturated thickness is
relatively large. The results of the evaluation are documented in the City of Lubbock
Groundwater Treatment Plant Engineering Report delivered by Parkhill, Smith & Cooper
and Black & Veatch in May 200626 and the Groundwater Utilization Study delivered by
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates in March 2007.27 The information in these reports was
utilized to evaluate this strategy.
The South Lubbock Well Field Strategy includes the installation of wells in existing City -
owned properties. Groundwater is transported to a new water treatment plant at PS #10,
near the intersection of Memphis Avenue and 82" d Street. The raw groundwater will need
advanced water treatment to overcome relatively high salinity and the possibility of the
groundwater being "under the influence" of surface water. The treated water will be
discharged into the ground storage tank at PS #10 for blending and distribution. However,
there is not sufficient capacity in PS #10 to accommodate this new water supply, and some
of the water destined for PS #10 will be diverted to other parts of Lubbock's distribution
system.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Installation of 17 water supply wells (2 are standby wells);
• All wells installed on City property and located to meet TCEQ's sanitary control
easement requirements (the well locations are based on previous work by
• Approximately 7 miles of 6 to 18-inch diameter raw water collection pipeline;
• Well pumps will be sized to deliver the raw water directly to the new advanced
water treatment plant at PS #10;
• A new advanced water treatment plant will be constructed near PS #10. The new
treatment plant will provide microfiltration and RO for desalination. The new
treatment plant will produce finished water with salinity near the concentration of
current potable water supplies;
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'Vov�fkFebruary 2013 7-35
• Treated water will be delivered to the existing ground storage tank at PS #10 for
blending and distribution;
• Since PS #10 is at capacity, an equal portion of water supply to PS #10 would be
diverted to another part of the distribution system in order to accommodate the new
supply at PS-10;
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline will connect PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line that feeds PS #7 (see Figure 4.12);
• Desalination concentrate will be disposed of by injecting the concentrate into the
Dockum Aquifer;
• The new treatment plant will be designed to produce desalination concentrate with
a TDS concentration that is less than or equal to the salinity of water in the
Dockum Aquifer; and
• The concentrate disposal well will be located near the new treatment plant.
Figure 7.18 depicts the relative locations of the well field and associated infrastructure
needed.
Figure 7.18 — South Lubbock Well Field. Infrastructure
Strategic Water Supply Plan fl4uU�JOCk
February 2013 7-36 ,Ex,:
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy is estimated to produce 7.0 mgd during the summer months (June -
September) each year to assist the City in meeting its peak demand. This pumping
schedule would contribute 2,613 ac-ft/yr to Lubbock's overall water supply. 8 However,
concerns exist regarding the ability of the Ogallala Aquifer to sustain the level of required
pumping from this area of the City for several decades. Additional information is needed
to more fully evaluate the quantity of water available from this strategy.
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.6. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• A high -capacity Ogallala Aquifer production well can produce 325 gpm (0.47
mgd);
• The depth to the base of the Ogallala is approximately 135 feet;
• Sparse and relatively old data suggest TDS concentrations range from
approximately 570 to over 1,600 mg/L. The composite raw water concentration is
expected to be below the secondary drinking water standard of 1,000 mg/L. If not,
then the water could be blended with other sources to meet drinking water
standards;
• This part of the Ogallala receives rather rapid and direct recharge from rainfall and
possibly urban irrigation. Considering the likelihood of the water being slightly
brackish and possibly "under the influence" of surface water, advanced water
treatment is planned. Advance treatment will include microfiltration and RO;
• Based on a 2003 TWDB report,29 the depth to the base of the best Dockum
sandstone is about 1,900 feet;
• Groundwater in the Dockum at this location has an estimated TDS concentration of
about 25,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L);
• Concentrate will be pumped directly into the Dockum disposal well;
• For an operational capacity of 7.0 mgd of potable water, 7.2 mgd of raw water is
required. The balance of 0.2 mgd becomes concentrate (50% bypass and 95%
efficiency);
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs is 35% for facilities required by this
strategy;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u_f'0_b_V6tYFebruary 2013 7-37,€SAS
® Interest during construction is 4.0%, and a 1.0% return on investments; and
® The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5 % interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4 bbotoyckFebruary 2013 7-38
Table 7.6 — South Lubbock Well Field Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Transmission Pipeline
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS#14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
Well Field (17 Ogallala wells, 7 miles of collector pipeline) $1,713,000
Disposal Well (1 Dockum well, 200 ft of pipeline) $750,000
Advanced Water Treatment Plant, with RO for desalination (7 mgd) $29,920,000
Distribution Improvements
Interconnect to existing ground storage tank $50,000
Total Capital Cost $39,141,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $15,076,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies, Permitting and $176,000
Restoration
Land Acquisition and Surveying (14 acres) $0
Interest During Construction (1 year) $2,075,000
Total Project Cost $56,468,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $5,135,000
Operation and Maintenance
Wells and Pipelines $141,000
Water Treatment Plant $1,920,000
Pumping Energy Costs (1,600,862 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh) $144,000
Purchase of Water $00
Total Annual Cost $7,340,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 2,613
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $2,809
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $8.62
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1uW6'yCk
February 2013 7-39 rExas
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $39,141,000. Costs estimates include adjustment
for construction in an urban setting. Annual debt service is $5,135,000; and, annual
operational cost, including power, is $2,205,000. This results in a total annual cost of
$7,340,000. The unit cost for a 2,613 ac-ft/yr supply is estimated to be $2,809 per ac-ft, or
$8.62 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
Environmental issues should be minimal since the new infrastructure would be installed in
an urban area.
PermittingIssues
ssues
Water well permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1
will be necessary. Design and construction of public water supply wells and water
treatment facilities must be approved by the TCEQ. Authorization to construct and operate
an injection well for concentrate disposal will also be required by the TCEQ.
Other
Wells will be placed on City owned properties. In addition, pipelines will be placed in
City utility easements. However, pipeline construction under City streets is costly due to
the surface infrastructure restoration necessary.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf--*bV6tYCk
February 2013 7-40 ,Ex�:
• MID I I OM l' '
This strategy consists of installing wells in the bottom portion of the Santa Rosa Formation
of the Dockum Aquifer. Brackish water would be pumped to the surface and treated
before being used for drinking water. The well system would be constructed on the City's
existing 320-acre SWTP site. Desalination facilities will be required for proper treatment,
and a concentrate disposal well discharing into the Permian formation will be necessary to
dispose of the concentrate produced during treatment.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• The installation of 4 Dockum production wells in the corners of the SWTP
property. Because of the availability of other water sources, no contingency or
standby wells are planned.
• The installation of 2 Permian injection wells. Storage facilities will be located on
the east side of the property;
• Approximately 10,400 feet of 8-inch diameter raw water collection pipeline;
• Approximately 8,300 feet of 6-inch diameter concentrate disposal pipeline;.
• Pumps will deliver the raw water directly to the desalination water treatment plant;
• The desalination water treatment plant will use RO technology, which will produce
potable water with a TDS concentration of 500 mg/L. The concentrate will have a
TDS concentration of about 170,000 mg/L;
• Concentrate will be delivered to a ground storage tank near the desalination water
treatment plant, which is sized to hold the amount of concentrate that is produced in
a day;
• From the ground storage tank, a high pressure pump will deliver the concentrate to
the injection well for disposal;
• For an operational capacity of 1.0 mgd of potable water, 1.17 mgd of raw water is
required. The balance of 0.17 mgd becomes concentrate (85% recovery); and
• Treated water will be delivered to the SWTP for blending and distribution.
Figure 7.19 depicts the relative locations of the Brackish Well Field and associated
infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy
February 2013 7-41llb�JO�fk
Figure 7.19 — Brackish Well Field Infrastructure
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy is designed for a dependable treated supply of 1,120 ac-ft/yr or 1.0 mgd.
The required raw water supply will be about 1,310 ac-ft/yr or 1.17 mgd and will generate
approximately 190 ac-ft/yr or 0.17 mgd of concentrate. Because the water supply will
come from a deep aquifer, it is considered to be independent of drought conditions.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlub-60tyCk
February 2013 7-42
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 7.7. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Based on information in the TWDB Groundwater Availability Model
documentation,30 a high -capacity Dockum production well is expected to produce
about 200 gpm (0.29 mgd);
• Based on a 2003 TWDB report,31 the depth to the base of the best Dockum
sandstone is about 1,900 feet;
• The water has an estimated TDS concentration of about 25,000 mg/L. This
concentration is estimated from relatively sparse data in the TWDB Groundwater
Availability Model report;32
• A high -capacity Permian injection well is about 5,000 feet deep for disposal of the
brine concentrate;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 35% for the facilities required by this
project;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is 4.0%, and a 1.0% return on investments; and
• The project will be financed for 20-years at a 5.5% interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 7-43 tl'uJIVov�fk
Table 7.7 — Brackish Well Field Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item
Costs
Capital Costs
Concentrate Pump Station
$930,000
Well Field (300 gpm, 1,900 ft deep, Dockum)
$3,335,000
Concentrate Well (175 gpm, 5,000 ft deep, Permian)
$3,825,000
Desalination Water Treatment (1.5 mgd)
$15,869,000
Total Capital Cost
$23,959,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies
$8,400,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation
$0
Land Acquisition and Surveying (13 acres)
$0
Interest During Construction (1 year)
$1,135,000
Total Project Cost
$33,494,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$2,806,000
Operation and Maintenance
Wells and Pipelines
$92,000
Water Treatment Plant
$917,000
Pumping Energy Costs (600,204 kwh @ 0.09 $/kwh)
$184,000
Purchase of Water
$0
Total Annual Cost
$3,999,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
1,120
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$3,571
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)
$10.96
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u"�Woty�fkFebruary 2013 7-44
As shown, the total cost is estimated to be $33,494,000. Annual debt service is $2,806,000;
and, annual operational cost, including power, is $1,193,000. The total annual cost is
$3,999,000. The unit cost for a 1,120 ac-ft/yr supply is estimated to be $3,571 per ac-ft, or
$10.96 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
Environmental issues should be minimal since the new infrastructure would be installed on
existing City properties. No known wildlife habitat or cultural resources would be
affected. An environmental assessment for the SWTP approved by the TWDB was
prepared as part of the LAH Phase 1 infrastructure project. In addition, environmental
assessments were performed as part of the City's due diligence in purchasing the property
for the SWTP.
Permitting Issues
Water well permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1
will be necessary. Design and construction of public water supply wells and water
treatment facilities must be approved by the TCEQ. Authorization to construct and
operate an injection well for concentrate disposal will also be required by the TCEQ.
Other
Wells and collection pipelines will be placed on City owned properties.
The target zone for brine disposal from oil and gas production in the area is about 5,000
feet deep in the Permian Formation. No other information is readily available to estimate
its suitability for a concentrate disposal well. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty
in the capacity of the Permian to accept the required injection rate for an extended period
of time.
Strategic Water Supply Plan c3 yo
February 2013 7-45 t1'u*--*bboCk
1 Water for Texas: 2012 State Water Plan. 163.
2 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: Figure 2-1.
3 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: Figure 2-2.
4 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 3-1.
5 Center for Geospatial Technology, Texas Tech University. 2008.
6 Center for Geospatial Technology, Texas Tech University. 2008.
7 2007 Strategic Water Supply Plan, City of Lubbock, Section 9.
8 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 101.
9 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 101.
to George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 101.
11 Blanford, T.N., M. Kuchanur, A Standen, K.C. Callum, P. Kirby,
and G. Shah.
Edwards -Trinity (High Plains) Groundwater Availability Model.
Texas Water
Development Board. 2008: 12-13.
12 Brackish Groundwater Manual for Texas Regional Water Planning Groups. Texas
Water Development Board. 2003: 91.
t3 Water for Texas: 2007 State Water Plan. 2007: 169.
14 Blanford, T.N., M. Kuchanur, A Standen, K.C. Calhoun, P. Kirby,
and G. Shah.
"Edwards -Trinity (High Plains) Groundwater Availability Model."
Texas Water
Development Board. 2008: 19.
15 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas.
Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 101.
16 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas. Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 102.
Strategic Water Supply Plan
toy
February 2013 7-46Lubb
�fk
17 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas. Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 97.
18 Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water
Development Board. October 2008: 1-1.
19 Ewing, J.E. and others. October 2008. Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model
for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water Development Board Report. October 2008:
Figure 4.2.2.
20 Ewing, J.E. and others. October 2008. Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model
for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water Development Board Report. October 2008:
Figure 4.8.1.
21 George, P.G., R.E. Mace, and R. Petrossian. Aquifers of Texas. Texas Water
Development Board: Report 380. 2011: 63.
22 Texas Water Development Board Groundwater Management Areas. Online:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/groundwater/management—areas/
23 Updated Bailey County Well Field Modeling Report, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates.
September 2012: 6.
24 Updated Bailey County Well Field Modeling Report, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates.
September 2012: 7.
zs Canadian River Municipal Water Authority Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facility:
Project Delivery Plan. CDM Smith. 2011.
26 Engineering Report: Groundwater Treatment Plant- Lubbock, Texas. Parkhill, Smith &
Cooper, Inc. May 2006.
27 City of Lubbock Groundwater Utilization Study. Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
March 23, 2007.
28 City of Lubbock Groundwater Utilization Study. Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
March 23, 2007: ES-3.
29 Bradley, R.G., and S. Kalaswad. December 2003. The groundwater resources of the
Dockum Aquifer in Texas: TWDB Report 359.
30 Ewing, J.E. and others. October 2008. Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model
for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water Development Board Report. October 2008.
Strategic Water Supply Plan �yyof
February 2013 7-47 tl'uf-bbock
31 Ewing, J.E. and others. October 2008. Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model
for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water Development Board Report. October 2008.
32 Ewing, J.E. and others. October 2008. Final Report: Groundwater Availability Model
for the Dockum Aquifer. Texas Water Development Board Report. October 2008.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf---*bbock
February 2013 7-48 ,��as
8.0 Surface Water Strategies
The State of Texas contains all or part of 23 river basins, as shown in Figure 8.1.
Legend
1 Canadian
=2 Red
=3 Sabine
= 4 Cypress
5 Sabine
6 Neches
7 Neches -Trinity
8 Upper Trinity
�9Trinity-San Jacinto
M 10 San Jacinto
11 San Jacinto-Brazc
12 Brazos
13 Brazos -Colorado
14 Colorado
r 15 Colorado -Lavaca
16 Lavaca
17 Lavaca-Guadalup
®18 Guadalupe
19 San Antonio
=20 San Antonio-Nuec
= 21 Nueces
=22 Nueces-Rio Grani
=23 Rio Grande
0 100 2001
1 1 1 1 1
Figure 8.1 - River Basins in Texas
Four of the river basins are within practical reach of Lubbock, including the Canadian
River, Red River, Brazos River, and Colorado River basins as depicted in Figure 8.2.
However, on the semi -arid High Plains of Texas, surface water is limited. With an average
annual rainfall for the Lubbock region of only 19 inches, typical surface water in the region
is limited to intermittent stream flows and storm water collected in playa lakes.' In the
absence of water discharged by the City of Lubbock, the North Fork remains dry most of
the year. The South Fork flows into LAH and historically has received greater storm flow
events than the North Fork. Lake Meredith is located in the Canadian River Basin.
Currently, Lake Meredith does not hold enough water to be a viable water supply for
Lubbock.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlh'UOCk
February 2013 8-1 iEK�f
Figure 8.2 — River Basins in the Lubbock Region
8.1 Developed Water — Supplements to Brazos River
Basin
Since flows in the upper Brazos River Basin are limited, the addition of developed water is
desirable to make new reservoirs viable. Developed water can be defined as water that is
non-native to the Brazos River Basin. Developed water includes groundwater,
groundwater -based reclaimed water, and playa lake water, the latter of which would be
considered privately owned diffuse surface water.
Supplemental Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed water that is treated to stream discharge standards and permitted to be
discharged into a surface water body can become a supplemental source of surface water.
Reclaimed water supply strategies are described in Section 6.0. Two potential lakes (Jim
Bertram Lake 7 and Post Reservoir) that rely upon reclaimed, developed, and storm water
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4"t Vtoy
February 2013 8-2
are discussed in Sections 8.3 and 8.4 respectively. These reservoirs only become feasible
strategies if a sufficient amount of treated wastewater is discharged into the North Fork and
recaptured in one or both of these reservoirs for reuse.
Supplemental Groundwater
The Yellow House Canyon and Blackwater Draw run through Lubbock and discharge into
the North Fork. In 1969, the City hired a consultant to perform the initial planning for the
Canyon Lakes Project, which consists of a series of eight dams and small reservoirs in the
Yellow House Canyon. The City subsequently constructed a series of lakes in the Yellow
House Canyon. These lakes were named as follows:
Lake 1 Conquistador Lake
Lake 2 Llano Estacado Lake
Lake 3 Comacheria Lake
Lake 4 Not Constructed
Lake 5 Mackenzie Park Lake
Lake 6 Dunbar Lake
This system of lakes was originally known as the Canyon Lake System but was later
renamed the Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS). The City has developed a park system
around these lakes. The JBLS is depicted in Figure 8.3.
These small lakes receive a constant flow of water each year from groundwater that is
pumped from under the Lubbock Land Application Site (LLAS) just outside of East Loop
289 adjacent to the City. The pumping began in 1989 as part of an Agreed Order from the
TCEQ to reduce a water mound and high levels of nitrate in the groundwater beneath the
LLAS. TPDES Discharge Permit No. WQ00004599000 issued on April 28, 2006
(renewed September 18, 2009 with an expiration date on March 1, 2014), allows a
maximum daily discharge of groundwater into Lake 1 of 4.3 mgd (4,817 ac-ft/yr).
The City obtained Certificate of Adjudication 12-3705 in February 1985, which authorizes
the impoundment of water in the JBLS for recreation purposes, with no diversion right.
Certificate 12-3705 was subsequently amended two times at the City's request (12-7305A
on February 28, 1997 and 12-7305B on May 11, 2007) to obtain the right to divert from
Lakes 1, 2 and 6, and to gain more flexibility in using the water for agriculture, municipal,
recreational, and industrial purposes in Lubbock and Lynn Counties. The combined rate of
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4loVoty�fS
February 2013 8-3
authorized diversion is 4.3 mgd (4,817 ac-ft/yr). The City can only divert the amount of
groundwater that it discharges into the JBLS, less carriage losses. On average, the City
currently discharges approximately 2.0 mgd (2,240 ac-ft/yr) into the JBLS. The City
diverts water from the JBLS and uses it to irrigate various parks and facilities. The major
users of the JBLS water are as follows:
Berl Huffinan Soccer Complex 215.7 ac-ft/yr
Meadowbrook Golf Course 484.4 ac-ft/yr
City Cemetery 245.8 ac-ft/yr
Total JBLS Water Used -2011 945.9 ac-ft/yr
By using the JBLS water for irrigation of these large areas, the City is conserving its
potable water supply.
Figure 8.3- Jim Bertram Lake System
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l9OCk
February 2013 8-4 ,EY,S
Supplemental Playa Lake Water
A potential source of surface water that can supplement the natural flows of the Brazos
River Basin is the water stored in playa lakes throughout the City. Storm water in the
Lubbock area collects in playa lakes and can flood surrounding structures. In an effort to
reduce the potential for flooding around the playa lakes, the City completed the
construction of the South -Central Drainage System in 2003 and the South Drainage
System in 2008. These systems convey excess storm water into the Yellow House Canyon
(a tributary to the North Fork) as depicted in Figure 8.4. Discharges into the North Fork
are authorized by the TCEQ pursuant to the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) TPDES permit no. WQ0004773000.
Figure 8.4 — South Central & South Playa Lake Drainage Systems
The quantity of water available from these systems will vary based on seasonal and annual
rainfall events. According to a Municipal Precipitation Runoff study performed in October
2008, the following volumes of storm water can be anticipated from these two discharge
points designated as No. 30 and No. 31, respectively.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u4_0b*VtCf
February 2013 8-5 ,Ex�f
Storm Event
Point 30
Point 31
Total Discharge
2 - Year
1,278
773
2,051 ac-ft
5 - Year
2,182
1,279
3,461 ac-ft
10 - Year
2,941
1,713
4,654 ac-ft
The impoundment and diversion of the storm water after its discharge from the South and
South Central Playa Lake Drainage Systems will ultimately require water use permits. In
May 2009, the City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Brazos River Authority
(BRA) where the BRA acknowledged these two drainage systems as the City's developed
water.3 This agreement ensures that the BRA will not contest any of Lubbock's
applications or filings that seek to divert and use these storm water flows. The City also
has a pending application for Water Use Permit 5921 in which the City is seeking the right
to impound in Lake 7 and divert water originating as treated effluent discharges and storm
water from the South and South Central Playa Lake Drainage Systems.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u4';-bV0'31
�fk
February 2013 8-6
8.2 Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 Strategy
Lake Alan Henry impounds water on the South Fork. This water supply strategy includes
expanding the existing LAH infrastructure so that its capacity to transport and treat raw
water from the lake to the City of Lubbock is increased from 15 mgd to 30 mgd. As
discussed in Section 3.0, Lubbock began using LAH as a water supply during the fall of
2012. The existing LAH raw water supply pipeline (Phase 1) consists of-
9 Two raw water pump stations —Lake Alan Henry (LAHPS) and Post (PPS) pump
stations;
• The SWTP;
• A 42-inch diameter raw water transmission pipeline from the LAHPS to the PPS;
• A 48-inch diameter raw water transmission pipeline from the PPS to the SWTP;
and
• Treated water transmission lines that move water into three pump stations (PS #8,
PS #10, and PS #14) within Lubbock's water distribution system.
Expansion of the existing infrastructure is necessary to supply water to the City at a greater
daily rate. The major design features of the LAH Phase 2 strategy include:
• Construction of a Southland Pump Station (SLPS);
• Capacity expansion of equipment at the LAHPS and the PPS;
• A 15 mgd expansion of the SWTP, which includes expansion of the high service
pump station; and
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12).
Figure 8.5 depicts the additional infrastructure required for this strategy.
Strategic Water Supply Plan �a yyoe
February 2013 g-, tl'uf--*bbock
Figure 8.5 — Lake Alan Henry Phase 2
Quantity of Available Water
The City intends to operate LAH near the 2-year safe yield of 16,080 ac-ft/yr. 4 The current
water supply infrastructure will only deliver 8,000 ac-ft/yr with a peaking capacity of 15
mgd. Phase 2 will be constructed to increase the total deliverable water to 16,000 ac-ft/yr
from LAH, an incremental increase of 8,000 ac-ft/yr. The pump stations and the SWTP
will be modified to provide a peak capacity of 30 mgd. Additional raw water transmission
lines will not be necessary since the existing pipelines were sized to handle up to 34 mgd5
with the appropriate pumping capacity.
The additional capacity of the raw water transmission lines may be used if other water
supply strategies are implemented, such as the NFD-LAHPS (Section 6.8), the Post
Reservoir (Section 8.4), or the North Fork Scalping Operation (Section 8.5).
Strategic Water Supply Plan �bUOCk
February 2013 8-8 r�x�s
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 8.1. Facility component sizes
were obtained from a Freese and Nichols, Inc. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
estimate provided to the City of Lubbock. These costs and facility sizes are used in this
cost estimate. Other assumptions and conditions associated with these costs include:
• Energy costs to transmit the additional water from the expansion through the
LAHPS and pipeline are included. These costs are based on an average annual
delivery of an additional 7.1 mgd (8,000 ac-ft/yr) through the upgraded system;
• Existing infrastructure will be used to transmit treated water from the SWTP into
the City's water distribution system;
• Land for the new SLPS has already been purchased;
• Energy costs and upgrades to Pump Station #14 were not included in transmission
pipeline costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1% return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl4uW6C
February 2013 8-9 ,E�
Table 8.1— Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item
Costs
Capital Costs
LAH Pump Station Expansion (additional 15 mgd)
$4,691,000
Post Pump Station Expansion (additional 15 mgd)
$3,330,996
Southland Pump Station Expansion (30 mgd)
$6,910,000
Transmission Pipeline
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS#14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line)
$6,708,000
Water Treatment Plant Expansion (additional 15 mgd)
$23,875,000
Total Capital Cost
$45,514,996
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies
$15,840,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation
$5,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (5 acres)
$6,000
Interest During Construction (2 years)
$4,345,000
Total Project Cost
$65,710,996
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$5,557,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station
$442,000
SWTP Expansion
$112,000
Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh)
$1,936,000
Total Annual Cost
$8,047,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
8,000
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$1,006
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)
$3.09
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u_0_.*bVtoyFebruary 2013 8-10,�XAx
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $65,710,000. Annual debt service is
$5,557,000; and, the annual operational cost, including power, is $2,490,000. This results
in a total annual cost of $8,047,000. The unit cost for an additional annual supply of 7.1
mgd or 8,000 ac-ft/yr from LAH is estimated to be $1,006 per ac-ft, or $3.09 per 1,000
gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental
Environmental issues associated with this option should be minimal. The TWDB
approved an environmental assessment for the overall Phase 1 project so the City could
qualify for low interest loans administered through the TWDB. In addition, environmental
assessments were performed at the locations of the proposed SLPS' and the SWTP9
expansion. Therefore, no additional assessment should be necessary at these locations.
The treated water transmission pipeline routes can be selected to avoid sensitive wildlife
habitat and cultural resources.
Permitting
Raw water will be obtained from LAH, which is owned by the City of Lubbock. Water
Use Permit No. 4146 allows for the diversion of 35,000 ac-ft each year. No additional
permitting requirements are anticipated. The TCEQ will need to approve design
modifications to the existing system.
Other Issues
The City owns property where the SLPS and the additional SWTP capacity will be
constructed. The treated water transmission pipeline will be installed within the city limits
and preferably within existing City street easements.
Strategic Water Supply Plan citygf
February 2013 8-11 tlt'�
bbock
The Jim Bertram Lake 7 Strategy was initially conceived as part of the Jim Bertram Lakes
Project described in Section 8.1. The Lake 7 reservoir will be located on the North Fork
and have a reservoir holding capacity of 20,000 ac-ft at a conservation pool elevation of
3,100 ft-msl.
Most of the yield associated with this strategy is generated by capturing the City's
reclaimed water. However, Lake 7 will also capture storm water flows and discharges
from the City's South and South Central Playa Lake Drainage Systems discussed in
Section 8.1. These three sources of surface water make Lake 7 a viable supply strategy.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• The construction of the dam and 20,000 ac-ft lake inundating 774 acres;
• A new intake structure and 665 hp pump station near the Lake 7 dam;
• A 5-mile, 24-in transmission pipeline that will deliver the raw water to the SWTP;
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12); and
• A 10.1 mgd expansion of the SWTP which includes an expansion of the high
service pump station at the SWTP.
A report entitled Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7 was completed by HDR
Engineering, Inc.10 under the City's direction in September of 2011. This report provided
an optimal location for the lake to be built upstream of Buffalo Springs Lake along the
North Fork. Figure 8.6 depicts the relative locations of Lake 7 and associated
infrastructure that will be needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uJI dCk
February 2013 8-12 TE�x
Figure 8.6 — Jim Bertram Lake 7 Infrastructure
Quantity of Available Water
According to the HDR Feasibility Report, Jim Bertram Lake 7 will supply a one-year safe
yield of 11,300 ac-ft/yr of raw water. The safe yield is based upon the availability of
return flows discharged by the City and the availability of playa lake developed water.
Natural inflows captured by Lake 7 were modeled subject to the TCEQ's Consensus
Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs (CCEFN) instream flow requirements. The
individual contributions of the three sources of inflows to increase the yield of Lake 7 are
as follows:
Reclaimed Water (8 mgd): 7,300 ac-ft/yr
Playa Lake Developed Water: 2,200 ac-ft/yr
State Water/Natural Inflow: 1,800 ac-ft/yr
Total 11,300 ac-ft/yr
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf__ObV6v�fkFebruary 2013 8-13
This yield amount is subject to the City obtaining sole rights to its developed water (playa
lake storm water and reclaimed water).11 Increases and decreases of the reclaimed water
available will have an approximate one to one increase or decrease on the reservoir's safe
yield. The reclaimed water will come from Outfall 007 located at the SEWRP and/or
another future outfall further upstream. The Lake 7 yield does not include any reductions
attributed to horizontal leakage through the canyon walls.
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 8.2. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Flows used to design the intake, pump station, and transmission pipelines include
an estimated 5% downtime;
• The treated water transmission pipeline will be installed within the city limits and
preferably within existing city street easements;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 were not included in transmission pipeline
costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1 % return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4lgty f
February 2013 8-14 ,Ex��
Table 8.2 — Jim Bertram Lake 7 Stratem Uosts
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Dam and Reservoir (20,000 ac-ft, 774 acres, 3,100 ft msl) $25,322,000
Intake and Pump Station (10.6 mgd) $6,579,000
Transmission Pipeline
24 in dia., 5 miles $3,392,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS#14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line) $6,708,000
SWTP Expansion (10.1 mgd) $18,097,000
Total Capital Cost $60,098,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $20,529,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $914,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (803 acres) $1,007,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $5,780,000
Total Project Cost $88,328,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $4,188,000
Reservoir Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $3,203,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $265,000
Dam and Reservoir $380,000
SWTP Expansion $1,557,000
Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $372,000
Total Annual Cost $9,965,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 11,300
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $882
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $2.71
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan cityoi
February 2013 8-15 Lubbock
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $88,328,000. Annual debt service is
$7,391,000; and, the annual operational cost, including power, is $2,574,000. This results
in a total annual cost of $9,965,000. The unit cost for 11,300 ac-ft/yr supply is estimated
to be $882 per acre-foot, or $2.71 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
The primary environmental issue related to this strategy is the change in land use of 774
acres from ranchland to a reservoir site. In July 2011, the City provided an Environmental
Information Document (EID) to the TCEQ which described the environment that will
potentially be affected by the construction of Lake 7.12 According to the EID, this project
will have an impact on the environment, and a mitigation plan will be required to
compensate for unavoidable impacts. Some of the issues identified in the EID include:
• No federal or state protected aquatic life has been found (neither the smalleye
shiner nor the sharpnose shiner).13
• A baseline survey revealed that the Texas horned lizard (Texas listed threatened
species) is thriving in the project vicinity. Additional evaluation and a management
and mitigation plan will be necessary if the reservoir is built.14
• A review of Texas Historical Commission and other records identified 17
archeological sites in or near the project area that will need to be assessed.15
Permittiniz Issues
As discussed in Section 6.0, the existing TPDES Permit No. 10353-002 authorizes the City
to discharge up to 14.5 mgd (16,242 ac-ft/yr) of reclaimed water at the SEWRP into the
North Fork at Outfall 007. In 2005, the City submitted Water Rights Application No. 5921
which, among other things, seeks the right to impound and divert water from the proposed
Lake 7. Although the application was declared administratively complete in April 2006,
the TCEQ's technical review is still on -going. The TCEQ has received eight requests for
contested case hearings. It will take several more years before the permit may be issued to
the City.
In addition, a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit will be
required prior to commencing construction of Lake 7. This lake is large enough to require
an individual permit. Mitigation plans for the project's environmental impacts must be
developed and agreed upon by the USACE and other state and federal resource agencies.
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy
of
February 2013 8-16 tl'u4bbock
Other
Property will need to be acquired for the lake, dam, pump station, and mitigation area. In
addition, pipeline utility easements will be necessary to construct a raw water transmission
line to the SWTP.
The geological formation that the dam foundation will be constructed upon appears to be
somewhat pervious. Extensive cut-off wall and grout curtains will need to be installed to
avoid water seeping under the dam and around the abutments. In addition, there may be
considerable leakage from the reservoir conservation pool to the local groundwater aquifer
system. The Comanche Peak formation could also allow vertical leakage from the
reservoir through the valley floor.16 A study was initiated by the City in 2012 to
investigate these geologic formation issues.
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy
February 2013 8_17 lubbck
Post Reservoir is considered an indirect reuse strategy defined in Section 6.0, since much
of the lake's capacity will be created by the City's reclaimed water. The proposed
reservoir site is located on the North Fork northeast of Post, Texas in Garza County.
Certificate of Adjudication No. 12-3711 authorizes the impoundment of 57,420 ac-ft of
water and the diversion and use of up to 10,600 ac-ft of water per year. Under this
strategy, water will be impounded and diverted from the reservoir and transported to the
existing PPS that delivers water from LAH to Lubbock. The 48-inch diameter LAH raw
water line is adequate to convey water from both the Post Reservoir and LAH. However,
an expansion of the SWTP will be necessary.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• Construction of a 57,420 ac-ft, 2,280 acre reservoir;
• A new intake structure and pump station located at the reservoir site;
• A 6-mile, 24-in transmission pipeline to deliver water from Post Reservoir to the
PPS;
• An 8 mgd expansion of the SWTP;
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12);
• Expansion of the PPS to transport raw water along the LAH pipeline system; and
• The addition of the SLPS located on the LAH raw water pipeline.
Figure 8.7 depicts the additional infrastructure required for this strategy.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'uf-*bV6v�fkFebruary 2013 8-18
Figure 8.7 — Post Reservoir Infrastructure
Quantity of Available Water
The conservation pool will store approximately 57,420 ac-ft of water (neglecting
sedimentation), with a surface area of 2,280 acres. Analyses using the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Water Availability Model (WAM) indicate a range of
firm and safe yield supplies could be developed for this strategy, depending upon treatment
of upstream return flows, sediment storage reserves, instream flow requirements and playa
lake stormwater flows. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 8,962 ac-ft/yr (8
mgd) of water is available for diversion from the Post Reservoir, given that Lake 7 would
not be constructed upstream.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ty�February 2013 8-19tl'u'19ock
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 8.3. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Flows used to design the intake, pump station, and transmission pipeline designs
include an estimated 5% downtime;
• Expansion costs of the PPS is included;
• The construction of the SLPS is included;
• Energy costs to transmit water through the LAHPS and pipeline are included;
• Existing infrastructure will be used for transmission of treated water from the
SWTP into the City's water distribution system;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 were not included in transmission pipeline
costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1 % return on investments
over a 2-year period; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'bu1--'�JUCkFebruary 2013 8-20rExas
fable s.3 — Yost Keservoir atrateav costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item I Costs
Capital Costs
Dam and Reservoir
$22,145,000
Intake and Pump Station
$6,295,000
Transmission Pipeline
24 in dia., 6 miles
$3,512,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS#14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line)
$6,708,000
SWTP Expansion (8.0 mgd)
$14,990,000
LAH Pipeline Expansion
$7,798,000
Total Capital Cost
$61,448,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies $20,996,000
Permitting Fees $5,000,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation $2,435,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (2,307 acres) $2,609,000
Interest During Construction (2 years) $6,475,000
Total Project Cost $98,963,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $4,824,000
Reservoir Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years) $3,457,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station $260,000
Dam and Reservoir $322,000
SWTP Expansion $1,287,000
Post Pipeline Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $330,000
LAH Pipeline Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh) $495,000
Total Annual Cost $10,975,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr) 8,962
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft) $1,225
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons) $3.76
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan �UUbOCk
February 2013 8-21 ,Fxk,
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $98,963,000. Annual debt service is
$8,281,000; and, annual operational cost, including power, is $2,694,000. This results in a
total annual cost of $10,975,000. The unit cost for 8,962 ac-ft/yr supply is estimated to be
$1,225 per ac-ft, or $3.76 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental
The primary environmental issue related to this strategy is the change in land use of 2,250
acres from ranchland to a reservoir site. There will be a high impact on animal habitats
that must be mitigated. Studies will be necessary to determine the actual impact to cultural
resources, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species. However, it is anticipated
that the construction of the reservoir will have a low to moderate impact related to these
concerns. 1 7
Permitting
As discussed in Section 6.0, the existing TPDES Permit No. 10353-002 authorizes the City
to discharge up to 14.5 mgd (16,242 ac-ft/yr) of reclaimed water at the SEWRP into the
North Fork at Outfall 007, and up to 9.0 mgd (10,089 ac-ft/yr) at FM400 at Outfall 001.
The White River Municipal Water District (WRMWD) holds Certificate of Adjudication
No. 12-3711, which authorizes the Post Reservoir with a priority date of January 20, 1970.
This Certificate authorizes impoundment of 57,420 ac-ft in the reservoir. It also authorizes
diversion of 5,600 ac-ft/yr for municipal use, 1,000 ac-ft/yr for industrial use, and 4,000
ac-ft/yr for mining purposes. The City will need to obtain ownership of the water right in
order to construct the reservoir. The certificate will need to be amended so the City can
obtain authorization to divert and use the full 10,600 ac-ft/yr for municipal purposes and
obtain clarification regarding 19,000 ac-ft of sediment reserve identified in the special
conditions of the certificate. In addition, a USACE Section 404 permit will be required
prior to commencing construction of the Post Reservoir. This lake is large enough to
require an individual permit. Mitigation plans for the project's environmental impacts
must be developed and agreed upon by the USACE and other interested state and federal
resource agencies.
Other Issues
Property will need to be acquired for the lake, dam, pump station, and wildlife mitigation
area. In addition, pipeline utility easements will be necessary to construct a raw water
transmission line to the PPS.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ul-ObVOCk
February 2013 8-22 ,Ex:
The North Fork Scalping Operation (NFSO) strategy is designed to increase the firm yield
of LAH by 8,725 ac-ft/yr by collecting and re -directing storm water from the North Fork
into the lake. To accomplish this, a diversion reservoir will be built on the North Fork in
Garza County. This diversion reservoir will capture storm water flows on the river. A
pumping station at the diversion reservoir will move the water from the diversion reservoir
through an oversized transmission pipeline that can handle substantial, sudden surges of
water into a stilling basin near Gobbler Creek. The stilling basin will decrease the velocity
of the scalped water and therefore reduce erosion. The water from the stilling basin will
flow into Gobbler Creek which naturally drains into LAH.
The major design features of this strategy include:
• A 1,000 ac-ft, 650 acre diversion reservoir on the North Fork to capture high flows
for scalping;
• A new intake structure and a 12,669 hp pump station at the diversion site;
• A 5-mile, 96-in transmission pipeline to deliver the scalped high flows from the
North Fork to LAH;
• A stilling basin located at the discharge point located on Gobbler Creek;
• Construction of the SLPS;
• A 7.8 mgd expansion of the SWTP which includes expansion of the high service
pump station at the SWTP; and
• A 4-mile, 42-in transmission pipeline connecting PS #14 to the Low Head B by-
pass line (see Figure 4.12).
Figure 8.8 depicts the relative locations of the NFSO infrastructure needed.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tIu - �6
February 2013 8-23 rEzas
Figure 8.8- North Fork Scalping Operation Infrastructure
The NFSO strategy could be combined with the North Fork Diversion to LAHPS strategy
(diverting reclaimed water) described in Section 6.8. since both strategies could utilize the
same diversion dam and reservoir.
Quantity of Available Water
The NFSO will be an intermittent and unpredictable source of water because it is
dependent upon local precipitation and storm events. However, a model developed by
HDR Engineering, Inc., estimates that the NFSO could increase the firm yield of LAH by
as much as 7.8 mgd or 8,725 ac-ft/yr.18
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4"tgotyA�tFebruary 2013 8-24
Strategy Costs
Costs associated with this strategy are presented in Table 8.4. Assumptions and conditions
associated with these costs include:
• Expansion costs of the LAHPS and PPS
• Construction of the SLPS;
• Energy costs to transmit water through the LAHPS and pipeline are included;
• Existing infrastructure will be used to transmit treated water from the SWTP into
the City's water distribution system;
• Energy costs and upgrades to PS #14 were not included in transmission pipeline
costs;
• Engineering, legal, and contingency costs are 30% of pipeline construction and
35% of other facilities constructed;
• Power is available at $0.09 per kwh;
• Interest during construction is estimated at 4.0%, and a 1% return on investments
over a 2-year period.; and
• The project will be financed for 20 years at a 5.5% annual interest rate.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf-**bV6'�fkFebruary 2013 8-25
Table 8.4 — North Fork Scalping Operation Costs
Cost Estimate Summary / March 2012 Prices
Item
Costs
Capital Costs
Dam and Reservoir (Conservation Pool 1,000 ac-ft, 650 acres)
$2,582,000
Intake and Pump Station (162.4 mgd)
$30,334,000
Transmission Pipeline
96 in dia., 5 miles
$21,388,000
42-in dia., 4 miles (PS#14 to Low Head B By -Pass Line)
$6,708,000
Stilling Basin
$756,000
SWTP Expansion (7.8 mgd)
$14,727,000
LAH Pipeline Expansion (SLPS, PPS, LAHPS)
$10,177,000
Total Capital Cost
$86,672,000
Engineering, Legal Costs, and Contingencies
$28,893,000
Environmental & Archaeology Studies and Mitigation
$786,000
Land Acquisition and Surveying (684 acres)
$931,000
Interest During Construction (2 years)
$8,211,000
Total Project Cost
$125,493,000
Annual Costs
Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$10,070,000
Reservoir Debt Service (5.5%, 20 years)
$432,000
Operation and Maintenance
Intake, Pipeline, Pump Station
$1,047,000
Dam and Reservoir
$39,000
SWTP Expansion
$1,264,000
Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh)
$504,000
LAH Pumping Energy Costs (0.09 $/kwh)
$1,870,000
Total Annual Cost
$15,226,000
Available Project Yield (ac-ft/yr)
8,725
Annual Cost of Water ($ per ac-ft)
$1,745
Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)
$5.35
Costs prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf__4b0V6ty�fk
February 2013 8-26
As shown, the total project cost is estimated to be $125,493,000. Annual debt service is
$10,502,000; and, the annual operational cost, including power, is $4,724,000. This results
in a total annual cost of $15,226,000. The unit cost for 7.8 mgd or 8,725 ac-ft/yr supply is
estimated to be $1,745 per acre-foot, or $5.35 per 1,000 gallons.
Implementation Issues
Environmental Issues
This project should have a low to moderate impact on the environment, including habitats,
cultural resources, wetlands, and threatened or endangered species.19 Some concern exists
that discharging storm water from the North Fork into LAH could encourage golden algae
growth in LAH. Golden alga is an organism that is toxic to fish under certain conditions,
and has been found in lakes along the North Fork.20 The sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner may soon be listed as a threatened species on the federal list. These fish have been
found along this reach of the North Fork. Increased flows into Gobbler Creek may change
the size and configuration of the channel.21
PermittingIssues
A new water use permit from the TCEQ will be required for the impoundment and
diversion of water from the North Fork and the conveyance of the diverted water into
LAH. Diversions will be subject to instream flow requirements. A USACE Section 404
permit will be required prior to commencing construction of the diversion facilities.
Mitigation plans for the project's environmental impacts must be developed and agreed
upon by the USACE and other interested state and federal resource agencies. The TCEQ
must review and approve construction of proposed facilities.
Other Issues
Property will need to be acquired for the diversion reservoir, dam, and pump station. In
addition, pipeline utility easements will be necessary to construct a raw water transmission
line to Gobbler Creek.
Strategic Water Supply Plan � ty of
February 2013 8_27 Lubbock
I Annual Water Highlights: Technical Summary. Brazos River Authority. 2000: III-6.
2 Municipal Precipitation Runoff Contributions to the North Fork of the Double Mountain
Fork of the Brazos River (City of Lubbock Discharge Points 30 & 31). Parkhill,
Smith & Cooper, Inc. August 2008: 20, 47.
3 Interlocal Agreement Between The Brazos River Authority of Texas and The City of
Lubbock, Texas. Resolution No. 2009-R0187. May 14, 2009.
4 Lake Alan Henry Yield Model - Memo. HDR, Inc. January, 24 2008.
5 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-179.
6 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: LAH System Upgrades for 36 mgd. Freese
and Nichols, Inc. September 4, 2012.
7 Environmental Assessment for the City of Lubbock Lake Alan Henry Water Supply
Project. Freese and Nichols, Inc.; June 2009
8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 4.82 Acre Tract, Southland, Garza County,
Texas (Southland Pump Station Site), Prepared by V-Tech Environmental Services,
January 8, 2008.
9 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, West half of Section 72, Block S, Lubbock
County, Texas (South Water Treatment Plant Site), Prepared by the City of
Lubbock, August 5, 2008.
to Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011.
11 Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011, p. 7-1.
12 Environmental Information Document in Support of Water Use permit Application No.
5921; City of Lubbock, July 2011.
13 Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011, p. 5-4.
14 Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011, p. 5-5.
15 Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011, p. 5-7.
16 Feasibility of Constructing the Proposed Lake 7, HDR, Inc., September 2011, p. 7-2.
17 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan. Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: p. 4-219-221.
Strategic Water Supply Plan -
February 2013 8-28 tl'u"bVotyCk
18 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan.
Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: 4-202.
19 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan.
Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: p. 4-213.
20 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan.
Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: p. 4-206.
21 2011 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan.
Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning
Group. September 2010: p. 4-208, 210.
Strategic Water Supply Plan p tl'uf-*Wovo�fFebruary 2013 8-29 i05
9.0 Other Strategies Considered
In addition to the 16 water strategies that were fully evaluated and ranked, several
strategies were considered that either:
1) did not consist of enough data to be fully evaluated, or
2) were evaluated in the past but found undesirable for various reasons.
These strategies include Jim Bertram Lake 8, a Jim Bertram Lakes well field, a linear well
field along the CRMWA Aqueduct, and the addition of a second CRMWA Aqueduct often
referred to as CRMWA III. These strategies are discussed in this section.
This strategy was included in the 2006 Llano Estacado (Region O) Regional Water Plan.
The concept behind this strategy was to construct both Jim Bertram Lake 7 and 8
simultaneously. These lakes were both included to provide a way to use Lubbock's
developed water resources. Developed resources include storm water collected into playa
lakes, groundwater pumped from under the LLAS, and treated wastewater discharged into
the North Fork. Figure 9.4 depicts the proposed location of Lake 8 downstream of Lake
Ransom Canyon.
Lake 8 would be built to capture, store, and divert water to the SWTP and subsequently
pumped into Lubbock's water distribution system. Design includes: I
• A reservoir with 49,900 acre-feet of storage capacity;
• A 26.7 mgd capacity pump station and intake structure;
• A 90-inch diameter raw water transmission pipeline with a 26.7 mgd capacity to
transfer water 7 miles to the SWTP; and
• Expansion of the SWTP to include an additional 21 mgd treatment capacity.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf__'-*J90Ck
February 2013 9-1 ,��,
Figure 9.1— Location of Proposed Jim Bertram Lake 8
Quantity of Available Water
This strategy was estimated to provide an additional 17,720 ac-ft/yr of annual water supply
to Lubbock. This firm yield was determined in conjunction with a 3,500 ac-ft/yr yield for
Lake 7 for a total system yield of 21,200 ac-ft/yr.2 Yields for these two lakes were based
on 25,648 ac-ft/yr of available reclaimed water. Current projections indicate that by 2113
(in 100 years), less than 22,000 ac-ft/yr of reclaimed water will be available for direct
and/or indirect reuse (See Section 6.3).
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl4uWtoy �fkFebruary 2013 9-2
Implementation Issues
In 2005, the City submitted Water Rights Application No. 5921 which, among other
things, originally sought the right to impound and divert water from both Lakes 7 and 8.
Although the application was declared administratively complete in April 2006, the
TCEQ's technical review is still on -going. On March 4, 2008, a request was made by
Lubbock to the TCEQ to remove Lake 8 from the permit application. This was due
primarily to the number of existing structures and properties that Lake 8 would inundate if
constructed. Lake 8 was subsequently deleted from the 2011 Region O Water Plan.
Another potential strategy consists of installing a series of shallow wells in close proximity
to the Jim Bertram Lake System. This lake system flows through east Lubbock as depicted
in Figure 9.2. Wells would be installed on either side of the Lakes 1, 2 and 3. The water
would be pumped to the surface, collected, and transported through a pipeline to the
NWTP for treatment and distribution.
Data needed to further evaluate this strategy includes:
• The recommended distance between the "bed and banks" of the river basin to the
proposed wells;
• The hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial formation;
• The depth to the groundwater table and the base of the formation;
• The recommended number of wells;
• A determination of the amount of water that these wells can produce over a
sustained period;
• A determination of whether the groundwater is under the influence of surface
water;
• A determination of whether the groundwater is considered to be part of the "bed
and banks" of the river system;
• Water rights or water use permits that will be required;
• The allowable spacing of the proposed wells;.
• The size and length of collection and transmission pipelines that will be needed;
• The type of pumping facilities that will be needed; and,
• The level of treatment that will be required.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'u_r_-*bV6tY�fS
February 2013 9-3
Figure 9.2 — Jim Bertram Lakes Well Field
This strategy has been considered because installing a well field along the Jim Bertram
Lakes System has the potential to be a sustainable supply of water since the water in the
lakes is recharging into the surrounding water bearing formations. However, one
uncertainty is that most of the water found in the lake system has been supplied by
pumping groundwater from the LLAS and discharging it into Lake 1. This groundwater
remediation project will not provide a long-term, reliable supply of water (beyond 30
years). When the remediation project is ended, another source of water would need to be
discharged into the JBLS to continue recharging the surrounding water bearing formations.
9.3 Linear Well Field - CRMWA Aqueduct
This potential strategy consists of installing a series of wells into the Ogallala Aquifer at
optimal locations near the existing CRMWA Aqueduct. The groundwater would be
pumped to the surface, collected, and transported to the aqueduct for delivery to Lubbock's
NWTP for treatment and distribution. This concept is depicted in Figure 9.3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u'tVoy
February 2013 9-4 «„
Figure 9.3 — Linear Well Field — CRMWA Aqueduct
The proposed linear well field would be located in an optimal area (encircled in yellow on
the figure) between Tulia and Amarillo along the CRMWA Aqueduct.
Strategic Water Supply Plan cityofFebruary 2013 9-5tI'u-l-*bbock
Data needed to further evaluate this strategy includes:
• Recommended areas along the aqueduct to install proposed wells;
• The hydraulic characteristics of the Ogallala formation in the areas of interest;
• The depth to the groundwater table and the base of the formation;
• The recommended number of wells;
• A determination of the amount of water the wells can produce over a sustained
period;
• Water rights and/or water use permits that will be required;
• The allowable spacing of the proposed wells;
• The size and length of collection and transmission pipelines that will be needed;
• The type of pumping facilities that will be needed;
• The level of treatment that will be required.
This strategy has been considered because installing wells along the aqueduct could be a
cost effective way to supplement the supply of water in the aqueduct. However, additional
information is needed before the evaluation can be completed.
9.4 Additional CRMWA Aqueduct
When the RCWF New Transmission Line (Section 7.5) is built, the current CRMWA
Aqueduct will be near capacity delivering up to 43,728 ac-ft/yr to Lubbock. At that point,
the only way to increase the allocation of water to CRMWA member cities' will be to
expand the capacity of the aqueduct system. This strategy proposes the construction of a
new aqueduct that runs parallel to the existing CRMWA Aqueduct from an area north of
Amarillo to Lubbock's NWTP. Since Lake Meredith is no longer a source of water for the
aqueduct and the two RCWF transmission lines will be at capacity, a third transmission
line will also be needed to convey greater quantities of water from the RCWF to the
aqueducts.
The existing aqueduct was originally built to transport surface water to member cities. The
water must pass through two open top balancing reservoirs between the lake and Lubbock.
Therefore, all of the raw water, including groundwater, is treated the same as surface
water. If the second aqueduct is constructed, it could be built as a "groundwater only"
pipeline and by-pass the balancing reservoirs. This would allow the groundwater to be
Strategic Water Supply Plan tltbVtoy if
February 2013 9-6 ,�Af
chlorinated and by-pass Lubbock's NWTP which is a conventional surface water treatment
facility.
Data needed to further evaluate this strategy includes:
• The allowable RCWF field pumping capacity based on Panhandle Groundwater
Conservation District rules;
• The optimal rate of RCWF production;
• The recommended size of the second CRMWA aqueduct;
• The recommended size of the third RCWF transmission line to the CRMWA
aqueduct system;
• The length of aqueduct and transmission pipelines that will be needed; and,
• The type of pumping facilities that will be needed.
Figure 9.4 shows a schematic of the necessary infrastructure for the CRMWA Aqueduct
Expansion.
This strategy has been considered because installing additional aqueduct and transmission
lines in the CRMWA system could quadruple the amount of water allocated to Lubbock
from the current CRMWA allocation of 24,088 ac-ft/yr to an allocation of approximately
90,000 ac-ft/yr. However, this means that the RCWF would be depleted at least four times
faster than current depletion rates. Additional modeling of the RCWF would be necessary
to determine its long-term viability at a much higher production rate. In addition, the cost
of such a large and long aqueduct may not be as cost effective as other water supply
strategies.
Strategic Water Supply Plan IU 7 Vo
February 2013 9-7 ,A
Figure 9.4 — Additional CRMWA Aqueduct
1 2006 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan, HDR, p. 4-183
2 2006 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan, HDR, p. 4-185
Strategic Water Supply Plan CI'u*-'ObIP6�fAFebruary 2013 9-8
Supply10.0 ` 1Evaluation
The potential water supply strategies developed and discussed in Sections 6, 7, and 8 are
evaluated and ranked in this section. The objective of the evaluation is to determine which
strategies should become the highest priorities for the City to implement.
All strategies were evaluated and scored based on a common set of 10 criteria. The first
four criteria — confidence, reliability, sustainability, and permitability consist of some level
of subjectivity. The last six criteria — quality, quantity, schedule, unit cost, project cost,
and annual cost — are objective. Strategies were assigned a ranking for each criterion on a
scale from 1 to 5. The raw scores were then weighted based on the relative importance of
each of the criteria. The evaluation criterion helps provide a more objective framework for
comparison of these strategies. Descriptions of these criteria and associated weightings are
described in Table 10.1.
Detailed tables providing the rationale for the scoring of each strategy with respect to each
criterion are shown in Tables 10.2 through 10.17. Strategy rankings are based on the
current known political, regulatory, technological, and other conditions. Many supply
strategies are interchangeable. The attractiveness of each strategy may change over
time based on a variety of unpredictable variables. Rankings will be updated
periodically as evaluation factors change in the future.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tItbOVtoy Ck
February 2013 10-1 rEaa:
Table 10.1— Evaluation Criteria
Category
Weight
Low / Poor
2
Medium
4
High / Excellent
The likely success of the potential project- based upon public perception,
Confidence
1.0
political climate, impact to existing infrastructure, involvement of other
entities, and staff opinion.
Reliability
1.0
The likelihood that the water source is available 100% of the time considering
seasonality, interuptabilty, etc.
The likelihood that the supply will be available for a longer period than other
Sustainability
1.0
strategies.
1: less than or equal to (<) 20 yrs; 2: < 40 yrs; 3: < 60 yrs;
4::5 80 years 5: greater than (>) 80 years
Permitability
1.0
The ease of resolving the legal, regulatory, permitting, and environmental
challenges before implementation.
The relative supply volume (in ac-ft/yr) compared to other strategies.
Quantity
1.0
1: less than or equal to (<) 3,000; 2::5 6,000; 3: < 9,000;
4: < 12,000 5: greater than (>) 12,000
The relative level of water treatment required for each strategy.
1: Advanced Treatment - RO + Other Techniques;
Quality
0.5
2: Advanced Treatment - RO;
3: Advanced Treatment - Membrane;
4: Conventional Treatment; 5: Chlorination Only
The relative length of strategy implementation schedule compared to other
Schedule
0.5
strategies.
1: greater than (>) 12 yrs; 2: less than or equal to (5) 12 yrs;
3: <_ 9 yrs; 4::5 6 yrs; 5 : < 3 yrs
The relative unit costs compared to other strategies.
Unit Cost
(cost /1,000 gal)
1'0
1: greater than (>) $8.00; 2: less than or equal to (<) $8.00;
3 : <_ $6.00; 4: <_ $4.00; 5::5 $2.00
The relative total project cost compared to other strategies.
Project
($ in miCost llions)
0'S
1. greater than (>) $100 M; 2: less than or equal to (<) $100 M;
3::5$75M; 4:<_$50M; 5:<$25M
The annual operational costs compared to other strategies.
Annual Cost
($ in millions)
0.5
1: greater than (>) $8 M; 2: less than or equal to (5) $8 M;
3:<$6M; 4:<$4M; 5:<_$2M
Strategic Water Supply Plan , tl'u4b]Po�fkFebruary 2013 10-2
Table 10.2 — North Fork Diversion at County Road 7300 — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
This supply strategy is within 15 miles of Lubbock. The City holds permits
Confidence
3
to discharge, transport, and divert the reclaimed water at CR 7300 on the
North Fork. Sufficient reclaimed water will be needed to implement this
strategy. Landowner opposition may be an issue at CR 7300.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible.
Since water used for this strategy is 100% reclaimed water, it should be
Sustainability
4
available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the reclaimed water
for another beneficial purpose.
The City holds a permit to discharge up to 10,089 ac-ft/yr (9 mgd) of treated
effluent at Outfall 001 into the North Fork. In addition, the impoundment
Permitability
3
and diversion permit at CR 7300 was issued in 2012. However, the City
must still acquire the land for the diversion facility, easements for the
pipelines, and authorization by the TCEQ to construct facilities.
Quantity
4
This strategy has the potential to produce 10,089 ac-ft/yr.
This strategy consists of treated effluent that is discharged into the North
Quality
3
Fork and transported downstream 2.7 miles where it will be diverted. Before
entering the distribution system, this water will need to undergo advanced
treatment that includes membrane barriers.
This strategy could take between 9 and 12 years to acquire land for the
Schedule
2
diversion facilities and pipeline easements, receive authorization by the
TCEQ, and construct the facilities.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $2.11/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $54,260,000.
Annual Cost
2
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $6,950,000.
Raw Score 31
Weighted Score 26.0
Strategic Water Supply Plan February 2013 10-3tl'u4b"Vo'y�fk
Table 10.3 - Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Public perception of direct potable reuse in Texas has improved some.
Confidence
2
Improvements in technology and drought conditions have stimulated
increased desire in many communities to implement this type of strategy.
Standards, rules, and regulations are still being developed.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible.
The water used by this strategy will be 100% reclaimed water. This supply
Sustainability
4
should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the
reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The TCEQ is currently developing potable reuse guidance requirements to be
Permitability
3
applied to proposed projects and to be used as the basis for reviewing permit
applications. Future permits must comply with these "undeveloped"
regulations.
Quantity
4
This strategy has the potential to produce 10,089 ac-ft/yr.
The water used by this strategy must be treated using RO plus other barriers
Quality
1
during advanced treatment since it includes direct reuse of wastewater
efflnent
Schedule
4
It may take from 3 to 6 years to complete the permitting, planning, design,
and construction of this project.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $2.59/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $67,176,000.
Annual Cost
1
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $8,527,000.
Raw Score 29
Weighted Score 24.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf-**bV6'Y�ftk
February 2013 10-4
Table 10.4 - Direct Potable Reuse to SWTP — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Public perception of direct potable reuse in Texas has improved some.
Confidence
2
Improvements in technology and drought conditions have stimulated
increased desire of many communities to implement this type of strategy.
Standards, rules, and regulations are still being developed.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible.
The water used by this strategy will be 100% reclaimed water. This supply
Sustainability
4
should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the
reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The TCEQ is currently developing potable reuse guidance requirements to be
Permitability
3
applied to proposed projects and to be used as the basis for reviewing permit
applications. Future permits must comply with these "undeveloped"
regulations.
Quantity
4
This strategy has the potential to produce 10,089 ac-ft/yr.
The water used by this strategy must be treated using RO plus other barriers
Quality
I
during advanced treatment since it includes direct reuse of wastewater
effluent.
Schedule
4
It may take from 3 to 6 years to complete the permitting, planning, design,
and construction of this project.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.74/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
2
The project cost for this strategy is $95,690,000.
Annual Cost
1
I The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $12,281,000.
Raw Score 28
Weighted Score 24.0
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b'b'OCk
February 2013 10-5 TEXRS
Table 10.5 - North Fork Diversion to LAH Pump Station — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
The diversion point for this strategy is over 50 miles from Lubbock. The
City holds a permit to discharge the reclaimed water, but does not hold
permits to transport, impound, and divert the reclaimed water at this location.
Confidence
2
Existing water rights holders and landowners may oppose an application for a
permit. Sufficient reclaimed water will be needed to implement this strategy.
Carriage losses are high. Water blended with the LAH raw water at the
LAHPS could be a problem.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible.
The water used by this strategy will be 100% reclaimed water. This supply
Sustainability
4
should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the
reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The City holds a permit to discharge up to 10,089 ac-ft/yr (9 mgd) of treated
effluent at Outfall 001 into the North Fork. However, transport,
Permitability
2
impoundment, and diversion permits may be difficult to obtain. In addition,
the City must acquire the land for the diversion facility, easements for the
pipelines, and authorization by the TCEQ to construct facilities.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 7,510 ac-$/yr. Carriage losses will
be 26 /o.
This water consists of treated effluent that is discharged into the North Fork
Quality
3
and transported downstream 67 miles where it will be diverted. Before
entering the distribution system, this water will need to undergo advanced
treatment that includes membrane barriers.
This strategy may take more than 12 years to acquire water rights permits,
Schedule
1
land for the pumping facilities, pipeline easements, and authorization by the
TCEQ to begin construction.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.09/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $52,747,000.
Annual Cost
2
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $7,560,000.
Raw Score 27
Weighted Score 22.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tItf-b*
�OCk
February 2013 10-6 TEa:
Table 10.6 - Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage & Recovery — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Public perception of direct potable reuse in Texas has improved some.
Confidence
3
Improvements in technology and drought conditions have stimulated
increased desire in many communities to implement this type of strategy.
Standards, rules, and regulations are still being developed.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible. Also, some water is lost between injection
into the aquifer and recovery from the aquifer.
The water used by this strategy will be 100% reclaimed water. This supply
Sustainability
4
should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the
reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The TCEQ is currently developing potable reuse guidance requirements to be
applied to proposed projects and to be used as the basis for reviewing permit
Permitability
3
applications. Future permits must comply with these "undeveloped"
regulations. Permits will also be needed from the Groundwater Conservation
District for injection and extraction of groundwater.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 8,071 ac-ft/yr.
The water used by this strategy must be treated using RO plus other barriers
Quality
1
during advanced treatment since it includes direct reuse of wastewater
Schedule
3
It may take from 3 to 6 years to complete the permitting, planning, design,
and construction of this project.
Unit Cost
3
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $4.10/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
2
The project cost for this strategy is $88,045,000.
rAnnualCost
I 1
I The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $10,784,000.
Raw Score 26
Weighted Score 22.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1t4bWov�fAFebruary 2013 10-7
Table 10.E - South Fork Discharge — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Public concern exists about discharging reclaimed water into the South Fork
Confidence
2
that will be mixed with LAH water. Furthermore, high carriage losses make
this strategy less attractive.
This strategy uses 100% reclaimed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on commitments to other users and operational decisions. The
water supplied is interruptible.
The water used by this strategy will be 100% reclaimed water. This supply
Sustainability
4
should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use the
reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The City's existing discharge permit (TPDES Permit WQ0010353002) will
need to be amended to include an additional outfall on the South Fork. Also,
Permitability
2
although the City's current Water Use Permit No. 4146 for LAH authorizes a
maximum annual withdrawal of 35,000 ac-ft/yr, the City needs to ensure that
the return flow discharges on the South Fork can be diverted and used.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 8,183 ac-ft/yr. Carriage losses will
be 19 /a.
This water consists of treated effluent that is discharged, transported 36 miles
Quality
3
down the South Fork, and impounded in LAH. The water will be blended
into the lake water. Treatment will be advanced treatment with membranes.
This strategy may take 9 to 12 years to acquire water rights permits, land for
Schedule
2
the pumping facilities, pipeline easements, and authorization by the TCEQ to
begin construction.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.31/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $65,018,000.
Annual Cost
1
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $8,833,000.
Raw Score 27
Weighted Score 22.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan 6Ytf
February 2013 10-8 tl'ujl�ock
Table 10.8 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
The likely success of this project is high since it maintains the capacity of an
already existing water supply. All financial decisions for this strategy must
Confidence
4
be approved and implemented by the CRMWA board. Panhandle
Groundwater Conservation District rules may change production strategies
from the RCWF.
Reliability
5
This strategy relies on groundwater that should be available as needed.
Estimates vary as to the amount of available groundwater in the Ogallala
Sustainability
4
Aquifer in Roberts County. Further data collection is needed to determine
the exact saturated thickness. This water supply should last at least 60 years.
Water well permits from the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District
Permitability
5
will be necessary. Design and construction of public water supply wells and
water transmission facilities must be approved by the TCEQ.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 7,252 ac-ft/yr.
The groundwater from Roberts County is high quality. The only treatment
Quality
4
typically required is chlorination. However, Lubbock must treat the
groundwater like surface water since the groundwater must pass through two
open topped balancing reservoirs before it reaches Lubbock.
Schedule
5
Once all member cities agree to move forward with this strategy, it can be
designed and completed in 3 years.
Unit Cost
5
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $0.49/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
5
The project cost for this strategy is $9,614,000.
Annual Cost
5
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $1,165,000.
Raw Score 45
Weighted Score 35.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4bWo�fkFebruary 2013 10-9
Table 10.9 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
The likely success of this project is high since it includes maintaining the
Confidence
5
capacity of an already existing water supply. This strategy has minimal
legal/permitting issues, a relatively low unit/project/annual cost, and can be
implemented quickly.
Reliability
5
This strategy relies on groundwater that should be available as needed.
Sustainability
2
With the estimated annual use of 10,000 ac-ft/yr, current modeling suggests
that the BCWF should be sustainable for at least 40 years.
Water well permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation
Permitability
5
District No. 1 will be necessary. Design and construction of public water
supply wells and water transmission facilities must be approved by the
TCEQ.
Quantity
2
This strategy will restore the BCWF to its full capacity, providing an
incremental increase of 3,120 ac-ft/yr.
Quality
5
The groundwater from Bailey County is high quality. The only treatment
required is chlorination.
Schedule
5
This strategy can be implemented in less than 3 years.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $2.36/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
5
The project cost for this strategy is $24,761,000.
Annual Cost
4
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $2,397,000.
Raw Score 42
Weighted Score 32.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4b' �OCk
February 2013 10-10 b T[itAS
Table 10.10 - RCWF New Transmission Line to Aqueduct — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Any decision regarding the RCWF requires the consent of all CRMWA
Confidence
4
member cities. Many of the cities have expressed interest in this project as
the large incremental increase in water supply will assist with the cities'
growing water demands.
Reliability
5
This strategy relies on groundwater that should be available as needed.
Estimates vary as to the amount of water contained in the Ogallala Aquifer in
Sustainability
3
Roberts County. Further data collection and aquifer modeling is needed to
estimate saturated thickness and well field decline patterns.
Water well permits from the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District
Permitability
4
will be necessary. Design and construction of public water supply wells and
water transmission facilities must be approved by the TCEQ. Furthermore,
CRMWA must acquire easements for the new transmission line.
Quantity
5
This strategy has the potential to produce 21,583 ac-ftlyr.
The groundwater from Roberts County is high quality. The only treatment
Quality
4
typically required is chlorination. However, Lubbock must treat the
groundwater like surface water since the groundwater must pass through two
open topped balancing reservoirs before it reaches Lubbock.
Schedule
4
Once all member cities agree to move forward with this strategy, it can be
designed and completed in less than 6 years.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $2.29/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
1
The project cost for this strategy is $104,328,000.
Annual Cost
1
I The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $16,078,000.
Raw Score 35
Weighted Score 30.0
Strategic Water Supply Plan Oltbb'oy
February 2013 10-11 ,�A,
Table 10.11- CRMWA to Aquifer Storage & Recovery — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
ASR has not been attempted in the Lubbock area of the Ogallala Aquifer.
Confidence
2
Due to the many uncertainties in reliability, sustainability, and water losses
during storage, confidence in this strategy is low. It is uncertain when excess
water will be available in the CRMWA Aqueduct to use for ASR.
This strategy seeks to store CRMWA water during the winter months so it
Reliability
1
can be used in the summer to meet peak demands. The amount of water
available for storage is dependent upon the amount of excess capacity in the
CRMWA Aqueduct.
Long-term sustainability of this strategy is dependent upon how CRMWA
uses the capacity of the existing or future aqueducts that supply Lubbock with
Sustainability
1
water. Important factors include member city allocations which are set
annually and Lubbock's water demand/usage. These factors will likely
change in future years creating some uncertainty.
Both injection and recovery wells will need to be permitted by the High
Permitability
3
plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1. Design and
construction of the public water supply transmission facilities must be
approved by the TCEQ.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 6,090 ac-ft/yr.
Quality
5
Groundwater recovered from the Ogallala Aquifer is high quality. It should
only require chlorination for treatment.
Schedule
4
It may take up to 6 years to complete the planning, design, and construction
of this project.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.00/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $59,949,000.
Annual Cost
1 3
1 The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $5,957,000.
Raw Score 29
Weighted Score 21.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-IbTOCk
February 2013 10-12 TEXA4
Table 10.12 - South Lubbock Well Field — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
The lack of available saturated thickness data, the low quality of water, and
Confidence
I
high costs of water treatment associated with this strategy create poor public
perception and give City staff low confidence in this strategy.
Reliability
4
This strategy relies on groundwater that should be available as needed.
Even though this strategy is designed for peaking, requiring only 4 months of
pumping during the year, concerns exist regarding the sustainability of the
Sustainability
2
Ogallala Aquifer in this area of the City for 50 years or more. Additional
information is needed to more fully evaluate the quantity of water available
for this strategy.
Water well permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation
District No. I will be necessary. Design and construction of public water
Permitability
3
supply wells and water treatment facilities must be approved by the TCEQ.
The City owns all of the properties and easements needed for this project, but
pipeline construction under City streets will be costly and difficult.
Quantity
I
This strategy has the potential to produce 2,613 acre-feet per year.
The raw groundwater produced by this strategy will need advanced water
Quality
2
treatment with RO to overcome relatively high salinity and the possibility of
the groundwater being "under the influence" of surface water.
Schedule
4
It may take up to 6 years to complete the planning, design, and construction
of this project.
Unit Cost
1
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $8.62/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $56,468,000.
Annual Cost
2
1 The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $7,340,000.
Raw Score 23
Weighted Score 17.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy of
February 2013 10-13 tl'ujIbock
Table 10.13 - Brackish Well Field — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
The lack of available saturated thickness and production data, the low quality
Confidence
1
of water, and high costs of water treatment associated with this strategy
creates poor public perception and give City staff low confidence in this
strategy.
Reliability
2
This strategy relies completely upon groundwater. However, insufficient data
exists to predict the reliability of the Dockum Aquifer in this area.
Estimates vary as to the amount of water contained in the Dockum Aquifer.
Sustainability
2
Further data collection is needed to determine better estimates of saturated
thicknesses and other hydrogeologic data.
Water well permits from the High Plains Underground Water Conservation
Permitability
3
District No. 1 will be necessary. Design and construction of public water
supply wells and water treatment facilities must be approved by the TCEQ.
Brine concentrate injections wells must also be permitted through the TCEQ.
Quantity
1
This strategy has the potential to produce 1,120 ac-ft/yr.
Quality
2
The water available from this strategy is brackish and will require advanced
treatment with RO before entering the City's raw water supply.
Schedule
3
It may take up to 9 years to complete the planning, design, and construction
of this project.
Unit Cost
1
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $10.96/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
4
The project cost for this strategy is $33,494,000.
Annual Cost
4
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $3,999,000.
Raw Score 23
Weighted Score 16.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uJIb�OCk
February 2013 10-14 ,E„
Table 10.14 - Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
Phase 1 of the LAH water supply is already complete. Phase 2 expands the
Confidence
5
treatment and pumping capacity. Staff is confident that Phase 2 can be
implemented successfully.
Reliability
5
The water used for this strategy will be 100% surface water. Water from this
strategy should be available at all times and useful for peaking capacity also.
If precipitation patterns, land use trends, and the City's usage from the lake do
Sustainability
5
not change in the coming decades, LAH should be sustainable for more than
80 years.
The permitting issues associated with this project were addressed in Phase 1.
Permitability
5
No additional permitting requirements are anticipated with Phase 2. Design
and construction of public water supply and treatment facilities must be
approved by the TCEQ.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 8,000 ac-ft/yr of water.
Quality
3
Advanced treatment using membrane barriers was installed during Phase 1.
Phase 2 will include the same type of treatment facilities.
Schedule
5
This strategy can be completed in less than 3 years.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.09/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
3
The project cost for this strategy is $65,710,996.
Annual Cost
1
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $8,047,000.
Raw Score 39
Weighted Score 33.0
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ujl�]Po�fAFebruary 2013 10-15
Table 10.15 - Jim Bertram Lake 7 — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
There is mixed public interest in this project. Some downstream water rights
Confidence
2
holders are opposed to the lake while others are in favor. Due to complex
permitting issues, high project costs, and length of time required to plan and
construct a reservoir, confidence levels are low.
This strategy uses a combination of reclaimed water, state water/natural
inflows, and playa lake developed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on City water usage and operational decisions at the wastewater
treatment plant. State water/natural inflows and playa lake developed water
are dependent upon precipitation.
This strategy relies heavily on City's reclaimed water to be viable. This
Sustainability
4
supply should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use
the reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
Water Rights Application No. 5921 associated with Lake 7 is under technical
review by the TCEQ. In addition, the TCEQ has received several requests
for contested case hearings. It will take several more years before the permit
can be issued. A USACE Section 404 permit will be required prior to
Permitability
2
commencing construction of Lake 7. Mitigation plans for the project's
environmental impacts must be developed and agreed upon by the USACE
and other state and federal agencies. The City must also acquire the
property for the lake, dam, pump station, wildlife mitigation area, and
pipeline easements.
Quantity
4
This strategy has the potential to produce 11,300 ac-ft/yr of water.
Quality
3
This strategy uses reclaimed water, state water/natural inflows, and playa lake
developed water. Advanced treatment with membrane barriers is necessary.
Schedule
1
Due to the extensive amount of permitting issues, this strategy will take more
than 12 years to permit, design, and construct.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $2.71/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
2
The project cost for this strategy is $88,328,000.
Annual Cost
I
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $9,965,000.
Raw Score 26
Weighted Score 22.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1t4b"V6
February 2013 10-16 SEAS
Table 10.16 - Post Reservoir — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
There is mixed public interest for this project. Some existing water rights
holders may be opposed to the lake while some elected officials may be
Confidence
2
interested in economic development in Garza County. Moreover, due to
complex permitting issues, high project costs, and length of time required to
plan and construct a reservoir, confidence levels are low.
This strategy uses a combination of reclaimed water, state water/natural
inflows, and playa lake developed water. Reclaimed water availability is
Reliability
3
dependent on City water usage and operational decisions at the wastewater
treatment plant. State water/natural inflows and playa lake developed water
are dependent upon precipitation.
This strategy relies heavily on City's reclaimed water to be viable. This
Sustainability
4
supply should be available for at least 60 years unless the City seeks to use
the reclaimed water for another beneficial purpose.
The City would need to obtain ownership of the TCEQ Certificate of
Adjudication No. 3711 from the White River Municipal Water District in
order to construct the reservoir. The permit will need to be amended so the
City can divert sufficient water to make this strategy viable. In addition, a
Permitability
2
USACE Section 404 permit will be required prior to commencing
construction of the Post Reservoir. Mitigation plans for the project's
environmental impacts must be developed and agreed upon by the USACE
and other state and resource agencies. The City must also acquire the
property for the lake, dam, pump station, wildlife mitigation area, and
pipeline easements.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 8,962 ac-ft/yr of water.
Quality
3
This strategy uses reclaimed water, state water/natural inflows, and playa lake
developed water. Advanced treatment with membrane barriers is necessary.
Schedule
1
Due to the extensive amount of permitting issues, this strategy will take more
than 12 years to permit, design, and construct.
Unit Cost
4
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $3.76/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
2
The project cost for this strategy is $98,963,000.
Annual Cost
1
The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $10,975,000.
Raw Score 25
Weighted Score 21.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlu'16y Cf
February 2013 10-1 / iEA3
Table 10.17 - North Fork Scalping Operation — Strategy Evaluation
Category
Rank
Reason for Ranking
This strategy requires the City to file a new water rights permit application
with the TCEQ. It is uncertain whether the TCEQ will grant any more
Confidence
2
permits on the North Fork. The water availability may be over allocated
already. It is uncertain whether existing water rights holders would protest
the application.
The water used for this strategy is storm water and is, therefore, dependent
Reliability
2
upon precipitation events. Consequently, this is not the most reliable source
of water. It will help "firm up" LAH's yield.
If precipitation patterns, land use, and senior water rights usage trends do not
Sustainability
5
change in the coming decades, this project should be sustainable for more
than 80 years.
A water use permit authorized by the TCEQ will be required for the
impoundment and diversion of storm water. A USACE Section 404 permit
Permitability
2
will also be required. The City will need to acquire property for the
diversion facilities and pump station. In addition, pipeline utility easements
will be necessary to construct a raw water transmission line to Gobbler
Creek.
Quantity
3
This strategy has the potential to produce 8,725 ac-ft/yr.
Quality
3
This strategy is comprised of storm water flows that flow into LAH.
Advanced treatment with membrane barriers is necessary.
Schedule
2
It may take up to 12 years to complete the planning, design, and construction
of this project.
Unit Cost
3
The unit cost of water for this strategy is $5.35/1,000 gal.
Project Cost
1
The project cost for this strategy is $125,493,000.
Annual Cost
1
I The annual operational costs associated with this strategy are $15,226,000.
Raw Score 24
Weighted Score 20.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uj"b iOCk
February 2013 10-18 TEtA4
Based on the aggregate score for each strategy, the strategies were compared and ranked.
The water supply strategy ranking results by type of water supply (reclaimed water, surface
water, and groundwater) are presented in Table 10.18. From this table the following
general observations can be made:
• The highest ranked reclaimed water strategy is the North Fork Diversion at CR
7300;
• The highest ranked groundwater strategy is the RCWF Capacity Maintenance;
• The highest ranked surface water strategy is LAH Phase 2;
• Ogallala groundwater strategies generally have the highest rankings of all
categories; and
• Surface water strategies tend to rank lower than strategies in other categories.
Table 10.19 provides a list of the strategies based on their respective rankings (highest to
lowest). These rankings are based on the total weighted score for each strategy. From this
table the following general observations can be made:
• The four top ranked strategies — RCWF Capacity Maintenance, LAH Phase 2,
BCWF Capacity Maintenance, and RCWF New Transmission Line - are all
associated with existing water supplies;
• The RCWF New Transmission Line provides the most incremental increase in
water supply at 21,583 ac-ft/yr;
• The Brackish Well Field provides the least incremental increase in water supply at
1,120 ac-ft/yr;
• Four strategies have the same score — South Fork Diversion, North Fork Diversion
to LAH Pump Station, Jim Bertram Lake 7, and Reclaimed Water to ASR;
Table 10.20 provides a graphical representation of the ranking of the strategies and the
amount of additional water each strategy will yield.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'uf--'*bV�cfAFebruary 2013 10-19
Table 10.18 - Water Supply Strategy Ranking by Supply Type
q
Lubbock Water
W
o
U a
U
o.
L.
°
:3p
a
a
U
U
e
m
Vl
Supply Strategies
°0
8
,�'
d
h
a�
w
o
d
Weight
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
Reclaimed
Water
North Fork
Diversion at CR 7300
no
10,089
2.11
54.26
6.95
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
31
26.0
Direct Potable
no
10,089
2.59
67.18
8.53
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
4
3
1
29
24.5
Reuse - NWTP
Direct Potable
Reuse - SWTP
no
10,089
3.74
95.69
12.28
2
3
4
3
4
I
4
4
2
1
28
24.0
North Fork Diversion
to LAH Pump Station
yes
7,510
3.09
52.75
7.56
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
4
3
2
27
22.5
Reclaimed Water
to ASR
no
8,071
4.10
88.05
10.78
3
3
4
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
26
22.5
South Fork Discharge
no
8,183
3.31
65.02
8.83
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
1
27
22.5
Groundwater
RCWF Capacity
yes
7,252
0.49
9.61
1.17
4
5
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
5
45
35.5
Maintenance
BCWF Capacity
yes
3,120
2.36
24.76
2.40
5
5
2
5
2
5
5
4
5
4
42
32.5
Maintenance
RCWF-New
no
21,583
2.29
104.33
16.08
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
4
1
1
35
30.0
Transmission Line
CRMWA to ASR
no
6,090
3.00
59.95
5.96
2
1
1
3
3
5
4
4
3
3
29
21.5
South Lubbock
no
2,613
8.62
56.47
7.34
1
4
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
2
23
17.5
Well Field
1
Brackish
Well Field
yes
1,120
10.96
33.49
4.00
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
I
4
4
23
16.5
Surface Water
LAH Phase 2
yes
8,000
3.09
65.71
8.05
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
4
3
1
39
33.0
Jim Bertram Lake 7
yes
11,300
2.71
88.33
9.97
2
3
4
2
4
3
1
4
2
1
26
22.5
Post Reservoir
yes
8,962
3.76
98.96
10.98
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
4
2
1
25
21.5
North Fork Scalping
yes
8,725
5.35
125.49
15.23
2
2
5
2
3
J32
3
1
1
24
20.5
Operation
Strategic Water Supply Plan tI'u"-ObV6'Y�fS
February 2013 10-20
Table 10.19 - Water Supply Strategy Ranking from Highest to Lowest
q
Lubbock Water
o p
a
U
o'
F
L'
°
°
a
Z
4
L'
°
o
U
U
U
o
rn
Supply Strategies
°o
a n
L
o`.
$
_
e
s
a
o �:
A
a
vz
d
a
a
a
w
d
a
d
is
ds
a
3
a
d
Weight
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
j 0.5
0.5
RCWF Capacity
yes
7,252
0.49
9.61
1.17
4
5
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
5
45
35.5
Maintenance
LAH Phase 2
yes
8,000
3.09
65.71
8.05
5
5
5
5
3
3
5
4
3
1
39
33.0
BCWF Capacity
yes
3,120
2.36
24.76
2.40
5
5
2
5
2
5
5
4
5
4
42
32.5
Maintenance
RCWF-New
no
21,583
2.29
104.33
16.08
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
4
1
1
35
30.0
Transmission Line
North Fork
no
10,089
2.11
54.26
6.95
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
31
26.0
Diversion at CR 7300
Direct Potable
no
10,089
2.59
67.18
8.53
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
4
3
1
29
24.5
Reuse - NWTP
Direct Potable
no
10,089
3.74
95.69
12.28
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
4
2
1
28
24.0
Reuse - SWTP
South Fork Discharge
no
8,183
3.31
65.02
8.83
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
1
27
22.5
North Fork Diversion
yes
7,510
3.09
52.75
7.56
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
4
3
2
27
22.5
to LAH Pump Station
Jim Bertram Lake 7
yes
11,300
2.71
88.33
9.97
2
3
4
2
4
3
1
4
2
1
26
22.5
Reclaimed Water
no
8,071
4.10
88.05
10.78
3
3
4
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
26
22.5
to ASR
CRMWA to ASR
no
6,090
3.00
59.95
5.96
2
1
1
3
3
5
4
4
3
3
29
21.5
Post Reservoir
yes
8,962
3.76
98.96
10.98
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
4
2
1
25
21.5
North Fork Scalping
yes
8,725
5.35
125.49
15.23
2
2
5
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
24
20.5
Operation
South Lubbock
no
2,613
8.62
56.47
7.34
1
4
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
2
23
17.5
Well Field
Brackish
Well Field
yes
1,120
10.96
33.49
4.00
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
4
4
23
16.5
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-&%�cf�February 2013 10-21
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
LAH Phase 2
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
RCWF - New Transmission Line
North Fork Diversion at CR 7300
Direct Potable Reuse - NWTP
Direct Potable Reuse - SWTP
South Fork Discharge
North Fork Diversion to LAH PS
Jim Bertram Lake 7
Reclaimed WaterASR
CRM WA to ASR
Post Reservoir
North Fork Scalping Operation
South Lubbock Well Field
Brackish Well Field
Weighted Score
0 8 16 24 32 40
1,120
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Volume (ac-ft/yr)
■ Incremental Capacity Increase(ac-ft/yr) ■Weighted Score
Figure 10.1- Supply Strategy Ranking and Available Water
Strategic Water Supply Plan cityof
February 2013 10-22 Lubbock
Water11.0
Packages
In this section, various potential water supply strategies along with existing water supplies
are combined into water supply package designed to supply the City's projected water
demand over the next 100 years. Five different supply packages are presented and
discussed in this section that depict a wide range of strategies that can be used to meet the
Probable, Conservation, or Accelerated Growth Demands determined in Section 2.
Conditions and assumptions common to all of the supply packages include:
• Incorporating existing water supplies discussed in Section 4;
® Giving priority to the highest ranked potential water supply strategies evaluated in
Section 10 (see Table 10.19);
• Basing the year that a new strategy is implemented on when the Annual Demand
projection line and the total available water supply intersect, or when the Peak Day
Demand projection line and the peak supply intersect, whichever occurs first; and
• Projecting water demand and supply for a 100 year planning period.
Supply packages are evaluated and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf--W�cfSASFebruary 2013 11-1
This supply package is considered a baseline package that consists of the following supply
strategies that will be necessary to meet the Probable Demand (orange line) over the next
100 years. The potential strategies used are described in the following sections:
Supply Strategy
Section
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
6.5
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.3
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance
7.4
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.4
RCWF New Transmission Line
7.5
LAH Phase 2
8.2
In this supply package, strategies are implemented or phased in as depicted in Figure I L I.
The individual and cumulative annual water supplies available from these strategies with
respect to the estimated demand over the planning period are depicted in Figure 11.2. The
individual and cumulative available peak supplies from these strategies with respect to the
estimated peak demand are depicted in Figure 11.3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan city �fk
February 2013 11.2Lubbo
2013 2013 - BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance (ICM)
2017 - LAH Phase 2
2023 1 2023 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2025 - RCWF New Transmission Line
2033
2043
2053 1 2054 - Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
2055 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
1IZ1G3
2073
2083 2085 — RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2093
2103
2113
Figure 11.1—Package 1: Strategy Implementation Schedule
Strategic Water Supply Plan IU�?bOCk
February 2013 11-3 ,���
100,000
I a I ►
�. 32.6
80,000-..
—.
26.1
70,000
_-..____ f
22.8 0
60,000
- - -
19.6 c
a,
50,000
16.3 v
>0
40,000
13.0 E
a`,
%
30,000
0
9.8 >
3
20,000
6.5 a'
rya
10,000
_
3.3 3
0
0.0
M ro M M
1-4 N M 94
M rn M M Cn M
Ln l0 r` 00 M O
M
ri
O O O O
N N N N
O O O O O ri
N N N N N N
e-f
N
®LAH-Phase 1
Year WMLAH-Phase 2
fIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICurrent RCW F
RCW F - CM & New Transmission
Line
11=11BCWF
®Direct Potable Reuse
—Probable Demand
Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
Figure 11.2 — Package 1: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
160
140
.0 120
m
ar
100
E
0 80
0
y 60
3 40
20
0
M
ri
O
N
M M M M
N M q* Ln
O O O O
N N N N
111111111111111111BCWF- Current
LAH- Phase 1
fiff•Current RCWF
ff1• Direct Potable Reuse
Conservation Demand
160
140
120
m
100
a►
E
80 2
0
60
40 3
20
0
l0 r� 00 0) O ri
O O O O ci ri
N N N N N N
Year
� BCW F - CM
a LAH- Phase 2
� RCW F - CM & New Transmission Line
—Probable Demand
Accelerated Demand
Figure 11.3 — Package 1: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlh toy Ck
February 2013 11-4 T�:a
BCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy includes implementing the BCWF Initial
Capacity Maintenance strategy in 2013 as depicted in Figure 11.2. Due to a projected
usage of the BCWF averaging 12,306 ac-ft/yr over a 12-year period, another group of wells
(BCWF CM-1) is recommended in 2023. After the RCWF Transmission Line strategy is
implemented in 2025, the BCWF is reserved for peaking capacity for the remainder of the
planning period. The BCWF plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking
capacity. BCWF should be capable of providing up to 40 mgd to meet peak demand for
the remaining planning period (see Figure 11.3) if its annual usage remains below 3,000 ac-
ft/yr as projected.
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — This strategy includes expanding the existing LAH
infrastructure by 2017 by an additional 8,000 ac-ft/yr. Since this strategy includes pumping
water from LAH at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the lake should provide
16,000 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the planning period. LAH
plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. Once Phase 2 is
complete, LAH will be capable of providing up to 30 mgd to meet peak demand for the
duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.3).
RCWF New Transmission Line — This strategy includes constructing a new transmission
line from the RCWF to the CRMWA Aqueduct that will almost double the amount of water
available (45,671 ac-ft/yr) from the RCWF to Lubbock by 2025. Since the RCWF
production will decline over time, it is anticipated that additional wells will need to be
added in 2055 and 2085 to maintain the necessary capacity to keep the transmission lines
flowing full.
Direct Potable Reuse at the NWTP — This strategy includes implementing Direct Potable
Reuse at the NWTP by 2054. Figures 11.2 and 11.3 depict this supply strategy using all of
the Net Reclaimed Water available (21,057 ac-ft/yr by 2113) as discussed in Section 6.3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf3--bV�EftFebruary 2013 11-5
11.2 Supply Package 2 — LAH Phase 2 Delayed
This supply package is similar to Package 1 except it delays the implementation of LAH
Phase 2 from 2017 until 2031. In addition, this strategy uses an indirect reuse strategy
(North Fork Diversion at CR 7300) instead of direct reuse of reclaimed water. This
package consists of the following supply strategies that will be necessary to meet the
Probable Demand (orange line) over the next 100 years. The potential strategies used are
described in the following sections:
Supply Strategy
Section
North Fork Diversion at CR 7300
6.4
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.3
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance
7.4
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.4
RCWF New Transmission Line
7.5
LAH Phase 2
8.2
In this supply package, strategies are implemented or phased in as depicted in Figure 11.4.
The individual and cumulative annual water supplies available from these strategies with
respect to the estimated demand over the planning period are depicted in Figure 11.5. The
individual and cumulative available peak supplies from these strategies with respect to the
estimated peak demand are depicted in Figure 11.6.
Strategic Water Supply Plan city �fk
February 2013 11-6IU}?O
2013 1 2013 - BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance (ICM)
2017 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2023 2023 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2025 - RCWF New Transmission Line
2031 - LAH Phase 2
2033
2043
2053 1 2054 - North Fork Diversion at CR 7300
2055 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2063
2073
2083 2085 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2093
2103
2113
Figure 11.4 — Package 2: Strategy Implementation Schedule
Strategic Water Supply Plan tIt-"Wow�fAFebruary 2013 11-7
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
d
E 50,000
> 40,000
30,000
3 20,000
10,000
0
m
a-i
O
N
N rn � in tmo n 00 0l O
N N N N N N N N N
Year
Mill LAH - Phase 1 I♦ Current RCW F
I• RCWF- CM & New Transmission Line � LAH- Phase 2
� BCW F � CR 7300
-Probable Demand Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
3 2.6
29.3
26.1 2
22.8 0
19.6 c
16.3 a
13.0 E
9.8
6.5
3.3 3
0.0
M
.-4
1-4
Figure 11.5 — Package 2: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
160
140
120
d
100
E
80
0
d 60
f'a
3 40
20
0
M
0
N
N M d' Ln to
0 0 0 0 0
N N N N fV
Year
BCW F - Current
®LAH-Phase 1
� RCWF- CM & New Transmission Line
� CR 7300
Conservation Demand
M M M M
r, 00 m o
o O o 1-r
N N N N
� BCWF- CM
� Current RCW F
600 LAH - Phase 2
-Probable Demand
Accelerated Demand
160
140
120
eo
100
a,
E
80 2
0
60 y
fo
40 3
20
0
M
14
rl
N
Figure 11.6 — Package 2: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt" b toy k
February 2013 11-5 ►�><s
BCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy includes implementing the BCWF Initial
Capacity Maintenance strategy in 2013 as depicted in Figure 11.5. Due to a projected
usage of the BCWF averaging 17,640 ac-ft/yr over a 12-year period, another group of wells
is recommended in 2017 (BCWF CM-1) and 2023 (BCWF CM-2). After the RCWF
Transmission Line strategy is implemented in 2025, the BCWF can be reserved for peaking
capacity for the remaining planning period. The BCWF plays an important role in boosting
Lubbock's total peaking capacity. BCWF should be capable of providing up to 40 mgd to
meet peak demand for the remaining planning period (see Figure 11.6) if its annual usage
remains below 3,000 ac-ft/yr.
RCWF New Transmission Line — This strategy includes constructing a new transmission
line from the RCWF to the CRMWA Aqueduct that will almost double the amount of water
available (45,671 ac-ft/yr) from the RCWF to the City by 2025. Since the well field
production will decline over time, it is anticipated that additional wells will need to be
added in 2055 and 2085 to maintain the necessary capacity to keep the transmission lines
flowing full.
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — This strategy includes delaying the 8,000 ac-ft/yr expansion of
the LAH infrastructure until 2031 as depicted in Figure 11.5. Since this strategy includes
pumping water from LAH at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the lake
should provide 16,000 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the planning
period. LAH plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. Once
Phase 2 is complete, LAH will be capable of providing up to 30 mgd to meet peak demand
for the duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.6).
North Fork Diversion at CR 7300 — This strategy includes implementing the North Fork
Diversion at CR 7300 by 2054. Since this strategy includes capturing reclaimed water
from the North Fork, this strategy should provide 10,089 ac-ft/yr of water supply to
Lubbock for the duration of the planning period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan IUbbOCk
February 2013 11-9 rEes
11.3 Supply Package 3 — RCWF Transmission Delayed
This supply package is similar to Package 1 except it delays the implementation of the
RCWF New Transmission Line from 2025 until 2035. In addition, this package
accelerates the implementation of direct reuse of reclaimed water from 2054 to 2020. This
package consists of the following supply strategies that will be necessary to meet the
Probable Demand (orange line) over the next 100 years. The potential strategies used are
described in the following sections:
Supply Strategy
Section
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
6.5
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.3
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance
7.4
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.4
RCWF New Transmission Line
7.5
LAH Phase 2
8.2
In this supply package, strategies are implemented or phased in as depicted in Figure 11.7.
The individual and cumulative annual water supplies available from these strategies with
respect to the estimated demand over the planning period are depicted in Figure 11.8. The
individual and cumulative available peak supplies from these strategies with respect to the
estimated peak demand are depicted in Figure 11.9.
Strategic Water Supply Plan t1'uf--*b V toy �fk
February 2013 11-10 oux;
2013 2013 - BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance (ICM)
2017 - LAH Phase 2
2020 - Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
2023 2023 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2025 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2033 —{ 2033 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2035 - RCWF New Transmission Line
2043
2053
2063 —{ 2065 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2073
2093 —{ 2095 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-3)
2103
2113
Figure 11.7 — Package 3: Strategy Implementation Schedule
Strategic Water Supply Plan LU�?IJOCk
February 2013 11-11 ,ERAS
100,000 _ _ -_
_
32.6
90,000
29.3
c
80,000
.__.
26.1
70,000
22.8
46
60,000
(
19.6
c
oa
E
50,000
-
16.3
-
v
j
40,000
13.0
E
d
ro
30,000
9.8
3
>
3
20,000
6.5
t
10,000
3.3
3
0
0.0
m m m rn
ri N rn Iq
cn m rn rn rn m
Ln t0 r` 00 M O
m
.1
O O O O
N N N N
O O O O O 11
N N N N N N
.1
N
KM LAH- Phase 1
Year LAH- Phase 2
111111111111111lCurrentRCWF
� RCWF- CM & New Transmission Line
1=1BCWF
�DirectPotable Reuse
-Probable Demand
Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
Figure 11.8 — Package 3: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
160
_
- _.._.__. ___. .
i
r
120
-..--_.
___.�._�__ _ _.__ __
120
0o
m
100
_
100
as
as
80
__
8U
2
w 60
60
3 40
40
3
20
20
0
0
m
a -I
m m m m
N m cf Ln
m
l0
m m m m
r` 00 0) O
m
.�
O
N
O O O O
N N N N
O
N
O O O r1
N N N N
cI
N
Year
�BCWF- Current
� BCWF- CM
®LAH- Phase 1
IM111 LAH- Phase 2
1111111111111111lCurrentRCWF
RCWF- CM & New Transmission Line
� Direct Potable Reuse
-Probable Demand
Conservation Demand
Accelerated Demand
Figure 11.9 — Package 3: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan ci yo
February2013 11-12 tl'u"'bboCk
iu►s
BCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy includes implementing the BCWF Initial
Capacity Maintenance strategy in 2013 as depicted in Figure 11.8. Due to a projected
usage of the BCWF averaging 9,900 ac-ft/yr over a 22-year period, another group of wells
is recommended in 2023 (BCWF CM-1) and 2033 (BCWF CM-2). After the RCWF
Transmission Line strategy is implemented in 2035, the BCWF can be reserved for peaking
capacity for the remaining planning period. The BCWF plays an important role in boosting
Lubbock's total peaking capacity. BCWF should be capable of providing up to 40 mgd to
meet peak demand for the remaining planning period (see Figure 11.9) if the annual usage
remains less than 7,000 ac-ft/yr.
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — This strategy includes expanding the existing LAH
infrastructure by 2017 by an additional 8,000 ac-ft/yr. Since this strategy includes pumping
water from LAH at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the lake should provide
16,000 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the planning period. LAH
plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. Once Phase 2 is
complete, LAH will be capable of providing up to 30 mgd to meet peak demand for the
duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.9).
RCWF New Transmission Line — This strategy includes delaying the construction of the
new transmission line from RCWF to the CRMWA Aqueduct until 2035. This strategy
will almost double the amount of water available (45,671 ac-ft/yr) from the RCWF. Since
the well field production will decline over time, it is anticipated that additional wells will
need to be added in 2025, 2065, and 2095 to maintain the necessary capacity to keep the
transmission lines flowing full.
Direct Potable Reuse at the NWTP — This strategy includes implementing direct potable
reuse at the NWTP by 2020 as described in Section 6.5. Implementing this strategy earlier
will reduce the need for the BCWF. Figures 11.8 and 11.9 depict this supply strategy using
all of the Net Reclaimed Water available (21,057 ac-ft/yr by 2113) as discussed in Section
6.3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ��of
February 2013 11-13 IU�UQCk
This supply package is different from Packages 1, 2, and 3 because its objective is to meet
the Conservation Demand projections (green line) described in Section 2. Since the
demand projections are less than the Probable Demand projections used in the first three
packages, the implementation of the RCWF New Transmission Line is delayed
indefinitely. The potential strategies used are described in the following sections:
Supply Strategy
Section
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
6.5
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.3
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance
7.4
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.4
LAH Phase 2
8.2
In this supply package, strategies are implemented or phased in as depicted in Figure
11.10. The individual and cumulative annual water supplies available from these strategies
with respect to the estimated demand over the planning period are depicted in Figure
11.11. The individual and cumulative available peak supplies from these strategies with
respect to the estimated peak demand are depicted in Figure 11.12.
Strategic Water Supply Plan February 2013 11-14t1'uf---W6'Y�fk
2013 2013 - BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance (ICM)
2017 - LAH Phase 2
2020 - Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
2023 2023 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2025 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2033
2043
2053 --� 2055 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2063 —j 2063 — BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2073
2083 —{ 2085 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-3)
2093
2103 —{ 2103 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-3)
2113
Figure 11.10 — Package 4: Strategy Implementation Schedule
Strategic Water Supply Plan tltbV�cf�February 2013 11-15
100,000 , _. _ __.
_t _ .... _: _._ .__ . ... _ _ .__..a ..
_. . ........ ... __ _.._.- 32.6
90,000
+
- _------------ ._. _._ 29.3
80,000
4—
, 26.1
%_
70,000
_.. _ _ .
-_ -._ .. _l-. _.' . _ , _.
_.___ i -._.t 22.8
91
60,000
-
'- -
19.6 c
50,000
16.3
>
40,000
13.0 E
3
30,000
9.8 >
20,000
6.5
3
10,000
3.3
0
0.0
M M M
ri N M
M M M M M
tt to w 11% 00
M M M
M O ei
O O O
N N N
O O O O O
N N N N N
0 .-i rl
N N N
Year
000 LAH- Phase 1
RCWF- Current
RCWF- CM
MM LAH- Phase 2
BCWF
v Direct Potable Reuse
Probable Demand
Accelerated Demand
—Conservation Demand
Figure 11.11— Package 4: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
160 _ _ _
-
_. __....._ ._ _ i._._ _. _ .._
f 160
140
140
^� 120
_ _._.._- {_.-_._ _ --
C - -
i
- __
120^
E 100
100 E
a►
E
�
E
2 80
80 a
0
0
60
60
3 40
40 3
20
20
0
0
M m M M
r+ N M v
M M M
in r`
M rn m
00 M
cn
o O O o
N N N N
0 0 0
N N N
0 0
N N N
N
Year
11111111111111111BCWF-Current
BCWF-CM
OM LAH-Phase 1
RCWF-Current
RCWF-CM
NNW LAH - Phase 2
Direct Potable Reuse
Probable Demand
—Conservation Demand
Accelerated Demand
Figure 11.12 — Package 4: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan tluWoty�fkFebruary 2013 11-16
BCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy includes implementing the BCWF Initial
Capacity Maintenance strategy in 2013 as depicted in Figure 11.12. During the next four
years (2013 through 2017) BCWF will have an average utilization of 10,233 ac-ft/yr.
However, once LAH Phase 2 is implemented, the projected average utilization of the
BCWF is 1,739 ac-ft/yr over a 66-year period. Due to the low utilization of BCWF,
additional groups of wells are recommended in 2023, 2063, and 2103. After the LAH
Phase 2 strategy is implemented in 2017, the BCWF can be reserved primarily for peaking
capacity for the remaining planning period. The BCWF plays an important role in
boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. BCWF should be capable of providing up to
40 mgd to meet peak demand for the remaining planning period (see Figure 11.13) if the
annual usage remains less than 3,000 ac-ft/yr as projected.
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — This strategy includes expanding the existing LAH
infrastructure by 2017 by an additional 8,000 ac-ft/yr. Since this strategy includes
pumping water from LAH at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the lake
should provide 16,000 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the planning
period. LAH plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. Once
Phase 2 is complete, LAH will be capable of providing up to 30 mgd to meet peak demand
for the duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.13).
RCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy only includes maintaining the existing
transmission line from the RCWF. Since a new transmission line is not needed to meet
the projected Conservation Demand, the well field production will decline more slowly
extending the life of the RCWF. It is anticipated that over the planning period that
additional wells will need to be added in 2025, 2055, and 2085 to maintain the necessary
capacity to keep the transmission lines flowing full.
Direct Potable Reuse at the NWTP — This strategy includes implementing Direct Potable
Reuse at the NWTP by 2020. Implementing this strategy earlier will reduce the demand
for the BCWF. Figures 11.12 and 11.13 depict this supply strategy using all of the Net
Reclaimed Water available (21,057 ac-ft/yr by 2113) as discussed in Section 6.3.
Strategic Water Supply Plan IU�}30Ck
February 2013 11-17 ,Ex.3
11.5 Supply Package 5 —Accelerated Growth
This supply package is different from Packages 1, 2, and 3 because its objective is to meet
the Accelerated Growth Demand projections (red line) described in Section 2. Since the
demand projections are greater than the Probable Demand projections used in the first
three packages, several additional supply strategies must be implemented. The potential
strategies used are described in the following sections:
Supply Strategy
Section
Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
6.5
RCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.3
BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance
7.4
BCWF Capacity Maintenance
7.4
RCWF New Transmission Line
7.5
Brackish Well Field
7.8
LAH Phase 2
8.2
Jim Bertram Lake 7
8.3
North Fork Scalping Operation
8.5
In this supply package, strategies are implemented or phased in as depicted in Figure
11.13. The individual and cumulative annual water supplies available from these strategies
with respect to the estimated demand over the planning period are depicted in Figure
11.14. The individual and cumulative available peak supplies from these strategies with
respect to the estimated peak demand are depicted in Figure 11.15.
Strategic Water Supply Plan cfcvof
February 2013 11-18 Lubbock
2013 2013 - BCWF Initial Capacity Maintenance (ICM)
2017 - LAH Phase 2
2020 - Direct Potable Reuse to NWTP
2023 2023 - BCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-1)
2025 - RCWF New Transmission Line
2033
2043
2053 1 2055 - North Fork Scalping Operation
2055 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-2)
2063
2073
2079 — Jim Bertram Lake 7
2083 -1 2085 - RCWF Capacity Maintenance (CM-3)
2093
2098 - Brackish Well Field
2103
2113
Figure 11.13 — Package 5: Strategy Implementation Schedule
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-obbOC
February 2013 11-19 fk
100,000 _,. �.�_,
I. _ ... ___I cr
32.6
90 000
_.-.
r rz��'29.3
�-
0
80,000
L.-.. __ ._. . ___.._.I.
26.1
"o
70,000
-—-
22.8
0
60,000
19.6
0
a►
3
50,000
16.3
=
:3
>
40,000
13.0
E
I-
W
to
30,000
9.8
z
>
3
20,000
6.5
a`►
�O
10,000
3.3
3
0
0.0
M M M M
r-1 N M iY
M M M M M M
to W r` 00 C1 O
M
e-1
O O O O
N N N N
O O O O O `-I
N N N N N N
`4
N
Year
EUM LAH- Phase 1
NIM LAH- Phase 2
�RCWF-Current
RCWF -CM&New Transmission Line
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBCWF
� Direct Potable Reuse
Lake 7
MOM NFSO
1� Brackish Well Field
Probable Demand
—Accelerated Demand
Conservation Demand
Figure 11.14 — Package 5: Annual Supply vs. Annual Demand Projections
160
160
m 120
- - __ _ _ . ?___ L .
i
120
t
__ ..__..l_
100
100
2
80
80
0
0
60
60
ro
70
3 40
40
3
20
20
0
0
m M M M
-+ N M -zr
M M
Ln 0
M M M M
P� 00 rn O
c»
r-I
O O O O
N N N fV
O o
N N
O O O .1
N N N N
.-I
N
�BCWF-Current
Year
�BCWF-CM
®LAH- Phase 1
� LAH-Phase 2
11111111111111111IRCWF-Current
RCWF-CM &New Transmission
Line
e Direct Potable Reuse
Lake 7
DOM NFSO
r"4 Brackish Well Field
Probable Demand
Conservation Demand
—Accelerated Demand
Figure 11.15 — Package 5: Peak Supply vs. Peak Demand Projections
Strategic Water Supply Plan tlt�b]P�fkFebruary 2013 11-20
BCWF Capacity Maintenance — This strategy includes implementing the BCWF Initial
Capacity Maintenance strategy in 2013 as depicted in Figure 11.15. Due to a projected
usage of the BCWF averaging 12,027 ac-ft/yr over a 12-year period, another group of wells
(BCWF CM-1) is recommended in 2023. After the RCWF New Transmission Line
strategy is implemented in 2025, the BCWF is reserved for peaking capacity for the
remaining planning period. The BCWF plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's
total peaking capacity. BCWF should be capable of providing up to 40 mgd to meet peak
demand for the remaining planning period (see Figure 11.16) if the annual usage remains
less than 3,000 ac-ft/yr as projected.
Lake Alan Henry Phase 2 — This strategy includes expanding the existing LAH
infrastructure by 2017 by an additional 8,000 ac-ft/yr. Since this strategy includes pumping
water from LAH at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the lake should provide
16,000 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the planning period. LAH
plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking capacity. Once Phase 2 is
complete, LAH will be capable of providing up to 30 mgd to meet peak demand for the
duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.16).
RCWF New Transmission Line — This strategy includes constructing a new transmission
line from the RCWF to the CRMWA Aqueduct that will almost double the amount of water
available (45,671 ac-ft/yr) from the RCWF to Lubbock by 2025. Since the well field
production will decline over time, it is anticipated that additional wells will need to be
added in 2055 and 2085 to maintain the necessary capacity to keep the transmission lines
flowing full.
Direct Potable Reuse at the NWTP - This strategy includes implementing Direct Potable
Reuse at the NWTP by 2020. Implementing this strategy earlier will reduce the demand
for the BCWF. Figures 11.14 and 11.15 depict this supply strategy using all of the Net
Reclaimed Water available as discussed in Section 6.3 until 2079 when Jim Bertram Lake 7
is completed. After 2079, this strategy must share the Net Reclaimed Water with Jim
Bertram Lake 7.
North Fork Scalping Operation - This strategy includes implementing the North Fork
Scalping Operation by 2055. Since this strategy includes pumping storm water flows from
the North Fork, the strategy should provide 8,725 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for
the duration of the planning period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tIt"b96ftFebruary 2013 11-21
Jim Bertram Lake 7 — This strategy includes constructing Lake 7 by 2079 with a safe yield
of 11,300 ac-ft/yr with 7,300 ac-ft/yr coming from Lubbock's available Net Reclaimed
Water as described in Section 8.3. Therefore, the Direct Potable Reuse at the NWTP
strategy must be reduced from 18,968 to 10,067 ac-ft/yr in 2079. Since this strategy
includes pumping water from Lake 7 at a rate equal to or less than the lake's safe yield, the
lake should provide 11,300 ac-ft/yr of water supply to Lubbock for the duration of the
planning period. Lake 7 plays an important role in boosting Lubbock's total peaking
capacity. Once this strategy is complete, Lake 7 will be capable of providing up to 20 mgd
to meet peak demand for the duration of the planning period (see Figure 11.16).
Brackish Well Field — This strategy includes constructing the Brackish Well Field at the
SWTP site by 2098. Since this strategy includes groundwater pumped from the Dockum
Aquifer, it is uncertain whether this strategy will be sustainable for the remaining 15 years
of the planning period without the installation of additional wells.
Strategic Water Supply Plan ?OCk
February 2013 11-22 tI'uf---b'
r
1111111 K 1111 1
Table 11.1 provides a comparison of the five supply packages discussed in this section.
General observations concerning this comparison include:
• Many supply strategies are interchangeable. The attractiveness of each strategy
may change over time. Implementation schedules may change based on a variety
of unpredictable variables including climate conditions, population, per capita
consumption, industry need, changes in regulatory environments, etc.
• New supply strategies must be implemented over the next 20 years to reduce the
over -utilization of the BCWF;
• Delaying the implementation of LAH Phase 2 and/or the RCWF New Transmission
Line (under Probable Demand conditions) threatens the sustainability of the BCWF
as a viable peaking source.
• If Lubbock persists in its water conservation efforts, the implementation of the
RCWF New Transmission Line strategy and/or other supply strategies can be
delayed indefinitely;
• If accelerated growth occurs, several additional strategies will need to be
implemented to meet the projected water demand in 2113;
• Direct reuse and indirect reuse strategies are interchangeable. However, the
amount of reclaimed water available during the first couple of decades is small
compared to what is available during the later decades of the planning period.
• Supply Packages 3 and 4 are identical during the first 20 years of the planning
period.
Strategic Water Supply Plan IU�?�J�OCk
February 2013 11-23 nags
Table 11.1— Supply Package Schedule Comparison
Supply Package 1
Baseline
Supply Package 2
LAH Delayed
Supply Package 3
RCWF Line Delayed
Supply Package 4
Conservation
Supply Package 5
Accel. Growth
2013
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: BCWF CM-1
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2013: BCWF - ICM
2017: LAH Phase 2
2020: Direct Reuse
2023
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2023: BCWF CM-2
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2031: LAH Phase 2
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF CM-1
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF CM-1
2023: BCWF CM-1
2025: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2033
2033: BCWF CM-2
2035: RCWF New
Transmission Line
2043
2053
2054: Direct Reuse
2055: RCWF CM-1
2054: North Fork
Diversion at CR 7300
2055: RCWF CM-1
2055: RCWF CM-2
2055: North Fork
Scalping Operation
2055: RCWF CM-2
2063
2065: RCWF CM-2
2063: BCWF CM-2
2073
2079: Jim Bertram
Lake 7
2083
2085: RCWF CM-2
2085: RCWF CM-2
2085: RCWF CM-3
2085: RCWF CM-3
2093
2095: RCWF CM-3
2098: Brackish Well
Field
2103
2103: BCWF CM-3
2113
Note: ICM = Initial Capacity Maintenance, CM-1 = Capacity Maintenance-], CM-2 = Capacity Maintenance-2, etc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'ut_obvl%�cf�February 2013 11-24
'Financiala
In Section 11, five recommended water supply packages are presented and discussed. This
section evaluates the financial impact of each of the supply packages. The financial impact
of each package is dependent upon the timing, order, capital cost, annual operating costs,
and number of supply strategies implemented over the 100 year planning period. This
financial evaluation should assist the City in developing a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for the recommended supply packages. The proposed implementation schedules can be
adjusted in the future to meet the City's needs. The strategies may shift in order of
implementation as the City's priorities change. The City should re-evaluate the proposed
order before each strategy is implemented.
HDR Engineering, Inc. prepared a present value (PV) analysis on each of the five water
supply packages. Appendix E includes a memo explaining the primary assumptions for
the PV analysis. These assumptions include inflation, discount, and bond interest rates.
Rates used in calculating PVs are summarized in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1— Present Value Analysis — Assumed Rates Used in Calculations
Time Period
Inflation Rate
Power Cost
Inflation Rate
Discount Rate
Bond Rate
2014 — 2025
3.0%
1.0%
1.0%
5.1 %
2026 — 2046
3.1 %
2.8%
1.1 %
5.1 %
2047 — 2067
3.2%
3.8%
1.2%
5.1 %
2068-2113
2.7%
4.8%
1.0%
5.1%
Strategic Water Supply Plan c;tyof
February 2013 12-1 Lubbock
Inflated Project Costs
HDR Engineering, Inc. prepared inflated project costs for each of the five water supply
packages shown in Table 12.2. These inflated costs account for estimated rates of inflation
affecting future prices, using the rates shown in Table 12.1. Projects implemented later in
the Plan have higher inflated costs than those implemented earlier. Table 12.2 lists the cost
of projects if constructed today (Original Project Cost) and compares the inflated costs of
those projects based upon their implementation date. Some of the original project costs
differ from those presented in earlier sections as they have been adjusted in size and scope
from the initial evaluation to meet the City's water supply needs in the year they are
implemented.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u"�b9oy CfX
February 2013 12-2 ,,�
Table 12.2 - Inflated Project Cost Comparison
Package 1
Package 2
Package 3
Package 4
Package 5
Baseline
LAH Delayed
RCWF Delayed
Conservation
Accel. Growth
Original
,
Inflated
Inflated
d
Inflated
Inflated
Inflated
Project Name
Project Cost
9
Project Cost
Project Cost (
>-
roject Cost (
Project Cost
Project Cost
($ in millions)
w
($ in millions)
w
in millions)
w
in millions)
w
($ in millions)
w
($ in millions)
BCWF ICM
$19.04
2014
$19.04
2014
$19.04
2014
$19.04
2014
$19.04
2014
$19.04
BCWF CM -I
$5.72
2021
$7.04
2015
$5.89
2021
$7.04
2021
$7.04
2021
$7.04
BCWF CM-2
$5.72
2021
$7.04
2031
$9.51
2061
$24.10
BCWF CM-3
$5.72
2101
$72.14
Brackish
$58.23
2096
$642.34
Well Field
Direct Potable
Reuse toNWTP
$100.23
2052
$317.95
2018
$112.81
2018
$112.81
2018
$112.81
Phase 1
Direct Potable
Reuse to NWTP
$83.51
2052
$264.92
2045
$212.75
2045
$212.75
2045
$212.75
Phase 2
Jim Bertram
$88.33
2077
$586.86
Lake 7
LAH Phase
$65.71
2015
$67.68
2029
$102.75
2015
$67.68
2015
$67.68
2015
$67.68
North Fork
Diversion at
$54.26
2052
$172.13
CR 7300
North Fork
$125.49
2053
$410.82
Scalping Operation
RCWF New
$104.33
2023
$136.12
2023
$136.12
2033
$184.29
2023
$136.12
Transmission Line
RCWF CM-1
$9.61
2023
$12.54
2023
$12.54
with 11 wells
RCWF CM-2
$9.61
2053
$31.47
with I I wells
RCWF CM-3
$9.61
2083
$74.97
with I I wells
RCWF CM-1
$18.44
2053
$60.36
2053
$60.36
2063
$82.69
2053
$60.36
with 20 wells
RCWF CM-2
$18.44
2083
$143.79
2083
$143.79
2093
$187.77
2083
$143.79
with 20 wells
Note: ICM = Initial Capacity Maintenance, CM-1 = Capacity Maintenance-], CM-2 = Capacity Maintenance-2, etc.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'u4l9OCk
February 2013 12-3 ,tx:
A summary of the PV Analysis is depicted in Table 12.3 and Figure 12.1. Based on this
analysis, the PV of all five supply packages fall between $4 billion and $10 billion over the
100 year planning period.
Table 12.3 — Present Value Analysis Summary
Package
Total Package Cost
(Current Dollars)
Total Package Cost
(Inflated Dollars)
Total Cash Flow
(Inflated Dollars)
Net PV of
Cash Flow
Package 1
$ 415,417,000
$ 1,016,904,796
$ 14,669,595,197
$ 6,793,719,381
Package 2
$ 291,661,000
$ 647,127,226
$ 10,821,355,010
$ 4,975,451,844
Package 3
$ 430,754,000
$ 896,130,642
$ 14,887,481,747
$ 6,974,456,843
Package 4
$ 314,499,000
$ 634,548,574
$ 8,536,822,201
$ 4,131,248,530
Package 5
$ 687,463,000
$ 2,399,617,523
$ 21,657,599,118
$ 9,945,560,890
Figure 12.1— Net Present Value Comparison for Supply Packages
As expected, Supply Package 4 is the least expensive alternative since it requires the
fewest water supply strategies to meet the Conservation Demand projections. Similarly,
Supply Package 5 is the most expensive alternative since it requires the implementation of
the most water supply strategies in order to meet the Accelerated Demand projections.
Strategic Water Supply Plan
February 2013 12-4 tl'u4l�ot'�fk
Supply Packages 1, 2, and 3 are all based on satisfying the Probable Demand projections.
Supply Package 2 is less expensive than Supply Packages 1 and 3 for several reasons. This
package draws more heavily upon the existing BCWF supply for a longer period of time.
However, heavy usage of the BCWF may not be sustainable. Package 1 implements LAH
Phase 2 sooner in order to relieve BCWF. Package 3 implements direct reuse sooner in
order to relieve BCWF.
12.2 12-Year Financial Model
In order to provide information for water rate planning, the City's Finance Department
created a financial spreadsheet model for the Water Fund that extends over the 12 year
short-term planning period. Models were developed for all five supply packages discussed
in Section 11.
In each model, the volume rates increase more dramatically during the first part of the
modeling period, because the City Council initiated a new water rate policy in 2012 to
promote water conservation. Under this new policy, the base rates decrease over a three
year period and the volume rates increase. For example, during this three year period, the
base rate for a 3/4-inch water meter decreases from $21 to $7 per month. A rate structure
comparison for Supply Package 1 is included in Appendix E-2 to demonstrate the
variations in the base and volume rates due to this policy. Therefore, in the first few years
of the modeling period the volume rates are affected by both the implementation of each
supply package and the introduction of the new rate policy.
Financial models for each Supply Package are included in Appendix E-3 through E-6. One
financial model (Appendix E-5) represents both Supply Packages 3 and 4 since the exact
same projects are initiated during the same timeframes over the 12 year period. Variations
between these two packages do not occur until 2033. Key drivers of these financial
models include:
• Timing of debt issuance;
• Amount of cumulative debt service;
• Maintaining appropriable net assets at policy levels;
• Creating and funding a RCWF reserve to fund the new transmission line; and
• Increases in volume and/or base rates to meet additional revenue demands.
Strategic Water Supply Plan tl'uf-l'So�ft
February 2013 12-5
These financial models are used to estimate how much water rates will increase over the
next 12 years in order to fund each of the supply packages. Figure 12.2 compares a 2013
monthly residential water bill for a 3/4-inch meter with projected water bills for each
supply package in 2025 assuming an average consumption of 7,000 gallons/month.
Figure 12.2 — Comparison of Average Monthly Water Bill for Supply Packages
Based on the water bill comparison in Figure 12.2, the following observations and
conclusions can be made:
• During the short-term planning period, an average monthly water bill may increase
by as much as $14 (30%) to $29 (59%) depending on which supply package is
implemented.
• Supply Package 2 (LAH Phase 2 Delayed) includes the smallest increase in the
water rates over the short-term planning period. Because this package relies
heavily on the BCWF, fewer strategies are needed in the next 12 year period.
However, this strategy becomes more costly over the 100 year planning period.
• While not the least expensive package in the short-term, Supply Package 4
(Conservation) is the least expensive package over the entire planning period (see
Strategic Water Supply Plan j city �fS
February 2013 12-6Lubbo
Figure 12.1). The savings to the customer will become more noticeable during the
medium- and long-term planning periods.
• Supply Package 5 (Accelerated Growth) includes the most expensive increase in
the water rates over the short-term and long-term planning periods.
Strategic Water Supply Plan toy
tl'u4bbock
February 2013 12-7 Tt:
Appendix A-1
Historic Data for the City of Lubbock
Year
Population
(Genus Data)
Growth Rate
(Percent)
Gallons per Capita per Day
(gpcd)
Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Peak Day Demand
(mgd)
Average Annual Day
(mg)
Peaking Factor
Data by Decade
1910
1938
n a
1920
4,051
109.0
1930
20,520
406.5
1940
31,853
55.2
1950
71747
125.2
1960
128,691
79.4
1970
149,101
15.9
1980
173,979
16.7
206
40,205
70.85
35.89
1.97
1990
186,206
7.0
192
40,086
79.00
35.79
2.21
2000
199 564
7.2
199
44,375
67.82
39.62
1.71
2010
229!573
15.0
148
36,890
50.38
32.93
1.53
Data by Year
1910
1,938,
8.54
1911
2,104
4.02
1912
2,188
4.35
1913
2,283
8.54
1914
2,478
8.54
1915
2,690
8.54
1916
2,920
8.54
1917
3,169
8.54
1918
3,440
8.54
1919
3,733
8.51
-1920
4,051
17.62
1921
4,765
17.62
1922
5,604
17.62
1923
6,591
17.62
1924
7,753
17.62
1925
9,118
17.62
1926
10,725
17.62
1927
12,614
17.62
1928 1
14,836
17.62
1929
17,450
17.59
1930
20,520
M
1931
21,443
4.50
1932
22,407
4.50
1933
23,414
4.50
1934
24,467
4.50
1935
25,567
4.50
1936
26,716
4.50
1937
27,917
4.50
1938
29,173
4.50
1939
30,484
4.49
1940
MA53
8.46
1941
34,547
8.46
1942
37,470
8.46
1943
40,639
8.46
1944
44,077
8.46
1945
47,806
8.46
1946
51,849
8.46
1947
56,235
8.46
1948
60,992
8.46
1949
66,152
8.46
1950
71,747,
6.02
1951
76,064
6.02
1952
80,641
6.02
1953
85,493
6.02
1954
90,638
6.02
1955
96,091
6.02
1956
101,873
6.02
1957
108,003
6.02
1958
114,501
6.02
1959
121,391
6.01
1960
128,691
1.48
1961
130,599
1.48
1962
132,536
1.48
1963
134,502
1.48
1 664
136,496
1.48
Appendix A-1
Historic Data for the City of Lubbock
Year
Population
(Genus Data)
Growth Rate
(Percent)
Gallons per Capita per Day
(gpcd)
Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Peak Day Demand
(mgd)
Average Annual Day
(mg)
Peaking Factor
1965
138,521
1.48
1966
140,57S
1.48
1967
142,660
1.48
1968
144,77S
1.48
1969
146,922
1.48
1970
149,101 "
1.55
1971
151,420
1.55
1972
153,774
1.55
1973
156,165
1.55
1974
158,593
1.55
1975
161,059
1.55
1976
163,S64
1.55
1977
166,107
1.55
1978
168,690
1.55
1979
171,313
1.56
1980
173,979
0.30 -
206
40,205
70.85
35.89
1.97
1981
174,508
0.30
184
35,928
68.48
32.07
2.13
1982
175,038
0.30
178
34,841
58.69
31.10
1.89
1983
175,569
0.30
208
40,835
n/a
36.46
n/a
1984
176,103
2.19
195
38 385
n/a
34.27
n/a
198S
179,953
0.34
180
36,30S
65.18
32.41
2.01
1986
180,561
0.23
170
34,395
65.71
30.71
2.14
1987
180,973
0.70
168
34,057
57.01
30.40
1.87
1988
182,243
0.73
183
37,417
60.40
33.40
1.81
1989
183,573
1.43
196
40,233
69.12
35.92
1.92
1990
186,206 ='
0.50
192
40,086
79.00
35.79
2.21
1991
187,137
0.19
176
36,930
67.38
32.97
2.04
1992
187,493
0.26
167
34,971
55.50
31.22
1.78
1993
187,981
1.09
181
38,096
58.35
34.01
1.72
1994
190,038
0.52
197
41,929
74.98
37.43
2.00
1995
191,020
1.07
213
45,491
79.54
40.61
1.96
1996
193,064
1.19
204
44,178
66.71
39.44
1.69
1997
195,367
0.67
185
40,408
63.37
36.07
1.76
1998
196,679
0.22
224
49,299
84.17
44.01
1.91
1999
197,117
1.24
188
41429
68.93
36.99
1.86
2000
199,564
0.83
199
44,375
67.82
39.62
1.71
2001
201,217
0.39
191
43,078
73.09
38.46
1.90
2002
202,000
1.35
182
41,080
63.91
36.67
1.74
2003
204,737
0.76
190
43,626
73.61
38.95
1.89
2004
206,290
1.37
161
37,120
59.94
33.14
1.81
2005
209,120
0.99
168
39,302
64.97
35.09
1.85
2006
211,187
0.56
177
41,874
78.45
37.38
2.10
2007
212,365
1.17
136
32,456
51.77
28.97
1.79
2008
214,847
1.62
148
35,671
57.18
31.8S
1.80
2009
218,327
6.85
145
35,434
54.23
31.63
1.71
2010
229,573
1.06
143
36,890
50.38
32.93
1.53
2011
236,111
0.69
178
47,024
64.11
41.25
1.53
2012
237,712
1
1 152
40,587
58.07
36.23
1.60
Appendix A-2
Population and Growth Rate Projections
Population
Growth Rate
(Percent)
Year
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
0 Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Data by Decade
2013
240,565
240,565
220,281
225,631
239,290
1.20
1.30
0.50
0.72
1.20
2023
271042
281945
230,143
241,149
269,568
1.20
1.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2033
305,381
333,714
236 483
255,197
303,682
1.20
1.70
0.19
0.51
1.20
2043
330,710
375,993
240 563
267,400
342,118
0.80
1.20
0.13
0.41
1.20
2053
354,603
415,330
244,568
277,554
385,423
0.70
1.00
0.24
0.32
1.20
2063
376,463
454,260
n a
285,840
434,215
0.60
0.90
n a
0.25
1.20
2073
395,715
491938
n a
292,592
489189
0.50
0.80
n a
0.20
1.20
2083
411832
527,479
n a
298,076
551127
0.40
0.70
n a
0.15
20
2093
428 605
559996
302,206
302 206
620 912
0.40
0.60
n a
0.10
20
2103
446061
585 712
585,712
0.10
2n/a
211
4 228
603, 22
n a
n a
n a
0.40
0.30
n
n a
Databy Year
2010
233,606
233,606
216,974
220,817
229,913
1.06
1.06
0.51
0.72
1.20
2011 '
2361,111
236,111
218,076
222,410
233,656
0.69
0.69
0.51
0.72
1.20
2012
237,712
237,712
219,178
224,015
236,456
1.20
1.20
0.50
0.72
1.20
2013
240,565
240,565 `:
220,281 -
22%631
239,290
1,26
1.30
0,50
0.72
1,20
2014
243,451
243,692
221,383
227,259
242,158
1.20
1.40
0.50
0.72
1.20
2015
246,373
247,104
222,485
228,899
245 060
1.20
1.50
0.50
0.72
1.20
2016
249,329
2S0,810
223,587
230,551
247,997
1.20
1.60
0.49
0.72
1.20
2017
252,321
254,823
224,689
232,214
250.970
1.20
1.70
0.49
0.72
1.20
2018
255,349
259,155
225,792
233,890
253,978
1.20
1.70
0.49
0.72
1.20
2019
258,413
263,561
226,894
235,577
257,022
1.20
1.70
0.49
0.50
1.20
2020
261,514
268,041
227 996
236,749
260,102
1.20
1.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2021
264,652
272,598
228,712
238,207
263,220
1.20
1.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2022
267,828
277,232
229,427
239,673
266,375
1.20
1.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2023
271,042
281,945
230,143
241,149
269,568
1.20
1.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2024
274,295
286,738
230,858
242,634
272,799
1.20VI.70
0.31
0.62
1.20
2025
277,586
291,611 �
231;574
244,128 '
276,069
1.2070
0,31
0.62
1.20
2026
280,917
296,570
232,289
245,631
279,378
1.2070
0.31
0.62
1.20
2027
284,288
301,612
233,005
247,144
282,727
1.2070
0.31
0.62
1.20
2028
287,700
306,739
233,720
248,665
286,116
1.2070
0.31
0.62
1.20
2029
291,152
311,954
234,436
250,197
289,546
1.207
00.31
0.45
1.20
2030
294,646
317,257
235,151
251,326
293.017
1.20
1.70
0.19
0.51
1.20
2031
298,182
322,650
235,595
252,610
296,530
1.20
1.70
0.19
0.51
1.20
2032 ':
301,760
328,136
236,039
253,900
300,085
1.20
1.70
0.19
0.51
1.20
2033
305,381
333,714
236,483
255,197
303,682
1.20
1.70
0.19
0.51
1.20
2034
307,824
337,718
236 927
256,500
307,323
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.51
1.20
2035
310,287
341,771
237,371
257,810
311,007
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.51
1.20
2036
312,769
345,872
237,815
259,127
314,735
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.51
1.20
2037
315,271
350 023
238,259
260,451
318,509
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.51
1.20
2038
317,793
354,223
238,703
261,781
322,327
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.51
1.20
2039
320,336
358,474
239,147
263,118
326,191
0.80
1.20
0.19
0.40
1.20
2040
322,898
362,775
239,591
264,163
330,102
0.80
1.20
0.14
0.41
1.20
2041
325,482
367,129
239,915
265,238
334,060
0.80
1.20
0.14
0.41
1.20
2042
328,085
371,534
240,239
266,317
338,065
0.80
1.20
0.13
0.41
1.20
2043
330,710
375,993
240,563
267,400
342,118
0.80
1.20
0.13
0.41
1.20
2044
333,025
379,753
240,887
268,488
346,220
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.41
1.20
2045
335,356
383,550
241,211
269,580
350,371
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.41
1.20
2046
337,704
387,386
241,535
270,677
354,572
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.41
1.20
2047
340,068
391,259
241,859
271,778
358,823
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.41
1.20
2048
342,448
395,172
242,183
272,883
363,125
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.41
1.20
2049
344,845
399,124
242,507
273,993
367,479
0.70
1.00
0.13
0.33
1.20
2050
347,259
403,115
242,831
274,909
371,885
0.70
1.00
0.24
0.32
1.20
2051
349,690
407,146
243,410
275,788
376,344
0.70
1.00
0.24
0.32
1.20
2052
352,138
411,218
243,989
276,669
380,857
0.70
1.00
0.24
0.32
1.20
2 553
354,603
415,330
244,568
277,554
385,423
0.70
1.00
0.24
0.32
1.20
2054
,730
419,068
245,147
278,441
390,045
0.60
0.90
0.24
0.32
1.20
2055,871
422,839
245,727
279,331
394,722
0.60
0.90
0.24
0.32
1.20
2056,024
426,645
246,306
280,224
399,455
0.60
0.90
0.24
0.32
1.20
2057,190
M
430,485
246,885
281,120
404,245
0.60
0.90
0.23
0.32
1.20
2058,369
434,359
247,464
282,019
409,092
0.60
0.90
0.23
0.32
1.2059,561
438,268
248,043
282,920
413,998
0.60
0.90
0.23
0.27
1.20
2060
369,767
442,213
74R FW
283,697
418,962
0.60
0.90
n/a
0.25
1.20
Appendix A-2
Population and Growth Rate Projections
Population
Growth Rate
(Percent)
Year
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
0 Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
2061
371,985
446,193
n/a
284,410
423,966
0.60
0.90
n/a
0.25
1.20
2062
374,217
450,208
n/a
285,124
429,070
0.60
0.90
n/a
0.25
1.20
2063
376463,
454,260
n/a
285,840
434`215
0.60
0.90
n/a
0.25
11,20
2064
378,345
457,894
n/a
286,558
439,422
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.25
1.20
2065
380,237
461,558
n/a
287,278
444,692
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.25
1.20
2066
382,138
465,250
n/a
287,999
450,025
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.25
1.20
2067
384,049
4681,972
n/a
288,722
455,421
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.25
1.20
2068
385,969
472,724
n/a
289,448
460,883
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.25
1.20
2069
387,899
476,506
n/a
290,175
466,410
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.22
1.20
2070
389,838
480,318
n/a
290,824
472,003
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.20
1.20
2071
391,787
484,160
n/a
291,412
477,664
O.SO
0.80
n/a
0.20
1.20
2072
393,746
488,033
n/a
292,002
483,392
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.20
1.20
2073
395,715
491,938
n/a
292,592
489,189
0.50
0.80
n/a
0.20
1.20
2074
397,298
495,381
n/a
293,184
495,056
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.20
1.20
2075
398,887
498,849
n/a
293,777
500,993
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.20
1.20
2076
400,483
502,341
n/a
294,371
507,001
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.20
1.20
2077
402,085
505,857
n/a
294,966
513,081
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.20
1.20
2078
403,693
509,398
n/a
295,563
519,235
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.20
1.20
2079
405,308
512,964
n/a
296,161
525,462
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.19
1.20
2080
406,929
516,555
n/a
296,709
531,764
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.15
1.20
2081
408,557
520,171
n/a
297,164
538,142
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.15
1.20
2082
410,191
523,812
n/a
297,619
544,596
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.15
1.20
2083
411,832
527,479
n/a
298,076
551,127
0.40
0.70
n/a
0.15
1.20
2084
413,479
530,643
n/a
298,533
557,737
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.15
1.20
2085
415,133
533,827
n/a
298,990
564,426
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.15
1.20
2086
416,793
537,030
n/a
299,449
571,196
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.15
1.20
2087
418,461
540,252
n/a
299,908
578,047
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.15
1.20
2088
420,134
543,494
n/a
300,368
584,980
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.15
1.20
2089
421,815
546,755
n/a
300,829
591,996
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.14
1.20
2090
423,502
550,035
n/a
301,261
599,096
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.10
1.20
2091
425,196
553,336
n/a
301,S76
606,282
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.10
1.20
2092
426,897
556,656
n/a
301,891
613,553
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.10
1.20
2093
428,605
559,996
n/a
302,206
620,912
0.40
0.60
n/a
0.10
1.20
2094
430,319
562,516
n/a
302,522
628,360
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2095
432,040
565,047
n/a
302,838
635,897
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2096
433,768
567,590
n/a
303,155
643,524
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2097
43S,504
570,144
n/a
303,472
651,242
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2098 '
437,246
572,709
n/a
303,789
659,054
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2099
438,994
575,287
n/a
304,107
666,959
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2100
440,750
577,875
n/a
304,411
674,959
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2101
442,513
580,476
n/a
304,729
683,055
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2102
444,284
583,088
n/a
305,048
691,248
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2103
446,061
585,712
n/a
305,367
699,539
0.40
0.45
n/a
0.10
1.20
2104
447,845
587,469
n/a
305,687
707,930
0.40
0.30
n/a
0.10
1.20
2105'
449,636
589,231
n/a
306,006
716,421
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2106
451,435
590,999
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2107
453,241
592,772
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2108
455,054
594,550
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2109
456,874
596,334
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2110
458,701
598,123
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2111
460,536
599,917
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
211
4462,378
601,717
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
2113
464,228
603,522 i
n/a
n/a
n/a "
0.40
0.30
n/a
n/a i
n/a
Appendix A-3
Per Capita Consumption and Water Demand Projections
Gallons per Capita per Day
(gpcd)
Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Year
Conservation
Probable
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Data by Decade
2013
160
178
204
200
200
43,115
47,965
47 965
50,353
50,548
53,608
2023
145
169
201
200
200
44 006
51193
53 253
51836
54 024
60 391
2033
140
160
198
200
200
47 921
54,639
59,709
52,471
57,171
68,033
2043
137
157
196
200
200
50,919
58,220
66,191
52,732
59,905
76,644
2053
135
155
195
200
200
53 569
61422
71940
53,420
62,180
86,346
2063
132
152
n/a
200
200
55 800
64,159
77 418
n/a
64 036
97 277
2073
130
150
n/a
200
200
57,548
66 356
82.491
n/a
65.549
109,592
2083
127
147
n/a
200
200
58,764
67,948
87,028
n/a
66,778
123,468
2093
125
145
n/a
200
200
60 005
69,578
90,907
n/a
67,703
139,102
2103
123
143
n/a
200
200
61,
1 273
71247
93,553
n/a
68,411
156,717
2113
120
140
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,567
72,956
94,847
n/a
n/a
n/a
Data by Year
2010
141
141
205
200
200
36,890
36,890
36,890
49,824
49,469
51,507
2011
178
178
205
200
200
47,024
47,024
47,024
50,000
49,826
52,346
2012
152
152
204
200
200
40,587
40,587
40,587
50,177
50,186
521,973
2013
160
178
204
200
200
43115
47,965
47,965 S
W ,353
50 548
53 608
2014
156
177
204
200
200
42,541
48,279
48,326
50,529
50,912
54,250
2015
150
176
203
200
200
41,396
48,594
48,738
50,706
51,280
54,900
2016
149
175
203
200
200
41,692
48,912
49,202
50,882
51,650
55,558
2017
149
174
203
200
200
41,989
49,231
49,719
51,058
52,023
56,224
2018
148
173
203
200
200
42,289
49,553
50,292
51,234
52,398
56,898
2019
147
172
202
200
200
42,591
49,877
50,870
51,411
52,776
57,580
2020
146
171
202
200
200
42,896
50,203
511,456
51,587
53,039
58,270
2021
146
170
202
200
200
43,263
50,531
52,048
51,670
53,365
58,969
2022
145
170
201
200
200
43,633
50,861
52,647
51,753
53,694
59,676
2023
145
169
201
200
200
44,006
51,193
53,253
51,836
54,024
60,391
2024
144
168
201
200
200
44,383
51,528
53,866
51,919
54,357
61,115
2025
144
167
200
200`
200
44,763 '
51865
54,486
52,002
54,692
61,847
2026
143
166
200
200
200
45,146
52,204
55,113
52,084
55,028
62,589
2027
143
165
200
200
200
45,533
52,545
55,747
52,167
55,367
63,339
2028
142
164
200
200
200
45,922
52,888
56,388
52,250
55,708
64,098
2029
142
163
199
200
200
46,315
53,234
57,037
52,333
56,051
64,867
2030
142
162
199
200
200
46,712
53,582
57,694
52,416
56,304
65,644
2031
141
161
199
200
200
47,112
53,932
58,358
52,434
56,592
66,431
2032
141
161
198
200
200
47,515
54,284
59,029
52,453
56,881
67,228
2033
140
160
198
200
200
47,921
54,639
59,709
52,471
57,171
68,033
2034
140
159
198
200
200
48,213
54,987
60,327
52,490
57,463
68,849
2035
140
159
1 197
200
200
48,506
55,337
60,952
52,508
57,757
69,674
2036
139
159
197
200
200
48,802
55,690
61,584
52,526
58,052
70,510
2037
139
159
197
200
200
49,099
56,044
62,222
52,545
58,348
71,355
2038
139
158
197
200
200
49,397
56,401
62,866
52,563
58,646
72,210
2039
139
158
196
200
200
49,698
56,760
63,518
52 582
58,946
73,076
2040
138
158
196
200
200
50,000
57,121
64,176
52,600
59,180
73,952
2041
138
158
196
200
200
50,304
57,485
64,841
52,644
59,421
74,839
2042
138
157
196
200
200
50,611
57,851
65,512
52,688
59,663
75,736
2043
137
157
196
200
200
50,919
58,220
66,191
52,732
59,905
76,644
2044
137
157
196
200
200
51,178
58,532
66,745
52,776
60,149
77,563
2045
137
157
195
200
200
51,438
58,846
67,303
52,820
60,394
78,493
2046
137
156
195
200
200
51,700
59,162
67,866
52,864
60,639
79,434
2047
136
156
195
200
200
51,962
59,480
68,434
52,908
60,886
80,387
2048
136
156
195
200
200
52,227
59,799
69,006
52,952
61,134
81,350
2049
136
156
195
200
200
52,492
60,120
69,583
52,996
61382
82,326
2050
136
155
195
200
200
52,759
60,443
70,165
53,040
61,587
83,313
2051
135
155
195
200
200
53,028
60,767
70,752
53,167
61,784
84,312
2052
135
155
195
200
200
53,298
61,094
71,344
53,293
61,982
85,323
2053
135
155
195
200
200
53,569
61,422
71,940
53,420
62180
86,346
2054
135
154
195
200
200
53,788
61,690
72,470
53,546
62,379
87,381
2055
134
154
195
200
200
54,008
61,960
73,004
53 673
62,578
88,429
2056
134
154
194
200
200
54,228
62,231
73,542
53,799
62,778
89,489
2057
134
154
194
200
200
54,450
62,502
74,083
53,926
62,979
90,562
2058
134
153
194
200
200
54,673
62,776
74,629
54,052
63,180
91,648
2059
133
153
194
200
200
54,896
63,050
75,179
54,179
63,382
92,747
2060
133
153
194
200
200
55,121
63,326
75,732
54,305
63,556
93,859
Appendix A-3
Per Capita Consumption and Water Demand Projections
Gallons per Capita per Day
(gpcd)
Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Year
Conservation
Probable
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2011 Region
O Plan
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
2061
133
153
n/a
200
200
55,346
63,602
76,290
n/a
63,716
94,980
2062
133
152
n/a
200
200
55,572
63,880
76,852
n/a
63,876
96,124
2063
132
:152
n/a ''
200
< 200
55,800
64,159
77,418
n/a
64,036
97,277-
2064
132
152
n/a
200
200
55,972
64,376
77,911
n/a
64,197
98,443
2065
132
152
n/a
200
200
56,145
64,593
78,407
n/a
64,358
99,624
2066
132
151
n/a
200
200
56,319
64,811
78,906
n/a
64,520
100,818
2067
131
151
n/a
200
200
56,493
65,029
79,409
n/a
64,682
102,027
2068
131
151
n/a
200
200
56,667
65,248
79,914
n/a
64,845
103,251
2069
131
151
n/a
200
200
56,842
65,468
80,423
n/a
65,007
104,489
2070
131
150
n/a
200
200
57,018
65,689
80,935
n/a
65,153
105,742
2071
130
150
n/a
200
200
57,194
65,911
81,451
n/a
65,285
107,010
2072
130
150
n/a
200
200
57,371
66,133
81,969
n/a
65,417
108,294
2073
130
ISO
n/a
200
200
57,548
66,356
82,491
n/a
9
109,592
2074
130
149
n/a
200
200
57,669
66,513
82,934
n/a
2
110,907
2075
129
149
n/a
200
200
57,789
66,671
83,379
n/a
4
112,237
2076
129
149
n/a
200
200
57,910
66,830
83,827
n/a
K66,081
1113,583
2077
129
149
n/a
200
200
58,031
66,988
84,277
n/a
114,945
2078
129
148
n/a
200
200
58,153
67,147
84,729
n/a
5
116,323
2079
128
148
n/a
200
200
58,275
67,307
85,184
n a
8
117,718
2080
128
148
n/a
200
200
58,397
67,466
85,642
n/a
66,471
119,130
2081
128
148
n/a
200
200
58,519
67,626
86,101
n/a
66,573
120,559
2082
128
148
n/a
200
200
58,641
67,787
86,564
n/a
66,675
122,005
2083
127
147
n/a
200
200
58,764
67,948
87,028
n/a
66,778
123,468
2084
127
147
n/a
200
200
58,887
68,109
87,409
n/a
66,880
124,949
2085
127
147
n/a
200
200
59,010
68,271
87,791
n/a
66,982
126,447
2086
127
147
n/a
200
200
1 59,133
68,433
88,174
n/a
67,085
127,964
2087
126
146
n/a
200
200
59,257
68,595
88,560
n/a
67,188
129,499
2088
126
146
n/a
200
200
59,381
68,758
88,947
n/a
67,291
131,052
2089
126
146
n/a
200
200
59,505
68,921
89,335
n/a
67,394
132,624
2090
126
146
n/a
200
200
59,630
69,085
89,726
n/a
67,491
134,215
2091
125
145
n/a
200
200
59,755
69,249
90,118
n/a
67,562
135,824
2092
125
145
n/a
200
200
59,880
69,413
90,512
n/a
67,632
137,453
2093
125
145
n/a
200
200
60,005
69,578
90,907
n/a
67,703
139,102
2094
125
145
n/a
200
200
60,131
69,743
91,169
n/a
67,774
140,771
2095
125
144
n/a
200
200
60,256
69,909
91,430
n/a
67,844
142,459
2096
124
144
n/a
200
200
60,383
70,075
91,693
n/a
67,915
144,168
2097
124
144
n/a
200
200
60,509
70,241
91,957
n/a
67,986
145,897
2098
124
144
n/a
200
200
60,635
70,408
92,221
n/a
68,057
147,647
2099
124
144
n/a
200
200
60,762
70,575
92,486
n/a
68,129
149,418
2100
123
143
n/a
200
200
60,889
70,742
92,751
n/a
68,197
151,210
2101
123
143
n/a
200
200
61,017
70,910
93,018
n/a
68,268
153,024
2102
123
143
n/a
200
200
61,145
71,078
93,285
n/a
68,339
154,859
2103
123
143
n/a
1 200
200
61,273
71,247
93,553
n/a
68,411
156,717
2104
122
142
n/a
1 200
200
61,401
71,416
93,682
n/a
68,483
158,596
2105
122
142
n/a
200
200
61,529
71,586
93,810
n/a
68,554
160,499
2106
122
142
n/a
n/a
n/a
61,658
71,756
93,939
n/a
n/a
n/a
2107
122
142
n/a
n/a
n/a
61,787
71,926
94,069
n/a
n/a
n/a
2108
121
141
n/a
n/a
n/a
61,916
72,097
94,198
n/a
n/a
n/a
2109
121
141
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,046
72,268
94,327
n/a
n/a
n/a
2110
121
141
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,176
72,439
94,457
n/a
n/a
n/a
2111
121
141
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,306
72,611
94,587
n/a
n/a
n a
2112
121
141
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,436
72 784
94,717
n/a
n/a
n/a
2113
120 :"
140
n/a
n/a
n/a
62,567
72,956
94,847
n/a
n/a
Appendix A-4
Peaking Factor, Average Annual Day, and Peak Day Demand
Peaking Factor
Average Annual Day - AAD
(rngd)
Peak Day Demand - PDD
(mgd)
Year
Conservation
Probable
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2007 SWSP
Medium
2007 SWSP
High
Data by Decade
2013
1.80
1.80
38.49
42.82
42.82
69.28
77.08
77.08
82.13
87.10
2023
1.78
1.80
39.29
45.70
47.54
70.10
82.26
85.57
87.78
98.12
2033
1.77
1.80
42.78
48.78
53.30
75.68
87.80
95.95
92.89
110.54
2043
1.75
1.80
45.46
51.98
59.09
79.71
93.56
106.37
97.33
124.53
2053
1.74
1.80
47.82
54.83
64.22
83.14
98.70
115.60
101.03
140.29
2063
1.72
1.80
49.81
57.28
69.11
85.85
103.10
124.41
104.05
158.05
2073
1.71
1.80
1 51.38
59.24
73.64
1 87.77
1 106.63
1 132.56
106.50
178.06
2083
1.69
1.80
52.46
60.66
1 77.69
1 88.85
1 109.19
1 139.85
1 108.50
200.61
2093
1.68
1.80
53.57
62.12
81.16
89.94
111.81
146.08
110.00
226.01
2103
1.66
1.80
54.70
63.61
83.52
1 91.04
1 114.49
1 150.33
1 111.15
254.63
2113
1.65
1.80
55.86
65.13
1 84.67
1 92.16
1 117.24
1 152.41
1 n a
n a
Data by Year
2010
1.53
1.53
32.93
32.93
32.93
50.38
50.38
50.38
80.38
83.69
2011
1.53
1.53
41.98
41.98
41.98
64.11
64.11
64.11
80.96
85.05
2012
1.60
1.60
36.23
36.23
36.23
58.07
58.07
58.07
81.54
86.07
2013
1.80
1.80
38.49
42.82 -
42.82
6918,
77.08
77.08
8213
87.10'..
2014
1.80
1.80
37.98
43.10
43.14
68.30
77.58
77.66
82.72
88.15
2015
1.80
1.80
36.96
43.38
43.51
66.40
78.09
78.32
83.32
89.20
2016
1.80
1.80
37.22
43.67
43.92
66.82
78.60K83.64
6
83.92
90.27
2017
1.79
1.80
37.49
43.95
44.39
67.24
79.110
84.53
91.35
2018
1.79
1.80
37.75
44.24
44.90
67.66
79.632
85.14
92.45
2019
1.79
1.80
38.02
44.53
45.41
68.09
80.155
85.75
93.56
2020
1.79
1.80
38.29
44.82
45.94
68.51
80.679
86.18
94.68
2021
1.79
1.80
38.62
45.11
46.47
69.04
81.20
86.71
95.81
2022
1.79
1.80
38.95
45.41
47.00
69.57
81.730
87.24
96.96
2023
1.78
1.80
39.29
45.70
47.54
70.10
82.26
85.57
87.78
98.12
2024
1.78
1.80
39.62
46.00
48.09
70.64
82.80
86.56
88.32
99.30
2025
1.78 -
1:80 ..
A96
46.30 -
48.64
71.18 -'
83.34
87.55
88.86
100.49 ,_
2026
1.78
1.80
40.30
46.60
49.20
71.73
83.89
88.56
89.41
101.69
2027
1.78
1.80
40.65
46.91
49.77
72.28
84.44
89.58
89.96
102.91
2028
1.78
1.80
41.00
47.22
50.34
72.84
84.99
90.61
90.15
104.15
2029
1.78
1.80
41.35
47.52
50.92
73.40
85.54
91.66
91.07
105.39
2030
1.77
1.80
41.70
47.83
51.51
73.96
86.10
92.71
91.48
106.66
2031
1.77
1.80
42.06
48.15
52.10
74.53
86.67
93.78
91.95
107.94
2032
1.77
1.80
42.42
48.46
52.70
75.10
87.23
94.86
92.42
109.23
2033
1.77
1.80
42.78
48.78
53.30
75.68
87.80
95.95
92.89
110.54
2034
1.77
1.80
43.04
49.09
53.86
76.07
88.36
96.94
93.37
111.87
2035
1.77
1.80
43.30
49.40
54.41
76.47
88.92
97.95
93.84
113.21
2036
1.76
1.80
43.57
49.72
54.98
76.87
89.49
98.96
94.32
114.56
2037
1.76
1.80
43.83
50.03
55.55
77.27
90.06
99.99
94.80
115.94
2038
1.76
1.80
44.10
50.35
56.12
77.67
90.63
101.02
95.29
117.33
2039
1.76
1.80
44.37
50.67
56.71
78.07
91.21
102.07
95.78
118.73
2040
1.76
1.80
44.64
50.99
57.29
78.48
91.79
103.13
96.16
120.16
2041
1.76
1.80
44.91
51.32
57.89
78.89
92.38
104.20
96.55
121.60
2042
1.76
1.80r46
8
51.65
58.49
79.30
92.96
105.27
96.94
123.06
2043
1.75
1.806
51.98
59.09
79.71
93.56
106.37
97.33
124.53
2044
1.75
1.809
52.25
59.59
80.05
94.06
107.25
97.73
126.02
2045
1.75
1.802
52.53
60.08
80.39
94.56
108.15
98.13
127.53
2046
1.75
1.805
52.82
60.59
80.73
95.07
109.06
98.53
129.06
2047
1.75
1.809
53.10
61.09
81.07
95.58
109.97
98.93
130.61
2048
1.75
1.803
53.39
61.60
81.41
96.09
110.89
99.33
132.18
2049
1.74
1.806
53.67
62.12
81.75
96.61
111.82
99.73
133.76
2050
1.74
1.8010
53.96
62.64
82.09
97.13
112.75
100.07
135.37
2051
1.74
1.8034
54.25
63.16
82.44
97.65
113.69
100.39
136.99
2052
1.74
1.8058
54.54
63.69
82.79
98.17
114.64
100.71
138.63
2053
1.74
1.8082
54.83
64.22
83.14
98.70
115.60
101.03
140.29
2054
1.74
1.8002
55.07
64.70
83.40
99.13
116.46
101.35
141.98
2055
1.74
1.8021
55.31
65.17
83.67
99.57
117.31
101.68
143.68
2056
1.73
1.80
1 48.41
55.56
65.65
83.94
100.00
118.18
102.00
145.40
2057
1.73
1.80
48.61
55.80
66.14
84.21
100.44
119.05
102.33
147.15
2058
1.73
1.80
48.81
56.04
66.62
84.48
100.88
119.92
102.65
148.91
2059
1.73
1.80
49.01
56.29
67.12
84.75
101.32
120.81
102.98
150.70
Appendix A-4
Peaking Factor, Average Annual Day, and Peak Day Demand
Peaking Factor
Average Annual Day - AAD
(mgd)
Peak Day Demand - PDD
(mgd)
Year
Conservation
Probable
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2007SWSP
20075WSPMedium High
2060
1.73
1.80
49.21
56.53
67.61
85.03
101.76
121.70
103.27
152.50
2061
1.73
1.80
49.41
56.78
68.11
85.30
102.20
122.59
103.53
154.33
2062
1.72
1.80
49.61
57.03
68.61
85.57
102.65
123.50
103.79
156.13
2063
1.72
1.80
4981
57.28
69.11
85.85
103.10
124.41;
104.05
158.05
2064
1.72
1.80
49.97
57.47
69.55
86.04
103.45
125.20
104.31
159.95
2065
1.72
1.80
50.12
57.66
70.00
86.23
103.80
126.00
104.57
161.87
2066
1.72
1.80
50.28
57.86
70.44
86.42
104.15
126.80
104.83
163.81
2067
1.72
1.80
50.43
58.05
70.89
86.61
104.50
127.61
105.09
165.77
2068
1.72
1.80
50.59
58.25
71.34
86.80
104.85
128.42
105.36
167.76
2069
1.71
1.80
50.75
58.45
71.80
87.00
105.20
129.24
105.62
169.77
2070
1.71
1.80
50.90
58.64
72.25
87.19
105.56
130.06
105.86
171.81
2071
1.71
1.80
51.06
58.84
72.71
87.38
105.91
130.89
106.07
173.87
2072
1.71
1.80
51.22
59.04
73.18
87.58
106.27
131.72
106.29
175.95
2073
1.71
1.80
51.38
59.24
73.64
87.77
106.63
132.56
106.50
178.06
2074
1.71
1.80
51.48
59.38
74.04
87.88
106.88
133.27
106.72
180.20
2075
1.71
1.80
51.59
59.52
74.44
87.99
107.14
133.99
106.93
182.36
2076
1.70
1.80
51.70
59.66
74.84
88.09
107.39
134.70
107.15
184.55
2077
1.70
1.80
51.81
59.80
75.24
88.20
107.65
135.43
107.37
186.76
2078
1.70
1.80
51.92
59.95
75.64
88.31
107.90
136.15
107.58
189.00
2079
1.70
1.80
52.02
60.09
76.05
88.42
108.16
136.89
107.80
191.27
2080
1.70
1.80
52.13
60.23
76.46
88.52
108.41
137.62
108.00
193.56
2081
1.70
1.80
52.24
60.37
76.87
88.63
108.67
138.36
108.17
195.88
2082
1.70
1.80
52.35
60.52
77.28
88.74
108.93
139.10
108.33
198.23
2083
1.69
1.80
52.46
60.66
77.69
88.85
109.19
139.85
108.50
200.61
2084
1.69
1.80
52.57
60.80
78.03
88.96
109.45
140.46
108.67
203.02
2085
1.69
1.80
52.68
60.95
78.37
89.07
109.71
141.07
108.83
205.45
2086
1.69
1.80
52.79
61.09
78.72
89.17
109.97
141.69
109.00
207.92
2087
1.69
1.80
52.90
61.24
79.06
89.28
110.23
142.31
109.17
210.41
2088
1.69
1.80
53.01
61.38
79.41
89.39
110.49
142.93
109.33
212.93
2089
1.68
1.80
53.12
61.53
79.75
89.50
110.75
143.56
109.50
215.49
2090
1.68
1.80
53.23
61.68
80.10
89.61
111.02
144.18
109.66
218.07
2091
1.68
1.80
53.35
61.82
80.45
89.72
111.28
144.81
109.77
220.69
2092
1.68
1.80
53.46
61.97
80.80
89.83
111.54
145.45
109.89
223.33
2093
1.68
1.80
53.57
62.12
81.16
89.94
111.81
146.08
110.00
226.01
2094
1.68
1.80
53.68
62.26
81.39
90.05
112.07
146.50
110.12
228.72
2095
1.68
1.80
53.79
62.41
81.62
90.16
112.34
146.92
110.23
231.47
2096
1.67
1.80
53.91
62.56
81.86
90.27
112.61
147.35
110.35
234.24
2097
1.67
1.80
54.02
62.71
82.09
90.38
112.87
147.77
110.46
237.05
2098
1.67
1.80
54.13
62.86
82.33
90.49
113.14
148.19
110.58
239.90
2099
1.67
1.80
54.25
63.01
82.57
90.60
113.41
148.62
110.69
242.77
2100
1.67
1.80
54.36
63.15
82.80
90.71
113.68
149.05
110.81
245.68
2101
1.67
1.80
54.47
63.30
83.04
90.82
113.95
149.47
110.92
248.63
2102
1.67
1.80
54.59
63.45
83.28
90.93
114.22
149.90
111.04
251.61
2103
1.66
1.80
54.70
63.61
83.52
91.04
114.49
150.33
111.15
254.63
2104
1.66
1.80
54.82
63.76
83.63
91.15
114.76
150.54
111.27
257.69
2105'
1.66
1.80
54.93
63.91
83.75
91.27
115.03
150.75
111.39
260.78
2106
1.66
1.80
55.04
64.06
83.86
91.38
115.31
150.95
n/a
n/a
2107
1.66
1.80
SS.16
64.21
83.98
91.49
11S.S8
1S1.16
n/a
n/a
2108'
1.66
1.80
55.28
64.36
84.09
91.60
115.85
151.37
n/a
n/a
2109
1.66
1.80
55.39
64.52
84.21
91.71
116.13
151.58
n/a
n/a
2110
L65
1.80
55.51
64.67
84.33
91.82
116.41
151.79
1 n/a
n/a
2111
1.65
1.80
55.62
64.82
84.44
91.94
116.68
152.00
n/a
/a n
2112
1 1.65
1.80
55.74
64.98
84.56
92.05
116.96
152.20
n/a
n/a
2113
1.65'r
1.80
5586
65.13 '
84.67
92.16
117.24
1 152.41
n/a
n/a
Appendix B-1
Current Annual and Peak Day Water Supply Projections
Year
Current Annual Supplies
(ac-ft/Yr)
Total Annual Water
Supply
(ac-ft/yr)
Current Peak Day Supplies
(mBd)
Total Peak
Day Supply
(mgd)
Roberts County
Well Field
Bailey County Well
Field
Lake Alan
Henry
Roberts County
Well Field
Bailey County Well
Field
Lake Alan
Henry
Data by Decade
2013
24 088
15,000
8,000
47 088
23.71
37.26
15.00
75.97
2023
24,088
12,500
8,000
44 588
23.71
29.86
15.00
68.57
2033
24,088
10,000
8,000
42,088
23.71
22.46
15.00
61.17
2043
20,990
7,500
8,000
36,490
20.61
15.06
15.00
50.67
2053
17117
5,000
8,000
30117
16.81
7.66
15.00
39.47
2063
13,245
0
8,000
21245
13.01
0.00
15.00
28.01
2073
9,372
0
8 000
17 372
9.20
0.00
15.00
24.20
2083
5,499
0
8 000
13,499
5.40
0.00
1 15.00
20.40
2093
1627
0
8,000
9,627
1.60
0.00
1 15.00
16.60
2103
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2113
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
Data by Year
2010
29,291
7,599
0
36,890
23.71
40.00
0.00
63.71
2011
26,195
20,829
0
47,024
23.71
40.00
0.00
63.71
2012
231,697
16,295
595
40,587
23.71
38.00
15.00
76.71
2013
24,088 •
15,000 , ;
8,000
47,088
23.71'
37.26
15A0
75.91
2014
24,088
14,750
8,000
46,838
23.71
36.52
15.00
75.23
2015
24,088
14,500
8,000
46,588
23.71
35.78
15.00
74.49
2016
24,088
14,250
81000
46,338
23.71
35.04
15.00
73.75
2017
24,088
14,000
81000
46,088
23.71
34.30
15.00
73.01
2018
24,088
13,750
8,000
45,838
23.71
33.56
15.00
72.27
2019
24,088
13,500
8,000
45,588
23.71
32.82
15.00
71.53
2020
24,088
13,250
8,000
45,338
23.71
32.08
15.00
70.79
2021
24,088
13,000
8,000
45,088
23.71
31.34
15.00
70.05
2022
24,088
12,750
8,000
44,838
23.71
30.60
15.00
69.31
2023
24,088
12,500
8,000
44,588
23.71
29.86
15.00
68.57
2024
24,088
12 250
8,000
44,338
23.71
29.12
15.00
67.83
2025
24 088
12,000
81000
44,088
23.71,
28.38'
15,00
67.09
2026
24,088
11,750
8,000
43,838
23.71
27.64
15.00
66.35
2027
24,088
11,500
8,000
43,588
23.71
26.90
15.00
65.61
2028
24,088
11,250
8,000
43,338
23.71
26.16
15.00
64.87
2029
24,088
11,000
81000
43,088
23.71
25.42
15.00
64.13
2030
24,088
10,750
8,000
42,838
23.71
24.68
15.00
63.39
2031
24,088
10,500
8,000
42,588
23.71
23.94
15.00
62.65
2032
24,088
10,250
8,000
42,338
23.71
23.20
15.00
61.91
2033
24,088
10,000
8,000
42,088
23.71
22.46
15.00
61.17
2034
24,088
9,750
81000
41,838
23.71
21.72
15.00
60.43
2035
24,088
9,500
8,000
41,588
23.71
20.98
15.00
59.69
2036
23,700
9,250
8,000
40,950
23.27
20.24
15.00
58.51
2037
23,313
9,000
8,000
40,313
22.89
19.50
15.00
57.39
2038
22,926
8,750
8,000
39,676
22.51
18.76
15.00
56.27
2039
22,539
8,500
8,000
39,039
22.13
18.02
15.00
55.15
2040
22,151
8,250
8,000
38,401
21.75
17.28
15.00
54.03
2041
21,764
8,000
8,000
37,764
21.37
16.54
15.00
52.91
2042
21,377
7,750
8,000
37,127
20.99
15.80
15.00
51.79
2043
20,990
7,500
8,000
36,490
20.61
15.06
15.00
50.67
2044
20.602
7,250
8,000
35,852
20.23
14.32
15.00
49.55
2045
20,215
7,000
8,000
35,215
19.85
13.58
15.00
48.43
2046
19,828
6,750
8,000
34,578
19.47
12.84
15.00
47.31
2047
19,441
6,500
8,000
33,941
19.09
12.10
15.00
46.19
2048
19,053
6,250
8,000
33,303
18.71
11.36
15.00
45.07
2049
18,666
6,000
8,000
32,666
18.33
10.62
15.00
43.95
2050
18,279
5,750
8,000
32,029
17.95
9.88
15.00
42.83
2051
17,892
5,500
8,000
31,392
17.57
9.14
15.00
41.71
2052
17,504
5,250
8,000
30,754
17.19
8.40
15.00
40.59
2053
17,117
5,000
8,000
30,117
16.81
7.66
15.00
39.47
2054
16,730
4,750
8,000
29,480
16.43
6.92
15.00
38.35
2055
16,343
4,500
8,000
28,843
16.05
6.18
15.00
37.23
2056
15,955
4 250
8,000
28,205
15.67
5.44
15.00
36.11
2057
15 568
4,000
8,000
27,568
15.29
4.70
15.00
34.99
2058
15,181
3 750
8,000
26,931
14.91
3.96
15.00
33.87
2059
1;r 94
3,500
8,000
26,294
14.53
3.22
15.00
1 32.75
Appendix B-1
Current Annual and Peak Day Water Supply Projections
Year
Current Annual Supplies
(ac-ft/yr)
Total Annual Water
Supply
(ac-ft/yr)
Current Peak Day Supplies
(mgd)
Total Peak
Day Supply
(mgd)
Roberts County
Well Field
Bailey County Well
Field
Lake Alan
Henry
Roberts County
Well Field
Bailey County Well
Field
Lake Alan
Henry
2060
14,406
3,250
8,000
25,656
14.15
2.48
15.00
31.63
2061
14,019
3,000
8,000
25,019
13.77
1.74
15.00
30.51
2062
13,632
0
8,000
21,632
13.39
0.00
15.00
28.39
2063
13,245
0
8,000
21,245
13.01 '
0.00
15.00
28.01
2064
12,857
0
8,000
20,857
12.63
0.00
15.00
27.63
2065
12,470
0
8,000
20,470
12.25
0.00
15.00
27.25
2066
12,083
0
8,000
20,083
11.87
0.00
15.00
26.87
2067
11,696
0
8,000
19,696
11.49
0.00
15.00
26.49
2068
11,308
0
8,000
19,308
11.10
0.00
15.00
26.10
2069
10,921
0
81000
18,921
10.72
0.00
15.00
25.72
2070
10,534
0
8,000
18,534
10.34
0.00
15.00
25.34
2071
10,146
0
81000
18,146
9.96
0.00
15.00
24.96
2072
9,759
0
8,000
17,759
9.58
0.00
15.00
24.58
2073
9,372
0
8,000
17,372
9.20
0.00
15.00
24.20
2074
8,985
0
8,000
16,985
8.82
0.00
15.00
23.82
2075
8,597
0
8,000
16,597
8.44
0.00
15.00
23.44
2076
8,210
0
8,000
16,210
8.06
0.00
15.00
23.06
2077
7,823
0
8,000
15,823
7.68
0.00
15.00
22.68
2078
7,436
0
8,000
15,436
7.30
0.00
15.00
22.30
2079
7,048
0
8,000
15,048
6.92
0.00
15.00
21.92
2080
6,661
0
8,000
14,661
6.54
0.00
15.00
21.54
2081
6,274
0
8,000
14,274
6.16
0.00
15.00
21.16
2082
5,887
0
81000
13,887
5.78
0.00
15.00
20.78
2083
5,499
0
8,000
13,499
5.40
0.00
15.00
20.40
2084
5,112
0
8,000
13,112
5.02
0.00
15.00
20.02
2085
4,725
0
81000
12,725
4.64
0.00
15.00
19.64
2086
4,338
0
8,000
12,338
4.26
0.00
15.00
19.26
2087
3,950
0
8,000
11,950
3.88
0.00
15.00
18.88
2088
3,563
0
8,000
11,563
3.50
0.00
15.00
18.50
2089
3,176
0
8,000
11,176
3.12
0.00
15.00
18.12
2090
2,789
0
8,000
10,789
2.74
0.00
15.00
17.74
2091
2,401
0
8,000
10,401
2.36
0.00
15.00
17.36
2092
2,014
0
8,000
10,014
1.98
0.00
15.00
16.98
2093
1,627
0
8,000
9,627
1.60
0.00
15.00
16.60
2094
1,240
0
8,000
9,240
1.22
0.00
15.00
16.22
2095
852
0
81000
8,852
0.84
0.00
15.00
15.84
2096
465
0
8,000
8,465
0.46
0.00
15.00
15.46
2097
78
0
8,000
8,078
0.08
0.00
15.00
15.08
2098
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2099
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
ISM
2100
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2101
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2102
0
0
8 000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2103
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2104
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2105
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2106
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2107
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2108
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
ISM
15.00
2109
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2110
0
0
8,000
81000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2111
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2112
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
2113
0
0
8,000
8,000
0.00 1
0.00
1 15.00
15,00
Appendix B-2
Current Annual Water Demand, Supply, and Net
Year
Annual Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Total Annual Water Supply
(ac-ft/yr)
(for details see Appendix B-1)
Annual Shortages/Surplus
(ac-ft/yr)
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Data by Decade
2013
43,115
47,965
47,965
47 088
3,973
-877
-877
2023
44,006
51,193
53,253
44 588
581
-6 606
-8 665
2033
47,921
54,639
59 709
42 088
-5 834
-12 SS2
-17 621
2043
50,919
58,220
66 191
36 490
-14 429
-21730
-29 702
2053
53,569
61422
71940
30117
-23 452
-31305
-41823
2063
55,800
64159
77,418
21245
-34 555
-42 915
-56174
2073
57,548
66,356
82,491
17 372
-40176
-48 984
-65 119
2083
58,764
67,948
87,028
13 499
-45 264
-73 529
2093
60005
69578
90907
9 627
-50 378
51
-812103
61 27371247
93 553
8 000
-53 273
g54,448
47
-85 553
2113
62,567
72,956
94,847
8,000
-54,567
56
-86,847
Data by Year
2010
36,890
36,890
36,890
36,890
0
0
0
2011
47,024
47,024
47,024
47,024
0
0
0
2012
40,587
40,587
40,587
40,587
0
0
0
2013
43,315 "
47 965
47,965
47,088
3,973
-877
-877
2014
42,541
48,279
48,326
46,838
4,296
-1,441
-1,489
2015
41,396
48,594
48,738
46,588
5,192
-2,006
-2,150
2016
41,692
48,912
49,202
46,338
4,646
-2,574
-2,864
2017 -
41,989
49,231
49,719
46,088
4,098
-3 144
-3,632
2018
42,289
49,553
50,292
45,838
3,548
-3,715
-4,454
2019
42,591
49,877
50,870
45,588
2,996
.4,289
-5,283
2020
42,896
50,203
51,456
45,338
2,442
-4,865
-6,118
2021
43,263
50,531
52,048
45,088
1,825
-5,443
-6,960
2022
43,633
50,861
52,647
44,838
1,205
-6,023
-7,809
2023
44,006
51,193
53,253
44,588
581
-6,606
-8,665
2024
44,383
51,528
53,866
44,338
-45
-7,190
-9,528
2025
44,763
51865 ;
54,486
" 44,088
-675
-7,777
-10,398
2026
45,146
52,204
55,113
43,838
-1,308
-8,366
-11,275
2027
45,533
52,545
55,747
43,588
-11945
-8,957
-12,159
2028
45,922
52,888
56,388
43,338
-2,585
-9,551
-13,051
2029
46,315
53,234
57,037
43,088
-3,228
-10,146
-13,950
2030
46,712
53,582
57,694
42,838
-3,874
-10,744
-14,856
2031
47,112
53,932
58,358
42,588
-4,524
-11,344
-15 770
2032
47,515
54,284
59,029
42,338
-5,177
-11,947
-16,692
2033
47,921
54,639
59,709
42,088
-5,834
-12,552
-17,621
2034
48,213
54,987
60,327
41,838
-6,375
-13,149
-18,489
2035
48,506
55,337
60,952
41,588
-6,919
-13,750
-19,364
2036
48,802
55,690
61,584
40,950
-7,851
-14,739
-20,633
2037
49,099
56 044
62,222
40,313
-8,785
-15,731
-21,909
2038
49,397
56,401
62,866
39,676
-9,721
-16,725
-23,190
2039
49,698
56,760
63,518
39,039
-10,659
-17,721
-24,479
2040
50,000
57,121
64,176
38,401
-11,599
-18,720
-25,774
2041
50 304
57,485
64,841
37,764
-12,540
-19,721
-27,077
2042
50,611
57,851
65,512
37,127
-13,484
-20,724
-28,386
2043
50,919
58,220
66,191
36,490
-14,429
-21,730
-29,702
2044
51,178
58,532
66,745
35,852
-15,325
-22,680
-30,892
2045
51,438
58,846
67,303
35,215
-16,223
-23,631
-32,088
2046
51,700
59,162
67,866
34,578
-17,122
-24,584
-33,288
2047
51,962
59,480
68,434
33,941
-18,022
-25 539
-34,493
2048
52,227
59,799
69,006
33,303
-18,923
-26,496
-35,703
2049
52,492
60,120
69,583
32,666
-19,826
-27,454
-36,917
2050
52,759
60,443
70,165
32,029
-20,731
-28,414
-38,136
2051
53,028
60,767
70,752
31,392
-21,636
-29,376
-39,360
2052
53,298
61,094
71,344
30,754
-22,543
-30,339
-40,589
2053
53,569
61422
71,940
30,117
-23,452
-31,305
-41,823
2054
53,788
61,690
72,470
29,480
-24,308
-32,210
-42,990
2055
54,008
61,960
73,004
28,843
-25,165
-33,117
-44,161
2056
54,228
62,231
73,542
28,205
-26,023
-34,025
-45,336
2057
54,450
62,502
74,083
27,568
-26,882
-34,934
-46,515
2058
54,673
62,776
74,629
26,931
17,742
-35,845
-47,698
2059
54,896
63,050
75,179
26,294
-28,603
-36,756
-48,885
2060
551121
63,326
75,732
25,656
-29,464
-37,669
-50,076
Appendix B-2
Current Annual Water Demand, Supply, and Net
Year
Annual Water Demand
(ac-ft/yr)
Total Annual Water Supply
(ac-ft/yr)
(for details see Appendix B-1)
Annual Shortages/Surplus
(ac-ft/yr)
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2061
55,346
63,602
76,290
25,019
-30,327
-38,583
-51,271
2062
55,572
63,880
76,852
21,632
-33,941
-42,248
-55,220
2063
55,800
64,159
77418
21,245-'
-34,555
-42,915
-56,174'
2064
55,972
64,376
77,911
20,857
-35,115
-43,518
-57,054
2065
56,145
64,593
78,407
20,470
-35,675
-44,123
-57,937
2066
56,319
64,811
78,906
20,083
-36,236
-44,728
-58,824
2067
56,493
65,029
79,409
19,696
-36,797
-45,334
-59,713
2068
56,667
65,248
79,914
19,308
-37,359
-45,940
-60,606
2069
56,842
65,468
80,423
18,921
-37,921
-46,547
-61,502
2070
57,018
65,689
80,935
18,534
-38,484
-47,155
-62,402
2071
57,194
65,911
81,451
18,146
-39,048
-47,764
-63,304
2072
57,371
66,133
81,969
17,759
-39,612
-48,374
-64,210
2073
57,548
66,356
82,491
17,372
-40,176
-48,984
-65,119
2074
57,669
66,513
82,934
16,985
-40,684
-49,529
-65,949
2075
57,789
66,671
83,379
16,597
-41,192
-50,074
-66,782
2076
57,910
66,830
83,827
16,210
-41,700
-50,619
-67,617
2077
58,031
66,988
84,277
15,823
-42,209
-51,165
-68,454
2078
58,153
67,147
84,729
15,436
-42,717
-51,711
69,294
2079
58,275
67,307
85,184
15,048
-43,226
-52,258
-70,136
2080
58,397
67,466
85,642
14,661
-43,735
-52,805
-70,980
2081
58,519
67,626
86,101
14,274
-44,245
-53,353
-71,827
2082
58,641
67,787
86,564
13,887
-44,754
-53,900
-72,677
2083
58,764
67,948
87,028
13,499
-45,264
-54,448
-73,529
2084
58,887
68,109
87,409
13,112
-45,775
-54,997
-74,297
2085
59,010
68,271
87,791
12,725
-46,285
-55,546
-75,066
2086
59,133
68,433
88174
12,338
-46,796
-56,095
-75,837
2087
59,257
68,595
88,560
11,950
-47,307
-56,645
-76,609
2088
59,381
68,758
88,947
11,563
-47,818
-57,195
-77,384
2089
59,505
68,921
89,335
11,176
-48,330
-57,745
-78,160
2090
59,630
69,085
89,726
10,789
-48,841
-58,296
-78,937
2091
59,755
69,249
90,118
10,401
-49,353
-58,847
-79,717
2092
59,880
69,413
90,512
10,014
-49,866
-59,399
-80,498
2093
60,005
69,578
90,907
9,627
-50,378
-59,951
-81,281
2094
60,131
69,743
91,169
9,240
-50,891
-60,503
-81,929
2095
60,256
69,909
91,430
8,852
-51,404
-61,056
-82,578
2096
60,383
70,075
91,693
8,465
-51,917
-61,609
-83,228
2097
60,509
70,241
91,957
8,078
-52,431
-62,163
-83,879
2098
60,635
70,408
92,221
81000
-52,635
-62,408
-84,221
2099
60,762
70,575
92,486
8,000
-52,762
-62,575
-84,486
2100
60,889
70,742
92,751
8,000
-52,889
-62,742
-84,7S1
2101
61,017
70,910
93,018
8,000
-53,017
-62,910
-85,018
2102
61,145
71,078
93,285
8,000
-53,145
-63,078
-85,285
2103
61,273
71,247
93,553
8,000
-53,273
-63,247
-85,553
2104
61,401
71,416
93,682
8,000
-53,401
-63,416
-85,682
2105
61,529
71,586
93,810
8,000
-53,529
-63,586
-85,810
2106
61,658
71,756
93,939
8,000
-53,658
-63,756
-85,939
2107
61,787
71,926
94,069
8,000
-53,787
-63,926
-86,069
2108
61,916
72,097
94,198
8,000
-S3 916
-64,097
-86,198
2109
62,046
72,268
94,327
8,000
-54,046
-64,268
-86,327
2110
62 176
72,439
94,457
8,000
-54,176
-64,439
-86,457
2111
62,306
72,611
94,587
8,000
-54,306
64,611
86,587
2112
62,436
72,784
94,717
8,000
-54,436
-64,784
-86,717
2113
62,567
72,956
94,847
8,000 c
-54,567
"-64,956
-86,847i
Appendix B-3
Current Peak Day Demand, Supply, and Net
Year
Peak Day Demand
(mgd)
Peak Day Supply
(mgd)
(for details see Appendix 8-1)
Peak Day Shortages/Surpluses
(mgd)
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Data by Decade
2013
69.28
77.08
77.08
75.97
6.69
-1.11
-1.11
2023
70.10
82.26
85.57
68.57
-1.53
-13.69
-17.00
2033
75.68
87.80
95.95
61.17
-14.51
-26.63
-34.78
2043
79.71
93.56
106.37
50.67
-29.04
-42.88
-55.69
2053
83.14
98.70
115.60
39.47
-43.67
-59.23
-76.13
2063
85.85
103.10
124.41
28.01
-57.84
-75.09
-96.40
2073
87.77
106.63
132.56
24.20
-63.57
-82.43
-108.35
2083-
88.85
109.19
139.85
20.40
-68.45
-88.79
-119.45
2093
89.94
111.81
146.08
16.60
-73.34
-95.21
-129.49
2103
91.04
114.49
150.33
15.00
-76.04
-99.49
-135.33
2113
92.16
117.24
152.41
15.00
-77.16
-102.24
-137.41
Data by Year
2010
50.38
50.38
50.38
63.71
13.33
13.33
13.33
2011
64.11
64.11
64.11
63.71
-0.40
-0.40
-0.40
2012
58.07
58.07
58.07
76.71
18.64
18.64
18.64
2013
69.28
77.08
77.08 r
75.97
6.69
-1.11
1.11
2014
68.30
77.58
77.66
75.23
6.93
-2.35
-2.43
2015
66.40
78.09
78.32
74.49
8.09
-3.60
-3.83
2016
66.82
78.60
79.06
73.75
6.93
-4.85
-5.31
2017
67.24
79.11
79.90
73.01
5.77
-6.10
-6.89
2018
67.66
79.63
80.82
72.27
4.61
-7.36
-8.55
2019
68.09
80.15
81.75
71.53
3.44
-8.62
-10.22
2020
68.51
80.67
82.69
70.79
2.28
-9.88
-11.90
2021
69.04
81.20
83.64
70.05
1.01
-11.15
-13.59
2022
69.57
81.73
84.60
69.31
-0.26
-12.42
-15.29
2023
70.10
82.26
85.57
68.57
-1.53
-13.69
-17.00
2024
70.64
82.80
86.56
67.83
-2.81
-14.97
-18.73
2025
71.18
83.34
87M
67.09 '
-4.09
-16.25
-20.46:
2026
71.73
83.89
88.56
66.35
-5.38
-17.54
-22.21
2027
72.28
84.44
89.58
65.61
-6.67
-18.83
-23.97
2028
72.84
84.99
90.61
64.87
-7.97
-20.12
-25.74
2029
73.40
85.54
91.66
64.13
-9.27
-21.41
-27.53
2030
73.96
86.10
92.71
63.39
-10.57
-22.71
-29.32
2031
74.53
86.67
93.78
62.65
-11.88
-24.02
-31.13
2032 'r
75.10
87.23
94.86
61.91
-13.19
-25.32
-32.95
2033
75.68
87.80
95.95
61.17
-14.51
-26.63
-34.78
2034
76.07
88.36
96.94
60.43
-15.64
-27.93
-36.51
2035
76.47
88.92
97.95
59.69
-16.78
-29.23
-38.26
2036
76.87
89.49
98.96
58.51
-18.35
-30.98
-40.45
2037
77.27
90.06
99.99
57.39
-19.87
-32.67
-42.59
2038
77.67
90.63
101.02
56.27
-21.40
-34.36
-44.75
2039
78.07
91.21
102.07
55.15
-22.92
-36.06
-46.92
2040
78.48
91.79
103.13
54.03
-24.45
-37.76
-49.09
2041
78.89
92.38
104.20
52.91
-25.98
-39.46
-51.28
2042
79.30
92.96
105.27
51.79
-27.51
-41.17
-53.48
2043
79.71
93.56
106.37
50.67
-29.04
-42.88
-55.69
2044
80.05
94.06
107.25
49.55
-30.50
-44.51
-57.70
2045
80.39
94.56
108.15
48.43
-31.96
-46.13
-59.72
2046
80.73
95.07
109.06
47.31
-33.41
-47.76
-61.75
2047
81.07
95.58
109.97
46.19
-34.87
-49.39
-63.78
2048
81.41
96.09
110.89
45.07
-36.34
-51.02
-65.82
2049
81.75
96.61
111.82
43.95
-37.80
-52.66
-67.87
2050
82.09
97.13
112.75
42.83
-39.26
-54.30
-69.92
2051
82.44
97.65
113.69
41.71
-40.73
-55.94
-71.98
2052
82.79
98.17
114.64
40.59
-42.20
-57.58
-74.06
2053
83.14
98.70
115.60
39.47
-43.67
-59.23
-76.13
2054
83.40
99.13
116.46
38.35
-45.05
-60.78
-78.11
2055
83.67
99.57
117.31
37.23
-46.44
-62.34
-80.08
2056
83.94
100.00
118.18
36.11
-47.83
-63.89
-82.07
2057
84.21
100.44
119.05
34.99
-49.22
-65.45
-84.06
2058
84.48
100.88
119.92
33.87
-50.61
-67.01
-86.06
2059
84.75
101.32
120.81
32.75
52.01
68.57
88.06
2060
85.03
101.76
121.70
31.63
-53.40
70.13
-90.07
Appendix B-3
Current Peak Day Demand, Supply, and Net
Year
Peak Day Demand
(mgd)
Peak Day Supply
(mgd)
(for details see Appendix B-1)
Peak Day Shortages/Surpluses
(mgd)
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
Conservation
Probable
Accelerated
2061
85.30
102.20
122.59
30.51
-54.79
-71.70
-92.09
2062
85.57
102.65
123.50
28.39
-57.19
-74.26
-95.11
2063
85.85
103.10
124.41
28.01 <'
-57.84
-75.09
-96.40
2064
86.04
103.45
125.20
27.63
-58.41
-75.82
-97.57
2065
86.23
103.80
126.00
27.25
-58.98
-76.55
-98.75
2066
86.42
104.15
126.80
26.87
-59.56
-77.28
-99.93
2067
86.61
104.50
127.61
26.49
-60.13
-78.01
-101.12
2068
86.80
104.85
128.42
26.10
-60.70
-78.75
-102.31
2069
87.00
105.20
129.24
25.72
-61.27
-79.48
-103.51
2070
87.19
105.56
130.06
25.34
-61.85
-80.21
-104.71
2071
87.38
105.91
130.89
24.96
-62.42
-80.95
-105.92
2072
87.58
106.27
131.72
24.58
-62.99
-81.69
-107.14
2073
87.77
106.63
132.56
24.20
-63.57
-82.43
-108.35
2074
87.88
106.88
133.27
23.82
-64.06
-83.06
-109.45
2075
87.99
107.14
133.99
23.44
-64.54
-83.69
-110.54
2076
88.09
107.39
134.70
23.06
-65.03
-84.33
-111.64
2077
88.20
107.65
135.43
22.68
-65.52
-84.96
-112.75
2078
88.31
107.90
136.15
22.30
-66.01
-85.60
-113.85
2079
88.42
108.16
136.89
21.92
-66.49
-86.24
-114.96
2080
88.52
108.41
137.62
21.54
-66.98
-86.87
-116.08
2081
88.63
108.67
138.36
21.16
-67.47
-87.51
-117.20
2082
88.74
108.93
139.10
20.78
-67.96
-88.15
-118.32
2083
88.85
109.19
139.85
20.40
-68.45
-88.79
-119.45
2084
88.96
109.45
140.46
20.02
-68.94
-89.43
-120.44
2085
89.07
109.71
141.07
19.64
-69.43
-90.07
-121.43
2086
89.17
109.97
141.69
19.26
-69.91
-90.71
-122.43
2087
89.28
110.23
142.31
18.88
-70.40
-91.35
-123.43
2088
89.39
110.49
142.93
18.50
-70.89
-91.99
-124.43
2089
89.50
110.75
143.56
18.12
-71.38
-92.63
-125.44
2090
89.61
111.02
144.18
17.74
-71.87
-93.28
-126.45
2091
89.72
111.28
144.81
17.36
-72.36
-93.92
-127.46
2092
89.83
111.54
145.45
16.98
-72.85
-94.56
-128.47
2093
89.94
111.81
146.08
16.60
-73.34
-95.21
-129.49
2094
90.05
112.07
146.50
16.22
-73.83
-95.86
-130.28
2095
90.16
112.34
146.92
15.84
-74.32
-96.50
-131.09
2096
90.27
112.61
147.35
15.46
-74.81
-97.15
-131.89
2097
90.38
112.87
147.77
15.08
-75.30
-97.80
-132.69
2098
90.49
113.14
148.19
15.00
-75.49
-98.14
-133.19
2099
90.60
113.41
148.62
15.00
-75.60
-98.41
-133.62
2100
90.71
113.68
149.05
15.00
-75.71
-98.68
-134.05
2101
90.82
113.95
149.47
15.00
-75.82
-98.95
-134.47
2102
90.93
114.22
149.90
15.00
-75.93
-99.22
-134.90
2103 -
91.04
114.49
150.33
15.00
-76.04
-99.49
-135.33
2104
91.15
114.76
150.54
15.00
-76.15
-99.76
-135.54
2105
91.27
115.03
150.75
15.00
-76.27
-100.03
-135.75
2106
91.38
115.31
150.95
15.00
-76.38
-100.31
-135.95
2107
91.49
115.58
151.16
15.00
-76.49
-100.58
-136.16
2108-
91.60
115.85
151.37
15.00
-76.60
-100.85
-136.37
2109
91.71
116.13
151.58
15.00
-76.71
-101.13
-136.58
2110
91.82
116.41
151.79
15.00
-76.82
-101.41
-136.79
2111
91.94
116.68
152.00
15.00
-76.94
-101.68
-137.01
2112
92.05
116.96
152.20
15.00
-77.05
-101.96
-137.20
2113
92.16
117.24;
152.41
15.00
s-77.16
-102.24
1 -137,41+
Appendix C-1
Lubbock Water Rate Structure,1980-2012
Decreasing Block Rate Structure
Effective Dates
Base Rate +
first 1,000 Gallons
2,000 - 49,000 Gallons
Water Rate per 1,000
Gallons
50,000 - 250,000
Gallons
Water Rate per 1,01W
Gallons
> 250,000 Gallons
Water Rate per 1,000
Gatlons
Start
End
1980
1983
4.50
0.93
0.80
0.75
1983
1987
5.46
1.13
0.97
0.91
1987
1989
6.21
1.13
0.97
0.91
1989
1990
6.76
1.28
1.12
1.06
1990
1992
7.31
1.53
1.37
1.31
Uniform Rate Structure
Effective Dates
Base Rate for
3/4" Meter
Base Rate for 1"
Meter
Single -Family Water
Rate per 1,000
Gallons
Commercial Water
Rate per 1,000
Gallons
Irrigation
Water Rate per
11000 Gallons
Start
End
1992
1993
7.31
9.31
1.34
1.23
1.68
1993
1994
7.68
9.78
1.41
1.29
1.76
1994
1999
8.06
10.26
1.48
1.36
1.85
1999
2000
8.30
10.57
1.52
1.40
1.85
2000
2001
8.63
10.99
1.58
1.46
1.85
2001
2002
8.89
11.32
1.63
1.50
1.91
2002
2003
9.16
11.66
1.68
1.55
1.96
2003
2004
9.43
12.01
1.73
1.60
2.02
2004
2005
10.01
12.74
1.83
1.69
2.14
2005
2006
1 11.11
14.14
2.03
1.88
2.38
Conservation Block Rate Structure
Effective Dates
Base Rate for
3/4" Meter
Base Rate for
1" Meter
Block 1
(0 - AWC)
Water Rate per
1,000 Gallons
Block 2
(AWC - 40,000)
Water Rate per
1,000 Gallons
Block 3
(AWC+ 40,000) & Up
Water Rate per
1,000 Gallons
Start
End
2006
2007
7.66
12.79
2.09
2.61
3.61
2007
2008
8.89
14.84
2.42
3.03
4.19
2008
2010
18.00
30.05
2.67
4.29
5.93
2010
2011
24.00
40.06
2.67
4.29
5.93
2011
2012
28.00
46.74
2.67
4.29
5.93
2012
1 2013
21.00
35.06
4.00
5.46
6.55
Appendix C-2
Residential Water Bill Comparison for Major Texas Cities
During January 2012 for 5/8" or 3/4" Meters
Water Used (gallons)
City
0
6,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Amarillo
11.89
16.13
26.73
54.43
82.13
123.13
164.13
Arlington
8.57
17.47
27.57
59.52
93.62
134.42
175.22
Austin(R)
16.60
28.18
48.42
142.77
258.47
380.37
502.27
Brownsville
9.93
18.42
27.85
54.67
88.27
121.87
155.47
Corpus Christi
8.72
19.99
42.54
102.44
168.21
248.07
327.93
Dallas(R)
5.79
15.86
32.61
87.01
149.51
212.01
274.51
w
CO
El Paso'
10.70
14.68
24.58
73.69
138.79
203.89
268.99
m
Fort Worth(Rr
7.55
20.30
37.19
77.27
128.30
181.50
234.70
Ta
Garland(R)
12.00
27.59
45.79
92.14
148.44
204.74
261.04
v
Grand Prairie
11.08
17.76
33.56
65.16
119.46
173.76
228.06
$
Houston
3.99
21.89
41.23
97.00
161.80
226.60
291.40
c
0
Irving(S)
9.00
16.46
35.11
74.61
119.51
164.41
209.31
Laredo
8.20
13.11
21.66
39.46
58.46
78.46
99.46
Lubbock
21.00
41.00
65.38
119.98
174.58
229.18
287.05
Pasadena
10.50
18.75
33.13
71.63
111.63
156.63
201.63
Plano
16.93
18.49
28.54
48.64
88.84
129.04
169.24
San Antonio(R)
10.01
20.02
33.62
79.81
151.32
222.83
294.34
R = City has 5/8" and 3/4" meters - 3/4" rate used in calculations ' = AWC of 7,000 gal s = summer rates
Appendix C-3
Public -School Program Lessons
Lesson Title
Grade(s)
Description
Students will learn the difference between salt and fresh water. Discusstion will focus
Blue Stuff
K-2
on how much water exists on the planet vs. how much we can actually use for
drinking,farming, etc.
The presenter will discuss the water cycle and provide an illustration of the whole process
Cloudy Days
K-2
step by step. The students will learn by participating in the discussion.
A video tells the adventures of Drippy and Dropper, a couple of water drops that travel
Tale of Two Droplets
K-2
through a day with Jeremy. As the da g y y. y progresses, we learn more ways to save water.
Students will learn the basic process creation, as well as the many ways that paper can be
Make -a -Tree
K-2
reused and then recycled.
Students will be able to identify the natural resource that many common items are created
Sources of Resources
K-2
from.
Students will become aware of their role in practicing the Four Rs, thereby becoming good
Mask of Trash
K-2
stewards of our natural resources.
Students will create a decorated bird feeder to use at home and to teach parents about
Bird Feeder
K-2
recycling.
Following a brief introduction into recycling, students will get hands on experience sorting
Recycle Relay
K-2
recyclables in a fast past relay race.
Students will learn the terms and definitions associated with the water cycle and how the
Water Bracelet
K-5
water cycle is impacted by actions on earth.
The water we use has to come from somewhere. The process of the water traveling from the
Fred the Fish
3-12
source to the end point can be quite an adventure.
Edible Aquifer
3-12
Students will learn what an aquifer is and how the Ogallala benefits the City of Lubbock.
Students will be able to identify the different steps involved with the process of providing
Water Treatment Video
3-12
clean drinking water.
Students will learn what effluent is and how Lubbock uses it to benefit local and area
Examining Effluent
3-12
residents.
What's in your Water?
3-12
Students will understand the concepts fo solubility, dissolving, solutions, and mixtures.
Students will learn about conservation, natural resources, and renewable resources while
The Best Fisherman
3-12
developing and understanding of resource manangement.
Students will be able to define water shortage, discuss solutions to water shortages, be able to
Water Shortages
3-12
explain water solutions explore locally.
Edible Landfill
3-12
Students will learn appropriate vocabulary as well as the design of the landfill
Students will construct a garbage pizza to represent all the trash thrown away. Students will
Garbage Pizza
3-12
learn the composition and the proportion of the types of trash that enter the landfill and will
classify recyclable materials and analyze how personal choices make a difference.
Students will learn the vocabulary of wind energy, the concept behind the technology and the
Blow Wind Blow
3-12
story of wind usage, past to future endeavors.
Appendix C-4
Conservation Calculations:
More Stringent Seasonal Water Restrictions Strategy
A. Prozram Details:
Implement a year round outdoor water use restriction that limits each facility to watering landscape with irrigation systems to
two days per week on specified days. The suggested landscape application should be less than 1.5 inches per week.
B. Water Savin¢s:
See the chart below for the breakdown of the City's annual water usage by tier (compiled from a study the City completed using
Fiscal Year 2008-2009 data).
Tier
Annual Water Usuage (%)
Block 1
70.69%
Block 2
21.94%
Block 3
7.37%
Total
100.00%
Non -essential water: (Block 2 + Block 3) = 29.31%
Percent from Block 2: (Block 2 / B.1) = 74.85%
Percent from Block 3: (Block 3 / B.1) = 25.15%
In the summer months (April -September), the average water consumption (gallons per capita per day - gpcd) in Lubbock is
much higher than in the winter months (October - March). The charts below show the 5-year average monthly gpcd.
B.4
B.6
B.7
B.8
Seasonal
Irrigation
Months
Average gpcd
April
148
May
166
June
190
July
189
August
199
September
167
Average
177
Non -Seasonal
Irrigation
Months
Average gpcd
January
117
February
120
March
130
October
151
November
131
December
121
Average
128
Seasonal, non -essential water used: (B.4 - B.5) = 48 gpcd
6,104 ac-ft/yr
1,989,020,472 gallons
City staff estimate of percent reduction in Seasonal Water Usage under this strategy: 15%
Total Water Conserved: (B.6 x B.7) = 916 ac-ft/yr
= 298,353,071 gallons
Amount Conserved in Block 2: (B.8 x B.2) = 685 ac-ft/yr
= 223,332,186 gallons
Amount Conserved in Block 3: (B.8 x B.3) = 230 ac-ft/yr
75,020,885 gallons
D. Revenue Impact:
Appendix C-4
Conservation Calculations:
More Stringent Seasonal Water Restrictions Strategy
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Saved
(gallons)
Tier
Rate per
1,000 gallons
Change in Annual Revenue
223,332,186
Block 2
$5.46
-$1,219,394
75,020,885
Block 3
$6.55
-$491,387
Total
- 1,710,781
Appendix C-5
Conservation Calculations:
Increase Non -Essential Water Volume Rates Strategy
A. Proeram Details:
A.1 Increase in water rates for Blocks 2 and 3: 10%
A.2 Decrease in non -essential water demand: 3%
Current Rate
Incremental
Rate Change
proposed Rate
Block 1
$4.00
1
$0.00
$4.00
Block 2
$5.46
$0.55
$6.01
Block 3
$6.55
$0.66
$7.21
B. Water SavinEs:
Recall the breakdown of water usage by Blocks developed in Appendix 0-1:
B.1 Percent of non -essential water use = 29.31%
B.2 Percent of non -essential use from Block 2 = 74.85%
B.3 Percent of non -essential use from Block 3 = 25.15%
BA City's five year (2007-11) avg water demand = 37,375 ac-ft/yr
B.5 Annual non -essential water use (B.4 x B.1) = 10,955 ac-ft/yr
= 3,569,575,820 gallons
Water Saved with this Strategy:
B.6 Total Water Conserved: (B.5 x A.2) = 329 ac-ft/yr
B.7 Amount Conserved in Block 2: (B.6 x B.2) = 246 ac-ftlyr
= 80,160,178 gallons
B.8 Amount Conserved in Block 3: (B.6 x B.3) = 83 ac-ft/yr
= 26,927,097 gallons
C. Proeram Costs:
This strategy would not cost additional funds for the City to implement and administer. Using volume rates to promote water
conservation does not require the City to make an investment of time or capital to enforce water usage.
D. Revenue Impact:
IM
Revenue Lost
Water Saved
Proposed Rate
(gallons)
Tier
per Thousand
Revenue Lost
Gallon
80,160,178
Block
$6.01
-$481,442
26,927,097
Block 3
$7.21
-$194,010
Total
-$675,452
Appendix C-5
Conservation Calculations:
Increase Non -Essential Water Volume Rates Strategy
This strategy estimates 3% of the water used in Blocks 2 and 3 will be conserved. The City will collect additional revenue on
the remaining 97% of water used in these tiers.
D.2 Water Earning Revenue: (B.5 - B.6) = 10,626 ac-ftlyr
D.3 Amount Earned from Block 2: (D.2 x B.2) = 7,954 ac-ft/yr
= 2,591,845,741 gallons
DA Amount Earned from Block 3: (D.2 x B.3) = 2,672 ac-ft/yr
= 870,642,804 gallons
D.5
Revenue Gained
Water Used
Rate Increase
Revenue
Tier
per Thousand
(gallons)
Gained
Gallons
2,591,845,741
Block 2
$0.55
148
870,642,804
Block 3
$0.66
L$5;
�71
Total
9
Revenue Gained + Revenue Lost = Change in Annual Revenue
= D.1 +D.5
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Conserved Change in Annual Revenue
329 ac-f1/yr $1,309,967
Appendix C-6
Conservation Calculations:
Toilet Replacement Rebate for Schools and Universities
A. Program Details:
$90 rebate to replace old toilets with new high -efficiency toilets in Lubbock public schools and university dorms.
B. Water Savings:
In 1991, the Texas legislature passed the Water Saving Performance Standards (Senate Bill 587), which placed stringent water -
use standards on indoor plumbing equipment. Toilets sold in Texas prior to January 1, 1992 used between 3.0 to 8.0 gallons
per flush (gpf), whereas toilets installed after January 1, 1992 were required to use 1.6 gpf or less. Many of the toilets in
Lubbock schools and university dorms are older models that use between 3.0 and 5.0 gpf.
Water Savings per Toilet
Facility
Old Model
New Model
Water Savings
(estimated gpf)
(gpf)
(gpf)
LISD
5.0
1.6
3.4
Texas Tech
3.5
1.6
1.9
Dormitories
The 1999 AWWA study "Residential End Uses of Water" found that the average person flushes the toilet:
5.0 times per day while at home (TTU dorms)
From this data, it is estimated that an average person will flush the toilet:
2.5 times per day while at school/work (LISD)
Total Program Water Savings
Number of
Water Savings per
Water Saved per
Water Saved per
Facility
People
Flushes per Day
Flush (gpf)
Year*
Year*
(gallons)
(ac-ft)
LISD
32,084
2.5
3.4
74,655,458
229.1
Texas Tech
Dormitories
6,746
5.0
1.9
17,543,816
53.8
TOTAL
92,199,274
j 282.9
* Dorms and public schools are only in normal use for 9 months of the year
C. Program Costs:
See the chart below for the total number of toilets needing to be replaced.
�1111111�1��1�11�111111111�1111111�111111
Facility
�IIIIII�IIII��
Number of Toilets
LISD
3,177
Texas Tech
Dormitories
1,290
TOTAL
4,467
Appendix C-6
Conservation Calculations:
Toilet Replacement Rebate for Schools and Universities
Cost to Implement Program
Total Number
Cost to
Rebate
of Toilets
Implement
Program
$90.00
per toilet
4,467
$402,030
D. Revenue Impact:
All water saved with this strategy is expected to be from Block 1.
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Saved
Tier
Rate
Change in
(gallons)
Annual Revenue
92,199,274
Block 1
$4.00
-$368,797
Appendix C-7
Conservation Calculations:
Washing Machine Rebate
A. Program Details:
Offer $300 rebates to replace old commercial washing machines with new high -efficiency machines, and $150 rebates to
replace old residential washing machines in apartment complexes and university dorms with new high -efficiency residential
machines.
B. Water Savings:
See the chart below for the estimated number of commercial washing machines in Lubbock.
I�
Type of Facility
Number of Washing Machines
Coin -Operated Laundromats
540
Dry -Cleaners with Washers
120
TOTAL
660
According to a study published by Western Resource Advocates in 2008 called "Smart Savings Water Conservation: Measures
that Make dents," conversion from an older commercial washing machine model to a newer model can save:
B.2 37,800 gallons of water per machine per year
Annual Water Savings for Commercial Retrofit:
Water Conserved: (B.1 x B.2) = 24,948,000 gallons
76.6 ac-ft/yr
See the chart below for the estimated number of apartment washing machines in Lubbock.
Type of Facility
Number of Washing Machines
Apartment Complexes
1,600
Texas Tech Dormitory
171
TOTAL
1,771
In the 2008 article "Smart Savings Water Conservation: Measures that Make dents" referenced above, it is found that
conversion from an older residential washing machine model to a newer model can save:
8,500 gallons of water per machine per year
However, residential washing machines typically serve a family of 4-5. In dormitories and apartment complexes, a single
machine will often serve 6-10 people. Therefore, the annual savings per machine has been adjusted to:
B.4 15,000 gallons of water per machine per year
Annual Water Savings for Apartment/Dormitory Retorofit:
Water Conserved: (13.3 x BA) = 26,565,000 gallons
81.5 ac-ft/yr
Total Water Savings
Retrofit
Water Saved
(gallons)
Water Saved
(ac-ft/yr)
Commercial
24,948,000
76.6
Apartments / Dormitories
26,565,000
81.5
TOTAL
1 51513 000
1 158.1
C. Program Costs:
Appendix C-7
Conservation Calculations:
Washing Machine Rebate
Cost to Implement Program
Rebate
Number of
Machines
Cost to Implement Program
$300.00
for a commercial machine
660
$198,000
$150.00
for a residential machine
1,771
$265,650
Total
2,431
$463,650
D. Revenue Impact:
All water saved with this strategy is expected to be from Block 1.
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Saved
Tier
Rate per Thousand
Change in Annual
(gallons)
Gallons
Revenue
51,513,000
Block 1
1 $4.00
-$206,052
Appendix C-8
Conservation Calculations:
Residential Showerhead Rebate
A. Program Details:
Offer $10 rebates to residential Lubbock Water Utility customers who purchase and install low flow showerheads.
B. Water Savings:
B.1 2010 City of Lubbock Population = 229,573
B.2 Residential Water Connections in Lubbock = 68,529
Average Number of People per Household in Lubbock:
B.3 People per Household: (B.1 - B.2) = 3.35 people her household
The 1992 Water Saving Performance Standards require that all showerheads meet 2.5 gpm flow rates. Prior to 1992, most
showerheads were built with a 3.0 gpm or higher flow rate.
Water Savings per Showerhead (data from: 1999 AWWA study "Residential End Uses of Water")
BA Average gpcd for non -low flow showerheads = 13.3 gpcd
B.5 Average gpcd for low flow showerheads = 8.8 gpcd
Water used per household per day with non -low flow devices:
B.6 (BA x B.3) = 44.6 gallons per day
Water used per household per day with low flow devices:
B.7 (B.5 x B.3) = 29.5 gallons per day
B.8 Total Water Conserved per day: (B.6 - B.7) = 15.1 gallons per day
Participation Rate:
B.9 Percent of households expected to participate = 10%
B.10 Number of Participating Households: (B.2 x B.9) = 6,853
Annual Water Savings:
Total Water Conserved: (B.8 x B.10 x 365 days) = 37,707,365 gallons/yr
115.7 ac-ftlyr
C. Program Costs:
Cost to Implement Program
Rebate
Number of
Program Cost
Showerheads
$10.00 per showerhead
6,853
1 $68,529
D. Revenue Impact:
All water saved with this strategy is expected to be from Block 1.
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Saved
Tier
Rate
Change in Annual Revenue
(tgals)
37,720
Block 1
1 $4.001
-$150,880
Avvendix C-9
Conservation Calculations:
Landscape Rebate
A. Proeram Details:
Offer a $0.25 rebate per 1 ft2 of traditional grass lawn that is removed and replaced with trees and Smartscape or Xeriscape.
B. Water SavinEs:
In the summer months (May -September), the average volume of water used per residence in Lubbock is much higher than in
the winter months (October - April). The chart below shows the 4-year (2008-2011) average monthly volume of water
consumed per residential connection in the City of Lubbock (data from LP&L).
Month
Avg Residential
Seasonal Monthly
Water Used (gallons)
April
7,994
May
8,896
June
10,915
July
11,240
August
10,995
September
10,228
Avg Month
10 455
B.1 B.2
Month
Avg Residential Non -
Seasonal Monthly
Water Used (gallons)
January
6,450
February
5,758
March
6,195
October
7,860
November
6,613
December
6125
Avg Month
6,500
B.3 Seasonal, non -essential water used: (B.I - B.2) = 3,955 gallons
The City, along with the Lubbock Master Gardners Association, recommends applying 1.5 inches of water per week to grass
lawns.
conversion factor: 1.604 inches per ft2 = 1.00 gallon per ft2
B.4 1.5 inches per ft2 = 0.94 gallons per ft2 per week
B.5 B.4 x 4 weeks = 3.74 gallons per ft2 per month
According to LP&L data in June 2012, there are 68,529 residential water connections in the City of Lubbock.
Expected participation rate = 10%
B.6 Number of participating households = 6,853 households
B.7 Estimated area converted to xeriscape per hosuehold = 450 112
Total estimated area of grass lawn removed due to this strategy:
B.8 (13.6 * B.7) = 3,083,805 ft2 converted to Xeriscape
The literature suggests that xeriscaping a yard can conserve between 30% - 75% of the water used for outdoor irrigation.
Without West Texas data, we can only estimate the water savings that would be experienced in this area. In this analysis, a
50% water savings rate is used.
50% x 1.5 inches per ft2 = 0.75 in/ft2
B.9 = 0.468 gallons/ft2
B.10 Water Conserved per week: (13.8 x B.9) = 1,443,221 gallons/week
Appendix C-9
Conservation Calculations:
Landscape Rebate
Recall the breakdown of water usage by tier developed in Appendix C-4:
B.1 I Percent of non -essential water use =
29.31 %
B.12 Percent of non -essential use from Block 2 =
74.85%
B.13 Percent of non -essential use from Block 3 =
25.15%
Water Saved with this Strategy:
B.14 Total Water Conserved: (B.10 x 4 wks x 6 mos) =
34,637,298 gallons/yr
=
106.3 ac-ft/yr
Amount Conserved in Block 2: (B.14 x B.12) = 25,927,749 gallons
= 79,569.2 ac-ft/yr
Amount Conserved in Block 3: (B.13 x B.12) = 8,709,549 gallons
26,728.6 ac-ft/yr
C. Program Costs:
Cost to Implement Program
Rebate
fe Converted
Program Cost
$0.25 for 1 ftZ
3,083,805
$770,951
D. Revenue Impact:
Change in Annual Revenue
Water Saved
(gallons)
Tier
Rate per
thousand gallon
Change in Annual Revenue
25,927,749
Block 2
$5.46
-$141,566
8,709,549
Block 3
$6.55
-$57,048
Total
-$198,613
Appendix D-1
Gross Reclaimed Water Projections
Reclaimed Water Population
Reclaimed Water
Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd)
Effluent Flows
(mgd)
Year
Probable
(for details see Section 6.3)
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009 Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
Data by Decade
2013.
236,458
236,740
232,467
80
85
95
18.90
20.12
22.08
2023
266,415
262,286
255,477
78
85
95
20.91
22.29
24.27
2033
300,168
290,589
279,396
77
85
95
23.12
24.70
26.54
2043
325,064
321,946
305,556
76
85
95
24.57
27.37
29.03
2053
348,549
356 6686
334,169
74
85
95
25.84
30.32
31.75
2063
370,036
73
26.89
2073
388,959
71
27.70
2083
404,801
70
28.24
2093
421,288
68
28.78
2103
438,446
67
29.31
2113
456,302
65
29.84
Historic Data
1995
191,020
191,020
191,020
109
20.80
1996
193,064
193,064
193,064
102
19.67
1997
195,367
195,367
195,367
96
18.83
1998
196,679
196,679
196,679
103
20.22
1999
197,117
197,117
197,117
94
18.59
2000
199,564
199,564
199,864
106
21.06
2001
201,217
201,217
201,217
99
19.91
2002
202,000
202,000
202,000
98
19.82
2003
204,737
204,737
204,737
89
18.27
2004
206,290
206,290
206,290
97
20.06
2005
209,120
209,120
209,120
95
19.93
2006
211,187
211,187
211,487
97
20.40
2007
212,365
212,365
215,015
92
19.56
2008
214,847
214,847
218,542
91
19.65
2009
218,327
218,327
222,070
87
19.06
2010
229,573
229,573
225,597
85
19.53
2011
231,938
231,938
227,887
80
18.47
2012
233,654
234,327
230,177
80
18.71
Data by Year
2013
236,458
236,740
232,467
80
85
95
18.90
20.12
22.08
2014
239,295
239,179
234,757
80
85
95
19.10
20.33
22.30
2015
242,167
241,642
237,047
80
85
95
19.29
20.54
22.52
2016
245,073
244,131
239,337
80
85
95
19.49
20.75
22.74
2017
248,014
246,646
241,627
79
85
95
19.68
20.96
22.95
2018
250,990
249,186
243,917
79
85
95
19.88
21.18
23.17
2019
254,002
251,753
246,207
79
85
95
20.08
21.40
23.39
2020
257,050
254,346
248,497
79
85
95
20.29
21.62
23.61
2021
260,134
256,965
250,824
79
85
95
20.49
21.84
23.83
2022
263,256
259,612
253,150
79
85
95
20.70
22.07
24.05
2023
266,415
262,286
255,477
78
85
95
20.91
22.29
24.27
2024
269,612
264,988
257,803
78
85
95
21.12
22.52
24.49
Appendix D-1
Gross Reclaimed Water Projections
Reclaimed Water Population
Reclaimed Water
Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd)
Effluent Flows
(mgd)
Year
Probable
(for details see Section 6.3)
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009 Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
2025
272,847
267,717
260,130
78
85
95
21.34
1 22.76
24.71
2026
276,122
270,475
262,456
78
85
95
21.55
22.99
24.93
2027
279,435
273,260
264,783
78
85
95
21.77
23.23
25.15
2028
282,788
276,075
267,109
78
85
95
21.99
23.47
25.38
2029
286,182
278,919
269,436
78
85
95
22.21
23.71
25.60
2030
289,616
281,791
271,762
77
85
95
22.44
23.95
25.82
2031
293,091
284,694
274,307
77
85
95
22.66
24.20
26.06
2032
296,608
287,626
276,851
77
85
95
22.89
24.45
26.30
2033
300,168
290,589
279,396
77
85
95
23.12
24.70
26.54
2034
302,569
293,582
281,940
77
85
95
23.26
24.95
26.78
2035
304,990
296,606
284,485
77
85
95
23.41
25.21
27.03
2036
307,429
299,661
287,029
77
85
95
23.55
25.47
27.27
2037
309,889
302,747
289,574
76
85
95
23.69
25.73
27.51
2038
312,368
305,866
292,118
76
85
95
23.84
26.00
27.75
2039
314,867
309,016
294,663
76
85
95
23.98
26.27
27.99
2040
317,386
312,199
297,207
76
85
95
24.13
26.54
28.23
2041
319,925
315,415
299,990
76
85
95
24.27
26.81
28.50
2042
322,484
318,663
302,773
76
85
95
24.42
27.09
28.76
2043
325,064
321,946
305,556
76
85
95
24.57
27.37
29.03
2044
327,340
325,262
308,339
75
85
95
24.69
27.65
29.29
2045
329,631
328,612
311,122
75
85
95
24.82
27.93
29.56
2046
331,938
331,997
313,905
75
85
95
24.94
28.22
29.82
2047
334,262
335,416
316,688
75
85
95
25.07
28.51
30.09
2048
336,602
338,871
319,471
75
85
95
25.20
28.80
30.35
2049
338,958
342,361
322,254
75
85
95
25.32
29.10
30.61
2050
341,331
345,888
325,037
75
85
95
25.45
29.40
30.88
2051
343,720
349,450
328,081
74
85
95
25.58
29.70
31.17
2052
346,126
353,050
331,125
74
85
95
25.71
30.01
31.46
2053
348,549
356,686
334,169
74
85
95
25.84
30.32
31.75
2054
350,640
360,360
337,213
74
85
95
25.94
30.63
32.04
2055
352,744
364,072
340,257
74
85
95
26.04
30.95
32.32
2056
354,861
367,821
343,300
74
85
95
26.15
31.26
32.61
2057
356,990
371,610
346,344
74
85
95
26.25
31.59
1 32.90
2058
359,132
375,438
349,388
73
85
95
26.36
31.91
33.19
2059
361,287
379,305
352,432
73
85
95
26.47
32.24
33.48
2060
363,454
383,211
355,476
73
85
95
26.57
32.57
33.77
2061
365,635
73
26.68
2062
367,829
73
26.78
2063
370,036
73
26.89
2064
371,886
73
26.97
2065
373,745
72
27.05
2066
375,614
72
27.13
2067
377,492
72
27.21
2068
379,380
72
27.29
2069
381,277
72
27.37
2070
383,183
72
27.46
Appendix D-1
Gross Reclaimed Water Projections
Reclaimed Water Population
Reclaimed Water
Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd)
Effluent Flows
(mgd)
Year
Probable
(for details see Section 6.3)
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009 Wastewater
Master Plan
Probable
Canyon Lakes
Water Reuse
Project
2009
Wastewater
Master Plan
2071
385,099
72
27.54
2072
387,024
71
27.62
2073
388,959
71
27.70
2074
390,515
71
27.75
2075
392,077
71
27.81
2076
393,646
71
27.86
2077
395,220
71
27.92
2078
396,801
70
27.97
2079
398,388
70
28.02
2080
399,982
70
28.08
2081
401,582
70
28.13
2082
403,188
70
28.19
2083
404,801
70
28.24
2084
406,420
70
28.29
2085
408,046
69
28.35
2086
409,678
69
28.40
2087
411,317
69
28.45
2088
412,962
69
28.51
2089
414,614
69
28.56
2090
416,272
69
28.62
2091
417,937
69
28.67
2092
419,609
68
28.72
2093
421,288
68
28.78
2094
422,973
68
28.83
2095
424,665
68
28.88
2096
426,363
68
28.94
2097
428,069
68
28.99
2098
429,781
68
29.04
2099
431,500
67
29.10
2100
433,226
67
29.15
2101
434,959
67
29.20
2102
436,699
67
29.26
2103
438,446
67
29.31
2104
440,199
67
29.36
2105
441,960
67
29.42
2106
443,728
66
29.47
2107
445,503
66
29.52
2108
447,285
66
29.58
2109
449,074
66
29.63
2110
450,870
66
29.68
2111
452,674
66
29.73
2112
454,485
66
29.79
2113
456,302
65
29.84
Appendix D-2
Net Reclaimed Water Projections
Reclaimed Water Projections
(mgd)
Year
Probable Gross
Effluent Flows
Contractual
Operational
Probable Net
Effluent Flows
Xcel
Private Cotton
Farmers
LLAS
HLAS
Data by Decade
2013
18.90
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
1.90
2023
20.91
16.00
0
2.00
0.00
2.91
2033
23.12
16.00
0
2.00
0.00
5.12
2043
24.57
16.00
0
2.00
0.00
6.57
2053
25.84
14.00
0
2.00
0.00
9.84
2063
26.89
9.00
0
2.00
0.00
15.89
2073
27.70
1 9.00
0
2.00
0.00
16.70
2083
28.24
9.00
0
2.00
0.00
17.24
2093
28.78
9.00
0
2.00
0.00
17.78
2103
29.31
9.00
1
0
2.00
0.00
18.31
2113
29.84
9.00
0
2.00
0.00
18.84
Data by Year
2010
19.53
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.53
2011
18.47
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
1.47
2012
18.71
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
1.71
2013
18.90
9.00
0 'i
4.00
4.00
1.90
2014
19.10
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.10
2015
19.29
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.29
2016
19.49
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.49
2017
19.68
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.68
2018
19.88
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
2.88
2019
20.08
9.00
0
4.00
4.00
3.08
2020
20.29
16.00
0
2.00
0
2.29
2021
20.49
16.00
0
2.00
0
2.49
2022
20.70
16.00
0
2.00
0
2.70
2023
20.91
16.00
0
2.00
0
2.91
2024
21.12
16.00
0
2.00
0
3.12
2025
21.34
16.00
0 '
2.00
0
3.34
2026
21.55
16.00
0
2.00
0
3.55
2027
21.77
16.00
0
2.00
0
3.77
2028
21.99
16.00
0
2.00
0
3.99
2029
22.21
16.00
0
2.00
0
4.21
2030
22.44
16.00
0
2.00
0
4.44
2031
22.66
16.00
0
2.00
0
4.66
2032
22.89
16.00
0
2.00
0
4.89
2033
23.12
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.12
2034
23.26
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.26
2035
23.41
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.41
2036
23.55
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.55
2037
23.69
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.69
2038
23.84
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.84
2039
23.98
16.00
0
2.00
0
5.98
2040
24.13
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.13
2041
24.27
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.27
2042
24.42
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.42
2043
24.57
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.57
2044
24.69
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.69
2045
24.82
16.00
0
2.00
0
6.82
2046
24.94
14.00
0
2.00
0
8.94
2047
25.07
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.07
2048
25.20
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.20
2049
25.32
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.32
2050
25.45
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.45
2051
25.58
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.58
2052
25.71
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.71
2053
25.84
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.84
2054
25.94
14.00
0
2.00
0
9.94
2055
26.04
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.04
2056
26.15
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.15
2057
26.25
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.25
2058
26.36
14.00
0
2.00
0
1 10.36
Appendix D-2
Net Reclaimed Water Projections
Year
Reclaimed Water Projections
(mgd)
Probable Gross
Effluent Flows
Contractual
Operational
Probable Net
Effluent Flows
Xcel
Private Cotton
Farmers
LtAS
NLAS
2059
26.47
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.47
2060
26.57
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.57
2061
26.68
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.68
2062
26.78
14.00
0
2.00
0
10.78
2063
26.89
9.00
0
2.00
0
15.89,
2064
26.97
9.00
0
2.00
0
15.97
2065
27.05
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.05
2066
27.13
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.13
2067
27.21
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.21
2068
27.29
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.29
2069
27.37
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.37
2070
27.46
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.46
2071
27.54
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.54
2072
27.62
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.62
2073
27.70
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.70
2074
27.75
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.75
2075
27.81
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.81
2076
27.86
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.86
2077
27.92
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.92
2078
27.97
9.00
0
2.00
0
16.97
2079
28.02
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.02
2080
28.08
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.08
2081
28.13
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.13
2082
28.19
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.19
2083
28.24
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.24
2084
28.29
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.29
2085
28.35
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.35
2086
28.40
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.40
2087
28.45
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.45
2088
28.51
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.51
2089
28.56
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.56
2090
28.62
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.62
2091
28.67
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.67
2092
28.72
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.72
2093
28.78
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.78
2094
28.83
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.83
2095
28.88
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.88
2096
28.94
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.94
2097
28.99
9.00
0
2.00
0
17.99
2098
29.04
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.04
2099
29.10
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.10
2100
29.15
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.15
2101
29.20
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.20
2102
29.26
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.26
2103
29.31
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.31
2104
29.36
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.36
2105
29.42
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.42
2106
29.47
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.47
2107
29.52
9.60
0
2.00
0
18.52
2108
29.58
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.58
2109
29.63
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.63
2110
29.68
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.68
2111
29.73
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.73
2112
29.79
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.79
2113
29,84
9.00
0
2.00
0
18.84
Appendix E-1
Present Value Analysis (HDR Engineering, Inc. Memo)
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions" Memo
To: Aubrey Spear, P.E.
Kelly Baker
From: Grady Reed Project: City of Lubbock Present Value Analysis
David D. Dunn, P.E.
CC:
Date: November 5, 2012 Job No: 100815
DocumeW
RE: Primary Assumptions for Present Value Analysis of Strategic Water Supply Plan
The memo will briefly describe the primary assumptions that HDR will make for the City of
Lubbock present value analysis. The model will extend to the year 2113, and will allow the
user to break certain future assumptions into four (4) time periods with a different value
given in each period. As with any long range model, major assumptions for future variables
must be made. The longer the forecast period (in this case 100 years), the greater the
uncertainty in predicting what the values for certain variables may be. HDR has made
assumptions regarding the future general rate of inflation, interest rates for bonds, discount
rate, and a separate rate of inflation for power costs. These assumptions are presented in
more detail below.
Rate of Inflation
HDR has based the projected rate of inflation on the historical Engineering News Record
(ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI calculates how much it would cost to
purchase a basket of goods (including labor) related to construction projects relative to a
base year. From these data, it is possible to determine how much, on a percentage basis,
construction costs have risen from year to year. Over the last 20 years, the average annual
increase in the CCI has been 3.2%. The increase for 2011 was near the average at 3.0%.
HDR has broken the 100-year forecast period into four time blocks as follows: 1) 2014 to
2025 (or near -term); 2) 2026 to 2046; 3) 2047 to 2067; and 4) 2068 to 2113. The
recommended inflation rate for each time period is shown below, which is a screen capture
from the spreadsheet model. Note that cells highlighted in yellow are user input cells which
can be easily changed should a different set of assumptions be chosen.
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014
2025
2026
2046
2047
2067
2068
2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2 ,
2.7%
HDR has kept the near -term rate of inflation equal to the rate of increase for 2011, while in
the longer term (years 2047 to 2067) the 20-year average was used. After that time period,
HDR Engineering, Inc. ( 4401 West Gate Blvd. I Phone: 512.912.5100 I Page 1 of 3
Suite 400 Fax: 512.912.5158
Austin, TX 78745 www.hdNnc.com
Appendix E-1
Present Value Analysis (HDR Engineering, Inc. Memo)
the rate of inflation was reduced to help avoid potentially over -inflating the costs of projects
that would not be built until the end of the projection period.
Discount Rate
HDR has based the projected discount rate on the market yield for U.S. Treasury securities
with a 30-year maturity. This would represent what the City of Lubbock would expect to
earn on funds invested rather than spent to construct projects. Like the CCI index above,
this value has seen tremendous fluctuations in the past, and it is difficult to project future
values within any confidence. Over the last 20 years, the average annual market return for
T-bills has been 5.7%, while the return in 2011 was only 3.9%.
HDR has broken the 100-year forecast period into the same four time blocks as detailed
above. The recommended discount rates for these time periods are shown below.
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014
F 2025
2026
1 2046
2047
1 2067
2068
1 2113
4.3%
5.3%
5.7%
5.1%
HDR has kept the near -term discount rate slightly higher than the market return for 2011.
After that, the discount rate would gradually increase to the 20 year average of 5.7% before
dropping in the last time period to match the reduction in the rate of inflation.
Rate of Inflation for Power Cost
HDR has based the projected rate of inflation for power cost on the Annual Electric Power
Industry report compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Over the last
10 years, the average annual increase in the price for power associated with industrial
customers has been 3.8%, while the increase in 2011 was only 0.8%.
The recommended rate of inflation for power cost is shown below.
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 7F772025
2026
1 2046
2047
2 667
2068
1 2113
1.0•0
2.8%
3.89/o
4.8%
HDR has kept the near -term price increase slightly higher than the increase for 2011. After
that, the annual price increase would gradually increase to the 20 year average of 3.8% for
years 2047 to 2067 and then increase an additional percentage point in the final year
grouping. The table below shows what the projected power cost would be per kWh.
2014
2025
2046
1 2067
2113
$ 0.08
$ 0.09
$ 0.16
1 $ 0.35
$ 3.01
HDR Engineering, Inc. 14401 West Gate Blvd. I Phone: 512.912.5100 I Page 2 of 3
Suite 400 Fax:512.912.5158
Austin, TX 78745 www.hdrinc.com
Appendix E-1
Present Value Analysis (HDR Engineering, Inc. Memo)
As with the other variables, there have been large changes in the annual percent change in
power prices over the past 10 years. This will likely continue into the future; however, it is
felt that long-term electricity costs will continue to increase as inflation increases and as
more stringent regulations are placed upon the power industry.
Bond Interest Rate
The recommended bond interest rate for all bonds issued during the planning period is
5.1 %. This is consistent with a 20-year average market yield for a 20-year municipal
general obligation bond for a municipality with a AA rating. Bond issue rates will vary from
year to year and have varied greatly in the past; however, for purposes of this analysis is it
recommended to simply use the 20-year average throughout the 100-year forecast period.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 14401 West Gate Blvd. I Phone: 512-912.5100 I Page 3 of 3
Suite 400 Fax:512.912.5158
Austin, TX 78745 www.hddnc.com
Appendix E-2
12 Year Financial Water rate Model
Rate Policy Comparison - Package 1
Volume Rates
Block FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Historical Rates
Block 1 2.96 3.07 2.85 3.01 3.99 4.07 4.12 4.33 4.56 4.79 4.81 4.34 5.29
Block 2 4.75 4.92 4.57 4.84 6.40 6.54 6.62 6.95 7.32 7.69 7.72 6.96 8.50
Block 3 6.57 6.81 6.32 6.69 8.85 9.04 9.15 9.61 10.13 10.63 10.68 9.63 11.75
New Rate Structure
Block 1 4.00 5.00 5.85 6.82 7.94 8.02 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.24 8.92
Block 2 5.46 6.82 7.98 9.30 10.83 10.94 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.24 12.17
Block 3 6.55 8.18 9.57 11.15 12.99 13.12 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.49 14.60
Base Charges
Meter Size FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Historical Rates
0.75 28.00 28.00 30.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 34.00 32.00 30.00 30.00 36.00 32.00
New Rate Structure
0.75 21.00 14.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7A0
Volume Rate Comparison - Block 1
10.00 ----
9.00_..._.._....___........._..._..__...._.__..__..___..._______
&00-- ........ ..............__.
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00 Historical Rates
3.00 New Rate Structure
2.00
1.00
°N^� RNI °tie °tie °ti, °tip °tia %N z1v °,yti °,y^� ZN
��41ry41IV�IV��4�ry�IV�IV�IV�19�ry<kIV�e
Base Rate Comparison - 0.75" Meter
40.00 - - -
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
Historical Rates
15.00
®New Rate Structure
10.00
5.00
o��' oti` owe o��D o�^ o�� ono' oti° oti~ otiti oti' oti°` otie
ry ry ry<k 4kti-,Ary41ti<I <1 �I <-Iry-,Ati kA
N
a-1
to
m
1-1
V?
00
t0
Ln
00
to
O
�
e-i
N
VT
L
m
G
n
}
N
00
to
O
N
0
N
m
m
o
N
}
m
r`
0
N
to
0
N
�
tU
o
�
}
M
t0
N
O
N
O
m
Ln
�
o
ri
N
t0
Vt
L
m
O
O
}
m
O
C
m
O
Lit
O
Oj
N
a-1
V!
Ln
e-f
cn
N
m
m
N
ri
a-i
N
N
Ln
Ln
0o
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0o
ri
fn"
o0
00
of
of
r4
M
a-i
N
N
N
M
M
ri
O
n
n
M
N
ct
rf
Lo
Ln
o
oo
mo
.�-1f
to
o
o
V-1
r
o
e-t
ri
m
O
M
Ln
L^f1
M
ONt
,4
m
1-1
of
to
n
p
two
co
a�-1
N
N
An.
i
m
c
tT
Ln
CT
}
N
O
O
ri
00
Ln
M
O
00
.-i
O
Co
a
iD
tD
O
t%0
CNo
O
N
N
VT
V1•
V?
V)
iA
V>•
i/F
m
00
00
NN
N
Ch
to
Ln
n
to
Ln
0
ON
Co
N
m
N
Ln
}
m
0)
M
N
t0
to
N
00
O
M
M'
(�
0
0
N
N
V?
t/}
V}
Vl•
V>•
i/T
V!
m
r1
M
m
r
O
m
m
n
Ln
Ln
o
tD
Ln
m
c
r-i
o
N
N
VT
VT
V)
VT
V1
V)
V!
m
O
O
}
m
O
O
�
a•1
to
ri
tD
V-f
N
O
O
N
N
t/}
Vt•
i/T
V}
VT
i/T
O
O
Om1
tT
Ln
t6
to
Ln
L-t
rq
c
rmi
No
N
N
N
V?
V)
VT
V)
tn•
i
m
O
O
o
}
m
O
O
O
O
cri
M
v
O
p
rmi
rmi
O
N
N
V}
in•
V?
V).
t?
V►
m
O
i+
i
a
r`
m
Ln
Ln
Ln
0
N
N
to
Ln
M
00
m
2
C
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
L
m
d
}
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O C O O O O O O
m v o 0o w v v 0
u .u m-t `ni m o Lo
m m -4-4
� v v
o7f
O
m
Oo
.L
in 4A to n V> to In to
N
W
N
f
tT
O
aNi
N
r-I
t
�
�
t
ri
ri
1
f�
01
t
N
N
"
to
t
00
p
O
t
N
i/T
V?
to
to
V!•
V? 4
tT
N
in
tD
t
rt
r4
Ln
l
i
p
.N-4
co
N
r
V1
4^
V?
VT
iR
Vf t
tD
O
t
m
M
t
N
ri
O
O
to
p
.N-f
ON0
<
N
r-i
Vf
to
Ln
01
O
Ot
t
ri
O
t
M
.M-f
O
i
Ln
C
ei
CO
f
V}
V)
V1•
V?
V1
t/A i
O
f�
[
N
00
Ol
-
t
r4
0)
.T
N
rti
VT
V}
V}
Vf
kn
V? i
00
N
t
n
a
i
to
n
i
M
G
r4-
.-i
n
t
N
.ti
Vf
Ln
V)
V?
ir?
I V. I i
N
1
t
tOD
t0
Ln
t
N
1/f
Vt.
V!
V?
V? t
00
f
Ln
L
v
LLn
o
r�-I
�
N
V?
VT
Vt
in
V> i
N
t
M
t
M
t
O
G
-4
N
Vf
Vf
V?
V1
V? i
m
C
O
m
v
�
cn
Ln
Ln
Ln
Lo
Ln
ri
N
N
to
00
Ln
6
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
00
O
NNN
N
N
L
m
(o
Y
A
3 �
3
vmvmr`,L0
`" t
O
O
LoI*
L`n
Lo
r-1
O
CD4
O O
ri
a-f
N
O
00
00
V
a �.
v'^
-
ortrnmtn
a-1
N
M
00
00
IH
/0 E
N
^
� C
O
v
Appendix E-3
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package i - Baseline
Ravesun
btt-st R-
123,300
-
117.665
192,350
249,974
279,919
350,692
Retmuc fioa Rmtd.
150,907
150,000
151,5011
153,015
154,545
156,091
157,652
Reemue From Junk Saks
179,598
50.000
50,000
50.(la1
50,000
50,000
50,000
Reemue Fina Metered Services
72.229,022.
71307,350
73,689,716
74,517,636
83,569,152
97,035,741
100,955,740
R-f .Dept Operations
1,804,781
2,370,550
2,417,961
2.466,321
2,515,647
2,165,97,
2,617Z79
Tran. Fr® OWa Fund.
A'm
129 387
1.10,701
130 604
131 43H
131.994
133,3
133,229
Taal Fundim S-
74616994
74008601
76557446
77,510360
86.671212
Ig),221.082
104.264.592
Enpeaditmon
Total Sallie,
5,200,189
5,741,134
5,835,957
5,973,076
6,092,539
6,214388
6,338,676
Tad B-fit,
2,777,464
3,120,784
3,301,475
3.497,607
3,710,673
3,942311
4,194324
Tad Suppl-
1,467,367
i,823,797
1,960273
1,897,479
1,935,428
1,974,137
2,013,619
Toth hL�^^^
2,444534
2,952,901
3,011,959
3,072,198
3,133,642
3,196315
3.260.241
CRMWA Ddi-y Charges
4,885,692
5,740.1
5,855,810
5,972,926
61092,385
6,214,232
6,338517
Eketrie Utility Chain
2,177,657
3,742558
3,783,617
3,925,127
3,967,093
3,909519
3,952,410
Total Pra&.-al Smvim. /Tosinin8
994,894
989.060
1,0U8.841
1,029,018
1,049598
1,070,590
1:092,002
Total Scheduled Charm
1,096,404
1,162.810
1,186.066
1.209,787
1,233,983
1.258.663
1,283,836
Total Olhs Ch.M.
170,283
22,200
268,968
274.544
280,261
2,664.944
2,706.848
Tdnl Cu iai Qutlu
454,636
405,000
413100
42I,3G2
429789
4363H5
447,153
TanlTmnafcr.
10,706,(WS
I1,854,757
12,230,115
12.316,413
13,302,014
14.35ri,058
14,851,012
Total Olhc Expmditsa
96,971
Ny A-You•Oo F don is CIP
800,000
420,000
500,a10
300.OW
-
-
-
Ex.ti.gDcbtSavke
37,969}78
39,702,132
39,733.58.3
39.571380
39,565,945
39,570,757
39,378,464
cm Lon: LatcrA Eemmp on Bond Prods
(113,595)
(93,7%)
(122,353)
(310,202)
(298,753)
(264,618)
(148,520:
L.ea: Build An-ca Bond Subsidy
(1.396,635)
(1,595.060)
(1,595,060)
(1,595,060)
(11595.060)
(1595,060)
(1,553,801:
New ihbt&xvim- Cunt CLP Proiedions
-
-
2,067,586
4,912,718
6437,856_7,782587
Taal Expendi[scs
Total Eventbtse (OMYUnds Ravmtsm
Nat Asset C.kAad.
Told Approp iabk Nd Ands
Ras Aaalpis D-bs. Decmb. Decmba Diemba D-bs D-sabs Dx®6¢. D.Mb. Decembs Decemba D-.bs Dsmb.
Tia lam .00% 49.81% 25.00 : I7,oax I7.00
50% 16.wx I7o009ci `t� 1 '',�, 4 � tp '
T1c3 0.00% I0,48% 21:0'0% I7,gl% 16.50% 16.5(1% I./Nl% ,' ,.f/.a� xsi`xauuit.. ii 'vvi iip t ?{ k. ...�'.'.v;':'..)�'`y '
1v b
The "ro d rate su%w( a mcaepo au d m thm modal a subjat to cM%c depmdia8 on many vsiables. Some oftbeae miablea awy hlelndr wars wh-s, interest onto, commodity
price, inflation rotes, the operational impact of new facilities, and changes to the set s paisity of capital poj to
Appendix E-3
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 1- Baseline
Base Charees
Meter Size FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
0,75 $ 8.89 18.00 18.00 24.00 28.00 21.00 14.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7,00 7,00 7,00 7,00
1,00 14.84 30.05 30.05 40.06 46.74 35.06 23.37 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11,69 11,69 1 L69 11.69
1.50 29.59 59.91 59.91 79.88 93.20 69.90 46.60 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23,30 23,30 23,30 23.30
2,00 47,56 96.30 96.30 128.40 149.80 112.35 74,90 37,45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45
3.00 94.81 191,97 191.97 255.96 298.61 223.96 149.31 74,65 74,65 74,65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65
4,00 148. 12 299.91 299,91 399.87 466,52 349,89 233,26 116,63 116,63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63
6.00 296. 16 599.65 599.65 799.53 932.79 699.59 466,39 233,20 233,20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20
8.00 473,87 959.47 959.47 1,279.29 1,492.50 1,119.38 746,25 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13
10.00 681,26 1,379.38 1,379.38 1,839.17 2,145.70 1,609.28 1,072,85 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43
Volume Rates
Block FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
1 $ 2.42 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4.00 5.00 5.85 6,82 7.94 8.02 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.24 8.92
2 3.03 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 5.46 6.82 7.98 9.30 10.83 10.94 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.24 12.17
3 4.19 5.93 5.93 5.93 5,93 6,55 8,18 9,57 11.15 12,99 13.12 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.22 13.49 14.60
Sample Bill (Average User based on 7,000 gallons per month)
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
,75" meter $ 25.83 36.69 36.69 42.69 46.69 49,00 49,00 47.95 54.71 62.58 63.13 63.56 63.56 63.56 63.56 63.56 64.69 69.45
%increase 42.0% 0.0% 16.4% 9.4% 4.9% 0.0% -2.1% 14.1% 14.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.0% 0.01/ 0.0% 0.01/o 1.8% 7.4%
V meter $ 31.79 48.74 48.74 58.75 65.43 63.06 58.37 52.64 59.39 67.26 67.82 68.24 68.24 68.24 68.24 68.24 69.37 74.13
%increase 53.4% 0.01/0 20.61% 11.4% -3.6% -7.4% -9.8% 12.8% 13.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.01/6 1.7% 6.9%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Appendix E-3
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 1 - Baseline
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
� Tier 1 Volume Rate % Increase
$30,000,000 —*—Annual Debt Payment
t—Appropriable Net Assets
$25,000,000 -+(—RCWF Reserve
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$ 19,038,000
$ 5,723,000
2014
2015
$ 19,038,000
$ 5,894,690
$ 5,723,000
$ 104,328,000
2021
2023
$ 7,038,568
$ 136
$ 65,711,000
2029
$ 54,260,000
2052
$ 18,439,000
2053
$ 18,439,000
2083
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 1 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 1 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Original O&M Cost
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2
$
133,000
2014
$ 133,000
$
136,990
$
141,100
$
145,333
$ 149,693
$
154,183
$
158,809
$
163,573
$
168,480
$
$
40,000
2017
$
43,709
$ 45,020
$
46,371
$
47,762
$
49,195
$
50,671
$
$
40,000
2023
$
$
958,000
2025
$
554,000
2031
$
1,775,000
2054
$
344,000
2055
$
344,000
2085
$
$
-
$
$
$ -
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ -
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$ -
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$ -
$
-
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
-
$
$ 133,000
$
136,990
$
141,100
$
189,042
$ 194,713
$
200,554
$
206,571
$
212,768
$
219,151
$
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Total Project Power
Consumption (KwH/year)
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2024
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2
1,416,554
2014
$ 113,324
$ 114,458
$ 115,602
$ 116,758
$ 117,926
$ 119,105
$ 120,296
$ 121,499
$ 122,714
$
272,804
2017
$ 22,486
$ 22,710
$ 22,938
$ 23,167
$ 23,399
$ 23,633
$
272,804
2023
$
71,004,097
2025
21,516,191
2031
7,058,755
2054
8,985,068
2055
8,985,068
2085
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
Is
$
$ -
$
A
wehld MO-p NW!W--oql -&". P4'm9!I: J—.w m•d®I.w!I.udo°gl'mIY ,owIM-.W
.a,�.. .ipp0ltlObi'ro1Y iW Wv'°amgoA 1v� :°P°I•°°. •� �I9°!RA °Y0g1 JO 001D$ •0�{�11, °A .IIR q tmpmd°P °N°°W v W!qM O IDPa111 [rye v p%YadloOn YN°IW °IY poodoll °gl.
%400•fi vm•LI vA091 %00 oz KUb•ol %00•o XOOn f°LL
H.00o 9:00•fl "/ 1: %1091 Y.00'oz vbCLz %AO•o vm•o z+Ou
X0*L •/.00'fi OOIL I Y00O91 °OWN /I1z 0000 SOD'K Ima
ooL aoc ao'c ooc aobl oo•Iz ao'tz oon s °I°a°°°e
9agmx�pxgm9°p uq!uAa+Ci sgmeao� mgaa9°Q :: i°gmnaQ Legma°L}:.. -9mmoQ. g°gmogeQ Q
° mN °N4W.' Mol
.*MN0.3l °°N
°°°g!P°°dx3 M-.L
(108'fSi l)
(090'Lbi'I)
(090'f6L'1)
(090'S6S'i)
(090'L6VO
(090'56E1)
(SC9'96S•1)
U.iflb/'Z)
(ois tO
(LfbUD
(LLI'LLO
(L16'I91)
(ESEYZI)
(96L'E6)
(565'El1)
(90V9rz)
°-..dp°0 --m
490'8Lf6E
LSL•OG5'6E
L06'59VO
09f ILS'bf
f9f EEL'6f
LEI'ZOV6f
9X6WLE
5W161*U
°°!,.s",a 9,9Wn
.
000.00S
000'OOS
o00•oib
000.m
..,
dIJ °! 9-M 4 D°°A-V4-J
IG9'98
NZL'001
9mpo: wl
ILL'ZIE01
OSrm,cl
Hfl'Ef0'EI
LLEKEZI
E60.911'ZI
LLL'K9'11
t90'90L'ol
IWLOe'6
1A°1
ESI'L00
S%C'NEO
68L'6Z0
z9E'I Lb
OOI'flb
000'SOb
9E8'Kb
9GZ'Sbf
099'6SC
9lfiff
I_E
bK'OLZ
696'89L
OOLZL
EBZOLI
199'Lf
°0&°1IJ ^�91O 1°I°1
9EB'EHZI
!'99'HSiI
f86'ffCl
LAL'60ii
990'9N1'1
018'L91'I
bOb'980'1
SeN'E9H
°°t+°gJ PW°P°WSf°ml
Zo0'Z60'1
06EOL0'I
86E6b0'1
8I0'6Z0'I
Ib8'800'I
090'6N6
O.1U6E
b1 i606'f
E60'G9%•E
LZI'SZ➢'E
LI9•CBL'C
:.ZOL'f
lS9'LCI'i
96Z9I 1'Z
°°�°4J Ng9(1 °upep
L1EBEf9
LlYb1Z•9
S8fL60'9
9Z6'LL6'S
OI8'SSB'S
066'ObG'S
Z69'i88'b
99B'il!"t
oNsgJ,CmA!P0 VM3VHJ
I9Y09CC
SIE961'f
Z09'EEI'E
961YL0•C
6S61 l0'f
IO6'ZS6'Z
KS'Obb'Z
606YK•i
°°°°mp°W p9°1
6IVEIO'L
LEI.OL61
SLO'Sf6'i
6LVL68'l
CLCogg'I
"L'Eie'I
OICOVl
69S'OZEI
°°!IW°S I4°1
OZf061'b
IIf Wf
CL9'01 L'E
L09'OVC
SLb'TWC
"CON
190•LLL•Z
90N'6SI•Z
°0J°�9 p9°1
9L9'9ff9
99fb1Y9
8C5'i60'9
9LO'CL6'L
LS6'S99'9
KI•IOL'S
68I'OOZ•5
LIL'K9'0
fOYTSl4°1
°7
906'f6t56
Itb 009 Z6
956 641 ZN
604 9Lb bL
0N0 L69 9L
109 bL
bfb 919 OL
N89 SCL LL
fgN°H N°1
6ZrCfl
IL ECI
6661f1
8Eb IEI
009OE1
IOLOCI
L8t6Zl
5Z06Z1
°P^d--%—d°mY—1
6LZLI9•Z
096'595'i
L6951"
ozcgwL
196•llb'L
OSCOLEZ
ISCM'1
8f0480'L
°°°—d0 W20°O9°°° d
Z59'00' 9Z6
ZOL'966'68
9IMI'64
690•Z6011L
KE6M%
OSC'LOEIL
ZCO'6ZZZL
M.6SCU
—°t P°�°W—d°° H
000'OS
00'
0O5
000'0S
000'OS
000.OL
000'0S
86f6Li
119",1---u
LS9'LSI
I60.9S1
SK•KI
LIO'CSI
OOS'ILI
000'0SI
06.
LOSI
LIO.OS1
q.."—J°°mA°N
060'6LC
818'8EZ
Kr. Piz
Lo9•k91
L99•L11
O0ETZI
Sb0'9S t
°0°00°OkI'�M9
Yawl
paSeloa Z asegd HV I - Z a3e43ed
lapoW aaeH Ja;eM tePaeal3 .tea, ZI
I -a x!paaddd
Appendix E-4
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 2 - LAH Phase 2 Delayed
Base Charees
Meter Size FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
0.75 $ 8.89 19,00 18,00 24.00 28.00 21.00 14.00 7A0 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 700
1.00 14.84 30.05 30.05 40.06 46,74 35.06 23.37 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11,69 11.69 11,69 11.69 11.69 11.69
1.50 29.59 59.91 59.91 79.88 93.20 69.90 46.60 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23,30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30
2.00 47.56 96.30 96.30 128.40 149,80 11235 74.90 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37,45 3745 37.45 37.45 37.45
3.00 94.81 191.97 191.97 255.96 298.61 223.96 149.31 74.65 74.65 74,65 74,65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65
4.00 148.12 299,91 299.91 399,87 466.52 349.89 233,26 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116,63
6,00 296,16 599.65 599,65 799.53 932.79 699.59 466.39 233,20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20
8.00 473.87 959.47 959,47 1,279.29 1,492.50 1,119.38 746.25 373.13 373,13 373,13 373.13 373.13 37113 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13
10.00 681.26 1,379.38 1,379.38 1,839.17 2,145.70 1,609.28 1,072.85 536,43 536A3 536,43 536.43 536.43 536A3 536.43 536A3 536.43 536.43 536.43
Volume Rates
Block FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
1 $ 2,42 2,67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4.00 4.80 5.57 6,40 7,24 7.24 7.24 7.24 7.24 7.24 7.24 7.45 8.10
2 3.03 4,29 4.29 4.29 4.29 5.46 6,55 7.60 8,74 9,87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 10.17 11.06
3 4.19 5.93 5,93 5.93 5.93 6.55 7.86 9,11 10,48 11,84 11.84 11.84 11,84 11.84 11.84 11,84 1120 13,26
Sample Bill (Average User based on 7,000 gallons per month)
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 20t5 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
.75"meter $ 25.83 36.69 36.69 42.69 46.69 49.00 47,60 45,98 51,82 57.65 57.65 57,65 57.65 57.65 57.65 5765 59,17 63,73
%increase 42.0% 0.0% 16.4% 9.4% 4.9% -2.9% -3.41/6 12.7% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.01/. 2.61/o 7.7%
I" meter $ 31,78 48.74 48.74 58.75 65.43 63.06 56.97 50,66 56,51 62.33 62.33 62.33 62.33 62,33 62,33 62,33 63.85 68.42
%increase 53.4% 0.0% 20,6°/a 11.41/6 -3.60/6 47% -11.1% 11.5% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°/a 2.41/. 7.1%
Appendix E-4
12 Year Financial Water rate Model
Package 2 - LAH Phase 2 Delayed
60.00%
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
50.00%
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
40.00%
$35,000,000
$30,000,000 111111111111111ITier 1 Volume Rate % Increase
30.00%
—*—Annual Debt Payment
$25,000,000 --Appropriable Net Assets
—M—RCWF Reserve
$20,000,000
20.00%
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
10.00%
$5,000,000
0.00 %
'
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ 19,038,000
2014
$ 19,038,000
$ 65,711,000
$ 100,228,000
2015
2018
$ 67,682,330
$ 112,807,497
$ 5,723,000
2021
$ 7,038,568
$ 9,614,000
$ 5,723,000
2023
2031
$ 12,544,089
$ 104,328,000
2033
$ 18,439,000
2063
$ 18,439,000
2093
$ 83,511,000
2045
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Original O&M Cost
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
$ 133,000
2014
$ 133,000
$ 136,990
$ 141,100
$ 145,333
$ 149,693
$ 154,183
$ 158,809
$ 163,573
$ 168,480
$ 173,535
$ 554,000
2017
$ 605,371
$ 623,532
$ 642,238
$ 661,505
$ 681,350
$ 701,791
$ 722,844
$ 4,028,000
2020
$ 4,809,643
$ 4,953,932
$ 5,102,550
$ 5,255,626
$ 40,000
2023
$ 52,191
$ 68,000
2025
$ 40,000
2033
$ 958,000
2035
$ 344,000
2065
$ 344,000
2095
$ 4,165,000
2047
$
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 133,0001
$ 136,990
$ 141,100
$ 750,703
$ 773,225
$ 796,421
$ 5,629,957
$ 5,798,855
$ 5,972,821
$ 6,204,196
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Total Project Power
Consumption(KwH/year)
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
1,416,554
2014
$ 113,324
$
114,458
$ 115,602
$
116,758
$
117,926
$
119,105
$ 120,296
$
121,499
$ 122,714
$ 123,941
21,516,191
2017
$
1,773,452
$
1,791,187
$
1,809,099
$ 1,827,190
$
1,845,462
$ 1,863,916
$ 1,882,555
3,111,111
2020
$ 67,635
$
74,182
$ 80,853
$ 87,650
272,804
2023
$ 23,869
3,239,034
2025
272,804
2033
71,004,097
2035
8,985,068
2065
8,985,068
2095
1,544,444
2047
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 113,324
$
114,458
$ 115,602
$
1,890,210
1 $
1,909,113
1 $
1,928,2041
$ 2,015,1211
$
2,041,143
$ 2,067,483
1 $ 2,118,016
v-,
v.,-
,
I
Vim-,
I V-,.,
$ 19,038,000
2014
$ 19,038,000
$ 65,711,000
2015
$ 67,682,330
$ 100,228,000
2018
$ 112,807,497
$ 5,723,000
2021
$ 7,038,568
$ 9,614,000
2023
$ 12,544,089
$ 9,614,000
2053
$ 5,723,000
2061
$ 9,614,000
2083
$ 5,723,000
2101
$ 83,511,000
2045
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Original O&M Cost
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
$ 133,000
2014
$ 133,000
$ 136,990
$ 141,100
$ 145,333
$ 149,693
$ 154,183
$ 158,809
$ 163,573
$ 168,480
$ 173,535
$ 554,000
2017
$ 605,371
$ 623,532
$ 642,238
$ 661,505
$ 681,350
$ 701,791
$ 722,844
$ 4,028,000
2020
$ 4,809,643
$ 4,953,932
$ 5,102,550
$ 5,255,626
$ 40,000
2023
$ 52,191
$ 68,000
2025
$ 68,000
2055
$ 40,000
2063
$ 68,000
2085
$ 40,000
2103
$ 4,165,000
2047
$
$ -Is
-
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 133,000
$ 136,990
$ 141,100
$ 750,7031.
$ 773,2251
$ 796,421
$ 5,629,957
$ 5,798,855
$ 5,972,821
$ 6,204,196
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 1 2025
2026 F7777777
2047 1 2067
2068 1 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Total Project Power
Consumption(KwH/year)
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
1,416,554
2014
$ 113,324
$
114,458
$ 115,602
$
23,352
$ 23,585
$
23,821
$ 24,059
$
24,300
$
24,543
$
24,788
21,516,191
2017
$
1,773,452
$ 1,791,187
$
1,809,099
$ 1,827,190
$
1,845,462
$
1,863,916
$
1,882,555
3,111,111
2020
$ 67,635
$
74,182
$
80,853
$
87,650
272,804
2023
$
4,774
3,239,034
2025
3,239,034
2055
272,804
2063
3,239,034
2085
272,804
2103
1,544,444
2047
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
-
$
$
$ -
$
$ 113,3241
$
114,458
1 $ 115,602
v.,-,r,
$
1,796,8041
$ 1,814,772
I V-
1 $
1,832,920
1 $ 1,918,8841
v.
$
�a
1,943,944
1 $
1,969,312
$
1,999,768
R—
bnua.t Rawaa
Raemm Bom Ram.b
Recmae From Jmk S.le,
R— Fmm WWW S--
Ra Bom Dept Op —
Trams F—Ofl-Fmd.
T.W FOedig Smma
ENpmdMo e
Tow Sd d.
Taw BmefdN
Tow Sipplin
T-I M.idenmco
CRMWA D.1h yChwgw
El.a U01iry Chugs.
TOW PrOfa..W S—iaa/Tmikg
TOW Salwdied Chugs
Told OO-Chum.
Tow OOw Expmdiumr
Pry-A.Y—G. Rmd 4 a CIP
Exi"S De. Sercka
Lam b.— E—.W m Bud P—d.
Low: Bald Anaio Bad SobWy
ToW ExpwAi (OwyUMar Rewem.
NHAmmer Cda bd-
ToW Apprq. bN. Awm
Appendix E-5
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Packages
S 38,04E 12i300 - 117,663 201,094 308,755 443,930 649.610
150,012 150,907 150,000 I111,500 153.015 154,545 156.091 157.652
153.657 179.59E '0"00 30,000 30.000 50.000 50,000 50,000
72.759.ng 72=9.022 71307330 75,530,078 91,000,501 92,606.261 104,866,176 109.638,032
2.485.058 1,E0d,781 2370.550 2AI7,961 2A66320 2.515.647 2365,9W 2.6172n
4,654.712
3200.189
5.741.134
5,855.957
5.973,076
6.092,538
62143E8
6139,676
2.Is9,808
2.777A64
3.120.784
3301,475
3A97,607
3.710.671
3.942311
4,IWX4
020389
IA67367
1.823.797
1.860273
1.897,479
1.935,42E
1.974.137
2.013,619
2,842,909
2.444,534
2,952.901
1,111.91
3,072,19E
1.111.642
3.196315
3.260241
1312:866
4,885.692
5,740.990
3.835,81.
3.972.926
6.092385
6214.112
633ES17
2,118296
2.177,657
3.742.558
3.793.617
3,825,127
3,967.093
3,909S 19
3.952.410
1.01 s.940
994.-
9E9.060
I,OO8.PI
1,029.01E
IA49,5%
1.070.590
1.092.002
963.895
1,086,404
1.162.810
1.196.066
129.787
U13,98.i
1259,663
1283,SM
37.661
1702E3
22200
268.96E
274.5"
290261
2.665.944
2.706,84E
393276
454.936
405.IN)0
413.100
021.}62
429,789
438,385
447,133
9,E07,941
10.706.068
11,854,757
12 34LM
12.905.910
13.947.773
14,937.725
Is389,890
104,728
86.971
-
-
-
150.000
800,000
420.000
100.000
500,000
-
-
32391,445
37,96927E
39.702.132
39.733,593
393713E0
39.565,945
3%570,757
39378.464
(246,406)
(113.595)
(93,796)
(122353)
(310202)
(29V53)
(264,618)
(639.443
(2.441327)
•
(13.AM
-
(1,397.060)
(1S93.060)
-
(1395,060)
]M]SEfi
(1,595.060)
d917]1A
(1,595.060)
6d3].%SR
(1.553.801
t]N]31t9
R—A. y b Do—ba D—w . .
D—bu
Deeemb.
Daeemb.
D-9-
Dooambm
DOdombor D—bar Dammbor Douaabu Dmambu Dmambm D.—b. D—b.,
Bow Rra t 24.00 28,00
14.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
�'"U"C"TdO�QbSeiF
''Sl
Ta1 O.OM
49AI
30.O.
5.4
0
12.505O
i' V"".�k
225% A ay`
g"0tl I
"'2k.}4` �"QQy
Tm 2 .
-
O
.O
.
.•
2030.
2E"50"✓. O(Iy✓f' r)
TI4r3 0.003c o.oa.
1o.aa•.
30.00•.
u.ao•.
1250n
12.50'.
22N. ,.,�rg
Th. propowd mWnrvcmmkwnwdin"mDUitobjmtwbmpdopmWimgmmwyvublm Sarno aftb mbk euy vwbde: waver vdumor, osoAn rua, mmmioadBY
pica. eBuiae ww.. rho olwrwmd'eep.ct ofeow fidhrie., and ehmgm n 0w mia a priority Ma.piW pmjocl..
Appendix E-5
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Packages 3 and 4
Base Charees
Meter Size FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
0.75 $ 8.89 18,00 18.00 24.00 28.00 21.00 14.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7,00 7.00 7A0 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
L00 14.84 30.05 30.05 40.06 46,74 35.06 23.37 11.69 11.69 11.69 11,69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69
1.50 29.59 59.91 59.91 79.88 93.20 69.90 46.60 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23,30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23,30 23.30 23.30
2.00 47.56 96.30 96.30 128.40 149.80 112.35 74.90 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37,45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45
3.00 94.81 191.97 191,97 255.96 298.61 223.96 149,31 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74,65 74.65 74.65 74.65
4.00 148.12 299.91 299.91 399.87 466,52 349.89 233.26 116.63 116.63 116.63 116,63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116,63 116.63
6.00 296, 16 599.65 599.65 799,53 932,79 699.59 466.39 233.20 233.20 233.20 233,20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20
8.00 473.87 959.47 959.47 1,279.29 1,492,50 1,119.38 746.25 373,13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13
10,00 681.26 1,379.38 1,379,38 1,839.17 2,145.70 1,609.28 1,072.85 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43
Volume Rates
Block FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
1 $ 2.42 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4.00 5.20 6.50 7.64 8.59 8.79 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92 8.92
2 3.03 4,29 4.29 4.29 4.29 5.46 7.09 8.87 10,42 11.72 11.99 12,17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 1117 12.17
3 4.19 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 6.55 8.51 10.64 12,50 14.06 14.38 14.59 14.59 14.59 14,59 14.59 14.59 14.59
Sample Bill (Averaee User based on 7,000 gallons per month)
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
.75" meter $ 25.83 36.69 36.69 42.69 46.69 49.00 50,40 52.50 60.46 67.15 68.50 69.42 69.42 69.42 69.42 69.42 69.42 69.42
%increase 42.0% 0.0% 16A% 9.4% 4.9% 2.9% 4.2% 15.2% 11.1% 2.00/. 1.3% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.01/. 0,0% 0.0%
V meter $ 31.78 48.74 49.74 58.75 65.43 63.06 59.77 57.19 65.15 71.83 73.18 74,11 74.11 74.11 74.11 74,11 74.11 74.11
%increase 53.41% 0.0% 20.6% 11.4% -3.6% -5.2% -4.3% 13.9% 10.3% 1.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Appendix E-5
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Packages 3 & 4
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$65,000,000
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000 Tier 1 Volume Rate % Increase
--fie—Annual Debt Payment
$30,000,000 —4—Appropriable Net Assets
--E—Package 3 Reserve
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$ 19,038,000
2014
$ 19,038,000
$ 65,711,000
2015
$ 67,682,330
$ 100,228,000
2018
$ 112,807,497
$ 5,723,000
2021
$ 7,038,568
$ 104,328,000
2023
$ 136,124,377
$ 125,493,000
2053
$ 18,439,000
2053
$ 88,328,000
2077
$ 18,439,000
2083
$ 58,225,000
2096
$ 83,511,000
2045
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Original O&M Cost
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
$ 133,000
2014
$ 133,000
$ 136,990
$ 141,100
$ 145,333
$ 149,693
$ 154,183
$ 158,809
$ 163,573
$ 168,480
$ 173,535
$ 554,000
2017
$ 605,371
$ 623,532
$ 642,238
$ 661,505
$ 681,350
$ 701,791
$ 722,844
$ 4,028,000
2020
$ 4,809,643
$ 4,953,932
$ 5,102,550
$ 5,255,626
$ 40,000
2023
$ 52,191
$ 958,000
2025
$ 2,350,000
2055
$ 344,000
2055
$ 2,202,000
2079
$ 344,000
2085
$ 1,889,000
2098
$ 4,165,000
2047
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ 133,000
$ 136,990
$ 141,1001
$ 750,703
$ 773,225
$ 796,421
$ 5,629,957
$ 5,798,855
$ 5,972,821
$ 6,204,196
Years
Years
Years
Years
2014 2025
2026 2046
2047 2067
2068 2113
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Total Project Power
Consumption(KwH/year)
Year Operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
1,416,554
2014
$ 113,324
$ 114,458
$ 115,602
$ 116,758
$ 117,926
$ 119,105
$ 120,296
$ 121,499
$ 122,714
$ 123,941
21,516,191
2017
$ 1,773,452
$ 1,791,187
$ 1,809,099
$ 1,827,190
$ 1,845,462
$ 1,863,916
$ 1,882,555
3,111,111
2020
$ 67,635
$ 74,182
$ 80,853
$ 87,650
272,804
2023
1
$ 23,869
71,004,097
2025
26,373,064
2055
8,985,068
2055
4,133,147
2079
8,985,068
2085
4,108,890
2098
1,544,444
2047
$
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ 113,324
$ 114,458
$ 115,602
$ 1,890,210
$ 1,909,113
$ 1,928,204
$ 2,015,1211
$ 2,041,1431
$ 2,067,483
$ 2,118,016
V--I.-
V-,
I V-,,,
I V-
1
Appendix E-6
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 5 - Accelerated Growth
Revesm
b8 ReKam.
f 59.00
123300
117,665
201.094
291.535
375.001
493.798
Rm fma RmWa
150,012
150,907
I50,000
I51,300
153.015
154,545
156.091
157,652
R.vaw. Fron Jmk SW.
I53.657
179,598
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50.0N
50.000
Rcrmao From Mabaal S-icm
72,759,8N
72229=
71307 350
75,550,078
78357.846
87.733.205
99,004,866
106.032.915
Re fmm Dept Opuaecm
2.485,058
1.804.791
L370„550
2.417.961
2,466320
2.515.647
1565,960
2,617279
Tmdan Fmm Olbw Fmda
129,02'
129387
130,701
130.604
131,4.
131.994
133,371
133=9
Toll Fudi%Smmm
11335.688
74,616.994
74,008,601
78,417,808
81359.711
W,876,926
102285289
INA84,872
R:rmml�m4�,
Told Sdarim
4,654.712
5200.189
5.741.134
5,855,957
5.973,076
6,N2.538
6214388
6338,676
T- Bud.
2, 159,WS
2.777.464
3,120.784
3301,475
3,497,607
3.710.673
3.942.311
4,194324
T.W Snpplk.
1,520"
IA67367
1.8M,797
1.960.273
107,479
1,935A28
1.974,137
2,013,619
Taal Maeamanw
2,942,9N
2,444.S..0
2.952.901
3.011.959
3,072.198
3.133,642
3,196315
3,2W,241
CRMWA Ddivay Chugs
5312,866
4.885.692
5.740,990
5.155.810
5,972,926
6.092.395
6214232
6339,517
Ek.rie Utility Ch.,Sm
2,1182m
2.177.657
3.742,558
3.793.617
3,825,127
3.867,N3
3.9N,519
3,952A10
ToW Profuodmd S-i-/Tm"%
1.015.940
994.894
989.060
1,008,841
1,029.018
LN9,598
1.070,590
I.092.002
T-J Sdcdukd Chg.
963,985
L0N.404
1.162,810
1.196.066
1209.797
1233.98.3
1258,66.3
1283,936
ToWOOWCbugm
37.661
170"3
22200
268,968
274.544
MAI
2.664,944
2.706.948
Told T-f.a 9.807,941 10.706.068 11.854,757 12341.7.16 12.759351 13,554 356 14.481.910 15.164229
T.W 016m EVwd- 104,72, 96,871 - - - - -
P.y-A.Y-0. Fmdn k CIP I50.000 800.000 420.000 500,000 500.000 - - -
Ex4USD.NSaci. 32391,445 37,969278 39,702,132 39,733383 39,571380 39.565.W5 39.570.757 39379.464
Ices I.-E.-Wm Bad Pmmed. (246.406) (113,595) (93.796) (122353) (310202) (291.753) (264.618) (825.W)
Leoe Bald Aaaim Bad Subsidy (2.441327) (13K635) (1,595,060) (1.595.060) (I.595,060) (1.595,060) (1.595,060) (1,553.901)
To I E".di
ToW Ex m&i (Owylhder Rataeav
N.tA cwcvbd"
ToW App offwbk Na Av
Rate A-4,6 O.o.m Daumbm Doo-ba Dmmaba. D.-b. D-b. Dw-b.r Deoembu Ddm ba Dn mb De b D bm Dooembm D bm D-mb9
&m Ralo g 24.00 2EN 21A0 14.00 7.00 7,00 7,00 700 )Li"''j ,j( 1& f20"'� �C IS'ml fg 5r t w.4 R t a454 .l'�^41 ,'kl ad? 3)�t Qtl
Tis I 0.00 % 000% 49.34% X00% 20.00% 15.OD% 12.Sa/. 5lOv
T 2 O,WX 0,005G 2734% i0.00% 20.00•R IS.00X 12.50•e
Tim3 0.00'A 0.00% IOA6% 30.00% 20,00.E 15.00 % 12.50'1G swul^-.,ti
The pmpo.od t.1e tBWava n.orpon4.dm ihu nmddv sbjoct b duagedapmdNg m mr•Y n4iaNm, Sam of thmo vui.blm may iwMtdc: wbr vo6vam, mitop ntm. commodity
pdws mIW lan nta., tbv op.triaW imp.m ofn.w hdkdm. and chu�gmr Uu aM m priaHyof mpitd pmjow.
Appendix E-6
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 5 - Accelerated Growth
Base Charees
Meter Size FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
0.75 $ 8.89 18.00 18.00 24,00 28.00 21.00 14.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7,00 7.00 7.00 7.00
1.00 14.84 30.05 30.05 40.06 46.74 35.06 23.37 11.69 11.69 11,69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11.69 11,69 11.69
1,50 29.59 59,91 59.91 79,88 93.20 69.90 46,60 23.30 23,30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 2130 23.30 2330 23.30
2.00 47.56 96.30 96.30 128.40 149.80 112.35 74.90 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 37.45 3745 37.45
3.00 94.81 191.97 191.97 255.96 298.61 223.96 149.31 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74,65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65 74.65
4.00 148.12 299.91 299.91 399.87 466.52 349,89 233.26 116.63 11&63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116.63 116,63 116.63 116.63 116.63
6.00 296.16 599.65 599.65 799,53 932.79 699.59 466.39 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20 233.20
8.00 473.87 959A7 959.47 1,279,29 1,492.50 1,119.38 746,25 373.13 373,13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13 373.13
10.00 681.26 1,379.38 1,379.38 1,839.17 2,145.70 1,609,28 1,072.85 536.43 536,43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43 536.43
Volume Rates
Block FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
1 $ 2.42 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 4.00 5.20 6.24 7.18 8.07 8.52 8.94 9.39 9.67 9.96 9.96 10.06 10,16
2 3.03 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 5.46 7,09 8.51 9.79 11.01 11.62 12.20 12.81 13.19 13.59 13.59 13,73 13.86
3 4.19 5.93 5.93 5.93 5.93 6.55 8.51 10.21 11.74 13.21 13.94 14.64 15.37 15.83 16.30 16.30 16,47 16.63
Sample Bill (Average User based on 7,000 gallons per month)
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
.75" meter $ 25.83 36.69 36,69 42.69 46.69 49.00 50.40 50.68 57.23 63.51 66.62 69.60 72,73 74.70 76.73 76.73 77.43 78.13
%increase 42.0% 0,0% 16.41/6 9.4% 4.9% 2.9% 0.6% 12.9% 11.0% 4.9% 4,5% 4.5% 2.70/o 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9%
* meter $ 31.78 48.74 48.74 58.75 65,43 63.06 59.77 55.37 61.92 68.20 71,30 74.29 77.42 79,39 81.42 81.42 8112 82.82
%increase 53.4% 00% 20.6% 11,4% -3.6% -5.2% -7.4% 11.8% 10.1% 4.6% 4.2% 4.2% 2.5% 2.6% 0.0% 0,91% 0.9%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Appendix E-6
12 Year Financial Water Rate Model
Package 5 - Accelerated Growth
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$70,000,000
$65,000,000
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
Tier 1 Volume Rate % Increase
$35,000,000 ..,_Annual Debt Payment
$30,000,000 --4--Appropriable Net Assets
- 0—Package 5 Reserve
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10, 000,000
$5,000,000