Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2007-R0320 - Adopt Strategic Water Supply Plan - 07/26/2007Resolution No. 2007-RO320 July 26, 2007 Item No. 6.13 RESOLUTION 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: THAT the Strategic Water Supply Plan contains component plans and Ordinances, including without limitation, the Water Conservation Plan, the Drought Contingency Plan, the Region O Water Plan and Water and Sewer Rate Ordinances (collectively, the "Component Parts"), and any amendment of such Component Parts shall likewise be deemed to be an amendment of the Strategic Water Supply Plan without further action by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Passed by the City Council this 26th day of July 2007. DAVID A.MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: Reb cca Garza, City Secretary TO CONTENT: Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard K. Casner First Assistant City Attorney ml/ccdocs/Strategic Water Supply Plan-res July 17, 2007 Resolution No. 2007-RO320 Water Utilities Strategic Water Supply Plan City of Lubbock July 26, 2007 Water Utilities July 16, 2007 Dear Mayor, City Council and Lubbock Water Advisory Commission: With this cover letter I submit to you the Strategic Water Supply Plan for the City of Lubbock. The City of Lubbock has a goal to develop and approve a strategic water supply plan for the next 100 years. This goal is essential in order to ensure that the City has a sufficient supply of water. The plan represents over three years of work by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission, by professional engineers, and by City staff. As you consider the planning documents, please recognize first that Lubbock has had sufficient professional planning in the past to project future needs, and the City now needs to take full advantage of the information contained in those reports to prepare for the future. Today the City has enough water to meet current needs; however, additional supplies are necessary because we are at capacity. Pushing existing supplies to meet the growing need for water will jeopardize the future of essential groundwater supplies. The purpose of planning is to ensure that additional water supplies are available before the need arises. The purpose of water supply planning is to make the best use of available water supply resources now while developing of the most cost effective and reasonable water supply alternatives for the future. Your comments, questions and suggestions will be most helpful as the plan continues to progress and focus on the necessary steps to ensure that the City's water supply is sufficient to ensure Lubbock's future. To assist with that effort, city staff developed in June of 2005 a Water Supply Plan and Report. This report indicated that Lubbock may need a new water supply by 2012 rather than 2050. Following the completion of that Plan, a Water Planning Statement was drafted and approved by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission in September 2005 and by the City Council in October of 2005. Following the adoption of the Water Planning Statement in 2005, city staff worked with the Region O Water Planning Group to have the projects outlined in the City's Plan included in the Region 0 and State water plans. Within six months of the adoption of the Water Planning Statement, the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission recommended that the Preliminary Engineering for Lake Alan Henry begin. The contract for these services was approved by the City Council with Parkhill, Smith and Cooper on August 24, 2006. Lake Alan Henry infrastructure includes the following: about 65 miles of raw water transmission lines, two to three pump stations, a water treatment facility, and water distribution system improvement to connect to and distribute the new water source. The Water Commission and City Council expressed concern that the Lake Alan Henry Project move forward so that it could be completed by 2012 if necessary. The Statement has been updated and serves as the core policy statement in the Strategic Water Supply Plan. The Strategic Water Planning Statement will not only help define the City's goals for a 100 year water supply, it will also serve as a guide for engineering services, water permit applications, and for project development and construction. The Strategic Water Supply Plan includes many water supply planning materials. As mentioned before, the "Strategic Water Planning Statement" which sets the direction for all related goals, objectives, programs, activities and efforts, is at the front of this document. A water supply planning model has been developed and is included for your consideration. The model takes into account a number of important assumptions in order to project water supply needs. Selections of past water supply plans have been included to show a history of water planning. Details on various water supply projects and related issues have also been included. The Lubbock Water Advisory Commission recommended that water supplies from Lake Alan Henry need to be supplemented to help justify the expense of the infrastructure. Developed water that comes from the City's storm system and the higher quality reclaimed water, can be used as a source to supplement Lake Alan Henry. One of the next major steps in the planning process will be to select the option or options to supplement Lake Alan Henry. The Strategic Water Planning Statement identifies and begins the process of evaluating these options, and more detailed information on each option is included in this plan binder. The options include the following: 1. Post Reservoir — capture and store developed water in the North Fork for use. 2. Canyon Lake #7 - capture and store developed water in the North Fork for use. 3. Pipeline for South Fork Discharge — pump only reclaimed water to a tributary of the South Fork so it can be captured and stored for use in Lake Alan Henry. 4. Scalping Operation on the North Fork — capture some portion of developed water from the North Fork and pump it to Lake Alan Henry for storage. Since some projects could take 20 plus years to develop, preliminary efforts need to begin in the near future on the option or options selected. Some due diligence steps may be in order to move the options forward since this supplement may be needed within the next 20 to 30 years. As an example, a Letter of Intent has been recommended as the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission to negotiate with the White River Municipal , � Water District for the Post Reservoir Permit. The City commits to complete due diligence steps while negotiating with the District. Long term alternatives are also identified. Planning for CRMWA is now underway and that may result in a CMRWA II project for member cities. Test projects involving the Dockum Aquifer are under consideration to treat brackish water for reuse. The planning process needs to continue to explore new alternatives in order to ensure Lubbock has water for the current and future needs of a growing city. I would like to thank the City Council for their support of the water planning effort. Your commitment to this process has helped move the City's water supply plans ahead. I especially express my thanks to the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission. They have worked diligently and tirelessly now for a number of years to see that Lubbock has and is moving forward with a water supply plan. I also appreciate the water staff that has assisted with the gathering and preparation of these materials. x Sincerely, Thomas L. Adams Deputy City Manager mow; 0 Office of Water Utilities Strategic Water Supply Plan 2007 May 1, 2007 1. Table of Contents 2. Strategic Water Plan a. Strategic Water Planning Statement b. Council Presentation 3. Water Supply Models for next 100 Years a. 2007 Water Supply Model b. 2005 Base for Population Projections c. 2005 Base for Per Capita Use d. 2005 Base for Peak Day Use 4. Other Water Supply Models/Studies a. 2006 Region O Water Plan b. 2004 Water Texas Study c. 2001 Black and Veatch Study d. 2001 Region O Water Plan e. 1992 Groundwater Management Study f. 1975 Plan for Additional Water Supply g. 1971 Report on Water Supply h. 1968 Interim Report on Water Supply 5. Water Conservation/Drought Contingency Plan 6. Water Conservation Rates a. Water Rates (code) b. Sewer Rates (code) c. 2007 Cost of Service Report 7. Existing Supply — Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) 0 a. CRMWA History No Text b. System Delivery Capacity (plus Bailey County Well Field) �,. c. 2007 Water Allocation d. Water Right Purchases & Well Field Development e. Salt Cedar Eradication Program 8. Existing Supply — City Groundwater - Bailey County Well Field (BCWF) a. 2007 Groundwater Utilization Study b. Shallowater Well Field c. 2006 City Groundwater Treatment Study (Pump Station #10) 9. Existing Supply — Local Groundwater for Park Irrigation 10. Lubbock's Next Water Supply — Lake Alan Henry (Montford Dam) a. 2006-07 Preliminary Engineering for Infrastructure b. 1978 Feasibility Study on the Justiceburg Reservoir c. State water permit d. Yield information e. 2005 Volumetric study f. 2005 Dam inspection 11. Future Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — Post Reservoir Option a. Letter of Intent b. Permit for Post Reservoir c. Post Reservoir Legislation d. Region O Water Plan for Post Reservoir e. 1968 Original Feasibility Study f. 1989 Water Quality Study g. Yield Modeling Reports h. Draft BRA Subrogation Agreement and Draft Impact Model Report 12. Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — South Fork Tributary Option 13. Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — Scalping Operation Option a. Region O Water Plan for Scalping Operation 14. Long Term Peak Day Demand — Canyon Lake #7 a. Map b. Region O Water Plan for Lake #7 c. Feasibility Report on the Canyon Lakes Project 15. Long Term Supply — CRMWA II a. System Map 16. Long Term Supply — Dockum/Santa Rosa Aquifer (brackish water) a. Feasibility Study — Texas Water Development Board No Text 17. Water Reclamation Plans } a. Status Report, Presentation and Maps 18. Reclaimed Water Discharge Plan a. Map of existing land application and discharge pipelines. b. Map of proposed discharge pipelines. c. Map of Canyon Lake discharge system. d. Presentation and report on modeling results for discharge of reclaimed water (pending SEW" Improvements Engineering). 19. Water Right Permit Applications a. Proposed Amendment for Water Use Permit No. 3985 (Application No. 4340) b. Water Rights Application for WRPERM 5921 c. Proposed Amendment to Certificate of Adjudication No. 12-3705 20. Summary of Project Cost Estimates and Project Timing a. Lake Alan Henry b. Post Reservoir Option c. South Fork Option d. Scalping Project Option e. Lake #7 £ CRMWA II g. Water Reclamation 21. Regional Water Planning Efforts (pending as part of the Lake Alan Henry Preliminary Engineering) No Text �J Lubbock Water Utilities June 15, 2007 Strategic Water Planning Statement A Water Planning Statement was first recommended by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission (LWAC) and approved by the City Council in the fall of 2005. An update and name change to the "Strategic Water Planning Statement" was recommended by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission and approved by the City Council in the spring of 2007. The Lubbock Water Advisory Commission recommends that this statement be included, as updated from time to time, as part of the City of Lubbock Strategic Water Supply Plan. This statement serves as a guide for the development of water supply plans .......... for the City of Lubbock and for area and regional water supply planning efforts. A. Introduction Water supplies will be developed and infrastructure constructed in order to insure and provide 100 years of water supply for the Citizens of Lubbock. Lubbock should strive to acquire and develop sustainable water sources that can be achieved in the shortest time frame and in the most cost efficient manner. As additional engineering and financial information is available, this water planning statement will be amended to reflect project feasibility and priorities. Water supply planning considers a number of significant factors, issues, assumptions and projections including: (1) population growth, (2) conservation efforts, (3) per capita water use, (4) total annual water use, (5) peak day use, and (6) water supply alternatives. The City must have sufficient water supplies developed in advance to provide enough water for both the total annual supply and for the peak day demand. Planning efforts will address both the annual use and peak day use for the City of Lubbock. Population growth is a major water supply planning factor. The City will consider low, medium (or most likely), and high population growth scenarios in its water supply planning efforts enable planning efforts to adapt to actual changes in population. Water conservation is also a significant part of water supply planning. Steps to encourage greater conservation have and will continue to be taken. Decreases in water use that result from conservation will be documented and then included as part of the plan to project future water supply needs. In the City's Water Conservation Plan, goals have been established to use water more efficiently and to reduce per capita use. Water planning takes time. Major water infrastructure like pipelines can take 6 to 10 years to plan, design, permit and construct. Reservoir or lake projects can take 20 to 30 years for the same process, in part, due to the length of time required for both state water right permits and federal permits for construction. For this reason, water planning must be completed well in advance of the project in order to ensure the project is completed on time. B. Immediate Plan (current projects) Water Conservation must play a significant role in the City's long term water supply plan. The Water Conservation Plan (Water Use Management Plan) was revised at the direction of the LWAC in order to be more customer -friendly, and the City Council approved the Plan by ordinance on July 10, 2006. A block rate structure, referred to as the Average Winter Consumption Plan (AWC), was recommended by the LWAC and then adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2007 to encourage greater water conservation. Educational efforts must continue to teach and encourage all customers to conserve water. Conservation is a cost-effective alternative that can extend the useful life of existing water supplies and infrastructure. The City's Water Conservation Plan has established a goal to reduce total per capita water use by 15% by the year 2020 and this goal follows the 2004 recommendations of the Texas Water Development Board's Water Conservation Implementation Task Force. The use of local groundwater is being developed for park irrigation and this augments the City's total water supply as well as decreases peak daily demand. Using groundwater for irrigation of parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other facilities is recommended as a cost-effective water supply alternative. A total of 17% of 79 City Park and open space locations will be converted over to groundwater with the completion of Phase I and II in 2007. Subsequent phases will follow until the project is complete with phase three beginning in the 2007-08 fiscal year. Where feasible, all park and open space facilities will be converted over to groundwater for irrigation. The Bailey County well field infrastructure and transmission line will be maintained to provide a reliable annual and peaking source of water. The amount of water drawn each year will target about 10,000 acre feet or less in order to extend the useful life of the well field to 2050. The City recognizes that pumping the well field at a higher rate will lessen the life of the well field and could damage the underground water bearing formations and well infrastructure. 2 C. Short Term Plan (six months to five years) { Short Term Proiects The City will take the steps necessary to secure rights and permits for the transportation and use of developed waters that may be discharged into the North Fork and/or the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. This will include reclaimed wastewater, storm water and groundwater sources. As necessary, agreements will be pursued with the Brazos River Authority and other water right holders in order to secure future water supply alternatives. Improvements to the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) will be completed to treat the water to a level that the City can meet current and future stream discharge standards, including nutrient removal, in an effort to improve the quality of the water for reuse and to eliminate environmental concerns. Phase I will complete the upgrade for Plant #4 and will also complete some basic improvements to Plant #3 with construction to begin in the 2007-2008 fiscal year. These improvements enable Plant #4 to provide up to 18 mgd of capacity with stream discharge and nutrient removal capability, and will allow Plant #3 to meet stream discharge quality most of the time. Phase II is proposed in 2010 for the solids handling equipment. Phase III is proposed in the year 2012 to complete the upgrade of Plant #3 to the nutrient removal level, with a capacity for 13 mgd. ' The reclaimed water will be reused or recycled for municipal, industrial (power plant), agricultural, commercial and other beneficial purposes. Contracts and agreements for reuse will have a term that is compatible with the City's long term water supply needs. The City will complete engineering efforts on water quantity and quality to determine the best locations to discharge, store and reuse the reclaimed water. The City now discharges into the North Fork, and alternative locations in the North Fork and South Fork will be evaluated and considered. The long term practice to dispose of treated wastewater effluent by irrigation is no longer a goal for the City. Wastewater effluent is a valuable resource, and as the level of wastewater treatment rises, the effluent may be developed into a future water supply source. The City will develop a plan for transitioning from the alternative of disposing of wastewater effluent at land application sites to the alternative of reuse or recycling wastewater effluent for use as a water supply source. During this transition period, the land application sites will continue to be managed in a manner that minimizes environmental issues. The costs of land application to the City will be reduced as part of this plan. The City of Lubbock has and will continue to participate in the water supply projects of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). CRMWA has been an important source of water for Lubbock for over 50 years. CRMWA has depended on Lake Meredith to provide water for Lubbock and other member cities during that 50 year 3 period. In 2002, CRMWA completed the first Roberts County well field improvements to offset the serious impact of drought and other factors on water supplies from Lake Meredith. Between 2005 and 2006, Lubbock participated with CRMWA as the Authority issued about $100 million for the purchase of groundwater rights and for the development of well field infrastructure. With well field construction scheduled for completion in 2009, and with holdings of over 300,000 acres of water rights, CRMWA will be able to ensure delivery of 26,000 acre-feet of water to Lubbock annually from groundwater sources for the next 100 years or more. The remaining deliveries will depend upon the availability of water from Lake Meredith. Short Term Planning Water supply planning is essential in order to make final decisions on the sequence for developing water supply alternatives. The costs and benefits associated with each alternative need to be documented and evaluated. Three major projects need to be included in the planning process: (1) South Fork Projects - Lake Alan Henry, (2) North Fork Projects — Lake #7, Post Reservoir and Scalping Project and (3) CRMWA Projects — Second Well Field and Pipeline System. It is recommended that funding be approved for the study of these three major alternatives in order to make meaningful and timely decisions regarding project priority, timing and completion. Lake Alan Henry on the South Fork is recommended as the next major water supply for the City of Lubbock. The Montford Dam was completed in 1993 and Lake Alan Henry began storing water. Infrastructure, including a raw water transmission line, pump stations and power sources, and a water treatment plant are necessary to bring this supply of water on line. Preliminary engineering on this project began in August of 2006 so that the project can be completed by 2012 if necessary. The Lake Alan Henry infrastructure project could cost more than $200 million. The Water Commission has recommended that water supplies from Lake Alan Henry need to be supplemented from some other source. The annual firm yield for Lake Alan Henry was projected to be 32,000 acre-feet in 1971. In 2007 the annual safe yield was modeled to be 19,500 acre-feet after a volumetric study by the Texas Water Development Board reduced the calculated storage capacity of the lake down by 18%. One approach to supplement Lake Alan Henry would be to construct a water transmission line to carry recycled water to the closest South Fork tributary. This alternative would require about 30 miles of pipeline if existing infrastructure was approved for transportation, and about 50 miles of pipeline if a new line is required. Another approach to supplement Lake Alan Henry would be to develop facilities on the North Fork. Since Lake Alan Henry captures water from the South Fork, having one or more reservoirs on the North Fork would help capture water in that tributary of the Brazos River. The necessary facilities to capture and store water on the North Fork might f 4 include reservoirs and/or a scalping operation. A North Fork project would require and ;J provide an opportunity for significant regional cooperation. The Post Reservoir on the North Fork is one logical alternative that has the benefit of already having a state water permit. Canyon bake #7 on the North Fork is a logical alternative for storage since its proposed location is just southeast of the City. Having a storage facility close to Lubbock could help the City meet peak day demands if the Bailey County Well Field ceases to be a viable alternative. Lake 47, as a storage facility, could be filled by natural flows and/or by water from other sources. The City has a contract to model the flows and water availability for the alternatives under consideration that should be completed in 2007. These facilities could capture and store for use permitted flows, developed storm flows, developed reclaimed wastewater flows, developed groundwater flows, and any other potential flows that might be available, while maintaining environmental flows in the stream. Infrastructure for Lake Alan Henry and a Post Reservoir may be developed in phases and should be designed so that development and cost reflect water supply needs. The pump stations and water treatment facility can be developed with a modular design. The water transmission line may also be constructed in phases. The Post Reservoir project could be necessary within the next 25 years, and could cost about $60 million to construct. The Lake Alan Henry water transmission line will pass directly by the Post Reservoir site, and can draw water from both sources. Lake 47 may �.v be necessary for peaking purposes within the next 50 years. The City will evaluate the costs, benefits and feasibility of developing both North Fork and South Fork alternatives. Issues such as permitting, land and mineral rights, environmental and archeological considerations, capital and operational costs, water yield, etc., will be considered to determine the feasibility and desirability of the projects. Planning for CRMWA member cities is recommended. CRMWA should complete their long term water supply plan in the summer of 2007. This plan will identify the needs of member cities and identify the timing for future projects. The CRMWA plan should be developed in cooperation with other member cities. The CRMWA II project may be recommended as part of this planning process. CRMWA II involves the construction of a second water transmission line, the purchase of additional groundwater rights that would be dedicated to a CRMWA II project, and the development of well field infrastructure. The line would extend from an area in or near Roberts County to the City of Lubbock and would benefit Lubbock and other CRMWA member cities. CRMWA II would be beneficial for annual supplies and peak day needs, and it would be especially beneficial during times of drought. The project might be developed in phases, with a first phase from Roberts County to Amarillo, and a second phase from Amarillo to Lubbock. 5 Phase one may help maximize the use of the existing CRMWA transmission line capacity from Amarillo to Lubbock by providing a full allotment through additional well water when Lake Meredith is low due to drought. A second phase might take the line to Plainview. A third phase would complete the line to Lubbock. This project may be necessary within the next 50 to 60 years and could cost Lubbock between $400 and $600 million for groundwater rights, well field infrastructure, and water transmission line. Initial planning and pilot projects for brackish ground water are recommended. Brackish water may be able to supplement existing sources and make use of existing infrastructure. Use of wind energy may help defray the costs of pumping and desalinization. D. Long Term Plan (5-100 years) The development and construction of Lake Alan Henry infrastructure, North Fork reservoirs or scalping operation, and the CRMWA II project are recommended to meet long term water supply needs. Construction should take place only when the necessary trigger points are met, based upon population growth, the impact of conservation efforts, and actual water use. A critical path will be developed to ensure adequate time for construction. Lake Alan Henry infrastructure is now targeted for 2012. The Post Reservoir may be necessary by about 2030, and CRMWA II by about 2050. The City of Lubbock will support CRMWA in its efforts to study recharge in the Roberts County area and to have an ongoing groundwater right purchase plan in order to replace water being used. This system will enable the cities that use this groundwater to help pay to replenish that water supply. E. Summary Conservation and the identified major water supply alternatives can provide water for the City of Lubbock for the next 100 years and beyond. Based upon moderate and aggressive population growth projections, Lubbock could serve a population of between 300,000 and 5009000 within the next 100 years. Successful conservation efforts can defer the need for the major water supply projects by as much as 20 years. A slower population growth rate will also significantly defer the need for major water supply projects. A detailed analysis of major water supply alternatives is necessary in the short term to identify the costs and benefits of each alternative and to make a recommendation on the order of implementation. City staff, working closely with the Water Commission and the g' _._-) City Council, will update a water supply plan annually in order to more accurately project the timing for additional water supply projects. Engineering information and funding availability may change the sequence and priority of projects. Funding for water planning should be carefully planned and included in the annual budget. The City should develop and provide the Citizens of Lubbock with information on water supply plans, alternatives, issues, supply alternatives, and project costs. 7 No Text (7 to wow 000 Strategic Water Plan Presentation Joint Meeting of City Council and Lubbock Water Advisory Commission City of Lubbock April 12, 2007 Source of Lubbock's Water - CRMWA • The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA), has been Lubbock's primary water source for over 50 years. • Lake Meredith has been CRMWA's primary source of water for over 50 years. • Drought, brush and New Mexico dams on the Canadian River have dropped water in the reservoir to about 7% of capacity. • Lake Meredith's yield has dropped from 103,000 AF annually down to??? Maybe by half or more. • CRMWA developed the 40,000 acre Williams (Roberts County) Well Field to offset the lake's loss of water supply. • CRMWA now owns over 300,000 acres of water rights in Roberts and several adjacent counties. • Pipeline capacity limit delivery from the well field. Once fully developed in a few years, Lubbock's well field allocation will be about 26,000 acre feet annually. • With the 300,000 acres of water rights, and with allocations being limited by the current pipeline capacity, the groundwater will last CRMWA member cities over 100 years. 2 Source of Lubbock's Water - Bailey County Well Field • The Bailey County Well Field (BCWF) has provided water for Lubbock for over 50 years. The City has about 82,000 acres of groundwater in the BCW1=. • The projected life is 40 years if it is pumped at not more than 10,000 acre feet annually, and if additional wells are added as the water level continues to drop. • Bailey County provides 25% of the annual supply and 50% of the peak day demand. This supply may only last another 40 years or less. • The City is now working on several projects to keepp this source operational, includin additional wells electricals stem Y improvements, and water transmission line testing. 3 Source of Water Supply - Park Well Water • The city is developing well water for park irrigation. • The wells will help both annual supply and peak day issues. • Larger parks with strong ground water are being developed first. • Phase I & II for 18 parks will be complete in 2007. Phase III will be proposed for 2008. 0 I 60 40 20 0 Annual Supply 1992 Rec 2007 Rec 1992 Rec ■ 2006 Act ■ 2007 Rec ■ 2006 Act • Lubbock currently uses over 40,000 AF annually, or 14 billion gallons. 2006 use was almost 43,000 AF. • Based upon the actual CRMWA allocation for 2007 of 31,499 acre-feet, and the 1992 Groundwater Management Study to use 3,400 acre feet from the BCWF, Lubbock has an annual capacity of 34,899 acre-feet. • Based upon the actual CRMWA allocation for 2007 and the 2007 Groundwater Availability Study recommendations to not use more than 101000 AF annually in order for the well field to last another 50 years, the City has an annual capacity of 41,499 acre feet, which is still short of actual use in 2006. • BCWF is now used as the buffer, which could shorten the life of the well field. • Lubbock is behind in capacity planning based upon both the 1992 Study and the 2006 study with CRMWA allocations now being low due to small amounts of water in Lake Meredith. 5 100 50 �c Peak Day De and 1998 2006 El Capacity MGD ■ Peak Day MGD ■ Average • Lubbock uses on average 38 million gallons a day (MGD). For planning purposes, the average is doubled to 76 MGD. Capacity of the system is 83 MGD. Including emergency raw water storage as part of the planning for capacity can extend this amount. • Winter is low at about 22 MGD and a summer use has hit 84 MGD in 1998. • Conservation has helped lower that peak day use. In 2006, the peak day was 70 MGD even with increases in population. • Lubbock has exceeded its capacity already. With conservation, we may have given the City a buffer of 7 MGD capacity or about 10%. 0 Problems Lubbock iat capacity for annual supply' A allocations are low and while BCWF is conserved. Proje additional water needs as early as 2012. 1 2. Lubbock only has a small margin of capacity for peak day use du to conservation, and the City exceeded peak day capacity in ;fir: almost3. When the BCWF ceases to be a viable source, Lubbock will loos,,t of existing peak day capacity. planning4. There is a need for regional water and cooperative efforts. r7 Solutions 1. Park Irrigation from well water. . Lake Alan Henry(South Fork) for annual supply. 3. Post Reservoir (North Fork) for annual supply, making use of developed water (storm water and reclaimed water). . Lake #7 in the Canyon Lake system (North Fork) as a storage facility for peak days, making use of developed water and stored Lake Alan Henry water if necessary. 5. Make use of City's developed water (storm water and recycledwater) by discharge into the North Fork or South Fork or both. 7. Aquifer storage (Bailey County or other) for peak day. A The Question • Which alternative? AN • Which alternative first? • With limited alternatives, all of them will be part of the long range plan. 9 The 2nd Question • Which is the best alternative? ® Capital costs? ®Operational costs? Water• .•availabilityi • Water • • Water permit issues? Project feasibility? Environmental questions? Archeological • • Land and mineral questions? Lake Alan Henry Construct infrastructure to bring water to Lubbock • Benefits/Positives • Montford Dam has already been constructed and Lake Alan Henry is full with 94,808 acre feet of water. • No permitting for the Lake is required. • Permit allows up to 35,000 acre feet annually to be used. • Plan to complete preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, final design, and infrastructure construction by 2012. • Costs/Negatives • Lake Alan Henry yield has dropped from an initial estimate of 32,000 AF in 1971 to 19,000 AF in 2007. • Additional drop in yield anticipated due to a study by TWDB which shows an 18% reduction in volume. • Requires pumping of water uphill about 1,000 ft in elevation. This lift is comparable with the lift for CRMWA groundwater from Roberts County. • Use will impact recreational activities. • Project cost, including transmission line, pump stations, water treatment facility, right-of-way and engineering estimated at $200 million (comment estimate by engineers). 11 Supplement Lake Alan Henry Making Use of Developed Water 1. Recycled Water • City now produces about 18 MGD of treated wastewater effluent. • Estimate 30 MGD between 2030 and 2035. • City has plans to upgrade the SEWRP to stream quality discharge standards for discharge into the North Fork. • Land application disposal is costly and creates environmental concerns. 2. Storm Water • City continues to develop storm water system to eliminate flooding. • The storm water system transports more water to the North Fork. • Developed storm water flows estimated at 11,000 acre feet annually. 12 f III North Fork Option Post Reservoir to supplement Lake Alan Henry • Benefits/Positives • Adds to total permitted water capacity for storage and diversion with Lake Alan Henry at 94,808 AF plus Post Reservoir at 38,420 AF for a total of 133,228 AF. • Regional cooperation is a major theme of this project. • Makes use of all developed water, including storm and reclaimed water, and natural flows. • Allows Lake Alan Henry water to remain separate in storage from developed water. • Smaller line required from Lake Alan Henry to Post Reservoir, larger line or eventually two lines from Post to Lubbock. Could save $20 million. • Has a state water right permit for the dam and diversion with a 1970 priority date for the permit. • Few owners of land related to the project. • Costs/Negatives • Water quality modeling and considerations required. • Negotiate with White River Municipal Water District for water. • Requires a federal 404 permit for construction. • Water right permit will need some modifications. • Property purchase and dam construction cost estimated of $40 million (2006 Region O Plan estimate plus 33%). 13 South Fork Tributary Option Reclaimed water directly to the South Fork to supplement Lake Alan Henry • Benefits/Positives • Makes use of Lake Alan Henry Permit of 35,000 AF of diversion when the last yield projection was 22,500 AF. • Simple system. • Help maintain a higher level of water in Lake Alan Henry for recreational purposes. • Does not require the amendment of the Lake AlanHenry water right permit. • Costs/Negatives • Requires a wastewater effluent line — 25 to 30 miles, at $1 million per mile, for 9 MGD capacity to South Fork tributary. • (Costs/Negatives continued) • Requires a wastewater line of 40 to 45 miles to increase the capacity over 9 MGD per day at $1 million per mile. • Requires larger pipeline for about 20 miles from Lake Alan Henry up to Post that may not be necessary if the Post Reservoir is developed. • Does not enable Lubbock to benefit from natural flows and 11,000 AF annually of developed storm water flows in the North Fork. • May enhance possibility of golden algae in Lake Alan. Henry by increasing the level of chlorides. • Does not add to total storage capacity. • Possible cost impact - $40-$70 million depending on options selected (staff estimate). 14 1 t . PROPOSED �(ALPIN(i I)MM 3K)N LAKE- ° 4 AND PLAMP _TAJIOH 'ro LAKE MAN HENRY G I R- Y�. wnay+ , Hann ® Benefits/Positives ® Captures flow in the river without the cost of a dam. ® Makes use of most North Fork Flows including developed water. ® Minimal impact on property owners in the area. Scalping Project Option Supplement i ke Alan Henry directly from the North Fork ® Costs/Negatives ® Requires a pipeline from the project to Lake Alan Henry. ® Does not capture major storm flows unless large pipeline and pump infrastructure is constructed at great expense. ® No storage capacity. Only captures flow. ® Subject to many senior water rights. ® May enhance possibility of golden algae in Lake Alan Henry by increasing the level of chlorides and by the mixing of water that has been reported to have golden algae and to have caused fish kills. ® Costs about 75 million near Lake Ian Henry (2006 Legion 0 Plan cost estimate plus 33%). W Peak Day Capacity - Canyon Lake #7 Long term peak day capacity on the North Fork near Lubbock • Benefits/Positive • Adds storage close to Lubbock of 20,708 AF. • Help meet peak day demand while minimizing pipeline and pumping costs. • Replace Bailey County Well Field peak day capacity in 40 to 50 years. • Utilize both storm water and about 5 MGD flow of reclaimed water. • Adds additional recreational lake close to the City of Lubbock. • Costs/Negative • Limits discharge of wastewater at the South Ease Water Reclamation Plant. • Land costs will be high due to proximity to the City of Lubbock • Costs about $50 million for dam, property, pump stations and pipelines (staff modified Region O estimate to remove Lake #8 projected costs). 16 (71 Future Supply CRMWA Second pipeline and groundwater infrastructure • Benefits/Positives • Quality water • Not impacted by drought. • A separate system means treatment costs could be minimal like the Bailey County Well Field. I i kpr k� 6 • Costs/Negatives • Distance increases cost at about $2 million per mile for a large pipeline. • Requires pumping of water uphill with about 900 feet of elevation. Comparable with Lake Alan Henry. • Cost estimated between $500 and $600 million for water transmission line, well field infrastructure, and water rights (staff estimate). 17 Future Supply - Dockum Aquifer Brackish (salty) Groundwater • Benefits/Positive • Dockum Aquifer covers a broad area. • Costs/Negative. • May be able to make use of • Desalinization cost is high. existing infrastructure. • Dockum formation does not • Desalinization technology is have high gallon per minute improving. yields in many areas. • Wind energy might help • Disposal of the brine is reduce operational costs. expensive and problematical. W l 11 SEWRP Improvements 1. Phase 1— 2008 • Eliminate Plant #2 • Expand and upgrade Plant #4 to stream quality discharge plus nutrient removal. • Upgrade Plant #3 to stream quality discharge. • Head works screen and other plant improvements. 2. Phase II — 2010 • Upgrade solids processing 3. Phase III — 2012 • Upgrade Plant #3 to nutrient removal. 4. Next Phase — Plant Expansion Wastewater Treatment Plans Recycle Water Resources Discharge Plan Alternatives 1. Immediate Plan — Next 30 Years • Discharge up to 9 MGD at current location SE of Ransom Canyon adjacent to FM 400. • Discharge up to 15 MGD at the SEWRP. • Discharge up to 4 MGD in Canyon Lake System. • Total discharge capacity — 28 MGD. 2. Intermediate Plan — After 30 Years • Add discharge into Lake Alan Henry up to 9 MGD. • Use existing infrastructure to Hancock LAS plus 20+ miles of pipe. • Total discharge capacity — 37 MGD 3. Long Term Plan — After 50 Years or More • Construct Lake V. • Add 15 miles of pitpeline for 2"d discharge point at FM400 of 9 MGD for a total of 18 MGD at that point. • Cease discharge at SEWRP. • Continue discharge in Canyon Lakes at 4 MGD and at Lake Alan Henry tributary at 9 MGD. • Total discharge capacity — 31 MGD. 19 Recommendations The Strategic Water Planning Statement provides a guide for water supply planning efforts and will have a significant impact on water supply projects. Recommend approval of the statement. 2. The Strategic Water Plan provides valuable information that has been gathered and discussed by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission and City Staff. Approval will provide a guide for planning, permitting, engineering and project development. Recommend approval oT the plan. 3. The Lake Alan Henry is recommended as the next water supply for Lubbock. Recommend that necessary planning, engineering and construction be completed for the new supply by 2012. 4. For the long term, Lake Alan Henry needs to be supplemented. The Letter of Intent with the White River Municipal Water District allows the City to evaluate one of the significant options while doing its do diligence with all options. Recommend the Letter of Intent for approval. 5. The City needs to perform due diligence on options to supplement Lake Alan Henry. Recommend the City take steps to evaluate the alternatives. Recommend that the City take appropriate steps now to move these projects forward. 6. The City will need to offset the loss of the peak day capacity of the Bailey County Well Field which could happen between 2040 to 2050. Recommend due diligence for Canyon Lake #7 as part of the plan and appropriate steps now to move this project forward. 7. Additional water supply capacity from CRMWA may not be a likely option until 2040 or 2050 when other CRMWA member cities have a need. Recommend support of continued planning efforts with CRMWA for future water supply needs. 11 J 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan winter day, usage dropped to 115 gpcd. This variation makes it difficult to plan for annual water supply needs because each year can vary significantly in terms of precipitation. The 200 gpcd base is therefore used to assure enough water to cover most hot, dry years while recognizing that use can and will be lower than that amount in most years. This variation also makes it difficult to measure the results of conservation efforts. As the City finther develops its ability to analyze annual water use, efforts will be made to adjust for the impact of weather to determine actual trends in water use as a result of water conservation efforts and programs, as opposed to trends that may follow precipitation patterns. This will enable the City to fine tune its base per capita use figure and future reductions in per capita water use to meet conservation goals. In Section 5 of this report the City's water conservation plan is presented. The plan proposes a 1% decrease in water use each year, again, in concert with the recommendations of the Water Conservation Implementation Task Force recommendations. The potential impact of conservation will be added to the model once a method to adjust gpcd for weather variations is developed. If the City of Lubbock conserves water in the Bailey County Well Field and limits use to 10,000 acre feet annually, then the City is near capacity for annual supply. The City exceeded peak day capacity in 1998, but due to conservation efforts, the City now may have a buffer of about 10 to 15 percent As the City plans for its future water supply, it is important to note that the City is near peak capacity as presented if the Bailey County Well Field is conserved The model can be updated as necessary with changes to model assumptions. Bruce Blalack, the Water Superintendent for the City of Lubbock, has played a major role in developing and preparing the water models. 100-YEAR WATER MODEL SUMMARY SCENARIO 2007 MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - MEDIUM RANGE - CITY PLANNING ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 2 LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - LOW RANGE -REGION 0 WATER PLANITWDB ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 'I AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE TO WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00% HIGH 'RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS YEAR ' YEAR CITY IRRIGATION SUPPLY NEEDED 2006 YEAR LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY NEEDED 2012 YEAR REUSE WATER SUPPLY NEEDED 2028 YEAR POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY NEEDED 2037 YEAR CRMWA II WATER SUPPLY NEEDED 2046 YEAR MAXIMUM DAY REACHES 82 MGD 2008 MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS YEAR YEAR CITY IRRIGATION SUPPLY NEEDED 2006 YEAR LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY NEEDED 2012 YEAR REUSE WATER SUPPLY NEEDED 2043 YEAR POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY NEEDED >2106 YEAR CRMWA 11 WATER SUPPLY NEEDED >2106 YEAR MAXIMUM DAY REACHES 82 MGD 2013 LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS YEAR YEAR CITY IRRIGATION SUPPLY NEEDED 2006 YEAR LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY NEEDED 2012 YEAR REUSE WATER SUPPLY NEEDED 2064 YEAR POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY NEEDED >2105 YEAR CRMWA 11 WATER SUPPLY NEEDED >2106 YEAR MAXIMUM DAY REACHES 82 MGD 2014 100-YEAR WATER LAND AND SUPPLY MODEL ����' sCIRNAQIn 2nn7 HIGH?RANGE,WATER DEMAND PRO:lECT10NS WATEkll,DEMAND PROJECTIONS BA$ED,`ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITAPER DAY (GPCPO) OF: ANNUAL POPULATIONPROJECTIONS - HIGH RANGE- t63%,FOR S,YEAR$,-1 20%THEREAFTER' POPULATIONiOPTION 3' MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND. PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - MEDIUM RANGE- CITY PLANNING ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 2 LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - LOW RANGE - REGION O WATER PLAN/TWDB ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: I AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0,00% 2035 311,007 69,674 57,757 54,572 36,000 8,000 1,800 16,000 7,874 0 0 2036 314,735 70,510 58,052 54,683 36,000 8,000 1,800 16,000 8,710 0 0 2037 318,509 71,355 58,348 54,794 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 0 2038 322,327 72,211 58,647 54,906 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10 000 2,411 0 2039 326191 73,076 58,946 55,018 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 3,276 0 2040 330102 73,952 59,180 55,113 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 4,152 0 2041 334,060 74,839 59,421 55,200 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 5,039 0 2042 338,065 75,736 59 663 55,288 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 5,936 0 2043 342,118 76,644 59,905 55,376 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 6,844 0 2044 346,220 77,563 60 149 55,464 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 7,763 0 2045 350,371 78,493 60,394 55,553 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 8,693 0 354,572 79,434 60,639 55,642 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 9,000 2047 358,823 80,387 60 886 55,731 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 9,000 1,587 2048 363,125 81,350 61,134 55,820 36000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 9,000 4,550 2049 367,479 82,326 61,382 55,910 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 9,000 5,526 2050 371,885 83,313 61,588 55,987 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 7,000 8,513 2051 376,344 84,312 61,784 56120 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 7,000 9,512 2052 380,857 85,323 61,982 56,253 36,000 4,000 1800 16,000 10,000 7,000 10,523 2053 385,423 86,346 62,180 56,386 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 7,000 11,546 2054 390,045 87,381 62,379 56,519 36,000 2,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 1,581 0 2056 399,455 89,489 62,778 56,788 36,000 2,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 3,689 0 2057 404,245 90,562 62,979 56,922 36,000 2,000 1,800 1 16,000 30,000 4,762 0 409,092 91,648 63,180 57,057 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 2059 413,998 92,747 63,382 57,193 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 1,947 2060 418,962 93,860 63,556 57,313 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 3 060 2061 423,986 94 985 63,716 57,423 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7 000 4,185 2062 429,070 96 124 63,876 57,533 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 5,324 2063g460,,""4883 97,277 64,036 57,643 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 6,477 2064 98443 64197 57,753 36,000 1800 16,000 30,000 7,000 7643 2065 99,624 64,358 57,864 36 000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 8,824 2066 100,818 64,520 57,974 36,000 1,800 16,000 30 000 7,000 10,018 2067 102,027 64,682 58,085 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 11,227 2068 103,251 64,845 58,197 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 12,451 2069 466,410 104,489 65,007 58,308 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 13,689 2070 472,003 105,742 65,153 58,420 36,000 1800 16,000 30,000 7,000 14,942 2071 477,664 107,010 65,285 58,532 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 16,210 2072 483,392 108,294 65,417 58,644 36,000 1,800 1 16,000 30,000 7,000 17,494 2073 489,189 109,592 65,549 58,757 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 18,792 2074 495,056 110,907 65,682 58,869 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 20107 2075 500,993 112,237 65,814 58,982 36,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 21,437 No Text COMPARISON OF 100-YEAR WATER SUPPLY SCENARIOS 150,000 140,000 130,000 I its R .e Yf'S"Y 9 " I jl�]' 1� 1'4 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR =CRMWA SUPPLY EMBAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY CITY IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY IIIIIIIIIIIIREUSE WATER SUPPLY IIIIIIIIII11POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY THE CRMWA II SUPPLY -HIGH RANGE WATER DEMAND -MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND -LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND -CRMWA AQUEDUCT SUPPLY CAPACITY 100-YEAR AVERAGE DAY ANC--.,I�AXIMUM DAY MODEL MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1 1,82 SCENARIO 2007 1.1.._., R�NGEINATER DEMAND PROJECTION$ , .. vt �' WATEREMAND`PROJEG710rNS BASEDjON A",RA(ANNUAIALLONS,PER GQP(1A,PER DAY{GPCPD).OF. ' { 200 ANNUAL POPULATION,PROJECTION$ ::,HIGH RANGE- i:63% FOR S YEARS'.12U96 THEREAFTER' POPULATION OPTION: 3 MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - MEDIUM RANGE - CITY PLANNING ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 2 LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - LOW RANGE - REGION O WATER PLANITWDB ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 'I AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00% YEAR POPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS HIGH RANGE MEDIUM RANGE LOW RANGE CURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY MGD CURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY MGD CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY MGD FOR 15 DAYS PROPOSED MAXIMUM OTHER SUPPLIES MGD ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY MGD MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY MGD MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY MGD MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) 1995 196,329 40.61 79.54 40.61 79.54 40.61 79.54 41.69 40.00 25.00 1996 197,745 39.44 66.71 39.44 66.71 39.44 66.71 41.69 40.00 25.00 1997 199,163 36.07 63.37 36.07 63.37 36.07 63.37 41.69 40.00 25.00 1998 200,504 44,01 84.17 44.01 84.17 44.01 84.17 41.69 40.00 25.00 1999 201,965 36.99 68.93 36.99 68.93 36.99 68.93 41.69 40.00 25.00 2000 203,454 39.51 67.82 39.51 67.82 39.51 67.82 41.69 40.00 25.00 2001 205,402 38.35 73.09 38.35 73.09 38.35 73.09 41.69 40.00 25.00 2002 207,369 36.57 63.91 36.57 63.91 36.57 63.91 41.69 40.00 25.00 2003 209,357 38.84 73.61 38.84 73.61 38.84 73.61 41.69 40.00 25.00 2004 211,348 33.57 59.94 33.57 59.94 33.57 59.94 41.69 40.00 25.00 2006 215,533 43.11 78.45 43.11 78.45 43.11 78.45 41.69 40.00 25.00 2007 219,041 43.81 79.73 43.37 78.93 43.41 79.01 41.69 40.00 25.00 2008 222,607 44.52 81.03 43.64 79.42 43.72 79.58 41.69 40.00 25.00 226,230 45.25 43.91 79.91 44.04 80.14 41.69 40.00 25.00 2010 229,913 45.98 83.69 44.16 80.38 44.34 80.69 41.69 40.00 25.00 2011 233,656 46.73 85.05 44.48 80.96 44.57 81.12 41.69 40.00 25.00 2012 236,456 47.29 86.07 44.80 81.54 44.80 81.54 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2,12 fl 239,290 47.86 87.10 45.13 Sl t ;;_ 45.04 81.97 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 242,158 48.43 88.15 45.45 82.72 45.28 = ;z82 :..ti 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2015 245,060 49.01 89.20 45.78 83.32 45.52 82.84 41.69 40,00 25.00 25.00 2016 247,997 49.60 90.27 46.11 83.92 45.76 83.28 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2017 250,970 50.19 91.35 46.44 84.53 46.00 83.72 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2018 253,978 50.80 92.45 46.78 85.14 46.25 84.17 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2019 257,022 51.40 93.56 47.12 85.75 46.49 84.61 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2020 260,102 52.02 94.68 47.35 86.18 46.68 84.96 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2021 263,220 52.64 95.81 47.64 86.71 46.84 85.24 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2022 266,375 53.28 96.96 47.93 87.24 46.99 85.52 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2023 269,568 53.91 98.12 48.23 87.78 47.15 85.81 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2024 272,799 54.56 99.30 48.53 88.32 47.30 86.09 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2025 276,069 55.21 100.49 48.83 88.86 47.46 86.38 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2026 279,378 55.88 101.69 49.13 89.41 47.62 86.67 1 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2027 282,727 56.55 102.91 49.43 89.96 47.78 86.96 41.69 40.00 25.00 25.00 2028 286,116 57.22 104.15 49.73 90.51 47.94 87.25 41.69 40.00 25.00 42.00 No Text 100-YEAR AVERAGE DAY AN6-.-r'AXIMUM DAY MODEL ! MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1.82 SCENARIO 2007 RANGEraI1fATER,DEAAAND, PltOJEGTIONS WATER`DEMAND PROJECTIONS>BASED"ON'AVERAGEAN,NUALGALLONS"PER CAPITA PERjW (GPGPD) OF: "" " 200 ANNUAL"POPULAIION,PROJEGTIONS- HIGH,'RANGE"=:1:6396;FOR S,YEARS,1♦20%THEREAFTER POPULATION OPTiONi 3 MEDIUM RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMANDPROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS- MEDIUM RANGE - CITY PLANNING ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 2 LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GPCPD) OF: 200 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - LOW RANGE.- REGION 0 WATER PLAN/TWDB ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 1 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00% 2068 460,883 92.18 167.76 57.89 105.36 51.95 94.56 41.69 25.00 90.00 2069 466,410 93.28 169.77 58.03 105.62 52.05 94.74 41.69 25.00 90.00 2070 472,003 94.40 171.81 58.16 105.86 52.15 94.92 41.69 25.00 90.00 2071 477,664 95.53 173.87 58.28 106.07 52.25 95.10 41.69 25.00 90.00 2072 483,392 96.68 175.95 58.40 106.29 52.35 95.28 41.69 25.00 90.00 2073 489,189 97.84 178.06 58.52 106.50 52.45 95.47 41.69 25.00 90.00 2074 495,056 99.01 180.20 58.64 106.72 52.56 95.65 41.69 25.00 90.00 2075 500,993 100.20 182.36 58.76 106.93 52.66 95.83 41.69 25.00 90.00 2076 507,001 101.40 184.55 58.87 107.15 52.76 96.02 41.69 25.00 90.00 2077 513,081 102.62 186.76 58.99 107.37 52.86 96.20 41,69 25.00 90.00 2078 519,235 103.85 189.00 59.11 107.58 52.96 1 96.39 41.69 25.00 90.00 2079 525,462 105.09 191.27 59.23 107.80 53.06 96.57 41.69 25.00 90.00 _sKOO .. _,.._ -,_ 2081 538,142 107.63 195.88 59.43 108.17 53.27 96.94 41.69 25.00 90.00 2082 544,596 108.92 198.23 59.52 108.33 53.37 97.13 41.69 25.00 90.00 2083 551,127 110.23 200.61 59.62 108.50 53.47 97.32 41.69 25.00 90.00 2084 557,737 111.55 203.02 59.71 108.67 53.57 97.50 41.69 25.00 90.00 2085 564,426 112.89 205.45 59.80 108.83 53.68 97.69 41.69 25.00 90.00 2086 571,196 114.24 207.92 59.89 109.00 53.78 97.88 41.69 25.00 90.00 2087 578,047 115.61 210.41 59.98 109.17 53.88 98.07 41.69 25.00 90.00 2088 584,980 117.00 212.93 60.07 109.33 53.99 98.25 41.69 25.00 90.00 2089 591,996 118.40 215.49 60.17 109.50 54.09 98.44 41.69 25.00 90.00 2090 599,096 119.82 218.07 60.25 109.66 54.19 98.63 41.69 25.00 90.00 2091 606,282 121.26 220.69 60.32 109.77 54.30 98.82 41.69 25.00 90.00 2092 613,553 122.71 223.33 60.38 109.89 54.40 99.01 41.69 25.00 90.00 2093 620,912 124.18 226.01 60.44 110.00 54.51 99.20 41.69 25.00 90.00 2094 628,360 125.67 228.72 60.50 110.12 54.61 99.39 41.69 25.00 90.00 2095 635,897 127.18 231.47 60.57 110.23 54.72 99.59 41.69 25.00 90.00 2096 643,524 128.70 234.24 60.63 110.35 54.82 99.78 41.69 25.00 90.00 2097 651,242 130.25 237.05 60.69 110.46 54.93 99.97 41.69 25.00 90.00 2098 659,054 131.81 239.90 60.76 110.58 55.03 100.16 41.69 25.00 90.00 2099 666,959 133.39 242,77 60.82 110.69 55.14 100.35 41.69 25.00 90.00 2100 674,959 134.99 245.68 60.88 110.81 55.25 100.55 41.69 25.00 90.00 2101 683,055 136.61 248.63 60.95 110.92 55.35 100.74 41.69 25.00 90.00 2102 691,248 138.25 251.61 61.01 111.04 55.46 100.94 41.69 25.00 96bo 2103 699,539 139.91 254.63 61.07 111.15 55.57 101.13 41.69 25.00 90.00 2104 707,930 141.59 257.69 61.14 111.27 55.67 101.33 41.69 25.00 90.00 HIGH RANGE MAXIMUM AND AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND 300 250 G g 200 2 50 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR CURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY (MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY (MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (MGD FOR 15 DAYS) PROPOSED MAXIMUM OTHER SUPPLIES (MGD) -ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY -MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) No Text LOW RANGE MAXIMUM AND AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND 250 200 0 C9 a 150 0 W a w z O J J a z 100 O J J 2 50 0 , , . , , , 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR IIMCURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY (MGD) MlICURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY (MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (MGD FOR 15 DAYS) PROPOSED MAXIMUM OTHER SUPPLIES (MGD) -ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY (MGD) -MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) 100-YEAR HIGH RANGE WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODEL MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1.82 rer MANUAL 0 LEFT GRAPH PRIMARYY•AXIS SCALE FACTOR 161301 RIGHT GRAPH PRIMARY Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR 262 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS- HIGH RANGE- 1,63% FOR 5 YEARS, 1.20%THEREAFTER POPULATION.OPTION: 3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY GPCPD OF: 200 0 0.00% AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: O,00% YEAR POPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS HIGH RANGE WATER DEMAND ACRE FEE CRMWA SUPPLY ACRE FEE BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ACRE FEE CITY IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY ACRE FEE LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY ACRE FEE REUSE WATER SUPPLY ACRE FEE POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY ACRE FEE THE CRMWA II SUPPLY ACRE FEET) CRMWA AQUEDUCT SUPPLY CAPACITY (ACRE FEET) HIGH RANGE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY GD MAXIMUM DAY OAGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY 41.69 MGD CURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEYCO. SUPPLY 40 MGD PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY 1.6 MGD PROPOSED LAKEALAN HENRY SUPPLY 25 MGD PROPOSED REUSE WATER SUPPLY 17 MOD PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY 8 MGD PROPOSED CRMWA II SUPPLY (40 MGD) CURRENTMAXIMUM TERMINALSTORAGE SUPPLY (25 MGD FOR 15 DAYS) 2000 203 454 44,950 37,511 7,439 46.693 39.51 67.82 41.69 26.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 2001 205,402 44 398 37,616 6,882 46,693 38.35 73.09 41.80 31.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2002 207,369 42,561 34,380 8,181 46,693 36.57 63.91 41.69 22.22 0.00 0.00 CLOG 0.00 0.00 0.00 2003 209,357 44,515 36,566 7,948 46.693 38.84 73.61 41.89 31.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 211,348 37 949 27.546 10.403 46,693 36.41 59.94 41.69 18.25 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 .allim.:v 1": -sRWVZO Smalmum warAwavalm 215,533 48 286 33,362 14,734 0 0 0 0 46,693 43.11 78.45 41.69 36.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2007 219,041 49,072 31,499 17,173 400 0 0 0 0 46,693 43.81 79.73 41.69 38.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2008 222,607 49,870 25,000 24,270 600 0 0 0 0 46.693 44.52 81.03 41.69 39.34 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i11l1 226,230 50,682 36,000 13,882 800 0 0 0 0 46,693 45.25 00824511 41.69 40.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2010 229,913 51,507 36,000 14,507 1,000 0 0 0 0 46,693 45.98 83.69 41.69 40.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 2011 233,656 52,346 36,000 15146 1,200 0 0 0 0 46,693 46.73 85.05 41.69 40.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 236,456 52,973 36,000 10.000 1.400 `6`�ii 0 0 0 46,693 4729 86.07 41.69 40.00 1.60 2,78 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 2013 239,290 53,608 36,000 10,000 1,600 6,008 0 0 0 46,693 47.86 87.10 41.69 40.00 1.60 3.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 242156 54.250 36.000 10.000 1.800 6,450 0 0 0 46,693 48.43 88.15 41.69 40.00 1.60 4.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 245,060 54,901 36,000 10,000 1,800 7101 0 0 0 46,693 49.01 89.20 41.69 40.00 1.60 5.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2016 247,997 55,559 36,000 10,000 1,800 7,759 0 0 0 46.693 49.60 90.27 41.69 40.00 1.60 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2017 250,970 56,224 36,000 10,000 1,800 8,424 0 0 0 46.693 50.19 91.35 41.69 40.00 1.60 8.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2018 253,978 56,898 36,1100 10,000 1,800 9,098 0 0 0 46,693 50.60 92.45 41.69 40.00 1.60 9.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2019 257,022 57,580 36,000 10,000 1,800 9,780 0 0 0 48,693 51 AD 93.56 41.69 40.00 1.60 10.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.CD 2020 260,102 58,270 36,000, 10 000 1.800 10,470 0 0 0 46,693 52.02 94.68 41.69 40.00 1.60 11.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 2021 263,220 58 9B9 36 000 10 000 1 1 80D 11.169 0 0 0 46,693 52.64 95.81 41.69 40.00 1.60 12.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2022 266,375 59.676 36.000 10.000 1 1.800 11,876 0 0 0 46 683 53.28 98.96 41.69 40.00 1.60 13.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2023 269.568 60,391 36,000 10,000 1,800 12,591 0 0 0 46,693 53.91 41.69 40.00 1.60 14.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2024 272,799 61,115 36,000 10,000 1,800 13,315 0 0 0 46,693 54.56 41.69 40.00 1.60 16.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2025 276,069 61,847 36,000 10,000 1,800 14,047 0 0 0 46,693 55.21 41,69 40.00 1.60 17.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2026 279,378 62,589 36,000 10,000 1 800 14,789 0 0 0 46.693 55.88 41,69 40,00 1.60 18.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2027 282,727 63,339 36,000 10,000 1,800 15 539 0 0 0 46.693 5655 E1077.94 41.69 40.00 1.60 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 288116 64,098 36,000 10,1100 1,800 16,000 0 0 46 893 57.22 41.69 40.00 1.60 20.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2029 289 546 64 867 36,000 10,000 1 80D 16,000 1,067 0 0 48,693 57.91 41.69 40,00 1.60 22.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L MOST ... „. -, .. E 2 �.k :Oii S. , OIIIOk' 2031 296.530 66.431 36,000 6 000 1.800 16.000 4,631 0 0 46 693 59.31 41.69 32.00 1.60 25.DO 7.65 0.00 0.D0 0.00 2032 300,085 67,228 36,000 8,000 1,800 16,000 5 428 0 0 46,693 60.02 109.23 41.69 32.00 1.60 25.00 8.94 0.00 0.00 0.1 2033 303,682 68,033 36,000 8 000 1 800 16,000 6,233 0 0 46,693 60.74 110.54 41.89 32.00 1.60 25.00 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 2034 3D7 323 68,849 36,000 8,000 1,800 16,000 7,049 0 0 46,893 61.46 111.87 41.69 32.00 1.60 25.00 11.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 2035 311,007 69,674 36,000 8,000 1 80D 16,000 7,874 0 0 48,693 62.20 113.21 41.69 32.00 1,60 25.00 12.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 2036 314 735 70,510 36,000 8,000 1,800 16,000 8,710 0 0 46,693 62.95 114.56 41.69 32.00 1.80 25.00 14.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 318,509 71,355 36,000 6,000 1,800 16 000 10,000 k'a 0 46,693 63.70 115.94 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 6.65 0.00 0.00 2038 322,327 72,211 36,000 6.000 1.800 16.000 10.000 2,411 0 46,693 64.47 117.33 41.69 24.DG 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 0.04 0.00 2039 326191 73 076 36,000 6.000 1.800 16.000 10,000 3,276 0 46,693 65.24 118.73 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1.44 0.00 2040 330102 73,952 36,000 8 000 1.801) 16,000 1 1 C D0D 4152 0 46,693 66.02 120.16 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.87 0.00 2141 334.1360 74.839 36,000 6 000 1 800 16,000 10 000 5,039 0 46.693 66.81 121.60 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 4.31 O.CO 2042 338,065 75,736 36,000 6 ODD 1,800 16,000 10,000 5,936 0 46.693 67.61 123.06 41.69 24,DO 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 5.77 0.00 2043 342118 76 644 36 000 6 000 i 800 18 000 10,000 8 844 0 68.42 124.63 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 7.24 0.00 2 444 346,220 77,563 36,000 6,000 1,800 16 000 10,000 7,763 0 69.24 126.02 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 8.73 0.00 2045 350,371 78,493 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,000 10,000 8,693 0 70.07 127.53 41.69 24.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1024 0.00 354,572 79,434 36,000 6,000 1,800 16,0110 10,000 9,000 "& :634:axk+zfiSP 70.91 129.06 41.69 24.00 1,60 25.00 17,00 8.00 11.77 0.00 2047 358,823 80 387 36.000 6.000 1.800 16.000 10.000 9.000 1.587 71.76 130.61 41.69 24.00 1.80 25.00 17.00 8.00 13.32 0.00 2048 363125 81,350 36,000 4,000 1 800 16.000 10.000 9 000 4,550 72.63 132.18 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 22.89 0.00 2049 367,479 82,326 36,000 4,000 1,800 18 000 10,000 9,000 5,526461693 73.50 133.76 41.69 16.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 24.47 0.00 2050 371 885 83 313 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 1010,00 7 DDO 8,513 74.38 135.37 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 26.08 0.00 2051 376.344 84,312 36,000 4,000 1,800 16,000 10 D00 7,000 9,512 75.27 136.99 41.69 16.00 1,60 25.00 17.00 8.00 27.70 0.00 2062 380,867 85,323 36,000 4,000 1 800 18 000 10,000 7.000 10.523 76.17 138.63 41.69 16.DC 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 29.34 0,00 2053 385,423 86,346 36,000 4,000 1 800 16.000 10,000 7,000 11,546 77.08 140.29 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 31.00 0.00 2054 390,045 87,391 36,000 2,000 1 800 16,000 30,000 1.581 0 78.01 141.98 41.69 1 8.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 0.69 ON43OW WA941690M 31MRtomm amOlmoom &vwl&oDm= 2056 399,455 89.4 36,000 2.000 1.800 16 000 30 000 3,689 0 46,693 79.89 145.40 41.69 8.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 4.11 2057 404,245 90 562 36,000 2,000 1,800 16,000 30,000 4,762 0 46,693 80.85 147.15 41.69 8.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 5.86 409,092 91,648 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 5 .. T: 46,693 S7.82 148.91 41.69 O.OG 1.60 25.00 17,00 8.00 40.00 15.62 2059 413,998 92,747 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 1 947 46,693 82.80 150.70 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 17.41 2060 418,962 93 860 36 000 0 1 8DO 16,000 30,000 7 D00 3 060 46,693 83.79 152,50 41.89 D.00 1.6G 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 19.21 2061 423.986 94.985 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7 000 4185 46,693 84.80 154.33 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 21,04 2062 429,070 96124 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 30,000 7 000 5 324 46,693 85.81 ISSA S 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40,00 22.89 2063 434,215 97 277 36 000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 8 477 46,693 86.84 158.05 41.60 0.00 1.80 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 24.76 2064 439,422 98,443 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 7 643 46,693 87AS 1S9.95 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 2.5.00 2085 444 692 90.624 36 D00 0 1.800 16.000 30,000 7 000 8 824 46,693 88.94 161.87 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2066 450,025 100,818 36 000 0 1,800 16.000 30.000 7.000 10 O18 46.693 90.00 163.81 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2D67 455,421 102,027 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7 000 11,227 46,693 91.08 165.77 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.D0 2068 460.883 103,251 36,000 0 1,800 16 000 30,000 7,000 12,451 46,693 92.18 167.76 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2069 466,410 104,489 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 13,689 46,693 9328 169.77 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 1 25,00 2070 472,003 1D5 742 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 14,942 46,693 94.40 171.81 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2071 477.064 107.010 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7,000 16,210 46,693 95.53 173.87 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 1 8.00 40.00 25.00 2072 483.392 108,294 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 30,000 7 DOD 17 494 46 693 96.68 175.95 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2073 489189 109 592 36 000 0 1 BDO 16 000 30 000 7 000 18 792 40,093 97.84 178.08 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8,00 40.00 25.00 2074 495 O56 110 907 36 000 0 1 800 18 000 30 000 7 000 20107 46 693 99.01 180.20 41.69 D.00 1.80 25,00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2075 500 993 112 237 36 000 0 1 800 18 000 30000 7 000 21 437 46 693 10020 182.38 41.69 0,00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 2076 507 001 113 583 38 000 0 1 800 iB 000 30 000 7 000 22 783 46 693 101.40 184.55 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 40.00 25.00 G 100-YEAR HIGH RANGE WATER SUPPLY MODEL BASED ON HIGH RANGE POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL AVERAGE 200 GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 I- w w LL w 80,000 U Q 60,000 40.000 K1111I1I11 700,000 600,000 400,000 ZO 300,000 200,000 100,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIERMWA SUPPLY ILEY COUNTY SUPPLY CITY IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY WM LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY REUSE WATER SUPPLY INMOST RESERVOIR SUPPLY THE CRMWA 11 SUPPLY POPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS HIGH RANGE MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND BASED ON HIGH RANGE POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL AVERAGE 200 GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY 250 200 2 100 50 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 p F- QJ a O a 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 .,. 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR URRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY URRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY CO. SUPPLY (40 MGD) PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY (1.6 MGD) PROPOSED LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY (25 MGD) �PROPOSED REUSE WATER SUPPLY (17 MGD) PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY (8 MGD) PROPOSED CRMWA II SUPPLY (40 MGD) '?CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (25 MGD FOR 15 DAYS MmmPOPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS �ANNUALAVERAGE DAY 100-YEAR MEDIUM RANGE CASE WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODEL MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1.82 m.� MANUAL O LEFT GRAPH PRIMARY Y•AXIS SCALE FACTOR 134417 RIGHT GRAPH PRIMARY Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR 218 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS- MEDIUM RANGE- CITY PLANNING ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 2 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY GPCPD) OF: 200 0 0.00% AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00% 2077 294,966 66,081 36,000 0 1.800 1 16,000 12,281 0 0 46,693 58.99 107.37 41.69 1 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 14.08 0.00 2078 295,563 66,215 36,000 0 1.800 1 16,000 12,415 D 0 46,693 59.11 107.58 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1429 0.00 2079 298161 66,349 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 12,549 0 0 46,693 5923 107.80 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 14.51 0.00 11 " ih."u1;:°`;'aL'O f4. "• '#0,. 1,1fiS.�1?11S'At'`*: ' .,..::, " ' 11446 "atw"5X 1d.1121:50.1�~z "xTQ&O0e`R m. 1 . at"1S"1,`t 7w'D0" `4v7'Ten`a 2081 297,164 66,573 36,000 0 1 800 16 ODO 12,773 0 0 46,693 59.43 108,17 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 14.88 0.00 2082 297,619 66,675 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 12,875 0 0 46.693 1 59.52 10&33 1 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 15.04 0.00 2083 298,076 66,778 36,000 0 1 800 18 000 12,978 0 0 46 893 59.62 108.50 41.69 0.00 1.80 25.00 17.00 8.00 1521 0.00 2084 298,533 66,880 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 13,080 D 0 46 693 59.71 108.67 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 15.38 0.00 2085 298,990 66.982 36.000 0 1.800 16.000 13.182 D 0 46 693 59AD 108.83 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 15.54 0.00 2086 299.449 67.085 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,285 0 0 46 693 59.89 109.00 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 15.71 0.00 2087 299.908 1 67188 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 13,388 0 0 46 693 59.98 109.17 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.D0 15.88 0.00 2088 300,368 1 67.291 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,491 0 0 46 693 60.07 109.33 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16.04 0.00 2089 300.829 1 67,394 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,594 0 0 46 693 60.17 109.50 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16,21 0.00 2090 301.261 1 67,491 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,691 0 0 46 693 6025 109.66 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16.37 0.00 2091 301.576 1 67.562 36000 0 1,800 16,000 13,762 D 0 46,693 60.32 109.77 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16.48 0.00 2092 301,891 67,632 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,832 0 0 46,693 60.38 109.89 41.69 0.D0 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 18.60 0.00 2093 302,206 67,703 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 13,903 0 0 46,693 60.44 110.00 1 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16.71 0.00 2094 302,522 67.774 36.000 0 1.800 18 000 13.974 0 0 46,693 60.50 2 41.68 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 16.63 0.00 2095 302,838 67,845 36,000 0 1 800 16.000 14,0145 0 0 46,693 60.57 3 41.69 0.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 16,94 0.00 2096 303,155 67,915 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 14115 0 0 46,693 60.63 5 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.06 0.00 2097 303,472 67,986 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 14186 0 0 46,693 60.69 6 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.17 0.00 2098 303.789 68,057 36,000 0 1.800 16,000 14,257 0 0 46,693 60.76 8 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.29 0.00 2099 304107 68129 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 14,329 0 0 46,693 60.82 9 41.69 WIG 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1 T40 0.00 2100 304.411 68,197 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 14,397 0 0 46.693 60.88 1 V1,11.27 41.69 0.00 1.BD 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.52 O.DO 2101 304,729 68,268 36 000 0 1,800 16,000 14,468 D 0 46 693 60.95 2 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.63 0.00 2102 305.048 68,340 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 14,540 0 0 46 693 61.01 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.75 0,00 2103 305 367 68 411 36 000 D 1 80D 16 DDO 14 611 D 0 46,693 51.07 5 41.69 0.00 1.50 25.00 17.00 8.0D 17.86 0.00 2104 305 687 88 489 36 OOD 0 1 800 16,000 14,683 0 0 46,693 61.14 7 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 17.98 0.00 % :7 .`1fi k0 ts,111 k>`r'e4'C 800: . .. Y6'ODO, :1r'1A 14°754,^ L "1 I riFS3Of_i1,?11k� L OFS!'. .2 ;'a1Y37364.. :.t4' t'7 ,41 :. &wAl.'i1O WrP.§S1••Y 7+1125406 °?1'W?ILAMOD'1.��`, g4:'Y'i'D& R. 4 0TT'.u11&afOiHi4 <; L'TMG`O: MAM YEARS 2000-2005 CONTAIN ACTUAL CONSUMPTION FIGURES r, E 200 150 50 MEDIUM RANGE MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND BASED ON MOST LIKELY RANGE POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL AVERAGE 200 GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY 600,000 500,000 400,000 z 0 300,000 Ja 200,000 ?e3iis«fiYWbY3S.�'a5riih' 1 111 11 2010 1 2020 1 2030 1 11 1 2050 1 1.1 162070 1 1:1 1: 1.1 1911 1 Y�4CS CURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY URRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY CO. SUPPLY (40 MGD) PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY (1.6 MGD) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPROPOSED LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY (25 MGD) PROPOSED REUSE WATER SUPPLY (17 MGD) PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY (8 MGD) PROPOSED CRMWA II SUPPLY (40 MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (25 MGD FOR 15 DAY: POPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY a 0 a 100-YEAR LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODEL MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1 1.92 1 aer LEFT GRAPH PRIMARY Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR 134417 RIGHT GRAPH PRIMARY Y-AXIS SCALE FACTOR 218 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS - LOW RANGE - REGION 0 WATER PLAN/f WDB ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 1 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY GPCPD OF: 200 M'.0,0, AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00'/e YEAR POPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND ACRE FEE CRMWA SUPPLY ACRE FEE BAILEY COUNT! SUPPLY ACRE FEE CITY IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY ACRE FEE LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY ACRE FEE REUSE WATER SUPPLY (ACREFEET) POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY ACRE FEET) THE CRMWA II SUPPLY ACRE FEET) CRMWA AQUEDUCT SUPPLY CAPACITY ACRE FE LOW RANGE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY GD MAXIMUM DAY (MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY 41.69 MGD CURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY CO. SUPPLY 40 MGD PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY 1.6 MOD PROPOSED LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY 25 MGD PROPOSED REUSE WATER SUPPLY 17 MGD PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY 8 MGD PROPOSED CRMWA II SUPPLY (40 MGD) CURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (25 MGD FOR15 DAYS) 2000 203.454 44,950 37,511 7,439 46,693 39.51 67.82 41.69 26.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2007 205,402 44,398 37,516 8,882 46,693 38.35 73.09 41.69 31 AO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2002 207,389 42,561 34,380 8181 46,693 36.57 63.91 41..69 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2003 209,357 44 515 36,566 7,948 46.693 38.84 73.61 41.69 31.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2004 211.348 37.949 27.546 10.403 46,693 36.41 58.94 41.69 1825 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 limommms .1 .. .. ;0wi ... lA �.lmaS9l0�C' ,�. ' 0. T wNRY 60A0vm mm"s . , . ". mT = 3T,8 77 215,533 48,286 33,362 14 734 0 0 0 0 46 693 43.11 78AS 41.69 36.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2OD7 217069 48630 31499 17173 400 0 0 0 0 48693 43A1 79.01 41.69 37.32 0,00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 2008 218,617 48,978 25,000 24,270 600 0 0 0 0 46 893 43.72 79.58 41.69 37.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2009 220177 49,326 36 0DO 13,882 800 0 0 0 0 46,693 44.04 80.14 41.69 38.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2010 221,675 49,662 36,000 14,507 1,000 0 0 0 0 48,693 44.34 80.69 41.69 39.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 222,844 49,923 36,000 15146 1,200 0 0 0 0 46 893 44.57 81.12 41.69 39.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 224,020 50187 36,000 10,000 1,400 ST:P' 0 0 0 46,693 44.80 81.54 41.69 39.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 225,203 50,452 38,000 10.000 1.600 2.852 0 0 0 46 693 45.04 $1.97 41.69 40.00 028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 226.394 50,719 36,000 10,000 1,800 2 919 0 0 0 46,693 45.28 41.69 40.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 227,591 50,987 36,000 10,000 1,800 3187 0 0 0 46.693 45.52 82.84 41.69 40.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2016 228,796 51,257 36,000 10,000 1,800 3,457 0 0 0 46,693 46.76 83.28 41.69 40.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 2017 230,007 51,528 36,000 10,000 1,800 3,728 0 0 0 46,693 46.00 83.72 41.69 40.00 1.60 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2018 231,227 51,801 36,0010 10,000 1,800 4,001 0 0 0 46,693 48.25 84.17 41.69 40.00 1.60 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2019 232,454 52,076 36,000 10 000 1,800 4,276 0 0 0 46,693 46.49 84.61 41.69 40.00 1.60 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2020 233,407 52.290 36,000 10,000 1,800 4,490 0 0 0 48,693 46.68 84.96 41.69 40.00 1.60 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2021 234,181 52,463 36,000 10 000 1,800 4.663 0 0 0 46,693 46.84 8624 41.69 40.00 1.60 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2022 234,958 62,637 36,000 10,000 1.800 4.837 0 0 0 46.693 46.99 85.52 41.69 40.00 1 AD 2.23 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 2023 235,739 52,812 36,000 10 000 1,800 5,012 0 0 0 46,693 47.15 85.81 41.69 40.00 1.60 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2024 236 523 1 52.988 36,000 10,000 1,800 5,188 0 0 0 46.693 47.30 86.09 41.69 40.00 1.60 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAD 2025 237,311 53184 36,000 10,000 1,800 5,364 0 0 0 46,693 47AS 86.38 41.69 40.00 1.60 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2026 238,102 53 342 36 000 10,000 1,800 5,542 0 0 0 46,693 47.62 88.67 41.69 40.00 1.60 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2027 238,897 53 52O 36 000 10,000 1,800 5,720 0 0 0 46,693 47.78 86.96 41.69 40.00 1.60 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2028 239,695 53,699 36,000 10,000 1,800 5,899 0 0 0 46,693 47.94 87.26 41.69 40.00 1.60 3.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2029 240,497 53.878 36,000 10,000 1,800 6,078 0 0 0 46 693 48.10 87.54 41.69 40.00 1.60 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . ' 0 ... t , ammom7 "*'707 `1 ysam ' >, . " ,;41r! Ol8r,78W 965CIISOMFA''Rr==W' s ".. ,: m 2_49 P 0.00ib1TuYM A011MORM 00000'0:D0?ti•:o{a15`:" 2031 241,633 54133 36,000 8,000 1 800 8.333 0 0 0 48.693 48.33 87.95 41.69 32.00 1.60 12.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2032 242121 54,242 36,000 8,000 1,800 8,442 D 0 0 46,693 48.42 88.13 41.69 32.00 1.60 12.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2033 242,610 54,352 36,000 8,000 1,800 8,552 0 0 0 46,693 48.52 88.31 41.69 32.00 1.60 13.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2034 243,102 64,462 36,000 8,000 1,800 8,662 D D 0 46,693 48.62 88.49 41.69 32.00 1.60 13.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.D0 2035 243 595 54 572 38 000 8 000 1 800 8 772 0 0 0 46 893 48.72 88.67 41.68 32.00 1.60 13.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2036 244 D89 64 683 36,000 8,000 1,800 8, 883 0 0 0 46,693 48.82 88.85 41.69 32.00 1.60 13.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2037 244,586 54,794 36,000 6,000 1.800 10,994 0 0 0 46,693 48.92 89.03 41.60 24.00 1.60 21.74 0.00 0.D0 0.00 0.00 2038 245,084 54,906 36.000 6.000 1.800 11,10 0 0 0 46,693 49.02 8921 41.69 24.00 1.60 21.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2039 245,584 55,018 36,000 6,000 1,800 11,218 0 0 0 46.693 49.12 89.39 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2040 246,008 55 113 36,000 6,000 1 800 11.313 0 0 0 48,693 49.20 89.55 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2D41 246,398 55,200 36,000 6,000 1.800 11.400 0 0 0 46,693 4928 89.69 41.69 24.00 1.60 22AO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2042 246,790 55 288 36,000 6,000 1.800 11,488 0 0 0 46,693 49.36 89.83 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2043 247182 55,378 36,000 6,000 1,800 11,576 0 0 D 46 893 49.44 89.97 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2044 247,576 55 464 36,000 6,000 1,800 11,604 0 0 0 46,693 49.52 90.12 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2045 247.971 1 55,553 36,000 6.000 1,800 11,753 0 0 0 46,693 49.59 W.26 41.69 24.00 1.60 22.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2046 248,368 55 642 38 000 6 000 1,800 11,842 0 0 0 46,693 49.67 90.41 41.69 24.00 1.60 23.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2047 248,766 55.731 36.000 6.000 1,800 11,931 0 0 0 46,693 49.75 90.55 41.69 24.00 1.60 23.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2048 249,165 55,820 36,000 4,000 1.800 14,020 0 0 0 46,693 49.83 90.70 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 6.41 0.00 0.00 2049 249,565 55,910 36,000 4,000 1,800 14110 0 0 0 46.693 49M 90.84 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 6.55 0.00 0.00 20SO 249.910 55,987 36,000 4,000 1 800 14187 0 0 0 46.6 49.98 90.97 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 8.68 0.00 0.00 2051 250,502 56120 36,000 4,000 1,800 14 320 0 0 0 46,693 50.10 91,18 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 6.89 0.00 0.00 2062 251,095 56,253 36,000 4,000 1,800 14.453 0 0 0 46,693 50.22 91.40 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 7.11 0.00 0.00 2053 251,690 58386 36,000 4, 000 1,800 t4586 0 0 0 48693 50.34 91.62 41.69 16.00 1.60 25.00 0.00 7.33 0.00 0.00 252,287 58,519 36,000 2,000 1.800 16.000 0 0 46.693 50.46 91.83 41.69 8.00 1.80 25.00 15.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 ` 2 000 1.800 '2f 16,000 ..� 988 .Otxw`Yv'`i 0 .. .0 0 46,693 F 50.70 92.27 41.69 8.00 1.60 25.00 15.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 2056 253,484 56.788 36.000 2057 254,085 56,922 36,000 2 OW 1,800 16,000 1 122 0 0 46,693 50.82 92.49 41.69 8.00 1.60 25.00 16.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 2058 254,687 57,057 36,000 0 1,800 16 000 3 257 0 0 46,693 50.94 92.71 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 7.42 0.00 0.00 2059 255 291 57193 36,000 0 1.800 16,000 3,393 0 0 46.693 51.06 92.93 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 7.64 0.00 0.00 2060 255,829 57,313 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 3,513 0 0 46,693 51.17 93.12 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 7.83 0.00 1 0.00 2061 256,318 57,423 36,000 0 1 800 18 000 3,623 0 0 46 883 5126 93.30 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 0.01 1 0.00 2062 256,809 57,533 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 3,733 0 0 46,693 51.36 93.48 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 0.19 0.00 2063 257,300 57,643 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 3,843 0 0 46,693 51.46 93.66 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.D0 8.00 0.37 0.00 2064 257.793 57,753 36,000 0 1.800 16 000 3.953 0 0 46,603 51.56 93.84 41.69 0.00 1.6D 25.00 17.00 8.00 0.55 0.00 2065 258.286 1 57.864 36.000 1 0 1,800 16 000 4.064 0 0 46,693 51.66 94.02 41.69 0.00 1.80 25.00 17.00 S.OD 0.73 0.00 2066 258,781 57,974 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 4174 0 0 46,693 51.76 94.20 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 0.91 0.00 2067 259,277 58,085 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 4,285 0 0 46,693 51.86 94.38 41.69 0.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 1.09 0.00 2068 259,773 58197 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 4,397 0 0 46.693 51.95 94.56 41.69 0.00 1.60 1 25.00 17.00 1 8.00 1.27 0,00 2069 260,271 58,308 36,000 D 1 800 18,000 4,508 0 0 46,693 52.05 94.74 41.69 0.00 1.80 25.00 17.OD 8.00 1.45 0.00 2070 260,770 58,420 36,000 D 1 SOO 16,000 4,620 0 0 46,693 52.15 94.92 41.69 O.00 1.80 25.00 17.00 8.00 1.63 0.00 2071 261,270 58,532 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 4,732 0 0 46,693 52.25 95.10 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1.81 0.00 2072 261,771 58,644 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 4,844 0 0 46 893 52.35 95.28 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 1.99 0.00 2073 262,272 58,757 36,000 0 1,800 16 GOO 4,957 0 0 46,693 52.45 95.47 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.18 0.00 2074 262 775 58 869 38 D00 0 1 800 16 000 5 069 0 0 48 693 52.56 95.65 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.36 0.00 2075 263,279 58 882 36 000 0 1 800 16,000 5182 0 0 46,693 $2.66 95.83 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.54 0.00 2076 263,784 59 095 36,000 0 1 1.800 1 16,000 1 5,295 1 0 0 46,693 52.76 96.02 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.73 0.00 100-YEAR LOW RANGE WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY MODEL MAXIMUM DAY FACTOR 1 1.82 aw MANJAL LEFT GRAPH PR11: Y+4XI5 SCALE FACTOR 134417 RIOHT GRAPH PRIMARY Y•AXIS SCALE FACTOR 218 ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS • LOW RANGE • REGION O WATER PLANITWDS ESTIMATES POPULATION OPTION: 1 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVERAGE ANNUAL GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY GPCPD OF: 200 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT REDUCTION DUE WATER SAVING FIXTURES OF: 0.00%O 2077 264,291 59,209 36,000 D 1,800 16,000 5.409 0 0 46,693 52.86 9620 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 2.91 0.00 2078 264,798 59 322 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 5,522 0 0 46,693 52.96 96.39 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 3.10 0.00 2079 265 306 59 436 36,000 0 1,800 16.000 5,636 0 0 46,693 53.06 96.57 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 3.28 0.00 . ,. N Oi4 Ta9S n 3YIYisii 9 ... OO IMIT . a W .. 2081 266,328 59,665 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 5,865 0 0 46,693 53.27 96.94 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 3.65 0.00 2082 256.837 59,779 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 5,979 0 0 46.693 53.37 97.13 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 3.84 0.00 2083 267,350 58 894 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 6,094 0 0 40,693 53.47 97.32 41.69 0.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 4.03 0.00 2084 267,864 60,009 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 6,209 0 D 46,000 53.57 97.50 41.69 0.00 1,60 25.00 17,00 8.00 4.21 0.00 2085 268,378 60124 36.000 0 i 800 16.000 6,324 0 0 46,6 53.68 97.69 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 4.40 0.00 2086 268,894 60,240 36.000 0 1.800 16 000 6,440 0 0 46,693 53.78 97.88 41.69 D.00 1.60 25.00 17.DO 8.00 4.59 0.00 2087 269.411 60.356 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 6 556 0 0 46 893 53.88 98.07 41.69 0.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 4.78 0.00 2088 269,929 80 472 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 6,672 0 0 46 893 53.99 9825 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 4.96 0.00 2089 270,448 60,588 36,000 0 1 8GO 16,000 6,788 0 0 46,693 54.09 98.44 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.D0 8.00 5.15 0.00 2090 270,968 60 705 36,000 0 1,800 i 8 000 6,905 0 0 46,693 54.19 98.63 41.69 0.00 1.60 25,00. 17.00 8.00 5.34 0.00 2091 271.489 60,821 36,000 0 1,800 16 000 7,021 0 0 46,693 54.30 98.82 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 5.53 0.00 2092 272,012 60,938 36,000 0 1,800 16,000 7,138 0 0 46.693 54.40 99.01 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 5.72 0.00 2093 272,535 61.0 36,000 0 1.800 16,000 7,256 0 0 46 693 54.51 99.20 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 5.91 0.00 2094 273,060 61.1 36 000 0 1.800 16.000 7,373 0 0 46,693 54.6i 99.39 41.69 0.00 1.60 26.00 17.00 8.00 6.10 0.00 2095 273,586 61.201 38 ODO 0 1.800 16 000 7.491 0 0 46 693 54.72 99.59 41.69 D.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 6.30 0.00 2096 274112 61,409 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 7,609 0 0 46 693 54.82 99.78 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 6.49 0.00 2097 274.640 61.527 36,000 0 1.800 16,000 7,727 0 0 46 693 54.93 99,97 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 6.68 0.00 2098 275 169 61 646 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 7,846 0 0 46 693 55.03 100,16 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 6.87 0.00 2099 275,699 61 765 36 000 0 1 800 16,000 7,965 0 0 46,693 55.14 100.35 41.69 0.00 1.60 25,00 17.00 8.00 7.06 0.00 2 276,230 61 884 36,000 0 1 800 16,000 8,084 0 0 46 693 5525 10D.55 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 7.26 0.00 2101 276,763 62 003 36,000 0 1,800 16.0 8,203 0 0 46,693 55.35 100.74 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 7.45 0.00 2102 277,296 62122 38,000 0 1 800 16 000 8 322 0 0 46 693 55.46 100,94 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 7.65 0.00 2103 277,831 82,242 38 ODO 0 1 800 16,000 8,442 0 0 46 693 55.57 101.13 41.69 0000 7,60 25.00 17.00 8.00 7.84 0.00 2104 278,366 62 362 36 000 D 1 800 16,000 8,562 0 0 46.693 55.57 101.33 41.69 0.00 1.60 25.00 17.00 8.00 8.04 0.00 k`ai 5" %Y .,2 1�1i51& .<,1. .. 0.'Q04 ... 4�. .:OD 3.6:0�T�; B'29^#1,. Fl.'§a:T a ,.. ..%+`+"a. .. LOW RANGE MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND BASED ON LOW RANGE POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL AVERAGE 200 GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY 200 150 0 cc w a U) z O J J 0 100 z O 2 50 600,000 500,000 400,000 z O H 300,000 g a O a 200,000 100,000 omploismolls 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 2105 YEAR URRENT MAXIMUM CRMWA SUPPLY IMMURRENT MAXIMUM BAILEY CO. SUPPLY (40 MGD) PROPOSED IRRIGATION WELL SUPPLY (1.6 MGD) �ROPOSED LAKE ALAN HENRY SUPPLY (25 MGD) I♦PROPOSED REUSE WATER SUPPLY (17 MGD) PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR SUPPLY (8 MGD) PROPOSED CRMWA II SUPPLY (40 MGD) 2K"ZURRENT MAXIMUM TERMINAL STORAGE SUPPLY (25 MGD FOR 15 DAYS MEMPOPULATION LUBBOCK PLUS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS ANNUAL AVERAGE DAY r1.,' t Percent Population Change City of Lubbock 1980 - 2005 0.7% Annual Average 9S0 i ziS t ? 982 19t��:� t!?8 1 55 1336 1987 '1988 1089 199C', �I 9_ 1'1 '1 39? 1 � 1994 1995 1996 199 1998 1999 2000 2EI1 002 2003 � 004 ?i105- Please note that years 1985 and 2000 include 10 square mile area annexations 1 jtr � Percent Population Change City of Lubbock 1996 - 2005 0.9% Annual Average 199 r 1 `a!3 IC?9 2i1C10 ' Cl� 1 -�I_'? =�0U:! ?�iCl ? �":_LIB Please note that the year 2000 includes a 10 square mile area annexation City of Lubbock Projected Population 2000 -2050 2 1 GJ 16 231,730 24G,01 5 258,596 269,128 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 LUBBOCK PER CAPITA USE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS YEAR ANNUAL AVG.GPCD 1985 185 1986 175 1987 167 1988 182 1989 194 1990 192 1991 176 1992 165 1993 179 1994 195 1995 211 1996 203 1997 184 1998 224 1999 187 2000 198 2001 191 2002 180 2003 190 2004 160 AVG. 186.90 MAX. 224.00 MIN. 160.00 STD.DEV. 15.41 SLOPE 0.46 Y-INTER -727.87 68% of values 171.49 202.31 95% of values 156.07 217.73 2050 212.35 Gallons Per Day Per Capita Analysis City of Lubbock March 2005 Annual Average Year GPCPD 1985 185 160's 160 1986 1.75 165 1987 167 167 1988 182 170's 175 1989 194 176 1990 192 179 1991 176 180's 180 1992 165 182 1993 179 184 1994 195 185 1995 211 187 1996 203 190's 190 1997 184 191 1998 224 192 1999 187 194 2000 198 195 2001 191 198 Target for Scenario #6, Most Likely 2002 180 200's 203 2003 190 211 2004 160 224 Average 187 LUBBOCK GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY LUBBUC;K GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY AND RAINFALL YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE GPCPD ANNUAL RAINFALL INCHES 1985 185 23.15 1986 175 26.61 1987 167 18.82 1988 182 13.12 1989 194 15.01 1990 192 15.83 1991 176 24.04 1992 165 22.39 1993 179 12.75 1994 195 13.12 1995 211 18.75 1996 203 14.12 1997 184 22.67 1998 224 13.05 1999 187 20.19 2000 198 21.27 2001 191 15.55 2002 180 19.27 2003 190 8.81 2004 160 33.25 AVERAGE 187 18.59 LUBBOCK GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY �Z-ANNUAL AVERAGE GPCPD -20-YEAR AVERAGE GPLCPD ANNUAL RAINFALL GRAPH NO. 1 GRAPH NO. 2 20 18 16 ch 14 r 0 12 u. K 10 w C] 8 z 6 4 2 0 MAY AVG DATER PLANNING GRAPHICS AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEAL( DAYS 2000-2004 JUN AVG JUL AVG AUG AVG MONTH SEP AVG � GM55> D ' >60 MGD >65 MGD ®>70 MGD — ®>75 MGD -->80 MGD 10-YEAR AVERAGE SEASONAL DAILY USAGE M AVERAGE OF ACTUAL CRMWA USAGE MAVERAGE OF BAILEY COUNTY USAGE OF -ROM TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR c> GRAPH NO. 19 YEAR 2007 BEST ESTIMATE NEATER SUPPLY GRAPH NO. 20 l 110 00 30- 28 0 _ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ` MONTH _ .. .......... ................ FROM TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR ESTIMATED USAGE OF BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ® ESTIMATED USAGE OF CRMWA ALLOCATION ®MAXIMUM FLOW FROM CRMWA TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR SUPPLY (15-20 DAY LIMIT) ®MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY !-CRMWA ALLOCATION YEAR 2007 HIGH ESTIMATE WATER SUPPLY I 4 3Q �.; U 10 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH C-1FROM TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR C ESTIMATED USAGE OF BAILEY -COUNTY SUPPLY ESTIMA7ED USAGE OF CRMWA ALLOCATION MAXIMUM FLOW FROM CRMWA TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR SUPPLY (15-20 DAY LIMIT) 'MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY C R M WA ALLOCATI O N GRAPH NO. 21 GRAPH NO. 22 YEAR 2007 BEST ESTIMATE PEAK DAYS 0 FROM TERMINAL STORAGE 1 G7ESTIMATED USAGE OF BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ESTIMATED USAGE OF CRMWA ALLOCATION ®®MAXIMUM FLOW FROM CRMWA I --- ' TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR SUPPLY (15- DAY LIMIT mmu� MAXIMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ®CRMWA ALLOCATION YEAR 2007 HIGH ESTIMATE PEAK DAYS 110 too - — go so 80 70 60 50 40 30Y 20 10 0 I' JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH r= FROM TERMINAL STORAGE C- ESTIMATED USAGE OF BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ! ESTIMATED USAGE OF CRMI/ViA ALLOCATION MAXIMUM FLOW FROM CRMWA TERMINAL STORAGE RESERVOIR SUPPLY (15-20 DAY LIMIT) arags—MAKMUM BAILEY COUNTY SUPPLY ice-='CRMWA ALLOCATION 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan C-) Section 4 — Other Water Supply Models/Studies Content a. 2006 Region O Water Plan b. 2004 Water Texas Study c. 2001 Black and Veatch Study d. 2001 Region O Water Plan e. 1999 Staff Water Planning Documents f. 1992 Groundwater Management Study g. 1975 Plan for Additional Water Supply h. 1971 Report on Water Supply i. 1968 Interim Report on Water Supply Summary The City of Lubbock has had a history of completing water supply plans with the assistance of professional engineering firms. It is important that city staff and community leaders understand and use these studies and their projections. A review of the reports shows that Lubbock has had projections for firture water supply needs. The challenges are to read and to understand what has been documented. If these documents were adequately understood, the water transmission line, pump stations and water treatment facility for Lake Alan Henry may have been constructed by now instead of being in the preliminary engineering phase. The engineering projections of the past generally follow the 2007 water supply model. The 1999 Staff Report and the 2001 Region O Water Supply Plan, however, show very little increase in water supply demand for over 50 years while population increases from 204,026 to 271,152. In 2006 the City of Lubbock used 42,682 acre-feet. The 2001 Region O Water Supply Plan projected annual water use of 44,041 acre-feet after 50 years of continued growth. The basis for these projections is that a water conservation goal of 1% a year could offset population growth if historical growth patterns continue. The math for these projections is feasible, but they do not consider the feasibility, technically of mandating a 1% decline in water use for 50 continuous years. Such a policy direction would require a significant educational effort and extensive community support. For Lubbock, it would involve eliminating most existing yards and gardens and moving towards a xeriscape type landscape or the drilling of wells for each home to remove the water use from the City's system. One other significant point to recognize is that the 1992 Groundwater Management Study did project that Lubbock would have adequate water through the 2040 planning period, but that recommendation assumed that i) Lake Alan Henry would be constructed, and ii) water use from the Bailey County Well Field would be reduced to 3,400 acre-feet annually. The 2040 projection for an adequate water supply appears to have been taken from this report to show Lubbock had an adequate water supply, while the Lake Alan Henry project and the reduction in pumping from the Bailey County Well Field recommendations were dropped out of the discussion. Lubbock has had a strong history of water planning. That effort must continue. The City Council and the Lubbock Water Commission must ensure a policy of professional water supply planning on the part of staff and professional engineers. HDR-09051008-05 Addendum No. 1 ( 4.5.15.3 The City of Lubbock 4.5.15.3.1 Description of Supply • Source: Ogallala Aquifer and Lake Meredith • Current Supply: Adequate to meet demands through 2015. 4.5.15.3.2 Water Supply Plan Working within the planning criteria established by the Llano Estacado RWPG and TWDB, the following water supply plan is recommended for the City of Lubbock. • Municipal water conservation, and • Lake Alan Henry Pipeline • City of Lubbock Well Field • Lubbock Expand Bailey County Well Field • CRMWA Expand Capacity of Groundwater Supply • Lubbock Brackish Groundwater Desalination • Jim Bertram Lake System Expansion, and • Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation. 4.5.15.3.3 Costs Costs of the recommended plan for the City of Lubbock are: a. Municipal water conservation: • Cost Source: Section 4.4.1 (Revised), Table 4.4-7 (Revised) • Date to be Implemented: Prior to 2010 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. b. Lake Alan Henry Pipeline: • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.2, Table 4.4-50 • Date to be Implemented: Prior to 2020 • Total Project Cost: $174,909,000 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. c. City of Lubbock Well Field: • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.3, Table 4.4-51 • Date to be Implemented: Prior to 2010 • Total Project Cost: $7,718,000 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61(Revised) for a cost summary of this option. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 Al-55 HDR-09051008-05 Addendum No. 1 d. Lubbock Expand Capacity of Bailey County Well Field -- • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.4, Table 4.4-52 • Date to be Implemented: Prior to 2010 • Total Project Cost: $2,541,000 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. e. CRMWA Expand Capacity of Groundwater Supply • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.5, Table 4.4-53 • Date to be Implemented: Prior to 2010 • Total Project Cost: ($59,052,000 to expand 31,659 acft/yr; annual cost is $6,843,000; Lubbock share of expansion is 37.058 percent of cost and quantity.) • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 for a cost summary of this option. f. Lubbock Brackish Groundwater Desalination • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.6, Table 4.4-54 • Date to be Implemented: 2020 • Total Project Cost: $10,051,230 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. g. Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System Expansion • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.7. Table 4.4-57 • Date to be Implemented: 2020 • Total Project Cost: $150,759,000 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. h. Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation • Cost Source: Section 4.4.3.8. Table 4.4-63 • Date to be Implemented: 2045 • Total Project Cost: $50,055,000 • Annual Cost: See Table 4.5-61 (Revised) for a cost summary of this option. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 Al-56 fal HDR-09051008-05 Addendum No. 1 f,. Table 4.5-61. (Revised) w __ Recommended Plan Costs by Decade for the City of Lubbock Plan Element 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Projected Shortage (acNyr)< „0 557 2,853; 4;855 Municipal Water Conservation (Strategy is included until the regional goal of 172 gpcd is reached) Quantity Available(acfi/yf)-; 4,8ti1 12;514 12,117 11540. 11,424,, 11,897- Annual Cost ($/yr).(miilions) $2.440 $5 925 ` $5 T00 - $5389. 35.320 $5.447 Unit Cost ($/acft) ; $502 .. $473 ; $470 , $46T $465 Lake Alan Henry Pipeline Quantity Available (acft/yr) 0 22,230 22,230 22,230 22,230 22,230 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) — $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 Unit Cost ($/acft) — $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 City of Lubbock Well Field Quantity Available (acft/yr) 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 Unit Cost ($/acft) $294 $294 $294 $294 $294 $294 Expand Bailey County Well Field Quantity Available (acft/yr) 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Annual Cost ($/yr) $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 Unit Cost ($/acft) $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 CRMWA Expand Groundwater Supply (See 4.5.15.3.3e above) Quantity Available (acft/yr) 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) $2.536 $2.536 $2.536 $2.536 $2.536 $2.536 Unit Cost ($/acft)* $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 Lubbock Brackish Groundwater Desalination Quantity Available (acft/yr)** 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* $1.700 $1.700 $1.700 $1.700 $1.700 $1.700 Unit Cost ($/acft)* $506 $506 $506 $506 $506 $506 Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System Expansion Quantity Available(acft/yr)** 0 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* — $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 Unit Cost ($/acft)* _ $688 $688 $688 $688 $688 Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Quantity Available (acft/yr)** 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* — — — — 4.296 4.296 Unit Cost ($/acf')* — — — — $1,V4 $1,074 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 A 1-57 ful HDR-09051008-05 Addendum No. 1 Table 4.5-90 (Revised). Recommended Plan Costs by Decade for the City of Lubbock Plan Element 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Projected Shortage (acft/yr) 544 . 2,308 3262: "" "" 3,t390 4,203 5 59$ Municipal Water Conservation (Strategy is Included until the regional goal of 172 gpcd is reached) Quantity Available (adt/yr) 4 861` 12,514 _: 12,117 1 .540 11,424 11,69T Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) $2:440 $5 925 = $5.700. $5 369 >. Unit Cost ($/acft) $502 $478? _ $470" Lake Alan Henry Pipeline Quantity Available (acft/yr) 0 22,230 22,230 22,230 22,230 22,230 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) — $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 $26.584 Unit Cost ($/acft) — $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 $1,196 City of Lubbock Well Field Quantity Available (acfl/yr) 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 $1.644 Unit Cost ($/acft) $294 $294 $294 $294 $294 $294 Expand Bailey County Well Field Quantity Available (acft/yr) 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Annual Cost ($/yr) $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 Unit Cost ($/acft) $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 CRMWA Expand Groundwater Supply (See 4.5.15.3.3e above) Quantity Available (acft/yr) 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 14,911 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions) 2.536 2.536 2.536 2.536 2.536 2.536 Unit Cost ($/acft)* $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 $216 Lubbock Brackish Groundwater Desalination Quantity Available (acft/yr)** 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 3,360 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 1.700 Unit Cost ($/acft)* $506 $506 $506 $506 $506 $506 Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System Expansion Quantity Available (acft/yr)** 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 $14.575 Unit Cost ($/acft)* $688 $688 $688 $688 $688 $688 Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Quantity Available (acft/yr)*' 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 Annual Cost ($/yr) (millions)* — — — — $4.296 $4.296 Unit Cost ($/acft)* — — — — $1,074 $1,074 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 A 1-61 WATERTEXAS T!t Bridging resources and communities. CITY OF LUBBOCK STRATEGIC WATER PLAN MAY 105 2004 1 WaterTexas, 5840 Balcones Drive, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78731 PROTECTED WATER DEMAND The Strategic Water Plan presents both a high water demand scenario and a low water demand scenario. The high water demand scenario represents the product of the high population projection multiplied by 220 GPCPD adjusted for the lower conservation rate of 7.7%, The low water demand scenario represents the product of the low population projection multiplied by 220 GPCPD adjusted for the higher conservation rate of 15%. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND4 Demand Calculations 2000 2020 2050 2100 High Population x GPCPD x 7.7% Conservation 49,307 of/yr 53,502 of/yr 59,434 of/yr 74,064 of/yr Low Population x GPCPD x 15% Conservation 49,307 of/yr 51,226 of/yr 54,552 of/yr 67,168 of/yr 90,000 80,000 70,000 a' 60,000 50,000 40,000 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND % % % %'% 2'9� Year --High Demand Low Demand a Unlike per capita use, projected water demand is traditionally calculated in acre-feet per year (af/yr). 6 Both the high and low water demand scenarios were evaluated as part of the preparation of the Strategic Water Plan. However, for the most part, the range between the two is insignificant. Therefore, the high water demand scenario is used in the Strategic Water Plan, except in a few of instances where inclusion of both scenarios is important to make a point. 7 q SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Strategic Water Plan recommends that the City of Lubbock take the following actions: - 1. Conservation • Implement conservation goals that are consistent with state water planning standards, and appropriate for a region experiencing a "drought of record." • Initiate water conservations efforts that will enable Lubbock to reduce per capita water use, including strict conservation enforcement to prevent wasteful water use practices and the implementation of a conservation water rate structure. 2. Lake Meredith • As the current drought progresses, monitor Lake Meredith lake levels and, if they continue to decline, work to recalculate Lake Meredith's firm annual yield to determine if more aggressive action is necessary. 3. Bailey County • Prepare to increase production from the Bailey County well field. • Immediately assess its ability to produce regularly at greater levels of longer duration and implement an appropriate repair and replacement program to ensure optimum operation _~ during periods of increased production. • Within the next 5 years, reevaluate the longevity of the Bailey County well field (e.g., verify the estimate of a 50 year life) and perform a cost -benefit analysis of adding or reworking wells to increase or maintain production over time. • Within the next 5 years, study the possibility and feasibility of developing other groundwater resources in areas accessible to the Bailey County system's infrastructure. 4. Carson and Potter Counties (CRMWA) • Immediately pursue through CRMWA the acquisition of up to 28,587 of/yr of groundwater rights along the CRMWA system in Carson and Potter Counties (Lubbock's share = 10,594 of/yr). • If the groundwater rights are acquired, install the related infrastructure on an "as needed basis" probably between 2005 and 2012, but as soon as possible if the drought progresses. 33 1 5. Roberts County Phase I (CRMWA) } • If groundwater rights in Carson and Potter Counties are not timely acquired, immediately pursue through CRMWA the acquisition of up to 31,659 of/yr of additional groundwater rights in Roberts County (Lubbock's share = 11,733 of/yr). • If groundwater rights in Carson and Potter Counties are timely acquired, delay the acquisition of additional groundwater rights in Roberts County for up to 15 years. 6. Local Groundwater • Immediately convert all non -potable demands (e.g., parks, LISD) to local groundwater to the greatest extent economically feasible. • By 2005, install membrane treatment at the Memphis & 82nd Reverse Osmosis Project Plant (PS 10) to develop at least 5 mgd of local groundwater as a potable supply. • By 2005, develop a process whereby the City of Lubbock can obtain groundwater rights associated with new development. • Within the next 5 years, determine the amount of recharge to local groundwater supplies, and evaluate the possibility of recharge enhancement and/or ASR. 7. Reuse • By the end of 2004, seek to permit for reuse all of Lubbock's "developed water." • Within the next five years, evaluate the improvements needed to achieve 100% reuse and the feasibility of implementing the Canyon Lakes Water Reuse Project. 8. Lake Alan Henry ' • No later than 2012, conduct an evaluation process and commission a study to evaluate the necessity and feasibility of using Lake Alan Henry as a water supply in light of Lubbock's success at developing other water supplies in accordance with this Strategic Water Plan. • If it is determined that Lubbock does not need the resource, immediately work to find a Id customer or buyer for the water and/or the lake. • If it is determined that Lubbock needs the resource, commence the process of connecting it to the City's system with a lead time of at least 10 years. • In either event, evaluate whether it is necessary and feasible to increase the lake's firm annual yield (e.g., by augmenting with return flows or groundwater from the Hancock Land Application Site). 9. Roberts County Phase II (CRMWA) • If additional CRMWA supplies are not acquired to the point that CRWWA can maximize its system at all times, pursue through CRMWA the acquisition of enough additional groundwater rights in Roberts County to make up for any water supply deficits projected over the 100-year planning horizon, bearing in mind the capacity limitations of CRMWA's system. 35 CITY OF LUBBOCK WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION .�. E OF T i� 4z i GREGORY DEAN NELSON K/�zfol MMT- �. AOBEH'f FtARUEN . VOL 79290 y/i z/o 1 cyr4vAd ou0,Ter- D u1'/;a],1) 00 BLACK & VEATCH APRIL 2001 PN 096216 1.3 Need for Additional Water Supply The 2001 Water Distribution System Study included population and water use projections for Lubbock through the year 2050. As discussed in the Water Distribution Study, these projections are "design" projections for planning purposes and represent estimates of future water use during high demand (drought) years. Water use during normal years will be less than the "design" projections. This is considered reasonable for planning purposes, since water systems are generally designed to meet demands during drought -type conditions. The projected AAD water use for Lubbock (from the 2001 Water Distribution Study) is shown in Table 1-2. These projections were based on a per capita use rate of 220 gallon per capita per day and do not include the long-term impacts (which are difficult to predict) of any conservation efforts to reduce per capita water use. As shown in Table 1-2, the projected AAD water use is 58.3 mgd by the year 2050. Table 1-2 Projected AAD Water Use Year AAD Water Use (mgd) 2010 48.0 2020 50.5 2030 53.4 2040 55.8 2050 58.3 Figure 1-1 shows the projected AAD demands, along with the AAD supply capacity (34.0 mgd) available from CRMWA. As shown on Figure 1-1, the projected water use for year 2050 will exceed the CRMWA supply capacity by about 24.3 mgd. This means that the Bailey County wells (or other supply sources such as local wells) must supply 24.3 mgd (on an AAD basis) to meet projected water demands in 2050. Without obtaining water from new sources, the City would have to meet future AAD use by increasing pumpage from the Bailey County well field. 1-4 KEELING D6SK1104 LUBBOCK PROJECTED AAD DEMANDS AND WATER SUPPLY CAPACITIES.CDR 0411101 60 Projected I AAD Demand G 5C------- Historical i AAD Demand - { Bailey County Wells / Other Supply ----- ___ ; _ ____.__ . w _:.._ __. _ _._ _ ._._..__ j � 1 6 3 i CRMWA Supply = 34.0 MGD 2 1990 2006 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year Projected Annual Average Day Demands and Water Supply Capacities BLACK & VEATCH Figure No. 1-1 Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning Area Regional Water Plan Prepared for Texas Water Development Board Prepared by Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning Group With administration by High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 With technical assistance by HDR Engineering, Inc. Austin, Texas January 2001 Description of the Planning Region 9.90.3.5 City of Littlefield 82 1 The City f Littlefield owns, operates, and manages th ater works system. The city's waterworks system erves approximately 2,921 connecti s. The majority of these connections are within the city 1' its of Littlefield. Howe v , a few of the customers live outside the corporate limits of the ci The waterwo system covers approximately 3.5 square miles. Over the past several years the ty h experienced moderate growth. The city's water works system has not been exceeded available capacity to supply the customers' demand. Littlefield is considering airing ad 'onal water rights to assure future water for its customers. From the ility Evaluation, the of Littlefield has set a goal of per capita water use reduction of percent. The ity of Littlefield's Emergency Water D d Management Plan contains trigger condit' to stipulate when water use should be curtailed. a plan includes restrictions on I a watering, car washing, and certain public water uses that are not essential for public health or safety. 1.10.3.6 Cityof Lubbock" The purpose of the City of Lubbock's Water Conservation Plan is to promote the responsible use of water by (1) supporting public education programs, (2) maintaining policies that support wise use of water, and (3) providing for enforcement of water conservation policies and practices. It is the goal of the Plan to reduce water usage by 20 gpcd by the year 2014. To achieve this goal, the City of Lubbock will continue its programs for universal metering and controlling unaccounted-for uses of water, as well as continue the city's program of continuing education regarding water conservation. The City of Lubbock's Drought Contingency Plan outlines the city's drought and emergency contingency procedures and identifies the triggering criteria for initiation and termination of the four water shortage conditions, as well as the water use restrictions in effect during times of water shortages. The plan contains restrictions on water use to be in effect 62'011er Engineering, Inc. for the City of Littlefield, "Water Conservation Plan and Drought Contingency Plan," March 1997. 63 City of Lubbock, "Water Conservation Plan," August 26, 1999, and "Drought Contingency Plan," August 26, 1999. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 1-91 January 2001 Description of the Planning Region '= during water shortages that include irrigation of landscaped areas, use of water to wash any motor vehicle, operation of any ornamental fountain or pond, and other restrictions on outdoor water use. Water uses regulated or prohibited under this plan are considered to be non -essential and continuation of such uses during times of water shortage or other emergency water supply conditions are deemed to constitute a waste of water which subjects the offender to penalties such as fines or discontinuance by the city of water services to water utility customers or other users. 1.10.3.7 City of Plainview" The City of Plainview's Conservati/th ought Contingency PI outlines ordinances the city as put into effect to reduce pere and to curtail w r use during times of drought. In rdez to lower the city's per cer use the city adopted a plumbing code that limits resi tial meters to 1-inch or as initiat a water meter retrofit program, provides education aterials on water cland aping, and maintains a leak detection and repair program.The city's drought c tingency plan the city's drought response procedures. The plan contains restrictions on ater use effect during water shortages that include irrigation of landscaped areas, use ter to wash any motor vehicle, and other restrictions on outdoor water use. 1.10.3.8 City of Seminole es The City of S ole use a water s item for approximately 2,400 utility customers. It /apabihnli of producing 5.5 mgd of potabl water from 18 wells in the Ogallala Aquifer syof these wells are located inside the c limits with the other eleven scattered ovs of land. All wells are included in a co uterized water automation system in wals sent to a computer control the levels of w in the groundwater storage and eltanks along with the operation of the wells. This ystem also allows the city to sequence the wells desired so that different wells turn on at different times and under different conditions. 64 Freese & Nichols for the City of Plainview, "Drought Contingency Plan," July 26, 1994. 6s Information transmitted in a letter received from the City of Seminole dated October 26, 1999. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 1-92 IPopulation and Water Demand Projections Tah/a 2.2 (confinued) Total in Total in Projections 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Basin/County/Citymural 1990 1996 Floyd (part) Floydada 3,896 3,875 4,051 4,297 4,437 4,435 4,319 4,195 Lockney 2,207 2,131 2,286 2,418- 2,485 2,408 2,262 2,125 Rural 1,496 1,495 1.532 1,628 1,689 1,737 1,742 1,738 Total 7,599 7,501 7,869 8,343 8,611 8,580 8,323 8,058 Garza (part) Post 3,768 3,611 3,924 4,126 4,204 4,108 3,986 3,868 Rural 1.370 1.338 1.373 1.442 1.467 1.432 1,386 1,294 Total 5,138 4,949 5,297 5,568 5,671 5,540 5,372 5,162 Hale (part) Abernathy (part) 2,132 2,082 2,279 2,424 2,567 2,668 2,705 2,742 Hale Center 2,067 2,088 2,157 2,292 2,426 2,521 2,457 2,395 Petersburg 1,292 1,287 1,514 1,743 1,944 2,145 2,306 2,479 Plainview 21,700 22,063 22,469 23,055 23,805 23,959 23,465 22,981 Rural 7,434 8,762 8,773 10,026 11.136 12,230 13,180 14,114 Total 34,625 36,282 37,192 39,540 41,878 43,523 44,113 44,711 Hockley (part) Anton 1,212 1,253 1,350 1,397 1,474 1,478 1,455 1,432 Levelland 13,986 13,998 15,609 16,271 16,744 16,505 16,056 15,619 Rural 6,806 6,770 7,136 7,579 7,894 7,881 7,764 7,260 Total 22,004 22,021 24,095 25,247 26,112 25,864 25,275 24,311 Lamb (all) Amherst 742 748 722 684 634 587 568 554 Earth 1,228 1,352 1,282 1,373 1,446 1,492 1,539 1,587 Littlefield 6,489 6,395 6,751 7,232 7,584 7,772 7,940 8,112 Olton 2,116 2,107 2,177 2,331 2,449 2,516 2,580 2,625 Sudan 983 971 1,020 1,090 1,141 1,163 1,169 1,175 Rural 3,514 3,589 3,749 4,102 4,412 4,620 4,817 4,881 Total 15,072 15,162 15,701 16,812 17,666 18,150 18,613 18,934 Lubbock (all) Abernathy (part) 588 649 852 966 1,069 1,159 1,238 1,322 Idalou . 2,074 2,116 2,286 2,507 2,789 3,166 3,310 3,461 3PLubbock 186,206 194,188 204,026 220,707 236,144 249,249 259,970 271,152 New Deal 521 609 586 605 611 640 678 715 Ransom Canyon 763 888 942 1,008 1,060 1,138 1,238 1,338 Reese AFB 1,263 1,319 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 Shallowater 1,708 2,001 2,018 2,213 2,462 2,792 2,918 3,050 Slaton 6,078 6,199 6,481 6,683 6,884 7,816 8,316 8,848 Wolfforth 1,941 2,372 2,390 2,621 2,916 3,309 3,458 3,614 Rural 21,494 23,155 21,993 23,122 24,025 23,512 23,649 21,021 222,636 233,496 242,837 261,695 279,223 294,044 306,038 315,784 Total w, lui tum on nex[ page C-) I Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 2-7 4 Population and Water Demand Projections P A 4 G L [l Table 2-21(continued) Basin/Couniy/City/Rural Total in 1990 (acff) Total in 1996 (acft) Projections (acft) 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Hockley County (part) Anton (Municipal) 200 201 263 258 258 253 243 237 Leveliand (Municipal) 2,377 1,954 2,518 2,479 2,401 2,311 2,176 2,099 Rural (Municipal) 771 896 895 891 867 830 791 732 Total Municipal Demand 3,348 3,051 3,676 3,628 3,526 3,394 3,210 3,068 Industrial Demand 67 55 82 98 117 138 161 188 Steam -Electric Power Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation Demand 83,764 155,345 87,554 84,130 80,840 77,680 74,641 71,723 Mining Demand 2,465 3,953 4,770 4,088 3,435 2,890 2,446 2,032 Beef Feedlot Livestock Demand 331 269 281 326 379 418 462 510 Range & All Other Livestock Demand 199 204 207 219 229 240 252 265 Total Demand 90,174 162,877 96,570 92,489 88,526 84,760 81,172 77,786 Lamb•County (ail) Amherst (Municipal) 147 152 155 140 124 112 106 102 Earth (Municipal) 312 277 320 325 326 331 334 343 Littlefield (Municipal) 1,010 1,430 1,165 1,175 1,164 1,158 1,156 1,172 Olton (Municipal) 457 513 585 598 598 606 610 617 Sudan (Municipal) 283 207 313 320 320 322 318 319 Rural (Municipal) 443 498 487 �504 514 523 532 536 Total Municipal Demand 2,652 3,077 3,025 3,062 3,046 3,052 3,056 3,089 Industrial Demand 753 448 711 655 593 593 593 593 Steam -Electric Power Demand 12,587 13,686 1'81000 18,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 Irrigation Demand 351,050 381,379 288,370 277,244 266,546 256,261 246,373 236,867 Mining Demand 76 125 138 107 97 94 92 95 Beef Feedlot Livestock Demand 1,502 1,747 1,827 2,121 2,461 2,718 3,003 3,317 Range & All Other Livestock Demand 400 423 432 467 504 537 5 612 Total Demand 369,020 400,885 312,503 301,656 298,247 288,255 278,689 274,573 Lubbock County (all) Abernathy (part) (Municipal) 109 133 149 159 168 177 184 195 Idalou (Municipal) 356 380 423 438 459 507 523 543 Lubbock (Municipal) 36,656 40,225 38,394 39,556 40,206 41,600 42,516 44,041 New Deal (Municipal) 96 105 106 104 100 102 105 110 Ransom Canyon (Municipal) 162 222 215 220 221 232 247 265 Reese AFB (Municipal) 657 750 662 638 615 610 606 603 Shallowater (Municipal) 325 352 364 377 397 438 448 468 Slaton (Municipal) 865 756 915 891 864 946 969 1,021 Wolfforth (Municipal) 337 375 391 402 421 467 476 494 Rural (Municipal) 2.779 4.587 2,619 2,592 2.495 2.328 2,222 1,945 Total Municipal Demand 42,342 47,885 44,238 45,347 45,946 47,407 48,296 49,685 Industrial Demand 1,469 1,797 1,704 2,071 2,106 2,230 2,572 2,923 Steam -Electric Power Demand 1,715 1,171 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Irrigation Demand 230,717 242,533 158,078 149,158 140,785 132,881 125,421 118,381 Mining Demand 191 1,255 446 364 298 243 199 162 Beef Feedlot Livestock Demand 689 807 843 979 1,136 1,255 1,386 1,531 Range & All Other Livestock Demand 503 562 58g 817 893 979 1.078 1,191 Total Demand 1 277,626 1 296,010 1 207,897 1 200,7361 196,1641 189,995 1 183,952 1 178.873 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 243 Projected Water Supplies, Water Needs, and Social and Economic Impacts Table 4d5 prp pedNhbrDamanda.80oWUs.andNaads ^.. - - Lubbock Cmkny Liam Rafteaft R"lon Total In Total in Prot km ' Bas1n Sotvee 1990 l9% 2000 2010 2020 2030 21N0 2050 _ _- acp acR acrt acft a 1m acn acrt I WATER SNPLI Bnaos1112ft I I ui&rNannal RahwactIrrit Raimulation' 125.753 123-753 L 125753 1257531 123.753 IM753 tifftS Net leuan 46 36 41.aa 1 37 -M 3 32 27.479 S OW 172299 167,6351 163,447 159.673 156235 153232 Otbai0xillah VCRMWA-RobaroCo 15453 15.031 IS 53 134453 IS453 IS $3 LoWStaba Stock Twilmand Windmigs Sal $19 $94 979 1.081 1192 OdmrSwflm I IakeMeredth CRMWA 29362 262 93 29. 362 29,362 29 213.917303 Odwsurbce WreAlm H 0 0 0 0 29.900 Reclaimed Wata 131ecaic Paves 4.799 4 S 5200 5.314 I Reolainted W— 9.599 9 10.053 1 10,630 Rachcned Watw, 173 3.1731 3. 3173 3173 Total 235,262 231.2761 227AO7 221 25119 214 7oulDemadh IS 4 S 7 Ili III I WATER DEMANDS I Bn 109 133 149 159 168 177 194 195 lwpr 356 380 423 438 459 507 523 $43 1,ubbock 36AS6 40= 39,394 39,556 40 41AOD 42,516 44041 New pgl % 105 106 104 100 102 105 Ito Raman Canyon 162 222 215 220 221 232 247 265 Rem AFB Cononimity 1 657 7501 662 638 615 610 606 603 ShallawHa 1 325 352 364 377 397 439 ME 466 Swon a65 7$6 915 39! 864 9461 90 'W 337 375 391 402 421 467 476 19695 Rural 779 4,517 19 93 Subtotal 42,342, 47 44 45,347 4S 47 48 Total M Demand 42342 47 a 45347 45 47AM 41 49 aS M S Brans Bari. 149 159 0 0 0 01 lddm i0salbill, 423 439 0 0 0 Lubbock lakeMuedith CRMWA 27712 27.712 27.712 27712 27712 27.7121 (CItMWA-RoobegrUtsCa 14AD 14.t23 14= 14223 14 14,823 Lake Alan Henry0 0 0 0 29 29 7016 7 7,426 7710 7 97 LubbockSubtaul 49 SI 49 Oa 49 1 SOJ45 90.332 New Deal 102XILAIR 106 104 01 0 0 gansm [atbbak Meroft 26S 265 265 265 265 Rene Lubbock 639 615 610 606 603 Shaltaw•ata Lubbock Meredith) 187 lt7 187 197 197 190 0 0 0 01 Shallywater Subtotal M364 377 197 127 I Ia7 Sloan LikeMcmdhb CRMWA 119E t 193 119E 119t 119ECRMWA - Rolx+u Cw630 630 6-3-oL goSiuoo Subtdat ► Ij= lin 1.328 Un Walllbrth 391 0 0 0 Rural 19 495 2351 2= 1,945 Subtotal 56,358 Wei 55JSII SS 54401 85AU Toull Munktw S 39 $6,521 SS SI SSA61 85 95 Municipal bMimabortatte Btamt _ _ 0 0 -169 -m a94 -195 -'- 0 0 -459 -507 Lubbock I --- - 11 157 10,252 9,755 8.645 _ - 37316 36.599 New Dal - -. _. j ---- 0 0 -100 -102 -105 -11 Raman Canym — - - - ---_ _. _ - -- _ SO 4$ 44 33 it. 0 RemCemr 0 01 0 - -261 0 ShalbwaTa 0 0 .210 .251 -291 Sworn 913 937 964 U2 859 907 Wol0brth '__---T_ 0 0 421 _ - 4671 -476 .4% Rnnl 0 0 01 0' 0 0 Subtotal --__.� I 1 120 ilia 9A05i IIM1 37144 35.783 e1 8.0S6 I 37.IM j 357a3 TotalM swpi 1 120 11 9.405! 01. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan ¢SS January 2001 E Water Management Strategies for the Llano Estacado Region 5.2 Long-term Water Management Strategies 5.2.1 Interconnect Cities and Industries (Sources of Water to Include Lake Alan Henry and Post Reservoir) 5.2.1.1 Description of Option C-00 This option would in de the construction of a pipeline from Lake Alan Henry, which has a firm yield o 29, ft/yr, to the City of Lubbock (Figure 5-10). A second pipeline would be constructe om the proposed Post Reservoir, which would have a firm yield of E" approximately 9,500 acft/yr, and tie into the pipeline from Lake Alan Henry to Lubbock (Figure 5-10). A new 36-MGD surface water treatment plant would need to be constructed to treat this new supply (Figure 5-10). For purposes of this evaluation, the water treatment is assumed to be located near the southeast corner of Lubbock. The treated water could be utilized by the City of Lubbock as an additional source, or the city could sell this water to its existing customers or new customers within the Lubbock general area. This pipeline could be interconnected with the Mackenzie Municipal Water Authority distribution line and/or the White River Municipal Water District distribution line, in which case the water treatment plant would need to be located at the lakes. However, for this option the pipeline is assumed to terminate at a new water treatment plant near Lubbock. 5.2.1.2 Quantity of WaterAvallable The quantity available for this option is the sum of the yields of Lake Alan Henry and the proposed Post Reservoir, which is 38,500 acft/yr (29,00 + 9,500). 5.2.1.3 Environmental issues The environmental issues associated with this option are for pipeline rights -of -way and sites for water treatment plant and storage facilities. Since routes and sites can be selected to avoid sensitive wildlife habitat and cultural resources, there would be very little, if any, ei environmental issues of significant concern. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 5-145 January 2001 Im Water Management Strategies for the Llano Estacado Region 0 G Figure 5-10. Lake Alan Henry/Post Reservoir Pipeline Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 5-146 Wafer Management Strategies for the Llano Estacado Region 5.2.1.4 Costing Costs for this option include the raw water transmission pipeline, surface water treatment plant, and other project costs that include engineering costs, land acquisition, and interest during construction. The following assumptions and conditions were used in the costing of this option. 7cj' s06 • The firm yield of Lake Alan Henry is 29,000 acft. The pipeline from Lake Alan Henry to near Post Reservoir is sized to transport the full film yield amount. • The firm yield of the proposed Post Reservoir is approximately 9,500 acft/yr. The pipeline from Post Reservoir to the Lake Alan Henry pipeline is sized to transport the full firm yield amount. • The new surface water treatment plant has a capacity of 36 MGD (sized to treat the firm yield of both reservoirs). • Cost of land for pipeline easements is $8,712 per acre. Cost of land for pump stations, storage tanks, and a water treatment plant is $1,500 per acre. • The costs given are for treated water at the new water treatment plant and do not include costs associated with transporting the treated water from the water treatment plant to the end users. • The costs for raw water from Lake Alan Henry are $148 per acft. • The costs for raw water from Post Reservoir are $214 per acft. • Engineering, -le al costs, and contingencies are calculated as 30 percent of the g g construction costs for pipelines and 35 percent for all other facilities. • Environmental and archeological studies, mitigation, and permitting costs are calculated as 100 percent of the land cost. • Interest during construction is calculated with a 6 percent interest rate and a 4 percent annual rate of return for a period of 5 years. The total project cost for this option was estimated at $117,248,000 (Table 5-67). Financing the project for 30 years at 6 percent annual interest results in an annual expense of $8,518,000 for debt service (Table 5-67). Annual O&M costs total $14,871,000 (Table 5-67). The total annual cost, including debt service, -raw water cost, O&M cost, and power cost, totals $23,389,000 (Table 5-67). For an annual delivery of 39,400 acft/yr, the resulting cost of treated water at the water treatment plant is $594 per acft (Table 5-67). This is the cost of treated water at the water treatment plant and does not include costs associated with transporting the water from the water treatment plant. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 5-147 1 1 January 2001 Water Management Strategies for the Llano Estacado Region Table 5-67. Cost Estimate Summary for Lake Alan Henry and Post Reservoir Regional Pipeline (39,400 acfJyr) Llano Estacado Region hem Estimated Cost for Facilities Wd quarter 1999 Capital Costs Pump Stations (4) $13,450,000 Pump Station Power Connection Cost 1,621,000 Intake Stations (2) 2,282,000 Transmission Pipeline (48 in dia, 47.5 miles) 19,076,000 Transmission Pipeline (42 in dia, 41.0 miles) 15,922,000 Transmission Pipeline (20 in dia, 33.0 miles) 1,830,000 Water Treatment Plant (36 MGD) 15,146,000 Water Storage Tanks (4) 3,249,000 Road Crossings 13,000 Total Capital Cost $72,589,000 Engineering, Legal Costs and Contingencies $23,565,000 Environmental Studies and Permitting 2,344,000 Land Acquisition and Surveying (284 acres) 2,578,000 Interest During Construction (4 years) 16,172,000 Total Project Cost $117,248,000 Annual Costs Debt Service (6 percent for 30 years) $8,518,000 Pipeline and Storage Tank Operation and Maintenance 401,000 Pump Station Operation and Maintenance 336,000 Water Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance 2,590,000 Purchase of Water (39,400 acft/yr)' 6,458,000 Pumping Energy Costs (84,761,700 kW-hr aQ $0.06/kW-hr) 5,086,000 Total Annual Cost $23,389,000 Available Project Yield (acft/yr) 39,400 Annual Cost of Water ($ per acft)a $594 Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)= $1.82 ' Cost of raw water at Lake Alan Henry is $148 per acit, and at Post Reservoir is $214 per acft Y Reported Annual Cost of Water is for treated water at the water treatment plant and does not include costs associated with L. distribution within municlegi systems. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 5-148 I . Water Management Strategies for the Llano Estacado Region -' 5.Z1.5 Implementation Issues Implementation of this option will require the development of a regional water supply system, including customers and terms and conditions between customers and the regional supplier. The regional supplier will need to arrange financing, secure the water from the owners of the reservoirs, obtain rights -of -way and sites for facilities, secure state and federal permits for stream crossings, perform environmental and cultural resources studies, and provide mitigation for any environmental and cultural resources that might be affected. 5.2.2 Import Water"' &2.2.1 Description of Option This option would divert water from as many six sources located in Arkansas and Texas and tr port this water via an open can o a terminal storage facility located on the White River in co Canyon about five des south of U.S. Highway 82 near Crosbyton, Texas. The propose ipeline ali t is shown in Figure 5-11. Four of the potential water supply sources are located Ark sas (White River at Clarendon, Arkansas River at Pine Bluff, Ouachita River at Camden, a Red River at Fulton) and two potential water supply sources are located in Texas (S me Rivera atum and the Sulphur River at Darden). This water would primarily be use a new source of 'gation supply for parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. a amount of water needed by ch state to restore and maintain lands that would go out irrigated production between 1977 2020 due to a declining water level in the O ala Aquifer was used as a target delivery rate or this option. The states of Texas, New exico, and Oklahoma have a combined quantity of 1. 6 million acftlyr needed to restore and maintain those irrigation lands which would go out of produ "on by 2020. 61 This report section is a summary of information contained in the "Six -State High Plains -Ogallala Aquifer Regional Resources Study — A Report to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the High Plains Study Council' conducted by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Black & Veatch, and Arthur D. Little, Inc., March 1982. 61 Mr. Fred Kuntz, of Dimmitt, Texas has identified an import strategy that would move water from Toledo Bend Reservoir of the Sabine River Basin to the Llano Estacado Region. However, this strategy has not been analyzed due to lack of technical data needed to make cost, environmental, and implementation analyses. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2001 5-149 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 5 3.15 Lubbock County Water Supply Plan Table 5-129 lists each water user group in Lubbock County and its corresponding surplus or shortage in years 2030 and 2050. For each water user group with a projected shortage, a water supply plan has been developed and is presented in the following subsections. Table 5-129. Lubbock County Surplus/Shortage Water User Group Sutpius/Shortagel Comment 2030 (acft/yt) 2050 (acft/yr) City of Abernathy See Hale County City of Idalou -507 -543 Projected shortage — see plan below City of Lubbock 9,255 37,202 Projected surplus City of New Deal -102 -110 Projected shortage — see plan below City of Ransom Canyon 33 0 Projected surplus City of Reese Center 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage City of Shallowater -251 -281 Projected shortage — see plan below City of Slaton 882 807 Projected surplus City of Wolfforth -467 -494 Projected shortage — see plan below County Other 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage Industrial 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage Steam Electric 200 505 Projected surplus Mining 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage Irrigation 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage Beef Feedlot Livestock 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage Range & All Other Livestock 0 0 No projected surplus/shortage From Table 4-15, Section 4.1 — Water Needs Projections by Water User Group. * Computations are at the county level of detail, and although the county data show a surplus or shortage, there no doubt are individual water users of each county who have a shortage when the county shows an overall surplus; e.., the 2Lojected surplus water is not located such that those who have shortages can obtain it. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 5-208 January 2001 No Text u, kk i i `�., t„ tt. 9.. b} v �x d `b.. s« , t. , a `U., Yai. 4..: k.. ..v ' s„ ,... .'✓ „ N.J. isi i's4�... « .� i. ., A ,. Cart+ ,r .. `4 n , iR,.. �V ... 1k +. .^..,a Ki ,., �:??.. .r�� r s i`+Y Marc. `2 `•a a� , tz ,. t.,. <:,,, z ,. . ""� t ,.:�,. � ,. . .. 4. d, .^.. , i ,. . x � a.�.: r, .. i. m MEDIAN PROJECTIONS LUBBOCK GALLONS PER PROJECTED WATER SOURCES TO MEET DEMAND CRMWA" SANDHILLS WELL FIELD LAKE ALAN HENRY LOCAL WELL FIELDS YEAR POPULATION CAPITA PER DAY DEMAND PROJECTIONS GPCD 2000 199,564 198 14,649,198,476 44,957 12 330,532 500 37,841 2,319,922,476 7,120 0 0 0 0 2010 212,820 185 14,566 976,212 44,704 13,924,168 479 42,732 392,807,732 1,205 0 0 250 000,000 767 2020 224,493 183 15,299 699 313 46,953 14,007,449,000 42,987 792 250,313 2,431 0 0 500 000,000 1,534 2030 234,924 182 15 868,867,691 48,700 14,007 449 000 42,987 420,724,402 1 291 1,040,694,289 3,194 400,000,000 1,228 2040 244,197 180 16,454 439 549 50,497 14 005 877,889 42,982 562,140,415 1,725 1,686 421,245 5,175 200,000 000 614 2050 255,284 180 17,147 321 548 52,623 14 007 449,000 42,987 774,547 980 2,377 2,215,324 567 6 799 150,000 000 460 i ,. .,. U a u ;. ,. t 4. "kz} ,, t , x r tAa.. {.y a:,. 4 rv. f,..•Yr S,. :':: i:. ., n k >.,.. e Cx r' , a ., c S ,. k.,, , . ,. .::+. n '. , .; ,k. ,: , .. .. pe `n "a ,k..x,... ,x to g Y } "i � ,Sx ': , � +:..: ck , :a ,. � <.'�'.. � ,.", ,.. � fir... it: �i s£'.. : vd'sSw•. ,,}. ,x :, �. e h ,a ..... ..... £.r,.. ai *:?.. .. .Y � M'�}i,^�cY•:,, ,. , ,r T8S�500�, ."n .5.2�037rv� � b � k« ,y ,� a�04T98S05 31'6 ...,. .::,wf � .2 ik62.947xm, ,`,«'a ,. .,� kt,. rv, �,J40�3:15.69;793a�, ?f, ,. , .�,.a'f2�7a24,� .n.., �5 A o� .�,3Sb0:k2�49 ,86+1�.5 r, , �,, r �,_ni0� 449�Y,,, ,n ��--- --- No Text COMPREHENSIVE GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK April 9, 1992 Geraghty & Miller, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to work for the City of Lubbock on the Comprehensive Ground Water Management Study, This report was prepared in conformance with Geraghty & Miller's strict quality assurance/quality control procedures to ensure that it meets the highest standards in terms of the methods used and the information presented. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please contact one of the individuals listed below. Respectfully submitted,. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Hugh B. Robotham, P.B. Principal Scientist/Project Manager $V�P ' Amo Philip C. Briggs, P.E. Senior Project Advisor a4J4 d Anchor E. Holm, P.E. Associate/Project Officer 14 to assist the user in referencing information quickly. Backup of the entire system should be done regularly but not daily. The WIMS program has been installed by G&M on a computer system at the City's Iwater treatment plant. Data and information for the City's well fields has been entered into the system by City personnel in the water department. Output data consisting of graphs, 1 maps and reports have been generated and furnished to G&M. This data has been analyzed and evaluated and utilized in the present ground water management assessment. The WIMS program is being finalized. The final version will be installed by G&M on the City's- computer at the water treatment plant as soon as it is completed. A complete backup of 1 the program should be kept in a secure place to be used if the computer or system crashes. FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS As stated earlier, the City obtains most of the water that it uses from Lake Meredith through the CRMWA. By contract agreement, the City is entitled to 37.058 percent of the available yield of Lake Meredith. The initial estimate of the yield of the lake is about J 103,000 acre-feet per year. However, more recent analysis of the yield of the lake based oil rainfall/runoff data has estimated that the safe yield is presently about 82,400 acre-feet per year which is 80 percent of the original estimate. In recent years, allocations to the City from the CRMWA have been based on the 82,400 acre-feet per year yield. The resultant Lubbock allocation has been about 30,535.4 acre-feet (9.95 billion gallons) per year. At present, the City has a contract with the City of Pampa, Texas for the purchase j of 800 million gallons of water annually from its CRMWA allocation as a member city. This 1 contract expires in 1993 but can be renewed annually after that time. Lubbock also has the option to purchase an additional 200 million gallons of water annually from Pampa if enough water is available. J 15 The remainder of the City's water supply is obtained from its existing ground water well fields. The Sandhills well field is the City's main ground water supply. Additional ground water is obtained from the Birdwell ground water lease and wells located within the City of Lubbock. In 1991, the Birdwell lease was renegotiated allowing the City to purchase the Birdwell well field at the end of the lease in 2001. The City had a contract to purchase water from the City Of Muleshoe. This contract expired in 1991. Ground water is used mainly to meet the City's peak water demands during the summer months and to supplement the surface water supply from Lake Meredith during the rest of the year. Lake Alan Henry is a new multi -purpose reservoir that is being constructed about 56 miles southeast of Lubbock on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (Figure 6). This reservoir is being built by the Brazos River Authority under contract to the City who will have 100 percent ownership of the fake. The darn construction is planned to be completed by the fall of 1993. Construction of pipeline, water treatment and other facilities are expected to be completed not earlier than 2002. The first delivery of water to Lubbock from the reservoir is expected not earlier than 2002. The safe yield of Lake Alan Henry has been projected to be about 27,420.5 acre-feet per year. The City of Lubbock has 100 percent allocation from the reservoir. HISTORICAL WATER DEMANDS Historical water use data for the City for the period 1985 through 1991 were obtained from the City's water utilities department. This data is summarized in Table 1 where the total use, ground water pumpage and the amount obtained from CRMWA are shown. The actual total water use for the period 1985 through 1991 is shown graphically on Figure 7 along with the projected total water requirements for the City through the year 2040. Total annual water use over the seven-year period (1985 to 1991) ranged from about 34,056.5 acre-feet (11,097.3 million gallons, MG) in 1987 to about 40,226 acre-feet (13,107.7 16 IMG) in 1989 and averaged 37,049.8 acre-feet (12,072.7 MG). The annual amount of water obtained from CRMWA during the same period ranged from 31,159.0 acre-feet (10,153.2 I MG) in 1987 to 33,484.4 acre-feet (10,910.9 MG) in 1985 and averaged 32,135.1 acre-feet I (10,471.3 MG). Ground water usage over the seven year period reflects the difference } between the total water requirement and the amount obtained from the CRMWA. The annual ground water use ranged from 3,766.6 acre-feet (1,227.3 MG) in 1986 to 8,765.4 Iacre-feet (2,856.2 MG) in 1990 and averaged 5,833.2 acre-feet (1,900.8 MG). This indicates that the year-to-year ground water use can be somewhat variable depending on the weather conditions and the amount of rainfall experienced within the City. The rainfall in 1986 was well above the average for the Lubbock area and for the High Plains area as a whole. Consequently, the amount of ground water that was needed was quite low. I he total ground water use includes the City Of Lubbock and Reese Air Force Base (RAFB). As stated earlier, most of the ground water used by the City is obtained from the Sandhills well field. Since 1986, a significant amount has been contributed by the Birdwell lease which adjoins the Sandhills well field. With the renegotiation of the Birdwell lease i under a lease/purchase agreement, the City essentially owns the water rights to this property. Local wells within the City contribute only a very small amount to the total ground water use. In the past seven years, ground water use has averaged about 5000 acre- feet (1.63 billion gallons) per year. PROJECTION OF FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS Projections of future water requirements of the City have been made by various entities including HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR, 1990) and the TWDB. The HDR projections, like many of the others, project water requirements through the year 2020 which is well short of the long range planning that is undertaken in this study. The projections Imade by the TWDB span the planning horizon of 50 years through the year 2040. Consequently, the TWDB projections are used for planning purposes in this study. 17 In 1990, the TWDB finalized a report entitled "Water For Texas" which provided a comprehensive assessment of the current and future status of water -related resources within the State of Texas. The objective of the study was to provide workable strategies that will serve as a guide to State policy for development, management, conservation and protection of the State's water resources. As part of this study, the TWDB evaluated the historical water use trends for various regions in the State and made projections of future water requirements for these regions as well as some of the major cities within the regions. For the TWDB study, the City falls in the High Plains and Trans -Pecos region. The other major population centers in the region are the Cities of Amarillo, Odessa, Midland, Big Spring, Plainview, Pampa, Borger, Hereford and L.evelland. The TWDB population and water requirement projections were developed for two alternative growth scenarios representing high and low series water demand forecasts. The two forecasts were then assessed with and without additional water conservation practices. Population projections were made using a cohort -survival model that projects births and deaths and net migration into the area or city. The high series forecasts reflects higher than normal levels of migration and population growth experienced during periods of rapid economic expansion. The low series forecast reflects below normal levels of migration. Municipal water requirements were based on projected population and historical per capita water use. Per capita water use for the high series forecast considers the highest per capita use on record and represents water use demands during periods of below average rainfall conditions. The low series forecast is reflective of per capita water use during average rainfall conditions. Water use projections with water conservation considered the implementation of water efficient programs and practices such as the use of water -saving plumbing fixtures in the home, and the early detection and repair of leaks in water conveyance systems such as t- y-" A fIT 4'rll cD a AMY T T-" aT.T/'. j pipelines. According to the TWBD projections, implementation of water conservation II programs and practices could reduce the per capita water use by 7-1/2 percent by 2000, 12- I� 1/2 percent by 2010 and 15 percent by the year 2020. In July, 1991 the City Of Lubbock adopted a water conservation and drought contingency plan. The goal of the water conservation plan is to reduce the overall water usage by about 9.5 gallons per capita per day which represents a 5 percent reduction from current consumption levels. This would be accomplished through education and the implementation of water saving practices such as water -saving plumbing fixtures and lawn watering equipment, water -saving landscaping, 4, reduction of leaks and the early detection and repair of leaks in the water distribution ry system. Total water use projections made by the TWDB through the year 2040 are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Projections of water use without water conservation practices are given in Table 2. Table 3 contains the water use projections considering water conservation practices as described earlier. This data is presented graphically on Figure 7. Total annual water requirements for the City of Lubbock are projected to reach about 65,096 acre-feet (21.2 billion gallons) by the year 2040. This assumes the high series forecast of population growth and no water conservation practices. Total water requirement through the year 2040 is estimated to be 2,514,709 acre-feet (819.42 billion gallons). , PROJECTION OF FUTURE GROUND WATER REQUIREMENTS Future ground water use will be dictated by the available surface water supplies from Lake Meredith and Alan Henry and weather conditions. Year-to-year ground water use can be expected to vary reflecting the amount of rainfall experienced within the City. Ideally, the City should utilize its water resources in a manner that would conserve the ground water resources. This is desirable since the ground water resources are not renewable. Once they are depleted, ground water sources would require many years to be replenished by the j limited amount of recharge that occurs in this area. On the other hand, the surface water l 19 resources are perennially replenished by rainfall/runoff events on the watershed. Utilizing the ground water resources in a manner that would conserve this resource has always been the goal of the City and is practiced as the water demand allows. In the utilization of the ground water resources, the most ideal situation would be to withdraw just that amount of water from the aquifer annually which balances the yearly recharge to the aquifer. The amount of ground water withdrawal that balances the recharge to the aquifer can be considered the "safe yield" of the aquifer. In areas where other ground water development is fairly intensive, this is may not be possible unless a coordinated and cooperative effort is made between the various ground water users in the area. In Bailey County as a whole, annual ground water withdrawal from the aquifer, consisting mostly of water used for irrigation, has historically greatly exceeded the recharge rate. The annual ground water withdrawal from the Sandhills well field and immediate C) vicinity has historically also exceeded the safe yield of the aquifer. This is reflected by the continuing decline in static water levels in the Sandhills well field and immediately surrounding areas. Water level declines in and immediately adjacent to the Sandhills well field are discussed in greater details later in this report. Annual recharge to the Ogallala aquifer under the Sandhills well field and Birdwell lease is estimated to be about 3,400 acre-feet (1.11 billion gallons) per year based on a recharge rate of 0.5 inches per year. Recharge is discussed in more detail later under the evaluation of each well field. During the past seven years, ground water production from the Sandhills well field and the Birdwell lease has averaged over 5,000 acre-feet (1.63 billion gallons) per year. This amount is well above the estimated annual recharge to the aquifer under the well fields. In order to preserve the ground water resources and minimize water level declines, G&M recommends that, if possible, future ground water withdrawal from the Sandhills well field (including the Birdwell lease which is being acquired by the City under ti__... a lease/purchase agreement) be limited to the amount of estimated annual recharge. - GF.RAr,14TV U P,XTI r nn 1p,' w t 20 IFuture ground water requirements will be dictated primarily by the water demand and when the City begins utilization of surface water from Lake Alan Henry. The ground if water management plan, discussed later in this report, recommends that utilization of water from Lake Alan Henry commence in the period 2005 to 2010 at which time only about half ' the safe yield of the reservoir would be utilized. The remaining Lake Alan Henry supply would be utilized beginning in 2025. Based on this scenario and recommendation, annual ground water requirements will reach between 11,685 acre-feet and 13,645 acre-feet depending on the actual year when utilization begins. In the year 2010 the ground water requirement is projected to be about_ 3,135 acre-feet (1.02 billion gallons). From 2011 L'- through 2040 the annual ground water requirement is projected to range between 2,751 -� acre-feet (0.89 billion gallons) and 12,068 acre-feet (3.94 billion gallons). The projected ground water requirements through the year 2040 are contained in Table 28. The ground water requirements will be met from the Sandhills well field producing about 3,400 acre-feet (1.11 billion gallons) with the remainder coming from local wells as discussed later. Beyond the 50-year planning horizon (after the year 2040), ground water requirements are expected to increase significantly depending on the water demands and the availability of other surface water supplies. I EVALUATION OF LUBBOCK'S WELL FIELDS JDESCRIPTION OF WELL FIELDS The City's primary ground water well field is the Sandhills well field located about 60 miles northwest of the City in Bailey and Lamb Counties, Texas (Figure 1). This well field encompasses approximately 81,000 acres (1263 sections). The water rights under the well field are owned by the City. The Birdwell ground water lease consists of 664 acres of land located in Sections 25 ' 40 and 41, Block Z, WD & FW Johnson's Subdivision, Bailey County, Texas. The well field adjoins the Sandhills well field at its northwest boundary (Figure 8). The Birdwell lease was 41 0.\ yield of 15 percent was used for the aquifer. The specific yield is the percent, by volume, of water that will drain by gravity from a unit volume of the aquifer. The TDWR uses specific yield values ranging from 12 percent to 20 percent for this area of Bailey and Lamb Counties. A recovery factor of 75 percent was used in the reserves calculations. The recovery factor takes into account the physical and economic limitations in completely dewatering an aquifer. Using the stated values of specific yield and recovery factor for the Ogallala aquifer, the in -place recoverable reserves in the developed part of the Sandhills well field are estimated to be 486,700 acre-feet. Total in -place recoverable reserves in the undeveloped part of the Sandhills well field are estimated to be about 582,000 acre-feet. This estimate is based on the average gross saturated thicknesses of the Ogallala aquifer in the undeveloped areas of 145 feet in Block A and 90 feet in League 172, 173, 174, 188 and 189. These averages were calculated from available static water level and base of aquifer data for several State observation wells in the area and extrapolation of the gross saturated thicknesses from the developed portions of the well field. The same values of specific yield and recovery factor used for the developed areas were used for the undeveloped areas. The total in -place recoverable ground water reserves under both the developed and undeveloped portions of the Sandhills well field are estimated to be about 1.07 million acre- feet (348.66 billion gallons). Productive We Of Reserves In The Sandhills Well Field The productive life of the in -place recoverable reserves under the well field will depend on the rate of future ground water withdrawal. This is a direct function of the City's rate of withdrawal but will also be affected by other ground water development in the area, primarily irrigation. GERAGHTY & NULLER, INC. 42 If the amount of ground water withdrawal from the well field is limited to the l amount f annual recharge estimated to be 3 400 acre-feet per ear the only decline in amou o g( p year), y the reserves would be the result of other pumping that is occurring adjacent to the well field. Water level declines within the boundaries of the well field. have been in the range 1 of 0.25 feet per year to 0.75 feet per year which is somewhat less than in the surrounding. areas. By maintaining the ground water withdrawal rate equal to the recharge rate, the rate 1 of water level decline in the field may decrease. However, enough historical pumpage and water level information are not presently available to determine what the long-term decline r rate would be. Assuming that the static water levels within the well field continue to decline at their present rate (0.25 to 0.75 feet per year), the reserves in the well field would be depleted in 160 to 480 years. Any additional overdraft of the reservoir would accelerate the depletion of the ground water reserves. Ground Water Ouali fy Ground water quality data for the years 1990 and/or 1991 were entered into the. WIMS database program by water department personnel The available data have been printed in the form of reports. Copies of the available water quality reports for each well are contained in Appendix L Contour maps of the total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, ] fluoride, nitrate, turbidity and suspended solids are presented in Figures 13 through 19. J The quality of the ground water from the Sandhills well field is excellent with regard to most of the ions and parameters that were tested and reported. In terms of the chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids, the water quality in all of the wells is below the TDH recommended secondary standards for those parameters. These standards are 300. I milligrams per liter (mg/L), 300 mg/L and 1,000 mgX respectively. .1 The TDH secondary standard for fluoride is 2.0 mg/L. The vast majority of wells in the well field meet this standard. However, 24 wells have fluoride levels that exceed the 2.0 mg/L standard. These wells are Nos. 115, 139, 146, 241, 250 through 266, 269, 270 and 64 \ ' TDH, appropriate pipeline and facilities would have to be constructed to accomplish this. With the fluoride ion concentration being the main quality concern with regard to the utilization of Pump Station No. 6, it is recommended that long-term fluoride ion monitoring in the ground water be conducted to determine the need for blending. Furthermore, if blending becomes necessary, engineering feasibility studies should be conducted to determine the optimal location of the needed facilities from both a water supply and cost standpoint. With the high potential which exists for utilization of local wells to meet part of the City's water demands, it would be prudent for the City to conduct a city-wide baseline study to determine the quality of the ground water in various parts of the City. The first phase of such a study would identify areas of potential quality problems including those resulting from leaking underground storage tanks, industry, surface water recharge and natural occurrences. After the areas of potential quality problems are identified, a more detailed study of each area (or selected areas) would be conducted to determine the exact nature and extent of the problem and how it affects utilization of the ground water for municipal purposes. WELL FIELDS The following is a summary of the recommendations resulting from evaluation of the various well fields. 'These recommendations with associated cost estimates, where appropriate, are also summarized in Appendix L 1 YTI f 0l; l 1. Implement the data collection procedures and record -keeping methods discussed. These include the use of the following forms for data collection and recording. 65 • Well, pump and motor data • Well maintenance records • Measurement of static water levels • Pumping level, discharge pressure and flow rate i Well production data. 1 • Measurement of sand production • Field testing of pump efficiency 2. Implement the well maintenance activities consisting of well and pump efficiency tests, inspection of wellhead facilities and measurement of sand production. 'This should be done for all of the active wells. 3. Implement the methods and procedures for ground water sample collection, preservation, analysis and documentation. 4. If possible, restrict the amount of ground water withdrawal from the Sandhft well field (including the Birdwell lease) to the estimated annual recharge rate of about 3,400 acre-feet (1.11 billion gallons). 5. Set up a rotation schedule to utilize the wells with the highest overall pump efficiencies in the Sandhills well field. A rotation schedule among 30 to 60 wells with high overall efficiencies will adequately meet the anticipated ground water requirements from the well field. Installation of a SCADA system would greatly facilitate the implementation of this recommendation. Whenever practical, the wells along the perimeter of the well field and those in the most down -gradient positions should be pumped. Wells with very high sand production such as Nos. 122, 151, 155, 188, 245 and 262 should not be included in the wells that are placed in the rotation schedule. t l} 66 6. Shut-in wells in the Sandhills well field with overall efficiencies less than 51 percent. The pumping equipment in these wells should be started on a quarterly schedule to maintain the equipment in operating condition. 7. Implement the recommendations for control and removal of sand in the ground water collection system for the Sandhills well field presented in the report on the evaluation of the Bailey County water transmission line. 8. Install a SCADA system for 20 wells now with the remaining wells in the rotation schedule added over the next 10 to 20 years. 9. The engineering report on the evaluation of the Bailey County water transmission line contains recommendations for the ground water collection system, the electrical ground for the East field, the gas chloramine system, the disinfection and control building, the Bailey County water transmission line and appurtenant structures. 'These are discussed in the engineering report and summarized with cost estimates in Appendix I.. Use of the Shallowater well field is not recommended for the near term. However, this field could become a viable supply in the future. A detailed evaluation of the wells, pumping equipment, reservoir and pump station is recommended before this well field is reactivated. Appendix L contains cost estimates for recommended work should reactivation of this well field be considered With the well field remaining in an inactive state, it is recommended that static water levels be measured on an annual basis. The continuing collection of the water level data will allow for ongoing monitoring of water level decline in the well field and corresponding 67 } changes in ground water reserves. The water level data should be documented and record keeping procedures followed as described earlier in this report. l Local dVell Field The following recommendations are made for utilization of the Local well field. These recommendations along with costs estimates are summarized in Appendix L. 1. Utilize the eight water supply wells that feed into Pump Station No. 6 for meeting a portion of the water demands of the City. 2. Consider replacing the pumping equipment in well Nos. 78 and 79 with new f or newer equipment. The existing pumping equipment in these two wells have overall efficiencies that are relatively low and are considered 1 unsatisfactory from a performance standpoint. 3. Construct five monitor wells with the intent of encircling the eight wells at Pump Station No. 6. The ' purpose of these monitor wells is to monitor the possible encroachment of poorer quality ground water from other areas of the City. 4. Refurbish or drill other local water supply wells to meet off-line water i demands such as watering of parks and trees. The decision to drill or refurbish wells should be based on the location of the areas to be irrigated 1 within the City. 5. Conduct acity-wide baseline study to identify areas of potential ground water quality problems within the City including those resulting from leaking underground storage tanks, industry, surface water recharge and natural occurrences. A more detailed study of each area or selected areas would be 68 conducted to determine the exact nature and extent of the problem and how it affects utilization of the ground water for municipal purposes. 6. A SCADA system is not recommended for the local wells at Pump Station No. 6. However, a cost estimate for installation of such a system is provided in Appendix L should the City determine that one would be advantageous. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOMMENDED DATA COLLECTION AND The recommendations made in this report for data collection and record keeping may require additional staffing in the water department to accomplish them. To aid the City in determining its water department staffing needs, an estimate of the number of additional manhours required to accomplish the recommended work was made. A summary of the recommended data collection and recording keeping and the estimated yearly manhour requirements are contained in Appendix M. The engineering report for the evaluation of the Bailey County water transmission line is being submitted as a stand-alone report. References to the engineering report have been made throughout this report. A summary of the recommendations made in the engineering report and associated cost estimates can be found in Appendix L. 69 GENERAL AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING l GROUND WATER PRODUCTION SYSTEM I1VF'RASTRUCTURE f This section identifies and lists the general areas for improvement that have been identified within the current ground water production infrastructure based on the evaluation of the City's well fields and Bailey County water transmission line. l ll GENERAL AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT FOR ALL WELL FIELDS The main areas that are identified in the production, operation and maintenance of the well fields that could be improved are listed below. 'These have been discussed in detail in earlier sections of the report. C Data acquisition, documentation and record keeping. � � � Data analysis, evaluation and interpretation. C Sand production from wells especially in the Sandhills well field. ® Well, pump and motor maintenance. ® Inadequate rotation of wells in the Sandhills well field. Outdated design of pumping equipment. 1 Inadequate supervisory control system especially at the Sandhills well field. The following areas that could be improved are identified specifically for the Sandhills well field, collection system and Bailey County water transmission line. Many of these items have been discussed in the engineering report for the evaluation of the Bailey County water transmission line. O Bypass piping arrangement at reservoir. YP P Pm8 g O Accumulation of sand in transmission line. C Inadequate supervisory control system. J 108 FUTURE BEYOND 2040 While the planning period ends in the year 2040, the City's water demands will not. Demands for water will continue to grow. Additional water supplies can be developed by reclamation of waste water and reduction of demands through conservation can be used to meet a portion of new demands. The surface water and ground water supplies identified in this planning effort are finite and the model runs indicate that the identified supplies will not be able to accommodate much more demand than has been projected for year 2040. To insure that the City has adequate water supplies to meet its demands beyond 2040, it is imperative that further planning including the evaluation and acquisition of additional water rights (whether ground or surface water) be conducted early in the planning period. CONCLUSIONS The Plan that has been produced for the City provides an array of water supplies and water and demand management options to meet the City's projected demands for water. The Plan also provides guidance on the implementation of the Plan elements and evaluations of near term cost of implementing the recommended Plan. The Plan is not intended to be adopted and placed on a shelf as a reference document, but rather to be used as time progresses as a guide to a continuing planning process. The Plan should become a key part of planning and development of City growth and revised as the future unfolds itself: The planning model used in evaluating the future water supply scenarios to develop the recommended Plan has been designed for easy use and ready understanding. While no one can predict the future with certainty, the planning model allows rapid evaluation and comparison of an array of reasonably likely futures and, hence, provides a tool to assess and plan for the future in the face of this uncertainty. The planning model can be used to '... update the Plan periodically, say every five years. The planning model is, therefore, a 109 powerful tool for use by the City to analyze the opportunities and cope with the impacts contained within an uncertain future. Several of the future water supplies relied upon in the recommended Plan are not yet certain in their availability, amount, quality or timing. For example, the actual amount and quality of the water from Lake Alan Henry has been estimated but is not certain. Other water supplies, such as the Local well field, while now available, are not certain over the long term due to water quality concerns. There is a need, therefore, for the City's continuing participation in water supply acquisition to insure that the relied upon supplies are eventually secured as well as to cope with unexpected problems and to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities. The City should also maintain and increase its involvement in water resources planning and management over time. More reliance on reclaimed water, recharge and recovery, and water conservation than considered in the recommended Plan will reduce the need for additional water supplies and/or provide supplies for a safety factor, for unexpected growth or long-term drought. The City will also have water demands in the future beyond the year 2040 that will require water supplies beyond those identified in the recommended Play A major objective of this study was to develop a ground water management plan that would allow the City to meet a goal of safe yield in it's well fields. As shown by the results of the model runs made for this study, and considering the water supply and management options that are possible, the City could meet this goal in the 1990's. 133i-3k19Y N H3AAY1 mop LUBBOCK. TEXAS RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER SUPPLY MAY 1975 :C m m m D Z O Z n x 0 N N N 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 165,000 185,000 207,000 230,000 256,000 285,000 315,000 347,000 380,000 415,000 Table 2.1 Projection of Future Lubbock Water Requirements For Long -Range Planning Normal Year Conditions Avg . Avg. Billion Acre -Feet GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr. Per Year 178 29.4 10.72 32,900 187 34.6 12.66 38,900 196 40.6 14.81 45,500 205 47.2 17.21 52,800 214 54.8 20.00 61,400 223 63.6 23.26 71,400 232 73.1 26.67 81,900 241 83.6 30.53 93,700 250 95.0 34.68 106,400 259 107.5 39.34 120,700 Dry Year Conditions Avg. Avg. Billion Acre -Feet GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr. Per Year 194 32.0 11.68 35,800 203 37.6 13.75 42,200 212 43.9 16.02 49,200 221 50.8 18.55 56,900 230 58.9 21.49 66,000 239 68.1 24.93 76,500 248 78.1 28.51 87,500 257 89.2 32.55 99,900 266 101.1 36.89 113,200 275 114.1 41.77 128,200 Potential Peak Day MGD 76.8 90.1 105.3 122.0 141.3 163.5 187.5 214.0 242.6 273.9 7. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION Set forth in the following pages of this section is an outline of the main activities which are expected to be involved in development of the proposed new surface water sources, with suggested target dates assigned to the various items. The key factors in the next few years probably will be (a) the time required to collect adequate information regarding water quality on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork and (b) the target date of having surface water available from the Post project by the summer of 1984. Because of the interdependence of the Post and Justiceburg sources in the over-all plan, the timing of the application for water rights at the Justiceburg site is governed by the need to be sure of having the Justiceburg permit before going ahead with preparation of plans and specifications relating to the raw water delivery system. The proposed submittal of an application for the Justiceburg water rights is thus scheduled several years before the anticipated beginning of construction of Justiceburg Dam, with a view to receiving a determination of the water rights issue by about September of 1978. Land acquisition and definitive design for the first stage of the plan are indicated to begin in late 1978, after receiving a decision from the Texas Water Rights Commission regarding the Justiceburg application. It is anticipated that the fact that the two reservoirs would be so clearly inter -related, together with the proposed purchase of some land at the Justiceburg Dam site before September 1980, would either satisfy. the Commission's requirement for commencing the Justiceburg project within two years after issuance of the permit or else would be considered sufficient grounds 7.1 FREES. ANO NIC..LS il for subsequent extensions of time. It is also suggested that Lubbock should plan to have its repre- sentatives go to Austin and discuss the contemplated plan of development with the members and staff of the Commission later this year, and again in about January of 1978 before filing the Justiceburg water rights application. Although the Commission would not be able to make any firm decisions or commitments on the basis of such meetings, and final deter- minations would obviously depend on the outcome of a formal water rights hearing, it will be desirable to advise the Commission of the intended approach and to have the benefit of any suggestions that might be offered by the Commissioners or their staff before actually filing the appli- cation. The initial visit to the Commission should, if possible, be a joint visit with representatives of the White River Municipal Water District. The date of construction of Lake 8 has been indicated only approxi- mately in the timetable as being some time after 1995. It is apparent that the terminal storage function of Lake 8 would not be required for several years after completion of the Justiceburg project. However, as the largest of the Canyon Lakes, it may be desired to build Lake 8 for recreation use sooner than it would be required for terminal storage. The date given herein for Lake 8 is intended merely to show its relative position in the sequence of development of the surface water supply and does not reflect on the possibility that it may be constructed sooner for recreation purposes. The recommended plan of action is as follows: 7.2 FREESE'ANO NICHOLS June 1975 Initiate conferences with representatives of the White River Municipal Water District regarding possible cooperative development of the Post Reservoir project. July 1975 Preliminary discussion with the Texas Water Rights Commission, by representatives of the City and the White River District. July 1975 Initiate discussions with the Texas Water Development Board regarding possible financing assistance. July 1975 Contact representatives of the Brazos River Authority, and initiate discussions toward obtaining the Authority's support for the project. 1975 - 1976 Investigation of geology and foundation conditions at the Justiceburg Reservoir site: a. Preliminary field reconnaissance and limited core borings to confirm basic site suitability. b. Detailed core boring investigation once general suitability of site is es- tablished. 1975-1977 Water quality observations on a daily basis at the U. S. Geological Survey gaging station on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork at Justiceburg (U. S. Highway 84 Bridge). 1976 Basic design studies and preparation of preliminary design report for the over-all project. By September 1977 Definitive agreement between the City of Lubbock and the.White River Municipal Water District regarding development of the Post Reservoir. January 1978 General discussion with the Texas Water Rights Commission concerning the Justiceburg application. February - March 1978 Preparation of water rights application for the Justiceburg Reservoir. 7.3 FREESE AND NICHOLS April 1978 Submittal of application to Texas Water Rights Commission for the Justiceburg Reservoir. November 1978 Water rights hearing on the Justiceburg Reservoir. 1978 - 1979 Purchase of land for the Post Reservoir. January - May 1979 Preparation of construction plans and specifications for the Post Dam and associated pump station intake structure. July 1979 - June 1981 Construction of Post Dam and associated pump station intake structure. By September 1980 Purchase of land in the immediate area of the Justiceburg Dam site. July 1981 Begin impoundment of water in Post Reservoir. July 1981 - March 1982 Purchase of right-of-way for pipeline from Post Reservoir to the new filter plant. July 1981 - March 1982 Preparation of construction plans and speci- fications for the initial raw water delivery system from Post Reservoir to the filter plant. July 1981 - March 1982 Preparation of construction plans and speci- fications for the new filter plant. May 1982 - April 1984 Construction of the initial raw water delivery system from Post Reservoir to the filter plant. May 1982 - April 1984 Construction of the new filter plant. May 1984 Begin using water from the Post Reservoir. 1986 - 1987 Preparation of construction plans and specifications for the Justiceburg Dam and associated pump station intake structure. 1986 - 1987 Purchase of the balance of the land for the Justiceburg Reservoir. 1987 - 1989 Construction of the Justiceburg Dam and associated pump station intake structure. 7.4 I( FREESE AND NICHOL! 0 1989 Begin impounding water in the Justiceburg Reservoir. 1989 - 1990 Preparation of construction plans and specifications for the additional raw water transmission facilities to bring water from the Justiceburg Reservoir. 1990 - 1992 Construction of the additional raw water transmission facilities to bring water from the Justiceburg Reservoir. 1992 Begin using water from the Justiceburg Reservoir. After 1995 Addition of Lake 8 to the system for use as regulating storage during periods of maximum demand. 7.5 FREESE AND NICHOLS I ■ Table 2.3 Projected Future Lubbock Population Water Development Projection Used Board Projection For This Report 1975 185,700 165,000 1980 203,078 185,000 1990 242,865 230,000 2000 290,447 285,000 2020 415,405 415,000 In Table 2.4 are listed the average and peak daily water requirements of Lubbock during each year since 1940. Per capita demands for this period are also plotted in Figure 2.4. The records show a rising trend in average daily per capita use, which has been increasing at an over- all rate of about 1.8 gallons per year since 1945. In some years, when the weather has been unusually dry, the average per capita daily usage has been as much as 16 gallons above the level indicated for normal years. The annual ratio of peak day to average day has ranged from as low as 1.89 (in 1946) to a maximum of 2.70 (in 1944) and generally tends to be 2.4 or less in the more critical years. Table 2.5 is a projection of the normal year, dry year and potential peak day requirements for planning purposes through the year 2020, based on the population projection of Table 2.3 and assuming continuation of the per capita water demand trends observed over the past 20 to 30 years. Specifically, it is assumed that: a. Population will rise as predicted in Table 2.3. 2.5 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS Table 2.4 Lubbock Records of Historical Water Use: 1940-1970 Population Average Requirements Peak Day Usage Ratio MGD Gal/Day MGD Gal Per Of Peak Day To Per Capita -Capita Yearly Average 1940 31,853 3.63 114 8.59 270 2.37 1941 35,900 2.94 82 6.68 186 2.27 1942 39,600 3.79 96 8.95 226 2.36 1943 40,900 4.32 106 10.01 245 2.32 1944 42,500 3.97 93 10.71 252 2.70 1945 44,000 5.36 122 11.48 261 2.14 1946 49,400 6.11 124 11.56 234 1.89 1947 54,200 6.76 125 13.44 248 1.99 1948 57,900 8.33 144 18.99 328 2.28 1949 62,700 7.52 120 19.17 306 2.55 1950 71,747 9.27 129 21.15 295 2.28 1951 80,900 11.62 144 29.38 363 2.53 1952 88,900 11.21 126 25.83 291 2.30 1953 95,000 13.75 145 31.52 332 2.29 1954 99,200 13.85 140 33.21 335 2.40 1955 105,400 14.45 137 35.82 340 2.48 1956 110,500 16.66 151 34.30 310 2.06 1957 113,100 14.61 129 38.18 338 2.61 1958 116,100 15.28 132 40.69 350 2.66 1959 123,800 17.54 142 43.79 354 2.50 1960 128,691 18.29 142 41.18 320 2.25 1961 132,800 17.90 135 41.30 311 2.31 1962 136,900 20.49 150 48.90 357 2.39 1963 140,700 22.98 163 55.55 395 2.42 1964 142,900 24.62 172 55.95 392 2.27 1965 145,900 25.47 175 60.58 415 2.38 1966 148,600 24.32 164 58.38 393 2.40 1967 149,100 23.99 161 49.04 329 2.04 1968 149,200 21.72 146. 46.00 308 2.12 1969 148,900 25.18 169 60.58 407 2.41 1970 149,101 27.20 182 59.96- 402 2.M w =REESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS LUBBOCK PER CAPITA WATER REQUIREMENTS O ANNUAL AVERAGE 0 PEAK DAY 500 450 400 350 Q r a u 300 oc W d Q 0 250 w 0- A V) 0 200 J Q J 100 1 000 O 50 UPPER LIMIT OF POTENTIAL PEAK DAY (2.4 x DRY YEAR AVERAGE) 4" ❑. POTENTIAL AVERAGE FOR DRY YEARS F .0 O O p O O O 00 O AVERAGE FOR NORMAL YEARS 0 1 1 1 1 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS FIGURE 2.4 m m m m z 0 r m z 0 O m z 0 m m N v 1975 1980 )953 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Population 165,000 185,000 207,000 230,000 256,000 285,000 315,000 347,000 380,000 415,000 Table 2.5 Projection of Future Lubbock Water Reguirements For -Long -Range Panning Normal Year Conditions Avg. Avg. Billion Acre -Feet GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr. Per Year 178 29.4 10.72 32,900 187 34.6 12.66 38,900 196 40.6 14.81 45,500 205 47.2 17.21 52,800 214 54.8 20.00 61,400 223 63.6 23.26 71,400 232 73.1 26.67 81,900 241 83.6 30.53 93,700 250 95.0 34.68 106,400 259 107.5 39.34 120,700 Dry Year Conditions Avg. Avg. Billion Acre -Feet GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr. Per Year 194 32.0 11.68 35,800 203 37.6 13.75 42,200 212 43.9 16.02 49,200 221 50.8 18.55 56,900 230 58.9 21.49 66,000 239 68.1 24.93 76,500 248 78.1 28.51 87,500 257 89.2 32.55 99,900 266 101.1 36.89 113,200 275 114.1 41.77 128,200 Potential Peak Day MGD 76.8 90.1 105.3 122.0 141.3 163.5 187.5 214.0 242.6 273.9 b. Average per capita daily requirements for normal conditions will continue to increase at about 1.8 gallons per year. c. The potential upper limit of average daily per capita requirements in dry years will be 16 gallons more than r in normal years. d. The potential peak day demand will be 2.4 times the potential upper limit of average daily demand. The resulting projections are also shown graphically in Figure 2.5. In order to give adequate municipal water service under all conditions, the basic supply should be enough to provide the potential dry year require- ments, and the delivery and purification facilities should be able to handle the potential peak day demands in any given year. FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS PROJECTION OF LUBBOCK WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR LONG-RANGE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING 0 200 Lo Z O 150 u_ O 9 50 0 1970 POTENTIAL PEAK DAY-> AVERAGE FOR DRY YEARS- 8'1 � AVE RAGE FOR NORMAL YEARS I 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS Clr_1 IDC rl G capabilities of the present sources, if fully,developed, with the pro- jected long-range requirements. The peak daily demand in 2020 is expected to be approximately twice the rate that can be obtained from optimum expansion of present facilities. In terms of the total volume of water, the predicted cumulative demand between now and 2020 exceeds the amount which can be provided from the Canadian River system and the Sand Hills Well Field by about 34%, or some 277 billion gallons. Table 7.3 presumes continued operation of the Sand Hills Field with a peak supply rate of 60 MGD until 2020 or after. Since the reserves Table 7.3 Com arison of Capabilities of Existin Sources Vs. Projected Requirements Through t e'Year 2020 Peak'Daily Capability (Millions of Gallons) Projected peak day as of the year 2020 273.9 Potential development of present sources 137.3* Additional requirement by 2020 136.6 Cumulative Volume of Water (Billions of Gallons) Projected total requirements: 1971-2020 1,088 Projected availability from the Canadian River: 1971-2020 594 Projected availability from the Sand Hills Well Field 217* Additional requirement by 2020 277 *Note: The values indicated for availability from present sources assume that the Sand Hills Field will still have a peak capability of 60 MGD. Thus, the cumulative volume shown as available from the Sand Hills is limited to the approxi- mate amount that can be removed without reducing the field's output below 60 MGD. 7.5 11 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS '' 11 I �1 1 remaining at the Sand Hills are substantially less than the City will probably consume in the next 50 years, even after allowance for the water that will be received from the.Canadian River, the Sand Hills contri- bution on peak days can only be protected if other sources are obtained in time to avoid having to draw too heavily on the field. It will be desirable to plan future water supply expansion so as to keep the Sand Hills in operation as long as reasonably possible. The cumulative amount shown as available from the Sand Hills Field through 2020 (217 billion gallons) is the estimated volume which can be pumped without decreasing the field's output below 60 MGD. In essence, the outlook for future requirements can be summarized as follows: a. Present sources, if enlarged and improved in a timely manner, should be adequate to meet maximum daily requirements until some time after 1990. b. By the year 2020, the potential peak daily demand is projected to be roughly twice as much as present sources can provide when fully developed. c. With proper planning, most of the existing supply can be kept in service until 2020 and after. To keep the Sand Hills Well Field operative through 2020, it will be necessary to obtain at least 277 billion gallons (850,000 acre-feet) of cumulative supply from new sources other than those now in operation. d. In round numbers, the new supply that will need to be developed 7.6 A i FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS between now and 2020 should be adequate to furnish at least 40,000 acre-feet per year (and preferably around 60,000 acre- feet per year), with peak daily supply rates of approximately 140 MGD. 7.7 I - FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS O U O M M W J $ � t � a Ls' •h^ t °" is J v LUBBOCK, TEXAS INTERIM REPORT ON WATER SUPPLY 1968 1. INTRODUCTION In February of 1968, the City of Lubbock authorized Freese, Nichols and Endress to undertake a comprehensive study of the City's future water requirements and potential sources of supply. This interim report covers the first phase of the study, relating specifically to the three fol- lowing considerations: a. Projections of estimated annual water usage and possible maximum daily demands through the year 2020. b. Determination of the average annual yield and peak daily supply that can be made available by complete utilization of Lubbock's present sources, with emphasis on meeting probable demands through 1980. c. Estimates of cost and economic analyses directed to optimum development of the Sand Hills ground water supply. For the immediate present, Lubbock has more than enough water to meet its needs. Introduction of the new supply from Lake Meredith on the Canadian River has eased the load on the Sand Hills Well Field, and the facilities now in operation can provide more than the maximum daily requirement. However, this condition is relatively temporary, and further expansion will be needed within a few years. As will be outlined more fully in later pages, indications are that 1.1 f REESE. NICNOLS AND ENORESS new wells will be required at the Sand Hills Field in 1970 or before, and that the full delivery capacity of the existing Sand Hills pipe line may again be used during peak days by about 1975. If booster pump stations are'then constructed on the Sand Hills line, the delivery rate could be increased sufficiently to gain another four or five years before the maximum summertime demand rate would once more approach the limit of availability from the over-all system. Another possibility that would result in a comparable amount of added capacity will be for Lubbock to build its own terminal storage reservoir for Canadian River water near the filter plant. By setting aside a moderate volume of surface water in such storage prior to periods of highest demand, the filter plant could be enabled to operate at full design output instead of being limited by the delivery rate of the Ca- nadian River aqueduct. This, too, would extend the City's total capa- bility to cover about five years of growth. Thus, if Lubbock continues to expand as anticipated, it will become necessary in the not -too -distant future to make significant additions to the basic water supply. By 1975, major new facilities will probably be called for either at the Sand Hills or elsewhere. In many respects, the foremost consideration in planning for this situation will be the expected performance of the Sand Hills Field, based on what is now known of the aquifer and past operation of existing wells. The expected useful life of the field and especially the projected rate of decline in peak pumping capacity at various stages of development will be very important in relation to timing and extent of future improvements. Therefore, this first report is devoted in large part to analysis of 1.2 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS the Sand Hills supply. The information presented herein will subse- quently be combined with results of investigations of other alternative sources, to serve as a basis for conclusions and recommendations of the final report, which is due in 1969. 1.3 f REESE. NICHOL5 AND ENDRESS Table 2.6 Projection of Future Lubbock Water Requirements For Long -Range Planning Year Population Normal Year Conditions Dry Year Conditions Potential Avg. Avg. Billion Acre -Feet Avg. Avg. Billion Acre -Feet Peak Day GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr per Year GPDPC MGD Gal/Yr. per Year MGD 1970 194,000 154 29.9 10.90 33,500 168 32.6 11.90 36,500 78.2 1975 235,000 157 36.9 13.47 41,300 171 40.2 14.67 45,000 96.4 1980 280,000 161 45.1 16.50, 50,600 175 49.0 17.93 55,000 117.6 1985 332,000 164 54.4 19.87 61,000 178 59.1 21.57 66,200 141.8 1990 390,000 167 65.1 23.77 73,000 181 70.6 25.77 79,100 169.4 1995 452,000 171 77.3 28.21 86,600 185 83.6 30.52 93,700 200.7 2000 520,000 174 90.5 33.12 101,600 188 97.8 35.78 109,800 234.6 2005 602,000 177 106.6 38.89 119,300 191 115.0 41.97 128,800 276.0 2010 670,000 181 121.3 44.26 135,800 195 130.7 47.69 146,300 313.6 2015 752,000 184 138.4 50.50 155,000 198 148.9 54.35 166,800 357.4 2020 840,000 187 157.1 57.49 176,400 201 168.8 61.80 189,600 405.2 N zo 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lubbock's existing water supply sources are expected to satisfy peak daily needs through the year 1975, assuming expansion of the Sand Hills Well Field up to the 41 MGD limit of the present delivery system. Before 1976, it will probably be necessary to augment the basic supply with major improvements at one point or another. The limiting delivery rate .from the Sand Hills can be raised to 60 MGD by adding booster pumps on the pipe line. A second line, parallel to the first one, could also be placed in service at a later date, in- creasing the maximum rate to 120 MGD. The enlargement from 60 to 120 MGD, however, would involve capital expenditures of approximately $12 million and would have a useful operating life of only about 16 years; it is not considered to be economically justifiable. About 1970, initial work will be needed on a new gathering system, which will eventually serve the entire western portion of the Sand Hills Field. The primary pipe line along the backbone of this gathering net- work should be sized to match the intended ultimate production rate - 41 MGD or 60 MGD. It will be possible to increase the peak operating rate of the filter plant by some 22.66 MGD if a terminal storage reservoir for raw water is constructed nearby. Although the design capacity of the existing plant is 75 MGD, only 52.34 MGD can be obtained directly from the Canadian River aqueduct. The full 75 MGD rate could be utilized if supplemental water were available from storage during periods of peak loading and if some additional pipe line capacity were provided between the filter plant and the distribution system. The terminal storage reservoir and associated 9.1 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENORESS improvements, as described in Section 7 of this report, will be the most economical next step in providing additional water supply capability to keep up with the City's growth. It is therefore recommended: a. That a 100-acre site for the terminal storage reservoir be acquired in the near future. The tract of land should be square and located conveniently close to the filter plant. It is also desirable that additional adjacent land be available for future expansion of the terminal storage capacity. b. That the City plan to build the terminal reservoir for untreated surface water, with a normal storage capacity of 1,204 acre-feet, around 1975. c. That additional pipe line capacity linking the filter plant to the distribution system be provided as needed, with the expect- ation that the full 75 MGD`capacity of the plant (64.35 MGD for Lubbock and 10.65 MGD for other neighboring communities) could be needed by 1980. d. That the Sand Hills Well Field be scheduled for additional wells beginning in 1970, with development to a maximum well capacity of 45.1 MGD (110% of the existing 41 MGD supply line capacity) by 1976 and continuing at that level through 1980. It is also recommended: e. That future wells in the Sand Hills Field be spaced 2,500 feet apart in an equilateral triangular pattern. f. That initial pump installations be sized for 50% of the maximum 9.2 FREESE. NICHOLS PNO ENDRESS '� capacity of new wells, so that there will be steady production at or near full pump output until approximately 30% of the water has been removed. g. That the western gathering line system at the Sand Hills be laid out in a herringbone configuration, conforming generally to the pattern shown by Figure 6.2, with the backbone pipe sized for the intended ultimate capacity of the field. At this point, it is desirable to withhold judgment regarding instal- lation of the Sand Hills booster pump stations in the year 1980, and therefore also about the size of the new primary western gathering line. Although it does appear now that the booster stations will be needed, and their eventual construction was assumed where applicable in the cost estimates, the matter will depend in large part on the relative avail- ability and estimated costs of other sources of supply. Such consider- ations will be covered in the final report, to be presented in 1969, and recommendations for the ultimate level of Sand Hills Development (41 MGD or 60 MGD) should be deferred until that time. 9.3 FREESE. MIC14OLS ANO ENORESS 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 5 — Water Conservation/Drougbt Contingency Plan Content a. Water Conservation/Drought Contingency Plan Summary The Water Conservation/Drought Contingency Plan was recently updated. This was done at the request of the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission in order to make the document more user friendly. The document was originally formatted to meet the State of Texas's mandated requirements so that the state regulators could easily check of each required portion. The adopted version still includes all of the essential parts, but is formatted to be user friendly rather than state regulator friendly. Conservation is a significant water planning tool. Water resources must be used in an effective and efficient manner. Wasting water by allowing it to run down the street must be eliminated. Over watering must be eliminated. We can have a green Lubbock as we learn to use our water resources with conservation in mind. Conservation can also help by decreasing the speed at which new water supply projects must be completed. Everyone benefits from conservation. The Drought Plan is necessary in times of drought. The water system may be able to provide water 90% of the time, but in times of severe drought, the City might still need to rely on the drought plan to help ensure we have an adequate water supply. ol 0 Sec. 28-1. Water conservation and drought contingency plans adopted. (a) Adoption. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the City of Lubbock Water Use Management Plan, Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan and Water Conservation Plan, as set forth below in Section 28-1(b). The City commits to implement the program according to the procedures set forth in the adopted Plan. (b) Purpose. The purpose of the Water Use Management Plan it to promote the wise and responsible use of water, to enhance the sustainability of long term water supplies, and to minimize the adverse impacts of water supply emergencies by providing and supporting public information and education programs that encourage customers to voluntarily pursue water conservation and protection measures in both residential and business activities; by developing, maintaining, and enforcing water management policies and ordinances; by implementing structural programs that result in quantifiable water conservation results; and by implementing a drought/emergency contingency plan when necessary to ensure adequate water supplies for public health and safety. The City of Lubbock (the "City") is the eleventh largest city in the State of Texas and the largest city in West Texas. The City's population for 2005 is estimated at 211,187 and is projected to reach 216,116 by 2010. Lubbock is situated in a semi -arid region that requires more water per capita for landscape irrigation than many parts of the State. Evidence of landscape irrigation demand is apparent when comparing the average winter usage of 135 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to the average summer usage of 227 gpcd. Water use is also impacted by rainfall as evidenced during a hot, dry day when water consumption has reached 428 gpcd and during a wet, rainy day when consumption was as low as 115 gpcd. The City utilizes a record management system which tracks water pumped, water delivered, water sales and water losses. This information is used to evaluate the integrity of the water distribution system and can be used to segregate water use into residential, commercial, irrigation, and public and institutional. The City's water customers are predominately residential and commercial. Water use by each of the classes is as follows: 62.0% residential, 21.0% commercial, 8.0% irrigation, 6.0% public and institutional. The City, in each wholesale contract entered into or renewed from and after the date of the adoption of this Water Use Management Plan, (1) requires every wholesale water customer to develop and implement a water conservation plan or other water conservation measures, as well as a drought or emergency contingency program for responding to reductions in water supply; and (2) provides that in case of a shortage of water resulting from drought, water shall be allocated in accordance with Texas Water f - Code, § 11.039. The City's primary source of water is the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) which delivers raw water from its Lake Meredith reservoir, located about 165 miles north of Lubbock on the Canadian River and the John C. Williams Groundwater Well Field, located in Roberts County about 35 miles east of Lake Meredith. Typically, CRMWA provides approximately 85 percent of the City's water supply needs, with the balance being supplied by well water from the City's Bailey County Well Field which source as the name suggests is located primarily in Bailey County. Surface water and the groundwater originating from CRMWA are treated at the Lubbock Water Treatment Plant (the "Plant"). The Plant's capacity is 75 million gallons daily (mgd). Because the City treats water for seven other CRMWA member cities, the City's portion of the treatment capacity is 62.0 mgd. Water treatment processes include disinfection, coagulation, taste and odor control, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and, as necessary, post -disinfection. The City's Bailey County groundwater supply requires minimal treatment (chlorination) before introduction into the distribution system. Present short-term capacity for water production, using all sources including storage, is 103 mgd. The Plant has a 1,200 acre-feet open storage reservoir, which enables the storage of raw water during non -peak periods for use during peak periods and emergencies. The Plant also has 8.5 million gallons clear well storage for treated water. In addition, thirteen ground storage reservoirs and five elevated steel storage tanks provide storage capacity of 66,700,000 gallons. The water distribution system extends throughout Lubbock with 1,373 miles of lines and is designed for expansion. With two supply sources and the water storage reservoir, the City can address emergencies that might impact the CRMWA supply source or the Bailey County Well Field supply source. Both the CRMWA and the Bailey County Well Field supply lines can provide about 40 mgd of water. Winter use can be met with about 26 mgd while summer peak demands have reached over 80 mgd. With this in mind, the City can meet the water demands for essential needs and some irrigation use with just one supply source if some water use restrictions are initiated on outside watering of grass and other plant material. Using meters that meet at least the minimum standards developed by the American Water Works Association and with metering accuracy range plus or minus 5%, the City individually meters all water usage, except water utilized for fire protection. Combined with an aggressive leak detection and repair program and a computerized billing system, the City's universal metering program has a water delivery accuracy rate of 95 percent, which is well above the national standard of 90 percent. 2 r The City also takes steps to monitor and audit its water system for water loss in an effort to conserve water, manages a replacement program for old water lines that are prone to leaks and breaks, investigates customer complaints of low pressure and possible leaks, visually inspects suspected leaks, and tracks water delivery to customers to determine illegal connections and abandoned service lines. The Lubbock City Council and the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission approved a water planning statement that identified three major alternatives for providing a 100-year water supply. The major alternatives included: (1) Lake Alan Henry, which could provide about 22,000 acre-feet (AF) annually or 25 mgd; (2) additional groundwater from CRMWA, which could provide 40,000 AF annually or about 40 mgd; and (3) recycled water from storm water and from wastewater effluent that is treated to stream discharge quality, and this source could provide 20,000 AF annually or about 20 mgd. Lake Alan Henry is located about 65 miles southeast of Lubbock. A water transmission line, pump stations, and a water treatment facility will be necessary to bring this water supply on line. The CRMWA well field is located about 185 miles north of Lubbock and will require the continued purchase of groundwater rights, the continued development of the well field infrastructure, and the construction of a water transmission line to deliver water to Lubbock. The recycling of water would require the construction of Lakes 7 and 8 in the Canyon Lake System for water storage and the construction of water transmission lines to a water treatment facility. The City's wastewater treatment system provides for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Wastewater is delivered to the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) through 900 miles of collection lines and 21 lift stations. The SEWRP treats approximately 7.3 billion gallons of wastewater each year or 23.0 mgd. Wastewater treatment processes include one bio-tower process and two activated sludge processes. The SEWRP has an average daily flow design capacity of 31.5 million gallons. Treated effluent is reused by agricultural irrigation on the City's land application sites and as industrial cooling water. A portion of the treated effluent is also disposed of by discharge into the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River at FM 400. The City is designing and plans to construct SEWRP improvements that will bring all treated effluent to stream discharge quality in order to make this a viable water supply in the future. The City's service area is located within the Llano Estacado Regional Planning Area and the City has provided a copy of this plan to the Llano Estacado Regional Planning Group to assure consistency with the regional water plan. The Water Use Management Plan is presented in the following main sections: (b)(1) Water Conservation Plan, (b)(2) Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan, and (b)(3) additional information and provisions to provide definitions of water terminology and to meet legal requirements. (1) Water Conservation Plan. 3 The City of Lubbock encourages the voluntary conservation of water. Conservation can help ensure that Lubbock citizens have water both now and in the future. Conservation helps lower the amount of water used annually and the amount of water needed to meet peak day water demands. A community's water use is measured by dividing the average daily amount of water consumed by the community by the number of residents in that community. The measure results in the number of gallons of water used by a community on a per capita per day basis (gpcd). The term does not represent how much water each citizen uses daily. Instead, it represents how much each city uses daily in relationship to the total number of citizens. The City's average is 190 gpcd while the average Lubbock citizen uses 103 gallons per day for home use. The City's average daily water usage of approximately 190 gpcd is slightly higher than the state average of 167 gpcd. Notwithstanding the need for irrigation, Lubbock citizens and businesses can reduce water usage by implementing water conservation practices. The City's water conservation goals are to: * Reduce annual per capita water use to 180 gallons per person per day (or by 5 percent) by the year 2011. * Reduce annual per capita water use to 170 gallons per person per day (or by 10 percent) by the year 2016. * Reduce annual per capita water use to 160 gallons per person per day (or by 15 percent) by the year 2020. By establishing a standard for water conservation and by implementing conservation practices, the City can ensure the sustainability of its long-term water supply alternatives for generations to come. The City has established goals, objectives and programs that support a standard for water use. The City's Water Conservation Program is comprised of five main strategies in the following order of priority: (1) administrative water conservation efforts, (2) water use standards, (3) public education, (4) enforcement, and (5) structural changes. The City will evaluate and implement certain administrative changes to programs, policies, and rules that support water conservation efforts. In 1992, the City moved from a declining block rate to a uniform block rate. The next step proposed is to adopt an increasing block rate to further encourage conservation. The increasing block rate structure under consideration is based on each customer's individual average winter consumption. This contemplated rate structure categorizes use into three blocks: (1) base use, (2) peak use, and (3) excessive use. Water consumption becomes more expensive as a customer's consumption moves from one block to the next. Other charges being considered include seasonal rates and excessive use charges. El Other administrative changes may include the review and revision of city codes to ' determine their affect on the use of water and active enforcement of rules, codes, and regulations affecting water use. In an effort to manage annual and maximum daily water use, the Water Conservation Program establishes the water use standard for outdoor landscape irrigation use as follows: 1. Landscape irrigation is allowed to occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 a.m. from April 1 through September 30. 2. Summer irrigation should provide a maximum of 1.5 inches per zone per week. 3. Winter irrigation may occur only when temperatures are above 35°F so as not to cause a freezing hazard and should provide a maximum of 1.0 inch per zone per month for dormant grasses (i.e., Bermuda) and 1.0 inch per zone every two weeks for cool season grasses (i.e., Fescue). 4. Irrigation should occur without water runoff. This may be accomplished by correctly cycling the sprinkler system and allowing time for the water to soak into the landscape between irrigation events. The City will support programs to educate the public regarding water conservation activities that support its goals. This includes educating the general public on the need for and practices of water conservation through public service announcements, participation in home and garden shows, coordination efforts with the Chamber of Commerce, West Texas Home Builders Association and Lubbock Apartment Association, and presenting water conservation programs in the Kindergarten through twelfth grade education system. Structural changes that have been and may be adopted by the City are those programs that result in a physical modification of water use devices or practices, such as landscape design and maintenance, rain and freeze sensors on automatic commercial irrigation systems, plumbing retrofit or rehabilitation programs, controlling unaccounted-for water, and by reusing treated wastewater and storm water. It is the intent that these programs result in definable and quantifiable water conservation. As required by law, the City shall review and update, as appropriate, the Water Conservation Program at least every five (5) years, based on, in part, an assessment of the previous five year goals, new or updated information such as the adoption or revision of the regional water plan, or changes in laws or regulations. Any water customer or other user of the City's water supply that violates subsection (b)(1), the Water Conservation Plan, of this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a penalty and fine as set forth in Section 11-44 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock for each day of non-compliance. In addition, (i) service shall be discontinued to those customers who do not pay their water bills until all required payments are made; and (ii) new water service taps will be provided to new construction and new construction will be approved only if such construction conforms to adopted ordinances. (2) Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan. A number of situations may limit the City's ability to deliver a sufficient amount of water to meet the demands of all customers. In those instances the City will take steps to ensure that water is available for essential life and safety needs. This Plan (herein so called) is designed to address the following situations: * Reduction in available water supply up to a repeat of the drought of record, * Water production or distribution limitations (peak water supply), * Supply source contamination, or * System outages. There are four stages to address drought and emergency conditions. Each stage has triggers for initiation, for restrictions on water use to assist in reaching water use reduction goals, and has provisions for rescinding the stage once the conditions that caused the drought or emergency have ceased to exist. The stages are defined as: * Stage 1 - Mild Water Shortage Conditions * Stage 2 - Moderate Water Shortage Conditions * Stage 3 - Severe Water Shortage Conditions * Stage 4 - Emergency Water Shortage Conditions The City Manager, or his/her designee, shall monitor water supply and demand on a daily basis and shall, based on the objective criteria adopted by the City Council in this Ordinance, determine when to initiate and terminate any stage of this Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan. The requirements for initiation are based upon an evaluation of the historical water system capacities and customer use patterns, and consider the impact of drought, emergencies and high use upon capacities and patterns. The water restrictions set forth for each Stage of the Plan shall be applicable to the use of water obtained, in whole or part, from the City of Lubbock. Stage 1. Mild Water Shortage Conditions It is anticipated, and it is the goal of the City, that water use during implementation of Stage 1 be reduced to less than 90% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity. ;- 31 Stage 1 of the Plan shall be implemented if any of the following conditions arise: * Maximum day water use exceeds 80% of the city's maximum daily supply capacity for ten consecutive days. * Water supply available from all sources is only sufficient to meet projected needs. * Water availability is adequate but lake water levels, reservoir capacities, or groundwater supplies are low enough that some concern exists for future water supplies if the drought or emergency condition continues. The following restrictions shall apply: * Landscape irrigation may occur only between the hours of 6:00 p.m.-10:00 a.m. from April 1—September 30. * Landscape irrigation is restricted to two (2) days per week. The City Manager, or his/her designee may, after notice to the citizens of the City of Lubbock, designate irrigation schedules. * Irrigation should provide a maximum of 1.5 inches per zone per week. * Winter irrigation may only occur when temperatures are above 35°F so as not to cause a freezing hazard and should provide a maximum of 1.0 inch per zone per month for dormant grasses (i.e., Bermuda) and 1.0 inch per zone every two weeks for cool season grasses (i.e., Fescue). * Irrigation should occur without significant water runoff, which can be accomplished by correctly cycling the sprinkler system and allowing time for the water to soak into the landscape between irrigation events. * All City of Lubbock operations will adhere to the water use restrictions. Stage 1 restrictions may be rescinded when all initiation conditions have ceased to exist as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Stage 2 - Moderate Water Shortage Conditions It is anticipated, and it is the goal of the City, that water use during implementation of Stage 2 be reduced to less than 80% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity. Stage 2 of the Plan shall be implemented if any of the following conditions arise: * Maximum day water use exceeds 90% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity for ten consecutive days. 7 * Water supplies available from all sources are reduced by 5% to 10% below projected needs. * Water availability from lakes and groundwater is below normal and may continue to decline and cause moderate concern for both current and future water supplies; or water supplies have been reduced due to the failure of a water supply system. The following restrictions shall apply: * Landscape irrigation may occur only between the hours of 6:00 p.m.-10:00 a.m. from April 1—September 30. * Landscape irrigation is restricted to one day per week. The City Manager, or his/her designee, after notice to the citizens of the City, may designate an irrigation schedule. * Irrigation shall provide a maximum of 1.5 inches per zone per week. * Winter irrigation may only occur when temperatures are above 35T so as not to cause a freezing hazard and shall provide a maximum of 1.0 inch per zone per month for dormant grasses (i.e., Bermuda) and 1.0 inch per zone every two weeks for cool season grasses (i.e., Fescue). * Irrigation shall occur without significant water runoff, which can be accomplished by correctly cycling the sprinkler system and allowing time for the water to soak into the , landscape between irrigation events. * Water customers will refrain from or significantly limit aesthetic and non -essential water use. Water shall not be used to wash down hard surfaced areas, including without limitation, sidewalks, parking lots, gutters and patios. Water shall not be used for dust control. however, water may be used for road construction or to clean surfaces for painting. Pools and Jacuzzi type pools may not be drained and refilled. * All City of Lubbock operations will adhere to the water use restrictions. Stage 2 restrictions may be rescinded when all initiation conditions have ceased to exist as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. When Stage 2 is terminated, Stage 1 automatically become effective. Stage 3 - Severe Water Shortage Conditions It is anticipated, and it is the goal of the City, that water use during implementation of Stage 3 be reduced to less than 70% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity. Stage 3 of the Plan shall be implemented if any of the following conditions arise: 8 * Maximum day water use exceeds 100% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity for five consecutive days. * Water supplies available from all sources are reduced down by 10% or more below projected needs. * Water availability from lakes and groundwater is well below normal, continue to decline and additional reductions in current or future water supplies are evident; or water supplies have been reduced due to the failure of one or more water supply systems. The following restrictions shall apply: * Irrigation shall occur without significant water runoff, which can be accomplished by correctly cycling the sprinkler system and allowing time for the water to soak into the landscape between irrigation events. * Landscape irrigation shall not occur more than one day per month and not for more than 1.5 inch per zone. The City Manager, or his/her designee, may designate the irrigation schedule. * Use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting or other related activities necessary to maintain public health, safety and welfare. Under the direction of r the City Manager, use of water from fire hydrants for construction purposes may be allowed by permit. * All City of Lubbock operations will adhere to the water use restrictions. Stage 3 restrictions may be rescinded when all initiation conditions have ceased to exist as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Upon cessation of Stage 3, Stage 2 water restrictions become effective. Stage 4 - Emergency Water Shortage Conditions It is anticipated, and it is the goal of the City, that water use during implementation of Stage 4 be reduced to less than 50% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity or the emergency situation has been corrected. Stage 4 of the Plan shall be implemented if any of the following conditions arise: * Maximum day water use exceeds 105% of the City's maximum daily supply capacity for five consecutive days. * Water supplies available from all sources are reduced by 30% or more below projected needs. I * There has been a failure in a major water supply source or system, such as the failure , t of a dam, storage reservoir, pumping system, transmission pipeline, water treatment facility, major power failure, natural disaster that causes a severe and prolonged limit on the ability of the water supply system to meet the water supply demands. The following restrictions shall apply: * All aesthetic and non -essential water use, including landscape irrigation use, is prohibited, except where necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. No new landscape material may be installed. * All City of Lubbock operations will adhere to the water use restrictions. * The City of Lubbock may reduce water system pressure to conserve water. Stage 4 restrictions may be rescinded when all initiation conditions have ceased to exist as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Upon cessation of Stage 4, Stage 3 water restrictions become effective. Public Notice and Information The City conducted meetings to inform the public and to receive public input on this Plan as follows: conducted a public hearing prior to the first reading of this ordinance. Notice was provided to the public by public posting of the City Council agenda providing notice of the public hearing. The City will periodically provide the public with information about the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan, including information about the conditions under which each stage of the Plan is to be initiated or terminated and the water use restrictions to be implemented in each stage. This information will be provided by means necessary to educate and provide information to the public, including but not limited to, public service announcements, newspaper notices, utility bill inserts, and education presentations. Variance Procedures The water board of appeals, as established in Section 28-44 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, may grant, in writing, a temporary variance for existing water uses otherwise prohibited under the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan if it is determined that failure to grant such variance would cause an emergency condition adversely affecting the health, sanitation, or fire protection for the public or the person requesting such variance and if one or more of the following conditions are met: * Compliance with the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan cannot be technically accomplished during the duration of the water supply shortage or other condition for which the Plan is in effect. 10 * Alternative methods can be implemented which will achieve the same level of reduction in water use. Persons requesting an exemption from the provisions of this ordinance shall file a petition for variance with the water board of appeals. All petitions for variances shall be reviewed by the water board of appeals, and shall include, in addition to the information provided in Section 28-44 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, the following: 1. Purpose of water use. 2. Specific provision(s) of this Plan from which the petitioner is requesting relief. 3. Detailed statement as to how the specific provision of the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan adversely affects the petitioner or what damage or harm will occur to the petitioner or others if petitioner complies with this Ordinance. 4. Description of the relief requested. 5. Period of time for which the variance is sought. 6. Alternative water use restrictions or other measures the petitioner is taking or proposes to take to meet the intent of this Plan and the compliance date. 7. Other pertinent information. Variances granted by the water board of appeals shall be subject to the following conditions, unless waived or modified by the water board of appeals: Variances granted shall include a timetable for compliance. 2. Variances granted shall expire on the earlier to occur of (i) the scheduled expiration; (ii) when the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan is no longer in effect; and (iii) the date upon which the petitioner has failed to meet specified requirements. No variance shall be retroactive or otherwise justify any violation of the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan occurring prior to the issuance of the variance. Means of Implementing and Enforcing the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan Any water customer or other user of the City's water supply who violate subsection (b)(2), the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan, of this ordinance, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a penalty and fine as set forth in Section 11-44 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock for each day of non-compliance. In addition, in the event (i) the failure to comply with this ordinance creates an imminent threat to public :` health, safety or welfare; or (ii) the subject person is convicted of three or more distinct 11 violations (as opposed to consecutive multiple day events of the same violation) within a one (1) year period, the City, after ten (10) days notice and opportunity to cure the violation, may discontinue water service until such time as the user shall be in compliance with this ordinance and, in the case of disconnection due to an imminent health, safety or welfare threat, pay the required charges and fees for re -connection or, in the case of disconnection due to three or more district violations within a one (1) year period, pay the required charges and fees for reconnection and provide suitable assurance to the City Manager that the same action will not be repeated while the subject stage of the Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan is in effect. Any person in apparent control of the property where a violation occurs or originates shall be presumed to be the violator and proof thereof shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the person in apparent control of such property committed the violation. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the applicable provisions of this Drought and Emergency Contingency Plan. The City Manager, or his/her designee, will oversee the execution and implementation of all elements of the Plan to ensure that adequate records are kept for program verification. (3) Additional Information and Provisions. Definitions For the purposes of this Plan the following definitions shall apply: Aesthetic water use: water use for ornamental or decorative purposes such as fountains, reflecting pools, and water gardens. Annual water supply: the amount of water available to the City of Lubbock within a given year. Normally measured in billions of gallons or acre-feet. Average winter consumption: the amount of water used by a customer on average during the winter months of December, January and February. Conservation: those practices, techniques, and technologies that reduce the consumption of water, reduce the loss or waste of water, improve efficiency in the use of water or increase the recycling and reuse of water so that a supply is conserved and made available for future or alternative use. Customer: any individual, corporation, partnership, association, and any other legal entity utilizing water provided by the City of Lubbock. Domestic water use: water use for personal needs or for household or sanitary purposes such as drinking, bathing, heating, cooking, sanitation, or for cleaning a residence, business, industry, or institution, except as provided under the definition of "Non -essential Water Use", below. 12 Drought: an extended period of time of below normal precipitation (rainfall, snow, etc.). Drought of Record: extended period of time below normal precipitation (rainfall, snow, etc.) that exceeds the length of time and impact on water supplies of previous droughts. The drought of record is used to help determine the estimated yield of reservoirs. Increasing block rate: a water rate structure that has a rate that increases as more water is consumed. Landscape irrigation or Landscape irrigation use: water used for the irrigation and maintenance of landscaped areas, whether publicly or privately owned, including residential and commercial lawns, gardens, golf course greens, tees, and fairways, parks, athletic fields, street or alley rights -of -way and medians. Maximum daily supply: the amount of water available to the City of Lubbock during a given day. The amount may be limited due to the water transmission line size, water pump size, the number of operating wells, the amount of raw and treated water storage, the water rights owned by the City and other related factors. Non -essential water use: water uses that are neither essential nor required for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including without limitation: (a) Landscape irrigation; (b) Use of water to wash any motor vehicle, motorbike, boat, trailer, airplane or other vehicle of any kind; (c) Use of water to spray or wash down any sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or other hard -surfaced areas; (d) Use of water to spray or wash down buildings or structures for purposes other than immediate fire protection; (e) Flushing gutters or permitting water to run or accumulate in any gutter or street; (f) Use of water to fill, refill, or add to any indoor or outdoor swimming pools or hot tubs; (g) Use of water in a fountain or pond for aesthetic or scenic purposes except where necessary to support aquatic and avian life; (h) Failure to repair a leak(s) within a reasonable period of time after having been given notice directing the repair of such leak(s). 13 Per capita water use: a measure of water use for a city or other entity (gpcd). The measure compares water use to the number of citizens in the area. The measure does not reflect the amount used on average by a citizen. (Ord. No. 2006-00075, §1, 7-10-06) 14 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 6 — Water Conservation Rates Content a. Water Rates (code) b. Sewer Rates (code) c. 2007 Cost of Service Report Summary In early 2007, the City of Lubbock completed a cost of service study and a water conservation study for the water and sewer rates. This was the culmination of over 3 years of work by a Citizens Task Force on water rates, by the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission, by the City Council, and by city staff. Prior to 1991, the City of Lubbock had a decreasing water block rate. This means that customers pay a lower rate per 1,000 gallons as they use high amounts of water. In 1991 the City took the fast step towards a water conservation rate by adopting a uniform rate. Under this plan all customers would not pay a lower rate for use of high amounts of water. Now 16 years later, the City of Lubbock has taken the next step towards water conservation rates by adopting an increasing block rate. This rate provides the lowest rate for essential life and business use. A second and higher rate is charged for outside irrigation and other reasonable peak use. A third and higher rate is charged for what is considered excessive use. The City also took one additional step towards conservation by adopting what is called an Average Winter Consumption block rate. Under this plan, block one volume is defined by each customers winter use. The volume in block one is set by determining the average use of each customer for the months of September through February. The new rates should help all customers have a greater interest in water conservation and in the management of this significant and necessary resource. DIVISION 2. RATES AND CHARGES Sec. 28-51. Power of city manager to fix. The city manager shall have authority to decide any question which may arise and which is not fully covered by any of the provisions of this article and he shall have the right to fix and determine any water rate not provided for in this article and his decision in such cases shall be final, subject to modification by the mayor and City Council. (Ord. No. 348, § 13, 8-5-26; Code 1959, § 34-13) Sec. 28-52. Water base charge. (a) The city, through the city manager, shall charge and collect from every customer and every customer shall pay a monthly base charge for water which shall be billed to all customers based upon the water meter size as follows: Meter Size Water Base Charge Three -quarter -inch (3/4") meter $7.66 One -inch (1 ") meter $12.79 One -and -a -half inch (1.5") meter $25.51 Two-inch (2") meter $40.83 Three-inch (3") meter $81.73 Four -inch (4 ") meter $127.69 Six-inch (6") meter $255.31 Eight -inch (8") meter $408.51 Ten -inch (10") meter $587.29 (b) The water base charge as set forth in this section shall be effective April 1, 2007. (Ord. No. 1241, § 3, 6-26-52; Ord. No. 1882, § 1, 4-26-56; Ord. No. 4229, § 1, 10-24-63; Ord. No. 5694, § 1, 7-2-69; Ord. No. 7488, § 1, 7-14-77; Ord. No. 8046, § 2, 5-22-80; Ord. No. 8082, § 2, 8-28-80; Ord. No. 8454, § 1, 6-23-83; Ord. No. 9102, § 2(1), 8-27- 87; Ord. No. 9301, § 7, 8-10-89; Ord. No. 9551, § 1, 9-10-92; Ord. No. 10183, § 1, 8-26- 99; Ord. No. 2001-00078, § 1, 9-13-01; Code 1959, § 3-11; Ord. No. 2002-00097, § 1, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 2005-00113, § 1, 10-13-05; Ord. No. 2006-00097, § 1, 9-13-06; Ord. No. 2007-00010, §§ 1, 3, 2-22-07) Sec. 28-53. Water volume rate generally. (a) In addition to the base charge, the city, through the city manager, shall determine the amount of water used by each customer through monthly meter readings and shall N -" charge to and collect from every customer and every customer shall pay for water furnished by the city to the customer. The water furnished by the city shall be measured on a per one thousand (1,000) gallons basis and billed as follows: Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 $2.09 per 1,000 gallons $2.61 per 1,000 gallons $3.61 per 1,000 gallons (1) Single-family residential. The Block 1 volume is the amount of water used up to 100% of the average winter consumption (AWC) of each respective customer's premises, the AWC being the average volume of water used as measured by the nonirrigation meter readings for the months of September, October, November, December, January and February, and updated in March of each respective year; the Block 2 volume is the amount of water used in addition to the Block 1 volume up to an additional 40,000 gallons; and the Block 3 volume is the volume of water used in excess of the Block 1 and Block 2 volumes. For new customers that do not have an AWC calculated for their service, an AWC of seven thousand (7,000) gallons shall be used for Block 1 volume purposes. (2) Single-family residential irrigation. Does not include a Block 1 volume; the Block 2 volume of water is from 1,000 gallons used up to 40,000 gallons; and the Block 3-- volume is the amount of water used in excess of the Block 2 volume. (3) Multi -family residential, commercial and public. The Block 1 volume is the amount of water used up to 100% of the average winter consumption (AWC) of each multi- family residential, commercial and public premises, respectively, the AWC being the average volume of water used as measured by the nonirrigation meter readings for the months of September, October, November, December, January and February, and updated in March of each respective year; the Block 2 volume is the amount of water used in addition to the Block 1 volume up to an additional 50% of the AWC (total of Block 1 and Block 2 is equal to 150% of the AWC); and the Block 3 volume is the amount of water used in excess of the Block 1 and Block 2 volumes. (4) Nonresidential irrigation. Does not include a Block 1 volume; the Block 2 volume of water shall be the average monthly use by all nonresidential irrigation users by meter size for nonresidential irrigation services. The Block 3 volume is the volume of water used in excess of Block 2 volume. (5) Schools. All water used will be charged at a Block 1 rate. (b) The water volume rates as set forth in this section shall be effective April 1, 2007. (Ord. No. 1241, § 1, 6-26-52; Ord. No. 1882, § 1, 4-26-56; Ord. No. 4229, § 1, 10-24-63; Ord. No. 5694, § 1, 7-24-69; Ord. No. 7488, § 1, 7-14-77; Ord. No. 8046, § 1, 5-22-80; Ord. No. 8082, § 1, 8-28-80; Ord. No. 8454, § 2, 6-23-83; Ord. No. 9102, § 2(2), 8-27- 87; Ord. No. 9301, § 8, 8-10-89; Ord. No. 9551, § 2, 9-10-92; Ord. No. 10183, § 2, 8-26- 99; Ord. No. 2001-00078, § 1, 9-13-01; Code 1959, § 34-10; Ord. No. 00097, § 2, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 2005-00113, § 2, 10-13-05; Ord. No. 2006-00097, § 2, 9-13-06; Ord. No. 2007-00010, §§ 2, 3, 2-22-07) Sec. 28-54. Texas Tech University. The rate for water supplied to Texas Tech University shall be the same rate as established for and applicable to schools in sections 28-52 and 28-53 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock. (Ord. No. 1241, § 5, 6-26-52; Ord. No. 1258, 8-4-52; Ord. No. 1882, § 1, 4-26-56; Ord. No. 4229, § 1, 10-24-63; Ord. No. 5035, § 1, 6-23-66; Ord. No. 7488, § 1, 7-14-77; Ord. No. 8046, § 3, 5-22-80; Ord. No. 8082, § 3, 8-28-80; Ord. No. 8454, § 3, 6-23-83; Ord. No. 9551, § 3, 9-10-92; Code 1959, § 34-12) Sec. 28-55. Lubbock Christian University. The rate for water supplied to Lubbock Christian University shall be the same rate as established for and applicable to schools in sections 28-52 and 28-53 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock. (Ord. No. 5558, § 1, 10-24-68; Ord. No. 9551, § 4, 9-10-92; Code 1959, § 34-12.2) Sec. 28-56. Buckner Baptist Home. The rates for water supplied to the Buckner Baptist Home shall be the same rate as established for and applicable to multiple -family in sections 28-52 and 28-53 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock. (Ord. No. 5255, 5-25-67; Ord. No. 9551, § 5, 9-10-92; Code 1959, § 34.12.1) Sec. 28-57. When bills due and payable. (a) All bills for water consumed shall be due and payable twenty-one (2 1) days after issuance. Simple interest of five (5) percent shall be charged to the consumer if the consumer pays his bill after twenty-one (21) days from issuance. The five (5) percent interest on late payments shall apply to all classes of consumers served. Provided, however, that this section shall be subject to Chapter 182, subchapter A of the Texas Utilities Code, "Payment of Utility Bill for Elderly Individual." (b) As used in this section, date of issuance shall mean the date when a bill is placed in C", the United States Mail, properly addressed to the consumer. (Ord. No. 1241, § 2, 6-26-52; Ord. No. 8389, § 1, 1-27-83; Ord. No. 2001-00044, § 2, 6- 26-01; Code 1959, § 34-14) DIVISION 2. SEWER SERVICE AND CHARGES Sec. 28-86. Rates charged for sewer service. (a) The City, through the City Manager, shall charge and collect from every customer and every customer shall pay a monthly base charge for sewer service which shall be billed to all customers based upon the water meter size as follows: Meter Size Base Charge Three -quarter -inch (3/4") meter $4.62 One -inch (1 ") meter $5.63 One -and -a -half -inch (1.5 ") meter $8.14 Two-inch (2") meter $11.16 Three-inch (3 ") meter $18.21 Four -inch (4") meter $28.28 Six-inch (6") meter $53.44 k Eight -inch (8") meter $83.64 Ten -inch (10") meter $118.88 (b) In addition to the base charge, the City, through the City Manager shall determine the volume of sewer flow produced by each customer as described herein and each customer shall pay the sewer volume rate per one thousand (1,000) gallons, which shall' be as follows: Flow Rate: $1.69 The volume of sewer flow produced by a single family residential customer and customers not required to meter as provided in Section 28-88 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock shall be determined by calculating the average water volume used as measured by the nonirrigation meter readings for the months of November, December, January and February. This volume shall be defined as the Average Winter Consumption (AWC), and it shall be updated for billing purposes in March of each year. In the event a residential customer or premises (i.e., a new premises) does not have a water consumption history for such months, a water volume of 7,000 gallons per month shall be utilized by default. The volume of sewer flow produced by other customers shall be determined as provided for in Section 28-88 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock. (c) Surcharge: Sewer customers or others discharging wastes to the sanitary sewer system which do not exceed the limits established in 28-99 and which do not exhibit any of the characteristics of wastes prohibited by sections 28-98 and 28-100 but have concentration(s) in excess of "normal domestic sewage", shall pretreat the wastes to meet the concentrations of "normal domestic sewage"; however, such excessive BOD and TSS wastes may be accepted for treatment if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The wastes will not cause damage to the wastewater collection system; (2) The wastes will not impair the city's treatment process; (3) The wastes will not cause contamination of POTW sludges thus limiting sludge disposal options or practices; (4) The person(s) or owner(s) responsible for the wastes pays a surcharge, in addition to the regular water and sewer rates, in accordance with the following cost factors and formula: V = Volume reported in millions of gallons (MG) BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand analyzed in accordance with the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", or the latest EPA approved method, and reported in units of milligrams per liter (mg/1). TSS = Total suspended solids analyzed in accordance with the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", or the latest EPA approved method, and reported in units of milligrams per liter (mg/1). Cost Factor BOD = 55% of the total budgeted costs for operating and maintaining the wastewater treatment facilities divided by total pounds BOD treated. Cost Factor TSS = 45% of the total budgeted costs for operating and maintaining the wastewater treatment facilities divided by total pounds TSS treated. Surcharge = Surcharge computed in dollars as follows: BOD Surcharge = V x (B -- C) x 8.34 x Cost Factor BOD TSS Surcharge = V x (B -- C) x 8.34 x Cost Factor TSS Where: B = Total contribution from user (mg/1). C = Normal domestic sewage strength (two hundred fifty (250) mg/1). 8.34 = Pounds per gallon of water (conversion). (d) The surcharge rate for sewer service as shown in paragraph (c), shall be determined each year following city council approval of the annual operations budget. The surcharge rate shall be examined by the city manager, or his designee, and such adjustments shall be made to the sewer surcharge rate on October 1 of each year. (Ord. No. 9294, § 1, 8-10-89; Ord. No. 9473, § 1, 8-22-91; Ord. No. 9733, § 1, 9-8-94; Ord. No. 9802, § 7, 5-11-95; Ord. No. 9932, § 1, 8-22-96; Ord. No. 10182, § 1, 8-26-99; Ord. No. 2001-00077, § 1, 9-13-01; Ord. No. 2002-00098, § 1, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 2005- 00114, § 1, 10-13-05; Ord. No. 2007-00011, § 1, 1-25-07) Sec. 28-87. Measurement of wastewater flow of commercial or industrial users. It shall be the responsibility of all the commercial or industrial users to provide an approved metering device for the sewage flow or metering for the private water supplier to determine the quantity discharged. In the event the metering measurement is not provided, sewer service shall be determined and assessed by the city until such a measuring device is provided. Measuring devices shall be installed by the user within ninety (90) days of official notice from the city. (Ord. No. 9294, § 1, 8-10-89) Sec. 28-88. Measurement of wastewater flow of commercial or industrial users with irrigation, in plant, in process or in product water losses. It shall be the responsibility of all the commercial and/or industrial users with substantial irrigation, in plant, in process or in product water losses, to provide an approved metering device to determine the quantity of sewage discharged. Such metering devices, quantities, and exemptions claimed shall be approved by the director of water utilities prior to incorporation into the billing process. In the event the metering measurement is not provided, the service charge shall be determined and assessed by the city until such a measuring device is provided. Measuring devices shall be installed by the user, and at the user's expense, within ninety (90) days of official notice from the city. (Ord. No. 9294, § 1, 8-10-89) Sec. 28-89. Disconnection for nonpayment for service. (a) In the event any person, firm or institution presently connected with city water service fails or refuses to pay the assessed sewer charge within fifteen (15) days after due date, water and sewer service shall be discontinued at the premises assessed and not be renewed until payment of the assessed charges plus the conditions and charges for reestablishment of water service as provided in 28-24 of this Code. (b) In the event any person, firm or institution not connected with city water service fails or refuses to pay the assessed sewer charge within fifteen (15) days after due date, sewer service shall be discontinued for those residences or businesses assessed and not less than a fifty -dollar ($50.00) or greater than a five hundred -dollar ($500.00) reconnect charge shall be due with all back payments before reconnect will be made. (Ord. No. 9294, § 1, 8-10-89) (71) dCity of Lubbock, Texas �f �F 3921-004 Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study December 2006 Report Prepared By: • • • R:VirU' K • OUNSULTNG • . • a DIVISION OF VLC•L■ !E••1■ Table of Contents Contents 1. Executive Sumary 1-1 1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Study Findings and Recommendations........................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1. Water Rate Study............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2. Wastewater Rate Study...................................................................................... 1-3 2. Water Financial Plan 2-1 2.1. Revenues.......................................................:..............................................................2-1 2.2. Revenue Requirements................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3. Debt Service Coverage................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4. Indicated Water Sales Revenue Adjustments.............................................................. 2-2 3. Water Cost of Service -1 3.1. Cost of Service.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2. Units of Service............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3. Allocation to Cost Components..................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1. Functional Cost Components............................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2. Allocation Factors............................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.3. Allocation to Functional Cost Components........................................................ 3-3 3.3.4. Unit Cost of Service............................................................................................ 3-4 3.4. Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes...................................................................... 3-6 4. Water Rate Design -1 4.1. Existing Rates............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Proposed 2007 Rates................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1. Base Charge....................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2. Volume Rates..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3. Typical Monthly Water Bills........................................................................................... 4-3 5. Wastewater Financial Plan 64 5.1. Revenues......................................................................................................................5-1 5.2. Revenue Requirements................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3. Debt Service Coverage................................................................................................. 5-1 5.4. Indicated Wastewater Sales Revenue Adjustments..................................................... 5-2 S. Wastewater Cost of Service 6-1 6.1. Cost of Service.............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2. Units of Service............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.3. Allocation to Cost Components..................................................................................... 6-1 • ;®® City of Lubbock, Texas Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 1 �,,.,.,.., s.m ..,... 3921-004 ` Table of Contents 6.3.1. Functional Cost Components............................................................................. 6-1 6:3.2. Allocation to Functional Cost Components........................................................ 6-1 6.3.3. Unit Cost of Service............................................................................................ 6-3 7. Wastewater Rate Design, 7-1 7.1. Existing Rates............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2. Proposed 2007 Rates................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3. Typical Monthly Wastewater Bills................................................................................. 7-2 • .�• City of Lubbock, Texas ;: L'rj Water and Wastewater Cost of Sehrice and Rate Study 2 The City of Lubbock (City) serves approximately 75,300 water customers and 70,600 wastewater customers. The City's water and wastewater operations are intended to be financially self-sufficient with funding for capital and operating requirements derived primarily from monthly user charges assessed based on service provided. The City authorized Red Oak Consulting (Red Oak) to complete this study to recommend water and wastewater user charges that, based on projected customer data (number of accounts, water use, and wastewater billing units), will generate sufficient revenue to meet the annual revenue requirements and meet reserve requirements as projected by the City. This study includes the following: Ed Review of the City -prepared 10-year financial plan. Preparation of a fiscal year (FY) 2007 cost of service analysis. Resign of water and wastewater rates based on the FY 2007 cost of service analysis. The principal findings of the water rate study are as follows: Revenue under existing water rates is inadequate to meet projected revenue requirements during the study period. The revenue increases shown below are indicated to meet future water utility expenses and provide adequate reserves and to maintain the fmancial integrity of the Water Fund. The City should annually review the timing and magnitude of these increases to determine their appropriateness. Fiscal dater Sales Pascal Water Sales Year Revenue Increase Year Revenue Increase (%) M) 2007(') 11.0 2012 4.0 2008 12.0 2013 9.0 2009 4.0 2014 4.0 2010 5.0 2015 0.0 2011 6.0 2016 0.0 (1) The fiscal year 2006-07 increase went into effect on October 1, 2006, the start of the City's fiscal year. K City of Lubbock, Texas • •COMMMG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Stud ' amazes w e LMN oImIs 3921-004 = Section 1 Executive Summary Red Oak developed FY 2006-07 (FY 2007) water rates that are revenue neutral and recover costs in a fair and equitable manner. "Revenue neutral' means that the rates calculated under the proposed structure were developed to generate the same amount of revenue as the rates adopted by the City and effective October 1, 2006. The recommended retail rate structure includes a base charge (a fixed dollar amount per month), which recovers the costs associated with billing and meter maintenance, and a volume charge (a dollar rate per 1,000 gallons of metered water use; the City reads and bills monthly), which recovers that costs associated with treatment and distribution of water in three increasing rate, water usage blocks. The first usage block is equal to the average winter consumption (AWC) of each individual customer. The second block consists of the next 25 thousand gallons (kgal) for single family customers and 50 percent of the AWC for other customers. The third block is for any usage greater than AWC plus 25 kgal for single family customers or 150 percent of AWC for other customers. 'Tables 1-1 and 1-2 compare existing and proposed FY 2007 Water Base Charges and Volume Rates. N. Table 1-1. Water om arison oY t:xisting ano vro osea rY Luui tsase Vnar e Meter Size Existing Proposed Percent Change 3/4" $ 11.11 $ 6.81 (38.7%) 1" - SF Residential $14.14 $ 11.37 (19.6%) 1" - irrigation - Res./Corn. $ 13.21 $ 11.37 (13.9%) 1" - Other $ 23.71 $ 11.37 (52.0%) 1 112" $ 44.71 $ 22.68 (49.3%) 2" $ 70.07 $ 36.30 (48.2%) 3" $ 151.80 $ 72.66 (52.1 %) 4" $ 396.37 $ 113.52 (71.4%) 6" $ 787.72 $ 226.98 (71.2%) 8" $ 999.49 $ 363.18 (63.7%) 10" $1,994.131 $ 522.12 (73.8%) • :�:PEUEAK City of Lubbock, Texas ® s. (IONRMING Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study •,,.,.,,...,,�.,,o,. 3921-004 Section 1 Executive Summary Table 1-2. Water Comparison of Existing and Proposed FY 2007 Volume Rates ($11,000 gallons) Customer Class Existing Proposed Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Single Family Residential $ 2.03 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation - SFR $ 2.38 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Multifamily Residential $1.73 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Commercial $ 1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Public $ 1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Municipal $ 1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation -Non-residential $ 2.38 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation - Municipal $1.88 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Lubbocklndependent School District $ 1.73 $ 1.73 N/A N/A Wholesale - Ransom/Buffalo $ 1.53 $ 2.01 N/A N/A Wholesale - New Deal $ 0.76 $ 1.91 N/A N/A IN Table 1-3 compares typical monthly single family residential water bills under existing and proposed FY 2007 rates. Based on an average winter consumption of 7,000 gallons and an average monthly usage of 11,000 gallons, single family bills are estimated to decrease $1.89 per month - from $33.44 under existing rates to $31.55 based on the proposed FY 2007 user charges. Comparison of Monthly Bills under Existing and Proposed Rates Single Family Residential Winter Summer Usage (legal) Existing Proposed Usage (legal) Existing Proposed Low 5 $ 21.26 $ 17.11 8 $ 27.35 $ 23.29 Average 7 $ 25.32 $ 23.29 15 $ 41.56 $ 41.35 High 25 $ 61.86 $ 67.15 50 $ 112.61 $ 164.63 Very High 100 $ 214.11 $ 390.63 200 $ 417.11 $ 842.63 1..2. Wastewater Rate Study The principal findings of the wastewater rate study are as follows: • : °� City of Lubbock, Texas as* L Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study ma's i ' .� 1-3 3921-004 �. Section 1 Executive Summary Revenue under existing wastewater rates is inadequate to meet revenue requirements during the study period. The annual revenue increases shown below are indicated to meet future wastewater utility expenses and provide adequate reserves and to maintain the financial integrity of the Wastewater Fund. The City should annually review the timing and magnitude of these increases to determine their appropriateness. Fiscal Wastewater Sales Fiscal Wastewater Sales Year Revenue Increase Year Revenue Increase 2007 0.0 2012 0.0 2008 5.0 2013 0.0 2009 16.0 2014 0.0 2010 16.0 2015 0.0 2011 16.0 2016 0.0 Red Oak developed FY 2007 wastewater rates that are revenue neutral and maintain the existing rate structure. 'Table 14 compares existing and proposed FY 2007 wastewater rates. No change in the current structure is being proposed - the current two-part Base Charge and Volume Rate structure should be retained, although the values should be modified to more accurately reflect the cost or providing service. Table 1-4. Wastewater rt arison of Existing and Pro used FY 2007 4Jser ChYrhY Rate Type Existing Proposed Percent Change Base Charge: 3/4' $ 3.94 $ 4.65 18.0% V $ 9.20 $ 5.67 (38.4%) 1 '/a" $ 17.97 $ 8.19 (54.40/6) 2" $ 28.49 $ 11.23 (60.6%) 3" $ 61.82 $ 18.33 (70.3%) 4" $ 175.81 $ 28.47 (83.8%) 6" $ 351.18 $ 53.79 (84.7%) 8" $ 438.88 $ 84.19 (80.8%) 10" $ 877.32 $ 119.67 (86.4%) Volume Rate ($/kgals) $ 1.67 $ 1.69 1.2% Table 1-5 compares typical monthly single family residential wastewater bills under existing and proposed FY 2007 rates. Based on an average monthly contribution of 7,000 gallons, single family bills are expected to increase $0.85 from $16.48 under existing rates to $15.63 based on the proposed user charges. RE[CkkK City of Lubbock, Texas .• (jCULjjNG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 1-4 . a mmaa r �..m■ wam3921-004 Section 1 Executive Summary Table 1-5. Wastewater Comparison of Monthly Bills under Existing and Proposed Rates Single Family Residential Usage (legal) Existing Proposed Lowy 5 $ 12.29 $ 13.10 Average 7 $ 15.63 $ 16.48 High 20 $ 37.34 $ 38.45 Very High 50 $ 87.44 ®®®® City of Lubbock, Texas ° es 1L G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study `ty" 3921-004 2. WaterFinancial Plan The City's Water Fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund. Table 2-1 shows the 10-year financial forecast for the Water Fund. Red Oak used assumptions and estimates from the City's existing financial plan (dated October 31, 2006) to develop the plan shown in Table 2-1. Recent adjustments to the City's plan are not reflected in Table 2-1. Revenue from metered services was calculated based on the projected number of accounts and water usage in future years and does not match projected revenues in the City's financial plan. .1. Revenues The Water Fund cash balance as of September 30, 2005, is $17,037,085. The target minimum reserve is equal to 25 percent of total revenues. Revenue sources include metered services, government fund fees, rentals, junk sales, department operations, investment earnings, and transfers from other funds. Water service charges (revenues from the Base Charge and the Volume Rate) represent the most significant source of revenue to the Water Fund, averaging approximately 95 percent of total revenue during the 10-year study period. This revenue is derived from existing rates and projected rate increases. Water service charges revenue under existing rates is based on water account projections and a detailed analysis of historical utility billing records, i.e., water use data. The number of water accounts is expected to increase annually at a rate of 1 percent from FY 2006 through FY 2016. Water use per customer is projected to remain at current levels. Water Fund revenue requirements include operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, capital outlay, debt service principal and interest payments, transfers to other funds, and master lease payments. Projected O&M expenses consist of salaries, benefits, supplies, maintenance, and other charges related to the treatment and distribution of water. An average annual inflation allowance of 3 percent has been included in O&M projections. Approximately 47 percent of study period revenue requirements are for O&M expenses. This financial performance measure is an indication of the ability of a borrower to repay a debt obligation. Red Oak recommends the Water Fund maintain annual coverage of at R K City of Lubbock, Texas �• OCNRXIING Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 2-1 amvu as r UMA"U eiws 3921-004 A , s Section 2 Water Financial Plan least 100 percent of net revenues. Debt service coverage is the ratio of net revenue (gross revenues less O&M expenses) to annual debt service (principal and interest payments). It is calculated by dividing net revenues by the current year's debt service requirements. Gross revenues include all water service charges, fees, investment income, and other revenue. Debt service coverage is expected to be adequate throughout the study period, ranging from 125 percent to 145 percent. Revenue under existing rates is inadequate to meet projected revenue requirements during the study period. The revenue increases shown below are indicated to meet future water utility expenses, provide adequate reserves, and to maintain the financial integrity of the Water Fund. The City should annually review the timing and magnitude of these increases to determine their appropriateness. Fiscal Water Sales Fiscal Water Sales Year Revenue Increase Year Revenue Increaase 2007(1) 11.0 2012 4.0 2008 12.0 2013 9.0 2009 4.0 2014 4.0 2010 5.0 2015 0.0 2011 6.0 2016 0.0 � r (1) The fiscal year 2006-07 increase went into effect on October 1, 2006, the start of the City's' fiscal year. • ;®e City of Lubbock, Texas s• 144RXTNG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 2-2 Section 2 Water Financial Plan Table 2-1. Water Water Fund Financial Plan DESCRIPTION FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008.09 FY 2009.10 FY 2010.11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 20%15 FY 2015-16 Revenues: Government Fund Fees $ 2,800 $ 2,884 $ 2,971 $ 3,060 $ 3,151 $ 3,246 $ 3,343 $ 3,444 $ 3,547 $ 3,653 Total Enterprise Fund Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Revenues 723,300 744,999 767,349 790,369 814,081 838,503 863.658 889.568 916,255 943,743 Revenue from Rentals 71,750 77,490 83,689 90,384 97,615 105,424 113,858 122,967 132,804 143,428 Refunds and Recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue from Junk Sales 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Revenue from Metered Services 37,016,222 41,498,885 46,943,539 49,309,494 52.292.718 55,984,584 58,806,207 64,739,754 68,002,637 68,682.663 Metered Revenue Increase 4,071,784 4,979,866 1,877,742 2,465,475 3,137,563 2,239,383 5,292,659 2,589,590 0 0 Revenue from Department Operations 1.645,000 1,681,350 1,718,736 1,767,187 1,796,736 1,587,415 1,629,257 1,672,296 1,716,812 1,762,855 Transfers from Other Funds 254,044 257,873 261,818 265,880 270,065 274,375 278,814 283,387 288,035 292,759 Total Funding Sources 43,793,900 49,262,348 61,664,844 64,690,849 58,420,929 61,041,930 66,996,696 70,310,006 71,069,090 71,838,101 Expenditures: Total Salaries 5,034,478 5,135,168 5,237,871 5,342,628 5,449,481 5,558,471 5,669,640 5,783,033 5,898,694 6,016,670 Total Benefits 2,304,855 2,434,566 2,575,232 2,727,910 2,893,758 3,074,052 3,270,194 3,483,724 3,711,197 3,953,524 Total Supplies 1,276,238 1,301,763 1,327,798 1,354,354 1,381,441 1,409,070 1,437,251 1,465,996 1,495,316 1,525,223 Total Maintenance 2,593,002 2,644,862 2,697,759 2,751,714 2,806,749 2,862.884 2,920,141 2,978,544 3,038,115 3,098,876 Total Other Charges 11,616,611 11,706,805 11,940,941 12,179,760 12,423,355 12,671,823 12,925,259 13,183,764 13,447,438 13,716,388 Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Bond Adjustments and Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Transfers 6,914,874 7,189,994 7,478,104 7,779,926 8,096,227 8.427,820 8,775,570 9,140,396 9,712,903 10,323,465 Total Other Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pay -As -You -Go Funding in CIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Debt Service Annually 14,752,933 16,023,540 17,236,009 18,999,654 21.514,298 23,653,185 26,655,967 32,050,241 32,050,241 32,050,241 Total Debt Service New 618,494 649,522 970,084 1,307,259 1,511,660 1,528,110 2,715,835 0 0 0 Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Master Lease 869,897 1,245,376 1,425,650 1,492,629 1,465,781 1,244,890 1,043,326 1,118,847 1,118,847 1,118,847 Total Expenditures 46,981,382 48,331,696 50,889,448 63,936,834 57,642,760 60,430,305 66,413,183 69,204,646 70,472,761 71,803,234 Total lncrease/(Decrease)in Cash Balance (2,187,482) 920,752 775,396 755,015 878,179 611,625 1,583,513 1,105,461 596,339 34,867 Beginning Cash Balance 13,761,566 11,574,084 12,494,835 13,270,231 14,025,246 14,903,424 15,515,049 17,098,562 18,204,022 18,800,362 Ending Cash Balance 11,574,084 12,494,835 13,270,231 14,025,246 14,903,424 15,515,049 17,098,562 18,204,022 18,800,362 18,835 Less Target Reserve Balance (11,011,986) (12,377,555) (12,981,665) (13,739,182) (14,672,748) (15,329,076) (16,818,877) (17,648,348) (17,839,281) (18,032,715) Total Appropriable Net Assets 562,098 117.280 288,566 286,063 230,676 185,973 279,684 555,674 961,080 802,514 Debt Service Coverage 125% 145% 143% 137% 134% 130% 129% 126% 126% 125% ' RMAK City of Lubbock, Texas ;! + CONAUM Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 2-3 Red Oak completed a cost of service analysis for the FY 2007 test year to identify customer, volume and private fire protection costs. These costs form the basis for designing the proposed FY 2007 water rates. The total FY 2007 revenue requirements or cost of providing water service is estimated at $41,780,090 and consists of $24,542,398 of O&M expenses and $15,371,427 of capital costs. These costs are projected to be funded from $41,088,006 of water sales revenue and $692,084 of other revenue sources. After adjustments for interest income, other revenues, transfers to other funds, and available reserves, the FY 2007 net cost of service is $41,088,010. Table 3-1 summarizes the FY 2007 revenue requirements. Table 3-1. Water FY 2007 Revenue Requirements Line No. Description Total O&M.- 1 Supply $ 4,664,154 2 Treatment 9,704,091 3 Distribution and Storage 4,219,521 4 Pumping 3,886,276 5 Billing and Customer Service 2,602,662 6 Meter Reading and Maintenance 885,449 7 Fire Protection 446,510 8 Total O&M 26,408,663 Capital. 9 Debt Service — Capital Projects 15,371,427 10 Debt Service — System Improvements 0 11 Total Capital 15,371,427 12 Total Gross Revenue Requirements 41,780,090 Revenue Requirement Adjustments 13 Interest Income (723,300) 14 Other Revenues (1,982,594) 15 Transfers to Other Funds 4,201,292 16 Transfer from Reserves (2,187,478) 17 Total Adjustments (692,080) 18 Total Not Revenue Requirements $ 41,088,010 ®®®REMO& City of Lubbock, Texas ® ®®® Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study ,fig 3-1 . �" W _ - ® P16619 3921-004 Section 2 Water Cost of Service - 3.2. Units of Service Service requirements for each class are based on the average daily water use projections and estimates of each class' maximum day and maximum hour demands and metering and billing requirements. The base cost responsibility varies with annual class water usage. Average day quantities are based on a detailed analysis of the City's water billing records. The responsibility for extra capacity costs varies with class extra capacity requirements for maximum day and maximum hour demands. Average day usage and capacity factors, representing the estimated relationship between individual class peak demand and average day usage, are used to develop extra capacity requirements for maximum day and maximum hour demands. The estimated capacity factors are based on an analysis of each class' monthly usage characteristics. Fire protection costs are either direct or demand related. Direct costs relate to maintenance of fire hydrants. Demand related costs represent the portion of extra capacity costs related to meeting potential fire demands. Red Oak estimates that City peak fire flow requirements are 13,750 gallons per minute for four hours. Fire demand quantities are proportional to the number of equivalent 6-inch public and private fire hydrants. There are four basic functional water cost components: base, extra capacity, customer, and direct fire protection. Base costs vary directly with the quantity of water used under average day load conditions. Extra capacity costs represent those costs incurred due to customer peak daily and hourly demands for water in excess of average day usage. Customer costs include utility billing, meter reading, and meter repair and replacement costs. Direct fire protection costs are associated with maintenance of fire hydrants. In order to provide adequate water service to its customers at all times, the water utility must be capable not only of providing the total amount of water used, but also of supplying water at maximum rates of demand. Comparison of historical system coincidental maximum day and maximum hour demands to average day demands results in appropriate ratios for the allocation of capital costs and operating expenses to base and extra capacity cost components. A maximum day to average day ratio of 2.00 is used based on demands experienced in the City's system. This indicates that approximately 50 percent of the capacity of facilities designed and • e Rj� City of Lubbock, Texas ® : ®. OCNSMWater and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 3-2 c wrmaa w rruae coas 3921-004 Section 2 Water Cost of Service r.._,, operated for maximum day demand is needed for average or base use. Accordingly, the remaining 50 percent is for maximum day extra capacity requirements. Since maximum hour water usage also utilizes facilities designed and operated for average day and maximum day demands, the costs associated with meeting maximum hour demand are allocated to base, maximum day extra capacity, and maximum hour extra capacity. A ratio of maximum hour to annual average day water use of 3.00 is based on demands experienced in the City's system. This ratio indicates that 33 percent of the capacity of facilities designed and operated for maximum hour demand is needed for average or base use, 33 percent is required to meet maximum day extra capacity demand, and the remaining 33 percent is for maximum hour extra capacity demand. • u 11111!1�a !111111 l Red Oak allocated net revenue requirements to cost components using either the ratios developed above or direct assignment. 'fable 3-2 shows the allocation of FY 2007 revenue requirements to cost components. Revenue requirements are generally allocated to the functional cost components that reflect the design parameter of the associated facility. For example, treatment expenses are related to the facilities that provide treated water to the City's system. These facilities are designed to meet average and maximum day demands. Thus, treatment expenses are allocated to the base and maximum day cost components. In similar manner, distribution and storage expense is allocated to base, maximum day, and maximum hour cost components. Some of the revenue requirements can be directly assigned to a specific cost component. Hydrant maintenance, meters and services, and customer billing expenses are directly allocated to the appropriate component. Administration and general expenses are identified with system facilities or activities to the extent possible to simplify the allocation process. Those expenses that are not specifically assigned are allocated in proportion to all other operating expenses. Capital is allocated to base, maximum day, and maximum hour cost components on the basis of total operating expenses. Net revenue requirements equal total cost to provide service less adjustments for miscellaneous revenue sources. The allocation of adjustments to cost components is based on total allocated cost of service less the customer and fire protection costs. • ;�•REMkK City of Lubbock, Texas Clt"JNR LIMG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 3-3 ....,n,.., a... 3921-004 i Section 2 Water Cost of Service Table 3-2. Water Allocation of FY 2007 Revenue Requirements to Functional Categories Billing/ Meter Line Operating Dist./ Cust. Reading/ Fire No. Center Supply Treatment Storage Pumping Svc. Maint. Protection Total 1 Administration 40% 25% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% Water Conservation 2 and Education 40% 25% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% 3 Engineering 40% 25% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% Metering & Customer 4 Service 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% Equipment 5 Maintenance 40% 25% 30% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% Pipeline 6 Maintenance 0% 0% 95% 0% 0% 0% 5% 100% Water 7 Treatment Lab 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Pumping & 3 Control 0% 0% 95% 0% 0% 0% 5% 100% Water 9 Treatment 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Water 10 Production 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Water 11 Reservoir 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 12 Utility Billing 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Indirect Cost 13 Allocation 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Master Lease 14 Agreement 21% 5% 45% 17% 4% 4% 3% 100% 3.3.4. Unit Cost of Service Unit costs of service form the basis for rate design and are the quotient of net revenue requirements or cost of service divided by the applicable units of service. Table 3-3 shows the FY 2007 unit cost of service. . R City of Lubbock, Texas; es oX*gSu1 G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study yt>"� 3-4 3921-004 Section 2 Water Cost of Service Table 3-3. Water FY 2007 Unit Costs of Service Line No. Description Allocated to All Customer Classes Not Allocated to Wholesale Not Allocated to New Deal Public Fire Protection Total Cost of Service Base Extra Capacity Customer Costs Base Extra Capacity Base Extra Capacity Max Day Max Hour Meters & Services Billing & Collecting Max Day Max Hour Max Day Max Hour O&M., 1 Supply $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,664,154 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,664,154 2 Treatment 4,852,046 4,852,046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,704,092 3 Distribution & Storage 0 0 0 0 0 1,406,507 1,406,507 1,406,507 0 0 0 0 4,219,521 4 Pumping 1,943,138 1,943,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 3,886,276 5 Bitting& Customer Service 0 0 0 0 2,602,662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,602,662 6 Meter Reading & Maintenance 0 0 0 885,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 885,449 7 Fire Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 446,510 446,510 8 Total O&M 6,795,184 6,795,184 0 885,449 2,602,662 1,406,507 1,406,507 1,406,507 4,664,154 0 0 446,510 26,408,664 9 Weighted Average Allocation 26% 26% 0% 3 % 10% 5% 5% 5% 18% 0% 0% 2% 100% 10 Weighted Average Allocation — B/MD/MH 30% 30% 0% 6% 69% 6% 21% 0% 0% 100% Capital 11 Debt Service —Capital Projects 4,647,658 4,647,658 0 0 0 962,000 962,000 962,000 3,190,111 0 0 0 15,371,427 12 Debt Service — System Improvements 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 13 Total Capital 4,647,658 4,647,658 0 0 01 962,000 962,000 962,000 3,190,111 0 0 0 15,371,427 14 Total Gross Revenue Requirements 11,442,842 11,442,842 0 886,449 2,602,662 2,368,607 2,368,607 2,368,507 7,854,266 0 0 446,610 41,780,091 Revenue Requin3ment Adjustments.' 16 Interest Income (218,695) (218,695) 0 0 0 (45,267) (45,267) (45,267) (150,110) 0 0 0 (723,300) 16 Other Revenues (599,451) (599,451) 0 0 0 (124,078) (124,078) (124,078) (411,458) 0 0 0 (1,982,594) 17 Transfers to Other Funds 1,270,290 1,270,290 0 01 0 262,932 262,932 262,932 871,916 01 0 0 4,201,292 18 Transfer from Reserves (661,399) (661,399) 0 01 0 (136,900) (136,900) (136,900) (453,979) 0 0 0 (2,187,478) 19 Total Adjustments (209,255) (209,255) 0 0 0 (43,313) (43,313) (43,313) (143,631) 0 0 0 (692,080) 20 Total Cost of Service $11,233,587 $11,233,587 $ 0 $ 885,449 $ 2,602,662 $ 2,325,194 $ 2,325,194 $ 2,325,194 $ 7,710,634 $ 0 $ 0 $ 446,510 $ 41,088,011 21 Billing Units 13,285,684 (kgal) 40,653 (kgpd) 38,526 (kgpd) 107,156 (meters) 1,285,874 (bills) 12,849,719 (kgal) 38,642 (kgpd) 36,923 (kgpd) 13,250,107 (kgal) 40,521 (kgpd) 38,411 (kgpd) 3,915 (connections) 22 Unit Cost $ 0.86 $ 276.33 $ 0.00 $ 826 $2-021 $0.181 $ 60.17 $ 62.97 $0.681 $0.001 $ 0.00 $114.04 .� �AK City of Lubbock, Texas Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rafe Study 3-5 ...,.� «.s,...e,. 3921.004 Rz Section 2 Water Cost of Service C' 3.4. Allocation of Costs to Customer Classes The City serves single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, public, municipal, and irrigation customer classes. The classes group together customers with similar service requirement characteristics and provide a means for allocating costs to customers. Class costs of service are the product of unit cost of service and class units of service. The Lubbock Independent School District (LISD) rate will remain unchanged per an agreement with the City. The wholesale rate for Ransom/Buffalo is set by contract at 81.17 percent of the average commercial Volume Rate. These restrictions require some costs associated with these two classes to be redistributed to the other retail classes. 'fable 3-4 summarizes the calculation of class cost of service with these adjustments. Table 3.4. Water Line No. Customer Class Allocated Cost of Service Adjustments Redistribution of Adjustments Revised Revenue Requirement 1 Single Family Residential $ 23,778,494 $ 298,989 $ 24,077,483 2 Irrigation — SFR 1,266,426 15,924 1,282,350 3 Multifamily Residential 2,089,207 26,270 2,115,477 4 Commercial 6,703,133 84,285 6,787,418 5 Public 1,256,764 15,802 1,272,566 6 Municipal 888,015 11,166 899,181 7 Irrigation —Non-residential 2,626,012 33,019 2,659,031 8 Irrigation — Municipal 1,049,080 13,191 1,062,271 9 Lubbock lSD 1,067,258 (450,644) 0 616,614 10 Wholesale — Ransom/Buffalo 295,816 (48,002) 0 247,814 11 Wholesale — New Deal 67,806 0 67,806 12 Total System $ 41,088,011 ($ 498,646) $ 498,646) $ 41,088,011 P& City of Lubbock, Texas C Ot%b ' NG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study r 3-6 . �� p -- oH■ 3921-004�t� 4. Water Rate Design C " The existing water rates have been in effect since October 2006 and consist of a Base Charge and a Volume Rate. The Base Charge is assessed monthly and varies by meter size. The Volume Rate (a $/kgal rate based on monthly metered water use) is uniform and varies by customer class. The revenue requirements and cost of service allocations described in previous sections of this report provide the basis for designing water user charges. The revenue requirements show the need for rate adjustment and the level of revenue required. The allocations provide the unit costs of service for the rate design process. Red Oak designed the proposed FY 2007 rates to keep water sales revenue constant and to equitably recover customer and volume -related cost of service. The proposed rate structure for all retail customers except the Lubbock Independent School District is a three -block increasing structure. The charge for the second block is 25 percent greater than the charge for the first block, and the charge for the third block is 75 percent greater than the charge for the second block. Water use for irrigation customers is billed only in blocks 2 and 3. The rate structure for the Lubbock Independent School District and the wholesale customers remains uniform. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 compare existing and proposed FY 2007 Base Charges and Volume Rates, respectively. ® 0:* C City of Lubbock, Texas e Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 4-1 3921-004 Section 3 Water Rate Design Table 4-1. Water Comparison of Existing and Proposed FY 2007 Base Charges Meter Size Existing Proposed Percent Change 3/4" $11.11 $ 6.81 (38.7%) 1"- SF Residential $14.14 $ 11.37 (19.6%) 1" - Irrigation - Res./Com. $ 13.21 $ 11.37 (13.9%) 1" - Other $ 23.71 $ 11.37 (52.0%) 1 1/2" $ 44.71 $ 22.68 (49.3%) 2" $ 70.07 $ 36.30 (48.2%) 3" $ 151.80 $ 72.66 (52.1 %) 4" $ 396.37 $ 113.52 (71.4%) 6" $ 787.72 $ 226.98 (71.2%) 8" $ 999.49 $ 363.18 (63.7%) 10" $ 1,994.13 $ 522.12 (73.8%) Table 4.2. Water Comparison of Existing and Proposed FY 2007 Volume Rates (/kgai) Customer Class Existing Proposed Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Single Family Residential $ 2.03 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation - SFR $ 2.38 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Multifamily Residential $ 1.73 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Commercial $ 1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Public $ 1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Municipal $1.88 $ 2.06 $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation -Non-residential $ 2.38 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Irrigation - Municipal $ 1.88 N/A $ 2.58 $ 4.52 Lubbock Independent School District $ 1.73 $ 1.73 N/A N/A Wholesale - Ransom/Buffalo $ 1.53 $ 2.01 N/A N/A Wholesale - New Deal $ 0.76 $ 1.91 N/A N/A 4.2.1. Base Charge Proposed monthly Base Charges recover utility billing and collection costs, which do not vary by meter size, and meters and services costs, which do vary by meter size. Red Oak AM • ®®� City of Lubbock, Texas e• OCXgS Jj.'�." G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study ilfc;.. 4-2 c w.m.. w --• -- - W.M. 3921-004 Section 3 Water Rate Design used the AW WA M6 Manual meter flow equivalent ratios to differentiate costs for each meter size. 'fable 4-3 shows the development of the proposed FY 2007 Base Charges. Table 4-3. Water Meter Size Billing & Collection Meters & Services Total Base Charge 3/4" $ 2.99 $ 3.82 $ 6.81 1 " $ 2.99 $ 8.38 $ 11.37 1 112" $ 2.99 $ 19.69 $ 22.68 2" $ 2.99 $ 33.31 $ 36.30 3" $ 2.99 $ 69.67 $ 72.66 4" $ 2.99 $ 110.53 $ 113.52 6" $ 2.99 $ 223.99 $ 226.98 8" $ 2.99 $ 360.19 $ 363.18 10" $ 2.99 $ 519.13 $ 522.12 Proposed Volume Rates recover base, extra capacity, and public fire protection costs. The Volume Rate is a 3-block increasing structure. Based on current usage patterns, the first block is intended to capture approximately 62 percent of total water use, the second block approximately 28 percent, and the third block approximately 10 percent of total water use. Red Oak recommends residential block rate differentials of 25% for Block 2 when compared to Block 1 and 75% for Block 3 when compared to Block 2. The Lubbock Independent School District rate and the wholesale rates for Ransom/ Buffalo and New Deal will remain as uniform rates, i.e., all usage is billed at a single rate per 1,000 gallons. Table 4-4 compares monthly bills under existing and proposed FY 2007 rates for single family customers. Based on an average winter consumption of 7,000 gallons and an average monthly usage of 11,000 gallons, single family residential bills are expected to decrease $1.89 per month from $33.44 under existing rates to $31.55 under proposed rates. • on REUDAK City of Lubbock, Texas CONNUTING Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study , 4-3 ' s s.m•a w ®.gym,.■ oun 3921-004 Section 3 Water Rate Design Table 4-4. Water Comparison of Monthly Bills under Existing and Proposed Rates Single Family Residential Winter Summer Usage (kgal) Existing Proposed Usage (kgal) Existing Proposed Low 5 $ 21.26 $ 17.11 8 $ 27.35 $ 23.29 Average 7 $ 25.32 $ 23.29 15 $ 41.56 $ 41.35 High 25 $ 61.86 $ 67.15 50 $ 112.61 $ 164.63 Very High 100 $ 214.11 $ 390.63 200 $ 417.11 $ 842.63 • ;:a F City of Lubbock, Texas t• G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study f 4-4 �j�l.�.'r' •..�.., y= 3921-004 i E. i 5. Wastewater Financial Plan The City's Wastewater Fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund. Table 5-1 shows the 10-year financial forecast for the Wastewater Fund. Red Oak used assumptions and estimates from the City's existing financial plan (dated October 31, 2006) to develop the plan shown in Table 5-1. Recent adjustments to the City's plan are not reflected in Table 5-1. The Wastewater Fund cash balance as of September 30, 2005, is $9,747,666. The target minimum reserve is equal to 25 percent of total revenues. Revenue sources include metered services, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) surcharges, investment earnings, and non -metered revenue. Wastewater service charges (revenues from the Base Charge and the Volume Rate) represent the most significant source of revenue to the Wastewater Fund, averaging approximately 94 percent of total revenue during the 10-year study period. This revenue is derived from existing rates and projected rate increases. Wastewater service charges revenue under existing rates is based on wastewater accounts projections and a detailed analysis of historical utility billing records, i.e., wastewater use data. The number of wastewater accounts is expected to increase annually at a rate of 1 percent from FY 2006 through FY 2016. Wastewater contribution per customer is projected to remain the same. 5.2. Revenue Requirements Wastewater Fund revenue requirements include operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses, capital outlay, debt service principal and interest payments, transfers to other funds, and master lease payments. Projected O&M consists of salaries, benefits, supplies, maintenance, and other charges related to the collection and treatment of wastewater. An average annual inflation allowance of 3 percent has been included in O&M projections. Approximately 40 percent of study period revenue requirements are for O&M expenses. 5.3. Debt Service Coverage This financial performance measure is an indication of the ability of a borrower to repay a debt obligation. Red Oak recommends the City maintain annual coverage of at least 100 percent of net revenues. Debt service coverage is the ratio of net revenue (gross •� :�� City of Lubbock, Texas ;, �• ()C i."�G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 5-1 s mown w .AL-- - eumr 3921-004 ' Section 4 Wastewater Financial Plan revenues less O&M expenses) to annual debt service (principal and interest payments). It is calculated by dividing net revenues by the current year's debt service requirements. Gross revenues include all wastewater service charges, fees, investment income, and other revenue. Debt service coverage is expected to be adequate throughout the study period, ranging from 129 percent to 155 percent. 5.4. Indicated Wastewater Sales Revenue Adjustments Revenue under existing rates is inadequate to meet projected revenue requirements during the study period. The revenue increases shown below are indicated to meet future wastewater utility expenses and provide adequate reserves and to maintain the financial integrity of the Wastewater Fund. The City should annually review the timing and magnitude of these increases to determine their appropriateness. Fiscal Wastewater Sales Year Revenue Increase 2007 0.0 2008 5.0 2009 16.0 2010 16.0 2011 16.0 Fiscal Year Wastewater Sales Revenue Increase 2012 0.0 2013 0.0 2014 0.0 2015 0.0 2016 0.0 • see � City of Lubbock, Texas es <hJ1�k7VL11L�ICT Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 5-2 mam®®...a�• no,. 3921-004 1. Section 4 Wastewater Financial Plan Table 5-1. Wastewater Fund Financial Plan DESCRIPTION FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009.10 FY 2010-11 FY 201142 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 20%15 FY 2015.16 Revenues: License and Permits $ 2,000 $ 2,060 $ 2,122 $ 2,185 $ 2,251 $ 2,319 $ 2,388 $ 2,460 $ 2,534 $ 2,610 Governmental Fund Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enterprise Fund Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Revenues 330,000 336,600 343,332 350,199 357,203 364,347 371,634 379,066 386,647 394,380 Revenue from Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Refunds and Recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue from Junk Sales 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Revenue from Metered Services 20,110,000 20,329,300 21,577,969 25,300,056 29,561,434 34,771,820 35,140,637 35,513,775 35,890,221 36,270,657 Gen. Consumption Revenue Increase 0 1,016,465 3.452,475 4,048,009 4,745,829 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue from Department Operations 1,510,000 1,529,460 1,549,245 1,569,363 1,589,821 1,610,627 1,631,787 1,653,311 1,674,804 1,695,576 Transfers from Other Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Funding Sources 21,957,000 23,218,886 26,930,143 31,274,813 36,361,638 36,754,112 37,151,446 37,553,613 37,959,206 38,369,223 Expenditures: Total Salaries 2,797,151 2,853,094 2,910,156 2,968,359 3,027,726 3,088,281 3,150,046 3,213,047 3,277,308 3,342,854 Total Benefits 1,305,628 1,381,337 1,463,520 1,552,803 1,649,872 1,755,484 1,870,470 1,995,743 2,135,445 2,284,926 Total Supplies 1,204,444 1,228,533 1,253,104 1,278,166 1,303,729 1,329,803 1,356,400 1,383,528 1,411,199 1,439,423 Total Maintenance 1,285,643 1,311,356 1,337,583 1,364,335 1,391,621 1,419,454 1,447,843 1,476,800 1,506,336 1,536,463 Total Other Charges 4,813,734 4,910,009 5,008,209 5,108,373 5,210,540 5,314,751 5,421,046 5,529,467 5,640,056 5,752,857 Total Capital Outlay 12,000 12,240 12,485 12,734 12,989 13,249 13,514 13,784 14,060 14,341 Total Bond Adjustments and Charges o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Transfers 3,a81,533 4,030,219 4,185,300 4,347,084 4,515,895 4,692,074 4,875,981 5,067,994 5,270,714 5,481.543 Total Other Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pay -As -You -Go Funding in CIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Debt Service Annually 7,273,580 7,254,749 10,066,328 12,758,083 15,317,070 15,437,801 15,639,577 15,474,561 15,474,561 15,474,561 Total Debt Service New 133,231 1,522,982 1,538,483 1,359,637 179,588 193,918 0 0 0 0 Total Master Lease 584,710 721,645 900,040 965,013 957,930 994,266 1,028,817 1,101,575 1,178,685 1,261,193 Total Expenditures 23,291,654 25,226,164 28,676,208 31,714,587 33,666,961 34,239,081 34,803,694 35,266,498 35,908,364 36,588,161 Total Increase/(Decrease) in Cash Balance (1,334,654) (2,007,279) (1,745,065) (439,774) 2,794,577 2,515,031 2,347,752 2,297,114 2,050,842 1,781,062 Beginning Cash Balance 9,747,666 8,413,012 6,405,734 4,660,669 4,220,895 7,015,472 9,530,503 11,878,255 14,175,369 16,226,211 Ending Cash Balance 8,413,012 6,405,734 4,660,669 4,220,895 7,015,472 9.530,503 11,878,255 14,175,369 16,226,211 18,007,273 Less Target Reserve Balance (5,489,250) (5,804,721) (6,732,536) (7,818,703) (9,090,385) (9,188,528) (9,287,862) (9,388,403) (9,489,802) (9,592,306) Total Appropriable Net Assets 2,923,762 601,012 (2,071,867) (3,597,808) (2,074,912) 341,975 2,590,393 4,786,966 6,736,409 8,414,967 Debt Service Coverage 142% 131% 129% 135% 153% 153% 153% 155% 155% 155% :• REMAK City of Lubbock, Texas OC#gS .'l"M Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study J � 1� 5-3 ..........a,..- 3921-004 •AM,•.. Red Oak completed a cost of service analysis for the FY 2007 test year to identify customer and volume costs. These costs form the basis for designing the proposed FY 2007 wastewater rates. The total FY 2007 revenue requirements or cost of providing wastewater service is estimated at $23,291,655 and consists of $11,418,601 of O&M expenses and $7,406,811 of capital costs. These costs are projected to be met from $20,110,000 of wastewater charges revenue and $3,181,655 of other revenue sources. After adjustments for interest income and other revenues, the FY 2007 net cost of service is $20,534,655. Table 6-1 summarizes FY 2007 cost of service. Service requirements for each class are based on contributed wastewater volume and billing requirements. The City incurs costs related to billing its wastewater customers. Each customer shares .: equally in these costs. There are two basic functional wastewater cost components: volume and customer. Volume costs vary directly with the quantity of wastewater contributed. Customer costs vary in proportion to the number of customers served by the system. Red Oak allocated net revenue requirements to cost components having the most significant influence on the magnitude of that expense. For example, collection system expense is allocated to volume since these facilities are designed to convey wastewater volume. Table 6-2 shows the allocation of FY 2007 revenue requirements to cost components. Administration and general expenses are identified with system facilities or activities to the extent possible to simplify the allocation process. Those expenses that are not specifically assigned are allocated in proportion to all other operating expenses. RIt City of Lubbock, Texas �• (D0INIRX'r NG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 6.1 ' a WWWOM r •u•x® n®•is 3921-004 r^' Section 5 Wastewater Cost of Service Net revenue requirements equal total cost to provide service less adjustments for miscellaneous revenue sources. The allocation of adjustments to cost components is based on total allocated cost of service. Table 6-1. Wastewater Line No. Description Total O&M: 1 Water Reclamation $ 5,964,067 2 Wastewater Collection 1,458,847 3 Land Application 2,212,129 4 Industrial Monitoring/Pretreatment 466,498 5 Wastewater Laboratory 425,240 6 Sampling and Monitoring 891,820 7 Total O&M 11,418,601 Capital: 8 Debt Service — Existing 7,273,580 9 Debt Service — Future 133,231 10 Total Capital 7,406,811 Fund Transfers: 11 Indirect Cost Allocation 600,837 12 Master Lease 584,710 13 Utility Billing 1,074,669 14 Payment in Lieu of Properly Tax 790,954 15 Transfer for Utility COB 1,515,073 16 Total Fund Transfers 4,466,243 17 Total Gross Revenue Requirements 23,291,656 Revenue Requirement Adjustments 17 BOD & TSS Surcharge (910,000) 18 Non -metered Revenue 1,517,000 19 interest Income 330,000 20 Total Adjustments (2,757,000) 21 Total Net Revenue Requirements $ 20,534,655 • ®®®R City of Lubbock, Texas ® ®s. G Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 6-2 .,,.,�. ,,... 3921-004 Section 5 Wastewater Cost of Service Table 6-2. Wastewater Allocation of FY 2007 Revenue Requirements to Functional Categories Line No. Operating Center Volume Billing and Collection Meters and Services Total O&M: 1 Water Reclamation 100% 0% 0% 100% 2 Wastewater Collection 100% 0% 0% 100% 3 Land Application 100% 0% 0% 100% 4 Industrial Monitoring/ Pretreatment 60% 20% 20% 100% 6 Wastewater Laboratory 60% 20% 20% 100% 6 Sampling & Monitoring 60% 20% 20% 100% 7 Total O&M 94% 3% 3% 100% Capital: 8 Debt Service — Existing 60% 20% 20% 100% 9 Debt Service — Future 60% 20% 20% 100% 10 Total Capital 60% 20% 20% 100% Fund Transfers: 11 Indirect Cost Allocation 100% 0% 0% 10000 12 Master Lease 94% 3% 3% 100% 13 Utility Billing 0% 100% 0% 100% 14 Payment in Lieu of Property Tax 94% 3% 3% 100% Is Transfer for Utility COB 94% 3% 3% 100% 16 Total Fund Transfers 72% 26% 2% 100% 17 Revenue Requirement Adjustments 79% 13% 8% 100% 18 Total Revenue Requirements 79% - 13% 8% 100% 6.3.3. Unit Cost of Service Unit costs of service form the basis for rate design and are the quotient of net revenue requirements or cost of service divided by the applicable units of service. Table 6-3 shows the FY 2007 unit cost of service. f- City of Lubbock, Texas e ; i• 00N�"NG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 6-3 s,,.�,,.....�„■...,a 3921-004 Section 5 Wastewater Cost of Service Table 6-3. Wastewater Line No. Operating Center Volume Billing and Collection Meters and Services Total O&M: 1 Water Reclamation $ 5,964,067 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5,964,067 2 Wastewater Collection 1,458,847 0 0 1,458,847 3 Land Application 2,212,129 0 0 2,212,129 4 Industrial Monitoring/ Pretreatment 279,899 93,300 93,300 466,498 5 Wastewater Laboratory 255,144 85,048 85,048 425,240 6 Sampling & Monitoring 535,092 178,364 178,364 891,820 7 Total O&M 10, 705,178 356,712 356,712 11, 418, 601 Capital: 8 DebtService- Existing 4,364,148 1,454,716 1,454,716 7,273,580 9 Debt Service - Future 79,939 26,646 26,646 133,231 10 Total Capital 4,444,087 1,481,362 1,481,362 7,406,811 Fund Transfers: 11 Indirect Cost Allocation 500,837 0 0 500,837 12 Master Lease 548,178 18,266 18,266 584,710 13 Utility Billing 0 1,074,669 0 1,074,669 14 Payment in Lieu of Property Tax 741,536 24,709 24,709 790,954 15 Transfer for Utility COB 1,420,413 47,330 47,330 1,515,073 16 Total Fund Transfers 3,210,964 1,164,974 90,305 4,466,243 17 Revenue Requirement Adjustments (2,173,274) (355,467) (228,259) (2,757,000) 18 Total Net Revenue Requirements $16,186,954 $ 2,647,582 $1,700,120 $ 20,534,655 19 Billing Units 9,627,659 (kgal) 847,080 (bills) 1,117,356 (meters) 20 Unit Cost $ 1.68 $ 3.13 $ 1.52 ®®®® City of Lubbock, Texas ® ®®00MIXIMG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study6-4 3921-004 t, 7.1" Existing Rates The existing wastewater rates have been in effect since October 2006 and consist of a Base Charge and a Volume Rate. The Base Charge is assessed monthly and varies by meter size. The Volume Rate (a $/kgal rate based on monthly metered water use) is uniform and varies by customer class. The revenue requirements and cost of service allocations described in previous sections of this report provide the basis for designing wastewater user charges. The revenue requirements show the need for rate adjustment and the level of revenue required. The allocations provide the unit costs of service for the rate design process. Red Oak designed the proposed FY 2007 rates to keep wastewater sales revenue constant and to equitably recover customer and volume -related cost of service. The proposed rate structure for all customers remains the current uniform structure. 'cable 7-1 compares existing and proposed FY 2007 Base Charges and Volume Rates. Table 7-1. Wastewater arison ®T tXistitt ail® i"°r0 ®Seta F"T ZUU/ user una Rate Type Existing Proposed Percent Change Base Charge: 3/4" $ 3.94 $ 4.65 18.0% 1" $ 9.20 $ 5.67 (38.4%) 1 1 /2" $ 17.97 $ 8.19 (54.4%) 2" $ 28.49 $11.23 (60.6%) 3" $ 61.82 $18.33 (70.3%) 4" $175.81 $ 28.47 (83.8%) 6" $ 351.18 $ 53.79 (84.7%) 8" $ 438.88 $ 84.19 (80.8%) 10" $ 877.32 $ 119.67 (86.4%) Volume Rate ($/kgals) $ 1.67 $1.69 1.2% gim :wwREUDk K City of Lubbock, Texas f see CDNRXT 1WG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 7-1 a MWMQZ w am"Le suau 3921-004 Section 6 Wastewater Rate Design Proposed monthly Base Charges recover utility billing and collection costs, which do not vary by meter size, and meters and services costs, which do vary by meter size. Red Oak used the AWWA M6 Manual meter flow equivalent ratios to differentiate costs for each meter size. Table 7-2 shows the development of the proposed FY 2007 Base Charges. Table 7-2. Wastewater Meter Size Billing & Collection Meters & Services Total 3/4" $ 3.13 $ 1.52 $ 4.65 1" $3.13 $2.54 $5.67 11/2" $3.13 $5.06 $8.19 2" $3.13 $8.10 $11.23 3" $ 3.13 $ 15.20 $ 18.33 4" $ 3.13 $ 25.34 $ 28.47 6" $ 3.13 $ 50.66 $ 53.79 8" $ 3.13 $ 81.06 $ 84.19 10" $ 3.13 $ 116.54 $119.67 Table 7-3 compares monthly bills under existing and proposed FY 2007 rates for single family customers. Based on an average usage of 7,000 gallons, single family residential bills are expected to increase $0.85 per month from $16.48 under existing rates to $15.63 under proposed rates. Comparison of Monthly Bills under Existing and Proposed Single Family Residential I Usage (legal) Existing Proposed Low 5 $ 12.29 $ 13.10 Average 7 $ 15.63 $ 16.48 High 20 $ 37.34 $ 38.45 Very High 50 $ 87.44 $ 89.15 !®® RMOAK City of Lubbock, Texas `ULMG Water and Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study 7�2 3921-004 . s...a....... i 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 7 — Existing Water Supply — Canadian River Municipal Water Authority Content a. CRMWA History b. System Delivery Capacity (plus Bailey County Well Field) c. 2007 Water Allocation d. Water Right Purchases & Well Field Development e. Salt Cedar Eradication Program Summary The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) is a state authorized agency that was began in 1953. The member cities include: Amarillo, Borger, Brownfield, Levelland, Lamesa, Lubbock, O'Donnell, Pampa, Plainview, Slaton, and Tahoka. CRMWA has served as the primary supplier of water for Lubbock for many years. With this item, a history of CRMWA and their projects are included for general information. Also included is information about the CRMWA system, 2007 Water Allocation, Well Field development projects, and salt cedar eradication. CRMWA members relied on Lake Meredith for over 50 years for water supplies. With the drought and with the construction of dams in New Mexico, and the subsequent increase in size of one of those reservoirs, Lake Meredith's firm yield has dropped considerably. The exact amount of drop in yield has not yet been finalized, but it could be by half or more. The development of the Roberts County Well Field, which Well Field began delivering water only in 2002, has saved CRMWA cities from major water shortages. While the main CRMWA aqueduct can deliver over 40,000 acre feet of water to Lubbock in the course of a year, the 2007 allocation is only 31,499 acre feet due to the drought and the loss of yield in Lake Meredith. The Roberts County Well Field, once fully developed, can deliver 26,000 acre feet annually of groundwater to the City of Lubbock. Any amount of allocation over that amount must come from Lake Meredith. If the Roberts County Well Field was not in place, Lubbock's allocation might be as low as 15,000 acre feet annually. C li CRMWA Canadian River Municipal Water Authority History For over fifty years, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has worked to serve its member cities and all citizens of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains by providing a dependable and safe source of municipal and industrial water. In 1947, through the Panhandle Water Conservation Authority and representatives of several area communities, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was requested by the area's Congressional delegation to determine the feasibility of furnishing a surface water supply from the Canadian River. Representative Eugene Worley introduced in Congress H. R. 2733 to authorize the Canadian River Project, which was passed by the House on August 4, 1949. H. R. 2733 passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on December 29, 1950, becoming Public Law 898-81. Representatives of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico met on December 6, 1950, and signed the Canadian River Compact which was ratified by each of the three states and by Congress in 1952. In 1952, A. A. Meredith resigned his position as City Manager of Borger to work full time on advancing the proposed Canadian River Dam Project. Governor Allan Shivers signed Senate Bill 126 on May 27, 1953 to create the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). The first meeting of the Directors selected by the member cities to serve on the Authority's Board was held at Plainview, Texas, on October 5, 1953. On November 24, 1953, 11 cities confirmed the creation of CRMWA at elections. Member cities reached an agreement on the allocation of costs and water, and a contract was signed between CRMWA and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on November 28, 1960. In 1962, construction of the Sanford Dam began. Construction of the aqueduct began in 1963. On January 28, 1965, final closure of Sanford Dam was effected and storage of water in the lake began. The National Park Service was designated to manage recreation and fish and wildlife facilities at the lake. On August 31, 1965, the lake impounded by Sanford Dam was officially designated by Congress as Lake Meredith to honor A. A. Meredith. A dedication ceremony for Sanford Dam and Lake Meredith was held on November 1, 1966. The final joint of pipe for the 322-mile Aqueduct system was laid on November 2, 1966, south of Lubbock. In October of 1967, John C. Williams was named General Manager of CRMWA, effective July 1, 1968. On April 1, 1968, normal deliveries of water began, and operation and maintenance of the project was transferred to CRMWA on July 1. In 1971, salt springs were located downstream from Ute Dam, near Logan, New Mexico, and a Federal study of brine inflows was requested. In 1977, the USBR reported finding a shallow brine aquifer near Logan, New Mexico. A report by the USBR in 1979 indicated that the saline inflow to the Canadian River could be controlled by pumping from wells. This eventually led to congressional authorization of the Lake Meredith Salinity Control hroject, which was placed in operation in September of 2001. A grant from the Texas Water Development Board for an Alternate Water Supply Study was approved in 1992. In 1994, the CRMWA Board of Directors approved the purchase of 42,765 acres of water rights, pending approval of the member cities. On August 13, 1996, revenue bonds were sold and the water rights purchase was closed. Bids for a Groundwater Supply Project were taken in 1999. On March 22, 2000, a groundbreaking ceremony was held and the Directors unveiled a plaque dedicating the project and naming the facilities The Jahn C. Williams Aqueduct and Wellfield. The project was placed in operation in December of 2001. On May 25, 1999, the debt to the USBR for construction of the Canadian River Project facilities was paid and CRMWA received title to the aqueduct system. In November of 2001, John Williams retired, and the CRMWA Board selected Kent Satterwhite as the current General Manager and Secretary/Treasurer. A Resolution was adopted in January of 2002, establishing the firm yield of Lake Meredith as 76,000 acre-feet per year, with another 40,000 acre-feet normally available from the Groundwater Supply Project. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority celebrated its 50th Anniversary in October of 2003. JL"11 V 1' IJiW L/L"11V1 ragc i ut i CRMWA CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY SANFORD DAM Sanford Dam is a large zoned earthen dam. It is 198' high and 6,380' long. It 15,000,000 cu.yds. of earth plus about 1,000,000 cu.yds. of rip rap. The Dam w designed and built by the Bureau of Reclamation. Construction was completed Sanford Dam impounds Lake Meredith. It is located on the Canadian River 8 m Borger, Texas, and 37 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas. Small Test Release from the Flood Control Outlet Works at Sanford Dam (Flood Control on Right and Spillway on Left) For more history and statistics of the Sanford Dam, visit the following: CRMWA History Bureau of Reclamation CONTACT US a. PO Box 9. Sanford Texas 79078 Phone (806) 865-11325 Fax (806) 865-3314 or E-mail h4://crmwa.com/sanford%20dam.htm 3/30/2007 rage J. ut c. CRMWA CANADIAN _RIV R MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY AQUEDUCT SYSTEM From Lake Meredith, an aqueduct system transports water to the eleven me of the Authority. Its total length of 322 miles makes it one of the major aquec United States. Mostly of concrete pipe, in diameters of 96 inches down to 8 aqueduct can deliver up to 118 million gallons daily to the cities. The Mair extends from the Lake south through Amarillo and Lubbock to Lamesa. Foi plants lift the water about 800 feet to reach Amarillo. From there the water flow: through the rest of the Main Aqueduct. One branch line called the East Aqueduct serves Borger and Pampa with a c of gravity and pumped flow. A second branch, the Southwest Aqueduct, goe. Lubbock to Levelland and then south to Brownfield. Pumping is required from Levelland, and the water flows by gravity from Levelland to Brownfield. Regulating reservoirs located at Amarillo, Lubbock, and Borger allow the cities water even when the pumping plants are shut off. Cities are responsible for th( of the water. Amarillo, Borger, Pampa, and Plainview have individual treatmei joint plant operated by Lubbock treats all of the water for the seven southern cit Since beginning operation in 1968, the Authority has supplied up to 70 percent water used by the member cities. Each year between 72,000 and 75,000 acre- 24 billion gallons) of water is moved from Lake Meredith to the cities, formi resource for the 450,000 citizens of the eleven cities. Pumping Plant 1 (5 units @ 1 each) 82,000 gpm (gallons per minute capacity For more on a project in 1998 tc flow capacity of the aqueduct si Central System Pig Project. 0 http://crmwa.com/aqueduct.htm 3/30/2007 Ll'lltr 1VMArl J11 ti Page 1 of 3 � CRMWA CANADIAN RI VER M UNI C I PAL ,WATER AUTHORITY JOHN C. WILLIAMS AQUEDUCT AND WELLFIELD Purpose: To increase the quantity and quality of water available to the member cities of the / Description: The Conjunctive Use Groundwater Supply Project developed by the Authority c field of 27 wells, expandable at a later date to as many as 45 wells, located in western Roberts Hutchinson counties of the Texas Panhandle. A blended mixture of well water and lake water is delivered to ten of the cities, with Borger receiving its well water directly at its clearwell. Water rights for the project were acquired on 42,765 acres of rangeland. Depending on the qua quality of water available in Lake Meredith, which has varied over the last 10 years from around milligrams per liter of chlorides, 27,000 to 30,000 acre-feet of water per year will be pumped fro The permit obtained from the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District #3 allows pumping 40,000 acre-feet per year in normal circumstances, and up to 50,000 acre-feet per year in unus emergency conditions. c ' The conveyance facilities which deliver the well water to the point where it is mixed with water fi Meredith consist of approximately 36 miles of 54" pipe and two pump stations. The intersection and new aqueducts is located about five miles south of Fritch in Carson County. The collection the well field consists of nearly 35 miles of pipe ranging in size from 8" to 30". There are two be stations in this system which deliver the water to the first storage tank. The John C. Williams Aqueduct and Wellfield was placed in operation in December of 2001. The following graph shows the trend chlorides in Lake Meredith have taken since compli Sanford Dam. LAKE MEREDITH Oh lorlde L®vol 600 660 600 460 W 400 c � 350 as c 300 m 250 200 http://crmwa.com/jcw_wellfld.htm 3/30/2007 LAKE MhK_hV1'1H Yage L of 160 r 100 50 0 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 Year —Chlorides --State Standard The other objective of this project is to increase water quantity. The following graph sho, historical storage in Lake Meredith. 660.000 600,000 450,000 400,000 360,000 300,000 260.000 200,000 160,000 100.000 60,000 LAKE MERE©ITH Total Storage 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 Year Photo at left shows the step dr test of our first prototype prod) This well is capable of pumpinj gpm of high quality water! C. G http://cnnwa.com/jcw_wellfld.htm 3/30/2007 Capacity: 118.3 mgd Lubbock: 43.8 mgd Lake Meredith FAY: 74,350 acre-ft(yr Lubbock: 27,554 acre-ft/yr (24.6 mgd) 'Capacity: 103.4 We Lubbock: 38.3 mgd Amarillo Regulating Reservoir 750 acre-8 (244 mgal.) Capacity: 53 mgd f Lubbock 41.7 mgd I Lubbock Regulating Reservoir500 acre-ft (163 mgal) Lubbock Terminal Storage 1200 acre-ft (391 mgal.) I Capacity: 40mgd ISandhiUs Well Field Capacity: 48.4 mgd Lubbock Water Supply Schematic March 2005 1 Capacity. 64.6 mgd I i Lubbock: 24.0 mgd WTP Capacity: 75 mgd Lubbock: 65 mgd I Lubbock Williams Well Field Capacity: 40,000 acre-ft/yr (47.2 mgd) Lubbock 14,890 acre-ft/yr (13.3 mgd) ,.��...— — — — — — — — — — i t Capacity: 24 mgd I----------- 1 LAHWTP 1�. 1 Capacity: 24 mgd 1 I CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATERAUTHORITY P.O. BOX 9, SANFORD, TEXAS 79078 PHONE 806 865-3325 / FAX 806 865-3314 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NORMAN WRIGHT, PRESIDENT STEVE TUCKER, VICE-PRESIDENT KENTSATTERWHITE, GENERAL MGR AND SECRETARY -TREASURER BURY TRENT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ASST. SECRETARY November 8, 2006 MEMBER CITIES DIRECTORS Lee Ann Dumb , City Manager AMARILL"O City of Lub ck WILLIAM HALLERBERG GEORGE SELL P.O. B 000 BORGER Lu ock, Texas 79457 TO EDMONDS JO ANN WASICEK PAMPA JERRY CARLSON Dear Ms. Dumbauld: BENNY KIRKSEY PLAINVIEW G, R N WRIGHT As a part of the continuing effort to balance resources from Lake 'LUBBOCK Meredith and the Williams Wellfield, the CRMWA Board of JAMES COLLINS Directors established allocations for 2007 at 85,000 acre feet. RODGERS ROBERT RODG ATON VVE TUCKER ,AHoKA Your city's share of the supply is 31,499.3 acre feet during the 2007 LARRY HAGOOD O'DONNELL calendar year. E.R. MOORE ILAMESA RAY RENNER The attached tabulation is based on your average usage from recent BROWNFIELD ARDSO ears. It includes a recommended delivery schedule that should LJ. RICHARDSON Y rY ' LEVELLAND allow your City enough CRMWA water available throughout the CARL RIICHHARSHAM E LIS BURGER year so that you will be able to supplement with your reserves. Hopefully, this schedule will also satisfy your peak demand periods. fWe realize weather patterns will not follow recent years exactly, but hopefully they will be close enough for us to stay on track ' throughout the year. Please remember, these are only guidelines developed to assist you. You can certainly use your allocation any way you see fit. City Allocation Letter Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact Chad Pernell, or myself. Sincerely, J 1, Kent Satterwhite, P.E. General Manager Enclosures cc: Quincy White, Assistant City Manager Tom Adams, Director of Public Utilities Bruce Blalack, Water Distribution Superintendent Jim Collins, CRMWA Director Bobby Rodgers, CRMWA Director CRMWA CRMWA 'CRMWA Water Quality Wells Lake Total Avg Estimated Blend Chloride TDS (AF) (AF) (AF) MGD % Wells % Lake Level Level Allocation 37.058% 37.058% January 1,628.92 425.06 2,053.99 20.92 79% 21 % 170 661 February 1,425.31 422.16 1,847.47 21.50 77% 23% 180 689 1,425.31 560.08 1,985.39 23.10 72% 28% 206 761 ,March April 1,781.63 970.61 2,752.24 25.62 65% 35% 239 856 May 1,476.21 1,585.67 3,061.88 34.40 48% 52% 316 1,077 June 1,374.40 1,291.89 2,666.29 32.18 52% 48% 301 1,033 ly 1 1,781.63 2,288.86 4,070.60 37.90 44% 56% 337 1,137 August 1,425.31 1,885.74 3,311.05 38.53 43% 57% 341 1,147 September 1,425.31 1,595.35 3,020.66 35.15 47% 53% 321 1,091 October 1,781.63 1,059.39 2,841.02 26.45 63% 37% 248 883 November 1,425.31 563.83 1,989.14 23.15 72% 28% 206 763 1,899.67 17% December 1,578.02 321.66 19.97 83% 153 610 18,529.00 12,970.30 31,499.30 59% 41 % Cityallocation based on achieving total CRMWA deliveries of 85,000 acre-feet 35,000 9 ( AF from Lake 50 000 AF , from Wellfield). Monthly totals are estimated using CRMWA billing months in which meters are read the last Monday of each month. 10/17/2006 6,000 5,000 4,000 m m LL m 3,000 V L4 2,000 1,000 City of Lubbock 2007 Estimated CRMWA Deliveries (170 / 661) (180 / 689) (206 / 761) (239 / 856) (316 / 1077) (301 / 1033) (337 / 1137) (341 / 1147) (321 / 1091) (248 / 883) (206 / 763) (153 / 610) 6,000 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Au07 Se"7 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 �iCRMWA Lake 12,970.30 (AF) M CRMWA )ls 18,529.00 (AF) —Average City Deman(D 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 f �} Item 11— Establish Water Allocation for 2007 It is again time to consider allocations for the upcoming year. I have enclosed three model runs to help address future allocation questions. We based these models on repeating the average of our 3 worst years (01, 02, & 03). We feel this is a very conservative approach. We started with the current storage levels in the lake and used various allocations to see what happens to lake storage under the different scenarios. The attached tabulations outline the allocation assumptions for the three different scenarios. Please keep in mind the allocations for 2006 total 90,000 acre-feet. Drought of Record On each of the three attached model runs, we used 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0% of the 2001 thru 2003 average inflows. Those different percentages are illustrated by the various dotted lines on the graph. Which of those percentages to use is a judgment call. Historically, we have used 100% of the drought of record, but the recent drought has shown us that may not be conservative enough. Repeating the drought of record, in succession plus starting at the level reached after that drought, adds another level of conservatism. { Usable Storage Another issue to consider is at what point do we run out of usable water in the lake. The attached graphs have three lines near the bottom. • The bottom line is the original stream bed elevation. This would represent the lake being completely dry. It is not realistic to think we could pump to that level because of physical constraints. The next line represents the bottom of the lowest gate on our intake tower. We have studied this issue and think we can pump at least to that level, but it will take some changes and a temporary pump(s) to lift the water to a level in the tower that will not cause damage to the pumping units at Pumping Plant 1. The third line up represents the bottom of the "usable" storage level. This is the level we have used historically to show available water. We know we can go below this level, but it may cause minor issues with the Canadian River Compact on how we calculate "usable" storage and the amount we could store if the lake was full. This would be an insignificant change if the lake was full, but it is certainly not insignificant at the level we are at today. We think we should use Usable Storage as a baseline for determining allocations, while keeping in mind that pumping to the "bottom of lowest gate" is possible. Conclusion We are much more conservative in our approach today than in the past, partly because there is less time to respond to more severe conditions at the current lake level, and also because we have seen that the drought of record can quickly be replaced. We know the %1 { "Drought of Record" (2001-2003) can happen, as represented by the red dotted line on f the graphs, and we think we know the 0-inflow line won't happen, but everything in between is a possibility. The big question is how conservative to be in our assumptions. CRMWA Staff is preliminarily recommending an allocation of 80k acre-feet for 2007 (Option Q. We want to receive input from our Member Cities before finalizing that recommendation. Scenario A Total Lake ' Wellfield Year Allocation Allocation Allocation +0 000 AFJ.� (1000 AF) 2007 90 _40 + 50 2008 80 25 00-4 2009 75 6 69 201069 69 Scenario B q p Year 1 Allocation 1 Allocation 1 Allocation ___(I 000 AE14'Ll 009 ADA1 000 AF) 9 2007 t 85 35 —60 2008 80 25 55 2009 75 1 2010 75 1, 6 69 2011 T5 !T__ Scenario C C-) C 1) 0 LAKE OEDITH - Drought Planning Inflow History USING HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA & ASSUMPTIONS 300.000 100006 IPPROXIMATE 350,000 325,000 300,000 ACTUAL USABLE -STORAGE 275,000 2 50, 000 225,000 200,000 a 175.000 W 150,000 125,000 G100,000 H 0 75,000 �AlLL .Q 50,000 fA 25,000 0"Usable" i LAKE ZC 100 2001 2002 2003 (25,000) Bottom of Lowest Gate (50,000) Stream Bed (75,000) Note: Usable Storage Is a term to describe the water volume above 47 feet, though approx. 35,000 acre-feet exists between depths of 37 feet to 47 feet that can be withdrawn for use. 260.000 - 26o aoo 2N ON c } :,verayo Total Intln'u 150.000 i n 100.000 j � ' � t0 AU FF }I ' LuW.j Ili. !I ; , j j�q„ { 1 ll {{ I-ilajit 9 Iq19 R39S 3a36 9. 9A99 1 pA saAg of 3 Lomat Total Ingum —76% of A%q —60% of kq —26% of A•.9 9 4 FT 3 2 FT 9 0 FT 8 S FT B 6 FT B 3 FT BO FT 77 FT 74 FT 7 O FT PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 4a,oac 66 FT �SO.00C I 75,000 75,000 75,000 I 62 FT ,i 55,6CC 57 FT Depth 55.00ft �—�► r ,�°� � �9.❑cam �_.o��, _.emu_ A 40,000 25.D0❑ 52 FT -Can 47 FT 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 2❑ 1 0 __ 201 1 • r.- O FT LAKE 1 EDITH - Drought Planning 10owHistory USING HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA & ASSUMPTION 30P. D0i3 _______.. _., _. ....._. __ __....__..�_._ ..._. _.. _ - - 30 AO PPROXIMATE LAKE DEPTf 350,000 z:a,opo 260 600 94 FT 325,000 92 FT 200,000 .. $OG No 300,000 90 FT ACTUAL USABLE -STORAGE a AvoralK, TotallMimv _ 275,000 y" WAD��' .+, 160000 88 FT o 4 250,000 86 FT E � 100,00.0 ij inp000 r 225,000 �� i 83 FT WOOD BD FT 1 75,❑❑O t ��,�1 f ear a� �fI �{ �4xF ��) ] µ 77 FT QI }f-{E'Hit � fi i ; y 150,000 f 74 FT D = A%V of3 Lawmk Total lr&"—76%0A.1 —60?E ofAg—26%dArg 125,000 70 FT PROJECTED ALLOOATIONS O100,000 66 FT aG,oGe 75,❑❑o Wr_�_. 75,000 75,000 75,00o 62 FT Ca 50,000 57 FT Depth-55.00ft 25,000 �35:C70C _ '� 52 FT Z5.dOG LAKE: 0 "Usable Q. 47 FT 2800 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 •-922009 2010 11 LAKE I� tEDITH -Drought Planning Inflow History USING HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA & ASSUMPTIONS 300,pp0 35❑,00❑ 325,❑❑❑ 300,000 ACTUAL USABLE -STORAGE 275,000 250,❑❑❑ 225,000 2❑0,❑00 a 175,000 Cf CC 150,00❑ n ad 125,00❑ 01 C100,000 m 75,00❑ W 5❑,000 DI 25,00❑ (25,000) (5❑,❑00) (75,❑00) .._. 300.000 2o-o.oga 2sn co<� n 2eo.�a 200 000 } Avoraga Totai kitlms o " , � 15LL000 � _ 150000 Ioo.000 - i -�" i t00.tp0 ;�- Mow�: ,� ` �I'� �� ', ���� suuno I �a� i�; � ,j' II'r r�`�� �( •�I }ft r.l � � (' I ti �, t it �� l I Lt!• 1�mlrg of3 Lae.#t TdW mAoae—76%dArg —50%of Avg —26%cf Arg WELL Depth - 55.00 ft----�1 0 'Usable" LADE 00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 Bottom of Lowest Gate Note: Usable Storage is a term to describe the water volume above 47 feet, though approx. 35,000 acre-feet exists between depths of 37 feet to 47 feet that can be withdrawn for use. OXIMATE 9 4 FT 9 2 FT 90 FT B B FT ( B 6 FT E3 3 FT B 0 FT 77 FT 74 FT { 7 ❑ FT PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS i1 66 FT 3q,000f -75,0uL, 75 000 75,000 75,000 62 FT „C"u 57 F—r 3tiCiQ tsr�� 52 FT aoioae M 47 FT 2007 O FT U.S. Seasonal,"7rought Outlook ; Through December 2006 -a-' Impr Ma )ome Improvemen ®4 i «, Drought to I intensify Drought ongoing, some improvement Drought likely to improve, impacts ease Drought development likely Depicts general, large-scale trends based on subjectively derived probabilities guided by numerous indicators, including short- and long-range statistical and dynamical forecasts. Short-term events -- such as individual storms -- cannot be accurately forecast more that a few days in advance, so use caution if using this outlook for applications -- such as crops -- that can be affected by such events. "Ongoing" drought areas are approximated from the Drought Monitor (D1 to D4). For weekly drought updates, see the latest Drought Monitor map and text. NOTE: the green improvement areas imply at least a 1-category improvement in the Drought Monitor intensity levels, but do not necessarily imply drought t Legend After '[de Amarillo Mesa 0 2 4 8 12 16 Mfles tr r �t t b�� ...................� {,3a6 f'lll 11 t'. � 0 yt4i Nffi� 7 IR k� R Pampa J i i i j I j � Aanhn nUEe t I j Y f A mavilld ® ;. _ Item 11— Water Rights / Infrastructure 71 The 2005 Bond Issue was in the amount of $50 M. This included $20 M for infrastructure and $30 M for water rights. The 2006 Bond Issue was $50 M entirely for water rights. We have spent or committed about $74.8 M for water rights not including testing and legal etc. After we figure interest earned and estimate future interest, we should have around $25.6 M remaining. The wellfield expansion will be done in two phases. We consider Phase I to be the original John C. Williams Wellfield. Phase II is the addition of wells in that wellfield which was expected to add up to 10,000 AF/yr in 2007. There were several sites considered but the two most cost effective (gpm/$) sites would add around 7,200 AF/yr ` and are the only ones recommended by staff in light of budget constraints. Phase III is a separate wellfield and is expected to increase the TOTAL well production to equal the capacity of the 54" wellfield pipeline. Our infrastructure needs estimate was done in 2004 and was based on "recent" projects. Since these projects were completed, there have been major increases in steel prices and construction costs (we paid $125/ft for installed 54" in '99 and today it is $350/ft!). Another major cost increase is moving Phase III from the impacted area of Phase I to another area. This was made possible by the Amarillo trade. The $20 M that was set \ aside for infrastructure would be very marginal in allowing us to move Phase III away from our current production and still get the capacity needed. We recommend the completion of all water right transactions currently pending (as listed in Item 9) and hold off on any further water right contracts until after construction of Phase III is complete. As stated above, we currently have about $25.6 M available. We recommend allocating all of that $25.6 M for infrastructure to accomplish as many of these goals as possible. There will be contingency money set aside for construction uncertainties and if that is available at the end of the projects, we could then complete our water right purchases. The following is a list of goals from CRMWA staff s perspective: 1. 69,000 AF/yr "dependable" production from all wells (Phases I, II, & III) to -equal capacity of our existing 54" wellfield pipeline. 2. 7,000 AF to 10,000 AF additional well capacity (Phase II) during 2007. This will help meet short term needs. 3. Separate wellfield (Phase III) to reduce impact on John C. Williams Wellfield (reduce drawdown, extend life and increase recharge). This goal has been added with the prospect of the Amarillo trade and has increased costs but is a MUCH better option. (Continued on back of sheet) 4. Load Factor for wells: 90% (76,000 AF total capacity) to 70% (98,000 AF total capacity). This allows for the rotation of wells and down time. The following 3 goals cannot be met with our current funding: 5. Extend 54" pipeline for future development to the east (would cost an additional $15.4 M over 36"). 6. Stand-by pumps for PS-21 and PS-22 on the John C. Williams Pipeline pump stations ($2.7 M). 7. Underground distribution power to reduced lightning damage issues ($1/2 M). , F w • _ s e I •• _- ,`�,. � u�a �' _,.fit up";� 1 ^ All �— •,;� ,�-: F .{y ° � w_.. ,.. •`ti4; t „"" ra" '� �r�l �C. +, �� �� � z m "'•�4'"�' r�"�''3r ti � �' - _ tai..-u a f +§y �c' �., r.. .x t,t'.:.i y I k; t gs.�,�`+s�`� �n� ui' ..'"^^• ,1r I _ . -+, �q } "� �" � 'F �fr.:,� y a .,�?� .w �"�.. �� � g `e • .. i "r _ IrR, ,n,a s r•: �..�� xf ., "4 .n,t '� K L ;, a � , Cw 'r" ^ r ._ + .,. ,» x � 1 �� ��' ,+,.�"'`,'"`"� F ufi ,„•x.„`;,a, � .�'*�� c :c'c:S. i��x y�� ;,} +� � ,,iy�i r »` "y '�'.a, ��' r. E •�•. __ ,.. Y° � y � � �,.. ,r`y a ,• r+� � +�: a : P"y+�s� i�, + �',, � t•y;<r + f : w �'�a"d T,,,.a•' ..,i s r *„r f ! � s 7,., 3 :crwa•^ <; s'.'R'°"'''`S A 'r»r* y(y ..',, S aq i.? I _ � + ?� $i P��„"�l y.Y 1} ky. £h y q' 3� , a a �, r�rc� z"�i�.:w� s^5 .2� "� �k I'C'* ,+ A„a+F+t �. T v` v 4z �• .c S .� jj L i _a + r T Legend , CRMWA { y; Amarillo ° Mesa C91fttCt �k. CRMWA Pump Station Tl�f i CRMWA Production Well ampa ® Phase Well d �, { -- ,_ .0 ® Phase 3 Well j c 'r • Note: This map assumes the Amarillo trade is approved. The 0 2 4 8 12 Miles Wellfield layout is preliminary and for cost estimate purposes only. a. C: 0 �-,,, �--�, ,.,W r` OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Canadian River Municipal Water Authority Proposed Well Field Expansion - Bell -Moody Unit Overhead Electrical 1/16/2007 Parkhill, Smith, & Cooper, inc. 4222 85th Street Lubbock, Texas 79423 J�gm Unit Quffllb UnK Extension rLQ. P� Wells AEL-27-29,32: Wells AELE 13,15-21 24 600 AFY 1 Well E4 12 $250,000.00 $3,000,000 2 Pump E4 12 $164,000.00 $1,968,006 3 Seal Block Enclosure EA 12 $3,000.00 $36,000 4 Valves and Header Piping E4 12 $10,000.00 $120,000 5 Meter and Control House E4 12 $30,000.00 $360,000 6 Well Pad and Fencing EA 12 $26,500.00 $318,000 7 Well Site Electrical E4 12 $80,000.00 $960,000 8 WeilfieldAccess Roads LF 41,500 $25. 00 $1,037,500 9 Welifield Electrical Distribution LS 41,500 $20.00 $830,000 10 36" Collection Line (Concrete) LF 64,240 $110.00 $7,066,400 11 30" Collection Line (Concrete) LF 7,500 $85.00 $637,500 12 24" Collection Line (HDPE) LF 5,500 $77.00 $423,500 13 20" Collection Line (HDPE) LF - $63.00 $0 14 18" Collection Line (HDPE) LF - $55.00 $0 15 16" Collection Line (HDPE) LF 5,500 $44.00 $242,000 16 12" Collection Line (HDPE) LF 23,000 $35.00 $805,000 17 10" Collection Line (HDPE) LF $30.00 $0 18 SCADA EA 12 $15,000.00 $180,000 19 Access Road off Hwy 70 LF $30.00 $0 20 Well Field Storage Tank LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000 21 Mobilization LS 1 $924,195 Subtotal $19,408,095 Construction Contingencies $2,911,214 Engineering, Surveying, Testing, RPR $2,911,214 Test Holes EA 24 $11,000.00 $264,000 ROW Acquisition, Damages LF 105,740 $6.00 $634.446 Total $26,128,964 we 1 16" Collection Line LF 4,140 $44.00 $182,166 2 16" Transmission Pie LF 1,630 $44.00 $71,720 3 Valves and Header Piping LS 1 $10,006.00 $10,000 4 Meter and Control House EA 1 $25,000.00 $25,000 5 Well Pad and Fencing LS 1 $26,600.00 $26,500 6 Road LF 4,140 $25.00 $103,500 7 Well LS 1 $242,000.00 $242,000 8 Pump EA 1 $175,060.00 $175,000 9 Seal Block Enclosure EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000 10 Electrical LS 1 $304,000.00 $304,000 Subtotal for X-3 $1,142,886 Construction Contingencies $171,432 Engineering, Surveying, Testing, RPR $171,432 ROW Acquisition, Damages LF 5,770 $6.00 $34,620 Total $1,520,36Well P-66(286W 1 18" Collection Line LF 300 $55.00 $16,500 2 Valves and Header Piping LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 3 Meter and Control House EA 1 $25,000.00 $25,000 4 Well Pad and Fencing LS 1 $26,500.00 $26,500 5 Road LF 300 $25.00 $7,500 6 Well LS 1 $233,500.00 $233,500 7 Pump EA 1 $220,000.00 $220,006 8 Seal Block Enclosure EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000 9 Electrical LS 1 $240,000.00 $240,000 Subtotal for P-66 $782,000 Construction Contingencies $117,300 -Engineering, Surve in , Testing, RPR $117,300 ROW Acquisition, Damages LF 1 300 $6.00 $1,800 Total $1,018,400 TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST $28,667,728 Treated 26, Treated 2005 Treated 2006 CRIVIWA 2007 Remaining 2007 Amistad achove� CRMWA Salt Cedar- E-radication Project achove ..ey Dumas 18 die Water 7 Dumas 54 ero hannipg— flaw ■Iaalp 2004 BSO $ I6I,044 $ 1146.7E S 40,780 4,619 200E No 7 166,5A0 $ 156'34o 2,410 1 457,W4 f 41Z= f AM $ 4916 V W-6-9 EA70-ON LKOAZOW 2007 700 $ I32,802 132,902 $ S R—dring 0 $ . -Is $ U) Co x (1) F- N Adrian Team 2005 2,SB9 $ 418,705 $ 167,446 2rf,7w -,Om $ 2007 1 840 1?1,471,2181$167,Wj$ S%o A:- k—Wril rig I E,855 1$1,371,= 1 ✓� ,. k-ys— Ranch �-\Marsh ZOK Aqdpl,,� - - Boden hunky Gluck Juilliard Gentry 'Lake Tanglewood 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 8 — Existing Supply — Ogallala Aquifer - Bailey County Well Field (BCWF) Content a. Map of the BCWF and Transmission Line b. Groundwater Availability Model c. Shallowater Well Field d. 2006 City Groundwater Treatment Study (Pump Station #10) Summary The City just finished a Groundwater Utilization Study in March of 2007 for the Ogallala Aquifer in both the Bailey County Well Field and the area under the City of Lubbock. Groundwater was the only source of water for the City of Lubbock prior to the creation of CRMWA. The Bailey County Well Field has been a significant part of that supply both before and after the creation of CRMWA. The study points out that the BCWF cannot be over -pumped if the City of Lubbock wants this supply to last for the next 50 years. It has been recommended that the well field not be pumped more than 10,000 acre-feet annually. The 1992, the Comprehensive Ground Water Management Study recommended that pumping not exceed recharge at about 3,400 acre-feet annually. If the BCWF is over -pumped, the supply will not last 50 years. Even if it lasts 50 years, additional wells will need to be added as the water level drops in order to keep production levels up. While the total amount of pumping needs to be limited to extend the life of the BCWF, the water supply source can still provide almost 50% of the peak summer day demand for water since the wells and transmission line can deliver 40 million gallons per day (mgd) of water to the City of Lubbock. A project is currently underway, based upon information provided in the 2007 Groundwater Utilization Study, to rehab and develop new wells in the BCWF to keep production capacity up to 40 mgd. The City also had a Shallowater Well Field. This facility has not been used for years due to poor water quality. The facility may be rehabilitated and used to supplement the BCWF for about $1.2 to $1.5 million. The City also had a well field within the City's limits. The 2007 Groundwater Utilization Study indicated that annual recharge in the aquifer under the City to be about 12,000 acre-feet annually. This alternative was studied, but again water quality and the cost of developing the well field were issues of significance. The capital cost alone for the proposed Pump Station #10 well field and treatment facilities would reach almost $20 million for only 5,000 acre feet of water. This well field would not be sustainable due to the amount of pumping in a small area, so the life of the Pump Station #10 well field was projected to be 50 years. For this reason, pumping for park irrigation was recommended. This lower volume of pumping could be sustainable over time and since the parks are dispersed throughout the City, an expensive well field collection system would not need to be developed. The BCWF should provide about 25% of our total annual supply if the recommendations are followed to limit pumping. BCWF, however, does provide 50% of the peak day capacity. Once the BCWF ceases to be operational, an alternative peak day source must be developed. The alternatives would be to construct Canyon Lake #7 or recharge the BCWF. City of Lubbock Groundwater Utilization Study March 23, 2007 �l City of Lubbock Groundwater Utilization Study Prepared for March 23, 2007 City of Lubbock, Texas T. NEIL BLANDFORD � GEOLOGY 0 LIMM NW er1034 t l x aE° T. Neil Blandford Texas Professional Geoscient' t No. 1034 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 6020 Academy NE, Suite 100 • Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Executive Summary The City of Lubbock (City) contracted Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) and Parkhill, Smith and Cooper, Inc. (PSG) in June 2004 to conduct an evaluation of the sustainability of groundwater resources available to the City. This effort is referred to as the groundwater utilization study. The source of the City's current water supply is the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) pipeline, supplemented by Sandhills Well Field water during periods of peak demand. In order to supply anticipated increases in water demands, the City is considering, among other options, continued and possibly expanded use of groundwater resources within the Sandhills Well Field in northern Bailey and northwestern Lamb Counties, and use of groundwater beneath the City itself. Technical issues evaluated as part of the groundwater utilization study include the following: • Groundwater quality in the vicinity of Lubbock, historical changes in land use within and near the City, historical changes in water levels beneath the City, and the locations of known potential sources of groundwater contamination • The ability of the Ogallala aquifer beneath Lubbock and in the Sandhills Well Field area to sustain projected rates of groundwater pumping over a 50-year predictive period • Identification of alternative non -potable uses of local groundwater beneath the City, and associated costs of implementation • A screening assessment of the Dockum aquifer beneath the Sandhills Well Field • Development of strategies and recommendations for improved -groundwater management and protection It has been known for some time that groundwater levels beneath Lubbock have been rising, as opposed to declining or remaining stable, in contrast to many locations on the Southern High Plains. The rising water levels have led to the formation of a significant groundwater "mound" �— beneath the City. Two maps of groundwater elevations beneath Lubbock for 1990 and 2003 P:\_W r04-104\G W-U6I-FnL3-0AFi nal Rpt_323.doc ES-1 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. were completed as part of this study. Based on these maps, it is apparent that the groundwater mound has expanded substantially from 1990 to 2003, and the center of the mound has moved to the south, in the direction of urbanization. Observed water levels at monitor wells are increasing most rapidly south of Loop 289. The groundwater mound beneath the City is believed to have the following three primary sources: 1. Increased recharge at playas within the urbanized parts of the City. As the City expanded and the acreage of paved surfaces increased, runoff from precipitation routed to the playas has increased. In addition, some playas have been modified to add capacity as drainage control structures, and such modification likely increased recharge potential. 2. Groundwater pumping within the urbanized regions of the City that historically occurred for irrigation and municipal supply has ceased, and a corresponding rise in water levels occurred. 3. Groundwater recharge from direct infiltration from precipitation and return flow from lawn and park irrigation, leaky water supply and sewer lines, and various other sources typical of a municipality. Because the City's water supply has either been obtained from CRMWA or the Sandhills Well Field for about the last 40 years, much of this recharge is an imported source of water. In addition to the volume of recharge that occurs from the sources listed above, formation of the groundwater mound is also a function of the aquifer hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, and geometry. The groundwater mound occurs primarily within a region of relatively low aquifer permeability and relatively high aquifer base elevation, and beneath an urbanized area with a relatively high concentration of playa lakes that serve as drainage features for increased (compared to non -urban conditions) stormwater runoff. P:\-Wr04-104kGW-Lttil-Fni.3-07\FirvalRpt-323.doc ES-2 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Saturated thickness beneath the City is as low as approximately 25 feet in the northernmost reaches east of 1-27 and north of Loop 289. Maximum saturated thickness values (up to 125 feet) occur outside of the southwest portion of Loop 289 beneath the groundwater mound, and inside Loop 289 in the north -central portion of the City. The Lubbock area groundwater model was developed to estimate future water availability. The Lubbock area model actually consists of two linked models: one for the simulation of regional effects and one for the simulation of local effects focused more on the City of Lubbock area. The regional model uses 1-mile-square cells, while the local model uses 1/4-mile-square cells. The purpose of the regional model is to simulate reasonable aquifer conditions in the vicinity of the local model boundary. Three predictive simulations were conducted using the Lubbock area model. The predictive simulations included several combinations of potential future pumping for irrigation of parks, irrigation of school grounds, local non -potable groundwater utilization by industry and miscellaneous other uses, and groundwater pumping associated with the Pump Station 10 (PS-10) project. The City has already initiated a program to convert some parks to utilization of local groundwater for irrigation, and more parks will be converted in the future. Total future I groundwater pumping for irrigation of parks within the City is estimated to be 1,228 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). Pumping for irrigation of school grounds will be conducted by the Lubbock Independent School District, but could affect the availability of groundwater pumping within the City limits. The total future groundwater pumping for irrigation of school campuses is estimated to be 606 ac-ft/yr. The total estimated pumping for industrial and other non -potable uses is 2,009 ac-ft/yr. Required pumping for the PS-10 project is estimated to be 7 million gallons per day (mgd) for 4 months per year in order to provide 5 mgd of treated (potable) water. This rate equates to about 2,567 ac-ft/yr. In the predictive simulations, 17 wells were used to supply the required PS-10 demand in the general region of the south Loop 289. C�_ P:\-Wr04-104\GW-Ufil-Fnl.3-07\FinaiRpt-323-doc ES-3 I Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Sufficient groundwater and aquifer yield exist beneath Lubbock to supply anticipated demands for irrigation of park grounds, irrigation of school grounds, and approximately 2,000 ac-ft/yr of other/industrial uses. Sufficient groundwater also exists to supply additional demand on the order of that required for the PS-10 project. However, local aquifer conditions may not be suitable for a sustainable 50-year supply at some of the selected PS-10 production well locations. It would be prudent to either (1) seek more productive parts of the aquifer to provide all or a portion of the PS-10 supply, or (2) conduct more detailed field analyses of sustainable well yield to affirm or deny the groundwater availability predications in the vicinity of planned PS-10 wells. The feasibility and associated costs of providing groundwater to high -volume users within the City for non -potable uses were also considered during this study. Providing local groundwater to high -volume users would reduce the load on the potable supply. Historical water use data, along with survey information obtained as part of this study, were used in the evaluation. Water quality was evaluated in order to determine treatment costs necessary for the various applications. Approximately 1.3 billion gallons (about 3,900 acre-feet) of potable water could be saved annually by providing local groundwater to high -volume users. The cost of producing and providing the water to area users ranges from $1.15 to $6.08 per 1,000 gallons. As of March 2006, the unit cost of potable City water was $1.69 per 1,000 gallons for commercial users and $1.83 per 1,000 gallons for residential users. A new rate structure is planned for implementation during the spring of 2007. The new rate structure has three blocks that range in cost from $2.09 to $3.61 per 1,000 gallons. The cost-effective use of local groundwater would be best achieved when planned for and constructed in the early stages of new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Additional studies that would be useful to better quantify and evaluate the sustainability of water resources in the vicinity of Lubbock, and particularly south of Loop 289, include the following: • Conduct a detailed water balance study at one or more playas to better constrain potential recharge rates to groundwater and changes in recharge through time. I 1 P:\_Wr04-104\GW-Util-Fnl.3-07\FinaIRpt_323.doc ES-4 �ac Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. • Obtain additional information on aquifer parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) and bottom elevation near the southern fringe of urban development to gain an improved understanding of groundwater flow conditions in this area. • Collect additional water quality samples from observation wells within the City parks and elsewhere to better constrain ambient groundwater quality estimates. The following suggestions regarding strategies and approaches for improved groundwater management in the Lubbock area are offered to the City: • Continue to expand and improve upon the City's water conservation plan, including the continuation of restrictions on lawn watering and providing educational information regarding the wise use of water and planning of landscape features. • Continue to support City-wide beautification efforts and educational programs dealing with the proper disposal of household hazardous wastes and automobile fluids, as well as the proper use and disposal of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. • Future engineering designs for playa modification should consider methods and approaches to prevent groundwater contamination and enhance groundwater recharge. • Consider aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of CRMWA water, contingent on the successful identification and evaluation of a segment of aquifer in the area suitable for that purpose. Excess water available through the pipeline during winter months could be stored in the aquifer locally beneath Lubbock, and the same water could be extracted during peak demand periods. • Consider more detailed evaluation of the Edwards -Trinity High Plains aquifer that lies beneath the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer is not currently used as a significant source of water supply, but could potentially yield moderate quantities of water to wells. This aquifer could also be a good target zone for ASR, thereby avoiding potential issues of <. 1 P'\ Wr04-104\GW-Util-Fnl.3-O7\ inaiRpt_323.doc ES-5 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. water loss to adjacent users and impacts to water quality from contaminated sites (although naturally high total dissolved solids concentration could be an issue). In areas of new development, plan for the use of existing and anticipated groundwater for irrigation of parks and other landscaped areas and construct the necessary facilities, along with other associated infrastructure. Five predictive simulations were conducted using the calibrated Sandhills Well Field area model assuming constant well field pumping for 50 years at 2,000, 6,000, 10,000, 13,000, and 25,000 ac-ft/yr. A sixth simulation was conducted assuming that the well field provided 25,000 ac-ft/yr for 5 years, and then 10,000 ac-ft/yr for the following 45 years. Pumping for irrigated agriculture will continue to cause substantial water level declines in irrigated regions adjacent to the Sandhills Well Field, particularly to the north, west, and east. Future water level declines within the east -central portion of the well field area, however, will primarily be a function of Citypumping, rather than adjacent agricultural pumping. The Sandhills Well Field should be P P 9> 1 9 P P 9• able to produce 2,000 ac-ft/yr for 50 years without significant expansion, and 6,000 ac-ft/yr with some expansion. The well field can likely produce 10,000 ac-ft/yr, and possibly 13,000 ac-ft-yr, for the next 50 years with significant expansion. The well field cannot produce 25,000 ac-ft-yr over the long term, but it can produce 25,000 ac-ft/yr for a short period of time followed by long- term production on the order of 10,000 ac-ft/yr. At the end of the 50-year simulation period, the saturated thickness across much of the well field will be limited, and at a number of locations the aquifer will be severely depleted. At well field demand rates of 10,000 to 13,000 ac-ft/yr, 50 years is probably approaching the end of the useful well field life. The Dockum aquifer is a potential groundwater resource that occurs beneath the Ogallala aquifer across the Southern High Plains, including beneath the Sandhills Well Field. Some pilot -scale testing of this aquifer at locations with existing City infrastructure (i.e., the Sandhills Well Field and possibly the Shallowater Well Field or Lubbock) would be beneficial, although obtaining potable supply from this aquifer would be expensive due to the significant depth of the aquifer (probably 1,000 feet or more), the high salt content of the water and the unknown (but expected relatively small) yield. P:\_Wr04-104\GW-UIil-Fn1.3-07\FinalRpt 323.doc ES-6 CITY OF LUBBOCK INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TOM ADAMS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER FROM: BRUCE BLALACK, WATER PRODUCTION & TREATMENT SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: SHALLOWATER WELL FIELD INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE DATE: MARCH 26, 2007 CC: SHERRY STEPHENS, WATER UTILITES CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER The Shallowater Well Field is located approximately 12 miles northwest of the City of Lubbock in Hockley and Lubbock Counties. The total area of the well field is approximately 2,040 acres. It is 100% developed with 17 wells. The well field has not been used for more that 25 years. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. performed the last evaluation of the Shallowater Well Field in 1992. At that time, the gross saturated thickness of the Ogallala aquifer under the well field was estimated to average 50 feet and the recoverable ground water reserves were estimated to be 11,475 acre-feet (3.74 billion gallons). Review of the ground water quality data indicated that the water in the well field did not meet the TCEQ secondary water quality standards for sulfate, total dissolved solids and fluoride. The quality was marginal is meeting TCEQ primary water quality standards for fluoride and nitrate. In 1992, Geraghty & Miller, Inc. estimated the potential cost of reactivating this well field to be approximately $1,240,000. This included replacing well equipment, the pump station, the 1 MG reservoir, and adding disinfection equipment. This estimate did not include any actual well rehabilitation or well collection pipeline replacement that might be needed. Staff visual observation of the condition of the 1 MG reservoir approximately two years ago, indicated that the floor and side wall of the reservoir are in fair condition, but the flat roof of the reservoir is sagging and would need to be replaced to meet current TCEQ requirements of a sloped roof. This reservoir will be evaluated as part of the Pump System Evaluation that will occur of the next six to nine months. This evaluation will provide an engineering analysis of this reservoir and determine its potential for future use. Extensive work and infrastructure replacement would be required to reactivate the Shallowater Well Field. The current cost of this undertaking could easily exceed $2,000,000 not including substantial well rehabilitation and well collection pipeline replacement. Before reactivation is considered, this well field needs to be thoroughly evaluated regarding actual current available ground water reserves and actual current well field production potential as well as sand production testing. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Bruce Blalack Water Production & Treatment Superintendent � Engineering Report. City of Lubbock Groundwater Treatment Plant � Lubbock, Texas May 2006 PSC Project # 01268305 Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc. Engineers ■ Architects ■ Planners .: S�P�E.oF rFkgs1, *: *, JOHN S i� 72 �Or f f�e. C E NSF C AL -3 k L�o� In association with May 31, 2006 Mr. Thomas Adams Assistant City Manager City of Lubbock P.O. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Re: Groundwater Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Adams: This report presents the result of a feasibility study related to the treatment of localized groundwater in the vicinity of 82°d Street and Memphis Avenue and surrounding areas to potable quality. The study was authorized in January 2005 and was performed in conjunction with Black & Veatch Corporation, Dallas, Texas. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The purpose of the project was to reduce demand on the City of Lubbock water supply system by producing and treating existing groundwater available in southwest Lubbock to potable water quality for subsequent introduction into the existing storage reservoir located at 82"d Street and Memphis Avenue. The existing pump station would be used to pump the treated water into the distribution system. The desired quantity of treated groundwater was identified as approximately 5 million gallons per day. The purpose of this preliminary engineering study was to further identify the treatment requirements, project components and associated costs for use in the development of project construction budgets and subsequently authorized activities, including design of the improvements. SUPPLY WELLS The proposed supply wells were to be located in general proximity to the project site, with exact locations, capacities, and number of wells to be determined by the City of Lubbock. Due to anticipated land and right-of- way acquisition costs, most of the proposed supply well locations were assumed to be located in area parks. In addition, the supply wells and associated connecting pipelines were to be completed by the City of Lubbock and sampled, with the quality analyses and results provided for refinement of the feasibility study. Due to reject water production associated with the anticipated treatment processes, approximately 16 to 20 supply wells, each with a capacity of about 250 gallons per minute (gpm), would have been required to produce the approximately 7 million gallons per day needed for this project. EXISTING SITE LAYOUT The proposed treatment plant site is located at 82"d Street and Memphis Avenue, which currently contains a new 7 million gallon ground storage reservoir and an existing pump station. The storage tank is currently filled from the distribution system, with the stored water subsequently pumped into another isolated pressure plane of the distribution system, accomplished with the use of appropriately located isolation valves. A significant amount of landscaping improvements have been previously planned for the site and coordinated with the adjacent neighborhood association. At the time of completion of this study, those landscaping plans have been revised and are now under consideration for construction. Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc. Engineers . Architects a Planners 4222 85th Street, Lubbock, Texas 79423 (806) 473-2200 FAX (806) 473-3500 Lubbock FIPa,;n Mr. Thomas Adams Page 2 May 31, 2006 The initially proposed location for the treatment plant was identified by the City to be in the southwest corner of the pump station and reservoir tract. Due to the space requirements for the necessary treatment facilities, this location is not sufficient in either a real size or vehicular and truck access. GROUNDWATER QUALITY Representative ground water quality information from only one well located on the pump station tract north of the new reservoir was made available for use with this study. Several monitoring wells are apparently located in or near the general vicinity of the site, but were not sampled for analysis due to availability and cost issues with area laboratories. In addition, new park irrigation wells were scheduled for construction by the City but also were not available for sampling and analysis. It was suggested to the City that these wells be sampled and analyzed upon construction for those constituents important to future treatment processes. STORAGE TANK BAFFLING ISSUES The treated groundwater will be required to be disinfected prior to introduction into the distribution system. The City of Lubbock uses chloramines as the disinfectant for potable water, which will require that chloramines also be used for disinfection of the treated groundwater prior to its introduction into the system. In order to maintain the disinfectant contact time required by TCEQ, it will be necessary to install baffles inside the storage tank to prevent short-circuiting of the flow from the inlet to the outlet. The extent of baffling required will ultimately be determined by the final flow of treated groundwater through the tank. REJECT WATER IMPACT ANALYSIS The reject water from the treatment processes will have concentrated quantities of the removed constituents. The disposal of the reject water is typically accomplished by discharge to a municipal sewer collection system and diluted with the normal wastewater stream. For this project, various reject water disposal options were investigated, including discharge to the adjacent sanitary sewer, discharge to the adjacent playa lake, and on -site evaporation. The preliminary results of the analysis indicate that discharge to the adjacent playa lake would likely have a rapid and detrimental effect upon the lake, increasing concentrations of nitrate and total dissolved solids to unacceptable levels. The lake volume and frequency of diluting rainfall, even with periodic purging with excessive rainfall events, would not be sufficient to adequately dilute the water quality to acceptable levels. On -site evaporation of the reject water was evaluated but dismissed due to the lack of available area and impact on neighborhood aesthetics. Discharge of the reject water to the sanitary sewer would have a lesser effect than the other options, but could still be significant, particularly due to elevated concentrations of fluoride and nitrogen which could detrimentally impact not only the City's desired discharge permit but also the nitrogen removal treatment processes being considered for the treatment plant upgrade. PRELIMINARY PROCESS SELECTION Attached as Appendix A is the Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum prepared by Black & Veatch. This document provides a greater degree of detail than discussed herein, and includes opinions of cost associated with the various treatment options available. Mr. Thomas Adams Page 3 May 31, 2006 Of the treatment processes evaluated, two were recommended for further consideration at such time as the project becomes economically feasible. Those processes include: 1. Microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF) followed by reverse osmosis (RO) with a side stream, stabilization, primary disinfection with free chlorine, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine; 2. Direct treatment with RO and treatment of the side stream with MF/UF, primary disinfection with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine. Planning level cost opinions were prepared to facilitate comparison of alternative treatment processes to include water and brine treatment equipment, installation, electrical, instrumentation and controls, buildings, site work, piping, pilot testing, engineering, legal, administrative and contingency costs. The 20-year present worth costs for the two alternatives, using a 5 percent rate of return, were $27.4 million and $20.0 million, respectively, resulting in unit costs of $1.20 per thousand gallons and $0.90 per thousand gallons. Costs of those project improvements to have been provided by the City, including wells, raw water piping, and any additional high service pumps or storage, were not included in these costs. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to the City of Lubbock on this project. Sincerely, PARK> IILL, SMITH & COOPER, INC. By OA / ohn S. Kelley, P.E Principal / Project Manager JSK/sJ Enclosures cc: David Timmermann, P.E. Black & Veatch X:\2005\2683.05\CI.FRICALaepoR\2683 ReportDOC BLACK & VEATCH `4 MEMORANDUM City of Lubbock Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum To: John Kelley (Parkhill, Smith & Cooper) B&V Project 139065.0200 May 16, 2006 O F i.:.:...... .. ...'... From: Nick Burns, Scott Freeman, and David Timmermann, P.E. i. • Q FC/ST04Ike IML �= EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Lubbock is considering the construction of a new water treatment plant capable of producing 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable drinking water. Raw water would be collected from the groundwater aquifer in southwest Lubbock near the City's Pump Station 10 site through construction of a number of production wells, most of which are to be located adjacent to playa lakes in City parks. The raw water is generally characterized as having a high fluoride concentration (10 mg/L) and based on limited water quality data, may be considered as being under the influence of surface water. Characterization of the water as being under the ( '',influence of surface water or not being under the influence is a major issue that will require a - ' greater level of analyses and discussions with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) will be required to make this ultimate determination. Water analyses were previously performed by others on one sample from an un-equipped production well at the Pump Station 10 (PSI 0) site and historical data was obtained from the Texas Water Development Board for two wells in the vicinity of the proposed area. This data was used to develop four treatment alternatives capable of reducing the fluoride concentration to less than 2.0 mg/L. Based on this limited data that led us to suspect that the groundwater may be under the influence of surface water, we selected and evaluated treatment process to satisfy the treatment requirements for groundwater under the influence of surface water. The following four alternatives were developed to treat the proposed water source: 1. Microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF) followed by reverse osmosis (RO) with a sidestream, stabilization, primary disinfection with free chlorine, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine; 2. Direct treatment with RO and treatment of the sidestream with MF/UF, primary disinfection with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine; 3. MF/UF followed by treatment with electrodialysis reversal (EDR), primary disinfection with free chlorine, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine; and 4. Activated alumina (AA) followed by MF/UF, primary disinfection with chlorine, and secondary disinfection with combined chlorine. City of Lubbock BLACK & VEATCH Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum May 16, 2006 C", All treatment alternatives were assumed to deliver water through an air gap into the PS 10 - 7 million gallon (MG) reservoir. The water would be disinfected and contain combined chlorine prior addition to the reservoir. Each treatment alternative would have a waste stream (concentrate or brine) that is generally high in fluoride that would require special disposal considerations. Disposal of the concentrate to an existing wastewater treatment plant was evaluated. In all cases, the concentrate would require additional treatment for the removal of fluoride as the blended wastewater effluent would exceed the TCEQ water quality and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) long-term water reuse discharge requirements. Pretreatment includes a contact clarifier and the addition of calcium. The solids would require disposal off -site. Even with pretreatment, the fluoride concentration may continue to exceed the US EPA long-term water reuse requirements and it will be necessary to work TCEQ to develop an acceptable fluoride level. Process Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended for further consideration. A more definitive recommendation can not be made at this time based upon the limited raw water quality data that is available to definitively resolve if the groundwater is under the influence of surface water. The treatment processes in both of these alternatives will provide a high quality finished water at reasonable costs compared to the other alternatives. The area to the west of the existing pump station in the southwest corner of the tract has been initially identified by the City for the proposed treatment plant. It is doubtful that construction of the necessary facilities would fit in this area even if a multi -story structure was utilized as access into this area for chemical deliveries would be extremely difficult. A multi -story structure may also prove to be unacceptable to adjacent neighborhood interests and concerns. The area north of the new reservoir has adequate space for siting the plant, but is currently planned for neighborhood landscape improvements. Additional recommendations include the following: ■ Additional water quality data should be collected to confirm the preliminary process assumptions used within this report to develop treatment process alternatives and opinion of cost information. ■ Discussions with TCEQ should be initiated upon characterization of the source water to determine if the water would be considered groundwater under the influence of surface water and what, if any, treatment processes changes would be necessary to the proposed plan for compliance with all applicable regulations. ■ Brine pretreatment alternatives should be considered. Because of the increase in fluoride concentration to the wastewater plant, deep -well injection should be evaluated in detail and a preliminary cost estimate should be developed. ■ A discussion with TCEQ should be initiated on the change in fluoride concentration at the headworks of the wastewater treatment plant. This discussion should assist the City in establishing the following: (1) if pretreatment will be necessary, (2) if the resulting fluoride concentrations following lime pretreatment will be adequate, and (3) what level of treatment is necessary. 2 City of Lubbock Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum BLACK & VEATCH May 16, 2006 INTRODUCTION The City of Lubbock Texas is considering the construction of a new water treatment plant capable of producing 5 mgd of potable drinking water from the aquifer in southwest Lubbock near Pump Station 10 (PS 10). The water table is generally 10 to 30 ft below the surface. The raw water is generally characterized as having a high fluoride concentration and based on limited water quality data, may be considered as being under the influence of surface water. Preliminary data indicate that it has a fluoride concentration of approximately 10 mg/L, which exceeds the USEPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water of 4 mg/L. The Secondary MCL for fluoride is 2 mg/L. The site for the proposed WTP is on the city owned, PSI 0 site. This memorandum includes the characterization of the aquifer and treated water quality goals, a regulatory review, description of four treatment alternatives, concentrate disposal evaluation, planning -level cost opinions, site considerations, and conclusions. If the City decides these options warrant further consideration, a workshop could be held to select the best option for full scale application. The workshop participants could include representatives from the City, their engineer, and TCEQ. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION _,. source water for the proposed facility would be the groundwater aquifer near PSI 0. The City -provided analyses on one sample from an on -site but un-equipped production well at the PSI 0 site. Additional historical data was obtained from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for existing wells in the near vicinity of the site. The treatment alternatives discussed in this memorandum are based on raw water quality data from these sources as summarized in Table 1. There is limited water quality data available and was considered the best available first approximation for this planning -level study. If the City finds the results of the preliminary study to warrant more detailed consideration, the assumptions herein could be reviewed based on additional water quality data. For the basis of this evaluation, the source water is considered to be groundwater under the influence of surface water. This assumption was developed because a disinfection byproduct was detected in the source water, an indicator that that water was chlorinated, and the shallow playa lakes in the region may be directly connected to the shallow aquifer. To determine if the source water is groundwater under the influence of surface water, additional water quality testing will be necessary. TCEQ will make the ultimate decision on the connectivity of the groundwater with surface water. A summary of the finished water quality at PSI 0 is also listed in Table 1 based on samples collected by the City of Lubbock from April through September 2005. These data were used as the basis for finished water quality for the alternatives discussed in this memorandum. The treatment plant effluent pH would be raised with caustic to avoid corrosion and related problems, ;- -uch as lead and copper leaching. Additionally, the water would be treated with chlorine W :odium hypochlorite) for disinfection and combined chlorine to match the distribution system water quality. These steps would provide finished water that is compatible with the water in the 3 City of Lubbock BLACK & VEATCH Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum May 16, 2006 existing distribution system. Once disinfected and stabilized, the treated water would be added to the existing PS 10 - 7 MG finished water reservoir. Table 1. Average of Water Quality Data (m L unless otherwise noted) Pump Station 10 Well (Sept. 2003 TWDB Well No. 23 25 904 1990) Finished Water (PS10) (April 2005 to Sept. 2005) H NA 7.4 8.0 Total Dissolved Solids 832 839 986 Total Hardness (as CaCO3) NA 364 250 Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 194 373 186 Calcium NA 39 63 Magnesium NA 64 22 Potassium NA 16 10 Sodium NA 164 215 Silica NA 46 21 Chloride NA 108 267 Fluoride 9.60 5.0 0.6 Nitrate as NO3- 1.57 5.1 0.7 Sulfate 181 187 214 Bromodichloromethane, u 2.95 NA NA — Not analyzed The primary treatment objectives were to meet TCEQ regulations and to reduce the fluoride concentration to less than 2 mg/L. Removal of TDS was not a significant treatment objective because the existing water in the distribution system has a higher TDS concentration than the shallow groundwater. Other water quality goals include the stabilization of the water to reduce corrosivity, provide disinfection, and ensure there are no compatibility issues as a result of blending the product water with the existing distribution system water. rd City of Lubbock BLACK & VEATCH preliminary Process Selection Memorandum May 16, 2006 compatible with high calcium carbonate precipitation potential. The solids would be removed and dewatering with a centrifuge or other dewatering process, stored onsite, arpd disposed of in a monofill or landfill. Treatment Alternative 1 and 2 has the lowest fluoride concentration i e brine solution, 24 mg/L, but the vol me is large, resulting in the highest wastewater ant fluoride influent concentration, 3.5 Calcium precipitation would not be ab to remove adequate amounts of fluoride to result in a blended treatment influent less tha mg/L. The anticipated plant influent fluoride concen tion would be 1.8 mg/L, and wo d exceed the USEPA long-term water reuse guideline. Treatment Alternative 3 would rsult in a wastewa r plant influent fluoride concentration of approximately 2.9 mg/L and calciu precipitate would be effective in treating Alternative 3 brine resulting in an estimate7ouldd plant ' fluent fluoride concentration of approximately 1 mg/L, the US EPA long-termi li The fluoride concentration w'n tl e,,�AA regenerating solution, 110 mg/L, but had the process had the smallest wasflow, resting in the lowest fluoride increase in the plant influent fluoride concentratio/L. Followi;ig pretreatment, the fluoride concentration at the head of the wastewater pbe 0.8 mg/L. A large concentration of lime would be required for treatment as a rehigh alkalinity lqtie AA regeneration solution. Alternative 3 brine chlori concentration exceeds 500 mg/b the recommended concentration for minimizing corrosio of 304 stainless steel. The chloride ncentration in the other three alternatives is approx' ately one half, 260 mg/L. The chloride c ncentration of Alternative 3 may require additio 1 consideration by the City. Another conce ith discharge into the sanitary sewer system and conveyance to the wastewater tre tment plant is the sodium concentration. A portion of the wastewater effluent is discharged a and application sites. Uptake of the sodium by the vegetation may impact the types of vegetation grown on the land application sites. The sodium concentration would increase slightly. The impacts of the high sodium concentration in these concentrate streams may require additional consideration by the City. COST OPINION A summary of the cost opinions for the four treatment alternatives is listed in Table 8. Water quality data used for the basis of these planning -level cost opinions was limited, and better characterization of the aquifer, through collection of additional water quality data, may have a significant effect on the system design and cost. The cost opinions were developed based on estimated equipment and operating costs from Black & Veatch experience and equipment manufactures. 24 City of Lubbock BLACK & VEATCH Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum May 16, 2006 t Table 8. Planning -Level Cost Opinions Alternative 2 RO w/ Alternative 1 MF/UF MF/UF — RO bypass Alternative 3 MF/UF — Alternative 4 EDR AA — MF/UF Capital Cost Summary Equip.& Facility Cost, $ $12,300,000 $8,800,000 $13,700,000 $8,300,000 Engineering/Legal/Admin: 15 percent, .$, $1,900,000 $1,400,000 $2,100,000 $1,300,000 Contingency: 25 percent, $ $3,100,000 $2,200,000 $3,500,000 $2,100,000 Project Capital Cost, $ $17,200,000 $12,200,000 $19,100,000 $11,600,000 Amortized Project Cost, $/yr $1,400,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $900,000 Cost Summary, 2.5 mgd average flow Annual Operating Cost, $/yr $450,000 $340,000 $390,000 $580,000 Annual Operating Cost, $/kgal $0.49 $0.37 $0.43 $0.63 Total Annual Cost, $/yr $1,800,000 $1,300,000 $1,900,000 $1,500,000 Total Cost of Water, $/kgal $2.00 $1.40 $2.10 $1.70 20 Yr Present Worth Cost, $ $22,800,000 F $16,400,000 $24,000,000 $18,800,000 Cost Summary, 5.0 mgd average flow Annual Operating Cost, $/yr $810,000 $620,000 $690,000 $910,000 Annual Operating Cost, $/kgal $0.45 $0.34 $0.38 $0.50 Total Annual Cost, $/yr $2,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,200,000 $1,800,000 Total Cost of Water, $/kgal $1.20 $0.90 $1.20 $1.00 20 Yr Present Worth Cost, $ $27,400,000 $20,000,000 $27,800,000 $23,000,000 Present Worth Evaluation Based on 20 years with effective interest rate of 5 percent. The planning -level cost opinions do not include the wells, raw water piping, any added high service pumps, or storage. Planning -level costs of the water treatment options were developed to facilitate comparison of alternatives. Capital cost does include water and brine treatment equipment, installation, electrical, instrumentation and controls, buildings, sitework, and piping. Project cost includes pilot testing, engineering, legal, and administrative, and contingency. Amortized and present worth cost is based on 20 years and a 5 percent rate of return. The capital cost for Alternative 1, is the second highest as a result of membrane filtration of all the water required by the RO system and poor recovery in the RO system. The MF/UF and RO systems account for 80 percent of the capital cost. Additionally, the process has the second highest operating cost, with the RO system accounting for more than 50 percent of the annual operating cost. a 25 City of Lubbock Preliminary Process Selection Memorandum BLACK & VEATCH May 16, 2006 Alternative 2 requires the same RO system, but a much smaller membrane filtration system, as only the bypass stream is treated with MF/UF membranes. The reduction in size of the MF/UF system results in a $5,000,000 project cost savings over Alternative 1. The capital cost for the system is only slightly greater than Alternative 4 (AA-MF/UF). The RO system accounts for more than half of the capital cost. The process has the lowest operating cost. On a 20 year present worth basis, the alternative has the lowest total cost. The capital costs for Alternative 3, is the highest as a result of membrane filtration of all the water required by the EDR system and capital cost of the EDR system. The EDR system accounts for more than half the capital cost. The process has second lowest operating cost, with the EDR system accounting for the majority of the cost. The process alternative has the highest present worth value. The capital costs for Alternative 4, is the lowest of the four treatment alternatives. Membrane filtration accounts for approximately 40 percent of the capital cost, and could be eliminated if the source water was found to be groundwater and not under the influence of surface water. The AA process has a high operating cost, with the AA system accounting for nearly 60 percent of the annual operating cost. The process alternative has the second lowest present worth cost. SITE CONSIDERATIONS The City had initially identified the southwest corner of the existing PS 10 site as the location for the new water treatment facilities. Based on our review of a site plan provided by the City, there are numerous constraints to constructing facilities in this area. We understand the building setback from 82°d Street is approximately the south face of the pump station and the site plan shows a series of underground telephone lines approximately 85-feet north of this setback line. Assuming a 15-foot setback from the west property line, there is approximately 60-feet to the west face of the pump station yard fence, which contains a communications tower. Therefore, approximately 100-feet by 60-feet of space remains available in this corner for the treatment facilities. Construction of a multi -story facility would help to minimize the necessary footprint but the space would still likely not be adequate to support the necessary roads for chemical deliveries and routine maintenance. For example, considering Alternative 1, a two story facility would be required with dimensions of approximately 60-feet by 80-feet. The MF/UF and ancillary equipment and common plant facilities could be housed on one floor, and the RO equipment on another. The limited space availability is another reason that the new larger diameter RO elements, which provide more compact units, would be considered for this project. A multi -story facility could include both below -ground and above -ground construction. The space is not sufficient for pretreatment of the waste prior addition to the sanitary sewer. Another location would need to be allocated for brine pretreatment and solids handling facilities. While we understand the North part of the PSI 0 site is planned for site landscaping, this is the only area on the site that is of adequate size to accommodate the proposed treatment facility. A i figure of the site is provided in Figure 2. The site has an area of approximately 130 x 260 ft (32,500 sq-ft), which allows for 25-foot property line setbacks. The areas required for the 26 g- tom Lubbock Water Supply Plan " , MV- Section 9 — EAsftg Supply — Load Gromadwater for Park hT%afi" CAwtent a. Local Groundvater for Park Irrigation Details Summary The City will complete Phase I and H in 2007. Phase III will be proposed in the 2007-08 Anmud Bader Phase I will save about 125 million gallons amually, and help reduce peak day demand by about 740,000 galims. Phase 11 will save about 102 million gallons annually, and help reduce peak day demand by about 610,000 gallons. The project will still use water, but the water will come fivin local wells instead ofCRMWA and The BCWF. When complete, the Project could save the City over I billion gallons, annually with a corresponding decrease in peak day detnand. No Text t Summary Plan for Park Conversion to Well Water for Irrigation Percentage Percentage of Potoble of Parks Demand Demand City of Lubbock Potable Demand (MG/Y) 13,477.93 100.00% Phase 1 (11 parks) 124.64 0.92% 9.19% Phase 11(7 parks) 101.99 0.76% 7.52% Parks remaining to test hole (27 parks) 274.00 2.03% 20.21 % Parks remaining already tested (13 parks) 696.37 5.17% 51.35% Parks which can not be irrigated with GW (20 parks) 159.00 1.18% 11.73% Total Parks Demand (78 parks) 1,356.00 10.06% 100.00% Park Names Location Total Acres Lake Acres Irrigated Acres Flow Demand (gpm) Irrigation Demand (MGD) Irrigation Demand per Year (MG) Phase Irrigation Wells Duran 26th & Kewanee 8.00 8.00 181 0.05 7.82 1 2 Elmore, Leroy 6806 Peoria Ave, 79413 43.13 15.48 27.65 625 0.16 27.03 1 3 Hoe[, Phil 9002 Chicago Ave, 79424 11.33 2.00 9.33 211 0.05 9.12 1 2 Kastman 3401 S. Loop 289, 79423 14.45 14.45 327 0.08 14.13 1 2 Lopez Auburn & Chicago 8.00 8.00 181 0.05 7.82 1 1 Mahon, George 3208 Chicago Ave, 79407 15.10 0.70 14.40 325 0.08 14.08 1 2 Remington (estimated) 5308 70th St., 19.00 4.00 15.00 339 0.09 14.66 1 2 Ribble O.W. 6003 Ave U. 79412 18.02 3.51 14.51 328 0.08 14.19 1 2 Rogers 3202 Amherst St., 79415 8.30 8.30 188 0.05 8.11 1 2 Smith, Preston 11504 Chicago Ave., 79416 4.30 4.30 97 0.03 4.20 1 1 Stevens, Jack 15203 75th St., 79424 1 16.661 1 3.551 2231 0,021 3.471 1 2 Total 166.29 25.69 127.49 3,024 0.74 124.64 21 i j Phase II Parks a Summer 2007 Flow Irrigation Irrigation Park Names Location Total Lake Irrigated Demand Demand Demand Phase Irrigation Acres Acres Acres (gpm) (MGD) per Year Wells (MG) Andrews,Clifford H. 8002 Memphis, 79423 35.35 24.85 10.50 268 0.06 10.26 2 1 Higginbotham, Frank 1803 Vicksburg Ave, 79416 23.42 5.61 17.81 403 0.10 17.41 2 3 Hood„ Mose 2601 Ave Q,79405 11.66 11.66 264 0.07 11.40 2 1 Huneke, Henry4102 84th St., 79423 15.54 4.22 11.32 256 0.07 11.07 2 1 McAllister, Bill (ball park only) 6401 Brownfield Hwy, 79424 12.00 12.00 271 0.07 11.73 2 1 Mc Cullough, N.B. 12710 91st St., 79423 23.331 3.56 19.771 447 0.12 19.33 2 1 2 Miller, Bill & Ann 13602 S. Loop 289, 79423 1 31.431 4.26 21.271 4811 0.12 20.79 2 1 3 Total 152.73 42.50 104.33 2,389 0.61 101.99 12 Park Names Location Total Acres Lake Acres Irrigated Acres Flow Demand (9Pm) Irrigation Demand (MGD) Irrigation Demand per Year (MG) Phase Irrigation Wells Andrews,Clifford H. 8002 Memphis, 79423 35.35 24.85 10.50 268 0.06 10.26 2 1 Duran 26th & Kewanee 8.00 8.00 181 0.05 7.82 1 2 Elmore, Leroy 6806 Peoria Ave, 79413 43.13 15.48 27.65 625 0.16 27.03 1 3 Higginbotham, Frank 1803 Vicksburg Ave, 79416 23.42 5.61 17.81 403 0.10 17.41 2 3 Hoel, Phil 9002 Chicago Ave, 79424 11.33 2.00 9.33 211 0.05 9.12 1 1 2 Hood, Mose 2601 Ave 0, 79405 11.66 11.66 264 0.07 11.40 2 1 Huneke, Henry 4102 84th St., 79423 15.54 4.22 11.32 256 0.07 11.07 2 1 Kastman 3401 S. Loop 289, 79423 14.45 14.45 327 0.08 14.13 1 2 Lopez Auburn & Chicago 8.00 8.00 181 0.05 7.82 1 1 Mahon, George 3208 Chicago Ave, 79407 15.10 0.70 14.401 325 0.08 14.08 1 2 McAllister, Bill 6401 Brownfield Hwy, 79424 279.00 12.00 271 0.07 11.73 2 1 Mc Cullough, N.B. 2710 91st St., 79423 23.33 3.56 19.77 447 0.12 19.33 2 2 Miller, Bill & Ann 3602 S. Loop 289, 79423 31.43 4.26 21.27 481 0.12 20.79 2 3 Remington (estimated) 5308 70th St., 19.00 4.00 15.00 339 0.09 14.66 1 2 Ribble O.W. 6003 Ave U. 79412 1 18.021 1511 14.51 328 0.08 14.19 1 2 Rogers 3202 Amherst St., 79415 8.301 1 8.301 1881 0.051 8.11 1 2 Smith, Preston 1504 Chicago Ave., 79416 4.30 14.301 971 0.03 4 * 201 1 11 Stevens, Jack 5203 75th St., 79424 M661 1 3.551 2231 0.021 3.471 1 1 2 586.02 68.19 231.82 5,413 1.35 226.63 33 t Future Phases - Test Holes Requested for Parks Park Names Location Total Acres Lake Acres irrigated Acres Flow Demand at 17 gpm (40hrs irrg.) Flow Demand at 22.6 gpm (30hrs irrg.) Irrigation Demand (MGD) Irrigation Demand Per Year (MG) Targeted for Testhoie Services Aztlan 1002 1st PI, 79401 18.541 18.54 315 419 0.11 18.13 Y Berry 302 E. 35th St., 79404 9.10 9.10 155 206 0.05 8.90 Y Buddy Holly Recreational Area 2519 Canyon Lake Rd., 79415 19.60 8.00 11.60 197 262 0.07 11.34 Y Butler, Ernest 2706 E. 5th St., 79403 6.00 6.00 102 136 0.03 5.87 Y Carlise W.A. 2601 Ave X, 79411 4.50 4.501 77 102 0.03 4.40 Y Casey, David 6602 Ave W, 79412 8.10 3.28 4.82 82 109 0.03 4.71 Y Cooke Park 15th & Kirby 8.00 8.00 136 181 0.05 7.821 Y Crow, Earl 2702 91 st St., 79423 10.17 2.79 7.38 125 167 0.04 7.21 Y Davies, Judge Walter 1320 Clemson St., 79415 6,06 6.00 102 136 0,03 5.87 Y Guy, Charles A. 3802 93rd St., 79423 20.30 4.90 15.40 2621 348 0.09 15.06 Y Hamilton 2307 21st St., 79411 6.60 6.60 112 149 0.04 6.45 Y Hodges, Helen N. University 79413 13.101 13.10 223 296 0.08 12.81 Y Hollins 2202 Auburn St., 79415 6.40 6.40 109 145 0.04 6.261 Y Jennings, Jan 7305 Wayne Ave, 79424 34.58 3.10 31.48 535 711 0.18 30.78 Y Lewis, Jack 1102 56th St., 79412 8.40 8.40 134 190 0.05 8.21 Y Lusk, Willie 1310 E. 25th St., 79404 7.69 7.691 131 174 0.04 7.52 Y Maegden 107 N.Boston 4.51 4.51 77 102 0.03 4.41 Y Maxey 4020 30th St., 79410 70.89 20.62 50.27 855 1136 0.29 49.14 Y McAllister, Bill 6401 Brownfield Hwy, 79424 279.00 12.00 204 271 0.07 11.731 Y Pioneer 2019 6th St., 79401 4.20 4.20 71 95 0.02 4.111 Y Ratliff, W. 4902 Chicago Ave., 79414 6.26 6.26 106 141 0.04 6.12 Y Reagan Olive & Colgate 4.30 4.30 73 97 0.03 4.20 Y Sims Marlborough & King 5.00 5.00 85 113 0.03 4.89 Y Strong80th & Ave. U 8.00 8.00 136 181 0.05 7.82 Y Stubbs, Lou 1314 37th St., 79423 8.00 8.00 136 181 0.05 7.82 Y Underwood 74th & Cedar 18.00 18.00 136 181 0.0517.821Y Whisperwood Median 4th & Whisperwood Median 1 5.00 1 5.0011 4.891 Y 27 590.24 42.69 280.55 4,761 6,340 1.63 274 27 Park Names Location Total Acres Lake Acres Irrigated Acres Flow Demand at 17 gpm (40hrs irrg.) Flow Demand at 22.6 gpm (30hrs irrg.) Irrigation Demand (MGD) Irrigation Demand per Year (MG) Tnstalled es sta Installed Notes Burns 1204 24th St., 79405 3.001 3.00 51 68 0.02 2.93 Canyon Rim Baylor St. & N. Ave N 2.71 2.71 46 61 0.02 2.65 Carter, Clayton 724 E.Queens St., 79403 3.30 3.30 56 75 0.02 3.23 Chatman, J.A. 908 E. 28th St., 79404 3.00 3.00 51 68 0.02 2.93 Comancheria Lake #3 N. Ave U & Erskine St. 163.10 15.00 #1 & #2 2605 Canyon Lake Rd., 79415 164.30 60.00 Davis, A.B. 4102 Nashville Ave, 79414 8.50 8.50 145 192 0.05 8.31 1 TBV Dry Hole Dunbar Historical Lake (#6) 2010 M.L.King Jr. Blvd., 79415 381.70 85.00 88.00 1,496 1989 0.51 86.03 Gateway Plaza Broadway & Ave Q 0.50 0.50 9 11 0.00 0.49 Guadapule 102 N. Ave L., 79415 3.66 3.66 62 83 0.02 3.58 Guadapule Strip 320 N, Ave N. 79415 4.14 4.14 70 94 0.02 4.05 Hinajosa, Barbara 7336 22nd St., 79416 9.00 3.001 51 68 0.02 2.93 McCrummen 2001 19th St., 79411 2.34 0.50 9 11 0.00 0.49 Overton, M.C. 2001 14th St., 79401 2.00 2.00 34 45 0.01 1.96 Rawlings, Copper 213 40th St., 79404 2.50 2.50 43 57 0.01 2.44 Sedberry, Will 903 Guava Ave., 79403 5.00 5.00 85 113 0.03 4.89 Undeveloped Colgate & N. Frankford Ave 11.58 0 0.00 0.00 Vaquero Lake 1-27., Bates St & N Ave Q Dr. 32.92 5.95 26.971 458 610 0.16 26.37 Washington 106 E. 23rd St., 79404 3.50 3.50 60 79 0,021 3.42 Wheelock 12912 40th St., 79413 2.00 2.001 34 45 0,011 1.96 20 808.75 165.95 162.28 2,760 3,668 0.94 159 1 Irrigated Area (acres) Number of Percentage Parks Acres of Total Area Total Irrigated Area 1,486.71 100.00% Phase 1 (11 parks) Irrigated Area 11 127.49 8.58% Phase If (7 parks) Irrigated Area 7 104.33 7.02% Acreage of remaining parks to be test holed (27 parks) 27 368.55 24.79% Irrigated acreage of parks already tested testholed (13 parks) 5 155.58 10.46% Irrigated with other water sources (5 parks) 5 526.48 35.41 % Irrigated acreage of parks which can not be irrigated with GW (24 parks) 24 204.28 13.74% Total Parks Demand (79 parks) 79 1,486.71 100.00% 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 10 — Lubbock's Next Water Supply — Year 2012 — Lake Alan Henry Content a. 2006-07 Preliminary Engineering for Infrastructure b. Original Feasibility Study c. State Water Permit d. Prior and Current Yield information e. 2005 Volumetric study f. 2005 Dam inspection Summary The John T. Montford Dam is located about 60 miles southeast of Lubbock in Kent and Garza Counties. The Dam, which impounds Lake Alan Henry, was developed in cooperation with the Brazos River Authority. Plans for construction were completed and sealed by Freese & Nichols, Inc. on October 19, 1990, and then approved by the Texas Water Commission on November 21, 1990. Construction of the Dam was completed in October 1993, and impoundment of Lake Alan Henry began in November 1993. The dam is a zoned earthfill embankment with a slurry wall cutoff, a maximum height of about 140 feet above the original stream bed, a length of approximately 4,150 feet, a top dam elevation of 2,263 feet mean sea level (ft-msl), and a conservation pool elevation of 2,220 ft-msl. In order to take advantage of Lake Alan Henry as a water supply, a water transmission line, (� water treatment facilities, and related infrastructure must be constructed. The City initiated the Preliminary Engineering for this water transmission line and related infrastructure in August of 2006. The project will include design, sizing and location recommendations for a 60 mile water transmission line, for 2 to 3 pump stations, and for a water treatment facility. In addition, plans to connect the new water source to the City's existing water distribution system will be developed. By about June of 2007, the City will be able to select a route for the water transmission line and locations for the pump stations and water treatment facility. With these locations designated, the City will be ready to acquire right-of-way and property for these portions of the project. Once the Preliminary Engineering is complete, the City will be ready to begin Final Design of the infrastructure improvements. Once final design is complete, the City will be prepared to bid out the project for construction. The goal is to have the project completed by 2012. Lake Alan Henry has a permit to divert and use 35,000 acre-feet of water annually. The original yield for the lake was 32,000 acre-feet of water annually. That amount has reduced to a 2004 projection of 22,500 acre-feet annually. In September of 2005, the Texas Water Development Board completed a volumetric study for Lake Alan Henry and determined that the Lake's volume is actually 18% less than that originally projected. The study indicated that the storage volume of Lake Alan Henry is 94,808 acre-feet instead of the 115,937 acre- feet originally projected. The 2007 safe yield for Lake Alan Henry was estimated by HDR Engineering, Inc. to be 19,000 acre-feet per annum. Because of the decrease in yield projections, the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission has recommended that the City supplement Lake Alan Henry water with water from other sources. Lake Alan Henry water supplies can be supplemented by the use of developed waters originating from storm water and wastewater effluent. 2001 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Since Lake Alan Henry receives its water from the South Fork tributaries of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, one logical alternative is to supplement Lake Alan Henry with waters from the North Fork The additional watershed could help provide additional water supplies that the transmission lime could deliver to Lubbock and area communities. Developed waters of the City could be discharged into either the North Fork or the South Fork to supplement Lake Alan Henry. A North Fork option could be accomplished through the proposed Post Reservoir and would capture both developed storm water and wastewater effluent. A South Fork option would not capture developed storm water since it is discharged into the North Fork Without the addition of an approximately 40 mile pipeline, a South Fork option could only capture about half of the current volumes of wastewater effluent for reuse. III ��� wu � "�' � . � R � �� ""• � � {, x � ` ', '' �.,.�:�,� r Lake Alan Henry Water Resources Project ID O Task Name 2 7 12008 12009 2alo r, t r�tr 2 qtr 3 (hr 4 Qv t t 3 4 tr tr t 1 Preliminary Engineering Services mom + +M ♦ 32 ♦ 4+ 2 Surveying 3 Environmental Permitting 4 Initiate Permitting and Land Acquisition s EasementiLand Acquisition e Pipeline Design Begin Construction s Construction 10 3 Operational Testing Water Treatment Plant 1 Design 13 Equipment Procurement 14 Begin Construction e Construction t6 Operational Testing 1 Startup 18 Project Completion LUBBOCK, TEXAS FEASIBILITY REPORT ON JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR 1978 1. INTRODUCTION I In 1971 Freese and Nichols prepared a Report on Water Supply (1) I for the City of Lubbock, in which the probable long-range water require- ments of the City were projected and potential sources of additional future supply were evaluated. Comparison of several alternative sources led to the recommendation that Lubbock consider development of new surface water supplies from the Post Reservoir site on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Justiceburg Reser- voir Site on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork. It was esti- mated that the two reservoirs, operated in conjunction with a moderate volume of regulating storage at the proposed Canyon Lake 8, could add as much as 80 MGD (million gallons per day) to the peak -day capability of the Lubbock water system and would provide approximately 40,000 acre-feet per year of additional annual yield. Figure 1.1 is a vicinity map, showing the locations of these facilities and their relationship to the City of Lubbock. In May of 1975, Freese and Nichols was asked to prepare a supple- mental report (2), in which the basic findings of the 1971 study were reviewed and up -dated. The 1975 investigation, like the earlier study, indicated the potential of the combined Post-Justiceburg sources. The (1, 2) Numbers in parentheses match references listed in Appendix A. 1.1 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC_ Lubbock County EXISTING FILTER PLANT r r--j ti LUBBOCK� LAKE 8 North Fo_. NEW FILTER PLANT PUMP STATION Crosby County BOOSTER `• PUMP STATION r o„ AF F PUMP STATION POST RESERVOIR i I Dickens County I Kent County PUMP STATION '�►h fit. Fprk F � Oo� Lynn County Garza County •` U.S.G.S. JUSTICEBURG GAGING STATION RESERVOIR 0 5 10 20 SCALE IN MILES LOCATION MAP JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR AND RELATED WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC FIGURE 1.1 report also emphasized the need for field testing of the water quality and for preliminary geotechnical studies, to confirm the basic feasi- bility of the Justiceburg Site. In August of 1975, Lubbock authorized Freese and Nichols to proceed with additional, more detailed studies relating to the Justiceburg pro- ject. At that same time, the City approved a program of field investi- gations on and near the Justiceburg site by Mason -Johnston and Associates, Inc., a firm of geotechnical consultants experienced in dam foundation work. The City also instructed Freese and Nichols to enter into agreement with the U. S. Geological Survey and the Texas Water Development Board for establishment and operation of a chemical quality monitoring station at the U. S. Highway 84 bridge on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork at Justiceburg. The results of the geotechnical and water quality studies are described in this report, along with an evaluation of the reservoir yield in the light of the most recent hydrologic data, plus preliminary design analysis of the dam and spillway. As set forth in the scope of work for the assignment, the items covered include the following: a. Review of the latest available hydrologic data b. Determination of reservoir storage requirements C. Reservoir operation studies and estimates of yield d. Design flood analysis and evaluation of spillway requirements e. Basic dam and spillway design f. Water quality routings. 1.2 I� FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC 11 2. JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR SITE Watershed Characteristics The Justiceburg Reservoir site is located on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River at the eastern edge of Garza County, approximately 60 miles southeast of Lubbock. Figure 2.1 is a map of the watershed and surrounding areas. The watershed is about 35 miles long in a generally east -west direction and varies in width from around 6 miles to as much as 15 miles. The average north -south dimension is about 11 miles. It is predominantly ranch land, with little cultivated agriculture. The topography is rugged, with steep slopes and pronounced relief. Scores of earthen tanks and small ponds are located throughout the watershed, some natural and others man-made. There is a significant amount of oil field activity. Oil wells, oil storage tanks or pipelines are indicated on all of the topographic quadrangle maps for the area. The normal annual rainfall is about 18 inches at the western end of the watershed, increasing to approximately 19 inches at the eastern end. Most of the streams are often dry, and it is not unusual for the main channel of the South Fork itself to go without flow for several months at a time. During periods of significant rainfall (during thunderstorms, for example), the runoff rates tend to be relatively high. In the 17-year span of flow records at the Justiceburg gaging station, a flood peak of nearly 50,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) has been observed on one occasion (May 1969), and floods of more than 30,000 cfs have occurred several times. Based on high water marks observed at Justiceburg in 1955, before the U.S.G.S. station was established, it is 2.1 -REESE AND NICHOLS, INC 70 M IV 0 + Nurnerou 2 small term ant 4. MAP OF THE lose C Tt-y 2962 Ro T CONTRIBUTING WATERSHED 4- V., Wind II o: OF THE 2407 JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR SITE rah rass a cL -4 z 2 + Windmills 0.1 Z Oil I . v �- f.:-4 > I - DAM Field oil L SITE 0 owi 4- U. S. G. S. STREAM FLOW r mills azy]S R& Oil N R QUALITY -�ch 4 k 55 N N—"., Oi 2," .,AND WATE Y462 R N �A 9,00 Fold Ranc 'WATERSHED GAGING STATION o 4- do !la 0 A dc Oil I -k i5�3 7 z - 95 41 T ) IN 1101 1>' 1 669 'j -fjlz A- TOF� ur L L 0 0 RRY F-2 7. -17 00 DIEN p"M � opm WindmllQ:; 00 y1i '17PIZ. 0 2870 ) 7 11, rd ,11. : �fq / '. . 0 NO o 0 00 0 00 0 2702 0 00 T71 \ I b z 2600 0 1 *0 0 10 IN= Scale In Miles C wn known that a flood peak in September of that year reached a level six feet above the flood of May 1969, which would indicate a flow considerably in excess of 50,000 cfs. Thus, the stream often experiences low flow or no flow at all but is also subject to unusually heavy runoff intensities when there is storm rainfall. There is normally very little runoff during the six months from November through April, and there is generally heavy runoff in one or more of the other six months of the year. May is the most probable month of high runoff amounts. Water quality measurements at the Justiceburg gaging station indi- cate significant amounts of oil field brine contamination during times of low runoff. Dissolved chemical concentrations observed at the gage vary widely with the rate of flow, ranging from good quality conditions for high flows to poor quality when the flow is small. The analyses show sodium chloride to be the main dissolved chemical component. Because of its obvious importance when related to a potential source of municipal supply, the question of water quality has received close attention in the present investigation. Section 4 of this report deals with water quality in further detail. Geotechnical Investigation and Site Selection A program of core borings was begun by Mason -Johnston and Associates in the summer of 1976, to evaluate the suitability of foundation con- ditions for construction of a dam. The borings were not restricted to a single location, but instead covered three potential sites along the channel of the stream. Two initial borings were made in July 1976 at a point designated as Site 5, close to where the South Fork flows from 2.2 FREESE AND NICHOLS, IN( Garza County into Kent County. Site 5 had been the preferred choice at the time of the 1971 study (1) and was the basis of the preliminary evaluations done at that time. In the first borings, gypsum deposits were encountered at elevations which made the site obviously undesirable, and further exploration was not thought to be justified at Site 5. Early in August 1976, the exploratory work was moved upstream to a point identified as Site 4A, where three more borings were made. Gypsum deposits were also encountered at Site 4A, but in that instance they were at a greater depth below the stream bed, and it was concluded that they would be less of a problem than would the gypsum layers found at Site 5. On the other hand, portions of the canyon walls at Site 4A were found to consist of a pervious formation of sand, sandstone, shale and gravel, in which it would be relatively difficult to prevent loss of water due to seepage. In a report on the initial series of borings (3), Mason -Johnston and Associates described the results and projected the probable subsurface conditions at a third location, identified as Site 6, located between Site 5 and Site 4A at the point where Grape Creek flows into the South Fork. It was tentatively con- cluded from correlation of the data obtained at Sites 4A and 5 that Site 6 might have a suitable depth of cover over the soluble gypsum deposits beneath the stream bed and at the same time might have im- pervious abutments to a height sufficient to avoid serious seepage problems. In the report, Mason -Johnston stated: "Considering the anticipated problems that could evolve from the pervious caprock and the soluble gypsum deposits, it appears that selection of Site 6 is the only viable alternative. It is therefore recommended that a core 2.3 -REESE AND NICHOLS, INC boring program be undertaken to prove the subsurface conditions at Site No. 6." The additional exploration was approved by the City of Lubbock, and in December of 1976 Mason -Johnston made four core borings at Site 6, followed by a group of seven auger borings to evaluate the quality of embankment materials available within the reservoir area. Infiltration tests were made at intervals during the core borings. Core samples were collected in the field and later tested for strength and other engi- neering characteristics in the Mason -Johnston laboratory. Preliminary analyses of embankment stability and potential seepage loss were made, based on the results of the field and laboratory testing. Two of the core borings at Site 6 were in the bottom of the canyon, along the banks of the stream. One of these (Boring No. 2).may have coin- cided with a refilled former channel, since it reflected sand to a depth of 60 feet. No clear-cut gypsum formations were encountered in the total depth of 85 feet in Boring No. 2. The other boring in the valley bottom (Boring No. 3) encountered gypsum at a depth of 53 feet, or approxi- mately 45 feet below the top of the primary geologic strata at that location. Borings No. 1 and No. 4 were on the abutments at either side of the canyon. In those holes, the more pervious materials similar to those encountered at Site 4A were found to extend down to elevations slightly above elevation 2220, which is the level shown herein as the recommended top of conservation storage. The final report of Mason -Johnston and Associates on the initial geotechnical work at Site 6 (4) is reproduced in full as Appendix B to this report. The Mason -Johnston study concluded that Site 6 is 2.4 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC acceptable for the proposed dam construction. It also emphasized the requirement for more detailed geotechnical exploration during design, to obtain better definition of matters such as the required depth of cutoff trench and the best sources of embankment materials. On the basis of the results of the geotechnical work, the choice was narrowed to Site 6, and the other alternative sites were not given further consideration. Throughout this report, references to the Justice - burg Reservoir or the Justiceburg Dam should be understood as relating to Site 6 unless specifically indicated otherwise. Figure 2.2 is a layout map of the dam and reservoir at this site. Area and Capacity Characteristics The surface area acreage and storage capacity characteristics of the Justiceburg Reservoir site are summarized in Table 2.1 and shown graphically in Figure 2.3. These values were derived by planimeter measurements from U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle maps entitled Justiceburg and Justiceburg SE, which have a scale of one inch to 2,000 feet and a contour interval of 20 feet. Due to the steep canyon walls, the water surface area will be unusually small in relationship to the storage volume. This condition makes the reservoir site hydrologically efficient, in the sense that it results in a low rate of surface evaporation loss per acre-foot of storage. Because of the permeable materials in the upper levels of the abut- ments, with the associated problems of seepage control, it was concluded that the highest feasible level of normal conservation storage is about elevation 2220. At that elevation, the storage volume of the lake 2.5 II FREESE AND NICHOLS. INC. 11 MAP OF THE U.S.G. S. STREAM FLOW JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR SITE AND WATER QUALITY• GAGING STATION y x........ /k. ............... N v T. Vx " v Al t4ORI L WATER LEVEL j & ELEVATION 2220.0 4 Mks`X- J- -F 4; T,,� SCALE IN FEET 0 rJ MLLWAY FIGURE 2.2 Table 2.1 Justiceburg Reservoir Area and Capacity Characteristics Elev. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2110 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 16 19 Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26 Ac-Ft 2120 22 27 32 39 46 50 54 69 84 96 Acres 46 71 100 136 178 226 278 340 416 506 Ac-Ft 2130 108 119 129 145 161 176 191 202 213 233 Acres 608 721 845 982 1,135 1,304 1,487 1,684 1,891 2,164 Ac-Ft 2140 253 279 305 329 353 377 400 426 452 479 Acres 2,407 2,673 2,965 3,282 3,623 3,988 4,377 4,790 5,229 5,694 Ac-Ft 2150 506 530 554 578 602 630 659 687 714 739 Acres 6,187 6,705 7,247 7,813 8,403 9,019 9,663 10,336 11,037 11,763 Ac-Ft 2160 765 789 813 842 870 901 932 964 996 1,021 Acres 12,515 13,292 14,093 14,921 15,777 16,662 15,579 18,527 19,507 20,515 Ac-Ft 2170 1,046 1,074 1,102 1,131 1,160 1,186 1,212 1,242 1,272 1,301 Acres 21,549 22,609 23,697 24,813 25,959 27,132 28,331 29,558 30,815 32,101 Ac-Ft 2180 1,330 1,367 1,404 1,437 1,471 1,506 1,541 1,577 1,612 1,647 Acres 33,417 34,765 36,151 37,571 39,025 40,514 42,037 43,596 45,191 46,820 Ac-Ft 2190 1,682 1,716 1,751 1,786 1,820 1,855 1,891 1,928 1,965 2,005 Acres 48,485 50,184 51,917 53,686 55,489 57,326- 59,199 61,109 63,055 65,040 Ac-Ft I Table 2.1 (Continued) Elev. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2200 2,045 2,080 2,114 2,151 2,188 2,232 2,276 2,315 2,355 2,396 Acres 67,065 69,128 71,225 73,357 75,527 77,737 79,991 82,286 84,621 86,997 Ac-Ft 2210 2,437 2,473 2,509 2,559 2,608 2,654 2,700 2,742 2,784 2,834 Acres 89,414 91,869 94,360 96,894 99,477 102,108 104,785 107,506 110,269 113,078 Ac-Ft 2220 2,884 2,950 3,017 3,075 3,133 3,197 3,261 3,340 3,418 3,504 Acres 115,937 118,854 121,838 124,884 127,988 131,153 134,382 137,683 141,062 144,523 Ac-Ft 2230 3,589 3,676 3,763 3,869 3,975 4,094 4,214 4,338 4,461 4,622 Acres a m m 148,069 151,702 155,421 159,237 163,159 167,194 171,348 175,624 180,024 184,565 Ac-Ft N m 2240 0 4,784 Acres 189,268 Ac-Ft 0 r N 2 n vim. 1 N V JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR SITE AREA AND CAPACITY CHARACTERISTICS SURFACE AREA IN 1,000 ACRES 5 4 3 2 1 0 2250 a 0 J N 2200 m m m � z w o w CAPACITY would be 115,937 acre-feet, and the surface area would be 2,884 acres. Contributing Drainage Area The contributing drainage area at the site is 394 square miles, based on measurements from topographic quadrangle maps of the U. S. Geological Survey and the published value for the contributing area above the U.S.G.S. gaging station at Justiceburg (5). In addition to the con- tributing watershed, there is a non-contributing area in excess of 1,200 square miles which is technically part of the South Fork drainage but which lies above the Caprock, on the High Plains. Except on some lands immediately adjoining the rim of the Caprock, nearly all surface runoff originating on the High Plains is caught and held by local playa lakes, and little or no flow from this region can be expected to reach the Justiceburg Reservoir. The contributing area was delineated on the U.S.G.S. topographic maps, and the size of the area was determined by planimeter measurements. The value (244 square miles) which the Geological Survey gives for the net area contributing runoff to the Justiceburg gaging station (5) was found to be in close agreement with the independent measurements and was therefore adopted for use in the analysis. The additional contri- buting area between the Justiceburg gage and the dam site was measured as 150 square miles. This amount, added to the 244 square miles above the gaging station, resulted in the total of 394 square miles for the Justiceburg Reservoir. For purposes of evaluating the water supply yield of the project, only this contributing area was counted, and it was assumed that no runoff would be derived from the larger, non-con- tributing area above the Caprock. -REESE AND NICHOLS, INC Runoff Estimates of historical runoff experienced at the proposed dam site during the years 1940 through 1978 were derived from the recorded stream flows on the Double Mountain Fork as collected and published by the U. S. Geological Survey (5). The methodology and criteria of the runoff esti- mates are explained more fully in Appendix C. Since November of 1961, the U.S.G.S has made continuous measurements of flows on the South Fork at Justiceburg, and those records constitute the primary data for evaluating the historical runoff at the reservoir site. For a number of years before installation of the Justiceburg gage, records were kept at another station, on the Double Mountain Fork near Aspermont, which is also still in service at the present time. Through correlation of the records at the Justiceburg and Aspermont stations during years when both have been in operation concurrently, it was possible to develop relationships for estimating the Justiceburg Reservoir inflows during the earlier years (1940-1961) based on the Aspermont gage flows. Runoff data are also available for the Colorado River watershed above Lake J. B. Thomas, which adjoins the Justiceburg watershed to the south. Comparisons of flows estimated for the two drainage areas showed close correspondence of the relative amounts of runoff during the period since the Justiceburg gage went into service and during the drouth period of the 1950's, which is the critical period of record for many areas of the State. This agreement with flows derived independently from a different set of gaging station records on the neighboring watershed served as a good check of the over-all validity of the Justiceburg estimates for the period before the U.S.G.S. started stream 2.9 LFREESE AND MCHOLS, INC i) flow measurements at the Justiceburg gage. The average amount of runoff at the Justiceburg Reservoir site during the 39-year period from 1940 through 1978 was 47,012-acre-feet per year. The minimum estimated flow in any calendar year was 7,620 acre-feet, in 1956. The maximum was 213,410 acre-feet, in 1940. It was found that the critical drouth conditions for the site were not in the earlier drouth period but in recent years, from October 1972 through April 1978. The average rate of runoff in that interval of time was 13,536 acre-feet per year, or about 29% of the long-term average rate of flow. The fact that the critical period of record falls in the years 1972 through 1978 is significant for several reasons. First, it means that the definitive drouth conditions for purposes of predicting the dependable yield occurred after the Justiceburg gaging station was in service, and thus the yield estimates are based on the most reliable part of the body of runoff data. Also, it points up the importance of continued collection of data at the Justiceburg gage. Probably as late as one year ago, it would not have been apparent from available information that conditions other than those of the 1940's and 1950's would be critical. And, finally, the very recent critical drouth will include and reflect any basic changes in the runoff characteristics of the watershed that may have taken place over the years. Future Runoff Depletions It is generally recognized that ongoing soil and water conservation programs on farms and ranches in some areas of Texas can be expected to have corollary effects on the normal runoff characteristics of the land. 2.10 'REESE AND NICHOLS, INC On many West Texas streams, including the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos, the predicted impact of modern agricultural practices is to produce a modest but noticeable decrease in the volume of runoff resulting from a given amount of rainfall. The most authori- tative investigation of this relationship was made by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the work of the U. S. Study Commission for Texas in the 1960's (6). In that analysis, it was indicated that the Double Mountain Fork watershed would experience runoff depletions aver- aging approximately 10.3 acre-feet per year per square mile as of the year 1975 (i.e., the annual runoff per square mile as of 1975 would average that much less than it would have under totally natural con- ditions, uninfluenced by the works of man), and the process of change was predicted to continue through the year 2010. The incremental de- pletions between 1975 and 2010 were estimated at 4.0 acre-feet per year per square mile, leading to aggregate depletions of 14.3 acre-feet per square mile per year as of 2010 when contrasted with completely natural conditions. As mentioned previously, the critical drouth period of record was found to have occurred from 1972 through 1978, and the year 1975 was approximately the midpoint of the critical period. Thus, from the standpoint of dependable reservoir yield, any runoff depletions ex- perienced prior to 1975 were reflected in the historical runoff as actually observed at the Justiceburg gaging station. Depletions subse- quent to 1975 should be allowed for in predicting future yields through the year 2010 or later. Based on Reference (6), the potential runoff depletion effect after 1975 for a drainage area of 394 square miles in 2.11 I' FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. II this area would be approximately 1,600 acre-feet per year. Evaporation Monthly depths of net evaporation loss from the reservoir surface were derived from Texas Water Development Board Report 64, which is a compilation of historical net evaporation values throughout the State (7). Although the original Water Development Board study covered only the period from 1940 through 1965, data for the next ten years (1966- 1975) have subsequently been prepared as supplemental material, available from the Board in the form of computer printouts. For the most recent years, beginning with 1976, the evaporation estimates for this study were based on published records of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station System (8). Details of the net evaporation estimates are given in Appendix C, along with a tabulation of the resulting monthly quantities. The average annual depth of net evaporation loss from a reservoir at the Justiceburg site would be approximately 4.57 feet, and yearly extremes would range from as little as 1.71 feet to as much as 7.44 feet, based on the historical conditions for the 39 years from 1940 through 1978. Sedimentation Most of the contributing watershed of the Justiceburg Reservoir lies in the region known as the rolling plains. The silt content of runoff from this land resource area tends to be relatively high, and significant amounts of sediment would be deposited in the reservoir due to impoundment of the runoff. Bulletin 5912 of the Texas Board of Water Engineers (9) is a study of rates of siltation in Texas, prepared by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, giving probable sedimentation 2.12 -REESE AND NICHOLS, INC rates in acre-feet per year per square mile of drainage area for water- sheds of various sizes throughout the State. For an area of 394 square miles on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork, the predicted long- range average rate of siltation is 494 acre-feet per year. Over a period of 50 years, that rate of sediment accumulation would diminish the reservoir storage capacity by 24,700 acre-feet. Conflicts There are few existing man-made improvements in the proposed reser- voir area. Several oil wells would be inundated by the lake and would need to be raised above the water level. There are apparently no houses or other structures which would be affected. A few unimproved dirt roads pass through the canyon and cross the streams within the reservoir. There is one 8-inch oil pipeline which crosses the South Fork immediately downstream from the dam and cuts through the south abutment in the area which would be used for the spillways. The pipeline will need to be lowered and protected. Other than the oil wells and the pipeline, there are no known conflicts which would require adjustment or involve added cost. 2.13 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. iI 3. RESERVOIR YIELD The runoff and evaporation data described in the preceding section were used as input for a series of computer simulations of reservoir performance with varying rates of water supply withdrawal. Basically, the computer runs fell into two categories: (a) studies in which the demand rate remained the same regardless of reservoir content and (b) studies which assumed a variable demand, depending on the amount of water stored in the lake from month to month. Most of the analyses were of the first type, in which the annual rate of withdrawal remained con- stant throughout the study period for each individual computer run. The results of these simulations are summarized in Appendix D. They are also presented graphically in Figure 3.1, which is a plot showing the minimum reservoir storage content amounts that would have been experienced historically for a range of demand rates at the Justiceburg site with a conservation capacity of 115,937 acre-feet. From Figure 3.1 it is possible to determine how the proposed reservoir at the Justiceburg site would have performed if it had been in operation from 1940 through 1978 and if the water supply demand had been any given amount from zero up to the rate of withdrawal which would have emptied the reservoir at the low point of the critical drouth of record. Similar analyses were also made for other capacities over a span from 50,000 acre-feet to 130,000 acre-feet. The results of these studies for other reservoir sizes are summarized in Table D-1 of Appendix D. Depending on a number of factors, it is often prudent to assume that a water supply reservoir would not be emptied completely, even 3.1 FREESE AND NICHOLS, IN( JUSTICEBURG RESERVOIR YIELD CHARACTERISTICS 30 25 Q W a_ L- W W Q 15 W U Q 0 O O 0 10 Q Lu 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 MINIMUM CONTENTS — 1.000 ACRE-FEET FREESE AND NICHOLS� INC. Analysis based on the initial area and capacity characteristics of the reservoir and historical hydrologic conditions for the years 1940-1978 FIGURE 3.1 during a critical drouth, but that there would always be some water left in storage. This approach makes allowance for the fact that it is generally difficult to remove the last few acre-feet from the bottom of the lake and also recognizes the possible deterioration of water quality that may occur when the content falls close to zero. In cases where complete dependability of the supply is an important factor, a moderate volume of storage might also be assumed to remain in storage at the point of maximum drawdown as a factor of safety, to cover the possible occurrence of future drouth conditions more severe than any reflected in the available records. For the Justiceburg project, such safety factor is not necessary, however, because Lubbock has the backup of a major ground water source. The computer model studies show how the lake would have behaved during the worst drouth of the last 40 years. In the event of still worse drouth conditions at some future date, Lubbock would be able to increase ground water pumpage from the Sand Hills well field on a temporary basis in order to relieve part of the load on the surface water system. Table 3.1 reflects the estimated yields of the Justiceburg Reservoir with various storage capacities, before siltation. Yields are shown based on complete use of the storage and also for drawdown to a minimum content of 2,000 acre-feet. The complete drawdown criterion is generally the basis on which yields are evaluated by the Texas Department of Water Resources for purposes of determining water rights. The assumption that approximately 2,000 acre-feet would be left unused in the bottom of the lake corresponds more closely to what might be expected in actual operation of the project. At that point, based on the initial area and 3.2 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC C, Table 3.1 Estimated Yields of the Justiceburg Reservoir For Various Storage Capacity Volumes Reservoir Yield With Yield With Minimum Capacity Complete Drawdown Content of 2,000 Ac-Ft Ac-Ft (Ac-Ft/Yr) (Ac-Ft/Yr) 50,000 17,800 17,300 60,000 19,100 .18,600 70,000 20,500 20,000 90,000 23,000 22,500 110,000 25,800 25,300 130,000 27,900 27,500 capacity characteristics before sedimentation, the remaining water would be approximately 22 feet deep at the dam. Throughout most of the range of capacities in Table 3.1, the yield of the project is shown to increase steadily with increasing storage volume. For each additional 1,000 acre-feet of storage, there is a gain in yield of approximately 135 acre-feet per year, up to a capacity of about 120,000 acre-feet. Beyond that point, there is noticeably less benefit from additional capacity. From the standpoint of project yield, there would be justification for a capacity of 120,000 acre-feet plus allowance of 24,700 acre-feet for 50 years of sedimentation, or a total of 144,700 acre-feet. Due to the geologic conditions, as mentioned previously, it may not be feasible to impound water above about elevation 2220, at which level the initial capacity before sedimentation would be 115,937 acre-feet. Judging from the initial core borings at the site (4), it apparently 3.3 -REESE AND NICHOLS, IN( would be difficult to avoid undue seepage losses through the relatively porous formations in the abutments at higher elevations. Based on the preliminary geotechnical and hydraulic results, it was concluded that elevation 2220 is the highest feasible conservation level at the Justice - burg site and that 115,937 acre-feet is the optimum capacity that can be developed when all factors are considered. Table 3.2 is a summary of an operation study for the Justiceburg Reservoir with a capacity of 115,937 acre-feet and a demand of 26,100 acre-feet per year, based on the 39 years of historical hydrologic con- ditions from 1940 through 1978. In order to make the results more readily understandable, the summary is presented in terms of annual totals, although the computer studies were carried out in one -month time incre- ments. The full printout of this particular run is also reproduced in Appendix D, as an example of the details of the computer analyses. The critical drouth period was found to extend from October 1972 through April of 1978. The minimum reservoir content, at the end of April 1978, was 2,162 acre-feet, which corresponds to about elevation 2139. In actual operation of the Justiceburg project, Lubbock would be able to take water from the lake on an overdraft basis much of the time, using the surface water supply in excess of the firm yield rate. That mode of operation would make maximum use of the renewable surface water resource while conserving as much as possible of the non-renewable ground water supply from the Sand Hills well field. During critically dry years, when the surface reservoirs are at lower levels, the ground water use can be increased temporarily to ease the demand on the surface system. Since the drouth conditions are experienced only occasionally, the overdraft 3.4 =REESE AND NICHOL5, INC Table 3.2 Summary of Justiceburg Reservoir Operation Study With Constant Annual Withdrawal Rate - Quantities in Acre -Feet - Evapora- Demandl Inflow Spills End -of -Year Loss Content Start 115,937 1940 13,768 26,100 34,200 0 110,269 1941 4,887 26,100 213,410 178,845 113,847 1942 9,460 26,100 41,360 6,485 113,162 1943 13,997 26,100 12,570 0 85,635 1944 8,349 26,100 13,400 0 64,586 1945 8,627 26,100 30,170 0 60,029 1946 8,432 26,100 29,670 0 55,167 1947 11,549 26,100 55,470 0 72,988 1948 12,214 26,100 40,310 0 74,984 1949 7,612 26,100 35,260 0 76,532 1950 10,365 26,100 52,310 0 92,377 1951 12,618 26,100 18,660 0 72,319 1952 12,190 26,100 8,030 0 42,059 1953 8,469 26,100 37,690 0 45,180 1954 13,015 26,100 50,670 0 56,735 1955 13,543 26,100 197,380 104,219 110,253 1956 18,434 26,100 7,620 0 73,339 1957 10,739 26,100 120,470 44,035 112,935 1958 10,393 26,100 27,760 3,452 100,750 1959 11,328 26,100 77,130 27,365 113,087 1960 9,694 26,100 99,390 63,375 113,308 1961 10,073 26,100 65,690 38,590 104,235 1962 11,131 26,100 52,610 11,422 108,192 1963 11,715 26,100 57,660 28,298 99,739 1964 12,607 26,100 10,180 0 71,212 1965 10,715 26,100 42,680 0 77,077 1966 7,506 26,100 19,900 0 63,371 1967 9,823 26,100 83,180 6,065 104,563 1968 7,478 26,100 14,550 0 85,535 1969 7,936 26,100 74,660 13,057 113,102 1970 13,176 26,100 16,720 0 90,546 1971 10,738 26,100 37,350 0 91,058 1972 9,152 26,100 55,360 2,503 108,663 1973 12,230 26,100 10,000 0 80,333 1974 9,987 26,100 9,630 0 53,876 1975 7,246 26,100 22,570 0 43,100 1976 5,765 26,100 15,650 0 26,885 1977 5,147 26,100 15,740 0 11,378 1978 3,092 26,100 26,390 0 8,576 Avg. 10,133 26,100 47,012 13,531 Note: Minimum content = 2,162 acre-feet, at end of April 1978. 3.5 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. operation would lead to an appreciable over-all gain in the amount of surface water supplied and a corresponding saving in total ground water pumpage. The fact that the system is based on a combination of signi- ficant amounts of both surface water and ground water makes it feasible to operate in that manner, taking full advantage of the surface supply and extending the useful life of the well field. Lubbock has followed a comparable procedure in recent years with respect to the Canadian River supply, utilizing as much as possible of the Lake Meredith water so as to lighten the load on the Sand Hills, and the same basic approach would be indicated for the Justiceburg Reservoir. Table 3.3 shows a summary of one possible mode of overdraft oper- ation, in which the rate of withdrawal was raised to 35,000 acre-feet per year when the lake contained more than 60,000 acre-feet of storage. Between 60,000 and 30,000 acre-feet of lake content, the demand was at the rate of 25,000 acre-feet per year. And, below 30,000 acre-feet of storage content, the demand was decreased to 20,000 acre-feet per year. It can be seen that during 30 of the 39 years of the study period it would have been possible to take water from the reservoir at an average rate greater than the 26,100 acre-feet per year dependable yield. In four other years (1945, 1946, 1956 and 1974), the supply would have been very little less than 26,100 acre-feet. Only i,n five years (1953, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978) out of the 39-year period would the available supply have fallen below 90% of the firm yield amount. The average supply made available for the 39 years under this method of operation would be 30,209 acre-feet per year, about 16% more than the firm yield rate of 26,100 acre-feet per year. Table 3.4 is a comparison of the 3.6 =REESE AND NICHOLS, INC r� Table 3.3 Summary of Justiceburg Reservoir Operation Study With Variable Demand Based on Reservoir Content - Quantities in Acre -Feet - Evapora- Demand Inflow Spills End -of -Year Loss Content Start 115,937 1940 13,393 35,000 34,200 0 101,744 1941 4,831 35,000 213,410 162,991 112,332 1942 9,182 35,000 41,360 0 109,510 1943 13,284 35,000 12,570 0 73,796 1944 7,267 30,810 13,400 0 49,119 1945 7,232 25,000 30,170 0 47,057 1946 7,089 25,000 29,670 0 44,638 1947 10,471 30,020 55,470 0 59,617 1948 10,885 29,200 40,310 0 59,842 1949 6,650 30,050 35,260 0 58,402 1950 8,892 30,870 52,310 0 70,950 1951 10,309 29,960 18,660 0 49,341 1952 9,207 24,170 8,030 0 23,994 1953 6,289 20,840 37,690 0 34,555 1954 11,696 26,690 50,670 0 46,839 1955 13,032 30,870 197,380 91,572 108,745 1956 17,670 35,000 7,620 0 63,695 1957 10,514 34,180 120,470 28,131 111,340 1958 10,164 35,000 27,760 0 93,936 1959 11,044 35,000 77,130 15,637 109,385 1960 9,495 35,000 99,390 52,489 111,791 1961 9,935 35,000 65,690 32,025 100,521 1962. 10,692 35,000 52,610 1,505 105,934 1963 11,537 35,000 57,660 21,739 95,318 1964 11,797 35,000 10,180 0 58,701 1965 9,570 30,870 42,680 0 60,941 1966 6,381 27,530 19,900 0 46,930 1967 8,809 30,050 83,180 0 91,251 1968 6,546 35,000 14,550 0 64,255 1969 6,836 32,480 74,660 0 99,599 1970 11,699 35,000 16,720 0 69,620 1971 8,882 29,990 37,350 0 68,098 1972 7,575 30,810 55,360 0 85,073 1973 9,872 33,330 10,000 0 51,871 1974 7,223 25,000 9,630 0 29,278 1975 5,067 20,420 22,570 0 26,361 1976 4,381 20,000 15,650 0 17,630 1977 4,324 20,000 15,740 0 9,046 1978 3,210 20,000 26,390 0 12,226 Avg. 9,049 30,209 47,012 10,413 Note: Minimum content = 1,927 acre-feet, at end of April 1978. 3.7 F EESE AND NICHOLS, INC. Table 3.4 Comparison of Firm Yield Operation and Overdraft Operation - Values in Acre -Feet per Year - Firm Yield Overdraft Operation Operation Annual withdrawals: Maximum; 26,100 60 ��,?�35 000 Minimum 41 26,100 20,000 Average 26,100 30,209 Average evaporative loss: Average annual spills: 10,133 13,531 9,049 10,413 firm yield and overdraft runs, showing the gain in usable supply and its relationship to the corresponding decreases in evaporative loss and spills due to use of the extra water made available in years of normal or above -normal runoff. Obviously, there are many different combinations of operating rules which might reasonably be adopted for operation in the variable -demand mode. The rules governing the relationship of demand to reservoir con- tent which were followed in the study shown by Table 3.3 are not unique, and a number of other sets of similar guidelines might well be equally suitable or perhaps even more effective. The method of operation shown here is generally representative of the potential benefits available from a realistic amount of overdraft demand, and it should be viewed as a typical example rather than the only possible option. Table 3.5 shows the estimated firm yields and the potential supply available from operation with variable rates of demand (a) when the reser- voir is first filled and (b) after 50 years of siltation. Allowance is also made in the 50-year values for the predicted impact of future soil ME =REESE AND NICHOLS, !NC Table 3.5 Estimated Amounts of Water Supply Yield Available From the Justiceburq Reservoir Initial firm yield Acre -Feet per Year Equivalent MGD 26,100 23.3 Initial average yield available from variable -demand operation 30,200 26.9 Firm yield after 50 years of siltation and after estimated future runoff depletions 20,600 18.4 Average yield available from variable - demand operation after 50 years of siltation and after estimated future runoff depletions 27,000 24.1 Note: All quantities are reounded to the nearest 100 acre-feet per year and the nearest 0.1 MGD. and water conservation activities on the watershed, which are expected to deplete the average annual runoff by about 1,600 acre-feet per year. One point of uncertainty should be noted with respect to the yield values shown in the tables of this section. It is possible that the critical drouth could extend into 1979 or later, depending on what rain- fall and runoff events occur in the next few months. Based on data available to date, the critical period ended in April of 1978, and there was enough runoff in May and subsequent months to refill the lake to a moderate extent. If there is a normal amount of runoff in 1979, the critical drouth period would not be extended. On the other hand, failure to experience the usual volumes of runoff next spring could cause a lengthening of the critical period and thus a decrease in the firm yield values. The average amounts of supply estimated to be available from 3.9 FREESE AND NICHDLS. INC operation in the variable -demand mode would also be affected if 1979 should prove to be a year of low runoff. However, the variable -demand yields are, in effect, the average results over the full period of 1 II hydrologic records, and they would not be changed as noticeably as would the firm yield estimates due to the occurrence of another dry year in 1979. 3.10 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. Kathleen Hartnett White, Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Glenn Shankle, Executive Director TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution December 19, 2005 r-ZECEIVED Mr. Ches Carthel, Chief Engineer City of Lubbock UtL 2 3 2005 P. O. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 7945.1 EY: _ Re: Permit No. 4146A (Application No. 4155A) Impoundment of 115,937 acre-feet of water in Lake Alan Henry on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River for (1) non -consumptive recreational purposes in Garza and Kent Counties and (2) diversion from said lake and use of 35,000 acre-feet of water per annum for municipal purposes and secondary use of 21,000 acre-feet of said 35,000 acre-feet of water per annum for irrigation of 10,000 acres in Lubbock and Lynn Counties, Brazos River Basin, Texas Dear Mr. Carthel: Based on an Agreement To Transfer Lake Alan Henry dated July 14, 2005; and Deed And Assignment Without Warranty And Bill Of Sale dated August 16, 2005 submitted by Messrs. Timothy W. Jahn and Mike McClendon of Brazos River Authority along with the Change of Ownership form and the related $100.00 fee, we are changing our records to reflect the City of Lubbock, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, as the owner of the referenced permit. If we can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, • Mohan A. Reddy Water Rights Permitting & Availability Section --MC 160--(Please use this code as part of my address) Water Supply Division 512/239-4611 cc: Mr. Mike McClendon Government & Customer Relations Manager 4600 Cobbs Drive P. O. Box 7555 C, Waco, Texas 76714-7555 P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512/239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us PERMIT TO ' APPROPRIATE STATE WATER APPLICATION NO. 4155 PERMIT NO. 4146 TYPE: Section 11.121 Permittee City of Lubbock Address P. O. Box 2000 Lubbock, Texas 79457 Received August 21, 1981 Granted August 6, 1984 Watercourse: South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, tributary of the Brazos River Filed October 5, 1981 Counties : Lubbock, Lynn, Garza and Kent Watershed: Brazos River Basin WHEREAS, the Texas Water Commission finds that jurisdiction of the application is. established; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held and specific findings of fact and conclusions of .law were adopted in the form of a Commission order, as required by law; NOW, THEREFORE, this permit to appropriate and use State water is issued to City of Lubbock, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. IMPOUNDMENT Permittee is authorized to construct, and before acquiring any rights hereunder shall construct, a dam and reservoir on the South Fork of the .Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and impound therein not,to exceed 125,937 acre-feet of water. The dam and spillways will be located in the Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company Survey No. 55, Abstract No.,120, Kent County,. and Abstract No. 810, Garza County; Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company Survey No.. 57, Abstract No. 121, Kent County, and Abstract No. 811, Garza County; H. T. Cornelius Survey No. 5.6, Abstract No. 466, Kent County, and Abstract No. .802, Garza County; Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company Survey No. 69., Abstract No. 57, Garza County and Will Williams Survey No. 70, Abstract No. 988, Garza County, Texas. Station 0+00 on the centerline of the dam will be S 29° 30' W, 5000 feet from the northwest corner of the Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company Survey No. 55, Abstract No. 120, Kent County, and Abstract No. 810, Garza County, Texas. 2. USE (a) Permittee is authorized to divert and use not to exceed 35,000 acre-feet of water per annum from the reservoir for municipal purposes. (b) Permittee is authorized to make secondary use of not to exceed 21,000 acre-feet of water per annum (treated sewage effluent) out of the maximum 35,000 acre-feet of water diverted for municipal purposes to irrigate 10,000 acres of land in Lubbock and Lynn Counties, Texas. (c) Permittee is authorized to use the impounded water for nonconsumptive recreational purposes. Page 1 of 2 (d) Permittee is authorized to divert and use not to exce 200 acre-feet of water per annum for five years from � South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos Ri`=' for construction of the dam and reservoir. 3. DIVERSION (a) Point of Diversion: On the north shore of the reservoir, at a point S 430 W, 6500 feet from the northwest corner of the Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company Survey No. 55, Abstract No. 120, Kent County, and Abstract No. 810, Garza County, Texas. (b) Maximum Rate: 69.6 cfs (31,200 gpm). 4. TIME LIMITATIONS Construction of the dam and related facilities herein authorized shall be in accordance with plans approved by the Executive Director and shall be commenced within two years and completed within five years from the date of issuance of this permit. Failure to commence and/or complete construction of the dam and related facilities within the period stated shall cause this permit to expire and become null and void, unless permittee applies for an extension of time to commence and/or complete construction prior to the respective. deadlines for commence and completion, and the application is subsequently granted. This permit is issued subject to all superior and senior water rights in the Brazos River Basin. Permittee agrees to be bound by the terms, conditions and provisions contained herein and .such agreement is a conditi( precedent to the granting of this permit. ` All other .matters requested in the application which are not specifically granted by this permit are denied. This permit is issued subject to the Rules of the Texas Department of Water Resources and to the right of continual supervision of State water resources exercised by the Department, Date Issued: September 25, 1984 Attest: /s/ Mary Ann Hefner Mary Ann Hefner, Chief Clerk TEXAS WATER COMMISSION /s/ Paul Hopkins Paul Hopkins, Chairman _s/ Lee B. M. Biggart Lee B. M. Szggart, Commissioner /s/ Ralph Roming Ralph Roming, Commissioner Page 2 of 2 Yield History for Lake Alan Henry City of Lubbock July 13, 2007 2007 — HDR - Safe Yield—19,000 AF 2007 — HDR - Firm Yield — 22,200 AF 2004 — Feese and Nichols — Average Yield - 22,200 AF (maintain minimum elevation of 2,185) 2003 — Freese and Nichols — Firm Yield - 22,500 AF 2003 — Freese and Nichols — Maintain Recreation Level Yield - 16,500 AF 1992 — Geraghty & Miller, Inc. — Firm Yield — 27,400 AF 1984 — State of Texas permit process — Firm Yield - 24,750 AF (no document, but referenced by Freese and Nichols in 2003) 1978 — Freese & Nichols — Firm Yield — 26,100 AF .' 1975 — Freese & Nichols — Firm Yield — 28,500 AF 1971— Freese & Nichols — Firm Yield — 40,000 AF for both Post and Justiceburg (Lake Alan Henry 1971 Freese & Nichols — Firm Yield — 30,000 AF i nomas Haams - LaKe Hian henry yieia —24n::P 7 Page 1 From: "Dunn, David" <David.Dunn@hddnc.com> ` To: "Thomas Adams" <TAdams@mail.ci.lubbock.tx.us> Date: 4/11/2007 11:04:50 AM Subject: Lake Alan Henry yield Tom, We have completed our update of the yield analysis for Lake Alan Henry. We obtained some very non -intuitive results and had to verify what is happening. We will summarize in a memorandum, but here is the information in a nutshell: 1. Freese and Nichols (FNI) completed an analysis of the yield of Lake Alan Henry in 2003, which extended the hydrology through December 2002. We were able to re-create the 2003 firm yield analysis by FNI within 370 acft/yr. The 2003 FNI analysis produced an estimated firm yield of 22,500 acft/yr. Our recent analysis produces an estimated firm yield of 22,870 acft/yr. These yields are based on the original elevation -area -capacity data for LAH, and a storage capacity of 115,937 acft We obtained the same critical drought period, which begins in October 1972 and extends through April 1999. The length of the drought is key to the analysis, which will be explained later. 2. The FNI analysis extended the period of record through 2002. However, the reservoir does not refill by that time, so the estimated yield could have been low since the drought was not "broken" by the end of 2002. Our analysis indicates that the reservoir would refill by June 2005, but would be within 730 acft of full in January 2005. The critical period does not change with the updated hydrology. 3. Using the updated elevation -area -capacity data recently provided by the TWDB and a reduced storage capacity of 94,808 acft, the yield is reduced from 22,870 acft/yr to 22,200 acft/yr, or a reduction of only 670 acft/yr. This is the result that is not intuitively obvious. One would normally assume that a reduction of 21,129 acft in reservoir storage (18 percent of the original) would reduce the firm yield by more than 670 acft/yr. The reason is that the critical drought period is so long (almost 27 years) that larger evaporation from a moderately larger reservoir surface area at the original capacity effectively uses up the additional 21,129 acft of storage. By the time the two simulations reach October 1998, the storage amounts in the reservoirs are essentially equal. In short, at the larger original capacity, the reservoir loses water to evaporation at a higher rate and this negates any benefit the larger storage volume would apparently provide. If the critical drought period were not so long, this would not be the case. 4. Storage in the reservoir during the critical period is sensitive to small changes in the estimate. Reducing the yield estimate by a few hundred acft/yr results in a minimum storage during the critical drought period that is several thousand acfL 5. Due to the extended nature of the new critical drought, it would be best to depend on a safe yield supply from the reservoir rather than a firm yield supply. Additionally, it would be prudent to explore the concept of using a safe yield supply that leaves a longer than 1-year supply in storage during the critical drought month, say an 18-month or 1 C ...vn iaa MUCH is - Lane Mlan nenry ylep Page 2 2-year supply. The one-year safe yield of the reservoir is about 19,000 acfttyr. I hope you find this information useful. We will have a formal memorandum to you shortly. Regards, David David D. Dunn, P.E. Vice President/Project Manager HDR ( ONE COMPANY ( Many Solutions 4401 West Gate Boulevard, Suite 4001 Austin, TX 178745 Phone: 512.912.5136 1 Fax: 512.912.5158 1 Email: David.Dunn@hdrinc.com CC: "Lemonds, Paula Jo" <Paula.Lemonds@hdrinc.com> V 16'IVI Zod� Freese and Niehots, Inc. Engineers Envtronrnoriw scientists Architects 4066 Inte . do4w PUra., Suite 200 Fort ftrth.• Tum 76109 217 735-7300 817 735-7491 fax www.freesr_com September S, 2004 Mr. Chester Carthel City of Lubbock Fax (806) 775-3344 Dear Mr Carthol Per your roquost, I am sending the water availability rcmults for a diversion of 25,000 acre-feet per year from Lake Alan Hoary. We used the modified version of the Brazos Water Availabl* Model of the Bravos Basin (Brazos WAM) that was used by Freese and Nichols in 2002 for a previous evaluation of the firm yield of the Lake. This modified Brazos WAM extends the hydrology through 2002 and allows Lake Alan Henry to impound all inflows. (The u=odiflod TCEQ Brazos WAM bu a period of rocord iiom 1940 to 1997 and assumes priority appropriation, which means that Lake Alan Henry must papa inflows for senior weber rights We considered two scenarios: One with no minimum storage, and another leaving a minimum storage at elevation 2185 feet. With no minim= elevation, the diversion of 25,000 acre -feat per year is met 92% of the years. The average diversion is UAW acre-foot per year with a minimum annual diversion of 16,065 acre-foot, Attachments 1 thorough 3 show the storage trace, the annual diversion, and the annual reliability curve for the diversion. The annual reliability curve represents the frequency at which the annual diva ion is equaled or exceeded. With a minimum alevuflon err 2185 feet, the toW 25,000 acre-fM are dlveatod in 75% of the yoan,.tise average diversion is 22,200 acre-foot per year, and the minimum annual divereion is 145 acre-feet. These results are summarizod in Attaohments 4 though 6. Please contact me at 817-735-7292 or at aas(a kXse.com if you have further questions. Bast regards, 07`4 ii�i From: Thomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols To: Martin Rochelle Date: March 19, 2003 File: LGB03164AT\Memorandum doc Project: LGB-03164, Subject: Analysis of the Yield of Lake Alan Henry INTRODUCTION In March of 2003, Lloyd, Gosselink, Blevins, Rochelle, Baldwin, and Townsend, P.C., hired Freese and Nichols to develop an analysis of the yield of Lake Alan Henry, a lake located on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River in Garza and Kent Counties, Texas. Texas water right permit 4146, held by the Brazos River Authority, authorizes the impoundment of 115,937 acre-feet in Lake Alan Henry and the use of up to 35,000 acre-feet per year from the reservoir. The BRA has contracted to provide water from the lake to the City of Lubbock. The permitted diversion of 35,000 acre-feet per year is in excess of the reliable supply from the lake. During the water right permit hearings on Lake Alan Henry, its firm yield was established as 24,750 acre-feet per year, based on impounding all inflow to the lake and on the initial area and capacity characteristics of the lake. (The firm yield is the amount of water than could be supplied without shortage for the entire period of record. The firm yield of a lake is based on historical conditions. Therefore, the firm yield can be reduced if there is a drought worse than any in the historical record.) Since there has been an on -going drought in the upper Brazos River Basin, where Lake Alan Henry is located, Freese and Nichols was asked to extend the period of record for Lake Alan Henry to include recent years and determine the firm yield of the project based on hydrologic data from 1940 through 2002. BRAZOS BASIN WATER AVAILABILITY MODEL The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has been developing Water Availability Models for all river basins in Texas. The purpose of the models is determine the reliable supply available to existing water rights and establish a basis for modeling future applications for water rights. The Water Availability Model for the Brazos Basin (Brazos WAM) was developed for TCEQ by HDR, assisted byy Freese and Nichols, Crespo Consulting, Inc., and Densmore and DuFrain Consulting �1). The Brazos WAM used hydrology from 1940 through 1997. (1) Superscripted numbers in parentheses match references listed in Appendix A. r, 2 � DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from I nomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 2 of 5 Like all of the Water Availability Models developed for TCEQ, the Brazos WAM followed certain basic assumptions: • Water rights were modeled based on the water right documents, without regard for side agreements not included in the water rights. • Water rights were allowed to use water strictly in priority order. Thus, no water right could impound or divert flow in a month unless all downstream senior water rights were fully satisfied. • The strict priority doctrine was applied even in cases like that of Lake Alan Henry, where most water released for downstream water rights would be consumed by channel losses. As a result of these basic assumptions, the Brazos WAM modeled substantial releases of inflow from Lake Alan Henry to satisfy downstream water rights, including the Brazos River Authority's Possum Kingdom Lake. With these releases of inflow, the firm yield for Lake Alan Henry in the Brazos WAM was 9,595 acre-feet per year. This is an underestimate of the reliable supply from the reservoir for several reasons: • The City of Lubbock has reached an agreement with the Brazos River Authority regarding the impact of Lake Alan Henry on the yield of Possum Kingdom Lake. This agreement is assumed to allow Lake Alan Henry to impound inflows without regard to the senior water rights in Possum Kingdom Lake. • Several of the run -of -the -river water rights between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake are permits for the diversion of underflow from the stream. This means that the water rights are authorized to pump river -related groundwater from the alluvium near the river. Such water rights do not require a continuous flow in the stream, since the alluvium acts to store water during floods for later diversion. (The Brazos WAM assumes that releases of inflow would be made to maintain a continuous streamflow for these rights. In my opinion, this assumption is overly conservative.) • The Brazos WAM bases inflow to Lake Alan Henry on a combination of flows at the USGS gage on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River near Justiceburg, just upstream from the dam, and flows at the USGS gage on the Double Mountain Fork near Aspermont, considerably downstream from the dam. During the water right hearing for the project, testimony established that the flow characteristics of the watershed between the Justiceburg gage and the dam are similar to those above the gage. For this reason, we believe that the inflows to Lake Alan Henry should be based on flows at the Justiceburg gage. This is discussed in greater detail in Appendix B. Based on the discussion above, we believe that it is more appropriate to look at the firm yield of Lake Alan Henry holding all inflow and using inflows based on flow at the Justiceburg gage. This gives a yield for Lake Alan Henry of 23,800 acre-feet per year. �nomas z DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 3 of 5 The critical period of low flows that determines the yield is from October of 1972 through March of 1997. EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF RECORD THROUGH 2O02 The analysis of Lake Alan Henry yield holding all inflow and using hydrology from 1940 through 1997 indicates that the reservoir would be extremely low at the end of 1997. This would make the project vulnerable to a reduction in yield if there were low flows in the years immediately following. In order to check the impact of the actual hydrologic conditions on project yield, we extended the data available for the WAM to include 1998 through 2002, so that the total period of record was 1940 through 2002. The methodology for extending the hydrology is discussed in Appendix C. With the extended hydrologic period, the yield of Lake Alan Henry holding all inflow is reduced slightly, to 22,500 acre-feet per year. The critical period of low inflow that determines the yield extends from October of 1972 through April of 1999. Figure .1 shows how the storage in Lake Alan Henry would vary over time if it were operated to retain all inflow with a constant demand of 22,500 acre-feet per year. Figure 1 shows that the reservoir would not be full at the end of the analysis (at the end of 2002), but that it would have over 50,000 acre-feet in storage. Thus the reservoir would be vulnerable to a reduced yield if low flows continue for an extended period in 2003 and after. A short period of low flows in 2003 would not reduce the yield because diversions could be met for a time from the water in storage. YIELD WITH A MINE%IUM POOL ELEVATION OF 2185 Freese and Nichols was asked to determine the impact on the yield of Lake Alan Henry of maintaining a minimum elevation in the lake of 2185 feet above sea level. Maintaining this minimum elevation (equivalent to slightly over 40,000 acre-feet of storage in the reservoir) would reduce the yield of the project to 16,500 acre-feet per year impounding all inflow. Figure 2 shows how the storage in Lake Alan Henry would vary over time with a constant demand of 16,500 acre-feet per year. IMPACT OF POSSIBLE RELEASES FOR DOWNSTREAM WATER RIGHTS As discussed in the section on the Brazos WAM, releases of inflow to satisfy downstream water rights could have an impact on the yield of Lake Alan Henry. Table 1 lists water rights on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Brazos River between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake (2). The table lists underflow water rights, which are authorized to pump groundwater from the alluvium near the stream channel, and surface water rights. Our analysis of the possible impact of releases of inflow for downstream water rights is based on the following assumptions: DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from Thomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Figure 1 Storage in Lake Alan Henry from 1940 through 2002 with Diversions of 22,500 Acre -Feet per Year 140,000 120,000 100,000 w 80,000 b 60,000 40,000 20,000 A,. N Year 1 �I DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from Thomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and _ Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 5 of 5 Figure 2 Storage in Lake Alan Henry from 1%0 through 2002 with Diversions of 16,500 Acre -Feet per Year (Minimum Pool Elevation of 2185 Feet) 140,000 120,000 100,000 15 w 4 80,000 a� 60,000 40,000 20,000 ,-1 O M �0 a N kn w . 4 [� O N 1 �D O� N kn w • 4 '* n O 01. It a a O� as CI kn kn a a O� O� O� O� O� O� O� ON O1 ON O� as O Year W DRAFT MEMORANDLTM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from inomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 6of5 Table 1 List of Water Rights between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake WR Number Owner Name Amount Priority Stream Name County (Ac-Ft/Yr) Underflow Water Rights 3718 OCCIDENTAL 3,525 03/05/1958 DBL MTN FRK Kent PERMIAN LTD BRAZOS RIVER 3718 OCCIDENTAL 2,375 07/22/1969 DBL MTN FRK Kent PERMIAN LTD BRAZOS RIVER 3719 KERB MCGEE OIL & 165 06/24/1968 DBL MTN FRK Fisher GAS ONSHORE LLC BRAZOS RIVER 3722 KERB MCGEE OIL & 565 07/03/1972 DBL MTN FRK Stonewall GAS ONSHORE LLC BRAZOS RIVER 5282 CITATION 1994 235 02/02/1990 DBL MTN FRK Stonewall INVEST LTD PART BRAZOS RIVER 5435 PLAINS PETROLEUM 23FP 1/05/1992 BRAZOS RIVER Knox OPERATING CO Total senior to Alan Henry 6,630 Total and ow water rights: 7,100 Surface Water Rights 3717 BALDRIDGE FAMILY 420 08/31/1951 DBL MTN FRk Kent LAND TX PARTN BRAZOS RIVER 3724 DON W DAVIS 1,016 08/31/1955 DBL MTN FRK Haskell BRAZOS RIVER 3453 PITCOCK BROTHERS 100 12/19/1960 BRAZOS RIVER Young READY -MIX 5692 ZEBRA 67 07/19/2000 DBL MTN FRK Stonewall INVESTMENTS INC BRAZOS RIVER Total senior to Alan Henry 1,536 Total su ace water rights: 1,603 Total Senior 8,166 to Alan Henry Total 8,703 • The existing agreement between the Brazos River Authority and Lubbock makes it unnecessary to release inflows to satisfy the senior water rights in Lake Possum Kingdom. (This agreement should be reviewed by an attorney to confirm that this is a reasonable assumption.) • It is unnecessary to release inflows to satisfy senior water rights downstream from Possum Kingdom Lake because of the extremely limited impact of releases on flows below Possum Kingdom. (The Brazos WAM estimates channel losses Z0®3 �2- DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO FILE to Martin Rochelle from"Ibomas C. Gooch, P.E., and Andres A. Salazar, Ph.D., Freese and Nichols March 19, 2003 Page 7 of 5 between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake as 84 percent of upstream flows.) • It is unnecessary to release inflows for underflow water rights because the releases are not needed to maintain the availability of these rights. With these assumptions, inflows would at most be released to meet senior surface water rights between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake, which total 1,536 acre-feet per year. Releasing inflows as needed to meet these water rights would reduce the yield of Lake Alan Henry by 550 acre-feet per year. It is certainly possible that releases for these water rights would not be required because they are accustomed to intermittent water availability. It could also be argued that release of water from Lake Alan Henry for these downstream rights would be wasteful because of the channel losses between the lake and the water rights. 4-ViTi-hu Al 1. Considering hydrology from 1940 through 2002, the firm yield of Lake Alan Henry holding all inflow is 22,500 acre-feet per year with no minimum pool elevation. 2. Considering hydrology from 1940 through 2002, the firm yield of Lake Alan Henry holding all inflow is 16,500 acre-feet per year with a minimum pool elevation of 2185 feet above sea level. 3. Releasing inflows as needed for diversions by senior water rights between Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom Lake would reduce the yield of Lake Alan Henry by 550 acre-feet per year. This assumes that: • Releases are not made for Possum Kingdom Lake. • Releases are not made for water rights downstream from Possum Kingdom Lake. • Releases are not made for underflow diversion water rights. 4. The agreement between Lubbock and the Brazos River Authority should be reviewed by an attorney to assure the validity of the assumption that releases of inflow for Possum Kingdom Lake are not needed. APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. HDR Engineering Inc. Water Availability in the Brazos River Basin and San Jacinto -Brazos Coastal River Basin, prepared for the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, December 2001. 2. Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Water rights database, available online at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperrn/wrpa/ permits.html#databases. 3. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Daily streamflow data for Texas. Available on line at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/discharge. 4. Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Records of historical diversion and return flows. Provided by TCEQ Central Records. 5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Climatological Data for Texas. Volumes 106 and 107.2001-2002. 6. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Evaporation/Precipitation Data for Texas. Available on line at http://hyper20.twdb.state.tx.us/Evaporation/evap.html r APPENDIX B USE OF JUSTICEBURG GAGE FOR LAKE ALAN HENRY INFLOWS The Brazos WAM uses the drainage area ratio method to find the inflow to Lake Alan Henry. The incremental flow per square mile between several upstream gages and one downstream gage is assumed to remain constant in that part of the basin. The gages used in the WAM to estimate the flow are found in Table B-1. Table B-1. Gages Used In the WAM to Estimate Lake Alan Henry Inflows Stream Name Gage WAM USGS Number Contributing Contributing Drainage Area Drainage Area S uare Miles (Square Mlles Upstream: Double Mountain Fork USGS 265 244 Brazos River at 08080500 Justiceburg Buffalo Springs Lake USGS 245 236 near Buffalo 08079550 Downstream Double Mountain Fork USGS 1,891 1,864 Brazos River near 08080500 Aspemont Drainage area to estimate ow Alan Henry408 395 Buffalo Springs Aspermont Justiceburg Alan Henry Lake Alan Henry is significantly closer to the gage at Justiceburg than any of the other gages. Thus, we believe that the flow in Alan Henry should be proportional to the flow at Justiceburg. The ratio between the flows is the ratio between the USGS total drainage areas: Flow Alan Henry = (395/244) Justiceburg, or Flow Alan Henry = 1.619 * Justiceburg �i 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 Total Annual Flow in Acre -Feet o oo cact Qo Qo Qg Q� 50� � Q0 0 25 Z5 Z5 Z5 ZS Z5 Z5 n 0 9 0 0 0 x Change as % of original WAM flowft) w N �• �• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1940 1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1959 1961 1964 ►� 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 6' x a � ' O 2ONO3 Figures B.1 and B.2 show the impact of this change on inflows to Lake Alan Henry. The yield holding all inflows with WAM estimated inflows is 20,250 acre-feet per year. Using the recommended approach, the yield changes to 23,800 acre-feet per year. APPENDIX C EXTENDING HYDROLOGIC DATA TO INCLUDE 1998 THROUGH 2O02 Inflows for Lake Alan Henry was extended to include 1998 through 2002 by developing naturalized flow data for the Justiceburg USGS gage based on flows at the gage adjusted for diversions by upstream water rights. There are three water rights upstream of the Justiceburg USGS gage CA- 3713: 140 acre-feet per year Permit 5359: 200 acre-feet per year CA-3714: 63 acre-feet per year The only record available from TCEQ for 1998-2002 water use for these rights was for Permit 5934 during the year 1998 (4). TCEQ does not have records of more recent years or any other record for the other two water rights upstream of the Justiceburg gage. According to TCEQ records (4), CA 3713 and CA 3714 historically have had no reported consumption. Reported water use for Permit 5394 started in 1995 with about one third of the authorized amount. Consumption from 1996 through 1998 was between 137 and 160 acre-feet per year, or 80% of the permit. To develop naturalized flows for 1998 through 2002, the consumption for Permit 5394 was assumed to be equal to the average of the last three years'with reported diversions. Evaporation rates were also extended using TWDB and NOAA climatological data (s, 6). TWDB records end in 2000. NOAA data of pan evaporation (adjusted with the pan coefficient factor) and monthly precipitation were used to estimate net evaporation for the period 2001-2002. e7 7 LAKE ALAN HENRY AVAILABLITY MODEL Freese and Nichols, Inc. March 2003 Executive Summary Drafted April 2005 By Ches Carthel Background. Planning for another surface water supply for Lubbock began in the late 1960's not long after Lake Meredith was built. Freese & Nichols, Inc. (FNI) preparedd a report in 1971 that recommended the construction of Lake Alan Henry (LAH)(then called the Justiceburg Reservoir) in about 1990. This 1971 report estimated the LAH Firm Annual Yield (FAY) at about 32,000 acre-feet/year (AF/yr). The Firm Annual Yield (FAY) is the amount of water that could be supplied without shortage for the entire period of record. Since the FAY is based on historical record it can vary depending on the length of records available. In 1978, FNI performed a detailed feasibility analysis of the Justiceburg Reservoir site. They concluded that a FAY of 26,100 AF/yr was possible. During the permit hearings for LAH, it was established that the FAY was 24,750 AF/yr. The approved permit (no. 4146) allowed a maximum diversion of 35,000 AF/yr. Report Summary. The analysis performed by FNI in 2003 determined that the FAY for yj i LAH is about 22,500 AF/yr. They performed an additional analysis to estimate the FAY, should the minimum lake elevation be held at 2185 feet (67 feet depth). This elevation was chosen to maintain a certain amount of water in the lake for recreation. FNI's analysis indicated this restriction would reduce the FAY to 16,500 AF/yr. The report identified senior water rights downstream of LAH that total 1,536 AF/yr. FNI estimated that releases from LAH to meet these water rights would reduce the FAY by 550 AF/yr. However, it was FNI's opinion that releases would probably not be required because the existing senior water rights are accustomed to intermittent water availability. The report also identified three senior water rights in the watershed upstream of LAH that total 403 AF/yr. However, it was also noted that only one permit had reported any use. CADocuments and Settings\! 16275U oval Setdn0Temp\GWViewceJ AH WAM Summary Apr 05.doc 1 1L 99 I Lake Meredith. Sup* Supplies from Lake Meredith were relied upon for the entire planning period in all runs, at 8001b allocation of the contract amount, or approximately 30,500 acre-feet/year. The full amount of supply available under the contract with the City of Pampa was also relied upon in all runs for the period. New surface water supplies that could be developed under contracts with other cities that share in the Lake Meredith supply was dropped from further consideration as a potential supply. This decision was based on the fact that the pipeline from Lake Meredith was operating at full capacity during peak demand periods when such additional supplies would be needed. While not retained for further evaluation in this study and not used in the recommended alternative, this potential supply should be considered by the City as a i means of firming up surface water supplies during periods when deliveries would be less than pipeline capacity. In addition, this alternative could become a viable supply beyond the 50•year planning horizon. 1 JLake Alan Hence► Projected Sunnly Supplies from Lake Alan Henry were used in several runs and in two modes; delivery of 80% of the estimated safe yield of 27,400 acre-feet/year (a supply of 21,900 ` acre-feet/year was used in the runs) and a staged delivery. For those runs where Lake Alan I Henry supplies were relied upon, full deliveries were not required until late in the period 1 leading to ground water overdraft as demands "ramped up" to full yield. When the deliveries were staged, Lake Alan Henry supplies were brought in earlier in the planning Iperiod. 'These runs assumed that the transmission line would be constructed at full capacity ' but the pumping station and water treatment plant would be built in two modules. This l later approach essentially eliminated overdraft and provided better utilization of both 1 surface water and ground water. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. I (r ns Table 3.5 Estimated Amounts of Water Supply Yield Available From the Justiceburg Reservoir Acre -Feet per Year Initial firm yield 26,100 Initial average yield available from variable -demand operation 30,200 Firm yield after 50 years of siltation and after estimated future runoff depletions 20,600 Equivalent MGD 23.3 26.9 18.4 Average yield available from variable - demand operation after 50 years of siltation and after estimated future runoff depletions 27,000 24.1 Note: All quantities are reounded to the nearest 100 acre-feet per year and the nearest 0.1 MGD. and water conservation activities on the watershed, which are expected to deplete the average annual runoff by about 1,600 acre-feet per year. One point of uncertainty should be noted with respect to the yield values shown in the tables of this section. It is possible that the critical drouth could extend into 1979 or later, depending on what rain- fall and runoff events occur in the next few months. Based on data available to date, the critical period ended in April of 1978, and there was enough runoff in May and subsequent months to refill the lake to a moderate extent. If there is a normal amount of runoff in 1979, the critical drouth period would not be extended. On the other hand, failure to experience the usual volumes of runoff next spring could cause a lengthening of the critical period and thus a decrease in the firm yield values. The average amounts of supply estimated to be available from 3.9 FREESE AND NICNOLS. INC Table 5.1 Main Features of Proposed New Surface Water Supply Post Reservoir Site Conservation capacity Surface area when full Water surface elevation at top of conservation storage Maximum depth of normal storage Average depth when full Total contributing drainage area Estimated annual yield rate Justiceburq Reservoir Site Conservation capacity Surface area when full Water surface elevation at top of conservation storage Maximum depth of normal storage Average depth when full Total contributing drainage area Estimated annual yield rate Lake 8 Reservoir Site Normal capacity when full Surface area when full Water surface elevation when full Maximum depth of normal storage Average depth when full Total contributing drainage area Transmission System Pipeline diameters: Pipeline distances: Proposed capacity: Justiceburg Res. to Post Res. Post Res. to Lake 8 Lake 8 to filter plant Justiceburg Res. to Post Res. Post Res. to Lake 8 Lake 8 to filter plant Justiceburg Res. to Post Res. Post Res. to Lake 8 Lake 8 to filter plant 57,420 Ac-Ft 2,283 Acres Elev. 2430 68 Feet 25.2 Feet 568 Sq.Mi. 9.6 MGD 133,390 Ac-Ft 3,123 Acres Elev. 2220 104 Feet 42.7 Feet 428 Sq.Mi. 28.5 MGD 49,930 Ac-Ft 1,680 Acres Elev. 2921 73 Feet 29.8 Feet 408 Sq.Mi. 42 Inches 48 Inches 60 Inches 17.0 Miles 27.3 Miles 15.7 Miles 40 MGD 50 MGD 80 MGD 5.3 I' FREESE ANO NICHOLS il -2! concentrations. Most of the contamination under these circumstances is from sodium chloride, which suggests the presence of oil .well brine. There is appreciable oil activity on the watershed, and it is apparent that some salt water was reaching the watercourse at the time of the measurements. This kind of problem can ususally be cured by more care- ful oil field operation, and conditions may already be improving due to tighter State regulation of brine disposal methods. Prior to develop- ment of the Justiceburg site as a municipal supply, more definitive quality data would be needed, but the information available at this point encourages the belief that the bulk of the runoff would be satisfactory and that the water in the reservoir would be of acceptable chemical composition. The Reynolds Bend Reservoir would be by far the biggest of those considered herein. The contributing watershed above the Reynolds Bend site is large enough to support a major project, with more yield than could be obtained from any of the other alternatives; it was therefore investigated in detail, although it is the farthest away from Lubbock. However, water quality studies indicated essentially unfavorable pro- spects for municipal usage from Reynolds Bend, with the concentration of total dissolved solids in the lake frequently exceeding 1,000 milli- grams per liter and ranging upward to a maximum of nearly 3,900 milli- grams per liter. Of the several alternatives, the most promising surface water prospects are the Justiceburg site and the Post site. Together, they would provide over 40,000 acre-feet per year of added supply, and they are closer to Lubbock than the other surface water sources. In order to 9.9 FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS I — lei-? � . 11. Estimates of Cost 1: To handle the water requirements predicted for the year 2020, new sources must be developed which will furnish approximately 140 MGD of peak '1 }} daily demand. 0n an annual basis, the additional supply (or supplies) should provide at least 40,000 acre-feet per year and preferably as much ,I as 60,000 acre-feet per year. Of the various possibilities discussed in '1 the preceding sections, there are two combinations which will meet these ll goals and which are clearly superior to other available options. The two 'l JJ most promising alternatives are summarized in Table 11.1. One is based primarily on surface water from the Justiceburg and Post Reservoirs and 'J the other on ground water from Hartley County. Both of them also involve �J ground water from the Eastern Sand Hills area. 'Table 11.1 Summary of Most Likely Alternatives c To Meet AUditional Requirements T roug t e Year 2020 I� Peak Daily Annual Rate In Supply In �) MGD Ac-Ft Yr Alternative No. 1 Il 1� Justiceburg Reservoir 40 30,000 Post Reservoir 10 10,000 Peaking storage in Canyon Lake 8 30 - U Additional raw water terminal storage at Lubbock 20 - Eastern Sand Hills wells 40 20,000 Total Tab 60,000 Alternative No. 2 Hartley County wells 80 40,000 Eastern Sand Hills wells 50 20,000 Additional covered terminal storage at Lubbock 10 - Total 140 60,000 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS Volumetric Survey of ALAN HENRY RESERVOIR July 2005 Survey Prepared by: The Texas Water Development Board September 2006 Executive Summary In March of 2005, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) entered into agreement with the Brazos River Authority, for the purpose of performing a volumetric survey of Alan Henry Reservoir while the reservoir was near the top of the conservation pool elevation. This information was converted into updated Elevation -Volume and Elevation -Area Tables. The original design information for Alan Henry Reservoir is unavailable; therefore, the TWDB 2005 results are compared to the impoundment rights allowed by Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 4146. In addition, the TWDB established twenty-two sediment range lines to track sedimentation in the reservoir. The results of the TWDB 2005 Survey indicate Alan Henry Reservoir has a volume of 94,808 acre-feet and encompasses 2,741 acres at conservation pool elevation, 2,220.0 ft above msl. Original reservoir volume, as per Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 4146 granted in 1984, was 115,937 acre-feet. This indicates the reservoir has experienced an 18% decrease in volume, or 21,129 acre-feet loss, since it was designed. The BRA states that the area of Lake Alan Henry is 2,884 acres at conservation pool elevation. The TWDB 2005 survey indicates a 5%, or 143 acre, loss in surface area at the conservation pool elevation. Table of Contents AlanHenry Reservoir General Information..................................................................1 VolumetricSurvey of Alan Henry Reservoir................................................................. 4 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 4 BathymetricSurvey........................................................................................................ 4 Datum.............................................................................................................................. 5 SurveyResults................................................................................................................ 5 DataProcessing................................................................................................................. 6 ModelBoundary ............................................................................................................. b Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) Model.................................................................... 6 Self -Similar Interpolation and the Shallow Area Problem ............................................. 7 SedimentRange Lines.................................................................................................... 8 References.......................................................................................................................... 9 List of Tables Table 1: Pertinent Data for John T. Montford Dam and Alan Henry Reservoir List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Alan Henry Reservoir Map Figure 2: Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District Project Map Figure 3: Map of TWDB 2005 Survey Data Figure 4: Elevation Relief Map Figure 5: Depth Ranges Map Figure 6: 10' - Contour Map Figure 7: Map of Self -Similar Interpolation Routine Points Figure 8: Map of HydroEdit "Shallow Area Problem" Routine Results Appendices APPENDIX A: 2005 ALAN HENRY RESERVOIR VOLUME TABLE APPENDIX B: 2005 ALAN HENRY RESERVOIR AREA TABLE APPENDIX C: 2005 ELEVATION- VOLUME GRAPH APPENDIX D: 2005 ELEVATION- AREA GRAPH APPENDIX E: SEDIMENT RANGE LINES Alan Henry Reservoir General Information Alan Henry Reservoir is located in Garza and Kent Counties on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. See Figure 1, below. 4is I— Rl- Sk S� an "Wrcy Figure 1. Location Map: Alan Henry Reservoir Planning for the John T. Montford Dam and Alan Henry Reservoir began in the 1960's when city leaders realized that if the population of the City of Lubbock continued to grow as projected; the city would need another source for water. The application was granted and design work completed in the 1980's. Construction of the dam began in 1991, and was completed in October of 19931,2 . Currently, the City of Lubbock obtains 80% of its drinking water from Lake Meredith, north of Amarillo, and the other 20% from two ground water well fields in Bailey County (Muleshoe Area) and Roberts County (Pampa Area) that draw from the Ogallala Aquifer. Lake Alan Henry is a tertiary drinking water supply for future use. The City of Lubbock is located 65 miles Northwest of Alan Henry Reservoir, and is approximately 1,000 ft higher in elevation. Therefore, for Lubbock to use Alan Henry 1 Reservoir, the city needs three pump stations to take the water uphill to the city, a 65-mile pipeline to carry the water, and a new treatment plant to blend the Lake Alan Henry water with Bailey County well water. The treatment plant will be located in southwest Lubbock. I Garza County and the majority of Alan Henry Reservoir are located within the Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning Group (LERWPG), Region O. LERWPG is a planning body only and does not hold any implementation authority. In the January 2006 Regional Water Plan, approved by the TWDB, there are two water management strategies involving Lake Alan Henry. The first is as a future water supply for the City of Lubbock. The second is to supply water to areas in close proximity to the lake under the jurisdiction of the Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District. The Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District was created through legislation enacted during the 78'h Texas Legislative Session, 2003, for the purpose of supplying water from the lake to developing areas adjacent to and near the lake. Voters of the service area confirmed the District in 2004. The City of Lubbock, a wholesale water provider, and the Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District are currently in the process of negotiating a contract to supply water to the District. Figure 2 is a map of the Region O strategy and Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District Project .3 _.. �f-} rgaifRibGE NORTH RIDGS d RV PARK DEVELOPM1EIi /t70 Cnn,Mcimns IN CnineGlfSV,c VV;P wd' 1 ORk JUSTICESURG RV RV►ARK {G0 C— ftmn '03 C cFu7fnJ�/.I..;ns � JUSTICES URO sae,�'•e,a,a,a �` 4 t _ i Proposed RIO SRAIOS OSVELOPMENT IjD PAnn�ts:M9 j V§"Tank Rom' BRAZOS RV PARK -j!} !00 Conn,stwtn� (. 1 !/ Y/ffST Rq BRAZO - - DEVELOPMENT 1 POLAR aN �a -77 E Figure 2. Lake Alan Henry Water Supply District Project Map, from the Region O Water Plan.3 2 Alan Henry Reservoir was built by the Brazos River Authority (BRA)4 and operated by the BRA until 2005, when ownership and operation of the dam and reservoir became the responsibility of the City of Lubbock.5 Water rights for Lake Alan Henry are as follows: • Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 4146, granted August 6,1984, authorized the City of Lubbock to construct a dam and reservoir on the South Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and impound therein not to exceed 115,937 acre-feet of water. The permit authorizes the City of Lubbock to divert and use not to exceed 35,000 acre-feet of water per annum from the reservoir for municipal purposes at a maximum diversion rate of 69.6 cfs. The City of Lubbock is also authorized to make secondary use of not to exceed 21,000 acre-feet of water per annum (treated sewage effluent) out of the maximum 35,000 acre-feet of water diverted for municipal purposes to irrigate 10,000 acres of land in Lubbock and Lynn Counties, Texas. In addition the permit authorizes the City of Lubbock to use the impounded water for non -consumptive recreational purposes. e Amendment to Water Use Permit No. 4146A, granted May 2, 2005, recognizes that the Brazos River Authority (BRA) owns Permit No. 4146 with all the rights discussed above. The Amendment deletes the diversion point authorized by Permit 4146 and adds a diversion point at the existing diversion works of the dam, and adds a diversion segment on the north shore of Lake Alan Henry which includes the entire shoreline of the Sam Wahl Recreation Area in Garza County. The Amendment also requires the owner to implement water conservation plans. - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) interoffice memorandum dated December 19, 2005, from the Water Rights Permitting & Availability Section, Water Supply Division. This memorandum documents the change of ownership of Permit No. 4146A from the BRA to the City of Lubbock, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, by Agreement to Transfer Lake Alan Henry dated July 14, 2005; and Deed and Assignment Without Warranty and Bill of Sale dated August 16, 2005. The complete certificates and permits are on file in the Records Division of the TCEQ. 3 The following table is a list of pertinent data about the John T. Montford Dam and Alan Henry Reservoir.1,6 ' Table 1: Pertinent Data for the John T. Montford Dam and Alan Henry Reservoir Owner: ' City of Lubbock Operator: City of Lubbock River Miles from Gulf. 1,056 Contributing drainage area (sq. miles): 394 Top of Conservation Pool Elevation: 2,220.0 ft above ms] I Construction Facts Composition: 6.5 Million cubic yards of soil, clay, and soil -cement Height of Dam: 138 ft I Crest Elevation/ Top of Dam: 2,263 ft above msl Length of Dam: 3,600 ft Width of Dam: 1,000 ft wide at the base I Service Spillway (Concrete): Designed to pass 15.6 million gallons per minute Emergency Spillway (Earthen): Designed to pass 211 million gallons per minute I, Volumetric Survey of Alan Henry Reservoir Introduction In March of 2005, the Texas Water Development Board entered into agreement with the Brazos River Authority, for the purpose of performing a volumetric survey of Alan Henry Reservoir while the reservoir was near the top of the conservation pool elevation. This information was converted into updated Elevation -Volume and Elevation - Area Tables. Original design information is unavailable, therefore, the TWD13 Survey results are compared to the permitted impoundment capacity in Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 4146 and new Sediment Range Lines have been established by the TWDB throughout Alan Henry Reservoir to track future sedimentation. Bathymetric Survey Bathymetric data collection for Alan Henry Reservoir occurred between July 7t' and July 9"' of 2005, while the water surface elevation was slightly below the conservation pool elevation of 2,220.0 ft above mean sea level (ms]). The water surface elevation varied between 2,219.42 ft and 2,219.46 ft above ms] during the TWDB survey. The 4 survey team used one shallow water boat equipped with a depth sounder, velocity profiler, ( and integrated Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) equipment to navigate along pre -planned range lines spaced approximately 500 feet apart in a perpendicular fashion to the original stream channel. During the 2005 survey, the team navigated over 129 miles of range lines and collected approximately 70,000 data points. Figure 3 shows the data points collected during the TWDB 2005 survey. The depth sounder was calibrated each day using the velocity profiler to measure the speed of sound in the water column and a weighted tape or stadia rod to verify the depth reading. The average speed of sound through the water column varied between 4,858 and 4,913 feet per second during the 2005 survey. Datum The vertical datum used during this survey is that used by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the reservoir elevation gauge USGS 08079700 Lk Alan Henry Res nr Justiceburg, TX 7 The datum for this gauge is reported as National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29) or mean sea level (msl), thus elevations reported here are in feet (ft) above msl. Volume and area calculations in this report are referenced to water levels provided by the USGS gauge. The horizontal datum used for this report is NAD83 State Plane Texas North Central Zone. Survey Results The results of the TWDB 2005 Survey indicate Alan Henry Reservoir has a volume of 94,808 acre-feet and encompasses 2,741 acres at conservation pool elevation, 2,220.0 ft above msl. This indicates the reservoir has experienced an 18% decrease in volume, or 21,129 acre-feet loss, when compared to the original reservoir volume of 115,937 acre-feet, as given in Permit to Appropriate State Water No. 4146. The BRA states that the area of Lake Alan Henry is 2,884 acres at conservation pool elevation.6 The TWDB 2005 survey indicates a 5%, or 143 acre, reduction in surface area at the conservation pool elevation. Due to the likely differences in the methodologies used to calculate the reservoir's capacity between 1984 and 2005, comparison of these values is not recommended and is presented here for informational purposes only.8 The TWDB - 5 considers the 2005 survey to be a significant improvement over previous methods and recommends that the same methodologybe used to resurvey Alan Henryeservoir in 5 to Y �Y 10 years. Data Processing Model Boundary The reservoir boundary was digitized from aerial photographs using IEnvironmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcGIS 9.1 software. The aerial photographs, or digital orthophoto quadrangle images (DOQs), used for Alan Henry IReservoir were Justiceburg and Justiceburg SE. These images were photographed on October 18, 2004. At the time of the photographs the water surface elevation measured I2,220.2 ft above msl, just above the conservation pool elevation. At the scale of the photographs, the difference between 2,220.0 ft and 2,220.2 ft is indiscernible; therefore Ithe boundary was digitized at the land water interface from the photos, and assigned the conservation pool elevation of 2,220 ft. The United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency's, Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO), National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) acquires the photographic imagery during the agricultural growing seasons in the continental U.S.9 The imagery resides in the public domain and can be downloaded from the Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) website at http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/. For more information visit the APFO website at ' http://www.apfo.usda.gov/NAIP.html or contact TNRIS. Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) Model IUpon completion of data collection, the raw data files were edited using HydroEdit, an automated editing routine developed by the TWDB, to remove any data anomalies. The water surface elevations for each respective day are applied and the depths are converted to corresponding bathymetric elevations, exported, and converted to .......... a shapefile using ArcCatalog. The ArcGIS 3D Analyst Extension is then used to create a Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) model of the bathymetry based on the sounding Ishapefile and the reservoir boundary files. The ArcGIS 3D Analyst Extension uses 6 Delaunay's criteria for triangulation to place a triangle between three non -uniformly spaced points, including vertices of the lines in the reservoir boundary file.10 The Alan Henry Reservoir TIN Model was enhanced through the use of a Self -Similar Interpolation routine developed by the TWDB. See the following section on Self -Similar Interpolation and the Shallow Area Problem for more information. Using Arc/Info software, volumes and areas are calculated from the TIN Model for the entire lake at one -tenth of a foot intervals, from elevation 2,140.8 ft to elevation 2,220.0 ft. The Elevation -Volume and Elevation -Area Tables, updated for 2005, are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. An Elevation -Volume graph and an Elevation- Area graph are presented in Appendices C and D, respectively. The TIN Model was interpolated and averaged using a cell size of 10 ft and converted to a raster. The raster was used to produce Figure 4, an Elevation Relief Map representing the topography of the reservoir bottom, Figure 5, a map showing shaded depth ranges for Alan Henry Reservoir, and Figure 6, a 10-ft contour map. Self -Similar Interpolation and the Shallow Area Problem A limitation of the Delaunay method for triangulation in the TIN Model results in artificially -curved contour lines extending into the reservoir where the reservoir walls are steep and the reservoir is relatively narrow. These curved contours are likely a poor representation of the true reservoir bathymetry in these areas. To ameliorate this problem, a Self -Similar Interpolation routine (developed by the T)WDB) was used to interpolate the bathymetry in between many 500ft-spaced survey lines to increase the density of points input into the TIN Model. The increased point density alters the mean triangle shape from long and skinny to more equilateral, thus providing better representations of reservoir topography.11 In areas where obvious geomorphic features indicate a high -probability of cross-section shape changes (e.g. incoming tributaries, significant widening/narrowing of channel, etc.), this self -similar assumption is not likely to be valid; therefore, self -similar interpolation was not used in areas of Alan Henry Reservoir where a high probability of change between cross -sections exists.' 1 Figure 7 shows the resulting point density after the Self -Similar Interpolation routine was employed. The area interpolated equals 36.5% of the reservoir area (at conservation pool elevation).. 7 Another limitation of the Delaunay method of TIN generation involves the calculation of areas and volumes in sections of the reservoir that were too shallow for bathymetric data collection by boat. This "shallow area problem," as identified by the TWDB, is corrected using the HydroEdit interpolation routines developed by the TWDB. The Delaunay triangulation method, within ArcGIS, creates large flat triangles throughout these un-surveyed areas for which each comer of the triangle lies on the reservoir boundary. These triangles do not suggests any change in slope along the boundary and are assigned zero depths, causing an artificial spike in the elevation -area graphs at the last elevation interval for which reservoir areas are calculated. To correct this, the HydroEdit software program linearly interpolates elevations along connecting lines between the reservoir boundary vertices and their closest sounding points. These interpolated data points are used in conjunction with the surveyed sounding points and the Self -Similar Interpolated points to generate the TIN model. The additional data points result in a model with a more realistic representation of the reservoir bathymetry.I 1 Figure 8 shows the Iresulting point density after the HydroEdit "Shallow Area Problem" routine was employed. Sediment Range Lines Information for the original design, including range lines, was unavailable. Therefore, the TWDB established twenty-two Sediment Range Lines in Alan Henry Reservoir to track sedimentation in the reservoir. Using ArcGIS, the TWDB staff established sediment range lines near the confluences of each stream, the main channel of the lake, and in bends in the main lake channel where water velocities would slow and drop any sediment load. The Sediment Range Line cross -sectional plots presented in Appendix E were extracted from the TIN Model. Appendix E also contains a map displaying the location of the range lines and a Table listing the endpoint coordinates of each line. ®r E C i L :_4 c S �x k aw 1s' Is ml - YRE I 0 HDR-00028675-05 Executive Summary Executive Summary s On June 21-22, 2005, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) inspected the John T. Montford Dam, which impounds Lake Alan Henry, one of the City of Lubbock's (City) planned water supply sources. The Brazos River Authority (BRA) currently manages the dam and related project facilities. In mid -August 2005, ownership and management of the project will transfer to the City of Lubbock. The purpose of this inspection, prior to the transfer of the project, was to determine if conditions exist that could threaten the safety of the dam or lead to major capital expenditures or increased operation and maintenance costs. The dam and appurtenant structures are generally in good condition and no conditions were observed that would constitute an immediate threat to the dam's safety. The dam and appurtenant structures appear to be performing as anticipated by the design with two exceptions. These include: (1) movements at the access bridge to the intake structure, and (2) the lack of a healthy stand of grass on the downstream slope of the dam for protection against erosion by surface runoff. Both of these issues will require continued vigilant monitoring and maintenance, and may ultimately require capital expenditures to correct or improve. The BRA retained a geotechnical engineer in late 2003 to investigate and evaluate the movements at the abutment and pier supports for the access bridge to the intake structure. Movements are thought to be the result of expansion of shale in the foundation due to an increase in the moisture content as the lake filled. This is certainly plausible, and the relatively higher movements at the abutment and first bridge span could be the result of excavating approximately 25 feet of overburden from the original hill to create the bowl -shaped lower parking area. This same movement is suspected to be the cause of wide cracks in the concrete slope paving under the bridge and transverse cracks in the soil cement armoring along each side of this structure. To date the foundation movements have resulted in two points of structural distress. First, the bridge girders are dragging outward on the bearing pads at the abutment. The stress concentrations at this location have resulted in spalling of the concrete at the bottom edge of two of the girders. Reinforcing steel is exposed at the bottom of the outer girder on the north side. The second point of distress is located where the bridge meets the intake tower. On the left side (looking upstream), the bridge has made contact with the tower and a small piece of concrete on the parapet wall has spalled off. This reportedly occurred several years ago and the condition City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report iv HDR-00028675-05 has not changed since. Continued monitoring of the bridge and tower will be required and a decision may need to be made at some point regarding the need for modifications. A substantial amount of resources have been expended trying to establish a healthy stand of grass on the downstream slope of the dam. The BRA project staff has done a commendable job to improve the conditions of the slope and sprinkler system over the last two years. However, much work remains to be done and there are several obstacles to overcome. After nearly 13 years of effort, it may be time to consider abandoning the maintenance -intensive sprinkler system and explore alternate methods for erosion protection of the slope. This could result in a large initial capital expenditure, but the alternatives would need to be weighed against the costs to continue operating and maintaining the sprinkler system, repairing erosion gullies, fixing damage from feral hogs, seeding repaired areas, and mowing. The pneumatic instrumentation used to monitor the dam's behavior is reaching the end of its service life. The original six base plate settlement devices no longer function. Several of the piezometers have stopped working. This type of instrumentation is especially critical for monitoring the dam during construction, during initial filling of the reservoir, and for several years thereafter. The instrumentation appears to have provided data sufficient to indicate that the critical elements of the dam, such as the core, slurry trench cutoff wall, and internal drainage systems have performed as anticipated by the design. A detailed analysis of the historic data from pneumatic piezometers that have stopped working should be undertaken to determine if simple open riser piezometers should be installed in some of those areas where valuable data were being collected. This analysis should also take into account locations of existing seepage. A total of 10 drain outlets were installed along the downstream side of the dam to convey water collected by drainage systems inside the embankment. These outlets are monitored monthly and, to date, only three of them are flowing. There is also seepage emerging from the left (looking downstream) abutment near the contact with the embankment in the vicinity of the outlet works stilling basin. A portion of this seepage is collected and measured. The total amount of seepage being collected and measured at these four locations has been approximately 10 gallons per minute with the lake at the conservation pool elevation. This amount is very small for a dam of this size, which provides further evidence that critical internal elements are functioning properly. City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam v Inspection Report HDR-00028675-05 Executive Summary The six inclinometers and 24 surface reference monuments on the dam indicate normal behavior of the embankment. Total settlement to date is just over 8 inches at the maximum point, which was predicted during the design. The maximum lake level to date was approximately 6 feet above the crest of the service spillway. The spillway and its stilling basin reportedly functioned as anticipated by the design and physical model testing. During the inspection, seepage appeared to be emerging from two transverse construction joints in the 3% chute slab nearest to the spillway crest. These joints are at the locations of two sets of pneumatic piezometers that are not being monitored because the read out box for one (spillway Sta. 11+00) has not been located and the other (spillway Sta. 13+00) no longer functions. A determination on the need for piezometers in these locations should be made in light of the seepage observed. BRA project staff recently installed a continuous floating boom type barrier across the upstream end of the spillway approach channel. Boaters were reportedly getting too close to the structure when it was operating and were at risk of getting swept through by the current. The new barrier system should provide an additional measure of safety. The original buoy and cable system, which was installed closer to the spillway crest, remains in place. The emergency spillway was designed to operate during extreme floods in excess of the 100-year event. Since completion, small to medium mesquite trees and other woody vegetation and brush have grown throughout the spillway. This vegetation should be cleared because it will restrict flow and may reduce the spillway's capacity to pass large floods. The present level of operation, maintenance and monitoring being performed by the BRA is appropriate for the size and nature of the project. As the dam and appurtenant structures age, maintenance and repairs to items such as the gates and gate operating system and the various locations of soil cement armoring will likely increase. Continued maintenance and repairs to the sprinkler system and erosion gullies in the downstream slope of the dam are inevitable, and may increase as the system ages. The City may want to consider alternative slope protection solutions that would reduce the long-term maintenance requirements. The addition of a water supply pump station in the future will increase the operation and maintenance activities at the project. Changes to the instrumentation -monitoring schedule are recommended, but will not substantially decrease the current level of effort provided by the BRA project staff. City of Lubbock — John T. Montjord Dam Inspection Report vi HDR-00028675-05 Executive Summary C One of the best tools for monitoring the performance and safety of a dam is vigilant visual observations by the same individual(s) over time. This is especially important during and immediately after major flood events that can subject the dam and appurtenant structures to loading conditions larger than those previously experienced. On -site personnel are the first to evaluate a situation and determine whether or not the Emergency Action Plan should be initiated. Having a history of what constitutes "normal" behavior greatly enhances the response to events that could jeopardize the dam's safety. Extensive photographic documentation was obtained during the inspection. A CD containing all of the photographs taken during the inspection and a photograph log accompanies this report. This report will have the most value for the City if similar inspections are performed on a regular basis to compare future conditions at the project with the documentation provided herein. City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report vil IM Section 1 Project Description The John T. Montford Dam is located in Kent and Garza Counties, Texas, approximately 60 miles southeast of Lubbock, on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (Figure 1-1). The dam impounds Lake Alan Henry, which is one of the City of Lubbock's planned water supply sources. The Brazos River Authority (BRA) presently manages the dam and related project facilities. In mid -August 2005, ownership and management of the project will transfer to the City of Lubbock. The purpose of this inspection, prior to the transfer of the project, was to determine if any conditions exist that could threaten the safety of the dam or lead to major capital expenditures or increased operation and maintenance costs. Wig &ffalo Springs Lake b Lynn i T � Lake Crosby Dick n bi White River l i Reservoir i 'cod. Garza K e n t Tahoka site Location 4''aa Lake Alan wry Figure 1-1. Project Location Map City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report 1-1 HDR-00028675-05 Project Description Freese & Nichols, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, designed the dam and appurtenant structures, and plans for construction were sealed on October 19, 1990. The Texas Water Commission approved the construction plans on November 21, 1990. Construction began in March 1991 and was completed in October 1993. Impoundment of Lake Alan Henry began in November 1993. The Record drawings ("as-builts") were sealed by the project engineer on May 19, 1994. The dam is identified as Inventory No. TX06464 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Dam Safety Program. A site plan showing the major features of the project is provided in Figure 1-2. The John T. Montford Dam is a zoned earthfill embankment with a slurry wall cutoff. The dam has a maximum height of about 140 feet above the original streambed and a length of approximately 4,150 feet. The top of dam elevation is 2,263 feet mean sea level (ft-msl) and the conservation pool elevation is 2,220 ft-msl. At conservation pool, the lake has a surface area of 2,884 acres and a permitted capacity of 115,937 acre-feet. Appurtenant structures consist of a concrete service spillway, earth/rock-cut emergency spillway, and outlet works system. The service spillway is a 40-foot wide, uncontrolled, fixed - gate ogee with a hydraulic jump stilling basin to dissipate the now energy. The overflow crest (elevation 2,220 ft-msl) and stilling basin floor (elevation 2,105 ft-msl) are connected by a 559- foot long concrete chute. The spillway was designed to pass the 100-year flood before the emergency spillway engages. The 1,700-foot wide, earth/rock cut emergency spillway has a crest elevation of 2,240 ft-msl and is located approximately one mile south of the service spillway and right (looking downstream) abutment of the dam. The combined spillway system was designed to safely pass the probable maximum flood (PMF) without overtopping the dam. The outlet works system consists of a 124-foot tall, dual -chamber concrete intake structure, a 42-inch diameter water supply conduit, a 30-inch diameter discharge conduit, and a combined impact -style concrete outlet structure. The intake tower is located upstream of the dam's left abutment. This location reportedly allowed for the base of the structure to be founded in the shale of the left abutment. The top of the intake tower is at elevation 2,245 ft-msl, five feet above the emergency spillway crest. The tower is connected to shore at the left abutment by a 14-foot wide bridge that has three spans of 73.8 feet each. The concrete bridge girders and deck were designed for H-15 truck loading so that cranes could be used to service equipment at the intake structure. City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report 1-2 HDR-00028675-05 Project Description The two outlet conduits exit the tower at elevation 2,140 ft-msl and pass through the dam foundation askew to the dam centerline along the base of the left abutment before terminating at the outlet structure. The 42-inch outlet conduit will be used for releasing water to a future pump station that is to be located downstream of the left abutment. The chamber for this conduit has three sluice gates (each 54- by 96-inch) to withdraw water from various elevations depending on the lake level and water quality. The 42-inch conduit is presently used to supply water to an irrigation system in the downstream slope of the dam and a small on -site water treatment unit. A 42-inch square sluice gate on the upstream end of the 42-inch conduit is typically open, but can be closed to dewater the conduit if necessary. The 30-inch outlet conduit provides for controlled releases from the lake should that be desired. One 54- by 96-inch sluice gate, near the base of the tower, provides water to the chamber for the 30-inch conduit. Two sluice gates, a 12- inch and a 14-inch, are arranged in a head works at the upstream end of the conduit to provide a range of flow releases by using either or both sluice gates. It should be noted, however, that there are no low -flow release requirements for the project. This conduit can also be dewatered, if necessary, by closing both sluice gates. All sluice gates are operated via hydraulically controlled 1 actuators housed in a 6- by 17-foot concrete masonry building constructed on top of the intake tower. The two chambers in the tower are connected by a service manway through the center partition wall at elevation 2,236 ft-msl and by a chain -operated 6-inch diameter plug valve at elevation 2,174 ft-msl. The plug valve is used for transferring water between the chambers to reduce the opening head pressure on the lake -side gates. The tower has been designed so that either or both chambers can be drained with the lake at conservation pool elevation 2,220 ft-msl without overstressing or floating the structure due to buoyancy. City of Lubbock — JohnT. Montford Dam Inspection Report 1-3 Section 4 Summary and Recommendations 4.1 Summary of Conditions On June 21-22, 2005, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) inspected the John T. Montford I Dam, which impounds Lake Alan Henry, one of the City of Lubbock's (City) planned water supply sources. The purpose of the inspection, prior to the transfer of the project from the I Brazos River Authority (BRA) to the City in mid -August, was to determine if any conditions exist that could threaten the safety of the dam or lead to major capital expenditures or increased Ioperation and maintenance costs. The dam and appurtenant structures are generally in good condition and no conditions Iwere observed that would constitute an immediate threat to the dam's safety. The dam and appurtenant structures appear to be performing as expected with two exceptions. These include: I(1) movements at the access bridge to the intake structure, and (2) the lack of a healthy stand of grass on the downstream slope of the dam for protection against erosion by surface runoff. The BRA retained a geotechnical engineer in late 2003 to investigate and evaluate the movements at the abutment and pier supports for the access bridge to the intake structure. IMovements are thought to be the result of expansion of shale in the foundation due to an increase in the moisture content as the lake filled. To date the foundation movements have resulted in ' two points of structural distress. First, the bridge girders are dragging outward on the bearing pads at the abutment. The stress concentrations at this location have resulted in spalling of the concrete at the bottom edge of two of the girders. Reinforcing steel is exposed at the bottom of the outer girder on the north side. The second point of distress is located where the bridge meets the intake tower. On the left side (looking upstream), the bridge has made contact with the tower and a small piece of concrete on the parapet wall has spalled off. This reportedly occurred ' several years ago and the condition has not changed since. This same movement is suspected to be the cause of wide cracks in the concrete slope paving under the bridge and transverse cracks in the soil cement armoring along each side of this structure. A substantial effort has been made trying to develop a healthy stand of grass on the downstream slope of the dam for erosion protection. Project staff have done a commendable job to improve the conditions of the slope and sprinkler system over the last two years. Time will City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam 4-1 Inspection Report T HDR-00028675-05 Summary and Recommendations tell if the recent work to regrade the slope, repair the sprinkler system, and hydro -seed the slope �) with Bermuda grass will be successful. If not, the City may want to consider abandoning the maintenance -intensive sprinkler system and explore alternate non -vegetative methods for erosion protection of the slope to reduce the long-term maintenance requirements. The capital cost of alternative slope protection measures would need to be weighed against the costs to continue operating and maintaining the sprinkler system, repairing erosion gullies, fixing damage from feral hogs, seeding repaired areas, and mowing. The pneumatic instrumentation used to monitor the dam's behavior is reaching the end of its service life. The original six base plate settlement devices no longer function. Several of the piezometers have stopped working. This type of instrumentation is especially critical for monitoring the dam during construction, during initial filling of the reservoir, and for several years thereafter. The instrumentation appears to have provided data sufficient to indicate that the critical elements of the dam, such as the core, slurry trench cutoff wall, and internal drainage systems have performed as anticipated by the design. An analysis of data from pneumatic piezometers that have stopped working should be undertaken to determine if simple open risers should be installed in some of those areas where valuable data were being collected. Y,j1 A total of 10 drain outlets were installed along the downstream side of the dam to convey water collected by drainage systems inside the embankment. These outlets are monitored monthly and, to date, only three of them are flowing. There is also seepage emerging from the left (looking downstream) abutment near the contact with the embankment in the vicinity of the outlet works stilling basin. Only a portion (roughly half) of this seepage is collected and measured. The total amount of seepage being measured at these four locations has been approximately 10 gallons per minute with the lake at the conservation pool elevation. This amount is very small for a dam of this size, which provides further evidence that critical internal elements are functioning properly. The six inclinometers and 24 survey monuments on the dam indicate normal consolidation behavior of the embankment. Total settlement to date is just over 8 inches at the maximum point, which was predicted during the design. The maximum lake level to date was approximately 6 feet above the crest of the service spillway. The spillway and its stilling basin reportedly functioned as anticipated by the design - and physical model testing. During the inspection, seepage appeared to be emerging from two City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam 4-2 Inspection Report IHDR-00028675-05 and Recommendations - transverse construction joints in the 3% chute slab nearest to the spillway crest. These joints are at the locations of two sets of pneumatic piezometers that are not being monitored because the read out box for one (spillway Sta. 11+00) has not been located and the other (spillway Sta. 13+00) no longer functions. A determination on the need for repairing these piezometers or installing new open riser type monitoring wells should be made in light of the seepage observed. BRA project staff recently installed a continuous floating boom type barrier across the upstream end of the spillway approach channel. Boaters were reportedly getting too close to the structure when it was operating and were at risk of getting swept through by the current. The new barrier system should provide an additional measure of safety. The original buoy and cable system, which was installed closer to the spillway crest, remains in place. ' The emergency spillway was designed to operate during extreme floods in excess of the I100-year event. Since completion, small to medium mesquite trees and other woody vegetation and brush have grown throughout the spillway. This vegetation should be cleared to maintain Ithe original design capacity of the spillway. The present level of operation, maintenance and monitoring being performed by the BRA is appropriate for the size and nature of the project. As the dam and appurtenant structures age, maintenance and repairs to items such as the gates and gate operating system and the various Ilocations of soil cement armoring will likely increase. Continued maintenance and repairs to the sprinkler system and erosion gullies in the downstream slope of the dam are inevitable, and may increase as the system ages. The addition of a water supply pump station in the future will increase the operation and maintenance activities at the project. Changes to the instrumentation - monitoring schedule are recommended, but will not substantially decrease the current level of effort provided by the BRA project staff. 4.2 Recommendations 4.2.1 Embankment (1) Visually monitor scarp -shaped crack in upstream soil cement slope protection near Sta. 5+00 and approximately elevation 2228 ft-msl. Monitor monthly while reading piezometers. (2) Repair erosion holes and cracks in the soil cement with lean concrete in accordance project the with O&M manual. i City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam 4-3FM Inspection Report HDR-00028675-05 Summary and Recommendations (3) Spray vegetation on the upstream slope with a suitable herbicide to prevent roots from degrading the soil cement. (4) Continue efforts to repair erosion gullies and the sprinkler system in the downstream face of the dam. Time will tell if the hydro -seeding currently being performed will be successful. Repair leaky sprinkler heads, if possible, to avoid mistaking wet areas for seepage through the dam. If the leaky heads are not repairable, then mark them with flagging or some other means. (5) Repair erosion along uphill side of access road that traverses the downstream face of the dam. Form a new drainage ditch and line it using lean concrete with fiber mesh reinforcement in lieu of wire or rebar. Provide several rows of staggered impact blocks across the new concrete ditch near the bottom to dissipate flow energy and prevent scour at the end of the ditch. (6) Continue efforts to reduce the feral hog population. (7) Collect all seepage emerging from the left abutment in existing ditch along upstream side of access road and install a V-notch weir across the ditch adjacent to inlet for culvert beneath access road. Monitor the turbidity and flow rate of this seepage monthly. (8) Clean out sediment and vegetation from in and around the finger drain outlets to make access safer and more convenient. (9) Correct identification of the finger drain outlet structure at Sta. 30+00. 4.2.2 Outlet Works System (1) Perform internal inspections of intake tower and both outlet conduits, and an underwater inspection of gates on the intake tower a couple years prior to utilizing the lake for water supply. (2) Repaint metal items exhibiting rust on intake tower. (3) Replace missing bird screen on intake tower vent hole. (4) Arrange for a service call to diagnose and correct problem with gate controllers. (5) Replace rubber seals on 12- and 14-inch sluice gates to reduce leakage. City of Lubbock — John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report 4-4 HDR-00028675-05 Summary and Recommendations (6) Repair section of outlet works discharge channel where soil cement lining has failed. Lean concrete with fiber mesh reinforcing could be used in lieu of soil cement. Gabion mattresses may also be a viable alternative if a source of 3- to 5-inch rock is available close to the site. (7) Clear sediment and vegetation from end of outlet works discharge channel and grade channel to drain towards original river channel. 4.2.3 Service Spillway (1) Determine if water observed at two transverse construction joints below the ogee crest is from seepage through the joints. (2) Examine vertical construction joint in soil cement at right side slope of approach channel following significant flood events. (3) Remove sediment and vegetation from spillway stilling basin and discharge channel. Reestablish drainage between end of discharge channel and original river channel. 4.2.4 Emergency Spillway (1) Clear and grub trees and brush growing in channel bottom, and then either burn on site or haul off, as local regulations permit. 4.2. 5 Instrumentation (1) A detailed analysis of data from pneumatic piezometers that have stopped working should be undertaken to determine if simple open riser piezometers should be installed in some of those areas where valuable data were being collected. This analysis should also take into account locations of existing seepage. (2) If water observed at transverse joints in spillway chute is determined to be seepage, consider repairing existing pneumatic piezometers or installing new open risers at spillway stations 11+00 and 13+00. (3) Continue monthly monitoring of remaining pneumatic piezometers, open risers, and seepage. (4) Continue quarterly monitoring of surface markers on intake tower, access bridge and its abutment, and service spillway walls. Given the distress to the concrete bridge City of Lubbock —John T. Montford Dam Inspection Report 4-5 HDR-00028675-05 and Recommendations girders at the access bridge abutment, consider reading the surface markers monthly. Seek advice from structural engineer. (5) Change frequency of inclinometer readings from quarterly to yearly. (6) Retain Clear Fork Surveying to perform another survey of the monuments located throughout the project before the end of 2006, or sooner if dictated by conditions at the access bridge 4.2.6 Access and Security (1) Continue to maintain gravel access road to the project to ensure all-weather access. (2) If vandalism becomes a problem as use of the public facilities and lake increases, consider installing fake surveillance cameras in selected areas such as the intake tower and spillway bridge. City of Lubbock —John T. Montford Dam 4_6 Inspection Report 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 11— Future Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — Post Reservoir Option Content a. Letter of Intent b. Permit c. Post Reservoir Legislation d. Region O Water Plan for Post Reservoir e. Original Feasibility Study f. Water Quality Study g. Yield Modeling Reports h. BRA subrogation agreement Summary The Post Reservoir has been considered as an alternative to use with Lake Alan Henry for many years. The natural flows, however, don't produce enough water to justify the expense of developing the reservoir. The permit for the Post Reservoir has a 1970 permit date and provides for 5,600 acre-feet of water for municipal use. An additional 5,000 acre-feet can be used for industrial and mining purposes. However, the firm yield for the Post Reservoir is only 5,500 acre-feet without subrogation of downstream water rights like Possum Kingdom with a 1938 priority date. In addition, a 1989 study indicated that the water quality of the natural flows is not as good as Lake Alan Henry. This study was conducted prior to the City of Lubbock further developing the storm drainage system in Lubbock and prior to the City's discharge of effluent into the North Fork. The City has an EPA grant to assist with the modeling of water quality for reuse purposes. The new study will consider the new developed water that is and will be discharged into the North Fork. Regional cooperation is essential for the Post Reservoir project. It would help provide water for area communities as well as for the City of Lubbock. The City must first obtain the permit for the reservoir from the White River Municipal Water District in order for the project to be considered. A Letter of Intent has been developed that serves as a statement of interest to negotiate and to complete due diligence tasks prior to the City of Lubbock actually obtaining the permit. The Post Reservoir would take advantages of most flows down the North Fork. This would provide a means to capture water from both the North Fork (Post Reservoir) and the South Fork (Lake Alan Henry) as future water supplies for the City of Lubbock. It would also provide the means to capture and use developed water. The Lake Alan Henry water transmission line can be designed to run near the Post Reservoir site with minimal additional cost. A pump station may be able to be located at the Post Reservoir site that would serve both the Lake Alan Henry project as well as the Post Reservoir Project. The Preliminary Engineering for Lake Alan Henry will help determine some of these possible benefits in developing the two sources to work in tandem. The City must complete its due diligence before purchasing land or developing the project. There are questions about water quality, project feasibility, land and minerals, environmental issues, archeological issues, etc., that need to be addressed. The Letter of Intent helps identify these issues that Lubbock will consider before pressing forward with the project. 0 .� Ell DECLARATION OF INTENT (Post Reservoir Project) THIS DECLARATION OF INTENT (`Declaration') is executed this day of March, 2007, by and between the CITY OF LUBBOCK, Texas, a Texas home rule municipal corporation ("City'), and WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a Conservation and Reclamation District. created by H.B. No. 468 enacted by the 55t' Legislature of the State of Texas (`District"). Recitals WHEREAS, the Distrid is the owner of that certain Certificate of Adjudication, No. 12-3711, issued subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of the final decree of the 39"' Judicial District Court of Haskell County, Texas, Cause No. 9356, In Re: The Adjudication of Water Rights of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Watersheds of the Brazos River Basin, dated September 18,1982 (the `Permit'); WHEREAS, the Permit authorizes the District to construct a dam and reservoir on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (the `Reservoir"), having an impoundment capacity of 57,420 acre-feet of water and authorizing the District to divert and use up to but not in excess of 10,600 acre-feet of water per year, for the purposes set forth therein; WHEREAS, the City has an interest in acquiring such Permit from the District and constructing the Reservoir for municipal use and purposes, and the District has an interest in transferring the Permit to the City, subject to the execution of a mutually satisfactory and acceptable agreement to be negotiated by the parties; WHEREAS, numerous preliminary activities (the "Activities') must be undertaken by the City in order for it to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of constructing the Reservoir, and WHEREAS, due to the need to conduct the Activities, the City and District now desire to enter into this Declaration. Declarations NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits that may be derived from the construction of the Reservoir, the City and District parties hereby declare and set forth their intentions as follows: 1. As promptly as is reasonably possible after the execution of this Declaration, the parties shall negotiate and work toward the preparation and execution of formal contract documents containing mutually satisfactory and acceptable terms, covenants, conditions, and other provisions providing for the transfer of the Permit and the P 183 construction of the Reservoir, such terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions to address, without limitation, the following: • the consideration to be provided by the City to the District for the Permit, including the potential commitment of water to the District from the Reservoir and/or Lake Alan Henry • the funding and construction of facilities and infrastructure necessary to transport water from the Reservoir and/or Lake Alan Henry to the District • the conditions upon which water committed to the District will be limited, if any, including potential reduction as a result of drought or loss of yield from the Reservoir and/or Lake Alan Henry • the period of time in which the City shall have to commence the construction of the Reservoir • provisions for the reassignment of the Permit to the District in the event the City fails to commence construction of the Reservoir prior to the expiration of time provided (including any extensions), or otherwise determines that it no longer desires to construct the Reservoir • the responsibility for payment of costs that may be incurred by the parties in conducting the preliminary Activities ® representations, warranties, and indemnities, if any, to be provided by and between the parties • the degree of City support of the District in its existing contractual arrangements and cooperation with the District as water supply alternatives are considered that may affect the member cities of the District 2. Pending execution of formal contract documents, this Declaration will authorize the City to commence and undertake the following Activities for the purpose of determining the feasibility and desirability of constructing the Reservoir (a) propose strategies involving the Reservoir to the Region 0 planning group, and/or other regional planning groups as deemed necessary by the City (b) negotiate with the Brazos River Authority ("BRA") regarding the subordination of the rights of the BRA to water rights authorized by the Permit and/or water rights either now owned or in the application process with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (°TCEQ") within the watershed of the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River ("North Fork'1 (c) apply to the TCEQ for pennits or authorizations to appropriate waters of the State of Texas ("State'), to discharge wastewater into the North Fork, authorize the reuse of water discharged by the City into the North Fork, and utilize the beds and banks of the State to transport such water to any point on or along any stretch of the North Fork (d) conduct studies and surveys regarding the construction and operation of the Reservoir, including without limitation feasibility reviews and studies, environmental studies, studies related to the U.S. Corp of Engineers Permits, archeological studies, and/or such other studies as the City deems necessary or advisable to investigate and document the feasibility and desirability of the Reservoir as a water supply project (e) negotiate and acquire such easements, licenses, privileges, leases, options, and/or titles to property that the City deems necessary or advisable for the construction of the Reservoir and related facilities (f) deliberate with the State legislature and the TCEQ regarding the amendment or modification of the Permit in the manner and to the extent specified in that certain e-mail transmission from the City to the District, dated February 9, 2007, a copy of which is incorporated into this Declaration as Attachment "A" 3. In the furtherance of this Declaration, and pending execution of formal contract documents, the parties agree as follows: (a) the District will make available to the City copies of all files and other information in the District's possession, or that the District has the right to obtain from third parties, concerning any prior engineering, feasibility, or other studies relating to the Reservoir and City may obtain further details or other information from such third parties on behalf of itself or the District (b) in the event the City shall conduct any additional studies regarding the Reservoir or the District's water supply, the city will provide the District with a copy of the final report received by the City (c) except as may be required by law, direction of the Attorney General or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, all negotiations between the City and the District, as well as any information shared between them pertaining to any engineering, feasibility, or other study relating to the Reservoir, is to remain confidential and will not be released to the public without the mutual written consent of the parties 185 (d) the District will participate in the regional planning activities now being undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City concerning preliminary engineering relating to Lake Alan Henry as a water supply source for the City and other parties; provided, however, . such participation will be without cost to the District (e) except as provided in Paragraph 2(f) above, the City will not sponsor or otherwise support any legislation or agency action to amend, modify or otherwise alter the Permit, without first obtaining the written consent of the District (f) the District will not take any action before the TCEQ regarding the Permit, excepting activity related to renewal of the Permit, without notice to and agreement of the City 4. This Declaration shall terminate without liability to either party upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (a) the parties are unable to agree to mutually satisfactory and acceptable terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions providing for the transfer of the Permit and the construction of the Reservoir, and formal contrail documents have not been executed within three (3) years from the date of this Declarabon (b) either party notifies the other of its intention to abandon and terminate the proposed Reservoir project, such notice to be given in writing at least sixty (60) days in advance of the effective date of termination and shall be deemed to have been provided when deposited in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: For City: For District: Mayor of the City of Lubbock District Manager City of Lubbock HCR 2, Box 141 P.O. Box 2000 Spur, TX 79370 Lubbock, TX 79457 With copy to: City Manager of the City of Lubbock City of Lubbock P.O. Box 2000 Lubbock, TX 79457 186 (c) the disapproval of the proposed Reservoir project by any State or Federal agency having jurisdiction over same 5. This Declaration is merely a guide to the preparation of a mutually satisfactory agreement. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to preclude other provisions from being inserted into the formal contract documents at the request of either party. 6. The Declaration does not obligate either party to execute formal contract documents. The provisions of Paragraph 1, above, shall not constitute a binding obligation on the part of District or the City other than the commitment to negotiation in good faith. It is agreed and stipulated that, notwithstanding the agreement to negotiate in good faith, the negotiations may not result in formal contract documents, in such event neither party hereunder having any responsibility, obligation or liability to the other. In the event formal contract documents be signed by the parties, this Declaration will become null, void, and of no further effect. 7. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to imply a joint venture, joint enterprise, partnership, or principal -agent relationship between the City and District 8. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to provide or infer any rights or }' benefits whatsoever to any person or entity (govemmental or otherwise) other than the City and District IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration has been executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties as of the date first set forth above. WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Silas Flournoy Board President CITY OF LUBBOCK By: DAVID A. MILLER, Mayor 187 ATTEST: Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Tom Adams, Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: r / Richard K. Casner First Assistant City Attomeym,RwwroeRn"r-Deow, or intud-win AAmh 8, Z W 88 From: Thomas Adams To: wrmwdgm@caprock-spur.com Date: 2/9/2007 10:44:37 AM Subject: Post Reservoir Permit Would White River support Lubbock asking for legislation to amend the Post Reservoir Permit? We have some concerns about how the permit is written. The main three points in question include the following: 1. Use of the 10,600 acre feet of permitted water is divided into municipal, industrial, and mining. We would like to amend it for flexibility. We need the ability to use the water for municipal purposes. Using it for other purposes can be optional, but the permit needs to allow for up to 10,600 acre feet to be used for municipal purposes. 2. The permit restricts the storage capacity by the siltation pool language. The capacity of 57,420 acre feet is reduced down to actual storage of 38,420 acre feet and the state maintains control over the siltation pool. We need the benefit of storage capacity for the entire reservoir. 3. Special conditions give the state unlimited control over releases once the siltation pool is filled in. We need language that provides for reasonable releases, but not open ended. Let me know if this is agreeable. I will call soon. This is moving a little faster than our letter of agreement, but the filing deadline is March 9th. i Thanks. Tom "Serve with Humility, Lead with Passion, Commit to Excellence" Thomas L. Adams Deputy City Manager P.O. Box 2000 Lubbock, TX 79457 (806) 775-2015 tadams@mylubbock.us d-"`r--- ,tx-4-r• �'- tvdifl-,tom �s``.`.r"' ''1°`S� /J�'Y r �l�- � � `j ` 6i542 �pWiJ� / CERTIFICATE OF ADJUDICATION IN CERTIFICATE OF ADJUDICATION: 12-3711 OWNER: White River Municipal {dater District Star Route 2 Spur, Texas 79370 COUNTIES: Garza, Crosby, Dickens PRIORITY DATE: January 20, 1970 Kent and Lubbock WATERCOURSE: North Fork Double Mountain BASIN: Brazos River Fork Brazos River. tribu- tary of the Double Mountain Fork Brazos River, tributary of the Brazos River WHEREAS, by final decree of the 39th Judicial District Court of Haskell County, Texas. in Cause No. 9356, In Re: The Adjudication of Water Rights in the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Watersheds o the Brazos River Basin dated November 18, 1982, a right was recognized under Permit 2590 authorizing the White River Municipal Water District to appropriate waters of the State of Texas as set forth below; NOW, THEREFORE, this certificate of adjudication to appropriate waters of the State of Texas in the Brazos River Basin is issued to the White River Municipal Water District, subject to the following terms and conditions: I. IMPOUNDMENT Owner is authorized to construct a dam and reservoir on the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River having an impounding capaci- ty of 57,420 acre-feet of water at elevation 2430 feet above mean sea level to be comprise8 of 38.420 acre-feeC of conservation storage space for authorized water supply and 19,000 acre-feet of storage space for sediment. Station 51 + 40 on the centerline of the dam bears S 83°51'E. 7285 feet from the northwest corner of the G.li.B R. RR Company Survey 73, Abstract 39, Garza County, Texas. 2. USE A. Owner is authorized to divert and use not to exceed 10,600 acre-feet of water per annum from the aforesaid reservoir for purposes as follows: (i) Municipal purposes...............5,600 acre-feet (2) Industrial purposes..............1,000 acre-feet (3) Mining purposes .................4,000 acre-feet B. Owner is also authorized to divert and use an unspecified amount of water from the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River during construction of the aforesaid dam project. 3. DIVERSION A. [.ocation: At a point on the aforesaid reservoir which bears S 88°43'F.. 6390 feet from the northwest corner of the G.H.S H. RR Company Survey 73, Abstract 39, Garza County, Texas. B. Maximum rate: 54.22 cfs (24,400 gpm) 4. PRIORITY The time priority of owner's right is January 20. 1970. 5. TIME LIMITATIONS Construction or installation of all works authorized herein shall commence and be completed within the time limit imposed by the Texas Water Commission. VOL 1947 P�a831 Certificate of Adjudication 12-3711 vat1.947 PAGE832 6. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. Owner shall provide gated outlets with invert elevations no higher than elevation 2373 feet above mean sea level for the passage of flows ranging from 1 to 10 cfs for sustained periods and for periodic releases of water at rates up to 100 cfs. B. Owner, subject to further order and directives of the Commis- sion, shall pass normal flows and waters impounded in the authorized sediment storage space in amounts as determined by the Commission at any time for downstream domestic and live- stock uses, for superior vested water rights and for mainte- nance of stream quality. Release of waters contained in the sediment storage space is specifically subject to call of the Commission until sedimentation of 19,000 acre-feet occurs, after which time releases will be made under such other orders as the Commission may adopt. C. Owner shall maintain: (1) continuous reservoir content and lake level measuring station; (2) a record of all discharges through the reservoir and (3) daily records of diversions for each authorized use. All records shall be compiled monthly and reported annually to the Commission or at any other time on request. D. Owner shall construct and monument an appropriate number of sediment ranges prior to impoundment of water and shall prepare and provide the Commission revised ele- vation -area -capacity tables based on surveys as necessary to determine initial and future capacities. The locations of pertinent features related to this certificate are shown on Page 15 of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Watersheds Certif- icates of Adjudication Maps, copies of which are located in the offices of the Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, Texas and the Garza, Crosby, Dickens, Kent and Lubbock County Clerks. This certificate of adjudication is issued subject to all terms, con- ditions and provisions in the final decree of the 39th Judicial District Court of Haskell County, Texas in Cause No. 9356, In Re: The adjudication of Water Rights in the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Watersheds of the Brazos River Basin, dated September 18, 1982, and supersedes all rights of the owner asserted in that cause. This certificate of adjudication is issued subject to senior and superi- or water rights in the Brazos River Basin. This certificate of adjudication is issued subject to the Rules of the Texas Department of Water Resources and its continuing right of supervision of State water resources consistent with the public policy of the State as set forth in the Texas Water Code. DATE ISSUED: sed FED 2 0 1905 ATTEST: TEXAS WATER COMMISSION Paul &?k&V kairman 2Ai.'kPtJY �1f � [�k of drt Texas ll, ilC`.brlJA+na HGP4T, �iAlif ,M,L air Gom=ss;ion, do herefht Omth that is a true and onrreet cOPV °f n �S ion file in permanent records of said Commission of the Department of Wate6 Resources. Given under my hand and the seal of�he Texas Water Commission this th 9 dal of A. D., 19 2 fAa Hefner, Chief CI C: G *TATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF LUBBOCK i �anhr pan{r '�w 17•:l i,.mwaam — MO.. Na i_��T� F E CO R D d_ andwrtw WM ll.n"d I --by ma and. Wi g + � . itecowD M l+a Vw— —d No..104 Ucaros ai [uhb•:di cowry, to. oa w.P d h.— by ma= S K„R 7 A 9: 14 MAR 7 1985 couwyca x ..,.dy CFrtld, :awa:n ::aw.l7r, luaus IUSSOCRCOUNTr, TEXAS �, rn ' � Cwi S2 -- T Y CL. K LAI 4 2.4 G W Q'• � Y•- [tom.-�-�. 6 -v- Y v1n 1,947 pAu833 - _- ,_•:_ MHO" relating to the development of a water supply reservoir project at a site known as the Post Reservoir site in Garza County, Texas. TEXAS: BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ARTICLE 1 SECTION 1.01. The legislature designates a site known as the Post Reservoir site on the north fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, northeast of Post, Texas, as a site of unique value for the construction of a dam and reservoir on the Brazos River under Section 16.05 1 (f)(2), Water Code, to impound water derived from the unappropriated flows of the Brazos River. The White River Municipal Water District holds a current water rights permit for the site (TNRCC Certificate of Adjudication 12-3711). A permit extension was granted in 1999, with construction to begin in 2004. The legislature finds that construction and development of the Post Reservoir project, and the impoundment, diversion, and use of the unappropriated flows of the Brazos River, are in the public interest and would constitute a beneficial use of the water. The legislature further finds that conditions warrant a Texas Water Development Board waiver of the requirement that the project meet needs in a manner consistent with the state and regional water plans. The legislature further finds that the project shall receive priority for existing and uncommitted bond authorization in the state participation account. SECTION 1.02. Using the state participation account of the Texas easement. The amount of and character of interest in land, other property and easements thus to be acquired shall be determined by the Board of Directors. The District shall have the same power as is conferred upon water control and improvement districts by Section 49 of Chapter 25, Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature, with reference to making surveys and attending to other business of the District. ARTICLE 3 SECTION 3.01. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2001. President of the Senate Speaker of the House I certify that H.B. No. 3096 was passed by the House on April 20, 2001, by the following vote: Yeas 142, Nays 0, 2 present, not voting. Chief Clerk of the House I certify that H.B. No. 3096 was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2001, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0, 1 present, not voting. Secretary of the Senate APPROVED: Date Governor HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs ^4 storage, disinfection and distribution. Desalt plants encounter scaling, corrosion, and chemical challenges that require relatively highly trained and experienced treatment staff. Therefore, the smaller communities might consider contract operations rather than developing in-house expertise to operate desalt plants. This water supply option has been compared to the plan development criteria, as shown in Table 4.4-79. Table 4.4-79. Evaluation of Brackish Groundwater Desalination Impact Category Comment(s) a. Quantity, reliability, and cost of treated water 0 Unknowns regarding extent and yields of brackish aquifer - Moderately high treatment cost b. Environmental factors 0 Disposal of concentrated brine created from process ® Typically in low recharge rate aquifers or confined aquifers; use could lead to the depletion of aquifers • Extracted brackish water possibly replaced by freshwater from a higher strata aquifer, thereby removing and contaminating accessible freshwater c. State water resources - In case of brackish aquifer, improves state water resources • For freshwater aquifer having brackish lower zone, potentially contaminates fresh groundwater d. Threats to agriculture and natural resources in e None region e. Recreational 0 None f. Comparison and consistency equities - Same cost model used to estimate total costs g. Interbasin transfers - Not applicable h. Third party social and economic impacts from • Not applicable voluntary redistribution of water 1. Efficient use of existing water supplies and 0 Increases regional opportunities J. Effect on navigation - Not applicable 4.4.4.4 Post Reservoir —Raw Water at the Reservoir 4.4.4.4.1 Description of Option The White River Municipal Water District holds TCEQ Certificate of Adjudication Number C3711 for Post Dam and Reservoir, which provides for Authorized Impoundment of Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-250 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 57,420 acre-feet; Authorized Diversion of 5,600 acft/yr for municipal purposes; 1,000 acfVyr for industrial purposes; and 4,000 acft/yr for mining purposes, with the Priority Date of January 20, 1970. The proposed Post Reservoir Project is located on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River northeast of Post, Texas in Garza County (Figure 4.4-14). Preliminary data pertinent to the project were obtained from the September 1968 report entitled "Feasibility Report on Post Reservoir Site.s45 The proposed project includes a 5,800-ft rolled embankment dam with a 2,000-ft emergency spillway for passing the probable maximum flood (PUT). The project also includes a morning glory type service spillway to pass storm flows up to the 100- year return period. 4.4.4.4.2 Available Supply of Water The conservation pool would provide approximately 56,000 acft of storage (neglecting sedimentation) and 37,000 acft (including sedimentation) with a surface area of 2,280 acres. The 1968 reservoir analysis indicates that the proposed reservoir will have a firm yield of approximately 9,500 acft/yr in the year 2020 considering runoff, depletion, and sedimentation. 3 4.4.4.4.3 Environmental Issues The construction of Post Reservoir would result in the change of an estimated 3,320 acres of land from ranching to that of a reservoir site, inundating about 2,280 acres. It is estimated that the entire 3,320 acres would require wildlife habitat mitigation for which costs have been included in Section 4.4.4.4.4. 4.4.4.4.4 Costing The following assumptions and conditions were applied in the updating of the costs of this water management strategy: • Capital costs were updated from 1968 to the Second Quarter of 2002 using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI). The CCI ratio was increased by an additional 15 percent to account for more stringent requirements related to construction activities. • Engineering, legal costs, and contingencies are calculated as 35 percent of the total capital costs associated with construction of the dam. Environmental studies, mitigation and permitting costs are calculated as 100 percent of the land acquisition cost. 45 Freese, Nichols and Endress, 1968, "Feasibility Report on Post Reservoir Site," prepared for White River Municipal Water District, September. The 1968 cost estimate was $2.2 million Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-251 HDR-09051008-05 Identffication, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs • Land acquisition and survey costs were based on the inundated area during PMF. Land cost was assumed as $1,620/acre for the site. • Interest during construction is calculated considering a 6 percent interest rate, with a 4 percent return on investments over a 4-year construction period. • The annual cost for debt service is based on a 6 percent interest rate over a 40-year period. • O&M costs are calculated as 1.5 percent of the estimated construction costs for the dam and reservoir. Costs for this option include construction costs and other project costs, which include engineering costs, land acquisition for the reservoir and dam site, and interest during construction. The total project cost for this option was estimated to be $30,456,000 (Table 4.4-80). Financing the project for 40 years at 6 percent annual interest results in an annual expense of $2,023,000 for debt service (Table 4.4-80). Annual operating and maintenance costs total $170,640 (Table 4.4-80). The total annual cost, including debt service and O&M cost, totals $2,194,560 (Table 4.4-80). With an annual firm yield of 9,500 acft/yr, the resulting cost of raw water at the reservoir is $231 per acft, or $0.71 per 1,000 gallons, which dose not include transmission pipeline, water treatment, or distribution system costs.(Table 4.4-80). Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-252 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 4.4.4.4.5 Implementation Issues The development of the Post Reservoir will require that the local sponsor, the White River Municipal Water Authority, either proceed with development or make arrangements for another entity to proceed, and customers willing to purchase water at prices adequate to retire the debt and pay operating costs, including water treatment and conveyance to locations of use. Implementation will require the following permits and studies. 1. Permits a. USCOE Sections 10 and 404 dredge and fill permits for reservoirs and pipelines impacting wetlands or navigable waters of the U. S. b. TPWD Sand, Gravel, and Marl permit for construction in state owned streambeds. c. NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. d. GLO easement for use of the state-owned streambed; and e. Section 404 certification from the TCEQ required by the clean water act. 2. Studies to Support Permit Applications for permits Lb through Lf above: a. Assessment of changes in stream flows. b. Habitat mitigation plan. c. Environmental surveys. d. Cultural resources surveys, studies, and mitigation. 3. Land will have to be acquired either by negotiation or condemnation. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan fm January 2006 4-254 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-80. Cost Estimate Summary for Post Reservoir Llano Estacado Region Second Quarter 2002 Prices Item Estimated Cost for Facilities Capital Costs Dam and Reservoir (Conservation Pool of 56,000 acft, 2,280 acres, 2,430 ft msl) Preparation of Site $194,400 Core Trench Excavation (74,300 cubic yards) 168,480 Wetted and Roiled Embankment (2,317,400 cubic yards) 5,396,760 Riprap (62,400 cubic yards) 2,422,440 Blanket (25,900 cubic yards) 1,005,480 Service Spillway and Outlet 1,617,840 Mulching (22 acres) 99,360 Irrigation for Downstream Slope 97,200 Relocation' 345,600 Total Capital Cost $11,347,560 Engineering, Legal Costs and Contingencies (35% of Total Capital Cost) $3,971,160 Environmental & Archaeology Studies, Mitigation, and Permitting 5,378,400 Land Acquisition and Surveying (3,320 acres) 5,557,680 Interest During Construction (4 years) 4,201,200 Total Project Cost $30,456,000 Annual Costs Debt Service (6 percent for 40 years) $2,023,920 Operation and Maintenance 170,640 Total Annual Cost $ 2,194,560 Available Project Firm Yield (acftlyr) 9,500 Annual Cost of Raw Water at the Reservoir ($ per acft) $231 Annual Cost of Raw Water at the Reservoir ($ per 1,000 gallons) $0.71 'The bridge at FM 651 may need to be raised, widened, or relocated. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-255 FEASIBILITY REPORT ON POST RESERVOIR SITE FOR WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT September 1968 By FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS Consulting Engineers Fort Worth, Texas (1 FEASIBILITY REPORT ON POST RESERVOIR SITE FOR WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT mll FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS CONSULTING ENGINEERS FORT WORTH, TEXAS U 1 1 September 19, 1968 White diver Municipal Water District P. 0. Box 265 Crosbytpn, Texas 79322 Gentlemen: Herewith find our feasibility report on the reservoir on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River just northeast of Post. Core borings of the foundation at the dam site indicate the absence of any harmful gypsum deposits which are always suspect for a dam in that area. The topography of the proposed reservoir site permits a reservoir of relatively high average depth of water which is important from the stand— point of minimizing evaporation losses. There are no highway, pipeline or oil well conflicts in the reservoir, the remedying of which would be expensive. In order to substantially develop the runoff from the 190 square miles of effective drainage area, it is proposed that the reservoir have an initial capacity of 56,000 acre feet at service spillway level with a surface area of 2,280 acres and a maximum depth of water of 69 feet. The estimated safe yield of the proposed reservoir, as of 2020, is 7,300 acre feet per year or 6.5 MGD (million gallons per day) after 50 years siltation and depleted runoff due to the effect of anticipated soil and water conservation practices on the watershed and after leaving u Page 2 a reserve in the reservoir at the end of a recurrence of the critical drouth period equal to one year's yield (7,300 acre feet). The estimated cost of the dam and reservoir is approximately $2,500,000 including interest during con- struction. Assuming a 4% interest rate from the Texas Water Development Board, the annual cost is estimated at approximately $160,000 for interest and principal payments, operation and maintenance. In case the Water Development Board would purchase half of the capacity of the reservoir, the corresponding annual cost to the District would be approximately $88,000. It is evident that the sale of 75,000 barrels per day (3.15 MGA) of water to oil companies for repressuring purposes would support an $88,000 annual cost of the reservoir. This would require a charge of 7.65 cents per thousand gallons of water at the reservoir. Likewise, a sale of 37,500 barrels per day would result in a cost of the water at the reservoir of 15.3 Gents per thousand gallons (0.36 cents per barrel). As stated in the feasibility report, water from the reservoir would probably be of a quality satisfactory for municipal use. However, the available data are wholly inadequate to prove up the quality of the water and it is recommended that a quality and flow measuring station be established at the F.M. 651 crossing in cooperation with the U.S.G.S. and possibly the State, and that such measuring station be maintained in operation until the quality of the water is definitely determined. The project is an economical project and, sooner or later, all of its 1 r I' t, Page 3 yield will be needed in that part of the State. Water rights on the Brazos River and its tributaries are becoming more precious year by year and it is recommended that the District make application for the water rights per— taining to the proposed Post Reservoir. SWF:mg Respectfully submitted, FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS S. W. Freese WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FEASIBILITY REPORT ON POST RESERVOIR SITE Description of Proposed Dam and Reservoir The yield studies show that 56,000 acre-feet of reservoir capacity are required at the reservoir site to substantially develop the potential yield of the North Fork, Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. The selected site has been designated the Post Site, and is shown on Sheet 1 - Reservoir and Vicinity Map. A dam located at this site will control approxi- mately 190 square miles of effective drainage area. One of the major problems encountered with potential dam sites in this area of the State is gypsum in the foundation. Gypsum is soluable in (l water and if present in the foundation of a dam can dissolve out causing piping and potential failure. To determine if gypsum is present at this site, and to evaluate the foundation in general, three continuous core borings were m#de in the stream valley. Sheet 2 shows the cross section of the river valley at the dam site and the logs of these borings. No significant amounts of gypsum were encountered and, from all appearances, the foundation is suit- able for the proposed dam. Prior to final design, more extensive foundation and soil investigations will have to be made. A hydrological study of the area indicates that the maximum probable storm would have a runoff of 25.2 inches, producing a peak inflow into the reservoir of 196,000 cubic feet per second. This storm would have a total volume of runoff of 236,000 acre-feet. The dam is designed to withstand this storm by use of surcharge in the reservoir and the discharge capacity of a A 2000 foot long broad crest emergency spillway at Elevation 2441.0. The top of the dam is required to be at Elevation 2255.0 at which elevation the free- board is 4.7 feet during the maximum high water caused by this storm. The emergency spillway located at this elevation will not operate during the occurrence of a 100 year recurrence interval storm. The conservation pool is maintained at Elevation 2430 and storms of 100 year frequency or less are passed through the dam by a morning glory drop inlet - gonduit spillway. The morning glory inlet crest is 25 feet - 3 inches in diameter. A 7 foot square conduit carries the discharge through the dam to a hydraulic jump stilling basin at the downstream toe of the dam. rSheet 3 shows a section through the service spillway. It �s proposed that the dam be constructed of compacted earth using locally 4vailable materials, that the central section or core of the dam be made of impervious plays to minimize seepage losses from the lake, and that the shells of the dam be made from the more pervious materials. Sheet 3 shows Ithe proposed data section. Pertinent data with reference to the dam and reservoir are as " follows: I Stream $ed Elevation 2361.0 Lip of Service Spillway Elevation 2430.0 Capacity at Spillway Lip 57,421 acre-feet Crest of Emergency Spillway Elevation 2441.0 I Capacity at Emergency Spillway Crest 86,400 acre-feet Maximum High Water Elevation 2450.3 Drainage Area 190 square miles Conservation Capacity I 38,421 acre-feet Silt Storage 19,000 acre-feet Service Spillway Crest Elevation 2530.0 Surface Area at Spillway Elevation I 2,283 acres Length of Shoreline 27 miles Maximum Depth of Water at Dam 61 feet Average Reservoir Depth 25.1 feet -2- Elevation of Emergency Spillway 2241.0 Width of Emergency Spillway 2,000 feet Length of Dam 5,800 feet Maximum Height of Dam 94 feet Maximum Bottom Width of Dam 535 feet Top Width of Dam 20 feet Elevation Maximum High Water Level 2450.3 Elevation Top of Dam 2455.0 Cost Estimate The cost of the dam and reservoir is estimated as follows: COST ESTIMATE PROPOSED POST RESERVOIR Item Unit Preparation of Site L.S. Core Trench Excavation C.Y. Wetted and Rolled Embankment C.Y. Rip Rap C.Y. Blanket C.Y. Service Spillway and Outlet L.S. Mulching AC. Irrigation for Downstream Slope L.S. Sub -Total Contingencies - 15% Sub -Total Engineering - 8% Total Cost - Dam Land Purchased in Fee AC. Flood Easement AC. Unit Total Quantity Price Amount Amount - $ - $ 30,000 $ 74,300 .35 26,000 2,317,400 .36 834.000 62,400 6.00 374,000 25,900 6.00 155,000 - 250,000 22 700.00 15,000 - 15,000 $1,699,000 255,000 $1,954,000 156,000 $2,110,000 $2,110,000 Sub -Total Land Acquisition and Contingencies - 20% Total Cost - Land TOTAL PROJECT COST -3- 2,280 100.00 228,000 1,040 25.00 26,000 $ 254,000 51,000 $ 305,000 $ 305,000 $2,415,000 (7) Yield of Post Reservoir This study analyzes the yield potential of the Post Reservoir Site. tA conservation capacity of 37,000 acre-feet is required to substantially Idevelop the drainage area above the dam. A siltation pool of 19,000 acre- feet is necessary to contain sediment material collected over a 50 year Iperiod. A total conservation and sediment pool capacity of 56,000 acre- feet is required for full watershed development. This pool capacity can be Iachieved at Elevation 2430. A series of computer runs to determine maximum yield were performed using the hydrologic data described in the following paragraphs. The most critical drouth period was found to be from November 1941 to September 1953. The results of the yield study are as tabulated below: I YIELD RESULTS Conservation 2020 Yield from 2020 SCS 2020 Yield from Capacity in Historical Run-off Effect Depleted Runoff Acre Feet in Acre Feet Acre Feet in Ac Ft Per Yr ' 1970 2020 No Reserve Yr Reserve* Per Year No Reserve Yr, Reserve* 56,000 37,000 10,600 8,400 1,100 9,500 7,300 ' *Reserve in reservoir equal to one year's yield. ' The safe annual yield of the reservoir site with an eatlmated drainage area of 190 square miles for the year 2020 is 7,300 acre feet or 6.5 MGD (million gallons per day). This yield is based on a conservation capacity of 37,000 acre-feet after siltation and reservoir inflows reduced for the effect of soil conservation measures. ' The drainage area above the dam site considered to be contributing is bound on the south by the Cap Rock escarpment and on the north by the ridge separating the drainage of the North Fork, Double Mountain Fork, Brazos -4- River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River. The area above the City of Lubbock was not considered to be contributing. Detailed mapping which would allow an accurate determination of the drainage area is not available. The shape of the drainage area was estimated from Texas Highway Department maps of Garza, Crosby and Lubbock Counties. Scale 1-inch equals 2 miles, excluding playa lake drainage areas on the Cap Rock. The area was determined to be 190 square miles. A reservoir map with 10 foot contour intervals was constructed from ground surveys of the site. From this map, area and capacity vs. elevation tables were computed. A tabulation of this data is given in Table 1 and Table 2. At the adopted capacity of 56,000 acre-feet the surface area of the reservoir is 2,283 acres and the water surface is at Elevation 2430.0. The depth of water at the dam would be 70 feet and the average depth of the 011 reservoir is 25 feet. The reservoir site is favorable from the standpoint of minimizing evaporation by reason of the relatively high average depth. This is important not only from the standpoint of conserving water but also from the standpoint of minimizing the concentration of salts in the reservoir due to evaporation. Monthly lake surface evaporation records from 1940 to 1965 are compiled in Report 64, "Monthly Reservoir Evaporation Rates for Texas 1940 Through 1965", by the Texas Water Development Board. These evaporation rates were used for the period January 1940 to December 1965. For the periods July 1939 to December 1939 and January 1966 to September 1966, gross evaporation at Lubbock after adjustment was used as the net lake surface evaporation. Table 3 shows the net evaporation rates at the Post Reservoir Site. -5- TABLE 1 WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESERVOIR ON N. FORK -DOUBLE MTN. - BRAZOS RIVER AREA IN ACRES Elev, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2360 - - 0 8 14 21 31 41 54 70 2370 84 110 145 179 205 235 260 285 310 332 2380 355 379 400 420 440 460 478 499 520 540 2390 560 590 619 648 679 709 740 770 798 828 2400 i 854 880 910 938 974 991 1,020 1,046 1,071 1,1.10 2410 1,128 1,160 1,196 1,236 1,280 1,340 1,400 1,465 1,530 1,590 2420 1,655 1,715 1,780 1,840 1,905 1,970 2,030 2,090 2,160 2,220 2430 2,283 2,350 2,410 2,475 2,540 2,600 2,660 2,725 2,790 2,850 2440 2,915 !M low TABLE 2 _ WHITE RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESERVOIR ON N. FORK -DOUBLE MM FORK - BRAZOS RIVER CAPACITY IN ACRE FEET Elev. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2360 - - 0 4 15 32 58 94 142 204 2370 281 378 505 667 859 1,079 1,327 1,599 1,897 2,218 2380 2,561 2,928 3,318 3,728 4,158 4,608 5,077 5,565 6,075 6,605 2390 7,155 7,730 8,334 8,968 9,631 10,325 11,050 11,805 12,589 13,402 2400 ti 14,243 15,110 16,005 16,929 17,880 18,857 19,863 20,896 21,954 23,040 2410 24,154 25,298 26,476 27,692 28,950 30,260 31,630 33,062 34,560 36,120 2420 37,742 39,427 41,175 42,985 44,857 46,795 48,795 50,855 52,980 55,170 2430 57,421 59,738 62,118 64,560 67,068 69,638 72,268 74,960 77,718 80,538 2440 83,420 TABLE 3 NET EVAPORATION RATES AT THE PJS T RESEM01"R S I rE (Values in Feet) YEAR JAN FEB- MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 1939 - - - - - - .61 .41 .65 .31 .14 .09 2,.21 1940 .12 .12 .47 .46 .56 .51 .97 .62 .79 .44 .12 .20 5.38 1941 .13 .12 .08 .22 -.24 .39 .52 .63 .27 -.20 .28 .17 2,37 1942 .17 .24 .40 .11 .62 .61 .69 .38 .13 .19 .38 -.03 3.89 1943 .22 .34 .38 .49 .30 .67 .54 1.06 .63 .56 .27 .06 5.52 1944 .03 .09 .34 .52 .49 .73 .45 .64 .30 .32 .16 -.01 4.06 1945 .10 .18 .38 .44 .75 .86 .39 .61 .59 .13 .38 .21 5.02 1946 .07 .29 .39 .58 .58 .72 1.00 .91 .41 .23 .29 .11 5.58 1947 .19 .25 .14 .39 .08 .69 .85 .88 .94 .59 .23 .13 5.36 1948 .17 .13 .43 .60 .45 .67 .61 .92 .71 .37 .42 .33 5.81 1949 - .16 .31 .20 .13 .41 .66 .70 .39 .29 .44 .21 3.90 1950 .23 .24 .40 .36 .07 .49 .28 .67 .18 .59 .50 .25 4.26 00 1951 .29 .23 .34 .48 .71 .60 .73 .52 .33 .33 5.57 1 1952 .26 .36 .49 .40 .41 .53 .60 .97 .71 1.06 .65 .78 .35 .23 6.79 1953 .36 .26 .32 .52 .63 .97 .84 .68 .83 .29 .28 .32 6.30 1954 .27 .41 .49 .28 .14 .74 1.06 .79 .94 .62 .52 .40 6.66 1955 .16 .25 .56 .62 .29 .65 .52 .73 .49 .45 .41 .49 5.62 1956 .29 .22 .57 .57 .52 .73 .98 1.09 1.05 .63 .55 .28 7.48 1957 .29 .11 .42 .21 .04 .41 .81 .89 .67 .19 .09 .34 4.47 1958 .10 .14 .04 .16 .19 .64 .78 .77 .47 .33 .37 .30 4.29 1959 .24 .27 .41 .35 .27 .16 .35 .83 .80 .25 .38 .21 4.52 1960 .06 .14 .23 .41 .50 .63 .25 .91 .69 .17 .39 .06 4.44 1961 .04 .09 .25 .53 .52 .30 .24 .71 .69 .61 .15 .18 4.31 1962 .16 .32 .36 .36 .77 .54 .63 .83 .14 .42 .29 .17 4.99 1963 .20 ..17 .36 .40 .03 .23 .83 .74 .53 .56 .35 _21 4.61 1964 .22 .17 .41 .60 .47 .54 .89 .72 .50 .56 .38 .23 5.69 1965 .32 .24 .34 .43 .18 .52 .90 .60 .47 .54 .37 .22 5.13 1966 .04 .11 .45 .17 .47 .49 .61 .08 .24 - - - 2.66 Total 4.73 5.65 9.76 10.86 9.75 15.87 18.67 20.46 15.88 10.74 8.82 5.69 136.89 Avg. .18 .21 .36 .40 .36 .59 .67 .73 .57 .40 .33 .21 5.01 Runoff into the Post Reservoir was estimated from stream flow records of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River near Aspermont for the period July 1939 to September 1966, as published by the U. S. Geological Survey. The runoff was correlated between the gage at Aspermont and the Post Site using their drainage area ratios and adjusting for a higher percentage of base -flow at the Post Site. The relationship of base -flows was deter- mined by comparing gage flows at Aspermont with those of the U..S.G.S. Gage on the South Fork, Double Mountain Fork at Justiceburg, from November 1961 to September 1966. Correlation of mass curves of flow at the two sites gave a factor of 0.242. In other words, flows at Aspermont times 0.242 approxi- mated the flows at Justiceburg. The ratio of the drainage area at Justice - burg to that at Aspermont is 269 to 1510 or 0.178. Therefore, the drainage area ratio times 1.392 equals the correlation factor. Since the drainage conditions above the Justiceburg gage are very similar to the one above the Post Site with respect to base -flow and the size of the drainage areas compares favorably, the same correlation factor was applied to the patio of the drainage areas of the Post Site and Aspermont gage to determine historical runoff. Table 4 shows the estimated runoff at the Post Reservoir Site. The volume of siltation that should be allowed for was determined from a study of sedimentation rates in Texas which was published by the Texas Board of Water Engineers in 1959 as Bulletin 5912. The siltation rate for the drainage area of the site is estimated to be 2.0 acre-feet per year per square mile. The 50 year sedimentation allowance for the 190 square mile drainage area of the Post Site is 19,000 acre-feet. The runoff depletions expected to occur by the year 2020 are based on the report of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation prepared for the U. S. �.■ �+■� Table 4 ESTIMATED RUNOFF AT THE POST RESERVOIR SITE YEAR 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 0 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 ToLaL Avg JAN FEB 10 140 - 360 100 10 280 10 - 110 40 10 10 - 100 - - 1,770 20 30 61C 10 - - 640 110 90 - 2,270 50 30 150 90 450 480 30 10 40 20 30 120 80 1,510 56 50 6,290 233 MAR APR - 310 2,430 12,320 - 1,430 250 400 10 70 230 70 - 10 - 20 110 - 10 560 - 1,460 - 10 - 90 70 210 - 9,230 2,770 60 10 10 40 7,080 160 1,100 - 110 30 - 320 70 10 30 10 1,170 10 - - 90 30 2,080 6,500 31,990 241 1,407 (Values in Acre -Feet) MAY JUN in AUG SEP 230 2,780 - 1,090 2,260 40 6,300 2,510 29,790 8,770 4,580 2,290 4,310 300 1,450 330 3,120 4,200 1,290 1,710 1,320 - - 1,500 440 2,600 270 240 90 1,550 4,910 30 900 460 1,180 140 1,890 2,060 19,190 1,120 450 40 450 620 4,180 6,110 920 50 4,400 5,270 110 170 4,370 7,990 710 2,250 530 7,910 1,210 3,900 370 2,210 80 2,070 100 1,020 150 90 2,060 260 1,150 19,840 20 10,310 810 - 10 - 18,500 5,370 9,870 360 28,080 2,030 330 250 250 - 17,640 13,660 1,620 700 1,130 6,250 1,260 230 410 1,710 950 11,920 12,510 1,710 - 520 630 12,860 180 10 20 10,510 12,330 710 240 40 5,160 630 520 14,310 3,400 13,050 230 20 1,900 120 710 40 180 310 12,210 2,180 10 3,660 760 1,680 1,250 - 4,450 3,300 145,130 99,740 76,190 35,700 78,940 5,397 3,694 2,721 1,215 2,819 OCT 540 22,150 5,690 250 4,460 5,870 220 830 510 140 9,220 20 12,890 150 2,890 170 2,720 23,870 110 400 360 4,400 NOV 10 1,250 990 290 170 20 130 70 1,680 60 10 30 400 220 370 20 2,210 210 100 730 840 210 440 30 30 R00 10 50 370 670 10 410 1,010 930 .10 10 30 180 10 60 10 1,490 410 100 200 70 91,860 10,520 6,100 3,624 390 226 TOTAL 3,570 13,960 88,360 17,590 5,270 6,070 12,310 12,760 22,590 16,270 15,510 21,060 7,180 3,560 15,260 20,610 79,090 3,260 49,300 1.1,590 31,510 39,480 26,180 21,550 20,710 1,550 2.3,440 �2, 9 20 603.0 70 2,208 "Report 'Treatment, Study Commission on Land Pond and Minor Reservoirs, and ..,, Flood Retarding Structure Depletions", April 1960. This report shows a runoff depletion from 1958 to 2010 of 5,8 acre-feet per square mile of drainage area. This depletion amounts to 1,100 acre-feet per year fox the Post Reservoir. Quality of Water IOnly two chemical analyses of flow near the reservoir site are available, one made by the U S,G.S, of a spot sample taken at U. S, Highway 380 just below the reservoir site on June 5, 1950 and the other made by Texas ' State Department of Health of a sample taken by the White River Municipal Water District at F. M. Highway 651 just above the reservoir site on May 10, ' 1968. These analyses are as follows: U,S.G.S, Health Dept. U,S. 380 F.M. 651 6-5-50 5-10-68 PPM PPM ISilica 14 Calcium 61 45 Magnesium 21 48 I Sodium and Potassium 182 244 Bicarbonate 107 222 Sulfate 199 326 I Chloride 238 237 Nitrate 4.2 Total Dissolved Solids 846 1120 Total Hardness 238 308 The flows at the time the samples were taken are not known; however, rainfall records in the vicinity indicate that the samples were taken at times of small freshets. The analyses indicate that, without concentration of the salts in the reservoir, the water would be barely acceptable as a fmunicipal supply. It is anticipated that the quality of flood flows, which I contribute most of the water to a reservoir in that area, would be better than the quality at samples such as the above taken at times of small freshe-�,-,- For this reason, the above analyses indicate that the reservoir water would probably be satisfactory for municipal use after concentration of salts in the reservoir by reason of evaporation, However, two analyses of spot samples of the flow are inadequate to prove up the quality of the water and it is recommended that a cooperative U S.G.S. quality and flow measuring station be established at F.M. 651 just above the reservoir as soon as practicable and continued until the quality of the water is definitely established. -12- A C E N T U R Y O F S E R V I C E June 9, 2000 Mr. Tommy O'Brien, P.E. White River Municipal Water District HCR2 Box 141 Spur, TX 79370 Re: Post Reservoir Updated Cost Estimate WRD00378 Dear Mr. O'Brien: As you requested we have reviewed the cost estimate for the proposed Post Reservoir. We have enclosed an updated estimate that has been revised to reflect current unit prices. No reevaluation of the project design has been made; however, the rock riprap on the upstream face of the dam was changed to soil cement. In general, soil cement is less expensive, and we have been using it on several reservoirs in your area. We have also added permitting costs and costs for mitigation, which would be required to construct the reservoir. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Yours very truly, Jam�,s G �w Janis C. Murphy, P.E. Enclosure loa00052J Awwtc va.Doc J Freese and Nichols, Inc. Engineers Environmental Scientists Architects 4055 International Plaza Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76109-4895 817-735-7300 Fax 817-735-7491 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST WEEDT RESERVOIR WHITE RIVER MUNIgPAL WATER DISTRICT FRaasa • l JUNE 2000 DOLLARS Includes Soll Cement In flou of Rods Rlprap 0 CITY OF LUBBOCK WATER QUALITY EVALUATION OF POST RESERVOIR SITE Freese AND Nichols, INC. CONSMING ENGINEERS CITY OF LUBBOCK WATER QUALITY EVALUATION OF POST RESERVOIR SITE SEPTEMBER 1989 FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FORT WORTH, TEXAS FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. SUMMARY The City of Lubbock authorized Freese and Nichols in June 1986 to conduct a study of dissolved minerals in the vicinity of the White River Municipal Water District's proposed Post Reservoir site, which Lubbock is considering as a source of additional water supply. The Post Reservoir site is located on the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River approximately two miles upstream from Highway 380, east of Post. The objective of this study was to evaluate the suitability of the reservoir in terms of water quality as a source of municipal supply. The study consisted of two primary parts: (1) an evaluation of water quality sampling data and (2) an analysis of alternative operating strategies to identify and evaluate an effective means of providing usable quality water to the City on a dependable basis. The projections of chemical quality in the proposed Post Reservoir assume that the current (i.e., November 1983 through March 1988) watershed conditions will be applicable in the future. However, if a significant change in the dissolved solids contribution upstream of the Post site occurs, as would happen if the City of Lubbock implemented direct discharge of treated wastewater effluent into the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River, then the results of water quality projections under the current study would be invalidated. In such an instance, additional detailed analyses would be required to estimate the impacts of the discharge on the current projections of Post Reservoir quality, and the alternatives for using Post water as described in this study would have to be re-evaluated. i FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. �I Water quality data collected by the City and by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were analyzed for patterns of dissolved mineral contami- nation in the study area. Analyses of the City's data indicated that no statistically significant differences in dissolved salts occurred at sampling points between Buffalo Springs Lake and the proposed reservoir site. These results indicate that dissolved mineral concentrations are relatively uniform downstream of Buffalo Springs Lake, and no isolated sources of localized salt contributions were encountered. Trend analyses were performed on total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride (Cl), and sulfate (S0,) concentrations of samples collected by the USGS near the proposed reservoir site between 1983 and 1987. No apparent increasing or decreasing trends were detected, indicating that the sources and processes that introduce dissolved minerals into the stream during the sampling period remained fairly constant. Total dissolved solids concentrations in Post Reservoir were simu- lated, using monthly streamflow and evaporation between 1940 and 1981 and the maximum authorized annual withdrawal rate of 10,600 acre-feet per year. The results indicate that TDS levels in the reservoir would be above 1,000 mg/l almost all the time and above 1,300 mg/1 approximately 64 percent of the time. Strategies for making the Post Reservoir water acceptable for .municipal use were evaluated. The alternatives included diverting high - concentration low flows around the reservoir, and blending Post Reservoir water with water from White River Reservoir, Sand Hills well water, the FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC proposed Lake Alan Henry, or the combination of White River Reservoir and Lake Henry. The low flow diversion alternative was the least effective. Diversion of flows up to 40 cfs reduced TDS levels below 1,300 mg/l about 72 percent of the time, but resulted in 14 months when the reservoir would be empty. Blending Post Reservoir water with 3,360 acre-feet per year [3 million gallons per day (MGD)] of White River Reservoir water would provide suitable quality drinking water approximately 76 percent of the time. Blending Post Reservoir water with Sand Hills well water, with Lake Alan Henry water or with the combination of White River and Lake Alan Henry water would enable Lubbock to use nearly all the Post yield while maintaining usable quality water at all times during the 42-year simulation period. Based on present watershed conditions as reflected by the water quality sampling results from 1983 through 1987, it is concluded that the Post Reservoir project can be developed and operated, in conjunction with other sources, to provide a reliable source of additional drinking water of acceptable quality for the City of Lubbock. i i i L' FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC_ II ONE COMPANY Many Solutions'" To: Thomas L. Adams From: David D. Dunn, P.E. Project: City of Lubbock Water Rights Permitting CC: Brad Castleberry Lynn Sherman Date: January 3, 2007 ,lob No: 34671 RE: Impacts of Proposed Post Reservoir Operations on BRA System Operations Per your direction following the meeting on September 19, 2006, at the offices of the Brazos River Authority (BRA) between representatives of the City of Lubbock (City) and BRA, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) has prepared modeling runs that simulate operations of the proposed Post Reservoir under various assumptions concerning various sources of water that might be available. These modeling runs were completed in order to determine the effects of the proposed operations on water rights held by BRA in Possum Kingdom Reservoir and on BRA's pending System Operations Permit that is currently being reviewed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This memorandum summarizes these initial analyses, which will be incorporated into a larger water availability report upon completion of the remainder of our work in the near future. Background The City of Lubbock is evaluating various water supply alternatives to meet the City's future water needs and - ' those of other entities in the surrounding area that may decide to purchase water from the City. One alternative the City is investigating is the potential for diverting flows from the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (North Fork) at the location of the proposed Post Reservoir. The water right for Post Reservoir (Certificate of Adjudication No. 3711) is held by the White River Municipal Water District and authorizes the impoundment of up to 57,420 acre-feet (acft) of water and the diversion of up to 10,600 acftlyear for municipal and other uses, at a priority date of January 20, 1970. The City has requested that HDR evaluate several alternatives for diverting water at or near the site of the proposed Post Reservoir, including (1) high -flow diversions (scalping) transported and stored in Lake Alan Henry, (2) storage and diversions from a smaller configuration of Post Reservoir that would be operated in conjunction with Lake Alan Henry, and (3) storage and diversion from a full-sized configuration of Post Reservoir, possibly operated in conjunction with Lake Alan Henry to maximize the supply that might be obtained from the two reservoirs. Any utilization of the Post Reservoir water right would require an agreement between the City and White River Municipal Water District. Several sources of water are potentially available to the City at the Post Reservoir site including: 1. water appropriated by the Post Reservoir water right (at the 1970 priority date); 2. remaining unappropriated flows at the Post Reservoir location; 3. the City's wastewater treatment plant effluent discharged into the North Fork; 4. stormwater "developed" by the City that is now discharged into the North Fork; and 5. water that may be made available through an agreement with BRA regarding priority calls for water at Possum Kingdom Reservoir and by BRA's pending System Operations Permit, if granted by TCEQ. BRA has filed a water rights permit application (System Operations Permit, Application No. 5851) with TCEQ that seeks a significant increase in BRA's overall authorized diversions from its system of water rights in the Brazos River Basin. This permit, if granted, would be senior in priority to all water rights granted after it and would necessitate that some form of priority calls agreement be entered into with BRA for virtually any new water right that is not associated with reuse of wastewater or other types of developed water that would not be subject to priority calls. HDR Engineering, Inc. j 4401 West Gate Blvd. Phone: 512-912-5100 ` Page 1 of 7 Suite 400 Fax: 512-912�5158 Austin, A 78745 www.hddnc.com Brazos Basin Water Availability Model TCEQ has developed water availability models (WAMs) for each river basin in Texas. These models utilize the Water Rights Analysis Package (WRAP) developed at Texas A&M University and input files developed spec'rfically.for each river basin. The WRAP model can compute water available to existing and proposed water rights under a variety of assumptions regarding water management in a river basin. This is accomplished by simulation of the water rights in the basin under a repeat of the historical period of record hydrology, and summarizing how those rights would have performed under historical hydrologic conditions and whatever management assumptions are being investigated. The Brazos River Basin WAM (Brazos WAM) includes a period of record from 1940 — 1997. For permitting of perpetual water rights, TCEQ has adopted a version of the Brazos WAM called Run 3. Basic assumptions in Run 3 include full utilization of all perpetual water rights, no term (temporary) permits, zero return flows (no discharge of treated wastewater effluent), and as -permitted reservoir storage capacities. The WRAP model code has been continually improved by Texas A&M University since adoption by TCEQ in 1997. Each subsequent version of the model has improved modeling capabilities with new or expanded options. However, each new version of the model increases in complexity, and at times requires that existing data sets be modified in order to be utilized with the latest version. The latest WRAP version was released in September 2006 and was selected for use in this study, primarily because of a new capability added to the model that allows the model user to simulate subordination of senior rights to upstream junior rights. Note that TCEQ is reviewing the model and has not adopted the September 2006 version. Initial tests of the September 2006 WRAP version on relatively simple data sets indicated that the updated model performed the subordination computations correctly. However, after application of the model to the larger, complicated Brazos Basin, inspection of model output revealed several computational difficulties in the new code, not necessarily related to the new subordination option. HDR decided that the most expedient approach would be to adopt an earlier version of the WRAP code (February 2004) to which HDR had added the capability to simulate subordination agreements between specific water rights. These modifications were made in support of the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group as it developed the 2006 Brazos G Regional Water Plan. The HDR-developed subordination option has not been adopted officially by TCEQ, and simulates subordination agreements using a different technique than does the September 2006 version. However, applying the two approaches on relatively simple example data sets showed that the two versions arrive at identical results with respect to subordination. Water Availability Model Used by BRA Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) supplied data sets to HDR that contain the simulations of BRA's proposed System Operations Permit. HDR utilized these data sets as a base, to which information was added that reflects the City's proposed supplies and uses at the Post Reservoir site. The BRA data sets differ from the TCEQ Run 3 data sets by including treated wastewater effluent discharges projected to occur in year 2060, and locating all BRA diversions (both existing authorizations and proposed) at three locations: the Brazos River near Glen Rose, the Brazos River near Highbank, and the Brazos River in the lower basin near the Gulf of Mexico. No return flows from the City or Ransom Canyon were included in the BRA's version of the Brazos WAM. The modeling supporting the BRA application is designed to take advantage of the efficiency of the BRA system of reservoirs and demonstrate the maximum amount of firm supply that could be developed by the system, including BRA's existing water rights. In developing the estimates of firm supply at the two upper diversion locations, the maximum firm supply available at the upstream location was first determined, and any remaining system supply was then determined at the Gulf diversion location. When the Gulf diversion is operated individually, no upstream diversions are taken and all BRA diversions are simulated at the Gulf location. As shown in Table 1, the maximum firm supply from the system is developed when all BRA diversions are taken in the lower basin near the Gulf of Mexico. This allows all BRA reservoirs to make releases to a common downstream diversion point, and takes advantage of the maximum drainage area available to contribute flows. When diversions are taken upstream at Glenrose or Highbank, the total supply that can be developed by the system is reduced. Table 1 summarizes the firm supply that BRA's application No. 5851 requests. t�J HDR Engineering, Inc. 4401 West Gate Blvd. + Phone: 512-912.5100 ` Page 2 of 7 Suite 400 I Fax: 512-912.5158 Austin, TX 78745 www.hddnc.cam Table 1. Summary of BRA System Supplies in System Operations Application No. 5851 (acfVyear) Firm Supply at Additional Supply at Total Total Diversion Diversion Location Gulf of Mexico Existing Additional Total Existing Additional Existing Additional Location Rights Supply supply Rights Su 1 Rights Supply Glen Rose 295,462 150,538 466,089 (2,089) 761,551 148,449 910,000 Highbank 295,462 144,306 466,089 1,143 761,551 145,449 907,000 Gulf of Mexico 1 761,551 421,449' -- -- 761,551 421,449' 1,183,000' ' Values for diversions at Glen Rose and the Gulf of Mexico differ from those obtained from current model data sets supplied by Freese and Nichols on behalf of BRA see Tables 2 and 3). Sources of Developed Water Return Flows Calculations of return flows from the City were based on personal communication with Ches Carthel dated November 22, 2005. HDR was instructed to assume 22.91 million gallons per day (MGD) (25,664 acft/year) of treated wastewater effluent would be returned to the North Fork and available for reuse by the City. Using this value, monthly totals of treated wastewater effluent were calculated and included in various model scenarios of the Brazos WAM. Return flows were assumed to be discharged into the North Fork at the current location of TPDES Permit No. 10353-002, near where FM 400 crosses the North Fork. The City has a reuse application pending at TCEQ (Permit No. 3985A) that would provide a total authorized indirect reuse of 32,991 acft/year. Developed Stormwater Estimates of water generated and discharged to the North Fork due to the operation of the City's stormwater v system were developed by Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc. (PSC) for the City and provided to HDR. Final values from PSC were obtained October 31, 2006. These estimates include total storm runoff volumes and peak discharges for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, discharged at 26 outfali locations. In addition, PSC provided runoff volumes for five rainfall depths less than the 2-year design storm in order to obtain an extended relationship between rainfall depth and volume of runoff. The five additional rainfall depths include the 0.5-, 1.0-, 1.5-, 2.0-, and 2.5-inch 24-hour precipitation events. Relationships were developed between storm event runoff volume and rainfall depth at each of the 26 outfalls. These relationships and daily rainfall data monitored at the Lubbock Airport were used to estimate monthly volumes of storm runoff from the "contributing" and "noncontributing" areas of the Lubbock stormwater system. Contributing areas correspond to those areas that TCEQ has determined naturally contribute flows to the North Fork. Noncontributing areas are those areas that contribute to North Fork flows solely due to construction of the City's stormwater system, and include primarily areas that drain to the system of playa lakes around the City. HDR estimated channel losses (from existing Brazos WAM data) between the 26 stormwater outfalls and the location of the proposed Lake 7 identified in the City's pending developed water right application No. 5921. This location is approximately 800 feet west and upstream of where FM 835 crosses the North Fork. Using the estimated channel losses, HDR estimated the portion of the water generated by the City's stormwater system that would be delivered to the Lake 7 location. HDR compared these monthly quantities to the naturalized streamflows in the Brazos WAM and determined flows in excess of the existing naturalized flows that can be considered "developed." The result of the analyses is monthly volumes of water available to the City assuming, alternatively, that (1) all stormwater discharged by the City can be considered to be "developed" water, and (2) only that stormwater discharged that would not have been discharged without the City's stormwater system can be considered "developed" water. For these analyses, HDR utilized the first case, with the additional flows that were made available to the City as "developed" water limited to those flows in excess of the existing TCEQ naturalized flows at the Lake 7 location. The estimates of developed stormwater and return flows were incorporated into the Brazos WAM, and were made available for use by Post Reservoir prior to other water rights in the basin. HDR Engineering, ine. 14401 West Gate Blvd. Phone: 512�912^5 o I Page 3 of 7 Suite 400 Fax: 512-912.5158 Austin, TX 78745 www.hdrine.com Water Supplies at Post Reservoir Analyses to determine the impacts of the City's proposed water supplies are limited in this memorandum to analyses of the proposed use of the Post Reservoir at its full authorized storage capacity. This will reflect the maximum impact to BRA's existing and pending water rights that could be expected due to the City developing a water supply at the Post Reservoir site. A smaller Post Reservoir and/or any scalping operation at the Post site without the full sized Post Reservoir will have lesser effects on the BRA rights. For purposes of this analysis, a series of model runs (Scenarios 1 — 6) were developed to determine the incremental water supply benefit that can be realized from each identified source of water, and the incremental effect each would potentially have on BRA's existing and pending water rights. The results of the analyses are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Supplies presented here are "firm yield" supplies, representing the maximum annual supply that could be diverted from Post Reservoir following a mostly municipal demand pattern. Under a firm yield analysis, the reservoir is allowed to go dry or nearly dry during the critical month of the simulation period, which occurs in the midst of the 1950's drought. These analyses utilize the 1940 — 1997 hydrologic period available in the Brazos WAM, which does not reflect the ongoing drought currently experienced in the region. The current drought has been shown to be equally or more severe than the 1950's drought. A base case (Scenario 1) was established, which is the model run provided by FNI. In this scenario, the full Post Reservoir authorized diversion (10,600 acft/year) is simulated with no subordination of BRA rights and no additional sources of water available. Under this scenario, the Post Reservoir diversion is not firm and experiences shortages in multiple months and years. The firm yield of the BRA System was determined from which to calculate the effects of various Post Reservoir operations. A second scenario (Scenario 2) was established in which the firm yield of Post Reservoir was determined, with no developed water and no subordination of the BRA rights. Based on the Post Reservoir priority date, the firm yield of Post Reservoir is approximately 5,500 acft/year, or 5,100 acft/year less than its authorized diversion of 10,600 acft/year. It is common for reservoirs in the western portion of the state to have authorized diversions that are significantly greater than the firm yield computed by the TCEQ Brazos WAM. The authorized diversions of many of the western reservoirs were determined by not fully accounting for the passage of inflows to downstream senior water rights, and often allow for overdrafting operations (temporarily diverting greater than the firm yield during wet times). The firm yield of 5,500 acft/year computed here for Post Reservoir assumes that the reservoir would pass all inflows to senior water rights whenever those rights would otherwise experience a shortage of either diversion or storage. The most significant downstream senior water right affecting the yield of Post Reservoir is BRA's Possum Kingdom Reservoir, which has a priority date of 1938, making it one of the largest, most senior rights in the upper basin. Scenario 3 simulates the additional supply that could be developed in Post Reservoir by subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir to Post Reservoir'. Subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir to Post Reservoir, i.e., Post not having to pass inflows to maintain storage in Possum Kingdom, would increase the yield of Post Reservoir to 13,680 acft/year2, a yield that is 3,080 acft/year greater than the diversions currently authorized in the water right. This subordination would have a minimal effect on Possum Kingdom by reducing the minimum storage from 260,359 acft to 258,016 acft (2,343 acft reduction) during the critical month of the drought of record (April 1953). The remaining storage in the critical month is greater than BRA's currently permitted annual diversions from Possum Kingdom Reservoir. This reduction in storage would not reduce the capability of BRA to divert its full authorized diversions from Possum Kingdom. Under Scenario 4, accounting for the City's assumed 22.91 MGD (25,664 acft/year) of return flows increases the yield of Post Reservoir to 31,700 acft/yr (assuming subordination of Possum Kingdom), an increase of 18,020 acft/year. There is not a one-to-one increase in yield from the return flows due primarily to the ' Under all scenarios involving subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir, all diversions from Post Reservoir were treated as senior to the BRA System Operation Permit diversion. 2 Any diversions from Post Reservoir in excess of 10,600 acft/year assume a 2007 priority date and were simulated subject to Lyons Method instream flow requirements, which specify passage of reservoir inflows to maintain minimum flows downstream of the reservoir. The Lyons Method is the default method employed by TCEQ for determining instream flow requirements. H®R Engineering, Inc. 4401 West Gate Blvd. Phone: 512.91M100 Page 4 of 7 Suite 400 Fax 512.91 Ml58 Austin, TX 78745 www.hdrinc.com significant channel losses between FM 400 and Post Reservoir (28.7 percent), some evaporative losses in the reservoir, and the fact that the return flows are simulated as constant inflows and are not discharged to the stream following the same municipal demand pattern that the diversions follow. The return flows were treated as "developed" water, whereby Post Reservoir was given first and full access to them (after losses) prior to any other right in the basin. Under Scenario 5, accounting for the City's developed stormwater flows further increases the yield of Post Reservoir to 37,400 acft/year. While the City's return flows were input to the model as constant monthly inflows, the stormwater flows are input as a monthly 1940 —1997 time series of discharges, which vary widely from zero in many months to a maximum of 18,105 acft in a single month. The developed stormwater flows average 919 acft/month. Similar to the City's return flows, the stormwater flows were treated as "developed" water by allowing Post Reservoir first and full access to them prior to any other right in the basin. An additional scenario (Scenario 6) was investigated, wherein the City return flows and developed stormwater flows are made available to Post Reservoir, but no subordination agreement with BRA is enacted. Treated as "developed" flows, the return flows and stormwater flows would not be subject to priority calls by BRA. The modeling results indicate that a firm supply of between 32,170 and 32,700 acft/year could be developed at Post Reservoir without subordination of any BRA water rights. As the Post Reservoir supply in this case is dependent upon how Possum Kingdom Reservoir and the BRA System operate, the yield varies according to where the BRA System yield is diverted. Impacts to Proposed BRA System Operations Permit Potential impacts to BRA's proposed System Operations Permit were considered at two of the three locations cited in the BRA permit application, the Brazos River near Glen Rose and at the lower basin diversion near the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). Tables 2 and 3 show the impacts to the BRA System Operation Permit of the various scenarios investigated. With regard to the Glen Rose diversion, the combined yields at both Glen Rose and the Gulf must be balanced as the combined BRA yield is maximized. Subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir (and the proposed BRA System Operations Permit) to Post Reservoir under Scenario 3 appears to increase diversions from the BRA System (combined Glen Rose and Gulf diversions) when compared to the base case (Scenario 1). This can be misleading, because when Post Reservoir is operated in an overdrafting mode, it can reduce inflows to Possum Kingdom Reservoir during certain critical times that are required to maintain the system yield at Glen Rose, which has a different critical month (April 1953) than the Gulf diversion (February 1957). Overall, subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir appears to have minimal effect on the combined diversions at Glen Rose and the Gulf, primarily because much of the BRA's system benefit is reduced when diverting significant flows from the upper basin. Subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir to Post Reservoir would reduce BRA System diversions at Glen Rose by about 500 acft/year. However, this reduction in Glen Rose diversions could subsequently increase available diversions at the Gulf. With regard to the Gulf diversion by itself, the largest impact the proposed Post Reservoir operations would have would be due primarily to subordinating Possum Kingdom Reservoir to Post Reservoir. The storage reductions caused by subordination would limit the capability of Possum Kingdom Reservoir to make releases to the Gulf diversion during critical months. The net effect BRA might recognize from the above operations would be about a 3,950 acft/year reduction in the firm diversions at the Gulf when BRA's diversions are concentrated in the lower basin only. Note that the Gulf diversion amounts shown here are greater than those that BRA has applied for in the System Operation Permit Application. The model data sets provided by FNI indicate a firm Gulf diversion that is 4,000 acft/year greater than stated in the System Operation Permit Application. Conversely, the combined Glen Rose and Gulf diversions in the data sets provided by FNI are about 5,000 acft/year less than requested in the BRA's application (Tables 1 and 2). HDR Engineering, inc. I 4401 Otte West GSa� Blvd. I Fax: a 51a2.91 M158100 I Page 5 of 7 Table 2. Summary of Supplies with BRA System Operations Focused at Glen Rose (acft/year) (All diversions are firm yield supplies unless otherwise noted.) Post Glen Gulf Total BRA Changein Change Scenario Diversion Rose Diversion Diversion Glen Rose in Gulf Diversion Diversion Diversion 1. Original Data from FNI (base) 10,600 not firm 446,800 459,400 906,200 -- -- 2 No PK Subordination, No 5,500 446,800 461,600 908,400 0 2,200 Stormwater, No Return Flow 3. PK Subordination Only 13,680 446,300 461,700 908,000 500 2,300 4 PK Subordination plus Return 31,700 444,300 464,100 908,400 (2,500) 4,700 Flows 5 PK Subordination plus Return 37,400 443,700 463,800 907,500 (3,100) 4,400 Flows plus Stormwater 6 No PK Subordination plus 32,170 446,800 461,600 908,400 0 2,200 i Return Flows plus StormwaterI Table 3. Summary of Supplies with BRA System Operations Focused at the Gulf of Mexico (acft/year) (All diversions are firm yield supplies unless otherwise noted.) Post Gulf Change in Scenario Diversion Diversion Gulf Diversion 1. Original Data from FNI (base) 10,600 not firm 1,187,250 2 No PK Subordination, No 5,500 1,187,100 (150) Stormwater, No Return Flow 3. PK Subordination Only 13,680 1,183,600 3,650 4 PK Subordination plus Return 31,700 1,183,300 (3,950) Flows 5 PK Subordination plus Return 37,400 1,183,300 (3,950) Flows plus Stormwater 6 No PK Subordination plus 32,700 1,187,100 (150) Return Flows 2122 Stormwater Options to Increase Supply from Post Reservoir In order to access additional (unpermitted) yield in Post Reservoir, a new or amended water right will be required. This could include one or a combination of the following options: Amend Certificate of Adjudication No. 3711 to increase authorized diversions from Post Reservoir. This amendment would be for unappropriated flows, and/or flows made available at Post through a subordination agreement with BRA. The current diversions authorized from Post Reservoir (10,600 acft/year) are not firm. Without subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir, 5,500 acft/year of firm supply could be developed at Post Reservoir out of the 10,600 acft/year of authorized diversions. Subordination of Possum Kingdom Reservoir to Post would make firm the remaining 5,100 acft/year of existing authorized diversions, and make available an additional 3,080 acft/year for a total increase in firm supply of 8,180 acft/year. In other words, subordination would make firm the existing authorized diversions of 10,600 acft/year, plus increase the yield by an additional 3,080 acft/year to a total of 13,680 acft/year, as shown in Table 4. HDR Engineering, Inc. I 4401 e 400Fax: , 78745 Blvd. (hdrin m58 00 I Page 6 of 7 Table 4. Summary of Supplies at Post Reservoir (acft/year) Supply Description 5,500 Firm yield supply from existing authorization 5.100 Existing authorization made firm through subordination 10,600 Total existing authorized diversions 3,080 Additional firm supply made available through subordination 13,680 1 Total supply at Post Reservoir Any diversions from Post Reservoir in excess of 10,600 acft/year would need to be permitted at TCEQ and would be assigned a junior priority. This would also require some form of subordination agreement with BRA so that inflows would not need to be passed to Possum Kingdom Reservoir. It may be possible to include the developed stormwater and return flows in this amendment by treating a portion of the additional diversions from Post Reservoir as developed water that is not subject to downstream priority calls. 2. Amend the pending reuse permit No. 3985A to add a diversion point at Post Reservoir so that the additional return flows can be diverted at the Post site. This would likely not require an amendment to the Post Reservoir water right as the additional diversions at the site would be associated with the reuse permit. 3. Amend the pending developed water application No. 5921 to add a diversion point at Post Reservoir so that the developed stormwater flows can be stored and accessed at the Post site. Both options 2 and 3 would not make any additional "unappropriated" flows available at Post, but would provide the means to access the reuse and developed stormwater flows at the Post site. Neither option 2 or 3 would require a subordination agreement with BRA, as the reuse and developed stormwater flows are not subject to priority calls by senior rights, including BRA's (assuming acceptance by TCEQ that these flows can be treated as developed water). With no subordination agreement with BRA, the combined reuse and developed stormwater flows would increase the firm yield of Post Reservoir by about 27,200 acft/year (Table 3). In comparison, with a subordination agreement, the combined reuse and developed stormwater flows would increase the firm yield of Post Reservoir by a lesser amount of 23,700 acft/year. These analyses indicate that while a subordination agreement with BRA would increase the Post Reservoir yield by 8,180 acft/year, the increased water availability due to subordination reduces the effectiveness of the combined return and stormwater flows by about 3,500 acft/year (27,200 minus 23,700) because Post Reservoir would be more full more often and would not be able to capture as much of the developed water flows. Under both options, an accounting plan would need to be established that would apportion the water stored in Post and subsequently diverted between reuse, developed stormwater, and water appropriated under the Post Reservoir priority. If no equitable subordination agreement can be reached with BRA, the City (in coordination with White River Municipal Water District) could realize an increase of about 27,200 acft/year in firm supply from Post Reservoir due to the City's return flows and developed stormwater discharges alone. With a subordination agreement, an additional 3,500 acft/year increase in firm supply could be realized in addition to the supply made available from return flows and developed stormwater discharges. HDA Engineering, Inc. ( 4401 West Gate Blvd. I Phone: 512.912.5100 1 Page 7 of 7 Suite 400 Fax: 512-912.5158 Ausfin,TX 78745 www.hddne.com III ONE COMPANY Many Solutions" Memo To: Thomas L. Adams, City of Lubbock From: David D. Dunn, P.E. Project. City of Lubbock Water Rights Permitting CC: Brad Castleberry, Lloyd-Gosselink Lynn Sherman, Winstead Consulting Date: March 28, 2007 Job No: 34671 RE: Impacts of Proposed City of Lubbock Water Development Activities on Current and Proposed BRA Water Rights This memorandum is intended to summarize the water rights modeling performed thus far by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) with respect to the City of Lubbock's (the City) pending water right application for developed water (Application No. 5921), and to provide information regarding the potential impacts to the water rights held by the Brazos River Authority (BRA) in Possum Kingdom Reservoir (PK) or contemplated by the BRA in its pending System Operations Permit (Application No. 5851). Based on the analyses completed by HDR, the City's contemplated actions will have no negative effect on either Possum Kingdom Reservoir or the BRA's System Operations Permit. On October 17, 2005, the City submitted Application No. 5921 to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This application applied for water to be supplied at the proposed Lake 7 and Lake 8 of the Jim Bertram Lake System on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (North Fork). Water impounded at these two locations would be available through three primary sources: a 1. unappropriated flows from the North Fork (minimal amounts are available), 2. stormwater flows originating from the playa lake system within the City that are now discharged into the North Fork ("developed" water stormwater), and 3. return flows discharged upstream from the lakes, excluding those flows sought by other City water right applications. The City is considering several options to amend the developed water application, including: ® remove Lake 8, ® utilize the developed water at the location of the proposed Post Reservoir, and ® divert the developed water into Lake Alan Henry. The City is also considering alternatives for joint operation of the proposed Post Reservoir and Lake Alan Henry to maximize the supply that could be developed. Both the return flows and stormwater flows are considered to be "developed" water, in that they would not have been present in the North Fork except for the actions of the City. The return flows originate from groundwater sources or surface water supplied through interbasin transfer. These flows have traditionally not been discharged into the North Fork. The City has a pending water right application (Application No. 3985A), for which a draft permit has been issued by TCEQ for indirect reuse of historical and future City return flows up to 32,991 acre-feet per year (acft/yr). For purposes of HDR's analyses, volumes of return flows potentially available to the City were estimated to be 25,664 acft/yr, and would be discharged at the location of the outfall permitted by TPDES Permit No. 10353-002, near where FM 400 crosses the North Fork. The stormwater flows have been historically captured by the playa lake system and never discharged to the North Fork. The City has recently begun stormwater system improvements to discharge to the North Fork the stormwater flows captured in the playa lakes. In addition, development within the City of Lubbock has increased runoff to the North Fork beyond that which would have occurred naturally. HDR Engineering, Inc. { 4401 West Gate Blvd. { Phone: 512-912.5100 Page 1 of 3 Suite 400 1 Fax 512-912515B Austin, TX 78745 www.hddnc.com Volumes of stormwater discharged to the North Fork vary with rainfall. Estimates of water generated and N" discharged to the North Fork due to operation of the City's stormwater system were developed by Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc. (PSC) for the City and provided to HDR. These estimates include total storm runoff volumes for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, discharged at 26 outfall locations. In addition, PSC provided runoff volumes for five rainfall depths less than the 2-year design storm in order to obtain an extended relationship between rainfall depth and volume of runoff. The five additional rainfall depths include the 0.5-, 1.0-, 1.5-, 2.0-, and 2.5-inch 24-hour precipitation events. Relationships were developed between storm event runoff volume and 24-hour rainfall depth at each of the 26 outfalls. These relationships and daily rainfall data monitored at Lubbock international Airport were used to estimate monthly volumes of storm runoff from the "contributing" and "noncontributing" areas of the Lubbock stormwater system for the 1940 — 1997 period of record covered by the TCEQ's Brazos Water Availability Model (Brazos WAM). Contributing areas correspond to those areas that TCEQ has determined naturally contribute flows to the North Fork. Noncontributing areas are those areas that contribute to North Fork flows solely due to construction of the City's stormwater system, and include primarily areas that drain to the system of playa lakes around the City. HDR estimated channel losses (from existing Brazos WAM data) between the 26 stormwater outfalls and the location of the proposed Lake 7. This location is approximately 800 feet west and upstream of where FM 835 crosses the North Fork. HDR estimated the portion of the water generated by the City's stormwater system that would be delivered to the Lake 7 location. HDR compared these monthly quantities to the naturalized streamflows in the Brazos WAM and determined flows in excess of the existing naturalized flows that can be considered "developed." These additional flows were made available to the City as "developed" water and were limited to those monthly discharges in excess of the existing TCEQ naturalized flows at the Lake 7 location. The estimates of developed stormwater and return flows were incorporated into the Brazos WAM, and were made available for use by Post Reservoir prior to other water rights in the basin having access. HDR obtained from Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) the latest version of the Brazos WAM model that contains the proposed System Operations configuration. This version utilizes the dual simulation approach to limit streamflow depletions by existing BRA rights to what those rights would have appropriated without System Operations. This ensures that the proposed System Operations will not impact any other existing rights in the basin. The System Operations diversions contained in the model obtained from FNI are greater from those additional diversions requested in the original System Operations Permit (Application No. 5851), and HDR analyzed changes to diversions contained in the model data sets, not what was requested in Application No. 5851. This memorandum focuses on the analyses related to Post Reservoir, as it fully demonstrates that the City's utilization of its developed water sources will have minimal impact on the BRA's existing or pending water rights. No changes were made in the data sets related to the modeling of the BRA's existing water rights or the modeling of Application No. 5851. The water right for Post Reservoir (Certificate of Adjudication No. 3711) is held by the White River Municipal Water District and authorizes the impoundment of up to 57,420 acft of water and the diversion of up to 10,600 acft/year for municipal and other uses, at a priority date of January 20, 1970. A special condition sets aside 19,000 acft of the storage in the reservoir for sediment reserve, and allows the TCEQ to utilize the water stored in the sediment pool until such time as 19,000 acft of sedimentation has occurred. The Post Reservoir water right was modeled in two steps in HDR's analyses. The existing senior portion was modeled as it currently is in the Brazos WAM, with the exception that the dual simulation approach was used to ensure that additional demands modeled at the junior priority do not cause the reservoir to appropriate more streamflow at the 1970 priority than it would have without the additional demands. Any additional diversions from the reservoir were then modeled at a priority junior to Possum Kingdom and junior to the proposed BRA System Operations. No subordination of Possum Kingdom or BRA System Operations to Post Reservoir was simulated in the analyses presented herein. Developed water return and stormwater HDR Engineering, Inc. 4401 West Gate Blvd. Phone: 512-912.5100 I Page 2 of 3 Suile 400 Fax: 512-912-515B Austin, TX 78745 www.hddnc.com discharges were made available to Post Reservoir using Type 7 (negative streamfiow depletion) rights, discharging to the North Fork at the locations discussed above, at a priority date one day senior to the junior diversions from Post Reservoir. With this modeling technique, the priorities of all existing and proposed BRA rights were honored prior to the diversions of the Post Reservoir. The effects on BRA System Operations were evaluated using the combined Glen Rose/Gulf diversion scenario and the Gulf diversion -only scenario. Table 1 presents the results of the analyses. `table 1. Summary of Supplies Available from Post Reservoir and BRA System Operations (acft/year) (All diversions are firm yield supplies unless otherwise noted.) Post Glen Gulf Total BRA Changein Change Scenario Diversion Rose Diversion Diversion Glen Rose In Gulf Diversion Diversion Diversion BRA System Operations Diverting only at Gulf Original Data from FNI 10,600 (not firm) n/a 1,187,250 1,187,250 n/a -- Post with Developed Water 32,700 n/a 1,187,100 1,187,100 n/a (150) BRA System Operations Diverting at Glen Rose and Gulf Original Data from FNI 10,600 (notfirm) 446,800 459,400 906,200 -- -- Post with Developed Water 32,170 446,800 461,600 908,400 0 2,200 When the BRA's diversions are taken solely at the Gulf location, the model results indicate that operation of Post Reservoir in conjunction with the City's developed water supplies might have a small (150 acft/yr) impact on the BRA's System Operation. However, this difference is likely an artifact of the complexity of modeling i the BRA's system and could probably be eliminated with additional fine tuning of the system model parameters. When a Guff diversion is paired with an upper basin diversion, such as at Glen Rose, supplies available from BRA's System Operations might actually increase due to spills of developed water from Post Reservoir. This result is partly due to the fact that the Gulf diversion included in the original data from FNI is less than the firm supply that could be diverted, but also due to the fact that the developed water flows increase storage in Post Reservoir during many months and cause streamfiow depletions by Post Reservoir at its 1970 priority date to be reduced. This leaves additional flows available to be appropriated by the BRA rights. The forgoing analyses assume no subordination agreements between the BRA and the City, including the existing agreement related to Lake Alan Henry and Possum Kingdom. Considering this agreement in the model would decrease the supply available from Possum Kingdom Reservoir (and BRA System diversions), but would have a consistent effect across all simulations and was therefore not necessary to include in these analyses. These analyses indicate that operation of the proposed Post Reservoir utilizing the City's developed water sources (return flows and stormwater discharges) would have essentially no negative impact on the BRA's System Operations. An accounting plan would likely need to be developed whereby the City can differentiate between naturally -occurring inflows available to Post Reservoir at its 1970 priority date, inflows which the City would not have right to impound that would have to passed downstream to senior rights, and developed water flows owned by the City. HDR Engineering, Inc. 4401 West Gate Blvd. Phone: 512-912.5100 I Page 3 of 3 Suite 400 Fax 512.912.5158 Austin, TX 78745 www.hdhnc.com 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 12 — Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — Year 2030 - South Fork Tributary Option Content No documentation Summary One alternative that has been raised is to save money by extending existing or constructing new pipelines to take reclaimed water to a South Fork tributary and then store the water in Lake Alan Henry. While on the surface this alternative appears simple and inexpensive, a closer analysis shows that it actually has a cost similar to that of the other options under consideration. A pipeline extension may cost as much as $20 to $30 million and this extension would have a limitation of 9 million gallons per day. A new pipeline for additional capacity would cost $50 million. In addition, there may be an additional $20 million in capital costs necessary to increase the line size from Lake Alan Henry to the Post Reservoir that would not be required for the Post Reservoir project. As a result, this project, depending upon the alternatives selected, could cost $40 to $70 million. The cost savings proposed by this alternative would preclude the discharge of about 50% of the City's reclaimed water if the existing pipeline is the constraining factor. A new pipeline would have costs similar to that of the Post Reservoir. Even if a new pipeline is constructed, the option would not benefit from the City's developed storm water and natural flows that now go into the North Fork. Developed storm water has been estimated at 11,000 AF annually. This water will require approval of the TCEQ in a pending water permit prior to being available for use by the City of Lubbock. Due to water quality issues, there may also be an advantage to keeping the developed waters separate from Lake Alan Henry. The total dissolved solids (TDS) in Lake Alan Henry water is just under 600 parts per million (ppm) while the water at the FM 400 discharge site is over 1100 ppm. The drinking water standard is set at 1000 ppm.. Keeping the water sources separate may help reduce or minimise future water treatment costs. A study is planned on water quality issues related to reuse and treatment. This option also does not take into account the opportunity and need for regional cooperation. The City has expressed a desire to work with area communities, and the North Fork option would involve significant regional cooperative efforts. 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 13 — Supplement to Lake Alan Henry — Year 2030 — Scalping Operation Option Content a. Map of North Fork Scalping Operation b. Region O Water Supply Plan for Scalping Operation Summary The proposed Scalping Operation option would, like the Post Reservoir, capture developed water and natural flows in the North Fork of the Brazos River. However, the capture of water would be limited to the capacity of the pumps and pipelines, so the system would not likely benefit from all flows without significant expense. Cost wise the project again would be comparable to the other options considered. It does not offer any significant cost savings. One additional concern is that the North Fork has experienced problems with golden algae and fish kills. The scalping operation would take North Fork water out of the North Fork for storage in Lake Alan Henry. This could spread the golden algae problem into Lake .Alan Henry. Due to the comparable costs, and due to the potential for golden algae, this alternative is not recommended. C") Gr PROPOSED SCALPING DIVERSION E AND PUMP STATION TO LAKE ALAN HENRY N SCALE:1° = 8000' SEPTEMBER, 2005 o w Y t w•4 i is � x. W.e a e'm• m F R.y n 4 2 PIx Idi gig a,. " » 9 x " STAMON qq�� u u Station f , .. .. } , y �y " .r 6 { a. l �-x w L Pelt LAK y v P E ALAN HENRY � e e k, sfi � � , t " :R, s - c w J r p� A qry��p � e c 9' 4d �flc HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Lake Alan Henry N _-"/ jp Existing Reservoirs Proposed Reservoirs Counties Primary Roads Cities and Towns 0 1.25 2.5 5 in Mks Figure 4.4-9. Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan FMJanuary 2006 4-202 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs ._ used to determine the CCEFN pass -through requirements for the North Fork diversion are shown in Table 4.4-60. Table 4.4-60. Daily Natural Streamflow Statistics Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Month Median Flows — Zone 1 Pass -Through Requirements (cfs) 25th Percentile Flows — Zone 2 Pass -Through Requirements (cfs) January 2 0 February 3 0 March 1 0 April 1 0 May 8 0 June 13 2 July 4 0 August 2 0 September 5 0 October 4 0 November 3 0 December 3 0 Zone 3 (7Q2) Pass -Through Requirement (cfs): 0.0 An estimate of the firm yield for Lake Alan Henry of 22,500 acft/yr was provided by the City of Lubbock to the Llano Estacado Regional Water Planning Group. This estimate accounts for a subordination agreement with the Brazos River Authority regarding Possum Kingdom Reservoir. The firm yield of Lake Alan Henry as computed by the Brazos WAM (accounting similarly for the subordination agreement) is 20,600 acft/yr, which is somewhat less than the yield estimate provided by the City of Lubbock. The yield analysis developed for the City of Lubbock is more detailed and in-depth than that computed by the Brazos WAM and is likely somewhat more accurate. With the North Fork diversion into Lake Alan Henry, the yield of the reservoir is increased to 24,600 acft/yr (as computed by the Brazos WAM), indicating that the yield increase due to the North Fork diversion project is approximately 4,000 acft/yr. Figure 4.4-10 illustrates the simulated Lake Alan Henry storage levels for the 1940 to 1997 historical simulation period, subject to the enhanced firm yield of 24,600 acft/yr. Diversions of storm flows from the North Fork into the reservoir would change North Fork Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan "r] i January 2006 4-203 u HOR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs streamflows, as presented in Table 4.4-61 and illustrated in Figure 4.4-11. As shown in the figure and table, monthly median streamflows at the diversion location on the North Fork would decrease, with the largest decline being about 20 cfs in June. However, inspection of the streamflow frequency graph indicates that little change in high or low streamflows would result from the diversion. Streamflows downstream of Lake Alan Henry would be changed minimally by diverting North Fork flows into the reservoir. Streamflows in Gobbler Creek would increase by an average of about 4,000 acf /yr, with a maximum of 30,000 acff/yr, due to discharge of the North Fork flows. The instantaneous increase in streamflow in Gobbler Creek would be equal to the maximum diversion capacity of 250 cfs. Table 4.4-61. Median Monthly Streamflow Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Monthly Median Streamflow (cfs) Without With Percent Month Project Project Decrease Reduction Jan 2.9 2.5 0.4 13% Feb 3.8 2.7 1.1 28% Mar 2.8 1.2 1.6 56% Apr 6.7 2.2 4.5 67% May 28.3 14.3 14.0 49% Jun 37.3 16.7 20.6 55% Jul 13.7 11.0 2.7 20% Aug 15.0 11.3 3.7 25% Sep 29.0 16.2 12.8 44% Oct 8.0 5.0 3.0 37% Nov 5.2 2.9 2.2 43% Dec 3.4 3.1 0.4 10% Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan FMJanuary 2006 4-204 HOR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 100% 90% u 80% U 70% 60% c 50% 40% o 30% v 20% a 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% V 70% w 60% o 50% Firm Yield Storage Trace nt1 Ii�li��►1'��/� �1� W�■■�ii1MEM in, � Min as Firm Yield = 24,600 acfiiyr ---------------- Date Storage Frequency at Firm Yield 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Time Storage Percentage Exceeded Figure 4.4-10. Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Storage Considerations i Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-205 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 40 35 30 ; 25 3 20 N C 15 10 5 0 1,000 900 800 700 600 3 �0 500 E co 400 W 300 200 100 0 Lake Alan Henry Scalping — Median Streamflow Comparision ❑ Without Diversion ■ With Diversion — Median CCEFN an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov De Month Lake Alan Henry Scalping — Streamflow Frequency Comparison 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Time Streamflow Exceeded Figure 4.4-11. Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Streamflow Comparisons Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-206 fm HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 4.4.3.8.3 Environmental Issues The North Fork Scalping Operation to supplement the yield of Lake Alan Henry involves the construction of a diversion lake on the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River approximately 18 miles southeast of Post, Texas, a raw water intake structure and associated water transmission lines. The approximately six mile pipeline would deliver diverted water to a point on Gobbler Creek, from which it would flow an additional five miles through the existing stream channel to Lake Alan Henry on the Double Mountain Fork Brazos River. The proposed diversion lake site and Lake Alan Henery are both located in Garza County within the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion,2 in the Rolling Plains vegetational area of Texas,3 and in the Kansan biotic province.4 The study area is located in the Rolling Plains Ecological Region as designated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD 2005). This region is characterized gently rolling His, used primarily as rangeland, that are dissected by streams and rivers that flow from west to east. This area is bordered on the south by the Edwards Plateau Ecological Region and on the west by the High Plains Ecological Region. Vegetation in this area is generally classified as mesquite -buffalo grass. The predominant vegetation form is medium -tall grassland with a sparse shrub cover. Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium var. frequens), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats grams (Bouteloua curtipendula), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and sand bluestem (Andropogon gerardii var. paucipilus) are included in the list of native grasses in this area. Invasion of the rangeland areas in this region by annual and perennial forbs, legumes, and woody species has been facilitated by historic livestock grazing practices and a lack of naturally occurring fire in the area. Dominant woody species include redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii), yucca, mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), lotebush (Ziayphus obtusifolia var. obtusifolia), hackberry (Celtis sp.), bumelia, pricklypear (Opuntia sp.), skunkbush sumac (Rhus aromatica var. flabelliformis), ephedra, plum (Prunus sp.), western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria), little leaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), shin oak (Quercus sinuata var. breviloba), tasajillo (Opuntia leptocaulis), agarito (Berberis trifoliolata), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii var. greggii), lime pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), sand sage, and others. Bottomland areas found 2 Omemik, James M., "Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1), pp. 118-125, 1986. 3 Gould, F.W., "The Grasses of Texas," Texas A&M University Press, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, 1962. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-207 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs (__," along larger streams contain American elm (Ulmus Americana), button willow (Cephalanthus occidentalis), pecan (Carya illinoensis) and cottonwood (Populus sp.). The limestone ridges and steep terrains of this area produce a greater diversity of woody plants and wildlife habitat than would normally be expected from a plains region. Faunal species include those suited to a semi -arid environment. Riparian zones along the Brazos River and streams and their tributaries contain important wildlife habitat for the region and support populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Rio Grande turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia). Bobwhites (Colinus virginianus), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and a variety of song birds, small mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds, reptiles, and amphibians are found in this region. Large to medium -size mammals include the coyote (Canis latrans), ringtail (Bassariscus astusus), ocelot (Fells pardalis), and collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu). Typical smaller herbivores include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), hispid pocket mouse (Perognathus hispidis), Texas kangaroo rat (Dipodomys elator), Texas mouse (Peromyscus attwateri), desert shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi), and rock squirrel (Spermophilus variegates), Bison (Bos bison), and black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) are historically associated with this area. Within the proposed diversion lake area, the General Soil Map for Garza County shows Vernon -Rough broken land associations found close to the Brazos River, and Miles associations on the upland areas on either side of the river. Vernon soils are moderately deep clay loams, with slopes ranging from gentle to steep. Rough broken land is found in areas along escarpments and in areas that are generally sloping to steep in grade. The Miles series are generally found on uplands, and are composed of deep, moderately permeable deep fine sandy soils. These soils are well -drained and have a high available water capacity. Federal and State listed Threatened and Endangered species for Garza County are summarized in Table 4.4-62. The Texas Natural Diversity Database lists two species considered Endangered or Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Garza County; the Whooping Crane (Gus Americana), Black -footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In addition there are four state -listed species within the county, the Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), Palo Duro Mouse (Peromyscus truei Comanche), and Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). 4 Blair, W.F., "ne Biotic Provinces of Texas, "Tex. J. Sci. 2:93-117, 1950. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-208 IM ., HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs The Whooping Crane, Arctic Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle are potential migrants to Garza County which may use habitats in the area during migration. A survey of the diversion lake site may be required to determine whether populations of or potential habitats used by listed species occur in the area to be affected. The Palo Duro Mouse prefers juniper and mesquite covered slopes of steep -walled canyons of the eastern edge of the Llano Estacado. The Black - footed Ferret is generally found in areas occupied by prairie dogs, usually dry, flat short grasslands including land overgrazed by cattle, and the Texas Homed Lizard generally prefers open, and areas with sparse vegetation. Either of these two species might be found within the area of the proposed project. There are two fish species found in the Brazos River Basin which are candidates for Federal Listing, the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus), and the smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula). Both of these species require fairly shallow water in broad, open sandy channels with moderate current. Both species are listed as occurring within Garza County. There are no Ecologically Significant River and Stream Segments within the project areas The primary impacts potentially resulting from construction and operation of the proposed scalping diversion lake and pipeline would include the temporary disturbance during construction of the dam and pipelines. Little difference is anticipated in habitat value between the existing, prevalent grasslands and the permanent pipeline rights -of -way that will be maintained free of woody vegetation. Within the proposed diversion site, the extent of habitat impact will depend on the frequency and duration of inundation events. Although the reach downstream of the diversion dam is intermittent, aquatic life in the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos River may be affected to the extent that flows, or perennial pools, now persist for sufficient annual periods to provide some aquatic habitat. Changes in the size and configuration of the Gobbler Creek channel may result from the increased frequency and magnitude of peak streamflows during diversion events. 5 Texas Parks and Wildlife. Water Resources Branch TPWD 2005. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-209 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-62. Potentially Occurring species that are Rare or Federal -and state -Listed in Garza County near the Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation Llano Estacado Water Planning Region BIRDS Federal Status State Status Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) - potential migrant DL T Baird's Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) — shortgrass prairie with scattered low bushes and matted vegetation. Bald Eagle (Halfaeetus leucocephalus) - found primarily near seacoasts, rivers, and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water; communally roosts, especially in winter, hunts LT-PDL T live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalia) — open country, primarily prairies, plains, and badlands; nests in tall trees along streams or on steep slopes, cliff ledges, river -cut banks, hillsides, power line towers. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) — breeding: nests on high plains or shortgrass prairie, on ground in shallow depression; nonbreeding: shortgrass plains and bare, dirt (plowed) fields; primarily insectivorous Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) — formerly an uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularla hypugaea) - open grasslands, especially prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation or airports; nests and roosts in abandoned burrows and man-made structures, such as culverts. Whooping Crane (Gnus americana) - potential migrant; winters in and around Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and migrates to Canada for breeding; only remaining natural breeding LE E population of this species. FISHES Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) — endemic to Brazos River drainage; also, apparently introduced into adjacent Colorado River drainage; large turbid river, with bottom a C1 combination of sand, gravel, and clay -mud. Smalleye Shiner (Notropis buccula) - endemic to upper two-thirds of Brazos River system and its tributaries; apparently introduced into adjacent Colorado River drainage; medium to large C1 prairie streams with sandy substrate and turbid to clear warm water; presumably eats smallaquatic invertebrates. MAMMALS Black -footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) — considered extirpated in Texas; potential inhabitant of LE E any prairie dog towns in the general area. Black -tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) — dry, flat, short grasslands with low, relatively sparse vegetation, including areas overgrazed by cattle; live in large family groups. Cave Myotis Bat (Myotis velifer) — roosts colonially in caves, rock crevices, old buildings, carports, under bridges, and even in abandoned Cliff Swallow (Petmchelidon, yirhonots) nests; roosts in dusters of up to thousands of individuals; hibernates in limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and gypsum caves of Panhandle during winter; opportunistic insectivore. Palo Duro Mouse (Peromyscus truei Comanche) — rocky, juniper -mesquite -covered T slopes of steep -walled canyons of the eastern edge of the Llano Estacado; juniper woodlands in canyon country of thepanhandle; primarily nocturnal. Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta) — catholic in habitat; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers wooded, brushy areas and tallass prairie. Swift Fox (Vuipes velox) — restricted to current and historic shortgrass prairie; western and northern portions of Panhandle. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-210 s., HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-62 - continued REPTILES Federal State Status Status Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) — open, arid and semi -arid regions with sparse vegetation, which could include grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees; ,I, soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under rock when inactive; breeds March -September. Status Key: LE, LT -Federally Listed Endangered/Threatened, PE, PT -Federally Proposed EndangeredfThreatened, E/SA, T/SA-Federally Listed EndangeredfThreatened by Similarity of Appearance, Cl-Federal Candidate for Listing, E,T-State Listed Endangered/Threatened, "blank" -Rare, but with no regulatory listing status 4.4.3.8.4 Engineering and Costing Costs for this option include the following: • Land and right-of-way for diversion dam and pipelines; • Construction of diversion dam; • Pump stations and pipelines; • Environmental impact assessments and archeological studies and recovery, and mitigation, if needed; • State and federal permit acquisition; Y • Engineering, legal, and contingency costs, at 30 percent of the construction costs for pipelines and 35 percent for other facilities; and ( • Interest during construction calculated at 6 percent interest rate, and a 4 percent annual rate of return. The total project cost for this option was estimated at $50,055,000 (Table 4.4-63). The total annual cost, including debt service, operation and maintenance, and power cost, is estimated to be $4,296,000. For an annual yield increase of Lake Alan Henry of 4,000 acft/yr, the cost is $1,074 per acft, or $3.30 per 1,000 gallons (Table 4.4-63). 4.4.3.8.5 Implementation Issues This water supply option has been compared to the plan development criteria, as shown in Table 4.4-64, and the option meets each criterion. The implementation of this option to supply additional water to the City of Lubbock depends upon acquisition of the necessary permits, including water rights and those required for construction, as well as other issues as summarized below: Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan ]�7L January 2006 4-211 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Potential Regulatory Requirements: • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Water Right and Storage permits; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits will be required for discharges of dredge or fill into wetlands and waters of the U.S. for dam construction, and other activities (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act); • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality administered Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; • General Land Office Easement if State-owned land or water is involved; and • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Sand, Shell, Gravel and Marl permit if state-owned streambed is involved. State and Federal Permits may require the following studies and plans: • Environmental impact or assessment studies; • Wildlife habitat mitigation plan that may require acquisition and management of additional land; • Flow releases downstream to maintain aquatic ecosystems; • Assessment of impacts on Federal- and State -listed endangered and threatened species; and • Cultural resources studies to determine resources impacts and appropriate mitigation plan that may include cultural resource recovery and cataloging; requires coordination with the Texas Historical Commission. Land Acquisition Issues: • Land acquired for reservoir and/or mitigation plans could include market transactions and/or eminent domain; • Additional acquisition of rights -of -way and/or easements may be required; and • Possible relocations or removal of residences, utilities, roads, or other structures. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 4-212 January 2006. HOR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-63. Cost Estimate Summary for Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation (10,000 acftlyr) Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Second Quarter 2002 Prices Item Estimated Cost Capital Costs Dam and Reservoir (Conservation Pool: 1,000 acft; 650 acres; 2,000 ft. msl) $1,761,000 Intake and Pump Station (162 MGD) 16,493,000 Transmission Pipeline ( 6 miles; 96 in. diameter) 14,430,000 � Total Capital Cost ( $32,684,000 Engineering, Legal Costs and Contingencies (30% for pipelines & 35% for all other construction costs; zero for studies) $10,718,000 Environmental & Archeological Studies and Mitigation 543,000 Land Acquisition and Surveying (681 acres) 705,000 Interest During Construction (3 years @ 4 percent) 5,504,000 Total Project Cost 1 $50,055,000 Annual Costs Debt Service (Intake, Pipelines, and Pump Stations) (6 percent for 30 years) $3,374,000 Reservoir Debt Service (6 percent, 40 years) 241,000 Operation and Maintenance Intake, Pipelines, and Pump Stations 557,000 Dam and Reservoir 26,000 Pumping Energy Costs ( 1,632,043 kWh @ $0.06/kWh) (Diversion of 4,000 acft/yr) 98,000 Total Annual Cost 1 $4,296,000 Quantity of Water (acftlyr) 4,000 Annual Cost of Water ($ per acft)' $1,074 Annual Cost of Water ($ per 1,000 gallons)' $3.30 ' Annual Cost of Water is for treated water at the treated water storage tanks and does not include costs associated with distribution within municipal systems. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-213 FM HOR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-64. Comparison of Lubbock North Fork Scalping Operation to Plan Development Criteria Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Impact Caftory Comment(s) A. Water Supply 1. Quantity 1. Sufficient to meet needs 2. Reliability 2. High reliability 3. Cost 3. Reasonable to High B. Environmental factors 1. Environmental Water Needs 1. Low impact 2. Habitat 2. Low impact 3. Cultural Resources 3. Low impact 4. Bays and Estuaries 4. Negligible impact 5. Threatened and Endangered Species 5. Possible Low impact 6. Wetlands 6. Low impact C. Impact on Other State Water Resources ' No apparent negative impacts on state water resources; no effect on navigation D. Threats to Agriculture and Natural Potential impact on habitat in diversion dam area Resources E. Equitable Comparison of Strategies • Option is considered to meet municipal and Deemed Feasible industrial shortages F. Requirements for Interbasin Transfers ® Not applicable Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-214 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan v 'Section 14 — Long Term Peak Day Demand — Year 2040 — Canyon Lake #7 Content a. Map of Lake #7 b. Region O Water Plan for Lake #7 (Includes Lake #8) c. 1969 Feasibility Report on Canyon Lakes Project Summary The Bailey County Well Field has produced water now for over 50 years, and it has a projected future life of an additional 50 years if pumping is limited to 10,000 acre-feet annually, or less. Additional wells will be necessary to keep production levels up as water levels continue to decline. Eventually the BCWF may not be able to provide 10,000 acre-feet of water annually to Lubbock. Annual production will drop from the 10,000 acre feet annually down to the annual recharge amount of 3,400 acre-feet or less. There will be some corresponding decrease in the gallons per day capacity since it will not be financially feasible to drill enough wells to keep production levels up. This means that the City will gradually lose up to 50% of the existing peak day capacity. The BCWF now delivers up to 40 million gallons per day (mgd). This peak day capacity must be replaced. Canyon Lake #7, which would be located just southeast of Lubbock upstream from Buffalo Springs, may provide a means to meet this need. Both Canyon Lakes #7 and #8 were initially -' proposed as a way to supplement Lake Alan Henry by capturing water in the North Fork, and this alternative was included as an option in the Region O Water Plan. As discharge modeling efforts progressed between Black and Veatch, the City's engineer, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), it was determined that the lakes may not be beneficial due to the lack of sufficient stream time before wastewater effluent reaches the lakes. This created a problem with predicted oxygen depletion in the lakes that the TCEQ might not approve. At first it was proposed to drop both Lakes #7 and #8 from the plan due to the oxygen depletion possibility. Now it is proposed that only Lake #8 be dropped. Retaining Canyon Lake #7 would allow the City to benefit from local storage to address peak day demands, while maintaining the ability to discharge reclaimed water and capture it in this lake. Wastewater effluent discharge modeling efforts will continue to contemplate the completion of immediate, intermediate and a long term plans, with the immediate and intermediate plans not including Canyon Lake #7, and with the long term plan including Canyon Lake #7. Discharge at the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant will likely be discontinued or substantially reduced when Lake #7 is constructed. Until Lake #7 is developed, as much reclaimed water as possible would be discharged at the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP). With the options of discharge at the head of the Canyon Lake System, at the SEWRP, and at the existing FM 400 site east of Lubbock, the City could submit a permit application for discharge of all effluent. Once Lake #7 is constructed, permitted discharge in the Canyon Lakes upstream of Lake #7 will have some quantity limitations, while discharge below Lake #7 and Ransom Canyon may be permitted at 18 million gallons per day or more. �_ As an alternative to Lake #7, the City could consider recharging the Ogallala Aquifer in the Bailey County Well Field. STORM WATER AND RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM CITY OF LUBBOCK y�ti9� HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs t 4.4.3.7 Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion 4.4.3.7.1 Description of Option' This planning strategy would allow use of Lubbock's "developed water resources," including storm water collected within the City of Lubbock and transferred and discharged into the Yellowhouse Canyon, groundwater from the Lubbock Land Application Site, and treated wastewater (source of treated wastewater is groundwater and water from CRMWA) discharged into Yellowhouse Canyon. To achieve this, Lakes 7 and/or 8 from the Canyon Lakes System (now called the Jim Bertram Lake System) would be built to capture, store, and divert water (Figure 4.4-6). This water would be treated at a new water treatment facility located southeast of Lubbock. At some point in the future, water from Lake Alan Henry would also be treated at the same facility. This water would be transported to the south and southwest areas of Lubbock's service area. Key components of this system are: • Lake 7: Storage Capacity: 20,700 AF Pump station & pipeline capacity: 4.65 MGD Pipeline length: 21,200 feet Pipeline diameter: 36 inches • Lake 8: Storage Capacity: 49,900 AF Pump station & pipeline capacity: 26.7 MGD Pipeline length: 37,000 feet Pipeline diameter: 90 inches • Water Treatment Plant: Capacity: 21 MGD (initially) • Transmission main: Length: 79,200 feet Diameter: 66 inches 4.4.3.7.2 Quantity of Water Available Water potentially available for impoundment in the proposed Lake 7 and Lake 8 was estimated using Run 3 of the Brazos River Basin Water Availability Model (Brazos WAM) developed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)z. The model utilizes a timeframe from January 1940 through December 1997 hydrologic period 1 "Lubbock, Texas; Feasibility Report on the Canyon Lakes Project," Freese, Nichols and Endress, Fort Worth, Texas, 1969. 2 HDR Engineering, Inc., "Water Availability in the Brazos River Basin and San Jacinto -Brazos Coastal Basin," Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now TCEQ), December 1991. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-182 Im HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on NeedsC,, LAMB i HALE FLOYD wNOCKLEY CROSBY LYM GAM Lake 7 C Lake I Plant Raw strearns Proposed Reservoirs .3 4 Existing Reservoirs - - - Raw Water ....... P Treated Water 1 r 2ff Proposed Water Treatment Plant Figure 4.4-6: Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-183 J HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs E of record to estimate water available to existing and potential water rights. The model assumes that existing perpetual water rights are fully utilized, reservoir storage capacity is as originally permitted, and wastewater treatment plant effluent is fully reused (zero return flows). The City of Lubbock has estimated that 22.9 million gallons per day (MGD) of effluent will be available in the future that can be dedicated to developing water supply from the reservoirs. These return flows are in excess of the 9 MGD for which the City has recently applied to the TCEQ for reuse authorization. The 22.9 MGD (25,648 acft/yr) of return flows were input into the Brazos WAM and used in conjunction with available unappropriated flows to develop firm yield estimates for Lakes 7 and 8. Other sources of developed water were not considered in the analysis, but could be used to augment firm supplies and also provide interruptible supplies in excess of the firm yield estimates presented herein. Available unappropriated streamflows was determined by the Brazos WAM without causing increased shortages to existing downstream rights. Firm yield was computed subject to the reservoirs having to pass natural inflows to meet Consensus Criteria for Environmental Flow Needs (CCEFN) instream flow requirements. The streamflow statistics used to determine the Consensus Criteria pass -through requirements for the reservoirs are shown in Table 4.4-55. Only natural unappropriated flows were subjected to the CCEFN requirements; the return flows were not. The firm yield of the system was calculated by establishing a firm yield for Lake 7 of 3,500 acft/yr, then operating Lake 8 such that at least 10,000 acft of storage would be maintained in Lake 7. Note that releases from Lake 7 would be passed through Buffalo Springs Lake in order to reach Lake 8. The resulting firm yield of Lake 8 was estimated to be 17,720 acft/yr, for a total combined system yield of 21,200 acft/yr. Figure 4.4-7 illustrates the simulated Lake 7 and Lake 8 storage levels for the 1940 to 1997 historical period, subject to the firm yield of 17,720 acft/yr for Lake 8 with annual diversions from Lake 7 of 3,500 acft/yr Figure 4.4-8 illustrates the changes in streamflows of the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River caused by impounding the unappropriated waters of the Brazos River. There are no significant changes in streamflows at Lake 8. At Lake 7, Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 'Y i January 2006 4-184 HOR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs . Table_4.4-55. Daily Natural Streamflow Statistics Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Month Median flows - Zone 1 Pass -Through Requirements (cis) 25th Percentile flows - Zone 2 Pass -Through Requirements (cfs) Lake 7 January 0.2 0.0 February 0.2 0.0 March 0.1 0.0 April 0.2 0.0 May 3.4 0.1 June 5.1 0.5 July 1.5 0.0 August 0.6 0.0 September 1.3 0.0 October 0.9 0.0 November 0.6 0.0 December 0.4 0.0 Zone 3 (7Q2) Pass -Through Requirement (cfs): 0 Lake 8 January 0.3 0.0 February 0.3 0.0 March 0.1 0.0 April 0.3 0.0 May 3.8 0.1 June 5.7 0.5 July 1.7 0.0 August 0.7 0.0 September 1.5 0.0 October 1.0 0.0 November 0.7 0.0 December 0.4 0.0 Zone 3 (7Q2) Pass -Through Requirement (cfs): 0 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan ]� January 2006 4-185 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Firm Yield Storage Trace 100% 90%r- v 80% V 70% LO N 60% O 50% m 40% w o 30% V 20% d 10% 0% omi of M a^i o^i a°Di o°0i oMi o°�i Date 100% 2' 90% U C 80% V 70% 0 60% to 0 50% r m 40% U) c V 30% 20% d 10% 0% Zone 2 Trigger Level Zone 3 Trigger Level Storage Frequency at Firm Yield Subject to diversion of the firm yield (3,500) acft/yr and operations in conjunction with Lake 8„ storage in Lake 7 would be more than 80 percent full (Zone 2) 3 percent of the time and more than 50 percent full (Zone 3) 6 percent of the time. Lake 7 would be at least 48 percent full 100 percent of the time. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Time Storage Percentage Exceeded Figure 4.4-7A. Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Reservoir Storage Considerations — Lake 7 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-186 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Firm Yield Storage Trace 100% 90% m W 80% c� w 70% m N 60% C wQ 50% m 40% 0 30% V 20% a 10% 0% 00 01 C�i a) 001 a) of 0) a) rn a) M rn omi Date 100% Z� 90% .0 to A 80% V 70% 60% a 50% 40% v 30% 20% d 10% 0% Storage Frequency at Firm Yield 2 Trigger Level Subject to diversion of the firm yield (3,500) actttyr, storage in Lake 8 would be more than 80 percent full (Zone 2) 64 percent of the time and more than 50 percent full (Zone 3) 88 percent of the time. 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Time Storage Percentage Exceeded Figure 4.4-7B. Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Reservoir Storage Considerations — Lake 8 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-187 fm HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs 60 50 40 a= E 19 30 U) c A J 20 a 10 0 450 400 350 300 250 200 y 150 100 50 0 Lake 7 — Median Streamflow Comparision ❑ Without Reservoir ■ With Reservoir —Median CCEFN Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Lake 7 — Streamflow Frequency Comparison —Without Reservoir —With Reservoir 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Time Streamflow Exceeded Figure 4.4-8A. Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Streamflow Comparisons — Below Lake 7 Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-188 Im HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs G \ , Lake 8 — Median Streamflow Comparision 25 0 Without Reservoir ■ With Reservoir —Median CCEFN 20 015 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Lake 8 — Streamflow Frequency Comparison 400 --Without Reservoir 350 —With Reservoir 300 250 3 200 150 100 50 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100'% Percent Time Streamflow Exceeded Figure 4.4-8B. Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expanslari Streamflow Comparisons — Below Lake 8 r Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-189 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs however, releases of impounded return flows to Lake 8 would increase streamflows between Lake 7 and Lake 8 over natural conditions. 4.4.3.7.3 Environmental and Cultural Resource Issues The City of Lubbock Storm Water and Reclaimed Water System Project involves the construction of two reservoirs along an approximately 14.5-mile reach of the North Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, raw water intake structures and their associated water transmission lines. The proposed lake sites, designated as Lake 7 and Lake 8 are located in Lubbock County southeast of the City of Lubbock within the Western High Plains ecoregion,3 in the High Plains vegetational area of Texas ,4 and in the Kansan biotic province.5 The High Plains Region is a nearly level treeless plain with a relatively even surface. It is dominated by native grasses, the major species including buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Annual and perennial forbs, legumes and woody species such (� as beargrass and cholla cactus occasionally invade this grassland region. In zones with loamy soils, honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and yucca have invaded large areas. The prevalent landuse within the proposed Lake 7 project area is mixed rangeland (52%)6, with additional areas of nonforested wetlands (19%), gravel pits (15%), confined feeding operations (10%), and minor amounts of cropland or pasture. It is unlikely that the area designated as nonforested wetlands has a large amount of wetland areas; however the presence and location of actual wetland areas potentially affected by reservoir construction would have to be determined by a site survey. In addition, a small portion of this proposed lake area is currently an existing reservoir (5%). The Lake 8 project area is divided between nonforested wetland areas (65%), and mixed rangeland (35%). Based upon a review of information available, the dominant vegetation type within the area of both Lake 7 and Lake 8 is considered to be Mesquite-Lotebush-Brush, ' Omemik, James M., "Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1), pp. 118-125, 1986. 4 Gould, F.W., "The Grasses of Texas," Texas A&M University Press, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas, 1962. 5 Blair, W.F., "The Biotic Provinces of Texas, "Tex. J. Sci. 2:93-117, 1950. ( 6 U.S. Geological Survey, 1990. Reston, Virginia Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan L R January 2006 4-190 n HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs . with the exception of approximately 24% of the southeastern portion of Lake 8 which is identified as juniper. Within the proposed lake sites, the General Soil Map for Lubbock County shows Potter-Berda-Bippus soils. These soils, found on bottomlands and uplands, and can be very shallow, shallow, or deep, and are located on nearly level to steep slopes. Two of these soil types are found on gently sloping to steep slopes, and include Potter soils which are found on uplands and Berda soils which are generally found on foot slopes. Slopes of areas containing these soils are generally found to be 1 to 45 percent. Bippus soils are found on nearly level areas on frequently flooded bottom lands. These soils areas have very little slope, generally less than one percent. The surface layer for all of these soils is composed of a friable, alkaline loam which differs in depth within each soil type from 5 to 30 inches. Rangeland is the most common landuse occurring within areas of Bippus soils. Cultivated crops are not generally grown in this area due to the steep slopes, and the potential for water erosion and flooding. There are six existing, smaller impoundments along the North Double Mountain �J Fork of the Brazos River in the upper reaches of the canyon above the proposed Lake 7 location, and two larger lakes, Buffalo Springs Lake and Lake Ransom Canyon above Lake 8 but downstream of Lake 7. The North Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (Segment 1241A) is considered perennial from its confluence with the Double Mountain Fork to the dam impounding Lake Ransom Canyon. The water is typically high in dissolved solids, with segment standards for chloride and sulfate of 2500 mg/l and 2400 mg/l, respectively. This segment is on the Draft 2004 303(d) list for excessive bacterial concentrations, and is listed in the Statewide Water Quality Inventory (305b list) for concerns over algal growth and nitrogen concentrations. Although the current data listing on the Brazos River Authority web site indicates that the segment meets the average screening criterion for Fecal Coliforms of 200 MPN/100 ml, 23% of the samples collected exceeded the single grab criterion of 400 MPN/100 ml. Additional study will be required to confirm this result before a TMDL is scheduled. There are no Ecologically Significant River and Stream Segments within the project area.$ 7 The Vegetation Types of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife 8 Texas Parks and Wildlife, Water Resources Branch, 2005. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-191 hrR HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs \ The major sources for these water bodies include streamflow from natural rainfall, which is generally infrequent and irregular in this area, future return flows, releases of cooling water from a municipal power plant, springs associated with the irrigation of adjoining farm lands by effluent from the main Lubbock Sewer Treatment Plant, and runoff from the city's storm sewer system. The principal function of the proposed Lakes 7 and 8 will be to store and reuse reclaimed water and storm water, and to provide additional recreation opportunities. The upper six small impoundments presently form the core of a municipal park which stretches for approximately eight miles through the southeast quadrant of the city Health concerns for the two proposed lakes include bacteria from discharged water and pollution from storm runoff. Storm runoff, particularly from urban areas, will likely be a source of coliform bacteria, oxygen demanding materials, nutrients and other materials (e.g., oil and grease, metals, household chemicals) potentially affecting water quality. However, this condition is common in streams and their impoundments receiving urban runoff, and has proved a serious problem in limited cases. Water quality and aquatic life conditions in the existing reservoir system are the best predictors of conditions most likely to develop in the proposed Lakes 7 and 8. Plant and animal species listed by USFWS, and TPWD, as endangered or threatened with potential habitat in Lubbock County are listed in Table 4.4-56. There are two species listed as endangered by the State of Texas found within Lubbock County, the Whooping Crane (Gus Americana), and Black -footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes). In addition there are three threatened species which are state -listed within the county, the Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Texas homed lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum). The Whooping Crane, Arctic Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle are potential migrants to Lubbock County which may use habitats in the area during migration. A survey of the lake sites may be required to determine whether populations of or potential habitats used by listed species occur in the area to be affected. The Black -footed Ferret is generally found in areas occupied by prairie dogs, usually dry, flat short grasslands including land overgrazed by cattle and the Texas Homed Lizard generally prefers open, Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-192 FM HER-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-56. Potentially Occurring Species that are Rare or Federal -and State -Listed at the Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion Llano Estacado Water Planning Region BIRDS Federal State Status Status Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundtius) - potential migrant DL T Baird's Sparrow (Anunodramus bairdii) — shortgrass prairie with scattered low bushes and matted vegetation. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - found primarily near seacoasts, rivers, and large LT-PDL T lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water; communally roosts, especially in winter; hunts live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other buds. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalls) — open country, primarily prairies, plains, and badlands; nests in tall trees along streams or on steep slopes, cliff ledges, river -cut banks, hillsides, power line towers. Lesser Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) — and grasslands, generally Cl interspersed with shrubs and dwarf trees; nests in a scrape lined with grasses. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) — breeding nests on high plains or shortgrass prairie, on ground in shallow depression; nonbreeding. shortgrass plains and bare, dirt Lowe fields; primarily insectivorous Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) — formerly an uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cuniculada hypugaea) - open grasslands, especially prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation or airports; nests and roosts in abandoned burrows and man-made structures, such as culvert. Whooping Crane (Gros arnericana) - potential migrant; winters in and around Aransas National LE E Wildlife Refuge and migrates to Canada for breeding; only remaining natural breeding population of this species. MAMMALS Black -footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) — considered extirpated in Texas; potential inhabitant LE E of any prairie dog towns in the general area. Black -tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) — dry, flat, short grasslands with low, relatively sparse vegetation, including areas overgrazed by cattle; live in large family groups. Cave Myotis Bat (Myotis velifer) — roosts colonially in caves, rock crevices, old buildings, carports, under bridges, and even in abandoned Cliff Swallow (PetrochelidonpyrrhonotsJ nests; roosts in clusters of up to thousands of individuals; hibernates in limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and gypsum caves of Panhandle during winter; opportunistic insectivore. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-193 fm c HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-56 - continued MAMMALS coot. Federal StateStatus Status Plains Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putodus interrupta) — catholic in habitat; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers wooded, brushy areas and tallass prairie. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) — restricted to current and historic shortgrass prairie; western and northern portions of Panhandle. REPTILES Texas Homed Lizard (Phrynosoma comutum) — open, and and semi -arid regions with T sparse vegetation, which could include grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees; soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under rock when inactive; breeds March -September. Status Key: LE, LT -Federally Listed Endangered/Threatened, PE, PT -Federally Proposed Endangered/Threatened, E/SA, TISA-Federally Listed Endangeredlfhreatened by Similarity of Appearance, CI -Federal Candidate for Listing, E,T- State Listed Endangered/Threatened, 'blank" -Rare, but with no regulatory listing status June 2005, Annotated County Lists of Rare Species maintained by TPWD, Austin, Texas. and areas with sparse vegetation. Either of these two species night be found within the mixed rangeland areas of the project. There are two fish species found in the Brazos River Basin which are candidates for Federal Listing, the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus), and the smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula). Both of these species require fairly shallow water in broad, open sandy channels with moderate current. Neither of these shiner species is listed as occurring within Lubbock County. The primary impacts that would result from construction and operation of the proposed lakes would include conversion of existing habitats and land uses within the conservation pool to open water, and potential downstream effects due to modification of the existing flow regime. Figure 4.4-7A (Lake 7 Storage) shows that operation of the proposed Lake 7 near its 50% capacity elevation more than 90% of the time will result in the permanent inundation of 514 acres of brush — invaded grassland habitat and its conversion to a lacustrine environment in which an aquatic community will develop. Excursions above 50 % capacity will be rare and relatively brief, and would be expected to result in little change in the terrestrial habitat now present in the zone between the 50 and 100% capacity elevations. On -site surveys will be required to document existing habitat values and determine the necessity and scope of mitigation for significant losses. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-194 FM HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs The storage trace for Lake 8 (Figure 4.4-7B) indicates that this larger impoundment will experience water surface elevations exceeding the 50% capacity level more frequently (22%), but diversion of the system yield from this impoundment will result in a more gradual dewatering regime than in Lake 7, and Lake 8 will experience periodic drawdowns to elevations below 10% capacity. The mosaic of grassland and thorny shrublands within the footrprint of Lake 8 will experience decreasing frequencies and durations of inundation at successively higher capacity elevations. At the 8% capacity elevation, about 351 acres will be inundated permanently, while the median water surface elevation for the simulation period, which corresponds to the 30% capacity level, indicates that the lower 889 acres will be under water half or more the time and the upper 829 acres will be inundated half or less of the time. While annual grasses and forbs will rapidly recolonize formerly inundated areas, perennial grass and shrub populations will recover more slowly. With respect to aquatic communities, frequent changes in reservoir surface elevation may be detrimental to shallow -water nesting species, which include the recreationally and economically important sunfish and bass, particularly when these changes occur during the spring and summer seasons when these fish are reproducing. Operation of the reservoir system will result in an increase in the volume and constancy of streamflow in the North Fork reach between the Lake 7 dam and the Buffalo Springs Lake backwater, and between Buffalo Springs Lake and the Lake 8 backwater, presumably enhancing lotic habitats in those areas (Figure 4.4-8A). These reaches will vary in length depending on the contents of Buffalo Springs Lake and Lake 8. Below Lake 8, the North Fork will experience no change in streamflow at and below existing median monthly flow levels, but reductions in flood flows will occur as the reservoir system captures these infrequent events. Potential changes in channel morphology, and consequent habitat changes below the Lake 8 dam, will reflect the extent that reductions in the frequency of "bankfull" events result from system operation. Although large floods can result in severe scour and extensive redoposition of stream sediments, the events that maintain a stream's typical channel width, characteristic distribution of sediment particles, riffle -pool ratios and nature of streamside vegetation typically recur: Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan 4-195 January 2006 HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs at 1 to 2 year intervals.9 Reduction in the frequency of these events can result in channel narrowing, siltation of large particle substrate areas and encroachment of vegetation into the channel. Reductions in flood flows and stabilization of flow levels in and areas with water containing high levels of dissolved solids can result in channel encroachment by salt cedar (Tamarix spp), which has been a problem significantly affecting both lotic and riparian habitats where it has occurred (e.g., in the Pecos River above Red Bluff Reservoir). Federal and state laws such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Antiquities Code of Texas require that impacts to cultural resources be considered. To address impacts these laws outline a consultation process that may involve the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American Tribes, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties. The consultation process is usually initiated by gathering information regarding cultural resources located within project area and presenting it to the SHPO for an effect determination. Based on the information available the SHPO makes a determination as to whether the properties affected are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or for formal designation as a State Archeological Landmark (SAL). If the SHPO feels that more information is needed in order to evaluate eligibility, they may request additional information such as archival research, or archeological field investigations. If the SHPO determines that there is "no effect' to properties eligible for listing on the NRHP or for formal designation as an SAL, the consultation process ends and project activities may proceed. On the other hand, if it is determined that eligible properties will be affected, then mitigation of the effects will likely be required. Mitigation may include additional archeological investigations, archival research, or avoidance and protection. Available information regarding know cultural resources was gathered from the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory in Austin. Examination of their map files identified 14 recorded archeological sites within the footprint and park boundary of Lake 7 and three within the footprint and park boundary of Lake 8 (see Table 4.4-57). 9 Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-196 fm HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs ("', Sites 41LU9 through 41LU23 have no eligibility recommendations. However sites 41LU132 and 41LU48 were recommended for listing on the NRHP. Site 41LU49 was not recommended for the NRHP. As there is no evidence of any systematic archeological investigations being conducted for the lake areas, it is likely that the Texas Historical Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require an intensive archeological survey of the dam sites, the maximum flood pool area, and the proposed park areas of both lakes. This information will be required in order to begin the Section 106 and Antiquities Code consultation with these agencies. Table 4.4-57. Archeological sites on record for Lake 7 and Lake 8 Lake 7 Site Description Lake 8 Site Description 41 LU9 Prehistoric camp 41 LU21 Prehistoric camp 4111110 Prehistoric camp 41 LU22 Prehistoric camp 41 LU 11 Prehistoric camp 41 LU23 Prehistoric camp 41LU12 Prehistoric camp 4111113 Prehistoric camp 41LU14 Prehistoric camp 41 LU 15 Prehistoric camp 41 LU 16 Prehistoric camp 41 LU 17 Prehistoric camp 41LU18 Prehistoric camp 41LU19 Prehistoric camp 41LU132 Prehistoric camp 41LU48 Stone wall 41 LU49 Prehistoric lithic scatter 4.4.3.7.4 Engineering and Costing Costs for this option include the following: • Land and right-of-way for Lakes 7 and 8, and pipelines and water treatment plant site; • Construction of dams for Lakes 7 and 8; Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-197 FM HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs • Pump stations and pipelines; • Environmental impact assessments and archeological studies and recovery, and mitigation, if needed; • State and federal permit acquisition; • Engineering, legal, and contingency costs, at 30 percent of the construction costs for pipelines and 35 percent for other facilities; and • Interest during construction calculated at 6 percent interest rate, and a 4 percent annual rate of return. The total project cost for this option was estimated at $150,759,000 (Table 4.4- 58). Annual operation and maintenance costs, including energy, are estimated at $3,808,000, with the total annual cost, including debt service, operation and maintenance, and power cost, totaling $14,575,000 (Table 4.4-58). For an annual quantity of 21,200 acft/yr of treated water ready for delivery to customers, the cost is $696 per acft, or $2.13 per 1,000 gallons (Table 4.4-58). To the extent that interruptible water and other firm developed water are available, the unit costs of water would be lowered. 4.4.3.7.5 implementation Issues This water supply option has been compared to the plan development criteria, as r ` shown in Table 4.4-59, and the option meets each criterion. The implementation of this option to supply additional water to the City of Lubbock depends upon acquisition of the necessary permits, including water rights and those required for construction, as well as other issues as summarized below: Potential Regulatory Requirements: • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Water Right and Storage permits; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits will be required for discharges of dredge or fill into wetlands and waters of the U.S. for dam construction, and other activities (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act); • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality administered Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; • General Land Office Easement if State-owned land or water is involved; and • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Sand, Shell, Gravel and Marl permit if state-owned streambed is involved. State and Federal Permits may require the following studies and plans: • Environmental impact or assessment studies; Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-198 Im HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs ., • Wildlife habitat mitigation plan that may require acquisition and management of additional land; • Flow releases downstream to maintain aquatic ecosystems; • Assessment of impacts on Federal- and State -listed endangered and threatened species; and • Cultural resources studies to determine resources impacts and appropriate mitigation plan that may include cultural resource recovery and cataloging; requires coordination with the Texas Historical Commission. Land Acquisition Issues: • Land acquired for reservoir and/or mitigation plans could include market transactions and/or eminent domain; • Additional acquisition of rights -of -way and/or easements may be required; and • Possible relocations or removal of residences, utilities, roads, or other structures. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-199 IM HDR-09051008-05 Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needs Table 4.4-58. Cost Estimate Summary for Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion (23,500 acftlyr) Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Second Quarter 2002 Prices Item I Estimated Cost Capital Costs Construction of Dams and Reservoirs (Lakes 7 and 8) Intake and Pump Stations (4.62 MGD and 26.7 MGD) Transmission Pipelines (21,200 it, 36 in; 37,000 it, 90 in, and 79,200 ft, 66 in) Water Treatment Plant (21 MGD) Total Capital Cost Engineering, Legal Costs and Contingencies (30% for pipelines & 35% for all other construction costs; zero for studies) Environmental and Archeological Studies and Mitigation Land Acquisition and Surveying (2,613 acres) Interest During Construction (7 years, 4 percent) Total Project Cost Annual Costs Debt Service (Pipelines, Pump Stations, & Treatment Plant) (6 percent for 30 years) Debt Service (Reservoirs) (6 percent for 40 years) Operation and Maintenance Intake, Pipelines, and Pump Stations Dams and Reservoirs Water Treatment Plant Pumping Energy Costs (16,096,384 kWh @ $0.06/kWh) I Total Annual Cost $15,889,000 7,115,000 48,407,000 22,079,000 $ 93,490,000 30,301, 000 2,768,000 3,405,000 20,795,000 $150,759,000 $ 8,779,000 1,988,000 662,000 238,000 1,942,000 966,000 $ 14,575,000 Quantity of Water (acft/yr) Firm Yield 21,200 Annual Cost of Water (; per acft) Firm Yield' $ 696 Annual Cost of Water (; per 1,000 gallons)' $ 2.13 ' Annual Cost of Water is for treated water at the treated water storage tanks and does not include costs associated with distribution within munici al systems. To the extent that interruptible water is available, unit cost would be lower. Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-200 HDR-09051008-05 Identirication, Evaluation, and Selection of Water Management Strategies Based on Needsn Table 4.4-59. Comparison of Lubbock Jim Bertram Lake System (JBLS) Expansion to Plan Development Criteria Llano Estacado Water Planning Region Impact Category Comment(s) A. Water Supply 1. Quantity 1. Sufficient to meet needs 2. Reliability 2. High reliability 3. Cost 3. Reasonable to High B. Environmental factors 1. Environmental Water Needs 1. Low impact 2. Habitat 2. Low impact 3. Cultural Resources 3. Moderate impact 4. Bays and Estuaries 4. Negligible impact 5. Threatened and Endangered Species 5. Possible Low impact 6. Wetlands 6. Low impact C. Impact on Other State Water Resources • No apparent negative impacts on state water resources; no effect on navigation D. Threats to Agriculture and Natural . Potential impact on bottomland farms and habitat Resources in reservoir area E. Equitable Comparison of Strategies ® Option is considered to meet municipal and Deemed Feasible industrial shortages F. Requirements for Interbasin Transfers ® Not applicable G. Third Party Social and Economic Impacts ® None from Voluntary Redistribution Llano Estacado Regional Water Plan January 2006 4-201 hrR LUBBOCK, TEXAS FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE CANYON LAKES PROJECT 1969 I F'REESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS CONSULTING ENGINEERS LUBBOCK, TEXAS FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE CANYON LAKES PROJECT 1969 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most prominent topographic features of the Lubbock area is Yellow House Canyon, which has been formed by the waters of Yellow House Draw and the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they flow through the northeast corner of the city (see Figure 1.1). Although relatively shallow at the north edge of town, the canyon deepens perceptibly with distance downstream, so that the bed is about 60 feet below the surrounding plains at the east crossing of Loop 289, and reaches a depth of 250 feet or more by the time it crosses the county line. Primarily because of the threat of periodic flooding, the canyon floor is in most places unimproved, and at some points within the city limits it has often been used as a disposal area for refuse. Such locations are in striking contrast with MacKenzie State Park and Mae Simmons Park, where several hundred acres have been developed into pleasant recreational facilities. In deeper sections not far to the southeast, where conditions are still close to a natural state, there are surprising numbers of antelope and other wild animals living in the canyon, virtually within sight of the city. Stream flow from natural rainfall is irregular and infrequent, and there is normally little or no water in the channel upstream from Mac- Kenzie State Park. Beginning near the confluence of Yellow House Draw FFEESE. NICHOLS AND ENDAESS y Nal y LAKE 2 `" 7' LAKE 4th St., "0�A MUNICIPAI ' AIRFIELD LAKE 6 ZL U B B 0 C K Y -L E G E N D- EXISTING LAKES PROPOSED LAKES ESCARPMENT I / Erskine f St. 00 19th St = 0 0 3 Lake - Ransom Eo Cayon Buffalo rings Lake i I NORTH I GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 2 3 4 in miles 1� LAKE 8 ( Larger Size) 49 j °f C A; T A ke r (A O H LOCATION MAP PROPOSED CANYON LAKES LUBBOCK, TEXAS and the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork, there is usually some flow, due mainly to releases from the cooling system of the municipal power plant. From East 50th Street on, there are frequent contributions from springs, which earlier investigations (1,2,3)* have associated with irrigation of adjoining farm lands. Effluent from the main Lubbock sewage treatment plant has for many years been placed on the fields along the rim of the canyon, and the water table underlying the irrigated acreage has been raised noticeably by the resulting recharge. Flow from the springs is now continuous and appears to be increasing with the gradually rising rate of flow from the treatment plant. There are several existing lakes in the canyon, ranging.in size from a small pond in Mac- Kenzie Park to the much larger Buffalo Springs Lake, which has 5,350 acre-feet of storage capacity at spillway level. Normally, the water derived from the springs is enough to keep these lakes full. Much of Lubbock's storm sewer system also discharges into the stream at one point or another, so that large volumes of runoff are received from the built- up areas of the city during heavier rain storms. In January of 1968, the Lubbock City Planning Department proposed to the City Council that serious consideration should be given to building additional lakes to store and make use of reclaimed waste water and runoff which would otherwise be lost. Through a series of reports (4,5,6) and a color slide presentation, the Planning Department has since explained this proposal to a number of interested citizens, out- lining both the advantages and potential difficulties of the plan. *Numbers in parentheses indicate references listed in Appendix A. 1.2 ror 1 t - -OFAs Public reaction has been quite enthusiastic, since the idea would offer several worthwhile benefits to the community. The present unsightly conditions in the upper reaches of the canyon could be eliminated and replaced by new park acreage. A significant amount of water could be reclaimed and put to further beneficial use. The additional lakes would add opportunities for water -oriented recreation in an area where such opportunities are scarce and highly valued. There are precedents elsewhere for this concept, and waste water re- clamation projects are already being operated for similar purposes in other parts of the nation. Perhaps the best known of these is at Santee, California, where reclaimed sewage has been used to transform an other- . wise arid canyon into a string of lakes for public use (7,8). With the support of local and federal agencies, the Santee project has been very carefully monitored since its inception in 1961, to determine the degree and type of use which can be accepted without jeopardizing public health or safety. Under suitable safeguards, the project was opened to the public first for picnicking, then for boating and "fishing for fun", and eventually for regular fishing with the fishermen allowed to keep and eat their catches. Since 1965, a swimming pool has been in service, using water taken from the lake system and given further treatment to raise it to a level of quality suitable for bathing. Throughout this program, there has been continuing surveillance of bacterial and virological conditions. Local health authorities and the Santee District personnel have insisted on a deliberate, cautious approach to the question of potential health hazards and have opened the facility to progressively closer personal contact with the water only after careful investigation. 1.3 11 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENDRESS '� The Santee experience to date shows that, with due precautions and proper11 methods, recreational use of reclaimed sewage can be both practical and safe. In October of 1968, the City authorized an engineering study by Freese, Nichols and Endress to evaluate the basic feasibility and proba- ble costs of the Canyon Lakes project. Among other considerations, it was recognized at that time that problems of water quality would be of critical importance, and that two fundamental questions would be (a) whether the proposed lakes can be kept virologically and bacteri- ologically safe for public recreation use and (b) whether it will be possible to control the growth of algae and aquatic plants within reason- able limits. This report sets forth the results of the feasibility study, with particular emphasis on the water quality factors. It is in- tended to furnish the factual background which the City will need in order to decide whether or not to go further with the project. 1.4 FREESE. NICHOLS AND ENOFES5 2. THE CANYON LAKES As now proposed, the Canyon Lakes plan includes eight separate im- poundments. The first six are relatively small and are located in the upper reaches of the Canyon, within the corporate limits of Lubbock; the other two are much larger and are some distance downstream. Figure 2.1 shows the intended layout of the upper lakes, which form a coherent group within themselves and can logically be considered as more or less independent of the two bigger reservoirs. Except for a short space be- tween Dam 4 and the headwaters of Lake 5, the upper hams would create a continuous chain of lakes for approximately 8 miles through the city and would serve as nucleus for a municipal park extending from Loop 289 on the north to the Fort Worth and Denver Railway tracks at the lower end. Tentative park boundaries, which were established with the as - stance of the City Planning Department, are also shown in Figure 2.1. Included in the over-all area would be MacKenzie State Park, which is owned by the State but operated by the City, and also the present facilities at Hodges Park and Mae Simmons Park. The suggested park out- line conforms generally to the canyon walls, following established proper- ty lines and avoiding conflicts with existing improvements where possible. In all, the proposed upper lake system represents approximately 1,371 acres of recreational space, of which 721 acres would be new land not .. included in the present parks. Lake 7 would be considerably larger than any of the first six. Dam 7 would be located immediately above Buffalo Springs Lake and would back water up to the vicinity of 50th Street. Figure 2.2 is.a map of Lake 7 and surrounding area, showing the contemplated limits of a 2,931-acre 2.1 I' FREE6E, WCHOIS AND ENORESS '' FIGURE 2.1 —n m J 4.% —3150-� 0 Z --Z c 0 0 it W r A If 3 z m UFFALO 3zm I 1B STR I 50 r14 (n NORTH ORTH 1, 42- C> It V. rn m rn 0 zi Id; If -4 If Ap if it If If It z if Mv, PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY A M A it Burris OUTLINE OF LAKE WHEN FULL poor Radio Towers (KCBD) 4- ki, 406 . .. m public park similar to that proposed for Lakes 1 through 6. Lake 8, the largest of them all, would be northeast of Slaton, about 20 miles by road from the center of Lubbock. Figure 2.3 shows the layout of Lake 8, including a suggested public recreation area of some 8,800 acres. The more significant characteristics of the lakes are summarized in Table 2.1. Capacities vary from a minimum of 29 acre-feet in Lake 5 to 49,930 acre-feet at Lake 8, and surface areas range from as little as 10 acres at Lake 4 to as much as 1,690 acres at Lake 8. Reservoir area and capacity characteristics were derived from maps of the Lubbock area at a scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet, published by the U. S. Geological Survey. Tables of the area -capacity relationships are compiled in Ap- pendix B. Watershed areas were measured from the same series of maps, based on delineation of the terrain which would contribute runoff to the canyon during reasonably heavy storms and excluding the adjoining drainage which would contribute to closed playa lakes instead. The upper lakes have been sized for relatively low heads of 9 to 11 feet at Dams 1 through 5 and 18 feet at Dam 6, so that most of the streets and railroads which now cross the canyon would remain clear of the water under normal conditions. Avenue "S" and one road in MacKenzie Park would need to be raised; Marshall Street and a park road would be relocated across the tops of Dams 1 and 4, respectively. Typical details of the six upper dams are shown in Figure 2.4. These are envisioned as paved overflow structures which would allow flood waters to spill across the full width of the embankment. The center portion of each dam would be composed of earth stabilized with a con- trolled admixture of portland cement, forming what is commonly known as 2.2 FREESE, NIC14OLS AND ENORESS oq OUTLINE OF LAKE AT ELEV. 2921-49,930 AC. FT,do 1 19 f iik p \ i a! �a.� I n 1• s, S K� ;f5 a 1 \\V / ,/• ♦, OUTLINE OF LAKE AT ELEV, 2903 24,475 AC. FT. CAPACITY ;;/ o rt �' , QOS� ,, j �e e -----mot., —_ �•�... • SCALE 1:246W fo I000 0 I000 2000 FEET a• _ 'cool CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 9 \, Q 1 ♦ Oy6 p,, s DAM ,r IVnr :i t r i x O �J NEL Q o-at w5 \ / /& oa jAjO \ .t az'z��1 MAP OF LAKE 8 FIGURE 2.3 Table 2.1 Lubbock Canyon Lakes: Pertinent Data I Dam Dam Location Channel Spillway Capacity Surface Contrib. Area (Sq. Mi.) No. Elev. Elev. In Ac-Ft Acres Increment Total 1 At Marshall Street 3175 3185 121 33 202 202 2 400' West of Ave. U 3167 3177 78 22 2 204 3 900' Downstream from 3159 3168 65 15 10 214 o " North Drive " 4 700' Downstream from U.S. Hwy. 3149 3160 36 10 2 216 87, in MacKenzie State n Park r 5 700' South of Parkway Drive, 3133 3144 29 13 118 334 0 in MacKenzie State Park " " 6 500' Upstream from the Fort 3112 3130 536 82 8 342 Worth and Denver Rail- road Bridge 7 West of Farm Road 835 upstream 3016 3100 20,708 801 36 378 from Buffalo Lake 8 Northeast of Slaton 2848 2903* 24,475 1,150 30 408 2921* 49,930 1,680 *Note: Two sizes are shown for Lake 8. The first is the feasible capacity without direct utilization of sewage effluent. The second is the size which could be supported if there is a level of treatment which will allow the effluent to be released directly into the stream. w 24' -0" Top Natural 20' - 0" 20' -0" Stilling Basin Limit Of Riprap Ground 121- 0" Abutment Paving Centerline Roadway Top ( Dam 6 Only) Natural Ground o 2 rI 1 Conc. Paving `-� c:i j Side Slope 2 11-- - N. W. L. ,-. Abutment Paving Top Co c Of n . N N a- End Sill it r N j Baffle Block w �,roll `� Cut, -Off Wal I 6 -06 -0 Perforated Drain Riprap Basin Slab Protection Cut -Off Wall TYPICAL SECTION - CHANNEL DAMS 1 THROUGH 6 —n C m N Qn Normal Water Level - Elev. 3100 20' Elev. 3124 2 1 r Sod Slope Protection p J 1 J 1 - ___I 2 1 L 11 3 1 1 1 3 `r Pervious Material Impervious Material Pervious Material �, �1 lr291.� To Impervious Material a n n " 12' z n z TYPICAL EMBANKMENT SECTION - DAM 7 D Water Surface a Elev. 3100 EIev. 3124 �-- Drop Inlet Dam j Conduit TYPICAL SERVICE SPILLWAY SECTION - DAM 7 Channel Elev. 3016 Stilling Basin receive very little flow that did not pass first through Lake 7. Finally, Lake 8 would depend on spills from the upstream reservoirs and on runoff from the intervening contributing drainage area of about 30 square miles. Inflows to Lake 8 would be irregular, and the surface level would vary appreciably over the years. Analyses of predicted system performance will be discussed in Section 6, based on estimates of what would have happened historically if the Canyon Lakes had been i� service since 1940. 2.5 FREESE. NICHOLS AND EP40RESS No Text . . . . ' ' | . . | \ WATER AUTHORITY -- -- PROPOSED PIPELINE ^°OF POST ="^ RIVER MUNICIPAL &�TER�S�� --- =°����n.� GREEN ������= °"^=°^EN"',RO~GGED WATER TRANSMISSION °IGMEYFF 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 16 — Long Term Supply — Docum/Santa Rosa Aquifer (brackish water) Content a. Feasibility Study — Texas Water Development Board Summary Under a significant expanse of the Texas pan handle, and under much of the Ogallala Aquifer, lies the Dockum Aquifer group, which includes the Santa Rosa Aquifer. Most of the water in the Dockum Aquifer is brackish (salty) and reverse osmosis would be required to treat the water prior to use. Portions of a Texas Water Development Board study on the Dockum Aquifer is included for your consideration. Since the cost is significant, this alternative is not recommended as a priority in the near term. In addition, much of the Dockum is reported to not be productive and wells may not be very productive in some areas. Pilot tests might be helpful to determine where the Aquifer would be productive and where it might not. 'DSVELO Texas Water Development Board Report 359 The Groundwater Resources of the Dockum Aquifer in Texas by Robert G. Bradley, P.G., and Sanjeev Kalaswad, Ph.D., P.G. December 2003 1.0 Executive Summary The Dockum aquifer is a minor aquifer that underlies much of the Ogallala Formation in the Texas Panhandle and West Texas. Recoverable groundwater in the Dockum aquifer occurs within the many Upper Triassic sandstone and conglomerate beds that host the aquifer, The hydrogeologic properties of the aquifer vary widely. For example, well yields range from 0.5 to 2,500 gpm and transmissivity from 48 to 4,600 square feet per day. Generally, however, well yields and transmissivities are fairly low throughout much of the aquifer. Precipitation recharges the aquifer where it is exposed at the land surface around the eastern and southern edges of the aquifer. The confined portions of the aquifer receive some recharge by leakage from overlying and underlying geologic units. We estimate that annual recharge to the aquifer is approximately 31,000 acre-feet. Discharge from the aquifer occurs from pumping wells, small springs, evapotranspiration and cross -formational flow. Regional groundwater flow in the aquifer is generally to the east. Historical hydrographs of wells show that water levels in the northern and southern parts of the aquifer have declined in some areas and risen in others over the past 20 to 30 years. In the central part of the aquifer, water levels have generally risen over the same time period. Groundwater in the Dockum aquifer is generally of poor quality. Water quality ranges from fresh in the outcrop areas to brine in the confined parts of the aquifer. It also tends to deteriorate with depth, and total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations can exceed 60,000 mg/l in the deepest n parts of the aquifer. Water in the Dockum aquifer is also typically hard with a mean hardness of about 470 mg/l. Radionuclides naturally derived from uranium minerals in the host rocks occur at concentrations above 5 pCi/1 in widespread areas of the aquifer. Most counties in the study area also had at least one groundwater sample that contained sulfate or chloride at concentrations greater than the secondary standard of 250 mg/l. In contrast, fluoride concentrations were higher than the secondary standard in only a few samples collected from five counties. Much of the land overlying the Dockum aquifer is susceptible to salinity problems originating from the high concentrations of sodium in the groundwater. This problem is most prevalent over the confined areas of the aquifer and is less of a concern over the outcrops. We estimate that the total amount of water in the entire Dockum aquifer in the study area is approximately 185 million acre-feet. Of this amount, approximately 109 million acre-feet contains TDS of less than 5,000 mg/l, about 27 million acre-feet between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/l, and 49 million acre-feet greater than 10,000 mg/l. However, not all of the water in the Dockum is readily available for withdrawal. In fact, measured aquifer parameters suggest that the aquifer can provide only small quantities of water. Furthermore, because the confined part of the aquifer (where water with the highest TDS concentrations is present) receives little recharge, any significant withdrawal of water from these areas will essentially mine or deplete the aquifer. 2.0 Introduction The Upper Triassic Dockum Group extends over approximately 96,000 square miles in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas (Figure 2-1). In Texas, sands of the Dockum Group produce small to moderate quantities of fresh to saline water and constitute the Dockum aquifer which is classified as a minor aquifer (Ashworth and Hopkins, 1995). As delineated by Ashworth and Hopkins (1995), the Dockum aquifer includes an area of the aquifer containing groundwater with less than 5,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids (Figure 2-2). However, for the purposes of this report, we also include other areas of the aquifer that have total dissolved solids concentrations greater than 5,000 mg/l. In this report, the term "Dockum aquifer" is used loosely for all water -bearing strata of the Dockum Group regardless of their dissolved solids content. Locally, the Dockum aquifer can be an important source of groundwater for irrigation, public supply, oil -field activity, livestock, and manufacturing. However, deep pumping depths, poor water quality, low yields, and declining water levels have discouraged its more widespread use. Nevertheless, the aquifer may become an important secondary source in the future, especially in areas where demand from the overlying Ogallala and Edwards -Trinity (Plateau) aquifers is high. It could also be considered for desalination in the future. To date, only a few investigations have been conducted on the Dockum aquifer in Texas. One of the first regional studies was conducted by Gould (1907) in west Texas. Later, Galloway (1955) investigated Triassic artesian wells near Hereford, Texas, to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining water from similar types of wells in eastern New Mexico. Other studies of a local nature were conducted by Fink (1963) and Rayner (1965). Several county -level studies on the Dockum ' aquifer have also been conducted (see, for example, Garza and Wesselman, 1959; Ogilbee and others, 1962; Shamburger, 1967; White, 1971; Duffm, 1984; and Ashworth, J 986). ' The aim of this study was to evaluate the groundwater resources of the Dockum aquifer (Figure 2-2). Specific goals of the investigation were to compile and evaluate existing geologic and hydrologic information on the area, determine the quality of groundwater in the Dockum aquifer, and estimate the approximate amount of groundwater in the aquifer. Much of the information presented in this report was obtained from previous literature and Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) records. We collected groundwater samples in 1995 and 1996 from all of the counties in the study area to assess the chemical quality of water in the aquifer. 3.0 Study Area The study area (Figure 2-2) encompasses the total areal extent of the Dockum Group in Texas (approximately 42,000 square miles). The outcrop area of the Dockum Group is approximately 5,500 square miles, and extends as a north -south -trending belt paralleling the eastern escarpment of the Llano Estacado. The belt is narrow between Armstrong and Dickens counties in the north but broadens south of Dickens County to include most of Scurry and Mitchell counties. 2 L11 100 200 miles 0 Texas Figure 2- 1. Lateral extent of the Dockum Group in southwestern United States (modified from McKee and others, 1959; Bureau of Economic Geology, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1974, and 1983; McGowen and others, 1977). 3 . AR7 i x outcrop/unconfined x +7 r,i ,ta 3,5,ii sILDMAAJ N F.` F F.U' 5 WX_ subcrop/confined ER;6i1::F 0 50 miles �.tert i4 E r F:4tD Mize :.Et limits of study area 5,000 mg/l TDS limit (downdip limit of aquifer_ orEx=' as defined by Ashworth _.. and Hopkins, 1995) ; ;f-k y , : i i 4aRza ' KEW SCUM, F -1Ek ' -:1?tiG.ER ECTCj, :-kJ+..4lrfl �3ltiS:: !S':ERUNG rp,K TCt. T0'W-REE4 Figure 2-2. Areal extent of the study area and the Dockum aquifer in Texas. 0 Within the study area, the Dockum aquifer is exposed along the Canadian River in the north, along the east edge of the Caprock Escarpment in the east, and in parts of Borden, Fisher, Garza, Howard, Kent, Mitchell, Nolan, and Scurry counties in the south. Other small exposures are found in Coke, Crane, Ector, Loving, Martin, Sterling, and Ward counties. Covered outliers of the Dockum aquifer are present in Hansford, Hutchinson, and Ochiltree counties. The Dockum aquifer in the study area overlies Permian -age units and is in turn overlain by Jurassic rocks in the northwest corner of the Texas Panhandle, by Cretaceous sediments in the southern High Plains and Edwards Plateau, and by the Ogallala Formation in the northern High Plains (Table 3-1). In the southwest part of the study area, the aquifer is overlain by the Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium. 3.1 Physiography Much of the study area lies within the High Plains section of the Great Plains physiographic province which extends from the Pecos River in the south to the latitude of the Great Bear Lake in Canada (Thombury, 1965). The High Plains section in Texas is a vast, monotonous flat surface underlain primarily by Tertiary sediments. The eastern edge of the section is marked by a pronounced escarpment called the Caprock Escarpment. Smaller parts of the study area in the south lie within the Pecos Valley and the Edwards Plateau sections of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Pecos Valley section, which lies --� southwest of the High Plains section, consists of a broad north -south -trending topographic depression underlain by highly soluble Cretaceous rocks. To its east lies the Edwards Plateau section, characterized by low relief (except along major stream channels) in the west and higher relief in the east. The Edwards Plateau is underlain by carbonate rocks of Cretaceous age. A small part of the study area east of the Caprock Escarpment falls within the Osage section of the Central Lowlands province and is underlain by mainly Pennsylvanian or Permian rocks. Five major river basins drain the study area, including the basins of the Canadian and Red rivers, which drain eastward, and the basins of the Brazos, Colorado, and Pecos rivers, which drain toward the southeast. A significant part of the Dockum Group outcrop is drained by the Canadian and Colorado rivers and their tributaries. 3.2 Climate The climate over much of the northern and central parts of the study area is of a continental steppe type and is characterized by large variations in daily temperatures, relatively low humidity, and infrequent rainfall events (Larkin and Bomar, 1983). Average annual precipitation in these areas ranges from about 21 inches in the eastern parts of the study area to about 17 inches in the western parts (Figure 3-1). Historically, mean annual precipitation has ranged from 13.89 inches in the southern part of the study area (Figure 3-1c) to 22.23 inches in the central part (Figure 3-1b). Three -fourths of the precipitation in these areas typically occurs between early spring and early fall. May and September are usually the rainiest months. Snowfall is an important source of precipitation in the winter. Temperatures often exceed 100' F in the summer and drop below freezing in the winter. Table 3-1. Geologic Formations in the Texas Panhandle and West Texas and Their Water - Bearing Characteristics (modified from Knowles and others, 1984; Lehman, 1994a and 1994b). Physical Water -bearing System Series Group Formation Characteristics Characteristics Cenozoic Pecos Unconsolidated to partially Yields small to large Quaternary Alluvium consolidated sand, silt, gravel, clay, and amounts of fresh to slightly caliche, saline water, Late Tan, yellow, and reddish -brown, silty TertiaryMiocene Ogallala to coarse -grained sand alternating with Yields moderate to large to Pliocene yellow to red silty clay and variable amounts of water to well. sized gravel. Massive, fine to coarse grained, white, Yields small to large Washita gray, or yellowish gray limestone and amounts of water to wells thick, dark greenish gray, gray, or and springs. yellow marl, y Thinly laminated, sometimes sandy, Kiamichi gray to yellowish -brown shale with Yields small amounts of beds of thin, gray argillaceous water locally to wells. limestone, and, thin, yellow limestone. Light -gray to yellowish -gray, thick Yields small to large Cretaceous Edwards bedded to massive, fine- to amounts of water to wells coarse -grained limestone, andsprings. Light gray to yellowish -brown, irregularl Yields small to large 3 Comanche Peak bedded, argillaceous limestone, thin beds amounts of water to wells. light- shale. Light -gray to yellowish -brown, fine to medium -grained, sandstone, thin Not known to yield water Walnut bedded, gray to grayish -yellow, to wells. calcareous shale; and light gray to a ish- allow, argillaceous limestone. White, gray, yellowish -brown to Trinity Antlers purple, fine to medium -grained, loosely Yields small to moderate cemented sandstone and conglomerate, amounts of water to wells. with beds of siltstone and clay. Morrison Variegated shale, sandstone, siltstone, Yields small amounts of fresh to slightly saline Jurassic and limestone. water. Yields small amounts of Exeter Light-colored sandstone, fresh to slightly saline water. Reddish -brown to orange siltstone and Cooper Canyon mudstone with lenses of sandstone, and conglomerate. Gray, brown, greenish -gray, fine to Trujillo coarse -grained sandstone and sandy Triassic conglomerate with thin gray and red Yields small to large Dockum shale interbeds, quantities of fresh to brine water to wells and springs. Variegated, sometimes sandy mudstone Tecovas with interbedded fine to medium - grained sandstones. Santa Rosa Red to reddish -brown sandstone and conglomerate. Dewey Lake Red siltstone and shale, Not known to yield waterto wells. Ochoa Dolomite, anhydrite, sandstone, Yields small to large Rustler conglomerate, and variegated shale. amounts of slightly to Permian moderately saline water. Undifferent- Sandstone, shale, gypsum, anhydrite, Yields small to large amounts of fresh to Guadalupe iated dolomite, and selenite. d moderately saline water. 2 Figure 3-1 (a) Amarillo International Airport � so - — go � 45 o Mean Precipitation = 19.71 in 35 30 a25 i0 20 A� oD a 15 N 10 a Q 5 d 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year arz .. 1 O v a U 7 Q Crosbyton IU 15 Mean Precipitation = 22.23 in 0 5- 0- 5 0 5 n S 50 45 c 40 y 35 30 25 20 I5 10 s 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Odessa 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Historical annual precipitation recorded at (a) Amarillo International Airport, (b) Crosbyton, and (c) Odessa. 7 �1 Evaporation in the northern and central parts of the study area is greatest in the summer months. The average annual evaporation potential for an open surface water body in Lubbock County is approximately three -and -half times the average annual precipitation (Knowles and others, 1984). The southern part of the study area (Trans -Pecos) is semi -arid and is characterized by a wide range of temperatures, low rainfall, and high evaporation rates (Ashworth, 1990). Temperatures typically range from below freezing in winter to over 1001 F during the summer. Average annual precipitation in the southern part of the study area ranges from 9 inches in the west to about 14 inches in the east with much of it occurring in April and October. Historical annual precipitation at the Odessa rain gage station has ranged from 6.2 inches to 30.8 inches (Figure 3-1c). 4.0 Geology The Triassic sediments of the Dockum Group that form the Dockum aquifer consist of a series of alternating sandstones and shales (Cazeau, 1962). Individual sandstone units are light- to dark- or greenish -gray, buff and red, and range in thickness from a few feet to about 50 feet. They are often lens -shaped, partly conglomeratic, poorly sorted, friable, and micaceous. The red and maroon sandy shale units that separate the sandstones range in thickness from about 50 to 100 feet. Recoverable groundwater in the Dockum aquifer is present within the many sandstone and conglomerate beds that occur throughout the sedimentary sequence. The coarse -grained deposits form the more porous and permeable water -bearing units of the Dockum Group, whereas the fine-grained sediments form impermeable aquitards in the group (Fallin, 1989). The more prolific parts of the aquifer are consequently developed in the lower and middle sections where the coarse -grained sediments predominate (Best Sandstone in Figure 4-1 through 4-10). Locally, any water -bearing sandstone within the Dockum Group is typically referred to as the Santa Rosa aquifer. In the Pecos River valley, the Dockum aquifer is usually known as the Allurosa aquifer (White, 1971). The geologic setting of the Dockum Group, as well as information on aquifer properties, water levels, chemical quality of water in the aquifer, and recharge to and discharge from the aquifer are presented below. 4.1. Stratigraphy Recent investigations of the Dockum Group have largely focused on stratigraphic nomenclature, and a fair amount of controversy has arisen over its rank as a group or formation (for an in-depth 8 West 0 O , 0 m n E m ( J D 02 Cretaceous strata 4,000 Q6 Q6 Q28 3,600 Q18 043 Q37 m m m 3,200 W — s CO N C m 2,800 E m O N 2,400 C O m 1,600 ---------- Lamb --ouCnty-_7Hale—Coun---ty Flryd county I Motley County N Muleshoe ID I I I Roydada I � umeeeld ■ ■ Ahemathy i I Figure 4-5 Geologic cross-section D-D'. i 0 0 m cc i U o m East 4,000 3,600 m m m 3,200 0m N 0 O D) 2,800 3 m m M m 2,400 m D) m West E Q66 m m m m m m w C m E m O m m C 0 m w a U tj U 'o 0 I E Morton Hxkby County Luhbotic County _ — _ fTDickens County N Levellend . I, Luh6ork I� , E' Figure 4-6 Geologic cross-section E-E'. L- Q1 - TCEQ assigned geophysical log number East E' 4,000 3.600 m N 7 3,200 y 0 0 CD 9 2,a00 d 7 CD CD w 2,400 < CD CD m 2 000 " 1,600 1,200 Legend Contour interval = 200 feet Elevation in feet above sea level * Water level measurement Q Water level depression 0 25 5o I I I Miles ' E'f:W<.:aEA N Figure 5-1. Approximate water level elevations in the Dockum aquifer, 1981 through 1996. 24 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 17 — Water Reclamation Plans Content a. Status Report, Presentation, and Maps Summary In 2005 the City of Lubbock completed a Preliminary Engineering Report for improvements to the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP) that would enable the discontinuance of land application and enable stream discharge. Now in 2007 the City is near completing the Final Design for the proposed improvements. Due to the size of the project and cost, it is proposed that the improvement projects be completed in three phases with Phase I beginning the first quarter of 2008. The first phase will upgrade and expand Plant #4 to 18 million gallons per day capacity for stream quality discharge plus nutrient removal. Plant #3 will be upgraded to stream quality discharge but not to nutrient removal. In addition there will be other improvements at the plant, like the improvements to the head works of the plant with improved screening facilities. These improvements will move the City a majority of the way towards the completion of its goal for stream quality reclaimed water. Phase 2 and Phase 3 willcomplete that process along with upgrading the solids handling equipment. The proposed improvements to the SEWRP will take the City towards the option of using reclaimed water as a water source rather than as a problem to dispose of. Rehabilitation of existing facilities will provide a more efficient method for pumping, treatment and maintenance concern including: 1. New submersible pumps for influent PS and plant 4 intermediate lift station. 2. New grit and fine screening equipment. 3. New effluent filter system that would be used at both plants #3 and #4. . Once the PER was finished there are basically five steps to get to construction as shown by slide #8: 1) Conceptual design is to make sure we know the systems and processes are those that we want to use. We use technical memos are used as part of the evaluation to determine whether there were certain improvements applicable for odor, de - watering grid and pump stations. 2) Value Engineering_ On is an independent study to look at designs already prepared for economy, improvement and detail to get a quality project. 3) Spatial design which means start putting it on site sees how it fits and determining the best arrangement. This has been accomplished with staff. 4) Detail Design which is putting the actual drawings of the physical layouts and doing specifications work. This work is currently 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the way completed. On slide #8, the 2nd arrow on the chart shows Spatial and Detail Design for the influent pump station. Because of the challenges with the failure of the screw pumps, this part of the project had to be expedited during 2007. The drawings are ready and we hope to advertise this within the next few weeks so that construction can begin. If the screw pumps went offline there would be no way to get the water up to the treatment plants for the proper treatment, so this is a critical item. 5) Solids handling studies are not needed due to the production of additional solids. The need arises due to de -watering and odor evaluations in order to take a look at other technologies beside the current belt filter presses and the gravity belt thickeners. These are basically large belts where sludge is dropped onto to try to get water out of it and it's exposed to the atmosphere within the building itself. There can be fairly strong odors and corrosion issues related to that and there are other technologies out there to where the problems related can be removed. The de -watering technology also has the ability to produce much drier cake which can reduce landfill disposal costs since disposal is paid for by the weight of the sludge. So if you get the same volume drier you can move more solids out for the same weight. TCEQ permitting: If we'going to get away from land application we need to have the ability to put that water somewhere. Currently the permit allows 9mgd discharged to the stream that will need to be increased and we're currently working with the State on this. On slide #9, the Value Engineering study (VE study) looked at most all processes with scrutiny. The major items of cost that came out of that: ® Replacement ofIPS and plant 4 screw pumps with submersible was suggested and the failure of another screw pump prompted the need to make this change. 3 • There are two types of blowers that can be used to provide air and oxygen for biological nutrient removal processes. Single -stage blowers are more expensive but are efficient enough that on a present worth basis they are more cost-effective than multi -stage blowers. However, at the VE team pointed out, as a capital cost savings measure you could purchase a multi -stage as a backup blower. By using the less expensive type of blower as a backup the City won't spend as much in capital dollars but still gain the cost benefits of the efficiencies of main blowers that are used all the time. Result of these suggestions: Net increase because of pump stations going to a different kind of facility that is better but is a higher cost. Reliability of the new pumping system justifies these recommendations. Tom Adams commented that the screw pumps are from Europe and when there are failures there will not be repair parts and service nearby. This is a critical issue because if the screw pump isn't working then you don't get the water lifted and the plant doesn't run and spills and major problems will follow. Going to submersible at the front end allows for local parts and service and the reliability is significantly improved. Staff supports this change. Larry said (showing slide #10) the total project cost for the PER was about $75 million including a 25% contingency and also includes ELA factor, engineering legal administration factor, at 20%. That is to cover whatever the engineering costs are but also if there are associated costs of legal fees or administrative costs that are independent of engineering. This approach has been done for planning purposes to consider not just construction costs but all costs that are involved in a project. One factor significantly impacting cost since the report was put together in July 2005 is the impact of Katrina which occurred after the report was completed. Since that time construction prices have increased throughout the country as a result. Larry indicated that cost increases due to Katrina have been in the 15-20% range for other projects. The other thing he pointed out was that they have maintained the 25% contingency to date even though their design is well along and the contingency could be reduced. Contingency amounts are included at the start of design to They will look at the market for bid competition and will determine whether this contingency can be reduced. The contingency also covers design changes, enhancements and potential construction occurrences. There are often surprises in construction improvements. At final design, the percent contingency will be reviewed and the price may go down. This is main cost going from the PER to where we are today. As we progress through design, there may be additional things staff identifies as they go along to be included in the work. For example, you might have to add another facility for temporary power. Experience is that this has been what happens. Tom Adams said staff was actively involved in the VE process and also through regular meetings with Black & Veatch, have had opportunity to continuously review the design and they are hoping most 4 of the unknowns have been identified so the contingency now is more of a protection. This is a safety factor for planning purposes. Larry indicated that another reason for the contingency to that there are projects where you never know until bid day how many bidders will bid the project, which impacts how bidders will price the project. The same project bid one year versus another year could be 25-30% difference in cost due to bidders' position. Change orders are another factor that is considered in establishing contingency. Larry indicated that Black & Veatch's history has been changes are much less than 5% over projected cost estimates and are usually less than 2%. The contingency amount is should protect market conditions and unknowns coming up through design. If change orders occur then something wasn't on the existing drawings. It's not a contingency to cover change orders. Dale Cherry discussed the practice of having a contingency, and mentioned that the Corps of Engineers has a policy of a 5% contingency at the time of award of contract. He agreed with Larry that their company's history is less than 5% for bids that come in over estimates. Dale mentioned concerns about the price escalations for cost of copper, aluminum, stainless steel, etc. He indicated that it has stabilized somewhat from what it was a year ago, but they put in a 7% and as high as 9% in their estimates to try to allow for cost escalation for materials and labor to the mid -point of construction. This construction estimated is a 42-month construction period and they've allowed that 7-9% to midpoint of construction just for material and labor escalations that may or may not be there. He indicated that the 25% contingency will come down. He indicated that a 10% contingency might be sufficient at this time. The other notable cost increase is for new solids rehabilitation improvements. Rehabilitation and upgrades of solids handling facilities were not part of what was studied in the PER. This is because the primary focus of the study was to develop methods to upgrade the liquid treatment to move away from land application of effluent. From preliminary tech memos, a budget -level cost of what those improvements may need to be was done. These are reflected in the costs presented. As work moves through conceptual and detailed design, these costs can be better defined. Dale Cherry said he expected 3 hard bids, Archer Western being one of them, maybe Barr Constructors they see quite often on their projects as well as Cajun here locally. Then Dale said there may be some O party which is out of state contractor who may be exploring. He said we don't want 2 bidders and they've seen that recently since there's a lot of work now with pipelines and plant work. Larry Chapple said he guessed for the actual construction package between $45 and $50 million, so that should attract construction companies. Archer Western just finished up 3 big projects for them at Wilson Creek, Fayetteville and Bartlesville. They've been working in all those areas and they know our work and like what they see in their drawings quality, they can count on it being reliable and that helps tremendously with change orders. U 5 Larry said new TCEQ regulations do impact plant design, but not this project in their opinion. The biggest issue they've seen in those regulations has been the wet weather or the Peak 2-hour condition. He indicated that this generally impacts the size or number of clarifiers at a plant. He also indicated that there are other options like holding facilities that can allow wastewater stored until it can be treated later when the flow decreases. Our suggestion is to see what shakes out on enforcement before deciding what needs to be done. The improvements we're doing is staying with the same hydraulic capacity, we're just improving the quality. Also there is an ongoing study with the collection system. This will give the City more information about what the peak 2-hr flow might be. He indicated that it might be better to use historical information to make a case for lowering the regulations if they are adopted. He said this is an and area with very little rain, that peaking factor is not nearly as common, not nearly as severe as further east closer to the gulf with their peaking factors. Larry said that places in the Kansas City area have a 9 to 1 peak to average ratio. Before spending a tremendous amount of money on clarifiers, it might be better to take a position on this requirement and perhaps point out why it may not be applicable. This requirement would impact the headworks facilities as well. Your head works pump station does not have the peak to average capacity to handle what TCEQ is proposing. A whole new facility of pumping, screenings, etc. would be required to comply with this requirement. This would be a significant impact. Larry said the regulations are trying to address the fact that during wet weather events, many treatment plant experience really high peak flow rates that TCEQ regulations do not cover. Peak flows occur when water other than sewage enters the collection system. This additional water is defined as infiltration or inflow of water, and is commonly combined and defined as I&I (infiltration and inflow). Larry said that Lubbock, like much of west Texas, is more and that other Texas communities where they experience heavier rainfalls and resulting inflow or have pipelines that are constructed below groundwater tables where water can continually seep in through existing cracks and breaks in the sewer line. What the EPA and State are basically saying is that if it gets in your system you have to treat it and that's the bottom line. TCEQ with the new regulation is indicating that to protect your system you must account for peak flows that are 3 to 4 times the average plant flow. Dale Cherry added that they are encouraging cities to tighten up their collection system and keep the rainwater, storm water getting in and having to run it through collection water. Larry indicated that design of the SEWRP facilities are basin on a peaking factor of 2. Referring to slides #11-14 Larry said they've worked to identify phasing the construction with the intent to get as much value for the dollar in this first phase without having to spend the entire amount of money and then look at when we would actually have to do the other improvements in subsequent phases. Phase I would include adding the 3`a train (additional capacity) to plant 4 and that replaces plant #2's hydraulic capacity with a higher quality effluent. Plant #4 would be upgraded to do the nutrient removal with a capacity of 18 mgd. UV treatment and new filtration would be added to both plants #3 and #4. Most of the flow can be safely discharged to the stream with continued use by 0 L AC Briefing — February 28, 2007 Project No. 140092 1 Presented by Larry Chapple, Project Manager B&V ., Enoleen . NN@xb . Plminen Water Resources Improvements ® Purpose of project To implement itimprovements at the SEWRP to produce an effluent suitable to move.,aitiay from.'dand application disposal w Improvements would have flexibility to add processes to raduce higher effluent quality for future reusela"��effi''. ® Major tasks include: 2005 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). Design to prepare specs and drawings to construct PER recommended improvements. 2 ASAR Groundwater Injection Unrestricted Reuse Target Efl1ueM Quality Restricted Reuse Used in PER �/`!' Evaluation .® Near Future Stream Disch. (Nutrient Removal) Plants 2 & 3 Plant 4 Current Stream Disch. Limits App Limits can 1 PER Evaluation a Treatment Capacity and Effluent Quality Design Criteria Use ® Capacity = 31.5 mgd (Projected Year 2030 flow) ® Effluent quality: BOD cone < 5 mg) TSS cone < 5 mg) Total Nitrogen < 8 mg) Phosphorus < 1 mgl ® This level of treatment has met "indirect reuse" criteria for other locales in Texas Major Improvements to SE RP Include: ® Upgrade Plants 3 and 4 to Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) system with Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge Media (IFAS) to remove nitrogen and phosphorus ® Provide ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facilities ® Rehabilitation of existing facilities including: New submersible pumps for influent PS and Plant 4 intermediate lift station New grid and screenings equipment New effluent filter system at Plant 4 PER Findings Integrated Fixrsd Film ® Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) A < a dSl (IFAS) w/ Integrated Fixed Film Activated. Sludge (IFAS) media Was best liquid treatment solutionK--,-6 ® Abandon Plant 2 and upgrade Plants 3 and 4 w/ BNR process. ® Switch from Chlorine to UV disinfection ® Identified upgrades and improvements required to aging facilities (screens, filters, pump stations) Steps Since Preliminary Engineering Report current 2 PER Evaluation - Treatment Capacity and Effluent Quality Design Criteria Use ® Capacity = 31.5 mgd (Projected Year 2030 flow) e Effluent quality: o BOD cons < 5 mg) r, TSS cons < 5 mg) Total Nitrogen < 8 mg) Phosphorus < 1 mg) ® This level of treatment has met "indirect reuse" criteria for other locales in Texas ® Upgrade Plants 3 and 4 to Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) system with Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge Media (IFAS) to remove nitrogen and phosphorus ® Provide ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facilities ® Rehabilitation of existing facilities including: * New submersible pumps for influent PS and Plant 4 intermediate lift station * New grid and screenings equipment New effluent filter system at Plant 4 PER Findings Integrated Fiaed Film ® Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Activated Sludgc(IFAS) w/ Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) media Was best" liquid treatment solution 0 ® Abandon Plant 2 and upgrade Plants 3 and 4 w/ BNR process. ® Switch from Chlorine to UV disinfection ® Identified upgrades and improvements required to aging facilities (screens, filters, pump stations) ® ecfe solid)a c yfard n rrefs ��er i�r� a� tad fi s�l� ew/ef Steps Since Preliminary Engineering Report current 2 e Purpose - Independent view of design to identify any value-added enhancements to the project e Concepts accepted with modifications Replace influent PS and Plant 4 LS screw pumps with submersible pumps Use multi -stage blowers for back up to single stage blowers. Eliminate new Plant 3 LS e Resulted in a net increase ($1.7M) in project cost but provided improved reliability of pumping lu r -., f 1 •:..:• e To spread cost out over time but maximize early benefits; the project was divided into three phases: Expedited Influent Lift Station ($3 Million) Phase 1 ($66 Million) — Add 3rd train to Plant 4, with BNR UV treatment, add new filtration and UV to Plant 3 and rehab existing facilities Phase 2 (new - $21 Million) — Rehab solids thickening / dewatering Phase 3 ($35 Million) — Plant 3 conversions to BNR with WAS New Solids a Factors Cost Escalation since PER (2005 Contingency $) post Katrina Design enhancements from VE study and value added design New $21 M solids handling improvements identified 75M $125M Maintained 25% contingency Total Project Cost to date Plants 3 and 4 OEM in OEMENNMMTJ� Effluent Quality After Phased Construction of SEWRP Improvements ASAR Ground -water Injection - ,• -•- -- Unrestricted Reuse Effluent Quality After Phase 1 Restricted Reuse J �. Once all Phases Cwnpplated, Plate 3 and 4 Will produce stream quality eftiuent w/ Nutrleni Removal ;k > 1 Current Stream Disch. Limits a� Effluent Quality After Phase 3 W Land App Limits Plant 3 Plant 4 -u 3 Phased Construction - Benefits as you Build * Influent Lift Station Improvements Cost $3 Million Complete 2007 TCEQ Permitting — Need to Revise Permit to Discharge More Effluent to the Stream • To move away from land application need to discharge more flow to the stream. • Current permit allows 9.0 mgd to be discharged to existing outfall 001 (14 miles from SEWRP). • Building a New 14 mile pipeline to 001 would cost $24 to $30 million. • City pursuing new 7 mile extension of existing pipeline to 001 to reduce cost. • City also pursuing discharge points closer to SEWRP. Im We Thank the Staff for Their Participation Throughout the Project • Vision and Leadership for the Project • Monthly progress meeting workshops have been occurring throughout design Staff participation and input has been invaluable to assure that the project is providing them what they need to produce quality effluent • Visiting other facilities Staff has made trips to other facilities to view processes and technologies that are new to them but necessary to meet new effluent criteria 4 -.4 - . --. No Text No Text E"A SOUTHEA.' N I NOT TO SCALE LEGEND INFLUENT FLOW THROUGH PLANT PLANT 2 - PLANT 2 EFF PLANT 3 PLANT 3 BFF PLANT 4 PLANT 4 OFF PLANT 2 & 3 OFF EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE ...... ... �Lt-_JL --------- ------- ---- . ............. . ...... -------------- --- - --------- I --- LUBBOCK LAND ------- I—M.,jL_}PPLICATION SITE— L K -------------- ------ .... . ..... JJ I ff -- - ------- --------_---- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ------- L-------- ----- -------------- ----------- ------------- - --------- — ------ ----- - ----- ------------- 4 --- - - ----- j ------ ...... j ------------- -------- - ----------- ---------------- ---------- . ........ .. ................... ................ ....... ............ j ---------- ----_----- ---------- ...... - ------------- ---------------- ---------- T ------- ---------- ---- - ------- r ------ ------------------------- -------------- .......... ----------- -------- ...... L --- --------- - - -------- - --- -- --------- ------- ----- L -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------- --­-------------- ------------- ------------ -------------- 4 -------- I------ 14 ...... ----,------- ............. ------------------------ L ------ -------- I ------------ --------------- -------------- ------ t---------------------------- --------------------- 4 HANrOCK LA14D ------------ 9prt �CATION SITE -------------- ............. - --------- -------------- ...... .... _._._._._ _ ............. --------------- ---------- ------------ L ---------- - --------------- ----------- ---- - ---------- L --------------- ---- — ------- ............... Fig. 2 Effluent Disposal System ti City of Lubbock ! ..... . ....... `r R % bdr Hoa FQ S o a�� s r 7 { � sr n IANIi �i .. 1 .... 4 - �RFDUCCR W.R. ' � f t • w G 1 u� 1�tti ... c 3`EXISTMG 400,000 CAL ' ppkk a • ., - amffo, l,pF OROUNOSTORAGE / RESERVOIR \........ n c. WATER- ' 3 61 RECLAFAMON 0 sea, PLANT . •€ .. II • i $EH' -- UtZc ... . i �Y •.... �Gp 67fiFi¢g . - eCC@sark6G . � CBkkkCS ATTACHMENT 1/ SPIF1 USGS TOPO MAP JIM BERTRAM LAKE SYSTEM ( CITY OF LUBBOCK AUGUST,2005 C PUMM WATER LEGEND SIIPPLVWEu s �� ao.�� ,• ]tlRlS DOWNetIitAR rRau ouiFAu RaH}rWEu PaRr A1R[RIKM iAKL T Pkmk;nal wFu Jm RERmap UAY AI�RiRaN LgI♦E �I �uKe R�mRnRY 3Y3IERiPONT .q�r_wa3lOPSLt �. nKRn.iorren J DERtRWM u SCHWLARFI. CRotmm0 EtEY M MEARJ Wm smRAGE CITY PROPERTY PARKARFA 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan Section 19 — Pending Water Right Permits Content a. Proposed Amendment for Water Use Permit No. 3985 (Application No. 4340) b. Water Rights Application for WRPERM 5921 Summary The City has two water rights permit applications pending. An outline on each one is provided for your information. The pending applications are designed to make use of the City's developed water and any flows that are not yet permitted. "Developed water" is water that would not be found in a stream without the actions of the City. The City's reclaimed water is the largest source of developed water. The City now has about 18 MGD of reclaimed water that leaves the SEWRP. Since the 1930's, this water was "disposed" of at the land application sites. Now that the City views this water as a valuable resource, it is proposed to discharge the water into a stream, the North Fork of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, and then capture, store and divert the water for reuse. The second major source of developed water is storm water. The City has constructed and continues to construct storm drainage systems to take water from playa lakes to the North Fork in order to eliminate flooding problems inside the City. This storm water is also available for capture and reuse. The third source of developed water is the groundwater that is being pumped from under the Lubbock Land Application Site (LLAS) and discharged at the head of the Canyon Lakes System. While this source may not be permanent, it is a source of developed water at the present time. On May 11, 2007, the City received the authority to use this water pursuant to Certificate of Adjudication No. 12-3705, as amended. The City is modeling the flow of water down the North Fork to determine water availability and reservoir feasibility. All proposed permits assume that the North Fork will be used for the discharge of developed water. A shift to discharge reclaimed water, storm water and groundwater to a South Fork tributary will require a change to the proposed permits and significant capital outlays. The North Fork is the natural drainage stream for Lubbock. Moving the developed waters to the South Fork will require extensive water transmission pipes and pumps. One major change, discussed previously, is to drop Lake #8 from the permit applications and keep Lake #7. If approved, Council will be asked to approve this change so that the permits can move forward. 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan r�w�rrwrnrwwwr� Section 20 — Summary of Project Cost Estimates and Timing Content No documentation. Summary Cost estimates are essential for determining project feasibility and priority for implementation. Cost estimates have different levels of reliability. Even the estimates provided by engineers are subject to change due to inflation, bidding factors, and contractor interest. For that reason, even engineers are reluctant to give cost estimates for projects. With this in mind, the estimates provided her are estimates. Until the project is designed, bid and constructed, the exact cost will not be known. Cost estimates have varying degrees of reliability. I would offer the following list with # 1 being the most reliable on down to the least reliable. 1. Bids by contractors after final design and specifications are prepared. 2. Final design cost estimates. 3. Preliminary engineering cost estimates. 4. Regional Water Plan cost estimates. 5. General engineering estimates. 6. Staff estimates. With this in mind, the following estimates are provided as a summary for the various projects now under consideration: 1. Lake Alan Henry — Year 2012 - $200 million (General engineering estimates) - Project includes raw water transmission line, right-f-way, pump stations, water treatment plant, property for the stations and plant, distribution system improvements to connect the new source to the City's system, engineering and other services. 2. Post Reservoir Project to Supplement Lake Alan Henry — Year 2030 - $40 million (Region O Plan plus 331/6) 3. South Fork Option to Supplement Lake Alan Henry — Year 2030 - $40 to $70 million (staff estimate) 4. Scalping Operation Option to Supplement Lake Alan Henry — Year 2030 - $75 million (Region O Plan plus 33%) 5. Lake #7 for Future Peak Day Demand — Year 2040 - $50 million (staff modified Region O Plan plus 33%) - Project includes property, dam, transmission line, right-of-way, and pumps. 6. CRMWA R — Year 2050 or later - $400 to $600 million (staff estimate) - Project includes groundwater rights, well field infrastructure, right-of-way, water transmission line and pump stations. 7. Water Reclamation Plant Improvements — Begin in 2008 - $125 million (Final design and general engineering estimates) 2007 Lubbock Water Supply Plan J - Project is proposed in phases with Phase one beginning in 2008. Phase 1 construction project estimated at $50 million. C"",; C`