2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options
-
Upload
clinton-ok -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
412 -
download
1
description
Transcript of 2012.04.17 Council Presentation on Water Options
City of ClintonLong-Term Water Supply Evaluation
April 17, 2012
Defining the Problem
80
60
40
20
0
Rainfall 100º DaysClinton Lake
Utilization1000
750
500
250
0
27.97
12.7720
77 961.5
219.2
Ave
rage
201
1
Ave
rage
201
1
Req
uir
ed
A
ctua
l
Inc
hes
or D
ays
Mil
lion
Gal
lons
Background
• Garver was contracted to evaluate emergency supply alternatives to relieve Clinton Lake
The Big Picture
• Evaluated existing water supply infrastructure at the Burns Flats well field
• Rehabilitation of the Burns Flats field was found to be unfeasible (high cost, low return)
Work Order #14
• Broken into two parts:• A short term emergency study to address immediate needs• A long term master planning study to expand water supply
portfolio and prevent future drought crises
Work Order #15
Population and Water Demand Estimates
• 2010 (Census): 9,033• 2037 (Projected): 9,423• 2062 (Projected): 9,470
Population
2012 2037 20620
1
2
3
5
4
2.07
4.22
2.16
4.40
2.17
4.42
Dem
and
(MG
D)
Average Day
Max Day
Water Demand Reserve Capacity
2012 2037 20620
1
2
3
5
4
Dem
and
(MG
D)
6
2.60
5.30
2.59
5.28
2.48
5.06
Design Flows
• Analysis of water supply on annual basis• Applicable for terminal reservoir options• 2062 average day demand: 2.60 MGD
Average Day Demand
• Analysis of water supply based on limiting day• Applicable for point-of-use options• Clinton Lake safe yield assumed to be zero pending yield
analysis• 2062 maximum day demand: 5.30 MGD• Maximum allocation from Foss: 2.19 MGD• Potential maximum day demand shortfall: 3.11 MGD
Maximum Day Demand
Water Supply Sources
Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTP
Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss Raw Water
Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss Raw Water
Source 3: Washita River Alluvium
Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTPSource 2: Foss Raw Water
Source 3: Washita River Alluvium
Source 4: Rush Springs Aquifer
Source Raw Water Quality
• High total dissolved solids (TDS)• Target: 500 mg/L• Value: 1,315-1,554 mg/L
• Hard water
Foss Reservoir
• High TDS: 1,930 mg/L• Very hard water: 1,743 mg/L (target of 100 mg/L)• High sulfate: 1,813 mg/L (target of 250 mg/L)
Washita Alluvium (Riverside GC wells)
• No local data; data is from literature for areas east of Clinton• TDS: 488 mg/L• Hardness: 340 mg/L• Nitrate and sulfate levels may be above desirable levels
Rush Springs Aquifer
Identifying the Alternatives
• Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”• Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP capacity
Source 1: Foss WTP
• Alternative 2A – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir into Clinton Lake directly
• Alternative 2B – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir into a ground storage tank near Clinton WTP
• Both alternatives require upgrade of Clinton WTP
Source 2: Raw Water from Foss Reservoir
Identifying the Alternatives
• Alternative 3A – Pump alluvial groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment
• Alternative 3B – Construct new WTP in Clinton proper to treat groundwater
Source 3: Washita Alluvium Wellfield
• Alternative 4A – Pump Rush Springs groundwater to Clinton Lake for treatment
• Alternative 4B – Inject groundwater directly into distribution network with minor wellhead treatment
Source 4: Rush Springs Wellfield
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
Foss WTP (67%)
Clinton Lake (33%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s 13.6%)
• Adjust Resource Management Strategy• Increase reliance on Foss
treated water• Prioritize maintaining
adequate levels in Clinton Lake
• Utilize Clinton Lake water when Clinton Lake is full
Alternative 1A
Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
Clinton WTPFoss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pursue legal options to obtain rights to unutilized treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s 13.6%)
• Adjust Resource Management Strategy• Increase reliance on Foss
treated water• Prioritize maintaining
adequate levels in Clinton Lake
• Utilize Clinton Lake water when Clinton Lake is full
Alternative 1A
Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
Clinton WTPFoss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss WTP (67%)
Clinton Lake (33%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
Foss WTP(100%)
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity• Plant expansion• Foss can provide
maximum day demand (5.30 MGD)
• Water quality is improved through advanced treatment
• City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall
Alternative 1BFoss Reservoir Clinton Lake
Clinton WTPFoss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity• Plant expansion• Foss can provide
maximum day demand (5.30 MGD)
• Water quality is improved through advanced treatment
• City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall
Alternative 1BFoss Reservoir Clinton Lake
Clinton WTPExpanded Foss
WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity• Plant expansion• Foss can provide
maximum day demand (5.30 MGD)
• Water quality is improved through advanced treatment
• City can maximize Clinton Lake use without fear of water shortfall
Alternative 1BFoss Reservoir Clinton Lake
Clinton WTPExpanded Foss
WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss WTP(100%)
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Foss WTP(27%)
Clinton Lake (49%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Foss Raw (24%)
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake through a 12-inch line• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake through a 12-inch line• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss Raw Water
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake through a 12-inch line• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss Raw Water
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton Lake through a 12-inch line• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss WTP(27%)
Clinton Lake(49%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Foss Raw Water
Foss Raw(24%)
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)
Foss Raw59%
Foss WTP41%
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton WTP through a 24-inch line• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water• Raw Foss water• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton WTP through a 24-inch line• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water• Raw Foss water• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss Raw Water
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton WTP through a 24-inch line• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water• Raw Foss water• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss Raw Water
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton WTP (On-Demand)
• Two Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Reservoir to Clinton WTP through a 24-inch line• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water• Raw Foss water• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 2BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss Raw59%
Foss WTP41%
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Foss Raw Water
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Foss WTP(27%)
Clinton Lake (49%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
WashitaAlluvium (24%)
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River Alluvium
• Pump Raw Water from Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water (3 production wells)
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 3AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River Alluvium
• Pump Raw Water from Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water (3 production wells)
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 3AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Washita Alluvium
Raw
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River Alluvium
• Pump Raw Water from Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water (3 production wells)
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 3AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Washita Alluvium
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Raw
Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River Alluvium
• Pump Raw Water from Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water (3 production wells)
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to include advanced treatment• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded Clinton WTP
Alternative 3AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
UpgradedClinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss WTP (27%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Washita Alluvium
Evaporation Ponds
Waste
Raw
Clinton Lake (49%)
WashitaAlluvium (24%)
Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita Alluvium Water
Washita Alluvium
59%
Foss WTP41%
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita Alluvium Water
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River
Alluvium• New WTP in Clinton
proper• Raw water from 7
production wells in the Washita Alluvium
• Advanced treatment at the new WTP
Alternative 3BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita Alluvium Water
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River
Alluvium• New WTP in Clinton
proper• Raw water from 7
production wells in the Washita Alluvium
• Advanced treatment at the new WTP
Alternative 3BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Washita Alluvium
Evap. Ponds
Waste
New Clinton WTP
Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita Alluvium Water
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Washita River
Alluvium• New WTP in Clinton
proper• Raw water from 7
production wells in the Washita Alluvium
• Advanced treatment at the new WTP
Alternative 3BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Washita Alluvium
Evap. Ponds
Waste
Foss WTP(41%)Washita
Alluvium(59%)
New Clinton WTP
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Foss WTP(27%)
Clinton Lake (49%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Rush SpringsAquifer (24%)
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Pump Raw Water from Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake• Raw water from 8
production wells supplements Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from the existing Clinton WTP
Alternative 4AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Pump Raw Water from Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake• Raw water from 8
production wells supplements Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from the existing Clinton WTP
Alternative 4AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Rush Springs Aquifer
Raw
Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Pump Raw Water from Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake• Raw water from 8
production wells supplements Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished water comes from the existing Clinton WTP
Alternative 4AFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Foss WTP (27%)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Rush Springs Aquifer
Raw
Clinton Lake (49%)
RushSprings (24%)
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Inject
Rush SpringsAquifer
59%
Foss WTP41%
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Inject
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water• Water is pumped
from 24 production wells
• Minor wellhead treatment
• Blending in distribution system
Alternative 4BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Inject
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water• Water is pumped
from 24 production wells
• Minor wellhead treatment
• Blending in distribution system
Alternative 4BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Rush Springs Aquifer
Standpipe
Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Inject
• Three Water Sources• Foss Reservoir• Clinton Lake• Rush Springs Aquifer
• Direct Inject Rush Springs Aquifer Water• Water is pumped
from 24 production wells
• Minor wellhead treatment
• Blending in distribution system
Alternative 4BFoss
ReservoirClinton Lake
Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
NW Blend Tank
Distribution System
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Rush Springs Aquifer
Foss WTP(41%)Rush Springs
Aquifer(59%)
Standpipe
Monetary Evaluation Overview
• Develop costs for the 25-year planning horizon used for capital improvements
Goal
• Capital Improvements• Water treatment plants• Water conveyance (raw and finished)
• Annual Costs• O&M• Water treatment• Pumping
• Finished water purchase from Foss• Contingency: 30%
Costs
Monetary Evaluation Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
25-Y
ear C
osts
($ in
Mill
ions
)
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
Capital Costs
Annual Costs
1
2
3
5 46
8 7
Non-Monetary Evaluation Overview
• Identify non-monetary factors
Factors
• Weight the non-monetary factors based on variability across plan alternatives
Weights
• Rank the plan alternatives based on each of the non-monetary factors
Rankings
Non-Monetary Evaluation Draft Results
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
1
2
35
46
8 7
Best
Wor
st
Non
-Mon
etar
y Ra
nkin
g
Plan Alternatives Assembly
1A
1B
2A
2B
Incr
easi
ng
Co
st
Increasing Non-Monetary Value
3A
3B
4A
4B
1. 4A. Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake
2. 3A. Washita Alluvium to Clinton Lake
3. 4B. Rush Springs Aquifer Direct Injection
4. 2A. Foss Raw Water with Clinton Lake as Terminal Reservoir
5. (tie)1A. Treated Foss Water as Primary Source (“Do Nothing”)2B. Foss Raw Water to Clinton WTP On-Demand
7. 3B. New In-Town WTP for Washita Alluvium
8. 1B. Foss WTP Expansion
Final Rankings
Optimal
Worst
Recommendations
• Implement/continue Alternative 1A (“Do Nothing”)• Continue to prioritize use of Foss finished water• Pursue legal agreements for additional rights to treated Foss water
• Allow for maximum recovery of Clinton Lake before peak demand period (summer)
• Perform a detailed yield analysis for Clinton Lake and develop a water resource management strategy to minimize effects of drought periods
• Adopt a council-approved Drought Mitigation Plan
2012
• Alternative 4A (Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake)• Most economical option that reduces reliance on the Clinton Lake watershed• Water quality is a concern due to a lack of information about local RSA water
quality• Low capital costs are a result of no investment in new/upgraded/expanded
water treatment facilities
Looking Ahead