City of Augusta, Kansas Works/Water/Water Supply... · 2019. 10. 11. · Program. This report ......

City of Augusta, Kansas

Water Supply Study

April 16, 2012

clean & pure - pure & simple

Aqua Tech Engineering Consultants Augusta, Kansas 11-22-03-01

TOC - 1

CITY OF AUGUSTA, KANSAS

WATER SUPPLY STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I………………………………………………………………………………... 1 A. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….…………. 1 B. PURPOSE...…………………………………………………………….……….. 1 PART II…………………………………………………………………….…………. 1 A. GENERAL………………………………………………………………………. 1 B. POPULATION TRENDS AND GROWTH AREAS…………………………… 1 PART III...……………………………………………………………………………. 1 A. GENERAL………………………………………………………………………. 1 B. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT………………………………………………. 1 C. CURRENT WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS…………………………….. 2 D. KANSAS ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY……………………………………. 2 E. ARSENIC………………………………………………………………………... 4 F. RADIONUCLIDES……………………………………………………………… 5 G. SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE…………………………………….. 6 H. INTERIM ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE…………. 7 I. LONG TER 2 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE………. 7 J. STAGE 1 DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE... 9 K. STAGE 2 DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE.. 11 L. KANSAS WATER APPROPRIATIONS ACT…………………………………. 13 PART IV……………………………………………………………………………… 1 A. RAW WATER SOURCES……...………………………………………………. 1 B. RAW WATER PIPELINES……………………………………………………... 5 C. CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM……………………………………. 9 D. AVAILABLE SUPPLY…………………………………………………………. 9 PART V………………………………………………………………………………. 1 A. GENERAL………………………………………………………………………. 1 B. EL DORADO LAKE AND PIPELINE…………………………………………. 2 C. AUGUSTA CITY LAKE………………………………………………………... 7 D. SANTA FE LAKE………………………………………………………………. 10 E. REUSE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT…………… 11 APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX B – REUSE ARTICLES

ABB - 1

CITY OF AUGUSTA, KANSAS

WATER SUPPLY STUDY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABBREVIATION

OR ACRONYM MEANING

Acre-Feet One foot of water over one acre = 325,829 gallons

BAT Best Available Treatment Technology

C-900 AWWA Standard C-900 that covers PVC Pipe 4" through 12" diameter

C-905 AWWA Standard C-900 that covers PVC Pipe greater than 12" diameter

CCR Consumer Confidence Report that is issued annually by Augusta

CWS Community Water System

DBP Disinfection By-Products

DR Dimension Ration for HDPE Pipe - The outside diameter divided by the wall thickness (the lower the number, the thicker the wall)

DWR Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources

Ft. TDH Total Dynamic Head expressed in Feet of Water - One foot of water = 0.43 psi

gpm Gallons per Minute

GUDI Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water

HAA5 5 of the Haloacetic Acids, which are DBPs

Hazen-Williams C Value

A friction factor, usually between 100 and 153, that represents the assumed resistance against flow by the inside wall of a pipe

HDPE High Density Polyethylene Pipe

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

KBS Kansas Biological Survey

KDHE Kansas Department of Health & Environment

KWO Kansas Water Office

LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminent Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminent Level Goal

mg/L Milligrams per Liter

MGD Million Gallons per Day

MGY Million Gallons per Year

millirem One-thousandth of a rem, with a rem being the roentgen equivalent in man or mammel which is a unit of radiation dose equivalent, which is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor that accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage. The rad is a unit of radiation dose that causes 100 ergs of energy to be absorbed by one gram of matter, such as tissue. An erg is a unit of energy equivalent to a force of one dyne exerted for one centimeter

ABB - 2

ABBREVIATION

OR ACRONYM MEANING

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level

MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NTNCWS Non-transient Non-community Water System

oocyst/L An oocyst is a is a spore that is able to survive for lengthy periods outside a host. Organisms that create oocysts include Cryptosporidium and Toxoplasma.

pCi/L Picocuries per Liter, which is a unit of radioactivity. It takes one trillion picocuries to equal one curie. One curie is roughly the activity of 1 gram of the radium isotope 226Radium. The human body typically contains 100,000 picocuries of naturally occurring Potassium-40.

psi Pressure in pounds per square inch

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TDH Total Dynamic Head, which is the pressure that a pump will produce

THM Triholomethanes, which are DBPs

USACE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing sources of raw water to the City of Augusta Water Treatment Plant are El Dorado Lake, City Lake and Santa Fe Lake. The summer drought of 2011 made it necessary for the City of Augusta to implement a Mandatory Watering Restriction Program. This report therefore evaluates the long term raw water supply in order that an ample amount of potable water is available to the citizens of Augusta and its wholesale customers (Butler County Rural Water District No. 4, Butler County Rural Water District No. 6, the City of Mulvane and possibly peaking flows to the City of Rose Hill). The agreement to sell water to Mulvane expires between January 1 and April 1, 2031. It should be noted that it is not certain that they will continue to purchase water from Augusta after the agreement expires. Alternatives that are evaluated include increasing the capacity of the raw water pipeline from El Dorado to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant, thereby replacing its aged portion; withdrawing water from the Walnut River to help manage City Lake; and using the effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant as an additional source, either to City Lake or directly to the Water Treatment Plant. The planning period for the Report is from the year 2012 through 2062. The raw water supply system demand is determined by projecting population for the City of Augusta and its wholesale customers, applying average per capita per day use to the projected population, and application of a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average day use to calculate the maximum day finished water demand. The finished water demand is then increased by an amount of 7% to account for water that is used during treatment for sludge removal and filter backwash. The maximum day demand during specific years of historical usage may be less than calculated amounts depending on such thing as weather, water conservation practices, economic conditions during the year of analysis, fire fighting, and major line breaks. Population projections as based on Kansas Water Office information are shown in the following table:

Population Projections

Year Projected Population

2000 17,609

2010 19,986

2012 20,461

2022 22,838

2032 25,215

2042 27,592

2052 29,969

2062 32,346

ES - 2

Water demand projections that were developed using the above population projections for Augusta and its wholesale customers are shown in the following table:

Annual Water Demand Projections

Year Water Demand in MGY

2000 761

2010 862 2012 883

2022 984 2032 1,086

2042 1,189

2052 1,291 2062 1,393

The projected maximum day demands based on application of a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average day demands are presented in the following table:

Maximum Day Water Demand Projections

Year Water Demand in MGD 2000 5.2

2010 5.9 2012 6.0

2022 6.7

2032 7.4 2042 8.1

2052 8.8 2062 9.5

The projected maximum day demands that include the values from the above table and 1.1 MGD to Rose Hill are shown in the following table:


With Rose Hill at 1.1 MGD After 2010

Year Water Demand in MGD

2000 5.2

2010 5.9 2012 7.1

2022 7.8 2032 8.5

2042 9.2

2052 9.9 2062 10.6

ES - 3

Applicable regulations were reviewed with respect to their impact on the water supply for the City. It should be noted that the City is in full compliance with all regulatory monitoring and associated dates. Regulations reviewed were the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Kansas regulations that pertain to the SDWA, Kansas Antidegradation Policy, the Federal Arsenic and Radionuclides Standards, the Surface Water Treatment Rules, the Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products Rules, and the Kansas Water Appropriations Act. This review was done with respect to their applicability to withdraw of water from the Walnut River and reuse of effluent from the Augusta Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Various testing would be necessary to determine that the water from the Walnut River is compatible with the water in the City Lake. The Kansas Antidegradation Policy would not allow reuse of the wastewater plant effluent through the City Lake. The KDHE indicated that they will not allow use of the wastewater plant effluent as a source of raw water to the water plant. The following is a summary of the current water rights that the City owns (water is purchased from El Dorado Lake from the City of El Dorado, therefore Augusta has no water right associated with the El Dorado Lake):

Water Rights Use Summary

Water

Right

File No.

Effective

Date

Allowable

Rate

(gpm)

Allowable

Quantity

(MGY)

Notes

BU 003 June 28, 1945 1,000 157.000 Vested City Lake – See Below

BU 017 June 28, 1945 NA NA Vested Santa Fe Lake for Storage Only

BU 018 June 28, 1945 NA 44.967 Vested Santa Fe Lake

21,148 August 8, 1973 1,200 450.000 Appropriated Santa Fe Lake – See Below

45,451 February 24, 2003 2,000 350.000 Appropriated City Lake

Water right 21,148 limits the total use of water from Santa Fe Lake at 711.000 MGY when combined with water rights BU 003 (City Lake), 2,726 and 6,655. 2,726 was later dismissed and file 6,655 was sold or given to another party. The net current allowed annual combined water use from 21,148 (SFL) and BU 003 (City Lake) is 651.967 MGY. The Division of Water Resources considers all of the water rights for both the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake collectively in setting the amounts of water that the City is allowed

ES - 4

to store, withdraw annually and withdraw instantaneously from both the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake combined. The appropriated water rights are not yet perfected, and therefore are not certified. The overlapping rights BU 018 and 21,148 have to be perfected by December 31, 2012 unless an extension is applied for and granted. The Division of Water Resources advised that this date can probably be extended to December 31, 2016 if a request with reasonable justification is provided. The date has previously been extended and the date of 2016 is probably the latest that an extension can be granted. These rights need to be perfected by withdrawing the maximum amount of water that can be managed from the City Lake and from the Santa Fe Lake combined within one calendar year. The perfection date for right 45,451 is December 31, 2023, however its right should be perfected along with the other rights so that its quantities are not reduced.

A water right associated with a point of diversion from the Walnut River would later need perfecting in combination with the other rights after the diversion works is constructed. Twenty to forty years should be available to accomplish this. The City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake do not have sufficient yield capacity to meet the annual or maximum daily demands for the Augusta potable water system. The El Dorado Lake has sufficient yield capacity to fulfill these purposes. However, the conveyance system from El Dorado to Augusta does not have sufficient capacity to meet the maximum daily demand. Therefore, it is currently imperative that capability be maintained to withdraw from the El Dorado Lake along with the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake to meet the maximum day demand. The El Dorado Lake is the main source of raw water to Augusta. The current contract between Augusta and El Dorado limits the annual amount of water that Augusta can purchase annually to 575 MGY, which is on a “take or pay” basis. Augusta can obtain more water than this amount if desired or needed with the permission of El Dorado and with the result of an equivalent increase in the take or pay amount The contract with El Dorado also allows adjustment in the price of raw water at five year increments based on certain inflation factors. The current price for this raw water is $0.588 per 1,000 gallons. This amount is adjusted at 5-year intervals with the last adjustment occurring in February 2010. The El Dorado Lake has storage capacity for water supply of approximately 50 billion gallons. Information indicates that the El Dorado Lake can be susceptible to a significant drop in available water over a period of drought. This effect would be amplified as more water is sold or used by the City of El Dorado. The City of Augusta has storage capacity for water supply of approximately 569 million gallons. The operation of the lake is limited by openings that are available in the side of the existing intake structure. The lowest opening is approximately 5 feet above the top of

ES - 5

the lake sediment. An additional approximately 34 million gallons of water would be available if it could be taken from the lake at the level of the sediment. The KBS conducted a depth and sediment survey of City Lake in 2010. The study indicated that the lake had an estimated sedimentation volume of 237.8 acre-feet, resulting in an approximate annual sedimentation rate of 3.0 acre-feet per year. Calculations indicate that the volume of the lake would increase by approximately 75 million gallons, if the lake was completely dredged. This equates to approximately 19 days of peak water use. The Santa Fe Lake has storage capacity for water supply of approximately 362 million gallons. The KBS conducted a depth and sediment survey of the Santa Fe Lake in 2010. The study indicated that the lake had an estimated sedimentation volume of 364.7 acre-feet, resulting in an approximate annual sedimentation rate of 4.6 acre-feet per year. Calculations indicate that the volume of the lake would increase by approximately 119 million gallons, if the lake was completely dredged. This equates to approximately 30 days of peak water use. The following table shows the amount of raw water that is currently available to the City of Augusta:

Annual Water Quantity Available

Source Water Available Through a

Right or Take-Or-Pay (MGY) El Dorado 575.000

City Lake Combined with Santa Fe Lake 651.967

Total 1,226.967

This information implies that there may be sufficient supply of water through the three sources to meet the projected demand for raw water through Year 2050. Additional water rights may be needed at this point or additional water may need to be purchased from the El Dorado Lake. This of course depends on the continuation of water sales to Mulvane, the growth of other wholesale customers and the growth of the population of the City of Augusta. This information does not address the actual yields from the August City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake that can be reasonably relied on (100 year drought). There are two raw water pipelines that are connected to the water treatment plant. One is from the El Dorado Lake and one is from the City Lake. In addition, a raw water pipeline is installed that extends from the Santa Fe Lake to its connection to the raw water pipeline from the City Lake (see Figure No. 1). The El Dorado Pipeline extends from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. This pipeline consists of three segments (See Figures No. 1 & 2). The first segment is from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the El Dorado Booster Pump Station. The second segment is from the booster pump station to

ES - 6

the area of the original Steam Plant within the Refinery. The third segment is from the end of the second segment to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. The pipe materials are generally asbestos cement from the El Dorado Water Plant to the Refinery, HDPE where recently replaced within the Refinery and steel elsewhere. The El Dorado Booster Pump Station was installed in 1981 and has firm capacity of 2,600 gpm at 350 Ft. TDH (152 psi), or 3.74 MGD.

The Refinery may purchase water from Augusta to supplement their fire protection system. The maximum amount that they are currently allowed to purchase is 2,800 gpm, which would only be done in the event of a major fire or to test their system. The amount that they normally purchase is less than 100 gpm. Water from Augusta City Lake is pumped to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant through a 16 inch diameter C-905 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe (See Figure No. 1). The Booster Pump Station at Augusta City Lake consists of two 2,500 gpm pumps. Water from Santa Fe Lake is pumped to the pipe from the Augusta City Lake at approximately Dike Road and U.S. Highway 54 through a 12 inch diameter steel pipe (See Figure No. 1). The Santa Fe Booster Pump Station consists of one variable speed pump that has a full-speed capacity of 1,800 gpm. This pump was first operated in April 2012. It was operated at 50% of full speed so as to not over-pressure the pipeline. The flow rate under this operation was about 750 gpm. The pressure on the suction side of the pump fell significantly when the pump speed was increased to beyond 50% of full speed, implying that flow may be restricted between the lake and the pump station. The current maximum capacity of each of the various parts of the existing raw water supply system is as follows:

1. The 16 inch raw water line from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the El

Dorado Booster Pump Station – 2.0 to 4.3 MGD. 2. The El Dorado Booster Pump Station – 3.7 MGD. 3. The16 inch raw water transmission line from the El Dorado Booster Pump

Station to the south property line of the Refinery – 2.4 to 10.1 MGD. 4. The16 inch raw water transmission line from the south property line of the

Refinery to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant – 3.5 MGD. 5. The pump station and 16 inch diameter raw water transmission line from the

Augusta City Lake to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant is 3.6 MGD. The water right allows an instantaneous flow of 3,000 gpm (4.3 MGD).

6. The pump station and 12 inch diameter raw water transmission line from the Santa Fe Lake to the 16 inch diameter raw water line from the Augusta City Lake is 750 gpm (1.1 MGD) based on the tested hydraulic capacity of the pipeline and 1,200 gpm (1.73 MGD) as restricted by the water right.

Reasonable alternatives for long term raw water supply for the City of Augusta will need to provide the projected amounts of water. These amounts will need to provide the required annual amounts and also the maximum day amount, which are 1,393 MGY and

ES - 7

10.6 MGD respectively. The better alternatives will also include redundancy such that all of the raw water is not from one source or through only one means of conveyance. Alternatives that have been identified for evaluation are as follows:

1. El Dorado Lake via the El Dorado pipeline and pump station. 2. Augusta City Lake via the Augusta City Lake pipeline and pump station. 3. Santa Fe Lake via the Santa Fe Lake pipeline and pump station. 4. Reuse of effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant by conveying it

through the Augusta City Lake. 5. Reuse of effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant by conveying it

directly to the water treatment plant.

The El Dorado Lake itself must continue to be the main source of raw water supply and should have adequate raw water available for the long term future of Augusta, provided water rights are not appropriated or water otherwise sold from the lake so as to jeopardize this source. Flow from this is dependent on the reliability of the pipeline and pump station. The system is aged, not of materials that are normally suitable for long term use, and does not have sufficient hydraulic capacity to meet projected future demand The Augusta City Lake does not have capacity, on its own, to meet the current or projected annual or maximum day demands for raw water by the City of Augusta. However, this source has proven to be of significant benefit in supplementing the other sources. Also, this source provides a “back up” supply of raw water at times when flow from the El Dorado Lake has been interrupted. The Augusta City Lake could be of more benefit if its annual and maximum day yields could be increased, such as by diverting water to it from the Walnut River or supplementing it with the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. The Santa Fe Lake has been used in similar fashion to the Augusta City Lake, and also does not have capacity to, on its own, meet the current or projected annual or maximum day demands for raw water by the City of Augusta. The Lake is heavily silted and there does not appear to be a reasonable alternative to increase its annual or maximum day yield. The reuse of effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant seems, on the surface, to provide a methodology to augment the overall supply of water from the surface water sources. The two scenarios that relate to this alternative involve diverting a portion of the wastewater treatment plant effluent to either the Augusta City Lake or directly to the Water Treatment Plant. Use of either of these alternatives could assist in providing redundancy to the supply from the El Dorado Lake and could extend the usefulness of the supply from the Augusta City Lake, which could offer the ripple effect of extending the supply from the Santa Fe Lake. Technology exists to provide the treatment of the wastewater such that it should be safe in its use as described above. However, current regulations do not allow it to be introduced into the Augusta City Lake without special KDHE permission, which KDHE has indicated would not be granted.

ES - 8

Conveyance of the wastewater treatment plant effluent directly to the water treatment plant will also not be allowed by KDHE. It is essential that the primary source of raw water continue to be the El Dorado Lake. It is therefore appropriate to consider upgrade or replacement of the booster pump station and the pipeline where it has not recently been replaced. A new booster pump station should be constructed in the area of the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant. The pipeline should be replaced with one that is 24 inches in diameter and is not routed along the BNSF Railroad for any appreciable distance. The materials of the new pipe should be PVC or ductile iron where not located in the Refinery. The segment that is in the Refinery north of the steam plant should be ductile iron where above ground or inside a casing and PVC that is encased in flowable fill where underground. Other underground pipe within the Refinery should be DR 11 HDPE. The pipe material where located at river, road, or railroad crossings should be ductile iron. Various routes were investigated for location of a new pipeline between the Refinery and the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. The most favorable route for consideration is shown in Figures No. 7 and No 8. This route includes the following, beginning at the north end of the raw water line, which is at the south end of the Refinery:

1. West within private easement along the property that is situated south of the

Refinery. 2. South within the right-of-way of Haverhill Road to its intersection with the

railroad. 3. Southwest along the west side of the railroad between Haverhill Road and

Southwest 40th. 4. West within the right-of-way along Southwest 40th to Southwest Boyer Road. 5. West within private easement along Southwest 40th to Southwest Hopkins

Switch Road. 6. South within private easement along Southwest Hopkins Switch to Southwest

70th Road. 7. West within the right-of-way along Southwest 70th to Shumway Road. 8. South within private easement along Shumway to Southwest 85th Road

(Belmont). 9. West within private easement along Southwest 85th to Custer Lane. 10. South within the paved area of Custer Lane to the abandoned railroad right-of-

way that is located north of Old Highway 54. 11. West within the abandoned railroad right-of-way to near the east side of the

BNSF Railroad right-of-way. 12. South under the 7th Street viaduct to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant.

The total length of the pipeline along the described route is approximately 12.5 miles. This is approximately 3 miles longer than a routing along the railroad.

ES - 9

The estimated cost related to the following is $16.2 million (see breakdown at the end of this Part V). These costs include contingency at 15% of bare estimated construction and engineering, surveying and geotechnical at 15% of estimated construction with contingency. They do not include other things such as property or easements:

1. Booster Pump Station at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant 2. New 24” pipe from the El Dorado WTP to the Refinery 3. New 24” pipe within the Refinery where the pipe has not been recently

upgraded 4. New 24” pipe from the Refinery to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant along

the route shown in Figures 7 and 8. The idea of using easements for oil pipelines that are not in service was evaluated and is not feasible.

The BNSF Railroad has advised that the following will need to be done if the existing water line that is located within their right-of-way is to be permanently removed from service:

1. The lease will need to be terminated by the lessees, which they currently have as

the following: a. City Augusta b. City of El Dorado c. El Dorado Refinery d. Skelly e. Mobile Oil f. Sacony

2. The existing pipeline will need to be physically removed where it is parallel to the rails.

3. The existing pipe will need to be filled with flowable fill to at least 10 feet from the rails where it crosses under the tracks.

Removing the existing pipeline from the railroad right-of-way would reduce the annual license fee that the City pays approximately $4,600. The railroad currently inflates this amount 3% per year. This results in a present value of approximately $118,000 over a period of 50 years. The alternative of constructing the pipeline within the Kansas Turnpike right-of-way was also investigated. It is not certain that they would allow this and if so what the cost or other restrictions would be. A pipeline routing to make use of the Turnpike right-of-way would add approximately one mile of length to the pipeline as well as additional cost associated with construction along Ohio Street within the City of Augusta. It therefore appears that using the Turnpike right-of-way would not be cost effective. The alternative of using the Walnut River as a means of hydraulic conveyance of water from the El Dorado Lake was investigated. This would not be feasible due to water appropriation regulations.

ES - 10

The Augusta City Lake will continue to be a significant part of the water supply for Augusta. Use of this lake will help the City manage the amount of water that is used from the El Dorado Lake. Its use is also necessary for the City to meet demands during the summer until significant improvements are made to the El Dorado Pipeline. Use of the City Lake also provides a backup supply during times when the El Dorado Pipeline is out of service. Recent experience has shown that the level of the City Lake declines significantly over times of extended drought conditions such that its use cannot fulfill all of the objectives. It therefore would be best if the supply into the Lake could at times be increased.

Discussion with the DWR indicates that water could be drawn from the Walnut River from October 1 to June 30 to “top off” the lake level. Calculations of the anticipated needed volume of water to ”top-off” the City Lake level in times of drought indicate that up to 1,490 Acre-Feet of water may need to be diverted from the river. Calculation of the average diversion rate that would be equivalent to the annual water right over the allowed time of pumping is 1,300 gpm. A 12 inch diameter pipe would be needed to convey this flow rate to the presedimentation basin. The actual pumping rate that is used for design should be increased to take full advantage of the hydraulic capacity of the 12-inch pipe since added allowable instantaneous flow may be available under the water right. A pumping rate on the order of 2,400 gpm may be appropriate. The DWR would determine a pumping rate that the river can sustain at the point of diversion after an application is filed. The Walnut River may be of comparable quality to the current supply from the El Dorado Lake and from the City Lake with exception that it sometimes contains significant turbidity. Water testing would need to be done to determine that its quality is such that water can continue to be taken from the City Lake and treated with the current processes after the water from the river is introduced into the lake. The exact parameters that would need to be tested would be determined with KDHE if this alternative is to be pursued. The monitoring should be done quarterly, or more often depending on direction from KDHE. The water from the Augusta City Lake should also be analyzed for these same constituents to determine similarity between the two waters. The estimated cost for the analysis is $1,100 per event. Water that is taken from the river and conveyed to the City Lake should be routed through a presedimentation basin to reduce the settleable solids that are introduced into the Lake. The sediment would need to be cleaned from the basin periodically. A permit would be needed from the EPA to allow land application of the solids. It may also be possible to dispose of the solids at the landfill. Various locations for withdraw of water from the river were evaluated. Estimates of construction cost indicate that the most economical location is at Southwest 70th and the Walnut River. The construction would include the following items (see Figure No. 9):

ES - 11

1. Intake facility at the river. This could be a concrete structure with course and fine screens to protect the pumps and such that Zebra Mussels do not interfere with the operation of the facility. It may also be possible to construct the intake as a slotted or perforated pipe that is buried in the bottom of the river and backfilled with large aggregate. The Zebra Mussels could be controlled by feeding potassium permanganate immediately in front of the screen or along the perforated pipe and constructing the screens or perforated pipe of copper nickel alloy materials. The configuration of the intake facility and chemical feed system would be arrived at by working closely with the DWR.

2. Two pumps with each capable of conveying 2,400 gpm with a discharge pressure of approximately 100 psi.

3. A 12 inch diameter water line from the intake facility to the presedimentation basin.

4. One presedimentation basin situated in the area of Southwest 70th and Ohio Roads. The presedimentation basin would be about 170 feet wide and 275 feet long with an operating depth of about 12 feet. The useable volume of the presedimentation basin would be about 1.9 million gallons to provide approximately 12 to 24 hours of hydraulic retention depending on the pumping rate and volume of sediment. It would be intended that the presedimentation basin be cleaned when the depth of the sediment reaches 2 feet.

The estimated cost related to the following is $2.5 million (see Figure 9 and breakdown at the end of this Part V). These costs include contingency at 15% of bare estimated construction and engineering, surveying and geotechnical at 15% of estimated construction with contingency. They do not include other things such as acquisition of water rights, property or easements:

1. Walnut River intake facility 2. Raw water line from the intake facility to a presedimentation basin 3. Presedimentation basin

A possibility to supplementing the new water right that would be associated with diversion of water from the Walnut River would be to acquire a more senior water right. Conversation with City Staff has lead to the identification of a water right that was previously used by the refinery that was located in southwest Augusta. This water right is now owned by the Williams Companies per conversation with the DWR and is a vested right (BU 012) in the area of the Walnut River south of the Mulvane Pump Station. The right is for 725 MGY with no mention of a restriction on instantaneous withdraw. Water use under the right was last recorded in 1983 and its current status is unknown. A status review was done in 2002 by DWR and action related to abandonment of the right was recommended but was not followed up on. The William Companies apparently wants to keep the right active for withdraw of water for remediation purposes. If the City wants to acquire the right, they would need to negotiate its purchase from its owner and have a status review done by DWR before actually spending any money toward owning the right. There would also need to be detailed discussion with DWR as to the conditions that may be attached to the right if it is conveyed to the City and if its point of diversion is changed to the area of Southwest 70th. The conditions could relate to

ES - 12

time of use and withdraw rates. The conditions could take into account the other rights that are currently upstream of the current point of diversion but that would end up downstream of the new point of diversion.

The Santa Fe Lake should continue to be a part of the water supply for Augusta. Use of this lake will help the City manage the amount of water that is used from El Dorado Lake. Its use is also an attribute in helping the City meet demands during the summer until significant improvements are made to the El Dorado Pipeline. Use of the Santa Fe Lake also provides a backup supply during times when the El Dorado Pipeline is out of service or water cannot be obtained from the City Lake. The 12-inch pipe that extends from Santa Fe Lake is very old. Its integrity should be monitored. The lake has experienced significant siltation. It may be appropriate to remove much of the silt if a cost effective means can be determined to accomplish this (i.e. grants, cost sharing or development of a cost effective means to dredge lakes). Recent experience has shown that the level of the Santa Fe Lake declines significantly over times of extended drought conditions such that its use cannot fulfill all of the objectives. However, there does not appear to be a reasonable means to divert water to the lake from other sources. It appears from the discussion presented in this Study that action pertaining to some items is warranted at this time. The following are items that could be acted on:

1. Apply to DWR for an extension through 2016 for perfection of the water right

annual and maximum instantaneous withdraw rates from the City Lake and from the Santa Fe Lake. The City should withdraw the maximum amount of water that is possible under the current water rights from the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake before the expiration of the extended perfection period.

2. Apply to DWR for a water right from the Walnut River at SW 70th and east of Purity Springs Road. This will entail several activities including preliminary design of the diversion works to the extent that the DWR can determine the effect of its construction and use.

3. Consider acquisition of the water right from the Williams Companies and determine specific advantages and conditions if the acquisition is feasible.

4. Plan for the capital expenditures for items that are related to the pump station and pipeline from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant.

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc I - 1

PART I

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. INTRODUCTION

The shortage of raw water during the summer drought of 2011 for the City of Augusta, Kansas from Augusta City Lake and Santa Fe Lake made it clear that it may be appropriate that the City implement changes to the raw water supply system in order that an ample amount of potable water is always available to the citizens of Augusta and its wholesale customers. The summer drought of 2011 made it necessary for the City to implement a Mandatory Watering Restriction Program. This program was placed into effect on July 12, 2011 and is still in effect as of the date of this Report. The Mandatory Watering Restriction Program resulted in a 44% to 74% reduction in water demand.

B. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to evaluate the long term raw water supply for Augusta and its wholesale water customers. Alternatives that are evaluated include increasing the capacity of the raw water pipeline from El Dorado to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant, thereby replacing its aged portion, withdrawing water from the Walnut River to help manage City Lake, and using the effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant as an additional source, either to City Lake or directly to the Water Treatment Plant. Augusta’s wholesale water customers are Butler County Rural Water District No. 4, Butler County Rural Water District No. 6, and the City of Mulvane. Augusta is also negotiating the supply of peaking flows to the City of Rose Hill. The Report provides an evaluation of the existing facilities, presentation of alternatives to meet the long term raw water supply, and recommendations for incorporation of specific alternatives. The Report uses information from the Kansas Water Office, the KDHE, the DWR, and other readily available sources. The technical aspects of the Report are presented with respect to conformance with applicable regulatory agencies. These include the United States Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Act, the KDHE “Requirements for Kansas Public Water Supply Systems”, the Kansas Water Appropriations Act, and the “Kansas Water Appropriations Act Rules and Regulations”.

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc I - 2

The planning period for the Report is from the year 2012 through 2062, analyzed in 10-year increments. The Report includes predictions of growth in water use for Augusta, existing wholesale water customers, and peaking needs of Rose Hill. It also includes an allowance for lost water and water that leaves the treatment system with sludge and filter backwashes.

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc II - 1

PART II

POPULATION AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS A. GENERAL

The raw water supply system should be able to provide sufficient raw water such that the water treatment plant can produce finished water to meet the maximum day demand during the 50-year planning period beginning at the end of 2012 going through 2062. This amount will be determined by projecting population for the City of Augusta and its wholesale customers, applying average per capita per day use to the projected population, and application of a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average day use to calculate the maximum day finished water demand. The finished water demand is then increased by an amount of 7% to account for water that is used during treatment for sludge removal and filter backwash. The maximum day demand during specific years of historical usage may be less than calculated amounts depending on such thing as weather, water conservation practices, economic conditions during the year of analysis, fire fighting, and major line breaks. The peaking factor of 2.5 is used as a normally conservative amount to represent water demand during a year in which the climate conditions warrant heavy water use, when watering restrictions are not in place thus allowing everyone to use the water to the full extent of their desire, and economic conditions are such that users do not feel compelled to restrict their use of water for outdoor purposes (irrigation, pools, livestock watering, etc.).

B. POPULATION TRENDS AND GROWTH AREAS

The following describes population projections for the 50-year planning period analyzed in 10-year periods. Historic census data was obtained through the U.S. Census Bureau from the years 1960 through 2010. The Arithmetic Method and projections from the Kansas Water Office were evaluated to provide population projections for the City of Augusta and its wholesale customers. The Augusta wholesale customers are Butler County Rural Water District No. 4 (Butler RWD #4), Butler County Rural Water District No. 6 (Butler RWD #6), and the City of Mulvane. Allowance was also added to provide peaking flows to the City of Rose Hill. The agreement to sell water to Mulvane is dated July 16, 1990. It allows the sale of water from the City of Augusta to the City of Mulvane to begin on January 1, 1991. It also calls for expiration of the agreement 40 years after the sale of water begins or after April 1, 1991, whichever is earliest. This places the expiration of the contract at between January 1 and April 1, 2031. It should be noted that it is not certain that


the City of Mulvane will continue to purchase water from Augusta after the agreement expires. The Arithmetic Method and the Kansas Water Office (KWO) population data yield approximately the same population projections. Population projections are shown in the following Table No. 1.

Table No. 1

Population Projections

Year Projected Population

2000 17,609

2010 19,986

2012 20,461

2022 22,838

2032 25,215

2042 27,592

2052 29,969

2062 32,346

The information presented in the above table is also in the chart at the end of this Part II. Two sets of data points are presented in the chart; one is just for the City of Augusta, and the other is for Augusta and its wholesale customers.

Water demand projections were developed using the above population projections for Augusta and its wholesale customers. These are shown in the following Table No. 2. This table includes addition of 7% to account for water discharged with sludge and filter backwash wastewater from the water treatment plant.

Table No. 2


Year Water Demand in MGY 2000 761

2010 862 2012 883

2022 984

2032 1,086 2042 1,189

2052 1,291 2062 1,393


The information presented in the above table is also in the chart at the end of this Part II. Two sets of data points are presented in the chart; one is just for the City of Augusta, and the other is for Augusta and its wholesale customers. The following Table No. 3 shows projected maximum day demands based on application of a peaking factor of 2.5 to the average day demands that are presented in the above Table No. 2.

Table No. 3



2000 5.2

2010 5.9 2012 6.0

2022 6.7 2032 7.4

2042 8.1 2052 8.8

2062 9.5

The recent maximum day of finished water production was 4.44 MGD in June 2008. This correlates to 4.75 MGD of raw water demand assuming that 7% of the water is wasted as discussed above. The maximum day demand for raw water as projected by Table No. 3 above is 5.76 MGD. This implies that the projected maximum day demand in Table No. 3 may be approximately 20% higher than exhibited by actual demand. The weather conditions in year 2008 were not abnormal with respect to those that cause higher than usual water use (temperature, rainfall). In fact, the rainfall during June 2008 was above normal. Discussion with plant staff infers that the maximum day demand was due to a major line break. This amount could have been much greater had the line break occurred, or a major fire fighting event taken place, during a time of extreme weather conditions. This added margin for the maximum day demand in Table No. 3 should remain in the projections to account for years of extreme weather conditions coupled with the other factors mentioned above. Augusta is negotiating a contract with the City of Rose Hill to provide them with peaking flows. The current flow rate being considered is 750 gpm, or 1.1 MGD. (Water modeling indicates that this flow to Rose Hill can be provided along with use of two of the three pumps at the Mulvane Pump Station operating at a discharge pressure of approximately 125 psi and a flow to the Mulvane Reservoir of 800 gpm.)


The following Table No. 4 shows the projected maximum day demands that include the values from the above table and 1.1 MGD to Rose Hill.

Table No. 4


With Rose Hill at 1.1 MGD After 2010


2000 5.2

2010 5.9 2012 7.1

2022 7.8 2032 8.5

2042 9.2

2052 9.9 2062 10.6

The information presented in the above table is also in the chart at the end of this Part II.

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc III - 1

PART III

REGULATIONS

A. GENERAL

This section discusses regulations that are related to alternatives for enhancing the raw water supply for the City of Augusta. This section does not discuss regulations that pertain to finished water, distribution system performance, or distribution system monitoring unless possible alternatives for raw water supply enhancement could impact those aspects of the water system. The following sections include dates in certain instances that must be met for the City to be in compliance with regulatory requirements. It should be noted that the City is in full compliance with all regulatory monitoring and associated dates.

B. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

Congress originally passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources – rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. Private wells and wells that serve fewer than 25 individuals are not regulated by the SDWA. The SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The USEPA, States, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met. Originally, SDWA focused primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments greatly enhanced the existing law by recognizing source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water. This approach improves the quality of drinking water by protecting it from source to tap. The USEPA sets national standards for drinking water based on sound science to protect against health risks while taking into consideration available technology and costs. These National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set enforceable maximum contaminant levels for particular contaminants in drinking water. Requirements for contaminant testing are also included to monitor the achievement of the standards. In addition to setting these standards, the USEPA provides guidance, assistance, and public information about drinking water, collects drinking water data, and oversees state drinking water programs.


The USEPA prioritizes contaminants for potential regulation based on risk and how often they occur in water supplies. The USEPA sets a health goal based on risk (including risks to the most sensitive people, e.g., infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised). The USEPA then sets a legal limit for the contaminant in drinking water or a required treatment technique. This limit or treatment technique is set as close to the health goal as economically and technologically feasible. The USEPA also performs a cost-benefit analysis and obtains input from interested parties when setting standards. National drinking water standards are legally enforceable, which means that both USEPA and States can take enforcement actions against water systems not meeting drinking water safety standards. States and Indian Tribes are given primary enforcement responsibility (i.e. primacy) by the USEPA for public water systems in their state if they meet certain requirements (USEPA 2003).

C. CURRENT WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS

The State of Kansas has enacted statutes that pertain to supply of water to the public. These are contained in Chapter 65 – Public Health. Paragraph 65-171m of these statutes requires that the Secretary of Health and Environment “… adopt rules and regulations for the implementation of …” various parts of the statutes. Paragraph 65-171m goes on to allow the Secretary to adopt rules and regulations that pertain to various aspects of public water supply systems, including primary drinking water standards, with these standards to at least be “… as stringent as the national primary drinking water regulations adopted under public law 93-523.” The Kansas Department of Health and Environment enacted Permanent Administrative Regulations related to the supply of water to the public. These are contained in Article 15 – Application for Permits; Domestic Water Supply and Article 15a – Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Article 15a adopts Federal Regulation 40 CFR Part 141 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations with modifications as noted in the Article. See Appendix A1 for a copy of the regulations as enacted. A current listing of the standards is maintained on the USEPA’s website at www.epa.gov/safewater. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 is also available for questions regarding SDWA and its amendments.

D. KANSAS ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY

The following information on the State of Kansas Antidegradation Policy is taken from the August 6, 2001 policy.


The USEPA’s water quality standards regulations require States to adopt and implement an antidegradation policy containing the minimum requirements for such a policy. The intent of the antidegradation policy is to limit discharges and other activities that will negatively impact water quality, impair designated uses, or threaten to impair designated uses of surface waters. The antidegradation policy provides a baseline level of protection relative to established water quality criteria to all classified surface waters, and a higher level of protection to those waterbodies recognized as unique ecologically, highly valued for its resources, or having high water quality. The federal antidegradation guidance presents three tiers for maintaining and protecting water quality and designated uses: 1. The first tier (Tier 1) provides a “floor” which protects existing uses. Water

quality must be preserved to protect and maintain those existing uses. Activities that would lower water quality below levels necessary to maintain existing uses are prohibited.

2. The second tier (Tier 2) provides protection to high quality waters where water quality exceeds the criteria associated with the assigned designated uses. Limited water quality degradation is allowed in high quality waters where the degradation is necessary to accommodate important social or economic development, but only if designated uses are still maintained and the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all point sources of pollution and all cost effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint sources of pollution are achieved. Public participation is required before allowing a lowering of water quality.

3. The third tier (Tier 3) provides special protection for Outstanding Resource Waters, such as those waters in National and State Parks, wildlife refuges, outstanding fisheries, and other waters of unique recreational or ecological value. Although activities that may create temporary reductions in water quality are allowed, any activities that would permanently lower water quality of these surface waters is forbidden.

Kansas provides protection to classified surface waters equivalent to the three tiers listed above in the Outstanding National Resource Water (Tier 3) and General Purpose Water (Tier 1 or Tier 2) classifications described below. Additionally, Kansas provides a level of protection frequently referred to as Tier 2½, to waters classified as Exceptional State Waters, also described below. During development of a new national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit, or when considering an increase in treatment capacity or discharge volume, or the discharge of additional pollutants to an existing permit, the KDHE will determine effluent limitations to maintain both the existing water quality conditions and also those necessary to maintain existing uses and achieve stream designated uses.


For Tier 2 waters, KDHE will also evaluate potential nonpoint sources of pollution in the same surface water segment as the point source discharge. If the receiving surface water is classified as a General Purpose Water (such as Augusta City Lake), the permit limits derived must provide protection of existing uses (Tier 1 and Tier 2 waters). Where existing water quality in General Purpose Waters exceeds water quality criteria set forth in the regulations, the existing water quality will be maintained and protected (Tier 2 waters). Existing water quality may be lowered only if the Department determines that there is an important social or economic need to lower existing water quality, as demonstrated through the guidelines provided in EPA’s guidance document. However, if after satisfaction of public participation and intergovernmental coordination requirements, a determination is made by the Department, based on important economic and social development of the area, degradation of existing water quality conditions in exceptional state waters or general purpose waters is acceptable and will maintain existing and attained designated uses, the lower water quality will be allowed. If a determination is made by the Department that a lowering of water quality is acceptable but will not preserve water quality conditions necessary to maintain designated uses, then KDHE may initiate a process for changing the designation as stated in K.A.R. 28-16-28d(c)(1). However, pursuant to K.A.R. 28-16-28d(c)(1), existing uses may not be removed unless they are replaced by uses requiring more stringent criteria. This policy affects the reuse of the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant as discussed in Part V.

E. ARSENIC

The standard for arsenic is 10.0 ppb or 0.010 milligrams per liter (mg/L). There is no Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. Entities affected by this regulation are all community and non-transient non-community water systems. A community water system (CWS) means a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. In addition to monitoring requirements, the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) must include educational statement for systems that detect arsenic between 0.005 mg/L and 0.01 mg/L.


The Augusta Water Distribution System is sampled and analyzed annually for various constituents that include arsenic (this monitoring is in addition to other monitoring that is done at the treatment plant and as related to THMs and HAA5s). The most recent Consumer Confidence Report indicates that arsenic was not detected at 0.001 mg/L. This sample represented surface water that was treated through the treatment plant. Assuming that this sample is indicative of all surface water sources that are used, there does not appear to be a level of arsenic in the water sources that warrant concern. If water from the Walnut River below the El Dorado Lake is used as a water source, it would need to be analyzed for arsenic before a determination could be made as to any impact that it would have on the water produced by the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. It is not anticipated that the Walnut River would contain a significant level of arsenic since it is usually more prominent in groundwater. Also, KDHE has identified the primary area of Kansas where arsenic is most problematic as being in northwest and north central Kansas.

F. RADIONUCLIDES

The Radionuclides Rule covers radium 226, radium 228, gross alpha particles, beta particles and photon radioactivity, and uranium standards. It does not cover radon, which has a separate regulation. The MCL for combined radium-226 and radium-228 is 5 pCi/L. The MCL for gross alpha particle activity (including radium-226, but excluding radon and uranium) is 15 pCi/L. The MCL for uranium is 0.030 mg/L. The annual average concentration of beta particle and photon radioactivity cannot produce an annual dose to the total human body or to any internal organ greater than 4 millirem/year. This is limited to 20,000 pCi/L for tritium and 8 pCi/l for strontium. The MCLG is zero for combined radium-226 and radium-228, zero for alpha particle activity, zero for beta particle photon radioactivity, zero for photon radioactivity, and zero for uranium. Exposure to radionuclides from drinking water results in the increased risk of cancer. The radioactive particles (alpha, beta, and gamma particles) emitted by radionuclides are called “ionizing radiation” because they ionize (“destabilize”) nearby atoms as they travel through a cell or other material. In living tissue, this ionization process can damage chromosomes or other parts of the cell. This cellular damage can lead to the death of the cell or to unnatural reproduction of the cell. When a cell reproduces uncontrollably, it becomes a cancer. Certain elements accumulate in specific organs: radium (like calcium) accumulates in the bones and iodine accumulates in the thyroid.


For uranium, consideration must be given not only to the carcinogenic health effects from its radioactive decay and the decay of its daughter products (“radiotoxicity”), but also to damage to the kidneys from exposure to the uranium itself (“chemical toxicity”). Exposure to elevated uranium levels in drinking water has been shown to lead to changes in kidney function that are indicators of potential future kidney failure. Community water systems (CWSs) are required to meet the final MCLs and to meet the requirements for monitoring and reporting. The Augusta Water Distribution System is sampled and analyzed annually for various constituents that include radionuclides. The most recent Consumer Confidence Report indicates that radionuclides were not detected. This sample represented surface water that was treated through the treatment plant. Assuming that this sample is indicative of all surface water sources that are used, there does not appear to be a level of radionuclides in the water sources that warrant concern. If water from the Walnut River below the El Dorado Lake is used as a water source, it would need to be analyzed for radionuclides before a determination could be made as to any impact that it would have on the water produced by the Augusta Water Treatment Plant.

G. SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE

The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was first published in 1989, and then revised with the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996. The rule contains provisions that require disinfection and filtration for all public water systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI). Only systems that were able to demonstrate compliance with the stringent source water quality criteria, met the inactivation (contact time) requirements, and maintained an effective watershed control program obtained avoidance to filtration. The rule establishes zero as the MCLG for Giardia, Viruses, and Legionella. The rule also includes treatment techniques to reduce exposure to pathogenic microbes. These treatment techniques are filtration, maintenance of disinfectant residual in the distribution system, removal or inactivation of 3 log for Giardia and 4 log for Viruses, and combined filter effluent turbidity of 5 NTU maximum and 0.5 NTU at the 95th percentile monthly. The Augusta Water Treatment Plant complies with all requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule. It is not anticipated that use of water from the Walnut River would affect this compliance.


H. INTERIM ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE

The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) builds upon treatment technique approach and requirements of the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, and relies on existing technologies currently in use at water treatment plants. This rule was developed in conjunction with the Stage I Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule. The IESWTR applies to all water systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, and serving 10,000 or more people. The purpose of IESWTR is to protect against gastrointestinal illnesses caused by Cryptosporidium (and other pathogens), reduce likelihood of endemic illness from Cryptosporidium, and reduce the likelihood of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis. The IESWTR regulates Cryptosporidium, including it in the definitive characteristics of GUDI, setting the MCLG at zero, and requiring 2 log removal by treatment plants using filters. For unfiltered systems, a watershed control program is required. The IESWTR also regulates turbidity, which can shield microorganisms from being destroyed by disinfectants. The turbidity of filter effluent is required to not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95% of measurements taken each month, and not greater than 1 NTU at any time in the month. Turbidity is to be monitored every 4 hours for combined filter effluent, and monitored continuously (every 15 minutes) for individual filter effluent. The Augusta Water Treatment Plant complies with all requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. It is not anticipated that use of water from the Walnut River would effect this compliance.

I. LONG TERM 2 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE

The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) applies to all systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water. The Rule supplements existing regulations by targeting additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems. The Rule also contains provisions to mitigate risks from uncovered finished water storage facilities and to check that systems maintain microbial protection as they take steps to reduce the formation of disinfection by-products. The LT2ESWTR requires that filtered water systems conduct source water monitoring related to Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity. The results of the monitoring are used to determine the treatment requirements for removal of


Cryptosporidium. The testing must be done by a laboratory with approved test equipment and with testing procedures that comply with the EPA’s specifications. Filtered systems would be classified in one of four risk bins based on the monitoring results. The majority of systems are classified in the lowest risk bin, which carries no additional treatment requirements beyond clarification, filtration and disinfection as being provided at the City’s water treatment plant. Systems classified in higher risk bins must provide 1 to 2.5 log removal of Cryptosporidium beyond the 3 log removal that is currently achieved by filtration, depending on the background of Cryptosporidium that is found to be present in the source water. Systems can forego the monitoring by choosing to advance directly to Bin 4, thereby being required to provide the highest level of Cryptosporidium removal, which would be 2.5 log in addition to filtration. The risk bins are as follows with the level of Cryptosporidium reported as the number of Cryptosporidium oocyst per liter of sample: Bin 1 <0.075 oocyst/L No Additional Treatment Required Bin 2 0.075 - <1.0 oocyst/L 1 log additional removal Bin 3 1.0 - <3.0 oocyst/L 2 log additional removal Bin 4 ≥3.0 oocyst/L 2.5 log additional removal The Rule allows a variety of means to achieve the required level of Cryptosporidium removal. These are related to Source Protection and Management, Pre Filtration, Treatment Performance, Additional Filtration, and Inactivation. Source Protection and Management can be implementation of a watershed control program or alternative source/intake management. Pre Filtration can be presedimentation with coagulation, two stage lime softening, or bank filtration. Treatment Performance is related to demonstration that the existing filters are performing at prescribed levels. Additional Filtration can include such things as bag or cartridge filters, membrane filtration, second stage filtration, or slow sand filtration. Each of these would have to be implemented after use of the existing filters. Inactivation can be use of chlorine dioxide, ozone, or ultraviolet with each at prescribed doses and contact times. The testing to determine the Bin Level for the treatment system consists of two stages. The first stage is testing for E. Coli. The second stage is for


Cryptosporidium. The second stage is set aside for a period of time if the average value of the E. Coli testing is below 100 E. Coli per 100 mL of sample. The City monitored the blended source waters at the water treatment plant for the presence of E. Coli in 2008 and in 2010. That monitoring showed that the average number of E. Coli per 100 mL of sample was 13.6. This value was below the regulatory trigger of 100 E. Coli per 100 mL of sample, and the City was advised that no further action is required until October 1, 2017, at which time the City will need to repeat the sampling and analysis for E. Coli (please see the July 8, 2010 letter from KDHE at the end of this Part III). The LT2ESWTR also contains disinfection profiling requirements if the disinfection practices or point of disinfection is changed to maintain system protection against microbial pathogens as they take steps to reduce the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs). These requirements are needed because the USEPA has promulgated the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule that establishes more stringent standards for certain DBPs. The disinfection profiling requirements includes the need to provide a new disinfection profile and calculate disinfection benchmarks if the disinfection practice is being modified. The LT2ESWTR also has requirements that address risk in uncovered finished water storage facilities, which are subject to contamination if not properly managed or treated. The following are the effects of the LT2ESWTR on the Augusta Water Treatment Facility if water from the Walnut River below the El Dorado Lake is used as a water source:

1. Source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity for the

Walnut River in the vicinity of a proposed diversion works would be necessary. An evaluation would then be required to determine the probable effect on the quality of the water from the City Lake at its current intake, and the effect on the blended raw water sources at the water treatment plant. This evaluation would then be used to determine the appropriate Bin for use of the water from City Lake. Additional treatment or management provisions may be necessary depending on the results of the source water monitoring.

2. Disinfection profiling and benchmarking will be necessary if the current point of chlorination is changed, or if the disinfection practices in general are changed, which are not anticipated.

J. STAGE 1 DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE

The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 1 D/DBPR) reduces the levels of disinfectants and disinfection by-products (DBPs) in drinking water. The presence of DBPs above certain levels has been shown to cause cancer and reproductive effects in lab animals and suggested bladder cancer and


reproductive effects in humans. The Stage 1 D/DBPR applies to all sizes of community water systems and non-transient non-community water systems that add a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment process, and transient non-community water systems that use chlorine dioxide. Regulated contaminants and monitoring requirements are listed below.

Regulated Contaminants / Disinfectants

Regulated Contaminants

MCL

(mg/L)

MCLG

(mg/L

)

Regulated Disinfectants

MRDL*

(mg/L)

MRDLG*

(mg/L)

Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) 0.080

• Chloroform

• Bromodichloromethan

e

• Dibromochloromethan

e

• Bromoform

---

zero

0.06

zero

Chlorine

4.0 as

Cl2

4

Five Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) 0.060 Chloramines 4.0 as

Cl2

4

• Monochloroacetic

acid

• Dichloroacetic acid

• Trichloroacetic acid

• Bromoacetic acid

• Dibromoacetic acid

---

zero

0.3

---

---

Chlorine dioxide

0.8

0.8

Bromate (plants that use

ozone)

0.010 zero

Chlorite (plants that use

chlorine dioxide)

1.0

0.8

*Stage 1 DBPR includes maximum residual

disinfectant levels (MRDLs) and maximum

residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs)

which are similar to MCLs and MCLGs, but for

disinfectants.

Treatment Technique

Enhanced coagulation/enhanced softening to improve removal of DBP precursors (See Step 1

TOC Table) for systems using conventional filtration treatment.

The values related to bromate, chlorite, and chlorine dioxide are not applicable to the Augusta water system since ozone and chlorine dioxide are not used in the treatment system. The treatment plant employs disinfection with chlorine at the filters and in the clearwell that is underneath the filters and with chloramines in the water as it flows to the One Million Gallon Tank ahead of the distribution system. The associated values of chlorine residual are continuously monitored and the values are always in compliance with the above. Monitoring by the City shows that the water system is also in full compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 parameters (please see reports of analysis for years 2011 and 2012 at the end of this Part III).


The effect of this regulation on the Augusta water system beyond the above discussion would pertain to withdraw of water from the Walnut River below the El Dorado Lake. Water from the river at a location of a proposed diversion works would need to be compared to water from the other water sources for an evaluation as to its probable effects on the system’s ability to continue to maintain compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 parameters.

K. STAGE 2 DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE

Chlorine and other chemical disinfectants have been widely used by public water systems as a principal barrier to microbial contaminants in drinking water. Disinfection by-products (DBPs) are formed when certain disinfectants interact with organic and inorganic materials in source waters. Epidemiology and toxicology studies have shown a link between bladder, rectal and colon cancers and DBP exposure. Additionally, human epidemiology and animal toxicology studies report an association between chlorinated drinking water and reproductive and developmental endpoints such as spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, neural tube defects, pre-term delivery, intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight. The USEPA promulgated the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2 D/DBPR) on January 4, 2006, which became effective on March 6, 2006. The main purpose of the Rule is to reduce disease incidence associated with the disinfection by-products that form when public water supply systems add disinfectants. This regulation applies to all systems that practice disinfection with other than ultraviolet light. The Stage 2 D/DBPR supplements existing regulations by requiring water systems to meet disinfection by-product MCLs at each monitoring site in the distribution system. The Rule contains a risk-targeting approach to best identify monitoring sites where the disinfection by-products (DBPs) are expected to be at their highest levels. The Rule requires that systems prepare an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) Report. This report is based on data that is obtained from monitoring strategic points in their distribution system for one-year to identify the locations with high DBP concentrations. These locations are then used as the sampling sites for DBP compliance monitoring. Compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for two groups of DBPs [total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5s)] is required for each monitoring location in the distribution system. The Rule sets forth the number and frequency of samples to be taken dependent upon population served. It should be noted that the samples that are collected and analyzed for the IDSE Report are not included in the regular system TTHMs and HAA5s compliance monitoring.


The Stage 2 D/DBPR also requires systems to determine if they are experiencing short term peaks in DBP levels, referred to as “significant excursions.” Systems experiencing significant excursions are required to review their operational practices and work with the State to determine actions that must be taken to prevent future excursions. The current compliance levels for TTHMs and HAA5s are based on the Running Annual Average values, as was the case prior to this Rule. The compliance levels are unchanged at 0.080 mg/L for TTHMs and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5s. The Stage 2 D/DBPR requires eventual compliance with TTHMs and HAA5s under a Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) calculation. This calculation will be based on samples collected at strategic locations that are determined from the IDSE Report to be the most probable of experiencing the highest levels of TTHMs and HAA5s. The system must achieve compliance with the LRAA MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHMs and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5s within time frames that are dependent on population served. The rule establishes MCLGs for the following: Bromodichloromethane Zero Bromoform Zero Bromate Zero Chlorite 0.8 mg/L Chloroform 0.07 mg/L Dibromochloromethane 0.06 mg/L Dichloroacetic Acid Zero Monochloroacetic Acid 0.07 mg/L Trichloroacetic Acid 0.02 mg/L The Rule establishes MCLs for the following: Bromate 0.010 mg/L Chlorite 1.0 mg/L The Rule also provides BATs for control of TTHMs, HAA5s, Bromate and Chlorite for systems that treat their own source water. The BATs for control of TTHMs and HAA5s consist of use of granular activated carbon or nanofiltration. The BATs for control of Bromate and Chlorite are better control of treatment processes. The Rule also restores a condition that was inadvertently removed from 141.132(b)(1)(iii) regarding systems that are on a reduced monitoring schedule through achievement of maintaining TTHMs at no more than 0.060 mg/L and HAA5s at no more than 0.045 mg/L. The restored condition allows these systems to remain on the reduced monitoring schedule so long as they continue to achieve the low levels of TTHMs and HAA5s.


The applicable compliance event and date as applicable to the Augusta water system is to begin Compliance Monitoring by October 1, 2013. This date can be extended up to two years by KDHE if necessary for capital improvement construction. The effect of this regulation on the Augusta water system beyond the above discussion would pertain to withdraw of water from the Walnut River below the El Dorado Lake. Water from the river at a location of a proposed diversion works would need to be compared to water from the other water sources for an evaluation as to its probable effects on the system’s ability to achieve compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 parameters.

L. KANSAS WATER APPROPRIATIONS ACT

The Kansas Water Appropriations Act is the means by which the State of Kansas administers water rights and regulates the construction and maintenance of water diversion structures (e.g. dams, intakes, wells). The following information is taken from the article “Kansas Water Rights Changes and Transfers” authored by John C. Peck, Leland E. Rolfs, Michael K. Ramsey and Donald L. Pitts and published the July 1988 issue of The Journal. Water can only be used in the State of Kansas by getting permission from the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources, with exceptions such as individual domestic use and livestock watering. These rights are “first in time, first in right”. The Chief Engineer issues the permission to use water in two ways: 1. A vested right whereby the water was used under a right that was granted prior

to 1945. 2. An appropriated right whereby the right was applied for after 1945. The Chief Engineer has the authority to order the discontinuation of water use by any permit holder when it is determined to be necessary to preserve the water for water users that hold more senior, or older, rights. For instance, in the summer of 2011 the Chief Engineer “closed” the water use for water right holders along the Walnut River between El Dorado and Winfield that had water rights dated 1984 or later due to the river flow being less than the Minimum Desired Flow. (It should be noted that this is the only time in history that water use has been closed to holders of water rights along the Walnut River.) A water right is obtained and fully put into place as follows:


1. An application is made for a permit (the water right). The application shows, among other things, the amount of water desired, how it will be used and where it will be used.

2. The Chief Engineer issues a permit (the water right) with instruction to construct the diversion works within a stipulated time frame (usually 2 years). The permit is issued with the following 5 basic attributes that apply to the specific water right and the specific location of the diversion works: a. A maximum annual quantity of water (e.g. acre-feet per year) is stipulated

that can be conveyed. b. A maximum instantaneous rate of water (e.g. gpm) is stipulated that can

be conveyed. c. The water may only be used for the beneficial uses that the Chief Engineer

allows in the issued permit. d. The water can only be put to beneficial use in the location of authorized

use. e. The water may only be taken from the authorized point, or points, of

diversion. 3. The permit holder applies to the Chief Engineer for another permit to construct

the diversion works. 4. The diversion works are constructed and the Chief Engineer provides approval

of the constructed facility. 5. The appropriated water right is “perfected” by the permit holder conveying

water from the diversion works and putting it to beneficial use per the terms of the permit (a municipal permit holder is usually give a period of time of 20 years to accomplish this, with an extension of an added 20 years usually available if requested). At this time, a real property right vests in the permit holder.

6. The Kansas Division of Water Resources certifies the extent to which the permit holder has perfected the right to appropriate water for beneficial use. This can take many years depending on the staff and backlog of work at the office of the Chief Engineer and his staff.

The following Table No. 5 is a summary of the use of water as allowed by current water rights that are held by the City of Augusta:


Table No. 5

Water Rights Use Summary

Water

Right

File No.

Effective

Date

Allowable

Rate

(gpm)

Allowable

Quantity

(MGY)

Notes

BU 003 June 28, 1945 1,000 157.000 Vested City Lake – See Below

BU 017 June 28, 1945 NA NA Vested Santa Fe Lake for Storage Only

BU 018 June 28, 1945 NA 44.967 Vested Santa Fe Lake

21,148 August 8, 1973 1,200 450.000 Appropriated Santa Fe Lake – See Below

45,451 February 24, 2003 2,000 350.000 Appropriated City Lake

Notes: Water right 21,148 limits the total use of water from Santa Fe Lake at 711.000 MGY when combined with water rights BU 003 (City Lake), 2,726 and 6,655. 2,726 was later dismissed and file 6,655 was sold or given to another party. The net current allowed annual combined water use from 21,148 (SFL) and BU 003 (City Lake) is 651.967 MGY. The water rights can also pertain to the amount of water that can be stored and to the purpose of the storage. The following Table No. 6 provides a summary of storage values:

Table No. 6

Water Right Storage Summary

Water Right

File No. Volume Stored (MGY)

BU 003 City Lake - Not Addressed

BU 017 Santa Fe Lake - 83.086 for Recreation BU 018 Santa Fe Lake - 298.785

21,148 Santa Fe Lake – A water surface elevation limit but no volume limit 45,451 City Lake - 349.940

The above information is some what confusing and added investigation with the Division of Water Resources will be needed to fully sort-out all of the appropriate facts that have an effect on the amount of water that the City is allowed to store, withdraw annually and withdraw instantaneously from both the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake combined. The important thing at this point is that the Division of Water Resources considers all of the water rights for both the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake collectively in setting these amounts.


It should be noted that the appropriated water rights are not yet perfected, and therefore are not certified. The important factor is that the overlapping rights BU 018 and 21,148 have not yet been perfected, with the deadline currently at December 31, 2012. The Division of Water Resources advised that this date can probably be extended to December 31, 2016 if a request with reasonable justification is provided. The date has previously been extended and the date of 2016 is probably the latest that an extension can be granted. These rights need to be perfected by withdrawing the maximum amount of water that can be managed from the City Lake and from the Santa Fe Lake combined within one calendar year. The perfection date for right 45,451 is December 31, 2023, however its right should be perfected along with the other rights so that its quantities are not reduced. A water right associated with a point of diversion from the Walnut River would later need perfecting in combination with the other rights after the diversion works is constructed. Twenty to forty years should be available to accomplish this.

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc IV - 1

PART IV

EXISTING RAW WATER SYSTEM AND SUPPLY A. RAW WATER SOURCES:

1. General

The City of Augusta has three raw water sources, which are El Dorado Lake, Augusta City Lake, and Santa Fe Lake (see Figure No 1). Having three water sources provides some redundancy against water supply disruptions should a breakdown in pumping or pipeline failure occur at any one of these sources.

The City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake do not have sufficient yield capacity to meet the annual or maximum daily demands for the Augusta potable water system. The El Dorado Lake has sufficient yield capacity to fulfill these purposes. However, the conveyance system from El Dorado to Augusta does not have sufficient capacity to meet the maximum daily demand. Therefore, it is currently imperative that capability be maintained to withdraw from the El Dorado Lake along with the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake to meet the maximum day demand.

2. El Dorado Lake

The El Dorado Lake is the main source of raw water to Augusta.

Augusta does not have any water right related to obtaining water from the El Dorado Lake. Instead, Augusta obtains this water by purchasing it from the City of El Dorado. The current contract between Augusta and El Dorado limits the annual amount of water that Augusta can purchase annually to 575 MGY, which is on a “take or pay” basis. Augusta can obtain more water than this amount if desired or needed with the permission of El Dorado and with the result of an equivalent increase in the take or pay amount. Augusta typically manages the water sources such that they take nearly full advantage of the take or pay amount while not exceeding it.

The contract with El Dorado also allows adjustment in the price of raw water at five year increments based on certain inflation factors. The current price for this raw water is $0.588 per 1,000 gallons. This amount is adjusted at 5-year intervals with the last adjustment occurring in February 2010.

Construction of El Dorado Lake was completed by the USACE in 1981. The water shed above El Dorado Lake is mainly grassland with rainwater runoff comprising most of the water entering the lake. Because of these factors, the water is relatively soft (low mineral content), and the clarity is very good.


The El Dorado Lake has a surface area of approximately 8,400 acres with a storage capacity for water supply of approximately 50 billion gallons. The top of the dam is at elevation 1370.50, and the elevation of the stream bed is 1271.50.

The management of the Lake is divided into the following levels:

a. Top of Flood Control Pool:

(1) Elevation 1347.50 (2) Volume of 240,660 Ac-Ft, or 78.4 billion gallons

b. Top of the Conservation Pool, or Bottom of Flood Control Pool (this is the water supply portion):


c. Top of the Inactive Pool, or Bottom of Conservation Pool: (1) Elevation 1296.00 (2) Volume of 3,359 Ac-Ft, or 1.1 billion gallons

The following is information for the level of the lake between September 22, 2005 and May 9, 2007. This is the most recent period of time when the level of the Lake was stressed due to lack of normal precipitation:

a. September 22, 2005:


b. March 21, 2007 (Date of Minimum Level during this time frame): (1) Elevation 1333.01 (Drop of 6.99 feet from September 22, 2005) (2) Volume of 113,910 Ac-Ft, or 37.1 billion gallons (Drop of 14.6 billion

gallons from September 22, 2005, or drop of 28.85% of net volume at conservation pool)

c. May 9, 2007: (1) Elevation 1339.07 (2) Volume of 160,574 Ac-Ft, or 52.3 billion gallons

This information indicates that the El Dorado Lake can be susceptible to a significant drop in available water over a period of drought. As a side note, this effect would be amplified as more water is sold or used by the City of El Dorado.

3. Augusta City Lake

The City of Augusta obtains water from the City Lake via an intake that was part of the original lake construction. The amount of water that can be withdrawn annually from the City Lake is regulated in combination with the amount of water drawn from Santa Fe Lake at 651.967 million gallons (see Part


IV for explanation of rights). The rights allow Augusta to withdraw a maximum instantaneous rate of 3,000 gpm from the lake. The City Lake was constructed by the City of Augusta in 1930 by construction of a dam across Elm Creek. The lake is owned by Augusta.

The City Lake has a normal surface area of 160 acres. The City Lake is currently drained to construct modifications to the spillway and dam. This construction project is expected to be completed in April 2012.

The water shed for City Lake is approximately 5,115 acres or 8.0 square miles with 796 acres (15.6%) considered urban and 4,320 acres (84.4%) made up of cropland, grassland, woodland, and surface water. The water shed is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles wide in the east-west direction and approximately 7 miles long in the north-south direction. The City Lake’s current full volume is 1,860 acre-feet.

The operation of the lake is limited by openings that are available in the side of the existing intake structure. This structure has three openings that are available for conveyance of water from the lake. The structure has a lower fourth opening, but it is below the sediment level of the lake and cannot be used.

The lake can be operated between elevations of approximately 1259.2 (the normal high water level of the lake) to approximately 1246.0 (the elevation of the lowest opening that is not restricted by sediment). The volume of water available at elevation 1259.2 (subtracting the volume at elevation 1246.0) is approximately 1,745 acre-feet, or 569 million gallons. The lowest opening is approximately 5 feet above the top of the lake sediment. An additional approximately 115 acre-feet, or approximately 34 million gallons, of water would be available if it could be taken from the lake at the level of the sediment.

The KBS conducted a depth and sediment survey of City Lake in 2010. The study indicated that the lake had an estimated sedimentation volume of 237.8 acre-feet, resulting in an approximate annual sedimentation rate of 3.0 acre-feet per year. This is based on the sediment volume in City Lake divided by the 80 years that City Lake has existed.

The KBS Study showed that the deepest part of the lake (18 feet deep) is at the dam and intake structure. The thickest sediment or silt that was found was 63 inches (5.25 feet), with the average sediment found to be 25.5 inches (2.1 feet). This study found a trench along the lower western part of the lake that was 1-2 feet deep. Augusta officials indicated that some excavation of the lake bed had occurred in the 1980’s by a private party, whereby the excavated material was deposited on the western shore of the lake and the material then hauled away. Calculations indicate that the volume of the lake would increase by approximately 231.5 acre-feet (12.4%), or approximately 75 million gallons, if


the lake was completely dredged. This equates to approximately 19 days of peak water use. This is not an appreciable volume compared to the related cost. It should be mentioned that a lake exists at the Cerebral Palsy Ranch facility that is located at approximately midway in the water shed. For the purposes of this study, this lake will be called the Cerebral Palsy Ranch Lake. This lake has a surface area of approximately 20 acres. This lake could be functioning as a sedimentation basin for settleable solids from the northern half of the water shed during periods of precipitation. In essence, this lake could be preventing a significant amount of solids from entering City Lake and thereby slowing the associated accumulation of sediment. This effect has not been quantified.

4. Santa Fe Lake

The City of Augusta obtains water from the Santa Fe Lake via an intake that was part of the original lake construction. The amount of water that can be withdrawn annually from the Santa Fe Lake is regulated in combination with the amount of water drawn from City Lake at 651.967 million gallons (see Part IV for explanation of rights). The rights allow Augusta to withdraw a maximum instantaneous rate of 1,200 gpm from the lake. The Santa Fe Lake was constructed by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad in 1927 as a water supply for steam locomotives. Augusta acquired the lake in 1954 per records of the Division of Water Resources. The Santa Fe Lake has a normal surface area of 255 acres. The Santa Fe Lake has a water shed of approximately 23,979 acres or 37.5 square miles with 2,039 acres (8.5%) is considered urban and 21,940 acres (91.5%) made up of cropland, grassland, woodland, and surface water. The water shed is approximately 3 to 4 miles wide in the north-south direction and approximately 11 miles long in the east-west direction, reaching to the area of Jabara Airport. Its current full volume is 1,235 acre-feet. The lake can be operated between elevations of approximately 1273.7 (the normal high water level of the lake) to approximately 1267.0 (the approximate elevation of the sediment at the intake structure). The volume of water available at elevation 1273.7 (subtracting the volume at elevation 1267.0) is approximately 1,112 acre-feet, or 362 million gallons. The KBS also did a depth and sediment study of this lake in 2010. The study indicated that the lake had an estimated sedimentation volume of 364.7 acre-feet, resulting in an approximate annual sedimentation rate of 4.6 acre-feet per year. This is based on the estimated sediment volume divided by the 83 years that the lake has existed.


The KBS Study showed that the deepest part of the lake (11 feet) is at approximately 500 feet from the dam. The intake structure is at about 100 feet from the dam where the maximum depth of the water is approximately 7 feet. The thickest sediment or silt that was found was 102 inches (8.5 feet), with the average sediment found to be 36.5 inches (3.0 feet). Calculations indicate that the volume of the lake would increase by 364.7 acre-feet (29.5%), or approximately 119 million gallons, if the lake was completely dredged. This equates to approximately 30 days of peak water use. This is an appreciable volume.

B. RAW WATER PIPELINES

1. General

There are two raw water pipelines that are connected to the water treatment plant. One is from the El Dorado Lake and one is from the City Lake. In addition, a raw water pipeline is installed that extends from the Santa Fe Lake to its connection to the raw water pipeline from the City Lake (see Figure No. 1).

2. El Dorado Pipeline

The El Dorado Pipeline extends from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. This pipeline consists of three segments (See Figures No. 1 & 2):

a. The first segment is from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the El

Dorado Booster Pump Station that is owned by Augusta and is located on public right of way at approximately Gordy Street and the north side of the BNSF Railroad (see Figure No. 3).

b. The second segment is from the booster pump station to the area of the original Steam Plant within the Refinery.

c. The third segment is from the end of the second segment to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant.

The first segment connects to a 36 inch diameter raw water line that the City of El Dorado uses to withdraw water from the El Dorado Lake to their water treatment plant (see Figures 1 and 2). The Augusta raw water line extends from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to Augusta’s El Dorado Booster Pump Station. This water line is 16 inches in diameter, was constructed in 1981, and its material is asbestos cement (aka Transite). The hydraulic capacity of this segment of pipeline is approximately 2.0 MGD according to hydraulic modeling that uses a lake elevation of 1296.00 (bottom of conservation pool) and a pressure of 4 psi at the El Dorado Pump Station. This pipe has a hydraulic capacity of approximately 4.3 MGD according to hydraulic modeling that uses a lake elevation of 1330.00 (3 feet below the minimum level in 2007) and a


pressure of 10 psi at the pump station. Calculations of these capacities are based on the assumption that the pressure drop in the 36-inch pipe is negligible between the Lake and the connection to the 16-inch pipe. It should be noted that the static pressure at the pump station is approximately 7 psi with no flow and a Lake level of 1296.00. This segment is approximately 4,800 feet long. The El Dorado Booster Pump Station was installed in 1981 and has three pumps. Each pump has a rated capacity of 1,300 gpm at 350 Ft. TDH (152 psi). The firm capacity of the pump station is 2,600 gpm at 350 Ft. TDH (152 psi), or 3.74 MGD. The pumps were originally constant speed with variable speed drives installed in 2011. The second segment of the raw water line consists of three portions, which are described below. The first portion of the second segment of the raw water line is a 16 inch diameter pipe that extends from the discharge of the El Dorado Booster Pump Station to the southern side of Constant Creek at the northwestern part of the Refinery (see Figure No. 4). This pipe was installed in 1981 and is approximately 5,600 feet long. The pipe materials are asbestos cement to approximately the north side of Constant Creek at which point it changes to steel pipe. The hydraulic capacity of this pipe depends on the pressure loss in the downstream segments of pipe. Operating experience has shown that the pipe should not be operated at a pressure of greater than 95 psi without risk of failure of the pipe. This results in a hydraulic capacity from the pump station at about 1,700 gpm (2.45 MGD) with the current pipe from the Lake to the pump station and no water taken from the pipeline between El Dorado and the Refinery. The next portion of the second segment of the raw water line extends from the south side of Constant Creek to the east side of a rail spur that extends into the eastern side of the Refinery (see Figure No. 4). This pipe is 16-inch diameter steel for a short distance at which point it changes to 24-inch diameter (iron pipe size) HDPE DR 11. The HDPE pipe has a working pressure rating of 160 psi plus a surge rating of 80 psi. The pressure rating of the steel pipe was greater than this when the pipe was new. The HDPE pipe was installed in 2010 and is approximately 1,450 feet long. This segment of pipe includes a 16 inch diameter connection through which the Refinery may purchase water to supplement their fire protection system. The maximum amount that they are currently allowed to purchase is 2,800 gpm, which would only be done in the event of a major fire or to test their system. The amount that they normally purchase is less than 100 gpm. The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is on the order of 7,000 gpm (10.1 MGD) for sustained times,


depending on pressure losses downstream. The short term capacity of this segment of the pipeline is 10,000 gpm (14.4 MGD) to the point where flow would be diverted to the Refinery. The next portion of the second segment of the raw water line extends from the south end of the previous segment to the area of the original steam plant for the Refinery (see Figure No. 4). This is 16 inch diameter steel pipe that was installed in 1981 and is approximately 550 feet long. This segment is under the rail spur that extends into the eastern side of the Refinery (see Figure No. 4), is overhead on a pipe rack that extends across a drainage channel, and is under the Refinery access road to the steam plant connection. This portion of the pipeline was not replaced in 2010 due to its related expense. The funds that would have been used to replace this portion of the pipeline were used to replace a greater length of the third segment of the pipeline that had been repaired repeatedly. The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is between 1,700 gpm (2.45 MGD) and 4,000 gpm (5.76 MGD) for sustained times, depending on availability of pressure, the integrity of the pipe, and the size and material of downstream pipe. The third segment of the raw water line consists of four portions, which are described below. The first portion of the third segment begins at the Refinery steam plant and is routed under the Refinery access road and under a rail spur that enters the Refinery (see Figure No. 4). This is 24 inch diameter (iron pipe size) DR 11 HDPE, which has a working pressure rating of 160 psi plus a surge rating of 80 psi. This pipe was installed in 2010 and is approximately 1,220 feet long. This pipe replaces a portion of the 1956 steel pipe that had experienced the frequent breaks over the past several years. The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is on the order of 7,000 gpm (10.1 MGD) for sustained times, depending on available pressure and the size and material of downstream pipe. The second portion of the third segment of the raw water line extends from the southern end of the first portion along the BNSF railroad to approximately the northeastern corner of the Refinery lagoons (see Figures No. 4 and 6). This is 16 inch diameter steel pipe that was installed in 1956 and is approximately 1,900 feet long. The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is between 1,700 gpm (2.45 MGD) and 4,000 gpm (5.76 MGD) for sustained times, depending on availability of pressure, the integrity of the pipe, and the size and material of downstream pipe. The third portion of the third segment of the raw water line is situated between the BNSF railroad and the eastern side of the Refinery lagoons and ends near the south property line of the Refinery (see Figure No. 4). This is 20 inch diameter (cast iron pipe size) DR 11 HDPE, which has a working pressure rating of 160 psi plus a surge rating of 80 psi. This pipe was installed in 2010


and is approximately 1,400 feet long. This pipe replaces a portion of the 1956 steel pipe. This replacement was done by the Refinery to accommodate improvements that were being constructed to realign the coke spur into the Refinery. The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is between 5,500 gpm (7.92 MGD) and 7,000 gpm (10.1 MGD) for sustained times, depending on availability of pressure and the size and material of downstream pipe. The fourth and final portion of the third segment of the raw water line extends along the BNSF railroad from the southern property line of the Refinery to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant (see Figure No. 7). This is 16 inch diameter steel pipe that was installed in 1956 and is approximately 48,000 feet long (9 miles). The hydraulic capacity of this segment of the pipeline is approximately 2,400 gpm (3.46 MGD) for sustained times. This is based on a starting pressure of 100 psi at the south property line of the Refinery and 20 psi at the Augusta Water Treatment Plant and a Hazen-Williams C value of 100.

3. Augusta Pipeline

Water from Augusta City Lake is pumped to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant through a 16 inch diameter C-905 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe that is approximately 14,000 feet long (2.6 miles). (See Figure 1.) This pipe is owned by Augusta.

The Booster Pump Station at Augusta City Lake consists of two 2,500 gpm pumps. This booster pump station is owned by Augusta. The pipeline has sufficient capacity to convey the capacity of the pump station. The capacity of the pump station and raw water line system is approximately 2,500 gpm (3.6 MGD). It should be noted that the water right for withdraw from the lake limits the instantaneous flow to 3,000 gpm (4.3 MGD).

4. Santa Fe Pipeline

Water from Santa Fe Lake is pumped to the pipe from the Augusta City Lake at approximately Dike Road and U.S. Highway 54 through a 12 inch diameter steel pipe that is approximately 24,000 feet long (4.6 miles). (See Figure No. 1.) This pipe is owned by Augusta. The Santa Fe Booster Pump Station consists of one variable speed pump that has a full-speed capacity of 1,800 gpm. The booster pump station is owned by Augusta. This pump was first operated in April 2012. It was operated at 50% of full speed to aid in flushing sediment from the pipeline and so as to not over-pressure the pipeline. The flow rate under this operation was about 750 gpm with a free discharge into Garvin Park through the 16-inch pipeline. It was


discovered during pump operation that the pressure on the suction side of the pump fell significantly when the pump speed was increased to beyond 50% of full speed. This implies that flow may be restricted between the lake and the pump station. The pipeline beyond the pump station has sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey the rated flow of the pump at its full speed (1,800 gpm). It should be noted that the water right for withdraw from the lake limits the instantaneous flow to 1,200 gpm. Also, there is concern as to the level of pressure that the pipeline can operate without failure due to its age and lack of operating history. The capacity of the pump station and raw water line system is approximately 1,800 gpm (2.6 MGD), but its operation is limited by the water right to 1,200 gpm (1.73 MGD). These flows do not consider limitation of the pipeline with respect to its allowable operating pressure.

C. CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

The current maximum capacity of each of the various parts of the existing raw water supply system is as follows:

7. The 16 inch raw water line from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the El

Dorado Booster Pump Station – 2.0 to 4.3 MGD. 8. The El Dorado Booster Pump Station – 3.7 MGD. 9. The16 inch raw water transmission line from the El Dorado Booster Pump

Station to the south property line of the Refinery – 2.4 to 10.1 MGD. 10. The16 inch raw water transmission line from the south property line of the

Refinery to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant – 3.5 MGD. 11. The pump station and 16 inch diameter raw water transmission line from the

Augusta City Lake to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant is 3.6 MGD. The water right allows an instantaneous flow of 3,000 gpm (4.3 MGD).

12. The pump station and 12 inch diameter raw water transmission line from the Santa Fe Lake to the 16 inch diameter raw water line from the Augusta City Lake is 750 gpm (1.1 MGD) based on the tested hydraulic capacity of the pipeline and 1,200 gpm (1.73 MGD) as restricted by the water right.

It should be noted that the capacity of the 16-inch raw water line from the Augusta City Lake to its connection to the 12-inch line from the Santa Fe Lake will probably be reduced when flow is introduced from the Santa Fe Lake.

D. AVAILABLE SUPPLY

The following Table No. 7 shows the projected annual quantities of water that will be needed through 2062. This does not include any projected demand from Rose Hill.


Table No. 7



2000 761

2010 862 2012 883

2022 984 2032 1086

2042 1189

2052 1291 2062 1393

Discussions with Rose Hill indicate that they could request a wide range of water annually, with projections ranging from approximately 2.8 to 22 MGY. The following Table No. 8 includes 22 MGY as annual water use for Rose Hill.

Table No. 8


With Rose Hill


2000 783 2010 884

2012 905

2022 1006 2032 1108

2042 1211 2052 1313

2062 1415

The following Table No. 9 shows the annual water that is currently available through water rights and the current take-or-pay amount from El Dorado:

Table No. 9

Annual Water Quantity Available

Source Water Available Through a Right or Take-Or-Pay (MGY)

El Dorado 575.000

City Lake Combined with Santa Fe Lake 651.967 Total 1,226.967


The information in Table 9 implies that there may be sufficient supply of water through the three sources to meet the projected demand for raw water through Year 2050. Additional water rights may be needed at this point or additional water may need to be purchased from the El Dorado Lake. This of course depends on the continuation of water sales to Mulvane, the growth of other wholesale customers and the growth of the population of the City of Augusta.

It should be pointed out that the information in Table 9 does not address the actual yields from the August City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake that can be reasonably relied on (100 year drought).

J:\Projects\_2011\Augusta Water Supply 11-22-03-01\Report\Report for PDF.doc V - 1

PART V

ALTERNATIVES

A. GENERAL

Reasonable alternatives for long term raw water supply for the City of Augusta will need to provide the projected amounts of water. These amounts will need to provide the required annual amounts and also the maximum day amount, which are 1,393 MGY and 10.6 MGD respectively. The better alternatives will also include redundancy such that all of the raw water is not from one source or through only one means of conveyance. The acceptable alternatives should also be suitable for long term use (up to 50 years) without need for significant replacement or repair with exception of rotating equipment, valves, etc. Alternatives that have been identified for evaluation are as follows (detailed discussion of each of these is presented further in this Part of the report): 6. El Dorado Lake via the El Dorado pipeline and pump station. 7. Augusta City Lake via the Augusta City Lake pipeline and pump station. 8. Santa Fe Lake via the Santa Fe Lake pipeline and pump station. 9. Reuse of effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant by conveying it

through the Augusta City Lake. 10. Reuse of effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant by conveying it

directly to the water treatment plant. Some of these alternatives have positive attributes such that they should be considered as a part of the long term raw water supply. However, each has issues such that none should be considered as the only source of raw water supply for Augusta. The primary issues for each alternative are as follows: 1. El Dorado Lake: The Lake itself should have adequate raw water available for

the long term future of Augusta, provided water rights are not appropriated or water otherwise sold from the lake so as to jeopardize this source. However, the source is approximately 12.25 miles from its beginning at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant with its flow dependent on the reliability of the pipeline and pump station. The majority of this pipeline (south of the Frontier Refinery) is approximately 56 years old, is made of steel, and was installed hurriedly within the right-of-way of the BNSF Railroad such that its suitability for continued long term use is doubtful. Also, the size of the pipe and the capacity of the pump station are not adequate to meet the projected demand. In summary, the system is aged, not of materials that are normally suitable for long term use, and does not have sufficient hydraulic capacity to meet projected future demand. This report will present costs and other factors


relative to upgrading the infrastructure for this supply such that it can provide long term and reasonably reliable service.

2. Augusta City Lake: This source does not have capacity, on its own, to meet the current or projected annual or maximum day demands for raw water by the City of Augusta. However, this source has proven to be of significant benefit in supplementing the other sources. Also, this source provides a “back up” supply of raw water at times when flow from the El Dorado Lake has been interrupted. In addition, a relatively new pump station and pipeline have been constructed to convey the raw water from the Lake to the water treatment plant. The Augusta City Lake could be of more benefit if its annual and maximum day yields could be increased, such as by diverting water to it from the Walnut River or supplementing it with the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant.

3. Santa Fe Lake: This source has been used in similar fashion to the Augusta City Lake, and also does not have capacity to, on its own, meet the current or projected annual or maximum day demands for raw water by the City of Augusta. A relatively new pump station has been constructed that conveys the water through a pipeline that was installed when the Lake was originally constructed. The Lake is heavily silted and there does not appear to be a reasonable alternative to increase its annual or maximum day yield.

4. Reuse of Effluent from the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant: Reuse of the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant seems, on the surface, to provide a methodology to augment the overall supply of water from the surface water sources. The two scenarios that relate to this alternative involve diverting a portion of the wastewater treatment plant effluent to either the Augusta City Lake or directly to the Water Treatment Plant. Use of either of these alternatives could assist in providing redundancy to the supply from the El Dorado Lake and could extend the usefulness of the supply from the Augusta City Lake, which could offer the ripple effect of extending the supply from the Santa Fe Lake. Technology exists to provide the treatment of the wastewater such that it should be safe in its use as described above. However, current regulations do not allow it to be introduced into the Augusta City Lake without special KDHE permission, which KDHE has indicated would not be granted. Conveyance of the wastewater treatment plant effluent directly to the water treatment plant will also not be allowed by KDHE.

B. EL DORADO LAKE AND PIPELINE

It is essential that the primary source of raw water continue to be the El Dorado Lake. It is therefore appropriate to consider upgrade or replacement of the booster pump station and the pipeline where it has not recently been replaced. The El Dorado Pipeline is composed of sections and a pump station as described in Part IV. The system should be capable of delivering the design level flow with a lake level of 1296, which is the bottom elevation of the conservation pool. It should be noted that the recent historical low level of the lake has been 1333.


The pipeline from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the booster pump station is not of adequate size to convey the projected flow in Year 2062. The pipeline begins at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant, which is at approximate elevation 1291. This is only 5 feet below the elevation of the bottom of the lake’s conservation pool and 42 feet below the recent historical low level of the lake. These differences in elevation provide about 2 psi and 18 psi respectively of pressure in the lake piping at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant. It is normally desired that pressures in a water system not be below 20 psi, which appears to not be possible in this instance. The ground elevation at the booster pump station is at approximate elevation 1280. This is only 16 feet below the elevation of the bottom of the lake’s conservation pool and 53 feet below the recent historical low level of the lake. These differences in elevation provide about 7 psi and 23 psi respectively of pressure at the booster pump station. It appears that it is not possible to provide 20 psi pressure at the booster pump station when the lake is at its lowest level. Hydraulic modeling indicates that a new 30-inch pipeline would need to be installed along with the existing pipeline to convey the Year 2062 flow to the booster pump station. The calculated pressures at the booster pump station would be 5 psi with a lake level of 1296 and 21 psi with a lake level of 1333. These pressures would reduce approximately one psi if the existing 16-inch pipe is not used. A better approach may be to construct a new booster pump station at or near the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant (the existing pump station will eventually need significant modification as explained below). This would require a shorter length of 24-inch pipe to be used to the suction of the pump station, and a 24-inch pipe to be used from its discharge. The existing booster pump station is not of adequate capacity to meet the estimated maximum day demand for raw water (current capacity of approximately 3.7 MGD). In addition, the station was installed in 1981. It is appropriate to consider replacement of the primary equipment in the station at this point. It is also appropriate to consider replacement of the station with a new one at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant that is near the 36-inch raw water line that extends from the El Dorado Lake. Construction of a new pump station near the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant would result in a discharge pressure of approximately 120 psi, according to hydraulic modeling. This pump station would have three pumps rated to deliver approximately 3,700 gpm at 256 feet. The existing piping that has not recently been replaced will need to eventually be replaced or supplemented with a new pipe. The asbestos cement pipe between the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant and the booster pump station has been operating


at a relatively low pressure (less than 30 psi). This pipe should not be used as a discharge pipe for the pump station without pressure testing to verify its capability. An 18-inch pipe could be installed in parallel with the existing pipe if the existing pipe is suitable for operation at the discharge pressure of the new pump station. Otherwise, this pipe should be replaced with a 24-inch PVC or ductile iron pipe. The remainder of the piping that has not recently been upgraded should be replaced with 24-inch pipe or a new 18-inch pipe installed in parallel to the existing pipe. The age and condition of the existing pipe warrants its replacement. The materials of the new pipe should be PVC or ductile iron where not located in the Refinery. The segment that is in the Refinery north of the steam plant should be ductile iron where above ground or inside a casing and PVC that is encased in flowable fill where underground, as it may not be practical to use HDPE for the short lengths that are involved. Other underground pipe within the Refinery should be DR 11 HDPE. The pipe material where located at river, road, or railroad crossings should be ductile iron. Various routes were investigated for location of a new pipeline between the Refinery and the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. The routing should satisfy the following criteria: 1. Allow the City staff access to the water line for maintenance, observation, and

repair. 2. Minimize crossings of rivers, petroleum pipelines, roads and the BNSF

Railroad. 3. Not be parallel to the BNSF Railroad such that the water line is within their

right-of-way. 4. In public right-of-way to minimize easement acquisition cost, while keeping in

mind that future water line relocation that is required by a change to the public road right-of-way use will require funding by the City.

The shortest potential route is on private easement and parallel to the BNSF Railroad. This route will require construction of an all-weather access drive along the route. It could also require a significant amount of tree and brush removal. There are also several areas where crossings of creeks or drainage ways will be required. The total length of pipeline installed parallel to the railroad would be approximately 9.5 miles. Routing the pipeline along public roads and within public right-of-way will require a right-of-way width of at least 60 feet. The only roads that have this width of right-of-way are Ohio, Southwest 20th, Haverhill, Old U. S. Highway 54, and parts of Southwest 70th. The County has indicated that they may acquire added right-of-way for Southwest 40th between Kickapoo and Boyer (north side of the landfill) for the purpose of widening this road. The other roads that are of interest have right-of-


way widths of 40 feet, which would require the water line be installed on private easement along these roads. Routing of a new water line directly west of the Refinery is probably not possible due to the presence of an underground concrete wall that extends in the north-south direction that was installed to control the movement of groundwater. One possible route for consideration is shown in Figures No. 7 and No 8. This route includes the following, beginning at the north end of the raw water line, which is at the south end of the Refinery: 13. West within private easement along the property that is situated south of the

Refinery. 14. South within the right-of-way of Haverhill Road to its intersection with the

railroad. 15. Southwest along the west side of the railroad between Haverhill Road and

Southwest 40th. 16. West within the right-of-way along Southwest 40th to Southwest Boyer Road. 17. West within private easement along Southwest 40th to Southwest Hopkins

Switch Road. 18. South within private easement along Southwest Hopkins Switch to Southwest

70th Road. 19. West within the right-of-way along Southwest 70th to Shumway Road. 20. South within private easement along Shumway to Southwest 85th Road

(Belmont). 21. West within private easement along Southwest 85th to Custer Lane. 22. South within the paved area of Custer Lane to the abandoned railroad right-of-

way that is located north of Old Highway 54. 23. West within the abandoned railroad right-of-way to near the east side of the

BNSF Railroad right-of-way. 24. South under the 7th Street viaduct to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant. The total length of the pipeline along the described route is approximately 12.5 miles. This is approximately 3 miles longer than a routing along the railroad. The estimated cost related to the following is $16.2 million (see breakdown at the end of this Part V). These costs include contingency at 15% of bare estimated construction and engineering, surveying and geotechnical at 15% of estimated construction with contingency. They do not include other things such as property or easements: 5. Booster Pump Station at the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant 6. New 24” pipe from the El Dorado WTP to the Refinery 7. New 24” pipe within the Refinery where the pipe has not been recently

upgraded


8. New 24” pipe from the Refinery to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant along the route shown in Figures 7 and 8.

The idea of using easements for oil pipelines that are not in service was evaluated. This is not feasible due to the following: 1. The easements are provided to the owners of the petroleum pipelines and cannot

be conveyed to the City without the landowners issuing new easements to the City.

2. The KDHE requires the raw water line to be encased if it is within 25 feet of an existing oil pipeline, regardless of the operating status of the pipeline. In general, oil pipeline easements are 50 feet in width with the oil pipeline centered in the easement. Therefore, it would not be possible to place the water line within the easement and be more than 25 feet from the oil pipeline.

3. The oil pipelines are routed cross-country. This would require construction of an all weather access drive along the water line for operation, maintenance and observation of the water line.

The BNSF Railroad has advised that the following will need to be done if the existing water line that is located within their right-of-way is to be permanently removed from service: 4. The lease will need to be terminated by the lessees, which they currently have as

the following: a. City Augusta b. City of El Dorado c. El Dorado Refinery d. Skelly e. Mobile Oil f. Sacony

5. The existing pipeline will need to be physically removed where it is parallel to the rails.

6. The existing pipe will need to be filled with flowable fill to at least 10 feet from the rails where it crosses under the tracks.

Removing the existing pipeline from the railroad right-of-way would reduce the annual license fee that the City pays approximately $4,600. The railroad currently inflates this amount 3% per year. This results in a present value of approximately $118,000 over a period of 50 years. The alternative of constructing the pipeline within the Kansas Turnpike right-of-way was also investigated. It is not certain that they would allow this and if so what the cost or other restrictions would be. A probable routing for use of the Turnpike right-of-way would be to go north from the south end of the Refinery to SW 20th, east to the Turnpike, SW along the Turnpike to Ohio, and south along Ohio to the water plant. This routing adds approximately one mile of length to the pipeline as


well as additional cost associated with construction along Ohio Street within the City of Augusta. It therefore appears that using the Turnpike right-of-way would not be cost effective. The alternative of using the Walnut River as a means of hydraulic conveyance of water from the El Dorado Lake was investigated. Under this scenario, all or part of the flow from the Lake would be diverted to the Walnut River in the vicinity of El Dorado and an approximately equivalent amount as withdrawn from the River in the vicinity of Augusta. There could be some loss of water along the way depending on the condition of the stream and the weather. The DWR will not allow this alternative for the following reasons: 1. Water cannot be removed from the Walnut River between July 1 and September

30. 2. A new water right would need to be granted to the City since they would be

giving up ownership of the water once it is released to the River. 3. A discharge permit would need to be granted to the City for discharge to the

Walnut River. 4. The right would be junior to other current rights along the Walnut River and the

City would be susceptible to having this right shut off during times of otherwise low flows, as was the case this past summer.

C. AUGUSTA CITY LAKE

The Augusta City Lake will continue to be a significant part of the water supply for Augusta. Use of this lake will help the City manage the amount of water that is used from the El Dorado Lake. Its use is also necessary for the City to meet demands during the summer until significant improvements are made to the El Dorado Pipeline. Use of the City Lake also provides a backup supply during times when the El Dorado Pipeline is out of service.

Recent experience has shown that the level of the City Lake declines significantly over times of extended drought conditions such that its use cannot fulfill all of the objectives. It therefore would be best if the supply into the Lake could at times be increased. Discussion with the DWR indicates that water could be drawn from the Walnut River from October 1 to June 30 except when the minimum stream flow of the Walnut River is at lower than pre-determined levels as measured at Winfield. This has not been an issue other than on May 9, 2011 when the DWR shut off surface water rights for the Walnut River that are dated after April 12, 1984. This was the first time in history that this occurred. Use of these rights was restored in early December 2011. Added discussion with the DWR indicates that the City could be granted an appropriated water right for withdraw of water from the Walnut River at the same


annual allotment and same instantaneous flow rates that are currently allowed for the City Lake. These withdraw rates, based on current water rights, could be 1,555.9 Acre-Feet per year at a maximum instantaneous rate of up to 3,000 gpm. A formal application would need to be made upon which the actual quantities would be based and after which the actual values established. The DWR has indicated that they would work closely with the City in preparation of the application. Calculations of the anticipated needed volume of water to ”top-off” the City Lake level in times of drought indicate that up to 1,490 Acre-Feet of water may need to be diverted from the river. This is based on the lake being at its lowest useable level on October 1 (elevation 1246.0) and filling the lake to it highest level by June 1 (elevation 1259.2). This does not account for any water that is removed from the lake during this time or any rainfall within the watershed of the lake. Calculation of the average diversion rate that would be equivalent to the annual water right over the allowed time of pumping is 1,300 gpm. A 12 inch diameter pipe would be needed to convey this flow rate to the presedimentation basin. The actual pumping rate that is used for design should be increased to take full advantage of the hydraulic capacity of the 12-inch pipe since added allowable instantaneous flow may be available under the water right. A pumping rate on the order of 2,400 gpm may be appropriate. The DWR would determine a pumping rate that the river can sustain at the point of diversion after an application is filed. The Walnut River may be of comparable quality to the current supply from the El Dorado Lake and from the City Lake with exception that it sometimes contains significant turbidity. Water testing would need to be done to determine that its quality is such that water can continue to be taken from the City Lake and treated with the current processes after the water from the river is introduced into the lake. The exact parameters that would need to be tested would be determined with KDHE if this alternative is to be pursued. They would at least include the following, with samples taken in the immediate area of the diversion works:

1. Total organic carbon 2. Ph 3. Conductivity 4. Total dissolved solids 5. Total hardness 6. Calcium 7. Magnesium 8. Alkalinity 9. Radionuclides 10. Cryptosporidium 11. E. coli 12. Turbidity 13. Arsenic 14. Nitrates


The monitoring should be done quarterly, or more often depending on direction from KDHE. The water from the Augusta City Lake should also be analyzed for these same constituents to determine similarity between the two waters. The estimated cost for the analysis is $1,100 per event. Water that is taken from the river and conveyed to the City Lake should be routed through a presedimentation basin to reduce the settleable solids that are introduced into the Lake. This presedimentation basin should be configured such that it can be cleaned of accumulated sediment, which could be done during the time that water cannot be pumped from the river. Also, the water should be introduced into the Lake at its upstream end to minimize the risk of short circuiting of water from the river to the outlet works of the lake. The sediment would need to be cleaned from the basin periodically. A permit would be needed from the EPA to allow land application of the solids. The permit application would need to be supplemented with an analysis of the solids to determine that they are not toxic and to establish agronomic rates of land application. It may be possible to apply the solids to the City’s existing land application sites that the City owns that are adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant. It may also be possible to dispose of the solids at the landfill. Various locations for withdraw of water from the river were evaluated. A significant issue in withdrawing water from the river is the minimum depth of flow. Two low level dams exist in the river south of Augusta. One is southwest of the Street Shop and downstream from where the original water plant was located. The other is near the east side of U. S. Highway 77. Prior intake structures exist near each of these locations, but neither structure appears suitable for future use. A third location would be where Southwest 70th Road crosses the river. Estimates of construction cost indicate that the most economical location is at Southwest 70th and the Walnut River. The construction would include the following items (see Figure No. 9):

5. Intake facility at the river. This could be a concrete structure with course and

fine screens to protect the pumps and such that Zebra Mussels do not interfere with the operation of the facility. It may also be possible to construct the intake as a slotted or perforated pipe that is buried in the bottom of the river and backfilled with large aggregate. The Zebra Mussels could be controlled by feeding potassium permanganate immediately in front of the screen or along the perforated pipe and constructing the screens or perforated pipe of copper nickel alloy materials. The configuration of the intake facility and chemical feed system would be arrived at by working closely with the DWR.

6. Two pumps with each capable of conveying 2,400 gpm with a discharge pressure of approximately 100 psi.

7. A 12 inch diameter water line from the intake facility to the presedimentation basin.

8. One presedimentation basin situated in the area of Southwest 70th and Ohio Roads. The presedimentation basin would be about 170 feet wide and 275 feet


long with an operating depth of about 12 feet. The useable volume of the presedimentation basin would be about 1.9 million gallons to provide approximately 12 to 24 hours of hydraulic retention depending on the pumping rate and volume of sediment. It would be intended that the presedimentation basin be cleaned when the depth of the sediment reaches 2 feet.

The estimated cost related to the following is $2.5 million (see Figure 9 and breakdown at the end of this Part V). These costs include contingency at 15% of bare estimated construction and engineering, surveying and geotechnical at 15% of estimated construction with contingency. They do not include other things such as acquisition of water rights, property or easements: 4. Walnut River intake facility 5. Raw water line from the intake facility to a presedimentation basin 6. Presedimentation basin A possibility to supplementing the new water right that would be associated with diversion of water from the Walnut River would be to acquire a more senior water right. Conversation with City Staff has lead to the identification of a water right that was previously used by the refinery that was located in southwest Augusta. This water right is now owned by the Williams Companies per conversation with the DWR and is a vested right (BU 012) in the area of the Walnut River south of the Mulvane Pump Station. The right is for 725 MGY with no mention of a restriction on instantaneous withdraw. Water use under the right was last recorded in 1983 and its current status is unknown. A status review was done in 2002 by DWR and action related to abandonment of the right was recommended but was not followed up on. The William Companies apparently wants to keep the right active for withdraw of water for remediation purposes. If the City wants to acquire the right, they would need to negotiate its purchase from its owner and have a status review done by DWR before actually spending any money toward owning the right. There would also need to be detailed discussion with DWR as to the conditions that may be attached to the right if it is conveyed to the City and if its point of diversion is changed to the area of Southwest 70th. The conditions could relate to time of use and withdraw rates. The conditions could take into account the other rights that are currently upstream of the current point of diversion but that would end up downstream of the new point of diversion.

D. SANTA FE LAKE

The Santa Fe Lake should continue to be a part of the water supply for Augusta. Use of this lake will help the City manage the amount of water that is used from El Dorado Lake. Its use is also an attribute in helping the City meet demands during the summer until significant improvements are made to the El Dorado Pipeline. Use of the Santa Fe Lake also provides a backup supply during times when the El Dorado Pipeline is out of service or water cannot be obtained from the City Lake.


The 12-inch pipe that extends from Santa Fe Lake is very old. Its integrity should be monitored. The lake has experienced significant siltation. It may be appropriate to remove much of the silt if a cost effective means can be determined to accomplish this (i.e. grants, cost sharing or development of a cost effective means to dredge lakes). Recent experience has shown that the level of the Santa Fe Lake declines significantly over times of extended drought conditions such that its use cannot fulfill all of the objectives. However, there does not appear to be a reasonable means to divert water to the lake from other sources.

E. REUSE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT

Use of the wastewater treatment plant effluent from Augusta warrants consideration as a supplemental source of raw water given the deficiency of available water from the Augusta City Lake this past summer. The wastewater treatment plant discharges an average of 1.0 to 1.2 MG of effluent to the Walnut River each day. An additional 0.5 MGD of available raw water this past summer could have played a role in easing water use restrictions. This would have amounted to about 50% of the amount of the wastewater treatment plant effluent. Reuse of wastewater treatment plant effluent has gained much interest in the more arid regions of the country and “water stressed” areas of the world. Some vendors of treatment process equipment are promoting their products as capable of taking water from the “toilet to the tap” (see articles in Appendix B). Reuse of wastewater treatment plant effluent has been done to some extent for a long time. Instances that immediately come to mind are communities that are situated along major rivers. For instance, the cities of Omaha, St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg and Baton Rouge each take their water from the Missouri or Mississippi River and discharge their treated wastewater in the same river where it is combined with other river water as it works its way downstream to the next user. Some of the key items in this process are:

1. The quantity of wastewater is usually small in proportion to the flow rate of the

river. 2. There is ample time for the constituents in the wastewater plant effluent to

completely mix with the river water and to change characteristics such that aquatic life is not affected.

Chanute, Kansas reportedly discharged effluent from their wastewater treatment plant to their water plant in the 1950’s when the Neosho River became dry. This practice resulted in the need to feed elevated amounts of chlorine to achieve a disinfectant residual (15 mg/L of chlorine were reportedly fed with a normal feed rate being on the order of 4 mg/L or so). The breakpoint level of the chlorination


was reportedly upwards of 150 mg/L whereas a normal breakpoint should be on the order of 6 mg/L or so, unless ammonia is intentionally added. Use of wastewater treatment plant effluent as a source of raw water to water plants appears to currently be done by injection of the effluent into groundwater supplies such that the water travels considerable distance before removal from the ground as a mixture with the groundwater. This in particular is the situation in Orange County, California (see article in Appendix B). Technology now appears to exist to safely treat wastewater treatment plant effluent for use as a source of supply to a potable water production facility. However, there are numerous regulatory, emotional and risk management issues that would need to be addressed. The primary issues related to use of the wastewater treatment plant effluent through the Augusta City Lake are:

1. Concentration of undesirable constituents in the Augusta City Lake. 2. Permits that would be required 3. The effect on the lake water quality. 4. Effects on water plant operation. 5. The effects of public perception.

All of the waste water treatment plant effluent would not be pumped to the City Lake for reasons that include build up of undesirable constituents in the water supply and the effects of reduced flow on the Walnut River. The undesirable constituents refer to things that the water plant or wastewater plant are not capable of removing without advanced treatment. These constituents could include chlorides, sulfates, hardness, viruses, some bacteria, and medications that are discharged through the body. The advanced treatment that would be required to address the removal of these would be some form of a membrane process and advanced disinfection. Implementation of such a system would cost several million dollars, and it could generate a waste stream of 20% or more of its throughput, with this waste stream containing all of the undesirable constituents. The waste stream is normally dealt with by discharge to the river, if allowed, or deep well injection. Discharge to the river may not be allowed. The wastewater treatment plant has a NPDES permit that allows discharge of its effluent to the Walnut River. If a part of the plant effluent is diverted to any other location, including the City Lake, then the NPDES permit must be revised to allow the other discharge location. This requires application to KDHE, after which they normally require 6 months or longer to process the application. What goes on during these 6 months or longer is:

1. An evaluation by KDHE of the effects of the new discharge location.


2. Discussion with environmental groups and others that could be directly effected by the change (e.g. wholesale water customers).

3. Public notice to applicable agencies and the citizens once KDHE feels comfortable with the change to the discharge point.

4. Public hearing(s). 5. Publication of a draft permit. 6. Issuance of the permit.

KDHE uses technical information for their evaluation that is provided by the City along with any pertinent information that they already have available. The KDHE takes the opportunity presented by the NPDES Permit application process to review all aspects of the current permit. For Augusta, this would include the merits of more stringent limitations on the plant effluent. This could include requiring the plant to provide enhanced nutrient (total nitrogen and phosphorus) removal. This would require the plant to add processes to further reduce the total nitrogen below what is already being done and to also add facilities to reduce phosphorus, which is not currently being done. The merits of the reductions of total nitrogen and phosphorus is to reduce the biological effects on the receiving stream or lake, which will reduce the likelihood of algae blooms and reduce the negative effects on the aquatic life in the receiving waters. The added facilities that would be required to provide the enhanced nutrient removal could include anaerobic phosphorus removal, chemical precipitation for phosphorus removal, addition of biological basins for added total nitrogen reduction, and filtration. The cost associated with this would probably be in the millions of dollars, and its implementation would probably require at least 3 years from inception provided that KDHE will allow it. At the end of these 3 years, if all goes well, the City would be allowed to pump part of the waste water treatment plant effluent to the City Lake. The quality of the waste water treatment plant effluent that is to be conveyed to the City Lake could be looked at very differently from the effluent that is discharged to the Walnut River since the City Lake is used as a water supply. Also, it would be assumed that the discharge of the waste water treatment plant effluent to the City Lake would be during periods of drought. This would nearly simulate the discharge of the waste water treatment plant effluent directly to the influent of the water plant. In addition, the discharge of the waste water treatment plant effluent to the City Lake during times of drought could maximize the potential of algae blooms and other undesirable effects on the biological balance of the lake (eutrophication). Discussion with KDHE regarding use of wastewater treatment plant effluent to the Augusta City Lake resulted in the following. These were presented as necessary to protect the lake against eutrophication and the citizens against effects of a contaminated supply of raw water:


1. The City would need to provide KDHE with a detailed evaluation that quantifies the portion of the water supply that is wastewater treatment plant effluent that reaches the water plant from the City Lake. This evaluation would be based on the City Lake being the only source of raw water to the water plant. It would be assumed that this portion could be very high during times of extended drought (well over 50%).

2. Advanced biological nutrient removal including chemical precipitation and filtration for phosphorus removal would be required for treatment of the wastewater treatment plant effluent.

3. Advanced disinfection would be required at the wastewater treatment plant that is in addition to the current use of ultraviolet (ultraviolet disinfection would continue to be required). The added disinfection would be in the form of chlorine or ozone.

4. The water would have to be treated with advanced membrane processes that include reverse osmosis or other processes that are capable of removing applicable microorganisms. A suitable means would have to be developed for disposal of the residuals of the treatment system.

5. The effect on laboratory analytical methods would be evaluated. It is possible that there could be some interference with current laboratory techniques and that added analyses will be required.

6. The capability of the operating and laboratory staffs at the wastewater and water treatment plants may have to be upgraded to be commensurate with the advanced treatment technologies.

7. Discharging the wastewater plant effluent to the City Lake cannot be done without an antidegradation review (see Part III). This review would result in not allowing the effluent to be discharged into the City Lake due to the potential or the Lake being degraded. The only way that discharge of the effluent into the Lake would be allowed would be by the Secretary of KDHE granting a variance, which almost certainly will not happen.

The KDHE advised that they would not allow the wastewater treatment plant effluent to be conveyed directly to the water plant as a source of raw water. The KDHE repeatedly pointed out the potentially negative effects of use of the wastewater treatment plant effluent for a raw water source. These effects include:

1. Negative general public perception by the citizens of Augusta. 2. Negative perception by people that might visit or work in Augusta such that

they will not do so. 3. Blame that would be passed onto the City by owners of animals that become

sick and that might have drank water from the Lake. 4. Blame that would be passed onto the City from persons that become sick if the

sickness could in any way be caused by exposure to contaminated drinking water. This could especially be relevant to miscarriages, still births, children, persons with insufficient immune systems, and the elderly.


In summary, technology appears to exist whereby the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant effluent could effectively supplement the water plant raw water sources. This would have to be approached very carefully to make certain that all related aspects are well thought out and contingency plans developed that consider upset conditions. Regardless, the idea is moot at this point as the KDHE will not allow use of the wastewater plant effluent as a source of raw water to the water treatment plant.

F. FUTURE ACTIONS

It appears from the discussion presented in this Part and in other Parts of the Study that action pertaining to some items is warranted at this time. The following are items that could be acted on: 5. Apply to DWR for an extension through 2016 for perfection of the water right

annual and maximum instantaneous withdraw rates from the City Lake and from the Santa Fe Lake. The City should withdraw the maximum amount of water that is possible under the current water rights from the City Lake and the Santa Fe Lake before the expiration of the extended perfection period.

6. Apply to DWR for a water right from the Walnut River at SW 70th and east of Purity Springs Road. This will entail several activities including preliminary design of the diversion works to the extent that the DWR can determine the effect of its construction and use.

7. Consider acquisition of the water right from the Williams Companies and determine specific advantages and conditions if the acquisition is feasible.

8. Plan for the capital expenditures for items that are related to the pump station and pipeline from the El Dorado Water Treatment Plant to the Augusta Water Treatment Plant.

Augusta and Wholesale Customers Population

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062

Year

Po

pu

lati

on Augusta Arithmetic

Projection

Augusta + WholesaleCustomers ArithmeticProjection

Augusta and Wholesale Customers Water Demand

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062

Year

Wate

r D

em

an

d M

G/Y

ear

Augusta ArithmeticProjection

Augusta + WholesaleCustomers ArithmeticProjection

City of Augusta, Kansas Works/Water/Water Supply... · 2019. 10. 11. · Program. This report ......

Documents

Transcript of City of Augusta, Kansas Works/Water/Water Supply... · 2019. 10. 11. · Program. This report ......