Mid-Columbia Report - For Printing

Mid-Columbia Municipal Supply Assessment

D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h

O f f i c e o f D r i n k i n g W a t e r

The Columbia River near Vantage

Report of Activities and Findings

2013-2015

Interagency Agreement Number C1400131

DOH Contract N20500

ii

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary………………………………………………………………...……1 II. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...….2

Background Project Description and Strategy

III. Tasks & Services Provided………………………………………………………………6 Task 1) Questionnaire Development & Application Task 2) Public Outreach & Education Task 3) Follow-up Activities Informed by Questionnaire, Public Outreach &

Education Task 4) Summary of Follow-up Activities

IV. Financial Summary……………………………………………………………...……..10 V. Discussion & Next Steps………………………………………………………………..11

Accomplishments Issues Encountered Recommendations

Figures Cover Photo Courtesy of Brian Walsh

Figure 1. Mid-Columbia Basin Study Area Figure 2. ERWOW Well Level Measurement Training Tables

Table 1. Mid-Columbia Basin Study Communities – Source Capacity and Future Demand

Table 2. Financial Breakdown of Budget Expenditures Appendices

Appendix A – Interagency Agreement No. C1400131, DOH Contract N20500 Appendix B – Initial Questionnaire and Accompanying Introductory Letter Appendix C – Summary Table of Initial Questionnaire Results, Summary

Narrative, and Conclusions Appendix D – 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House

Invitation Letter Appendix E – 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House

Sign in Sheet and Meeting Materials Appendix F – 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House

Small Group Response Summary, Tables, and Conclusion Appendix G – ERWOW 2015 Presentation Slides Appendix H – Follow-up Questionnaire Appendix I – ERWOW Consultation Training Summary, Tables, and Conclusions

1

I. Executive Summary

In response to concerns regarding declining groundwater in the Mid-Columbia Basin, the

Washington State Department of Ecology contracted with the Department of Health (Health),

Office of Drinking Water to assist municipalities in the counties of Adams, Franklin, Grant, and

Lincoln as they develop long-term solutions for a more resilient future water supply. The

contract was designed and implemented in several project phases: preliminary data collection,

public outreach and educational activities, and follow-up consultations with participating

municipalities. The period of performance was October 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and a budget of

$42,500 was provided to complete project tasks.

This report outlines the elements of the project and documents the successful completion of the

contract. In addition to collecting important data from affected municipalities in the Mid-

Columbia Basin, this project opened dialogues between Health, Ecology, and Mid-Columbia

Basin municipalities about groundwater decline and water system planning. The information

generated by this project will be invaluable for assisting these municipalities to prioritize their

water systems’ short and long-term planning activities.

2

II. Introduction

A study completed in 2012 by the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area

(CBGWMA) highlighted the effects of declining groundwater on the municipalities within the

Mid-Columbia Basin. The study area included Adams, Franklin, Grant, and Lincoln counties.

The CBGWMA study compared current and future water supply conditions using data from 124

wells owned by 25 different water systems in the basin (see Figure 1). According to the study, at

least half of the water systems will likely not meet their future water needs; as Table 1

demonstrates, at least eight of these systems will experience difficulty meeting water needs by

2060 (see Table 1).

In 2013, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed Scientific Investigations Report

2013-5079, Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900-2008). The report confirmed that

water levels in wells located within the Columbia Plateau deep aquifer system are declining.

Groundwater levels were compared by taking measurements in 1984 and 2009 in 470 wells. In

most cases (83 percent), small to moderate declines in groundwater levels were observed.

Roughly one-third (29 percent) of all wells have declined more than 22 feet since 1984. The

USGS report concludes that it is that these groundwater supplies will experience further negative

depletion in the future.

The declining water levels in the Mid-Columbia Basin pose a substantial public health risk if

additional and alternative sources of supply are not developed in a timely manner. A number of

municipalities will face a water supply crisis during the coming decades. Now is the time for

Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities to identify long-term water supply options, and develop and

implement system specific mitigation and adaptation strategies.

3

Figure 1. Mid-Columbia Basin Study Area and Municipalities

Map credit: Ben Serr, Office of Drinking Water eastern regional office environmental planner.

4

Table 1. Mid-Columbia Basin Study Communities – Source Capacity and Future Demand

Current Predicted peak water

Predicted peak

water

primary well demand – 2030 demand – 2060

capacity (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)

Almira 800 109 116

Connell 6350* 4,700 5,600

Creston 705 180 200

Davenport 2,650 850 990

Ephrata 7,000 6,500 11,800

George 1,490 590 800

Harrington 755 440 500

Hatton 350 81 89

Kahlotus 650 390 440

Lind 1,720 405 460

Mattawa 2,590 1,800 2,900

Mesa 950 440 500

Moses Lake 22,400 21,500 48,700

Odessa 1,550 670 780

Othello 5,050 7,900 13,700

Quincy 8,400 8,500 12,500

Reardan 575 360 420

Ritzville 1,950 900 900

Royal City 1,950 1,490 4,300

Soap Lake 1,850 780 1,200

Sprague 850 600 680

Warden 2,100 2,600 4,200

Washtucna 380 380 430

Wilbur 1,490 800 950

Wilson Creek 1,250 270 320

*Includes Well 10 capacity. The well is approved, but needs a transmission line before it can be

used in the system.

Priority concerns

Data provided by: CBGWMA 2012 report

5

Project Description and Strategy

The purpose of this project was to collect data that will be used to provide targeted planning and technical assistance to Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities that face water supply challenges as a result of declining aquifer levels. This project also used the resources and information available to the GWMA staff and the Departments of Health and Ecology to begin a dialogue with municipalities about their ability to meet current and future potable water needs.

The Washington Department of Ecology/Office of the Columbia River and the Washington Department of Health/Office of Drinking Water entered into Interagency Agreement No. C1400131, DOH Contract N20500 (see Appendix A). The contract outlines the following tasks and associated deliverables:

Task 1) Questionnaire Development & Application

Deliverables: Copy of questionnaire and a summary of responses.

Task 2) Public Outreach & Education

Deliverables: Copies of public meeting announcement, other materials provided at meeting, including the attendee list, and summaries of all meetings and activities.

Task 3) Follow-up Activities Informed by Questionnaire, Public Outreach & Education

Deliverables: Copy of follow-up materials including second questionnaire and summaries of system consultations and additional outreach.

Task 4) Summary of Follow-up Activities

Deliverables: Summary of findings.

6

III. Tasks & Services Provided

Task 1) Questionnaire Development & Application

The Department of Health, in consultation with the Department of Ecology, developed a

questionnaire (see Appendix B) that queried Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities’ understanding

of groundwater supply issues. The questionnaire covered the following:

Awareness of groundwater decline;

Interest in public meeting attendance;

Willingness to install a water level measuring device and record the resulting data;

Water system planning;

Forming partnerships to help address groundwater decline;

How to address concern regarding ability to meet future demand.

Health sent the questionnaire to the system managers of the 25 municipalities identified in the

October 2012 CBGWMA study (see Table 1) in August of 2013. The questionnaire packet (see

Appendix B) included additional information informing the municipalities that the collective

responses would be shared at a future public meeting on declining water levels. This meeting

was the first element of the public outreach and education phase of the contract. We received 19

completed questionnaires. The results were used to produce a summary table and narrative (see

Appendix C). The questionnaire data was also used to create a topics list and agenda for the

public meeting, as is discussed in the following section.

Task 2) Public Outreach & Education

Public Meeting

The 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House was held on January 9, 2014.

Invitation letters (see Appendix D) were sent to the 25 water systems that had received the initial

project questionnaire regardless of whether they had or had not responded. The public meeting

was hosted at the Advanced Technologies & Education Center (ATEC) at Big Bend Community

College in Moses Lake, WA from 9am to 1pm, and was facilitated by Health staff. The 53

attendees included Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities and water systems personnel, GWMA

representatives, and various state agency staff. Each attendee received a packet of materials

providing information about groundwater decline, as well as the results of the initial

questionnaire (see Appendix E, for initial questionnaire results see Appendix C).

The meeting included small group discussions that allowed municipality representatives to

answer and discuss questions about how aquifer changes are affecting their systems, how to

adjust to these changes, to layout crucial next steps, and to identify areas in which assistance

might be needed. The responses to these questions were recorded, compiled, and summarized

(see Appendix F). This information provided insight into key issues surrounding water supply

management, aquifer change response, water system planning in the Mid-Columbia Basin, and

the need for low cost training opportunities for water system operators. Responses informed the

development and focus of further public outreach activities in fulfillment of Task 2.

7

Outreach and training at the Evergreen Rural Water of Washington 2015 Annual Conference,

February 9, 2015, Yakima, Washington

Health partnered with Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWOW) to augment the

education and outreach opportunities initiated with the open house. ERWOW is a non-profit

organization that provides training and technical assistance to water systems in Washington

State. Their annual conference is attended by a diverse array of individuals, organizations,

agencies, and companies involved in water management (see Appendix G). Health staff hosted

two sessions at the ERWOW 2015 Annual Conference in Yakima, WA. The sessions are

described below.

“Will the Water Run Dry” Presentation

Office of Drinking Water eastern regional office manager Dorothy Tibbetts facilitated a session

entitled “Will the Water Run Dry.” Ms. Tibbett’s session provided attendees with an overview of

the current state of Mid-Columbia Basin groundwater sources and how supply issues are being

addressed. Wade Ferris, City Administrator for the City of Othello, WA gave a guest

presentation during Ms. Tibbett’s session. Mr. Ferris spoke to the audience about how Othello is

currently handling groundwater decline, including addressing immediate problems and engaging

in long-range planning.

“Measuring Water Levels: The How and Why of Smart Water System Management” – Panel

Discussion and Water Level Measurement Workshop

A separate session included a panel discussion by:

Office of Drinking Water Hydrogeologist Ginny Stern.

Pacific Groundwater Group Principle Hydrogeologist Charles Ellingson.

Sander Enterprises Engineer and Municipal Utility Specialist Dan Sander.

ERWOW Source Water Protection Specialist Charles Brown.

ERWOW Southern Circuit Rider Derek Zock.

This session offered discussion and presentations from a panel of water resources professionals

on the critical role water level monitoring plays in effective water system management. While

the audience included operators from all over Washington, the challenge facing the Mid-

Columbia Basin supplies was used to underscore the value of ongoing water level measurements.

Copies of the presentations given by Ginny Stern and Charles Ellingson are included in

Appendix G.

Task 3) Follow-up Activities Informed by Questionnaire, Public Outreach & Education

Data Summary Tables

Office of Drinking Water environmental engineer Jeff Johnson created data tables that

summarize the well data collected from the 25 municipalities that participated in the CBGWMA

2012 study (see Appendix E, data tables included in 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground

Water Open House meeting materials for attendees).

8

Follow-up Questionnaire and Consultations

Health developed a list of additional follow-up questions based on the results of the initial

questionnaire and public outreach and educational activities. These follow-up questions were

designed to obtain data that will be useful for assessing long-term variations in water levels in

municipal groundwater wells, including well and water depth, historic and current well

monitoring status, if adequate equipment and training is available, and current system procedures

and planning (see Appendix H).

Evergreen Rural Water of Washington Well Measurement Training Consultations

Health utilized an existing ERWOW source water protection contract to employ ERWOW

source water protection specialist Charles Brown to conduct one-on-one consultations for well

measurement training with interested water system owners and operators within the Mid-

Columbia Basin. Stakeholders identified the need for this training at the 2014 Columbia Basin

Municipal Ground Water Open House. Mr. Brown consulted with seven Mid-Columbia Basin

systems between June 15 and 30, 2015. The purpose was to:

Evaluate what level of training and outreach might be needed to encourage more water

systems operators to undertake regular water level measurements;

Identify the real and perceived barriers to the collection of local water level data;

Ensure that local water system personnel were able to take accurate well measurements.

The Department of Ecology’s “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth to Water

Measurement” publication #EAP052 was used as the measurement protocol. Health supplied the

necessary equipment if the water system did not own the appropriate measuring materials. Water

system personnel took all of the measurements.

Task 4) Summary of Follow-up Activities

Follow-up Questionnaire and Consultations

The follow-up questionnaire developed in fulfillment of Task 3 is currently in the process of

being administered through one-on-one consultations with targeted Mid-Columbia Basin

municipalities by Office of Drinking Water eastern regional office staff. The five municipalities

of Connell, Moses Lake, Othello, Odessa, and Davenport participated in the initial round of

surveys (see Davenport and Odessa results in Appendix H). The remainder of the municipalities

will be administered the questionnaire in the near future. Other Group A water systems within

the Mid-Columbia Basin may also be interested in participating. The information gathered

through this process will be used for prioritizing outreach and technical assistance. The

questionnaire results will be useful for assessing long-term variations in Mid-Columbia Basin

water levels, and assist municipalities in future planning for their water supply.

Evergreen Rural Water of Washington Well Measurement Training

Participants found the ERWOW consultation trainings valuable. The consultations provided

systems with the training to accurately collect and report well data and enhanced their ability to

create applicable long-term water supply plans. Systems were generally interested in

participating, and one municipality took the initiative to reach out to Health’s eastern regional

9

office staff for inclusion. The trainings were offered at no-cost based on the concerns about a

lack of capital for such activities raised through the initial questionnaire and at the open house.

The data collected during these consultations will also assist Health in determining the current

status of Mid-Columbia Basin groundwater supply (see Appendix I). The Department of Health

is evaluating how an expansion of a technical outreach program like this can be used to

encourage and expand water systems capacity to monitor water levels.

Figure 2. ERWOW Well Level Measurement Training

Mr. Charles Brown (pictured on the right), ERWOW Source Water Protection Specialist, and

Mr. Joe Schons, City of George Public Works Director, measure water levels in one of the

municipal wells that serve the citizens of George, WA. Photo credit: Brian Walsh.

10

IV. Financial Summary

The total budget allotted for this contract in the original IAA was $42,500 (see Appendix A). At

the time of this report, total project expenditures are in the process of finalization. We anticipate

that the total expenditures will be well within the overall project budget due to factors including

Health’s utilization of its existing contract with ERWOW to fulfill a portion of Task 3. A

breakdown of the projected budget and expenditures by project task is as follows:

Table 2: Financial Breakdown of Budget Expenditures

Mid-Columbia Basin Municipal Supply Project Budget and Expenditures

Task Task Budget Total Expenditure Remaining Funds

Task 1) Questionnaire

Development & Application

$2,500 $2,500 0

Task 2) Public Outreach &

Education

$15,000 $15,000 0

Task 3) Follow-up Activities

Informed by Questionnaire,

Public Outreach & Education

$15,000 $5,000 $10,000

Task 4) Summary of Follow-up

Activities

$10,000 $5,000 $15,000

Totals $42,500 $27,000 $15,500

11

V. Discussion & Next Steps

Accomplishments

The Office of Drinking Water has successfully completed the tasks outlined in the original

Interagency Agreement. Project implementation has facilitated the collection of important data

from municipalities in the Mid-Columbia Basin that are facing water supply challenges due to

groundwater decline. Data was collected primarily through the initial questionnaire, the

Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House small group worksheets, and additional

data will result from the follow-up questionnaire.

Project data provides insight into topics important to addressing declining water levels, including

community awareness and concern regarding water availability, current short and long-term

municipal water system planning implementation, and solutions to water supply issues that are of

interest to water system managers. It will add to the existing historical data submitted by

municipalities through current reporting systems such as the Water Use Efficiency program.

Such information will also allow Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities to prioritize their water

systems’ short and long-term planning activities with targeted assistance from Health, leading to

a more resilient future water supply.

The implementation of this project opened dialogues about groundwater decline between Health,

Ecology, and Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities, as well as among municipalities themselves.

As previously discussed, the open house allowed attendees to discuss this issue with one another

and present their collective concerns to agency representatives. In response to the points raised,

Health staff held informational and training sessions at the ERWOW 2015 Annual Conference, a

locally held event attended by many Mid-Columbia Basin stakeholders. Attendee evaluations of

these sessions were overall very positive, and included the suggestion that “Will the Water Run

Dry” be presented again at future ERWOW educational events.

We need to thank Health’s source water protection manager Corina Hayes for expanding an

existing contract with ERWOW, allowing us to provide the no-cost water level measurement

trainings to Mid-Columbia Basin water system operators. ERWOW trainings significantly

expanded the level of outreach and education encompassed by this project. ERWOW source

water protection specialist Charles Brown reported that the majority of the systems he worked

with during this project are very willing to take and record well measurements if they possess the

necessary measurement devices. Mr. Brown suggested that contracting a TA provider, equipping

them with appropriate materials, and scheduling consultations with small Mid-Columbia Basin

water systems twice annually would provide a solution to the data gap that occurs when system

personnel are unable to record well level measurements themselves.

Reaching out to targeted municipalities to schedule follow-up consultations for application of the

second questionnaire served to further relationships between several municipalities and Health’s

eastern regional office. Conversations regarding groundwater decline and the roles of agencies,

system managers, and others in addressing this issue have been expanded. It is clear that Mid-

Columbia Basin water supply issues are important to and recognized by many local

communities. When opportunities for discussion, collaboration, and training and education are

presented to affected municipalities, they have demonstrated a high level of interest and

participation, and this interest is only expected to grow over time.

12

Staffing Issues Encountered

The success of this project is particularly noteworthy given some of the difficulties encountered

during the contract period. The Office of Drinking Water experienced unanticipated staff

changes between 2013 and 2015. Mr. Mike Dexel, the project manager listed on the original

IAA, accepted a position with Ecology in early 2014 and was no longer available to provide his

expertise in overseeing the contract. Additional staff turnover in the Office of Drinking Water’s

regional and headquarter offices resulted in some unforeseen delays in completing Task 2 and 3

according to the original schedule.

Project activities were resumed in mid-2015 with the intent of fulfilling all project tasks by the

completion deadline of June 30, 2015. Meeting this deadline was nearly achieved, although

application of the follow-up questionnaire and consultations with Mid-Columbia Basin

municipalities continued into July 2015. Credit must be given to our eastern regional office for

their willingness to continue this task and further establish trust and communication with the

participating municipalities.

Recommendations

We suggest that a new phase of this project be considered for further funding. We believe that

further work will prove valuable due to the:

Overall success of this project in gathering preliminary information about public

awareness and concern;

Furthering the current public dialogue about groundwater decline;

Expanding lines of communication with municipalities;

Providing training opportunities that will benefit both water systems and agencies

moving forward.

Further funding would be particularly beneficial in continuing to develop the scope of Task 4.

Expanded project goals could be established based on the data collected thus far, and include

reviewing planning efforts, utilizing water use efficiency programs, promoting regional

partnership building, and using Health’s capacity development program to assess systems’

technical, managerial, and financial health.

In addition to extending this project, we recommend that the scope of the project be expanded to

include many water systems in the Mid-Columbia Basin that have a public duty to provide water

service although they are not incorporated as cities or towns. Systems that are subject to the

Municipal Water Law (i.e. systems that provide water for “municipal supply purposes”) serve

the public just as cities and towns do, but are incorporated as water districts, homeowners

associations, mobile home parks, and other types of organizations. These systems operate in the

same declining aquifers and, in some cases, provide water to more customers than many basin

towns. Their inclusion in future studies will create a greater awareness of the scope of

groundwater supply issues and may generate more regional partnerships and solutions.

Appendix A

Interagency Agreement No. C1400131, DOH Contract N20500

Appendix B Initial Questionnaire and Accompanying Introductory Letter

August __, 2013

______ Water System

______, Operator

______, WA 9____ - ____

Subject: ______ Water System, PWS ID _______

Dear _____:

In October 2012, the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) completed a

study on the decline of groundwater supplies in the Columbia Basin. The study shows declining

water levels in many of the wells that serve communities in Adams, Franklin, Grant and Lincoln

counties. The report also says it’s been decades since many of these declines—ranging from

modest to relatively rapid—were measured.

Please help us better understand the effect of declining water levels on Columbia Basin

communities by completing the enclosed questionnaire. We will share the collective

responses at a public meeting designed to explore ways to address this long-range issue. To

ensure the meeting benefits all participants, please return the completed questionnaire by

September 30, 2013, to Mike Dexel, Dept. of Health, Office of Drinking Water, PO Box 47822,

Olympia, WA 98504-7822.

The Departments of Health and Ecology will invite you and leaders of the other communities

included in this study to a public meeting later this year. There you will have an opportunity to

share what you and other communities know about this important issue. We want to understand

how our two agencies can assist you and your counterparts develop and implement plans to

ensure an adequate drinking water supply for future generations.

You can access the study report online at www.cbgwma.org. In addition to a summary of the

groundwater supply situation in the Columbia Basin, the report contains specific groundwater

assessments for each of the 25 communities included in the study. If you haven’t had an

opportunity to review your community’s report, we urge you to do so.

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call (360) 236-3154 or email

[email protected]

Sincerely,

Mike Dexel

Water Resources Policy Lead

Office of Drinking Water

Division of Environmental Public Health

Enclosure: Questionnaire

http://www.cbgwma.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Questionnaire on Declining Groundwater Supplies in Columbia River Basin

1) Are you aware of the extent of the declining groundwater levels in the Columbia Basin that

may affect your community’s ability to meet future water demands?

Yes No

2) Speaking for your water utility, are you interested in participating in the public meeting the

departments of Health and Ecology will hold on the Columbia Basin report this fall?

Yes No

If there are others from your water utility who might want to attend, please list their names

and titles here: (for example: 1. John Miller, Public Works Director; 2. Bob Hill, Mayor)

3) If data were lacking from your utility’s well(s), would you be willing to install a water level

measuring device?

Yes No

If yes, would you be willing to record and report the data from the water-level measuring

device(s) to the state on a monthly basis?

Yes No

4) Did your water system complete a water system plan within the last six years?

Yes No

If yes, does the plan include any of the following? (check all that apply):

Strategy for dealing with a long-term water shortage.

Evaluation of long-range (20-50 years) water supply and demand.

Description a water use efficiency program.

Evaluation of possible new sources of supply.

If no, do you have enough resources to complete a plan now?

Yes No

If no, what resources do you need to do one now? (Include cost or other required resources)

5) Has your water utility considered forming local water supply partnerships with nearby water

suppliers as a means for addressing declining groundwater supplies?

Yes No

If yes, list the jurisdictions or local governments you would (or do) include in the

partnership:

6) Are you concerned about your existing sources of supply meeting current or future demand?

Please describe here:

Yes No

If yes, how can Health, Ecology, or the GWMA help your water system meet your future water

needs?

Appendix C Summary Table of Initial Questionnaire Results, Summary Narrative, and Conclusions

Water System Name: Completed by: 1. Are you aware of the extent of the

declining groundwate

r levels in the

Columbia Basin that may affect

your community' s ability to

meet future water

demands?

2. Speaking for your

water utility, are you

interested in participatin

g in the public

meeting Health/Ecol

ogy will hold on the Columbia

Basin report this fall?

If there are others from your water utility who might want to attend,

please list their names and titles here.

3. If data were

lacking from your

utility's well(s),

would you be willing to install a water-level measuring

device?

If yes, would you be willing to record

and report the data from the

water-level measuring device(s) to the sate on a monthly

basis?

4. Did your water

system complete a

water system

plan within the last 6 years?

If yes, does the plan

include any of the

following? (check all

that apply).

Strategy for dealing

with a long- term water shortage.

Evaluation of long-

range (20- 50 years)

water supply and

demand.

Description of a water

use efficiency program.

Evaluation of possible

new sources of

supply.

If no, do you have enough resources to complete a plan now?

If no, what resources

do you need to do one

now? (Include cost

or other required

resources).

5. Has your water utility considered forming a

local water supply

partnership with nearby

water supplies as a

way to address declining

groundwater supplies?

If yes, list the jurisdictions

or local governments you would (or do) include in

your partnership:

6. Are you concerned about your

existing sources of

supply meeting

current or future

demand?

Please describe here: If yes, how can Health/Ecology or the GWMA help your water systems meet your future

water needs?

Comments:

ALMIRA WATER SYSTEM CONNELL, CITY OF

Larry Turner, City of Connell

Yes

Yes

Gary Walton, Mayor

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

X

X

No

We have only the information that has been gathered by GWMA and currently all source's are producing at normal levels, with some minor drop in level's.

That would be a good table discussion.

6. Maybe.

CRESTON PUBLIC WATER

Unknown, Town of Creston

Yes

Yes

Matt Strive, Town Maintenance Superintendent- Blake Angstrom, Mayor

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

X

No

Yes

DAVENPORT WATER DIVISION

Unknown, City of Davenport

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

X

Yes

No

Yes

Not as this time/we are currently looking at drilling a new well in the NE corner of Davenport but depends on some well monitoring E & N of Davenport.

EPHRATA WATER DEPARTMENT Bill Sangster, PWD Yes Yes Bill Sangster PW

Director Yes Yes Yes X X No Yes Funding of new wells. 3. (1st part of question): If funds are available.

GEORGE, CITY OF HARRINGTON, CITY OF Mayor Paul Gilliland, City of

Harrington Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Need to hire an engineer. No No

HATTON, TOWN OF KAHLOTUS, CITY OF LIND, TOWN OF Unknown, Town of Lind Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X No Yes Grant Funding. MATTAWA WATER SYSTEM Unknown, Town of

Mattawa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X Yes Port of Mattawa. No

MESA WATER DEPARTMENT Unknown, City of Mesa No Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X No No GWMA presented he council with information that

we have new water not ancient water. 3. (1st part of question): If it is provided.

MOSES LAKE, CITY OF

Sean O'Brien, Moses Lake

Yes

Yes

Myself and others will be interested in attending.

Yes

Yes

No

X

X

No

Yes

All of the City's deep wells have been annually declining since we have kept records. This dates back to the late 50's for some wells. This results in less production and increased cost and is unsustainable.

Declare that providing a sustainable supply of potable water to the citizens of the Columbia basin is a vital necessity to the future survival of the region. Acknowledge that major changes in the agricultural industry need to be made to reach that goal. Determine how much water is being over pumped and start reducing in areas with large decline. Prohibit wells from being depend in the Odessa subarea.

3. (1st part of question): All of our well sites do have water-level measuring devices in them unless it is physically impossible to install one. 4. (1st part of question): We are a little overdue, but had our preplan meeting with the DOH last month.

ODESSA OTHELLO WATER DEPARTMENT

Dan Quick, City of Othello

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

X

X

X

"Money," for transmission line from future well #9.

Yes

Stream line on drilling permits, progress reports.

3. (2d part of question): It will take some programming to get the report. 4. (2d part of question): Need two new wells, and a 2.1 million gal. water storage.

QUINCY WATER DEPARTMENT, CITY OF

Dave Reynolds, Town of Quincy

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

X No

Yes Communication and cooperation between DOH & DOE to speed up process of water conservation and planning with the cities.

REARDAN, TOWN OF

Unknown, Town of Reardan

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

X

X

X

X

No

Yes

We constantly monitor our water supply, A Town is a living entity and like any life form, water is essential to its very existence--No Water=no town.

You can help by supporting continued and enhanced ground water research and by prioritizing rehydration efforts utilizing high water flows of the Spokane and council rivers.

5. The distance to any 'nearby' water supplier are too far away to make forming a partnership practical.

RITZVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT

Unknown, City of Ritzville

Yes

Yes Mike Shrag, Council

Member

Yes

Yes

Yes

X X

X

No Yes

We are drilling new well now and it will handle current and some future demand but out back up wells will need work.

Need grant money and permits, and water right to dill another well and cap existing well because of being crooked.

ROYAL CITY WATER John Lasen, Royal City Water System No Yes Yes Yes X X Yes Port of Royal. No

SOAP LAKE WATER DEPT Unknown, City of Soap Lake No Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X No No 3. (1st part of question): Cost 3.

(2d part of question): Cost.

SPRAGUE, CITY OF Unknown, City of Sprague Yes Yes Mayor Mike Evans Yes Yes Yes X X No Yes Education 5. No nearby suppliers.

WARDEN, CITY OF

Unknown, City of Warden

Yes

Yes Mayor Tony Massa, Ron

Current, PW Director

Yes No

Yes No

Yes All use of current water sources and transfer water rights from Grande Ronde to Wanapum aquifers.

3. (1st part of question): Unsure. 4. (1st part of question): In progress currently.

WASHTUCNA WATER DEPARTMENT WILBUR, TOWN OF Unknown, Town of Wilbur Yes No No Yes X X No No WILSON CREEK WATER DEPT, TOWN OF

Kathy Bohnet, Mayor, Town of Wilson Creek

Yes

Yes

Our Mayor Kathy Bohnet will try to attend your public meeting

Yes

X

X

X

X

No

No

Make no additional demand of us that are not funded.

3. (1st part of question): Yes if there were no cost to the town. 5. We are remote and not near other sources.

Summary of Questionnaire Results

December 27, 2015

The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health partnered to assist in helping the Mid-Columbia Basin communities potentially affected by groundwater decline to understand and respond to this long-term threat. One of the first steps was to develop and mail out a questionnaire to survey these communities to gauge their current knowledge and interest in this subject; as well as to see which communities had interest in attending a public meeting to discuss the issue. The survey was mailed to 25 Columbia Basin communities, of which 19 responded.

Of the 19 respondents: • All but three were aware of the issue of declining ground water levels in the Columbia

Basin. • All but one were willing to attend a public meeting to discuss declining ground water

levels. • Fifteen reported willingness to install water level measuring devices if data were lacking

(a few of these were concerned about cost). One reported unwillingness to do so, and the other three did not respond to that question.

• Sixteen reported they completed a water system plan in the last six years, and three reported that they had not.

Of the 16 communities that reported having done a water system plan in the last six years: • Six reported the water system plan contained a water shortage response plan. • Thirteen reported the water system plan contained a long-term water demand forecast

(20–50 years out). • Sixteen reported the water system plan contained a description of their water use

efficiency plan. • Nine reported the water system plan contained an evaluation of possible new sources of

supply.

Of the three communities that reported not having done a plan in the last six years, two said they had enough resources to do one. One said they did not, and that they needed to hire an engineer.

Sixteen communities reported having not considered forming a local water supply partnership with nearby water supplies as a way to address declining groundwater supplies, and two communities have.

To the question, “Are you concerned about your existing sources of supply meeting current or future demands,” 11 communities said yes, and seven said no. In the notes following up to this question, a couple questionnaire participants mentioned the presentation that the GWMA had made to their city councils, and a couple said that they are in the process of drilling new wells to bolster water production. One of the larger communities said that their water level records (which go back to the 1950’s) show a steady decline, and that this is not sustainable.

Conclusions

The initial questionnaire surveying the Mid-Columbia Basin water systems identified by the October 2012 GWMA study successfully collected important information regarding the knowledge and current levels of water system planning that are present in the basin. Responses indicated that there is a broad awareness of declining water levels among water systems managers. Interest in attending a public meeting on this issue was high, as was willingness to install water level monitoring devices if current well data was lacking, although the cost of installing these devices was cited as a concern.

The data resulting from this questionnaire also demonstrated most respondents had water system plans in place plans included long-term water demand forecasts and all encompassed a water use efficiency plan. However, despite the concern reported by many respondents regarding their ability to meet current or future water supply demands, relatively few plans included a water shortage response portion and or an evaluation of possible new supply sources. Only 12% of respondents had considered a local water supply partnership as a way to address this issue.

Appendix D 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House Invitation Letter

Public Health – Always Working for a Safer and Healthier Washington

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER

243 Israel Road Southeast PO Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504-7822

Tel: (360) 236-3100 Fax: (360) 236-2253 TDD Relay Service: 1-800-833-6388 December __, 2013

Water System , Operator , WA 9 -

Subject: Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House January 9, 2014 Dear _____: Last August, the Department of Health sent you a questionnaire to help us gather feedback regarding the effect of declining water levels of wells in Columbia Basin communities. Here are a few highlights from that questionnaire:

• Nineteen of the 25 Columbia Basin communities responded to the survey. • All but three respondents are aware of declining groundwater levels. • Eleven of the 25 respondents are concerned about the ability of current water sources to

meet current or future demand. • All but one respondent expressed interest in attending a public meeting focused on the

local effects of declining municipal water supplies. Thank you for helping the department better understand your water supply needs and challenges. January 9 the Departments of Health and Ecology invite you and leaders of other communities affected by the declining water levels in Columbia Basin wells to an Open House in Moses Lake. Purpose: Discuss water supply challenges facing municipal water suppliers Date: Thursday, January 9th, 2014, from 9 a.m.–1 p.m. Location: Advanced Technologies & Education Center (ATEC)

Big Bend Community College Masto conference Center, Rom 1870 7611 Bolling St NE,

Moses Lake, WA 98837 (Directions enclosed) *Coffee and refreshments will be provided.

Please RSVP to Mike Dexel by January 7, 2014. When you RSVP, please indicate the number of people attending the meeting. Send your RSVP to [email protected].


Public Health – Always Working for a Safer and Healthier Washington

This meeting is meant to encourage an open dialogue between municipalities and those familiar with the declining groundwater supply in the Columbia Basin. We want to understand how our two agencies can assist you and your counterparts develop and implement plans to ensure an adequate drinking water supply for future generations. We intend to go over the full range of questionnaire responses and hope to get a better understanding of the scope of the issue from you and other communities’ perspectives. Your attendance is strongly encouraged. Thank you for your participation and we look forward to seeing you at Big Bend Community College in Moses Lake on January 9. If you have any questions, please contact me at 360-236-3154, or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Mike Dexel Water Resources Policy Lead Enclosures: Driving Directions to Big Bend Community College


Appendix E 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House

Sign in Sheet and Meeting Materials

Sign in Sheet

Mid-Columbia Basin Municipal Water Suppliers Meeting Thursday, January 9, 2014

9:00 am–1:00 pm Big Bend Community College—Masto Conference Center, Room 1870

7611 Bolling St. NE, Moses Lake, WA

Name Organization Email Rolando Garcia City of Ephrata [email protected] Doug Plinski Town of Odessa [email protected] Rod Webster PWD Odessa [email protected] John Lasen City of Royal City [email protected] Paul Stoker GWMA [email protected] Kathy Bohnet Town of Wilson

Creek [email protected]

Lesa Nugent Town of Wilson Creek

Cade Scott City of Mesa [email protected] Ed Dzedzy LCHD [email protected] Rick Miller Franklin Co. [email protected] Michael Sid Washtucna Todd Votil Moses Lake City

Council [email protected]

Jon Ness Grand County Health Shawn O’Brien City of Moses Lake [email protected] David Vancleve Gray & Osborne [email protected] Patti Hamilton City of Kahlotus [email protected] Jon Galow Dept. Commerce [email protected] Wade Farris City of Othello [email protected] Dan Quick City of Othello [email protected] Chris Canaday City of Sprague [email protected] Joseph Gavinski City of Moses Lake [email protected] Drew Reynolds City of Quincy [email protected] James Van Patten Town of Hatton [email protected] Mike Dexel DOH-ODW [email protected] Bruce Blackwell Mayor Connell [email protected] Jeff Johnson DOH-ODW [email protected] Heather Cannon DOH-ODW [email protected]

























Mike Wilson DOH-ODW [email protected] Sue Kahle USGS [email protected] Joe Pessutti Town of Lind [email protected] Kevin Lindsey GSIWS [email protected] Bryony Stasney DOH-ODW [email protected] Roger L Harting Adams County [email protected] Brian A Sayrs DOH-ODW [email protected] Bill Wagoner GWMA [email protected] Craig Riley DOH-ODW [email protected] Dorothy Tibbetts DOH-ODW [email protected] Fred Bill Davenport [email protected] Tony Masser Warden [email protected] Don Edson Warden Chad Streum Moses Lake [email protected] Kent Wilmot Moses Lake [email protected] Mark Stedman Lincoln Co. [email protected] Larry Swift City of Ritzville [email protected] Jake Youngren Varela & Associates [email protected] Ben Varea Varela & Associates [email protected] William Maddox Moses Lake [email protected] Bill Ecret Moses Lake [email protected] Brent R. Stenson ACHD [email protected] Bill Sangster Ephrata [email protected]






















Agenda Mid-Columbia Basin Municipal Water Suppliers Meeting

Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:00 am–1:00 pm

Big Bend Community College—Masto Conference Center, Room 1870 7611 Bolling St. NE, Moses Lake, WA

Time Topic Lead

9:00–9:30 Welcome and Introductions Ginny Stern

9:30–10:00 Goal of meeting Why We are Here & What to Expect:

• Overview of declining groundwater supply in Columbia basin.

• Summary of survey results.

Mike Dexel

10:00–10:25 Office of Drinking Water Perspective: • How DOH protects public health in a

declining water supply situation. • What our agency does and doesn’t do. • Planning for a sustainable water supply. • Overview of source capacity and future

demand.

Jeff Johnson/Dorothy Tibbetts

10:25–10:30 Preface to Group Discussions Ginny Stern

10:30–10:45 Break

10:45–12:00 Identify challenges in water supply and meeting current/future demand

Questions to discuss and answer:

• How are the changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

• In the next 10-15 years, how will you adjust to changing water supply conditions?

• In terms of managing water supply, what are your most important next steps?

• What one thing would you want the most help with?

All (DOH staff help facilitate small group discussions)

12:00–12:45 Report back from each small group: • Capture the general themes.

Mike Dexel/Dorothy Tibbetts

12:40–1:00 Next steps: • Summarize what we heard. • Future one on one consultations. • Meeting evaluation.

Wrap-up: • Should we meet again?

Mike Dexel Ginny Stern

1:00 Adjourn

Summary of Questionnaire Results Declining Groundwater Supplies in Columbia River Basin

12/27/13

The Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area (CBGWMA) completed a recent study that highlights the potential for significant declining groundwater supplies for many municipalities in Adams, Franklin, Grant and Lincoln Counties. The October 2012 GWMA study identified current and future water supply conditions using data from 124 wells owned by 25 different water systems in the Columbia basin. According to the study, at least half of them will likely not meet their future water needs, and eight of them by 2030.

In 2013, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed Scientific Investigations Report 2013- 5079, Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900–2008). The report confirmed that water levels in wells located within the Columbia Plateau deep aquifer system are declining. Groundwater levels were compared by taking measurements in 1984 and 2009 in 470 wells. In most cases (83 percent), small to moderate groundwater levels were observed. Roughly one-third (29 percent) of all wells have declined more than 22 feet since 1984. The USGS report states, “. . . it is reasonable to expect that the net change in (groundwater) storage will become a negative depletion in the future.”

The declining water levels in the Columbia basin could result in a substantial public health problem if not addressed with diligence. A number of municipalities may be facing a water supply crisis during the coming decades. Now is the time for these municipalities to identify long-term water supply options.

The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health are partnering to assist in helping the potentially affected communities understand and respond to this long-term threat. One of our first steps was to develop and mail out a questionnaire to survey the potentially affected communities to gauge their current knowledge and interest in this subject; as well as to see which communities had interest in attending a public meeting to discuss the issue. The survey was mailed to 25 Columbia Basin communities, of which 19 responded.

Of the 19 respondents:

• All but three were aware of the issue of declining ground water levels in the Columbia Basin. • All but one were willing to attend a public meeting to discuss declining ground water levels. • Fifteen reported willingness to install water level measuring devices if data were lacking (a few

of these were concerned about cost). One reported unwillingness to do so, and the other three did not respond to that question.

• Sixteen reported they completed a water system plan in the last six years, and three reported that they had not.

Of the 16 communities that reported having done a water system plan in the last six years:

• Six reported the water system plan contained a water shortage response plan. • Thirteen reported the water system plan contained a long-term water demand forecast (20–50

years out). • Sixteen reported the water system plan contained a description of their water use efficiency plan. • Nine reported the water system plan contained an evaluation of possible new sources of supply.

Of the three communities that reported not having done a plan in the last six years, two said they had enough resources to do one. One said they did not, and that they needed to hire an engineer.

1

http://www.cbgwma.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=73

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079/

Sixteen communities reported having not considered forming a local water supply partnership with nearby water supplies as a way to address declining groundwater supplies, and two communities have.

To the question, “Are you concerned about your existing sources of supply meeting current or future demands,” 11 communities said yes, and seven said no. In the notes following up to this question, a couple questionnaire participants mentioned the presentation that the GWMA had made to their city councils, and a couple said that they are in the process of drilling new wells to bolster water production. One of the larger communities said that their water level records (which go back to the 1950’s) show a steady decline, and that this is not sustainable.

Next Steps

Anticipated next steps include holding a public meeting on January 9, 2014 in Moses Lake. Following the public meeting, Department of Health staff intends to meet with each interested individual community, to discuss issues such as planning for alternative sources of supply, options for collecting and reporting water level data, and other matters related to the declining water supplies.

2

Columbia River Policy Advisory Group (CRPAG) June 19, 2013

The meeting began at 9:30 a.m. with a presentation by Junior Achievement. Facilitator Neil Aaland explained he was facilitating today’s meeting the place of Dan Silver. He also explained that the agenda was revised; Ecology Director Maia Bellon had to cancel her attendance because of the Governor’s direction that cabinet officials remain in Olympia during budget negotiations.

Threats to municipal supplies within the Columbia River basin

Mike Dexel and Russell Mau of the Washington Department of Health discussed this topic. A 2013 USGS report identified groundwater depletions all over the country, including the Columbia River basin. The recent GWMA studies have raised concern about the effects of declining water levels in the Columbia River basin and the effect on municipal water supplies. The Department of Health wanted to look closer at the GWMA data and determine how big a problem this is for each of the 25 municipalities in the GWMA study. Several cities were identified as having problems meeting future demand, some by 2030. The Department of Health is particularly concerned about source capacity and declining well levels for both Othello and Warden; Quincy has the ability to drill more wells to meet future demand in an area with less severe aquifer declines. The best way to manage this is to engage in water system planning, install water level measuring devices in the highest source production municipal wells to monitor declines and evaluate new sources of supply. Unpopular but available tools to manage water level declines include capping growth and limiting connections. The town of Warden only has one well which has a water level that is declining 13.4 feet yearly. They have two emergency wells. One possible solution is to transfer an agricultural right to municipal supply purposes. This would create a new season of use. The Department of Health plans to reach out to all 25 municipalities this year, especially those that are facing water supply challenges in an effort to evaluate their ability to respond to a water supply shortage.

CRPAG members and the audience had the following questions and observations:

• Is there any sense of supply issues in other areas of the state? [There are some issues around Airway Heights; they need to consider their options.]

• In Ritzville, DOH had concerns about letting them use the shallow aquifer due to high nitrate levels.

• How does conservation and Best Management Practices (BMPs) fit? [They are required to asses those as part of planning; they have to show three different demand curves based on water conservation alternatives. Municipal conservation is part of the picture to meet demand, but can’t solve the problem. Communities also have to address leakage.]

• Other than the 25 municipalities in the GWMA study, what is DOH doing about the other Group A or Group B water systems in the study area? [DOH is gathering information about these water systems, such as homeowners associations. The plan is to make sure they are informed of the declining water supplies.]

• Are the communities mentioned on the path to address their situation? [Warden is currently working on updating a water system plan, Othello not sure; Moses Lake is monitoring well levels and deepened their existing wells.]

• What about rural customers? [DOH is looking at all users in the GWMA.] • Why is the solution for this problem partnering with OCR? [OCR started evaluating this due to

the legislative direction regarding the Odessa aquifer; it’s not limited to agricultural wells. Municipal systems may be at risk and the state (OCR and DOH) want to be in a position to help before it’s too late.]

Source Capacity and Future Demand -Columbia Basin Study Communities

Current Primary Well

Capacity (gpm)

Predicted peak water demand in 2030

(gpm)


(gpm) Almira 800 109 116 Connell 6350* 4,700 5,600 Creston 705 180 200 Davenport 2,650 850 990 Ephrata 7,000 6,500 11,800 George 1,490 590 800 Harrington 755 440 500 Hatton 350 81 89 Kahlotus 650 390 440 Lind 1,720 405 460 Mattawa 2,590 1,800 2,900 Mesa 950 440 500 Moses Lake 22,400 21,500 48,700 Odessa 1,550 670 780 Othello 5,050 7,900 13,700 Quincy 8,400 8,500 12,500 Reardan 575 360 420 Ritzville 1,950 900 900 Royal City 1,950 1,490 4,300 Soap Lake 1,850 780 1,200 Sprague 850 600 680 Warden 2,100 2,600 4,200 Washtucna 380 380 430 Wilbur 1,490 800 950 Wilson Creek 1,250 270 320

*Includes Well10 capacity. The well is approved,but needs a transmission line before it'

can be used in the system.

: priority concerns

Almira

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level

Decline (ft/yr) 2060 Future projected

pumping DTW (ft) Total Depth

(ft) Well 1 decom --- --- 200 Well 2 150 1.5 214 150 Well 3 179 2.6 132 to 282 no data Well 4 650 1.4 no data 377


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 800 109 116

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -Well 2 may go dry before 2060 due to aquifer decline. This would impact redundancy. -Data needs:

-Measure DTW in Well 4 (hasn't been measured since initial DTW 1991) -Measure static and pumping water levels in the wells quarterly. -Measure total depth for Well 3

Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Inactive/Decommissioned Well Lincoln Co

DTW = Depth to Water

Connell

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 110 no data no data no data Well 2 200 no data no data no data Well 3 200 0.7 435 502 Well 4 550 4.4 640 to 833 1,105 Well 5 600 2.3 670 to 719 990 Well 6 450 3.8 623 1,000 Well 8 1850 5.6 853 to 870 1,325 Well 9B 1100 1.1 no data 527 Well 10 1800 0.2 no data 1,295 *Well 10 is approved, but needs a transmission line before it can be used in the system

Current

Primary Well Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 6350** 4,700 5,600

**includes Well 10 capacity

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -A transmission line would need to be built to access Well 10 capacity. -Wells 4 and 8 may have a pumping DTW of greater than 800 feet before 2060. -Data needs:

-Measure static and pumping water levels in all the wells quarterly.

Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Inactive/Decommissioned Well Franklin Co


Creston

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 (South) 155 0 no data 288 Well 2 (North) 550 0.9 no data 766


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 705 180 200

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -Nitrate levels in both wells have exceeded 10 ppm in the past, and are currently

in the 6 to 7 ppm range. -Data needs:

-Measure static and pumping water levels in both wells quarterly.

Legend:



Davenport

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 no data 1.1 no data 360 Well 2 200 2 no data 495 Well 3 decom --- decom 722 Well 4 decom --- decom 302 Well 5 decom --- decom 501 Well 6 1600 0.7 355 to 740 975 Well 7 1050 5.2 no data 959


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 2,650 850 990

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -Data needs:


Legend:



Ephrata

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 135 --- no data no data Well 2 490 no data no data 265 Well 3 560 2.9 607 1,000 Well 4 1400 1 323 618 Well 5 300 4 584 450 Well 6 700 no decline no data 1,025 Well 7 --- --- --- --- Well 8 --- --- --- --- Well 9 1450 1.4 367 1,361 Well 10 2100 5.9 362 to 633 1,850


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 7,000 6,500 11,800

-This system appears to have enough source capacity through 2030. -The system may not have enough source capacity in 2060 due to increasing demand -Data needs:


Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Inactive/Decommissioned Well Grant Co


George

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 616 0.5 128 188 Well 2 308 0.5 no data 177 Well 3 875 no data no data 416


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,490 590 800


-Measure static and pumping water levels in the wells quarterly.

Legend:



Harrington

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 225 no data no data 300 Well 2 200 no data no data no data Well 3 530 0.9 110 200


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 755 440 500

-This system appears to have adequate source capacity through 2060. -Data needs:


Legend:



Hatton

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Little Well (1) 100 6.3 no data no data Big Well (2) 250 1.5 no data 700


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 350 81 89


-Measure total depth of Little Well -Measure static and pumping water levels in both wells quarterly.

Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Inactive/Decommissioned Well Adams Co


Kahlotus

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 300 0.4 128 no data Well 2 --- --- no data 350 Well 3 350 3.5 >687* 680 *The 2060 static level depth was estimated to be 687 feet; pumping level will be deeper


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 650 390 440

-The static and pumping water level may be below the bottom of Well 3 by 2060. This would result in not enough source capacity to meet peak demands.

-Data needs: -Measure total depth in Well 1 -Measure static and pumping water levels in the wells quarterly.

Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Inactive/Decommissioned Well Franklin Co


Lind

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 --- --- --- 286 Well 2 --- --- --- --- Well 3 300 no data no data 382 Well 4 --- --- --- 204 Well 6 520 1 no data 747 Well 7 520 0.7 778 to 857 1,020 Well 8 1200 5.2 621 2,034


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,720 405 460

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -The 2060 pumping level in Well 7 may deeper than 800 feet. -High drawdown in 2012 is limiting current pumping capacity. -Data needs:


Legend:



Mattawa

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 650 9.2 738 to 992 764 Well 2 500 0.4 214 993 Well 3 1000 1.2 132 to 282 1,135 Well 4 1090 no data no data 1,116


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 2,590 1,800 2,900

-This system appears to have enough source capacity through 2030. -The system may not have enough source capacity in 2060 due to increasing demand. -Data needs:


Legend:



Mesa

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 500 no data no data 100 Well 2 450 no data no data 163


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 950 440 500


-Measure static and pumping water levels in both wells quarterly.

Legend:

Permanent Well Emergency Well Franklin Co Inactive/Decommissioned Well


Moses Lake

Capacity (gpm)

Water Level Decline (ft/yr)

2060 Future projected pumping DTW (ft)

Total Depth (ft)

3 1,000 3.5 499 909 4 1,050 4.3 505 to 533 1,000 5 --- --- --- 786 7 1,000 2.5 152 950 8 750 1.9 409 1,049 9 1,200 7.5 903 1,100

10 1,400 2.6 349 to 451 692 11 850 --- --- --- 12 1,900 0.4 >463 585 13 --- --- --- --- 14 1,000 6.5 750 1,025 17 2,000 11 605 to 1,031 1,240 18 2,000 2.8 463 585 19 700 1.8 --- ---

19R 825 no data no data 755 21 650 2.2 235 to 311 730 22 --- --- --- 719 23 1,400 1.4 281 791 24 2,000 2.2 253 to 311 730 28 1,700 1.8 no data 750 29 750 1.4 no data 134 31 850 8.17 --- ---

31R 950 no data no data 970 32 --- --- --- --- 33 1,000 3.6 no data 800

Current

Primary Well Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 22,400 21,500 48,700

-This system appears to have enough source capacity through 2030. -The system may not have enough source capacity in 2060 due to increasing demand, and

possibly also due to decreasing aquifer water levels. -Data needs:


Legend:



Odessa

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 --- --- --- --- Well 2 300 --- --- --- Well 3 600 5.1 750 595 Well 4 950 0.9 218 to 234 660


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,550 670 780

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -Well 3 may become unusable before 2060 due to the declining aquifer level. The

system would still have enough source to meet peak demands, but this would impact reliability.

-Data needs: -Measure static and pumping water levels in the wells quarterly.

Legend:



Othello

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 2 350 1.2 no data 697 Well 3 1,300 1.5 no data 900 Well 4 3,500 no data no data 976 Well 5 500 1.1 526 1,007 Well 6 1,300 7 no data 1,005 Well 7 800 no data 875 820 Well 8 800 1.6 615 853


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 5,050 7,900 13,700

-This system appears to not have enough source capacity through 2030 because of increased demand.

-The 2060 pumping level in Well 7 may deeper than 800 feet. -Data needs:


Legend:



Quincy

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 1,050 no data no data 431 Well 2 1,250 no data no data no data Well 3 1,400 no decline no data 406 Well 4 2,500 0.6 258 392 Well 5 2,200 no decline no data 381


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 8,400 8,500 12,500

-This system appears to not have enough source capacity through 2030 because of increased demand.

-Data needs: -Measure static and pumping water levels in all the wells quarterly.

Legend:



Reardan

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 2 20 --- --- --- Well 5 75 --- --- --- Well 6 225 0.4 161 300 Well 7 40 --- --- --- Well 8 575 no data no data 452


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 575 360 420

-This system appears to not have enough source capacity through 2060. -Data needs:


Legend:



Ritzville

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) 2-Rodeo 400 --- --- 391 3-Shop 200 --- --- 460 5-Lewis 350 --- --- 622 6-Golf 170 0.5 --- 603 Well 7 750 0.6 --- 789 Well 8 1,200 0.7 >706 to 792 979


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,950 900 900



Legend:



Royal City

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 450 0.8 >516 907 Well 2 decom --- --- --- Well 3 750 1.3 750 1,120 Well 4 750 no data no data 1,051


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,950 1,490 4,300

-This system appears to have enough source capacity through 2030. -The system may not have enough source capacity in 2060 due to increasing demand. -Data needs:


Legend:



Soap Lake

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 750 0.8 99 466 Well 2 no data --- --- --- Well 3 1,100 no data no data 901


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,850 780 1,200



Legend:



Sprague

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 200 --- --- 25 Well 2 --- --- --- --- Well 3 600 0.8 >206 502 Well 4 250 0.1 no data 500


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 850 600 680

-This system appears to have enough source capacity through 2060. -Data needs:


Legend:



Warden

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 4 decom --- --- 319 Well 5 1,600 1.9 382 368 Well 6 1,250 no decline no data 830 Well 7 2,100 16.8 1,151 857


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 2,100 2,600 4,200

-This system appears to not have enough source capacity through 2030 due to decreasing aquifer levels and increasing demand.

-Data needs: -Measure static and pumping water levels in the wells quarterly.

Legend:



Washtucna

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) #1(spring) 100 --- --- --- Well 2 160 0.1 no data 472 Well 3 280 3.9 >500 536


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 380 380 430

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2030. -This system appears to not have enough source capacity through 2060 due to increased demand. -Data needs:


Legend:



Wilbur

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 2 500 no data no data 502 Well 3 840 0.7 250 294 Well 4 650 1.44 no data 375


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,490 800 950



Legend:



Wilson Creek

Capacity

(gpm) Water Level



(ft) Well 1 250 no data no data 285 Well 2 400 0.3 175 193 Well 3 850 3.4 322 202


Capacity (gpm)


(gpm)


(gpm) 1,250 270 320

-This system appears to have plenty of source capacity through 2060. -Well 3 may go dry by 2060 due to declining aquifer levels, and this would decrease system reliability. -Data needs:


Legend:



How are the changes in the aquifer

affecting your water system?

• Have you noticed any impacts? • What types of things have you seen? (Impacts or challenges) • How do you expect it to change in the next 10–15 years? • Do you have the capacity to measure the impacts you think you are

seeing or expecting to see? • What do you need to be able to track impacts or address challenges?

In the next 10–15 years, how will you adjust to changing water supply conditions?

• What are your assumptions about future supply and demand? • What would success look like for your system? (I know I am making

progress because . . . ) • What would you have done between now and then to be successful? • What’s missing to make you successful? • What alternatives are you willing to consider to achieve success? • What is the biggest barrier?

In terms of managing water supply, what

are your most important next steps?

• My systems priorities include the following three things? • The first thing I want to work on is . . .

What one thing would you want the most

help with?

• Who do you think you expect to turn to for that help? • Is there a timeline?

Appendix F 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House

Small Group Response Summary, Tables, and Conclusion

2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House Small Group Responses

The 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House provided invaluable

information on several key issues surrounding water supply management and aquifer change

response and planning in the Columbia Basin. The small group sessions and discussions yielded

these (summarized, full responses following) responses to the worksheet:

How are the changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

Water systems are experiencing pumping level declines

o Therefore there is a need to track and compare across systems within each county

o Many systems, including very small systems not represented at the Open House

are also impacted by aquifer change

The public, legislators, and decision makers need to be alerted about this issue

o Alarmist messaging must be avoided

o Departments of Ecology and Health have a role to play in this messaging

Well monitoring is a positive action, but an unfunded mandate for monitoring is not

wanted or seen as feasible

In the next 10-15 years, how will you adjust to changing water supply conditions?

Examine and respond to demand

o Adjust rate structures to adequately encompass demand

o Provide quality community education so that the public understands the necessity

of rate changes

Implement upgrades to systems and towns

o Proactively install new wells

o Install additional shallow wells

Employ regional solutions

o Utilize Billy Clap Lake

o Ephrata expressed interest in using an injections well to reclaim water (and

enhance storage and recovery)

Secure further funding

o Alternate sources and new technologies, such as ASR, surface water, can be cost

prohibitive

o Funding is also needed for community education, communications, etc.

o Political and legislative changes are necessary to take action and make further

funding available

Flexibility from Ecology will be necessary, particularly regarding water rights, transfers,

etc.

In terms of managing water supply, what are your most important next steps?

Providing quality water is the top priority

o This involves the creation of a 15 year plan that encompasses planning for

infrastructure needs and economic development

o Water systems will work with GWMA

Implement infrastructure maintenance and upgrades

o Reduce leaks through conservation and WUE

o Add storage in addition to adding new wells

o Create a metering program

o Ensure accurate data collection

Secure a surface water supply

o Get legislative assistance to secure surface water source

o Form a lobby

Finding solutions to this issue is critical to the future of Columbia Basin communities

What one thing would you want the most help with?

Funding

o For rehabbing wells

o To purchase water rights

o To assist with reclaiming water

Quincy: looking for water resources to complete reuse process

Ephrata: use waste water and repair reservoir

Legislative action on

o More surface water and other alternate sources

o Water rights

Solving the agricultural use problem

Additional assistance from governmental agencies:

o Particularly from Ecology and Columbia River Office

o Departments of Health and Ecology should work together on sustainability

o Messaging to the public regarding water supply issues

o Water supply issues should be a top priority for the DOH Secretary of Health

Planning templates:

o E.g. WUE requirements – more fill in the box

o Simplification of templates where possible

Understanding basic water supply related information through sources such as Water Tap

o Water rights

o Hydrogeology

Table 1: Ritzville, Lind, Sprague, and Hatton.

Notes typed by Andy Cervantes

Adams County Sprague

Roger Hartwig, Commissioner Chris Canady

Brent Stenson, ACHD

Consultant Lind

Jake Youngren Joseph Pesutti

Ben Varela

Ritzville Hatton

Larry Swift, Public Works James Van Patten, Councilman

Question 1: What one thing would you want the most help with

Comments Background Meaning Aha’s or Realizations

Better access to state and

federal field or support staff

Changes in rules, policies,

etc.

▫ Fluoride MCL changes

There are many agencies,

rules, policies, and so on out

there. It is difficult to get a

handle on everything, and it

would be better to get more

face time with the regulating

agencies or staff.

In looking at the

characteristics of the table,

they were grouped by county

and location and or route to

get to.

One key point identified is the

information being shared in

this format, even just at the

table, provided an ideal

mechanism to check in and

see how the neighboring

communities were

doing. Where some were

observing declines in water

level, water quality, others

were not.

In some cases, the lead agency

for implementing a rule,

funding source, or providing

technical assistance was not

readily known. It did depend

on the knowledge and

personal experience of the

person at the table

Increased support and funding

for projects – State and

Federal

Bringing in surface water

to area, such as;

▫ Weber Siphon (stalled)

▫ Widen canal, pumping

stations to transport

added irrigation water

for ag. Purposes

Budgets are tight all across the

board, and they are looking to

get more support for personal

projects that can help monitor

their monitoring tracking

reporting requirements for the

sources. Including, those

larger projects that will help

reduce the groundwater

consumption from irrigators

Budgeting, Cost Estimates,

Funding

All over the board on where

they needed help with on their

own systems, costs for

proposed projects, etc.

Templates for agency

monitoring / reporting,

requirements

Looking for a concise or

single location and handout

for getting information on

WUE,

Add these to WQMR

Annual Reminder

templates available, templates

or reports that are due, each

year, as well as, an annual

reminder, and include

information from all agencies.

Question 2: How are the changes in the Aquifer affecting your water system?


Ritzville – Decline in SWL:

~ 2’ per year (Well #8 – S06)

Crooked shaft, could only drop bowls

right to bend. Dropped a pipe

beyond bowls for added lift (?-Tail

piece).

Airlines constantly degrading,

especially with repeated pulling of

pumps.

DSL at 20%

Lind (JP)

Fluoride (S04-Well #8), accumulates

when at rest.

Source also hot and soft water (taste

and odor issues),

S01 (Well #7), one major producing

zone, open hole from 400 to 1000 ft.

Sucked air 2-yrs ago.

Increase in power consumption and

bills.

Have watched a significant decline in

dynamic or pumping water level

Sprague – No changes:

Constant SWL

Looking at constantly monitoring

SWL of wells

Hatton – Decline in SWL:

Re-drilled well

Would like information on the costs

associated with using surface water, for

either potable water or irrigation water.

Help with Ecology for simplifying or

expediting water right transfers for

additional sources.

Geology changes within the GWMA

I combined the background and the realizations to

the same column on this one.

The systems are either aware or not of the changes in

the aquifer, dependent on the construction of their

wells, and involvement of with their water system.

It became apparent, that tracking water usage on a

regular basis became a part of what is available, is it

working, and what was going on with the

wells. Those that were looking at capacity problems

during the peak season, and or have had multiple

issues with wells, were more aware of the necessity

for tracking and recording data. Though in some

cases the air lines had decayed and it became

difficult to record information.

Water quality for the deeper basalt wells were an

issue, but no trending on data was being recorded,

and taste and odor were observed and recorded /

tracked based on consumer complaints. These could

be distribution and treatment related, though many

correlated well with pump or well location and

demand.

Surface water alternatives and treatment were a

constant topic, and a possible alternative, though

many are not conveniently located to a surface water

body.

One commissioner noted in 1988 a farm well they

had in operation that constantly lost SWL, and they

eventually had to stop using because they were

chasing water down the well to the point where it

was no longer feasible.

where the impacts are more significant to

not at all, with respect to, SWL and WQ.

City of Othello is looking 2-miles east

out of town for a new source.

Question 3: In the next 10-15 years, how will you adjust to changing water supply

conditions?


Expedite water right process

know.

Upper aquifer over

allocated

Cascading water issues

Help with or investigate

further the possibility of using

the shallow / upper aquifer

Legal barriers

Capacity / Treatment

issues

Many wells in the area are

tapped into the upper aquifer

(such as Hatton), that are not

showing any signs of decline

in SWL or WQ.

Better tracking of water use.

DSL or leaks

Other water sources,

Surface Water

ASR – Aquifer Storage

Recharge

Legal Barriers/ actions.

Water right process for

transferring rights

Enforcement authority for

mis-use over-use on

existing wells or water

rights

I combined the background and the realizations to the same

column on this one.

The systems are either aware or not of the changes in the

aquifer, and the ramifications for future development.

Some of the concerns evolved around the construction of new

sources, and trying to locate a better area that would be within

reasonable distance of the community and possibly a better

supply. While most of the problematic areas within the

communities appeared to be in the deeper aquifer, their did

appear to be some hope for production in the shallower

aquifer. Information and ability to attempt drilling in the

shallower aquifer became an interest, as well as, tracking

whether additional sampling, treatment, etc. would be

necessary.

Many were well versed with other uses within and around their

communities, as well as, the surrounding area. Would like to

see more accountability, enforcement, or curtailment of use

within those areas where water appears to be used beyond their

legal right.

Would like to see better reporting from communities on water

use and leaks, as well as, all groundwater suppliers within the

GWMA.

Question 4:


Increased SWL and dynamic

pumping level data collection

Will place a probe down

the new well

Better or improved DSL

tracking

WUE

Accounting issue

Billing Software

No Free Lunch

Investing money into the

infrastructure

New well

Repair air lines

Internal airlines within the

casing

Currently broken

I combined the background and the realizations to the same

column on this one.

The systems are looking at how they can make better use of the

existing resource, so they can continue to grow in the future,

without having to rely heavily on looking for a new source

(GW well).

They understand the report indicates the aquifer is declining,

and the replacement of a source may not have the expected

results or improved performance as their current sources.

Communities understood they have to be more accountable for

the resource, and that the problems extend from equipment,

human error, software compatibility, and so on.

In agreement tracking of the resource, whether it is within the

distribution system or the well is a top priority.

Table 2: Davenport and Odessa

With Ed Dzedzy, Lincoln County Health Department, and Mark Stedman

Notes typed up by: Heather Cannon

Question 1: How are the changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

Changes in wells are not yet significant but they are looking to the future. Wells were in 500’

aquifer or so, now wells are 900’ to 1,000’ deep to try to help recharge the deeper wells as there

is a small amount of recharge. In addition, they are also using WUE measures. New inclining

block rate for water was started for both revenue and WUE reasons.

Customer education on WUE, how to use the water they purchased.

Do you have a coordinated effort by DOE and DOH on water usage in the GWMA on municipal

and agriculture use? No, and there is no money because it is not a priority. The Secretary of

Health and the Director of ECY need to go to the state legislature and get the money to measure

all wells all year long, including agricultural wells. DOH needs to ask for the funding for in-well

measuring because local governments do not have money for this. Secretary Weisman needs to

put this on his radar.

There needs to be education for towns and cities on how to collect and interpret the information.

Economic development is impacted because they will look at water supply; this is creating issues

with those wanting to come to the area for development.

We don’t know how much it is really declining and the GWMA report is dated and an

interpretation by one person.

ERWOW may be able to help with readings

We are fixing old pipes and have a meter program; we have replaced 24 of 80 old meters which

can cause inaccuracy and WUE issues. The council and mayor support the metering program and

main replacement.

Do we even know if there are changes? Yes, neighboring wells are being deepened and this

causes concern.

Yes, the Lake Creek drainage is drying up also Pacific Lake. Deer Springs are dry and Coffee

Pot is lower. There exists video of the draining of Deer Springs due to agricultural use. It is

drying up Northeast so there is visible information.

Selling a community is tough now for activities like recreation.

In ag vs. muni uses, ag uses a lot more per crop circle.

We should look at the ability for waste water reuse for things like cemeteries because people like

a green cemetery but the cost is a big impact.

Other wells that are not muni such as golf courses also impact well depth and this should be

evaluated.

Let’s have the water rights discussion regarding first in line which was ok when water was

unlimited. This should this be addressed; some type of priority discussion at some level.

There may need to be changes in farming practice.

They should look at finishing the project to bring water to the basin, is this economically

feasible, look at food production per water use measurement. There needs to be a general

improvement of surface water provided and less well use to make it sustainable and profitable.

Pumping into Lake Creek is a possible solution with completion of the East Hi system but

storage may be an issue maybe they can use Crab Creek. 45 million for a study of a 24” pipe is a

waste of money. Money is the issue. Spend money on projects not more studies.

Question 2: In the next 10-15 years how will you adjust to changing water supply

conditions?

Fixing infrastructure and metering which takes money.

Conduct public awareness and education about water use.

Look at water reuse but will need money.

Understand the data (obtain the data and understand what it means) and will need money and

help and convey this to the consumers so it can be explained what you know and how you know

it.

Note that this is a regional problem to be addressed NOW and make it the Secretary of Health’s

priority.

Reducing water use reducing available water to reuse and low flow has impacts to the

wastewater system and this costs money and it takes extra water to flush the WW system.

Are water use or maximum use restrictions in the future a possibility? Maybe.

Landscaping is an issue so appropriate landscaping and community education about this topic

such as what is the correct landscaping/plants for a desert.

Planning for new developments should include water usage limits and landscaping limits.

Many towns are at a minimum population and are declining and there are 100’s of vacant homes.

There may be water restrictions and inverted water rates so they choose to pay more if they

choose to use more.

Landscaping incentives may be adopted.

How do you survive with the existing water you have?

Municipal use is minimal so you will be controlling a minor part so municipals will lose.

Othello and Moses Lake have inadequate supply and processing takes a lot of water and can this

be reduced? Other businesses use less water than processing can processing be moved to where

the water is or other businesses be brought in?

There needs to be better integration of surface and ground water by bringing in more surface

water.

We need federal help, money and an agreement on the water supply. There is a history here.

Question 3: In terms of managing water supply, what are your most important next steps?

Get water meters installed.

Fix infrastructure.

Educate legislators and customers.

Additional wells.

Better understanding of the aquifer systems, where is the water from and where is it going?

Time to act is now, data may not be complete or great but the time to act is now.

Put in the surface water infrastructure to minimize ground water use.

Reevaluate agriculture.

First thing – fix water loss in local infrastructure. Get data from metering.

Start a coalition of the 25 communities to work on a unified message on needing data collection

in addition the communities should come together to educate the legislature and the federal level

as we all live and work together and need to work together on this issue.

Educate local councils.

Does there need to be an education campaign for agriculture? This exists and they are mostly

crop circle metered and computerized.

We need to address economic development without the alarmist message; we need to show we

are working on a regional solution.

DOE says keep on drilling and drill deeper. How did we get to where we are? This was

supposed to be a temporary deep irrigation well solution and the federal government made a bad

promise and gave the state the ok to issue water rights but did not come through with the surface

water.

Question 4: What one thing would you want the most help with?

Grant money for infrastructure and metering, state and federal, DOH to be an advocate to fix the

problem and not be a roadblock. Expand the type of projects that can be funded.

Have DOH facilitate the regional group effort; to bring them to the table.

PWBTF is gone, restore this money.

Have a coordinated effort from DOE and DOH on regional water supply for sustainability and

rejuvenation of ground water by working with the federal government and Bureau; everyone

needs to be onboard, counties, tribes, businesses, etc.

We need to master the political message; not be alarmist because of loss of economic

development. But put out the correct message and information such as Odessa and the Odessa

aquifer are not the same thing. So we need to have a state led effort by DOH and DOE; is there

value in this? The story kills economic development.

We need an executive session for all of the mayors and state representatives to discuss this.

Build the canal.

The Columbia Basin Development League may have the structure in place for this group; and a

legislative capital funding person and a federal funding person need to be members of the group.

Notes from Discussion at Jan 9, 2014 Columbia Basin Public Meeting

Big Bend Community College, Moses Lake

Notes typed up by Jeff Johnson

Table 3: Royal City, Othello, Warden, Jon Ness (Grant Co HD), Dave Nazy (Ecology-

OCR), Jeff Johnson DOH-ODW


Royal City – have not seen losses in their water levels. Recent data from Well 4 shows

that the situation is better than what was shown in the GWMA report. Royal City has fee

structure set up to encourage conservation, this has been successful.

Warden – Wells 6 & 7 are in Grande Ronde, Well 6 in Wanapum also. A fault causes

ground water to pool up (be more plentiful) on the west side of town. They are looking at

acquiring a Farm Well (this would end up being Well 8)and drilling a new well into the

Wanapum (this would end up being Well 9). City needs all the players at the table to

figure out plan – Bureau of Reclamation, Ecology, DOH need to work together up front.

Can’t get Ecology to agree with themselves. The East Low Canal is maintaining water

levels in the Wanapum. Need $ to fund purchases of water rights and well rehabilitation.

Well 6 comingles water from the Wanapum and Grande Ronde, and is still used as a

permanent source.

Othello – Still declining water levels (pumping level). Static recovers just fine. Well 2

650 ft deep, can only be used until irrigation starts. Well 6 showing regional problem.

Have done work to rehabilitate some wells, but not Well 2. Withdrawal rates from

Othello’s wells have declined since the GWMA report. Well 7 probably has bacteria

problem (clogging?). Hard to take well off-line because of system capacity to meet

needs. Planning to purchase property east of town for Well 9. Some questions regarding

the future demand forecast numbers in the GWMA report.


Warden – Changing from relying on withdrawing groundwater from Grande Ronde to

instead taking water from the Wanapum. Trying to reduce demand by having

conservation-based rates, but can only do so much. 20% - 25% of the City gets shut off

notices for not paying bill (then most of them pay), but this indicates the financial stress

of the community. 2 very significant employers in Grant County are the 2 potato

processors in Warden.

Royal City – Increasing storage capacity and replacing water mains that could fail.

Starting to slowly increase water fees for infrastructure fund.

Othello – After new wells, they then will need 2 to 3 million gallons of storage then

replace old pipes.


Once 2nd

siphon is done and surface water is available for irrigation, get the agriculture

irrigators to actually stop using groundwater and switch over.

Using reclaimed water is nearly impossible under current laws (due to impairment).

Funding for rehabilitation of a well

Funding to purchase water rights

Make it easier to use reclaimed water.


Our group covered what they wanted to say on this question under the other questions, mostly in

the question on how they plan to adjust in the next 10-15 years.

Table 4: Moses Lake

Notes typed by: Bryony Stasney

How are changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

Moses Lake pulls groundwater from upper unconsolidated and lower basalt aquifers. The

main units from top to bottom comprise upper unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifer,

Ringold sands and silts, Wanapum basalt aquifer, Vantage interbed and Grand Ronde

basalt aquifer.

All groundwater sources have declining water tables, in particular the basalt aquifer. The

upper unconsolidated aquifer is recharged seasonally by irrigation water. Seasonal

recharge of the upper unconsolidated aquifer appears to have declined as the irrigation

canals are lined.

Moses Lake has water level recording devices in all wells and telemetry so that operators

can view water levels in wells remotely.

Moses Lake has observed static and pumping groundwater level declines of between 2 to

4 feet annually in all wells since the 1950s. This has caused Moses Lake to incrementally

lower pumps in most wells. Moses Lake acknowledges that there are a few wells for

which the pumps cannot be lowered any further without deepening the wells.

Groundwater quality in the deeper aquifer is poor – with warmer temperatures and

hydrogen sulfide.

Moses Lake would like to see a dedicated monitoring well drilled and installed to monitor

groundwater level changes in the various aquifers. Is there funding support to do this?


Moses Lake knows that it needs to start taking action right away and that current / future

groundwater supply cannot be sustained under existing conditions.

Moses Lake sees the best option as a regional water supply strategy, involving conveying

surface water from Billy Clapp Lake down Stratford Road and into Moses Lake.

Moses Lake would like to understand the water rights / legal issues that need to be

addressed to allow surface water to be used for municipal supply. Moses Lake

anticipates that legislative changes may be needed.

Moses Lake plans to start developing a blue-print in 2014 to identify actions to address

declining water supplies. Some alternatives considered include: more shallow wells; a

separate irrigation / potable system; aquifer storage and recovery; irrigation system

improvements; incentives for property owners to use water from Moses Lake to irrigate

(if they can legally) rather than using potable water; education for all city departments

and the community.

Moses Lake needs funding to implement.


The first / priority step is to develop a plan / blue-print for water supply for the next 15+

years – Moses Lake is planning to work with the GWMA in 2014 on this planning effort.

Continue planned infrastructure for economic development.

Continue to provide good quality drinking water for our customers.


Funding to implement solutions.

Legislative action to ensure available surface water can be used for municipal

supply. Want to understand if there is something politically required to be able to use

Billy Clapp Lake as a municipal water supply.

The timeline for funding and legislative action is within the next 5 years - will request

help from Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River as well as state and federal

representatives.

Need help with communication with representatives, community, City departments –

including public meetings, press releases, technical information.

Table 4: Moses Lake


Industrial area in Winchester: a new well was necessary after the old well suddenly went dry.

The old well is now used for monitoring with a pressure transducer. This experience drove the

participant to joining the GWMA committee.

Wilson Creek: the mayor’s personal domestic well on a dry land farm had to be redrilled. She

blames overallocation to deep agricultural wells. Wells have been constructed in anticipation of

the canals, but it hasn’t happened. Crab Creek runs dry in Wilson Creek (and, yet, the town is

still required to adopt a shoreline master plan). Wilson Creek’s mayor asks: Whose cost is it? If

ag overdraws water and the city needs to deepen the wells, who pays? The City. Is that the

“right” answer?

Wilson Creek had to establish a moratorium on new connections, but was fortunate to find a

record of old rights. Wilson Creek is reducing water for domestic irrigation and parks.

Ephrata: formerly, they had a source of emergency water from the canal, but it has not been used

since 1961. The City is trying conservation. New hardware and maybe plugs and screens would

help. But, those solutions are expensive and it’s causing rates to go up.

It was observed that most of the cost of water depth monitoring is pulling the pump, not the

equipment.

Ephrata currently has manual water depth daily monitoring—it is recorded on paper each day.

Ephrata operator suggests that a mandate for water depth monitoring may be necessary.


Quincy: most of the water used in the City is for food processing. The permit for food processing

water disposal expires in 2015. The City wants to use the water for cooling at the data center.

Ephrata: the City wants to reinject wastewater for reuse. The City does have a purple hydrant,

but it can’t be used because it has too much process associated with its use. Money is always the

issue.

Wilson Creek: With the recovery of the old water rights, Wilson Creek seems to be in good

shape at the moment.

In terms of managing water supply, what are you most important next steps?

Quincy: The City needs to complete its reclamation system. The recovered water is not used for

parks due to the “ick factor.” They switched to 100% radio read in 2005. They will also probably

be seeking water rights.

Ephrata wants to send its wastewater to Boulder Park. It is raising rates to complete its

distribution replacement. They have also disconnected school irrigation from the water system (it

is now using water from the canal). The City lost revenue from the school change, but they’re

grateful they have the water back. The City has a claim they wish to convert to a water right.

Wilson Creek is focusing on its DSL, including its leaking reservoir. They also need to replace

their pump. Wilson Creek still has a great deal of AC pipe to replace: “It’s a time bomb.” Wilson

Creek recently had their old water rights recognized.


Ephrata: funding. New reservoir, in part because a standpipe is good for H2S mitigation of deep

wells.

Quincy: New infrastructure.

Wilson Creek: no unfunded mandate for monitoring.

They want help from each other: The systems currently all work together to help out.

They want help from DOH: make dollars available for maintenance purposes and change grant

and loan funds (e.g. DWSRF) to have fewer limitations.

They want help from Ecology: tighten up permit regulation for ag wells. The fines are merely the

cost of doing business.

Table 6: Kahlotus, Washtucna, Connell, Mesa & Franklin County

Notes typed by Craig Riley

1. How are the changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

Washtucna: issues with main water supply (spring) during heavy summer use; town

needs to redevelop Railroad Well for additional source; better water rights

management to prevent excessive drawdown by other users; major water quality

concerns – secondary contaminants, nitrates, sealing casing for the RR Wells

Connell: city started buying more water rights 10-15 years ago, installing VFD pump

drives for more efficiency, conducting monitoring well levels [Wells 4 & 10 have

SCADA controls & data collection], reservoir capacity & old pipes – they have

replaced ¾ of town’s distribution system in last 3 to 5 years

Franklin County: ground water levels and supplies are overall a serious issue

throughout Eastern Washington

Overall

o need to acknowledge the complexity of the aquifer system and different

conditions facing each system; lack of problems in one community does not

suggest others have adequate supplies

o more access and help for other water systems (e.g. home owner associations)

o more assistance from state for smaller cities & HOA’s

o provide an advocate (for water supply issues)

o expand NO3 awareness & treatment

o funding for ground water level tracking available to local governments

o none of the communities were opposed to ground water level data collection

2. In the next 10-15 years, how will you adjust to changing water supply conditions?

Washtucna – mayor doesn’t care (he’s not running again)

Mesa – no issues unless dams are breached and groundwater concentrating in canyons

dries up

Connell – distribution system in good shape; may need funds for treatment

WUE program implementation – cut back to < 25%

Kahlotus – taking baby steps, they need more knowledge with water rights

Flat rates are a barrier for all the communities

metering is a necessity

communications (water is a necessity not a luxury)

sarcasm: moratoriums (on hookups are good to generate interest by the community)

3. In terms of managing water supply, what are the most important next steps?

conservation water rates

metering

public education

DSL reduction to 12-15% range

leak detection (Washtucna & Connell)

distribution system replacement – Kahlotus

Note: for all of these communities, water has been a priority

Wish lists

o new reservoir

o new or rehabilitated wells

o more data

o water collection (blue sky ideas for new or innovative sources)

o replacing leaky pipes

4. What one thing would you want the most help with?

transmission mains from “good wells” to communities (e.g. extending supplies

outward to available sources not currently within the community

dual distribution system development to allow potable & nonpotable water supplies

(extensive irrigation water supplies are available)

water system planning for the future

water rate studies

infrastructure replacement (distribution, pumps, boosters & storage tanks)

assistance to communities to “pay attention to water issues”; comment from Mayor

Blackwell of Connell: remind citizens that water is a necessity and not a luxury

provide training: Water 101

improving access to DOH Employees for quick access by topic to improve

communications between communities and DOH

better access to Water Tap for communities (and citizens)

outreach to non-community water systems

assistance with working with and supporting NGO’s such as GWMA (participants

expressed strong support for GWMA organization.

Conclusions

The January 9th, 2014 Columbia Basin Municipal Ground Water Open House effectively

allowed a broad range of Mid-Columbia Basin municipal water supply stakeholders to come

together for discussion and education. The broad issues that were identified as a result of this

meeting relating to water supply and declining groundwater levels included the need for a more

structured community voice, the importance of exploring alternative water supplies and securing

funding to pursue these projects, and an interest in continuing to work with and receive support

from the Departments of Health and Ecology.

Appendix G ERWOW 2015 Presentation Slides

7/14/2015

1

Will the Water Run Dry? Protecting Municipal Water Supply

in the Columbia Basin

Dorothy Tibbetts Brian Sayrs

Office of Drinking Water

2

Office of Drinking Water’s Mission

To protect the health of the people of

Washington State by ensuring safe

and reliable drinking water.

3

7/14/2015

2

4

5

6

7/14/2015

3

7

8

Presentation Outline

• What’s happening with the groundwater?

• How big is the problem?

• What information do we need?

• What can we do about it?

• Roles and responsibilities

• Department of Health

• Case studies

9

7/14/2015

4

10

11

12

7/14/2015

5

13

14

The Aquifer System

• The deep aquifer – Very old

– Doesn’t get replenished

• The shallow aquifer – Some areas are replenished

by recharge from surface water irrigation.

• The situation varies in each locality.

15

Generally Speaking…

• 83 percent of wells measured in 1984 and 2009 showed declines in water level.

• 29 percent showed declines greater than 7.6 meters.

• Declines greater than 30 meters and as great as 91 meters were measured in many wells.

7/14/2015

6

16

The Municipalities

• The Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) estimates that at least half of the municipalities in the GWMA will not meet their water production targets by 2030.

17

Office of Drinking Water Strategy

• Through our Planning Program, we will provide assistance for each water system facing a water supply problem. This may include placing more emphasis on – 20-year planning efforts

– Water shortage response plans

– CIP long-term investments that seek out a more reliable supply of water

– Water use efficiency programs

– Capacity assessment

18

Office of Drinking Water Strategy

• Conduct outreach

–Questionnaire

–Workshop

• Meet with individual municipalities

• Encourage regional solutions where possible

7/14/2015

7

19

The Municipalities

Do you have a current plan that addresses

• Short-term response measures

– Water shortage emergency response plan

• Long-term response measures – Evaluate new source(s) of supply

• Shallow aquifer

• Surface water

• “Alternative” supplies, such as reclaimed water and aquifer storage recovery

• Water use efficiency (WUE) program.

20

Q: What Do You Need to Know?

A: Water Supply and Demand

• Total well capacity (gallons per minute).

• Water levels and trends in the wells.

• Trends in depth to water.

–Static and dynamic

• Predicted peak demand.

• Population projections.

21

WAC 246-290-415(9)

(9) All purveyors utilizing groundwater wells shall monitor well levels from ground level to the static water level on a seasonal basis, including low demand and high demand periods, to document the continuing availability of the source to meet projected, long-term demands. Purveyors shall maintain this data and provide it to the department upon request.

7/14/2015

8

22

What Do You Need to Do?

• Install measuring devices in your wells.

• Complete and maintain your water system planning document.

• Start talking about it!

– Increase public awareness and public support.

– Develop regional boards, committees, or associations dedicated to addressing this issue.

23

What are you doing to protect your customers?

• Do you have all the information you need?

• How are the changes in the aquifer affecting your water system?

• In the next 10-20 years, how will you adjust to the changing water supply conditions?

• In terms of managing water supply, what are your most important next steps?

24

Comments? Questions?

Water Levels – An Investment in Problem Solving

September 19, 2015

Evergreen Rural Water of Washington, 2015 Conference and Tradeshow

Water Levels – Key to understanding aquifers, wells, and pumpsaquifers, wells, and pumps

How much water is in the aquifer? Is it changing?

Am I competing with my neighbor?

How hard can I pump my well?

What is the right pump and how deep should I set it?g p p p

Is my well clogging?

Is my pump deteriorating? Is my pump deteriorating?

Interpretation of water levels depends on the well typedepends on the well type

Production Wells Production Wells Static water level (pump off) Pumping water level (pump on)= Aquifer drawdown + Well loss (“skin effect”)

Monitoring Wells Aquifer water level Aquifer water level Aquifer drawdown (no skin effect)

Production Well

Interpretation of water levels depends on the well designdepends on the well design

Length of Open Interval Length of Open Interval

How to Measure Water Levels

Common Instruments Sounder (“E-tape”) Transducer SCADA Sounding tubes

i li Air line

Sounder

Sounding Air line

Sounding tubes

My Favorite Wellheady

Lots of Access!

How to Measure Water Levels

Not-so Common Instruments Sonic Steel tape String and bottle Stop-watch and rock (No!)

Sonic Meter

“Why is water production down?”

Suspects Pump Well Aquifer

Use Water Level Data to Identify the Culprit Declining static water level = aquifer problem Constant static but declining pumping water level = well

problem (eg: clogging) Less water with less drawdown = pump problem

Aquifer Overdraft Determined by Water Level AnalysisWater Level Analysis

50+ ft Decline of Winter Static Water Level = Long Term Overdraft

150 ft Seasonal Variation in non-pumped well = Seasonal Overdraft

Wanapum

Grande RondeGrande Ronde

Well Clogging Determined by Water Level AnalysisLevel Analysis

Two wells nearby in same aquifer – drawdown in one increases dramatically

This case – iron bacteria effecting well performance

Water Levels as Part of Well Performance MonitoringPerformance Monitoring

Track performance and work on wells over time

Specific Capacity – single number that includes pumping rate and drawdown informationdrawdown information

SC = FLOW / DRAWDOWN(eg: gpm/ft)

Specific Capacity Trends

Key to scheduling well maintenance work

Specific Capacity over Time

Appendix H

Follow-up Questionnaire, Davenport and Odessa Responses

Survey questions for Mid-Columbia Basin municipalities

The Department of Health is attempting to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of

individual water systems in the Mid-Columbia Basin affected by the depletion of the basalt aquifer

groundwater.

Contact information

Water system name: Town of Odessa PWS ID#: 63050

Name of person answering survey: Rodney Webster, Public Works Director

Contact information: (509) 982-2201

Please fill out the following table with information about each of your wells.

Please add additional pages, if necessary.

DOH source number (e.g. S01) and use S01 – E S02 – P S03 – S

Depth to bottom of well (feet below ground surface) 248 595 660

Year bottom of well checked 1966 1977

Aquifer(s) that feeds the well (e.g. Grand Ronde)

Grand Ronde

Wanapum & Grand Ronde

Pump depth (feet below ground surface)

Do you have the equipment needed to measure DTW (Yes/No) N N N

Does someone have the training necessary to measure DTW? (Yes/No)

Y Y Y

Has DTW been measured more than once? (Yes/No) N Y Y

How often is DTW measured (e.g. monthly) N N N

Initial DTW measurement (ft./year) 360/1966 119/1977

Date of last DTW measurement (month/year) 2010 2010

What was the last DTW measurement (feet below ground surface)

470 149

Actual pump capacity (gallons per minute) 300 350 570

Design pump capacity (gallons per minute) 300 600 950

Please answer the following questions about your water system How far is it to the nearest neighboring water system (i.e. feet, miles)? 27 Mi.

Do you have an emergency intertie with an adjacent system (Y/N)? No

Is it important for you to gain information about depth to water (Y/N)? Yes

What is your average day demand (gpd)? You can calculate this by dividing your annual usage by 365. What is your maximum day demand (gpd)? 342,462 gpd ADD, 1,328,149 gpd MDD (2014 WSP)

Does the system have procedures to request voluntary water use reduction (Y/N)? Yes

Does the system have procedures to require mandatory water use reduction (Y/N)? Unknown

Under what conditions will you require your customers to reduce water usage? Loss of a production well

Does the system have a completed emergency response plan (Y/N)? Yes

Have you practiced your emergency response plan? If so, when? No

Does the system have a completed Water System Plan or Small Water System Management Program? If so, has the Department of Health approved the plan? Yes. Not approved, in process.

If you permanently lost your most important well, could your system operate normally? If not, why not? No. Cannot meet summer/irrigation demand if Well #4 is lost. It would trigger a water use reduction.

Have you considered trucking water to your system in the event of an emergency? If so, who would be your supplier? How much would it cost? No

Do you communicate with your customers about the possibility of losing a well? Yes

Do you have an emergency fund? If so, how much do you have in the emergency fund? How much do you need to have in the emergency fund? Yes. Waiting on additional information.

Did your budget run a deficit in any of the last 3 years? No

What is your average residential rate? You can calculate this by taking your total bills from your residential accounts for 12 consecutive months, dividing by the number of residential customers, then dividing by 12. Waiting on additional information.

What is your community’s median household income (dollars)? $45,203 (US Census Bureau, 2013 ACS). Rod suspects this number to be inaccurate and more than the actual figure. The town is going to conduct an income survey in the future.

Do you have a seasonal rate or an inclining block rate? Yes. 2014 WSP is inaccurate.

Appendix I ERWOW Consultation Training Summary, Tables, and Conclusions

Mid-Columbia Well Measurements Contact Report Evergreen Rural Water of Washington

Charles Brown, Source water Protection Specialist

Davenport Water Division

6/23/15 ERWOW met with Fred Bell, Public Works Director and Joel Anderson, Water Operator to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. They were provided “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Davenport has 2 well wells. Both wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Water levels are measured periodically using their electric-tape. A measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). The equipment was disinfected with bleach solution and tested for operation. A measurement was made for each well by City personnel. Well #6 measured 228.90 Ft DTW below LSD and Well #7 measured 230.20 Ft DTW below LSD. Equipment was disinfected and stored.

Creston Public Water

6/23/15 ERWOW met with Blake Angstrom, Mayor and Rod Christman, Water Operator to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. They were provided “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Creston has 2 well wells. Both wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Water levels were measured in 2012 and 2013 by Franklin County. A measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). The equipment was disinfected with bleach solution and tested for operation. A measurement was made for Well #1 by City personnel using DOH electric-tape. Well #1 measured 131.00 Ft DTW below LSD. Well #7 was not measured. There was an air line with gage but the gage was defective. Equipment was disinfected and stored. Well #1 has a pressure transducer and telemetry that constantly measures the water level above the transducer. This allows for automatic pump shut down if the water level is too low. Depth to the transducer was unknown. If the depth to the transducer can be determined then a constant water level can be determined.

Town of Odessa

6/24/15 ERWOW met with Rod Webster, Public Works Director, Gerald Greenwalt, Water Operator and Jim Williams, Water Operator to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. They were supplied with “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Odessa has 2 wells. Both wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Well #3 has a pressure transducer and telemetry that constantly measures the water level above the transducer. This allows for automatic pump shut down if the water level is too low. Depth to the transducer was unknown. If the depth to the transducer can be determined then a constant water level can be determined. A

measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). The equipment was disinfected with bleach solution and tested for operation. A measurement was made for Well #1 by City personnel using DOH electric-tape. Well #3 DTW below LSD was greater than 300 Ft. Well #7 is an emergency well was not measured. There was an air line with gage but the gage was defective. Equipment was disinfected and stored.

Almira Water System

6/24/15 ERWOW met with Brent Robertson, Public Works Director to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. He was supplied with “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Almira has 3 wells. All wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Well #5 has a pressure transducer and telemetry that can constantly measure the water level above the transducer. This allows for automatic pump shut down if the water level is too low. Well #5 was shut down and the pump removed for maintenance. If the depth to the transducer can be determined then a constant water level can be determined. Wells #4 and #5 have airlines and air gages. A measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). A measurement was made for Well #2 and Well #4 by City personnel using the dedicated airline at each well. No access ports were available for use of electric tape. Well #2 DTW below LSD was 117.1 Ft. Well #4 DTW below LSD was 225.0 Ft.

Town of Wilber

6/24/15 ERWOW met with Larry Kause, Water Operator to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. He was supplied with “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Almira has 2 wells. All wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Wells #3 and #4 have airlines and air gages. A measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). A measurement was made for Well #3 and Well #4 by City personnel using the dedicated airline at each well. No access ports were available for use of electric tape. Well #3 DTW below LSD was 128.5 Ft. Well #4 DTW below LSD was not determined due to defective valve stem.

Royal City Water

6/24/15 ERWOW met with John Lasen, Public Works Director to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. He was supplied with “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. Royal City has 3 wells. All wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. All three well have pressure transducers that continuously measure the water level in each well. No measurements were taken.

City of George 6/30/15 ERWOW met with Joe Schone, Public Works Director to provide Technical Assistance and water well measurement training. Brian Walsh, Policy and Rules Section Manager and Andrea Watson Policy and Rules Section Environmental Specialist were also in attendance, with DOH. They were supplied with “Standard Operating Procedure for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water Measurements” and “How to Measure the Water Level in a Well (using an electric water level meter)”. George has 3 well wells. All wells were located on Google Earth for Latitude, Longitude and Elevation. Water levels are measured periodically using their electric-tape. A measuring point (MP) and Stickup (MP Correction) was established for each well to determine Depth to Water Below the Land Surface (DTW below LSD). The equipment was disinfected with bleach solution and tested for operation. A measurement was attempted for each well by City personnel. Well #1 measured 28.60 Ft DTW below LSD. Well #2 was in use and was not measures. Attempted to measure DTW Below LSD on Well #3 using both DOH and City equipment. Depth to Water was greater than 300 ft. Equipment was disinfected and stored.

Data Collection - Well Inventory and Identifiers (Use additional sheets as necessary)

S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Almira Well Identifier.xlsx

Water System Name: Almira Water System Contact Name: Brent Robertson Contact Phone: (509) 977-1218

Well Name Well Number

USGS SiteID/SiteName

470910122160301

Latitude Longitude Location Method

DOH Source Id. (i.e. SO4)

DOE Well Tag

DOE Well Log Number/ID

Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*

Month Year Total Production Units

EXAMPLE - Water Co. well #1 #1 19N/04E-11D02 47.15154545 -122.429444 GPS, NAD83 S01 ABC123 123456 1.01 March 2009 18,056,000 G

Well #2 #2 47.713136 118.943111 Google Earth SO2 ABR563 38.5 June 2015 G

Wel l#4 #4 47.712397 118.941057 Google Earth SO4 ABR153 60 June 2015 G

Well #5 #5 47.711509 118.940398 Google Earth SO5 BHP252 June 2015 G

* See "Purveyor Well Identifier Form Instructions" for information on "measuring Point"


S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Wilbur Well Identifier.xlsx

Water System Name: Town of Wilbur Contact Name: Jeremy McElyea Contact Phone: (509) 647-5821



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



West Well #3 47.763285 118.715518 Google Earth SO2 ABR562 June 2015 G

East Well #4 47.759917 118.696345 Google Earth SO1 ABR561 June 2015 G



S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Royal City Well Identifier.xlsx

Water System Name: Royal City Water Contact Name: John Lasen Contact Phone: (509) 346-2263



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



Well #1 #1 46.899583 119.628715 SO1 AFA102 June 2015 G

Well #3 #3 46.900863 119.639104 SO3 ACL981 June 2015 G

Well #4 #4 46.910021 119.630239 SO4 APS591 June 2015 G



S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Odessa Well Identifier.xlsx

Water System Name: Town of Odessa Contact Name: Rod Webster Contact Phone: (509) 982-2201



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



Well #3 #3 47.323482 118.690024 Google Earth SO2 ABR073 18 June 2015 G

Well #4 #4 47.325372 118.675845 Google Earth SO3 ABR564 June 2015 G



S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\George Well Identifier.xlsx

Contact Name: City of George Contact Name: Joe Schone Contact Phone: (509) 785-5081



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



Well #1 #1 47.084871 119.856401 Google Earth SO1 ABR079 June 2015 G

Well #2 #2 47.085077 119.856287 Google Earth SO1 ABR743 28.5 June 2015 G

Well #3 #3 47.072788 119.859515 Google Earth SO4 AFL689 June 2015 G



S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Daveport Well Identifier.xlsx

Water System Name: Davenport Water Division Contact Name: Fred Bell Contact Phone: (509) 725-4352



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



#6 47.647462 118.158333 Google Earth SO6 ABR081 20.25 June 2015 G

#7 47656471 118.14619 Google Earth SO7 ABJ061 38.5 June 2015 G


AWWA WLCC Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet Back to Instructions

Copyright © 2010, American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved. WAS v4.2

? Click to access definition

Water Audit Report for: davenport water division

Reporting Year: 2014 10/2012 - 10/2013

Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades

All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR

WATER SUPPLIED Volume from own sources: ?

<< Enter grading in column 'E'

3 174.800 Million gallons (US)/yr (MG/Yr) Master meter error adjustment (enter positive value): ? 3 8.740 under-registered MG/Yr

Water imported: ? Water exported: ?

0.000 MG/Yr 0.000 MG/Yr

WATER SUPPLIED: 183.540 MG/Yr

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ?

Billed metered: ? Billed unmetered: ?

3 129.700 MG/Yr 0.000 MG/Yr

for help using option buttons below

Unbilled metered: ?

Unbilled unmetered: ?

0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:

2.294 MG/Yr 1.25% Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: ? 131.994 MG/Yr Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied

OR value

WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 51.546 MG/Yr

Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: ? 0.459 MG/Yr 0.25% Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed

Customer metering inaccuracies: ? 3 6.826 MG/Yr 5.00% Systematic data handling errors: ? 0.000 MG/Yr

Systematic data handling errors are likely, please enter a non-zero value; otherwise grade = 5 Choose this option to enter a percentage of

Apparent Losses: ?

Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)

Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ?

7.285 44.261 MG/Yr

billed metered ? consumption. This is

NOT a default value

WATER LOSSES: 51.546 MG/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER

NON-REVENUE WATER: ?

53.840 MG/Yr

= Total Water Loss + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA

Length of mains: ? Number of active AND inactive service connections: ?

6 16.3 miles

7 900 Connection density: 55 conn./mile main

Average length of customer service line: ?

Average operating pressure: ?

7 12.0 ft

6 50.0 psi

(pipe length between curbstop and customer meter or property boundary)

COST DATA

Total annual cost of operating water system: ? 7 $406,982 $/Year

Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): ? 8 $3.22 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): ? 8 $251.00 $/Million gallons

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Financial Indicators

Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 29.3% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 10.6%

Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $31,359 Annual cost of Real Losses: $11,109

Operational Efficiency Indicators

Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 22.18 gallons/connection/day

Real Losses per service connection per day*: 134.74 gallons/connection/day

Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A

Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 2.69 gallons/connection/day/psi

? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): Not Valid *** UARL cannot be calculated as either average pressure, number of connecions or length of mains is too small: SEE UARL DEFINITION ***

From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 44.26

? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]:

* only the most applicable of these two indicators will be calculated

WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

*** YOUR SCORE IS: 46 out of 100 ***

A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:

Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:

1: Volume from own sources

2: Master meter error adjustment

3: Billed metered

For more information, click here to see the Grading Matrix worksheet

AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Reporting Worksheet 1

Data Collection - Well Inventory and Identifiers (Use additional sheets as necessary) Water System Name: Creston Public Water Contact Name: Blake Angstrom Contact Phone: (509) 636-3145



470910122160301



DOE Well Tag


Measuring

Point in 100th Ft.*



South Well Well #1 47.751445 118.51975 Google Earth SO1 AFA203 8.25 June 2015 G

North Well Well #2 47.764472 118.520338 Google Earth SO2 AFR210 June 2015 G


S:\EPH\DW\Headquarters Operations\Policy & Rules Section\Mid-Columbia\Andrea's Mid Columbia Report Documents\Mid Columbia\Materials for Report\Creston Well Identifier.xlsx

Mid-Columbia Report - For Printing

Documents

Transcript of Mid-Columbia Report - For Printing