Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1030 Study Session PACKET Council Communication Special Study Session Public Works Department October 30, 1998 Submitted by: Paula Brown Approved by: Mike Freeman�A_` Title: Update and presentation to Council on the status of the Comprehensive Water Master Plan Synopsis: Staff has been working with Carollo Engineers to identify and define long term water supply options for the City. Periodic updates have been presented to Council. Recommendation: This item is for information. It is requested that Council discuss and accept the options as defined for further refinement by staff and the consultant. If these options are not appropriate or do not provide the range of option desired, Council may wish to provide further guidance and direction to staff. Where Are We: ❑ Staff and Consultant, Carollo Engineers, have been working since July to define the problem, look at what our use and current conservation efforts have gained us, evaluate a variety of options, question and discuss the long range options, and identify potential "fatal flaws" to the options. ❑ Staff and the Consultant have been working with the Water Advisory Group (WAG) and have defined six options with a number of sub-options and combinations thereof. What's Next: ❑ Chamber Sponsored Community Water Forum -November 101 7-9PM at SOU Receive Community Concerns Address Questions Bring this Information to Council ❑ Staff and the Consultant will then further refine the options and develop a preferred course of action(or actions for discussion) and cost comparisons. ❑ Currently moving toward Council Public Hearing and decision in December or January. Staff has tentatively scheduled a Special Study Session for December 4tb from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. for discussion and identification of Council's preferred alternative. A decision could be made at the special study session in December, or postponed for Public Hearing and decision at the first regular Council meeting on January 5`h. A decision must be made regarding the TAP Intertie project no later than the first meeting in January so that Phoenix and Talent can maintain their construction schedule. What Options Are We Currently Reviewing: ' Preliminary details and explanations are shown on the attached sheets. Each option includes an assumption that the City would continue with the conservation efforts and would enhance those efforts through both heightened conservation and curtailment as necessary during drought years. The options under review include: ❑ TID ❑ Effluent Reuse/ Reclamation ❑ Groundwater(Wells) ❑ TAP Intertie Pipeline ❑ Snow Making ❑ New Storage Reservoir How will the Options be Reviewed: Staff and the consultant have used the Water Advisory Group (WAG) to help define and refine the options under discussion. The WAG is an informal advisory group and has a broad range of opinions within the group. As such, the WAG may not provide a recommendation to the Council, but will ensure all of the ideas are brought out and captured by the consultant as we define options for Ashland's water future. It is Council's responsibility to finalize the decision and course of action for the City with appropriate information prepared by staff and the consultant, and with input from the WAG and our community through. The WAG has had considerable discussion on how to evaluate and refine the options. Several criteria and items have been discussed by the WAG. Although the WAG placed a certain value on each of the criteria, qualitative analysis will also be used to present this information to the Council. These criteria include and some of the detail is included on a separate page: ❑ Environmental/Ecological Impacts and Concerns ❑ Risk and Reliability ❑ "Implementability" ❑ Costs Other Implications: The WAG discussed some of the "over-arching" implications to decision making for the long term water needs of the community. These items will not be expressly defined in the staff and consultant's report. • Community Identity: values about self-sufficiency; autonomy; perception of being different than rest of the Rogue Valley (different value or meaning to different people) • Land use; growth patterns (sprawl vs. density) • Relationships with other agencies (TID, Medford Water Commission, etc.) ❑ Insurance, comfort of having "enough" water ❑ Public benefit: recreation, accessibility, aesthetics, tourism atractions ❑ Socioeconomic impacts - local economic benefit to businesses, landowners, tourism ... Difficult Next Steps: • Defining the options; New ideas "pop-up" and create sub-options • Combining the options for the best alternative for the City's future • Comparing the options; Not all have "apples-to- apples" comparisons Water Options (not in any particular order] ❑ TID 1) Piping the TID canal from Green Springs Power Plant to Starlight Drive and perhaps further into the City's system. The City would then have options to deliver water to the Terrace Street pump station to augment the water supply to the water treatment plant for potable water. 2) Other options that could be considered with TID include: a) Water Marketing -working with TID and irrigation users to make arrangements for unused water or to "buy" water in water short years (essentially buying the crop value at a pre-negotiated price in case of a drought) b) Water Banking - enter into discussion and a management agreement with TID for the ability to "bank" unused City allocation of water. If the City did not use all of its allocation in a specific water year, could the City hold that right and use it the following year. c) Increasing Reservoir Capacity at Emigrant Lake - preliminary inquiries have been made of TID to discuss the possibility of dredging Emigrant lake thereby increasing the stored water, and also discussed the possibility of helping TID with their proposal to add capacity with gates in the dam. ❑ Effluent Reuse / Reclamation 1) Primarily this option focuses on using reclaimed/treated water from the Wastewater Treatment Plant for irrigation reuse options. Our summer use is three times the amount of water used in the winter. Staff and the consultant are concentrating on high volume opportunities (parks, cemeteries, etc.)to replace potable water currently used for irrigation with reclaimed reuse water. This would require changes at the wastewater treatment plant to bring the water to a higher quality for unlimited reuse capabilities. There may also be possibilities of augmenting irrigation use with TID water for specific irrigation purposes. 2) State law does not currently allow opportunities for specific reuse of treated wastewater effluent for drinking water. As such,we will limit the current evaluation of treated effluent reuse options to irrigation purposes only. ❑ Groundwater Well This optio cuses on the possibility of using wells as an option for augmenting potab ater supplies. So far the information gathered from the County and from o r studies on this option, wells are not a long term reliable option for City potable water ❑ TAP Intertie Pipeline The TAP Intertie Pipeline includes Ashland in the decision that Phoenix and Talent have already made which is to deliver potable water through a pipeline that comes from the Medford drinking water system. Several sub-options have been brought to the table for discussion: 1) Supplemental use of the TAP Intertie for summer peaking demands or for other supplemental needs of up to three million gallons per day. This would require increasing the size of the pipeline that comes form Phoenix to Talent to a 24 inch pipe to serve the future needs of Ashland up to 3 mgd. 2) Build the pipeline from Medford so that it is large enough to handle all of Ashland's future potable water needs (approximately 10.0 mgd of capacity for all three communities daily needs). 3) Do not tie into the TAP pipeline now, and build our own pipeline to Rogue River in future for raw water delivery to our water treatment plant. Would require securing water rights, and right of way for the eventual pipeline. ❑ Snow Making This option l at the possibility of making snow in the upper watershed near Mt Ashl ur region is not high enough or cold enough to effectively make and store a ge enough capacity of snow for use in late summer. This option will not be reviewed further. ❑ New Storage Reservoir 1) The "Winbum Reservoir" which adds a storage reservoir above Reeder has been evaluated in prior water studies by RW Beck and others. This will be reviewed again in light of current needs and with environmental concerns 2) Another option is to look at the possibility of building a new storage reservoir on City property between Reeder Reservoir/Hosler Dam and the Water Treatment Plant or below the Water Treatment Plant Water Study - Evaluation Criteria ❑ Environmental / Ecological Impacts and Concerns • Sustainable Ecosystem • DEQ's 303D standards on regulated bodies of water; tailor this to what we know about the uniqueness and vulnerable aspects of our system.NOT a full Environmental Assessment. • Fish Listings(and potential listings) • Sedimentation: reservoir siltation, landslide potential - relationship to reservoir use and further erosion • Vegetation, wetlands impact • Wildlife(birds)and Habitat/Sanctuary interests, protection • Cultural/historical resources • Short Term Construction Impacts(may relate to the longer term sedimentation issues) ❑ Risk and Reliability • Fire suppression capability • Emergency response; susceptibility • Safety: flexibility to respond/continue in catastrophic events(fire, flood,earthquake) • Operational flexibility/versatility • Water quality • Ability to link easily and reliably to our existing system • Availability of water(rights at Lost Creek, Klamath issues, other users of the same water...) • Impacts to existing system ❑ "Implementability" • Easement Acquisition(long term assurances with easements)and timing of acquisition • Permitting Constraints • Interagency needs(land use,exemptions,coordination with others for construction, etc.) • Ease of Operation Consistency with existing operations and any new staffing needs Operator efficiencies and flexibility with respect to emergencies Dual System concerns(risk of cross connection, etc) • Financing options • Construction Timing(verses need) ❑ Costs • Long-term;water rights; purchase and maintenance • Reliability; long-tern guarantee or contract; rate stabilization potential;autonomy • future; system upgrade requirements and other links to other uses • Life Cycle costs(Hosier Dam is old- how about Lost Creek- what are the true impacts) • Short-term: construction (include environmental mitigation),easements • Financing; bonding options(and related costs), potential matches(federal or state available monies) • Cost offsets-efficiency of systems, benefit of operating and relying on two or more systems ti t