HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1207 Study Session PACKET n`
s
Council Communication
Study Session
Public Works Department
,n/ December 7, 1998
Submitted by: Paula Brown/ t
Approved by: Mike Freeman
Title:
Comprehensive Water Master Plan - Presentation of Water Alternatives
Synopsis:
Carollo Engineers was hired in July 1998 to develop a long term (50 year) water supply study for the
City. This is not a new issue as there have been two prior water supply studies to determine the long
term water possibilities for Ashland; the RW Beck Water Supply Report(1989) and SRC Water
Demand-Side Resource Study (1992).
While the City has an adequate water supply presently during non-drought years, the construction of
the water pipeline intertie (TAP Pipeline Intertie)from Medford to Talent has required an
accelerated decision process. The City's possible involvement in the TAP Intertie project needs to
be determined by January 1999. Talent and Phoenix will be constructing a pipeline to transport
treated water from the City of Medford's water treatment facilities. They are in the final design stage
and are planning a pipe size consistent with their water needs to the year 2050. The three cities have
offered an opportunity for Ashland to be included by providing a larger pipe size that will provide at
least a portion of Ashland's needs. For the past three years Ashland has been a part of the design
feasibility and initial environmental analysis of the TAP Intertie project. At this point,Ashland
needs to make a decision regarding its participation in the construction and pipe size determination
for the TAP Intertie no later than the first of the new year(1999)to remain a viable part of the multi-
city option. As such,the City Council requested that staff comprehensively evaluate all of the water
supply options available to the City to meet the water needs to the year 2050.
Recommendation:
This special study session on Ashland's long term water future is designed to provide the City
Council with a great deal of complex information in a fairly short period of time. Staff, with the
help of the consultants, will review the process to date, and present the alternatives. The enclosed
Technical Memorandum #2 should provide significant background information on the component
pieces and the combination alternatives. Previously, staff provided Technical Memorandum #I
which reviewed the water supply and demand needs for the City through the year 2050.
No decision is needed from the City Council tonight. Staff will bring a recommendation forward to
the regularly scheduled December 151 City Council meeting for a decision by Council.
Background Information:
Staff, with City Council approval, hired Carollo Engineers after a detailed RFP and selection
process. The Water Master Plan study began in July 1998. We began by defining the "problem".. In
this case, the problem is storage of raw water; there is not enough capacity in Reeder Reservoir in
the summer time to meet all of the City's demand for potable water. The deficiency has been
determined as being 450 million gallons of water during a dry year, primarily occurring in the
summer months. The deficit is measured for the year 2050 - during the first drought year, with
increased conservation efficiencies of a 20% reduction in summer water demand, and the potential
for an additional 10%curtailment in these summer months.
The consultant, Water Advisory Group, and staff brainstormed various way to meet this deficit:
What if the City could use a water source other than potable water for some of the irrigation need?
What if the City could do a better job of irrigation efficiencies, not only in large irrigation areas, but
also residential lawns and yards? What if the City had a drought and there was not enough water to
use - what would that mean to our community and to City visitors? What if there was a catastrophe
and the City's water treatment plant was destroyed? What if there was a catastrophic wild fire that
disrupted the underlying soil structure and filled in the reservoir? These and many other questions
prompted identification of plausible components to the water solution.
Components
Although many concepts were initially evaluated, there quickly became four primary component
pieces:
Water Reclamation and Reuse of the City's treated effluent from the Wastewater
Treatment Plant(assumes level 4 treatment) through a new separate irrigation pipeline
system for large irrigator's needs.
Piping the TID canal to save lost water due to evaporation, inefficient watering, and misuse
to provide a "new" supply for more efficient and effective irrigation use.
TAP Pipeline Intertie with Medford (and Talent and Phoenix)to provide a new potable
water supply source for Ashland.
Cooperative(Co-op) projects with TID for either:
water banking,where the City would buy water from TID irrigators during drought
years(effectively buying their crop production); or
re-allocating water rights by trading the location of the current irrigation water right
to another piece of City land that is not currently being irrigated with TID water(place
of use), or converting the water right from irrigation to domestic use (type of use).
Alternatives
Once these components were discussed,the difficulty of combining them into various alternatives
began. As you can imagine,there are a multitude of ways to combine each component.
Each of the alternatives assumes that the City will continue with an aggressive conservation program
targeted toward meeting an additional 20%water savings in the summer. Each option also builds in
an additional 10%curtailment for drought conditions. This increase in the conservation program
goals, although attainable, is an extremely aggressive program. The City has nearly attained their
current goals of reducing 500,000 gallons per summer season, and the proposed additional
conservation efforts require even tougher measures. The consequences of not attaining the
additional 20% reduction in summer demands would immediately increase the projected annual
summer water deficit. The remaining water supply deficit is calculated in an assumed first year of a
drought period (not worst case), after both of these programs are implemented.
Staff, the consultants, and the WAG concentrated on six primary alternatives that would fully meet
the deficit of 450 million gallons of water. Only one of the component pieces, the TAP Pipeline,
fully meets the projected year 2050 deficit on its own without other supporting pieces.
Option #1 Reclamation with TID Co-op (water rights re-allocation)
Requires building a separate irrigation infrastructure system to enable irrigation
with reclaimed or TID water. This option requires a minimum of 200 million
gallons of water from water rights re-allocation. As stated above, the water re-
allocation requires either trading the physical location of the current irrigation
water right to another piece of City land that is not currently being irrigated with
TID water, or converting the water right from irrigation to domestic use. The
remaining portion will come from level 4 reclaimed treated W WTP effluent. The
primary benefits derived from this option includes maximizing use of the current
water supply and meeting the City's goal for reclamation.
Option #2 TID Pipeline with TID Co-op(water rights re-allocation)
Requires piping the TID canal to provide "new" water supply from the saved water
that is currently lost to evaporation, leakage through the canal, potentially
inefficient irrigation practices, and misappropriation of water. Requires a new
separate distribution pipe line for irrigation water, and re-allocation of
approximately 350 million gallons of water rights for irrigation. This alternative
maximizes the TID supply possibilities.
Option#3 TID Pipeline with TID Co-op(water rights re-allocation) and Reclamation
Requires piping the TID canal to provide "new" water supply from the saved water
that is currently lost to evaporation, leakage through the canal, potentially
inefficient irrigation practices, and misappropriation of water. This "new" water
would be used to augment raw water to the City's water treatment plant for
domestic supply. Requires re-allocation of the City's water rights on the spray
irrigation property (150 million gallons)to a different location for irrigation use.
This also requires a separate pipe line for the reclamation portion and level 4
treatment at the W WTP for unrestricted irrigation. This option's strongest benefit
is that it fully maximizes all existing supply.
Option #4 TAP Pipeline-Buy-in and Use
Requires Ashland's participation in building a distribution pipeline with the cities
of Talent and Phoenix to bring potable from the City of Medford to Talent and on
to Ashland for a new water supply. Requires buying water rights from Lost Creek
Lake, and reserving future capacity in the Medford Water Commission's water
treatment facilities through purchase of Medford SDCs. This is the only
component that can stand alone as a separate alternative and fully meet Ashland's
projected deficit need for water. The significant benefits of this options is that it
provides a redundant supply for domestic or irrigation use. However, this option
does not necessarily encourage efficient water use.
Option #5 TAP Pipeline with TID Co-op (water rights re-allocation)
Ashland would pay to upsize the TAP Pipeline to Talent (to the 24 inch line) and
yet[extend the line to Ashland until future water demands require. Requires water
rights re-allocation for additional water supply for a minimum of 200 million
gallons of water for domestic use and the remaining for irrigation use. This option
maintains flexibility for future water decision and maximizes the use for existing
TID water supplies.
Option #6 TAP Buy-in Only with TID Co-op using either Water Marketing, Water Rights
Re-allocation,or Reclamation
Ashland would pay to up size the TAP Pipeline to Talent(to the 24 inch line) and
not extend the line to Ashland until the need demands it's construction sometime in
the future. Requires water rights re-allocation for additional water supply for a
minimum of 200 million gallons of water for domestic use and the remaining 250
million gallons for irrigation use through the water marketing or a separate
irrigation infrastructure to utilize reclaimed water(level 4 treated water from the
W WTP). This option maintains flexibility for future water decision and maximizes
the use of all existing water supplies. This option is the most expensive option to
the City.
Costs
Attached are two matrices; 1) Summary of Water Supply Alternatives, and 2) Cost analysis of the
Water Supply Alternatives. Both will be reviewed in detail during the Study Session, and are
presented to generate your questions. Extra background information on the separate component
costs as well as the costs for each alternative is in Technical Memorandum #2.
Community Input
Staff solicited the advise of a Water Advisory Group made up of interested community members.
Several members of the WAG were a part of the process from the beginning in writing the project
description for the RFP and also in the consultant selection process. This group was chosen for their
diverse opinion and the fact that they did represent various "slices" of the Ashland community. As
such, they were unable to reach consensus on a recommendation to the water storage and supply
issue for consideration by the City Council. The WAG's charge was to help staff and the consultant
identify a variety of options and ensure that all of the pertinent information was on the table for
discussion. The WAG spent approximately 360 hours of volunteer time in meetings discussing these
issues. Each WAG member most likely spent another 80 or more hours finding other relevant
information and reading considerable amounts of information provided by staff and the consultant.
The WAG members are appreciated for their time and dedication to this community concern.
In addition to the WAG's assistance and input, staff was able to receive community input and
comments through a Community Forum sponsored by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and other
entities within the City. Approximately 90 community members participated in generating questions
and concerns regarding Ashland's water future.
Summary
All of the alternatives have elements of risk including but not limited to: environmental benefits and
drawbacks, costs to current rate payers and future SDC impacts, system reliability, and in some cases
water availability. However,each alternative can be implemented.
Staff is available to answer questions and will present a recommendation to the City Council at the
December 151" meeting.
Water Supply Alternatives
fN AIta3 4ve Dfawbacka rT ( gd) f >
fliwm a
ko
Aww4Ik`:l-xit(2)
I Reclamation with TID - high supply reliability from reclamation Plus - separate(new)infrastructure required to di.bute Reclaim: 47
Water Marketingor 'low cbg supply from TIb ccoperaisc project rectorandTD water 4.0 @5 mos.(1)
Water Right _ eon initamucene for reelsimcd water could be combined altemative requires water right change far 200 MG tote
Re-allocation used for delivery ofTlD irrigation water for place ofuee of imga .. no
cL use water for irrigation with no change of unit ceg for reclaimed water very high Co-op @250 MG 58
.•designatd use - does not provide ns undam potable supply
105 Total
TID Pipeline.
2 TID Pipeline with - m,onfices supply availabilty from ditch system - possible negative impact oa habitat adjacent 07mgd @5mm. 105
Watcr Marketingor - implementation simplified since TID cartel to causing ditch system for 100 MG total
Water Right already Part of City raw water system - multiple agency coordination;City not in lead
Re-allocation -supply reliability during drought uecavin co-op @350 MG
- high unit cog for water
- actual available supply for City uncertain
TAP Pipeline:
3 TID Pipeline.Water Right - high supply reliability from reclamation - separate(new)iefiaztrucwre required to distribute TID Pipeline:
kc-allocation-and new infrastructure for reclaimed water could be recluen d T1D water,adds eau 0 7 mgd @ 5 mos 25
Reclamation asd for delivery of TID irrigation on -combined alternative requires water right change for 100 MG tow
-can ase ware for irrigation with an change of for place ofuse of inigaton weer
designated use - wit coat for reclaimd water very high Water Right:
-maximizes supply availabilty from ditch sysem -possible negative impact on began adjacent for 150 MG total 35
implementation simplified since TID annual to existing ditch syttan with new TID pipe
already pan of City mw water system - multiple agency coordination;City not in led Reclaim:
- multiple supply provides redundancy - unit cog for reclaimed water very high 200 MG tow 45
- multiple supply inaeasa cog
-TID supply via pipeline and Co-op uncertain
dude,draught 105 Total
TAP Pipeline:
4 TAP Pipeline(buy-in and -providce rdundandreliable potable water scum - City mug demonstrate sex for new water rights 3 0 @ 5 mos.
use) no geagnal required/unresgictd use to maintain share offlow from TAP pipeline for 450 MG tow 105
- envirenmenw docummtaion complv.d - City reliance on Milford far supply
-pipeline costs shard with other communities 81 @ 5 mos.
for 13W MG tow 300
5.5 @ 12 mos.
for 2"MG total 465
TAP Pipeline:
5 TAP Pipeline(buy-in and - pipeline was shard with other communities - City mm demonstrate use for new water rights 0.8 @ 12 mos. 70
sex)and Water Rights -eavan t.1 documentation for TAP pipeline he maintain shoe of Flow from TAP pipeline for 300 MG tow
Re-allaation partially complete - City reliance an Medford for supply
wregriad sex multiple supply increases cog Water Right:
- multiple supply provides rdudancy LO @ 5 teas. 35
fa 150 MG taw
105 Total
6A TAP Pipeline(buy-in only) -pay for pipeline upsize and water rights only; -no immediate redundancy for potable supply TAP Pipeline:
6B and TID Water Markdng establish need for future pipeline enrnsion from - need separate distribution system for irrigation 0 mgd
6C or Water Right Talent to Ashland based on supply availability supply developed by TID co-op projects;added 105
Ro-allacuarm from TID co-op projects casts Co-op @450 MG
or Reclamation - multi-agency coordination,City not in led or
Co-op @250 MG
Reclaim @ 200 MG
Notes: (1) Flow rate assumes irrigation 8 hrs/day during summer imgation season.
(2) Projected annual deficit is 430 MG in the 2050 drought year
uvauuwwraaacoPSc-,wwtu Peseta, aoow aura
t r
O O
33 I E
8 f 10 E
�} c d E 11 S 6 S 0 C 6
IL
c 8
® v m 3 3
F F � h
! E f
a yi g 3 .
.9 Y F I Aop p!.�r yG3
us
3 3d ys F R tla —
IL
g g 8 g$ A Z o 3 Q
9 N �
3G
F +d3 OIJ F � r �rY r3 C r3 r3
k
e
L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 4) N M O O O N M 4) 0 M O 4) N 0 N (O M O O M O 4) N 0 4) N O M O
NCO ? V LOO 06 LO v V M CD 04 M. O '- � n v � Ma) N0 W ? � C .v Cl)
MMMMM 4) mm4) R aD M CO oD NM V M (0 aDM IO ODNv M M10
O M M v N 0 0 N N N N N CO Cl) v 0 0 .- N N N Cl) M Cl) 4) v 0
\ \ \ \o \o \o \e \eo \ \e \o \ \ 1.-0 ° \° \° \o \o \e \ \ \o \o \e \e \0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UmmMO 4) 0NN00 N00Nmm0M 4) 0 N00Nm0m 4) M0
C 4) m l- OmvOrn vv rnov (o In m v 1: my Of ovm lnvmm l� v
U 46 N 4) M M v M m 4) Cl) 4) N m M Cl) 4) M U) m N C M M
-0M 4) M N 1n m m In O m 0N (D M 0 m M U) co 00 r- Cq m4) 0M0
I� m 1- NN mN v m h N '- '- f, � mNN m h N � � � IAN OD
O O O O O O O O o 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 o O O o O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 4) O 4) 0 , 0 0 0 0 4) 0 4) 0 10 10 O 1 n 4) , o O 10 0 1 o 10 4) O l O O
~O (p 4) CO� O> c7(7 m C'7 46 m c7 06 L0 m 4) m m � M C7 c)0) 4) m 4) CO CO M M
C (M0 � V , , 4) ton ON 00) 0 � U' � (MO_� mv � 4) O � r-- 0) CD V 4)
04 7 NN - NN � � '- X17 17171:04 17 NNN -7� NNN N
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N r n h O O 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 0O 4) 4) r nor O 4) 4) O 4) 4) r 4) r- I,-I,- 4)
N r r r
O C 000 0 v 0) 04 N r N m 0 N 3 000 P- C O 0 0 0 04 00 00 j O) r 0) O O m O N
> CO �{
r r CD � (O (O v4) m v 3 4) (0 h Is m O LO v 4) 01- 0 I- (D 4)
r l_ � 1 e-1 �
O O O O O O o O O O O o o 0 0 0 0 O O O O (D o 0 0 0 0
O '- 4) 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D O O O O 4) 4) O 4) O O O (D O Co 4) O 4) O 4) O
O C O C._ N I- 4) 0 1 n 0 4) LID 0 4) 4) 4) O I� N O (- 0 1 o U) 4) 10 0 1._ O N O h 4)
4) („) 4) n CO 4) m 4) .0 (nom aa (0 47 v 47n m001(j a4) 4) v 4) r C, m004)
n m CO N 0 1- m N 0 m 0 f 0 CO m N m CO (0 N l- 00 t 0 0 m N m CO CO (- N m
0 mM v 4) 0) CA 0) (D 0) , 01n O) 0) 00 M � v00 (D 4) 01 Of m MCA a O
X0000000000 0000000000 0000000000
M o O v o 0 4) M O I L M v o 4) M a 1 M 0 1- 0 M I� O 4) M I S a) (� 0 0
j 00nvv0N10v1nM v � 10100hMV0N v ? 104) (0Mh0vN
C M v 0 N 1 17 M N M .1 N N (6 M M V7 V 4) 17 N N M M M V V 1 4) 17
Q 0
O
U
0000000000 O0 0 o00000a 0000000000
�I4) 4) 47 41 O O 4) 4) 4) 4) 41 4) 4) 4) 0 4) 4) 4) O O 4) 4) 4) 4) 47 4) 4) 0 4) 0
vvvvMOvvvv vvvvvvvvMO vvvvvvvo) vo
1 04 1 04 N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D O O O o O O O O O
004) 4) � O 4) 004) O4) 04) 4) 000 ,- O O4) O 4) 4) 4) O , (00
YOU 4) 0 rn (M 070074) 0 c7 0i Uri 04i 00 MM MQ) 4) (p 1n cd(6C M
O M4) M O Imo ; 4) 0) Ih 0 0) O n 0) M 4) 0M n � 0) On 0) M 04) h C`) �
0 jp (D , v , , 4) 4) 04) 0) O 4) 4) C0 � 0) IT 0 Or 4) 4) CO 0) ,- v 4)
C
NN , NN N 17 NN N '. NN N N
C
Q
C O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 O O O (D (D O O O O O
CO 4) O 04) X010004) 04) 0104) 04) O0 o 00000 00 , M O
� ?C'7 (O 4) CA OI r "o ri 4) V M00 (0010) r to V 00 Ch O) Cp O)
0 MN 4) 001 � 00 , O4) 00 MAN (0 0) 04) 00 MON 0)
j v M 4) Mm , MNN v NM NM It My 4) m — N MNCl) v V Mm LOr
CO C
M Q
(0
U
aoo0o000000 OOOOOOOOOO 0 0 O0o00o00
� 00000o000o y0000000oo0 0o00000000
0 D O O O o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl) 0 IT IT v N 0 v m j 0 0 V N C 7 m 4) N ( .0 N m CO-v 4) IT-
(a m N 0 4) O M m , IT m Cl) m N 0 0 O m I M 00
N y - N O O
m 0) I� M M N O M O CO m (� Cl)M N , m 0) M M U m I h M N , 0)
M m M
N Q 3
E 07 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� tt¢ 3 - 000000000 ° uoOOOOOOOOO L) 00000000o0
(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
—' m UOa000oo00o Ooo0000000 000000C3000a
d'L-' _ OOIh V mQ) r n O) N Ehv0 � 0mNn E n vm o O) m Km
mO
N � 0 rim I- NNN OD 04 4) > m I-- NN n4) mNN 001 NN 4) I,:Nm N
F-
a) N N
@ N C C
� QN � N M f00 U 4) co CD U ) o CD N UM 0 U O (0 00 .010 � U Nv U
vvv 000 (nmvm m vv tnmvm m v v
r � I
200 South Ivy Street-Room 177 Medford, Oregon 97501-8601
• Phone (541) 774-2440 • Fax(541) 774-2555
December 3, 1998
Mayor and City Council
City of Ashland
200 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Ref: Long Term Water Supply Options
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
We attended the Chambers forum on your water plan this past month. It was both educational
and an excellent opportunity for members of your community to discuss this important issue.
Considerable discussion from the focus groups centers on the loss of autonomy by Ashland and a
general fear that the Medford Water Commission would somehow hold Ashland hostage if the
intertie existed. The general view of the Commission as somehow being the "Evil Emperor" strikes
us as odd. We would hope that you, as Ashland's leaders, would judge the Commission by our
actions, not by the fears of some of your residents.
In the early 1970s, and most recently during the 1996 New Years day flood, the Commission has
put forth considerable effort to ease the hardship of the City of Ashland residents. Not only did we
spend considerable time, resources and effort at arranging and supplying water to your
community, but we did so without the expectation of receiving anything in return. Communities
and neighbors need to work together during times of emergency. The Commission has always
tried to be a good neighbor to the City of Ashland as well as other communities around our valley.
In addition, we have had the privilege of working closely with your competent staff for many years
to resolve many common problems.
The 2 to 3 million gallons per day (MGD) of water Ashland requested will have little impact on the
future overall operations of our water system when you consider our overall system capacity will
be close to 100 MGD. This does not mean that there is not overwhelming regional benefit to
interconnecting our water systems. System reliability of this essential service cannot be over
emphasized, as your community is well aware. None of the other viable water supply options
provide any reliability for your treatment plant and transmission facilities.
Water from the intertie can also run both ways. Although the capacity of Ashland's water system
could not provide enough water to meet our average day demands, it could provide an essential
secondary source to Talent, who will be receiving water service from a single transmission main.
It could also supply some emergency water to a portion of our service area if we were ever faced
with a water supply emergency.
Committed to Excellence in
Water Quality • Professionalism • Customer Satisfaction • System Reliability
Mayor and City Council, City of Ashland
Ref: Long Term Water Supply Options
December 3, 1998
Page - 2
There appears to be another supply option that your consultants have not considered. We have
summarized the essential elements to make them easier to follow.
1. Negotiate with the City of Talent to secure their 600 acre feet of stored water from Talent
Irrigation District. In exchange, Ashland could install the final leg of the intertie and supply
Talent with the emergency secondary supply they need. This will relieve Talent of having to
spend extra funds on upgrading or trying to keep their existing plant operational just for
emergencies.
2. The 600 acre feet are equivalent to 2-3 million gallons per day(MGD), if utilized over a 60 to
90 day period. This probably will not meet the total 2050 needs of your community but would
go a long way toward meeting it. Ashland could then treat its own water without relying on the
Commission or purchasing Lost Creek water.
3. Enter into a "surplus water" agreement with the cities of Talent, Phoenix and the Commission
to supply water to Ashland during September and October(especially in drought periods).
This is the period when Ashland historically runs out of water. Our demands are typically
20%- 30% lower during these periods and sufficient treatment capacity (10 - 15 MGD) is
available to supply most of your water system's needs without impacting our existing
customers. The size of the TAP line will need to be analyzed to see what capacity would be
available during these periods. Oversizing may be needed to meet your anticipated
demands. Also, it is important to remember that the ultimate capacity of the TAP line will not
be reached until 2050, so surplus water will be available until that period.
4. Utilize the 600 acre feet of stored water received from Talent to enhance the flows in Bear
Creek until Ashland needs the water resource (2015?).
It is our sincere hope whichever long term supply option is chosen, that we "not" abandon the
concept of an intertie project. Water for domestic health needs and fire protection is one of the
most essential services we provide our communities. The benefit of the added system reliability
developed by this option is enormous. Although Ashland will likely have the option of an intertie to
Talent in the future, the problem facing your communities maybe a.financial one. If Ashland
chooses one of the other supply options, then how is a future intertie project funded, despite its
benefit?
Hopefully, you will finds these comments useful as you deliberate this important issue. Good luck
in your decision.
Sincerely,
ay, C
rd of Wat Commissioners
c: Paula rowr
City . Talent
City of Phoenix
I�
M
:r.L W yr.
5�
X. /T�
w`r'39n !T ) 42
♦♦�; s'sad.c �,Ywi�a.`h♦♦..♦♦ .c��� 3'P'�i£>y��s � � W
��a'`Z♦ 'ate¢�s �' x������,.ir i
F C U
Aw
,iJ V
U
r
3" F
City Council Workshop No.
MEN=
• Basis for Study
Basdine
• Demand Conditions
• Concept•
• Alternatives
• Cost Comparisons
• 5ummary&Questions
• Foibw up from Workshop No.2
Basdina demand for panning
Restatement of water suppy and
demand condition
rfnf,r�wruc�tum
MM
ly Alternatives
ncepts '1
Ccets $
, Implementation Issues =
UtA/,�1�7/at sv� , lC�tulut�
„c:................................................................
Im
q�.(s 1r.MV nP'•.Y. N.6p
e...�n� ILPtAMdx:
///1/✓///^��1/✓,"/If�4.J i/\i/f/y�N�/�J✓��_ UJ //lC//!�T/�[41
9111
O
9
ifM ` unnYw.a+1
yYg�
S 9MI
OIb OiYYwI
• TIC)Pipeline _de+0
Ppe• TAP line u
• Co-Op Projects with TO
4,4, More (,�'j �t !
rEot=irnatc rge Irrigation Customers G
�ply`7�5,�-2.,50 MG in Summer /W ►'t/
• 20-OM of 2050 Drought Year Deficit
MOEN_=
�►' i��.� lcJ�JI� ,
3.13 Mile New Ppe
3
i
gets Drawbacks
• Re-ueeof Water • New Distribution
Infrastnwture
• High Reliability and High Unit Cost
Sustsinability
t r f. • Restriion Use-
s�•""11-IVry Irrigation ony."t-p
• Public Acceptability
7EaVrnsted New Supply for Irrigat7= ;;wm4aa
mestic Ux -�p
Supply 105
in Summer Months
• 25-70%of Annual Deficit
1 ew 1 W 7s--Ck*,s 5Yr ��
_ rp�vy�e
• 13.5-14.5 Miles New Pipe J
AN&=' /
L r
4
gee Drawbacks M
• Ma•imae TID Supply • Available Drought
Supply Uncertain
• Existing CeflnS;u On �
to Gty Irifrastmcture • Habitat Impact with
New Ppeline , �`� 1 � aS Rf n� 1
• Multiple Agency 6V �/1{ �!�i
Coordination //r^�//•• �,���p
• Water Right .� e✓ I K y0 `-'S
RcAllacation —�
• 7pjO Water 5uppb N�V U,MM• 000 MG Sumcr II� < C Moe or Yearround –C6U it� lDC
• Up to 4507.of Annual Deficit V
4WD aA2
'� � ' � �l.lys�ra•�z v� z�'
l�fra,sfr�G�-
f•sro
qpv. ':. Mtf9RIN
WM w1B1
R.�igl
Y O�nmmO
5
Benefits Drawbacks
` • Redundarrt/Rdiebb • Reliance an Medford p
M S
- gupply_i � far upply eaft{I k.0 -aq r"$ (Jl(lM"Ol/Q.A
• ratable Sul'Ny Doeen't Encourage
Water Conecrvatiml
Reclamation
7MMO ljo rt4O3 We
- R�AllocatcWatcrKlohto arketing ,ec,�# �-�u,sye water from TID irrigators /� ^ I ry � C Q l•tnnLt.ii�l l•�l y ys land within TID service arm +�
Re-allocate water right place of ueo and
• type of
a�a
aaf-
/ �v ava�.labRe�
�--�-
Rd•m•tbn Rdl•blr/Su•r+in•bb Ncwlnfr•etwture U•ty
. �-ueeofw•v �••
TIP Moire . M•njm'aejPSLgply Drought Soppy Urr in
• Wta Rigln Re-A] to n
TAFMMIi • Reduid•nfJRdbbb • Vk tFxavage
Conecru�tim/Racl•m•Lim
• Mmte Long Term Neede
Go-0pP Fb fifty of Soppy Dmught supply Unrcrtrin
• Weter Right Re-Nbcetbn
6
ajbtj�" '�
(mss V vo . Z05d [$e-EU&
�m�,ser yR.�dx.r
1) Reclamation with Co-op I 0
n
2) TIP Pipeline with Coop .{L
3) TIC)Pipeline with Coop and Reclamation
4) TAP Pipeline Buy-in/Uee
5) TAP Pipeline with Co-op 4A l
6) TAP Pipeline Buy-in Only with Coop or
Reclamation
• Dietribution Infraetructurn
for Irrigation with Reclaimed
or TIP Supply
• Co-op Supply Muet Provide
200 MG Minimum
• Moat of Co-op Supply for
DOmeatic Use
Ben�jts Drawbacks
• Maximiw Uae of • Co-Op Supply During
Existing Supply Drought Uncertain
• High Rdlability from • Unit Cost High for
Reclaimed Water Combined Project
• Water Right Change for
Co-op Supply
7
• Pipeline Supply for Pomcetic or
Irrigation Ux.105 MG Firm Supply
• Nev,Dietribution 5yatcm for
Irrigation with TIP Water
• Co-Op 5upply Target 350 MG,200
for Irrigation
I
Beneflte Prwkarke
•
Maximize
TIP Supply • 5upplY Available
• IrriyaCe with TIP �n Mno-�
Water,n�,Kfe#'Lq� �ht 5uppd'
W� Urwert.wn
• Multiple Agency y
Coordination — fN Q.
lviti Y SOkaGQ
Em
tr
MM
• Pipeline Supply for Pomcetic Ux.
105 MG Finn Supply
• Rc-Allocate Water Right from City-
Owned land-150 MG Firm 5uppyy
• Reclamation Supply Target 200 MG
f3
7—, .U—i� Drawbacks
• High Unit Cost far
Combined Alternative
• Posiive vmmmal • Lo-Op Supply During
Deneffto p Drou ght Uncertain
µ61G 1�
eAv%m 'lv^
ugev �� � Ce�P.,cwCkh�-x�
• Buy-in to TAP Ppcline and
Extend to Ashland
• Redundant Supplyfor
Domestic or Irrigation Use
• Target Supply 450-2000 MG
6enefite Drawbacks
• Redundant/Miable • Disincentive for
Long Tenn Supply Conservation or
P.eclamation
• Reliance on
Medford
9
• Extend Pipeline to Ashland
• Co-op Supply for Domestic Use
• TAP Supply 300 MG,Co-op
NINON=
Supply 150 MG
Benefite Drmkocka
• RedimdanGRdiable • Disinczdwafor
Long Tenn 54" Conservation or
Reclamation yr
• Rdiance on Op 111$
Medford
• Pay Costs to Ups¢e TAP;No Extension
to Ashland--Contingency Alternative"
• Co-op Supply for Domestic or Irrigation
Use
• Total Co-op Supply 450 MG,200 MG
Minimum for Portable Supply
10
NNE=:
6eneffte, Drawbacka
• Mmimum Fle•ibafty • Co-Op,Supply During
• Maximvt Uae of Drought Uncertain
5dsting Supply • Water Right Change for
Co-op 5uppy
K 11QyUSQ.�x -1-,0 ?.K-P(Drwa,
• TAP Pipeline as Contingency
• Co-op Supply for Domestic or Irrigation
• Total Co-0P Supply 450 MG,200 MG for
POtabie SuPPy
• Reclamation or Irrigation Target Supply
250 MG
Uenefits Drawbacks
• Maximum Flexibility • No Immediate
Redundant 5uppy
•
Maximize e U of
listing Supply • Added Coats for
Separate bri Hum
Dietn'bUtlan
Coordination .. 4(fa'y�/•,
• High Cost
T�lfgss T,41UC
ftppty T.r.'G Gi fig[
\IG •MT }AI:1 G1 '
, L
Pbd p x(01 ns saoo px r Ulm
(o P
41 TN 0uy-ln 4608PCD(0) 7.4�29 25004.310 TO
51 iN P1p�a.l foap 400(% 09 2DGV
"T-ffc V 2 T, 0.1429 2.400-3-
84T TN 5uy4n Oh,.in' � S 00
2 4A I Ldp W�A C.�
Co.cp6R•d.mnbn rtV` '
maw
��y -r&In.�- (00 o a-F AOLG UP s U
• Extend Plppefinc to Ashland /! ` '(�tr�'.L,►�(l -`'M j`
. Cooperative Agreemele to Provide \ �T"[
Back-up Supply to Talent
. TAP Suppy 100 MCr. Talent 200 .
MG.TIC)Co-op Supply 150 MG
• Numeroue WAG Meetings
• Throe City Council Prowntartione
• Individual Input from Concerned
Citizens
• Community Water Forum
• Public Hearing/Decieion-Dee 15th
12
• All Projcot Altcmatives Ywble
•. pip Consensus On Prefcrred Mt4smoruve
wn v y • Evaluation Criteria-Environment,Cost,
Reliability.Ease of Implementation
Gould.t4 r¢arfA-
CITti� �w
jj� louKed OLt-frtyvL
y�63&c� pad�o s -Q -
PC�ate in TAP Project-Alt.6A A �Q1AjaLlk o[�'{Yu'7
• Purphaec Righte to 450 M6 from a, - .C..SL j„ '��Q n
LpatC aak Lake �P ��.f��,.��� ,,1•�,, Ls ���``�'''��.f,�
• Dat't Extend to Ashland _ w6�-1 a- � e�c�-Oye Ol `^^ �LM 6 —yaLe Y(J e�� V
• Pursue Other Supply Options in -
NearTarm i ir�A.l.l rp_Cbybl.W-tA L a 7 `
bt o�-
w crm se�'va�l vr�-
-I>Lcl� eac� X1 -6 �
naw -F�l
.M
•�S 1 I' �Y
City Wulf WaksheP Ho.�
�.:: Deasmbsr 7.x998"��'
13
Plopat To Unit
$Mill S/MIA GI
• 75 MG V) 4.4 7,800
• 250 MG(1) 10.5 5,700
e,v..,s i,.irnon Ta.a lev..cnyc.n.e.vmr aAw ya.�.
P Tatd Unit
Gaut fmt
$MAI fIMIA GI
• 105 MG 9.50) 10,600
• 300 MG 9.80) 3-900
m/Wa.m.wnat tart P9scros.
Pmpa To lUM.
fmt Gael
$MR S/MN GI
• O MG(U"bo only) 3.8 —
• 450 MG-5 monthe 7.4 2 500
• 2000 MG-12 m nt;he 129 1'N
To Projat Ta Wm
coos cox.
$M4l S/Millo•I
• Reclaim 8.8 —
• Co-0p for
Domaatlr 29 —
11.7 3,700
I
T•rw vmje Ta l Unit
ce•s rat
SMIII S/Millod
• Ppeliro 9.9 —
' • Co-0p for Irrigation 7011
.. 17.8 4,800
. Mn..,. Womoswpyro wflma• .
Told Pro
co
$Mai 9.
• Reclantatlon 8.8
18.7 5,400
2
To Project Total UN
Cast Coat
$Ma $IM9 GI
• 5hared Costs 1.2-2.0 —
• Water Rights and
Development Charge 236.7 —
• Pipe to Ashland 3.9-4.2 —
7.4129 2,500-1300(')
mv.�mwroy m.�r.lrygy�+ MJb.a,
wful 5 ng!fxwmmnory.r5
i
(II.QT AV NM W lj-
Told P,a Toed Unit
0 �.
Cm[ Cost
4Mill $IMIYGI
• TAP Pipe line, 7.4 — vsc
. Co-0P Supply 1.5
8.9 2.800
-3E bvcQd-
urq alfr Ut or
rte,
Told Project Total Udt
Cast Caen.
$MID $lM111 GI
• TAP Buy-in 315
• Ce Op for Domestic 49
• Co Op for Dorneatic
and Irrigation 9.1 —
8.7-128 2 -35
3
ToLI Pmj Tmal UNc
Goat Coat
$MW $/Mill Cd
• TAP Buy-in 39• Co-0p and
Reclaim 5uppy 11.4 —
152 4,400
m fwt curs 30 MG a reoP rgply AN4atd fv emvm
R/d 2W MGfrem rcl•m•4on.
V—
Tw Prvjs Toll Uric
rae Ca
$Mm wmilG l
• Shared Coete 1.2 —
• last Creek Water 0.7
• Takent/TIO Supply 1.9
• Pipca/Pipe to Ashland 3.8 —
7.6 2,40011
45
7R= asb 000 0W oa�oo oil) 7/�1"`G of- Q4 ' ftzt/
4 6b $ 1 2 k ] .e:K. DG �o Yk
VMMmnwN.*.
p X75 px
da✓
|
§ , § ! ; , _ , ■ !
,
|
/
| t '! || ` ! �! �` � ` s
. ! ! 2 !| i
7 | k / \ 2
/ g I
! |
\|
RS\/
�_ § ! \ |
`
|q! �f
\ aM &! & ! b g // f f
. ; )
Aaamativa 1
TWeryid Costs ton Reclamation vale ,4.CO-OP: ones A,8, n of Water Rights Domestic Supply Supply by Coop a 250 2
Tertiary Ueelmeni no storage reyuined,4.0 mgq Zones A B,and C IMpation SuppN by Redemetion C 200 MG
faro Coat Pipe size Pipe length Acres
Rademason
EWipmera(fifer.cllern feed,pump station) $3,500.000
piping-4. $408,000 4 17000
piping-8' $565,200 6 15700
piping-10' $918,000 10 15300
Nan connections at 5%of piPng Costs _ $94.560
Subtotal 1 $5.486•
Estbnaing Contvgency at 25%of Subtotal 1 $1,372,000
Conatrvdlon Contingency as 15%Of Subtotal 1 $823.000
Engineering.CMS,and PGminstrai Cont'vgancy at 20%of SuMOtsl 1 $1,097,000
Subtotal 58,778,000
Component Estimated Project Coal $8,778,000
Amonbslion for 20 yeasts M 8% $894.000
Annuat Production(MG) 200
Component Annual Capital Cost(LNG) $4.470
Component Operetn9 Cosh
GSM M 2%at capita Cost $175,560
AnIs al O&M CAP $175,580
Annual Producion(MG) 200
Non-Tnsatmatd Anrel Cost($/MG) $878
Treatment Casts a$600/MG $600
Component Annual Operating Cast(LMG) $1.480
Ca-0P Pnwd
Pump Station end Pipeline(sea notes) $900.000
pudese of Lwel(100 son",Q$10000/aoe);sae noes $1,000,000 100
Administrative Caw la'Water Rams Transfer(allowance) $100,000
Subtotal 1 $2,000,000
Estimating Co t Verlcy M 25%of PSPipe $225.000
Construction Contingency M 15%of PSPips 5300.000
Engnserng,CMS,and Adminstrative Alldwenca at 20%of Subtotal 1 $400.000
Sublotal2 $2,925,000
Component Estimated Project Cost $2,925,000
Amatiratiol far 20 Yeats at 8% 5298,000
Annual Producion(MG) 250
Component Annual Capital Cost($/MG) $1,190
Component Operating Costs
O&M at 2%of capital Cost SM'S O
Annual O5M Cart 558,500
Are Production(MG) 250
Nan-Tnewinu m Annual Cost(S/MG) 3234
Treatmerd Cow®$4201MG 5420
Component Arsluat Operaleg Cast(51MG) $650
Toil Annual O CapdW Cast(SRAM)
Total Arresrl Cost($I Cow(SING)
Total Annual Cost(SRAM)
Total Annual Coat(yarua 4o01)
GAY Rate Assum Value Units
aW.F waer cmen oval
(bnpennn properly); assume would W re4located for domestic use
Cow for reclamation assume 200 MG supply,_mw asxune tertiary
Death am.4.0 mgd,Zones A B.and C
Mrst Cow assume City has approxbmately SM AF of water ananty
available(IMPeribw Pmperty);reed approsbnatey 115 saes mots
450 MG/(150-200-100);lend estimated at$$110y0001son' any
mp summon end lapelw nestled to deliver TID water from east lateral to
Temeca St pump station;ashmated at 6 inch pipe far 2 miles
hp 1000 5/hp
pipe 8 Sfndl dWW
mat to purchase lend 10,000 Leas
Estimating Contingency 25%
Construction Codngency 15%
Engineering,CMS,Admnishative Contingency 20%
Time 2D year
Interest Rate 8%
O&M percentage 2%
Nine Connection Capital Pan sal 5%
Water Treatment Cost(S/MG) 420
Reclamation Treatment Coal(3/MG) 600
Estimating Precision 3
c:tlMtAOWSTEMP1141gpg-z.Wga Pass tort 17-0 91, COMM
Aft m 2
Estmatul Cos%For nD PipNIM Ylm Ca40y:Water Right RSAM n Dwneatic Supply by Plpelio 0105 MG
Domestic Swpy by Co-0p C 150 MG
Irngotiwt SuppN by CO-OP Q 200 MG
Item Cam Pim are pye IenpT Apes
TIO plpatlwu aYafen Rights T.na Cogs
pph4 517,300.000 12 50.900
ii p Cmseudlm®10 Pw 51,730,000 w 2,900
30 7.900
Suhlolall $19,030,000
A0mW5trative Coa%W Mow RIge%ThotNr(eWwawa) 5100.000
Ea%N%q caoo Ym2 &SuOmW1 53,905,000
CoomxLon Cmurnanay M 15%of SuStoW 1 52,951,500
EnginnMg,CMS,ord ASmingngye Contingency M 20%of Su9MMI 1 p,900,000
Subtotal 2 229,599,500
City cfAgl Ms g5 WP" toga(M%) 59,932.197
Component Ea w Projem Cog 59,932,000
Amwtiutian fur W yens w e% 51,012,000
Amuw phO om(fAGI(eee note) 250
Coh,, ntAmug Caglg Col(WG) $4.050
Compoonl Opening Cps%
O$MwZ%dww,:o," - 5199.$43
EatlnloMS O&M S.NW (573.333) SOR�
AmuwO Cog $125,310
Annual Pntluction(MG)(see hobo) 250
No TreaOan AnreMl Cost(WG) 5501
Tmw~t Comb®$42O9aG $4ZO
Coinpmer5A Oparging Cost(S/MG) $920
CaOp Po d erd Water RAMS Tnnayer Cogs
Lana Cogs(see nabs) $2,250,000
pump SUtlm a lo"b far hlgetim aygem(eaa noMS) 5900,000
New p0ir9 t d bt udon of hrl0gion w s2,900.000
AwnhistiaWa Cage W W Rips%Tnnster(wmww%el 5100.000
Eatimghg Corti a 25%of PS S Pop Cot 5975,000
CmgrMwm Canbtgehoy g 15%pt PS&POOR"Cat 5525,000
Eno*wft,DMR,wd ASmhbtrUtM CmtinarYy AOOwena M Zll% 2700.000
a PS s Pip" Cat
COmpanw5 Eatlmalesl Pnje Cot $7.0.50.000
Anard.mcg for 20y we% $m'm
A Promrztlorl(MG) 200
Cmpmen Amuw CgAw Cag($SAG) $4,050
Cmlponmt OpweWq Cage
Amuw PIpNPS O&M Cat®2%Cap"Cog s19,000
Amprw Pnotivbl(MG) 200
tbyTnWwntA Cag(SIMG) sw
Tnommt Cos%®PZ G $420
Cwnpw AMuw Op.&Q Conn($IMG) 5510
Told Amw52o9 CWIg
Co
ToW nn Cp Cob,ONO) $740 1
TOW mw Coh($IMG)
ToW Amutl Cog(Sleas+ool)
A Boa Vww unlb
0.7 pays n
ncNsea 0.T hope far 5 nnrMa wamg tlM summer(tww 105 MG)
Mrg mats assume CRY BUS appowmgeN 500 AF(150 MG)a mmody
ma9a0s(lmpeftus pmWty):nee5e apProgmaMN MS avo more mr inigMion
(1.115 VlU =900 Me 200 mg);Who astimas5 g 210,000 Wove
pumpe%tlm at0 pVKM lweie5m5 TID woW hvrrloutleWwm
new City iMpoeygwr u N 6 M N pipe tar z mga
Ynaru TID e%MrwY M uses m GOVer250 MG For Ewwatic guppy
pipe 9$hrm Slartoa
Estlmghg Conk m 25%
Cmsbugmn Condr gency 15%
EryheeNq.CMS.A9mWUtnSyo Cohtlr n 20%
Thm 20 yews
Inured Res 9%
O&M pwvwage 2%
Water Treemlent Com($5AG) 120
Re amatim Thmarwnl Cog($/MG) 900
Eftne"Plagamn '3
GN5IQOAWTEYATY2Dg9�2%9] Pglwe ojA 0:15M
Ae�3
EaNnMad C..%M TID P4a0m,MW Rift R"Ow .and Rad ..n D *W Suppy hom TO aM RaApouoon®250 MG
Im9aam Supply by RW=a5 Q 200
lym Coal Pipe sae Plea Mn9m A.
TID R'paPm MM%h hrKgm Tana Cotfa
PwQ $17,300,000 u 60,800
Mlac.Gma911tlb11®10 Pa 51,730.000 35 2.900
30 7,800
Sus t 219,030,000
AdMma6a6ya Coati W W Ri9Ma Tm (e6oaarlm) $100,000
E,oM&,C"nga M20%M Su0roul1 53.606.000
Cmamr3lwl corru,nq M 15%M SU 1 52.651,500
En9lnaadn9,CMS,aM Admin.a .ContiN.a M20%of SulmW1 $3.608,000
SuoNtM 2 229.598.500
City of Addantaa MptpM mw(33%) $9.932,157
Comppnant Ew PMOd Cot 59,932.187
Anwr6 Wfar20yawn MS% $1,012,000
AMUM Pmduulbn MGI(Mw nobQ 250
CanmrivdArnW Capita Cot(SMGI
$1,050
Compmam Gpwdm Co,%
Ow MmaMO "mt $198,813
Evm OW S-vkW (573.333) BOR Esd a
A Om ca _ 5125,310
Am Pmdmdpn(MG)(aaa mtaal 250
N.TnaoMM AMMMC (MG) SSO1
TMa Cow®512omG 2120
ConWOnant A Opalaeiq Cat(LNG) $920
Rawmatlon C
EOWp.M(66Ma,Wm Nad,pM6p M8m) 0.500,000
Pkwp_e $108,000 1 17000
poft.W 5585.200 8 15700
per.Im 2918.000 10 15300
N mnnarLOntM5%MMP mats $91.580
Su 1 55,188.000 _
E,1161 Can*V"Y M n%Of SWM 1 $1,38.000
Ctntnrtbn ConBt9anoY M 15%M SW WfM 1 $823.000
ErplrlaM,,CMS,and AdminMMa Cpnft9 M20%M S.0 1 $1,097,000
SM 2 58.T76,000
Cmipa Etlme Pmlat Cot SB,n8,000
Am,8 W W YMm M 8% 5891,000
AnrMM Produp0on(MG) 200
Cmiponam AM W C.WW Coat(S/MG) 21.470
Cmipw OWO"Coat
O M2%Mwftmt $175,580
AmuM OSM Co $175,660
AmuM pll d MG) 200
Nan•TraaMls6 N3nuM CoM(L7AG) 5876
TnMmM�t Cow @ SW(VmG 5800
C,T,m A OptaWq Cot(SING) $1.160
Toth Mlwtl2ad CepIW Coat(SING)
TMMA Cp
E $1,1701
C
Toth Amutl aM(L(SAGmb(SING)
NG)
TMM AmuM Coat(Lav►faat 1
Naum tlm3 V6Wa UN
MW Ma a
amn M 1m.300 AF(100 m%aaaums wvuM IN r�MpmMd lar
dpnla lYa
Omp at pmmmMM 500 AF(150 MG)Mwataramently ava9a0M
Ompariwa ProP1m/): aswma vAwM m le-elbuM fttdomaatk uaa
and eativMad OY WpMrla
CoMfar ed chap WMm200MG supply 1 m 200); 1projsCSd
1u0pM med Mfftwy aline1500 naa15 A.B. lsdema6on
mM aeaunla Iamaly Ina0dant 1.0 m9d,Zama A.B.aM G
pips B SMr11 EiaRmt
mathpumlMaalmd 10,000 Lane
EsbmabM COntk"n 25%
Camaumpn C*lav Y 15%
Cty.VQO llwm1M1 Z%03 P42d9 07A MOM
AMmama M
Emmriad CoW W TAP ly W*3 DOmattlL Spply M1Om TAP®150 MU
2 po Sumac9 w2mpe
2FmN ppYlra Mallard b TWM
11am Cott Pna Wa Pya IaOOm Aaat
CoMCatY fat P" Wm MIM all PS 11,230,000
COW b Campt PpaWw m Arillafm
Wmp all MaaMp Su1bn 5550,000
W A
UP Wa m A $1,950.000
Uplvaba
LMrM Oltbldtim Syrian(AOOwulra) 51,000,OOD
SMftop CoN
Maefatl Syrian Dav"Pp CMry $1,275,000
PMNau vI L Cn Leb Nttx RWft 5931900
SOObtM 1 $7,155,000
Ettlmatmp Cmtlrpanry st 0%af SuStoW 1 50
CmtOUCUm C ft p ri 0%oI SaSbMI 1 50
Enpbrahlo,CMS.all AemNtSatln CmlY"a ASOwanu 5250.000
So01OW 2 $7,105,000
To Ettlmriae Projari Cost $7,105.000
AmaWitlm W M Yam a 8% $751900
To Amaal PfoAAbm(MG) 150
TtestA CtpWCori(SMG) $1,580
Opw.ftC w
Lori Cr W OSMa552.SQWUI1 $21.075
M WOWS0 Cost @2%C*W COri $115120
TOW M O&M Cmb $157.196
TOW P (MG) 150
To R Tmabim Mm Cott(SMG) 1272
TMmant Co ®$4 0 G 64M
To Mnost Opaatlnp Cost(SMG) 5780
Tall Mnual Cori(SMG)
TOWAmato Lop(VMG) t)
6�yTia Atamptlmt Ve Unit
CafoeO m fa5ast Wri ML upprada aMwms ai0
owb
laa m.lnpn all CMS W Wanp Wtlm erm
a.L ayri adat
CmbNmW nanaa 2 mpd aapyW s nmf Wt of yaa .
SWp COW
ML tystm datalpmad Ma :madmom daffy cpaety in paemt SW/I=
PMCMta oI Lori Cr Lab Vyatar Roh 557 4 1 aa`loot
Evhn ,C.%nwr Nts ptal neia:ad buwa ill tlNlad pW
Of tln Ma
e cwW byW end PS have ban astMatW m e ItlpO .
.�..wnnandy Iry W Erlpinwlrp
ELtlnWhp ConWpafcy D%
Cmmucbm Can5npwlcy 0%
Enpuaefnp,CMS.Adfnts0e5re Ca*gmy 5%
Tna 20 yam
InW.I RW 8%
05M pwcwd p 2%
VJaNr Tnabae COri(5/MG) 120
Ratlmabn Tnamae Cast(SUG) 500
Esdmg"Pn -0
LIYANW.MIiEMPTM3f.0Y2N&1 P 3WO 07 O MOM
AMxnYhe aB
EatimYed C.W M TAP PkcW. po .W Supply hom TAP®1000 MG
Frye M M Summa Supply Y 8.7 mpd
3o•MJ1 pMaW W MedWN b TWm
I Cog Pipe arse Ppe W/QM AWea
SnYed Cow br MNTe Plpm end PS $2.000,000
CowbCwpeY PlpM bAsM
Rupp and mowft si b 3715,000 Note:OOat aaSmw by Lee EIVW .
Poe bAW 52,178.000 Yveaaed l0%Wedded o,P.Wb
Up,rO bAp pWWE~SYYem(AOmw ) 31,000,000
sWnuP C
lm m SyY Osvmopmne0l Chirp- 53,888.000
PamAaw a Cm laic WAWr RpMa 52.700.000
suE 1 312.581.000
Es Wp CWMyenry Y O%of Sa W1 $0
CorWMlcWn Con* 9 0%m Su0lolal1 30
Enp.".CMS,p Admmsaedl+COntln All a 5250,000
Sull p 2 f12,80t,000
Tmm EadmeWd PmMY Com 512,831.000
AmpNnaon br20 yem Y 8% 51,307,000
To A Ploduptlon(MG) 1.305
TOW A CaOW CM(SIMG) $1,000
op. g Cow
LoY Cn leis O&M m 353.WMGlyr SB8,818
A Pl."ONE Coal®2%Cep"COY u51.520
To Amuel O3 Copt 3021,338
Tmm Amum PmNtlbn(MG) 1.305
To N.TrseonpdA Co (WG) 52Yt
Tneanenl Costa a Se204fG 3120
To A Opw."Coe(VMG) $870
Slave ToW AmuY Cop(NAG)
To Annum Co (5(.arbOl)
Aspanptlons Value Unit
.a 6yTi.eewdieempxm�u>an.�u.ay
owW for upwe Yid CMS M Wolp eMSOn and
dot aysl upOWdee
Cm eWmw aannles 8.7 m5d amply rar 5 m myear .
sWbp Costa
Me0lad sys deveWPmenl Cnp0e:maORMm d-RY a -KY p Ombns•550/1200
Pu,h.of Lo CmkL WaW Raft:i874 1a foW
Estlmwq 111&911 nave aeon nMCed OeaMpe me anted mw
d"Me TW pop a PS nave Oven eedmaWt W e Won
de orudeWyby LeeEW.rkq
Estk."CanWp 0%
COluaupyon CanWpem.T m
Etp.ft CMS.AdtnWNeBve Canlm3 5%
Tlms 20 Ye
ImrealRw B%
OSM pw wftgo 2%
VIeW TeeenenlC (LMG) 120
Remplu3on Tmaanem CaY(LMG) 800
EatlmeWq PmdYOn J
C WgAOMMTEMPTY3C0f-2NBy Peg403 0ld o]'.om
Asa aWa 1C
EPMUbd Cwt,for TAP POP
Y w�SW*w 5.5 mga
SO pppp Maabd m Tb
Ibm Con Pip at,.Pips IegN Aaaa
S Coals W Mw Takaa Ppamta AMPS $2.000,000
Cwb m Connwe Rp
$bwsuo m AwtlwM
RmtD an0 Maleng On $715,000
Plp mAawwd u.17e,ogo
uoW.a..mAw.d w.mMMn sywn(Agpann) stowo.am
swmp Cwt,
Madae sysbm o"wapmad Ch" 72.521,000
PMdbsa a We Creak Lakes Www Rght, N.151=
SuwmW 1 512,588,000
Ennetin0 Cohdn m w0%d Suwww/ w
COnamwon Canmvp w1%a Suaow1 8128,000
EMnaeng,CMS,aw AOmiaalwWa Cwrorpanry Mowetaa 8250,000
Suwmw 2 S12.fiWl. 0
Tow ESwmwM RWM Coal S12,B ,000
AmwBbatlOn w 20 y..n H 8% $1,318,000
Taw Atnuw P1o0uo0an(MG) 2,008
Taw Anew Capw Caw(L58G) SIM
Cptnmtg Caws
law Cork W.O&M w 753.SmkJlW $107,101
A PIpWS O&M Coe®2%Capes Cwt $251,380
Taw 06M Cows 5358,781
Taw A M PIaalLSgt(MG) 2,008
Tow R Tnewnmt Annual Caw($/MG) 7179
Thmenent Cold®512WAG 5120
Tow A GPwawg Cwt(SING) SIM
Taw Amuw Cow(Annwl Coat LNG)
Taw (VMG) )
Au.pEOM Vams unit,
•a by L. pavgm
Cant w d "t Wwa alowmo aM
Cam bnwgnarhtp aw CMs w pump+bkpt wtd
dwL ayat pwa
Cow aamnab aawepa 5.5-W aupPly b 12 nwnma d yes
scamp Coat
MM +yawn 8e'aloppd dugs:all w dally oapdty in gallop 550/12M
PutNw d Mal Ctwkt Wee Ri":$11711 a aafad
Esmemq pem9�M Man tad5fe8 Muu»the wblM tali+
of 8 Ma Teed Rpwino eel PS hew Man Domes++b a high
dog.d w be*by l Engwbawg
Ealwnemp Conmt wa y 0%
CowwuaMn Canmtg 1%
Engina wn.CMS,AOwdawetivs Contlngancy 10%
Tee M yaws
IdSfan Rab 8%
O&M pwmnbYa 2%
wale Tnament Caw(LMG) 120
Rademewan Tn idn and Coe(LMG) 800
Enmamp Radamn 43
C\W1ROfHAAtEMP1fM2Cn8-2%&t P"5na 07 t a'.45PM
AbmM w 5
EsunattM Coos W TAP PO".mE Vhte1 Rights RsA1Mw0oa D esW Supply 5om TAP®I MG
Watx r!" utilseO On eMSWV MY I+nd pee n S) Dwneetic Supply frpnl ReaOOralbn®300 MG
Item Cost Pipe ma P"W gm Aces
TAP PIpM Cwb
Sl Cwt w Me Tebm Pop Md PS 51,220,000
COSt m Carmedw mAsmvq
PMM vm McW1nv S Wbn 1550,000
UM m N 51,990,000
UppnSas to AWanS gsUlWtlon$ywm(ANOMarca) 21,000,000
$amp Cow
Medod Sywm O .MpIwl Cho S1,375,000
PuNMSa d twat CM take VJaM Right $950,000
SudOW 1 S7,175,000
Estimating Coming at0%d$u5mtal1 f0
Cwamttlb Cantlrgenry at 0%d Su9btal 1 SO
EnpkleMktp.CMS.W Addnstrdrve Canpgenry e5vaenae S25D,000
a. 2 S7,125,000
COmpabnt bSmeME Pmjtl CoM $7,125,000
AmwmaSOnf 20Ye 05% $758,M
A PtoJWbl(MG) WO
Cbnpm AnmYl Ca W CaM(WG) 52.520
Competent OPeratmg COPS
laM Cn tab O&M K SSJ.509SGlyr $15.050
Amual POP$OW cw®2%Capita C 9 s1A3,WO
MI,"O5M Cosy 5159,550
A pm5uo9w(MG) J00
No TnaawntA Cwt(SMG) SATs
Treeanem Cow®S120IMG 7420
Camporlent An.W Operating COR(SIMG) SWO
W R,lgMS TMr Cow
Pump Statipn aM PlPd to Pdme webr(sw nabs) 5900,000
lepgAdninia0a5'n Cam W W R19MS Twa (aimwanw) $IW. 00
Esbnat,CanWge 925%d WOWS 5225,000
Cansmbtion COdmWMY m 15%d pip%PS $135,000
Erpineering,CMS,e AdnWtnSye CMIb%snoy M 20%d MWPS $150,000
SdaOW J 51.510.000
COmpaneM Estimab5 Pmjed Cwt 51.510.000
AmMlxelbn W20 yeah M 5% $157,000
Am PmdrCMn(MG) 150
CmlpwMrOMm Caps C (5MG) Stow
Cwb
p ri2%&C@PWmM $Ia.=
Em O&M Sevkgs $0
A d oam c" 519,000
A pm5udbrl(MG) 150
NO TnaWentAMmM Cwt IWO) $120
Tn Costs®U2 $120
C-roa An r Opar M Cm(SIMG) $510
TOW Amm9ie5 Caput Cwt(SIMG)
Tout AmualOWW^g (LMG)
TOWAr Cwt(SMG)G)
Taut AmaMl Cost(Laatfad)
AlauWM2 Vame Unit
eswb fappr P-P-tTy$ORTiPZ 1ATgII'�d'wlx
taranSY avNade(Impanbw paP P stow W W r4aSOfa kx
SaiMatk use:nWkes rMM pip arkl p mduwmCltysp SOrn n0 aWIaWal
VMM MG we9elga horn Impe9aus pmpsrly,My ne ug eDpr4W MG:
J00 MGT mad pmje W On►Yev ddW dabp SmugM d 150 MG;
aaslvrb TAP pmrMee 300 MG
pp 5srt dM
ODSUmppolwabn5 10,000 Lean
EsW,&*V CwWM 25%
COesSUption CanWq 15%
ErgWm.",CMS.Adninis9ative Cmdngwcy 20%
Tyne 20 OM
1n Rm 9%
O&M P..ftp 2%
VhW TruWerS COSt(SMG) 120
RedamaSOn TreaOnant COO(SAAG) 900
Emoting Prmsipn .3
C:UMNDD'FS7EMNTMxoMxMB] PWGog D1Ae0a w15 YM
ASMnMNe M
Cly" Coble W TAP es t,al I wa TD Coop: o,) Right R.Abwem (OOtim A:All Ca0p VJew b Oomestic Suppry e50 MG)
CSy wye kM TAP mA plea ml Wu aeW(eee mMe)
24nN ppMme Mellaa m TMUl
Item Cog Pipe s¢e Pipe Imam Aaes
Slarel Cogs la Me TMmt POW.ml PS 31,220,000
Cogs m CwMal P"IM m AmUnd SO
Pump ml MON&V steam W
ppw v m AeaMa W
UppraMe m AMtlml geViDUtipn syMem(Aamvpre) SO
Stump Cow
Mahal sytimt Dmgopmmt C Mpe 31,375.000
Pam m a Log Creek Lake Water RiyhM 3931,000
suEmtel l !3.526,000
EeWiwtp Caimpuie,M o%a sumoutl 1 SO
Caneawmbn CmWpMiry M ox a SMwM 1 SO
Egwump,GMs.ua Adni Mmoidn CaMpmoT ApawMme UK=
su0low 2 53,775.000
Campmanl EstlmsMl Rope Cog S3.776.004)
Arrutiratim mr2O M 9% 3355.000
A,m Ra0trctlon
(MG) e5O
CamwrwMAmud CePIM Cog(SHAG) SBSO
Opmamp Cow
log Creek lake O&M M SW.S Cjo So
Mnug RpdPS 06M Cwl a 2%Ci Pl Cog
Mnud GSM Cow
Mmtl Prmudlon(MG)
NpnTn W nM Amuel Cog(LMG)
TnaMmt Cow®Se2WG
Am"Opuetkp Cog(MG) So
UN Cow I.rate) 53.500,000
Pump sMEm Ma Pk.We(w nags) 5900.000
Er&n.fip ConWpuKT M 25%a PS Ua Ppe Cast 5225,001D
Catemrdmm Ca,*Vu M15%a potiMl 3135,000
E1pmrMp.GMs.and AdlWShetlw Calm a aZO%a ppdPS $100,000
Comppnent Eeti Pmlea Cog fs,WADO
AnMrMation W 20 ye 2503,OW
Amud PmM1CIbn
(MG) 150
Canpalwn[Mwd CaOIw Cog(SING) S1,120
Calvaimt Ope"Imp Coge
A Ppe/PS O&M Cag a 2%Cadw Cwt S1e.W0
Mntw ProCUalon(MG) aW
No Tnelmmt Mnual Cog(LMG) w
Teaowmt Cwt®S42MG 3120
Canpewnl Mnud OpueSrp COM($/MG) SA00
Tad Ama,tO Cmiw Cwt;(LNG)
Tow Amuai CpuwpG) (SING)
Tow Amud Cwt(L1AG)
Tow Amud CoM(Laae•mot)
Asw one Vdua UaM mm aMMMe Date upeve ope
low npt Maas ppe ft.and m AeNeM; i d elop web w
upetra/ppe,eeMr 1pDM.area Me/fal eywm/evebpnult mArpe
M/oea r1a eemremual pglemq tosM fandleeay a Ineml ealr
ma axM aswme Gty lue eppn ly 500 AF of cage omenW
m,vSt,OM OnwMIMM RopMy);r appmamawy 350 eves man
(2.M IV.•900M•300 mp):Mnl eeameal M S10,C00 pm eve
p aM9on and p4"w neelel m/alley TO udm MM%and wend m
Tm St pump 9.1im;tmimMo/Me pal A.W 2 mll e
Scamp Cow
MeaaM sysmi/ureloPnuM awpe:madman/aly cap"Npol. SW/1200
Pumlleee of Lad Creek lahe Wow RIpIM:W74/avHaol
EelmwNq wndr wales heye been MM aer -ell enerM arts
a CM Me TMmt POW.end PS haw pear mdmeM/ma Mph
dq a—W ty by Enpyleukp
TMe M yeas
InMmt Rmt e%
O&M puvmMme 2%
yVelu Tnemm%t COd(LMG) 120
Reclamation Tasirnenl Cwl($/MG) 500
E6wbp Reasbn a
C1yeN0o MMKWWOSaIWI Pp 7 vs at.0.ope w:es we
AMm.d..3B
E.anM.d Cmu M TAP Pm.31u w M Co9p: VJ.Im Rqm R.AaauSm (C".B:50/50 sw C pVVM.for O VlVtaB.dm Supply)
CRY buy.Yd.TAP M da..M b W (...Mb.) Oom..da Supply dml Rar..madan®225 MG
24irll py W.M.Oldd m TM IrtpNm Supply h R�@715 MG
I� CoM pIW w.I"lanph
Slued M.MM. Tal.m PipMin..nd PS 31,720.Om
puB m CaM.a d stelm A.NIaM
Pump.Ild MM4hq SUrim w
m AMVMM 50
U,
UppnM.m AMdrld dWid'Sarl Sywm IASaW.nnl w
5bmm Sp
M.dMd SofLo DMUp* CMry. $1.135,000
Pun�.0 a Low Cr.M Lek.W.bw RIpM. S911,0m
SulAaM 1 51,5M,w0
E.Snl.11 Carom, yMo%a SuemmI w
Colnwaem CanmBMKy M 0%a Sulmam t w
Ey,PW ,CMS,Mm AdMN.b.SV.C-"l` I AOOwena S2w,o00
SublolM 2 31,373.Om
umpan.m EM umld pm CoM M, M,000
AmoNiadm a 20 y.MS a B% 5135.x00
Am �(MG) 450
CompwwdA C,,WCW(WG) SB30
Caw
LoM k M MS(VMGM w
Amusl PpMPS O&M CaM®2%C.pIMI Cwl
AmuM OW Co.M
Amua Pnduaeon(MG)
N Tn.mlMd Amud Cau($/MG)
Tl.wnml Cpl ®3.20MG
CanmauM AmuM OPgWW V Coot(WG) s0
Cow ro/coap
Lam (w MM.) 31.500,000
Pump SbMn Mp.3m M pouts.1...Mast 5300,000
N.WPmbIBWu"Wft aInlyMionW 32.300.Ow
EAT,,,,BCp *Vp 0 25%of P3/PipMM4Em COM SM.000
Cmnbcdm Cwtm,, cy M 15%a PSIPIpMlrt o m C" 3525.000
En,h..J%,CMS,mul AdmNi.b.Sy.COnOnB.My AOOw.nn M 20% 3300.Ow
a psdMps mggw Coo
Campanml E.dm.Md pnNa Coot 38.100.Ow
AngN3Mbn far 20 y..n a m 3823.000
Am+M PIVCI.uW1(MG) 4w
CampwuMA C.plWCots(WG) R,ow
C.Mpon.nl OpM.31q Cow
A W PWS O&M CoM®2%C."CaM 330,000
Amu.l Pndudim MG) V
No Tn.bn.nl Ampd Cod($/MG) Sim
TnMmMd CwM®3/20IMG 5420
CmiDalmtAmuM Op.INIq Caa I SIMG 1 SSBO
Td41 AmuWO C.pll.l Coot(SIMG)
Tpul AIMUU Cog( MCow(fRAG)
Tog Amuot Cots(sf— 4
Tobd AmuM CoM(5/.Marba)
A V.M. Unite
evunl.. pop upva pm.lRat
d M. W p4.ban TM m A.bMM: Cdy iicva mw w
Imw.d pM•wMM Mme•MM MsoTatl.yotMn d.rMaPmml mMw
an aou MI blmr.nMM agnWq mw roy a.w.ly a b.M.O W.I.
b m ..MMI.C3y w.ppladnMMb a AF of"W ma.n3y
rvad.bM o mlg us Wap"):Mad.wp.MIRMMy 150.x..man
a,mt. •eaoM•1mmy:bAW..tlmM.dMs+o.owpM-
T�ece,p Ma x.em�MSdm93�i pip.W2d�M••�wmm
immumm no WMM uM M u..d MD MG r«dom..de amply.nd 2w MG
a mq.Mn
sww caw
M.aad ry.ym dMWbpm.ld uluP:M&a dMly u .tlly In B.Sau 550/12M
PuINm.a Lou Cm Lotu W.by ftft:3334/�
W,u, T,,,p,uu N.v.bean n0mi Moue dl. a hi;h aab
M tln Ma4TMMd PIpMN.elld PS bm Men uyvlubM b.MpN
dp oyo.de'vdy by Lw&gmoMMB
ThM 20"m
InbimA RM. B%
OW WbMdW. 2%
V/aby Tn3bMM Cpot(&MG) 420
1
cxxx0dwM18MnrM2coe-2.N1M P.P..a. aa.eM py:"M
RRmmm x
¢rirc.raLw rbr.+mnodw vu RbR R.lbmW la+b c:une vebu4rrroenrw
tq sR•w iNUw M+.rlm•bml tip.mammnbFRm+n 4gh1
N1Mgml.m m.+m<b T.b. IrrpM&pry RwnllYimm�09P 1p
G Tb MPYW bm
u b Ga.Y+m b,wm+
rw.e m+.`f]mRm 6
rymbwm.m lR
um.rarwr+arbr�br�l v+...si m
M1�wl.b.Y•O�m+aaP
M1m�+WGM I.Y\YYr R111f tml.aa
sebb+ am.
bum]Imomm.e.aw+sabb+ 6
�+w.�uw.mr+w+e.bw i w
tm.®
mlmmmmrb.mben+au xn]m
NgbOenbml•m.Mw 116.®
Nw/M1easlbnllp� '40
f m.M.I C.pw Glm..al �
W GV 4W O]Ym WOY 'W�
MnmI dYESm
N..+h.JYbl+al
II TnM
T. mRM.�GI6m)
GvwR,ll..bgmMO G1 Wol x
u bGy
Iwa G.lrmrl naxm]
gwmBW�WMpYYm btauWlm.np.) a6!Y)
M1.r�ma GlpelMaY%VtFbG fa.
fmW,mn CSglpw.•Ilw/i6PbG ]la.®
66.®
+I1mM1G
Tarps.,R Enn.me r1.pmu &LMO o
Ma.ynbm+�.+w W40M
h..Y Res6mlma� m
Tinpma.11..w Gw ul]Rml
KIM
IMd O~dYd�+axC4s�G 'A=
n..r heasnl+al m
.b.Tn.b+r]I...m G1Y11Y1 m
TlbIm C].mm ]m
Cm�msYR,y..b opmrp G(]K]I ]�W
R.(MWmaR�Y
�Ep.arm.Imb..++mbO.P.IV YIM) ® 1 1]ml
q+m.f am 1 +T6
M
pya-IV 0.OY +0 +SO'1
Nwm.mdmm+w MVMV o�Y M.qY
bm.bmuvm+ax+sru] nm®
GRWmfamPm]++wmmur] 6a®
ulyl�ba c+l wRRm...w.cmmPma+mm+amb+] 6,RI.®
a 4 xTmam
am�mm+m F.F.bR gopnG amOm
NMmYnbml�.+w aKOW
w.wflm..w.l+a1 m
cnoma.w..r Gb GlHn) x.m
cmimvm�.aRm►v G. ]+]].6R
dY+x+41b W ]+aa6
MnIOWG
MW Pvma9en(W) m
.Y..Tn+nmRM..mI GI]KOI x6
n.++aRUO]m]mo tm
rlinv.WCW GIbvOI
T!1 MrI pw+lO a.+.1 11.01
Tr h..r GIN1O)
Teb N.w GIiM1S•bM1
wu um.
yy.Iq.mmR�yp.lmn�T.Y.b NIYl4 V'4Yw.mlb
y+m.ml..am+Nm.m+1..ISJ..mm�Yn�l w.dYP
W m..Mb.m..ml q.nmV mYbOMLI]W Y
Yy Om.a.Im CJry Ism mA.mM 6O K(16 MG)+mob enmmT
wr+m Ym.rr.mbmak larbwb+lr iaom...
a6+re.•m w•t6 qk rm ma.ba+]10.am Rm.m.
m.b+.+m�m+Rb+lm I..e.abmM1.nOm.b.bm W`sn+b
Tm�a&Mm.bY\YYn W J+0 M{P b]niw
.b.lm alYDi10 rm.ib�aRb Mmmb W1
moima+MRm�b l.b".w'
+msa.�me.m�.m�mRmw�
N+�M W G.Y l+b V1b6Rlh lA./aHOI
BIYIYV mMdmlmm].m�NW LsYM1 M.Itl mY
M M1 IY6T.YR PIp W+mm M bw Omn mYmb!b.1a
Rgw+mlb.gb r.FM'�m
R+Ybllmuwb ax
um..am�G.m...T tx
R.a...11o cm4,u,a+.w um.ml mb
RbMPn x
o]+Rmdw x
nw GritnCmb M1Smm w
VIY.nm.nm.GliR.a) .a
Rm.mYbn nmbn.RGlm+al
Rr�wcn.a+e. a
c.mm'mnsmmw.w .m.�.� mom mmY
jj DEC ;) i9 f, f;:
TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS !b=-Q:iE-, u DECEMBER 3, 1998
FROM: B.G. HICKS
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
ASHLAND
I will preface my remarks with a few background comments:
(1) I attended most of the Water Advisory Group meetings over past few months. I was involved in that process to
the extent that it was possible and logical for me to contribute. The issues developed by the Group and brought
to the Group by the Consultants and Staff are complex. There are however, I believe, some simple (?) realities
or visions that I'd like to highlight—in a later section of this note(i.e., a to e,below). I have not attempted to
integrate all the supply/source issues—my focus is the Ashland Creek Watershed. I feel it is my responsibility
to comment on this subject.
(2) As many of you know, I have spent parts of many years (25) involved in a professional capacity with the local
area, specifically the Ashland Creek Watershed and surrounding areas of granitic rock—studying landslides,
landslide hazards, road impacts and road location issues, logging impacts, sources and transport of sediment,
reservoir siltation and cleaning/dredging, water production, etc. I have an appreciation and a healthy respect for
this terrain, which I began long ago referring to as `Alpine Ashland '.
(3) My experience prior being located in this area involved work with the engineering geologic aspects of water
resource planning and to some extent construction of water storage and hydroelectric projects. This early
experience gave me some insight into water planning issues though I am not a thorough specialist in water
resource engineering.
The above aspects of my personal experience and my own inclinations and attitudes are involved in the thoughts,
opinions, ideas and visions developed below:
a: I believe a minimal additional water supply source for an emergency does appear as a valuable goal for the City.
Recent knowledge of seismic hazards for this area and the Pacific Northwest indicates a separate, demonstrably
secure, emergency source would be a good insurance policy.
b: The Ashland Creek Watershed is an extremely valuable resource. The current issue regarding the subject of
importation of water from the Medford Water Commission (MWC) System to the Ashland Water Supply System
is primarily due to the storage capacity of Reeder Reservoir. That is, the present reservoir capacity is inadequate
during a sequence of low precipitation years. The Ashland Creek Watershed produces an adequate volume of water
for our needs;we simply can not presently store a sufficient volume of that water.
c: Is additional storage possible? I believe that not all the cards are in on that hand —yet. The issue of
environmental impact at new storage sites is also a reality - no question on that score. Are their options? Yes, I
believe there are viable but difficult options available. The potential for additional storage site(s) in the canyon
downstream of Reeder Reservoir is an intriguing issue developed during the Water Advisory Group sessions.
Canyon storage may be simpler(e.g., less environmental issues)than use of land under Federal jurisdiction
upstream from the Reservoir(i.e.,the canyon is largely City land). Are their operating advantages of a two-
reservoir supply system in the canyon?I believe they may be significant. Yes,there are known problems and
predicted potential problems. These are the similar watershed fire effects and reservoir sedimentation and flushing
issues that have been dealt with and discussed for the present Reeder Reservoir system. There are also advantages
to be gained.
A vision, that is, an idea not confirmed, involving development of the maximum potential of the Ashland Creek
Watershed not only for its excellent, clean water supply includes the concept of a long term source for additional
discharge into Bear Creek. Is this a potentially sustainable reality?
In closing:
--I can understand a rationale (for many reasons)for an emergency supply connection to the MWC System that
is adequate for minimal home and normal commercial use. BUT—I can not rationalize an alternate supply system
that could allow or indirectly cause the City to slow down the Ashland Watershed development or forgo continuing
the use of the Watershed's freely flowing natural water supply. My concern is that connecting to an alternate
pipeline supply may seem such a simple, expedient, and politically viable solution that we, over the long term,
neglect what is already available.
B.G. HICKS
190 Vista Street
Ashland