Loading...
BV Long-Range Water Suppy StudyBRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY FY H ._ 5 (i N S'4.O,U/\ t.S,r NC Engineering & knvirol rnentd1 Con uttants ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering & Environmental Consultants Document No. 890674 EH&A Job No. 11753 BRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY Prepared for: City of Bryan and City of College Station Prepared by: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 519 Austin, Texas 78767 in association with R.W. Harden and Associates, Inc. 3409 Executive Center Drive Austin, Texas 78731 August 1990 916 Capital of Texas Highway South • P.O. Box 519 • Austin, Texas 78767 • (512) 327-6840 • FAX (512) 327-2453 BRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page List of Figures ix List of Tables xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND 1-1 1.2 REGIONAL PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.2.1 Primary Study Area 1-3 1.2.2 Secondary Study Area 1-3 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1-5 2.0 REGIONAL SETTING 2-1 2.1 PHYSICAL 2-1 2.2 INSTITUTIONAL 2-1 2.3 ECONOMICS 2-2 2.3.1 State of Texas 2-2 2.3.2 Planning Area 2-5 2.4 HISTORICAL POPULATION 2-5 2.4.1 Primary Study Area 2-5 2.4,2 Secondary Study Area 3-1 3.0 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING METHODOLOGY 3-1 3.2 REVIEW OF PLANNING DATA SOURCES 3-2 3.2.1 Texas Water Development Board 3-2 3.2.2 Texas State Data Center 3-3 11753/890674 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section Page 3.2.3 US Bureau of the Census 3-4 3.2.4 Brazos Valley Development Council 3-5 3.2.5 Participant Surveys and Interviews 3-5 3.2.6 Local Planning and Engineering Studies 3-7 3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3-7 3.3.1 Primary Study Area 3-7 3.3.2 Secondary Study Area 3-10 3.4 MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3-12 3.4.1 Primary Study Area 3-18 3.4.2 Secondary Study Area 3-18 3.5 MUNICIPAL AND MANUFACTURING WATER DEMAND 3-18 PROJECTIONS 3.5.1 Average Day Water Demand 3-21 3.5.1.1 Primary Study Area 3-21 3.5.1.2 Secondary Study Area 3-?3 3.5.2 Average Day Water Demand With Conservation 3-23 3.5.3 Peak Day Water Demand 3-23 3.5.3.1 Primary Study Area 3-26 3.5.3.2 Secondary Study Area 3-26 3.5.4 Peak Day Water Demand With Conservation 3-29 3.6 EXISTING FACILITIES IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA 3-29 3.7 EXISTING CAPACITY AND PROJECTION OF SUPPLY DEFICIT 3-33 4.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS 4-1 4.1 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 4-1 4.1.1 Purpose 4-1 4.1.2 Goal 4-2 11753/890674 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section Page 4.1.3 Potential Benefits 4-2 4.1.4 Elements of Plan 4-3 4.2 DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN 4-4 4.2.1 Purpose 4-4 4.2.2 Elements of Plan 4-4 5.0 GROUND -WATER RESOURCES 5-1 5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 5-1 5.2 SIMSBORO AQUIFER 5-1 5.2.1 Character, Location and Extent 5-1 5.2.2 Present Use 5-5 5.2.3 Water Quality 5-10 5.2.4 Water Levels in Wells 5-16 5.2.5 Hydraulic Characteristics 5-18 5.2.6 Recharge, Discharge and Movement of Water 5-19 5.2.7 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of Year 2020 5-22 5.2.8 Interference Effects from Pumping by Others 5-29 5.2.9 Effects of Pumping on Fresh WaterBrackish Water Interface 5-33 5.3 OTHER AQUIFERS 5-36 5.3.1 Introduction 5-36 5.3.2 Location 5-36 5.3.3 Present Use 5-38 5.3.4 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of Year 2020 5-40 5.4 GROUND -WATER RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT AS A 5-43 SOURCE OF WATER 6.0 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 6-1 6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 6-1 11753/890674 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section Page 6.2 EXISTING RESOURCES 6-1 6.2.1 Brazos River 6-1 6.2.2 Lake Somerville 6-3 6.2.3 Lake Limestone 6-3 6.2.4 Twin Oaks Reservoir 6-3 6.2.5 Gibbons Creek Reservoir 6-4 6.2.6 Lake Livingston 6-4 6.2.7 Lake Conroe 6-4 6.2.8 Camp Creek Lake 6-4 6.3 PROPOSED RESOURCES 6-5 6.3.1 Millican Lake 6-5 6.3.2 Bedias Reservoir 6-5 6.3.3 Lake Navasota 6-6 6.3.4 Caldwell Reservoir 6-6 6.3.5 Brazos Coal Lake 6-6 6.3.6 Upper Keechi Creek Reservoir 6-7 6.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES SCREENING PROCESS 6-7 6.5 RECOMMENDED SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES 6-8 7.0 RECOMMENDED AL I'hRNAT1VE SOURCES 7-1 7.1 GENERAL 7-1 7.2 GROUND -WATER ALTERNATIVE 7-3 7.2.1 Simsboro Aquifer Wells 7-3 7.2.1.1 General 7-3 7.2.1.2 Supply Facilities 7-5 7.2.1.3 Treatment Facilities 7-5 7.2.1.4 Pumping and Transmission 7-8 11753/890674 V TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section Page 7.3 SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES 7-9 7.3.1 General 7-9 7.3.1.1 Raw Water Intake - 7-13 7.3.1.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-14 7.3.1.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-14 7.3.1.4 Booster Pumps and Transmission Main 7-16 7.3.2 Alternative No. 2 - Lake Somerville 7-16 7.3.2.1 . Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-16 7.3.2.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-18 7.3.2.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-18 7.3.2.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-18 7.3.3 Alternative No. 3 - Brazos River 7-19 7.3.3.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-19 7.3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-19 7.3.3.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-19 7.3.3.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-23 7.3.4 Alternative No. 4 - Millican Lake 7-23 7.3.4.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-23 7.3.4.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-23 7.3.4.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-23 7.3.4.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-25 7.3.5 Cost Estimates 7-26 7.3.5.1 Ground Water Costs 7-26 7.3.5.2 Surface Water Costs 7-29 8.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 8-1 8.1 GENERAL 8-1 11753/890674 vi 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section Page 8.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOURCE 8-3 8.3 UNIT COST OF TREATED WATER 8-4 9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND FINANCING 9-1 9.1 OVERVIEW 9-1 9.2 REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES 9-2 9.2.1 Regional System Operated by a Maior city or Cities 9-2 9.2.1.1 Administration 9-2 9.2.1.2 Powers 9-2 9.2.1.3 Accountability 9-3 9.2.2 Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority 9-3 9.2.2.1 Administration 9-4 9.2.2.2 Powers 9-5 9.2.2.3 Accountability 9-5 9.2.3 Newly -created Water District 9-5 9.2.3.1 Administration 9-6 9.2.3.2 Powers 9-6 9.2.3.3 Accountability 9-6 9.2.4 Newly -created Water Authority 9-6 9.2.4.1 Administration 9-7 9.2.4.2 Powers 9-7 9.2.4.3 Accountability 9-7 9.3 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS 9-8 9.3.1 Conventional Long -Term Financing Methods 9-8 9.3.1.1 General Obligation Bonds 9-8 9.3.1.2 Revenue Bonds 9-9 9.3.2 Water Development Board Funds 9-9 11753/890674 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) Section Page 10.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE 10-1 10.1 RECOMMENDED PLAN 10-1 10.2 RECOMMENDED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASES - 10-1 10.3 RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS 10-3 11.0 CONCLUSIONS 11-1 12.0 REFERENCES 12-1 APPENDIX A - Entities Notified with Questionnaire APPENDIX B - Questionnaire APPENDIX C - Projected Municipal Population APPENDIX D - Letters 11753/890674 \ill LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Primary and Secondary Study Areas 1-2 1-2 Regional Planning Study Area 1-4 3-1 County Population Projections, Brazos County 3-9 3-2 County Population Projections, Grimes County 3-13 3-3 County Population Projections, Leon County 3-14 3-4 County Population Projections, Madison County 3-15 3-5 County Population Projections, Robertson County 3-16 3-6 County Population Projections, Secondary Study Area 3-17 5-1 Schematic Cross Section A - A' 5-3 5-2 Extent of Simsboro Aquifer 5-4 5-3 Annual Simsboro Pumpage By Bryan, College 5-14 Station, and Texas A & M University 5-4 Historical Static Water Levels in Various 5-17 Bryan and College Station Simsboro Wells 5-5 Cross Section Showing Conditions in Typical 5-21 Artesian Sand 5-6 Plan View Showing Flow Lines in Typical 5-23 Artesian Sand 5-7 Conceptual Well Field to Meet Brazos County 5-26 Municipal Water Demand to Year 2020 5-8 Projected Pumpage from the Carizo/Wilcox 5-31 Aquifer for Mining and Power Plant Purposes 5-9 Location of Sparta, Queen City, Calvert Bluff 5-37 and Hooper Aquifers 7-1 Ground Water System 7-6 7-2 Well Field Alternative 1 7-7 7-3 Typical Surface Water Facilities 7-10 7-4 Typical Treatment Process 7-15 7-5 Lake Somerville Alternative 2 7-17 11753/890674 ix LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded) Figure Page 7-6 Brazos River Alternative 3 7-7 Millican Lake Alternative 4 11753/890674 X 7-20 7-24 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 Historical Population Trends by County 2-6 2-2 Historical Population Trends by City 2-7 3-1 Summary of Questionnaire Responses 3-6 3-2 Projected Population Comparison 3-8 3-3 Projected Population Comparison by City 3-11 3-4 Historical and Projected Per Capita Municipal Water Usage, 3-19 Brazos County 3-5 Historical and Projected Per Capita Municipal Water Usage, 3-20 Secondary Study Area 3-6 Projected Average Day Water Demand, Brazos County 3-22 3-7 Projected Average Day Water Demand, Secondary Study Area 3-24 3-8 Projected Average Day Water Demand with Conservation, 3-25 Brazos County 3-9 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand, Brazos County 3-27 3-10 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand, Secondary Study Area 3-28 3-11 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand with Conservation, 3-30 Brazos County 3-12 Inventory of Existing Water Facilities in Brazos County 3-31 3-13 Projected Ground -Water Deficit from Existing Facilities, 3-35 Average Day Water Demands, Brazos County 3-14 Projected Ground -Water Deficit from Existing Facilities, 3-36 Maximum Day Water Demands, Brazos County 5-1 Municipal and Industrial Ground -Water Use for 1987 5-6 5-2 Municipal Ground -Water Use by Aquifer for 1987 5-7 5-3 City of Bryan, Average Monthly and Yearly 5-11 Simsboro Pumpage - MGD 5-4 City of College Station, Average Monthly 5-12 and Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD 5-5 Texas A & M University, Average Monthly 5-13 and Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD 11753/890674 xi LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Table Page 5-6 Chemical Quality of Water From Simsboro Wells 5-14 5-7 Conceptual Well Field and Estimated Pumping Levels 5-28 -5-8 Summary of Projected Pumpage from Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer 5-32 for Mining and Power Plant Purposes 5-9 Typical Aquifer Values 5-41 6-1 Existing and Proposed Surface Water Resources 6-2 6-2 Screening Matrix of Surface Water Resources 6-9 7-1 Construction Phases 7-3 7-2 Construction Cost Estimates, Well Field - 7-28 Alternative No. 1 7-3 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, Well Field 7-30 Alternative No. 1 7-4 Construction Cost Estimates, Lake Somerville - 7-33 Alternative No. 2 7-5 Construction Cost Estimates, Brazos River - 7-34 Alternative No. 3 7-6 Construction Cost Estimates, Millican Lake - 7-35 Alternative No. 4 7-7 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-37 Lake Somerville - Alternative No. 2 7-8 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-38 Brazos River - Alternative No. 3 7-9 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-39 Millican Lake - Alternative No. 4 8-1 Cost Comparison, Ground Water vs. Surface Water 8-2 8-2 Alternative 1 - Simsboro Ground Water, 8-5 Without Conservation 8-3 Alternative 1 - Simsboro Ground Water, 8-6 With Conservation 8-4 Alternative 2 - Lake Somerville, Without Conservation 11753/890674 xii 8-7 LIST OF TABLES (Concluded) Table Page 8-5 Alternative 2 - Lake Somerville, 8-8 With Conservation 8-6 Alternative 3 - Brazos River, 8-9 Without Conservation 8-7 Alternative 3 - Brazos River, 8-10 With Conservation 8-8 Alternative 4 - Millican Lake, 8-11 Without Conservation 8-9 Alternative 4 - Millican Lake, 8-12 With Conservation 10-1 Preliminary Schedule for the Required Facility Expansions 10-2 11753/890674 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April 1989, the cities of Bryan and College Station contracted with the firm of Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. (EH&A) to conduct a regional water supply planning study for a, 5-county area composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson Counties. EH&A was joined in this effort by R.W. Harden and Associates, Inc. (RWH&A), consulting hydrologists and geologists. Funding for this study has come from the cities of Bryan and College Station, Texas A&M University, and matching funds from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Although this study evaluates the water demands of the 5-county study area, the central focus of master planning for a regional system has been confined to Brazos County, as set forth by the terms of the TWDB matching planning grant. Brazos County, with an area of 589 square miles, is the most populous of the 5- county region, where approximately 69% (124,389) of the total regional population resides. Similarly, Brazos County has claimed an equally high proportion (71%) of the municipal water demand within the 5-county study area. The cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas A&M University) are the most significant municipal communities in Brazos County, generating in 1985 over 93% of the total county -wide municipal water demand. Since 1970, each of the five counties that comprise the study area has increased in population. Brazos County has led this population growth, more than doubling its population since 1970. With regard to the future population of Brazos County, population growth is expected to continue throughout the study period (1990 - 2020). This forecasted population growth is expected to be fueled in part by increased employment in the high technology and research and development sectors of the local economy that are typically associated with the Texas A&M University system. The industrial manufacturing sectors are also expected to stimulate some growth in the Bryan -College Station area economy. Historical and projected municipal and manufacturing water demands of the 5-county study area have been evaluated for the period of 1980 - 2020. Water demand projections for the 11753/890674 xiv primary study area have been developed from both the Texas Water Development Board and self - reported data provided by Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University. Following close coordination and a thorough review of all data, these entities selected a final set of water demand projections from which the regional master plan was developed. These final demand projections were also modelled under a water conservation scenario. Conducted concurrently with the selection of final water demand projections was an evaluation of the projected water supply deficit for the primary study area. A water supply deficit would be encountered at the point when water demands exceed the capacity of existing facilities. The determination of a supply deficit was based in large part on a conservative estimate of the production capacity of existing ground -water wells that draw from the Simsboro aquifer. This production estimate did not include the capacity of facilities that draw from sources other than the Simsboro aquifer, nor from facilities that would be expected to be phased out of long- term use. With a base production capacity combined for Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University, it was determined that a supply deficit would likely occur within the next decade if no expansions or improvements were made. The combined production capacity for these three entities was conservatively estimated at 30.24 mgd. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the water supply deficits under average day conditions, both with and without the implementation of conservation measures. In recognition that water demands will exceed the capacity of existing facilities within the next decade, the study team evaluated four alternative sources of water supply. These alternative supplies included both ground -water and surface water sources. Based on an evaluation by RWH&A, the Simsboro aquifer presented the best available ground -water source in terms of both water quality and quantity. Following a thorough evaluation of fifteen existing and proposed surface water supplies, three surface water alternatives were selected: (1) Lake Somerville, (2) the Brazos River, and (3) the proposed Millican Lake. The selection of the three surface water alternatives 11753/890674 xV was based on a preliminary screening according to several key criteria: sufficient yield, conveyance costs, designated use, and suggestions and recommendations from either the Brazos River Authority or the Trinity River Authority. Based on the concept of supplementing the capacity of existing facilities through the development of regional facilities, each of the four supply alternatives was comparatively evaluated. Each supply alternative was carried from preliminary engineering design through the estimation of construction costs and annual operations and maintenance costs under both with and without conservation scenarios. The sizing of facilities and phasing of construction was based on a regional system that would act as wholesale supplier to participating entities in Brazos County. This proposed regional system would supplement the capacities of existing Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University facilities. It has been assumed that some flexibility would be inherent in the phasing of construction. Therefore, the initial construction phase has been set to correspond to the milestone year of 2000. A second phase of construction has been assumed to occur in 2010. This second phase would provide sufficient capacity to meet the water demands of the primary study area through 2020. Based on a comparison of the four water supply alternatives, the study team has recommended the use of ground -water for supply of Brazos County. The ground -water supply alternative is the least -cost alternative in terms of both construction costs and annual operations and maintenance costs. Table ES-2 provides a summary of the facilities and the related construction costs for this alternative under with and without conservation scenarios. These significantly lower construction and operations and maintenance costs likewise translate into the lowest unit costs for treated water. Although the unit cost of treated water that would be provided by a regional water system would be expected to vary over time, the initial cost per 1000 gallons has been estimated at $2.39 under the without conservation scenario for the year 2000. Assuming the implementation of conservation measures, this unit cost has been estimated at $3.57 per 1000 gallons in 2000. 11753/890674 XVI Although the unit cost (per 1,000 gals.) with conservation is greater than the unit cost without conservation, there is a reduction in water demand and a corresponding reduction in the construction cost with conservation. For the ground water supply, the year 2000 average day water demands would be reduced by 2.7 mgd using conservation. The reduction in water demand will have a corresponding reduction in construction costs of approximately 20% if conservation measures are implemented. Conservation, therefore, provides significant cost savings to users of a regional water supply -system. This report also evaluates the institutional structures available to potentially create, construct, operate, and manage a regional water supply system in Brazos County. The institutional structures that have been examined in this report are: • Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities; • Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority; • Newly -created Water District; • Newly -created Regional Water Authority. Each of these structures has certain advantages and disadvantages with respect to such considerations as administration, legal powers, and assurance of accountability to participants in the regional system. The study team has recommended that the regional participants closely examine these options prior to selecting a final institutional arrangement for a regional water system. The study team has also provided an overview of the options available to finance a regional water supply system. Generally, these include conventional long-term methods such as the issuance of general obligation bonds and/or revenue bonds, as well as use of the funds provided through the Water Development Fund. 11753/890674 xvii Finally, based on the recommendation to continue the use of ground -water, the study team has provided some general guidelines for implementation of the recommended plan. These guidelines also emphasize the need to confirm participation in a regional system, as well as to tailor the sizing and phasing of facilities to optimize the relationship between capital expenditures and the participants' ability to pay. 117531890674 Xvlii TABLE ES-1 PROJECI ED GROUND -WA 1'h.R DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMANDS BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 - 2000 2010 2020 Average Day Demands Municipa1° 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437 Manufacturing° 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712 Total Water Demand 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149 GW Production 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240 Surplus/(Deficit) 5.0 (5.5) (12.7) (18.9) Average Day Demands with Conservation Municipal' 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171 Manufacturing' 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605 Total Water Demand 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776 GW Productionb 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240 Surplus/(Deficit) 5.62 (2.83) (7.30) (11.54) Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. ° From Table 3-6. b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan, College Station, and TAMU wellfields. From Table 3-8. 11753/890674 XiX 0) q 7 0 0 8 Q § § § 25 25 25 ?5 Vi I t I O • pS 5 n enM — O - 00 00 6 b b a 6 O §§ 1 O V1} Oa W h 1 '7 •t N lS 00 f3 N §p § § 2p5 § § 2S mp& § ONO N 8 g 00 E aY g H er aM.. M-i �p 00 M M M O .r W N O O O O O O O N O O O.1 vo. q pp p O pMp �M�pp M 4ff-. n P��1 of N d ^ e e o e • g .. o 3 a 6 Ua 6(D • 8 3 0 o • B o a � • p • w Lands and Rights -of -Way Well Field Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way 4 Lands and Rights -of -Way 9; Without Conservation Plan 0.11 arm 11753/890674 LO INTRODUCTION 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND In April 1989, the cities of Bryan and College Station contracted with the firm of Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A) to conduct a regional water supply planning study for a 5-county area composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson counties. EH&A was joined in this undertaking by the firm of R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., consulting hydrologists and geologists. The cities of Bryan and College Station and Texas A&M University have jointly funded the plan with financial assistance provided by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in the form of a matching planning grant. As defined by the terms of the planning grant, the central focus of this regional water supply plan has been on the primary study area of Brazos County. A secondary study area composed of the remaining four counties has also been evaluated with respect to a regional water system. Underlying this regional planning effort has been close coordination with local officials and representatives of the cities of Bryan and College Station, Texas A & M University, the Brazos Valley Development Council, and the five counties that compose the study area. In addition, this coordination has extended to the many representatives of the town governments, as well as the many owners and operators of private and cooperative water supply systems throughout the 5-county area. Finally, EH&A has coordinated closely with representatives of the TWDB, drawing extensively from the State's large collection of population and water demand data. EH&A wishes to recognize the contributions of the many individuals that have made this report possible. L2 REGIONAL PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION The Brazos Valley Water Supply Planning Study encompasses a 5-county region of approximately 3,803 square miles. The study area is composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison and Robertson counties as shown in Figure 1-1. Recent estimates (State Data Center, 1989) put the total population of the 5-county area at approximately 180,707 inhabitants, over 60% of whom 11753/890674 1-1 PROJECT NO. GRIMES COUNTY PRIMARY STUDY AREA BRAZOS COUNTY SECONDARY STUDY AREA ROBERTSON COUNTY LEON COUNTY MADISON COUNTY GRIMES COUNTY 500000 0 50000 MIEN AIM SCALE IN FEET - SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, IN( Engineering & Environmental Consultants FIGURE I -I PRIMARY AND SECONDARYt STUDY AREAS are residents of the twin cities of Bryan and College Station in Brazos County. For the purposes of regional planning, Brazos County has been defined as the primary study area due to the magnitude and concentration of both its population and municipal water demand. The remaining four counties have been defined as the secondary study area because of their generally rural character. Figure 1-2 provides a schematic representation of the regional planning area with divisions among the primary and secondary study areas. 1.2.1 Primary Study Area Brazos County, with an area of 589 square miles, is defined as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. As a whole, the county is the most populous of the 5-county region, where approximately 69% (124,389 inhabitants) of the current total regional population resides. Similarly, Brazos County has historically claimed an equally high share of the total municipal water demand for the study area. In 1985, municipal water demand for Brazos County was 71% of the total municipal water demand for the 5-county area. The cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas A&M University) are the two most significant municipal communities in the county, generating in 1985 over 93% of the total county -wide municipal water demand. 1.2.2 Secondary Study Area The secondary study area is composed of Grimes, Leon, Madison and Robertson Counties. The total combined area of these counties is approximately 3,214 square miles, with a total estimated population of 56,318 inhabitants. These counties can generally be characterized as rural, with only moderate concentrations of county inhabitants located in small communities. The City of Navasota (Grimes County) is the largest community within the secondary study area with an estimated population of 6,773. The City of Hearne (Robertson County) is the second largest community within this area, with an estimated population of 5,813. 11753/890674 1-3 FIGURE 1-2 REGIONAL PLANNING STUDY AREA Primary and Secondary Study Areas BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA 3,803 Square Miles Pop.- 180,707 PRIMARY STUDY AREA Brazos County 589 Square Miles Pop. - 24,389 City of Bryan Pop. - 58,120 City of College Station Pop. - 53,301 SECONDARY STUDY AREA 4-County Area 3,214 Square Miles Pop. - 56,318 Grimes County 799 Square Miles Pop. - 17,330 Robertson County 864 Square Mites Pop. - 15,102 Leon County 1,079 Square Miles Pop. - 12,210 Madison County 472 Square Mites Pop. - 11,676 1-4 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK Historically, Bryan, College Station, and Texas A & M University have been the largest consumers of municipal water in Brazos County, collectively accounting for over 93% of the total county municipal water usage in 1985. In contrast to the smaller communities located throughout the secondary study area, the urban area of Brazos County is characterized by large municipal demand within a geographically central location. Therefore, this regional water supply plan focuses primarily on the long-range water needs of Brazos County. Section 2.0 of this report begins with a definition and description of the 5-county study area. This description includes a review of the historical and current trends in population and economic growth for the primary and secondary study areas. Section 3.0 provides an overview of the methodology and the data sources used to evaluate and develop population and water demand projections for the primary and secondary study area. Key elements of the water demand equation were reviewed in detail: population, per capita usage, peaking factors, and demand reductions through conservation. Finally, an inventory and description of existing water supply, treatment, and storage facilities was developed for the primary study area of Brazos County. Section 4.0 describes the purposes and potential benefits of the implementation of conservation and drought contingency programs. This section includes a thorough description of the elements of the programs and also a draft water conservation plan and drought contingency plan. Section 5.0 provides a thorough evaluation of ground -water resources in the study area, including an inventory of aquifers, water quality, and recharge characteristics. This section also evaluates the availability of existing ground -water resources to meet the future demands of the primary study area. 11753/890674 1-5 Section 6.0 examines the potential for the use of surface water to supplement existing ground -water supplies. An inventory of existing and proposed surface water resources has been developed and evaluated according to criteria related to available yield, conveyance costs, designated use, and recommendations by managing water authorities. Section 7.0 describes four regional water supply alternatives that have been developed to meet the future water demands of Brazos County. The first alternative is developed on the assumption that future water needs will be met through the expansion of ground -water facilities. The remaining three alternatives assume future demands will be supplemented through the development of surface water sources. This section includes a detailed description of regional facilities, as well as associated costs. Section 8.0 provides a comparison of the four regional water supply alternatives. This section includes an estimate and comparison of the unit costs for providing wholesale treated water via a regional water supply system. This section concludes with a recommended source. Section 9.0 describes the institutional and financial arrangements that are potentially available to construct and operate a regional water supply system. Section 10.0 provides guidance and recommendations for implementation of a regional water system using the preferred source of water. This section includes a discussion of the construction phases and scheduling of capital improvements. Section 11.0 includes the overall conclusions pertaining to the development of future water resources for Brazos County. 11753/890674 1-6 2.0 REGIONAL SETTING The 5-county area defined for this study encompasses approximately 3,803 square miles. The majority of the study area is located within the watershed of the Brazos River, with the remainder located within the watershed of the Trinity River. Recent estimates (TDC, 1988) for the 5-county area reveal a population of approximately 180,707 inhabitants. The majority of these inhabitants are located in Brazos County, most of whom reside in the twin cities of Bryan and College Station. 2.1 PHYSICAL The 5-county area is situated within the vegetative communities of the Blackland Prairie and the Post Oak Savannah associations. The topography of these associations is gently rolling to hilly, with elevations in the study area ranging from approximately 150 to 500 feet above sea level. Land use is variable, ranging from the urbanized areas of Brazos County to the agricultural uses that predominate in the secondary study area. Agricultural uses consist of cultivated lands and native and improved pastures for the grazing of livestock. The Post Oak Savannah is largely composed of native and improved pastures interspersed by some farmland. The overstory generally consists of post oak and blackjack oak, with an abundant understory of native and introduced species of grass. The Blackland Prairies consist of generally fertile soils that have historically led to widespread cultivation. The native vegetation is characteristic of true prairies, with blackjack oak and post oak common to areas with medium to light -textured soils. 2.2 INSTITUTIONAL The overall study area consists of Brazos, Grimes, Madison, Leon and Robertson Counties. Political subdivisions within these counties generally are divided into county and city governments, school districts, special districts, and regional water authorities that serve the public. 11753/890674 2-1 In most cases, some overlap of boundaries exists among each of these levels of government, although the enabled powers of each may differ. In general, the provision of municipal water service is accomplished either through public, quasi -public or private means. Appendix A contains a list of public and private entities that provide water service within the 5-county study area. Included in this list are some local county and city governments that have local decision -making authority, although they do not provide water service. 2.3 ECONOMICS 2.3.1 State of Texas In spite of numerous contingencies (the recovery of the real estate and financial sector, the price of oil, the success or failure of numerous local, regional, and state initiatives and programs, etc.), there are some long-range patterns in demographics and industrial performance within the state which permit long-term economic forecasting. 11753/890674 Some basic forecasts for future business activity within the state include the following: • Nominal gross state product will advance at an annual compounded rate of 7.2%. When adjustments are made for anticipated inflation, real output would be expected to expand by 2.7% per year. This pace would slightly exceed projected growth for the nation through 2010 (Texas Economic Publishers, Inc., 1989). • Personal income will increase by 7.1% per year on a compounded basis, with real gains of 2.5% forecasted. • Aggregate employment will grow at an annual rate of 1.5%, while population will increase at an annual compounded rate of 1.3%. 2-2 • The services sector will continue to be the leading source of employment expansion, followed by manufacturing. In general, forecasts reveal an economically healthy and viable future, as the state's economy continues to diversify. Diversification has strengthened the state's national economic interdependencies, decreasing the sensitivity of Texas' economy to local and state business fluctuations. 2.3.2 Planning Area The following summary will discuss recent trends in population and employment growth, proposed major projects, and local economic development initiatives within the primary and secondary study areas. Primary Study Area Recent trends in employment and population growth, coupled with the economic growth potential of the Bryan -College Station area, provide the basis for an optimistic economic forecast for the primary study area. From 1985 to 1989, the civilian labor force has increased in Brazos County by 7.00%, compared to 1.94% for the state (TEC, 1985-89). From August 1988 to August 1989, the Bryan -College Station Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) saw a 2.4% increase in employment, adding an estimated 1,200 jobs during the period. Recent unemployment rates are consistently lower than other metropolitan counties. Similarly, population grew by 2.8% annually from 1985 to 1987, compared to 1.3% annually for the state. Projections by both the TWDB and the 'WC call for continued growth, at rates substantially greater than those projected for the state. Texas A&M University (TAMU) provides the basic foundation for employment and population growth in the Bryan -College Station area. TAMU ranks first in research funding 11753/890674 2-3 among universities in the Southwest and is among the top 20 nationally. Growth potential is substantially enhanced by the 440-acre Texas A & M University Research Park. The park will serve to establish a close relationship between the research capabilities of TAMU and selected industrial and commercial entities engaged in compatible research. Three additional industrial parks in the Bryan -College Station area offer facilities for light to heavy industry, for research and development, and for high technology industrial growth. Employment in Brazos County is concentrated in state and local government (42%), trades (23%), services (16%) and manufacturing (7%). Each of these sectors will benefit from continued development of the research and development and industrial parks mentioned above. In conclusion, employment growth should continue at current rates over the short-term, and continue to exceed state levels over the planning period. Secondary Study Area The 4-county secondary study area is primarily rural, with no communities larger than 7,000 inhabitants. The covered labor force of these counties is generally employed within the local and state government, trade, services and durable goods manufacturing sectors. To a lesser extent, the construction and the transportation and public utilities sectors contribute to the local economy in terms of both covered employment and earnings. The farming sector has historically made significant contributions to earnings, particularly in Leon and Madison counties, although these contributions are not usually revealed in covered employment statistics. Lignite mining and energy development projects are both ongoing and planned for the 4-county area -and will influence growth to an undetermined extent on both the local area and a larger region. 11753/890674 2-4 2.4 HISTORICAL POPULATION 2.4.1 Primary Study Area In the last two decades, Brazos County has experienced steady population growth, increasing almost 35% from a 1980 population of 93,588 to an estimated 1988 population of 124,389 (TDC, 1989). The twin cities of Bryan and College Station have captured the majority of the county's population growth, increasing by approximately 31% and 43%, respectively, during the same 80-88 period. The 1988 estimated populations of Bryan and College Station are 58,120 and 53,301, respectively, for a combined total population of 111,421. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide a summary of historical population trends by county and city for the primary study area. 2.4.2 Secondary Study Area The 4-county secondary study area has experienced slight to moderate population growth during the last two decades. Since 1980, the collective population of these four counties has increased 17% from 48,476 to an estimated 1988 population of 56,318, resulting in an overall net increase of 7,842 inhabitants. Refer to Table 2-1 for a summary of historical population trend by county. Table 2-2 provides a summary of population for major towns within the secondary study area. 11753/890674 2-5 TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS BY COUNTY 1960 1970 1980 1988 Primary Study Area Brazos Co. 44,895 57,978 93,588 124,389 Secondary Study Area Grimes Co. 12,709 11,855 13,580 17,330 Leon Co. 9,951 8,738 9,594 12,210 Madison Co. 6,749 7,693 10,649 11,676 Robertson Co. 16,157 14,389 14,653 15,102 SUBTOTAL 45,566 42,675 48,476 56,318 5-County Study Area 90,461 100,653 142,064 180,707 State of Texas 9,580,000 11,198,655 14,229,191 16,840,881 ANNUALIZED COMPOUNDED GROWTH 60-70 70-80 80-88 Primary Study Area Brazos Co. Secondary Study Area Grimes Co. Leon Co. Madison Co. Robertson Co. SUBTOTAL Total Study Area State of Texas 2.59% -0.69% -L29% 1.32% -1.15% -0.65% L07% L57% 4.90% 3.62% 1.37% 0.94% 3.30% 0.18% 1.28% 3.51% 2.42% 3.09% 3.06% L16% 0.38% 1.89% 3.05% 2.13% SOURCE: 1960-80, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 and 1982. 1988, Texas State Data Center, 1989. 11753/890674 2-6 TABLE 2-2 HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS BY CITY Place Numerical Percent 1980 1988 Change Change PRIMARY STUDY AREA Bryan 44,337 58,120 13,783 31.09% College Station 37,272 53.301 16,029 43.01% SUBTOTAL 83,589 113,409 29,820 35.67% SECONDARY STUDY AREA Bremond 1,025 995 (30) -2.93% Buffalo 1,507 2,052 545 36.16% Calvert 1,732 1,723 (9) -0.52% Centerville 799 915 116 14.52% Franklin 1,349 1,456 107 7.93% Hearne 5,418 5,813 395 7.29% Madisonville 3,660 4,174 514 14.04% Marquez 231 288 57 24.68% Navasota 5,971 6,773 802 13.43% Normangee 636 796 160 25.16% Oakwood 606 745 139 22.94% SUBTOTAL 22,934 25,730 2,796 12.19% SOURCE: 1980, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1982. 1988, Texas State Data Center, 1989. 11753/890674 2-7 3.0 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING METHODOLOGY The projection of water demand is based in large part on historical trends in population growth, per capita usage characteristics, and water demand from industrial, agricultural, -and other land uses that have no direct link to local population. The methodology that is used for this study is one that combines the review and evaluation of best available published data with a thorough cross-referencing of data sources. This study employs a 30-year planning horizon, beginning in 1990 and spanning to 2020. This period was defined as reasonable in light of the availability and reliability of population and water demand forecasts, as well as the economic life of many public works projects and major capital improvements. A primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the adequacy of existing and future water supplies to meet short -and long-term regional future water demands. Included in this evaluation is the examination of alternative supplies, in particular, the conversion of selected current ground water uses to surface water. Note that for this analysis, only the municipal and manufacturing water use categories have been included. These two categories best represent the water uses that would have the greatest potential for conversion, assuming economic and technical feasibility. The water demands from other categories (steam electric, mining, irrigation and livestock) have not been used in this analysis for several reasons. The steam electric and mining categories represent either minimal demand or have been assumed to rely on self -developed water supplies. The patterns of agricultural water demand (livestock and irrigation) and the exercise of existing water rights are not expected to significantly change in the study area. In addition, much of this demand is currently met with surface water. 11753/890674 3-1 3.2 REVIEW OF PLANNING DATA SOURCES Within the 5-county study area, water demand has historically been met through supply by a wide variety of entities, including municipalities, investor -owned systems, non-profit water supply corporations, special districts, individual on -site systems, and private agricultural and industrial water supply systems. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has been the clearinghouse for most historical self -reported water usage data within the state and has been relied upon extensively for water demand projections for this study. Additionally, the TWDB projections have been supplemented with data obtained by questionnaire from water suppliers (cities, water supply corporations, etc.). Population data has been drawn from more diverse sources, including the TWDB and other state and local agencies. The data sources for both water demand and population that have been used in this study are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. 3.2.1 Texas Water Development Board The TWDB maintains an extensive data base on both historical and projected water demand and population statistics. This data base incorporates self -reported historical data that includes, but is not limited to, ground -water and surface water sources, type of utility, category of water use, population served, and total number of connections. The TWDB projects water demand among the following water use categories: (1) municipal, (2) manufacturing, (3) steam electric, (4) irrigation, (5) mining, and (6) livestock. Much of the data compiled by the TWDB is used in the Texas Water Plan and therefore may be potentially disaggregated into a variety of geographical areas, including cities, counties, and river basins. In the application of its projection methodology, the TWDB relies on a comprehensive approach that incorporates self -reported population, per capita usage, and non -municipal water usage into a state-wide water demand projection model. For the municipal water use category, population projections are generated under a cohort -component (survival) method under a low and high series. Projections are presented at both the county and city level. 11753/890674 3-2 The TWDB population projections serve as the basis for the projection of the municipal water demand category. In its simplest form, municipal water demand is derived by multiplying the projected population of the selected entity by the per capita water usage derived for the same entity. As with population, two per capita usage statistics are derived: an average and a high. Typically, the average per capita statistic represents the historical average of the most recent 10-year period, when available. The high per capita statistic is generally the highest per capita usage recorded during the same period. In all cases, these per capita statistics are applied to the projected low and high series population projections to obtain municipal water demand projections. Additionally, the TWDB incorporates a conservation component into its municipal water demand projections. This conservation component assumes that if municipal water conservation measures were implemented the per capita usage would decline over time rather than remain constant as in the average and high per capita scenarios previously described. Finally, the TWDB conducts an extensive program of public input in the development of population and water demand projections. Private and public interests are provided with the opportunity to review and comment on TWDB projections. Public comments and revisions are continually compiled for the updating of the state-wide water demand projection model. The TWDB has recently completed an update of the population and water demand projection model and this study reflects the most current data available. 3.2.2 Texas State Data Center The Texas State Data Center (TSDC) of the Texas Department of Commerce is a recognized source of population statistics at both the local, county and state level. The reliability of these projections is further strengthened by TSDC's local knowledge (being prepared by the Texas Population Projections Program at Texas A&M University, College Station) andthe recent date of preparation and publishing (December, 1988). 11753/890674 3-3 The TSDC projections are developed using a cohort -component method that is based on a 1986 update of 1980 US Bureau of the Census Population and Housing statistics. Adjustments to the base population are made for special populations that do not normally exhibit the same demographic characteristics of the local population. These special populations are usually linked with local institutions such as universities, military bases or prisons. The TSDC projects population by county under three scenarios: 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0. Scenario 0.0 is referred to as the Zero Migration Scenario, and assumes that county inmigration equals outmigration, resulting in population growth by natural increase. Typically, this scenario serves as the base population projection and does not accurately reflect the demographic processes found in all counties. For counties that experienced growth through net inmigration, the Zero Migration Scenario (0.0) results in the lowest population projection of the three scenarios. Likewise, this scenario results in the highest projection for counties that have historically experienced population decline due to net outmigration. Scenario 1.0 is referred to as the 1970-1980 Migration Scenario, and bases future population projections on the trends in age, sex, and race/ethnicity net migration rates of the high -growth period of the 1970's. This scenario generally results in projections that are highest for counties that have experienced net inmigration during the 1970's, while counties with net outmigration during the same period result in the lowest projections. Scenario 0.5 is referred to as the Middle -Range Migration Scenario, and generally represents an average of the Zero Migration (0.0) Scenario and the 1970-1980 Migration (1.0) Scenario. The TSDC notes that this scenario best reflects the characteristics of recent (since 1980) population growth at the county and state level, and represents a "most likely scenario" for most counties. 3.2.3 US Bureau of the Census The Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce is the source of the most comprehensive set of demographic statistics for the entire nation. In addition to 11753/890674 3-4 conducting the national census each decade, the Bureau also maintains a wide range of population estimates for interim years. County -level population estimates developed by the Census Bureau were reviewed for the 5-county study area, but were generally found to be lower than those developed by the TSDC. This can likely be attributed to slight differences in the population estimation methodology employed by these agencies. 3.2.4 Brazos Valley Development Council The Brazos Valley Development Council (BVDC) is the local council of governments that, in addition to the 5-county study area, also includes Burleson and Washington counties. The BVDC routinely distributes population projection data compiled from other sources. County -level population projections currently used by the BVDC were prepared by the Texas Department of Health and only extend to the year 2000. The study team reviewed BVDC data and determined that these projections would be of limited value due to the limitations of a year 2000 horizon. 3.2.5 Participant Surveys and Interviews The study team has coordinated with local officials, utility operators and managers, and city public works staff in order to solicit insight into local patterns of water usage, existing or anticipated utility system deficiencies, and projections of future water demand and population. A survey questionnaire was prepared and distributed by certified mail to approximately 43 public and private entities within the 5-county area, including county governments, cities, water supply corporations and special districts. Thirteen questionnaires were returned, comprising a response rate of approximately 30 percent. Refer to Table 3-1 for a summary of responses. Also refer to Appendix B of this document for a sample copy of the questionnaire. In addition, the study team has had personal communications with representatives of many local and state agencies concerning this project. 11753/890674 3-5 8� A 0 c5 a a x C ❑ 0 0 z z 13 z z� z z 33 z Z 'geb E 0 .� z z affi ffi. z x x x a. v) 13 C 5 a x r o sx °Z'• 0 0 z 0 z z z e 0 r- r°$ e k o' oel §•-• 0'0-N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o; ,6 wa a 3 ga a a a 3 3 a M 3 3 O v v �i N M M M e(1.9. .... a. 0' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o g A tR;2,ScoC.g w 0 o 0 o R g 0 oc X A r b 0 °c z, z W W 3 U n; U U a Os) College Station g ffi tl g ffi g g g °C pa,'�•� '0• 000 O0•0•00 zzzz z XzX 40 City of Navasota 0 9 (3 City of Buffalo City of Calvert Institutional 3-6 3.2.6 Local Planning and Engineering Studies The study team has reviewed and evaluated local planning and engineering reports that have been provided by surveyed cities and institutions. These documents have been used as a means to supplement and cross-reference the published sources. 3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3.3.1 Primary Study Area Brazos County The primary study area of Brazos County has historically experienced moderate but steady population growth over the last three decades. All but one of the county -level projections considered for this study generally indicate a continuation of this trend throughout the 30-year planning period. Table 3-2 summarizes the 1990-2020 population projections by county and by primary and secondary study area. Figure 3-1 graphically depicts the TWDB and TSDC population projections for Brazos County. At the outset of the projection period (1990), both TWDB High and Low Series projections fall slightly below those developed by the TSDC. However, by the late 1990's this situation is reversed, with both TWDB projections exceeding those of the TSDC until 2020. From 2000 to 2020, the range of county population projections is defined at the high end by the TWDB High Series projections and at the low end by the TSDC 1.0 Scenario. Across the 30-year period, the TWDB Low Series projections track closely with the TSDC projections, eventually falling roughly midway between the TWDB High Series and TSDC 1.0 Scenario. In addition, at its most divergent point in 2020, the TSDC "Most Likely" Scenario (0.5) is only slightly lower than the TWDB Low Series projection. Although in later years there is considerable variation among the county population projections, both the TWDB and TSDC projections confirm the trend of continued population growth in Brazos County. 11753/890674 3-7 TABLE 3-2 PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Primary Study Area BRAZOS COUNTY TWDB Low Series 93,588 120,188 148,545 164,770 175,694 TWDB High Series 93,588 120,754 176,608 197,376 214,150 TSDC 0.0 93,588 133,765 144,447 156,631 168,307 TSDC 0.5 93,588 134,444 144,693 155,219 163,613 TSDC 1.0 93,588 134,780 141,655 145,081 142,092 Secondary Study Area GRIMES COUNTY TWDB Low Series 13,580 19,876 23,757 27,233 31,065 TWDB High Series 13,580 20,075 24,996 28,690 32,908 TSDC 0.0 13,580 17,918 19,982 22,765 26,096 TSDC 0.5 13,580 18,560 22,402 27,176 32,850 TSDC 1.0 13,580 19,160 24,634 31,184 38,148 LEON COUNTY TWDB Low Series 9,594 12,587 14,533 14,875 15,216 TWDB High Series 9,594 12,807 14,939 15,429 16,785 TSDC 0.0 9,594 12,387 12,779 13,702 14,950 TSDC 05 9,594 13,060 15,145 18,017 21,516 TSDC 1.0 9,594 13,684 17,499 22,247 27,329 MADISON COUNTY TWDB Low Series 10,649 11,871 12,893 13,661 14,388 TWDB High Series 10,649 12,153 13,289 14,104 15,195 TSDC 0.0 -10,649 11,710 12,318 13,232 14,108 TSDC 0.5 10,649 12,317 14,418 17,076 20,035 TSDC 1.0 10,649 12,879 16,818 22,080 27,878 ROBERTSON COUNTY TWDB Low Series 14,653 15,627 16,513 17,280 18,449 TWDB High Series 14,653 15,701 16,820 17,852 20,299 TSDC 0.0 14,653 15,865 17,504 19,814 22,687 TSDC 0.5 14,653 15,910 17,556 19,788 22,498 TSDC 1.0 14,653 15,986 17,524 19,177 20.286 SECONDARY SUBTOTAL TWDB Law Series 48,476 59,961 67,696 73,069 79,118 TWDB High Series 48,476 60,736 70,044 76,075 85,187 TSDC 0.0 48,476 57,880 62,583 69,513 77,841 TSDC 0.5 48,476 59,847 69,521 82,055 96,899 TSDC 1.0 48,476 61,709 76,475 94,688 113,641 TOTAL STUDY AREA TWDB Low Series 142,064 180,149 216,241 237,839 254,812 TWDB High Series 142,064 181,490 246,652 273,451 299,337 TSDC 0.0 142,064 191,645 207,030 226,144 246,148 TSDC 0.5 142,064 194,291 214,214 237,274 260,512 TSDC 1.0 142,064 196,489 218,130 239,769 255,733 STATE OF TEXAS TWDB Low Series 14,229,191 17,925,073 20,854,280 23,636,765 26,565,012 TWDB High Series 14,229,191 18,303,462 22,034,172 25,711,412 30,019,490 TSDC 0.0 14,229,191 17,400,293 19,052,863 20,895,095 22,872,225 TSDC 0.5 14,229,191 17,809,286 20,682,019 23,999,093 27,723,601 TSDC 1.0 14,229,191 18,226,855 22,460,425 27,598,050 33,669,910 SOURCE: Texas Water Development Board, 1989. Texas State Data Center, 1988. 11753/890674 3-8 P 0 P U L A T I 0 N 225,000 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 Figure 3-1 County Population Projections Brazos County 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2010 2020 3-9 i Municipal Population The twin cities of Bryan and College Station are the two largest municipalities within Brazos County. In the last decade almost 90 percent of the total county population has been resident in these two cities, with the remainder located in rural and suburban areas. Generally, given the trend towards increased growth and urbanization of metropolitan areas, the vast majority of the future Brazos County population would be expected to remain consolidated in Bryan - College Station. Population projections for Bryan and College Station have been derived from two sources: the TWDB and from data reported by the cities. Following an extensive review by city officials, the self -reported projections were selected as best representing the future population growth of these municipalities. Generally, the self -reported population projections were lower for 1990 than the TWDB projections, but in later years fall approximately midway between the TWDB High and Low Series. Refer to Table 3-3 for a summary of these projections. 3.3.2 Secondary Study Area The 4-county secondary study area has over the last three decades experienced slight population growth. Population outmigration has in part contributed to periodic decreases in county population for all but Madison County. In 1960, the combined population of the secondary study area was 45,566 inhabitants (US Bureau of the Census, 1972). By 1970, the 4-county population had declined by approximately 6% to 42,675 inhabitants. During the period from 1970 to 1988, all counties generally experienced population growth, although the net increases were slight. The county population projections developed by both the TWDB and the TSDC assume that population growth will continue at a slight to moderate pace throughout the 30-year planning period. Refer to Table 3-2 for a summary of population projections by county, including a secondary study area subtotal. From the initial "clustering" of TWDB and TSDC data points 11753/890674 3-10 TABLE 3-3 PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON BY CITY 1990 2000 2010 2020 City of Bryan TWDB Low 62,034 64,123 70,994 74,552 TWDB High 62,327 76,238 85,043 90,870 Self -Reported 56,000 66,345 76,845 81,478 City of College Station TWDB Low 47,134 57,326 63,467 66,648 TWDB High 47,356 68,156 76,027 81,236 Self -Reported 44,636 57,926 65,000 74,000 Source: Texas Water Development Board, 1989 Survey Questionnaires 11753/890674 3-11 at 1990, the projections moderately diverge. For Grimes, Leon and Madison counties, the high end of the projection range is generally defined by the TSDC 1970-1980 Migration (1.0) Scenario; the low end is generally defined by the TSDC Zero Migration (0.0) Scenario. The range for Robertson County is defined at the high end by both the TWDB High Series and the TSDC Zero Migration (0.0) Scenario, while the low end of the projection range is defined by the TWDB Low Series. Figures 3-2 through 3-6 graphically depict the projected populations of each county and the total secondary study area. - Generally, at the most divergent point (2020), the net difference between the TWDB High and Low Series projections for all secondary study area counties is minimal. Similarly, there is generally a minimal net difference between the TWDB High and Low Series projections and the TSDC Mid -Range (0.5) Scenario throughout the 30-year period for Grimes and Robertson Counties. The net difference among the TWDB projections and the TSDC Mid -Range for Leon and Madison counties is potentially significant, although the differences only become pronounced late in the 30-year planning period. 3.4 MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA DEMAND PROJECTIONS Population and per capita water usage are the two key components of the equation used to project municipal water demand. The study team has reviewed and evaluated per capita statistics from two sources: the TWDB and participant questionnaires. The TWDB develops per capita statistics from self -reported data compiled from public and private water suppliers. The TWDB per capita statistics take the form of both a high and an average. The average per capita usage is typically based on the .most recent 10-year period for which data is available. The high per capita statistic is typically based on the extreme reported during the same period. Both average and high statistics are developed for most major municipalities within each county. 11753/890674 3-12 40,000 30,000 P 0 P u L A T 0 N 20,000 10,000 Figure 3-2 County Population Projections Grimes County 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2010 2020 3-13 30,000 25,000 P 0 20,000 L u T 0 15,000 N 1 0,000 5,000 Figure 3-3 County Population Projections Leon County 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2010 2020 3-14 P 0 P u L A T 0 N 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Figure 3-4 County Population Projections Madison County 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2020 3-15 P 0 P u L A T I 0 N 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 Figure 3-5 County Population Projections Robertson County 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2010 2020 3-16 120,000 110,000 100,000 P 90,000 0 P U A • 80,000 T I O N 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 Figure 3-6 County Population Projections Secondary Study Area 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2010 2020 3-17 In addition, the TWDB also projects water demand based on the implementation of conservation measures. Assuming conservation, the per capita water demand is assumed to decrease over gradually over time, as opposed to remaining constant. Based on responses to the survey questionnaire, several cities provided estimates of per capita usage and these have been incorporated into the projection model. 3.4.1 Primary Study Area There is considerable variation in per capita water usage within Brazos County. A review of historical estimates by the TWDB reveals that rural residents use slightly over 100 gallons per capita, on average, as compared with urban residents who have been estimated to use over 245 gallons per capita on average. TWDB estimates of peak usage are even higher, reaching over 335 gallons per capita for College Station. It should be noted again that the TWDB includes the water usage of Texas A&M University with that of the City of College Station, thus leading to a higher per capita usage. Table 3-4 provides a summary of both historical and projected per capita water usage statistics for both the cities of Bryan and College Station and the rural areas of Brazos County. 3.4.2 Secondary Study Area Due to the large area and relatively small population dispersed among rural communities, the per capita usage characteristics of the secondary study area have been addressed at the county level. Generally, per capita usage at the county level has been moderate, resulting in a projected range of between 100 and 200 gallons per person per day. Table 3-5 provides a summary of historical and projected per capita usage for the 4-county secondary study area. 3.5 MUNICIPAL AND MANUFACTURING WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS As noted previously, water demands within the primary and secondary study areas consist of several general use categories, as defined by the TWDB. These categories are 11753/890674 3-18 TABLE 3-4 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL WATER USAGE BRAZOS COUNTY Item Gallons Per Day 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020 Bryan Actual 173 145 TWDB Average 160 160 160 160 With Conservation 156 148 140 136 TWDB High 185 185 185 185 With Conservation 180 171 162 157 Self -Reported [a] 164 164 164 164 College Station Actual 233 245 TWDB Average 266 266 266 266 With Conservation 259 246 233 226 TWDB High 335 335 335 335 With Conservation 327 310 293 285 Self -Reported [a] 161 189 228 248 Other Actual 105 104 TWDB Average 110 110 110 110 With Conservation 107 102 96 94 TWDB IIigh 139 139 139 139 With Conservation 135 128 121 118 [a] Provided by Survey Questionnaire. SOURCE: TWDB, 1989 11753/890674 3-19 TABLE 3-5 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA WA1'hR USAGE SECONDARY STUDY AREA Item 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020 GRIMES COUNTY Actual 98 146 TWDB Average 111 111 111 111 With Conservation 108 103 97 94 TWDB High 140 140 140 140 With Conservation 136 129 122 119 LEON COUNTY Actual 129 128 TWDB Average 127 126 126 125 With Conservation 124 117 111 107 TWDB High 158 158 158 158 With Conservation 154 146 138 133 MADISON COUNTY Actual 144 182 TWDB Average 157 157 157 157 With Conservation 153 145 137 133 TWDB High 198 198 198 198 With Conservation 193 183 173 168 ROBERTSON COUNTY Actual 179 133 TWDB Average 148 149 149 147 With Conservation 144 138 130 125 TWDB High 179 181 181 178 With Conservation 174 167 158 151 SOURCE: TWDB, 1989 11753890674 3-20 municipal, manufacturing, steam electric, irrigation, mining, and livestock uses. For the purposes of this regional study, only the water demands associated with the municipal and manufacturing user classes have been carried forward into the master planning for a potential regional system. Further, master planning has focused only on the municipal and manufacturing water demand associated with the primary study area of Brazos County, although water demand projections for the secondary study area have been evaluated and presented in the following sections. The water demand projections for the municipal and manufacturing use categories have been developed from the adopted population and per capita usage statistics discussed in previous sections of this report. In the following sections, average day and maximum day water demand projections are presented, including demands under a water conservation scenario. 3.5.1 Average Day Water Demand 3.5.1.1 Primary Study Area The future water needs of Brazos County will continue to be dominated by the demands of the twin cities of Bryan and College Station, including Texas A&M University. To a much smaller extent, the "other municipal" category has been included to account for the water demands of smaller private water systems located within the county. Based on extensive coordination with representatives of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M and a thorough review of TWDB data, the water demand projections for Brazos County have been derived largely from self -reported data. Table 3-6 presents projected municipal and manufacturing water demands for Brazos County under average day conditions. Generally, the average day projections for the county for municipal and manufacturing water usage range from an estimated 25.2 mgd in 1990 to 49.1 mgd in 2020. Based on a comparison with TWDB data, these adopted projections fall below the TWDB high series projections, but above the TWDB low series water demand projections. Refer to Appendix C for a thorough comparison of TWDB and self -reported population, per capita and water demand data. 11753/890674 3-21 TABLE 3-6 PROJECFt D AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 MUNICIPAL (mgd) Bryan [a] 9.184 10.881 12.603 13.362 College Station [a] 7.200 10.959 14.794 18.356 Texas A&M [a] 7.000 9.000 9.900 10.890 Other Municipal [b] 1.535 4.465 5.032 5.828 Municipal Subtotal 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437 MANUFACTURING [c] 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712 COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149 Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] Self -reported average day water demand. [b] TWDB high population and high per capita projection. [c] TWDB high projection. 11753/890674 3-22 3.5.1.2 Secondary Study Area Municipal and manufacturing water demand in the secondary study area is generally evenly divided among Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson counties in 1990, ranging from approximately 2.0 to 2.8 mgd, and totalling 9.9 mgd for the entire area. Future demands under the TWDB high series projections indicate increased water demand, although over the 30-year planning period the net increase is projected at only slightly over 3 mgd. Because of the size of the secondary study area (3,214 square miles) and the rural character of these counties, there is a wide geographic distribution of water demand throughout the area. Table 3-7 presents a summary of municipal and manufacturing water demand projections for the secondary study area under average day conditions. All projections are based on the TWDB high series projections. 3.5.2 Average Day Water Demand with Conservation The implementation of water conservation measures would provide participating municipalities with the opportunity to reduce water demands within the primary study area of Brazos County. The TWDB assumes that the demand reductions associated with conservation programs would occur gradually over time, beginning with a 2.5% reduction in 1990 and increasing to a 15% reduction in 2020. The factors of demand reduction used by the TWDB have been applied to both the municipal and manufacturing categories of water demand. Refer to Table 3-8 for a presentation of water demand projections for 'Brazos County under a water conservation scenario. 3.5.3 Peak Day Water Demand Seasonal weather patterns are a primary factor contributing to fluctuations in municipal water demand. Certain components of a municipal water supply system are sized according to peak or maximum demands, as opposed to average demands. Peak day demand is 11753/890674 3-23 TABLE 3-7 PROJEC.1'ED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND SECONDARY STUDY AREA Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 MUNICIPAL [a] Grimes County 2.778 3.320 3.806 4.341 Leon County 1.994 2.289 2.341 2.376 Madison County 2.346 2.550 2.702 2.842 Robertson County 2.792 2.982 3.128 3.276 Municipal Subtotal 9.910 11.141 11.977 12.835 MANUFACTURING [b] Grimes County 0.204 0.271 0.334 0.402 Leon County 0.135 0.112 0.121 0.121 Madison County 0.068 0.080 0.094 0.109 Robertson County 0.020 0.027 0.033 0.041 Manufacturing Subtotal 0.427 0.490 0.582 0.673 COMBINED TOTAL Grimes County 2.982 3.591 4.140 4.743 Leon County 2.129 2.401 2.462 2.497 Madison County 2.414 2.630 2.796 2.951 Robertson County 2.812 3.009 3.161 3.317 SECONDARY TOTAL 10.337 11.631 12.559 13.508 Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] TWDB high population and high per capita projection. [b] TWDB high series manufacturing demand projections. 11753/890674 3-24 TABLE 3-8 PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND WITH CONSERVATION BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 CONSERVATION FACTOR 2.5% 7.5% 12.5% 15.0% MUNICIPAL (mgd) Bryan [a] 8.954 10.065 11.027 11.358 College Station [a] 7.020 10.137 12.945 15.603 Texas A&M [a] 6.496 8.130 8.663 9.257 Other Municipal [b] 1.496 4.130 4.403 4.954 Municipal Subtotal 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171 MANUFACTURING [c] 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605 COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776_ Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] Self -reported average day water demand. [b] TWDB high population and high per capita projection. [c] TWDB high projection. 11753/890674 3-25 frequently calculated by applying a peaking factor to the average day water demand. In the absence of historical peak -to -average demand statistics, a peaking factor of 2.0 is commonly applied to the average, indicating that the peak day demand is 200% of the average day. For the purposes of calculating a peak day municipal water demand for Brazos County, EH&A reviewed peaking factors reported by the twin cities of Bryan and College Station, as well as Texas A&M University. Generally, these self -reported peaking factors ranged from 1.99 to 1.57. Following consultation with representatives of Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University, the self -reported peaking factors were selected as best representing the historical trends of peak -to -average use. Table 3-9 provides a summary of peaking factors used for calculating the maximum day water demands. Note that a peaking factor of 2.0 has been applied to the "other municipal" demand category. The manufacturing water demand category has not had a peaking factor applied to the average day demand, reflecting the assumption that the water demand of manufacturing industries is not typically related to seasonal use. 3.5.3.1 Primary Study Area The projected peak day municipal and manufacturing demand of the primary study area of Brazos County is presented in Table 3-9. The demands range from approximately 45.7 mgd in 1990 to 89.2 mgd in 2020. These projections do not assume the adoption or implementation of conservation and/or drought contingency measures. 3.5.3.2 Secondary Study Area Although master planning of a regional water system has been limited to Brazos County, the projected peak day municipal and manufacturing demands for the secondary study area have been calculated for purposes of comparison. Peak day demands have been conservatively estimated using a peaking factor of 2.0 applied to the average day demand. In 1990 the peak day municipal and manufacturing water demand has been projected to be approximately 20.2 mgd, increasing to 26.3 mgd in 2020. Refer to Table 3-10 for a summary of peak day water demand projections for the secondary study area. 11753/890674 3-26 TABLE 3-9 PROJEC:1bD MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 PEAKING FACTOR Bryan [a] 1.85 1.75 1.67 1.73 College Station [a] 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 Texas A&M [a] 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 Other Municipal [b] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND [c] MUNICIPAL Bryan [a] 16.990 19.041 21.046 23.117 College Station [a] 14.300 21.798 29.408 36.593 Texas A&M [a] 10.990 14.130 15.543 17.097 Other Municipal [b] 3.069 8.930 10.065 11.655 Municipal Subtotal 45.349 63.899 76.062 88.463 MANUFACTURING [d] 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712 COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 45.680 64.348 76.634 89.175 Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] Self -reported average day water demand. [b] Assumed peaking factor. [c] Average day (Table 3-6) times peaking factor. [d] No peaking factor applied to manufacturing. 11753/890674 3-27 TABLE 3-10 PROJEC, ED MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND SECONDARY STUDY AREA Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 MUNICIPAL [a] Grimes County 5.556 6.640 7.612 8.682 Leon County 3.988 4.578 4.682 4.752 Madison County 4.692 5.100 5.404 5.684 Robertson County 5.584 5.964 6.256 6.552 Municipal Subtotal 19.820 22.282 23.954 25.670 MANUFACTURING [b] Grimes County 0.204 0.271 0.334 0.402 Leon County 0.135 0.112 0.121 0.121 Madison County 0.068 0.080 0.094 0.109 Robertson County 0.020 0.027 0.033 0.041 Manufacturing Subtotal 0.427 0.490 0.582 0.673 COMBINED TOTAL Grimes County 5.760 6.911 7.946 9.084 Leon County 4.123 4.690 4.803 4.873 Madison County 4.760 5.180 5.498 5.793 Robertson County 5.604 5.991 6.289 6.593 SECONDARY TOTAL 20.247 22.772 24.536 26.343 Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] Based on peaking factor of 2.0 applied to average day. [b] TWDB high projection; no peaking factor applied. 11753/890674 3-28 3.5.4 Peak Day Water Demand with Conservation As disclnssed previously in Section 3.5.2, the adoption and implementation of water conservation measures would provide the opportunity to reduce water demands within the primary study area of Brazos County. The TWDB assumes that the demand reductions associated with conservation programs would occur gradually over time, beginning with a 2.5% reduction in 1990 and increasing to a 15% reduction in 2020. The factors of demand reduction used by the TWDB have been applied to both the municipal and manufacturing categories of peak day water demand. Refer to Table 3-11 for a presentation of water demand projections for Brazos County under a water conservation scenario. 3.6 INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA Water service within the primary study area of Brazos County is delivered through a broad range of existing private and public utility systems. The cities of Bryan and College Station are the largest systems, serving the majority of the county's municipal water needs. The Texas A&M University water system also meets the significant institutional water demand of the university and its research facilities. In addition to the three largest facilities, municipal water demand within the county is met through approximately 24 smaller systems. Table 3-12 presents a list of the existing water supply systems in Brazos County, as reported in the Water Hygiene Inventory, a data base maintained by the Texas Department of Health. Based on a survey conducted by EH&A and supplemented with data furnished by the Texas Department of Health (TDH), a brief description of the major utility systems found in the primary service area is provided in the following paragraphs: City of Bryan The City of Bryan is the largest municipal system within the study area, relying entirely on ground -water sources. Bryan has 13 wells with an existing production capacity of 26.2 11753/890674 3-29 TABLE 3-11 PROJECTED MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND WITH CONSERVATION BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 PEAKING FACTOR Bryan [a] 1.85 1.75 1.67 1.73 College Station [a] 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 Texas A&M [a] 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 Other Municipal [b] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND [c] MUNICIPAL Bryan [a] 16.566 17.613 18.416 19.649 College Station [a] 13.942 20.163 25.732 31.104 Texas A&M [a] 10.715 13.070 13.600 14.533 Other Municipal [b] 2.992 8.261 8.807 9.907 Municipal Subtotal 44.215 59.107 66.554 75.193 MANUFACTURING [d] 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605 COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 44.538 59.522 67.055 75.798 Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. [a] Self -reported peaking factor. [b] Assumed peaking factor. [c] Average day with conservation (Table 3-8) times peaking factor. [d] No peaking factor applied to manufacturing. 11753/890674 3-30 TABLE 3-12 4. 5 5 55�EE�55555 EE EEE EEEE EEEEE z z z z P z0. R 4 Rt�°u R 4°cc� 4 Q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 R R 4 4 2 400 :_o", . �, - ... 0.. I. , I. 0.. I. a. a. I. a. I. O. s. I. ►. ►.. I. Rf c� �, O O O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' "' O h �-. .y+ ... o-NN+ Vi to e.. . o 6; 6 H 6 6 6 6; 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 Pn e-�i�.�ro� �►�". �.r"rr�i �r�ro-�"ie-r'i�e-�.r��i�o-�e=i� 4 o trt A oQQ ogsQ Q 'Q g§§§ Q g§§Q Q gQ 2§§0 EA& M E°°0000Nooei000000000000000r0000 E�-+ a '0 U i Cs. CA wE-� rc� � ° o ° CigQ 5oQQosQQoobAg§g45'g�i§tgE 00 ON 0 3Q E" 13 C O O o N O O vi C C C C C C O C O O C o O G O G eV C O C a w 0 0 m z , .o w a 5 X • 0 w —00 l( NetCD Nkr)Inv-4yl00oOp�tkn00O�tet.-,Vp l .-genet .-400 vnNNen tom.-avI NN enN�en•-+t-etNv)v)vOON " o zg "g 5 4..,4 a o ,F w a. �' = G to o A. m • e 4)8 to0 p °C Ea�.5... �, E Otn�x o cd �' 3• � ��� °= q'3 :ca o=9a0a)a. 6`I atn0 o cn o0M c e 3 "" 5,e z'd 2 >.1 'a°qx o o 04b�V E-•v�a t,v,3aat �c.., ,boa 4.1 �rx.0 �xd ' 3 o v U pA O (3. O O `� b N «s yEj 'c ap «Y GL rn A r4 [11 sao4aat)ddC�wwc7x3 1 ig, zOaxrncntncnE- ;:3 0 0 cn z Abbate r 3-31 mgd. Following chlorine treatment near the wellhead, potable water is conveyed to the city via a 30-inch transmission line. Storage facilities consist of four ground storage tanks and two elevated storage tanks with a total combined capacity of 12 million gallons. Proposed storage expansions by the City of Bryan include an additional 1 million gallon elevated storage tank. The City of Bryan municipal water system provides retail service to city residents, as well as wholesale service to the Fairview -Smetana Water Supply Corporation. City of College Station The City of College Station is the second largest municipal system within the primary study area, also relying entirely on ground -water sources. The City of College Station currently has four wells with a total capacity of approximately 16 mgd. An additional well with an estimated capacity of 4 mgd is scheduled to be placed in service in 1991. Following chlorine treatment near the wellhead, potable water is conveyed from the well field via a 30-inch transmission line to the city distribution system. College Station has three ground storage tanks with a combined capacity of 10 million gallons, as well as two elevated storage tanks with a combined capacity of 3 million gallons. Long-range plans by the city include an additional 2 million gallon elevated storage tank to be placed in service in 1998. The City of College Station provides retail service to city residents and wholesale service on a limited basis to the Wellborn Water Supply Corporation and the Texas World Speedway. Texas A&M University Texas A&M University has an estimated well production capacity of approximately 14 million gallons per day from a total of 10 wells. Transmission lines from the wellfield include 18-inch and 24-inch mains. Campus storage includes a 2 million gallon elevated storage tank and two 2 million gallon ground storage reservoirs. Storage expansions include another 2 million gallon ground storage reservoir proposed in 1990. 11753/890674 3-32 The Texas A&M University water system provides service to all facilities within the university complex, as well as limited wholesale service to the Wellborn Water Supply Corporation and the City of College Station. 3.7 EXISTING CAPACITY AND PROJECTION OF SUPPLY DEFICIT For the purposes of this study, the primary study area will encounter a water supply deficit at the point when future demands exceed the capacity of existing facilities. The current ground -water production capacity of Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M has been estimated at approximately 30.240 mgd following a review of the existing facilities (see Section 5.0). This current production capacity has been conservatively estimated and is based on certain assumptions that pertain to ground -water sources and the condition of existing facilities. The first assumption that underlies the estimated 30.240 mgd production capacity pertains to the existing and future sources of ground -water. The majority of recent historical and current ground -water pumpage by the Bryan -College Station area occurs in the Simsboro Aquifer, and this trend is expected to continue into the future, particularly as older wells that currently pump from other aquifers would be expected to be phased out of primary operation. The Simsboro Aquifer, therefore, has been assumed to be the primary and most reliable source of ground -water that would be available to supply the future water demands of the Bryan -College Station area. Given this assumption, only the estimated production of Simsboro wells has been used to derive the total production capacity for the Bryan -College Station area. A second assumption underlying the estimation of the current ground -water production capacity pertains to the condition of existing facilities. The cities of Bryan and College Station and Texas A&M University have been determined to have a current total of 14 wells that pump from the Simsboro Aquifer. Of these 14, it has been assumed that four of these wells will be phased out of operation, resulting in 10 fully -producing wells from the Simsboro Aquifer. Although the individual production of the 10 wells varies, an average yield of 2,100 gpm 11753/890674 3-33 (3.024 mgdfwell) has been assumed. For a complete evaluation of the existing ground -water resources, refer to Section 5.0. Table 3-13 provides a summary of surpluses and deficits under average day demand conditions. This table also includes demands under a conservation scenario. Table 3-14 summarizes the maximum day demands for Brazos County, highlighting projected supply deficits. 11753/890674 3-34 TABLE 3-13 PROJECI'hD GROUND -WATER DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMANDS BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 Average Day Demands Municipal" 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437 Manufacturing' 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712 Total Water Demand 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149 GW Production 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240 Surplus/(Deficit) 5.0 (5.5) (12.7) (18.9) Average Day Demands with Conservation Municipal` 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171 Manufacturing` 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605 Total Water Demand 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776 GW Productionb 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240 Surplus/(Deficit) 5.62 (2.83) (7.30) (11.54) Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. " From Table 3-6. b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan, College Station, and TAMU wellfields. From Table 3-8. 11753/890674 3-35 TABLE 3-14 PROJECTED GROUND -WA I'ER DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES MAXIMUM DAY WAl'ER DEMANDS BRAZOS COUNTY Item 1990 2000 2010 2020 Maximum Day Demands Municipal° Manufacturing' Total Water Demand GW Production Surplus/(Deficit) Maximum Day Demands with Municipal` Manufacturing` Total Water Demand GW Production Surplus/(Deficit) 45.349 0.331 45.680 30.240 (15.4) Conservation 44.215 0.323 44.538 30.240 (14.30) 63.899 0.449 64.348 30.240 (34.1) 59.107 0.415 59.522 30.240 (29.28) 76.062 0.572 76.634 30.240 (46.4) 66.554 0.501 67.055 30.240 (36.81) 88.463 0.712 89.175 30.240 (58.9) 75.193 0.605 75.798 30.240 (45.56) Note: All units in millions of gallons per day. ° From Table 3-9. b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan,; College Station, and TAMU wellfields. From Table 3-11. 11753/890674 3-36 4.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS Water conservation and drought contingency plans have become an integral part of long-range water supply planning on a local, regional and statewide level. In 1985 the 69th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2 which was subsequently implemented by a constitutional amendment approved by Texas voters on November 5, 1985. One of the provisions of the legislation and constitutional amendment was a requirement that a political subdivision must include water conservation and drought contingency plans as part of an application to the TWDB for financial assistance. The TWDB has adopted rules and guidelines for developing plans for municipal water conservation and for management of water supply problems during prolonged droughts or other periods of emergency. The scope of this water supply planning study includes the development of a draft water conservation plan and a drought management plan. These draft plans are proposed for the cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas A&M University) but also could be modified and adapted for other water service providers in the study area. 4.1 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 4.1.1 Purpose A water conservation plan is designed to reduce water use through a combination of methods which minimize waste, improve efficiency in the initial use, and encourage reuse wherever possible. There are a number of methods which can be used to reduce the quantity of water used for various functions without necessarily eliminating any uses. These methods accomplish the objective of reduced water usage with a combination of permanent changes to more efficient water -using devices and also in the habits and lifestyles of individual water users. 11753/890674 4-1 4.1.2 Goal The cities of Bryan and College Station have not adopted any form of water conservation program. The cities reported water consumptions during 1988 which equate to an average usage of 173 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) for Bryan and 159 gpcpd for College Station. The goal of the water conservation plan is to level off the historical trend of increasing per capita water use. Ultimately, per capita usages could be reduced by 5 to 10%, or more, with a well developed and comprehensive plan which is aggressively implemented and enforced. 4.1.3 Potential Benefits An effective water conservation program can result in significant benefits for a utility and individual customers. Even without an apparent shortage of existing or potential supplies of water, conservation of natural resources is good public policy. Water conservation also will reduce environmental effects such as drawdown of ground -water levels, depletion of aquifers, or reduction in stream flows or reservoir levels. A water utility can benefit from reductions in average and peak demands with direct cost savings in operations and better levels of service. Capital expenditures for new supply, treatment and distribution facilities can be reduced and deferred. Similar savings in wastewater system operations and capital expenditures can be realized from the expected reduction in wastewater volume. Individual water customers will realize direct savings in costs from reductions in water and energy usage as a result of changes to conservation habits and more efficient water -using devices. Any extra cost to customers for efficient water -using devices can generally be recovered in a relatively short period. For example, a family reducing usage by 50 gallons a day would realize an annual savings of about $23 at an assumed rate of $1.25 per thousand gallons. For a utility, a reduction of 10%, or about 15 gpcpd, in the average water usage can equate to a significant savings in water. The annual savings in water requirements would be 11753/890674 4-2 approximately 300 million gallons and 245 million gallons, respectively, for Bryan and College Station based on the 1990 population estimates. The water savings which result from repairs of leaks, repairs of inaccurate meters, and reduction of other losses from unauthorized or unmetered uses will produce direct benefits to a utility because lost water does not generate sales revenues. Water savings by individual customers through conservation habits will initially decrease revenues to the utility. However, the revenues can be replaced as the water becomes available for sale to new customers without the corresponding cost for extra capacity; in effect, conservation is a source of supply. In summary, the potential benefits from a water conservation plan are maximized when a plan becomes . integrated with long-range water planning and also with the overall management and operation of an efficient water system. 4.1.4 Elements of Plan The TWDB guidelines include nine elements which must be considered in developing a water conservation plan. The specific activities of each element which are feasible and appropriate for the entity and its particular circumstances should be included in the plan. The nine plan elements to be considered are: 1. Education and Information 2. Plumbing Codes 3. Retrofit Program 4. Water Rate Structure 5. Universal Metering and Meter Maintenance 11753/890674 4-3 6. Water Conserving Landscaping 7, Water Audits and Leak Detection 8. Recycling and Reuse 9. Implementation and Enforcement 4.2 DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN In addition to a water conservation plan, a water utility should also plan for management of water supply problems during prolonged droughts or other periods of emergency. Consumer demands significantly increase during summer drought periods, and extended periods of high usage can cause failures or problems with certain components of the water system. Even during times of average demand, a major breakdown or other disaster could cause a crisis because of a loss of water supply or an inability to treat or deliver sufficient water. 4.2.1 Purpose A drought contingency plan is designed to significantly reduce water demand during a temporary emergency, using voluntary and/or mandatory procedures that may even prohibit certain water uses during the emergency. The existence of a plan will facilitate a more reasonable, effective, and efficient response to a sudden emergency. 4.2.2 Elements of Plan The TWDB guidelines list the following six elements to be included in a drought contingency plan: 1. Trigger Conditions 2. Drought Contingency Measures 3. Information and Education 4. Initiation Procedures 11753/890674 4.4 5. Termination Notification 6. Means of Implementation 11753/890674 4-5 DRAFT WA 1hR CONSERVATION PLAN I. Education and Information Several methods will be used to educate and inform water users about the benefits of water conservation and of ways to save water. A. Initial Program 1. Publish an article in the local newspaper announcing the adoption of the plan, providing information on the availability of details of the plan, and notifying the public of the intent to distribute educational materials. 2. Distribute an initial announcement of the plan, fact sheet, and educational material to existing customers. 3. Maintain a supply of the educational brochures and pamphlets which are available from the TWDB and other sources. 4. Provide a supply of the brochures and pamphlets for distribution at city offices, schools, libraries, and other public places. 5. Provide a packet of the conservation plan fact sheet, brochures and pamphlets to new customers. B. Long -Term Program 1. Continue the distribution of brochures and pamphlets to new customers and once a year as inserts in water bills. 11753/890674 1 2. Cooperate with builders, developers, businesses, governmental agencies, schools, and Texas A&M University to develop water conservation exhibits and programs for inclusion at seminars and trade association conventions. II. Plumbing Codes Adopt a plumbing code which requires the use of water saving fixtures for all new construction and for replacements in existing structures. The standards that are recommended by the TWDB represent readily available products and technology at a minimal, if any, extra cost over previous standards. The standards are: Tank -type toilets Flush valve toilets Tank -type urinals Flush valve urinals Shower heads Lavatory and kitchen faucets Hot water lines Swimming pools Maximum 3.5 gallons per flush Maximum 3.0 gallons per flush Maximum 3.0 gallons per flush Maximum 1.0 gallons per flush Maximum 3.0 gallons per minute Maximum 2.75 gallons per minute - Insulated - Recirculating filtration equipment Revisions to the standards will be considered and adopted as improved products become available, practical, and economical. Retrofit Program Provide information through the education program to plumbers and customers about the advantages and availability of retrofit devices for fixtures in existing homes and businesses. 11753/890674 2 Encourage the voluntary installation and use of low -flow shower heads, faucet aerators, and toilet dams. Encourage local retail stores which sell plumbing supplies to include low water -using fixtures in their inventory. IV. Water Rate Structure Consider and evaluate the adoption of a water rate structure which encourages water conservation. Such rate structures include an increasing block rate, a continuously increasing rate, peak or seasonal load rates, and excess use fees. Require a uniform rate structure as a minimum condition of any future contract for sale of water to other utilities. V. Universal Metering and Meter Maintenance. Require meters for all water users, including separate meters for each living unit in multi -family complexes and also for all utility, city, and other public facilities. Establish a meter maintenance program which includes regularly scheduled testing and repairs and replacement as necessary. Meters should be inspected and/or tested for any apparent problem and upon customer complaint for any unusual and significant variation in normal usage. The recommended regular testing schedule is as follows: Production (master) meters - Meters larger than 1" Meters 1" or smaller 00. VI. Water Conserving Landscaping once a year once a year once every ten years Provide information through the education program to homeowners, home builders, developers, business owners, landscapers, and irrigation contractors about the methods and benefits of water conserving landscaping. 11753/890674 3 The following methods will be promoted: A. Encourage the use of adapted, low water using plants and grasses for landscaping new homes and sites for commercial, office, and retail development. B. Encourage the use of drip irrigation systems when possible and other water conserving irrigation systems, with efficient sprinklers and a layout that accommodates prevailing winds. C. Encourage the use of ornamental fountains that recycle water and use the minimum amount. D. Encourage nurseries and businesses to offer adapted, low water using plants and grasses and efficient irrigation systems and to promote their use with demonstration projects and advertisement programs. VII. Water Audits and Leak Detection Continue monthly records and accounting which compares water production and water delivery. On a regular basis and when otherwise indicated by the apparent water losses, perform investigations to detect and locate major leaks or other sources of lost water. Make repairs and corrective actions as soon as problems are discovered. VIII. Recycling and Reuse Evaluate the potential for recycling and reuse of water. Encourage the use of treated effluent for irrigation if it is found to be feasible, environmentally sound, and within the parameters of regulations of the Texas Department of Health and Texas Water Commission. 11753/890674 4 IX. Implementation and Enforcement The process of developing and adopting a water conservation plan will include the appropriate resolutions, policy statements, city code revisions, and budget allocations necessary to implement the various elements of the program. A program administrator will be responsible for directing the implementation and enforcement of the program and also for monitoring public response and compliance. An annual report will be prepared on the progress, public acceptance, effectiveness, and net benefits of the program. An acceptable water conservation plan will be required as a condition of a contract between a regional authority and its customer utilities. 11753/890674 5 DRAFT DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN I, TRIGGER CONDITIONS Trigger conditions will be set to indicate the need for drought contingency measures to be put into effect. Trigger conditions will be set for mild, moderate, and severe conditions to indicate the need for the corresponding level of contingency measures. A. Mild Condition 1. Daily water usage is at or above 90% of the firm capacity of the water system for three consecutive days. 2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system. B. Moderate Condition 1. Daily water usage is at 100% of the firm capacity of the water system for three consecutive days. 2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system. C. Severe Condition 1. Daily water usage exceeds the firm capacity of the system for three consecutive days. 2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system. 11753/890674 1 3. Regardless of recent water usage and drought conditions, there is an impending or actual failure of a major component of the water system which could cause a serious disruption of service to part or all of the service area. The trigger conditions will be modified when plans and projects for a regional system are finalized. II. DROUGHT CONTINGENCY MEASURES Drought contingency measures and an implementation plan will be established for the corresponding levels of trigger conditions. The measures for the second and third levels of severity will include the measures of the preceding level. A. Mild Condition 1. Advise the public through the news media that the trigger condition has been reached and provide daily updates until the situation has returned to normal. 2. Encourage the public through the news media to voluntarily reduce water consumption by using to the greatest extent possible the suggested steps included in the news release. 3. Advertise and promote a voluntary lawn watering schedule. 11753/890674 2 E. Moderate Condition 1. Continue the public information program and emphasize the continuing and increasing severity of the problem. 2. Advise the public of a mandatory lawn watering schedule which restricts a customer to off-peak times of a certain day on a recurring schedule. 3. Prohibit ornamental and other non -essential water uses. 4. Encourage industrial and commercial users to stop or modify water usage where possible. C. Severe Condition 1. Continue the public information program and emphasize the critical nature of the problem. 2. Prohibit all outdoor water uses such as lawn watering, car washing, street and driveway washing, swimming pool filling, and other non -essential uses. 3. Enforce all restrictions and penalize those who fail to comply. III. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION After adoption of a drought contingency plan, all customers will be informed of the trigger conditions, corresponding contingency measures, and the means of implementation of the plan. The news media and also letters and brochures for water customers will be used to inform 11753/890674 3 and educate the public upon adoption of a plan. The news media will be used to provide daily information and updates throughout the duration of an emergency. IV. INITIATION PROCEDURES - Formal written procedures will be established to ensure that the plan will be understood and capable of being implemented almost immediately if necessary. A program administrator will be responsible for beginning notification procedures and advising the public about approaching trigger conditions with sufficient advance notice. All required regulatory ordinances and contract provisions will be established. Notification procedures and press releases will be prearranged and coordinated with all the news media. V. TERMINATION NOTIFICATION The news media will be used to inform the public about successful results of the drought contingency plan, improving conditions and the corresponding downgrading of contingency measures, and the termination of the emergency. VI. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION The drought contingency plan will be implemented and enforced with all necessary and appropriate resolutions, policy statements, ordinances, plumbing code revisions, contract revisions, and budget allocations. A program administrator will be responsible for directing the implementation of the program and monitoring public response and compliance. 11753/890674 4 5.0 GROUND -WATER RESOURCES 5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Several aquifers representing substantial ground -water resources exist in parts of the five -county planning area. The Sparta Sand, Queen City Sand, Carrizo Sand and Wilcox Group (composed of the Calvert Bluff, Simsboro and Hooper Formations) are each important water sources in some parts of the five -county area. The Simsboro is by far the most important and currently furnishes water to the three largest users in Brazos County. This study emphasizes the Simsboro Aquifer because of its wide lateral extent and large potential for additional development. The Simsboro is capable of meeting projected future water needs for College Station, Bryan, and Texas A&M University through the year 2020. Other aquifers including the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Hooper, and Calvert Bluff furnish supplies to numerous, widely -scattered, mostly small users. These aquifers are capable of furnishing additional quantities of water over the northern part of the planning area, and resources are sufficient to meet the small to moderate future water needs of most current users. Some other aquifers exist in the southern part of the planning area, particularly in Grimes County. These include sands in the Yegua, Jackson, Catahoula, and Fleming Formations. Except for the Fleming in southernmost Grimes County, only small amounts of water are reported available from these units. However, because future projected demands in the southern part of the study area are relatively small, these aquifers are probably capable of supplying most of those needs. If well fields are located in southernmost Grimes County in the Fleming, all water demands for Grimes County could likely be met through the year 2020. 5.2 SIMSBORO AQUIFER 5.2.1 Character, Location and Extent The Wilcox Group is comprised, from shallowest to deepest, of the Calvert Bluff, Simsboro and Hooper Formations. The Simsboro exists throughout the entire five -county area, 11753/890674 5-1 but comprises an important fresh water aquifer in only the northern half of the study area. Figure 5-1 is a schematic cross section which shows the position and thickness of the more important geologic and water -bearing units, including the Simsboro. The section extends from northern Robertson County to the Bryan -College Station area and passes through the Cities of Calvert and Hearne, and through the City of College Station's well field. Within the five -county area, the Simsboro outcrops at the surface only in the very northwestern corner of Robertson County as shown on Figure 5-2. Elsewhere, the Simsboro outcrop extends across about 150 miles of Central Texas from near Bastrop to beyond Fairfield. The northwestern extent of the Simsboro Aquifer corresponds to the northwestern edge of the Simsboro outcrop. From the outcrop the Simsboro extends southeast as a thick, consistent sand unit. The Simsboro is thin only in the northwestern part of its outcrop. It thickens downdip to the southeast and is typically 300 to over 600 feet thick. The Simsboro dips to the southeast at an average rate of about 100 feet per mile. Near Calvert, the position of the Simsboro is affected by faulting within the Mexia-Talco Fault System. Coastward, the Simsboro occurs at progressively greater depths, reaching a depth of over 3,000 feet near Bryan. Water -table conditions exist in the sands of the Simsboro in the outcrop area, but artesian conditions exist in all areas downdip to the southeast. The Simsboro is one of the thickest water -bearing sands in Texas and is typically a massive, thick -bedded zone consisting mostly of fine- to medium -grained, well -sorted sands. The Simsboro contains some, but relatively few, beds of clay and silty clay. Generally in the Bryan -College Station area, the Simsboro consists of over 70 percent of fine- to medium -grained, moderately permeable sand. Screen lengths in wells of Bryan and College Station range from 250 feet to over 450 feet. The extent of the Simsboro capable of furnishing potable water, up to 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1) or less of total dissolved solids content, encompasses only the northern half of the five -county area. Figure 5-2 shows the approximate extent of potable or fresh water in the Simsboro. The fresh/brackish water boundary generally extends from near Bryan to Normangee and into the very southeastern portion of Leon County. The boundary shown on 11753/890674 5-2 Section A - A' 0 0 10n0-1 eag ueaw MoIO (-) Jo anogy ;Oad 'uo11eAal3 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 M 0 c,) 0 coo Cr/ co °' c(1) 0 ro a' CU T c' w mo U n) E 2 >.Itf_ 6) U ° m U oD- O 0 ET)O 0 0 CbCD <0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to N I0A01 eag ueaw MOIeg(-) )o enoq' )ea3 'UOIPAOI3 Iw Vi « N 1 I 0 0 0 0 o 14) M CO c 0 ° • ni c• o • ° a) L (0 E .p G' a) -co u) l0 '0 0 to C 0) O 'O 0 C ° O • 0 .0 .. ° N L ate' if) ta d d 0 Z 5-3 Figure 5-2 Extent Of Simsboro Aquifer College Station - Well Field ''''' LE:ON C 0 UNT ju:wot 1 , ,• . • • • • -,,,,,, .•• • •. . , •‘.' ,'' ., .Y. \/ . • ..• ... . ) \ .• • „•••• ,•'" • - ' ' P. OcBcE; :,...FILTTSy9 N (' „ ,',," Marquez • •••• ?, ... . I, .. I !'• „ . s , . A• . ,,•,. , ,'''•' ',. .i \ • \,.. / 4' Fr oilKiii I .' „,... „ • • '. /'-' , • • */ , ', NOrirl:•11• NV,: r ..) •••' L, .s.‘ ,••' • ' V • -ii4 111,':lio Ncirli) Zulch .. s.. •• . ' BRAZOS ( • ,.• • .--, ; ." COUNTY l ,....". '.,. / . , mAdisoN •• Bryan : cOUNTY----1‘.''—'— ' .••.. • • \ Well • ) Field „,-: Bedias E__.• __............_. . ..... • • K.. • A.. 1 '. liN :. I. l •,,•,,,, , , \ '.'.•' • ••. Sir vji ••• lori i ; \ Texas A & . A University tor;• Well Field EXPLANATION Simsboro outcrop Estimated southeastern limit of Simsboro water containing less than 1000 mg/I total dissolved solids A Location of cross section shown AV in Figure 1. Location of Simsboro wells and well field • Ficons ,•1 P; &Hie • , .. . 1 . ; , • 1, \ il .••, (\ .:, Aild;;If..0i1 ..'i ?. ,../-4". , ,... L'. ' ' t : CARiMES COUNT Y ..... ...... 5-4 Figure 5-2 is from Texas Water Commission (1989) mappings as modified in the local Bryan -College Station area to reflect site specific data. 5.2.2 Present Use Included in tables showing water demand projections to 2020 are water use figures for the five -county area for 1980 and 1985. The values reflect both ground water and surface water use, and the only significant surface water use is by a power plant in Grimes County. Virtually all of the other present and past water use in the five -county area has been from ground -water sources. Table 5-1 provides the 1987 municipal and industrial use from ground -water sources by county. Virtually all use is for municipal purposes with only low amounts used for industrial purposes. Some irrigation use occurs, but virtually all is from shallow alluvial sources located adjacent to the Brazos River. Neither the Simsboro nor the other aquifers addressed herein furnish significant amounts of irrigation pumpage. Table 5-2 provides the 1987 municipal ground -water use by aquifer and user according to reports to the Texas Water Development Board (1989). The aquifer/formation identifications are those used by the Texas Water Development Board, and they do not always attribute ground -water use to individual aquifers. In cases where a user obtains supplies from two aquifers, the amounts are frequently grouped together and listed in a combined category. For example, nearly all of the City of Bryan's and Texas A&M University's use is from the Simsboro, with only a•little being from the Sparta. The listing shows this pumpage under the aquifer heading Wilcox Group/Sparta Sand. There are other small inconsistencies such as the City of Hearne being listed under Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group when in actuality all of the pumpage is from the Simsboro portion of the Wilcox. Based on the available records, reports of owners, and estimates of the applicable water -bearing units, the estimated distribution of pumpage by individual aquifer units for 1987 for the five -county area for municipal purposes is as follows: 11753/890674 5-5 TABLE 5-1 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROUND -WATER USED FOR 1987 County Municipal Industrial Total MGD Ac-Ft MGD Ac-Ft MGD Ac-Ft Brazos 20.70 23,188.14 0.05 56.01 20.75 23,244.15 Robertson 2.13 2,381.49 0.03 33.61 2.16 2,415.10 Leon 1.42 1,590.68 0.22 246.44 1.64 1,837.13 Madison 1.35 1,512.27 0.00 0.00 1.35 1,512.27 Grimes 1.48 1.657.90 0.19 212.84 1.67 1.870.73 Total 27.08 30,330.48 0.49 548.90 27.57 30,879.38 SOURCE: Texas Water Development Board, 1989. MGD is millions of gallons per day. Ac-Ft is acre-feet. 11753\890674 5-6 Table 5-2 Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987 (Source: Texas Water Development Board, 1989) Aquifer: Carrizo Sand User Hilltop Lakes Resort City of Oakwood City of Normangee City of Nordheim St. Paul Shiloh-Timesville WSC. . . . . ......... Aquifer: Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group User City of Jewett FLO WSC Robertson County Water Supply Corp. Twin Creek Water Supply Corp. City of Leona Wheelock Water Supply Corp. City of Hearne Leon Homeowners Association Lake Limestone Coves Aquifer Jackson Group User Carlos Water Supply Corp. City of Shiro Aquifer Oakville / Lagarto User Grimes Co. M.U.D. #1 Aquifer: Queen City Sand User Aquifer: City of Centerville County MGD Ac - Ft Leon 0.15863 177.70 Leon 0.11911 133.43 Leon 0.09335 104.58 Leon 0.04676 52.38 Leon 0.03166 35.47 County MGD. Ac-Ft Leon 0.17634 197.53 Leon 0.16236 181.88 Robertson 0.12539 140.47 Robertson 0.09211 103.18 Leon 0.03145 35.24 Robertson 0.01971 22.08 Robertson 1.20719 1352.30 Leon 0.00785 8.80 Robertson 0.00673 7.54 County MGD Ac - Ft Grimes 0.14750 165.22 Grimes 0.01501 16.82 County MGD Ac - Ft Grimes 0.00115 1.29 County MGD Ac - Ft Leon 0.24398 273.31 Flynn Water Leon 0.00910 10.19 Sparta Sand User City of Madisonville Midway Water Supply Corp. Texas Department of Corrections County MGD Ac - Ft Madison 0.54941 615.44 Madison 0.02776 31.10 Grimes 0.71241 798.04 5-7 Table 5-2 Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987 - Cont'd Aquifer: Wilcox Group User City of Calvert City of Buffalo City of Franklin City of Bremond City of Marquez City of New Baden D & S Water Co. City of Calvert Aquifer: Yegua Fm. User Ramblewood MHP North Zulch M.U.D. City of Iola Bedias Water System Aquifer. Catahoula Tuff/Jackson Group User City of Anderson Aquifer. Wilcox Group / Sparta Sand User Brushy Water Supply Corp. City of Bryan Texas A-M Physical Plant Dept. Aquifer. Evangeline User Dobbins-Plantersville WSC #2 Aquifer: Jasper User City of Navasota Aquifer. Upper Jasper / Evangeline User Texas Department of Corrections County MGD Robertson 0.38355 Leon 0.30239 Robertson 0.15255 Robertson 0.12745 Leon 0.04916 Robertson 0.00442 Robertson 0.00345 Robertson 0.00203 County MGD Brazos 0.01200 Madison 0.05552 Grimes 0.02077 Grimes 0.02614 County MGD Grimes 0.05031 County MGD Brazos 0.11513 Brazos 9.03844 Brazos 5.56493 Ac - Ft 429.65 338.74 170.88 142.77 55.06 - 4.96 3.87 2.27 Ac - Ft 13.44 62.19 23.26 29.28 Ac - Ft 56.35 Ac - Ft 128.97 10124.86 6233.84 County MGD Ac - Ft Grimes 0.04365 ............... 48.90 County MGD Ac - Ft Grimes County Grimes 0.61614 MGD 0.25813 690.20 Ac - Ft 289.16 5-8 Table 5-2 Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987 - Cont'd Aquifer: Simsboro Sand User City of College Station Wixon Water Supply Corp. Aquifer: Other User Texas Department of Corrections Dobbins-Plantersville WSC #3 Benchley Oaks Subdivision Richards Water System Shadow Lake Subdivision D & S Water Co. Emmett Water Co. H & T Water Supply Glenn Oaks MHP Leon I.S.D. Roans Prairie WSC D & S Water Co. D & S Water Co. D & S Water Co. West Cedar Creek W.S. D & S Water Co. Forest Lake Water System Grassy Creek MHP D&SWaterCo. East Cedar Creek Water System D & S Water Co. D & S Water Co. Lake Winona Subdivision County MGD Ac - Ft Brazos 5.61158 6286.09 Brazos 0.29090 325.86 County MGD Ac - Ft Grimes 0.19802 221.82 Grimes 0.04314 48.33 Brazos 0.02166 24.26 Grimes 0.02103 23.55 Grimes 0.01971 22.07 Brazos 0.01471 16.47 Grimes 0.00879 9.84 Leon 0.00750 8.40 Brazos 0.00747 8.37 Leon 0.00653 7.32 Grimes • 0.00612 6.86 Brazos 0.00584 6.54 Brazos 0.00503 5.63 Brazos 0.00419 4.69 Leon 0.00391 4.37 Brazos 0.00385 4.31 Brazos 0.00345 3.87 Grimes 0.00315 3.53 Brazos 0.00242 2.71 Leon 0.00240 2.69 Brazos 0.00230 2.58 Robertson 0.00136 1.52 Grimes 0.00082 0.92 5-9 Aquifer 1987 Municipal Pumpage Percent of Total Ac-ft Municipal Pumpage Simsboro 24,758 81 Carrizo 927 3 Queen City 284 1 Hooper and Calvert Bluff 819 3 Sparata 1,742 6 All Others 1 837 6 Total 30,367 100 Over 80 percent of the pumpageis from the Simsboro. Over 23,000 ac-ft was produced from the Simsboro in 1987, of which approximately 20,366 ac-ft, or 87 percent, was by the well fields serving Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Other Simsboro users include Hearne, Calvert, Wixon Water Supply Corp., and several other smaller users scattered over a large area mostly in Robertson County. These smaller users tend to be listed under the Wilcox Group or Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group in Table 5-2. Tables 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 show historical Simsboro pumpage for the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields from 1954-1988. Figure 5-3 is a graphic representation of the Simsboro pumpage for these three well fields. The locations of the well fields are shown on Figure 5-2. 5.2.3 Water Quality Chemical quality of ground water is largely determined by the type of soil and rock through which the water has passed. Consequently, the amounts and kinds of minerals in solution depend on the composition and solubility of the geologic materials. Table 5-6 provides a summary of water quality in the Simsboro Aquifer at various locations in the artesian portion of the aquifer starting immediately downdip of the Simsboro outcrop (Tidwell Prairie Well) in northwest Robertson County and continuing downdip along Highway 6 through Hearne, the 11753/890674 5-10 Table 5-3 City of Bryan Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage MGD YEARLY Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG 1954 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.86 0.32, 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1955 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.38 1.71 1.25 0.61 1.92 2.78 2.36 0.93 1956 2.56 0.35 0.01 0.04 0.51 1.32 2.59 2.69 3.16 1.26 0.00 0.06 1.21 1957 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.79 3.16 1.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 1958 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.43 1.52 1.40 1.93 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 1959 0.25 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.08 0.78 1.38 0.97 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 1960 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.52 2.49 1.36 1.32 1.57 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.64 1961 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.25 1.72 1.11 0.59 2.06 1.24 0.58 0.12 0.05 0.65 1962 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.22 1.62 1.27 2.84. 4.45 1.06 0.86 0.34 0.04 1.08 1963 0.41 0.16 0.46 0.75 1.80 3.13 3.98 5.00 1.91 2.03 0.58 0.54 1.73 1964 0.61 0.41 0.44 0.92 1.96 2.79 4.37 3.13 2.70 1.48 0.77 0.68 1.69 1965 0.83 0.70 0.66 1.42 1.64 3.05 5.04 2.03 3.71 1.91 3.08 3.05 2.26 1966 3.37 3.34 1.61 2.47 1.42 4.48 6.71 4.15 2.17 2.68 2.71 2.43 3.13 1967 2.44 2.21 2.26 2.07 1.49 5.76 5.34 6.20 2.96 2.20 1.84 2.48 3.10 1968 2.29 2.30 3.01 3.07 3.12 2.88 3.96 7.46 4.06 3.72 2.72 4.35 3.58 1969 2.13 3.63 3.72 3.53 4.29 6.28 9.84 7.05 3.95 3.64 4.44 3.46 4.66 1970 4.06 3.50 2.58 3.71 4.58 5.72 8.91 10.54 4.44 4.52 5.19 3.88 5.14 1971 3.06 3.14 5.29 5.58 4.20 7.69 10.31 6.08 5.61 3.82 3.45 2.89 5.09 1972 2.90 2.83 4.37 5.52 5.66 8.31 7.53 7.06 6.67 5.43 3.31 3.15 5.23 1973 3.06 2.84 2.99 3.87 * 5.51 5.31 8.66 7.78 6.54 5.77 5.60 5.03 5.25 1974 4.83 * 3.20 4.46 12.57 * 12.78 * 12.02 * 11.11 9.85 * 12.78 * 13.29 * 11.87 * 10.81 * 9.97 * 1975 11.77 * 11.90 * 11.68 * 12.41 * 12.25 * 11.64 * 9.12 * 9.63 * 9.51 * 9.46 * 13.27 * 13.02 * 11.31 1976 12.63 * 13.39 * 13.12 * 14.13 * 7.55 * 9.75 * 9.65 * 11.08 8.02 4.55 6.22 5.11 * 9.60 * 1977 23.70 * 5.45 5.31 5.62 6.78 7.95 14.70 11.27 11.00 * 10.15 * 7.28 * 6.02 9.60 * 1978 6.06 6.69-* 7.61 * 5.86 * 7.89 * 10.13 * 12.91 12.13 6.03 12.49 * 6.88 * 12.22 * 8.91 * 1979 7.65 * 3.20 2.90 3.11 3.77 5.06 5.68 5.68 5.53 5.78 4.47 3.46 4.69 * 1980 3.30 3.6/ 3.76 " 5.25 " 4.07 9.60 12.56 10.77 4.68 6.00 5.28 6.01 * 6.25 * 1981 7.22 * 7.32 * 7.57 * 8.66 * 5.35 6.88 10.60 13.18 10.18 9.14 8.64 7.74 8.54 * 1982 8.44 8.55 8.07 8.08 8.27 11.24 13.47 13.47 11.83 11.24 * 10.61 * 7.74 10.09 * 1983 7.55 7.50 7.55 9.01 9.32 9.86 12.59 11.36 10.23 8.52 7.99 5.76 8.94 * 1984 9.55 * 11.09 * 10.75 * 11.48 10.61 10.00 12.84 12.32 11.67 11.75 * 11.52 * 10.51 * 11.17 * 1985 10.05 * 9.50 * 8.51 * 7.36 7.58 10.82 11.22 15.02 11.34 7.56 6.68 6.66 9.36 * 1986 6.69 6.67 7.87 8.14 9.49 * 10.41 * 13.18 10.73 7.44 6.87 6.26 6.10 8.32 * 1987 5.99 5.77 6.14 8.55 7.59 7.30 10.44 15.19 9.20 8.38 9.21 * 6.37 * 8.34 * 1988 6.12 6.23 6.32 10.21 * 9.41 11.79 11.24 15.90 12.72 12.65 * 10.08 * 8.88 * 10.13 * 1989 8.95 * 8.31 * 6.25 7.97 7.71 8.82 11.20 * Portion of water used to fill cooling lake 5-11 Table 5-4 City of College Station Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD YEARLY JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG 1981 0.08 0.12 0.85 2.46 0.29 1982 3.37 3.74 3.48 2.80 3.30 4.33 5.19 5.98 5.66 5.61 4.67 4.31 4.37 1983 3.63 3.76 3.62 3.25 4.24 4.67 6.04 5.52 6.02 5.74 5.24 4.76 4.71 1984 4.67 4.62 4.72 4.72 6.53 6.10 7.19 7.26 6.75 5.59 4.78 4.21 5.60 1985 4.64 4.98 4.55 3.78 4.75 6.81 7.54 8.93 7.64 5.47 4.94 4.16 5.68 1986 4.36 4.91 5.62 4.76 5.32 4.86 8.23 6.77 5.52 5.13 4.73 4.28 5.37 1987 3.90 4.48 4.47 4.56 5.27 4.53 6.90 9.35 6.37 5.99 5.29 4.34 5.45 1988 4.58 4.42 3.98 3.41 4.16 4.39 4.17 6.05 5.23 4.80 3.57 3.46 4.35 1989 3.41 4.18 4.49 4.02 4.44 4.59 5.47 5-12 Table 5-5 Texas A & M university Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage m MGD YEARLY Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG. 1958 0.08* 1959 0.08* 1960 0.08* 1961 0.9 1962 0.9 1963 0.9 1964 0.9 1965 No Monthly Data Available 1.0 1966 1.1 1967 1.1 1968 0.9 1969 0.9 1970 1.72* 1971 1.90* 1972 1.78 * 1.90 * 1.85 * 1.99 * 2.12 * 2.26 * 2.22 2.22 2.47 2.26 2.13 2.01 * 2.10 1973 2.13 2.27 2.22 2.39 2.55 2.72 2.79 2.76 3.46 3.34 2.92 2.41 2.66 1974 2.18 2.64 2.89 2.86 2.83 2.72 3.27 2.97 3.14 2.99 2.59 2.36 2.79 1975 2.61 2.79 2.81 3.19 3.00 3.14 2.76 3.15 3.91 3.53 2.95 2.49 3.03 1976 2.69 1.90 2.95 * 3.35 * 3.15 * 3.30 * 2.90 * 3.31 * 4.11 * 3.71 * 3.10 * 2.61 * 3.09 1977 0.56 3.28 3.03 3.35 3.26 3.55 3.78 4.07 3.97 4.23 4.03 3.55 3.39 1978 3.45 3.83 3.56 4.06 4.11 4.59 4.75 5.10 * 5.40 * 5.04 4.71 4.09 4.39 1979 4.38 4.00 4.85 5.32 4.69 5.37 4.56 4.93 5.37 5.32 4.28 4.11 4.77 1980 3.91 5.04 4.81 5.89 4.77 7.31 5.82 5.88 5.42 4.62 3.65 3.75 5.07 1981 4.56 4.05 1.15 3.81 4.13 4.31 4.95 7.10 7.44 5.98 6.21 4.31 4.83 1982 3.93 4.13 3.75 3.92 3.77 4.33 4.06 3.07 4.29 2.83 1.25 0.88 3.35 1983 2.36 2.63 2.35 3.45 3.19 3.20 3.44 3.30 1.11 0.99 0.56 1.72 2.36 1984 2.60 3.23 2.50 1.12 3.40 4.45 4.01 4.46 4.95 4.05 3.59 2.74 3.42 1985 3.14 3.72 3.43 4.06 3.41 3.86 3.87 4.44 5.26 3.87 3.36 3.00 3.79 1986 2.56 3.47 4.80 3.76 2.92 2.19 4.19 3.67 3.94 3.71 3.24 2.80 3.44 1987 2.75 3.34 2.76 4.08 3.42 4.27 5.89 6.59 6.73 5.31 4.29 3.28 4.39 1988 2.93 3.90 4.30 4.52 4.94 5.44 6.20 6.85 6.04 5.72 4.32 3.94 4.93 1989 3.93 4.47 4.44 5.68 4.99 * Estimated 5-13 Ac-Ft. 25,000 20,000 Rgure 5-3 Annual S$msboro Pumpage By Bryan, College Station, and Texas A & M University I I i .;...........................;.......t............_..............,..__I ...,...... !I I i 1 1 j I 1 i i !! 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 j11kk11Ml 1 1 1 1 1 I 1( I 1 1, 1 1 1 I i 1 i I ! I ! 1 ! I I I I ! 1 1111Ii1111 1 1 ; , 1 1 1 I I. i I;izI 1 1 1( 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I I 1i 1 I I ii I i i 1! 1, , 1 i; i i , I 1 1! .......1._._.l......1._._. ._._.I.........__.I..__ i_.._.-1--l.......1 i 11 1 I 1 i I 1 1 1 i 1!! 15,000— 10,000 5,000 0 1— �I 1 1954 1959 I 1 1964 1969 1974 1 1979 ■ College Station ® Texas A & M ❑ Bryan 1984 Table 5-6 Chemical Quality Of Water From Simsboro Wells TDH Tidwell City of City of City of Drinking Prairie Hearne College Station College Station Water Standards Well Well 3 Well 1 Test Hole Sample Date — 3/6/86 2/25/71 9/5/79 8/ - /75 Laboratory — IML TDH TDH EW pH (units) 6.5 - 8.5 7.67 8.5 8.5 7.7 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) — 450 702 973 — Calcium (Ca) 65 4 3 32 Magnesium (Mg) — 8.6 2 1 12 Sodium (Na) — 38 172 220 2902 Bicarbonate (HCO3) — 244 394 500 1391 Carbonate (CO3) — <1 7 7 0 Sulfate (SO4) 300 40 <4 4 10 Chloride (C) 300 30 44 54 3752 Silica (Si02) — 16 18 — 22 Flouride (F) 4.0 <0.01 0.3 0.5 — Nitrate (NO3) 45 <0.09 <0.4 <0.04 2.5 Iron (Fe) 0.3 0.14 — 0.06 — Manganese (Mn) 0.05 0.25 — <0.02 Total Alkalinity (CaCO3) — 200 335 422 Total Hardness (CaCO3) — 260 18 10 — Total Dissolved Solids (calculated) 1,000 321 441 540 7410 Note: All concentrations are expressed In mg/I unless specified. TDH: Texas Department of Health Laboratory, Austin, Texas IML: Intermountain Laboratories, College Station, Texas EW: Edna Wood Laboratory, Houston, Texas 5-15 College Station well field, and to the City of College Station, generally along the schematic section shown in Figure 5-1. The City of College Station Test Hole, referenced in Table 5-6, is located approximately at the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue. Included on Table 5-6 for comparison purposes are the constituent concentrations for current drinking water standards of the Texas Department of Health. Generally, water in the Simsboro becomes more mineralized with depth. Some local variations occur, probably due to faulting and varying geochemical processes. Between the outcrop and the Bryan -College Station well fields, mineralization only increases slightly, but rapidly deteriorates between the well fields and the center of College Station. As shown in Table 5-6, the change is from a generally low mineralized water to a highly mineralized unpotable water. As shown on Figure 5-2, the 1,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids boundary lies southeast of the Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M well fields. Updip of the 1,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids boundary, Simsboro water for public supplies typically meets all drinking water standards. The water consists of a sodium bicarbonate water suitable for municipal use. However, on occasion and principally in updip, shallow parts of the aquifer, the water can exceed recommended iron and manganese levels. Simsboro water temperature increases in the downdip direction. In the outcrop area in Robertson County the water is about 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature increases with depth to the southeast to about 115 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit at the Bryan -College Station well fields. Forced -draft cooling towers are utilized to treat the water from those well fields. 5.2.4 Water Levels in Wells When many of the wells of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University were drilled, the artesian pressure in the Simsboro was high enough that water levels were above the land surface, and wells would flow. Figure 5-4 depicts the water -level decline through time for various Simsboro wells in the Bryan and College Station well fields. Since the 1950s, water levels have declined and in amounts proportional to pumpage. By the spring of 1966, pumpage had 11753/890674 5-16 Depth to Water, Above (+) or Below (-) Ground Level (Feet) + 40 0 - 40 - 80 - 120 - 160 Figure 5-4 Historical Static Water Levels In Various Bryan and College Station Simsboro Wells i I I I I 11.l1 ►1 • ;Ground Level.;....,..._.,_._.., • t_...T_ .I_...t t' ! I l i I I 11 I i i I i i i -,ICity of Bryan _. 1 j 11 City of College Station i .... Well 1 r_._..._ 1955 1960 1965 I i I I i ! I i 1970 Year 1975 1980 1985 WeII 141 •.4 We1110! 1990 5-17 reduced the pressure in Bryans wells so that water levels were below land surface. At that time, static water levels in Texas A&M University's well field were still above land surface primarily due to the relatively low surface elevation at the wells. Figure 5-4 indicates the general amount of water -level decline which has occurred. From 1954 (when Bryan started pumping from the Simsboro) to date, water levels have declined about 160 feet. By a comparison of Figure 5-4 and the combined pumpage of the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields, the amount of water -level decline in relation to pumpage can be approximated. The continued decline in Simsboro water levels is largely due to the continued increase in pumpage in the Bryan -College Station area. If pumpage were to remain constant (no future increases), water levels within a few years would essentially stabilize. Current static water levels are estimated to range from a few tens of feet to about 180 feet below land surface. Pumping levels are typically 50 to 100 feet deeper. 5.2.5 Hydraulic Characteristics Based on available tests of wells completed in the Simsboro, the hydraulic conductivity of the Simsboro Sand generally ranges from about 100 gpd/sq ft (gallons per day per square foot) to over 350 gpd/sq ft. The lower values are generally representative of the finer sands present in the Simsboro while the higher values generally represent coarser sands. The relatively high hydraulic conductivities coupled with the thick sands present give rise to high transmissivities for the Simsboro. Locally within the area of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields, aquifer tests indicate transmissivities ranging from 90,000 gpd/ft (gallons per day per foot) to 125,000 gpd/ft (Harden, 1977). Such high values indicate a very productive aquifer in the vicinity of the subject well fields. These values are similar to those for the largest, most important aquifers in Texas. Regionally, Simsboro values for transmissivity are probably more typically between 40,000 gpd/ft and 80,000 gpd/ft. From regional geologic studies and comparisons of actual and computed drawdowns due to past pumping in the Bryan -College Station area, it is known that the long-term, effective 11753/890674 5-18 transmissivity is not as large as in the vicinity of the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields. Somewhat thinner sands exist in other areas, and faulting within the Mexia-Talco Fault System disrupts the continuity of the sands. The result is that more water -level drawdown has occurred in the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields from the pumping to date than would be indicated by the local transmissivities measured in the well fields. It has been calculated (Guyton, 1971) (Harden, 1977) that the effective transmissivity after about one weeks pumping is between 50,000 and 60,000 gpd/ft as opposed to the local transmissivities measured in the well fields. Coefficients of storage for the Simsboro outcrop generally range between .1 and .2 where water -table conditions exist. In downdip areas artesian conditions prevail, and the coefficient of storage generally ranges from .0001 to .001. Based on tests of many wells in the Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University well fields, the average storage coefficient is about .00035 (Harden, 1977). 5.2.6 Recharge, Discharge and Movement of Water The sands of the Simsboro receive recharge in their outcrop areas primarily from precipitation but also from streamflow losses where water tables are below the elevation of creek beds. The mapped recharge area forms a belt one to six miles wide, extending about 150 miles from just south of the Colorado River in Bastrop County to the Trinity River in northeastern Freestone County. The recharge area averages about three miles in width and covers approximately 460 square miles. The principal factors influencing the amount of recharge to the Simsboro are the amount and character of precipitation, topography, character of surface materials, type and amount of vegetation, and the ability of subsurface materials to accept recharge and transmit it to areas of discharge. It is virtually impossible to measure the total available recharge directly, but estimates based upon studies in adjacent areas are available (Texas Water Development Board, undated; Cronin and Wilson, 1967). The maximum amount of recharge is estimated to range up to about three to four inches per year which is about 10 percent of the average annual 11753/890674 5-19 precipitation. Accordingly, over a 460 square mile area, recharge of up to 74,000 to 98,000 acre-feet per year or 66 to 87 mgd (million gallons per day) may be applicable. While recharge is fairly large, recharge alone is not too important or a limiting factor with respect to the availability of water to wells located in downdip artesian areas because of the large quantities of water in storage in the Simsboro. For example, where water -table conditions exist in the recharge area, the coefficient of storage (amount of water drainable from the sands) is estimated to be between 0.1 and 0.2 based on experience with typical sands. Using a value of 0.15, the amount of water drainable from just the upper 10 feet of saturated sand in the outcrop area amounts to over 440,000 acre-feet. In the upper 50 feet the amount would be five times as large which is equivalent to pumping 67 mgd for 30 years. Thus, large amounts are available for decades from downdip pumping wells with relatively small water -level declines in outcrop areas even without recharge. At present, a very large percentage of the natural recharge is rejected, and the Simsboro is essentially full to overflowing. Recharged water reaching the water table in outcrop areas moves slowly in the direction of the hydraulic gradient which is from areas of topographic highs towards areas of discharge along the principal stream valleys. Most of the discharge takes place by evapotranspiration in low areas along the principal drainage ways in the outcrop areas. Other discharge occurs by seepage, but these amounts are mostly small. A small part of the recharge also moves down the hydraulic gradient to downdip areas. Under natural conditions and prior to pumping, a small amount moves generally downdip for many miles. Natural ground -water movement rates in the Simsboro are very slow, most probably between about 50 and 200 feet per year. Pumping from a well changes the local flow pattern so that water moves to the well from all directions. Figure 5-5 is a schematic diagram showing the Simsboro Sand, its recharge area, and the position of the potentiometric surface (defined by the water levels in wells) both prior to pumping and during pumping. Figure 5-5 also shows the cone of depression resulting from pumping, and the movement of water to a well from both updip and downdip directions 11753/890674 5-20 5-21 during pumping. Figure 5-6 shows a plan view of the movement towards a pumping well, and depicts typical flow lines from an outcrop/recharge area. Prior to well development the flow regime in the Simsboro was in a state of equilibrium with the total recharge to the system being equal to the total discharge from seeps and evapotranspiration. Pumping by wells disrupts this equilibrium and causes a withdrawal of water from storage and a concurrent decline of water levels. As water levels fall, natural discharge from the system is reduced, and recharge may be increased. In time, these changes in natural inflow and outflow may be sufficient to balance the withdrawal. If that occurs, a new equilibrium is achieved in which recharge is balanced by the sum of natural outflow and pumpage. Under such conditions depletion of storage no longer occurs. Such an equilibrium, however, is not always possible, especially if the rate of withdrawal is large. Also, it would take tens of feet of lowering of water levels in the outcrop area to capture the water currently being rejected from the Simsboro via evapotranspiration and seeps. However, for the Simsboro and other deep artesian aquifers, if the well pumpage should exceed the reductions in natural outflow which could be achieved and any increases in recharge which could be induced, the wells would continue to furnish water from storage. Because the outcrop is so extensive and the amount of water in storage is so large, very large developments can be supported with only relatively small, continuing water -level declines. Thus, the present recharge rate, while theoretically important, has little relation to the amount of ground water which is practicable to be developed from deep artesian wells over a period of time -- or even over many decades. 5.2.7 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of the Year 2020 The amount of water capturable by a given well field is a function of the water transmitting capacity of the aquifer, the available drawdown in a given well field, the amount of recharge to the aquifer, and the amount of water in storage in the aquifer. Generally the transmissivity in the artesian portion of the Simsboro Aquifer is quite high, and where sufficient available drawdown is available, large well and well field yields are capable of being developed. 11753/890674 5-22 5-23 In fact, the Simsboro is one of the most productive aquifers in Texas and is largely undeveloped at present. Available drawdown is the distance between the static water level and the top of the aquifer (or screen in the well). Generally available drawdown increases to the southeast corresponding to the dip in the formation. This is due to the top of the Simsboro dipping coastward at a much greater rate than the potentiometric surface. Therefore, available drawdowns in the north and northwestern parts of the study area near the Simsboro outcrop are reasonably small, while in downdip areas available drawdown is quite large. Figure 5-1 generally indicates the dip of the top of the Simsboro, and the dramatic increase in available drawdown from northwest to southeast. Near the Simsboro outcrop and near the City of Calvert, available drawdown is reasonably small and generally ranges from just a few tens of feet to about 200 feet. Near the City of Hearne, available drawdown increases several hundred feet, and it continues to increase to the southeast toward the Bryan -College Station well fields. Near the Simsboro outcrop and within just a few miles downdip . of the outcrop, available drawdown limits well yields generally to less than several hundred gallons per minute. Where available drawdown generally exceeds 100 to 200 feet, reasonably large well yields in excess of 1,000 gpm (gallons per minute) can be obtained where thick sands of the Simsboro exist. In the vicinity of the Bryan -College Station well fields, individual well yields are more limited by well and pump diameters than by other factors. Typically, wells have been designed to furnish 1,500 to 3,000 gpm per well which is equivalent to 2.2 to 4.3 mgd per well. Typical well field yields in the downdip portion of the Simsboro Aquifer are, to date, only a function of the users needs rather ;than limitations of the Simsboro Aquifer to furnish water. The following table provides the 1987 Simsboro pumpage and number of Simsboro wells in use in 1987 by Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University: 11753/890674 5-24 1987 Pumpage Well Field Number of Wells (ac-ft) Bryan 8 9,343 College Station 3 6,105 Texas A&M University 3 4,918 Since 1987; College Station has added one well to its well field. These well field yields are only indicative of municipal water needs of the area and not indicative of the availability of water from the Simsboro. In fact, the Simsboro is capable of furnishing substantially more than the amount of water currently being pumped. The largest projected future water demand in the five -county area will occur in the primary study area (Brazos County) and will be for the largest present users, Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University. Their combined municipal demand is projected to increase from approximately 23.4 mgd in 1990 to approximately 42.6 mgd in year 2020. The increased demand is much too large to be obtained from any of the aquifers present in the planning area, except the Simsboro. To generally indicate the Simsboros capability to provide increased demand, a hypothetical well field was located in northern Brazos and southern Robertson County and calculations made of future pumping levels. The hypothetical well field was designed to yield up to an average of 49.1 mgd, the total projected demand in Brazos County for 2020. Well spacings were assumed to be at 2,000-foot intervals; individual well yields of 2,100 gpm were assumed. The number of wells required is based on meeting the projected maximum day water demand for Brazos County as furnished earlier in this report. The general layout of the hypothetical well field is shown on Figure 5-7. The conceptual layout includes using 10 of the 14 existing Simsboro wells of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Additional wells were then added to the well field to meet the estimated future peak daily demands. The wells were added at 2,000-foot spacings along a line extending north toward the City of Hearne. Many other alternative well field layouts would also be possible, but generally should include appropriate well spacings (2,000 feet or more) and well field expansion toward the northwest, away from poorer 11753/890674 5-25 Figure 5-7 Conceptual Well Field To Meet Brazos County Municipal Water Demand To Year 2020 iNN VIelben CeY►N MUMF U1U Scale In Miles EXPLANATION • Assumed location for Simsboro well .\• BENCH n ww►N 1 O,IMM*nl - Al 5-26 quality water. Also, actual well field expansion should be based on appropriate test drilling. Table 5-7 shows the results of calculations of future pumping levels and lists the number of wells necessary in five-year increments through year 2020 to meet projected peak demands. The future pumping levels shown in Table 5-7 were estimated using a computer -assisted mathematical model based on the Theis equation. This mathematical model was developed by the Texas Water Development Board (1973). The calculations are based on a non -leaky artesian solution. The model allows simulation of drawdown (artesian pressure decline) by input of parameters including pumpage, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and boundary conditions by use of image wells. The following hydraulic characteristics were used for the model: Transmissivity = 100,000 gpd/ft for the first 7 days of any pumping or pumping increase and 55,000 gpd/ft thereafter Storage Coefficient = .00035 Outcrop = 25 miles from existing Bryan and College Station well fields Well Yield = 2,100 gpm per well Pumpage for each five-year period was held constant at the average well field pumpage rate shown in Table 5-7 which is the projected Brazos County demand at the end of the five-year period. For example, during the entire period 1990 to 1995, 30.5 mgd was pumped continuously. This water was pumped from 10 wells each pumping about 2,100 gpm. However, as shown in the table, 19 wells are needed in the well field to meet projected peak daily demands. As water demand increased with time, the number of wells and the pumpage used in the model was increased, as shown in the table. The average depth of pumping levels shown in Table 5-7 is the calculated average pumping level in the conceptual well field after pumping continuously to the end of the specified period of time. The average depth of the pumping level is based on the computed drawdowns plus an assumed depth of static water level of 100 feet below ground level and also 30 feet of interference drawdown from others. This interference drawdown is based on calculations and 11753/890674 5-27 TABLE 5-7 CONCEPTUAL WELL FIELD AND ESTIMATED PUMPING LEVELS Average Well Field Well Field Average Total No. Pumpage Capacity Depth of Time Period of Wells (MGD) (MGD) Pumping Level* 1990-1995 19 30.5 57.5 425 1995-2000 22 35.8 66.5 450 2000-2005 24 393 72.6 480 2005-2010 26 42.9 78.6 510 2010-2015 28 46.0 84.7 545 2015-2020 30 49.1 90.7 575 Feet below ground level. 11753\890674 5-28 estimates to provide for a few million gallons per day of Simsboro pumpage in Leon County and approximately 20 mgd of pumpage in Robertson County near Calvert, Texas. The pumpage in Robertson County is based on estimated ground -water requirements for power plant and mining purposes. As shown, the estimated average pumping level in 2020 is approximately 575 feet below ground level. During peak water demands, such as during the summer demand, pumping levels will temporarily be lower, while during times of low water demand levels will be higher than those shown. These seasonal water -level fluctuations are mostly unimportant with respect to water availability from the Simsboro. The results of modeling and the calculations indicate that the Simsboro Aquifer is capable of providing, with some safety factor, all the municipal water requirements for Brazos County including Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University. Calculations show that pumping water levels would generally only decline about 350 feet from the present until 2020. With even lower pumping levels, quantities of water in excess of that required to meet projected 2020 demands could be produced. Typically, the construction of existing Simsboro wells in Bryan/College Station well fields allow high -capacity pumps to be set as deep as 600 to 700 feet below ground level. By modifying and setting pumping equipment in existing wells below pumping levels projected through 2020, existing wells can be used in meeting future projected water requirements. If in some wells, pumping levels fall below the maximum pump setting depth, new wells can be constructed with casings of adequate diameter set sufficiently deeper to provide for 2020 pumping levels or even deeper levels. 5.2.8 Interference Effects From Pumping by Others Relative to the Bryan -College Station demand, any potential future development of the Simsboro by others will be mostly for relatively small supplies or at distant locations. No other significant demands are forecast for the entire five -county area. Thus, the potential interference effects on future Bryan -College Station Simsboro developments are not likely to be a limiting factor to those developments. Also, interference on others from Bryan -College Station 11753/890674 5-29 developments is not likely to be overly significant because of the small projected demand and distant locations. Future projected municipal demands which might logically be obtained from the Simsboro by others are both few and small. Little agricultural development is anticipated, but some moderate to large industrial developments primarily for power plant supplies or in association with lignite mining are anticipated from the Simsboro. The Texas Water Development Board water use projections provided earlier in this - report include projections for future power plant use. Included are 21.4 mgd in 2020 in Robertson County and 10.7 mgd in 2020 for Grimes County. The Robertson County use will likely all be from the Simsboro, and the Grimes County use from surface water sources. Other projections of pumpage from the Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer for mining and power plant purposes are available (R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., 1986). Figure 5-8 and Table 5-8 portray these data. The available data are incomplete and are not necessarily current. Even so, water requirements for individual projects are reported to range from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year to over 30,000 acre-feet per year. In general, several projects are reported to involve withdrawal rates between about 10,000 and 20,000 acre-feet per year. The information appears sufficient to indicate that substantial pumpage will likely occur with some being located in the northern portion of the planning area or in adjoining counties to the southwest. Moreover, the data indicate that nearly all of the pumpage likely will be from the Simsboro with little being from other aquifers. The locations of future potential Simsboro pumping by others appear to be mostly at distances of about 20 to over 70 miles from the Bryan -College Station area. Because of the large distances, no overly large, or limiting, interference effects on potential future Bryan -College Station Simsboro well fields appear likely. The effect of a well field, producing 20,000 acre-feet per year from the Simsboro, located in northern Robertson County would be between about 20 to 30 feet of interference drawdown on the present Bryan -College Station well fields. Interference of that magnitude, or even substantially larger, will have little impact on the overall availability of water from the Simsboro in northern Brazos and southern Robertson Counties to meet Bryan -College Station use 11753/890674 5-30 Figure 5-8 Projected Pumpage From The Carrizo / Wilcox Aquifer For Mining And Power Plant Purposes Calvert Calvert Milam (34,000) Alcoa Power (11,705) Big Brown and Power Plant /! Limestone Power (1,000) Twin Oak Mine Mine (12,000) "s Power Plant ,/ °LE` (NA) / r\ Mine -� ,.w1.4..;s08, Mine, and L f Plant . rR0.v1 -�' ° .• ' \ cc ion Mine - - -nOERSOn c .1 2 �"�R50h . t. . Jewett Mine (NA) 111 r \-' ........ ----....---\--., �nGy:TWI� I Knolle Mine (NA) • ea �- Mine (NA) q� - r \ 1 ram\ ww.tER 1 1 %.� _.1 1 (NA) iii -----_ -i�HRO ? r� a Plant , \m \ ""---�FREE ONE `I mESTE On \ (NA) .- LEON '� \� Oak r FA.Es - Cole Creek \ ` • - BERTSOn 1 ,./--_(__. / / , ------ ; wuMES LBAAZOS f - E �- BURLESOa , % North Camp Swift Mine l ..° NASnanaTON ° _ 1 Camp Swift Mine ' -' , (17,000) - ' ` ��—tea l AUST W Powell Bend Mine t 1(12,900) \ / Li;‘ I COWRAOOy A , \ % / \ - \ ,d,/ \ -/ v ° (nATs ,\` / / 6 f01'/ % c- •,, XimETTE • / GOn1AtES ^s Scan In Was Twin Oak Mine Approximate • (12,000) Maximum NA indicates /'' Boundary EXPLANATION location and name of mine or power plant projected pumpage (acre-feet per year) no protection available of the Carrizo/Wilcox outcrop 5-31 8 HSI Consultants, Inc. 1981 act CI) CI) U ca Q Q 2� Z5 A z a `Powell Bend Mine c' 0 a c3 gc C 00 co A Q co d g � zzzzz N 0 g `Calvert Power Plant Q4 Robertson and Limestone 0) 0 02 el:b 0 0 o 0.4 `Limestone Power Plant Brown Power Plant SOURCE: R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., 1986 5-32 through year 2020. Basically, only lifting costs would be increased slightly. Such developments would also not appreciably change gradients near fresh/brackish water boundaries, and so would not appreciably affect intrusive movement of poor quality water. From a water quality standpoint, it is unlikely that mining operations in Robertson or adjoining counties will be of any real significance to future well developments in the Simsboro. This is especially true with respect to any future well field developments by Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. This is because of the distant locations and because the lignite being mined typically is interbedded with thick deposits of silt and clay and tends to be separated from the Simsboro (and other significant water -bearing units). Degradation of water quality in aquifers adjacent to the lignite tends to be precluded by these natural silt/clay barriers to ground -water movement. While mine drainage sometimes has the potential to be of poorer quality than some natural ground waters, whether that quality would be of any importance would depend on local conditions. Regardless, the travel of any poor quality water which might result from mining operations or other sources would be limited by low ground -water movement rates. For example, the Bryan -College Station area is about 20-25 miles from the nearest mining operations in northern Robertson County, and typical Simsboro ground -water movement rates are only 100 to 200 feet per year. Thus, 20 miles is equivalent to a travel time of 528 to 1,056 years. Mining operations which are miles away should be of little concern to future Simsboro developments chosen to meet 2020 demands. For similar reasons, any other type of contamination in outcrop recharge areas should not be a concern in planning 2020 supplies from well fields located at even moderate distances from these recharge areas. 5.2.9 Effects of Pumping On Fresh Water/Brackish Water Interface At present, pumpage from aquifers in the five -county area is either relatively small or the distances from pumping wells to the location of poor quality water (the fresh water/brackish water interface) is typically large. Under such circumstances, there is no likelihood of the poor quality water moving into existing fresh water wells. Similarly, future encroachment 11753/890674 5-33 of this poor quality water is unlikely unless there is development of heavy pumping close to areas where the poor quality water is located. Only under such conditions can the poor quality water be drawn into wells. Pumping can affect the position of the fresh water/brackish water interface. This is because the original slope of the potentiometric surface from the outcrop to downdip areas of the aquifer is small and because the cone of depression caused by heavy pumping can be relatively deep and can extend over wide areas. Under such conditions, the cone of depression results in a gradient from the fresh water/brackish water interface towards the pumping well field. For example, in the case of the Simsboro, flow lines to the pumping wells originate in the outcrop. However, they do not go straight to the wells because of the radial nature of the flow to wells. Some of the flow lines pass by on either side of the wells and then turn and come back to the wells from the direction of the fresh water/brackish water interface. Depending on well location, some of the flow lines can actually pass from the outcrop into the area containing the poor quality water and then turn and move toward pumping wells. This circumstance causes the fresh water/brackish water interface to move, quite slowly, toward the pumping wells. This situation would be the most severe if the pumping were very large and were located very close to the fresh water/brackish water interface. Currently, the cone of depression as a result of pumping from the Simsboro by Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University is undoubtedly causing some movement of the fresh/brackish water interface toward the well fields. However, there is no indication from chemical analyses that the water from any of the wells is increasing in mineralization. The following listing shows the concentration of some of the major constituents from early and rer" nt analyses of water from the City of Bryan's Simsboro Well 10. This well is closest to the fresh water/brackish water interface of all the Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University Simsboro wells and has been utilized for the longest time. Bryan's Well 10 would be expected to be one of the first wells to show an increase in mineralization if noticeable encroachment of poor quality water were occurring. 11753/890674 5-34 Month/Year 3/54 12/87 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l Chloride, mg/1 Sulfate, mg/l Bicarbonate, mg/l Sodium, mg/1 775 75 2 659 318 774 66 .13 617 307 From inception of Simsboro pumping by the City of Bryan in 1954 and through the development of the Texas A&M University and the City of College Stations Simsboro supplies, no deterioration of water quality has been observed in Well 10 or any of the other Simsboro wells. However, it is possible that given enough time there will be a noticeable increase. It should be anticipated that the first increases will occur in those wells closest to the poor quality water. The process is very, very slow, however, because of the large amounts of water in storage in the Simsboro, the large distance to the fresh water/brackish water interface, and because the water moves radially to the centers of pumping from all directions. As a result, it takes many years for water to move any great distance. The amount of water in storage in the Simsboro is on the order of 76,800 acre-feet per square mile or 25 billion gallons per square mile. This is equal to pumping for one year at the rate of 68 mgd. Using this value and geometry, approximations can be made of the number of years for water to move to wells fields from any distance. Five examples are shown below using various distances, pumping rates, and assuming a porosity of 30 percent for the Simsboro. Well Field Pumping Rate Example A 2 mgd Example B 20 mgd Example C 60 mgd Example D 60 mgd Example E 120 mgd Distance to Brackish Water 1 mile 2 miles 4 miles 8 miles 10 miles Time Required For Brackish Water To Move To Well Field 108 years 43 years 57 years 230 years 179 years 11753/890674 5-35 The existing Simsboro well fields of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University collectively represent a condition somewhere between Examples A and B. If the full projected 2020 demand for Brazos County were developed from the Simsboro at a distance of four to eight miles from brackish water, a condition somewhere between Examples C and D would be applicable. In summary, only very large developments located close to poor quality water can draw in poor quality water, or even cause much lateral movement of the fresh water/brackish water interface except over long time periods. Also, any change in water quality is normally slow. If monitoring of water quality is done, there is a long lead time available to relocate wells or to otherwise deal with the situation. With proper location of future well fields, the threat of brackish water encroachment should not be a limiting factor in ground -water development to meet 2020 demands. 5.3 OTHER AQU11~HRS 5.3.1 Introduction Several other aquifers in addition to the Simsboro are located in the five -county area and are included in the scope of this study. From shallowest to deepest they are the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, and Hooper. Although these other aquifers are capable of meeting water requirements for some of the smaller municipal and industrial users, they are not nearly as important quantitatively as the Simsboro and are also not likely to be important factors in any regional integration of supplies. 5.3.2 Location Figure 5-1 shows the relative vertical position and extent of the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff and Hooper Aquifers. Figure 5-9 shows the lateral extent. The northwest boundary of each of the aquifers is at the northwest boundary of its outcrop area. The downdip or southeastern extent of each aquifer is the southeastern extent of fresh water (up to 1,000 mg/1 11753/890674 5-36 Figure 5-9 Location Of Sparta, Queen City, Calvert Bluff And Hooper Aquifers Queen City EXPLANATION Fresh water area Outcrop (recharge) area 0 20 40 Scale In Mlle• 5-37 total dissolved solids content). Each aquifer dips from northwest to southeast generally at a rate of approximately 100 feet per mile. The Sparta is the shallowest, and it overlies the Queen City. The Carrizo Sand directly overlies the Wilcox Group which is composed of the Calvert Bluff, Simsboro, and Hooper Formations. Each aquifer is of importance in only about the northern half of the five -county area or less. The downdip boundaries of fresh water as shown on Figure 5- 9 are from Texas Water Commission (1989) mappings. 5.3.3 Present Use Industrial and municipal use of ground water within the five county study area is small (Table 5-1), except for use by Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Table 5-2 shows the 1987 ground -water use by municipal users by aquifer as reported by the Texas Water Development Board (1989). This information indicates the total distribution of municipal ground -water pumpage in the five -county area and the number and size of current municipal users. To better evaluate the importance of the individual aquifers to present users, the available information was distributed according to the total amount of use from each aquifer. The distribution is: Aquifer 1987 Municipal Pumpage Percent of Total Ac-ft Municipal Pumpage Simsboro 24,758 81 Carrizo 927 3 Queen City 284 1 Hooper and Calvert Bluff 819 3 Sparata 1,742 6 All Others 1 837 6 Total 30,367 100 11753/890674 5-38 I tss than 6,000 acre-feet of ground -water pumpage occurred for municipal use from the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, Hooper, and other aquifers in the five -county area in 1987. About 1,700 acre-feet was from the Sparta, most of which was from Texas A&M University's Sparta well field. The remainder was produced by over 40 small municipal users scattered over the five -county area. Most of the users produced less than 200 acre-feet in 1987. Moderate users include the City of Centerville in Leon County, the City of Madisonville in Madison County, Texas Department of Corrections in Grimes County, the City of Buffalo in Leon County, and the City of Navasota in Grimes County. In the general vicinity of the Cities of Bryan and College Station, and their respective well fields, the only aquifers capable of furnishing potable water are the Sparta Sand and Simsboro Sand. Water in the Sparta within Bryan -College Station proper is mineralized with total dissolved solid concentrations in excess of 2,000 mg/l. However, to the west mineralization is lower, and both Bryan and Texas A&M have developed well supplies from the Sparta having total dissolved solids content of about 300 mg/t. The City of College Station has never developed any Sparta supplies. The City of Bryan has an older well field in the Sparta which is not currently used, except on occasion to meet peak summer demands. Texas A&M University is the only major user of the Sparta in the Bryan -College Station area. In 1987 about three percent of their total pumpage was from the Sparta. The remaining pumpage was from the Simsboro. The Texas A&M University Sparta well field coupled with the earlier Bryan pumpage from the Sparta, virtually resulted in full development of the Sparta (Guyton, 1971), so any significant future ground -water development could only be from the Simsboro. The City of College Station used one Queen City production well located within the City. The water was of moderately high mineralization, (about 1,700 mg/1 total dissolved solids content) and was mixed with Simsboro water. In 1987 the City of College Station produced only about 0.5 percent of their total pumpage from the Queen City. In recent years this Queen City well has been little used. 11753/890674 5-39 5.3.4 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of the Year 2020 The northern half of the five -county planning area is endowed with significant ground -water resources which could be utilized to meet water demand through 2020. Six aquifers are present including the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, Simsboro, and Hooper. Each can furnish significant additional supplies to present users from expanded or properly -located well fields. In many areas the extent of the aquifers overlaps, and potential users of small supplies will have some options with respect to which zones can be utilized. Local water quality and available well yield likely will dictate choices. To generally evaluate the potential availability of water from the six aquifers, some typical hydraulic and common characteristics of the aquifers and larger -capacity wells are presented in Table 5-9. Included are typical values which can be used to compare transmissivity, well screen length, and well yield for the different aquifers. The source of the information is primarily published reports which has been supplemented by information from owners and experience in evaluating or developing water supplies from each of the aquifers. The transmissivity values shown in Table 5-9 represent the typical maximums which can be expected where wells screen the full sand thicknesses commonly present in those areas which have been developed by wells or in those areas considered more favorable for development. Other factors being equal the availability of water from the aquifers is proportional to their transmissivity. It can be seen that the Simsboro is overwhelmingly the most important, however other units have significant availability of water, especially in relation to the widely -scattered and small projected 2020 demand for those small to moderate users in the planning area. Table 5-9 also shows typical well screen lengths for high -capacity wells completed in the aquifers as well as typical well yields for high -capacity wells. The last column in Table 5-9 ranks the estimated availability of ground water from the aquifers. The numbers are comparative only and reflect the relative quantitative potential of the aquifers. For example, the Queen City, Hooper, and Calvert are considered to have the least water available and to be about equal, with the Sparta considered to have about twice the availability that the Calvert Bluff, Hooper or Queen 11753/890674 5-40 TABLE 5-9 TYPICAL AQUIFER VALUES Aquifer Well Estimated Transmissivity Screen Well Relative Water (gpd/ft) Length (ft) Yield (gpm) Availability Sparta 12,000 <100 500 2X Queen City <10,000 <100 250 1X Carrizo 25,000 100 1,000 4X Calvert Bluff <10,000 <100 250 1X Simsboro 100,000 300+ 2,400 16X Hooper <10,000 <100 250 1X 11753\890674 5-41 City has. The Carrizo is considered to have about twice the availability that the Sparta has. The Simsboro is considered to have about four times the availability that the Carrizo has in as much as the Simsboros transmissivity is about four times larger. Within Robertson, Leon, and Madison counties, future municipal demands are not significantly larger than existing ground -water pumpage. Also, users are widely scattered and have little interference effects on one another. It is judged from Table 5-9 and the amounts of the projected 2020 demand that all small and moderate users will likely be able to obtain future amounts from the same sources which they are currently using or from nearby well fields in available aquifers. The same is likely true for projected industrial demands which are all small (except for Robertson County). The projected industrial use for Robertson County will be from the Simsboro, and the amount is considered available from local well fields. In southern Brazos County and in Grimes County some other aquifers exist. These include sands of the Yegua Formation, Jackson Group, Catahoula Formation, and Fleming Formation. Evaluations of these aquifers are outside the scope of this study. However, some estimates of availability for Grimes County are given in Baker, et al (1974). They are: Aquifer Amount Yegua 3.5 mgd Jackson 2.2 mgd Catahoula 4.5 mgd Fleming 36 mgd The values are relatively small excepting for the Fleming. The Fleming is present only in southernmost Grimes County. Both the current and projected demand in the southern part of the planning area are also small. This suggests the aquifers probably are capable of supplying most of those needs, especially if some well fields were located in the Fleming. 11753/890674 5-42 5.4 GROUND -WATER RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT AS A SOURCE OF WATER A variety of methods have been used to artificially recharge aquifers in order to maintain or augment the natural supply. However, artificial recharge methods are generally not applicable to supplementing the type of storage/transmission system present in either the Simsboro or the other aquifers considered herein. Artificial recharge is defined as augmenting the natural movement of water into underground formations by some method of construction, by spreading of water, or by artificially changing natural conditions. (Todd, 1959) A variety of methods have been used including water spreading via basins, stream channels, ditches, flooding and irrigation. Other techniques employ pits or recharge wells. In addition, sometimes wells are located specifically near surface water bodies and pumped to induce recharge. The particular methods used are governed by local geohydrologic conditions, the quantity of water available to be recharged and the use of the recharged water. In many situations, recharge projects also assist to overcome local problems such as progressive lowering of ground -water levels or brackish water intrusion. Of course, adequate amounts of water must be available in order to place water underground for future use. Common sources include storm runoff collected for subsequent recharge, treated wastewater, or importation of distant surface water sources. Water spreading techniques or artificially changing natural conditions in outcrops of the water -bearing formations are generally not applicable to the Simsboro or other regional aquifers. At present, the recharge areas of all of the aquifers are full to overflowing. Water levels in outcrop areas adjacent to major stream valleys are a few to several tens of feet higher than the adjacent stream valleys. Thus, any amounts recharged would not benefit downdip areas where wells are located but would only serve to increase natural discharge in outcrop areas. With current water levels, recharging in outcrop areas would do little to increase storage and would not affect transmission to wells in downdip areas. Recharging in downdip artesian areas could only be accomplished by wells. Recharging via wells is normally done to combat adverse conditions such as brackish water 11753/890674 5-43 intrusion or progressively declining water levels in addition to maintaining or augmenting the supply. No progressive declines of water levels, excepting those caused by pumpage increases, are occurring in the study area. Also, no troublesome brackish water intrusion is occurring, and there is no lack of overall supply. Recharging via wells in the artesian portion of the aquifers, especially in the Simsboro, would only serve to raise water levels (artesian pressures) and lessen pumping levels in adjacent well fields with the amount being related to the locations and amounts recharged. The net benefit would only be small reductions in lifting costs. At present, lifting costs are essentially an unimportant part of ground -water development costs, and the large capital and operating expenses associated with recharge wells certainly would be an uneconomical way to raise water levels. Furthermore, there would have to be a source for the water used to recharge with that source being large in quantity and of good quality. No such source which could not more economically be utilized directly is available. 11753/890674 5-44 6.0 SURFACE WA 1'ER RESOURCES 6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Municipal and manufacturing water demands within the primary study area are currently met exclusively from ground -water sources. However, in the future it is to be expected that the demand- for water in the primary study area will exceed the capacity of existing well facilities. The development of surface water supplies represents an alternative course of action to the expansion of existing ground -water supplies. The following sections describe the existing and proposed surface water resources that may be available to supplement the future municipal water demands of Brazos County that would not be met by ground -water sources. Refer to Table 6-1 for a summary of existing and proposed reservoirs. 6.2 EXISTING RESOURCES 6.2.1 Brazos River The Brazos River is the primary source of a basin -wide water supply system managed by the Brazos River Authority (BRA). In addition to the management of the Brazos River, the BRA manages 11 water supply reservoirs throughout the basin. The BRA reports that a long- term water supply capable of providing over 45 mgd is currently available from the Brazos River near College Station (see Appendix D for BRA's letter of recommendation). This quantity is well in excess of the projected deficiencies that would occur if no new ground -water supplies were developed to meet future water demands. The river is located approximately 5 miles to the southwest of the Bryan -College Station area. While water quality within the Brazos River is generally satisfactory for water supply, the BRA reports some problems with elevated salt concentrations, particularly during periods of low flow. Because of the available water rights and the close proximity to the Bryan -College Station area, the Brazos River has been carried forward as a potential source of water supply for the primary study area. 11753/890674 6-1 17, ago .5 ras z 00 try 00 00 N 00 A A v 00 N z z z - 8 z z § § §`Rp,� �o N M b '4 N M N j Polk, San Jacinto 0 8 as 11111 a a $3. a a E a . .� • . h) 6 11 5 § i 6 ER a 8 n . 8 a. § z 0 24 i 11753/890674 6-2 6.2.2 Lake Somerville Lake Somerville is a multi -purpose reservoir located in Burleson County, approximately 23 miles to the southwest of College Station. With a surface area of approximately 11,460 acres, Lake Somerville has a total capacity of 160,110 ac-ft and a 2020 estimated yield of 37,900 ac-ft. The BRA notes a current available yield of 31,136 ac-ft/yr, or approximately 27.8 mgd, from Lake Somerville. See Appendix D for BRA's letter of recommendation. This yield exceeds the projected deficiencies that have been identified if no new ground -water development occurs. Water quality from Lake Somerville is excellent for water supply. This source has been carried forward as a potential source of water supply for the primary study area of Brazos County. 6.2.3 Lake Limestone Lake Limestone is located on the Navasota River approximately 45 miles north of the City of Bryan. This reservoir was constructed and is operated by the BRA. Lake Limestone currently supplies make-up water for off -channel cooling lakes that serve the lignite -fueled steam electric power plants located in the area. The lake has a total estimated capacity of 225,400 ac-ft and an estimated yield of approximately 65,500 ac-ft/yr, or approximately 58.5 mgd. Although Lake Limestone has some available water rights, this source has been eliminated for consideration due to the high costs that would be associated with transmission from the reservoir to the Bryan - College Station area. 6.2.4 Twin Oak Reservoir The Twin Oak Reservoir is located in Robertson County, approximately 35 miles to the north of the Bryan -College Station area. This 2,330 surface acre reservoir is operated by the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) and provides cooling water for the lignite -fueled 11753/890674 6-3 steam electric power plant located in the area. Based on this single purpose use and distance from Bryan -College Station, this reservoir has been eliminated as a potential source of water supply for the primary study area. 6.2.5 Gibbons Creek Reservoir Gibbons Creek Reservoir is owned and operated by the- Texas Municipal Power Agency for the sole purpose of providing cooling water for a lignite -fueled steam electric power plant. This reservoir was eliminated for consideration as a potential source of water for the primary study area for this reason. 6.2.6 Lake Livingston Lake Livingston is a multi -purpose reservoir located in the Trinity River Basin approximately 65 miles to the east of the Bryan -College Station area. This reservoir is operated by the Trinity River Authority. See Appendix D for TRA's letter of recommendation. Although the TRA has indicated that sufficient water rights exist to meet the future water demands of the primary study area, it has been assumed that this source would not be economically feasible in light of the high costs associated with conveyance. 6.2.7 Lake Conroe Lake Conroe is located in the San Jacinto River Basin approximately 45 miles to the southeast of the Bryan -College Station area. Although this reservoir may have some available yield for allocation, it has been eliminated for consideration as a viable source of water supply due to the high costs of transmission from the lake to the twin cities area. 6.2.8 Camp Creek Lake Camp Creek Lake is located in Robertson County approximately 26 miles to the north of the cities of Bryan and College Station. This lake has a total capacity of approximately 11753/890674 6-4 8,550 ac-ft and is used primarily for recreation. Because of its small size and its distance from the Bryan -College Station area, this surface water option has been eliminated from consideration as a potential source of water supply. 6.3 PROPOSED RESOURCES 6.3.1 Millican Lake Millican Lake is a planned multi -purpose reservoir that has been proposed for construction on the Navasota River in portions of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison and Robertson counties. At its closest point, the site would be located several miles to the east of the cities of Bryan and College Station. This proposed reservoir would be constructed and operated by the BRA, and would have an estimated total storage capacity of approximately 1,973,000 ac-ft, and an available reservoir yield of approximately 248,600 ac-ft/yr, the equivalent of 222 mgd. Although still in the planning stages, this reservoir was suggested by BRA and has been carried forward as a potentially viable water supply option for Brazos County. See Appendix D for BRA's letter of recommendation. 6.3.2 Bedias Reservoir The proposed Bedias Reservoir has been studied by the Trinity River Authority (TRA) and the Bureau of Reclamation as a potential municipal supply for the Houston area and local areas. See Appendix D for TRA's letter of recommendation. As proposed, the 17,000 surface acre Bedias Reservoir would be located in portions of Madison, Grimes, and Walker counties and have a projected yield of approximately 76 mgd. In the absence of firm commitments from users, however, the TRA halted all planning for this potential project in early 1988. If constructed, the proposed reservoir would be located in the Trinity River basin approximately 25 miles from the Bryan -College Station area. Because of the high costs associated with transmission of water from the Trinity River basin to the Brazos River basin, this proposed reservoir has been eliminated for consideration as a viable source of water supply. 11753/890674 6-5 6.3.3 Lake Navasota Lake Navasota is a proposed water supply project on the Navasota River that has been under joint study by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the BRA. The proposed location in Robertson and Leon Counties would be approximately 22 miles from Bryan -College Station. As currently planned, Lake Navasota would have a total capacity of approximately 1,384,900 ac- ft and a yield of approximately 231,600 ac-ft/yr. In light of the distance from the Bryan -College Station area, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration as a viable surface water source for Brazos County. 6.3.4 Caldwell Reservoir The proposed Caldwell Reservoir has been reviewed for feasibility by a number of entities including the Corps of Engineers and is currently under study by the BRA as a potential source of water supply. The proposed reservoir would be located in Burleson and Milam counties. The damsite is proposed on Cedar Creek west of FM 1362, near Goodwill, approximately 8 miles northeast of Caldwell. Projected yields of this reservoir are approximately 97,438 ac-ft/yr, or approximately 87 mgd. The reservoir would be developed from stormflow down Cedar Creek, and because of the small size of the reservoir it would need to be supplemented by unregulated high flows directly from the Brazos River. Because of its location to the primary study area, Caldwell Reservoir is a potentially viable surface water source and was suggested by BRA. See Appendix D. However, because supplementary flows from the Brazos River were necessary with an additional cost for conveyance, direct pumpage from the Brazos River as discussed in Section 6.2.1 was considered in lieu of pumpage from Caldwell Reservoir, 6.3.5 Brazos Coal Lake The Brazos Coal Lake is a proposed reservoir that is in the early stages of planning by a private developer. Proposed for location in Brazos County on Peach Creek, a tributary of the Navasota River, approximately 10 miles south of College Station, this lake would have an estimated surface area of approximately 1,500 to 2,500 acres. As planned, a primary purpose of 11753/890674 6-6 this lake would be to serve as an amenity feature for surrounding land development. The yield of this proposed lake has been estimated at approximately 1.8 mgd. In light of the size and available yield, this project was eliminated for consideration as a surface water alternative for Brazos County. 6.3.6 Upper Keechi Creek Reservoir The Upper Keechi Creek reservoir is a potential project located in the Trinity River basin. As planned, this potential project would be located in Leon County and would have an' estimated firm yield of 25 mgd. This surface water alternative has been eliminated from consideration due to distance -related conveyance costs. 6.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES SCREENING PROCESS Based on the wide range of existing and proposed surface water resources potentially available to serve Brazos County, EH&A conducted a screening of these resources in order to select alternatives for master planning of a regional system. This screening process consisted of an evaluation of each of the previously described surface water alternatives according to several general criteria: • Sufficient and Available Yield; • Distance -related Conveyance Costs; • Designated Use; and, • Recommendation or suggested consideration by BRA and TRA. Where possible, EH&A gave consideration to the use of existing resources over proposed. However, in several cases the economic costs of conveyance, for example, would be expected to be prohibitively high, resulting in the consideration of proposed projects situated in closer proximity to the Bryan -College Station area. In the screening of proposed reservoirs, EH&A did not attempt to evaluate the technical, economic, or political feasibility of these projects. Instead, all proposed projects were generally assumed to have an equal probability of construction. 11753/890674 6-7 Based on a screening of the surface water alternatives noted in Table 6-1, EH&A identified three potential sources of surface water for the Bryan -College Station area. Table 6- 2 provides a screening matrix of the existing and proposed surface water resources considered for the master planning of a regional water supply system. 6.5 RECOMMENDED SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES Based on a screening of all surface water resources with potential to supplement the existing ground -water supplies in the primary study area, EH&A selected three alternatives. These alternatives are: 1) the Brazos River, 2) Lake Somerville, and 3) Lake Millican. Although Lake Millican is a proposed project, this alternative was selected because of its high yield and close proximity to the Bryan -College Station area. The Lake Millican alternative was also suggested by the BRA. 11753/890674 6-8 PRELIMINARY SCREENING MATRIX tn 741 V) U r a 0 E E 0 8 � 0 „ Ea v 0 a EXISTING: ■ ® a ® a a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • 1 • • • I • • • • O O • • • • • • • O • •• O O• 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • • • O O • • O • • • • O • ca 5 0 Lake Limestone PROPOSED Millican Lake 0 Caldwell Reservoir Brazos Coal Lake 6-9 7.0 RECOMMENDED AL 1hRNATIVE SOURCES 7.1 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to describe the selected water resources and the methodology used to evaluate the alternatives for a regional water supply for the primary study area. The water demands for the study period have been identified and can be found in Section 3.0, Population and Water Demand Projections. This section will identify four alternative sources selected to meet the expected water demands, describe the necessary improvements and the associated cost of those improvements for each alternative, and develop a reasonable determination of the unit cost of raw water. In general, three surface water resources and the Simsboro Aquifer wells have been selected. This section provides an economic comparison of each resource. The surface water improvements will consist of intake facilities, pump station, raw water transmission mains, treatment facilities, booster pump stations and treated water transmission mains. The ground water improvements will consist of a well field, well field transmission main, cooling towers, booster pump station and treated water transmission mains. The design of each alternative has been developed using the following criteria: • Because surface water alternatives are being compared to ground water alternatives, all reservoir alternatives assume the reservoir is in place. Estimated reservoir construction costs were not considered, and the technical, economic, and political feasibility and probability of proposed reservoirs were not evaluated in detail. The cost to purchase water from reservoirs was obtained from the Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per acre-foot. See Appendix D. • Alternatives were developed for a regional water supply system. Additional facilities to distribute and store water for individual participants in the regional supply system were not considered. Therefore, the cost for regional facilities 11753/890674 7-1 terminates prior to the individual delivery facility. The cost to convey water from the regional system to smaller municipalities and water supply corporations is discussed in Section 8.0, Comparison of Alternatives. • Alternative water sources and the necessary facilities were developed only for the primary study area. • The alternatives assume that throughout the planning period a total of 10 existing Simsboro wells will remain in use. As described in Section 3.7 and Section 5.0, these wells each are assumed to have a capacity of 2,100 gpm, for a total of 30.24 mgd of demand to be supplied by the existing wells throughout the study period. Two construction phases have been considered. The first phase is in the year 2000, with construction meeting the demands for the year 2010. The second phase will be in the year 2010 and will meet the demands for the year 2020. Demands prior to the year 2000 will be met by the existing wells. Ten year construction intervals provide sufficient time to study, plan, permit, design and construct each phase. Conservation factors were applied to each construction phase to develop parallel construction costs. Table 7-1 describes each of the construction phases and the year of construction, the conservation factor being applied to the demands, and the demands used for design. 11753/890674 7-2 TABLE 7-1 CONSTRUCTION PHASES Total Demands2 Construction Demand Project' Conservation Q Max -Day Q Average -Day Year Year Phase Factor Applied mgd mgd 2000 2010 I N/A 46.39 12.66 2000 2010 Ic 12.5% 36.81 7.30 2010 2020 II N/A 58.94 18.91 2010 2020 IIc 15.0% 45.56 11.54 'Phase with subscript "c" have Conservation Factors applied. 2Brazos County demands assume 10 existing wells at flow of 2,100 gpm per well, or 30.24 mgd maintained throughout life of study period. See Section 3.0 for demand descriptions. 7.2 GROUND -WATER ALTERNATIVE 7.2.1 Simsboro Aquifer Wells 7.2.1.1 General The proposed water supply source for Alternative No. 1 is from a well field located in the Simsboro Aquifer north of Bryan. Section 5.0 of this report discusses the feasibility of using well fields to meet the demands of the primary study area. Table 5-7 and Figure 5-7 describe the quantity and location of a well field. Section 5.0 also describes the effects of a well field upon the Simsboro Aquifer. Specifically, it was determined that a well field used to meet the year 2020 demands will provide good quality drinking water with a minimal potential for salt water intrusion and with acceptable projected declines in pumping levels. 11753/890674 7-3 This section will describe the design of the improvements used to develop a ground- water supply system and the conveyance facilities used to transfer raw and treated water to the regional delivery points. To develop the costs associated with Alternative No. 1, design assumptions described in Section 5.0 were utilized to determine the engineering requirements of the ground -water system. These assumptions are as follows: 1. Ten existing Simsboro wells were maintained throughout the study period. Although there are more wells existing currently, it is assumed that some of these wells will become ineffective. 2. All wells, both existing and proposed, are assumed to yield 2,100 gpm. 3. Well spacing is at 2,000-foot intervals. 4. Water from all proposed wells will require cooling from 120°F to 88°F with • cooling towers. The ground -water supply system was also developed using the following additional assumptions: 1. Design intervals were assumed at 10-year increments beginning in year 2000 and meeting the demands with and without the conservation factors noted in Table 7-1. 2. Because this is a regional water supply study, individual municipal facilities necessary to receive and further distribute the treated water at the delivery points were not included in the scope. In general, the ground -water alternative will consist of a well field north of Bryan as described in Section 5.0 and as shown on Figure 5-7. The well field will be staged to meet demands of each construction phase. A well field transmission main will convey ground -water 11753/890674 7-4 to cooling towers. The water will then be chlorinated, stored in clearwells and pumped from the booster pump station to two delivery points. A schematic showing the well field design can be found on Figure 7-1 and a map showing the location of well field facilities can be found on Figure 7-2. 7.2.1.2 Supply Facilities Ground -water shall be obtained to meet maximum day demands from a series of wells north of Bryan, Texas and located in proximity to Highway 6 as shown on Figure 7-2. The wells will be constructed to meet the phasing demand as shown in Figure 7-1. Each well will be located on a separate lot and consist of a standard deep well, pump, motor with an electrical motor starter, and radio telemetry. Wells will have increased pumping head due to drawdown levels shown on Table 5-7. Increased power costs and possible pump replacement will be expected due to increased drawdown levels. The well Geld will tie into a well field transmission main which will be sized for each construction phase to provide maximum flow at a velocity of less than or equal to 10 feet per second. The size and length of each .phased pipeline is shown on Figure 7-1. 7.2.1.3 Treatment Facilities As described in Section 5.2.3, the temperature of the water from the Simsboro wells will require cooling towers. The cooling towers will reduce the temperature from approximately 120° to 88°F. Cooling towers will also be sized and staged in accordance with the construction phases. The quality of the Simsboro Aquifer is considered acceptable with minimal treatment. Post -chlorination will be added following the cooling process and air stripping will also be accomplished by the cooling towers. 11753/890674 7-5 STAGED WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN PHASE IIC PHASE IC COOLING TOWERS WELL FIELD 18' DIA. 6,000 L.F. 30' DIA. 12,000 L.F. 36' DIA. 14,000 L.F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20' DIA. 36' DIA. 7.000 L.F. 16,000 L.F. 0 O O 0 0 42' DIA. 16,000 L.F. PHASE 11 PHASE I COMBINED CITIES TRANSMISSION MAIN WITH CONSERVATION = 36' DIA. WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 42' DIA. 29,600 L.F. BRYAN DELIVERY POINT1_____t____J COLLEGE STATION AND TEXAS A&M TRANSMISSION MAIN WITH CONSERVATION = 30' DIA. WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 36' DIA. 57,600 L.F. CONSTUCTION\ PHASE COLLEGE STATION 1 ®j & TEXAS A&M 1 DELIVERY POINT J PHASE CONSTRUCTION YEAR COOLING TOWERS CLEARWELL GALLONS WITHOUT CONSERVATION PLAN I 2000 11 2,300,000 11 2010 3 800,000 WITH CONSERVATION PLAN IC 2000 9 1,500,000 IIC 2010 3 600,000 CHLORINE SOLUTION CLEARWELL STORAGE TANKS PHASE I- II i WELL FIELD PUMP STATION 0- 0- 0 0- 0- I ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FIGURF 7-1 GROUND WATER SYSTEM BOOSTER PUMP STATION . WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN [COLLEGE STATION TEXAS A & M COLLEGE STATION/ TEXAS A& M DELIVERY POINT BRYAN DELIVERY POINT TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN r LEGEND PUMP STATION COOLING TOWER DELIVERY POINT WELL FIELD • WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN 10000 0 0 A OEM --- 10000 SCALE IN FEET C SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD /.�' (�=` ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC ��� Engineering & Environmental Consultants FIGURE 7-2 WELL FIELD ALTERNATIVE I 7.2.1.4 Pumping and Transmission The pump station will use clearwell storage of treated water to reduce the cycle time of the pumps. The preliminary design of the clearwells was developed to store treated water prior to pumping to the delivery points. For the purpose of this study the clearwells are sized assuming a 6-hour storage of average day flow between pump starts. The clearwells will be welded steel and above ground. The size of the clearwells at the different construction phases and the schematic location can be found on Figure 7-1. A booster pump station will be constructed to deliver the maximum day demands of a regional system. The structure will be initially sized to meet year 2020 demands, with only the required pumps being installed to meet each construction phase demands. The pumps will be multi -stage vertical turbine pumps. The reinforced -concrete station will be below ground, with a control building with heat, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting. Auxiliary power may be from an internal combustion engine, gas turbine or .secondary electrical source. The station will be complete with valves, piping, and radio telemetry. The proposed treated water transmission main was aligned along existing road right- of-ways so as to minimize the impact to property and to minimize the right-of-way acquisition effort. The transmission main was sized to ultimate capacity to provide a single line for all phases. Low velocities will occur during the first phase with increased velocities to a maximum of 10 feet per second at Phase II maximum day demands. Two delivery point locations were selected. The proposed transmission line will carry the flow for the entire primary study area, approximately 5.6 miles along FM 2818 to the intersection of State Highway 21 where treated water will be delivered to the City of Bryan. This transmission main will be a 42-inch diameter without the conservation plan and transporting 58.94 mgd, and will be 36-inch diameter with the conservation plan and transporting 45.56 mgd. The transmission main will continue along FM 2818, approximately 10.9 miles, to the intersection of FM 60, delivering the remaining treated water to the second delivery point for College Station and Texas A&M. This transmission main will be 36-inch diameter without the conservation plan, delivering a maximum flow of 41.26 mgd, and will be 30-inch diameter with the conservation plan, delivering a maximum day flow of 11753/890674 7-8 31.89 mgd. The delivery points were located as shown on Figure 7-2 such that the cities' own facilities can easily be tied into the regional transmission main. 7.3 SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES 7.3.1 General Three surface water sources were selected to compare construction costs and operation and maintenance costs with the ground water alternative. Many surface water sources were considered; however, Lake Somerville, the Brazos River and Millican Lake were used for this study. Section 6.0 describes the screening process used to select the alternatives. This section will describe the improvements used to develop the surface water systems to deliver water for the primary study area for each alternative. Section 7.3.1 will describe those features and assumptions that are common for the three surface water alternatives. Features and assumptions which are unique to each alternative will be described in the paragraphs which follow each alternative. In general, the alternatives will consist of a raw water intake channel and pump station located near the reservoir dam or river's edge. Raw water will be pumped through a raw water transmission main to a treatment plant. Treated water will be stored in clearwells and a booster pump station will deliver water to two delivery points through two treated water transmission mains. The typical surface water system can be found on Figure 7-3. The surface water supply system was based on accepted engineering practices and the following conceptual design criteria: 1. The quality of water supplied must meet current criteria of the Texas Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The following are the U.S. EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations and National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: 11753/890674 7-9 RAW WATER INTAKE RESERVOIR OR RIVER RAW WATER PUMPING STATION RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 42" DIA. WITH CONSERVATION = 36" DIA. WATER TREATMENT PLANT R.O. REVERSE OSMOSIS (WHERE APPLICABLE CLEARWELL STORAGE TANKS PHASE PHASE PHASE III TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WITHOUT BOOSTER CONSERVATION = 24" DIA. PUMP WITH STATION CONSERVATION = 20" DIA. BRYAN DELIVERY -1 I POINT J BP. COLLEGE STATION I & TEXAS A&M DELIVERY POINT I J TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 36" DIA. WITH CONSERVATION = 30" DIA. e ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. n ENGINEERING & ENVIRONAIENTAL CONSULTANTS FIGURE 7-3 TYPICAL SURFACE WATER FACILITIES NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS Contaminant MCL (enforceable)* Organics 2,4-D 0.1 mg/L Endrin 0.0002 mg/L Lindane 0.0004 mg/L Methoxychlor 0.1 mg/L Toxaphene 0.005 mg/L 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.01 mg/L Trihalomethanes (sum of chloroform, bromoform, chloromethane, dibromochloromethane) 0.10 mg/L Inorganics Arsenic 0.05 mg/L Barium 1.0 mg/L Cadmium 0.010 mg/L Chromium 0.05 mg/L Fluoride. 1.4-2.4 mg/L+ (ambient temperature) Lead 0.05 mg/L Mercury 0.002 mg/L Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L Selenium 0.01 mg/L Silver 0.05 mg/L Sodium and corrosion No MCL; monitoring and reporting only Radionuclides Beta particle and photon radioactivity Gross alpha particle activity Radium-226 plus radium-228 Microbials Colifonxns Turbidity 4 mrem (annual dose equivalent) 15 pCi/L 5 pCi/L <1/100 mL 1 ntu (up to 5 ntu) *Monitoring and reporting for each contaminant are also required. +Revised MCL and MCLG for fluoride is 4 mg/L. 11753/890674 7-11 NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS Contaminant Current SMCLs SMCL Being SMCLs Proposed Considered Under Under Phase II• Phase V• Chloride Color Copper Corrosivity Fluoride Foaming agents Iron Manganese Odor pH Sulfate Total dissolved solids Zinc Aluminum o-Dichlorobenzene p-Dichlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Monochlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Silver Toluene Xylene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 250 mg/L 15 cu 1 mg/L Noncorrosive 2 mg/L+ 0.5 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 3 Threshold odor number 6.5-8.5 250 mg/L 500 mg/L 5 mg/L 0.05 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.005 mg/L 0.03 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 0.03 mg/L 0.09 mg/L 0.04 mg/L 0.02 mg/L 0.008 mg/L *Phases are identified and defined in the text. +The SMCL for fluoride was revised in 1986. 2. Each surface water alternative has sufficient water to meet the average day demands for the year 2020. 3. Demands for all surface water alternatives assume 10 existing Simsboro wells will yield 2,100 gpm each throughout the study period. 11753/890674 7-12 4. For the purpose of this study the first construction phase will be in the year 2000 and is designed to meet the demands of the year 2010. The second construction phase will be in the year 2010 meeting the demands of the year 2020. Cost scenarios were determined with and without the implementation of conservation measures. Design flows meet the demands of Table 3-13 and 3-14 and are summarized on Table 7-1. 5. Because this is a regional water supply study, individual city facilities necessary to receive and further distribute the treated water at the delivery points were not included in the scope. 7.3.1.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station The location of each alternative's raw water intake and pump station was optimized based on reducing the length of raw water transmission pipeline, minimizing the amount of earthwork required for the construction of the structures and providing good access for maintenance. The intakes were assumed to be channels extending from the reservoir or river to the pump station. The intake will be equipped with bar screens to protect the pumps from debris. The pump station will be a reinforced -concrete structure sized to meet the year 2020 demands and containing vertical turbine pumps added at each construction phase to match the demands at each design phase. In general, three pumps will be installed in the first construction phase: two pumps combined to meet maximum day demand and one pump to serve as a back- up pump. The three pumps will be alternated to provide equal usage time. The second construction phase will add one pump meeting Phase II demands. An electrical control building with heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting and auxiliary power is also included. Stations will be complete with valves, pipes, fittings and controls. 11753/890674 7-13 7.3.1.2 Raw Water Transmission Main A raw water transmission main was sized to meet maximum day demands for the year 2020 at a velocity of 10 feet per second or less. The pipeline was designed to follow existing road right-of-way to the treatment plant, thereby reducing right-of-way costs. The main is sized with and without the implementation of water conservation measures. The cost of the pipelines includes valves, fittings and borings at road crossings. 7.3.1.3 Water Treatment Plant In general, the design will include pretreatment disinfection, taste and odor control, pH control, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, covered clearwell storage, and post -treatment disinfection and fluoridation. The treatment process is outlined in Figure 7-4. Coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation will occur in solid contact type upflow clarifiers. The filtration system removes any remaining turbidity after the clarifiers. The filters were assumed to be mixed media filters. Sludge waste and backwash systems were also included in the preliminary design. The treatment plant was designed for peak flow at each construction phase demand per Table 7-1. However, treatment capacities are divided to meet construction phases: Phase Demand (mgd) Water Treatment Plant Size (mgd) I 46.39 50 Ic 36.81 38 II 12.55 10 IIc 8.75 8 11753/890674 7-14 RAW WATER INTAKE RESERVIOR AND OR PUMP STATION RIVER INTAKE SCREEN FROM CLEARWELL iguil�ll=�1 111 U A \STRIJCTION -II-AL.-Ai ��Yi�un_IwY= RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN BOOSTER PUMP STATION AS FLOW SPLITTER BOX TO SPLITTER BOX TO DELIVERY POINTS TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN DECANT PUMP STATION Ia UPFLOW CLARIFIERS MIXED MEDIA FILTER SLUDGE DRYING BEDS y 16ialoorr= Y�ui=uil II�11r „IT wali� PHASE CONSTRUCTION YEAR WATER TREATMENT PLANT MGD CLEARWELL GALLONS WITHOUT CONSERVATION I 2000 50 2,300,000 II 2010 10 800,000 WITH CONSERVATION IC 2000 38 1,500,000 IIC 2010 8 600,000 �rslacLL� A 4 EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX -III nfl ten- r CLEARWELL F^ur.11k= III .. ^III HIE= --,..Ill YI iYl°II ma nI C1111 m� Tit Iill—YIII IUIt Qua 1 WASH WATER WASTE BASIN 411 WASH WATER RECYCLE SUMP 4471 4 } 117 TO BOOSTER PUMP STATIO TO SPLITTER BOX ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, IN ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FIGURE 7-4 TYPICAL TREATMENT PROCESS 7.3.1.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main Booster pump stations will use clearwell storage to reduce pump cycle times. Clearwell sizing assumed storing average day demands and a 6-hour storage between pump starts. The clearwells will be above ground and welded steel construction. The size of the clearwells at different construction phases can be found on Figure 7-4. To deliver maximum day demands a booster pump station will be constructed. The structure will be sized to meet year 2020 demands, with pumps being added to meet construction phase demands. The pumps will be multi -stage vertical turbine pumps. The reinforced -concrete station will be below ground, equipped with heat, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, auxiliary power and control instrumentation. The treated water transmission mains were aligned along existing road right-of-way so as to reduce impact upon property. To minimize cost, a single transmission main was designed to meet year 2020 demands for each alternative. In general, delivery points for each alternative were located to provide each city with a minimum distance to tie to their own system. 7.3.2 Alternative No. 2 - Lake Somerville 7.3.2.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station The raw water intake and pump station from Lake Somerville will be located on the northeast end of the lake near the dam . (see Figure 7-5). The intake channel will be approximately 1,000 feet long. The pump station will be located at the end of the channel. The raw water pumps will pump against approximately 120 feet of elevation. 11753/890674 7-16 PROJECT NO. RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN COLLEGE STATION/ TEXAS ABM DELIVERY POINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION LEGEND PUMP STATION WATER TREATMENT PLANT DELIVERY POINT RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN RESERVOIR 20000 0 A ...- ONO 0 20000 I11111■11111110 ffimm SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC Engineering & Environmental Consultants FIGURE 7-5 LAKE SOMERVILLE ALTERNATIVE 2 7.3.2.2 Raw Water Transmission Main The transmission pipeline alignment was selected to follow FM 60 approximately 22 miles from the pump station to the treatment plant site located in proximity to the intersection with FM 2818. The alignment along FM 60 is relatively clear of existing utilities. A 42-inch pipeline from the pump station will provide 58.94 mgd without the conservation plan, and a 36- inch pipeline will provide 45.56 mgd with the conservation plan. 7.3.2.3 Water Treatment Plant The preliminary design of the treatment process for water from Lake Somerville evaluated the existing water treatment process used by the City of Brenham, Texas whose supply is also from Lake Somerville. In general, the treatment process will be as that described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown in Figure 7-4. The water quality from Lake Somerville is favorable for drinking water. The proposed treatment plant will be located at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818. 7.3.2.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main The facilities for the booster pump station including clearwells and pump station will all be located with the water treatment plant at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818. Clearwells and pump stations were sized as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.4. The size of the clearwells can be found on Figure 7-4. The vertical turbine pumps will pump against approximately 25 feet of elevation. The transmission facilities will consist of two pipelines from the booster pump station, one line to a delivery point for the City of College Station and Texas A&M, and one line to a delivery point for the City of Bryan. The pipeline for the College Station and Texas A&M delivery point was assumed to be 500 feet along FM 60. The transmission main was designed to provide 41.26 mgd and will be 36-inch diameter without a conservation plan and was designed to provide 31.89 mgd and will be 30-inch diameter with the conservation plan. 11753/890674 7-18 The pipeline for the Bryan delivery point will follow FM 2818 north 5.4 miles to the intersection of State Highway 21. The transmission main was designed to provide 17.68 mgd and will be 24-inch diameter without a conservation plan, and was designed to provide 13.67 mgd and will be 20-inch diameter with a conservation plan. There are some existing utilities along FM 2818 which would need to be considered in order to locate the transmission main. 7.3.3 Alternative No. 3 - Brazos River 7.3.3.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station The proposed raw water intake for this study was located on the Brazos River at FM 60. The intake will be a channel approximately 200 linear feet. Location of Alternative No. 3 can be seen on Figure 7-6. The pump station located adjacent to FM 60 will pump raw water from the river to the water treatment plant. The raw water pumps will pump against approximately 150 feet of elevation. 7.3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission Main The transmission pipeline alignment will follow FM 60 approximately 4.5 miles to the treatment plant site located at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818 which is the same site as that used in Alternative No. 2. The pipeline was designed to provide 58.94 mgd and will be 42- inch diameter without a conservation plan, and was designed to provide 45.56 mgd and will be 36-inch diameter with the conservation plan. 7.3.3.3 Water Treatment Plant Water from the Brazos River exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's maximum level of total dissolved solids of 500 mg/1 as described in Paragraph 7.3.1. Texas A&M performed a statistical evaluation of the salt concentrations in the Brazos River. The statistical analysis is provided in a letter from the Brazos River Authority, dated March 8, 1990 and 11753/890674 7-19 Th HEARNE BRYAN DELIVERY POINT \..s.,- - '('''-- •,-, -.-_-;'9> 4111...••• 1.4 -4‘ L+) I :5 T e? • \ ,Jf- Y _ • tY' COLLEGE STATION/ TEXAS AaM DELIVERY POINT flE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION < E 0 '7 LEGEND PUMP STATION WATER TREATMENT PLANT DELIVERY POINT RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN 20000 r1111111111111, 0 El alga 41//111, OEM 61111 0 20000 MI= AMR SCALE IN FEET SOURCE USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC Engineering & Environmental Consultants FIGURE 7-6 BRAZOS RIVER ALTERNATIVE 3 provided in Appendix D. The analysis indicated that at the College Station Gage the total dissolved solids exceeds 500 mg/1 about 50 percent of the time. Therefore, an alternative means of reducing the concentration of total dissolved solids must be provided. Two alternative methods of reducing the total dissolved solids were considered, Termination Storage and Reverse Osmosis treatment. 11753/890674 A. Termination Storage To achieve the maximum levels of total dissolved solids with termination storage, a pond was designed to store water during periods of lower told dissolved solids concentration. If water is stored at an assumed concentration of 400 mg/1 or less, which, according to the Texas A&M analysis occurs 30 percent of the time, then it can be mixed with water at 600 mg/1 or less, which according to the analysis occurs 70 percent of the time, to achieve the required 500 mg/l. The volume of the termination pond was determined based on filling with 400 mg/1 water and providing 6 months storage at 30 percent of the maximum demand. Without the conservation plan, the volume is 3,177 acre-feet, and with the conservation plan will be 1,940 acre-feet. Pond costs were assumed at $5,000 per acre-foot. Therefore, costs were estimated at $15.9 million without a conservation plan, and $9.7 million with a conservation plan. Termination storage will also require the addition of low head, mix -flow pumps and a pump station located at the intake structure. B. Reverse Osmosis Reverse osmosis is a treatment process whereby water diffuses through a semipermeable membrane. The membrane acts as a barrier to dissolved solids. Reverse osmosis can be utilized during low river flow and high dissolved solids concentrations to provide concentrations within the EPA standards. To achieve an acceptable level of dissolved solids, raw water will be mixed with water 7-21 treated by reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis will reduce the concentration to near zero. Reverse osmosis capacities were determined assuming maximum day demand, a raw water concentration of 600 mg/1, and mixing with water from reverse osmosis at 1 mg/1. The following capacities were determined in order to achieve 500 mg/1: Year Capacity (mgd) 2000 7.75 2000 with conservation 6.15 2010 9.85 2010 with conservation 7.61 The cost for construction was determined using $1.00 per gpd. In comparing the cost of providing reverse osmosis versus constructing an off -channel reservoir, the construction cost for the reverse osmosis for year 2020 is about half the cost of the termination pond without considering the additional pump station made necessary by the pond. Therefore, for the purpose of this study reverse osmosis was selected as the method of providing water with an acceptable level of dissolved solids from the Brazos River. The treatment process described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown on Figure 7-4, will be operated in parallel when there is a need for the reverse osmosis system. If the river concentration is below the EPA regulated total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/1, the reverse osmosis system is not needed and the treatment plant will operate without it. The treatment plant will be located in the same location as that used for Alternative No. 2 at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818. 11753/890674 7-22 7.3.3.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main The facilities for the booster pump station and the treated water transmission main are identical in location and size to those facilities presented for Alternative No. 2 - Lake Somerville, specifically Paragraph 7.3.2.4. Therefore, the location and size of facilities and the alignment, size and lengths of the booster pump station and transmission facilities can be found in Alternative No. 2 description. 7.3.4 Alternative No. 4 - Millican Lake 7.3.4.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station The location of the dam for this alternative is located at mile 36 on the Navasota River. The raw water intake and pump station will be located near the intersection of FM 159 and the dam for the reservoir (see Figure 7-7). The design of the facilities are described in Paragraph 7.3.1. The intake channel will be approximately 1,000 linear feet. The raw water pumps will pump against approximately 80 feet of elevation. 7.3.4.2 Raw Water Transmission Main The transmission pipeline designed to provide 58.94 mgd will be a 42-inch diameter for non -conservation flows, and to provide 45.56 mgd will be 36-inch diameter for conservation flows. The pipeline will follow FM 159 northwest 4.6 miles until it intersects State Highway 6 where the treatment plant will be located. The alignment along FM 159 is considered relatively clear of other utilities. 7.3.4.3 Water Treatment Plant The water quality of the Navasota River is considered good, and raw water from Millican Lake will require the treatment facilities described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown on 11753/890674 7-23 COLLEGE STATION/ TEXAS A&M DELIVERY POINT 7-c 0 • , • ; • •_--2-7 ) - WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION TEXAS A&M BRYAN ;,,,,N, .T•7-, :,>,...___,,:'•-<-- 1-: / MIN r • • 4 t , 7---- ,,-- z,), , s....._-' ' . 4......•••••••• -4-1,12%'',..,_„,--i‹.- ........,\•_;': \ 0,--;:,.?„ — 7 .. ...\ '• -'. ••• -,._ .- .., ...... 'I''''''.1-7, ...---°E2-; , ---, / • ._..... . ,. ,•• ' = '....•'.' '''‘) I . •,.-- . • . A• -/•'•( •' / / -.- ,I,. ) 9:4-,I,C7,.,:).,.Th,, ,.1,.I., ' c_L_;rz,.'_„.t.,.i„,.,'.,• . ,7,• . • .x xl• .'. ' , - 4:...'....— ?/ .-P. .._..-c,;;..7 /n.A,.d z , . • ... , : \ '''-4( ,I._,',--; - :,----.'3., r —... - ' ..-...<'nf-'.!'", r '''''''• ,....<),, r -- , A, , . , • \ 1•3 •,-1/4—''---- ‚- . • „ --`• -,.-.$' _, -,,,- '‘. \, k: ' ...---",....... 1 1.'!'<, . --,-- • .../7--,r-- c-,-,‘ \ ' , •-._-' I 1. i C, \.,\ --....-..::-,•'.,- • I • ....,.----' L-'2....^P7----` (....,„6-Yr) 'c•i>/"` \ --"C. '`''..-.--.. . ' 7-,..:‘,.--r..> ': ,:,,, ,—..1 1.., -',.., ....,-,"' . .> • .„.....„-.• -‘,. :....---,-4 ‘''''''..---, • 4/ •-•,.......k -.„..5, , , -.\:- a. ,..k.... •-../ ,,,c. -.-.." . .,• • _,. -c,...., • .."-, \ .,.,• c...•-• ...t. ..,cc•)1:-.;'.: - ..z, •/' --7-,s--------.., s'-'7?• 0/ ,,..‘_`,•,..,1 . -2. -,•:., '''' V.\ \.!..<3r'n -, . , :' ,.... \ Y '17-,,,, ; . i .....„.•,..d5.--., • 1... :el-- ... ,i: - -- ,,...,, _, e , ....1., ..... .Z.- • .9•2 \ ••", \ er ,••• - • • HEARNE ,,,c,..,/ C1•5'''', • 4)' '0" ", f'/-1 ..,..)X!.../7..,"---"•- , X-...,--• '--.7 ..,-:.....-.---,(-0. (f-,.--..-..— --,..,::.: .,,,,, - --1-).,-;',i7-. , ... „K!,, • • . ) • ... .-- • • , • S'Pr • • — • ^ SOMERVILLE k/J 4 --- , - • • m • , • • • • 't ‘1e: . s'9=' ` --'`-;r4e1*t • .-. LAKE SOMERVILLE • <7.) LEGEND PUMP STATION WATER TREATMENT PLANT DELIVERY POINT RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN RESERVOIR 20000 0 A IMP OEM MIND MIMI 0 20000 F1111111111111P' 31MINK SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.51 TOPO QUAD ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering & Environmental Consultants FIGURE 7-7 MILLICAN LAKE ALTERNATIVE 4 Figure 7-4. The treatment plant will be staged as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3. The plant will be located at the intersection of FM 159 and State Highway 6. 7.3.4.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main The facilities for the booster pump station including clearwells and pumps will be located with the water treatment plant at the -intersection of FM 159 and State Highway 6. The booster pump station was designed as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.4. The size of the clearwells can be found on Figure 7-4. A single structure will be constructed for Phase I, and each additional phase will add pumps, piping, fittings and instrumentation necessary to increase the capacity. The vertical turbine pumps. will pump against approximately 100 feet of elevation from the booster pump station to the delivery points. A treated water transmission main will follow State Highway 6 northeast approximately 4.4 miles to a delivery point for College Station and Texas A&M, located at the intersection of FM 60 and State Highway 6. The transmission main was sized to minimize costs by providing a single line for all phases. The pipe was sized to meet the maximum -day demand of 58.94 mgd and will be 42-inch diameter for demands without conservation, and was sized to meet maximum -day demands of 45.56 mgd and will be 36-inch diameter with the conservation plan. The transmission main will be downsized to deliver flows for the second delivery point for the City of Bryan. The transmission main will be 24-inch diameter for demands without the conservation plan of 17.68 mgd and 20-inch diameter for demands with the conservation plan of 13.67 mgd. The line will continue to follow State Highway 6 for 4.7 miles to the intersection with FM 21. The transmission main can be seen on Figure 7-7. 11753/890674 7-25 7.3.5 Cost Estimates The cost estimates presented in this report are intended to provide an economic comparison of the selected alternatives for a regional water supply system. 7.3.5.1 Ground Water Costs A. General The probable cost associated with the improvements necessary to provide water under Alternative No. 1 are described in this section. The costs are presented according to the construction phases. B. Construction Costs In general, construction costs will include costs associated with the construction of wells, well field transmsision main, cooling towers, booster pump station, storage tanks, treated water transmission mains and the land and rights -of -way for the facilities. The costs for the construction of facilities have been developed using current estimated unit costs for construction and the following criteria: • Well cost includes pump, motor, well, site work, electrical and instrumentation. • Each well is expected to require approximately one-half acre of land. • The land requirement for new water transmission main is assumed to be 50 feet of right-of-way, and land costs are assumed to be $10,000 per acre for sites 5 acres and smaller and $5,000 per acre for sites greater than 5 acres. • Clearwell storage tank costs were based upon welded steel above ground construction, estimated at $0.56 per gallon. 11753/890674 7-26 • The costs for the transmission mains include pipe, fittings, road crossings and miscellaneous appurtenances, and were estimated according to the following schedule: Pipe Diameter (in.) Cost per Linear Foot 18 $ `0 20 45 30 60 36 70 42 80 • Costs do not include the storage facility located at each delivery point nor the pumping and transmission facility to each city system. • Costs do not include relocation of existing facilities nor mitigation costs. • Costs include engineering and contingency at 20 percent of construction costs. The estimated capital cost to construct Alternative No. 1 can be found in Table 7-2. C. Operation and Maintenance Costs The operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements have been assessed to determine the annual O&M cost for the well field system. The assessment included requirements for staff, equipment, power, and facility maintenance. The estimated cost for O&M of the facilities was developed using historical unit costs and the following criteria: • The annual O&M cost for wells is based upon $1,500 per well. • The annual O&M cost for the transmission line is based upon $7.50 per inch -diameter per mile. 11753/890674 7-27 7 TABLE 7-2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WELL FIELD • ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Description Phasc:1 1 Ic II Ile Well Field - Pumps, Motor, Well S7,200,000 S5,850,000 S1,800,000 51,350,000 Electrical and Instrumentation 336,000 273,000 84,000 63,000 Lands and Rights -of -Way 80,000 65,000 20,000 15,000 WcII Field Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way 2,400,000 1,700,000 315,000 200,000 185,000 150,000 40,000 35,000 Cooling Towers and Chlorination 993,000 813,000 284,000 224,000 Clcarwcll 1,288,000 840,000 448,000 336,000 Booster Pump Station 1,727,200 1,403,400 268,800 187,400 Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,000 50,E Treated Water Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way 6,400,000 5,528,000 -- 20,000 20,000 SUBTOTAL S20,679,200 S16,692,400 S3,259,800 S2,410,400 Contingency and Engineering 413.iR(10 3,338,500 somommali 652.000 482,100 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OOSf 524,815,000 S20,030,900 S3,911,800 S2,892500 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan I lc II Bc 11753/890674 7-28 • The annual O&M cost for the cooling towers is based upon 1.0 percent of construction costs. • The annual O&M cost for the booster pump station is based upon $5.20 per horsepower. • The electrical power cost is based upon $0.063 per kilowatt-hour. • The electrical power costs include well draw down levels, static and friction heads. • Administration fees were included based on 15 percent of total operation and maintenance costs excluding pump power costs. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost for Alternative No. 1 can be found in Table 7-3. 7.3.5.2 Surface Water Costs A. General The costs associated with the improvements necessary to provide water from the three surface water alternatives are described in this section. The costs are based on historical unit costs for construction and applying engineering judgment. In general, the costs are determined for those facilities necessary to take raw water from the source and to deliver potable water to the primary study area. The costs presented in this report will serve as a basis for comparison among the proposed alternatives. This section will provide those assumptions used to arrive at the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs. 11753/890674 B. Construction Costs In general, construction costs will include those costs associated with the construction of the raw water intake and pump station, raw water transmission pipes, water treatment facilities, booster pump station, storage tanks, treated water transmission mains and the land and right-of-ways for the facilities. 7-29 TABLE 7-3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES WEI I FIELD - ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Description Phase:1 I Ic II IIc Salaries and Wages Employee F-*penses and Benefits $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 Salaries and Wages 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Operational Supplies and Service Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 50,E 50,E 50,000 50,000 Miscellaneous Operating Pump Station Power2 Well Field 731,200 398,100 1,283,200 718,900 Booster Pump Station 58,500 20,800 142,000 82,800 Maintenance and Repair Pipelines - Well Field and Treated Water 6,500 5,200 6,700 5,400 Wells 24,000 19,500 6,000 4,500 Cooling Towers 9,800 8,000 2,800 2,200 Booster Pump Station 200 100 700 400 SUBTOTAL OPERATION $971,200 $592,700 S1,582,400 $955,200 AND MAINTENANCE Administrative and General3 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 27.200 26.100 23.600 $998,400 S618,800 $1,606,000 $978,200 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan 1 Ic II IIc 2 Power cost determined at S0.063 per KWH 3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power 11753/890674 7-30 The estimated costs for the construction of surface water facilities are based on the following criteria: • This regional system is a stand-alone system not tied into the existing water supply facilities of the primary study area. The costs for facilities assumes the source of water is in place, begins with diversion facilities and ends with the transmission facility to the individual delivery points. • The cost for surface water facilities assumes that 10 existing Simsboro wells will remain active throughout the study period. These wells will produce at 2,100 gpm each. The cost of land was assumed to be $10,000 per acre for sites less than or equal to 5 acres and $5,000 per acre for sites greater than 5 acres. • Clearwell storage tank costs were based on welded steel, above ground construction, estimated at $0.56 per gallon. • Water treatment plant costs were based upon $0.70 per gallon for the first construction phase and $0.50 per gallon for the second construction phase. • Reverse osmosis cost was based upon $1.00 per gallon. • Land costs for the clearwell and booster pump station are included in the water treatment plant land and right-of-way costs. 11753/890674 7-31 • Transmission mains follow roads and rights -of -way where possible. The cost for transmission mains includes pipe, valves, fittings, road crossings and miscellaneous appurtenances and were estimated based upon the following: Pipe Diameter (in.I Cost per Linear Foot 18 $ 40 20 45 24 50 30 60 36 70 42 80 • The costs include engineering and contingency costs at 20 percent of construction costs. • Costs do not include relocation of existing utilities and facilities nor mitigation costs. The estimated capital cost to construct Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 can be found in Tables 7-4, 7-5 and 7-6. Surface water construction costs are compared to ground -water costs in Section 8.0. C. Operation and Maintenance Costs The operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements for the surface water alternatives have been assessed to determine the annual O&M cost. The assessment includes requirements for staff, equipment, power, and facility maintenance for each surface water alternative. The estimated costs for the O&M of the facilities were developed using historical unit costs and the following criteria: 7-32 11753/890674 TABLE 7-4 CONS IRUC1ION COST ESTIMATES LAKE SOMERVILLE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Description Phase:1 I lc 000 51,200,000 200,- Raw Water Intake Approach Channel $1,$wg 800 $187,400 Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station 1,656,100 1,314,500 Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,000 50,000 Raw Water Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way 35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,E 4,000,000 Water Treatment Plant 448 000 336,000 Clearwell 1,288,000 840,000 wg 800 187,400 Booster Pump Station 1,656,100 1,314,500 Lands and Rights -of -Way 150,000 100,000 Treated Water Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way SUBTOTAL 851,823,600 $40,933,200 $5,985,600 $4,710,800 Contingency and Engineering 10�364 700 8 186 600 1.197f100 942,200 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $62,188,300 $49,119,800 $7,182,700 $5,653,000 9,292,800 8,131,200 50,000 50,E 1,460,600 1,313,000 20,000 20,E 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan I Ic II IIc 11753/890674 7-33 TABLE 7-5 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES BRAZOS RIVER - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 Description Phase:1 1 lc Raw Water Intake Approach Channel 5240,000 $240,000 '- Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station 1,656,100 1,314,500 $268,800 Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,000 50,000 • Raw Water Transmission Main 1,900,800 1,663,100 Lands and Rights -of -Way 20,000 20,000 35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Water Treatment Plant 336,000 448,000 Clearwell 1,288,000 840,000187,400 1,656,100 1,314,500 268,800 Booster Pump Station 1,460,000 Reverse Osmosis 7,750,000 6,150,003 2,100,000 Lands and Rights -of -Way 150,000 100,000 — $187,400 Treated Water Transmission Main Lands and Rights -of -Way SUBTOTAL Contingency and Engineering TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1,460,600 1,313,000 20,000 20,000 $51,191,600 S39,625,100 $8,085,600 $6,170,800 10.238.300 7.925.000 1.617.100 1.234.200 $61,429,900 S47,550,100 $9,702,700 $7,405,000 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan lc II IIc 11753/890674 7-34 TABLE 7-6 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES MILLICAN LAKE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 Description Phase:1 I Ic Raw Water Intake Approach Channel 51,200,000 S1,200,000 Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station 1,656,100 1,314,500 5268,800 $187,400 Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,E 50,000 Raw Water Transmission Main Z,259,800 1,977,400 Lands and Rights -of -Way • 30,000 30,000 Water Treatment Plant 35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 1,288,000 840,000 448,000 336,000 Clcarwell 1,656,100 1,314,500 268,800 187,400 Booster Pump Station Lands and Rights -of -Way 150,000 100,000 - — Treated Water Transmission Main 3,347,600 2,742,800 — — Lands and Rights -of -Way 20,000 20,000 — SUBTOTAL S46,657,600 S36,189,200 S5,985,600 $4,710,800 Contingency and Engineering 9.331.500 7.237.800 , 1.197.100 942.200 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST S55,989,100 S43,427,000 S7,182,700 S5,653,000 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan I Ic II IIc 11753/890674 7-35 • The annual O&M cost for the transmission mains is based upon $7.50 per inch -diameter per mile. • The annual O&M cost for the raw water intake is based upon $5.20 per horsepower. • The annual O&M costs for the water treatment plant are based on 2 percent of the construction costs. • The electrical power costs are based upon $0.063 per kilowatt-hour. • The cost of raw water is based on average day demands at the unit cost of water as proposed by the Brazos River Authority's letter dated March 8, 1990 and provided in Appendix D. The cost is $85.00 per acre-foot. • Administration costs were included based on 15 percent of total operation and maintenance costs excluding pump power costs and costs for raw water. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost associated with the three surface water alternatives can be found in Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9. Surface water O&M costs are compared to ground water O&M costs in Section 8.0. 11753/890674 7-36 TABLE 7-7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES LAKE SOMERVILLE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Description Phase:1 I Ic Salaries and Wages Employee Expenses and Benefits 530,000 S30,000 S30,000 $30,000 Salaries and Wages 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operational Supplies and Service Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,E Miscellaneous Operating Pump Station Power2 Raw Water Intake 189,400 104,800 353,000 204,700 Booster Pump Station 34,300 23,700 63,600 42,500 Water Treatment Plant Chemicals 50,E 50,000 60,000 60,E Maintenance and Repair Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 7,900 6,800 7,900 6,800 Raw Water Pump Station Z,400 1,300 4,200 2,600 Water Treatment Plant 70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200 Booster Pump Station 500 500 800 800 SUBTOTAL OPERATION 5544,500 $430,300 $759,500 $568,600 AND MAINTENANCE Administrative and General3 48,100 45,300 51,400 48,200 Raw Water Supp1Y4 1.205.600 695.200 1,800,800 1.099,000 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION S1,798,200 S1,170,800 52,611,700 $1,715,800 AND MAINTENANCE 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan I Ic II IIc 2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH 3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply 4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D) 11753/890674 7-37 TABLE 7-8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES BRAZOS RIVER - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 Description Phase:1 I Ic Salaries and Wages $30,000 Employee Expenses and Benefits $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Salaries and Wages 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - Operational Supplies and Service Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Miscellaneous Operating Pump Station Power2 Raw Water Intake 197,900 113,300 310,000 187,000 Booster Pump Station 34,300 23,700 66,600 42,500 Reverse Osmosis 509,200 403,E 138,000 96,E Water Treatment Plant Chemicals 50,000 50,E 60,000 60,E Maintenance and Repair Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 2,400 2,000 2400 2,400 2,500 1,400 3,900 2,400 Raw Water Pump Station Water Treatment Plant 70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200 Booster Pump Station 500 500 800 800 SUBTOTAL OPERATION S1,056,800 5838,000 S851,700 $642,700 AND MAINTENANCE Administrative and General3 47,300 44,600 50,600 47,500 Raw Water Supply 4 1.205.600 695.200 1.800.800 1.099.000 ILIIAL ANNUAL OPERATION S2,309,700 $1,577,800 52,703,100 $1,789,200 AND MAINTENANCE 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan lc II Bc 2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH 3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply 4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at S85.00 Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D) 11753/890674 7-38 TABLE 7-9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES MILLICAN LAKE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 Description Phase:1 I lc Salaries and Wages Employee Expenses and Benefits $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Salaries and Wages 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operational Supplies and Service Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Miscellaneous Operating Pump Station Power2 Raw Water Intake 110,500 62,600 182,200 108,500 Booster Pump Station 152,000 85,100 260,300 155,900 Water Treatment Plant Chemicals 50,E 50,000 60,000 60,E Maintenance and Repair Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 3,900 3,300 3,900 3,300 Raw Water Pump Station 1,400 900 2,300 1,400 Water Treatment Plant 70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200 Booster Pump Station 1,900 1,100 3,300 2,000 SUBTOTAL OPERATION S579,700 $446,200 $782,000 $582,300 AND MAINTENANCE Administrative and General3 47,600 44,800 50,900 47,700 Raw Water Supply4 1,205i600 695,200 1,800,800 a1,099,000 1131AL ANNUAL OPERATION $1,832,900 S1,186,200 S2,633,700 $1,729,000 AND MAINTENANCE 1 Construction Phases Year 2000 2010 Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan l lc II IIc 2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH 3 Administrative coat determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply 4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D) 11753/890674 7-39 8.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 8.1 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to present the comparison of costs for the construction of facilities to provide water to the primary study area from the four alternatives: Alternative 1 - Ground water from proposed Simsboro Aquifer wells; Alternative 2 - Surface water from Lake Somerville; Alternative 3 - Surface water from the Brazos River; Alternative 4 - Surface water from Millican Lake. It is important to recognize that this study presents the costs for improvements for a regional system to provide water to the primary study area and does not present additional costs for all improvements necessary to provide individual cities and other private water supply corporations with potable water. Table 8-1 presents a summary of construction costs and operation and maintenance costs for each alternative for each construction phase with and without the conservation factors. These costs represent current values. To provide water from the regional water system for the secondary study area would require, in many cases, extensive transmission and pumping facilities, thereby increasing the cost of construction. For example, to pump the maximum day demands of .038 mgd from the Bryan delivery point to the Madison County Water Supply Corporation would require 27 miles of 2- inch diameter pipe and an additional booster pump station. The transmission line cost is estimated at $1,400,000 versus the cost for a well which would be about $400,000. Therefore, from an economic viewpoint, supplying the secondary study area with water from a regional facility would not be recommended. Madison County W.S.C. was the only entity in the secondary study area which responded with a favorable interest in a regional water supply system. 11753/890674 8-1 8.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOURCE The purpose of this section is to provide a recommendation for a regional water supply for the future demands of the primary study area. This study reviewed three surface water sources and provided the cost for those facilities that would be required to provide potable water to the delivery points, and compared those costs to the ground water source. One objective of the investigation of a water source for the future demands was to determine the feasibility of continuing to use ground water. Section 5.0 discusses the effects on the Simsboro Aquifer with the addition of wells to meet the future demands. The conclusion of Section 5.0 was that the addition of wells to meet the demands is feasible. To compare surface water alternatives with the ground water alternative, the most feasible surface water sources were selected. The selections were based on location, availability of water supply, and designated uses as discussed in Section 6.0. Table 8-1 summarizes the construction cost and the operation and maintenance cost for each alternative, and Tables 8-2 through 8-9 show a comparative unit cost of water. The ground -water alternative is shown to be approximately 50 percent of the construction cost and operation and maintenance cost of any of the surface water alternatives. Because wells can be constructed to meet the demands of the primary study area without a significant impact to the Simsboro Aquifer and because the cost for construction and operation and maintenance is approximately 50 percent of any surface water source, we recommend that the ground -water alternative be used to meet the demands through the year 2020. In addition, as shown in Section 8.1, water supply from a regional facility for the secondary study area is not considered feasible and is not recommended. 11753/890674 8-3 8.3 UNIT COST OF TREATED WATER A key aspect in the evaluation of regional water system alternatives is the comparison of the estimated unit costs of treated water. The final cost of treated water is dependent upon many factors, including, but not limited to, the construction costs, the annual operations and maintenance (0 & M) expenditures, the terms of project financing, and the mechanisms by which revenues would be collected. Each alternative has been evaluated under both a "with" and "without" water conservation scenario. The construction costs and estimated annual 0 & M costs have been previously described in Section 7.0 and further summarized in Table 8-1. For the purposes of this comparison, the capital construction costs have been assumed to be financed from revenue bonds, a conventional long-term financing method. All alternatives have assumed equal annual debt service payments according to a fixed interest rate (8.5%) and a 20-year bond life. The bond issues have been assumed to correspond with the two construction phases (2000 and 2010) and sized to account for fiscal, legal, and bond counsel expenses, as well as reserve fund requirements. 0 & M costs have been estimated for the project, beginning in 2000 and continuing through the defined planning horizon at 2020. Both the annual debt service on capital expenditures and the annual 0 & M costs have been summed to comprise an estimated annual cost of service for a regional system. These annual costs have been divided by the projected annual water usage in the milestone years to determine the unit cost of water. A unit of 1000 gallons has been selected for the purposes of comparison. Upon completion of construction phases in 2000 and 2010, the corresponding water usages in those years would be the lowest for that phase's capacity and thus reflect a highest unit cost for that phase. In subsequent years as water usages increase, the unit costs would decrease. Tables 8-2 through 8-9 present the financing and cost of service summaries for the four regional water supply alternatives under both "with" and "without" water conservation scenarios. It should be noted that all of the figures in these tables are presented in uninflated and undiscounted 1990 dollars, and do not include an evaluation or estimation of system 11753/890674 8-4 TABLE 8 - 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - SIMSBORO GROUND -WATER WITHOUT CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS WELL FIELD WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN COOLING TOWERS & CHLORINATION CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 $7,536,000 $2,400,000 $993,000 $1,288,000 $1,727,200 $6,400,000 $335,000 2010 $1,884,000 $315,000 $284,000 $448,000 $268,800 $60,000 2020 os Le $0 $20,679,200 $0 $4,135,800 $0 $24,815,000 $0 $287,700 $0 $575,400 $0 $3,040,200 $0 $51,700 $3,259,800 $652,000 $3,911,800 $45,900 $91,700 $484,500 $51,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,770,000 $4,585,000 $0 $3,040,200 $484,500 $0 $3,040,200 $3,524,700 $0 $0 $484,500 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION 0 & M SUBTOTAL $91,000 $91,000 $839,700 $1,475,200 $40,500 $16,200 $27,200 $23,600 $91,000 $1,475,200 $16,200 $23,600 $0 $998,400 $1,606,000 $1,606,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS $0 $3,040,200 $3,524,700 $484,500 $0 $760,100 $881,200 $121,100 $0 $998,400 $1,606,000 $1,606,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $0 $4,798,700 AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0 ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0 PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA 5.5 2,007.5 $6,011,900 12.7 4,635.5 $2.39 $1.30 $2,211,600 18.9 6,898.5 $0.32 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issued Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-5 TABLE 8 - 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - SIMSBORO GROUND -WATER WITH CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS WELL FIELD WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN COOLING TOWERS & CHLORINATION CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 $6,123,000 $1,700,000 $813,000 $840,000 $1,403,400 $5,528,000 $285,000 2010 $1,413,000 $200,000 $224,000 $336,000 $187,400 $50,000 2020 $0 $16,692,400 $0 $3,338,500 $0 $20,030,900 $0 $232,400 $0 $464,700 $0 $2,455,300 $0 $51,700 $2,410,400 $482,100 $2,892,500 $34,100 $68,100 $359,800 $50,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,235,000 $0 $2,455,300 $0 $2,455,300 $3,405,000 $o $359,800 $0 $2,815,100 $359,800 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION 0 & M SUBTOTAL $91,000 $468,900 $32,700 $26,100 $91,000 $851,700 $12,500 $23,000 $91,000 $851,700 $12,500 $23,000. $0 $618,700 $978,200 $978,200 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) PRICE PER 1000 GALS $0 $2,455,300 $2,815,100 $0 $613,800 $703,800 $0 $618,700 $978,200 $359,800 $90,000 $978,200 $0 $3,687,800 $4,497,100 $1,428,000 0.0 0.0 NA 2.8 1,033.0 7.3 2,664.5 $3.57 $1.69 11.5 4,212.1 $0.34 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-6 TABLE 8 - 4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - LAKE SOMERVILLE WITHOUT CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE 1990 2000 $2,856,100 $9,292,800 $35,000,000 $1,288,000 $1,656,100 $1,460,600 $270,000 2010 $268,800 $5,000,000 $448,000 $268,800 2020 os $0- $51,823,600 $0 $10,364,700 $0 $62,188,300 $0 $720,100 $0 $1,440,200 $0 $7,609,400 $0 $52,000 $5,985,600 $1,197,100 $7,182,700 $83,700 $167,400 $884,500 $51,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS $0 $72,010,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $0 $7,609,400 CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE $0 $7,609,400 $8,370,000 $884,500 $8,493,900 $0 $0 $884,500 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $333,700 $80,800 $48,100 $1,205,600 $130,000 $536,600 $92,900 $51,400 $1,800,800 $130,000 $536,600 $92,900 $51,400 $1,800,800 $0 $1,798,200 $2,611,700 $2,611,700 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $0 $7,609,400 $8,493,900 $884,500 $0 $1,902,400 $2,123,500 $221,100 $0 $1,798,200 $2,611,700 $2,611,700 $0 $11,310,000 $13,229,100 $3,717,300 AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0 ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0 PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA 5.5 2,007.5 $5.63 12.7 4,635.5 18.9 6,898.5 $2.85 $0.54 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-7 TABLE 8 - 5 ALTERNATIVE 2 - LAKE SOMERVILLE WITH CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 $2,514,500 $8,131,200 $26,600,000 $840,000 $1,314,500 $1,313,000 $220,000 2010 $187,400 $4,000,000 $336,000 $187,400 2020 $0 $40,933,200 $0 $8,186,600 $0 $49,119,800 $0 $568,900 $0 $1,137,800 $0 $6,011,600 $0 $51,900 $4,710,800 $942,200 $5,653,000 $66,000 $132,000 $697,400 $51,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,890,000 $0 $6,011,600 $0 $6,011,600 $6,600,000 $697,400 $6,709,000 $0 $0 $697,400 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $238,500 $61,800 $45,300 $695,200 $130,000 $367,200 $71,400 $48,200 $1,099,000 $130,000 $367,200 $71,400 $48,200 $1,099,000 $0 $1,170,800 $1,715,800 $1,715,800 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) PRICE PER 1000 GALS $0 $6,011,600 $0 $1, 502., 900 $0 $1,170,800 $6,709,000 $1,677,300 $1,715,800 $697,400 $174,400 $1,715,800 $0 $8,685,300 0.0 0.0 2.8 1,033.0 NA $8.41 $10,102,100 7.3 2,664.5 $3.79 $2,587,600 11.5 4,212.1 $0.61 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-8 TABLE 8 - 6 ALTERNATIVE 3 - BRAZOS RIVER WITHOUT CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 $1,896,100 $1,900,800 $35,000,000 $1,288,000 $1,656,100 $7,750,000 $1,460,600 $240,000 2010 $268,800 $5,000,000 $448,000 $268,800 $2,100,000 2020 $0 $51,191,600 $0 $10,238,300 $0 $61,429,900 $0 $711,300 $0 $1,422,600 $0 $7,516,400 $0 $49,800 $8,085,600 $1,617,100 $9,702,700 $112,900 $225,700 $1,192,500 $51,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,130,000 $11,285,000 $0 $7,516,400 $0 $7,516,400 $0 $1,192,500 $0 $8,708,900 $1,192,500 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $851,400 $75,400 $47,300 $1,205,600 $130,000 $634,600 $87,100 $50,600 $1,800,800 $130,000 $634,600 $87,100 $50,600 $1,800,800 $0 $2,309,700 $2,703,100 $2,703,100 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) PRICE PER 1000 GALS $0 $7.,516,400 $0 $1,879,100 $0 $2,309,700 $8,708,900 $2,177,200 $2,703,100 $1,192,500 $298,100 $2,703,100 $0 $11,705,200 0.0 0.0 5.5 2,007.5 NA $5.83 $13,589,200 12.7 4,635.5 $2.93 $4,193,700 18.9 6,898.5 $0.61 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-9 TABLE 8 - 7 ALTERNATIVE 3 - BRAZOS RIVER WITH CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 - $1,554,500 $1,663,200 $26,600,000 $840,000 $1,314,500 $6,150,000 $1,313,000 $190,000 2010 $187,400 $4,000,000 $336,000 $187,400 $1,460,000 2020 $0 $39,625,200 $0 $7,925,000 $0 $47,550,200 $0 $550,800 $0 $1,101,500 $0 $5,819,800 $0 $52,700 $6,170,800 $1,234,200 $7,405,000 $86,300 $172,500 $911,400 $49,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,075,000 $0 $5,819,800 $0 $5,819,800 $8,625,000 $911,400 $6,731,200 $0 $0 $911,400 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $650,900 $57,100 $44,600 $695,200 $130,000 $445,900 $66,800 $47,500 $1,099,000 $130,000 $445,900 $66,800 $47,500 $1,099,000 $0 $1,577,800 $1,789,200 $1,789,200 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) ANNUAL WATER DEMAND PRICE PER 1000 GALS $0 $5,819,800 $0 $1,455,000 $0 $1,577,800 $6,731,200 $1,682,800 $1,789,200 $911,400 $227,900 $1,789,200 $0 $8,852,600 0.0 0.0 2.8 1,033.0 NA $8.57 $10,203,200 7.3 2,664.5 $3.83 $2,928,500 11.5 4,212.1 $0.70 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8_10 TABLE 8 - 8 ALTERNATIVE 4 - MILLICAN LAKE WITHOUT CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE 1990 2000 $2,856,100 $2,259,800 $35,000,000 $1,288,000 $1,656,100 $3,347,600 $250,000 2010 $268,800 $5,000,000 $448,000 $268,800 2020 $0 $46,657,600 $0 $9,331,500 $0 $55,989,100 $0 $648,400 $0 $1,296,700 $0 $6,851,200 $0 $49,600 $5,985,600 $1,197,100 $7,182,700 $83,700 $167,400 $884,500 $51,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS $0 $64,835,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $0 $6,851,200 CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE $0 $6,851,200 $8,370,000 $884,500 $7,735,700 $0 $0 $884,500 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $372,500 $77,200 $47,600 $1,205,600 $130,000 $562,500 $89,500 $50,900 $1,800,800 $130,000 $562,500 $89,500 $50,900 $1,800,800 $0 $1,832,900 $2,633,700 $2,633,700 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $0 $6,851,200 $7,735,700 $884,500 $0 $1,712,800 $1,933,900 $221,100 $0 $1,832,900 $2,633,700 $2,633,700 $0 $10,396,900 $12,303,300 AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0 ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0 PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA 5.5 2,007.5 12.7 4,635.5 $5.18 $2.65 $3,739,300 18.9 6,898.5 $0.54 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-11 TABLE 8 - 9 ALTERNATIVE 4 - MILLICAN LAKE WITH CONSERVATION ITEM CONSTRUCTION COSTS RAW WATER INTAKE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLEARWELL BOOSTER PUMP STATION TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST FISCAL LEGAL RESERVE FUND COST OF BOND ISSUANCE BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE 1990 2000 $2,514,500 $1,977,400 $26,600,000 $840,000 $1,314,500 $2,742,800 $200,000 2010 $187,400 $4,000,000 $336,000 $187,400 2020 $0 $36,189,200 $0 $7,237,800 $0 $43,427,000 $0 $503,100 $0 $1,006,100 $0 $5,315,800 $0 $53,000 $4,710,800 $942,200 $5,653,000 $66,000 $132,000 $697,400 $51,600 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,305,000 $0 $5,315,800 $0 $5,315,800 $6,600,000 $697,400 $6,013,200 $0 $0 $697,400 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SALARY & WAGES SUPPLIES & SERVICE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR ADMINISTRATION RAW WATER PURCHASE 0 & M SUBTOTAL $130,000 $257,700 $58,500 $44,800 $695,200 $130,000 $384,400 $67,900 $47,700 $1,099,000 $130,000 $384,400 $67,900 $47,700 $1,099,000 $0 $1,186,200 $1,729,000 $1,729,000 ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) PRICE PER 1000 GALS $0 $5,315,800 $0 $1,329,000 $0 $1,186,200 $6,013,200 $1,503,300 $1,729,000 $697,400 $174,400 $1,729,000 $0 $7,831,000 0.0 0.0 2.8 1,033.0 NA $7.58 $9,245,500 7.3 2,664.5 $3.47 $2,600,800 11.5 4,212.1 $0.62 NOTES: Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal. Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue. Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service. Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest. Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service. All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8-12 improvements beyond 2020. Additionally, the unit prices presented in these tables are assumed to approximate the wholesale price to regional customers. Table 8-2 summarizes Alternative 1, the use of ground -water from the Simsboro aquifer. As modelled, this alternative has the lowest unit cost ($2.39 per 1000 gals in 2000) of all the alternatives under consideration, including the conservation scenario presented in Table 8-3. In the later milestone years of 2010 and 2020 the unit costs are seen to decrease, providing some indication that the regional water demand is more closely reaching the design capacity of the system. In addition, decreasing unit costs can also be attributed to the up -front construction of certain facilities (e.g., treated water transmission) that would be sized to meet the ultimate system capacity. With inflation, the actual unit cost would likely increase over time. Table 8-3 summarizes the ground -water alternative under a water conservation scenario. This evaluation indicates a higher unit cost ($3.57 per 100 gals in 2000), reflecting a diminution in the economy of scale under the without conservation scenario in Table 8-2. However, because of the reduction in water demands there is a corresponding reduction in the overall cost of construction, equating to a savings to the customers water bill. For the surface water alternatives, Alternative 2, obtaining surface water from Lake Somerville, has a significantly higher unit cost than the ground -water alternatives previously discussed. The estimated unit cost to wholesale customers in 2000 ($5.63 per 1000 gals) would be over twice that estimated under the ground -water. Under the conservation scenario (see Table 8-5), the unit cost of delivering treated water to the customer cites from Lake Somerville via a regional system would be an estimated $8.41 per 1000 gallons in 2000. This cost would be over 135% higher than the comparable ground -water option presented in Table 8-3. Similarly, the development of the Brazos River as a regional water supply source would be a potentially feasible alternative, but at a much higher unit cost than ground -water. Initially, in 2000, the unit cost would be an estimated $5.83 per 1000 gallons under a without conservation scenario (see Table 8-6). This unit cost represents a 144% higher cost than that 11753/890674 8-13 projected for the comparable without conservation ground -water alternative. A similar magnitude is projected in the later milestone years of 2010 and 2020, in spite of decreasing unit costs. Under a water conservation scenario, the Brazos River would have a much higher initial unit cost of $8.57 per 1000 gallons in 2000 (see Table 8-7) than that projected under the without conservation scenario. Unit costs are significantly higher than the comparable ground- water alternative discussed previously. Finally, the proposed Millican Lake alternative also represents a potentially feasible surface water supply option, although at an initial unit cost in 2000 ($5.18 per 1,000 gals) that has been estimated to be 116% higher than of the comparable ground -water alternative. Table 8-8 provides a summary of the unit costs for this proposed surface water alternative. As with the other alternatives, the unit cost of treated water has been projected to drop as water demands approach the design capacity of the regional system. Table 8-9 presents the proposed Millican Lake surface water alternative under a conservation scenario. As with the other alternatives, the unit cost of treated water is significantly higher ($7.58 per 1,000 gals in 2000) than the without conservation scenario under the same alternative, thus reflecting, in part, a diminished economy of scale. 11753/890674 8-14 9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND FINANCING 9.1 OVERVIEW In order to establish a regional water system that operates efficiently and economically, and provides quality service, it is necessary to select an institutional structure that can effectively represent the interests of the whole region. Each institutional structure brings certain authorities (and restrictions) that pertain to the administration, operation, and financing of a regional system, and, therefore, must be selected only after a thorough and careful evaluation. The following sections of this report contain an evaluation of several institutional arrangements that could be potentially used in Brazos County. This evaluation provides a general overview of these institutional structures and is not intended to serve as an exhaustive analysis of the many legal, financial, administrative, and political elements that must be considered before selecting a final alternative. The institutional structures that have been evaluated are: Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities; Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority; Newly -created Water District; Newly -created Regional Water Authority. The preceding list does not include all possible institutions potentially available in Texas, such as non-profit water supply corporations or private investor -owned utilities. However, given the limitations of such entities when viewed in a regional context, only those institutional structures considered politically, economically, and administratively feasible have been evaluated. 11753/890674 9-1 A ! ! 9.2 REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES 9.2.1 Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities The cities of Bryan and College Station offer some potential, either individually or collectively, to serve as a sponsor and operator of a regional water system for Brazos County. Generally, this would be accomplished through means currently available to the cities and would not require any significant legislative action. Under this scenario, one or both of the cities would construct and operate a regional water system that would supply wholesale service to other customers and entities in the regional area. 9.2.1.1 Administration As with most publicly -owned municipal water systems, much of the final authority and responsibility for administration would lie with the Director of Public Works, and, by extension, the City Manager and elected council members of the sponsoring city. In the case of a regional system jointly operated by the cities of Bryan and College Station, for example, the administration, financing, and operation of facilities would likely be accomplished through a framework built on inter -local agreements. 9.2.1.2 Powers A city has the power to contract for water sale with neighboring entities, as in the way the cities of Bryan and College Station currently provide treated water on a wholesale basis to the small water supply corporations in outlying areas. With a regional system, the sponsoring city or cities would be required to employ similar contractual arrangements with its wholesale customers, although perhaps stipulating a greater degree of long-term assurance of participation than may now be the case. 11753/890674 9-2 The review and adoption of a water rate structure and related fees and charges would typically be the sole responsibility of the sponsoring city. It would be recommended that all such rates, fees, and/or charges be clearly based on the cost of service in order to minimize disputes over the calculation methodology. In the event of a rate challenge, the Texas Water Commission would generally have appellate jurisdiction. In addition, a city -sponsored regional system would retain powers to condemn land inside and outside the defined corporate limits for project -related facilities. The powers to finance regional improvements would generally be limited to those currently afforded municipal governments, subject to certain restrictions. For example, a city - sponsored regional system would be able to meet bond -related debt service payments from rate collections and up -front cash contributions, but would not be able to pledge or collect ad valorem taxes outside of its corporate limits. 9.2.1.3 Accountability The relationship between a city -sponsored regional system and its participants would effectively be no different than that which now exists between major cities and their wholesale customer cities or agencies. Negotiation of inter -local agreements among regional participants may provide additional assurance to the sponsoring city of minimal financial participation, as in the case of "take -or -pay" contracts. For the customer cities, these same inter -local agreements may provide opportunities for oversight and representation in the rate -setting process, as well as establishing minimal levels of service. There would be no significant changes expected in the functional relationship between a city -sponsored regional system and the State and Federal governments. 9.2.2 Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority The BRA offers some potential for operation of a regional water supply system to supplement the future water demands of Brazos County. Brazos County is located entirely within 11753/890674 9-3 the Brazos River Basin and BRA would, therefore, be the logical choice among existing river authorities. The enabling legislation that led to the creation of the BRA permits the development of treatment and transmission facilities to serve municipalities. As with all of the BRA's operating projects, any regional facilities would be owned and operated by the BRA, although their use would be pledged to benefit the contracting parties. Distribution systems for retail sales- and localized needs would be maintained by the existing municipalities or owners of quasi -public or private water supply systems. 9.2.2.1 Administration If the BRA were established as the regional water authority, an Advisory Committee would likely be established to provide for representation by the participating entities. An Advisory Committee would be expected to create and implement certain procedures and by-laws for operation of a regional system. The purpose of the Advisory Committee would be to: • consult with and advise the BRA on all matters pertaining to operation, maintenance and administration of a regional system; • review and recommend approval of annual budgets; • review and recommend capital expenditures when system needs are identified; • assist in providing a framework for the negotiation of contracts among participating entities and the BRA. In conjunction with the Advisory Committee, BRA would plan, design, construct, operate, maintain and manage a regional system in accordance with the terms of a regional contract. 9-4 11753/890674 9.2.2.2 Powers The BRA would contract with participating entities to provide wholesale water service. Rates would be established and collected according to a cost -of -service basis. The BRA would maintain current powers of eminant domain within its territorial boundaries, which include all of Brazos County. BRA has no powers of taxation, therefore, all revenue would be derived from rate collections and/or participant contributions as negotiated under contracts between the BRA and its wholesale customers. 9.2.2.3 Accountability The functional relationship between the BRA and its participating entities would likely be through the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee would share responsibility to review and approve all matters pertaining to annual operating budgets, needed capital improvements, and system policies. The size and structure of an Advisory Committee would be a function of the level of participation by entities within Brazos County. 9.2.3 Newly -created Water District The Texas Water Code allows for the creation of water districts to construct, operate, and manage systems for public water supply. The most common forms of water districts in Texas consist of Water Control and Improvement Districts (WCIDs) and Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs), created under Chapters 51 and 54, respectively, of the Texas Water Code. WCIDs and MUDs are political subdivisions of the State of Texas, and, therefore, typically have certain powers of bonding and taxation that are set forth at the time of creation. Although water districts may be created by the Texas Water Commission and under certain conditions by a county commissioners court, most regional water districts are created by an act of the State Legislature. In virtually all cases, the creation of water districts is subject to confirmation elections by resident voters within the proposed boundaries of the district. 11753/890674 9-5 9.2.3.1 Administration The administration of a water district is typically carried out by an elected board, usually consisting of five resident members. The District Board oversees the operations staff and makes policy decisions, although subject to certain limitations. For example, the issuance of district bonds is normally subject to approval by district residents. Water districts may under certain conditions provide service outside of their defined service area. The out -of -district customers, however, are not typically eligible to participate in the administration of the district, although certain contract terms could possibly ensure some role. 9.2.3.2 Powers Water districts, as political subdivisions of the state, typically have certain powers that ensure viability of the system. These powers include the ability to negotiate contracts with out -of -district parties, as well as to collect revenues for capital expenditures and 0 & M costs through rates, fees, and charges, and to levy ad valorem taxes. As with most rate -setting, the method should be based on actual cost of service in order to minimize the likelihood of rate challenges or litigation. 9.2.3.3 Accountability Because water districts are generally governed by elected board members, the primary accountability for operation of the system is to resident voters. To the extent stipulated by the terms of contracts negotiated with out -of -district customers, the district would also be accountable to this constituency. 9.2.4 Newly -created Water Authority A final institutional option that has been used for other regional systems around the state would involve the creation of a regional water authority. A regional water authority would 11753/890674 9-6 have to be created by a special act of the Texas Legislature for the express purpose of supplementing the water supply of participating entities within Brazos County. The creation of such an authority would be defined by the participants, in accordance with state laws, including the Texas Water Code. Generally, an authority of this type would act in the capacity of a wholesaler of treated water to participating entities. 9.2.4.1 Administration A newly -created water authority would likely be governed by a Board of Directors, with each participating entity appointing one local member. The Board would elect from among themselves a President, Vice -President, Secretary and Treasurer. The Board would also be responsible for the hiring of a General Manager of the Authority. Once constructed, the General Manager would generally assume responsibility and authority for the operation, maintenance and management of the regional system. 9.2.4.2 Powers A newly -created authority would have the power to contract with either public or private entities. The power of eminent domain could also be provided by the enabling legislation. The agency would typically be organized as a non-profit agency, thereby setting rates according to an actual cost -of -service basis. The authority would stipulate to the member entities the conditions of service for wholesale water supply. The agency would have the ability to issue long-term or short-term debt and be eligible for financial assistance from the State or Federal government. Water authorities are not typically granted ad valorem taxing powers, thereby limiting the generation of revenue to largely rate- and fee -based mechanisms. 9.2.4.3 Accountability A water authority would be first accountable to its participating members, although still subject to the terms of contracts negotiated with outside parties. Participation in a regional 11753/890674 9-7 water authority would not be limited to only municipal government, but would also be potentially open to quasi -public and private entities, such as Texas A & M University and water supply corporations. The extent of the authority's accountability to participating members would be defined within the enabling legislation. 9.3 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS The construction of major capital improvements requires that a long-term financing strategy be developed by the project sponsor. In the case of a regional system for Brazos County, the financing mechanisms that would be available would depend upon the institutional organization that would construct, operate, maintain, and manage the system. The following sections evaluate the most prevalent long-term methods for financing major capital improvement projects. 9.3.1 Conventional Long -Term Financing Methods The most prevalent method of providing long-term financing for major projects is through the issuance of bonds, many of which provide tax-exempt returns to the bond purchaser. Generally, the two most common bonds issued by political subdivisions are (1) general obligation bonds and (2) revenue bonds. 9.3.1.1 General Obligation Bonds General obligation (GO) bonds are generally the strongest pledge of security available to an issuing institution at the lowest effective interest cost. GO bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing entity, typically relying on tax collections to retire the debt obligation. The administration of these bonds is relatively simple and, therefore, bonds are able to be issued at a lower cost when compared with other types of bonds. A primary disadvantage of GO bonds is that voter approval prior to issuance is typically required. This process is likely to take a relatively long period of time, which could 11753/890674 9-8 have adverse impacts on project scheduling and construction. Regional systems throughout the State of Texas do not generally rely upon GO bonds for water utility project financing. 9.3.1.2 Revenue Bonds The issuance of revenue bonds constitutes a second long-term financing mechanism for a regional water utility system. Revenue bond debt is generally retired from revenues collected from operations of the financed capital improvements. A primary advantage of revenue bonds is that the general obligation bond debt limitations are not impacted by issuance of these bonds, thus leaving the GO bonds available for other uses. A primary disadvantage of revenue bonds is that the costs of issuance are typically higher due to the complexities of the financing method. Another disadvantage of revenue bonds is that the interest rates are generally higher than GO bonds, since debt retirement cannot be secured from tax collections. 9.3.2 Water Development Board Funds Another financing alternative would be to obtain financing from the TWDB through the Water Development Fund (WDF), which can finance certain water supply projects, and which offers extremely competitive interest rates. The WDF is funded by the sale of State of Texas general obligation bonds. The bond proceeds are then used to purchase bond issues from political subdivisions and non-profit water supply corporations for -water projects. As the political subdivision bonds are repaid to the TWDB, the general obligation bonds ► s d to fund the program are repaid by the State. The program is currently self-supporting. 11753/890674 9-9 10.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE 10.1 RECOMMENDED PLAN Based on a comparative evaluation of the four sources of water supply for Brazos County, the recommended alternative would be to continue the use of existing ground -water resources, particularly the Simsboro aquifer. As discussed in detail in Section 5.0, this alternative has been estimated to sustain a yield sufficient to meet the future water needs of Brazos County. The following sections provide a recommended implementation plan for meeting the future water needs through a regional water supply system. 10.2 RECOMMENDED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASES The construction of a regional water supply system should typically occur in phases in order to optimize the relationship between capital expenditures and the participants' ability to pay. Failure to adequately relate the facility design capacity with the timing of future demands may result in an overbuilt and overcapitalized system, leading to high unit costs and long-term underutilization of facilities. Conversely, undersizing of regional facilities may provide lower initial costs, but diminish the quality and level of service available to system customers. The use of existing facilities should be relied upon to the greatest possible extent in developing the implementation plan for a regional system. Reliance on existing facilities provides some flexibility in the scheduling and sizing of potential regional improvements. For example, the useful life of some existing ground -water wells that would normally be phased out over the next decade could potentially be extended to match the phased construction of a regional system. For the purposes of this regional master plan, construction has been assumed to occur in two phases, beginning in 2000. The second phase has been scheduled for 2010. Table 10-1 presents a preliminary schedule and description of the facilities that would be constructed in the first and second phases of a regional water supply system. It should be noted that this schedule and inventory of facilities is based on full participation within Brazos County, and, therefore, 11753/890674 10-1 TABLE 10-1 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE FOR THE REQUIRED FACILITY EXPANSIONS (ALTERNATE NO. 1) Regional Expansion Capacity Description Unit I Ic II IIc (2000) (2010) Well Capacity mgd 48.38 39.31 12.10 9.07 Well Field mgd 60.48 48.38 — Transmission Main Cooling Towers mgd 46.39 36.82 12.55 8.75 Clearwell Storage gals 2,300,000 1,500,000 800,000 600,000 Tanks Booster Pump Station mgd 46.39 36.82 12.55 8.75 Treated Water mgd 46.39 36.82 Transmission Main 11753/890674 10-2 would be subject to change in the event of decreased levels of participation, shifts in water demand, and/or modifications to the capacity of existing facilities. 10.3 RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS It is recommended that the following steps be taken to begin implementation of a regional plan: 11753/890674 1, The final number of regional participants and their associated level of involvement should be determined. Provisions for future participation should be considered. 2. The regional participants should review, evaluate, and select the institutional entity that will be responsible for the implementation of the recommended regional plan. The necessary legal and organizational framework should be determined and created, as required under state and local laws. 3. Agreements between the designated entity and the regional participants (or local entities desiring to become customers of the regional system) should be negotiated. 4. The regional entity should further develop the regional system concept as required to prepare a project financing plan, including the completion of project funding applications and the selection of mechanisms for the generation of revenue. Other project -related aspects of project financing and permitting should be considered, including such items as defining the terms of cost -sharing and the assessment of project -related environmental consequences, 5. A construction and installation management plan should be developed and should include a prioritization of project facilities. This list of priorities would 10-3 i i t 11753/890674 be used to determine the sequence of construction and installation of project facilities. 6. The detailed design required for preparation of construction documents for various segments of the project should be developed. An updated opinion of design capacities and probable costs should be prepared. 7. Project operation and maintenance procedures should be formalized and adopted to assure that the project adequately meets the regional water supply requirements for all customers. 10-4 11.0 CONCLUSIONS The following are the conclusions of the long-term regional water supply planning study: • Population growth within the primary study area of Brazos County is expected to continue throughout 2020. Based on current estimates, the population of Brazos County is approximately 124,389, and is projected to increase to 197,522 by 2020. • Municipal and manufacturing water demand in the primary study area is expected to increase significantly over the next 30 years. Current average day water demand is estimated at approximately 25.2 mgd and is expected to increase to 49.1 mgd in 2020. With the implementation of conservation measures, 2020 water demand would be projected at approximately 41.8 mgd. • Projected water demand would be expected to exceed the capacity of existing facilities in the primary study area within the next decade if no significant system improvements or expansions are made. • Following an evaluation of both ground -water and surface water sources to meet projected water demands, the use of ground -water was determined to be the most economically feasible source of long-range water supply. This selection is reinforced by the determination that the Simsboro Aquifer can be used with no significant impacts with respect to aquifer yield and/or related declines in water quality. • A regional water supply for entities in the secondary study area is not considered feasible. 11753/890674 11753/890674 • If additional study and future monitoring of ground water in the Simsboro Aquifer indicate that continued and increased usage of the aquifer may result in significant adverse impacts, another detailed study of a surface water alternative, with consideration of direct and indirect costs associated with long- term environmental impacts, should be considered. Another study may also be relevant if BRA, TRA, or any other major user plans and proceeds with any of the reservoirs proposed in the area. • A number of diverse institutional arrangements are potentially available to construct, operate, and manage a regional water system within Brazos County. It has been recommended that the study participants closely review these institutional arrangements. • An equally broad range of financing mechanisms are available to fund the construction and operation of a regional system. The financing mechanisms are dependent in large part on the institutional framework of a regional system. As with the institutional arrangements, these should be thoroughly reviewed by potential participants in a regional system prior to selection of a final alternative. 11-2 12.0 REFERENCES American Water Works Association Journal, February 1990, November 1989. May 1986. Water Conservation Handbook. Baker, E.T., Jr., C.R. Follett, G.D. McAdoo and C.W. Bonnett. 1974. "Ground -Water Resources of Grimes County, Texas": Texas Water Development Board, Report 186, 190 p. Bovay Engineering, Inc. May 1984. Texas A&M University Research Park Master Plan. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1989. Bearfacts for Brazos, Grimes, Lear, Madison and Robertson Counties and Bryan -College Station. Burns & McDonnell, Engineering Co., Inc. 1989. Report on the Bedias Investigation. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Cronin, J.G., C.R. Follett, G.H. Shafer and P.L. Rettman. 1963. "Reconnaisance Investigation of the Ground -Water Resources of the Brazos River Basin, Texas": Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6310, 152 p., figs. Cronin, James G. and Clyde A. Wilson. 1967. "Ground Water in the Flood -Plain Alluvium of the Brazos River, Whitney Dam to Vicinity of Richmond, Texas": Texas Water Development Board, Report 41, 206 p., figs. Directory of Texas Manufacturers. 1989. Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at Austin. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1989. "Application to Texas Water Development Board for a Regional Water Supply Planning Grant": Report prepared for City of Bryan and City of college Station, 19 p., appendices. . February 1986. Water Availability Study for the Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins. Chapter 8. Follett, C.R. 1974. "Ground -Water Resources of Brazos and Burleson Counties, Texas": Texas Water Development Board, Report 185, 194 p. Gould, F.W. 1975. Texas Plants, A checklist and ecological summary. Texas Agriculatural Experiment Station. Guyton, William F. & Associates. 1967. "Report on Ground -Water in the Simsboro Sand at Bryan, Texas": Report prepared for Brown and Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, 19 p., tables, maps. 11753/890674 12-1 . Associates. 1971. "Future Pumping Levels in Wells in Simsboro Sand at Bryan, Texas": Report prepared for Spencer J. Buchanan and Associates, Inc. and the City of Bryan, Texas, 31 p., tables, figs. Hall Southwest Water Consultants, Inc. 1985b. "Geologic and Ground -Water Investigation for Permit Renewal Including Overburden Characterization and Projections, Sandow Mine, Milam County, Texas": Report prepared for Texas Utilities Generating Company, and in Aluminum Company of America, 1985, "Sandow Surface Mine Permit No. 001, Permit Renewal Application": submitted to Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad Commission of Texas, Appendix C, Exhibit 1. Harden, R.W. and Associates, Inc. Inc. 1977. "Results of Siting Investigation for Simsboro Well Field for the City of College Station, Texas": Report prepared for Riewe & Wischmeyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers and the City of College Station, 19 p., tables, maps. . 1986. "The Most Suitable Areas for Management of the Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer in Central Texas":. Report prepared for Aluminum Company of America and submitted to Texas Water Commission, 71 p., tables, maps. HSI Consultants, Inc., 1981. "Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation Related to Possible Mining Operations, Bastrop County, Texas": Report prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority, Project No. 1266-81. Ingersoll Rand. 1984 Cameron Hydraulic Data. McGill, Ms. Trisha. 1989. Brazos Valley Development Council. Personal Communication to C. Sanders, EH&A. College Station. October 11. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1981. Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of Wastewater. . 1985. Houston Water Master Plan, Inventory of Surface Water Resource. Peckham, Richard C., Vernon L. Souders, Joe W. Dillard and Bernard B. Baker. 1963. "Reconnaissance Investigation of the Ground -Water Resources of the Trinity River Basin, Texas": Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6309, 110 p. Peckham, Richard C. 1965. "Availability and Quality of Ground Water in Leon County, Texas": Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6513, 43 p., appendices, plates. Phillips Coal Company. 1986. "Surface Minig and Reclamation Permit Application for the Calvert Lignite Mine, Robertson County, Texas": Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division. Riewe and Wischmeyer, Inc. June 1980. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. A Study of the Domestic Water System. 11753/890674 12-2 I I . August 1984. Texas A&M University Proposals, Specifications, Contract and Bond Forms for Upgrade Campus Water System. Rose, Nicholas A. 1955. "Development of Ground -Water Supply from Simsboro Sand": Report prepared for City of Bryan, Bryan, Texas, 8 p. Texas A&M University. April 1986. Five -Year Plan, 1985-1990, Texas A&M University. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Economic Analysis Center. 1989. Fiscal Notes, Issue 89:11. Texas Department of Water Resources. 1979. "Ground -Water Availability In Texas": Texas Department of Water Resources, Report 238, 77 p. . 1984. "Water for Texas, A Comprehensive Plan for the Future": Texas Department of Water Resources, GP-4-1, Volumes 1 and 2. . 1984. Water for Texas. Texas Department of Health. January 1989. Water Hygiene Inventory. Texas Economic Publishers. 1988. The Perryman Report. Texas Public Utilities Commission. 1982. "Testimony of J. Frank Davis on Texland Electric Cooperative's Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Before the Texas Public Utilities Commission": Texas Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 3838 and 3896, 78 p., figs. Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1942. "Robertson County, Texas": Texas State Board of Water Engineers, 61 p. . 1943. "Grimes County, Texas": Texas State Board of Water Engineers, 37 p. Texas State Date Center. 1989. Texas Department of Commerce. Estimates of the Total Populations of Counties and Places in Texas. Texas Water Commission. 1989. "Ground -Water Quality of Texas": Texas Water Commission, Report 89-01, 197 p., figs. Texas Water Development Board. 1973. "IMAGEW-1 Well Field Drawdown Model": A Program Documentation and User's Manual, 37 p. . 1980-1986. Survey of Ground and Surface Water Use for Calendar Years 1980-1986. . 1984. Survey of Ground and Surface Water Use, 1984 Municipal Pumpage (by County), unpublished use datafile. 11753/890674 12-3 . April 1986. Guidelines for Municipal Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Planning and Program Development. . 1989. "Computer Listing of Reported Municipal/Industrial Ground -Water Use for 1955- 1987." . October 1989. Projections of County Populations. . Projections of Population and Municipal Water Demands. The Marley Cooling Towers. June 1989. Thorkildsen, David and Robert D. Price. In preparation. "Ground -Water Resources of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in the Central Texas Region": Texas Water Development Board, Volume I, 104 p. Todd, David Keith. 1959. "Grounddwater Hydrology": Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 535 p. Turner, Samuel F. 1937. "Leon County, Texas": Texas Board of Water Engineers, 74 p. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1989. Total Population, Texas and Counties, 1980-1988. Distributed by Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at Austin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. "Proposed Camp Swift Lignite Leasing, Bastrop County, Texas": Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. 1 and 2. . 1981. "Limestone Electric Generating Station and Jewett Mine in Freestone, Limestone, and Leon Counties, Texas": Environmental Impact Statement. 11753/890674 12-4 LIST OF ENTITIES NOTIFIED BY CERTIFIED MAIL COUNTIES Brazos County County Courthouse Bryan, Texas 77803 Grimes County County Courthouse Anderson, Texas 77830 Leon County County Courthouse Centerville, Texas 75833 Madison County 101 West Main Madisonville, Texas 77864 Robertson County County Courthouse Franklin, Texas 77856 CITIES City of Navasota P.O. Box 910 Navasota, Texas 77868 City of Buffalo P.O. Box 219 Buffalo, Texas 75831 City of Centerville P.O. Box 279 Centerville, Texas 75833 City of Leona P.O. Box 126 Leona, Texas 75850 City of Jewett P.O. Box 189 Jewett, Texas 75846 890009 City of Marquez P.O. Box 128 Marquez, Texas 77865 City of Normangee P.O. Box 37 Normangee, Texas 77817 City of Oakwood P.O. Box 96 Oakwood, Texas 75855 City of Madisonville P.O. Box 549 Madisonville, Texas 77864 City of Bremond P.O. Box E Bremond, Texas 76629 City of Calvert P.O. Box 505 Calvert, Texas 77837 City of Franklin P.O. Box 428 Franklin, Texas 77856 City of Hearne 210 Cedar Street Hearne, Texas 77859 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Brazos Valley Development Council P.O. Drawer 4128 Bryan, Texas 77805-4128 SPECIAL DISTRICTS Brazos County Water Control _Improvement District No. 1 - Creek Route 4, Box 790 Navasota, Texas 77868 Brazos River Authority P.O. Box 7555 Waco, Texas 76714-7555 and Big Grimes County Municipal Utility District No. 1 c/o Andrew P. Johnson, III 2707 North Loop West, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77002-5087 North Zulch Municipal Utility District P.O. Box 118 North Zulch, Texas 77872 San Jacinto River Authority P.O. Box 329 Conroe, Texas 77305 Trinity River Authority P.O. Box 60 Arlington, Texas 76010 WATER SUPPLY CORPORATIONS Brushy W.S.C. P.O. Box 1134 College Station, Texas 77841 Fairview -Smetana W.S.C. Route 5, Box 596F Bryan, Texas 77803 890008 Wellborn W.S.C. P.O. Box 1040 Wellborn, Texas 77881 Wixon W.S.C. P.O. Box 3297 Bryan, Texas 77802 Carlos W.S.C. P.O. Box 310 Iola, Texas 77861 Dobbins-Plantersville W.S.C. P.O. Box 127 Plantersville, Texas 77363 Concord Robbins W.S.C. P.O. Box 35 Concord, Texas 77850 Flo W.S.C. P.O. Box 1090 Buffalo, Texas 75831 Flynn W.S.C. P.O. Box 125 Flynn, Texas 77855 St. Paul Shiloh-Timesville W.S.C. Route 2, Box 106 Oakwood, Texas 75855 Madison County W.S.C. P.O. Box 537 Madisonville, Texas 77864 Midway W.S.C. P.0, Box. 136 Midway, Texas 75852 Bethany -Hearne W.S.C. Route 2, Box 98 Hearne, Texas 77859 North Hamilton Hill W.S.C. P.O. Box 555 Franklin, Texas 77856 -Robertson County W.S.C. P.O. Box 875 Franklin, Texas 77856 Tri-County W.S.C. P.O. Box 976 Marlin, Texas 76661 Twin Creek W.S,C. P.O. Box 88 New Baden, Texas 77870 Wheelock W.S.C. P.O. Box 49 Wheelock, Texas 77892 890000 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY Agency Date Please return this completed questionnaire to: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 519 Austin, Texas 78767 ATTN: Ken Schroeder Please contact Ken at 512/327-6840 if you have questions. WATER SUPPLY 1. Please provide a map showing limits of your current service area. Also indicate any known or anticipated expansion of your service area and the timing of the expansion. 2. Do you purchase all or part of your water supply on a wholesale basis from another agency? . If so, please describe. 3. Provide map showing location of water supply facilities Raw water intake, pump station and transmission line • Treatment facilities • Wells • Distribution system including pump station • Ground and elevated storage 11753/900674 1 4. Provide the following information on your current water supply source. Source a) Wells No. Capacity MGD MGD MGD MGD b) Surface Water 1) Raw (Source) *Water Rights (MGD) (or Acre -Feet) 2) Treated (Source) Supplier Quantity (MGD) * If water rights are held by other agency, provide name of agency, contract quantity and length of contract. Please list the cities you serve and indicate whether wholesale or retail. Also indicate what entities other than cities that you serve. Retail or wholesale? 5. Type of Agency. Please describe your agency. (a) Investor Owned (b) Non-profit corporation (c) Utility district (d) Authority (e) Other (describe) 11753/900674 2 6. Provide the following population data for your service area if available: Historical Projection 1960 1990 1970 1995 1980 2000 1988 2010 2015 2020 7. Provide the following information concerning water consumption if available: Historical Average day demand Maximum day demand # of customer connections Gallons per capita per day Projected Average day demand Maximum day demand Gallons per capita per day Source of projections 1960 1970 1980 1988 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 Water demand may be in MGD (million gallons per day) or gpm (gallons per minute). Please indicate units used. 11753/900674 3 8. Provide the following information on existing and proposed expansion of your water supply facilities: Raw Water Pumping Facilities Current capacity MGD Planned expansion Ultimate capacity MGD Scheduled in-service (year) Estimated Construction Cost Raw Water Pipeline Planned New Line Capacity MGD Capacity Size Size Length Length MGD MGD Scheduled in-service (year) Estimated Construction Cost Treatment Facilities Current capacity MGD Planned expansion Ultimate capacity Scheduled in-service (year) Estimated Construction Cost MGD 11753/900674 4 No. of tanks Ground Storage Planned additional storage capacity Storage capacity Scheduled in-service of each tank (year) Current total storage capacity No. of tanks Estimated Construction Cost Elevated Storage Planned additional storage capacity Storage capacity Scheduled in-service of each tank (year) Current total Estimated Construction storage capacity Cost New Wells a) Capacity Scheduled in-service (year) Estimated construction cost b) Capacity Scheduled in-service (year) Estimated construction cost GAL GAL IMPORTANT For any of the above facilities for which you indicate a "planned expansion," please list any of the planned facilities that are currently under contract, under construction, or for which you have a firm commitment to construct. 9. Please provide current rate schedule for water service. 11753/900674 5 10. Indicate any treatment that is provided and note any problems associated with meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State Drinking Water Standards. 11. Describe significant customer complaints associated with taste, odor, color, pressure. 12. Please identify any Capital Improvement Programs, Engineering Reports or Planning Reports you have that may relate to or be useful in this regional planning effort for water supply. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the above. Please indicate if we need to return the reports to you. 13. Is your public water supply "Approved" by the State? 14. Do you consider your existing water supply adequate to meet your.... • . Present Needs • . Year 1990 Needs • . Year 2000 Needs • . Year 2010 Needs • . Year 2020 Needs YES NO If you do not consider your existing water supply adequate to mect your short or long range needs, is your entity actively planning or negotiating to meet your present or future needs? . If yes, please describe. 15. Would your agency be interested in participating in a regional water supply delivery system? If so, please indicate the year in which your participation would be feasible. 11753/900674 6 16, Has your agency adopted any water conservation plan or drought management plan? If yes, please provide a copy. Please provide the name and telephone number of the person in your organization who can be contacted concerning questions or additional information on the above requested data and information: Name Telephone No. 11753/900674 7 TABLE C-1 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND City of Bryan BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY ITEM 1990 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION TWDB LOW 62,034 64,123 70,994 74,552 TWDB HIGH 62,327 76,238 85,043 90,870 SELF -REPORTED 56,000 66,345 76,845 81,478 PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd) 1980-86 AVERAGE 158 158 158 158 TWDB AVERAGE 160 160 160 160. W/ CONSERVATION 156 148 140 136 TWDB HIGH 185 185 185 185 W/ CONSERVATION 180 171 162 157 SELF -REPORTED 164 164 164 164 WATER DEMAND (mgd) TWDB LOW POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE TWDB AVERAGE W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH W/ CONSERVATION SELF -REPORTED PC TWDB HIGH POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE TWDB AVERAGE W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH W/ CONSERVATION SELF -REPORTED PC 9.801 9.925 9.677 11.476 11.166 10.174 9.848 9.972 9.723 11.530 11.219 10.222 SELF -REPORTED POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE 8.848 TWDB AVERAGE W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH W/ CONSERVATION SELF -REPORTED PC 8.960 8.736 10.360 10.080 9.184 10.131 10.260 9.490 11.863 10.965 10.516 12.046 12.198 11.283 14.104 13.037 12.503 10.483 10.615 9.819 12.274 11.345 10.881 11.217 11.359 9.939 13.134 11.501 11.643 13.437 13.607 11.906 15.733 13..777 13.947 12.142 12.295 10.758 14.216 12.449 12.603 11.779 11.928 10.139 13.792 11.705 12.227 14.357 14.539 12.358 16.811 14.267 14.903 12.874 13.036 11.081 15.073 12.792 13.362 MINIMUM (mgd) MAXIMUM (mgd) MEDIAN (mgd) DIFFERENCE (mgd) 8.7 11.5 10.1 2.8 9.5 14.1 11.8 4.6 9.9 15.7 12.8 5.8 10.1 16.8 13.5 6.7 SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90 EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989. TABLE C-2 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE, AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND City of College Station BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY ITEM 1990 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION TWDB LOW 47,134 57,326 63,467 66,648 TWDB HIGH 47,356 68,156 76,027 81,236 SELF -REPORTED 44,636 57,926 65,000 74,000 PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd) 1980-86 AVERAGE. 261 261 261 261 TWDB AVERAGE 266 266 266 266 W/ CONSERVATION 260 246 233 226 TWDB HIGH 335 335 335 335 W/ CONSERVATION 327 310 293 285 SELF -REPORTED 161 189 228 248 WATER DEMAND (mgd) [a] TWDB LOW POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE 12.302 14.962 16.565 17.395 TWDB AVERAGE 12.538 15.249 16.882 17.728 W/ CONSERVATION 12.255 14.105 14.772 15.069 TWDB HIGH 15.790 19.204 21.261 22.327 W/ CONSERVATION, 15.395 17.764 18.604 18.978 SELF -REPORTED PC 7.603 10.846 14.445 16.533 W/ TAMU [b] 14.603 19.846 24.345 27.423 TWDB HIGH POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE 12.360 17.789 19.843 21.203 TWDB AVERAGE 12.597 18.129 20.223 .21.609 W/ CONSERVATION 12.313 16.770 17.695 18.367 TWDB HIGH 15.864 22.832 25.469 27.214 W/ CONSERVATION 15.468 21.120 22.285 23.132 SELF -REPORTED PC 7.639 12.894 17.304 20.151 W/ TAMU [b] 14.639 21.894 27.204 31.041 SELF -REPORTED POPULATION x 1980-86 AVERAGE 11.650 15.119 16.965 19.314 TWDB AVERAGE 11.873 15.408 17.290 19.684 W/ CONSERVATION 11.605 14.253 15.129 16.731 TWDB HIGH 14.953 19.405 21.775 24.790 W/ CONSERVATION 14.579 17.950 19.053 21.072 SELF -REPORTED PC 7.200 10.959 14.794 18.356 W/ TAMU [b] 14.200 19.959 24.694 29.246 MINIMUM (mgd) 'MAXIMUM (mgd) MEDIAN (mgd) DIFFERENCE (mgd) 7.2 15.9 11.5 8.7 10.8 22.8 16.8 12.0 14.4 27.2 20.8 12.8 15.1 31.0 23.1 16.0 SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90 EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989. [a]. TWDB WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR COLLEGE STATION ALSO INCLUDE TAMU WATER DEMAND. [b]. SELF -REPORTED W/TAMU PROJECTIONS INCLUDE AVERAGE DAY PROJECTIONS OF 7 AND 9 mgd FOR 1990 AND 2000. TABLE C-3 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND Other Municipal - Brazos County BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY ITEM 1990 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION TWDB LOW TWDB HIGH 11,020 11,071 27,096 32,214 30,309 36,306 34,494 42,044 PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd) TWDB AVERAGE 110 110 110 110 W/ CONSERVATION 107 102 96 94 TWDB HIGH 139 139 139 139 W/ CONSERVATION 135 128 121 118 WATER DEMAND (mgd) TWDB LOW POPULATION x TWDB AVERAGE W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH POPULATION x TWDB AVERAGE W/ CONSERVATION TWDB HIGH W/ CONSERVATION 1.212 1.182 1.527 1.489 1.218 1.187 1.535 1.496 2.981 2.757 3.756 3.474 3.544 3.278 4.465 4.130 3.334 2.917 4.201 3.676 3.994 3.494 5.032 4.403 3.794 3.225 4.781 4.064 4.625 3.931 5.828 4.954 MINIMUM 1.2 2.8 2.9 3.2 MAXIMUM 1.5 4.5 5.0 5.8 MEDIAN 1.4 3.6 4.0 4.5 DIFFERENCE 0.4 1.7 2.1 2.6 SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90 EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989. BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY 4400 COBBS DRIVE a P. O. BOX 7555 ® TELEPHONE AREA CODE817776-1441 WACO, TEXAS 76714-7555 March 8, 1990 U P S 1' Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 519 Austin, Texas 78767 Dear Mr. Schroeder: This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1990 concerning potential surface water supplies for Brazos County. The Brazos River Authority operates a basin -wide water supply system consisting of eleven major reservoirs, from which water supply is committed to supply needs both in the immediate vicinity of the individual reservoirs and in areas downstream, areas all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. It is from this basin -wide system that the Authority could make available surface -water supplies to Brazos County on a long-term, dependable basis. Your letter includes two potential scenarios for surface water supply based on maximum -day demands. Since the adequacy of surface water supplies is determined by their ability to meet average -day, rather than maximum -day demands, the maximum -day demands presented in your table were converted to average -day using a factor of 2.0. The following table of average -day demands table collates with the maximum -day demand table in your letter: Surface -Water Required in MGD(Acre-Feet/Year) SCENARIO NO. 1990 2000 2010 2020 No. 1 (10 wells) 7.75 17.1 23.2 29.5 (8680) (19152) (25984) (33040) No. 2 22.85 32.2 38.3 44.6 (no wells) (25592) (36063) (42896) (49952) Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. March 8, 1990 Page 2 Sufficient supplies are currently available from the Authority's Basin -wide System to provide for the long-term (year 2020) demands under either scenario. Two supply sources are currently available to meet these demands. First, the demands can be supplied entirely from System supplies diverted from the Brazos River near College Station. The long-term, dependable supply that can be made available at the Brazos River near College Station is currently over 45.0 mgd. The second currently available source is Lake Somerville; however, sufficient supply is not currently available from Lake Somerville to meet the long-term (year 2020 under Scenario 1 and year 2000 under Scenario 2) demand under either scenario. The dependable long-term supply currently available from Lake Somerville is approximately 27.8 mgd (31,136 AF/Yr). If Lake Somerville were used, future supplemental supplies from the Brazos River or from a new supply source would be needed. Lake Somerville offers excellent water quality (low dissolved constituents); however, it is -located substantially further from the Bryan -College Station area than the Brazos River. Conversely, the Brazos River at College Station has periods of elevated salt concentrations. A statistical evaluation of the reoccurrence intervals for salt (chloride) concentrations in the Brazos River at the College Station gauge has recently been done by Texas A&M University. This analysis indicates that the 250 mg/1 chloride concentration is exceeded 10 percent of the time; a 100 mg/1 chloride concentration is maintained about 35 percent of the time (a copy of the duration curves for total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates is attached). Termination storage is one method that has been used successfully to provide potable supplies during periods of elevated salt concentrations. The storage must be of sufficient volume to provide the maximum -day demand for the treatment plant during periods when the chloride concentrations are elevated. If Lake Somerville is used in combination with the Brazos River, termination storage would not be required. The supply system could be designed to overdraft Lake Somerville during periods of high salinity and to overdraft the Brazos River during periods of low salinity. With regard to the price of long-term System water supply, the Authority has recently formulated a price proposal for future commitments of System water supply that would achieve a uniform, equitable price. This proposal was made to a large group of entities located throughout the Brazos Basin that needed additional water supply to meet present and future demands. This proposed pricing structure for available System supplies is being reviewed by the Texas Water Commission in a rate proceeding that began in August 1989. The final decision of the Commission will govern the System price that the Authority can offer. Since this proceeding has just gotten underway, it may be some time before the final price is determined. Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. March 8, 1990 Page 3 Our proposal specifies an initial term and an extended term. During the initial term, which is a period from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 2025, the water supply made available for diversion (Current Use Water) is priced as follows: 1991-92 $35.00 per acre-foot 1993-94 $65.00 per acre-foot 1995 and thereafter $85.00 per acre-foot This price, which will escalate in accordance with the Consumer Price Index, is based on the assumption that at least 86,000 acre-feet per year (76.8 mgd) of available System supply will be sold as Current Use Water before the end of 1990. During the initial term, the price of the Current Use Water will never exceed the 1995 price. The price would be adjusted downward as additional water is sold and existing pre-1990 water supply contracts expire and are rolled -over as long-term contracts. Option Water can be reserved for use during -the extended term beginning in the year 2026. Option Water is not available for diversion until additional water supply facilities are made available. The proposal includes a procedure for exercising the option to convert Option Water to Current Use Water during the extended term, which would begin in January 2026 or whenever additional water supply facilities become operational, whichever is later. The price of Option Water for the initial term is $10.00 per acre-foot. As requested in a subsequent telephone conversation, I have enclosed information on Lake Caldwell, a potential reservoir site located in Burleson County, and on Lake Millican, the former COE project proposed for the Panther Creek dam site. I understand that this information is needed for a complete evaluation of all potential supply sources. Please review the information provided in this letter. If you have any questions about the availability of price for surface water to meet the needs of Brazos County, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J. TOM RAY, P.E. Planning Division Manager JTR:rp Table 73 CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS: Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) 0.01 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978 0.05 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978 0.1 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978 0.2 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978 0.5 15,000 2,800 1,580 1,260 910 1 14,500 2,710 1,560 1,040 902 2 13,700 2,540 1,520 1,010 845 5 12,700 2,420 1,400 870 701 10 11,900 2,290 1,250 763 635 15 11,000 2,190 1,210 704 601 20 10,500 2,090 1,170 659 566 30 8,530 1,890 1,070 596 498 40 7,320 1,780 1,000 557 426 50 6,220 1,620 945 -505 382 60 5,270 1,510 864 448 346 70 4,320 1,420 750 412 317 80 3,320 1,350 723 370 264 85 2,800 1,300 699 339 250 90 2,420 1,130 666 313 235 95 1,870 948 639 270 218 98 1,400 739 567 238 198 99 1,290 583 552 231 169 99.5 1,190 508 487 228 164 99.8 817 500 476 225 161 99.9 774 495 472 223 160 99.95 742 492 469 221 159 99.99 692 486 464 218 157 100 618 475 456 212 153 A-92 ��r Table 74 CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE FOR CHLORIDE Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) 0.01 7,740 1,100 771 512 355 0.05 7,740 1,100 771 512 355 0.1 7,740 1,100 771 512 355 0.2 7,740 1,100 771 512 355 0.5 7,270 1,100 637 370 340 1 6,850 1,100 625 364 328 2 6,530 1,000 612 353 290 5 6,110 989 551 288 213 10 5,760 949 484 250, 192 15 5,270 892 451 220 176 20 4,850 844 437 198 162 30 3,810 756 400 173 •135 40 3,240 706 376 154 108 50 2,610 652 350 134-c* 93 60 2,210 594 316 113 80 70 1,690 562 270 91 67 80 1,290 522 256 79 55 85 1,080 503 247 69 49 90 851 447 236 60 43 95 647 362 218 41 36 98 455 282 176 35 34 99 339 223 169 32 33 99.5 .297 195 156 30 32 99.8 271 192 148 28 31 99.9 256 190 146 27 31 99,95 244 189 145 26 30 99,99 224 187 143 24 30 100 190 183 139 20 28 A-93 Table 75 CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE FOR SULFATE Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/I) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) 0.01 2,220 582 481 262 185 0.05 2,220 582 481 262 185 0.1 2,220 582 481 262 185 0.2 2,220 582 481 262 185 0.5 2,090 582 325 239 172 1 2,040 574 317 213 166 2 2,010 547 313 191 157 5 1,910 501 291 170 124 10 1,800 481 267 143 113 15 1,720 459 237 133 105 20 1,640 436 228 121 98 30 1,400. 396 214 109 86 40 1,300. 364 195 100 73 50 1,160 328 181 90 64 60 986 309 160 80 58 70 854 289 141 72. 51 80 686 273 132 62 45 85 604 258 127 57 40 90 539 219 122 51 37 95 367 180 116 41' 33 98 281 147 103 39' 29 99 224 118 93 38• 27 99.5 145 99 83 38. 25 99.8 137 98 80 37 25 99.9 132 97 79 37 25 99.95 128 97 79 37 25 99.99 122' 96 79 36. 24 100 112 94 78 35 24 A-94 Tria'.`)tv of Texas General Office 2011/4001 March 1, 1990 Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. P. 0. Box 519 Austin, Texas 78767 Dear Mr. Schroeder: In response to your letter regarding surface water alternatives in the Trinity River Basin, I offer the following: 1. TRA at present has sufficient water rights in Lake Livingston to meet the needs as specified in Scenario Nos. 1 and 2. As for preferred conveyance locations, we would consider all reasonable alternatives based on further engineering analyses and the customers' needs and desires. 2. The Authority, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, completed a feasibility study of the Bedias Reservoir located in southwest Madison and northwest Walker Counties in 1988 which has a projected yield of about 76 mgd. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated construction of the reservoir to be approximately $150 Million, not including recreational facilities. Conveyance of .water from Bedias Lake to the west is expected to require an intake on the south shore; the exact site to be based on further engineering considerations. We have previously provided a copy of the Bedias report. Regarding your question concerning services the Authority can provide. TRA is willing and capable of providing three levels of service. Under contract with other municipalities in the Trinity Basin, IRA has financed, constructed and operated; financed and constructed; or tinancea only projects similar to those that would be necessary to supply surface water to Bryan or College Station from the Trinity. Enclosed is a general b)ochure that outlines projects ir which the Authority is involved. P.O. Box 60 Arlington, Texas 76004 Metro (817) 467-4343 TeleFax (817) 465-0970 Letter to Mr. Ken Schroeder 2003/4001 March 1, 1990 Page Two T believe there are several options of service the Authority is capable of providing under the two scenarios presented above. Our overall approach is to design projects in conjunction with the water customer so as to provide the most efficient project. We would welcome the opportunity to visit you and representatives of the cities of Bryan and College Station about several of these options and how they could be evaluated. Should further detailed information be needed, you should contact Mr. Grady Manis, TRA's Southern Region Manager, 1117 loth Street, Huntsville, Texas 77340 (409) 295-5485. Yours very truly, SAM" SCOTT Executive Services Manager JSS/cc Enclosure cc: Mr. C. Grady Manis, TRA Southern Region Manager TABLE 8-1 COST COMPARISON GROUND WATER VS. SURFACE WATER Construction Costs' Total Construction Costs I lc II IIc Source: Well Field S24,815,000 S20,030,900 S3,911,800 S2,892,500 Lake Somerville 62,188,300 49,119,800 7,182,700 5,653,000 Brazos River 61,429,900 47,550,100 9,702,700 7,405,000 Millican Lake 55,989,100 43,427,000 7,182,700 5,653,000 Operation and Maintenance Costs2 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance I lc II Ile Source: Well Field S998,400 S618,800 S1,606,000 $978,200 Lake Somerville 1,798,200 1,170,800 2,611,700 1,715,800 Brazos River 2,309,700 1,577,800 2,703,100 1,789,200 Millican Lake 1,832,900 1,186,200 2,633,700 1,729,000 1 Construction Costs include contigency and engineering. 2 Operation and Maintenance Costs include Administrative. 11753/890674 8-2