2. Defining the Problem
Clinton Lake
Rainfall 100º Days Utilization
80 1000
60 750
Million Gallons
Inches or Days
40 500
77 961.5
20 27.97 250
20
12.77 219.2
0 0
2011
Actual
Required
Average
2011
Average
3. Background
The Big Picture
• Garver was contracted to evaluate emergency supply alternatives to
relieve Clinton Lake
Work Order #14
• Evaluated existing water supply infrastructure at the Burns Flats well
field
• Rehabilitation of the Burns Flats field was found to be unfeasible (high
cost, low return)
Work Order #15
• Broken into two parts:
• A short term emergency study to address immediate needs
• A long term master planning study to expand water supply
portfolio and prevent future drought crises
4. Population and Water Demand
Estimates
Population
• 2010 (Census): 9,033
• 2037 (Projected): 9,423
• 2062 (Projected): 9,470
5
4 4.22 4.40 4.42
Demand (MGD)
3 Average Day
2 2.16 2.17 Max Day
2.07
1
0
2012 2037 2062
6. Design Flows
Average Day Demand
• Analysis of water supply on annual basis
• Applicable for terminal reservoir options
• 2062 average day demand: 2.60 MGD
Maximum Day Demand
• Analysis of water supply based on limiting day
• Applicable for point-of-use options
• Clinton Lake safe yield assumed to be zero pending yield
analysis
• 2062 maximum day demand: 5.30 MGD
• Maximum allocation from Foss: 2.19 MGD
• Potential maximum day demand shortfall: 3.11 MGD
10. Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTP
Source 2: Foss Raw
Water
Source 3: Washita
River Alluvium
11. Water Supply Sources
Source 1: Foss WTP
Source 2: Foss Raw
Water
Source 3: Washita
River Alluvium
Source 4: Rush
Springs Aquifer
12. Source Raw Water Quality
Foss Reservoir
• High total dissolved solids (TDS)
• Target: 500 mg/L
• Value: 1,315-1,554 mg/L
• Hard water
Washita Alluvium (Riverside GC wells)
• High TDS: 1,930 mg/L
• Very hard water: 1,743 mg/L (target of 100 mg/L)
• High sulfate: 1,813 mg/L (target of 250 mg/L)
Rush Springs Aquifer
• No local data; data is from literature for areas east of Clinton
• TDS: 488 mg/L
• Hardness: 340 mg/L
• Nitrate and sulfate levels may be above desirable levels
13. Identifying the Alternatives
Source 1: Foss WTP
• Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
• Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP capacity
Source 2: Raw Water from Foss Reservoir
• Alternative 2A – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir
into Clinton Lake directly
• Alternative 2B – Pump raw water from Foss Reservoir
into a ground storage tank near Clinton WTP
• Both alternatives require upgrade of Clinton WTP
14. Identifying the Alternatives
Source 3: Washita Alluvium Wellfield
• Alternative 3A – Pump alluvial groundwater to Clinton
Lake for treatment
• Alternative 3B – Construct new WTP in Clinton proper
to treat groundwater
Source 4: Rush Springs Wellfield
• Alternative 4A – Pump Rush Springs groundwater to
Clinton Lake for treatment
• Alternative 4B – Inject groundwater directly into
distribution network with minor wellhead treatment
15. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Clinton Lake
(33%)
Foss WTP
(67%)
16. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
Alternative 1A
• Two Water Sources Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pursue legal options to
obtain rights to unutilized
treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s Foss WTP Clinton WTP
13.6%)
• Adjust Resource
Management Strategy
• Increase reliance on Foss
treated water NW Blend Tank
• Prioritize maintaining
adequate levels in Clinton
Lake
• Utilize Clinton Lake water Distribution
when Clinton Lake is full System
17. Alternative 1A – “Do Nothing”
Alternative 1A
• Two Water Sources Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pursue legal options to
obtain rights to unutilized
treated supply (e.g., Cordell’s Foss WTP Clinton WTP
13.6%)
• Adjust Resource
Management Strategy Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
• Increase reliance on Foss
treated water NW Blend Tank Clinton Lake
• Prioritize maintaining (33%)
Foss WTP
adequate levels in Clinton (67%)
Lake
• Utilize Clinton Lake water Distribution
when Clinton Lake is full System
19. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
Alternative 1B
Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
• Two Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity
• Plant expansion Foss WTP Clinton WTP
• Foss can provide
maximum day demand
(5.30 MGD)
• Water quality is NW Blend Tank
improved through
advanced treatment
• City can maximize Clinton
Lake use without fear of
water shortfall Distribution
System
20. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
Alternative 1B
Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
• Two Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity Expanded
• Plant expansion Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
• Foss can provide
maximum day demand
(5.30 MGD)
• Water quality is NW Blend Tank
improved through
advanced treatment
• City can maximize Clinton
Lake use without fear of
water shortfall Distribution
System
21. Alternative 1B – Expand Foss WTP
Alternative 1B
Foss Reservoir Clinton Lake
• Two Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Increase Foss WTP Capacity Expanded
• Plant expansion Clinton WTP
Foss WTP
• Foss can provide
maximum day demand
(5.30 MGD) Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
• Water quality is NW Blend Tank
improved through
advanced treatment Foss WTP
(100%)
• City can maximize Clinton
Lake use without fear of
water shortfall Distribution
System
22. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton
Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Clinton Lake
Foss Raw (49%)
(24%)
Foss WTP
(27%)
23. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton
Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 2A
Foss Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss
Reservoir to Clinton Lake Clinton
Foss WTP
through a 12-inch line WTP
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced NW Blend Tank
treatment
• Majority of finished
water comes from
upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution
System
24. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton
Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 2A
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss
Reservoir to Clinton Lake Clinton
Foss WTP
through a 12-inch line WTP
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced NW Blend Tank
treatment
• Majority of finished
water comes from
upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution
System
25. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton
Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 2A
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Upgraded Waste Evaporation
Reservoir to Clinton Lake Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
through a 12-inch line WTP
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced NW Blend Tank
treatment
• Majority of finished
water comes from
upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution
System
26. Alternative 2A – Foss Raw to Clinton
Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 2A
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Foss Upgraded Waste Evaporation
Reservoir to Clinton Lake Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
through a 12-inch line WTP
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
includes advanced NW Blend Tank Clinton Lake
treatment Foss Raw
(24%) (49%)
• Majority of finished
water comes from
upgraded Clinton WTP Distribution Foss WTP
System (27%)
27. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton
WTP (On-Demand)
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Foss WTP
Foss Raw 41%
59%
28. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton
WTP (On-Demand)
Alternative 2B
Foss Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Clinton
Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP
WTP
WTP through a 24-inch
line
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water
NW Blend Tank
• Raw Foss water
• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from Distribution
upgraded Clinton WTP System
29. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton
WTP (On-Demand)
Alternative 2B
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Clinton
Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP
WTP
WTP through a 24-inch
line
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water
NW Blend Tank
• Raw Foss water
• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from Distribution
upgraded Clinton WTP System
30. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton
WTP (On-Demand)
Alternative 2B
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Upgraded Waste Evaporation
Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
WTP through a 24-inch WTP
line
• Upgraded Clinton WTP
treats combined water
NW Blend Tank
• Raw Foss water
• Clinton Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from Distribution
upgraded Clinton WTP System
31. Alternative 2B – Foss Raw to Clinton
WTP (On-Demand)
Alternative 2B
Foss Foss Raw Clinton
• Two Water Sources Reservoir Water Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Pump Raw Water from Upgraded Waste Evaporation
Foss Reservoir to Clinton Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
WTP through a 24-inch WTP
line
• Upgraded Clinton WTP Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
treats combined water
NW Blend Tank
• Raw Foss water Foss WTP
Foss Raw 41%
• Clinton Lake water
59%
• Majority of finished
water comes from Distribution
upgraded Clinton WTP System
32. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to
Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Washita Clinton Lake
Alluvium (49%)
(24%)
Foss WTP
(27%)
33. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to
Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 3A
Foss Clinton
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Washita River Alluvium
Clinton
• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP
WTP
Washita Alluvium to Clinton
Lake
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
(3 production wells) NW Blend Tank
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to
include advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded
Distribution
Clinton WTP
System
34. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to
Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 3A
Foss Clinton Raw Washita
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Washita River Alluvium
Clinton
• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP
WTP
Washita Alluvium to Clinton
Lake
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
(3 production wells) NW Blend Tank
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to
include advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded
Distribution
Clinton WTP
System
35. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to
Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 3A
Foss Clinton Raw Washita
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Washita River Alluvium Upgraded Waste Evaporation
• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
Washita Alluvium to Clinton WTP
Lake
• Raw water supplements
Clinton Lake water
(3 production wells) NW Blend Tank
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to
include advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded
Distribution
Clinton WTP
System
36. Alternative 3A – Washita Alluvium to
Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 3A
Foss Clinton Raw Washita
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake Alluvium
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Washita River Alluvium Upgraded Waste Evaporation
• Pump Raw Water from Foss WTP Clinton Ponds
Washita Alluvium to Clinton WTP
Lake
• Raw water supplements Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Clinton Lake water
(3 production wells) NW Blend Tank Washita
Alluvium Clinton Lake
• Clinton WTP is upgraded to
(24%) (49%)
include advanced treatment
• Majority of finished water
comes from upgraded Foss WTP
Distribution
Clinton WTP (27%)
System
37. Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita
Alluvium Water
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Foss WTP
Washita 41%
Alluvium
59%
38. Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita
Alluvium Water
Alternative 3B
Foss Clinton
Reservoir Lake
• Three Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
Clinton
• Washita River Foss WTP
WTP
Alluvium
• New WTP in Clinton
proper
• Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank
production wells in
the Washita Alluvium
• Advanced treatment
Distribution
at the new WTP
System
39. Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita
Alluvium Water
Alternative 3B
Foss Clinton Washita
Reservoir Lake Alluvium
• Three Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
Waste
• Clinton Lake New
Clinton
• Washita River Foss WTP
WTP
Clinton
Evap.
Alluvium WTP
Ponds
• New WTP in Clinton
proper
• Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank
production wells in
the Washita Alluvium
• Advanced treatment
Distribution
at the new WTP
System
40. Alternative 3B – New WTP for Washita
Alluvium Water
Alternative 3B
Foss Clinton Washita
Reservoir Lake Alluvium
• Three Water Sources
• Foss Reservoir
Waste
• Clinton Lake New
Clinton
• Washita River Foss WTP
WTP
Clinton
Evap.
Alluvium WTP
Ponds
• New WTP in Clinton Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
proper
• Raw water from 7 NW Blend Tank Foss WTP
production wells in Washita (41%)
the Washita Alluvium Alluvium
(59%)
• Advanced treatment
Distribution
at the new WTP
System
41. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer
to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
Clinton Lake
Rush Springs
(49%)
Aquifer
(24%)
Foss WTP
(27%)
42. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer
to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 4A
Foss Clinton
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP
• Pump Raw Water from WTP
Rush Springs Aquifer to
Clinton Lake
• Raw water from 8
production wells NW Blend Tank
supplements Clinton
Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from the Distribution
existing Clinton WTP System
43. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer
to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 4A Rush
Foss Clinton Raw
Springs
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
Aquifer
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP
• Pump Raw Water from WTP
Rush Springs Aquifer to
Clinton Lake
• Raw water from 8
production wells NW Blend Tank
supplements Clinton
Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from the Distribution
existing Clinton WTP System
44. Alternative 4A – Rush Springs Aquifer
to Clinton Lake (Terminal Reservoir)
Alternative 4A Rush
Foss Clinton Raw
Springs
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
Aquifer
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP
• Pump Raw Water from WTP
Rush Springs Aquifer to
Clinton Lake Avg. Day: 2.60 MGD
• Raw water from 8
production wells NW Blend Tank Rush
Clinton Lake
supplements Clinton Springs
(24%) (49%)
Lake water
• Majority of finished
water comes from the Distribution Foss WTP
existing Clinton WTP System (27%)
45. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer
Direct Inject
Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
Foss WTP
Rush Springs 41%
Aquifer
59%
46. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer
Direct Inject
Alternative 4B
Foss Clinton
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP
WTP
• Direct Inject Rush
Springs Aquifer Water
• Water is pumped
from 24 production
NW Blend Tank
wells
• Minor wellhead
treatment
• Blending in Distribution
distribution system System
47. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer
Direct Inject
Alternative 4B Rush
Foss Clinton
Springs
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
Aquifer
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP Standpipe
WTP
• Direct Inject Rush
Springs Aquifer Water
• Water is pumped
from 24 production
NW Blend Tank
wells
• Minor wellhead
treatment
• Blending in Distribution
distribution system System
48. Alternative 4B – Rush Springs Aquifer
Direct Inject
Alternative 4B Rush
Foss Clinton
Springs
• Three Water Sources Reservoir Lake
Aquifer
• Foss Reservoir
• Clinton Lake
• Rush Springs Aquifer Clinton
Foss WTP Standpipe
WTP
• Direct Inject Rush
Springs Aquifer Water
• Water is pumped Max. Day: 5.30 MGD
from 24 production
NW Blend Tank
wells Foss WTP
Rush Springs (41%)
• Minor wellhead Aquifer
treatment (59%)
• Blending in Distribution
distribution system System
49. Monetary Evaluation Overview
Goal
• Develop costs for the 25-year planning horizon used for capital
improvements
Costs
• Capital Improvements
• Water treatment plants
• Water conveyance (raw and finished)
• Annual Costs
• O&M
• Water treatment
• Pumping
• Finished water purchase from Foss
• Contingency: 30%
51. Non-Monetary Evaluation Overview
Factors
• Identify non-monetary factors
Weights
• Weight the non-monetary factors based on
variability across plan alternatives
Rankings
• Rank the plan alternatives based on each of the
non-monetary factors
53. Plan Alternatives Assembly
Final Rankings
1. 4A. Rush Springs Aquifer to
Clinton Lake
2. 3A. Washita Alluvium to Clinton
Worst
Lake
3B 2B 3. 4B. Rush Springs Aquifer Direct
1B
Injection
Increasing Cost
2A 3A 4. 2A. Foss Raw Water with Clinton
Lake as Terminal Reservoir
5. (tie)
4B 1A. Treated Foss Water as Primary
Source (“Do Nothing”)
2B. Foss Raw Water to Clinton
4A
WTP On-Demand
1A 7. 3B. New In-Town WTP for Washita
Optimal Alluvium
8. 1B. Foss WTP Expansion
Increasing Non-Monetary Value
54. Recommendations
2012
• Implement/continue Alternative 1A (“Do Nothing”)
• Continue to prioritize use of Foss finished water
• Pursue legal agreements for additional rights to treated Foss water
• Allow for maximum recovery of Clinton Lake before peak demand period
(summer)
• Perform a detailed yield analysis for Clinton Lake and develop a water resource
management strategy to minimize effects of drought periods
• Adopt a council-approved Drought Mitigation Plan
Looking Ahead
• Alternative 4A (Rush Springs Aquifer to Clinton Lake)
• Most economical option that reduces reliance on the Clinton Lake watershed
• Water quality is a concern due to a lack of information about local RSA water
quality
• Low capital costs are a result of no investment in new/upgraded/expanded
water treatment facilities