The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05 Washington County Municipal Water Coalition Water Supply Feasibility Study ■ ■ ■ as � n on oun un � c � a . . a er oa � � on . . . aer u eas � � � u Christopher Larson , PE, SEH Woodbury/Cottage Grove Joint Council Meeting February 9, 2017 � Washin ton Count Munici al g y p Water Coal ition • Bayport, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, ;� ----------- --- --- Newport, Oakdale, Oak Park Heights, �;� �---- � j Sti I Iwater, St. Pau I Park, and ��, , 4-�.-,, � _ i Woodbury �� ' ,;�`��,�� c, , ,� �� F� �� o _:�,,.,.� � —f J ., ;�',� � � I � �'r LeOmtl . __._.__.-.- ... � ,��.., I_-__- Mun�ciPalBounEary i ' S1uEy Area Year 2012 2040 e s., _` o Population 169,416 216,601 � 1 � Annual Water � -� Usage (MGY) 7,270 9,223 ��`�� . �, Average Daily 20.0 25.3 m � Demand (MGD) � � � > �,,� � �� _ � Maximum Daily , 48.4 61 .6 _ _ �� " � ;, Demand (MGD) _ , I . —►�_ � �, � � � STUDV AREA FIGURE 1-1 - $EH wasnington coun�y nnunicipai water coaiition _ , _.__.. ___,.., .. _ _._ . . _ . _ _ ___ _ _. Feas i bi I it Stud y y • Jordan aquifer is primary source of water for Coalition communities — Contamination issues — D rawd own • Water sustainability approaches — Approach 1 — Reuse of 3M pollution containment water — Approach 2 — New surface water treatment plant on Mississippi or St. Croix Rivers — Approach 3 — Connect to St. Paul Regional Water Services — Approach 4 — New Wells — Efficiency • Not prescriptive solutions A roach 1 - 3M Contam i nant pp Containment Water • 3M pumps 3, 000 gpm water from contaminant containment wells Fluorine • P F C s o te n t i a l I u n k n ow n Oxygen � .��rbon , p y � _ contaminants Hydrog�n • Non-potable alternatives — Surface water augmentation — Industrial reuse • Potable alternatives — use as drinking water - A roach 1 - Costs pp Alternative Capital Water Provided Cost per 1,000 Cost (MGY) gallons Alternative 1A — Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury $17,700,000 1 ,575 $1 .03 to Valley Creek Alternative 1 B — Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury $20,100,000 1 ,575 $1 .20 to Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 1 C — Contaminant containment water from 3M Cottage $24,700,000 1 ,575 $1 .40 Grove to Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 1 D — Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury �32,200,000 1 ,575 $1 .74 to Valley Creek and Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 2A — Contaminant $32,300,000 1 ,260 $4.40 containment water to Woodbury Alternative 2B — Contaminant $34,100,000 1 ,260 $4.50 containment water to Cottage Grove Alternative 2C — Contaminant containment water to Woodbury & $37,500,000 1 ,260 $5.10 Cottage Grove A roac h 2 - S u rface Wate r pp Treatment Plant • Construct a new surface water treatment plant on ,� WaterTreatment M I��I��I I O� ��. ��O I� �,, Chemlcal Addltlon p p Chlarine Lima 41um � ` � R i v e r �~�� Intake . l • � i ~ � � �' Con� unctive Use 5=.��,r0„ L�a�� and Flocculation � Filtration — Ave rag e d ay d e m a n d f ro m � — Storage new surface water treatment � . ♦ Disinfeci �. p I a n t o�s<<�b�,��o„ — Peaking from existing wells • Water Quality A roach 2 - Costs pp Alternative Capital Cost Water Provided Cost per 1,000 gallons Alternative 4A — Surface WTP on Mississippi River — $131 ,400,000 13 MGD $3.60 Woodbury and Cottage Grove Alternative 4B — Surface WTP on Mississippi River — Woodbury, Cottage Grove, $174,500,000 18 MGD $3.60 Lake Elmo, Oakdale, Newport, St. Paul Park Alternative 5A - Surface WTP on St. Croix River — $68,600,000 3.4 MGD $6.90 Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport Alternative 5B - Surface WTP on St. Croix River — $184,900,000 18 MGD $3.70 Woodbury and Cottage Grove A roach 3 - Connect to SPRWS pp • SPRWS is adjacent to _ _ some Coalition communities � � � �Y .Fmr�s�rwrh � ._ .�..��.��_ . • Could connect � �� - � �..r��.�. : � ,�,,,e �'�'� ,, __ � � �+ � �( ■i: � _ communities to SPRWS �e - �� 1 . � ,�_ . � .:__V _ �-j v� � .� � �� '3� .. ,.i�, y � � � -�. �'_,��''+�� i� - . 3 � ii,U�� . ,��► ��ro� �,_ _ - ; .• �'c --_— -�—-- , _ '� - • Capacity limitations �-��- =� - -�-- . - ��. - = - - _ - �� --- — Hazel Park Pressure Zone �' -u� �� ° �"'��y°i - ��''��' — Raw water, treatment limitations • Conjunctive use options _ A roach 3 - Costs pp Alternative Capital Cost Water Provided Cost per (MGY) 1,000 gal Alternative 6A — SPRWS Connection to North $4,800,000 730 $3.20 Woodbury Alternative 6B — SPRWS $77,600,000 3,210 $5.01 Connection to Woodbury Alternative 6C — SPRWS Connection to Woodbury & $96,500,000 4,900 $4.68 Cottage Grove Alternative 6D — SPRWS �6,500,000 120 $7.68 Connection to Newport Alternative 6E — SPRWS �13,100,000 1 ,020 $4.17 Connection to Oakdale Alternative 6F — SPRWS Connection to Lake Elmo in $23,900,000 1 ,470 $4.62 Addition to 6E Alternative 6G — SPRWS Connection to Newport in $10,200,000 842 $3.77 Addition to 6A A roach 4 - O timized Well Fields pp p • Attempt to identify new well �� ;��r�� s � �TK °:�- � , �. � � � ?."n� � • �4�. �'' - ,�r`. 5 '� y field locations �� .�� ° � �� _:�� ` . -.� �\�� ` � ,� � �� — Contamination ��_ j� `- `� - , _ `_ _, , .. ��-r. . �a.�p� ', � . — D rawd ow n � - + -,. 5 ��,;.. ��. �--n--- ��;��' � J 4" � '��y��.e��. � � ,`..z:�. _,�. • Woodbur and Cotta e � a - �� y g , �:. Grove — concept could apply � . � � � �' - , • � ' ___--_* i� c 3, '"� � ,,4! to other Coalition � � - - - -- � _ �` ; r_ __;-'---'°�..�•...r", ��;�,,�,, :�•.�: communities �=� -. ��,;,s,f�,,�, � _ _ ._ �_ - ;;��A,,�,;,,,,�'�,��:�,: . , . � _� -� ,�. ,.�,�� . _ �� ''r7-�� (�i, -�-��„u_ -` � � ��n��r��'� r r"' h�' �� °�},I"p '^'I�� .:� ��''r _ ��,M��i�i"i;H/r� i`E.h._:k;'fJ/I� ti-a^".�i_yZ, 'r"yy..�+�"�»� .�,t�. . � � ._ ' - ": �� :,.s;'- - • Consider areas outside of � � �- - � =�l-�-�: municipal boundaries A roach 4 - Costs pp Alternative Capital Cost Water Provided Cost per 1,000 (MGY) gallons Alternative 7A — Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage $26,400,000 3,125 $1 .10 Grove — Woodbury Location Alternative 7B — Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage �30,600,000 3,125 $1 .20 Grove — Denmark Township Location Alternative 7C — Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage $25,000,000 3,125 $1 .10 Grove — Cottage Grove Location AI te rn ative Eva I u ati o n Evaluation Criteria Description Capital Cost Identify the capital cost of the alternative. Capital Cost per Million Gallons of Water ldentify the capital cost of the alternative per million Provided gallons of water provided. Identify the Operation and Maintenance costs per million Operation and Maintenance per Million gallons of water provided. Some alternatives may have a Gallons of Water Provided lower capital cost, but have a high operation and maintenance cost. Reduction in Groundwater Pumping Identify if the alternative reduces groundwater pumping volume and time. Water System Reliability Identify if the alternative adds redundancy to existing water systems. Identify items that could make the alternative difficult to Implementation Obstacles implement; potentially including permitting, public opposition, difficult construction, or risk with construction methods. Advantages and Disadvantages Identify the advantages and disadvantages that may be unique to that alternative. Effects on SurFace Waters Identify if the alternative has the potential to help or harm a surFace water body. Alternative Evaluation • Approach 1 — Alternate Uses for 3M Contaminant Containment Wells — Industrial reuse options expensive, no — Drinking water options possible, but expensive • Higher priority use of water • Approach 2 — New Surface WTP on Mississippi River or St. Croix River — New source of water — redundancy — Different water quality — softened , conjunctive use surface water — H i g h e r cost of wate r — Major infrastructure needed - Alternative Evaluation • Approach 3 — Connect to SPRWS — Smaller scale projects feasible — New source of water — redundancy — Different water quality — softened , surface water — H i g h e r cost of wate r — Major infrastructure needed for larger scale p ro j e cts • Approach 4 — Optimized Well Fields — Lowest cost alternative — No taste and odor issues — AI I wel I sites have d rawbacks Cost Shari n Exam ple - Alternative 4B g Water Used Item Annual Cost (thousand gallons) Cost/1,000 gallons' Annualized Payment $15,651 ,000 6,400,000 $2.45 Joi nt Uti I ity O&M Costs $10,250,000 6,400,000 $1 .60 Repair and $2,150,000 6,400,000 $0.34 Replacement Cities Existing O&M $1 .25/1 ,000 gal 6,400,000 $1 .25 � Total $5.64 • To bring the cost down to SPRWS existing rates, the utility would need to be offset by $2 .44 per 1 ,000 gallons (approximately $ 16,000,000 per year) • If $ 16,000,000 were spread across entire North and East GWMA, results in $0.54 per 1 ,000 gallons groundwater fee _ Efficienc y Winter Month Avg. Month peak Month Non-Essential City Demand (MG)' ��MG�d Demand (MG) MG month � ) Bayport 5.0 7.0 11 .1 2.0 Cottage Grove 66.2 109.9 201 .9 43.7 Lake Elmo 6.2 10.3 19.6 4.1 Newport 6.8 8.3 10.7 1 .5 Oak Park Heights 14.5 18.7 27.8 4.2 Oakdale 55.5 77.0 123.1 21 .5 St. Paul Park 13.0 15.7 21 .5 2.7 Sti I Iwater 41 .8 60.3 99.2 18.5 � Woodbury 125.4 219.6 412.1 94.2 Total 192.4 Efficienc y 450,000,000 400,000,000 _ Monthly Demand — Winter Demand N 350,000,000 c 0 � aA � 300,000,000 c � � a� � 250,000,000 a� � r� � �" 200,000,000 � � c 0 � 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Month Opportunities to Improve y...,y,.. �.._.. �..- . ..�.:.. �;y'[�t', � •: � . tit*�`.�4�� .��L.Y�{.�L�J• LIJ,�4"t��,_f ' x S � � * � '� ,y'�Y ; " �.�i l. '1�'��r.Y: �� Si� •�'.i��S�.�"�:.- P-'.� . �+e�+'i 1 f .{' '�'."" �� '� -� � ' ' �''!�' �,Y,# #� 4, .y:.j�'}.' "�,a:,`^, _ . - .:� � '�'4- 3� i�. �'•�-e,_ : ..�� - ,..' ��`�k :,}. '''• ��'�� .�+4"i rT'��:'�x, ' � �,. � � F S, i . �;. 4 I y �� •,�i. �.. � �!,. 4 �.4Y�- _'P�'.��y.�� ,��_ ��-ti.�yi. — �# ;� ��{At' .'�'_1+ ' �r c. t •,. ,�. � �`.k y,�µ.' L}1 _ _ #� , �- ':'�� "r t � '� ="� � .;4�. �=:F� �� , � - >.' r':, w5 :�"'�':� ;�' - �1 '.� ,��,t�' '? '�r-+� i �'£�-� ' F `•�f"��{�'%' �w_�;--!�'�� `�;~ 1# F„ _y' 4��•,.¥��•y��C,�' i. `. ,.� � ' ��• 5 �' �r . r �.-�� .: .�.�~�,r�.�..�... : - �; }� :,��;y�.��:;�K.,�. . ` — _ � �� -� ' k�'��" "i{'+�F"h��',�� • _ �'�P;.°'" ��.;. r< _ . �:r:� , i -tit, �.. .. � � . ��"�'� ` - .�.r.' 4� ---- — T�� .:�-�{�_ }j � '!"��-a�i='�r r ' . �.� •�'~' - y��rT :}A.� — ----— — ___ - v�+� � _ ' - ��:- r,. l��inspect.com s.com :y:s-.- " y�� ,'�,',,� �'J _ •'i iiiw''}L '�'"f� "�`." . ' �:'� ' - - ��.-; ��;,� , � � k A + f __' _ 'T� �. .�':-' - ';,�' ' �' ...�. .�. ,'; . : �k{�' �'��"r � �. �' j��+�� , � �+�r_ �,r' � _ ' - �i�'Y�.t-'1�1� I � . .. .�,`. - . . . 4 f, F• � I . `} lrv - 'IaE E �d i� .,�.1�•_. � — �_�� :1�.� � _ � ��T�R.� 1 . . i '—xy — .. . .i,� - �_ ' ' - - �� . . i r'. �+[� _ http://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/pinellasco/files/2015/07/rain_sprinkler-520x245.jpg N ext Ste s p • Efficiency Study — Coalition, MCES, Washington County • Analyze water use data from Coalition communities • Residential Water Efficiency — I rrigation • Smart Controllers • Aud its • Free Nozzle programs � • Irrigreen — Efficient Toilets, Faucet Aerators, Washing Machines Efficienc Stud y y • I nd ustrial and commercial water efficiency — M nTAP • City water metering , unaccounted water • Water Conservation Toolbox • Water Billing Rate Structures • Cost Estimating , Alternative Evaluation , Efficiency Scoring , Report Preparation • Report Completion — June 2017 `1 i Y � � - �a I r F�._ �� y �/��. �`_ � � � � ' ^ .— � , ' � z � � . . � � � ues �ons