Central Kansas Water Supply Status Report 1985
,.
....',
CENTRAL KANSAS WATER SUPPLY
STATUS REPORT
TO TIlE
STEERING COMMITTEE
t
,
"
JANUARY 1985
HID-KANSAS WATER CONSULTANTS
8Z-066A
_D___
W~
A. A.
...-.
"C
...lPCOIIIIII.........
CENTRAL KANSAS WATER SUPPLY
STATUS REPORT
I. RECENT HISTORY..
A. First Phase Feasibility Study. This study was completed in July 19~3
and during subsequent months was presented and discussed throughout Central
Kansas. The first phase was limited to an evaluation of obtaining a water
supply from Milford Reservoir.
B. Kansas Water Plan. A proposed Kansas Water Plan was prepared by the
Kansas Water Office and presented to the Governor and the Legislature in
January 1984. The Legialature implemented only the portion of the plan
establishing minimum streamflows for several streams in eastern Kansas.
The legislature directed the Water Authority and the Water Office to redraft
the proposed plan considering several significant changes. The redraft,
modified after numerous public meetings and hearings has again been presented
to the Governor. The need for additional water supplies has been identified
for the Central Kansas area. The review of the proposed Kansas Water Plan
by the Governor and the Legislature will be undertaken this current legislative
session. The review may result in acceptance and/or modification of the
plan.
C. Other Central Eansas Water Supply Alternatives. In order to comply
with some of the provisions of Kansas Statutes (Reservoir Marketing Plan)
and (Water Transfer), the proposed Wholesale Water District and participating
communities must evaluate all reasonable alternatives of providing for
water supply needs.
2. POSSIBLE PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVES.
The Steering Committee Technical Syb-committee and the Consultants have
compiled a list of possible alterna~ives. The list is in two parts. The
first part includes those local initiatives which, when. implemented, would
result in lowered local demands and/or a reduced or de1ayed demand for a
supply from another source such as the Central Kansas Wholesale Water
Supply District. The other part includes possible sources of supply requiring
a delivery system such as the Central Kansas Wholesale Water Supply District.
PART I - Local Initiatives
1. Acquiring existing local water rights.
2. Exchanging treated wastewater for irrigation water rights.
3. Using treated.wastewater for non-potable purposes such as golf courses,
parks, green areas, cemeteries, cooling water and industrial needs.
4. Treatment, conventional or more advanced, of local poor quality sources.
1
5. Conservation.
6. Desalting treatment of area sources which are high in total dissolved
solids.
7. In the Sedgwick County area, investigate the use of groundwater in the
Little Arkansas'River Basin.
8. Local Drought Contingency Plsn.
PART 2 - Possible District Sources
1. Surface Reservoirs.
a. Existing.
(1) Milford
(2) Tuttle Creek
'(3) Kanopolis
(4) El Dorado
b. Possible Future Sites.
(1) Corbin (Chikashia River)
(2) Norwich (South Fork Ninnescah River)
(3) Doualas (Little Walnut River)
(4) Towanda, (Whitewater River)
(5) Two sites mentioned in'the Kansas Water Plan
,(a) Kingman (South Fork Ninnescah River)
(b) Arkansas City (Walnut River)
2. Skimming of,exceis flows and volumes from rivers and reservoirs.
3. In addition, the District should develop a drought contingency plan to
be implemented'in the event the District sources should diminish in
drought periods. This plan would be complimentary to and in addition
to local drought contingency plans.
4. Discussion of Alternatives.
a. Local Initiatives. It is important to each community and the
proposed District, especially to satisfy the requirements of the water
storage purchase and water 'transfer legislation, to evaluate all local
options of alternative supplies and measures which,may reduce or delay the
need for imported water supplies. Because each community has its own
specific set of needs and conditions, it is desirable that each community
undertake this effort individually. The Steering Committee or, eventually,
the District staff, could provide certain guidelines and services to the
communities as they undertake their evaluations. This assistance could
include: '
2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
a)
(6)
(7)
A model ordinance for conservation.
Consultation on water rights.
A model plan for wastewater reuse.
Consul~tion for advanced water treatment needs.
A generic plan and cost estimates for desalting processes;
A model plan for water system record keeping (to distinguish
between unmetered use and loss) and system loss control.
Guidelines for a local drought contingency plan.
b. Possible District Sources.
(1) ExistinR Reservoirs. Three of the existing reservoirs
listed are in the Kansas River Basin and are subject to controversy when
considering transfer to another River Basin. However, since they do exist
and either have available stored water for M&I purposes, or storage could
be provided and/or purchased for M&I uses, these reservoirs should be
continued to be considered as a possible source for the District. Part of
the controversy regarding these reservoirs is the amount of yield which may
be available over a long period of time, say 50 years. In an attempt to
help resolve this issue. the Kansas Water Office has set up a special Task
Force to assist the KWO in establishing a uniform methodology for computing
reservoir yields. .The goal is to establish acceptable values that can be
used for long-range planning purposes. Also, if the District could develop
a Drought Contingency Plan that would minimize the impact of withdrawals
from another River Basin during drought periods, the concern over transfers
would be minimized.
(a) Milford Reservoir. There is still over 100 MGO* avail-
able, in storage, from the State Marketing Plan. The District should
continue to consider this reservoir as a possible source.
(b).. Tuttle Creek Reservoir. There is currently no storage
for M&I purposes. However, studies have indicated that.storage .could be
provided to yield. over 250 MGO*. For the District, Tuttle Creek represents
an additional 25 miles or so of large pipeline and conSiderable additional
operating expense over a supply from Milford Reservoir. Therefore, for
Phase 2 studies, we recommend that Tuttle Creek only be considered if it
can be shown that there is insufficient yields from Milford to meet District
needs.
(c) kanopolis Reservoir. It appears that an Irrigation
District will be formed using Kanopolis as a supply. The current planning
indicates an Irrigation District which is much smaller than originally
envisioned (currently, about 7,700 acres of land is being considered for
irrigation). While we are still awaiting more definitive information, it
appears that the smaller irrigation district could be served from the
present reservoir operating storage with only 3 MGD*yield available for
M&I purpoaes. However, very preliminary estimates indicate that if the
reservoir operating level could be increased by 25 feet, M&I storage could
be provided to produce a yield of 27.MGO*. See attached letter dated
January 9. 1985 from the Kansas Water Office. While.the stored water would
*These values may change when the Uniform Yield Studies are completed.
3
rT
require a higherdearee of treatment than Milford, it appears that Kanopolis
could be considered as a source. The Phase 2 Study would be based upon the.
assumption that the State would purchase the increased storage and the
yield would be purchased from the State Reservoir Marketing Plan.
(d) El Dorado Reservoir. M&I storage in El Dorado Reservoir
is controlled by the City of El Dorado. Currently, it is estimated that
approximately 8 MGD isunallocated for specific use. The availability of
this supply to the District should be determined and, if available, con-
sidered in one or more of the alternative plans.
(2) Possible Future Sites. These sites have been considered in
past studies as possible multiple use and/or M&I sources. We recommend
that the following not be considered in the District's Phase 2 studies:
Kingman, Arkansas City, Norwich and Towanda. Kingman, Arkansas City and
Towanda sites were set aside by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Corbin
studies. Norwich, while a viable storage site, has severe water quality
problems that must be addressed. The Corps of Engineers has additionally
addressed Towanda as unfeasible by current standards. That leaves.Corbin
and Douglas. to be considered.
(a) Corbin. Located about 45 miles southwest of Wichita,
it has.an estimated yield of about SO MGD.for M&Ipurposes (2% chance). An
updated estimate' prepared in 1980 listed the M&I capital costs at $236,000,000.
In addition, there would be the treatment plant capital and 0&If costs. The
Corbin project capital costs exceed the entire District Phase 1 Milford
Project estimated costs which would deliver 60 MGD to 15 central Kansas
cities; including Wichita. It does not appear that Corbin compares favorably
economically with the Milford plan. In order to provide a better comparison,
the Corbin cost estimates should be updated considering current federal
standards and financing costs. We recommend that tbe Corbin alternative
not be included in the District's Phase 2 studies. However, the Corbin
proposal may be considered in later alternatives if transportation from the
Kansas River. Basin is not feasible and/or Corbin Reservoir M&I storage is
purchased by. the State and placed in the Reservoir Marketing Plan. .
(b) Douglas Reservoir. Douglas Reservoir is proposed on
the Little.Walnut River about 25 miles southeast of Wichita. The M&I yield
is estimated at 14 MGD (21 chance). The M&I storage, .if constructed, is
anticipated to be purchased and I118rketed by the State.. It appears that
this .reservoir, possibly combined with El Dorado, may be conSidered as part
of an overall water supply program.
RECOMMENDED STUDIES AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE DISTRICT PHASE 2 STUDY.
1. Milford Reservoir Plan.
!. Update cost estimates and distribution of costs for Alternative A
(60 MGD) and Alternative B (40 MGD) of tbe Phase 1 Study. Recalculate, on
the basis of updated.costs and adjusted delivery rates, if any,Tables 6-1
and 6-2.
'Feasibility Report, Chikashia Project, August 1981.
4
r
,
.
b. Develop cost estimates and distribution of 'casts for expanding
Alternative A of the Pbase 1 Study to 80 MGD. This plan to be designated
as Alteraative A-I. Prepare a new cost allocation table for Alternative A-I
(similar to Tables '6-1 and 6-2).
2. Develop New Alternative Plans for Kanopolis, El Dorado and Douglas
Reservoirs. Tbe basic concept developed in tbe Phase 1 Study would be
applicable for tbese additional studies.
!. Using Kanopolis Reservoir at a yield of.27 MGD provide plan
variations to:
(1) Serve tbe participating communities from Kanopolis only.
(2) . To be supplelllented by El Dorado at 5 MGD and Douglas Reservoir
at 10 HGD supplies.
(3) To be operated in conjunction with a 40 MGD supply from
Hilford to be constructed at a later time.
(a) Considering parallel 'pipelines (Phase 1 - Alternative B).
(b) Considering joint pipelines where feasible.
~. Using 11 Dorado and Douglas as sources:
(1) El Dorado at 5 MGD considered separately.
(2) Douglas at 10 MGD considered separately.
(3) A combined treatment facility, at 15 HGD, located near
Douglas Reservoir, taking tbe El Dorado raw water. delivery via the Walnut
River.
3. Skimming. Develop a plan for skimming excess flows and volUmes from
streams and/or existing reservoirs. Tbe plan would identify a most feasible
source or sources, methods of diversion, transfer systems and storage
requirements. A treatment and distribution plan similar to those in the
Phas~ 1 Study would be developed. Delivery capacities of 40, 60 and 80 KGD
will be developed. .
4. Drougbt Contingency Plan. Develop a 'Preliminary District Drought
Contingency Plan to be implemented when supplies from the various surface
sources diminisb or are not available for drought periods and/or emergency
periods. Tbe Preliminary District Plan would have to recognize.the possible
elements of local Drought Contingency Plans. As the District surface
supply diminishes during a drought cycle, alternative methods of meeting
customer needs must be addressed. One of the basic con~epts of the Phase 1
Study was that by using an external (imported) or alternate source eacb
community's supply'would benefit by recharging the acquifer or reduced use
of surface storage,.thus baving built up a "reserve" which could be used in
drougbt periods. Therefore, each community should, under their local
Drougbt Contingency Plan, provide to meet. customer needs by maintailling
5
,
.
.
production capacity to meet those needs. There may be some communities
who, because of various constraints, cannot meet their local demands from
local resources for this period. If, in this event, the District sources
cannot supply the difference some other means must be available. One
possibility may be the use of peak production capacity of some of the
larger District customers such as Wichita and Salina. The peaking capacity
may be adequate to pump sufficient volumes into the District delivery
system to meet shortages experienced by some District customers for the
critical period of the drought and/or unavailability of the District's
surface supply. One element of the District Plan may be the recognition of
the competition for the surface supplies when importing from another River
Basin. In this event, the Plan may provide for a reduction of transfer
voiumes as the supply diminishes.as the drought proceeds. The District may
reduce withdrawals, say in 10 or 20 KGD increments, as long as local produc-
tion facilities operated under the local Drought Contingency Plan can
prOVide the difference. Eventually, as the drought continues; there may
not be any storage remaining for the District and local users would have to
resort totally to their "reserved" supplies and the District may operate
only on customer supplied volumes.
It is proposed, in the Phase 2 Study, to develop an operational plan to
implement a District Drought Contingency Plan. The plan would address
those procedures and facilities required to assure that all customers of
the District had adequate water resources during a drought period. The
type and cost of any facilities necessary, in addition to the normal operating
facilities would be identified.
S. Phase 2 Report.. A report similar to .the Phase 1 Report would be
prepared. The report.would contain a summary of the findings of items 1
through 4 above and a comparison of all alternatives to date.
6