Central Ks Wholesale Water Supply Dist. 1983
I RECEIVED
I t.\UG 11 1983
I CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
I CENTRAL KANSAS
WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT
I
I FEASIBILITY- STUDY - PHASE I
FOR
DISTRICT STEERING COMMITTEE
I
I ENGINEERING REPORT
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .........
WI[
I .... ....
25 JULY 1983 .--
~C
_~TAHY$
I
--- -- --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
SECTION 1 - SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Background 1-1
Purpose and Scope 1-1
Study Concepts 1-1
Proposed Project 1-2
Probable Project Costs 1-3
- Table 1-1 - Summary of Probable Project Costs 1-3
Probable Costs to Customers 1-4
Capital Costs 1-4
Operation and Maintenance Costs 1-4
Raw Water Costs 1-4
Table 1-2 - Probable Cost to Customers -
1983 Dollars 1~4
SECTION 2 - GENERAl.
Background 2-1
Table 2-1 - Applications for Reservoir Water 2-2
Study Purpose and Scope 2-3
Member Customers 2-3
Table 2-2 - Existing Supply Sources and Current
Projected Population 2-3
Study Concepts 2-4
Plate 2-1 - Typical Daily Demands and
Delivery Rates follows 2-4
Future Water Supply Requirements 2-5
Table 2-3 - Current and Projected Demands - MGD 2-6
Table 2-4 - 1995 Allocation at a District
Delivery Rate of 2-7
Table 2-5 - 2020 Allocation at a District
Delivery Rate of 2-8
SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
Availability of Water in Milford Reservoir
State Water Storage Plan
Yield
Quality
Corps of Engineers Requirements
Pricing
Intake and Treatment Requirements
Location
Type of Intake
Raw Water Transmission
Treatment Facilities
Facility Staffing
Figure 3-1 - Milford Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant Schematic
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-9
follows 3-9
A
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
Energy Requirements
Land and Right-of-Way Requiremnts
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Figure 3-2 - Proposed WTP Site
Opinion of Other Project Costs
Land
Raw Water
Operations and Maintenance
Summary of Costs
SECTION 4 - WATER TRANSMISSION
Pipeline Routing
General
Topographic and Subsurface Considerations
Plate No. 4-1 - Location Plan
Economic Considerations
Selected Pipeline Route
Feeder Lines
Pipeline Sizing
General
Page No.
3-11
3-12
3-12
follows 3-12
3-13
3-13
3-13
3-13
3-13
4-1
4-1
4-1
follows 4-1
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
Table 4-1 - System Conditions - 60 MGD -
Alternate A 4-4
Table 4-2 - System Conditions - 40 MGD -
Alternate B 4-5
Project Alternatives 4-6
Pipeline Material 4-6
General 4-6
Design Pressures 4-6
Selected Material 4-6
Pumping Facilities 4-6
Main Line Locations 4-6
Table 4-3 - Preliminary Main Line Pump Station
Sizing - Milford Pipeline
Operating Constraints
Relationship to Customer
Main Line Pump Station Operations
Customer Booster Stations
Metering and Pressure Reducing Stations
Plate No. 4-2 - Hydraulic Profiles,
Alternate A
Plate No. 4-2A - Hydraulic Profiles,
Alternate A
Plate No. 4-3 - Hydraulic Profiles,
Alternate B
Plate No. 4-3A - Hydraulic Profiles,
Alternate B
Wichita Supply Variation
Land and Right-of-Way Requirements
Pump Station and Pipeline Staffing
Cost Estimates
Project Costs
B
4-7
4-7
4-8
4-8
4-8
4-8
follows 4-8
follows 4-8
follows 4-8
follows 4-8
4-9
4-9
4-9
4-10
4-10
J
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page No.
Operation and Maintenance Costs 4-10
Summary of Costs 4-10
Table 4-4 - Opinion of Probable Project
Costs - Alternate A 4-10
Table 4-5 - Opinion of Probable Project
Costs - Alternate B 4-11
Table 4-6 - Annual Operations and Maintenance
Costs 4-11
Table 4-7 - Summary of Costs 4-11
SECTION 5 - DISTRICT OPERATIONS PLAN
General
Operational Plan
Board of Directors
General Manager
Plate 5-1 - Organizational Plan
Administrative Services
Support Services
Operation and Maintenance Services
Operations Location
Table 5-1 - Estimated Annual Costs -
Administrative and Support Services
SECTION 6 - ALLOCATION OF COSTS
General
Cost Allocation Alternatives
Capital Costs
Operations and Maintenance Expenses
Raw Water Storage Costs
Selected. Cost Allocation Method
Capital Costs
Operation and Maintenance Expenses
Allocation of Costs to Customers
Alternative A
Table 6-1 - Alternative A - Estimated Cost
Per 1,000 Gallons Purchased
Alternative B
Sensitivity Analysis
Table 6-2 - Alternative B - Estimated Cost
Per 1,000 Gallons Purchased
Summary
SECTION 7 - OTHER PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
General
Legislative Activities
State Reservoir Storage Plan
Transfer of Water
Existing Water Rights
Use of Other Reservoirs
C
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
follows 5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-4
6-5
6-5
6-5
6-5
follows 6-5
6-7
6-7
follows 6-7
6-8
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page No.
Environmental Considerations
Fiscal Planning
Cost of Money During Design, Construction
and Start-Up
Long-Term Financing
Direct Financing
Legal Activities
7-3
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-4
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
A. BACKGROUND.
A growing concern over the future water supply needs in the Central
Kansas area has been recognized. Fifteen communities in the area have
combined efforts and resources to determine the feasibility of securing
a long-range water supply. . Legislation passed in 1977 provides for the
creation and operation of wholesale water supply districts. A steering
committee representing the fifteen communities was established in 1982
to coordinate the planning, technical and legal organizational efforts
with the eventual goal of establishing a Central Kansas Wholesale Water
Supply District.
The fifteen communities obtain their current water supplies from both
groundwater and surface water sources. Existing groundwater sources are
reaching maximum appropriation limits, are of limited quality and
exposed to imminent threat of contamination. Thus, continued develop-
ment of groundwater sources appears limited.
Existing surface water supply sources are of negligible quantity during
drought conditions and of diminished quality for conventional treatment
techniques.
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
The scope of this report is to develop water supply needs for fifteen
central Kansas communities through the year 2020; to develop a delivery
system for treated water from Milford Reservoir to each community; to
establish the magnitude of probable costs for the delivery system; and
to provide opinions of probable costs to each community.
C. STUDY CONCEPTS.
The engineering concepts which have been established to accomplish this
phase of the feasibility study are:
1. The design period will be for the year 2020.
2. Treated water will be provided to the customers at as nearly a
constant rate as possible and at the customer's system pressure.
I
I
I
3. The constant delivery rate will approximate the normal minimum
daily water supply needs of each customer.
4.
Each customer would retain its existing supply and delivery system
to meet all demands in excess of the amount obtained from the
District.
1-1
1-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. PROPOSED PROJECT.
Based on the design concepts established, a system capable of delivering
an ultimate flow of 80 MGD is proposed. Two alternative plans for
delivering the ultimate capacity have been considered.
Alternate A proposes the construction of a facility to treat and deliver
60 MGD to customers with the capability of expanding to 80 MGD when
additional capacity is needed. The 80 MGD capacity would be provided
without additional pipelines. The major facilities in this alternate
include:
* Raw water intake in Milford Reservoir with ultimate capacity of
80 MGD, equipped initially for 60 MGD
* 60-inch raw water transmission pipeline from raw water intake to
treatment facility with ultimate capacity of 80 MGD
* Water treatment facilities with 60 MGD capacity with provisions for
ultimate expansion to 80 MGD
* Approximately 114 miles of 66-inch and 60-inch mainline trans-
mission pipeline with ultimate capacity of 80 MGD
* Approxill1ately 85 miles of 6-inch through 30-inch feeder pipelines
from mainline to customer corporate limits
* Three mainline pumping stations with capacities to deliver 60 MGD
initially with provisions for ultimate capacity of 80 MGD
* One booster station to deliver customer system pressure to
Hutchinson
* Customer metering, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances
* District operations headquarters facilities
Alternate B proposes the construction of a facility to treat and deliver
40 MGD to customers and future construction of a parallel facility of
40 MGD when additional capacity is needed.
The major facilities in this alternate include:
* Raw water intake in Milford Reservoir with ultimate capacity of
80 MGD, equipped initially for 40 MGD
I
II
1
* 60-inch raw water transmission pipeline from raw water intake to
treatment facility with ultimate capacity of 80 MGD
* Water treatment facilities with 40 MGD capacity with provisions for
ultimate expansion to 80 MGD
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* Approximately 114 miles of 48-inch mainline transmission pipeline
with 40 MGD capacity. Ultimate 80 MGD capacity to be achieved with
parallel 48-inch pipeline
* Three mainline pumping stations with capacities to deliver 40 MGD.
Ultimate 80 MD capacity to be achieved with parallel pumping
stations
* Three booster stations to deliver customer system pressure to
Hutchinson, Bel Aire, Wichita
* Customer metering, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances
* District operations headquarter facilities
E. PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS.
The probable project costs have been divided into capital costs, annual
operation and maintenance costs, and raw water storage costs for Alter-
nate A and Alternate B. A summary of these probable project cost items
for each alternate are included in Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS
Capital Costs
Treatment Facility
Pipelines and Appurtenances
Land
Construction Financing (Net)
Total
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Administrative
Treatment
Pipelines
Total
Raw Water Costs
Annual Cost
Capital (Debt Service)
Operation and Maintenance
Raw Water
Total
Avg. Project Cost/1,OOO gal.
Alternate A
60 MGD
$ 50,470,000
154,166,000
2,034,000
6,000,000
$212,670,000
$ 525,000.
4,600,000
2,058,500
$ 7,183,500
$ 2,518,000
$ 26,171,000
7,183,500
2,518,000
$ 35,872,500
$ 1.64
1-3
Alternate B
40 MGD
$ 41,365,000
109,096,000
2,642,000
4,547,000
$157,650,000
$ 441,000
3,066,000
1,808,500
$ 5,315,500
$ 1,679,000
$ 19,401,000
5,315,500
1,679,000
$ 26,395,500
$ 1.81
r--
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F. PROBABLE COSTS TO CUSTOMERS.
Probable project cost items have been allocated to each customer util-
izing principles which identify cost of service to each customer. The
principles used for allocation of the project cost items are:
each) J
1. Capital Costs. Capital costs have been apportioned to
customer based upon prOjected~for individual facilities.
2. Operation and Maintenance Costs. Operation and maintenance costs
have been apportioned to each customer based upon annual usage for
individual facilities using the proportionate share basis.
3. Raw Water Costs. Raw water costs have been apportioned to each
customer based upon annual usage assuming that the annual usage will
equal the quantity of water contracted for with the State of Kansas.
Table 1-2 sllDDDarizes the probable cost of water to each customer per
1,000 gallons purchased from the District for each alternate.
TABLE 1-2
PROBABLE COST TO CUSTOMERS
1983 Dollars
Alternate A Alternate B
Initial Initial
Customer Flow MGD Cost $/1,000 Gal. Flow MGD Cost $/1,000 Gal.
Abilene 0.50 0.84 0.40 0.92
Bel Aire 0.30 2.07 0.30 2.59
Halstead 0.25 1.64 0.25 1.71
Haysville 0.90 2.68 0.70 3.n
Hesston 0.40 1.38 0.30 1.47
Hutchinson 5.50 2.15 4.40 2.35
Lindsborg 0.35 2.46 0.30 2.73
McPherson 2.00 1.46 1.80 1.58
Moundridge 0.15 1.93 0.10 2.29
Newton 2.00 1.59 1. 70 1.72
Park City 0.60 1.66 0.45 1.80
Salina 4.50 1.18 4.20 1.27
Sedgwick 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.60
Valley Center 0.25 1.54 0.20 1.66
Wichita 42.15 1.61 24.75 1. 79
60.00 40.00
Expansion of Alternate A from 60 MGD to 80 MGD will result in lower cost
per 1,000 gallons for customers, based on 1983 dollars. Except for
Hutchinson, expansion of Alternate B from 40 MGD to 80 MGD will result
in approximately the same cost for customers, based on 1983 dollars.
Alternate B expansion costs for Hutchinson will result in lower costs
per 1,000 gallons.
1-4
Iv"
/
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2
GENERAL
A. BACKGROUND
During the decade of the seventies, community leaders and officials in
the central Kansas area experienced a growing concern over the future
water supply problems of their localities. An informal meeting of
central Kansas communities was held in early 1979 to determine the
feasibility of combining efforts to secure a long-range water supply.
Following that initial meeting a series of informal meetings established
that there was a basic interest in initiating long-range water supply
planning activities.
In early 1980 an Ad Hoc Committee was formed. The membership consisted
of a group of interested individuals representing several of the central
Kansas communities.
Legislation passed in 1977 provides for the joint creation and operation
of wholesale water supply districts. With this existing legislative
vehicle available, the interested communities established a steering
committee in 1982 to formalize the study activities for the area. The
steering committee is coordinating the planning, technical and legal
organizational efforts with the eventual goal of establishing a Central
Kansas Wholesale Water Supply District.
The communities in the central Kansas area of the state included in this
Phase I Study currently derive their municipal water supplies from
groundwater and surface water supplies.
The groundwater supply sources utilized include:
Sandstone caverns adjacent the Smoky Hill River.
Smoky Hill River Alluvium
Equus Beds
Arkansas River Alluvium
Local Stream Alluvium
Existing groundwater supply sources are: reaching maximum appropriation
limits established by regulatory agencies; of limited quality due to
high chloride and sulfate content; and exposed to imminent threat of
contamination from salt water intrusion. Thus, continued development of
groundwater sources appears to be limited in quantity and of diminishing
quality.
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The surface water supply sources utilized include the Smoky Hill River
and Cheney Reservoir. Existing drought condition flows in the Smoky
Hill River are negligible for development as a reliable water supply.
Supply from Cheney Reservoir is limited for additional quantity and of
diminished quality for conventional treatment techniques.
Four surface supply reservoirs in the central Kansas area, Milford,
Marion, Council Grove, and John Redmond, have municipal and industrial
water supply pools that are included in the State Water Supply and
Storage Program. Only Milford has substantial uncontracted quantities
of municipal and industrial (M & I) water remaining. In addition, four
other reservoirs in the central Kansas area (Wilson, Kanopolis, Waconda
and Tuttle Creek) have applications on fi,le for M & I water, but no
allocations are currently available from these reservoirs as they are
not now in the State Water Supply Storage Plan.
In anticipation of continued growing customer demand, limited available
local sources and diminishing quality, several communities had earlier
filed applications for M & I waters in state managed storage in reser-
voirs of central Kansas. A summary of those applications in millions of
gallons per day (MGD) is presented in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1
APPLICATIONS FOR RESERVOIR WATER
Milford Reservoir
Marion Reservoir
Application
MGD
Application
MGD
Abilene
KPL
Fort Riley
Junction City
Salina
McPherson
Wichita
GWMD //2
FF&G
Park City
Bel Aire
Lindsborg
Hutchinson
Sedgwick
Newton
1.40
20.00*
13.00
4.50
10.70
10.70
53.60
17 .90
3.10
0.80
0.70
1.80
17 .90
.17
17 .90
Marion
Humboldt
Steve Kuspense
Hillsboro
McPherson
lob
Other
1.0*
.2
.07
2.60*
1.00
.30
.52
174.17 MGD
5.69 MGD
*Currently under contract.
Under a two percent drought condition, 128.62 MGD of M & I water are
estimated to be available from Milford Reservoir.
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
The steering committee has engaged Mid-Kansas -Water Consultants to
forecast the supplementary needs of communities in central Kansas for
additional water supply over an extended period of time; to develop a
delivery system from potential supply sources to potential customers to
meet the forecasted water supply needs; and to establish the magnitude
of probable costs for such a delivery system and the cost to each com-
munity. The consulting effort is to be accomplished in several phases.
The scope of this first phase study is limited to developing water
supply needs forecast for fifteen central Kansas communities, herein-
after referred to as customers, through the year 2020; to developing a
delivery system for treated water from Milford Reservoir to each com-
munity; to establishing the magnitude of probable coses for the delivery
system; and to providing opinions of probable costs to each community.
C. MEMBER CUSTOMERS.
Table 2-2 is a summary of current and projected population for the
fifteen customers in central Kansas through the year 2020 and the source
of existing supply.
TABLE 2-2
EXISTING SUPPLY SOURCES AND
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Population Source of
Customer 1980 1995 2020 Existing Water Supply
Abilene 6,570 6,765 7,600 Shallow Wells in
Sandstone Caverns Adja-
cent Smoky Hill River
Bel Aire 2,500 4,500 7,000 Shallow Wells
Halstead 2,000 2,100 2,300 Equus Beds
Haysville 8,000 12,000 17,000 Shallow Wells, Arkansas
River Alluvium
Hesston 3,000 3,660 4,700 Equus Beds
Hutchinson 40,280 45,000 47,500 Arkansas River Alluvium
Lindsborg 3,155 3,670 5,000 Equus Beds
McPherson 11,750 13,575 17 , 100 Equus Beds
Moundridge 1,450 1,540 1,725 Local Aquifer Equus Beds
Newton 16,330 18,500 21,350 Equus Beds
Park City 4,200 5,700 8,200 Shallow Wells, Local Aquifer
Salina 41,850 47,200 55,200 Smoky Hill River, Smoky
Hill River Alluvium
Sedgwick 1,350 1,675 2,140 Equus Beds
Valley Center 3,300 3,900 4,900 Arkansas River Alluvium
Wichita 279,300 321,650 378,600 Equus Beds, Cheney Reservoir
Total 425,035 491,435 580,315
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Except for Wichita and Salina all of the customers derive their existing
supplies from groundwater. Although the groundwater in general is high
in dissolved minerals (hard), disinfection by chlorination is generally
the only treatment provided. Polyphosphate is added along with chlori-
nation where manganese and iron are a problem.
Haysville derives its water supply from the Arkansas River Alluvium and
processes the groundwater through a treatment plant.
Wichita and Salina utilize a mixture of groundwater and surface water
sources with treatment plants. Both plants have softening facilities.
Of the total water supplies for the listed customers, approximately 70
percent is derived from groundwater sources.
D. STUDY CONCEPTS.
Several preliminary engineering concepts have been established to accom-
plish the purpose and scope of this report.
Concept 1. The design period will be for the year 2020.
Discussion. It has been assumed that various preliminary activi-
ties and constraints will delay initiation of the final planning
until 1990. It is then assumed that five (5) years will be
required to finance, plan and construct the project, therefore, the
first delivery of treated water would not occur until approximately
the year 1995. The minimum planning and fiscal period for a pro-
ject of this nature and size is believed to be 25 years. Twenty-
five years is also the maximum time provided in current contracts
for full development of the purchase of storage capacity in the
State Reservoir Storage Plan. Therefore, the minimum Design Year
becomes 2020.
Concept 2. Treated water will be provided to the customers at as nearly
a constant rate as possible and at the customer's system pressure.
Discussion. This concept is perceived as providing the lowest
overall cost of delivered water. Delivering water at variable
rates results in capital costs which are utilized only part of the
time. Full utilization provided by a constant rate delivery con-
cept may result in a phased construction program and possibly some
trading of delivered flow rates among customers during the design
life of the project.
Concept 3. The constant delivery rate will approximate the normal
minimum daily water supply needs of each customer.
I
I
I
Discussion. This will require either a constant delivery capacity
for the 25-year design life; or a phased program of increasing
delivery capacity during the design life in order to meet increas-
ing minimum needs.
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This concept again could result in some trading of delivered flow
rates among customers during the design life of the project.
Possible deviations from this concept would be those customers that
have extremely poor quality of existing supplies and may wish to
take their entire supply from the District and/or those customers
that are projecting high growth rates and have limited local sup-
plies and may need greater volumes from the District.
Concept 4.
systems to
District.
Each customer would retain its existing supply and delivery
meet all demands in excess of the amount obtained from the
Discussion. Graphic representations of portions of each of the
sources, existing and/or District, to meet daily demands are shown
on Plate 2-1. Using the concepts listed above the eXisting sources
would provide near zero volumes on minimum days to substantial
amounts on peak demand days. Depending on growth and demands of
the future, the existing supply and delivery systems mayor may not
have to be expanded during the design period (to year 2020).
The concepts of delivering water to each customer at a constant rate and
in relatively constant amounts (approximately equivalent to minimum
daily flows) results in providing each customer 50 to 80 percent of
their annual water requirements. If each customer were to take its
minimum daily flow estimated for the year 1995, the District would
supply approximately 74 percent of the total water requirements of the
member customer's. If the District continued to deliver at the same
rate in the Design Year the District would be providing approximately 65
percent of member customers I annual requirement. Existing local sup-
plies would be used to provide the difference between District delivery
and daily demand.
I
I
I
2-5
'I
1
I
..
K
!
..
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
CUSTOMER'S SYSYEM DEMAND
..
K
.
Z
~
..
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
CUSTOMER'S SYSTEM DEMANO
I
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
I
CURRENT
MINIMUM DAY
2020
I
I
..
K
!
..
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
CUSTOMER'S SYSTEM DEMAND
Ii
!
..
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
CUSTOMER~S SYSTEM DEMAND
I
I
DISTRICT,
DISTRICT
I
CURRENT
AVERAGE DAY
2020
I
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
CUSTOIIU'S SYSTEM DEMAND
I
..
K
!
..
FROM CUSTOMER'S FACILITIES
USTOMER'S SYSTEM DEMAN
I
I
..
K
!
..
::::
I
I
DISTRICT
-=_ _ -=-D~~RICT
CURREIlT
MAXIMUM DAY
2020
I
TYPICAL DAILY DEMANDS AND DELIVERY RATES
...~
WI[
....... .......
..-...
"C
I
WIlTlll--'TMl'I
I
PLATE 2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E. FUTURE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Table 2-3 illustrates current and projected water use characteristics
for customers of the proposed District. The data shown were developed
utilizing information obtained from the customers, from the customers'
Consultants and/or the Consultants' knowledge of the customers' water
utility. Using the concepts previously discussed to their maximum, the
District would deliver approximately 67 MGD in the year 1995 and, if a
phased system of development were feasible, expand the delivery rate to
approximately 92 MGD by the year 2020. These values represent approxi-
mately 74 percent of all member cities' annual water requirements in
1995 and 75 percent in 2020. Under a 2 percent drought condition, 108.6
MGD are currently available from Milford Reservoir for purchase.
TABLE 2-3
CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMANDS - MGD
Current Projected
1983 1995 2020
Average Minimum Average Minimum Average Minimum
Day Day Day Day Day Day
Abilene 0.90 0.52 0.94 0.58 1.0 0.69
Bel Aire 0.40 0.20 0.65 0.32 1.12 0.56
Halstead 0.35 0.20 0.40 0.25 0.45 0.30
Haysville 0.87 0.70 1.21 0.97 1.85 1.48
Hesston 0.8 0.40 0.90 0.50 1.1 0.7
Hutchinson 6.5 4.4 8.77 5.93 13.5 9.1
Lindsborg 0.56 0.33 0.65 0.40 0.83 0.51
McPherson 3.0 1.8 3.44 2.00 4.3 2.5
Moundridge 0.25 0.15 0.27 0.17 0.3 0.2
Newton 3.1 1.7 3.60 2.00 4.6 2.6
Park City 0.73 0.58 0.87 0.67 1.16 0.87
Salina 7.0 4.5 7.70 5.00 9.0 6.0
Sedgwick 0.15 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.14
Valley Center 0.53 0.22 0.58 0.28 0.7 0.4
Wichita 49.1 39.1 60.60 48.20 84.0 66.9
Total 74.24 54.91 90.75 67.39 124.12 92.95
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-4 indicates proposed delivery rates, in 1995, to each customer
of the District for a range of total capacity for the District delivery
system. For purposes of this study and to assure that the concepts
proposed are maintained, it is assumed that a District capacity of 60
MGD will approximate the needs of 1995. For comparative purposes,
District delivery capacities of 30, 40 and 45 MGD are also shown with
estimated reduced delivery rates to each city. At the lesser District
delivery rates it is assumed that most smaller customers will not be
able to reduce proportionately their demands on the District. There-
fore, the delivery rate to Wichita is reduced disproportionately.
TABLE 2-4
1995 ALLOCATION AT A DISTRICT DELIVERY RATE OF
Customer 30 MGD 40 MGD 45 MGD 60 MGD
Customer Allocation
Abilene 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.50
Bel Aire 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Halstead 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
HaYl!ville 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Hesston 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.40
Hutchinson 4.00 4.40 4.80 5.50
Lindsborg 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35
McPherson 1. 70 1.80 1.90 2.00
Moundridge 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15
Newton 1.50 1. 70 1.80 2.00
Park City 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.60
Salina 4.00 4.20 4.30 4.50
Sedgwick 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Valley Center 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25
Wichita 15.80 24.75 28.70 42.15
-
Total 30.00 40.00 45.00 60.00
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-5 indicates proposed delivery rates, in 2020, to each customer
for a range of total capacity for the District delivery system. The 60
MGD capacity is shown under the assumption that an initial District
capacity provided in 1995 is maintained at a constant rate through 2020.
This condition assumes that some customers would require a greater
amount of the total and Wichita would release some of the amount
initially received to those customers. For purposes of this study, the
distribution to customers for a District capacity of 80 MGD may more
nearly represent the needs for 2020.
It should be noted that 2020 needs include nearly total reliance on the
District by Bel Aire, Sedgwick and Valley Center due to local supply
inadequacies of quality and/or quantity.
TABLE 2-5
2020 ALLOCATION AT A DISTRICT DELIVERY RATE OF
Customer
60 MGD
80 MGD
Customer Allocation
Abilene
Bel Aire
Halstead
Haysville
Hesston
Hutchinson
Lindsborg
McPherson
Moundridge
Newton
Park City
Salina
Sedgwick
Valley Center
Wichita
0.50
1. 10*
0.30
1.20
0.60
7.00
0.40
2.50
0.20
2.50
0.60
5.00
0.20*
0.70*
37.20
-
0.70
1. 10*
0.30
1.50
0.70
9.00
0.50
2.50
0.20
2.50
0.90
6.00
0.20*
0.70*
53.20
Total
60.00
80.00
*Average day allocation due to inadequate quality and/or lack of
additional local supplies.
Preliminary evaluations
preliminary engineering
facilities and costs,
District's needs:
of the concepts and data herein, along with
studies considering pipeline sizes, pumping
indicate the following plan would meet the
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Construct a facility to treat and deliver 60 MGD to customers with
the capability of expanding to 80 MGD when additional capacity is
needed. The design of the initial facility would be such that the
additional capacity would be provided without additional pipelines.
The additional capacity would be provided through:
Expansion of treatment plant capacity
Changing pumping units
Adding pumping stations
Adding storage
In order to provide a comparison of a range in capacity and costs and to
evaluate a phased construction program in relation to the basic plan
above, an alternate plan has been proposed to provide:
For treatment and delivery of 40 MGD initially to customers and as
the need arises, construct a parallel facility for an additional 40
MGD.
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 3
WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
A. AVAILABILITY OF WATER IN MILFORD RESERVOIR.
1. State Water Storage" Plan. By a letter dated April 1, 1959, the
Governor of the State of Kansas requested an allocation of 300,000 acre-
feet of storage space in Milford Reservoir for water supply purposes.
In 1961, the Kansas Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution
No.5 which recognized the nonfedera1 obligation for the inclusion of
this storage in Milford Reservoir. On March 22, 1974, the Kansas Water
Resources Board, acting on behalf of the State of Kansas, signed an
agreement for 300,000 acre-feet of water supply storage space.
As shown in Section 2, Table 2-1, a total of 15 applications have been
made to the State for the purchase of water from Milford Reservoir. To
date, however, only one contract has been negotiated and executed. That
contract is with the Kansas Power & Light Company for 20 MGD (average
daily rate). The 14 other applications were filed by municipalities
requesting a total of 154.17 MGD. Thus, the combined total quantity
contracted for or for which an application remains on file is
174.17 MGD. The total quantity available from the reservoir under
two per cent chance drought conditions is 128.62 MGD, so the total
amount requested exceeds that available for sale. However, some appli-
cants may not contract for the full amount requested or they may decide
against obtaining water supply from Milford Reservoir. The exact amount
of purchase by each applicant will not be known until the contracting
process is complete.
2. Yield. The calculated yield from Milford Reservoir assuming a
two percent chance of drought failure is 128.62 MGD. In other words,
the supply could support this demand with a chance that on the average
of once in 50 years there would be a shortage of supply.
3. Quality. The quality of the water delivered to the water treatment
plant will be dependent upon the initial quality of water from the main
stream of the Republican River and several other small river sources
feeding into the reservoir. For the purposes of this report, existing
water quality data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE) and the Corps of Engineers were obtained and are presented in
Appendix A.
Although it is anticipated that algae in the reservoir could period-
ically produce taste and odor problems, it appears that the quality of
the Milford source is normally quite good. Applicable source data were
not available for the general properties of color, taste and odor. Due
to the lack of source data and to the highly variable nature of surface
impounded water, estimates of the mean or range of these properties are
not presented herein. However, these properties are expected to require
treatment on a seasonal basis to produce an acceptable water quality.
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Corps of En~ineers Requirements. Based on discussions with the
Kansas City District Corps of Engineers, only routine review of. the
construction documents for compliance with their regulations will be
,
required. If the project is designed adequately, there should be little
difficulty in obtaining a construction permit for the intake facilities
or right-of-way for the raw water transmission line.
5. Pricin~. The general pricing policy for all state-owned water is
established by state law. The water pricing law was revised by Senate
Bill 61 of the 1983 Session of the Kansas Legislature. As prescribed by
the revised statute, the rate is based on a number of criteria and is
subject to change each year. The current rate is $0.115 per thousand
gallons.
Also, in accordance with the law as revised by SB 61, the purchaser is
required to pay a minimum annual charge whether or not water is with-
drawn during the calendar year. The minimum charge is the sum of
50 percent of the total amount of water contracted for multiplied by the
current rate plus, on the remaining 50 percent of the water reserved
under contract, an amount as interest computed at a rate per annum equal
to the average rate of interest earned the past 12 months on investments
by the pooled money investment board on the net amount of moneys
advanced from state funds for costs incurred and associated with that
portion of the state's conservation water supply capacity.
The law provides further that the beginning of payment may be deferred
for a maximum of three years whenever bonds are required to be issued or
the construction of transmission or treatment facilities is required.
This development period is provided to allow time for design, acqui-
sition of land, and construction prior to the start of payments.
B. INTAKE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.
The layout and arrangement of the intake and treatment facilities for
this report were predicated on an ultimate treatment plant capacity of
80 MGD. For the initial construction program or Phase I, two alter-
native plant design capacities, 40 MGD and 60 MGD, were considered and
studied.
1. Location. The proposed location of the intake structure is approx-
imately 1.5 miles upstream from the dam along the south bank of the
reservoir. The proposed 100 acre site of the water treatment plant is
approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the intake. It is proposed that
the treatment process facilities (50~ acres) be located in the southeast
1/4, Section 25, Township lIS, Range 4E, with the sludge lagoons
(50~ acres) being located across Highway 244.
2. Type of Intake. The structure will be of reinforced concrete
construction and will house pumping equipment, traveling screens, a
motor control center, piping and valves and other accessory equipment.
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The intake will have three wet pit pumping cells each with three ports
equipped with bar racks and sluice gates. The ports will be located
such that raw water can be obtained .from various levels of the lake.
Multilevel ported intakes are commonly used as a water quality control
feature for lake supplies to permit selective drawoff of water. Each
cell will have provisions for the installation of one traveling water
screen and two pumping units. The cells will be interconnected ahead of
the traveling screens by sluice gates.
The structure will be constructed to accommodate six vertical diffusion
vane pumping units for the ultimate 80 MGD capacity of the treatment
plant. The units will discharge to a below-floor header system.
3. Raw Water Transmission. Raw
7,500 feet to the plant influent
inch raw water transmission main.
mate capacity of the plant.
water will be conveyed approximately
at the treatment plant site by a 60
This pipe size will serve the ulti-
4. Treatment Facilities. Two different treatment processes to meet
the requirements for removal or reduction in the concentration of
various constituents of the Milford raw water qualities are presented -
conventional treatment and two stage lime-soda softening. Other degrees
of treatment are available and would be considered in a more detailed
report, but only these two alternatives were considered for the purposes
of this report.
a. Type of Treatment. Conventional treatment will produce a
water which will meet all of the requirements of the Primary Standards
and all of the limits of the Secondary Standards with the exception of
total dissolved solids and sulfates. The levels of total dissolved
solids, sulfates, and hardness would remain essentially the same as the
raw water.
Two stage lime-soda softening will produce a water equivalent to
that produced by conventional treatment, with the added advantage of
reduced hardness. For purposes of comparison, it is assumed that the
softening facilities would be designed to reduce the hardness of the
Milford water to a level equivalent to the present Wichita finished
water, approximately 100 mg/l. Lime-soda softening will also reduce the
total dissolved solids of the water but will not result in significant
reduction in sulfates.
I
From the raw water data available on average total hardness, it
appears that Milford water is on the borderline of requiring softening.
Since the accuracy of the raw water data could be questioned and since
the proposed district I s major user (Wichita) presently softens its
water, it is assumed for the purpose of this report that a two stage
lime-soda softening treatment plant will be provided.
I
I
I
b. Finished Water Quality. Standards for treated water quality
have been established on the federal level by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) and on the state level by the KDIIE.
The USEPA standards are published under the National Interim Primary
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
Drinking Water Regulations (Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 248,
December 24, 1975), Drinking Water Regulations for Radionuclides
(Federal Register . Vol. 41, No. 133, July 9, 1976), and the National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 140,
July 19, 1979). The KDHE standards are published in "Policies Governing
the Design of Public Water Supply Systems in Kansas."
I
I
I
I
(1) Primary Standards. The Primary Standards are level
requirements for public water supplies covering substances which pose a
direct health hazard. The substances covered by the standard are
divided into six groups: turbidity, inorganics, organics, trihalo-
methanes (THM), bacteriological, and radionuclides. The Maximum Contam-
inant Levels (MCL) for these substances under the Primary Standards are
indicated in Appendix B. Following is a brief discussion of a few of
the significant constituents.
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
Turbidity ~evels of more than 1 to 5 turbidity units (TO) may interfere
with disinfection. This possible interference is the major reason for
the USEPA MCL of 1 TO (monthly average) and 5 TO (two-day average).
Softening treatment, with chemical coagulation, flocculation, sedimen-
tation, and filtration, will reduce turbidity to less than the stated
MCL. It is anticipated that future standards may require reduction in
turbidity to a level below the current USEPA MCL. In practice, tur-
bidity levels of less than 0.3 TO are common goals for water treatment
plants. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) water quality
standard for turbidity is less than 0.1 TO. The treated water quality
goal for the Milford Water Treatment Plant (WTP) should be 0.2 TO.
If concentrations of inorganics exceed the MCL, the softening treatment
may remove a substantial percentage of these contaminants, depending
upon the chemical species of the substance. However, it is anticipated
that these substances will not pose a health hazard for this supply or
require special treatment for removal.
The organic chemicals covered by the standards may be divided into two
classifications: (1) chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and (2)
chlorophenoxy herbicides. The insecticides are endrin, lindane, metho-
xychlor, and toxaphene; the two herbicides included are 2,4-D and
2,4,5-TP (Silvex). The available data do not indicate that excessive
concentrations of pesticides and herbicides are present in the source
waters. Powdered activated carbon has been found to be effective in
treatment of small concentrations of these compounds, with removal
percentages ranging from 80 to 95 percent at a dosage level of 20 mg/l.
I
I
I
THM has the general chemical form CHX where X can be chlorine, bromine,
or iodine. The chemical reaction of ~hlorine, commonly added for disin-
fection or oxidation in water treatment processes, with natural humic or
fulvic substances present in the raw water is the primary source of THM.
The natural humic or fulvic substances or other organics which result in
the formation of THM upon chlorination are called "precursors".
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elimination of bacteria from water is primarily accomplished by tur-
bidity removal and disinfection. A treated water turbidity level of
less than 0.2 TU will be provided by the softening treatment. This
level of turbidity will ensure the effectiveness of the disinfection
process.
Contaminant levels of radioactive substances in surface waters are
rarely a problem and the concentrations for the raw water sources
serving the Milford WTP should be below the Primary Standards MCLs.
(2) Secondary Standards. The USEPA Secondary Standards
specify Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) which are not legal
requirements but cover contaminants which may adversely affect the
aesthetic quality of drinking water. These aesthetic considerations
include such qualities as taste, odor, color, and appearance, which may
deter public acceptance of drinking water. The USEPA Secondary Stan-
dards are indicated in Appendix B. Following is a brief discussion of a
few of the significant constituents.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) , also referred to as salinity, are the
total quantity of salts or minerals dissolved in the water. TDS was
included in the secondary standards on the basis of general accepta-
bility of the water, and the fact that a high TDS may be an indication
of the presence of an excessive concentration of some specific substance
that would be aesthetically objectionable to the consumer. Excessive
hardness, mineral taste, mineral deposition, and corrosivity are common
properties of water with high TDS.
The Milford supply may require treatment for taste and odor on a
seasonal basis to meet the SMCL criteria and to produce a water of
acceptable quality. Treatment methods for color and odor removal
include the use of chlorine dioxide, powdered activated carbon, and
potassium permanganate. These treatment methods are also needed for THM
control to meet the Primary Standards, I and will be provided in the
treatment process. Softening treatment, including coagulation, floccu-
lation, clarification, and filtration, is also effective in removing
color.
Corrosivity is a complex characteristic of water related to pH, alka-
linity, dissolved oxygen, the types and amounts of dissolved solids in
the water, and other factors. Due to the complexity of the problem and
the lack of a generally acceptable numerical index for assessing cor-
rosivity, quantitative limits are not included in the secondary stan-
dards and the USEPA standards simply call for a "Noncorrosive" water. A
qualitative judgment regarding the corrosivity of a water can be made on
the basis of the relative concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and
alkalinity.
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The SMCL for pH has been set at 6.5 to 8.5, the lower level to prevent
appreciable corrosion and the higher level to prevent encrustation,
taste, and reduced chlorine efficiency. It may be desirable to raise
the pH above 8.5 for corrosion control. This would be done to avoid the
pH range of 8.0 to 8.5, where the stability of the water, and thus its
ability to inhibit corrosion, is minimal. If this becomes necessary,
the benefits of reduced corrosion should more than offset any disadvan-
tages of the increased pH. A pH level of greater than 8.5 is not
uncommon, and it is accepted practice for softening plants to produce a
treated water with a pH greater than 8.5, usually about 9.
The SMCLs for iron and manganese of 0.3 mgll and 0.05 mgll, respect-
ively, were set to avoid the brownish discolorations to the water and
the potential for staining of fixtures and laundered goods, together
with the adverse taste effects imparted by these substances. Facilities
will be provided for removal of iron and manganese as necessary by
oxidation with chlorine dioxide or potassium permanganate, which are
required for THM reduction and removal of odor and color.
Hardness is defined as the sum of the polyvalent cations expressed as
the equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate. The most common such
cations are calcium and magnesium. There is variation in the range of
hardness acceptable to a given community. In the Midwest, some supplies
are softened to 100 mgll or less while others are not and have hardness
levels of 200 mgll and greater.
The principal disdvantages of high hardness levels include: (1)
increased requirements for soap and detergents and (2) the tendency for
the development of scale deposits when the water is heated. These dis-
advantages may be overcome by the consumer by individual softening
units, if desirable. However, the ion exchange softeners used for home
sOftening units add sodium as they remove hardness, which should also be
considered. Permanent hardness has less tendency to precipitate and
develop scale deposits under moderate increases in water temperature.
However, when the water is evaporated, such as in evaporative coolers,
all hardness, together with other components of TDS, will form a precip-
itate.
The USEPA considered establishing a SMCL for hardness due to the bene-
fits derived from lower hardness from an aesthetic and economic stand-
point. However, some studies have shown correlations between the
softness of water and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. The
available information was not sufficient to balance the aesthetic desir-
ability of setting a limit for hardness against the potential health
risk of softening.
I
I
I
c. Description of Facilities. For reliability and operational
flexibility, the treatment process facilities will be designed in trains
of 20 MGD. Two or three trains will be constructed initially depending
on whether a 40 MGD or 60 MGD plant is selected. Four trains will be
required for the ultimate plant capacity of 80 MGD. Insofar as
practical, the 20 MGD trains will be capable of independent and parallel
operation to allow direct comparisons and optimization of chemical
feeds, energy inputs and other process variables.
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1) Pretreatment Facilities. Pretreatment processes provide
treatment for certain substances in the water prior to conventional
treatment. These substances may include physical constituents such as
floating debris, suspended solids, and algae; and chemical constituents
such as taste- and odor-causing substances.
As the first form of pretreatment, intake bar racks are essential for
protection of the screening facilities from large debris in the raw
water. Bar racks with 1-1/2 inch openings will be provided at the
intake structure. In addition, screens will be provided in the intake
structure to remove material too small to be removed by bar racks.
Screens will be the mechanical, traveling type, cleaned by water jets. '
Screens typically have openings of 3/8 inch size, and are provided to
protect raw water pumping units.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
At the plant site itself, following a rapid mix chamber, a presedimen-
tation basin will be provided for pretreatment of odors and color and
for the removal of heavy particulates, substantial turbidities, and
nuisance organisms. Chemicals for disinfection, oxidation, and adsorp-
tion will be evaluated with respect to the removal of specific contami-
nants from the raw water to be treated. Certain chemicals, such as
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, potassium permanganate, and powdered acti-
vated carbon will provide the treatment capability and flexibility
necessary for effective treatment.
(2) Primary Basin. Each treatment train will have a 20 MGD
circular solids contact softening unit with center feed, radial effluent
launders with V-notch weirs, and sludge collecting equipment. Lime and
soda ash will be provided at the primary basin mixing well. A primary
basin bypass with a throttling valve and flowmeter will be provided for
split treatment flow.
(3) Secondary Basin. The primary basin effluent will flow
into the second rapid mix chamber where ferric sulfate, coagulant aid,
soda ash, activated carbon, and potassium permanganate will be fed along
with recirculated secondary basin sludge and primary basin bypass water.
The secondary basin will be a clarifier-flocculator unit with peripheral
type effluent collection launders with submerged orifices. The influent
line will be a side feed type with center inlet well. Flocculation
equipment will be vertical turbine type mixers.
I
I
I
(4) Filtration. Four rapid dual media filters, rated 5 MGD
each at a surface loading rate of 4 gpm/sf, will be provided for each
treatment train. Four filters for each train will provide reliability
and permit removal of one filter from service for repairs without a
significant decrease in plant capacity. Filter media and support gravel
will comply with AWWA B100. Constant rate control will be provided by a
rate controller in each filter effluent line to control influent level
and rate of flow through each filter.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(5) Wash Water Supply. Wash water supply facilities will be
sized for a design rise rate of 30 in/min and a wash duration of 10
minutes. Wash water supply from an aboveground storage tank (gravity
system) is recommended. The wash water supply is easily controlled by a
valve and positioner in the supply header. The presence of positive
head from the tank on the piping system ensures against air accumula-
tions in the backwash piping. Storage tank operations are reliable
since wash water delivery is not directly dependent upon pump delivery.
The tank will have sufficient capacity for three filter washes. Wash
water supply pumps will be provided to fill the tank under normal
operating conditions. An emergency fill line will be provided from the
high service pumping station discharge header.
(6) Wash Water Recovery and Sludge Disposal. Filter backwash
water and sludge handling facilities will be designed to provide zero
water discharge from the treatment facilities and to maximize water
conservation. Facilities will be based on ultimate disposal of sludge
and recycle of filter wash water and sludge decant water back to the
head of the treatment plant.
In addition to a recovery basin for flow equalization, a sedimentation
unit may be required that would provide wash water treatment prior to
returning to the head of the plant. Supernatant would be returned to
the rapid mix basin and sludge would be wasted to the sludge handling
facilities. Polymer feed capability would be provided to reform floc,
if required.
Wash water treatment may be necessary to separate settleable organic
material from the wash water which could contribute taste and odor if
returned directly to the head of the plant. Filter wash water is
generally well flocculated and settles easily. Therefore, a plate
settler utilizing a high overflow rate could be used rather than a
conventional circular clarifier. A plate settler would have the advan-
tages of requiring less plant site area and would not require mechanical
sludge collection. This alternative should be investigated more fully
during plant design.
The recovery basin will be sized for three filter washes plus 10 per
cent. Pumps will be provided to return flow at a constant rate. Flow
will be pumped from the recovery basin to the wash water clarification
unit (if provided) or to the head of the plant.
Sludge collected in the sedimentation basins and wash water clarifier
(if provided) will be dewatered prior to the ultimate disposal. As the
first step in this process the sludge will be discharged to a sludge
viewing pit. Sludge flow from the treatment units will be controlled by
plug valves equipped with air cylinder or electric operators. Valve
operation will be controlled by repeat cycle timers. Sludge from the
sedimentation basins will flow from the sludge viewing pit to a sludge
pump wet pit and will be pumped to the sludge lagoons. Variable speed
return sludge pumping units will be provided for the return of sedimen-
tation basin sludge to the rapid mix basins. Sludge from the wash water
clarifier will also be transferred to the sludge lagoons.
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sludge lagoons will be sized for an average sludge production of dry
solids. Decant water will be returned to the wash water recovery basins
for treatment. The transfer of sludge removed from the lagoons to a
landfill is probably the most viable and economic method for ultimate
disposal. However, this procedure versus permanent lagoon storage will
require further evaluation during plant design.
d. Treated Water Storage and High Service Pumping. A 15.0 MG
treated water storage reservoir will be constructed at the plant.
Provisions for one future additional 15.0 MG reservoir will be made.
High service pumping facilities will be housed in the Operations
Building. The layout will be set up to accommodate a total of six pumps
ultimately (4-20 MGD and 2-10 MGD). Initially only pumps sufficient to
provide a firm capacity of 40 MGD or 60 MGD will be installed.
The bigh service pumps will take suction from the storage reservoir and
discharge through a looped header to the transmission line.
e. Schematic Layout. A process flow schematic is shown on Figure
3-1. This schematic shows the major plant physical components and
points of chemical application. On the figure, only two trains for a
plant capacity of 40 MGD are indicated for construction initially under
Phase 1. If the 60 MGD plant is selected, a third train will be
required under Phase I.
5. Facility Staffing. A review of staffing requirements for similar
water treatment plants and AWWA survey data indicates that a water
treatment plant of the recommended size and complexity has normal
staffing requirements ranging from 14 to 22 full time personnel. This
range of staffing is reasonable considering the variables involved,
including the following:
Minimum number of operating personnel required to be on duty
during periods other than normal working hours for safety and
security.
Amount of maintenance performed in-house by plant personnel in
lieu of annual service contracts or other outside assistance
in maintenance work.
Amount and complexity of laboratory testing performed at the
water treatment plant.
Degree of support provided by maintenance and clerical
personnel at other facilities of District members.
A preliminary staffing analysis for the Milford WTP indicates that a
total staff of 17-1/2 full time personnel will provide a reasonable
level of manpower for the operation and maintenance of the 40 MGD
capacity water treatment plant. Three additional persons are proposed
for the 60 MGD plant. This staffing is based on 24 hour, 365 day plant
operation. The staffing may be classified as follows:
3-9
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TO 01 S POSAL
oROL t
I
I
--,
(STORAGE RESERVOIRS
r--------..
FLOW EARWELL I I
SPLITTER I I :
STRUCTURESi1I JlI * I
It' I I
r-"-' I I
1* I L__________J
RAW WATER
PUMP STATIONl
RAW WATER
INTAKE,
TO
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
CARBON FACILITIES )
(CARBON FEED AND
RAW WATER METER)
\.LSH WATER
SUPPLY TANK
I
INISTRATlON.
MICAL FEED III STORAGE
I I .
ITER RECOVERY
iMENf BASIN
L.....oN,.
CHEMICAL ADDITION!
I
LEGEND
PHASE I FUTURE
c::=:J
r~~J STRUCTURES
LIQUID
SLUDGE
---
I
I
I
I'
,
FIGURE 3 - I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Personnel
Classification Alternate A Alternate B
Superintendent 1 1
Operators
Lead 4 4
Assistant 3 3
Maintenance
Chief Mechanic 3 2
Maintenance Mechanic 3 2
Helper 1 1
Electrician/Instrumentation 1 1
Custodian 2 1
Laboratory
Chemist 1 1
Technician 1 1
Clerical/Secretary 0.5 0.5
Total Staff 20.5 17.5
The superintendent will be in direct charge of operation, maintenance,
and laboratory services. The staff of operators will provide sufficient
manpower for a minimum of two operators (one lead and one assistant) on
duty at all times for safety and security. One of the lead operators
should be designated chief operator, to be in charge of the facilities
in the absence of the superintendent. In addition to plant operation,
the operators will do routine maintenance and custodial work.
The initial maintenance staff will consist of chief mechanics who will
be directly responsible for plant maintenance, two or three maintenance
mechanics, an electrician/instrumentation man and custodial personnel.
Additional maintenance assistance will be required in specialized areas.
The additional maintenance assistance may be provided by service con-
tracts, by contracting for each maintenance task, by increasing the
maintenance staff, or by providing support and expertise from the main-
tenance staff from any other District facilities.
Laboratory personnel include one chemist and one technician. The
chemist will perform instrument analyses in addition to being in charge
of all laboratory testing. The technician will perform other laboratory
testing and will collect samples. It is anticipated that it may be more
cost-effective for the laboratory work to be contracted out to commer-
cial labs. This should be investigated more fully during plant design.
Part-time clerical assistance is provided for the superintendent to
assist in development of files, record keeping, and correspondence.
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is recoDDDended that this preliminary staffing analysis be supple-
mented with a personnel development plan, which is beyond the scope of
this report. The personnel development plan would include: (1)
detailed review of staffing requirements, including precise job classi-
fications, (2) preparation of an organization chart, and (3) identifi-
cation of job descriptions along with job assignments and job demands.
The personnel development plan should be supplemented with preparation
of detailed operation and maintenance manuals and a personnel training
program. The program should be developed and initiated during facili-
ties design.
6. Energy Requirements. CODDDercial energy sources which are available
for use at the water treatment plant include electrical energy furnished
by KP&L through a rural co-op and naturai gas furnished by KP&L. The
current cost of electrical energy is approximately $0.05 per kWh. The
current cost of natural gas is approximately $6.00 per million BTU,.
The estimated electrical energy requirements for the treatment facili-
ties, including intake and first stage high service pumpage, are as
follows:
Alternate A
Alternate B
Total Connected Load, kVa
Average Continuous Load, kVa
10,000
7,500
7,300
5,100
The total connected load for the ultimate 80 MGD treatment plant is not
expected to exceed 13,000 kVa.
The electrical energy requirements were estimated by sUDDDation of the
major equipment loads, including process equipment and pumping units,
with allowances for lighting, ventilation, and miscellaneous equipment
consistent with requirements experienced at other water treatment
plants. The electrical energy requirements do not include heating
energy requirements.
The majority of the electrical energy will be used for motors to drive
process equipment and pumping units. Equipment selections and specific
energy conservation measures for each system will be determined during
design of the facilities. Premium efficiency motors and power factor
correction capacitors will be provided where analysis indicates a
reasonable payback period. Pumps and process equipment will be the most
efficient units available which meet the service requirements.
Similarly, lighting systems will be designed for energy efficiency.
The reliability of the water treatment plant could be increased by pro-
viding standby power supply facilities. Standby power could be provided
by on-site generation facilities, by a second power feed from a separate
substation, or by a combination of generation and additional power feed
facilities. Specific standby power requirements should be determined
during design of the facilities.
3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. Land and Right-of-Way Requirements. It is recommended that approx-
imately 100 acres be acquired for the treatment plant site. This
includes land for the sludge lagoons and should be adequate for the
ultimate capacity of the plant. A preliminary site selection is indi-
cated on Figure 3-2. A 60 foot permanent easement will be required for
the raw water line.
C. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
The preliminary opinion of probable construction costs for the proposed
intake and water treatment plant facilities as described previously are
as follows:
Assuming an additional 10 percent to cover any contingent cost items and
15 percent for all fiscal, administrative, engineering and construction
management costs, the total project costs would be:
Alternate A Alternate B
$39,900,000 $32,700,000
10% - Construction 3,990,000 3,270,000
contingencies
Subtotal 43,890,000 35,970,000
15% - Fiscal, adm., engr. & 6,580,000 5,395,000
const. man.
TOTAL PROJECT COST $50,470,000 $41.,365,000
3-12
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
,
'"
III
a:
::>
<:I
ii:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. OPINION OF OTHER PROJECT COSTS.
1. Land.. For land and right-of-way acquisition costs, a price of
$2000 per acre was assumed. This amounts to $200,000 for the 100 acre
plant site and approximately $22,000 for the raw water line right-of-way
for a total land cost of $222,000.
2. Raw Water. The State of Kansas determines the rate at which the
raw water from reservoirs is sold. In the past, this rate has always
been less than $0.10 per thousand gallons. However, recent legislation
set the rate at $0.115 per thousand gallons. Since the rate can vary,
the yearly raw water costs at the following withdrawal and purchase
rates were determined.
MGD
40
60
$0.10
$1,460,000/yr.
$2,190,000/yr.
$2,920,000/yr.
80
$0.15
$2,190,000/yr.
$3,285,000/yr.
$4,380,000/yr.
3. Operations and Maintenance. A review of operation and maintenance
cost data at similar existing water treatment plants indicates a range
of approximately $200-220 per million gallons treated. The operatiou
and maintenance cost figures include the salaries and benefits for
operating and maintenance personnel and the cost of maintenance sup-
plies, power, gas, chemicals, and sludge disposal. The operating and
maintenance personnel cost reflects the manpower level presented in the
preliminary staffing analysis. No adjustments were made for interest or
inflation and the costs reflect present value in each case. At an
average cost of $210 per million gallons, the total probable O&M cost
were determined.
Alternate A
Annual O&M Costs
$4,600,000/yr.
E. SUMMARY OF COSTS.
Following is a summary of the probable costs
MGD capacity Milford water treatment plant,
station and raw water transmission line.
Alternate B
$3,066,000/yr.
for both a 40 MGD and 60
intake/low service pump
Alternate A
Project Capital Costs
$50,470,000
$ 222,000
$ 2,518,000/yr.
Land and R/W Costs
Raw Water Purchase Costs
(@ 11.5 cents per 1000 gallons)
O&M Costs
$ 4,600,000/yr.
3-13
Alternate B
$41,365,000
$ 222,000
$ 1,679,000/yr.
$ 3,066,000/yr.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4
WATER TRANSMISSION
A. PIPELINE ROUTING.
1. General. The most expensive construction component of the proposed
water treatment and transmission system is the transmission segment. To
convey the anticipated water volumes, relatively large diameter piping
will be required over long distances. Therefore, it is of great impor-
tance that a cost-effective solution considering need and ownership
costs be obtained. The lengths of pipelines of various sizes and pump-
ing units necessary to deliver required volumes of water to each of the
customers will influence, the capital costs and operating costs. There-
fore, it is necessary to evaluate comparative sizes, lengths, routes and
costs of operation to optimize the system. Construction costs will be
influenced by the amounts of subsurface rock which may be encountered.
Additional factors such as right-of-way requirements, accessibility to
the pipeline for routine maintenance and daily accessibility for pumping
and booster station maintenance are important.
Taking the several factors into consideration results in a potential
corridor for the major north-south leg of the proposed main pipeline
ranging from 1-35 on the west, to approximately state highway K-15 on
the east.
2. Topographic and Subsurface Considerations. The pipeline, regard-
less of its location within the above proposed corridor, will encounter
elevation differentials of approximately 500 feet, ranging from Elev.
1,100 to approximately Elev. 1,600 (U.S.G.S.). The lowest portion of
the pipeline will be located in the Smoky Hill River Valley near
Chapman, Kansas, and the highest point will be in an east-west line from
McPherson, Kansas. Topographic considerations evaluated along potential
pipeline routes included the requirement that an all-weather road be
available adjacent to the proposed pipeline route. Other topographic
features such as required river, stream and highway crossings also have
been considered. Pump station locations relative to population centers
also were reviewed in the evaluation process as it was assumed that
maintenance personnel servicing the pump stations for the District would
be located near the population centers, and/or the District would per-
haps utilize customer's maintenance personnel through a contractual
arrangement.
I
I
I
Subsurface considerations included the review of information concerning
the various rock formations and formation of an opinion as to whether or
not they would be removable by machine or if blasting would be required
for their removal. As indicated on Plate 4-1, virtually the entire
eastern portion of the corridor is in the Irwin-Clime formation. This
formation is underlain by shale which is at two to ten feet below the
surface and the shale generally is machine-removable. The other princi-
pal soil type is the Wells-Lancaster-Hedville soil classification which
is normally underlain by sandstone and limestone, at a depth of two to
4-1
--~-
;-::':~I;"k"~.1 : rJ'!:'*,"i~,'il':p:::'L.';-'y,I' ~'. f '/1''''~' 1 " '. '," f'1!; -~,4,~1/!:'H-j,- 1 "t', t"i"~='~ft:'" Ff~ '~'f II ",I
A.rn.~,,4.:~-!t"""..,...~:..'P!' J~uIi~~ \ ~.I': -i~~l::~~ Y" I ri" l~ll, ~/l,'-, '..-~" :/l,,! . I.--i \"~~..,:,-"J -:- {, '-..:-r L-.L*~{';'~" . .i--, ~--; ""')l~~l'~Y~I~,ft'~,-r-l ii-t"
~"r l'lJ I L, ~,. ,~91 I"",!) I I I ~," .~"-l '. IF I' l" ,.,,\"t~ t .- ~ '1 ~L)'r I I "'/' , ,
~91~M'~~~~iJBJ:"''''I' Si,~.,M,", . ,: 'i '1-':1' '-i:-':.i~i;'J:A' (tiT; '17""1';'l"-.;!!;hl'rJt'-h ,CCt*"Fr h; t.Y'1 i }Jrt;id:!J ":.Lie": ~'!
.,~~ _ l,~~ti >l ~~'fitl~~ -, -'1;_'$ , r ':-'~:l-_J'~,: '~'\: .,;~ ,,-' l-\~;--"" r- 'hi ~r' f,~l ~~-, "'/-t - 'j-; ;- 'lJ~l~l;-""'lI"'1jri~~lW;"'~, , -i'-T} r-'.'f:::;Ti
4r<+" _,~,' , -~, ',,' '-""'-;\-" .. '" d' '.,- -,- '-e, . -. "'~l,I_, \,^""p ,--,' =-'~" -rr-' ,-+ '~- ., q ,,,=~I f7i'1 -" ~ "'Tit
1 ""'''l'' ~ ('I 1:""tS^'~j' t '''--H0~ I 1 ~," I c~' , '"'.:~~ ~ 1:, .< 1)' ,I \\, I !., +'"t-l"~-"'i:- I ;l~' ,:--. '..,: <) l \
:!JLi::- + ./:"":il(r~"I" I" >'"r-,.r,; - 1- ", I'~ 1;;:1~-'~' ,{-; , I;, .:-i--II>'''~:'-'-~ .,l..,'.- L~\--"'--""'.I ,Wf -~. ;..4f;;r....I~:-l'::---~I--~-.hr-,
...o~h~' '" ~:.t"I-' . I:.I~~ ' I Si 1 , '" I~[' I I l ' ,I:. ~ 'II t"'..., , 1 I "")l, " I': ~(I~'" ,", Il't>?m
I' ,sr' ')"'3, ~-1-' 1l/~I-J::'~,' 1 ;,.,.<',"_,.- +_ .\i " ',.,,1. Qt" ,,1 I"" L; , !' "~N- -', i - r -< -ml ... -- '. 'I - ~,- t M :r,j~ f 1 1 "r -, - ---" t~:::-'~-~ '''<:',r',~-+'f''
'}J "'-*, ~ , ~~ \ '1. 1<1_ r' 1 '" ~ \ I I ,,\' ..,..., I. 't; '~-,i i ' : pll - J ~ ' 1 I~ ,', I I ~, I ~'i :
, " 'M '"," C-,_ +--~-;Ii,~J--~--"-"" <"'-"*----,-, H,' r,> ,,',' \-+/,' , "'-~'f ' , ,-- "Jr!' j! ,-- f ", ,,,. , f" -" ,.,;",- f ,",,cu,
f~,,,,,, 1"{.,":'f11!3'}1N..~,~n.>~\i,if'1'<1 I/'Y' Hljl~"'l.", "I ,..v" ,,'1,'1', \ "'I I 1 1 I "~ l " ! I "I -,"~N.i
-Vf,'~ - - ~t ILI~<I~"/~I",I I ,'-/."--: l.h-~f'I~'i;.--~I'l~ If'r-'-'\..''''1',_L~j\-t !-"".;'i-~I~ T,,1-;~1>
~'1', "~J;j.-r 11 ]18-;"-1 ~ ....~~-~-l-<ij t',- ,,__;'i'" t:-:'~~I }\ Ij ~ 1_;C__l-...~, L,..'; lt~..~ l: 11__; V_I 1"" 1 '~~'l, : ~ '-W>':\-: ,,1, - !"<l,._J -: '. : . , I ,~' ,,""l I ,r '" .C.'I~'"
"'-' , "'t,'",,,"~"<\'UI'" I I ,."1'1 :{~':>,l. i"';:I"'1{" :/"',,, ".,'H(~\ ~-1:"r!,""~s~~~I~"I"1ril"f'''''"'i'''o'IL.;' .+,l _~J:"I:>_i__,,,:;;,,_!l
'iii, L ,'TN, "1.' 'I (i I ~ '. I "~, l. 'I '~ ii' 'L~_" : ':II' n ' r' ," l , ,'~ 1 I I' ' ~'I'l r~
.:-~ 1:,ji~..l.-"~-+ 11-_4_1 ~-~-t,: H,' _I .~. ,( 1>'1',; :1..) j...J I l' 1. ",c ~ ~>----"f .,- ~ .e ,"t--'<1; 1~"'1(";r I::' 'I.... ~, I 'I 1 ~lr---"-~,J1~'(
;::\lJ;;' , <-Ji'.rJI;-' I ' , ,r"J 1'1 . . .- :j ,/,'1 I I " ,; 'I ,,,, . , ,"; i , .! .','" -, i" 1 i' . ~ , "I'" ,'-,..J
'_~ "--$'_1',"11'..,,1 ~+~__~, /' ,,d:J~_'yf"''''':~''-'i:'lr I' ',-, I --/l~>--" .,/11' .&~l"~' 'II-~' i-~_~" ,-~ 1 ~'I ~1'0'-" ,-'or ',C~i ' ~ ~k'"
,l,~'; 'h<)f '\.."'ii ',1 I 'I ~/i"' ;; I. ,J I ;;.-r , I , 1\ 1 ~ 'i1" '. .. l.-'i I' "I ,J I '-J', "~. ~] ,.",,! '1'1i
'';' ~d'~ ~ 1.1-' ~ ' ,," ~\i;-^"' j , ~,.. :Lfr ,j-_-r_..::......-l,~_I__~1 'I', I 1 : , :,...,--t <, < t'" ...~,.._i' ..-. .-- r ~ .~ j ,-I -~ ,I,.'L : _J,J _r'_t~-1'
_~ ...~ ":,.'~1 'L-"":l:~Lt ,.....:....1,' -I:.J j "~'/:''''"'.'' 1.';'1 I'-~ I '11....-<, ,I L ,!,~_,,'Icl It,~LI '''''~-''''''1L-'k"t<~-~''a''-1 \
~~ _ _\l"',j~,' J.-1'~7' . ~ ,--r4.......Uj ,__,~ 1 ;/~d, ,t ,_1_ -"'''~' -- -<-r7":;;-t-~--"T'-l- ---Tr.""1-l- --t-[-~m::t.~-':'J~~r'-t 1- ".~... ~
~~~ -. _, 11~~ ?i' ,,"".,....-1 1 J:1': 1 . ~ I' ;' I I ' .'" r l:;,.><~ \ I fl"l \!,' ) k_:..l~ ~ '^.~ " I ' 'f ' ',ri.-,-;;
:;8: ~ ~ 'J~t}~~k.- ~Iv. :'\ :'"': ll~L-:l~: 1'1',:;~ 1\1';1' '; - r.,-J"(I' - - L '_ 1"---1" .~-,,~ if'.'J; f ! r-I ;' i \17TJ'-"T I :-~-"I .,-1_1' -J! [l:LL-'h-'-<:
'"1 ~<~1;rl) ,',t<!, .',', :'~!';!\ ',r.~1 ','I'r !,';/": " ,'" ." - : ],1 "-,,.,;. '_:.lJJc;\;c,,:~,:;j>,'i~"'I'~ ~ i'''~''!i"i'1~, , "to'
l'~.... ~'f' ~~h:'-;':'J,>,!./...II:{rl\:,<~r!-": 1-'1'",\ 1 '_I' 1-1 _ >-c~..._~_" .", ,~.., ";~":" /~ld
"'l'~i1"'" 'l._'.,;o.;' "I" FK ~'i ' H '.;'r-;~j,'': I ],. " "",'>1'",' Ie ,.',1, ",],,1 , ,,'- I }'" "
~I,riv'; .,); t~'. .i:~'-:' .k-j;"7~ I~ ~ " la':;".:;"':L,:F'~' . "11'--11 L-~'1-t---r~-J{!'r:;4" '~:r._;~"--I ',1_ -'--:'~;-t.-I
"u:"'\"~r,~'4..':6-J""'~ "r:"Cf"l '~'''-j-t'-,.,/',,~ 0;-,. _, I,\.~~." ' 'i~---f~'-' 1'1-' !-_h,_l__l-- -1"1 t~, t'(,-'r~~-rlv'i:..-I'-l'-\L I
"'"'J~ ~ -l-~i'o;' ?'::'l'(l[ ,'I {~< "'~..~, f" ,,~(" J, 'r 1, <<., I' ,'i ' "~, [e" I "It,
"""F'" ,':"'",,...J ~I'!fr-"~'.,Jl+:<~.,, '--;I<:'>'1'd.~:--llll ,]' J,' r'-l~ --. 1,19 ~T-"l--' >, t-ih"fh;~\I(~ - --",.-j", i-,''; j---r 1 I ~i
, I "t ;;r ,,-I 7 r'-I'--; "'1'",' q ( " :' I! 1 ,~ ,- ~+~_-::.'~ , 1 [ ,. ~f I' ~ ~!.. ] 1 ~ , i'n , '
".1'''',"' ,,Y +, ,"!-'i"..'A">-" !t+'I~< ,-.. , ""~-" --,.'~~"'~",,' ,--'''''''' -i ,,"_,_J-,,~., "*'~. ,. ' H ,""..""
"IU'_ "--T_ .~. (' /: 1 ) "'I I 1 I' 1 I ,'f ' I 1 I 'I', j ....' i ,.<t_E~o<ll-o;t""'A,..n_t""'I>'" I ' ,j \ fi
~ tL..Gi<.~,^?llt'~l ,,- -j- >- ,t!,.. ,-'- }.. "I'" Loo; ,I 7 " 1 ~: 1- , I' I, , r~,'\--',:] -1- '-t' ....r~:~'" -; -;1 : ~::;:i '-~ ->.~ t",;~ "'~~'"' 0-- '~"'T';'~- r- ('.l- _--'-,...1.
:...._-t.-I.jo,;'II~J "'fJl ~-~".h.1"'-1--"-'1;""--- '-~H.I I ~ _ _I'"' l' I, I I '..~i-~-I - (_~_I,...L~_4t_I++"'f--t \",'i."",.I,_.-,_- t~"t 1';t (~'l---~.
'.~) f~ ,~.,. I~ [,0 I, 1 I; E 1 ' ... '", I '> "" I I::;":' If: Lit' .', : '''\.., l 1 ,,, 1 .....' , [-.- 1 I
~ \'-;:I--:t'+I-":'---:--" -+>'+-+, f- -' ,,.., - '11 '~-,", aY~W 1iB. T-I"~,:--,.I . "li1" . +"-lri ,Ll~'~ I 1t.41"'~1~ - ,:'t -----L(r-~.~-<-;..-:
,~ . J~l I {' ...~~'" "'-, , -, , 'I" y: 1',I''l~! r'^' J 1"11: ,(j' "'" : ,I.'. ''','6
(,i-'.f _. _. -.;l- j.. J ,g, ,f-+--I 1';' _ l:: 'f ~' : 1.+ I I,~ 1"~ f- ,-"" 1--,.., -~l-""-;;___t.1r:l-t 1- "'1 t J'-?-.-, I ,,' 1 -....-i'i-,-:---...r:
~ ~l.r ~_~A_.l._t).l"~*__l~L.~hlC'''J_~_ ..:;,j...:W~-:ik.._.=.j:\~"':'::t"+::fE:t~' " M::l~;:~'L::_~ j : 11.......,1.--f:~f"+;.-4,i+',t 4'$1 '_'~_~~~--41 -I' : -1""+~i~j '4---\
,I > I I,r...,:- Y'rl-, i:::;J"-;, i I ';;1 r1.~' Ii> ,?&~;}, I' 1,,:.)1-.......1 \ ' I'",',~' tV - I : l ,I ,L. t t-"l, I " , )I"l ,"~ I ", i, I . :
_, ". J. 1"1> J ~~;~~ J'_~_l ~, _I I,F"t-tft)< , -, 1;.' L -t.-__ ".....-""'4,.'- T 1._._ t ~~ -- ~\ ~ ~l' ,~. T -Y ~-~ --,,1, ""~_,",,~.L ~,-..
~6j--"i""'''';'-:-\..~',......LI(v" \ h""-'~'"' I " l~t"I'J I ":'::i" -, 'i- Iii' I'I! 1 \ ~I-~ I 'I;,k, I
',"" '3C ,","'"""!''''O"",,-=<<-, J;t ,.'.', - ,,,-, " ^"," ."'~ Wb-I 'Ic, "\;:."- :!ll~-Nlt::l~m' 001"" ,\11",\..\ 1,_, ~'''-T","",--!,,,,.,-l '"l l. t-"~""~-'
. :\1" I" ~.' ','~r" ". ')' ~l ' ! '-'I' \ r ,'.-....' ..,. I '1 ......", 'I 1 -.." " J I L
'f"'tr ",-"j" ~~,,'--.!__ l\.nL.l.J I "",' "',1, h"^,.-I {.,~. I 1.1,', - - .It:! j ",', Ii!:', ~~....., "...li ----!"I ;11--\ j1t"<-"~L4~, ,-~._j ""Ii i- < '-",'t ,.;
r:;+ t ' , I f j '- , '( 7i ,'? I .,,' I - ,L r I "'" 1-' l'.r-:: ',' l . " L I ,;: I'lL
,cj "'+_,""-", I'''',,(,t' 'V"'X" ,"'ri "Ie 'n' ,_11("1;"&'+"1:"'" "_''+'''.;;_" ", '\; '"e', ,"'-'j-f-'~'''' "r""', ,-.-, '
I.-~~'A~ _ i I c-'~iJ1-!1 ,_ ) ,/J.f, nri-1 hi;, ~"'~ x:t--1---'".....-~ _ r."" " -f -I" I,,'~"l ,\L,.,~.., '-,---,,--~_;~ _(l'I'_.:,Jj", "l-"r;~~ I ~~ '~U.,~'_LL "~.~_.J L':- \u;3-:'~1 ~ ~1'\L4 ~:,
?' 1" /j,.> f~-I-f' --<I'" _ -\ ,"'"", "\\ \} , 'I 'r ~ , 1 ~ ~.,.., 'I' "" ""lft',jI,'\ I' ~'I '~. '. j IF'V I~'\IF "
11:.",""7!~::!---r.~ "'1,?"-~1.j;)' 'r';'-'---<f..-''-/II'"1 <' '. ~'._--"j_. ~'+,' t~tL-~t,--, -.:;.,....-.r-'-'.;.. ~,_L_-t-T~~(L._'t"""
I': I.~' I f'''' . _ ~C1,' ,;l' .. \ '1-..' t.\\ I 'I " I " I~, " , - 1< ( ,'X ......t I '--..' , Q I ll;
'-,.~t-",' ,"t".,. ,'>,,"-' "'~"_'_"'L" ,."'t'[~ ~" ,',----~--", ;-<-(,"" ...",-"",-,,-,,,'-+' f"l-v"..l-- -~+~;;it"-I-~.J-#'~-
jzf:.,~:' ~ ,~~ r;-~, I ".....,f:,;'JW\\ 1'_ .;,I'-l,)~ "':t_1 '~l~~"'''^,''~ll~;;''[~ mrn~:: s --l_l \~-~, _~')t~! ~'-'"l~~;>~",,~i~L:~f'~,'i' ~":"'l-J~!\~ I'J,'~~l
iJ.'" ~"I:cl,j 1"1. ';. \ nJ _ ,,\ 1 "IL '! ~I" '~~' : 'lIij1.li I ~l 11"~J._li'~~ct"1"'""" '$: '" -< !1~-"--1
--'>~I """;..."",, '" .~ ,,",.;;,~ LJ__~ ~j f _,,-,\;' J,,' " I "~.~ ' , " ".' .1""~': ",--"",..1""" -- O"'K"~ j ,P""i 'S"-" ,,'-": "<,' If, '--.
_:""'1: .,' ~j - :"' :<"7~" ~"-3 ~I-) ';-l~~~""~;:-;--i~ -=-:~ ~,-< ~:I~_:::;-t ~--t-+~h':il t_:t;_y;----"I_+~I_I:_kl_f ~i-~' I ~~-~'t - ~~...l:..t-~~f'Ji -:..,._:;;Jj~_...'
y{ .. I r--'-- ~,~.".. ,-.' _ ." 1'1 l' I ,.:"'"'(. 'ii ," , 'j- " 1 I J I I ")1 "~..' \ ~ I r 1 r "
,'~~r~~~~~~J~~-.t' +--, if .,,,,q"l'~'t"-_,-.-J -<1-':;---;.,-; , ~W'H ,,!-~II~'I-~I__ -1'1:-.-1""-'--+-;' .-l-r"~-""'i!\-::flUU;.L-"'I': <IL-+-,
, 'I '{' ~ 'II' " f;' 1 , ,'" ' """:11"-7-" '~ ' ", ; j I il " , I' I I I 1 \ I 7] r, 1
7;,-..1------)-,- ,fr" ,,,,-,--,~" _h4, 1-'-1" rl-..-~..,,-~':')',.-....I' ~"~ n~'i, 1,:...I,.,j"'f 11~' '1-"-- ~J:......ttfl~ I_i_. -+----W-1m,l~'t: .,...,l_tl_+_,,~)J...t-'\_l
'1.1 I' t+:~!,'I~",li~ ,"+" I', '''"' ! ' ~~ I ,::i-'!~I'" ( yr:::l~.;o::)!1 ,II '1'.'.li..----- ,,'''''I'r'':I''''
",l,,; +~, """'-""~'-- .",J' ,--, ,1 -01 .,.,< "'1' "~'~"""'f ,. '"",.,-. "fr""'" "["'" ""-" ",-" ""'''i'-++-t;-t-lj- I" e'l':",I-H-
r~flll;~3H' ~~.lS~~~~l:'~~l~'MJ';:JO:' ~.:;:: J~~iLl.:~~\. r,.;~:' re._":!'l. :~. i:4~":" ~"~..~; ~;;'Wot ' . ,:+;fjf :t:l:-~tJ__,:; j; ~ j. , ~
l ~ , !F~~,~l ~ L ~ ~ ,,- ,,,,,,,.. ..." - [ , l' - .' [)f.;' ~
[3WI1:J - NIM~:IlJ >t:JQM cs:::sJ .:;"';_: _Jr]~Z-~' "11.: N~ f ~ ~r';~l:-~' :._ It . ,_:f_ :L~W i ~ I- +- li':-i:..' '_" --1--. I' 4 l~' =f . "" :"
I .....ffl'.<We 1 ~II" ~ ,j Yi:.\' l~'" nf~r : :t."". H. j..';-, ..>4 J,. 1"1), I~.,>~.;,'...i. ~ ' ,V..._.. :_;.'.;'['y...L, , ~
I ,.'" . F" " "+";1 ,.1\. -" ,,- ' - ""-rr: 'f"~.J ';] " Ii , < ",j "I r,',-"p,' 'tf ' '"~ ",' " t.,..' "'1"" j1'''", ., l' .
_ i,1 ,~. II ,"J,'t. ."" 'f' .;h" q , J ~~:t.... I,..'" [I'.r,n: ~_' 'J L ..1\],."._.; ,-
, r ',"" ",,-""T'~"~~ l C'? )" 'i".-, ' ,n ' ,- "" ,,",,'" "~ -I{,' ",>le'" 'r.". T' k-'~,"" 'w'" "':'t;~" I.', ", ~ '
~i ''''''...._ +-~I~!i-' l/Al~~~"~'vr:L....-i-~~~JJ~ _'~\! L''''ll Jp,~L-~.~ ~.)'1-" !<,...~ J '- L~~, I V-,~-L.':!~_C~l i' "~"'" .'~~t ~. :;. ,1','1 ~-.;. )'-.'-~i*: ~l ,1:
lIT. ~ ....' ,t_:-'i1 -..vi!_"~"'" t'S~ ~~~~~' w .f!-,~r;IT; I'?i'''t ~ d"-' .Is: ~,'!'( . " "I J, ,... l' ~ jo-' '\'l---c.Yi..' ~~ . I ,1 '''ll. Ii "I' .
t'"" ' !r;-<j%t -Oo"\'-, ./.'f...:t::"J-ffii~~1-- ~z~ "'J' l'" '''~lY-b: ) ,- Pi-_i--'~"'~' _ - ~ .' , ~f ." -1';"''''-, j ---;-t;H r" ~_:\~:~-, 'i i ""Ii -. '''-1'"'--''"\,,. 1 "1t.~ t",'-<,~ -d -^"-i...~LQ,
" , " ,'" ~"t"q"",,>,,~, "" ,,~> ~?i' ,0",',',11 ''F.'' \\""",..'I,,,"-yc, H"" T ; r. ,-', ",,", 'I" '~ll","~oj.')-l'~->-~c:I\"Vl ' ., "';"'",," I " ~,,'!f"I"<-
~ '" <_ ~'--':"il!;)ttJr I I,~!, ~', 7"" \J '~"J:I'';}J1'l..tb.~ '" ;,.-'. .. ,I --;- ,I ,I ~'" 'i- . 1:-. ~ ,- il.--. ~il .~-"'\i """,,,, ._~~ 'I
, "~'i':J3 'r'S,,",~ ",I,'it ",. t'"""-'" -'. '~, ur ,,', ' ,,>,' -' .-,,,' - - ~,,-"j, , ",.. i' ---+, ,,""', '" ,"-c-r
......""' S;:., It- ~~'":,,," :<~' ,\It''. 'V"*,o;!ls;'" _ 1~1V'l.'F;:rH'~L~ y}' ~.. '. ......,,'1 .f'"i,>:>.~'-: i~ '......... +-.!" 1'\. L",-"
'f~~"" ", <.,;,~~ '" ,>,c, ~ ~y~"'''' ~aJ,'9~:;] i'" H'i1~'7"Lli'l4'r~v,ttJ,"f',,~r,;";:;'~ I:+' I -F> ;"'Ptl" J,.k"'it~"
"; '< I ,'" KiA ~~~ r 't~~"""''''II.& ~~~-~~';f:.;;-J:ll{-) [_....~,_{:~' ~ I:' ,~1_.1 '.ijJ!A. !:v
, ., i" ' '~'~1C-B;:'"'>;;';~'" : ,J' ,'i",ri,:i ;;W'1'<l l;l '" " ,,~''''f!,-t,1: (, :r: ~1~-~1\':lT:V
i~r~ ;~-e Nl._1 I :~,h~'; ~:~~--'N , ", D\~.".' ,i-il'! L~l") ,;;~ Jji~
?,>'~ f~,~"~~n~ c~~:.,1t; -~ 1 t ~".r~ ~ '\l.p;~l--Tr-T)j ...t'-'--
\3., '1i:''*' ,^N'iX""Nj{CI':]V,'~" IjL~'~ "'"~ '::'1:;;<:1'1:: "1"-'-'" < ,,'e/,.L ., "'-
}1"t1;(g- - "I'"' !~ J.,;.\,1\''lfc~-/~ ~,:;:' ~l:C:i,~:-~~r;f.r .t~ijJL1- ~iJt'-t~ t-~ ~r1\~~ "
"Irr,c;:'- , .' I '1",-, ,~~ -'V ," ,.., ,1'"., , '""I'''''; ~ (; , .. ,')0 ,-i-;"'+';+ c ' ~"" ,;, h' ,
4 ,. >, r'~,:h,.,., -;:.,1' "I'\. \ ,-,~ ,:i I~' 't.'I~~'<\J ,''''t\:'....i.l,,'t.:',~ I :y" I 1<-."1 ~-/o\..'~~}...
.,,,1+ ' , l'''''h %.~- _ \: r '.: t :''\.-. ~.I ,,-"o;:'-,,--t ~~,-.M) -.. _,,_-1-~~j_,_~~u"'-(:r'fli - t':-J\ 1.~ - 1- "'1:- r-,-;:~~.L;-1':'~
, ' 'A...~I J I\.,\ b :t~,-", 'I '!'-, ~t"1 Krf~, A ! f~. r'{J l-"'f-:!-'"' '" il' ,r>1j /1'1 , l'. ,;.;"<:,, :i."
:t,'" Jl" h,' [...",,, ,f"-j' l'i ?i\~';:~~1<JJ'l."t::j;:"\,:, ~,~"" .;, ,':j "r..r.~:'; -1_)"_.( 't, :r'1.f't.~' ;)i,i~~';'"
'l. , .J~~~ j,J. ~~" f ~. If"~ -nc; <~;~.. \ " J_,~ }7 !--"-ti.:: -:1 _-I_~" 1_ ;:':''X.1~~W --I---j- 1- d. -...t~" -l11t,,,~ t'F .:t::~I,.rtl. >
. ';;NIL:1'~);'{~,"'" '~!:;"f)iNI>$c*:k\:'""J" ,:!:"':::"-fCI";'7-,-;i; :~~,~:':;>";:;:f"''': "~i;~f::*':iC
'I', -'." ;;nt~ii - 1-' "'" """.r,J'[ "'J""H""-'l-'"1i''''''''-~''' "'eJ-.",, "1~~'t'~+-'it~""+"iLt.:ilh1~\'
,n.:_ ? '" (':N.\Y 1 1 !"t~:.L"',7}1~.h.~ it, j':/' '''', "1~",r:",: I':~, ,r"-; ':i:[ '.~ , ' . ;r'\~ --" 1';<'; ~',' 'FP"~~T'r~H
--. ',,'/ ~~"t !U;<,..':"~ IJ.("','5}~J:-'~\).r ;>' ~- ::;>', -.:r1'_~-:~{:~'-:.-.rv_r~-:~if'",L1l', ..-,)-. :-.-~eo-'-r' '-'i\-~i ii-~-i'~'t. l"tt';Tii y.
,'il. C~.' " C"()eV\JW.. ~ ~'1~ffl'!\\ o~": '1 ~" t:O;'I,rt"~;,:\-~W0tl~"'W~Voj~.ij;,'_' . :~;rj .1')~~~~!'N~fI; ;,J~j~, ::
'I ;~~~~ ~~ f,~-o:. .. ' :, ,. "~.-"_' '"' , ", ,., \" .,~_..., [i, . ....' 0&.:: ,llyn::> " I rr IS~Llli -"'-'''::'' "",,L , ~f\.:" ,"!i:,f ,
I'J \I ?\~' !t':"t, l '\,"{.~1~12;~~~ ,:-,:F~~t-,"'7-1~/':'-"~":!.Ji ,.~,~f~"--;j--r:'\ ,p. ~:~~:tn~~7tt1 .,:.:t t, ~''''':--: I. ~.-f-'1-~t,5t+;~1~;- -Jf'it/:
" ~-,-~ 1___ " 'f") ',: u" " ~,' " ,," B" ' .
~: 't,,:}~j\r.r: : )4"'i"\,\~;""~'":,,,,,::,r._'~i.';:'1-,,::( ~~~;:", 'i. ,..;-qdi.. . -'fJ;.f-'ci,.-~r,'" !'J,,~, :.:"~
:;~J~1t ~ N,~I,~.0~~'''' .5~''''~d~''}, ~~' '., >'" .::',t:Hn~;j~;^j,1 ;.!,;;r:,":f~~:';'fi,.l fl,:t ~~(,~
" <-,:i?T:~~.;tL '- __, T '" "" l 1 ".::::I$t_" ,,' ~ '7.f'~>~-<'" -~( ~:'~:<l !L-i-- 1 h.j -.,-1--, ,i::'b--'i l'ii ,dl..\
_ ej--41~" q'k~N ~ ~~', ~ f;r i;. ~~ ,j' ~.., ~:~.;.;~ L: ,,,..' , i iAI, ;;~ It-I~~~,i.J
"'<~,ifF~. lt~-"___~,~, ~ '~~ :T-' ~:It' .,- f~ ;": it.. ~ ~ "~~!tl 'lr i'flJ"~~
~b,.,,~,,~ '," PJ'1R'''-'' ",I;~' " " " ~2i"""'"
__ _ ~ '~f ' , " ' , ~ \ :t' >,c "'-;-
;f, -, " -~:.... '. '. ,>,' "4)'~ ~, " ., '<I-' . ""i1"~'" '~".. '1'---
'.<t1t~~~< .'i'iO;;l..::~~~~~"!;~"'itlR[~~) t)1::'\k:,-, 1-' ~ .'_ ~J'~C~ ~~". j;'~
" I 1 ~I.; I ''R'- ~~":h -,Ill' ~'JIi.'r" L ~ ,( ,- ff4i"l" ," ',t . :~~,
f"1:rt _.~61! ~~ \\1t~~ "::'i -It \ r * ",-',~,--f'~~ I ,''-' ~ . ;'~~jJ:)~:j::'.!::1:1t1';1t - ,it
.~,.N,;;4i~~:: \.~< "<"';p :0,;-1,..0 ) ~'"~ T' :~}1' '" .. I.> "?, ~-\1o-I~'--r~"t~:~l~";T-- -,"
1:S::tft3.412." Lr:~' ~," L L:"-<H' 1', '-.'
";, ";'~";'~' :,' Nt: " n:J,~~c";,, . " '" ,-' ,:,i":V:-;'::' ", .
..~~t~S;J,il?',:- 1" ~1 [4- '- _ . 'c" ~TnJ I ~~:;0'}~;-4 ''\':'''\7'' '\ -I-( ::
'i'$,'" "', ," '''' , ' '~,,~ "'
~ ' L~~;rJ;C d:',~~') ~~y~~t~~,.~r}~f / ~~:~::~: ;~\"\ :{:;"~~r .1' .;"~ ".
.!!",~~ ,l~,,'~'H jG<I'r, ,~ ' ~, ,. ~VJ:X"' ' '~\, ,,, ' !~-.1r.
;_~_. ~'f -,,~Jc:', ;tB:t~;,j-l'r~--i,:\' ~-~"~~l" ! .;~~-I: ;-~;^~ ~~;J,.. ::', ',,, 1:J:;--
: '" '",. '~:; " '_.J",_' :~. ~~ ' . 1(;?- .,.. t:;::,-' fO :!,,~ 'r, l ,-"A. i!,;dr~'
~;,ts ~~f~ ::J;~"" ,- , "".;; 1'" ,; ,\:'{J<.,) I~' " '"/1 \~.t \T~=( f~i:.::
1'l'~,,'~\~~:r\L I };,t')~-\ "[ ',,< i, ,. ; ~ , ,'> ,'':1..'"'' , ""; " ~J':JJ! 1\
'll ;I'~ 5 ~ ""'.~~~ ~,.-w:-T':,"l"{ ~ ~"< ru - lL"~ 1 liJrti.} +-" r.~A:'-" 'i~J;.,;..i:~c;t:-"":;--'-"'r'~ ",
Jl~ - r-4 ~r_",'; ,_ ~'): OJ' ~ "'-..\.'"' "'>;< '1,'j" ,_IVE,',~o:
"'J'- -",~"C,- .;~. '-'lJ;.?IiJ ,."~,,, r ". ' r-i" '~"" '. 'f"~' '--,j:" , ,,' .
....~~ ;;',/>-t ;=-il~"o:;;t~ '7 'T.,.._~f",iPt.~ ',~.b~" ~'~ I I!, \,~: (, : _4\ '::;1 \ ~~ ~"".,....., ~.,~. l H~. I~--P
. ,'""- 11r>\(J-1.... . !(~.!,.""I:,? ~'{ .~r,X:-I-'.' J\..,~~,J"" ~"":~\ ,'~- '"Jlt~"'S ;'"",i'<":'~t ~~:~
" ','i<,i"'",..",II<[,N,.t'"" (' "-",,, , .,~ '~" ~.' ;~"'""'. _,,;N ,.' r.. ',,,,,:I; '{",,",,?,
; .. ~ ",I",.L'j")""Y:v.f'" ~:'\;2;Jl'~~~ '-'-:'-" ~, r -Ie t1 ' "" - 'k, ,-"" ~1' :11-' ,,<.4(-'r-'
.,:~~^ "~b;'~_~l~i({?--;.,JL"~- ;;'i~:-f~~if',',;ry~.t'';,:\t,~', !~'''S. "'"" -~,.. ~'::"'C: ..:-d ._~LtL.
U:; ,. '1 :r~ '~l"ii~~;;t{_.., ,_[1.:.;,....... IF,' , /~! ,,' , ' , l 1f'II ti'
~"'l'I~", 0 ",'"~;.;~~;?j]~, '~'1!~'~:l'f,'<!_:)i'.~i.r~,,,:, ',' " d:V ~"" ,:, ,.>r'l
'-iJii!~"i"'''i'''i,. : ,,' '""'e t ,:~'~. ~'1\<"" ""," i ,'e: '1"'"
-,.' ,\'~" 11'" "',' i - "." ,," .,,'"
';$ . ;r;~:~t-':!~~ 2;'J1H~~ "~, ~,~ _l !Ii,' J , t; I'" ~"~ """;i " .~-~ '4f: :iMj!~~ "
,~;"iJ>I!'~ ,,',,~"" . h' .' [e,'-,, "'\tN~" 'I ,,,,,, . ~,j:: -,
, ,,",: - ..',"',) '''' " ''(iif' , krR"!>,!-"",,,I\,- ,,,---""jZ' ,"
. ;.-j___~~~ "" ,-_' -UB-'-~':, .<t"-l " ~ ~ \,'1 ~+- <-"< t l \~. 1,;1, I "I':i!~j ('-L, -'1"'"::--'1, ~l1,-!fF;"~~-,,;,,
:~h:i1i:~ ~~.,' ~,,,'~~J,~ c~\ ,~ I' ~ ~'~:t>7'i"'~'';.,-'~~",I:"~' "~ ~I-':"".:-;..(~J~?~-~~\':u-:-:-- "{,
~f4';';"-'-"'~ "~~' '-' !~"',..."\;- J/'-:.,7 .)";?~J--~-'l-" 'j." ,-_.~--~-_. .';':O;'~''-: t .-. --i'''''''~
~:;-~~i/ I"~' ~ ~c '<i' ";'-0'" t:'!.'"'~,":;:'l-'':--,,:('':.~'-~>;~': L-: l~jl "
~1 rl \ ,,',:V\, '~.<;. '"'~ \1~~ - v\)}'--j~~v~ - ~
, , ,""~'~~ ,"'''': ~.,",",r-,..T' ,...., ~~:"" I,"~ ~', ,,--
, '~~: -~-t'~' . :,~, _::.i~,-. ;.iJ .~'" '" '-,"ll~-.--\ ~ ,,''''''
~ . ,. r.:::/ l, ' i!W1!,"fiJ: '.'\:'\\._~i~ ,: j'l\;, '. '}."!'o ;;.. to;:::;
:, :,~.,'/~", '61."r.,,~~'.,jX~-:\~ -IJ'ri~1j"~-t;,'~ "('-V#,"7> \.;.1, ',''-I-If->', -'t!1(\Ir<-"-'-' f'?~1
;' <;'l\:;;,~:."/!', r-\\~:-~t',j"" ~~ '0 ' "'~,r'~,~li- I., J - 'j.. ~ ~'~J-~i:, 0.1
.' " I ''''''~\ 'j "" ",." Wt i "J:; 1W\:b?c;+
<-., irf,{lfh' Ii 1,"";' l \ '-'. "" V,1! r/ ~~:'1 ~":::'~l',
. . lJ \:~ ~-t}'Y.-YU H :"~"-~<~~_ ..,~ ~7JJ~. 'l~" ->::' _ ' n~ I ,~
ft;(~.~:!--'f,~~ I 'Wf1'~'~"f-Ft\-\}~'oJ~ .....\\ -'~1;'(.)\\'-('-1-,~<-1'" rt .,.~" ) r~.v.;" I'
''"'~l--,' Y"'I'" 11----":f.1~.~-~',.~ "'t_".,,,..~~..~.{~"}t~h-'.2:t'_"I.,_,L:4'_.-;ll' ~~
~~4','" ,," p '~'c fi, ,)~,j--,,~\"<.,'!':"" 'I \ ,<fC,[#'1 ",1. l.... ,,' -,..' Iq-Hj~ I"
. I '1[, \; \,-" 4-~....t,,",r--"""---r-;.!<..1~-';+ j.}~,~ .....-~~Sit~...."~'lr;;-;"';nT 1 ;'~~ "~ ~ ,~~ .
~-;; ',.:' r~<. '"~ :,":- ,.<", ,.:,~~~ 'j '!~',l ""1-l1r Hi"'.";'" ~"f;t ~_:~$'-:l rfi ~ 1'1 t<)-.._ -::0tf ~":II "-
. '~";fl ;~/J \':'-'I~'~"'i. ::'1 "::~ , f;il~'~"'~' < 1 :~~ '1\~:J !-f'~;'.~I~::;'; ;;~t:i-. ~ -.:.\
, ~W c ~ < (~, I' ~. l I}~ h t' I,>',~, "'.rl:.!~'
,i4 i" '.' w'{~':-, I -t"~...\,. I,' '-".' r~ j, "-"t~-t"'\1::fl" '~~ u.\ ,
..... ""J~ '1_ _.:., '1~)\r^I~, ',' 11~.....\,~.1,'(.\"''':;'fij 1 t
,,:: . ~:-;;-i..~ -.: '_-:?';::71 I ~f'I';'-;;;:"i~' !i:ir"'~i!}\ r,~,~;,!0~~' )~:;:-~:"",1 C:t
," ~'_,.!(" ~f4. '1 f~6.("j",t-'[-' 1-'~' ,,~q. ~jJ-if.~-'j"C"""<l'M~,"'(cl,.>- .- --( L&,
;;" \ ~."\ /" ) v '" i (' . I? (\ ,,> Y fO"R-jl)~!'R.HI t";( t' ".QC~
",>: '" ~ t ,-,.jj\:~V''-~1 ;', L" I!;~M' ~< "..>~l~\'!'Y,lf: }l~ !---""_~'lh
C<;.J;;:3,V:Alf ";I,~'c'l~t"J,..,~"~ ~:::::'jJ", l ~"" <J~ 1L...l 1": ~,....,,~'"",,: ~ 0(
"" ,:-:\. ~,'. .,," I > ~J!~ ,toe :r .'"", ,'-"", j' h.. } ,. 'l, ;L:.:c"~~'f -1:1 ,'h,~:;,~ "l"""(;'~
&, "'4"Jl~)'("l""~) n"A, ~ "".f"} ,,-,~"":..jW/1 ',JI/ "}f'".'"",.~1,~1II f.;'/iJ, ~~~" oLi""~~f:::~
!<.'1';\' "J,' '-v i "".I .' '::;)~',I ~':p-;,~' :-:H ,)I ,~~"(:Ih In''' t' I Iii'. Ij.....,,~ '
~.fr ,,~':O"-~l ,<;1,,' ".t;'.0i 'J'''' "l< ':.r'~-" '~\ '>'rf" ",<<.~".,,,,,,,, ~ r'1 t!"u~ g~:t!}~~"i\\'i'''''~ ~....
.,-!-"..,' III .J,j:t~),;--~~jt ,", () ",to"r "'r, ,,,-:" ''::;~: 'I' ,I,f -j'Jr/l'" f "f~ \tt ,,' 'I)" ",I ~ t'" 'jli,,,~
~;rl~~!ll 1.1;,rrr1;J.iS'I)~'C" ' .-~ rF...,.;.Io-;.-----.,.->--f"'--J"':r't '--t< <",-...,IY'~ ~'\1~.\1).>~1':.>!1 II "-<++ "''} ,.~M'+ ~- _C,,"
~,~ ;.:.,';:'l,t, ":1 e' ~ .'l'~. " I '"I-'. I' _,~~I.<~~ t' ~ l"~~l' 'fl" ..."', ,. ~ -' :;';t-
"cif ?,"'';ft-l'' ~j',\< 1"''''$1:::' ~_~ +1'-, /t_~,</\,,~".'! "/oj:. t ,<", ",.,-,:~~ l'-~-;j ",!1 - j , ..~.. n-",", 't
-'f j '~<OJ' ~~ <,1/ 1'/ ,,' ~-' .J',/ 1 ,;-", rl'j" <'f'- ~ ~-''+.-I ~ '." Ii ''',,"1', ~ ~ .
:___ t~ft;! ',,'~-~~"""""'-rl'"-I ji..';) > (j f'" \;-..' ~-'').'''\;N''''''' '" ;.~ 11:-' ';!;' ,-ty,,~ ~~ '
~ c -..?/,i:!F:lrl'" I h"I?-" ,r ~"".,,,"'''':;'l' ',~~.M '~"'c~'t d~ 4f,!.:)':~, '-i'_~ ..~\,~
_ ,;r- -,z--- (, ~~"~"-l . M-< 1,-" I'~"" , ~~ -~~ . -j~,<.." ....~~t l~j,,-,I'YJ1 ti\~,_~ .t'r";t..--r.'!f:""- --;;'.>0-. Ji.~ .@ *';;,~
,. .,...,,~,,\ h J' 'aA, ,l~ j ') F' " " ,l.:',~",~';',",>"" "'-, ""- .f_, ,~, " -:s 1..-",;. ,'-i "!/l I ,;
_J,,! v:.:/ "'f<_h"f>- ,~'<'./-" '. } ;, j ,I ",:L'U"'I ";';':'''~'j ~ "r'J~Y d>k.J:"1nt.,t' ,t- ~~y"I,,-..,;.:'\t-,lij...,~"-t'"' ",'
N',."<,\;rJ" I J'''''- ''f. ''!; t~'r"";~<'1""'I~""\."""'u'...::r,\.t' ~.."L
,i, Ttr-:w~ti') 'l.-<W~'. ';'~. "ht!..:---I....'-'-'-'-M'::~~_....;.j -~} '~~"~rr~ r,!f~t'!.~'/~..:.:o ..4~h"..<"1-"'dJt'..~ ~~-~*,-
:Ol\,),'i"}$:to: ~, 'F-.1'*"lt. . ",;;.\ j , '.'''1, I"'''' f~< ;"l'(\'i~''+ '",,,,Ii;<.,. I"~. r:;,j" " -f'('
~ii..":-i-1,4y~fr,B . 1~{-1"-' t .;:1.. ~"'~"'!;';''t "'. ~,A1a+<,'.'" k-ii,"'~""Lt3~)-"~'&, -""'~
j:\~~ r<lf.;~~J..?:~ Gv. -<.%''')j1' ,~,I ,~'";' ~:- ',',:~~'l:>,'" -:/':ii1~c\i.:-'I:'~;i,-,l:'l~I">~~J:~_.." t 4" "
_ '~-i;,q;~,\1/-!;:'ll ,,~' ,~I,*/,~-.~1,r'_."t=11 '", _"';'I)d""'<'-."~:" ;!..; ~c' .~,/;'J';'-'J.I\:,/,',.t:lf:1'.'J.i 'c - '~1
, ~. """ ",~":<:~. ~YT-'1~~p~'~ "t- "1,(1-t_1.! '-V>i~r-!J.-,-_...,,,_.,,I", ~,'--"~ -,' -,-,~,..t...,...-~~__..,,,,>,-w~\_'t~ ".:1> . .
. h.:;lIFj;~N. , < .w~.>" -: '~~'b~'.~";I' d?:'~(' ~:'+'~,' ,'~:,- I..,:~'-~f':_ ,,," ~ - ' _,_~. ,,:"~r"!~:~1t~ "_c:_..n'::-::' _': .-"\IoJ~!" ,...\",,,,'';'d:r;''~"' ~:~~ }'-. {l.~;~'n~'''l~ ll;:,~ ,,' ~" h I
'I: ';~"4~ .-.' :!~"'7J'S r 1__ '": ~... ,~+~:J,,~-,;t.\r:.~:'"}-;L :' \-., , ,;:} \,{,~/~t\"trkt,~':.'r_:__::~:'i\:~.t: ; 'c},,:J'" > :,:l.~1"..t~!j~!,itl\~~t~:~;(i'i\ ,i'l;.&i -~, ' l~~.;', '
, , " L". _ _ __, , _', """"~ ,.,- , ,. '"". ~-"j., >'J' ;./',' \","1'<";,, 'r'I~"':" '''>v-r"'~~(.iJ..-;-{,,,}1 t:'...
(
,
..,
,
\'
,
,~."
, ,
if;')
~~"
t"~l
ty
'.'
11,..jf'l-!~
'';..
"
,
,1
~~J
'~, .;-1'
~+.:;_\
"
~;:,'1J\\
"
",;.
"
F.
t
I'
~f
~
1./;';':
/'~ ,')
,,.v
o.",' +lt~"'.\~)
.f,:'~~:::~
",.+",:;1>.1'
, iJ.lt_' j,:~."
;;321
r- ' ~ '}J'<,
" \~
,"
,
."
:,1 :~
J,~-1)
"i):'""
'j
".
-t~:'J\
~ ,
1\:.'
~,-~,
.~
'''';''.'1
, .,
~ 'r-'~
~- ir---JJ
,.<
".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
three feet below the surface and these rock materials may require blast-
ing. An important consideration in the pipeline routing, therefore, is
the amount and type of rock anticipated in the various pipeline routes.
As indicated on Plate 4-1, a routing approximately half-way between 1-35
and K-15 takes maximum advantage of river and stream alluvium forma-
tions, which should be removable easily by machine.
- 3. Economic Considerations. A most desirable economic consideration
from each of the customer's viewpoints would be that the main trans-
mission line lie in as close proximity to the customer's boundaries as
possible. However, this consideration must be balanced against optimiz-
ing the total cost of owning and operating the system. During the
evaluation process of the proposed pipeline route, consideration was
given to the required feeder lines and/or subsystems, utilizing the same
evaluation criteria developed for the main transmission line. Regard-
less of the pipeline route chosen, a subsystem will be required to serve
McPherson, Lindsborg and Hutchinson. A subsystem will also be required
to serve Park City and Bel Aire.
4. Selected Pipeline Route. The most desirable pipeline route appears
to lie in the approximate center of the referenced corridor. The pipe-
line would begin at a water treatment facility, located on the southern
side of Milford Reservoir, and proceed southerly to the Smoky Hill River
Valley. After intersecting the Smoky Hill River Valley, the pipeline
would proceed in a southwesterly direction past Abilene to a point
approximately ten miles east of Salina. From this point, the pipeline
would proceed southerly to approximately to Sedgwick at which point the
pipeline would deflect southeasterly, terminating at Wichita corporate
limits.
This route was selected after an evaluation of all the influencing
parameters. The selected route incorporates maximum utilization of
river alluviums and, consequently, minimization of rock excavation.
Furthermore, the route is generally parallel led by hard-surface roads,
thus facilitating maintenance. The pipeline route is in reasonably
close proximity to all customers.
A subsystem connecting to the main line east of McPherson would branch
at McPherson, supplying the cities of Lindsborg and Hutchinson. Consid-
eration was given to a direct feeder to Lindsborg; however, this alter-
native was not chosen due to anticipated rock encounters and a longer
pipeline requirement from the main line pump station. Consideration was
also given to alternate feeder pipeline routes to serve Hutchinson.
However, by supplying Hutchinson through the McPherson supply line,
pipeline lengths can be minimized.
Newton obtains water from the Equus Beds through wells located near
Halstead, Kansas. However, the existing supply lines are operated at
low pressure and it is doubtful that they would be capable of delivery
from the District at the Newton system pressure. For the purposes of
this report a new pipeline delivering water at Newton system pressure
and to the corporate limits is assumed.
4-2
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. FEEDER LINES
Each customer will be served from the District's main line through a
feeder line. Feeder line sizes will be established by the available
pressure in the main line, the customers operating pressure and the
delivery rate required. In a number of cases, pressure reducing valves
will be required to lower the District's pressure to the cODDDunity
pressure. The feeder lines will vary in length depending upon the
location of the District main line and the point of connection to the
customer's system. In this report the point of connection is the city's
corporate limits. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 have been prepared indicating the
principal system operating conditions along with subsystem and feeder
pipeline sizes and lengths for each of the system alternatives.
C. PIPELINE SIZING
1. General. One of the more significant economic expenses that will
be incurred through the lifetime of the project will be energy consumed
in transmitting water through the proposed pipeline. The pipeline will
function as a pressure system, and therefore, sizing of the pipeline in
relation to the anticipated flows is extremely critical considering
potential energy consumption. A cost-effective analysis was performed
comparing life cycle energy costs of 25 years versus initial construc-
tion costs to optimize pipeline sizes.
Several energy conservation techniques were considered, such as off-peak
storage with subsequent electrical generation, utilization of gas tur-
bines, and various other alternatives; however, none of these were
considered to be feasible for incorporation within this project. The
selected concept of continuous constant flow utilizes energy and
resource conservation.
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Project Alternatives. For the purposes of this report, the ulti-
mate sizing of the water treatment and transmission system has been
selected to be SO MGD in the year 2020. However, initial flows will
possibly be in the range of 40 MGD to 60 MGD, depending upon initial
demands and continued usage of existing customer supplies to meet peak
demands.
If the system is initially designed to supply 40 MGD, with subsequent
capacity improvements to SO MGD, a main pipeline of 4S inches in
diameter throughout the entire length appears to be most feasible. In
order to expand the capacity of the system to SO MGD, a parallel 4S-inch
diameter pipeline with attendent pumping stations and appurtenances
would be required. If the initial delivery rate is 60 MGD, with later
expansion to SO MGD, a main pipeline combination of 66-inch pipe and
60-inch pipe appears to be most feasible. The larger diameter would be
used from the treatment facility to a point near McPherson; from
McPherson to Wichita, a 60-inch pipe would be utilized.
C. PIPELINE MATERIAL
1. General. The water delivery system will convey treated water and
will operate at pressures and conditions normally encountered in water
works practice. The available pipeline materials include prestressed
concrete cylinder pipe, steel pipe and ductile iron pipe. The use of
any of these materials will require consideration of specific project
conditions and appropriate design, manufacturing and construction
requirements.
2. Design Pressures. In an effort to m1n1ml.Ze the number of pump
stations and yet remain within normal working pressures of pipe, prelim-
inary engineering reviews of the proposed pipeline indicate that maximum
working pressures for the pipe should not exceed ISO pounds per square
inch or approximately 415 feet of pressure head. If Alternate A is
selected, initial working pressures will be lower. When the system is
delivering 60 MGD, working pressures will not exceed 110 psi, and when
the system is expanded to accommodate SO MGD of delivery, maximum work-
ing pressures will be approximately 160 psi.
3. Selected Material. After evaluating the possible pipe materials,
concrete pipe was selected for costing analyses in this report. Several
manufacturers of concrete pipe are available, thus it should be expected
that extremely competitive pricing will result. However, during subse-
quent preliminary considerations of the project and during final concept
development, alternate pipe materials should be evaluated.
E. PUMPING FACILITIES
I
I
I
1. Main Line Locations. Three pump
izing Alternate A or Alternate B.
stations are shown in Table 4-3.
stations will be required util-
Specifics concerning the pump
4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-3
PRELIMINARY MAIN LINE PUMP STATION SIZING
MILFORD PIPELINE
60 MGD - 66/60-inch, Alternate A
Total Pumping
Station Capacity Operating Head Horsepower
*No. 1, Plant 60 MOO 230' TDH 2,850 hp
No. 2, Salina 59.4 MGD 243' TDH 2,990 hp
No. 3, McPherson 54.9 MGD 250' TDH 2,832 hp
40 MGD - 48-Inch, Alternate B
*No. 1, Plant 40 MGD 370' TDH 3,053 hp
No. 2, Salina 39.5 MGD 330' TDH 2,690 hp
No. 3, McPherson 35.3 MOO 312' TDH 2,270 hp
*Costs for first stage high service pump station included in Section 3.
2. Operating Constraints. The projected operation of the water treat-
ment and transmission facilities incorporates a constant rate operation.
Withdrawal rates for each of the customers should be more or less con-
stant; however, it is proposed that variations in flow within limits
will be accommodated by Wichita. By utilizing a concept of the constant
rate operation, the operation and control of the transmission facilities
will be simplified. Also, the concept of the constant rate operation
will minimize both power usage and demand peaks, as well as reduce wear
and tear on pumping equipment due to frequent starting and stopping.
However, operating personnel must be constantly aware of the operating
status of each of the pump stations so that in the event of interruption
of operation at any of the pump stations, operation of the entire system
may be terminated. This is extremely critical for the main line pumping
stations. Use of radiotelemetry is proposed to monitor the status of
each of the pump stations and also to monitor the operating condition of
each of the pumps. In the event of a pipeline break or equipment mal-
function, each pump station would be monitored as to pump suction pres-
sures and discharge pressures so that appropriate steps could be taken
to remove the pump stations from service. It is contemplated that the
control system will incorporate a micro-processor which will allow
interrogation of the status of each of the pump stations at frequent
intervals.
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Relationship to Customer. The locations of the pump stations in
relationship to each of the customers are shown on the hydraulic pro-
files as well as the pipeline routing map (refer to Plates 4-1, 4-2,
4-2A, 4-3 and 4-3A). The pump station locations have been selected so
as to minimize the number of customer booster stations as well as
delivering system pressures to the maximum number of customers. The
pumping stations have also been located near population centers so as to
facilitate operation and maintenance of each of the stations. Pump
station locations may vary slightly from those indicated with further
refinements of design considerations.
4. Main Line Pump Station Operations. The pumps will be remotely
controlled from the treatment plant with local override at the pumping
stations. The pump stations will be almost identical in size and
appearance except for site adaptations. Each station will utilize elec-
trically operated butterfly valves. The valves' position will be moni-
tored from the main control panel so that in the event of valve malfunc-
tion, operation will terminate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For the purposes of this report, it is considered that each station will
contain facilities to feed chlorine and ammonia so that in the event
chlorine residuals need to be adjusted in the transmission line, this
could be accomplished. Chlorination should be reconsidered at the time
of design. It is conceivable that chlorination may be desirable only at
the point that the water enters each customer's system.
6. Customer Booster Stations. The current design approach for Alter-
nate A will result in a maximum of one booster station located near
McPherson to supply Hutchinson. The station will utilize three pumps,
each pump capable of supplying one-half of the pumping demands. The use
of emergency power does not appear necessary.
McPherson will receive water at or above system pressure regardless of
the alternate chosen. If Alternate B is selected, Hutchinson and
Lindsborg will not require a booster station initially. However, at the
time the system is expanded to 80 MGD, a booster station will be
required for Hutchinson. Alternate B also requires booster stations for
Bel Aire and Wichita.
F. METERING AND PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS.
Each customer will be served through a master metering station near the
customer corporate limits. Where required, pressure reducing valves
will be installed in combination with the metering station to meet
system pressure.
4-8
I
I
2000
I
1950
I
1900
I
1850
I
1800
1750
I
1700
I
1650
I
1600
::;
:J
I-
;:l 1550
u;
'"
u;
:J 1500
,
z
o
t 1450
>
'"
...J
'"
I) I
I
I
1400
I
1350
I
1300
I
1250
1200
I
1150
I
1100
I
1050
I
o
o
z
z
o
t
I-'
V>
ll.
:J
ll.
,,-
I--- '-
'"
o
>
'"
'"
~" /"..
If \
CLASS 150
\
10
20
IPE
LEGEND
- ROCK (IRWl eu
..... ROCK (WELL -u
I
~
I!"
OR
~LASS 150 PIPELINE (L:!
1-- FOR PREST E",~
'.....
r--., ...
1\ /'
CLASS 150
CLASS 130 CLASS 18
100
~
~~
..., ~41GD ~~
........ '"
~~ ~
-
f..--./- .......1
CLASS 150 130
o
<l
'"
l-
V>
...J
<l
J:
1'050
110
120
-:,
"
"
o
~
"
:::::
~
~
...............
~
~
NOTE:
HAYSVI LE FEEDER
NOT SOWN
<l
a: I-
'"
..J!:: :I:
:itJ ~
"'D_"~~SAS
'"
u
i
'"
o
'"
V>
WI[
~ ....... CENTRAL KANSAS
"-C"'WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY
n PLATE NO. 4-2
WA1ERCONSUlTANTS
.
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
1600
::;
:J
1550 t
o
V>
(!)
1500 u;
::;;
,
z
o
1450 ;::
;;
'"
...J
'"
1400
1350
1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
DISTR ICT
-
-
lI)K:
")~
::E
:J:
o
r
'"
jg
r
"",Cl
r ~
l>~-1
-j-j'"
"'",l>
",r
z
9(1)~
..,cz
, "00
","l>
l;I>!:((I)
o
u;
-j
'"
Cl
-j
-
~wl~
om
",m
...."
mr
",.
m-\
2m
"
. ...
,
'"
-----
- - --
-
- -
- -
ELEVATION - U.5.G.S. DATUM
r
Z
o
00
OJ
~
Cl
"
'ii
'"
r
Z
'"
u; el ;;; 0; 0; :;; :;; u; u; en en ~ :;; a; ~
'" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 g; '" 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-
-
MC PHER ~ON-LI DSBOR
HUTCHI "'SON UBSYS EM /
<:::
0 /'
.... MCPH RSON
,. ---
00 'I I I II IIIV /"
00 162
'" '" L.o
0
m 00 4'1.('
-\
" Z ) ~o<4
" "'C)~ la
"
.... '" h
0
/I z 11/ I~
"
~ ./
.J#" /1116 /.
L1NDSBO G ... '11111 '/I1494V /
MCPHI RSON - LiNDS ORG
HUTCH NSON SUBSY TEM V L 7
.{
0 Ik& 21)
r
,.
00
00 l.,.--- /cff'
'"
0 <::i /C>
-
V- I I~ TCHINS ON ~~ TER S ATION
0 -,
r MCPHI RSON
/'; r; I I I II 1628r I I rllll /
00
~
0
1\ '" / Il!
\:i '" /
<:1 0
z ;: 110
" 0>
0 " '"
r
,. g ~
00 h
00 2
'" "
0 I@
-- ~ /
HUTCHIN ON /'
'd'1 I I II, 16851'1/ rllll)
.
;;; ;;; 0; 0; :;; :;; u; u; 0; 0; ~ :;; a; a; -
'" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" '" 0 '"
0 Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
o
o
o
'"
o
0;
o ~
z
Cl
'"
,
;:
'" r
'"
U>
'"
o
'"
'"
o
'"
;:
Cl
"
:J:
'"
'"
U>
o
z
,
:J:
C
ci
:t
Z
U>
o
z
:!!
"
'"
r
Z
'"
o
'" 0
U>
i!
z
Cl
el '"
r
'"
Bl U>
'"
o
'"
'"
c!l
<D
o
o
ELEVATION - U.S.G.S. DATUM
-
-
;:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ELEVATION -U.S.G.S. DATUM
is n p is g ~ i)j Oi Oi :i> :i> u; u; in in ~ :::; (jj (jj ij; ij; ~
~ r 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" ~ 0 '" 0 '" 0
J> J> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W 0 0
W ~
a;
0 ;;;
0 PUMP ~ TATlON NO. I
0
.... /
1\ l> j
n --- /
rJ>
J> \
nw
r
J>_
w~
, 0
a;
0
If' l V8"
J>
w
w J ff
~ ~
I / '"
\ / 0
ABILENE VIIIII IIIIII IliA
I
" 1\ 1/
r
~
w \
- '"
0" ~ / 0
~p .
WJ>
Ww
g;",
SALINA 111///. 14 1///, PUMP STATIO NO.2
/
1/ ( /
...
pp 1 1/ 0
~~ ~ I
~g; m
"
-0 /
" %
r 0
J> 0
W
W "
0
" <=
z '"
0
~
) ':2
(Jl
! j;!
I z
z ()
0 '"
-0 ....
""T\UlI'!1 " ..... "'.
om r '" ,
"m W Ij 0
r" W "'ll ;::
mr <0" "- :;; r
~~ Or '" '"
zm J> (Jl
W
" W
.t
'" " -.
0
II PUMP STATIO NO.3
""-- / .....
~ / 0
MCPHE SON - INDSBO G
HUTCH NSON UBSYS M 1/
V
/
/ '"
I~ /' / 0
J>WW
MOUNDRIOGE z-<o
" III 16 1///. U
" ;::
"<=0
C"" I
;::c;
"n"
HESSTON J>J> 1IIIn5 I///A
W-O" .'
-1z~ <D
- -0 1/ l/it 0
0" -<
Z -
w"- m
. m W "
r V;
-J> -0
" z" / g
r m" %
J> w- "
V> m 0
NEWTON W <
m " /!i/. 1// / //1. (///tJ/
" " " I
<=
0 z "11111 150
HALSTEAD 'I
Y / 0
0
~
is I
SEDGWICK '"
0 1/ (//,1490 IIIIIA
lI~1[ '" II
ii J
"
,.,. -0
VA LEY /1/11114 11// / / / / 0
CE TER lD
0 /
=: 0
'"
:J: -0 .
0 m
r i I
'" WI HITA
(Jl 11/ ~/IIII 111111;
1> II
r
"UITI~
~=E~
-11>" ~
",-11>
"',...
Z"
9(J)S
...C Z
, "0",
","01>
~(Jl
" N N gj Oi :i> :i> g; U; in in :::; :::; 05 (jj ij; ij; '"
1ii is U; 0
0 '" '" 0 '" '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0
-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"
(i ELEVATION - U.S.G.S. DATUM
-I
-
:JI)I[
")~
:=:
:I:
o
r
'"
Ul
'"
r
-U1'T1~
r:=:z
"''''....
~-i~
"'r
Z'"
p(J)~
...C Z
, "Ul
'" " '"
l>~(f)
o
en
....
'"
n
....
-
-
~J
Om
",m
r-u
mr
"'"
m-l
zm
0,:,
'"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ELEVATION - U.S.G.S. DATUM
c:;; ~ j\j ~ Oi :;; :;; c:;; c:;; en ~ :::j :::j (jj ~
'" '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 8 '" 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
.
.
-L Nn"BOR<1
HUTCHI SON S BSYST M V
<
" /'
r MCPHE SON
" , -r
W 711111. 1628 fill / -7
w
" J /
0
m 11m :'
" /:~
#
X 0'" /. 0" ~
-..Ii w
-l '.. ' .~~ "
/ ti /~ /' "
'"
'" ,/
'"
0
~ c
z
.I' / /
L1NOSBO G ... 71111/ 1494Y / Ifffff,
MCPH RSON- I NDSBO I1r,
HUTCHI SON UBSYST M V If
/
/c''i>
.',.,0
/~ .0>
'"
< 0
/ z:
~
V \/ j-L1NOSB RG BO STER'
1s0N , +-HU"!:~ I S~~ -7
MCPHE IIIIII 1628f fl. IIIJ i
I:" /
" ...
r 0
" Ii /
w s:
w I~
" Iii<
0 m li8 =
X "
"i =u
.. /W
'" '"
'"
0 ,
c /
z
0
/
r-- ~ I
HUTCHI~ SoN / Ii
f'rl I I II. 16851'1 I. r; I I IX
j\j j\j Oi Oi :;; :;; c:;; c:;; c;; c;; :::j :::j a; a;
'" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 (J) 0 '" 0 '" 0 '"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
o
o
'"
r
Z
o
Ul
lXJ
o
'"
Gl
"
'6
'"
r
Z
'"
!2
Ul
oj;!
z
n
'"
.
;::
'" r
'"
Ul
~
N
'"
o
'"
s:
n
"
:I:
'"
'"
Ul
o
Z
,
:I:
C
ci
:I:
Z
Ul
o
z
:!!
"
'"
r
Z
'"
o
TATION
'"
!2
NUl
O~
Z
n
'"
.
rn~
'"
Ul
'"
o
'"
'"
...
o
iD
o
o
ELEVATION - U.S.G.S. OATUM
-
-
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G. WICHITA SUPPLY VARIATION
Wichita will receive approximately 25 MGD under Alternate Band 42 MGD
under Alternative A. Even though the system is projected to operate
under constant rate conditions, customers may vary their use dependent
upon operating needs, status of local storage, loss of power, etc.
Under certain circumstances, each customer may require additional water
deviating from the set amount due to either local line breakage, fire or
other unusually high demand situations.
Wichita has the most flexibility in regard to responding to flow varia-
tions, either more or less within reasonable limits. The exact config-
urations of connecting the District supply to the Wichita distribution
system must be further defined by additional studies.
H. LAND AND RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS
Each main pump station will require a tract of ground about 200 feet by
200 feet. This will allow the construction of each pump station and
maintenance support. Additional right-of-way for access will be
required although this need will be minimized. The pipeline will
require about 60 feet of permanent right-of-way for a single pipe and 80
feet for two parallel pipes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. PUMP STATION AND PIPELINE STAFFING. Daily visits to pump stations
and booster stations will be required for routine operation and main-
tenance. Metering and pressure reducing facilities should be checked
weekly for operation and regular maintenance. Routine operation and
maintenance of the pipeline should be minimal although monthly opera-
tions of mainline valves should be accomplished. Major maintenance
items for the pipeline, pumping stations and booster stations are
expected to be contracted.
Operation and maintenance requirements of pumping and pipeline
facilities are expected to be similiar for both Alternate A and
Alternate B. A total of 3 personnel, 1 supervisor and 2 helpers, are
proposed for Alternate A. One additional helper is proposed for
Alternate B.
Classification
Maintenance
Foreman
Helper
Total Staff
Personnel
Alternate A Alternate B
1
2
3
1
3
4"
I
I
I
4-9
I
I
J. COST ESTIMATES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
1. Project Costs. Opinions of total project costs for Alternate A and
Alternate B are developed in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
2. Operation and Maintenance Costs. Opinions of estimated annual
operation and maintenance costs are developed in Table 4-6.
3. Summary of Costs. The costs associated with Alternate A and
Alternate B have been summarized in Table 4-7.
TABLE 4-4
OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS
ALTERNATE A
Construction Costs
Pipeline (Mainline)
Pipeline Appurtenances
Rock Excavation
Pump Stations (Salina, McPherson)
Booster Stations/Storage
Customer Pipelines
Pressure Reduction and Metering Stations
Total Construction Cost
$ 91,835,720
2,700,000
1,704,930
3,824,240
4,000,000
17,305,850
500,000
$121,870,740
Project Costs
Construction Contingency
Fiscal, Administrative, Engineering and
Construction Management
12,187,000
Total Project Costs
20,108,260
$154,166,000
Other Costs
Land and Rights-of-Way
1,812,000
Total Costs
$155,978,000
I
I
I
4-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-5
OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COSTS.
ALTERNATE B
Construction Cost
Pipeline (Mainline)
Pipeline Appurtenances
Rock Excavation
Pump Stations (Salina, McPherson)
Booster Stations/Storage
Customer Pipelines
Pressure Reduction and Metering Stations
Total Construction Cost
$ 57,460,490
1,980,000
1,168,750
2,940,080
4,886,620
17 ,305,850
500,000
$ 86,241,7.90
Project Costs
Construction Contingencies
Fiscal, Administrative, Engineering
and Construction Management
$ 8,624,180
Total Project Costs
14,230,030
$109,096,000
Other Costs
Land and Rights-of-Way
2,420,000
Total Costs
$111 ,516 ,000
TABLE 4-6
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Alternate A
Alternate B
Power Costs
Maintenance
Replacement
$1,937,520
45,625
75,370
$2,058,500
$1,670,900
68,850
68,750
$1,808,500
Total 0 & M Costs
TABLE 4-7
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Alternate A
Alternate B
Project Capital Costs
Land and R/W Costs
o & M Costs
$154,166,000
1,812,000
2,058,500
$109,096,000
2,420,000
1,808,500
4-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 5
DISTRICT OPERATIONS PLAN
A. GENERAL.
The development of an operational plan for a District of this size and
geographical area is without precedent in Kansas. Therefore, consid-
erable latitude exists for alternative operation plans that would best
serve the needs of the District. Discussion is provided for the
general requirements of an operational plan. A preliminary organiza-
tional.plan consisting of the minimum functional requirements along with
estimates of costs is presented. The functional requirements have been
divided into five parts as follows:
1. Board of Directors
2. General Manager
3. Administrative Services
4. Operation and Maintenance Services
5. Support Services
B. OPERATIONAL PLAN.
A definitive description of responsibility for each part of the opera-
tional plan has not been attempted. A general relationship of the
various parts of the operational plan is discussed. Plate 5-1 depicts a
possible organizational plan.
1. Board of Directors. Governing body of the District with powers
established by statutory regulations. Function would be to e~tablish
poliCies, bylaws and regulations upon which the District would operate
and make the decisions affecting the District's operation.
Board members would be appointed or elected by each customer of the
District or other specified representation or regional subdivision of
District. Board members would serve as non-salaried officials. For
budgetary considerations nominal expense allowance for carrying out
. District business and representation has been estimated at $27,000
annually.
2. General Manager. Appointed by Board as an employee of District and
responsible for coordinating and implementing the operations of the
District as .prescribed by patrons of the District through the Board.
The General Manager should be a trained water works professional. The
General Manager would be responsible for the administration of the
District operations as designated by the Board.
As currently envisioned, the administration of District operations would
be carried out through the General Manager's coordination of three func-
tional sections: Administrative Services; Operation and Maintenance
Services; and Support Services.
5-1
l- ll)
!:! a: ::l ..
..
II: 0 '" ~
I- ~ ~ ...
u .. llj
(/) lI.I III .. i! ... ...
is ~ .. a ... .
! ... .. .. .. ~
! ~ . . .. ..
Q a
II. ;:: .. i3 .. ~
0 ... . .. .. .. '"
... . ...
.. e .... .. ..
0 ... .. .. ..
(/) i:! ;;; ..
Q ..
Z .. ! l:l
0 a: .
II: cl .
0
I- III
c(
II.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
..
!!l
..
u
...
~
...
...
I
I
I
I
..
~
~
III
..
....
u
...
e
8
IW(W'
I]I(K:I
....
~
...
iil
..
S
::t
j
..
::
..
...
'"
;;
..
...
..
....
..
i:
..
..
..
~
..
...
...
..
;;
..
...
..
..
..
..
z
..
:!
e:
..
...
'"
a-
..~
.llj
....
2...
....'"
...
...
.....
.....
......
..
!
..
:!:
..
...
....
!Ii!
"
..
.
..
..
!
..
....
..
...
i!
i:i
..
....
..
...
....
~
,.
'"
..
....
.
..
..
..
.
...
:z
...
....
...
- ....
....
"i!j
w -
..........
... ...
........
... -
:z
...
'"
'"
CI
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.. Administrative Services. Responsible to General Manager for
carrying out the accounting, billing, purchasing, personnel and clerical
requirements of the District.
4. Support Services. Responsible to General Manager for carrying out
the engineering, planning and outside contract requirements of the
District. Outside contract services may include the costs for publi-
cations, annual reports, fiscal auC::its, vehicles, maintenance, legal
counsel, financial advisor, engineering, and other similar contract
services.
It is expected that legal counsel and financial advisor services would
not require employed staff persons, but would be available to the
Gene~al Manager and District on a retainer arrangement. Such costs are
included in contract services. A summary of staffing requirements for
Administrative Services and Support Services for Alternate A and Alter-
nate B is tabulated below.
Classification
Administrative Services
General Manager
Accountant
Clerical/Secretarial
Personnel
Alternate A Alternate B
1
1
3
1
1
2
Support Services
Contract Officer
Engineer
1
1
1
o
Total Staff
7
5
5. Operation and Maintenance Services. Responsible to General Manager
for carrying out the operation and maintenance of the water treatment
plant; transmission pipeline; pumping facilities and metering stations
for the District. See Section 3 for staffing requirements for water
treatment plant staffing. See Section 4 for pump station and pipeline
staffing requirements.
C. OPERATIONS LOCATION.
Two general alternatives appear feasible for the physical locations of
the operations headquarters:
Locate operations headquarters in the water treatment plant build-
ing or
Locate . operations headquarters, except for water treatment per-
sonnel, nearer to the center of the District
5-2
I
I
I
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The location of headquarters of the water treatment plant at Milford
Reservoir would enable a consolidation of all operations and personnel
at one site, thereby providing greater efficiency of coordinating
District activities. Approximately one-half of all District personnel
would be required at the water treatment plant for operation and main-
tenance of those facilities.
The location of 'all operations, except for water treatment, near the
center of the District would provide more convenient access for the
patrons of the District. A central location for these operations would
be closer to most of the District's water supply facilities.'
Some coordination efficiency may be sacrificed and some duplication of
personnel requirements may result from separating the water treatment
operations from the rest of the District's operations. However, from a
cost of operations standpoint, both alternatives would be expected to be
about equal. Capital costs may be higher for the Central District
location due to the need for an additional operations building. A
structure will be required at the treatment plant for operations for
both alternatives.
The cost of operating a facility to house the Administrative Services
and Support Services is estimated to be $45,000 annually regardless of
the location.
The following is a tabulation of estimated annual costs for the Admin-
istrative Services and Support Services of the operational plan.
TABLE 5-1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Annual Cost
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Salaries, Salary Related and
Board of Directors' Expenses $280,000 $196,000
Outside Contractual Expenses 200,000 200,000
Administrative & Support Services
Office Space 45,000 45,000
TOTAL $525,000 $441,000
5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 6
ALLOCATION OF COSTS
A. GENERAL.
In a major project such as that being considered by the Central Kansas
Wholesale Water District (District) where. the cost of the project is to
be recovered from the customers served, it is necessary to develop a
methodology to determine cost responsibilities and allocate costs. The
methodology should identify the project costs, the basis for allocating
the costs, and the amount of project costs to be allocated to each
customer. Recognition should also be given to customer character-
istics, economics, engineering constraints, location of facilities, and
legal and political considerations. Therefore, several potential
methodologies have been identified which may be appropriate in
allocating project costs for the situations which exist for this
District.
The project costs are divided into capital costs, annual operation and
maintenance expense items, and raw water storage costs. The capital
cost items are associated with the initial construction of the facil-
ities which will comprise the system. These components include raw
water intake, raw water transmission, treatment plant, pumping stations,
finished water transmission pipeline, intermediate pumping and storage,
and individual delivery and metering facilities. The annual expense
items include operation and maintenance, administration, billing and
other costs associated with the ongoing operations of the system. Raw
water storage costs are for the purchase of raw water at Milford
Reservoir from the State of Kansas.
B. COST ALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES.
Two basic approaches for determining each customer's responsibility for
capital, operation and maintenance, and raw water storage costs might be
utilized. One approach is to allocate cost responsibilities to
customers based on some proportionate share method which might reflect
such parameters as projected demands, annual usages, or population. A
second approach, based upon incremental costs, would be to assume that
Wichita is the primary beneficiary of the District I s facilities and
should be charged for the facilities necessary to provide service as if
it were "going it alone." The other customers would then be charged
only the incremental costs attributable to each.
The incremental cost approach is not given further consideration herein
because we believe that the use of such a method does not reflect cost
of service principles. It would require a policy decision on the part
of Wichita to support the majority of the program which would run
counter to the concept of an independent wholesale supply district.
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Capital Costs. Construction of the proposed water treatment and
transmission facilities will require a considerable capital outlay. The
District has available two major approaches on funding this capital
requirement. First, it could assign capital costs to each customer
which would. then be responsible for providing that level of funding.
This method is commonly termed up-front financing. The other option is
for the District to finance all project capital costs and assess each
customer an annual charge to recover its financing costs. For a public
entity such as the District, this alternative generally requires the
issuance of long term debt. The District could also let its members
choose between up-front payment or sharing in annual debt service costs
similar to the option usually given beneficiaries of a special assess-
ment project.
If the District provides capital cost financing through debt issuance,
it could recover debt service costs uniformly from all custqmers based
on annual usage or it could recover debt service costs based upon an
assignment of capital costs to each customer recognizing projected
demand or population.
a. Capital Costs Apportioned Based Upon Population. The use of
population to apportion capital costs is probably the simplest method
available. This method could allocate costs based on existing or pro-
jected populations. Since not all customers plan to provide District
water to their entire service area, some adjustments may be necessary to
recognize that situation. In general, we would discourage the use of a
method based on any measure other than usage of or demand for water.
b. Capital Costs Apportioned Based Upon Projected Demand.
Capital costs apportioned based upon total District system projected
demand for' water is also a relatively simple method. Such a method
would allocate the total capital costs to all customers based upon their
projected future water demands which generally correspond with design
parameters. No specific consideration would be given to location of
facilities or for special service conditions which may be required.
Demand would be expressed in million gallons per day (MGD). It is sug-
gested that projection of ultimate use is the most appropriate parameter
for cost allocation. As an example, the following relationships could
exist for four customers:
I
I
I
Future Percent
Municipality Demand Share
MGD %
A 5 10
B 4 8
C 1 2
D 40 80
50 100
Annual capital costs would be recovered on the above relationship.
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A refinement of this method would be to apportion capital costs based
upon projected demands for individual facilities comprising the total
project. This method would require the determination of projected use
for each specific pipeline segment and project component. Facilities
that would be used by all parties would be allocated to every customer.
Facilities used by only one customer would be assigned directly to that
customer. Facilities used by two or more customers would be apportioned
based upon the requirements of those using that specific facility.
Again, annual capital costs would be recovered on the relationship of
assigned investment.
c. Capital Costs Apportioned Based Upon Annual Usage. Total
annual capital costs could be apportioned annually based upon usage by
the various customers. Some recognition may need to be given to the
unused capacity each year which could be allocated either in proportion
to use or in proportion to the projected qemand.
Capital costs could also be apportioned based upon annual usage of indi-
vidual facilities. Costs for individual delivery facilities or trans-
mission mains would be apportioned directly to specific customers
receiving service. The facilities used in common would be allocated to
every customer in proportion to actual use. Reserve capacity could be
considered for each project segment based upon consideration of actual
or future use.
d. Combinations of Specific Methods. In some cases, it may be
advantageous to combine different methods to establish the solution
which best meets the requirements of the customers. Care should be
taken to ensure that the various customers are treated fairly. Recog-
nition needs to be given to customer location and pipeline alignment,
characteristics of use, engineering constraints, economy of scale, and
even political considerations.
2. Operation and Maintenance Expenses. The allocation of annual oper-
ation and maintenance expenses would generally follow the same princi-
ples as the allocation of capital costs. However, operation and main-
tenance expenses would typically be assigned based upon annual usage
rather than on a projected future basis. Cost allocations could be
based upon two different concepts. The first would be to assign all
costs on the basis of annual usage. The second method would be to allo-
cate costs for each specific facility segment based upon use in that
segment.
An allocation of operation and maintenance expenses on an annual usage
basis for all facilities would be relatively easy to determine and
administer. This allocation could be based on annual quantities of
usage, or it could also recognize, as a separate element, the costs
associated with metering and billing. Using this method, every customer
would pay the same unit cost per 1000 gallons pf water purchased from
the District for operation and maintenance expense.
6-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to recognize that certain facilities are used only by certain
customers, operation and maintenance expenses could also be apportioned
based upon annual usage of the individual facilities. This method would
be more sophisticated than the above method in that the relative usage
of specific facilities would be considered in allocating costs to member
customers. For example, operating costs of common facilities such as
the treatment plant and raw water intake, would be allocated to all cus-
tomers based upon total annual usage. Annual expenses associated with
individual customer delivery and metering facilities would be allocated
directly to those customers. For facilities shared by two or more cus-
tomers, the annual operation and maintenance costs would be allocated
based upon relative usage of the individual customers.
Recognition could be given to maximum day or maximum hour demands placed
on the system if appropriate. However, for the general type of facil-
ities proposed, such considerations would probably not be applicable due
to the proposed constant-rate operating conditions. As suggested for
annual capital cost allocations, combinations of the various methods
outlined might be considered.
3. Raw Water Storage Costs. The State Water Plan Storage Act includes
prov1.s1.onS concerning rates, charges, and contracts for the sale of
water stored pursuant to the Act. The minimum charge is the sum of 50
percent of the total amount of water contracted for multiplied by the
current rate plus, on the remaining 50 percent of the water reserved
under contract, an amount as interest computed at a rate per annum equal
to the average rate of interest earned the past 12 months on investments
by the pooled money investment board on the net amount of moneys
advanced from state funds for costs incurred and associated with that
portion of the state's conservation water supply capacity. As long as
District usage equals the amount of water contracted for, raw water
costs should be apportioned to the member customers based upon annual
usage. If District usage falls below the contracted amount, provisions
would need to be incorporated into the agreements with the customers to
recover the interest costs of raw water contracted for but not utilized.
These extra costs could be apportioned to those customers taking less
water than their projected demands or allocated on some other mutually
agreeable basis.
C. SELECTED COST ALLOCATION METHOD.
I
I
I
In providing water service, the District is required to supply water in
total amounts as desired by the member customers. The District will .be
incurring costs in relationship to the operating requirements and neces-
sary investment in system facilities required to. meet each customer's
needs. Since these needs or requirements for total volume of supply
vary among the customers, so does the cost to the District of providing
service to the respective customers. In order to recognize that the
District is to provide wate~ to each customer through specific identi-
fiable facilities, we have chosen to apportion capital costs based upon
projected demand for individual facilities and to apportion operation
6-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and maintenance expenses based upon annual usage for individual facil-
ities using the proportionate share basis. Raw water costs are also
apportioned based upon annual usage assuming that the annual usage will
equal the quantity of water contracted for with the State of Kansas.
1. Capital Costs. Annual capital costs consist primarily of debt
service payments on outstanding bonds necessary to finance the invest-
ment in district facilities, but could also include normal annual
replacements and improvements or revenue-financed major capital improve-
ments. Generally, the amount of total investment required depends on
the size of the system to be constructed, which, in turn, is related to
the projected demands of the member customers. In order to provide for
a proportionate sharing of the annual capital costs based upon respon-
sibility for the sizing of individual facilities, the estimated invest-
ment and related capital costs have been apportioned to the customers
bilsed upon their projected demands for each individual facility. In
this manner, each customer will pay only for that portion of each Dis-
trict facility necessary to provide water to it.
2. Operation and Maintenance Expenses. Operation and maintenance
expenses include the annual costs of operating and maintaining the Dis-
trict's facilities plus the costs of administration, billing, and other
general expense items. The allocation of operation and maintenance
expense to the member customers by individual facility follows the same
general principles discussed for allocating capital costs. However,
operation and maintenance expenses are more related to each facility's
annual usage and are apportioned to the customers on this basis.
D. ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO CUSTOMERS.
Allocated costs to each customer, expressed in 1983 dollars, are
developed and presented for two alternatives. Total annual allocated
costs have been expressed in 1983 dollars to facilitate comparison with
the current unit costs of water supply and treatment for each customer's
own system.
Alternative A encompasses the construction and operation of a 60 MGD
water treatment plant, 66 inch and 60 inch main transmission lines, and
the necessary pumping stations and city lines discussed in previous
sections of this report. Alternative B is for construction and opera-
tion of a 40 MGD water treatment plant, a 48 inch main transmission
line, pumping stations, and city transmission lines.
I
I
I
1. Alternative A. Allocated costs under Alternative A for each
customer are summarized in Table 6-1. The 1995 allocation of a District
delivery rate of 60 MGD is shown in column 1. Column 2 summarizes each
customer I s estimated annual water purchase .from the District assuming
that each customer takes its total delivery rate shown in column 1.
Raw water storage expense for each customer, shown in column 3, is bas.ed
upon an estimated rate of $0.115 per 1,000 gallons of water purchased
and assumes that the total water purchased equals the amount of water
contracted for.
6-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cl
Sb
iEd
;~i~
~ -I~a
~ i-E!~
! ...15S~
=':::=iI
"'li'
85.
ffio~
.....
;I
ti
...
Cl15'Cl ~
... ::;!'" . II . - . ~ l!l ~ - II ~ " ~ . ~ .
on :I~co~:a - :! - ~ - :!
~~~~- ~ .,; '" '" '" '"
-
~
. ... ~ l! ~ II ~ ~ ~ II 8 ~ 3 ~ II ~ l! ~
. ::;!::;!~ -
...~... - Ii Ii" 5i E ~ '" ~ ~ " Ii Ii Ii ~ N
- :: l!< - N - ;; ;; ~ III ::; - :;
... ,; ,; g
N
...
l!i lil ~ ~ ~ l! II II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !l l! ~
;;; ::;!;':~iS - Ii N ~ Ii .. ri ;; .; i: ;::: N ~ ri ,; "
ba too> . ;::: - l!l II "
- ... Z N
l!l .. .:
;I
- ,
~ ~ ... II l!
N ;~i~ - 3 ~ l! II II ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 II l! l! II
!3 !:;: !!s ,; N .; .: ,; Ii ,; '" '" '" iii .: .; .; 5
- III
... ! '"
I- lil !i15!l!"
is 0 0 0 0 0 Ii! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii!
!i -... l!i
i =i~s - Ii Ii
i c:i.. VI
-
Ei z!!!l!i 0 II 0 II ~ l! l! l! Ii! l! Ii! II Ii! ~ ~ l!
~ s i~lS - ri R r! .; ~ Ii '" Ii Ii :€ '" .; ,; ~
~ " ~
;:j t; .;
- i~
;; _15 ;.: I II l! II Ii! ~ l! I ~ I II II ~ l! ~ II
..... - - 1Ii Ii ~ . si iii !'l !'l Ii '" ~ ~
- _=..c: ii II is
"'u
I!: ,; ,;
::;!::;!.. II ! I II l! II l! l! l! l! I ~ II l! II ~
;; ~...... a Ii ~ Ii 1Ii Ii Ii ! i Ii i ~ Ii ~ .; ;:::
-'" - ;;
~8 - ~ - N - -
- '" ,; '" iii
... u
- 8
::;! e!i ~ 1 I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ 1
- !:: g~~ - .; Ii ,; ~ is ri It Ii .; ,; N Ii ~ . ~
:: ~ ;::: ;; - Ie 0 - ;; " - . II
u ......~ .: '" iii N '" .; .; Ii ;! i
I ::;!-
I-
i~~! 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 I. ~ 1 1 0 0 1 ~
;; !l ...~~;.: - I€ iii l! Ii t ~ Ii l!: N Ii " ,; i
. - II - !:: ;;
::m = ,; !! - ,; ,; Ii
i &:;. VI
I-
~ !i .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1
- ~ zc!l!Ei .; Ii i Ii Ii ! ! ~ '" 1:1 .,; i ~ i j ~
.. i~~S - N ~ ~ III o. ~
Cl ,; .; ,; . - ,; 2 !S
... :; '"
- g ......
::;! _lli~~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1
. O~ ::i - Ii Ei N i !/ I> i~ 9 ~ i i Ii N ;; i
- -:&:1- - -
~~ ,; ,; vi 5i
;;; .f5~~ l! II II Ii! l! l! Ii! II I ~ l! II I I ~ 1
c"'!jiS - Ii ,; Ii Ii ~ li J _ .; . lIf ! .; Ii Ii .;
- a:=t;;~ - - - - ;;
N ":.
,;
~::;!lli!il ::;! I ~ 5\ I 1 II n 5\ 1 1 l! 5\ ~ 5\ 1
0; ~ ~ ~
;;; 1I~:C5 '" .; i ;; Ii ! ~ lisi Ii li .,; Ii Ii ;; i ~
- co " - - ~ ~ ;; ::;
.... "g <> .; !!
~ ... 2 ;;
iti>oo
= :!~~~~ ~ 5\ il II g 9 Ii II 8 ~ 8 Ii 5\ ~ - ~ 8
N
- .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; '" .,; '" .,; '" .,; .. .,; .,; ri &i
- -g'"
.....
::;!~
i .
i'!
.... - I ! lJ 1= !!l
'" il 0 ::I il i
a - Ol ! . ii u ~ ::;!
!l :; 5 ;: ~ I ! II t;
i II 0 =. :; ~ i5 I;
;; il . i
;! l:! :; - :II ;; ...
- . -
~
...
~
~
==
lli
~
..
~
51
~
....
!!!
....
c
...
'"
~
,.. ~
c
..
III l:I
... -
~ ~..
:;! ii:S
'" -'"
. VI.=!5
~!~....
::t~a=
-COr.-
2,:&Z
, --
li:i'OA
~CD__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Responsibility for investment in District facilities is allocated to
each customer based upon the customer's projected demand for each indi-
vidual facility and pipeline segment. Allocated investment is summar-
ized in columns 4 through 7 of Table 6-1. Water treatment facilities
are common to all the customers and its investment is allocated to each
customer in proportion to the 1995 District delivery rates. The alloca-
tion of main transmission lines and pumping stations is based upon an
examination of each individual segment of pipeline and the customers
receiving service from it. For example, the section of pipeline from
the water treatment plant to the Abilene cutoff serves all the customers
and is accordingly allocated to every customer based upon the projected
demands. However, the section of pipeline from Sedgwick to Valley
Center will only convey water to be used by Valley Center, Park City,
Bel Aire, Wichita, and Haysville. Therefore, the estimated investment
in this segment of the pipeline is allocated only to the down-line
customers which it serves. Similar analyses are used in the allocation
of city transmission lines and booster pumping stations shown in
column 6.
In order to finance the total estimated project costs of $206,670,000
during the construction period, it is assumed that short-term financing
in the form of one-year notes will be utilized. Such a plan would
result in the lowest cost for interest during construction. Notes will
be issued in amounts sufficient to finance the estimated construction
and interest costs during the year and to refund the one-year notes of
the previous year. Additional funds will be available from interest
earnings on the construction fund balance invested at an estimated rate
of 8 percent. The interest rate on the notes is assumed to be 5 per-
cent. At the end of the construction period, it is anticipated that
approximately $212,670,000 in notes will need to be refunded by a long
term debt issue. This amount includes the $206,670,000 capital outlay
plus approximately $17,160,000 capitalized interest costs less an esti-
mated $11,160,000 in interest earnings on annual construction fund
balances.
I
I
I
In order to refund the outstanding notes, it is estimated that approx-
imately $238,900,000 in revenue bonds will be issued by the District
with equal annual principal and interest payments for a period of 20
years at 9 percent interest. The total annual debt service on the bonds
is approximately $26,171,000. It is assumed that bond proceeds will be
utili~ed to establish a required debt service reserve fund .equal to one
year's principal and interest payment. We have not included any
requirement for annual capital replacements and improvements to be
financed from revenues such that the annual debt service of $26,171,000
represents total annual capital costs. It is assumed that interest
earnings on the debt service reserve fund would provide sufficient
annual revenue for routine annual capital replacements and improvements.
Responsibility for the annual capital costs, shown in column 8, is
assigned to each member customer based upon the total allocated invest-
ment in column 7. .
6-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financing options othet" than use of shot"t-tenn notes and conventional
coupon based bond issues at"e available to the Distt"ict. The options
include such financing techniques as issuing long-tenn debt at the stat"t
of constt"uction ot" utilizing such debt instt"uments as tendet" option
bonds, floating t"ate bonds, odginal issue discounts, and zet"o-coupon
bonds. Each financing altet"native has its primary advantages and dis-
advantages which will need to be explored by the District pdor to
choosing a financing technique most suited to its specific needs. For
example, a reduction in the District's annual capital costs during the
early years of the project might be achieved by the use of zero-coupon
bonds. Zero-coupon bonds carry no cash interest payments but are sold
at a discount from face value which reflects their present worth under a
given interest rate and maturity date. However, the initial lower
annual cost of the zero-coupon bonds t"epresents a delay in interest pay-
ment rather than a cost savings. The delayed interest payments would be
made during the later yeat"s of the project, resulting in higher annual
costs than those from conventional coupon bonds. In order to better
depict the average unit cost of water purchased, we have assumed conven-
tional coupon based issues in our analysis.
Allocated operation and maintenance expenses are shown in columns 9
through 13. Operation and maintenance expenses are allocated to each
customer based upon the customer's annual usage for each individual
facility similar to the analyses discussed fOt" allocating investment.
Total annual allocated expenses by customet" are summat"ized in column 14
and unit costs are pt"esented in column 15. As shown in column 15,
Alternative A results in average costs per 1,000 gallons purchased
t"anging from a low of $0.84 for Abilene to a high of $2.68 for
Haysville. The cost per 1,000 gallons to Wichita is anticipated to be
$1.61. Howevet", not all of this outlay will be an inct"emental cost to
each customer. The effective increase will be moderated by customer
cost savings from reduced local watet" acquisition and treatment costs
which would otherwise be incurred. In addition, the pdce charged by
the District may be less than the marginal cost of water to any
customer; that is, the cost of secut"ing its own additional reliable
sources of treated watet".
2. Alternative B. A similat" analyses for Alternative B is summarized
in Table 6-2. Because of the smaller tt"eatment and transmission facil-
ities, it is estimated that approximately $177,100,000 in revenue bonds
will be required to t"efund approximately $157,650,000 in resulting notes
and establish a debt service reserve. T):le estimated costs pet" 1,000
gallons fot" Alternative B, shown in column 15 of Table 6-2, at"e slightly
higher than the unit costs under Alternative A primarily due to reduced
economies of scale. This alternative, however, allows the customet"s to
use less Distt"ict water than Alternative A.
I
I
I
3, Sensitivity Analysis. A limited sensitivity analysis has been per-
fonned in ordet" to provide the Distdct with some indicatiQn of the
ovet"all impact on the average unit cost of water of variations in some
of the basic estimates and assumptions used herein. The tabulation
below summadzes the results of the analysis fot" each alternative.
6-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
~~
gE!l!
..::l~d
N wCl G-
o > -
:: ;:~~i
~ ~;I!j~
~A.i:i
... .
l!!!;Ill!
Ill.....
...
i
;:
'"
...
III 1!j..J III ~
... -c'"
on i~ClIg:a :;: III l> III ~ ~ II ~ ~ I'! ~ ~ . ~
~ :: ~ ':
-:g" - .. " .. " " "
- 1n",8~
... - ~
... i! !! ~ ~ !! !l i! !l I I !! ~ I ~ ~ I
;: ~~::g - " " ~ ,; 1i Ii ! lli " '" '" Ii Ii 5 ;; '"
" III i<: . ~ II III
- ec(f?l " ~ "!. i 1If
...
...
-'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II !l I !l i! ~ I !l ~ !l !! i Iil
;:; .....~z - '" ;;; 11 ~ Ii i Ii iii ~ Ii !J A If ,; '"
"'g ... . . III ;;
.. ... N
- ... z " '"
f5 -
- i
0
... ~ ...
is ~ 1i~~~ - i II i! !! II I II i ~ !! !l a !! Il i! !l
~ ,; " N ..: " Ii " e .: e '" Ii .: N N ii
- -... I:i
l- i !
!i~!:g 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !l ~
!i
i -'~~;: - ,; '"
- l:CQ ~ - . .
! ;:;. \I)
'-
~ z!!!!1!i 0 l! 0 ~ l! l! !! ~ II ! II !l It II ~ i
2 ...
g i~~~ - ~ ;; ~ i ~ Ii ,; r:: A .. .; .; !!: "
- 5
!5 :: ti
- od~
l! !l Il !! !l II !l !l l! a II I Iil a i! !l
0; - iii II '" ri Ii Ii " ! ..: ! ,; ii '" ! i
-;Ii::! N ~ - -
1:! "
-' !l !l I ~ ~ I a Iil !l It It ~ ~ Il i !l
I~~
;;; -'" - N Ii S ii ! i oj .; i ~ .; ~ ;; Ii 1If &
!1c8 . N ;:: ;; ::
'" N '"
In ...
~ l3
~ -,~j !l !l ~ !l !l U !l .~ !l !l !l !l !l !l !l
... ... ri Ii '" i ri III ~ t 1: ri fi '" ! it "
;:: ~ "'l:l'" - . ~ G; . . . 0 ;:: II !!
:2...J~ .: '" :. .: '" .; .: Ii N i
.
I ~-
I-
'"
~~!i!!i !l !l !l ~ 0 !l !l !l !l !l !l !l 0 0 !l !l
... i =I~s - r.f i Ii ;;; " ~ s ! i ~ " ~ i
. "
- . . ~
N ~ " '" Ii
i u. en
-
zb!!i !l !l !l !l ~ !l !l !l ~ !l !l !l !l !l !l !l
on -"'j- - Ii Ii ; Ii i ! '" ci E " ! .; a- N .; ~
- ~ :: ll! . II Ie l> ;;.
! ~~a.~ .; N " N &i N
-' .
-
-' !i::l !l !l II !l !l II !l ~ !l II !l !l II !l ~ !l
~
- -I!jl!!;: .; N g 1If N '" N ~ ; ~ ; a 18 g ;; ~
... Ot-- - - ;; ;; ;; III ;;
-=~= ~ - ~
- ,; .: ,; = ;;
~~
e;lll~ It i! Iil i Iil l! ! ! II i I ail i l! !l
;:; ~...<:!i5 - i N Ii Ii ,; ,; N '" ,; ;:: '" i .; .; Ii ~
=~~ - " - ~ ~
III ~ ~ II !l 51 Iil II !l !l !l II II 51 !l 51 !l 51 !l
il~5 ': N ~ ~
N ... oj ~ ;; 18 ~ ~ ~ ci Ii A ,; " Ii " Ii ~
.. - . . " :1 ~ 0
... "!!j ~ .; i
::l Go
e;~~
:;~~~a II il . 11 il II il ~ !! ~ ill II " II . 8
= !;I N ~
- .. .. .. .. .. ,; .. .. .. ,; .. .. t Ii
--,iig
~l!l
~ - . ! ~ i
~ III e ~ Ii ~
w ~ - I i " IS i:!-'
'" ~ :; ! N g :! i ~ - .
" " . ~ i !l ::; ~s
" ill . i .
. w il ::; ::l
. . - - L. " . ...
~
E
!
e:
e;
i
!C
~
~
S
'"
!i
~ i
'" Go
t! ~
la ffi
is "''''
~ =!i
. <D-'
<D =~
2~f3....
~:;!~=
-<Dd-
:I"xa
, --
Rio:;;
SC,D__
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Changed Assumption
Increase or (Decrease)
in Average Unit Cost
Alternative A Alternative B
% %
10% Increase in Revenue Bond Issue
10% Bond Interest Rate
8% Bond Interest Rate
25 Year Bond Term
15 Year Bond Term
7.3
6.1
(5.5)
(5.5)
11.0
7.7
5.5
(5.4)
(5.4)
11.1
E. SUMMARY.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We believe the analyses presented and methodology used fairly represent
the costs, in 1983 dollars, that the District would incur in providing
constant rate water service to each member customer under two alterna-
tives. The District has available, at its option, simpler methods of
allocating costs and charging for its service, such as a uniform rate
per 1,000 gallons, or more complex methods, such as the incremental
approach. It is also possible to use an alternative methodology to
determine each customer's proportionate share. The District will need
to address a substantial number of practical and legal considerations
before any charging system or formula could be adopted. In any event,
we believe the results presented herein provide a good indication of the
magnitude of the costs, at current cost levels, of the proposed project
to each customer.
I
I
I
6-8
n__J
I
I
SECTION 7
OTHER PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
I
A. GENERAL
I
The municipal water supply project being considered for Central Kansas
is without precedence in Kansas in terms of scope; planning effort;
impact on area; long-range regional and State water supply plans; inter-
agency cooperation; and costs. Because of the magnitude of the project,
there will be many issues to be considered, evaluated and resolved.
Some of the issues which have been identified are addressed herein. As
the project proceeds there will be additional considerations not
currently identified which will require resolution.
I
I
I
B.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
I
The recent Kansas Legislative sessions resulted in modifications of
State water law in two principal areas that relate to the proposed
project.
I
1. State Reservior Stora~e Plan. The Legislature, at the request of
the State Water Authority, modified the State Water Plan Storsge Act
(SB61) in several areas. Those believed to impact the Central Kansas
water supply project are:
I
I
a. Increased the rates charged for State controlled storage to
provide additional funds to operate the program and to provide funds for
acquisition of new storage.
b. Provided an annual adjustment in the rates charged for water.
I
c. Provided, that on the sixth anniversary of the water purchase
contract and for each anniversary thereafter, to sell to another
customer any contracted storage not being paid for by the original
customer. Thus, an incremental or phased long-range plan of growth
could be burdened with additional raw water storage costs in the early
stages of development.
I
I
d. Provided
contract for the
storage payments
Project.
a maximum of three years after entering into a
user to begin payment. This provision may require
prior to use of the water for the Central Kansas
I
I
e. Provided for a determination (with list of matters to be
considered) whether a proposed contract for sale of water is in the
interest of the people of the State of Kansas and whether the benefits
for approval outweigh the benefits of non-approval.
I
I
I
7-1
I
I
I
2. Transfer of Water. The Legislature, at the request of the Kansas
Water Authority, passed new legislation relating to the transfer of
water. Transfer is defined as the "diversion and transportation of
water in a quantity of 1,000 acre feet or more per year for beneficial
use outside a ten mile radius from the point of diversion. "The
proposed project will come under the provisions of this legislation.
The legislation provided:
I
I
!. A hearing panel made up of administrative officers of three
state agencies.
I
b. A review by the Water Authority.
c.
lature.
Approval or disapproval of the proposed transfer by the Legis-
I
d. An appeal procedure in the Shawnee County District Court for
an aggrieved party.
I
C.
EXISTING WATER RIGHTS.
I
If the concepts presented in this report are implemented, each user will
reduce the annual volume of water used from their current water supply
source(s). The peak rates of diversion will probably also be lowered.
However, the benefits derived from lower diversion rates will accrue to
the user, and others of the area, and include:
I
1.
Replenishment, at an accelerated rate, of the groundwater aquifer.
I
2.
With increased water levels in the aquifer:
I
a. Supply capacity to protect against drought and extreme daily
demands.
I
b. Additional protection against intrusion of groundwaters having
undesirable characteristics.
I
3. An extended period of time to study and implement conservation
measures.
I
However, under current water laws and practices in Kansas, by reason of
using less water from current sources, the user may be subject to a
reduction in the volumes and rates of use stipulated in their water
appropriation permit. These "surplus" waters could then be permitted to
others with the original user losing access to the water. Therefore, it
appears that special conditions of water appropriation will have to be
provided for members of the proposed district.
I
I
I
I
7-2
I
I
D.
USE OF OTHER RESERVOIRS
I
I
The scope of this report is limited to purchasing stored water in
Milford Reservoir. Subsequent phases of the central Kansas water supply
effort may consider other reservoirs. The Kansas City District Office
of the Corps of Engineers has been evaluating the need and feasibility
of reallocating storage capacity in Kanopolis, Wilson and Tuttle Creek
reservoirs in central Kansas. None of these reservoirs currently has
municipal and industrial supply storage. Wilson Reservoir is not con-
sidered an adequate source for municipal use due to poor quality.
Kanopolis Reservoir. will require an increase in the conservation pool
elevation of 25 feet in order to provide a long-term supply.
I
I
The increase in level in Kanopolis Reservoir is necessitated by the
silting rate being experienced in the present pool. At the increased
level it is estimated that Kanopolis Reservoir could produce approxi-
mately 47.2 MGD (at 2 percent drought chance) in the year 2035. The
cost of increasing the operating level at Kanopolis Reservoir is
relatively expensive.
I
I
Reallocation of storage in Tuttle Creek Reservoir could result in an
available M & I supply of approximately 213 MGD in the year 2035.
Preliminary estimates of costs by the Corps of Engineers indicated the
cost of providing water from the Tuttle Creek Reservoir would be very
reasonable. Silting may be a long-term concern for this reservoir.
I
I
I
Further studies of supply sources for Central Kansas may also include
the proposed Corbin Reservoir in south central Kansas and possible use
of more than one reservoir.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
I
The proposed project will be planned, designed and constructed to meet
all appropriate governmental rules and regulations in relation to pro-
tecting the environment. Special emphasis will be placed on minimizing
short-term effects due to construction activities. With exception of
above ground structural facilities such as treatment plants, pumping
stations and storage reservoirs, all areas disturbed during construction
will be returned to original conditions as closely as feasible. For
structural facilities planning and design, efforts will attempt to avoid
environmentally sensitive areas and minimize the intrusion into the
setting in which they are placed. At the water treatment facilities all
process wastewaters will be returned to the plant and all residual
wastes (treatment sludges) will be contained and placed in ultimate
disposal on site.
I
I
I
I
Using the concepts proposed herein, a long-term, beneficial environ-
mental effect will be enhancement of the protection of local groundwater
supplies by prevention of intrusion of groundwater with undeSirable
characteristics.
I
I
I
7-3
I
I
F.
FISCAL PLANNING.
I
I
The cost of financing and managing a project of the scope and magnitude
being considered will greatly influence the cost to the customer. Sound
fiscal planning may have to be supplemented with innovative financial
management. Some of the factors to be considered by the District's
financial advisors are:
I
1. Cost of Money Durin~ Desi~n, Construction, and Start-Up. The
design period and acquisition of right-of-way could require one and
one-half to two years. Overall construction could require two to three
years using multiple simultaneous contracts. As much as another year
could be required to develop the required income for operations and
reserves.
I
I
2. Lon~-Term Financin~. In addition to the resources of the proposed
district, other resources may be required to assure optimum terms and
rates of interest. Possibilities include assurances and guarantees by
the participating customers and the State of Kansas.
I
3. Direct Financin~. The financing plan could include prov1s1ons for
member customers to finance directly those portions of the system
serving them.
I
I
G. LEGAL ACTIVITIES.
I
The continuing process of revamping water laws will require constant
monitoring of legal and legislative activities which may impact the
proposed District. The District's legal advisors may be prepared to:
I
1. Examine the current legislation relating to the formation of a
Wholesale Water Supply District in Kansas to determine if admendments
should be proposed in order to enhance the formation and operation of
the District being proposed.
I
2. Examine the water rights laws, rules and regulations of Kansas to
determine if modifications should be proposed in order to protect exist-
ing water rights for long-range use for the District's customers.
I
3. Examine the Corps of Engineers' policy for pricing municipal and
industrial water storage in existing Federal Reservoirs to determine if
favorable terms could be arranged in event direct Federal purchase
contracts were feasible.
I
I
4. Kanopolis Reservoir. Monitor the status of the proposed irrigation
district and/or the availability of municipal and industrial water
storage in Kanopolis Reservoir.
I
I
I
7-4
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
.
APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MILFORD RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY
Corps .of EnRr's 1 2 Units
Data KDIIE Data
High Low Mean High Low Mean
Temperature 27.1 2.1 14.0 25 2.5 13.4 oc
Conductivity 729 330 531 770 610 726.7 umho
Turbidity 180.0 5.0 31.7 12 1 5.1 TU
Tot. Diss. Solids 495 357 444.7 mg/l
Tot. Alkalinity, CaC03 241 92 188 mg/l
HC03 Alkalinity, CaC03 170 120 138 mg/l
Bicarbonate, HC03 230 180 210.8 mg/l
Carbonate, C03 0 0 0 mg/l
Tot. Hardness, CaCOd 545 130 199 270 200 241. 7 mg/l
Carbo Hardness, CaC 3 207 126 144 mg/l
Non-Carb. Hardness, 79 50 68.4 mg/l
CaC03 8.70 6.80 8.07
pH su
Calcium, CaC03 0.200 0.005 0.147 mg/l
Calcium, dissolved 74 56 67.3 mg/l
Magnesium 21 13 17.8 mg/l
Sodium 61 44 54.8 mg/l
Chloride 51 7 33 57 42 52.5 mg/l
Sulfate 129 29 69 130 92 117.3 mg/l
Iron 1. 876 0.060 0.555 0.06 0.04 0.05 mg/l
Manganese 0.901 0.000 0.100 0 0 0 mg/l
Potassium 11 9.5 10.2 mg/l
Phosphorus 0.450 0.000 0.105 0.11 0.06 0.08 mg/l
Nitrate 0.32 0.07 0.21 mg/l
N02 & N03 - N 1.10 0.12 0.69 mg/l
NO - N 1. 800 0.000 0.231 mg/l
Sid2 5.4 1.6 2.9 mg/l
Fluoride 0.5 0.3 0.4 mg/l
Boron 0.17 0.08 0.12 mg/l
Sodium Absorption Ratio 1.6 1.4 1.5
ISampling points above and below Milford Dam. From data supplied by the
Corps of Engineers. Analysis from March 1969 to August 1981.
2Sampling points below Milford Dam. From data supplied by the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, Study 06857100. Chemical
analysis from July 1974 to September 1975.
A-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
! I
I
PRIMARY TREATED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Constituent
Primary Standard
Maximum
Contaminant Level
General Properties
Turbidity, TU
1 (1)
Inorganic, Minor
Cations
Arsenic, ug/l
Barium, ug/l
Cadmium, ug/l
Chromium, ug/l
Lead, ug/l
Mercury, ug/l
Selenium, ug/l
Silver, ug/l
50
1,000
10
50
50
2
10
50
Inorganic, Anions
Fluoride, mg/l
Nitrate, N, mg/l
1.4
10
Organic
Endrin, ug/l
Lindane, ug/l
Methoxychlor, ug/l
Toxaphene, ug/l
2,4-n, ug/l
2,4,5-TP Silvex,
u~/l
TIIM, ug/l
0.2
4.0
100
5.0
100
10
100
Bacteriological
Total Coliforms
No./100 ml
1
(l)Limit 1 TU as monthly average,S TU for two consecutive days.
B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Con!ltituent
Primary Standard
Maximum
Contaminant Level
Radionuclides
Radium 226 & 228,
pCi/l
Gross Alpha, pCi/l
Gross Beta, m-rem/yr
Tritium, pCi/l
Strontium 90,
pCi/l
5
15
4
20,000
8
SECONDARY TREATED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Constituent
Secondary Standards
USEPA SMCL
General Properties
pH
Total Alkalinity, mg/l
Hardness, mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids
Color, units
Odor, TON
Foaming Agents, mg/l
Corrosivity
6.5-8.5
None
None
500
15
3
0.5
Noncorrosive
Inorganic
Calcium, mg/l
Magnesium, mg/l
Sodium, mg/l
Iron, mg/l
Manganese, mg/l
Copper, ug/l
Zinc, ug/l
Chloride, mg/l
. Sulfate, mg/l
None
None
None
0.3
0.05
1000
5000
250
250
B-2