20190111Suez to Staff 1-20.pdf

Michael C. Creamer (lSB No. 4030)
Preston N. Carter (ISB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 388-1 300
mcc@ givenspursley. com
1 441 2006 _l .doc (30- I 74)
fi[cilvEt)
i{]i9 J,4fi I I PH tr: Srr
lnl ,A--rr)Ll(zlt,itdlss,oh,
Attorneys for SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT
APPLICATION OF SUEZ WATER
IDAHO AND EAGLE WATER
COMPANY FOR THE ACQUISITION
OF EAGLE WATER COMPANY
Case Nos. SUZ-W-I8-02/
EAG-W-18-01
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
RESPONSE TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
COMES NOW SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. ("SUEZ") and in response to the First Production
Request of the Commission Staff to SUEZ Water tdaho Inc. dated December 27,2018, herewith
submits its Responses.
DATED this day of January,2079.
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
B
Michael C. Creamer
Givens Pursley LLP
Attorneys for SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC. RESPONSE TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF - 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 9th day of January,2019, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served on the following in the manner indicated:
Diane M. Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W est Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
IPUC
Brandon Karpen
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Attorneys.for IPUC
Robert DeShazo
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
188 W. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Petitioner
N.L. Bangle
188 W. State Street
Eagle, ID 83616
Petitioner
Stan Ridgeway, Mayor
City of Eagle
660 E. Civil Lane
Eagle,ID 83616
Intervenor City of Eagle
Cherese D. Mclain
MSBT Law, Chtd.
7699 W. Riverside Drive
Boise,Idaho 83714
Attorneys for Intervenor City of Eagle
Norman M. Semanko
Parsons Behle & Latimer
800 West Main Street, Suite 1300
Boise, Idaho 83702
Attorneys for Intervenor Eagle Water
Customer Group
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[X] by Personal Delivery (Original & 7 copies)
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail [e-mail]
diane. hanian@nuc. idaho. gov
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
t I bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail [e-mail]. sov
[x] bv U.S. Mail
t I bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[ ] bv E-Mail
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail [e-mail]
t I bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail sridsewa],@cityofeaele.ore
sbergmann@cityofeasle. org
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[x]by E-Mail cdm(@msbtlaw. com
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail [e-mail]
[e-mail]
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC. RESPONSE TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF - 2
Eagle Water Customer Group
8770 W. Chaparral Road
Eagle, ID 83616
Intervenor Eagle Water Customer Group
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy City Attorney
Boise City Attorney's Office
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, Idaho 83701 -0500
Attorneys for Intervenor, City of Boise
City of Boise City
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701-0500
Intervenor City of Boise
James M. Piotrowski
PIOTROWSKI DURAND, PLLC
P.O. Box 2864
1020 W. Main Street, Suite 440
Boise,ID 83701
Attorneys for Intervenor Citizens Allied for
Int e gri ty and Acc oun tabili ty
Citizens Allied for Integrity and
Accountability
P.O.Box2622
Eagle,Idaho 83616
Intervenor, Citizens Allied for Integrity and
Accountability
Charlene K. Quade
C.K. Quade Law, PLLC
600 E. Riverpark Lane, Suite 215
Boise,ID 83706
Co-Counsel, Citizens Allied for Integrity
and Accountability
[x] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[ ] bv E-Mail
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[X] by E-Mail [e-mail]
[X] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[ ] bv E-Mail
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
t I bV Facsimile
[X]bV E-Mail [e-mail]
lxl bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[ ] bv E-Mail
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
[ ] bV Facsimile
[x] bv E-Mail efi leidaho@charquadelaw. com
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC. RESPONSE TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF - 3
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th Street
Boise, lD 83702
Attorney for Community Action Partnership
Association of ldaho
[ ] bv U.S. Mail
[ ] bV Personal Delivery
t I bV Facsimile
[X] bV E-Mail [e-mail]
Preston N. Carter
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC. RESPONSE TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF - 4
Cumulative
MGD GPM
Supply Analysis
Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S2 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
S3 0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
6.48 1500 S4 2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
12.48 4166.4 S5 6.00
move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Cumulative Cost (in 000's)2,032$ 12,022$ 15,058$ 28,747$ 41,844$
Cumulative MGD - 2.2 4.3 4.3 12.5
Supply Analysis
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 1500 S1 2.16
4.32 1500 S6 2.16
4.32 0 0.00
4.32 0 S7 0.00 56$
7.56 2250 S8 3.24
11.16 2500 S9 3.60
12.60 1000 S10 1.44 6)2,006$ 3,135$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885 LF $15.00 $178,275
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)- LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365 LF $25.00 $234,125
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160 LF $30.00 $94,800
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)- LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730 LF $33.00 $90,090
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020 LF $50.00 $201,000
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615 LF $50.00 $80,750
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550 LF $600.00 $330,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530 LF $675.00 $357,750
11 Tesoro Crossings 100 LF $600.00 $60,000
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300 LF $684.62 $890,006
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 - LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650 LF $70.00 $45,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530 LF $85.00 $45,050
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560 LF $145.00 $2,546,200
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200 LF $165.00 $2,508,000
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200 LF $55.00 $66,000
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440 LF $100.00 $44,000
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34 EA $5,392.00 $183,328
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29 EA $7,088.00 $205,552
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21 EA $2,500.00 $52,500
23 Flushing Station 3 EA $7,500.00 $22,500
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61 EA $2,500.00 $152,500
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24 EA $1,250.00 $30,000
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665 LF $7.00 $151,655
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885 LF $3.50 $41,598
29 Mobilization (5%)1 LS $432,736.40 $432,736
30 Storm Water Management 33,550 LF $1.00 $33,550
31 Subtotal $9,087,465
32 Contingency 5%$454,373
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost $9,541,838
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House $200,000
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)$536,100
36 Design Costs $371,500
37 Total $10,649,438
$12,021,618
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others,
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 500 HP ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 485' TDH, 3000 gpm, 500 hp 1 EA $100,000 $100,000
2 500 hp Motor 1 EA $40,000 $40,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
6 Design 10%$41,800 $41,800
7 Contingency 10%$45,980 $45,980
8 Total $505,780
$570,950
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
500 HP (TO GO WITH ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION)
PROJECT: Optimist Booster and 2 MG Tank ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Optimist Booster Station - 6000 gpm with generator and redundant pump 1 EA $1,300,000.00 $1,300,000
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 Bid for Recent Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
4 Subtotal $4,237,500
5 Design 10%$423,750
6 Contingency 10%$466,125
7 Total $5,127,375$5,788,037
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Island Woods Connection ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: C18M102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)LF $15.00 $0
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)7,700 LF $25.00 $192,500
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)LF $30.00 $0
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)LF $33.00 $0
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)LF $50.00 $0
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)LF $50.00 $0
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 200 LF $600.00 $120,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch LF $675.00 $0
11 Tesoro Crossings LF $600.00 $0
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 20" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,000 LF $850.00 $850,000
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 16" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)7,900 LF $125.00 $987,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)LF $85.00 $0
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)LF $145.00 $0
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)LF $165.00 $0
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main LF $55.00 $0
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"LF $100.00 $0
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)EA $5,392.00 $0
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)EA $7,088.00 $0
22 Connect to Existing Water Main EA $2,500.00 $0
23 Flushing Station EA $7,500.00 $0
24 Leakage Monitoring Station EA $5,000.00 $0
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection EA $2,500.00 $0
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings EA $1,250.00 $0
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)7,700 LF $7.00 $53,900
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)LF $3.50 $0
29 Mobilization (5%), not including well upgrades LS $113,238.80 $0
30 Well Upgrades 2 EA $500,000.00 $1,000,000
31 Storm Water Management 8,700 LF $1.25 $10,875
32 Subtotal $3,214,775
33 Design and Permitting 10%$321,478
34 Contingency 10%$321,478
35 Total Estimated Construction Cost $3,857,730
$4,354,799
ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to
change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by
others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges:
Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: 6 MGD Marden Expansion ESTIMATE CLASS: 3LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST16 MGD Marden Expansion no DAF (From 2015 Facility Plan, cont. and eng. Incl.)1 EA $14,215,500.00 $14,215,500 Marden Expansion Estimate from 2015 Master Facilities Plann, March 19, 2015 Project Memorandum "Marden WTP Expansion Study", Page 5. No DAF Included
2 Lewis/6th Street Main (24")11,770 LF $183.00 $2,153,910 Per Foot cost from Master Plan3Marden / Mobley (2300' of 36")2,300 LF $242.60 $557,980 Per foot cost from Master Plan
4 Total $16,927,390$19,108,484
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 600 HP ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 495' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000
6 Design 10%$56,300 $56,300
7 Contingency 10%$61,930 $61,930
8 Total $681,230
$769,006
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
2 Transfer all Eagle Water Rights to be Alternate Points of Diversion (APODs) from all
Eagle Water wells (estimate of legal and technical costs)1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000 $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000 $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000 $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700 $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105 $105,000
7 State Street Crossing $150,000
8 PRV $200,000
9 Design and Permitting 10%$76,370
10 Contingency 10%$84,007
11 Total $924,077
$1,043,144
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000 $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430 $89,430
10 Total $983,730
$1,110,484
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank and Rehab Well 1 Facility ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Rehab Well 1 (new pump and piping, building)1 EA $826,000.00 $826,000
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
4 Subtotal $3,763,500
5 Design 10%$376,3506Contingency10%$413,985
7 Total $4,553,835
$5,140,597
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit Summary
Rate Analysis
Cost Est.
Number Guide
R1 56$
R2
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2 boosters),
532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle Water
constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k contingency, plus
R3
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters include continuous
reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez website, leak detection,
R4
Meter Replacement with
454$ 438$
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez
website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two repeaters if Eagle
R5
APODS to Eagle Water and
56$
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and SUEZ
rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak demands. These
transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate new water rights to fill its
R6
Map Eagle Water System
27$
the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline replacement planning.
This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving
R7
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R8
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R9
the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water customers with the
benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez system. The benefit is
would also cover the shortage in peak hour redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency
in place, which is why it has been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total
pipeline cost, 1375 gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used
locally in Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
R10
R11 305$ 305$ 305$
R12 28$ 28$ 28$
R13
landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level monitoring in wells,
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were making the
improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control room, servers, database, and
historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a control room or associated amenities
and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water
PROJECT: Add Chlorination at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Chlorination System (tank, pump, containment basin, monitoring)5 EA $10,000.00 $50,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: SCADA System ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 SCADA Controls at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, Yard Booster, Sage Acres Booster 7 EA $35,000.00 $245,000
2 Contingency on Site Controls 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000
3 Subtotal $250,000
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overheads $282,213
5 Control Room, Hardware, Software, Historian (If Eagle Water were to construct it's
own control room)1 EA $250,000.00 $250,000
$532,213
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Meter and Service Replacements ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Meter and Service Replacements 2000 EA $1,500.00 $3,000,000
$3,386,550
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Meter Replacement with AMI ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Average Installed AMI Meter Cost (incl. Sales Tax)2000 EA $215.77 $431,540
2 Meter Setter Work/Repair 2000 EA $86.00 $172,000
3 Sensus RF Radio Unit (incl. Sales Tax)2000 EA $86.24 $172,480
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overhead $876,010
5 Repeaters (Eagle Water currently has no repeaters)2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000
$892,010
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
2 Transfer all Eagle Water Rights to be Alternate Points of Diversion (APODs) from all
Eagle Water wells (estimate of legal and technical costs)1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Mapping and Hydraulic Model ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Create map of Eagle Water System (GPS key points, create asset register in GIS),
import GIS mapping into hydraulic model and calibrate. Estimate of labor hours.1 LS $24,000.00 $24,000
$27,092
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Cost
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000 $85,000 -$
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000 $35,000 -$
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 -$
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700 $158,700 -$
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 -$
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105 $105,000 50,000$
7 State Street Crossing $150,000 150,000$
8 PRV $200,000 200,000$
9 Design and Permitting 10%$76,370 25,000$
10 Contingency 10%$84,007 42,500$
11 Total $924,077 467,500$
$1,043,144 527,737$
Calculate Eagle Water
Company Benefit
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%;
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000 -$
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000 -$
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000 -$
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000 -$
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 -$
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 50,000$
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 200,000$
8 Design 0.1 $81,300 $81,300 25,000$
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430 $89,430 27,500$
10 Total $983,730 302,500$
$1,110,484 341,477$
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Calculate Eagle
Water
Company
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline ESTIMATE CLASS: 3LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885 LF $15.00 $178,275
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)- LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365 LF $25.00 $234,125
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160 LF $30.00 $94,800
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)- LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730 LF $33.00 $90,090
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020 LF $50.00 $201,000
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615 LF $50.00 $80,750
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550 LF $600.00 $330,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530 LF $675.00 $357,750
11 Tesoro Crossings 100 LF $600.00 $60,000
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300 LF $684.62 $890,006
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 - LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650 LF $70.00 $45,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530 LF $85.00 $45,050
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560 LF $145.00 $2,546,200
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200 LF $165.00 $2,508,000
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200 LF $55.00 $66,000
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440 LF $100.00 $44,000
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34 EA $5,392.00 $183,328
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29 EA $7,088.00 $205,552
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21 EA $2,500.00 $52,500
23 Flushing Station 3 EA $7,500.00 $22,500
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61 EA $2,500.00 $152,500
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24 EA $1,250.00 $30,000
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665 LF $7.00 $151,655
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885 LF $3.50 $41,598
29 Mobilization (5%)1 LS $432,736.40 $432,736
30 Storm Water Management 33,550 LF $1.00 $33,550
31 Subtotal $9,087,465
32 Contingency 5%$454,373
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost $9,541,838
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House $200,000
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)$536,100
36 Design Costs $371,500
37 Total $10,649,438
$12,021,618 $2,132,868
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others,
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Calculate Eagle
Water Company
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
2 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
3 Subtotal $2,937,500
4 Design 10%$293,750
5 Contingency 10%$323,125
6 Total $3,554,375$4,012,356
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: ROLL-UP PROJECTS ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Pipeline Replacements 1 LS $270,000.00 $270,000
2 Subtotal Pipeline Replacements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $304,789.50 $304,790
3 Safety and Security Improvements 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
4 Subtotal Safety and Security Improvements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $28,221.25 $28,221
5 Production Roll-Up Work 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
6 Production Roll-Up Work with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $112,885.00 $112,885
ROLL-UP PROJECTS (CALCULATED PER YEAR)
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Cumulative
MGD GPM Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S2 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
S3 0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
6.48 1500 S4 2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
12.48 4166.4 S5 6.00
move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
Enlargement (11,770' of 24" Pipe)2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S6 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump/higher TDH 769$
4.32 0 0.00 EWC Acquisition Price 10,000$
4.32 0 S7 0.00 56$
12.60 1000 S10 1.44 6)2,006$ 3,135$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)-
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)-
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530
11 Tesoro Crossings 100
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 -
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21
23 Flushing Station 3
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885
29 Mobilization (5%)1
30 Storm Water Management 33,550
31 Subtotal
32 Contingency
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)
36 Design Costs
REDWOOD CREEK PIPELINE
37 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, mat
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically c
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; C
Grand Total with Loc
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LF $15.00 $178,275
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $234,125
LF $30.00 $94,800
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $90,090
LF $50.00 $201,000
LF $50.00 $80,750
LF $600.00 $330,000
LF $675.00 $357,750
LF $600.00 $60,000
LF $684.62 $890,006
LF $788.68 $0
LF $70.00 $45,500
LF $85.00 $45,050
LF $145.00 $2,546,200
LF $165.00 $2,508,000
LF $55.00 $66,000
LF $100.00 $44,000
EA $5,392.00 $183,328
EA $7,088.00 $205,552
EA $2,500.00 $52,500
EA $7,500.00 $22,500
EA $5,000.00 $10,000
EA $2,500.00 $152,500
EA $1,250.00 $30,000
LF $7.00 $151,655
LF $3.50 $41,598
LS $432,736.40 $432,736
LF $1.00 $33,550
$9,087,465
5%$454,373
$9,541,838
$200,000
$536,100
$371,500

$10,649,438
$12,021,618
e project location. This estimate is subject to change
terials, equipment, and services provided by others,
considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
al and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 500 HP EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 485' TDH, 3000 gpm, 500 hp 1 EA $100,000
2 500 hp Motor 1 EA $40,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $200,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 Design 10%$41,800
7 Contingency 10%$45,980
8 Total
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
500 HP (TO GO WITH ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION)
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$100,000
$40,000
$58,000
$200,000
$20,000
$41,800
$45,980
$505,780
$570,950
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: Optimist Booster and 2 MG Tank
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Optimist Booster Station - 6000 gpm with generator and redundant pump 1
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
4 Subtotal
5 Design
6 Contingency
7 Total
OPTIMIST BOOSTER AND 2 MG TANK
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $1,300,000.00 $1,300,000
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 Bid for Recent Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/ga
LF $105.00 $157,500
$4,237,500
10%$423,750
10%$466,125
$5,127,375
$5,788,037

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
allon, 1 MG tank
PROJECT: Island Woods Connection
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18M102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)7,700
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 200
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch
11 Tesoro Crossings
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 20" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,000
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11
14 Water Main Pipe - 16" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)7,900
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)
22 Connect to Existing Water Main
23 Flushing Station
24 Leakage Monitoring Station
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)7,700
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)
29 Mobilization (5%), not including well upgrades
30 Well Upgrades 2
31 Storm Water Management 8,700
32 Subtotal
33 Design and Permitting
34 Contingency
35 Total Estimated Construction Cost
ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION
Grand Total with Local
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at th
change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typic
Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%;
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LF $15.00 $0
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $192,500
LF $30.00 $0
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $0
LF $50.00 $0
LF $50.00 $0
LF $600.00 $120,000
LF $675.00 $0
LF $600.00 $0
LF $850.00 $850,000
LF $788.68 $0
LF $125.00 $987,500
LF $85.00 $0
LF $145.00 $0
LF $165.00 $0
LF $55.00 $0
LF $100.00 $0
EA $5,392.00 $0
EA $7,088.00 $0
EA $2,500.00 $0
EA $7,500.00 $0
EA $5,000.00 $0
EA $2,500.00 $0
EA $1,250.00 $0
LF $7.00 $53,900
LF $3.50 $0
LS $113,238.80 $0
EA $500,000.00 $1,000,000
LF $1.25 $10,875
$3,214,775
10%$321,478
10%$321,478
$3,857,730
$4,354,799

and Corporate Overheads
he project location. This estimate is subject to
materials, equipment, and services provided by
cally considered accurate in the following ranges:
; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: 6 MGD Marden Expansion
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION
1 6 MGD Marden Expansion no DAF (From 2015 Facility Plan, cont. and eng. Incl.)
2 Lewis/6th Street Main (24")
3 Marden / Mobley (2300' of 36")
4 Total
6 MGD MARDEN WTP EXPANSIO
Grand
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at t
project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equ
determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3%
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 EA $14,215,500.00 $14,215,500 Marden Expansion Est
11,770 LF $183.00 $2,153,910 Per Foot cost from Ma
2,300 LF $242.60 $557,980 Per foot cost from Ma
$16,927,390
$19,108,484
ON
Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the
ipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%;
to + 15%.
timate from 2015 Master Facilities Plann, March 19, 2015 Project Memorandum "Marden WTP Expansion Stud
aster Plan
aster Plan
dy", Page 5. No DAF Included
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 600 HP EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 495' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Design 10%$56,300
7 Contingency 10%$61,930
8 Total
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
600 HP (TO GO WITH EWC ACQUISITION OPTION)
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$125,000
$55,000
$58,000
$300,000
$25,000
$56,300
$61,930
$681,230
$769,006

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: Water Rights
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1
2 1
Water Rights
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105
7 State Street Crossing
8 PRV
9 Design and Permitting 10%
10 Contingency 10%
11 Total
NEW WELL 8 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$85,000
$35,000
$10,000
$158,700
$20,000
$105,000
$150,000
$200,000
$76,370
$84,007
$924,077
$1,043,144

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430
10 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$125,000
$55,000
$58,000
$300,000
$25,000
$50,000
$200,000
$81,300
$89,430
$983,730
$1,110,484
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: 2 MG Tank and Rehab Well 1 Facility
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Rehab Well 1 (new pump and piping, building)1
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
4 Subtotal
5 Design
6 Contingency
7 Total
2 MG TANK AND REHAB WELL 1 FACILITY
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $826,000.00 $826,000
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.3
LF $105.00 $157,500
$3,763,500
10%$376,350
10%$413,985
$4,553,835
$5,140,597

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
9/gallon, 1 MG tank
Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit SummaryRate Analysis
Cost Est.
Number Guide
R1 56$
R2
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2 boosters),
532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle Water
constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k contingency, plus
R3
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters include continuous
reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez website, leak detection,
R4
Meter Replacement with
454$ 438$
Half of EWC meters - Install AMI meters in existing meter boxes. The benefits of AMI meters
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez
website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two repeaters if Eagle
R5
APODS to Eagle Water and
56$
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and SUEZ
rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak demands. These
transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate new water rights to fill its
R6
Map Eagle Water System
27$
the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline replacement planning.
This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving
R7
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R8
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R9
the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water customers with the
benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez system. The benefit is
would also cover the shortage in peak hour redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency
in place, which is why it has been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total
pipeline cost, 1375 gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used
locally in Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
R10
R11 305$ 305$ 305$
R12 28$ 28$ 28$
R13
landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level monitoring in wells,
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were making the
improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control room, servers, database, and
historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a control room or associated amenities
and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water
portion of the costs does not have any overheads included.
PROJECT: Add Chlorination at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Chlorination System (tank, pump, containment basin, monitoring)5
ADD CHLORINATION AT WELLS 2, 4, 6, 7, 8
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $10,000.00 $50,000
$56,443

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: SCADA System
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 SCADA Controls at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, Yard Booster, Sage Acres Booster 7
2 Contingency on Site Controls 1
3 Subtotal
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overheads
5 own control room)1
SCADA SYSTEM

This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $35,000.00 $245,000
EA $5,000.00 $5,000
$250,000
$282,213
EA $250,000.00 $250,000
$532,213

Grand Total
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Meter and Service Replacements
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Meter and Service Replacements 2000
METER AND SERVICE REPLACEMENTS
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $1,500.00 $3,000,000
$3,386,550

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Meter Replacement with AMI
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Average Installed AMI Meter Cost (incl. Sales Tax)2000
2 Meter Setter Work/Repair 2000
3 Sensus RF Radio Unit (incl. Sales Tax)2000
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overhead
5 Repeaters (Eagle Water currently has no repeaters)2
METER REPLACEMENT WITH AMI

This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $215.77 $431,540
EA $86.00 $172,000
EA $86.24 $172,480
$876,010
EA $8,000.00 $16,000
$892,010

Grand Total
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1
2 1
Water Rights
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Mapping and Hydraulic Model
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Create map of Eagle Water System (GPS key points, create asset register in GIS),
import GIS mapping into hydraulic model and calibrate. Estimate of labor hours.1
Mapping and Hydraulic Model
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LS $24,000.00 $24,000
$27,092

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105
7 State Street Crossing
8 PRV
9 Design and Permitting 10%
10 Contingency 10%
11 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 8 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018BY: CEC
COST Cost
$85,000 -$
$35,000 -$
$10,000 -$
$158,700 -$
$20,000 -$
$105,000 50,000$
$150,000 150,000$
$200,000 200,000$
$76,370 25,000$
$84,007 42,500$
$924,077 467,500$
$1,043,144 527,737$
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

Calculate Eagle Water
Company Benefit
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430
10 Total
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST COST
$125,000 -$
$55,000 -$
$58,000 -$
$300,000 -$
$25,000 -$
$50,000 50,000$
$200,000 200,000$
$81,300 25,000$
$89,430 27,500$
$983,730 302,500$
$1,110,484 341,477$

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

Calculate Eagle
Water
Company
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)-
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)-
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530
11 Tesoro Crossings 100
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 -
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21
23 Flushing Station 3
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885
29 Mobilization (5%)1
30 Storm Water Management 33,550
31 Subtotal
32 Contingency
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)
36 Design Costs
REDWOOD CREEK PIPELINE
37 Total
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, mat
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically c
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; C
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
LF $15.00 $178,275
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $234,125
LF $30.00 $94,800
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $90,090
LF $50.00 $201,000
LF $50.00 $80,750
LF $600.00 $330,000
LF $675.00 $357,750
LF $600.00 $60,000
LF $684.62 $890,006
LF $788.68 $0
LF $70.00 $45,500
LF $85.00 $45,050
LF $145.00 $2,546,200
LF $165.00 $2,508,000
LF $55.00 $66,000
LF $100.00 $44,000
EA $5,392.00 $183,328
EA $7,088.00 $205,552
EA $2,500.00 $52,500
EA $7,500.00 $22,500
EA $5,000.00 $10,000
EA $2,500.00 $152,500
EA $1,250.00 $30,000
LF $7.00 $151,655
LF $3.50 $41,598
LS $432,736.40 $432,736
LF $1.00 $33,550
$9,087,465
5%$454,373
$9,541,838
$200,000
$536,100
$371,500

Calculate Eagle
Water Company
$10,649,438
$12,021,618 $2,132,868 al and Corporate Overheads
e project location. This estimate is subject to change
terials, equipment, and services provided by others,
considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
2 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
3 Subtotal
4 Design
5 Contingency
6 Total
2 MG TANK
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.3
LF $105.00 $157,500
$2,937,500
10%$293,750
10%$323,125
$3,554,375
$4,012,356

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
9/gallon, 1 MG tank
PROJECT: ROLL-UP PROJECTS
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Pipeline Replacements 1
2 Subtotal Pipeline Replacements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
3 Safety and Security Improvements 1
4 Subtotal Safety and Security Improvements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
5 Production Roll-Up Work 1
6 Production Roll-Up Work with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
ROLL-UP PROJECTS (CALCULATED PER YEAR)
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LS $270,000.00 $270,000
LS $304,789.50 $304,790
LS $25,000.00 $25,000
LS $28,221.25 $28,221
LS $100,000.00 $100,000
LS $112,885.00 $112,885

ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: Please provide all tables and exhibits included in
all testimonies in electronic format with all formulas intact. Please also provide all associated
workpapers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1:
The tables included in SUEZ testimony are produced to Staff on compact disc with
formulas intact.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2: Please identify and describe the escalation and/or
change in state and federal regulations mentioned on page 3 of Thompson testimony for the
years 2010 to present. Identify each agency or department requiring the regulation, and specify
whether each escalation/change in regulation is local, state, or federal in nature.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2:
The original intent of this referenced section from the Thompson testimony was to reflect
increased regulatory obligations that utilities such as SUEZ and the Eagle Water Company will
face in coming years. This includes, but is not limited to steps taken by the US Congress in 2018
regarding updates to portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act in America’s Water Infrastructure
Act of 2018, which was signed into law Oct. 23, 2018 by President Trump.
Rule making has yet to establish formal guidelines on this legislation. However, it is clear
that the recent legislative changes add to drinking water utility obligations in the following areas:
• stronger requirements for notification of contaminant spills to downstream water utilities
• encouragement to implement asset management practices
• codification that provision of Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) by electronic means are acceptable.
• Required publication of CCRs twice annually for systems of significant size.
• Revision of the format and content of CCRs
• Utilities must now show that they are updating security and resiliency provisions for their
facilities
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 2 OF 3
Regarding lead and copper in drinking water, USEPA has indicated that a revised Lead
and Copper Rule will be proposed in 2019. The Revised Lead and Copper Rule is expected to
include new requirements for utilities to maintain inventories of distribution system materials,
select targeted sampling pools, and conduct public education. Existing state administration of
the current EPA rule set requires all drinking water utilities state-wide to sample for a growing
list of possible contaminants. The EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) is
in its 4th generation. A clear connection is being drawn between that rule and a recently revised
list of EPA Health Advisory Limits for common groundwater contaminants. EPA is also
proceeding with proposed regulations for some of the currently unregulated contaminants that
were included in previous rounds of the UCMR, such as perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS)
and 1,4-dioxane. Due to the relatively long timeline of USEPA rulemaking, State administrators
are under increasing pressure from the community to promulgate their own drinking water
regulations in advance of the federal initiatives. Regardless of system size, drinking water
utilities will be well served to plan ahead for increasingly stringent regulation of trace
contaminants.
Since 2010, changes have also been seen in utility account and tax regulation. In January
2018, the Idaho Public Utility Commission directed in its Order in PUC Case No. GNR-U-18-01
(“Generic Tax Order”) a series of requirements for utilities under its jurisdiction related to the
impacts of modifications to the Internal Revenue Tax Code by the implementation of The Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”).
TCJA reduced corporate income tax rates, which reduced current & deferred income tax
expense, accumulated deferred income tax and eliminated the exemption for water and sewer
utilities from recognizing CIAC as taxable income. SUEZ is currently in compliance with the
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 3 OF 3
directives and requirements set forth in that order. The Company is not aware of any filing by
Eagle Water Company in response to this same order. It is not known what accounting or
procedural hurdles Eagle Water may need to overcome to come into compliance with this
directive.
Regardless of recent changes or new regulations on the horizon, SUEZ notes that Eagle
Water Company has had difficulty meeting certain current regulatory obligations.These
deficiencies can be found in the Company’s response to Staff’s production requests No. 9, No.
10, and No. 18. Excerpts from these responses will be summarized again here.
• As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the current Eagle Water system does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.07).
• The company’s response to request number 10 details several unaddressed material deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include leaks and structural issues with Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II licensure for the system’s lead operator.
• In response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a significant water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3: In reference to page 8 of Thompson testimony,
please demonstrate how the Eagle Water system has “suffered from less than optimal capital
investment” including deficiency reports from regulatory agencies, outage locations and
durations, and complaints of inadequate service from Eagle Water customers. Please also
provide the number of Eagle Water customers that have requested service from SUEZ Water
Idaho due to the condition of the Eagle Water system.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3:
A review of Eagle Water Company’s history of owner investment in the system versus its
accumulated depreciation demonstrates a non-optimal capital investment strategy over many
years. The calculated negative rate base of $1,208,792 as of December 2017 indicates that the
long-term capital investment needs of the system are not being met under current conditions.
Further, the Eagle Water system’s reliance on emergency surcharges, most recently from
2009 through 2016, shows how stressful reactive repairs have been for this water system.
Responding to urgent repairs is part of utility operations, but it should not become an immediate
funding need to customers.
A list of existing Eagle Water system deficiencies can be found in the Company’s
response to production requests No. 9, No. 10, and No. 18. Excerpts from these responses are
summarized here.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3 - PAGE 2 OF 2
• As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the current Eagle Water system
does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.07).
• The company’s response to request number 10 details several unaddressed material
deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include leaks and structural issues with the Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II licensure for the system’s lead operator.
• Finally, in response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a significant
water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).
In the Company’s due diligence efforts, no evidence was found indicating Eagle Water
maintains records of customer outages or complaints.
Since announcing its intentions to acquire Eagle Water Company assets, SUEZ received
and tracked numerous calls from current Eagle Water customers requesting information on the
PUC filing. We have not received any specific “requests for service from SUEZ Water Idaho due
to the condition of the Eagle Water system.” However, the call outlined below from January 4,
2019 highlights the perspective of one current Eagle Water customer who is optimistic for
improved water service.
Call Summary – January 4, 2019
A SUEZ employee spoke with a longtime Eagle resident and Eagle Water Company
customer who expressed his relief that SUEZ is seeking to purchase his water provider.
He has experienced many water service disruptions, including an outage that lasted 7 days. Eagle Water Company brought in potable water for his neighborhood, but it was still a hardship for his family.
This customer also complained of poor water pressure with Eagle Water, and mentioned
automated watering of his lawn is a challenge.
“Do I want my rates to go up? No, but I’m willing to take the risk with the sale that I’ll have better service,” he said.
He expressed support for the sale, believes SUEZ provides dependable service, and he wants that reliability for his community.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila M. Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5: Please provide all financial analyses prepared by
or for SUEZ Water Idaho for estimating the value of Eagle Water’s system. If not clearly
labeled in the workpapers, please provide assumptions on the cost of capital and annual (or
quarterly, if applicable) expected revenue and costs, including book depreciation, tax
depreciation, income taxes, deferred taxes, property taxes, and other items typically included in a
discounted cash flow analysis.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5:
The Company did not determine the Eagle Water purchase price through a discounted
cash flow analysis because that valuation is highly dependent on regulatory treatment
assumptions. The negotiated purchase price and estimated value of the Eagle Water system to
SUEZ was substantiated by the avoided capital investment as outlined in Ms. Cooper’s testimony
starting on page 5. Including the $10M Eagle Water purchase acquisition price, SUEZ estimates
that $11.7M of additional planned capital investment would be avoided or deferred, while
addressing the supply needs in the northwest area of the SUEZ system sooner. In that respect,
the value of the Eagle Water system acquisition to SUEZ could be valued at as much as $21.7M.
Other factors in the valuation consideration included the City of Eagle’s 2007 attempt to
purchase Eagle Water at a proposed $6.3M price plus $900,000 in financing cost, for an
estimated total cost of $7.2M. At that time, Cooper Norman Certified Public Accountants firm
expressed an opinion that the proposed purchase price and financing cost “was reasonable and
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5 - PAGE 2 OF 2
fair” to the City of Eagle. Published on its website, the City of Eagle also provided information
regarding the proposed Eagle Water company purchase, which included reference to a 2002
valuation performed by JUB Engineers that estimated the value of Eagle Water company assets
at that time, based on the replacement cost depreciation method, to be $6,728,593.
The SUEZ acquisition price of the South County Water Company system in 1998 was
$761 per customer, not adjusted for inflation, as referenced in case UWI-W-98-2 Linam
testimony pages 6-8. In SUEZ’s 2015 general rate case no. UWI-W-15-01, SUEZ’s system
investment was approximately $1,924 per customer at that time. SUEZ’s $10M Eagle Water
proposed purchase price represents an approximate investment per customer of $2,380. In
comparison, recent SUEZ small system acquisitions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas
averaged between $3,000 and $5,000 investment per customer.
Exhibit 1 Schedule 1a - Eagle Water Company projected capital and operating costs
absent an acquisition, includes SUEZ assumptions for cost of capital, a 3% depreciation rate, and
operating and maintenance costs based on Eagle Water’s 2017 Commission annual report,
excluding any inflationary factors. The Company expects that with the acquisition of Eagle
Water, SUEZ’s costs to maintain and operate the Eagle Water system would be $54,603 lower
versus Eagle Water’s 2017 reported expenses, as outlined in Cary testimony pages 7-8.

C:\NRPortbl\GPDMS\S274\14489379_1.xlsx Page 1
Eagle Water Company Proposed Rate Phase In
50%75%100%
100 cubic feet or CCF
Summer Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.8577$
Winter Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.4674$
Per 3CCF Per 1 CCF Rate for first 3 CCF (winter & summer)change over 2017 EWC actual revenue 233%
600CF or less 7.84$ 3.92$ 1.307$ 1.4674$ change over existing EWC rates 235%
Over 600 CF per 100 CF 0.4510$
Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)507,937$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Grand Total Impact 1,768,304$ GRAND TOTAL Percentage
Residential Customer 3/4" Meter
Over 6CCF 3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 270,588$ Annual Increase 394,644$ Annual Increase 394,644$
Monthly Increase 6.44$ Monthly Increase 9.40$ Monthly Increase 9.40$
Winter/Summer Consumption 30%70%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
3/4" Meter - Monthly 7.84$ Total basic service charges impact (107,625)$ 110,828$ 10.56$ 110,828$ 114,030$ 167,640$ 9.48%
CCF allowed 6 Consumption increase 378,213$ 283,816$ 0 283,816$ 945,845$ 1,600,664$ 90.52%
Customers 3,500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated
16 7.84$ 1.35$ 3.16$ 12.35$ 518,700$ 5.28$ 3.52$ 9.99$ 18.79$ 52%789,288$ 7.92$ 5.28$ 14.99$ 28.19$ 50%1,183,932$ 10.56$ 7.04$ 19.99$ 37.59$ 33%1,578,575$ 204.33%1,578,575$
Commercial Customer 1-1/2" Meter
3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 237,349$ Annual Increase 235,540$ Annual Increase 235,540$
Monthly Increase 39.56$ Monthly Increase 39.26$ Monthly Increase 39.26$
Winter/Summer Consumption 15%85%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
1-1/2" Meter - Monthly 14.15$ Total basic service charges impact (15,645)$ 34,628$ 23.09$ 34,628$ 53,610$
CCF allowed 20 Consumption increase 252,994$ 200,912$ 200,912$ 654,818$
Customers 500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
75 14.15$ 3.72$ 21.08$ 38.96$ 233,730$ 11.54$ 8.25$ 58.72$ 78.51$ 102%471,079$ 17.31$ 12.38$ 88.07$ 117.77$ 50%706,619$ 23.09$ 16.51$ 117.43$ 157.03$ 33%942,158$ 303.10%942,158$
Eagle Water Company Rates
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 1 OF 6
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4: Please quantify the monetary value of each item
included in the list of “Identifiable synergies and efficiencies” listed on pages 8-11 of Thompson
testimony. Please identify whether the benefit is to current Eagle Water customers or current
SUEZ Water Idaho customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4:
1) Eagle Water customers would benefit from lower operating expenses and increased capital investment.
Ms. Cary’s testimony starting on page 7 discusses the minimum $54,603
projected operating expense decrease anticipated under SUEZ operation versus
Eagle Water’s 2017 reported operating and maintenance costs of $611,863. The
savings anticipated are the result of eliminating office space rental at a cost
savings of $10,450 per year, by using SUEZ’s existing company offices. A
$44,153 reduction in salary and benefit costs is anticipated by SUEZ operating the
Eagle Water system with the addition of three employees – a meter reader,
operator and customer service representative versus Eagle Water’s existing
owner’s salary, staffing levels and benefit costs.
2) 24-hour automated system monitoring
SUEZ recommends that the Eagle Water system be monitored around-the-clock
through supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and operated
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 2 OF 6
by two licensed, qualified operators. Ms. Cary’s testimony on page 6 discusses
the projected operating costs for the Eagle Water system to add a dedicated
SCADA operator at an estimated cost of $60,000 in payroll expense, plus benefit
costs. Ms. Cooper’s testimony starting on page 10 discusses the anticipated
$532,000 cost for adding SCADA controls at each Eagle Water facility. $250,000
of this capital investment includes a SCADA control room, database, historian,
radio path survey etc. which Eagle Water would need that SUEZ already has in
place.
3) Numerous field personnel trained and certified in water distribution, water
treatment, and cross connection control that are able to respond quickly to any issues;
In the company’s response to production request No. 10, several unaddressed
material deficiencies from the Eagle Water system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary
survey were detailed. Notably, this included a lack of appropriate state drinking
water licensure for that system’s lead operator (IBOL Drinking Water
Distribution Class II).

As a fully licensed system in both water distribution and treatment, SUEZ can
provide a fully licensed workforce where every utility worker and operator holds
required Class II licensure as a condition of employment. These employees staff
fully equipped repair and maintenance teams with materials on-hand from local
inventory and guaranteed stock contracts with local vendors. SUEZ’s field
personnel are available 24 hours per day for critical event response and issue
correction.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 3 OF 6
4) Web site access for customers and electronic billing and payment options;
The estimated average cost of designing, developing, and launching a website can
range from $5,000 for a basic website to $100,000 or more depending on features
for secure payment and integration of metering system data. SUEZ’s estimate for
Eagle Water to develop a customer website with a similar level of customer
service and information functionality and features as MySUEZWater.com is
approximately $50,000, with additional on-going hosting and maintenance
expenses. SUEZ’s incremental cost to incorporate Eagle Water’s 4,000 estimated
customers into its online platform is estimated to be minimal.

5) Capital Funding Access
SUEZ’s available capital budgets are substantial, as documented in Responses 12
and 13. In addition, SUEZ tracks assets and capital spending in accordance with
regulated utility guidelines and does not use surcharges as a regular means of
funding needed capital improvements.

6) Economies of Scale: National Contracts for Materials and Services.
SUEZ uses national and global buying power to negotiate favorable terms on
items that can be purchased from service providers and manufacturers. These
contracts would be used in all aspects of SUEZ’s transition and maintenance of
the Eagle Water system. For items used in direct operation of the system, Suez
has contracts with manufacturers for meters, pipe, valves, hydrants, and lab
testing/sampling equipment. The lab testing equipment contract provides
discounts of 17% to 20% off list price. Our experience has shown that the
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 4 OF 6
contracts for meters, pipe, valves, and hydrants are typically 30% to 50% lower
than prices that a distributor provides to smaller water systems.
Suez has negotiated contracts for support services not directly used in the
operation of the water system. Examples of these contracts include fleet, telecom
services, uniforms, PPE products, and office supplies. Discounts will vary by
item and service type. For example, telecom contracts provide a 19% to 21%
discount of service and equipment.

7) Water conservation programs and no-cost conservation devices
SUEZ’s comprehensive conservation program, approved by the Commission,
includes customer education and outreach, xeriscape demonstration gardens,
conservation devices including hose timers, sprinkler irrigation rain sensors,
commercial kitchen sprayers, hose timers, etc. The cost in 2009 of designing and
implementing the conservation plan was $192k.

It is the Company’s position that a lack of ongoing capital investment in the Eagle
Water System has provided a false impression of affordability to its current
customers. When compared to usage patterns from adjacent SUEZ customers,
Eagle Water customers use 150% the average annual volume per customer on
record for SUEZ customers in the same period (2017). If Eagle Water residential
customers were to conserve water to a similar level as the average SUEZ’s
residential customer they could reduce usage, and associated volume billing
charges, by up to 66%.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 5 OF 6
8) The ability to maintain the water system in regulatory compliance;
SUEZ has noted elsewhere in our response to these request that Eagle Water has
had difficulty meeting its current regulatory obligations. Notably, these
deficiencies can be found in the Company’s response to production requests No.
9, No. 10, and No. 11. Excerpts from these responses will be summarized again
here.

As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the Eagle Water system
does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity
(IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA
58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section
501.07).

The company’s response to request No. 10 details several unaddressed material
deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include
leaks and structural issues with Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II
licensure for the system’s lead operator.

Finally, in response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a
significant water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right
shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).

In conjunction with SUEZ’s standards for system maintenance, sampling, and
operation, the capital investment plan offered in our testimony would bring Eagle
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 6 OF 6
Water Company assets up to utility and regulatory standards enjoyed by its
neighboring utilities. Further, the reasonable and stable rate structure proposed by
SUEZ would ensures these investments are maintained in the future to the benefit
customers.

9) The ability to spread costs of Eagle area capital improvements over a large customer base and avoidance of future surcharges.
SUEZ tracks all assets and capital investments in accordance with typical
regulated utility practices and does not regularly use surcharges as a means to
fund needed capital improvements. One benefit of a large water system that
Eagle Water customers would gain by joining SUEZ is that required costs are
spread over a large number of customers. The Redwood Creek Pipeline project is
a good example of this opportunity (addressed in Production Response No. 9).
SUEZ customers need the Redwood Creek Pipeline to transmit additional supply
to SUEZ’ Hidden Hollow Tank. Simple pressure reducing connections from this
pipeline into the Eagle Water system will remedy their IDEQ pumping shortfall
deficiencies.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6: SUEZ Water Idaho proposes a three year rate
phase-in for Eagle Water customers after the acquisition (Cary testimony page 12, lines 6-15).
Please break down the portion of the increase that will be recovered through basic service
charges and the portion recovered through consumption rates. Please explain the method and
rationale used and provide all supporting workpapers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6:
The proposed three-year rate phase-in for Eagle Water customers would align rates into
the existing SUEZ tariff rate structure, at an anticipated impact of $1,768,304 to create
uniformity among rate payers.
Exhibit 2 to the testimony calculates the $1,768,304 impact of the rate phase-in assuming
3,500 Residential customers with an average monthly consumption of 16ccfs with 70%
summertime consumption and 500 Commercial Customers with a 2” meter and 75ccfs of
monthly consumption and 85% summertime consumption.
Using the same assumption as outlined above, the portion of the $1,768,304 increase
expected to be recovered through basic service charges is $167,640 or 9.48%, while the portion
expected to be recovered through consumption rates is $1,600,664 or 90.52%. These figures are
calculated in the attached workpaper Response #6 Break down of increase.xlsx which is a
condensed version of Exhibit 2.

C:\NRPortbl\GPDMS\S274\14489379_1.xlsx Page 1
Eagle Water Company Proposed Rate Phase In
50%75%100%
100 cubic feet or CCF
Summer Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.8577$
Winter Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.4674$
Per 3CCF Per 1 CCF Rate for first 3 CCF (winter & summer)change over 2017 EWC actual revenue 233%
600CF or less 7.84$ 3.92$ 1.307$ 1.4674$ change over existing EWC rates 235%
Over 600 CF per 100 CF 0.4510$
Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)507,937$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Grand Total Impact 1,768,304$ GRAND TOTAL Percentage
Residential Customer 3/4" Meter
Over 6CCF 3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 270,588$ Annual Increase 394,644$ Annual Increase 394,644$
Monthly Increase 6.44$ Monthly Increase 9.40$ Monthly Increase 9.40$
Winter/Summer Consumption 30%70%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
3/4" Meter - Monthly 7.84$ Total basic service charges impact (107,625)$ 110,828$ 10.56$ 110,828$ 114,030$ 167,640$ 9.48%
CCF allowed 6 Consumption increase 378,213$ 283,816$ 0 283,816$ 945,845$ 1,600,664$ 90.52%
Customers 3,500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated
16 7.84$ 1.35$ 3.16$ 12.35$ 518,700$ 5.28$ 3.52$ 9.99$ 18.79$ 52%789,288$ 7.92$ 5.28$ 14.99$ 28.19$ 50%1,183,932$ 10.56$ 7.04$ 19.99$ 37.59$ 33%1,578,575$ 204.33%1,578,575$
Commercial Customer 1-1/2" Meter
3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 237,349$ Annual Increase 235,540$ Annual Increase 235,540$
Monthly Increase 39.56$ Monthly Increase 39.26$ Monthly Increase 39.26$
Winter/Summer Consumption 15%85%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
1-1/2" Meter - Monthly 14.15$ Total basic service charges impact (15,645)$ 34,628$ 23.09$ 34,628$ 53,610$
CCF allowed 20 Consumption increase 252,994$ 200,912$ 200,912$ 654,818$
Customers 500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
75 14.15$ 3.72$ 21.08$ 38.96$ 233,730$ 11.54$ 8.25$ 58.72$ 78.51$ 102%471,079$ 17.31$ 12.38$ 88.07$ 117.77$ 50%706,619$ 23.09$ 16.51$ 117.43$ 157.03$ 33%942,158$ 303.10%942,158$
Eagle Water Company Rates
\\PUCBOICF01\Common\ScannedFiles\ScanRoom\Response to Request 6 - Exhibit.xlsx Page 1
Eagle Water Company Proposed Rate Phase In
50%75%100%
100 cubic feet or CCF
Summer Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.8577$
Winter Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.4674$
Per 3CCF Per 1 CCF Rate for first 3 CCF (winter & summer)change over 2017 EWC actual revenue 233%
600CF or less 7.84$ 3.92$ 1.307$ 1.4674$ change over existing EWC rates 235%
Over 600 CF per 100 CF 0.4510$
Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)507,937$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Grand Total Impact 1,768,304$ GRAND TOTAL Percentage
Residential Customer 3/4" Meter
Over 6CCF 3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 270,588$ Annual Increase 394,644$ Annual Increase 394,644$
Monthly Increase 6.44$ Monthly Increase 9.40$ Monthly Increase 9.40$
Winter/Summer Consumption 30%70%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
3/4" Meter - Monthly 7.84$ Total basic service charges impact (107,625)$ 110,828$ 10.56$ 110,828$ 114,030$ 167,640$ 9.48%
CCF allowed 6 Consumption increase 378,213$ 283,816$ 0 283,816$ 945,845$ 1,600,664$ 90.52%
Customers 3,500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
16 7.84$ 1.35$ 3.16$ 12.35$ 518,700$ 5.28$ 3.52$ 9.99$ 18.79$ 52%789,288$ 7.92$ 5.28$ 14.99$ 28.19$ 50%1,183,932$ 10.56$ 7.04$ 19.99$ 37.59$ 33%1,578,575$ 204.33%1,578,575$
3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 237,349$ Annual Increase 235,540$ Annual Increase 235,540$
Monthly Increase 39.56$ Monthly Increase 39.26$ Monthly Increase 39.26$
15%85%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
14.15$ Total basic service charges impact (15,645)$ 34,628$ 23.09$ 34,628$ 53,610$
20 Consumption increase 252,994$ 200,912$ 200,912$ 654,818$
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
75 14.15$ 3.72$ 21.08$ 38.96$ 233,730$ 11.54$ 8.25$ 58.72$ 78.51$ 102%471,079$ 17.31$ 12.38$ 88.07$ 117.77$ 50%706,619$ 23.09$ 16.51$ 117.43$ 157.03$ 33%942,158$ 303.10%942,158$
Eagle Water Company Rates
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7: Thompson’s testimony on page 8 states, “Suez’s
standards for plant maintenance, upgrades and replacements indicate that some substantial
capital investments should be scheduled over the next several years.” Please provide supporting
evidence including reports, analysis, etc. that demonstrates that the current Eagle Water system is
not providing safe, reliable service.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7:
Whether a utility is providing, or is can provide, adequate service pursuant to Idaho Code
61-302 requires a legal conclusion. Evidence of Eagle Water Company’s current noncompliance
with regulatory requirements in several critical areas as provided by SUEZ in response to staff
production requests No. 9, No. 10, and No. 18 and the Direct Testimony of Cathy Cooper may
bear on this issue.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8: Please provide the documentation that supports the
increase of $158,750 in operating expenses as shown in Exhibit No. 1, Schedule 1a in Cary’s
testimony.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8:
The $158,750 operating cost increase projection over Eagle Water’s 2017 year-end
reported Operating & Maintenance costs, is based on the associated maintenance anticipated or
as a result of the projected $13.4M capital investment discussed in Ms. Cooper’s testimony that
SUEZ believes will be needed for Eagle Water system over the next three years.
The operating and maintenance costs projected for Eagle Water are based on SUEZ’s
own experience, cost history for similar items, and through an evaluation of the Eagle Water
system and its facilities during the due diligence investigation process. The costs are
conservative estimates without inflationary adjustments. SUEZ Operator wages avg. $60,000
per year, plus benefits. Based on the wage information provided by Eagle Water, SUEZ
anticipates that a licensed Operator at the level required by IDEQ for the Eagle Water system
would also warrant higher pay.
The $2,000 estimated annual power expense for adding SCADA monitoring equipment at
Eagle Water’s facilities, chemical feeds pumps, analyzers, RTU’s and pressure regulating valves
is based on SUEZ’s operating cost for similar type of equipment. The approximate $24,000 for
disinfection is based on SUEZ’s disinfection cost of $26.50 per million gallons based on Eagle
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8 - PAGE 2 OF 2
Water treating 895 million gallons annually. The cost of chlorine detector CL-17 reagents and
facility maintenance is also based on SUEZ’s cost history and through the evaluation of Eagle
Water facilities during the inspection. Well cleaning maintenance estimate is based on SUEZ
history of costs for this type of work with a variety of well depths and various methods. SUEZ’s
subcontractor costs for SCADA and GIS support, licenses and maintenance fees are the basis for
Eagle Water’s $5,000 anticipated cost. Generator maintenance needs and recommended testing
is based on SUEZ’s experience with similar equipment, and similar costs experienced by SUEZ
for landscaping upkeep and backflow device testing.

Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn Total Demand for ADD/ Conn
Calculate MDD
per Customer
Calculate ADD
per Connection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Total
Connections Total Demand
Company 4,046
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Suez Analysis of Current EWC Well Pumping Capacities
Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
Estimated
Drawdown
EWC Current
Well
Production
Calculated
Level at SUEZ
Capacity (ft
below ground
Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
water level than sustainable, actual capacity may be
3 58.0 8 - 250 1,200 -
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
This pumping level leaves about 40' for the pump
and suction level above the pump. On 5/31/18 the
pump was running about 80% speed and producing
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while Suez
was on site). Maximum from pump curve is 2250
Total 8225
Current Well
Production
Current Well
Production
Standby
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
Total 8,225 3,925
(largest source out
of service)5,725
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10: Please provide the regulatory requirements and
standards for the “disinfection needs” of Eagle Water Company as stated in Cary testimony page
5 line 12. Please include in your response the deficiency letters Eagle Water Company has
received as a result of water testing, or any other evidence supporting these needs.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10:
Providing a chorine residual in the distribution system of a water system is typical and
considered a best practice, although for systems supplied only by groundwater, chlorination is
not required by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). Chlorination is a
requirement for water systems that have any surface water supply, so at a point where the SUEZ
and Eagle Water systems are connected, chlorination will be required.
Chlorination has many benefits for any system, even those supplied only by groundwater.
Chlorine maintains sanitary conditions by neutralizing any bacterial contamination that may
enter a water system from a potential backflow or leak. It is also an indicator for system
operators of potential contamination. Chlorine residual is easily and quickly measured in the
field, making it a useful tool for operators. For example, if a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/l is
expected at a system location, but a residual of 0.1 mg/l is measured instead, the measurement
results can be used to narrow in on a potential backflow or leak location.
To our knowledge, Eagle Water has not had bacterial contamination issues in their water
quality sampling results. The most recent IDEQ sanitary survey, however, flagged unsanitary
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10 - PAGE 2 OF 2
conditions at Well 2 due to “numerous leaks observed along the side walls of the tank” and the
tank “concrete roof is flat and pools water in low spots. Numerous cracks in roof were
observed”. There is no question the leaks and pooling issues should be fixed, but a chlorine
residual would provide an extra level of protection to customers against these types of potential
contamination.
Most water systems in the area provide chlorination for their water systems, even those
that are solely supplied by groundwater. Examples include the nearby water systems owned by
the City of Eagle and Garden City.

Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn Total Demand for ADD/ Conn
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 1,692 730,965,000 365 0.51
per Customer per Connection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Service (gpm/ Connections Total Demand
Company 4,046
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Suez Analysis of Current EWC Well Pumping Capacities
Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
Estimated
Drawdown
EWC Current
Well
Production
Calculated
Level at SUEZ
Capacity (ft
below ground
Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
was running about 80% speed and producing 800
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
Use EWC reported capacity.
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while Suez
was on site). Maximum from pump curve is 2250
Total 8225
Well Facility
Current Well
Production
Current Well
Production
Standby
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
(largest source out
of service)5,725
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn Total Demand for ADD/ Conn
Calculate MDD
per Customer
Calculate ADD
per Connection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Total
Connections Total Demand
Company 4,046
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Suez Analysis of Current EWC Well Pumping Capacities
Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
Estimated
Drawdown
EWC Current
Well
Production
Calculated
Level at SUEZ
Capacity (ft
below ground
Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
water level than sustainable, actual capacity may be
3 58.0 8 - 250 1,200 -
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
This pumping level leaves about 40' for the pump
and suction level above the pump. On 5/31/18 the
pump was running about 80% speed and producing
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while Suez
was on site). Maximum from pump curve is 2250
Total 8225
Current Well
Production
Current Well
Production
Standby
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
Total 8,225 3,925
(largest source out
of service)5,725
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11: Please provide the source documents for the
closing costs incurred to date. Did SUEZ Water Idaho competitively bid the ALTA survey? If
so, please provide the bids. If not, please explain why it was not competitively bid.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11:
SUEZ Water Idaho did not competitively bid the ALTA survey work. At the time the
work was starting, the potential acquisition was confidential, making a bid process infeasible. In
addition, the work needed to be completed in a short timeframe by a surveying company with
prior experience doing ALTA surveys and prior experience coordinating with the TitleOne title
officer issuing title commitments for the numerous properties being surveyed and to be acquired.
The Land Group was selected for the work based on these requirements, and the scope of work
with The Land Group was authorized and signed by SUEZ’s counsel. SUEZ inquired with
another surveying company about completing the work, but they were unable to meet the
required timeline.
The closing costs incurred to date are in the following attachments:
$100,000 Earnest Money (Exhibit A to Response to Request 11)
$1,964.41 AutoSort Initial Customer Notice Postage (Exhibit B to Response to Request 11)
$1,154.59 International Minute Press Initial Customer Notices (Exhibit C to Response to
Request 11)
$24,700 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey first half (Exhibit D to Response to Request 11)
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11 - PAGE 2 OF 2
$24,700 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey second half (Exhibit E to Response to
Request 11)
$3,000 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey Well Easements (Exhibit F to Response to Request 11)
The Land Group ALTA Survey Scope of Work (executed) (Exhibit G to Response to Request 11)

Legal costs to-date total $72,644.50 in the attachments listed below. Legal services
included negotiation and drafting of asset Purchase Agreement; coordination of survey and title
review; and preparation and prosecution of the Joint Application.
$2,292.30 Givens Pursley 191701 August Invoice (Exhibit H to Response to Request 11)
$7,468.10 Givens Pursley 192529 September Invoice (Exhibit I to Response to Request 11)
$16,533.90 Givens Pursley 192903 October Invoice (Exhibit J to Response to Request 11)
$17,674.50 Givens Pursley 194235 November Invoice (Exhibit K to Response to Request 11)
$18,580.20 Givens Pursley 195392 December Invoice (Exhibit L to Response to Request 11)
$10,095.50 Givens Pursley Invoices Matter 178 (Exhibit M to Response to Request 11)
Givens Pursley
Attn: Gary Allen
601 W. Bannock
Boise, ID 83701
December 31, 2018
Project No:118124.00
Invoice No:0141026
The Land Group, Inc.
462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
ph. 208.939.4041
fax. [phone]
Project 118124.00 Eagle Well Site ALTA Surveys
Invoice submitted via email: [e-mail]
Invoice for Professional Services from December 01, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Phase .02 Well Easements
Fee
Number of Per Easement 5.00
Fee Each 600.00
Total Fee 3,000.00
Total Earned 3,000.00
Previous Fee Billing 0.00
Current Fee Billing 3,000.00
Total Fee 3,000.00
$3,000.00Total this Phase
$3,000.00Total this Invoice

Invoice due upon receipt. If you have questions, please contact Misty at [phone]. Thank you.

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] August 17, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:191701 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
right issues (.4); Discuss EWC water right issues with M. Creamer (.5); Discuss EWC water right issues with C. Meyer (.6); Review EWC water rights and IDWR statutes and guidance re municipal service areas; draft

TOTAL FEES 2,292.30

Previous Balance: $0.00 Payments Received: $0.00

Any Payments Received After August 17, 2018
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 08/17/18 Invoice # 191701 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] September 24, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:192529 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
with C. Cooper; coordinate APA re-draft with C.
("APA"); conference call regarding same; phone call
relating to franchise tax; email to C. Beeson regarding
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 09/24/18 Invoice # 192529 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
08/31/18 Review and comment on asset purchase agreement. JCS 1.10 237.60

TOTAL FEES 7,468.10

Previous Balance: $2,292.30 Payments Received: ($2,292.30)

Any Payments Received After September 24, 2018 Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] October 8, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:192903 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
extension letter to letter of intent; conference with C.
APA; telephone conference with C. Cooper, et al;
surveys; review revised APA; correspond with N.
applicability to EWC transaction; review revised APA; engage TLG as surveyors; review TitleOne correspondence regarding property ownership
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 10/08/18 Invoice # 192903 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
Bangle. 09/13/18 Locate parcels identified by TitleOne; telephone conference with C. Cooper regarding the same and regarding well lot mark-up maps showing same for surveyors; locate and identify easements for title company; correspond with N. Bangle regarding access
telephone conferences with C. Cooper and correspond with J. Washburn; multiple revisions of APAs;
conferences with client, title company and surveyors;
pump survey; correspond with J. Washburn regarding
transfer and non-foreign affidavit; correspond regarding the same; telephone call to Scott Darling and Joe Gropp regarding commitments; coordinate getting
TitleOne, TLG, and Cathy Cooper regarding surveys

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 10/08/18 Invoice # 192903 Page 3 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
TOTAL FEES 16,533.90

Previous Balance: $7,468.10 Payments Received: $0.00

Any Payments Received After October 8, 2018 Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A late payment charge of 18% per annum (1 ½% per month) will be charged on outstanding balances that remain unpaid
for 30 days or more from the date of the invoice.

November 16, 2018

SUEZ North American Inc. Invoice #: 194235
8248 W. Victory Rd. Client #: 30
Boise, ID 83719-0420 Matter #: 174
________________________________________________________________________________________

INVOICE SUMMARY

SERVICES FOR PERIOD THROUGH 10/31/2018

Regarding: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483

Professional Services $ 17,674.50
Costs and Expenses $ .00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 17,674.50

Please include invoice number 194235 with your payment.
Any payments received after November 16, 2018 will be reflected on your next statement.
This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered.

Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

3

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

4

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 17,674.50

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Timekeeper ID Hours Rate Total
TOTALS 62.10 $ 17,674.50

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 17,674.50

A late payment charge of 18% per annum (1 ½% per month) will be charged on outstanding balances that remain unpaid
for 30 days or more from the date of the invoice.

December 11, 2018

SUEZ North American Inc. Invoice #: 195392
8248 W. Victory Rd. Client #: 30
Boise, ID 83719-0420 Matter #: 174
________________________________________________________________________________________

INVOICE SUMMARY

SERVICES FOR PERIOD THROUGH 11/30/2018

Regarding: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483

Professional Services $ 16,705.20
Costs and Expenses $ 1,875.00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 18,580.20

Please include invoice number 195392 with your payment.
Any payments received after December 11, 2018 will be reflected on your next statement.
This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered.

Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

3

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

4

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 16,705.20

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Timekeeper ID Hours Rate Total
TOTALS 53.00 $ 16,705.20

COSTS AND EXPENSES

Date Description Amount

COSTS AND EXPENSES $ 1,875.00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 18,580.20
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital
budget projections for the years 2019-2025.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital budget projections for 2019 to 2024 are shown in the table
below. SUEZ planning is for a 6-year future projection, so no numbers for 2025 are currently
available.

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Suez Water Idaho Capital
Budget Projection 22,859$ 24,189$ 19,573$ 21,208$ 30,700$ 29,279$
Eagle Water Company
Acquisition and Improvement
Budget 11,762$ 4,089$ 4,761$
Capital Budget Filed for Approval ($ in 000's)
Total Net Expenditure Excluding Corporate Overheads
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Suez Water Idaho Capital Budget
Projection 22,859$ 24,189$ 19,573$ 21,208$ 30,700$ 29,279$
and Improvement Budget
Projection 11,762$ 4,089$ 4,761$
Year
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
Capital
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15: Please provide the cost-benefit analysis
supporting the installation of new automated meters for Eagle Water Company customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15:
SUEZ adopted its standards for automated meter reading on new and replacement meters
in 2015. This change from a manual meter reading standard made sense for many reasons.
Automated meters are a more efficient form of meter data collection. In response to
increased development demands and system growth (avg. 1,700 meters per year), SUEZ sought
automation of new meter connections as a way to contend with growth demands without
increasing the headcount for manual meter readers substantially. There is no expectation that
gains in meter reading efficiency will lead to any near-term headcount reductions from current
staffing levels, but the company is able to contend with growth. It is notable to mention that as a
result of these investments, meter reading personnel are beginning to shift from reading tasks to
more data-driven field service visits for leak investigations, water usage audits, and automated
system maintenance.
Automated meters improve customer service by providing a more complete record of
customer consumption patterns. With an average 60-day billing period for existing SUEZ
customers, manual meter reading will capture six (6) readings per customer meter annually.
Meters on the automated system collect a more complete profile of customer demand with hourly
readings totaling 8,760 per customer meter in the same period. This frequency greatly assists
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 2 OF 3
engineers with demand analysis, and informs common customer service requests for move in/out
transfer readings, customer-side leak adjustments, and conservation improvements. In addition,
these meters provide unique functionality for automated reversal of flow alarms to augment the
Company’s backflow protection program.
These benefits of automated metering would extend to current Eagle Water customer as
they transfer service to SUEZ.
The Eagle Water system location makes extension of the SUEZ automated meter
collection system very practical. Radio collection towers read meters in the adjacent Floating
Feather and Island Woods areas. No additional radio collectors are anticipated for reading meter-
radio sets in the Eagle Water service area. Production Response No. 17 provides a detailed
breakdown of the planned transition for Eagle Water Customer meters from 2019 to 2021.
Similar to this technology’s application to support organic system growth, automated
meters can provide SUEZ with the capability of supporting meter reading and field service
activities to the Eagle Water System monthly with minimal head-count changes, including the
addition of one meter reading service person to SUEZ staff, for a total of 6 meter reading Service
persons per 100,000 customers. The system will also provide flexibility for SUEZ to read EWC
monthly accounts while existing SUEZ customers remain on bi-monthly billing.
Finally, an accurate and complete consumption history will be key to any current Eagle
Water customer concerned with managing affordability via conservation. While automated
meters are not required for online billing or consumption totals, customers with automated
meters and SUEZ’s online billing tools can link directly with hourly reading data and voluntary
conservation surveys to help manage consumption patterns. With the 2017 estimated average
annual per customer usage by current Eagle Water Residential Customers calculated at 218ccf
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 3 OF 3
(hundred cubic feet), these tools may help customers reduce usage, and associated volume billing
charges, by up to 66% as compared to SUEZ residential customers whose 2017 average annual
usage for 2017 was just 145ccf.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Suez Water Idaho Capital Budget
Projection 22,859$ 24,189$ 19,573$ 21,208$ 30,700$ 29,279$
and Improvement Budget
Projection 11,762$ 4,089$ 4,761$
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s budgets filed
for approval with the board of directors for the years 2010 through 2018. Include in your
response the actual capital investments by year for 2010 through 2018.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital budget and actual expenditure information from 2010
through 2018 are included in the table below.

Year
Net Capital
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
000's)
Actual Net
Capital
Expenditure ($
in 000's)
2010 11,535$ 10,847$
2011 11,656$ 10,101$
2012 7,990$ 8,243$
2013 9,173$ 10,030$
2014 12,099$ 12,147$
2015 12,568$ 13,863$
2016 10,907$ 11,675$
2017 19,201$ 19,621$
2018 15,476$ 16,538$
Year
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
Capital
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16 Ann. Growth Rate 0.054 Year # Households Comment
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 MDD Projection MDD (gpm)2018 10,530
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11
Boise and Eagle Area (Source:
per Customer
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Average Day 0.46 1,850
4,046 Company
Eagle Water Company
567 households per year = growth
= 5.4% per year
Eagle Area Growth Projection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Additional and Redundant Supply Projections
Maximum Day MGD
# Connections
(without
private fire)
per
Connection
Connections
added per year Comments
7/14/2014 84.451 86514 0.68
7/3/2015 87.534 88138 0.69 1624
7/1/2016 82.111 89767 0.64 1629
7/14/2017 84.154 90948 0.64 1181
discrepancy between 2017 and 2018,
some 2017 new customers were
Average 0.66 1748.5
Total
Additional and
Redundant
Supply Needed
through 2022
for only SUEZ
Additional and
Redundant
through 2021
for SUEZ and
Year per Year per Year
2019 1.66 2.04
2020 1.66 2.04
2021 1.66 2.04
2022 1.66
Total 6.65 6.12
Add 20% Contingency to account for varying
weather patterns and related fluctuations in
MDD 1.33 1.22
Redundant Source (Redwood Creek Well
redundant to Floating Feather Well)4.32 4.32
Total Additional and Redundant Supply
Needed (MGD)12.30 11.66
Description
Capital Cost (no
OH) From
Northwest Area
Water Supply Study
Capital Cost
(with OH)
Capacity
(gpm)$/gpm Comments on Feasibility / Further Investigation
Dry Creek ASR $1,800,000 $2,031,930 2,500 $813 No new supply.
Shadow Valley $2,700,000 $3,047,895 1,580 $1,929
Did not turn out to be a feasible option. Land
$15,600,000 $17,610,060 8,300 $2,122
New Floating
$5,600,000 $6,321,560 2,800 $2,258
Redundant supply, but would have limited
additional supply due to proximity to existing
Redwood Creek
$5,500,000 $6,208,675 2,600 $2,388
IMPROVEMENTS" options as "Redwood Creek
IMPROVEMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EAGLE
WATER
$30,141,000 8,749 $3,445
SUEZ met with Garden City, they are not willing
to sell water as they do not feel they have
$800,000 $903,080 240 $3,763
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE
WATER
$41,814,000 8,680 $4,817
$7,700,000 $8,692,145 1,500 $5,795
SWTP $60,500,000 $68,295,425 7,000 $9,756
A new surface water treatment plant in
challenging surface water right permitting.
Dry Creek ASR
Shadow Valley
Sandy Hill ASR Old State Street Combined
New Floating Feather Well
Redwood Creek
Upgrade
Island Woods
SUEZ SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
McDonald Big Gulch
Well
SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS
ACQUISITION
New Lanewood Well
SWTP
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$/
g
p
m
Supply Alternatives Considered
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year Max Day (gallons)MDD (gpm)
Number of
Connections
MDD/ Conn
(gpm)
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16 Ann. Growth Rate 0.054 Year # Households Comment
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 MDD Projection MDD (gpm)2018 10,530
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11
per Customer
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Average Day 0.46 1,850
4,046 Company
Eagle Water Company
567 households
per year = growth rate of 567/10530 = 5.4% per year
Eagle Area Growth Projection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Additional and Redundant Supply Projections
Maximum Day MGD
(without
private fire)
per
Connection
Connections
added per year Comments
7/14/2014 84.451 86514 0.68
7/3/2015 87.534 88138 0.69 1624
7/1/2016 82.111 89767 0.64 1629
7/14/2017 84.154 90948 0.64 1181
some 2017 new customers were
Average 0.66 1748.5

Additional and
Redundant
through 2022
for only SUEZ
system
Redundant
through 2021
for SUEZ and
EWC System
Year per Year per Year
2019 1.66 2.04
2020 1.66 2.04
2021 1.66 2.04
2022 1.66
Total 6.65 6.12
Add 20% Contingency to account for varying
weather patterns and related fluctuations in
MDD 1.33 1.22
redundant to Floating Feather Well)4.32 4.32
Total Additional and Redundant Supply
Needed (MGD)12.30 11.66
Description
Capital Cost (no
OH) From
Northwest Area
Water Supply Study
Capital Cost
(with OH)
Capacity
(gpm)$/gpm Comments on Feasibility / Further Investigation
Dry Creek ASR $1,800,000 $2,031,930 2,500 $813 No new supply.
Shadow Valley $2,700,000 $3,047,895 1,580 $1,929
Did not turn out to be a feasible option. Land
and water rights not available for purchase.
Sandy Hill ASR $2,800,000 $3,160,780 1,500 $2,107
No new supply, and Sandy Hill Aquifer not
available for SUEZ use.
Old State Street
Combined $15,600,000 $17,610,060 8,300 $2,122
New Floating
$5,600,000 $6,321,560 2,800 $2,258
Redundant supply, but would have limited
additional supply due to proximity to existing
well and potential interference issues. Does not
Redwood Creek
$5,500,000 $6,208,675 2,600 $2,388
IMPROVEMENTS" options as "Redwood Creek
IMPROVEMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EAGLE
WATER
$30,141,000 8,749 $3,445
SUEZ met with Garden City, they are not willing
$800,000 $903,080 240 $3,763
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE
WATER
$41,814,000 8,680 $4,817
$7,700,000 $8,692,145 1,500 $5,795
SWTP $60,500,000 $68,295,425 7,000 $9,756
A new surface water treatment plant in
Northwest Boise/Eagle - most expensive option,
challenging surface water right permitting.
Shadow Valley
Sandy Hill ASR Old State Street
New Floating Feather Well
Redwood Creek
Upgrade
IMPROVEMENTS WITH
EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
Garden City
McDonald Big Gulch
Well
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
New Lanewood Well
Western Wellfield
SWTP
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$/
g
p
m
Supply Alternatives Considered
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16 –PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s current
meter replacement plan for SUEZ customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s current new and replacement meter plan is shown below.
Replacement meters include both “break-fix” and programmatic replacements with AMI meters.

Installation Targets 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
New Customer Meters
(# of meters)
1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
Meters
(# of meters)
2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17: Please provide the meter replacement plan for
Eagle Water customers if SUEZ acquires Eagle Water.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17:
The meter replacement plan for Eagle Water customers if SUEZ acquires Eagle Water is
shown in the following table.
Installation Targets 2019 2020 2021
Replacement Customer Meters
(# of meters)
1,666 1,667 667

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18: Please provide all workpapers supporting the
analysis of Eagle Water Company’s current portfolio of municipal water rights identified in
Cooper’s direct testimony page 5, lines 10-11. Please include schedules of the expected costs to
resolve Eagle Water’s standalone system of the water right issues.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18:
The current water right portfolio for Eagle Water Company is deficient. Matching up the
authorized water right diversion rates with individual well capacities results in a total maximum
allowable flow rate of 5,023 gpm, which is 1,877 gpm short of Eagle Water’s peak hour flows of
6,900 gpm. The current water right portfolio for Eagle Water Company includes six licensed
water rights, summarized in the following table.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 2 OF 3

The following table matches up authorized municipal water right diversion rates with
available well capacities. This analysis shows that a total 5,023 gpm is available.

Eagle Water Company’s current maximum day demand is 4,600 gpm. The Eagle Water
production meters are read once daily, therefore no record of actual peak hour flows is available.
In the Treasure Valley area, peak hour demands are typically estimated at 1.5 times maximum
day demands, but in reality are often higher than that. Conservatively estimating peak hour
demand at 1.5 times maximum day demand results in a peak hour demand of 6,900 gpm. This
leaves a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).
If Eagle Water Company were to resolve its water right shortage issues as a standalone
system, SUEZ anticipates that it would need to seek a water right transfer to make each Eagle
Water Well an Alternate Point of Diversion (APOD) for each existing water right. This action
could allow for the full 6,228 gpm current municipal water right limit to be utilized. In addition
Eagle Water would need to acquire additional water rights to cover the shortfall between 6,900
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current
Well Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
(gpm)
Capacity with
Current
Water Rights
and Pumps
(gpm)
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
6 2500 1,053
7 1350 1,350
8 2250 495
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
Limit (gpm)
6,228
495
1350
1,530
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 3 OF 3
gpm and 6,228 gpm (672 gpm) through purchase or appropriation. The anticipated cost for
making each Eagle Water Well an APOD is estimated at approximately $25,000 in legal and
technical fees (as detailed in Response 19). The cost of acquiring additional water rights is
difficult to pinpoint, but could range from $25,000 (applying for a new water right) to hundreds
of thousands of dollars (purchasing an existing water right).
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7368&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-7368

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE HILLS GOLF COURSE INC
605 N EDGEWOOD LN
EAGLE, ID 83616
2089390402
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 11/15/1970 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial Use FromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/312 CFS
FIRE PROTECTION1/01 12/312 CFS
Total Diversion 2 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company, Inc. municipal water supply system
as provided for under Idaho Law.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7368&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 02/06/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 12/1/1979 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: 12/7/1970 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7618&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-7618

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE LAND CO
, ID
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 10/25/1972 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFrom To Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/311.4 CFS
Total Diversion 1.4 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.C03Right includes accomplished change in point of diversion pursuant to Section 42-1425, Idaho Code.
3.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company municipal water supply system as
provided for under Idaho Law.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7618&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 04/03/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 8/1/1977 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=9245&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-9245

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 06/08/1979 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial Use From To Diversion Rate Volume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/311.1 CFS
FIRE PROTECTION01/0112/313.5 CFS
Total Diversion 3.5 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESW Sec. 15Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company municipal water supply system as
provided for under Idaho Law.
3.E62 This right when combined with Right Nos. 63-7368 and 63-7618 shall not exceed 4.5 cfs per acre.
4.T07 The right holder shall accomplish the change authorized by Transfer 75035 within one year of the date
of the approval.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=9245&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
5.T08 Failure of the right holder to comply with the conditions of this transfer is cause for the Director to
rescind approval of the transfer.
6.046 Right holder shall comply with the drilling permit requirements of Section 42-235, Idaho Code and
applicable Well Construction Rules of the Department.
7.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
8.165
To prevent injury to prior water rights appropriating water from the Boise River and/or the underlying
shallow aquifer tributary to the Boise River, the new well used as a point of diversion for this water
right located within the NESW, S15, T4N, R1E shall be constructed and maintained with unperforated
casing and sealed into the first significant confining layer located 200 feet or more below ground
surface.

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 10/21/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 7/1/1984 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: 7/18/1979 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=11798&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-11798

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 04/17/1992 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/311.34 CFS
Total Diversion 1.34 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNWNWSec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Licensed Diversion Capacity: 5.6 Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.
Irrigation of large projects such as parks, golf courses, or sports activities fields is not authorized under
this right. Domestic uses authorized under this right shall not exceed 13,000 gallons per day in accordance
with the provisions in Section 42-111, Idaho Code. Place of use is located within the city limits of Eagle and
the surrounding service area.

Dates: Licensed Date: 09/30/1994 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 11/1/1993 Permit Proof Made Date: 11/5/1993 Permit Approved Date: 6/23/1992 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date:
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=11798&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 04/13/1992 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: 63 Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12147&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-12147

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 09/29/1994 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/315 CFS
Total Diversion 5 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERSWSW Sec. 08Township 04NRange 01EADA County
GROUND WATERNWNWSec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
2.125 Place of use is within the service area of Eagle Water Company as provided for under Idaho law. The
place of use is generally described as within the city limits of Eagle and the surrounding service area.
3.004 This right does not grant any right-of-way or easement across the land of another.
4.180 A map depicting the place of use boundary for this water right at the time of this approval is attached
to this document for illustrative purposes.

Dates: Licensed Date: 05/12/2016 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 2/1/1999
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12147&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
Permit Proof Made Date: 2/3/1999 Permit Approved Date: 2/6/1995 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 09/27/1994 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12559&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-12559

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 12/15/1999 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFrom To Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/313 CFS
Total Diversion 3 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESW Lt 3Sec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.125 Place of use is within the service area of Eagle Water Company as provided for under Idaho law. The
place of use is generally described as within the city limits of Eagle and the surrounding service area.
2.102
The right holder shall not provide water diverted under this right for the irrigation of land having
appurtenant surface water rights as a primary source of irrigation water except when the surface
water rights are not available for use. This condition applies to all land with appurtenant surface water
rights, including land converted from irrigated agricultural use to other land uses but still requiring
water to irrigate lawns and landscaping.
3.103
When ordered by the Director, the right holder shall provide mitigation acceptable to the Director to
offset depletion of lower Snake River flows needed for migrating anadromous fish. The amount of
water required for mitigation, which is to be released into the Snake River or a tributary for this
purpose, will be determined by the Director based upon the reduction in flow caused by the use of
water pursuant to this right. Any order of the Director issued in accordance with this paragraph shall
be in conformance with applicable rules allowing the right holder due process as the need for
mitigation and the amount of mitigation are determined.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12559&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
4.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
5.004 The issuance of this right does not grant any right-of-way or easement across the land of another.
6.930 Water bearing zone to be appropriated is 330 to 400 feet.
7.Point of diversion is known as Well #7.

Dates: Licensed Date: 09/01/2016 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 3/1/2008 Permit Proof Made Date: 1/7/2008 Permit Approved Date: 3/1/2000 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 12/15/1999 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 1 OF 4
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20: Please reconcile the charts shown in Cooper’s
testimony on pages 7, 8 and 11.
a. Are there projects listed on pages 7 and 8 that are duplicated on page 11? Please
explain.
b. Is the total cost actually the $30.141 million as shown on page 8 plus the $13.358
million shown on page 11 for a total of $43.499 million? Please explain.
c. Please identify which capital investments the Company would make with the
acquisition of the Eagle Water system and which capital investments the
Company would make without the acquisition of the Eagle Water system.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20:
a. Yes. The charts were prepared for very different purposes and therefore some of
the projects (or portions of projects) appear in multiple charts.

The charts on pages 7 and 8 are an analysis comparing only the costs of providing
approximately 12.5 MGD of additional and redundant supply. These charts
support the benefit of the acquisition to current SUEZ customers by
demonstrating that approximately 12.5 MGD of future supply can be provided for
$11.7M less “with the Eagle Water Acquisition” than “absent the Eagle Water
Acquisition.”
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 2 OF 4

The chart on page 11 of the Cooper testimony shows project costs (or the portion
of project costs) that would directly benefit Eagle Water Customers. These costs
were used in the Eagle Water rate calculation presented in Cary’s testimony.

b. No. As explained in section (a) of this response, the charts were prepared for
different purposes. Adding the chart totals together would duplicate some project
costs.
c. The projects in the following table would be constructed absent the Eagle Water
Acquisition to provide additional and redundant supply to current SUEZ
customers.
Table from Page 7 Cooper Testimony:

If the Eagle Water Company acquisition is completed, the projects in the following table
would be constructed to provide additional and redundant supply to current SUEZ customers
and Eagle Water customers.
Table from Page 8 Cooper Testimony:
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
6.00
Marden Expansion (6 MGD, no DAF), includes Main Enlargements
to move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
Enlargement (11,770' of 24" Pipe)2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Cumulative Cost (in 000's)2,032$ 12,022$ 15,058$ 28,747$ 41,844$
Cumulative MGD - 2.2 4.3 4.3 12.5
Cost per MGD 5,565$ 3,485$ 6,654$ 3,353$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 3 OF 4

The capital investments shown in the chart on Page 11 of Cooper’s testimony would all be
made for the benefit of Eagle Water Customers. Note that the projects highlighted below are
also relevant to and included in the supply analysis comparison.
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16
Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump/higher
TDH 769$
0.00 EWC Acquisition Price 10,000$
0.00
Water Right Transfers / APODS to allow full capacity pumping
from EWC Wells 56$
3.24 New Pump EWC Well 8, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,043$
3.60 New Pump Well 6, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,110$
1.44
New 2 MG Tank / Rehab Well 1 (1000 gpm additional available
from Well 6)2,006$ 3,135$
Cumulative Dollars 2,032$ 22,078$ 25,896$ 30,141$
Cumulative Supply Gained 0.0 2.2 7.6 12.6
Cost per MGD 10,221$ 3,425$ 2,392$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 4 OF 4

Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit Summary
Add chlorination at Wells
2, 4, 6, 7, 8 56$
Chlorine residual in distribution system, protection against contamination risk. $10k
plus OH per site.
SCADA at each Facility
(Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2
boosters), control room
and associated hardware
and software 532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle
Water constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k
contingency, plus OH.
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
$1500 each)1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
Half of EWC meters - fix problematic meter locations, move into right-of-way, lessen
depth for safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the
Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection.
Meter Replacement with
AMI (2000 @ $388)454$ 438$
Half of EWC meters - Install AMI meters in existing meter boxes. The benefits of AMI
meters include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through
the Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two
repeaters if Eagle Water constructed the improvements, no OH on this portion.
Water Right Transfers to
add APODS to Eagle Water
and SUEZ Rights 56$
These transfers would allow the two delivery systems to be integrated in the future,
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and
SUEZ rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak
demands. These transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate
new water rights to fill its current shortfall.
Map Eagle Water System
into GIS and create
Hydraulic Model 27$
Provides the benefit of crews being able to rapidly locate buried infrastructure.
Inclusion in the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline
replacement planning. This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into
Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving system operations platform.
PRV at Well 8 528$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
PRV at Well 6 341$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,133$
The Redwood Creek pipeline will be the interconnection between the Eagle Water
system and the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water
customers with the benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez
system. The benefit is calculated on making up the redundancy shortfall in fireflow
for Eagle Water (1375 gpm). This would also cover the shortage in peak hour
redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency standby shortage (429 gpm). It won't be
available to EWC customers until the PRV at Well 8 is in place, which is why it has
been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total pipeline cost, 1375
gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used locally in
Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
through 2021).
2 MG Tank 2,006$ 2,006$
Will bring Eagle Water into compliance with IDEQ peak hour and fire flow supply and
redundancy requirements
Pipeline Replacements
(1% per year) 305$ 305$ 305$
0.6 miles of pipeline replacement per year. First years will target undersized lines or
lines at higher risk of breakage.
Safety and Security
Improvements 28$ 28$ 28$ Arcflash analysis and improvements, eyewash stations, fall protection at facility sites.
Production Roll-Up Work 113$ 141$ 141$
Pump replacements, HVAC, production meter replacements, pumping facility
upgrades, landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level
monitoring in wells, etc
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were
making the improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control
room, servers, database, and historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a
control room or associated amenities and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were
constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water portion of the costs does not have any overheads included.
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current Well
Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
Capacity with
Current Water
Rights and
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
495
1350
1,530
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current Well
Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
Capacity with
Current Water
Rights and
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
495
1350
1,530
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1: Please provide all tables and exhibits included in
all testimonies in electronic format with all formulas intact. Please also provide all associated
workpapers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1:
The tables included in SUEZ testimony are produced to Staff on compact disc with
formulas intact.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2: Please identify and describe the escalation and/or
change in state and federal regulations mentioned on page 3 of Thompson testimony for the
years 2010 to present. Identify each agency or department requiring the regulation, and specify
whether each escalation/change in regulation is local, state, or federal in nature.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2:
The original intent of this referenced section from the Thompson testimony was to reflect
increased regulatory obligations that utilities such as SUEZ and the Eagle Water Company will
face in coming years. This includes, but is not limited to steps taken by the US Congress in 2018
regarding updates to portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act in America’s Water Infrastructure
Act of 2018, which was signed into law Oct. 23, 2018 by President Trump.
Rule making has yet to establish formal guidelines on this legislation. However, it is clear
that the recent legislative changes add to drinking water utility obligations in the following areas:
• stronger requirements for notification of contaminant spills to downstream water utilities
• encouragement to implement asset management practices
• codification that provision of Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) by electronic means are acceptable.
• Required publication of CCRs twice annually for systems of significant size.
• Revision of the format and content of CCRs
• Utilities must now show that they are updating security and resiliency provisions for their
facilities
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 2 OF 3
Regarding lead and copper in drinking water, USEPA has indicated that a revised Lead
and Copper Rule will be proposed in 2019. The Revised Lead and Copper Rule is expected to
include new requirements for utilities to maintain inventories of distribution system materials,
select targeted sampling pools, and conduct public education. Existing state administration of
the current EPA rule set requires all drinking water utilities state-wide to sample for a growing
list of possible contaminants. The EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) is
in its 4th generation. A clear connection is being drawn between that rule and a recently revised
list of EPA Health Advisory Limits for common groundwater contaminants. EPA is also
proceeding with proposed regulations for some of the currently unregulated contaminants that
were included in previous rounds of the UCMR, such as perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS)
and 1,4-dioxane. Due to the relatively long timeline of USEPA rulemaking, State administrators
are under increasing pressure from the community to promulgate their own drinking water
regulations in advance of the federal initiatives. Regardless of system size, drinking water
utilities will be well served to plan ahead for increasingly stringent regulation of trace
contaminants.
Since 2010, changes have also been seen in utility account and tax regulation. In January
2018, the Idaho Public Utility Commission directed in its Order in PUC Case No. GNR-U-18-01
(“Generic Tax Order”) a series of requirements for utilities under its jurisdiction related to the
impacts of modifications to the Internal Revenue Tax Code by the implementation of The Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”).
TCJA reduced corporate income tax rates, which reduced current & deferred income tax
expense, accumulated deferred income tax and eliminated the exemption for water and sewer
utilities from recognizing CIAC as taxable income. SUEZ is currently in compliance with the
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 - PAGE 3 OF 3
directives and requirements set forth in that order. The Company is not aware of any filing by
Eagle Water Company in response to this same order. It is not known what accounting or
procedural hurdles Eagle Water may need to overcome to come into compliance with this
directive.
Regardless of recent changes or new regulations on the horizon, SUEZ notes that Eagle
Water Company has had difficulty meeting certain current regulatory obligations.These
deficiencies can be found in the Company’s response to Staff’s production requests No. 9, No.
10, and No. 18. Excerpts from these responses will be summarized again here.
• As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the current Eagle Water system does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.07).
• The company’s response to request number 10 details several unaddressed material deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include leaks and structural issues with Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II licensure for the system’s lead operator.
• In response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a significant water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3: In reference to page 8 of Thompson testimony,
please demonstrate how the Eagle Water system has “suffered from less than optimal capital
investment” including deficiency reports from regulatory agencies, outage locations and
durations, and complaints of inadequate service from Eagle Water customers. Please also
provide the number of Eagle Water customers that have requested service from SUEZ Water
Idaho due to the condition of the Eagle Water system.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3:
A review of Eagle Water Company’s history of owner investment in the system versus its
accumulated depreciation demonstrates a non-optimal capital investment strategy over many
years. The calculated negative rate base of $1,208,792 as of December 2017 indicates that the
long-term capital investment needs of the system are not being met under current conditions.
Further, the Eagle Water system’s reliance on emergency surcharges, most recently from
2009 through 2016, shows how stressful reactive repairs have been for this water system.
Responding to urgent repairs is part of utility operations, but it should not become an immediate
funding need to customers.
A list of existing Eagle Water system deficiencies can be found in the Company’s
response to production requests No. 9, No. 10, and No. 18. Excerpts from these responses are
summarized here.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 3 - PAGE 2 OF 2
• As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the current Eagle Water system
does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.07).
• The company’s response to request number 10 details several unaddressed material
deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include leaks and structural issues with the Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II licensure for the system’s lead operator.
• Finally, in response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a significant
water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).
In the Company’s due diligence efforts, no evidence was found indicating Eagle Water
maintains records of customer outages or complaints.
Since announcing its intentions to acquire Eagle Water Company assets, SUEZ received
and tracked numerous calls from current Eagle Water customers requesting information on the
PUC filing. We have not received any specific “requests for service from SUEZ Water Idaho due
to the condition of the Eagle Water system.” However, the call outlined below from January 4,
2019 highlights the perspective of one current Eagle Water customer who is optimistic for
improved water service.
Call Summary – January 4, 2019
A SUEZ employee spoke with a longtime Eagle resident and Eagle Water Company
customer who expressed his relief that SUEZ is seeking to purchase his water provider.
He has experienced many water service disruptions, including an outage that lasted 7 days. Eagle Water Company brought in potable water for his neighborhood, but it was still a hardship for his family.
This customer also complained of poor water pressure with Eagle Water, and mentioned
automated watering of his lawn is a challenge.
“Do I want my rates to go up? No, but I’m willing to take the risk with the sale that I’ll have better service,” he said.
He expressed support for the sale, believes SUEZ provides dependable service, and he wants that reliability for his community.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 1 OF 6
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4: Please quantify the monetary value of each item
included in the list of “Identifiable synergies and efficiencies” listed on pages 8-11 of Thompson
testimony. Please identify whether the benefit is to current Eagle Water customers or current
SUEZ Water Idaho customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4:
1) Eagle Water customers would benefit from lower operating expenses and increased capital investment.
Ms. Cary’s testimony starting on page 7 discusses the minimum $54,603
projected operating expense decrease anticipated under SUEZ operation versus
Eagle Water’s 2017 reported operating and maintenance costs of $611,863. The
savings anticipated are the result of eliminating office space rental at a cost
savings of $10,450 per year, by using SUEZ’s existing company offices. A
$44,153 reduction in salary and benefit costs is anticipated by SUEZ operating the
Eagle Water system with the addition of three employees – a meter reader,
operator and customer service representative versus Eagle Water’s existing
owner’s salary, staffing levels and benefit costs.
2) 24-hour automated system monitoring
SUEZ recommends that the Eagle Water system be monitored around-the-clock
through supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and operated
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 2 OF 6
by two licensed, qualified operators. Ms. Cary’s testimony on page 6 discusses
the projected operating costs for the Eagle Water system to add a dedicated
SCADA operator at an estimated cost of $60,000 in payroll expense, plus benefit
costs. Ms. Cooper’s testimony starting on page 10 discusses the anticipated
$532,000 cost for adding SCADA controls at each Eagle Water facility. $250,000
of this capital investment includes a SCADA control room, database, historian,
radio path survey etc. which Eagle Water would need that SUEZ already has in
place.
3) Numerous field personnel trained and certified in water distribution, water
treatment, and cross connection control that are able to respond quickly to any issues;
In the company’s response to production request No. 10, several unaddressed
material deficiencies from the Eagle Water system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary
survey were detailed. Notably, this included a lack of appropriate state drinking
water licensure for that system’s lead operator (IBOL Drinking Water
Distribution Class II).

As a fully licensed system in both water distribution and treatment, SUEZ can
provide a fully licensed workforce where every utility worker and operator holds
required Class II licensure as a condition of employment. These employees staff
fully equipped repair and maintenance teams with materials on-hand from local
inventory and guaranteed stock contracts with local vendors. SUEZ’s field
personnel are available 24 hours per day for critical event response and issue
correction.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 3 OF 6
4) Web site access for customers and electronic billing and payment options;
The estimated average cost of designing, developing, and launching a website can
range from $5,000 for a basic website to $100,000 or more depending on features
for secure payment and integration of metering system data. SUEZ’s estimate for
Eagle Water to develop a customer website with a similar level of customer
service and information functionality and features as MySUEZWater.com is
approximately $50,000, with additional on-going hosting and maintenance
expenses. SUEZ’s incremental cost to incorporate Eagle Water’s 4,000 estimated
customers into its online platform is estimated to be minimal.

5) Capital Funding Access
SUEZ’s available capital budgets are substantial, as documented in Responses 12
and 13. In addition, SUEZ tracks assets and capital spending in accordance with
regulated utility guidelines and does not use surcharges as a regular means of
funding needed capital improvements.

6) Economies of Scale: National Contracts for Materials and Services.
SUEZ uses national and global buying power to negotiate favorable terms on
items that can be purchased from service providers and manufacturers. These
contracts would be used in all aspects of SUEZ’s transition and maintenance of
the Eagle Water system. For items used in direct operation of the system, Suez
has contracts with manufacturers for meters, pipe, valves, hydrants, and lab
testing/sampling equipment. The lab testing equipment contract provides
discounts of 17% to 20% off list price. Our experience has shown that the
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 4 OF 6
contracts for meters, pipe, valves, and hydrants are typically 30% to 50% lower
than prices that a distributor provides to smaller water systems.
Suez has negotiated contracts for support services not directly used in the
operation of the water system. Examples of these contracts include fleet, telecom
services, uniforms, PPE products, and office supplies. Discounts will vary by
item and service type. For example, telecom contracts provide a 19% to 21%
discount of service and equipment.

7) Water conservation programs and no-cost conservation devices
SUEZ’s comprehensive conservation program, approved by the Commission,
includes customer education and outreach, xeriscape demonstration gardens,
conservation devices including hose timers, sprinkler irrigation rain sensors,
commercial kitchen sprayers, hose timers, etc. The cost in 2009 of designing and
implementing the conservation plan was $192k.

It is the Company’s position that a lack of ongoing capital investment in the Eagle
Water System has provided a false impression of affordability to its current
customers. When compared to usage patterns from adjacent SUEZ customers,
Eagle Water customers use 150% the average annual volume per customer on
record for SUEZ customers in the same period (2017). If Eagle Water residential
customers were to conserve water to a similar level as the average SUEZ’s
residential customer they could reduce usage, and associated volume billing
charges, by up to 66%.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 5 OF 6
8) The ability to maintain the water system in regulatory compliance;
SUEZ has noted elsewhere in our response to these request that Eagle Water has
had difficulty meeting its current regulatory obligations. Notably, these
deficiencies can be found in the Company’s response to production requests No.
9, No. 10, and No. 11. Excerpts from these responses will be summarized again
here.

As noted in the Company’s response to request No. 9, the Eagle Water system
does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire pumping capacity
(IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA
58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section
501.07).

The company’s response to request No. 10 details several unaddressed material
deficiencies from the system’s most recent IDEQ sanitary survey. These include
leaks and structural issues with Well 2 facility, and a lack of appropriate level II
licensure for the system’s lead operator.

Finally, in response to request No. 18, Company analysis has determined a
significant water rights issue leaves Eagle Water with a peak hour water right
shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).

In conjunction with SUEZ’s standards for system maintenance, sampling, and
operation, the capital investment plan offered in our testimony would bring Eagle
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 4 - PAGE 6 OF 6
Water Company assets up to utility and regulatory standards enjoyed by its
neighboring utilities. Further, the reasonable and stable rate structure proposed by
SUEZ would ensures these investments are maintained in the future to the benefit
customers.

9) The ability to spread costs of Eagle area capital improvements over a large customer base and avoidance of future surcharges.
SUEZ tracks all assets and capital investments in accordance with typical
regulated utility practices and does not regularly use surcharges as a means to
fund needed capital improvements. One benefit of a large water system that
Eagle Water customers would gain by joining SUEZ is that required costs are
spread over a large number of customers. The Redwood Creek Pipeline project is
a good example of this opportunity (addressed in Production Response No. 9).
SUEZ customers need the Redwood Creek Pipeline to transmit additional supply
to SUEZ’ Hidden Hollow Tank. Simple pressure reducing connections from this
pipeline into the Eagle Water system will remedy their IDEQ pumping shortfall
deficiencies.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila M. Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5: Please provide all financial analyses prepared by
or for SUEZ Water Idaho for estimating the value of Eagle Water’s system. If not clearly
labeled in the workpapers, please provide assumptions on the cost of capital and annual (or
quarterly, if applicable) expected revenue and costs, including book depreciation, tax
depreciation, income taxes, deferred taxes, property taxes, and other items typically included in a
discounted cash flow analysis.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5:
The Company did not determine the Eagle Water purchase price through a discounted
cash flow analysis because that valuation is highly dependent on regulatory treatment
assumptions. The negotiated purchase price and estimated value of the Eagle Water system to
SUEZ was substantiated by the avoided capital investment as outlined in Ms. Cooper’s testimony
starting on page 5. Including the $10M Eagle Water purchase acquisition price, SUEZ estimates
that $11.7M of additional planned capital investment would be avoided or deferred, while
addressing the supply needs in the northwest area of the SUEZ system sooner. In that respect,
the value of the Eagle Water system acquisition to SUEZ could be valued at as much as $21.7M.
Other factors in the valuation consideration included the City of Eagle’s 2007 attempt to
purchase Eagle Water at a proposed $6.3M price plus $900,000 in financing cost, for an
estimated total cost of $7.2M. At that time, Cooper Norman Certified Public Accountants firm
expressed an opinion that the proposed purchase price and financing cost “was reasonable and
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 5 - PAGE 2 OF 2
fair” to the City of Eagle. Published on its website, the City of Eagle also provided information
regarding the proposed Eagle Water company purchase, which included reference to a 2002
valuation performed by JUB Engineers that estimated the value of Eagle Water company assets
at that time, based on the replacement cost depreciation method, to be $6,728,593.
The SUEZ acquisition price of the South County Water Company system in 1998 was
$761 per customer, not adjusted for inflation, as referenced in case UWI-W-98-2 Linam
testimony pages 6-8. In SUEZ’s 2015 general rate case no. UWI-W-15-01, SUEZ’s system
investment was approximately $1,924 per customer at that time. SUEZ’s $10M Eagle Water
proposed purchase price represents an approximate investment per customer of $2,380. In
comparison, recent SUEZ small system acquisitions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas
averaged between $3,000 and $5,000 investment per customer.
Exhibit 1 Schedule 1a - Eagle Water Company projected capital and operating costs
absent an acquisition, includes SUEZ assumptions for cost of capital, a 3% depreciation rate, and
operating and maintenance costs based on Eagle Water’s 2017 Commission annual report,
excluding any inflationary factors. The Company expects that with the acquisition of Eagle
Water, SUEZ’s costs to maintain and operate the Eagle Water system would be $54,603 lower
versus Eagle Water’s 2017 reported expenses, as outlined in Cary testimony pages 7-8.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6: SUEZ Water Idaho proposes a three year rate
phase-in for Eagle Water customers after the acquisition (Cary testimony page 12, lines 6-15).
Please break down the portion of the increase that will be recovered through basic service
charges and the portion recovered through consumption rates. Please explain the method and
rationale used and provide all supporting workpapers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6:
The proposed three-year rate phase-in for Eagle Water customers would align rates into
the existing SUEZ tariff rate structure, at an anticipated impact of $1,768,304 to create
uniformity among rate payers.
Exhibit 2 to the testimony calculates the $1,768,304 impact of the rate phase-in assuming
3,500 Residential customers with an average monthly consumption of 16ccfs with 70%
summertime consumption and 500 Commercial Customers with a 2” meter and 75ccfs of
monthly consumption and 85% summertime consumption.
Using the same assumption as outlined above, the portion of the $1,768,304 increase
expected to be recovered through basic service charges is $167,640 or 9.48%, while the portion
expected to be recovered through consumption rates is $1,600,664 or 90.52%. These figures are
calculated in the attached workpaper Response #6 Break down of increase.xlsx which is a
condensed version of Exhibit 2.

C:\NRPortbl\GPDMS\S274\14489379_1.xlsx Page 1
Eagle Water Company Proposed Rate Phase In
50%75%100%
100 cubic feet or CCF
Summer Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.8577$
Winter Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.4674$
Per 3CCF Per 1 CCF Rate for first 3 CCF (winter & summer)change over 2017 EWC actual revenue 233%
600CF or less 7.84$ 3.92$ 1.307$ 1.4674$ change over existing EWC rates 235%
Over 600 CF per 100 CF 0.4510$
Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)507,937$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Grand Total Impact 1,768,304$ GRAND TOTAL Percentage
Residential Customer 3/4" Meter
Over 6CCF 3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 270,588$ Annual Increase 394,644$ Annual Increase 394,644$
Monthly Increase 6.44$ Monthly Increase 9.40$ Monthly Increase 9.40$
Winter/Summer Consumption 30%70%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
3/4" Meter - Monthly 7.84$ Total basic service charges impact (107,625)$ 110,828$ 10.56$ 110,828$ 114,030$ 167,640$ 9.48%
CCF allowed 6 Consumption increase 378,213$ 283,816$ 0 283,816$ 945,845$ 1,600,664$ 90.52%
Customers 3,500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer Total Rate Calculated
16 7.84$ 1.35$ 3.16$ 12.35$ 518,700$ 5.28$ 3.52$ 9.99$ 18.79$ 52%789,288$ 7.92$ 5.28$ 14.99$ 28.19$ 50%1,183,932$ 10.56$ 7.04$ 19.99$ 37.59$ 33%1,578,575$ 204.33%1,578,575$
Commercial Customer 1-1/2" Meter
3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 237,349$ Annual Increase 235,540$ Annual Increase 235,540$
Monthly Increase 39.56$ Monthly Increase 39.26$ Monthly Increase 39.26$
Winter/Summer Consumption 15%85%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
1-1/2" Meter - Monthly 14.15$ Total basic service charges impact (15,645)$ 34,628$ 23.09$ 34,628$ 53,610$
CCF allowed 20 Consumption increase 252,994$ 200,912$ 200,912$ 654,818$
Customers 500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
75 14.15$ 3.72$ 21.08$ 38.96$ 233,730$ 11.54$ 8.25$ 58.72$ 78.51$ 102%471,079$ 17.31$ 12.38$ 88.07$ 117.77$ 50%706,619$ 23.09$ 16.51$ 117.43$ 157.03$ 33%942,158$ 303.10%942,158$
Eagle Water Company Rates
\\PUCBOICF01\Common\ScannedFiles\ScanRoom\Response to Request 6 - Exhibit.xlsx Page 1
Eagle Water Company Proposed Rate Phase In
50%75%100%
100 cubic feet or CCF
Summer Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.8577$
Winter Tariff Rate 0.4510$ 1.4674$
Per 3CCF Per 1 CCF Rate for first 3 CCF (winter & summer)change over 2017 EWC actual revenue 233%
600CF or less 7.84$ 3.92$ 1.307$ 1.4674$ change over existing EWC rates 235%
Over 600 CF per 100 CF 0.4510$
Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)507,937$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Total Annual Impact (Residential & Commercial)630,183$ Grand Total Impact 1,768,304$ GRAND TOTAL Percentage
Residential Customer 3/4" Meter
Over 6CCF 3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 270,588$ Annual Increase 394,644$ Annual Increase 394,644$
Monthly Increase 6.44$ Monthly Increase 9.40$ Monthly Increase 9.40$
Winter/Summer Consumption 30%70%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
3/4" Meter - Monthly 7.84$ Total basic service charges impact (107,625)$ 110,828$ 10.56$ 110,828$ 114,030$ 167,640$ 9.48%
CCF allowed 6 Consumption increase 378,213$ 283,816$ 0 283,816$ 945,845$ 1,600,664$ 90.52%
Customers 3,500
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
16 7.84$ 1.35$ 3.16$ 12.35$ 518,700$ 5.28$ 3.52$ 9.99$ 18.79$ 52%789,288$ 7.92$ 5.28$ 14.99$ 28.19$ 50%1,183,932$ 10.56$ 7.04$ 19.99$ 37.59$ 33%1,578,575$ 204.33%1,578,575$
3CCF in Summer at Winter Rate Annual Increase 237,349$ Annual Increase 235,540$ Annual Increase 235,540$
Monthly Increase 39.56$ Monthly Increase 39.26$ Monthly Increase 39.26$
15%85%(Based on 2017 consumption by month avg.)
14.15$ Total basic service charges impact (15,645)$ 34,628$ 23.09$ 34,628$ 53,610$
20 Consumption increase 252,994$ 200,912$ 200,912$ 654,818$
Monthly Consumption (CCF Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Calculated
Annual Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated Fixed Winter Summer
Total
Rate Calculated
75 14.15$ 3.72$ 21.08$ 38.96$ 233,730$ 11.54$ 8.25$ 58.72$ 78.51$ 102%471,079$ 17.31$ 12.38$ 88.07$ 117.77$ 50%706,619$ 23.09$ 16.51$ 117.43$ 157.03$ 33%942,158$ 303.10%942,158$
Eagle Water Company Rates
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7: Thompson’s testimony on page 8 states, “Suez’s
standards for plant maintenance, upgrades and replacements indicate that some substantial
capital investments should be scheduled over the next several years.” Please provide supporting
evidence including reports, analysis, etc. that demonstrates that the current Eagle Water system is
not providing safe, reliable service.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7:
Whether a utility is providing, or is can provide, adequate service pursuant to Idaho Code
61-302 requires a legal conclusion. Evidence of Eagle Water Company’s current noncompliance
with regulatory requirements in several critical areas as provided by SUEZ in response to staff
production requests No. 9, No. 10, and No. 18 and the Direct Testimony of Cathy Cooper may
bear on this issue.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8: Please provide the documentation that supports the
increase of $158,750 in operating expenses as shown in Exhibit No. 1, Schedule 1a in Cary’s
testimony.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8:
The $158,750 operating cost increase projection over Eagle Water’s 2017 year-end
reported Operating & Maintenance costs, is based on the associated maintenance anticipated or
as a result of the projected $13.4M capital investment discussed in Ms. Cooper’s testimony that
SUEZ believes will be needed for Eagle Water system over the next three years.
The operating and maintenance costs projected for Eagle Water are based on SUEZ’s
own experience, cost history for similar items, and through an evaluation of the Eagle Water
system and its facilities during the due diligence investigation process. The costs are
conservative estimates without inflationary adjustments. SUEZ Operator wages avg. $60,000
per year, plus benefits. Based on the wage information provided by Eagle Water, SUEZ
anticipates that a licensed Operator at the level required by IDEQ for the Eagle Water system
would also warrant higher pay.
The $2,000 estimated annual power expense for adding SCADA monitoring equipment at
Eagle Water’s facilities, chemical feeds pumps, analyzers, RTU’s and pressure regulating valves
is based on SUEZ’s operating cost for similar type of equipment. The approximate $24,000 for
disinfection is based on SUEZ’s disinfection cost of $26.50 per million gallons based on Eagle
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 8 - PAGE 2 OF 2
Water treating 895 million gallons annually. The cost of chlorine detector CL-17 reagents and
facility maintenance is also based on SUEZ’s cost history and through the evaluation of Eagle
Water facilities during the inspection. Well cleaning maintenance estimate is based on SUEZ
history of costs for this type of work with a variety of well depths and various methods. SUEZ’s
subcontractor costs for SCADA and GIS support, licenses and maintenance fees are the basis for
Eagle Water’s $5,000 anticipated cost. Generator maintenance needs and recommended testing
is based on SUEZ’s experience with similar equipment, and similar costs experienced by SUEZ
for landscaping upkeep and backflow device testing.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 1 OF 8
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9: Please provide all the analysis, including all
workpapers of Eagle Water Company system showing that it does not meet IDEQ requirements
for redundant non-fire pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire
pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17) and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08
Section 501.07) stated in Cooper’s testimony page 5, lines 1-6. Please include schedules of the
expected costs to resolve the Eagle Water system requirements.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9:
The existing Eagle Water Company system was analyzed for compliance with Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) regulatory requirements. Background information
on demands and well capacities are important in the understanding of the analysis, and this
information is presented first.
Water demands were calculated by reviewing historical information. The following table
shows maximum day and average day demand calculations for Eagle Water Company.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 2 OF 8

A summary of demands is shown in the following table. Since Eagle Water well house
meters are read manually once per day, there is no peak hour information available. A typical
(although often conservative) calculation for peak hour is 1.5 times maximum day demand,
which is the calculation used here.

During the due diligence period for the potential acquisition, SUEZ engineering and
hydrogeology staff collected field data and other available information to analyze capacities of
the existing wells. The summary of the analysis is shown in the following table. The total
available flow from wells at system pressures is currently 8,225 gpm.
Year Max Day (gallons)MDD (gpm)
Number of
Connections
MDD/ Conn
(gpm)
MDD/
Conn/ day
(gal)
Total Demand
for Year (gal)Days/ Year
ADD/ Conn
(gpm)
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16 1,674 609,628,000 365 0.45
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 1,692 730,965,000 365 0.51
2004 4,763,000 3,308 2,889 1.14 1,649 747,961,000 364 0.49
2005 5,156,000 3,581 3,196 1.12 1,613 694,869,000 365 0.41
2006 5,261,000 3,653 3,258 1.12 1,615 815,222,000 365 0.48
2007 5,459,000 3,791 3,337 1.14 1,636 858,421,000 365 0.49
2008 5,488,000 3,811 3,400 1.12 1,614 811,209,000 364 0.46
2009 5,557,000 3,859 3,322 1.16 1,673 846,790,000 365 0.48
2010 5,764,000 4,003 3,389 1.18 1,701 797,334,000 365 0.45
2011 5,955,000 4,135 3,438 1.20 1,732 768,389,000 365 0.43
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11 1,597 826,090,000 364 0.45
2013 5,983,000 4,155 3,537 1.17 1,692 840,560,000 365 0.45
2014 5,570,000 3,868 3,546 1.09 1,571 870,610,000 365 0.47
2015 5,406,000 3,754 3,573 1.05 1,513 861,162,000 365 0.46
2016 5,983,000 4,155 3,835 1.08 1,560 889,274,000 364 0.44
2017 Not Available 3,833 - 857,938,433 365 0.43
2018 6,250,000 4,340 4,046 1.07 1,545
Calculate
MDD per
Customer
(gpm)
Calculate ADD
per
Connection
(gpm)
High 1.20 High 0.51
Average 1.13 Avg 0.46
Low 1.05 Low 0.41
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Not Available
Service
Area Demand Type
Demand
(gpm/
connection)
Total
Connections
(April 2018)
Total Demand
(gpm)
Average Day 0.46 1,850
Maximum Day 1.13 4,600
Peak Hour (1.5 x MDD)1.70 6,900
Largest Fire Flow --2,500
Eagle
Water
Company
4,046
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 3 OF 8

Analysis for IDEQ purposes requires the calculation of “firm capacity,” or the volume of
water that can be produced with the largest source out of service. Firm Capacity for the Eagle
Water system is currently 5,725 gpm. Eagle Water wells 2, 7, and 8 have standby generators,
which provides a total capacity of 3,925 gpm with standby power capability. These numbers are
summarized in the following table.

Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
surface)
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
(gpm/ft)
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
(gpm)
Calculated
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
(gpm)
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
surface)
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
(gpm)
Estimated
Flow at
150'
Drawdown
(gpm)
SUEZ analysis -
EWC Current
Well
Production
Capacities
with Current
Pumps (gpm)
Calculated
Pumping
Water Level at
SUEZ Capacity
(ft below
ground
surface)Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
issue
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
Even at 325 gpm, calculation shows a lower
pumping water level than sustainable, actual
capacity may be a little less.
3 58.0 8 - 250 1,200 - Taken offline in 1995 due to iron bacteria
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
This pumping level leaves about 40' for the
pump and suction level above the pump. On
5/31/18 the pump was running about 80% speed
and producing 800 gpm at 112 psi.
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
bigger pump could reasonably produce more
water. Use EWC reported capacity.
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197 Pump is sized for 1350 gpm.
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while
Suez was on site). Maximum from pump curve
is 2250 gpm (at end of pump curve).
Total 8225
Well Facility
Current Well
Production
Capacities
(gpm)
Current Well
Production
Capacities
With Standby
Generators
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
Total 8,225 3,925
Firm capacity
(largest source out
of service)5,725
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 4 OF 8
It should be noted that Eagle Water’s Well 2 pumps into a 90,000 gallon storage tank,
and from there, three booster pumps boost water into the distribution system. It appears that the
booster pumps have a firm capacity of approximately 600 gpm (pump horsepowers are 25 hp, 25
hp, and 15 hp). While this is more flow than the well can provide, the tank is not large enough to
sustain the 600 gpm flows for more than about 2.5 hours if the tank starts full. Therefore, the
well capacity has been used in this analysis rather than the booster pumping capacity.
The analysis for compliance with IDEQ requirements is summarized in the table below.
The current Eagle Water system does not meet IDEQ requirements for redundant non-fire
pumping capacity (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.17), redundant fire pumping capacity (IDAPA
58.01.08 Section 501.18), and emergency operation (IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 501.07).

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 5 OF 8

Requirement IDAPA 58.01.08
Citation
Eagle Water Company
Flow
Requirement (gpm)
Eagle Water Company Flow
Available (gpm)
Meets Requirement?
Redundant Pumping Capacity (Non-Fire)
501.171 Water Source Redundancy
6,900 5,725 No
(shortage 1,175 gpm)
Redundant Pumping Capacity
(including Fire
Flow)
501.182 7,100 5,725 No
(shortage 1,375 gpm)
Emergency
Operation
501.073 4,350 3,925 No
(shortage 425 gpm)
1. Under normal operating conditions, with any source out of service, the remaining sources
shall be capable of providing either the peak hour demand of the system or a minimum of the maximum day demand plus equalization storage. (Peak Hour = 6,900 gpm, firm capacity available = 5,725 gpm). Note that the Eagle Water system does not have any equalization
storage available.
2. Public water systems that provide fire flow shall be designed t
gpm + 2,500 gpm = 7,100 gpm, firm capacity available = 5,725 gpm)
3. During a power outage the water system shall be able to meet the operating pressure requirements for a minimum of 8 hours at average day demand plus fire flow. (Note that Wells 2, 7, and 8 have generators, for total well capacity with standby po
(Average Day Demand + Fire flow = 1,850 gpm + 2,500 gpm = 4,350 gpm)

The expected costs to resolve the Eagle Water System capacity shortfalls are included in
the chart titled “Planned Capital Improvements that will Benefit Eagle Water Customers”
included in Cooper’s testimony on page 11 and reproduced on the following pages. The key
projects in making up the shortfall in all three of the IDEQ deficiency categories have been
highlighted. Note that this table only shows the portion of the project cost anticipated to benefit
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 6 OF 8
Eagle Water customers. The total cost of these projects that remedy IDEQ deficiencies and
benefit Eagle Water customers is $7.014M.
One project example is the Redwood Creek Pipeline. SUEZ is constructing the Redwood
Creek Pipeline to transmit additional source of supply to SUEZ’s Hidden Hollow Tank. The
pipeline is being constructed whether or not SUEZ acquires the Eagle Water Company assets.
Having the pipeline in place will allow for the Eagle Water and SUEZ systems to be easily
interconnected, which will remedy the shortfalls in non-fire, fire, and emergency operation
pumping capacity that Eagle Water currently has. The total cost for the Redwood Creek Pipeline
is $12,022M (Cooper’s testimony, Pages 7 and 8), with the portion benefitting Eagle Water
Company customers calculated at $2,133M (Cooper testimony page 11, table reproduced on
following page).
The planned improvements PRV at Well 8 and PRV at Well 6 will allow water from the
SUEZ system to flow into the Eagle Water Company system, making up for the shortfalls in all
three of the IDEQ deficiency categories and remedying these issues. These projects will use
water from SUEZ’ Hidden Hollow Tank to provide any additional flows to the Eagle Water
Company system. The Hidden Hollow Tank is already fully used by SUEZ customers, but will
provide an adequate back-up supply for Eagle Water on an interim basis without negative
impacts to current SUEZ customers. To utilize supply from the SUEZ system through the
proposed PRVs at wells 8 and 6, which will remedy the IDEQ deficiencies, SUEZ’s Redwood
Creek Pipeline project must be in place, as it is the connection to Hidden Hollow Tank.
The proposed 2 MG tank is the project that will permanently bring the Eagle Water
Company system into compliance with IDEQ requirements and provide peak hour and fire flows
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 7 OF 8
to the majority of the Eagle Water system. It is planned to be in place during 2021. The PRVs at
wells 8 and 6 will always be available for additional or redundant supply from the SUEZ system.
The total cost of these improvements that will benefit Eagle Water Customers by
providing a remedy to the IDEQ pumping capacity shortfalls the system currently has is
$7.014M.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 9 - PAGE 8 OF 8

Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit Summary
Add chlorination at Wells
2, 4, 6, 7, 8 56$
Chlorine residual in distribution system, protection against contamination risk. $10k
plus OH per site.
SCADA at each Facility
(Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2
boosters), control room
and associated hardware
and software 532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle
Water constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k
contingency, plus OH.
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
$1500 each)1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
Half of EWC meters - fix problematic meter locations, move into right-of-way, lessen
depth for safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the
Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection.
Meter Replacement with
AMI (2000 @ $388)454$ 438$
Half of EWC meters - Install AMI meters in existing meter boxes. The benefits of AMI
meters include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through
the Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two
repeaters if Eagle Water constructed the improvements, no OH on this portion.
Water Right Transfers to
add APODS to Eagle Water
and SUEZ Rights 56$
These transfers would allow the two delivery systems to be integrated in the future,
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and
SUEZ rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak
demands. These transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate
new water rights to fill its current shortfall.
Map Eagle Water System
into GIS and create
Hydraulic Model 27$
Provides the benefit of crews being able to rapidly locate buried infrastructure.
Inclusion in the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline
replacement planning. This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into
Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving system operations platform.
PRV at Well 8 528$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
PRV at Well 6 341$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,133$
The Redwood Creek pipeline will be the interconnection between the Eagle Water
system and the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water
customers with the benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez
system. The benefit is calculated on making up the redundancy shortfall in fireflow
for Eagle Water (1375 gpm). This would also cover the shortage in peak hour
redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency standby shortage (429 gpm). It won't be
available to EWC customers until the PRV at Well 8 is in place, which is why it has
been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total pipeline cost, 1375
gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used locally in
Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
through 2021).
2 MG Tank 2,006$ 2,006$
Will bring Eagle Water into compliance with IDEQ peak hour and fire flow supply and
redundancy requirements
Pipeline Replacements
(1% per year) 305$ 305$ 305$
0.6 miles of pipeline replacement per year. First years will target undersized lines or
lines at higher risk of breakage.
Safety and Security
Improvements 28$ 28$ 28$ Arcflash analysis and improvements, eyewash stations, fall protection at facility sites.
Production Roll-Up Work 113$ 141$ 141$
Pump replacements, HVAC, production meter replacements, pumping facility
upgrades, landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level
monitoring in wells, etc
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were
making the improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control
room, servers, database, and historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a
control room or associated amenities and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were
constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water portion of the costs does not have any overheads included.
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn Total Demand for ADD/ Conn
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 1,692 730,965,000 365 0.51
per Customer per Connection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Service (gpm/ Connections Total Demand
Company 4,046
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Suez Analysis of Current EWC Well Pumping Capacities
Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
Estimated
Drawdown
EWC Current
Well
Production
Calculated
Level at SUEZ
Capacity (ft
below ground
Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
was running about 80% speed and producing 800
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
Use EWC reported capacity.
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while Suez
was on site). Maximum from pump curve is 2250
Total 8225
Well Facility
Current Well
Production
Current Well
Production
Standby
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
(largest source out
of service)5,725
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn Total Demand for ADD/ Conn
Calculate MDD
per Customer
Calculate ADD
per Connection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Total
Connections Total Demand
Company 4,046
Calculate Average Day DemandsCalculate Maximum Day Demands
Suez Analysis of Current EWC Well Pumping Capacities
Well
Non-
Pumping
Water level
(ft below
ground
Estimated
Specific
Capacity
EWC
Reported
Well
Capacity
Pumping
Water Level
at EWC
Reported
Capacity
Casing
Reduction
Depth (ft
below
ground
Estimated
Flow at 100'
Drawdown
Estimated
Drawdown
EWC Current
Well
Production
Calculated
Level at SUEZ
Capacity (ft
below ground
Comments
1 51.2 15 600 91 160 1,500 2,250 -
Offline since August 2015 due to a power supply
2 55.4 3.25 400 178 145 325 488 325 155
water level than sustainable, actual capacity may be
3 58.0 8 - 250 1,200 -
4 64.3 12 2,500 273 255 1,200 1,800 1,800 214
This pumping level leaves about 40' for the pump
and suction level above the pump. On 5/31/18 the
pump was running about 80% speed and producing
6 2.0 40 2,500 65 240 4,000 6,000 2,500 65
This well has a large specific capacity and with a
7 4.0 7 1,900 275 255 700 1,050 1,350 197
8 7.0 15 2,500 174 283 1,500 2,250 2,250 157
Pump column length 195' (pump was out while Suez
was on site). Maximum from pump curve is 2250
Total 8225
Current Well
Production
Current Well
Production
Standby
1 - -
2 325 325
3 - -
4 1,800
6 2,500
7 1,350 1,350
8 2,250 2,250
Total 8,225 3,925
(largest source out
of service)5,725
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10: Please provide the regulatory requirements and
standards for the “disinfection needs” of Eagle Water Company as stated in Cary testimony page
5 line 12. Please include in your response the deficiency letters Eagle Water Company has
received as a result of water testing, or any other evidence supporting these needs.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10:
Providing a chorine residual in the distribution system of a water system is typical and
considered a best practice, although for systems supplied only by groundwater, chlorination is
not required by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). Chlorination is a
requirement for water systems that have any surface water supply, so at a point where the SUEZ
and Eagle Water systems are connected, chlorination will be required.
Chlorination has many benefits for any system, even those supplied only by groundwater.
Chlorine maintains sanitary conditions by neutralizing any bacterial contamination that may
enter a water system from a potential backflow or leak. It is also an indicator for system
operators of potential contamination. Chlorine residual is easily and quickly measured in the
field, making it a useful tool for operators. For example, if a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/l is
expected at a system location, but a residual of 0.1 mg/l is measured instead, the measurement
results can be used to narrow in on a potential backflow or leak location.
To our knowledge, Eagle Water has not had bacterial contamination issues in their water
quality sampling results. The most recent IDEQ sanitary survey, however, flagged unsanitary
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 10 - PAGE 2 OF 2
conditions at Well 2 due to “numerous leaks observed along the side walls of the tank” and the
tank “concrete roof is flat and pools water in low spots. Numerous cracks in roof were
observed”. There is no question the leaks and pooling issues should be fixed, but a chlorine
residual would provide an extra level of protection to customers against these types of potential
contamination.
Most water systems in the area provide chlorination for their water systems, even those
that are solely supplied by groundwater. Examples include the nearby water systems owned by
the City of Eagle and Garden City.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11 - PAGE 1 OF 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Jarmila Cary, Director of Finance, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11: Please provide the source documents for the
closing costs incurred to date. Did SUEZ Water Idaho competitively bid the ALTA survey? If
so, please provide the bids. If not, please explain why it was not competitively bid.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11:
SUEZ Water Idaho did not competitively bid the ALTA survey work. At the time the
work was starting, the potential acquisition was confidential, making a bid process infeasible. In
addition, the work needed to be completed in a short timeframe by a surveying company with
prior experience doing ALTA surveys and prior experience coordinating with the TitleOne title
officer issuing title commitments for the numerous properties being surveyed and to be acquired.
The Land Group was selected for the work based on these requirements, and the scope of work
with The Land Group was authorized and signed by SUEZ’s counsel. SUEZ inquired with
another surveying company about completing the work, but they were unable to meet the
required timeline.
The closing costs incurred to date are in the following attachments:
$100,000 Earnest Money (Exhibit A to Response to Request 11)
$1,964.41 AutoSort Initial Customer Notice Postage (Exhibit B to Response to Request 11)
$1,154.59 International Minute Press Initial Customer Notices (Exhibit C to Response to
Request 11)
$24,700 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey first half (Exhibit D to Response to Request 11)
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 11 - PAGE 2 OF 2
$24,700 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey second half (Exhibit E to Response to
Request 11)
$3,000 The Land Group Invoice ALTA Survey Well Easements (Exhibit F to Response to Request 11)
The Land Group ALTA Survey Scope of Work (executed) (Exhibit G to Response to Request 11)

Legal costs to-date total $72,644.50 in the attachments listed below. Legal services
included negotiation and drafting of asset Purchase Agreement; coordination of survey and title
review; and preparation and prosecution of the Joint Application.
$2,292.30 Givens Pursley 191701 August Invoice (Exhibit H to Response to Request 11)
$7,468.10 Givens Pursley 192529 September Invoice (Exhibit I to Response to Request 11)
$16,533.90 Givens Pursley 192903 October Invoice (Exhibit J to Response to Request 11)
$17,674.50 Givens Pursley 194235 November Invoice (Exhibit K to Response to Request 11)
$18,580.20 Givens Pursley 195392 December Invoice (Exhibit L to Response to Request 11)
$10,095.50 Givens Pursley Invoices Matter 178 (Exhibit M to Response to Request 11)
Givens Pursley
Attn: Gary Allen
601 W. Bannock
Boise, ID 83701
December 31, 2018
Project No:118124.00
Invoice No:0141026
The Land Group, Inc.
462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
ph. 208.939.4041
fax. [phone]
Project 118124.00 Eagle Well Site ALTA Surveys
Invoice submitted via email: [e-mail]
Invoice for Professional Services from December 01, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Phase .02 Well Easements
Fee
Number of Per Easement 5.00
Fee Each 600.00
Total Fee 3,000.00
Total Earned 3,000.00
Previous Fee Billing 0.00
Current Fee Billing 3,000.00
Total Fee 3,000.00
$3,000.00Total this Phase
$3,000.00Total this Invoice

Invoice due upon receipt. If you have questions, please contact Misty at [phone]. Thank you.

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] August 17, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:191701 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
right issues (.4); Discuss EWC water right issues with M. Creamer (.5); Discuss EWC water right issues with C. Meyer (.6); Review EWC water rights and IDWR statutes and guidance re municipal service areas; draft

TOTAL FEES 2,292.30

Previous Balance: $0.00 Payments Received: $0.00

Any Payments Received After August 17, 2018
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 08/17/18 Invoice # 191701 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] September 24, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:192529 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
with C. Cooper; coordinate APA re-draft with C.
("APA"); conference call regarding same; phone call
relating to franchise tax; email to C. Beeson regarding
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 09/24/18 Invoice # 192529 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
08/31/18 Review and comment on asset purchase agreement. JCS 1.10 237.60

TOTAL FEES 7,468.10

Previous Balance: $2,292.30 Payments Received: ($2,292.30)

Any Payments Received After September 24, 2018 Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
LAW OFFICES G IVENS PURSLEY L L P

P.O. Box 2720 • Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] October 8, 2018
30-174 Invoice #:192903 SUEZ North American Inc. 8248 W. Victory Rd. P.O. Box 190420 Boise, ID 83719-0420 Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628
REGARDING: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483
extension letter to letter of intent; conference with C.
APA; telephone conference with C. Cooper, et al;
surveys; review revised APA; correspond with N.
applicability to EWC transaction; review revised APA; engage TLG as surveyors; review TitleOne correspondence regarding property ownership
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 10/08/18 Invoice # 192903 Page 2 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
Bangle. 09/13/18 Locate parcels identified by TitleOne; telephone conference with C. Cooper regarding the same and regarding well lot mark-up maps showing same for surveyors; locate and identify easements for title company; correspond with N. Bangle regarding access
telephone conferences with C. Cooper and correspond with J. Washburn; multiple revisions of APAs;
conferences with client, title company and surveyors;
pump survey; correspond with J. Washburn regarding
transfer and non-foreign affidavit; correspond regarding the same; telephone call to Scott Darling and Joe Gropp regarding commitments; coordinate getting
TitleOne, TLG, and Cathy Cooper regarding surveys

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 10/08/18 Invoice # 192903 Page 3 SUEZ North American Inc./Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483 30-174

A LATE PAYMENT CHARGE OF 1 – 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE CHARGED ON OUTSTANDING
BALANCES WHICH REMAIN UNPAID FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL.
TOTAL FEES 16,533.90

Previous Balance: $7,468.10 Payments Received: $0.00

Any Payments Received After October 8, 2018 Will Appear on Your Next Statement The hourly or other billing rates of our attorneys and other personnel are subject to change from time to time. This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered. Please include invoice number with your payment. Thank you, Givens Pursley LLP

A late payment charge of 18% per annum (1 ½% per month) will be charged on outstanding balances that remain unpaid
for 30 days or more from the date of the invoice.

November 16, 2018

SUEZ North American Inc. Invoice #: 194235
8248 W. Victory Rd. Client #: 30
Boise, ID 83719-0420 Matter #: 174
________________________________________________________________________________________

INVOICE SUMMARY

SERVICES FOR PERIOD THROUGH 10/31/2018

Regarding: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483

Professional Services $ 17,674.50
Costs and Expenses $ .00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 17,674.50

Please include invoice number 194235 with your payment.
Any payments received after November 16, 2018 will be reflected on your next statement.
This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered.

Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

3

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 November 16, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 194235

4

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 17,674.50

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Timekeeper ID Hours Rate Total
TOTALS 62.10 $ 17,674.50

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 17,674.50

A late payment charge of 18% per annum (1 ½% per month) will be charged on outstanding balances that remain unpaid
for 30 days or more from the date of the invoice.

December 11, 2018

SUEZ North American Inc. Invoice #: 195392
8248 W. Victory Rd. Client #: 30
Boise, ID 83719-0420 Matter #: 174
________________________________________________________________________________________

INVOICE SUMMARY

SERVICES FOR PERIOD THROUGH 11/30/2018

Regarding: Eagle Water Company Acquisition - Contract Development - 2018-RO-2483

Professional Services $ 16,705.20
Costs and Expenses $ 1,875.00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 18,580.20

Please include invoice number 195392 with your payment.
Any payments received after December 11, 2018 will be reflected on your next statement.
This invoice reflects the billing rates in effect at the time the services were rendered.

Federal Tax ID #: 82-0335628

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

3

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Client #: 30 December 11, 2018
Matter #: 174 Invoice #: 195392

4

Date ID Description of Service Hours Amount

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 16,705.20

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Timekeeper ID Hours Rate Total
TOTALS 53.00 $ 16,705.20

COSTS AND EXPENSES

Date Description Amount

COSTS AND EXPENSES $ 1,875.00

TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 18,580.20
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital
budget projections for the years 2019-2025.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 12:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital budget projections for 2019 to 2024 are shown in the table
below. SUEZ planning is for a 6-year future projection, so no numbers for 2025 are currently
available.

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Suez Water Idaho Capital
Budget Projection 22,859$ 24,189$ 19,573$ 21,208$ 30,700$ 29,279$
Eagle Water Company
Acquisition and Improvement
Budget 11,762$ 4,089$ 4,761$
Capital Budget Filed for Approval ($ in 000's)
Total Net Expenditure Excluding Corporate Overheads
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Suez Water Idaho Capital Budget
Projection 22,859$ 24,189$ 19,573$ 21,208$ 30,700$ 29,279$
and Improvement Budget
Projection 11,762$ 4,089$ 4,761$
Year
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
Capital
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s budgets filed
for approval with the board of directors for the years 2010 through 2018. Include in your
response the actual capital investments by year for 2010 through 2018.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 13:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s capital budget and actual expenditure information from 2010
through 2018 are included in the table below.

Year
Net Capital
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
000's)
Actual Net
Capital
Expenditure ($
in 000's)
2010 11,535$ 10,847$
2011 11,656$ 10,101$
2012 7,990$ 8,243$
2013 9,173$ 10,030$
2014 12,099$ 12,147$
2015 12,568$ 13,863$
2016 10,907$ 11,675$
2017 19,201$ 19,621$
2018 15,476$ 16,538$
Year
Expenditure
Budgeted ($ in
Capital
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 1 OF 8
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 14: Please provide the cost breakdown for the $11.7
million capital cost avoidance. Include in the response: a) analysis that shows need for new
sources of supply; b) other options that were studied; and c) the cost-benefit analysis for the
other options.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 14:
The cost breakdown is shown in the tables on Pages 7 and 8 of Cooper’s testimony
(reproduced below). These tables analyze only costs associated with providing approximately
12.5 MGD of additional and redundant supply. The $11.7M capital cost avoidance comes from
subtracting the cost of providing 12.6 MGD of supply that could be developed “with Eagle
Water Acquisition” ($30.1M) from the cost of providing 12.5 MGD of supply “absent the Eagle
Water Acquisition” ($41.8M). $41.8M minus $31.4M equals $11.7M. The capital cost avoidance
largely results from not having to complete the Marden Surface Water Treatment Plant
expansion, the Island Woods Connection, and the Optimist Booster Pump Station projects before
2022 if the Eagle Water Company acquisition is completed.
Table from Page 7 Cooper Testimony:
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 2 OF 8

Table from Page 8 Cooper Testimony:

a) The need for new and redundant sources of supply was calculated by reviewing historical
data and projecting forward. For the SUEZ system, an average 1,750 connections per
year have been added in recent history, with a maximum day demand per connection of
0.66 GPM. 1,750 connections at 0.66 GPM each equates to an additional supply need of
1.66 MGD per year. The following table shows the data and calculated average
information.
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
6.00
Marden Expansion (6 MGD, no DAF), includes Main Enlargements
to move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
Enlargement (11,770' of 24" Pipe)2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Cumulative Cost (in 000's)2,032$ 12,022$ 15,058$ 28,747$ 41,844$
Cumulative MGD - 2.2 4.3 4.3 12.5
Cost per MGD 5,565$ 3,485$ 6,654$ 3,353$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16
Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump/higher
TDH 769$
0.00 EWC Acquisition Price 10,000$
0.00
Water Right Transfers / APODS to allow full capacity pumping
from EWC Wells 56$
3.24 New Pump EWC Well 8, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,043$
3.60 New Pump Well 6, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,110$
1.44
New 2 MG Tank / Rehab Well 1 (1000 gpm additional available
from Well 6)2,006$ 3,135$
Cumulative Dollars 2,032$ 22,078$ 25,896$ 30,141$
Cumulative Supply Gained 0.0 2.2 7.6 12.6
Cost per MGD 10,221$ 3,425$ 2,392$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 3 OF 8

For the Eagle Water Company system, a similar analysis was performed resulting in a
calculated maximum day demand of 1.13 GPM per connection, resulting in a maximum
day demand calculation for the entire system (4,046 connections as of April 2018) of
4,600 GPM.
Maximum Day MGD
# Connections
(without
private fire)
Max Day
GPM per
Connection
Connections
added per
year Comments
7/14/2014 84.451 86514 0.68
7/3/2015 87.534 88138 0.69 1624
7/1/2016 82.111 89767 0.64 1629
7/14/2017 84.154 90948 0.64 1181
There was a meter counting
discrepancy between 2017 and
2018, some 2017 new customers
were counted in 2018 instead.
7/30/2018 87.363 93508 0.65 2560
Average 0.66 1748.5
SUEZ System Production Data From IPUC Reports
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 4 OF 8

Year Max Day (gallons)MDD (gpm)
Number of
Connections
MDD/ Conn
(gpm)
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18
2004 4,763,000 3,308 2,889 1.14
2005 5,156,000 3,581 3,196 1.12
2006 5,261,000 3,653 3,258 1.12
2007 5,459,000 3,791 3,337 1.14
2008 5,488,000 3,811 3,400 1.12
2009 5,557,000 3,859 3,322 1.16
2010 5,764,000 4,003 3,389 1.18
2011 5,955,000 4,135 3,438 1.20
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11
2013 5,983,000 4,155 3,537 1.17
2014 5,570,000 3,868 3,546 1.09
2015 5,406,000 3,754 3,573 1.05
2016 5,983,000 4,155 3,835 1.08
2017 Not Available 3,833
2018 6,250,000 4,340 4046 1.07
Calculate
MDD per
Customer
(gpm)
High 1.20
Average 1.13
Low 1.05
Calculate Eagle Water Maximum Day Demands
Service
Area Demand Type
Demand
(gpm/
connection)
Total
Connections
(April 2018)
Total
Demand
(gpm)
Average Day 0.46 1,850
Maximum Day 1.13 4,600
Peak Hour (1.5*MDD)1.70 6,900
Largest Fire Flow --2,500
4,046
Eagle
Water
Company
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 5 OF 8
COMPASS growth projections for the Eagle area were used to calculate a projected
annual growth rate in households of 5.4%. This annual growth rate was used to project an
average annual increase in the Eagle Water Company required Maximum Day Demand
of 0.38 MGD per year through 2021.

The calculation for needed additional and redundant source of supply that wraps in all of
this previous information is shown in the following table. Note that for the SUEZ system
alone, supply need is calculated through 2022 to correlate with the timeframe for
projected supply improvements “absent Eagle Water Acquisition.” For the Suez and
Eagle Water Company systems together, the supply need is calculated through 2021 to
Year # Households Comment
2018 10,530
2019 11,097
2020 11,664
2021 12,231
2022 12,798
2023 13,365
2024 13,932
2025 14,500
567 households
per year = growth
rate of 567/10530
= 5.4% per year
Eagle Area Growth Projection
Ann. Growth Rate 0.054
MDD Projection MDD (gpm)
GPM Added to
MDD per Year
2018 4600
2019 4848 248
2020 5110 262
2021 5386 276
Average (gpm)262
Average (MGD)0.38
Eagle Water Company
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 6 OF 8
correlate with the 3-year projected time frame for supply improvements “with Eagle
Water Company Acquisition.”

b) and c) SUEZ and a consultant completed the Northwest Area Water Supply Study in
2017 to examine alternatives available for supply in the Eagle area. To capture
cost/benefit, a “cost per MGD” was calculated for each alternative. Note that the costs
computed in the study have had local and corporate overheads added to be comparable to
the SUEZ supply improvements alternatives. The “SUEZ SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS”
option costs have been converted from $/MGD (shown in the table on pages 7 and 8 of
Cooper’s testimony) to $/GPM. The following graphic includes each alternative
considered in the Northwest Area Water Supply Study, in addition to including the
“SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION” and
“SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION”. The
Total
Additional
and
Redundant
Supply
Needed
Total
Additional
and
Redundant
Supply
Needed
Year
MGD Needed
per Year
MGD Needed
per Year
2019 1.66 2.04
2020 1.66 2.04
2021 1.66 2.04
2022 1.66
Total 6.65 6.12
Add 20% Contingency to account for
varying weather patterns and related
fluctuations in MDD 1.33 1.22
Total Additional Supply needed for
growth 7.98 7.34
Redundant Source (Redwood Creek Well
redundant to Floating Feather Well)4.32 4.32
Total Additional and Redundant Supply
Needed (MGD)12.30 11.66
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 7 OF 8
alternatives that were less expensive than the “SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH
EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION” were either infeasible, did not include enough supply
on their own to meet the total need and are included as a part of one or both of the “SUEZ
SUPPLY INVESTMENTS” options, or are longer time-frame supply options and will be
considered for development in the future.

The Northwest Area Water Supply study is provided as a work paper and designated as
confidential information. The following table summarizes all of the options examined.
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 - PAGE 8 OF 8

Description
Capital Cost (no
OH) From
Northwest Area
Water Supply
Study
Capital Cost
(with OH)
Capacity
(gpm)$/gpm
Comments on Feasibility / Further
Investigation
Dry Creek ASR $1,800,000 $2,031,930 2,500 $813 No new supply.
Shadow Valley $2,700,000 $3,047,895 1,580 $1,929
Did not turn out to be a feasible option.
Land and water rights not available for
purchase.
Sandy Hill ASR $2,800,000 $3,160,780 1,500 $2,107
No new supply, and Sandy Hill Aquifer not
available for SUEZ use.
Old State Street
Combined $15,600,000 $17,610,060 8,300 $2,122
Elements of this option included in both
"SUEZ SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS" options.
New Floating
Feather Well $5,600,000 $6,321,560 2,800 $2,258
Redundant supply, but would have limited
additional supply due to proximity to
existing well and potential interference
issues. Does not meet redundancy needs
for separate pipeline.
Redwood Creek
Upgrade $5,500,000 $6,208,675 2,600 $2,388
Included in both "SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS" options as "Redwood
Creek Pipeline".
Island Woods $5,000,000 $5,644,250 2,000 $2,822
Elements included in "SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER
ACQUISITION".
Williamson $5,300,000 $5,982,905 2,000 $2,991
This will be a future supply option, SUEZ is
working to acquire a potential well site.
SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EAGLE
WATER
ACQUISITION $30,141,000 8,749 $3,445 Preferred Alternative
Garden City $6,600,000 $7,450,410 2,000 $3,725
SUEZ met with Garden City, they are not
willing to sell water as they do not feel
they have excess supply.
McDonald Big
Gulch Well $800,000 $903,080 240 $3,763
Suez test pumped this well - this was a dry
hole. Not a feasible option.
SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE
WATER
ACQUISITION $41,814,000 8,680 $4,817
New Lanewood
Well $7,700,000 $8,692,145 1,500 $5,795
Problematic well site acquisition and
lengthy water right permitting process.
Western
Wellfield $13,300,000 $15,013,705 2,200 $6,824
SUEZ does not own these water rights and
will not be able to purchase them.
SWTP $60,500,000 $68,295,425 7,000 $9,756
A new surface water treatment plant in
Northwest Boise/Eagle - most expensive
option, challenging surface water right
permitting.
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year Max Day (gallons)MDD (gpm)
Number of
Connections
MDD/ Conn
(gpm)
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16 Ann. Growth Rate 0.054 Year # Households Comment
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 MDD Projection MDD (gpm)2018 10,530
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11
per Customer
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Average Day 0.46 1,850
4,046 Company
Eagle Water Company
567 households
per year = growth rate of 567/10530 = 5.4% per year
Eagle Area Growth Projection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Additional and Redundant Supply Projections
Maximum Day MGD
(without
private fire)
per
Connection
Connections
added per year Comments
7/14/2014 84.451 86514 0.68
7/3/2015 87.534 88138 0.69 1624
7/1/2016 82.111 89767 0.64 1629
7/14/2017 84.154 90948 0.64 1181
some 2017 new customers were
Average 0.66 1748.5

Additional and
Redundant
through 2022
for only SUEZ
system
Redundant
through 2021
for SUEZ and
EWC System
Year per Year per Year
2019 1.66 2.04
2020 1.66 2.04
2021 1.66 2.04
2022 1.66
Total 6.65 6.12
Add 20% Contingency to account for varying
weather patterns and related fluctuations in
MDD 1.33 1.22
redundant to Floating Feather Well)4.32 4.32
Total Additional and Redundant Supply
Needed (MGD)12.30 11.66
Description
Capital Cost (no
OH) From
Northwest Area
Water Supply Study
Capital Cost
(with OH)
Capacity
(gpm)$/gpm Comments on Feasibility / Further Investigation
Dry Creek ASR $1,800,000 $2,031,930 2,500 $813 No new supply.
Shadow Valley $2,700,000 $3,047,895 1,580 $1,929
Did not turn out to be a feasible option. Land
and water rights not available for purchase.
Sandy Hill ASR $2,800,000 $3,160,780 1,500 $2,107
No new supply, and Sandy Hill Aquifer not
available for SUEZ use.
Old State Street
Combined $15,600,000 $17,610,060 8,300 $2,122
New Floating
$5,600,000 $6,321,560 2,800 $2,258
Redundant supply, but would have limited
additional supply due to proximity to existing
well and potential interference issues. Does not
Redwood Creek
$5,500,000 $6,208,675 2,600 $2,388
IMPROVEMENTS" options as "Redwood Creek
IMPROVEMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EAGLE
WATER
$30,141,000 8,749 $3,445
SUEZ met with Garden City, they are not willing
$800,000 $903,080 240 $3,763
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE
WATER
$41,814,000 8,680 $4,817
$7,700,000 $8,692,145 1,500 $5,795
SWTP $60,500,000 $68,295,425 7,000 $9,756
A new surface water treatment plant in
Northwest Boise/Eagle - most expensive option,
challenging surface water right permitting.
Shadow Valley
Sandy Hill ASR Old State Street
New Floating Feather Well
Redwood Creek
Upgrade
IMPROVEMENTS WITH
EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
Garden City
McDonald Big Gulch
Well
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
New Lanewood Well
Western Wellfield
SWTP
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$/
g
p
m
Supply Alternatives Considered
Calculate Eagle Water Company Demands
Maximum and Average Day Calculation
Year
Number of MDD/ Conn
2002 4,350,000 3,021 2,599 1.16 Ann. Growth Rate 0.054 Year # Households Comment
2003 4,647,000 3,227 2,746 1.18 MDD Projection MDD (gpm)2018 10,530
2012 5,566,000 3,865 3,486 1.11
Boise and Eagle Area (Source:
per Customer
Service
Demand
(gpm/
Average Day 0.46 1,850
4,046 Company
Eagle Water Company
567 households per year = growth
= 5.4% per year
Eagle Area Growth Projection
Eagle Water Company Water Demand Sumary
Additional and Redundant Supply Projections
Maximum Day MGD
# Connections
(without
private fire)
per
Connection
Connections
added per year Comments
7/14/2014 84.451 86514 0.68
7/3/2015 87.534 88138 0.69 1624
7/1/2016 82.111 89767 0.64 1629
7/14/2017 84.154 90948 0.64 1181
discrepancy between 2017 and 2018,
some 2017 new customers were
Average 0.66 1748.5
Total
Additional and
Redundant
Supply Needed
through 2022
for only SUEZ
Additional and
Redundant
through 2021
for SUEZ and
Year per Year per Year
2019 1.66 2.04
2020 1.66 2.04
2021 1.66 2.04
2022 1.66
Total 6.65 6.12
Add 20% Contingency to account for varying
weather patterns and related fluctuations in
MDD 1.33 1.22
Redundant Source (Redwood Creek Well
redundant to Floating Feather Well)4.32 4.32
Total Additional and Redundant Supply
Needed (MGD)12.30 11.66
Description
Capital Cost (no
OH) From
Northwest Area
Water Supply Study
Capital Cost
(with OH)
Capacity
(gpm)$/gpm Comments on Feasibility / Further Investigation
Dry Creek ASR $1,800,000 $2,031,930 2,500 $813 No new supply.
Shadow Valley $2,700,000 $3,047,895 1,580 $1,929
Did not turn out to be a feasible option. Land
$15,600,000 $17,610,060 8,300 $2,122
New Floating
$5,600,000 $6,321,560 2,800 $2,258
Redundant supply, but would have limited
additional supply due to proximity to existing
Redwood Creek
$5,500,000 $6,208,675 2,600 $2,388
IMPROVEMENTS" options as "Redwood Creek
IMPROVEMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER
IMPROVEMENTS
WITH EAGLE
WATER
$30,141,000 8,749 $3,445
SUEZ met with Garden City, they are not willing
to sell water as they do not feel they have
$800,000 $903,080 240 $3,763
IMPROVEMENTS
ABSENT EAGLE
WATER
$41,814,000 8,680 $4,817
$7,700,000 $8,692,145 1,500 $5,795
SWTP $60,500,000 $68,295,425 7,000 $9,756
A new surface water treatment plant in
challenging surface water right permitting.
Dry Creek ASR
Shadow Valley
Sandy Hill ASR Old State Street Combined
New Floating Feather Well
Redwood Creek
Upgrade
Island Woods
SUEZ SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
McDonald Big Gulch
Well
SUEZ SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENTS
ACQUISITION
New Lanewood Well
SWTP
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$/
g
p
m
Supply Alternatives Considered
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Marshall Thompson, Vice President & General Manager SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15: Please provide the cost-benefit analysis
supporting the installation of new automated meters for Eagle Water Company customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15:
SUEZ adopted its standards for automated meter reading on new and replacement meters
in 2015. This change from a manual meter reading standard made sense for many reasons.
Automated meters are a more efficient form of meter data collection. In response to
increased development demands and system growth (avg. 1,700 meters per year), SUEZ sought
automation of new meter connections as a way to contend with growth demands without
increasing the headcount for manual meter readers substantially. There is no expectation that
gains in meter reading efficiency will lead to any near-term headcount reductions from current
staffing levels, but the company is able to contend with growth. It is notable to mention that as a
result of these investments, meter reading personnel are beginning to shift from reading tasks to
more data-driven field service visits for leak investigations, water usage audits, and automated
system maintenance.
Automated meters improve customer service by providing a more complete record of
customer consumption patterns. With an average 60-day billing period for existing SUEZ
customers, manual meter reading will capture six (6) readings per customer meter annually.
Meters on the automated system collect a more complete profile of customer demand with hourly
readings totaling 8,760 per customer meter in the same period. This frequency greatly assists
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 2 OF 3
engineers with demand analysis, and informs common customer service requests for move in/out
transfer readings, customer-side leak adjustments, and conservation improvements. In addition,
these meters provide unique functionality for automated reversal of flow alarms to augment the
Company’s backflow protection program.
These benefits of automated metering would extend to current Eagle Water customer as
they transfer service to SUEZ.
The Eagle Water system location makes extension of the SUEZ automated meter
collection system very practical. Radio collection towers read meters in the adjacent Floating
Feather and Island Woods areas. No additional radio collectors are anticipated for reading meter-
radio sets in the Eagle Water service area. Production Response No. 17 provides a detailed
breakdown of the planned transition for Eagle Water Customer meters from 2019 to 2021.
Similar to this technology’s application to support organic system growth, automated
meters can provide SUEZ with the capability of supporting meter reading and field service
activities to the Eagle Water System monthly with minimal head-count changes, including the
addition of one meter reading service person to SUEZ staff, for a total of 6 meter reading Service
persons per 100,000 customers. The system will also provide flexibility for SUEZ to read EWC
monthly accounts while existing SUEZ customers remain on bi-monthly billing.
Finally, an accurate and complete consumption history will be key to any current Eagle
Water customer concerned with managing affordability via conservation. While automated
meters are not required for online billing or consumption totals, customers with automated
meters and SUEZ’s online billing tools can link directly with hourly reading data and voluntary
conservation surveys to help manage consumption patterns. With the 2017 estimated average
annual per customer usage by current Eagle Water Residential Customers calculated at 218ccf
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 15 - PAGE 3 OF 3
(hundred cubic feet), these tools may help customers reduce usage, and associated volume billing
charges, by up to 66% as compared to SUEZ residential customers whose 2017 average annual
usage for 2017 was just 145ccf.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16 –PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16: Please provide SUEZ Water Idaho’s current
meter replacement plan for SUEZ customers.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 16:
SUEZ Water Idaho’s current new and replacement meter plan is shown below.
Replacement meters include both “break-fix” and programmatic replacements with AMI meters.

Installation Targets 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
New Customer Meters
(# of meters)
1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
Meters
(# of meters)
2,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17: Please provide the meter replacement plan for
Eagle Water customers if SUEZ acquires Eagle Water.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 17:
The meter replacement plan for Eagle Water customers if SUEZ acquires Eagle Water is
shown in the following table.
Installation Targets 2019 2020 2021
Replacement Customer Meters
(# of meters)
1,666 1,667 667

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 1 OF 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18: Please provide all workpapers supporting the
analysis of Eagle Water Company’s current portfolio of municipal water rights identified in
Cooper’s direct testimony page 5, lines 10-11. Please include schedules of the expected costs to
resolve Eagle Water’s standalone system of the water right issues.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18:
The current water right portfolio for Eagle Water Company is deficient. Matching up the
authorized water right diversion rates with individual well capacities results in a total maximum
allowable flow rate of 5,023 gpm, which is 1,877 gpm short of Eagle Water’s peak hour flows of
6,900 gpm. The current water right portfolio for Eagle Water Company includes six licensed
water rights, summarized in the following table.

RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 2 OF 3

The following table matches up authorized municipal water right diversion rates with
available well capacities. This analysis shows that a total 5,023 gpm is available.

Eagle Water Company’s current maximum day demand is 4,600 gpm. The Eagle Water
production meters are read once daily, therefore no record of actual peak hour flows is available.
In the Treasure Valley area, peak hour demands are typically estimated at 1.5 times maximum
day demands, but in reality are often higher than that. Conservatively estimating peak hour
demand at 1.5 times maximum day demand results in a peak hour demand of 6,900 gpm. This
leaves a peak hour water right shortfall of 1,877 gpm (6,900 gpm minus 5,023 gpm).
If Eagle Water Company were to resolve its water right shortage issues as a standalone
system, SUEZ anticipates that it would need to seek a water right transfer to make each Eagle
Water Well an Alternate Point of Diversion (APOD) for each existing water right. This action
could allow for the full 6,228 gpm current municipal water right limit to be utilized. In addition
Eagle Water would need to acquire additional water rights to cover the shortfall between 6,900
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current
Well Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
(gpm)
Capacity with
Current
Water Rights
and Pumps
(gpm)
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
6 2500 1,053
7 1350 1,350
8 2250 495
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
Limit (gpm)
6,228
495
1350
1,530
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 18 - PAGE 3 OF 3
gpm and 6,228 gpm (672 gpm) through purchase or appropriation. The anticipated cost for
making each Eagle Water Well an APOD is estimated at approximately $25,000 in legal and
technical fees (as detailed in Response 19). The cost of acquiring additional water rights is
difficult to pinpoint, but could range from $25,000 (applying for a new water right) to hundreds
of thousands of dollars (purchasing an existing water right).
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7368&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-7368

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE HILLS GOLF COURSE INC
605 N EDGEWOOD LN
EAGLE, ID 83616
2089390402
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 11/15/1970 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial Use FromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/312 CFS
FIRE PROTECTION1/01 12/312 CFS
Total Diversion 2 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company, Inc. municipal water supply system
as provided for under Idaho Law.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7368&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 02/06/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 12/1/1979 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: 12/7/1970 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7618&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-7618

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE LAND CO
, ID
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 10/25/1972 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFrom To Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/311.4 CFS
Total Diversion 1.4 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.C03Right includes accomplished change in point of diversion pursuant to Section 42-1425, Idaho Code.
3.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company municipal water supply system as
provided for under Idaho Law.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=7618&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 04/03/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 8/1/1977 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=9245&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-9245

Owner Type Name and Address
Current Owner EAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Original OwnerEAGLE RANCH WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616
Priority Date: 06/08/1979 Basis: Decreed Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial Use From To Diversion Rate Volume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/311.1 CFS
FIRE PROTECTION01/0112/313.5 CFS
Total Diversion 3.5 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESENE Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESWNW Sec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERSWSWNWSec. 09Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
GROUND WATERNESW Sec. 15Township 04NRange 01E ADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.C18
This partial decree is subject to such general provisions necessary for the definition of the rights or for
the efficient administration of the water rights as may be ultimately determined by the Court at a
point in time no later than the entry of a final unified decree. Section 42-1412(6), Idaho Code.
2.124 Place of use is within the service area of the Eagle Water Company municipal water supply system as
provided for under Idaho Law.
3.E62 This right when combined with Right Nos. 63-7368 and 63-7618 shall not exceed 4.5 cfs per acre.
4.T07 The right holder shall accomplish the change authorized by Transfer 75035 within one year of the date
of the approval.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=9245&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
5.T08 Failure of the right holder to comply with the conditions of this transfer is cause for the Director to
rescind approval of the transfer.
6.046 Right holder shall comply with the drilling permit requirements of Section 42-235, Idaho Code and
applicable Well Construction Rules of the Department.
7.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
8.165
To prevent injury to prior water rights appropriating water from the Boise River and/or the underlying
shallow aquifer tributary to the Boise River, the new well used as a point of diversion for this water
right located within the NESW, S15, T4N, R1E shall be constructed and maintained with unperforated
casing and sealed into the first significant confining layer located 200 feet or more below ground
surface.

Dates: Licensed Date: Decreed Date: 10/21/2009 Permit Proof Due Date: 7/1/1984 Permit Proof Made Date:
Permit Approved Date: 7/18/1979 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: S Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=11798&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-11798

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 04/17/1992 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/311.34 CFS
Total Diversion 1.34 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNWNWSec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Licensed Diversion Capacity: 5.6 Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.
Irrigation of large projects such as parks, golf courses, or sports activities fields is not authorized under
this right. Domestic uses authorized under this right shall not exceed 13,000 gallons per day in accordance
with the provisions in Section 42-111, Idaho Code. Place of use is located within the city limits of Eagle and
the surrounding service area.

Dates: Licensed Date: 09/30/1994 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 11/1/1993 Permit Proof Made Date: 11/5/1993 Permit Approved Date: 6/23/1992 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date:
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=11798&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 04/13/1992 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: 63 Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12147&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-12147

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 09/29/1994 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFromTo Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 1/01 12/315 CFS
Total Diversion 5 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERSWSW Sec. 08Township 04NRange 01EADA County
GROUND WATERNWNWSec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
2.125 Place of use is within the service area of Eagle Water Company as provided for under Idaho law. The
place of use is generally described as within the city limits of Eagle and the surrounding service area.
3.004 This right does not grant any right-of-way or easement across the land of another.
4.180 A map depicting the place of use boundary for this water right at the time of this approval is attached
to this document for illustrative purposes.

Dates: Licensed Date: 05/12/2016 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 2/1/1999
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12147&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
Permit Proof Made Date: 2/3/1999 Permit Approved Date: 2/6/1995 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 09/27/1994 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12559&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 1/2
Department of Water Resources
WATER RIGHT REPORT
1/9/2019 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Water Right Report WATER RIGHT NO. 63-12559

Owner Type Name and Address
Current OwnerEAGLE WATER CO INC
PO BOX 455
EAGLE, ID 83616-0455
2089390242
Priority Date: 12/15/1999 Basis: License Status: Active
Source Tributary
GROUND WATER

Beneficial UseFrom To Diversion RateVolume
MUNICIPAL 01/0112/313 CFS
Total Diversion 3 CFS
Location of Point(s) of Diversion:

GROUND WATERNESW Lt 3Sec. 15Township 04NRange 01EADA County
Place(s) of use: Large POU InfoConditions of Approval:
1.125 Place of use is within the service area of Eagle Water Company as provided for under Idaho law. The
place of use is generally described as within the city limits of Eagle and the surrounding service area.
2.102
The right holder shall not provide water diverted under this right for the irrigation of land having
appurtenant surface water rights as a primary source of irrigation water except when the surface
water rights are not available for use. This condition applies to all land with appurtenant surface water
rights, including land converted from irrigated agricultural use to other land uses but still requiring
water to irrigate lawns and landscaping.
3.103
When ordered by the Director, the right holder shall provide mitigation acceptable to the Director to
offset depletion of lower Snake River flows needed for migrating anadromous fish. The amount of
water required for mitigation, which is to be released into the Snake River or a tributary for this
purpose, will be determined by the Director based upon the reduction in flow caused by the use of
water pursuant to this right. Any order of the Director issued in accordance with this paragraph shall
be in conformance with applicable rules allowing the right holder due process as the need for
mitigation and the amount of mitigation are determined.
Home / Water Rights / Research / Search Water Rights
1/9/2019 Water Right Report
https://idwr.idaho.gov/apps/ExtSearch/RightReportAJ.asp?BasinNumber=63&SequenceNumber=12559&SplitSuffix=%20%20&TypeWaterRight=True 2/2
4.01M
After specific notification by the Department, the right holder shall install a suitable measuring device
or shall enter into an agreement with the Department to use power records to determine the amount
of water diverted and shall annually report the information to the Department.
5.004 The issuance of this right does not grant any right-of-way or easement across the land of another.
6.930 Water bearing zone to be appropriated is 330 to 400 feet.
7.Point of diversion is known as Well #7.

Dates: Licensed Date: 09/01/2016 Decreed Date: Permit Proof Due Date: 3/1/2008 Permit Proof Made Date: 1/7/2008 Permit Approved Date: 3/1/2000 Permit Moratorium Expiration Date: Enlargement Use Priority Date: Enlargement Statute Priority Date: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Accepted: Water Supply Bank Enrollment Date Removed: Application Received Date: 12/15/1999 Protest Deadline Date: Number of Protests: 0
Other Information: State or Federal: Owner Name Connector: Water District Number: Generic Max Rate per Acre: Generic Max Volume per Acre: Civil Case Number: Old Case Number: Decree Plantiff: Decree Defendant: Swan Falls Trust or Nontrust: Swan Falls Dismissed: DLE Act Number: Cary Act Number: Mitigation Plan: False
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current Well
Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
Capacity with
Current Water
Rights and
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
495
1350
1,530
Well
Suez Analysis -
EWC current Well
Production
Capacities with
Current Pumps
Capacity with
Current Water
Rights and
1 0 -
2 325 325
3 0 -
4 1800 603 1,800
Total 8,225 5,023
2250
Municipal
Water Right
495
1350
1,530
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 19 - PAGE 1 OF 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 19: Please provide the source documents and detailed
costs estimates for the $13.4 million anticipated investment for the Eagle Water system.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 19:
The source documents and detailed cost estimates for the $13.4 million anticipated
investment for the Eagle Water System are provided in the attached spreadsheet titled “Cooper
First Production Request Exhibit Response 1 and 19.”

Cumulative
MGD GPM Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S2 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
S3 0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
6.48 1500 S4 2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
12.48 4166.4 S5 6.00
move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
Enlargement (11,770' of 24" Pipe)2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S6 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump/higher TDH 769$
4.32 0 0.00 EWC Acquisition Price 10,000$
4.32 0 S7 0.00 56$
12.60 1000 S10 1.44 6)2,006$ 3,135$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)-
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)-
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530
11 Tesoro Crossings 100
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 -
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21
23 Flushing Station 3
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885
29 Mobilization (5%)1
30 Storm Water Management 33,550
31 Subtotal
32 Contingency
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)
36 Design Costs
REDWOOD CREEK PIPELINE
37 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, mat
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically c
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; C
Grand Total with Loc
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LF $15.00 $178,275
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $234,125
LF $30.00 $94,800
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $90,090
LF $50.00 $201,000
LF $50.00 $80,750
LF $600.00 $330,000
LF $675.00 $357,750
LF $600.00 $60,000
LF $684.62 $890,006
LF $788.68 $0
LF $70.00 $45,500
LF $85.00 $45,050
LF $145.00 $2,546,200
LF $165.00 $2,508,000
LF $55.00 $66,000
LF $100.00 $44,000
EA $5,392.00 $183,328
EA $7,088.00 $205,552
EA $2,500.00 $52,500
EA $7,500.00 $22,500
EA $5,000.00 $10,000
EA $2,500.00 $152,500
EA $1,250.00 $30,000
LF $7.00 $151,655
LF $3.50 $41,598
LS $432,736.40 $432,736
LF $1.00 $33,550
$9,087,465
5%$454,373
$9,541,838
$200,000
$536,100
$371,500

$10,649,438
$12,021,618
e project location. This estimate is subject to change
terials, equipment, and services provided by others,
considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
al and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 500 HP EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 485' TDH, 3000 gpm, 500 hp 1 EA $100,000
2 500 hp Motor 1 EA $40,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $200,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 Design 10%$41,800
7 Contingency 10%$45,980
8 Total
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
500 HP (TO GO WITH ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION)
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$100,000
$40,000
$58,000
$200,000
$20,000
$41,800
$45,980
$505,780
$570,950
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: Optimist Booster and 2 MG Tank
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Optimist Booster Station - 6000 gpm with generator and redundant pump 1
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
4 Subtotal
5 Design
6 Contingency
7 Total
OPTIMIST BOOSTER AND 2 MG TANK
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $1,300,000.00 $1,300,000
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 Bid for Recent Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/ga
LF $105.00 $157,500
$4,237,500
10%$423,750
10%$466,125
$5,127,375
$5,788,037

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
allon, 1 MG tank
PROJECT: Island Woods Connection
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18M102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)7,700
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 200
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch
11 Tesoro Crossings
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 20" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,000
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11
14 Water Main Pipe - 16" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)7,900
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)
22 Connect to Existing Water Main
23 Flushing Station
24 Leakage Monitoring Station
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)7,700
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)
29 Mobilization (5%), not including well upgrades
30 Well Upgrades 2
31 Storm Water Management 8,700
32 Subtotal
33 Design and Permitting
34 Contingency
35 Total Estimated Construction Cost
ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION
Grand Total with Local
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at th
change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typic
Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%;
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LF $15.00 $0
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $192,500
LF $30.00 $0
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $0
LF $50.00 $0
LF $50.00 $0
LF $600.00 $120,000
LF $675.00 $0
LF $600.00 $0
LF $850.00 $850,000
LF $788.68 $0
LF $125.00 $987,500
LF $85.00 $0
LF $145.00 $0
LF $165.00 $0
LF $55.00 $0
LF $100.00 $0
EA $5,392.00 $0
EA $7,088.00 $0
EA $2,500.00 $0
EA $7,500.00 $0
EA $5,000.00 $0
EA $2,500.00 $0
EA $1,250.00 $0
LF $7.00 $53,900
LF $3.50 $0
LS $113,238.80 $0
EA $500,000.00 $1,000,000
LF $1.25 $10,875
$3,214,775
10%$321,478
10%$321,478
$3,857,730
$4,354,799

and Corporate Overheads
he project location. This estimate is subject to
materials, equipment, and services provided by
cally considered accurate in the following ranges:
; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: 6 MGD Marden Expansion
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION
1 6 MGD Marden Expansion no DAF (From 2015 Facility Plan, cont. and eng. Incl.)
2 Lewis/6th Street Main (24")
3 Marden / Mobley (2300' of 36")
4 Total
6 MGD MARDEN WTP EXPANSIO
Grand
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at t
project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equ
determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3%
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 EA $14,215,500.00 $14,215,500 Marden Expansion Est
11,770 LF $183.00 $2,153,910 Per Foot cost from Ma
2,300 LF $242.60 $557,980 Per foot cost from Ma
$16,927,390
$19,108,484
ON
Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the
ipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%;
to + 15%.
timate from 2015 Master Facilities Plann, March 19, 2015 Project Memorandum "Marden WTP Expansion Stud
aster Plan
aster Plan
dy", Page 5. No DAF Included
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 600 HP EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 495' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Design 10%$56,300
7 Contingency 10%$61,930
8 Total
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
600 HP (TO GO WITH EWC ACQUISITION OPTION)
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$125,000
$55,000
$58,000
$300,000
$25,000
$56,300
$61,930
$681,230
$769,006

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: Water Rights
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1
2 1
Water Rights
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105
7 State Street Crossing
8 PRV
9 Design and Permitting 10%
10 Contingency 10%
11 Total
NEW WELL 8 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$85,000
$35,000
$10,000
$158,700
$20,000
$105,000
$150,000
$200,000
$76,370
$84,007
$924,077
$1,043,144

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430
10 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST
$125,000
$55,000
$58,000
$300,000
$25,000
$50,000
$200,000
$81,300
$89,430
$983,730
$1,110,484
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

PROJECT: 2 MG Tank and Rehab Well 1 Facility
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Rehab Well 1 (new pump and piping, building)1
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
4 Subtotal
5 Design
6 Contingency
7 Total
2 MG TANK AND REHAB WELL 1 FACILITY
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $826,000.00 $826,000
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.3
LF $105.00 $157,500
$3,763,500
10%$376,350
10%$413,985
$4,553,835
$5,140,597

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
9/gallon, 1 MG tank
Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit SummaryRate Analysis
Cost Est.
Number Guide
R1 56$
R2
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2 boosters),
532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle Water
constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k contingency, plus
R3
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters include continuous
reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez website, leak detection,
R4
Meter Replacement with
454$ 438$
Half of EWC meters - Install AMI meters in existing meter boxes. The benefits of AMI meters
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez
website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two repeaters if Eagle
R5
APODS to Eagle Water and
56$
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and SUEZ
rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak demands. These
transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate new water rights to fill its
R6
Map Eagle Water System
27$
the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline replacement planning.
This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving
R7
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R8
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R9
the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water customers with the
benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez system. The benefit is
would also cover the shortage in peak hour redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency
in place, which is why it has been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total
pipeline cost, 1375 gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used
locally in Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
R10
R11 305$ 305$ 305$
R12 28$ 28$ 28$
R13
landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level monitoring in wells,
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were making the
improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control room, servers, database, and
historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a control room or associated amenities
and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water
portion of the costs does not have any overheads included.
PROJECT: Add Chlorination at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Chlorination System (tank, pump, containment basin, monitoring)5
ADD CHLORINATION AT WELLS 2, 4, 6, 7, 8
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $10,000.00 $50,000
$56,443

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: SCADA System
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 SCADA Controls at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, Yard Booster, Sage Acres Booster 7
2 Contingency on Site Controls 1
3 Subtotal
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overheads
5 own control room)1
SCADA SYSTEM

This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $35,000.00 $245,000
EA $5,000.00 $5,000
$250,000
$282,213
EA $250,000.00 $250,000
$532,213

Grand Total
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Meter and Service Replacements
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Meter and Service Replacements 2000
METER AND SERVICE REPLACEMENTS
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $1,500.00 $3,000,000
$3,386,550

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Meter Replacement with AMI
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Average Installed AMI Meter Cost (incl. Sales Tax)2000
2 Meter Setter Work/Repair 2000
3 Sensus RF Radio Unit (incl. Sales Tax)2000
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overhead
5 Repeaters (Eagle Water currently has no repeaters)2
METER REPLACEMENT WITH AMI

This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $215.77 $431,540
EA $86.00 $172,000
EA $86.24 $172,480
$876,010
EA $8,000.00 $16,000
$892,010

Grand Total
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1
2 1
Water Rights
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: Mapping and Hydraulic Model
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Create map of Eagle Water System (GPS key points, create asset register in GIS),
import GIS mapping into hydraulic model and calibrate. Estimate of labor hours.1
Mapping and Hydraulic Model
Grand Total with Cor
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LS $24,000.00 $24,000
$27,092

rporate and Local Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105
7 State Street Crossing
8 PRV
9 Design and Permitting 10%
10 Contingency 10%
11 Total
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 8 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018BY: CEC
COST Cost
$85,000 -$
$35,000 -$
$10,000 -$
$158,700 -$
$20,000 -$
$105,000 50,000$
$150,000 150,000$
$200,000 200,000$
$76,370 25,000$
$84,007 42,500$
$924,077 467,500$
$1,043,144 527,737$
ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

Calculate Eagle Water
Company Benefit
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump EST
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho D
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430
10 Total
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the proje
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitiv
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
IMATE CLASS: 5
ATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
COST COST
$125,000 -$
$55,000 -$
$58,000 -$
$300,000 -$
$25,000 -$
$50,000 50,000$
$200,000 200,000$
$81,300 25,000$
$89,430 27,500$
$983,730 302,500$
$1,110,484 341,477$

ect location. This
d on the cost of
ve bidding and
4 -15% to +50%;

Calculate Eagle
Water
Company
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)-
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)-
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530
11 Tesoro Crossings 100
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 -
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21
23 Flushing Station 3
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885
29 Mobilization (5%)1
30 Storm Water Management 33,550
31 Subtotal
32 Contingency
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)
36 Design Costs
REDWOOD CREEK PIPELINE
37 Total
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, mat
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically c
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; C
ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
LF $15.00 $178,275
LF $15.00 $0
LF $25.00 $234,125
LF $30.00 $94,800
LF $28.00 $0
LF $33.00 $90,090
LF $50.00 $201,000
LF $50.00 $80,750
LF $600.00 $330,000
LF $675.00 $357,750
LF $600.00 $60,000
LF $684.62 $890,006
LF $788.68 $0
LF $70.00 $45,500
LF $85.00 $45,050
LF $145.00 $2,546,200
LF $165.00 $2,508,000
LF $55.00 $66,000
LF $100.00 $44,000
EA $5,392.00 $183,328
EA $7,088.00 $205,552
EA $2,500.00 $52,500
EA $7,500.00 $22,500
EA $5,000.00 $10,000
EA $2,500.00 $152,500
EA $1,250.00 $30,000
LF $7.00 $151,655
LF $3.50 $41,598
LS $432,736.40 $432,736
LF $1.00 $33,550
$9,087,465
5%$454,373
$9,541,838
$200,000
$536,100
$371,500

Calculate Eagle
Water Company
$10,649,438
$12,021,618 $2,132,868 al and Corporate Overheads
e project location. This estimate is subject to change
terials, equipment, and services provided by others,
considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000
2 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500
3 Subtotal
4 Design
5 Contingency
6 Total
2 MG TANK
Grand Total with Loc
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 10/3/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.3
LF $105.00 $157,500
$2,937,500
10%$293,750
10%$323,125
$3,554,375
$4,012,356

al and Corporate Overheads
ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
9/gallon, 1 MG tank
PROJECT: ROLL-UP PROJECTS
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho
JOB NO.: N/A
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY
1 Pipeline Replacements 1
2 Subtotal Pipeline Replacements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
3 Safety and Security Improvements 1
4 Subtotal Safety and Security Improvements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
5 Production Roll-Up Work 1
6 Production Roll-Up Work with Local and Corporate Overheads 1
ROLL-UP PROJECTS (CALCULATED PER YEAR)
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project lo
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipmen
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in t
4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 1
ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
DATE: 11/8/2018
BY: CEC
UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
LS $270,000.00 $270,000
LS $304,789.50 $304,790
LS $25,000.00 $25,000
LS $28,221.25 $28,221
LS $100,000.00 $100,000
LS $112,885.00 $112,885

ocation. This estimate is subject to change through
nt, and services provided by others, contractor's
the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class
15%.
Cumulative
MGD GPM
Supply Analysis
Guide MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 1500 S1 2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
4.32 1500 S2 2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
S3 0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
6.48 1500 S4 2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
12.48 4166.4 S5 6.00
move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Cumulative Cost (in 000's)2,032$ 12,022$ 15,058$ 28,747$ 41,844$
Cumulative MGD - 2.2 4.3 4.3 12.5
Supply Analysis
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 1500 S1 2.16
4.32 1500 S6 2.16
4.32 0 0.00
4.32 0 S7 0.00 56$
7.56 2250 S8 3.24
11.16 2500 S9 3.60
12.60 1000 S10 1.44 6)2,006$ 3,135$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885 LF $15.00 $178,275
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)- LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365 LF $25.00 $234,125
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160 LF $30.00 $94,800
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)- LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730 LF $33.00 $90,090
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020 LF $50.00 $201,000
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615 LF $50.00 $80,750
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550 LF $600.00 $330,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530 LF $675.00 $357,750
11 Tesoro Crossings 100 LF $600.00 $60,000
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300 LF $684.62 $890,006
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 - LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650 LF $70.00 $45,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530 LF $85.00 $45,050
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560 LF $145.00 $2,546,200
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200 LF $165.00 $2,508,000
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200 LF $55.00 $66,000
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440 LF $100.00 $44,000
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34 EA $5,392.00 $183,328
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29 EA $7,088.00 $205,552
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21 EA $2,500.00 $52,500
23 Flushing Station 3 EA $7,500.00 $22,500
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61 EA $2,500.00 $152,500
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24 EA $1,250.00 $30,000
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665 LF $7.00 $151,655
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885 LF $3.50 $41,598
29 Mobilization (5%)1 LS $432,736.40 $432,736
30 Storm Water Management 33,550 LF $1.00 $33,550
31 Subtotal $9,087,465
32 Contingency 5%$454,373
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost $9,541,838
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House $200,000
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)$536,100
36 Design Costs $371,500
37 Total $10,649,438
$12,021,618
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others,
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 500 HP ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 485' TDH, 3000 gpm, 500 hp 1 EA $100,000 $100,000
2 500 hp Motor 1 EA $40,000 $40,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
6 Design 10%$41,800 $41,800
7 Contingency 10%$45,980 $45,980
8 Total $505,780
$570,950
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
REPLACE REDWOOD CREEK WELL PUMP
500 HP (TO GO WITH ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION)
PROJECT: Optimist Booster and 2 MG Tank ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Optimist Booster Station - 6000 gpm with generator and redundant pump 1 EA $1,300,000.00 $1,300,000
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 Bid for Recent Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
4 Subtotal $4,237,500
5 Design 10%$423,750
6 Contingency 10%$466,125
7 Total $5,127,375$5,788,037
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Island Woods Connection ESTIMATE CLASS: 3
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: C18M102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)LF $15.00 $0
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)7,700 LF $25.00 $192,500
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)LF $30.00 $0
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)LF $33.00 $0
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)LF $50.00 $0
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)LF $50.00 $0
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 200 LF $600.00 $120,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch LF $675.00 $0
11 Tesoro Crossings LF $600.00 $0
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 20" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,000 LF $850.00 $850,000
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 16" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)7,900 LF $125.00 $987,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)LF $85.00 $0
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)LF $145.00 $0
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)LF $165.00 $0
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main LF $55.00 $0
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"LF $100.00 $0
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)EA $5,392.00 $0
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)EA $7,088.00 $0
22 Connect to Existing Water Main EA $2,500.00 $0
23 Flushing Station EA $7,500.00 $0
24 Leakage Monitoring Station EA $5,000.00 $0
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection EA $2,500.00 $0
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings EA $1,250.00 $0
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)7,700 LF $7.00 $53,900
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)LF $3.50 $0
29 Mobilization (5%), not including well upgrades LS $113,238.80 $0
30 Well Upgrades 2 EA $500,000.00 $1,000,000
31 Storm Water Management 8,700 LF $1.25 $10,875
32 Subtotal $3,214,775
33 Design and Permitting 10%$321,478
34 Contingency 10%$321,478
35 Total Estimated Construction Cost $3,857,730
$4,354,799
ISLAND WOODS CONNECTION
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to
change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by
others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges:
Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: 6 MGD Marden Expansion ESTIMATE CLASS: 3LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST16 MGD Marden Expansion no DAF (From 2015 Facility Plan, cont. and eng. Incl.)1 EA $14,215,500.00 $14,215,500 Marden Expansion Estimate from 2015 Master Facilities Plann, March 19, 2015 Project Memorandum "Marden WTP Expansion Study", Page 5. No DAF Included
2 Lewis/6th Street Main (24")11,770 LF $183.00 $2,153,910 Per Foot cost from Master Plan3Marden / Mobley (2300' of 36")2,300 LF $242.60 $557,980 Per foot cost from Master Plan
4 Total $16,927,390$19,108,484
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
PROJECT: Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump, 600 HP ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 495' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000
6 Design 10%$56,300 $56,300
7 Contingency 10%$61,930 $61,930
8 Total $681,230
$769,006
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
2 Transfer all Eagle Water Rights to be Alternate Points of Diversion (APODs) from all
Eagle Water wells (estimate of legal and technical costs)1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000 $85,000
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000 $35,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000 $10,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700 $158,700
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105 $105,000
7 State Street Crossing $150,000
8 PRV $200,000
9 Design and Permitting 10%$76,370
10 Contingency 10%$84,007
11 Total $924,077
$1,043,144
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000 $50,000
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
8 Design 0.1 $81,300 $81,300
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430 $89,430
10 Total $983,730
$1,110,484
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank and Rehab Well 1 Facility ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Rehab Well 1 (new pump and piping, building)1 EA $826,000.00 $826,000
2 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
3 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
4 Subtotal $3,763,500
5 Design 10%$376,3506Contingency10%$413,985
7 Total $4,553,835
$5,140,597
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit Summary
Rate Analysis
Cost Est.
Number Guide
R1 56$
R2
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2 boosters),
532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle Water
constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k contingency, plus
R3
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters include continuous
reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez website, leak detection,
R4
Meter Replacement with
454$ 438$
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the Suez
website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two repeaters if Eagle
R5
APODS to Eagle Water and
56$
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and SUEZ
rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak demands. These
transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate new water rights to fill its
R6
Map Eagle Water System
27$
the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline replacement planning.
This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving
R7
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R8
Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle Water customers.
R9
the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water customers with the
benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez system. The benefit is
would also cover the shortage in peak hour redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency
in place, which is why it has been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total
pipeline cost, 1375 gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used
locally in Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
R10
R11 305$ 305$ 305$
R12 28$ 28$ 28$
R13
landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level monitoring in wells,
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were making the
improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control room, servers, database, and
historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a control room or associated amenities
and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water
PROJECT: Add Chlorination at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Chlorination System (tank, pump, containment basin, monitoring)5 EA $10,000.00 $50,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: SCADA System ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 SCADA Controls at Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, Yard Booster, Sage Acres Booster 7 EA $35,000.00 $245,000
2 Contingency on Site Controls 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000
3 Subtotal $250,000
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overheads $282,213
5 Control Room, Hardware, Software, Historian (If Eagle Water were to construct it's
own control room)1 EA $250,000.00 $250,000
$532,213
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Meter and Service Replacements ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Meter and Service Replacements 2000 EA $1,500.00 $3,000,000
$3,386,550
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Meter Replacement with AMI ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Average Installed AMI Meter Cost (incl. Sales Tax)2000 EA $215.77 $431,540
2 Meter Setter Work/Repair 2000 EA $86.00 $172,000
3 Sensus RF Radio Unit (incl. Sales Tax)2000 EA $86.24 $172,480
4 Subtotal with Local and Corporate Overhead $876,010
5 Repeaters (Eagle Water currently has no repeaters)2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000
$892,010
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Water Rights ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 individual SUEZ water rights to Eagle Water Wells (estimate of legal and technical
1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
2 Transfer all Eagle Water Rights to be Alternate Points of Diversion (APODs) from all
Eagle Water wells (estimate of legal and technical costs)1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000
$56,443
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: Mapping and Hydraulic Model ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Create map of Eagle Water System (GPS key points, create asset register in GIS),
import GIS mapping into hydraulic model and calibrate. Estimate of labor hours.1 LS $24,000.00 $24,000
$27,092
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 8 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Cost
1 New Pump and Column - 2250 gpm, 479' TDH, 400 hp 1 EA $85,000 $85,000 -$
2 400 hp Motor 1 EA $35,000 $35,000 -$
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 -$
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $158,700 $158,700 -$
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 -$
6 1000' of 16" DI main 1000 EA $105 $105,000 50,000$
7 State Street Crossing $150,000 150,000$
8 PRV $200,000 200,000$
9 Design and Permitting 10%$76,370 25,000$
10 Contingency 10%$84,007 42,500$
11 Total $924,077 467,500$
$1,043,144 527,737$
Calculate Eagle Water
Company Benefit
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of
labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and
market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%;
Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: New Well 6 Pump ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018
JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
1 New Pump and Column - 500' TDH, 3500 gpm, 600 hp 1 EA $125,000 $125,000 -$
2 600 hp Motor 1 EA $55,000 $55,000 -$
3 Piping Upgrades 1 EA $58,000 $58,000 -$
4 Change Electrical Equipment 1 EA $300,000 $300,000 -$
5 Air Conditioning 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 -$
6 Pipe and Connection 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 50,000$
7 PRV 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 200,000$
8 Design 0.1 $81,300 $81,300 25,000$
9 Contingency 0.1 $89,430 $89,430 27,500$
10 Total $983,730 302,500$
$1,110,484 341,477$
NEW WELL 6 PUMP, ADD PRV
Grand Total with Local and Corporate Overheads
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This
estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor,
materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market
conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -
10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Calculate Eagle
Water
Company
PROJECT: Redwood Creek Pipeline ESTIMATE CLASS: 3LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: C18D102_060_001 BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST COST
1 Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Natural Ground)11,885 LF $15.00 $178,275
2 Type C-1 Surface Restoration (gravel)- LF $15.00 $0
3 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Local)9,365 LF $25.00 $234,125
4 Type P-1 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Arterial)3,160 LF $30.00 $94,800
5 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Local)- LF $28.00 $0
6 Type P-2 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway and Shoulder - Arterial)2,730 LF $33.00 $90,090
7 Type P-4 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway with Bike Path)4,020 LF $50.00 $201,000
8 Type P-5 Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway - Full Lane Moratorium)1,615 LF $50.00 $80,750
9 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 30-inch 550 LF $600.00 $330,000
10 Steel Casing Pipe Boring and Jacking - 36-inch 530 LF $675.00 $357,750
11 Tesoro Crossings 100 LF $600.00 $60,000
12 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 24" IPS HDPE DR-11 1,300 LF $684.62 $890,006
13 Horizontal Directional Drilling - 30" IPS HDPE DR-11 - LF $788.68 $0
14 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)650 LF $70.00 $45,500
15 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe only)530 LF $85.00 $45,050
16 Water Main Pipe - 20" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)17,560 LF $145.00 $2,546,200
17 Water Main Pipe - 24" Poly-wrapped DI Pipe (pipe and install)15,200 LF $165.00 $2,508,000
18 Remove and Reset - Existing Distribution Water Main 1,200 LF $55.00 $66,000
19 Water Main Sleeve - 24"/30"440 LF $100.00 $44,000
20 Water Valve - 20" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)34 EA $5,392.00 $183,328
21 Water Valve - 24" Butterfly (Fl x MJ)29 EA $7,088.00 $205,552
22 Connect to Existing Water Main 21 EA $2,500.00 $52,500
23 Flushing Station 3 EA $7,500.00 $22,500
24 Leakage Monitoring Station 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000
25 Remove and Reconnect Water Service Connection 61 EA $2,500.00 $152,500
26 Misc. Culvert Crossings 24 EA $1,250.00 $30,000
27 Construction Traffic Control (with flaggers)21,665 LF $7.00 $151,655
28 Construction Traffic Control (without flaggers)11,885 LF $3.50 $41,598
29 Mobilization (5%)1 LS $432,736.40 $432,736
30 Storm Water Management 33,550 LF $1.00 $33,550
31 Subtotal $9,087,465
32 Contingency 5%$454,373
33 Total Estimated Pipeline Construction Cost $9,541,838
34 PRV at Redwood Creek Well House $200,000
35 Phase 1 Pipeline (already constructed - 2018)$536,100
36 Design Costs $371,500
37 Total $10,649,438
$12,021,618 $2,132,868
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change
through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others,
contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -
20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
Calculate Eagle
Water Company
PROJECT: 2 MG Tank ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 10/3/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 2 MG Tank and site work 2,000,000 GAL $1.39 $2,780,000 2017 Bid for SUEZ Sunset Peak Tank - $1.39/gallon, 1 MG tank
2 16" Pipeline to Tank 1,500 LF $105.00 $157,500
3 Subtotal $2,937,500
4 Design 10%$293,750
5 Contingency 10%$323,125
6 Total $3,554,375$4,012,356
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to +50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
PROJECT: ROLL-UP PROJECTS ESTIMATE CLASS: 5
LOCATION: Ada County, Idaho DATE: 11/8/2018JOB NO.: N/A BY: CEC
NO.DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST
1 Pipeline Replacements 1 LS $270,000.00 $270,000
2 Subtotal Pipeline Replacements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $304,789.50 $304,790
3 Safety and Security Improvements 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
4 Subtotal Safety and Security Improvements with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $28,221.25 $28,221
5 Production Roll-Up Work 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
6 Production Roll-Up Work with Local and Corporate Overheads 1 LS $112,885.00 $112,885
ROLL-UP PROJECTS (CALCULATED PER YEAR)
This cost estimate reflects our profesional opinion of accurate costs at this time based on current conditions at the project location. This estimate is subject to change through
the project planning and design process. Actual construction cost will depend on the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and services provided by others, contractor's methods
of determining prices, competitive bidding and market conditions. Estimates are typically considered accurate in the following ranges: Class 5 -20% to +100%; Class 4 -15% to
+50%; Class 3 -10% to +30%; Class 2 -5% to +20%; Class 1 -3% to + 15%.
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 1 OF 4
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE SUZ-W-18-02 FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Cathy Cooper, Director of Engineering, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20: Please reconcile the charts shown in Cooper’s
testimony on pages 7, 8 and 11.
a. Are there projects listed on pages 7 and 8 that are duplicated on page 11? Please
explain.
b. Is the total cost actually the $30.141 million as shown on page 8 plus the $13.358
million shown on page 11 for a total of $43.499 million? Please explain.
c. Please identify which capital investments the Company would make with the
acquisition of the Eagle Water system and which capital investments the
Company would make without the acquisition of the Eagle Water system.
RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20:
a. Yes. The charts were prepared for very different purposes and therefore some of
the projects (or portions of projects) appear in multiple charts.

The charts on pages 7 and 8 are an analysis comparing only the costs of providing
approximately 12.5 MGD of additional and redundant supply. These charts
support the benefit of the acquisition to current SUEZ customers by
demonstrating that approximately 12.5 MGD of future supply can be provided for
$11.7M less “with the Eagle Water Acquisition” than “absent the Eagle Water
Acquisition.”
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 2 OF 4

The chart on page 11 of the Cooper testimony shows project costs (or the portion
of project costs) that would directly benefit Eagle Water Customers. These costs
were used in the Eagle Water rate calculation presented in Cary’s testimony.

b. No. As explained in section (a) of this response, the charts were prepared for
different purposes. Adding the chart totals together would duplicate some project
costs.
c. The projects in the following table would be constructed absent the Eagle Water
Acquisition to provide additional and redundant supply to current SUEZ
customers.
Table from Page 7 Cooper Testimony:

If the Eagle Water Company acquisition is completed, the projects in the following table
would be constructed to provide additional and redundant supply to current SUEZ customers
and Eagle Water customers.
Table from Page 8 Cooper Testimony:
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16 Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump 571$
0.00 Optimist Booster Pump Station / New 2 MG Tank 2,894$ 2,894$
2.16 Island Woods Connection 2,177$ 2,177$
6.00
Marden Expansion (6 MGD, no DAF), includes Main Enlargements
to move the water away from Marden: Marden and Mobley Main
Enlargement (2300' of 36" pipe), and Lewis / 6th Street Main
Enlargement (11,770' of 24" Pipe)2,465$ 8,618$ 8,025$
Cumulative Cost (in 000's)2,032$ 12,022$ 15,058$ 28,747$ 41,844$
Cumulative MGD - 2.2 4.3 4.3 12.5
Cost per MGD 5,565$ 3,485$ 6,654$ 3,353$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS ABSENT EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 3 OF 4

The capital investments shown in the chart on Page 11 of Cooper’s testimony would all be
made for the benefit of Eagle Water Customers. Note that the projects highlighted below are
also relevant to and included in the supply analysis comparison.
MGD Facility Improvement 2018 2019 2020 2021
2.16 Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,032$ 9,990$
2.16
Replace Redwood Creek Well Pump with 3000 gpm Pump/higher
TDH 769$
0.00 EWC Acquisition Price 10,000$
0.00
Water Right Transfers / APODS to allow full capacity pumping
from EWC Wells 56$
3.24 New Pump EWC Well 8, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,043$
3.60 New Pump Well 6, PRV, connect to RWC Pipeline 1,110$
1.44
New 2 MG Tank / Rehab Well 1 (1000 gpm additional available
from Well 6)2,006$ 3,135$
Cumulative Dollars 2,032$ 22,078$ 25,896$ 30,141$
Cumulative Supply Gained 0.0 2.2 7.6 12.6
Cost per MGD 10,221$ 3,425$ 2,392$
SUEZ SUPPLY INVESTMENTS WITH EAGLE WATER ACQUISITION
RESPONSE TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 20 - PAGE 4 OF 4

Project Title 2019 2020 2021 Benefit Summary
Add chlorination at Wells
2, 4, 6, 7, 8 56$
Chlorine residual in distribution system, protection against contamination risk. $10k
plus OH per site.
SCADA at each Facility
(Wells 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2
boosters), control room
and associated hardware
and software 532$
SCADA controls at each facility will allow for 24-hour monitoring of system operations.
Includes $250 for a control room, database, historian, radio path survey, etc if Eagle
Water constructed the improvement (no OH on this portion). $35k per site, $5k
contingency, plus OH.
Meter and Service
Replacements (2,000 @
$1500 each)1,129$ 1,129$ 1,129$
Half of EWC meters - fix problematic meter locations, move into right-of-way, lessen
depth for safety and access. Install AMI meters. The benefits of AMI meters
include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through the
Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection.
Meter Replacement with
AMI (2000 @ $388)454$ 438$
Half of EWC meters - Install AMI meters in existing meter boxes. The benefits of AMI
meters include continuous reporting, with customers able to see water usage through
the Suez website, leak detection, and backflow detection. Includes $16k for two
repeaters if Eagle Water constructed the improvements, no OH on this portion.
Water Right Transfers to
add APODS to Eagle Water
and SUEZ Rights 56$
These transfers would allow the two delivery systems to be integrated in the future,
enhancing the reliability and flexibility of both. In addition, shared Eagle rights and
SUEZ rights would fill the current shortfall in Eagle Water rights to meet peak
demands. These transfers would eliminate the need for Eagle Water to appropriate
new water rights to fill its current shortfall.
Map Eagle Water System
into GIS and create
Hydraulic Model 27$
Provides the benefit of crews being able to rapidly locate buried infrastructure.
Inclusion in the model will allow for system optimization and targeted pipeline
replacement planning. This will also include the Eagle Water facilities into
Aquadvanced Energy, an energy-saving system operations platform.
PRV at Well 8 528$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
PRV at Well 6 341$
PRV and portion of piping will interconnect the Eagle Water system with the Suez
system. Will provide access to fire storage volume in Hidden Hollow Tank for Eagle
Water customers. Benefit of supply and storage from Suez system.
Redwood Creek Pipeline 2,133$
The Redwood Creek pipeline will be the interconnection between the Eagle Water
system and the Suez system. This pipeline being in place will provide Eagle Water
customers with the benefit of being able to access source and storage from the Suez
system. The benefit is calculated on making up the redundancy shortfall in fireflow
for Eagle Water (1375 gpm). This would also cover the shortage in peak hour
redundancy (1175 gpm) and the emergency standby shortage (429 gpm). It won't be
available to EWC customers until the PRV at Well 8 is in place, which is why it has
been included in 2020. Cost calculated as a portion of the total pipeline cost, 1375
gpm / 7750 gpm (ultimate pipeline capacity with 1000 gpm being used locally in
Floating Feather and Eagle Water area to support current customers and growth
through 2021).
2 MG Tank 2,006$ 2,006$
Will bring Eagle Water into compliance with IDEQ peak hour and fire flow supply and
redundancy requirements
Pipeline Replacements
(1% per year) 305$ 305$ 305$
0.6 miles of pipeline replacement per year. First years will target undersized lines or
lines at higher risk of breakage.
Safety and Security
Improvements 28$ 28$ 28$ Arcflash analysis and improvements, eyewash stations, fall protection at facility sites.
Production Roll-Up Work 113$ 141$ 141$
Pump replacements, HVAC, production meter replacements, pumping facility
upgrades, landscaping, sampling stations, generator replacements, add water level
monitoring in wells, etc
Totals $2,700 $6,708 $3,950 $13,358
Costs (in 000's)
PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT EAGLE WATER CUSTOMERS
The improvements in this table have overheads added except for portions of improvements that would be completed if Eagle Water were
making the improvements. For example, with respect to needed SCADA control for the Eagle Water system, SUEZ already has a control
room, servers, database, and historian computers to support the addition of SCADA at the Eagle Water facilities. Eagle Water does not have a
control room or associated amenities and would have to purchase them to implement functional SCADA control if Eagle Water were
constructing the improvement itself. The Eagle Water portion of the costs does not have any overheads included.