HomeMy WebLinkAbout200501051st Response of United Water 1 to 8.pdfORIGINAL
Dean J. Miller
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ill 83702
Tel: 208.343.7500
Fax: 208.336.6912
ioe~mcd~-miller.com
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
JAN - 5 2005
Boise, idaho
Attorneys for Applicant
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Case No. UWI-O4-
UWID'S FIRST RESPONSE TO
STAFF'S FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST
COMES NOW United Water Idaho Inc.
, ("
United"
, "
the Company ) and responds to
Request Numbers 1 through 25 28 and 29 of the First Production Request of the
Commission Staff.
Dated this of January, 2005.
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
UWID's RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS-1
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer and Sponsoring Witness: Gregory P. Wyatt
Telephone: (208)-362-7327
Title: General Manager
REQUEST NO.
Please explain why UWI is increasing its investment in the Bali Hai and Maple
Hills wells when both appear to have relatively poor water quality.
RESPONSE NO.
United Water Idaho is investing in both the Bali Hai and Maple Hills wells
precisely because they have a less than desirable water quality. Both of these
facilities are being equipped with green sand filtration in order to enable United
Water to more fully utilize the supply that is available from those wells.
Bali Hai well has a capacity of approximately 2400 gallons per minute (gpm), but
due to its lower water quality (iron, manganese, and ammonia) has been
operated at about 800 gpm so as to avoid incurring customer complaints about
water quality. Maple hills well has a capacity of approximately 2000 gallons per
minute (gpm), but due to its lower water quality (iron, manganese, and ammonia)
has been operated at about 1000 gpm so as to avoid incurring customer
complaints about water quality. With the addition of the green sand filtration
systems at these two well sites, United Water is able to fully utilize the well'
capacity to satisfy customer demands with high quality water.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer and Sponsoring Witness: Gregory P. Wyatt
Telephone: (208)-362-7327
Title: General Manager
REQUEST NO.
Please discuss whether the $3.5 million spent to add storage facilities to the
former South County system was considered in the purchase of the system by
UWI. Was the purchase price of the South county system adjusted to account
for needed additions of storage facilities? Please provide analysis showing why
additional storage facilities were needed in the South County area.
RESPONSE NO.
The $3.5 million for additional storage referenced in my testimony was for three
separate storage projects of which only $1.465 million relates to the South
County storage facilities.
Additional storage on the South County system was considered in the acquisition
as evidenced in Direct Testimony of Keith E. Stokes, reference p. 4, lines 10-
and Direct Testimony of Randy Lobb, reference p. 4, lines 6-, and p. 9 , lines 14-
19. The need for additional storage in the South County system area appears to
have been clearly understood during the Commission s deliberations on and
ultimate approval of the South County acquisition. The Commission approved
purchase price for the acquisition was determined to be appropriate based on the
evidence presented in that filing.
The South County area pressure zone is a growing area that includes over 6,000
customers and contained no water storage facility, and thus insufficient fire
protection capability, prior to the construction of the new storage facility. Storage
sizing calculations include volume to meet daily peak customer demands plus a
reserve volume for fire protection needs. United Water normally calculates the
peaking volume by multiplying the maximum day usage for the service area by
170/0. The Recommended Standards for Water Works more commonly referred
to as the Ten States Standards recommends a more conservative approach
where the peaking storage equals the average day customer demand. These
two methods result in the following peaking volumes , based upon 2002 water
usage in the South County service area:
United Water method - 1.210 million gallons
Ten States method - 2.913 million gallons
Adding the fire protection reserve of 1.080 million gallons (4 500 gpm for 4 hours)
results in total storage volumes of:
United Water method - 2.290 million gallons
Ten States method - 3.993 million gallons
The South County storage facility was sized at 2.5 million gallons in order to
serve the customers' maximum daily needs while holding sufficient water in
reserve to support fire protection.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Please provide a copy of pertinent sections of any reports or analysis from the
Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project to support your testimony on southeast Boise
groundwater condition.
RESPONSE NO.
The following web site locations provide support for the testimony on Southeast
Boise groundwater conditions.
Water Level Change Map can be accessed at:
!J!!p://www.idwr.state.id.us/tvallev/qround water/qw levels.htm
Scroll down to groundwater level change map (Water Level Changes 1969/76-
2000 )
Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area hydrographs data can be
accessed at:
!J!!p:/ /www.idwr.state.id.us/hydroloqic/inf%bswell/default.htm
Click on Southeast Boise GWMA
The IDWR Open File Report: "Groundwater Management Areas in Idaho-
Overview as of 1998" can be accessed at:
!J!!p:/ /www.idwr.state.id.us/hydroloqic/info/pubs/ofr/ofr -qwma rQtQQf
SEBGWMA discussed on pg. 55-
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Reference p., lines 13-21. On what is the Company relying to project/expect
future growth south of the airport? How much growth is expected and over what
time frame? Which customers/areas are now generally being served by well
facilities developed as part of the Southeast Boise Water Supply project?
there currently capability to pump more water from these wells?
RESPONSE NO.
In the early to mid 1990's the area south of the airport on the Ten Mile Ridge was
planned for development with applications made to Ada County. Terms of the
agreement for securing the well sites for the Pleasant Valley and Ten Mile wells
in 1995 included language stating, "Subsequent to the receipt of all appropriate
governmental approvals , Tenant (United) shall provide water service to the PVD
Property and the Black Creek Property (the development area) for domestic,
commercial , industrial , irrigation and fire protection purposes." Shortly after the
execution of this agreement, United filed and received approval for the addition of
their proposed development to United's service area. At that time, it appeared
the development would be initiated within the next three to five years. Since
then , the economy and development trends have slowed the progress of this
project. However, regardless of the actual timetable for the development , United
is obligated to serve this property and must reserve the water supplies
necessary. Approximately 3000 homes are estimated with this development.
Water produced from the Ten Mile wells is used to support customers in the
Columbia Village , Gowen, Surprise Valley and Barber service areas. Some
the water is also transferred north along Federal Way and piped into the Main
Service Level (downtown area) at Garfield St.
Very little or no additional water can be pumped from the Ten Mile area wells.
Due to deep static water levels in this area groundwater temperatures are only
slightly below "low temperature geothermal" as defined by IDWR. The potential
to lower the pumps in the Ten Mile area wells is minimal due to the subsurface
conditions specific to this area. (Also see response to number 5).
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Reference p. 7, lines 1-13. Provide any studies or analysis to support the
testimony concerning the "strength" of the aquifer system and its inability to
produce water for export to another area.
RESPONSE NO.
See attached document:
-- United Water Memo dated 2/24/03 and attached water level graphs.
This memo reevaluated the groundwater alternatives described in the 1998
Master Plan but also addressed drilling additional wells within the Columbia
Service Level. It was recommended that additional monitoring be done to confirm
the apparent stabilization or decreasing rate of non-pumping water level decline
observed in the Ten mile Ridge wells. It can take a few to several years to see
the full response from changes in pumping (for example in the SBGWMA where
shallower wells are still declining while water levels in deeper wells are stabilized
in response to decreased local pumping.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE NO. UWI-W-O4-04
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
IPUC STAFF
TT A C H MEN T
RESONSE TO
REQUEST NO.
United Water 1("e.
(jj)
United Water
8248 W. Victory Rd.
Boise, 10 83709
telephone 208 362 7358
facsimile 208 362 3858
Memo
DATE:February 24, 2003
TO:Scott Rhead
FROM:Roger Dittus
SUBJECT:Reevaluation of groundwater alternatives outlined in 1998 UWID Master Plan
The Master Plan prepared for United Water Idaho by Montgomery Watson in 1998 provided
planning recommendations based on technical and economic analyses. Options for source of
supply based on groundwater and surface water were compared. Two groundwater source
scenarios (designated alternative GWI and GW2) are described. Each groundwater alternative
proposes drilling new wells to supplement groundwater production from existing wells and
redrilling/ reconstructing some existing wells for greater production or to obtain higher water
quality. GWI adds wellhead water treatment facilities at several well sites so that production
from sources with less than desirable water quality can be maximized. GW2 incorporates no
groundwater treatment and proposes greater development of new wells. When complete GWI
would result in an addition of 21.8 MGD from new wells. Alternative GW2 would result in an
additional 35 MGD from new wells. The increase over present Maximum Day production
from wells corresponds to 28 percent for GWI and 45 percent for GW2.
A description of the hydrogeologic framework underlying each UWID Service Level was
provided to Montgomery Watson in December of 1997. Specific groundwater quality and
quantity constraints known to exist in each Service level were outlined in order to estimate
availability of new groundwater sources. It was assumed that additional wells could be added
within UWID' s service area so that well density would approximate the maximum well
density existing in other portions of UWID' s Service Area. UWID' s recommendations took
into account known water quality and production constraints associated with the aquifer at
certain locations within UWID's Service Area. For planning, it was assumed that only 60
percent of the estimated maximum well density should be applied. This is resulted in the
quantity of new groundwater source expressed in alternative GW2. Lately, the assumption was
made that a new well in the Boise Area would produce 1.4 MGD and a new well in the Eagle
area was assumed to be capable of producing 2.1 MGD.
ONDEO
Services
Five additional years of observations (1998 to 2003) from UWID production and monitoring
wells have led to a better understanding of the number of production wells that can be
sustained. Also important has been data collected by entities such as the Southeast Boise
Groundwater Management Area Committee, and the Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project
(TVHP). The Master Plan s Executive Summary notes that the TVHP, which will address the
issue of defining sustainable yield, had not yet es.timated a "safe yield" from the aquifer.
Significant progress has been made by the TVHP with regards to groundwater flowpaths
ages, interaction between aquifers , and recharge sources , etc. However, the "safe yield" from
the deeper aquifer which supplies the majority of UWID wells has not been determined.
Sufficient water level data exists to suggest that withdrawing an additional 37 MGD on top of
current well production from within UWID's Service Area is not practical. The lower rate of
21.8 MGD used in the Master Plan s alternative GW1 is also now thought to represent an
overly optimistic estimate with respect to sustainable yield. An example using development in
UWID's Columbia Service Level (CSL) is appropriate to illustrate this point. In the
groundwater alternatives outlined in the Master Plan, new wells in this service level account
for a large percentage of the increase in source.
There are presently four production wells located on Tenmile Ridge, in UWID's CSL. These
were drilled between 1994 and 1998. At the time when the Master Plan was released there
were only three wells in the CSL and these wells had a relatively short production history of
between 1 and 4 years. Aquifer testing in 1996 suggested that well interference would not be a
factor limiting production in this area. During this test pumping well water levels approached
stabilization while observation well water levels showed little drawdown due to pumping.
However, over the last five years it has been observed that while well interference does not in
fact limit production during seasonal peak production, water levels in area wells have
declined. Measurements of non-pumping water levels in the Tenmile Ridge wells show a
decline of approximately 10-to-12 feet since 1994. The Raptor well, the first of the Tenmile
Ridge wells has declined by an average of 1.4 feet per year. Due to their proximity to UWID'
Tenmile Ridge wells, water levels in domestic wells located to the north of and just below
Tenmile Ridge have been periodically documented. Some of these domestic wells withdraw
groundwater from the same elevation as the Raptor well, the nearest UWID well. The trends in
non-pumping water levels measured in most domestic wells approximate the declines
observed i~ UWID's Tenmile Ridge wells. Shallower domestic wells also have declined
likely, as a result of there own pumping as well as due to UWID and other non-domestic wellproduction.
To date, the ability of nearby domestic users to withdraw water has not been impacted.
Additionally, water level data for the Raptor well indicate that little or no water level decline
has occurred since 1998 when the most recent Tenmile Ridge well (Pioneer well) was
completed. Although if seven additional wells were drilled in the Tenmile Ridge area (as
under the Master Plan groundwater alternatives), a tripling of the present withdrawal would
result. It is reasonable to conclude that at a minimum a tripling of water level decline (or at
least 35 feet in comparison to 1994 water levels) would soon result, thus forcing a curtailment
of production by limiting drawdown. If a pressure change of this magnitude propagated
throughout the aquifer, at least some domestic wells may need to have there pumps lowered. It
is also possible that some domestic wells may have to be deepened. Therefore, a 200 percent
increase of withdrawals from the CSL, as would occur if GW11 GW2 were implemented is not
believed to be feasible. It is recommended that continued monitoring of water level response
to production from the existing wells on Tenmile Ridge be done before additional wells are
constructed. It may be justified to enlarge the Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area
to the west to include portions of the Gowen Service Level and CSL.
In summary, since UWID's 1998 Master Plan was compiled, estimates of the volume of
groundwater that can be obtained as additional source for future needs has been reevaluated.
As illustrated in the preceding example, the groundwater supply in the Tenmile Ridge area
appears to be capable of supplying the existing wells, but not as many as was proposed in the
groundwater alternatives described in the Master Plan.
Besides the Tenmile Ridge area, other locations have been identified as not practical for
increasing well production as proposed in the Master Plan. Water level declines in production
wells have occurred over the previous few decades throughout many parts of UWID' s Service
Area. For example, declines of a few feet to several tens of feet have occurred beneath theBoise Bench, along the New York Canal, and of course the Southeast Boise Groundwater
Management Area. It has been found that the production rate of many wells has declined at the
same time that the water level has declined to reach an apparent equilibrium. Recently,
estimates of average yearly decline were made for all UWID wells in the contiguous system.If the assumption is made that the average linear declines will continue into the future, and
that the resulting loss in drawdown capacity can be translated into a corresponding loss of
production capacity (using individual well specific capacity) the following prediction isobtained. By 2020, UWID' s existing production wells will be capable of a Maximum Day
capacity of 62 MG. The present Maximum Day production is about 77 MG. Applying a linear
decline to the water level changes in UWID' s production wells is somewhat simplistic but
does illustrate that building a dependency on a 28 percent to 45 percent increase over present
groundwater production is not optimal.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE NO. UWI-W-O4-04
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST
IPUC STAFF
ATTACHMENT TO
RESONSE TO
REQUEST NO.
UW
I
D
R
a
p
t
o
r
W
e
l
l
No
n
-
Pu
m
p
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
D
a
t
a
26
9
0
26
8
0
at
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
:
m
a
n
u
a
l
l
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
no
n
-
pu
m
p
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
V1
&9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
ch
e
c
k
J
i
C
A
D
A
~
y
~
b
H
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(o
r
i
in
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
c
wa
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
--
_
I
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-.
-
--
e.
.
.
.
.
.
co
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
-
le
v
e
l
(
d
e
p
t
h
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
=
4
4
6
f~
e
t
)
--
-
:
-
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
:
:
I
h.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
""
"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(
1
)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
4/2
7
/
0
0
r:
:
"
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
"
"
'
r;.
;
;
"
"
'
""
"
"
""
(w
e
l
l
o
f
f
a
l
l
iI
/
2
6
/
0
2
""
'
)
CD
"
"
'
j"
"
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
en
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
CD
-
-
-
-
-
.
I
.
-
-
-
-
::
"
"-"
~'-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
wl
n
t
e
~
(w
e
l
l
o
f
f
r:
:
,.
.
.
""
"
"
"
'
"
"
,
-
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(3
I
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
fa
r
2
-
1/
2
""
"
'
"
I
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
h"
"
"'h
"
"
"
,
mo
n
t
h
s
)
""
"
'
"
..
.
.
en
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
C.
r:
:
1
"
"
"
"
"'h
In
I
.
(3
I
"
h
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
_u
_
=-
-
:-
-
-
-5
-
--
-
-
--
_
__
_
_U
d
:
~
:
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
..
-
-
-
:-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
:-
-
In
3/8
/
9
9
CI
)
r:
:
;:
I
.
we
l
l
o
f
f
a
l
l
wi
n
t
e
r
)
6/
1
/
0
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
=
a
s
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
: -
(w
e
l
l
p
u
m
p
e
d
;:
:
-
I
n
t
e
r
m
l
t
t
e
n
tr
y
-
-
in
-
Ma
y
-
-
r:
:
CI
)
ca
20
0
4
J
CI
)
r:
:
CI
)
11
.
I-
,/
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
.
-
--
-
.
-
-
26
7
0
-
-
r:
:
26
6
0
...
.CI
)
26
5
0
--
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
--
-
.
-
26
4
0
26
3
0
De
c
-
9
2
Ap
r
-
9
4
Se
p
-
Ja
n
-
Ma
y
-
Oc
t
-
Fe
b
-
Ju
l
-
0
2
No
v
-
0
3
Da
t
e
26
8
0
26
7
5
26
7
0
26
6
5
S.
2
6
6
0
~
2
6
5
5
jj
ja..CI)
26
5
0
26
4
5
26
4
0
26
3
5
26
3
0
De
c
-
9
5
UW
I
D
T
e
n
M
i
l
e
W
e
l
l
No
n
-
Pu
m
p
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
D
a
t
a
da
t
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
:
m
a
n
u
a
l
l
me
$
l
s
u
r
e
d
:
:
:
n
o
n
-
pu
m
p
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
:
u
s
e
d
t
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
c
l
1
e
c
l
f
S
C
A
D
A
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:7
/
1
/
0
2
:
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
:
..
I
.
to
t
l
'
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
:
1
I
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
;;
:
.
..
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
-
le
v
e
l
(
d
e
p
t
h
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
=
4
9
5
f
e
e
t
)
...
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
:
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
12
/
2
3
/
0
2
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
...
..
.
No
p
u
m
p
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
e
I
"
'"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
~~
-
~t
.
=_
.
:c
,
.
_.
.
~
=+
=
.
~~
~
~~
~
-
-
~~
~
~
_
-
~
~
o
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
I
,
"
1
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
1
I
1
.
.
.
.
...
.
...
.
.
..
.
:
5
/
2
5
/
0
0
4/
3
/
0
3
.
.
.
.
...
..
.
.
.
.
...
..
.
2
27
0
4
1
"
...
pu
m
p
o
u
t
f
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
(w
e
l
l
h
a
s
n
o
t
,
I
"
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
p
u
m
p
e
d
-
s
i
n
c
e
-
-
-
-
-
-
-4
1
1
-
3
/
0
4
-
-
-
-
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
0
2
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ap
r
-
9
7
Se
p
-
Ja
n
-
Ma
y
-
Oc
t
-
Fe
b
-
Da
t
e
UW
I
D
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
N
o
n
-
Pu
m
p
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
s
~
P
u
m
p
H
o
u
s
e
R
e
a
d
S
h
e
e
t
.
M
a
n
u
a
l
47
0
48
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m_
_
_
_
__
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
m
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
49
0
-
-
.
.
-
_
.
.
""
"
:::
.
::-
.
.
.
.
7-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
-
le
v
e
l
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
:=
-
-
-
::-
-
-
-
",
-
,-
-
-
-
-
.
"
.
'
-
"
"
::
"
::
"
"
""
'
...
:.
.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
_.
.
.
.
:.
.
:-
-
~.
~
_.
.
.
.
.
~:
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
,
,
--
-
-
-
-
--
50
0
=-
5
1
0
CI)
3:
5
2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
..
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-\
.
..
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
53
0
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
.
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
54
0
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
.
.
.
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
55
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
56
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
..
.
-
57
0
De
c
-
9
4
Ap
r
-
9
6
Se
p
-
Ja
n
-
Ma
y
-
O
O
Oc
t
-
Fe
b
-
Ju
l
-
Da
t
e
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Please explain or theorize why peak day demand for 2004 was so much less
than for the previous four years as shown on page 9 of your testimony.
RESPONSE NO.
The level of peak day customer use is closely related to temperature and
precipitation. The records indicate that consumption correlates with temperature
increasing by about an MGD per degree rise in temperature during late July and
early August. The year 2004 was somewhat unique in that the average
temperature for the first ten days of July was 88.5 degrees, whereas the years
2000 through 2003 averaged 92.9 degrees for the same period. In addition
eight days later, a major rain event occurred totaling 0.59" (July 18, 2004 - July
, 2004), with an associated drop in temperature of 9 degrees. Production
responded with a drop of 18.2 MGD from July 18 to July 20. The combination of
a cooler start for the month and the rain event is the most apparent explanation.
of the reduction in peak day compared to the previous four years.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Reference p. 11 , lines 8-10. Please provide reports , correspondence or other
information documenting DEQ's "adoption of a program to allow compliance by
source management and concentration averaging." Identify those UWI wells that
currently do not meet arsenic limits.
RESPONSE NO.
DEQ is responding to EPA'Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation
Handbook for Small Systems (EPA 816-03-014). This document provides an
overview of several approved arsenic treatment technologies. It states the
following regarding "Seasonal Use
2 Seasonal Use
Another option is to switch a high arsenic water source from full-time
production to seasonal use or peaking use only. When used, it would be
blended with low arsenic water sources before entry to the distribution
system. This is allowed at the federal level, as long as the running annual
average at the entry point to the distribution system does not exceed the
MCL.
Pg. 12 , paragraph 2.Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation
Handbook for Small Systems (EPA 816-03-014).
All wells currently are below the 50 ppb limit and meet current arsenic limits. The
five wells that will not meet the 2006 arsenic limit of 10 ppb are Terteling, Market
Bergeson , Central Park and Warm Springs Mesa #3.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE UWI-O4-
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Preparer/Sponsoring Witness: Scott Rhead
Telephone: (208) 362-7345
Title: Managing Engineer
REQUEST NO.
Does UWI currently have any plans to implement Aquifer Storage and Recharge
using water from the CWTP? If so, please describe or provide a copy of those
plans.
RESPONSE NO.
United Water has a preliminary plan to construct an Aquifer Storage and
Recovery (ASR) well in the vicinity of the Columbia WTP. The capital plan
designates funding in 2006 for permitting and pilot well activities. The production
well (1 MGD) would be completed in 2007, based on need and subject to
successful results and agency approvals. United has obtained water right permit
#63-31409 from Idaho Department of Water Resources which allows for ground
water recharge with water diverted from the Boise River.