20070814Final Engineering Report.pdf

\-"
r'l;
/, --:;
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
A6--0.7-
~~ .
'I~. i;'
1410 North Hilton. Boise, Idaho 83706 . [phone]
Idaho PU~lic Utilities Commi~sion
OffIce of the Secretary C.L. "Butch" Olter, GovernorR E eEl V E 0 Toni Hardesty. Director
AUG - 6 2007
June 26, 2007 Boise, Idaho TSP&S-14212007
Mr. RobertV. DeShazo, Jr.
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
172 W. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Mr. James Rees, P.
MTC, Inc.
707N.27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
RE:Eagle Water Company (City afEagle, Ada County)
Acceptance ofPrelinrinary Engineering Report
Dear Mr. DeShazo and Mr. Rees:
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report for the
Eagle Water Company (EWe) water system, received on Jooe 18, 2007, and has determined that it satisfies the
requirements for such a document as set forth in the DEQIEWC Consent Order signed by both parties on February
, 2006. In accordance with that Coosent Order, DEQ hereby directs EWC to change the title of the document to
Final Engineering Report", and submit it to DEQ for formal approval.
Please call me with any questions at 373-0514, oroontactme viae-mail at peter.ba~.idaho.gov
Sincerely,
~6--~~s. Bair,
Technical n Engineer
PSB:sjt
"'.\...;
Timmy Floyd,. Drinking Water Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Offic-e
Mark Mason, P.E. Engineering Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Office
Stephanie Ebright, Attorney Geneml's Office, DEQ State Office
Monty Marchus, P., DEQ Boise Regional Office
Molly O'Leary, Richardson & O'Leary PLLC, P,O. Box 7218, Boise, Idaho 83707
BRO Source File
TSP&S Reading File
JJ!-
IC,INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, AND PLANNERS
707 N.27TH ST. BOISE, IDAHO 83702-3113 [phone] FAX [phone]
8;:-
Ms. Tiffany Floyd, Regional Drinking Water Manager
Department of Environmental Quality
Boise Regional Office
1445 N. Orchard 8t.
Boise, ID 83706
June 27, 2007
Project 05-840
Dear Ms. Floyd;
Transmitted herewith are three copies of the Final Engineering Report on the
Eagle Water Company, Inc, water system as required by 1076/16RO Consent Order.
We look forward to assisting you in any mmmer necessary during you review
this report. Please contact us directly if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
~ .
~PE.
MfC. Inc.
rC.INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURV EvORS, AND PLANNERS
707 N. 27TH ST. BOISE, IDAHO 83702-3113 [phone] FAX [phone]
June 27, 2007
Project 05-840
Mr. Robert V. DeShazo, Jr.
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
O. Box 455
Eagle~ ID 83616
Dear Mr. DeShazo,
Transmitted herewith: is the Final Engineering Report performed on the Eagle
Water Company, Inc. Water System.
We sincerely appreciate the oppo.rtunity to be of service to you on this project andwe look fOrward to continue to serve you.
Yours truly,
FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT
on the
Water Supply System Study
For
Eagle Water Company, Ine,
Eagle, Idaho
MTC Engineers Inc.
707 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
June 2007
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGENIENTS
EXECUTIVE S U~AR Y
REPORT SUMMARY
APPENDIX A - System Inventory
APPENDIX B - Well Logs
APPENDIX C - Consumption Data
APPENDIX D - IDEQ Correspondence
and Rules Interpretation
APPENDIX E - Fire Hydrant Flow
Testing
APPENDIX F - Fire Hydrant Calibration
Modeling
APPENDIX G - Figures
APPENDIX H - Correspondence with
Fire Marshal
APPENDIX I - Model Output Maximum
Day Demand Plus Fire Flow
APPENDIX J - Model Output Peak Hour
Flow
APPENDIX K - Pressure Maps
j~,
v;:;:rvy'EEfo ( ,W)D, ;!'OC(i,\!G ~::Y:::;TEi\';,);:,%9
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION
James M. Rees and Chet A. Hovey, hereby certify that they are
Engineers in the state of Idaho. They declare that this
prepared under their direct supervision for Eagle Water Company, Inc., Ada County, Idaho.
James M. Rees, P.
Idaho Reg. 1830
Chet A. Hovey, P. E.
Idaho Reg. 11861
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the Secretary
RECEIVED
AUG - 6 2007
Boise. Idaho
Acknow ledgements
We wish to acknowledge the willing cooperation and assistance of the staff of Eagle
Water Company and the City of Eagle. Particularly we acknowledge the efforts of Mrs. Betty
Holt, Norman Revels and Mrs. Toni Velie at Eagle Water Company in providing us with the
meter records necessary to perform the consumption analysis. Your patience and forbearance
were exemplary. We would also like to acknowledge the modeling efforts provided by Ward
Engineering Group. Thank You.
Idaho Pu~lic Utilities Commission
Office of the Secretary
RECEIVED
AUG - 6 2007
Boise. Idaho
TC. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/ SURVEYORS/ AND PLANNERS
707 N. 27TH ST. BOISE-IDAHO 83702-3113 [phone] FAX [phone]
Idaho PU~lic Utilities Commission
OffIce of the SecretaryRECEIVED
AUG 6 2007
Boise, Idaho
Mr. Robert V. DeShazo, Jr.
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
O Box455
Eagle, ID 83616
June 27, 2007
Project 05-840
Dear Mr. DeShazo
The Final Engineering Report characterizes the water system of Eagle Water
Company (EWC) for the purpose of I) to identify current system pressure and supply
deficiencies, if and 2) to identify and analyze potential remedial actions, and 3) to
generate a model for EWC to use as a tool in current and future planning, monitoring, and
management. The scope ofthe Final Engineering Report was system-wide. At the
current time, the Idaho Department ofEnvn-onmental Quality (IDEQ) has place a
development moratorium on the Company s certified service area until potential remedial
actions are identified.
The City of Eagle has been a significant growth pattern. Census and population
estimates (as obtained ITom the Idaho State Department of Commerce and Labor and
other sources) and population projects ITom the demographic group COMPASS
IDAHO was integrated to develop the chart below which was used in estimating
population and growth rates:
City of Eagle Population
History and Projections
35000
30000
I.: 25000
.. 20000
oS!:!
S. 15000
10000
5000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Years
Portions of this growth were by annexation and were outside the Company
service area. However, growth has also occurred within the EWC service area through
population growth, residential infilling, and an expanding commercial base. This is
shown in the table below by the increase in the number of residential and commercial
accounts serviced for the current water accounts and the anticipated water accounts for
2010 and 2026.
Water Accounts Summary
Year Residential Commercial Agricultural Total Water
Accounts Accounts Accounts System
Accounts
2006 wi 924 358 112 394
Approved
Developments
2010 333 408 112 853
2026 603 530 112 245
The above table above indicates, the assumption that growth will only occur in
Residential and Commercial accounts. Agricultural accounts would conservatively
- 2-
remain constant even though Agricultural accounts will likely decrease as development
occurs. In addition, the City of Eagle has policy that all new development must be
equipped with a pressurized secondary irrigation system utilizing existing irrigation water
rights.
The maximum day demand data was obtained from EWC personnel. The data
indicates a steadily increasing which is attributed to the increase in water accounts
served. To determine the maximum day demand per account and if it's changing with
time, the maximum day demand was divided by the number accounts for the years 2003
through 2006. The results are listed in the table below.
The maximum day demand results are listed in the table below.
Maximum Day Demand
Year Maximum Day Account Total Maximum Day
Demand (gpd)Demand per Account
(gpm)
2003 647 000 745
2004 763,000 888
2005 180 000 196
2006 261 000 261
The table shows a continual decrease with time for maximum day demand per
account. In projecting future demands on the water system, it is conservatively assumed
that each water account would have a maximum day demand of 1.12 gpm instead of
following the downward trend.
The peak hour flow demand was determined from available flow data, industry
references, and peaking factors used by local water systems. A list of some of the
industry references and peaking factors from local water systems are shown below.
- 3 -
System Demand
Reference Peaking Factor for
Peak Hour Flow Demand
Dewberry and Davis land
Development Handbook
City of Eagle
Star Sewer and Water District'1.45
City of Meridian Water Master
Plan Update
After careful consideration and discussion with IDEO (See Appendix D), it was
agreed that a peaking factor of 1.50 be used from maximum day demand to peak hour
flow. Thus, each water account would have a peak hour flow demand of 1.68 gpm
(1.12 gpm 5). As part of the agreement of using a 1.5 peaking factor for peak hour
flow, EWC will monitor the system for peak hour flow and maximum day demand this
summer (2007) in order to validate the decision.
Each water account was considered a dwelling unit (D.). The plan of study
was to utilize computer based modeling software , calibrate the model to available
existing system data, and then test various scenarios in the model to see their impact on
the overall system s modeled operation.
A computer model was setup to simulate the following: maximum day demand
with fire flow and the peak hour flow demand under the existing 2006 water system wI
approved developments, 2006 with required improvements, the projected 2010 water
system, and projected 2026 water system. Each of these scenarios was run with Well
#4 off and then Well #6 off per the General Design Conditions (Section 501.17.a).
Specific standards (utilized in this modeling) establishing pressure, flow and
redundancy requirements were obtained from Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water
Systems (IRPDWS). These standards require a minimum zone pressure of 20 psi
during the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario. The system also needs to
meet the system wide operational pressure standards of 100 psi maximum and a
minimum of 40 psi during normal operations and peak hour flow demand.
- 4-
Calibration of the model was verified comparing modeling results with actual fire
hydrant flow test data. Two separate scenarios were used to verify that the model
reflects actual field conditions. The scenarios were before and after Well #7 was put into
service and a total of 8 fire hydrant flow tests were compared. The model agrees with
reasonable variance to measured field conditions. Varying pressure and flow availability
within the system are likely when using data from different hours during the day, years,
and seasons.
The modeling results for the different scenarios were analyzed to identify
improvements to the system and make recommendations. One of these evaluated
improvements was the use of a water storage facility. The concept of utilizing a tank for
a supplemental source when one of the wells is out of service was studied from several
angles. The recommended storage capacity of one million gallons was used for the
study. To be effective the tank must supply water to the highest service connection with
the required working pressure of 40 psi. This would require the minimum operating
water level of the tank to be around elevation 2840 feet. The tank must be located
outside the existing certificated area for proper elevation or EWC would need to
construct an elevated tank. There are few, if any, locations available for the construction
of an elevated tank. Two locations outside the service area were evaluated for a tank
location. To fill either of the tanks, a tank booster pump station would be required. Due
to siting, easements , and economics concerns along with the need for an additional
water supply in the near future; it was determined that a water storage facility would be
nice but not a necessity.
A computer model was setup to simulate the following: maximum day demand
with fire flow and the peak hour flow demand under the existing 2006 Water System wi
Approved Developments, 2006 with Required Improvements, the projected 2010 Water
System , and projected 2026 Water System. Each of these scenarios was run with Well
#4 off and then Well #6 off per the General Design Conditions (Section 501.17.a).
After evaluating and modeling numerous options, a list of recommendations were
developed. The recommendations were divided into the following categories:
Mandatory, Future, Suggested, and Completed Actions. Mandatory Actions are those
- 5 -
immediately required to bring the system into compliance with regulations. Future
Actions are recommendations required to support future development. Suggested
Actions are items that would optimize the water system but are not required. Completed
Actions are recent improvements that have been beneficial to the current water system.
For ease of implementation and organization , the action categories have been divided
into two subcategories: (1) planning items and (2) construction projects.
MANADATORY ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of MANDATORY planning items to bring the water system into compliance
is as follows:
None
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The following list of MANDATORY construction projects along with their
construction priority has been developed to increase the service pressure, available fire
flow, and water supply within the water system. However, the 2006 Approved
Development analysis identified improvement project-related deficiencies within the
existing water system. As the model results indicated, the maximum day demand plus
fire flow, with Well #4 off, identified 5 residential junctions in the upper pressure zone
with fire flow availability less than 1000 gpm and the minimum fire flow for commercial
junctions of 1668 gpm. The peak hour demand indicated that the pressure dropped
below 40 psi when Well #4 off and then again when Well #6 is off. The results for the
2006 Approved Development indicate the need for the following list of Mandatory
construction projects to bring the water system into compliance with IRPDWS
requirements.
Priority #Date Descri tion Cost Estimate
(2007-2008) Water Interconnect ....................".................................. $151 250
Interconnect water systems with either United Water or City of
Eagle for emergency flow redundancy. The United Water
- 6-
(2007)
interconnect should be made on Floating Feather Road just
downstream of the proposed PRSV to feed the lower pressure
zone. The United Water Interconnect should be designed to
produce 1845 gpm at 61.5 PSI. The City of Eagle interconnect
should be made upstream of the proposed PRSV to feed the
upper pressure zone. This interconnect should be designed to
produce 1845 gpm at 74 PSI. Cost estimate is for United Water
Interconnect as modeled in the report and would require a traffic
rated vault, miscellaneous valves flow meter and
appu rtenances.
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 125 000
$ 12 500
$ 137 500
$ 13,750
151 ,250
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
July 2007
September 2007
December 2007Construction
Install PRSV on Floating Feather Road ..........................$43 120
Replace existing throttling valve with a pressure
reducing/sustaining valve. In the water model , the upstream
pressure setting was set at 72.5 psi and downstream pressure
remained near 55 psi.
- 7 -
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 35 000
$ 4 200
$ 39,200
$ 3 920
$ 43 120
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
Construction
July 2007
August 2007
December 2007, Will be installed
during low flow conditions.
FUTURE ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of FUTURE planning recommendations is as follows:
None
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The list below is for Future construction projects which have been selected to
able the water system to service the anticipated growth and also eliminate reliance on
the proposed water interconnect.
Priority #Date Descri tion Cost Estimate
(2008- ???*) New Water Source........................................................ $898,040
There are two viable options to increase the available water
supply within the water system. The first option would be to
renovate existing water sources for additional supply and equip
these sources with emergency backup power. The second
option would be to drill and construct new water source which
would be equipped with emergency backup power. As
- 8 -
(2008-2009)
previously stated, the water requirement of 2365 gpm is required
for the 2010 and 2026 Scenarios. This item also includes
associated piping ($35/ft at 1350 ft) and land ($150 000).
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 785,000
31,400
816,400
$ 81 640
$ 898 040
Engineering (4%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Siting
Design
Permitted
October 2007
February 2008
October 2008
December 2008Construction
* The questions marks for the completion date indicate the
uncertainty associated with siting and permitting a new water
source.
Well #2 Booster Pump Station Modification ..................... $38, 115
Increase the pumping head in Booster Pump Station #2 by
replacing existing pumps with pumps that produce a combined
flow 640 gpm at 148' TDH. This will enable the use of the
000 gallon Well #2 water storage tank to attenuate the peak
demand on the water sources. The model was setup with two
pumps in operation for convenience only. Any major pump
modifications made will require the pumping station to be
equipped with redundant pumping capacity. It should be
designed with either a duplex pumping station with equal sized
pumps or a triplex pumping station with two identical smaller
pumps and a jockey pump meeting the required flow and head
parameters.
- 9-
(As Developed)
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (10%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Design
Approval
Construction
March 2008
July 2008
November 2008
$ 31 500
$ 3,150
$ 34 650
3,465
$ 38,115
West Enchantment Street, West Cobblestone Way, and West
Yellowstone Street Piping Interconnect $30/ft (g) 3 740 ft plus
Bore & Jack $50,000, ...................................................$253 616
Increase the capacity of fire flow near Well #6 when it is off line.
It should be a requirement of the developer of residential parcel
#2 to make the looped connection including the bore and jack
under the canal. The cost should be split between the developer
and EWC.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (10%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 209 600
$ 20 960
$ 230,560
$ 23 056
$ 253 616
Timeline Overview - Will be development driven.
- 10-
SUGGESTED ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of SUGGESTED planning recommendations is as follows:
Provide notification to users in the upper pressure zone that the Main
Booster Pump Station is not equipped with backup emergency power or a
redundant pump. This could result in temporary loss of pressure during
power outages or pump failure.
EWe will keep the eity of Eagle s plumbing inspectors informed of areas
within the service area that have service pressures greater than 80 psi. A
figure identifying junctions which have service pressure greater than 80
psi under any of the scenarios is included in Appendix K.
All new construction within the 80 psi or greater pressure areas will have a
recommendation to be equipped with a individual pressure reducing valve
along with a thermal expansion tank.
All new subdivisions, if possible, should be a looped system.
Minimum 8" waterlines in residential areas and 12" waterlines in
commercial areas.
No booster pumps should be connected to the water system unless they
are owned and operated by EWe and any currently unauthorized pumps
should be removed, per Recommended Standards for Water Works, 2003
(Ten States Standards).
As development occurs around existing subdivisions it should
required, to connect to the existing subdivisions creating piping loops
within the water system. Multiple existing subdivisions are being serviced
from one feed line, thus limiting fire flow availability and a redundant water
supply.
All proposed developments should require a fee for a water model
analysis prior to approval. It is suggested that developers be required to
submit electronic copies of plans to be integrated into the water model for
preliminary plat review.
- 11 -
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A list of Suggested construction projects have been developed for operational
purposes for the water system.
Priority #Date Descri tion Cost Estimate
(N/ A)Pump Redundancy for the Main Booster Pump Station ..$51 744
Provide pumping redundancy through either a water system
interconnect to the upper pressure zone (the City of Eagle Water
Interconnect) or an additional pump in the Main Booster Pump
Station.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 42 000
040
$ 47 040
704
$ 51 744
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
2 Months
1 Month
Construction
period.
1 Month , during a low demand
(N/ A)Install Recording Flow Monitors ......................................$47 080
Install recording flow meters on Well #4, Well #7 , Well #6, Well
, Main Booster Pump Station, and Booster Pump Station #2.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (Specs Only)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
$ 42 000
800
$ 42 800
280
- 12-
Total $ 47 080
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitting
Construction
2 Months
2 Months
3 Months
COMPLETED ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of COMPLETED planning recommendations is as follows:
Planning and implementation of Well #7.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A list of Completed construction projects performed by EWC in an effort to
increase source availability within the water system is provided below.
Priorit Date Description Cost Estimate
Completed (2006)New Water Source - Well #7 (Constructed and Online) $638,600
Construct new water source and associated piping with
emergency backup power supply. (Per EWC's understanding of
the consent order, EWC must indicate what specific actions are
required to bring the water system into compliance. Additional
source was determined the #1 priority and Well #7 and
interconnect listed below was construction. Therefore, it is
included as our #1 priority for improvement).
Cost Itemization
Construction
Total
$ 620,000
$ 18 600
$ 638,600
Engineering
- 13 -
Timeline Overview - Completed
Completed (2006)Well #7 Interconnect (Constructed and Online) ............. $153 300
Construct new transmission piping from Well #7 to existing
piping along Eagle Bypass.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Total
$ 146 000
$ 7 300
$ 153 300
Engineering
Timeline Overview - Completed
Completed (2007)Repair Well #4........... ......... ........ .............. ....................... $56 , 100
Well #4 is currently being rebuilt to provide additional water
source. The reconditioned pump will be online prior to summer
demand of 2007.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 51 000
$ 51 000
$ 5,100
$ 56 100
Costs are estimates only and because final billing has yet
to be received and finalized.
Timeline Overview - Completed
Financial Plan
The following calculations have been prepared by Geneva Trent, CPA, for Eagle
Water Company, Inc. Eagle Water Company intends to file an Application with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission (IPUG) to finance the recommended system improvements,
as needed. If the system improvements and related surcharges are approved by the
- 14-
IPUG , Eagle Water would seek commercial financing for the projects and the borrowed
funds would then be repaid through a surcharge on customers' usage.
The attached surcharge calculations indicate the percentage that Eagle Water
customers might be required to pay over-and-above current water rates, for the various
recommended improvements, if approved by the I PUG.
Eagle Water has been ordered by the IPUG to submit an Application for financing
necessary systems improvements by July 15, 2007. Eagle Water is prepared to do so
immediately upon DEQ's acceptance of its Preliminary Engineering Report.
- 15 -
Eagle Water Company
Calculation of Surcharge Amounts for Proposed Improvements
at June 10, 2007
MANDATORY ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - Water Interconnect
$151 250.
1 ,500.
Cost of Priority 1
Estimated bank loan fees
Amount Financed
Term (estimated)
Interest Rate
Monthly Payments Required
$ 152 750.
5 years
50%
$ 3 208.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required $ 38,496.
Multiplied by Gross-up (from below)127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge $ 49,228.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.( 2006 revenues)
Surcharge 747%
Totals
Revenues
$ 542 947.
186,642.
$ 729 590,
Percent of Total
74.42%
25.58%
100.00%
2006 Customers
Residential
Commercial
Calculation of Gross-Up Factor for Taxes:
1 )100.00%taxable
00%State Tax Rate
92.00%Federal Taxable
13.80%Effective Federal Tax Rate
21.80%Composite Tax Rate
78.20%Net After Tax Income
127.88%Gross-up Factor
(Federal Rate 15%)
2) + 4)
- 16-
MANDATORY ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Install PRSV on Floating Feather Road
Cost of Priority 43,120.
Estimated bank loan fees 400.
Amount Financed 43,520.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 816.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 45,792.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 558.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729 590.( 2006 revenues)
Surcharge 026%
FUTURE ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - New Water Source
Cost of Priority $ 898,040.
Estimated bank loan fees 000.
Amount Financed $ 907 040.
Term (estimated)10 years
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 737.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required $ 140 844.
~ultiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge $ 180 111.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729 590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 24.687%
- 17 -
FUTURE ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Well #2 Booster Pump Station Modification
Cost of Priority 115.
Estimated bank loan fees 400.
Amount Financed 38,515.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 377.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 40,524.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 822.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 103%
SUGGESTED ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - Pump Redundancy for the Main Booster Pump Station
Cost of Priority 744.
Estimated bank loan fees 500.
Amount Financed 244.
Term (estimated)2 years
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 2,400.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 28,800.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 36,829.44
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729 590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 048%
- 18 -
SUGGESTED ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Install Recording Flow Monitors
Cost of Priority 080.
Estimated bank loan fees 450.
Amount Financed 530.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 167.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 011.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 63,954.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 766%
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this
project and we look forward to continuing to serve you.
Yours truly,
- 19-
luano !-IU~lic Utilities Commission
OffIce of the SecretaryRECEIVED
AUG - 6 2007
Authorization Boise. Idaho
Pursuant to the contract agreement between the Engineers , MTC, Inc. (MTC) and Eagle
Water Company, Inc. (EWC or "the Company"), MTC, Inc. has performed this water distribution
system study on the Company s system.
Purpose. Need. and Plan of Study
The purpose of the investigation was 1) to identify current system pressure and supply
deficiencies, if any 2) to identify and analyze potential remedial actions, and 3) to generate a
model for the Company to use as a tool in current and future planning, monitoring, and
management. The scope of the investigation was system-wide. At the current time, the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) has placed a development moratorium on the
Company s certified service area until potential remedial actions are identified.
The principle need for the study was to identify facility improvements, if any, needed to
eliminate low pressures.
The need for additional supply has long been recognized. In the early 1990's, a well was
proposed near State Highway 55 (SH-55) and Hill Road. However, access was a major obstacle
and the well was never drilled. Well #4 was completed in 1992 near the South-central area of the
service area. Well #61 was completed in 1996 near the West end of the service area.
connection began from Well #6 thence West on State Street and North on Ballantyne Road to
Country Side Subdivision. The plan was to continue North on Ballantyne Road then East to the
existing Floating Feather mainline. The request for this service area was denied by the IPUC so
the connection was never made. Another possible routing through the proposed Covenant Hill
Subdivision was also thwarted when the subdivision area was removed from the Company
service area by the IPUC and assigned to the service area of United Water-Idaho.
In the meantime, the City of Eagle has been in a significant growth pattern. Census and
population estimates (as obtained from the Idaho State Department of Commerce and labor and
other sources) are shown below:
1 There is no Well #5.
- 1 -
Historical Population Data
1990 577
1995 777
2000 085
2004 16,176
The 2006 population estimate by the City of Eagle is 20,130.
The demographic group COMPASS of IDAHO, a regional planning agency, provided the
following population figures:
Population Projects
2005 124
2010 227
2015 25,854
2020 28,216
2025 785
2030 043
The chart below shows historical data in conjunction with growth projections for the City
of Eagle.
City of Eagle Population
History and Projections
35000
30000
c 25000
20000
6. 15000
0000
5000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Years
- 2-
Portions of this growth were by annexation and were outside the Company s service
area. However, growth has also occurred within the EWC service area through population
growth, residential infilling, and an expanding commercial base. This is shown by the increase in
the number of residential and commercial accounts serviced. Further information about water
accounts will be provided later within this summary. The need for additional supply will continue
to increase with the additional demand placed on the system by the increase in the population.
EWC needs an updated master plan to keep pace with the growth in its service area and
to continue to provide cost effective, quality service to its customers. EWC is addressing the
above by working to stay ahead of the curve and anticipate domestic water supply needs and fire
flow requirements.
The plan of study was to utilize computer based modeling software, calibrate the model
to available existing system data, and then test various scenarios in the model to see their impact
on the overall system s modeled operation. Based on system evaluations, the system
improvements will be identified with a prioritization and cost estimate.
Generalized Description of the Existina Conditions and Water Svstem
The certified service area of EWC, Inc. lies in portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 14
15, and 16, in T. 4N., R. 1 E., B., City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho. Physiographically it is on
the alluvial fan of Dry Creek together with portions of the adjacent Boise Front foothills and the
Boise River floodplain. It also consists of all the land North of the North Channel of the Boise
River between River Miles -42 and -46. Portions in the North and East lie on terraced alluvium
left by the down cutting of the Boise River. Topographically the majority of the service area lies
West of the Boise Front foothills between elevations 2650 feet and 2546 feet; the balance rises to
the East to an elevation of 2743:1: feet. The geology (as read in the well logs) is generally coarse
sand to silts and clays, with minor horizontal lenses of coarser grained materials from major storm
events, as would be expected at the mouth of a major drainage. The soils in the alluvial fan
areas are in the Notus-Moulton-Falk series while those on the foothills are in the Quincy-
lankbush-Brent series.With the exception of Dry Creek, the surface hydrology has been
significantly modified by over century of agricultural activity and by urban/suburban
development. Groundwater is encountered between 2 and 40 feet below ground surface.
Depending on proximity to the river, the well depths may vary from 230 to 466 feet with a
drawdown that varies from 60 to 160 feet.
2 Soil Survey of Ada County, Idaho; USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
- 3 -
The Southern boundary of the service area is the North Channel of the Boise River which
is in the City of Eagle s designated Scenic Corridor. The majority of the area is developed and in
general, the native fauna and flora have been supplanted by domestic pets, decorative plantings
and grasses.
One well is located planimetrically in the mapped fringe area of the Boise River
floodplain; however, it is elevated above the 100-year base flood elevation as required by
ordinance of City of Eagle.
With an estimated 2006 population of 20,130, the City of Eagle covers about 17 square
miles. The Company s water distribution system lies generally within the City of Eagle and its
area of impact. In 2006, service was provided to 2889 residential accounts, 260 commercial
accounts, and 112 landscaping accounts.
The supply and distribution systems, owned and operated by the Company are the
primary subject of this study. Included in the study are six wells (#1 , #2 , #3, #4, #6, and #7) and
associated pumping stations, one water storage facility for Well #2 Booster Pump Station, two
booster pump stations (Main and Well #2), and approximately 54 miles of waterline, with
appurtenances, of which about one mile (less than 2% of the overall system) is smaller than 6-
inch. All these smaller lines serve five or fewer customers and/or short cul-de-sacs, and all are
without fire hydrants and flows are acceptable. See Appendix A for system inventory.
The existing water supply is pumped groundwater from the deep aquifers under the Boise
River floodplain. All wells have been permitted by the Idaho Department of Water Resources and
the logs are located in their offices. See Appendix B for copies of the well logs.
Water Qualitv/Securitv
The water quality is good and meets the public drinking water standards. In addition to
specific testing required by the IDEQ, EWC personnel perform wellhead tests monthly. There
have been no known problems with the water quality.
All well/pump house facilities are securely locked. Each facility is inspected daily and the
pumping quantities and pressures are recorded.
- 4-
Source Protection Plan
A Source Protection Plan is on file in the EWC office. Currently, the system operator
monitors the provisions of the Source Protection Plan in operation of EWC's system. General
source protection practices include (but are not limited to) the following:1. Well houses shall not be used for storage of any chemicals.2. Well house access is limited to operating staff and persons they admit.
person shall be admitted into a well house unless a member of the operating staff
is present.
Well sites are visited daily by maintenance personnel in the course of operation
and any potential source of contamination is immediately noted and removed.
According to the EWC personnel (Tom Gilbert), A Source Water Assessment Final
Report was prepared by IDEO that defined the potential for water contaminates.
The current know sanitary survey deficiencies are as follows:1. Auxiliary fuel tank and piping in Well House #2 is not double walled and does not
have spill containment structure. To resolve these issues , EWC will provide spill
containment through elevated doorway thresholds.
A Brief Svstem Historv
Eagle Ranch Water Company was formed in 1972 to serve the Eagle Ranch Subdivision.
In 1974, the Company applied to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for a ruling to establish the
Eagle Ranch Water Company. In 1976, the Public Utilities Commission ruled on case No. U-
1116-1 Order No. 12621 to establish Eagle Ranch Water Company. At that time, there were 150
customers and Well # 1 was the only well in the system. As the customer base grew, Well #2
was drilled and integrated into the system. Eagle Hills subdivision water system was acquired
and it's well was designated as Well #3. Due to problems of sand production at high flow rates
above 350 gpm, Well #3 is currently only used during high demand periods. It has been
equipped with a sand separator which minimized the sanding problems and the well is normally
operating below 350 gpm.
In the 1980', the company name was changed to Eagle Water Company, Inc (EWe).
Water meters were added in 1986 and the billing rate was changed from a flat rate basis to a
meter rate basis. Well #4 was drilled and added to the system in 1992. With the expansion of
the City of Eagle, Well #6 was drilled in 1996 in order to:
) Serve the West side of the service area,
- 5 -
) Provide additional supply for the system once this well was looped to the North and
connected to the existing EWC 12" mainline on Floating Feather Road. (This
connection has yet to be made due to removal of the intended connection route from
EWC's service area by the PUC.
The Floating Feather 12" mainline is a major line to the higher East end of the service
area.
WaterCAD(8) Modelina
As with any computer modeling, there are often differences between data from a model
and the actual workings of the system. We have compared the actual water system performance
against the model results and are satisfied with the correlation.
Current Modelina Proiect
This modeling effort began during the fall of 2005 utilizing Haestad Methods' WaterCADCID
v7.0 software. The model required the following input for analysis:
i. Horizontal and vertical geometry
ii. Water source information
iii. Water storage
iv. Pumping information
v. Consumption data
vi. Calibration
vii. Performance criteria
i.) Horizontal and vertical aeometrv was obtained from EWC and MTC Engineers. Pipe
number and junction node numbers were then assigned to an AutoCADCID model. The model was
then imported as the background layer of the WaterCADCID model and used as the guide for
constructing the WaterCADCID model. Node elevations were obtained from existing record
drawings and topographical mapping. System demands, water sources , and other controlling
hydraulic features were incorporated within the model. This established the base model.
ii.) Water source for the EWC system is groundwater pumped from six wells. Information
regarding the wells was obtained from the IDWR well logs , test pump records, EWC records, and
MTC Engineers' records. This information includes well stratigraphy, depth , diameter, casing,
screen placement, and pumping/drawdown data.
3 The service area has an elevation difference of -187 feet from its Western edge, West of Well
No.6 (elevation 2546 feet), to the East end of Big Springs Boulevard (elevation 2733 feet). This
equates to a pressure difference of 81:t psi.
- 6 -
From water consumption and production data, it was obvious that an additional water
source was required and new Well #7 was drilled and constructed. The new Well #7 is located in
the NE4 of the SW4 of Section 15, TAN., R.1 E., 8., Ada County, Idaho. Well #7 has just
recently been completed and put online during the course of completing this report. Well #7 was
originally tested at 1350 gpm with 130 feet of drawdown. This was because the driller and test
pumping company set the test pump at 160 feet. The production pump was installed at 200 feet.
The well was later test pumped with the production pump at 1800 gpm with a total drawdown of
190 feet. It is anticipated that with additional testing and further development of the well , the
capacity of the well could be increased.
iii.) Water storaqe for the system has been evaluated. The concept of utilizing a tank for
a supplemental source when one of the wells is out of service was studied from several angles.
The recommended storage capacity of one million gallons was used for the study. To be
effective the tank must supply water to the highest service connection with the required working
pressure of 40 psi. This would require the minimum operating water level of the tank to be 2840
feet or greater pending head losses on transmission lines. The tank must be located outside the
existing certificated area for proper elevation or EWC would need to construct an elevated tank.
There are few, if any, locations available for the construction of an elevated tank and viewshed
impacts would likely be a major problem. Two locations outside the service area were identified
and evaluated for possible tank sitings. See the attached Water Storage Study map for locations.
The first study area is near the Skateboard Park and the second is near the Northeast Corner of
Sage Acres Subdivision, which are both located on Ada County property. To fill either of the
tanks, a tank booster pump station would be required. The Skateboard Park location would
require a pump station close enough to the source of supply that a single pipe could be
constructed for the fill pipe. Pressure reducing valves would need to be installed on other lines in
three places. A location for the pump station could be a problem. An estimated cost for the tank
is $900,000. Piping would be another $168,000 to $336,000 depending on location. For
evaluation comparison, a budget of $336,000 will be used for piping. The tank booster pump
station would be equipped with duplex pumping and standby power for an estimated cost of
$125,000. The pump building was estimated at another $60,000 to construct. (The cost for the
Sage Acres location would be more than the Skateboard Park location.) The estimated total for
the foregoing is $1,421 000. On the other hand, a new well and pump with backup power close
to the existing 12" line is estimated at less than $800,000. Due to siting, easements, and
economics concerns along with the need for an additional water supply in the near future; it was
determined that a water storage facility would be nice but not a necessity.
- 7 -
WATER STORAGE STUDY
EAGLE WATER COMP ANY INC.
707 N. 27th St.BoI... Idaho 83702
..,....
1811& ~:a~~:-O7:~!!9!7
DESIGNED DATE 05 07 SHEET
DRAWN DATE 05 07 SCALE N. 1.
CHECKED r.AH DATE 05 07 PROJECT MTC 002
- 8 -
iv.Pump information was obtained from the pump identification plates, manufacturer
catalogues, well logs, test pump records, and EWC records. Pumping curves were either
obtained from the manufacturer s pump performance curves or hand generated. EWC also
provided information on the pump controller settings for the variable speed pumps (VSP) and the
fixed speed pumps with on/off pressure settings.
Consumption data for commercial and residential customers was provided by EWC.
This data was used to assign proportional flows to each node within the model. A copy of this
data is included in Appendix C. In addition to this information, EWC provided the total annual
demand and the maximum day demand for the years 2003 through 2006 as shown below.
System Demand
Year Annual Demand Date when Maximum Maximum Day Demand
(aallons)Dav Demand Occurred (apd)
2003 675,334,680 7/13/03 647,000
2004 689 607,640 8/16/04 763 000
2005 624 127 005 7/17/05 180,000
2006 815,222 000 8/27/06 261 000
Annual demand data can fluctuate from one year to another. Some of the variables
include weather variations, system improvements, and such things as a water service rate
changes designed to encourage water conservation in high demand seasons. Typical variations
may occur, for example see the 2005 data.
The average day demand is calculated based on annual production determined by meter
readings. As previously noted, annual demand data may fluctuate from year to year. Thus the
average day demand was calculated using the average from 2003 through 2006 as shown below.
Determination of Average Day Demand
Year Annual Demand Account Total Year Demand Day Demand
(gallons)per Account per Account
(aallons)(apm)
2003 675,334,680 745 246,024 0.47
2004 689 607 640 888 238 784 0.45
2005 624 127 005 196 195 284
2006 815,222 000 261 249,991 0.48
Average 0.44
The average day demand per account, shown in the table above in bold, was multiplied
by the estimated account totals to project annual day demands for the different scenarios.
- 9-
The maximum day demand is steadily increasing due to the increase in water accounts
served. To determine the maximum day demand per account and if it's changing with time, the
maximum day demand was divided by the number accounts for the years 2003 through 2006.
The results are listed in the table below.
Maximum Day Demand
Year Maximum Day Demand Account Total Maximum Day Demand
(gpd)oer Account (aom)
2003 647 000 745
2004 763,000 888
2005 180,000 196
2006 261 000 261
The table shows a continual decrease with time for maximum day demand per account.
In projecting future demands on the water system , it is conservatively assumed that each water
account would have a maximum day demand of 1.12 gpm instead of following the downward
trend.
The peak hour flow demand was determined from available flow data, industry
references, and peaking factors used by local water systems. A list of some of the industry
references and peaking factors from local water systems are shown below.
System Demand
Reference Peaking Factor for
Peak Hour Flow Demand
Dewberry and Davis land
Development Handbook
City of Eagle
Star Sewer and Water District's 1.45
City of Meridian Water Master
Plan Update
After careful consideration and discussion with IDEQ (See Appendix D), it was agreed
that a peaking factor of 1 .50 be used from maximum day demand to peak hour flow. Thus, each
water account would have a peak hour flow demand of 1.68 gpm (1.12 gpm 5). As part of the
agreement of using a 1.5 peaking factor for peak hour flow, EWC will monitor the system for peak
hour flow and maximum day demand this summer (2007) in order to validate the decision.
Furthermore, each water account was considered a dwelling unit (D.). Using the
AutoCAD(B)/WaterCADCID model, each D.U. was assigned to a specific node and a flow demand
according to each scenario.
- 10-
vi.) Calibration of the model was verified comparing modeling results with actual fire
hydrant flow test data. Fire hydrant flow test data is included in Appendix E. Two separate
scenarios were used to verify that the model reflects actual field conditions. The scenarios were
before and after Well #7 was put into service. The modeling output for calibration is included in
Appendix F. The following tables show the results of the two scenarios.
Before Well #7 Hydrant Flow Summary
Location Date Time Corresponding Pressure at Model
Junction 1500 gpm Pressure at
(psi)1500 gpm
(psi)
Big Springs/Sage 8/05/05 13:40 - 14:21 415
Hollow
2528 East Sadie -8/09/05 14:19-14:25 502
RinClo
Ancona Business 11/16/04 13:53 -14:02 623
Park
Eagle River - S.2/23/06 10:21-10:31 447
BridClewav
Rockie Mountain 2/10/06 10:42 - 10:51 398
Business Park
After Well #7 Hydrant Flow Summary
Location Date Time Corresponding Pressure at Model
Junction 1500 gpm Pressure at
(psi)1500 gpm
(psi)
HomeDepot 8/16/06 14:00 - 14:05 605
Big Springs &8/31/06 14:55 - 15:00 415
Prairie Eagle
SprinCls
Edgewood &8/31/06 15:16 - 15:24 116
Clubhouse
As shown in the tables above, the model agrees with reasonable variance to measured
field conditions. Varying pressure and flow availability within the system are likely when using
data from different hours during the day, years, and seasons.
vii.) Performance criteria are listed in the general requirements for all public water
systems found in the Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems (IRPDWS) and the
Recommended Standards for Water Works (RSWW). Additional information supplementing the
IRPDWS and RSWW was provided by Mr. Monty Marchus, P., IDEO-Boise Office, in his
Design File Notes (DFN) titled Pressure Requirements-Public Water Systems and Design Flows-
Public Water Systems. Additional correspondence with IDEO and an interpretation of rules is
included in Appendix D. During these correspondences , the maximum day demand and the peak
hour flow demand were agreed upon based on a system monitoring plan. Specific standards
- 11 -
(utilized in this modeling) establishing pressure, flow and redundancy requirements were obtained
from Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems (IRPDWS). These standards require a
minimum zone pressure of 20 psi during the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario. The
system also needs to meet the system wide operational pressure standards of 100 psi maximum
and a minimum of 40 psi during normal operations and peak hour flow demand.
WaterCADCID Modelinq Results
A computer model was setup to simulate the following: maximum day demand with fire
flow and the peak hour flow demand under the existing 2006 Water System wi Approved
Developments , 2006 with Required Improvements , the projected 2010 Water System, and
projected 2026 Water System. Each of these scenarios was run with Well #4 off and then Well
#6 off per the General Design Conditions (Section 501.17.a). Since the water system is
considered a pumping system and is not equipped with storage, the system is required to meet
the maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions and the peak hour flow demand with the
largest well out of service. Due to the nature of the water system , having multiple water sources
and pressure zones, the system was modeled with Well #4 off and then Well #6 off to determine
the sensitivity of the system to these water sources. As will be discussed later, the proposed Well
#8 was used for modeling purposes only for the 2010 and 2026 modeling scenarios. Well #8 was
used to allow additional flow to enter the water system. Increased flow may also be available
through improvements to existing sources or a new source. For example, the pump and motor
for Well #4 were recently rebuilt to factory specifications to increase flow availability. However
the revised pump curve for Well #4 was used only in the 2010 and 2026 scenarios due to the
limited pumping data available from the rebuilt pump. In addition to Well #4, additional water
supply may be available by modifications to Well #6 , Well #7 , and Well #2 Booster Pump Station.
Figures of the water system are shown in Appendix G. The Fire Marshal of Eagle Fire
Department has informed MTC that the minimum fire flow requirements for one and two family
dwellings having area less than 3,600 square feet shall be 1 000 gpm. Any structure requiring
more than 1 000 gpm must be approved by the Fire Marshal and other means of protection may
be required. A waiver was granted to Eagle Water Company if fire flow of 1000 gpm is
maintained within the system under the maximum day demand scenario (for correspondence with
the Fire Marshall, see Appendix H). However, for insurance rate purposes only, the model was
setup to determine which residential fire hydrants do not have a 1,500 gpm fire flow while
maintaining a minimum system pressure of 20 psi. In addition, all commercial accounts which
have a fire flow availability of less than 2500 gpm were identified.
- 12-
2006 Scenario wi Approved Developments
The 2006 Scenario wi Approved Developments includes the existing water system, Well
#7 and related infrastructure along with the new 51. Lukes Medical Center, Shadow View
Subdivision, and Gladstone Subdivision approved developments.
The average daily flow and maximum day demand was determined using water data as
discussed and reviewed by IDEO (see Appendix D). A summary of the water demands that
includes all scenarios is shown in the table below.
Projected Water Demand
Average Daily Flow Maximum Day Flow
1442.54 3653.
Year
2006 wi Approved
Develo ments
2006 wi Required
1m rovements
2010
2026
1501 .3801.
1501 .3801 .
1704.42 4315.
1877.4754.40
Peak Hour Flow
5480.
5701 .
2006
5701 .
6473.
7131.
1 Average Daily Flow = Average Day Demand per Account (0.44 gpm previously shown in
Determination of Average Day Demand" table) multiplied by the # of Accounts. The # of Accounts
for the 2006 values was obtained from the "Maximum Day Demand" table on page 10 and the other
values were obtained from the 'Water Accounts Summary" table on page 19.
2 Maximum Day Flow was determined by recorded daily flows provided by EWC.
3 Peak Hour Flow = Maximum Day Flow multiplied by the 1.5 Peaking Factor.
Note that the 2006 projected water demand was included in the table for reference only.
The one improvement made to the existing water system for modeling purposes was the
replacement of a butterfly valve in Floating Feather Road with a pressure reducinglsustaining
valve.
A summary of the modeling results for the maximum day demand plus fire flow are
shown in the table below with all the wells in operation , then with Well #4 off, and then with Well
#6 off. The modeling output for the maximum day demand plus fire flow is included in Appendix I.
A figure showing the location of residential and commercial junctions is included in Appendix G.
- 13 -
2006 wI Approved Developments Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum Minimum # of # of Minimum # of
System Fire Flow Residential Residential Fire Flow Commercial
Working Within the Junctions Junctions Within the Junctions
Pressure Water Below Fire Below Fire Water Below Fire
under System for Flow Flow System for Flow
Maximum Residential Availability Availability Commercial Availability
Day Junctions of 1 000 of 1 ,500 Junctions of 2500
Demand (gpm)gpm gpm (gpm)gpm
(psi)
All 1370 3191
Improvements
Well #4 Off 974 1700
Well #6 Off 1061 2787
Note: Minimum system pressure of 20 psi or greater was maintained to determine fire flow
availability per IRPDWS requirements.
The modeling results indicate the reliance of the water system on having all water
sources available under maximum day demand plus fire flow. Figures are provided , in the
modeling output located in Appendix identifying the fire hydrant flow availability under each
scenario and junction pressure at maximum day demand.
For the "All Improvements On" analysis, there were 36 residential junctions identified that
had fire flow availability less than 1500 gpm (but well within the exception approved by the Fire
Marshall). From the Figure provided in Appendix I , the location of these residential junctions
identified in green, are all located in the upper pressure zone. This indicates the limited pumping
capacity of the Main Booster Pump Station to provide fire flow in the upper pressure zone.
For the 'Well #4 Off" analysis , there are 5 residential junctions below the fire flow
availability of 1000 gpm, 57 junctions below the fire flow availability of 1500 gpm , and 11
commercial junctions below a fire flow availability of 2500 gpm. Fire flow availability in the upper
pressure zone is limited by the amount of water available for the Main Booster Pump Station due
to suction pressure restraints. This indicates the reliance of the water system on having all water
sources available under the maximum day demand plus fire flow demands.
For the 'Well #6 Off" analysis, there were 49 residential junctions with an available fire
flow below 1500 gpm. This also indicates the reliance of the water system on having all water
sources available during the Maximum day demand plus fire flow demands, but identifies that the
worst case scenario is when Well #4 is off.
- 14-
A summary of the modeling result for peak hour flow demand is shown in the table below
with all the wells in operation, then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The modeling
output for the peak hour flow demand is included in Appendix J.
2006 wI Approved Developments Peak Hour Flow Demand Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum System # of Junctions # of Junctions Maximum System
Working below 40 psi above 80 psi Working Pressure
Pressure (psi)(psi)
All 360 c:: 100
Improvements
Well #4 Off c:: 100
Well #6 Off c:: 97
The results from the peak hour flow demand are similar to the maximum day demand
plus fire flow. The system is very dependent on having each of the water sources working
properly to maintain a system pressure above 40 psi. The system s worst case scenario is when
Well #4 is off. A figure is provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix J, identifying the
pressures within the system under each scenario for peak hour flow demand.
The results from modeling performed for the 2006 wi Approved Development indicates
the need for additional source capacity within the system. The current capacity of the existing
2006 Scenario wi Approved Developments is limited due to the requirement of having one well
out of service. As the figures in each scenario confirm, the Main Booster Pump Station limits the
fire flow availability in the upper pressure zone. The most sever case is when Well #4 is turned
off. This is due to the lack of available water and pressure on the suction side of the Main
Booster Pump Station.
The main booster pump station is not presently equipped with enough capacity to utilize
the combined flow from Well #4 and Well #7. However as previously stated, the pumping
capacity of the Main Booster Pump Station is governed by the amount of available water when
either of the wells is turned off. Because an additional source is being planned, the suction
pressure will be raised and the need for upgrading the Main Booster Pump Station is removed.
However, it is recommended that EWC work on providing pumping redundancy.
Well #4 pump and motor was recently rebuilt to increase water generation within the
system. The revised pump curve has been used only in the 2010 and 2026 scenarios because of
the limited field data.
Currently, the pumping capacity of Well #6 is limited due to the 100 psi maximum
pressure requirement and the pressure loses between Well #6 and the rest of the water system.
- 15 -
By reducing the pressure loses between Well #6 and the rest of the water system, a greater flow
is available without over pressuring the system or over utilization of the water source.
Also shown in the pump reports (under some of the scenarios), PMP 2.3 located in
Booster Pump Station #2 are shown as being turned off. The model automatically turns pumps
off when they cannot supply enough pressure to overcome the system working pressure. When
the pressure is reduced within the system as shown when Well #4 is off, PMP 2.3 are actively
pumping.
In summary, additional capacity may be available depending on location of proposed
connection and lor modifications to pumping capacity of existing sources. Standby power and
redundancy, or equivalent as provided in the rules, would be required for new facilities or full
upgrades to existing facilities.
It is recommended that all proposed improvements be thoroughly investigated through
modeling prior to approval. In addition, it is proposed that a water interconnect be constructed
with either United Water or the City of Eagle and utilized until improvements identified in the 2010
Scenario are completed. The next scenario investigates the required improvements utilizing a
water interconnect to bring the system in compliance and provide surplus capacity for potential
development.
2006 Scenario with Required Improvements
For this scenario , the previous 2006 Scenario with Approved Developments was copied
and system improvements were made to bring the entire water system into compliance. For
projected water demand, see the Water Demand Table located in the 2006 wi Approved
Developments Scenario write-up.
System modifications are shown on figures included in Appendix G. Required
modifications to bring the existing water system into compliance are listed below.
Water Interconnect - Additional water supply through a system interconnect is currently
being pursued with both United Water and the City of Eagle. The calculated hydraulic
grade for the United Water Interconnect is 2807 feet and the City of Eagle Interconnect is
2840 feet. With the differences in hydraulic grades, the City of Eagle connection could
feed the upper pressure zone which feeds the lower zone while the United Water
connection could only feed the lower pressure zone. The worst case scenario for the
water system would be to utilize the United Water Interconnect which has a lower
hydraulic grade of 2807 feet feeding the lower pressure zone. The downstream pressure
- 16-
setting of the valve would be 2786 feet which would rely on the Main Booster Pump
Station to feed the upper pressure zone. As previously stated, it should be noted that
Well #4 has recently been rebuilt to produce additional water. The additional pumping
capacity was not included in this scenario due to the lack of pumping data.
Floating Feather Road Pressure Reducing/Sustaining Valve - Currently a butterfly valve
is used to regulate pressure between the upper and lower pressure zones. The addition
of a pressure reducing/pressure sustaining valve is required to provide a more consistent
hydraulic grade in the upper pressure zone.
A summary of the modeling result for maximum day demand plus fire flow is shown in the
table below with all the wells in operation , then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The
modeling output for the maximum day demand plus fire flow is included in Appendix I. A figure
showing the location of residential and commercial junctions is included in Appendix G.
2006 wI Required Improvements Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum Minimum # of # of Minimum # of
System Fire Flow Residential Residential Fire Flow Commercial
Working Within the Junctions Junctions Within the Junctions
Pressure Water Below Fire Below Fire Water Below Fire
under System for Flow Flow System for Flow
Maximum Residential Availability Availability Commercial Availability
Day Junctions of 1 000 of 1 500 Junctions of 2500
Demand (gpm)gpm gpm (gpm)gpm
(psi)
All 1511 3419
Improvements
Well #4 Off 1234 2588
Well #6 Off 1093 3208
Note: Minimum system pressure of 20 psi or greater was maintained to determine fire flow
availability per IRPDWS requirements.
The modeling results for maximum day demand plus fire flow indicates that the
recommended required improvements bring the water system into IRPDWS requirements.
Figures are provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix I, identifying the fire hydrant flow
availability and junction pressures for maximum day demand plus fire flow for each scenario.
A summary of the modeling result for peak hour flow demand is shown in the table below
with all the wells in operation, then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The modeling
output for the peak hour flow demand is included in Appendix J.
- 17-
2006 wI Required Improvements Peak Hour Flow Demand Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum System # of Junctions # of Junctions Maximum System
Working Pressure below 40 psi above 80 psi Working Pressure
(psi)(psi)
All 416 0::: 100
Improvements
Well #4 Off 39.1 , J-416 270 0::: 100
Well #6 Off 388 0:::
The results for peak hour demand indicate that the required improvements bring the
water system into compliance with IRPDWS requirements. There is one junction J-416 below the
40 psi requirement. However, this is viewed as acceptable and within the limits of the model for
such a complicated system. A figure is provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix J,
identifying the pressures within the system under each scenario for peak hour demand.
The table below shows the flow and requirements needed from the water system
interconnect to maintain a downstream pressure of 61.5 psi under the different scenarios.
2006 wI Required Improvements Interconnect Water Source Requirements
Scenario Maximum Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Flow
Flow (gpm)Plus Fire Flow Demand
(Qpm)Flow (Qpm)
All 184 1000 962
Improvements
Well #4 Off 792 1714 1845
Well #6 Off 213 1062 1366
These numbers were obtained manually by placing a fire flow demand of 1000 gpm within the
model at junction J-280 to get an estimate. This should only be considered as an estimate.
In comparing the 2006 wI Approved Developments modeling results to the 2006
Required Improvements modeling results, a transformation is apparent.
With the addition of the water supply interconnect and the pressure reducing sustaining
valve in Floating Feather Road, the water system has a capacity for additional residential and
commercial connections. Each new connection should be carefully analyzed utilizing the model
and engineering judgment to determine the effect on the water system and also the water
interconnect.
2010 Scenario
Growth rates were estimated using the City of Eagle s population predictions and applied
to EWC's water accounts. Currently, EWC has three types of water accounts; Residential,
- 18-
Commercial , and Agricultural. The following table lists the current water accounts and the
anticipated water accounts for 2010 and 2026.
Water Accounts Summary
Year Residential Commercial Agricultural Total Water
Accounts Accounts Accounts System Accounts
2006 wI Approved 924 358 112 394
Developments
2010 333 408 112 853
2026 603 530 112 245
As the table above indicates, the assumption was used that growth will only occur in
Residential and Commercial accounts. Agricultural accounts would conservatively remain
constant even though Agricultural accounts will decrease as development occurs. In addition , the
City of Eagle has a policy that all new development must be equipped with a pressurized
secondary irrigation system utilizing existing irrigation water rights.
A planning unit was assigned for both residential and commercial growth. The residential
planning unit for ultimate build-out was assumed at 2.25 D.s/acre. The available properties for
development within the service area were evaluated and 301.6 acres were identified for potential
residential growth. Using population projections from the City of Eagle and applying the growth
rate to existing residential connections, a total of 409 residential D.s were estimated for the
year 2010. These additional residential connections were evenly distributed among the potential
residential growth areas of the service area. See figures located in Appendix G for further
information. The resulting density was 1.36 D.s/acre, which indicates build-out would take
place after the year 2010 and is estimated to occur in 2014 using the City of Eagle s population
projections.
The commercial development planning unit can vary with end use. For planning
purposes, a commercial development planning unit of 2.5 D.s/acre was used as ultimate build-
out. Estimated additional commercial connections were determined by using the population
projections from the City of Eagle and applying the growth rate to existing commercial
connections. For the 2010 Scenario, an additional 50 commercial D.s was estimated above the
2006 wI Approved Developments Scenario. Six commercial development parcels containing
162.2 acres were identified in the 20-year development window. For the 2010 Scenario (as
shown in the figures located in Appendix G), the 50 commercial D.s were added to only
development parcels #1 and #2. This is based on direct contact and correspondence with
potential developers. The St. Lukes Medical Center was included in the 2006 wI Approved
Developments Scenario.
- 19-
For projected water demand, see the Water Demand Table located in the 2006 w/
Approved Developments Scenario write-up.
System modifications are shown on figures included in Appendix G. Modifications to the
model from the previous 2006 Scenario w/ Approved Developments are listed separately below.
The proposed water interconnect must remain in place until the following improvements are
implemented and the system is in compliance with IRPDWS requirements.
Additional Water Source - Additional water supply was added to the lower pressure zone
and designated as Well #8. This additional source may be obtained by improvements to
existing water sources such as Well #3, Well #6, and/or Well #7 or construction of a new
water source.
Well #2 Booster Pump Station Modification - The model indicated that modification to the
booster pumps in the Well #2 Booster Pump Station is required. For ease of modeling,
the pump curves for PMP 2.1 and 2.2 were modified to add additional head and PMP 2.
was turned off.
Repairs to Well #4 - The pump and motor for Well #4 was recently rebuilt to
manufacturer s specifications. The pump curve was replaced with the revised pumping
curves provided by the manufacturer.
A summary of the modeling result for maximum day demand plus fire flow is shown in the
table below with all the wells in operation, then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The
modeling output for the maximum day demand plus fire flow is included in Appendix I. A figure
showing the location of residential and commercial junctions is included in Appendix G.
2010 Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum Minimum # of # of Minimum # of
System Fire Flow Residential Residential Fire Flow Commercial
Working Within the Junctions Junctions Within the Junctions
Pressure Water Below Fire Below Fire Water Below Fire
under System for Flow Flow System for Flow
Maximum Residential Availability Availability Commercial Availability
Day Junctions of 1 000 of 1 ,500 Junctions of 2500
Demand (gpm)gpm gpm (gpm)gpm
(psi)
All 1438 3637
Improvements
Well #4 Off 1401 3108
Well #6 Off 1068 3465
Note: Minimum system pressure of 20 psi or greater was maintained to determine fire flow
availability per IRPDWS requirements.
- 20-
Figures are provided , in the modeling output located in Appendix I , identifying the fire
hydrant flow availability and junction pressures at maximum day demand under each scenario.
The modeling output for maximum day demand confirms the proposed system modifications,
without utilizing the water interconnect, will bring the existing water system into compliance with
IRPDWS requirements.
A summary of the modeling result for peak hour flow demand is shown in the table below
with all the wells in operation , then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The modeling
output for the peak hour flow demand is included in Appendix J.
2010 Peak Hour Flow Demand Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum System # of Junctions # of Junctions Maximum System
Working Pressure below 40 psi above 80 psi Working Pressure
(psi)(psi)
All 443 -:: 100
Improvements
Well #4 Off 39.416 326 -:: 100
Well #6 Off 429 -:: 99
A figure is provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix J, identifying the
pressures within the system under each scenario for peak hour demand. There is one junction J-
416 which is below the 40 psi requirement. However, this is viewed as acceptable and within the
limits of the model for such a complicated system. The modeling output for peak hour demand
confirms the proposed system modifications, without utilizing the water interconnect, will bring the
existing water system into compliance with IRPDWS requirements.
The table below shows the flow and head requirements for additional water supply under
the different scenarios.
2010 Maximum Day Demand Additional Water Source Requirements
Scenario Maximum Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Flow
Plus Fire Flow DemandFlow Pump Flow PumpHead ft Head ft1411 361 1018 365All
Improvements
Well #4 Off
Well #6 Off
2120
758
371
361
2330
1318
366
361
2350
1096
359
365
These numbers were obtained manually by placing a fire flow demand of 1000 gpm within the
model at junction J-628 to get an estimate. Thus, this should only be considered as a good estimate and is
specific the location and hydraulic characteristics used for Well #8.
- 21 -
With the addition of the new water supply in the 2010 Scenario and the other proposed
improvements, the system has a capacity for an estimated additional 444 residential connections
and 148 commercial connections.
2026 Scenario
As previously discussed growth rates were estimated using the City of Eagle s population
predictions and applied to EWC's water accounts. See Water Accounts Summary Table located
in the 2010 Scenario write-up.
A planning unit was assigned for both residential and commercial growth. The residential
planning unit for ultimate build-out was assumed at 2.25 D.s/acre. The available properties for
development within the service area were evaluated and 301.6 acres were identified for potential
residential growth. Using population projections from the City of Eagle and applying the growth
rate to existing residential connections , build-out of 679 residential D.s would occur in 2014.
These additional residential connections were evenly distributed among the potential residential
growth areas of the service area for the ultimate build-out scenario. See figures located in
Appendix G for further information.
The commercial development planning unit can vary with end use. For planning
purposes, a commercial development planning unit of 2.5 D.s/acre was used as ultimate build-
out. Estimated additional commercial connections were determined by using the population
projections from the City of Eagle and applying the growth rate to existing commercial
connections. For the 2026 Scenario, an additional 172 commercial D.s was estimated above
the 2006 wi Approved Developments Scenario. See figures located in Appendix G for more
details. Six commercial development parcels containing 162.2 acres were identified in the 20-
year development window excluding the St. Lukes Medical Center. The 2026 density is therefore
06 D.s/acre. Build-out is estimated beyond the 20-year projection.
For projected water demand, see Water Demand Table located in the 2006 wi Approved
Developments Scenario write-up.
System modifications are shown on figures included in Appendix G. Modifications to the
model from the previous 2010 Scenario are listed separately below.
West Enchantment Street, West Cobblestone Way, and West Yellowstone Street Piping
Interconnect - The capacity of Well #6 is not optimized throughout the water system due
to pressure restraints and pressure losses within the system. The original idea was to
interconnect Well #6 with the main trunk line in Floating Feather Road. Due to the
- 22-
prevention of EWC service to the Covenant Hills Subdivision , the original idea is no
longer feasible. This leaves the construction of the piping interconnect as the next
preferred option. As development occurs, this interconnect should be constructed as part
of the infrastructure.
A summary of the modeling results for maximum day demand plus fire flow is shown in
the table below with all the wells in operation, then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off.
The modeling output for the maximum day demand plus fire flow is included in Appendix I.
Figures are provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix I, identifying the fire hydrant flow
availability and junction pressure under maximum day demand under each scenario. A figure
showing the location of residential and commercial junctions is included in Appendix G.
2026 Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum Minimum # of # of Minimum # of
System Fire Flow Residential Residential Fire Flow Commercial
Working Within the Junctions Junctions Within the Junctions
Pressure Water Below Fire Below Fire Water Below Fire
under System for Flow Flow System for Flow
Maximum Residential Availability Availability Commercial Availability
Day Junctions of 1 ,000 of 1 ,500 Junctions of 2500
Demand (gpm)gpm gpm (gpm)gpm
(psi)
All 1397 3659
Improvements
Well #4 Off 1332 3226
Well #6 Off 1389 3460
Note: Minimum system pressure of 20 psi or greater was maintained to determine fire flow
availability per IRPDWS requirements.
The modeling output for each scenario for the maximum day demand indicates the water
system is in compliance with IRPDWS requirements.
A summary of the modeling results for peak hour flow demand is shown in the table
below with all the wells in operation, then with Well #4 off, and then with Well #6 off. The
modeling output for the peak hour flow demand is included in Appendix J.
2026 Peak Hour Flow Demand Modeling Results
Scenario Minimum System # of Junctions # of Junctions Maximum System
Working Pressure below 40 psi above 80 psi Working Pressure
(psi)iosi)
All 425 .c:: 100
Improvements
Well #4 Off 39., J-416 296 .c:: 100
Well #6 Off 409 .c::
- 23-
A figure is provided, in the modeling output located in Appendix J, identifying the
pressures within the system under each scenario for peak hour demand. There is one junction J-
416 which is below the 40 psi requirement. However, this is viewed as acceptable and within the
limits of the model for such a complicated system. The modeling output for each scenario for the
peak hour demand indicates the water system is in compliance with IRPDWS requirements.
The table below shows the flow and head requirements from additional water source
under the different scenarios.
2026 Maximum Day Demand Additional Water Source Requirements
Scenario Maximum Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Flow
Plus Fire Flow DemandFlow Pump Flow PumpHead ft Head ft1584 363 1444 368All
Improvements
Well #4 Off 1809 370 2338 363 2361 355
Well #6 Off 684 363 1547 363 1688 368
These numbers were obtained manually by placing a fire flow demand of 1000 gpm within the
model at junction J-628 to get an estimate. Thus, this should only be considered as a good estimate.
With the addition of 2365 gpm of new water source in the 2026 Scenario and the other
proposed improvements , the system has capacity for complete build-out for residential
connections and the estimated 260 commercial connections.
Recommendations
The recommendations have been divided into the following categories: Mandatory,
Future, Suggested, and Completed Actions. Mandatory Actions are those immediately required
to bring the system into compliance with regulations. Future Actions are recommendations
required to support future development. Suggested Actions are items that would optimize the
water system but are not required. Completed Actions are recent improvements that have been
beneficial to the current water system. For ease of implementation and organization , the action
categories have been divided into two subcategories: (1) planning items and (2) construction
projects.
- 24-
MANADATORY ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of MANDATORY planning items to bring the water system into compliance is as
follows:
None
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The following list of MANDATORY construction projects along with their construction
priority has been developed to increase the service pressure, available fire flow, and water supply
within the water system. However, the 2006 Approved Development analysis identified
improvement project-related deficiencies within the existing water system. As the model results
indicated , the maximum day demand plus fire flow, with Well #4 off , identified 5 residential
junctions in the upper pressure zone with fire flow availability less than 1000 gpm and the
minimum fire flow for commercial junctions of 1668 gpm. The peak hour demand indicated that
the pressure dropped below 40 psi when Well #4 off and then again when Well #6 is off. The
results for the 2006 Approved Development indicate the need for the following list of Mandatory
construction projects to bring the water system into compliance with IRPDWS requirements.
Priority #Date Descri tion Cost Estimate
(2007-2008)Water Interconnect ....... ........... ................ ..... .......... ................... $151 ,250
Interconnect water systems with either United Water or City of Eagle
for emergency flow redundancy. The United Water interconnect
should be made on Floating Feather Road just downstream of the
proposed PRSV to feed the lower pressure zone. The United Water
Interconnect should be designed to produce 1845 gpm at 61.5 PSI.
The City of Eagle interconnect should be made upstream of the
proposed PRSV to feed the upper pressure zone. This interconnect
should be designed to produce 1845 gpm at 74 PSI. Cost estimate is
for United Water Interconnect as modeled in the report and would
require a traffic rated vault, miscellaneous valves, flow meter, and
appurtenances.
- 25-
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 125,000
$ 12 500
$ 137,500
$ 13,750
$ 151 250
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
Construction
July 2007
September 2007
December 2007
(2007)Install PRSV on Floating Feather Road .....................................$43,120
Replace existing throttling valve with a pressure reducing/sustaining
valve. In the water model, the upstream pressure setting was set at
72.5 psi and downstream pressure remained near 55 psi.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 35,000
$ 4 200
$ 39 200
$ 3,920
$ 43,120
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
Construction
July 2007
August 2007
December 2007, Will be installed during
low flow conditions.
FUTURE ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of FUTURE planning recommendations is as follows:
None
- 26-
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The list below is for Future construction projects which have been selected to able the
water system to service the anticipated growth and also eliminate reliance on the proposed water
interconnect.
Prioritv #Date Descri tion Cost Estimate
(2008- ???*New Water Source ................................................................... $898 040
There are two viable options to increase the available water supply
within the water system. The first option would be to renovate existing
water sources for additional supply and equip these sources with
emergency backup power. The second option would be to drill and
construct new water source which would be equipped with emergency
backup power. As previously stated, the water requirement of 2365
gpm is required for the 2010 and 2026 Scenarios. This item also
includes associated piping ($35/ft at 1350 ft) and land ($150,000).
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (4%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 785 000
31,400
816,400
$ 81,640
$ 898,040
Timeline Overview
Siting
Design
Permitted
Construction
October 2007
February 2008
October 2008
December 2008
* The questions marks for the completion date indicate the uncertainty
associated with siting and permitting a new water source.
(2008-2009)Well #2 Booster Pump Station Modification ............................... $38,115
Increase the pumping head in Booster Pump Station #2 by replacing
existing pumps with pumps that produce a combined flow 640 gpm at
148' TDH. This will enable the use of the 90,000 gallon Well #2 water
- 27-
(As Developed)
storage tank to attenuate the peak demand on the water sources. The
model was setup with two pumps in operation for convenience only.
Any major pump modifications made will require the pumping station to
be equipped with redundant pumping capacity. It should be designed
with either a duplex pumping station with equal sized pumps or a
triplex pumping station with two identical smaller pumps and a jockey
pump meeting the required flow and head parameters.
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 31,500
$ 3,150
$ 34 650
$ 3 465
$ 38,115
Engineering (10%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Design
Approval
March 2008
July 2008
November 2008Construction
West Enchantment Street, West Cobblestone Way, and West
Yellowstone Street Piping Interconnect $30/ft (g) 3,740 ft plus Bore &
Jack $50,000, ........................................................................... $253,616
Increase the capacity of fire flow near Well #6 when it is off line. It
should be a requirement of the developer of residential parcel #2 to
make the looped connection including the bore and jack under the
canal. The cost should be split between the developer and EWC.
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 209 600
$ 20 960
$ 230 560
$ 23,056
$ 253 616
Engineering (10%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview - Will be development driven.
- 28-
SUGGESTED ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of SUGGESTED planning recommendations is as follows:
Provide notification to users in the upper pressure zone that the Main Booster
Pump Station is not equipped with backup emergency power or a redundant
pump. This could result in temporary loss of pressure during power outages or
pump failure.
EWC will keep the City of Eagle s plumbing inspectors informed of areas within
the service area that have service pressures greater than 80 psi. A figure
identifying junctions which have service pressure greater than 80 psi under any of
the scenarios is included in Appendix K.
All new construction within the 80 psi or greater pressure areas will have a
recommendation to be equipped with a individual pressure reducing valve along
with a thermal expansion tank.
All new subdivisions, if possible, should be a looped system.
Minimum 8" waterlines in residential areas and 12" waterlines in commercial
areas.
No booster pumps should be connected to the water system unless they are
owned and operated by EWC and any currently unauthorized pumps should be
removed, per Recommended Standards for Water Works, 2003 (Ten States
Standards).
As development occurs around existing subdivisions, it should be required, to
connect to the existing subdivisions creating piping loops within the water system.
Multiple existing subdivisions are being serviced from one feed line, thus limiting
fire flow availability and a redundant water supply.
All proposed developments should require a fee for a water model analysis prior
to approval. It is suggested that developers be required to submit electronic
copies of plans to be integrated into the water model for preliminary plat review.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A list of Suggested construction projects have been developed for operational purposes
for the water system.
- 29-
Prioritv #Date
(N/A)
(N/A)
Descri tion Cost Estimate
Pump Redundancy for the Main Booster Pump Station.............. $51 744
Provide pumping redundancy through either a water system
interconnect to the upper pressure zone (the City of Eagle Water
Interconnect) or an additional pump in the Main Booster Pump Station.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (12%)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitted
2 Months
1 Month
$ 42,000
$ 5,040
$ 47 040
$ 4,704
$ 51 744
Construction 1 Month, during a low demand period.
Install Recording Flow Monitors ................................................... $47 080
Install recording flow meters on Well #4, Well #7, Well #6, Well #1
Main Booster Pump Station , and Booster Pump Station #2.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Engineering (Specs Only)
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
Timeline Overview
Design
Permitting
Construction
2 Months
2 Months
3 Months
$ 42 000
800
$ 42 800
$ 4 280
$ 47,080
- 30-
COM PLETED ACTIONS
PLANNING ITEMS
A list of COMPLETED planning recommendations is as follows:
Planning and implementation of Well #7.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A list of Completed construction projects performed by EWC in an effort to increase
source availability within the water system is provided below.
Priorit Date
Completed (2006)
Completed (2006)
Description Cost Estimate
New Water Source - Well #7 (Constructed and Online) .......... $638 600
Construct new water source and associated piping with emergency
backup power supply. (Per EWC's understanding of the consent
order, EWC must indicate what specific actions are required to bring
the water system into compliance. Additional source was determined
the #1 priority and Well #7 and interconnect listed below was
construction. Therefore it is included as our #1 priority for
improvement).
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 620,000
$ 18,600
$ 638 600
Engineering
Total
Timeline Overview - Completed
Well #7 Interconnect (Constructed and Online) ........................ $153,300
Construct new transmission piping from Well #7 to existing piping
along Eagle Bypass.
Cost Itemization
Construction $ 146,000
$ 7 300
$ 153,300
Engineering
Total
- 31 -
Timeline Overview - Completed
Completed (2007)Repair Well #4.............................................................................. $56 100
Well #4 is currently being rebuilt to provide additional water source.
The reconditioned pump will be online prior to summer demand of
2007.
Cost Itemization
Construction
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
$ 51 000
$ 51 000
$ 5,100
$ 56,100
Costs are estimates only and because final billing has yet to be
received and finalized.
Timeline Overview - Completed
Financial Plan
The following calculations have been prepared by Geneva Trent, CPA, for Eagle Water
Company, Inc. Eagle Water Company intends to file an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (IPUC) to finance the recommended system improvements, as needed. If the
system improvements and related surcharges are approved by the IPUC, Eagle Water would
seek commercial financing for the projects and the borrowed funds would then be repaid through
a surcharge on customers' usage.
The attached surcharge calculations indicate the percentage that Eagle Water
customers might be required to pay over-and-above current water rates, for the various
recommended improvements, if approved by the IPUC.
Eagle Water has been ordered by the IPUC to submit an Application for financing
necessary systems improvements by July 15, 2007. Eagle Water is prepared to do so
immediately upon DEa's acceptance of its Preliminary Engineering Report.
- 32-
Eagle Water Company
Calculation of Surcharge Amounts for Proposed Improvements
at June 10, 2007
MANDATORY ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - Water Interconnect
$151 250.
500.
Cost of Priority 1
Estimated bank loan fees
Amount Financed
Term (estimated)
Interest Rate
Monthly Payments Required
$ 152 750.
5 years
50%
$ 3 208.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required $ 38,496.
Multiplied by Gross-up (from below)127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge $ 49,228.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.( 2006 revenues)
Surcharge 747%
Totals
Revenues
$ 542 947.
186 642.
$ 729,590.
Percent of Total
74.42%
25.58%
100.00%
2006 Customers
Residential
Commercial
Calculation of Gross-Up Factor for Taxes:
1 )100.00%taxable
00%State Tax Rate
92.00%Federal Taxable
13.80%Effective Federal Tax Rate
21.80%Composite Tax Rate
78.20%Net After Tax Income
127.88%Gross-up Factor
(Federal Rate 15%)
2) + 4)
- 33 -
MANDATORY ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Install PRSV on Floating Feather Road
Cost of Priority 43,120.
Estimated bank loan fees 400.
Amount Financed 520.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 816.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 45,792.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 58,558.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.( 2006 revenues)
Surcharge 026%
FUTURE ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - New Water Source
Cost of Priority $ 898 040.
Estimated bank loan fees 000.
Amount Financed $ 907 040.
Term (estimated)10 years
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 737.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required $ 140,844.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge $ 180 111.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 24.687%
- 34-
FUTURE ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Well #2 Booster Pump Station Modification
Cost of Priority 38,115.
Estimated bank loan fees 400.
Amount Financed 515.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 377.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 524.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 51,822.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 103%
SUGGESTED ACTIONS - Construction Projects:
Priority #1 - Pump Redundancy for the Main Booster Pump Station
Cost of Priority $ 51 744.
Estimated bank loan fees 500.
Amount Financed $ 52 244.
Term (estimated)2 years
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 2,400.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required $ 28 800.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge $ 36,829.44
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729,590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 048%
- 35 -
SUGGESTED ACTIONS - Construction Projects (continued)
Priority #2 - Install Recording Flow Monitors
Cost of Priority 080.
Estimated bank loan fees 450.
Amount Financed 47,530.
Term (estimated)1 year
Interest Rate 50%
Monthly Payments Required 167.(approximate)
Annual Cash Required 011.
Multiplied by Gross-up 127.88%
Total Annual Surcharge 63,954.
Divided by Total Annual Revenue $ 729 590.(2006 revenues)
Surcharge 766%
- 36-
EA G- W -07 -
THE FINAL
ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR EAGLE WATER CO.
IS VOLUMINOUS AND
THE APPENDICES
WERE NOT SCANNED;
SEE ORIGINAL FILE
FOR THE COMPLETE
REPORT