20210507Application.pdf

Preston N. Carter (ISB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise,ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
prestoncarter@ qi venspursley. com
15541455_l l.docx [l3988-8]
Attorneysfor Falls Water Co.,Inc.
IN rHe MATTER oF THE ApptlcauoN on
Ferrs Wernn Co., INc. FoR AppRovAL oF
THREE cAprrAL rRoJECTS: 1) cnrerloN or
A NEW WATER SOURCE, 2) CONSTRUCTTON
OF A STORAGE TANK, AND
3) coNsrnucrloN oF A wELLHousE
i'r *u
,, ;:i*? Pi1 2:3t
u!i\iil
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
case No. fl-S - ti - 2 t -o I
AppuceuoN or Farrs WarrR Co., INc.
FORAPPROVAL OF THREE CAPITAL
PRoJECTS: 1) cnneuoN oF A NEw wATER
souRCE, 2) coNsrnucrroN oF A sroRAGE
TANK, eNo 3) coNSTRUCTIoN oF A
WELLHOUSE
Falls Water Co.,Inc. ("Falls Water" or "Company") seeks the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission's ("Commission") approval of three capital projects: l) construction of a new water
source, Well #1 l; 2) construction of a water storage tank and related facilities; and 3)
construction of a wellhouse and related improvements at the Taylor Mountain Water Systern. In
support of this Application, Falls Water states and alleges as follows.
Please serve all notices and communications with regard to this Application upon:
FnLLs WersR's AppLtcenoN ron Appnovel oF THREE cepnnL pnolects - I
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Tele,phone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 388-l 300
prestoncarter@,qi venspursley. com
harmonvwri eht@, ei venspursley. com
Eric W. Nelsen
Senior Regulatory Attorney
NW Natural
250 SW Taylor St.
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: (503) 6l 0-761 8
Eri c. N elsen@nwnatural. com
K. Scott Bruce
Falls Water Company, Inc.
2180 North Deborah Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 8340
Telephone: [phone]
scott I @fallswater. com
Blcrcnornvo
1. Falls Water is a regulated private utility that provides water service to
approximately 5,570 residential and commercial customers located generally north of the City of
Alnmon and Northeast of the City of Idatro Falls in Bonneville County, Idaho. Falls Water's
principal place of Address is 2180 North Deborah Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
2. In2017, the Company filed an application requesting approval to construct a new
drinking water well. See Case No. FLS-W-17-01. The Commission approved the request in
Order No. 33863, Case No. FLS-W- 1 7-01 (Sept. 21, 2017).
3. In Order No. 33863, the Commission recognized Staffs concern that "even with
the new well, the systern will continue to not meet pressure requirements for firewater flow."
Order No. 33863 at2.The Commission also noted Staffs recommendation that "the Company
complete a hydraulic model in order to prioritize the most effective future investments in the
system." Id. T\e well approved in Order No. 33863-Well #lfwas completed and put into
service in June 2018.
FALLS WATEn,S AppLICATIoN FoR APPRoVAL oF THREE CAPITAL PR TTcTS . 2
4. ln20l9, the Company commissioned an engineering study and Drinking Water
Capital Facilities Plan ("Capital Facilities Plan" or "Plan"), attached as Exhibit 1, to identiff
needs of the water system. The Plan contains a hydraulic model, the results of which informed a
list of recommended projects.l
5. As Staffpredicted in Case No. FLS-W-17-01, even after construction of Well
#10, Falls Water's system still has difficulties meeting IDEQ standard for pressure in some
scenarios. To address this issue, the Capital Facilities Plan identified construction of an
additional well as the top priority project for the water systern.
6. The Plan also identified other high-priority pdects, including construction of a
second additional well (Well #12) or, in the alternative, construction one additional well (Well
#l l) and a storage tank. Capital Facilities Plan at 30-39.
7. In November 2019, the Commission approved Falls Water's acquisition of the
assets of Taylor Mountain Water & Sewer District. See Order No. 34486, Case No. FLS-W-l9-
01 (Nov. 18, 2019). The transaction closed, and Falls Water acquired the assets of Taylor
Mountain's water system, in early August 2020.
8. Upon close of the transaction, Falls Water employees assumed responsibility for
operating and maintaining the system. Taylor Mountain's wells do not have wellhouses.
Maintenance and other work on Taylor Mountain well#2 requires Falls Water employees to
enter a cramped space, which does not provide a safe working environment. The lack of a
wellhouse and fencing also create security concerns, as members of the public could access the
well.
I The results of the hydraulic modeling are discussed on pages 24, and the recommended, prioritized list of projects
are identified and discussed on pages 30-39.
FnIIs WerrR,s APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THREE CAPITAI- pnoEcrs - 3
9. In addition, several new lots have been developed in the Taylor Mountain
subdivision. Unfortunately, stormwater from the well lot for Taylor Mountain well #2 runs
directly onto these recently developed lots. Falls Water proposes to contain and reroute this
runofl as necessary to responsibly operate the systern and minimize potential liability from the
runoff.
10. As set forth in more detail below, Falls Water believes that these three projects
are reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest. Accordingly, Falls Water respectfully
requests that the Commission approve the projects. A breakdown of the estimated costs for each
project is attached as Exhibit 2.
Trru Pno.rncrs
Construction of a new water source
1 1. While Falls Water's system is generally in compliance with requirements of the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ("IDEQ"), even after constructing Well #10 , the
system still lacks source capacity. Capital Facilities Plan at 30. The source capacity deficiency is
approximately 3,000 gallons per minute. Id. at 19.
12. This lack of source capacity results in several areas of concem with the water
system. First, if Well #9 experienced a power failure, the system would not be able to meet
IDEQ requirements for source redundancy and pressure. Capital Facilities Plan at 30. Second,
diurnal pressure fluctuations lead to wide pressure swings that cause a variety of problems for
the overall systern. Id.; see also id. at 17.
13. Falls Water anticipates that constructing Well #l I will provide an additional
1,500 gallons per minute of capacity, resolving approximately half of the existing deficiency in
source capacity.
FALLS WATEn,S AppLICATIoN FoR Appnover- or THREE CAPITAT- pRorecrs . 4
14. Falls Water anticipates that, when Well #11 is completed, the system will be able
to provide sufficient pressures even if Well #9 lacks power, providing sufficient source
redundancy under IDEQ rules. Capital Facilities Plan at 30.
15. In addition, Falls Water anticipates that constructing Well #11 and the storage
tank discussed below will address the large diurnal pressure fluctuations and associated
problems. Id. at33-34.
16. The most recent cost figures estimate that constructing Well #11 will cost
approximately $1,049,170. ExhibitZ at 1.2
17. Falls Water began work on constructing this new well, based on the Capital
Facilities Plan, the timing of the construction season, and the identified needs of the system, but
has paused further work while this Application is pending.
18. Falls Water respectfully submits that Well #11 is needed at this time to meet
IDEQ standards, to provide source redundancy, to alleviate (in conjunction with the storage
facility) the large diurnal pressure swings, and to serve additional customers that are expected to
join the system in the coming years.
19. Constructing Well #ll at this time will enable Falls Water to properly and
adequately work through the recommended infrastructure projects before an infrastructure crisis
is encountered, and to spread capital investments across an appropriate period of time to foster
smooth transitions to rates.
20. Falls Water is not aware of any alternative to constructing Well #11 that would
reasonably meet the system's needs.
2 The Capital Facilities Plan estimated that Well #l I would cost approximately $700,000. Since 2019,the cost of
building materials have increased drastically, which explains the difference between the cost figure in the Capital
Facilities Plan and the most recent cost estimate.
FIrIs WIren's AppLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THREE CAPITAI- pnolscrs . 5
21. Accordingly, Falls Water respectfully requests that the Commission approve
construction of a new well, Well #l l.
22. In addition, the Company requests permission to use the remainder of the Special
Plant Reserve Fund to finance this project.3
Construction of a storage tank and relatedfacilities
23. As noted in the Capital Facilities Plan, even with the construction of Well #l l,
Falls Water's system will continue to experience difficulties associated with large diurnal
pressure swings that occur when the SCADA system turns pumps on and offto meet demand
during summermonths.
24. To resolve this issue, the Plan identified two alternatives: construction of a twelfth
well, in addition to Well #l l discussed above, or construction of Well #l I plus a 2.0 million
gallon storage tank and related facilities, such as a booster pump. Capital Facilities Plan at 32. A
memorandum comparing these two altematives is attached as Exhibit 3 ("Comparison Memo").
25. The second alternativrconstruction of Well #11 plus a 2.0 MG storage tank-
would address the problem with pressure swings and provide additional advantages. It will
increase the combined peak hour capacity of Wells #5 and #9; reduce the peak water right
diversion rate; provide additional capacity for fire flows; improve system reliability by providing
a redundant pump; improve system stability; and filter sand. Capital Facilities Plan at32-34.\n
addition, this alternative provides greater certainty and avoids the need to acquire additional
waterrights. Comparison Memo at 3.
26. The Falls Water system currently does not contain any storage facilities. Water
storage facilities are advisable for water systems due, in part, to the benefits identified above.
3 The origins and purpose of the Special Plant Reserve Fund are discussed in Order No. 34925, Case No. FLS-W-
20-03 (Feb. 16,2021).
FeLLs WersR's ApplrcArroN FoR AppRovAL oF THREB cepner pnorBcrs - 6
While installing an additional well (Well #12)midtthelp to resolve the existing problem with
fluctuating pressure, Falls Water still anticipates that storage facilities will be required, or at least
would be advisable, in the future.
27. Falls Water estimates that construction of the storage tank and associated facilities
would cost approximately $4.1 million. Exhibit 2; Comparison Memo at Exh. A.
28. As noted in the Capital Facilities Plan, it might be possible to address the pressure
swings by constructing Well #12. While this option may be less costly in the short run,
constructing Well #12 will not convey the benefits described above inparagraph26.
29. ln addition, constructing Well #12 will require purchase of additional water rights
to cover both volume and diversion rate, which increases both the expense and the timeline for
construction. Acquiring new water rights is a slow and uncertain process. For example, Falls
Water is currently finalizing a water right purchase that, if it is completed on the currently
expected timeline, will have taken two years to complete. Falls Water's other recent water-rights
purchase, which began in2004, took five years to complete. Falls Water can construct storage
facilities without the uncertainty and delays associated with acquiring additional water rights.
30. Furthermore, the actual capacity of a well is not known until the well is drilled
and operated. For example, Falls Water expects that wells will deliver approximately 1,500
gallons per minute. However, Well #10 delivered only approximately 1,200 gallons per minute.
By contrast, a storage tank with a booster pump station can be sized to provide a given amount of
flow for the system.
31. Accordingly, while constructing Well #12 may cost less, from Falls Water's
perspective, constructing the water tank provides the most value to customers when all relevant
factors are taken into account.
FALLS WATER,S APpTTcaTIoN FoR APPRoVAL oF THREE CAPITAL PRoTncTs . 7
32. Falls Water respectfully submits that this capital project will enable Falls Water to
continue to meet customer needs and expectations well into the future. Authorizing this project
now will enable Falls Water to plan and implement capital projects in a reasonable and sensible
order, before investnents are dictated by crises conditions.
33. Falls Water respectfully requests that the Commission approve construction of a
storage tank and related facilities, as described in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Construction of a wellhouse and related facilities at Taylor Mountain
34. As noted, the Commission approved Falls Water's acquisition of the water system
assets of Taylor Mountain in November 2019 and the transaction closed in early August 2020,
after the Capital Facilities Plan had been completed on the remainder of Falls Water's system.
Accordingly, the Capital Facilities Plan does not address Taylor Mountain's facilities.
35. Well #2 of the Taylor Mountain water system does not currently have a wellhouse
or a fence. This means that Falls Water employees must enter a cramped space to access the
well. Wells are also typically enclosed in wellhouses and surrounded by fences to secure the well
from unauthoized access, tampering, contamination, and animals.
36. In addition, homes were recently constructed on lots on either side of Well #2.
The current well lot is graded in a manner that channels surface water runofffrom the road, onto
the well lot, and then offthe well lot to the location of these recently constructed homes. To
avoid damage and, potentially, liability, and to be a good neighbor, Falls Water proposes to
install a surface water collection system that would channel the surface water runoff into a
French drain.
37. The total estimated cost for this project, including building the wellhouse, fence,
and water runoffsystem is estimated to be approximately $300,000.
Fer-m WrrBR's AppLICATIoN ron AppnovAl oF THREE cepnar pnoEcrs - 8
Moumrru Pnocnuunp
38. Falls Water believes that a hearing is not necessary to consider the issues
presented in this Application and respectfully requests that it be processed by modified
procedure, using written submissions rather than a hearing, under the Commission's Rules of
Procedure 201 through 210.
Coxcr.usrox
Falls Water respectfully requests that the Commission enter an order:
1. Authorizing this matter to be processed by modified procedure;
2. Authorizing Falls Water to undertake the three capital projects identified and
described in this Application;
3. Authorizing Falls Water to use the Special Plant Reserve Fund to fund allor, as
funds allow, part of the capital projects identified and described in this Application; and
4. Granting such other relief as the Commission deems just and reasonable.
DATED: May 76 2021.
GTVENS PURSLEY LLP
/ -'---'------p
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
Attomeysfor Falls Water Co., Inc.
FALLS WATER,S AppuCeuON FOR APPROVAL OF THREE CAPTTET PNOTSCTS - 9
EXHIBIT 1
FALLS WATERCO., fI{C.
Drinking Water Capital Facilities Plan - Falls Water Co.,
Inc.
(s3 PAGES)
EALLS \IT{nrER
CoruPAr{Y
Drinking Water Capital
Facilities Plan
S&A Project No. 18030
September 2019
Schiess & Associates
Final
IMPROVING COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
D(HIBIT 1 TOA'PUCANO{
FAttst TATERCO., !1{C.
0t
Submitted to:
Falls Water Company
2180 N Deborah Dr
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
September 2019
dt Schiess & Associates
ENGI NEERING. PLANN ING.LAND SURVEYI NG
7103 sourH 45rH wEsr I tDAHo FALLS, rD 83402 | z0B-sz2-L244
N
OF
31
FATLS TAATER OO., INC.
Exncurrvs SUvTMARY
This document provides a review of the Falls Water Company (FWC) water supply and
distribution systems. The document details the existing conditions, identifies current needs,
projects future conditions, and provides detailed recommendations for improvements. Based on
the plan established in this report, Falls Water Company will be prepared to operate their system
efficiently and with a high level of service for the next 20 years and beyond.
Falls Water Company is unique in that it is located primarily in unincorporated areas of
Bonneville County. However, due to the presence of local water and sewer providers, building
densities are higher than typically found in County areas and are more similar to those in nearby
cities. Falls Water Company is located primarily south of U.S. Highway 26 in the area between
the Cities of ldaho Falls, Iona, and Ammon.
System performance was evaluated based on minimum service standards outlined by Idatro
DEQ. Basic deficiencies identified within the system include a lack of source redundancy
resulting in low system pressures during certain demand scenarios, inadequate fire flow to
several locations, and insufEcient transmission capacity in a handful of pipelines. Additionally,
the remainder of FWC's aging asbestos-cement pipes were identified for replacement.
A water model was pr€,pared that demonstrated the system improvanents needed to address
these issues. Most of the improvement recommendations are straightforward with optimal
solutions that are easily identifiable. Projects addressing fire flow capacity, transmission
capacity, and asbestos-cement pipe replacement all fall into this category. Regarding source
capacity, two primary alternatives were identified. The first alternative is to increase peak hour
sonrce capacity through a combination of adding new wells and the construction of a storage
tank and booster pump station. The second alternative is to increase peak hour capacity sfrictly
through the construction of additional wells.
The second alternative of increasing peak hour capacity by adding new wells was ultimately
found to be the least costly altemative. Nonetheless, Alternative I with the construction of a new
storage tank has several advantages. A tank and booster station would improve source reliability.
Booster pumps can be constructed allowing for redundancy so that full capacity can be
maintained even in the event of a pump failure. Meeting peak flows using equalization storage
would also reduce the water right diversion rate that Falls Water Company would need to
purchase. A tank would also reduce sand in the system as any sand produced by the wells would
settle in the tank. Based on these advantages, Falls Water Company should consider constructing
a storage tank, even though the overall cost is higher.
It is also recolnmended that Falls Water Company actively plan for water right acquisitions. Due
to the time associated with procuring water rights, FWC should always have a minimum reserve
of three years of water right capacity. Under present conditions, adding 535 acre-feet of volume
and 3,170 gpm of diversion rate to their existing water right capacity is recommended.
Drinking water quality and energy use within the systern were also investigated. Water quality
was found to be very good. Water age within the system is very low due to the system's lack of
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud!
September 2019
i
E(HIBIT .I TO APPLICAT]ON
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
storage. As a result, the modeled chlorine residuals were also very good. Wells #l and #5 were
found to be the least expensive sources to operate based on energy intensity. Wells #2,#4,#6,
and#7 also had relatively low energy use. Conversely, Wells #8,#9, and #10 had the highest
energy intensities of the FWC sources. Falls Water Company can reduce energy consumption
and by extension pumping costs by preferentially utilizing sources with lower energy intensities.
Falls Water Company should also investigate more stable ways to operate their systern during
high demand periods. Modeling suggested, and conversations with FWC staffconfirmed, that the
current automated SCADA-controlled operation of the system is prone to instability. For
example, pumps have been observed frequently cycling on and off with pressures jumping up
and down due to the changing pump status. The current framework of rules governing system
operation is based on pressure control settings. A hybrid approach of using the pumps with
variable frequency drives (VFDs) to maintain pressure and auxiliary pumps set to come on based
on the flow of the VFD pumps was explored and found to be more stable and reduce diumal
pressure change within the systern.
Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 present a list of the projects and costs identified by this report.
A map showing all capital improvements is given as Figure 9.
Table 14 -
ID
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-t7
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
B-1
B-2
B-3
Existing Project Costs with Alternative I
Project Description
Ryan Anderson Development Well
Crowley Road from lst Street to John Adams Pkwy (8" Extension)
Lincoln Road from 4743 E to Wood River Road (12" Extension)
Replace 6" Pipe in Fall River Road with 8" Pipe
Replace 6" Pipe in Edwards Drive with 8" Pipe
Harding Lane from Kit Lane to lst Street (8" Extension)
25th East and Iona Road Waterline Extensions
Ammon Road from Pearce Drive to Greenwillow Drive (12" Extension)
Ammon Road from Greenwillow Drive to O'Bryant Street (10" Extension)
Replace 6" Pipe in Dixie Street with 10" Pipe
Replace 8" Pipe East of Well2 with 12" Pipe
First Street from Robison Drive to Wheatfield Lane (10" Extension)
First Street from Ammon Road to Nassau Drive (10" Extension)
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Lakewood Street and Upland Street
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Jensen Drive
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Contor Avenue
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Crawford Street
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - North Adams Drive
Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Mobile Drive
lncrease the volumetric water right capacity by at least 535 acre-feet and the
diversion rate by 3,170 gpm
Reconfigure the SCADA system control of pump start and stop triggers
New 2.0 MG Storage Tank
New Booster Pump Station with 5,500 gpm capacity
New Tank Pipeline Upgrades
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$771,700
$319,000
$70,500
$72,900
$ 183,300
$95,900
$1,233,800
$147,800
$187,200
$42,600
$37,400
$245,100
$278,800
$411,900
$141,900
$454,800
sl3 1,100
$ 166,500
$67,400
$1,230,500
$34,500
$2,517,200
$426,700
$367,800
$9,636300
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
ii
E(HIBIT 1 TOAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Table 15 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative 2
ID Project Description
A-1 Ryan Anderson Development Well
A-2 Crowley Road from lst Street to John Adams Pkwy (8" Extension)
A-3 Lincoln Road from 47438 to Wood River Road (12" Extension)
A-4 Replace 6" Pipe in Fall fuver Road with 8" Pipe
A-5 Replace 6" Pipe in Edwards Drive with 8" Pipe
,4.-6 Harding Lane from Kit Lane to lst Street (8" Extension)
L-7 25th East and Iona Road Waterline Extensions
A-8 Ammon Road from Pearce Drive to Greenwillow Drive (12" Extension)
a_o Ammon Road from Greenwillow Drive to O'Bryant Street (10"
Extension)
A-10 Replace 6" Pipe in Dixie Street with 10" Pipe
A-11 Replace 8" Pipe East of Well2 with 12" Pipe
A-12 First Street from Robison Drive to Wheatfield Lane (10" Extension)
A-13 First Street from Ammon Road to Nassau Drive (10" Extension)
A-14 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Lakewood Street and Upland Street
A-15 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Jensen Drive
A-16 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Contor Avenue
A-17 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Crawford Street
A-18 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - North Adams Drive
A-19 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Mobile Drive
a_ro lncrease the volumetric water right capacity by at least 535 acre-feet and
the diversion rate by 3,170 gpm
A-21 Reconfigure the SCADA system control of pump start and stop triggers
C-l New Well in Northeast Area of System
TOTAL
Table 16 -Z0-Year Future Project Costs
Estimated Cost
$771,700
$319,000
$70,500
$72,900
s183,300
s95,900
$1,233,800
$147,800
$187,200
$42,600
$37,400
$245,100
$278,800
$41 1,900
$141,900
s454,800
$131,100
$166,500
$67,400
$1,230,500
$34,500
$674,100
$7,096,300
Estimated Cost
$4,629,900
$1,280,000
$365,700
$424,800
$392,200
s262,900
$8,280,000
$15,635,500
ID
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
Project Description
New Wells with about 9,000 gpm Capacity
New 1.0 MG Storage Tank
New Booster Pump Station with 3,000 gpm capacity
Crowley Road from Green Willow Lane to John Adams Pkwy (12"
Extension)
Iona Road from Pinnacle Drive to 3452Iona Road (12" Extension)
Replace 6" Pipe in Monte Vista Avenue with 12" Pipe
Increase the volumetric water right capacity by 3,600 acre-feet and the
diversion rate by 9,100 gpm
TOTAL
Schiess & Associates September 2019
iii18030 Falls Water
EfiIB]T 1 TOAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
, ''
" t,, t'
I
i tl r.L i'',, ....
:.:ii,Lt'- :. "
,r_ I't;tf.it , ia,i r: " . .,:- tl. - .r .::..
' 'lr, :r,'r ' :,i lr'' '.t- -'
, l,49th North
- ,l:i5E.,1t,.r ril'lrdi
€
(gut
-c
r/)
lona Rd A-l
I
A-7 D-5
tr
. lllr;l rllr',!,+:'.,r,i.L!:,r ij
!
dul
EPrnc{
o)I
lstSt
(o
I
*:
!d
o
E
E
Legend
Existing Wells
O Future Tanks
a Future Booster Pump Stations
Existing FWC Pipes
2-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
l0-inch
I 2-inch
Pipeline Projects
8-inch
l0-inch
l2-inch
l6-inch
20-inch
Developer Pipeline Projects
l0-inch
l2-inch
2500 2s00 5000 ft0
Tanr,n Or CONTENTS
E>mcurrvn Suuumv
Lrsr or Tarr,ns....
Lrsr or tr'rcunrs
Lrsr or AmnrvnuoNs..........1.0 IxrnonucrloN.........l.l Purpose....1.2 Report Organization...............1.3 Acknowledgement......2,0 ErosrrNcCoxorrroxs................
I
vlr
vlu
IX
1
I
I
I
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
5.1
5.2
5.3
Boundaries ............2
Existing Environmental Conditions of the Planning Area......... ....................2
Description of Existing Water Systern...... ................. 6
Violations of Safe Drinking Water Act and Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems 19
Sanitary Survey .................... 19
Existing Deficiencies................ .............. 193.0 FurunrCoxorrroxs...............3.1 Future Growth3.2 Forecast of Demand3.3 User Charges and Operations and Maintenance Budget.............. ................243.4 Hydraulic Model Analysis..3.5 Drinking Water Improvanents needed for a Minimum 2O-year period4.0 DrvsLopMENT AND lxrrnr, Scnrpxnvc oF ALTERNATTvES4.1 Problems/Deficiencies with the Existing Water System......4.2 Development of Altematives ..........4.3 Discussion of Treatment Requirernents for New or Upgraded Facilities4.4 Storage, Pumping and Pressure Requirernents...........4.5 SeparatelrrigationFacilities4.6 Staged Distribution...............4.7 Environmental Impacts Associated with all Altematives4.8 Systern Classification and Operator Licensure
5.0 Fnv.ll, ScnnnxnrcoF PRrNcIpALAr,rnnxluvps..........
Evaluation of Costs
Consideration of any Impacts to Water Supply Systems
Comparison of Alternatives by Providing a Broad-Brush Environmental Analysis.....
Srr.gcrrn Ar,rrnnluvr Ar\tD Iupr,BurnrATIoN.....
Justification and Detailed Description of Recommended Alternative
Preliminary Design of Recommended Alternative
Justification of Recommended Alternative
Total Project Cost Estimate....
Owner's Capability to Finance and Manage Projects
Availability of the Most Suitable Land
2t
2t
23
24
25
30
30
3r
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
4t
42
43
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Appendix A: Relevant Engineering Data ...... A-1
Appendix B: DEQ Sanitary Survey ............... B-1
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud!
September 2019
v
E(HIBIT 1 TOAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., !NC.
Appendix C: Water Right Reserve Capacity Memo....... ................... C-l
Appendix D: Water Quality Data.............D-1
.....E-1Appendix E: Calibration Data.....
Appendix F: Required Fire Flows from Idatro Surveyrng & Rating Bureau
Appendix G: Elechonic Files....
F-l
Appendix H: Cross Connection Confrol Plan Information......... ....... H-l
Appendix I: Falls Water Company Revenue and Expense Detail .......I-l
Appendix J: Drinking Water System Classification Worksheet............. .............. J-1
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
vi
....G-l
EXHBTT 1 TOAPPLICATION
FALISIAATERCO., !NC.
Lrsr or T^Lnlns
Table 14 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative I
Table 15 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative2.......
Table 16 -2D-Year Future Projects Costs
Table 1 - Summary of Sources.
Table 2 -Energy Use of FWC Sources
Table 3 - FWC Well Settings.............
Table 4 - Existing Deficiencies ................
Table 5 - Historical Growth of Falls Water Company and Bonneville County.
Table 6 - Projected Future Demands..
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
7 - Proj ects Addressing Existing Defi ciencies ................
8 - Altemative 1 with Storage Tank.........
9 - Altemative 2 with Additional Well and No Storage Tank .........
I 0 - Proj ects Addressing Future Defi ciencies ................
I I - Developer Driven Transmission Pipeline Lengths
12 - Budgetary Cost Estimates for Existing Projects with Limited Alternatives...............
I3 -Alternative I Capital Cost Summary............
24
25
26
26
27
28
32
JJ
36
37
37
Table 14 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative I ........
Table 15 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative2
Table 16 -20-Year Future Projects Costs
Schiess & Associates September 2019
vll
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Lrsr or Frcunrs
Figure 9 - Recommended Project Map
Figure I - Vicinity Map..........
Figure2-PlanningArea
Figrre 3 - Existing Dishibution System.
Figure 4 - Maximum Day Diurnal Demand
Figure 5 - Pipe Length vs. Diameter
Figure 6 - Water Age Modeling Results ....
Figure 7 - Chlorine Modeling Results......
Figure 8 - Surrounding Growth Boundaries
Figure 9 - Recommended Project Map
lv
3
4
7
l0
t2
15
t6
22
29
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
viii
EXHBTT 1 TOAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Lrsr or AnnRBvIATIONS
AF
Alt.
AMSL
bgs
cfs
DEQ
EDU
EID
EPA
F
fos
FWC
gpd
gpm
Hp
HGL
IPUC
kw
mgL
Mo
o&M
ppm
psi
PVC
Rules
S&A
TDH
VFD
Acre-feet
Alternative
Above Mean Sea Level
Below Ground Surface
Cubic Feet per Second
Departnent of Environmental Quality
Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Environmental Information Document
Environmental Protection Agency
Fahrenheit
feet per second
Falls Water Company
Gallons per day
Gallons per minute
Horse power
Hydraulic Grade Line
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kilowatt
Milligrams per liter (equivalent to parts permillion)
Month
Operations and Maintenance
Parts per million (equivalent to mg/L)
Pounds per square inch
Poly Vinyl Chloride
Idaho Drinking Water Rules (IDAPA 58.01.08)
Schiess and Associates, PC
Total Dynamic Head
Variable Frequency Drive
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud]
September 2019
ix
E(HIBTT 1 fQappgqllgl
FALLS TA'ATER CO., INC.
1.0 INrRonucrIoN
This study provides analysis of the Falls Water Company (FWC) drinking water distribution
syston. The condition of the existing system is reviewed, and deficiencies are identified along
with recommendations to address those deficiencies. The future conditions of the syston were
forecast over a 2}-year planning interval using population and land use projections. Based on that
forecast, the fufure system was analyzed, and recommendations are provided in order to prepare
for the expected growth. This study represents a thorough investigative process and will provide a
framework that enables Falls Water Company to make inforrred management decisions.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this facilities planning document described in more detail is to investigate,
evaluate, and document the condition of the Falls Water Company's, water supply and
distribution capabilities, identi$ problems and needs, develop alternative solutions to correct
deficiencies, and encourage FWC to select prefened alternatives in order to bring the
system's water supply and distribution systems into compliance with current and expected
regulations for a20 year planning period.
This study also addresses the ability of the water system to meet the current requirements for
public drinking water systems in Idaho, which regulate system pressures and capacity to meet
peak demands and fire flow requirements.
1.2 ReportOrganization
The organization follows the DEQ facility plan format for drinking water facility planning
studies.
1.3 Acknowledgement
We thank Falls Water Company for the opportunity to provide this study and for their help
and participation in the discovery process. We specifically appreciated the cooperation and
assistance of Scott Bruce, the General Manager, and Tony Wise, the Operations Manager. We
also thank DEQ for their input and suggestions during the study process.
Schiess & Associates September 2019
Err{rRrr r rr, aDDr ,,rotr,"til18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
2.0 ExrsrrxcCoxolTloNs
Falls Water Company (PWS# ID7100030) is a privately-owned water utility serving customers in
portions of Bonneville County east of Idaho Falls and north of Ammon. As a privately-owned for-
profit utility, FWC is regulated by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Nearly all of Falls Water
Company's service area is in unincorporated areas of the County; howeveq FWC does serve a
small portion of Ammon. Figure 1 shows the location of Falls Water Company in relation to the
surrounding communities.
2.1 Boundaries
The planning ilea for this study was identified based on discussions with FWC personnel and
growth estimates. It includes all areas currently served by FWC and areas that are projected to
be served within the 20-year planning horizon. Figure 2 shows the extents of the planning area.
2.2 Existing Environmental Conditions of the Planning Area
2.2.1, Physiography, Topography, Geolory and Soils
Falls Water Company is in the Eastem Snake River Plain. The general slope of the land is
from northeast to southwest. The highest elevation within the current service area is about
4,793 feet AMSL while the lowest is about 4,725 feet AMSL.
Primary east-west arteries include l't Street, Lincoln Road, and Iona Road. North-south
arteries include 25ft East, Arnmon Road, and Crowley Road. In addition, two rail lines
converge to form a "T" within the FWC service area. (see Figure l). Development is
progressing rapidly. However, the occasional open field can still be found within the
interior of the systern and is common about the periphery.
Soils in and around FWC are classified as primarily Paesl silty clay loam or Paul silty clay
loam by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Survey. Both are deep well
drained soils. Paesl silty clay loam is characteized by an upper layer of silty clay loam
about 25 inches thick overlaying alayer of very gravelly loamy coarse sand between25
and 60 inches below ground. Paul silty clay loam is characterizedby an upper layer of silty
clay loam about 45 inches thick overlaying alayer of silt loam between 45 and 60 inches
below ground. Additionally, the Polatis-Rock outcrop complex is found along the southeast
side ofthe service area. Within the rock outcrop, bedrock exists at depths of 20 to 40 inches.
2,2.2. Surface and Ground Water Hydrolory
The south fork of the Snake River provides the main source of groundwater through
various irrigation canals that replenish the aquifer. Replenishment also comes from the
canals fed by Willow Creek. Surface canals and creeks in the area include Ammon
Lateral, Center Canal, Crow Creek, East Center, Payne Lateral, Sand Creek, and West
Center Canal.
The entire study area is over a very porous aquifer known as the Eastern Snake River
Plain Aquifer. This aquifer has been designated as a sole source aquifer by the EPA in
that it supplies almost all the water in the area for drinking and is the only source of
drinking water. Evaluation of the source water assessments performed by DEQ on all
Schiess & Associates September 2019
18030 Falls Water
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
t
]ro
'-.-i
I
I
N
A 49th North
p
(g
l.lJs
Lr')
^lo
+ut\'g?
lona Rd
Lincoln Rd i
Legend
l-I Falls Water CompanyU
Existing Service Area
Ammon
ldaho Falls
lona
IBSD Service Area
IBSD-lF Agneement Boundary
: Railway
nrlrl
dnJ
E
rn
lst St
2500 0 2500 5000 fr
I
6
(
I
t
Legend
Q rdls Water Company
20-Year PlanningArea
T ZO-T ear Growth Areas
l"- Ammon
ldaho Falls
!ona
5000 ft250002500
public water systerns in the area since 1996 validates the fact that the majority of the
water for the sfudy area derives from a single source, the Snake River near Ririe, Idaho,
northeast of the study area. The delineated impact zones for most of the wells in the study
area overlap and converge as they run northeast from the well sources.
Because of the potential for groundwater contamination from various potential
contamination sources, projects proposed in this study will be subject to an EPA
environmental assessment if the entities seek federal financial assistance.
2,2.3, Utility Use and Enerry Production
The entire area of the study is served by Rocky Mountain Power for electrical power.
Most areas are serviced by Intermountain Gas, but some outlying areas may receive gas
service by local propane gas suppliers. In addition to Falls Water Company, several small
private community water systems exist within the study area along with private wells
serving individual residences.
Sewer service is mainly provided by Iona-Bonneville Sewer District (IBSD) with some
private septic systems interspersed.
2.2,4, Floodplains and Wetlands
With Sand Creek cutting through the study area from north to south, substantial portions
of the study area fall within the 500-year flood plain as designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A small portion west of Crowley Road in the
extrerne southeast comer of the study area falls within the 100-year flood plain. These
maps were not included in the appendices due to their size.
Very little wetlands exist in the study area other than streams and canals in some isolated
areas as most of the ground has been urbanized or is cultivated for farm use.
2,2.5. Public Health Considerations
The combined study area encompasses about 8.2 square miles east of Idaho Falls in
Bonneville County. All persons residing in this area drink the same water as it all derives
from a sole source aquifer, the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. As such the threat to
the well-being of the large populace cannot be overstated. Contamination of the aquifer
northeast of Ucon or in any area to the east included in the delineated zones of
contribution has the potential to contaminate the water for thousands of residents. Every
systan and individual in the study area should have an interest in protection of their own
system or source and the protection of all sources within the study boundaries.
2.2.6, Proximity to Sole Source Aquifer
The entire study area sits on top of the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. Protection
from groundwater contamination by surface water or other potential contamination
sources is essential. Development and expansion of systems must take this into
consideration in the planning phases.
2.2,7. Precipitation, Temperature and Prevailing Winds
The study area is located on the Snake fuver Plain. The Rocky Mountains partially shield
the area from cold Artic winds and winters are generally cold but not severe. In the
surrmer, days are hot, but nights are generally cool. Average daily temperatures in the
surlmer are in the 60's and in the winter the average daily temperature drops into the 20's
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
F'I{IRIT I T.' Appl ,aOt arS
FALLS WATER CO,, INC.
to low 30's. The extreme high in the summer approaches 100 and the extreme low in the
winter approaches -30oF. Yearly precipitation averages are about nine inches of total
precipitation and 32 inches of snowfall average for the entire Bonneville County area.
The growing season defined by days above 32oF, varies from 90 days to 140 days and the
average year will be about 110 to 120 days.
2.2.8. Air Quality and Noise
The communities served by Falls Water Company are relatively quiet. Most of the land is
used for residential uses, though commercial and industrial use is growing. In addition,
farming is still a dominant industry in the surrounding rural areas. The largest
contributors to air pollution are expected to be traffic and airborne dust resulting from
farming operations and wind. Traffic, particularly heavy equipment and trucks, is
expected to be the largest contributor of noise.
2.2.9. Socioeconomic Profile
Housing within the Falls Water Company Service area is mostly single-family residences.
The median value of owner-occupied units was 1 61 ,000 it 2017 . Additionally, there is a
manufactured home park in the southern portion of the system, and a few multi-family
residences have been added within recent years. The average age of a resident in Bonneville
County is32.6 years. The median income is $54,150 with a reported poverty rate of 10.5%.
2.3 Description of Existing \ilater System
A map of the existing FWC distribution system is included as Figure 3. At the end of 2018,
Falls Water Company served 5,260 connections. Of that total, 5,001 are residential
connections while 259 connections are nonresidential. All connections served by Falls Water
Company are metered. An Equivalent Domestic Unit (EDU) is a measure used in comparing
water demand from non-residential connections to residential connections. The number of
EDUs served by the FWC drinking water systern was calculated by dividing the total annual
residential dernand by the total number of residential connections. Using the billing data
provided by FWC, the annual volume of water used by residential customers was 3,547 AF.
Converting the annual volume to an average flow and dividing by the number of residential
connections gives an average demand of 0.440 gpm/EDU $3a gpd/EDU). In order to express
non-residential demands in terms of EDUs, each non-residential demand was divided by the
average demand per residential connection. The total number of existing EDUs computed for
the FWC system was 5,370. The raw data associated with the EDU calculations are included
in Appendix A.
2,3,1, Sources
Falls Water Company receives water from nine sources as summarizedin Table 1. In all,
the total capacity of Falls Water Company's sources is about 10,500 gpm. Within the
following paragraphs each well is discussed in detail. For pictures of each facility, we
refer you to the DEQ Sanitary Survey in Appendix B. Additional documentation for the
FWC wells (pump curves, well logs, pump test data, etc.) can be found in Appendix A.
Well #l
Well #1 is located along Ammon Road in Fallsbrook mobile home court. The well pump
is a vertical turbine type with a 75 Hp motor and is driven by a variable frequency drive
(VFD). The well was originally drilled in 1955 and subsequently redrilled in1976.lt
was constructed with l2-inch casing and is 215 feet deep. When the well was redrilled,
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud]
September 2019
ryur.F. -A ab'r ,^^-^6
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Legend
r Existing FWCWells
FWC Pipes
2-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
l0-inch
l2-inch
5000 fr250002s00
Table I - Summary of Sources
Well Pump Capacity (gpm)
Well #l 800
Well #2 500
Well #4 1,500
Well #5 800
Well #6t 750
well #7' 750
Well #8 1,500
Well #9 2,700
Well #10 1,200
Total 101500
l. Wells 6 andT are treated as separate wells within this document; however, they are
individual submersible pumps installed within the same well borehole.
the static water level was recorded as 47 feetbgs. Well #l was pump tested at 1,100 gpm
with a recorded drawdown of 63 feet. Under normal operating conditions, Well #1 has a
capacity of 800 gpm. However, as demands increase and system pressure drops, higher
flow rates can be reached. A limited review of SCADA data from July 2018 found flows
reaching 960 gpm during periods of high dernand.
Well#2
Well#2 is located along North Eden Drive in Fallsbrook mobile home court. The well
was drilled in 1960 and was constructed with a 16-inch casing to a depth of 147 feet. The
depth to water was reported as 58 feet, and the well was test pumped at just over 2,900
gpm. Well #2 generally has a capacity of about 500 gpm; however, higher flow rates of
550 gpm have been observed during peak donands when system pressure is lower.
Well #4
Well #4 is located along North Eden Drive adjacent to Well #2.T"he well pump is a
vertical turbine type with a 150 Hp motor. Well tl4 was drilled in 1974 and was
constructed to a depth of 142 feet with a t6-inch casing. The well was pump tested at a
flow of 1,800 gpm. The static water level was 42 feet bgs and the pumping level was 43
feet bgs during the test. The pumping water level at Well #4 was monitored over several
years between 1994 and2002 and varied between 39 feet and 66 feet bgs. As of 2019,
Well #4 currently has a capacity of 1,500 gpm during normal operation.
Well #5
Well #5 is located along Ammon Road, just north of Deloy Drive and south of the
railroad tracks. The well was constructed in 1979 to a depth of 337 feet with a 2O-inch
casing. At the time of construction, the water level was 92 feet bgs. Well #5 was pump
tested at 810 gpm and the drawdown was 62.5 feet. The pump at Well #5 is a vertical
turbine pump with a 75 Hp motor. The current normal capacity of Well 5 is about 800
gpm. Well #5 includes a manually started emergency backup generator.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water ComFany Facility Planning Study
September 2019
Erl{r*rr.r ro aPpr ,aortafi
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Well #6
Well #6 includes two submersible pumps installed within the same borehole. For
convenience through this report the two pumps will be referred to as Wells #6 and#7.
The well was drilled in 1989 to a depth of 150 feet and is located along North Eden Drive
just north of the site for Wells #2 and#4. A 20-inch casing was installed, and the first of
the two pumps was installed after the well was completed. The second pump was added
in 1998. At the time of construction, the static water level was 56.5 feet bgs. The highest
flow reached during the pump test was 2,650 glm with a corresponding drawdown of 8.9
feet. The current normal capacity for each of the two pumps is about 750 gpm.
Well #8
Well #8 is a leased well that was originally constructed in 1955. It is located along
Lincoln Road at about 2877 East. Well #8 has a depth of 410 feet and was constructed
with a 20-inch casing. After construction, the well was pump tested. The peak flow
reported from the pump test was 2,400 gm. The static water level was 122 feet and the
pumping level was about 156 feet. A vertical turbine pump driven by a 150 HP motor is
currently installed in the well and the capacity is 1,500 gpm.
Well #9
Well #9 is located along Ammon Road near Well #5 on the north side of Deborah Drive.
The well pump is a vertical turbine type with a 400 Hp motor and is driven by a variable
frequency drive (VFD). The well was constructed in 2008 with a l2-inch telescoping
screen and a total depth of 408 feet. The static water level was measured as 132 feet bgs.
Well #9 was pump tested at 3,000 gpm with a drawdown of 78 feet. Due to some sanding
at higher flows, production at Well #9 has been limitedto 2,700 gpm. Well #9 includes
an emergency backup generator.
Well #10
Well #10 is FWC's newest well, having been put in service in 2018. Well #10 has a
completed depth of 360 feet with an 18-inch casing and a l4-inch screen. It is located
along 49tr North at about 3730 East. Well #10 was pump tested at 1,300 gpm with a
measured drawdown of 48 feet. A vertical turbine pump driven by a 150 HP motor was
installed and the capacity of Well #10 is 1,200 gpm. Upgrades of a VFD and a backup
generator are planned for Well #10 but have not yet been installed.
In general, FWC's sources are operated with at least one of the VFD controlled pumps
operating (usually Well #9) using a pressure control settrng. The VFD controlled pump
ftrmps up and down as demand in the systern changes, in order to maintain a constant
pressure. As systern dernand increases and the VFD controlled pump is no longer able to
maintain pressure, additional wells are set to turn on via SCADA control. The situation is
reversed as dernand decreases. In that case, pressure rises, and pumps are shut down.
During a normal suflrmer day, flows are high throughout the night, and lower during the
day and the cycle of sources ramping up and ramping down will occur once a day.
IDAPA 58.01.08 Subsection 552.01.b.i mandates that public water systerns "shall be
capable of providing sufficient water during maximum day demand conditions,
including fire flow where provided, to maintain a minimum pressure of twenty
(20) psi throughout the distribution syste,m, at ground level, as measured at the service
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
FfHtRrT I T", ADDI ,atOttar8
FALLSWATERCO., !NC.
connection or along the property line adjacent to the consumer's premises." Moreover,
Subsection 552.01.b.v fur*rer stipulates a minimum pressure of 40 psi during peak hour
demand conditions for: l) Any public water system constructed or substantially modified
after July l, 1985; 2) Arry new service area; 3) Any public water system that is
undergoing material modification where it is feasible to meet the pressure requirements
as part of the material modification. In addition, the FWC prefers that the distribution
systan maintain a minimum of 50 psi at all points in the systern under peak hour
conditions to avoid customer complaints.
ln order to evaluate system performance based on these minimum pressure criteria, it was
necessary to identifu the maximum day flow, peak hour flow, and fire suppression flow.
The maximum day and peak hour flows were addressed by investigating SCADA data for
each of the system's sources. Data from 2018 was reviewed, and the maximum day for
that year was identified as July 146. Figure 4 is a plot of the dernand data for July 14tr,
2018.
Figure 4 -Maximum Day Diurnal Demand
Based on these data, the maximum day demand for FWC was found tobe7,200 gpm and
the peak instantaneous demand was 10,600 gpm. The general pattem of water use is high
demand during the evening, nighttime, and morning hours with lower demands during the
daytime. The effect of nighttime sprinkler irrigation is evident in the dernand curve.
During the time between midnight and 6 AM, pulses occur every hour, as a by-product of
customers setting their sprinklers to turn on at the top of the hour. On a per EDU basis,
the maximum day demand is 1.34 gpm/EDU and the peak instantaneous demand is 1.97
gpm/EDU. Due to the high quality of the demand data, and because the observed peak
was relatively constant between 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM, the peak instantaneous dernand
was substituted for the peak hour dernand for all analyses of system performance.
Schiess & Associates September 2019
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study *.t,r,rl ,,r^orra^rrl0
FALLSWATERGO., !NC.
eaoI)
Bo
frr
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
00:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00
Time (hh:mm)
a Instantaneous Dernand
-Madmum
Day Demand
-tr L.---
-\a *
!^ll 7 v
L I
(
sa aY o
\!ra
F
The annual average demand was determined by reviewing annual production data and
was found tobe2,570 gpm. Seasonal demand variation was investigated by reviewing
monthly production data. Average use during the months of January, February, March,
and Decernber was 806 gpm. Assuming no outdoor use occurred during those months,
and that indoor use remains relatively constant throughout the year, outdoor demand can
be computed by subtracting the indoor use from the total demand. For example, the
average day demand in 2018 was2,570 gpm. Of that total, 806 gpm is related to indoor
use and 1,764 gpm is associated with outdoor use. Therefore, about 69%o of the water
supplied by FWC was used to meet outdoor demands. Extending the comparison to
maximum day gives 6,394 gpm of outdoor use during maximum day donand. The
outsized contribution of outdoor watering to the total maximum day demand
demonstates the importance of educating customers about correct sprinkler irrigation
practices.
The system's ability to provide water during a power outage was also reviewed. Under
current conditions, Wells #5 and #9 include backup generators with only the Well #9
generator having automatic switch-over capability. The combined capacity for those two
sources is 3,500 gpm. During a power outage IDAPA 58.01.08 Subsection 501.07
specifies that minimum pressure requirements be met for the conditions of average day
demand plus fire flow. Bonneville County fire authorities require a minimum 1,500 glm
fire suppression flow throughout the Falls Water Company system. Adding that to the
average day flow of 2,570 gives a required capacity of 4,070 gpm for sources with
backup power. As a result, FWC does not currently have adequate source capacity with
standby power. However, Falls Water Company is in the process of adding standby
power to Well #10, which would increase the total capacity of sources with standby
power to 4,700 gpm.
2.3,2. Water Rights
S&A recently prepared an analysis of FWC's water right reserve capacity (see Appendix
C). In summary, the current annual volume associated with FWC's water rights is 4,970
acre-feet. An additional97.07 acre-feet is available through leased water rights. In terms
of instantaneous capacity, the allowable diversion rate of owned rights is 9,847 gpm with
an additional2,769 gpm associated with leased rights. Due to the long-term uncertainty
associated with leased rights, it is recommended that they be disregarded with respect to
future planning. If only the owned rights are considered, FWC has an existing reserued
capacity of I ,07 I EDUs with respect to annual volume, and a deficit of 3 82 EDUs with
respect to diversion rate. It is recommended that FWC should conservatively plan to
always have a minimum of three years of reserve capacity. Allowing for a three-year
span with higher than average growth as well as the possibility for an unusually hot, dry
sunlmer, it is recommended that FWC add 535 acre-feet and 3,170 gpm to their existing
water right capacity.
2.3.3. Treatment Systems
Water from the following 6 sources is treated with chlorine: Well ll2,Well #4, Well #5,
Well #8, Well # 9, and Well #10. Dosing is conducted in order to maintain a residual
chlorine concentration of about 0.1 mgll- at the tap. Water quality test results are included
in Appendix D. ln addition, Wells #4,#5, and #10 are equipped with, sand separators in
order to prevent sand from entering the distribution system.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
ErHrRrr { T., Aepr ,.rortrlt
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
2.3.4. Distribution System
The distribution system consists of approximately 79 miles of 4-inch,6-inch,8-inch, 10-
inch and l2-inch pipes. Figure 5 presorts a summary of pipe length by diameter.
40
35
30
3zs
-- 20
o06rsJ
l0
5
0
4 6 8
Pipe Size (inches)
l0 t2
III
Figure 5 - Pipe Length vs. Diameter
Nearly all the pipe is PVC (mostly SDR 2l IPS and a minority amount of C900);
however, there is some asbestos-cement pipe on the west side of the Fallsbrook mobile
home court and a very limited amount of ductile iron pipe, mostly on the well sites.
2.3.5. Hydraulic Model Analysis of Existing System
A computer model of the FWC's water distribution system was developed to analyzethe
performance of the existing distribution system and to prepare solutions that address
deficiencies identified by the modeling. The software used for the model was EPANET
2.0. EPANET 2.0 is a computer program that models the hydraulic behavior of pipe
networks. In order to develop the model for this study S&A started with the model
prepared for FWC's previous master plan in 2006. The model geometry was updated
using data provided by FWC.
Water demands were allocated in the model based on billing data from July 2018 through
the process of geocoding. Geocoding is the computational process of converting a street
address to a physical location on the Earth's surface. After geocoding, each of the
demands was assigned to the model node closest to the geocoded location. The peak
monthly flows obtained from billingdatawere then scaled by maximum day production
data in order to convert the monthly flow into a maximum day dernand flow. In this
manner, the model was prepared to model the maximum day demand with a flow of
7,200 gpm.
The watermodel was also converted into an extended period model. This was
accomplished by adding the diurnal curve shown in Figure 4 to describe how demand
changes throughout the day and by adding controls that govern how the system reacts to
changng demand conditions. Converting the model to an extended period simulation
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
wurDr r ?n aEDr ,^^-42
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
allows for modeling additional system behavior. Among those are diurnal pressure
variation, water age, chlorine residual, and system stability.
A pipe network computer model must be calibrated before it can be relied on to
accurately simulate distribution system performance. Calibration is a comparison of the
computer results, field tests, and actual systern performance. Field test data can be
obtained by performing fire flow tests and pressure tests on the system. System
performance data can be obtained by reviewing SCADA data. When the computer model
does not match the field tests or systern performance data within an acceptable level of
accuracy, the computer model is adjusted to match actual conditions. Calibration is
especially useful for identiffing pipe sizes that are not correct and isolation valves that
are not operating properly. Pipe roughness is an additional characteristic which may be
adjusted during calibration. The FWC model was calibrated using fire flow tests and
SCADA data and adjustments were made so that the overall behavior of network was
reproduced within the model. Calibration results are included in Appendix E. The overall
flow patterns in the model matched the observed values very well.
Three computer models were developed for this study. The first was a model of the
existing systern (existing model). This model was used for calibration and to identifu
deficiencies in the existing system. A second model was developed which was used to
identifr those corrections necessary to address the existing system deficiencies (corrected
existing model). The third phase was the development of a future model to indicate those
improvements that will be necessary for the projected future conditions (future model).
Development of the future model is presented within Section 3.0.
Performance of the water system was evaluated under three main operating conditions:
low flow (highest pressure) conditions, peak hour conditions, and maximum day plus fire
flow conditions. Each of these conditions put the water system into a worst-case situation
so the performance of the distribution system may be analyzed for compliance with DEQ
and FWC's requirements. The model results for each of the conditions are discussed
below.
The maximum observed pressure under low flow conditions occurs at the far southwest
corner system (corner of Maurine Drive and Jill Street). The highest pressure observed
was 93 psi. The DEQ standard for maximum pressures is 100 psi; therefore, the FWC
system is deerned compliant and no recommendations are needed.
An evaluation of peak hour conditions as shown in Figure 4, illustrate that peak
instantaneous flows reach about 10,600 gpm. The current well capacity of all sources is
about 10,500 gpm. Under high demand conditions, more flow can be provided at the
expense of pressure. As system pressure drops, the operating point of the well sources
drifts to the right on their pump curyes and flow increases. Under present conditions with
all sources operating, the minimum pressure occurs in the far northeast corner of the
system and is 45 psi. However, in order to account for redundancy, the analysis was
repeated with the syston's largest source, Well #9, offline. Under those conditions,
minimum pressures at the same location dropped to 12 psi.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Plannins $1udy
September 2019
ryurEr4 T aDDr,^^-13
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
The maximum day plus fire flow scenario was evaluated by simulating a 1,500 gm fire
suppression demand at each model node while concurently imposing maximum day
dernand on the system. Additionally, higher fire flows were tested at select nodes based
on fire flow requirements provided by the Idaho Surveying & Rating Bureau (see
Appendix F). In general, the syston performed very well and was able to meet fire flow
requirements throughout most of the system. Locations that were not able to meet fire
flow requirements were recorded and projects were developed in order to address the
deficiencies. Model files are included on a CD in Appendix G
2.3.6. Drinking Water Quality
Water age and water quality were also modeled as part of this study. Figure 6 presents a
plot of the modeling results for water age and Figure 7 presents the results for chlorine. In
general, the two plots have an inverse relationship. Areas with lower age have a higher
chlorine residual while areas with a higher age have a lower residual. Isolated nodes with
high age and low residual located about the periphery of the system may be a result of
modeling artifacts. Derrand placement is often not perfect, and a dead-end pipeline with
no demand will show high water age in the model due to minor inaccuracies in demand
placernent. However, in many cases these nodes are in areas that have not yet developed,
and it is likely that stagnant water exists in some of these pipelines. Still, nearly all the
water in the system has an age of less than 10 hours. The low water age is largely a by-
product of having no system storage. Similarly, most of the system has a chlorine
concentration between 0.1 and 0.2mglL. One exception that is not located around the
periphery of the syston can be seen in the areas near Wells #l , #6, and #7 . Those wells
do not include chlorination and their influence can be seen as a low chlorine "bubble" is
formed when the wells operate. The overall performance of the system with respect to
water quality is very good.
2.3,7. Energy Use
Costs associated with energy are a significant portion of the operating budget for many
water utilities. Pumping energy was investigated for each of Falls Water Company's
sources. Table 2 provides a sunmary of energy use for FWC sources.
Table 2 - Energy Use of F.WC Sources
2018Annual Energy
Source Water Volume Use
Obs. Energy
lntensity
(kwhr/Mc)
L,23O
Expected Energy
!ntensity
(kwhr/MG)
970
Difference
Welll
Well2
Well4
Well6
WellT
Well5
Well8
Wellg
Welll0
(MG}
83.3
352.6
LL6.2
L79.5
582.3
ztL.8
(kwhr)
LO2,M3
L20,406
32L,392
t,aol,zgo
354,840
1,036
L,791
2,063
L,676
1,050
1,200
1,590
1,550
1,330
-L2Yo
-LYo
5%
LYo
470,4OO L,334
9%
23%
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud]
September 2019
FrHrRrr { T", aDDr ,^ortald
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
i
'i!'
ige
1t 0:
:t 0:
.:c 0:
8C 03
ltcJrs
rl
*ir{irir
Figure 6 - Water Age Modeling Results
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
trYlJrtrrr{ T aDor r..orrald
FALLS WATER CO., INC
C h ro.ne
Tg-
I
i!I.Itil
ff
.t
si
ri
Ill!r
Yf ic.
Figure 7 - Chlorine Modeling Results
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 201 9
trYr{rE T r r.., apPr r"ortr{6
FALLS WATER CO., INC
In addition, Table 2 provides a framework for FWC to select the order of priority for
pump usage. [n general, a pump with a lower energy intensity will provide water at a
lower cost than a pump with a higher energy intensity.
Energy use was determined based on metered use from power bills. The energy use was
corrected by reviewing monthly bills during months where no water was pumped. Energy
used in the months with no pumping was considered base load for maintaining lights,
heat, etc. at the pump station. The base load was subtracted from each month in order to
isolate the energy associated specifically with pumping. Energy intensity is the amount of
energy in kilowatt hours that is used to pump one million gallons of water. Observed
energy intensity was calculated using production data and energy bills. Expected energy
intensity is a theoretical value calculated based on pumping depth, system pressure at the
well location, and pump efficiency. Wells #2,#4,#6, and#7 all receive energy from
same power meter and are combined as a result. Most of the observed values were very
close to the expected values. The largest differences occurred at the combined Wells #2,
#4,#6, and#7 and at Well #5. The most likely causes for the differences between
observed and expected energy intensities are inaccuracies in pumping efficiencies and
pumping level. Large discrepancies should be investigated. Replacing a pump with a
worn impeller has the potential to save money by reducing energy use.
2.3.8. Pertinent Operation and Maintenance Issues and Concerns
A few general observations were made in reviewing the perfornance of the FWC system.
First, FWC is approaching the upper limit of the areas they can serve while maintaining
the systern as a single pressure zone. Maximum pressures at the lower elevations within
the syston approach 95 psi, while minimum pressures at the higher elevations drop near
45 psi. Diurnal pressure variation is currently about 25 psi during a high dernand sunmer
day.
Reducing diurnal variation would increase the level of service while also reducing
customer complaints. Additionally, it would provide some ability to serve elevations
higher than presently served by the system. The highest elevations currently served by
FWC are about 4,785 feet. With a preference to maintain 50 psi, elevations of about
4,797 feet could be served if the diurnal pressure variation was reduced to 15 psi. The
diurnal variation in demand can be attributed to two factors: headloss between source and
demand locations and pumps exceeding normal operating capacities to meet peak hour
demands.
A review of the model data shows that the tansmission capacity of the system is
generally adequate. Flow velocities for nearly all pipes are less than 5 fos during peak
hour flow. As a result, vory little would be gained towards reducing diurnal pressure
variation by increasing pipeline sizes. The largest improvements in limiting diurnal
pressure variation would come from increasing source capacity.
One additional observation made while building the FWC model is that the systern
operation is somewhat unstable. As outline above, the general pattem of operation is to
use VFDs at Well #9 and Well #1 to maintain pressure and then turn on additional pumps
as pressure drops due to increased demands. Table 3 presents a list of FWC well control
settings from February 2019.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
Frr{rRrr { T., aPP! ,.or,.Ifi
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Table 3 - FWC WeIl Settings
weur Elevation ::'"'#i;:ti
Well#l 4,736 73
Well#2 4,740
Well#4 4,740
Well#5 4,752
Well#6 4,740
Well#7 4,740
Well#8 4,748
Well#9 4,760 70
VFD HGt
Setting (ft)
4,9O4.5
4,92L.5
On Setting
(psi)
65
58
59
64
67
65
65
60
On HGL
(ft1
4,886.0
4,873.8
4,899.2
4,899.7
4,894.6
4,890.0
4,898.0
4,898.5
Off Setting
,r-,,
84
81
79
82
79
91
Off HGt
(ft)
4,933.8
4,926.9
4,934.3
4,929.2
4,922.3
4,958.0
I . As of February 2019 , Well # l0 was not included in the electronic readout of SCADA settings and for this
reason is not included on this list.
Wells #9 and #l are not turned offwith a pressure control, but instead when the flow is
below 300 gpm and 200 gpm, respectively. Therefore, once turned on these wells will
remain running until demand is low, with Well #9 being the last well to turn off due to
the higher HGL of its pressure setting. As shown, 6 of the 8 wells are set to tum on at
HGL settings between 4,890 ft and 4,898.5 feet, a fairly small range of less than 4 psi
change in pressure. However, because there is no storage in the system, small changes in
demand can result in large changes in pressure. Additionally, as demonstrated in Figure
4,rapid changes in demand occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM (ramping down) and
between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM (ramping up).The susceptibility of the system to pressure
changes along with the rapid demand changes combine to create conditions where
multiple wells can be triggered to turn on or off at nearly the same time. However,
modeling shows that triggering multiple wells at the same time can push pressures high
enough such that the conditions for the wells turning back off are met. As a result, the
system becomes unstable.
FWC has reported that they have observed periods where wells have cycled on and off
and have needed to place the wells in "manual" mode to avoid the cycling. One option
that was investigated for more stable system operation was to link the on/off settings to
the flow of the VFD controlled wells instead of system pressure. The general framework
would be to run Wells #9 and #l with a pressure setting similarly to existing conditions.
Auxiliary wells would be controlled based on the flow of the VFD wells. They would be
set up to turn on in sequence just before the capacity of the VFD wells was maximized.
For example, using Well #9 as the control well, Well #5 would tum on as the flow in
Well #9 was approaching 2700 gpm. Well #5 turning on would then reduce the flow
coming from Well #9. When Well #9 began to approach 2700 gpm again due to
increasing demands, Well *14 could then be turned on. This general pattern could be
followed until all the wells were active and then reversed to shut wells down as demands
dropped. As a side benefit, this type of configuration would also reduce the diurnal
pressure change. Under present conditions with pressure control, nearly l0 psi of pressure
drop is allowed to occur before additional sources are activated. With a system based on
pressure control, the drop in pressure is necessary for stability. However, changing to
flow-based control does not have the same limitations and sources could be activated
before system pressure begins to drop.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
trYHrRrr { Tn aDDr r.orralfl
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
2.3.9. Cross-connection Control Program
FWC does not currently have an active cross-connection control progr{rm. We recommend
that, through survey or field inspection or both, a database be prepared to identifu possible
cross connection problems. Armed with this data, FWC will be prepared to design a cross
connection control plan that fits their needs. Selections from the Rules that describe the
basic components of a cross control program are given in Appendix H.
2.3.10. Water Audit
A brief water audit was performed in order to determine the amount of water that is not
accounted for via billing. The total annual production based on meter data from each of
the Wells is 1.35 billion gallons. Summing the flows from the individual billing meters
gives a total volume of 1.24 billion gallons, a difference of about 8%. Included in this 8%
value are water losses due to pipeline leaks, meter inaccuracies, construction water, fire
hydrant flushing, etc. Experience suggests that a difference of 8% between production
and biUed water is very good, and better than most systems are able to manage.
2.4 Violations of Safe Drinking Water Act and Rules for Public Drinking
Water Systems
No violations of the safe drinking water act or rule for public drinking water system have been
noted within the past 5 years. Water quality test results along with a copy of Falls Water
Company's 2019 Consumer Confidence Report is included in Appendix D.
2.5 Sanitary Survey
A copy of the FWC 2015 sanitary survey is provided in Appendix B. No significant
deficiencies were identified. Deficiencies that were recognized include threaded spigots on
well discharge piping to the distribution system, needing a meter on Well #7, and needing a
screen on the pump to waste at Well #6. At this time, all these deficiencies have been
corrected.
2.6 Existing Deficiencies
Throughout the analysis of the existing system, deficiencies have been noted and recorded. A
listing of the existing deficiencies is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 - Existing Deficiencies
Deficiency
Source capacity (3,000 gpm)
Low pressures under peak day demands
Fire flow capacity less than 1,500 gm
Fire flow capacity less than 1,500 gpm
Fire flow capacity less than 1,500 gpm
Fire flow capacity less than 1,500 gpm
Fire flow capacity less than 1,500 gpm
and eliminate dead end pipeline.
Looping and pipeline interconnectivity
Location
Systemwide
Northeast corner of system
4328 Cochise Drive and4625 East Botanical
Drive
Taylors Crossing Charter School
1139 Payette River Road
4800 N Yellowstone Highway
3273 East Kit Lane
Along 25ft East between 2695 North and Iona
Road and along lona Road between 2844East
and 1572 East
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility plenning Study
September 2019
trYHIRTT { T", APPI '''A''4flFALLS WATER CO., INC.
Looping and pipeline interconnectivity
Water capacrff
Location
Eastern portion ofFallsbrook Mobile Home
Looping and pipeline interconnectivity botween Pearce Drive andRoad
Lane
Ammon Road between Greenwillow Lane and
O'Bryant Sheet
Looping and pipeline interconnectivity Farnsworth Drive and Dixie SEeet
Transmission capacity Between Wells 2,4, and 6 and Monte Vista
Avenue
1$ Sneet
ld SileetTransmission capacity
Asbestos plpes
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
Septe,mber 2019
ErHrRlr r r", aDDr ,r. ttl0
FAtI.']svlrATERco., !Nc.
3.0 Furunn CoNoruoNs
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Studv
3.1 Future Growth
Table 5 shows historic population and growth for Falls Water Company and Bonneville
County.
Table 5 - Historical Growth of Falls Water Company and Bonneville CountyYear F'WC Estimated FWC Bonneville County
Connections Service Area Population
Populationl1960 75 225 46,9061970 2t8 654 52,4571980 1,109 3,327 65,9901990 1,359 4,077 72,2072000 2,081 6,243 92,5222010 4,125 12,375 104,2342018 5,804 17,412 116,854
l. Service area population estimated as 3 people per connection.
Falls Water Company's service area is not congruent with a City or other political division for
which population data is available. For this reason, historical growth is most readily available
in terms of connections. As an estimate, the population within the service area was calculated
as 3 people for each connection. Average annual growth for FWC since 2000 is about 5-9%.
Growth in Bonneville county during the same time period has averaged about 2.0%.
Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization has prepared future population projections for
Bonneville County which predict a county wide growth rate of 1.02% through 2040.
Although Falls Water Company's population growth since 2000 has been strong, it is
expected that growth will be slower over the coming -20 years. Falls Water Company is
pressing up against several boundaries that will impact growth. Figure 8 highlights those
boundaries and shows the areas where future growth, in terms of EDUs, was allocated. As
shown, Falls Water Company's southem boundary is adjacent to the City of Ammon and no
further growth will occur to the south. There are still areas where growth can occur to the east
and west, but the extent of the growth in those directions is limited based on the current and
planned boundaries for the cities of Idaho Falls and Iona, respectively. In addition, the service
area boundary agreed to between the lona Bonneville Sewer District (IBSD) and Idaho Falls
is shown. Falls Water Company customers have historically received sewer service from
IBSD. However, IBSD has agreernents in place with the City of Idaho Falls which limit the
extent of their service area. Limits on the IBSD service area serve as de facto limits on the
Falls Water Company service area. Adjustments to the existing agreements would be needed
for IBSD to serve areas outside of the extent shown in Figure 8.
Aside from the demographic and political boundaries mentioned above, there is a physical
boundary associated with elevation. Based on the current pressure in the system, the highest
elevation that can be served while maintaining a minimum of 50 psi through the system is
4,797 feet when diurnal pressure variation is limited to l5 psi. For reference, the 4,800-foot
elevation contour is bolded in Figure 8.
September 2019
HYLrElrr { T.r aDor ,^^.r*l
FALLSWATER CO., INC.
Legend
I rlf Water Company
20-Year PlanningArea
i ----j Ammon
[-] ldaho Falls
[-l lona
[7] taso-lF Agreement Boundary
J ZO-Vear Growth Areas (EDUs)
-- l0-foot Elevation Contour
(4,800-foot Contour Bolded)
Planned Future Boundary
- - Ammon
ldaho Falls
5000 ft025002500
Based on these limiting factors it is believed that growth in the Falls Water Company service
area will be faster than in the county as a whole, but slower than the growth previously
experienced. A historical comparison of the Falls Water Company growth to growth within
Bonneville county shows that Falls water company has grown at arate of about three times
higher than the county. County growth projections through 2040 are just over l%o. Our 2040
projections reflect this historical hend and are based on a growth rate of 3.0%. Therefore, it is
projected that9,990 EDUs will be served in2040.
3.2 Forecast of Demand
3,2,1, Residential, Commercial and Industrial
The predominant growth in the area is urban residential. Some industrial and commercial
growth has occurred around 25ft East and along U.S. Highway 26 northeast of Idaho
Falls in the county. Growth of a commercial nature is manifesting itself along Ammon-
Lincoln Road as well. Potential future service areas were identified by meeting with Falls
Water Company staff. After identifting the potential service areas, land use was
generally defined as either residential, commercial, or industrial. Demands were
calculated for each future service area based on land use type and acreage. Residential
demands were allocated based on2.65 units per gross acreage. This density was selected
by counting the density of homes within several of the newer subdivisions within the
Falls Water Company service area. Residential demand was then projected by calculating
the total new residential units and multiplying that number by the demand per EDU
(average day, maximum day, and peak hour). Non-residential demands were calculated
based on acreage and demand density. Non-residential dernand densities were determined
by reviewing Falls Water Company billing data and past experience in analyzingwater
usage.
Depending on the type of business, non-residential use can vary widely. However, within
the context of a water distribution system, the wide variations in individual usage become
less important as the high and low users average out. Based on the reviewed data a
demand density of 1.5 gpm/gross acreage was used for projecting water use in areas
projected to develop with non-residential land uses.
The general procedure in projecting growth was to allocate demand at the described
densities to the currently undeveloped areas that were judged most likely to become
developed by 2040. The process of adding EDU's incrementally was continued until the
2040 target of 9,990 EDUs was reached.
3,2.2. Project Average Day Demand, Maximum day Demand and Peak Hour
Demand
Based on the process described above, a comparison of existing and projected future
demand characteristics is presented in Table 6.
3.2.1. Adequacy of Water System Fire Flow Capacity
As referenced previously, a listing of fire flow requirements as determined by the Idaho
Surveying & Rating Bureau is included in Appendix F. The property with the highest fire
flow requirernent is Smith RV at 1523 North 25ft East with a rating of 4,000 gpm. Under
the future maximum day plus fire flow scenario, the required flow is 17,394 gpm.
Hydraulic analysis for this scenario is presented below.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
trxl{lRtT { T., aDDl ,r:ott3l
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Table 6 - Projected Future Demands
Criteria
EDUs
Average Day Flow (gpm)
Maximum Day Flow (gpm)
Max DaylAvg Day Ratio
Peak Hour Flow (gpm)
Peak Hour/Avg Day Ratio
Peak Hour/IVlaximum Day Ratio
Average Daily Flow/EDU, Bpffi
Peak Hour FlodEDU, Bpffi
Existing
5,370
2,570
7,200
2.8
10,579
4.1
1.5
0.48
r.97
2040
9,990
4,791
13,394
2.8
19,681
4.t
1.5
0.48
1.97
3.3 User Charges and Operations and Maintenance Budget
Falls Water Company's rate structure is mandated by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
(IPUC). For 3/4-inch and 5/8-in meters, the monthly minimum charge is $17.75 which
includes up to 12,000 gallons of water. For water used above 12,000 gallons, there is an
excess use charge of $0.689 per thousand gallons.
A Falls Water Company revenue and expense detail for the 2018 has been included with
Appendix I. Operating expenses for that year totaled just under $ L2 million.
3.4 Hydraulic Model Analysis
A computer model of the FWC's future water distribution system was developed by starting
with the "corrected existing model" referenced previously, and adding the demands associated
with the future system. Demands were added at the locations identified for growth and model
transmission pipes and nodes were added in order to facilitate the additions. The same diurnal
curve was used for the future model as was used in the existing model and the model was set
to run as an extended period simulation.
Performance of the future water system was evaluated under the same three operating
conditions as the existing model (low flow conditions, peak hour conditions, and maximum
day plus fire flow conditions), but with the updated future dernands. Through an iterative
process, system facilities were upgraded so that minimum operating criteria were met. The
evaluation criteria were as follows:
o 100 psi maximum pressure. 50 psi minimum pressure during peak hour (system preference)
o 20 psi minimum pressure during maximum day plus fire flow
As a general summary, no modifications were needed in order to meet the maximum pressure
criterion. Source and transmission projects were both needed to meet the criterion of 50 psi
during peak hour. No additional projects beyond those needed to meet the peak hour criterion
were needed in order to meet the projected future fire flow requirunents. A listing of
recornmended future facilities is outlined in Section 3.5.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
ryUIDF ' TA ADEI 'NA-3k
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
3.5 Drinking Water Improvements needed for a Minimum 20-year period
Throughout the planning process, facility improvements have been identified that will be
needed within the Falls Water Company system during the coming 20 years. Upcoming
projects can further be classified according to the immediacy of need. Improvements that
address existing deficiencies are included in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9.
Table 7 - Projects Addressing Existing DeficienciesID Purpose Location Solution
a_l Low pressures under Northeast comer of New Well #l with assumed capacity of 1,500
peak day demands system
fff", r,790 feetof g-inch pipe in crowley
A-2 lto" t"*:ry"i* fiSfrTHe
Drive ffil:}H:t'ffiHl r'-ii:**i$ffiless than l'500 gpm t"i#"abri* coachise road to connect to existing 6-inch
pipe.'
A_r Fire flow capacrty Taylors Crossing Install 320 feet of l2-inch pipe in Lincoln
less than 1,500 gpm Charter School Road between 4743 E and Wood River Road.
A_4 Firenowcapaciry rl3epayetteRiver ff:X"r:?l.Tt3ff#:%t:?B*l#J*less than l '500 gpm Road Madison River Road.
Install 1,040 feet of 8-inch pipeline in Edwards
A_< Fire flow capacity 4800 N Yellowstone Drive between Ammon Road and 34248
less than 1,500 gpm Highway Edwards Drive and 180 feet of 8-inch pipe
northward into the adjacent circle.
A-6
Fire flow capacity
less than 1,500 gpm
and eliminate dead
end pipeline.
Looping, pipeline
interconnectivity,
and provide
transmission
capacity for new
well in Project A-l
Looping and
pipeline
interconnectivity
A-7
3273EastKit Lane
256 East between
2695 North and Iona
Road; Iona Road
between 2844Bast
andl5T2East
Install 770 feet of 8-inch pipeline in Harding
Lane between Kit Lane and l't Street.
Install 5,884 feet of l2-inch pipeline in 25th
East between2695 North and Iona Road and in
Iona Road between 2844East and 1572 East
A-8
Looping and
pipeline
interconnectivity
Looping and
pipeline
interconnectivity
Improve
transmission
capacity
Ammon Road
between Pearce Drive
and Greenwillow
Lane
AmmonRoad
between Greenwillow
Lane and O'Bryant
Street
Farnsworth Drive and
Dixie Street
Between Wells 2, 4,
and 6 and Monte
Vista Avenue
Install 1,300 feet of l2-inch pipe in Ammon
Road between Pearce Drive and Greenwillow
Lane.
lnstall 1,080 feet of l0-inch pipeline in
Ammon Road between Greenwillow Lane and
O'Bryant Street.
lnstall 160 feet of lO-inch pipe in Dixie Street
between Farnsworth Drive and 4386 Dixie
Street
Install 280 feet of l2-inch pipeline between
701 Eden Drive and 539 Monte Vista Avenue.
A-9
A-10
A-11
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
FYr-rRrr { Tn aDDr ,r.ot,3ri
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
D Purpose
knprove
1^-12 transmission Along l't Street
capacity and loopingImprove ar^-^ lsto. Install 1,240feetof l0-inchpipein lstStreetA'I3 transmission Along l't Street i':'*- ^' .
capacity and rooping between Ammon Road and Nassau Drive
r . +:-^ D^^+^* -^+: -.- - r lnstall 7,790 feetin Upland Street, LakewoodA-14 Replace existing Eastern portion of ;-:*" :'to asbestos cement Fausbrook M;il 3;Tff;Jifi::,:#"Ti?ffi:t'jll'j;.A-19 pipes Home Court M;;ii;D.ir.
A-20 *1":::waterright N/A H:::;:lT,:::H:lxJ'ff.o?,',"i"#H,t1ycapacrry 3,170 gpm
A_21 knpr.ove system N/A Reconfigure the SCADA system control ofstability pump start and stop triggers
1. Segment between Cochise Drive and John Adams Parkway can be omitted if existing
pipeline in Belle Arbor Drive can be connected through to lst Street as a result of
development progress.
Table 8 - Alternative 1 with Storage Tank
ID Project Description
Build new 2.0 MG storage tank adjacent to Well 9 site. Re-equip Well
B1 Storagerank#r :#j#r"f"H:,'#r,Ri:'ffiJffi#fl::llf,:":t,l!31k*o
install direct pipeline connection.
R_, Booster Pump Construct a new booster pump station adjacent to Storage Tank #l with
Station #l a capacity of 5,500 gpm.
Pipeline upgrades will be needed around new tank to facilitate higher
flows. Anticipated pipeline improvements:o 1,070 feet of l0-inch pipe in Vision Drive
B-3 Pipeline upgrades ' f**:SJfilil:,',r'Kinr'mmon
Road between Delov
o Additional upgrades to pipeline in immediate vicinity of booster
pump station - 390 feet of 2O-inch pipe,290 feet of l6-inch pipe
Table 9 - Alternttive 2 with Additional Well and No Storage TankID Project Description
C-l New Well #2 New well with assumed capacity of 1,500 gpm
Projects A-l through A-7, and A-20 are the highest priority as they directly address
shortcomings identified within the existing system. Projects A-8 through A-19 and A-21 also
address existing shortcomings but provide more indirect benefits. As a result, these projects
should be considered a lower priority. The "B" (Alternative 1, Table 8) and "C" (Alternative
2,Table 9) projects represent two alternatives. The system analysis identified that an
additional 3,000 gm of source capacity is needed under existing conditions. Project A-l is
assumed to supply 1,500 glm of capacity. The additional 1,500 gpm capacity could be met by
constructing a new storage tank and booster pump station as outlined by the "B" projects, or
Location Solution
lnstall 1,060 feet of lO-inch pipe in lst Street
between Robison Drive and Wheatfield Lane
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
Exr{lRrr,r ro APPr,"or3{
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
by adding an additional well as outlined by the "C" project. Discussion regarding the relative
merits of each altemative is included within Section 4.0.
Table l0 provides a listing of the recommended future projects.
Table 10 - Projects Addressing Future Deficiencies
ID Project Description
D-l New Wells Approximately 9,000 gpm of additional source capacity will need to be
added within 20 years.l
D_2 storage Ta,*#2 Pl19;n;y.1.0 MG storage tank adjacent to well #2 site. re-equip wells
#2 and #4 to pump directly to the storage tank.
n_? Booster Pump Construct a new booster pump station adjacent to Storage Tank #2 withu-J Station #2 a capacity of 3,000 gpm.2
knprove
n-4 transmission lnstall 2,380 feet of l2-inch pipe in Crowley Road between
capacity and looping Greenwillow Lane and l't Street
along Crowley Road
Improve
rL< transmission Install 2,350 feet of l2-inch pipe in Iona Road between Pinnacle Drive
capacity and looping and3452 East Iona Road
along Iona Road
Improve
D_6 transmission Install 1,620 feet of l2-inch pipe in Monte Vista Avenue between 558u-v capacity along Monte Vista Avenue and l't Street2
Monte Vista Avenue
n_7 Purchase additional lncrease the volumetric water right capacity by 3,600 acre-feet and the
water rights diversion rate by 9,100 gpm
1. Assumes one of the following will be implemented to address existing needs: 1,500 gpm of existing source
capacity and a storage tank will be added; or 2,000 gpm source capacity will be added with no storage tank.2. This project is contingent on adding a 2od storage tank near the location of Well 2.
In listing the future projects, it is assumed that all the "A" existing projects will be completed
along with either the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 projects. Moreover, projects D-2, D-3, and
D-6 are associated with adding a storage tank adjacent to the existing Well #2 site. These
should be viewed similarly to the existing projects categorized as Altematives I and 2. A tank
is not strictly necessary, and the peak hour capacity of the tank could be replaced by an
additional 1,000 gpm of well capacity. Projects addressing existing deficiencies should be
completed within the next zero to five years, while projects addressing future needs should be
evaluated periodically and constructed as needed. A map of the recommended projects is
shown on Figure 9.
Several transmission lines were identified as developer driven pipelines. Those pipelines were
also sized for future demands and the locations of the pipelines are included on Figure 9.
Table I I presents a summary of the total length of l0-inch and l2-inch developer driven
pipelines that are projected to be added by 2040.In the case of the developer driven pipelines,
projects have not been defined beyond providing pipeline locations and sizes. [t is expected
that developers will pay for and construct these pipelines, and they have been included within
the planning document to facilitate proper sizing.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
trYuttrtTr T aDDt,r.ot,lr1
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Size
12-inch
Table 11-Driven Transmission Ptpellne Lengths
Schiess& Associatos
18030 Falts Watpr Company FaoiliB Plenning Strdy
September2019
EYnrErr { rrr ADD. --'*l[
FAISUATER@,ll,l0.
xi:to
N
A 49th North
t-tr'"
ab
AF++'
CdLLI
=p
LO
o?
A-l A-V D-5
(o
I
lona R,d ii
Legend
Existing Wells
C Future Tanl<s
a Future Booster Pump Stations
Existing FWC Pipes
2-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inclr
l0-inch
I 2-inch
Pipeline Projects
8-inch
l0-inch
I 2-inch
I 6-inch
20-inch
Developer Pipeline Projects
l0-inch
I 2-ine h
Lincoln Rd
2s00 0 2500 5000 ft
Ql
1_
adLU
E
utN
o)
lstSt
-I,d
co
E
E
4.0 Dnvnr,opMENT AND Ixrrrar, ScnrnxING oF ArrnruvATrvrs
4.1 Problems/Deficiencies with the Existing Water System
Existing deficiencies can be place into four basic categories: source capacity, fire flow
capacity, looping and pipeline interconnectivity, transmission capacity, and asbestos-cement
pipes. A brief discussion of each category is included.
The deficiency in source capacity is primarily related to a lack of source redundancy.
Redundancy is needed so that no single source is indispensable to system operation.
Currently, Well #9 is FWC's largest source. If Well #9 were to fail during the summer, FWC
would not be able to meet DEQ minimum pressure standards due to a lack of capacity. Source
capacity can be increased in two ways: either the construction of additional wells, or by
adding a storage facility and booster pump station. Discussion between these two alternatives
is included Section 4.2.7.
Several fire flow deficiencies were identified within the existing system. Increasing source
capacity has a positive effect on fire suppression flow; however, the most direct and
economical way to increase fire flow capacity is to increase local pipeline capacity. This can
be accomplished by upsizing pipes or increasing system interconnectivity and looping.
Increasing pipeline interconnectivity is the preferred method where feasible. It often requires
less pipeline length while providing the added benefit of eliminating dead-end pipelines.
Recommendations for projects addressing fire flows were formulated accordingly.
Projects recommended to increase looping and pipeline interconnectivity carry similar
benefits to those specified to increase transmission capacity. Both projects aid in reducing
pipeline flow velocities. Reducing pipeline velocities helps to control pressure variation
during peak flows. Reducing pressure variation improves the level of service within the
system and will allow Falls Water Company to serve water to a higher elevation while still
meeting minimum pressure guidelines. Looping of distribution lines has the added benefit of
improving water circulation. This helps eliminate dead end lines that are potential locations
for stagnant water and sediments which reduces potential for developing bacteria in the
system.
Deteriorating asbestos-cement pipes can allow asbestos fibers into drinking water.
Additionally, the aglng pipes are brittle and prone to breakage. For these reasons it is
recommended that the remaining asbestos cement pipes in the FWC be replaced.
In summary, projects have been identified in order to address each of the identified
deficiencies. Source capacity is the principal area in which multiple viable options exist for
meeting system requirements. Options to address fire flow, looping, pipeline
interconnectivity, and asbestos-cement pipe replacement are more limited. A discussion of
project alternatives and estimated budgetary costs are included within the following sections.
Schiess & Associates September 2019
18030 Falls Water
FALLSi WATER CO., INC.
4.2 Development of Alternatives
4.2.1. Discussion of No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would be to continue to operate the system as it now stands.
Currently, FWC would be unable to meet minimum pressure requirements if Well #9
were to suffer a failure during peak demand periods. In addition, several areas in the
system are not able to meet fire flow requirernents and peak service elevations are limited
due to diurnal pressure variation of about 25 psi. Failure to address these issues would
result in non-compliance with DEQ regulations and diminished level of service to
customers.
4.2.2. Discussion of Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
As noted in Section 2.3.8, the automation of the current system is somewhat unstable.
This instability was originally observed via modeling and subsequortly confirmed
through conversations with FWC staff. The primary evidence that the system was
unstable was in pumps frequently turning on and off and generally large pressure swings.
A restructuring of the Well on/off contols was found to result in improved stability while
also reducing diumal pressure variation. Refer to the discussion in Section 2.3.8 for a
more detailed discussion.
4,2,3. Discussion of Regionalization
The Cities of Idaho Falls, Ammon, and Iona are adjacent to the Falls Water Company
service area. At present none have expressed interest in absorbing Falls Water
Company's distribution system. Regardless, Falls Water Company is privately owned and
has no interest in exiting the drinking water utility business. There are several small
private water systems adjacent to and in some cases within the Falls Water Company
service area including: Honeybee Acres, Bonneville Acres, Autumn Cove Mobile Home
Court, and Pinewood Estates. Falls Water Company is interested in absorbing the
distribution infrastructure of small local water providers where feasible, and would
welcome Bonneville County, DEQ, and IPUC support in doing so.
4,2.4. Existing Projects with Limited Alternatives
Due to operational constraints and system geometry many of the projects that were
identified to address existing deficiencies do not have viable and economical alternatives.
These projects were grouped together as "A-series" projects, and budgetary cost
estimates are included in Table 12.
A detailed cost estimate is provided for each item in Appendix A.
In order to fully bring the system into compliance with DEQ standards as well as meet
the level of service requirements preferred by Falls Water Company, it is recommended
that each of these A-series projects be completed.
Projects A-2 through A-19 address localized issues related to fire flow capacity, looping
and interconnectivity, and asbestos cements pipes. Project A-20 increases water right
capacity to meet short term growth projections. Project A-21 improves the operation of
the systern by reducing diurnal pressure fluctuation and eliminating system instability.
Project A-1 partially addresses FWC's source capacrty deficiency by adding 1,500 gpm.
In all, 3,000 gm of additional source capacity is needed. The remaining 1,500 glm of
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility plenning $tudy
September 2019
EYlJlElrr { Tar aDDl ,r.^ttnlrl
FALLSWATER CO., INC.
Table 12 - Budgetary Cost Estimates for Existing Projects with Limited
Alternatives
ID Project Description Estimated Cost
A-1 Ryan Anderson Development Well 5771,700A-2 Crowley Road from 1st Street to John Adams Pkwy (8" Extension) $319,000
A-3 LincolnRoadfrom4T43EtoWoodRiverRoad(l2"Extension) $70,500
L-4 Replace 6" Pipe in Fall River Road with 8" Pipe $72,900A-5 Replace 6" Pipe in Edwards Drive with 8" Pipe $183,300A-6 Harding Lane from Kit Lane to lst Street (8" Extension) $95,900
A-7 25th East and Iona Road Waterline Extensions $1,233,800
A-g 1--ol Road from Pearce Drive to Greenwillow Drive (12"
tsxtensron, $147'8oo
A-9 1-*ol Road from Greenwillow Drive to O'Bryant Street (10"
tsxtenslon) $187'2oo
A-10 Replace 6" Pipe in Dixie Street with 10" Pipe $42,600
A-11 Replace 8" Pipe East of Well2 with 12" Pipe $37,400
A_12 First Streel from Robison Drive to Wheatfield Lane (10"
-bxtenslon) $245'loo
A-13 First Street from Ammon Road to Nassau Drive (10" Extension) $278,800
A-14 Il|;?-"U
asbestos cement pipes - Lakewood Street and Upland $411,900
A-15 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Jensen Drive $141,900
A-16 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Contor Avenue $454,800
A-17 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Crawford Street $131,100
A-18 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - North Adams Drive $166,500
A-19 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Mobile Drive $67,400
A-ZO P:::ry.lT volumetric water right capacitv bv at least 535 acre- $1,230,500feet and the diversion rate by 3,170 gpm
A_21 Reconfigure the SCADA system control of pump start and stoptnggers $34'5oo
TOTAL $6,324,600
source capacity would be supplied by projects outlined as Altemative I or Altemative 2
within the following sections.
4.2.5. Alternative L - Construct Storage Tank Adjacent to WeIl #9 Site
One option to provide the remaining source capacity is Alternative 1, the construction of
a new on grade storage facility adjacent to the existing Well #9 site. Some preliminary
consideration was glven to the construction of an elevated storage tank. Elevated storage
that allows gravity flow into the system is very beneficial. Gravity flow tanks help to
control pressure transients and help promote stable system operation. Although there are
inherent advantages associated with an elevated storage tank, that option was rejected due
to high costs. lnstead, on-grade storage was identified as a more cost-effective solution
that would meet FWC's needs.
Construction of an on-grade storage facility will also require construction of a new
booster pump station along with pipeline upgrades in the area of the new tank to
accommodate the increased flows associated with the booster pump station. Based on
preliminary work, a 2.0 MG tank is recommended. Hydraulic modeling of the future
Schiess & Associates September 2019
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study or.,,' t to*rt,*rA?
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
2040 systern shows that 1.4 MG of equalization storage will be utilized based on future
projected demands, flows from Wells #5 and #9, and FWC's diurnal demand curve.
Sizing the tank to 2.0 MG will allow 0.5 MG to be set aside as fire/emergency storage
with an additional 0.1 MG for operational storage. Construction of a new 2.0 MG storage
tank along with the booster pump station and pipeline upgrades will increase the
combined peak hour capacity of Wells #5 and #9 from 3,500 gm to 5,500 Bpffi, rrr
increase of 2,000 gpm. Capital costs for the Alternative I projects are summarized in
Table 13.
Table 13 - Alternative 1 Capital Cost SummaryID Project Description
B-1 New 2.0 MG Storage Tank
B-2 New Booster Pump Station with 5,500 gpm capacityB-3 New Tank Pipeline Upgrades
TOTAL
Estimated Cost
$2,517,200
$426,700
$367,800
$3,311,700
A detailed cost estimate is provided for each item in Appendix A.
4.2.6. Alternative 2 - Additional Well and No Storage Tank
An additional option is for Falls Water Company to continue to meet all demand
requirernents through the construction of wells. Alternative 2 assumes that a new well
with a capacity of 1,500 gpm will be constructed in addition to the well project A-l in
order to meet existing demand requirernents. The estimated cost for the new well is
$674,000 and a detailed cost estimate is included in Appendix A.
4.2.7. Comparison of Alternatives I and,2
In a comparison of capital costs, Alternative 2 is roughly 20% of the cost of Alternative I
and is the runaway winner on a purely cost basis. In addition to the high cost of the
storage facility, the costs associated with Alternative I are further inflated by the
additional need for a booster pump station and the pipeline upgrades that will be needed
to convey the high flows away from the new tank. Nonetheless, there are large
advantages associated with Alternative 1. Two primary advantages are reducing peak
water right diversion rate and improving system reliability. A discussion of the
advantages associated with constructing a storage tank follows.
Using a storage facility to meet peak hour flows has the benefit of reducing the system's
peak diversion rate. The equalization storage in the tank allows the sources to pump at a
constant rate while the booster pump station rirmps up and down to cycle between low-
and high-flow periods. The net reduction on diversion rate is equivalent to the difflerence
between the capacity of booster pump station system and the combined well capacity. In
this case, the peaking ability is projected to be 2,000 gm (5,500 gpm - 3,500 gpm).
Thus, the diversion rate would be reduced by 2,000 gpm, or about 4.5 cfs. As a result,
construction of a storage tank and booster pump station would have the benefit of
delaying the need to increase the diversion rate associated with water rights. It should be
noted however that while using a storage tank provides benefits to the diversion rate,
there is no effect regarding annual pumped volume.
Another benefit to constructing a storage tank is improved reliability as compared to a
well. The booster pump station would be constructed with a redundant pump so that even
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
Erl{rRrr.r r., aPPr ,"orr.if
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
if a pump failed, full capacity of the booster station would be maintained. Moreover, in
the event of failure, booster pump repair is more straightforward and less costly as all
parts are located above ground. Repairs to a well pumping systern require more
specialized equipment if the pump needs to be pulled. Failure of the well itself may also
require replacing the entire well, a process that would take months. Using a booster pump
station does not completely protect a system from the failure of a well. For example, if a
well feeding a storage tank and booster pump station failed, the capacity of the booster
pump station would be negatively impacted. However, the impact of well failure on the
capacity of a booster station could be nullified by allowing water from the systan to
backfeed into the tank. This would allow the booster pump station to operate at full
capacity, at the expense of additional pumping costs. Still, under an emergency scenario
the flexibility would be beneficial.
A storage tank also eliminates sanding issues for wells that pump directly into the tank.
The tank provides an area for sand to settle which can then be removed periodically. The
flow that would be gained from a storage tank and booster pump station is also
guaranteed. In drilling a well, the final capacity of the well is not known until the well is
complete. For example, in comparing the two altematives an assumption was made that
wells would be constructed that would produce 1,500 gpm. However, in practice the well
is likely to produce from 1,000 to 2,000 gm with higher and lower capacities also
possible.
A large capacity booster pump station provides benefits to system stability. Rather than
meeting demands by cycling multiple smaller wells on and offthroughout the day, the
system is more stable and pressures more consistent using a VFD controlled booster
pump station pumping from a tank. The pump station can produce more flow than any
single well and adding a VFD pressure control allows the pump station to ramp up and
down to meet the changing demand conditions.
4.3 Discussion of Treatment Requirements for New or Upgraded
Facilities
Falls Water Company currently provides chlorine disinfection at six sources and sand separators
at four sources. It is anticipated that this general trend will continue and that all new sources
will include disinfection and that some will require sand separators. The water quality produced
by FWC wells is very high quality and no other considerations for treafinent are needed at this
time.
4.4 Storage, Pumping and Pressure Requirements
Falls Water Company does not currently have any storage or booster pump station facilities.
lnstead their system is configured so that all demand scenarios are met via pumping of well
sources. Falls Water Company prefers to maintain a minimum pressure of 50 psi. The highest
elevations are in the northeast corner of the system. Maintaining pressures of 50 psi in the
northeast corner result in minimum pressures of about 80 psi in the far southwest corner of the
system. Therefore, the minimum pressure for a given location in the system will range from
50 to 80 psi depending on elevation. Currently, pressures at the uppermost elevations within
the systerr dip to around 40 psi; however, modeling shows that 50 psi can be maintained with
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud]
September 2019
wutErr. ?ar aEtE, ,^^atr34
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
the recommended infrastructure improvernents and reconfiguring of system controls. Adding
storage as outlined in Alternative 1 would have the benefits
4.5 SeparatelrrigationFacilities
FWC currently does not have separate irrigation facilities for lawn watering and outdoor use.
To accomplish such a project, a completely dual system using canal water rights would have to
be constructed. FWC does not own any surface waterrights. The capital costs of installing such
a system and would be extremely high. We do not see this as an alternative for Falls Water
Company.
4.6 Staged Distribution
There is no need for staged distribution in Falls Water Company as the entire distribution
systern is one pressure zone.
4.7 Environmental Impacts Associated with all Alternatives
Several of the distribution lines recommended herein are in areas where waterlines do not
currently exist. However, these areas have been disfurbed by canal, road, farm and railroad
activities. At the draft stage of this facility plan, there are no known environmental impacts
associated with the alternatives given in this section.
4.8 System Classification and Operator Licensure
The system is currently classified as a Class III water system. Since all sources are
groundwater not requiring treatment of any kind except for chlorine disinfection FWC does
not need to be operated by an operator qualified for water treatrnent. No alternative discussed
in this chapter will change system classification or operator licensing requirements. A copy of
the Idaho Drinking Water System Classification Worksheet is included in Appendix J.
FWC's licensed distribution system operator is Tony Wise, Class III, License DWD3-21515.
Nathan Riblett, Class III, License DWD3-22750 is FWC's licensed substitute water operator.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Plannine Study
September 2019
FY,.IA.T { T.t ADD' ,r.^t 3'5
FALLSWATER CO., INC.
5.0 FIN^q.l ScnnnNING oF PnrNcpLl AlrrnNATIvES
Throughout this report the Falls Water Company system has been analyzed and projects have
been identified to address existing deficiencies as well as to prepare the systern to meet the future
needs of customers. The identified projects have been separated into four categories: A, B, C,
and D. The "A" projects address existing deficiencies, and all are recommended in order to meet
minimum service standards and provide high quality drinking water service. The "B" and "C"
projects represent two altematives. Combining one of these altematives with the "A" projects is
sufficient to meet minimum level of service standards and Falls Water Company's level of
service preferences. The "D" projects are outlined to plan for future growth within the system.
Cost summaries for these project alternatives are presented next.
5.1 Evaluation of Costs
Table 14 presents a sunmary of the existing project costs including Alternative l.
Table 14 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative I
D Project Description
A-1 Ryan Anderson Development Well
A-2 Crowley Road from lst Street to John Adams Pkwy (8" Extension)
A-3 Lincoln Road from 4743 E to Wood River Road (12" Extension)A-4 Replace 6" Pipe in Fall River Road with 8" Pipe
A-5 Replace 6" Pipe in Edwards Drive with 8" Pipe
A-6 Harding Lane from Kit Lane to lst Street (8" Extension)
A-7 25th East and Iona Road Waterline Extensions
A-8 Ammon Road from Pearce Drive to Greenwillow Drive (12" Extension)
a_o Ammon Road from Greenwillow Drive to O'Bryant Street (10"
Extension)
A-10 Replace 6" Pipe in Dixie Street with 10" Pipe
A-11 Replace 8" Pipe East of Well2 with 12" Pipe
A-12 First Street from Robison Drive to Wheatfield Lane (10" Extension)
A-13 First Street from Ammon Road to Nassau Drive (10" Extension)
L-14 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Lakewood Street and Upland Street
A-15 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Jensen Drive
A-16 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Contor Avenue
A-17 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Crawford StreetA-18 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - North Adams Drive
A-19 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Mobile Drive
a_rn lncrease the volumetric water right capacity by at least 535 acre-feet and
the diversion rate by 3,170 gpm
A-21 Reconfigure the SCADA system control of pump start and stop triggers
B-1 New 2.0 MG Storage Tank
B-2 New BoosterPump Station with 5,500 gpm capacity
B-3 New Tank Pipeline Upgrades
TOTAL
Table 15 presents a sunmary of the existing project costs including Alternative 2
Estimated Cost
$771,700
s319,000
$70,500
$72,900
$183,300
$95,900
$1,233,800
$147,800
$187,200
$42,600
$37,400
$245,100
s278,800
$411,900
s141,900
$454,800
$131,100
$166,500
$67,400
$1,230,500
$34,500
$2,517,200
9426,700
s367,800
$9,636,300
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
Fxr{r'rr r r., APP' r"orr.16
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Table 15 - Existing Project Costs with Alternative2ID Project Description
A-1 Ryan Anderson Development Well
A-2 Crowley Road from lst Street to John Adams Pkwy (8" Extension)
A-3 Lincoln Road from 4743 E to Wood River Road (12" Extension)
A-4 Replace 6" Pipe in Fall River Road with 8" Pipe
A-5 Replace 6" Pipe in Edwards Drive with 8" Pipe
A-6 Harding Lane from Kit Lane to lst Street (8" Extension)
A-7 25th East and Iona Road Waterline Extensions
A-8 Ammon Road from Pearce Drive to Greenwillow Drive (12" Extension)
^ n Ammon Road from Greenwillow Drive to O'Bryant Street (10"a-9
Extension)A-10 Replace 6" Pipe in Dixie Street with 10" Pipe
A-11 Replace 8" Pipe East of Well2 with 12" Pipe
A-12 First Street from Robison Drive to Wheatfield Lane (10" Extension)
A-13 First Street from Ammon Road to Nassau Drive (10" Extension)
A-14 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Lakewood Street and Upland Street
A-15 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Jensen DriveA-16 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Contor Avenue
A-17 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Crawford Street
A-18 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - North Adams Drive
A-19 Fallsbrook asbestos cement pipes - Mobile Drive
A_rn lncrease the volumetric water right capacityby at least 535 acre-feet and
the diversion rate by 3,170 gpm
L-21 Reconfigure the SCADA system control of pump start and stop triggers
C-l New Well in Northeast Area of System
TOTAL
Table 16 presents a summary of future 2}-year projected costs
Table 16 - 20-Year Future Projects Costs
Estimated Cost
$771,700
$319,000
$70,500
$72,900
$183,300
$95,900
$1,233,800
$147,800
$187,200
$42,600
$37,400
$245,100
$278,800
$411,900
$141,900
$454,800
$131,100
$166,500
$67,400
$1,230,500
$34,500
$674,100
$7,096,300
Estimated Cost
$4,629,900
$1,280,000
$365,700
$424,800
$392,200
$262,900
$8,280,000
$15,635,500
ID
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
Project Description
New Wells with about 9,000 gpm Capacity
New 1.0 MG Storage Tank
New Booster Pump Station with 3,000 gpm capacity
Crowley Road from Green Willow Lane to John Adams Pkwy (12"
Extension)
Iona Road from Pinnacle Drive to 3452lona Road (12" Extension)
Replace 6" Pipe in Monte Vista Avenue with 12" Pipe
Increase the volumetric water right capacity by 3,600 acre-feet and the
diversion rate by 9,100 gpm
TOTAL
Detailed cost estimates for each of the projects listed in Table 14, Table 17, and Table 16 are
included in Appendix A. Regarding existing project costs, Alternative 2 is clearly the lowest cost
solution. However, while Altemative I has higher costs, benefits to the system are also larger.
While it is difficult to assess the monetary value of the benefits of adding a storage tank, it is
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
FTHIRIT { T., AE'PI ',-O'.,fiIFALLS WATER CO., INC.
believed that they are large enough to justifr the increased expense. Final determination of the
best option will depord on Falls Water Company preferences and availability of funding.
5.2 Consideration of any Impacts to Water Supply Systems
The recommended projects would not impact other water supply systems. As new wells are
drilled, potential impacts on individual wells located near the selected well sites will need to be
considered.
5.3 Comparison of Alternatives by Providing a Broad-Brush
Environmental Analysis
At this point, environmental impacts of these projects have not been determined. However, a
few observations can be made at this time. First, distribution pipes recommended for installation
in this report would be laid in roads or alongside roads in developed areas. Next, the potential
storage tank would be constructed on the existing Well #9 site. Well sites are also expected to
be situated within new developments. Therefore, it is expected that environmental impacts will
be limited to areas that have already by impacted.
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Study
September 2019
Err{rRrr r r", Appr *rorr3{l
FATLS WATER CO., INC.
6.0 Srr,rcrno Ar,rnRNATIvE AI\D Iupr,nvrENTATIoN
6.1 Justification and Detailed Description of Recommended Alternative
Based on the preceding analysis and feedback from Falls Water Company personnel, it is
recommended that Falls Water Company proceed with implementation of the Alternative 1
projects. This will include completion of 'oA" and "B" projects as outlined in Table 14.
Included in those projects are one drinking water well, 18 pipeline installation projects, one
water right acquisition project, one SCADA improvonent project, and a storage tank/booster
pump station facility. Future projects, as shown in Table 16, should be periodically evaluated
for need. These projects fall into a five to 20-year planning horizon. Future projects are
provided for the purpose of planning and budgeting. However, since the futtre projects are
not expected to be constructed for several years, the remainder of this report will focus on the
existing projects.
6.2 Preliminary Design of Recommended Alternative
6,2.1. Schematics of the Selected Plan
Refer to Figure 9 for a map of the recommended projects.
6,2,2, Proposed Design Criteria
The preliminary design criteria based on the existing projects associated with Alternative
I are as follows:
Project A-1, new drinking water well: Pump design of 1,500 gpm at 380 feet
TDH.
Projects A-2 through A-19 and project B-3, pipeline improvement projects:
Pipeline lengths and sizes as shown in Table 7 and Table 8.
Project A-20, water right acquisition: Acquire water rights to increase the
volumetric water right capacity by at least 535 acre-feet and the diversion rate by
3,170 gpm in order to plan for immediate needs within the next three years.
Project A-21, reconfigure SCADA control: Adjust SCADA control as described
in Section 2.3.8 to improve systern stability and reduce daily pressure
fluctuations.
Project B-1, new storage tank: Constuct a 2.0 MG storage tank to provide 1.4
MG of equalization storage, 0.5 MG of fire flow/emergency storage, and 0.1 MG
of operational storage.
Project B-2, new booster pump station: Construct a new booster pump station to
pump from the storage tank into the systern. Preliminary design of the booster
station is for three pumps, each with a capacity of 2,750 gpm. Accounting for
pump redundancy, the design flow would be 5,500 gpm at 175 feetTDH.
This study does not attonpt to decide which construction qrye is preferable for the storage
tank. The final decision should be made as part of a preliminary engineering report or as
part of the bid process.
6.2.3. Design and Construction Completion Schedule
An implementation schedule has not yet been adopted by Falls Water Company. However,
because the Alternative 1 projects address existing deficiencies, it is recommended that
a
a
a
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility planning Stud]
September 2019
trYl{rRrr { T,., aDpr ,.rotr3{l
FALLSWATER CO., INC.
they be completed as soon as practicable. Projects A-l through A-6 should be considered
the highest priority as they address source capacity and fire flow issues. Projects A-13
through A-20 and B-1 through B-3 are intermediate in priority. These projects provide
tangible benefits to the system, but the potential consequences for a delay in completing
these projects is not as great as the highest priority projects. Projects A-7 through A-12
address looping and pipeline interconnectivity and should be considered the lowest
priority.
6.3 Justification of Recommended Alternative
The selected Alternative I will deliver much benefit to Falls Water Company. Although costs
associated with Alternative I are higher than Altemative 2 the additional benefits justiff the
increase. A listing of the primary benefits versus constructing only additional wells is as
follows:
Flow increase of 2,000 glm associated with a tank is larger than the expected 1,500 glm
flow from a new well.
Flow from the storage tank will not require a corresponding increase is water right
diversion rate.
The flow provided by a storage tank and boosterpump station is guaranteed, as opposed
to a well which has an unknow flow until it is completed.
Booster pumps provide flow more reliably due to redundancy and cost less to repair and
maintain.
A storage tank will help reduce sand in the systern by providing a capture point where
sand can be removed.
Hydraulic modeling demonstrates that a large capacity booster station improves stability
by reducing the number of individual small wells turning on and offthroughout the day
to meet changing demand conditions.
6.4 Total Project Cost Estimate
The total cost of existing projects in Altemative I is $9,636,300. The total cost of future
recommended projects is $15,635,500. Combined, the projected costs for system
improvernents during the coming 2}-year period is$25,271,800. Of that total, the single
largest contributor is water right purchases. Between existing and future recommendations,
the projected cost to obtain water rights through approximately 2040 is $9,510,500. Due to the
outsized contribution of water rights to the total cost, it is apparent that Falls Water Company
should be particularly diligent in planning and managing their water right portfolio.
6.4.1. Expected Monthly Charges
A full analysis of the recommended project's impact on user charges is beyond the scope
of this work. As a private for-profit utility, Falls Water Company's rates are set under
direction from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
6.5 Owner's Capability to Finance and Manage Projects
FWC has demonstated through past projects its ability to finance capital improvements and
bring projects such as the proposed herein to fruition.
a
a
a
a
a
o
Schiess & Associates
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Planning Study
September 2019
Erl{rprr { T.r aDDr ,rlotr1d0
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
6.6 Availability of the Most Suitable Land
FWC has been diligent in planning for futtne system needs. As a result land has already been
pnrchased that would allow forthe constnrction of storage tanla next to Wells #9 ard#2.
Sohiess & Assoolates
18030 Falls Water Conpmy Facility Planning Study
Septomber2019
EYr{rErr { T.r aeer ^ ttAf
FAI"LSVWERCO., ll,l0.
Rr,rnnnNcEs
Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization
rDAPA 58.01.08
USDA Soil Conservation Service. "Soil Survey of Bonneville County, Idatro." 1979
Schioss & Associatcs
18030 Falls Water Company Facility Ptenni,u Shrdy
September 2019
lliYlltDlT.l ?ai AD,,. ^^ttd?FAI"LSUATERCO,,IIIE.
EXHIBIT 2
FALLS WATERCO., INC.
Project Cost Estimates - Falls Water Co., Inc.
(3 PAGES)
acre 0.55 $0 $o1
Land acquisition (contribution in aid of
construction)
lump sum 1 $234,000 $234,0002Welldrilling
3 Mobilization for pump station construction lump sum 1 $34,300 $34,300
$244,5004Pump system including VFD, panel, motor,
discharge head, column pipe, lineshaft and pump lump sum 1 $244,500
5 Backup qenerator lump sum I $114,400 $114,400
$80 $71,6806Pump house structure (incl. interior & exterior
finishes)sq, feet 896
1 $60,000 $60,0007Pump house electrical and mechanical lump sum
1 $12,000 $12,0008SCADA link lump sum
1 $75,600 $75,600IPump station piping & valves lump sum
each 2 $20,000 $40,00010Sand separator
lump sum 1 $18,560 $18,56011Site grading
sq. yards 220 $60 $13,20012Concrete approach
linear foot 590 $4s $26,55013Pump to waste pipeline
lump sum 1 $2,500 $2,50014Waste line to small pit for sand separator
lump sum 1 $3,500 $3,50015Drain line and smalldrainfield
lump sum 1 $3,000 $3,00016Connection to existing system
Falls Water Company
Estimated Proiect Gost for Well 11 & Associated Pump Station
Item No. ltem
Total projected construction cost
Engineering, legal, & contingency @10% of construction
Total Estimated Project Cost
Unit
EfiIBlT2 OFAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Unit Gost Total Cost
$953,790
$95,380
$1,049,170
Prepared by S&A Engineers, PC 4t2612021
Falls Water Company
Estimated Project Gost for 2.0 MG Storage Tank & Booster Pump Station
(Projects B-1, B-2 & B-3 in the 2019 Facility Planning Study)
Item No. ltem
Total projected construction cost
Engineering, legal, & contingency @ 10a/o of construction
Total Estimated Project Cost
Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
$3,733,530
$373,350
J4-J0-6"880-"
E(HrBn 2 OF APPLTCATTOI{4 I 27 I 2021
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
5
1
Land acquisition (previously purchased about
2006)acre 2.5 $0 $0
2 Mobilization lump sum 1 $177,800 $177,800
3 Reconfigure pump bowls on Well9 lump sum 1 $20,000 $20,000
4 Reconfigure pump bowls on Well5 lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
Yard piping (connect discharge to existing
mainlines, connect wells to tank and connect
to pump-to-waste)
lump sum 1 $215,500 $215,500
6 Piping and valves to fill tank off the system (for
redundancy & emergency utilization)lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
7 AWWA prestressed concrete storage tank gallon 2,000,000 1.25 $2,s00,000
8 Excavation and backfill for the tank !ump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
9 Booster pump cans, short shaft, column &
pump, discharqe head, 200 Hp pump. VFD each 3 $129,000 $387,000
10 Pump station piping & valves lump sum 1 $100,050 $100,050
11 StructuralAddition to pump station made of
masonry block and wood truss roof sq. feet 860 $150 $129,000
12 Electrical and additions & alterations lump sum 1 $90,000 $90.000
13 Mechanical lump sum 1 $5,000 $5,000
14 Connect drain line to existing drainfield lump sum 1 $2,500 $2,500
15 SCADA link alternations and additions lump sum 1 $8,ooo $8,000
16 Pitrun for qrade raisinq ton 2,080 $16 $33,280
Crushed aggregate beneath concrete
approacg and for access to tank and booster
pumps
ton 550 $24 $13,20017
18 Concrete approach sq. yards 370 $60 $22,200
Prepared by S&A Engineers, PC
1 Mobilization for pump station construction lump sum 1 $15,600 $15,600
2 New pump panel and reinstallVFD lump sum 1 $25,000 $25,000
Backup qenerator lump sum3 1 $32,006 $32,006
4 Pump station structure (incl. interior & exterior
finishes)lump sum $100 $36,000
5 Pump station electrical and mechanical lump sum
360
1 $40.000 $40.000
6 Reinstall existinq SCADA link lump sum 1 s5,000 $5,000
7 Pump station pipinq & valves lump sum 1 $30,225 $30,225ISite qradinq lump sum 1 $2,200 $2,200
9 Pihrun qravel beneath concrete and roadbase lump sum 1 $3,670 $3,670
10 Road base beneath concrete and around
qenerator lump sum 1 $2,520 $2,520
11 Drain rock for landscaping lump sum 1 $4,233 $4,233
12 Erosion control fabric beneath drainrock lump sum 1 $1,539 $1,539
13 Retaining wall sq. feet 515 $30 $15,450
14 Concrete approach sq. yard 250 $60 $15,000
15 Storm drain catch basin, piping and French drain lump sum 1 $11,e2s $11,925
16
Catch basin, pipline for pump-to-waste and
reconnection to existing waste line at golf course
propertv line I
$11,2251umpsum
17 Plumbing drain line beneath building to catch
basin lump sum $2,0001$2 ,000
18 Connection to existing pitless unit lump sum ,l $2,000 $2,000
19 Connection to existing system lump sum $3,000 $3,000
20
21
$2,000
$15,680
Item No. Item
Seeding
Fencing
Total projected construction cost
Engineering, legal & contingency @ 12% of construction
Total Estimated Project Cost
Falls Water Company
Taylor Mountain Water System, Well 2
Estimated Project Cost for Pump Station & Site lmprovements
Unit
lump sum
linear foot
Unit Gost Total Gost
$2,000
$40
E(HIBIT2 OFAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
1
$11,225
$258,593
$31,030
1
392
$289,623
Prepared by S&A Engineers, PC 4t26t2021
EXHIBIT 3
FALLS WATERCO., [I\IC.
Storage Tank v. Drilling Wells Memorandum - Falls
Water Co., Inc.
(7 PAGES)
MEMOM
To:
From
Scott Bruce
Falls Water Company
Ryan Christensen, PE, PhD
S&A Engineers
470 B Street, Idaho Falls 83402
04t2812021Date:
Subject:Alternative Comparison for Building a Storage Tank Versus trfilling Wells
Within Falls Water Company's (FWC) 2019 Drinking Water Capital Facilities Plan, a need for
additional source capacity was identified. Two primary alternatives were considered for
increasing FWC source capacity. Alternative I included drilling a new well and constructing a
new storage tank and Altemative2 included drilling two new wells. Since both alternatives
include at least one well, the comparison of altematives can be simplified to a comparison
between constructing a storage tank and adding a new well. The following paragraphs present a
comparison of these two options.
As a first step, it is necessary to define what improvements will need to be included with each
altemative. The proposed storage tank would be operated by pumping directly from the existing
Wells 5 and 9 into the tank. A booster pump station would then pump water out of the tank and
into the systern. Based on modeling, a capacity of 5,500 gpm is recommended for the booster
pump station to make full use of combine capacities of Wells 5 and 9. In addition, transmission
pipeline upgrades will be needed in the vicinity of the tank to accommodate increased flow rates
Modification will also be needed to the well pumps to allow efficient pumping directly into the
storage tank. The total estimated cost for the tank, booster station, pipeline upgrades, and well
pump modifications is just over $4.1 million. An itemized breakdown of the capital costs
associated with these projects is included in Exhibit A.
The process of constructing a new well to pump water into the FWC distribution system will be
accomplished in two steps. The first step is drilling the well and the second step is building and
equipping the well house. For cost projections, it has been assumed that a 1,500 gpm well will be
constructed. Well capacity varies widely depending on subsurface conditions and it is impossible
to know how much water a well will produce prior to pump testing the well. However, 1,500
gpm was selected as a basis for comparison because wells drilled within the FWC service are
usually capable of at least 1,500 grm. The capital costs associated with drilling and equipping a
1,500 gpm well are estimated to be $840,000. A detailed breakdown of the cost is included as
Exhibit B.
In addition to capital costs, water right costs should also be considered. Falls Water Company's
water.ights have both flow rate and annual volume limitations. The flow rate limitation
determines the summertime peak hour dernand that can be supplied, and the annual volume
DfiIBIT 3 OF APPLICATION
FATLS WATER CO., !NC.
SrAffi
Alternative Comparison for Building a Storage Tank Versus Drilling Wells
limitation determines the average annual dernand that can be supplied. A2019 review of FWC's
rights found that the flow rate limitation was more restrictive as compared to the annual volume
limitation. It was determined that FWC had a deficiency of 753 gpm in flow rate and a reserve
capacity of 827 acre-feet in annual volume. These totals are based on the water rights owned by
Falls Water Company and do not include leased rights.
Moreover, it is expected that flow rate will continue to be the limiting factor in FWC water
rights. The ratio of peak hour demand to average day dernand is a system characteristic that
de,pends on a variety of factors including climate, demand types within the system, and the
availability of secondary water for irrigation. The observed peak hour and average day demands
for Falls Water Company are 10,600 gpm and 2,570 gpm, respectively, and the ratio of peak
hour to average day dernand is 4.1. In other words, for every I gpm of annual capacity, the
systern needs 4.1 gpm of peak hour capacity.
Falls Water Company can augment their flow and volume limits by purchasing water rights. The
purchased water rights will supplement Falls Water Companies existing rights but will also come
with their own flow and volume limitations. The rights most often available for purchase were
previously used for irrigation. Buying the rights for irrigating an acre of farmland yields 4 acre-
feet of volume and up to 9 grm of flow to FWC. Converting the volume to an average annual
flow rate gives 2.48 gpm. Therefore, the ratio of peak flow to average flow for the purchased
rights is 3.6, somewhat lower than ratio of demand within the system. Because the purchased
rights have a lower ratio than the system uses, peak hour flow will continue to be the limiting
factor, even as FWC purchases new right.
FWC has two option available to address this issue. The first is to accumulate excess rights in
terms of annual volume until they have adequate diversion rate rights to meet systern needs. This
option is required if FWC chooses to continue meeting system demand by drilling wells. The
second option is to build storage reservoirs in the system. Storage reservoirs allow the existing
wells to pump at a constant rate while peak flows are met by booster pumps. In this manner the
peak hour capacity of the systern can be increased, without increasing the diversion rate of the
wells. Adding the improvements listed with the storage tank above would increase the peak hour
capacity of the system by 2,000 gpm without requiring the purchase of additional water rights.
Purchasing water rights to operate a 2,000 grm well is estimated to cost just under $1.6 Million
based on a cost of $7000 for the water rights associated with an acre of farmland. (l acre of
farmland water rights yield a acre-feet volume and up to 9 gpm diversion rate).
Based on the capital cost for a 1,500 glm well, the expected cost for 2,000 gpm of well capacity
is about $ 1.1 million. Adding the water right cost to the capital cost give a total of $2.7 million
for adding 2,000 gpm of peak hour capacity through well construction. Based on these cost
estimates, it is expected that drilling a well will have a lower capital cost versus constructing a
storage tank. However, constructing a tank does have several advantages that are difficult to
place a monetary value on. Several are listed below.
1. The flow provided by a storage tank and booster pump station is guaranteed, as opposed
to a well which has an unknow flow until it is completed.
2. Water right change applications commonly take several years from initially starting to
look for a right to the time the right can be put in service.
2
E(HIB]T 3 OF APPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
0412812021
Alternative Comparison for Building a Storage Tank Versus Drilling Wells
3. Booster pumps provide flow more reliably due to redundancy, and cost less to repair
and maintain.
4. A storage tank will help reduce sand in the system by providing a capture point where
sand can be removed, reducing maintenance costs.
5. Hydraulic modeling demonstrates that a large capacity booster station improves stability
by reducing the number of individual small wells turning on and offthroughout the day
to meet changrng demand conditions.
Each of these items provides a tangible benefit to FWC. Items #l and l*2 relate to availability.
There are fewer unknowns, particularly with the timeline, associated with constructing a tank and
booster pump station versus drilling a well. Items #3 and #4 relate to reliability and maintenance.
A booster pump station will have built in redundancy, which is not possible with a well, while also
providing maintenance advantages. The final item, #5, is perhaps the most critical for long term
system operation. Under current conditions, it is sometimes necessary to operate the system
manually due to instability. As wells turn on and offpressure waves propagate through the system
which can make SCADA contol unpredictable. Continuing to add pumps increases system
complexity and increases the likelihood of unstable events. In contrast, adding the tank and booster
pump station will route two pumps through the tank, effectively reducing the number of pumps
connected to the system by a count of one. Based on these factors, adding a storage tank adjacent
to the location of Well9 is recommended even though the capital cost is higher.
3
EXHIB]T 3 OF APPLICATION
FALIIi WATER CO., INC.
0412812021
Exhibit A
E(HIB]T3 OFAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
Falls Water Company
Estimated Project Cost for 2.0 MG Storage Tank & Booster Pump Station
(Projects B-1, B-2 & B-3 in the 2019 Facility Planning Study)
Item No. Item
Total projected construction cost
Engineering, legal, & contingency @10o/o of construction
Total Estimated Project Cost
Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
$33,280
733,530
$373,350
TiliddEEd,
Efi lBlT 3 OF APPLTCATTO$27 I 2021
FALISWATERCO., INC.
1
Land acquisition (previously purchased about
2006)acre 2.5 $0 $0
2 Mobilization lump sum 1 $177,800 $177,800
3 Reconfiqure pump bowls on Well9 lump sum 1 $20,000 $20,000
4 Reconfiqure pump bowls on Well5 lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
5
Yard piping (connect discharge to existing
mainlines, connect wells to tank and connect
to pumpto-waste)
lump sum 1 $215,500 $215,s00
6 Piping and valves to fill tank off the system (for
redundancy & emergency utilization)lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
7 AWWA prestressed concrete storage tank gallon 2,000,000 1.25 $2,500,000
8 Excavation and backfill for the tank lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
I Booster pump c€lns, short shaft, column &
pump. discharqe head, 200 Hp pump, VFD each 3 $129,000 $387,000
10 :Pump station pipinq & valves lump sum 1 $100,050 $100,050
11 StructuralAddition to pump station made of
masonry block and wood truss roof sq. feet 860 $1 50 $129,000
12 Electrical and additions & alterations lump sum 1 $90,000 $90.000
13 Mechanical lump sum 1 $s,000 $5,000
14 Connect drain line to existing drainfield lump sum 1 $2,500 $2,500
15 SCADA link alternations and additions lump sum 1 $8,000 $8,000
16 Pitrun for grade raising ton 2,080 $16
Crushed aggregate beneath concrete
approacg and for access to tank and booster
oumps
17 ton 550 $24 $13,200
18 Concrete approach sq. vards 370 $60 $22.200
Prepared by S&A Engineers, PC
Exhibit B
EffiIB]T3 OFAPPLICATION
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
1
Land acquisition (contribution in aid of
construction)acre 0.55 $0 $0
2 Welldrillins lump sum 1 $234,000 $234,000
3 Mobilization for pump station construction lump sum 1 $25,200 $25,200
4 Pump system including VFD, panel, motor,
discharge head, column pipe, lineshaft and pump lump sum 1 $170,000
5 Backup generator lump sum ,l $75,000 $75.000
6 Pump house structure (incl. interior & exterior
finishes)sq, feet 672 $80 $53,760
7 Pump house electrical and mechanical lump sum 1 $55,000 $55.000
8 SCADA link lump sum 1 $12,000
9 Pump station piping & valves lump sum 1 $69,120 $69.120
10 Sand separator each ,l $20,000 $20,000
1',\Site grading lump sum 1 $18,560 $18,s60
12 Concrete approach sq. yards 220 $60 $13,200
13 Pump to waste pipeline linear foot 200 $38 $7,600
14 Waste line to small pit for sand separator lump sum 1 $2,500 $2,500
15 Drain line and smalldrainfield lump sum 1 $3.500 $3,500
16 lump sum 1 $3.000 $3,000
Falls Water Company
Estimated Project Cost for 1,500 gpm Well & Associated Pump Station
UnitItem No. ltem
Connection to
Total projected construction cost
Engineering, legal, & contingency @ 10o/o of construction
Total Estimated Project Gost
Unit Gost Total Gost
$170,000
440
$76,240
$838,680
E(HlBlTs OFAPPLICATION 4l^gl2021
FALLS WATER CO., INC.
1
Prepared by S&A Engineers, PC