sustained compliance for public water systems, chapter 2, workshop department of environmental...

Field of View Case Study

Sustained Compliance for Public Water Systems,

Chapter 2, WorkshopDepartment of Environmental Conservation

Drinking Water Program

Anchorage, September 30, 2011

Jeff Warner

Program Coordinator

376-1861

jeff.warner@alaska.gov

Presentation OutlinePurpose of the studyBackground information about the systemIndications of a problemAdditional challengesSearching for a new sourcePlans for resolution of water quality/quantityCommunication with homeowners

2

Background InformationInitial construction of the water system began in 2004

Well drilled in September 2004 145 feet deep Flow tested for 4 hours = 30 gpm

System designed for 17 service connections600 gallons per day per home = 15,300 gallons per dayWell yield = 43,200 gallons per day

3

4

Background InformationOriginal water system design

2,000 gallon storage tank (required 1,700 gallons of storage)2 booster pumpsThree 36 gallon pressure tanks

Storage Tank

Well

Booster Pumps

Pressure Tanks

To Distribution System

5

Background InformationFinal Approval to Operate granted in December 2005Approval to Construct granted in December 2005

Mainline extension and additional 17 service connections for a total of 34 service connections

Approval to Construct granted in June 2006Mainline extension and additional 20 lots for a total of 54

service connections on the system Original plans projected full build-out within 5-10 years

6

Something’s Wrong!!In 2006, the system began experiencing

turbidityIn January 2008, construction approval

was granted for a coagulation and filtration treatment system

In July 2008, approval to operate was granted for 50% of the treatment system (2 of 4 required filters) less than 27 of 54 service

connections completed

7

Something’s WrongDocumented complaints began in May, 2008

Water is gray, but sediment settled out over timeTurbidity treatment went on-line in July 2008

2 of 4 filters installedMaintenance issues with filtersSupplementing the well with hauled water

Well production had decreased by two thirds

Complaint in June, 2009 Water “turned to mud”

8

Field of View WaterDirectly from the tap After settling for 10 days

9

Time to look for a new sourceOriginal well producing 5 gpmDrilled in six additional locations throughout the

subdivisionWhere’s all the water??????

In March, 2009, they finally hit water in well #7.Initial flow test produced 10 gpmWithin a couple months, production dropped to 5 gpm

10

11

Drill Baby Drill! Well #1 – Drilled in 2004

Initial output of 30 GPM

By 2009, output had decreased to 5 gpm

Well #2 – Drilled in 2004

Status: Initially produced but quickly diminished to 0 gpm

Well #3 – Drill date unknown

Located several lots away from Well #1

Status: DRY

Well #4 - Drill date unknown

Located on a separate tract from Well #1

Status: DRY

Well #5 - Drill date unknown

Located on a separate tract from Well #1

Status: DRY

Well #5 – Drilled in 2009

Located on a separate tract from Well #1

Status: DRY

Well #7 – Drilled in March 2009

Depth – 340 feet

Output of 5-6 gpm

Currently wells #1 & #7 are connected to the system with a combined output of approximately 10 gpm

12

What else can go wrong?Summary of challenges at this point:

Well production drastically dropped off Means they have to buy and haul water = $$$ Drilled 6 additional wells = $$$

50% staffed on maintenance staff Due to other expenses, staff was not getting paid

Diminished water quality Staining appliances = $$$ Silt clogging dishwashers/washing machines = $$$

Homeowners paying water bills

13

Something has to changeNew system owner/operator

Took over in February 2010Review of recordsMeetings with homeownersDevelop a plan to resolve the quality/quantity

issue

14

Weighing the OptionsFind a new aquifer within the subdivision

Hydro-geologic evaluation of the area Fractured bedrock with very small veins of ground water

Connect to existing system on neighboring propertyGrouse Ridge Subdivision

Individual low producing wells, privately ownedPrivate owners

Develop a man-made surface water sourceSecurity issues + expenses = unattractive option

15

16

It’s good to have a plan!…but how are we going to pay for it?Sources of funding

Rate payers (homeowners)Private lendersUSDA Rural DevelopmentDEC, Municipal Grants and Loans

BudgetPlan for the future (5-10 years out)

Communications with homeowners

17

And now, the rest of the story…October 2011 – Engineering submitted to DEC, loan

agreement finalizedNovember 2011 – Award construction contractDecember 2011 – Begin construction

Well house, excavation work, HDPE installation etc.March 2012 – MEA electrical main installationMay 2012 – Finalize mechanical workJune 2012 – Bring new well on-lineAugust 2012 – Decommission all existing (old) wells

18

SummaryPurpose of the studyBackground information about the systemIndications of a problemAdditional challengesSearching for a new sourcePlans for resolution of water quality/quantity

19

Resources and ContactsState of Alaska/DEC/Drinking Water Program file – Field

of View Park, PWSID #220135State of Alaska/DEC/Drinking Water Protection/Anne

Gleason – GIS MapsState of Alaska/DNR/Division of Mining, Land and Water

Hydrologic SurveyBen Winkler – Oasis Water LLC

oasis@ewaterpro.com

20

21