sustained compliance for public water systems, chapter 2, workshop department of environmental...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
20
21