MEMORANDUM. Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 2 of 12

Transcription

1

2 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 2 of 12 MEMORANDUM must be pumped from the main stem of the river when available to obtain the desired reservoir yield. The diversion pumping rate for each off channel reservoir is included in Table 1. Then, after calculating the elevation area storage relationship for each site and determining the historical evaporation rates, the initial firm yield of the reservoir was estimated. The Consensus Method was used to estimate the environmental flow needs downstream of each reservoir. The historical drought of record for the study area occurred in the 1950 s, generally between the years 1952 and The critical period is the historical time of low flow that controls the determination of the available yield. Table 1 shows the resulting yields. Refer to Section 3 of the previous study for additional information on the methods used to calculate reservoir yields. Multiple reservoir sizes were considered for Sites 1, 2, and 12. A smaller reservoir size with a 10 MGD yield was studied to serve the, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, and the rural water districts. A larger reservoir size with a yield of 35 MGD was also considered to serve Joplin in addition to the entities listed above. During the screening process it was noted that Empire District Electric Company s delivery point was much closer to Site 12 than to Sites 1 or 2. Because of this, Site 12 was modeled to supply both Joplin and Empire District Electric Company in addition to supplying only Joplin. This is known as Option 12a. Serving, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, the rural water districts, and Springfield using hydropower releases from Stockton Dam was also considered. The low flow release from Stockton Dam is 40 cfs (26 MGD). Based on this information, it was determined that in order to maintain a reliable supply to meet the demands of the and Lamar areas (10 MGD) and Springfield (58 MGD), storage for the diverted hydropower releases would be required. A reservoir with a square base and 3:1 side slopes was assumed for modeling purposes of the storage facilities. In choosing the location of these reservoirs, level land was assumed. These storage reservoirs are named Site A and Site B. The available supply from Stockton was modeled using historical flow data. However, the turbines at Stockton Dam are not working currently and have been down for a significant amount of time. The historical data may not account for equipment failures such as the current one and it is unknown what the availability of hydropower releases from Stockton would be in situations like the current one. It should be noted that the demands utilized in this additional study were consistent with those used in the earlier July 2009 report. One distinction is provided here for clarity. The typical desired timeframe for long range studies is 50 years, which at this point would be for projected demands in the year The original report used information from two previous studies and had projections available for all the various cities in the area only for the year 2050, with the exception of Springfield. A separate study had a 2060 projection for Springfield and as this reflected the long term projected needs of the City as a regional supplier and was a better projection of the quantity of new water needed from the next major source of water supply for the City, it was used. The original report failed to distinguish that the long term projections for Springfield was actually a 2060 estimate, while the rest were a 2050 estimate. All the values represent reasonable targets, for planning purposes, of the long term water supply needs for the area.

3 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 3 of 12 MEMORANDUM Reservoir Site Service Area Table 1 Average Yields from Reservoir Sites Approximate Drainage Area (mi 2 ) Normal Pool (ft msl) Yield (MGD) Diversion Pumping Rate (MGD) 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts n.a. 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Joplin 2, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts , Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Joplin 12 Joplin 8 1, a Joplin, Empire Elec. 8 1, Storage Reservoir Service Area Reservoir Height (ft) Yield (MGD) Diversion Pumping Rate (MGD) A*, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts n.a B* Springfield n.a *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases Dam Construction Costs At this conceptual level, without preliminary design, a consistent dam configuration was assumed. All dams were assumed to be earthen fill with an impervious core and a combination of open trench and slurry trench cutoff. The slurry trench was assumed to reach to the estimated top of competent rock based on general geologic information that was available. The upstream slope was assumed to be capped with two feet of soil cement and a gravel base road was assumed across the top of each dam. Tops of dam were assumed to be 10 feet above the normal pool values listed in Table 1. Table 2 lists the consistent parameters between all of the sites for the dam construction costs.

4 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 4 of 12 MEMORANDUM Table 2 Assumed Parameters for Each of the Sites Dam Parameters Value Unit Avg. Upstream Slope 3.0 H to 1 V Avg. Downstream Slope 3.5 H to 1 V Top Width 20.0 ft Core Top Width 15.0 ft Core upstream Face Slope 0.5 H to 1 V Core Downstream Face Slope 0.0 H to 1 V Core Trench Top Width Min ft Core Trench Bottom Width 30.0 ft Core Trench Side Upstream Slopes 1.0 H to 1 V Core Trench Depth 10.0 ft Avg. Upstream Slope in Soil Cement 3.0 H to 1 V Upstream Soil Cement Thickness 2.0 ft Road Gravel Base Thickness 0.5 ft Road Gravel Base Width 15.0 ft Chimney Sand Filter width 3.0 ft Based on available mapping, a centerline profile was developed for each of the identified dam sites and the quantities estimated based on the described configuration. Preliminary, conceptual level costs estimates were developed based on estimated unit costs and quantities. Table 3 shows the conceptual dam construction costs for each of the scenarios.

5 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 5 of 12 MEMORANDUM Reservoir Site Table 3 Conceptual Dam Construction Costs Service Area Yield (MGD) Dam Construction ($Mil) 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts 10.7 $30 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, 35 $40 Joplin 2, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts 10.2 $22 2, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, 36 $44 Joplin 12 Joplin 25.7 $39 12a Joplin, Empire Electric 27.4 $41 A*, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts 10.4 $37 B* Springfield 59.6 $109 A* & B*, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Springfield 70.0 $146 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases Land Acquisition and Conflict Resolution The next major cost item reviewed was the estimated costs for land acquisition and conflict resolution, which includes land for the reservoir, homes and structures that would be in the reservoir area, lands needed for environmental mitigation, and the various conflict resolution issues, such as roads and utilities. Costs in the counties where the sites are located were taken from the previous study for Sites 1 and 2, and similar costs were also used for Site 12 and Storage Reservoirs A and B. It was assumed that the land and home costs for Site 12 would be similar to the costs assumed for the Prosperity Site in the previous study. The land and home costs for Storage Reservoir A were assumed to be Similar to Site 2, and the land and home costs for Storage Reservoir B were assumed to be similar to Site 6 of the previous study. Reservoir Land Costs Searches were performed on the Internet to estimate the rural land costs in the counties where the sites are located. This was separated from the costs of structures, which was added later. The total land purchase area was calculated using the normal pool area multiplied by a factor of 1.2 to account for land needed above the pool level for flood storage. The estimated land costs ranged from $4,600 to $6,000 per acre. Table 4 provides a breakdown of acreage and cost per acre of land for each site.

6 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 6 of 12 MEMORANDUM Reservoir Site Normal Pool Area (acres) Table 4 Conceptual Reservoir Land Costs Desired Reservoir Yield (MGD) Assumed Purchased Area (Acres) Land Cost Per Acre Land Cost ($Mil) 1 2, ,760 $4,600 $13 1 4, ,280 $4,600 $ ,080 $4,600 $5 2 3, ,200 $4,600 $ , ,320 $6,000 $8 12a 1, ,440 $6,000 $9 A* $4,600 $2 B* 3, ,720 $4,600 $17 A* & B* 3, ,200 $4,600 $19 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases Home Costs Average home costs in the area were estimated to range from $80,000 to $85,000, with the higher prices for reservoir areas nearer cities. The total number of homes was estimated by enlarging available aerial photography and identifying the number of structures within each pool area. It was not possible to differentiate between homes, businesses, or uninhabited structures. For conservatism, each noted structure was assumed to be a house. Table 5 summarizes impacted homes and average home costs assumed for each site. Reservoir Site Table 5 Conceptual Home Costs Desired Reservoir Yield (MGD) Approx. Impacted Homes Average Cost Per Home Home Cost ($Mil) $80,000 $ $80,000 $ $80,000 $ $80,000 $ $85,000 $4 12a $85,000 $4 A* $80,000 $0.8 B* $80,000 $4 A* & B* $80,000 $5 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases

7 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 7 of 12 MEMORANDUM Environmental Mitigation Land Costs Mitigation costs for environmental permitting requirements are typically controlled by the amount of land to be set aside. This can only be approximated on a general basis by multiplying the land cost per acre (see Table 4) by a mitigation ratio. The mitigation ratios for each site were 1.5 based on the relative level of mitigation expected. Historical mitigation ratios for existing dams have shown a continually increasing trend, but have not been higher than about 1.5 for water supply reservoirs. Though this data was developed for Texas, it would seem to apply to Missouri, as well. This was taken as a reasonable minimum for comparison. Table 6 is a summary of the mitigation costs and total land acquisition costs. Table 6 Environmental Mitigation Land Costs Conflict Resolution Reservoir Site Desired Reservoir Yield (MGD) Surface Area (acres) Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Land Cost ($Mil) , $ , $ $ , $ , $10 12a 27 1, $11 A* $3 B* 58 3, $21 A* & B* 68 3, $24 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases Conflicts are divided into two categories: minor roads and utilities and major roads. The minor roads and utilities costs were assumed as a lump sum cost for county and private roads and the usual minor utilities. This cost was based on visual comparisons from available aerial photography. The major road costs included state highways and freeways. The cost of the major roads was assumed to be $125 per linear foot for relocated roads and $3,000 per linear foot for bridges over the lake. The bridge lengths were usually assumed to be half of the total relocated length, except in a few particular cases where adjusted lengths were used. Table 7 is a summary of the conflict resolution costs and total cost for the land acquisition and conflict resolution.

8 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 8 of 12 MEMORANDUM Reservoir Site Desired Reservoir Yield (MGD) Table 7 Conflict Resolution Costs Minor Road & Utility Cost ($Mil) Major Roads & Railroads Cost ($Mil) Total Conflicts and Relocations Cost ($Mil) Total Land Acquisition Cost** ($Mil) 1 10 $8 $24 $32 $ $8 $24 $32 $ $8 $28 $36 $ $8 $28 $36 $ $8 $0 $8 $30 12a 27 $8 $0 $8 $32 A* 10 $4 $0 $4 $10 B* 58 $20 $0 $20 $62 A* & B* 68 $24 $0 $24 $72 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases **includes land cost, home cost, mitigation cost, and conflict cost Water Transmission Costs An important element in comparing one reservoir location to another is the cost of water transmission facilities needed to transmit the water from the reservoir to the location(s) where the water will be treated. In order to develop cost estimates, the beginning and ending point of each transmission pipeline had to be determined. The intake pump station and beginning point for each pipeline was assumed to be near the proposed dam location or downstream of the dam for Stockton hydropower releases. To determine the ending point for each pipeline, the location of existing water treatment plants were determined, or potential future water treatment plant locations were assumed. One potential water treatment plant location was selected on the west side of Springfield. In the earlier study, two potential water treatment plant locations were identified near Joplin, one on the east side, and one on the west side. Lamar has a current water treatment plant capacity of 1.25 MGD, but the City is only operating the plant at approximately half its current capacity. has groundwater treatment facilities, but no existing surface water treatment facilities. It was assumed that the location of any possible future surface water treatment facilities would be in the same vicinity as the existing groundwater facilities. The Lamar water treatment plant was selected as the delivery point for the rural water districts. Barton County Rural Water District was contacted and believes this is the most cost effective delivery location, and the City of Lamar agreed that it is reasonable to assume the District s water could be delivered in this area. The rural water districts will have to look into treatment options before using surface water from the reservoirs included in this study. Empire District Electric Company has a treatment plant (State Line Plant) west of Joplin near the Missouri Kansas Border. This plant was considered the delivery point for the electric company based on input from Empire District Electric Company. The next step was to determine the size of the required transmission facilities. Table 1 shows the average flow rates assumed for each scenario. Cost estimates were developed for Sites 1, 2, and Storage Reservoir A serving

9 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 9 of 12 MEMORANDUM only, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, and the rural water districts. Cost estimates for Sites 1 and 2 were then developed looking at larger reservoirs to serve, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, rural water districts, and Joplin. Cost estimates for serving only Joplin (Site 12), serving Joplin and Empire District Electric Company (Site 12a), and serving only Springfield (Storage Reservoir B) were also developed. Releases from Stockton Dam are used to supply Storage Reservoirs A and B. For cases where a supply was serving multiple entities, costs were shared when possible. Shared pipeline and diversion pump station costs were distributed based on the demand for each water user. Dam costs were also dispersed based on demands. For intake pump stations, it was assumed that the entities would share a building, but each entity would have their own pumps and equipment. Costs for intake pump stations were distributed based on the horsepower required to transmit the water to each entity. The costs for each entity are included in Appendix B. The distribution of shared costs was assumed and may not accurately reflect how the costs for each entity would be distributed. Table 8 Average Flow Rates from Reservoir Sites Reservoir Site Average Total Flow (MGD) Average Flow to (MGD) Average Flow to Lamar (MGD) Average Flow to rural water districts (MGD) Average Flow to Empire District Electric Company (MGD) Average Flow to Joplin (MGD) Average Flow to Springfield (MGD) a A* B* A* & B* *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases For each off channel reservoir, costs for a diversion pump station on the main stem of the river and a pipeline from the diversion pump station to the reservoir were also included. These diversion facilities were sized for peak flow, assuming a peaking factor of It was assumed a booster pump station would be required for a total pipeline length over 50 miles or total required pumping head of the system over 600 feet. It was also assumed that 2.5 hours of storage (at peak flow) is required at each booster pump station. Open top concrete tanks were assumed for ground storage. For Sites 12 and 12a, cost estimates were also developed assuming that the water supply could be released into Shoal Creek and withdrawn at the existing intake structure location for Joplin s water treatment plant or at an assumed intake structure for Empire District Electric s water treatment plant. The cost estimates include costs for new intake pump station facilities on Shoal Creek and a pipeline from the intake to the existing water treatment plants for Joplin and Empire District Electric. Due to the possible risks associated with releasing the

10 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 10 of 12 MEMORANDUM water into Shoal Creek for a relatively long reach, such as unauthorized diversions, difficulty in operational timing and control, possible pollution, and other concerns, the incremental costs of transmitting the water in a pipeline all the way to the proposed treatment plant is also included separately. The cost estimates for the option to release into Shoal Creek are referred to as Option A for Sites 12 and 12a. The total costs used for pipelines, pump stations, and ground storage tanks were based on standard costs relationships relative to pipeline diameter, total pump station horsepower, and ground storage tank sizes. These standards were developed for regional water supply planning efforts in Texas, updated to 2009 prices to match the previous reservoir screening study. Costs were also included for pipeline right of way at $11.50 per linear foot. See Section 8 of the previous study for additional information on water transmission cost assumptions. Table 9 summarizes the water transmission costs for each of the alternative sites. Details of each cost estimate are in Appendix B. Table 9 Water Transmission Costs Total Project Costs Reservoir Site Service Area, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Joplin, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Joplin Transmission Cost ($Mil) $42 $96 $62 $95 12 Joplin $26 12, Option A Joplin $26 12a Joplin, Empire $31 12a, Option A A* Joplin, Empire $27, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts $222 B* Springfield $291 A* & B*, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Springfield $513 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases Table 10 lists a summary of the conceptual costs, in 2009 dollars to be the same as the original report, for the construction of the dam, land acquisition including conflict resolution, and transmission pipeline costs, and the total costs. The total equals the sum of the components with technical services and contingencies included in the individual components of the cost estimates. Detailed conceptual cost estimates are included in Appendix B. The final column in Table 10 shows the unit capital costs per MGD of yield. These costs represent the total

11 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 11 of 12 MEMORANDUM estimated costs of raw water at the identified approximate treatment locations. Costs for treating the water and distributing it are not included. In addition, given the long time frame for development of such a project, it is important to remember that these costs will consistently rise with the costs of construction and other components as time goes by, so actual funding needs will be higher depending on when the project is actually implemented. Also, these costs do not address the issue of balancing the timing of payment and needs among the various participants. Another unknown consideration that is not included is the cost and impact to downstream reservoirs being impacted by the construction of these reservoir sites. These impacts may require additional releases or other compensation to downstream interests. Any additional releases would affect a larger needed reservoir size and cost. Table 10 Total Costs Reservoir Site Service Area Yield (MGD) Dam Construction ($Mil) Land Acq. & Conflict Res. ($Mil) Pipeline Cost ($Mil) Total Cost ($Mil) Capital Unit Cost ($Mil/MGD) Unit Cost of Water ($/1000 gal) 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural 10.7 $30 $63 $42 $135 $12.6 $1.83 water districts 1, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Joplin 35 $40 $88 $96 $224 $6.4 $1.10, Lamar, 2 Empire Elec., rural 10.2 $22 $49 $62 $133 $13 $2.27 water districts, Lamar, 2 Empire Elec., rural water districts, 36 $44 $81 $95 $220 $6.1 $1.10 Joplin 12 Joplin 25.7 $39 $30 $26 $95 $3.7 $ , Option A Joplin 25.7 $39 $30 $26 $95 $3.7 $ a Joplin, Empire 27.4 $41 $32 $31 $104 $3.8 $ a, Option A A* Electric Joplin, Empire Electric, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts 27.4 $41 $32 $27 $100 $3.6 $ $37 $10 $222 $269 $25.9 $7.27 B* Springfield 59.6 $109 $62 $291 $462 $7.8 $2.16 A* & B*, Lamar, Empire Elec., rural water districts, Springfield 70.0 $146 $72 $513 $731 $10.4 $9.43 *Storage Reservoirs for Stockton Hydropower Releases As can be seen in the table, the capital unit costs for Sites 1 and 2 with a 10 MGD yield are basically equivalent, but the unit cost of water for Site 1 at 10 MGD is less expensive than Site 2. With a yield of 35 MGD, the capital unit costs for Site 2 are slightly less expensive than Site 1 and the unit cost of water for each Site is equivalent. For Site 12, there are no savings for releasing into Shoal Creek (Option A) versus constructing a pipeline to

12 Supplemental Reservoir Screening Study July 23, 2010 Page 12 of 12 MEMORANDUM Joplin s water treatment plant. For Site 12a, the slightly less expensive option would be to release into Shoal Creek (Option A), rather than building pipelines to Joplin and Empire District Electric Company s water treatment plants. Using Stockton hydropower releases as a supply is significantly more expensive than any of the other options shown due to the high dam construction costs and the long pipelines needed to transport this supply. Summary and Recommendations The efforts described above are focused on the development of the sites and related estimates of costs. The efforts to review geologic and geotechnical issues have not been described, but were part of the sizing and estimating of the dam construction. It is unlikely that any unknown geologic feature will make any of the sites technically unviable or change the construction costs sufficiently to significantly change the cost comparison. Likewise, environmental issues, including water quality, were also reviewed. The estimated extent of environmental permitting is included in the land costs, only. The differing costs of delays and potential litigation during the environmental permitting process cannot be tabulated. Water quality varies from site to site. None of the sites appear to have water quality issues that would make the water unsuitable, though some may have issues from additional treatment costs to public perception. Based on the total costs and information gathered, to serve, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, and the rural water districts with a total supply of 10 MGD, Site 1 is the most economical option. Site 2 is slightly more expensive than Site 1 and using water from Stockton hydropower releases is significantly more expensive than both Sites 1 and 2 and is not recommended. To serve Joplin in addition to the entities listed above, with a total supply of 35 MGD, the cost of Sites 1 and 2 are equal. Serving Joplin from Site 12 with a pipeline to Joplin s water treatment plant is as economical as releasing the water back into Shoal Creek (Option A) and taking the water at Joplin s existing intake station. Serving Joplin and Empire District Electric Company with supply from Site 12a is less expensive than serving only Joplin with Site 12. For Site 12a, it is slightly less expensive for water to be released back into Shoal Creek (Option A) than building pipelines to each entity s existing water treatment plant. Using Stockton hydropower releases to serve Springfield is more cost effective (based on unit costs) than serving, Lamar, Empire District Electric Company, and the rural water districts with Stockton releases, but it is still a relatively expensive supply option. The high cost for this option is due to the high dam cost, the long pipelines needed to transport the supply, and the large size of the pipelines needed to transmit the diversion rates. The alternatives described in this memorandum report should not be considered by themselves, but should be set against the similar alternatives in the main 2009 report, including the comparison with alternatives connecting to existing sites. The processes and assumptions as well as costing methodologies were intentionally kept similar to effect a consistent comparison of all the alternatives.

13 APPENDIX A FIGURES

14 Bolivar Bolivar Stockton Stockton Lake Lake KEK June 2010 H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES All_Reservoirs.mxd Designed: TWR09433 File Path: Buffalo Buffalo Date: A-1 1" = 8 miles 69 Verbal Scale: Farlington Farlington Lake Lake 71 1 = 506,880 Lake Lake Fort Fort Scott Scott Pomme Pomme De De Terre Terre Lake Lake Absolute Scale: Fort Fort Scott Scott 54 FN Job #: Nevada Nevada 54 FIGURE El El Dorado Dorado Springs Springs 54 Lamar Lamar Site Site McDaniel McDaniel Lake Lake Columbus Columbus 44 Galena Galena Webb Webb City City Joplin Baxter Baxter Springs Springs Site 12 Aurora Aurora Miami Miami Monett Monett Neosho Neosho Lake Lake O O The The Cherokees Cherokees 8 60 Missouri America Water Company 25 MGD 166 City Utilities 58 MGD Republic Republic Mount Mount Vernon Vernon 44 Marshfield Marshfield 65 Springfield Carthage Carthage Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD Fellows Fellows Lake Lake 4055 International Plaza, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas p: (817) f: (817) MGD Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Reservoir Screening Review Girard Girard Potential Reservoir Sites and Water Supply Needs Liberal Liberal Miles 71 Table Table Rock Rock Lake Lake Cassville Cassville 160 Forsyth Forsyth

15 71 Cedar Liberal Girard Crawford Proposed WTP Barton Lamar Existing Lamar WTP Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Dade 5 MGD 24" " Site " Jasper 71 Cherokee Columbus 69 Webb City Carthage Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD Baxter Springs 166 Galena 44 Joplin 69 Miami 66 Legend Newton Proposed Pipelines Ottawa Proposed Dam Proposed Reservoir Lake O The Cherokees 60 Neosho. Existing WTP Proposed WTP 71 McDonald Miles Barry Site 1-10 MGD Yield Reservoir Screening Review Verbal Scale: 1" = 8 miles Absolute Scale: 1 = 412,008 FN Job #: TWR09433 File Path: H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES 10MGDSite1.mxd Date: Designed: FIGURE A-2 June 2010 KEK

16 71 Cedar Liberal Girard Crawford 69 Proposed WTP 160 Barton Lamar Existing Lamar WTP Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Dade 5 MGD Site 1 24" " Proposed Joplin WTP 48" Missouri America Water Company 25 MGD Cherokee Columbus 69 18" Webb City Carthage Jasper 166 Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD Galena 44 Joplin Miami 66 Legend Existing Joplin WTP Newton Proposed Pipelines Ottawa Proposed Dam Proposed Reservoir Lake O The Cherokees 60 Neosho. Existing WTP Proposed WTP 71 McDonald Miles Barry Site 1-35 MGD Yield Reservoir Screening Review Verbal Scale: 1" = 8 miles Absolute Scale: 1 = 412,008 FN Job #: TWR09433 File Path: H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES 35MGDSite1.mxd Date: Designed: FIGURE A-3 June 2010 KEK

17 71 Cedar Liberal Existing Lamar WTP Girard Crawford 69 Proposed WTP 160 Lamar Barton Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Dade 5 MGD 24" " 'Site 2 Jasper 71 Cherokee Columbus 69 Webb City Carthage 18" Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP Galena Joplin 166 Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD Baxter Springs Miami 66 Legend Proposed Pipelines Ottawa Proposed Dam Lake O The Cherokees 60 Proposed Reservoir Existing WTP Proposed WTP Neosho 71 Newton McDonald Miles Barry Site 2-10 MGD Yield Reservoir Screening Review Verbal Scale: 1" = 8 miles Absolute Scale: 1 = 412,008 FN Job #: TWR09433 File Path: H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES 10MGDSite2.mxd Date: Designed: FIGURE A-4 June 2010 KEK

18 48" 71 Cedar Liberal Girard Crawford 69 Proposed WTP 160 Barton Lamar Existing Lamar WTP Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Dade 5 MGD 24" " Site 2 71 Jasper Proposed Joplin WTP Cherokee Columbus 69 Webb City Missouri America Water Company 25 MGD Carthage 18" Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP Galena Joplin 166 Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD Existing WTP Miami 66 Legend Proposed Pipelines Ottawa Proposed Dam Proposed Reservoir Lake O The Cherokees Existing WTP Proposed WTP 60 Newton Neosho McDonald Miles Barry Site 2-35 MGD Yield Reservoir Screening Review Verbal Scale: 1" = 8 miles Absolute Scale: 1 = 412,008 FN Job #: TWR09433 File Path: H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES 35MGDSite2.mxd Date: Designed: FIGURE A-5 June 2010 KEK

19 Cherokee Jasper Carthage Webb City Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD (27 MGD option only) Joplin Galena 18" Baxter Springs 48" Existing Joplin WTP Site 12 Missouri America Water Company 25 MGD (Both 25 and 27 MGD options) Lake O The Cherokees Legend Ottawa Proposed Pipelines Proposed Dam Proposed Reservoir Existing WTP Proposed WTP Newton Neosho Miles Site 12 and 12a - 25 MGD and 27 MGD Yield Reservoir Screening Review Verbal Scale: 1" = 8 miles Absolute Scale: 1 = 222,000 FN Job #: File Path: TWR09433 H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES 25MGDSite12.mxd Date: Designed: FIGURE A-6 June 2010 KEK

20 Barton Barton Girard Girard Proposed WTP 5 MGD Lamar Lamar 30" 160 Q 3 Q Bolivar Bolivar Stockton Stockton Lake Lake Storage Reservoir A Liberal Liberal Crawford Crawford Lamar - 1 MGD Rural water districts - 2 MGD Dade Dade " Storage Reservoir B Fellows Fellows Lake Lake McDaniel McDaniel Lake Lake Greene Greene Columbus Columbus 69 Carthage Carthage Webb Webb City City Existing Empire District Electric Company WTP 166 Galena Galena Q 3 Lawrence Lawrence Joplin Newton Newton Lake Lake O O The The Cherokees Cherokees Miles Legend Monett Monett Existing Pipeline Proposed Pipeline Neosho Neosho Ottawa Ottawa Craig Craig Springfield Stone Stone Q 3 71 Existing WTP 160 Table Table Rock Rock Lake Lake Q 3 McDonald McDonald Cassville Cassville 65 Proposed Storage Reservoir Barry Barry 60 KEK June 2010 Designed: TWR09433 Republic Republic Aurora Aurora Miami Miami 59 8 City Utilities 58 MGD Q 3 Christian Christian Empire District Electric Company 2 MGD 0 Proposed Springfield WTP Mount Mount Vernon Vernon " 66 Jasper Jasper Cherokee Cherokee Labette Labette Date: 84 " Existing Lamar WTP 59 H:\WR_DESIGN\FIGURES Stockton.mxd Polk Polk Reservoir Screening Review Neosho Neosho Dallas Dallas File Path: 66" Proposed WTP Taney Taney Forsyth Forsyth 4055 International Plaza, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas p: (817) f: (817) " Farlington Farlington Lake Lake Verbal Scale: A-7 Cedar Cedar 1 = 506, FN Job #: Vernon Vernon Lake Lake Fort Fort Scott Scott Hickory Hickory Pomme Pomme De De Terre Terre Lake Lake 65 Bourbon Bourbon Parsons Parsons FIGURE 54 Stockton Reservoir Hydropower Releases Fort Fort Scott Scott Allen Allen Nevada Nevada 1" = 8 miles 54 St. St. Clair Clair Absolute Scale: El El Dorado Dorado Springs Springs 54

21 APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES

22 10 MGD -, Lamar, Rural Water Districts, Empire District Electric Company 5 MGD Lamar 1 MGD Rural districts 2 MGD Empire Dist. Elec. 2 MGD ACCOUNT NO. TWR09433 ESTIMATOR JLR, KEK CHECKED RAI DATE May 27, 2010 ITEM DESCRIPTION COST FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION Mobilization and Demobilization Care of Water Dam 1-10 MGD Missouri Reservoir Screening Conceptual Cost Estimate for Dam 1-10 MGD 1 LS $1,927,800 $1,927,800 1 LS $963,900 $963,900 Site Preparation and Restoration 34 acre $10,500 $353,700 Erosion & Sedimentation Controls 1 LS $578,475 $578,500 Excavation - Stripping 51,754 CY $2.73 $141,300 Excavation - Core Trench 105,348 CY $2.73 $287,600 Excavation - Service Spillway 177,000 CY $2.73 $483,200 Excavation - Emergency Spillway 580,713 CY $2.73 $1,585,300 Excavation - Borrow Site Impervious Fill 582,801 CY $2.30 $1,340,400 Compacted Fill - Random 812,483 CY $1.82 $1,478,700 Compacted Fill -Impervious Emb. Core & Trench & U/S Blankets 529,819 CY $1.82 $964,300 Borrow for Random 30,671 CY $1.82 $55,800 Slurry Trench 254,144 SF $8.00 $2,033,200 Soil Cement - U/S slope, Service Spillway, and Emerg. Spillway 50,180 CY $63 $3,161,400 Sand Filter - Underdrain System 28,522 CY $26 $748,700 Flexible Base - Access Roads 1,975 CY $63 $124,400 Reinforced Concrete - Spillway 10,000 CY $541 $5,410,000 Electrical System 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Misc. Instrumentation - Benchmarks, Piezometers, Inclinometers, Settle Plates 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 Construction Subtotal $22,188,200 Construction Contingency 35% $7,765,900 TOTAL DAM CONSTRUCTION COST $29,954,100 Portion of Dam Construction $14,977,000 Lamar Portion of Dam Construction $2,995,000 Rural Water District Portion of Dam Construction $5,991,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Dam Construction $5,991,000 COST FOR TRANSMISSION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PIPELINES 30-inch Pipeline to (to theoretical WTP) 51,700 LF $135 $6,980,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 51,700 LF $11.50 $595,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,094,000 Permitting and Mitigation $70,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $9,739,000 Lamar and Rural water districts 24-inch Pipeline to Lamar and Rural water districts 100,870 LF $108 $10,894,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 100,870 LF $11.50 $1,160,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $3,268,000 Permitting and Mitigation $109,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $15,431,000 Lamar cost for pipeline (Based on 1 MGD Demand) $5,144,000 Rural water districts cost for pipeline (Based on 2 MGD demand) $10,287,000 Empire District Electric Company 18-inch Pipeline to Empire District Electric Company 112,200 LF $72 $8,078,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 112,200 LF $11.50 $1,290,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,423,000 Permitting and Mitigation $81,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $11,872,000 Total of Pipeline Cost $37,042,000 Portion of Pipeline Costs $9,739,000 Lamar Portion of Pipeline Costs $5,144,000 Rural Water District Portion of Pipeline Costs $10,287,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Pipeline Costs $11,872,000 Page 1 of 3 Dam 1-10 MGD

23 ITEM DESCRIPTION INTAKE PUMP STATIONS 1000 HP Intake Pump Station (Shared between all entities - cost distributed by HP) 1 LS $3,551,000 $3,551,000 Engineering and Contingencies (35%) $1,243,000 Permitting and Mitigation $36,000 Total $4,830,000 Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (300 HP) $1,449,000 Lamar and Rural Water Districts Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (300 HP) Lamar Portion $483,000 Rural Water Districts Portion $966,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (400 HP) $1,932,000 TOTAL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION COSTS $41,872,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for $11,188,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for Lamar $5,627,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for rural water districts $11,253,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for Empire District Electric Company $13,804,000 Construction Total (Dam + Transmission Facilities) $71,826,000 Interest During Construction (36 months) $8,739,100 TOTAL COST $80,565,000 Total Construction Cost for $26,165,000 Total Construction Cost for Lamar $8,622,000 Total Construction Cost for rural water districts $17,244,000 Total Construction Cost for Empire District Electric Company $19,795,000 ANNUAL COSTS Total Project Annual Cost Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $5,853,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $161,000 Operation & Maintenance $684,000 Total Annual Costs $6,698,000 - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $2,132,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $50,000 Operation & Maintenance $249,000 Total Annual Costs $2,431,000 Lamar - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $703,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $18,000 Operation & Maintenance $81,000 Total Annual Costs $802,000 Rural Water District - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $1,405,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $37,000 Operation & Maintenance $162,000 Total Annual Costs $1,604,000 Empire District Electric Company - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $1,613,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $56,000 Operation & Maintenance $193,000 Total Annual Costs $1,862,000 Page 2 of 3 Dam 1-10 MGD

24 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT UNIT COSTS (Pre Amort.) Per MGD $670,000 Per Acre-Foot $598 Per 1,000 Gallons $1.83 TOTAL PROJECT UNIT COSTS (Post Amort.) Per MGD $85,000 Per Acre-Foot $75 Per 1,000 Gallons $ Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $486,000 Per Acre-Foot $434 Per 1,000 Gallons $ Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $60,000 Per Acre-Foot $53 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.16 Lamar - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $802,000 Per Acre-Foot $715 Per 1,000 Gallons $2.20 Lamar - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $99,000 Per Acre-Foot $88 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.27 Rural Water District - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $802,000 Per Acre-Foot $715 Per 1,000 Gallons $2.20 Rural Water District - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $100,000 Per Acre-Foot $89 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.27 Empire District Electric Company - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $931,000 Per Acre-Foot $831 Per 1,000 Gallons $2.55 Empire District Electric Company - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $125,000 Per Acre-Foot $111 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.34 Page 3 of 3 Dam 1-10 MGD

25 Dam 1-35 MGD Missouri Reservoir Screening Conceptual Cost Estimate for Dam 1-35 MGD ACCOUNT NO. TWR MGD -, Lamar, Rural Water Districts, Empire District Electric Company, Joplin 5 MGD Lamar 1 MGD Rural districts 2 MGD Empire Dist. Elec. 2 MGD Joplin 25 MGD ESTIMATOR JLR, KEK CHECKED RAI DATE May 27, 2010 ITEM DESCRIPTION COST FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $2,587,200 $2,587,200 Care of Water 1 LS $1,293,600 $1,293,600 Site Preparation and Restoration 48 acre $10,500 $506,000 Erosion & Sedimentation Controls 1 LS $776,081 $776,100 Excavation - Stripping 74,051 CY $2.73 $202,200 Excavation - Core Trench 172,785 CY $2.73 $471,700 Excavation - Service Spillway 177,000 CY $2.73 $483,200 Excavation - Emergency Spillway 580,713 CY $2.73 $1,585,300 Excavation - Borrow Site Impervious Fill 778,374 CY $2.30 $1,790,300 Compacted Fill - Random 1,420,617 CY $1.82 $2,585,500 Compacted Fill -Impervious Emb. Core & Trench & U/S Blankets 707,613 CY $1.82 $1,287,900 Borrow for Random 632,180 CY $1.82 $1,150,600 Slurry Trench 315,915 SF $8.00 $2,527,300 Soil Cement - U/S slope, Service Spillway, and Emerg. Spillway 85,656 CY $63 $5,396,300 Sand Filter - Underdrain System 37,619 CY $26 $987,500 Flexible Base - Access Roads 3,328 CY $63 $209,700 Reinforced Concrete - Spillway 10,000 CY $541 $5,410,000 Electrical System 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Misc. Instrumentation - Benchmarks, Piezometers, Inclinometers, Settle Plates 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 Construction Subtotal $29,800,400 Construction Contingency 35% $10,430,100 TOTAL DAM CONSTRUCTION COST $40,230,500 Portion of Dam Construction $5,747,200 Lamar Portion of Dam Construction $1,149,400 Rural Water District Portion of Dam Construction $2,298,900 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Dam Construction $2,298,900 Joplin Portion of Dam Construction $28,736,100 COST FOR TRANSMISSION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PIPELINES Diversion Pipeline 78-inch Diversion Pipeline 20,000 LF $550 $11,000,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 20,000 LF $11.50 $230,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $3,300,000 Permitting and Mitigation $110,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $14,640, inch Pipeline to (to theoretical WTP) 51,700 LF $135 $6,980,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 51,700 LF $11.50 $595,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,094,000 Permitting and Mitigation $70,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $9,739,000 Lamar and Rural water districts 24-inch Pipeline to Lamar and rural water districts 100,650 LF $108 $10,870,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 100,870 LF $11.50 $1,160,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $3,261,000 Permitting and Mitigation $109,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $15,400,000 Lamar cost for pipeline (Based on 1 MGD Demand) $5,133,000 Rural water districts cost for pipeline (Based on 2 MGD demand) $10,267,000 Empire District Electric Company 18-inch Pipeline to Empire District Electric Company 112,200 LF $72 $8,078,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 112,200 LF $11.50 $1,290,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,423,000 Permitting and Mitigation $81,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $11,872,000 Joplin 48-inch Pipeline to Joplin 72,600 LF $250 $18,150,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 72,600 LF $11.50 $835,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $5,445,000 Permitting and Mitigation $182,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $24,612,000 Total of Pipeline Cost $76,263,000 Portion of Pipeline Costs $11,830,400 Lamar Portion of Pipeline Costs $5,551,300 Rural Water District Portion of Pipeline Costs $11,103,600 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Pipeline Costs $12,708,600 Joplin Portion of Pipeline Costs $35,069,100 Page 1 of 3 Dam 1-35 MGD

26 ITEM DESCRIPTION PUMP STATIONS Diversion Pump Station 3,000 HP Diversion Pump Station 1 LS $6,832,000 $6,832,000 Engineering and Contingencies (35%) $2,391,000 Permitting and Mitigation $68,000 Total of Diversion Pump Station $9,291,000 Portion of Diversion Pump Station Costs $1,327,300 Lamar Portion of Diversion Pump Station Costs $265,500 Rural Water District Portion of Diversion Pump Station Costs $530,900 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Diversion Pump Station Costs $530,900 Joplin Portion of Diversion Pump Station Costs $6,636,400 Intake Pump Stations 3900 HP Intake Pump Station (Shared between all entities - cost distributed by HP) 1 LS $7,541,000 $7,541,000 Engineering and Contingencies (35%) $2,639,000 Permitting and Mitigation $75,000 Total $10,255,000 Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (200 HP) $526,000 Lamar and Rural Water Districts Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (300 HP) Lamar Portion $263,000 Rural Water Districts Portion $526,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (400 HP) $1,052,000 Joplin Portion of Intake Pump Station Costs (3000 HP) $7,888,000 TOTAL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION COSTS $95,809,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for $13,684,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for Lamar $6,080,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for rural water districts $12,161,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for Empire District Electric Company $14,292,000 Total Transmission Facility Construction cost for Joplin $49,594,000 Construction Total (Dam + Transmission Facilities) $136,040,000 Interest During Construction (36 months) $16,552,000 TOTAL COST $152,592,000 Total Construction Cost for $19,431,000 Total Construction Cost for Lamar $7,229,000 Total Construction Cost for rural water districts $14,460,000 Total Construction Cost for Empire District Electric Company $16,591,000 Total Construction Cost for Joplin $78,330,000 ANNUAL COSTS Total Project Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $11,086,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $1,522,000 Operation & Maintenance $1,450, Total Annual Costs $14,058,000 - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $1,583,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $153,000 Operation & Maintenance $196,000 Total Annual Costs $1,932,000 Lamar - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $589,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $40,000 Operation & Maintenance $69,000 Total Annual Costs $698,000 Rural Water District - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $1,178,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $80,000 Operation & Maintenance $139,000 Total Annual Costs $1,397,000 Empire District Electric Company - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $1,352,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $99,000 Operation & Maintenance $161,000 Total Annual Costs $1,612,000 Joplin - Annual Costs Debt Service (6% for 30 years) $6,383,000 Electricity ($0.09 kwh) $1,151,000 Operation & Maintenance $884,000 Total Annual Costs $8,418,000 Page 2 of 3 Dam 1-35 MGD

27 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT UNIT COSTS (Pre Amort.) Per MGD $402,000 Per Acre-Foot $358 Per 1,000 Gallons $1.10 TOTAL PROJECT UNIT COSTS (Post Amort.) Per MGD $85,000 Per Acre-Foot $76 Per 1,000 Gallons $ Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $386,000 Per Acre-Foot $345 Per 1,000 Gallons $ Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $70,000 Per Acre-Foot $62 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.19 Lamar - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $698,000 Per Acre-Foot $623 Per 1,000 Gallons $1.91 Lamar - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $109,000 Per Acre-Foot $97 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.30 Rural Water District - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $699,000 Per Acre-Foot $623 Per 1,000 Gallons $1.91 Rural Water District - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $110,000 Per Acre-Foot $98 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.30 Empire District Electric Company - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $806,000 Per Acre-Foot $719 Per 1,000 Gallons $2.21 Empire District Electric Company - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $130,000 Per Acre-Foot $116 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.36 Joplin - Unit Cost (Pre-Amort.) Per MGD $337,000 Per Acre-Foot $300 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.92 Joplin - Unit Cost (Post Amort.) Per MGD $81,000 Per Acre-Foot $73 Per 1,000 Gallons $0.22 Page 3 of 3 Dam 1-35 MGD

28 10 MGD -, Lamar, Rural Water Districts, Empire District Electric Company 5 MGD Lamar 1 MGD Rural districts 2 MGD Empire Dist. Elec. 2 MGD ACCOUNT NO. TWR09433 ESTIMATOR JLR, KEK CHECKED RAI DATE May 27, 2010 ITEM DESCRIPTION COST FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION Mobilization and Demobilization Care of Water Dam 2-10 MGD Missouri Reservoir Screening Conceptual Cost Estimate for Dam 2-10 MGD 1 LS $1,421,700 $1,421,700 1 LS $710,850 $710,900 Site Preparation and Restoration 20 acre $10,500 $210,100 Erosion & Sedimentation Controls 1 LS $426,393 $426,400 Excavation - Stripping 30,750 CY $2.73 $83,900 Excavation - Core Trench 60,456 CY $2.73 $165,000 Excavation - Service Spillway 177,000 CY $2.73 $483,200 Excavation - Emergency Spillway 580,713 CY $2.73 $1,585,300 Excavation - Borrow Site Impervious Fill 432,811 CY $2.30 $995,500 Compacted Fill - Random 481,427 CY $1.82 $876,200 Compacted Fill -Impervious Emb. Core & Trench & U/S Blankets 393,464 CY $1.82 $716,100 Borrow for Random - CY $1.82 $0 Slurry Trench 148,145 SF $4.00 $592,600 Soil Cement - U/S slope, Service Spillway, and Emerg. Spillway 24,716 CY $63 $1,557,100 Sand Filter - Underdrain System 17,069 CY $26 $448,100 Flexible Base - Access Roads 1,164 CY $63 $73,300 Reinforced Concrete - Spillway 10,000 CY $541 $5,410,000 Electrical System 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Misc. Instrumentation - Benchmarks, Piezometers, Inclinometers, Settle Plates 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 Construction Subtotal $16,305,400 Construction Contingency 35% $5,706,900 TOTAL DAM CONSTRUCTION COST $22,012,300 Portion of Dam Construction $11,006,000 Lamar Portion of Dam Construction $2,201,000 Rural Water District Portion of Dam Construction $4,402,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Dam Construction $4,402,000 COST FOR TRANSMISSION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PIPELINES Diversion Pipeline 60-inch Diversion Pipeline 20,000 LF $340 $6,800,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 20,000 LF $11.50 $230,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,040,000 Permitting and Mitigation $68,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $9,138, inch Pipeline to (to theoretical WTP) 73,150 LF $135 $9,875,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 73,150 LF $11.50 $841,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,963,000 Permitting and Mitigation $99,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $13,778,000 Lamar and Rural water districts 24-inch Pipeline to Lamar and Rural water districts 90,200 LF $108 $9,742,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 90,200 LF $11.50 $1,037,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,923,000 Permitting and Mitigation $97,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $13,799,000 Lamar cost for pipeline (Based on 1 MGD Demand) $4,600,000 Rural water districts cost for pipeline (Based on 2 MGD demand) $9,199,000 Empire District Electric Company 18-inch Pipeline to Empire District Electric Company 116,600 LF $72 $8,395,000 Right of Way Easements (ROW) 116,600 LF $11.50 $1,341,000 Engineering and Contingencies (30%) $2,519,000 Permitting and Mitigation $84,000 Subtotal of Pipeline $12,339,000 Total of Pipeline Cost $49,054,000 Portion of Pipeline Costs $18,347,000 Lamar Portion of Pipeline Costs $5,514,000 Rural Water District Portion of Pipeline Costs $11,027,000 Empire District Electric Company Portion of Pipeline Costs $14,166,600 Page 1 of 3 Dam 2-10 MGD