Clark Public Utilities. 50-Year Water Supply Plan

Transcription

1 Clark Public Utilities 50-Year Water Supply Plan

2 Clark Public Utilities Formed in 1938, Water Service Started in 1951 Water Service Population of 97,000 Electric Service Population of 450,000 Power Generation 248 MW Total Revenue 2007 = $480M, Water $10M

3 CPU Objectives Meet Water Demand Needs for CPU, & Potentially Battle Ground and Ridgefield Plan for 50-Year Period Provide Service at Reasonable Cost to Rate Payers - Reliable, Uninterruptible Meet Requirements of WRIA 27/28 Planning Policies

4 Clark Public Utilities Overview of Presentation Clark County Water Supply Picture Clark Public Utilities Supply Future Supply Alternatives

5 Clark County, WA Bounded by Columbia River, North Fork of Lewis River, Cascade Mtns Forest, Agriculture, Urbanizing Ranked No. 1 Growth County in State between 1990 & 2000 at 45.03% Ranked No. 2 Growth County from 200 to 2007 at 20.21%

6 Clark County Clark 400, ,000 Historical Date From Clark County GIS 300,000 Population 250, , , ,000 50, Year

7 Percent Clark County - Percent Unincorporated unincorporated Historical Date From Clark County GIS Year

8 Clark County Population Forecast High Med 1,200,000 1,000,000 Historical Date From Clark County GIS Population 800, , , ,000 0 WA OFM - High Year

9 Clark County Municipal Demand Projections - Peak Day High Med Year 2000 MGD

10 Average Day Municipal Demand (mgd) Year CPU, BG & Ridgefield Vancouver County Wide* * Includes CPU, BG, Ridgefield, Vancouver, Camas & Washougal. Data obtained from WSP documents.

11 Current Annual Water Rights (Primary) CPU, BG & Ridgefield 14.4 mgd 16,088 af/yr Vancouver 30.9 mgd 34,615 af/yr County-Wide Municipal 54.5 mgd 61,068 af/yr

12 Clark County Water Right Reservation Reserves Groundwater within Clark County for Future Public Use (WAC ) Future Municipal Rights have Priority Date of August 13, 1986 WAC : Policy of Department to protect quality; discourage contamination or impair beneficial use Reservation includes 97,000 gpm and 65,300 af/yr Current Allocations include 28,735 gpm and 21,887 af/yr Remaining Reserves include 68,265 gpm and 43,413 af/yr (38.7 mgd)

13 Projected Average Day Water Demand versus Available Water Rights

14 Principal Supply Aquifers Recent Alluvial Aquifer (RAA) Pleistocene Alluvial Aquifer (PAA) Upper Troutdale Aquifer (UTA) Lower Troutdale Aquifer (LTA) Sand and Gravel Aquifer (SGA)

15 Aquifer Occurrence

16 Distribution of Existing Municipal Supply Sources

17 HILLHURST %g 14 T 7 N R 1 W R 1 E R 2 E R 3 E R 4 E T 7 N Potential Groundwater Supply Areas Yale Lake T 6 N T 6 N Lake Merwin Lake M erwin near Dam %U Yale Lake near Dam North Fork Le w is Rive r %U H A Y E S NF Lewis River near 12th Ave %U North Fork Le w is Rive r E T N A H E A L Y C E D A R C R E E K 21ST 41 4 T H %g 50 3 T 5 N Woodland 38 9 T H 39 9 T H 39 9 T H %g 503 Chelatchie Prairie T 5 N Enterprise %U Columbia River S of Lewis River %U EF Lewis River near Paradise Park %U La Center %U EF Lewis River East of La Center East Fork Le w is Rive r Yacolt Yacolt Columbia River 289 T H Ridgefield.-, T H GABLE 119TH %g 503 G A B R IE L AM B O Y RAILROAD T 4 N Pioneer 82ND East Fork Le%g 503 w is Rive r Daybreak L U C IA F A L L S %g TH T 4 N 259 T H 239 T H T 3 N Columbia River 209 T H 41ST 11TH Whipple Creek %g 502.-, T H %g TH 29TH 72ND 179 T H Mill Creek Meadow Glade 92ND 19 9 T H Meadow Glade Battle Ground 10th 142ND Battle Ground Salmon Creek Morgan Creek 167TH R IS T O 227TH Colum bia River near Caterpillar Island %U Vancouver Lake 36TH Salm o n C reek Cougar Canyon Creek.-, 5 Hazel Dell 99T H 88 T H Salmon Creek 1 19 T H.-, 205 Curtain Creek Glenwood/ Brush Prairie %g ND 172ND Mud Creek 182ND 212TH T 3 N Vancouver Lake 7 8T H Hazel Dell T 2 N Colum bia River near R RGP %U Boise Cascade %U %g 50 1 Lower River Road FRUIT VALLEY.-, 5 COLUMBIA 6 8T H 5 4T H 49 T H 4 4T H Vancouver Vancouver %g 14 GRAND F O U RT H P LA IN 18T H %g 500 Burnt Bridge Creek MIL L P L A IN M IN N E H AH A M A C A R T HU R 49 T H 39 T H 2 8T H 18 T H 9T H %g TH Orchards/ Grass Valley 162ND La c a ma s Creek 1S T %g T H 232ND SR-500 Lacamas Lake 53 R D %g ND Little Washougal River W a sh ou g a l Rive r T 2 N C o lu m b ia R iv e r E V E R G R E E N 38 T H 23 R D.-, 205 %U Colum bia River near 172nd %g 14 Camas 6 T H Camas/ Washougal 3R D 34TH Washougal T 1 N C o lu m b ia R iv e r %g 14 T 1 N

18 HIL LHURST 17 9 T H 1 99 T H T 7 N R 1 W R 1 E R 2 E R 3 E R 4 E T 7 N T 6 N Potential Surface Supply Areas Ya le Lake T 6 N Lake Merwin T 5 N Woodland 7 H A Y E S 38 9 T H NF Lewis River near 12th Ave %U North Fork Le w is Rive r 21ST 39 9 T H Lake Merwin near Dam %U E T N A T H CE DA R C RE E K 39 9 T H %g 50 3 %g 503 Chelatchie Prairie Yale Lake near Dam North Fork Lew is River %U H E A L Y T 5 N Enterprise %U Columbia River S of Lewis River %U EF Lewis River near Paradise Park %U 5 La Center %U EF Lewis River East of La Center East Fork Le w is Rive r Yacolt Yacolt Columbia River 289 T H Ridgefield.-, T H GABLE 119TH %g 503 G A B R IE L AM B O Y RAILROAD T 4 N %g 501 Pioneer 259 T H 6 82ND East Fork Lew %g is River Daybreak TH LU C IA F AL LS T 4 N 239 T H T 3 N Columbia River 4 Columbia River near Caterpillar Island %U Vancouver Lake 209 T H 41ST 36TH Salm on C reek 11TH Whipple Creek Cougar Canyon Creek %g 502.-, 5.-, 5 99 T H 19 9 T H Hazel Dell %g TH 50TH B attle Ground Mill Creek Meadow Glade Salmon Creek Glenwood/ Brush Prairie %g T H 1 19 T H.-, ND Curtain Creek 92ND Meadow Glade 10th 142ND Battle Ground 152ND Salmon Creek Morgan Creek Mud Creek 167TH 172ND 182ND R IS T O 212TH 227TH T 3 N Vancouver La ke 7 8T H Hazel Dell T 2 N 3 Columbia River near RRGP %U %g 50 1 Boise Cascade Lower River Road %U FRUIT VALLEY.-, 5 COLUMBIA 2 68 T H 54T H 4 9T H 44 T H Vancouver Vancouver %g 14 GRAND F O U RT H P LA IN 1 8T H %g 500 Burnt Bridge Creek MI L L P L A IN M IN N E H A H A MA C A R T HU R C o lu m b ia R iv e r %g 14 E V E R G R E E N 49 T H 39 T H 2 8T H 18 T H 9 T H %g TH Orchards/ Grass Valley 162ND La c a ma s Creek 1S T %g T H 28 T H 232ND SR-500 Lacamas Lake 53 R D %g ND Little Washougal River 23 R D W a sh ou g a l R ive r T 2 N T 1 N Transmission Line.-, %U Columbia River near 172nd %g 14 Camas 6 T H Camas/ Washougal 3R D C o lu m b ia R i v e r 34TH Washougal %g 14 T 1 N R 1 W R 1 E R 2 E R 3 E R 4 E %U Surface W ater Sources Roads - Major Proposed W ater D istribution P ipelines Railroads W a te r S u p p ly S o u rc e A re a s

19 WRIA 27/28 Watershed Plan Policies New Water Supplies should Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Stream Flow Regional Planning for Water Supply is Strongly Encouraged Impacts to Upland Streams must be Mitigated Focus Future Development in Tidally Influenced Lowland Areas and Deep Aquifers

20 Future Supply Considerations ESA Issues Limit Further Use of Shallow Upland Aquifers Deep Aquifer are Recharge Limited Future Demand must be met through Use of Shallow Lowland Supply Sources

21 Potential Future Supply Options/Areas SGA Uplands (North of Salmon Creek) SGA - Vancouver Lake Lowlands PAA Lewis River Lowlands PAA Steigerwald Wildlife Refuge PAA Westside Vancouver Lake PAA South Lake Area

22 SGA Uplands (North of Salmon Creek) Potential for Impacts to the East Fork Lewis River (mitigation required) Fe/Mn Treatment Costs Total Additional Yield likely < 5 mgd

23 SGA - Vancouver Lake Lowlands Fe/Mn Treatment Costs Total Additional Yield likely > 10 mgd Yield and WQ need to be confirmed through Testing Avoids Impacts to Port Cleanup

24 PAA Lewis River Lowlands Yield Potential Unknown (hydrogeologic setting suggests < 10 mgd) Fe/Mn Treatment Likely Required Located within Tidally Influenced Area Remote from Area of Highest Demand and Growth Transmission Infrastructure Costs are High

25 PAA East County Yield Potential Unknown (hydrogeologic setting would suggest high yield potential) Water Quality Unknown (hydrogeologic setting would suggest elevated Fe, Mn) Infrastructure Costs Limit Use as Regional Source (lengthy transmission pipeline required to reach CPU service area) May be suitable to meet long-term needs of Camas & Washougal

26 PAA Westside Vancouver Lake Productive Supply Area (> 50 mgd) Natural Water Quality Exhibits High Mineral Content (Fe, Mn, As, Hardness) Higher Infrastructure Costs for Treatment and Transmission Higher O&M Cost Sensitive Area designation Complicates Development Plume Containment will be required for Development of Large Water Supplies

27 PAA South Lake Area Most Productive Supply Area in Clark County (> 50 mgd) Preferred Site considering WQ Natural WQ Exhibits Low Mineral Content WQ Meets SDWA req ts untreated WQ safeguard via VOC treatment Preferred Site considering Environmental Reg s Preferred Site considering Cost Proximate to demand area Plume Containment is the Issue Impacting Development of New Water Supply

28 Supply Options Cost Summary Cost estimates are preliminary and subject to further refinements

29 CPU Supply Strategy Short-Term Supply Options: Continued Development of SGA Supply Sources Sara Area Sources Mitigation via Water Right Acquisition Exploration of Lewis River Lowland Source Tidal Zone Interim Options may be Sufficient to meet 10 to 15- Year Growth Needs Long-Term Supply Option: South Lake Area Testing, Permitting Containment of Port s Contamination

30

31

32

33

34

35

36 Key Issues for South Lake Development Timeframe & Method for Cleanup needs to be Established Regulatory Decisions on Source Control may greatly influence Cleanup Timeframes Uncertainties in Cleanup Timeframes need to be Considered State needs to Establish Containment Requirements for Contamination Future Withdrawals must be Considered (Vancouver, CPU, Port, Alcoa, Other Privates) Who is Responsible for Containment?

37 Questions?