Water Distribution System Facility Plan

Transcription

1 Water Distribution System Facility Plan July 2007

2

3 CVO\

4 Contents Section Page Executive Summary...ES-1 1 Introduction Financial Plan Acknowledgements MWC Staff MWC Commissioners CH2M HILL System Description Service Area and Population System Configuration Water Use Water Supply Big Butte Springs Rogue River Water Quality Water Treatment Big Butte Springs Disinfection Facility Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant Pressure Zones Distribution Storage Reservoirs Distribution Pump Stations Distribution Piping System Water Demand History Definition of Terms Demands Average Day Demands Maximum Day Demands Peak Hour Demands Monthly Demands Peaking Factor Consumption Unaccounted for Water Per Capita Demands City of Medford Demand Factors Residential Per Capita Demand Factors Commercial and Industrial Demand Factors CVO\ III

5 CONTENTS, CONTINUED 4 Water Demand Projections Methodology Population Forecast Projected Water Demands Impact on Duff WTP Buildout Demand for the City of Medford Upper Pressure Zones Results Regulatory Review MWC Water Quality Goals and Water Quality Achievements Watershed Protection Big Butte Springs Rogue River Surface Water Treatment Regulations Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Groundwater Rule Distribution Regulations State Requirements Federal Regulations Surface Water Treatment Rules Total Coliform Rule Lead and Copper Rule Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule Possible Future Regulations of Interest Model Development and System Analysis Introduction Analysis and Design Criteria Source and Pumping Fire Flow Storage Pipeline Hydraulic Distribution System Model Description of the Model Development of the Hydraulic Model Calibration Methods and Results Existing System Analysis Average Day Demand: Big Butte Springs Supply Only Maximum Day Demand: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP Peak Hour Analysis: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP Minimum Hour Analysis Fire Flow Analysis IV CVO\

6 CONTENTS, CONTINUED Recommended Improvements for the Existing System Future System Analysis Maximum Day Demand: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP Peak Hour Analysis Minimum Hour Analysis Fire Flow Analysis Recommended Improvements for the Future System Pipeline Improvements Introduction Transmission Pipeline Improvements Distribution Pipeline Improvements Pump Station and Control Station Evaluation Introduction Background and Planning Criteria Pump Station Improvements Duff WTP High Service Pump Station Zone 1 Pumping Zone 2 Pumping Zone 3 Pumping Zone 4 Pumping Zone 5 Pumping Zones 6-10 Pumping Control Station Evaluation and Improvements Control Stations: Pressure Reducing Capacity Analysis Pumping Capacity Analysis New Booster Pump Stations Evaluation Reservoir Improvements Storage Criteria Storage Analysis Reduced Pressure Zone Gravity Zone Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Pressure Zones 6-10 (Future) Capital Improvements Plan Capital Improvements Plan Project Timing CVO\ V

7 CONTENTS, CONTINUED Project Cost Background Appendix A Design and Operating Criteria Exhibits 2-1 Water Facility Map MWC System Schematic Hydraulic Schematic of Water Distribution System MWC Pressure Zones MWC Reservoir Inventory MWC Pump Station Inventory MWC Distribution System Pipe Inventory by Material Type MWC Average Day Demands (mgd) Historical and Trendline Average Day Demands for MWC Historical Average Day Demand for Other Cities Historical Average Day Demand for Water Districts Maximum Day and Maximum Month Demands Historical Overall System Maximum Day Demand for MWC MWC System-wide Monthly Demand Pattern, MWC Average Monthly Demand as Percentage of Annual Demand, Monthly Demand for Other Cities, Historical Maximum Month Demand for Other Cities Historical Maximum Month Demand for Water Districts Historical MWC Maximum Month Demands: System-wide, Other Cities, and Water Districts Monthly Demand Records and Contribution from Duff WTP, January 2000 December Percentage of Total Monthly Production from Duff WTP MWC System-wide Peaking Factors ( ) Water Consumption by Customer Category System-wide Annual Metered Consumption (Volume) System-wide Annual Metered Consumption (Percent) City of Medford Metered Consumption (MG), Determination of MWC Service Area Population for Estimated 2005 Per Capita Demands of MWC Customers City of Medford Proposed Urban Reserve Area by Predominant Use Growth Rates and Demand Factors for MWC Projected MWC Service Area Populations Summary of Projected Demands (mgd) VI CVO\

8 CONTENTS, CONTINUED 4-4 Projected MDD Contributed by Customers Served by MWC Projected Overall System and City of Medford MDDs MWC 2026 Demand Projections: Full Time Operation of Duff WTP Expansion Plan for the Duff WTP and Future WTP Facilities Summary of Total Land Area by Class, and Buildout Population for Upper Pressure Zones Summary of Buildout MDD in the Upper Pressure Zones in the City of Medford MWC Water Quality Goals Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems Lead and Copper Monitoring Results Total Trihalomethane Data for , μg/l Haloacetic Acids (5) Sampling Data for , μg/l Fire Flow Requirements Locations of Hydrant Flow Testing Field Sites Calibration Results Pipe Lining Examples of Medford Water Commission Pipes Historical Diurnal Curve: Demand and Supply Summary System-Wide Pressures for Average Day Demand Conditions: Big Butte Springs Supply Only (Forward Mode) Percentage of Nodes by Pressure Range for Average Day Demands: Big Butte Springs Only (Forward Mode) System-Wide Pressures for Maximum Day Demand Conditions: Big Butte Springs Supply Plus Duff WTP (Reverse Mode) Percentage of Nodes by Pressure Range for Maximum Day Demands: Big Butte Springs Plus Duff WTP (Reverse Mode) System-Wide Pressures for Peak Hour Demand Conditions: Big Butte Springs Supply Plus Duff WTP (Reverse Mode) Percentage of Nodes by Pressure Range for Peak Hour Demands: Big Butte Springs Plus Duff WTP (Reverse Mode) Available Fire Flow for Big Butte Springs Supply Only (Forward Mode) Available Fire Flow for Big Butte Springs Plus Duff WTP During Maximum Day Demands (Reverse Mode) Locations Not Meeting Required Fire Flow Based on Land Use for Big Butte Springs Supply Only (Forward Mode) Locations Not Meeting Required Fire Flow Based on Land Use for Big Butte Springs Plus Duff WTP (Reverse Mode) Maximum Day Demand Systemwide Pressures (Reverse Mode) Maximum Day Demand Pressure Distribution Peak Hour Demand Systemwide Pressures (Reverse Mode) Peak Hour Demand Pressure Distribution Available Fire Flow (Reverse Mode) CVO\ VII

9 CONTENTS, CONTINUED 7-1 Transmission Improvements Shown by Project Transmission Improvements Shown by Pipe Size Pump and Control Station Evaluations Expansion Plan for the Duff WTP High Service Pumps Zone 1A Pumping Zone 2 Pumping Zone 3 Pumping Zone 4 Pumping Zone 5 Pumping Expansion Plan for the Pressure Reducing Valve Capacity in the Martin, Conrad, and Rossanley Control Stations Expansion Plan for the Pumping Capacity of the Martin, Conrad, and Rossanley Control Stations Reservoir Evaluation Zone 1A Storage Zone 2 Storage Zone 3 Storage Zone 4 Storage Zone 5 Storage Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Pipelines Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Control Stations Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Pump Stations Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Reservoirs Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Cost Summary Recommended Distribution System Improvements VIII CVO\

10 CVO\ Executive Summary

11 Executive Summary The Medford Water Commission (MWC) owns and operates a public water system that currently serves individual customers inside and outside the Medford city limits. MWC also provides water to four water districts and five nearby cities on a wholesale basis. The system has been assigned the state and federal Public Water System Identification No This Water Distribution System Facility Plan provides a comprehensive, updated plan for MWC. This plan describes the evaluation of the system and presents recommended improvements to address current and future needs. It includes discussion of specific projects, an updated, 20-year capital improvements plan (CIP), and future projections to Financial Plan MWC plans to prepare an updated 10-year financial plan based on the CIP developed in this facility plan. The financial plan is not included as part of this document. Service Area and Population In 2005, the MWC water system served an estimated total population of approximately 120,000 people, with approximately 71,000 people inside the City of Medford s city limits and 49,000 individuals outside the city limits. Within Medford city limits, over 21,000 accounts were residential (including both single and multi-family residences), and 2,300 were classified as commercial, industrial, or municipal accounts. Water Use History Recent average day demands in MWC s system have approached 29 million gallons per day (mgd). The trend over the 6-year period from 2000 through 2005 has been an increase of 0.51 mgd per year in average use. As is typical for Western Oregon utilities, MWC s water demands show a marked increase during the summer months because of landscape irrigation. During the evaluation period of 2000 to 2005, the summer demands averaged 1.5 times the annual average demands. The highest recorded single day demand in the system was 59.7 mgd on August 4, 2005, two times the annual average. In 2005, wholesale customers (other cities and water districts) accounted for 29 percent of the water sold. The remaining 71 percent of water was sold to retail customers: 44 percent for residential use, and 27 percent for commercial, industrial, and municipal use (city parks, public buildings, etc.). CVO\ ES-1

12 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Water Use Projections Water use projections were developed by assuming that per capita use will remain constant and by applying population projections that have been recently prepared by local planning agencies. The constant per capita approach provides a reasonable estimate of future water demand. However, this approach assumes that the proportion of residential to commercial and industrial water use remains constant. If MWC s customer base changes significantly over time, the water use projections presented in this report will need to be revisited. In addition, the projections do not account for the increased conservation that MWC may achieve through its ongoing conservation efforts. Exhibit ES-1 displays the resulting maximum day demand projections for the overall MWC system (including Medford and all of the MWC customers) and for the City of Medford, only. The maximum day demand is a significant value because supply and treatment facilities are designed to meet the maximum day demand. According to the projections, the overall system maximum day demand is expected to increase from 64 mgd in 2006 to 97 mgd in Considering only the water used within the City of Medford, the maximum day demand is projected to increase from 38 mgd in 2006 to 59 mgd in Water Supply Big Butte Springs The MWC s principal year-round source of water is the Big Butte Springs (BBS), located about 30 miles northeast of Medford and 5 miles east of the town of Butte Falls. The recharge area for the springs is approximately 56,000 acres, and includes the western slope of Mt. McLoughlin. The capacity from the springs varies from 25 to 35 mgd depending on rainfall, snow pack, and groundwater conditions. However, transmission facility capacity limits withdrawal to a maximum of 26.4 mgd. During drought conditions, withdrawal may be curtailed because of reduced flow or limits in use related to sharing of water rights with the Eagle Point Irrigation District. During a drought in 1992, flow was limited to 20 mgd during the month of June and 25 mgd during the remainder of the year. Rogue River During the summer months of May through October, the Rogue River is used as a supplemental source of water. Water is withdrawn approximately 3 miles north of the Medford city limits, near Touvelle State Park, and then treated in the Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant (Duff WTP). The current treatment capacity is 45 mgd. The plant was designed to facilitate expansion to 65 mgd. The Lost Creek Reservoir, located on the Rogue River approximately 20 miles upstream of the Duff WTP, contains approximately 465,000 acre feet of storage. Of this storage, 10,000 acre feet are allocated for municipal and industrial use. Currently the Cities of Phoenix, Talent, and Jacksonville purchase water from Lost Creek Reservoir for treatment and transport by MWC during the summer season. As part of their water supply contracts, ES-2 CVO\

13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY other cities served by MWC are required to secure Lost Creek Reservoir water, or provide other comparable water rights meeting their 2020 summertime demands, by As overall system demand increases, the Duff WTP will be required to produce larger quantities of water for a longer season to make up the deficit between demand and the 26.4 mgd maximum production capacity of the BBS. It is expected that by 2026, Duff WTP may be required to operate year round. An expansion of the Duff WTP from 45 to 65 mgd is projected to be needed by Further expansion of the production capacity from the Rogue River source is projected to be needed by System Configuration The major components of the system include the BBS and associated disinfection facility, the Duff WTP, control stations (which provide both pressure reducing and pumping functions), pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission and distribution piping that interconnect the system. The system operates in two distinct modes. Forward mode describes the operation when all water is supplied from BBS. Reverse mode describes the operation when water is supplied from both BBS and the Duff WTP. As of 2006, the system operates in forward mode for approximately 8 months each year, from the fall through the spring, when demands are low. The system operates in reverse mode during the summer months when demands exceed the supply from BBS and use of the Duff WTP for additional supply becomes necessary. Pressure Zones The MWC water system serves areas with elevations ranging from 1,250 to 2,250 feet. To maintain system pressures within an acceptable range at customer taps, the system has been divided into nine pressure zones. The two largest pressure zones are the Gravity Zone, which supplies most of the City of Medford and areas southwest of the city, and the Reduced Pressure Zone, which supplies north Medford, Central Point, and the White City area. The remaining pressure zones are fed by pump stations. Each has at least one reservoir that provides gravity storage to the customers within the zone. Distribution Storage Reservoirs MWC has sixteen reservoirs in service, including the Duff WTP clearwell. The largest reservoir system is the Capital Reservoir with an overall capacity of 12 million gallons (MG) in three separate reservoirs. These reservoirs are fed from the BBS Transmission Lines and provide storage for the Gravity Zone and Reduced Pressure Zone. The total storage capacity, including the 4.8-MG Duff WTP clearwell, is 36.2 MG. Distribution Pump Stations MWC has ten operating pump stations that supply water to service levels at higher elevations than the Gravity Zone. CVO\ ES-3

14 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Distribution Piping System MWC has approximately 440 miles of pipeline in its water transmission and distribution system. The system is predominantly looped and located within public rights-of-way, giving MWC access for repairs and maintenance. The pipeline system has been upgraded and expanded annually to serve the city's growing demands. Approximately 32 percent of the existing system has been installed or replaced since Regulations Community water systems are governed by rules developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. Oregon, as a primacy state, is required to implement water quality regulations at least as stringent as EPA s rules. For the most part, Oregon has adopted regulations identical to those at the federal level. In 1995 the MWC joined The Partnership for Safe Water, a voluntary coalition of organizations committed to providing safe drinking water. Since 1995, MWC has collected and evaluated water treatment performance data to optimize treatment performance and improve water quality. Three significant new federal rules may impact MWC. 1. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. This rule increases treatment requirements for surface water supplies, such as the Rogue River, if the raw water level of Cryptosporidium is considered high risk. The data that MWC has collected to date suggests that the system will not be impacted by this rule but further testing will be needed to confirm this. 2. Groundwater Rule. This rule applies to the BBS source. MWC, together with the state, will be further evaluating the risk potential for this supply to determine if additional treatment is warranted or required. 3. Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule. The purpose of this rule is to reduce peak disinfection byproduct concentrations in the distribution system. It does not appear that the requirements of this rule will necessitate treatment changes in the MWC system, but it does increase monitoring. Distribution System Evaluation A hydraulic model of MWC s distribution system was developed using MWC s graphical information database. The model was built as follows: 1) physical attributes of the system were checked to ensure they were accurately represented; 2) demands were allocated according to customer meter records; and 3) the model was calibrated against actual field measurements. Several demand conditions were evaluated: average day, maximum day, peak hour, minimum hour, and fire flow during a maximum day demand condition. These analyses ES-4 CVO\

15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY help identify hydraulic limitations, the ability of reservoirs to refill following a maximum day demand event, and areas where fire flows need improvement. Existing System Analysis The calibrated hydraulic model was used to simulate system performance under existing demands to determine the system s ability to meet design criteria. The system was evaluated for two different demand and supply conditions. One condition represented an average demand scenario when supply is only provided by the BBS (forward mode), and the second condition was for a maximum day demand condition with both the BBS and the Duff WTP in operation (reverse mode). No immediate distribution system changes were identified based on the hydraulic analysis System Analysis The model was used to simulate system performance under future (2026) demands to determine the system s ability to meet design criteria. By 2026, the system will only operate under reverse mode conditions. Recommended Pipeline Improvements New transmission and distribution pipelines will be needed in the future to increase water conveyance to meet growing demands while maintaining acceptable pressures throughout the system. Transmission pipelines are larger-diameter pipelines, such as the pipelines that deliver water from the Duff WTP to Medford, and others that feed large segments of the distribution system. Distribution pipelines are smaller in diameter and provide service only within a single pressure zone. Several major transmission line improvements from the Duff WTP, and in the north and center of the city, will be required as demands increase and the Duff WTP capacity and operation is expanded. Distribution improvements are recommended in the upper pressure zones and in the southwestern portion of the MWC service area to complete piping loops. Recommended Pump Station and Control Station Improvements No immediate improvements for pump stations are required to meet current demands. However, improvements will soon be necessary to meet demand in the upper pressure zones and to convey additional water from the Duff WTP. The capacity of the high service pump station at the Duff WTP will need to be increased significantly in the near-term, and a second expansion of capacity will be required when the Duff WTP is expanded within 20 years. Increased pump station capacity will be required for the Gravity Zone, Reduced Pressure Zone, and Pressure Zones 1 through 5 within 20 years. Increased capacity will be achieved by adding new pumps to existing pump stations, or constructing new intermediate pump stations. Currently, there is no development in Zones As development begins, closed end pump stations can serve these areas until there are enough customers to warrant a reservoir (approximately 25 houses). CVO\ ES-5

16 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Three control stations (Martin, Conrad, and Rossanley) provide the dual functions of reducing pressure during forward mode, when water is supplied from the BBS, and pumping during reverse mode, when water is supplied from both the BBS and the Duff WTP. As demands grow, the pressure-reducing capacity of the control stations will need to be increased. However, as winter demands approach the capacity of the BBS in approximately 2026, the Duff WTP will begin to operate year-round and the control stations will primarily serve as pumping stations, and will only provide pressure reduction for emergency service to the Reduced Pressure Zone from the Gravity Zone. Demand projections indicate that control station pump capacity will need to be increased in the nearterm, in 2009, and after Two new booster pump stations are recommended to increase water pressure for customers in the Reduced Pressure Zone during reverse mode operation. Recommended Reservoir Improvements New storage tanks are planned for Pressure Zones 1A, 2, and 3 over the next 20 years. The projects consist of a 1.5-MG reservoir for Zone 1A by year 2027, a 2.0-MG reservoir for Zone 2 by 2011, and a 1.0-MG reservoir for Zone 3 by Storage additions in the Gravity Zone will eventually be needed but these projects are not specifically identified in the CIP. When additional Gravity Zone storage is needed, this can be accomplished by replacing one or two of the existing Capital Reservoirs with larger reservoirs. Reservoirs may also be needed to serve Pressure Zones 6 through 10 as these areas develop. Capital Improvements Plan One of the goals for this facility plan was to provide long-term guidance for decision making: what facilities to build and when to build them, how to prioritize investments in existing facilities, and how to adjust to changing conditions or intervening events. The outcome is presented in a comprehensive CIP. Major elements of the CIP include the following: Transmission pipeline improvements to provide for expanded production from the Duff WTP. Expansion of the pressure reducing and pumping capacity of the three control stations. Construction of two booster pump stations in the Reduced Pressure Zone Construction of two reservoirs to serve Pressure Zones 2 and 3. The CIP project dates are approximate. MWC will annually adjust the projects and their implementation schedules to ensure that the system is managed efficiently to meet customer needs. Using the dates currently assigned in the Facility Plan CIP, the resulting funding requirements are shown in Exhibit ES-2. ES-6 CVO\

17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXHIBIT ES-1. Projected Maximum Day Demands Maximum Day Demand (mgd) Overall MWC System City of Medford CVO\ ES-7

18 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT ES-2 Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Cost Summary Project Title Begin Year Capacity Allocation Regulatory and Service Allocation Pipelines Total $11,300,000 $300,000 $11,700,000 PL-2 Pressure Zone 1 Southeastern Loop 2008 $260,000 PL-3 Pressure Zone 1 North Terrace Piping 2009 $110,000 PL-7 Pressure Zone 1 Loop to Cherry Lane to new Cherry Lane Reservoir 2 and Pressure Zone 2 pump station 2009 $831,000 PL-4 Part 1. 48" Avenue G intertie between 30" and 36" transmission lines on the north end Total Capital Cost Total 2010 $4,086,000 PL-5 Part 2. 36" Agate Road intertie between 30" and 36" transmission lines on the north end 2010 $1,129,000 Pipeline Projects PL-6 Pressure Zone 1 Interior Piping 2010 $72,000 PL-8 Part A: Add parallel pipeline to Vilas Road 20" intertie between 30" and 36" transmission lines on 2012 $459,000 south end, downstream of new Control Stations PL-9 Part B: Add parallel pipeline to Vilas Road 20" intertie between 30" and 36" transmission lines on 2012 $501,000 south end, downstream of new Control Stations PL-10 Barnett Feeder 2013 $352,000 PL-11a Parallel of pipe from Lone Pine PS in Zone $764,000 PL-11b Parallel of pipe from Lone Pine PS in Zone $316,000 PL-12 Pressure Zone 2 Southern Loop 2015 $80,000 PL-13 Pressure Zone 3 Loop (Cherry Lane) 2016 $989,000 PL-14 Add parallel 16" pipe south of Martin Control Station 2017 $1,206,000 PL-15 Pressure Zone 4 Loop (Aerial Heights) 2019 $430,000 PL-16 North Terrace Extension from Pressure Zone 3 to Pressure Zone $86,000 ES-8 CVO\

19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXHIBIT ES-2 (continued) Medford Water Commission Distribution System Capital Improvements Plan: Cost Summary Project Title Begin Year Capacity Allocation Total Capital Cost Regulatory and Service Allocation Control Stations Total $4,100,000 $2,100,000 $6,200,000 PRV-18 Control Station PRV upgrades 2008 $90,000 Rsvr's Pump Station Projects Control Stations PS-19a Expansion of Martin Control Station pumping 2008 $182,000 PS-19b Expansion of Rossanley Control Station pumping 2008 $215,000 PS-24 Expansion of pumping capacity at Conrad Control Station 2008 $238,000 PS-20 New booster stations 2016 $4,140,000 PS-30 Expand pumping capacity at control stations 2026 $1,288,000 Pump Stations Total $6,800,000 $0 $6,800,000 PS-21 New Barnett No. 2 Pump Station 2010 $920,000 PS-22 New Cherry Lane No. 3 Pump Station 2013 $1,001,000 PS-23 Stardust Pump Station upgrade 2014 $132,000 PS-25 Lone Pine No. 1 Pump Station upgrade 2018 $252,000 PS-26 Zone 4 pumping increase: Add Cherry Lane No. 4 PS (located at Cherry Lane Rsvr No. 3) 2018 $224,000 PS-27 Brookdale Pump Station upgrade 2023 $252,000 PS-31 Future Zone 6-10 closed-end pump stations 2026 $336,000 PS-32 Zone 1A Pump Station at north end of zone 2028 $1,120,000 PS-33 Zone 2 Pump Station: Lone Pine PS No $1,120,000 PS-34 Cherry Lane Pump Station No. 3 upgrade 2038 $280,000 PS-35 Zone 1A northern Pump Station upgrade 2040 $560,000 PS-36 Lone Pine No. 2 Pump Station upgrade 2050 $560,000 Reservoirs Total $7,100,000 $0 $7,100,000 RV-28 Cherry Lane No. 2 Reservoir 2009 $3,220,000 RV-29 Cherry Lane No. 3 Reservoir 2018 $1,568,000 RV-37 Lone Pine No. 1 Reservoir 2026 $2,352,000 Total for All Projects $29,300,000 $2,400,000 $31,700,000 Total CVO\ ES-9

20 CVO\ CHAPTER 1 Introduction

21 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Water Distribution System Facility Plan provides a comprehensive, updated plan for Medford Water Commission (MWC). It builds on previous planning studies, including the most recent Water System Facility Plan update of April This plan describes the evaluation of the system and presents recommended improvements to address current and future needs. It includes discussion of specific projects and preparation of an updated, 20-year capital improvements plan (CIP). Although it presents specific projects and proposed dates for implementing these projects, it must be recognized that the plan is intended as a guide. MWC will regularly review the specific projects and their schedules, and will make adjustments to ensure that the system is managed efficiently to meet customer needs. Financial Plan MWC plans to prepare an updated 10-year financial plan based on the CIP developed in this facility plan. The financial plan is not included as part of this document. Acknowledgements Preparation of this plan was a joint effort between MWC and CH2M HILL. The following individuals provided major contributions. MWC Staff Larry Rains, P.E., Manager Eric Johnson, P.E., Principal Engineer (Project Manager) Rodney Grehn, P.E., Staff Engineer (Modeling) MWC Commissioners Lou Hannum, Chair Jack Day, Vice Chair Cathie Davis Leigh Johnson Tom Hall CH2M HILL Paul Berg, P.E., Project Manager Jennifer Henke, P.E., Modeling Sheryl Stuart, Project Engineer CVO\

22 CVO\ CHAPTER 2 System Description

23 CHAPTER 2 System Description The Medford Water Commission (MWC) owns and operates a public water system that currently serves individual customers inside and outside the Medford city limits. MWC also provides water to four water districts and five nearby cities on a wholesale basis. The system has been assigned the state and federal Public Water System Identification No This section provides an overview of the system by describing the customer base, recent water use history, and the facilities that make up the system. The exhibits referenced are attached at the end of the chapter. MWC is responsible for ensuring that the water system is operated to deliver high quality, reliable, and safe drinking water to MWC s customers. Service Area and Population In 2005, the MWC water system served an estimated total population of approximately 120,000 people, with approximately 71,000 people inside the Medford City Limits and 49,000 individuals outside the city limits. Within Medford city limits, over 21,000 accounts were residential (including both single and multi-family residences), and 2,300 were classified as commercial, industrial, or municipal accounts. MWC provides wholesale water to the following water districts: Charlotte Ann, Elk City, Kings Highway, and Jacksonville Highway. In addition, the MWC provides wholesale water to the Cities of Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, and Talent. The MWC also provides direct service to individual customers that are located outside of the Medford city limits. The largest group of these customers is located in the unincorporated community of White City. In 2005, MWC served approximately 2,600 residential accounts for those customers located in water districts or individual customers located outside of the Medford city limits. The system also served approximately 400 commercial and industrial accounts in these same areas. System Configuration The configuration of the system is illustrated in three attachments at the end of this chapter, Exhibit 2-1 a system map, Exhibit 2-2 a system schematic, and Exhibit 2-3 a system hydraulic schematic. The major components of the system include the Big Butte Springs (BBS) and associated disinfection facility, the Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant (Duff WTP), control stations (which provide both pressure reducing and pumping functions), pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission and distribution piping that interconnect the system. As illustrated in the hydraulic schematic, the system serves widely varying topography, which necessitates the CVO\

24 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN use of multiple pump stations and reservoirs to provide appropriate pressures and reliable service to all of MWC s customers. The system operates in two distinct modes. Forward mode describes the operation when all of the Reduced Pressure Zone supply is obtained from BBS. Reverse mode describes the operation when the Gravity Pressure Zone supply is obtained from both BBS and the Duff WTP. As of 2006, the system operates in forward mode for approximately 8 months a year, from the fall through the spring when demands are low. The system can operate in reverse mode during the summer months when demands exceed the supply from BBS and it is necessary to use the Duff WTP. During forward mode operation, water enters the Gravity Zone from BBS. It is fed into the Reduced Pressure Zone through the pressure reducing valves (PRVs) in the three control stations that are located on the boundary between the Gravity and Reduced Pressure Zones. These three control stations, Martin, Conrad, and Rossanley, provide this pressure reducing function during forward mode operation. When the system is operated in reverse mode, the pumps in these stations lift water from the Reduced Pressure Zone into the Gravity Zone. Water Use Recent average day demands in the MWC s system have approached 29 million gallons per day (mgd). The trend over the 6-year period from 2000 through 2005 has been an increase of 0.51 mgd per year in average use. As typical for Western Oregon utilities, MWC s water demands show a marked increase during the summer months because of landscape irrigation. During the evaluation period of 2000 to 2005, the summer demands have averaged 1.5 times the annual average demands. The highest recorded single day demand in the system was 59.7 mgd on August 4, 2005, two times the annual average. In 2005, wholesale customers (other cities and water districts) accounted for 29 percent of the water sold. The remaining 71 percent of water was sold to retail customers: 44 percent for residential use and 27 percent for commercial, industrial, and municipal (city parks and city-owned buildings) use. Water Supply Big Butte Springs The commission s principal year-round source of water is the Big Butte Springs, located about thirty miles northeast of Medford and five miles east of the town of Butte Falls. The recharge area for the springs is approximately 56,000 acres, and includes the western slope of Mt. McLoughlin. The commission has a wellhead protection program to minimize risks associated with activities in the recharge area. The capacity from the springs varies from 25 to 35 mgd depending on rainfall, snow pack, and groundwater conditions. However, transmission facility capacity limits withdrawal to a maximum of 26.4 mgd. During drought conditions, withdrawal may be curtailed because of reduced flow or limits in use related to sharing of water rights with the Eagle Point 2-2 CVO\

25 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Irrigation District. During a drought in 1992, flow was limited to 20 mgd during the month of June and 25 mgd during the remainder of the year. MWC shares water rights to Big Butte Creek with the Eagle Point Irrigation District. In 1952 MWC constructed the Willow Creek Dam, to form the 350 acre Willow Lake with a usable surface water storage capacity of 8,000 acre-feet or 2.6 billion gallons. The MWC releases water from Willow Lake to increase flow in Big Butte Creek, and thereby allows a greater portion of high quality spring water to be used by MWC from shared water rights in Big Butte Creek. Willow Lake and the surrounding area are leased to Jackson County for recreational purposes and are administered by the Jackson County Department of Public Works and Parks. Rogue River During the summer months of May through October, the Rogue River is used as a supplemental source of water. Water is withdrawn at the Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant (Duff WTP) located approximately three miles north of Medford city limits, near Touvelle State Park. Current treatment capacity is 45 mgd. The Lost Creek Reservoir, located on the Rogue River approximately 20 miles upstream of the Duff WTP, contains approximately 465,000 acre feet of storage. Of this storage, 10,000 acre feet are allocated for municipal and industrial use. Currently the Cities of Phoenix, Talent and Jacksonville purchase water from Lost Creek Reservoir for treatment and transport by MWC during the summer season. As part of their water supply contracts, other cities served by MWC are required to secure Lost Creek Reservoir water, or provide other comparable water rights meeting their 2020 summertime demands, by Water Quality The treated water quality from both Big Butte Springs and the Rogue River complies with all current state and federal drinking water standards. The contaminants tested in the finished water are well below EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Water from the Big Butte Springs has low hardness and turbidity and an average temperature of 46 o F. Water is collected underground and is disinfected prior to transmission to customers. Turbidity levels in Rogue River water vary seasonally, with relatively low levels in summer months and higher levels in winter. A discussion of water quality regulatory issues is contained in Chapter 4, Regulatory Review. Water Treatment Big Butte Springs Disinfection Facility The chlorine disinfection facility was completed in Flow rate, chlorine residual, turbidity, temperature, and ph are monitored continuously, and an alarm system alerts operators of unusual conditions. A chlorine gas scrubber provides protection in case of chlorine leakage, and a 75 KW generator supplies power to maintain operations through an extended power outage. In , the chlorine disinfection system will be converted to bulk hypochlorite, and the scrubber will be eliminated. CVO\

26 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN Robert A. Duff Water Treatment Plant The Duff WTP was constructed in 1968 with a capacity of 15 mgd. In 1983 the plant was expanded and upgraded to 30 mgd, and in 2000 the plant was further expanded to a capacity of 45 mgd during summer, low-turbidity conditions. Treatment is achieved by coagulation, flocculation, and settling depending on season as explained below, followed by filtration and chlorine disinfection. Ozone disinfection was added in Gaseous chlorination facilities will be converted to bulk hypochlorite in fiscal year The intake facility, located on the Rogue River approximately 1,500 feet north of the WTP, is a concrete structure that houses two traveling screens and five pumps. Pumps No. 1 and 5 were installed in 1968 and No. 2 was replaced in Each of these three pumps has a capacity of 7.5 mgd. Pump 3, installed in 1982, and Pump 4, installed in 1995, each have a capacity of 22.5 mgd. Two transmission lines (30-inch and 36-inch diameter) run in parallel between the intake and the WTP. During summer months, when turbidity is low, contact basins only need to provide time for coagulation and flocculation prior to filtration. This is called direct filtration, and flocculated solids are removed primarily in the filters. Under summer, low turbidity conditions, the contact basins are rated at 45 mgd. During winter months, river turbidity is much higher, and some solids removal is necessary prior to the filters to avoid excessive backwashing. In 1998, rapid mixing, hydraulic flocculation, and solids launderers were added to the contact basins to allow the removal of settled solids prior to the filters. During winter conditions, the contact basins are rated at 22.5 mgd. A 1.8-MG clearwell is original to the plant. An additional 3.0 MG chamber was added in These clearwell chambers are unbaffled, and are rated at 45 mgd. There are five high service pumps. Pump 1, upgraded in 2005, has a variable speed drive and capacity of 4 to 8 mgd. Pumps 2 and 3, with capacities of 7.5 mgd, were installed in Pump 4 installed in 1981 and Pump 5, installed in 1995, each has a capacity of 15 mgd. The total firm capacity, with the highest capacity pump out of service, is 38 mgd. Pressure Zones The MWC water system serves areas with elevations ranging from 1,250 to 2,250 feet. To maintain system pressures within an acceptable range at customer taps, the system has been divided into nine pressure zones shown in the hydraulic schematic and summarized in Exhibit 2-4. This table describes the service levels, including the minimum and maximum pressures at customer taps. The minimum pressure provided at the customer connections is determined by subtracting the upper customer elevation value from the reservoir overflow elevation, and converting this value to pressure. The maximum pressure provided is determined by subtracting the lower customer elevation from the reservoir overflow elevation, and converting the value to pressure. As shown in Exhibit 2-1, MWC plans to add Pressure Zones 6 through 10, in the eastern area of the city, as development occurs. The two largest pressure zones are the Gravity Zone which supplies most of the City of Medford and areas southwest of the city, and the Reduced Pressure Zone which supplies north Medford, Central Point, and the White City area. The remaining pressure zones are 2-4 CVO\

27 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION fed by pump stations. Each has at least one reservoir that provides gravity storage to the customers within the zone. Distribution Storage Reservoirs MWC has sixteen reservoirs in service, including the Duff WTP clearwell. The largest reservoir system is the Capital Reservoir with an overall capacity of 12 MG in three separate reservoirs. These reservoirs are fed from the Big Butte Springs Transmission Lines and provide storage for the Gravity Zone and Reduced Pressure Zone. The total storage capacity, including the 4.8-MG Duff WTP clearwell, is 36.2 MG. All distribution reservoirs are located on hills, and therefore provide gravity storage for the service level they feed. Exhibit 2-5 lists all reservoirs in service, including their service level, overflow elevation, material type, volume, and date of construction. Only three reservoirs, Southwest, Barneburg, and Highlands do not have backup storage capacity. Distribution Pump Stations MWC has ten operating pump stations that supply water to service levels at higher elevations than the Gravity Zone. Exhibit 2-6 provides a summary of the pump stations including service level, year built, associated reservoir, and total capacity. Distribution Piping System MWC has approximately 440 miles of pipeline in its water transmission and distribution system. The system is predominantly looped and located within public rights-of-way, giving the commission access for repairs and maintenance. The pipeline system has been upgraded and expanded annually to serve the city's growing demands. Approximately 32 percent of the existing system has been installed or replaced since Exhibit 2-7 provides an inventory of the existing waterlines in the MWC system. The majority of waterlines are made of either ductile iron (61 percent) or cast iron (32 percent). About 60 percent of the pipe is 6 and 8 inches in diameter. CVO\

28 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION CVO\

29 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION CVO\

30 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION CVO\

31 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 2-4 MWC Pressure Zones Pressure Zone Name Reservoirs Reservoir Overflow Elevation (ft) Lowest Customer Elevation (ft) Maximum Static Pressure (ft) Highest Customer Elevation (ft) Minimum Customer Pressure (psi) Reduced Pressure Gravity Zone Capital 1, Zone 1A 2 Stanford; Barnett 1, Zone 1B 3 Barneburg 1,684 1, , Zone 1C 4 Southwest 1,735 1, , Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Hillcrest #1; Lone Pine #2 1, Hillcrest #2; Lone Pine #3 2, Stardust; Cherry Lane #4 2, Zone 5 Highlands 2, In winter the Reduced Pressure Zone is served from the Gravity Zone through pressure reduction at Conrad, Martin, and Rossanley Pressure Control Stations. In summer this zone is served by pumping from the Duff WTP. 2 Zone 1A is also known as Zone 1. 3 Zone 1B is also known as Barneburg Zone 4 Zone 1C is also known as Southwest Zone CVO\

32 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 2-5 MWC Reservoir Inventory Name Pressure Zone Overflow Elevation (ft) Volume (MG) Material Year Built Capital 1 Gravity Zone 1, Concrete Bullis Gravity Zone 1, Concrete 1965 Barnett Zone 1A 1, Concrete 1983 Stanford Zone 1A 1, Concrete 1971 Barneburg Zone 1B 1, Concrete 1959 Southwest Zone 1C 1, Concrete 2000 Hillcrest No. 1 Zone 2 1, Concrete 1972 Lone Pine No. 2 Zone 2 1, Concrete 2005 Hillcrest No. 2 Zone 3 2, Concrete 1972 Lone Pine No. 3 Zone 3 2, Concrete 2006 Stardust Zone 4 2, Concrete 1972 Cherry Lane No. 4 Zone 4 2, Concrete 1996 Highlands Zone 5 2, Concrete 1996 Duff WTP Clearwell Reduced Pressure 1, Concrete 1968 Total The Capital Reservoir System is comprised of three tanks CVO\

33 CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 2-6 MWC Pump Station Inventory Pump Station Name Pressure Zone Year Built Pumps From Pumps To (Reservoir and Overflow Elevation (ft)) Total Capacity (gpm) Archer Gravity Zone 1980 Bullis Capital (1,588) 8,400 Lone Pine Zone 1A 2005 Gravity Zone Stanford and Barnett (1,731) 2,500 Brookdale Zone1A 1970 Gravity Zone Stanford and Barnett (1,731) 3,480 Pierce Heights Zone 1A 1938 Gravity Zone Stanford and Barnett (1,731) 2,000 Barneburg Zone 1B 1959 Gravity Zone Barneburg (1,684) 1,600 Archer Zone 1C 1999 Gravity Zone Southwest (1,735) 1,550 Stanford Zone Zone 1 Reservoirs Hillcrest #1 and Lone Pine No. 2 (1,881) 3,640 Hillcrest Zone Zone 2 Reservoirs Hillcrest #2 and Lone Pine No.3 (2,031) 2,490 Angelcrest Zone Zone 3 Reservoirs Stardust and Cherry Lane No. 4 (2,181) 1,800 Stardust Zone Zone 4 Reservoirs Highlands (2,331) 1,150 CVO\

34 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 2-7 MWC Distribution System Pipe Inventory by Material Type 1 Material Length (miles) Portion of All Pipe Unknown 1 0.3% Concrete Cylinder 1 0.3% Cast Iron % Ductile Iron % Galvanized Iron < 1 0.1% PVC 5 1.2% Steel 6 1.4% Welded Steel % Total % 1 Transmission lines from Big Butte Springs to Coal Mine Station are not included in this inventory CVO\

35 CVO\ CHAPTER 3 Water Demand History

36 CHAPTER 3 Water Demand History This chapter describes the recent history of water use in Medford Water Commission s (MWC) water system. The historical data include average and maximum demands, per capita demands, metered consumption, and values for unaccounted water. This documentation of recent water use within MWC provides the basis for projecting future water use. The exhibits referenced are attached at the end of the chapter. Definition of Terms Demand refers to total water production, or the sum of metered consumption (residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal), unmetered uses (for example, fire fighting or hydrant flushing), and water lost to leakage and reservoir overflow. For MWC, demand (production) is the total amount of water entering the distribution system from Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP. Hourly water demands fluctuate in response to water use patterns by residential, commercial, and industrial customers. These short-term demands are met by a combination of production (water entering the system) and from withdrawals from the storage reservoirs. Hourly demands were estimated for use in distribution system modeling. Metered use or consumption refers to the portion of water use that is recorded by customer meters. Connection refers to a metered connection of a customer to MWC s system. Unaccounted for water (sometimes known as unbilled, or non-revenue water) refers to the difference between production and consumption. Unaccounted for water includes unmetered hydrant use, other unmetered uses, and water lost to reservoir overflow, and leakage. Meter inaccuracies (both production and customer) also contribute to unaccounted for water. Specific demand terms include: Average day demand (ADD): total annual production divided by 365 days Maximum day demand (MDD): the highest daily production during a calendar year Maximum monthly demand (MMD): the average daily demand during the month with the maximum month total Peak-hour demand (PHD): the highest hourly demand during a calendar year MDD is an important value for water system planning. The supply facilities (Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP) must be capable of meeting the MDD. If the MDD exceeds the combined supply capacity on any given day, finished water storage levels will be reduced. Consecutive days at or near the MDD will result in a water shortage. CVO\

37 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN The most common units for expressing demands are million gallons per day (mgd). One mgd is equivalent to 695 gallons per minute (gpm) or 1.55 cubic feet per second (cfs). Units of million gallons (MG) are also used. Demands MWC directly serves customers inside the City of Medford and some individual customers outside Medford city limits (the majority of whom are in unincorporated White City). Customers within four water districts surrounding Medford are served on a wholesale basis. In addition, MWC sells water on a wholesale basis to the five nearby cities of Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix and Talent. Within this report, including all exhibits, the term other cities refers to these five wholesale city customers. The sum of all retail and wholesale customers is the MWC overall system. Average Day Demands Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2 summarize annual average day demand (ADD) records for the overall MWC system for 2000 through The overall system values have ranged from 25.8 mgd to 28.9 mgd. The growth in the ADD has been steady throughout this period, averaging approximately 0.51 mgd increase per year as illustrated by the overall trendline in Exhibit 3-2. For the same period the ADD from other cities has increased at a rate of 0.40 mgd per year, and the ADD of water districts has decreased at a rate of 0.08 mgd per year. Exhibit 3-3 presents historical ADDs for individual cities and Exhibit 3-4 presents historical ADDs for water districts. Maximum Day Demands Exhibits 3-5 and 3-6 summarize overall system MDD records for 1970 through (MDD records prior to 2000 were obtained from the 1999 MWC Water System Facility Plan.) Within the period 2000 to 2005, the MDD has ranged from a low of 50.3 mgd to a high of 59.7 mgd. The highest value of 59.7 mgd occurred August 4, Two linear regressions are provided in Exhibit 3-6. The long-term regression which uses all 22 years of available data indicates that the MDD has historically trended upward at the rate of 0.86 mgd per year. If only the last six years of data are considered, a short-term linear regression indicates that the MDD is increasing at a much higher rate of 1.63 mgd per year. This difference in long-term versus short-term rates of change in MDD may be the result of actual changes in demand patterns in recent years, or it may be an artifact of normal fluctuation in MDD. MDDs fluctuate from year to year because they are strongly influenced by weather patterns such as the following: Maximum temperatures The number of consecutive days at high temperatures When the high temperatures occur during the summer (For example, if high temperatures occur early in the summer, the demand may be higher because residents are more consistent in their outdoor irrigation. Later in the summer customers may not be as inclined to maintain green landscapes.) Overall rainfall levels during the summer 3-2 CVO\

38 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY Consecutive days without rainfall Number of new homes with new landscapes, since owners will generally take extra care to keep newly installed landscapes thoroughly watered The records for MWC, displayed in Exhibit 3-6, show that within the last six years the MDD for a given year has varied from 2.1 mgd above the trendline (in 2005) to 3.9 mgd below the trendline (in 2001). An allowance of plus or minus 3.0 mgd from the projection curve provides an indication of the range of the MDD. Peak Hour Demands Peak hour demands for the MWC system were estimated based on reviewing production and reservoir level records for high use weeks from the summers of 2000 through The peak hour values were found to be approximately 1.5 times the MDDs. Therefore, the water demand during the peak hour of the maximum day is approximately 1.5 times the demand averaged over that entire day. The value for peak hour demand is used for determining needed storage volumes and to evaluate pipeline sizes. Monthly Demands Outdoor irrigation contributes to considerably higher demands in the summer months. Exhibits 3-7 through 3-9 illustrate this seasonal trend in water demand. Exhibit 3-7 shows the system-wide monthly demand pattern from January 2000 to December Exhibit 3-8 shows the system-wide average monthly demands as a percentage of annual demand for the same period. Historically, July and August have each averaged in excess of 14 percent of total annual demand. Exhibit 3-9 shows the 2005 monthly demand of other cities. To better correlate with other use data, this reflects month of use, not the following month when it was billed. The peak demand for the other cities appears in July and August. The highest maximum monthly demand (MMD) for other cities totaled 11.7 mgd in August of Exhibits 3-10 and 3-11 show historical MMDs for other cities and water districts, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 3-11, total sales to other cities increased between the year 2000 and 2002, and then stabilized. To better capture recent trends, linear regression analyses generated from data from were used to estimate 2005 demands from which future projections were made. Exhibit 3-12 illustrates the system-wide maximum monthly demand (MMD), from 2000 through This value has trended upward at a rate of approximately 1.6 mgd per year. The system-wide MMD occurred in July in three of the years, and in August three of the years. Annual total MMD of the other cities and water districts for the same period also are shown in Exhibit Exhibit 3-13 shows monthly demand and the contribution of water from the Duff WTP from January 2000 to December Exhibit 3-14 presents the percentage contribution from Duff WTP. As explained in the System Description, Duff WTP is used seasonally to supplement production from Big Butte Springs. The maximum percentage of monthly demand CVO\

39 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN contributed by Duff WTP was 58 percent of the July demand in The average June through September contribution from Duff WTP was 39 percent ( ). On an annual basis for , Big Butte Springs have contributed 88 percent of the total production and the Duff WTP has contributed 22 percent. Peaking Factor Peaking factor, the ratio of the maximum to average day demand (MDD/ADD), provides an understanding of peak summer use within the system. Exhibit 3-15 illustrates the history of MWC s peaking factors. The system-wide MDD/ADD has ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 and averaged 2.0 over the period This range of peaking factor is approximately the same as the MDD to ADD peaking factors used in the MWC s 1999 Water System Facility Plan. The system-wide MDD to MMD peaking factor has averaged 1.15 over the same period. MDD data for individual wholesale customers (other cities and water districts) are not available because master meters serving these customers are read monthly rather than daily. Therefore, MDD values for these wholesale customers were estimated by multiplying the MMD values of the wholesale customers by the overall system MDD/MMD peaking factor. Consumption All of MWC s water customers have metered connections. Exhibit 3-16 is a tabular summary of annual consumption by customer type for the entire system. This information is presented graphically in Exhibits 3-17 and Commercial, industrial, and municipal uses are classifications used by MWC for billing purposes. Residential use is the sum of single-family and multi-family residential accounts within MWC s service area. Other cities and water districts receive water from MWC on a wholesale basis. As shown in these exhibits, among retail customers, residential use accounted for approximately 45 percent of all metered water use within the MWC system in recent years. The percentage of industrial use has declined slightly over the period from 13 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in Commercial and municipal use remained steady at approximately 15 percent and 1 percent respectively, and wholesale consumption (other cities and water districts) increased from 25 percent in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005, averaging 27 percent for the period. Exhibit 3-19 summarizes customer use by category for residents within the City of Medford Single-family residential use represents 56 percent and multi-family use represents 16 percent of all metered consumption for a total residential percentage of 72 percent. Industrial consumption within the city limits has been relatively low at only 4 percent, while commercial use has averaged 21 percent and municipal use has averaged 3 percent. Unaccounted for Water Unaccounted for water is the difference between production amounts and metered use. The percentage of unaccounted for water equals the production minus the metered use, 3-4 CVO\

40 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY divided by the production. The causes of unaccounted for water include meter inaccuracies, reservoir overflows due to operational constraints, unmetered use, and leakage. Per Capita Demands Per capita demands equal the total metered water use plus unaccounted for water (total water production), divided by the service population. Since demand includes use by commercial, industrial, and municipal customers as well as residential customers, the per capita value exceeds the amounts of water actually used by a typical individual. MWC serves a variety of customers including communities with different mixes of residential, commercial and industrial components. This diversity of water users is reflected in the varied per capita demand values of individual communities. The per capita demand values are important because they are used for projecting future water use. Exhibit 3-20 shows the estimated service area populations for cities and water districts, and the retail customers for Populations within White City (an unincorporated community whose businesses and residences are served as outside customers), the water districts, and individuals outside city limits were estimated by MWC staff based on census data, account data and field investigation. Service area populations were estimated by adjusting the certified population estimates from Portland State University s Population Research Center to account for households not receiving water but within city boundaries, or receiving water but outside of boundaries. The service area population for White City was similarly reduced to account for households within the community boundary that do not receive water service. The 2005 ADD values predicted from linear regressions of historical ADDs are presented in Exhibit For the City of Medford and outside customers, ADD was estimated as the metered consumption plus a proportionate amount of the total unaccounted for water to represent total demand rather than metered consumption. Adding unaccounted for water to the metered consumption of retail customers resulted in the data from all customers being consistent, because wholesale customers per capita demand includes unaccounted for water. Per capita demands for the other cities, water districts, and retail customers, as well as the overall system per capita demands were estimated by dividing the 2005 ADDs by the respective estimated 2005 service area populations. Per capita MMD values were estimated from historical peaking factors specific to the different communities or customer groups. As previously noted, because customer meters are not read daily, MDD values are not known for other cities or other customer groups. Therefore MDD values were estimated from MMD values by multiplying by the overall system MDD/MMD peaking factor of City of Medford Demand Factors To evaluate distribution infrastructure for the City of Medford, such as pipelines, pump stations, control valves, and reservoirs, a buildout population was estimated for all lands within the proposed urban reserve area of this city, as shown in Exhibit This map shows the predominant land uses expected within the urban reserve area. CVO\

41 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN As noted above, per capita demand factors presented thus far include all metered water use plus unaccounted for water for all categories of demand (residential, commercial, industrial, municipal). In 2005, the City of Medford s metered consumption accounted for 79 percent of retail sales. Therefore, 79 percent of the unaccounted for water was added to the metered consumption to estimate demand. Demand factors specific to residential demand or commercial, industrial, and municipal demand were used for estimating buildout demands for the City of Medford based on developable land area within the proposed urban reserve boundaries pursuant to the ongoing Regional Problem Solving (RPS) urban reserve project, zoned for residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed uses. This approach is sufficient and reasonable for the level of planning presented in this document. Residential Per Capita Demand Factors The overall per capita ADD for the City of Medford in 2005 was estimated at 246 gpcd, as shown on Exhibit From Exhibit 3-19, single-family residential use represents 56 percent and multi-family use represents 16 percent of the total consumption. Furthermore, according to the City of Medford Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, 1995, single-family residents represent 70 percent of the population and multi-family residents represent 30 percent of the population. Therefore, the single- and multi-family residential per capita demands may be estimated as follows: Single-family average daily per capita demand = 0.56(246 gpcd)/0.7 = 197 gpcd Multi-family average daily per capita demand = 0.16(246 gpcd)/0.3 = 131 gpcd Commercial and Industrial Demand Factors Water demand by existing commercial and industrial enterprises was divided by the currently occupied land area in each customer class to obtain average day demand factors, in gallons per minute per acre, for each customer type. Both commercial and industrial water demand within the City of Medford averaged 1.5 gpm per acre (2,160 gpd per acre). This factor is comparable to commercial and industrial demand factors from other Oregon communities, and is suitable for projecting future demands. For Medford, 1.5 gpm per acre was multiplied by the land area available within the proposed urban reserve area for commercial, industrial, and mixed use development to estimate ADD buildout demand by pressure zone. The estimates for ADD were further adjusted by multipliers to arrive at MDD estimates. As the zoned areas develop, commercial, industrial and mixed use factors may be adjusted to reflect actual demands and the demand projections may be refined. 3-6 CVO\

42 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-1 MWC Average Day Demands (mgd) Year Overall System 1 Other Cities Water Districts Notes: 1. Overall system equals the total production of the MWC system. CVO\

43 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-2. Historical and Trendline Average Day Demand for MWC (Overall System, Other Cities, and Water Districts) Overall System ADDs Linear Regression 25 Average Day Demand (mgd) Example: Overall ADD in 2002 = (2002) = 27.1 mgd Linear Regression Equation Overall ADD = (Year) Other City ADDs Other City ADD = (Year) Water District ADDs Water District ADD = (Year) CVO\

44 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-3. Historical Average Day Demand for Other Cities 7 6 ADD (mgd) Central Point Eagle Point Jacksonville Phoenix Talent Total CVO\

45 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-4. Historical Average Day Demand for Water Districts ADD (mgd) Charlotte Ann Elk City Coker Butte Kings Hwy Jacksonville Hwy Total CVO\

46 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-5 Maximum Day and Maximum Month Demands Date Year MDD (mgd) ADD (mgd) Peaking Factor (MDD/ADD) MMD (mgd) Peaking Factor (MMD/ADD) 22-Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Aug Jul Jul Aug Aug Average CVO\

47 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-6. Historical Overall System Maximum Day Demand for MWC Long-Term Linear Regression: MDD = (Year) Maximum Day Demand (mgd) Historical MDDs Short-Term Linear Regression: MDD = (Year) Example: Regression MDD for 2002 = (2002) = 54.6 mgd CVO\

48 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-7. MWC System-wide Monthly Demand Pattern, Monthly Demand (mgd) Jan-2000 Jan-2001 Jan-2002 Jan-2003 Jan-2004 Jan-2005 CVO\

49 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-8. MWC Average Monthly Demand as Percentage of Annual Demand, % 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% Percent of Annual Demand 4% 2% 0% January February March April May June July August September October November December 3-14 CVO\

50 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-9. Monthly Demand for Other Cities, Monthly Demand (mgd) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Central Point Eagle Point Jacksonville Phoenix Talent CVO\

51 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT Historical Maximum Month Demand for Other Cities MMD (mgd) Central Point Eagle Point Jacksonville Phoenix Talent Total CVO\

52 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT Historical Maximum Month Demand for Water Districts MMD (mgd) Charlotte Ann Elk City Coker Butte Kings Hwy Jacksonville Hwy Total CVO\

53 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN 60 EXHIBIT Historical MWC Maximum Month Demands: System-wide, Other Cities, and Water Districts System-wide MMDs Linear Regression 50 Maximum Month Demand (mgd) Linear Regression Equation System-wide MMD = 1.596(Year) Other Cities' MMDs Water Districts' MMDs CVO\

54 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT Monthly Demand Records and Contribution from Duff WTP, January December Total Monthly Demand Monthly Demand (mgd) 10 Duff WTP Contribution 0 Jan-2000 Apr-2000 Jul-2000 Oct-2000 Jan-2001 Apr-2001 Jul-2001 Oct-2001 Jan-2002 Apr-2002 Jul-2002 Oct-2002 Jan-2003 Apr-2003 Jul-2003 Oct-2003 Jan-2004 Apr-2004 Jul-2004 Oct-2004 Jan-2005 Apr-2005 Jul-2005 Oct-2005 CVO\

55 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT Percentage of Total Monthly Production from Duff WTP 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Percentage of Total Monthly Production from Duff WTP 0% Jan-2000 Apr-2000 Jul-2000 Oct-2000 Jan-2001 Apr-2001 Jul-2001 Oct-2001 Jan-2002 Apr-2002 Jul-2002 Oct-2002 Jan-2003 Apr-2003 Jul-2003 Oct-2003 Jan-2004 Apr-2004 Jul-2004 Oct-2004 Jan-2005 Apr-2005 Jul-2005 Oct CVO\

56 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT MWC System-Wide Peaking Factors ( ) 2.5 Average MDD/ADD = Peaking Factor Average MDD/MMD = CVO\

57 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-16 Annual Water Consumption by Customer Category Year Residential Use Commercial Use Industrial Use Municipal Use Other Cities and Water District Use Total Use ,895 1,319 1, ,109 8, ,068 1,405 1, ,286 8, ,174 1, ,614 9, ,119 1,342 1, ,610 9, ,338 1, ,752 9, ,041 1, ,662 9,149 Average ( ) 4,106 1,375 1, ,505 9,130 Percentage of Use 45% 15% 11% 1% 27% 100% 3-22 CVO\

58 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT System-wide Annual Metered Consumption (Volume) 12,000 10,000 Metered Consumption (MG) 8,000 6,000 4,000 Other Cities and Water District Use Municipal Use Industrial Use Commercial Use Residential Use 2, CVO\

59 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXIBIT System-wide Annual Metered Consumption (Percent) 100% 90% 80% Metered Consumption (MG) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Other Cities and Water District Use Municipal Use Industrial Use Commercial Use Residential Use 20% 10% 0% CVO\

60 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-19 City of Medford Metered Consumption (MG), Year Single- Family Multiple- Family Commercial Industrial Municipal Total , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,123 Average 2, , ,210 Percentage of Use 56% 16% 21% 4% 3% 100% CVO\

61 MWC WATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN EXHIBIT 3-20 Determination of MWC Service Area Population for 2005 Adjustments to Population 2005 population estimate 2 Housing units served outside limits Housing units not served inside limits Net Housing units Served Average Household Size From 2000 U.S. Census Population adjustment 2005 MWC Service Area Population 1 Central Point 15, ,632 Eagle Point 7, ,619 Jacksonville 2, ,636 Medford 70, ,534 Phoenix 3 4, ,432 Talent 6, ,339 White City 2 7,070 7,070 Other outside customers Water Districts 2 3,861 3,860 Total 118,882 1 Service area population accounts for only those households receiving water service. Therefore, households outside of a given boundary that receive water service are added, and households within the boundary that do not receive water service are subtracted. 2 Population values for cities were obtained from the Portland State University Population Research Center. Populations for White City, water districts, and other outside customers were estimated by MWC staff from census data, account records and field surveys. 3 Adjustment accounts for population within the City of Phoenix that receives water from the Charlotte Ann Water District. Population was computed based on census data, updated through field surveys of new housing units, rather than being based solely on the number of housing units as was done for other entities CVO\

62 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-21 Estimated 2005 Per Capita Demands of MWC Customers 2005 MWC Service Area Population 1 Linear Regression Trendline ADD 2005 (mgd) Estimated 2005 Per Capita ADD (gpcd) 2 MMD/ADD (Average ) Estimated 2005 Per Capita MMD (gpcd) 3 Estimated 2005 Per Capita MDD (gpcd) 3 Central Point 15, Eagle Point 7, Jacksonville 2, Medford 4 70, Phoenix 4, Talent 6, White City 4 7, Other outside customers Water Districts System-wide Values 118, Service area population accounts for only those households receiving water service. Therefore, households outside of a given boundary that receive water service are added, and households within the boundary that do not receive water service are subtracted. Service area population from Exhibit Per capita ADD = Linear Regression Trendline ADD/ Service area population 3 Per capita MMD = Per capita ADD x MMD/ADD peaking factor specific to customer 4 Per capita MDD = Per capita MMD x overall system MDD/MMD peaking factor. The overall system MDD/MMD = ADD values for these retail customers are based on billing data plus a proportionate share of unaccounted for water. CVO\

63 CHAPTER 3 WATER DEMAND HISTORY EXHIBIT 3-22 City of Medford Proposed Urban Reserve Area by Predominant Use CVO\

64 CVO\ CHAPTER 4 Water Demand Projections

65 CHAPTER 4 Water Demand Projections This chapter describes projected water demands in Medford Water Commission s (MWC) water system. Historical per capita water demand, and service area population projections were used to project future water demand. The exhibits referenced are attached at the end of the chapter. Methodology A constant per capita approach was used to project future water demands. Per capita values represent the system demand divided by service population. Therefore, they include residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal demands as well as unaccounted for water. As noted in Chapter 3, MWC serves a variety of customers: retail customers include individual customers inside and outside the City of Medford s city limits including residents of unincorporated White City, and wholesale customers include four water districts surrounding Medford and five nearby cities. Baseline, 2005, per capita demands were estimated from historical water demand and service area population estimates for each of these customer types and were presented in Chapter 3, Exhibits 3-20 and Future water demands are projected by multiplying a constant per capita demand value by the projected population. In general, the constant per capita approach provides a reasonable estimate of future demand. However, this approach assumes that the proportion of residential to other types of demand remains relatively constant with time. If significant changes occur, for example the loss or addition of a high-demand industry such as food processing or wood products, per capita values will need to be adjusted. Conservation activities are likely to impact per capita usage levels somewhat during the planning period. However, since neither the focus nor magnitude of such reductions is currently known, impacts of conservation have not been incorporated into projections. Population Forecast Jackson County is currently engaged in developing a coordinated population forecast to be included in an update of the county s Comprehensive Plan in accordance with ORS ECONorthwest developed various scenarios in which population was allocated to each community. The county s Planning Commission endorsed an allocation that increased the baseline population for Jackson County by 3 percent over the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis s population forecast for Jackson County for the period 2005 to Final population allocations have yet to be adopted by Jackson County, but are not expected to differ significantly from the proposed allocations. Preliminary population estimates for Medford, the other five cities served by MWC, and White City developed by ECONorthwest during 2006 were used to estimate average annual CVO\

66 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN growth rates to apply to these communities for the periods 2005 to 2026 and 2026 to To determine growth rates beyond 2040, MWC staff provided 2056 population estimates based on allocations to cities pursuant to an ongoing, long term regional planning project known as, Regional Problem Solving (RPS), using population estimates dated January 27, Eagle Point s 2056 population estimate was increased slightly over the RPS forecast, however, because the 2040 allocation by Jackson County exceeded the RPS 2056 forecast. The 2056 population for the City of Phoenix was also increased from the RPS allocation to include annexation of some of the population now served by the Charlotte Ann Water District. Exhibit 4-1 presents the criteria used to project service area populations for the retail and wholesale customers of MWC. As discussed in Chapter 3, service area populations are determined from within-boundary populations by adjusting for households located within boundaries but not receiving water, or receiving water but located outside of boundaries. Estimated average annual growth rates for each period were applied to baseline 2005 service area populations to project future service area populations: (1) P t = P (1 + R) 0 t ( t t ) 0 Where P t = service area population at time, t P t0 = service area population at time, t 0 R = average annual growth rate. MWC policies limit the extension of water service beyond the boundaries of incorporated cities and the White City Unincorporated Community Boundary. Service area population growth is therefore expected to occur within these urban entities, rather than as individual outside customers or within water districts. As city boundaries grow, individuals and water districts are likely to be annexed. Therefore the outside customer and water district populations will decline. MWC staff provided service population estimates for water districts and outside customers. Exhibit 4-2 presents projected service area populations. Projected Water Demands Exhibit 4-3 summarizes future ADD, MMD, and MDD values for 2005, 2026, 2040 and 2056, and Exhibit 4-4 graphically displays the projected individual and system-wide MDDs for the initial 20-year planning period. The system-wide MDD is projected to approach 97 mgd by 2026, and 141 mgd by Exhibit 4-5 shows the projected system-wide and City of Medford MDDs through Impact on Duff WTP As overall system demand increases, Duff WTP will be required to produce larger quantities of water for longer periods to make up the deficit between demand and the 26.4 mgd maximum production capacity of the Big Butte Springs. Exhibit 4-6 shows that by 2026, Duff WTP may be required to operate year round if wintertime demands exceed the supply from Big Butte Springs. This operation of Duff WTP will be intermittent at first, requiring from one day to a few days per week as needed. The projected monthly demands shown in 4-2 CVO\

67 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Exhibit 4-6 were estimated by applying the current monthly percentages of annual use, presented in Chapter 3 Exhibit 3-8, to the projected 2026 ADD of 45.2 mgd. Exhibit 4-7 presents water treatment improvements, including expansion of the Duff WTP, and construction and expansion of a second WTP, necessary to keep pace with projected demand. Because the timeline for these improvements and the capacities required are estimates, plans for capacity expansions need to be re-evaluated at regular intervals. Buildout Demand for the City of Medford Upper Pressure Zones To assess future storage and pump station requirements, buildout population and demand was estimated for the upper pressure zones for the City of Medford. Demand projections for 2026 were used to estimate future storage and pumping requirements for the Gravity and Reduced Pressure Zones because these zones have considerably more area for future development. To account for future city expansion, the area defined as the future urban reserve boundary pursuant to the RPS project, as those proposed boundaries existed on Feb. 1, 2007, was assumed to be the buildout area. GIS data was used to determine the amount of residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal land available for development within the buildout area. Residential Demand Residential demand was determined from estimates of developable land area, projected dwelling unit densities (dwelling units per acre) based on zoning, population per dwelling unit (people per dwelling unit), and the average single- and multi- family residential per capita demand (gallons for residential use per person-day). According to the City of Medford Comprehensive Plan, single-family households average 2.5 people, and multi-family households average 1.8 people. These values were used to estimate population within the City of Medford. Similar housing densities for Jackson County were derived in an EcoNorthwest analysis for the Regional Problem Solving process. (Single-family households average 2.50 people and multi-family households average 1.85 people.) As determined in Chapter 3, Exhibit 3-23, the overall average day per capita demand for the City of Medford in 2005 was estimated at 246 gpcd. Based on the proportion of single- and multi-family residential water use to overall water use, single-family residential demand was estimated at 197 gpcd, and multi-family residential demand was estimated at 131 gpcd. (See page 3-6.) Maximum day residential per capita demands were estimated by multiplying ADD per capita values by Medford s MDD/ADD peaking factor of 2.2. MDD per capita for single family residences was estimated at 433 gpcd (197gpcd x 2.2= 433gpcd), and MDD per capita for multi-family residences was estimated at 288 gpcd (131gpcd x 2.2 = 288 gpcd). Commercial and Industrial Demand As described in Chapter 3, an analysis of commercial and industrial water demand within the City of Medford yielded average day demand factors of 1.5 gpm per acre (2,160 gpd per acre) for each category. These factors were applied to the available land zoned for CVO\

68 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN commercial, industrial, and mixed use development to estimate buildout demands by pressure zone within the urban reserve area for Medford. Results Exhibit 4-8 summarizes developable residential land and population estimates in each of the upper pressure zones. There are approximately 360 acres zoned commercial and industrial and 6,000 acres zoned residential in the upper pressure zones. At buildout, approximately 74,000 people will live in these areas. A summary of buildout demands for the upper pressure zone are presented in Exhibit 4-9. At buildout, the upper pressure zones will require a maximum demand of approximately 24 mgd. If growth to buildout in the upper pressure zones occurs within fifty years, the demand from these areas will represent approximately 28 percent of the City of Medford demand, and 17 percent of total system demand by CVO\

69 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS EXHIBIT 4-1 Growth Rates and Demand Factors for MWC Criteria Ashland 1 Point Central Eagle Point2 Jackson ville3 Medford Phoenix 4 Talent 8 White City Outside customers6 Water Districts Service Area Population 1 = - 15,632 7,619 2,636 70,534 4,432 6,339 7, ,860 AA Growth Rate = - 2.0% 3.9% 1.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.5% 2.2% -1.3% -0.8% AA Growth Rate = 3.2% AA Growth Rate = 4.6% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% -1.8% -0.4% AA Growth Rate = 2.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.2% 1.3% 2.3% 0.7% 0.9% -0.7% -4.9% Per Capita ADD (gpcd) 3 = Per Capita MMD (gpcd) 3 = Per Capita MDD (gpcd) 3 = ,074 1, Service Area Population reflects an adjustment to the cities population to add households outside of city limits who receive water service and/or subtract city residents who do not receive water service from the city. See Exhibit 3-22 for detailed analysis. 2 AA Growth Rate = Average Annual Growth Rate. Preliminary population estimates for developed by ECONorthwest during 2006 were used to estimate average annual growth rates to apply to these communities for the periods 2005 to 2026 and 2026 to Growth rates beyond 2040 were estimated from population estimates dated January 27, 2006 from the RPS process. 3 See Exhibit 3-23 for calculations of per capita demands. 4 The City of Ashland is not currently served by MWC, but future service to supplement Ashland s water supply is possible and should be planned for. Growth rates reflect growth in water service population, not Ashland s overall population. 5 Eagle Point s 12 residences (estimated 34 people) outside city limits in 2005 were assumed to be annexed to the city by Jacksonville s 2005 population was adjusted by 146 additional people, based on 74 residences served outside city limits and 6 houses inside water service. It was assumed that by 2026, the 6 residences not currently served will be, but that 6 outside customers will be within city limits, resulting in no net change. The remaining 68 customer accounts outside city limits are located along a pipeline beyond proposed growth boundaries. This population was assumed to remain outside and constant through Most of Charlotte Ann Water District is within the proposed Urban Reserve Boundary for City of Phoenix. However, recent Jackson County official population projections to 2040 do not accommodate annexation of much, if any of this area. Due to this omission, assumed annexations from Charlotte Ann to Phoenix herein fall between 2040 and 2056, resulting in an anomalous population increase for Phoenix and corresponding large population decline for Districts during this time frame. 8 The 35 houses (estimated 84 people) receiving outside water service from Talent are well beyond the city s growth boundaries and were assumed to remain outside city limits through CVO\

70 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 4-2 Projected MWC Service Area Populations 1 Community Ashland 2 0 1,500 2,800 4,000 Central Point 15,632 23,863 31,221 36,981 Eagle Point 5 7,619 16,955 21,449 24,999 Jacksonville 6 2,636 3,543 4,529 4,646 Medford 70, , , ,257 Phoenix 7 4,432 6,675 8,032 11,500 Talent 8 6,339 8,556 9,900 11,083 White City 7,070 11,200 12,960 15,000 Outside customers Water Districts 9 3,860 3,260 3,080 1,380 Total 118, , , ,247 1 Service Area Population reflects an adjustment to the cities population to add households outside of city limits who receive water service and/or subtract city residents who do not receive water service from the city. See Exhibit 3-22 for detailed analysis. 2 MWC staff suggested assuming that beginning in 2012, Ashland would receive Commission water service sufficient for 1000 residents, increasing to 1,500 residents in 2026, 2800 in 2040 and 4000 in and 2040 base population projections for cities (and unincorporated White City) are pursuant to a recent Jackson County Update to Population Element. These were adjusted only to arrive at Service Area Population as described in Notes 1, 6, 7, 8 & population projections for cities and unincorporated White City are pursuant to RPS allocations except for 1) adjustments for Service Area populations, 2) Eagle Point population was increased to better correlate with Jackson County 2040 projection and 3) Phoenix, for which the allocation herein assumes annexation and absorption of some population for Charlotte Ann Water District, which has not been recognized in RPS projections. 5 Eagle Point s 12 residences (estimated 34 people) outside city limits in 2005 were assumed to be annexed to the city by Jacksonville s 2005 population was adjusted by 146 additional people, based on 74 residences served outside city limits and 6 houses inside water service. It was assumed that by 2026, the 6 residences not currently served will be, but that 6 outside customers will be within city limits, resulting in no net change. The remaining 68 customer accounts outside city limits are located along a pipeline beyond proposed growth boundaries. This population was assumed to remain outside and constant through Approximately 228 residents of the City of Phoenix currently receive water service from the Charlotte Ann Water District, not from the city. It was assumed that this population would be connected to the City of Phoenix water system by The proposed Urban Reserve Boundary (per RPS) also includes most of the remainder of the Charlotte Ann Water District. It was assumed that approximately 1600 people from this district would annex to and become customers of Phoenix by The 35 houses (estimated 84 people) receiving outside water service from Talent are well beyond the city s growth boundaries and were assumed to remain outside city limits through All projections relative to water districts and outside customers are per MWC staff estimates. 4-6 CVO\

71 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS EXHIBIT 4-3 Summary of Projected Demands (mgd) Community ADD MMD MDD ADD MMD MDD ADD MMD MDD ADD MMD MDD Ashland Central Point Eagle Point Jacksonville Medford Phoenix Talent White City Outside customers Water Districts Total MDD = MMD x the system-wide MDD/MMD peaking factor (1.15). CVO\

72 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 120 EXHIBIT 4-4 Projected MDD contributed by customers served by MWC MDD (mgd) Medford Central Point Eagle Point Jacksonville Phoenix Talent White City Outside Customers Water Districts Ashland 4-8 CVO\

73 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS EXHIBIT 4-5 Projected Overall System and City of Medford MDDs MDD (mgd) City of Medford Overall MWC System CVO\

74 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 4-6 MWC 2026 Demand Projections: Full Time Operation of Duff WTP 80 Projected Monthly Demands for 2026 (mgd) Duff WTP may need to operate year-around beginning in approximately 2026 (when wintertime monthly demands exceed the BBS supply of 26.4 mgd) Capacity from Big Butte Springs 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December 4-10 CVO\

75 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS EXHIBIT 4-7. Expansion Plan for the Duff WTP and Future WTP Facilities Projected Overall MWC MDD / WTP Production Capacity (mgd) Begin expansion project for Duff WTP in 2009, with completion by 2012 to meet projected demands. Expand Duff WTP to 65 mgd mgd mgd 65 mgd Total supply capacity: BBS + Duff WTP mgd 85 mgd Capacity of WTP(s) New WTP needed about 2021, with expansions in 2032, and mgd 105 mgd Overall System Maximum Day Demand Big Butte Springs Capacity (26.4 mgd) mgd CVO\

76 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 4-8 Summary of Total Land Area by Class, and Buildout Population for Upper Pressure Zones Acres Pressure Zone Commercial and Industrial Residential Buildout Population 1A 335 1,865 24,500 1B ,500 1C , , , , ,302 1, (Future) - 1,658 1,300 Total 361 5,967 73,700 EXHIBIT 4-9 Summary of Buildout MDD in the Upper Pressure Zones in the City of Medford Pressure Zone MDD (mgd) MDD (gpm) 1A 9.2 6,390 1B C , , (Future) Total , CVO\

77 CVO\ CHAPTER 5 Regulatory Review

78 CHAPTER 5 Regulatory Review Community water systems are governed by rules developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. Oregon, as a primacy state, is required to implement water quality regulations at least as stringent as EPA s rules. For the most part, Oregon has adopted identical regulations to those at the federal level. Additional Oregon rules are highlighted in this section. Because the MWC water system has both a surface water source (the Rogue River) and a groundwater source (Big Butte Springs), regulations related to surface water treatment at the Duff WTP, groundwater treatment, and distribution system water quality are discussed in this chapter. MWC complies with all current state and federal standards MWC Water Quality Goals and Water Quality Achievements In 1995 the MWC joined The Partnership for Safe Water, a voluntary coalition of organizations committed to providing safe drinking water. Since 1995, MWC has collected and evaluated water treatment performance data to optimize treatment performance and improve water quality. Exhibit 5-1 lists State and Federal standards and MWC s water quality goals. EXHIBIT 5-1 MWC Water Quality Goals State/Federal Parameter Standard MWC Goals Filtered water turbidity Chlorine residual: entrance to system Distribution chlorine residual < 0.3 NTU 95% of the time. Never to exceed 1.0 NTU. Not < 0.2 mg/l for > 4 hours Cannot be undetectable in > 5% of samples per month < 0.05 NTU for Duff WTP finished water; Individual filter effluent < 0.1 NTU 0.50 mg/l 100% of time; Range mg/l >=0.20 mg/l all samples ph > 6.8 From BBS 6.8 From Duff WTP 7.0 Distribution System 6.7 Heterotrophic plate count (HPC) < 500 cfu/ml 10 cfu/ml CVO\

79 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Watershed Protection Big Butte Springs The Big Butte Springs Watershed or recharge zone was delineated and characterized by the 1990 Big Butte Springs Geohydrologic Report. This comprehensive study characterized the geology of the 56,000 acre Big Butte Springs Watershed and assessed the watershed s vulnerability to contamination from surface activities. Activities with potential for affecting the water resources within the watershed include timber harvesting, grazing, recreation, transportation, and camping. MWC was among the first in Oregon to implement a Wellhead Protection Program by completing wellhead delineation requirements. MWC has actively pursued watershed management by purchasing properties and negotiating life estates or management agreements with land owners within the watershed. Rogue River The Big Butte Springs Watershed is located within the larger Rogue River Watershed. MWC also is committed to management and protection of the Rogue River Watershed. A Source Water Assessment was completed following state guidelines, and MWC plans to work with watershed councils to develop a future Drinking Water Protection Plan. Many of the same activities of concern for the Big Butte Springs Watershed also occur in other areas within the Rogue River Watershed. Additional activities of concern include urban and rural development, agricultural runoff, and wastewater treatment. Surface Water Treatment Regulations The following regulations apply to MWC s surface water source, the Rogue River, and treatment at the Duff WTP. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established by EPA for more than a hundred individual drinking water contaminants. These include microbiological, inorganic, organic and radiological contaminants. MWC s water is in compliance with each of these standards. A brief discussion of the following surface water regulations follows: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (1998). Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) (2002). Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) (2005). Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The IESWTR builds on the provisions set forth in the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) by providing improved public health protection against Cryptosporidium, while addressing risk tradeoffs with disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The IESWTR applies to public water systems such as MWC that use surface water and serve at least 10,000 people. EPA published final revisions to the IESWTR on January 16, Primacy states, such as Oregon, adopted the regulation by January 1, Public water systems are required to achieve compliance within 3 years of federal promulgation. 5-2 CVO\

80 CHAPTER 5 REGULATORY REVIEW Specific provisions of the IESWTR include: Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium 99 percent Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter Strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards for systems using conventional and direct filtration Individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions for systems using conventional and direct filtration Treatment plants such as the Duff WTP that use conventional filtration are assumed to meet the 99 percent Cryptosporidium removal requirement as long as they comply with the IESWTR turbidity requirements and existing provisions of the SWTR. A system s combined filter effluent turbidity is required to be less than 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of samples taken each month, and at no time may exceed 1 NTU. Utilities must conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each filter. MWC complies with all of these requirements. Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The final LT1ESWTR, promulgated on January 14, 2002, extends the requirements contained in the IESWTR to small surface water systems that provide service to populations under 10,000 persons. The LT1ESWTR requires small systems to comply with the same Cryptosporidium removal and filter turbidity performance standards as those established by the IESWTR. Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule The purpose of the LT2ESWTR, promulgated December 15, 2005, is to build on the provisions contained in the IESWTR for protection of public health against risks posed by Cryptosporidium and other microbial pathogens. Existing drinking water regulations established in the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR require water systems such as MWC that filter surface water to achieve at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. New data on Cryptosporidium infectivity, occurrence, and treatment indicate that current treatment requirements are adequate for the majority of systems, but there is a subset of systems with higher vulnerability to Cryptosporidium where additional treatment is necessary. As shown in Exhibit 5-2, filtered systems are classified into one of four risk bins according to the Cryptosporidium concentrations measured in the source water. A water system may grandfather equivalent, previously-collected data in lieu of conducting new monitoring. MWC has a validated data set indicating a surface water Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.041/L. If accepted, this data set places MWC in Bin 1, and no treatment changes will be required. CVO\

81 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 5-2 Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems Mean Cryptosporidium Source Water Concentrations Bin Classification Required Additional 1 Log Reduction for Conventional Filtration WTPs Crypto < 0.075/L Bin 1 No Additional Treatment 0.075/L Crypto < 1.0/L Bin /L Crypto < 3.0/L Bin 3 2 Crypto 3.0/L Bin Treatment in addition to filtration. 2. For 1 additional log removal/inactivation, systems may use any technology or combination of technologies from the Microbial Toolbox. 3. For additional 2 or greater log removal/inactivation, systems must achieve at least 1 log of the required treatment using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or bank filtration. Groundwater Rule As noted above, MWC obtains a portion of its water supply from a groundwater source, Big Butte Springs (BBS). BBS is classified as a groundwater source and is therefore regulated under the federal Groundwater Rule. The Groundwater rule was published in the federal register on November 8, It requires the following actions: 1. States must conduct sanitary surveys by December 31, 2012, for community systems with groundwater sources. 2. Corrective actions, consisting of treatment improvements or wellhead improvements are required if significant deficiencies are identified. These deficiencies may either be determined by the state during the sanitary survey process or based on the presence of fecal coliform in source water sampling. 3. Additional source water sampling may be triggered by the presence of total coliform in the source water. 4. Compliance monitoring requirements may be increased based on any of the above measures. Distribution Regulations State Requirements Oregon s drinking water regulations have requirements that indirectly relate to distribution water quality, including backflow prevention program rules, operator certification rules, and product acceptability criteria. In general, the state s rules govern the quality of water and not the manner in which it is distributed. However, the rules do contain a limited number of standards with storage and piping criteria: 5-4 CVO\

82 CHAPTER 5 REGULATORY REVIEW Distribution piping shall be designed and installed so that the pressure measured at the property line of any user shall not be reduced below 20 psi (OAR (9)(e)). Wherever possible, dead ends shall be minimized by looping. Where dead ends are installed, blow-offs of adequate size shall be provided for flushing (OAR (9)(h)). Wherever possible, distribution pipelines shall be located on public property. Where pipelines are required to pass through private property, easements shall be obtained from the property owner and shall be recorded with the county clerk (OAR (9)(a)). Wherever possible, booster pumps shall take suction from reservoirs to avoid the potential for negative pressures on the suction line, which could result when the pump suction is directly connected to a distribution main. Pumps that take suction from distribution mains shall be provided with a low-pressure cutoff switch on the suction side set at no less than 20 psi (OAR (8)(a, b)). The state s rules also include construction standards that must be met when new projects are designed and constructed. Construction standards are found in OAR Federal Regulations MWC complies with the following federal regulations related to water distribution: Surface Water Treatment Rule (1989) Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (1989) Lead and Copper Rule (1991) Operational changes may be required to comply with two new rules that regulate distribution water quality: Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) (2005) Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule (Stage 2 DBP Rule) (2005) Surface Water Treatment Rules Secondary disinfection requirements are the one aspect of the SWTR that relates to distribution water quality. This rule requires that the residual disinfectant concentration in the water entering the distribution system is equal to or greater than 0.2 mg/l for more than 4 hours and that the residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution system cannot be undetectable in more than 5 percent of the samples each month for two consecutive months. Water in the distribution system with a heterotrophic bacteria concentration less than or equal to 500 cfu/ml is deemed to have a detectable disinfectant residual. MWC is in compliance with the requirements of the SWTR. MWC currently disinfects so that water in the distribution system has a chlorine residual of approximately 0.5 mg/l. Total Coliform Rule The Total Coliform Rule s (TCR) primary goal is to maintain microbial quality in finished and distributed drinking water supplies. Total coliform includes both fecal coliform and CVO\

83 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN E. coli. The MCLG for total coliform was set to zero. Compliance with the MCL is based on the presence or absence of total coliform in a sample (as opposed to coliform density as in previous rules). MWC is required to collect a minimum of 90 samples per month, based on its service population. MWC has complied with the TCR since its promulgation. Lead and Copper Rule The Lead and Copper Rule applies to all community water systems. The rule developed MCLGs and action levels for both lead and copper in drinking water. The major difference between this regulation and other distribution regulations is that the water must be monitored at customers taps, not at sampling stations. Lead and copper monitoring must initially occur every 6 months and twice each calendar year at locations with the highest risk of contamination resulting from the following: Piping with lead solder installed after 1982 Lead water service lines Lead piping in buildings and homes For compliance, the samples at the customers taps must not exceed the following action levels: Lead concentration of mg/l detected in the 90 th percentile of all samples Copper concentration of 1.3 mg/l detected in the 90 th percentile of all samples MWC has consistently complied with the Lead and Copper Rule. Water from the Duff WTP maintains a minimum ph of 7.0 to aid in corrosion control. Lead and copper sample results for 1992 through 2004 are summarized in Exhibit 5-3. The highest 90 th percentile concentration for lead was mg/l, well below the action level of mg/l. The highest 90 th percentile copper concentration was 1.02 mg/l below the action level of 1.3 mg/l. EXHIBIT 5-3 Lead and Copper Monitoring Results Action Levels: Monitoring Period Lead = mg/l Copper = 1.3 mg/l 90th Percentile Lead (mg/l) 90th Percentile Copper (mg/l) Winter Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer CVO\

84 CHAPTER 5 REGULATORY REVIEW Because of compliance with the lead and copper action levels, MWC is on a reduced sampling schedule, which includes 30 samples every 3 years instead of 60 samples every 6 months. Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule The purpose of the S2DBP rule is to reduce peak disinfection byproduct concentrations in the distribution system and eliminate areas where customers receive excessive levels of DBPs. DBPs include trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). The concentration of DBPs fluctuate based on changes in raw water quality, variations in treatment, chlorine concentrations, and water age, and have been found to vary geographically in distribution systems. Previous rules governing DBPs determined compliance based on an average for samples collected throughout the distribution system. This averaging meant that some geographic locations could occasionally or even regularly exceed the MCLs for DBPs, and yet the system remained in compliance. The Stage 2 DBPR eliminates this possibility by requiring compliance at all geographic locations. The rule requires the following: 1. Completion of an initial distribution system evaluation (IDSE) to determine sites with high DBPs. This evaluation report is due 2 years following promulgation of the final rule. Water systems with historically low DBP concentrations, such as MWC, may apply for a waiver, titled 40/30 certification, that reduces the amount of monitoring required for the IDSE. To qualify for 40/30 certification, every individual sample taken during Stage 1 monitoring beginning no earlier than January 2004 (for systems, such as MWC, serving more than 100,000 people) must have total trihalomethanes (TTHM) concentrations 40 μg /L, and five regulated total haloacetic acids (HAA5) concentrations 30 μg /L. MWC has qualified for this certification. If not, a Standard Monitoring Plan consisting of increased monitoring for DBPs or a System Specific Study that includes extended period hydraulic modeling must be performed to determine worst-case sites for monitoring. 2. Compliance with the MCLs for TTHMs and HAA5 of 80 and 60 μg/l, respectively, is based on a locational running annual average (LRAA). Average concentrations of TTHMs and HAA5s at each sampling site must comply with the MCLs. MWC anticipates compliance with the new rule. Exhibits 5-4 and 5-5 summarize recent DBP levels measured in MWC s system for 2003 through Possible Future Regulations of Interest Although planning for future system improvements is based on ensuring compliance with current and pending regulations, the regulatory climate is ever-changing and uncertain. The following potential regulatory changes could impact MWC within the 20-year planning period: Distribution System Rule, promulgation date unknown, is expected to revise the TCR and affect distribution system operations, including reservoir operation and mixing. It may require capital investments to modify reservoirs for better mixing. CVO\

85 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Clean Water Act-related regulations may set limits on chlorine concentration and temperature of backwash discharges, which may force MWC to dechlorinate backwash discharges, if necessary. A new backwash lagoon system is planned for CVO\

86 CHAPTER 5 REGULATORY REVIEW EXHIBIT 5-4 Total Trihalomethane Data for , μg/l 1st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr th Qtr st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr 2005 Average Maximum th Qtr Qtr Running Average of Averages Qtr Running Average of Maximums EXHIBIT 5-5 Haloacetic Acids (5) Sampling Data for , μg/l 1st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr th Qtr st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr st Qtr nd Qtr rd Qtr 2005 Average ND ND Maximum ND ND 4th Qtr Qtr Running Average of Averages Qtr Running Average of Maximums CVO\

87 CVO\ CHAPTER 6 Model Development and System Analysis

88 CHAPTER 6 Model Development and System Analysis Introduction This chapter presents a description of the hydraulic model used to evaluate MWC s water distribution system and the results for the analyses for existing conditions. It is divided into four subsections. The first subsection defines the criteria used to evaluate the various system components; the second subsection explains how the computer model was developed and used in the analysis; the third subsection contains a description of the analyses, results, and evaluations; and the fourth includes recommendations for improvements of the water distribution system to address existing conditions. Analysis and Design Criteria This subsection describes the evaluation criteria used in the modeling analyses. These criteria were developed based on MWC s historical practices and experience, recommendations developed from other water utilities, and the regulatory requirements of the Oregon Drinking Water Program (DWP). Appendix B provides a summary of the design criteria for MWC s system and that were used for the evaluations presented in this water facilities plan. Source and Pumping The source and pumping capacities should be adequate to supply the MDD in each service level. MWC s system operates nine pressure zones. The pressure zones are discussed in Chapter 2. Under this criterion, demands greater than MDD are served from reservoir storage. The source and pumping capacities will also consider the largest supply source or pump to be out-of-service. This is referred to as the firm source or pumping capacity. Fire Flow Fire flow requirements were determined by MWC in conjunction with local authorities. The minimum acceptable values range from 1,000 to 4,000 gpm for 2 to 4 hours. Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the fire flow requirements for the MWC system. The fire flow requirements vary according to land use, with higher values needed for schools, hospitals, group homes, other public facilities, and industrial customers. Storage Three components comprise the storage that is required in the MWC water distribution system, as follows: Equalization Storage Volume of water to meet peak hour demands based on the MWC diurnal use patterns. The production facilities are designed to meet the maximum day demand. However, during the maximum day, there are periods of time when demands CVO\

89 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN are higher, and the equalization portion of storage is used to meet these short-term peaks. For MWC, the equalization storage need is estimated to equal 15 percent of the maximum day demand. Emergency Storage Volume of water provided in the event of an emergency. This storage is provided so that if there is a disruption in supply, water is still available for customers. Such a disruption in supply might result from a contamination event in the Rogue River or a mechanical failure at the Duff WTP that forces a shut down of this facility, or a break in a major transmission pipeline. Fire Flow Storage Volume of water provided for various customer classes for a specified duration and flow. Fire fighting requires high volumes of water for relatively short durations of time. This volume is more cost-effectively provided in storage reservoirs than from the production sources. The volume and duration depend on the customer types in the area serviced by the reservoir. Residential fire fighting requires a smaller volume than pressure zones that have schools, commercial customers, and/or industrial customers. Pipeline Pipelines should be looped as much as possible to prevent pipe dead-ends, to maintain high water quality, and to increase the reliability of the system. The sizing of pipelines should be for the maximum potential demands of the zoning or planning area, including fire flow. Two separate classifications of pipelines were considered in the modeling and analysis of the system, with the following specific evaluation criteria considered for each. Distribution mains (14-inch diameter and smaller): They must have the carrying capacity to provide the peak hour demands while maintaining pressures above 35 psi, and have pipeline flow velocities below 10 feet per second (fps) and head loss below 10 ft/1000 ft of pipe under peak hour demands. They must have the carrying capacity to maintain pressures below 100 psi for off-peak demands (during reservoir refill periods that occur during nighttime hours). They must provide the required flows of a combination fire and MDD with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi through the distribution system as established by the Oregon DWP in OAR MWC has established a criterion that residual pressures shall not drop below 35 psi at the customer meter. Transmission pipelines (larger than 14-inch diameter): They must have the carrying capacity to maintain pipeline flow velocities below 7 feet per second (fps) during maximum day demands and also to limit headloss per 1000 feet of pipe length to acceptable levels. They must have the carrying capacity to maintain pressures below 100 psi for off-peak demands (during reservoir refill periods that occur during nighttime hours). 6-2 CVO\

90 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS Hydraulic Distribution System Model This subsection presents a summary of the development and calibration of the hydraulic model. Description of the Model The hydraulic model consists of a data model representing the distribution system and the computer software capable of performing a hydraulic analysis. The computer software interprets the data model using mathematical equations. The data model is a representation of the existing installed facilities and hydraulic characteristics, including all pump stations, tanks, pipelines, and valves that are required. (That is, the model includes valves that normally are closed, altitude valves, and pressure reducing/sustaining valves, etc.). The data model incorporates the following details: Reservoirs Water surface elevation, overflow elevation, top and floor elevations, tank volume, tank diameter, and location Pumps Centerline elevation, flow, and head characteristics (or pump station horsepower), location Pipes Nominal diameter, length, pipe roughness coefficient as a function of the age of and material of the pipe, and location Valves Pressure reducing and sustaining valves, altitude valves, normally closed valves, and other control valves, if any Water Use (Demands) Average flow amount for average day, maximum day, minimum hour, and peak hour, and location of each demand This project uses customized geographic information system (GIS) applications for water distribution system analysis that share information with various databases and pipe network analysis software. GIS software is used to manage, display, report, and analyze the hydraulic data described above. The pipe network analysis software performs the computations of flow rates in pipes and pressures at junctions. The modeling calculation program used in this project is EPANET, a public-domain program developed by the EPA. This software determines the distribution of flow in a pipe network and calculates the resulting pressures. The model calculates head losses in pipes with the Hazen-Williams energy loss equation. The software package that was used was InfoWater by MWHSoft. The InfoWater software provides the user interface with the calculation program and also gives the operator tools that are used for analyzing and displaying results. Development of the Hydraulic Model The MWC hydraulic model was developed from MWC s GIS database. The primary elements of the data model were taken from the GIS database using the GIS Gateway within the InfoWater software. Once each of the model components (pipes, valves, reservoirs, junctions, and pumps) were input into the hydraulic model, automated GIS routines were CVO\

91 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN performed to enhance the connectivity and elevation information that existed in the MWC system. Additional information that was not included in the database, such as details on elevations and diameters of reservoirs, pump flow and head characteristics, and control information, was input manually by MWC staff. Hazen-Williams C-factors were applied using an algorithm based on material type and age. Using the InfoWater Demand Allocator, demands were allocated to the MWC hydraulic model by linking the MWC billing system information with the shapefile of the customer meters within the distribution system. The route-day boundaries were used for the allocations. Monthly water usage information was provided by MWC staff for 2005, and the customer meter accounts are designated as either a residential or a non-residential account. There was not a complete match of customer billing records to the meter point shapefile. The top 50 users were identified and their use was input directly if their billing record and meter record did not match. To allocate the additional water usage that was not matched through the join of the meter record with the billing record, the non-joined water usage was summed by billing route and customer class. This remaining demand was then divided among the demand nodes in the corresponding billing route area that were in the same customer class as the matched meter records. Once the average water usage was allocated to the model, the demands were scaled to match the water production information as measured by the MWC SCADA system. This includes unaccounted for water into the allocated demands. Calibration Methods and Results This model was calibrated to field-collected data. The calibration consisted of comparing pressures measured in the field to those predicted by the computer model. Computer model analyses were performed to simulate the system conditions that occurred during the field collection of data. Computed pressures, flow rates, and hydraulic grade lines (HGLs) then were compared to the field measurements. The model was adjusted to match the fieldmeasured conditions within a reasonable range of tolerance. The criterion established by the MWC for the calibration was to match the field data within 10 percent. Field Measurements Field-measured data are required to better understand the existing conditions in the water distribution system. Hydrant pressure and flow tests were performed by MWC staff on a series of days from May 8 to May 12, Field crews from the MWC gathered information at multiple points throughout the system during twenty hydrant tests and collected SCADA data from all facilities where the data was available. The locations of the hydrant flow tests are shown in Exhibit 6-2. The goal was to obtain pressure and flow measurements at strategic points throughout the system for use in calibrating the hydraulic model while also capturing the system status information at all facilities in the MWC distribution system to set the hydraulic model boundary conditions. For each of the hydrant flow tests, the MWC staff installed a Dickson PR-300 pressure recorder at a residual monitor hydrant and then flowed an adjacent hydrant. The flow from the flow hydrant was measured, and the pressure recorder monitored the pressure at the residual hydrant. The pressure prior to the hydrant being flowed is considered the static pressure, and the pressure recorded while the hydrant is flowed is the residual pressure. 6-4 CVO\

92 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS Calibration Demand Allocation As part of the data collection during the hydrant flow tests, the MWC staff provided the diurnal demand curve as calculated by the SCADA system. For each of the calibration model runs, the demand allocated to the MWC hydraulic model was scaled to match the demand as reported during the time of the test. The hydrant flow rate as measured during each of the hydrant flow tests was added to the base demand. Calibration Results During the hydraulic model calibration simulations, the field measured and model predicted static pressures were compared by running computer model analyses to simulate the system conditions that occurred during the field measurement program. The relative field pressure drop and the model predicted pressure drop were also compared. The calibration goal for the static calibration was to have at least 90 percent of the results within 10 percent of the field data values. For the residual calibration runs, the goal was to have the model predicted pressure drop within at least 5 to 10 psi of the field pressure drop. Exhibit 6-3 shows the comparison of the field data to the model-predicted data. The average percent difference for the static results is 4 percent, and each individual test was within 10 percent of the field data. For the results of the residual calibration runs, the results for fourteen of the twenty locations showed that the model-predicted pressure drop was within 5 psi of the field predicted pressure drop, and all but one of the remaining locations showed that the model-predicted drop was within 10 psi of the field pressure drop. For the location that the model-predicted residual pressure was 14 psi different than the field data (after friction factors were adjusted), the model was over predicting the pressure drop. This difference was taken into account as the system analysis was being conducted and for system improvements that were recommended in this area. During the calibration process, it was noted that the model was generally over-predicting the head loss in the model. Pipe roughness depends on the age of the pipe, the pipe material, and its lining. Originally, this information was used to estimate the hydraulic characteristics of various pipes in the system, and roughness coefficients were estimated from industry standard sources and entered into the model according to the age and size of pipe. Several pipe coupons that had been recently removed from pipe in the MWC system were visually inspected. An example of the pipe lining is shown in Exhibit 6-4. The sample on the top of this exhibit is from a cement mortar lined ductile iron pipe installed in 1908 in the downtown area. The lower sample is from a pipeline on Hillcrest Road (date uncertain). The lining appeared to be in excellent shape. MWC reported that the condition of this pipe is representative for pipes removed throughout the system. Based on this information and that the model was generally over-predicting head losses, the initial values used for friction factors (the C factors) were adjusted to reflect smoother walled pipe than is typical for its age. The calibration results in Exhibit 6-3 were developed using the updated C-factor values. The calibrated model was used to perform the system analyses described in the following sections of this chapter. CVO\

93 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Existing System Analysis The calibrated hydraulic model was used to simulate system performance under existing demands to determine the system s ability to meet design criteria. The system was evaluated for two different demand and supply conditions. One condition represented an average demand scenario when supply is only provided by the Big Butte Springs (forward mode), and the second condition was for a maximum day demand condition with both the Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP in operation (reverse mode). Annual consumption data that were provided by MWC were used to distribute demands throughout the system. These were slightly adjusted to match the historical and projected values presented in Chapters 3 and 4. Diurnal demand data from 2000 through 2005 was evaluated to determine the peaking factor from the MDD to the PHD. A comparison of the diurnal data is shown in Exhibit 6-5. The system was also evaluated to determine its ability to fill the reservoirs during the minimum hour demand of MDD. This condition, also referred to as reservoir refill, evaluates the system s capability to refill reservoirs during the nighttime after they have been drawn down during the MDD. The ratio of minimum hour to MDD (minimum hour) peaking factor was also obtained from the diurnal data. This value was determined to equal The maximum capacity of the Big Butte Springs transmission is 26.4 mgd. This was used as the supply from the springs for all of the analyses. For the MDD evaluation, the balance of the MDD was provided by the Duff WTP. The firm capacity was used for pump stations in all analyses, including those of fire flows. Firm capacity is the capacity of a pump station, or a group of pump stations if they serve the same zone, with the largest single pump out of service. This is a standard industry practice that ensures that a reasonable level of redundancy to provide adequate operation of the water system at all times. Exhibit 6-6 provides a summary of the total demand and supply used for the 2005 existing system analyses. The current and projected MDDs are based on analyses presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The PHD was estimated as 1.5 times the MDD. The minimum hour demand was estimated as 65 percent of the MDD, based on a review of reservoir and pump station historical records for MWC and using judgment based on similar water systems. The evaluation of the existing system investigated the available storage and pumping capacity as well as the capacity of the piping system to meet the specified design criteria under each of the various flow conditions. The fire flow analysis was conducted systemwide at each of the system nodes for which there was a demand. The land use designation of the area in which the model node is located determines the required fire flow. As of 2005, the Big Butte Springs pipelines supply 26.4 mgd during the months of May through October. From late October through April, the flow in the pipelines is reduced to approximately 20 mgd. This reduction in flow is known as one-half pipe flow (mode) since the flow in Big Butte Springs pipeline No. 1 is restricted to approximately one-half flow. The flow in Big Butte Springs pipeline No. 2 remains at its full capacity of 13.2 mgd. 6-6 CVO\

94 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS Average Day Demand: Big Butte Springs Supply Only The system-wide pressures for the 2005 ADD condition (approximately 29 mgd) and in forward mode operation with only the Big Butte Springs in service are shown in Exhibit 6-7. The percentage of model nodes within defined pressure ranges are shown in Exhibit 6-8. There are some model nodes that are under 35 psi but these are in close proximity to storage reservoirs or on the suction side of pumps, and therefore, not a concern. Maximum Day Demand: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP The 2005 MDD (approximately 63 mgd) analysis runs were performed with reverse mode operation with both the Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP in operation. The system-wide pressures for the MDD condition and reverse mode operation are shown in Exhibit 6-9, and the percentage of nodes within the defined pressure ranges are shown in Exhibit When system-wide pressure predictions that are shown in Exhibit 6-8 (forward mode) are compared to those shown in Exhibit 6-10 (reverse mode), the area around the control stations shows the variable pressures that are experienced seasonally by customers in those areas. These pressure variations may be 20 psi or higher under a MDD scenario. The average pressure that customers may experience in the non-summer months north of the existing control stations is controlled by the PRVs located at the existing control stations. The pressures that they experience during the summer months are reduced since the source changes to the Duff WTP. MWC has already identified this as a challenge in operating their system and has considered the installation of additional booster pump stations along the main pipelines that supply water from the Reduced Pressure Zone to the Gravity Zone during reverse mode operation. These are discussed in Chapter 8. Peak Hour Analysis: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP The 2005 PHD (approximately 94 mgd) conditions were also performed with reverse mode operation with both the Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP in operation, the system meets the pressure criteria of 35 psi at all locations. The system-wide pressures for the PHD condition and reverse mode operation are shown in Exhibit 6-11 and the percentage of nodes within the defined pressure ranges are shown in Exhibit Similar to the pressures for the MDD condition, the PHD pressures are also reduced in the proximity of the control stations when in reverse mode operation. Because of the higher demands under the PHD conditions, the system-wide pressures show an overall lower pressure. Minimum Hour Analysis The minimum hour analysis (approximately 41 mgd) was conducted to evaluate the distribution system s capacity for refilling the reservoirs after they have been heavily used during a summer day. The analysis indicated that the reservoirs are able to refill during the low demand periods at night without creating high pressures in the distribution system. This was not a controlling condition for 2005 demand levels. Fire Flow Analysis A system-wide fire flow analysis was conducted for both forward mode and reverse mode operation. The available fire flows at model demand nodes for both conditions are shown in CVO\

95 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Exhibits 6-13 and The available fire flow shows the overall trends in fire flow and where the fire flow may be limited. Using the specified land use information, each node was also assigned a fire flow category to evaluate if the available fire flow met the fire flow standards as outlined in Exhibit 6-1. Exhibits 6-15 and 6-16 show the results of this analysis for forward mode and reverse mode, respectively. In these exhibits, the nodes are identified that do not meet the fire flow requirements based on the required fire flow at each location as defined by the land use. The results from the future system analysis were considered before developing improvements specific to improving fire flows. Recommended Improvements for the Existing System Based on the analysis of the existing system presented in this section, there are no recommended improvements for immediate construction. However, areas of low fire flows and pressures were investigated with the future system analysis and improvements were identified where areas of concern will become more significant as growth occurs. Future System Analysis After the existing system analysis was completed, future demands were allocated to the system and the model was used to simulate system performance under future (2026) demands to determine the system s ability to meet design criteria. By 2026, the system will only operate under reverse mode conditions. The projected MDD, PHD, and MHD conditions were evaluated for reverse mode operation. The maximum capacity of the Big Butte Springs transmission is 26.4 mgd. This was used as the supply from the springs for all of the future analyses. For the MDD evaluation, the balance of the demand was provided by the Duff WTP. Similar to the existing system analysis, firm capacity was used for all pump stations. With the growth of the MWC service area into the upper zones in the southeastern and southwestern portions of Medford, improvements including new pump stations, reservoirs, transmission piping, and distribution piping will be required. The recommended upgrades to transmission piping, distribution piping, pump stations, and reservoirs are summarized in subsequent chapters. At the ultimate buildout level (beyond 2026), it is expected that the Duff WTP (probably a second water treatment plant on the Rogue River located near the Duff WTP) will need to supply mgd to the system. Therefore, the system was also analyzed to evaluate the size of transmission mains that would be required to deliver these flows. The buildout analysis was not conducted system wide. It did include the RPS demands, but these longterm demands were not modeled system-wide Maximum Day Demand: Big Butte Springs and Duff WTP The 2026 MDD (approximately 97 mgd) analyses were performed for reverse mode operation. New piping is proposed to serve developing areas in the southeastern portions of Medford, and additional piping improvements are proposed to alleviate low pressures in the southwestern portions of Medford. By incorporating these piping improvements, the system pressures improved. However, there are some pressures at the higher elevation areas of the Gravity Zone that are still below the 35 psi level. If these areas were brought into Pressure Zone 1, the pressures would be above the maximum pressure criterion. MWC 6-8 CVO\

96 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS may consider bringing these areas into Pressure Zone 1 and serving them through a pressure reducing valve. The system-wide pressures for the MDD condition under reverse mode operation are shown in Exhibit 6-17, and the percentage of nodes within the defined pressure ranges are shown in Exhibit Peak Hour Analysis The 2026 PHD (approximately 146 mgd) condition analysis was also performed with reverse mode operation with both the Big Butte Springs and the Duff WTP in operation. Incorporating the improvements noted under the MDD analysis into the system, the systemwide pressures for the PHD condition and reverse mode operation are shown in Exhibit 6-19 and the percentage of nodes within the defined pressure ranges are shown in Exhibit Because of the higher demands under the PHD conditions, the system-wide pressures show an overall lower pressure Minimum Hour Analysis The minimum hour analysis (approximately 63 mgd) was conducted to evaluate the distribution system s capacity for refilling the reservoirs after they have been heavily used during a summer day. The analysis indicated that the reservoirs are able to refill during the night without creating high pressures in the distribution system. This was not a controlling condition for 2005 demand levels Fire Flow Analysis A system-wide fire flow analysis was conducted with future demands for reverse mode operation. The available fire flows at model demand nodes is shown in Exhibit The available fire flow shows the overall trends in fire flow and where the fire flow may be limited. Some locations are on smaller diameter dead-end lines. Recommended Improvements for the Future System Subsequent chapters present recommended improvements for the pipe system, pump stations, and reservoirs within the system. CVO\

97 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 6-1 Fire Flow Requirements Medford Water Commission Structure/Development Type Low-density (single-family and duplex) residential Medium and High-density multi-family residential Special High-density multi-family (three stories and higher residential areas) Schools and Colleges Institutions and Hospitals Commercial and Industrial areas Fire Flow Requirement 1,000 gpm for 2 hours (storage of 120,000 gallons) Minimum: 1,500 gpm for 2 hrs (180,000 gallons) Maximum: 2,750 gpm for 2 hrs (330,000 gallons) Minimum: 3,000 gpm for 3 hrs (540,000 gallons) Maximum: 3,750 gpm for 3 hrs (675,000 gallons) Minimum: 4,000 gpm for 4 hrs (960,000 gallons) Maximum: 6,000 gpm for 4 hrs (1.44 MG) Minimum: 4,000 gpm for 4 hrs (960,000 gallons) Maximum: 8,000 gpm for 4 hrs (1.92 MG) Minimum: 2,000 gpm for 4 hrs (480,000 gallons) Maximum: 5,000 gpm for 4 hrs (1.2 MG) 6-10 CVO\

98 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS EXHIBIT 6-2 Locations of Hydrant Flow Testing Field Sites Medford Water Commission CVO\

99 CHAPTER 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS EXHIBIT 6-3 Calibration Results Medford Water Commission No. Model Node ID a Elevation (ft) Static Field Pressure (psi) Static Model Pressure (psi) Static Pressure Difference (psi) Static Percent Difference Residual Field Pressure (psi) Residual Model Pressure (psi) Field Pressure Drop (psi) Model Pressure Drop (psi) Difference in Pressure Drops (psi) 1 H2883 2, % H1025 1, % H2164 1, % H2891 1, % H2617 1, b % H1183 1, b % H5151 1, % H1861 1, % H5036 1, % H2428 1, % H344 1, b % H2752 1, % H2729 1, % H962 1, b % H1414 1, b % H1137 1, % H2265 1, b % H7171 1, % H7276 1, % H2478 1, b % Notes: a. Hydrant with PR-3000 pressure monitor installed. b. Elevations for these hydrants developed by inserting new nodes into the model and interpolating from surrounding nodes. CVO\

100 MWC WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT 6-4 Pipe Lining Examples of Medford Water Commission Pipes Medford Water Commission 6-14 CVO\