rural water district no. 5 douglas county study session may 17, 2007
Post on 05-Jan-2016
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Rural Water District No. 5
Douglas County
Study SessionMay 17, 2007
The Importance of Planning
Historical Overview
• 370 Subscribers in 1975
• Original Water Purchase Contract:– Meter Cap of 800– One Percent Annual Growth Upon Reaching the
Cap– Meter Cap Applied Even If Additional Sources of
Water Were Secured– City Intent to Control Rural Growth
Historical Overview
• Additional Water Was Acquired From Clinton Reservoir in 1990 for a Total of 183 Million Gallons Per Year
• Clinton Reservoir Fully Allocated at That Time Due to New Contracts
• District Acquired a Second Source of Supply From RWD No. 3, Douglas County, in 1993
• Meter Cap Reached by 1995• District Grew at an Average Rate of 3.95 Percent
for the First 20 Years
Historical Overview
• District Formed PWWSD No. 16 in 1995 with RWD No. 4, Douglas County
• Preliminary Report was Completed; Intake and Plant Site was Defined
• RWD No. 4 Experienced Large Board Turnover and Removed Themselves From the PWWSD in 1996
• District Did Not Pursue the Project Further
Historical Overview
• A New Water Purchase Agreement was Entered Into with The City of Lawrence in 1998
• The New Agreement Allowed Growth to 1221Benefit Units in 2010, with Zero Growth Through 2013
• District Currently Has 1127 Benefit Units with 65 Remaining to be Added
• Growth Rate From 1995 to 2007 was 2.85 Percent
Historical OverviewBenefit Unit Subscribers
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Benefit Units Water Usage
Current Challenges
• Water Supply Beyond 2013– Negotiate New Water Purchase
Agreement with the City of Lawrence
– PWWSD No. 25 • Groundwater Supply• Surface Water Supply
– New Clinton lake WTP
Water Supply Challenges
• New Agreement– Least Capital Cost– Most Restrictive
• Meter Restrictions• Quantity Restrictions
– Rapidly Increasing Price– No Ownership– Diminishing Raw Water Supply
Due to Silting
Water Supply Challenges
• PWWSD No. 25 (Groundwater)– Significant Capital Cost– Non-Restrictive– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase
Price– Ownership as Voting Member– May Require Membership in Kansas
River Assurance District– More Political Hurdles than Surface
Water Option
Water Supply Challenges
• PWWSD No. 25 (Surface Water)– Significant Capital Cost– Non-Restrictive– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase
Price– Ownership as Voting Member– Will Require Water Marketing
Contract– Minimal Political Hurdles– Diminishing Raw Water Supply Due to
Silting
Water Supply Challenges
• New Clinton Lake Facility– Significant Capital Cost– Reduces Opportunity for PWWSD
Due to Water Availability– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase
Price– District Would Be Sole Owner– Would Utilize Existing Water
Marketing Contract– Significant Political Hurdles– Diminishing Raw Water Supply Due to
Silting
Water SupplyCurrent Activity
• New Agreement– Initial Review of Existing
Agreement Complete– Waiting to Submit Draft
Changes for Discussion with District on Annexation Issues
Water SupplyCurrent Activity
• PWWSD No. 25 – Water Rights Application Pending
DWR Approval– Plant Site Options Being
Developed– Discussion Will Soon be Held
with USDA Rural Development Regarding Funding Options
Annexation Challenges
Annexation Challenges
• Approximately 434 Customers Within Urban Growth Area (After Additions)
• Geographic Area of UGA– Minimal Compared to Entire
District– Operation and Maintenance Costs
Will Not Reduce Proportionately
top related