HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater System Master Plan 2012- DraftTruckee Water System
Water Master Plan Update
I]RM%IwI
Adopted
XXXX 2012
Board of Directors
Joseph R. Aguera
Jeff Bender
Laura Clauson Ferree
J. Ron Hemig
Tony Laliotis
General Manager
Michael D. Holley
Prepared by:
Neil Kaufman
Water System Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1— INTRODUCTION
DISTRICT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1-1
SCOPEOF THIS STUDY........................................................................................................... 1-4
DATASOURCES....................................................................................................................... 1-4
PREVIOUSSTUDIES................................................................................................................. 1-5
ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................... 1-6
SECTION 2 — SYSTEM PLANNING CRITERIA
METHOD OF EVALUATION................................................................................................... 2-1
PLANNING CRITERIA.............................................................................................................. 2-1
WaterSources........................................................................................................................ 2-2
WaterQuality......................................................................................................................... 2-2
SystemPressures.................................................................................................................... 2-2
PipelineVelocities................................................................................................................. 2-3
StorageVolumes.................................................................................................................... 2-3
OperationalStorage......................................................................................................... 2-3
FireProtection Storage.................................................................................................... 2-3
EmergencyStorage.......................................................................................................... 2-4
OtherStorage Requirements............................................................................................ 2-4
FireProtection........................................................................................................................ 2-4
COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA.............................................................................................. 2-4
LandAcquisition.................................................................................................................... 2-4
ConstructionCosts................................................................................................................. 2-5
Pipelines........................................................................................................................... 2-5
FireHydrants................................................................................................................... 2-5
Storage Reservoirs........................................................................................................... 2-5
PumpingStations............................................................................................................. 2-5
Wells................................................................................................................................ 2-6
Pressure Reducing Stations.............................................................................................. 2-6
Contingencies......................................................................................................................... 2-6
Engineering and Administration............................................................................................ 2-6
SECTION 3 — EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
PRESSUREZONES.................................................................................................................... 3-1
GROUNDWATERWELLS........................................................................................................ 3-1
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES........................................................................................ 3-1
OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES...................................................................................... 3-6
PUMPINGSTATIONS............................................................................................................... 3-6
STORAGETANKS..................................................................................................................... 3-8
PRESSURE REGULATING STATIONS................................................................................... 3-8
PIPELINES................................................................................................................................ 3-12
SECTION 4 — POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND
POPULATION............................................................................................................................ 4-1
EXISTING AND HISTORIC POTABLE WATER DEMAND ................................................. 4-1
NON -POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION................................................................................ 4-7
HIRSCHDALE SYSTEM WATER PRODUCTION................................................................. 4-7
BUILDOUT WATER DEMAND............................................................................................... 4-7
FUTURE POTABLE WATER DEMANDS............................................................................. 4-12
FIRE FLOW DEMANDS.......................................................................................................... 4-14
SECTION 5 — WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN........................................................................ 5-1
QUANTITY OF GROUNDWATER IN THE MARTIS VALLEY BASIN .............................. 5-1
RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY....................................................................................... 5-2
MANAGEMENT OF THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN ........................... 5-3
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY QUALITY................................................................................. 5-3
EXISTING PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN RELATION TO PROJECTED DEMANDS....... 5-3
IMPACT OF UPCOMING WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS ........................................... 5-3
ADDITIONAL POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY ........................................... 5-5
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................... 5-6
SECTION 6 — EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................... 6-1
INTER -ZONE WATER TRANSFERS.......................................................................................
6-1
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS RESULTS..................................................................
6-1
Existing Average Day Conditions.........................................................................................
6-3
Existing Maximum Day Conditions......................................................................................
6-3
Existing Peak Hour Conditions..............................................................................................
6-6
Existing Fire Flow Analysis...................................................................................................
6-6
WATER STORAGE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................
6-6
PIPELINE LEAKAGE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................
6-10
Methodology........................................................................................................................
6-10
Results..................................................................................................................................
6-11
SYSTEM OPERATIONS..........................................................................................................
6-12
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES...............................................................................................
6-12
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................
6-12
SECTION 7 — FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND LAYOUT
FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES................................................................................ 7-1
FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT....................................................................... 7-1
Tahoe Donner Supply Reliability and Redundancy............................................................... 7-2
Recommended Future Distribution System Layout............................................................... 7-2
FUTURE WATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 7-5
SECTION 8 — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
METER BOX UPGRADE PROJECT......................................................................................... 8-1
EXISTING FACILITY REPLACEMENT.................................................................................. 8-1
SCADA SYSTEM REPLACEMENT......................................................................................... 8-1
CIPSUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 8-2
ANTICIPATED PHASING......................................................................................................... 8-3
SECTION 9 — FINANCIAL IMPACTS
CURRENT FEE AND RATE STRUCTURE.............................................................................
9-1
ConnectionFees.....................................................................................................................
9-1
FacilityFees...........................................................................................................................
9-1
Rates.......................................................................................................................................
9-2
PROPOSED FEE AND RATE STRUCTURE...........................................................................
9-2
ConnectionFee Structure.......................................................................................................
9-2
Proposed Facility Fee Structure.............................................................................................
9-3
Residential Facility Fees..................................................................................................
9-3
Commercial Facility Fees................................................................................................
9-4
Proposed Rate Structure.........................................................................................................
9-5
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION 2 — SYSTEM PLANNING CRITERIA
Table 2-1 — System Planning Criteria.......................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 — Pipeline Construction Cost Criteria.......................................................................... 2-5
SECTION 3 — EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
Table 3-1 —
Summary of Pressure Zone Data.............................................................................. 3-4
Table 3-2 —
Summary of Data for Potable Wells.........................................................................
3-6
Table 3-3 —
Summary of Pumping Station Data..........................................................................
3-8
Table 3-4 —
Summary of Storage Tank Data.............................................................................
3-10
Table 3-5 —
Summary of Control Valve Station Data................................................................
3-11
Table 3-6 —
Summary of Pipelines by Diameter........................................................................
3-13
Table 3-7 —
Summary of Pipelines by Year Installed................................................................
3-13
Table 3-8 —
Summary of Pipelines by Pipe Material.................................................................
3-13
SECTION 4 — POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND
Table 4-1 —
Historic Potable Water Production........................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-2 —
Comparison of May 2009 and May 2010, Usage by Selected Large Irrigators .......
4-5
Table 4-3 —
Breakdown of Potable Water Sales by Customer Class, 1995-2010........................
4-6
Table 4-4 —
Existing Potable Water Connections by Pressure Zone ...........................................
4-8
Table 4-5 —
Existing Average Day Potable Water Demand by Pressure Zone ...........................
4-9
Table 4-6 —
Existing Maximum Day Potable Water Demand by Pressure Zone ......................
4-10
Table 4-7 —
Historic Non -Potable Water Production.................................................................
4-11
Table 4-8 —
Historic Water Production for Hirschdale Water System ......................................
4-11
Table 4-9 —
Buildout Average Day Water Demand by Planning Area ......................................
4-12
Table 4-10
— Buildout Maximum Day Water Demand by Planning Area ................................
4-12
Table 4-11
— Generalized Fire Flow Requirements by Land Use .............................................
4-14
Table 4-12
— Existing Maximum Fire Flow Requirements by Pressure Zone for Evaluation
Purposes.............................................................................................................
4-15
SECTION 5 — WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
Table 5-1 — Recommended Potable Water Production Improvements ........................................ 5-6
SECTION 6 — EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
Table 6-1 — Existing System Storage Analysis............................................................................ 6-9
Table 6-2 — Number of Leaks, 1989 - 2010............................................................................... 6-10
Table 6-3 — Pressure Zone Adjustment Factors......................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-4 — Summary of Pipeline Replacement Needs............................................................. 6-12
Table 6-5 — Recommended Improvement Projects to Address Existing Needs ........................ 6-14
SECTION 7 — FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND LAYOUT
Table 7-1 — Proposed Pipeline Improvements............................................................................. 7-2
Table 7-2 — Proposed Pump Station and Pressure Reducing Station Improvements .................. 7-5
Table 7-3 — Anticipated Maximum Fire Flow Requirements by Storage Pressure Zone............ 7-6
Table 7-4 — Buildout Storage Volume Requirements.................................................................. 7-6
Table 7-5 — Proposed Reservoir Sizing and Reservoir Expansions ............................................. 7-7
SECTION 8 — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 8-1 — SCADA System Replacement Cost Estimate........................................................... 8-2
Table 8-2 — Summary of Recommended District -Funded Capital Improvement Program ......... 8-2
Table 8-3 — Breakdown of Capital Improvement Costs by Year ................................................. 8-3
Table 8-4 — Detailed Listing of Proposed District Funded Improvements .................................. 8-5
SECTION 9 — FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Table 9-1
— Current Connection Fee Structure............................................................................
9-1
Table 9-2
— Current Facility Fee Structure for Commercial Construction ..................................
9-2
Table 9-3
— Proposed Connection Fee Structure.........................................................................
9-2
Table 9-4
— Summary of Proposed Improvements by Funding Source .......................................
9-3
Table 9-5
— Characteristics of New Residential Housing Units, 2002 - 2010 .............................
9-4
Table 9-6
— Proposed Non -Residential Facility Fee Structure ....................................................
9-5
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION 1— INTRODUCTION
Figure1-1 —Location Map.......................................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 — Water System Service Areas................................................................................... 1-3
SECTION 3 — EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
Figure 3-1
— Existing System Schematic..................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2
— Water Distribution System Pressure Zone..............................................................
3-3
Figure 3-3
— Location of Water Production Facilities.................................................................
3-5
Figure 3-4
— Location of Pumping Stations.................................................................................
3-7
Figure 3-5
— Location of Storage Tanks and Control Valve Stations ..........................................
3-9
Figure 3-6
— Existing Distribution System Pipelines Color -Coded by Diameter ......................
3-14
Figure 3-7
— Existing Distribution System Pipelines Color -Coded by Year Installed ..............
3-15
Figure 3-8
— Existing Distribution System Pipelines Color -Coded by Pipe Material ...............
3-16
SECTION 4 — POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND
Figure 4-1 — Historic and Projected Population, 1980 - 2030..................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2 — Historic and Projected Population, 1965 - 2010..................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3 — Projected Increase in Potable Water Demand ....................................................... 4-13
SECTION 5 — WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
Figure 5-1 — Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Existing Production Capacity, 1995-2030 .. 5-4
Figure 5-2 — Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Proposed Production Capacity, 1995-2030.5-7
SECTION 6 — EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
Figure 6-1 — Analysis of Inter -Zone Water Transfers................................................................. 6-2
Figure 6-2 — Existing System Analysis Average Day Conditions ............................................... 6-4
Figure 6-3 — Existing System Analysis Maximum Day Conditions ............................................ 6-5
Figure 6-4 — Existing System Analysis Peak Hour Conditions ................................................... 6-7
Figure 6-5 — Existing System Analysis Maximum Day + Fire Flow Conditions ........................ 6-8
Figure 6-6 — Leak Replacement Priorities................................................................................. 6-13
Figure 6-7 — Recommended Improvements to Address Existing Needs ................................... 6-16
SECTION 7 — FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND LAYOUT
Figure 7-1 — Proposed Improvements to Serve Buildout Conditions .......................................... 7-3
Figure 7-2 — Proposed Buildout System Color -Coded by Pressure Zone ................................... 7-4
SECTION 8 — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Figure 8-1 — Proposed Buildout Improvements Color -Coded by Year of Construction ............. 8-4
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) provides water service to portions of the
Town of Truckee, California, along with adjacent unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer
Counties. The District operates two separate water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirschdale
System and the Truckee System. The general location of the District is given in Figure 1-1 and
the boundaries of the District's water system service areas are shown in Figure 1-2.
The Truckee area currently has a permanent population of about 16,280. The Town of Truckee's
current General Plan was prepared in 2006. The General Plan projected population growth to
occur at about two percent per year, eventually reaching a buildout population of 28,300
permanent residents. With this expected and ongoing growth, the District desires to develop an
orderly planned improvement program to replace aging infrastructure and ensure that water of
suitable quantity and quality is available for the projected future population.
The Hirschdale System is rather small, consisting of:
• One pressure zone
• One well
• One storage tank
• About 3,100 feet of pipeline
In contrast, the Truckee System is a reasonably complicated system, consisting of:
• 46 pressure zones
• 12 active and 3 inactive potable water wells
• 3 active non -potable wells
• 32 active and three inactive storage tanks
• 25 pumping stations
• About 216 miles of pipeline ranging from 2-inches to 24-inches in diameter
• 40 control valve stations
DISTRICT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Public water service in the Truckee area began in 1880, when the Schaeffer Lumber Company
developed the Tonini Spring to serve what is now downtown Truckee. In 1883, the McGlashen
infiltration gallery was constructed, along with a transmission system to convey water to the
downtown area. In 1885, the adjacent McGlashen Spring was developed.
In 1927, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was formed to provide electrical service to
the Truckee area. In 1935, the District began providing water service with the purchase of the
McGlashen water system. In 1943, the Southside Spring was acquired by the District and in
1953, the Tonini Spring water system was obtained by the District.
Page 1-1
NOT TO SCALE
CALIFORNIA NEVADA
TRUCKEEDONNER
Public Utility District
Figure 1-1
Location Map
Section 1 - Introduction
Originally, the District's water system provided service to only the downtown area. The system
was expanded to serve the Gateway and Meadow Park areas in the late 1940s. Significant
expansion of the District's service area occurred in the 1960s as new residential subdivisions
were constructed in the area.
Service was extended to the Olympic Heights area in the early 1960s, and the Sierra Meadows
area in the mid-1960s. The Tahoe -Donner, Prosser Lakeview and Ponderosa Palisades areas
were developed in the late 1960s, and the Armstrong area in the late 1970s.
In 1988, the Hirschdale Water System was constructed by the District at the request of the
California Department of Health Services. In the Summer of 2000, an 8-inch pipeline was
constructed to provide irrigation water service to the Coyote Moon Golf Course from the Donner
Creek Well. Connections from this pipeline to the irrigation systems at Meadow Park and the
School District campus are also planned, but have not yet been constructed.
Prior to 2001, there were two other water purveyors in the Truckee area. In the Summer of 2001,
the District took possession of the Donner Lake Water System. In February of 2002, the District
took possession of the Glenshire Mutual Water Company's system.
Significant development occurred during the 2000s. New residential developments included
Gray's Crossing, Old Greenwood, Spring Creek and Winter Creek. Non-residential development
included the Alder Creek Middle School, Pioneer Commerce Center and the Sierra College
campus. A large number of infill homes were also constructed on vacant lots in the older
subdivisions.
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
This Master Plan study deals with the existing and future water system in the Truckee Service
Area as defined in Figure 1-2. It is expected that a pipeline will be constructed to connect the
Hirschdale Water System to the Truckee Water System at some point. As such, discussions of
the Hirschdale Water System are included in this document with the expectation that it will be
integrated to form a single water system in the future.
The technical analyses that form the basis of this document were performed during the Summer
and Fall of 2011. Consequently, data regarding existing population, existing water demands,
rates and fees and other issues is current as of December 31, 2010, and the existing system
configuration is current as of the Spring of 2011. New projects and modifications to the water
system that have occurred since that time are not described as "Existing" and will be discussed in
future Master Plan updates.
DATA SOURCES
Many reports, studies, and other sources of information were utilized in the preparation of this
Master Plan. Material was obtained from the following sources:
• Truckee Fire Protection District
• Town of Truckee
• California Department of Health Services
Page 1-4
Section 1 - Introduction
• California Department of Finance
PREVIOUS STUDIES
This Water Master Plan Update represents the next step of an ongoing process of planning and
upgrading the water system to ensure that customer demands can be met with sufficient volumes
of high quality water supplies. Previous Water Master Plan Updates have been developed and
were adopted by the Board. They are listed below:
• Report on Truckee Public Utility District Water Works. Prepared for the Truckee Public
Utility District by L. Cedric MacAbee. Palo Alto, California. July 1949.
• Preliminary Feasibility Report on Truckee Water Systems. Prepared for the Truckee
Public Utility District by T.H. McGuire & Son. Grass Valley, California. May 1960.
• Water Master Plan. Prepared for the Truckee Public Utility District by Walters, Ball,
Hibdon and Shaw. Reno, Nevada. November 1968.
• Water System Analysis Report. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District
by Cook Associates. Oroville, California. October 1976.
• Composite Water System Analysis. Prepared for the Truckee Dormer Public Utility
District by Cook Associates. Oroville, California. 1981.
• Water System Master Plan. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Sauers Engineering, Inc. Nevada City, California. December 1990.
• Water System Master Plan, 1995 - 2015. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District by Sauers Engineering, Inc. Nevada City, California. March 1997.
• Water Master Plan Update, March 2001. Prepared for the Truckee Dormer Public Utility
District by District Staff. Truckee, California. March 2001.
• Water Master Plan Update, June 2004. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District by District Staff. Truckee, California. June 2004.
Other relevant studies used in the development of this Master Plan Update are:
• Availability of Ground Water. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. February 1974.
• Truckee and Vicinity Ground -Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared for Dart Resorts by
Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. April 1980.
Page 1-5
Section 1 - Introduction
• Ground -Water Management Plan, Phase 1, Martis Valley Ground -Water Basin, Basin
No. 6-67, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. Prepared for the Truckee Donner
Public Utility District by Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. January 1995.
• Ground Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District by Nimbus Engineers. Reno, Nevada. October 2000.
• Ground Water Availability in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Nevada and Placer
Counties, California. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer
County Water Agency and Northstar Community Services District by Nimbus Engineers.
Reno, Nevada. March 2001.
• Technical Review Report for State Revolving Fund Application for Donner Lake Water
Company, A Subsidiary of Del Oro Water Company. Prepared by the California
Department of Health Services. Sacramento, California. August 1999.
• Glenshire Mutual Water Company Water System Master Plan, 2001. Prepared for the
Glenshire Mutual Water Company by Lumos and Associates. Carson City, Nevada.
April 2001.
• Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Prepared for the Town of Truckee by Town Staff.
Truckee, California. 2006.
ABBREVIATIONS
To conserve space and improve readability, abbreviations have been used in this report. Each
abbreviation has been spelled out in the text the first time it is used. Subsequent usage of the
term is usually identified by its abbreviation.
Page 1-6
SECTION 2
SYSTEM PLANNING CRITERIA
SECTION 2
SYSTEM PLANNING CRITERIA
This section provides a discussion of the system criteria developed for evaluating master
planning scenarios. It also includes cost estimating criteria used in developing cost estimates and
determining the financial impact of the recommended improvements.
METHOD OF EVALUATION
A number of analyses were performed during the preparation of this Master Plan document.
These analyses include both computer model simulations and desktop analysis. These analyses
identified a number of projects that need to be constructed to improve system performance based
on the criteria described in this Section.
The computer model simulation and other analyses identify current system performance. These
analyses, in conjunction with the current planning criteria, identify the need for system
improvements. This current planning criteria that is applied to the design of new facilities has
changed over time due to changes in customer behavior and revisions to the Uniform Fire Code,
the Uniform Plumbing Code and water industry standard operating practices. The new planning
criteria would apply to new construction. It would also apply to new construction within existing
areas. This could result in two very similar adjacent projects having significantly different
planning criteria if they were constructed 30 years apart.
In a few cases, the need for additional infrastructure was identified in previous Master Plan
studies. In many other cases, the need for improvements resulted from growth that occurred
since the previous studies were prepared. These previous studies may have identified
recommended improvements that would, if constructed, improve system performance. However,
previously recommended improvements may not have been constructed due to changing District
priorities or limited available funds. However, that fact that the facilities have not yet been
constructed does not invalidate the fact that the facilities are needed because of the impact of
growth.
PLANNING CRITERIA
To properly evaluate a water system, it is necessary to first define the planning criteria to be used
in determining what improvements are needed for proper system performance today, and in the
future. The planning criteria presented here are compiled based on typical criteria used by similar
water purveyors, the California Department of Health Services, the California Public Utility
Commission requirements, and commonly accepted industry standards. The "industry standards"
are typical ranges of acceptable values for the criteria and are utilized more as a check to confirm
that the values being developed are reasonable.
Several evaluation criteria are important for this study, including adequacy of water sources,
system pressures, maximum pipeline velocities, water storage volumes, fire fighting capabilities,
and back-up power and equipment for emergency purposes. Each of these criteria is discussed in
more detail below and a summary of the recommendations for system criteria to be used is
presented in Table 2-1.
Page 2-1
Section 2 - System Planning Criteria
Table 2-1. Svstem Planning Criteria
Description
Criteria
Water Sources
Meet maximum day demand with
the largest well out of service
Minimum System Pressure
Average Day Demand
40 psi
Maximum Day Demand
40 psi
Maximum Day Demand plus Fire
20 psi
Peak Hour Demand
30 psi
Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Normal Conditions
5 fps
Fire Flow and Emergency Conditions
10 fps
psi = pounds per square inch
fps = feet per second
Water Sources
According to the California Department of Health Services, a water system is required to have
adequate source water to supply the maximum day demand for the distribution system with the
single largest source out of service. Demands in excess of the average on the maximum day
should be supplied either from tank storage or from groundwater storage via additional
groundwater well pumping capacity. This recommended operational plan typically is also good
economic practice. The District's planning criteria requires that source water capacity meet the
maximum day demand with the largest single groundwater well out of service.
Water Quality
A primary concern of all water purveyors is providing water to customers that is of adequate
quality to meet health, safety, and aesthetic standards. The water obtained by District is of good
quality. Water quality issues are discussed in detail in Section 5.
System Pressures
Acceptable system pressures are typically determined by several criteria, including what has
been acceptable to customers in the past and the District's goals for the system in general.
System pressures are evaluated under four scenarios: peak hour, maximum day, average day, and
maximum day plus fire. Pressures are recommended to be acceptable if they are at least 20
pounds per square inch (psi) during the average hour of the maximum day with a fire occurring,
if they are at least 40 psi during average day and maximum day conditions, and if they are at
least 30 psi during peak hour conditions.
Areas that cannot meet these criteria are identified and recommendations for improvements
regarding these areas are made. Only locations within the service area for a given pressure zone
are evaluated, areas of low pressures adjacent to storage tanks, wells, and pump stations are not
considered for pressure evaluation purposes.
Most water systems attempt to maintain a maximum pressure of 100 psi. However, CPUC
Standards and the Uniform Plumbing Code allow pressures up to 125 psi. There are numerous
locations in the District's water system where pressures exceed 125 psi currently. Modifications
to the system to limit system pressures below 100 psi would require the abandonment and
reconstruction of almost every storage tank and pumping station in the system, along with the
Page 2-2
Section 2 - System Planning Criteria
construction of additional facilities. Such a massive reconstruction of the water system is not
considered economically feasible, or even desirable. However, there are small areas of the
system where pressures can be reduced by piping modifications or constructing pressure
reducing stations. In areas of new construction, every effort will be made to limit pressures to at
most 100 psi.
Pipeline Velocities
Distribution system pipelines are evaluated based on meeting maximum day plus fire flows and
peak hour flows. In addition, other factors are considered when developing recommendations for
improvements to existing pipelines. These factors include the amount of leaks historically
experienced, system reliability, and the phasing of scheduled improvements for other facilities
such as pumps, tanks, and control valves and the need to expand the distribution system into
areas not currently served.
Two criteria are typically evaluated with respect to analyzing the adequacy of pipelines; headloss
and velocity. Headloss is measured in feet of headloss per 1,000 feet of pipeline and velocity is
measured in feet per second (fps). One of these criteria is typically selected as the governing
criteria, based on economics and typical industry practices. For this Master Plan, a maximum
allowable velocity of 5 fps is used for normal operating conditions. Velocities of up to 10 fps are
considered acceptable for fire flow and emergency conditions.
As described above for pressure criteria, staying within the accepted pipeline velocity goals is
desirable, but marginally high velocities are not reason enough to recommend that pipelines be
improved. Areas that exceed the listed criteria will be identified and improvements will be
recommended for areas that are unacceptably out of tolerance. Recommended improvements
will be sized for buildout conditions and not to just address velocity issues.
Storage Volumes
The total required volume of storage in a water system consists of water for operational,
emergency, and fire protection uses. Original water sources, such as water from groundwater
wells, and storage sources, such as water tanks throughout the system, can be utilized
simultaneously in determining quantities of water available to meet customer demands.
Operational Storage. Operational storage is the quantity of water required to moderate daily
fluctuations in demand beyond the capabilities of the production facilities. The production rates
of the water sources and the available storage capacity are coordinated to provide a continuous
treated water supply. Based on economic considerations, water source production systems are
often designed to produce the average flow on the day of maximum demand. Water must be
stored to supply the difference between the peak demands and the capacity of the water sources.
Operational storage is then replenished during off-peak hours when the demand is less than
production. Water for operational requirements can be supplied by storage tanks, by additional
standby groundwater pumping capacity, or by a combination of the two. Typically, a volume
equal to between one -quarter (25%) and one-third (33%) of the demand experienced during one
maximum day is used. A value of one-third of the maximum day demand is assumed for
operational storage for all pressure zones.
Fire Protection Storage. According to the Insurance Services Office (ISO), required fire flows
may be met by any combination of pumping and storage. However, there is typically minimal
excess pumping capacity available during maximum day conditions and it is recommended that
Page 2-3
Section 2 - System Planning Criteria
storage volume be provided such that fire flow demands can be supplied entirely from storage.
If excess pumping capacity is available, the installation of backup generators is often prudent to
ensure that the pumps can function in the event of a power failure.
As an example, a 1,500 gallon per minute (gpm) fire flow demand with an expected duration of
two hours would require a storage volume of 180,000 gallons. Similarly, a 2,000 gpm fire flow
demand with an expected duration of four hours would require a storage volume of 480,000
gallons. More detailed information regarding fire flow demands is given in Section 3.
Emergency Storage. The volume of water allocated for emergency uses is typically determined
based on the historical record of emergencies experienced and on the amount of time expected to
lapse before an anticipated emergency can be corrected. Possible emergency situations include
events such as water contamination, earthquakes, loss of electrical power, several simultaneous
fires, and other unplanned events. Because the occurrence and magnitude of an emergency
situation is not subject to accurate evaluation, the volume of emergency storage is generally
based upon engineering judgment and/or utility policy. For the purposes of calculating storage
requirements, the required emergency storage volume is assumed to be equal to the average
day's demand.
Other Storage Requirements. It should also be noted that the criteria given above are somewhat
simplified. There are situations where the required storage volume at a given site may be larger
due to system constraints. This situation actually occurs at the Northside Tank site, and is
discussed in detail in Section 6.
Fire Protection
There are two characteristics of a water system that must be evaluated in considering whether
adequate fire protection capabilities exist. The first issue is whether the necessary flow of water
can be delivered to the subject location at pressure of 20 psi or greater. The second assumes that
adequate storage volume must exist in order to provide the required flow for a given duration.
The evaluation criteria used in examining the existing water system is based on the required fire
flow demands at the time a given subdivision or project was constructed. Future facilities will be
designed to the fire flow requirements in effect at the time the facility is constructed.
COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA
Project cost is defined as the total capital investment necessary to complete a project. This includes
expenditures for construction, engineering services, contingencies and overhead items such as legal
and administrative services and financing. For this study, total capital cost includes planning level
estimates of construction cost, plus construction contingencies of 20 percent. Added to this is an
allowance for other costs such as engineering, legal and administration totaling an additional 20
percent. The various components of project costs are discussed in the following sections.
Land Acquisition
In most cases, proposed construction of distribution system improvements does not require
significant purchases of privately owned land. Pipeline routes typically follow public streets and
roads. For this reason, no attempt was made to estimate the cost of land purchases in connection
with distribution system improvements.
In cases where sites for storage tanks, pumping stations or wells are required, the estimated cost of
land should be ascertained by a competent local land appraiser prior to design. Land acquisition
Page 2-4
Section 2 - System Planning Criteria
costs are a function of several variables and market economy conditions. For these reasons, land
cost has not been considered in estimating facility costs.
Construction Costs
Construction costs cover the materials, labor and services necessary to build the proposed project.
The cost criteria listed below is based on construction projects previously undertaken by the
District and has been adjusted for inflation to the year 2000. However, the cost estimates given
for future projects (such as a well recommended for the year 2014) are also given in current costs
and are not adjusted for inflation.
Pipelines. Unit costs for the construction of new water mains are given in Table 2-2. These costs
are based upon cement -lined ductile iron pipe for all mains. These pipeline cost figures cover
preparation of right-of-way, trenching, installing and joining of pipe, installing fittings and valves,
imported backfill and repaving after construction.
Table 2-2. Pipeline Construction Cost Criteria
Pipe Diameter, inches
Cost Per Linear Foot, dollars
4-inch
155
6-inch
165
8-inch
175
10-inch
190
12-inch
215
14-inch
230
16-inch
240
20-inch
270
24-inch
300
Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant installation, including a 6-inch tee, 6-inch lateral, valve, valve box,
hydrant and construction is assumed to have an average cost of about $6,000. Costs for hydrant
installations on large diameter mains are somewhat higher.
Storage Reservoirs. Costs for ground -level steel tanks are estimated at $1.25 per gallon. This cost
includes foundations; site preparation and grading; minimal site piping and reservoir overflow and
drain lines.
Pumping Stations. Pumping station costs mainly vary with the size of the pumps and their
associated switchgear and piping. Certain elements do not change significantly with pump size
such as sitework, building construction and electrical service to the site. Considering these
issues, there is a certain minimum cost involved in constructing a pump station. Cost estimates
are developed with a base cost of $350,000 and an incremental cost of $600 per installed
horsepower. Installed horsepower is calculated from the formula below with actual pumps based
on standard motor sizes.
HP= Q * H
3960 * E
Page 2-5
Section 2 - System Planning Criteria
Q = flow in gallons per minute
H = Head in feet
E = Pump Efficiency (assumed to be 75%)
These estimates include the cost of the pump station structure along with pumps, motors, piping and
appurtenances, architectural treatment, instrumentation and controls.
Wells. In developing cost estimates for well installations, wells are assumed to be sized to produce
850 gpm. Well construction consists of drilling, installing casing, developing the well and installing
the necessary building, piping, pumping equipment and control equipment. A typical well is
assumed to have a 14-inch casing and screen extending to a depth of approximately 1,000 feet.
Estimated construction cost for a complete well, including the well building and equipment is
$1,750,000. Additional costs such as bringing transmission piping and electrical service to the well
site are not included in the total.
Pressure Reducing Stations. Pressure reducing stations are assumed to consist of two valve trains
- a 2-inch valve to handle smaller flow with a 6-inch or 8-inch valve to handle larger flows. Station
construction consists of a traffic rated precast concrete vault, pressure reducing valves, isolation
valves and associated piping. Estimated construction cost for a complete station is $40,000. This
total is based upon hydraulically operated valves. Additional costs would be incurred to provide
electrical service and install instrumentation, if the valve station is to be integrated into the District's
SCADA system.
Contingencies
A contingency allowance covers uncertainties associated with preliminary planning. Factors such
as unusual foundation or soil conditions, special construction methods, variation in final lengths or
average depths of pipeline, and construction adjacent to existing facilities are just a few of many
items which may increase project costs and for which some allowance must be made in the
preliminary design cost estimates. An allowance of 20 percent of total construction cost has been
assumed to cover such contingencies.
Engineering and Administration
The cost of engineering services for construction projects includes some or all of the following:
special investigations, pre -design reports, surveys, foundation explorations, location of interfering
utilities, detailed design, preparation of contract drawings, construction inspection, materials testing,
final inspection and start-up of the completed project. Depending on the size and type of project,
total engineering, legal and administrative costs can range from 7 to 40 percent of the construction
cost. The lower percentage applies to relatively large, simple projects not requiring large amounts
of preliminary investigation. The higher percentage applies to smaller projects requiring a great
deal of engineering effort, or those which require a relatively large amount of preliminary work. A
value of 15 percent is assumed for this study.
Administration charges cover items such as legal fees, financing expenses and administrative costs.
The cost of these items can vary, but for the purpose of this study, administration charges are
assumed to equal five percent of construction cost.
The average total cost of all necessary engineering services plus administrative costs is estimated to
be 20 percent of the construction cost for each project.
Page 2-6
SECTION 3
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
SECTION 3
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
This section provides a description of the existing water system facilities. Facilities owned and
operated by the District include groundwater wells, pumping stations, storage tanks, pressure
reducing stations and pipelines. Each set of facilities is discussed in detail below. This
discussion covers both the Truckee and Hirschdale water systems.
The District's water system is reasonably complicated with 46 pressure zones, 25 pumping
stations, 16 active wells and 33 storage tanks. All water demands are served by groundwater
wells, although natural springs and surface water supplies have been used in the past.
PRESSURE ZONES
There are currently 46 pressure zones in the service area, with service elevations ranging from
5535 feet in Hirschdale to 7370 feet at the highest point in Tahoe Donner. Static service
pressures ranges from a high of about 200 psi to a low of about 20 psi.
The existing pressure zone configuration is shown schematically on Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2
depicts the distribution system with piping color -coded by pressure zone. Approximate
minimum and maximum ground elevations and static service pressures in the pressure zones are
given in Table 3-1.
GROUNDWATER WELLS
The District currently has 13 active wells that are used to supply potable water to customers.
The total production capacity of the active potable water wells is about 9,740 gpm (14.0 mgd).
The wells are located at various locations throughout the distribution system. The locations of
the wells are shown in Figure 3-3 and selected well characteristics are shown in Table 3-2.
Three additional wells are used to serve non -potable water demands. The Donner Creek Well is
connected to a separate piping system that is used to provide irrigation water to the Coyote Moon
Golf Course. The Fibreboard Well is connected to a separate piping system that is used to
provide irrigation water to the Gray's Crossing and Old Greenwood golf courses. The Southside
No. 1 well is used to supply construction water for contractor use during the Summer
construction season.
There are three other wells that are not currently used by the District. They are the B well, Biltz
well and Bingham Place well. All three of these wells are low in capacity and the District does
not intend to use these wells in the future. However, they have not been abandoned in
accordance with California State requirements and are therefore considered inactive.
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
All of the District's active potable water wells are equipped with disinfection systems utilizing
liquid chlorine. There are additional treatment systems at the Northside and Hirschdale wells.
The treatment system at Northside removes excess levels of arsenic. The treatment system at
Hirschdale removes excess levels of arsenic, iron and manganese.
Page 3-1
7600
7400
7200
7000
Biltz Tank
85,000 gals
6400 (otrrof SERVICE)
DL-6323 Tank
300,000 gals Armstrong Tank
100,000 gals
Biltz Well
ALTITUDE VALVE OUT OF SERVICE rT
Biltz PRV
OUT OF SERVICE
6200
Red Mountain Tank
Wolfe Estates Tank 210,000 gals
230,000 gals OUT OF SERVICE
Red Mountain
WO Hydropneumatic RED M NTAIN
HYDROP EUMATI ALTITUDE VALVE HYDRO EUMA pi
ONE ZONE
Wolfe Estates
Hydropneumatic
DONNE LAKE 24 ZON West Reed
Flow Control Station
COLDS EAM 6080
ZONE
Donner Park
PRV Station
5600
5400
5200
5000
Ski Run Tank
100,000 gals
B Well AA Well
NOT IN SERVICE
PPER
Donner View Tankge Tank
350,000 gals 350,000 gals
NNER W Ski Lodge Booster
ROPN MATIC
Z E Donner View
Hydropneumatic
RUN
Ski Run Booster
16133 PRV Station
4
LOWER SKI RUN
ZONE
Glacier Tank
150,000 gals
14526 PRV Station
Pinnacle Tank
180,000 gals
Pinnacle
Hydropneumatic
Roundhill Tank Herringbone Tank IStockholm Tank
ONNER EW ZO 300,000 gals 300,000 gals 320,000 gals
Heidi Way
PRV Station
ALTITUDE VALVEnOCKHOZONE
INNAC ZONE
R NDHIL
HYDR NEUMA ZONE Stockholm Booster
FIDI WA ONE
7Z
Roundhill
Sitzmark Tank Falcon Point Tank Innsbruck Tank HydropneumaticWest Hillside PRV Station
200,000 gals 200,000 gals 20011,000 Ilgals InnsbruckBoosterEast Hillside PRV Station HILLSIDE ZONE
S MARK ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
uvnon irnuen 7ni, VALVE VALVE an
Soma Sierra Tank
200,000 gals
Soma Sierra Booster I -
Donner Trails
PRV Station
Summit Drive
PRV Station
DONh
DONNER LAKE
NORTHEAST ZONE
Loch Leven
PRV Station Richards Control
Valve No. 1
Richards Control Richards Booster
Valve No. 2
Donner Trails Tanks
300,000 gals
--M Donner Trails Booster
Gateway Tank
450,000 gals
College Chez
PRV Station FCV Station
13770 PRV Station
13330 PRV Station
OUT C EK A DER CREEK
655 ONE 100,000 aIs
Trout Creek 6550 Alder Creek ZON 9
PRV Station PRV Station
Mortiswoods Tank Ponderosa Palisades Tank
200,000 gals 200,000 gals
North Bennett Flat South Bennett Flat
PRV Station 1 1 PRV Station
�IAR-ZnIII
SODSPalisadesPALIS ESBENNETT FLAT E Hydropneumatic YDROP UMATI
ZONE ONE
ALTITUDE VALVE
NC
I�
Northside No. 6
PRV Station
CHEZ WE PALIS ES Sierra Meadows Tank
HYD PENUM C ZO H ROPNE Am P NDERO 250,000
ZO P ISADE ONE gals
West Palisades ALTITUDE VALVE
Northside Well Hydropneumatic
Northside Tank Sierra Meadows Booster
400,000 gals
Chez Featherstone 5988 Tank
Hydropneumatic Wi
360,000 gals
(OUT OF SERVICE) Martis Valley PRV
Station
Fire Flow Only /
Northside No. 5 PRV Station
Estates PRV Station
N
Reynold PRV Station
Airport Tank
600,000 gals
Airport Well [ff
Airport Booster
6170 Tank -
1,500,000 gals
Prosser Lakeview Tank
250,000 gals
Old Greenwood ALTITUDE VALVE Snowshoe
PRV No. 4 PRV Station
14
Wi
Old Greenwood Rainbow
/ SI A ME OWS Z PRV No. 3 PRV Station
LOWE LAKEVI
ZONE
OLYMPIC HEIGHTS
6040
PRVshire Well
Southside GIenshire Mortis Valley Sanders Well Prosser Old
No. 2 Well Drive Well Well No. 1 Village Well Greenwood Well
NOTES
1) Storage Tanks and Pressure Zone Service Areas are Shown to the Proper Elevations
2) Pump Stations, Wells, Control Stations and Piping are Not Shown to the Proper Elevations
Ghirard PRV Station
Prosser Annex Tank Prosser Heights Tank
215,000 gals 215,000 gals
ALTITUDE VALVE 11
Prosser Heights
Hydropneumatic
Prosser Annex Well
T Prosser
/ I PRV Station P SSER IGHTS
NOT IN SERVICE Z E
/ Waterloo
PRV Station
-L
Prosser Heights Well Wellington
350 gpm PRV Station
1-1
Tudor PRV Station
WA L00 China Camp Alder Drive ONE
ICKNI ZONE
Pump Station PRV Station
Glenshire Lower Tanks
738,000 gals
Donnington
PRV Station
2 Strand Booster
Hirschdale Tank
100,000 gals
7600
7400
7200
7000
6400
Glenshire Upper Tanks
492,000 gals
Well No. 20
6200
5600
5400
5200
DRAFT -5000
\_ Wolfe Eskates Tank
-WOLFE
Tank
Bingham Place Well and
Wolfe Hydropneumatic Pump Station
(WELL OUT OF SERVICE)
DL-6124
Ski Run Tank
& Pump Station
Glacier Tank
West Reed
FCV Station
Pinnacle Tank &
Hydropneumatic Pump Station
PINNACL
Stockholm Tank
& Pump Station
Alder Creek
Pump Station\
Lodge an
ump Station
LOWER
SKISLOPE
ON ER I W
- 6323
\�jRE MOU TAIN
Red Mountain Tank and /
Hydropenumatic Pump Stati
(TANK OUT OF SERVI
Moraine Roa
PRV Station
(OIOI ESE
Loch Leven
PRV Station D L-N O RT H EAST v
Summit Drive
PRV Station
HILLSIDE
West Hillside
PRV Station
ROUNDHILL
East Hillside
HYDRORoundhill
PRV Station
Hydropneumatic Pump Station
STOCKHOLM
Trout
rr� PRV
Pump Station
&
np Station
id Well
RVICE)
ARMSTRONG
Arpigtronq Tank
Point Ta
> Station
S ma Sierra Tank
& ump Station
Do ner Trails Tank
& mp Station
Richards Pump Station
Coldstream 6080 PRV
LDSTREAM
6080
i Bennett Flat
Station
BENNETT
FLAT
South Bennett Fk
V Station
SIERRA
Trails PRV
&
is Pump Station
osser H fights Tank
fdrepneu atic Pum
HYD O
INNSBRUC 6170
B —
6 0 Tank o
Northside
PRV No. 5
Northside Tank
way Tank and Well
CHE
� ■' •Ins �;����
r/�L A/ � � �� ■� �\IIIi i�111 ■1111111■ �■■�� ��.:
'� �'-� �i��='!'imm���1111�i��iiiiiliil=r•
�i►��1III
Prosser PRV
OUT OF SERVICE)
PROSSER
HEIGHTS
a Ca p PS
China C p
- 1
11111■■■�■ri
WIN
'Fry,
UPPER Sno,
kKEVIEW PRv,
Estates
PRV Station
le Well
Station
r1
Station
alley PRV Station SIERRA
MEADOWS
PONDEROSA
PALISADES
Prosser Village Well /
Old Cy6enwdod
PRV tati No.1
(O OF ERVICE)
7
+ood
No.3 6170
Old Greenwood
PRV Station No.
Greenwood D
VS .2
Old Greenwood Well
5988 Tank
Martis Valley
Well No. 1
rport Well, Tank
Pump Station
Glenshire
Control Valve
Donnington
PRV Station
PRV
Tudor
PRV Station
WA'
Pump
PRV Station
1
Glen hire
Well
GLENSHIIRE 2
Tanks
Hirschdale Tank
and Well
HIRSCHDALE
NORTH
SCALE
1" = 1,500 FEET
ON 21 " x 46" PAPER
TRUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
Figure 3-2
Water Distribution System
Pressure Zone
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-1. Summary of Pressure Zone Data
Pressure Zone
Target
HGL,
feet
Lowest Service
Elevation, feet
Highest
Static Service
Pressure, psi
Highest
Service
Elevation, feet
Lowest Static
Service
Pressure, psi
6040
6040
5838
87
5927
49
6170
6170
5880
125
6050
52
Alder Creek
6610
6300
134
6440
74
Armstrong
6334
5959
162
6200
58
Bennett Flat
6352
6196
68
6225
55
Chez
6262
6150
48
6150
48
DL-6124
6124
5940
80
6050
32
DL-6323
6323
5950
161
6245
34
DL-Northeast
6085
5940
63
5975
48
DL-Red Mountain
6200
6100
43
6110
39
DL-Wolfe
6220
6035
80
6140
35
Donner Trails
6160
5932
99
6005
67
Donner View
6894
6612
122
6806
38
Donner View Hydro
6990
6820
74
6890
43
Gateway
6040
5825
93
5990
22
Glacier
7500
7210
126
7370
56
Glenshire 1
6341
5880
200
6203
60
Glenshire 2
6163
5823
147
6038
54
Heidi Way
6815
6595
95
6645
74
Heights Hydro
6415
6183
100
6325
40
Hillside
6660
6357
131
6526
58
Hirschdale
5626
5495
58
5535
39
Icknield
6058
5840
94
5850
90
Innsbruck
6493
6157
145
6455
16
Lower Lakeview
6130
5820
134
6040
40
Lower Ski Run
7088
6850
103
6954
58
Lower Skislope
7015
6752
114
6830
80
Martiswoods
6360
6210
65
6255
45
Middle Skislope
7172
6800
161
7010
70
Palisades Hydro
6390
6180
91
6220
74
Pinnacle
6843
6588
110
6756
38
Pinnacle Hydro
6950
6752
86
6820
56
Ponderosa Palisades
6298
6025
118
6220
34
Prosser Heights
6338
6000
146
6180
68
Riverview
6020
5790
100
5875
63
Roundhill Hydro
6790
6618
74
6660
56
Sierra Meadows
6146
5880
115
6030
50
Sitzmark Hydro
6580
6435
63
6440
61
Soma Sierra
6286
6000
124
6200
37
Stockholm
6708
6395
135
6641
29
Town
6024
5745
121
5950
32
Trout Creek 6550
6550
6375
76
6420
56
Upper Lakeview
6230
5975
110
6100
56
Upper Skislope
7366
7010
154
7274
40
Waterloo
6071
5825
106
5876
84
West Palisades Hydro
6250
6100
65
6210
17
HGL = Hydraulic Grade Line
Page 3-4
r(INACTIV
AWELL
E)
4
MCGLASHEN y SPRINGS
(INACTIVE)
BILTZ WELL
(INACTIVE)
POINT SPRING4 (INACTIVE)
BINGHAM PLACE WELL
(INACTIVE)
HOFERT
'SPRINGS
(INACTIVE)
PROSSER AN
NORTHSIDE
• • jig
• " • 31
TO SHEEPHERDE P GS (INACTIVI
(APPROX. 3 MILE UTH I
N CA 89)
PR SSER VILLAGE W
DARD W
TION ONLY) °
OLD GR ENW DWELL
TER ONLY)
WELL
WELL NO. 1
WELL NO. 20
LEGEND
• ACTIVE POTABLE WATER WELL
• ACTIVE NON -POTABLE WATER WELL
• INACTIVE POTABLE WATER WELL
• INACTIVE SURFACE WATER SOURCE
DRAFT
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-2. Summary of Data for Potable Wells
Name
Current
Capacity, gpm
A Well
160
Airport
2,140
Glenshire Drive
1,725
Hirschdale
35
Martis Valley Well No. 1
1,585
Northside
575
Old Greenwood
870
Prosser Annex
460
Prosser Heights
360
Prosser Village
800
Sanders
290
Southside No. 2
200
Well No. 20
540
Total
9,740
Note: Current capacity given is based on most recent data
OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
In the past, the District has used natural springs as water supply source. There are three springs —
McGlashen, Southside and Tonini — at which the District has facilities. These springs are not
currently used due to their low capacity and the need to treat the water supply in accordance with
the Surface Water Treatment Rule. In addition, the District owns water rights to the Sheepherder
Springs and Hofert Springs, although no facilities exist to utilize these supplies. Figure 3-3
shows the locations of these springs.
PUMPING STATIONS
The Truckee System currently has 25 pumping stations located throughout the distribution
system. These pumping stations move water from lower pressure zones to higher pressure zones
to serve demands in higher elevations of the service area.
The different pumping stations have a variety of configurations, with some facilities taking
suction directly from distribution system pipelines, while others are located at reservoir sites and
use the reservoir as a forebay. Similarly, there is a variety of vertical turbine, end suction and
horizontal split case pumps. All of the pumps are driven by electric motors. Some of the
pumping stations are equipped with diesel powered generators as a backup power supply.
The locations of the pumping stations are shown in Figure 3-4, and selected pump
characteristics are shown in Table 3-3. The distribution system schematic given Figure 3-1
shows the relationships between the pumping stations and the pressure zones served by a given
station.
Page 3-6
PUMPING
7DGE
ROPNEUMATIC
ION
OCKHOLM
MPING STATION
REEK
STATION
11-1
SKI RUN
PUMPING STATION
RED MOUNTAIN
HYDROPNEUMATIC
PUMPING STATION
ROUNDHILL HYDROPNEUMATIC
PUMPING STATION
\ FALCON POINT
PUMPING STATION
PUMPING S
PUMPING STATION
` HERRINGBONE v
DONNER VIEW PUMPING STATION SOMA SI RRA
HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPIN STATION
PUMPING STATIO PUOMPI G ST AILS N ��
CHEZ HYDROL
RICHARDS BLVD L
PUMPING STATION
0
13
TIC
CHINA CAMP
PUMPING ST,
ATION
MARTISWOODS
PUMPING STATI
J
ATI ON
N
A
SIERRA MEADOWS
PUMPING STATION
n
rr
F-
0
J
dell/_\1141N
DRAFT
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-3. Summary of Pumping Station Data
Name
Suction Pressure
Zone
Discharge Pressure
Zone
Number of
Pumps
Total
Power, h
Airport
---
6170
4
400
Alder Creek
Stockholm
Donner View
2
60
Chez
6170
Chez
3
90
China Camp
6170
Prosser Heights
3
90
Donner Trails
Gateway
Soma Sierra
4
600
Donner View Hydro
Donner View
Donner View Hydro
2
30
Falcon Point
Innsbruck
Stockholm
3
225
Herringbone
Stockholm
Donner View
3
150
Innsbruck
Innsbruck
Stockholm
4
200
Martiswoods
Ponderosa Palisades
Martiswoods
2
15
Pinnacle Hydro
Pinnacle
Pinnacle Hydro
2
27.5
Palisades Hydro
Ponderosa Palisades
Palisades Hydro
3
60
Prosser Heights Hydro
Prosser Heights
Prosser Heights Hydro
2
70
Red Mountain Hydro
DL-6124
Red Mountain
2
30
Richards Boulevard
Gateway
Armstrong/DL-6323
3
300
Roundhill Hydro
Stockholm
Roundhill Hydro
2
30
Sierra Meadows
6170/Sierra Meadows
Ponderosa Palisades
3
90
Sitzmark Hydro
Innsbruck
Sitzmark Hydro
2
30
Ski Lodge
Donner View
Upper Ski Run
2
80
Ski Run
Upper Ski Run
Upper Glacier
2
50
Soma Sierra
Soma Sierra
Innsbruck
4
600
Stockholm
Stockholm
Pinnacle
3
150
Strand
6170/Glenshire 2
Glenshire 1
3
120
West Palisades Hydro
Ponderosa Palisades
West Palisades Hydro
1
3
Wolfe Hydro
DL-6124
Wolfe
2
45
STORAGE TANKS
The Truckee System has 36 storage tanks — 33 active and 3 inactive. Most of the tanks provide
gravity pressure to a portion of the distribution system. Some also function as a forebay for a
pumping station. The total storage capacity of the active water tanks is about 9.5 mg. Storage
tank locations are shown in Figure 3-5 and their characteristics are given in Table 3-4.
PRESSURE REGULATING STATIONS
There are 40 control valve stations located throughout the Truckee System — 34 active and 6
inactive. These stations provide service to small pressure zones, allow a means to relieve
pressure in zones not directly served by a reservoir and provide additional water for fire flow
demands. The locations of the stations are shown on Figure 3-5 and selected data on the stations
is given in Table 3-5.
Page 3-8
T
PINNACLE TANK
STOCKHOLM TA K
S ILODG TANK
16133 PRV S ATION
13330 PRV
STATION
13770 PEV
KI RUN TANK STATION
14526 PRV
STATION /
LACIER TANKS 11(
DONNEIR LAKE
6323 TANK
"STATION
ALDER CREEK
PRV STATION
WEST HILLSIDE
PRV STATION
EAST HILLSIDE
zPRV STATION
ROUNDHILL TANK
TROUT CREEK
PRV STATIOtd
—
INNSBRUCK T
TANK HERRINGBONE TANK
H IDI WAY
V STATION SOMA SIERRA T INK -
V"
�DONNERTANKS
LOCH LEVEN BILTZ PRV STATION
PRV STATION (INACTIVE) �?
M I ROAD
IV )COLDS EAM 6080
SUMMIT DRIVE PRV ST TION
PRV STATION
J
POINT TANK
BRIDGE ST
6170 TANK
TRAILS NORTHSIDE l
TION
WES NORTHSIDE \
AY TANK FCV S ATION
GATE AY
PRV STATIO
MARTItWOODS TANK AI
MARTI WOODS TOWER
.91
RAINBOW—
PRV STATION
GHIRARD
PRV STATION
u�
OLD
PRV STAT
RV
MARTIS VALLEY
PRV STATION
rr
LID GREENWOOD O. 2 " L
W STATION
A�C61V )
DO N GTO�
ATST E5988 TANK P ATION
GLENSHIRE r
PRV STATION
RPORT T
�,�ra
►1it\11-0
ATION
TANKS
UPPER GLENSHIRE TANKS
LEGEND
• ACTIVE STORAGE TANK SITE
• INACTIVE STORAGE TANK SITE
• ACTIVE CONTROL VALVE STATION
• INACTIVE CONTROL VALVE STATION
DRAFT
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-4. Summary of Storage Tank Data
Storage Tank
Volume,
mg
Diameter,
feet
Floor
Elevation
Shell Height,
feet
Overflow
Elevation
Year
Built
Airport
0.60
70
5886
20
5906
1979
Armstrong
0.10
27
6310
24
6334
1979
Biltz a
0.085
25
6350
24
6374
1985
Bridge Street 6170
1.50
90
6139
32
6171
2002
Donner Trails 1
0.15
36
6022
20
6042
1973
Donner Trails 2
0.15
36
6022
20
6042
1990
Donner Lake 6323
0.30
40
6291
32
6323
2005
Donner View
0.35
40
6861
32
6893
1973
Falcon Point
0.20
39
6469
24
6493
1974
Featherstone 5988 a
0.36
44
5956
32
5988
2002
Gateway
0.45
60
6021
24
6045
1995
Glacier
0.15
36
7476
24
7500
1972
Herringbone
0.30
40
6676
32
6708
1973
Hirschdale
0.10
33.5
5611
16
5627
1988
Innsbruck
0.20
39
6469
24
6493
1972
Lower Glenshire 1
0.42
55
6139
24
6163
1993
Lower Glenshire 2
0.32
48
6139
24
6163
1972
Martiswoods
0.20
40
6276
22
6298
1982
Martiswoods Tower
0.10
20
6338
22
6360
1982
Northside
0.40
55
6003
24
6027
1974
Pinnacle
0.18
31.5
6811
32
6843
1973
Ponderosa Palisades
0.20
40
6276
22
6298
1972
Prosser Annex
0.215
40
6314
24
6338
1994
Prosser Heights
0.215
40
6314
24
6338
1963
Prosser Lakeview
0.25
40
6102
28
6130
1971
Red Mountain
0.21
39
6100
24
6124
1963
Roundhill
0.30
40
6676
32
6708
1974
Sierra Meadows
0.25
34
6110
36
6146
1971
Sitzmark
0.20
39
6469
24
6493
1973
Ski Lodge
0.35
50
6870
24
6894
1971
Ski Run
0.10
26
7163
30
7193
1972
Soma Sierra
0.20
40
6262
24
6286
1972
Stockholm
0.32
42
6676
32
6708
1972
Upper Glenshire 1
0.28
45
6315
24
6339
1991
Upper Glenshire 2
0.21
39
6315
24
6339
1989
Wolfe
0.23
42
6100
24
6124
1993
Total
10.15
a The Biltz, Featherstone 5988 and Red Mountain storage tanks are currently inactive
Page 3-10
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-5. Summary of Control Valve Station Data
Name
Upstream Pressure
Zone
Downstream
Pressure Zone
Notes
13330 Skislope
Middle Skislope
Lower Skislope
13770 Skislope
Upper Skislope
Middle Skislope
14526 Skislope
Glacier
Upper Skislope
16133 Skislope
Upper Ski Run
Lower Ski Run
Alder Creek
Stockholm
Alder Creek
Biltz
Biltz Tank
Armstrong
Inactive
Coldstream 6080
DL-6323
Coldstream 6080
College
6170
Gateway
Donner Trails
Soma Sierra
Donner Trails
Donnington
Glenshire 1
Glenshire 2
East Hillside
Stockholm
Hillside
East Northside
6170
Town
Estates
6170
Riverview
Gateway
6170
Gateway
Ghirard
6170
Lower Lakeview
Glenshire Drive
6170
6040
Heidi Way
Stockholm
Innsbruck
Icknield
Glenshire 2
Icknield
Laurelwood
Upper Lakeview
Lower Lakeview
Inactive
Loch Leven
DL-6323
DL-Northeast
Martis Valley Road
Ponderosa Palisades
Sierra Meadows
Moraine Road
Armstrong
DL-Northeast
Inactive
North Bennett Flat
Innsbruck
Bennett Flat
Old Greenwood No. 1
6170
6040
Inactive
Old Greenwood No. 2
6170
6040
Inactive
Old Greenwood No. 3
6170
6040
Old Greenwood No. 4
6170
6040
Prosser
Prosser Heights
Upper Lakeview
Inactive
Rainbow
Upper Lakeview
Lower Lakeview
Reynold
6170
Riverview
Snowshoe
Upper Lakeview
Lower Lakeview
South Bennett Flat
Innsbruck
Bennett Flat
Summit Drive
DL-6323
DL-Northeast
Trout Creek 6550
Stockholm
Trout Creek 6550
Tudor
Glenshire 2
Icknield
Waterloo
Glenshire 2
Waterloo
Wellington
Glenshire 2
Waterloo
West Hillside
Stockholm
Hillside
West Northside
6170
Gateway
West Reed
DL-6323
DL-6124
Page 3-11
Section 3 - Existing Water System
PIPELINES
The existing distribution system consists of about 218 miles of pipeline ranging from 2-inches to
24 inches in diameter. The majority of the pipelines are 6-inch and 8-inch in diameter. Table 3-
6 gives a breakdown of the total lineal footage of pipelines by diameter. Figure 3-6 gives the
distribution system with piping color -coded by diameter.
The oldest piping in the system dates to the 1940s, with the great majority of the system having
been installed since 1960. Table 3-7 gives a breakdown of the total lineal footage of pipelines
by year installed. Figure 3-7 gives the distribution system with piping color -coded by year
installed.
There are a number of different pipeline materials throughout the system. The majority of the
distribution pipelines are steel, with large portions of ductile iron pipe as well. Table 3-8 gives a
breakdown of the total lineal footage of pipelines by year installed. Figure 3-8 gives the
distribution system with piping color -coded by year installed.
Page 3-12
Section 3 - Existing Water System
Table 3-6. Summary of Pipelines by Diameter
Diameter,
inches
Length, feet
Length, miles
2
11,083
2.1
3
726
0.1
4
34,731
6.6
6
378,390
71.7
8
440,692
83.4
10
60,973
11.5
12
107,481
20.4
14
30,203
5.7
16
48,466
9.2
18
2,775
0.5
20
4,350
0.8
24
29,997
5.7
Grand Total
1,149,867
217.7
Table 3-7. Summary of Pipelines by Year Installed
Decade
Length, feet
Length, miles
1940 - 1949
7,015
1.3
1950 - 1959
9,507
1.8
1960 - 1969
107,603
20.4
1970 - 1979
362,092
68.6
1980 - 1989
94,758
17.9
1990 - 1999
169,548
32.1
2000 - 2009
378,783
71.7
2010 - Present
10,344
2.0
Date Unknown
10,217
1.9
Grand Total
1 1,149,867
217.7
Table 3-8. Summary of Pipelines by Pipe Material
Material
Length, feet
Length, miles
Asbestos -Cement
108,754
20.6
Ductile Iron
377,605
71.5
Galvanized Iron
518
0.1
High -density Polyethylene
12,193
2.3
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
255,204
48.3
Steel
391,860
74.2
Material Unknown
3,733
0.7
Grand Total
1,149,867
217.7
Page 3-13
ti
i
0
ONE
DRAFT
0
F
LEGEND
4-inch and smaller
6-inch
8-inch
10-inch
12-inch
14-inch
16-inch
18-inch
20-inch
24-inch
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION 4
POPULATION AND WATER
DEMAND
SECTION 4
POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND
Growth projections are critical to the development and planning of the future water system. This
Section documents historic growth and estimates future growth within the service area up to and
including build -out.
POPULATION
The Town of Truckee and surrounding areas have been experiencing slow to moderate growth
over the past 50 years. Population within the town has increased from 2,528 in 1970 to a current
population of 16,280.
The Town of Truckee's current General Plan was adopted in 2006. The General Plan projects
population growth in the area to occur at a rate of two percent per year, eventually reaching a
buildout population of about 28,300 permanent residents. Based upon the projected growth rate
in the General Plan, historic and projected population totals are given in Figure 4-1, with the
buildout population occurring in 2038.
The economy of Truckee and the surrounding area relies upon tourism as the main industry.
There are a significant number of residential units used as vacation homes that are not occupied
on a full-time basis with estimates ranging as high as 75 to 80 percent for certain portions of the
service area. The General Plan cites an estimate that 54 percent of all housing units are
occupied full-time on a town -wide basis. However, the District is not aware of any other studies
that have confirmed these estimates. This part time occupancy is reflected in the General Plan,
showing a total of 19,901 dwelling units at buildout with a corresponding population of only
28,300 for a density of 1.42 persons per dwelling unit.
It should be noted that the District's water system service area extends outside the Town of
Truckee limits encompassing small adjoining
Counties. There are also small developed areas
wells and are not supplied water by the District.
areas of unincorporated Nevada and Placer
within the Town of Truckee that utilize private
EXISTING AND HISTORIC POTABLE WATER DEMAND
The term water demand refers to the amount of water used within a water distribution system.
Total system -wide water demand should equal the total water production into the system from all
sources. Water demand is comprised of two components: water consumed (billed as sales) and
unaccounted-for water. The information below describes these components in more detail.
Potable water production for the year 2010 averaged 4.53 million gallons per day (mgd) with a
peak of 9.53 mgd that occurred on July 6, 2010. Figure 4-2 shows the historical trend of water
demand for the Truckee System. Table 4-1 gives this information in tabular form.
The large increase in demand that occurred in 2002 was a result of the District's acquisition of
the Donner Lake and Glenshire water systems. From 2004 through 2010, there was an overall
decrease in average day demand of about 2.1 mgd. The peak water production occurred in 2007
with an average day demand of 6.67 mgd and a maximum day demand of 14.84 mgd. Over this
time period, the number of water system connections increased from 11,503 to 12,525.
Page 4-1
30,000
25,000
c
0
15,000
a
0
a
10,000
0
1980
Figure 4-1. Historic and Projected Population, 1980-2030
�fHistoric Population
Population Projection Based on General Plan Growth Rate
............................................ ..............
Year - Population
...............................................................................
2010 - 16,280
2015 - 17,974
2020 - 19,845
2025 - 21,911
2030 - 24,191
............................................................................................ ............
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
2025 2030
16.0
14.0
12.0 ..........
10.0
E
c
8.0 ..........
E
m
0
6.0
4.0 ..........
2.0
0.0
1965
Figure 4-2. Historic Potable Water Demands, 1965 - 2010
0 Historic Average Day Demand
f Historic Maximum Day Demand
------- Estimated Maximum Day Demand
A Historic Minimum Day Demand
Notes:
1) The large increase in demand from 2001 to 2002 includes
the acquisition of the Donner Lake and Glenshire Water
Systems.
2) The large decrease in demand from 2009 to 2010 results
from factors discussed in Section 4.
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Section 4 - Population and Water Demand
Table 4-1. Historic Potable Water Production
Aver a a Day
Maximum Day
Peaking
Year
an d
gpm
an d
gpm
Factor
1977
1.18
819
2.70
1,875
2.29
1978
1.20
830
NA
NA
NA
1979
1.25
869
NA
NA
NA
1980
1.30
901
NA
NA
NA
1981
1.47
1,021
NA
NA
NA
1982
1.53
1,060
NA
NA
NA
1983
1.64
1,138
NA
NA
NA
1984
1.70
1,182
NA
NA
NA
1985
1.91
1,328
NA
NA
NA
1986
1.95
1,353
NA
NA
NA
1987
2.32
1,611
NA
NA
NA
1988
2.31
1,606
NA
NA
NA
1989
2.56
1,775
NA
NA
NA
1990
2.89
2,005
NA
NA
NA
1991
3.07
2,131
NA
NA
NA
1992
2.61
1,810
NA
NA
NA
1993
2.81
1,954
NA
NA
NA
1994
3.28
2,277
6.78
4,708
2.07
1995
3.10
2,150
5.78
4,016
1.86
1996
3.47
2,407
6.49
4,505
1.87
1997
3.52
2,445
6.64
4,611
1.89
1998
3.47
2,413
7.22
5,014
2.08
1999
4.08
2,833
7.63
5,299
1.87
2000
4.33
3,004
8.46
5,877
1.96
2001
4.65
3,228
8.76
6,085
1.88
2002
6.09"
4,229
11.47a
7.965
1.88
2003
6.05
4,204
11.50
7,986
1.90
2004
6.64
4,614
12.61
8,759
1.90
2005
6.11
4,244
12.66
8,790
2.07
2006
6.50
4,514
13.01
9,034
2.00
2007
6.67
4,631
14.84
10,304
2.23
2008
6.29
4,371
12.65
8,783
2.01
2009
5.63
3,913
12.71
8,826
2.26
2010
4.53
3,149
9.53
6,616
2.10
a Large increase in production for 2002 results from acquisition of Donner Lake and Glenshire
Water Systems
There are four main factors that contribute to the reduction in potable water demand.
1) Beginning in 2007, the District markedly expanded its pipeline replacement program in
an effort to reduce the volume of water being lost due to leakage from District -owned
pipes. In 2010 the District exhausted its available pipeline replacement funding and it
will be suspending its pipeline replacement activities for a few years until an alternative
funding source can be identified. The District was able to replace about 54,500 feet of
pipeline during this four year period.
Page 4-4
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
2) The Fibreboard Well was placed into service in the Fall of 2009. This well supplies non -
potable irrigation water to two golf courses that were previously supplied from the
District's potable water system. Without this well, potable water production in 2010
would have averaged 4.89 mgd with a peak of 10.9 mgd.
3) Beginning in 2010, the District has implemented volume -based billing in order to comply
with California AB 2572. Prior to 2010, the District did not read meters that were
installed on its residential customers and billed residential customers a flat unmetered rate
for service.
The District has also begun installation of a new automated meter reading (AMR) system.
With this AMR system, the District discovered that about 10 percent of its customer base
had a leak on the customer -owned piping. A few of these leaks were as large as 10
gallons per minute. Some of these customer -side leaks had been occurring for a
significant period of time prior to the installation of the meter, however the District had
no method to detect the leak and then inform the customer. With the new AMR system,
the District has developed procedures for informing customers of leaks in a timely
manner in order to reduce the amount of water lost to leakage and to minimize any
property damage that may be caused by these customer -side leaks.
4) The Spring of 2010 was noticeably colder than the prior few years with significant
precipitation occurring. This led to a later snowmelt and reduced Summer irrigation
demands. This reduced demand can be seen by comparing water usage by some large
irrigators during May 2009 with May 2010. This comparison is shown in Table 4-2.
Although three of these four customers actually utilize non -potable water, they
demonstrate the difference in irrigation usage between the two years.
Table 4-2. Comparison of May 2009 and May 2010
Usage by Selected Large Irrigators
May 2009 Usage,
May 2010 Usage,
Customer
gallons
gallons
Coyote Moon Golf Course
2,053,600
3,800
Gray's Crossing Golf Course
10,525,200
29,320
Old Greenwood Golf Course
13,598,800
5,229,370
Riverview Sports Park
1,028,200
166,200
It is believed that the 1.0 mgd average day reduction in water production from 2007 to 2009 is
related to the pipeline replacement program. It is also believed that the additional 1.1 mgd
average day in reduction water production from 2009 to 2010 can be attributed equally to the
three other factors noted above.
Table 4-3 gives a breakdown of sales by customer class for the period of 1995-2010. The
District has only two customer classifications for billing purposes - residential and commercial.
In the past, all single-family residential customers were charged a flat rate for monthly service.
Individual meters were not read for single-family residential accounts and not all single-family
residential accounts were equipped with a meter. In contrast, most of the commercial accounts
Page 4-5
Section 4 - Population and Water Demand
were billed monthly based on actual meter readings. The total residential consumption was
determined by subtracting metered commercial sales from total production. Multi -family
residential accounts such as duplexes, four-plexes and apartments were billed monthly based on
actual meter readings and were considered as commercial accounts.
Table 4-3. Breakdown of Potable Water Sales by Customer Class,1995-2010
Year
Total Average
Sales, an d
Commercial
Sales, an d
Commercial Sales,
percenta a
Residential
Sales, an d
Residential Sales,
percentage
1995
3.10
0.58
18.7
2.52
81.3
1996
3.47
0.56
16.1
2.91
83.9
1997
3.52
0.59
16.8
2.93
83.2
1998
3.47
0.54
15.6
2.93
84.4
1999
4.08
0.60
14.7
3.48
85.3
2000
4.33
0.71
16.4
3.62
83.6
2001
4.65
0.76
16.3
3.89
83.6
2002
6.09a
0.98
16.1
5.11
83.9
2003
6.05
0.95
15.7
5.10
84.3
2004
6.64
1.14
17.2
5.50
82.8
2005
6.11
1.31
21.4
4.80
78.6
2006
6.50
1.34
20.6
5.16
79.4
2007
6.67
1.64
24.6
5.03
75.4
2008
6.29
1.44
22.9
4.85
77.1
2009
5.63
1.35
24.0
4.28
76.0
2010
4.53'
0.80
17.7
3.73
82.3
a Large increase in sales for 2002 results from acquisition of Donner Lake and Glenshire Water Systems
b Large decrease in sales for 2010 results from the four factors noted on Pages 4-1 & 4-3
In actuality, total residential usage is less than the values given in Table 4-3. Typically, a
percentage of water introduced into the system from supply sources is not recovered through
sales. This water not recovered through sales is designated as "unaccounted-for water." The
most common reasons for discrepancies between production and sales are meter recording errors
from uncalibrated or worn meters, system leakage, and water uses such as fire fighting,
construction water, illegal connections to the water system and water used by the District for
maintenance purposes such as main flushing. Industry literature has cited unaccounted-for water
percentages as high as 36 percent in older systems with high leakage rates. An unaccounted-for
water rate below 10 percent is a typical water agency goal. However, due to the lack of metering
data for residential connections, the historic volume of unaccounted-for water cannot be
determined.
Beginning in 2010, the District is reading all of its existing meters as required by AB 2572. As
of January 1, 2010, about 44 percent of the residential accounts were equipped with a meter.
Based upon direction from its Board of Directors, the District has accelerated the installation of
water meters on its older properties and as of January 1, 2011, about 87 percent of the residential
accounts were equipped with a meter. The District currently anticipates that all of its water
system customers will be equipped with a meter by December 2014. Therefore, more accurate
data regarding residential water sales and "unaccounted-for water" will be available in the future.
Page 4-6
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
Table 4-4 gives a breakdown of existing connections by pressure zone. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 give
a breakdown of demand by pressure zone for existing average day and maximum day conditions.
It should be noted that the values given in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 are based upon a system -wide
average use per residential connection. Once meters are installed on all of the customers, the
District will be able to provide a more accurate breakdown of usage for each pressure zone.
NON -POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION
In the Summer of 2000, an 8-inch pipeline was constructed to provide irrigation water service to
the Coyote Moon Golf Course from the Donner Creek Well. Connections from this pipeline to
the irrigation systems at Meadow Park and the Truckee High School campus are also planned,
but have not yet been constructed.
During the Summer of 2004, the District constructed a filling station at the Southside No. 1 Well
to provide a central location where contractors may draw non -potable construction water. This
well was not equipped with a meter until 2010 and the District estimates that the amount of water
pumped has varied from about 0.5 to 6.6 million gallons per year depending on how much
construction was occurring locally.
During the Summer of 2009, the Fibreboard Well was constructed to provide irrigation water to
the Gray's Crossing and Old Greenwood golf courses. This well was placed into service in the
Fall of 2009 and resulted in a corresponding reduction in demand on the potable water system.
The arsenic level in this well is about 30 parts per billion and the District does not intend to use
this well as a potable water source. Table 4-7 summarizes non -potable water production for all
three sources.
HIRSCHDALE SYSTEM WATER PRODUCTION
The Hirschdale Water System (HWS) is an isolated water system currently serving 20 single-
family residences. The system was constructed in 1988 and has been owned and operated by the
District since that time. Table 4-8 gives the historic production data for the HWS. Examination
of this data does not indicate an increase water consumption since the 20th connection was
constructed in 2004. The minor variability in water consumption is likely due to climatic
conditions for a given calendar year. Maximum day demand for the year of 1993 is considered
abnormally high due to some well pump testing that was performed during that time. Demand
for the years of 2000 and 2001 was also unusually high because a construction contractor
working on Interstate 80 was drawing significant amounts of water from the HWS with District
permission. An estimate for this volume of construction water usage is not available.
BUILDOUT WATER DEMAND
Water demand projections for buildout conditions have been calculated base upon anticipated
development of all currently vacant parcels. Currently developed parcels were assumed to
continue into the future with no changes in either land use or water demand. A projected
buildout demand was then calculated for each vacant parcel based on the anticipated land use
and the size of the parcel. This analysis resulted in a buildout average day potable water demand
of 10.17 mgd and a buildout maximum day potable water demand of 21.88 mgd. Detailed
information regarding these buildout projections is given in the report entitled Buildout Water
Demand Projections, September 2010.
Page 4-7
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
Table 4-4. Existing Potable Water Connections by Pressure Zone
Pressure Zone
Residential
Connections
Commercial
Connections
Total
6040
275
1
276
6170
179
101
280
Alder Creek
22
1
23
Armstrong
225
5
230
Bennett Flat
76
0
76
Chez
1
0
1
Coldstream 6080
0
7
7
DL-6124
782
31
813
DL-6323
323
6
329
DL-Northeast
136
30
166
DL-Red Mountain
25
0
25
DL-Wolfe
18
0
18
Donner Trails
22
1
23
Donner View
965
11
976
Donner View Hydro
50
0
50
Gateway
349
177
526
Glacier
47
1
48
Glenshire 1
324
2
326
Glenshire 2
1,072
7
1,079
Heidi Way
162
0
162
Heights Hydro
33
0
33
Hillside
278
0
278
Icknield
29
0
29
Innsbruck
1,431
20
1,451
Lower Lakeview
396
0
396
Lower Ski Run
24
1
25
Lower Skislope
25
0
25
Martiswoods
40
0
40
Middle Skislope
23
0
23
Palisades Hydro
37
0
37
Pinnacle
213
1
214
Pinnacle Hydro
109
0
109
Ponderosa Palisades
385
0
385
Prosser Heights
99
0
99
Riverview
188
32
220
Roundhill Hydro
7
0
7
Sierra Meadows
873
74
947
Sitzmark Hydro
28
0
28
Soma Sierra
36
0
36
Stockholm
2,006
25
2,031
Town
158
162
320
Trout Creek 6550
19
0
19
Upper Lakeview
213
0
213
Upper Skislope
44
0
44
Waterloo
49
0
49
West Palisades Hydro
7
0
7
Total
11,803
696
12,499
Page 4-8
Section 4 - Population and Water Demand
Table 4-5. Existing Average Day Potable Water Demand by Pressure Zone
Pressure Zone
Residential
Demand, an d
Commercial
Demand, an d
Total,
an d
6040
0.087
0
0.087
6170
0.057
0.144
0.201
Alder Creek
0.007
0.0004
0.007
Armstrong
0.071
0.001
0.072
Bennett Flat
0.024
0
0.024
Chez
0.0003
0
0.0003
Coldstream 6080
0
0.018
0.018
DL-6124
0.247
0.015
0.262
DL-6323
0.102
0.001
0.103
DL-Northeast
0.043
0.012
0.055
DL-Red Mountain
0.008
0
0.008
DL-Wolfe
0.006
0
0.006
Donner Trails
0.007
0.0001
0.007
Donner View
0.305
0.008
0.313
Donner View Hydro
0.016
0
0.016
Gateway
0.110
0.256
0.366
Glacier
0.015
0
0.015
Glenshire 1
0.102
0.0009
0.103
Glenshire 2
0.339
0.012
0.351
Heidi Way
0.051
0
0.051
Heights Hydro
0.010
0
0.010
Hillside
0.088
0
0.088
Icknield
0.009
0
0.009
Innsbruck
0.453
0.012
0.465
Lower Lakeview
0.125
0
0.125
Lower Ski Run
0.008
0
0.008
Lower Skislope
0.008
0
0.008
Martiswoods
0.013
0
0.013
Middle Skislope
0.007
0
0.007
Palisades Hydro
0.012
0
0.012
Pinnacle
0.067
0.011
0.078
Pinnacle Hydro
0.034
0
0.034
Ponderosa Palisades
0.122
0
0.122
Prosser Heights
0.031
0
0.031
Riverview
0.059
0.038
0.097
Roundhill Hydro
0.002
0
0.002
Sierra Meadows
0.276
0.116
0.392
Sitzmark Hydro
0.009
0
0.009
Soma Sierra
0.011
0
0.011
Stockholm
0.635
0.074
0.709
Town
0.050
0.077
0.127
Trout Creek 6550
0.006
0
0.006
Upper Lakeview
0.067
0
0.067
Upper Skislope
0.014
0
0.014
Waterloo
0.015
0
0.015
West Palisades Hydro
0.002
0
0.002
Total
3.730
0.7964
4.526
Page 4-9
Section 4 - Population and Water Demand
Table 4-6. Existing Maximum Dav Potable Water Demand by Pressure Zone
Pressure Zone
Residential
Demand, an d
Commercial
Demand, an d
Total,
an d
6040
0.185
0.0002
0.185
6170
0.120
0.316
0.436
Alder Creek
0.015
0.001
0.016
Armstrong
0.151
0.001
0.152
Bennett Flat
0.051
0
0.051
Chez
0.001
0
0.001
Coldstream 6080
0
0.033
0.033
DL-6124
0.525
0.029
0.554
DL-6323
0.217
0.002
0.219
DL-Northeast
0.091
0.020
0.111
DL-Red Mountain
0.017
0
0.017
DL-Wolfe
0.012
0
0.012
Donner Trails
0.015
0.0001
0.015
Donner View
0.648
0.014
0.662
Donner View Hydro
0.034
0
0.034
Gateway
0.234
0.447
0.681
Glacier
0.032
0
0.032
Glenshire 1
0.217
0.002
0.219
Glenshire 2
0.719
0.033
0.752
Heidi Way
0.109
0
0.109
Heights Hydro
0.022
0
0.022
Hillside
0.187
0
0.187
Icknield
0.019
0
0.019
Innsbruck
0.960
0.028
0.988
Lower Lakeview
0.266
0
0.266
Lower Ski Run
0.016
0
0.016
Lower Skislope
0.017
0
0.017
Martiswoods
0.027
0
0.027
Middle Skislope
0.015
0
0.015
Palisades Hydro
0.025
0
0.025
Pinnacle
0.143
0.019
0.162
Pinnacle Hydro
0.073
0
0.073
Ponderosa Palisades
0.258
0
0.258
Prosser Heights
0.066
0
0.066
Riverview
0.126
0.075
0.201
Roundhill Hydro
0.005
0
0.005
Sierra Meadows
0.586
0.246
0.831
Sitzmark Hydro
0.019
0
0.019
Soma Sierra
0.024
0
0.024
Stockholm
1.346
0.238
1.584
Town
0.106
0.107
0.213
Trout Creek 6550
0.013
0
0.013
Upper Lakeview
0.143
0
0.143
Upper Skislope
0.030
0
0.030
Waterloo
0.033
0
0.033
West Palisades Hydro
0.005
0
0.005
Total
7.923
1.611
9.533
Page 4-10
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
Table 4-7. Historic Non -Potable Water Production
Year
Donner Creek Well,
millions of allons
Fibreboard Well,
millions of gallons
Southside Well No. 1,
millions of gallons
2001
84.0
NA
NA
2002
61.5
NA
NA
2003
72.7
NA
NA
2004
83.4
NA
6.6 a
2005
65.1
NA
6.0 a
2006
77.7
NA
6.0 a
2007
88.3
NA
4.0 a
2008
89.5
NA
2.0 a
2009
78.2
25.9
1.5 a
2010
64.1
131.2
1.3
a Data for 2004 - 2009 is estimated. Southside Well No. 1 was not equipped with a meter until 2010
Table 4-8. Historic Water Production for Hirschdale Water System
Year
Number of
Connections
Total Annual
Production, gals
Maximum Monthly
Production, gallons
1990
17
1,850,700
282,400
1991
19
2,471,500
417,800
1992
20
2,330,600
353,900
1993
20
3,324,700
1,107,600
1994
20
3,453,600
651,500
1995
20
2,383,700
548,300
1996
19
2,769,300
491,700
1997
19
3,768,200
659,100
1998
19
3,297,800
727,300
1999
19
4,384,100
811,900
2000
19
6,748,800
1,189,200
2001
19
6,277,900
956,700
2002
19
4,455,200
713,000
2003
19
2,972,100
540,800
2004
20
3,455,200
554,300
2005
20
3,323,800
606,300
2006
20
3,139,900
534,900
2007
20
3,061,000
541,800
2008
20
3,717,400
665,300
2009
20
3,486,100
516,000
2010
20
1 3,683,200
1 633,300
In 2009, the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (as known as SB 7X-7) was adopted. This
legislation requires water utilities to reduce water demand by 20 percent from a recent ten-year
baseline period. Compliance with SB 7X-7 reduces the project buildout average day potable
water demand to 10.10 mgd and the projected buildout maximum day potable water demand to
20.30 mgd. Tables 4-9 and 4-10 give the projected buildout water demands under average day
and maximum day conditions.
Page 4-11
Section 4 - Population and Water Demand
Table 4-9. Buildout Average Day Water Demand by Planning Area
Planning Area
Residential
Demand, mgd
Commercial
Demand, mgd
Total,
mgd
Donner Lake
0.73
0.04
0.77
Downtown/Airport
0.27
1.94
2.21
Gateway
0.39
0.67
1.06
Glenshire
0.81
0.02
0.83
Northeast
0.99
0.17
1.16
Southside
0.69
0.59
1.28
Tahoe Donner
2.64
0.15
2.79
Total
1 6.52
1 3.58
1 10.10
Table 4-10. Buildout Maximum Day Water Demand by Planning Area
Planning Area
Residential
Demand, mgd
Commercial
Demand, an d
Total,
mgd
Donner Lake
1.49
0.06
1.55
Downtown/Airport
0.55
3.84
4.39
Gateway
0.78
1.30
2.08
Glenshire
1.65
0.04
1.69
Northeast
2.02
0.29
2.31
Southside
1.41
1.15
2.56
Tahoe Donner
5.35
0.37
5.72
Total
13.25
7.05
1 20.30
It is assumed that the Donner Creek Irrigation Well will continue to provide about 80 million
gallons per year of irrigation water to the Coyote Moon Golf Course at buildout conditions. It is
projected that the Fibreboard Well will supply about 160 million gallons per year of irrigation
water to the Gray's Crossing and Old Greenwood golf courses at buildout conditions. It is also
assumed that there will be a minimal construction water demand of 0.5 million gallons per year
once buildout conditions are reached. Therefore, buildout non -potable water demand is expected
to be about 240.5 million gallons annually. If the School District athletic fields and Meadow
Park are connected to the Donner Creek Irrigation System, there will be a decrease in potable
water demand and a corresponding increase in non -potable irrigation water demand. Total
withdrawals from the groundwater basin will not change.
FUTURE POTABLE WATER DEMANDS
Average day potable water demands are projected to increase from 4.53 mgd currently to 10.10
mgd at buildout conditions. Similarly, maximum day potable water demands are projected to
increase from 9.53 mgd currently to 20.30 mgd at buildout. Of significant importance is how
rapidly the demand will increase from existing to buildout conditions. This projection is given in
Figure 4-3.
Page 4-12
24.0
20.0
iMO
4.0
Figure 4-3. Projected Increase in Potable Water Demand
Notes:
1) The large increase in demand from 2001 to 2002 includes the
acquisition of the Donner Lake and Glenshire Water Systems.
2) The large decrease in demand from 2009 to 2010 results from
factors discussed in Section 4.
0.0 +--
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
i
0 Historic Average Day Demand
t Historic Maximum Day Demand
— — Projected Average Day Demand
Projected Maximum Day Demand
2020
2025
2030
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
FIRE FLOW DEMANDS
Due to the planning level nature of this Master Plan, it is not realistic to calculate individual fire
flow demands for each parcel within the District's service area. Therefore, it is necessary to
assume some generalized fire flow criteria for determining adequacy of the existing distribution
system in regards to fire flow demands. It is also necessary to distinguish between the standards
and requirements that were in effect at the time a development was constructed and the current
requirements that are applied to new construction.
In 1997, the Uniform Fire Code was revised to increase the required fire flows for residential
construction. Prior to 1997, the minimum required fire flow for single family residential
construction was 750 gpm with a duration of two hours, regardless of the structure size. The
1997 code revision raised the minimum fire flow demand to 1,000 gpm for single-family
residences less than 3,600 square feet in size. Single-family residences larger than 3,600 square
feet now have a minimum fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm
Assumed fire flow demands are listed in Table 4-11. The fire flow demands given in Table 4-
11 are minimum values that must be reviewed on a case by case basis, and are subject to change
due to occupancy, type of construction, property setbacks, and other issues. These minimum
values were confirmed with the Truckee Fire Protection District. Based on land use, the largest
required fire flow in each pressure zone was then calculated. These values are given in Table 4-
12.
Table 4-11. Generalized Fire Flow Reauirements by Land Use
Land Use
Flow Requirement,
m
Flow Duration,
hours
Single Family Residential
750
2
Development Constructed prior to 1997
New Single Family Residential
1,000
2
Up to 3,600 sq. ft per structure
New Single Family Residential
1,500
2
Larger than 3,600 sq. It per structure
Multi -Family Residential
1,500
2
Commercial
2,000
2
Industrial
2,000
3
Elementary School
2,500
3
Public
3,000
3
High School
3,000
4
Hospital
4,000
4
Page 4-14
Section 4 — Population and Water Demand
Table 4-12. Existing Maximum Fire Flow Requirements
by Pressure Zone for Evaluation Puruoses
Pressure Zone
Maximum Fire Flow
Requirement, gpm
Fire Flow Duration,
hours
6040
1,500
2
6170
2,500
3
Alder Creek
750
2
Armstrong
750
2
Bennett Flat
750
2
Chez
1,500
2
Coldstream 6080
2,200
3
DL-6124
2,200
3
DL-6323
2,000
3
DL-Northeast
2,000
3
DL-Red Mountain
750
2
DL-Wolfe
750
2
Donner Trails
750
2
Donner View
2,000
2
Donner View Hydro
750
2
Gateway
4,000
4
Glacier
750
2
Glenshire 1
750
2
Glenshire 2
2,500
2
Heidi Way
750
2
Heights Hydro
750
2
Hillside
750
2
Hirschdale
750
2
Icknield
1,500
2
Innsbruck
2,000
2
Lower Lakeview
750
2
Lower Ski Run
750
2
Lower Skislope
750
2
Martiswoods
750
2
Middle Skislope
750
2
Palisades Hydro
750
2
Pinnacle
1,500
2
Pinnacle Hydro
750
2
Ponderosa Palisades
750
2
Prosser Heights
750
2
Riverview
2,000
3
Roundhill Hydro
750
2
Sierra Meadows
2,000
2
Sitzmark Hydro
750
2
Soma Sierra
750
2
Stockholm
2,000
2
Town
3,000
4
Trout Creek 6550
1,500
2
Upper Lakeview
750
2
Upper Skislope
750
2
Waterloo
750
2
West Palisades Hydro
750
2
Page 4-15
SECTION 5
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
SECTION 5
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
This section provides an evaluation of the available water supplies to meet the existing and
future water demands through buildout of the District's service area. Recommendations
necessary for the District to continue providing adequate water at acceptable quality are made for
both existing and future conditions.
MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN
The District currently obtains its drinking water through the pumping of groundwater from the
Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB). The MVGB is a multiple aquifer system consisting
of basin -fill sedimentary units and interlayered basin -fill volcanic units. Detailed information
regarding geology of the MVGB can be found in a number of sources, including:
• Availability of Ground Water. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by
Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. February 1975.
• Truckee and Vicinity Ground -Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared for Dart Resorts Inc.
by Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. April 1980.
• Ground -Water Management Plan, Phase 1, Martis Valley Ground -Water Basin, Basin
No. 6-67, Nevada and Placer Counties. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District by Hydro -Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. January 1995.
• Ground Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared For The Truckee Donner Public Utility
District by Nimbus Engineers. Reno, Nevada. November 2000.
• Ground Water Availability In The Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Nevada and Placer
Counties, California. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer
County Water Agency and Northstar Community Services District by Nimbus Engineers.
Reno, Nevada. March 2001.
• Supplemental Report to California's Groundwater — Bulletin 118, Update 2003. Prepared
by the California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, California. October
2003.
QUANTITY OF GROUNDWATER IN THE MARTIS VALLEY BASIN
A number of studies have been conducted over the past 30 years to investigate and quantify the
amount of water available in the MVGB. As knowledge regarding the geologic characteristics of
the MVGB has improved over the years, the estimates of available water have been refined and
therefore, the most recent studies are considered to have the best information regarding water
availability.
The 1975 study by Hydro -Search estimated annual recharge to the MVGB at 18,200 AFY with a
total subsurface storage volume of 1,050,000 acre-feet. The 1975 study also concluded that
13,000 AFY was available for consumptive uses. The 1980 and 1995 studies were essentially
updates of the 1975 study and provided additional information regarding the MVGB. However,
a new evaluation of groundwater availability was not conducted as part of those efforts.
Page 5-1
Section 5 — Water Supply Sources
The 2001 study represented the first reconsideration of the MVGB water availability since the
1975 study. This 2001 study concluded that total subsurface storage volume is 484,000 acre-
feet, with an annual recharge of 29,165 AFY. Additional water is recharged to the upper layer of
the MVGB by the Tahoe -Truckee Sanitation Agency's (TTSA's) wastewater treatment plant.
This 2001 study concluded that the sustainable yield of the MVGB is 24,000 AFY.
In 2002, a study entitled Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability,
Nevada and Placer Counties was conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. This study agreed
with the sustainable yield estimate of 24,000 AFY by Nimbus Engineers in 2001. The
Kennedy/Jenks study also concluded that the 24,000 AFY likely underestimates the amount of
water available on a sustainable basis since the 2001 Nimbus study underestimated both basin
recharge and ground water discharge to tributary streams.
In April 2003, a study conducted by InterFlow Hydrology and Cordilleran Hydrology entitled
Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River in Martis
Valley, Nevada and Placer Counties, California examined the issue of ground water discharge
to tributary streams and concluded that about 34,000 AFY of water is available on a sustainable
basis.
The California Department of Water Resources has not determined that the MVGB is being
overdrafted and there are not any known instances of contamination of the MVGB. The MVGB
is currently unadjudicated and none of the groundwater users has expressed a desire to have the
basin adjudicated to date. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, at a minimum, the 24,000
AFY of water cited in the Nimbus study is available to support development in Truckee and the
surrounding areas.
RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY
Currently, the major producers of water in the MVGB are the District, the Northstar Community
Services District, the Placer County Water Agency, Ponderosa Golf Course and Teichert
Aggregates. There are numerous small wells supporting individual residences along with some
other uses such as the Martis Creek Campground and the TNT Materials concrete plant.
For 2010, withdrawals from the MVGB by the District totaled 5,071 AF for potable water
purposes and an additional 604 AF for irrigation and construction water purposes. It is estimated
that an additional 1,500 AF was withdrawn by other users for a total withdrawal of 7,175 AFY.
As discussed in Section 4, the total buildout average day water demand for the District is
projected at 10.10 mgd. Therefore, a sustainable water supply about 11,314 AFY will be
required to meet this buildout condition. In February 2002, a technical memorandum entitled
Water Demand and Net Depletion for Martis Valley Groundwater Basin prepared by David
Antonucci estimated buildout water demand for all water producers throughout the MVGB at
20,953 AFY. This document projected a buildout demand of 13,326 AFY for areas currently
served by the District, with 7,610 AFY for areas currently served by other agencies or individual
wells. Assuming the 7,610 AFY estimate for other parties is correct, a total of 18,924 AFY is
needed to serve the entire region at buildout.
Page 5-2
Section 5 — Water Supply Sources
With a total water supply of at least 24,000 AFY, there is adequate water supply to meet the
projected buildout conditions. There are 484,000 acre-feet of water in storage in the MVGB.
The projected total demand of 18,924 AFY at buildout is equal to about four percent of the
capacity of the MVGB and there is adequate water to provide for over 20 years worth of demand
even if no recharge of the basin were to occur.
MANAGEMENT OF THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN
As noted on Page 5-1, a management plan for the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin was
prepared in 1995. An updated groundwater basin management plan is currently under
preparation and should be completed in 2012.
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY QUALITY
As noted in the District's 2010 Water Quality Report, all water supplied to potable water
customers is in compliance with State and Federal regulations. The District does operate
treatment systems at the Northside and Hirschdale wells. The treatment system at Northside
removes excess levels of arsenic. The treatment system at Hirschdale removes excess levels of
arsenic, iron and manganese. The quality of the existing sources has been consistent and the
District does not anticipate any future changes in the quality of its existing sources.
EXISTING PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN RELATION TO PROJECTED DEMANDS
Current maximum day potable water demand is 9.53 mgd. It is anticipated that this maximum
day demand will increase to 10.9 mgd and 12.4 mgd by the years 2015 and 2020, respectively.
Average day potable water demand will increase from 4.53 mgd currently to 5.11 mgd in the
year 2015 and 5.81 mgd in the year 2020. The anticipated growth in potable water demand
shown graphically in Figure 5-1.
The District currently operates 12 potable water wells in the Truckee area and one in the
Hirschdale area. The total capacity of these wells is about 9,740 gpm (14.0 mgd). The overall
system potable water production capacity is adequate to serve projected demands through the
year 2023. However, the firm capacity of these existing facilities will be exceeded in the year
2015, since a failure of Airport Well would leave a production capacity of only 10.9 mgd.
IMPACT OF UPCOMING WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been discussing additional regulations
regarding radon levels in drinking water for a number of years. Currently, radon is present in the
existing wells at levels below the existing maximums.
Preliminary announcements from USEPA have indicated that the maximum allowable radon
level will likely be reduced from 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) to 300 pCi/L. According to
the District's 2010 Water Quality Report, radon levels in its wells range from 293 to 1,600
pCi/L. The proposed radon level limit is under review and may be set at a level higher than 300
pCi/L. Two methods have been identified to address the proposed reduction in the allowable
radon level.
Page 5-3
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
00
0.0 1
1995
Figure 5-1. Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Existing Production Capacity, 1995-2030
---*--Historic Maximum Day Demand
— — Future Maximum Day Demand Projection
Potable Water Production Capacity
Firm Potable Water Production Capacity
i
i
i
M
i
i
i
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Section 5 — Water Supply Sources
One method involves the removal of radon in the water by aeration. Treatment by aeration would
require the installation of separate aeration tanks and booster pumping stations at each well site.
This method would require a significant capital investment, along with incurring higher
operations and maintenance costs. Capital costs range from $100,000 to $150,000 for each well
site. Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $0.05 per thousand gallons.
The second method is a Multimedia Mitigation Program proposed by the USEPA. The
Multimedia Mitigation Program addresses both water and air quality at the point of use. This
program has a limited involvement by the water provider and is focused mainly on air quality.
No cost estimates are available at this time, but it is anticipated that the Multimedia Mitigation
Program costs will be substantially lower than the cost of treatment by aeration. Therefore, it is
expected that the forthcoming radon regulations will have a minimal impact on the District's
water supply.
ADDITIONAL POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY
The available production capacity is sufficient to meet current demands. Based upon the
projected growth, the potable water production facilities will be unable to meet projected
maximum day demands in the year 2024. With the projected buildout maximum day potable
water demand of 20.3 mgd, an additional 9.4 mgd of potable water production capacity is needed
to meet buildout demands and to provide adequate firm capacity to the system.
Based on the 14.0 mgd of total available capacity, an additional 2.8 mgd of production capacity
is needed over the next 20 years to meet projected demands. Furthermore, an additional 3.0 mgd
of capacity will be necessary to ensure that the system has adequate firm capacity. There are
three alternatives available to the District for additional water supply to meet this need:
• Construct additional wells not requiring filtration
• Construct additional wells requiring filtration
• Construct a surface water treatment facility
Historically, the District has used groundwater as its sole source of supply. Construction of a
surface water treatment plant to utilize surface water from Donner Lake was undertaken by a
developer in the early 1970s, but was halted due to political issues and questions regarding the
status of water rights. It is recommended that groundwater continue to be the main source of
supply.
Based on the studies cited at the beginning of this Section, the additional groundwater wells can
be constructed without exceeding the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Construction
of new wells is expected to be the near -term solution to increasing water supply. As further
development occurs in adjoining areas of the Martis Valley, the overall withdrawals from the
basin will need to be balanced with the sustainable yield. The other two water supply options
require additional investigations of technical, legal and regulatory issues.
Page 5-5
Section 5 - Water Supply Sources
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the expected increase in water demand, a number of water production improvements
are recommended. These improvements are listed in Table 5-1. In the short-term, construction
of new wells not requiring filtration is the most reasonable alternative to pursue. For the
purposes of water supply planning, it is assumed that new wells will have a capacity of 850 gpm
each. If the capacity of new wells differs significantly from this 850 gpm value, the
recommendations given herein should be adjusted accordingly.
The proposed phasing given in Table 5-1 is based on anticipated growth in demand throughout
the service area. An additional eight wells will be needed to serve buildout conditions with
adequate firm capacity. These wells should be constructed as growth and increases in water
demand dictate. Figure 5-2 gives the relationship of projected demand to the recommended
water production improvements.
Table 5-1. Recommended Potable Water Production Imurovements
Year
Maximum Day
Demand, m d
Total
Production
Capacity, m d
Firm Production
Capacity, m d
Notes
2010
9.53
14.0
10.9
2011
9.79
14.0
10.9
2012
10.06
14.0
10.9
2013
10.33
14.0
10.9
2014
10.60
14.0
10.9
2015
10.87
14.0
10.9
2016
11.14
15.2
12.2
New 850 gpm Well Constructed
2017
11.45
15.2
12.2
2018
11.76
15.2
12.2
2019
12.07
15.2
12.2
2020
12.38
16.5
13.4
New 850 gpm Well Constructed
2021
12.82
16.5
13.4
2022
13.26
16.5
13.4
2023
13.70
17.7
14.6
New 850 gpm Well Constructed
2024
14.14
17.7
14.6
2025
14.58
17.7
14.6
2026
15.02
18.9
15.8
New 850 gpm Well Constructed
2027
15.46
18.9
15.8
2028
15.90
20.1
17.1
New 850 gpm Well Constructed
2029
16.34
20.1
17.1
2030
16.78
20.1
17.1
Buildout
20.30
23.8
20.7
In 2002 and 2003, the District drilled a number of exploration wells in order to identify locations
for future groundwater wells. As a result of this exploration well program, the District acquired
four well sites. The Prosser Village Well was constructed in 2004 and the Old Greenwood Well
was constructed in 2006 at two of these sites.
Page 5-6
Figure 5-2. Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Proposed Production Capacity, 1995-2030
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
0.0 1
1995
f Historic Maximum Day Demand
— — Future Maximum Day Production Projection
Potable Water Production Capacity
Firm Potable Water Production Capacity
i
i
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Section 5 — Water Supply Sources
The Fibreboard Well was constructed in 2009 at the third site. The water produced by this well
exceeds the MCL for arsenic and is considered non -potable water. However, this water is
perfectly suited for irrigation purposes and supplies water to the Gray's Crossing and Old
Greenwood golf courses. This well allowed for the removal of about 1.3 mgd of maximum day
demand from the potable water system.
There is one remaining well site where property rights have been secured by the District. It is
expected that the new finite element model under development by Brown and Caldwell will
provide information regarding behavior of the groundwater basin. Once this model and the
accompanying study are completed, the District should have sufficient information to identify
additional well sites and can investigate the drilling of additional test wells.
It should also be noted that some of the existing wells may be reaching the end of their useful
lives towards the year 2025. Production from the wells should be monitored over time and
redevelopment of existing wells may be necessary to maintain an adequate water supply. Of
particular concern is the long-term viability of the existing Airport Well. The existing wellhole
and casing are not completely vertical and there is a significant offset in the casing. As a result
of this offset, the well shaft experiences accelerated wear and requires replacement every four
years.
The use of surface water, either through a treatment plant or wells with filtration, requires that a
number of technical, legal and environmental issues be investigated and addressed. Surface
water should be considered a long-term water supply option and may prove to be more cost-
effective than new wells as demand approaches buildout conditions.
Page 5-8
SECTION 6
EXISTING SYSTEM
EVALUATION
SECTION 6
EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION
This section provides detailed descriptions and summaries of the evaluation of the existing water
system. Analyses were conducted for required source water quantities, storage requirements,
water transfers both within and between zones, and ability of the system to adequately provide
sufficient water under both maximum day plus fire and peak hour conditions. This section first
describes the methodology used in the analyses, followed by descriptions of the results and
recommendations.
METHODOLOGY
Analyses for source water, storage requirement quantities, and inter -zone water transfer
capabilities are conducted using desktop and spreadsheet methods. The total source water
requirements are determined based on anticipated maximum day demands. As described earlier,
adequate source water must be available to provide maximum day demands with the largest
source of water (groundwater well) out of service. Therefore, maximum day demand projections
are evaluated with respect to existing source water capacity and additional capacity is
recommended as needed.
Storage water requirements, or requirements for storage tank volumes, are evaluated on a
system -wide as well as on a per pressure zone basis. Criteria described in Section 2 are used to
determine existing system performance and to project future system storage needs. The storage
requirements are compared with existing and anticipated storage volumes to develop
recommendations for any additional tank facilities.
A computer hydraulic model of the piping system is used to evaluate the existing and future
water systems after the completion of the analyses described above. The hydraulic model
analyses include recommended facilities such as additional groundwater wells, storage tanks,
booster pumps, and pressure reducing stations. Model analyses are made for both maximum day
plus fire and peak hour flows to evaluate anticipated pipeline velocities and system pressures.
Recommendations are made for any additional pipelines necessary due to system hydraulics and
the adequacy of pipelines with respect to system redundancy is also evaluated.
INTER -ZONE WATER TRANSFERS
The movement of water through the system from the wells to consumers was examined to ensure
that adequate pumping capacity exists. This analysis is illustrated in Figure 6-1. As shown in
this figure, all of the facilities have sufficient capacity to meet current demands.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS RESULTS
The existing system was evaluated under the following four demand conditions:
• Average day conditions
• Maximum day conditions
• Peak hour conditions
• Maximum day conditions with fire flow demands
Page 6-1
Glacier Tank
WOLFE HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.006 mgd
MDD: 0.012 mgd
Red Mountain Tank
Wolfe Estates Tank OUT OF SERVICE
Ski Run Tank Ski Run Booster
Capacity = 0.576 mgd
Demand = 0.094 mgd
UPPER SKI RUN ZONE
ADD: 0.000 mgd
MDD: 0.000 mgd
Ski Lodge Booster
Donner View Tank Ski Lodge Tank Capacity = 0.922 mgd
DONNER VIEW HYDRO ZONE Demand = 0.110 mgd
ADD: 0.016 mgd Q Q
MDD: 0.034 mgd Donner View
HydropneumaticDemand 091 DONNER VIEW ZONE Capacity = .mgd
Capacity = 0.720 mgd = 915 mgd
Demand = 0.034 mgd ADD: 0.313 mgd
MDD: 0.662 mgd
SITZMARK HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.009 mgd
MDD: 0.019 mgd
DONNER TRAILS ZONE
ADD: 0.007 mgd
MDD: 0.015 mgd
RED MOUNTAIN HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.008 mgd
MDD: 0.017 mgd
DL-6323 Tank
Wolfe Estates Red Mountain
Hydropneumatic Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 1.190 mg DONNER LAKE-6124 ZONE Capacity = 0.432 mgd
Demand = 0.012 mg Demand = 0.017 mgd DONNER LAKE-6323 ZONE
ADD: 0.262 mgd
MDD: 0.554 mgd ADD: 0.103 mgd
MDD: 0.219 mgd
DONNER LAKE -NE ZONE
ADD: 0.055 mgd
MDD: 0.111 mgd
Herringbone Booster
Capacity = 1.51 mgd
GLACIER ZONE
ADD: 0.015 mgd
MDD: 0.032 mgd
LOWER SKI RUN ZONE
ADD: 0.008 mgd
MDD: 0.016 mgd
Alder Creek Booster
Capacity = 1.30 mgd
UPPER SKISLOPE ZONE
ADD: 0.014 mgd
MDD: 0.030 mgd
Pinnacle Tank Pinnacle
Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 0.720 mgd
L:� Demand = 0.073 mgd
PINNACLE ZONE
ADD: 0.078 mgd
MDD: 0.162 mgd
HEIDI WAY ZONE A Well
0.23 mgd
ADD: 0.051 mgd Roundhill Tank Herringbone Tank Stockholm Tank Stockholm Booster
MDD: 0.109 mgd Capacity = 1.58 mgd
Demand = 0.235 mgd
Q
ROUNDHILL HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.002 mgd Q
MDD: 0.005 mgd Roundhill
Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 0.720 mgd
Demand = 0.005 mgd
Falcon Point Booster
Capacity = 2.16 mgd
Q Capacity = 4.46 mgd
Demand = 2.955 mgd
Sitzmark Hydropneumatic Sitzmark Tank Falcon Point Tank Innsbruck Tank
Capacity = mgd u u u
Demand = 0.01.01 5 mgd 4 4 4 Innsbruck Booster
Capacity = 2.30 mgd
INNSBRUCK ZONE
Soma Sierra Tank ADD: 0.465 mgd
MDD: 0.988 mgd
Soma Sierra Booster
Capacity = 5.61 mgd
Demand = 4.01 mgd
SOMA SIERRA ZONE
ADD: 0.011 mgd Donner Trails Tanks
MDD: 0.024 mgd
Armstrong Tank
ARMSTRONG ZONE
ADD: 0.072 mgd
MDD: 0.152 mgd
COLDSTREAM 6080 ZONE
ADD: 0.018 mgd
MDD: 0.033 mgd
Q Donner Trails Booster
Donner Trails Booster
Capacity = 5.61 mgd GATEWAY ZONE
Demand = 4.05 mgd
ADD: 0.366 mgd
MDD: 0.681 mgd
Richards Booster
Capacity = 3.240 mgd
Demand = 1.098 mgd
Northside Tank
TOWN ZONE
ADD: 0.127 mgd
MDD: 0.213 mgd
Gateway Tank
Northside Well
0.83 mgd
STOCKHOLM ZONE
ADD: 0.709 mgd
MDD: 1.584 mgd
BENNETT FLAT ZONE
ADD: 0.024 mgd
MDD: 0.051 mgd
Airport Well
3.08 mgd
Chez Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 1.440 mgd
Demand = 0.001 mgd
CHEZ HYDROPNEUMATIC ZONE
ADD: 0.001 mgd
MDD: 0.001 mgd
Glenshire Upper Tanks
GLENSHIRE 1 ZONE
ADD: 0.103 mgd
MDD: 0.219 mgd
Well No. 20
0.78 mgd
TROUT CREEK 6550 ZONE
ADD: 0.006 mgd
MDD: 0.013 mgd
Sierra Meadows Tank
ALDER CREEK ZONE
ADD: 0.007 mgd
MDD: 0.016 mgd
6170 / SIERRA MEADOWS ZONE
ADD: 0.593 mgd
MDD: 1.267 mgd
HILLSIDE ZONE
ADD: 0.088 mgd
MDD: 0.187 mgd
MIDDLE SKISLOPE ZONE
ADD: 0.007 mgd
MDD: 0.015 mgd
PINNACLE HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.034 mgd
MDD: 0.073 mgd
LOWER SKISLOPE ZONE
ADD: 0.008 mgd
MDD: 0.017 mgd
HEIGHTS HYDRO ZONE
ADD: 0.010 mgd
MDD: 0.022 mgd
Prosser Annex Tank Prosser Heights Tank
215,000 gals 215,000 gals
Prosser Annex Well
0.66 mgd
I:3ris>imq
China Camp Booster
Capacity = 1.720 mgd
Demand = 0.497 mgd
Southside Glenshire Martis Valley Sanders Well Prosser Old
No. 2 Well Drive Well Well No. 1 0.42 mgd Village Well Greenwood Well
0.29 mgd 2.48 mgd 2.28 mgd 1.15 mgd 1.25 mgd
Strand Booster
Capacity = 0.860 mgd
Demand = 0.219 mgd
WATERLOO ZONE
ADD: 0.015 mgd
MDD: 0.033 mgd
Glenshire Lower Tanks
GLENSHIRE 2 ZONE
ADD: 0.351 mgd
MDD: 0.752 mgd
6040 ZONE
ADD: 0.087 mgd
MDD: 0.185 mgd
Glenshire
Control Valve
ICKNIELD ZONE
ADD: 0.009 mgd
MDD: 0.019 mgd
PROSSER HEIGHTS ZONE
ADD: 0.031 mgd
MDD: 0.066 mgd
Prosser
PRV Station
NOT IN SERVICE
Prosser Heights Well
0.52 gpm
Prosser Heights Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 1.530 mgd
Demand = 0.022 mgd
Martiswoods Tower
UPPER LAKEVIEW ZONE
ADD: 0.067 mgd
MDD: 0.143 mgd Prosser Lakeview Tank
LOWER LAKEVIEW ZONE
ADD: 0.125 mgd
MDD: 0.266 mgd
MARTISWOODS ZONE WEST PALISADES HYDRO ZONE
Ponderosa
ADD: 0.013 mgd Martiswoods Booster Martiswoods Tank Palisades Tank ADD: 0.002 mgd
MDD: 0.027 mgd Capacity = 0.864 mgd II MDD: 0.005 mgd
Demand = 0.027 mgd L J
PONDEROSA PALISADES ZONE West Palisades
PALISADES HYDRO ZONE Hydropneumatic
ADD: 0.122 mgd Capacity = 0.058 mgd
ADD: 0.012 mgd Q MDD: 0.258 mgd Demand = 0.005 mgd
MDD: 0.025 mgd
Palisades
Hydropneumatic
Capacity = 1.300 mgd
Demand = 0.025 mgd
RIVERVIEW ZONE
ADD: 0.097 mgd
MDD: 0.201 mgd
Sierra Meadows Booster
Capacity = 1.720 mgd
Demand = 0.315 mgd
I�]:L'1�1
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
Pump operations were modeled based on actual settings used in the District's SCADA system.
The on/off control settings for well and booster stations are usually based on the minimum and
maximum allowable water levels of storage tanks. Due to a significant difference in water
demand, system operations are quite different between Summer and Winter. The Summer
operational settings were assumed for average day conditions. Analyses were conducted using a
24-hour simulation to evaluate the need for storage from the standpoint of pump operations. It
also should be noted that the pressures calculated by the hydraulic model are taken at the ground
surface at the pipeline location. There are numerous locations within the system where a house
is located on a slope above the pipeline providing service. In some cases, the elevation
difference between the District's pipeline and a sink or shower within the customer's home is
large enough to result in a significant pressure drop and corresponding customer complaints.
Existing Average Day Conditions
Under existing average day conditions, the expected demand is 4.5 mgd. Using the design
criteria outlined in Section 2, 11 areas with pressures below 40 psi were identified. These areas
are shown on Figure 6-2. Also shown on Figure 6-2 are pipelines with excessive velocity,
excessive headloss, or both. Review of this figure shows low-pressure areas in the Donner Lake,
Meadow Lake Park, Ponderosa Palisades and Tahoe Donner areas. High pressures occur in the
Armstrong, Donner Lake, Glenshire, Prosser Heights, Prosser Lakeview and Tahoe Donner
areas. One pipeline with excessive velocity was identified. This pipe conveys water from the
Prosser Village well.
Existing Maximum Day Conditions
The maximum day peaking conditions were applied and the model was run for a 24-hour
simulation. The hour from 5:00 to 6:00 PM most closely corresponds to the average demand for
the maximum day. The demand for this hour is 9.5 mgd. Thirteen areas with pressures below 40
psi were identified, and are shown on Figure 6-3. Also shown on Figure 6-3 are pipelines with
excessive velocity, excessive headloss, or both.
Review of Figure 6-3 shows low -pressures in essentially the same locations as those identified
under average day conditions. Most of these low pressures are the result of service locations
located too high in elevation in relation to the storage tank providing service. In most cases, the
proper solution to the problem is extending piping from a higher pressure zone and reconnecting
the customers to the new piping.
A number of pipelines experience excessive velocity and headloss under maximum day
conditions. Most of these pipelines are considered major transmission lines. As described in
Section 4, about 61 percent of the overall system demand is located in the Donner Lake,
Gateway and Tahoe Donner areas. However, only two percent (A Well at 160 gpm) of the water
supply is located in that area. Almost all of the water provided to the western end of the service
area must be pumped from other parts of the water system.
Page 6-3
.o��
136
160
LEGEND
= AREAS WITH PRESSURE BELOW 40 PSI - NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
= AREAS WITH PRESSURE ABOVE 125 PSI - NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
w PIPELINES WITH VELOCITY GREATHER THAN 5 FEET PER SECOND
PIPELINES WITH HEADLOSS GREATHER THAN 10 FT OF LOSS PER 1,000 FT OF PIPE
= PIPELINES WITH BOTH HIGH VELOCITY AND HIGH HEADLOSS
1611
t
311
►��!'
Isle
/ 139 ❑
mop-111-
31
Im
146
28
NORTH
SCALE
DRAFT ON 11" x
24" PAPER
36
-3
30
�57 i
�131 "Inh—
WA
165
6
LEGEND
M AREAS WITH PRESSURE BELOW 40 PSI - NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
M AREAS WITH PRESSURE ABOVE 125 PSI - NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
e PIPELINES WITH VELOCITY GREATHER THAN 5 FEET PER SECOND
PIPELINES WITH HEADLOSS GREATHER THAN 10 FT OF LOSS PER 1,000 FT OF PIPE
= PIPELINES WITH BOTH HIGH VELOCITY AND HIGH HEADLOSS
3
185
NORTH
SCALE
00 FEET
DRAFT ON 11 3 24" PAPER
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
The high velocities and headloss along Brockway Road, Donner Pass Road and Northwoods
Boulevard are an indication that these transmission pipelines are not performing to standards.
The existing system is able to function and supply water adequately, but excess energy
consumption and more severe hydraulic transients result from operating at these higher velocities
Existing Peak Hour Conditions
The peak hour corresponds to the hour from 8:00 to 9:00 AM on the Maximum Day. The
demand for this hour is a rate of 13.3 mgd. Eight areas with pressures between 18 psi and 30 psi
were identified, and are shown on Figure 6-4. The high pressure and low pressure areas of the
system under peak hour conditions are very similar to those under maximum day conditions. A
few additional pipelines with high headloss are identified.
Existing Fire Flow Analysis
Fire flow analyses were conducted using the generalized fire flow criteria given in Section 2. No
effort was made to determine whether a given location had a higher demand than that given in
Section 2. These fire flows were input to the hydraulic model and the model was run with the
fire flow demands imposed on existing maximum day conditions. A number of areas that cannot
provide the required fire flow demand with a residual pressure of 20 psi were identified. These
areas are shown on Figure 6-5. The residual pressure and fire now demand given on this figure
indicate the worst case condition for a given area and other locations within that area may have
significantly different fire flow demands and higher residual pressures.
WATER STORAGE ANALYSIS
The existing distribution system has 33 active storage tanks with a total storage volume of about
9.5 million gallons. More detailed information of the storage tanks is given in Section 3. As
discussed in Section 2, the two critical values for determining storage requirements are the
maximum day demand and the fire flow requirements within each pressure zone.
Based on data in Section 4, the minimum storage requirements and additional storage volume
needed to serve existing demands have been calculated. These values are given in Table 6-1.
Review of this table shows a need for approximately 4.7 million gallons of additional storage.
Seven of the pressure zones (Armstrong, DL-6124, DL-6323, Donner View, Innsbruck, Pinnacle
and Stockholm) are in need of additional storage volume, ranging from 0.12 to 0.82 million
gallons. Additional storage volume is recommended for these pressure zones with a total volume
of about 2.9 million gallons.
Another five zones are considered marginal, with additional storage needs ranging from 0.01 to
0.09 million gallons. Additional storage is not recommended for these zones at this time.
Table 6-1 also indicates storage deficiencies in the Gateway, Glenshire and Town zones. All
three of these zones are receive water supply from the 6170 zone through control valves.
Operation of these control valves is based upon the water level in the storage tank serving the
respective zone. Should one of the pressure zones receiving water experience an unusual
demand for water due to a large fire or emergency condition, the storage volume in the 6170
zone is available. Therefore, additional storage volume is not recommended in these zones to
serve existing needs.
Page 6-6
129
141 1
31 36
30
157 141 0 _
-168 153
_ o
�130 5
35
9
138aees
2 = -
37 3 o 36
185
135 150
ii 160
----------
3
36 16
160
33 12 133
1 5 � eaii►
Q
0
� 32 JJ14 130
35 27
DRAFT
LEGEND
M AREAS WITH PRESSURE BELOW 40 PSI -NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
M AREAS WITH PRESSURE ABOVE 125 PSI - NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE ACTUAL PRESSURE
e PIPELINES WITH VELOCITY GREATHER THAN 5 FEET PER SECOND Figure
PIPELINES WITH HEADLOSS GREATHER THAN 10 FT OF LOSS PER 1,000 FT OF PIPE TRUCKEE DONNER
= PIPELINES WITH BOTH HIGH VELOCITY AND HIGH HEADLOSS Public Utility District
Existing Syst(
Peak Hour (
NORTH
SCALE
1" = 3,000 FEET
ON 11" x 24" PAPER
1,500 g
—2 psi
1,5 gp
18 psi
1,500 gpm
—2 psi
psi
750
— 54
750 gp
—10 p$i
LEGEND
AREAS WITH RESIDUAL PRESSURE BELOW 20 PSI — NUMBERS IN RED INDICATE FIRE FLOW DEMAND
AND RESIDUAL PRESSURE. PRESSURE LISTED IS THE WORST PRESSURE AT A GIVEN AREA
750 gpm 750 gpm
—69 psi —41 psi
—50 gp
e
1
� r
r
750 gpm
r "1
o
psi
n
L
1
in
DRAFT
NORTH
SCALE
1" = 3,000 FEET
ON 11" x 24" PAPER
Table 6-1. Existing System Storage Analysis
Existing
Additional
Maximum Day
Regulatory
Maximum Fire Flow
Emergency
Required
Available
Storage
Zone
Demand, mgd
Storage, mg
Storage, mg
Storage, mg
Storage, mg
Needed, mgd
Flow, gpm
Duration, hours
Volume, mg
6170
1.654
0.551
3,000
4
0.72
0.827
2.10
2.35
0.00
Armstrong
0.152
0.051
750
2
0.09
0.076
0.22
0.10
0.12
DL-6124
0.583
0.194
2,200
3
0.40
0.292
0.88
0.23
0.65
DL-6323
0.363
0.121
2,000
3
0.36
0.182
0.66
0.30
0.36
Donner View
0.805
0.268
2,000
2
0.24
0.403
0.91
0.70
0.21
Gateway
0.681
0.227
4,000
4
0.96
0.341
1.53
0.75
0.78
Glacier
0.094
0.031
750
2
0.09
0.047
0.17
0.15
0.02
Glenshire 1
0.219
0.073
1,000
2
0.12
0.110
0.30
0.49
0.00
Glenshire 2
0.804
0.268
2,500
3
0.45
0.402
1.12
0.74
0.38
Hirschdale
0.021
0.007
750
2
0.09
0.011
0.11
0.10
0.01
Innsbruck
1.058
0.353
2,000
2
0.24
0.529
1.12
0.60
0.52
Lower Lakeview
0.266
0.089
750
2
0.09
0.133
0.31
0.25
0.06
Martiswoods
0.027
0.009
750
2
0.09
0.014
0.11
0.10
0.01
Pinnacle
0.235
0.078
1,500
2
0.18
0.118
0.38
0.18
0.20
Ponderosa Palisades
0.288
0.096
750
2
0.09
0.144
0.33
0.40
0.00
Prosser Heights
0.231
0.077
750
2
0.09
0.116
0.28
0.43
0.00
Soma Sierra
0.039
0.013
750
2
0.09
0.020
0.12
0.20
0.00
Stockholm
1.805
0.602
2,000
2
0.24
0.903
1.74
0.92
0.82
Town
0.213
0.071
3,000
4
0.72
0.107
0.90
0.40
0.50
Upper Ski Run
0.016
0.005
1,500
2
0.18
0.008
0.19
0.10
0.09
9.55 13.49 9.49
4.73
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
PIPELINE LEAKAGE ANALYSIS
The Truckee Water System has experienced significant problems with leaking and failing water
lines in the Tahoe Donner area. The District undertook a large main replacement project in 1991
and replaced additional pipelines in 1996, 1998, 1999 and every year from 2002 through 2010.
There are other areas in Tahoe Donner in need of replacement. In addition, many other portions
of the system are between 40 and 50 years old, and are beginning to experience leakage
problems as well. Detailed records regarding leak repairs are available from 1989 to the present
and are summarized in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Number of Leaks, 1989 - 2010
Year
Number of Leaks
1989
105
1990
237
1991
248
1992
176
1993
121
1994
124
1995
116
1996
95
1997
109
1998
76
1999
126
2000
141
2001
161
2002
172
2003
166
2004
136
2005
145
2006
129
2007
133
2008
99
2009
80
2010
74
Review of Table 6-3 shows that the number of leak repairs has decreased markedly over the past
ten years. This reduction is a direct result of the pipeline replacement projects undertaken by the
District during this same time period. It should be noted that the District has suspended its
pipeline replacement program due to a lack of available funds. A replacement project was not
undertaken in 2011 and the District does anticipate having available funds for additional pipeline
replacement in the near term. Therefore, it is expected that there be an increase in the number of
leak repairs performed over the next few years as more existing pipelines reach the end of their
useful life.
Methodology
Initially, all leaks reported during the period of 2005-2010 were plotted on a map of the
distribution system and color -coded by the year in which they occurred. Second, the distribution
Page 6-10
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
system was broken down into pipeline segments of about 500 to 600 feet in length and each leak
was assigned to a given pipeline segment. The number of leaks for each segment was then
totaled.
A pressure zone adjustment factor was developed to account for the fact that water lost due to
leaks in higher pressure zones costs the District more money than water lost in lower pressure
zones. This higher cost is the result of electricity consumed in pumping the water to a higher
pressure zone. This factor uses the Town and Gateway zones as the base zone and adjusts for all
higher pressure zones. The adjustment factors are given in Table 6-3.
Finally, the total number of leaks was multiplied by the adjustment factor and this product was
designated as the Leak Replacement Value. A Leak Replacement Value was calculated for each
pipeline segment in the system. In areas where no leaks occurred, the system was not broken
down into smaller segments.
Table 6-3. Pressure Zone Adjustment Factors
Pressure Zone
Adjustment Factor
Pressure Zone
Adjustment Factor
Gateway
1.0
Palisades Hydro
1.3
Town
1.0
Upper
1.3
6124
1.1
West Palisades Hydro
1.3
6170
1.1
Bennett Flat
1.4
Berkshire
1.1
Innsbruck
1.4
Glenshire 2
1.1
Alder Creek
1.5
Icknield
1.1
Hillside
1.5
Lower Lakeview
1.1
Sitzmark Hydro
1.5
Prosser Heights
1.1
Stockholm
1.5
Sierra Meadows
1.1
Trout Creek 6550
1.5
Upper Lakeview
1.1
Donner View
1.6
Waterloo
1.1
Heidi Way
1.6
Armstrong
1.2
Pinnacle
1.6
Donner Trails
1.2
Roundhill Hydro
1.6
Glenshire 1
1.2
Donner View Hydro
1.7
Heights Hydro
1.2
Lower Ski Run
1.7
Ponderosa Palisades
1.2
Pinnacle Hydro
1.7
Red Mountain
1.2
Upper Ski Run
1.7
Soma Sierra
1.2
Lower Glacier
1.8
Wolfe
1.2
Middle Glacier
1.8
Martiswoods
1.3
Upper Glacier
1.8
Northeast
1.3
Results
A total of 2,398 pipeline segments exist in the distribution system. Of this total, leaks occurred
in 241 of the segments. The Leak Replacement Values calculated ranged from 0 to 10.5. A total
of 22 sections of pipeline have a Leak Replacement Value of 5 or greater. Of these 16 segments,
four are located in the Glenshire area, one is located in the Biltz tract and the remainder are
Page 6-11
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
located in Tahoe Donner. These 22 sections total about 14,900 feet of pipe and are designated as
high priority needs.
There are an additional 67 sections of pipeline with a Leak Replacement Value between 2 and 5
that have not been replaced. These pipelines had a minimum of two leaks over the past five
years. These sections total about 46,200 feet of pipe and are designated as medium priority
needs. The remaining pipeline sections have either been replaced under previous projects, or
suffered at most one leak over the past five years. Those sections not already replaced are
considered low priority needs. Table 6-4 gives a summary of pipeline replacement needs and
Figure 6-6 shows an overall summary of the recommended leak replacement program and also
notes which pipelines have already been replaced.
Table 6-4. Summary of Pipeline Replacement Needs
Priority
Pipeline Length, feet
High Priority
14,859
Medium Priority
46,196
Low Priority/No Leaks
530,136
Previously Replaced/Installed in 1990s or 2000s
558,680
Total
1,149,871
SYSTEM OPERATIONS
There are a number of improvements needed to the existing system in order to improve system
operations, address water quality concerns and improve the system's energy efficiency. These
improvements include:
• Installation of flow meters at pumping stations to track actual system flows
• Installation of looping pipelines to remove dead-end mains
• Installation of standby generators to ensure pumping capabilities under emergency
conditions
• Installation of a new SCADA system
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
As described in Section 3, the District's total existing water supply capacity is about 14.0 mgd,
with a firm capacity of about 10.9 mgd. This capacity is sufficient to meet current demands.
Section 5 gives a detailed discussion and analysis of existing and future water supply issues.
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
The 2004 Master Plan described 53 improvement projects needed to bring the system to current
performance standards at that time. Eighteen of those 53 projects have been constructed. Two
other projects — installation of flow meters and installation of standby generators — involve
multiple sites and are partially complete.
Page 6-12
E.
E
rm
L NORTH
SCALE
00 FEET
LEGEND jDRAFI ON 11 3 24" PAPER
HIGH PRIORITY
MEDIUM PRIORITY
LOW PRIORITY (0 OR 1 LEAK IN LAST 5 YEARS) f0j�-TRUCKEE DONNER Figure 6-6
REPLACED/INSTALLED DURING 1990s OR 2000s Piihlir, I Itility nictrirt i __i_ rl_._i___.____� r►._:_._a:__
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
Based on the examination of current conditions described above, a total of 38 necessary
improvement projects have been identified for the existing system. These improvements are
given in Table 6-5 and shown on Figure 6-7. The listing given in the table is not based on
priority and the Map ID numbers are simply a convention for denoting the location of the
proposed improvements. Please note that the improvements listed are only those required to
address system performance with the existing system (as of January 1, 2011) and do not address
any additional needs caused by future growth. The facilities actually constructed should address
both existing and future needs. Implementation of any of these recommendations should
consider the discussions regarding improvements needed to service future growth given in
Section 7. It is also recommended that the pipeline replacement program be restarted, with a
goal of replacing between two and three miles of pipe every year.
Table 6-5. Recommended Improvement Proiects to Address Existing Needs
Map ID
Improvement
Justification
1
Replace 6-inch cross-country pipeline between Alder
System Reliability
Creek Road & Wolfgang Road
Water Quality
2
Install PRV station on Oberwald Way from Pinnacle
Fire Flow
Zone to Stockholm Zone
3
Install PRV station on Pathway Avenue from Stockholm
Fire Flow
Zone to Innsbruck Zone
4
Install 8-inch pipeline from Royal Way to Royal Crest
Fire Flow
Extension
5
Install 8-inch pipeline from Martiswoods Tower to
Fire Flow
Kleckner Court
6
Install 8-inch pipeline across UPRR Tracks from Church
Fire Flow
Street to East River Street
7
Install 8-inch pipeline in Sierra Drive from Prosser Street
Fire Flow
to Richards Boulevard
8
Install 8-inch pipeline across Donner Pass Road to south
Fire Flow
of Fire Station No. 92
9
Relocate fire hydrant on Hansel Avenue from Innsbruck
Fire Flow
Zone to Stockholm Zone
10
Relocate fire hydrant on Hansel Avenue from Innsbruck
Fire Flow
Zone to Stockholm Zone
11
Change service connections from Innsbruck Zone to
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Stockholm Zone
12
Change service connections from Stockholm Zone to
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Roundhill Hydro Zone
13
Install 8-inch pipeline in Davos Drive to extend
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Stockholm Zone
14
Install 12-inch/8-inch pipeline in Skislope Way below
Fire Flow
Ski Lodge Tank Site
15
Change service connections from Stockholm Zone to
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Donner View Zone
16
Install 8-inch pipeline in Sitzmark Way to extend
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Sitzmark Hydro Zone
17
Install 8-inch pipeline in Sitzmark Way to extend
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Sitzmark Hydro Zone
Page 6-14
Section 6 - Existing System Evaluation
Map ID
Improvement
Justification
18
Install 8-inch pipeline in Aspenwood Road to extend
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Palisades Hydro Zone
19
Install 8-inch pipeline in Rocky Lane to extend Donner
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Trails Hydro, Zone
20
Install 8-inch pipeline in Skislope Way to extend Donner
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
View Hydro Zone
21
West Palisades Hydro PS upgrade
Fire Flow
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
22
Construct 0.30 mg tank at Red Mountain Tank site
Fire Flow
Storage
23
Construct 0.32 mg tank at Ski Lodge Tank site
Storage
24
Construct 0.52 mg tank at Innsbruck Tank site
Storage
25
Construct 0.80 mg tank at Herringbone Tank site
Storage
26
Construct 0.20 mg tank at Pinnacle Tank site
Storage
27
Install 8-inch pipeline in Blueberry Road and Purple
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
Sage Road to extend Palisades Hydro Zone
28
Repair/replace 6-inch cross-country pipeline between
System Reliability
Schussing Way & St. Bernard Drive
Water Quality
29
Install 8-inch pipeline in Olympic Boulevard from East
Fire Flow
Ridge Road to Ka hoe Court
30
Install 10-inch pipeline at Pine Forest Rd. & Greenwood
Water Quality
Dr. to complete pipe loop in Lower Lakeview Zone
31
Install pipe connection at Glenshire Drive & Somerset
System Reliability
Drive
Water Quality
32
Install 12-inch pipeline in Glacier Way & Skislo e Way
Fire Flow
33
Install 8-inch pipeline from Sitzmark Way to Mougle
Fire Flow
Lane to extend Sitzmark Hydro Zone
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
34
Install 4-inch pipeline in Northwoods Boulevard to
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
extend Stockholm Zone
35
Install 8-inch pipeline in Northwoods Boulevard to
Fire Flow
extend Donner View Zone
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
36
Install 6-inch pipeline in McPhetres Street
Fire Flow
37
Installation of flow meters at all wells and pumping
Energy Efficiency/System
stations not currently equipped
Operations
38
Installation of standby generators at selected wells and
System Reliability
pumping stations not currently equipped
Page 6-15
SECTION 7
FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION
AND LAYOUT
SECTION 7
FUTURE SYSTEM EVALUATION AND LAYOUT
This section provides detailed descriptions and summaries of the anticipated future water system.
Analyses were conducted for required source water quantities, storage requirements, water
transfers between pressure zones, and ability of the system to adequately provide sufficient water
under anticipated maximum day plus fire and peak hour conditions.
Analyses described in Section 6 identified a number of existing needs. Section 6 also presented
recommended improvements to address those needs. Some improvements described in this
Section are modifications to previous recommendations that include allowances for future
growth. Other recommended improvements given in Section 6 have been deleted and replaced
with recommendations discussed in this Section that accomplish the same function.
Implementation of any improvements should consider provisions for anticipated future growth.
FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
As discussed in Section 5, the current nominal capacity of all of the groundwater wells is about
14.0 mgd. The maximum day demand is expected to increase from 9.53 mgd currently, to 20.30
mgd at buildout. In order to meet this future demand, a total of seven new wells, at a capacity of
850 gpm each, is anticipated. An eighth well is also recommended in order to provide adequate
firm capacity.
In 2002 and 2003, the District drilled a number of exploration wells in order to identify locations
for future groundwater wells. As a result of this exploration well program, the District acquired
four well sites and wells have been constructed at three of the four. There is one remaining well
site where property rights have been secured by the District.
It is expected that the new finite element model under development by Brown and Caldwell will
provide information regarding behavior of the groundwater basin. Once this model and the
accompanying study are completed, the District should have sufficient information to identify
additional well sites and can investigate the drilling of additional test wells.
Tentative locations of future wells have been identified for the purposes of distribution system
layout and sizing. A future piping system has been developed based on these locations. As
further studies of the groundwater basin are conducted, the piping system recommendations may
need to be revised.
Some of the existing groundwater wells will be approaching the end of their useful life by the
year 2020. Due to the variability of well useful life spans, no costs associated with
redevelopment of existing wells have been included in this study. However, it is assumed that
wells reaching the end of their useful life will be redeveloped at the same site, minimizing the
need for need new piping and electrical facilities.
FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
As discussed in Section 4, future growth will be a combination of infill in existing subdivisions
and development of currently vacant lands. As a basis for developing recommended
improvements to serve future conditions, the existing system schematic given in Figure 3-1 was
reviewed in relation to the anticipated buildout demands. It was determined that the only Donner
Trails and Soma Sierra pump stations will not have sufficient capacity to meet buildout needs.
Page 7-1
Section 7 - Future System Evaluation and Layout
Tahoe Donner Supply Reliability and Redundancy
Water demand in the Tahoe Donner subdivision is currently about 4.01 mgd on the maximum
day and comprises about 42 percent of the systemwide total. Buildout maximum day demand in
the Tahoe Donner area is projected at about 5.72 mgd or about 28 percent of the overall buildout
maximum day demand. There is a single pipeline along Northwoods Boulevard that provides
water to the entire subdivision and the existing pumping facilities (Donner Trails and Soma
Sierra) along that pipeline have a capacity of about 5.6 mgd. A major failure of the pipeline or
pump station could place a significant number of customers out of water since the only
alternative facility to feed this area is the A Well with a capacity of 160 gpm.
Considering that almost half of the existing system's water demand must run through a linear
series of pumps and pipelines, and that the existing system will need to serve the expected
buildout maximum day demands, it would be prudent to provide a second pipeline feed into
Tahoe Donner in order to provide redundancy and provide additional capacity. The proposed
routing for this second pipeline is west from the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Comstock
Drive along the anticipated alignment of the 3rd Access Road to Tahoe Donner. A pump station
would be located along this route to pump from the 6170 pressure zone into the Innsbruck
pressure zone.
Recommended Future Distribution System Layout
A proposed buildout water system layout has been developed and is given in Figure 7-1. The
piping layout given in this figure is based upon the best available information. Development
projects have been proposed for a number of currently vacant parcels. These proposed projects
have been utilized where possible. It should be noted that piping layout given in Figure 7-1
should be considered a planning level layout. The final system configuration will be subject to
issues beyond the scope of this study such as final subdivision plans, right-of-way issues and
soils investigations.
A total of almost 195,000 feet of pipeline is anticipated to serve future growth. Table 7-1 gives a
breakdown of the recommended piping and Figure 7-2 shows the proposed buildout system
color -coded by pressure zone. The improvements given in Table 7-1 also include the
improvements needed to address existing needs described in Section 6, but do not include any
improvements related to the recommended pipeline replacement program to address leaks.
Table 7-1. Prouosed Pipeline Improvements
Diameter, inches
Total Length, feet
4-inch
2,503
6-inch
202
8-inch
125,181
10-inch
17,275
12-inch
31,742
16-inch
3,626
20-inch
14,059
Total
194,588
Page 7-2
Negro Canyon Tan
0.22 mg
—� 12"
12"
4gZanyon PS
811
8"
Donner Lake Tank
0.60 mg
Ski Run Tank Expansion
0.16 mg
Glacier Tank Expansion
0.19 mg
10"
1
Pinnacle Tank Expansion
0.34 mg
Stockholm Tank Expansion
0.70 mg
8"
Ski Lodge Tank Expansion
0.52 mg
Stockholm Zone to
Donner View Zone
. I�I�Yi 1:7A 1�TT71 �.nk • . •
81,
in-
,111
■ �I ►-oar •".'■ �
Armstrong
• •Tank Expa •
����i�jllll� IIIIIIIIII 1 ' _ �-
MMINJ
�' � �u�uuuuu� 111111111 � � = �-=_/.1„11��/■
II���� � �I1111111111111' �1 11
�� �I/1 � , � g1171uumllullul■ � �`i■ �■��■���■rm
`•�I' �/""jam �111 �IIIIII 111111111
•• ,��/// � ��IIQQ �rgiii � II141_ —,I
_1 11,'�-I♦r:
••..��i��` bl�j�Ilnuuuuuu ....wf,III11111111119111= �� ��_� I� �1111111111111���' -
Hydropneumatic
U
I
■
ProsserlAnnex
1 Tank E pansic
0.37 m
q5m
ark Tank Expansion
g
Bridge Street Pump Station
4,4 0 gpm to Innsbruck Zone
6170 Tank E
40mn
8'I
8"
8"
ierra N
Tank E�
1.0 mg
Pali8ades
ro PS jJpgrade
Martiswoods Tank Expan ion
0.26 mg
1]
91
Future ell
No. 6
811 Joerger PRV Station
II
I
8" rrrr� 10"
0
vien nire
3.0 m
DONNER VIEW
HYD
.... . . . . . . . . i - mAll.-I
@11AWS F 1 H -.. .
=� w it -m-1-1 10
■
Section 7 - Future System Evaluation and Layout
It should be noted that not all of the pipelines listed in Table 7-1 will be constructed by the
District. It is the policy of the District that developers are responsible for constructing facilities
necessary to serve their projects. The District takes lead responsibility for the development of
water supply and supply related improvements with the cost of such facilities paid by developers
in the form of Facility Fees. A significant portion of the total length given in Table 7-1 will be
constructed by developers. It should also be noted that the piping described in this report does
not represent the entire contribution of developers, but only the backbone system. Developers
will be required to construct additional piping that is internal to their projects. A more detailed
discussion of this topic and a breakdown of pipelines by responsible party is given in Section 9.
In addition to the 188,000 feet of pipeline, expansions to storage tanks along with construction of
new pumping stations, storage tanks and pressure reducing stations is anticipated. Table 7-2
gives a summary of the recommended pump stations and pressure reducing station
improvements. Construction of new reservoirs and reservoir expansions is discussed later in this
Section.
Table 7-2. Proposed Pump Station and Pressure Reducing Station Improvements
Facility
Existing
Size/Capacity
Future
Size/Capacity
Notes
Bride Street Pump Station
---
4,400 gpm
Coldstream Hydropneumatic
Pump Station
---
1,535 gpm
35 gpm domestic and 1,500 gpm
fire flow capacity
Negro Canyon Pump Station
---
100 gpm
Built b Develo er
West Palisades Hydropneumatic
Pump Station
40 gpm
1,040 gpm
40 gpm domestic and 1,000 gpm
fire flow capacity
Canyon Springs PRV Station
---
2-inch/6-inch
Provide service from Glenshire 1
Zone to Canyon Springs
Subdivision
Joerger PRV Station
---
2-inch/6-inch
Provide service from 6170 Zone to
areas off Joer er Drive
Hilltop PRV Station
---
2-inch/6-inch
Provide service from 6170 Zone to
areas south of Truckee River
Hirschdale PRV Station
---
2-inch
Provide New Water Supply to
Hirschdale Area
Oberwald PRV Station
---
6-inch
Fire Flow
Pathway PRV Station
---
6-inch
Fire Flow
Railyard PRV Station
---
2-inch/6-inch
Provide service from 6170 Zone to
areas north of Truckee River
FUTURE WATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
As noted previously, maximum day demand is expected to increase from 9.53 mgd to 20.30 mgd
at buildout. Due to projected development, it is expected that the maximum fire flow demands
will increase for some pressure zones. Table 7-3 gives the anticipated maximum fire flow
demand within storage pressure zone.
Based on data in Section 4 and Table 7-3, the minimum storage requirements and additional
storage volume needed to serve future demands have been calculated and are given in Table 7-4.
Table 7-5 shows the recommended improvements to develop this required storage volume.
Page 7-5
Section 7 - Future System Evaluation and Layout
Table 7-3. Anticipated Maximum Fire Flow Requirements by Storage Pressure Zone
Pressure Zone
Maximum Fire Flow
Demand, m
Expected Fire Flow
Duration, hours
Fire Flow Requirement,
million gallons
6170
4,000
4
0.96
Armstrong
1,500
2
0.18
DL-6124
2,200
3
0.40
DL-6323
2,200
3
0.40
Donner View
2,000
2
0.24
Glacier
1,500
2
0.18
Glenshire 1
1,500
2
0.18
Hirschdale
1,000
2
0.12
Innsbruck
2,000
2
0.24
Lower Lakeview
1,500
2
0.18
Martiswoods
1,500
2
0.18
Negro Canyon
1,500
2
0.18
Pinnacle
2,000
2
0.24
Ponderosa Palisades
1,500
2
0.18
Prosser Heights
1,500
2
0.18
Soma Sierra
1,500
2
0.18
Stockholm
2,000
2
0.24
Upper Ski Run
1,500
2
0.18
Table 7-4. Buildout Storage Volume Requirements
Reservoir
Maximum
Day
Demand,
mgd
Operational
Storage
Requirement,
mg
Fire Storage
Requirement,
mg
Emergency
Requirement,
mg
Total Storage
Requirement,
mg
Total
Volume
Available,
mg
Additional
Storage
Volume
Required,
m
6170
10.386
3.462
0.96
5.19
9.62
4.24
5.38
Armstrong
0.275
0.092
0.18
0.14
0.41
0.10
0.31
DL-6124
0.917
0.306
0.40
0.46
1.16
0.23
0.93
DL-6323
0.913
0.304
0.36
0.46
1.12
0.30
0.82
Donner View
1.179
0.393
0.24
0.59
1.22
0.70
0.52
Glacier
0.191
0.064
0.18
0.10
0.34
0.15
0.19
Glenshire 1
0.330
0.110
0.18
0.17
0.46
0.49
0.00
Hirschdale
0.035
0.012
0.12
0.02
0.15
0.10
0.05
Innsbruck
1.692
0.564
0.24
0.85
1.65
0.60
1.05
Lower Lakeview
0.395
0.132
0.18
0.20
0.51
0.25
0.26
Martiswoods
0.040
0.013
0.18
0.02
0.21
0.10
0.11
Negro Canyon
0.046
0.015
0.18
0.02
0.22
---
0.22
Pinnacle
0.334
0.111
0.24
0.17
0.46
0.18
0.28
Ponderosa Palisades
0.448
0.149
0.18
0.22
0.55
0.40
0.15
Prosser Heights
0.434
0.145
0.18
0.18
0.54
0.43
0.11
Soma Sierra
0.060
0.020
0.18
0.03
0.23
0.20
0.03
Stockholm
2.529
0.843
0.24
1.26
2.35
0.92
1.43
Upper Ski Run
0.096
0.032
0.18
0.05
0.26
0.10
0.16
20.3
23.13
9.49
12.00
Page 7-6
Section 7 - Future System Evaluation and Layout
Table 7-5. Proposed Reservoir Sizing and Reservoir Expansions
Facility
Existing
Size/Capacity
Future
Size/Capacity
Notes
Tank Expansion
0.10 mg
1.1 m
-Armstrong
Bridge Street 6170 Tank Expansion
1.5 mg
5.5 mg
Same elevation as existing
Bridge Street 6170 tank
Donner Lake 6124 Tank
---
0.60 mg
Same elevation as existing Wolfe
Estates Tank
Glacier Tank Expansion
0.18 mg
0.40 m
Tank Expansion
0.3 mg
1.0 m
-Herringbone
Innsbruck Tank Expansion
0.2 mg
0.90 m
Lower Glenshire Tank Expansion
0.74 mg
3.74 m
Martiswoods Tank Expansion
0.2 mg
0.40 m
Ne ro Can on Tank
---
0.22 mg
Built by Developer
Pinnacle Tank Expansion
0.18 mg
0.52 m
Prosser Annex Tank Expansion
0.225 mg
0.595 m
Red Mountain Tank Replacement
0.21 mg
0.30 mg
Same elevation as existing Wolfe
Estates Tank . Existing tank is out
of service and requires demolition.
Sierra Meadows Tank Expansion
0.25
1.25 m
Sitzmark Tank Expansion
0.20 mg
0.75 m
Ski Lodge Tank Expansion
0.35 mg
0.87 m
Stockholm Tank Expansion
0.32 mg
1.02 m
Page 7-7
SECTION 8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
SECTION 8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This section presents the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the District's
Truckee water system with respect to the existing and anticipated future systems. This CIP
addresses improvements to the existing system as well as improvements necessary to continue to
provide appropriate service through anticipated buildout conditions.
METER BOX UPGRADE PROJECT
The District is in the process of installing water meters on all of its services. Currently, about 90
percent of the customers are equipped with a meter. It is expected that this project will continue
until the 2017, at a cost of $550,000 each year. This cost includes allowances for administration,
engineering and contingencies.
EXISTING FACILITY REPLACEMENT
The CIP described herein allocates a fixed amount of $1,000,000 annually toward the
replacement of existing facilities such as failing pipelines. However, the exact facilities to be
replaced are not identified. A discussion of pipelines with leakage problems is given in Section
6 and the exact pipelines to be replaced should be evaluated on an annual basis. The funding
source for replacement of such pipelines is through rates.
SCADA SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
Also included in the CIP is the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system
replacement. The District currently operates five separate SCADA systems.
• Sandel Avery SCADA System - This system was installed in 1992 & 1993 and covers the
facilities in District's service territory prior to the acquisition of the Donner Lake and
Glenshire water systems. Expansion of this system to serve additional sites is note
feasible due to the closed architecture and limited availability of parts.
• Donner Lake SCADA System — This system was created by the District to serve facilities
in the Donner lake area after acquisition of the Donner Lake Water System in 2001.
• Glenshire SCADA System — This system was previously operated by the Glenshire
Mutual Water Company and was acquired as part of the Glenshire Water system in 2002.
• Donner Creek Well SCADA System — This system was created by the District in 2000 to
provide irrigation water from the Donner Creek Well to the Coyote Moon golf course.
• Fibreboard Well SCADA System — This system was created by the District in 2009 to
provide irrigation water from the Fibreboard Well to the Gray's Crossing and Old
Greenwood golf courses.
In 2010, the District retained Carollo Systems to perform a needs analysis and develop design
documents for a single replacement SCADA system. More detail on the project can be found in
SCADA System Upgrade Technical Memorandum No. 1 by Carollo Systems. Implementation
Page 8-1
Section 8 — Capital Improvement Program
of the new SCADA system has been broken into four phases. Cost estimates for each phase are
given in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. SCADA Svstem Replacement Cost Estimate
Phase
Total
Construction Cost
A
$ 1,500,000
B
$304,500
C
$ 624,100
D
$661,400
Total
$3,090,000
Total Cost includes allowances for administration,
engineering and contingencies
CIP SUMMARY
The existing and future system analyses described in Sections 6 and 7 identified recommended
improvement projects. Cost estimates were developed for each project identified in this study
based on the cost criteria described in Section 2. Table 8-2 gives a summary of the
recommended District -funded CIP. A detailed listing of the improvements is given in Table 8-4
at the end of this Section. Table 8-4 also identifies the proposed funding source for each
improvement project, including some projects that will be funded entirely by Developers. More
detail on this issue is given in Section 9.
Table 8-2. Summary of Recommended District -Funded Capital Improvement Pro rama
Type of Project
Estimated
Construction Costs
Total Costs
Life -Cycle Replacement
$17,000,000
$23,800,000
New Pipeline
$10,788,300
$15,103,620
New PRV Station
$120,000
$168,000
New Pump Station
$1,140,000
$1,596,000
New Storage Tank
$17,912,500
$25,077,500
New Well
$14,000,000
$19,600,000
Meter Box Upgrade
$3,300,000
$3,300,000b
Pipe Modification
$27,000
$37,800
Service Modification
$48,000
$67,200
SCADA System Replacement
$3,090,000
$3,090,000c
System Modification
$560,000
$784,000
Total
$67,985,800
$92,624,120
a Total Costs include the Administration, Engineering and Contingency
Allowances described in Section 2.
b The construction costs for the Meter Box Upgrade Project already include
allowances for administration, engineering and contingencies.
The construction costs for the SCADA System Replacement already include
allowances for administration, engineering and contingencies.
Page 8-2
Section 8 — Capital Improvement Program
ANTICIPATED PHASING
After completion of the cost estimates, an attempt was made to determine when the proposed
facilities would need to be constructed. An estimated year of construction was assigned to each
project and is listed in Table 8-4. The main purpose of this effort was to identify priority
projects and allow projection of future cash flow requirements.
Table 8-3. Breakdown of Capital Improvement Costs by Year
Year
Rate -Funded
Construction Costs
Facility -Fee Funded
Construction Costs
Total
Const. Costs
Estimated
Total Costs
2012
$2,050,000
$0
$2,050,000
$2,050,000
2013
$854,500
$0
$854,500
$854,500
2014
$1,402,900
$0
$1,402,900
$1,494,420
2015
$1,438,900
$375,000
$1,813,900
$2,054,900
2016
$2,730,100
$2,649,200
$5,379,300
$7,311,020
2017
$2,925,300
$5,000,000
$7,925,300
$10,875,420
2018
$2,046,300
$1,951,200
$3,997,500
$5,596,500
2019
$1,320,600
$1,250,000
$2,570,600
$3,598,840
2020
$1,000,000
$3,036,800
$4,036,800
$5,651,520
2021
$1,000,000
$2,886,500
$3,886,500
$5,441,100
2022
$1,000,000
$946,600
$1,946,600
$2,725,240
2023
$1,000,000
$3,121,900
$4,121,900
$5,770,660
2024
$1,000,000
$1,491,000
$2,491,000
$3,487,400
2025
$1,000,000
$437,500
$1,437,500
$2,012,500
2026
$1,000,000
$2,255,100
$3,255,100
$4,557,140
2027
$1,000,000
$1,038,700
$2,038,700
$2,854,180
2028
$1,000,000
$2,749,900
$3,749,900
$5,249,860
2029
$1,000,000
$1,937,500
$2,937,500
$4,112,500
2030
$1,000,000
$3,750,000
$4,750,000
$6,650,000
2031
$1,000,000
$1,780,100
$2,780,100
$3,892,140
2032 & Beyond
$1,000,000 (Annual)
$3,560,200
$4,560,200
$6,384,280
Total
$27,768,600
$40,217,200
$67,985,800
$92,624,120
Table 8-3 gives a summary of the estimated costs by year and Figure 8-1 shows the
recommended improvements color -coded by anticipated year of installation. The year of
construction described herein is based on projected development and should not be considered
absolutely rigid. The phasing should be adjusted based on actual development which may
necessitate either the earlier construction or delayed construction of facilities.
Page 8-3
Negro Canyon Tan
0.22 mg
Neg�oXanyon PS
Donner Lake Tank
0.60 mg
"1
Ski Run Tank Expansion
0.16 mg
Glacier Tank Expansion
0.19 mg
Red Mountain Tank Repl
0.30 mg
Pinnacle Tank Expansion
0.34 mg
Stockholm Tank Expansion
0.70 mg
Ski Lodge Tank Expansion
0.52 mg
Innsbruck Tank
0.50 mg —�—
��7
Relocate Fire Hydrant to
Stockholm Zone
Pathway PRV Station Change Services from Innsbruck Zone
\ to Stockholm Zone
ge 5e ice from 5p to-m
to Ro ndhi I ro Zone
Change Services from
Stockholm Zone to
Donner View Zone
ank Expansion
Armstrong Tank Expansion
Check Valve
m 40ne
20
C,otdstream ---
Hydropneumatic
I
■
ProsseJpansio
Annex
Tank E
0.37 m
Sitzlnark Tank Ex
0.5q mg
Br4ge Street Pump Station
4,4 0 gpm to Innsbruck Zone
1 6170 Tank
PS Ppgrade
2021
0
-"Mj
►kldwvl
19
6ierra i ao
Tank Epnj
1.0 mq
Martiswoods Tank
0.26 mg
rd PFRV Sta`iior
P-pW Station
Future Mal
No.6
��x31
11M
o Future
No. 8
NreFu
Well
Joerger PRV Station
2028
X
Futur cell
No. �/
Future We
No. 1
2� O
Future
No. 4
Future W II
IN
2018
vien nire Lo er
3.0 m
Valve
Carron Springs
LEGEND
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DEVELOPERS
e FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2013
- 2014
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2015
- 2016
! FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2017
- 2018
i FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2019
- 2020
® FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2021
- 2022
- FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2023
- 2024
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2025
- 2026
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2027
- 2031
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY DISTRICT, 2032
- BUILDO
NORTH
SCALE
1" = 1,500 FEET
ON 21" x 46" PAPER
DRAFT
TABLE 8-4. DETAILED LISTING OF PROPOSED DISTRICT FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY TYPE
DESCRIPTION
2012 PROJECTS
RESPONSIBLE FUNDING
LENGTH. FT DIAM. IN YEAR PARTY SOURCE
JUSTIFICATION
UNIT CONSTRUCTION
QUANTITY UNITS COST COST
Service Upgrade Meter Box Upgrades - Glenshire NA NA 2012 TDPUD Rates AB 2572 Compliance 1 Year $ 550,000 $ 550,000
SCADA Replacement SCADA System Replacement - Phase 3A NA NA 2012 TDPUD Rates SCADA System Replacement 1 Phase $1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
TOTAL $ 2,050,000
2013 PROJECTS
Service Upgrade Meter Box Upgrades - Glenshire & Olympic Heights NA NA 2013 TDPUD Rates AB 2572 Compliance
SCADA Replacement SCADA Svstem Replacement - Phase 3B NA NA 2013 TDPUD Rates SCADA Svstem Reol
2014 PROJECTS
1 Year $ 550,000 $ 550,000
1 Phase $ 304,500 $ 304,500
TOTAL $ 854,500
New Pipeline
Oberwald PRV Site Piping
100
8
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
100
feet
$
175
$
17,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline across Donner Pass Road to south of Fire Station No. 92
550
8
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
550
feet
$
175
$
96,300
New PRV Station
Oberwald PRV Station
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1
Each
$
40,000
$
40,000
Pipe Modification
Relocate Fire Hydrants on Hansel Avenue
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
2
Each
$
6,000
$
12,000
Pipe Modification
Install Piping Connection at Greenwood Drive & Pine Forest Road
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Water Quality
1
Each
$
7,500
$
7,500
Pipe Modification
Install Piping Connection at Glenshire Drive & Somerset Drive
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Water Quality
1
Each
$
7,500
$
7,500
Service Modification
Change Pressure Zone of Services on Hansel Avenue
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
6
Each
$
3,000
$
18,000
Service Modification
Change Pressure Zone of Services on Roundhill Drive
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
7
Each
$
3,000
$
21,000
Service Modification
Change Pressure Zone of Services on Copenhagen Drive
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
3
Each
$
3,000
$
9,000
Service Upgrade
Meter Box Upgrades - Prosser Heights, Prosser Lakeview & Sierra Meadows
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
AB 2572 Compliance
1
Year
$
550,000
$
550,000
SCADA Replacement
SCADA System Replacement - Phase 3C
NA
NA
2014
TDPUD
Rates
SCADA System Replacement
1
Phase
$
624,100
$
624,100
TOTAL
$
1,402,900
2015 PROJECTS
New Pipeline
Pathway PRV Site Piping
100
8
2015
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
100
feet
$ 175
$
17,500
New PRV Station
Pathway PRV Station
NA
NA
2015
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1
Each
$ 40,000
$
40,000
Service Upgrade
Meter Box Upgrades - Downtown, Gateway & Ponderosa Palisades
NA
NA
2015
TDPUD
Rates
AB 2572 Compliance
1
Year
$ 550,000
$
550,000
SCADA Replacement
SCADA System Replacement - Phase 3D
NA
NA
2015
TDPUD
Rates
SCADA System Replacement
1
Phase
$ 661,400
$
661,400
System Modification
Install Flow Meters at All Pump Stations Not Currently Equipped
NA
NA
2015
TDPUD
Rates
Energy Efficiency/System Operations
17
Each
$ 10,000
$
170,000
TOTAL
$
1,438,900
New Storage Tank
Red Mountain Tank Replacement
NA
NA
2015
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
300,000
gallons
$ 1.25
$
375,000
TOTAL
$
375,000
2016 PROJECTS
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Sierra Drive from Prosser Street to Richards Boulevard
875
8
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
875
feet
$ 175
$
153,100
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Olympic Boulevard from East Ridge Road to Kayhoe Court
1,300
8
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1,300
feet
$ 175
$
227,500
New Pipeline
6-inch pipeline in McPhetres Street
202
6
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
202
feet
$ 165
$
33,300
New Pipeline
Hirschdale Connection Pipeline
2,003
4
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Operational Efficiency
2,003
feet
$ 155
$
310,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Aspenwood Road to extend Palisades Hydro Zone
325
8
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
325
feet
$ 175
$
56,900
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Rocky Lane to extend Donner Trails Hydro Zone
1,500
8
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
1,500
feet
$ 175
$
262,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Blueberry Road and Purple Sage Road to extend Palisades Hydro Zone
550
8
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
550
feet
$ 175
$
96,300
New PRV Station
Hirschdale PRV Station
NA
NA
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Reduced Operational Costs
1
Each
$ 40,000
$
40,000
Service Upgrade
Meter Box Upgrades - Donner Lake & Tahoe Donner
NA
NA
2016
TDPUD
Rates
AB 2572 Compliance
1
Year
$ 550,000
$
550,000
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2016
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
2,730,100
New Pipeline
20-inch Transmission Pipeline from New Well No. 1 to Truckee Airport Road
3,219
20
2016
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
3,219
feet
$ 270
$
869,100
New Pipeline
New Well No. 1 Site Piping
140
12
2016
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
140
feet
$ 215
$
30,100
New Well
New Well No. 1
NA
NA
2016
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1
each
$1,750,000
$
1,750,000
TOTAL
$
2,649,200
TABLE 8-4. DETAILED LISTING OF PROPOSED DISTRICT FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
RESPONSIBLE
FUNDING
UNIT
CONSTRUCTION
FACILITY TYPE
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH, FT
DIAM, IN
YEAR
PARTY
SOURCE
JUSTIFICATION
QUANTITY
UNITS
COST
COST
2017 PROJECTS
New Pipeline
12-inch pipeline in Skislope Way below Ski Lodge Tank Site
1,500
12
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1,500
feet
$ 215
$
322,500
New Pipeline
12-inch pipeline in Glacier Way & Skislope Way
1,750
12
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1,750
feet
$ 215
$
376,300
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Skislope Way below Ski Lodge Tank Site
548
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
548
feet
$ 175
$
95,800
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Davos Drive to extend Stockholm Zone
1,100
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
1,100
feet
$ 175
$
192,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Sitzmark Way to extend Sitzmark Hydro Zone
300
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
300
feet
$ 175
$
52,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Sitzmark Way to extend Sitzmark Hydro Zone
300
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
300
feet
$ 175
$
52,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Skislope Way to extend Donner View Hydro Zone
250
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
250
feet
$ 175
$
43,800
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline from Sitzmark Way to Mougle Lane to extend Sitzmark Hydro Zone
425
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
425
feet
$ 175
$
74,400
New Pipeline
4-inch pipeline in Northwoods Boulevard to extend Stockholm Zone
500
4
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
500
feet
$ 155
$
77,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline in Northwoods Boulevard to extend Donner View Zone
500
8
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Provide Adequate Service Pressure
500
feet
$ 175
$
87,500
Service Upgrade
Meter Box Upgrades - Tahoe Donner
NA
NA
2017
TDPUD
Rates
AB 2572 Compliance
1
Year
$ 550,000
$
550,000
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2017
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
2,925,300
New Storage Tank
Bridge Street 6170 Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2017
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
4,000,000
gallons
$ 1.25
$
5,000,000
TOTAL
$
5,000,000
2018 PROJECTS
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline from Royal Way to Royal Crest Extension
1,500
8
2018
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1,500
feet
$ 175
$
262,500
New Pipeline
8-inch pipeline from Martiswoods Tower to Kleckner Court
650
8
2018
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
650
feet
$ 175
$
113,800
New Pump Station
West Palisades Hydropenumatic PS Upgrade
NA
NA
2018
TDPUD
Rates
Fire Flow
1
Each
$ 430,000
$
430,000
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2018
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
System Modification
Install Standby Generators at Airport & Martis Valley Wells
NA
NA
2018
TDPUD
Rates
System Reliability
2
Each
$ 120,000
$
240,000
TOTAL
$
2,046,300
New Pipeline
Future PC-3 Piping
697
16
2018
JOINT
Facility Fees-J
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth - PUD Share Assumed @ 50%
697
feet
$ 240
$
83,650
New Pipeline
Future PC-3 Piping
401
16
2018
JOINT
Facility Fees-J
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth - PUD Share Assumed @ 50%
401
feet
$ 240
$
48,200
New Pipeline
Future PC-3 Piping
514
20
2018
JOINT
Facility Fees-J
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth - PUD Share Assumed @ 50%
514
feet
$ 270
$
69,350
New Storage Tank
Herringbone Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2018
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
700,000
gallons
$ 1
$
875,000
New Storage Tank
Innsbruck Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2018
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
700,000
gallons
$ 1.25
$
875,000
TOTAL
$
1,951,200
2019 PROJECTS
New Pipeline
Replace cross-country pipeline between Alder Creek Road & Wolfgang Road
500
8
2019
TDPUD
Rates
Water Quality
500
feet
$ 175
$
87,500
New Pipeline
Replace cross-country pipeline between Schussing Way & St. Bernard Drive
475
8
2019
TDPUD
Rates
Water Quality
475
feet
$ 175
$
83,100
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2019
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
System Modification
Install Standby Generators at Donner Trails PS & Soma Sierra PS
NA
NA
2019
TDPUD
Rates
System Reliability
2
Each
$ 75,000
$
150,000
TOTAL
$
1,320,600
New Storage Tank Armstronq Tank
2020 PROJECTS
NA NA 2019 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 1,250,000
TOTAL $ 1,250,000
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2020
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
1,000,000
New Pipeline
16-inch Transmission Pipeline from New Well No. 2 to New Well No. 1
2,528
16
2020
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
2,528
feet
$ 240
$
606,700
New Pipeline
New Well No. 2 Site Piping
140
12
2020
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
140
feet
$ 215
$
30,100
New Storage Tank
Ski Lodge Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2020
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
520,000
gallons
$ 1.25
$
650,000
New Well
New Well No. 2
NA
NA
2020
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1
each
$1,750,000
$
1,750,000
TOTAL
$
3,036,800
TABLE 8-4. DETAILED LISTING OF PROPOSED DISTRICT FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
RESPONSIBLE FUNDING UNIT CONSTRUCTION
FACILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION LENGTH, FT DIAM, IN YEAR PARTY SOURCE JUSTIFICATION QUANTITY UNITS COST COST
2021 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2021 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Pipeline
20-inch Transmission Piping from Constock Drive to Bridge Street PS
2,520
20
2021
Joint
Facility Fees-J Additional Capacity to Serve Growth - PUD Share Assumed @ 50%
2,520
feet
$
270
$
340,200
New Pipeline
20-inch Transmission Piping from Bridge Street PS to Northwoods Blvd
5,227
20
2021
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
5,227
feet
$
270
$
1,411,300
New Storage Tank
Pinnacle Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2021
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
340,000
gallons
$
1.25
$
425,000
New Pump Station
Bridge Street PS
NA
NA
2021
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional capacity to Serve Growth
1
Each
$ 710,000
$
710,000
TOTAL
$
2,886,500
2022 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2022
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
1,000,000
New Pipeline
12-inch pipeline from No Other Way to Sugar Pipe Estates
1,089
12
2022
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1,089
feet
$
215
$
234,100
New Storage Tank
Martiswoods Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2022
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
200,000
gallons
$
1.25
$
250,000
New Storage Tank
Prosser Annex Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2022
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
370,000
gallons
$
1.25
$
462,500
TOTAL
$
946,600
2023 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2023
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
1,000,000
New Pipeline
12-inch Transmission Pipeline from New Well No. 3 to New Well No. 2
3,001
12
2023
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
3,001
feet
$ 215
$
645,200
New Pipeline
16-inch Pipeline in Soaring Way
1,117
20
2023
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1,117
feet
$ 270
$
301,600
New Pipeline
16-inch Pipeline in Joerger Drive
1,463
20
2023
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1,463
feet
$ 270
$
395,000
New Pipeline
New Well No. 3 Site Piping
140
12
2023
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
140
feet
$ 215
$
30,100
New Well
New Well No. 3
NA
NA
2023
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1
each
$1,750,000
$
1,750,000
TOTAL
$
3,121,900
2024 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
2024
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1
Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
1,000,000
New Pipeline
12-inch Pipeline in Northwoods Blvd
651
12
2024
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
651
feet
$ 215
$
140,000
New Pipeline
12-inch Pipeline in St. Bernard Drive
2,214
12
2024
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
2,214
feet
$ 215
$
476,000
New Storage Tank
Stockholm Tank Expansion
NA
NA
2024
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
700,000
gallons
$ 1.25
$
875,000
TOTAL
$
1,491,000
2025 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2025 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Storage Tank Glacier Tank Expansion
New Storage Tank Ski Run Tank Expansion
2026 PROJECTS
NA NA 2025 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
NA NA 2025 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
190,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 237,500
160,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 200,000
TOTAL $ 437,500
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2026 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Pipeline 10-inch Transmission Pipeline from New Well No. 4 to New Well No. 3 2,500 10 2026 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 2,500 feet $ 190 $ 475,000
New Pipeline New Well No. 4 Site Piping 140 12 2026 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 140 feet $ 215 $ 30,100
New Well New Well No. 4 NA NA 2026 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 1 each $1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
TOTAL $ 2,255,100
TABLE 8-4. DETAILED LISTING OF PROPOSED DISTRICT FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY TYPE
DESCRIPTION
2027 PROJECTS
RESPONSIBLE FUNDING
LENGTH. FT DIAM. IN YEAR PARTY SOURCE
JUSTIFICATION
UNIT CONSTRUCTION
QUANTITY UNITS COST COST
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2027 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Pipeline New Donner Lake 6124 Tank Inlet/Outlet Pipeline 1,343 12 2027 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 1,343 feet $ 215 $ 288,700
New Storage Tank New Donner Lake 6124 Tank NA NA 2027 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 600,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 750,000
TOTAL $ 1,038,700
2028 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2028 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Pipeline 10-inch Transmission Pipeline from New Well No. 5 to Joerger Drive 5,104 10 2028 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 5,104 feet $ 190 $ 969,800
New Pipeline New Well No. 5 Site Piping 140 12 2028 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 140 feet $ 215 $ 30,100
New Well New Well No. 5 NA NA 2028 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 1 each $1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
TOTAL $ 2,749,900
2029 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2029 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Storage Tank Sierra Meadows Tank Expansion NA NA 2029 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 1,000,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 1,250,000
New Storage Tank Sitzmark Tank Expansion NA NA 2029 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 550,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 687,500
TOTAL $ 1,937,500
2030 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2030 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Storage Tank Lower Glenshire Tank Expansion NA NA 2030 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 3,000,000 gallons $ 1.25 $ 3,750,000
TOTAL $ 3,750,000
2031 PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program Varies Varies 2031 TDPUD Rates Life -Cycle Replacement 1 Year $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $ 1,000,000
New Pipeline New Well No. 6 Site Piping 140 12 2031 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 140 feet $ 215 $ 30,100
New Well New Well No. 6 NA NA 2031 TDPUD Facility Fees Additional Capacity to Serve Growth 1 each $1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
TOTAL $ 1,780,100
2032 TO BUILDOUT PROJECTS
Replacement Facilities
Facility Life -Cycle Replacement Program
Varies
Varies
Annual
TDPUD
Rates
Life -Cycle Replacement
1 Year
$1,000,000
$
1,000,000
TOTAL
$
1,000,000
New Pipeline
New Well No. 7 Site Piping
140
12
TBD
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
140 feet
$ 215
$
30,100
New Well
New Well No. 7
NA
NA
TBD
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1 each
$1,750,000
$
1,750,000
New Pipeline
New Well No. 8 Site Piping
140
12
TBD
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
140 feet
$ 215
$
30,100
New Well
New Well No. 8
NA
NA
TBD
TDPUD
Facility Fees
Additional Capacity to Serve Growth
1 each
$1,750,000
$
1,750,000
TOTAL
$
3,560,200
SECTION 9
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
SECTION 9
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This section presents the anticipated financial impact of the Capital Improvement Program given
in Section 8. Recommendations regarding revised fee and rate schedules are presented.
CURRENT FEE AND RATE STRUCTURE
Water Department Revenue is currently generated from three main sources: Connection Fees,
Facility Fees and rates (monthly bills).
Connection Fees
Connection Fees are charged to new development to offset the costs incurred by the District in
labor and materials to connect a new service. This is a one-time fee charged at the time that the
project is constructed. In developed subdivisions such as Tahoe Donner, these costs cover the
installation of meters and administrative time involved in setting up the new customer account.
In undeveloped areas, surcharges to cover tapping of mains and running laterals across a
roadway may apply. The current Connection Fee schedule was adopted by Ordinance 2008-01
and is given in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1. Current Connection Fee Structure
Meter Size
Connection Fee
5/8" x 3/4"
$1,185
3/4"
$1,220
1"
Actual Cost
1 1/2"
Actual Cost
2"
Actual Cost
3"
Actual Cost
4"
Actual Cost
6"
Actual Cost
Facility Fees
Facility Fees are charged to new development to pay for water system facilities that have not yet
been constructed but are necessary to serve the proposed development or that have been
constructed but the new development has not paid its fair share of the costs associated with the
new construction. This is a one-time fee charged at the time that the project is constructed.
The current Facility Fee structure was adopted in Ordinance 2005-03. Residential construction is
charged based upon the size of the structure at a rate of $1.64 per square foot of habitable living
space. The habitable square footage amount is obtained directly from the building permit
application submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction. For commercial construction, the rate is
based upon meter size and is given in Table 9-2.
Page 9-1
Section 9 — Financial Impacts
Table 9-2. Current Facilitv Fee Structure for Commercial Construction
Meter Size
Equivalent Dwelling Units
Facility Fee
5/8" x 3/4"
1
$3,358
3/4"
1.5
$5,037
1
2.5
$8,395
1 1 /2"
5
$16,790
2"
8
$26,864
3"
15
$50,370
4"
25
$83,950
6"
50
$167,900
Rates
Rates are charged to customers in order to cover the day-to-day operating expenses of this
District. Items paid for by rates include electricity bills, employee salaries, maintenance and
repair of pipelines and pumps, debt service and liability insurance. Rate monies are also used to
pay for needed projects that are not related to growth. Bills are sent to customers on a monthly
basis.
The existing water rate structure consists of three components and was adopted by Ordinance
2009-04. The first component is a common base charge for service. This base charge does not
vary with the amount of water consumed, but does increase based upon the size of the meter
serving the customer. The second component is a "Commodity Charge" which is based upon the
amount of water used by the customer. The third component is a "Zone Charge" which is based
upon the pressure zone in which the customer is located. The Zone Charge is greater for
customers in higher pressure zones to reflect the increased electricity consumption in pumping
water from the lower pressure zones where the wells are located to higher elevations.
PROPOSED FEE AND RATE STRUCTURE
Following adoption of the 2004 Water Master Plan, the Connection Fee and Facility Fee
schedules were increased based upon recommendations in that document.
Connection Fee Structure
As noted above, the current Connection Fee schedule was adopted in 2008. Since that time,
there has been a cost increase associated with materials and labor covered under the Connection
Fee. Therefore, a $105 increase is proposed for the 5/8" x 3/4" meters and a $110 increase is
proposed for and 3/4" meters. Table 9-3 gives the proposed Connection Fee schedule.
Table 9-3. Proposed Connection Fee Structure
Meter Size
Connection Fee
5/8" x 3/4"
$1,290
3/4"
$1,330
1"
Actual Cost
1 1/2"
Actual Cost
2"
Actual Cost
3"
Actual Cost
4"
Actual Cost
6"
Actual Cost
Page 9-2
Section 9 — Financial Impacts
Proposed Facility Fee Structure
As noted in Section 8, projects to be constructed by the District were categorized as to the
proposed funding source — Facility Fees or Rates. Table 9-4 gives a summary of this breakdown
for the proposed system improvements.
Table 9-4. Summary of Proposed Improvements by Funding Source
Responsible Party
Construction Costs
Total Costs
Facility Fees
Rates
$40,217,200
$27,768,600
$56,304,080
$36,320,040
Total
$67,985,800
$92,624,120
Note: Total Costs include the Administration, Engineering and Contingency Allowances described in
Section 2.
There a few projects that are currently identified to be funded jointly by the District and
developers. An example is a portion of the new transmission pipeline that would provide a
second source of water into the Tahoe Donner area. It is assumed that a 12-inch pipeline would
be sufficient to provide for the development of the adjoining currently vacant parcels. However,
the larger 20-inch pipe is needed to convey the necessary flows to Tahoe Donner. In this case,
developers will be responsible for the costs associated with installation of a 12-inch pipeline and
the District would pay for the additional costs necessary to upsize the pipeline to 20-inches.
As given in Table 9-4, the total cost of improvements to be funded by Facility Fees is
$56,304,080. The anticipated growth in maximum day demand is from 9.53 million gallons per
day (mgd) to 20.30 mgd for a total future growth of 10.77 mgd. As described in Section 3,
future planning efforts were originally based upon the average single-family residence using 900
gallons of water on the maximum day of demand. However, once the impact of SB7X-7 is
considered, a value of 835 gallons per connection per day was used. The maximum day of
demand represents the necessary sizing of pumping and storage facilities as described in Section
2.
Residential Facility Fees
The existing Facility Fee structure uses the concept of an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) as the
basis. As noted above, future planning is based upon the average single-family residence using
835 gallon of water on the maximum day. Therefore, one equivalent dwelling unit is equal to a
maximum day usage of 835 gallons. The total projected increase in demand is equal to the
construction of 12,898 single-family residences.
EDUs = 10,770,000 gallons=12,898 EDUs
835 gallons/EDU
The amount to be funded by Facility Fees is therefore $4,365.33 per EDU:
COST = $56,304,080 Total _ $4,365.33/EDU
12,898 EDUs
Page 9-3
Section 9 — Financial Impacts
The Facility Fee charged to a customer is based upon the size of the residence to be constructed.
This change was recommended based on the rationale that larger houses have the potential to
utilize more water during peak demand periods. Furthermore, as noted in Section 2, large houses
have larger fire flow demands (1,500 gpm instead of 1,000 gpm), which require larger pipelines
to be installed in both new construction and when undertaking maintenance replacement
projects.
Table 9-5 shows the current data regarding average size of new residential housing units. As
shown in this table, the average living space for all 1,153 units was 2,709 square feet. Utilizing
the same calculation methodology used in the previous Master Plan Update, the recommended
cost per square foot is $1.61. This represents a 1.8 percent decrease from the current value of
$1.64 per square foot.
Facility Fee = $4,36 q. Ft. 2,709 Sq. = $1.61/Sq. Ft.
Table 9-5. Characteristics of New Residential Housing Units, 2002 - 2010
Year
Number of
Living Space,
Units
Average
Square Feet
2002
247
2,516
2003
152
2,702
2004
235
2,651
2005
216
2,827
2006
133
2,959
2007
117
2,922
2008
20
2,698
2009
22
2,117
2010
11
2,027
Total
1,153
Average
2,709
It is also proposed that the applicability of Facility Fees to the construction of residential
additions be clarified. Currently, when an addition to an existing residence is constructed, the
District does not collect any additional fees to offset the impact of that addition. However, larger
houses will likely use more water during peak periods and will impose larger fire flow demands
if the addition increases the structure size above 3,600 square feet. Collection of additional
monies to offset these impacts is justified and should be considered.
Commercial Facility Fees
It is proposed that the Facility Fee structure for other metered projects remain based on meter
size. The same equivalent dwelling unit values used in the existing fee structure should be
maintained and the proposed fee structure is given in Table 9-6.
Page 9-4
Section 9 — Financial Impacts
Table 9-6. Proposed Non -Residential Facility Fee Structure
Meter Size
Equivalent Dwelling Units
Current Facility Fee
Proposed Facility Fee
5/8" x 3/4"
1
$3,358
$4,365
3/4"
1.5
$5,037
$6,547
1
2.5
$8,395
$10,912
1 1 /2"
5
$16,790
$21,825
2"
8
$26,864
$34,920
3"
15
$50,370
$65,475
4"
25
$83,950
$109,125
6"
50
$167,900
$218,250
Proposed Rate Structure
A detailed rate study was conducted in 2009, culminating with the adoption of Ordinance 2009-
04. A review of rates was conducted in the Fall of 2011, during preparation of the budgets for
fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That review determined that changes to the rate structure were not
necessary. Changes to the water rate structure are not recommended at this time.
Page 9-5