18-Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee has completed its work and presented to Council July 13, 2009CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
A.genda Item No.:
07/20/09
Engineering, Planning &
Shawn Napier, P.E. Director of
Council Date:
Development
Engineering, Planning &
18.
07/27/09
Development
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Deliberate and possibly act on the report from
the Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Water resource management
BACKGROUND:
The Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee
has completed its work and the final committee
recommendations were presented to Council on July 13, 2009.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
PowerPoint presentation
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$
F~ Department Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'I'D Actual
$
❑ Public Hearing ~ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Library
❑ Police Z Eng./Public Works ❑ Utiliries
City of Paris
Revised 2/04/08
9~
~ u0 u 0
7/23/2009
Preface
❑ In late 2007, the City of Paris was contacted by the City of Irving
regarding the possibility of the sale of water from Pat Mayse Lake to the
City of Irving.
❑ The two cities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding executed
by Paris on January 14, 2008, in which Paris agreed to negotiate
exclusively with Irving.
❑ Because an adequate water supply is critical to the future of the
community and to assure that all citizens' concerns are addressed in an
open and full manner, the City Council created the Pat Mayse Lake
Study Committee (PMLSC).
❑ Information in this presentation is from the following sources: the
PMLSC briefing book, the TWDB 2008 Volumetric Survey of Pat Mayse
Lake, the USACE Pat Mayse Lake website, The Paris News, and
presentations by the City of Irving, the USACE, Mathews and Freeland,
R. W. Beck, J. Stowe and Co., and HDR Engineering.
46 0 0 U0 9 5)
7/23/2009
3000 0 5000
~
SCALE (FEE»
PAT MAYSE LAKE
ADMlEO FApI USACE
PUBLIC NUNTING AflEA MAP
ARTHUR
C!7'f'
OURE7
TIC USE AREAS ~
Sanders Cove
Q2 Dam Site
Q Pot Moyse Park (East)
Q Pat Mayse Park (West)
Q Camp Kiwanos
Q Lomor Point
KEY LAKE ELEVATIONS
- Tap of Dam - 488.5 ft.
- Emergency Spiilway - 460.5 ft.
- Flood Control Pool - 451A ft. to 460.5 k.
Uncontrolled dischorge of all water above 451.0 ft.
- Recreational Use Limits - 448 ft. to 456 ft.
Boat ramps are unusable below elev. 448 ft. and
picnic areas are underwater above elev. 458 ft.
- Conservation (usoble) Pool - 415 ft. to 451 ft.
- 67 shoreline miles at EI. 451.0 ft.
Citv of Irvinq
Projections and Goals
❑ Irving's projected ultimate demand in 2060 is 80 mgd, and they currently
have the rights to 45 mgd.
❑ The City of Irving is interested in purchasing 20-35 mgd from the City of
Paris.
❑ Even if Irving is ultimately successful in acquiring water from Hugo Lake,
they are still interested in Pat Mayse Lake as a source.
This information is from a presentation by the City of Irving to the PMLSC on August 7, 2008.
~ !12
7/23/2009
Committee Goal
"Educate, inform, and advise the Paris City Council and
citizens of Lamar County as to the best long-range
commitment of its water resources."
Important Points
❑ The City of Paris currently has the right to divert and use 55 million gallons a day
[mgd] (61,610 acre-feet) from Pat Mayse Lake.
❑ According to Article 12 of the City's original contract with the USACE, the City is
forbidden from transferring or assigning its water rights.
❑ Paris City Ordinance 2008-010, requiring that no additional raw water from Lake Pat
Mayse be sold by the City of Paris to any person, corporation or other legal entity
outside of Lamar County, Texas without first putting the issue to a vote of the
registered voters of the City of Paris, Texas, was enacted by the Paris City Council
on April 14, 2008.
City of Paris and Lamar County WSD
Population Projections
65,000
- Historic City of Paris Population
- TWDB Qry of Paris Projection
ss,ooo
- TWpB City Projection Modified
50000
- Lamar County WSD Total (based on demand)
c
p 45,ODD-
~o
~
06
a
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
1960
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2630 2040 2050 2060
Year
~ 010G097 3
7/23/2009
Manufacturing Demands
,o,ooo
9.000
8,000
- ~
C
...------"'d►'..
~ 7.000
v
g 6,000
~
A 5,000
a
-
u
§ 4,000
f
m 3,000
-
K
2,000
j tTWDB
tRW Beck
-A-TWDB Modified
~
1,000
- ~ ~ - ~ ~
i -gir-ContradAmount(w/oamendment) -
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
~
Year
7 LT'`~
l 1~~~
Steam-Electric Demands
,8.000
16.000
- . . . ~
14.000
~
9 12.000
c
~ 10.000
~
u 8.000
~
f
9
K
4.000
. . . .
~ tTWDB
2,000 ~
~
- . .-i tRW Beck
tContract Amount (w/o amendment)
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
~
^ 0UC098
4
7/23/2009
2060 Demands
Entity I Category
Demand
(MGD)
Demand
(acft/yr)
Existing Demand/Contract Amounts
City of Paris'
6.2
6,944
Lamar County WSC
12
13,440
Campbell Soup
8
8,960
Lamar Power Partners
8
8,960
Direct Energy
2.3
2,580
Subtotals
36.5
40,880
Additional Amounts
Manufacturing 2
7.5
8,390
Steam-Electric Demands 3
8.5
9,510
Subtotals
16
17,900
Total
52.5
58,740
i- mcwaes me Twos modinea demanas.
2- 7"s value includes the iWDB 2060 prqection plus an additional 1,120 acNyr (1 MGD) minus the existing Campbell tlemand from tha top taDle.
3- 7his value includes the iWDB 2060 projection minus the Mro ezisting amounts from the top table.
9
2006-2008 Water Consumption Data (mgd)
Contract / =,v
/ Peak
• City of Paris (excluding manufacturing) 5.7°' ~`4'
/ 5.7s'
• Lamar County Water Supply 12 'Y'
/ 5.3' (6/30/06)
• Campbell Soup 8-`3'
/ 6.1 c10/09/07>
• Direct Energy 2.3 / 4`3'
/ 1.61) (10/04/08)
• Other Manufacturing 1.1 (7) `Z'
`z'
• Lamar Power Partners (raw) 8
/ 7.0(1) (11/20/06)
• Totals 37.1 7 (3)26.6(5)
(1) Actual peak data from City of Paris.
(2) Major non-contract user data from PMLSC deliverables.
(3) Actual data from 2006-2008.
(4) "All other" minus "other manufacturing" from PMLSC deliverables, Attachment 2.
3.13-0.77 = 2.36 MGD
(5) Based on the unlikely circumstance that all customers peak on the same day. Peak amount treated at
the plant was 19.58 MG (08/04/2006), to which is added 7 MGD raw water for LPP.
(6) Derived by subtracting all other peak day usages from the peak day total consumption.
(7) Peak amounts used for non-contract entities so the total of the Contract column will include an amount
for all customers.
10
w 0 0 C0 9S' 5
7/23/2009
Key Quantities (MGD)
A. Available Water
i. Pat Mayse Lake 2060 Firm Yield 53.2
ii. Lake Crook 2060 Firm Yield 6.5
Total 59.7
B. Amount required for local consumption through 2060
YEAR:2020 2040 2060
AMOUNT: 46.9 51.1 52.5
A. Remaining amounts.
YEAR:2020 2040 2060
AMOUNT: 12.8 8.6 7.2
1. Amounts include water required for local consumption, contractual obligations, reserves,
and future needs.
11
Recommendations
June 25, 2009
We recommend that the City Council:
1. Offer an interruptible supply. Make water available to the outside entity only
when the lake is above elevation 448. Elevation 448 was selected to
protect current recreational access to the lake.
2. Apply to amend the City's water rights permit to allow a peak day taking of
up to three times the annual authorized 55 MGD if the City agrees to sell
water to an outside entity.
3. If the Council desires to increase the amount of water available the following
options could be considered:
A. Initiate discussions with existing contract customers to determine if there
are mutually beneficial terms under which contracted amounts of water
could be modified to reflect a maximum annual volume as well as a peak
day use, thus freeing up additional water. For example if all contracts were
modified to include a maximum annual volume of 125% of the maximum
historical usage, this would free up 15.2 MGD. If added to the uncommitted
8.6 million gallons in 2040, this would meet the City of Irving's requirement.
12
~ 000106 6
7/23/2009
Recommendations
Continued
B. Recapture the effluent from its wastewater treatment plant, and from
Campbell Soup, by constructing the Consultant's suggested diversion
structure at Hicks Creek, and diverting this water back to Lake Crook.
Operate Lake Crook and Pat Mayse as a system with water from Lake
Crook being the first water sold to an outside entity. Use the existing
pipelines from Pat Mayse to the water treatment plant to carry additional
water supply from Pat Mayse to Lake Crook as needed. System operation
plus use of return flows would increase firm yield about 12 MGD.
C. Provide local sponsorship, possibly in conjunction with other interested
entities for a Corps of Engineers study to determine the viability of
reallocation of Pat Mayse flood control storage to water supply storage.
D. Pursue the ConsultanYs return flow Scenario B by constructing a
diversion structure on Pine Creek near the Red River, catching all return
flows from Pine Creek through that point and selling it to the outside
contracting entity.
13
Questions?
14
~ ~~onlnL 7