Loading...
24-Deliberate on the Lake Pat Mayse Water Study Committee recommendationsCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET Submittal Date: Originating Department: Presented By: Agenda Item No.: O1/11/10 Council Date: City Council Council Member Pickle 24. O1/25/10 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Not an action item POLICY ISSUE(S): Water resource management BACKGROUND: Council Member Pickle requested an item to deliberate recommendations made by the Pat Mayse Water Study Committee on June 25, 2009. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: EXHIBITS: Council Member Agenda Item Request Form; Study executive summary; committee recommendations. ACTION: BUDGET INFO: ❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order Expense $ F-I Department Report ❑ Resolution Budgeted Amt. $ ❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance y'j'D Actual $ ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other Acct. Name Acct. Number FISCAL NOTES: REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: E Administration E Ciry Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police ❑ Eng./Public Works ❑ Uriliries City of Paris 0 0 1n Revised 2/04/08 ri ~i/.~~ COUNCIL MEMBER AGENDA ITEM REQUEST Please complete this form if you wish to have an item placed on the agenda for a City Council meeting. To allow adeyuate time to prepare packets and to coincide with staffls deadline for items, the due date for placing an item on the agenda is noon Thursday, 12 days prior to the regular meetings on the second and fourth Monday of each month (i.e. the Thursday immediately following a regular Monday meeting). In order for your fellow Council Members to fully understand your item, have productive discussion, ensure efficient council meetings, and for staff to be able to assist you as completely as possible, it is important that you describe the item with as much detail as possible and include any supporting documentation so that it may be included in the Council's meeting packets. Please return this completed form to the City Manager and contact the City Clerk at (903) 784-9248 if you have any yuestions. Council member making request: ❑ Will Biard ❑ Joe McCarthy ❑ Steve Brown Z Edwin Pickle ~ Jesse Freelen ❑ Rhonda Rogers ~ Kevin Kear Description of Item: Discussion concerning recommendations made by the Pat Mayse Water Study Committee on June 25, 2009. Are additional sheets or supporting materials attached? Z Yes Copies of the Water Study Committee's recommendations 0 No I request that this item be placed on the agenda for the: ❑ City Council meeting on this date: Z Sometime in the next 2 meetings ❑ No specific time in mind - just keep it on a list of pending issues Signature: Date: City of Paris Revised 11/19/08 - 0 0 0, ?CD / Executive Summary ES.1 History of Pat Mayse Lake Study Committee The City of Paris, Texas (City) entered into a Memorandi.m of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Irving, Texas (Irving) on January 14, 2008 for the purpose of evaluating issues related to the potential sale of water to Irving. To assist the City in evaluating the potential sale of water, the City authorized the creation of the Pat Mayse Lake Study Committee (Committee). The goal of the Committee is to "Educate, inform, and advise the Paris City Council and citizens of Lamar County as to the best long-range commitment of its water resources." Four key deliverables were identified by the Coinmittee to assist in achieving their goals including: • A detenilination of the total amount of water available to the community from existing sources; • A detennination of the total amount of water required for local consumption, coiztractual obligations, reserves, and future needs (through 2060); • Recommendations for additional water resources to be explored in order to expand the existing water supply base; and • Periodic conunuiiications to the Paris City Council and community to keep them informed of the progress of the Committee. The City entered into a contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to provide consulting services related to the investigation of a potential water sale to Irving. HDR's services were initiated in June of 2008 and included numerous meetings with the Committee to discuss the following analyses: • Information on estimates of future water denlands of the City and their existing customers through 2060; • Inforniation on water supplies available from eaisting supply sources based on estimated year 2060 conditions; and • Infonilation on potential additional water supplies which could reasonably be developed by the City. Key defulitions and abbreviatioils included throughout this report include the following. • Acre-feet - This is a common measurement of volume of water. An acre-foot is the volume of water represented by the area of 1 acre covered by one foot of Ciry of Paris - Pa1 Mayse Lake StucJy ES- l Jaiiuary 2009 - Draft 011 ~ ~ 0 HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summa water. 1 acre-foot equals 325,840 gallons. The abbreviation for acre-feet used throughout this report is "acft" and the abbreviation for acre-feet of water per year is "acft/yr". • Million Gallons per Day - This is a conunon measurement of a rate of water. One Million Gallons per Day is the quantity of water pumped or supplied equal to 1,000,000 gallons over a day's time (24 hours). The abbreviation for Million Gallons per Day is MGD. A flow of 1 MGD will deliver 3.07 acft/day or 1,120 acft/yr. • Finn Yield - the amount of water that can be diverted from a reservoir each year through a repeat of the historical drought of record such that all reservoir conservation storage is diverted with no shortages. ES.2 Estimated 2060 Population and Water Demands The City supplies raw and treated water from Pat Mayse Lake and Lake Crook to its residents and custoiiiers. Eaisting customers include: Lamar County Water Supply District (LCWSD), Campbell Soup Corporation (Soup), Lamar Power Partners (LPP), and Direct Energy (DE). Table ES-l shows year 2060 population estimates for the City and LCWSD as prepared by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), and as modified by the Conunittee and HDR. Figure ES-1 compares the TWDB's projections from the 2007 State Water Plan (refen•ed to as TWDB Future Population Projections) and the TWDB modified population projections for the City and LCWSD. TWDB population projections available for LCWSD were also modified by HDR based on infonnation provided by LCWSD taken from their master plan regarding nui7iber of future coimections (meters) and deinand. HDR utilized this infonnation to develop a modified population projection for the LCWSD service area. Figure ES-2 shows the comparison of the original TWDB population estimates and the HDR modified values based on the infornlation provided by the LCWSD. The figure shows that the 2060 population estimates derived from the LCWSD inforniation are significantly higher than the TWDB original estimates. For example the 2060 population estimate based on the LCWSD information is 63,427 which is 25,053 residents or 64 percent higher than the TWDB's estimates. Tlle estimates of population developed using LCWSD information are believed to be conservatively on the high side. Estimates of future Ciry of Paris - Pat Muyse Lake Study ES-2 tul January 2009 - Draft ,'21 t..~ ~1 Es 6 J HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary lnuiucipal water demands were developed using the modified population estimates for the City and the LCWSD. Table ES-1. 2060 Popu/ation Estimates 2060 Population Estimates Lamar Count}, Water Supply Source City of Paris Disfrict Combined TWDB' 34,194 38,374 72,568 TWDB 38,579 63,4273 Modified° 102,006 'TWDB Estimates for 2007 State Water Plan. 2 Includes customer cities and water supply corporations. 3 Based on data provided by LCWSD Master Plan and extended out to 2060 by HDR. ' Estimates developed by HDR based on the NVDB projections. 45,000 40,000 35,000 _ y.., 30,000 - - - - o 25, - . R ~ a 20,000 - - - 15,000 10,000 - - --1 -Historical Population i --*-TYVDB Future Population Projections ! 5,000 TWDB Modified Population Projections ~ 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year Figure ES-1. Comparison of Historical and Future Population Projections for the Cify of Paris Ciry of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Studp ES-3 laR January 2009 - Draft I ~ - '1~.~ 00 1/21 HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary 70,000 60,000 000 50 , 000 0 40, 0 3 a ° 30,000 a 20,000 10,000 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Year Figure ES-2. Comparison of Future Popu/ation Projections for the Lamar County Water Supply District Manufacturing demand projections were developed by taking the TWDB projections and adding an additional 1 MGD (1,120 acft/yr) of demand. This level of demand could supply a future manufacturing facility coiilparable to an automotive asseinbly plant or a beverage bottling company. Steam-electric demand projections as developed by the TWDB were determined to be reasonable for the purposes of this study and no modifications were necessary. According to the 2006 State Water Plan all agricultural demands within Lamar and Red River counties are met froin water supply sources that do not supply water to the City. Demand projections anticipated to be met by the City for municipal, manufacturing, and steam-electric uses within Lamar County are suinmarized in Table ES-2. This table shows the 2060 demands for each category of use and includes existing contract amounts and additional amounts. A comparison of these demands with the estimates fro~n the TWDB 2007 State Water Plan is shown in Table ES-3. Total 2060 dei7iands that will need to be met from the City's supplies are 56,590 acft/yr (50.5 MGD) if the City_'s existiiig contracts are not amended and Ciry of Paris - Pat Mapse Lake Study ES-4 tal Januury 2009 - Draft i 0 i~ 2 71 ~ ~ - ~,a~F - ections Population Proj tTWDB Future - - ro, ~ - P ection ~ P Modified Future Po ulation ~s -°+~TWDB HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summa 39,880 acft/yr with contract amendinents. If the City negotiates contract amendments which included annual limits on usage that are representative of actual usage (while still keeping the maximum diversion rates intact), the overall 2060 demand could be reduced by 16,700 acft. Table ES-2. Summary of 2060 Water Demand Estimates Entity / Category Demand w/o Contract Amendment acff/yr (MGD) Demand With Contract Amendment acfby) Existing Demand/Contract Amounts City of Parisi 7,950 (7.1) 7,950 Lamar County WSD 13,440 (12) 7,1502 Campbell Soup 8,960(8) 3,1503 Lamar Power Partners 8,960(8) 5,3804 Direct Energy 2,580 (2.3) 1,5504 Subtotals 41,890 (37.4) 25,180 Additional Amounts Manufacturing - TWDB and 1 MGD5 5,190 (4.6) 5,190 Steam-Electric Demands - footnote6 9,510 (8.5) 9,510 Subtotals 14,700 (13.1) 14,700 Total 56,590 (50.5) 39,880 1 - TWDB modified demands. 2- Demand based on LCWSD information. 3- Average annual use reported by Campbell Soup for the 2000 - 2006 period. 4- Assumes a 60% utilization factor for calculating average annual use from maximum peak day. 5- Demand based on TWDB 2060 projection plus additional 1,120 acft/yr (1 MGD) minus amount for Soup. 6- Demand based on TWDB 2060 projection minus the amounts for LPP and DE. Table ES-3. Comparison of TWDB 2060 Demands with Demands Modified by HDR 2060 Demand Estimates (acft/yr) Category TWDB' TWDB Modified Difference (HDR - TWDB) Paris 7,239 7,950 + 711 LCWSD 4,324 7,150 + 2,826 Manufacturing 7,225 8,340 + 1,115 Steam- Electric 16,440 16,440 -0- Totals 35,228 39,880 4,652 'NVDB Estimates for 2007 State Water Plan. City of Paris - Pat Rlayse Lake Study fal Januriry 2009 - Draft ES-5 ~ 000272 HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summa ES.3 Estimated 2060 Water Supplies The City of Paris cunently receives all their water supply from two surface water reservoirs. Pat Mayse Lake (Pat Mayse) is the primary water supply reservoir located in the northern end of Lamar County. Lake Crook is located just north of the City and is utilized only occasionally for back-up supply and for blending with water froin Pat Mayse. To determine the amount of reliable supply (firm yield) available from Pat Mayse and Lake Crook a modeling tool was developed by HDR using a modified version of the Red River Water Availability Model (Red River WAM) as developed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The Red River WAM was modified by HDR to include the Pat Mayse and Lake Crook/ Pine Creek watersheds down to their confluences with the Red River. Figure ES-3 shows a map of the Pat Mayse and Lake Crook watershed boundaries. 07,335500 d B 41 ~ P ~ yP B C~ B D Lake Qc Pat Mayse ~ D D D D D 0733 600 B / ~ake D ~ 32620~D D p Crook- Sun Valley '.Renu ' Blosso'm Toco Paris • . D Bonham D Honey Cirove Doiid C'ity p Windo D Roxton D 07343000 D p D Sulphor River N°nh D i I D p . ~ Pe:ca~i.G P D L adoni~ D D D D ~ p p Figure ES-3. Watershed Areas for Pat Mayse Lake and Lake Crook Water availability analyses were perfortned for both Pat Mayse Lake and Lake Crook using the modified Red River WAM to determine the finn yield of both reservoirs based on 2060 Ciry of Paris - Pat nlayse Lake Sludy ES-6 Jaizuary 2009 - Draft U G. ~ J HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summa reservoir sediment coilditions. The finn yield of a reservoir is defined as the amount of water which can be annually diverted from a reservoir, without shortage, during a repeat of the historical drought of record. The TWDB recently completed volumetric surveys on both reservoirs and this data was used to estimate 2060 reservoir capacities. The 2060 tirm yields of Pat Mayse and Lake Crook using the modified Red River WAM, updated hydrologic data for the 1950 through 2007 period, and projected 2060 reservoir capacities. The results of the finn yield analyses for Pat Mayse and Lake Crook are shown in Table ES-4. The total combined finn yield of the two reservoirs is 66,960 acft/yr (59.7 MGD) assuming independent operation of the two reservoirs. Tab/e ES-4. Summary of 2060 Water Supply Estimates 2060 Firm Yield acfbyr Reservoir MGD Pat Mayse Lake 59,670 53.2 Lake Crook 7,290 (6.5 Combined 2060 Supply 66,960 59.7 ES.4 Alternative Water Supplies As part of the Pat Mayse Lake study, the Conunittee and the City included in the scope of work the investigation of the following alternatives: • Reuse of return flows, • Diversion of unappropriated flow from Pine Creek and spills from Pat Mayse, • Reallocation of flood storage, • Combined reservoir system operations, and • Over/underdrafting concepts. All alternatives were investigated to detennine the quantity of additional water supply potentially available. Some of the options were combined to determine if paired concepts could produce more water than stand-alone concepts. Plamiing level cost estimates were developed for several of the options for use by the Conunittee. Table ES-5 summarizes the potential 2060 firm Ciry of Paris - Pat Muyse Lake Study ES-7 fal Ja~ruury 2009 - Draft T Pn0,27;s HDR-00085438-001 Executive yield available fronl each of these alternatives. The City could potentially develop reliable supplies of up to 85,620 acft/yr (76 MGD) by the development of several of these options. Table ES-5. Summary of Firm Yields of Water Supply Alfernatives Source Firm Yield Existing Water Supply Reservoirs 66,960 acft/yr (59.7 MGD) Return Flow Scenario A- Discharge to Crook + 7,200 acft/yr (6.4 MGD) Return Flow Scenario B- Pine Creek Pump Back to Pat Mayse + 10,840 acft/yr (9.7 MGD) Raise Lake Crook 2 Feet + 1,290 acft/yr (1.2 MGD) Pat Mayse Lake Storage Reallocation + 6,530 acft/yr (5.8 MGD) Total Potential Firm Supply (with Return Flow Scenario A) (with Return Flow Scenario B) 81,980 acft/yr (73.1 MGD) 85,620 acft/yr (76.4 MGD) Table ES-6 summarizes poteiltial interruptible supply available with over/underdrafting operations. Interruptible supplies could add, on average, anywhere from 2,300 to 8,600 acft/yr if a customer was identified that could take the extra water when it is available (about 30 percent of the time) and then reduce their water use between 900 and 1,970 acft/yr during the other 70 percent of the time. Table ES-6. Summary of Interruptible Water Supply Available Average Interruptible Amounts Reduced Firm Yield Amounts 115% Over/Underdrafting + 2,970 acft/yr - 920 acft/yr 130% Over/Underdrafting + 5,651 acft/yr - 1,470 acft/yr 150% Over/Underdrafting + 8,659 acft/yr - 1,970 acft/yr 115% Over/Underdrafting with Reallocation + 2,338 acft/yr - 1,200 acft/yr 130% Over/Underdrafting with Reallocation + 5,080 acft/yr - 1,200 acft/yr 150% Over/Underdrafting with Reallocation + 7,812 acft/yr - 1,200 acft/yr City of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Stu(ty ES-8 IDi Jruiuary 2009 - Druf1 _ 000275 HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary ES.S Comparison of Supplies and Demands By combining the demands described in Table ES-2 and the supplies described in Table ES-4 the detennination can be made of whether or not the City faces a water supply surplus or deficit. HDR is projecting a surplus of water supply in 2060 based on a comparison of demands and supplies. The size of the surplus is dependent on the success of the City being able to renegotiate its watei- supply c.ontracts with its cunent customers to include an annual limit on water usage. Table ES-7 shows projected 2060 supplies and demands under the two contract structures and the resulting anticipated surpluses. Without contract amendments, the City has a projected 2060 suiplus of 10,010 ac-ft/yr. With contract amendinents, the City has a projected 2060 surplus of 27,080 acft/yr. Tab/e ES-7. Summary of 2060 Demand and Supp/y with Resulting Surp/uses Without Contracts With Contract Amendments Amendments 2060 Reliable Water Supply 66,960 acft/yr 66,960 acft/yr (Pat Mayse and Lake Crook) (59.7 MGD) (59.7 MGD) Total 2060 Demands 56,950 acft/yr 39,880 acft/yr 50.8 MGD (35.6 MGD) 2060 Surplus 10,010 acft/yr 27,080 acft/yr (8.9 MGD) (24.1 MGD) The City is in a good position considering its future water supply needs. Tlle Committee can recommend and the City can decide on how best to use tlus surplus to serve its customers. The water can be sold for more revenue, held in reserve for unforeseen future demands, or held in reserve for recreational, enviromnental, drought reserve or other allied puiposes. ES.6 Recommendations A comprehensive suinmary of future water supplies and demands for the City of Paris and its customers is presented in this study. The results show that the City of Paris has an expected water supply surplus in 2060 of between 10,010 and 27,080 acft/yr. The Committee must now make tne decision to reconumend to the City Council either to proceed with the potential sale to Irvuig or not. If the Conlmittee recoi7~mends moving forward, and the Council Ciry of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study ES-9 Jmauary 2009 - Draft ~ . 0 0 i ru, HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary agrees, the voters of Paris have the opportunity to make the final decision. HDR offers the following recommendations for the Committee's and City's consideration: 1. Whether the City decides to move forward with the sale of water to Irving or not, the City should consider renegotiation of their existing water supply contracts to include both a maximuni daily take rate (as included in existing contracts in MGD) and an maxiinum annual volume (new requirement in acft/yr); and 2. Whether the City decides to move forward with the sale of water to Irving or not, the City should amend their Pat Mayse water right to increase their maximum diversion rate from 55 MGD to 165 MGD. This chailge will bring the diversion rate more inline with other reservoirs in the state and offer the City nlore flexibility in the operation of their supply system. If the Conm7ittee and City decide to move forward with a potential sale to Irving the following additional reconuilendations ase offere.d: 3. The City should consider modifying their existing water supply agreement with LCWSD so that LCWSD's maximum daily rate increases from 12 MGD to 14.9 MGD (prior to 2040), and LCWSD's annual maximum use is limited to 7,150 acft/yr upon execution of the amended contract; 4. The City should discuss with Irving specifics of the City's requirements for a potential water sales agreement (including delivery location, maximum delivery rate, annual divei-sion limits, pricing, etc.) so that the Committee aild the citizens of Paris know what contractual requirements will be, if a sale is eventually approved; 5. The City should require Irving to pay for improvements and/or modifications to recreational facilities at Pay Mayse that could be affected by lower lake levels as well as costs associated with obtaining pennits for inter-basin transfer of water from the Red River Basin to the Trinity River Basin; 6. The City should discuss witll Irving specifics of Irving's requirements for a potential water sales agreement (including delivery location, maximum delivery Ciry of Paris - Pa! Mayse Lake Studp ES-10 Ja»uary 2009 - Drafl - U 0 G ,C / HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summa rate, annual diversion limits, pricing, etc.), so that the Committee and the citizens of Paris lcnow what contractual requirements will be, if a sale is eventually approved;and 7. The City should then decide if they wish to proceed with the potential sale of water to Irviilg and hold an election. City o.f Paris - Pat Mnyse Lnke Study F S-1 1 fal Jarruary 2009 - Draft - ('01127S PAT MAYSE WATER STUDY COMMITTEE Draft of Potential Recommendations June 25, 2009 We recommend that the City Council: l. Provide the Committee's work so far to the City of Irving, and allow them to develop their own proposal based upon the information therein. Ask for more specificity in the proposal regarding pricing, interest in interruptible flows, and relationship of the Hugo contract to Paris; or 2. Terminate negotiations and do nothing further because there is not enough water available. The City of Irving has suggested a minimum need of 20-25 MGD. Our studies show that the City's available surplus is 12.8 MGD at present, decreasing to 7.2 MGD by 2060 based on current contracts; or 3. Recommend to the City Council that there is some surplus water for sale under certain conditions. Those conditions are that for the yeazs through 2020, a minimum of 12.8 MGD; the years through 2040, 8.6 MGD; and yeazs through 2060, 7.2 MGD. These amounts would be available for sale to an outside entity on a firm basis. In addition an interruptible supply can be offered to an outside entity that most likely will satisfy up to a 25 MGD reyuirement in most yeazs, subject to first satisfying existing and future Lamaz county customer's needs and subject to discontinaing the delivery of water under such contract when the lake level reaches elevation 448. The above recommendations are to pursue a combined limited firm supply of water supplemented with an interruptible supply. Elevation 448 was selected to protect cunent recreational access to the lake. 4. Offer an interruptible supply. Make water available to the outside entity only when the lake is above elevation 448. 5. Initiate discussions with existing contract customers to determine if there aze 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 current 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. 6. 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 . - n00273 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. 7. 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. 8. Pursue the Consultant's return flow Scenario B by constiucting 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. 9. 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. r nQ028U PAT MAYSE WATER STUDY COMMITTEE Recommendations June 25, 2009 We recommend that the City Council: 1. Offer an interruptibie 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: • Initiate discussions with existing contract customers to determine if there are mutually benefcial 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 voIume of 125% of the maximum cunent 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. • Recapture the effluent from its wastewater treatment plant, and from Campbeil 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 bei n g t he f irs t water so l d 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. • 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. • Pursue the Consultant's return flow Scenario B by constructing a diversion structure on Pine Creek near the Red River, catching a11 return flows from Pine Creek through that point and selling it to the outside contracting entity. nQo2si