12-Presentation on the Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee recommendationsCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
6/10/10
Shawn Napier, P.E. Director of
Council Date:
Council Council
Engineering, Planning &
12.
6/ 14/ 10
Development
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Not an action item presentation
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Water resource management; Council committee recommendation
BACKGROUND:
This item was requested by Council Member Pickle. The final committee recommendations are
included along with the executive summary of the Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee Final Report.
The Chairman of the committee, Reeves Hayter, will be present to answer questions.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Attached
EXHIBITS:
Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee Final Report executive summary, list of recommendations
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ❑ Minute Order
Expense
$
❑ Departtnent Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
F~ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'I'D Actual
$
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Communiry Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Library ❑ Police Z Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris
Revised 2/04/08
4
Executive Summary
ES.1 History of Pat Mayse Lake Study Commitfee
The City of Paris, Texas (City) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the City of Itving, 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 coinmitment of its water resources." Four key
deliverables were identified by the Committee to assist in achieving their goals including:
• A determination of the total amount of water available to the community from
existing sources;
• A detet7nination of the total amount of water required for local consumption,
contractual obligations, reserves, and futw•e needs (through 2060);
• Recommendations for additional water resources to be explored in order to
expand the existing water supply base; and
• Periodic communications 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:
0 Information on estiinates of future water demands of the City and their existing
customers through 2060;
• Information on water supplies available from existing supply sources based on
estimated year 2060 conditions; and
• Information on potential additional water supplies which could reasonably be
developed by the City.
Key definitions and abbreviations included throughout this report include the following.
0 Acre-feet - This is a common measurement of volume of water. An acre-foot is
the volume of water represented by the area of ] acre covered by one foot of
City of Paris - Pat Muyse Lake Study tal
January 2009 - Draft ES-1 43
HDR-00085438-001 EXeCUfIVe
water. l acre-foot equals 325,840 gallons. The abbreviatian for acre-feet used
throughout this report is "acff" and the abbreviation for acre-feet of water per year
is "acft/yr".
• Million Gallons per Day - This is a common measurement of a rate of water.
One Million Gallons per Day is the quantity of water pumped or supplied eyual to
1,000,000 gallons over a day's time (24 hours). The abbreviation for Million
Gallons per Day is 1V1GD. A flow of 1 MGD will deliver 3.07 acf'tlday or 1,120
acft/yr.
• Firm Yield - the amount of water that can be diverted from a reservoir each year
through a repeat of the historical draught 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 customers. Existing customei•s include: Lamar County Water Supply District
(LCWSD), Campbell Soup Gorporation (Soup), Lamar Power Partners (LPP), and Direct Energy
(DE). Table ES-1 shows year 2060 population estimates for the City and LCWSD as prepared
by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), and as inodified by the Committee and HDR.
Figure ES-1 compares the TWDB's projections fi•om the 2007 State Water Plan (referred 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 information provided by LCWSD taken from their master plan regarding number of future
connections (meters) and demand. HDR utilized this information to develop a moditied
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 information
provided by the LCWSD. The figure shows that the 2060 population estimates derived from the
LCWSD information 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. The estimates of population developed using
LCWSD information are believed to be conservatively on the high side. Estimates of future
City, of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study ES-2 im
Jaituary 2009 - Draft
~ 44
H D R-00085438-001
Executive
municipal water demands were developed using the modified population estimates for the City
and the LCWSD.
Table ES-1.
2060 Popu/ation Estimates
2060 Popu/ation Estimates
Lamar Count},
Water Supp/y
Source
City of Paris
District
Combined
TW D B'
34,194
38,374
72,568
TWDB
38,579
63,4273
Modified4
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.
4 Estimates developed by HDR based on the TWDB projections.
Figure ES-1. Comparison of Historica/ and Future Population Projections
for the City of Paris
City of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study
January 2009 - Draft ES-3
45
HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary
Figure ES-2. Comparison of Future Population Projections for the
Lamar County Wafer Supp/y 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 comparable to an automotive assembly 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 from 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-elecri-ic uses within Lamar County are summarized 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 from the TWDB 2007 State Water
Plan is shown in Table ES-3. Total 2060 demands that will need to be met from the City's
supplies are 56,590 acft/yr (50,5 MGD) if the City's existing contracts are not amended and
City of Paris - Put Mayse Lake Study
January 2009 - Draft im
ES-4 An
HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary
39,880 acft/yr with contract amendments. 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.
Tab/e ES-2.
Summary of 2060 Water Demand Estimates
Entity / Category
Demand
w/o Contract Amendment
acWyr (MGD)
Demand
Wlth Contract Amendment
acft/y)
Existing Demand/Contract Amounts
City of Paris1
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)
513804
Direct Energy
2,580 (2.3)
1,5504
Subtotals
41,890 (37.4)
25,180
Additional Amounts
Manufacturing - TWDB and
1 MGDS
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 acftlyr (1 MGD) minus amount for Soup.
6- Demand based on TWDB 2060 projection minus the amounts for LPP and DE.
Tab/e ES-3.
Comparison of TWDB 2060 Demands with Demands Modified by HDR
2060
Demand Estimates (acft/yr)
Cate9o►Y
TWDB'
TYVDB ModWied
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
'TWDB Estimates for 2007 State Water Plan.
City of Paris - Put Mayse Lake Stud1+
Jariuary 2009 - Draft ES-5
47
HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary
ES.3 Estimated 2060 Water Supplies
The City of Paris currently 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 from 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
Ci•eek watersheds down to their confluences with the Red River. Figure ES-3 shows a map of the
Pat Mayse and Lake Crook watershed boundaries.
07.33 500
°rrR ' ~ . . . ~
L~
B r3; ;
~ 8 D ~ ~LSke
Ptt Mayse Q.~.
p ~ D
D p
07
e
~ o -
820
- p Crook ~ .'.:3 . Sun Val1eY - -
~ `~,,:Reno Blossom
. . Toco~..=. Pans > t~
D ~ . . .
nham ~
H0114- fpV('
n0(9d CI}Y . .
Wmdo D
~ Roxton
D
07343000
0 o M~` o
North Su~ph~~ R'ver .S
D
' D
. p ! >r Pecan p D
Lad n 0
D t D
~ D
Figure ES-3. Watershed Areas for Pat Mayse Lake and Lake Crook
Water availability analyses were perfoimed for both Pat Mayse Lake and Lake Crook
using the modified Red River WAM to determine the firm yield of both reservoirs based on 2060
City, of Puris - Put Mayse Lake Study
Jaituary 2009 - Draft ES-6
48
HDR-00085438-001 Executive Summary
reseivoir sediment conditions. The finn yield of a reservoir is defined as the amount of water
which can be annually diverted fi•om 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 firm 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 firm yield
analyses for Pat Mayse and Lake Crook are shown in Table ES-4. The total combined firrn yield
of the two reservoirs is 66,960 acft/yr (59.7 MGD) assuming independent operation of the two
reservoirs.
Table ES-4.
Summary of 2060 Water Supply Estimates
2060 Firm Yie/d
acff/yr
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 Committee 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 determine 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. Plaruning level cost estimates were developed for
several of the options for use by the Committee. Table ES-5 summarizes the potential 2060 firm
City of Puris - Put Mayse Lake Study ES-7
Januury 2009 - Draft
AQ
HDR-00085438-001
Executive
yield available froJn 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.
Tab/e ES-5.
Summary of Firm Yie/ds of Water Supp/y Alternafives
Source
Firm Yie/d
Existing Water Suppiy 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 acfUyr (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 acfUyr (73.1 MGD)
85,620 acft/yr (76.4 MGD)
Table ES-6 summarizes potential 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 identitied 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.
Tab/e ES-6.
Summary of Inferruptib/e Wafer Supp/y Available
Average Interruptib/e 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 acfdyr
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 acfUyr
Citj+ of Paris - Put Mayse Lake Study ES-8
Jai:uury 2009 - Draft
C;
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 determination can be made of whether or not the City faces a water supply suiplus 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 water supply contracts with its cun•ent 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 surplus of 10,010 ac-ft/yr. With contract amendments, the City has a projected
2060 surplus of 27,080 acft/yr.
Table ES-7.
Summary of 2060 Demand and Supp/y with Resu/ting Surp/uses
Without Contracts
With Contracf
Amendments
Amendments
2060 Reliable Water Supply
66,960 acfUyr
66,960 acfUyr
(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 acfUyr
(8.9 MGD)
(24.1 MGD)
The City is in a good position considering its future water supply needs. The Committee
can recommend and the City can decide on how best to use this 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, environmental, drought reserve or other allied purposes.
ES.6 Recommendations
A comprehensive summary 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 the decision to recommend to the City Council either to proceed with the
potential sale to Irving or not. If the Committee recommends moving forward, and the Council
City of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study
January 2009 - Draft ES-9
51
H DR-00085438-001
Executive
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:
l. Whether the City decides to move forward with the sale of water to Iiving or not,
the City should consider renegotiation of their existing water supply conn•acts to
include both a maximum daily take rate (as included in existing contracts in
MGD) and an maximum 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 inci-ease their maximum
diversion rate from 55 MGD to 165 MGD. This change will bring the diversion
rate more inline with other reservoirs in the state and offer the City more
flexibility in the operation of their supply system.
If the Committee and City decide to move forward with a potential sale to Irving the following
additional recommendatians are offered:
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 diversion limits, pricing, etc.) so that the Committee and 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 permits for inter-basin transfer of water
from the Red River Basin to the Trinity River Basin;
6. The City should discuss with Irving specifics of lrving's reyuirements for a
potential water sales agreement (including delivery location, maximum delivery
City of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study 1~~~
Ja~tuary 2009 - Draft ES-10 ~ ~
5.2
HDR-00085438-001 EXeCUtiVe
rate, annual diversion liinits, pricing, etc.), so that the Committee and the citizens
of Paris know 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 Irving and hold an election.
City of Paris - Pat Mayse Lake Study im
Jasuary 2009 - Draft ES- I 1 5.3
PAT MAYSE WATER STUDY COMMITTEE
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 pennit to a11ow 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. Tf the Counci] 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
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.
• 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
ftom 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 all return flows froin Pine Creek through that
point and selling it to the outside contracting entity.
tj
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 adequate time to prepare packets and to coincide with staff's 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 foui-th 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 questions.
Council member making request:
❑ Will Biard ❑ Joe McCarthy
F-1 Steve Brown Z Edwin Pickle
❑ John Wright ❑ Rhonda Rogers
❑ Jason Rogers
Description of Item: Update on the Pat Mayse Water Committee / Water Availability
study and future possibilities/proposals
Are addidonal sheets or supporting materials attached? ❑ Yes ❑ 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: May 20, 2010
City of Paris
Revised 11/19/08
cz Cl