Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County

Transcription

Draft Water
Supply Study for
Kaufman County
T
April 2010
Region C Water
Planning Group
D
R
AF
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Freese and Nichols, Inc
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc
CP&Y, Inc
Water Supply Study for Kaufman County Region C Water Planning Group TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1.1 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 3.1 Revisions to Population and Demand Projections ........................................................ 3.1 3.2 Recommended Population Projections ............................................................................. 3.6 3.3 Recommended Water Demands for Water User Groups ......................................... 3.10 3.4 Recommended Water Demands for Wholesale Water Providers ........................ 3.15 T
4. Population and Demand Projections ......................................................................................... 3.1 Evaluation of Current Supplies ..................................................................................................... 4.1 AF
3. Meetings to Collect Data ........................................................................................................... 2.1 4.1 Surface Water................................................................................................................................ 4.1 4.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................. 4.1 Comparison of Current Supplies to Projected Demand ..................................................... 5.1 6. Proposed Revisions to Water Management Strategies ...................................................... 6.1 7. Estimated Costs for Proposed Water Management Strategies ....................................... 7.1 8. Implementation Plan for Proposed Water Management Strategies ............................ 8.1 9. Alternative Water Management Strategies ............................................................................. 9.1 D
R
5. 10. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 10.1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ References Appendix 2 ............................................................................... Summary Tables by Water User Group Appendix 3 ................................................................................................................................ Cost Estimates Appendix 4 ........................................................................................... Assumptions for Costs Estimates Appendix 5 ................ Technical Memorandum – Steam Electric Power Demand Projections Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 Meetings with WUGs and WWPs ........................................................................................ 2.3 Table 3.1 Recommended Population Projections in Study Area .............................................. 3.8 Table 3.2 Recommended Population Projections for Entities Split by County................... 3.9 Table 3.3 Recommended Municipal Per Capita Water Use Projections in Gallons per Person per Day .......................................................................................................................... 3.12 Table 3.4 Recommended Demand Projections in Acre‐Feet per Year ................................. 3.13 Table 3.5 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by Dallas Water Utilities ............................................................................................ 3.15 T
Table 3.6 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by North Texas Municipal Water District .......................................................... 3‐16 Table 3.7 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by Tarrant Regional Water District ...................................................................... 3‐17 AF
Table 6.1 Summary Information for Ables Springs WSC .............................................................. 6.1 Table 6.2 Summary Information for College Mound WSC ........................................................... 6.2 Table 6.3 Summary Information for Crandall ................................................................................... 6.3 Table 6.4 Summary Information for Forney ...................................................................................... 6.5 R
Table 6.5 Summary Information for Kaufman County Irrigation ............................................. 6.6 Table 6.6 Summary Information for Kaufman County Other ..................................................... 6.7 Table 6.7 Summary Information for Kaufman County Steam Electric Power .................... 6.8 D
Table 6.8 Summary Information for Mabank .................................................................................... 6.9 Table 6.9 Summary Information for Post Oak Bend City ........................................................... 6.10 Table 6.10 Summary Information for Scurry .................................................................................. 6.11 Table 6.11 Summary Information for Talty ..................................................................................... 6.12 Table 6.12 Summary Information for Terrell .................................................................................. 6.13 Table 7.1 Capital Costs for Proposed Water Management Strategies by Category .......... 7.1 Table 7.2 Capital Costs for Proposed Water Management Strategies by WUG .................. 7.1 Table 8.1 Implementation of Proposed Water Management Strategies ................................ 8.1 Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County ii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Kaufman County Study Area ........................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 3.1 Recommended Population Projections for Kaufman County ........................... 3.7 Figure 3.2 Recommended Municipal Demand Projections for Kaufman County ......... 3.11 Figure 3.3 Recommended Total Demand Projections for Kaufman County .................. 3.11 D
R
AF
T
Figure 10.1 Total Demands and Supplies for Kaufman County .............................................. 10.1 Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County iii Region C Water Planning Group
Water Supply Study for Kaufman County
1.
Executive Summary
As part of the 2011 Region C water planning process, several special county studies were included to more closely examine the water management strategies for those counties. Kaufman County is one of the counties included in the study. The purpose of this study is to analyze alternative approaches to provide water to the northern portion of Kaufman County and analyze alternative potential uses for Lake Terrell. Water management strategies (WMSs) were changed based on information obtained from meetings with various water user groups (WUGs) in Kaufman County as well as from T
surveys mailed to every WUG in Region C. Several WMSs were revised to reflect new demand projections as determined in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). The population AF
and demand projections in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1) are greater than the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projections from 2020 to 2060. Cost estimates and an implementation plan for water management strategies are also included in this report. The majority of WUGs in Kaufman County rely solely on surface water provided by R
North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD), and Dallas Water Utilities (DWU). Additional sources in the county include D
Lake Tawakoni, Lake Terrell, and reuse. __________________ (1) Superscripted numbers in parenthesis match references in Appendix A. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 1.1 KAUFMAN
N COUNTY COU
URTHOUSE T
AF
Kaufman Co
ounty Populatio
on
40
00,000
90,000
25
50,000
10
00,000
5
50,000
0
D
20
00,000
2010
2020
2030
2040
80,000
70,000
Ac‐ft/Yr
R
30
00,000
15
50,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2050
20660
2010
20
020
2030
Currently Available Supply
2050
0
2060
Demand
20
060 Kaufman C
County Deman
nd
(% of total)
(% off total)
10%
5%
Municipal
Irrigation
n
Irrigation
Livestockk
Manufaccturing
2040
Reecommended Strategiess
20
000 Kaufman C
County Deman
nd
Municipaal
Kaufman County Supplies & Dem
mands
100,000
35
50,000
Population
2000 Popula
ation: 71,313
3 060 Populatio
on: 349,385 Projected 20
County Seatt: Kaufman Economy: M
Manufacturin
ng; government/services River Basin((s): − Trin
nity (95%), Sab
bine (5%) 13%
1%
2%
4
4%
Livestock
19%
%
Manufactturing
66%
Mining
Mining
Steam Ellectric Power
Steam Eleectric Power
To
otal=15,523 accre‐feet 80%
T
Total= 77,308 a
acre‐feet 1.2 Draft Wa
ater Supply Study for Ka
aufman Cou
unty 2060 DEMANDA (ACFT/YR) WATER USER GROUP CURRENT SUPPLIES Ables Springs WSC 1,828 SRA sources (through MacBee WSC) College Mound WSC 2,623 NTMWD sources Combine 447 DWU sources (through Combine WSC) 1,189 DWU sources Crandall 2,362 NTMWD sources Forney Forney Lake WSC Gastonia‐Scurry WSC High Point WSC Kaufman Kemp 7,048 2,014 2,255 939 3,029 296 NTMWD sources, Garland reuse NTMWD sources NTMWD sources NTMWD sources NTMWD sources TRWD sources Mabank 1,323 TRWD sources 94 2 Oak Grove 283 Post Oak Bend City 982 Scurry 186 AF
MacBee WSC Mesquite SRA sources NTMWD sources NTMWD sources (through Kaufman) 4,948 NTMWD sources (through Forney) Terrell West Cedar Creek MUD 24,643 NTMWD sources 3,180 TRWD sources Irrigation 2,916 Livestock 1,545 Manufacturing Mining 1,061 84 Cedar Creek Lake (TRWD), NTMWD sources, Direct reuse, Local supplies, Nacatoch Aquifer, Trinity Aquifer Local supplies, Nacatoch Aquifer, Woodbine Aquifer NTMWD sources Local supplies Steam Electric Power 10,000 Reuse from Garland (through Forney) County‐Other 2,020 Nacatoch Aquifer, NTMWD sources, Terrell (NTMWD), TRWD sources R
11 NTMWD sources (through Rose Hill SUD) NTMWD sources (through Gastonia‐
Scurry SUD) DWU sources Seagoville D
Talty Purchase water from NTMWD & connect to Tawakoni WTP Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from Combine WSC (DWU) Purchase additional water from Seagoville (DWU) Purchase additional water from NTMWD, Purchase water from DWU (through Seagoville) Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase water from Forney (NTMWD) Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from TRWD Purchase additional water from TRWD, Water treatment plant expansion Water treatment plant expansion Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from Kaufman (NTMWD) Purchase additional water from Rose Hill SUD (NTMWD) Purchase additional water from Gastonia‐
Scurry SUD (NTMWD) Purchase additional water from DWU Purchase additional water from Forney (NTMWD) Purchase additional water from NTMWD Purchase additional water from TRWD, Water treatment plant expansions Purchase additional water from NTMWD, Supplemental wells in Nacatoch & Trinity Aquifers Supplemental wells in Nacatoch & Trinity Aquifers Purchase additional water from NTMWD None Purchase water from Forney (NTMWD), TRA reuse, Reuse from Garland (through Forney) Purchase additional water from NTMWD, Purchase additional water from TRWD, Supplemental wells in Nacatoch Aquifer T
Combine WSC RECOMMENDED STRATEGIESB A B
Kaufman County portion only Water conservation is a strategy for every municipal user group Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 1.3
2.
Introduction
The 2011 Region C Water Plan (1) includes special county studies funded by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). The consultant team for the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1) includes Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI), Alan Plummer and Associates (APAI), Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. (CPY), and Cooksey Communications. The special county studies are aimed at analyzing approaches to developing and implementing the water management strategies for the counties. The Kaufman County Study is one of these projects. Many of the water management strategies are in line with the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). However, several of the Water User Group (WUG) demands have increased in T
the long term and those water management strategies have been reevaluated. This report summarizes the analysis and recommendations for meeting water demand AF
projections for WUGs in Kaufman County and potential alternative uses for Lake Terrell. The study area is shown in Figure 2.1. 2.1
Meetings to Collect Data
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) met with six water user groups (WUGs) in Kaufman R
County in the fall of 2009. An additional seven WUGs were contacted via telephone, but phone calls were not returned from four of the seven WUGs contacted. Table 3.1 lists D
the meetings held and the meeting participants. At each in‐person meeting, FNI presented the finalized population and demand projections for the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). Several of the WUGs, including Forney and Crandall, did not agree with the new projections. These issues will be better addressed in the next round of planning once the 2010 Census has been completed. The current water supply for each entity, the recommended water management strategies as presented in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2), and any suggested adjustments to those recommendations were discussed. In many cases the entities plan to implement the recommended strategies, although the amounts of supply may change. In several cases the entities are pursuing other water supply options to meet their future needs. Current and future infrastructure projects were also discussed. Several of the Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 2.1 WUGs presented FNI with cost estimates of their near term projects as well as historical water use data. The information obtained in these meetings was used to supplement or update proposed management strategies. Cost estimate information provided was used to update Appendix Q of the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). Table 2.1 Meetings with WUGs and WWPs Date Entity Meeting Type Telephone Attendees Paula Weber, Richard Simmons, Keeley Brown, Amy Kaarlela, Dusty Brannum Shirley Blakely, Chad Wilson, Keeley Brown, Amy Kaarlela, Dusty Brannum Heath Kaplan, Keeley Brown, Amy Kaarlela Mike Shook, Richard Dormier, Keeley Brown, Amy Kaarlela Alan Smirl, Keeley Brown Telephone Josh Liles, Dusty Brannum 10/14/2009 Ables Springs WSC In person Forney 10/8/2009 Forney Lake WSC Gastonia‐Scurry SUD 11/2/09 In person In person In person R
10/14/2009 Kaufman T
11/3/2009 In person AF
11/5/09 College Mound WSC Crandall 10/14/2009 Telephone Telephone 9/21/09 Terrell In person 11/23/09 West Cedar Creek MUD Telephone D
10/15/2009 Rose Hill SUD 11/2/09 Talty WSC Richard Underwood, Keeley Brown, Amy Kaarlela, Dusty Brannum Vickie Armstrong, Amy Kaarlela Kim Langley, Dusty Brannum Sonny Groessel, Steve Rogers, Amy Kaarlela, Tom Gooch Tony Ciardo, Dusty Brannum Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 2.2 Figure 2.1
Kaufman County Water Supply Service Areas
COLLIN
COUNTY
LAKE RAY
HUBBARD
DALLAS
COUNTY
LAKE
TAWAKONI
HUNT
COUNTY
TR
ROCKWALL
COUNTY
V
RI
Y
IT
IN
B
SA
E
IV
ER
BA
R
ER
IN
SI
BA
N
SI
N
ABLES SPRINGS WSC
HIGH POINT WSC
DALLAS
FORNEY LAKE WSC
FORNEY
or k
n
Tri
AF
TALTY WSC
st F
Ea
TALTY
ity
Riv
SEAGOVILLE
NEW TERRELL
CITY LAKE
TERRELL
T
MESQUITE
er
CRANDALL
COMBINE
POST OAK BEND CITY
COMBINE WSC
MACBEE SUD
COLLEGE MOUND WSC
R
KAUFMAN
D
OAK
GROVE
GASTONIA - SCURRY WSC
KAUFMAN
COUNTY
VAN ZANDT
COUNTY
ELLIS
COUNTY
¬
RIVER
RESERVOIR
Trinity
Ri
ver
KEMP
WEST CEDAR CREEK MUD
RIVER BASIN DIVIDE
SERVICE AREA
KAUFMAN COUNTY BOUNDARY
NAVARRO
COUNTY
COUNTY BOUNDARY
0
3
BARDWELL
LAKE
6
12
Miles
MABANK
CEDAR
CREEK
RESERVOIR
HENDERSON
COUNTY
FOREST
GROVE
RESERVOIR
2.3
3.
Population and Demand Projections
3.1
Revisions to Population and Demand Projections
The following section discusses the revisions to the population and demand projections as adopted in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). Municipal per capita water use (measured in gallons per capita per day) and population projections are used to project future water demand. Municipal per capita water use is the sum of residential, commercial, and institutional water use divided by the population served. The Region C Consultant Team collected available historical and projected population data for each entity through the in‐person or phone meetings. Additional T
historical population data was gathered from the Texas State Data Center (3), the U.S. Census Bureau (4), and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) (5). AF
FNI also gathered population projections developed by the NCTCOG and those approved by the Texas Water Development Board for regional water planning. Additional input from entities was obtained through surveys mailed to each WUG in Region C. Crandall R
No revisions to Crandall’s population and demand projections were made in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). However, after meeting with Crandall’s city staff, it D
appears the TWDB approved population projections for the City may be low. The City has ample of room for growth and has plans to annex multiple areas around the City. The City also expects increased growth because of easy access to the City of Dallas via major highways. Crandall’s growth will be reexamined in the 2016 round of planning. The new projections will likely be more reflective of the City’s growth because of the 2010 Census numbers. College Mound WSC The population projections for College Mound WSC were changed based on a meter count provided by College Mound WSC. College Mound WSC recommended using the assumption of three people per meter to estimate their population. The revised projections are lower than 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projections for the entire Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.1 planning period. The demand projections were changed based on the decreased population projections. Forney The City of Forney’s population was increased in 2010 based on recent data. The TWDB recommended an increase from 2010 through 2060, but based on historical data, the projections from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) are more in line with Forney’s current growth trends. After meeting with Forney, it seems several of their customers have Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs) within Forney’s city limits. This may have caused double counting of population between High Point WSC and Forney. Because the population and demand estimates had been finalized at the time of the T
meeting, this issue will undergo further consideration in the next round of planning. The Forney Lake WSC AF
demand for Forney was increased in 2010 based on the increased population. Forney Lake WSC is located in both Kaufman and Rockwall Counties with approximately 50 percent of the population in each county. The population for Forney Lake WSC was significantly decreased for the entire 50 year planning period based on the current R
population as submitted by Forney Lake WSC to North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD). The demand was decreased based on the changes to population. D
GastoniaScurry SUD Gastonia‐Scurry SUD’s population and demand projections were decreased for the entire planning period. Gastonia‐Scurry SUD had no disagreement with their population projections in their survey response but their population was decreased because of the addition of Scurry as a separate WUG. The demand projections were decreased relative to the decreases in population. High Point WSC The population estimate for High Point WSC was decreased based on the current Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Utilities Database meter count. The current population was determined by assuming three people per meter. This current population estimate was used to revise the future projections by reducing them Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.2 proportionately. Demands were decreased based on the changes to population estimates. The municipal per capita values are the same as those in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Kaufman The City of Kaufman’s population projections were not changed from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). The municipal per capita value for 2010 was increased based on recent data. The demand projection for 2010 increased based on the change to municipal per capita. Kaufman County Other The County Other population includes any rural population not included in a water user T
group. Kaufman County Other projections were decreased because of the two new WUGs that were added in Kaufman County. Post Oak Bend City and Scurry are now AF
considered WUGs because their population reached at least 500 people since the 2006 Plan. A portion of the population from County Other is now counted as Post Oak Bend City and Scurry’s population. The demand was decreased based on the changes to population. The municipal per capita values are the same as those presented in the 2006 Kemp R
Region C Water Plan (2). D
The population estimate for Kemp was increased based on Texas State Demographer data. The 2007 State Demographer population estimate for Kemp is 1,361. The 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projects Kemp’s population as 1,133 for the entire 50 year planning period. Demands were increased based on the changes to population estimates. The municipal per capita values are the same as those in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Mabank The City of Mabank’s population was increased based on a recommendation by the TWDB. The City’s demand increased based on the changes made to the population projections. The municipal per capita values are the same as those in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.3 Mesquite The majority of the City of Mesquite is located in Dallas County, with a very small portion crossing over into Kaufman County. There was no change to the population and demand projections from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) for the Kaufman County segment of the City. However, the municipal per capita usage was increased because commercial growth in Mesquite is much greater than the municipal growth. Post Oak Bend City Post Oak Bend City was added as a WUG in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). The City’s population reached at least 500 since the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) which is the criteria a city must meet to be considered a WUG. Population projections for Post Oak T
Bend City were provided by the TWDB. A municipal per capita usage of 115 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was assumed as the baseline gpcd for water supply corporations. projections. Scurry AF
The demand for the City was calculated based on the population and per capita usage Surry is another WUG that was added to the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). Population R
projections for the City were provided by the TWDB. A municipal per capita usage of 115 gpcd was assumed. The demand for the City of Scurry was calculated based on the D
population and per capita usage projections. Talty The City of Talty’s population was reduced in 2010 based on their survey response. The growth of the City has slowed recently, but their survey indicates they feel growth will be back in line with the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projections by 2020. Based on recent data, the municipal per capita usage was increased for the 50 year planning period. The demand for 2010 decreased from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projection, but increased from 2020 through 2060 because of the increase to per capita usage. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.4 Terrell Based on information from Terrell’s water provider (NTMWD) and Terrell’s Master Plan, the City’s population projections were increased for the planning period. The City’s demand was increased based on the changes to the population projections. West Cedar Creek MUD Based on West Cedar Creek MUD’s current meter count from the TCEQ Water Utilities Database and a factor of three persons per meter, FNI estimated their current population. From that estimate FNI revised the future projections proportionately. West Cedar Creek MUD’s population was decreased for all years based on the calculation described above. Their demand was decreased based on the changes to the population T
projections. Additional County Aggregated Projections AF
The Region C Consultant Team examined the demand projections developed in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) for county‐other, manufacturing, mining, irrigation, livestock, and steam electric power. In Kaufman County, only the steam electric power demands were adjusted for the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). R
The steam electric power demands in Kaufman County were changed based on projections developed in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) and by the Bureau of D
Economic Geology (BEG) in the study Water Demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas (4). The new steam electric demand projections for Kaufman County are significantly lower than those in the 2006 Plan and higher than the BEG projections. Kaufman County currently has one steam electric power plant owned by FPLE Forney LLP. Kaufman County is designated as a non‐attainment area and it is unlikely new plants will be constructed (See Appendix 5). Areas failing to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone are designated as non‐attainment areas. The 2010 projection did not change from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2), however the 2020 through 2060 demand projections were decreased. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.5 Water User Groups Whose Population and Demand Projections are Unchanged Population and demand projections remain unchanged for several water user groups. The population and demand projections presented in the 2006 Region C Water Ables Springs WSC
Combine
Combine WSC
Crandall
Kaufman County – Irrigation
Kaufman County – Livestock
Kaufman County – Manufacturing
Kaufman County ‐ Mining
MacBee SUD
Mesquite
Oak Grove
Seagoville R
D
3.2
AF

T
Plan (2) remain as previously projected for the following water user groups: Recommended Population Projections
In general, the population in Kaufman County is increasing more than projected in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). The revised recommended projections are based on information provided by the entities and historical population estimates. The total recommended population projections for Kaufman County are lower than the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) projections for 2010 and higher from 2020 to 2060. Table 3.1 presents recommended population projections for each water user group in the study area, as well as what was previously projected in the 2006 Region C Water Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.6 Plan (2). Figure 3.1 shows the population projections for Kaufman County. Table 3.1 lists the population projections for the WUGs in Kaufman County. The population projections for entities split between counties or regions are shown in Table 3.2. The projections shown are the population projections for the entire entity, not just the Kaufman County portion. Figure 3.1 Recommended Population Projections for Kaufman County
375,000
T
275,000
225,000
175,000
125,000
75,000
2010
AF
Population
325,000
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year
2011 Plan
D
R
2006 Plan
Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.7 2006 Plan Projections 2011 Plan Projections 2010 4,809
2020 6,529
2030 8,297
2040 10,257
2050 12,683
2060 15,693 10,530
1,547
2,730
14,426
4,373
12,000
10,200
8,000
4,761
8,256
1,133
13,042
1,921
3,897
14,426
5,933
24,000
11,000
10,000
5,982
10,864
1,133
15,624
2,306
5,096
14,426
7,537
30,000
11,500
11,648
7,237
13,020
1,133
18,485
2,732
6,425
14,426
9,314
35,000
12,000
14,122
8,628
14,753
1,133
22,027
3,260
8,071
14,426
11,515
39,000
12,500
17,186
10,350
16,484
1,133
26,421 3,914 10,112 14,426 14,245 42,803 13,000 20,986 12,486 19,883 1,133 2010 4,809 9,150
1,547
2,730
13,767
4,373
13,000
3,531
7,322
3,102
8,256
1,400
AF
T
Water User Group Ables Springs WSC College Mound WSC Combine a Combine WSC a County ‐ Other Crandall Forney Forney Lake WSC a Gastonia ‐ Scurry SUD High Point WSC a Kaufman Kemp R
Table 3.1 Recommended Population Projections in Kaufman County 2020 6,529 11,333
1,921
3,897
13,767
5,933
24,000
3,938
9,211
3,898
10,864
1,700
2030 8,297 13,576
2,306
5,096
13,767
7,537
30,000
4,922
10,730
4,715
13,020
2,000
2040 10,257 16,062
2,732
6,425
13,767
9,314
35,000
6,153
13,054
5,622
14,753
2,000
2050 12,683 19,140
3,260
8,071
13,767
11,515
39,000
7,691
15,944
6,744
16,484
2,000
2060 15,693 22,958 3,914 10,112 13,767 14,245 42,803 9,613 19,541 8,136 19,883 2,000 D
Mabank a 2,367
2,889
3,425
4,019
4,755
5,667 2,637
3,219
3,816
4,478
5,298
6,314 a
MacBee SUD 277
348
421
502
602
726 277
348
421
502
602
726 a
Mesquite 2
3
4
6
8
10 2
3
4
6
8
10 Oak Grove 928
1,141
1,360
1,602
1,902
2,274 928
1,141
1,360
1,602
1,902
2,274 Post Oak Bend City Not a WUG in 2006 Plan 659
1,075
1,754
2,862
4,671
7,623 Scurry Not a WUG in 2006 Plan 678
789
918
1,068
1,242
1,445 a
Seagoville 17
27
37
48
62
79 17
27
37
48
62
79 Talty 2,447
3,832
5,256
6,834
8,788 11,211 1,800
3,832
5,256
6,834
8,788 11,211 Terrell 15,196 18,642 21,664 23,650 25,599 28,445 16,185 45,005 65,000 85,000 97,000 110,000 a
West Cedar Creek MUD 8,972 12,971 17,081 21,635 27,274 34,269 7,079 10,234 13,477 17,070 21,519 27,038 Kaufman County Total 112,971 148,580 177,072 205,571 237,625 277,783 103,249 162,664 208,009 254,609 297,391 349,385 a Kaufman County portion only 3.8
AF
T
2006 Plan Projections 2011 Plan Projections Water User Group 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Ables Springs 5,227 7,046
8,956 11,153 14,106 17,943 5,227
7,046
8,956 11,153 14,106 17,943 WSC Combine 2,393 2,969
3,474
4,019
4,702
5,563 2,393
2,969
3,474
4,019
4,702
5,563 Combine WSC 4,122 5,737
7,202
8,795 10,785 13,285 4,122
5,737
7,202
8,795 10,785 13,285 Forney Lake WSC 18,200 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 6,300
7,875
9,844 12,305 15,381 19,226 High Point WSC 5,218 6,619
8,030
9,589 11,509 13,877 3,400
4,313
5,232
6,248
7,499
9,042 Mabank 2,708 3,254
3,814
4,433
5,199
6,149 3,074
3,729
4,401
5,142
6,058
7,194 MacBee WSC 8,496 9,931 11,211 12,326 13,956 16,019 8,496
9,931 11,211 12,326 13,956 16,019 Mesquite 160,002 195,003 225,004 242,006 249,008 250,610 142,002 165,003 180,004 183,168 183,445 183,501 Seagoville 16,668 19,183 21,352 23,699 25,536 27,517 13,017 16,327 19,537 22,848 25,536 27,517 West Cedar 21,673 28,602 35,601 43,119 52,374 63,933 17,100 22,567 28,089 34,021 41,323 50,443 Creek MUD D
R
Table 3.2 Recommended Population Projections for Entities Split by County 3.9
3.3
Recommended Water Demands for Water User Groups
The municipal water demand projections presented in this section are based on per capita dry‐year water use and the adopted population projections from the previous section. The per capita dry‐year water uses presented in this section are based on the per capita water uses from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2), which include water savings from plumbing code requirements for low‐flow fixtures. Adjustments to per capita water use from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) were made to Kaufman (2010 only), Mesquite, Seagoville, and Talty. The changes to Kaufman, Seagoville, Talty were made based on recent per capita water use data. Mesquite’s per capita use was adjusted T
because the commercial growth is much greater than the population growth in Mesquite. Table 3.4 summarizes the municipal per capita water use projections for this AF
study. Municipal per capita water use is the sum of residential, commercial, and institutional water use divided by the population served. Figure 3.2 shows the 2006 and 2011 Plan municipal demand projections. For each entity the population projections was multiplied by the projected municipal R
per capita water use to establish the projected demand. Table 3.5 lists the adopted demand projections for this study. D
Non‐municipal water demand projections including manufacturing, steam electric power, irrigation, mining, and livestock are reported on a county‐wide basis. Projections of the non‐municipal water demands were based on the projections from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Projections for manufacturing, irrigation, and livestock did not change from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) for any of the counties in Region C. The steam electric power demands were revised based on available new information, which included recent power plant development activity, mothballing of existing plants, and the Bureau of Economic Geology report (6) released in 2008. Appendix 5 contains a technical memorandum detailing the revisions to steam electric power demands for Region C. Table 3.5 shows the projected demands for Kaufman County. Figure 3.3 shows the total demands for Kaufman County from the 2006 and 2011 Region C Water Plans (1, 2). Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.10 Figure 3.2 Recommended Municipal Demand Projections for Kaufman County Municipal Demand (af/y)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
2020
2030
2040
2050
T
2010
2060
Year
2011 Plan
AF
2006 Plan
95,000
Total Demand (af/y)
D
85,000
R
Figure 3.3 Recommended Total Demand Projections for Kaufman County 75,000
65,000
55,000
45,000
35,000
25,000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Year
2006 Plan
Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 2011 Plan
3.11 Table 3.3 Recommended Municipal Per Capita Water Use Projections in Gallons per Person per Day 2006 Plan Projections
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
95 107 105
104
104
74 91 104
103
102
2060
104
102
2010
95
74
2011 Plan Projections
2020 2030 2040 2050
107 105 104
104
91 104 103
102
2060
104
102
105 107 104
103
102
102
106
107 104 103
102
102
Combine WSC County ‐ Other Crandall Forney 100 135 149 144 107 134 151 150 106
133
149
148
105
132
148
147
105
131
148
147
105
131
148
147
100
135
149
144
107 134 151 150 106 133 149 148 105
132
148
147
105
131
148
147
105
131
148
147
Forney Lake WSC Gastonia ‐ Scurry SUD 195 94 192 107 190
105
188
103
187
103
187
103
195
94
192 107 190 105 188
103
187
103
187
103
High Point WSC Kaufman Kemp 95 125 143 107 141 140 105
138
137
104
137
134
103
136
132
103
136
132
96
143
143
107 141 140 105 138 137 104
137
134
103
136
132
103
136
132
Mabank 195 MacBee SUD 116 Mesquite Oak Grove Post Oak Bend City Scurry 160 119 189
188
187
187
194
191 188 188
187
187
115 115
116
116
116
116
115 115 116
116
116
157 154
153
152
116 113
112
111
Not a WUG in 2006 Plan Not a WUG in 2006 Plan 152
111
165
119
115
115
164 116 115 115 168 113 115 115 168
112
115
115
168
111
115
115
168
111
115
115
128 314 206 103 125
314
200
105
143
403
210
90
139 400 206 103 138 397 203 106 136
395
201
105
136
394
200
105
136
394
200
105
R
192 132 315 210 90 D
Seagoville Talty Terrell West Cedar Creek MUD a Region C portion only T
Combine AF
Water User Group Ables Springs WSC a College Mound WSC 127
314
203
106
125
314
201
105
Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 125
314
200
105
3.12 Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County
Table 3.4 Recommended Demand Projections in Acre‐Feet per Year Water User Group Ables Springs WSC College Mound WSC 2010 512
873
Combine a 2060 1,828 3,019 2010 512
758
2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 783
976
1,195
1,478
1,155
1,582 1,853
2,187
2060 1,828
2,623
230
269
315
372
447 182
230
269
315
372
447
Combine WSC County ‐ Other Crandall Forney 306
2,182
730
1,936
467
2,166
1,004
4,033
605
2,150
1,258
4,973
756
2,133
1,544
5,763
949
2,117
1,909
6,422
1,189 2,117 2,362 7,048 306
2,082
730
2,097
467
2,066
1,004
4,033
605
2,051
1,258
4,973
756
2,036
1,544
5,763
949
2,020
1,909
6,422
1,189
2,020
2,362
7,048
Forney Lake WSC a Gastonia ‐ Scurry SUD 2,228
842
2,366
1,199
2,448
1,370
2,527
1,629
2,618
1,983
2,723 2,421 771
771
847
1,104
1,048
1,262
1,296
1,506
1,611
1,840
2,014
2,255
High Point WSC a Kaufman Kaufman County ‐ Irrigation Kaufman County ‐Livestock 507
1,156
2,916
1,545
717
1,716
2,916
1,545
851
2,013
2,916
1,545
1,005
2,264
2,916
1,545
1,194
2,511
2,916
1,545
1,441 3,029 2,916 1,545 330
1,322
2,916
1,545
467
1,716
2,916
1,545
555
2,013
2,916
1,545
655
2,264
2,916
1,545
778
2,511
2,916
1,545
939
3,029
2,916
1,545
760
813
869
928
993
1,061 760
813
869
928
993
1,061
82
83
84 79
80
81
82
83
84
Kaufman County ‐Steam Electric Power Kemp a
Mabank a
MacBee SUD 3.13
Mesquite a R
D
Kaufman County ‐
Manufacturing Kaufman County ‐Mining AF
T
182
a
2006 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 1,478
783
976
1,195
1,329
1,820 2,133
2,517
79
80
81
8,979 17,798 20,808 24,478 28,950 34,403 8,979 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
181
178
174
170
168
168 224
267
307
300
296
296
517
621
725
846
996
1,187 576
692
808
943
1,110
1,323
36
45
54
65
78
94 36
45
54
65
78
94
0
1
1
1
1
2 0
1
1
1
1
2
Table 3.4, Continued Oak Grove Post Oak Bend City Scurry 124
3
Seagoville a Talty Terrell 863
3,575
West Cedar Creek MUD a Kaufman County Total 1,348
4,302
1,849
4,926
2,404
5,325
11 3,943 6,372 124
85
87
3
148
138
102
4
172
226
118
5
201
369
138
7
236
602
160
9
283
982
186
11
813
1,717
2,337 3,024
3,878 4,948
3,807 10,385 14,780 19,138 21,731 24,643
904
1,497
2,028 2,545
3,208 4,031 714
1,181
1,600 2,008
2,531 3,180
31,936 47,306 54,886 62,777 72,079 83,724 30,609 43,906 52,411 60,848 68,246 77,308
D
R
Kaufman County portion only 3.14
3,091
5,735
283 AF
T
a 148
172
201
236
Not a WUG in 2006 Plan Not a WUG in 2006 Plan 4
5
7
9
3.4
Recommended Water Demands for Wholesale Water Providers
A number of regional and local wholesale water providers (WWPs) supply water throughout Kaufman County. Regional wholesale water providers in Kaufman County include:
Dallas Water Utilities (DWU)
North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD)
Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) Local wholesale water provides include: Forney
Seagoville
Terrell
West Cedar Creek MUD AF
T

Tables 3.5 through 3.7 show the recommended population and demand projections R
expected to be supplied by DWU, NTMWD, and TRWD. D
Table 3.5 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by Dallas Water Utilities DWU Customers in Study Area Population Served by DWU Seagoville Combine WSC a Combine a Crandall Population served by DWU in Study Area Demand Supplied by DWU
Seagoville Combine WSC a Combine a Crandall Demand on DWU in Study Area a
2010
2020
2030
2040 2050
2060
62
10,785
4,702
7,473
23,022
79
13,285
5,563
10,199
29,126
9
1,268
537
1,239
3,053
11
1,562
635
1,692
3,900
17
4,122
2,393
0
6,532
27
5,737
2,969
1,976
10,709
37
7,202
3,474
3,520
14,233
3
462
282
0
747
4
688
356
334
1,382
5
855
405
588
1,853
Includes Dallas and Kaufman Counties Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 48 8,795 4,019 5,272 18,134 7 1,035 463 874 2,379 3.15 Table 3.6 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by North Texas Municipal Water District 2030
8,956
4,017
30,000
2,616
5,256
1,302
9,844
10,730
918
13,020
1,360
2,604
4
1,754
65,000
13,576
2,616
5,208
178,781
2040 2050
11,153 14,106
4,042 4,042
35,000 39,000
3,124 3,750
6,834 8,788
1,475 1,648
12,305 15,381
13,054 15,944
1,068 1,242
14,753 16,484
1,602 1,902
2,951 3,297
6 8
2,862 4,671
85,000 97,000
16,062 19,140
3,124 3,750
5,901 6,594
220,316 256,746
1,299 1,644
670 670
5,763 6,422
364 433
3,024 3,878
445 476
204 202
2,592 3,222
1,506 1,840
138 160
2,264 2,511
300 296
407 404
1,121 1,121
1 1
369 602
19,138 21,731
D
R
AF
T
NTMWD Customers in Study Area 2010
2020
Population Served by NTMWD Ables Springs WSC a 0
7,046
Crandall 4,373
3,957
Forney 13,000
24,000
b
High Point WSC (50%) 1,700
2,157
Talty WSC 2,447
3,832
Kaufman County Other (10%) 826
1,086
b
Forney Lake WSC 6,300
7,875
Gastonia ‐ Scurry SUD 7,322
9,211
Scurry 678
789
Kaufman 8,256
10,864
Oak Grove 928
1,141
Kaufman County Other (20%) 1,651
2,173
c
Mesquite 2
3
Post Oak Bend City 659
1,075
Terrell 16,185
45,005
College Mound WSC 9,150
11,333
b
High Point WSC (50%) 1,700
2,157
Kaufman County Other (40%) 3,302
4,346
Total Population Served by NTMWD 78,479 138,049
Demand Supplied by NTMWD (Ac‐Ft/Yr) Ables Springs WSC a 0
845
Crandall 730
670
Forney 2,097
4,033
High Point WSC b (50%) 181
259
Talty WSC 813
1,717
Kaufman County Manufacturing (60%) 365
390
207
Forney Lake WSC b 1,376
1,694
Gastonia ‐ Scurry SUD 771
1,104
Scurry 87
102
Kaufman 1,322
1,716
Oak Grove 224
267
413
Kaufman County SEP (1 MGD) 0
1,121
c
Mesquite 0
1
Post Oak Bend City (through Rose Hill SUD) 85
138
Terrell 3,807
10,385
Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 1,054
670
4,973
308
2,337
417
205
2,096
1,262
118
2,013
307
410
1,121
1
226
14,780
3.16 2060
17,943
4,046
42,803
4,521
11,211
1,988
19,226
19,541
1,445
19,883
2,274
3,977
10
7,623
110,000
22,958
4,521
7,953
301,923
2,090
670
7,048
522
4,948
509
202
4,028
2,255
186
3,029
296
404
1,121
2
982
24,643
Table 3.6, Continued College Mound WSC High Point WSC a (50%) Hunt County Other Kaufman County Manufacturing (40%) Kaufman County Other (40%) Total NTMWD Demand in Study Area 758
181
108
243
833
14,605
1,155
259
128
260
826
27,690
1,582
308
157
278
820
35,443
1,853 364 203 297 814 43,136 2,187
433
313
318
808
49,672
2,623
522
485
340
808
57,713
a
Includes Kaufman and Hunt Counties Includes Kaufman and Rockwall Counties c
Kaufman County Portion Only b
Table 3.7 Recommended Population and Demand Projections Expected to be Supplied by Tarrant Regional Water District R
D
Demand Supplied by TRWD Kaufman County Irrigation
Kaufman County Other (20%) Kemp Mabank a West Cedar Creek MUD a Seven Points b Tool b Demand on TRWD in Study Area a
2020
2030
2,753
1,400
3,074
17,100
1,402
2,618
28,347
2,753
1,700
3,729
22,567
1,681
2,990
35,420
2,753
2,000
4,401
28,089
1,956
3,357
42,556
100
416
224
671
1,724
188
405
3,728
100
413
267
801
2,604
222
452
4,859
100
410
307
931
3,335
254
500
5,837
2040 2050
2,753 2,753
2,000 2,000
5,142 6,058
34,021 41,323
2,238 2,582
3,733 4,192
49,887 58,908
100 100
407 404
300 296
1,083 1,269
4,002 4,860
288 330
548 610
6,728 7,869
T
2010
AF
TRWD Customers in Study Area
Population Served by TRWD Kaufman County Other (20%) Kemp Mabank a West Cedar Creek MUD a Seven Points b Tool b Population Served by TRWD in Study Area
Includes Kaufman and Henderson Counties b
Located in Henderson County Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 3.17 2060
2,753
2,000
7,194
50,443
3,016
4,771
70,177
100
404
296
1,507
5,933
385
695
9,320
4.
Evaluation of Current Supplies
4.1
Surface Water
The surface water sources for water user groups in Kaufman County include NTMWD supplies, TRWD supplies, DWU supplies, Lake Tawakoni (SRA supplies), and reuse. All of the municipal WUGs, with the exception of Kaufman County Other, use only surface water supplies. Lake Terrell is owned by the City of Terrell and was once used as a supply source for the City of Terrell. Terrell has recently increased their supply from NTMWD and has discontinued the use of Lake Terrell as a municipal water supply. Terrell is considering T
building a pipeline from Lake Terrell to Lake Tawakoni and selling the water to SRA or NTMWD, selling water for local irrigation purposes, or leaving the lake as is. Terrell has 4.2
Groundwater
AF
applied for TWDB planning funds to look into other alternative uses of Lake Terrell. Groundwater supplies are used to help meet the demands for irrigation, livestock, and county other. Pumping occurs in the Nacatoch, Woodbine, and Trinity Aquifers. The R
total groundwater availability in Kaufman County is 1,910 acre‐feet per year according to the available managed available groundwater (MAG) reports. Of the 1,910 acre‐feet D
per year available, 703 acre‐feet per year is allocated to WUGs in Kaufman County. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 4.1 5.
Comparison of Current Supplies to Projected Demand
The revised projected demands in the study area are lower than those shown in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) for 2010 and higher from 2020 to 2060. Many of the WUGs plan on continuing to use their current supply source and increase the amount supplied to them. A few of the WUGs plan on pursuing alternative or additional water sources. The water management strategies for several WUGs have been revised to meet D
R
AF
T
increased demands. The proposed revisions are discussed in the following section. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 5.1 6.
Proposed Revisions to Water Management Strategies
This section describes the proposed water management strategy adjustments from the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1). Appendix 2 includes a summary table of demand and supply for each water user group in Kaufman County. The Kaufman County supply mainly consists of surface water from regional wholesale water providers. Ables Springs WSC Ables Springs WSC is currently a customer of MacBee WSC but will cease operation with them in the fall of 2010. At that time the NTMWD Tawakoni Plant [Sabine River Authority (SRA) source] will be online. Ables Springs plans to get any current and future supply from the Plant. Table 6.1 summarizes Ables Springs WSC’s future water supply T
plans. AF
Table 6.1 Summary Information for Ables Springs WSC Ables Springs WSC (Region C and D) R
Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 2011 Plan Projections 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 5,227
7,046
8,956 11,153 14,106 17,943
556
845
1,054
1,299 1,644
2,090
556
845
1,054
1,299 1,644
2,090
D
Currently Available Water Supplies SRA sources (through MacBee SUD) Total Supply 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
845
1,054
1,299 1,644
2,090
9
5
33
7
52
9
91
13
118
16
825 394 1,299 944
596
1,644
1,116
840
2,090
0 0
0
69 11 No longer a WMS 0
0
13
688
117
845
745
248
1,054
Surplus or (Shortage) 965
965
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from SRA & participate in MacBee SUD water treatment plant Purchase water from NTMWD & connect to Tawakoni WTP Purchase additional water from NTMWD Total Water Management Strategies 422
Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 0
0
6.1 College Mound WSC College Mound WSC gets all of its water from NTMWD through three separate delivery points. The delivery points include the Kaufman 4‐1 line, a direct line from NTMWD, and a supply line from Terrell. The Kaufman 4‐1 group includes Gastonia‐
Scurry SUD, College Mound WSC, Rose Hill SUD, and Crandall. The water from the Terrell supply line is purchased through Terrell, but NTMWD is the original source. College Mound WSC plans to upsize the Terrell supply line, from an eight inch line to a 12‐inch line by 2020. The line to be replaced is approximately 3.5 miles long. College Mound WSC’s water supply plans are outlined in Table 6.2. 2011 Plan Projections 2010
2020
2030
2040 2050
2060
9,150 11,333 13,576 16,062 19,140 22,958
758
1,155
1,582
1,853 2,187
2,623
758
1,155
1,582
1,853 2,187
2,623
AF
College Mound WSC Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand T
Table 6.2 Summary Information for College Mound WSC R
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD Sources Total Supply D
1,118
1,118
1,177 1,177 1,256
1,256
1,400
1,400
13
215
464
676 931
1,223
55
160
215
86
378
464
108 568 676 136
795
931
172
1,051
1,223
0 0
0
13
0
13
Surplus or (Shortage) 940
940
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Purchase water from NTMWD Total Water Management Strategies 745
745
0
0
0
Combine WSC See Section 9 for an alternative water management strategy listed for Combine WSC. Crandall North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) supplies all of Crandall’s water through the Kaufman 4‐1 consortium. The Kaufman 4‐1 consortium is comprised of Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.2 Crandall, College Mound WSC, Gastonia‐Scurry SUD, and Rose Hill SUD. Crandall owns 26.7 percent of the Kaufman 4‐1 facilities. The City currently uses more than their contracted amount. This is possible because Gastonia‐Scurry WSC is not using their entire contracted amount. Crandall approached NTMWD about additional facilities, but NTMWD is not able to put in additional facilities until the Kaufman 4‐1 line is used at full capacity. Crandall has sought to purchase additional capacity from the other Kaufman 4‐1 users, but none are willing to sell any of their capacity. Crandall is now pursuing purchasing water from Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) through Seagoville. Crandall is currently seeking an amendment to the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) to construct a supply line from T
Seagoville to Crandall. The agreement for water will be with DWU. The DWU water will be passed through Seagoville and Crandall will pay Seagoville a “facility charge.” Table AF
6.3 shows Crandall’s future water supply plans. Table 6.3 Summary Information for Crandall D
R
Crandall Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 2011 Plan Projections 2010
2020
2030
2040 2050
2060
4,373
5,933
7,537
9,314 11,515 14,245
730
1,004
1,258
1,544 1,909
2,362
730
1,004
1,258
1,544 1,909
2,362
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD Sources Total Supply 715
715
545
545
474
474
426 426 385
385
358
358
15
459
784
1,118 1,524
2,004
140 20 342 617 1,119 189
26
503
806
1,524
253
32
752
967
2,005
0 0
0
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from NTMWD Purchase water from DWU (through Seagoville) Total Water Management Strategies 9
6
0
0
15
60
12
123
264
459
103
16
223
443
785
0
0
0
Surplus or (Shortage) Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.3 Forney The City of Forney’s current sources include NTMWD supplies and reuse from the City of Garland. The reuse from Garland is used only for steam electric power purposes. Forney is a member city of NTMWD and has no plans to obtain future supplies from any other entities. The City has two pump stations that deliver treated water from NTMWD. Pump station 1 has a 13 million gallon per day (mgd) maximum capacity. Pump station 2 has a current (Phase I) capacity of 13 mgd. A 15 mgd expansion (Phase II) has already been designed and was slated for construction before the current decline in the economy. Another 15 mgd expansion (Phase III) is planned, but will not be constructed until the City needs it. The pump station is already designed for these expansions with a T
build‐out capacity of 43 mgd. Cost estimates for Phases I and II were provided to Freese and Nichols, Inc. by the City’s Engineer. It is estimated that each expansion will cost AF
approximately five million dollars. Forney’s current water management strategies are in line with the strategies in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). The amount of supply from NTMWD is increased in 2010 to meet the increased demands. Table 6.4 summarizes the updates to the water D
R
management strategies for Forney. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.4 Table 6.4 Summary Information for Forney 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 Forney 2060 Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Customer Demand Total Projected Water Demand 13,000 24,000 30,000 35,000 39,000 42,803
2,097
4,033
4,973
5,763 6,422
7,048
10,546 11,452 12,146 12,916 13,868 15,060
12,643 15,485 17,119 18,679 20,290 22,108
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD Sources Garland Reuse Total Supply 6,588
8,979
15,567
7,097
8,979
16,076
8
1,101
2,284
3,444 4,723
6,032
292
22
787
1,101
454
33
1,797
2,284
617 41 2,786 3,444 803
48
3,872
4,723
1,028
55
4,949
6,032
0 0
0
T
6,256 8,979 15,235 AF
37
0
0
37
29
0
0
D
Kaufman 5,856
8,979
14,835
R
5,405
8,979
14,384
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from NTMWD Total Water Management Strategies Surplus or (Shortage) 3,656
8,979
12,635
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) See Section 9 for an alternative water management strategy listed for the City of Kaufman. Kaufman County Irrigation In the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) purchasing additional water from TRWD was a water management strategy (WMS). This is not included as a WMS in the 2011 Plan. Purchasing water from NTMWD was also listed as a WMS in the 2006 Plan. This strategy is now a current supply for Kaufman County Irrigation. Water management strategies for Kaufman County Irrigation include conservation, additional water from NTMWD, and supplemental wells in the Nacatoch and Trinity Aquifers. Table 6.5 summarizes Kaufman County Irrigation’s water supply plans. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.5 Table 6.5 Summary Information for Kaufman County Irrigation 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 Kaufman County Irrigation Projected Water Demand Irrigation Demand Total Projected Water Demand Currently Available Water Supplies Cedar Creek Lake (TRWD) Direct Reuse NTMWD Sources Irrigation Local Supply Nacatoch Aquifer Trinity Aquifer Total Supply 2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
92
758
1,469
64
4
185
2,572
3
R
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation Purchase water from NTMWD Supplemental wells in Nacatoch & Trinity Aquifers Total Water Management Strategies 2,916
2,916
67 758 1,146 64 4 185 2,225 59
758
1,037
64
4
185
2,107
52
758
963
64
4
185
2,026
344
551 691 809
890
177 514 0 691 212
597
0
809
247
643
0
890
0 0
0
4
0
0
4
72
272
0
344
140 411 0 551 1
0
0 Kaufman County Other Rose Hill SUD is not considered a WUG in the 2011 Region C Water Plan (1), but based on information obtained via telephone, it is recommended Rose Hill SUD be included as a WUG in the next round of planning. Rose Hill SUD has 1,396 connections and the average day use in 2008 was 0.257 mgd which qualifies it as a WUG. Rose Hill SUD currently has three sources of supply including Terrell, Kaufman 4‐1 line, and the Old Kaufman line. The Terrell supply was discontinued in November 2009. The other two lines are supplied by NTMWD. In place of the supply from Terrell, Rose Hill SUD will get water directly from NTMWD via the Terrell Line. Rose Hill has a tap on this line and a Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 2,916
2,916
D
2,916 2,916 Surplus or (Shortage) 78 758 1,276 64 4 185 2,365 AF
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) 2,916 2,916 T
100
576
1,984
64
4
185
2,913
2060 6.6 storage tank at the tap location. A new pipeline will be built to access this water in the very near future. The new infrastructure will consist of about a one mile 12‐inch pipeline, a meter, and chlorine treatment. The estimated cost of this project is $1.1 million. A contract with NTMWD exists that allows Rose Hill to take up to 100 million gallons per year from this line. Table 6.6 summarizes the water supply plans for Kaufman County Other. Table 6.6 Summary Information for Kaufman County Other T
2010 13,767
2,082
2,082
AF
Kaufman County Other Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 13,767 13,767 13,767 13,767
2,066
2,051
2,036 2,020
2,066
2,051
2,036 2,020
241
1,437
411
2,089
241
1,177
379
1,797
241
1,015
320
1,576
241 905 275 1,421 241
812
239
1,292
241
755
208
1,204
0
269
475
615 728
816
68
152
49
0
269
91
293
92
0
476
99 397 120 0 616 105
481
142
0
728
112
552
152
0
816
0 0
0
R
Currently Available Water Supplies Nacatoch Aquifer NTMWD Sources TRWD Sources (part through Mabank) Total Supply 2060 13,767
2,020
2,020
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) D
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Purchase water from NTMWD Purchase water from TRWD Supplemental wells in Nacatoch Aquifer Total Water Management Strategies Surplus or (Shortage) 25
0
0
0
25
32
0
0
Kaufman County Steam Electric Power The water management strategies for Kaufman County Steam Electric Power have been adjusted as shown in Table 6.7 to reflect the changes in projected demands. Steam electric power demands from the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) were reevaluated Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.7 using more recent studies and improved methodologies for determining steam electric power water use (See Appendix 5). The projected demands for Kaufman County steam electric power water use have been significantly reduced since the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Steam electric power demands in Kaufman County are currently met using reuse from Garland (through Forney) and 1 MGD of treated water from the City of Forney. Table 6.7 Summary Information for Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Currently Available Water Supplies Reuse from Garland (through Forney) Total Supply Need (Demand ‐ Supply) T
AF
Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Projected Water Demand Steam Electric Power Demand Total Projected Water Demand 2011 Plan Projections 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 8,979 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
8,979 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
D
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979 8,979 8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
0
1,021
1,021
1,021 1,021
1,021
0
0
0
0
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121 1,000 6,621 8,742 1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
7,721 7,721
7,721
Surplus or (Shortage) 8,979
8,979
R
Water Management Strategies Purchase water from Forney (NTMWD) TRA reuse Reuse from Garland (through Forney) Total Water Management Strategies 0
7,721
7,721
Mabank The City of Mabank currently purchases water from TRWD. According to Mabank’s survey response, the City has a 20‐year contract with TRWD that allocates between 1,140 and 1,870 acre‐feet per year. This contract amount is greater than the projected 2060 demand for both Kaufman and Henderson Counties. The City will purchase additional water from TRWD to meet their increased demands, but will need a water Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.8 treatment plant expansion to meet all of the City’s future demands. Table 6.8 summarizes Mabank’s water supply plans. Table 6.8 Summary Information for Mabank 2011 Plan Projections 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Mabank (Henderson and Kaufman County) Projected Population 3,074
3,729
4,401
5,142 6,058
7,194
Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand 671
801
931
1,083 1,269
1,507
Total Projected Water Demand 671
801
931
1,083 1,269
1,507
R
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from TRWD Water Treatment Plant Expansions Water treatment plant expansion (1 MGD) a Total Water Management Strategies D
735
735
726
726
731 731 750
750
776
776
6
66
205
352 519
731
6
0
0
560
6
69
2
0
560
71
169
3
32
560
205
206 4 142 560 352 253
4
262
560
519
313
5
413
560
731
0
5
0
0 0
0
Surplus or (Shortage) a Not included in total to avoid double counting 665
665
T
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) AF
Currently Available Water Supplies TRWD Sources Total Supply Post Oak Bend City Post Oak Bend City was not large enough to be considered a WUG in the 2006 Plan. However, since the 2006 Plan, the City’s population has reached at least 500 and the City is now deemed a WUG. The City currently purchases water from Rose Hill SUD who is supplied by NTMWD sources. Post Oak Bend City’s water supply plans are outlined in Table 6.9. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.9 Table 6.9 Summary Information for Post Oak Bend City 2010 Post Oak Bend City Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 659
2,862 226
226
369 369 2060 4,671
7,623
602
602
982
982
83
83
112
112
160
160
234 234 346
346
524
524
2
26
66
135 256
458
20 114 134 35
221
256
61
397
458
0 0
0
T
2
0
2
6
20
26
12
55
67
0
0
0
R
Scurry 138
138
AF
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package NTMWD supplies (through Rose Hill SUD) Total Water Management Strategies 1,754
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) 1,075
85
85
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD supplies (through Rose Hill SUD) Total Supply Surplus or (Shortage) 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 Since the 2006 Plan the City of Scurry’s population has reached at least 500 and Scurry D
now considered a WUG. The City currently purchases water from Gastonia‐Scurry SUD is who supplied by NTMWD sources. Table 6.10 summarizes Scurry’s future water supply plans. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.10 Table 6.10 Summary Information for Scurry 2010 Scurry Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 678
918
102
102
1,068 118
118
1,242
138 138 2060 1,445
160
160
186
186
83
83
88 92
99
85
83
83
88 92
99
2
19
35
50 68
87
T
85
2
4
6
8 9
11
0
15
29
43 59
75
2
19
35
51 68
86
0 0
0
AF
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package NTMWD supplies (through Gastonia‐Scurry SUD) Total Water Management Strategies 0
0
0
R
Talty Need (Demand ‐ Supply) Surplus or (Shortage) 789
87
87
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD supplies (through Gastonia‐Scurry SUD) Total Supply 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 D
The City of Talty receives their water from Forney who uses NTMWD sources. Because of Talty’s increase in per capita usage, the additional demands will be supplied through Forney with NTMWD sources. Water supply plans for Talty are summarized in Table 6.11. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.11 Table 6.11 Summary Information for Talty 2010 Talty Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Total Projected Water Demand 1,800
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD Sources Total Supply Terrell 6,834 8,788
808
808
1,397
1,397
1,652
1,652
1,921 1,921 2,227
2,227
2,641
2,641
5
320
685
1,103 1,651
2,307
160 12 931 1,103 238
16
1,397
1,651
345
20
1,942
2,307
0 0
0
T
5
0
0
5
60
6
253
319
104
9
571
685
0
0
0
R
5,256
AF
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from Forney (from NTMWD) Total Water Management Strategies 3,832
2060 11,211
813
1,717
2,337
3,024 3,878
4,948
813
1,717
2,337
3,024 3,878
4,948
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) Surplus or (Shortage) 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 D
Terrell purchases water from NTMWD and plans to continue to do so. The City plans to develop a second treated water delivery point from NTMWD. Terrell’s Master Plan discusses plans for a pipeline from NTMWD’s Tawakoni WTP to the Terrell Pipeline. New ground storage, a new pump station, and new pipelines to the City’s distribution system are all part of this planned second point of delivery. This second point of delivery is is a water management strategy for the City of Terrell. Lake Terrell is no longer used as a municipal supply and alternative uses for the lake are being considered. Terrell has filed an application for planning grant assistance with the Texas Water Development Board. The grant will be used as funding for a study to determine the best use of Lake Terrell and facilities needed to comply with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) dam safety regulations. Possible alternative uses include building a pipeline to Lake Tawakoni and selling the water to SRA or NTMWD, selling Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.12 water for irrigation purposes, or building a pipeline to the new NTMWD water treatment plant to supplement Lake Tawakoni sources. Terrell’s water supply plans are outlined in Table 6.12. Table 6.12 Summary Information for Terrell 2010 16,185
3,807
2,184
5,991
Currently Available Water Supplies NTMWD Sources Total Supply D
R
Water Management Strategies Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package Purchase water from NTMWD Total Water Management Strategies Surplus or (Shortage) 5,690 10,443 12,548 14,290 14,719 15,620
5,690 10,443 12,548 14,290 14,719 15,620
AF
Need (Demand ‐ Supply) T
Terrell Projected Population Projected Water Demand Municipal Demand Customer Demand Total Projected Water Demand 2011 Plan Projections 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 45,005 65,000 85,000 97,000 110,000
10,385 14,780 19,138 21,731 24,643
2,693
3,215
3,606 4,138
4,862
13,078 17,995 22,744 25,869 29,505
301
2,635
5,447
8,453 11,150
13,885
53
0
248
301
628
20
1,987
2,636
1,168
61
4,218
5,447
1,668 102 6,683 8,453 2,089
125
8,936
11,150
2,593
143
11,150
13,885
0
0
0
0 0
0
Water User Groups with No Revisions to Water Management Strategies
The water user groups in Kaufman County that have no revisions to water management strategies as presented in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) include the following:
Combine
Combine WSC
Forney Lake WSC
Gastonia – Scurry SUD Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.13 High Point WSC
Kaufman County – Irrigation
Kaufman County – Livestock
Kaufman County – Manufacturing
Kaufman County – Other
MacBee SUD
Mesquite
Oak Grove
Seagoville
West Cedar Creek MUD D
R
AF
T

Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 6.14 7.
Estimated Costs for Proposed Water Management Strategies
The estimated costs for water management strategies were updated and are included in Appendix 3. Total capital costs for the Kaufman County Study Area through the year 2060 are estimated to be $118 million. The capital costs are broken down by category in Table 7.1 and by WUG in Table 7.2. Refer to Appendix 3 for additional details. Table 7.1 Capital Costs for Water Management Strategies by Category Capital Cost During Study Period $87,543,901 $4,246,938 $0 $26,085,000 $117,875,839 T
Water Management Strategy Category AF
Transmission Facilities Supplemental Wells New Water Treatment Plants Water Treatment Plant Expansions Total Capital Costs for Study Area R
Table 7.2 Capital Costs for Water Management Strategies by WUG D
Water User Group Ables Springs WSC College Mound WSC Crandall Forney Kaufman Kaufman County Irrigation Kaufman County Livestock Kaufman County Other Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Mabank MacBee SUD Terrell West Cedar Creek MUD Total Capital Costs for Study Area Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County Capital Cost During Study Period $3,194,350 $2,569,400 $6,104,000 $10,000,000 $21,302,400 $6,244,870 $2,306,133 $646,935 $19,544,676 $4,156,000 $7,381,000 $19,878,075 $14,548,000 $117,875,839 7.1 8.
Implementation Plan for Proposed Water Management Strategies
Implementation of the Kaufman County Water Supply System includes developing water management strategies for surface water sources. For surface water sources, the implementation plan for water management strategies includes the following components:
Obtain water rights and/or develop water supply contracts
Obtain required permits T
Design and construct required facilities Table 8.1 is a list of recommended water management strategies with approximate in‐
service dates. AF
Table 8.1 Implementation of Proposed Water Management Strategies Project Connect to NTMWD Tawakoni Water Treatment Plant
Pipeline to Seagoville (DWU) Connect to NTMWD Tawakoni Water Treatment Plant
TRA reuse Purchase water from NTMWD Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 1 MGD Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 2 MGD Connect to NTMWD Tawakoni Water Treatment Plant
Water Treatment Plant Expansion of 5 MGD D
R
Owner Ables Springs WSC Crandall Kaufman Kaufman County ‐ Steam Electric Power Kaufman County ‐ Steam Electric Power Mabank MacBee SUD Terrell West Cedar Creek MUD Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County Approximate In‐service Year
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 8.1 9.
Alternative Water Management Strategies
In general, most of the water user groups in the study area indicated that their future water supply plans are in line with the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). However, two alternative strategies were identified for Combine WSC and the City of Kaufman. Tables summarizing the future water supply plans for all WUGs in Kaufman County can be found in Appendix 2. Combine WSC Combine WSC currently purchases DWU water from Seagoville. Combine WSC has expressed an interest in purchasing water directly from DWU and has talked with DWU about this. Combine WSC would continue to use its existing infrastructure, but would T
have a direct contract with DWU rather than a contract with Seagoville. AF
Kaufman Kaufman purchases water from NTMWD and plans to continue to do so. NTMWD water from the Tawakoni Plant is a possible alternative future strategy. Kaufman would be interested in the possibility of a shared pipeline with other entities to deliver water from the plant. Kaufman’s existing pipeline will carry them well into the future if growth D
R
continues as projected. Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 9.1 10.
Conclusion
In the near term, the projected growth in Kaufman County has decreased since the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). However, population and demand projections have increased since the 2006 Plan for 2020 through 2060. The water management strategies recommended in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2) have been adjusted to account for these changes to projected demands. For most water management groups, their currently planned water management strategies are in line with the strategies presented in the 2006 Region C Water Plan (2). Figure 10.1 shows the total projected demands, current water supplies, and recommended water management strategies for Kaufman County. T
D
R
AF
Table 10.1 Total Demands and Supplies for Kaufman County Draft Water Supply Study for Kaufman County 10.1
T
AF
APPENDIX 1 D
R
REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES (1) Freese and Nichols, Inc., Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc., and Cooksey Communications, Inc.: 2011 Region C Water Plan, prepared for the Region C Water Planning Group, Fort Worth, September 2010. (2) Freese and Nichols, Inc., Alan Plummer Associates, Inc., Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc., and Cooksey Communications, Inc.: 2006 Region C Water Plan, prepared for the Region C Water Planning Group, Fort Worth, January 2006. (3) Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer: 2007 Total Population Estimates for Texas Places, [Online], Available URL: http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2007_txpopest_place.php T
(4) United States Census Bureau: Census 2000 Data for the State of Texas; Population by County, Population by Place, [Online], Available URL: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/tx.html, May 2005. D
R
AF
(5) North Central Texas Council of Governments: 2009 Current Population Estimates, Arlington, [Online], Available URL: http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/population/2009PopEstimates.pdf, April 2009. (6) Bureau of Economic Geology: Water Demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas, prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, Austin, August 2008. T
AF
APPENDIX 2 D
R
SUMMARY TABLES BY WATER USER GROUP Table A2‐1
Summaries by Water User Group
‐Acre‐Feet per Year‐
Ables Springs WSC (Regions C &D)
Projected Population
Projected Water Demand
Municipal Demand
Total Projected Water Demand
Currently Available Water Supplies
SRA sources (through MacBee SUD)
Total Supply
Need (Demand ‐ Supply)
Water Management Strategies
Water Conservation ‐ Basic Package
Water Conservation ‐ Expanded Package
Purchase water from SRA & participate in MacBee SUD water treatment plant
Purchase water from NTMWD & connect to Tawakoni water treatement plant
Purchase additional water from NTMWD
Purchase additional water from NTMWD
Total Water Management Strategies
Surplus or (Shortage)
2020
7,046
556
556
845
845
1,054
1,054
1,093
1,093
1,093
1,093
0
0
9
0
0
2060
17,943
2010
5,227
2020
7,046
1,299
1,299
1,644
1,644
2,090
2,090
556
556
845
845
1,054
1,054
1,087
1,087
1,074
1,074
1,046
1,046
1,015
1,015
965
965
0
0
0
225
598
1,075
0
89
116
9
5
1,168
1,264
1,121
1,121
Not a WMS in the 2006 Plan
9
2030
2040
8,956
11,153
2050
14,106
38
52
68
Not
a WMS in the 2006 Plan
38
1,173
1,189
2060
17,943
1,299
1,299
1,644
1,644
2,090
2,090
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
845
1,054
1,299
1,644
2,090
33
7
52
9
69
11
91
13
118
16
825
394
1,299
944
596
1,644
1,116
840
2,090
0
0
2030
2040
13,576
16,062
0
0
No longer a WMS
1,257
1,380
0
0
13
659
305
422
2050
22,027
2060
26,421
2010
9,150
688
117
845
0
745
248
1,054
2010
10,530
2020
13,042
873
873
1,329
1,329
1,820
1,820
2,133
2,133
2,517
2,517
3,019
3,019
758
758
NTMWD Sources
Lake Tawakoni
Lake Terrell
Total Supply
342
213
161
716
512
187
140
839
666
168
127
961
716
158
119
993
794
148
111
1,053
892
134
101
1,127
745
940
745
940
157
490
859
1,140
1,464
1,892
13
215
Purchase water from NTMWD (through Terrell)
Purchase water from NTMWD (through Terrell)
Purchase water from NTMWD
18
716
75
1,103
1
103
97
1,480
1
480
122
1,424
1
424
153
2,241
2
241
194
2,593
2
593
13
55
734
1,178
1,577
1,546
2,394
2,787
0
13
160
215
577
688
930
895
0
0
2010
2,393
2020
2,969
718
406
2030
2040
3,474
4,019
2050
4,702
2060
5,563
2010
2,393
2020
2,969
282
282
356
356
405
405
463
463
537
537
635
635
282
282
356
356
405
405
235
235
245
245
256
256
260
260
264
264
271
271
281
281
121
160
207
277
371
11
DWU Sources (through Combine WSC)
Total Supply
208
208
D
Combine (Dallas and Kaufman Counties)
Municipal Demand
T
286
College Mound WSC
Municipal Demand
1,206
964
2030
2040
15,624
18,485
2050
14,106
546
College Mound WSC
Combine ( Dallas and Kaufman Counties)
2030
2040
8,956
11,153
2010
5,227
2020
11,333
2050
19,140
2060
22,958
1,853
1,853
2,187
2,187
2,623
2,623
1,118
1,177
No longer a supply
No longer a supply
1,118
1,177
1,256
1,400
1,256
1,400
676
931
1,223
86
108
No longer a WMS
No
longer a WMS
378
568
464
676
136
172
795
931
1,051
1,223
0
0
2050
4,702
2060
5,563
463
463
537
537
635
635
305
305
327
327
349
349
362
362
75
100
136
188
273
1,155
1,155
1,582
1,582
R
AF
Ables Springs WSC (Regions C & D)
464
0
0
2030
2040
3,474
4,019
74
Purchase water from Combine WSC (DWU)
T t lW t M
t St t i
5
73
78
18
162
180
23
218
241
28
297
325
34
374
408
43
391
434
4
7
11
15
60
75
23
77
100
28
108
136
34
154
188
43
230
273
4
59
81
118
131
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table A2‐1
Combine WSC (Dallas and Kaufman Counties)
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
2030
2040
7,202
8,795
2020
5,737
462
688
855
462
688
DWU Sources
Total Supply
340
340
Purchase water from Seagoville (from DWU)
2030
2040
7,202
8,795
2050
10,785
2060
13,285
2010
4,122
2020
5,737
1,035
1,268
1,562
855
1,035
1,268
1,562
462
282
744
688
356
1,044
855
405
1,260
454
454
517
517
571
571
613
613
650
650
715
715
824
824
122
234
338
464
655
912
29
8
118
126
34
314
348
45
460
505
58
665
723
76
888
964
98
961
1,059
4
114
309
2010
4,373
2020
5,933
167
259
2030
2040
7,537
9,314
730
730
1,004
1,004
1,258
1,258
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
512
512
545
545
584
584
218
459
674
Purchase water from DWU (through Seagoville)
24
6
373
403
63
90
123
19
25
31
674
899
917
756
1,014
1,071
185
297
2010
12,000
2020
24,000
Crandall
Crandall
Municipal Demand
1,035
463
1,498
1,268
537
1,805
1,562
635
2,197
949
949
861
861
1,175
1,175
1,255
1,255
220
311
637
630
942
12
17
29
45
175
220
68
243
311
87
550
637
112
518
630
143
799
942
147
0
0
0
0
2050
11,515
2060
14,245
2010
4,373
2020
5,933
0
0
2030
2040
7,537
9,314
2050
11,515
2060
14,245
1,544
1,544
1,909
1,909
2,362
2,362
730
730
632
632
711
711
800
800
715
715
1,004
1,004
1,258
1,258
1,544
1,544
1,909
1,909
2,362
2,362
545
545
474
474
426
426
385
385
358
358
1,562
15
459
784
1,118
1,524
2,004
169
39
1,593
228
49
1,926
1,801
2,203
9
6
0
0
15
60
12
123
264
459
103
16
223
443
785
140
20
342
617
1,119
189
26
503
806
1,524
253
32
752
967
2,005
603
641
0
0
0
0
2050
39,000
2060
42,803
2010
13,000
2020
24,000
0
0
2030
2040
30,000
35,000
2050
39,000
2060
42,803
1,936
4,033
4,973
5,763
6,422
7,048
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,936
4,033
4,973
5,763
6,422
7,048
2,097
10,546
12,643
4,033
11,452
15,485
4,973
12,146
17,119
5,763
12,916
18,679
6,422
13,868
20,290
7,048
15,060
22,108
5,405
8,979
14,384
5,856
8,979
14,835
6,256
8,979
15,235
6,588
8,979
15,567
7,097
8,979
16,076
1,358
1,358
578
67
2
988
1,057
479
912
340
159
2030
2040
30,000
35,000
2,189
2,309
2,361
2,189
2,309
2,361
2,390
2,386
2,390
2,386
3,656
8,979
12,635
1,844
2,664
3,402
4,032
4,662
8
1,101
2,284
3,444
4,723
6,032
249
17
2,709
2,975
350
38
3,554
3,942
455
52
3,423
3,930
561
59
5,356
5,976
674
65
5,750
6,489
37
0
0
37
292
22
787
1,101
454
33
1,797
2,284
617
41
2,786
3,444
803
48
3,872
4,723
1,028
55
4,949
6,032
1,131
1,278
528
1,944
1,827
29
0
0
0
0
0
D
NTMWD Sources
Garland Reuse
Total Supply
2060
13,285
1,198
Forney
Forney
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
2050
10,785
T
2010
4,122
R
AF
Combine WSC (Dallas and Kaufman Counties)
Table A2‐1
2020
22,000
Municipal Demand
3,975
3,975
4,732
4,732
4,896
4,896
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
2,789
2,789
2,568
2,568
1,186
Gastonia‐Scurry SUD
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
2030
2040
9,844
12,305
2050
25,000
2060
26,000
2010
6,300
2020
7,875
5,054
5,054
5,236
5,236
5,446
5,446
1,376
1,376
1,694
1,694
2,096
2,096
2,274
2,274
2,070
2,070
1,948
1,948
1,844
1,844
1,359
1,359
1,379
1,379
2,164
2,622
2,984
3,288
3,602
17
134
4
2,026
2,164
260
26
3,180
3,466
312
30
3,500
3,842
366
32
3,006
3,404
422
34
4,370
4,826
484
36
4,444
4,964
978
1,302
1,538
2010
8,000
2020
10,000
1,220
420
2030
2040
11,648
14,122
842
1,199
1,370
Gastonia‐Scurry SUD
y
2050
15,381
2060
19,226
2,592
2,592
3,222
3,222
4,028
4,028
1,482
1,482
1,646
1,646
1,850
1,850
2,150
2,150
315
614
946
1,372
1,878
17
0
0
17
80
7
229
315
124
10
480
614
176
14
756
946
246
17
1,108
1,372
342
21
1,515
1,878
1,362
0
0
0
0
2050
17,186
2060
20,986
2010
7,322
2020
9,211
0
0
2030
2040
10,730
13,054
2050
15,944
2060
19,541
1,629
1,983
2,421
1,199
1,370
1,629
1,983
2,421
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
591
591
651
651
636
636
667
667
738
738
820
820
844
844
251
548
734
962
1,245
1,601
14
224
404
600
851
1,138
16
429
445
59
805
864
73
980
1,053
93
967
1,060
120
1,654
1,774
155
1,975
2,130
14
0
14
51
174
225
74
331
405
96
504
600
123
728
851
158
980
1,138
194
316
529
529
0
0
0
2020
6,619
2050
11,509
2060
13,877
2010
3,400
2020
4,313
0
0
2030
2040
5,232
6,248
0
2010
5,218
319
98
2030
2040
8,030
9,589
2050
7,499
2060
9,042
556
556
793
793
944
944
1,117
1,117
1,328
1,328
1,601
1,601
362
362
517
517
728
728
865
865
1,044
1,044
179
179
210
210
218
231
218
231
No longer a supply
No longer a supply
436
462
249
249
278
278
498
556
High Point WSC (Kaufman & Rockwall Counties)
(Kaufman & Rockwall Counties)
Municipal Demand
1,104
102
1,206
1,262
118
1,380
1,506
138
1,644
1,840
160
2,000
2,255
186
2,441
982
982
976
976
1,044
1,044
1,149
1,149
1,303
1,303
R
AF
842
771
87
858
616
616
NTMWD Sources (through Forney)
NTMWD Sources (through Terrell)
Lake Tawakoni
Lake Terrell
Total Supply
297
359
377
403
445
497
66
50
413
58
44
461
53
39
469
49
37
489
46
35
526
42
31
570
358
420
143
332
475
628
802
1,031
4
97
180
266
367
488
Purchase water from Forney (from NTMWD)
10
451
461
39
663
702
50
786
836
63
762
825
80
1,197
1,277
102
1,387
1,489
4
0
4
21
76
97
33
147
180
42
224
266
53
314
367
68
420
488
318
370
361
197
475
458
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
High Point WSC (Kaufman and Rockwall Counties)
2030
2040
23,000
24,000
2010
18,200
T
Forney Lake WSC Forney Lake WSC (Kaufman & Rockwall (Kaufman & Rockwall Counties)
Counties)
Table A2‐1
Kaufman Kaufman
1,716
2,013
2060
19,883
2010
8,256
2020
10,864
2,264
2,511
3,029
1,716
148
1,864
2,013
172
2,185
2050
16,484
2060
19,883
2,264
201
2,465
2,511
236
2,747
3,029
283
3,312
1,156
1,716
2,013
2,264
2,511
3,029
1,322
124
1,446
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
811
811
931
931
935
935
927
927
935
935
1,026
1,026
1,419
1,419
1,517
1,517
1,545
1,545
1,566
1,566
1,578
1,578
1,768
1,768
345
785
1,078
1,337
1,576
2,003
27
347
640
899
1,169
1,544
15
0
590
605
97
16
1,153
1,266
82
2
1,439
1,523
100
5
1,346
1,451
120
5
2,094
2,219
155
6
2,471
2,632
23
12
0
35
123
16
208
346
110
18
512
640
137
20
742
900
167
23
980
1,169
213
27
1,304
1,544
260
481
445
114
2030
2040
643
629
8
0
0
0
2030
2040
0
0
2010
2020
2,916
2,916
125
576
64
4
769
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2050
2060
2010
2020
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
109
92
79
67
758
972
1,116
1,359
Not a current supply in the 2006 Plan
64
64
64
64
4
4
4
4
Not a current supply in the 2006 Plan
935
1,132
1,263
1,494
57
1,659
1,784
100
576
1,984
64
4
185
2,913
64
4
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
2,916
92
758
1,469
64
4
185
2,572
78
758
1,276
64
4
185
2,365
67
758
1,146
64
4
185
2,225
59
758
1,037
64
4
185
2,107
52
758
963
64
4
185
2,026
551
691
809
890
140
177
411
514
No longer a WMS
0
0
551
691
212
597
247
643
0
809
0
890
0
0
2,147
1,981
1,784
1,653
1,422
1,132
3
344
Water Conservation
Purchase water from TRWD
Supplemental wells in Nacatoch & Trinity Aquifers
4
,
2,666
30
0
2,700
72
,
2,671
37
0
2,780
140
,
2,594
64
0
2,798
177
,
2,208
57
0
2,442
212
,
2,654
89
0
2,955
247
,
2,540
85
0
2,872
4
0
72
272
0
4
0
344
553
799
1,014
789
2030
2040
1,533
1,740
1
0
Kaufman County ‐ Livestock
Livestock Demand
Livestock Local Supply
Nacatoch Aquifer
Woodbine Aquifer
Total Supply
2010
2020
1,545
1,545
1,622
73
121
1,816
2050
2060
2010
2060
2,916
2,916
2050
T
Kaufman County ‐ Irrigation
Irrigation Demand
Cedar Creek Lake (TRWD)
Direct Reuse
NTMWD Sources
Irrigation Local Supply
Nacatoch Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer
Total Supply
1,156
2030
2040
13,020
14,753
2050
16,484
2020
0
0
2030
2040
2050
2060
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,545
1,622
73
121
1,816
1,622
73
121
1,816
1,622
73
121
1,816
1,622
73
121
1,816
1,622
73
121
1,816
1,622
73
200
1,895
1,622
73
200
1,895
1,622
73
200
1,895
1,622
73
200
1,895
1,622
73
200
1,895
1,622
73
200
1,895
D
2020
10,864
R
AF
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
2030
2040
13,020
14,753
2010
8,256
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Supplemental wells in Nacatoch & Woodbine Aquifers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
271
271
271
271
271
271
350
350
350
350
350
350
Table A2‐1
2030
2040
2050
2060
2010
813
813
869
869
928
928
993
993
1,061
1,061
Lake Terrell
NTMWD Sources
Tawakoni
Total Supply
108
352
143
603
101
291
134
526
97
266
130
493
97
251
130
478
97
244
130
471
97
237
126
460
157
287
376
450
522
Water Conservation
0
569
569
1
696
697
15
758
773
22
757
779
412
410
397
329
j
2030
2040
Mining Demand
2010
2020
760
760
813
813
760
662
760
662
601
0
151
254
23
960
983
25
1,025
1,050
0
0
0
1
150
151
15
239
254
461
449
0
0
2050
2060
2010
2020
79
79
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
79
79
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
3
2010
14,426
2020
14,426
5
4
2030
2040
14,426
14,426
2,182
2,182
2,166
2,166
2,150
2,150
483
241
1,129
234
2,087
420
241
904
189
1,754
95
412
Kaufman County ‐ Other
Municipal Demand
Lake Tawakoni
Nacatoch Aquifer
NTMWD Sources
TRWD Sources (part through Mabank)
Total Supply
Supplemental wells in Nacatoch Aquifer
29
1,615
36
0
1,680
1,585
2030
2040
2020
869
869
2050
928
928
2060
993
993
1,061
1,061
570
567
570
567
338
423
494
22
316
338
23
400
423
25
469
494
0
0
j
2030
2040
0
0
No longer a supply
615
590
No longer a supply
615
590
2050
2060
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
6
3
2
2050
14,426
2060
14,426
2010
13,767
2020
13,767
5
4
2030
2040
13,767
13,767
2050
13,767
2060
13,767
2,133
2,133
2,117
2,117
2,117
2,117
2,082
2,082
2,066
2,066
2,036
2,036
2,020
2,020
2,020
2,020
377
241
782
159
1,559
351
241
701
135
1,428
325
241
638
114
1,318
295
241
580
97
1,213
241
1,437
411
2,089
241
1,177
379
1,797
No longer a supply
241
241
1,015
905
320
275
1,576
1,421
241
812
239
1,292
241
755
208
1,204
591
705
799
904
0
269
475
615
728
816
T
2020
760
760
Other Local Supply
Total Supply
2010
R
AF
Kaufman County ‐ y
Mining
Kaufman County ‐ Manufacturing
Manufacturing Demand
D
Kaufman County ‐ Manufacturing
2,051
2,051
87
1,780
64
0
1,931
94
1,784
110
0
1,988
101
1,519
97
0
1,717
108
1,686
157
0
1,951
115
1,612
161
0
1,888
25
0
0
0
25
68
152
49
0
269
91
293
92
0
476
99
397
120
0
616
105
481
142
0
728
112
552
152
0
816
1,519
1,397
1,012
1,152
984
32
0
0
0
0
0
Table A2‐1
Kaufman County ‐ Steam Electric Power
Municipal Demand
2010
2030
2040
2020
2060
2010
2030
2040
2020
2050
2060
17,798
17,798
20,808
20,808
24,478
24,478
28,950
28,950
34,403
34,403
8,979
8,979
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Reuse from Garland (through Forney)
Total Supply
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
8,979
5,979
14,798
17,808
21,478
25,950
31,403
0
1,021
1,021
1,021
1,021
1,021
Purchase water from Forney (NTMWD)
TRA reuse
Reuse from Garland (through Forney)
0
0
5,979
5,979
1,214
7,500
12,600
21,314
2,358
7,500
12,600
22,458
3,011
7,500
12,600
23,111
4,826
15,000
12,600
32,426
5,772
15,000
12,600
33,372
0
0
0
0
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
1,121
1,000
6,621
8,742
0
6,516
6,476
1,969
0
7,721
7,721
2020
1,133
2050
1,133
2060
1,133
2010
1,400
2020
1,700
7,721
7,721
2030
2040
2,000
2,000
7,721
2010
1,133
4,650
1,633
2030
2040
1,133
1,133
2050
2,000
2060
2,000
181
181
178
178
174
174
170
170
168
168
168
168
224
224
267
267
307
307
300
300
296
296
296
296
194
194
155
155
129
129
108
108
90
90
77
77
222
222
245
245
239
239
202
202
175
175
152
152
0
23
45
62
78
91
2
22
68
98
121
144
6
30
36
12
53
65
8
89
97
8
77
85
9
120
129
9
114
123
2
0
2
9
13
22
14
54
68
15
83
98
16
106
122
17
127
144
49
42
51
32
0
0
0
2020
3,254
2050
5,199
2060
6,149
2010
3,074
2020
3,729
0
0
2030
2040
4,401
5,142
0
2010
2,708
52
23
2030
2040
3,814
4,433
2050
6,058
2060
7,194
591
591
699
699
807
807
933
933
1,089
1,089
1,288
1,288
671
671
801
801
931
931
1,083
1,083
1,269
1,269
1,507
1,507
635
635
609
609
596
596
592
592
586
586
588
588
665
665
735
735
726
726
731
731
750
750
776
776
0
90
211
341
503
700
6
66
205
352
519
731
TRWD Sources
Total Supply
Mabank (Henderson & Kaufman Counties)
Municipal Demand
TRWD Sources
Total Supply
Water Treatment Plant Expansions
Water treatment plant expansion (1 MGD) a
0
139
183
42
0
97
D
Kemp
Municipal Demand
T
8,979
8,979
Kemp
Mabank (Henderson and Kaufman Counties)
2050
R
AF
Kaufman County ‐ Steam Electric Power
124
2
207
151
3
413
182
3
425
222
4
771
273
4
873
6
0
0
69
2
0
169
3
32
206
4
142
253
4
262
313
5
413
0
333
0
567
0
610
0
997
0
1,150
560
6
560
71
560
205
560
352
560
519
560
731
243
356
269
494
450
0
5
0
0
0
0
Table A2‐1
2010
SRA Sources
Total Supply
Water Treatment Expansions
Water treatment plant expansion (2 mgd) a
Mesquite (Kaufman County Only)
Mesquite Mesquite
(Kaufman County Only)
Municipal Demand
2020
2030
2040
421
502
277
348
36
36
45
45
54
54
71
71
75
75
0
2060
2010
2020
2030
2040
421
502
602
726
277
348
65
65
78
78
94
94
36
36
45
45
54
54
80
80
86
86
91
91
95
95
71
71
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
35
30
26
21
2006
Plan Projections
2030
2040
4
6
13
2010
2020
2
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
928
2020
1,141
124
124
148
148
172
172
NTMWD Sources (through Kaufman)
Total Supply
87
87
80
80
37
68
Purchase water from Kaufman (from NTMWD)
2
63
65
28
2060
602
726
65
65
78
78
94
94
80
80
86
86
91
91
95
95
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
4
6
0
1,120
0
1,120
2
1,120
3
1,120
3
1,120
4
1,120
6
1
36
32
28
25
2011
Plan Projections
2030
2040
4
6
17
6
2060
2010
2020
8
10
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
2050
2060
8
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2030
2040
1,360
1,602
0
0
0
0
0
0
2050
1,902
2060
2,274
928
2020
1,141
0
0
2030
2040
1,360
1,602
2050
1,902
2060
2,274
201
201
236
236
283
283
124
124
148
148
172
172
201
201
236
236
283
283
80
80
82
82
88
88
96
96
122
122
120
120
122
122
128
128
136
136
151
151
92
119
148
187
2
28
50
73
100
132
7
100
107
9
123
132
12
120
132
15
197
212
19
231
250
10
0
10
20
7
27
29
21
50
37
36
73
47
54
101
58
74
132
39
40
13
64
63
8
0
0
0
0
0
D
2010
2050
2050
0
Oak Grove
Oak Grove
Oak Grove
Municipal Demand
2050
T
MacBee SUD (Kaufman County Only)
Municipal Demand
R
AF
MacBee SUD (Kaufman County Only)
2010
Table A2‐1
Post Oak Bend City
2020
2060
2010
2030
2040
1,754
2,862
659
85
85
138
138
226
226
83
83
112
112
2
NTMWD supplies (through Rose Hill SUD)
NTMWD supplies (through Rose Hill SUD)
Total Supply
2050
Not a WUG in the 2006 Plan
Scurry
2010
2020
NTMWD supplies (through Gastonia‐Scurry SUD)
Total Supply
2060
369
369
602
602
982
982
160
160
234
234
346
346
524
524
26
66
135
256
458
2
0
2
6
20
26
12
55
67
20
114
134
35
221
256
61
397
458
0
0
0
0
2030
2040
918
1,068
0
0
2050
1,242
2060
1,445
2010
2020
678
789
87
87
102
102
118
118
138
138
160
160
186
186
83
83
83
83
88
88
92
92
99
99
19
35
50
68
87
2
0
2
4
15
19
6
29
35
8
43
51
9
59
68
11
75
86
0
0
0
0
2030
2040
37
48
0
0
85
85
Not a WUG in the 2006 Plan
2
NTMWD supplies (through Gastonia‐Scurry SUD)
Seagoville Seagoville
Municipal Demand (Kaufman County Only)
Customer Demand (Kaufman and Dallas County)
2050
2060
7,623
2010
2020
17
27
R
AF
Scurry
Municipal Demand
2030
2040
2050
4,671
2030
2040
37
48
2050
2060
62
2010
79
3
4
5
7
9
11
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3
4
5
7
9
11
3
3
3
3
0
1
Purchase water from DWU
0
0
0
0
2020
17
27
3
744
747
4
1,044
1,048
5
1,260
1,265
2050
2060
62
79
7
1,498
1,505
9
1,805
1,814
11
2,197
2,208
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
989
989
1,109
1,109
1,259
1,259
1,195
1,195
1,533
1,533
1,628
1,628
2
3
5
7
0
0
6
310
281
580
D
DWU Sources
Total Supply
T
2010
2030
2040
2020
1,075
Post Oak Bend City
Municipal Demand
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
3
0
5
5
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
310
310
0
281
281
1
579
580
0
0
0
0
0
242
61
0
0
0
0
Table A2‐1
Talty
2030
2040
5,256
6,834
2020
3,832
863
863
1,348
1,348
1,849
1,849
NTMWD Sources
Total Supply
587
587
719
719
276
Purchase water from Forney (from NTMWD)
Municipal Demand
2060
11,211
2010
1,800
2020
3,832
2,404
2,404
3,091
3,091
3,943
3,943
813
813
1,717
1,717
2,337
2,337
846
846
973
973
1,139
1,139
1,323
1,323
808
808
1,397
1,397
629
1,003
1,431
1,952
2,620
5
24
1
441
466
59
5
905
969
96
8
1,321
1,425
145
10
1,427
1,582
213
13
2,578
2,804
304
16
3,217
3,537
190
340
852
2010
15,196
2020
18,642
422
151
2030
2040
21,664
23,650
2050
25,599
Terrell
Terrell
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
2030
2040
5,256
6,834
2050
8,788
2050
8,788
2060
11,211
3,024
3,024
3,878
3,878
4,948
4,948
1,652
1,652
1,921
1,921
2,227
2,227
2,641
2,641
320
685
1,103
1,651
2,307
5
0
0
5
60
6
253
319
104
9
571
685
160
12
931
1,103
238
16
1,397
1,651
345
20
1,942
2,307
917
0
0
0
0
2060
28,445
2010
16,185
2020
45,005
0
0
2030
2040
65,000
85,000
2050
97,000
2060
110,000
3,575
4,302
4,926
5,325
5,735
6,372
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,575
4,302
4,926
5,325
5,735
6,372
3,807
2,184
5,991
Lake Terrell
NTMWD Sources
Tawakoni (SRA)
Total Supply
1,490
0
1,981
3,471
1,570
0
2,086
3,656
1,621
0
2,155
3,776
1,644
0
2,186
3,830
1,656
0
2,201
3,857
1,671
0
2,222
3,893
5,690
10,385
2,693
13,078
14,780
3,215
17,995
19,138
3,606
22,744
No longer a current supply
12,548
14,290
No longer a current supply
10,443
12,548
14,290
10,443
R
AF
5,690
T
2010
2,447
Talty
21,731
4,138
25,869
24,643
4,862
29,505
14,719
15,620
14,719
15,620
1,594
2,216
2,771
3,139
3,534
4,150
301
2,635
5,447
8,453
11,150
13,885
100
28
3,727
3,855
218
78
4,588
4,884
292
142
5,077
5,511
361
181
4,333
4,875
438
195
6,356
6,989
539
214
6,842
7,595
53
0
248
301
628
20
1,987
2,636
1,168
61
4,218
5,447
1,668
102
6,683
8,453
2,089
125
8,936
11,150
2,593
143
11,150
13,885
3,751
4,238
5,111
5,116
0
0
0
2020
28,602
2050
52,374
2060
63,933
2010
17,100
2020
22,567
0
0
2030
2040
28,089
34,021
0
2010
21,673
4,361
3,380
2030
2040
35,601
43,119
2050
41,323
2060
50,443
1,724
593
2,317
2,604
674
3,278
3,335
754
4,089
4,002
836
4,838
4,860
940
5,800
5,933
1,080
7,013
Municipal Demand
Customer Demand
TRWD Sources
Total Supply
Water Treatment Expansions Water treatment plant expansion (5 mgd) a
Water treatment plant expansion (5 mgd)
a
2,184
3,300
4,227
5,072
6,160
7,520
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,184
3,300
4,227
5,072
6,160
7,520
1,355
1,355
D
West Cedar Creek West Cedar Creek MUD MUD (Kaufman and (Kaufman and Henderson Counties)
Henderson Counties) Projected Population
1,429
1,429
1,461
1,461
1,477
1,477
1,492
1,492
1,504
1,504
2,273
2,273
2,332
2,332
2,302
2,302
2,278
2,278
2,269
2,269
2,270
2,270
1,871
2,766
3,595
4,668
6,016
44
946
1,787
2,560
3,531
4,743
171
227
292
375
483
1,350
2,425
3,825
4,049
6,181
7,024
31
13
0
0
0
1,391
0
0
2,596
0
0
4,052
0
0
4,341
0
0
6,556
0
0
7,507
0
136
20
0
789
0
347
38
0
3,146
2,800
443
46
0
4,254
2,800
45
945
212
272
26
31
0
0
1,549
2,257
2,800
2,800
No longer a WMS
1,787
2,560
3,530
4,743
562
725
1,286
746
1,888
1,491
1
0
0
0
829
41
Water treatment plant amounts are not included in the totals to avoid double counting
0
0
T
AF
APPENDIX 3 D
R
COST ESTIMATES Table A3‐1
Costs Estimates for Supplemental Wells to Maintain Current Groundwater Production Capacity
Water User Group
Kaufman
Kaufman
Kaufman
Kaufman
Kaufman
Aquifer
Nacatoch
Trinity
Nacatoch
Woodbine
Nacatoch
# Wells in 2009
1
1
1
1
1
Well Capacity (gpm)
150
150
150
150
150
Well Depth (ft)
Installation Schedule
2010
2020
500
500
500
2,400
500
2030
2040
Construction Costs (including engineering, contingencies, and permitting)
2050
2060
1
1
1
1
1
D
R
AF
T
County
2011 Region C Water Plan
2010
$0
2020
$646,935
$646,935
$646,935
$1,659,198
$646,935
2030
2040
$0
2050
$0
2060
$0
$0
Table A3‐2
Water Treatment Plant Expansions
Water User Group
Construction Time (Months)
WTP expansion of 1 MGD
WTP expansion of 2 MGD WTP expansion of 5 MGD
18
18
18
Capital Costs (including engineering, contingencies & interest)
2010
2020
2030
$4,156,000
$7,381,000
$14,548,000
D
R
AF
T
Mabank
MacBee SUD
West Cedar Creek MUD
Water Management Strategy
2040
2050
2060
Table A3‐3
Ables Springs WSC ‐ Connection to NTMWD Tawakoni Plant
Ables Springs WSC
1,614 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline ‐ 12"
Right of Way Easements (ROW)
Pipeline ‐ 8"
Upsize existing 4" pipeline
Replace existing 8" pipeline
Engineering and Contingencies (30%)
Subtotal of Pipeline
Permitting and Mitigation
Unit
12 in.
20 ft.
8 in.
15 ft.
8 in.
8 in.
5,000
5,000
5,900
5,900
2,500
5,000
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
30 HP
0.2 MG
R
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Quantity
2
1
LS
LS
AF
Pump Station(s)
Booster Pump Stations
Ground Storage Tank
Subtotal of Pump Station(s)
Size
D
Interest During Construction (12 months)
TOTAL COST
Unit Price
Cost
$52
$12
$34
$9
$34
$34
$258,000
$60,000
$203,000
$53,000
$86,000
$172,000
$250,000
$1,082,000
$601,800
$246,750
$1,203,600
$246,750
$508,000
$1,958,350
T
Owner:
Amount:
$26,000
$ ,
,
$3,066,350
$128,000
$3,194,350
ANNUAL COSTS
Debt Service (6% for 30 years)
Electricity ($0.09 kWh)
Operation & Maintenance
Total Annual Costs
$232,000
$45,000
$53,000
$330,000
UNIT COSTS (Until Amortized)
Per Acre‐Foot of treated water
Per 1,000 Gallons
$204
$0.63
UNIT COSTS (After Amortization)
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
$61
$0.19
Table A3‐3, Continued
Phase II
Upsize existing infrastructure for a total of 1,914 Ac‐Ft/Yr
Amount:
1,914 Ac‐Ft/Yr
Pump Station
Booster Pump Station
Ground Storage Tank
Size
Quantity
Unit
18 in.
5,000
LF
$77
$387,000
$116,000
$503,000
10 HP
0.2 MG
1
1
LS
LS
$538,000
$246,750
$538,000
$246,750
$275,000
$1,059,750
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
AF
TOTAL COST
D
R
ANNUAL COSTS
Total Annual Costs
Unit Price
T
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
Cost
$14,000
$1,576,750
$66,000
$1,642,750
$119,000
$22,000
$29,000
$170,000
Per 1,000 Gallons
$89
$0.27
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
$27
$0.08
Table A3‐4
Upsizing of College Mound WSC line to Terrell
College Mound WSC
1,400 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Quantity
Unit
12 in.
18,480
LF
$52
$954,000
$286,000
$1,240,000
140 HP
1
LS
$ 892,400
$892,400
$312,000
$1,204,400
AF
Pump Station(s)
Size
TOTAL COST
R
D
ANNUAL COSTS
Treated Water ($0.70 per 1,000 gallons)
Total Annual Costs
UNIT COSTS
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
Unit Price
T
Owner:
Amount:
Cost
$22,000
$2,466,400
$103,000
$2,569,400
$187,000
$26,000
$319,000
$38,000
$570,000
$407
$1.25
Table A3‐5
Pipeline from Crandall to Seagoville (DWU)
Crandall
2,400 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
12 in.
20 ft.
700 HP
R
TOTAL COST
D
ANNUAL COSTS
Total Annual Costs
UNIT COSTS
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
Quantity
33,264
33,264
1
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
LF
LF
$52
$12
$1,716,000
$399,000
$635,000
$2,750,000
LS
$2,268,000
$2,268,000
$794,000
$3,062,000
AF
Pump Station(s)
Size
T
Owner:
Amount:
$48,000
$5,860,000
$244,000
$6,104,000
$443,000
$63,000
$89,000
$595,000
$248
$0.76
Table A3‐6
Forney Pump Station Capacity Increase in 2020 and 2040
Owner:
Amount:
Forney
33,600 Ac‐Ft/Yr
Total Capital Cost of Pump Station Expansions*
Size
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
15 MGD
2
LS
$5,000,000
ANNUAL COSTS (During Amortization
Total Annual Costs
T
AF
R
D
$10,000,000
$726,000
$300,000
$1,026,000
*Cost estimates provided by the City of Forney's engineer
Cost
Table A3‐7
City of Kaufman ‐ Pipeline to Connect to the NTMWD
Alternative WMS
Kaufman
3,000 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
16 in.
20 ft.
750 HP
0.7 MG
D
R
TOTAL COST
Quantity
155,760
155,760
1
1
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
LF
LF
$69
$12
$10,716,000
$1,869,000
$3,776,000
$16,361,000
LS
LS
$2,392,000
$516,400
$2,392,000
$516,400
$1,018,000
$3,926,400
AF
Pump Station(s)
Ground Storage Tank
Size
T
Owner:
Amount:
$163,000
$20,450,400
$852,000
$21,302,400
ANNUAL COSTS
Total Annual Costs
$1,548,000
$164,000
$216,000
$1,928,000
Per 1,000 Gallons
$643
$1.97
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
$127
$0.39
Table A3‐8
Terrell ‐ Second Point of Delivery Connection to NTMWD
Terrell
8,800 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline*
Pipeline Pipeline Boring and Casing
Boring and Casing
Size
30 in.
24 in.
38 in.
48 in.
Pump Station(s)*
Ground Storage Tank
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
21,000
16,500
200
300
1
1
Unit
Unit Price
$223
$179
$744
$1,091
$4,683,000
$2,953,500
$148,800
$327,300
$8,112,600
LS
LS
$3,596,000
$2,170,000
$3,596,000
$2,170,000
$5,766,000
D
R
TOTAL COST
Cost
LF
LF
LF
LF
AF
Contingency (25%)*
Engineering/Survey (10%)*
3.0 MG
Quantity
T
Owner:
Amount:
$3,469,650
$1,734,825
$19,083,075
$795,000
$19,878,075
ANNUAL COSTS
Total Annual Costs
$1,444,000
$114,000
$265,000
$1,823,000
Per 1,000 Gallons
$207
$0.64
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
$43
$0.13
* Values obtained from City of Terrell's Impact Fee Update : Water CIP Costs
Table A3‐9
Kaufman County Irrigation ‐ Pipeline with Reuse from NTMWD
Unknown
1,805 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
14 in.
20 ft.
50 HP
R
TOTAL COST
D
ANNUAL COSTS
Reuse Water ($0.25 per 1,000 gallons)
Total Annual Costs
UNIT COSTS
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
Quantity
31,680
31,680
2
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
LF
LF
$60
$12
$1,907,000
$380,000
$686,000
$2,973,000
Ea
$645,000
$1,290,000
$452,000
$1,742,000
AF
Pump Station(s)
Size
T
Owner:
Amount:
$38,000
$4,753,000
$198,000
$4,951,000
$360,000
$9,000
$147,108
$62,000
$578,108
$320
$0.98
Table A3‐10
Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Pipeline for Forney/Garland
Forney/Garland
6,621 Ac‐Ft/Yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pipeline
Pipeline
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
TOTAL COST
Unit
20 in.
20 ft.
26,400
26,400
LF
LF
$90
$12
$2,384,000
$317,000
$810,000
$3,511,000
1100 HP
1
LS
$ 3,001,200
$3,001,200
$1,050,000
$4,051,200
R
Interest During Construction
Quantity
AF
Pump Station(s)
Size
D
ANNUAL COSTS
Total Annual Costs
UNIT COSTS
Per Acre‐Foot
Per 1,000 Gallons
Unit Price
T
Owner:
Amount:
Cost
$65,000
$7,627,200
$318,000
$7,945,200
$577,000
$167,000
$539,612
$119,000
$1,402,612
$212
$0.65
Table A3‐11
Trinity River Authority Kaufman County Reuse for Steam Electric Power
Owner: Trinity River Authority
1,000 ac‐ft/yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Size
Transmission Facilities
Pipeline (Suburban)
Right of Way Easements (Suburban)
Pipeline Eng &Contingencies (30%)
Pipeline Subtotal
16 in. 79,200
20 ft. 79,200
80 HP
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COSTS
D
R
Debt Service (6%, 30 years)
Pipeline O&M (1%)
Pump O&M (2.5%)
Electricity
Purchase of Reuse Water
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Unit Price
Cost
LF
LF
$69 $ 5,449,000
$12 $ 950,000
$ 1,635,000
$ 8,034,000
LS
$933,076 $ 933,076
$ 327,000
$ 1,260,076
$ 77,000
(12 months)
$ 390,000
AF
1
Units
T
Pump Station
Pump Station Subtotal
Quantity
$ 9,761,076
Cost
$ 709,000
$ 65,000
$ 28,000
$ 17,000
$ 82,000
$ 901,000
Phase 1 Unit Costs (Pre‐Amortization)
Cost per acre‐ft
Cost per 1000 gallons
$ 901
$ 2.77
Phase 1 Unit Costs (After Amortization)
Cost per acre‐ft
$ 192
$ 0.59
Table A3‐12
Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Pipeline for Treated Water from Forney (NTMWD)
Owner: NTMWD
1,121 ac‐ft/yr
CAPITAL COSTS
Pump Station
Pump Station Subtotal
Size
Quantity
Units
8 in.
15 ft.
15,840
15,840
LF
LF
$34 $ 545,000
$9 $ 143,000
$ 164,000
$ 852,000
60 HP
1
LS
$664,400 $ 664,400
$ 233,000
$ 897,400
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL COSTS
AF
Unit Price
T
Transmission Facilities
Pipeline NTMWD
Right of Way Easements (Suburban)
Pipeline Eng &Contingencies (30%)
Pipeline Subtotal
(12 months)
Cost
$ 15,000
$ 74,000
$ 1,838,400
Cost
$ 134,000
$ 7,000
$ 20,000
$ 40,000
$ 91,362
$ 292,362
Phase 1 Unit Costs (Pre‐Amortization)
Cost per acre‐ft
$ 261
$ 0.80
Phase 1 Unit Costs (After Amortization)
Cost per acre‐ft
$ 141
$ 0.43
D
R
Debt Service (6%, 30 years)
Pipeline O&M (1%)
Pump O&M (2.5%)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
T
AF
APPENDIX 4 D
R
ASSUMPTIONS FOR COST ESTIMATES MEMORANDUM
TO:
File, NTD08492
FROM:
Simone Kiel, Rachel Ickert
SUBJECT:
Cost Estimating for SB1 Projects
DATE:
May 6, 2009
Introduction
1.
The evaluation of water management strategies requires developing cost estimates.
Guidance for cost estimates may be found in the TWDB’s “General Guidelines for Regional
Water Plan Development (2007-2012)”, Section 4.1.2. Costs are to be reported in
September 2008 dollars.
2.
All cost estimates should be checked by construction services and discipline leaders in the
appropriate areas, including Environmental Science.
3.
We have developed standard unit costs for installed pipe, pump stations and standard
treatment facilities developed from experience with similar projects throughout the State of
Texas. These estimates are to be used for all SB1 projects, unless more detailed costing is
available. All unit costs include the contractors’ mobilization, overhead and profit. The unit
costs do not include engineering, contingency, financial and legal services, costs for land
and rights-of-way, permits, environmental and archeological studies, or mitigation. The
costs for these items are determined separately in the cost tables.
4.
The information presented in this memorandum is intended to be ‘rule-of-thumb’ guidance.
Specific situations may call for alteration of the procedures and costs. Note that the costs in
this memorandum provide a planning level estimate for comparison purposes.
5.
It is important that when comparing alternatives that the cost estimates be similar and
include similar items. If an existing reliable cost estimate is available for a project it should
be used where appropriate. All cost estimates must meet the requirements set forth in the
TWDB’s “General Guidelines for Regional Water Plan Development (2007-2012)”.
6.
The cost estimates have two components:
•
Initial capital costs, including engineering and construction costs, and
T:\Task 4 - Water Mgmt Strategies\Costs\MEMO_Costs_Update_May09.doc
FREESE AND NICHOLS ! 4055 INTERNATIONAL PLAZA, SUITE 200 ! FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76109-4895
TELEPHONE: 817-735-7300 ! METRO: 817-429-1900 ! FAX: 817-735-7491
May 6, 2009
Page 2 of 13
•
Average annual costs, including annual operation and maintenance costs and debt
service.
TWDB does not require the consultant to determine life cycle or present value analysis. In
general, unless you are putting together a complex scenario with phased implementation or
are planning on using State funding, annual costs are sufficient for comparison purposes and
a life-cycle analysis is not required.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR CAPITAL COSTS:
Conveyance Systems
Standard pipeline costs used for these cost estimates are shown in Table 1. Pump station
costs are based on required Horsepower capacity and are listed in Table 2. The power capacity
is to be determined from the hydraulic analyses conducted from a planning level hydraulic grade
line evaluation (or detailed analysis if available). Pipelines and pump stations are to be sized for
peak pumping capacity.
•
Pump efficiency is assumed to be 75 percent.
•
Peaking factor of 2 times the average demand is to be used for strategies when the
water is pumped directly to a water treatment plant. (or historical peaking factor,
if available)
•
Peaking factor of 1.2 to 1.5 is to be used if there are additional water sources
and/or the water is transported to a terminal storage facility.
•
Ground storage is to be provided at each booster pump station along the
transmission line unless there is a more detailed design.
•
Ground storage tanks should provide sufficient storage for 2.5 to 4 hours of
pumping at peak capacity. Costs for ground storage are shown in Table 3.
Covered storage tanks are used for all strategies transporting treated water.
•
Costs for elevated storage tanks are shown in Table 4.
•
When a pipeline discharges into a reservoir or river, use project-specific discharge
structure costs if available. If no project-specific information is available, the
costs in Table 5 may be used to estimate discharge structure costs.
Water Treatment Plants
Water treatment plants are to be sized for peak day capacity (assume peaking factor of 2
if no specific data is available). Costs estimated for new conventional surface water treatment
facilities and expansions of existing facilities are listed in Table 6. These costs include all
facilities from the point where raw water enters the plant to the discharge side of the high service
pump station. Specifically, the following major components are included:
1.
2.
Rapid Mixing
Flocculation
May 6, 2009
Page 3 of 13
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sedimentation
Filtration
Finished water storage (i.e. clearwell)
Disinfection
Chemical Feed
Backwash Reclamation
Sludge Handling
High Service Pumping
Alternative: Can substitute solids contact clarification for items 2 & 3.
Costs for membrane treatment (direct filtration with no removal of dissolved salts) are analogous
to conventional treatment costs and include the following major components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pre-filtration (strainers)
Membrane Filtration (microfiltration, ultrafiltration, NOT reverse osmosis)
Finished Water Storage (i.e. clearwell)
Disinfection
Chemical Feed
Backwash Reclamation
High Service Pumping
Conventional treatment does not include advanced technologies, such as ozone or UV
treatment. All treatment plants are to be sized for finished water capacity.
•
For reverse osmosis plants for surface water, increase construction costs shown
on Table 6 by the amount shown on Table 7 for the appropriate size plant that will
be used for RO. If groundwater is the raw water source, use only the costs in
Table 7. These costs were based on actual cost estimates of similar facilities.
•
The amount of reject water generated by reverse osmosis treatment is dependent
upon the incoming quality of the raw water. Final treatment goals should be
between 600 and 800 mg/l of TDS. (This provides a safety margin in meeting
secondary treatment standards.) For reverse osmosis treatment of brackish water
(1,000 – 3,000 mg/l of TDS), assume that 20 percent of the raw water treated with
membranes is discharged as reject water, unless project-specific data is available.
For brackish water with TDS concentrations between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/l,
assume 30% reject water. Desalination of seawater or very high TDS water will
have a higher percent of reject water (50 to 60%). Minimal losses are assumed
for conventional treatment facilities.
•
Costs for ion exchange facilities are shown on Table 8. For these facilities it is
assumed that 2 to 3 percent of the raw water would be discharged as reject water.
May 6, 2009
Page 4 of 13
New Groundwater Wells
The costs for new water wells can be calculated using the formulas in Table 9. Costs
include well pumps and motors. It is assumed that the cost of irrigation wells is approximately
60% of the cost for municipal and industrial wells. Well depth will be estimated by county and
aquifer.
For expansion of existing well fields for municipal water providers, an additional
$160,000 per well for connection to the existing distribution system is assumed. Connection
costs and conveyance systems for new well fields will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
New Reservoirs
Site-specific cost estimates will be made for reservoir sites. The elements required for
reservoir sites are included in Table 10. Lake intake structures for new reservoirs will be
determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally, costs for construction of such facilities prior to
filling of the reservoir will be less than shown on Table 2.
Other Costs
•
Engineering, contingency, construction management, financial and legal costs are
to be estimated at 30 percent of construction cost for pipelines and 35 percent of
construction costs for pump stations, treatment facilities and reservoir projects.
(TWDB Guidelines)
•
Permitting and mitigation for transmission and treatment projects are to be
estimated at 1 percent of the total construction costs. For reservoirs, mitigation
and permitting costs are assumed equal to twice the land purchase cost, unless site
specific data is available.
•
Right-of-way costs for transmission lines are estimated per linear foot of ROW
using the unit costs in Table 11. If a small pipeline follows existing right-of-ways
(such as highways), no additional right-of-way cost is assumed. Large pipelines
will require ROW costs regardless of routing.
•
The costs for property acquisition for reservoirs are to be based on previous cost
estimates, if available. If no site specific data is available, land costs will be
based on the median rural land cost published by the Texas A&M Real Estate
Center website for 2007 or a minimum of $2,000 per acre, whichever is higher.
•
Costs for power supply to pump stations, water treatment plants, and well sites
have not been included in the unit costs. If a detailed study including power
supply costs is available for a particular project, the costs will be included
accordingly. The costs for power supply can be highly variable and depend on
the location of the project and available power supply in the area. Power supply
costs may or may not be a significant cost element of a project.
May 6, 2009
Page 5 of 13
Interest during construction is the total of interest accrued at the end of the construction period
using a 6 percent annual interest rate on total borrowed funds, less a 4 percent rate of return on
investment of unspent funds. This is calculated assuming that the total estimated project cost
(excluding interest during construction) would be drawn down at a constant rate per month
during the construction period. Factors were determined for different lengths of time for project
construction. These factors were used in cost estimating and are presented in Table 12.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANNUAL COSTS:
Annual costs are to be estimated using the following assumptions:
•
Debt service for all transmission and treatment facilities is to be annualized over
30 years, but not longer than the life of the project. Debt service for reservoirs is
to be annualized over 30 years. [Note: uniform amortization periods should be
used when evaluating similar projects for an entity.]
•
Annual interest rate for debt service is 6 percent.
•
Water purchase costs are to be based on wholesale rates reported by the selling
entity when possible. In lieu of known rates, a typical regional cost for treated
water and raw water will be developed.
•
Operation and Maintenance costs are to be calculated based on the construction
cost of the capital improvement. Engineering, permitting, etc. should not be
included as a basis for this calculation. However, a 20% allowance for
construction contingencies should be included for all O&M calculations. Per the
“General Guidelines for Regional Water Plan Development (2007-2012)”, O&M
should be calculated at:
o 1 percent of the construction costs for pipelines
o 1.5 percent for dams
o 2.5 percent of the construction costs for pump stations, storage tanks,
meters and SCADA systems
o Assume O&M costs for treatment facilities are included in the treatment
cost
•
Surface water treatment costs are estimated at $0.70 per 1,000 gallons for
conventional plants and $1.24 per 1,000 gallons of finished water for surface
water plants with reverse osmosis. Assume cost for treatment of groundwater by
reverse osmosis is $0.65 per 1,000 gallons. If only a portion of the water will be
treated with RO, apply costs proportionately. Treatment for nitrates is estimated
at $0.40 per 1,000 gallons. Treatment for groundwater (assuming chlorination
only) is estimated at $0.30 per 1,000 gallons. These costs include chemicals,
May 6, 2009
Page 6 of 13
labor and electricity and should be applied to amount of finished water receiving
the treatment.
•
Reject water disposal for treatment of brackish water is to be estimated on a caseby-case basis depending on disposal method. If no method is defined, assume a
cost of $0.35 per 1,000 gallons of reject water. [This value represents a moderate
cost estimate. If the water were returned to a brackish surface water source, the
costs would be negligible. If evaporation beds or deep well injection were used,
the costs could be much higher.]
•
Pumping costs are to be estimated using an electricity rate of $0.09 per Kilowatt
Hour. If local data is available, this can be used.
May 6, 2009
Page 7 of 13
Table 1
Pipeline Costs (does not include ROW)
Diameter
(Inches)
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
114
120
132
144
Notes:
Base Installed Rural Cost with Urban Cost with Assumed ROW
Cost
Appurtenances Appurtenances
Width
($/Foot)
24
31
39
47
55
62
70
82
105
132
167
196
244
288
332
401
469
538
616
704
782
870
977
1,075
1,212
1,466
1,730
($/Foot)
26
34
43
52
60
69
77
90
116
145
184
215
269
317
366
441
516
591
677
774
860
957
1,075
1,183
1,333
1,613
1,903
($/Foot)
39
52
65
77
90
103
116
135
174
215
276
323
374
435
495
591
697
799
914
1,045
1,161
1,290
1,451
1,596
1,801
2,177
2,569
(Feet)
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50
Assumed
Temporary
Easement
Width
(Feet)
50
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
70
70
70
70
70
70
80
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
a Costs are based on PVC class 150 pipe for the smaller long, rural pipelines.
b Appurtenances assumed to be 10% of installed pipe costs.
c For urban pipelines, costs were increased by 35% for cost with appurtenances. For pipes 42"and
smaller, additional costs were added.
d Adjust costs for obstacles (rock, forested areas) and easy conditions (soft soil in flat country).
May 6, 2009
Page 8 of 13
Table 2
Pump Station Costs for Transmission Systems
Horsepower
5
10
20
25
50
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Booster PS
Lake PS with Intake
Costs
Costs
$516,000
$538,000
$564,000
$591,000
$645,000
$742,000
$1,118,000
$1,484,000
$1,441,000
$1,914,000
$1,795,000
$2,387,000
$2,032,000
$2,698,000
$2,150,000
$2,860,000
$2,268,000
$3,021,000
$2,516,000
$3,343,000
$2,634,000
$3,505,000
$2,870,000
$3,817,000
$4,182,000
$5,562,000
$5,020,000
$6,677,000
$6,095,000
$8,107,000
$6,988,000
$9,293,000
$8,063,000
$10,723,000
$8,923,000
$11,867,000
$9,890,000
$13,154,000
$10,965,000
$14,583,000
$12,255,000
$16,299,000
$20,425,000
$27,165,000
$26,875,000
$35,744,000
$33,325,000
$44,322,000
$38,700,000
$51,471,000
$44,075,000
$58,620,000
$49,450,000
$65,769,000
Note:
1. Lake PS with intake costs include intake and pump station.
2. Adjust pump station costs upward if the pump station is designed to move large quantities of water at a low head
(i.e. low horsepower). See Rusty Gibson for appropriate factor.
3. Assumed multiple pump setup for all pump stations.
May 6, 2009
Page 9 of 13
Table 3
Ground Storage Tanks
Size (MG)
0.05
0.1
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
With Roof Without Roof
$125,000
$106,000
$183,000
$156,000
$438,000
$333,000
$634,000
$469,000
$796,000
$591,000
$957,000
$714,000
$1,086,000
$821,000
$1,215,000
$928,000
$1,355,000
$1,023,000
$1,505,000
$1,118,000
$1,720,000
$1,303,000
$2,075,000
$1,505,000
$2,446,000
$1,740,000
$2,822,000
$2,069,000
$3,746,000
$2,752,000
$4,671,000
$3,419,000
$5,595,000
$4,085,000
Note: Costs assume steel tanks smaller than 1 MG, concrete tanks 1 MG and larger.
Table 4
Elevated Storage Tanks
Size (MG)
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cost
$1,333,000
$1,537,000
$1,742,000
$2,301,000
$2,870,000
$3,376,000
May 6, 2009
Page 10 of 13
Table 5
Discharge Structures
Capacity (MGD)
0.5
1
2
5
10
60
80
120
Cost
$32,000
$33,000
$37,000
$43,000
$54,000
$140,000
$160,000
$240,000
Table 6
Conventional Water Treatment Plant Costs
Plant Capacity
(MGD)
1
3
7
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
New Conventional
Conventional
Plants
Plant Expansions
$5,800,000
$2,900,000
$10,600,000
$7,400,000
$17,500,000
$12,900,000
$22,400,000
$16,000,000
$29,100,000
$20,900,000
$35,400,000
$26,100,000
$47,600,000
$35,700,000
$60,000,000
$45,500,000
$72,600,000
$54,400,000
$84,900,000
$63,500,000
$96,600,000
$72,200,000
$107,900,000
$81,400,000
$118,500,000
$90,500,000
$130,200,000
$100,200,000
Note: Plant is sized for finished peak day capacity.
May 6, 2009
Page 11 of 13
Table 7
Additional Cost for Reverse Osmosis Treatment
Plant
Capacity
(MGD)
0.5
1
3
7
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
Reverse Osmosis
Facilities Cost
$1,300,000
$1,600,000
$3,200,000
$7,200,000
$9,800,000
$14,200,000
$18,300,000
$25,500,000
$31,400,000
$36,600,000
$40,700,000
Note: Plant is sized for finished water capacity.
Table 8
Groundwater Nitrate Treatment
Treatment Capacity
(MGD)
0.25
1.0
3.0
Ion Exchange
Plant Cost
$800,000
$1,700,000
$3,900,000
Note: Plant is sized for finished water capacity.
Table 9
Cost Elements for Water Wells
Well
Diameter
(inches)
6
8
10
12
15
Typical
Production
Range (gpm)
50-100
100-250
250-400
400-500
500-600
Estimated Cost per LF
a=1 for PWS/Industrial or
0.6 for Irrigation
$80,000 + $125a
$80,000 + $175a
$85,000 + $200a
$85,000 + $250a
$90,000 + $300a
May 6, 2009
Page 12 of 13
Table 10
Cost Elements for Reservoir Sites
Capital Costs
Embankment
Spillway
Outlet works
Site work
Land
Administrative facilities
Supplemental pumping facilities
Flood protection
Studies and Permitting
Environmental and archeological studies
Permitting
Terrestrial mitigation tracts
Engineering and contingencies
Construction management
Table 11
Pipeline Easement Costs
Pipeline
Diameter
(inches)
6 to 8
10 to 36
42 to 72
78 to 108
114 to 144
Cost per Linear Foot
Rural County
$3.00
$5.00
$7.00
$9.00
$12.00
Suburban
County
$9.00
$12.00
$17.00
$23.00
$29.00
Urban
County
$21.00
$28.00
$41.00
$55.00
$69.00
Highly
Urbanized Area
Evaluate on a
case-by-case
basis
Note: Suburban County is defined as a county immediately bordering the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.
Table 12
Factors for Interest During Construction
Construction Period
6 months
12 months
18 months
24 months
36 month construction
Factor
0.02167
0.04167
0.06167
0.08167
0.12167
May 6, 2009
Page 13 of 13
Figure 1
Pipe Costs
Cost per Linear Foot
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pipe Diameter (Inches)
Rural Pipe
Urban Pipe
120
140
160
T
AF
APPENDIX 5 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – D
R
STEAM ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND PROJECTIONS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Region C Water Planning Group
Steam Electric Power Demand Projections
PROJECT:
0312-041-01
DATE:
August 31, 2009
PREPARED FOR:
Region C Water Planning Group
PREPARED BY:
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
Background
T
The 2006 Region C Plan (hereafter referred to as the 2006 Plan) included projections for
municipal demands, as well as non-municipal demands such as irrigation, livestock,
AF
manufacturing, mining, and steam-electric power. As part of the 2011 update to the Region C
Water Plan, steam electric power demands were reviewed to determine if changes should be
made to the future projections. In the 2006 Plan, projections of the steam electric power demand
were based on the analysis of historical trends and Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
R
draft projections. The power industry reports annual water consumption associated with steam
electric power as part of the Texas Water Development Board’s Survey of Ground and Surface
D
Water Use.
In 2003, the TWDB in conjunction with a research project team consisting of industry
representatives developed “Power Generation Water Use in Texas for the Years 2000 Through
2060” (hereafter referred to as the 2003 Report). The objective and purpose of this research
project was to develop improved methodologies for projecting water demands by the steam
electric generation water use sector for a 50 year planning horizon, as well as develop actual
projections for this sector on a regional and county specific basis throughout the state of Texas.
A summary of the methodology utilized in this project is included below. A more detailed
outline of the methodology used in the 2003 Report is included in Attachment A.
•
An electric demand growth factor was determined from the projections of the Public
Utility Commission of Texas. This factor was extrapolated over a 50-year planning
period and resulted in a 2% statewide annual electric demand growth rate.
1
F:\projects\0312\041-01\Wrk\Chapter 2 - Population and Demand\Steam Electric Power\SEPMemo_final.docx
DRAFT
•
Consumptive water use for various generating and cooling technologies was determined
and applied to 214 generating plants in Texas.
•
The base year (2000) water demand for each plant was calculated by taking actual
generation by fuel type and applying water use factors. Projections for 2010-2060 were
calculated on unit by unit basis.
•
The 2010 and 2020 water demand for coal fired, nuclear, and conventional gas was based
on 2000 demand adjusted by a correction factor for linear trending. The 2030 – 2060
factors were increased at the same rate despite fuel/generation types.
The projections and methodology of the 2003 Report were utilized during the development of the
steam electric power consumption projections included in the 2006 Plan. In cases where
T
historical data appeared to be questionable, basic data was sought to confirm or correct
D
R
Plan is included in Table 1.
AF
information. A summary of the stream electric power consumption projections from the 2006
2
F:\projects\0312\041-01\Wrk\Chapter 2 - Population and Demand\Steam Electric Power\SEPMemo_r03.docx
DRAFT
Table 1. 2006 Region C Steam Electric Power Water Consumption Projections
2010
2020
Year
2030
2040
2050
2060
1,901
1,581
1,260
1,473
1,733
2,050
2,436
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,749
12,264
10,842
11,918
13,230
14,829
16,778
631
524
418
489
575
680
808
744
14,237
20,379
23,825
28,027
33,148
39,391
5,638
5,152
4,748
5,184
5,717
6,366
7,157
13,004
18,210
20,524
0
0
0
2,387
28,234
33,398
39,692
0
0
0
0
2,308
2,376
2,458
2,559
2,681
0
3,674
4,296
5,053
5,977
7,102
8,979
17,798
20,808
24,478
28,950
34,403
2,465
0
0
AF
23,999
R
T
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
30
4,617
5,397
6,349
7,509
8,923
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,903
4,158
3,419
4,168
5,081
6,194
7,550
0
3,949
5,653
6,609
7,774
9,195
10,927
43,071
71,471
95,640
110,542
128,709
150,855
177,848
D
County
Collin
County
Cooke
County
Dallas
County
Denton
County
Ellis
County
Fannin
County
Freestone
County
Grayson
County
Henderson
County
Jack
County
Kaufman
County
Navarro
County
Parker
County
Rockwall
County
Tarrant
County
Wise
County
Region C
Total
3
DRAFT
Recent Studies
In 2008, the TWDB in conjunction with the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) developed
“Water Demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas” (hereafter referred to as the BEG
Report). The BEG Report stated that future water demand in Texas for the electric generation
sector depends on: the rate of economic growth and resultant future demand for electric power;
the future mix of generation capacity (natural gas combined cycle, pulverized coal, advanced
coal, nuclear etc.); whether or not a price is put on carbon dioxide emissions (for mitigation of
global warming) such that some power plants have incentive to employ carbon capture and
storage technologies; and the extent and success of future efficiency programs.
T
Considering the difficulties associated with projecting future water demand in the steam electric
power industry, the BEG Report attempted to project electric power demand and associated
AF
water needs in Texas over the next fifty years using the scenarios described in Table 2. As noted
in Figure 1, the base year in the BEG Report is assumed to be the year 2006. The BEG Report
compiled water consumption data from the TCEQ for 2006 and the TWDB for 2001-2005 (2006
was not available at the publish date of the BEG Report). A summary of the methodology
developed in the BEG Report is included in Figure 1. A more detailed outline of the
R
methodology used in the BEG Report is included in Attachment A.
D
Table 2. Scenarios for Electricity Generation in Texas
Scenario
Annual
Electric Sales
Growth*
Natural
Gas
Prices
Carbon Price
causes Carbon
Capture to be
implemented
1L
1BAU
2L
2BAU
3L
3BAU
4L
4BAU
Low
BAU
Low
BAU
Low
BAU
Low
BAU
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
* L = Low Usage Scenario, BAU = “Business as Usual” Usage Scenario
4
DRAFT
Figure 1. Water Consumption for Steam-Electric:
Projection Methodology from BEG Report
Calculate “Today’s” Water
(2006)
•
•
TCEQ data for surface water
consumption
o
2001 – 2006 data (use
2006 values if possible)
TWDB data for groundwater
consumption
o
2001 – 2005 data
EIA data for net electricity
generation (EIA-920/906)
o
2001 – 2006 Data (use
values to match water
data)
2006 Results
Near term plant additions
PUCT data
ERCOT data
TCEQ data
Estimate:
•
Capacity factor by power plant
(generation unit) type
•
Typical values for “gal/kWh” for
new plants
Calculate:
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator,
cooling combination
•
Electricity generated in each
county per
o
Fuel type
•
“gal/kWh” per county per fuel
type
o
Use of Matlab
computer code to take
Excel input and then
output to Excel
Given:
•
Assume:
•
•
•
Projection for annual electricity
generation, per fuel and
generation type, for Texas overall
County specific information (from
Scenario 2015 1BAU) remains
constant
% of fuel type
“gal/kWh” per fuel type
Calculate:
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator,
cooling combination
AF
Calculate:
•
”gal/kWh” for power plant facilities
o
Use greater of 2006
value or average over
2001-2006 time span
o
Estimate for facilities
with insufficient data
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator, cooling
combination
•
Electricity generated in each county
per
o
Fuel type
Given:
•
•
•
•
•
Long Term Projection
(2020-2060)
T
Given:
•
Near Term Projection
(2007-2015)
D
R
* The method for projecting future water demand for electricity generation starts with 2006 calculations (“today”), moves to a near term
projection (through 2015), and then uses the distribution of water demand from 2015 to project into the long term future through 2060.
5
DRAFT
Projection Discrepancies
A February 2009 memorandum from the TWDB to Jim Parks, Region C Water Planning Group
Chair, entitled “Steam-Electric Water Demand Projections For The 2007-2012 Planning Cycle”
provides the following analysis of the BEG Report:
“At the state level, BEG projections are based on a sound methodology; and although
lower in the near-term, they do not differ substantially from projections used in the 2007
State Water Plan over the planning horizon. However, when allocating projected energy
generation at the local and regional level, the BEG used assumptions that differ from
previous TWDB studies resulting in large deviations from the 2007 State Water Plan.
Some of these deviations appear valid; however, some are based on assumptions that do
T
not appear realistic. “
AF
Accordingly, the memorandum solicits an opinion from each planning group regarding steam
electric projections for the 2007-2012 planning cycle. The memorandum requests that Region C
determine whether they wish to plan for steam electric demands based on the 2006 Plan
projections or the projections provided as Scenario 2L of the BEG Report. Attachment C
D
Report.
R
provides a graphical representation of the discrepancies between the 2006 Plan and the BEG
6
DRAFT
Region C Methodology
In response to the request from the TWDB memorandum, an analysis of available projections
and data was initiated by the Region C Planning Group. After reviewing the background usage
data in Region C from the 2003 Report and the BEG Report, data from the TCEQ, TWDB, and
several direct reuse providers was requested. In order to gain an accurate comparison of
historical consumption between all data sources, the year 2006 was chosen for comparison. 2006
was the only year in which historical usage was available for all data sources.
As noted in Table 3, the historical usage data from all sources is significantly less than the 2006
Plan projections for the year 2006. No one source appears to fully account for all steam electric
T
power plants in Region C. The TCEQ historical data accounts for steam electric power water
consumption from steam electric power plants with water rights. The TWDB historical data
AF
provides usage on a county wide level, making it difficult to interpret individual plant
contributions. The BEG historical data for 2006 attempted to reconcile the TWDB and TCEQ
data, but used estimates for plants not accounted for in either data set. For this reason, an attempt
was made in this study to collect data on an individual plant basis for the Year 2006 (see “Best
Available Data for 2006” column). The “Best Available Data for 2006” column in Table 3
•
R
represents the data received from the TCEQ with several exceptions:
Usage numbers for Spencer (Denton County), FPLE (Kaufman County), and Tractebel
D
(Ellis County) were collected from the reuse provider. The TWDB data does also not
appear to account for steam electric power consumption that is satisfied by reuse.
•
Usage numbers for Newman, Olinger, Jack, and Freestone were taken from the BEG
estimates (no TCEQ data was available).
7
DRAFT
Table 3. Base Year Comparisons
AF
T
Best Available
2006 Plan
Data for 2006
2006 BEG
2006 TWDB
Projections
County
(acre-feet/year)*
(acre-feet/year)
(acre-feet/year)
(acre-feet/year)
Collin
531
531
525
1,709
Cooke
0
0
0
0
Dallas
1,675
1,598
1,443
12,858
Denton
644
395
639
567
Ellis
706
975
0
8,840
Fannin
281
325
361
5,346
Freestone
12,173
10,168
9,936
16,128
Grayson
0
0
0
0
Henderson
57
117
25
2,418
Jack
2,162
2,162
0
0
Kaufman
8,018
5,814
0
5,387
Navarro
0
0
0
0
Parker
0
3
9
32
Rockwall
0
0
0
0
Tarrant
1,300
1,053
3,054
4,456
Wise
2,100
2,205
0
2,369
TOTAL
29,646
25,346
15,992
60,111
*Newman (Dallas County), Olinger (Collin County), Jack, and Freestone taken from BEG report - no TCEQ data.
Spencer (Denton County), FPLE (Kaufman County), and Tractebel (Ellis County) were collected from the reuse
provider.
R
Senate Bill 1 requires planning efforts to account for the “drought of record” conditions, which
typically correspond to below normal rainfall conditions. In some cases this may correspond to a
year of high electric consumption. However, as alluded to in the BEG report, many factors,
D
including natural gas prices may affect steam electric power water consumption. The year 2000,
which was the base year in the 2003 Report, was representative of a “worst case scenario” year.
The year 2000 was both the driest year for the majority of the regions in the state and a year with
low natural gas prices. The BEG Report’s goal was to use only 2006 TCEQ data because they
are the latest available, and 2006 was considered a dry year and thus a good baseline or “worse
case scenario” for estimating water diversions for power plants. The BEG Report considered
natural gas prices in its scenarios, but not when selecting a base year.
The closing and mothballing of existing plants, the emergence of increased air quality
regulations in the early 2000s, and rising natural gas prices likely decreased stream electric
power water consumption in Region C from 2000-2006. For the 2011 Planning Cycle, the use of
8
DRAFT
the Year 2000 for a base year is not appropriate for these reasons. The use of the Year 2006 is
also not entirely appropriate based on the high natural gas prices. The “Best Available Data for
2006” accounts for more consumption than both the BEG and TWDB collected data for 2006,
but is still over 30,000 acre-feet/year less than the 2006 Plan projections. Considering the
climatic similarities between the Years 2000 and 2006, it is unlikely that a decrease in natural
gas prices would have doubled the stream electric water consumption in 2006. With this
information in mind, this study does not attempt to develop projections from a base year, but to
modify existing projections to account for the observed 2006 data being roughly half of what
was originally projected in the 2006 Plan.
T
An outline of the data collection procedure and methodology for the 2011 Region C Plan is
included in Attachment B. The 2011 Region C Plan methodology for steam electric power
AF
demands includes the comparison of the 2006 Plan and BEG Report projections with
consideration to both near term and long term demands. In addition to modifying the existing
projections to reflect less usage than anticipated in 2006, this study also considers the
construction of new plants and the mothballing of existing plants. In the near term the “mothballing” of the Luminant Northlake plant was considered in the 2010 projections for Dallas
R
County. In addition, the construction of Waxahachie LS Power (Fannin County), Ellis Power
(Navarro County), Babcock and Brown (Navarro County), and Corsicana (intake and plant
D
located in Freestone County) Plants were considered in the 2020 projections. Construction of the
Panda Plant (Grayson County) was considered in the 2010 projections. The estimated water
consumption for these plants and the BEG and 2006 Plan projections by county are included in
Table 4. As noted in this table, demand projections for new plants in Grayson and Navarro
counties are not included in either the 2006 Plan or the BEG projections.
9
DRAFT
Table 4. Comparison of Near Term Consumptions Changes and Projections
County
Estimated Near Term Water
Consumption Changes* in
Region C
2010
Demand
2020 Demand
(acre(acre-feet/year)
feet/year)
-80
+4,480
+6,726
+4,480
+5,600
+13,440
2010 Projections (acrefeet/year)
BEG
2006 Plan
BEG
4,290
1,169
0
7,636
0
0
2006 Plan
10,842
4,748
0
20,524
0
0
T
Dallas
3,367
12,264
Fannin
1,261
5,152
Fannin/Grayson**
0
0
Freestone
9,323
18,210
Grayson
0
0
Navarro
0
0
OVERALL
REGION C
+5,520
+29,086
* Due to the construction of new plants and the mothballing of existing plants.
2020 Projections (acrefeet/year)
Proposed Projections
AF
**The construction of a new plant in this area would require supply from both counties.
After considering which projection best matched both the near term (through 2020) and long
term demands (through 2060) for each county, a decision was made to select one of the
following:
R
Preferred option: If the near term and long term projections for either the BEG or 2006
Plan are reasonable, choose either projection for a county through the duration of the
projections (2010-2060).
Hybrid option: If the near term projection for either the BEG Report or 2006 Plan is
reasonable, but the long term projection is not, choose the 2010 projection that is most
reasonable and modify the most appropriate projection pattern by adding or deducting the
difference from each decade.
D
•
The 2006 Plan projections were chosen in the case of Kaufman County in the near term. The
BEG Report projections were in chosen in the case of Collin, Dallas, Ellis, Henderson, Parker,
Tarrant, and Wise counties in the near term. A hybrid projection was developed for all other
counties throughout the planning period in the near term. The BEG Report projections were in
chosen in the case of Ellis, Parker, and Wise counties in the long term. A hybrid projection was
developed for all other counties throughout the planning period in the long term. This
information is displayed graphically in Tables 5 and 6. The proposed 2011 Region C Proposed
10
DRAFT
Projections are included in the Table 7 with changes shown in red. Figure 2 compares the various
D
R
AF
T
projections through 2060. Attachment C includes a county-by-county comparison.
11
DRAFT
Table 5. Near Term Decision
2006 Plan
Hybrid
No
Demand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
County
Collin*
Cooke
Dallas*
Denton*
Ellis*
Fannin
Freestone
Grayson
Henderson
Jack
Kaufman*
Navarro
Parker*
Rockwall*
Tarrant*
Wise
BEG
Report
X
AF
* Denotes a non-attainment county.
Table 6. Long Term Decision
BEG
Report
2006 Plan
Hybrid
X
No
Demand
X
X
X
R
County
Collin*
Cooke
Dallas*
Denton*
Ellis*
Fannin
Freestone
Grayson
Henderson
Jack
Kaufman*
Navarro
Parker*
Rockwall*
Tarrant*
Wise
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Denotes a non-attainment county.
12
DRAFT
Table 7. Proposed 2011 Region C Projections
T
2020
715
0
4,290
744
698
6,363
18,210
8,963
427
2,500
10,000
8,000
22
0
2,448
1,245
64,625
AF
2010
771
0
3,367
644
981
1,261
12,173
5,600
460
2,162
8,979
0
24
0
2,640
1,751
40,813
D
R
County
Collin
Cooke
Dallas
Denton
Ellis
Fannin
Freestone
Grayson
Henderson
Jack
Kaufman
Navarro
Parker
Rockwall
Tarrant
Wise
Region C Total
2011 Region C Proposed
2030
2040
2050
1,000
1,200
1,600
0
0
0
11,918
12,000
12,000
844
944
1,044
1,450
3,741
5,754
11,474
11,910
12,443
20,524
23,999
28,234
12,326
12,326
12,326
7,000
8,000
9,000
2,700
2,900
3,100
10,000
10,000
10,000
13,440
13,440
13,440
28
56
75
0
0
0
4,168
5,000
5,000
1,216
1,878
2,042
98,088 107,394
116,058
13
DRAFT
2060
2,000
0
12,000
1,144
7,878
13,092
33,398
12,326
10,000
3,300
10,000
13,440
102
0
5,000
2,748
126,428
D
R
AF
T
Figure 2. Comparison of Region C Steam Electric Water Use Projections
14
DRAFT
Attachment A
D
R
AF
T
Projection Methodologies
15
DRAFT
Water Use Projection Methodology
Power Generation Water Use in Texas – 2000-2060
2003 Report
1. Projected electric demands statewide (assume all generation occurs in Texas)
a. Determined electric demand growth factor from projections of Public Utility
Commission of Texas. Extrapolated over 50-year planning period.
b. Determined per capita electric use factor from existing data (population and total
electric use) for last two decades. Used that factor with TWDB population
projections to get total electric use through 2060.
c. Two methods yielded similar results. Used 1.a. Believed most reliable. Resulted
in 2% statewide annual electric demand growth rate.
AF
T
2. Determined statewide water requirements.
a. Determined consumptive water use for various generating and cooling
technologies. Applied to 214 generating plants in Texas. Gave water demand
projections (low, medium, and high) through 2060. Selected medium scenario.
3. Water demand for each generating plant in Texas estimated as a percentage of statewide
demand.
R
a. For base year (2000) water demand for each plant was calculated by taking actual
generation by fuel type and applying water use factors. Projections for 2010-2060
calculated on unit by unit basis.
D
b. 2010 and 2020 water demand for coal fired, nuclear, and conventional gas based
on 2000 demand adjusted by a correction factor for linear trending.
c. For 2030 – 2060 factors were increased at the same rate despite fuel/generation
types.
4. Individual plant projections were summed by county/region.
16
DRAFT
Water Use Projection Methodology
Power Generation Water Use in Texas
2010-2060
BEG Report
1) Current Consumption: Consumption data was obtained from TCEQ and TWDB
concerning water intake, diversion, and return of surface and groundwater.
a. The TCEQ data was given preference due to the year 2006 being available for
analysis. However, the TCEQ data only accounted for about half of the electricity
produced in Texas. Water consumption and electrical generation was calculated
for the single year of 2006 as a “worst case scenario.”
T
b. In addition to the TCEQ 2006 data, average water consumption values from 20012006 were calculated from the TCEQ data and average values from 2001-2005
were calculated from the TWDB data. Both averages were divided by the
electricity generated at a facility within the years of interest. This step provided
more data, but some plants were still left with no information.
Fuel
Prime
Mover
CC
GT
ST
CC
Once-through
or Cooling
Tower?
cooling tower
cooling tower
cooling tower
Once-through or
recirculating
Once-through or
recirculating
Once-through or
recirculating
cooling tower
Once-through or
recirculating
Any
D
R
NG NG NG NG AF
c. For power plants with no TCEQ/TWDB data, gal/kWh factors were assigned
depending on the type of plant.
NG GT
NG ST
Coal (any) Coal (any) ST
ST
Nuclear ST
Water
consumption rate
(gal/kWh)
0.23
0.05
0.70
0.23
0.05
0.35
0.60
0.35
0.60
* NG = Natural Gas, CC = Combined Cycle, GT = Gas Turbine, ST = Steam Turbine
17
DRAFT
2) Near-Term/Long Term Methodology (see figure below):
Calculate “Today’s” Water
(2006)
•
•
TCEQ data for surface water
consumption
o
2001 – 2006 data (use
2006 values if possible)
TWDB data for groundwater
consumption
o
2001 – 2005 data
EIA data for net electricity
generation (EIA-920/906)
o
2001 – 2006 Data (use
values to match water
data)
2006 Results
Near term plant additions
PUCT data
ERCOT data
TCEQ data
Estimate:
•
Capacity factor by power plant
(generation unit) type
•
Typical values for “gal/kWh” for
new plants
Calculate:
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator,
cooling combination
•
Electricity generated in each
county per
o
Fuel type
•
“gal/kWh” per county per fuel
type
o
Use of Matlab
computer code to take
Excel input and then
output to Excel
Given:
•
Assume:
•
•
•
Projection for annual electricity
generation, per fuel and
generation type, for Texas overall
County specific information (from
Scenario 2015 1BAU) remains
constant
% of fuel type
“gal/kWh” per fuel type
Calculate:
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator,
cooling combination
AF
Calculate:
•
”gal/kWh” for power plant facilities
o
Use greater of 2006
value or average over
2001-2006 time span
o
Estimate for facilities
with insufficient data
•
Ac-ft/yr for each
o
County
o
RWPA
o
Fuel, generator, cooling
combination
•
Electricity generated in each county
per
o
Fuel type
Given:
•
•
•
•
•
Long Term Projection
(2020-2060)
T
Given:
•
Near Term Projection
(2007-2015)
D
R
* The method for projecting future water demand for electricity generation starts with 2006 calculations (“today”), moves to a near term
projection (through 2015), and then uses the distribution of water demand from 2015 to project into the long term future through 2060.
18
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Attachment B
2011 Region C Methodology
19
DRAFT
I.
Data Collection – (Annual water or power consumption, type of plant, status to
include in a spreadsheet deliverable)
a. Historical
i. Industry
1. Major Sources (will cover 85% of 2006 demand in BEG Report)
a. Luminant – Collin, Lake Ray Hubbard, Northlake, Valley,
Big Brown, Trinidad, Eagle Mountain
b. City of Garland – Olinger, Newman, Lewisville, Spencer
c. Exelon – Mountain Creek, Handley
d. FPLE – Janet Sims can request from City of Garland (reuse
water from Duck Creek) (APAI has data for all but 2008).
e. Brazos Electric Power Coop – North Texas, Jack
f. Wise County Power
R
AF
T
2. Minor Sources (remaining 15% of 2006 demand in BEG Report)
a. Devon Gas Service, Weatherford Municipal Utility System,
City of Fort Worth, City of Whitesboro, Freestone Power
Generation – Calpine, USACE – Denison, WM Renewable
Energy, ANP Operations, Ennis Tractebel, Rock-Tenn,
State Farm Mutual, UTD, City of Denton
ii. TWDB
1. Historical data available through 2006.
iii. TCEQ
1. Collects historical data on a yearly basis.
D
b. Historical Estimates (when historical data is not available)
i. Industry guidance on gal/kwh (modify table from BEG report).
c. Projected Use
i. 2003 TWDB Report
ii. BEG Report
20
DRAFT
II.
Decision Process for Region C SEP Water Consumption Projections
a. Near Term Projections
i. Compare available usage data with base years for 2003 and BEG Reports.
ii. Compare available usage data with 2010 projections for 2003 and BEG
Reports.
iii. Consider climatology (precipitation and temperature), natural gas prices,
etc. while analyzing historical data. Use allocated water rights as a “sanity
check.”
iv. On a county-by-county basis, identify the 2010 projection (2003 or BEG
Report) that is mostly likely to correspond to the base year.
AF
T
b. Long Term Projections
i. Consider county specific growth limitations
1. Mothballing of plants, non-attainment counties, water rights
ii. Consider planned plants/expansions of existing plants. Use allocated water
rights as a “sanity check.”
iii. On a county-by-county basis, identify the projection pattern that is most
likely to correspond to future demand projections.
D
R
c. County-by-county Decision
i. After considering which projection best matches both the near term and
long term demands for each county, make the following choice:
1. Preferred option: If the near term and long term projections for
either the BEG or 2003 report are reasonable, choose either
projection for a county through the duration of the projections
(2010-2060).
2. Hybrid option: If the near term projection for either the BEG or
2003 report is reasonable, but the long term projection is not,
choose the 2010 projection that is most reasonable and modify the
most appropriate projection pattern by adding or deducting the
difference from each decade.
21
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Attachment C
Projection Comparisons
Including Proposed Region C 2011 Projections
22
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-1. Region C Steam Electric Power Demands
23
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-2. Collin County Steam Electric Power Demands
24
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-3. Cooke County Steam Electric Power Demands
25
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-4. Dallas County Steam Electric Power Demands
26
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-5. Denton County Steam Electric Power Demands
27
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-6. Ellis County Steam Electric Power Demands
28
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-7. Fannin County Steam Electric Power Demands
29
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-8. Freestone County Steam Electric Power Demands
30
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-9. Grayson County Steam Electric Power Demands
31
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-10. Henderson County Steam Electric Power Demands
32
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-11. Jack County Steam Electric Power Demands
33
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-12. Kaufman County Steam Electric Power Demands
34
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-13. Navarro County Steam Electric Power Demands
35
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-14. Parker County Steam Electric Power Demands
36
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-15. Rockwall County Steam Electric Power Demands
37
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-16. Tarrant County Steam Electric Power Demands
38
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Figure A-17. Wise County Steam Electric Power Demands
39
DRAFT
D
R
AF
T
Attachment D
Projection Summary Table
40
DRAFT
Historical
Basic Info
Regulatory Information
Reclaimed Water Consumption
County
Company
City of Garland
Plant Name
Ray Olinger
Water Right No.
32
Diversion Amount
Value (acre-feet/year)
Status
2,000
Non-attainment
county?
2004 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2005 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2007 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
TWDB Water Consumption
TCEQ Water Consumption
2008 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2000 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2001 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2002 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2003 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2004 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2005 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2007 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
42
52
0
0
0
35
0
28
Collin
Luminant Generation Company LLC
Collin
mothballed in 2004
City of Garland
CE Newman
Exelon Generation Co LLC
Mountain Creek
3408
6,400
yes
4,732
1,334
1,627
1,439
1,084
1,258
696
648
Lake Hubbard
43
4,500
yes
5,153
1,684
414,583
0
817
731
705
688
North Lake
2365/1932
1000/9550
yes
1,801
4,293
1,470
0
1,691
2,857
247
408
Rock-Tenn
Rock-Tenn Dallas Mill
yes
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co
State Farm Insurance Medical Center
yes
University of Texas at Dallas
UTD
Exelon Power
Mountain Creek
planned
yes
?
Parkdale
mothballed?
yes
City of Denton
Ray Roberts
2335
mothballed?
yes
City of Garland
Lewisville
1780
City of Garland
Spencer
WM Renewable Energy LLC
DFW Gas Recovery
ANP Operations Co
Midlothian Energy Facility
Ennis Tracetebel Power Co LLP
?
Waxahachie
T
planned to mothball,
currently operational
yes
mothballed?
yes
yes
planned
4900
16,400
Merchant Power Plant
-
planned
no
Grayson
Luminant
Big Brown Update
Whitesboro
USCE - Tulsa District
Denison
Panda Energy
Sherman
Trinidad
Forest Grove
5040
781
0
0
0
0
0
1,901
1,278
1,194
923
734
530
525
16,165
10,817
12,541
11,902
12,874
12,775
1,443
631
514
0
689
415
799
639
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,525
2,768
3,051
2,585
2,440
2,104
361
20,130
6,941
2,164
3,794
4,289
4,350
9,936
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,860
464
910
410
150
230
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
110
703
703
703
209
9
3,988
5,165
1,573
1,102
5,010
4,157
3,054
0
644
173
708
706
861
14,150
8,549
no
4,692
2,362
7,021
1,708
8,352
0
0
13
8,761
1
9,008
281
9,936
208
9,543
no
planned
no
no
no
planned
4970
Henderson
4,000
mothballed?
18?
no
no
4,557
1,521
219
0
46
42
57
70
no
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brazos Electric Power Coop Inc
Jack Energy Facility
Gamesa Energy
Barton Chapel Wind 1
Kaufman
FPLE Forney LLP
Forney Energy Center
Ellis Power
Ellis Power
planned
no
Navarro
Babcock and Brown (Navarro Energy)
planned
no
?
Corsicana
planned
no
North Texas
Weatherford Mun Utility System
Weatherford
City of Fort Worth
Village Creek WWTP
Handley
3391
10,120
Eagle Mountain
451
4,636
Jack
Parker
388
no
no
City of Whitesboro
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
planned
Calpine
2005 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
LS Power
Calpine - Freestone Power Generation LP
2004 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
D
Freestone
2003 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
LS Power
Big Brown Power Company LLC (Luminant) Big Brown
1,859
R
AF
?
Fannin
Fannin/
Grayson
2002 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
Denton
Valley NG Power Company LLC (Luminant) Valley
2001 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
yes
Dallas
Ellis
2000 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
no
planned
no
yes
2147
75
6,265
6,522
8,018
yes
28
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
yes
3,890
2,026
3,256
2,664
1,807
1,510
1,300
1,008
yes
1,362
450
1,573
1,097
448
125
0
0
yes
yes
Tarrant
?
North Main
Devon Gas Service
Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant
18?
?
mothballed?
yes
no
Wise County Power Co LP
Wise County Power LP
2273
?
no
Wise
TOTAL
41
DRAFT
0
0
6
0
0
2,333
2,100
1,241
36,666
21,530
432,795
5,200
14,668
17,899
15,322
13,842
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56,236
28,057
22,136
22,108
26,615
25,154
15,992
Comparison of 2006 Projections/
Actual Consumption
Past Projections
Basic Info
2006 Region C Water Demand Projections
Company
City of Garland
Plant Name
Collin
City of Garland
CE Newman
Mountain Creek
Lake Hubbard
North Lake
Rock-Tenn
UTD
Exelon Power
Mountain Creek
?
Parkdale
City of Denton
Ray Roberts
City of Garland
Lewisville
City of Garland
Spencer
DFW Gas Recovery
ANP Operations Co
?
Waxahachie
Fannin
LS Power
LS Power
-
Calpine
Luminant
Big Brown Update
City of Whitesboro
Whitesboro
Denison
Panda Energy
Sherman
Trinidad
Forest Grove
Henderson
Gamesa Energy
FPLE Forney LLP
Jack
Kaufman
Navarro
Parker
2050 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2060 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2010 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2020 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2030 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2040 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2050 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2060 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
1,581
1,260
1,473
1,733
2,050
2,436
771
715
602
740
594
782
10,842
11,918
TWDB
BEG
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2006 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
0
525
531
2006 Region
C Plan
Projections
Best Available
Sources - Actual
Usage
2006 Usage
2006 Usage (acre(acre-feet/year)
feet/year)
Ellis Power
Ellis Power
?
Corsicana
North Texas
Weatherford
City of Fort Worth
Village Creek WWTP
Handley
Eagle Mountain
Tarrant
?
North Main
Devon Gas Service
13,230
14,829
16,778
3,367
4,290
3,791
5,075
Wise
TOTAL
4,643
6,178
1,709
531
1,648
1,443
1,598
12,858
1,675 (TCEQ
data used for all
plants except
Newman where no
data was present.
BEG estimates
where used for
Newman).
524
418
489
575
680
808
348
318
254
281
182
234
644
0
639
395
567
644
14,237
20,379
23,825
28,027
33,148
39,391
981
698
1,450
3,741
5,754
7,878
706
0
0
975
8,840
706
5,152
4,748
5,184
5,717
6,366
7,157
1,261
1,169
1,019
1,334
1,182
1,569
281
361
325
5,346
281
18,210
20,524
23,999
28,234
33,398
39,692
9,323
7,636
14,270
18,468
24,429
26,397
9,936
9,936
10,168
16,128
12,173 (TCEQ
data used for all
plants except
Freestone where no
data was present.
BEG estimates
where used for
Freestone).
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
Grayson
2040 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
R
AF
Denton
Freestone
2030 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
12,264
Dallas
Fannin/
Grayson
2020 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
TCEQ
Ray Olinger
Collin
Ellis
2010 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
Reclaimed
Sources
T
County
2006 BEG Water Demand Projections
2,387
2,308
2,376
2,458
2,559
2,681
460
427
342
383
253
328
57
25
117
2,418
57
0
3,674
4,296
5,053
5,977
7,102
1,502
1,068
1,043
1,611
1,752
2,357
0
0
2,162
0
2,162
8,979
17,798
20,808
24,478
28,950
34,403
4,186
2,977
2,907
4,490
4,883
6,570
0
0
5,814
5,387
8,018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
4,617
5,397
6,349
7,509
8,923
24
22
28
56
75
102
0
9
3
32
0
4,158
3,419
4,168
5,081
6,194
7,550
2,640
2,448
2,082
2,614
2,167
2,861
1,300
3,054
1,053
4,456
1,300
3,949
5,653
6,609
7,774
9,195
10,927
71,471
95,640
110,542
128,709
150,855
177,848
42
1,751
1,245
1,216
1,878
2,042
2,748
26,614
23,013
29,004
40,671
47,956
58,004
DRAFT
8,018
9,368
2,100
0
2,205
2,369
2,100
15,322
15,992
25,346
60,111
29,647
Projection Adoption and Revised Region C Projections
Basic Info
Near Term Projection Used (2010 and 2020)
Company
City of Garland
Plant Name
Collin
City of Garland
CE Newman
Mountain Creek
Lake Hubbard
North Lake
Dallas
Hybrid
Rock-Tenn
UTD
Exelon Power
Mountain Creek
?
Parkdale
City of Denton
Ray Roberts
City of Garland
Lewisville
2006
Plan
Hybrid
Notes
2010 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2020 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2030 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2040 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2050 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
2060 Usage
(acrefeet/year)
X
The BEG projections most closely
match current consumption in the
near term. The BEG projections
were fairly consistent
(approximately 600 acre-feet/year)
through the reminder of the
planning period despite the presence
of a mothballed facility which could
potentially re-open. The 2006 Plan
showed a radical increase through
2060, which is unrealistic
considering the counties nonattainment designation.
771
715
1,000
1,200
1,600
2,000
Since Dallas County is designated
as a non-attainment county, it is
unlikely that new plants will be
constructed. The water demand was
capped in the long term to
correspond to recent high demands.
3,367
4,290
11,918
12,000
12,000
12,000
Data for Denton County was
obtained from reclaimed water
provider. Actual consumption in
2006 was more than either
projection, so a hybrid was used.
644
744
844
944
1,044
1,144
BEG most closely corresponds to
predicted consumption.
981
698
1,450
3,741
5,754
7,878
observed consumption.
X
X
Data for Denton County was
obtained from reclaimed water
provider. Actual consumption in
2006 was more than either
projection, so a hybrid was used.
X
City of Garland
Spencer
DFW Gas Recovery
ANP Operations Co
?
Waxahachie
X
LS Power
LS Power
-
X
X
A new plant is planned in this
county in the near term that was not
accounted for previously.
X
1,261
3,000
4,748
5,184
19,169
6,366
X
X
0
6,726
13,452
13,452
13,452
13,452
X
X
12,173
18,210
20,524
23,999
28,234
33,398
X
X
5,600
5,600
5,600
5,600
5,600
5,600
X
A mothballed facility is planned to
be online in the long-term scenario.
The water consumption was
provided by industry representatives.
460
427
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
X
2,162
2,500
2,700
2,900
3,100
3,300
The 2006 Plan most closely
corresponds to observed
consumption.
X
One SEP plant is currently in
Kaufman County. Since Kaufman
County is designated as a nonattainment county, it is unlikely that
new plants will be constructed.
8,979
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
New plants are planned in this
county in the near term that were
not accounted for previously.
X
New plants are planned in this
county in the near term that were
not accounted for previously.
0
8,000
13,440
13,440
13,440
13,440
24
22
28
56
75
102
2,640
2,448
4,168
5,000
5,000
5,000
Fannin/
Grayson
BEG
X
X
Fannin
Notes
R
AF
Ellis
2006
Plan
Ray Olinger
Collin
Denton
BEG
T
County
2011 Modified Region C Water Demand Projections
Long Term Projection Used (2030 on)
Grayson
Calpine
Luminant
Big Brown Update
City of Whitesboro
Whitesboro
Denison
Panda Energy
Sherman
Trinidad
D
Freestone
Henderson
X
Gamesa Energy
FPLE Forney LLP
Jack
Kaufman
Navarro
Parker
Forest Grove
Ellis Power
Ellis Power
?
Corsicana
North Texas
Weatherford
City of Fort Worth
Village Creek WWTP
Handley
Eagle Mountain
?
North Main
Tarrant
Devon Gas Service
Wise
TOTAL
X
X
X
X
X
X
43
DRAFT
X
X
X
Since Tarrant County is designated
as a non-attainment county, it is
unlikely that new plants will be
constructed. The water demand was
capped in the long term to
correspond to recent high demands.
1,751
1,245
1,216
1,878
2,042
2,748
40,813
64,625
98,088
107,394
129,510
126,428