Water Master Plan

March 2017

Prepared by: Prepared for: WATER MASTER PLAN

March 2017

Prepared for: Prepared by: WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Scope of Services ...... 1-1 Acknowledgements ...... 1-2 Project Staff ...... 1-2

CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SYSTEM FEATURES ...... 2-1 Introduction ...... 2-1 Service Area ...... 2-1 Existing System Components ...... 2-1 Supply Sources...... 2-1 Well No. 1A ...... 2-2 Well No. 2 ...... 2-2 Well No. 26 ...... 2-3 Well No. 27A ...... 2-3 Well No. 28 ...... 2-3 Well No. 29 ...... 2-3 Well No. 31 ...... 2-3 Well No. 32 ...... 2-3 Well No. 33 ...... 2-3 Water Treatment Facilities ...... 2-4 Treatment Plant 27 ...... 2-4 Treatment Plant 28 ...... 2-5 Treatment Plant 29 ...... 2-5 Treatment Plant 31 ...... 2-5 Treatment Plant 32 ...... 2-5 Storage Tanks...... 2-5 Decker Tank ...... 2-6 Scenic Tank ...... 2-6 Flat Top Tank ...... 2-7 Freeway Tank...... 2-7 Airport Tank...... 2-7 Lincoln Tank #1 and #2 ...... 2-7 Routine Storage Facility Maintenance ...... 2-7 Inactive Storage Tanks ...... 2-8 White Rock Tank ...... 2-8 Bunkerville Tank ...... 2-8 System Pressure Zones ...... 2-8 Zone 1 – Pulte Zone ...... 2-8 Zone 2 – North Freeway ...... 2-8 Zone 3 – Wolf Creek ...... 2-8 Zone 4 – Vista del Monte ...... 2-9

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES i VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page No.

Zone 5 – South Freeway ...... 2-9 Zone 6 – Bunkerville ...... 2-9 Zone 7 – South Virgin River ...... 2-9 Zone 8 – Scenic/Decker ...... 2-9 Pressure Reducing Valves...... 2-9 Pipelines ...... 2-11

CHAPTER 3 – FUTURE GROWTH AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS...... 3-1 Introduction ...... 3-1 Historical Growth Trends ...... 3-1 Estimated Buildout Population ...... 3-5 Projected Service Area Growth ...... 3-7 Predicted Locations of Future Growth – 10 Year Window ...... 3-11 Evaluation of Historical Water Use in the District ...... 3-11 Future Annual Production Requirements...... 3-13 Seasonal Water Use ...... 3-13 Water Conservation ...... 3-13 Peak Day Production Requirements ...... 3-14

CHAPTER 4 – WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION ...... 4-1 Introduction ...... 4-1 Historic Source Utilization ...... 4-1 VVWD Water Rights Summary ...... 4-2 Evaluation of Supply Capacity ...... 4-5 Annual Supply Evaluation ...... 4-5 Peak Day Supply Evaluation ...... 4-7 Existing Demand Evaluation ...... 4-7 Existing Peak Treatment Capacity ...... 4-9 Future Source Evaluation ...... 4-10 Average Day Demand with Largest Source Offline ...... 4-13 Condition of Existing Sources and Treatment Facilities ...... 4-15 Source Development Recommendations ...... 4-16 Additional Source Maintenance Projects ...... 4-19

CHAPTER 5 – STORAGE CAPACITY EVALUATION ...... 5-1 Storage Evaluation Criteria ...... 5-1 Operating Storage ...... 5-2 Emergency Storage ...... 5-4 Fire Suppression Storage ...... 5-4 Existing Storage Facilities ...... 5-4

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ii VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page No.

Total Existing and Future Storage Requirements ...... 5-6 Storage Facility Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 5-10

CHAPTER 6 – HYDRAULIC MODELING ...... 6-1 Introduction ...... 6-1 Water System Model...... 6-1 GIS Data...... 6-1 Calibration...... 6-1 Model Demands and Demand Distribution ...... 6-2

CHAPTER 7 – DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION ...... 7-1 Introduction ...... 7-1 Model Scenarios...... 7-1 Source Failure Scenarios...... 7-1 Distribution System Evaluation Criteria ...... 7-2 System Evaluation Results ...... 7-2 Existing System Evaluation ...... 7-2 System Evaluation with 10-Year Growth ...... 7-4 System Evaluation through Buildout ...... 7-4 Recommended Distribution System Improvements ...... 7-5 Improvements to Increase Fire Flow Coverage ...... 7-9 Additional Improvement Projects ...... 7-9

CHAPTER 8 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...... 8-1 Recommended Capital Improvement Budget ...... 8-1 Capital Improvement Plan Summary ...... 8-3 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan ...... 8-6

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES iii VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

2-1 VVWD Culinary Well Sources ...... 2-2 2-2 VVWD Water Treatment Facilities ...... 2-4 2-3 VVWD Water Storage Reservoirs ...... 2-6 2-4 Pressure Reducing and Flow Control Valves ...... 2-10

3-1 U.S. Census Bureau Historical Population Growth in VVWD ...... 3-1 3-2 Average Annual Growth in VVWD ...... 3-2 3-3 Average Household Size Comparisons ...... 3-2 3-4 Growth of Residential Connections in VVWD ...... 3-3 3-5 Nevada State Demographer Historical Population Records ...... 3-4 3-6 Clark County CP Historical Population Records ...... 3-4 3-7 City of Mesquite Current Land Use Summary ...... 3-6 3-8 Town of Bunkerville Current Land Use Plan Summary ...... 3-7 3-9 Comparison of Growth Estimates for VVWD ...... 3-8 3-10 Growth Projections for the City of Mesquite ...... 3-9 3-11 Virgin Valley Water District Growth Projections ...... 3-10 3-12 Historic Water Production from 2009-2015 ...... 3-12 3-13 Projected VVWD Water Demand through Buildout ...... 3-13 3-14 Projected Peak Day Water Use ...... 3-14

4-1 Historic Annual Source Utilization (acre-ft) ...... 4-1 4-2 VVWD Permitted and Certificated Groundwater Rights ...... 4-3 4-3 VVWD Permitted and Certificated Surface Water Rights ...... 4-4 4-4 Existing Source Production Capacity ...... 4-7 4-5 VVWD Projected Peak Day Demand through Buildout...... 4-8 4-6 Existing Peak Day Reliable Source Capacity Evaluation ...... 4-9 4-7 Existing Treatment Facility Evaluation ...... 4-10 4-8 Peak Day Demand by Pressure Zone through Buildout ...... 4-11 4-9 Reliable Peak Source Capacity Evaluation – 10 Year Growth ...... 4-12 4-10 Reliable Peak Source Capacity Evaluation – Buildout ...... 4-12 4-11 Average Day Demand with Well No. 31 Out of Service ...... 4-14 4-12 Average Day Demand with Well No. 27A Out of Service ...... 4-14 4-13 Average Day Demand with Well No. 33 Out of Service ...... 4-15 4-14 Recommended Source Development Plan ...... 4-18 4-15 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Related Projects ...... 4-19

5-1 VVWD Existing Storage Facilities ...... 5-5 5-2 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – Existing Conditions ...... 5-7

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES iv VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

5-3 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – 10-Year Growth ...... 5-8 5-4 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – Buildout Growth ...... 5-9 5-5 Recommended Storage Construction Plan through Buildout ...... 5-11 5-6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects for Storage Facilities ...... 5-11

6-1 Projected Peak Demands ...... 6-2

7-1 Major Conveyance System Improvements Summary ...... 7-8 7-2 Summary of Recommended Fire Flow Improvements ...... 7-10 7-3 Summary of Condition Related Improvement Projects Identified by VVWD ...... 7-11

8-1 Estimated Replacement Value of Existing VVWD System ...... 8-2 8-2 Recommended Annual Water System Budget ...... 8-3 8-3 VVWD Water System Capital Improvement Projects ...... 8-5 8-4 Virgin Valley Water District 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan ...... 8-8

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES v VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

On or Following No. Title Page No.

2-1 Existing Service Area ...... 2-1 2-2 VVWD Existing System Map ...... 2-1 2-3 VVWD Water System Schematic ...... 2-1 2-4 VVWD Existing Pressure Zones ...... 2-8

3-1 Comparison of Historical Growth Estimates for VVWD ...... 3-5 3-2 Mesquite/Bunkerville Land Use Plan ...... 3-5 3-3 Population Projections for Virgin Valley Water District ...... 3-10 3-4 10 Year Growth Hotspots ...... 3-11 3-5 2015 VVWD Annual Water Use ...... 3-15

4-1 Historic Annual Source Utilization ...... 4-2 4-2 VVWD Surface Water Sources ...... 4-4 4-3 VVWD Projected Annual System Demand vs Available Water Rights ...... 4-6 4-4 VVWD Source and Storage Regions ...... 4-8 4-5 VVWD Supply Source Schematic ...... 4-8 4-6 Recommended Source Development Plan through Buildout ...... 4-17 4-7 New VVWD Well Sources Over the Next 10 Years ...... 4-17

5-1 VVWD Peak Day Diurnal Water Use ...... 5-3 5-2 VVWD Water Storage Schematic ...... 5-6 5-3 VVWD New Storage Facilities through Buildout ...... 5-10

7-1 Existing Conditions Static Pressures ...... 7-2 7-2 Existing Conditions Peak Day Demand Pressures ...... 7-2 7-3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Demand Pressures ...... 7-2 7-4 Existing Conditions Available Fire Flow During PDD ...... 7-2 7-5 10 Year Growth Static Pressures ...... 7-4 7-6 10 Year Growth Peak Day Demand Pressures ...... 7-4 7-7 10 Year Growth Peak Hour Demand Pressures ...... 7-4 7-8 Buildout Static Pressures ...... 7-4 7-9 Buildout Peak Day Demand Pressures ...... 7-5 7-10 Buildout Peak Hour Demand Pressures ...... 7-5 7-11 Recommended Distribution System Improvements ...... 7-5 7-12 Fire Flow Improvements ...... 7-9

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES vi VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Virgin Valley Water District (District or VVWD) has retained Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to prepare a master plan update for the District’s water system. The purpose of this water master plan report is to evaluate the different components of the District’s water system and identify improvements that will resolve existing deficiencies and accommodate the growing needs of the system.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The general scope of this project involved a thorough analysis of the District’s water production, treatment, storage and distribution system and its ability to meet the current and future water needs of its customers. As part of the Water Master Plan, BC&A completed the following tasks. Task 1: Collect and review data needed to develop the master plan Task 2: Update population projections and estimated per capita water demands to evaluate existing and future system needs. Task 3: Evaluate the District’s source, treatment and storage requirements for existing and future development conditions. Task 4: Update and calibrate a hydraulic computer model of the VVWD distribution system to identify existing and projected future system deficiencies. This task includes an update of all system pipes built to date as well as a model calibration using pressure log data collected from various locations throughout the system by District staff. Task 5: Identify existing deficiencies in the various components of the District’s system. Task 6: Identify future deficiencies in the various components of the District’s system. Task 7: Evaluate alternative improvements for resolving deficiencies identified in Tasks 5 and 6. Task 8: Develop a water system Capital Improvements Plan for the recommended improvements to the District’s system. Task 9: Document results of the previous tasks in a report with additional memoranda as needed. As this master plan has progressed, BC&A has performed presentations to the District’s Board of Directors to discuss project progress and key findings along the way.

This master plan is a working document. The recommended improvements identified in this report are based on the assumption that development will occur in a particular manner. If future growth or development patterns change significantly from those assumed and documented in this report, the recommendations may need to be revised in a future master plan update. The District should plan to update this master plan every three to five years.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 1-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The BC&A team wishes to thank the following individuals from Virgin Valley Water District for their cooperation and assistance in completing this report:

Kevin Brown General Manager Aaron Bunker Hydrologist Supervisor/Assistant General Manager Mary Johnson Administrator Philip Abbott Treatment Supervisor Steve Tietjen System Supervisor Robert Faught Meter Supervisor Wes Smith Chief Financial Officer Hatty Tanner Customer Service Valerie Martinez Customer Service

PROJECT STAFF

This project was performed by the BC&A team members listed below. Team members’ roles on the project are also listed. The project was completed in BC&A’s St. George, Utah office. Questions may be addressed to Todd Olsen or Aaron Anderson at (435) 656-3299.

Keith Larson Principle in Charge Todd Olsen Project Manager Aaron Anderson Project Engineer Mike Hilbert Clerical

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 1-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 2 EXISTING SYSTEM FEATURES

INTRODUCTION

The District’s water system is made up of several different components which work together to produce, treat, and deliver water to customers. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the existing facilities within the VVWD culinary water system. This chapter is intended to be used as a quick reference for District personnel regarding key system information. Included is information regarding wells, storage tanks, pressure zones, pressure regulating valves, transmission and distribution pipelines, and booster stations.

SERVICE AREA

The VVWD service area covers the City of Mesquite and the Town of Bunkerville as well as a large portion of unincorporated area in the eastern region of Clark County, Nevada, as shown in Figure 2-1. The total service area encompasses nearly 205,000 acres of land, but the effective service area of Mesquite and Bunkerville has an area of approximately 25,400 acres. The service area borders the State of Arizona to the east and Lincoln County to the north. In 2015, the estimated service area population was 20,410 residents. In addition to permanent residents, the District provides service to a number of golf courses, casino resorts, and many other commercial, industrial, and institutional entities. The area of Mesquite south of I-15 includes a mix of residential and non-residential development, while the Town of Bunkerville is mostly single-family homes. The area of Mesquite north of I-15 is comprised of a number of large, master-planned residential communities and several golf courses.

EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS

The following sections provide a description of the existing facilities which make up the District’s culinary water production and distribution system. A map of the District’s existing facilities is shown in Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3 provides an operational schematic of the District’s facilities.

SUPPLY SOURCES

All of the District’s culinary water comes from a number of deep groundwater wells. The following is a description of each of the active well sources in the system. The capacity of each groundwater well is summarized in Table 2-1.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D 22 Miles City of Mesquite Boundary

Lincoln County Town of Bunkerville Boundary Clark County VVWD Service Area Boundary

City of Mesquite

Scenic, AZ

Town of Interstate 15 Bunkerville

16Miles

Arizona

Nevada

NORTH: SCALE:

0 5,000 10,000

Feet NORTH

EXISTING SERVICE AREA

VVWD 2016 MASTER PLAN UPDATE FIGURE NO. 2-1

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 2-1 - Existing VVWD Service Area.mxd aanderson 3/23/2017 Arsenic Treatment Well No. 32 L E G E N D Well No. 33 Plant No. 32 3 M Q " "M Waterlines UTUT 4 - inch Lincoln Tank No. 1 6 - inch Lincoln Tank No. 2 8 - inch 10 - inch 12 - inch 14 - inch

Îͳ $ 16 - inch

Nevada 18 - inch Arizona 24 - inch UT Tanks Q3 Arsenic Treatment Plant "M Production Well

Îͳ $ Valves

Arsenic Treatment Plant No. 27 Lincoln County

Clark County Airport Tank 2.3 MG

ÎÍ$ UTÎͳ $

ÎÍ$ Îͳ $ ³ Well No. 27 (Abandoned) Well No. 27A (New Well)

Îͳ $ Well No. 26 M Q3 Arsenic Treatment Îͳ $ " "M

Plant No. 28 Îͳ $ Q3 M Well No. 28 "

Îͳ $ UT Flat Top Tank 2 MG UT

Freeway Tank 1 MG $ Îͳ³ $

Well No. 1 (Abandoned) Arsenic Treatment Well No. 31 Well No. 1A (New Well) Site No. 31

Îͳ $

Q3 Well No. 2 "M Q3 M M " " Arsenic Treatment UT Site No 1A

Scenic Tank 2 MG

Îͳ $ Arsenic Treatment Site No. 29

Q3 "M 12-inch transmission line not in use

Well No. 29

UT Decker Tank 1 MG

White Rock Tankl 1 MG (not in use) UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER MASTER VVWD EXISTING 0 2,250 4,500 SYSTEM MAP Feet 2-2 PLAN UPDATE NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 2-2 - VVWD System Map.mxd aanderson 3/23/2017

WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 2-1 VVWD Culinary Well Sources

Estimated Peak Well Number Production Capacity (gpm) Well No. 1A1 1,050 Well No. 22 400 Well No. 26 1,100 Well No. 27A3 2,000 Well No. 28 800 Well No. 29 500 Well No. 31 2,100 Well No. 32 600 Well No. 33 2,100 Total 10,250 1Well No. 1A has been drilled and will be equipped at the beginning of 2017. 2Well No. 1A and Well No. 2 cannot operate simultaneously. This is accounted for in the total peak production capacity shown in the table (total capacity of all wells is 10,650 gpm, but actual total effective capacity is 10,250 gpm) 3Well No. 27A is currently under reconstruction and will be operational in mid to late 2017. Pump testing of the well shows that the well has a peak sustainable pumping rate of approximately 2,000 gpm.

Well No. 1A

For the last several years, the Well No. 1 site has been inactive. However, a new well (Well #1A) was recently drilled at this site that will be equipped in 2017. The well site is located on the south side of the Virgin River just off of Canal Street in Bunkerville near the cemetery. Recent pump tests put the well’s peak capacity at approximately 1,050 gpm. Flow from this well is sent into the 10-inch transmission line which runs between the Scenic Tank and Decker Tank. Well No. 1A serves pressure zones 6 and 7.

Well No. 2

Well No. 2 is located south of the Virgin River in the Bunkerville area next to Thomas Duddley Leavett Sr. Memorial Park. Well No. 2 has a capacity of approximately 400 gpm, and pumps directly to the 1 MG Decker Tank. Flow from Well No. 2 does not require arsenic removal treatment. Due to the hydrogeological characteristics of the area and the close proximity of Well #1A to Well #2, the wells cannot operate at the same time without causing a detrimental amount of drawdown in the aquifer and subsequent interference with one another. This considered, Well #1A will likely be prioritized during periods of high demand, while Well No. 2 will function as a backup source during off-peak months. Well No. 2 serves pressure zones 6 and 7.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Well No. 26

Well No. 26 is located in Mesquite at 712 Hardy Way adjacent to the City’s maintenance shop. Flow is pumped to the nearby Arsenic Removal Site No. 27. The treated water is then pumped directly into the distribution system (and indirectly into the Airport/Flat Top Tanks). Well # 26 has a peak pumping capacity of 1,100 gpm. Well No. 26 serves pressure zone 2.

Well No. 27A

The Well No. 27 site, which was recently abandoned due to a well casing failure, is located in Mesquite at the northwest corner of the intersection of Pioneer Blvd and Oasis Blvd. At the end of 2016, the District drilled a new well near the same site (Well #27A). Pump tests for this new well put the peak capacity at approximately 2,000 gpm, which is significantly higher than the capacity of the previous well (Well No. 27). Well No. 27A serves pressure zone 2 and is planned to be equipped in 2017.

Well No. 28

Well No. 28 is located in Mesquite at 500 Falcon Ridge Parkway. Well No. 28 has peak capacity of approximately 800 gpm. This well pumps into Arsenic Removal Site No. 28 located adjacent to the well head. The treated water is then pumped into the 16-inch line in Falcon Ridge Parkway. Well No. 28 serves pressure zone 2.

Well No. 29

Well No. 29 is situated in Bunkerville between State Highway 170 (Riverside Drive) and the Decker Tank. The well has a peak capacity of approximately 500 gpm and pumps directly into the adjacent Arsenic Removal Site No. 29. Treated water is then pumped to the nearby Decker Tank. Well No. 29 serves pressure zones 6 and 7.

Well No. 31

Well No. 31 is located near the Nevada/Arizona border near the community of Scenic. The capacity of Well No. 31 is approximately 2,100 gpm. The well sends flow through a 12-inch line which runs about 2.5 miles west to Arsenic Removal Site No 31. Treated water is then pumped into the Scenic Tank. Well No. 31 serves pressure zones 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Well No. 32

Well No. 32 is located about 7 miles north of the Lincoln/Clark county border next to the two 3 million gallon tanks (Lincoln Tank #1 and Lincoln Tank #2) and the Arsenic Removal Site #32. Its current pumping capacity is estimated to be 600 gpm. Water from this well is pumped through the treatment facility and into the two Lincoln Tanks. Well No. 32 serves pressure zones 1, 3 and 4.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Well No. 33

Well No. 33 is located just over a mile east of the Well No. 32 site near the Mesquite City Landfill. The pumping capacity of this well is approximately 2,100 gpm. As with Well No. 32, water from Well No. 33 is pumped into the Arsenic Removal Site No. 32 and then into the two Lincoln Tanks. Well No. 33 serves pressure zones 1, 3 and 4.

WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

The District’s water treatment facilities are located downstream of and in several cases adjacent to the District’s wells and are designed to remove arsenic from the groundwater to obtain compliance with federal and state drinking water standards. The treatment mechanism is a coagulation/filtration removal process with associated chemical addition, pressurized filtration vessels, backwash recovery, sludge disposal, and discharge water quality analysis equipment. This process produces water that exceeds the treatment requirements of federal and state drinking water standards. The treated water is either pumped directly into the distribution system or feeds into the District’s storage tanks. The waste sludge generated by the treatment process is discharged either to the sanitary sewer or to on-site evaporation ponds. Details including location and operating characteristics of each of these water treatment facilities are discussed in the following paragraphs. Table 2-2 lists specific operating criteria for each of the treatment facilities.

Table 2-2 VVWD Water Treatment Facilities

Current Design Plant Peak Number Filter Filter Design Operating Plant Wells Capacity Plant of Diameter Loading Pressure Pressure Name Treated (gpm) Flows Filters (ft) Rate (psi) (psi) (gpm) (gpm/sf) 27 3,000 26, 27 1,1001 5 12 5 100 50 28 1,800 28 800 3 12 5 100 50 29 900 29 500 3 8 5 100 95 31 4,200 31 2,100 7 12 5 100 40 322 6,600 32, 33 2,700 11 12 5 100 30 1A3 1,050 1A 1,050 2 9 5 100 50 1 With the completion of Well #27A, peak flows to Arsenic Treatment Plant #27 are anticipated to increase to up to 3,000 gpm. 2 Expansion capability to 13 filters (increase capacity from 6,600 gpm to 7,800 gpm). 3Arsenic Treatment Site No. 1A will be constructed and operational in 2017. The plant will utilize a GIM treatment process.

Treatment Plant 27

This facility is located at 712 Hardy Way and treats flow from Well 26 (and Well No. 27A upon its completion). The plant has a peak treatment capacity of 3,000 gpm, while the estimated peak capacity of Well No 26 and Well No 27A is 3,100 gpm. This considered, with the completion of

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Well No. 27A, there is the potential that this plant will be operating at its peak treatment capacity. Treatment Plant 27 serves pressure zone 2.

Treatment Plant 28

This facility is located at approximately 500 North Falcon Ridge Parkway at the Well No. 28 site. The plant treats water from Well No. 28 and has a peak treatment capacity of 1,800 gpm. Current peak flows to the plant are approximately 800 gpm. Treatment Plant 28 serves pressure zone 2.

Treatment Plant 29

Treatment Plant 29 is located approximately ¾ of a mile north of the Decker Tank toward the south end of Bunkerville. Peak flow through the plant is currently 500 gpm, which is less than the plant’s peak capacity of 900 gpm. Treatment Plant 29 serves pressure zones 6 and 7.

Treatment Plant 31

Plant 31 is located on White Rock Road near the turn off toward Scenic, Arizona. The facility treats water from Well No. 31 and then feeds directly into the adjacent Scenic Tank. The capacity of Plant 31 is 4,200 gpm; current peak flow through the plant is 2,100 gpm. Treatment Plant 31 serves pressure zones 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Treatment Plant 32

Arsenic Treatment Site No. 32 is located north of Mesquite in Lincoln County and is accessed from Mesquite Heights Road just before reaching the Mesquite City landfill. The facility treats water from Well No. 32 and Well No. 33 and then feeds directly into the nearby Lincoln Tanks. Plant No. 32 is the largest treatment plant in the District’s system with a capacity of 6,600 gpm (with the capability of adding two additional filters for a total treatment capacity of 7,800 gpm). Current peak flow through the plant is 2,700 gpm. Treatment Plant 32 serves pressure zones 1, 3 and 4.

STORAGE TANKS

Virgin Valley Water District currently has 13.7 million gallons of storage in 7 above ground tanks. A description of the tanks is summarized in Table 2-3 and discussed in the following paragraphs. The location of the tanks is shown on Figure 2-2.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 2-3 VVWD Water Storage Reservoirs

Size of Tank Base Max. Water Max. Tank Tank Construction Pressure Diameter1 Elevation Surface Depth Name (Million Material Zone (ft) (ft) Elev. (ft) (ft) Gallons) Above Ground Decker 1 78 Zone 6 1835.2 1863.2 28 Welded Steel Above Ground Zone 7, Scenic 2 122 1822.8 1845.3 22.5 Bolted Steel Zone 8

Above Ground Flat Top 2 122 Zone 2 1931.7 1954.7 23 Bolted Steel

Above Ground Freeway 1 77 Zone 5 1738.3 1767.3 29 Welded Steel

Above Ground Airport2 1.7 114 Zone 2 1929.9 1959.9 30 Welded Steel Zone 1, Lincoln Above Ground 3 150 Zone 3, 2331.8 2353.8 22 Tank #1 Welded Steel Zone 4 Zone 1, Lincoln Above Ground 3 150 Zone 3, 2331.8 2353.8 22 Tank #2 Welded Steel Zone 4 Total 13.7 1Estimate based on the reported size and height of each tank. 2The storage volume of the Airport Tank is currently limited by the physical characteristics of the Flat Top Tank. The two tanks are hydraulically connected, and the Airport Tank cannot be filled past an elevation of 1954.7 feet without overflowing the Flat Top Tank. The District is planning to reconstruct and adjust the elevation of the Flat Top tank which will make the full volume of the Airport Tank available for use.

Decker Tank

This 1 million gallon welded steel tank was constructed in 1998. The tank receives water from Well No. 1A, Well No. 2 and Well No. 29. The maximum depth of the tank is 28 feet, which equates to a maximum water surface elevation of 1863.2 feet.

Scenic Tank

This 2 million gallon bolted steel tank was constructed in 2006. The inside of the tank is specially lined, and the base of the tank is made of concrete and uses a bentonite clay seal as a waterstop. The tank is primarily fed through a 12-inch line from Well No. 31, but can also receive water from Well No. 1A and Well No. 2. The maximum depth in the tank is 22.5 feet, resulting in a maximum water surface elevation of 1845.3 feet. The Scenic Tank is hydraulically connected to the Decker Tank via a 10-inch line running between the 2 tanks. It should be noted that the maximum water

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

surface elevation of the Decker Tank is significantly higher than the Scenic Tank. Under low flow conditions, the Scenic Tank does have the potential to overflow if the Decker Tank is full. However, under normal operating conditions, overflowing at the Scenic Tank is uncommon.

Flat Top Tank

The Flat Top Tank is a 2 million gallon bolted steel tank built in 2006. The tank is indirectly fed by Wells No. 26, 27, 28, and the two 3 million gallon Lincoln Tanks (through a PRV), and is hydraulically connected to the Airport Tank through the District’s distribution system. The base elevation of the Flat Top Tank is close to the same as the Airport Tank; however, its maximum water surface elevation is set at 1954.7 feet (depth of 23 feet in tank) which is about 5 feet below the maximum water surface elevation of the Airport Tank. The maximum water surface elevation of this tank essentially limits the height to which the Airport Tank may be filled. The tank has also been reported to have condition related issues such as cracking and leaking. For these reasons, the District is planning to reconstruct the tank and place it at an elevation which will allow it to interact better with the Airport Tank.

Freeway Tank

This 1 million gallon welded steel tank is located in Mesquite just north of I-15. The tank is fed indirectly from the Scenic Tank or Airport/Flat Top tanks through the distribution system. This tank was constructed in 1967, but its metal floor was replaced about 10 years ago. The maximum water surface elevation of this tank is 1767.3 feet (tank depth of 29 feet).

Airport Tank

The Airport Tank has a storage volume of 2.3 million gallons, but its actual effective storage capacity is currently limited to approximately 1.8 million gallons (see Flat Top Tank description above). This welded steel tank is fed from Wells No. 26, 27, 28, and the two 3 million gallon Lincoln Tanks (via PRV). The tank is located near the Mesquite Airport in the Vista del Monte area and was constructed in 1990. The maximum water surface elevation in the Airport Tank is currently set at 1954.9 feet, but has the capability of being set at about 1959.9 feet without the existing limitations set by the Flat Top Tank.

Lincoln Tank #1 and #2

These two 3 million gallon welded steel tanks are located to the west of the Mesquite City Landfill adjacent to Well No. 32 and Arsenic Removal Plant #32. They were built in 2001 and their maximum water surface elevation is set at 2353.8 feet (tank depth of 22 feet).

Routine Storage Facility Maintenance

Routine maintenance for water storage reservoirs includes an interior inspection every 1-2 years, regular cleaning and disinfection, and reapplication of protective coatings as needed.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

INACTIVE STORAGE TANKS

White Rock Tank

The White Rock Tank is a 1 million gallon welded steel tank located about 4 miles south of the Scenic Tank and Arsenic Removal Site 31. The tank was previously used to store water from Well No. 30, but was taken out of service when the well was decommissioned. The tank has not been filled for several years, but it may have future use for storing water from another source or for relocation within the District’s distribution system. The base elevation of the tank currently sits at 2,811.5 feet and was historically filled to a depth of 21.5 feet, resulting in a water surface elevation of 2,833 feet.

Lower Bunkerville Tank

This 500,000 gallon welded steel tank is located near the Virgin River and was previously used as part of a secondary irrigation system. In its current location, the tank cannot be utilized in the culinary water system. However, the tank could potentially be reconditioned and relocated to a new location to be used in the District’s water system.

SYSTEM PRESSURE ZONES

The District’s water distribution system is currently divided into 8 pressure zones as shown in Figure 2-4. Each system pressure zone is described below:

Zone 1 – Pulte Zone

Pressure Zone 1 is located in the northwest region of Mesquite and provides service to the Sun City development and a couple other surrounding areas. The pressure zone is fed from the two Lincoln Tanks through a PRV located on Canyon Crest Boulevard near Mesquite Heights Road. The District is planning to construct a new 2 million gallon tank and transmission line to service Pressure Zone 1 which will become the primary feed into the zone, leaving the existing PRV connection in placed for redundancy.

Zone 2 – North Freeway

Pressure Zone 2 is the largest pressure zone in the system. It encompasses the majority of the system to the north of Interstate 15 as well as a small piece of the system to the south of the freeway near Mesquite High School. Pressure in Zone 2 is set by the water level in the Airport Tank and Flat Top Tank. Under high demand scenarios, Zone 2 can pull flow from the two 3 MG Lincoln Tanks through a PRV located on Mesquite Heights Road near the intersection with Hardy Way.

Zone 3 – Wolf Creek

Pressure Zone 3 is located in the northeast region of Mesquite and services Wolf Creek Golf Course, the Mesquite Municipal Airport, and the northern area of the Vista Del Monte residential development. Zone 3 is fed from the two 3 MG tanks through a PRV on Canyon Crest Boulevard

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D Press_Z Zone 2 - North Freeway Zone 5 - South Freeway Zone 1 - Pulte Zone 3 - Wolf Creek Zone 4 - Vista Del Monte Zone 6 - Bunkerville Zone 7 - South Virgin River Zone 8 - Scenic/Decker Zone

Zone 3 - Wolf Creek Static HGL: 2,102 FT

Zone 1 - Pulte Zone 4 - Vista Del Monte Static HGL: 2,039 FT Static HGL: 2,049 FT

Zone 2 - North Freeway Static HGL: 1,955 FT

Zone 5 - Freeway South Static HGL: 1,765 FT

Zone 8 - Scenic/Decker Zone Static HGL: 1,845 FT Zone 7 - South Virgin River Static HGL: 1,784 FT

Zone 6 - Bunkerville Static HGL: 1,734 FT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER MASTER VVWD EXISTING 0 1,500 3,000 PRESSURE ZONES Feet 2-4 PLAN UPDATE NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 2-4 - Pressure Zones_Final.mxd aanderson 3/15/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

near Mesquite Heights Road. The transmission line servicing Zone 3 runs through Zone 2 along Canyon Crest Boulevard to Oasis Blvd, turning north on Ivy Lee Crest St. and then east onto Paradise Parkway.

Zone 4 – Vista Del Monte

Pressure Zone 4, located southeast of Zone 3, services the Vista Del Monte development directly east from the Mesquite Municipal Airport. The zone is fed through a PRV located on Chaparral Drive near the Airport Tank which is connected to the same transmission line feeding Zone 3.

Zone 5 – South Freeway

Pressure Zone 5 services the majority of the City of Mesquite south of Interstate 15. Pressure in Zone 5 is set by the water level in the 1 MG Freeway Tank. The Freeway Tank is primarily fed through a PRV from the Scenic Tank, but the tank can also be fed by a PRV from Zone 2.

Zone 6 – Bunkerville

Pressure Zone 6 services the west side of the Town of Bunkerville. The zone is fed primarily from the Decker Tank through a PRV on Riverside Road. An isolation valve located on Riverside Drive between Scrub Lane and Moyes Circle separates Pressure Zone 6 from the east side of Bunkerville, which is serviced by Pressure Zone 7.

Zone 7 – South Virgin River

Pressure Zone 7 provides service to the east side of the Town of Bunkerville. The zone is primarily fed by the Scenic Tank through a PRV.

Zone 8 – Scenic/Decker

Pressure Zone 8 provides water service to the gravel pits located on White Rock Road. Pressure in this zone is set by the elevation in the Scenic/Decker Tanks. While this zone currently only services this one area, the zone has the potential to expand as development occurs in the Bunkerville area.

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES

The Virgin Valley Water District utilizes several pressure reducing and flow control valves located throughout the system in Mesquite and Bunkerville, as shown in Figure 2-2. Table 2-4 provides a summary of the District’s existing pressure reducing and flow control valves.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-9 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 2-4 Pressure Reducing and Flow Control Valves

Hydraulic Pressure Grade Line Name Location & Function Setting Elevation (psi) (ft) Bunkerville below Decker Tank – reduces Decker PRV 70 1733 pressure from Decker Tank into Zone 6. South of Virgin River on SR-170 (Riverside Virgin River Bridge Road) – reduces pressure from Scenic Tank 90 1772 16-inch PRV into Zone 5 South of Virgin River on SR-170 (Riverside Virgin River Bridge Road) – reduces pressure from Scenic Tank 95 1783.5 8-inch PRV into Zone 7 West side of intersection of Mesquite Pulte - Mesquite Heights and Canyon Crest – reduces 100 2039.5 Heights PRV pressure from Lincoln Tanks into Pulte Intersection of Falcon Ridge and Hardy Way Pulte – Falcon – emergency connection from Zone 2 into NA - Ridge Check Valve Zone 1 On 18-inch line off Canyon Crest heading toward Wolf Creek/ Vista Del Monte – Wolf Creek PRV 130 2102 reduces pressure from Lincoln Tanks into Zone 3/Zone 4. Just upstream of Airport Tank – regulates Airport Tank flow from the Zone 3 transmission line into 600 gpm - Flow Control Airport Tank Near Airport Tank in Vista Del Monte area – Vista del Monte reduces pressure from Airport Tank into 55 2049 PRV Zone 4 On 24-inch pipeline off Mesquite Heights Mesquite Blvd. just north of Hardy Way intersection – 60-75 1970 Heights/Hardy Way reduces pressure & controls flow from PRV Lincoln Tanks into Zone 2 Mesa Blvd Flow On Mesa Blvd. in Mesquite – controls flow 600 gpm - Control from Zone 2 into Zone 5 At Mesquite Star Hotel & Casino - pressure Mesquite Star 60 1761 zone delineation from Zone 2 to Zone 5 Intersection of Mesquite Heights and 3 MG Mesquite Heights 3 Tanks Rd. – can reduce pressure from Open - MG Tanks PRV Lincoln Tanks, currently open and not breaking pressure

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-10 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

PIPELINES

The District’s water system is composed of over 800,000 feet of distribution and transmission piping. Pipe sizes range from 4-inch distribution lines to 24-inch transmission lines. Table 2-5 provides a summary of the District’s existing pipe network. The majority of the District’s pipelines are made of PVC (80% or greater) and ductile iron. Figure 2-2 displays the location and diameter of the various pipes which make up the District’s system.

Table 2-5 VVWD Distribution System Piping

Pipe Diameter Total Length Percentage (inches) (feet) of Network 4 4,566 0.6% 6 105,559 12.8% 8 335,816 40.6% 10 118,509 14.3% 12 85,018 10.3% 14 29,765 3.6% 16 97,363 11.8% 18 15,189 1.8% 24 34,538 4.2% Total 826,323 100%

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-11 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 3 FUTURE GROWTH AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

A key aspect of the master planning process is developing projections of population growth within the District’s service area. Population projections have a direct impact on important components of the master plan, including the projected timing of capital improvements. Over-estimating population growth projections may lead to poorly timed capital improvement projects for the District, which results in aggressive future rate increases that may not actually be necessary. The opposite is true for under-estimating growth, which could leave the District without the necessary financial backing to carry out required capital improvements as well as not providing sufficient lead time for projects.

The purpose of this chapter is to develop growth projections for the VVWD service area by analyzing historical growth trends as well as reviewing population projections developed by local planning authorities and other national and state planning agencies. These projections, together with an analysis of existing water use trends and needs, have been used to project future water usage for the District.

HISTORICAL GROWTH TRENDS

The VVWD service area has seen significant growth in the last 25 years. Table 3-1 displays population growth in Mesquite and Bunkerville from the year 1990 to 2010 based on data available from the United States Census Bureau.

Table 3-1 U.S. Census Bureau Historical Population Growth in VVWD % % Total Year Mesquite Bunkerville Population Growth Population Growth Population 1990 1,871 NA 1,8711 2000 9,389 402% 1,014 NA 10,403 2010 15,276 63% 1,303 29% 16,579 1Census records do not contain population data for Bunkerville from 1990

As shown in Table 3-1, the City of Mesquite saw a significant boom in growth from 1990 to 2000, continuing on into the subsequent decade. While growth has not been as rapid in Bunkerville, the town has seen growth over the past 20 years. Using the information provided in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 shows the average yearly growth rate for each City or Town over the respective periods of time.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-2 Average Annual Growth in VVWD1 Time Period Mesquite Bunkerville 1990-2000 17.5% NA 2000-2010 5.0% 2.5% 1Represents the average annual growth rate from each community based on U.S. Census records

While the data from the census provides a reliable, high-level overview of growth information in the area in historic 10-year increments, historic annual growth in the area can be monitored in more detail by looking at the increase in new service connections each year (determined by the District issuing new meter connections). The most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimate for average household size in Mesquite is 2.34 persons per household (hence, on average, a new residential meter equates to 2.34 new people living in the District service area). Table 3-3 provides a summary of average household size estimates for other similar communities in the Southern Nevada/Southern Utah area. As shown in the table, Mesquite has a low average household size compared to other cities in the area, driven by a population composed of a relatively large number of retirees. Table 3-4 provides the estimated historical population growth in the District based on the reported number of connections from the year 2000 – 2015.

Table 3-3 Average Household Size Comparison U.S. Census Estimate for City Average Household Size Mesquite 2.34 Moapa Valley/Overton 3.06 St. George, UT 2.89 Washington, UT 2.99 Ivins, UT 2.59 Hurricane, UT 2.9 Santa Clara, UT 3.75

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-4 Growth of Residential Connections in VVWD Residential 3/4" Estimated Service Year Service % Growth Area Population1 Connections 2000 3,531 8,2632 2001 3,917 9,166 10.93% 2002 4,229 9,896 7.97% 2003 4,633 10,841 9.55% 2004 5,167 12,091 11.53% 2005 5,753 13,462 11.34% 2006 6,078 14,223 5.65% 2007 6,632 15,519 9.11% 2008 6,952 16,268 4.83% 2009 7,154 16,740 2.91% 2010 7,278 17,0312 1.73% 2011 7,413 17,346 1.85% 2012 7,552 17,672 1.88% 2013 7,726 18,079 2.30% 2014 7,908 18,505 2.36% 2015 8,121 19,003 2.69% 1Population estimate based on average household size of 2.34 persons. 2Estimated population is based on an average household size of 2.34. In actuality, average household size is dynamic and continually changing, hence the population estimates from 2000 and 2010 are not anticipated to match the records from the respective years in the U.S. Census.

As shown in Table 3-4, growth in the Mesquite/Bunkerville area has been anything but constant over the last decade and a half (which is consistent with growth patterns across the entire State of Nevada for the same time period). Growth increased significantly during the development boom of the early to mid-2000’s, followed by a decrease in new homes as a result of the economic collapse in 2008. In recent years, growth has seen a gradual increase, ranging from 2.0 – 2.5% annually in the last three years.

Another source of historic growth data for the VVWD service area is available from the office of the Nevada State Demographer, which is responsible for developing annual population estimates for the counties, cities, and unincorporated towns throughout the State. The historic growth records from the State Demographer are shown in Table 3-5 below.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-5 Nevada State Demographer Historical Population Records % % Total District District Year Mesquite Bunkerville Growth Growth Population Growth Rate 2000 9,389 1,014 10,403 2001 11,940 27.2% 1,147 13.1% 13,087 25.8% 2002 13,216 10.7% 1,180 2.9% 14,396 10.0% 2003 13,895 5.1% 1,165 -1.3% 15,060 4.6% 2004 15,881 14.3% 1,185 1.7% 17,065 13.3% 2005 16,423 3.4% 1,198 1.1% 17,621 3.3% 2006 17,656 7.5% 1,179 -1.6% 18,835 6.9% 2007 18,787 6.4% 1,255 6.5% 20,042 6.4% 2008 19,754 5.1% 1,160 -7.6% 20,914 4.3% 2009 20,677 4.7% 1,222 5.3% 21,899 4.7% 2010 15,2761 -26.1% 1,303 6.7% 16,579 -24.3% 2011 17,038 11.5% 1,199 -8.0% 18,237 10.0% 2012 16,778 -1.5% 1,084 -9.6% 17,862 -2.1% 2013 17,477 4.2% 1,067 -1.5% 18,544 3.8% 2014 18,262 4.5% 1,039 -2.7% 19,301 4.1% 2015 19,061 4.4% 1,097 5.7% 20,158 4.4% 1The dramatic shift in population between 2009 and 2010 represents the correction of an over-projection of growth as a result of the economic downturn in 2008.

One additional source of historic growth records was obtained from the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning (Clark County CP) from the year 2010 – 2015. These records are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6 Clark County CP Historical Population Records Total District Year Mesquite % Growth Bunkerville % Growth Population 2010 21,142 1,298 22,440 2011 19,139 25.3% 1,034 -20.6% 20,173 2012 16,900 -11.7% 1,094 5.8% 17,994 2013 17,718 4.8% 1,082 -1.1% 18,800 2014 18,525 4.6% 1,054 -2.6% 19,579 2015 19,299 4.2% 1,111 5.4% 20,410

Figure 3-1 below provides a comparison of the historical growth data presented in the previous tables. While population estimates prior to 2010 were high and required a correction in the years following the 2010 Census, estimates for the current population in the District appear to agree relatively well.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Figure 3-1 Comparison of Historical Growth Estimates for VVWD

Residential Meter Growth Nevada State Demographer Clark County CP U.S. Census Projections 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

VVWD Service Area Population Estimates PopulationArea Service VVWD 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year

Based on discussions with VVWD staff, it was decided to assume a 2015 VVWD service area population consistent with the estimates produced by the Clark County CP, which puts the 2015 VVWD population at an estimated 20,410 people. While current District population is likely higher than 20,410, this number will be used as the baseline for growth projections for this master plan.

ESTIMATED BUILDOUT POPULATION

The buildout population for Mesquite and Bunkerville has been estimated using current land use plans from each respective community, as shown in Figure 3-2. Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 provide a description of the different land use types with the associated total acreage.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D Mesquite Bunkerville SF - Single Family Residential AG - Agricultural MF-1 - Attached Housing CG - Commerical General MF-2 - Multi-Family Low Density IL - Institutional MF-3 - Multi-Family Medium Density IND - Industrial MF-4 - Multi-Family High Density PF - Public Facilities MH - Manufactured Housing RA - Residential Agriculture RE-1 - Rural Ranch RN - Rural Neighborhood RE-2 - Rural Estate ROW - Right of Way RE-3 - Rural Residential RR - Residential Rural MOH - Mobile Home District RS - Residential Suburban PUD - Planned Unit Development PB - Professional Business CR-1 - Commercial Neighborhood CR-2 - General Commercial CR-3 - Commercial Central Business District CR-H - Commercial Hospital Services IR-1 - Light Industrial IR-2 - Heavy Industrial HT - Hotel Tourist RV - RV/Motor Home LR - Land Reserve PF - Public Facility ROW - Right of Way PROS - Parks, Recreation, and Open Space A - Agriculture

NORTH: SCALE:

0 2,000 4,000

Feet NORTH

MESQUITE/BUNKERVILLE LAND USE PLAN

VVWD 2016 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE FIGURE NO. 3-2

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 3-2 - Mesquite_Bunkerville Land Use.mxd aanderson 3/7/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-7 City of Mesquite Current Land Use Plan Summary

Land Use Total Area Land Use Description Percent of Total Type (acres) Residential SF Single-Family Residential 496 2.4% MF-1 Attached Housing 10 0.0% MF-2 Multi-Family Low Density 119 0.6% MF-3 Multi-Family Medium Density 57 0.3% MF-4 Multi-Family High Density 157 0.8% MH Manufactured Housing 40 0.2% RE-1 Rural Ranch 11 0.1% RE-2 Rural Estate 66 0.3% RE-3 Rural Residential 61 0.3% MOH Mobile Home District 9 0.0% PUD Planned Unit Development 7,478 36.4% Total % 41.5% Non-Residential PB Professional Business 10 0.0% CR-1 Commercial Neighborhood 27 0.1% CR-2 General Commercial 482 2.3% Commercial Central Business CR-3 District 43 0.2% CR-H Commercial Hospital Services 25 0.1% IR-1 Light Industrial 821 4.0% IR-2 Heavy Industrial 9 0.0% HT Hotel Tourist 313 1.5% RV RV/Motor Home 78 0.4% LR Land Reserve 2,780 13.5% PF Public Facility 362 1.8% ROW Right of Way 1,952 9.5% PROS Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 5,104 24.9% A Agriculture 6 0.0% Total % 58.5% TOTAL 20,516 100%

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-8 Town of Bunkerville Current Land Use Plan Summary

Total Acres Land Use Type Land Use Description Percent of Total (acres) Residential RA Residential Agriculture 205.4 4.2% RS Residential Suburban 645.9 13.3% RN Rural Neighborhood 1365.8 28.2% RR Residential Rural 1349.3 27.8% Total % 73.6% Non-Residential AG Agricultural 807.9 16.7% IND Industrial 85.4 1.8% CG Commercial General 3.0 0.1% PF Public Facilities 267.9 5.5% IL Institutional 7.7 0.2% ROW Right of Way 108.8 2.2% Total % 26.4% TOTAL 4847.0 100.0%

Based on the current land use plans for Mesquite and Bunkerville, the total estimated service area population at buildout is 72,900. Based on discussions with City of Mesquite staff, the estimated buildout year for Mesquite is 2060. It is anticipated that the Town of Bunkerville will not reach buildout until the year 2080 or later. It should be noted that the District buildout population estimate was developed using the existing boundaries of Mesquite and Bunkerville, and if additional areas within the extent of the District’s full service area begin to grow (see Figure 2-1 from Chapter 2), or if zoning changes occur to allow for more dense residential areas, this estimate will need to be adjusted.

PROJECTED SERVICE AREA GROWTH

To aid in the development of growth projections for the District, growth projections developed by the State Demographer and Clark County CP have been reviewed. It should be noted that the growth projections adopted by these agencies are for Clark County as a whole and therefore may not reflect the localized rate of growth which will occur in the District’s service area. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the growth projections for Clark County over the next 20 years applied to the District’s estimated population in 2015.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-9 Comparison of Growth Estimates for VVWD

Estimated Clark County CP State Demographer Growth Estimated Service Year District Growth Estimate Estimate for Clark County1 Area Population Population for Clark County2 2015 1.3% 20,410 2.2% 20,410 2016 1.1% 20,635 2.1% 20,839 2017 1.2% 20,882 1.8% 21,214 2018 1.3% 21,154 2.0% 21,638 2019 1.2% 21,407 1.8% 22,027 2020 1.1% 21,643 1.8% 22,424 2021 1.0% 21,859 1.6% 22,783 2022 0.9% 22,056 1.5% 23,124 2023 0.8% 22,233 1.4% 23,448 2024 0.8% 22,410 1.3% 23,753 2025 0.7% 22,567 1.2% 24,038 2026 0.6% 22,703 1.1% 24,303 2027 0.5% 22,816 1.0% 24,546 2028 0.5% 22,930 0.9% 24,766 2029 0.4% 23,022 0.8% 24,965 2030 0.4% 23,114 0.7% 25,139 2031 0.3% 23,183 0.6% 25,290 2032 0.3% 23,253 0.6% 25,442 2033 0.3% 23,323 0.5% 25,569 2034 0.3% 23,393 0.5% 25,697 2035 0.3% 23,463 0.4% 25,800 2036 0.3% 23,533 0.4% 25,903 1Hardcastle, Jeff – Nevada State Demographer. ”Nevada County Population Projections 2015 to 2034”. October 1, 2015. 2Center for Business and Economic Research, UNLV. “Population Forecasts: Long-Term Projections for Clark County, Nevada 2016 – 2050. May 12, 2016.

As shown in Table 3-9, the projections adopted by the Clark County CP include slightly more aggressive growth projections, resulting in an estimated 2036 population of 25,903 compared to an estimate of 23,533 from the State Demographers projections. As mentioned previously, these percentages of population increase have been developed for all of Clark County; growth from city to city will vary. Based on recent growth trends within the District, the growth rates shown in Table 3-9 do not appear to be high enough.

In an effort to identify a more reasonable growth rate for the District in the coming years, additional information was acquired from local municipalities. The City of Mesquite produced a draft master plan in 2012 which contains a Housing Element including three different growth projection scenarios for the City. The growth rates found in this report appear to be reasonable compared to recent growth trends in the District. These three scenarios are shown in Table 3-10 below.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-10 Growth Projections for the City of Mesquite1

Low Range Mid-range High-Range Year Projection2 Projection3 Projection4 2010 15,276 20,440 21,141 2011 15,948 17,038 19,139 2012 16,620 18,016 20,063 2015 18,646 20,954 22,836 2020 21,995 25,849 27,456 2025 25,354 30,744 32,077 2030 28,714 35,639 36,698 2035 32,073 40,533 41,319 Average Annual 2.74% 3.35% 3.00% Growth Rate 1City of Mesquite Master Plan – Housing Element. June 2012. 2Estimates developed from U.S. Census Bureau dataset 3Estimates developed from State of Nevada 4Estimated developed from Local Consensus. Note that while the average annual growth rate for the “high-range projection” is less than the “mid-range projection”, the estimated 2035 population is greater because the estimated starting population (in the year 2010) is greater.

Comparing the Clark County CP’s estimated 2015 population for the City of Mesquite with the estimates shown in Table 3-10, it appears that the most reasonable track for growth in the District falls around the low range projection. Based on recent residential meter growth and the growth estimates presented by the City of Mesquite, an annual growth rate of 2.75% has been chosen to be used for projecting growth within the District service area for this master plan. It has been assumed that residential and non-residential growth will occur at the same rate within the District’s service area (i.e. new non-residential growth will occur to accommodate new residential housing developments). Growth projections for the District service area through buildout are shown in Table 3-11 and Figure 3-3.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-9 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-11 Virgin Valley Water District Growth Projections

Year Estimated Service Area Population 2015 20,410 2016 20,971 2017 21,548 2018 22,141 2019 22,749 2020 23,375 2025 26,771 2030 30,660 2036 36,080 2040 40,215 2046 47,324 2050 52,620 2056 59,084 2060 62,895 2080 72,900 *Based on 2.75% annual growth rate through 2050, with growth slowing in the following years to buildout. Full buildout of Mesquite is anticipated to occur by 2060, with buildout in Bunkerville occurring at 2080+.

Figure 3-3 Population Projections for Virgin Valley Water District*

VVWD Projected Growth through 2080 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

Estimated Service Area Population Area Service Estimated 10,000

0 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053 2055 2057 2059 2061 2063 2065 2067 2069 2071 2073 2075 2077 2079 Year

*Based on 2.75% annual growth rate through 2050 and gradually declining in the years approaching buildout.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-10 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Current growth in the area is primarily driven by retirees and “snowbirds”. Commercial and/or industrial growth in the area which would drive newer, younger, family-oriented growth is minimal at this time. Completion of the Exit 118 project as well as the Rising Star sports themed complex should help stimulate growth. If the commercial/industrial sector begins to develop, Mesquite and Bunkerville may experience higher growth than anticipated. However, lessor and even negative growth may occur if the country experiences another economic down turn within the next few years.

PREDICTED LOCATIONS OF FUTURE GROWTH – 10 YEAR WINDOW To the extent possible, it is helpful in planning to understand the timing and location of growth within a service area, particularly within the 10-year growth window. While it is nearly impossible to predict the exact location and timing of growth which will occur in Mesquite and Bunkerville in the future, reasonable estimates can be made by evaluating recent growth trends and identifying “hotspots” in the system (areas which are experiencing the most development). Through discussions with District staff, hotspots within the District’s service area have been identified and are shown in Figure 3-4. The majority of growth within the next 10 years has been assumed to occur within these hotspots, with the remaining portion of 10-year growth occurring throughout the system in the form of infill.

EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL WATER USE IN THE DISTRICT

In order to predict future water demands for VVWD, historical water use data was used to determine per capita demands. Like most public water systems, the VVWD water system provides service to both residential and non-residential customers. This considered, the residential population in the District only represents a portion of the demand on the system. For this reason, it often makes sense to evaluate system demand in terms of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) rather than on the basis of a residential population. An Equivalent Dwelling Unit represents the water usage of 1 typical residential connection. Upon defining the amount of water used by 1 EDU (using historical meter data), non-residential water users, such as resorts or golf courses, can be converted into EDU’s based on their actual respective usage. In essence, the EDU allows the District to convert non-residential water users into an “equivalent” residential population. Table 3-12 contains the summary of historic source production data for the District from the period of 2009 to 2015 which has been used to estimate future demands on the system.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-11 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D 10 Year Growth Hotspots Mesquite Heights Rd

Cre nyon st B Ca lvd

d

v l B n o iz Hor NORTH: SCALE: Hardy Way 0 1,000 2,000

Feet NORTH ay w k r a G P r 10 YEAR GROWTH

e e e g n d HOTSPOTS i s

R W a VVWD

n y

o c

l 2016 WATER a F MASTER PLAN FIGURE NO.

Pioneer Blv d 3-4

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 3-4 - Growth Hotspots.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 3-12 Historic Water Production from 2009 – 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Total Annual Production 6,729 6,432 6,345 6,601 6,588 6,216 6,232 6,449 (acre-ft) Total Annual Sales (acre-ft) 5,637 5,457 5,195 5,541 5,507 5,464 5,601 5,486 % System Loss1 16.2% 15.2% 18.1% 16.1% 16.4% 12.1% 10.1% 14.9% Metered Residential User 3,269 3,165 3,013 3,214 3,194 3,169 3,249 3,182 Sales (acre-ft)2 Metered Non-Residential 2,368 2,292 2,182 2,327 2,313 2,295 2,352 2,304 User Sales3 Estimated Total Volume Required for Residential 3,903 3,731 3,680 3,829 3,821 3,605 3,615 3,740 Users4 Estimated Volume Total Required for Non- 2,826 2,701 2,665 2,772 2,767 2,611 2,617 2,709 Residential Users5 Number of Residential 7,154 7,278 7,413 7,552 7,726 7,908 8,121 N/A Connections6 Annual Demand per EDU 0.55 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.446 (acre-ft) Average Daily Demand 487 458 443 453 442 407 397 441 per EDU (gpd) Total EDUs (Residential & 12,334 12,548 12,781 13,021 13,321 13,634 14,002 N/A Non-Residential) 1Annual production is the actual quantity of water which the District produced from its sources and distributed into the system, while annual sales refers to the quantity that was actually charged to customers. The difference between what the sources produce and what is actually metered and sold is defined as “system loss”. System loss is usually attributed to two major factors: unmetered water usage and system leaks. Unmetered water usage typically makes up the majority of system losses, and includes unmetered connections, inaccurate meter reads, system maintenance, unmetered water for construction, water for firefighting, incidental line breaks, or theft (unauthorized connections). 2Calculated as 58% of total metered usage based on an evaluation of individual meter data from the year 2015 3Calcualted as 42% of total metered usage based on an evaluation of individual meter data from the year 2015 4Estimated as the total volume of metered residential demand plus 58% of system losses (the difference between total annual production and total annual sales) 5Estimated as the total volume of metered non-residential demand plus 42% of system losses (the difference between total annual production and total annual sales) 6Taken from the month of December for each respective year of use

As shown in Table 3-12, per EDU water usage has seen a decrease over the past several years. This appears to be driven in part by a reduction in system losses (from as high as 18.1 % in 2011 to 10.1% in 2015). The decrease in per capita water demand may also be the result of increased conservation efforts in the District, including factors such as desert landscaping and drought- resistant vegetation. In 2015, average daily demand per EDU was estimated to be 397 gallons (including the portion lost to system losses). However, for planning purposes, it is recommended that an estimate of 410 gallons per EDU per day be used in projections in order to maintain conservatism in the estimates as well as account for fluctuations in demand from year to year.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-12 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

FUTURE ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Future water production requirements for the system have been estimated by multiplying the per EDU demands by the projected number of total EDU’s in the future. Table 3-13 displays the projected annual water demand on the District’s culinary system through the year 2080.

Table 3-13 Projected VVWD Water Demand through Buildout

Average Average Total Total Daily Non- Daily Non- Average Residential Annual Year Population Residential Residential Residential Daily EDUs Demand Demand EDUs Demand Demand (acre-ft) (gal) (gal) (gal) 2015 20,410 8,121 3,329,610 5,881 2,411,210 5,740,820 6,431 2016 20,971 8,344 3,421,040 6,048 2,479,680 5,900,720 6,608 2020 23,375 9,301 3,813,314 6,735 2,761,495 6,574,808 7,365 2025 26,771 10,652 4,367,286 7,714 3,162,666 7,529,952 8,435 2026 27,507 10,945 4,487,386 7,926 3,249,640 7,737,030 8,667 2030 30,660 12,199 5,001,737 8,834 3,622,117 8,623,854 9,660 2035 35,114 13,972 5,728,356 10,118 4,148,314 9,876,670 11,063 2040 40,215 16,001 6,560,533 11,588 4,750,954 11,311,487 12,670 2045 46,057 18,326 7,513,604 13,271 5,441,141 12,954,744 14,511 2050 52,620 20,937 8,584,193 15,162 6,216,431 14,800,624 16,579 2055 58,039 23,093 9,468,333 16,724 6,856,700 16,325,033 18,286 2060 62,895 25,026 10,260,468 18,1231 7,430,343 17,690,811 19,816 2070 68,790 27,372 11,222,395 18,123 7,430,343 18,652,738 20,894 2080 72,900 29,001 11,890,467 18,123 7,430,343 19,320,810 21,642 1By 2060, it is estimated that the City of Mesquite will be fully built out. Growth beyond 2060 will likely occur in the Bunkerville area, which is zoned primarily for residential development. This considered, it has been assumed that non- residential development will be built out by 2060.

Seasonal Water Use

Water usage typically varies significantly as a function of time. Demands change throughout the day as well as through different times of the year. While indoor water use patterns tend to remain relatively constant throughout the year, seasonal effects have a large impact on outdoor water use. Figure 3-5 shows the daily water production for the year 2015. As shown in the figure, water usage is significantly higher during the summer months when outdoor irrigation is occurring. The winter months of December, January, and February represent the lowest usage periods over the course of the year (when only indoor water use is occurring).

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-13 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Figure 3-5 2015 VVWD Annual Water Use1

12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000 Gallons Per Day Gallons

4,000,000

2,000,000

0 1/1/2015 2/1/2015 3/1/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 6/1/2015 7/1/2015 8/1/2015 9/1/2015 10/1/2015 11/1/2015 12/1/2015 Date

1As shown in the figure, the source production data from 2015 is cyclical in nature, giving the plotted data a jagged appearance. The reason for this trend is due to the way the system currently operates. The District currently possesses a significant surplus in storage capacity (as discussed in further detail in Chapter 5). Because of this surplus volume, tank levels do not drop quickly over the course of a day, meaning that some sources may go for several hours, even days, without needing to turn on to refill the tanks. Hence, some wells may pump for a day to fill a tank and then rest for a day will the tank is drained, repeating this cycle.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-14 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Water Conservation

Per capita water use in the District has shown a downward trend in the last 7 years. Decreased water usage may be attributable to a number of different factors, such as a decrease in system leaks (better maintenance), desert/drought tolerant landscaping, or customers becoming more conscious of water use. It is recommended that the District continue to promote water conservation and raise public awareness as to the benefits of conserving water. Water use trends should be re-evaluated with each master plan update, making changes when necessary.

PEAK DAY PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS

For planning and modeling purposes, it is necessary to not only have an estimate of average production requirements for the system, but also to estimate peak system demands. From the year 2015, peak day demand in the District was 10.82 MGD. Compared to the average daily demand from 2015 of 5.59 MGD, peak day demand is 1.94 times higher than average daily demand. Conservatively, an average day demand to peak day demand multiplier of 2.0 will be used in projection of future peak day demands. Table 3-14 provides the projections of peak day demand in the District through the year 2080.

Table 3-14 Projected Peak Day Water Use Total Average Peak Day Year Population Daily Demand Demand (gpd) (gpd) 2015 20,410 5,740,820 11,481,640 2016 20,971 5,900,720 11,801,440 2020 23,375 6,574,808 13,149,616 2025 26,771 7,529,952 15,059,904 2026 27,507 7,737,030 15,474,060 2030 30,660 8,623,854 17,247,708 2035 35,114 9,876,670 19,753,340 2040 40,215 11,311,487 22,622,974 2045 46,057 12,954,744 25,909,488 2050 52,620 14,800,624 29,601,248 2055 58,039 16,325,033 32,650,066 2060 62,895 17,690,811 35,381,622 2070 68,790 18,652,738 37,305,476 2080 72,885 19,320,810 38,641,620

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-15 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

Water supply sources are the foundation of the District’s water system. Maintaining reliable sources and developing new sources as necessary are critical to the success of the District’s system. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the District’s existing sources, evaluate their ability to meet existing and future demands, and provide recommendations regarding the maintenance of existing sources and the development of new sources.

HISTORIC SOURCE UTILIZATION

The District obtains its water from a combination of groundwater wells located throughout the area. Average annual utilization of these sources in terms of total acre-feet produced since 2009 is summarized in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1.

Table 4-1 Historic Annual Source Utilization (acre-ft)

Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well TOTAL Year No.11 No. 2 No. 26 No. 272 No. 28 No. 29 No. 303 No. 31 No. 32 No. 33 (acre-ft) 2009 0 343 1,094 1,247 618 30 332 1,672 40 1,353 6,729 2010 0 239 613 1,548 489 119 1 2,087 103 1,232 6,431 2011 0 8 459 1,434 594 72 0 2,472 111 1,195 6,345 2012 0 0 740 1,734 317 107 0 2,706 198 798 6,600 2013 0 174 513 1,481 441 495 0 1,944 160 1,381 6,589 2014 0 262 1,821 1 326 480 0 982 349 1,994 6,215 2015 0 171 1,771 0 41 253 0 2,133 329 1,535 6,233 Annual 0 171 1,002 1,064 404 222 48 1,999 184 1,355 6,449 Average % of 0 3% 16% 16% 6% 3% 1% 31% 3% 21% 100% Total 1Well No. 1 has been out of service for the past several years. This well was re-drilled in 2015 (Well No.1A) and will be equipped and brought into service by early 2017. 2Well No. 27 is currently not in operation, but the District re-drilled the well in 2016. The new well (Well No. 27A) is anticipated to be equipped and operating in 2017. 3Well No. 30 was decommissioned in 2011 and is no longer in use. There are currently no plans to redevelop Well No. 30.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Figure 4-1 Historic Annual Source Utilization

8,000

7,000

6,000 Well No. 33 Well No. 32 5,000 Well No. 31 Well No. 30 4,000 Well No. 29 Well No. 28 3,000 Acre - Feet per Year Well No. 27 Well No. 26 2,000 Well No. 2 Well No. 1 1,000

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year

As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, the District has historically relied heavily on four wells for the bulk of its supply. Wells No. 26, 27, 31, and 33 represent 84 percent of the annual water production for the District over the past 7 years. Also as shown in Table 4-1, Well No. 1, No. 27, and No. 30 are currently not in operation. Well No. 1A was re-drilled in 2015 and will be equipped and operational in 2017. Well No. 27A (replacing Well No. 27) was drilled near the end of 2016 and will be operational in the year 2017. Well No. 30 currently has no plan for redevelopment. Additional sources that have been utilized historically but are no longer active are the springs located in the foothills on the north side of Virgin Peak. These springs and seeps have historically provided water to Bunkerville and Mesquite, but are currently not used and are allowed to follow their natural drainage path.

VVWD WATER RIGHTS SUMMARY

The District’s water right portfolio is made up of several groundwater and surface water rights. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 provide a summary of the District’s active water rights.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-2 VVWD Permitted and Certificated Groundwater Rights

Total Combined Permit Duty Priority Date Status1 Duty - Not to No. (ac-ft/yr) Exceed (ac-ft/yr) 19451 1/16/1961 CER 361.976 361.976 25304 10/1/1969 CER 542.980 542.980 27808 10/3/1973 CER 79.607 79.607 27816 10/9/1973 CER 79.607 79.607 14347 6/23/1952 CER 144.76 20361 3/12/1962 CER 168.02 41120 4/17/1980 CER 39.90 41122 11/9/1988 PER 1,085.78 50172 9/22/1986 PER 1,447.91 50865 4/30/1990 PER 448.06 51271 9/3/1987 PER 723.97 51272 9/3/1987 PER 723.97 51306 9/16/1987 PER 723.97 52015 5/27/1949 PER 58.00 52333 7/18/1988 PER 723.98 52952 2/22/1989 PER 723.98 53027 3/16/1989 PER 2,895.81 11,072.580 54154 11/9/1989 PER 723.98 56244 4/30/1990 PER 448.06 56981 4/15/1988 PER 1,447.94 61594 9/3/1987 CER 361.98 61595 9/3/1987 CER 361.98 61975 11/9/1988 PER 1,085.78 63879 8/4/1952 CER 72.40 67729 6/20/1994 PER 1,447.94 67730 4/15/1988 PER 1,447.94 69273 3/16/1989 PER 2,895.81 73298 3/26/2009 PER 591.11 76179 2/18/1959 PER 217.20 77945 1/13/1997 PER 43.42 77946 11/16/2010 PER 134.42 134.420 77947 11/16/2010 PER 79.64 77948 1/13/1997 PER 79.64 Total 12,271.170 1PER = permitted, CER = certificated

As identified Table 4-2, the District holds over 30 groundwater rights which make up a total of 12,271 acre-feet. According to District staff, the majority of these water rights are grouped together with a combined duty not to exceed this amount and have the capability to be moved around the system as needed. In essence, the system can operate as if under one large groundwater right.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-3 VVWD Permitted and Certificated Surface Water Rights

Permit Priority Duty Source Name Status Source No. Date (ac-ft/yr) Cabin Springs Creek 9829 1/14/1935 CER Stream 50.6 Mica Notch Spring 9986 5/2/1936 CER Spring 201.26 Indian Spring 10422 9/8/1939 CER Spring 3.35 Riverside Virgin River 11504 2/28/1946 CER Stream 380 Seep Spring 12841 3/8/1949 CER Spring 19.33 Dud's Spring 12842 3/8/1949 CER Spring 72.4 Nickel Creek 50571 2/3/1987 PER Stream 2,154.03 Halfway Wash Virgin 57643 5/8/1992 PER Stream 5,000.00 River V.R. DEC 1905 DEC BIC (Bunkerville Irrigation 02038 Stream 546 Company) Virgin River 13222 1/3/1950 CER 16833 3/21/1956 CER 19920 6/15/1961 CER V.R. DEC 1905 DEC MIC (Mesquite Irrigation 01968 Stream 2,893.54 Company) Virgin River 7624 1/21/1926 CER 15619 4/30/1954 CER Total 11,320.51

As shown in Table 4-3, the District holds a total of 11,321 AF of surface water rights, for a total combined water right (groundwater and surface water) of 23,592 AF. The current point of diversion of the District’s surface water rights is shown in Figure 4-2. This value represents the legal annual water use limit for the District, sometimes referred to as “paper water”. In reality, the actual amount of water present in aquifers, springs, and rivers (referred to as “wet water”) may vary from what is designated in the “paper” water right. This is an important distinction to keep in mind as the District develops new sources in the future. What is specified as “legally” available in a water right may or may not actually be available to the District for use.

It should be noted that while a number of the surface water rights held by the District have historically been leased out for irrigation, these water rights were obtained and are intended for use in the culinary water system. As system demands increase in the future, these surface water sources may need to be utilized to satisfy culinary system needs, making a portion or all of these rights no longer available for lease to irrigation users.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D ^_ Surface Water Sources ^_MIC Virgin River

^_BIC Virgin River

I-15

^_Riverside Diversion

Virgin River

NORTH: SCALE:

Indian Spring 0 3,500 7,000 Feet

^_ NORTH ^_Halfway Wash Virgin River VVWD SURFACE ^_Seep Spring ^_Cabin Springs Creek WATER SOURCES Dud's Spring VVWD ^_ 2016 WATER ^_Mica Noch Spring MASTER PLAN FIGURE NO. ^_Nickel Creek Stream 4-2

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 4-2 - Surface Water Source POD.mxd aanderson 3/9/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

EVALUATION OF SUPPLY CAPACITY

Minimum source capacity requirements for a public water system are established by Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A. Based on the requirements set forth in the code, sources must be capable of meeting the following criteria:

• Annual Demand: Sources must have the capacity to provide one full year’s worth of supply. In essence, sources must be able to produce the needed water throughout the course of the entire year. • Peak Day Demand: Sources must be capable of meeting the system’s peak day demand, or the demand which is exerted on the system on the peak day of usage. • Average Day Demand with Largest Well out of Service: The final source requirement, which pertains specifically to systems which rely solely on groundwater sources for water supply, is that sources must be capable of meeting average day demand with the largest well out of service. In the case that the District’s largest source were taken offline due to well failure, well contamination, or other catastrophic event, the system must still be capable of meeting average day demands to meet customer’s basic water needs.

Each of the demand scenarios outlined above is evaluated in the following sections of this chapter.

ANNUAL SUPPLY EVALUATION

The first supply standard which must be met by the District is having sufficient source capacity to meet total annual demands on the system. As discussed previously, there are 2 components of supply which must be considered in this evaluation: “paper water” and “wet water”. Figure 4-3 compares the District’s projected annual demand with the current water rights portfolio. As shown in the figure, according to current projections, the District holds sufficient water rights to meet demands through full buildout of Mesquite and Bunkerville. Hence, from a “paper water” perspective, the District is in good shape in terms of annual water supply capacity.

Having identified that the District holds sufficient “paper water” rights to meet annual demands through projected buildout, the next step is to determine whether there is enough “wet water” to actually meet the allocations specified in the water rights. This is much more complex process which can be difficult to quantify even with extensive aquifer testing and monitoring. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that the groundwater aquifers have sufficient capacity and recharge, or “wet water”, to match the volumes allocated in the District’s “paper” water rights. This assumption is supported by the fact that District staff has reported that the majority of wells can operate at peak pumping rates for extended periods of time without causing any drawdown (lowering of the water table around the well) in the aquifer. If each of the District’s wells were to pump at 80% of their peak capacity year round, the system could produce 12,065 acre-feet of water, which is nearly the total of the District’s existing groundwater rights. Under this assumption, the District has enough “paper water” rights and enough “wet water” to meet existing average annual demands, and with the development of additional wells in the future, the District will have enough groundwater capacity to meet demands through approximately the year 2037. As the

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

District approaches this period in time, it is projected that the limits of existing groundwater rights will have been reached, at which point the District has the following options:

• Develop surface water sources (Virgin River and mountain springs & creeks) to utilize existing surface water rights.

• Perform a detailed regional aquifer study to evaluate the actual capacity of groundwater in the area. If the study indicates that sufficient water is available, the District could attempt to prove upon additional groundwater right applications at the State Engineer’s Office and continue developing wells for future supply needs. It should be noted that there is no guarantee that the District will be able to acquire additional groundwater, and if additional groundwater rights can be acquired, it will likely be through a long process. This considered, the District should plan to carry out an aquifer study several years prior to reaching the limits of existing groundwater rights to provide ample time for future source planning.

As shown in Table 4-3, a significant portion of the District’s surface water rights come from flow in the Virgin River. The Virgin River is naturally high is Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and other constituents that would require significant treatment to meet drinking water standards. While developing surface water sources is certainly a viable option, it would almost certainly be more cost effective to continue using groundwater wells for future supply needs (if future groundwater rights can be acquired). However, the economic, social, political, and environmental conditions within the next 10-15 years will have an influence on which of the options above best suits the needs of the District.

Figure 4-3 VVWD Projected Annual System Demand vs. Available Water Rights

Annual Source Production Projections

Existing Groundwater Rights Existing Surface Water Rights Projected Annual Demand 25,000

20,000 feet feet year) per - 15,000

10,000

5,000 Annual Supply (acre Supply Annual 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2070 2080 Year

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

PEAK DAY SUPPLY EVALUATION

Existing Demand Evaluation

In addition to ensuring that the District has sufficient source capacity to meet average water demand over the course of an entire year, it is equally important to possess adequate source capacity in place to satisfy peak demands on the system (or in other words, having enough pumping capacity to get water out of the ground fast enough when it is needed). Peak day demand represents the daily demand exerted on the system during the peak usage day of the year.

Peak day production capacity of each existing well source is given in Table 4-4. Ideally, each well would be able to produce water at its peak pumping rate indefinitely. However, it is not prudent or reasonable to assume that all sources will be able to pump at full capacity at all times. Mechanical issues, treatment facility maintenance, hydrologic/hydraulic limitations, and other aspects of well operation may limit the actual capacity of the District’s sources. For planning purposes, the “peak reliable yield” of the wells has been estimated as 80% of the peak pumping capacity of the well (shown in Table 4-4).

Table 4-4 Existing Source Production Capacity

Estimated Peak Estimated Well Number Sustained Production Reliable Yield Capacity (gpm) (gpm) Well No. 1A1 1,050 840 Well No. 2 400 320 Well No. 26 1,100 880 Well No. 27A2 2,000 1,600 Well No. 28 800 640 Well No. 29 500 400 Well No. 31 2,100 1680 Well No. 32 600 480 Well No. 33 2,100 1680 Total 10,2503 8,2003 1Will be operational mid 2017 2Will be operational between mid to late 2017 3District staff have reported that Well No. 1A and Well No. 2 are located in the same formation and that both wells cannot operate simultaneously without interfering with one another. Once brought online, Well No. 1A will function as the primary source and Well No. 2 will serve as a backup/redundant source; the sources will not operate simultaneously. This considered, the capacity of Well No. 2 has not been included in the total system water production capacity.

As shown in Table 4-4, the current total combined reliable capacity of the District’s sources is 8,200 gpm. Based on the population growth and water use information contained in Chapter 3, Table 4-5 provides the projections of peak day demand through buildout for the District. As shown

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

in Table 4-5, the peak day demand estimate for 2016 is 8,194 gpm. With the completion of Well No. 1A and Well No. 27A, the District will have enough reliable peak source production capacity to meet the existing needs of the system. However, the District will need to continue developing additional sources as new development increases the demand on the system.

Table 4-5 VVWD Projected Peak Day Demand through Buildout

Peak Day Peak Day Year Demand Demand (gpd) (gpm) 2015 11,481,640 7,973 2016 11,801,440 8,194 2020 13,149,616 9,132 2025 15,059,904 10,458 2026 15,474,060 10,746 2030 17,247,708 11,978 2035 19,753,340 13,718 2040 22,622,974 15,710 2045 25,909,488 17,993 2050 29,601,248 20,556 2055 32,650,066 22,674 2060 35,381,622 24,571 2070 37,305,476 25,907 2080 38,641,620 26,834

In order to better understand where additional source production capacity will be needed most in the system, the District service area has been broken up into 4 different “source regions” for evaluation. These regions, which correspond to the distribution system pressure zones throughout the system, represent areas of the system that draw upon a common source or group of sources. This allows for a more detailed evaluation of the District’s sources rather than solely looking at the system as a whole. These source zones are shown in Figure 4-4, and the comparison of existing peak day demand and peak reliable source production within each zone is summarized in Table 4- 6. To further understand the role of each source in the system, a source schematic of the system has been compiled and is shown as Figure 4-5. Note that Figure 4-4 displays 2 source regions which cover future areas of the system which are not currently developed. These areas are discussed in detail in a subsequent section titled “Future Source Evaluation”.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D Region Name Region A Region B Region A Region C Region A Region D Region E (Future) Region F (Future)

Region B

Region D

Region C

NORTH: SCALE:

Region E (Future) 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Region F (Future) NORTH

VVWD SOURCE AND STORAGE REGIONS

VVWD 2016 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE FIGURE NO. 4-4

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 4-4 - Source Regions.mxd aanderson 3/23/2017

WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-6 Existing Peak Day Reliable Source Capacity Evaluation

Total Peak Net Pressure Reliable Surplus2 Available3 Source Direct Supply Day Surplus4 Zones Peak (Deficit) Carryover Region Sources Demand (Deficit) Included Source (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Capacity Zone 1, Well No. 32, Region A Zone 3, 2,160 1,112 1,048 0 1,048 Well No. 33 Zone 4

Well No. 26, Region B Zone 2 Well No. 27A, 3,120 3,573 (453) 1,048 595 Well No. 28,

Well No. 1A, Zone 6, Well No. 2, Region C Zone 7, 2,920 661 2,259 0 2,259 Well No. 29, Zone 8 Well No. 31 No sole Region D Zone 5 0 2,848 (2,848) 2,854 6 sources1 TOTAL 8,200 8,194 6 6 1Region D (pressure zone 5) is capable of receiving flow from any of the District’s existing wells. However, there are currently no sources in the system that supply water solely to Region D. Currently, Region D receives most of its water from Well No. 31 in the form of “carryover supply” from Region C. 2 “Surplus” represents the amount of source capacity which remains unused from a given source region which is available to be used in another region. 3”Carryover” is the summation of available surplus from other regions which is available for a given region. 4”Net Surplus” is the net regional surplus or deficit after accounting for any available carryover supply from other regions.

As shown in Table 4-6, the District currently has a 6 gpm surplus in reliable source capacity. As shown in Figure 4-5, surplus demand from higher elevation regions in the system can be used to satisfy demands in lower elevation regions. For example, demands in Source Region D (Zone 5) can be met from a source located virtually anywhere in the system. However, if source deficiencies existed in either Region A or Region C, sources would need to be constructed within the respective region (or have the ability to deliver water to the specific region) in order to remediate the deficiency (due to the fact that there are currently no regions above these regions to provide a carryover of surplus supply). Currently, Source Regions A and C have surplus supply which can be used to satisfy source deficits in Regions B and D.

Existing Peak Treatment Capacity

The ability to meet peak system demands is not only a function of well pumping capacity, but also the rate at which water can be treated in preparation for delivery to the distribution system. The District operates five arsenic treatment plants, and these facilities must have adequate capacity so as to not limit the pumping rate of wells. Table 4-7 provides a summary of the characteristics and operation of the District’s existing treatment facilities. This information is also available in Figure

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-9 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

4-5. Treatment capacity for each plant is presented in terms of “reliable capacity” which assumes that one filter is offline for backwashing, maintenance, etc.

Table 4-7 Existing Treatment Facility Evaluation

Current Surplus Peak Plant Reliable Plant Treatment Potential Reliable Wells Treated Capacity Capacity Plant Name Peak Flow Capacity (gpm) (gpm)1 (gpm) (gpm) Well No. 26, 27 3,000 2,400 3,300 (900)2 Well No. 27A 28 Well No. 28 1,800 1,200 800 400 29 Well No. 29 900 600 500 100 31 Well No. 31 4,200 3,600 2,100 1,500 Well No. 32, 323 6,600 6,000 2,700 3,300 Well No. 33 1A4 Well No. 1A 1,050 1,050 1,050 0 Total 16,500 13,800 9,400 5,500 1Represents the available treatment capacity with one filter out of operation. 2Well No. 27 was recently redeveloped (Well No. 27A). The new well is capable of producing twice the amount that it previously did. 3Plant 32 is currently capable of being expanded to a peak capacity of 7,800 gpm (with the addition of 2 more filters). 4Plant 1A will be completed in 2017. Plant 1A utilizes a GIM treatment process which does not require frequent backwashing or operational downtime. This considered, the reliable capacity of Plant 1A has been assumed to be equal to its peak capacity.

The District is currently in good standing in terms of groundwater treatment capacity for the majority of its facilities. However, the recently drilled Well No. 27A can produce twice the amount of the previous Well No. 27, and as shown in Table 4-7, flow from Well No. 26 and No. 27A could potentially run into a bottleneck at Plant 27. An expansion of Plant No. 27 would allow Well No. 26 and No. 27A to flow at their peak rates.

Plants No. 28 and 29 have a small amount of surplus treatment capacity which provides the District with the ability to upgrade an existing well which flows to one of these plants with a higher pumping capacity in the future (if it were found that a well could physically produce more water without having a detrimental effect on the overall functionality of the aquifer). Plants 31 and 32, however, possess enough surplus capacity to support an entirely new well source or, in the case of Plant 32, multiple new sources. From a cost stand point, the District should plan to utilize as much existing treatment capacity as possible before beginning to develop sources that would require new treatment facilities.

Future Source Evaluation

In addition to the evaluation of the existing system, peak day source capacity has been evaluated for two specific future growth conditions: 10-year growth and buildout. Table 4-8 provides a projection of system demand through buildout by pressure zone. Note that 2 new pressure zones (Zone 9 and Zone 10) are shown in Table 4-8 which represent new major areas of the system which

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-10 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

are currently not developed. These new zones correspond to source regions E and F shown in Figure 4-4. Table 4-8 Peak Day Demand by Pressure Zone through Buildout

Buildout 2016 Peak 2026 Peak Peak Day Pressure Zone Day Demand Day Demand Demand (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1 - Pulte 705 1,673 3,089 Zone 2 - North Freeway 3,573 4,637 11,153 Zone 3 - Wolf Creek 228 250 250 Zone 4 - Vista Del Monte 179 179 179 Zone 5 - South Freeway 2,848 3,303 5,031 Zone 6 - Bunkerville 477 505 2,216 Zone 7 - South Virgin River 40 46 774 Zone 8 - Decker/Scenic Zone 144 144 811 Zone 9 - Far West Mesquite 1 0 0 2,198 Zone 10 - Upper Bunkerville2 0 0 1,139 TOTAL 8,194 10,737 26,840 1The West Mesquite Zone is a conceptually planned future zone which will serve areas of Mesquite which reside on the far west side of the City. No development currently exists in this area, and it is not anticipated that any significant development will occur in the area in the next 10-20 years. 2The Upper Bunkerville Zone is the area within the municipal boundary of Bunkerville that cannot be served by the existing Scenic/Decker Tanks. This area will likely be the last part of Bunkerville to be developed.

Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 present the comparison of projected peak day demand against the District’s existing reliable peak source capacity by region for projected 10-year growth and buildout conditions, respectively. The peak day demand values in the tables show the projected total peak day demand as well as the increase in demand in comparison to existing conditions (shown in parenthesis). Note that Table 4-10 includes the two additional source regions (Region E and Region F) as previously explained.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-11 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-9 Reliable Peak Source Capacity Evaluation – 10 Year Growth Total Net Pressure Reliable Peak Day Surplus1 Available Source Direct Supply Surplus1 Zones Peak Source Demand (Deficit) Carryover1 Region Source (Deficit) Included Capacity (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1, Well No. 32, 2,102 Region A Zone 3, 2,160 58 0 58 Well No. 33 (+990) Zone 4 Well No. 26, 4,637 Region B Zone 2 Well No. 27A, 3,120 (1,517) 58 (1,459) (+1,064) Well No. 28

Well No. 1A, Zone 6, Well No. 2, Region C Zone 7, 2,920 695 (+34) 2,225 0 2,225 Well No. 29, Zone 8 Well No. 31 No sole 3,303 Region D Zone 5 0 (3,303) 2,225 (1,078) sources* (+455) TOTAL 8,200 10,737 (2,537) -- (2,537) 1See notes from Table 4-6

Table 4-10 Reliable Peak Source Capacity Evaluation – Buildout Total Peak Net Direct Reliable Surplus1 Available Source Pressure Zones Day Surplus1 Supply Peak Source (Deficit) Carryover1 Region Included Demand (Deficit) Source Capacity (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1, Zone 3, Well No. 32, 3,518 Region A 2,160 (1,358) 0 (1,358) Zone 4 Well No. 33 (+2,406) Well No. 26, Well No. 11,153 Region B Zone 2 3,120 (8,033) 0 (8,033) 27A, Well (+7,580) No. 28 Well No. 1A, Zone 6, Zone 7, Well No. 2, 3,801 Region C 2,920 (881) 0 (881) Zone 8 Well No. 29, (+3,140) Well No. 31 No sole 5,031 Region D Zone 5 0 (5,031) 0 (5,031) sources* (+2,183) Far West Mesquite No current 2,198 Region E (Future Pressure 0 (2,198) 0 (2,198) sources (+2,198) Zone 9)

Upper Bunkerville No current 1,139 Region F 0 (1,139) 0 (1,139) (Future Zone 10) sources (+1,139) TOTAL 8,200 26,840 (18,640) -- (18,640) 1 See notes from Table 4-6

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-12 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

As shown in Table 4-9, the District will need to plan on adding an additional 2,537 gpm of peak reliable source capacity (3,171 gpm of actual peak production capacity) within the next 10 years to accommodate growing demands. As the table also indicates, Region B (Zone 2) and Region D (Zone 5) are the areas which will likely require this additional source production capacity. As shown in Table 4-10, it is estimated that the District will need to develop an additional 18,640 gpm of peak reliable capacity (23,300 gpm of actual peak production capacity) by the time Mesquite and Bunkerville reach full buildout.

Within the next 15 – 20 years, the District may need to begin preparing to develop surface water sources (or prove upon additional groundwater rights to continue utilizing wells). Since all of the District’s surface water sources are located on the south side of the system (in the Virgin River and mountain springs to the south of Bunkerville), it makes sense to focus the remainder of groundwater wells in Mesquite within Region A or B (where it will be more difficult and expensive to convey surface water in the future). To limit the number of large water conveyance projects, the District should, to the extent possible, focus new source development within the region where the demand is needed rather than developing a large amount of source capacity within one particular zone and conveying water to other areas. For example, while water produced in Region A has the versatility to be used in Region A, B, or C (the entire City of Mesquite), it may not make sense to focus all new source development in this area from a conveyance stand point. If a large portion of the system is relying heavily on a single source or group of concentrated sources, a transmission line break or other incident could leave a significant number of customers without water. A good distribution of sources will improve the overall functionality and reliability of the District’s water system.

AVERAGE DAY DEMAND WITH LARGEST SOURCE OFFLINE

The final NAC requirement which must be met by the District is that sources must be able to supply average day demands with the largest source not in operation. If a primary source were to suffer mechanical failure, contamination, etc., the system should still be capable of reliably meeting average daily demands so that users can continue to use water to satisfy basic needs.

While Well No. 31 and 33 have the same production capacity, Well No. 31 has historically been the largest producer in the system and on average has made up almost a third of the District’s total water production. However, a well failure source evaluation for Well No. 31, Well No. 33 and Well No. 27A has been evaluated because each well makes up a significant portion of the supply to each respective Source Region.

Table 4-11, Table 4-12, and Table 4-13 provide an evaluation of the District’s sources under these well failure scenarios. As shown in Table 4-11 and Table 4-12, well failure at Well No. 31 or Well No. 27A would not prevent the District from being able to supply customers with average day demands. However, as shown in Table 4-13, failure at Well No. 33 would leave Region A (Zone 1, Zone 3, and Zone 4) with a 76 gpm deficit which could not be satisfied by another region in the system. This provides support that the District would benefit from additional source capacity to service Source Region A.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-13 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-11 Average Day Demand with Well No. 31 Out of Service

Average Total Reliable Surplus Source Pressure Zones Day Sources Source Capacity (Deficit) Region included Demand (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1, Zone 3, Zone Well No. 32, Region A 2,160 556 1,604 4 Well No. 33 Well No. 26, Region B Zone 2 Well No. 27A, 3,120 1,787 1,333 Well No. 28 Zone 6, Zone 7, Zone Well No. 1A, Region C 1,240 331 909 8 Well No. 29 No direct Region D Zone 5 0 1,424 (1,424)1 sources TOTAL 6,520 4,098 2,422 1Deficit can be satisfied by carryover supply from other regions

Table 4-12 Average Day Demand with Well No. 27A Out of Service

Average Total Reliable Surplus Source Pressure Zones Day Sources Source Capacity (Deficit) Region included Demand (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1, Zone 3, Zone Well No. 32, Region A 2,160 556 1,604 4 Well No. 33 Well No. 26, Region B Zone 2 1,520 1,787 (267)1 Well No. 28 Well No. 1A, Zone 6, Zone 7, Zone Region C Well No. 29, 2,920 331 2,589 8 Well No. 31 Region D Zone 5 No direct sources 0 1,424 (1,424)1 TOTAL 6,600 4,098 2,502 1Deficit can be satisfied by carryover supply from other regions

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-14 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-13 Average Day Demand with Well No. 33 Out of Service

Average Total Reliable Surplus Source Pressure Zones Day Sources Source Capacity (Deficit) Region included Demand (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Zone 1, Zone 3, Region A Well No. 32 480 556 (76)1 Zone 4 Well No. 26, Region B Zone 2 Well No. 27A, 3,280 1,787 1,493 Well No. 28 Well No. 1A, Zone 6, Zone 7, Region C Well No. 29, 2,920 331 2,589 Zone 8 Well No. 31 Region D Zone 5 No direct sources 0 1,424 (1,424)2 TOTAL 6,680 4,098 2,582 1Deficit cannot be satisfied by carryover from other source regions 2Deficit can be satisfied by carryover from other source regions

CONDITION OF EXISTING SOURCES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES

It is important that the District continue to monitor the condition of its water production and treatment facilities. Well No. 26, 28, and 29 were constructed at the same time and with the same materials as Well No. 27, which recently failed due to corrosion of the well screen. The common factor between these wells is that the screens are made of mild steel which has not held up well in the corrosive groundwater present in the District’s aquifer formations. Well No. 2 experienced a partial failure after 23 years of operation and was able to be repaired, but the overall condition of the well screen and casing are questionable. If these trends continue, Wells No. 26, 28, 29, and 2 have a high probability of failure in the near future, placing even greater importance on the development of new sources in the system. As the District has done with Wells No. 1A, 31, 32, 33 and 27A, it is recommended that District utilize corrosion resistant materials to extend the service life of future wells.

The District’s arsenic treatment facilities have been in operation for about 8 years, and during that time the filter media has not been replaced. Other treatment plant components, such as the chemical feed tanks, are getting old and may require replacement in the near future. Overall, the District’s treatment facilities are still relatively young, but it is important to plan and budget for the periodic replacement of treatment facility components. Staying on top of treatment facility rehabilitation and replacement will help reduce the risk of major plant failure or having to replace several components all at once, both of which tend to be expensive undertakings.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-15 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

SOURCE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The District’s source capacity has been evaluated for three different demand scenarios as required by NAC 445A:

1. Annual Supply 2. Peak Day Supply 3. Average Day Supply with Largest Source Out of Service

Of these 3 scenarios, new source development will be driven primarily by the need to develop additional capacity to meet peak system demands (Scenario #2). By so doing, annual supply capacity and average day supply capacity should inherently be sufficient. In other words, the District has plenty of “paper” and “wet” water available to meet the needs of the system, but stands in need of additional sources capable of producing water from the aquifer.

Figure 4-6 and Table 4-14 shown below provide a general plan for the development of new water sources for the District and the estimated costs associated with new source development. The conceptual location of new sources to be developed within the next 10 years is shown in Figure 4- 7. The following are key discussion points regarding the plan:

• The District’s existing reliable peak production capacity is 6 gpm above the recommended level. The District is in good shape under existing conditions, but additional sources should continue to be developed.

• By the year 2026, peak day demand on the system is estimated to be 10,737 gpm. According these projections, the District should plan to the increase its reliable peak source production capacity by 2,537 gpm within the next 10 years, which equates to 2-3 new wells over the next 10 years (based on an assumed reliable yield of 1,000 gpm per well).

• The area of the system that is in greatest need of new sources is Source Region B (Pressure Zone 2 – North Freeway). The ideal location for the next District sources is within Source Region A or B.

• Over the next 10-15 years, new source development will come in the form of drilling additional wells. However, as the limit of the District’s existing groundwater rights is approached, the District will either need to prove upon additional groundwater rights or begin developing surface water sources (river, creek, and spring water). Prior to the year 2030, it is recommended that the District carry out a regional aquifer study to help determine if additional capacity is available in the underground water formations around the District. The completion of such a study will help guide decisions regarding future source development in the District.

• Project costs shown in Table 4-14 are developed based on historic source development costs for the District. Well No. 34 and Well No. 35 are anticipated to be less expensive because they will utilize existing water treatment capacity in Plant No. 32.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-16 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Figure 4-6 Recommended Source Development Plan through Buildout

Existing Sources Wells Under Development Well No. 34 Well No. 35 Well No. 36 Well No. 37 Well No. 38 Well No. 39 Source No. 40 Source No. 41 Source No. 42 Source No. 43 Source No. 44 Source No. 45 Projected Peak Day Demand Peak Source Production Capacity

40,000

For planning purposes, sources have been evaluated in terms of reliable yield. This line represents the actual peak capacity of all 35,000 sources, assuming they are all operating at thier respective peak capacity.

30,000 According to current growth projections, the District will reach the maximum allowable usage of existing groundwater rights by the year 2037. At this point, the District will New Source No. 45 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity need to begin developing surface water

source to utilize existing surface water rights Surface orNew Groundwater 25,000 or prove upon and acquire additional groundwater rights to continue developing New Source No. 44 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity wells . New Source No. 43 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity 20,000 New Source No. 42 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity

New Source No. 41 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Source Capacity (gpm) Capacity Source 15,000 New Source No. 40 - 2,500 gpm Peak Capacity, 2,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Well No. 39 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Well No. 38 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Well No. 37 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Existing Groundwater Well No. 36 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity 10,000 Well No. 35 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Well No. 34 - 1,250 gpm Peak Capacity, 1,000 gpm Reliable Capacity Well No. 1A and Well No. 27A - 4,175 gpm Peak Capacity, 3,340 gpm Reliable Capacity

5,000

Existing Well Sources - 7,200 gpm Peak Reliable Rights Capacity, 5,760 gpm Reliable Peak Capacity

0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 Year

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-17 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D "M New Well Sources Existing Pipes Existing Pipes "M "M Well No. 35 (Conceptual location) Well No. 34 Site FY 2023 (FY 2020)

Lincoln Tanks & Treatment Plant No. 32

Well No. 36 Site (Conceptual Location) FY 2027

Mesquite Heights Rd. "M

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD NEW VVWD WELL 2016 WATER 0 1,000 2,000 SOURCES OVER THE Feet 4-7 MASTER PLAN NEXT 10 YEARS NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 4-7 - 10 Year Source Locations.mxd aanderson 3/9/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 4-14 Recommended Source Development Plan

Reliable Source Peak Source Recommended Construction Capacity Developed Estimated Cost New Source No. Capacity Developed Source Region Date (80% of Peak Capacity) (2016 Dollars) (gpm) (gpm)

Well No. 34 A (Plant 32) 2018 1,250 1,000 $3,300,000 Well No. 35 A (Plant 32) 2021 1,250 1,000 $3,300,000 Well No. 361 B (Zone 2) 2026 1,250 1,000 $6,000,000 Well No. 37 A or B 2029 1,250 1,000 $5,100,000 Well No. 38 TBD 2032 1,250 1,000 $5,100,000 Well No. 392 TBD 2035 1,250 1,000 $5,100,000 Source No. 40 TBD 2037 2,500 2,000 $9,000,000 Source No. 41 TBD 2042 2,500 2,000 $9,000,000 Source No. 42 TBD 2046 2,500 2,000 $9,000,000 Source No. 43 TBD 2050 2,500 2,000 $9,000,000 Source No. 44 TBD 2055 2,500 2,000 $9,000,000 Source No. 45 TBD 2061 3,400 2,700 $11,000,000 TOTAL $83,900,000 1Well No. 36 will likely involve the construction of a new 1.0 MG storage tank which is included in the estimated cost. 2According to projections from this master plan, Well No. 39 is the last well that the District will be able to develop under existing water rights. To develop additional wells, the District will need to prove upon additional groundwater rights.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-18 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

ADDITIONAL SOURCE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

In addition to the capital improvements identified in Table 4-14, the District has created a list of maintenance and rehabilitation related projects for existing wells and treatment facilities. These projects are identified in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Related Projects

Major Treatment Plant O&M Year Estimated Cost

Replace Filter Media at Treatment Plant No. 27 2020-2023 $1,250,000 Subtotal $1,250,000 Major Well O&M/Other Well Projects Equip Well No. 27A 2017 $600,000 Reconstruct Well No. 26 or 28 2021 $1,500,000 Reconstruct Well No. 26 or 28 2024 $1,500,000 Subtotal $3,600,000 Total $4,850,000

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-19 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 5 STORAGE CAPACITY EVALUATION

Storage facilities play a vital role in the operation of a water system. They provide an important buffer between sources and the distribution system as well as store water for emergencies and fire suppression. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the District’s existing water storage facilities with respect to State rules and regulations and evaluate future storage needs that will arise as a result of growth in the District.

STORAGE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Regulations regarding required system storage are found in Sections 445A.6674, 445A.66745, and 445A.6675 of Chapter 445A of the Nevada Administrative Code. The code sets forth the following requirements for storage facilities in a public water system:

NAC 445A.6674 Storage capacity.

1. A supplier of water shall ensure that: (a) An existing public water system maintains a storage capacity that, as determined by an engineer on the basis of historical data, accepted engineering judgment and a network hydraulic analysis, is sufficient to ensure that the total capacity of the public water system will meet current and anticipated demands for water while maintaining the pressures indicated in NAC 445A.6711. (b) A new public water system maintains a storage capacity that is sufficient to provide the amount of water required for sufficient operating storage, emergency reserve and fire demand. 2. Storage requirements for fire demand must be calculated according to the requirements of the fire authority. The Division or the appropriate district board of health shall evaluate the design of a public water system based upon appropriate documentation of those requirements. 3. A supplier of water for an existing public water system shall ensure that the total storage capacity and capacity of booster pumps for each zone of pressure in the distribution system are sufficient to meet the maximum day demand within that zone. Water stored in a higher zone of pressure may be provided to serve a lower zone of pressure if: (a) An appropriate pressure regulator is installed between the zones; and (b) The requirements for the higher zone of pressure are not compromised.

NAC 445A.66745 Operating storage.

1. An existing public water system must maintain an operating storage in such an amount as an engineer determines, based upon historical data and the system’s capacity for the development and treatment of water, to be sufficient for the system to meet requirements for maximum day demand. 2. A new public water system must, except as otherwise justified by an engineer and approved by the Division or the appropriate district board of health, maintain an operating storage equal to 700 gallons for each residential equivalent in the area of service of a metered system and 1,225 gallons for each residential equivalent in the area of service of an unmetered system.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

NAC 445A.6675 Emergency reserve. (NRS 445A.860) Except as otherwise provided in NAC 445A.66755:

1. An existing public water system must maintain an emergency reserve in such an amount as an engineer determines appropriate on the basis of the best available local information. 2. A new public water system must maintain an emergency reserve equal to 75 percent of the amount of operating storage of the system. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Health, eff. 2-20-97)

NAC 445A.66755 Existing systems: Exemption from storage requirements. (NRS 445A.860)

An existing public water system is not required to comply with the requirements of NAC 445A.6674, 445A.66745 and 445A.6675 if the system has a sufficient alternative pumping capacity to meet requirements for maximum day demand, peak hour demand and fire flow. (Added to NAC by Bd. of Health, eff. 2-20-97)

As discussed in these sections of the NAC, storage facilities must be sized to provide:  Operating Storage  Emergency Storage  Fire suppression storage

Operating Storage

As discussed in Chapter 4, water sources are required to be capable of legally and physically producing enough water to meet average annual demands as well as peak day demands. However, during high usage periods of the year, system demands will exceed the peak production capacity of sources. Operating storage, also referred to as equalization storage, is used to satisfy system demand when it exceeds peak source capacity. To illustrate the role of equalization storage in a system, Figure 5-1 displays an example of the diurnal demand pattern for an area of the District. As shown in the figure, storage facilities will fill and drain based on the demand exerted on the system. The required volume of operating storage may differ from system to system, but based on previous planning experience, operating storage for the District should be equal to 25% of peak day demand. Based on this recommendation, the required equalization storage for the existing system is 2.95 million gallons.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Figure 5-1 VVWD Peak Day Diurnal Water Use

Storage Filling Storage Draining Average Peak Day Demand Hourly Demand

2.5 Peak Hour Demand

2 Equalization Storage ~ 25% of Average Peak Day

1.5

Peaking Factor Peaking 1

Peak Day Demand 0.5

0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Hour

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Emergency Storage

As stated in NAC 445A.6675, emergency storage should be determined based on best engineering judgement and available historical data. Based on previous water system planning experience, the system should have enough storage to satisfy peak day demand over the course of a 6 hour period (in the case of a major power outage or other catastrophic well failure). Under this assumption, emergency storage should be equal to 25% of peak day demand, which under existing conditions is equal to 2.95 million gallons.

Fire Suppression Storage

The primary authority responsible for establishing needed fire flows and fire flow storage is the local fire code official. Fire flow requirements vary by development size and type and range from 1,500 gpm in predominantly residential areas to 4,000 gpm in commercial areas. For the purposes of this master plan, sizing storage facilities for fire flow has been based on the requirement for commercial areas of 4,000 gpm for a period of 4 hours, or 960,000 gallons. Fire flow storage for an individual water pressure zone may come from the zone itself or from storage in higher zones in the system. This means that the fire flow storage does not need to be built for each individual pressure zone (e.g. fire suppression storage in the two 3 million gallon Lincoln Tanks can cover all of Zones 1-5).

Existing Storage Facilities

The District’s existing water storage facilities are summarized in Table 5-1.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 5-1 VVWD Existing Storage Facilities

Size of Tank Base Max. Water Max. Tank Tank Construction Pressure Diameter1 Elevation Surface Elev. Depth Name (Million Material Zone (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Gallons) Above Decker 1 78 Ground Zone 6 1835.2 1863.2 28 Welded Steel Above Zone 7, Scenic 2 122 Ground 1822.8 1845.3 22.5 Zone8 Bolted Steel Above Flat Top 2 122 Ground Zone 2 1931.7 1954.7 23 Bolted Steel Above Freeway 1 77 Ground Zone 5 1738.3 1767.3 29 Welded Steel Above Airport2 1.7 114 Ground Zone 2 1929.9 1959.9 30 Welded Steel Above Zone 1, Lincoln 3 150 Ground Zone 3, 2331.8 2353.8 22 Tank #1 Welded Steel Zone 4 Above Zone 1, Lincoln 3 150 Ground Zone 3, 2331.8 2353.8 22 Tank #2 Welded Steel Zone 4 Total 13.7 1Estimate based on the reported size and height of each tank. 2The storage volume of the Airport Tank is currently limited by the Flat Top Tank. The two tanks are hydraulically connected, and the Airport Tank cannot be filled past an elevation of 1954.9 feet without overflowing the Flat Top Tank. The District is planning to reconstruct the Flat Top tank to correct this issue.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Total Existing and Future Storage Requirements

Similar to the evaluation of the District’s sources, storage facilities have been evaluated by looking at individual tank service areas. These service areas consist of one or more pressure zones that generally draw on a common storage tank or group of storage tanks. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 provide a summary of the storage evaluation for the existing system, the system after 10 years of the growth, and the system at buildout, respectively. The tables compare the District’s existing storage facilities against projected future demands. An operational schematic of the District’s existing water storage facilities is shown in Figure 5-2. Note the following concerning Tables 5-2 through 5-4:

 Typically, equalization storage is not carried over from one pressure zone to another (due to the potential pressure issues that would arise). However, the District operates the system in a manner with does allow storage from higher zones to be used in lower zones, as described below:

o The PRV on Mesquite Heights Road/Hardy Way connects the Lincoln County Tanks to Pressure Zone 2. This PRV is operated more as a flow control valve, and Zone 2 is able to pull flow from the Lincoln Tanks before the Flat Top/Airport Tanks are allowed to drain. This considered, storage in the Lincoln Tanks has been counted toward the storage requirement for Zone 2.

o The Mesquite Star PRV which connects Zone 2 to Zone 5 operates as a flow control valve using telemetry connected to the Freeway Tank. The Virgin River PRV, connecting the Scenic/Decker Tanks to Zone 5, operates in a similar fashion. Zone 5 can pull flow “directly” from Decker, Scenic, Flat Top, or the Airport Tank, and can indirectly pull flow from the Lincoln Tanks. In essence, equalization storage located anywhere higher in the system can be counted toward Zone 5’s equalization storage requirement.

 The District is currently in the planning stages of a new 2.0 million gallon tank which will serve Pressure Zone 1 (Pulte Sun City). This new facility will serve as the primary storage for Zone 1. While Zone 1 will still have access to storage in the Lincoln Tanks, they will no longer be the sole source of storage for the zone.

 There are two major areas of Mesquite and Bunkerville that are currently undeveloped: the western region of Mesquite and the south/southeast region of Bunkerville (refer to Figure 4-3 from Chapter 4). These areas of the system will most likely require new storage facilities. The existing 1 MG White Rock Tank (currently not being used) could potentially be used to service future growth in Bunkerville (specifically, the White Rock tank would work well in conjunction with the development of some of the District’s spring sources.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 5-2 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – Existing Conditions

Total Equalization Total Storage Pressure Peak Day Emergency Fire Flow Available Storage Storage Tank Equalization Required Surplus by Zones Demand Storage Storage Storage Surplus by Surplus Region Storage (gal) Storage Service Included (gpm) (gal) (gal) (gal) Service Area Total (gal) Area (deficit) (deficit) Zone 1, Region A Zone 3, 1,112 400,320 400,320 960,000 1,760,640 6,000,000 5,599,680 4,239,360 4,239,360 Zone 4 Region B Zone 2 3,573 1,286,280 1,286,280 0 2,572,560 3,700,000 2,413,720 1,127,440 5,366,800 Zone 6, Region C Zone 7, 661 237,960 237,960 960,000 1,435,920 3,000,000 2,762,040 1,564,080 6,930,880 Zone 8 Region D Zone 5 2,848 1,025,280 1,025,280 0 2,050,560 1,000,000 (25,280) (1,050,560) 5,880,320 Totals 8,194 2,949,840 2,949,840 1,920,000 7,819,680 13,700,000 5,880,320 1While the Airport Tank has a total storage volume of 2.3 MG, the effective volume available is currently limited to 1.7 MG due to the elevation and height of the Flat Top Tank. The District is planning a project in 2018 to rebuild the Flat Top Tank. This reconstruction project will make the total storage volume of the Airport Tank available as well as add additional storage at the Flat Top Tank for an estimated 1 MG of total additional storage capacity.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 5-3 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – 10- Year Growth

Equalization Total Fire Total Storage Storage Pressure Peak Day Emergency Available Storage Tank Service Equalization Flow Required Surplus by Surplus Zones Demand Storage Storage Surplus by Area Storage (gal) Storage Storage Service Total Served (gpm) (gal) (gal) Service Area (gal) (gal) Area (gal) (deficit)(gal) (deficit)(gal)

Zone 1, Lincoln Tanks Zone 3, 2,102 756,720 756,720 960,000 2,473,440 6,000,000 5,243,280 3,526,560 3,526,560 Zone 4 Flat Zone 2 4,637 1,669,320 1,669,320 0 3,338,640 3,700,000 2,030,680 361,360 3,887,920 Top/Airport Zone 6, Decker/Scenic Zone 7, 695 250,200 250,200 960,000 1,460,400 3,000,000 2,749,800 1,539,600 5,427,520 Zone 8 Freeway Zone 5 3,303 1,189,080 1,189,080 0 2,378,160 1,000,000 (189,080) (1,378,160) 4,049,360

Total 10,737 3,865,320 3,865,320 1,920,000 9,650,640 13,700,000 4,049,360

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 5-4 VVWD Storage Capacity Evaluation – Buildout Growth

Equalization Total Peak Total Storage Storage Pressure Emergency Fire Flow Available Storage Tank Service Day Equalization Required Surplus by Surplus by Zones Storage Storage Storage Surplus Area Demand Storage (gal) Storage Service Service Included (gal) (gal) (gal) Total (gal) (gpm) (gal) Area Area (deficit)(gal) (deficit)(gal) Zone 1, Lincoln Tanks Zone 3, 3,518 1,266,480 1,266,480 960,000 3,492,960 6,000,000 4,733,520 2,507,040 2,507,040 Zone 4 Flat Zone 2 11,153 4,015,080 4,015,080 0 8,030,160 3,700,000 (315,080) (4,330,160) (1,823,120) Top/Airport Zone 6, Decker/Scenic Zone 7, 3,801 1,368,360 1,368,360 0 2,736,720 3,000,000 1,631,640 263,280 (1,559,840) Zone 8 Freeway Zone 5 5,031 1,811,160 1,811,160 0 3,622,320 1,000,000 (811,160) (2,622,320) (4,182,160) New Tank Upper 1,139 410,040 410,040 960,000 1,780,080 0 (410,040) (1,780,080) (5,962,240) Area Bunkerville New Tank West 2,198 791,280 791,280 960,000 2,542,560 0 (791,280) (2,542,560) (8,504,800) Area Mesquite Totals 26,840 9,662,400 9,662,400 2,880,000 22,204,800 13,700,000 (8,504,800)

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-9 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

STORAGE FACILITY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 5-5 and Figure 5-3 presents a summary of the recommended future storage projects for the District through buildout. The information in Table 5-5 is supported by the following discussion points:

1. Total Storage – The District currently has 13.7 million gallons of storage capacity. The District has no storage deficiencies in the existing system and is not anticipated to have any deficiencies within the next 10 years. As indicated in the 2012 VVWD Master Plan, the construction of a new tank to service the Pulte Sun City area is intended to alleviate stress on the distribution system and is not necessarily required at this point in time from a storage capacity basis. This is not to say that the storage in the proposed Pulte Tank will go unused in the future. Since Zones 1-4 all depend heavily on a shared 24-inch line from the Lincoln Tanks, the construction of the Pulte Tank will provide an additional connection and much needed redundancy into the Pulte Zone (which currently only has a single connection to the 24-inch transmission line). The estimated required volume of equalization/emergency storage in the Pulte Sun City development (Zone 1) at buildout is 2.24 MG (not including fire suppression storage which has been assumed to be covered by the Lincoln Tanks). Based on this projection, all of the proposed 2 MG of storage in the proposed Pulte Tank will be utilized in the future, freeing up storage capacity in the Lincoln Tanks for growth in other parts of the system. 2. As new regions of the service area begin to develop, the District will need to plan on expanding existing pressure zones or constructing additional storage facilities to establish new pressure zones. Two areas in particular will likely require new storage facilities: Far West Mesquite and the Upper Bunkerville area (see Figure 4-3 from Chapter 4). It is anticipated that these areas will not see significant development within the next 10-15 years, but they should be kept in mind for future master plan updates. For the Upper Bunkerville Zone, a potential option may involve the use of the White Rock tank site which was decommissioned when Well 30 was taken out of service.

3. It is reasonable to assume that future growth in the District will be concentrated within the extent of existing facilities (i.e. within existing pressure zones). Under this assumption, areas which will stand in need of additional storage capacity are Zones 2 and 5. As shown in Table 5-4, not counting the new areas of Mesquite and Bunkerville, the District will need about 4.2 MG of additional storage at buildout to serve the area covered by the existing pressure zones. 2 MG of storage is already planned for the Pulte Sun City area (Pressure Zone 1), leaving a minimum of 2.2 MG remaining to be built. This remaining storage would ideally be met as follows:

a. Reconstruct the Flat Top tank and gain an additional 0.6 MG of storage in the Airport Tank. b. Construct an additional 1 MG tank next to the existing Freeway Tank to service Zone 5. c. Construct a 1 MG tank in Zone 2 which creates a new pressure zone (Zone 2A, see Figure 5-3).

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-10 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D UT New Tanks Existing Pipes UT 2 MG Northwest Tank 1 MG Zone 2A Tank New Pressure Zone (Zone 2A) & Transmission Pipe FY 2027 FY 2020 (Conceptual Location)

UT

New Pressure Zone Established by New 1 MG Zone 2 Tank

Flat Top Reconstruction FY 2018 UT UT

1 MG Zone 5 Tank FY 2029 (Next to existing Freeway Tank)

2.5 MG West Mesquite Tank 2030+ (Conceptual Location)

I-15 UT

UT

1.8 MG Upper Bunkerville Tank 2030+ (Conceptual Location)

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD VVWD NEW STORAGE 2016 WATER 0 2,000 4,000 FACILITIES THROUGH Feet 5-3 MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\Figure 5-3a - New Storage Facility Locations.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

4. Note that the total volume of added storage shown in Table 5-5 is slightly greater than the minimum volume required as shown in Table 5-3 (8.9 MG vs 8.5 MG). Some additional storage beyond what is technically required has been included in the plan to improve the operation of the system. Specifically, this surplus storage pertains to the plan to establish an additional pressure zone on the north side of Zone 2 to improve future system pressures in that area.

In addition to the capital storage facility projects identified in Table 5-5, the District should also budget for the costs associated with the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing tanks. Table 5- 6 provides a summary of the planned tank maintenance projects identified by the District for the next 10 years.

Table 5-5 Recommended Storage Construction Plan through Buildout

Estimated Volume Added Construction New Tank ID Construction Cost (MG) Date (2016 Dollars) Flat Top Tank 0.6 2018 $1,800,000 Reconstruction Northwest Tank 2.0 2019 $5,000,000 Zone 2A Tank1 1.0 2027 $3,000,000 Freeway Tank #2 1.0 2028 $2,500,000 Upper Bunkerville2 1.8 2030+ $5,000,000 Far West Mesquite 2.5 2030+ $6,000,000 TOTAL 8.9 $23,300,000 1The Zone 2A Tank would be used to establish a separate pressure zone on the north end of Zone 2 (the area north of Canyon Crest Blvd/Oasis Blvd). See Chapter 7 for additional details regarding this project. 2The existing 1 MG White Rock tank could potentially be used to service future growth in the higher elevation areas of Bunkerville. This tank would work well with the development of the District’s existing mountain spring water rights. In this case, the District would only stand in need of an additional 0.8 MG of storage to service the Upper Bunkerville area.

Table 5-6 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects for Storage Facilities

Total 10-Year Maintenance Project Year Estimated Cost Repaint Tanks 2018-2025 $400,000

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-11 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 6 HYDRAULIC MODELING

INTRODUCTION

A hydraulic computer model is a valuable tool which allows the user to simulate and evaluate the operation and performance of a water distribution network. Information such as system pressure and pipeline flow velocities can be accurately estimated through the use of a hydraulic computer model. As part of the District’s 2012 Water Master Plan prepared by BC&A, a hydraulic computer model of the system was developed. With this master plan update, the hydraulic model has been updated to reflect current demand and new pipelines which have been built over the past 4 years. The model has also been recalibrated using recent pressure readings throughout the system. The hydraulic model was developed using Innovyze’s InfoWater software which is integrated with Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of the methodology used to develop, calibrate, and run the hydraulic model.

WATER SYSTEM MODEL

A hydraulic computer model is a digital representation of physical features and characteristics of the water system, including pipes, valves, storage tanks and pumps. Key physical components of a water system are represented by a set of user-defined parameters that represent the characteristics of the system (such as PRV settings or pipe roughness coefficients). Computer model output includes pressures at each model node, flow rate for each pipe in the water system, etc.

The District’s existing water system hydraulic model was updated by BC&A for this study using available GIS data in conjunction with historic demand and production data provided by District staff. The model was set up to run a “steady state” simulation, and is primarily intended to identify pressure and pipe deficiencies in the distribution system, such as undersized water lines and excessively low/high pressure areas. The steady state model does not track dynamic, time- dependent variables, such as the depth of water in a storage tank throughout the course of a day.

GIS DATA

The GIS data used to update the water system model included:  Pipeline locations, diameters, and lengths.  Water system valves, pumps, and water tanks.  Elevation contours and Digital Elevation Models (DEM)

CALIBRATION

Calibration is the task of adjusting hydraulic model parameters so that model output results correlate with actual observed conditions in the water system. Model calibration was achieved by checking model pressure outputs against field measured pressure readings at a number of locations throughout the system. A few assumptions regarding the calibration of the model are listed below:

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

 Pipe Roughness – Pipe roughness in the distribution system was assigned a Hazen- Williams coefficient of 130.  Pipe Size Data – Pipe diameters and locations in the model were assigned based on the District’s GIS data as well as through communication with District staff.  Node Elevation – Junction elevations in the model were assigned using different methods. For older areas within the District that have not experienced significant earthwork in recent years, model elevations were assigned using a 2013 10 meter resolution DEM available from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). For areas that have experienced significant development in recent years (particularly in the area north of I-15), model node elevations were assigned from surface elevations available from Google Earth. For the Pulte area (Pressure Zone 1), model node elevations were assigned based on the planned pad elevations for the development as provided by the developer’s engineer.

MODEL DEMANDS AND DEMAND DISTRIBUTION

A key component in hydraulic modeling is the development of system demands. There are two components to consider when developing the demands for the model: total system demands and distribution of demands. Total system demands are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. For modeling purposes, the demand scenarios of most concern are those that represent the highest flow demands on the system. These scenarios are peak day demand, peak hour (instantaneous) demand, and peak day demand with a simultaneous fire flow event.

As determined in Chapter 3, historical water use data indicates that peak day demand is 1.94 times higher than average daily demands. Conservatively, an average day demand to peak day demand multiplier of 2.0 was chosen for planning purposes. Based on hourly meter data from a large development in the District, system wide peak hour demands have been estimated to be 2.25 times higher than peak day demand. Total model flows for peak day and peak hour demand are shown in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 Projected Peak Demands Peak Day Demand Peak Day Demand Peak Hour (Instantaneous) Year (mgd) (gpm) Demand (gpm) 2016 11.80 8,194 18,432 2025 15.06 10,458 23,531 2035 19.75 13,718 30,866 2045 25.91 17,993 40,484 2055 32.65 22,674 51,017 2080 38.64 26,835 60,379

The distribution of system demands was accomplished with the aid of water meter data provided by the District. Metered water usage data from June of 2015 which contained metered flows and geospatial references was imported into the model and assigned to a model junction based on the geographic location. The demand distribution for future system model scenarios, such as the build-

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN out demand scenario, was developed using estimated housing densities which correspond to the current land use plans for the City of Mesquite and the Town of Bunkerville.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 7 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

Transmission and distribution infrastructure is a critical component of the District’s water system. Assuring that the water distribution system is adequately sized and appropriately maintained will help provide reliable service to customers. The District’s water transmission and distribution network has been evaluated under existing and projected future conditions using a hydraulic computer model. This chapter documents the results of the hydraulic modeling evaluation and provides recommendations for future projects in the District.

MODEL SCENARIOS

As discussed in Chapter 6, the VVWD model runs a steady state flow simulation of the system. This provides a snapshot of the system under a set of specific model parameters (water tank depths, PRV settings, well production rates, etc.). The steady state conditions that were modeled represent the most extreme demand conditions that the system will experience including peak day demands, peak hour demands, and peak day demands with fire flow. The following model simulations were evaluated for existing, 10-year growth, and buildout conditions: 1. Peak Day Demand – This scenario represents the average demands on the system during the peak water usage day of the year. 2. Peak Hour Demand – This scenario represents the peak hour demand on the system during the peak usage day. Peak hour demand is estimated to be 2.25 times greater than average peak day demand. 3. Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow – This scenario evaluates the ability of the water distribution system to satisfy fire flow demands simultaneously with peak day demands. The method used to calculate available fire flow evaluates each model node one at a time (assuming that water for fire suppression is only needed in one area at a given time). 4. Static (Winter Nighttime) Demand – This scenario simulates the maximum pressure experienced by the distribution system, which typically occurs during the winter months at night when storage tanks are full. This simulation identifies locations in the system with potentially high pressures during low demands when pipe friction losses are minimal.

Source Failure Scenarios

Along with the model scenarios outlined above, additional model scenarios were simulated to determine how source failure would affect system pressures. Since most of the District’s sources pump directly into a storage tank, failure of these sources would not result in any change to system pressure in the steady state model. However, Well No. 26, Well No. 27A, and Well No. 28 all pump directly into the distribution system (through Treatment Plant 27 and 28). The hydraulic model was used to evaluate system pressure under peak day demand with each well turned off one

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

by one. This is done to verify that there are no portions of the system that are dependent on the operation of a particular well to provide adequate pressure during peak demands.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA

Nevada Administrative Code 445A requires that public water systems maintain minimum system pressures under specific flow conditions. The following system pressure criteria were used to evaluate the District’s system under existing, 10-year growth, and buildout conditions:  At least 20 psi during conditions of fire flow and fire demand experienced during peak day demand  At least 30 psi during peak hour demand  At least 40 psi during peak day demand In addition to avoiding low system pressures, it is also important to prevent the system from reaching undesirably high pressures (occurring during low demand scenarios). The District does have a significant length of “high-pressure” transmission lines which are intended to experience consistently high pressures, but the majority of the District’s distribution system is composed of PVC pipe, which has the potential to fail under excessively high pressure. District staff have reported that waterline breaks and service lateral failures occur more frequently when pipe pressures exceed 130 psi. To the extent possible, the District should limit high pressure areas in the system to reduce the probability of line breaks. Along with guidelines for system pressures, the State Code also outlines a requirement to avoid high head losses by maintaining flow velocities less than 8 feet per second under all flow conditions other than fire flow.

SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS

Existing System Evaluation

The hydraulic computer model was used to simulate system conditions for the 2016 Static Demand, 2016 Peak Day Demand, 2016 Peak Hour Demand, and 2016 Fire Flow with PDD demand scenarios. Model results for these scenarios are discussed below with the following model output figures as a reference: 1. Figure 7-1 shows pressures for the 2016 Static Demand Scenario 2. Figure 7-2 shows pressures for the 2016 Peak Day Demand Scenario 3. Figure 7-3 shows pressures for the 2016 Peak Hour Demand Scenario 4. Figure 7-4 shows the available fire flow in conjunction with 2016 Peak Day Demand

Static Demand Scenario (Winter Nighttime Conditions): As shown in Figure 7-1, the majority of the District’s system is within the range of desirable pressures (less than 120 psi) under static conditions. There are, however, some areas of the system which are shown to have excessively high pressures, some even in excess of 150 psi (near the bottom end of Zone 2 on the north side of the freeway). District staff and operational managers should be aware that these areas are regularly subjected to high pressures and will be more prone to break and fail. Line pressure in Zone 2 is set

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D PRESSURE Less than 40 psi 40 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi XY Greater than 130 psi Pipe Diameter 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch 16-inch Airport Tank

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ 18-inch

Îͳ $ Îͳ $ 24-inch

Îͳ $ Valves UT XY 150.13 Tanks XY Îͳ $ XY

Í $ XY γ XY XYXYXY XY XY

XYXY XYXYXY Îͳ $ XYXYXY XY XYXYXYXY XY XYXYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY Freeway Tank XYXY XYXY XY XY XYÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank XY XYXY150.26XY XYXY XYXYXYXY UT XYXY UT XY XY XY XYXY 150.66 XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY 151.27 XY XY 155.17 XYXY152.57 $ XY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

Note: Static pressures exceeding 150 psi have been labeled

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS 0 1,500 3,000 STATIC PRESSURES Feet 7-1 MASTER PLAN NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-1 - Existing Conditions Static Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D PRESSURE Less than 40 psi 40 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi XY Greater than 130 psi Pressures on Lime Wood St. in Hayden Estates are 37-39 psi Pipe Diameter Pressures in Bella Horizon are 28-39 psi 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch Airport Tank 16-inch

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ 18-inch

Îͳ $ Îͳ $ 24-inch

ÎÍ $ ³ Valves XY

UT Tanks XY Îͳ $ XY

Í $ XY γ XY XYXYXY XY XY

XYXY XYXYXY Îͳ $ XYXYXY XY XYXYXY XY XYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY Freeway Tank XYXY XY XY XY XYÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank XY XYXY XY XYXY XYXYXYXY UT XYXY UT XY XY XY XYXY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY $ XY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD EXISTING CONDITIONS 2016 WATER 0 1,500 3,000 PEAK DAY DEMAND Feet 7-2 MASTER PLAN NORTH PRESSURES S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-2 - Existing Conditions Peak Day Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D PRESSURE Less than 30 psi 30 - 40 psi 41 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi Greater than 130 psi XW Peak hour pressures Peak Velocity range from 23 - 29 psi Less than 2 fps 2 - 4 fps 4.1- 6 fps 6.1 - 8 fps Greater than 8 fps XW Airport Tank UT Tanks Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $

Îͳ $ Valves Îͳ $ Îͳ $ XW

XW Îͳ $

Îͳ $ XWXWXW XW

XWXW Îͳ $ XW XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW Freeway Tank XWXW XW XWÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank XW XWXW XW XWXW XWXWXWXW UT XWXW UT XW XW XW XWXW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW $ XW Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD EXISTING CONDITIONS 2016 WATER 0 1,500 3,000 PEAK HOUR DEMAND Feet 7-3 MASTER PLAN PRESSURES NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-3 - Existing Conditions Peak Hour Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D Available Fire Flow Less than 1,000 gpm 1,000 - 1,500 gpm 1,501 - 2,000 gpm 2,001 - 2,500 gpm 2,501 - 3,000 gpm 3,001 - 3,500 gpm 3,501 - 4,000 gpm Greater than 4,000 gpm Pipe Diameter 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch Airport Tank 16-inch UT 18-inch 24-inch UT Tanks

Freeway Tank Flat Top Tank UT UT

Scenic Tank UT

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD EXISTING CONDITIONS 2016 WATER 0 1,500 3,000 AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW Feet 7-4 MASTER PLAN DURING PDD NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-4 - Available Fire Flow with PDD.mxd aanderson 3/15/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

by the water level in the Flat Top/Airport Tanks, so the issue cannot be easily addressed by something simple like the adjustment of a PRV. One potential option would be to divide Pressure Zone 2 into 2 separate pressure zones. This would require several system improvements and would not likely be cost effective or beneficial to the overall operation of the system. However, if water main or service lateral repairs become frequent enough in high pressure areas, the District may decide to further investigate such an option.

The static demand model results also indicate that two areas of the system have static pressures under 40 psi. These low pressure areas are:

 Hayden Estates - This new development located at the north end of Mesquite Heights Road displays simulated static model pressures of around 39 psi.

 Bella Horizon – This development located to the west of Wolf Creek Golf Course shows simulated static model pressures ranging from 31-39 psi.

Peak Day Demand Scenario: As shown in Figure 7-2, the majority of the system is able to meet the State minimum pressure standard of 40 psi. However, as expected, the two areas of the system identified as having low pressures under static demand conditions do not meet the minimum required pressure of 40 psi during the peak day demand scenario. Pressures in Hayden Estates range from 36-38 psi, while pressures in Bella Horizon range from 28-39 psi.

Peak Hour Demand Scenario: As shown in Figure 7-3, the majority of the system is capable of meeting minimum pressures under a peak hour demand scenario. The only area which is shown as having a potential deficiency is the Bella Horizon development which displays pressures ranging from 22-29 psi.

Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow: Figure 7-4 shows the available fire flow at each model node as calculated by the hydraulic model. The model calculates the available fire flow at a hydrant by assigning a residual pressure of 20 psi at either the hydrant being flowed or at the “critical node” in the system. The “critical node” is a location in the system which would limit the ability of a hydrant to produce any additional flow while still meeting the system residual pressure requirement of 20 psi. In essence, the model simulation will produce as much flow as possible at a given hydrant until a) the hydrant reaches 20 psi, or b) another node in the system reaches 20 psi, at which point the hydrant will not produce any more flow. In reality, the system is physically capable of flowing more water than what is shown in Figure 7-4 (if the “critical node” were allowed to approach 0 psi), but this would potentially leave customers without water for the duration of the fire flow event and could cause other issues in the system, and hence is not permitted by the State Code. For planning purposes, the available fire flow at each area of the system is as shown in Figure 7-4.

As shown in Figure 7-4, most of the service area is well covered for fire flow. A few areas on the east side of Mesquite and Bunkerville do show available fire flows of less than 1,500 gpm (as indicated by a red or black color), which is the required flow for a residential development. These fire flow deficiencies are caused by undersized waterlines (4-inch and 6-inch lines) and long

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

sections of dead end pipe. The fire flow capacity of these areas should be increased by upsizing and looping waterlines.

Well Failure Scenarios: The hydraulic model results indicate that no pressure deficiencies will occur in the case of a failure of Well No. 26, No. 27A, or No. 28 under the peak day demand scenario. System Evaluation with 10 Year Growth

The 10 Year growth model of the District was developed through coordination with District staff along with the current land use plans for the City of Mesquite and the Town of Bunkerville. Areas that are quickly developing or that are anticipated to develop in the near future were identified and the growth expected to occur within the next 10 years was focused in these areas. No changes were made to existing infrastructure in the initial simulation in order to observe the effect on the existing system of adding additional demands. The results of this model simulation are described below.

2026 Static Demand Scenario (Winter Nighttime Conditions): Static demand pressures in the system in 2026 are anticipated to be similar to those of the existing system (see Figure 7-5). System pressures at the lower end of pressure zone 2 are simulated to be in excess of 150 psi. The District should remain aware of these areas and their potential for breaks in the future.

2026 Peak Day Demand Scenario: As shown in Figure 7-6, three areas of the system, two of which have already been identified as deficiencies in the existing system (Bella Horizon and Hayden Estates), do not meet minimum peak day demand pressures of 40 psi. The additional area identified as a potential problem area in the system 10 years from now is within the Pulte development. Some of the proposed pad elevations in the Turtle Mountain region of Pulte are too high to meet minimum pressure standards for peak day demand.

2026 Peak Hour Demand Scenario: As shown in Figure 7-7, three areas of the system have been identified as having potential pressure issues within the next 10 years. One of these areas is the Bella Horizon development (as previously identified). The other two areas of concern are located within the Pulte Sun City development. One existing area in Sun City as well as a future area of the development are shown as having peak hour pressures below the State minimum of 30 psi.

System Evaluation through Buildout

A hydraulic model for a “buildout” scenario was developed with the aid of the current land use and zoning maps from the City of Mesquite and the Town of Bunkerville. Like the 10-year growth model, buildout demands were added to the model without modifying the size of existing infrastructure. Some new lines were added to extend water service to new areas of the system. This was done to identify which parts of the system will require increased capacity by the time the service area is fully built out. The results of the buildout model simulation are discussed below.

Buildout Winter Demand Scenario (Static Conditions): Areas of the system that currently experience high static pressures (at the lower end of Zone 2) will continue to see similar pressures at full buildout, assuming that the Airport/Flat Top tank continue to operate as they currently do.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D Pressure Less than 40 psi 40 - 60 psi 61- 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi XY Greater than 130 psi Waterlines Pipe Diameter 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch Airport Tank

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ 16-inch 156.81

Îͳ $ Îͳ $ XY 18-inch XY 24-inch

Îͳ $ Valves XYXY XY XY Îͳ $ XYXYXYXY UT Tanks XYXYXYXY XYXYXYXY XYXYXYXYXY XY Í $ XY γ XY XYXYXY XY XY

XYXY XYXYXY Îͳ $ XYXY XY XYXYXYXY XY XYXYXYXYXY XY XY XYXY XY XY XY Freeway Tank 150.26 XYXY XY XYXY XY XY XYÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank XY XYXY150.63XY XY XYXYXYXY UT XYXY UT XY XY XY XYXY 150.91 XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY 151.3 XY XY 155.2 XYXY152.6 $ XY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

Note: Static pressures greater than 150 psi have been labeled

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER 10-YEAR GROWTH 0 1,500 3,000 STATIC PRESSURES Feet 7-5 MASTER PLAN NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-5 - 10 Year Growth Static Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D PRESSURE Less than 40 psi 41 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi Pressures on Lime Wood St. in Hayden Estates are Pressures in Bella Horizon 35-39 psi XY Greater than 130 psi are 29 - 39 psi

Îͳ $ Valves Pipe Diameter 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch Airport Tank

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ 16-inch

Îͳ $ Îͳ $ 18-inch XY 24-inch UT XY Tanks XYXY XY Îͳ $ XYXYXYXY XY XYXYXY XY

Îͳ $ XYXYXY Proposed pad elevations in this area are too high to XY XYXY XYXY Îͳ $ meet minimum peak day XY pressure requirements XY XYXY (36-38 psi) XYXYXYXY XY XY XY XY Freeway Tank XYXY XY XY XY XYÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank XY XYXY XY XY XYXYXYXY UT XYXY UT XY XY XY XYXY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY $ XY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 10-YEAR GROWTH 2016 WATER 0 1,500 3,000 PEAK DAY DEMAND Feet 7-6 MASTER PLAN NORTH PRESSURES S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-6 - 10 Year Growth Peak Day Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D 24-inch transmission line Pressure from Lincoln Tanks flowing Less than 30 psi at 7.85 fps (near peak capacity) 30 - 40 psi 41 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi Greater than 130 psi XW Pressure in Bella Horizon Pipe Velocity range from 22 - 29 psi Less than 2 fps 2.1 - 4 fps 4.1 - 6 fps 6.1 - 8 fps Greater than 8 fps Airport Tank Îͳ $ Valves

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ UT Tanks Îͳ $ ÎÍXW³ $ XW

XW Îͳ $

Peak hour pressures at the Îͳ $ end of this line at simulated XW to be 28 psi Pressure in higher XW proposed pad elevations range from XW XW Îͳ $ 21 - 29 psi XW XWXWXWXW XWXW XW Freeway Tank XW XW Îͳ $ Flat Top Tank XWXW XW XW XWXW UT XWXW UT XW XW XW XWXW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW XWXW $ XW Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 10-YEAR GROWTH 2016 WATER 0 1,500 3,000 PEAK HOUR DEMAND Feet 7-7 MASTER PLAN NORTH PRESSURES S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-7 - 10 Year Growth Peak Hour Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D PRESSURE Less than 40 psi 40 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 160.63 161.11 Îͳ $ 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi XY Greater than 130 psi Pipes 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 10-inch 12-inch 14-inch 16-inch 18-inch 24-inch UT Tanks

Îͳ $ Valves XY XY XYXY XYXYXY Airport Tank

Îͳ $ XYXY XY UTÎͳ $ ÎÍ $ XYXYXY Îͳ $ ³ Elevation of this XYXYXYXY area is naturally 161.38XYXYXYXYXYXY XYXY XY150.11XY

XY XY $ too high to be XYXYXYXY XYXY XY Îͳ serviced by Zone 2 XYXYXYXYXYXY XYXYXYXYXY XY XY

XY Îͳ $ XY XYXYXYXY XYXY XY

XY ÎÍ $ XY XY XYXYXYXY ³ Elevation of this XY XYXYXY XY area is naturally XYXYXYXYXY too high to be XY XY XY XYXY Freeway Tank 152.36 XY XY XY XY XYÎÍ $ serviced by Zone 2 XY XY XYXY XY XY XY³ 154.6 Flat Top Tank XY XYXYXY UT XYXYXYXY UT XY XYXY 153.92 XY XY 150.31 XYXY XY XY XY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY 152.15 XY156.02 XYXY153.41 $ XYXY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

Note: Static pressures greater than 150 have been labeled

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER BUILDOUT 0 1,750 3,500 STATIC PRESSURES Feet 7-8 MASTER PLAN NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-8 BO Static Pressures.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

As shown in Figure 7-8, some of the currently undeveloped areas near the Flat Top tank along Flat Top Drive may be difficult to service from Zone 2. It appears that the unserviceable area will likely be relatively small, but the District should keep in mind that system improvements may be needed in the future if development occurs around/too close to the Flat Top tank.

Buildout Peak Day Demand Scenario: Results from this model simulation are shown in Figure 7-9. As shown in the figure, a few areas, some of which have already been identified as problem areas in the existing and 10-year growth model, are simulated to have peak day pressures less than 40 psi. These areas include Bella Horizon, Hayden Estates, and Pulte Sun City. Areas within close proximity of the Flat Top tank will also not be serviceable by Pressure Zone 2.

Buildout Peak Hour Demand Scenario: As shown in Figure 7-10, modeling projected peak hour demand at buildout within the existing system infrastructure reveals several areas of the system would not be capable of meeting the minimum pressure requirement of 30 psi. Results like these are to be expected, understanding that the system is not currently equipped with the necessary infrastructure to provide peak hour demands at full buildout.

RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROJECTS

Based on the results of the hydraulic computer model simulations as well as through coordination with District staff, recommended system improvements have been identified through build-out. The recommended improvements are shown on Figure 7-11, and the project cost and construction year are shown in Table 7-1.

D-1. Pulte 12-inch System Loop

The Sun City Pulte area is one of the fastest growing areas in the District. To improve the functionality of the system through this area, it is recommended that a new 12-inch line (3,000 feet) be constructed starting near the intersection of Horizon Boulevard and Canyon Crest Boulevard and going west into the Pulte development (see Figure 7-11 for the conceptual alignment).

D-2. Lincoln Tanks Parallel Transmission Line

The Lincoln storage tanks, together with Well No. 32 and No. 33, make up a crucial part of the District’s source and storage facilities. It is recommended that the District install approximately 26,000 feet of 24-inch transmission line parallel to the existing 24-inch transmission line from the Lincoln Tanks to the intersection of Mesquite Heights Road and Hardy Way. This project in recommended for the following reasons:

 The existing 24-inch transmission line has a peak flow capacity of 11,200 gpm (assuming peak velocities are to be limited to 8 feet per second). Assuming that Peak Hour Demand is 2.25 times Peak Day Demand, this means that the pipeline can support approximately 5,000 gpm worth of source production through Plant No. 32. Since Plant No. 32 has a capacity of 6,600 gpm (and can be expanded by another 1,200 gpm), additional conveyance

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D Pressure Less than 40 psi

40 - 60 psi XYÎͳ $ 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 130 psi XY Greater than 130 psi Pipes 4-inch 6-inch 8-inch Proposed pad elevations 10-inch too high to meet minimum 12-inch pressure requirements 14-inch Peak day pressure Peak day pressure 16-inch deficiency on Limewood St. deficiency in Bella 18-inch Horizon area 24-inch XY UT Tanks XY

Îͳ $ Valves Proposed pad elevations XY Airport Tank too high to meet minimum XY Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ pressure requirements XY Îͳ $ XYXY Îͳ $ XYXYXYXY XY XYXYXYXYXYXYXY XY XYXYXYXY

XY $ XYXYXY XYXY XY Îͳ Area naturally too high XY in elevation for Zone 2 XYXYXY XYXY XYXYXYXY Îͳ $ XY Area naturally too high in elevation for Zone 2 XY

XY Îͳ $ XY XY XYXYXYXYXY Area naturally too high Freeway Tank XY XYÎͳ $ in elevation for Zone 2 Flat Top Tank XY XY UT XYXYXYXY UT XYXY XY XY XY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY $ XY Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

XYÎͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER BUILDOUT PEAK DAY 0 1,750 3,500 Feet 7-9 MASTER PLAN DEMAND PRESSURES NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-9 - BO Peak Day Demand.mxd aanderson 3/28/2017 L E G E N D Pressure Less than 30 psi 30 - 40 psi 41 - 60 psi 61 - 80 psi 81 - 100 psi 101 - 120 psi 121 - 150 psi Greater thab 150 psi Pipe Velocity Less than 2 fps 2.1 - 4 fps 4.1 - 6 fps 6.1 - 8 fps Greater than 8 fps

Îͳ $ Valves Airport Tank

Îͳ $ UTÎͳ $ UT Tanks

Îͳ $ Îͳ $

Îͳ $

Îͳ $

Îͳ $

Freeway Tank Îͳ $ Flat Top Tank UT UT $ Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD 2016 WATER BUILDOUT PEAK HOUR 0 1,500 3,000 DEMAND PRESSURES Feet 7-10 MASTER PLAN NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-10 - BO Peak Hour Demand.mxd aanderson 3/24/2017 UTUT Lincoln Tank #2 Lincoln Tank #1 L E G E N D Project Improvements Project D-1 Project D-2 Project D-3 Project D-4 Project D-5

Îͳ $ Existing Pipes UT Tanks Project D-2

Îͳ $ Valves

Airport Tank

UTÎͳ $ Îͳ $

Îͳ $ Îͳ $

Project D-4 Îͳ $

Îͳ $ Project D-1 Project D-3

Îͳ $

Freeway TankÎͳ $ Flat Top Tank UT UT $ Îͳ³ $

Îͳ $

Scenic Tank UT

Project D-5

Îͳ $

Decker Tank UT

NORTH: SCALE: FIGURE NO. VVWD RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION 2016 WATER 0 1,750 3,500 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Feet 7-11 MASTER PLAN NORTH

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-11a - Distribution System Improvements.mxd aanderson 3/15/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

capacity from the Lincoln Tanks down to the distribution system will be needed to fully utilize the capacity of Plant No. 32.

 A parallel pipeline will provide the District with beneficial system redundancy. Wells No. 32 and No. 33 serve as the sole source of supply for Pressure Zones 1, 3, and 4 (meaning that if the line were to break or go offline for an extended period of time, these zones would be significantly affected. Under such a scenario, Zone 1 could pull water from Zone 2 through an emergency connection, and Zone 4 could potentially draw on the Airport Tank for emergency water. However, each of these zones would have significant pressure issues under these conditions. Zone 3 would have no access to water. Zone 2, while not completely dependent on Well No. 32 and No. 33, would have a difficult time delivering peak demands at the appropriate pressures if this transmission line were to fail.

D-3. Lower Flat Top Dr. Transmission Line Loop

With the completion of the I-15 Exit 118, development may begin to shift toward the area along Lower Flat Top Drive. To service these new areas in Pressure Zone 2, a 16-inch transmission line is recommended to be installed along Lower Flat Top Drive from the west end of Pioneer Boulevard to the intersection of Lower Flat Top Dr. and Bertha Howe Avenue. Total length of pipe installed for this project is approximately 15,800 feet.

D-4. Bertha Howe Lane Transmission Line Loop

As development occurs in the area of Mesquite west of Falcon Ridge Parkway, additional water transmission infrastructure will be needed. Approximately 7,500 feet of 12-inch waterline along the future alignment of Bertha Howe Avenue would provide a backbone for the water supply through this area.

D-5. Decker Tank Transmission Line

As the Town of Bunkerville continues to grow, additional transmission capacity will be needed to convey water from the Decker Tank into the system. The existing 12-inch line from the Decker Tank through Pressure Zone 6 does not have sufficient capacity to meet system needs at buildout. Needed capacity at buildout could be met by one of two options:

 Replace the existing 12-inch transmission line with a new 20-inch transmission line  Install a 14-inch line parallel to the existing 12-inch line

Each option would require approximately 19,000 feet of new pipe. Which option best fits the District will depend largely on the condition of the existing 12-inch line at the time of the project. If the pipe is believed to be ending its effective service life at the time of this project, then a full replacement with a 20-inch line would be the best option. If the existing 12-inch line is still in good condition, then the parallel line alternative may be the better option.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Other Improvements

The hydraulic model simulations identified two areas located on the north side of pressure zone 2 that currently do not meet minimum State pressure standards. The District is already planning to address pressure issues in Bella Horizon by connecting a portion of the neighborhood to pressure zone 3 via a new connection to the pressure zone 3 transmission line. With the reconstruction of the Flat Top storage tank, pressures in zone 2 should increase by approximately 2-3 psi (based on the fact that the project will provide 6 – 8 more feet of storage depth in both tanks). This small increase in pressure is anticipated to raise pressures in Hayden Estates up to the minimum requirement of 40 psi.

As growth continues in the area north of Canyon Crest Blvd (which is the higher elevation area of pressure zone 2), water demands will increase and peak pressures may begin to drop. A potential solution is to establish a new pressure zone for this area. Ideally, the boundary of the new pressure zone would be Mesquite Heights to the west, Canyon Crest Blvd/Oasis Blvd to the South, and Wolf Creek Golf Course to the east (see Figure 5-3 in Chapter 5). While this zone could technically be created with the addition of 2 new PRVs, the preferable scenario involves the construction of a new storage facility to serve the zone. Based on current land use plans for Mesquite and the water use projections found in Chapter 3, this zone would require approximately 1 MG of storage at full buildout. Storage built to serve this new pressure zone would count toward the 6.5 MG of additional storage needed in the system at buildout (as identified in Chapter 5). Since this project involves the construction of a new tank, it has been identified as a storage facility project and is shown in Table 5-5 of Chapter 5 as the “Zone 2A Tank”.

The hydraulic model results have indicated that some of the future areas of pressure zone 1 will not meet minimum pressure requirements. In order to remediate this issue, it is recommended that the District construct a new storage tank and 24” transmission line to service pressure zone 1 (the “Northwest Tank” identified in Chapter 5). This new tank and transmission line will serve as the primary feed into the Pulte Sun City development, with the existing PRV on Mesquite Heights being left in place to serve as a redundant connection. This new tank will provide adequate storage and pressure to support future development in pressure zone 1.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 7-1 Major Conveyance System Improvements Summary Construction Project Estimated Project Project Description Cost Estimate Identifier Year (2016 Dollars) D-1 Pulte 12-inch System Loop (3,000 feet) 2019 $500,000 D-2 24-inch Parallel Transmission Line from Lincoln Tanks (26,000 feet of pipe) 2028 $5,850,000 D-3 Lower Flat Top Drive Transmission Line Loop (15,800 feet of 16-inch pipe) 2030+ $2,765,000 D-4 Bertha Howe Lane Transmission Line Loop (7,500 feet of 12-inch pipe) 2030+ $862,500 Decker Tank Transmission (Replace 19,000 feet of 12-inch pipe with 20-inch D-5 (Alt A) 2030+ $3,610,000 pipe) Decker Tank Transmission (Install 19,000 feet of 14-inch pipe parallel to existing D-5 (Alt B) 2030+ $3,040,000 12-inch pipe) TOTAL $13,587,5001 1Total cost shown includes Alternative A for project D-5

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Improvements to Increase Fire Flow Coverage

Figure 7-12 shows pipelines that should be upsized to a minimum diameter of 8” to increase fire flows to required levels. Fire flow projects are summarized in Table 7-2 and are organized based on priority. The projects identified in Table 7-2 correct fire flow deficiencies identified in the hydraulic model simulation. The system does have a significant amount of 6-inch pipe that should ultimately by upsized to the required 8-inch minimum, but because the existing 6-inch lines have adequate looping, the hydraulic model results indicate that they are not currently restricting fire flow capacity.

Additional Improvement Projects

In addition to the capacity related system improvements identified through system modeling, the District has provided a list of condition related maintenance and renewal improvements that need to be completed. These projects include new pipelines, pipeline replacements, PRV replacements, and security upgrades. A summary of these projects is contained in Table 7-3. It is recommended that all projects contained in this list be included in the 10-year Capital Improvements Plan in order to prevent existing system deficiencies from becoming more serious.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-9 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT L E G E N D F11. Replace existing 6-inch line Fire Flow Improvements on Chaparral Dr. with new 8-inch line Existing Pipes

F7. Replace existing 6-inch line F8. Replace existing 6-inch line on Sierra Vista Cir. and Rancho on Aztec Circle with new Cir. with new 8-inch line 8-inch line

F1. Replace existing 4-inch line in Canal St. with new 8-inch F4. Loop existing dead end line on Sun Valley Dr. to Old Mill Road

F2. Repalce existing 6-inch line between Canal St. and Old Mill Rd. with new 8-inch line and F3. Replace existing 6-inch line complete connection to loop on Old Mill Road from Sandhill Rd. to the end of Old Mill Rd. with new F6. Replace existing 6-inch line 8-inch line. along Francy Ln., Cincy Way, Joseph St. with new 8-inch line

F9. Replace 6-inch line on Piuate Ln with new 8-inch line

NORTH: SCALE:

0 1,000 2,000

Feet NORTH

FIRE FLOW

F10. Replace 6-inch line on IMPROVEMENTS Scrub Lane with new VVWD F5. Loop existing dead end line 8-inch line on 2nd S. St. into Riverside 2016 WATER Road MASTER PLAN FIGURE NO. 7-12

S:\Virgin Valley Water District\033-16-01 Water Master Plan Update\4.0 GIS\4.4 Figures\New Figure 7-12 - Fireflow Projects.mxd aanderson 3/23/2017 WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 7-2 Summary of Recommended Fire Flow Improvements Unit Estimated Project Project Description Price Construction Cost Identifier/Priority ($/ft) (2016 Dollars) F1 Replace 3,000 feet of 4-inch pipe with 8-inch pipe in Canal Road. $110 $330,000 Replace 750 feet of 6-inch pipe between Canal Road and Old Mill road with F2 $110 $82,500 8-inch pipe and connect the pipes to loop the system. Replace 4,300 feet of existing 6-inch pipe in Old Mill Road with a new 8- F3 $140 $602,000 inch pipe. Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipe in Sun Valley Drive to connect existing dead F4 $110 $81,400 end to Old Mill Road. Install 250 feet of 8-inch pipe to connect the dead end line in 2nd St. to F5 $140 $35,000 Riverside Drive. Replace 1,450 feet of 6-inch pipe along Francy Lane, Cincy Way, and Joseph F6 $140 $203,000 St. with a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 1,210 feet of existing 6-inch pipe in Sierra Vista Circle and Rancho F7 $140 $169,400 Circle with a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 1,250 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Aztec Circle with a new 8-inch F8 $140 $175,000 pipe. Replace 1,500 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Piuate Lane with a new 8-inch F9 $140 $210,000 pipe. Replace 760 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Scrub Lane with a new 8-inch F10 $110 $83,600 pipe. Replace 630 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Chaparral Drive with a new 8- F11 $140 $88,200 inch pipe. TOTAL $2,060,100

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-10 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 7-3 Summary of Condition Related Improvement Projects Identified by VVWD Project Project Description Estimated Cost Priority 1 Marilyn Parkway, Middle Mesa $675,000 2 Riverside Road $1,000,000 3 Canal Street $60,000 Upper Mesa (El Dorado to Aztec 4 $390,000 Circle) Marilyn Parkway, Mesa (both to 5 $350,000 Chaparral) 6 Pioneer (Mesa to Turtleback) $750,000 7 Oasis (Pioneer to Kitty Hawk) $375,000 Kitty Hawk (Oasis to Marilyn 8 $325,000 Parkway) 9 Canyon Crest to Pulte $400,000 10 Under I-15 (North to South AZ Border) $400,000 11 Under I-15 (Freeway Tank to Old Mill) $400,000 Under Airport Runway (Kitty Hawk to 12 $800,000 Airport) 13 Chapparal $1,000,000 14 Kitty Hawk (Storage Units to Airport) $400,000 15 Valley View Drive $400,000 Falcon Ridge Parkway (near Pioneer 16 $750,000 Blvd.) TOTAL $8,475,000

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-11 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

CHAPTER 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

In coordination with VVWD staff, a Capital Improvements Plan has been developed to serve as a guideline for the budgeting and implementation of recommended system improvements over the next 10 years. The purpose of this chapter is to present recommendations regarding levels of funding for system maintenance, renewal, and capital improvement projects.

RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET

Before establishing a 10-year capital improvementS plan, it is important to determine how much funding should be set aside each year for capital improvements. One of the best ways to identify a recommended level of funding is to consider the estimated service life of the system. As with all utilities, each component of a water system has a finite service life. If adequate funds are not set aside for regular system renewal, the water system has the potential to fall into a state of disrepair and be incapable of providing the level of service that VVWD customers have come to expect. To determine the target level of yearly spending on the system, the replacement value of the current system was evaluated. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8-1. The total cost to replace all pipes, wells, tanks, arsenic treatment facilities, and booster pumps in the District is estimated to be approximately $208 million based on current construction costs.

Individual components of the water system have a different expected service life. When installed correctly, waterlines can last upward of 60 years, while other system components such as wells will have a much shorter life span. Taking this into account, Table 8-2 presents the ideal level of annual funding which should be invested into each component of the system. In essence, these values represent how much annual funding should either be invested in the system or set aside to be invested at a later date.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-1 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 8-1 Estimated Replacement Value of Existing VVWD System

System Component Quantity Unit Replacement Price Estimated Replacement Value

Transmission/Distribution Pipes Length (ft) $/lf 4-inch1 4,566 $144 $657,504 6-inch1 105,559 $144 $15,200,496 8-inch 329,015 $144 $47,378,160 10-inch 118,509 $150 $17,776,350 12-inch 85,018 $158 $13,432,844 14-inch 29,765 $167 $4,970,755 16-inch 97,363 $177 $17,233,251 18-inch 15,189 $187 $2,840,343 24-inch 34,538 $227 $7,840,126 Subtotal $127,330,000 Capacity Sources $/gpm (gpm) Well No. 1A 1,050 $3,000 $3,150,000 Well No. 2 400 $2,000 $800,000 Well No. 26 1,100 $3,000 $3,300,000 Well No. 27A 2,000 $3,000 $6,000,000 Well No. 28 800 $3,000 $2,400,000 Well No. 29 500 $3,000 $1,500,000 Well No. 31 2,100 $3,000 $6,300,000 Well No. 32 600 $3,000 $1,800,000 Well No. 33 2,100 $3,000 $6,300,000 Subtotal $31,550,000 Volume Storage Facilities $/gallon (MG) Lincoln Tank #1 3 $1.10 $3,300,000 Lincoln Tank #2 3 $1.10 $3,300,000 Flat Top Tank 2 $1.20 $2,400,000 Airport Tank 2.3 $1.20 $2,760,000 Freeway Tank 1 $1.35 $1,350,000 Decker Tank 1 $1.35 $1,350,000 Scenic Tank 2 $1.20 $2,400,000 Subtotal $16,860,000 Capacity Arsenic Treatment Facilities $/gpm (gpm) Plant No. 27 3,000 $1,800 $5,400,000 Plant No. 28 1,800 $1,800 $3,240,000 Plant No. 29 900 $1,800 $1,620,000 Plant No. 31 4,200 $1,800 $7,560,000 Plant No. 32 6,600 $1,800 $11,880,000 Plant No. 1A 1,050 $1,800 $1,890,000 Subtotal $31,590,000 Booster Pump Stations Capacity Mesa Booster Pump 1 $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal $250,000 GRAND TOTAL $207,580,000 1Since 4-inch and 6-inch pipes would be replaced with 8-inch pipes, the replacement value for these pipes is shown with the unit cost for 8-inch pipe.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-2 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 8-2 Recommended Annual Water System Budget

Estimated Estimated Recommended System Component Service Life Replacement Cost Annual Budget Transmission/Distribution 60 Years $127,330,000 $2,122,200 Waterlines Wells 40 years $31,550,000 $788,750 Storage Facilities 50 years $16,860,000 $337,200 Arsenic Treatment 40 years $31,590,000 $789,750 Facilities Booster Pump Stations 40 years $250,000 $6,250 TOTAL $207,580,000 $4,044,150

As shown in Table 8-2, the ideal level of annual system funding is about $4 million dollars, which equates to about 2% of the total estimated system replacement value. Based on the District’s internal revenue projections for the next 10 years, the District is projecting a net annual revenue of about $2.5 million per year through the year 2025, which is about 1.25% of the estimated total system replacement value. Because the District’s system is relatively new, a $4 million annual funding level may be superfluous at this point in time. However, the District should set an adequate budget which allows money to be set aside for future system replacement, taking into account the fact that the District faces the following unique system challenges:

• Naturally high groundwater temperatures • Presence of poor pipe materials in some portions of the system (low-quality pvc/unwrapped ductile iron) • Areas under excessively high water pressure • High naturally occurring arsenic levels/several arsenic treatment facilities • Slower than normal project development due to environmental factors and federal land ownership. • Corrosive soils that contribute to faster deterioration of metallic system components.

Based on these factors, BC&A recommends that the District aim for an annual funding level of 1.5% - 1.75%, which is about $3 - $3.5 million dollars per year (in today’s dollars). This value is expected to increase in the future due to the effects of inflation.

It should be noted that at the end of 2025, the Clark County ¼ cent sales tax, which has provided the District with about $500,000 per year, is due to expire. While this sales tax may be re-adopted at that point, it is not a certain source of revenue beyond the year 2025. This should be kept in mind as rate increases are considered in the future.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY

The recommended capital improvements for the District’s water system are summarized in Table 8-3. Included in the table is a summary of each project along with the estimated construction cost

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-3 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN and year. The table includes improvements to the conveyance system, sources, and storage facilities. Costs associated with arsenic treatment have been included in the estimated cost to develop new sources. Not included in the table is routine rehabilitation and replacement of system components that will also need to be accounted for in future budgets.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-4 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 8-3 VVWD Water System Capital Improvements Projects

Estimated Estimated Cost Project Type Project Identifier Project Description Project Year (2016 Dollars) Source Development Well No. 34 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2018 $3,300,000 Source Development Well No. 35 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2022 $3,300,000 Source Development Well No. 36 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2026 $6,000,000 Source Development Well No. 37 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2029 $5,100,000 Source Development Well No. 38 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2032 $5,100,000 Source Development Well No. 39 Develop New Well Source (Estimated 1,250 gpm Capacity) 2035 $5,100,000 Source Development Source No. 40 Develop New Source (Estimated 2,500 gpm Capacity) 2037 $9,000,000 Source Development Source No. 41 Develop New Source (Estimated 2,500 gpm Capacity) 2042 $9,000,000 Source Development Source No. 42 Develop New Source (Estimated 2,500 gpm Capacity) 2046 $9,000,000 Source Development Source No. 43 Develop New Source (Estimated 2,500 gpm Capacity) 2050 $9,000,000 Source Development Source No. 44 Develop New Source (Estimated 2,500 gpm Capacity) 2055 $9,000,000 Source Development Source No. 45 Develop New Source (Estimated 3,400 gpm Capacity) 2061 $11,000,000 Storage Facilities Flat Top Recon. Reconstruct the Flat Top Storage Tank 2018 $1,800,000 Storage Facilities Pulte Sun City Construct 2 MG Storage Tank to Service Pulte Sun City 2019 $5,000,000 Storage Facilities Zone 2A Tank Construct 1 MG Storage Tank near Freeway Tank 2027 $3,000,000 Storage Facilities Freeway Tank #2 Construct 1 MG Storage Tank to Service Zone 2A 2028 $2,500,000 Storage Facilities Upper Bunkerville Construct 1.8 MG of Storage to Service the Upper Bunkerville Zone 2030+ $5,000,000 Storage Facilities Far West Mesquite Construct 2.5 MG of Storage to Service the Far West Mesquite Region 2030+ $6,000,000 Major Conveyance D-1 Pulte Sun City 12-inch System Loop 2019 $500,000 Major Conveyance D-2 24-inch Parallel Transmission Line from Lincoln Tanks 2028 $5,850,000 Major Conveyance D-3 Install 15,800 feet of 16-inch pipe along Lower Flat Top Drive 2030+ $2,765,000 Major Conveyance D-4 Install 7,500 feet of 12-inch pipe along Bertha Howe Lane 2030+ $862,500 Major Conveyance D-5 Replace 19,000 feet of 12-inch transmission pipe from Decker Tank with new 20-inch pipe 2030+ $3,610,000 Fire Flow F1-F11 Replace/Install New Pipes to Improve Fire Flow Capacity 2017-2027 $2,060,100 TOTAL $122,847,600

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-5 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

While Table 8-3 displays a list of projects needed to serve the system through build-out, of particular interest is the development of a project schedule over the next 10 years. Based on the District’s identified project needs and recommended level of capital investment, BC&A has developed a Capital Improvements Plan covering the next 10 years. Table 8-4 provides a detailed description of the recommended projects to be completed in the next 10 years.

As shown in Table 8-4, the total estimated projects costs over the next 10 years (including capital spending and major system rehabilitation) is over $34 million dollars, which is consistent with the recommended annual funding level of $3.0 - $3.5 million dollars per year. In order to fund these projects, the District will need to increase its overall level of funding. Potential sources of additional funding include: • Increasing user rates – User rates are the fees collected monthly from existing water system users. There are two parts to the District’s user fees: a base rate and a usage rate. The base rate is a constant fee assessed to the user in order to be connected to the system. The usage rate charges the customer a monthly fee based on the actual water used by the customer. A rate increase could include the increase of the base rate, the usage rate, or a combination of both. • Increasing impact fees - An impact fee is “a charge imposed by a local government on new development to finance the costs of a capital improvement of facility expansion necessitated by and attributable to the new development.” In other words, the impact fee is a one-time fee charged to new users to fund system projects required to satisfy the needs of said new users. In accordance with Nevada State law, impact fees must be established based on the actual cost of providing service to future growth. As a result, the District cannot arbitrarily increase impact fees. However, it has been a number of years since the District last examined impact fees, and it may be possible to increase impact fees based on an updated impact fee analysis. • Increasing water share lease fees –The District has purchased a number of water shares from local irrigation companies which are intended to eventually be used for the culinary water system. Because these shares are not currently being used for the culinary system, the District leases out the shares to be used for irrigation. These lease agreements include a fee which authorizes the lessee to use the District’s water shares. As part of upcoming revenue discussions, these fees could be modified to reflect the current needs of the District.

Ultimately, the method of meeting the funding needs for the 10-year Capital Improvements Plan will be decided by the District’s staff and Board. It is important to note that if no changes are made to existing revenue streams, the District will: a. Lack the necessary funding to keep up with system improvements and rehabilitation efforts or, b. Quickly deplete existing reserve funds as projects are funded.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-6 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WATER MASTER PLAN

Neither of these options is ideal or sustainable in the long-term. And, while it is not recommended that the District incur additional long-term debt, during the next two to three years, some form of short-term bridge financing could be used to meet any emergency that might arise, if needed. This considered, the District Board and Staff should prioritize the development of a funding plan which can meet the needs of the water system over the next 10 years. As identified previously, the District has different revenue options to meet these needs, which includes user rate increases, water share lease fee increases, and impact fee increases. Since a significant portion of the Capital Improvements Plan is made up of projects needed to meet the demands of future growth, it is recommended that the District start with an evaluation of its current impact fees and their ability to meet future system needs. Once impact fees have been reviewed, the remaining funding needs can then come in the form of user rate increases and/or water share lease fee increases.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-7 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER MASTER PLAN

Table 8-4 Virgin Valley Water District 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan1

Estimated Total Inflated Project Project Description Total Cost FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Construction Identifier (2016 Dollars) Cost

W-1 Equip Well #27A $600,000 $618,000 $618,000 W-2 Develop New Production Well No. 34 (Using Plant No. 32) $3,300,000 $2,000,000 $1,379,170 $3,379,170 W-3 Develop New Production Well No. 35 (Using Plant No. 32) $3,300,000 $150,000 $1,773,000 $1,773,000 $3,696,000 Develop New Production Well to Service Zone 2 (Well No. W-4 $6,000,000 $150,000 $750,000 $2,800,000 $3,700,000 36) with New 1 MG Tank (Zone 2A Tank) Remove Existing Bolted Steel Tank and Construct New 2.0 S-1 $1,800,000 $1,854,000 $1,854,000 MG Welded Steel Tank Construct 2.0 MG Storage Tank and 24-inch transmission S-2 $5,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $5,000,000 line to Pulte Sun City D-1 Pulte Sun City 12-inch System Loop $500,000 $530,450 $530,450 Replace 3,000 feet of 4-inch pipe with 8-inch pipe in Canal F-1 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Road. Replace 750 feet of 6-inch pipe between Canal Road and F-2 Old Mill road with 8-inch pipe and connect the pipes to loop $82,500 $85,000 $85,000 the system. Replace 4,300 feet of existing 6-inch pipe in Old Mill Road F-3 $602,000 $678,000 $678,000 with a new 8-inch pipe. Install 740 feet of 8-inch pipe in Sun Valley Drive to F-4 $81,400 $94,000 $94,000 connect existing dead end to Old Mill Road. Install 250 feet of 8-inch pipe to connect the dead end line in F-5 $35,000 $41,000 $41,000 2nd St. to Riverside Drive. Replace 1,450 feet of 6-inch pipe along Francy Lane, Cincy F-6 $203,000 $242,000 $242,000 Way, and Joseph St. with a new 8-inch pipe.

Replace 1,210 feet of existing 6-inch pipe in Sierra Vista F-7 $169,400 $208,000 $208,000 Circle and Rancho Circle with a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 1,250 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Aztec Circle F-8 $175,000 $222,000 $222,000 with a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 1,500 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Piuate Lane F-9 $210,000 $274,000 $274,000 with a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 760 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Scrub Lane with F-10 $83,600 $112,000 $112,000 a new 8-inch pipe. Replace 630 feet of existing 6-inch pipe on Chaparral Drive F-11 $88,200 $119,000 $119,000 with a new 8-inch pipe. PM Major Pipe Maintenance, Replacement and Rehabilitation $8,900,000 $750,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $800,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $8,900,000 WM Major Well Rehabilitation $3,250,000 $250,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,250,000 TM Major Treatment Facility Rehabilitation $1,250,000 $400,000 $450,000 $250,000 $150,000 $1,250,000 SM Major Storage Rehabilitation $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Total Improvements $8,367,000 $4,909,620 $1,650,000 $5,201,000 $2,958,000 $1,392,000 $2,608,000 $1,572,000 $2,024,000 $4,031,000 $34,712,620

1A 3% annual inflation rate has been applied to estimated future projects costs. 2Project W-4 will begin in FY 2025 and continue beyond the extent of the 10-year planning window. 3Project F-1 is planned to be constructed in-house by the VVWD crew.

BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 8-8 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Draper, Utah Office: Eagle, Idaho Office: St. George, Utah Office: 154 East 14000 South 776 East Riverside Drive 20 North Main Draper, Utah 84020 Suite 250 Suite 107 Phone: (801) 495-2224 Eagle, Idaho 83616 St. George, Utah 84770 Fax: (801) 495-2225 Phone: (208) 939-9561 Phone: (435) 656-3299 Fax: (208) 939-9571 Fax: (435) 656-2190

WWW.BOWENCOLLINS.COM