US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Leaders in Customer Care
•
WATER • •FLOOD SUPPLY • • • • • CONTROL •• • • • • • • •
STUDY AREA
• MINERAL • • • • ••BANK STABILIZATION
Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas
Draft April 1 988 APPENDIX D WATER SUPPLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
INTRODUCTION D-l EXISTING CONDITIONS D-2 INSTITUTIONS D-l5 FUTURE CONDITIONS D-20 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITES D-25 CONSTRAINTS D-27 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PLANS D-28
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLES
No. Title Page No.
D-l Historic and Current Population D-3 D-2 Water Use in 1980 D-4 D-3 Authorized Federal Lake Storage Allocations D-7 D-4 Corps of Engineers Lake Project Data D-9 D-5 Kansas Water Agencies D-16 D-6 Local Water Supply Authorities D-18 D-7 Public Wholesale Water Supply Districts D - 19 D-8 Counties in Study Areas 1, 2, and 3 D-20 D-9 Area 1 Population and Water Use Forecasts D-21 D - 10 Area 1 Water Needs for All Purposes D-22 D-ll Area 2 Population and Water Use Forecasts D-23 D-12 Area 2 Expected 2035 Yield of Existing Sources D-23 D-l 3 Area 2 Water Needs for All Purposes D-24 D - 14 Area 1 Conceptual Plan Facilities and Improvements D-30 D-15 Area 1 Conceptual Plans Water Sources and Destinations D-31 D-16 Area 1 Conceptual Plan Cost Summary D-34 D - 17 Water Supply Sources and Users - Area 2 (Destinations for Central Kansas Users) D-36 D-18 Source Use for Kansas River Users for 2035 - Area 2 D-38 D - 19 Area 2 Conceptual Plan Cost Summary D-41
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
No. Title Page No
D-l Average Annual Runoff D-5 D-2 Estimated Volume of Available Ground Water D-12 D-3 Areas Underlain with Ground Water and Generalized Well Yields D-13
PLATES
No. Title
D-l Water Supply Study Area D-2 Area 1 Baseline Condition D-3 Area 2 Baseline Condition D-4 Area 1 Without Condition D-5 Area 2 Without Condition D-6 Area 1 Plan A, Reallocation with Maximum Use of Distribution Systems D-7 Area 1 Plan B, Reallocation with Release to the Marais des Cygnes River D-8 Area 1 Plan C, No Reallocation Use of Small Lakes D-9 Area 1 Plan D, Minimum Reallocation with Distribution Systems D-10 Area 1 Plan E, Maximum Reallocation with Release to the Marais des Cygnes River D-ll Area 2 Plan A, Source Utilization D-12 Area 2 Plan A, Maximum Use of Tuttle Creek Lake D-13 Area 2 Plan B, Maximum Use of Tuttle Creek Lake D- 14 Area 2 Plan C, Source Utilization D-15 Area 2 Plan C, Moderate Use of Tuttle Creek Lake D-16 Area 2 Plan D, Source Utilization D-17 Area 2 Plan D, Maximum Use of Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes D-18 Area 2 Plan E, Source Utilization D-19 Area 2 Plan E, Moderate Use of Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes D-20 Area 2 Plan F, Source Utilization D-21 Area 2 Plan F, Moderate Use of Kanopolis and Corbin Lakes D-22 Area 2 Plan G, Source Utilization D-23 Area 2 Plan G, No Use of Tuttle Creek and Kanopolis Lakes, Maximum Use of Corbin Lake D-24 Area 2 Plan H, Source Utilization D-25 Area 2 Plan H, Moderate Use of Milford and Kanopolis Lakes
ii INTRODUCTION
This appendix serves to document the formulation of muncipal and industrial water supply plans, which was a major aspect of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas study. Water supply planning in this study was conducted along two paths. One path was to develop and assess alternative water supply plans, regardless of Federal interest, for areas of need. The other path was to evaluate Federal projects which have a potential water supply purpose.
At a late stage in the study, Corps guidance was adopted which restricts the scope and degree of involvement of Corps studies, such that the Corps will not generally perform single-purpose water supply studies. Therefore, this report primarily documents the studies related to Federal projects. The Reallocation Report, which is a companion volume in the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas Report, discusses reallocation of storage in detail
D-l EXISTING CONDITIONS
The area under study for municipal and industrial water supply is depicted on Plate D-l. It involves 39 Kansas counties, including six counties predominantly in the Osage River basin, 29 counties in the Kansas River basin, and 4 counties which are predominantly in the Arkansas River basin. The inclusion of the four Arkansas River basin counties is because of consideration of Kansas River basin sources of water supply in those counties. The 1980 population within the 39-county area was 1,512,487. This is 64 percent of the total population in the State of Kansas, (2,363,208) although the study area comprises about one-third of the State land area. Table D-l shows the population of each county for years 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980. In addition, percent changes in population between 1950 and 1980, and 1970 and 1980 are provided. The latter comparison reveals 26 counties increased and 13 declined. The total increase between 1970 and 1980 was 111,118 persons, or about 8 percent.
In many rural counties, even though the county population may have decreased, the population in communities with public water supply systems has increased, reflecting a migration from rural to urban or suburban settings. This puts an increased load on many systems which were already approaching the limits of their capacities. Therefore, even though it is important to examine county totals to distinguish long range trends in total water use, it is also important to recognize that problems in supply occur on a more localized basis.
Existing conditions of water use for the study area were prepared from data compiled by the Kansas Water Office and used in the "1975 National Water Assessment." Water use is given in Table D-2 for the categories of livestock, mining, power generation, manufacturing, urban, and rural domestic. The units are in million gallons per year (mgy). All of these use categories could potentially be competing for the same supplies.
The availability of surface flow varies with precipitation and runoff. The average annual precipitation for Kansas totals 26.5 inches, and ranges from more than 40 inches in the southeastern section of the state, to 35 inches in the northeast, gradually decreasing westward to the Colorado boundary where the average is less than 16 inches per year. The State’s greatest annual precipitation, for any location, 65.87 inches, was recorded in 1951 at Mound City. The least was at Colby in 1910, with a reported 6.62 inches. The monthly distribution of rainfall is generally favorable for crop production since most of the moisture occurs during the months of April through September. However, wide variations occur from month to month and year to year. The average annual runoff across the state varies much more than does precipitation. The average runoff ranges from 10 inches in southeast Kansas (25 percent of the precipitation) to 0.1 inches in the west (less than 1 percent of precipitation). Figure D-l displays average annual runoff in Kansas.
The major streams and rivers within the study area are the Kansas River and its tributaries: Stranger Creek, Wakarusa River, Delaware River, Soldier Creek, Vermillion Creek, Big Blue River, Black Vermillion River, Little Blue River, Republican River, White Rock Creek, Smoky Hill River,
D-2 TABLE D-l
HISTORIC AND CURRENT POPULATION
X Change X Change County 1950 1960 1970 1980 1950-1980 1970-1980
Anderson 10,267 9,035 8,501 8,749 -14.8 +2.9 Atchison 21,496 20,898 19,165 18,397 -14.4 -4.0 Bourbon 19,153 16,090 15,215 15,969 -16.6 +5.0 Brovn 14,651 13,229 11,685 11,955 -18.4 +2.3 Clay 11,697 10,675 9,890 9,802 -16.2 -0.9 Cloud 16,104 14,407 13,466 12,494 -22.4 -7.2 Dickinson 21,190 21,572 19,993 20,175 -4.8 +0.9 Doniphan 10,499 9,574 9,107 9,268 -11.7 + 1.8 Douglas 34,086 43,720 57,932 67,640 +98.4 + 16.8 Bills 19,043 21,270 24,730 26,098 +37.0 +5.5 Ellsvorth 8,465 7,677 6,146 6,640 -21.6 +8.0 Franklin 19,928 19,548 20,007 22,062 + 10.7 + 10.3 Geary 21,671 28,779 28,111 29,852 +37.8 +6.2 Harvey 21,698 25,865 27,236 30,531 +40.7 + 12.1 Jackson 11,098 10,309 10,342 11,644 +4.9 + 12.6 Jefferson 11,084 11,252 11,945 15,207 +37.2 +27.3 Jevell 9,698 7,217 6,099 5,241 -46.0 -14.1 Johnson 62,783 143,792 217,662 270,269 +330.5 +24.2 Leavenvorth 42,361 48,524 53,340 54,809 +29.4 +2.8 Lincoln 6,643 5,556 4,582 4,145 -37.6 -9.5 Linn 10,053 8,274 7,770 8,234 -18.1 +6.0 Marshall 17,926 15,598 13,139 12,787 -29.0 -2.7 McPherson 23,670 24,285 24,778 26,855 + 13.5 +8.4 Miami 19,698 19,884 19,254 21,618 +9.7 + 12.3 Mitchell 10,320 8,866 8,010 8,117 -21.3 + 1.3 Nemaha 14,341 12,897 11,825 11,211 -21.8 -5.2 Osage 12,811 12,886 13,352 15,319 + 19.6 + 14.7 Osborne 8,558 7,506 6,416 5,959 -30.4 -7.1 Ottava 7,265 6,779 6,183 5,971 -17.8 -3.4 Pottawatomie 12,344 11,957 11,755 14,782 +20.0 +25.8 Reno 54,058 59,055 60,765 64,983 +20.2 +6.9 Republic 11,478 9,768 8,498 7,569 -34.1 -10.9 Riley 33,405 41,914 56,788 63,505 +90.1 + 11.8 Russell 13,406 11,348 9,428 8,868 -33.9 -5.9 Saline 33,409 54,715 46,592 48,905 +46.4 +5.0 Sedgwick 222,290 343,231 350,694 366,531 +64.9 +4.5 Shawnee 105,418 141,286 155,322 154,916 +47.0 -0.3 Wabaunsee 7,212 6,648 6,397 6,867 -4.8 +7.3 Washington 12,977 10,739 9,249 8,543 -34.2 -7.6
TOTAL 1,024,254 1,296,625 1,401,369 1,512,487 +47.7 +7.9
Source: Bureau of Census
D-3 TABLE D-2
WATER USE IN 1980 (Million Gallons Per Year)
Power Urban Rural County Livestock Mining Generation Manufacturing Domestic Domestic Total
Anderson 423 89 5 59 182 95 853 Atchison 322 183 0 910 720 181 2,316 Bourbon 396 67 0 209 467 129 1,268 Brown 603 0 4 136 294 119 1,156 Clay 515 86 94 45 378 112 1,230 Cloud 296 50 27 91 522 106 1,092 Dickinson 705 633 4,939 104 752 193 7,325 Doniphan 303 33 0 4 232 98 670 Douglas 334 1,201 2,950 1,704 2,472 169 8,830 Ellis 346 1,277 97 224 1,254 186 3,384 Ellsworth 295 200 2 38 276 68 879 Franklin 434 58 84 308 569 146 1,599 Geary 566 0 0 80 1,010 66 1,722 Harvey 354 123 0 484 1,197 155 2,313 Jackson 441 35 6 61 239 137 919 Jefferson 368 177 0 29 265 161 1,000 Jewell 618 143 0 56 139 102 1,058 Johnson 214 1,572 0 6,113 9,106 274 17,279 Leavenworth 244 166 0 368 2,082 259 3,199 Lincoln 347 88 3 28 169 82 717 Linn 393 44 0 39 168 99 743 Marshall 603 201 0 32 319 135 1,290 McPherson 563 68 132 1,042 1,398 297 3,500 Miami 406 60 596 151 492 218 1,923 Mitchell 359 5 6 16 324 74 784 Nemaha 772 37 4 53 256 129 1,251 Osage 436 9 9 47 329 123 953 Osborne 414 44 2 49 248 79 836 Ottawa 319 1 4 36 307 117 784 Pottawatomie 643 230 483 15 311 137 1,819 Reno 611 339 1,136 3,946 2,980 458 9,470 Republic 601 74 6 28 260 111 1,080 Riley 342 151 0 102 1,817 212 2,624 Russell 254 1,484 14 62 439 73 2,326 Saline 346 993 0 474 2,224 226 4,263 Sedgwick 482 14,091 3,370 10,276 15,297 1,235 44,751 Shawnee 238 366 6,758 7,758 7,432 777 23,321 Wabaunsee 521 52 0 20 144 84 821 Washington 882 73 4 2 226 111 1,298
TOTAL 17,309 24,503 20,735 35,199 57,296 7,533 162,646
D-4 10 0 10 20 50 U-*-J___I___ I____ I s c a l e in m il e s
f ig u r e d - i AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF (IN INCHES)
Source: Rainfall-Runoff Relations and Expected Streamflow In Western Kansas
D Solomon River, South Fork Solomon River, North Fork Solomon River, and Saline River? the Osage River and its tributaries? Marmaton River, Little Osage River, Marais des Cygnes River, Big Bull Creek, Pottawatomie Creek, 110 Creek, Dragoon Creek, and Salt Creek? and the Arkansas River and its tributaries? Ninnescah River, South Fork Ninnescah, North Fork Ninnescah, Chikaskia River, and the Little Arkansas River. The Missouri River forms the eastern boundary of the study area.
The surface flows include all the creeks, streams, and rivers of the study area. The flows produced by the major rivers decrease from east to west. In the eastern one-third of Kansas most of the major rivers flow continuously and provide satisfactory water sources except during severe droughts. The smaller eastern Kansas tributaries become intermittent during the late summer or when the seasonal rain is minimal. In the central one-third, portions of the major streams have permanent flow except during periods of severe drought. Flow volumes vary seasonally depending on the amount of rainfall and runoff produced from each watershed.
In examining the adequacy of a surface flow for a water supply both the mean flow and a range of low flows which would occur in an extreme drought situation are meaningful. The extreme condition adopted for this study is the lowest 7-day flow which would occur in an average 50-year period. A minimal or zero flow using this criterion would indicate surface flow could not be considered a fully reliable long-term supply. The streamflow data were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Data Base WATSTORE, which was accessed through the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Data Base STORET. Flow data were obtained for 57 stations in the Kansas River basin, 15 stations in the Arkansas River basin, and 14 stations in the Osage River basin. The flow data were divided into two parts: the daily flow readings for each station, and a flow duration table with a low and high flow sequence summary for each station.
The Kansas River has the greatest reliable (7-day, 50-year) flow of all study streams. It is 96 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Fort Riley and increases to 205 cfs at Bonner Springs. The Blue River and the Arkansas River also maintain reliable flows greater than 10 cfs at stations within the study area. The Smoky Hill, Saline, Solomon, and Republican Rivers have maintained flow during historic droughts, but it is doubtful if they would do so in an occurrence of a 50-year drought under current condition. The Osage River basin streams (Marais des Cygnes, Little Osage, and Marmaton Rivers) have no 7-day, 50-year flow. Reliable flow of some streams has been altered since the 1950's by the construction and operation of major dams and lakes, as is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Twenty-four major lakes have been constructed in Kansas, 17 by the Corps of Engineers and 7 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Sixteen of those lakes are in or near the study area. Table D-3 lists those lakes, along with information on the authorized allocations of storage for flood control, multipurpose use, and sedimentation in each. Eight of the lakes have a substantial amount of multipurpose storage dedicated to water supply, as noted.
The lakes noted in Table D-3 have a total storage capacity of 9,106,100 acre feet of water, of which 978,400 acre-feet (10.7 percent of the total) has been allocated to water supply. This storage has an
D-6 TABLE D-3 AUTHORIZED FEDERAL LAKE STORAGE ALLOCATIONS (Volumes in Acre-feet)
Flood Multipurpose Sedimen- Lake Control (Water Supply) tation Total
Cheney 80,500 144,800 18,000 243,300 (144,800)
Clinton 258,300 110,400 28,500 397,200 (89,200)
Council Grove 62,100 41,900 10,000 114,000 (24,400)
El Dorado 75,200 143,600 17,400 236,200 (142,800)
Hillsdale 81,000 68,000 11,000 160,000 (53,000)
Kanopolls 370,434 55,241 — 425,675 (All multipurpose storage allocated to sediment)
Loveveil 50,460 24,930 16,760 92,150 (0)
Harlon 59,900 82,900 3,700 146,500 (38,300)
Melvern 200,000 137,000 26,000 363,000 (0)
Milford 700,000 300,000 160,000 1,160,000 (300,000)
Perry 480,000 150,000 140,000 770,000 (150,000)
Pomona 162,500 56,000 28,000 246,500 (1,000)
Tuttle Creek 1,942,000 197,000 228,000 2,367,000 (0)
Vaconda 722,315 178,900 60,200 963,775 (0)
Wilson 511,000 225,000 40,000 776,000 (0)
John Redmond 531,300 62,500 51,600 644,800 (34,900)
TOTAL 6 ,287,009 1,978,171 838,560 9,106,100 (978,400)
D-7 estimated firm yield (based on the 2 percent chance of shortage) of 315 million gallons per day (mgd). The State of Kansas has purchased most of this storage for the purpose of supplying local water supply agencies with a dependable source of water. Storage in some lakes has been sold by the Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation directly to users. ^ For example, the storage in Cheney Lake was purchased by the city of Wichita. Much of the state-owned storage is not committed to particular users, but it is expected that in time municipalities and industries will make greater use of such water. The Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers is directly responsible for nine of these existing lakes. They are Clinton, Hillsdale, Melvem, Pomona, Milford, Perry, Kanopolis, Tuttle Creek, and Wilson. Their present and future use is a primary concern of this investigation. For this reason specific project data is presented on each lake in Table D-4. Municipal and industrial water supply is not a purpose in Wilson, Kanopolis, Tuttle Creek, and Melvem Lakes and is only a limited purpose of Pomona Lake. These five lakes are considered in this report for reallocation of storage to the water supply purpose.
Ground water is also a major source of water in Kansas. It has been estimated that 425 million acre-feet of fresh water exists in storage beneath the surface of the state, or enough to cover all of Kansas to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Figure D-2 gives the estimated volume of ground water in unconsolidated deposits available to wells in Kansas counties. Figure D-3 shows the generalized well yields for the 39-county study area. In eastern Kansas, substantial yields can be obtained only along the flood plains of some of the larger rivers. Western Kansas, although having less rainfall and runoff, has a much larger supply of ground water (approximately 65 percent of the state total). However, only about half is economically available for utilization.
The area drained surficially by Osage River tributaries has little or no available fresh ground water and no definable water table. Yield, where available, are generally less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm). The greatest well yields are found in alluvial deposits of rivers and streams within the area boundary, but these yields are generally less than 100 gpm. In the eastern fourth of Bourbon County ground water yields appear to be good with yields of 500 gpm. However, because of the lack of reliability of supply from a guantity point of view, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment has recommended that ground water not generally be considered for future supplies. Quality will be discussed in the next section.
As Figure D-3 indicates, ground water availability is good in the Kansas River alluvium, as well as major tributary alluvia, but is limited in upland areas. In the south-central Kansas area there is an excellent aquifer capable of producing large quantities of water, up to 2,000 gpm per well. This aquifer is known as the Equus Beds and covers approximately 500,000 acres in parts of four counties. The aquifer is a major source of supply to Wichita and other cities, to industries, and to irrigators in the area. Use of the aquifer is governed by a ground water management district, which has established an intensive ground water use control area in the vicinity of McPherson. Water levels have declined in the area, and there is a danger of saline contamination of the aquifer.
D-8 TABLE D-4 CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA
LAKE CLINTON HILLSDALE KANOPOLIS DATE PUCE (N OPERATION 1977 1981 1948
AUTHORIZATION STATUS 89,200 acre*feet of 68,000 acre-feet of sto Water supply was not storage was authorized rage was included subse initially authorized. In for water supply. quent to passage of P.L. 1976, Congress authorized 85-500, the Water Supply a Bureau of Reclamation Act of 1958 under discre modification of the project tionary authority 53,000 to include irrigation, water acre-feet of that amount supply, and other purposes. was allocated to water This modification has not supply and 15,000 acre- been completed. It includes feet to water quality. a raise of the multipurpose pool of 25 feet.
USE OF STORAGE In 1978, KUO contracted In 1974 the KWO The multipurpose pool is for the entire water contracted for the entire operated primarily for sipply storage amount, water supply storage recreation and mainten 53,500 acre-feet was amount with 7,500 acre- ance of minimum stream- designated for immediate feet designed for flows. Interest in use of use and 35,700 acre-feet immediate use and 45,500 storage for water supply for future use. The KWO acre-feet for future use. has been expressed by the has negotiated user Twelve potential users cities of Salina, Linds- contracts with Lawrence, have applied to the KWO borg, Wichita, RWD No. 1 Baldwin, and Rural Water for negotiation for water of Ellsworth County, and District (RWD) No. 1, 2, supply in amounts by Kansas Power and Light 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Douglas totaling 42.7 mgd or 2.5 Co. In 1984 the Post County. Additional times the firm yield of Rock Rural Water District interest has also been the storage. KWO has contracted with the Corps expressed by RWD No. 5 negotiated user contracts for 625 acre-feet per of Douglas County and the with Spring Hill, RWD No. year of surplus water. city of Lawrence. 7 of Johnson County, and RWD No. 2 of Miami County. Negotiations are underway with 7 of the potential users totaling 25.57 mgd.
PHYSICAL DATA Stream Wakarusa River Big Bull Creek Smoky Hill River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 367 144 2,330 Storage allocation (acre-ft.) Flood control 258,300 81,000 370,434 ( Interim) Multipurpose 110,400 68,000 55,241 (Interim)
Sedimentation 28,500 11,000 - Total 397,200 160,000 425,675 Surface area (acres) Full pool 12,800 7,410 13,900 Multipurpose 7,000 4,580 3,500 (Interim) Shoreline (multi- 85 51 41 purpose pool - miles)
PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 50 D-9 TABLE D-4 (cont.) CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA
PERRY LAKE MELVERN MILFORD DATE PLACE IN OPERATION 1972 1965 1969
AUTHORIZATION STATUS Water supply was not 300,000 acre-feet of 150,000 acre-feet of specifically authorized, storage was included for storage was inclujded for although 90,000 acre-feet future water supply future water supply of storage was allocated subsequent to passage of subsequent to passage of for water quality and P.L. 85-500, the Water P.L. 85-500, the Water 47,000 acre-feet was Supply Act of 1958. Supply Act of 1958, under allocated for recreation. discretionary authority.
USE OF STORAGE The multipurpose pool has The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is been operated for operated for water supply, operated for recreational recreation and streenrflow recreation, and streamflow and streamflow mainten maintenance. Interest in maintenance. In 1974 the ance. In 1977, the KWO water supply has been KWO contracted with the contracted for the entire expressed by Public Corps for the entire water water supply storage Wholesale Water Supply supply storage amount for amount for future use. No District No. 2 and the future use. Multipurpose use has yet been made and city of Lebo. operation began in 1967 the Corps will continue and the end of the interest- to operate the pool for free period was February other than water supply 1977. Interest in water until initial use. Multi supply has been expressed purpose operation began by Kansas Fish and Game, in 1969, and the interest- Park City, Bel Aire, Linds- free period ended in April borg, Sedgwick, Hutchin 1979. Interest in a small son, Newton, Junction withdrawal has been ex City, Salina, McPherson, pressed by Lakeside Vil Wichita, and Equus Beds lage Improvement District. Groundwater Management District No. 2. Amounts requested total 135.2 mgd. In 1984 46,650 acre- feet of storage was called into water supply use, when the Kansas Power and Light Co. contracted with the KWO for water supply. PHYSICAL DATA
Stream Marais des Cygnes River Republican River Delaware River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 349 3,624 1,117 Storage allocation (acre-ft.) Flood control 200,000 700,000 480,000 Multipurpose 137,000 300,000 150,000 Sedimentation 26,000 160,000 140,000 Total 363,000 1,160,000 770,000 Surface area (acres) Full pool 13,950 33,000 25,300 Multipurpose 6,930 16,189 12,200 Shoreline (multi- 101 163 159 purpose pool - miles)
PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 100 D-10 TABLE D-4 (cont.) CORPS OF MGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA
LAKE POMONA TUTTLE CREEK WILSON DATE PLACE IN OPERATION 1963 1962 1964
AUTHORIZATION STATUS Water sipply was not Water supply is not an Water supply is not an initially authorized. In authorized purpose. authorized purpose. 1964, the Chief of Irrigation storage is Engineers allocated 1,000 authorized, but has not acre-feet of multipurpose been used. storage to water supply under discretionary authority.
USE OF STORAGE The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is operated primarily for operated for recreation operated for recreation recreation and streamflow and streamflow and streamflow maintenance. Two water maintenance, including maintenance. Irrigation sipply users have Missouri River storage is not used contracted with the Corps navigation. At the because of the high for storage. RUD No. 3 of request of the KWO, salinity of the lake Osage County contracted releases can be made for water. Interest in water for 230 acre-feet in 1964 water quality supply has been expressed end in 1979, 270 acre-feet improvement. by two power companies, more for a total of 500 Western Power Division acre-feet, and RUD No. 9 Central Telephone & of Osage County contracted Utilities Corporation for 500 acre-feet in 1979. and Kansas Power and Light Conpany. Amounts requested total 85.8 mgd.
PHYSICAL DATA Stream 110-Mile Creek Big Blue River Saline River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 322 9,628 1,917 Storage allocation (acre-ft.) Flood control 162,500 1,942,000 511,000 Multipurpose 56,000 197,000 225,000 Sedimentation 28,000 228,000 40,000 Total 246,500 •"*,367,000 776,000 Surface area (acres) Full pool 8,500 54,000 20,000 Multipurpose 4,000 15,800 9,000 Shoreline (multi 52 112 100 » . purpose pool - miles)
PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 100 D-ll 0 I N- 102° 1010 <)90 9 11 0 970 960 9:10 .. -...... - . --~... ----- L ~- ::~ .-.. _l -r::t·~=;;.::;.=~·=-:·:·:·=·:::-::~=·=·=·=::·=···=····-·.::-::L c-----:-:: -.-: K - -~oo ,J- ---r1:. ·_.:::·".·.:.. :: .. ---::_::. -:. :--._- ·r.: . ,. -. ·::.-..::_::.. 1------.:.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.··············· .•.•.•.·.·.·:·.·=·:·:·:·:·:. ···-· . ·v· -
·-- .. I • . . . .· :·:·:·:· f ...... ·.····J•·· _-' .:. •v . I r· ·."· Q• 60. .. ' ·:::• • • 6.·:- V.-.JU. • ·.·:'·, .._: Ii I".·.·.·.·" I • 'V ..•••••••• .. ... ·. -.- .·l . . . - • • - - ...... ; .... , • IIO'uiUc ' .... · •. ~ ·:·:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:-::;:;::::/-:-:-:-:-:-:-:··········=~ . . ·._., t Mlinowd "j." '-:-:--- -.· ~ ---r~· ~··:·.: ·>·· ~- '.. ·~-- ~-...· .. · ~·. ·~NCr~ (@;jQftiF)J~u.~liA :::·:·:·=;~ii i:~:i:::::"\~ :1 :- •..•. • .• ,• '',· •' r--- •:.·.:- - 1: ...... :::::: .. ·-· :;:;, ?'''''''A' ~0 .,..;;: :... •• ' 40",- 0 .. O o 0 O • o ' I 0 ° I .. I I I ,.. • ~-····' ~ 0 :::::::. .I _r.'... __ :_::.:::·:::::.:, 0 34·.·. ::. ~~ 0 28 -. ·: :::: l 00 · " ·_;_::,:1 ..... '-? ...... , . - ····-···. .. -.... ' ...... ·...... - , :;::::::: : 1 _...... ,, - .... _ • • - ·- . ·:·:-·:: :· . ·:·:·:·::, .• •• .·:-· ~· J ... •'•"•"'f1 . . ' ' - ·- ...... - - ·...... :.._ ,.., ~ ;:;:;:;:;:;:; : 11001($ .·, ·.'' ' l . -~ __..,. . '"•_.;.• . " ·';,·,.;:.:..:...;. rOS..II( rll---- ', ,• -• ; I·\·',• _,•.... ', ·: • .. . .n ··- ",_,_____:.. ..-"r''>.r-'-Jw ___ . .,_:,....,.,....."t"... .·, • V.V&.. '1 .,...... _.,. • 1 ...... ·.·.···. ····..... ·· · - - -..·.·.·.· ~ - · ·...... ~-\·· t.-.·· o 39 ·WAY-...--.- .. .. --... -...... • r -"""'---., ·:-:··. ·. . . • - ' :-'· ••._.· • . ·:-::-:.·:-:. ' •• • •• ••• . • :- ·••. ·~ {.!•,!!;! .'·. I ••• -:...:-.·· .·: JurotSOM • 'I 39° 1=~~:;:~::;:;::::::::::::::: .·.·· . . .r.·.··, ...... ·.. ·... - . .· ...... -. .-.. ·.·.·. --.-:- .. ·.··· ' - · ~oonr
• .·.···.·.· ·.·.···.·· .·.· .· •' .-- .. ·. c· ·.. · ·.· • . I .· • .··J I · ..... ·.·· ·.·.. ·. • ....·.·: ·.. -.. • .·.-:.. • -co~•-- .. ·.·.- ·.. · · · ...... ·.·:1···· n a· 7 . ·. . ·..·-~, ·- · ·- · · - -- : ·... • • 'I . ' I • • • •• ·, ' ' - • - • -I • - •• -' • - • -I ~ - - rM~ :.-.:·.·- :·:···:}Ei.iJi.::_::... ·.·_ .· t~s? - · · · ·_ .. _... "_..;. ·· ... ~: · .- ·- .. ;...,:.r. -.-.- o 32 ..... -... -... • ' \ · ~( ··.-:: t ~ ~ I I I ~. ' ' "4""- -1_, ~ ' i ! i r-=---~-~--t I 1
I :uOII : I r I 'I 3a o - ·rw,.;. -+- I -n- I 1-t- -~- - '380 I I I 5:9Q] l 1 ,""!"*--r·.... _~_j '.. I I~~ - -4 II : . . ; . lUnD I I I
9.79 o.1o !- .- o.7i_- i o.a;5 :J o.96 I o . ?a. >J.~.. - --f \ i ---~ • I . •',• •.·. • I . :·· • •. · .. , •,' I I I I 3]0 --,_1i Oiilj-., . _,.._,. ... _.,j sfM..... "]_ ~~- .; --:..~ ~- -~ '.::_.- -['~ .:-.. .-:~:.. :·.-:-...... l SUIINEA l~ .. ·..... :··:.:.-.-\· .. :. .·lCI\AUTAUQUA JMOIIlGOIIOCt l\lo8ETTE ICHrOfl-([ J. I ,. - ----1------~-- T-'-"-·-'----'-· ------~------__ .,. 1020 1010 1000 F 911° 970 960 9:1°
LEGEND 10 0 10 20 30 I I t! ' I I I I SCALE IN MILES I I 0 TO 99,999 ACRE-FEET (' _ ·'J 100,000 TO 999,999 ACRE-FEET FIGURE D-2 . .... I 1,000,000 TO 4,999,999 ACRE- FEET ESTIMATED VOLUME OF AVAILABLE GROUND WATER 5,000,000 TO 19,999,999 ACRE-FEET GREATER THAN 20,000,000 ACRE-FEET Source : lrngat1on In Kansas o to to 9P"' _ _.. ___r _-JJ FIGURE D~! I . .... ·.·:· 10 t 0 100 ""....,. ... -- -- :::::·:::::::::· AREAS UNOERLAtN WITH &f'OUNO WATER a. 00 r a a • a ·l AND GENERALIZED WELL YIELDS I 0 0 to ~ _ _ _t: ·: ·: ·; ·; ·J 500 toiOOOgp"'- _ .·.·:·:· Source: lrriootion In Kanttt Over IOOOopm- _ The Futu,. Of KORNS Study
other than the quantity of water available and the location of the water with respect to an area of demand, water quality is the most in~rtant parameter in the determination of the value of a particular source of supply. Quality can be classified as a contingent constraint, whereas quantity could be an absolute constraint when picking a new source of supply or evaluating an existing supply. Certainly, if not enough water is available for projected needs, this would be sufficient for a rejection of a source; however, water treatment technology has advanced to the point that most supply sources can be made potable without regard to contaminants. '!he cost of treatment then becomes a constraint.
D-13 Fortunately, currently used sources of supply within the study area do not require tertiary treatment to meet drinking water standards. However, there are quality problems that need to be discussed, along with quantity, to provide an overall assessment of existing water availability. In general, surface waters within the Osage River basin are of good quality; however, a wide variation in streamflow may produce changes during periods of low flow that require special treatment for domestic use to overcome taste, odor, and color problems. Formations in the Osage River basin produce desirable water from shallow wells 100 to 150 feet in depth, while water from wells with depths exceeding 200 feet is so highly mineralized that it is unfit for domestic use.
Minerals are high in several central Kansas streams. All major tributaries of the lower Arkansas River are high in chlorides and dissolved solids at times of low flow. Except during high flow periods, the Saline River is highly mineralized, with sodium and chlorides the principal contaminants. The Saline River picks up most of its mineral contaminants through Russell County. Wilson Lake is highly mineralized and is not usable as a potable water source without treatment. Smoky Hill River water varies considerably in chemical quality throughout its course and receives a large inflow of chlorides between Salina and Abilene. The surface water quality characteristics of the Saline and Smoky Hill Rivers have been influenced by the operation of the Corps of Engineers lakes.
Much of the ground water underlying the lower Arkansas basin is of good quality and suitable for municipal and industrial supplies. Alluvial aquifers beneath the Saline and Smoky Hill Rivers are of mixed quality, in some locations yielding fresh water and at other locations yielding water high in chlorides. The Wellington Formation underlying this area contains the Hutchinson salt member which is the source of most of the salt that enters the Kansas River systems.
Surface waters of the lower Kansas River basin are not highly mineralized and upstream lake releases can improve poor quality water that may occur during periods of low flow. The quality is generally satisfactory for all uses. Water quality of the Blue River is good. Ground water obtained from the alluvial formations underlying the valley floor of the lower Kansas River basin is moderately hard but suitable for most uses. Other wells in the area are suitable for most uses.
From a drinking water quality point of view, the principal problem in the northern part of the study area is nitrates in the ground water. This contaminant is covered by primary standards and is of greatest concern because of its effects on infants. The problem is widespread throughout the area. Selenium, radium, and turbidity problems are evidenced to a lesser degree. These three are also covered by primary standards. Typical secondary standard source deficiencies are excessive concentrations of sulfates, iron, manganese, and hardness.
D— 14 INSTITUTIONS
Institutions are established to perform a function where individual action is not a viable alternative. Federal, State, and local governments are prime examples. Within these governments reside many functions, with the supplying of water being one of importance. This subsection deals with the ways that institutions affect and facilitate the safe supply of water to the public, businesses, and industry. It also deals with the ways that a number of institutional considerations act as constraints to planning.
A number of Federal agencies have at least some role in construction, regulation, or financing of water supply facilities in the State of Kansas. They are listed below along with a description of their major water supply functions.
Corps of Engineers This agency may include municipal and industrial water supply storage in dam and lake projects if State or local interests agree to pay for the cost of the storage. Of 9 Corps lakes in the 39- county study area, 5 have water supply storage.
Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) This agency also may include municipal and industrial water supply in dam and lake projects. The BuRec has built two lakes, Waconda and Lovewell, in the study area, but neither initially included water supply storage. Waconda presently provides a water supply for Beloit and Mitchell County Rural Water District (RWD) No. 2. The BuRec also built Cheney Lake in Reno County, which is outside of the study area, but which provides a portion of the Wichita water supply.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) The SCS may include up to 12,500 acre-feet of water supply storage in flood retarding structures under its PL 566 watershed program. Only one existing SCS structure in the study area has water supply storage. It is on Lyon Creek near Herington in southeast Dickinson County.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) This agency is responsible for protecting and enhancing environmental quality and carrying out pollution control functions. It is also charged with administering the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, including the establishing of primary Federal drinking water standards.
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) This agency can make loans and grants to individuals, water districts, and communities for water supply systems in rural areas. FmHA assistance has been widely used in the study
The State of Kansas has developed programs under several agencies for the financing, developing, and regulation of water resources. The following paragraphs provide a brief history and description of those programs and agencies. Programs of state agencies are summarized in Table
D-15 TABLE D-5 KANSAS WATER AGENCIES
Type of Water Management Activity Data Assistance Name of Agency Planning Research Regulation Development Program
Kansas Water Office and Authority Division of Water Resources, State Board of Agriculture (DWR) Kansas Department of Health and Environment X X State Conservation Commission X X Kansas Fish and Game Commission X X X X Kansas Park and Resources Authority X X X X Kansas Geological Survey X X Kansas Water Resource Research Institute (staff at K-State and K.U.) K-State water research agencies: a. Agricultural Experiment Station (main station plus five branch stations) X b. Division of Cooperative Extension, also known as the Extension Service X c. Evapo t ranspi rat ion Laboratory X d. Konza Prairie Natural Research Area X e. Engineering Experiment Station X Other State agencies with an important but less than total concern for water: a. Kansas Corporation Commission b. Kansas Department of Transportation c. Kansas Department of Economic Development Promotes Kansas water resources and utilizes water information to promote economic development of state. d. Governor’s Energy Office Must have input from water agencies relative to energy studies plus outflow of information to water agencies relative to energy problem. e. State Division of Planning Concerned with water problems; assisting Governor’s and Research, Kansas Task Force on Water Resources. Department of Administration f. University of Kansas Several divisions and departments at K.U. have an interest in water related research.
NOTE: The object here was to show the earliest year of origin which sometimes refers to a predecessor of the agency in its present form. For example, DWR in its present form was created by the Legislature in 1927, the 1917 date referring to one of DWR’s predecessors, the Kansas Water Commission. The Kansas Water Office and Kansas Water Authority were created in present form in 1981, at which time the Kansas Water Resources, Board was abolished.
Source: Kansas City Urban Study
D-16 The Water Appropriation Act of 1945 established the general legal framework for the allocation of water rights within the State of Kansas. The date June 28, 1945 was fixed as the final date upon which a right could be vested on the traditional concept of riparian ownership. Thereafter, the remaining Kansas waters were dedicated to the public to be apportioned by statutory regulation.
The act gave considerable power to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) of the State Board of Agriculture. The DWR authority includes administration of water law, including the development of plans affecting any watershed in the state and any administration in regard to irrigation. DWR also has authority relative to ground water management districts, surface water districts, stream flow duties, and bank and channel maintenance. State laws administered by DWR pertain to construction of dams, changing stream courses or currents, obstructing streams, appropriation of water and water rights, organization and operation of ground water management districts, and rural water districts.
In 1955, the Kansas Water Resources Board (KWRB) was created. It was charged with a number of planning responsibilities including collecting and compiling information, working out plans of water resource development, and making recommendations to other agencies. The KWRB was subsequently given the responsibility to carry out the legislatively-enacted Kansas State Water Plan. The KWRB could approve or prohibit actions concerning the water plan. The KWRB was authorized to serve as the central brokerage agency for water supply in Federal multiple purpose lakes and to execute contracts with the Federal Government for present and future water supply. In turn, the KWRB then executes contracts with local water supply agencies for water supply.
In 1981, legislation was passed which abolished the KWRB and created a Kansas Water Office (formerly the KWRB staff) and a Kansas Water Authority. The Kansas Water Office (KWO) retained many of the planning and contracting responsibilities of the KWRB, but subject to approval of the Authority. The Authority is a body which has considerable review, approval, and recom mendation responsibilities over the activities of the KWO and other state agencies involved in water-related activities.
Another agency involved in water resources is the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. This agency is responsible for formulating and enforcing rules and regulations necessary to insure the safety of public water supplies in the state and for developing policies and procedures for maintaining or enhancing the quality of water in the state.
Water may be supplied on a private, individual basis, or on a collective basis, usually public. There has been and continues to be a trend toward the collective approach whereby a legally instituted entity (public or private) plans and implements a system capable of delivering potable water to customers. Illustration of the importance of these water suppliers is not difficult.
The estimated population served by public water supplies within the state in 1973 was 1,790,000 out of a population of 2,258,000. This represents 79 percent being served by public suppliers of all types. Because of the increase in service to rural areas by rural water districts, annexation by cities, and the fact that a significant portion of the
D-17 population increase takes place in the cities, the percentage of the total population served by public water supplies has increased. It is estimated that this percentage increased to 81 percent in 1980, and will further increase to 83 percent in 1990 and 85 percent in 2000. It is expected that the percentages would equal or exceed the above within the 39-county study area since it includes all of the major population centers of the state.
Table D-6 lists the different types of water supply agencies which can be formed with the state. Only the municipal system and the rural water district are currently used extensively within the study area.
TABLE D-6
LOCAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITIES Current Use Entity Authority in Study Area
Private water company Kansas Statutes Annotated Limited (K.S.A,.) 66-104 (1974) Municipality K.S.A. 12-801 (1974) Extensive Rural water supply district K.S.A. 82a-601 (1974) Limited Rural water district (RWD) K.S.A. 62a-613 (1974) Extensive Public wholesale water K.S.A. 19-3545 Limited supply district K.S.A. 82a-637 (1974) Limited Water supply and distribution district K.S.A. 24-901 Limited Watershed district K.S.A. 24-901 Limited Districts in certain counties under 100,000 K.S.A. 19-3531 Limited Johnson County Wholesale Water Supply District K.S.A. 19-3514 et seq. Limited (1974)
Even though the public wholesale water supply district (PWWSD) (K.S.A. 19-3545) has limited use within the study area, its potential for use in water supply planning is significant. In 1977 the Kansas Legislature created this entirely new type of district. Such a district enables several public agencies to cooperate with each other on a basis of material advantage to provide services and facilities to its members. This quasi municipal corporation can secure a source of water on a scale larger than is feasible for individual agencies acting alone and to purvey the water wholesale. Membership in such a district is open to counties, townships, cities, towns, water districts, municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, and agencies and subdivisions of the state. In addition, private agencies when acting in concert with any of the above-mentioned public entities may enjoy the powers of that public body.
There have been six of these districts legally formed in the state, with two that have disbanded, Johnson County PWWSD No. 1, and Anderson County PWWSD No. 3. No district has yet begun construction on a wholesale system. The four districts, both active and disbanded, within the study area, along with those agencies which are participants, are listed in Table D-7.
D-18 TABLE D-7
PUBLIC WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY DISTRICTS
Johnson County PWWSD No. 1 (Disbanded)
Edgerton Gardner Spring Hill RWD No. 1 (Johnson) RWD No. 5 (Johnson) RWD No. 6 (Johnson) RWD No. 6A (Johnson) RWD No. 7 (Johnson)
Melvem - Waverly PWWSD No. 2
M e l v e m Waverly Williamsburg RWD No. 4 (Anderson)
Anderson County PWWSD No. 3 (Disbanded)
Garnett RWD No. 6 (Anderson)
Tonganoxie PWWSD No. 6
Tonganoxie RWD No. 6 (Leavenworth) RWD No. 9 (Leavenworth)
An unformed, but potential district would be located in the counties of Sedgwick, Harvey, McPherson, Reno, and Saline. Possible participants include Wichita, Salina, Hutchinson, Hesston, Newton, Lindsborg, McPherson, and Moundridge. Potential sources for the district could include Milford Lake, some 110 miles northeast of Wichita, and Kanopolis Lake, about 80 miles northwest of Wichita. Alternatively, the city of Wichita may choose to participate in a possible future Bureau of Reclamation lake at the Corbin site on the Chikaskia River, 45 miles south of Wichita. Should a district be formed with the purpose of serving all the listed agencies, the magnitude of the capital improvements program for water supply would be great, probably in the vicinity of $200-300 million.
D-19 FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section describes the most likely set of future water supply conditions, in the absence of any Federal action which would be taken as a result of this study. Those future conditions are broadly termed the "without" condition. The without condition is used as a basis for evaluating alternative Federal water supply plans.
A 50-year planning period, 1985 to 2035, is described. Forecasts for the period include population, water use, in-stream flow needs, and likely actions on the part of non-Federal water suppliers. These actions have been developed by means of questionnaires and interviews with water agency officials, as well as input from the Kansas Water Office.
Using the "without condition" as a base, plans are developed which do include Federal actions. These plans can be compared to the "without condition" so that differences in cost, environmental effects, efficiency of supply, reliability, flexibility, and public acceptability can be determined.
For the purpose of describing the without condition and formulating alternative plans, the 39-county study is divided into three smaller areas. This was done because the most likely major Federal plan to be recommended in the study was determined to be reallocation of storage in one or more of five existing Corps lakes. The five lakes under consideration are Melvem, Pomona, Tuttle Creek, Kanopolis, and Wilson. Melvem and Pomona Lakes are located in close proximity, as well as being in the Osage River basin. Consequently, Area 1 was established as an area which could benefit from a change in storage allocation at those two lakes. Likewise, Tuttle Creek, Kanopolis, and Wilson Lakes are in the same general vicinity, and all three are in the Kansas River basin. Changes in the use of storage in these lakes could also affect water users to the south, including the city of Wichita, and users downstream on the Kansas River. Therefore, Area 2 was formed. Area 3 is the remainder. No Corps of Engineers lakes are located therein, and none are likely to become a significant source of supply for Area 3. However, a substantial number of water quantity and quality problems are known to exist. Table D-8 is a listing of the counties included in the study by area, and Plate D-l displays the three areas. Detailed without conditions were developed for Areas 1 and 2, and are summarized in the following paragraphs. No detailed without condition was prepared for Area 3 because of the absence of a likely Federal action for that area.
TABLE D-8 COUNTIES IN STUDY AREAS 1, 2, AND 3
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Anderson Dickinson McPherson Atchison Marshall Bourbon Douglas Pottawatomie Brown Mitchell Franklin Ellis Reno Clay Nemaha J ohnson Ellsworth Riley Cloud Osborne Linn Geary Russell a # Doniphan Ottawa Miami Harvey Saline Jackson Republic Osage Jefferson Sedgwick Jewell Washington Leavenworth Shawnee Lincoln Wabaunsee
D-20 Four plates at the end of this section display the conditions discussed herein. Plates D-2 and D-3 show the baseline condition for Areas 1 and 2, respectively. Plates D-4 and D-5 show the Area 1 and Area 2 without conditions, respectively.
The seven counties of Area 1 are forecasted to increase in population from 383,900 in 1985 to 594,400 in 2035. More than half of this increase will occur in Johnson County, the most urbanized of the seven counties. Similarly, water use is forecasted to increase. Moderate increases in per capita use are expected, and total water use for the area is estimated to increase from 21.523 mgd to 41.004 mgd. Table D-9 displays population and water use forecasts by county.
TABLE D-9
AREA 1 POPULATION AND WATER USE FORECASTS
Population Water Use (mgd) County 1985 2035 1985 2035
Anderson 8,900 9,000 0.692 0.725 Bourbon 19,600 26,300 2.083 3.138 Franklin 21,800 40,000 2.413 4.205 J ohnson 287,000 437,400 12.049 24.037 Linn 8,400 15,300 0.687 1.456 Miami 23,800 49,900 2.162 5.729 Osage 14,400 16,500 1.437 1.714
TOTAL 383,900 594,400 21.523 41.004
Source: Kansas Water Office
During nondrought periods Area 1 should not have, on the whole, great difficulty in meeting water requirements. Over the 50-year planning horizon there will be spot shortages due to the gradual filling of small lakes with sediment. Also, the ground water in some locations is highly mineralized, rendering it only marginally usable.
It is during moderate to severe droughts that the serious nature of Area 1 problems will be seen. Surface flows would cease in Osage basin streams, except for Corps lake releases, during a 2 percent chance drought. Most municipal lakes would go dry, and ground water yield would be diminished. The only source located within the seven-county area which currently has water supply storage with yield to meet increased future needs is Hillsdale Lake.
The requirements of Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, and the suppliers it serves, can be excluded from Area 1 and added to Area 2 for the purpose of evaluating source adequacy. Under that scenario, Area 1 water needs will increase from 16.8 mgd in 1985 to 32.5 mgd in 2035. Hillsdale Lake would provide a 2 percent yield of 17.3 mgd. It is estimated that four new small lakes would be built by water suppliers during the planning periods and that those.lakes would yield 2.6 mgd. The potential drought deficit by 2035 is (32.5 - 17.3 - 2.6), or 12.6 mgd.
D-21 Additionally, shortages are expected to develop in the Neosho basin during the period. It is likely that Melvern and Pomona Lakes will be considered as sources for Neosho basin needs during the planning period.
Instream flow needs and agricultural water supply needs are important concerns. Under the without condition, water quality releases from Melvern, Pomona, and Hillsdale Lakes will continue. Releases from Melvern and Pomona are 20 cfs and 15 cfs, respectively, and are reliable for all but extreme drought conditions (1 percent chance). The Hillsdale Lake water quality release rate is 13 cfs on a 2 percent chance of shortage. Under the existing administration of water rights by the Kansas DWR, such releases are available for meeting instream flow needs, or ''minimum desirable stream-flows," under K.S.A. 82a-703a. Releases are also available for meeting water rights appropriations which were in effect prior to April 12, 1984. Such rights include municipal and industrial rights, as well as agricultural rights. In Area 1, the Marais des Cygnes River is the only stream for which minimum desirable streamflows have been established by the state. Minimum streamflows are varied on a monthly basis and are keyed to stations at Ottawa and near LaCygne. For Ottawa, they are 15 cfs for October through April, 20 cfs in May and September, and 25 cfs in June through August. For LaCygne, flows are 20 cfs for September through May and 25 cfs for June through August. For both stations higher flows for fish spawning in April through June are applicable if Corps lakes are in flood pool operation.
Table D-10 shows potential 2035 water needs for all of the above purposes for Area 1.
TABLE D-10
AREA 1 WATER NEEDS FOR ALL PURPOSES (Million Gallons Per Day)
1985 2035
Municipal and Industry 17 32 Minimum Desirable Streamflow 14 14 Agriculture (Irrigation) 3 to 10 3 to 15 Neosho Basin 0 0 to 20
TOTAL (range) 34 to 41 49 to 81
Eighteen counties are included in Area 2. Population in the area is forecasted to increase from 1,048,400 in 1985 to 1,381,600 in 2035. Municipal and industrial water use in the area is forecasted to increase from 165 mgd to 358 mgd. Table D-ll displays forecasts by county.
A severe drought in Area 2 is expected to largely deplete all sources of supply except the two major rivers and their alluvia (Kansas and Arkansas), the Equus Beds aquifer, and four Federal lakes which have water supply storage— Milford, Perry, Clinton, and Cheney. The 2 percent yields of those sources for the year 2035 are estimated in Table D-12. The yield estimates for Milford, Perry, and Clinton Lakes are somewhat different than subsequent yield estimates which were developed from the model described in the reallocation report. However, for the purpose of this plan foumulation discussion, the earlier estimates have been retained.
D-22 TABLE D-ll
AREA 2 POPULATION AND WATER USE FORECASTS
Population Water Use (mgd) County 1985 2035 1985 2035
Dickinson 20,600 26,200 2.739 6.781 Douglas 70,200 93,300 8.723 10.856 Ellis 26,700 33,900 8.877 34.010 Ellsworth 6,800 8,600 0.970 1.143 Geary 30,200 37,500 3.416 9.082 Harvey 31,400 40,100 4.876 17.114 Jefferson 15,900 21,300 1.266 3.119 Leavenworth 55,900 71,300 10.428 27.538 Lincoln 4,100 4,100 0.678 0.760 McPherson 27,600 35,300 4.071 12.955 Pottawatomie 15,000 18,600 1.320 3.039 Reno 66,800 85,400 21.702 39.997 Riley 64,200 79,900 6.729 18.398 Russel 18,900 8,900 1.499 1.929 Saline 50,000 63,600 7.552 10.812 Sedgwick 385,600 528,100 53.522 91.303 Shawnee 161,600 216,900 26.347 68.307 Wabaunsee 6,900 8,600 0.674 1.761
TOTAL 1,048,400 1,381,600 165.389 358.904
Source: 1980 Office of Business Economics Research Service (Obers) Kansas Water Office
TABLE D-12
AREA 2 EXPECTED 2035 YIELD OF EXISTING SOURCES (Million Gallons Per Day)
Milford Lake 129
Cheney Lake 3 3
Perry Lake 79
Clinton Lake 19
Arkansas River and Alluvium 12
Kansas River and Alluvium 105
Equus Beds 83
TOTAL 460
D-23 The total yield of 460 mgd shown in Table D-12 may appear to be adequate for year 2035 needs for municipal and industrial use. However when other estimated requirements are included, as shown in Table D-13, future demand exceeds yield.
TABLE D-13
AREA 2 WATER NEEDS FOR ALL PURPOSES (Million Gallons Per Day)
1985 2035
Municipal and Industry 200 335
Potential Cooling Water 80 200
Instream Flow Requirements 50 to 100 50 to 100
Self-Supplied Industrial 10 to 30 10 to 30
Agriculture (Irrigation) 25 to 50 25 to 50
TOTAL (range) 365 to 460 620 to 715 No new non-Federal source development is projected in Area 2. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The without conditions for Areas 1 and 2 show water supply deficits during severe droughts. Those deficits are the result of several specific problems, as well as several implied conditions within the two areas. This section summarizes first the problems in Area 1 and Area 2, and then presents opportunities which are available.
Area 1 existing problems include the following:
- Ground water sources are very limited in availability, both in quantity and quality. - Streamflows are depleted in severe droughts. - Small community lakes are depleted in severe droughts. - Locations of reliable sources are not in the vicinity of some areas of need.
In addition to the above problems, Area 1 future problems include:
- Municipal and industrial water needs will increase by 15 mgd. - Sources within the area may be diverted to the Neosho River basin. - For many communities, development of reliable new sources is beyond financial or planning capability.
Area 2 existing problems are as follows:
- Equus Beds reliability may be endangered, both in quantity and quality, by current rate of use. - Except for the Kansas and Arkansas Rivers, surface streamflows are depleted in severe droughts. - Mineral intrusion from the Smoky Hill and Saline Rivers adversely affects the quality of the Kansas River at times. - Locations of reliable sources are not in the vicinity of some areas of need.
Area 2 future problems include all of the foregoing, and the following:
- Municipal and industrial needs will increase by 135 mgd. - Kansas River basin sources may be desired for use within the Arkansas River basin. - For many communities, development of reliable new sources is beyond financial or planning capability.
Planning opportunities for Area 1 include several Federal (Corps of Engineers) actions and several non-Federal actions. The opportunities are shown in the following list, along with a designation of whether the action would be primarily Federal (F) or non-Federal (N).
- Reallocate storage in Melvern and Pomona Lakes from water quality purpose to water supply purpose (F). Payment for water supply storage (N). - Construct Fort Scott Lake on the Marmaton River (F). - Construct new small lakes (N). - Implement additional water supply conservation measures to reduce demand (N). - Develop multiple-user distribution systems (N).
D-25 Planning opportunities for Area 2 are as follows:
- Reallocate storage in Tuttle Creek and Wilson Lakes from water quality/navigation purpose to water supply purpose (F). Payment for water supply storage (N). - Raise the multiple purpose pool at Kanopolis Lake to provide water supply storage (F). Payment for water supply storage (N). - Construct Onaga and/or Grove Lakes on Vermillion Creek and Soldier Creek, respectively (F). These lakes were deauthorized in 1986. - Construct new small lakes (N). - Construct Corbin Lake on the Chikaskia River (F - BuRec). - Implement additional water supply conservation measures to reduce demand (N). - Develop multiple-user distribution systems (N). - Construct a mineral intrusion control plan on the Smoky Hill River (N).
D-26 CONSTRAINTS
Planning constraints are embodied in the laws, executive orders, and related Corps of Engineers guidance. Other planning constraints are specific to this study, because of the physical or institutional makeup of the area. This section identifies planning constraints which apply to this study.
- The Corps of Engineers role in water supply planning and construction is generally limited to inclusion of water supply storage in multiple purpose projects. The Corps authority does not generally include single-purpose water supply activities.
- Each plan under consideration must be evaluated to determine its contribution to national economic development (NED). The plan which makes the greatest contribution to national economic development must be designated the NED plan, and must be recommended unless there is some overriding reason for selecting another plan.
- Each plan will address appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse environmental, cultural, or other social effects.
- Each plan will be evaluated as to the risk and uncertainty of analysis.
- Generally, flood control storage at existing Corps lakes will not be considered for reallocation to water supply storage. Kanopolis Lake is an exception, because of the prior agreement between the Corps and BuRec for exchange of Kanopolis Lake flood control storage for Cedar Bluff Lake storage. Refer to the later discussion of Kanopolis Lake for additional information.
- Any recommendations concerning reallocation of storage at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes will be in accordance with the terms of the December 11, 1985 memorandum of understanding between the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Director of the Kansas Water Office. Those terms are contained in the Reallocation Report.
- Water supply sources should be evaluated on the comparable basis of availability in the year 2035, adequacy during 2 percent chance drought, and of quality to meet all primary and secondary drinking water standards. Costs for treatment, if necessary to meet standards, will be included with each plan.
- Each plan to be considered must be implementable.
- The recommended plan must be supported by non-Federal interests.
D-27 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PLANS
The determination of new sources of water supply for municipal and industrial purposes is a key element of plan formulation. This places major importance on reallocation of storage in existing Corps of Engineer lakes. Mineral intrusion control is also important because of the need to maintain quality in the Kansas River. Reallocation, which is a potential Federal action increases the likelihood that water held in the storage of Federal lakes would not be available for dilution of high chloride and sodium concentrations. Sedimentation of existing Corps lakes is also an important aspect of reallocation. The loss of storage and yield represents a serious concern to users, especially along the Kansas River in a serious drought condition. Determination of the advantages and disadvantages of a plan for sediment control is a logical extension of reallocation planning.
Conceptual planning for water supply sources is essential to identify users for the various lakes under consideration for reallocation. It must also identify the magnitude of needs over time. Different plans can be formulated to show how the lakes under study for reallocation - Melvem, Pomona, Wilson, Kanopolis, and Tuttle Creek - can be used in combination with existing reliable sources. The array of reallocations for each lake in question concludes the first phase of planning. The next step moves into a detailed phase where benefits and costs, environmental and social effects, are determined. At that point appropriate plan selection criteria can be used to select the best reallocation at each of the five lakes, if any. Detailed control plans for mineral intrusion and sediment can be evaluated which would complement an overall plan of reallocation.
Separate conceptual plans were developed for Areas 1 and 2. Each plan includes sources and distribution plus any other facilities necessary for completeness. Cost estimates and implementation schedules are included so that appropriate discounting of future elements to the base year, 1985, can be made. Detailed results of this cost evaluation are in the Kansas City District files. Costs were developed by means of the Methodology for Areawide Planning Systems (MAPS) program developed by the Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Missouri.
Area 1 conceptual plans are described in the following paragraphs. These plans were developed early in the study, and do not totally reflect current conditions. For example, the plans do not reflect the enactment under Kansas law of an "Assurance" program. Such a program, if implemented in the Osage River basin, would make use of municipal and industrial water supply releases from Melvern and Pomona Lakes to satisfy the needs of water rights holders during drought periods.
Five alternative structural plans were prepared which are capable of satisfying needs over the 50-year planning period, which is 1985 to 2035. Some understanding of the planning rationale is required before the plans are presented and discussed. Otherwise some misunderstanding of the nature of the plans, plan scheduling, and plan use may occur.
D-28 Itie initial purpose of the planning was to be responsive to the study resolution and to the planning needs of the Kansas Water Office. The KWO desired a study of water supply alternatives which included a broad range of approaches to alleviating needs. The costing and evaluation of the plans would be a planning tool for the state and for water supply agencies. The State has also expressed an interest in reallocation of storage at Melvem and Pomona Lakes to the water supply purpose. The study provides an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of reallocation and to identify possible users of the water based on need.
It is difficult to prepare a realistic range of plans for almost 70 agencies that might reflect local actions in response to certain Federal actions which may or may not occur. The Federal actions possible for the area are: (1) reallocation of storage at Melvem and Pomona Lakes? (2) construction of Soil Conservation Service lakes, and (3) construction of the authorized Fort Scott Lake. It is also difficult to schedule plans for implementation over a 50-year period and to decide which agencies might wish to participate in the organization of wholesale distribution systems which would be necessary to finance the systems. On the whole, most agencies within the seven counties do not have planning capabilities and have not developed long range capital improvements programs. More often, 5-10 years is the adopted planning horizon, with 3-5 years not uncommon.
Therefore, it was accepted that the plans would not be totally realistic in many cases, but could be used to examine the comparative costs and other effects of the plans. Plans could be especially useful in determining range of the need for reallocation of storage in Melvern and Pomona Lakes. The five plans can be broadly categorized as follows:
- Emphasis on use of small SCS type lakes (1 plan) - Emphasis on large distribution systems witdi some relocation of storage at existing large lakes (2 plans) - Emphasis on reallocation of storage at existing large lakes (2 plans)
In recognition of the problems in scheduling of comprehensive plans where little local planning has occurred, a decision was made that implementation of all plans would begin in 1990. This date would allow for planning and implementation time. It was assumed, also, that few actions involving water supply development would occur between 1985, the beginning of the planning period, and 1990, when the plans would be implemented. Agencies would limit their expenditures during that period knowing that reliable systems would be in operation by 1990. During that period of five years, emergency conservation measures (restrictions) would have to be relied upon to make up for any shortfall in source or treatment capacity.
Source reliability of these plans, in terms of yield, can be stated with a high degree of certainty. This is not the case in the "without condition" where many yields of small community lakes and ground water sources were not known.
Plan A (Reallocation with Maximum Use of Distribution Systems) This plan would provide a highly reliable supply to all water supply agencies within the seven-county area. It does so with use of large and reliable lake sources, large treatment plants, and four large distribution systems.
D-29 These systems are referred to as the Pomona, Melvem, Hillsdale, and Fort Scott systems and are displayed on Plate D-6. The planning assumption is that agencies will choose to phase out their existing treatment facilities and sources in favor of participation in a large and reliable system which would be implemented in 1990. In addition to the four systems, a raw-water diversion between Pomona and Hillsdale Lakes would be constructed in 2013, the estimated date that average daily demand would exceed the safe yield of Hillsdale Lake.
Table D-14 is presented to provide data on the numbers and types of new facilities for Plan A, as well as the other plans and the "without condition." Table D-15 provides data on the quantities of water supplied from the sources in the five plans, as well as the "without condition." As can be seen, there is a potential 18.4 cfs (11.9 mgd) combined demand from Melvem and Pomona Lakes. This quantity becomes important in an evaluation of the feasibility of reallocation of storage in those lakes to the water supply purpose.
TABLE D-14
AREA 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FACILTIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
"Wi thout Alternative Plans Surface Water Condition" A B C D E
Small Lakes 4 1 7 1 Low Head Dam Improvements 1 - 2 • • 3 Intakes on Federal Lakes Clinton 1 — — Hillsdale 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perry - - - 1 1 • Melvern - 1 1 1 Pomona - 2 1 1 1 1
Ground Water
Standby Wells 2 New Wells 11 _ _
Well Field 1 - - - - -
Transmission Mains (miles) 258 356 329 273 325 32
Distribution Points 21 38 43 46 38 42
Water Treatments Plants
Expansions 26 1 New Plants 6 4 6 9 4 6 Disinfection Well Supply 8
D-30 TABLE D-15
AREA 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN WATER SOURCES AND DESTINATIONS
Withdrawals of cfs Source and Destination Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D Plan 1 Pomona Lake Other agencies 1.8 2.1 - 1.8 2.1 Ottawa area system - 7.8 - - 8.3 Osawatomie area system - 7.8 - - 8.3 Hillsdale area system 7.7 6.3 - - 5.3 Subtotal 9.5 24.0 0 1.8 24.0 Zo Melvem Lake Other agencies 11.4 - - 11.4 - Osage City 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hillsdale Lake area system - 4.1 - - 5.7 Ft. Scott area system - - - - 18.4 Subtotal 12.4 5.1 1.0 12.4 25.1
Ft. Scott Lake Specified 12.3 10.7 8.1 12.3 - Unspecified 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 Subtotal 36.6 35.0 32.4 36.6 24.3
Small Lakes Burlingame area (Osage) - - 1.3 - - Centerville area (Linn) - - 1.3 - - Garnett area (Anderson) - 1.5 1.5 - 1.5 Lane area (Miami) - - .5 - - Lyndon area (Osage) - - .5 - - Mound City area (Linn) - - 1.2 - - Williamsburg area (Franklin) - - 1.5 - - Subtotal 0 1.5 7.8 0 1.5
Perry Lake - - 32.3 32.3 -
Hillsdale Lake 27.0 27.0 22.8 13.0 27.0
3 TOTAL 85.5 92.6 96.3 96.1 101.9
1 Pomona storage capacity equates to 24 cfs discharge at 2 percent chance of shortage. In addition, 1,000 acre-feet of storage is currently allocated to the water supply purpose. 2 Melvem storage capacity equates to 41 cfs discharge at 2 percent chance of shortage. 3 Totals differ due to evaporation and treatment losses.
D-31 Plan B (Reallocation with Release to the Marais des Cygnes River) The reliability of Plan B is equivalent to that of Plan A? however, a greater number of more compact distribution systems are considered (see Plate D-7). Releases from Melvem and Pomona Lakes for eventual use downstream are important in this plan. This represents a more realistic operational mode since both Ottawa and Osawatomie now have low head dams on the river. As in Plan A, there is also a diversion to Hillsdale Lake in the mid part of the planning period to insure adequate Hillsdale Lake yield. The systems in this plan are all assumed to be implemented in 1990 with the diversion scheduled in 2013. Tables D-14 and D-15 should be referenced for a description of the types and numbers of facilities and the sources utilized. A 29.1 cfs (18.9 mgd) ultimate demand on Melvem and Pomona Lakes is shown which would result in a substantially larger reallocation of storage.
Plan C (No Reallocation - Use of Small Lakes) This plan was formu lated specifically to demonstrate that needs could be met, and a high reliability maintained, without the reallocation of storage in Melvem and Pomona Lakes. This is accomplished by utilizing SCS type lakes whenever possible (see Plate D-8). With this type of approach the distribution systems are smaller. The existing water supply storages of Hillsdale and Perry Lakes are utilized and large lake development is assumed in Bourbon County, where good sites are not available for the SCS type lakes. Some of the economies of scale of Plans A and B, especially in water treatment, are lost in this plan. With no reallocation assumed at Melvem Lake, source reliability for Osage City cannot be guaranteed since it is taking water, technically, from streamflow and not from the lake. This unreliability is an unavoidable aspect of the plan.
Plan D (Minimum Reallocation with Large Distribution Systems) Plan D is quite similar to Plan A (see Plate D-9). It was based on the hypoth esis that a long diversion pipeline from Pomona Lake to Hillsdale Lake would not be selected to supplement Hillsdale Lake yield. Instead, a more realistic alternative may be the release of water from Perry Lake, which has a large quantity of unused stated owned storage, into the Kansas River for eventual capture by Olathe for its system's needs. The demand on Hillsdale Lake is reduced to the point that no diversion would be necessary later in the planning period. Table D-15 shows that this strategy reduces the need for reallocation in Melvern and Pomona Lakes to a total of 14.2 cfs (9.2 mgd).
Plan E (Maximum Reallocation with Release to the Marais des Cygnes River) Plan E is the plan in which reallocation in Melvem and Pomona Lakes would be maximized (see Plate D-10) . This can be accomplished by altering Plan B slightly to have the Fort Scott system use the lakes as a source of supply. Releases would be of such magnitude into the Marais des Cygnes River to satisfy all demands by the systems (Ottawa, Osawatomie, Hillsdale Diversion, and Fort Scott) and to compensate for evaporative losses. Table WS-15 shows a 49.1 cfs (32 mgd) ultimate requirement from the two lakes with this plan. The plan includes construction of a low-head dam on the Marais des Cygnes River near the Kansas—Missouri border to capture releases from the two lakes to serve the Fort Scott area.
Table D-16 presents costs itemized by type of facility. The equiva lent average annual costs of the five plans are nearly the same. The least expensive is Plan B, with an annual cost of about $10.1 million, while Plan
D-32 C is the most expensive at an annual cost of $10.8 million. This is a difference of only 7 percent between the least and most expensive plans. This difference is not significant, particularly when the accuracy of the method of determining costs is considered.
A major factor in the similarity of the plan costs is that all five plans are virtually identical in the scope, timing, and reliability of services provided. This is not true of the "without condition," which is substantially less expensive than the five plans, but which for most communities assumes a greater risk of shortage. A shortcoming of the analysis is that possible significant differences in cost among the plans for a particular community tend to be lost because of compensating differences for other communities. An institutional shortcoming is that the analysis assumes a major degree of cooperation among communities for any plan to be carried out by 1990, despite likely differences of opinion on which plan to pursue.
The five plans presented offer a broad range of possibilities for the seven-country study area. However, Plans A and D contain many measures in common. Likewise Plans B and E contain many common features. Since all five plans are similar in cost and reliability, a reasonable screening assumption in narrowing the field to three structural plans would be to select Plan C and the better choice between Plans A and D, and the better choice between Plans B and E.
Plan D is favored over Plan A. The principal reason for this choice is the method for supplying Olathe. Plan A would have Olathe rely solely on Hillsdale Lake for the entire planning period, as do Plans B and E. Plan D would use releases from Perry Lake to the Kansas River as a source, eliminating the need for the Pomona to Hillsdale Lake pipeline. Olathe is actively considering the Kansas River a long-term source, and this measure should be retained in at least one plan.
The major difference between Plans B and E is that Plan E would use most of the possible multiple purpose storage in both Melvern and Pomona Lakes for water supply. Users of Melvern and Pomona water are scattered over the entire seven-county area, resulting in a distribution system which would be difficult to implement. The system would require releases from the two lakes which would flow 50 miles downstream, be picked up at a river intake structure and piped an additional 25 to 40 miles. One of the largest system users, Fort Scott, is the most distant point in the study area from the two lakes. In addition to the problem of implementation, Plan E would probably have the most serious adverse impact on lake levels in Melvern and Pomona Lakes. Therefore Plan B is favored over Plan E.
The conclusion of the analysis of Area 1 conceptual plans is that a broad range of reallocation volumes in Melvern and Pomona Lakes should be evaluated in detail. That analysis is made in the Reallocation Report.
Preparation of conceptual plans for Area 2 began with several distinct advantages over Area 1. First, a manageable number of suppliers was included in planning. Whereas there were about 70 studied in Area 1, only about 20 were selected for Area 2. This 20 included all the major users whose needs would have an affect on how sources would be used. Secondly, there was a higher level of planning already conducted for the future in Area 2. Finally, the basic data concerning existing sources of supply are better. This enabled a better determination of future source deficits.
D-33 T A B L E D-16
AREA 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN COST SUMMARY (Oct 1980 Prices/50-Year Period/7-3/8% Interest) (Thousands) Plan A B c D E CAPITAL COSTS 1985 Sources $20,817 $20,817 $24,760 $18,220 $20,817 1990 Hains $55,356 $40,384 $43,331 $54,349 $45,610 Sources 41,042 49,025 46,760 41,042 51,496 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) & Waste 21,492 24,393 27,228 23,919 24,393 Misc. 2,180 3,500 2,400 3,080 4,500 Subtotal $120,070 $117,302 $119,719 $122,390 $125,999 2013 Mains $9,464 $3,619 0 0 $3,619 Sources 3,935 5,752 0 0 7,186 Misc. - 1,000 0 0 1,000 Subtotal $13,399 $10,371 0 0 $11,805 2015 WTP & Waste $21,270 $24,150 $26,998 $23,674 $24,150 TOTAL $175,556 $172,640 $171,477 $164,284 $182,771
0 & M COSTS (Annual) 1985-2035 Sources $169 $169 $214 $163 $169 1990-2035 Mains $1,502 $767 $961 $1,652 $816 Sources 410 491 523 410 523 WTP & Waste 1,081 1,223 1,489 1,212 1,222 Misc. 22 35 51 58 45 Subtotal $3,015 $2,516 $3,024 $3,332 $2,606 2013-2035 Mains $128 $91 0 0 $91 Sources 39 58 0 0 71 Misc. - 10 0 0 10 Subtotal $167 $159 0 - 0 $172 TOTAL $3,351 $2,844 $3,238 $3,495 $2,947
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS Mains $3,812 $2,777 $3,008 $3,678 $3,091 Sources 4,253 4,747 4,980 4,006 4,916 WTP & Waste 2,064 2,371 2,693 2,305 2,344 Misc. 132 223 162 205 283 TOTAL $10,261 $10,118 $10,843 $10,284 $10,634
PRESENT WORTH Water Supply Related Facilities $134,191 $133,307 $142,859 $135,494 $140,105 Wastewater Facilities 19,109 19,109 19,109 19,109 19,109 TOTAL $153,300 $152,416 $161,968 $154,603 $159,214
D-34 A total of eight conceptual plans were developed for Area 2. Plans were prepared separately for those suppliers assumed to comprise the future Central Kansas Public Wholesale Water Supply District (CKPWWSD) and for those suppliers or other users along the Kansas River.
The philosophy of plan formulation adopted for Area 2 was similar to Area 1. Alternative plans were desired which would lead to conclusions about the desirability of various sources for the users considered. For instance, the Central Kansas area might choose source development close to the Wichita area or import water from one or more of the Kansas River Lakes to the north. This type of choice was examined from an economic point of view. There are also choices for users along the Kansas River. Of particular interest to this study is an indication of the value of Wilson, Kanopolis, and Tuttle Creek Lakes as potential sources of supply. Currently, water supply is not a function. Conclusions could be reached on possible magnitudes of reallocation of storage.
Delivery of water from sources is generally the same for all the plans developed. For central Kansas users or users located along the Kansas River who would participate in the large wholesale district, delivery would be via a large transmission main. For downstream Kansas River users, water is typically released from a lake to travel to the point of capture. All plans recognized the need for a highly efficient capture of water and weirs spanning the river were included.
Table D-17 provides a listing of the water sources and destinations for Area 2 plans for central Kansas users. Table D-18 summarizes the use of sources by Kansas River users for the Area 2 plans. Eight plans were formulated, labeled A through H. Those plans are described in the following paragraphs.
Plan A Plan A was formulated to maximize the storage to be reallo- cated in Tuttle Creek Lake. This is in contrast to the without condition, where Milford Lake was used to its full reliable yield capability. All of the identified users, with the exception of Lawrence, would use the lake. Furthermore, it was assumed that existing sources of supply would be aban doned as a conversion was made to Tuttle Creek storage. The CKPWWSD would include those users in the without condition plus Manhattan, Junction City, and the Post Rock Rural Water District. The Post Rock District began operation in 1985 using water from Kanopolis Lake on a surplus water con tract basis and will then convert to the wholesale district in 1993 when the large district would become operational. A transmission main would extend from Tuttle Creek Lake to Wichita, Kansas, with an alignment minimizing the distance of the large 96-inch trunk line. This results in the pipeline heading in a southwest direction from Tuttle Creek Lake. Plate D-ll is presented to show the pipeline alignment for the Central Kansas Public Wholesale Water Supply District (CKPWWSD). The two down stream Kansas River users, Topeka and Kansas Power and Light (KP&L) Company, would totally rely on releases from the lake and would construct weirs across the Kansas River to insure efficient capture of the releases. It should be noted that the city of Lawrence was judged to have an adequate supply with use of Clinton Lake and Kansas River surface flow, for which it has a vested right. Plate D-12 is provided to show where the water from Tuttle Creek Lake is used. The width of the arrow is proportional to the amount used. All CKFWWSD average day demand is placed on Tuttle Creek
D-35 TABLE D-17
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND USERS - AREA 2 (Cubic Feet Per Second)
Surface Blue River KS River Saline River Plan/User Tuttle Creek Kanopolis Milford Corbin Equus Beds Alluv. Alluv. Alluv. Cheney TOTAL
A. PWVSD 151.498 151.498
B. PWSD 151.498 151.498
C. PWVSD 80.529 80.529 Wichita 35.700 14.300 50.000 Newton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Manhattan 7.642 7.642 Subtotal 80.529 49.027 7.642 14.300 151.498
D. PWVSD 103.498 48.000 151.498
E. PWVSD 32.529 48.000 80.529 Wichita 35.700 14.300 50.000 Newton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Manhattan 7.642 7.642 Subtotal 32.529 48.000 49.027 7.642 14.300 151.498
F. P W S D (South) 60.272 60.272 PWVSD (North) 16.593 16.593 Wichita 35.700 14.300 50.000 Newton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Junction City 3.664 3.664 Manhattan 7.642 7.642 Subtotal 16.593 60.272 49.027 7.642 3.664 14.300 151.498
D-36 TABLE D-17 (Continued)
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND USERS > AREA 2 (Cubic Peet Per Second)
Surface Blue River KS River Saline River Plan/User Tuttle Creek Kanopolis Milford Corbin Equus Beds Alluv. Alluv. Alluv. Cheney TOTAL
G. PWWSD 76.865 76.865 Wichita 35.700 14.300 50.000 Nevton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Junction City 3.664 3.664 Manhattan 7.642 7.642 Subtotal 76.865 49.027 7.642 3.664 14.300 151.498
H. PWWSD 48.000 21.830 69.830 Wichita 35.700 14.300 50.000 Newton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Junction City 3.664 3.664 Manhattan 7.642 7.642 Salina 7.035 7.035 Subtotal 48.000 21.830 49.027 7.642 3.664 7.035 14.300 151.498
WITHOUT PWWSD 69.582 69.582 Wichita 35.700 19.300 55.000 Nevton 3.234 3.234 Hutchinson 6.769 6.769 McPherson 3.324 3.324 Junction City 3.664 3.664 Manhattan 2.285 7.642 7.642 Post Rock surplus 2.285 Subtotal 2.285 69.582 49.027 7.642 3.664 19.300 151.498
D-37 T A B L E D-18
SOURCE USE FOR KANSAS RIVER USERS FOR 2035 - AREA 2 (Cubic Feet Per Second)
Plan/User Tuttle Creek Milford Kansas River Perry Clinton Total
A. Topeka 46.1 KP & L 40.0 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 86.1 4.9 10.0 101.0
B. Topeka 46.1 KP & L 40.0 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 86.1 4.9 10.0 101.0
C . Topeka 21.1 25.0 KP & L 11.1 28.9 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 32.2 58.8 10.0 101.0
D. Topeka 21.1 25.0 KP & L 11.1 28.9 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 32.2 58.8 10.0 101.0
E. Topeka 21.1 25.0 KP & L 11.1 28.9 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 32.2 58.8 10.0 101.0
F. Topeka 46.1 KP & L 40.0 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 86.1 4.9 10.0 101.0
G . Topeka 46.1 KP & L 40.0 Lawrence 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 40.0 4.9 46.1 10.0 101.0
H. Topeka 21.1 25.0 KP & L 11.1 28.9 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 32.2 58.8 10.0 101.0
WITHOUT CONDITION Topeka 21.1 25.0 KP & L 40.0 Lawrence 0 4.9 10.0 Subtotal 61.1 29.9 10.0 101.0
D-38 Capital expenditures for Plan A of over $1 billion are estimated over the 50-year planning horizon. This does not include residual waste (sludge) management costs. A present worth, or discounted, cost of almost $613 million is estimated based on a discount rate of 7-5/8 percent. This discounted plan cost is used for comparison with other plans.
Plan B Plan B is essentially the same as Plan A. The only variation is in the CKPWWSD transmission main alignment. The large trunk line in Plan A, with its southwest orientation, minimizes length. The Plan B pipeline from Tuttle Creek Lake would follow an alignment to the west, following the Kansas River, with a change in direction to the south at Salina. Plate D-13 shows that alignment. It would follow 1-135 south to Wichita. This alignment is closer to many of the potential district members. The real advantage is that expensive rock excavation may not be required. The comparison is between a longer alignment without rock excavation and a shorter alignment with substantial rock excavation.
A comparison of costs for the (CKPWWSD) in Plan B shows a reduction in capital cost of about $70 million compared to Plan A, and a present worth, or discounted, difference of about $39 million. The longer alignment with no rock appears to be preferable to a shorter alignment with substantial rock. No other plans developed would utilize the shorter alignment.
Plan C Plans A and B do not give adequate importance to existing reliable sources that will continue to be used in the future. Wichita will continue to use from the Equus Beds and Cheney Lake. Newton, undoubtedly Hutchinson, and McPherson will also continue to use the Equus Beds. Manhattan would not abandon its Blue River alluvium source, and Topeka and KP&L will use the surface flow of the Kansas River. Milford Lake is also a reliable source; however, for this plan all of KP&L's demand, in excess of reliable Kansas River surface flow, is placed on Tuttle Creek Lake. Plan C accounts for the existence of other good sources and yet looks to Tuttle Creek Lake as the major supply. Plate D-14 is provided to show how water would be distributed throughout the study area and Plate D-15 provides the distribution system schematic for the CKPWWSD.
Water supply facilities costs are much less for Plan C than for the previous two plans. Total capital costs are only $307 million, or slightly over half of Plan A capital costs. Discounting of all Plan C costs yields a present worth value of $375 million, substantially less than Plan A. The principal area of cost savings is in the distribution system of the CKPWWSD.
Plan D This plan was formulated to examine how well Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes could work in unison to meet all the defined future supply needs. It is similar to Plans A and B for the central Kansas area in that Cheney Lake and the Equus Beds are abandoned in 1992 in favor of obtaining all treated water from the distribution system. It is like Plan C for Kansas River users because Topeka and KP&L continued use of the reliable yield of Kansas River surface flow. Plate D-16 shows how the lakes are used in meeting study area needs and Plate D-17 shows the CKPWWSD distribution system. This plan makes maximum use of Kanopolis Lake by raising the existing multipurpose pool to extend the life of the lake and add a 2-percent yield of about 48 million gallons per day.
Plan D is not as expensive as Plans A and B principally because the location of Kanopolis Lake reduces the size of the large trunk main running from Lindsborg to Tuttle Creek Lake. The lake is closer to the large
D-39 Wichita demand. Capital costs are almost $793 million over the entire planning period. All costs discounted to the present are about $535 million. Plan E This plan is quite similar to Plan D in that both Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes are used together to meet the central Kansas need for water. However, existing reliable sources for Wichita, Newton, McPherson, and Hutchinson are continued in operation. Kanopolis Lake would be used to its maximum reliable yield because of its locational advantage over Tuttle Creek Lake. It is much closer to the large Wichita demand. The plan duplicates the source of Plan D for Topeka and KP&L. Plate D-18 shows the relative amounts of water coming from the lake sources used and Plate D-19 shows the CKPWWSD alingment. Plan E costs are less than for other plans thus far presented. Total capital costs are estimated at about $520 million? the discounted present value of all the facilities expenditures is about $339 million.
Plan F This plan is a radical departure from the previous plans because it separates central Kansas users into two distinct groups. The source for the northern portion of the CKPWWSD is Kanopolis Lake; the source for the southern group is the potential Corbin Lake, located south and slightly west of Wichita. This approach would result in smaller diameter pipe than other plans. Neither Manhattan nor Junction city are involved in a wholesale district with this plan. Plates D-20 and D-21 demonstrate lake use and distribution system alignments, respectively.
Plan F capital cost is approximately $558 million and the discounted cost is $356 million. These costs are comparable to Plans C and E .
Plan G This plan, like Plan F, is much different than Plans A through E. It also uses Corbin Lake for much of the future water supply demand of central Kansas above the amount that can be secured from existing reliable sources. Downstream Kansas River needs would all be met from sources other than Tuttle Creek Lake. This plan was formulated to demonstrate that sources other than Tuttle Creek and Kanopolis Lakes can satisfy future demands; it was also important to develop a plan comparing new source development in central Kansas to importation of water from existing lakes in the Kansas River basin. Plates D-22 and D-23 show lake use and distribution systems.
The capital cost of this plan, is about $617 million and the discounted cost is $431 million, clearly higher than Plans C, E, and F. Much of this difference is accounted for in the cost of Corbin Lake, which is estimated at $136 million, discounted.
Plan H Plan H was developed to have similarities to the "without condition" for central Kansas users (with the use of Milford Lake), but also to use the locational advantage of Kanopolis Lake to central Kansas. This is similar to Plan E. Kanopolis Lake would be utilized to its maximum reliable yield to supplement existing sources to the south of Lindsborg. Downstream Kansas River users, Topeka and KP&L, would rely on surface flow of the river up to its reliable limit and supplement with releases from Tuttle Creek Lake. Plates D—24 and D—25 show lake use and distribution system route alignment. The capital cost is estimated at $455 million with the discounted cost at $312 million. This is the least expensive approach to meeting future needs based on a present value analysis.
D-40 Table D-19 presents costs of the eight Area 2 plans. Comparisons are in total present worth. Plans C, E, F, and H are clearly superior to the other four plans in cost. All four of these plans (C, E, F, and H) rely on reallocation of storage in Tuttle Creek Lake. The other two apparent least cost plans, E and H, also rely on the raising of the multipurpose pool at Kanopolis Lake such that it would produce a 48 cfs yield.
The conclusion of the analysis of Area 2 conceptual plans is that a broad range of reallocation volumes in Tuttle Creek Lake should be evaluated in detail. That analysis is made in the Reallocation Report, along with analyses of Melvem and Pomona Lakes.
The raising of the multipurpose pool at Kanopolis Lake was only partially addressed in the Kansas and Osage Rivers study. Yield deter minations were made and a preliminary estimate of the structural costs for the pool raise was made. However, Kanopolis Lake was not included in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), so cost of storage would depend on a determination as to whether MOU terms would apply. Additionally the environmental, social, and cultural effects of a Kanopolis pool raise, and possible interbasin transfer of water, could be significant. Therefore, the study resolution will remain open for future consideration of water supply at Kanopolis Lake.
TABLE D-19
AREA 2 CONCEPTUAL PLAN COST SUMMARY (Oct 1985 prices, 50-year period, 7-5/8 interest) (Thousands)
Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D
Capital Cost $1,000,667 $930,687 $533,045 $792,993 Present Worth Cap. Cost 528,498 491,299 306,887 461,358 0 & M Annual Cost 20,233 19,809 11,909 40,073 Present Worth 0 & M 85,111 81,319 70,442 85,708 Total Present Worth $612,979 $574,437 $375,182 $535,109
Plan E Plan F Plan G Plan H
Capital Cost $520,500 $558,423 $617,317 $455,265 Present Worth Cap. Cost 272,920 282,743 352,080 239,641 O & M Annual Cost 13,160 13,206 13,055 11,992 Present Worth O & M 67,913 68,009 75,362 65,645 Total Present Worth $339,260 $355,619 $431,438 $312,217
D-41 WATER SUPPLY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STUDY AREA
American Water Works Service Co., Inc. Engineers, October 1955, Report on Water Supply Plan; Wichita Water Company, Wichita, Kansas: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Associated Engineers Inc., August 1980, Northeast Kansas Water Supply Study, Plans of Regional Water Supply Systems, 2 vols.: Junction City, Kansas.
Beard, Leo R., 1985, Procedures for Use of HEC-3 (Modified 1985) and Related Computer Routines to Determine Reservoir Yield at 2-Levels of Dependability.
Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers, 1955, Wichita, Kansas, Report on Feasibility of Proposed Cheney Reservoir: Kansas City, Missouri.
Bureau of Reclamation, Kansas State Water Plan Studies Long-Range Water Supply Problems, Phase 1: In Cooperation with the Kansas Water Resources Board.
Bureau of Reclamation, 1957, Cheney Division Wichita Project Kansas.
Bureau of Reclamation, 1981, Chikaskia Project Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Statement.
Carsvell, W. J. and Bond, S. V., 1980, Multiyear Low Flow in Northeastern Kansas: U.S.G.S. Open File Report, Lawrence, Kansas.
Curran Associates Inc., 1981, Water Supply Management Study, Melvern-Pomona Water Conservation Plan, Kansas and Osage Rivers: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., April 1981, Water Supply Management Study, General Conservation Analysis Melvern-Pomona Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., September 1981, Water Supply Management Study, Interpretation of Public Questionnaire Results (Milford-Kanopolis and Wichita): Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., February 1982, Water Supply Management Study, Projections for Without Condition and Evaluation of Water Conservation, Melvern-Pomona Study Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., December 1982, Water Supply Management Study, Institutional Study, Central Kansas Public Wholesale Water Supply District: Northampton, Massachusetts. Curran Associates Inc., February 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Water Treatment and Residual Waste Management, Facilities Milford Lake, Kansas: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., April 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Projections for Without Condition and Evaluation of Water Conservation, Central Kansas Study Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Curran Associates Inc., May 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Kansas and Osage River Basin Study, Generalized Assessment of Water Supply Needs in Northeast Kansas: Northampton, Massachusetts.
Furness, L.W., 1960, Kansas Water Resources Board Technical Report No. 2, Low-Flow Frequency: Kansas Water Resources Board.
Green, Don W. and Pogge, Ernest C., July 1977, Computer Modeling of the Equus Bed Aquifer System in South Central Kansas: Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Hess, Larry G. and Sheets, Larry M., 1978,, Public Water Supply Problems and Solutions; Topeka, Kansas: A Report to the Governor's Task Force on Water Resources.
Hutchins, Wells A., Smrha, R. V., and Smith, Robert, 1957, The Kansas Lav of Water Rights: Kansas State Board of Agriculture and Kansas State Water Resources Board in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Inter-Agency Committee, 1955, Arkansas-White-Red River Basins, Part II- Section 8, Domestic and Industrial Water Supply.
Kansas Ground Water Management Districts Association, 1980, Ground Water Management in Kansas.
Kansas Water Office, December 1980, Water Supply and Storage Program 1979- 1980, Annual Report: Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas Water Office, January 1983, Salinity Control Study for the Kansas River Basin (Smoky Hill River) near Salina: Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas Water Office, January 1985, Final Draft, Kansas Water Plan: Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas Water Office, January 1986, Kansas Water Plan Executive Summary: Topeka, Kansas.
Kansas Water Resources Board, December 1967, Kansas Water Atlas.
Kansas Water Resources Board, 1972, Kansas Long Range Water Requirements, State Water Plan Studies, Part B.
Kansas Water Resources Board, 1975, Kansas Water Resources Board, Bulletin No. 18, Rural Water Districts in Kansas.
Kansas Water Resources Board Staff Report, 1975, Water Demands in the Chikaskia Project Area: Unpublished. Kansas Water Resources Board) 1979, The 1975 National Water Assessment - Social-Economic, Land-Use, and Water Use Information and Projections.
Kansas Water Resources Board, December 1980, State Water Plan Water Supply and Storage Program 1979-1980, The sixth report to the Governor and legislature of Kansas: Topeka, Kansas.
Lujan, Herman D., PhD. and Galloway, Thomas, D., PhD., 1975, The Puture of Kansas Study: Prepared for Planning Division, Kansas Department of Economic Development. Institute for Social and Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
O ’Connor, Howard G., Bayne, Charles K., Yukler, Arif, and Poley, Prank C., 1979, Public Water Supplies During Droughts in Eastern Kansas: Open Pile, Unpublished Report, Kansas State Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Shurtz, Earl B., Professor of Law, September 1967, Kansas Water Law: University of Kansas for the Kansas Water Resources Board, Lawrence, Kansas.
Shurtz, Earl B., Special Assistant Attorney General, November 1960, Report on the Laws of Kansas Pertaining to Ground Water, Bulletin Number 5, Kansas Water Resources Board.
Socolofsky, Homer E., and Self, Huber, January 1972, Historical Atlas of Kansas.
Stanley Consultants Inc., November 1981, Environmental Assessment for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply in Eastern Kansas: Muscatine, Iowa.
STORET, March 1982, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Division, Computer Data Base.
Strand, G.J., Hydrologist, December 1963, The Little Arkansas River Basin and its Potential for Water Supply Development: Wichita Water Department, Wichita, Kansas.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Kansas Water Resources Board, 1980, Southeast Kansas Water Supply Study.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1957, Weekly Weather Crop Bulletin, Volume XLIV, No. la.: Washington, D.C.
Water Resources Board, September 1967, Irrigation in Kansas, Report No. 16.
Water Resources Institute, August 1981, Water Right for Public Water Supplies in Kansas: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
WATSTORE, U.S. Geological Survey Computer Data Base, Water Resources Division. Related Work
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Project Data Sheet: Kansas City District Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1979, Towanda Lake, Whitewater River, Kansas Stage 2 Documentation Post Authorization Studies: Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979, Kansas City Urban Study, Appendix 6 Institutional Analyses: Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri. South >2 * P ^ - o J 3 5 ^- 5 —
p l a t e o - i shown CRAWFORD COUNTY PLATE COUNTY MISSOURI PLATE D-3 COUNTY MISSOURI rc boundaries *TY BOUNDARIES and r iv e r s stno water t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s WATER TREATMENT PLANTS______'■ *0 WATER TREATMENT PLANTS______HUB WELL FIELDS WELL FIELDS '•GEO WELL FIELDS ttWG LAKES. ^QSCD LAKES tfWC LOW HEAD OAM * * 0 LOW HEAD DAM ^ transmission m a in s RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS_ *>«D TRANSMISSION MAINS___ ^ E O RAW WATER TRANSMISSION M A IN S --H -l+ H -H ^BUTION CENTERS______A ^'OUT FACILITIES^______X ** »AJNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS______« = ^ ^MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS______41 WATER DISTRICTS______E-Z. * * w h o le sa le w a t e r s u p p ly d is t r ic t WATER COMPANIES______r T ^ ^ ! tR DISTRICTS (KS.) r ^ KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY CRAWFORD COUNTY AREA I WITHOUT CONDITIONS m shot* Short No I Sea* ts shewn CORPS Of ENONEERS U- S. ARMY KAKSAS crnr cxstwct FILE NO. A - l- 1301 SEPTEMBER 1981 PLATE D * 4 NEBRASKA KANSAS KANSAS CITY LEGEND * 60 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY 2035 SOURCE USE FOR AVERAGE OAILY OEMAND WITHOUT CONDITION - AREA 2 In I sheet Sheet No. I Scele: •$ shown CORPS or ENGINEERS U. 1 ARMY KANSAS CTTY DISTRICT nu«w n »cc IrV/WW I T M AD RIVERS AND (MS y 6 AE TETET PLANTS TREATMENT WATER M6 E WTR RAMN PLANTS TREATMENT WATER BED NG WELL FIELDS FIELDS WELL NG BED WELL FIELDS FIELDS WELL BED NG LAKES LAKES NG FIELDS WELL DED E WTR RAMN PLANTS TREATMENT WATER DED BED LAKES LAKES BED E LW ED DAM HEAD LOW BED DAM HEAD LOW NG NG TRANSMISSION MAINS MAINS TRANSMISSION NG NG RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS _ - M H I M ♦ M I H M - MAINS _ TRANSMISSION WATER RAW NG E TASISO MAINS TRANSMISSION BED E RW AE TASISO MAN_HM *-* M M AINS_-H M TRANSMISSION WATER RAW BED UIN CENTERS BUTION -U FACILITIES B-OUT MNCPL EVC AREAS------SERVICE MUNICIPAL : MNCPL EVC AREAS— SERVICE MUNICIPAL , E DISTRICT. E SUPPLY WATER WHOLESALE ! boundaries BOUNDARIES AE DISTRICTS WATER ITIT (KS.) DISTRICTS AE COMPANIES______WATER ----- __ ___ ------A “ = c In KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS UDY D TU S T N E M E G A N A M Y L P P U S R E T A W S O DSRBTO SYSTEMS DISTRIBUTION OF USE REALLOCATION WITH MAXIMUM MAXIMUM WITH REALLOCATION OP O EGER U S ARMY S. U ENGMEERS OF CORPS IE O A- 2 0 3 -M A NO. FILE ASS DCSTWCT r m c KANSAS RA PA A PLAN I AREA EMBER J98J R E B M TE P E S N. I No. t M h S * s shown as l* a e S ORO R FO W A R C COUNTY MISSOURI MISSOURI LEGEND IE BOUNDARIES______nty b o u n d a r ie s EAUS AND RIVERS IHNQ WATER TREATMENT PLANTS POSED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------VIDEO WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------(TtNG WELL FIELDS------POSED WELL FIELDS INDEO WELL FIELDS LAKES. POSED LAKES ttlNG LOW HEAD DAM------POSED LOW HEAD DAM------ITWG TRANSMISSION MAINS (TING RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS— -H-H-H-M POSED TRANSMISSION MAINS...... POSEO RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS — +++++++■* D0UTION CENTERS----- _ = ------— ^ SED-OUT FACILITIES______* MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS______U. MUNICIPAL s e r v ic e a r e a s __ A WATER DISTRICTS______UC WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT. WATER COMPANIES______a DISTRICTS (KS.)______ KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY CRAWFORD COUNTY AREA I PLAN B REALLOCATION WITH RELEASE TO THE MARAIS OES CYGNES RIVER Shmt No I Scatt n shown In I shoot CORPS O f ENGBiOXS U. S APMV mnsas crrr ocsnacr RLE NO A-l-1303 COUNTY r e l e a s e from perry l a k e KANSAS SEE INSERT TOPEKA SHAWNEE COUNTY COUNTY 0 3 * C f CfTV MISSOURI SW:'-'-- LEGEND BOUNDARIES___ BOUNDARIES— AND RIVERS ^pf5 1 ING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS______v.vIC ■m**r BED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------p;. * blueZM. QUNO IDEO WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------^VlNCAlO # NO WELL FIELDS c Bed w e l l f ie l d s BOUNTY ANOERSON LtHH WELL FIELDS Bo j r b o n [cO U H T Y BED ALLEN COUNTY L & k FROM IOLA NO LAKES 0$4#r BED LAKES ING LOW HEAD DAM______>-i >* U 5► b e d lo w h e a d d a m ______>691 81 ING TRANSMISSION MAINS______ING RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS— H I I H f+ 3 B e d transmission m a in s ______’ " MORAN B ed raw w a te r transmission m a in s .-1 " • ' , f + IBUTION CENTERS______^ ED-OUT FACILITIES. t m u n ic ip a l s e r v ic e AREAS______C = L ] L MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS,______L WATER DISTRICTS______C WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT. IE WATER COMPANIES ______B DISTRICTS KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY BOURBON 0 "CRAWFORO COUNTY l—L J_L AREA I PLAN C K A L I m B U S NO REALLOCATION USE OF SMALL LAKES In I sheet Sheet No. I Sole: es shown c o r p s o f En g in e e r s a s. a r m y KANSAS OTY D tS T P C T FILE NO A‘ l - 1304 SEPTEMBER I9BI PLATE D -8 4- COUNTY RELEASE FROM PERRY LAKE SEE INSERT MISSOURI BE BOUNDARIES______UNTY BOUNDARIES REAMS AND RIVERS------BTING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS BPOSED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------HANDED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS------BTING WELL FIELDS BPOSED WELL FIELDS----- HANDED WELL FIELDS ISTING LAKES- BPOSED LAKES BTING LOW HEAD DAM______BPOSED LOW HEAD DAM ISTING TRANSMISSION MAINS ISTING RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS— » 1 1 111' ’ BPOSED TRANSMISSION MAINS------BPOSED RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS_“* * ^ Tr ib u t io n CENTERS_____— ------y BED-OUT FACILITIES ------HBE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS------ALL MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS— UL WATER DISTRICTS H ic w h o l e s a l e w a t e r s u p ply d is t r ic t . VITE WATER COMPANIES — ------TER DISTRICTS (KS.) KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY CRAWFORD COUNTY AREA I PLAN D i l -1 MNMUM REALLOCATION K A L I M WITH DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS She*t No I Scale is shown In I s h e * CORPS OF ENGINEERS U S ARMY KANSAS OTY DISTRICT FILE NO A-l-1305 SEPTEM BER 1981 PLATE D COUNTY MISSOURI i BOUNDARIES______Hr BOUNDARIES______UlS AND RIVERS______' [ING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS JSED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS______IDED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS______ING WELL FIELDS______J6ED WELL FIELDS___ iO WELL FIELDS LAKES______tBED LAKES______ING LOW HEAD DAM______JSED LOW HEAD DAM ______ING TRANSMISSION MAINS ING RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS ID TRANSMISSION MAINS_____ JSED RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS_ I I I 1I ♦ H - IBUTION CENTERS______A iD-OUT FACILITIES______l MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS______I L MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS------lI WATER DISTRICTS______C ld B w h o l e s a l e w a t e r s u p ply d is t r ic t I t WATER COMPANIES ______* DISTRICTS (KS.)______ KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS. KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY CRAWFORD COUNTY AREA I PLAN E MAXIMUM REALLOCATION WITH RELEASE TO THE MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVER In I sheet Sfieet No. I Seal* •» *ho«n CORPS Of ENGINEERS U. & ARMY KANSAS CTTY DCSTOCT FILE NO A-l-1506 SEPTEMBER 1901 NEBRASKA KANSAS .-1 ( • i 181 232 RUSSELL Wilson Lake R iv e r ELLSWORTH 136 e l l / s ' w © I N G H PLATE O-l I PLATE OH 2 i H A R 4* ■ ■ « 0 > 4« >B 12■ SC A Lt *4 MlM KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA 2, PLAN 8 MAXIMUM USE OF TUTTLE CREEK LAKE In 1 sheet Sheet No. I Scale: as shown CORPS Of ENGINEERS U £ ARUY KANSAS CJTY DISTRICT PLATE D-l 3 f T JE\F PERSON LEAVENWORTH L v P erry Lake KANSAS CITY '40 W C linton la k e LAWRENCE DOUG LAS [v F ork \ KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA 2, PLAN C SOURCE UTILIZATION In I sheet Sheet No. I Scale: a* ihown CORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT PLATE 0-14 PLATE 0-15 PLATE 0-16 PLATE D-17 NEBRASKA LINCOLN BEVERLY I N C 0 L N RUSSELL Wilson Lake / HiU DOUG LAS K u e r ''©H ELLSWORTH KANOPOLIS, 156 141 ELL /SW W 0 R I Kanopolis Lake POJ © ROCI HUTCHINSON N & F o r k —— S E K 1 N 6 MAN r Z\/ \ H A R PLATE D-18 PLATE 0-19 1 KANSAS CITY KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA 2, PLAN F SOURCE UTILIZATION In I sheet Sheet No. I Scale: as shown CORPS Of ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT PLATE D -20 H A R J P £ R | 17» 4 0 12 Li 1 1 1 J SCALE IN MILES KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA 2, PLAN F MODERATE USE OF KANOPOLIS AND CORBIN LAKES n I sheet Sheet No. I Scale: as shown CORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY Kansas c rrr district s. NURMM KANSAS 77 PLATE D-22 4 T 0 M I E 4 0 4 0 It It 11 I__ I___ I___I SCALE IN MILES KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS, KANSAS WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA 2, PLAN G NO USE OF TUTTLE CREEK AND KANOPOLIS LAKES; MAXIMUM USE OF CORBIN LAKE In I sheet Sheet No. I Scale: as shown CORPS Of ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT PLATE 0 -2 3 LINCOLN I N C RUSSELL Wilson Lake / Hat R VTj R io tr ELLSWORTH 156 ELL W © i&r T0WA4 3 5 / rC a /Y >>' s./ N 6 M \ H A R T P LA TE D-24 PLATE D-25