Upper Arkansas River Basin Public Water Supply Alternatives Viability Analysis Water Supply Alternatives for Hamilton, Kearny, and Finney Counties, Kansas Great Plains Region, Oklahoma-Texas Area Office Kansas Water Office Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District #3 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2014 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 7 STUDY AUTHORITY .......................................................................................................................... 10 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 10 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 11 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ............................................................................................................ 11 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 11 WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT ISSUES ................................................................................................... 19 PROJECTED DEMANDS ..................................................................................................................... 20 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 22 OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................................................... 23 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES IN KANSAS ..................................................................... 23 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................................... 25 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ................................................................................................................. 26 Arkansas River / Arkansas River Alluvium ............................................................................. 26 Ogallala Aquifer .................................................................................................................... 27 Dakota Aquifer ...................................................................................................................... 29 Paleo Channel ....................................................................................................................... 29 WHOLESALE WATER PROVIDERS ....................................................................................................... 31 Lakin ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Wheatland Electric Cooperative ........................................................................................... 32 WATER TREATMENT........................................................................................................................ 32 Ion Exchange ......................................................................................................................... 32 Membrane filtration ............................................................................................................. 33 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 36 FORMULATION ............................................................................................................................... 36 INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................................................ 37 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GUIDELINES .................................................................................................... 37 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................... 38 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ...................................................................................... 38 Arkansas River and Alluvium ................................................................................................. 38 COOLIDGE ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 39 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 39 Alternative Comparison ........................................................................................................ 44 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 46 SYRACUSE ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION .................................................................... 47 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 47 Alternatives Comparison ....................................................................................................... 53 iii Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 55 HAMILTON COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1’S (HAMILTON RWD1) ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 57 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 57 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 60 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 62 DEERFIELD ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 63 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 63 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 66 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 68 HOLCOMB ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 69 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 69 Alternative Comparison ........................................................................................................ 71 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 73 ALTERNATIVES AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 74 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 74 PAYMENT CAPABILITY THRESHOLDS.................................................................................................... 74 AFFORDABILITY - PAYMENT CAPABILITY COMPARED TO COSTS ................................................................ 75 RISK, UNCERTAINTIES, AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 80 RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................................... 80 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 81 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 83 APPENDIX 1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GUIDELINES Methods Engineering Assumptions and Cost Estimations POINT ALLOCATIONS ASSESSMENT OF COOLIDGE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF SYRACUSE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF HAMILTON RWD1 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF DEERFIELD ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF HOLCOMB ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX 2- ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3 WELL LOGS IN AREA OF PALEO CHANNEL APPENDIX 4 PUBLIC MEETING NOTES iv Figures Figure ES-1. Cities and groundwater resources in the Study Area. .................................................