HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975
t •:M~ (l vi 77 rv:. ,ai {v-~ 1e- r I.i+e. s..f„y~ ,y r. r .,rw w'4 ~Li: c` r ~ 1, .
X11
E "
.
;r MN y ~~rv~4 a~-'. ,.L` aC~ifi ~~~,1d` a .~~;n/°'1~ ~F i1•' 'i a?'
J p , ~ tags 1 r ~ t ~ ° ,,y.Y r~ r "•'a ` ~ ' 1 ~ ~ u a - r
L ~ rr m r v y
0 jjjj((((~•~ ~ 1 ~~'kq~a s a ' ~ 4+iP L °K.• ~ -P '~}y~`~ ~ ~ ~rx,1~.,~ Y? a
4y r. taF d ;a t,:~ sl r a° _'v! .r^iv •x 'i4 ♦ T'':
+ kA \ a
Y 17 C m •v . ' T n `j'sW ~1 hr ' Y
, 6i c
~t~'~ ,If~kW i i X'-
Ilk
F Y T
`1t $ >~JtZ ~ ~ dad F ~1~~~'.
41 lql* x e
'~r~ '9.3't l! k •Li ~ r ~q a, .ik4 -Vt~ A ('~a° t ` abt r t r
t r 35 k a'^ $ < i!s~ 7 v y~'"~¢1 ~k • i x`'ctr ♦ f, r~
d( YL ..T .•(,X M. x, . n a . ~ }
b . ~ t ~ 14~ '..f f ~ . ~tT~~ a~ y V
•uir~ +.4ya ♦ i fq r, p~ ug. + '~V - y S W ~41
.
r "
rH ,,r { `a5 gam', ~ ~ a ~ 1~ ~ c'♦ Hs k t~3 ~ ~le A I ~ h .
a ,,yy !a~ _ a 'S ~ v rr nnr~ +~F'~ ♦y 1~ ~g~ ` •
iF "D ".f' x ,1 1 tat. {t^~A~° ~ ~'a S••y, f`~a'1'.1Y t!~'~ `r•,•' I' Y' f iy
I tq •+v tF ;"t R i i° ' 1 .4 / ♦ 'ter a` 7 i
' i;1~`~ k r f ir• rY 7 l qr~j
aw,
t y 4 q
1 ~ 71
~x a 4 rl 11. ~ ~ nM„ sa ~ c
1 REPORT ON
LONG • RANGE WATER SUPPLY
I
1 CITY OF
r DENTON, TEXAS
1
1
1 DECEMBER 1915
r
1
i
1
1
r
1 FREESE AND NICHOLS
CC►NSUliING ENGINEI'.RS
1
i n y
1 . r l 77777
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION page
1.1
2. POPULATION AND WATER REQUIREMENTS
2.1
2,1 Population
2.2 Historical Water Requirements 211
2.3 Projected Water Requirements 2.4
2.7
3. EXISTING WATER SUPPLY AND PROPOSED AUBREY RESERVOIR 3,1
3.1 Existing Water Supply
3.2 Proposed Aubrey Reservoir 3.1
3.3 Estimated Costs of the Aubrey Project 3.
3.6
5
' 4. POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
4.1
4.1 General
' I 4.2 Proposed Water Sources 4.1
4.2 .1 Sulphur Bluff Reservoir 4'3
4,2.2 Cooper Reservoir 4.3
4.2 .3 Bois d'Arc Crer'< Reservoir 4.5
4.2.4 Tri-Lakes'Systeli .8
4.8
4.3 Summary of Alternatives 44.10
e S. LONG-.RANGE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPNFNT
".1
5.1 General
' 5,2 Transfer of 30 MGD to Lewisville Lake 66'1
5.2.1 Plan :1 .1
5,2.2 Plan 11 5.2
6.23 Plan III 5.6 5.6
5,3 Delivery to Denton Water Treatment Plant 6.1
6.10
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
6.1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water
6.2 Rupply Sources 6.l
' 6.3
APPENDIX A LIST OF REFERENCES
APPENDIX B DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
r
~rI I I ` ~-t.~I-_rs a,..l iT,'T p- -"ten[" ..'.+~s-r"l.lrT
50
` :".k {{uA 'k R,k d, ? q r .Kk rvS r.n.+, h°;"y
LIST OF TABLES
Table P„ age
1 2.1 Population Projections: Denton and 2.4
Service Area
2.2 Historical Finished Water Requirements 2.6
' 2.3 Projected Raw Water Requirements 2,9
3.1 Preliminary Estimate of Denton's Costs 3.7
for the Aubrey Project
5,1 Estimated Annual Cost of Plan I: 5.3
' 'transporting 30 MGD of Raw Water from
Sulphur Bluff to Lewisville Reservoir j
by Pipeline
5.2 Estimated Annual Cost of Plan (1 5.7
Transporting 30 MGD of Raw Water from
Sulpphu,m Bluff to Lewisville Reservoir
Utilizing Combined Canal and Pipeline
Systems
elIl: 6.9
5.3 Estimated Annual Cost of Plan
Transporting 30 MGD of Raw Water from
Bois d'Arc Reservoir to Lewisville
' Reservoir by Pipeline
5.4 Denton Long-Range Water Supply: 5.11
Transfer of 30 MGD to Lewisville Lake
' 5.5 Estimated Annual Cost of Transporting 5.13
55 MGD from Lewisville Lake to the
Denton Water Treatment Plant
5.6 Estimated Unit Cost for Transporting 6,14
1 65 MOD frw Lewisville lake to the
Denton Water Treatment Plant
6.1 Estimated Cost for Transfer of 6.3
30 MGD to Lewisville Lake
6.2 Estimated Costs for Denton's Long-Rangy 6.5
Water Supply
6.3 Schedule of Construction for Denton's
e Long-Range Water Supply Development 6.6
"RUM
5, y py , y g
77777 7
+ ~ f,l ~
T ~•-~~Y a •Yt ~V2 1C, 'F ,.1 s 1i1 "kl " i e 3 T k,
' LIST OF FIGUR
Fi ure After Page
2.1 Denton and Vicinity 2.2
2.2 Projected Average Annual PopulLtion 2.2
2.3 Projected Suim* Population 2.2
2,4 Historical Per Capita Consumption 2.5
' 2.5 Historical Finished Water Requirements 2.5
2.6 Projected Raw Water Requirements 2.7
3.1 Denton'Water Supply System Developmont 3.5
' to Year 1991
4.1 Area Existing and Proposed Reservoirs 4.1
5.1 Denton Water Supply System Development 511
to Year 2020
a 5.2 Plan I Development 5.2
5.3 Plan II Development 5.5
5.4 Plan III Development 5.7
5.5 Raw 'dater Pump Station and Supply Line 5.11
Devolopment
1
i
mum
J
i
r INTRODUCTION
The City of Denton now derives its Water supply primarily from I
Lewisville Reservoir of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On days of
heaviest demand in summer months, some of the requirements are also
r obtained from municipal wells. With these existing surface water and
ground water resources, the City has sufficient supply to satisfy anti-
cipated demands until about 1980.
r In order to provide for increasing needs beyond 1980, Denton is
participating as a local sponsor of the proposed Corps of Engineers
1 Aubrey Reservoir, for which construction Is expected to begin in the
near future, The added dependable yield frai the Aubrey project should
give Denton enough total sup)ly until the late 1990'x, at which time
another new source probably will be needed.
The purpose of this roport is to evaluate existing sources and
r potential additional sources of hater, with the goal of si.' wing hod
Denton can best meet projected water requirements through the year 2020.
The range of investigation covers present and proposed sources which
r Denton might utilize in the Trinity River Basin and also other feasible
sources in neighboring basi0s. The following specific elements are
r treated in this study;
r (a Historical population growth and enticipateo future
growth based on existing trends.
r (b) Patt municipal and Industrial water production r,nd
' estimated future water requirements.
1.1 fl
plot3$[ AND NICK"$
T WWI,
4~ t Y ' r: r i rh .r,. 41
(c} The quantit;e1 of water available to Denton under
existing appropriations in Lewisville eservoir and
from U9 City's wells.
' (d) The potential quantity of water available to Denton
from the proposed Aubrey Reservoir.
(e) Potential sources of supply which may be available
to Denton elsewhere in the future.
(f) Quality of the various water sources being investigated.
(g) Estimated capital and annual costs for development of
the various sources of supply and delivery of the water
to the City's filter plant.
1
~I
t
r
t
r
V,2
If~ar~r■■r~rr►
r}
e POPULATION AND WATER REQUIREt_ iEyTS-
2.1 Pe ulp ation
The general prospect for the City of Fenton and the surrounding
area In the foreseeable future is one of continued growth. Several
presently observable characteristics and trends in the area bear out
t•h s fact. Between 1960 and 1910, the number of employed persons in
~lnufacturin? in Denton County alvost doubled, and 6J of the Denton
County population reside in the City of Denton. The total number of
employed persons in Denton County also nearly doubled between 1960 and
1910, pointing up the high level of over-ell coemerclal activity in
Denton County and in the City of Denton. Between 1964 and 1910, the
population in the City of Denton increased by 4%. This percentage
carries even more significance when it is realized that the increase in
the state population was 11% during the same time period,l
Commercial growth for Denton has been influenced positively by
its location relative to other business centers and its location on a
major transportation route, Interstate 35. The interstate system makes
Denton accessible to large cities from the north and from the south.
Dentin is also relatively close to the new Dallas•Fhrt Worth Airport.
Another factor tending to bring growth to Denton is its proximity
i
to Lewisville Lake. The iearC,y smaller communities of Corinth, Shady
}
1 Numbers correspond to references listed in Appendix A.
2.1
rN[UK AND NICHOL/
i
f riiK =~i ~ 4 1` • q i ( ~ T ~ry i ~s '~r?la; 'S"^t ~ ~ fi,. 9 ""F r y ^ e -r aF / t
~h5 5 S ~ l
Shores, Hickory Creek, and Lake Dallas (known collectively as the Four
Cities) have all exhibited growth in the past primarily as'a result of
the recreational attraction of Lewisville Lake. Relative locations of
Denton, Lewisville Lake, and the Four Cities are shown in Figure 2.11
' When the Aubrey Reservoir is completed, Denton's economic and population
' growth should be further accelerated by similar development to the north.
Of considerable local impact on the Denton socioeconomic structure
is the presence of North Texas State University and Texas Woman's
University. Although the Denton State School is not actually within the
city limits of Denton, its students are also counted as local residents.
In 1970, about one-thlyd,of the Denton population consisted ofsstudents
from these three institutions, which naturally affect the economy and
water use of the area.
Represented in Figures 2.2 and 2,3 are the projected average annual
water use population and the summer water use population, respectively,
of Denton and customer cities, because Denton probably will supply water
to the Four Cities area in the future, the population trends in these
figures include Corenth, Shady Shores, Hickory Creek, and Lake Dallas.
Also included in the total population figw.,es are the resident student
r populations of North Texas State University, Texas Woman's University,
and Denton State School.
The Denton end-of-year population projectibn is also shown In
Figures 2.2 and 2.3. This is the official published projection for the
City of Denton and reflects the predicted total without deductions fcr
M loss of student population during the summer. Since the Denton city
projection does not represent the actual water use population, it was
2.2
MOM AND NICHOLS
r
7
DENTON AND VICINITY
1
r
r
P pA0Sf0 A(JfdlY R t R
i 'PILOT POINT
!AN In
%
KALE IN NILE!
HWY.
WY
CENT ►1`
,
M
W
GORWT
r }f
MICKAAy DELI.. I• x
h~
r LItYIIfVILL
~i IIION'J~R
MOON
io;
MN
fhun ANO NiCNOLn;~---~~._
FIGURE r2.
fF! by
ANNUAL POPULATION
r 254
e
200
r 154
1
50
f1Y0LN POPYlAT10M , J~.
Want
0 FOVit Cl1{~f At f 2010
1970 19ca 1990 - YEAR ~ 2004 2020
M ~
1+ iPL[1[ AND N1C140L§ FIGURE 2.2
l
r
t Yy , J G
}
PROJECTED SUMMER POPULATION
250
M 200
150
y'
~ 100
ell
50
Tcu astiES
I YMMEN lT~OENT OIUiATkON,r,
0 Y
1970 1980 1890 2000 2013 2020
YEAR
FIGURf 2.3
mommommmomomd
N
A(~ IL 1 ` ' t} ! u° f
~ti. ~mf ~ t r V Ac ~ dp i .f~ ~ I` P L ~ ,e g ♦ r n Y H a S
.
modified to produce the annual average and summer
population projections
shown.
Representation of the population in 'his manner is necessary because
the City's peak-day water requirements are dependent on the summertime
population while the over-all yearly needs are related to the average
annual population. The water treatment plant and the supply lines from
Lewisville Reservoir must be designed 6 a peak-day basis in order to
satisfy the summer condition. In contrast, the annual average population
should be used in measuring the total adequacy of the S++sic sources of
supply.
Future facilities to transfer additional supply frommore distant
sources to Lewisville Reservoir, en route to Denton, will'nut be required
' to meet the peak-day flow condition but generally should be capable of
transferring water at rates somewhat higher than the annual average
rate. For purposes of this study, such facilities will bo evaluated
1 and compared on the basis of the annual average rote, recognizing that
additional capacity would be provided in an orderly manner so as to
' stay ahead of the potential maximum delivery requirements.
` As shown in Figure 2.2, the Denton annual average water use popu-
lation is predicted to'continuo trending upward as in the past from a
present population of about 50,000 to a 2020 estimate near 250,000.
The summer water use population will also trend upward but is predicted
to lag behind the annual averi~ge by about 6,000 persons in 1980 and
about 11,000 in the year 2020. Shown in Table 2.1 is a summary of the
population projections for the City of 'Denton and for the total water
' usn population under summer conditions and on an annual average basis.
1
2.3
111[[/9 MAO NICNOLY
11~
y c' kn,1 ps• ~i 0~~~ {~4 a r~ft t n G. r y'.
Table 2.11
M Population ?roiecti_nn~
Denton and Service Area
Year
:Dendtof AnDenton nual Denton Average Summer
ter Water
Year Average Population WaUse
Po ulati0n o elation Po u?anon Po asation
1970 39,874 399547
f~ 339574 42,200 36,227
1980 55,00 53 800
480500 59,300 54,000
1990 81,500 791600 73,500
8M00 830500 2000 114,800 113,700 105,100 131 122j700
2010 1541500 153,00o 1439300 183,000 173,300
2020 199,700 1971800 ' 1869800 246,80t' 235,800
2.2 Historical,. water Re utrements
Water requirements may be classified in one of two broad categories:
residential or industrial.
While residential use is self-explanatory,
the t_rm industrial here denotes application of water in any of a
wide variety of commercial and manufacturing enterprises, including the
' production of electrical power. Until 14721 the Nnton power station
used raw water for cooling ;pater. At treat time, facilities wire con.
' structed at the wastewater treatment plant to utilize the reclaimed
water for power plant cooling purposes. At present, reclaimed water is
being used exclusively for power plant operation.
IH storleaily, annual residential water use has been about equal to
annual commercial use in Denton. Additionally, watery requirements for
2.4
PRE909 ANb NICN0L6 r
a h '4 v e °p+s 7777
4 r' r . i1r
all uses have been increasing at a rate slightly greater than the
population growth rate. Whereas total water requirements for both
residential use and commercial use have each increased by 25% since
' 1970, the numbers of customers in both categories have increased by
about 16%. During the same period, per-customer usit has increased io-
' ticeably in both classifications. Figure 2.4 illuP2rates the increases
both in per capita peak-day consumption and average-day per capita con-
sumption since 1960. Figure 2.5 shows the upward trend in average-day'
and peak-day finished water use during the same time period. These
figures are summarized and described numerically in Table 2.2. Pkau
lations used in deriving avera-day per capita consumption and peak-day
per capita consumption were the historical average water use population
and the summ& water use population, respectively.
The ratio of peak-day to average-day use observable in Figures 2.4
' and 2.5 and noted in Table 2.2 comes as a result of seasonal fluctuation
in water demand. This is caused by a marked increase in water use
during the summer due to lawn watering and other seasonal factors. The
' ratid of peak to average flow will, however, tend to be less in Denton
than in other cities due to the lower level of university enrollment
' and subsequently lower Denton population during the summer session. As
may be determined in Table 2.2, the average and peak-day water use rates
have increased about 2.4 times since 1960, and the average and peak-day
per capita consumption have increased about 1.4 times during the same
period.
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 indicate by dashed lines the potential peak-day
' use and potential peak-day per capita consumption for the City of Denton,
2.5
INIII„ AND NPCNCIO
1
t M C F a L qI iw ♦ y~ 1 7 FT,
y~ 1 1 .fr
~G ~44 yy4t.~ < Y„ ~'~J[gtih ~yY ~2i~k 4Df'RA ~~rAwf=11 ~i4f~ ~~1 A~ ~~h' Gy~s i~gr
~4 9 1 'C~ r~h~ A 1•in !i "1ts r A~+ i.~-.. c xdi~~~har ~~hf n~
~n~~v~~r e5r
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
600
1
' Pp NT AL iAK DAY
PER CAP TA BONS ,APT ON 10
400
010
1 HAP TA MN' T CW,
900 -
r
Y
1 ~
f1.
1
' 104 -
VER GE- AY ER WI TA NS T
0
1
0 60 62 64 y66 68 ~70 79 i 74
YEARS
FIGURE 2.4
A
w ~ Yr,i v~ ~i ~4' ~ ~ f :r ~k~ ♦~t~ ~'d~ I M ~ ',r i~~~ . 7•~tn~ rY ~.r~4A k~r, 'LIJrI'L<i . i( ;.1
y ^ 5~r. ~~;,..i ;~~n 1 rti o1 v? ~ 4 ,,1 ~~r •~N;i A ~A r. 1 i' R'^ ~
1 HISTORICAL FINISH 0 DATER
REQUIREMENTS
f
1 26
-
7-1
1
20
1
UN I AL
°C PE)(-DA) USE
16
U9 i
~ry ` s
r
EAK AY U 't r< '01.1-100 1
4 10 i 'f
00-0
o ~
000.00
1 ~
,AY AGE DAY SE
1960 02 64 6S
YEARS
FINNE 206
dE 7 t Ir N i
i+~ ~•or
ktq~
Y p~~h Y S ~f 7 p♦yr t$ ~w Ry lit fF. ~4 ! 1) r k V a Y y i i qr i
r 1
a Table 2.7 s
Historical Finished-W! ter R! e____g_ulrements
1 Year Average- Average- Peak-Ray PeaktDay '
Day Day Per Use Per Capita
Use Capita Consumption
Consumption
_._LMGD GPCD MGD _.Lp~.
1960 2.96 108 6.53 260
1961 3.01 102 6
1962 260
3.18 109 .54
7.24
1363 4.38 275
135 9.23 324
i 9kelt 3.86 119 8.697 7 309,
1965 416 121 4 1966 4,16 120 9.66 240
19,67 4.08 137 11 26 2~
• _
365
1968 4,63 126 9692 ;116,
19b9 5.57 145 13.60
1974 6.49 161 13.73 395
1971 6.81 162 15005 411., I .
1912 7.18
l q3 15;1.2 32'.
3 6.70 148 F '~F
,127!p
1914 6.80 146 316
1975 7.22 149 15.14
14.50 352
Note: Ratio of peak-day to average-day use is approximately
2,36 in an average rainfall year and approximately 2.15
in an extremely wet or dry year.
In 1963, a particularly"dry year was experienced over this area and
other parts of Texas, and the water consumption was inordinately high.
The potential values, about 153 greater than the peak-day values, describe
the possible peak condition which could occur in any year with extreme
conditions such as those experienced in 1963. While the average-day
a historical per capita water use figures will be applied to calculate
average annual water use requirements for Denton and vicinity, the
potential peak-day water use figures will be used to determine design
criteria for siring future Denton water treatment plant facilities.
/lll[~tl IHD NICNOItl w
f
MUMELIV
,r t W P q f'I ~ it r ,la F Q' rx '~i a vl' '~i.~~i qr 3~d~ i~ i✓~ r ^r~,~ y
".`-`47tt...."i
P '
2.3 Projected Water Requirements
Shown in Figure 2.6 are curves describing projected potential j
peak-day demand and average-day demand for the City of Denton to the
year 2020. Determination of these water requirements was achieved
through a combined evaluation of Denton's past water use experience
and judgment of p`t0able future developments which Riy alter observed
use trends.
The projections were developed in conformity with the water use and
population patterns discusses; earlier in this section and with the water
use, projections published previously in "North Central Texas Regional
Mater Supply 'itudy" and "Denton, a Twenty Year Comprehensive Plan."2*3
The full rangsi of a'veraga-diy demand, values which appear in Figure 2.6
corresponds to'thp'future water use projections detailed in the "North' 4
Central Texas Regtonal;WrAter.Supply Study." The cuirve'rep' resents' the
sum of the predicted water use rates in the City of Denton and in the
Four Cities aria, 6cluded from the average-day dema6d projection is
Denton 's industrial water requirement inherent in operation of the
electrical power generating station. As presented earlier, Denton
currently uses reclaimed Crater for this purpose. It is anticipated that
in the future the return flows, calculated at abdot 60% of total water
consumption,' will fully satisfy the power station requirement, thereby
freeing raw water for other municipal uses.
The potential peak-day demand curve in figure 2.6 was derived frCM,
projections of future water requirements contained in the Cientem Canpre-
hensive Plan. In order to define future water trtatmeiit plant needs, I
the Denton Community Development Department developed acid published in
■ i f
{ I
F h19 0 L ANO N{CNOL9 2 .7
Y~ ~......._._2_.....~._~._....._...... :._r....~~
M.4 K $ Rri9 ! 9 x • 1 i 4 t IJ v
i ~0 ) r S 11 Y t Lt
1 ~
1 ~ nim,~ + e z ~ ' r r i ~
. r'
PROJECTED. RAW WATER REQUIREMENTS
175
1
I
a
I~ 125
loo
1
75
50
/ _
■ 25 - ,o►y
■ ~rE
a -1-
1910 1880 1990 2000 2010 2020
YEAR
N ^~-FIGURE- k.6
A d
r1 a R
fie ~'rd 4 I ,I, - 14 ! :.~d R o ,7d; IpM 11 Ii r 4 i,
'k ~`i
77 .i r {Y {f`,i r$ > yy4~1' ra(E~:1) r fS
the Comprehensive Plan the potential n$ak-day water requirements through
1994. The peak-day demand profktion illustrated in Figure 2.6 was
obtained by extrapolating the curve contained in the Comprehensive Plan
from 1994 to the year 2026. The projected water requirements described
by the curves in Figure 2.6 are listed in Table 2.3, Ii
I!
t
1
I
'I I~+
i
fPff4C ANO NI CIIOLS
{
■7 7 t S ~ Fr ~ W 'r . ~=Cro. 1y~r+ 'h {'9 1 ~."ta r
'I
Table 2.3
Projected Raw Water Requirements
Year Pro ected Average Annual Water Reguiremeents Pro ected Potential Peak-p " Requirements
nua1 ro ected ~e`r ----~otentlal--------
Average Average Water Use Peak-pay i
Water Use Water Population Water
Population Requirements Requirements
(MGD) MGp
1970 42,200 6.79 36,227 16.74
1980 69,300 11.17 64,000 33.05
1990 89,500 18.74 830500 54,0]
2000 131,300 28.06 1v f
,.2,700 60.49
2010 183,000 40.34
1739300 115.07
2020 2469800 54.93 2350800 157.99
N
do
r"
EXISTING HATER SUPPLY AND`PROPOHO AUDREY RESERVOIR
' 3.1 Existing Water SlI 1
Denton presently obtains its water supply from two sources - the
city well system and Lewisville Reservoir. The reservoir, which lies
to the east and southeast of Denton, is a Corps of Engineers multiple-
purpose project for flood control, water conservation and recreation.
The dam was completed in 1955 and controls a drainage area of 11660 square
miles on the watershed of the Elie Fork of the Trinity River. The name of
the lake was originally Garza - Little Elm, but was changed to Lewisville
in 1912.
Both Denton and Dallas are participating as local sponsors in the
Iewisville project, with Denton paying 4.8% of the local interests' costs
and the remaining 95.2% being paid by Dallas. Denton holds water rights
in Lewisville Reservoir under Permit No. 1106, which was issued by the
' Tex,is Board b ,Water Engineers (predecessor agency to the present Texas
Water RiOh,ts Commis.•ion) in 1954. Tk: permit allows Denton to utilize
21,000 acre-feet of cal,servatim''storage space in the lake and to`divert
a maximum of 11,000 acre-feet per annum For municipal water supply pur-
poses. Under terms of a contract with the Federal government, dated
' December 109 1953, Denton is entitled to use the 21,000 acre-feet of
conservation storage in return for payment of 4.8% of the costs allocated
to local sponsors.
In November of 1962, Denton and Dallas entered into an agreement
which recognized the need for eventual full development of the Elm Fork
watershed by construction of an additional storage reservoir at the
3.1
1
M
7771-
NIP
Aubrey site, upstl"O am from Lake Lewisv11le. It was agreed that the
two
cities Mibuid Work!6gether toward construction of Aubrey Reservoir and
' that they would share in the costs and benefits on the basis of 26% for
Denton and 74% for Dallas. Thus, Denton would be responsible for 26% of
the cost and would receive 26% of the incremental yield made available
by the Aubrey project.
The 1962 contract also recognized that, although Denton holds water
rights covering diversion of 110000 acre-feet per year from the existing
f Lewisville (then Garza - Little Elm) Reservoir, 4.8% of the hydrologic
safe yield would be significantly less than th
at amount. It was agreed
■ that (a) Dallas would sell Denton as much as 13.0 MGD of water out of
the Dallas share of the Lewisville supply and (b) Denton would pay Dallas
for any Lewisville Reservoir water used by Denton in excess of 4.8%
of the estimated safe yield. Denton's share of the safe yield was
evaluated as an annual average diversion of 4,6 MGD as of 1975 and sub-
sequent years.
At that time, it was contemplated that the Aubrey project would be
' completed and placed in service prior to 1980, and the 1962 contract set
a cutoff dote of 1980 for the sale of surplus water to Denton by Dallas.
It is now apparent th.t Aubrey probably cannot be completed b~ 198
Dallas and Denton are in the process of finalizing sponsorship agreements
with the Corps of Engineers, and applications for water rights have been
filed with the Texas Water Rights Commission. In recent discussions,
Dallas representatives have indicated that the period of availability
of supplemental water for Denton from the existing Lewisville supply
could be extended fora reasonable time until Aubrey Reservoir is
3.2
A~ 1Jf 'r to sf V operational, but that the price of the water would need to be re~
negotiated.
Denton's wells are able
to provide approximately 4.0 MGD on a
short-terra basis for days of high demand in the summer months. but are
not suitable for prolonged operation and should not be counted on to
furnish any significant amount of water on a year-round basis. For
practical purposes, the annual supply obtained from the wells should be
considered as negligible. Thus, Denton presently has access to 17.5 MGD
of average annual water supply, all from Lake Lewisville, of which
13.0 MGD is supplemental supply that can be purchased on an interim basis
from Dallas. Assuming that the Aubrey project proceeds 'to completion in
a timely manner, Denton can presumably count on this 17.5 MGO until
water can be obtained from Aubrey Reservoir. Eased on the projections
Of future Denton requirements (see figure 2.'6)T this should be 'suffi-
cient to meet the City's needs until about 1488.
3.2 Proposed Aubrey Reservoir
The Aubrey Dam site is at river mile 60.0 on the elm Fork, in
Denton County, 30 river miles upstream from Lewisville Dam. The drainage
area above the Aubrey site is 692 square mites, or about 42% of the
total watershed above Lake Lewisville. Aubrey is basically intended as
' a water supply project, with significant recreational facilities also
included. The top of the conservation storage pool will be at elevation
632.5. At that elevation, the total storage volume will be 799,600
acre-feet, of which it is estimated by th, Corps of Engineers that
50,400 acre-feet will be filled by sedimentation during the first 1D0
years of reservoir operation. The project plan also contemplates a partial
3.3
.
' Ftransfer of flood control storage from Lewisville Reservoir to Aubrey
Reservoir and enlargement of the conservation pool at Lewisville. Aubrey
' Reservoir is to be designed with 265,000 acre-feet of flood control
volume between elevation 632.5 and elevation 640.5. This will allow
the lower portion of the present flood control pool at Lewisville to be
converted to conservation storage. The Lewisville conservation level
is a., be raised 7 feet,from the present elevation 515.0 to elevation
522.0, which will add 177,600 acre-feet of conservation storage and
increase the total conservation volume of Lewisville Reservoir to an
estimated 618,400 acre-feet as of about 19856
' The Corps of Engineers has estimated the increment'il yield made
available by the proposed Aubrey protect to be 81.4 MGD, of which
Denton's 26% would be 21.2 MGD. Independent computations by Freese and
Nichols confirm the velidity of the Corps estimate with respect to the
gain in yield attrO utable to Aubrey. It is also apparent that the water
' supply.benefit of Aubrey stems almost entirely from having a greater
volume of water in storage at the beginning of a critical drouth. The
existing Lewisville Reservoir would be able to impound and use virtually
all runoff from the Elm Fork watershed during the drouth period, leaving
very little remaining runoff to be controlled by additional storage.
Thus, the increase in yield gained by building Aubrey is nearly all due
to having a greater total volume of conservation storage to be filled
during more plentiful years prior to a drouth a►rd available for with-
drawal and use over the dry period.
The total Denton supply after completion of Aubrey would consist of
' 4.5 MGD derived from 4.8% participation in the local sponsorship of the 3.4
u'- - r"ftf[ AND NICW)lf
original Lewisville Reservoir, plus 21.2 14GD due to 26% participation as
local sponsor of the Aubrey proj ect$ for a total of 26,1 N0. This is
enough to handla the estimated needs of Denton until approximately the
' year 1997.
Figure 3.1 is a graphic indication of the comparisons between
1 Denton's anticipated water supply avisiiabllity and requirements before
and after the Aubrey project goes into service. Although the exact date
oil first supply from Aubrey is not certain at.this point, 1985 seems a
realistic prediction And has been used for purposes of this report.
3.3 Estimated Casts of the Aubrey Project
Preliminary.analysis of the estimated costs of the Aubrey project,
' based on material furnished by the Corps of Engineers, indicates that
about 30% of the first cost of the project will`be borne by the Federal
1 government and that the local sponsors will be responsible for the re-
maining 70%. Including interest during constructions'the present (1975)
estimate of the allocable first cost to build the Aubrey project is
' $15593740000. Of this, the local sponsors' share allocated to water
supply will be $97,875,000. In addition, the local interests are re-
quired to reimburse 50% of the capital cost of certain recreation
facilities. The total local responsibility for repayment of recreation
costs is estimated at $109922,500, plus $355,000 for interest during
construction. Denton's portion of these obligations (26%) would be
$25,447,900 for water supply and ;2,932,145 for recreation facilities,
p or a total of $28079,645, As presently estimated by the Corps of
p Engineers, Denton could defer for ten years the payments of principal
and interest on half of the water supply cost of Aubrey Reservoir itself,
3.5
1
DENTON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT TO YEAR 1997
60 11
1 50
40.____
SIP
30 -
~ ~ ~Irucr EerrlY
. tl.! M O D
1 20 - -t W
1
1 _ 1~0 M 9 UNION Y ljo FROM IKE r
O Et1111A9 lE ISVIIIE RE►ERY U
1970 1980 1800
YEAR 2000 200 2020
1 I
IN![{t AND N I C Hot 11 FIGURE 3.1
I i a ~ ~fk x". ~ l
1 '
Part of the recreation improvements would not be constructed immediately,
but would be planned for future construction and therefore not involved
in the first years' repayment obligation;.
The local sponsors will also be obligated to repay part of the cost
of reservoir maintenance and operation and to maintain and operate the
recreational facilities at their own expsnse. Denton's portion of the
i
take maintenance and operation costs is estimated at 524,364 per year
initially and $34,9A per year after the first 10 years, The Corps
studies indicate cost of maintenance, operation and replacement of the
full program of proposed recreation facilities at $1,011,651 per year,
of which 26% would be $2631.000.
These estimates are tentative only, and are subject to revision
based on the, actual costs experienced when the project is built and
placed in operation. The„txact method of repayment to the government is
also subject to Varying approaches. To obtain a general concept of the
scope of financial obligation'issociated with Denton's 26% of 64 Aubrey I
project, the Corps figures have been interpreted and summarized in Table
3.1. The table assumes that Denton would repay its capital cost obli-
gations in fifty equal annual amounts covering the non-deferrable water
supply costs and the initial recreational development costs at the
current Federal interest rate of 4.371%. It furthor assumes that the
deferred water supply repayments and the future recreational development
charges would be added at a later date on the same. basis. The estimated
annual charges for maintenance and operation have been taken frtA pro-
jections prepared by the Corps of Engineers. Where annual maintenance
and operation costs for recreation were not separated as tt immediate
3.6
ti Table
Gi Pretimi~ nary Estitfe.of D'•nton's Costs for the Aubre Pro ect
Ca ital Cost Debt, Service Ma___nt _ aigp. Iota .14,nula
Initi___ al_Costs
143,800 $ 623,S31 $ 24,364 $ 648,29'
Water supply $13 X825 460 604 163 735 250 389
Rec"ation
TotA:l
Futu_re Costs
AdditJonr a_ Deferred and
584,052 S 103634 594,686
water supply $12,343,106 52,5 4 99 265 15"799
Rerreation 1 10
Total '
0_y_err,11 Cos___ts•_1~diate_,.and Futur'a 34+998
$ 1,207,i'83 $ 402 188
Water Supply $25,441X560 263 600
2 ,
93 145 39A -T Aecreation
m Total o
applicability versus future applicability in the governme+t estiratea~ ;
they have been divided in proportion to the amounts of caftal cost
attributed to int•tial and future developnient.
Table 3,l ind{cates that the initial payments for the Aubrey Drojct,
covering debt service, maintenance and op4ration, would be approximately
$899,000 per year. Assuming an annual average water use of 15 MOD,
which is the rate predicted for Denton in about 1985s this cost would
represent an increase of approximately 16.1/21 per thousand gallons if
applied uniformly to the City's total water consumption at that Similarly, if it is assumed that the paymerts will rise to the indicated
!r+
1
total amount of some $1.645 million per year about ten years thereahe
In 1995, when the water use rate is expected to EJ around 23 MGD,
3.7
r~atiiRYtti
i~ M1 9. 'R
across-the-board increm6tal cost for crater as of that time due to the
Aubrey protect costs will be approximately 20¢ per thousand gallons.
It may also be convenient to view the Aubrey supply unit costs in
terms of full utilization of the 21.2 MGU yield. Taking the annual cost
of $1!645!169 for the combined initial and deferred payments on Aubrey
and dividing by the total yield of 21.2 MGDq the unit cost amounts to
21.26f per 1.000 gallons. This full utilization approach to estimation
of unit costs will appear in Chapter 6 as a neans of comparison with
unit costs for the long-range supply,
It'should be emphasized that these costs are not final. The
capitol costs are sub k t to Change based on'the actual cost of project
construction. Maintenance and operation charges will be incurred based
on th.actual costs from year to year. Prrt o the local share of the
recreall6al: cleyplopment'may be undertaken by the Texas Parks and'''ild-
life Departinent. The O ty;wt'c1'be entitled to derive some revenue's
from the recreational facilities and can Ous offset the increased water
charges to the extent of such recreational. revenues. The foregoing
1`1006.1 should"thus be viewed pi'tmar~lly'as reasonable guidelines to the
probable cost of the Aubrey supply, based on infoM1ati0n available at
this stage.
r ~I
w
3,6
/llLt 99 APi G NIC NOU
NEI
/ .S ry{'i i' v R 1 ry 2.''..
~f.71 p t,hI.
POTENTIALwhTE_R -PL1t SOURCES
4.1 general
Once the combined Lewisville-Aubrey system is fully utilized, Denton
will then be required to turn to an additional source of supply. Figure
4,1 illustrates that this supply will in all likelihood come from a source
more distant from Denton, since the construction of Aubrey Reservoir it
will essentially complete water supply development in the upper Trinity
River,Basin. Individual examination of the existing reservoirs and 'lakes
in 'this region points up the fact that water in 'these developed supplies
ricts. The nest Fork
is to other cities and water dist
is already comrn'l~
drainage basin, which contains Lake Bridgeport) Lake Amon G. Carter,
fayle'Mount &in Lake, aO Lake worth, is fully committed to Fort worth
and other cities in the surrounding areA. The East.Fork yield, developed
of
Hubbard, has prior claim by the City
' by lawn Reserloir and Lake Ray
Dallas and the North Texas Municipal Water District. Grapevine Reservoir
on'Oenton Creek does not provide a possible source of water for Denton
since it is used Jointly by the City of Dallas, the City of Grapevine,
and by the Park Cities Municipal Utility District.
The only other major water supply project now proposed in the upper
Trinity Basin is the Corps of Engineers Lakeview Reservoir On Mountain
Creek, in southwest Dallas County and southeast Tarrant County. This
is an unlikely source for Denton, whi^h will need more water than the
Lakeview Reservoir can provide and has other, more economical options to
choose from. Lakeview is estimated to yield 12.1 MGD of new supply,2
part of which is already being spoken for by communities nearer to the
4.1
dood
. .
s..ci ' . A• ''.r: r r ;Y.~t 'r IS n. rt. t..
, I
. Wrrr 4r~rr.r~.... r . ..rrr•r. . 1+ -_.r.r.i WW a..r.n . - ~•.na~~_~~,...~~~'•w'^-,.~'~~ wl_.. ~ ...aw _~M
f
e,
1 l LAIN t f
FA?
MIln {E - T it
auKKC ctKl1 N wle
Moss i«KeV (OME + IIS
Y, MIU lArl f I c
io,
j rClAKE `rJ3^ A H >
j i i T" f "h (i 1, \ F S I ~:Is ! 4;--1 F._~ ;r- LEGEND
5 l f RJ a+ vti
l Y
, \ VAIAr Wv rERSNEO 10"DAIT
't \r'1
1!~ 5vr 1a
) 1 r. r 1 •
IISdKu4A 01 COOP { l l i
COUNTY IOUNDAIY
' ' r 4
~
A 1 t
V l
-4 f
ea- -I'•.._ 11( I ~ _ 4 _ \ r,- , ;1\~ i jp \''w "`r^ ti I~ A ~ Uf41TN3 EFf1EVOIRf
{ ~1~ { I r! t~~ i'_, '^t...7'. 1._r r. 'i ' 1A f 1 «•~M I } /j tL • 7 Vl(F =tn.'.Wr ,,.,J~,,,../♦
~'Y
wt : tro I $ r'~~,•. l) ry`..1 N '.S ~I ! ,jt ..~i , ` \ t y \ i A IIMOSIb EISt EVOIES
111 •I ~ S:-..r. S-~•C
d. 1 I o f 1 r 1
'7 Z ,1 y :Ab Y t n 1 r, _ ' I , yff r rof. , ^...,a 'I
AT Elucfa+u rrEl+af
fR wK+ul pd + A -
1 DI Ln J" I l A f .i 7 N j`~ Gr tE~Kww` G~
. t I AN1t E%ISrR10 /WM VATk1M
, y I t~,~ u~. .b N'.•
M',ICa[►017 _~a~ r \ It L` A Cr„grJl \_1 j ~
1NKVO4
1 f A f M Q S " Vf':j"Arri ,
1. , q 4ihhC
's'ki I J;.. I 11I71r\N\Q A, 'rd" SPINR • r. _ i
OI0000N wA1t1 t '\~\l ft i 1 \ I \I ki .t« E , '~1 ~E I WI
rn,vM1«rdlA r 1 fM nl`i~ c1Er+v„` Sy't1I ' h 0 X i 'y{" lvo ~vtN NnI,ro.
I ~I wNre aF cos, A t ~J 1
r KexROIA. . f '~Klr~Oj ~ I, l ~ { ~
NL~I( nrOrl . I~WN J '«rIE C ! A darn KM a!li Ih.N ♦ AI SIIWM taW.roWNOC f ! S Is
r \ CSUM?~\`\ +L,~> 1l MAIN
i 1 E C tIA
r.,,1«. IIINaS }N IAl~d.c^t
;ca;rrnr av Elofe7Y f ' 1
wA;P" SAFITN I~ 1 if~llu !I ; I ~ y ~4.i
6 1t! MrN 1111 t _ f~ Jj y 1
` = E KA! ! •t it- A I1OM~C~IIIIIt
(M llam~` f / r r 1 MMIIOM r 7 7JT ` 1~ ry.li M f . - t NO rd,. < l t•,,
4 f A E f R~. kliAlma
a^ ~ ~ t RLeN I1~ 1 ',r':. r ~1 `1 , V 0 _ 1 1
t 1 [t4 C
`t 1 • \ 1K1 -y.,, 'w
rq NN1A~Y - w rolY = TAWA 101E
hi}ns+\ ' "?4 , L-, At.
M IIKI WOKIN i~'.I rN Ll l1 fN •.....,.--..-«R r
r,` ` wtAFNUgD AKI b
lni - K ,•.:::,r.._.
q ` Ml' • : _ Y.YP k U iCNdriMt C,l;--,
06 RM.A E 14
11 WI L* UITIA HSE!'NII .
,ti r„aV S1 ,rroA,` _ \*A A i~ 1 ~••4iM~'. 'N', i1,~ .'~l 1r1~0•
` i I~ Kll/ 1 1 `f rw rTNli` N
RkFL
l01...f~ IJ
Y Kncl,t,•n 7 J I { `~,Q C( ,....f-
r ! f / i' nuG'.✓ vP c'm
,J,
( \ LAKI
Jr . \ 1, ,ulr+GfnN ' c r o lsldal F„ y KKt , ~N '_R_(fi7' I 5^ I) - N /
.
. 101
IF11 NOOK l ~'.'L ....1 A/OOIt CANO AAKF DINT ON, . f~......... .!,Y~~~-.-._•✓4n; :UdRV~OPW A. 4k1Vt NLh
1` f 1` k je. ~~~~j'•R-~' nAHS[` G
41~1oK! TEXAS
{ t t~
I KI - r1 E kf S D N [ I i { 5 c ITr'K~ I v f ! yrj'•.•"L P ,El~w~ e,r ...t~arw' 0 LONGRj
ITI GE
aKAN1Ylr 1 K 1 • ♦ 1 j 'v ~(tn 1:~" _
LPphkILRK •-.~\E 1. < ti, ( -l ~C . ,~6 14 , ~4',> ° ' , t `s WATER SUPPLY STUDY
(y ~ ~ err ~ f
~ .5 V ;+W1Abo~ L..r? ~Y .~1 K '{n' r ' ' I j, ( ( /~i ♦ `
rn,. ' f to r r I (ti
tavAw..CNIR A N
Kt1[ C ` ~ 141 . , f 1, LAKI w ~ ~ , t1'~(N Lr~~i I~ 1• / ~'1i J.~^ / ...s•
'..t:~ / J IIXF Mt s
t:.
l1
r~ ~I« 71 }l~L•, 1 ) r... 1 uKwu/ ~`'v 1F:arwu ° r S r iHl:ordC Y 11 d l•E~./M) 0 l Iro AREA
EXISTING. AND 01 1 COW o IAll 1 tAki JA f S^ f R., 1AR1 PROPOSED RESERVOIRS
IY
•~1~/ V , r'• NNS Ir ' IK V,~~1J 1N it ti~y,,.. 1 / A A
I
i>t~. 1 r l^ y M . Al •£N~ Arlldl
t i v
11t Ab
4
✓ 1 \ f I nglynlE~ r FREfSE A1r0 NICHOIS
RAW'"
I r r nw ~Ir
r l ` Q 1 / \ .,F K Y_., ~Nr eP`fn rn I{
`r,~, I \ t\r 4 \`i \ .(nj11 l ( F 9J N1 E\; r t} E 147
ff. C
f'€! ' `=r r c. h3 r C! , { } 1f: I«V, rnij' ~.NIR f1Elr sll
v - ~//rr rl t
16111
l ~
W JNG
11111WIN, k Ixl1. 1 NAW.110 MIIIS f
S~ f MVAMVE LAKI r
1151 Val \ _ R
WIM
I. •.y _.rr 7,._'1, Jffl , y \ i A' K L.r> p,,r$Ir il.1.1. <ItlK •I ! _ _.i_..__..._.-.___.
_ . i\r ,~1''\' •J- ~ ~ : L.r'e"' ~ '>~-'C.~r'L I ~ ; CM.14 A >i tfSEKAII '1t`pij r~i /
Flas.T V E•.., / /•r k,a / l ' : ._1FV TI rj. / ~5 N` E B Y
oi/
I.~ 1. / / r ..J r i M ; ~ICK►alVtlll „ C,* \ r
i f \lll f .,.J L V'.r , r'~ l!) r nro e r 1 ' r
.15
'
II r ~
\ - 1 7
hG(IRE Al
J 'A V t.. ,A
Y, .A',
7 7 7 71
7
take site than Denton is. Present estimates2 Indicate that the water will
:ost about 50t per thousand gallons, which is appreciably more than other
possibilities that will be discussed later in this section.
' In the past, a reservoir has also been considered by the Corps of
Engineers for the Roanoke site on Denton Creek, upstream from lake
Grapevine. The Roanoke project, as presented in former studies,4 would
have no conservation storage itself, but woO d provide new flood control
' storage which would allow an increase in the conservation storage capacity
and yield of Grapevine Reservoir. No funds have been appropriated to
date for advanced planning of the Roanoke project. As with the Lakeview
' Reservoir, prelimi *y indications are that-60 additional yield would
be relatively small dnd the cost of the water relatively high. This
w source is not- considered in further detail in this study because there
are apparently several more promising alternatives open to Denton,
Recognizing the restricted availability of added water supply in,
the upper Trinity giver Basin, Denton should look to neighboring basins
for a long-range source, to be developed by the late 1990's. There are
' problems of water quality and limited amounts of undeveloped yield in
the Brazos River Basin. The chemical quality of the water of the main
stem of the Red River is not satisfactory.for municipal use. It is clear
that the best prospects for consideration by Denton are (a) the upper
Sulphur River Basin, (b) tributary streams of the Red River bel<.w lake I
Texoma, and (c) the upper Sabine River Basin.
Focusing attention on the lower tributaries of the Red River and
basins to the east, it is seen that the proposed Sulphur Bluff and Cowper
Reservoirs in the Sulphur River Basin, the proposed Bois d'Arc Reservoir
4.2
- - - - ---rte A - -
ro r i ' J.^u (yR ..p
","r A pN ! . . A n ~ is 9 ,v
In the Red River Basin, and the Proposed Tri-Lakes System in the Sabine
River Basin provide the most likely solution to Denton's future water
needs in terms of distance to potential sources of 5upply. These are
discussed in detail in the following pages.
4.2 Pro osed Water Sources
4.2.1 Sulphur Bluff Reservoir.
The Sulphur Bluff Dam site is about 90 miles northeast of Dallas
and extends across the two tributary forks of the Sulphur River, crossing
the South Sulphur at river mile 3.6 and the North Sulphur at river mile
' 5.5. The dam site is about 15 miles east of CooperM, Texas, and about two
miles north of the town of Sulphur Bluff. The total drainage area
' upstream from the site is 1,026 square mites, of which 645 are in the
1 South Sulphur River basin and 381 are in the North Sulphur River basin.
Of the total drainage area, Cooper Dam will intercept runoff from 476
e square miles on the South Sulphur,
Sulphur Bluff Reservoir is proposed to be built in two stages.
t The principal structures of Stage 'l would include an earthen dam across
the South Sulphur River and a spillway controlled by six 40148' tainter
gates. The second stage, or ultimate development, would include an
earthen dam across the North Sulphur River and a channel excavated
through the divide to connect the two arms and equalize the water level.
It would be possible also for the total Sulphur Bluff project to be
constructed at one tune should it be desired,
i The total project, constructed with the proposed top of water
supply pool at elevation 401.01 will yield 227.4 MGD. This assumes
4.3
J fhEUl ANU NICHOLS
-77
1 FCooper Reservoir to be operative upstream at an annual demand equal to
its yield. The 107.4 MGO yield from stage I of Sulphur Bluff is tenta-
tively scheduled for development in about 1990. Sulphur Bluff Il Will
' be constructed at a later and yet undetermined date. Water rights at
Sulphur Bluff have not yet been applied for, although the North Texas
1 Municipal Water District and the City of Dallas have both included
the project as a tentative source of supply in their long-range planning.
The estimated cost of the Stage 1 dam and reservoir is $73,897,000
' including interest during construction. An additional $23,819,0oi would
be required to construct the Stage Ii portion of the project. Thase
' costs are based on estimates given in deference 2, updated % accordance
with 1975 price indices5 (see Appendix B). The annual cast of water in
' the reservoir for Stage 1, using 30-yed~ bd+lds at 7% interest and an
annual operation and maintenance cost of ;111,200 would be computed as
' follows:
Stage I Annual Annual Total
Capital Debt Service Operating Annual
_ Cost Cost Cost Cost
$73,897,000 $5,955,400 $1110200 $6607216DO
Annual cost for the incremental yield of Stage lI would be as follows:
Stage 11 Annual Annual Total
rCapital Debt Service Operating Annual
Cost Cost Cost Cost
$23,819,000 $19919,600 $15,100 =1,935,300
In the event Denton utilizes a portion of the Sulphur Bluff supply,
it will probably develop water transmission facilities jointly with other
entities. The facilities at Sulphur Bluff would include a pump station
.M _ ...`...~4..4
rllLlu RNO N4CHOU
4-
. ti's ' <'si
I on
at the Sulphur Bluff I proJect and a pipeline from that
Cooper Reservoir. Transport of water from Cooper pump station to
Reservoir to the
Trinity River Basin could be accomplished either by pipeline or by canal.
The point of input in the Trinity River Basin would be a tributary stream
to Lavor. Lake. Water would then be transferred directly from Lavon Lake
to 1,ewisvil7e Lake for consumption by Denton. One attractive
of this protect is that the topography feature
would allow water transport in
part by canal. Transmission by canal should be considerably ies3 ex.
' pensive than by pipeline.
4.2.2 Cooper Reservoir ,
per Reservoir is an authorized Federal multiple-purpose project
under the Jurisc'iction of the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
The dam site is located at river mile 23.2 on the South Sulphur
Delta and Hopkins Counties, Texas, about 78 miler northea aver in
3t of Dallas.
' The proposed reservoir will have flood control storage of 131,400 acre.
feet and a ;
tive water supply storage of 2739000 acre-feet, which will
yield 107.1 MGD. Water rights are divided among the Sulphur River
Municipal Water District, the City of Irving, Texas, and the North Texas
Municipal Water District. 'Of the total yield of 107.1 MOO the
River Municipal Water District is permitted to withdraw 28.1 HGDS u
and the
City of Irving and the North Texas Municipal Water District are each
permitted to withdraw 39.5 MGD.2
The estimated cost of the Cooper prole-t is $68055,700 including
interest during construction. This is based on the Jul 1972
mate furnished by the Corps of Engineers, escalated on he basis ofeSLi-
s
1 En ineering News Record construction cost indiccs to April 1975 price
1 ! '
- 4.5
r
levels.5 The local sponsors' share of the project is estimated to be
$28,182,500, and the estimates annual cost, based on 50-year financing
at 4.371% interest, would be as follows:
Local Sponsors' Annual Annual Total
Cap'tal Debt Service Operating Annual
Cost Cost _ Cast _Cost_
r $28,182,500 $1,395,900 $30,100 $19476,000
As stated, the water rights to the proposed Cooper Reservoir are
already spoken for by the City of Irving, the North Texas Municipal Water
District, and the Sulphur River Municipal Water District. However, of
its 28.1 MGD, the Sulphur River Municipal Water District has allocated
a total of 25 MGD to the Cities'of Sulphur Springs and Cooper, which
due to the delayed completion date of Cooper Reservoir, may be required
i to seek other supplies instead. Sulphur Springs has recently completed
a new reservoir un White Oak Creek. If any of the holders of Cooper
Reservoir water, rights should find it impractical to use that source of
supply, a significant amount of relatively economical water mould then
become available for use by others. Thus, although Cooper Reservoir is
not at present an apparent option for Denton, it should be kept in view
as a potential alternative if part of the yield should later be found
` surplus to the probable needs of the present permitees.
If Cooper were developed as a supply, it would naturally be
operated mach as the Sulphur Bluff system. Transport of water (roil Cooper
would be achieved through pipeline or canal from Cooper to Lavor. Water
would then be transferred from Lavon to Lewisville through pipeline, The
inherent similarity of the Cooper transmission s;rstem to the Sulphur Bluff
SI 4.6
~~~~„1F v M Ls _.F`'~-~.-
transmission system would allow, relatively simple substitution of Cooper
Reservoir into the over-all plan of transporting Sulphur River Basin water
' to Denton. Therefore, this study will incorporate Sulphur Bluff as a
water supply alternative for preliminary design and costing considerations,
with the implication that Cooper could later be included or substituted
in the plan on a firm basis if acquisition of that water becomes feasible.
' 4.2.3 Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir
The Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir site is located about 15 miles to {
the northeast of Bonham, at the confluence of Bois d'Arc Creek and Honey k
Grove Creek. (This should not be confused with a smaller reservoir once
`investigated by the Corps of Engineers at a location farther upstream on
Bois d'Arc Creek.6) Bois d'Arc Creek flows into the Red River near the
1 Fannin-Lamar County line. The proposed lake should have a normal water
surface level not higher than elevation 530.0, in order to avoid backing
water up on the face of Lake Bonham Dam. At that elevation, the storage
C, capacity would be 329,238 acre-feet. Assuming a net usable conservation
capacity of 300,000 acre-feet, after allowance for sediment and dead
storage, the yield would be 94,500 acre-feet per year, or 84.3 MGD, if
the entire conservation pool were utilized and 75,000 acre-feet per year,
or 66.9 MGD, if a safety factor reserve equal to one year's use were left
t in storage at the end of the critical drouth of record,6
At 1975 price levels, the capital cast of the Bois d'Arc Creek
Reservoir (see Appendix B) is estimated to be $27,763,600, including
interest during construction. Assuming equal yearly payments on 30-year,
7% bonds, the annual cost of debt service would be $2,237,500. On the
Ib additional assumption that the cost of maintenance and operation would
4.7
.140 NICHOLI
~ ,t d ~A 0.3% of the initial investment, the overall costs would be as follows; ~I
0 Total Annual Annual
Capital Debt Service Operatin
g Total
Cost _ Cost Cost Annual
_ Cost_
$27,763.600 $2,237,500 $83,300
$2,320,800
It would be anticipated that development of the Bois d'Arc Creek
protect would be a joint effort, with Denton being a co-sponsor. Since,
if the Aubrey supply is developed, Denton is expected to need only an
additional 30 HGO until the year 2020, a significant portion of the
Bois d'Arc Creek yield could be sponsored and
utilized by others. The
Cities of Sherman
and, Denison would be logical choices in seeking other
sponsors for the proiect.7 Assuming Sherman-Denison participation, the
A plan to take water from the Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir Mould involve
constructing transmission facilities from Bois d'Arc Reservoir west to
the Trinity River oasin, with a take-off near Sherman to fulfill the
needs of that area. The pump station at Bois d'Arc Reservoir would be
supplemented by a booster station near Sherman to transport water from
the Red River Basin to the Trinity River Basin. The point of input in
the Trinity River Basin would be Range Creek, a tributary of the Elm
Fork above the proposed Aubrey Reservoir.
A 4.2.4 Tri-Lakes System
The proposed Trf-Lakes project is in the Sabine River Basin east
of Dallas and consists of the proposed Mineola, Lake Fork and Big Sandy
Reservoir projects. The Mineola site, which was recently re-designated
as Carl L. Estes Lake, is on the Sabine River irmediately downstream from
Lake Tawakoni and will back water against the Iron Bridge Dam. Lake fork
4.8
rerrlf AN!) nru lots
1
~Y
v Yer ~T 4S,ti t tl~ y r ! f a .c "..f
and Big Sandy Reservoirs are on creeks of the same Hanes which are tri-
butaries of the Sabine River. The Mineola site is about 93 miles from
Denton, Lake Fork about 703 miles, and Sig Sandy abu;it 120 miles.
Lake Fork ReserYnir, which will be owned by the Sabine River
'lid Authority, is currently in the early construction stages. Water rights
n have been obtained for the use of 120,000 acre-feet per year for in-
!9 dustrial purposes (to be used for generation of power) and 44,940 acre-
feet per year for municipal and domestic purposes. Completion of the
dam is planned for the latter part of 1978. The permitted withdrawal
rate from the reservoir 1 147.2 MGD, and the total cost is estimated at
$60,0001000.2
The Mineola and Big Sandy projects are multi-purpose reservoirs for
flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhance-
ment. The projects are planned for construction by the Corps of Engi-
neers, with the Sabine River Authority as the local sponsoring agent.
The water supply yields of the protects are estimated to be 91.3 MGD
from Mineola Reservoir and 64.9 MGD froci Big Sandy. The estimated costs
of the reservoirs, including interest during cor,str0ction, are
$141,876,000 for Mineola and $52,284,000 for Big Sandy. If Denton were
to seek a supply from the Tri-Lakes system, the most likely source would
r` f be the Lake Fork Reservoir. To transport water from this protect to
Denton would require a pipeline extending from the lake to the north-
west, around the upper terminus of Lake Tawakoni, and then west to Lavon
Lake. Water would then be pumped directly from Lavon lake to Lewisville
lake as in the Sulphur Bluff plan. However, Lake Fork and the ather
reservoirs of the Tri-Lakes system would obviously be more expensive
4.9
fN[E{[ AN9 NiG HOLD
11111111 ,
al'.. Fj` i I• .
3 than the other alternative solutions. With roughly the sbirse basis; water
i
cost as Sulphur Bluff and Bois d'Arc, the Lake Fork water would reqkiire
transmission over a distance 20 miles longer than that for the Sulphur
I
Bluff system and about 40 miles longer than the transmission system froo
1
the Bois d'Arc Reservoir. Additionally, the terrain from Lake Fork to j
udvon would not be conducive to canal construction, thereby further ~i
it
tending to eliminate Lake Fork as a competitive alternate to Sulphur
Bluff. Thus, for the purposes of this plan, Lake Fork does not seem to
be competitive with either Bois d'Arc Creek or Sulphur Bluff as e
practical solution to Denton's to:g range water supply needs, and primary
attention will be focu,ed,on the latter alternatives.
4.3 Summary of Alternatives
This chapter has presented an overview of water availability ist the
North Texas river basins, with the general conclusions (a) that con-
struction of Aubrey Reservoir will more or less complete the water
development in the upper Trinity River Basin and (b) that long-range
water requirements for Denton must be met from a source in one of the
surrounding basins, Additionally. from water quality and general engi- I
peering considerations it was concluded that the probable best source of
water could be further narrowed to the Bois d'Arc Creek tributary of the
Red River and the North and South Forks of the Sulphur River. Actual
water supply facilities would take the form of either a reservoir on the
lower portion of Bois d'Arc Creek in the Red River Basin or a multiple-
stage development of the North and South Forks of the Sulphur River.
In either cases it would be anticipated that Joint sponsorship would
r occur, with Denton and others sharing the yield.
4.10
rR[c!. AND NICHOL!
Li
-
Yl ' ifi ~ 't
r
Upon initial examination, these sources appear to be quite favorable
for development. From the standpoint of quality, both sources indicate
I
a relatively high grade of water. The range of total dissolved solids
will vary from about 100 mg/l to 400 mg/l for both supplies, with the
averays around 250 mg/l for Bois d'Arc and about 100 mg/l for Sulphur
Bluff. The concentration of chlorides will vary from 10 mg/l to 60 mg/l
for both supplies, with the average at ,bout 35 mg/l. Sulphates in both
streams will range between 20 mg/l and 10 mg11, with the average at
about 35 mg/l. Biological quality in both watersheds is also quite
good. No significant domestic or industrial wastes are discharged into
these watersheds. ,With the enactment of recent Federal water pollution
control legislation the water, should continue to dean nstrate a high
degree of chemical and biological quality.
Having isolated two alternate sources of supply and having determined
a the two as being feasible from the water quality aspect, the decision as
to the specific selection will hinge on timing and estimated cost. As
to the time schedule, Denton is expected to exceed the Lewisville-Aubrey
r capability by about 1997 and will need to look toward an additional
supply at that time. Since ure of the Bois d'Arc supply would lead to
Denton accepting a major share of the financial responsibility for that
project, the reservoir and facilities could presumably be constructed
at a date convenient to Denton. It appears, at present, that the Sulphur
Bluff project may be developed in about 1942 to meet the needs of other
potential participants,2 and that date would also be generally compatible
with Denton's requirements.
1 The water quality and probable schedules of development for
4.11
L _ - _ _ _
.4 p 41!
x r rp 'fir; a + s. V o s .k t' r
Bois d'Arc Reservoir and Sulphur Bluff Stage I are acceptable for Denton 's
purposes, so cost remains the primary criterion for selection of a pre-
ferred long-range water supply. Details of the system designs and
estimated development and operation costs are covered in the next section..
i
i
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.12
/k([g[ AND NICYOLI
1
8777, 's
VELOPMEtiT.
LOS, RGC WATER SUPPLY DE
5.1 General Figure 3.1s indicates the pre-
which is an extension of the proposed
figure d conclusion that the Lewisville supply e d needs through
viously developen provide Denton swat
supply
Aubrey supply will be sufficient to }Y will be 25.1
Oenton's total available -range
time , ti"l)L the long
about 1991• At that requirement at 54.9
14GD. Placing the 2020 water lenient the Aubrey-Lewisville supply
nt will need to supp e Au supply development
■
water develop= figure 5.} illustrates a total water
by about 30 MGD. meet the 2020 requiren►ents
slightly more than enough to the necessary
of 55.7 MOD, or developed for transferring
'three alternatives have been olve the proposed Sulphur Bluff
GO to Denton. Two alternatives in I
30 M for all alter- }
sYstem and the other involves Bois d'Arc cooperation Reservoir. with other entitles,
natives, ed in coop
30 MGD would be develop ro3ect. Either or the from either the Bois d'Arc supply Sulphur Bluff p between 1990 and 1945 to ensure availability
project would be constructed be
by 1991.
to Lewisville Lake
5,2 transfer of 30 MGD ortin9 30 tiGD to Lewisville Lake
The various alternatives entorwater treatment plant will be pre,
The
plan II
eventual transfer to the designated Plan
rented in the form of three proposals,
the cooperative construction o
11I• Plans 1 and ti entail ment of transportation
and plan joint develop
and the 3 Cooper
the Sulphur Bluff 1 project originating at Sulphur Bluff } and ext+:nding through 4
facilities 5,1
-ter
DENTON
WATER SUPPLY ..SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT TO YEA0 2020
(r'pr
6Q
LONG NOE
' SUPPLY M 9 0
V
~ I
AVOW IVPNLV
tf,2MGD ~
l.f M B D DENTON VIE F! FROM THE
' EMISTING LEW E IESERYOI
0
1910 1980 1900 YEAR 2000 2010 2020
F"tt69 AND NICHOLS
FIGURE S.1
711111111, Mi 1,7 1,"-
at Lewisville Lake. Plan li would
Reservoir and Lavon Lake, terminating
differ from Plan I in that Plan II would call for canal delivery from
pipeline- Plan
Cooper Reservoir to Lavon Lake instead oio oofeBo s d A c water for
ll
11I would provide for pipeline transmiss
release into an upper tributary of the Elm fork above the proposed
Aubrey Reservoir.
in the ensuing pagQs* a detailed description of each proposed
system is presented, with specifics given on system designs
significant
estimates. Associated with each plan is a figure outlining
aspects of the system design concept.
1 5.2.1 Plan t
plan 1, illustrated in figure 5.2, consists of constructing
pipeline from Sulphur Bluff Stage I Reservoir to Cooper Reservoir, a
pipeline from Cooper Reservoir to Lavon Lake, and a pipeline from Lavon
t would be developed Jointly
Since the supply
take to Lewisville Lake.
with others, the pipelines from Sulphur Bluff to Cooper and from Coo e
renter than
to Lavon would be constructed with capacities a afore, be constructed
MGD Denton requirement. The pipelines wo
with Denton owning a share proportional to the fraction of the pipeline
awould
capacity needed by Denton. The pipeline from Lavon to Lewisville
nnual
be built solely by Denton at a capacity of 30 MGD. The estimated
Included in
costs to Denton for Plan 1 are summarised in Table
the pipeline from Sulphur
this table are the costs for the basic Coopepl to Lavon and the pipeline
Bluff I to Cooper, the pipeline from
ants are based on
from Lavon to Lewisville. Principal adinterest
the SSulphur 81uff I
34! year honds at a 7% rata. The Denton sharc
5.2
reuse ENO hiitNOLI J
y
J ry.V sr
v
I'r" • .n A 7 r r - v V ~'r.r .r! i r 1\. i . . 5. 7
fr Fv. , tii 1° i ,.<j e... ,n
. y` 'l 7 ....°.:ar' i'. • . t" a t„' r:5 t 8-. .✓'k. .r v 777, 1r'Jr
i
r 1 " j FAR z.. ~
•"r~•., / , E.`q .Y ~..=r ::a-. ~ y ir'. ) ,7 w. .Y i' .,y"~. < , ':^s P
l
11
19
1 iA I ~ ~..J x
MOSS AI IAMr N AF Af S ,1
corr[I ! 3 4 M q i cr'a<. {-'~~1~f
W ScAkf 14 MRIS
Mu uRI C
1
v ~ it a:' t ! ~ i ~ 'I ~ )
nP4 al~ooa/> ~ ~~i..,,•'s(.S,R
h 11
t o 1 7,~y~ I R
7",
R , ~ vAttly J`J AONwF LEGEND
M
WAiINfHED BOUNDARY
k"I
I" GICANTkIl
r i `'r I v i• r COIIHEY SOIINIDAIY
1fA1.piR,. r / I~ I~r r I ,
1. -°t A _ _ ~ R~rar I r •n ~ F ~ 0 ~ rlu rte 1 I ~~-•I~ E IIYUS
T `
ff
11 , I I Ezisfwb Ilutnals
" A+ I 5 , O S~,` f N ``t- b + ~f 1 l _ - l ~t
t ! n 1•..,\ V ti •ti y e~ )1 Z / _ - rr...N J+. a f.., i r 1 ` A 1 { /IMUD alstivomS
l RI r r\.. - y...j 1 r el C O 1 ~,I, i ~,:.'I . f ♦ 'a. / i A N I It N...._..~ ` l.! ►A0103l0111'ElN[
R t IAOCerdt L ucrf N ry r li" 1 4 ~j,~ lE N T= aixsw,v 0J U
Sir
01 ls' I Y/EINE<NAG1Y
~y i'~ • ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~'i J f'~ ~ CGOffR RE~rw:)N' t A ~,,e~J ~ r ~ C -t_..il n>,hn veo /b<MON
~H,.rl " 1N+s1lr o , ~ rl ~ ~ in -u.A~ A ~ 1[stRKmR ' ~'1r ( J - • MIAG! "KY
WA7 wl"l
I' C} YIMV fYAT10N
fMA7Mf," KA•M[ 3 ~y tlwn R} 1 € F p1r 1 f/NN"r VE k t Y l n r R ~ J•! UfIN
f tir \ C A[I! A r,~'~b~ 1 CNCCtiv)4LP H ~I t •r•~; j j1 r I ` ,
IAMON KMr l49 . Y-=1.....e 19i1 /A ~ •7l s''yl~E16 v~ V'1 S/` ~PtijS tsM Q SOOStII STA?*N
[.NI ( *r f 3r PN'R!l of Mmow
SIwWANOC
1 i I / M 0 p U Di ,1 1 r
'1 ~hr f , S~ ~ 1 1 t ( ''''1\ ~ SA IXIN ~R r
VX#11F FI
,I IARf •
s K E R ; uuE rrK usiMRVaE7' a r:n n, ~a n rM1~.1 1 t: ^A'F'>> \ + I
MAY LIhIX' SN 4 c.,:.y'
• b 1 QS A._,~ Fa \ ~ IRI S P -~('~p`•• \ Elu~ Chits'
ARf S R~.. 1 .i', .ta, y) a / 1• 7 IARI ` ` 1..., r 11 AI IvOM C: ' I 9
- ~c, , w - 1``` ; - SAMMNOrRI
J [ARF ;
w IARI WCRYN r..MC' fr NUlefp \>.`4 Fu'J`r ~~._...,..._.e_.... 1 tq ' v Y
wA ^tnlyd0 WWNS
r ~ t_ ' r.,t tiC r, - 7 ;r r' r' O E E a • v \ _ ~t r I. /b1iE~R
/ r , 31R, 1 - • ) IOUM,AM a, " ES (I ~ Atu1Y01R 4 f^
J I la, q C '•''yi'u:ln r7 A E lAR•10'
t rH d M ! ( l 1 N j~, 7NeiFdi r jJ
1 ~r
I \
I' i 'Jr d r. r M1 ♦n!i Y 1'-~ •l a` 'tsa 71I)F'r'!~~'
,
F A, t~tMER T
TARE •C.( t IAR ';.r~-~•^' `t~ } ~ ` , ~ ~ ,.1 tl `1 ~....,1
J
'•--"3 IACIMGrGN , t { Y r
J q(~.
~ \ •tN1AGOR t~ ~ "f j J.' IARe
I `l
.N
A A ..c 1 1vA. i, 1 av1r, G .71. p n 1 x (O<ADOO IAII
r'-.. _`S i r it._.a Tr J A!;.rl v.• ' A. `~<lA/! 1
c O h - _ N l r
H n 4 1 r vs VV [ANI
Gl A0l WA7l f fad f
fffAS
r ,
N I 1 r 1
elKnMr C 'C, Y I w r ' to f DfN10N T
f 1 A -~r~ R t---.- , I LONG-RANGE
«A V
1 ~1 ; tt^ r s t)
1 `SQUAW [cRrIN ` WATER SUPPLY STUD
Its" [ -1 ♦.,.,,•ra~vM r, i( 4 Il i A. ,.1 ♦r~ ! ~/•1~ ~f 1 \y Ar 1 f
A , 1
1i„ , - r r ~ ~/MMNAMACyIE l C n1 i.~ i- ~ F
< c tAY E N j N
IARI ►Ai ` AAADw[ll j it} r..~,( 1` .v. ti u~~yl, t~~r )
IAKI
CAICA-RR , CNI►JrIE F^ 1- LAN I DEVELOPMENT
J
1
Y t / r AMN01rr% 1 r F 1
MflRVOAI i1 IfaFlf LYI~I' 1 N~ O l}, P
;F q~E l .1 r ? /+i l! [rlt1,, MU11tn (i / T`
A$I
I
tl k ! T
LADS
E ,
l f • 1 1 y
t. l~ r, r 1 '{j- ~ Y~ E f. t f' 1 r~ FC E E SE AND
r I NICHOIs
Consulting In inter$
DIcI
wwiiKFr . gtARf. ~ y
\ rl NiseA~nrs - 1 r y { r rnbv, 1975
MEN.
b` k , lr • i ! " s\\.~. .-j -
4
• i , 1"r R. , 1 f r" I n, 1,.~ 7 AI~~ iii. 1. ; +,f ,ntn r / ctnlcR m MuR V.ul tANI_... /
-1 ~r r r M1,. / r s k 1 ~ Il5(RVON S~
P 1
.1 , lAtf "I,
1 ~ t
J ~ r
--~l~•+,;-~;rx ! i / s ♦ >t ~r~q,..-..! ♦
~d
\ `7
. 10 \ \ < .I y4 1 1 c taroo $lvo
Q. .Sa U E f cy•; 7z •lilfv~yl
' ~ ^ - FIGURE 5 .1
747 ~77~
r
Table 5.1
Lstimated Annual Cost of Plan 1
i'rans ort n o aw titer rom
Sulphur u I to Ow sv a Reservo r vipeline
' Sul hur Bluff Water Su 1
Pr ncipai b Interest on 201639.400
Operation and Maintenance Cost 51.6639300
32 700
►~6
Raw Water Pipeline from Sul hur Rluff I
eservo r to ao er eservo r est on Power @a2.50 perrKWH for delivery0of 30 MGD $ 18+3,200
Labor 221,400
Pump Station Maintenance 1.540
Pipeline Maintenance 6,300
800
424.2
Raw Water Pi
to avon ~peline from cooper Reservuir
ai cue
r nc pa nterest on $5,964,300 $ 480,700
' Power @ 2.51 per KWH for delivery of 30 MGD 514,900
Labor
Pump Station Maintenance 70,600
Pipeline Maintenance 19 300
W ; 6TH:3W',
Raw Water Pi Del ine from La von Lake to
ew sv a La e
p rnca Interest on $10,023,200 $ 880,300
ower @ 2.5¢ per KWH for delivery if 30 MGD 449,400
Labor
Pump Station Maintenancq 28,400
0 Pipeline Maintenance T8,300
5 000
,3 , 0
' Estimated Annual Lost - Plan I $4,5209200
Note: All costs represent Denton's share if respective items.
i -
5.3
/RME APD NICNOI1
w AT._; t g., CAS r: :9
water cost would,W $20,639,400, calcuIatad on the basis of Denton re-
ceiving 30 MGO of Ithe 107.4 MG0 yI'od, or: '"a ratio of 301107.4 of the
Sulphur Bluff I cost of $730897,000. Including its share of the operation
and maintenance cost, Denton would pay $1,696 AD annually for the
Sulphur Bluff I supply. it
The pipeline from Sulphur Bluff 1 to Cooper would be 66 inches in
diameter, would be about 9 miles in length, and would have a capacity of
1 101,4 MGD. 1he total capital cost for this pipeline would be $8,359.800,
of which Denton would have a $2,334,900 share based on Denton's 30 MGD
poA lon of a toW -capacity of 107.4 MGD. Using ".his capital cost as a
basis for c.:lculat-Ing a principal and interest cost of $188,200 and
adding power cost, labor, and m,T`intsrance, the total annual payment would
amount to $424,200 for the'taw water line from Sulph,w Bluff I to Cooper
Reservoir.
The raw water pipeline from Cooper to Lavon would We a diameter of
90 inches, a total length of about 'I miles, and would have a capacity
of 212 MGD. The 212 MGD includes wa`ar developed from both Cooper and
r Sulphur Bluff I. Yne total annual cost to Denton for ft pipeline
installation and operatirn would be $1,618,600, including the ,snnual
principal and interest payment of $480,100 calculated from Dent6n1s
$1,9649300 share of the total $42,150,800 pipeline cost.
The raw water line from Lavon Lake to Lewisville Lake would bit
wholly purchased and operated by Denton, The pipeline would have a
diam.ater of 42 inches to carry a flow of 30 MGD, and a length of 23,9
miles. The total capital cost of this line would bit $10,923,2OJ, on
which the principal and interest payment would be $860,300. Including
a
5.4
volt tot AN0 NoCMOL►
wt ILL
7y1' jrlAS~IIa y iY' f~ ? B~
9 x
power, labor, and maintenance costs, tie total anr~jal parent for this
section would be $1,381,400.
Combining the annual Sulphur Bluff water supply cost of $1.6969000,
the Sulph+ar Stuff to Cooper pipeline cost of $424,2009 the Cooper
i Rese:rrcSr to Lavoh Lake pipeline cost of $19018,6009 and the pipeline cost
from Lavon Lake '.o Lewisville Lake of $1,381,400, the total annual cost
for Plan I would be $40520,200. Supporting data for all costs tabulated
1 in Table 5.1 are located in Appendix B. i
5.2.2 Plan ll
Plan It is illustrated in Figure 5.3. As in Plan I, Plan II
involves bringing 30 MG0 from Sulphur Bluff 1 through Cooper Reservoir
Lake to Lewisville Lake. The distinguishing feature between
and Lavon
Plar."l and Plan II is the transfer of water from Cooper. Reservoir to
Won Lake. Plan' It utilizes the same system'desipn as does Plan I
' except that a canal would replace the pipeline between Cooper and Lavon.
' Given a topography conducive to canal construction and operation, a
canal,can be designed to carry a large flow at a lower capital cost than
a pipeline of comparable capacity. Additionally, since the conveyance
charadteristics of a canal are more favorable, power costs for canal
operation are less than for pipeline operation.
The terrain between Cooper Reservoir and Lavon Lake :aes prove to
' be suitable for canal construction. The canal would originate on the
' south snore of Cooper Reservoir near the dam, would then continue west
roughly to the Sulphur- abine Basin bound-ry, and proceed nortis:isterly
to Arnold Creek, a tributary to the East Fork of the Trinity River abode
Lavon Lake. The total length would be about 39 miles, and it would be
5.5
rRtt,t AND NiC.10U
1
s
I rc ^ sY^ Y! 'ire r('+ ,:.x < Xy. y ~J :°'~k r 1 , t A.,♦ r
•,~,>rf ~k~. J +Yt +t ( Its 'ti gv\g `r. A e I ,r.~ 'X Y ' I tr ,v..
1, y
1 Ar
1
hX~ ?1' fir E 1.,... ~.r1fL Xn)itrrtiMl "L..f Z.. f
POL
MAT
1 ( I 7~ .`f 1 r I Y 5 y r 1i .Sl°tLA01 f' M A; /S k w.nK u.rf N Mcn
'I f t ,
LARI
II
✓ 1N 1 1~ t ~ 'r',~ tt ! ~ C y r~r~ ~r I ~ 'n '1 ✓1 1 Y $-m--~~. _~r
k
i ION C t h
t
P r ( _ IA[ MF t i , y' E A v
1 EGE~ih
IAkt X "k ` 1 A rlv _ "ice/N. ~1
Vd11
+~A GCAAr~R l ( / ` I?..a 1 1 l I S Y ( I ,t p Itr `l v( E15M10 1WHDAtY
COU
V I Sn. to 1 NSr
L..._._:.?
,
I t ` .i ~ , + i ~ ; T r 1 .,J f. I..i r. ,If NrUAuc~11rs~•.('~i \ :ice ` ` ,jD I J. ' dIa1DA
I N I r t S ~ ~ - 1
w.
1 `c 1 D s ` i n 1A131710 I lsltvo
1 1, VA. tr H~y Q Rya U
r (f I ,
f•'~ lt. f Y, ~ A f t ~Lf v' ►[MOltO ItIEIYCMRi
I ♦ } / `
' ly ({I IAkI y) L 1 i i. V E;. rf~_.: t)
'I /+P.. ~ t~ \ ~ 1 '
I f
ADaIMAt 'J i:r.E~U`, r, yXlf J f r (y f t11frKN ll~ft1+ NKL~IN4 ,y~
'Y'•' IEi01~i1ED MINE
R 7 " \ ,.W If s As !k'rOr~ i 1 l $A. 1, t • 1,. ~ ' .
~J ~F`4„ f Q" ~AkA
/ ,1 CmA. 31
♦Sf Fnr* J I Ikli A yr -J1 l._.. ...•r• i' -.1 l
t 1. ^a1N10H VIA?" ♦ r,.. p1`'. rl`;4t.'I I ",r ^,y f /e ~frtih ~ X~ ~ y•- .Ce IRCiIOIttQ
IIt1A1M1141 nA t 7 •j ! S i r j r r ` r ' ~ M J (p11A41 Os CANAS
4 Ir" Al \ r Q R R I S r. Am
S uu wACrrY oCkTVrt
~.yi~ 1 s Arse (iA \JAII q "rrr yi~~'0 0 b d r~V I1I e>r,!vtr E t 1^• ~+.e.
i15~1' 1 /`N'+l'l` ~`n~! I AYEA AG! f1+Y1iY
ta
It 4,~
o I'r.: 4. r ~J s ' :,ggrKrlro s • • ; 1 t t 1 •
l1 1 'Fy;J 1
^rw Y i I[Atrpt I 3'C411% ! U fuAV 1{Nt7N
CfMr
vM;. bb G~N[k
1 l,(rri 1 1 A Sn
C T I~ ~~W.A t AOOITEI IUTIO.N
l [VdA
701 'A
fw JtT 18 I,~ Utl STATIONIMI TI • J. lFrF LI11 y
WUrAkONI [All
lf0 PwtrrN-raa
LA,
Alt
~ A' G E+ r:, / S-' \I nX;,.ra 11X1 r►Ywi fa. R `T• .•,6
/rjf S
( \
r~c►n kl a... rM1 r. M` s ~fcc rrv v
I
1 i
wvoN
_i/~~r ( ` A[N/AQQA . / ry•4P `t d 1, 1 ~ , , .a M.kt ' ~ `~t
/
..jX:.:.., _.;N+ I..tblvtM {X~ r:;o U I % ~l ~ ,s,~t\tx11o« ~t ~ r 1.:. ~ • ~ N A F,'~,~ t 0 N
7 1 + [ t( ~ ,yJ
C&NO IAII
r. _
....r.' r TlWkt+b «AOr,v.n f . t
t~~AA; 0, n
N y~~,,_ , ~1 oE;ttok,r
LAM
GnIM?vPr +1, l[ ~ wt -
i , I 1( P J E' `4 J. LONG-RANGE
~ \ 11 ~ ~ Mdrr ir,trnr r ✓ b~ ~ ~ ~II t J vi N J`.r 1. Fr t 4 ..-r '
S 1(ti l
A' IF X • I it 1 / r
K=,rC i i,:,,a A,eIA r it, ~ { v
. j WADER SUPPLY STUDY
bOUA' N D 'y~ r" '1~ t_~,✓~ II ~~TM~ y
~~~t" ~ruiukNt~~~`, ~grgkAn.2Nd -H ~.._'C
1 r// ,ilW ~..f~ty yro. ~It / \\71118111 ri NO Cwol~ RI(q E' / r`'w' p~ "T • ANI ..Y f~lrpr' 3 / ~„,....."i
"l PLAN ~VI
t{tj3 E r✓ /F'°
it, A A CN1AOk I J' l X N~ 0 t
If
T
g5 `
s4 / cr '1; 1 / q VF1 n
14 M1 I TnMb IA}I rF
t tf l rruri
1 / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 47 .r i=~v ((,,1ljALltlj
i IT l 4kr
k ; I
I 41~ ; 4 ~',r L;. I rytsrne '}I~ E A 1?~r F E \ I Y
fIA, l (pp~ ^ { ^''TnA e l /BEES! AND NICt~OtS
/ if
CR! Y. r, I t
r,• r' ~onwllinp E In•fE/
MN.INEY 7 + + 1
1 er ar i A s
Z• trs.ArOIA, ' NArAfAO Mfllb l.. ~ a H + J
I, rWF 1 l • ' r e ° C J D•anl6ar 1973
\ r XXl v ,r r / -I FX~ L r ( • CAl1A AJ1,j
I v ~ I Il4 1 Y ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 X I inr+.,... k ktvOM Y ~
40
A
LAtl
M I n i, •J~ / ,y 111 ~J sl ,
41,
art 3, 1 Id IDO t1YD -
( X
MUSE 5.3
r , i fir r
1 ✓ "yA
built to carry. 307 MGD, the combined yield of Cooper, Sulphur Bluff t
and Sulphur Bluff ll excluding the quantity of water to remain in the
Sulphur River Basin. Although the total supply to be developed in the
Sulphur kiver Basin up to 2020 will include only the Cooper and Sulphur
' Bluff I yields, the canal should be constructed to handle the combined
yield from Cooper, Sulphur Bluff 1 and Sulphur Bluff 11.
Costs associated with Plan 11 are shown in Table 5.2. Canal costs
' are estimated on the basis of Denton's 30 MGD share of 212 MGD, the supply
to be transported west from Cooper and Sulphur Bluff 1. The capital
cost of the canal attributable to Denton would be $4,565,700, on which
the principal and interest payment would be $367,900. Including power,
labor, and maintenance, the total annual cost to Denton for transporting
$744,500. Taking
30 WD from Cooper Reservoir to Lavon take would be
the other costs, including the basic water supply, the raw water line
from Sulphur Bluff to Cooper, and the raw water line from Lavon Lake to
Lewisville' Lake, the total annual cost would be $4,242,100. Individual
costs are further amplified in Appendix B.
5.2.3 Pl an I. I I
Plan 111, illustrated in Figure 5.41 involves transfer of 30 MGD
froo the proposed Bois d'Arc Reservoir to the proposed Aubrey Reservoir.
' An 84.3 MO yield for Bois d'Arc Reservoir i3 assumed in Plan III on
the premise that the full a pability of the to-servoir would 10 utilized,
with no reserve storage remaining after thn crit'cal periA. The yield
during a severe drought would be 66.9 MGD with a reserve equal to one
year's use remaining in storage at the end of the critical period. For
proper comparison with the Sulphur Bluff I project, the yield of
5.6
AND Wt.NOll -
Table 5.2
Estimated Annual Cost of Plan II
Trans orting 30l MGD oTaaterr r(;1 Sulphur Bluff to
Lewisville Reservoir at z ng om ne ana_ an oe ne stems
' Sulphur Bluff Water Su 1
r nP-i cTp~ nd~terest on 0,639,400 ;1,663,300
' Operation and Maintenance Cost 329700
9696j000
Raw Water Pipeline from Sulphur Bluff I
il`mservo r to 0o er Reservoir
Pr ipa Interest on $10334,900 $ 1889200
Power @ 2.54 per KWH for delivery of 30 MCD 221,400
Libor 7,500
Pump Station Maintenance 69300
Pipeline Maintenance 800
T'424,200
' Canal 5 st from Cooper R160, _+%r_voir to Lavon Lake
P`rinncipa interest on E $ 367,900
Power @ 2.54 per KWH for delivery of 30 MGD 2999900
Maintenance @ 1.5% of Capital Cost 689500
Labor 4 200
1
Raw Water Pipeline from Lavon Lake to b
eC wis`v e
Pr nc pa Lake
n Brest on $10,923,200 $ 880,300
Power @ 2.54 per KWH for delivery of 30 MGD 4+19,400
e Labor 28,400
Pump Station Maintenance l8j300
Pipeline Maintenance 6 000
Estimated Annual Cost - Plan II $4,2429100
Note: All costs represent Denton's share of respective items.
Y 5.7
FR[U9 AND %'GNO1, -
~~1"~'r~~Tr~ ✓9~IC'u "S-a r" c'3. f r'~,. y" r; .i:
p "r r '~"Y' A ~e , i r} 1 . t.. e~ , •,,r , ^~p, 9 0,, t .-y r . iy:, 1 • , 1-.. a ,
A[ / - llliiii
P:
F r ~ ~ coin 3 ,
r 1 E q! ryR JI
~r M ~z S!' h E 1AK1 tuoMA pod
z ;r y
moss
1AA1 S .ri \ y{ ' r`'^'~M MAYryyFF J F 1 7 f 10 1,
ell, _ r. t /G, n.,..,nM rY/3Y/"/ If S1 t.Q R~" IQ e'A~-.w,.•"f
` I ~ql 1 j corrN. f y f~ ( u.n«c ►cA1r N Mills
r' F~ w• K 1 ! 7 R
.
t ( ✓ •1 C F) f~ Y Ciow/~' F f / - ~r ? 1
R S Y 1 la [,a P1 A ti~ k[ N ^y
r / I y Y
` Yr ' i~,. l lt'Trt + ~ F r[ I ~...r• D IF r a l
`i..~~ ,t I~ m f c • c I 111 ! t l r fr R LEGEND
1 + f G!• KJIS D•AK~ F 1 9
1Ar1 t ` n tl 1 //P 5 fI.F N-Df [I YW
. •f p j r .R ~j j' ~f i INAMED LWNGIY
t'fM:w.GUI[ R \ f r r.[t fF: w D y f'1'(~.S ~ \ I 41
..A1I. COUNTY IOtrrrDAlY
1. t , ~1 ~Ir~. Y• al..~r-11Ir, J (nr:. f [ = of sr r i .a..•~',. r ~C~rq~~Y INLAk
x • , ~.r. ~ 1,
w 1 ~ ~ ~ T ,fl `i~ l\ - '1 - -a ' y._ r•~~1 \.EV~t,'r~^ ~LtlsrlNO Ersclvun3
~ A s
\ ` G 3}1I y I t"~/y•-~,~ rk[NOSFD il3l tvDlti
k 1 j 4 [ 1
'RA N K Ih D. r v }It~ ""'++JJ-'+S -'\3.^
f I [ oc(MIT ,r r r ~ \•r i ' ~ / ` ! y~` I~ j`~ / + F YI f R._ I ~ _ \ d ;J..__.. IEWOSLD EIFLlR1E
r li 3
[l isilrr wyw,llr 7lrllM(AfAGLC~DEH/ON
• F''~ JJ 044r wAr a- M.•,w.:•. , F. j ' Y / `~.r MKlAGE lANMY
1 TRIA1Ml N1 FtA4t
tlwn II Y f I . ` . t k M D R R R I S rAer N i?...---
o
EE wK ua i s . N p ~ ~,wrr ~rlrl E t ~ ~ 1 l ~ ~ ruwst~r+Or+
\ hr \1
3 ` `t (
wwr nr«c111A r S -__-0 - Eaoslel nAiFt!/
1AVpN Ii
SCfrdll, ~ F f t r
It ~
zNGR' .p r AONn_ta o I " R
LAIII
• a ..-~.T.. T r r ~r,~,.~ ~r~ r~` ~`\i~ ~ / L{}r } 11:1114
r [[Gi F iIN f}$1CIIg f I ' , I f f A y , M1 `F.
' ~ \ -f....__u.. ,~L M 1 I
a .1 i'.... f • A'n',IT
4 f Y yK f R uK! r uA+lw ~1{~Y,Q[~1 _ a 1 r } i J '
IAGLI MiN, rIKfN'1,R f' c J ^ _ `l 7 i i..11 . 1,: .,i o L it XN
w' 9 A,
r I
'R T ` ~t err R7 AYfI lAR! till RYairrK~ 1
~ wt A7N1aa0 w'plfN Cllr ♦S Nur1A1D `.1 - A tAYn ltd+l tv, FA[f ,8f
R')CMWAIf 'l M>s`t~ j " 166~r w1JAKL N iJ~R -ioH.o~arl'r t
Ea .4. M1 f~ Frttryt»t
i!`"~i...- ' • ` k t 7•..Y ~1 n'\ .MA to AN
1
r '
r•. . yKto. ~]t M '.1
F ra r,
' t 111 •t.rr. fft N V - 'r' V ~j b U 1 " ly{Y!
, 10
1
rl , l , A fr1"cfE 'p~ 1{z,~~r 004's
~1 {i.e~MCroN _ AAI~< 1 ~.Z. ~'.tt 1 t t ` f ( , rrrFA .t'yl M
t / t ' v
I ~ r ~ 1
1 llNrloa~ ~ + r 1 Ana ~ ( ~ ~ f
! > AFf.tV01 qd :h# r'IJ S Artrroa _
7 /N A Ii ~A <1
yk_ A
S '
CADDO IArI
un
.14
~[~nArvr~3t-_ u~~?rrr ` ~`a A,l DENTON, TEXAS -
< 1 , o d o ~x , ,
r ~
ANS i r a ( a ~ i I ~
~n
LONG -RAN]E
10 4
>d0u.(If1K V.I . VdADO A S 4i ~ ►1 ! L 1t
N~;,iei: r1.v [ t f ✓~T ER A1~Ppi
~r
y ,
tG i ~5.`, !r: CIlfURNI k0 l ~ \ ~ roK FY K t'' Y ~ y F•... J i~x,:. /,r .,.,-•rl
ANK 111
+ '-r AlDwtllou f oAr C 1FIR IAI! r PLANT
ttsrrv lorn J n~I-- P
♦ t cM
OP Fr 7
nlu or -
L~`~1
~ ~~,`i r ~ r r f < IAKt P, Il y 0 I
r fo
r., 1
- y ^ K IAAf MANILA. r
' r o AINi NS fr. flat r L'e,14%
\L ~1 iti~. k ~r•-~ na, n'.,r AN r UKf _...t 1
l~ ` ! Y 4 4 ' ~a ei tr RIFD4D ' `l~ \ *rf 1 -HV Y
- f
i R ;1• AND \t' N,Y~ :tr ~t J6 1 j t, rComuhinp En I'•AiS
MNI
r431 f+0U1 i r"U. A'I N.vAlrO M41S - , _k iARf Y r i <:a~l {btu mbrr, 19715 I'l JIM vcqv
rM' y In•.' ! , r 1 E ` A tlurve[t f Mutrnu Fe[f
S ~ 8 C ~ _ v ~ ~~~FFF c ,
Grp ` 4 eu'1 ` r-r.,_.'1
i V M I',' d' ' ` f 1,,' ♦ C J . ` 1 f
s.'.,wz, i ~ ~ \ ~ ! / ~ r,f•..., , t.' N ~ IN KSONV4IF r fi t\\
[
~ ~ ~ s ,v C. ~t zf i, ~ IrxFt~/lam
1 y I j r;
E~ * FIGM 5 !
iP { rr^'~ y --I-
] Y~ v
317 ~~Tj v,
' which :s estimated on the basis of no'reserves the 84.3 MGO yie' will
ba utilized for calculating Bois d'Arc'water costs.
the plptline for this project would run from Bois d'Arc Reservoir
to a point south of Sherman and would continue from that point to the
upper portion of Range Creek, which is a tributary of the Elm Fork of
the Trinity River upstream from the Aubrey site. The portion of pipe-
line from Ibis d'Arc to Sherman, running a total distance of 34 miles,
would be 60 inches in diameter to accommodate the full yield of
4 Bois d'Arc Reservoir, 84.3 MGD. At Sherman, 25 MGD would by taken off
4 to supply the Sherman-Denison area. The remaining 59.3 MGD would be
pumped about 9 miles to Range Creek through a'pipt'ine 54 inches In
diameter. It will be assumed that 29.3 MGD would be sold to other cities
and water districts in the region. Although the 30 MGD to Denton is
assumed to be a reasonable estimate of the City's long-range needs, the
' 25 MGD to the Sherman-Denison area is more variable and may, depending
on area needs, be supplemented by or may in fact be a supplement tc the
29.3 MGD which will go to Lewisville Lake.
I . Estimated costs for this plan are presented 0 Table 5.3. All
1 I
costs are calculated using a fraction representing Denton's proportional
share of the water supply or water supply facilities. Denton's 30 MGD
share of the Bois d'Arc supply would cost $9,818,300, from which would
result a principal and interest payment of $796,100. Including operation
■ and maintenance, the annual cost for the bas►c rater supply would be
■ $825,1009 The capital cost to Centon of the pipeline system would be
G $11,028,600, which wool' create a principal and interest payment of
$888,800. Including all principal and interest payments and power,
5,8
►hetsr ANO NICHOLs
Table 5.3
r Estimated Annual Cost of Plan !ti
Trans or n 3 D o Raw ater nom
Bois d'Arc Reservoir to ew sv1 a eseryo r Vy Pipeline
Bois d'Arc Reservoir Water Supply
Pr nc pa interest on 9,878,300 $ 7969100
r Operation and Maintenance Cost @ .3% of
capital cost 29 600
Raw Water Pipeline - Bois d'Arc Reservoir
r to Sherman Takeoff i
Principal n erest on $8,176,600 $ 6590000
Power @ 2.54 per KWH for delivery of 30 MGD 5979300
Labor 19,300
Pump Station Maintenance 1O00
Pipeline Maintenance 4600
Raw Water Pipeline from Sherman. Takeoff
to Tubre
r r nc pa Interest on $2,852,000 $ 229,800
■ Power 0 2.54 per KWH for delivery of 30 MGD 307,900
Labor 12,100
Pump Station Maintenance 8,000
Pipeline Maintenance 43300
9.1 DO
r Estimated Annual Cost - Plan iii $2.681,000
Notes: Costs frxn Bois d'Arc to Sherman Takeoff are brsed'on Denton's
30 MGD pry*,. rata share of the 84.3 MGO Bois`d'Arc supply.
Cost from`Sherman Takeoff to Range Creek is based on Denton's
r 30 MGD pro rata share of the 59.3 MOD flow.
1
r
r
5.9
/N[l/i AND NICHOL$ - -
f'r I a r 7 ` v' .w3 yy
>~T! u~ I 1 A y1 9 .1Y
w w
labv~l, and maintenance costs, the Bois d'Ar~c supply would carry an
annual cost of $2 GS1;000. Specifi, eta s'on costs of the system
components are contained in Appendix
Presented below is a tabulation of the annual costs for transporting
30 MGD of water by the three proposed plans to Lewisville lake for
eventuei transfer to Denton:
Plan Source Annual
Cost to Denton
' of 30 MGD
I Sulphur Bluff I $405200200
' lI Sulphur Bluff I $4,242,100
rtI Bois d'Arc $2,681,OOD
Tible 5.4 presents a summary of the schedules of development for and
' pertinent data on the three alternative systems proposed for delivering
the Denton long-range water requirements to Lewisville Lake.
5.3 Delivery to Denton Water Treatment Plant
Shown in Figure 5.5 is the schedule of develo
pment for the con-
veyance system from Lewisville Lake to the Denton Water' Treatment Plant.
With the existing pumping capacity and the newly installed 30-inch
pipeline, the maximum delivery rate is 25.2 14GO. At' the protected rate
of, growth, the potential peak-day demand will exceed this capacity by
1976. As was recommended previously in "Report on Water Supply System,"
1974, the City should increase the pumping capacisu In the very near
future in order to accommodate the potential peak-day demand.8 By
replacing raw water pumps No. 2 and No. 3 with pumps of 8.0 MGD capacity
and by installing 1090009000 gallons of terminal storage with a 4.0 MGD
a
6.10
FMMI ENO NICHOU
ry`i ~J war+`"~Y iat rZ +f r~ ^ " 1
«ff.. iy ! M
r y d J~ r '77
Table 5.4
Denton Lon Range Water Su
Trans?ir'ot _TT ~bnF1 6, 8 Teo-., 1 ake
Plan Phase Year of Capacity Denton
Completion (MGD) Share Size Length
(Inches) (Miles)
1 Pipeline-Sulphur Bluff I
to Cooper 1992 10.4 30
Pipe line-Cooper to Lavon 1993 212.0, 30 966 6 8.7
p
Pi eiine-Lavon to 32.5
Lewisville 1945 30.0 30 42
23,9
11 Pipeli6e4ulphur Bluff i
= to Cooper 1992 107.4
Canal-tooper' to Lavon 1984 307.0 330 0 H%A 3$8 1 .7
Pipeline-L4von to
8
Lewisville 1993 30.0 30 42 23.9
fI1 Pipeline-Bois d'Arc to
Sherman 1995 84.3 30 60
Pipeline-Sherman to Range 34.0
Creek (which empties
into proposed Aubrey
Reservoir) 1995 5.3 30 54 8.6
J
J
.
Will I Elm
ts•4 777777~"
t
7,wl~47 1j,
NDA WATER PUMP
FF
SUPPLY Ii NE DEV F.lOAMNT
175 r
f
ISO
I
t
125 iUF' 1' HE ANd I
q PUMP Stl MN DEVELGtMtN
f
0 100
$ _i--_
75
50
25
r ~
. rte'
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 ,
YEAR
AND NICND,.f
FIGURE 5.5
714 7.1
11 ~1if t pump statlor►0 it is estimated that the raw water transmission t
in at about 36.5 MGO, a rate sutfi-
i'acllities would be capable of PUMP 9
r cient to meet the peak demand through 1982.
!'onstruction on a second intake structure and ;going station
should be started in about 1980 in order to be in cparation by 19824
As determined by the trrAd projected in Figure 5.59 Denton will require
126 MGD of additional capacity to meet the 2020 demand. future studies
` will i,ave to determine the final configuration of the proposed intake
i
structure and pumping station but it will be assumed for costing pur-
poses that an intake structure with the f»ll 125 MGD capacity will be
built and pumping units will be added in two increments, one of 50 MGD
in 1980 and another of 75 MGD in the year 2000.
Pipeline construction will also follow the schedule indicated in
Figure 5.5. In 1980, a 42" pipeline should be built to parallel the
existin? 21" and 301, pipelines. In the year 2000, a 481pipeline would
be laid parallel to the pipelines existing at that time. The 42" and
48" pipelines would have a combined capacity of 126 MGD.
Table 6.5 is a summary of coats associated with the transfer 1980
MOD from Lewisville Lake to the Denton Water treatment Plant. The
55
r development would have a capital cost of $4jOb3,200, on which the princi-
pal and interest would be $321,500. Including operatitn and maintenance
costs and assuming an annual average flow of 28 MGD, the annual cost of
this system would be $590,800. The year 2700 development would cost
$3,401,900 for an additional 15 MGD of pumping capability. Principal anu
interest on this amount would be 6214,200. Assuming an average delivery
rate of 21 MOD for this portion of the plant, the total of principal and
e
5,12 ,I
I
s t
r u > 1' t Hf 1
interest and operation and maintenance would place the annual cost at
$4 5,.]300. " The combined 1980 ai rd 2000 development', which would have total
capability of 126 MGD, would cost $1,06,600 per year assuming an annual
average flow of 65 MG00
Table 6.5
Estimate n u l Cost of
rT ans-or rt~i a 55 HGD
Lewisville Lake to the Denton water real201; Plant
1980 Development - Stage I
Construct 125 MOD pump station (50 MOD capacity installed) and
4211 pipeline
Principal 6 Interest on $400631,200 $ 327,500
Power Q 2,6d per KWH for delivery of 20 MOD 227,800
Labor 22,000
"Pump Station Maintenancs 11,700
Pipeline Maintenance 1,r8Q0
Subtotal $ 5909800
A 2000 Development - Stage II
Install additional 75 MOD capacity In existing 126 MOD pump station and
construct 48" pipeline
Principal b Interest on $3001,900 $ 2749200
e Power 0 2.6` per KWH for delivery of 27 MGD 189960
Labor 26 000
Pump Station Maintenance 3,500
Pipeline Maintenance 21000
' Subtotal $ 495,800
' Total $1,0860600
r
5413
i
Ii4tl1! AND NIGNDI!
T-I 4 t
rTabl 6.
e7W IIII Unfit CQ~~r n'rans
from lew sv a Like to the non I or
Wte-r re,~e2 lent
Phase Average Annual Unit Costs
Flow Cost Cost Per Cost Per
MGD; Acre-Foot 1,ooo Gal
Stage I 28 $ 690,840 $18.82 6.80
1980 Development
Sta
2000eDevelopment 27 $ 496,800 X16.38 6.00
Combined System 55 $1,086,600 $17.62 6.44
I
1
1
6.14
IM[U[ AND NIG NOL!
7 sh 1 1 .v. , ~'Y sk VE a-~"~n7 4 1 ( .~Ft + 1 r
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Supply Sources
The City of Denton currently utilizes the Lewisville Reservoir as
its primary source of supply. Denton's share of the Lewisville dependable
yield is estimated to be 4.5 MGD, based on the 1962 agreement with the
City of Dallas. In addition to this amount, Dallas has agreed to sell
Denton up to 13 MGD of its share of the Lewisville yield until 1980, so
that Denton presently has access to a total of 17.5 MGD from Lewisville
Reservoir. Denton also owns a well system which will produce about 4.0
MGD for a short pumping duration, but it will not sustain this yield on
a year-round basis. The well system should not be considered as part of
Denton's firm water supply.
Denton noW has a total supply of 17.5 MGD, which shcjld satisfy
' demand until about 1988. The original arrangement by which Dallas
agreed to sell part of its Lewisville yfold to Denton was predicated on
the assumption that the proposed Aubrey Reservoir would be in operation
by 1984 and that after 1980 Denton would not require supplementary
supply on a purchase basis. Since it is evident now that Aubrey Reser-
voir will not be completed by 1980s Dallas representatives have indi-
cated that they would keep the 13 MGD supply availebl^ for purchase
after 1980 at a re-negotiated price, On that basis, Denton will have
' the 17,5 MGD supply at its disposal until Aubrey Reservoir goes into
service[ at which time the 13 MGD purchase arrangement will no longer be
effective.
6t+
w~..~•~ V i'iy~ T, enul `k ;L}.'. ~'Na ~ ry' ~~,Y r ~e , J r s~ ~Y p,~t ~
s
It is anticipated that the Aubrey project will be in operation
prior to 1988, ttioreby'providing Denton a fifm supply at that time in
addition to the existing Lewisville yield. 'he Corps of Engineers has
estimated that the Elm Fork yie M will be increased by 81.4 MGD upon
construction of Aubrey Reservoir. Denton will receive 26% of the in-
creased yield, amounting to 21.2 MGD, in return for Denton's proportional
' participation in the project. Taking the 4.5 MGD as the original Denton
share of the Lewisville yield, and adding the 21.2 MGD increase from
Aubrey, Denton will have available a total of 25.7 MGD. This supply
should meet Denton's needs until approximately 1997, at which time
another supply will have to be acquired.
Through examination of existing and proposed reservoirs in the
North Texas region, it is apparent that Denton should look to neighboring
basins for a source of water after 1997. Through considerations of
prior water rights, distance to source, and water quality, it has been
concluded that the proposed Bois d'Arc Reservoir in the Red River Basin
and the Sulphur Bluff Reservoir in the Sulphur River Basin would be the
' best prospects for future water development by Denton.
In order to satisfy demand in the year 2020, Denton will be re-
quired to supplement the 26,7 MGO sufficiently to accumulate a total
supply of 64.9 MGD, Thus, the long-range requirement for additional
water through ?020 would amount to about 30 MGD. Since the yield of the
Bois d'Arc Reservoir would be 84.3 MGD, and the yield of Sulphur Bluff
would be 107.4 MGD, the 30 MGD could be more than satisfied at either
' site. It is anticipated that with either alternative, Denton would
cooperate with other cities in construction of the reservoir and
~ 6.2
IRttlt AND NICMOLI
~y v vtPlr v< -ri •'y h M!'M r:.i spy
C ~J"~.'r zS~y S', A T11 Z; ~~.y. W 1?
v` 1^. ;e R' +y~'4h
W-Y 2 q
P facilities developme.t and would share the costs in proportion
pipeline to,its'30 WD requirement.
It is concluded that development of the long-rango resources should
r.
be based on one of three plans. Plan I would involve transporting water
entirely by pipeline from Sulphur Bluff I Reservoir to Cooper'Aeservoir,
from Cooper Reservoir to Lavon Lake, from Levon Lake to Lewisville Lake,
and finally from Lewisville'Lake to the Denton water treatment plant.
' Plan It would 'transport water from Sulphur Bluff I as in Plan I. but
would substitute a canal from Cooper to Lavon for the pipeline in Plan I.
Plan III would call for construction of Bois d'Arc Reservoir on the
t lower end of the Bois d'Arc Creek and construction of a pipeline from
there to Range Creek, a tributary to the Elm Fork of'the Trinity River.
Presented in Table 6.1 aro the annual costs, calculated in Chapter 6,
for transporting water to Lewisville Lake by the three plans.
Table 6.
Estimated Costs for
Transfer er ew svi l le Lake_
Plan Source Annual
Cost to Denton
of-30 MGD
I Sulphur Bluff I :4,6209200
t II Sulphur Bluff I 54,2429100
III Bois d'Arc 52,681,000
6.2 Recommendations
As indicated in Table 6.1, the Bois d'Arc plan is the least costly
alternative for developing Denton's long-range water supply system
6.3
1 ,
•kT Ott y..'1 !t ~r ~ t y. o r.+
beyond Aubrey Reservoir, This plan would cost about 6o% less than the
least expensive method of diverting Sulphur Bluff l water. The
Bois d'Arc alternative provides savings over the other two plans both
by virtue of the shorter transmission distance and the cheaper basic
e water supply cost.
' In view of the cost consideration, it is recommended that Denton
pursue the Bois d'Arc supply as the solution to its long-range water
supply needs. It is believed that Denton should seek to negotiate with
other cities in the vicinity of the Bois d'Arc site, to create an agree-
ment on Joint development of the Bois d'Arc supply. The next likely
alternative would be Sulphur Bluff Reservoir with the canal from Cooper
Reservoir,
Installation of conveyance facilities from Lewisville Lake to the
Denton Water Treatment Plant witl) complete Denton's long-range raw water
i requirements to the year 2020. It is recommended that, after developing
t the full capability of the existing raw water delivery system from
Lewisville Lake, Denton should construct another pumping facility and
system of supply lines to accommodate the future supply.' Based on the
potential peak-day water requirement of 168 MGD in the year 2020 and
based on the maximum capability of 36.6 MD of the existing plant with
modifications, about 125 MGD of new delivery capacity will be required
to meet peak water requirements in the year 2020. It is proposed that a
r pumping station and intake structure be built in 1980 to accommodate the
full 126 MGO demand. Pumps should then be installed as regH red by
' de-mand. For estimating purposes it is assumed here that ono set of
1 pumps rated at 60 MGD would be installed upon construction of the pljn
C ~ FAft/, AND hltHOLO :
9,. h a t i I o Yt
~ 1 ,'ti~i~ S' ~p' , r7 e i .F{Jj i'F' ~~•r h. }j, I~ Y 'l ~c, ,~i~ tt~ '~-7 'y
and another 75 MGD would be added 'in the year 2000.
rabla 6 2 gives a summarization of annuOl and unit costs for the
I Aubrey supply, the Bois d'Are supply, and the water delivery system from
Lewisville Lake to the Denton water treatment plant, Unit costs are
I calculated on the basis of the 21.2 MGD Aubrey yield for the Aubrey
I supply costs, the 30 MGD long-range water requirement for the Bois d'Arc
costs, and the average 55 MGD pumpage rate for the Lewisville Lake to
Denton water treatment plant supply systL" costs, The recommended
schedule of construction for Denton's long-range water supply and water
i transmission facilities is detailed in Table 6,3. Also included in
Table 6.3 are the previously recommended modifications to the existing
ra.0l,t9r pump station,
Table 6.2
r
Estimated Costs for
Denton 'fro'ngfange Water Supply
Phase Average Annual Unit Cost
Supply Cost os pper Cost
Acre-Fgot_ 100__!0 Ga_19
r Aubrey Supply
I Initial $ 898,684
Deferred $ 7460485
I Total 21.2 WD 51,645x169 $ 69,28 21.31
Bois d'Arc 30.0 MGD $2j681,000 $ 79.78 24,54
I Supply and
Supply System
r Lewisville 55.0 14GD $1,086l600 $ 17662 6.4t
to Dentoli
Supply System
I
I b.5
!01141 AMO MIGNOLI "-r`- ~7• -
I
d 1 C
t ,"!S; t N t} ,r ,,T tf77,7171
' Table 6
Schedule oP Constr c io f r
DentOn's ono- ante liter uDD y evel meet
1916-1911
' Replace Number 2 and Number 3 raw water pumps with 8,0 MOD Pumps-$102,200.
Install 10 million gallon tank and low lift pump station-;311,800.
' 1980-1982
' Construct 125 MGD pump station (50 MGD capacity installed) and 42"
pipeline to Denton 'dater Treatment Plant - 34,0631200.
198, 081
Construct Aubrey Reservoir - 328,3191645 (Denton's cost for 26% share:
21.2 MGD)- The initial capital cost is $14,969,260, and the deferred
' cost is 3131410,385.
' 12LO-1995
Construct Bois d'Arc Reservoir - $9„818,300 (Denton's share for 30 MGD
' of the total yield of 84.3 MGD).
Construct 84.3 MGD Bois d'Arc pump's'tation 84,3 MOD booster station, and
' 6011 pipeline from Bois d'Arc to Sherman - 18,176,600 (Denton share for
30 MGD supply).
' Construct 69,3 MGD booster station, 54" pipeline from Sherman Takeoff to
Range Creek - $2,852,000 (Denton share for 30 MGD supply)$
1995_ -2000
Install additional 75 MGD capacity in existing pump station and construct
48" pipeline to Denton Water Treatment Plant - $3,401,900.
i
6.6
Vital A0NIt NOLO
f r ` r+ „ Yr A~ii y ~ N~M •,r v
r F 1 '~y" I S",~~ d,~ 4`t ~'~i~ ~t~tl~~PZ~~ ~r l,~~~` '~t' •a .,j 4 1K,~;h ' ~4~?~~+I~~~~'4+~~'Y.ti, ~'`~p "~il ` jlw. v
' ~ ~ y '4 .Yy MSr 11 i ~"k F rl ral x~t N 11 Y' li N ,•'.y Yz
~y t , 41y ,(y yv~r~p Ik Ar. °y1i1' 1, i~'v 4 ~{"i 1 ,1~~,~'J,. ~t .fl(, rI ~FY f ki 1~i4
4
i h
I N~. J{ F 4 k~yr4 .r ~ i eJ 1 ~ ~'d" ~ ? 7 4~,Y
M1i
iC
1 r ~l l.. 1 r 1 ~ti
r
i
a e
APPENDIX A
RERREACE8
tr
I
kl
.e t r i
o ~ rt
+ ~ 1
y *,rqt
r'
tir
! a eP' 1 - w1 iI <ti + ?'+d. t' .1 y e y~' ' t. a g' e..; df
'4 r~~ n yl 1L. ~r
,J
s REFCRE^ NCES
1. Texas WaterjpeVOlOpment Board "Projections of Economic Activity
for Denton O)IJ 4Texas December 19?2,
2, Freese and 14ichols, Consulting Engineers; and URS/Forrest and
Cotton, Inc,, Consulting Engineers: "North Central Texas
Regional water Supply Study," Novembers 1974.
3. Community ity Y ev el prehensive Plan," City of Denton, Texas: "Denton, 1974.
O U, S, Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth and Galveston Dist:'icts:
"Comprehensive Survey Report on Trinity River and Tributaries,
Texas," June 1962.
6, McGraw-Hill, Ines En ineeri Net~eco~d McQaiine, quarterly
construction price' in ex suoisArry, une 976.'
} 6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District; "C rehensive
Basin Study, Red River Below Denison Dam," Tulsa, Oklahoma,
June 1968 (unpublished). - '
7, Freese and Nichols, Consulting Engineers: "Texoma Region Areawide
Water Plan," March 1972.
8. Freese and Nichols, Consulting Engineersi "Report on Water Supply
System," July 1974.
r
1
r
e ~
1
1
1 A•1
x A•I
V w
r L fi
}
1 k
Y ~ V I
~ qtr yf q R
~~t rr` w i ..',r ~4 l4+ ~}.~{pr 'i ~~7t ~1 `ff ~5p ~ f r it EM 1~j: 7~ K 41v { yy~:rr .~~~7Rr r
.r S"°.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ itr, h$y,y ~ }IE ~ w ~i p.4ri✓ ►!r ay;PyM1 ~Y,„!'~~ ~ ~ r 1 1 t .,et]C, Sw~ e4/ta I r~~
~J ~.•t~ tart r t t.-. t~ s"~: "s. Y `t ° ,.r} r{r t~ f r e'•`,r` ye.6' 1,.
r r4 "
A, •V' i n Y Yrd
I ~ f
v IJ i
. 11 %41
p'AOODIX' B
OETA LE 'O W?IWES',
c ,t i~ fill r r ~ . f rt, 1I ,~yEK~ Y '~'r~ ~.k
f Y 1 ~ A r
t
l ~.r ~ S ' - I , S •1t r ~r f Yt,.t P.
~i we
f a
a n M v ' +8 5,
t
TA8LE_ 0 CO TINTS
Costing Criteria Page
B-1
Annual Salary Cost for Pumping Stations
B-2
Annual Cost for Sulphur Bluff Water Supply
B-3
Table 8-1 Estimated Cost of Bois d'Arc
1 Creek Reservoir
8-4
Table B-2 Pertinent Data and Estimated Capital
1 Cost for Raw Water Delivery system frwr,
Sulphur Bluff I to Cooper Reservoir
B-5
e Table 8-3 Pertineot.Vata and Estimated Capital
Cost for RaW Water Delivery System from
Cooper Reservoir to Lavon Lake
8-6
Table B-4 Pertinent Data and Estimated Capital
Cost for Raw Water Canal System from
Cooper Reservoir to 'llo n Lake
B-1
Table B-5 Pertinent Data and Estimated Capital
Cost for 30 MGD Delivery System from
' Lavon lake to Lewisville Lake
8-9
,Table B-6 Pertinent Data and Estimated Capital
Cost for Raw Water Delivery System from
Bois d'Arc Site to Aubrey Reservoir
B-10
Table B-1 Pertinent Data and Estimated Capital
Cost for Raw Water Delivery System frtm
Lewisville lake to Denton Mater Treatment
Plant
8-i2
1
I
e - /Nf U[ ANO NfCNOU
n~ Y s . ♦ v•
COSTING CRITERIA
Cost estimates on pipelines were developed using the following guidelines.:
' Pipelines
Texas Water Development Board, Feport 42:
Cost of Transporting Water By Pipeline,"
' March 1967, Add 71% for inflation to
1975 prices.
Right-of-Way ;3,000 per mile
1 Right-of-Way
Contingencies 20% of ROW cost
Pumping station estimates were prepared according to the fol`lo:?ing
schedule:
A,
Pumping stations Texas Water Development Board, Report4,q2s
Cost of Tran9Vdrting Water By Pipeline,"
March 1967. Add 84% for inflation to
1975 prices.
Excavation $2600 per cubic yard
Annual costs are calculated as follows:
Amortization Calculated on a 30 year basis with an
interest rate of 7%.
Power Cost $.025'per kilowatt-hour
Pipeline maintenance $5.00 per inch of diameter, per mile
' Pump station
maintenance 1.6% of station capital cast
Pump station labor As shown in Figure B-1
1
B•1
r•='~ - PRIM AND NICHOL4
. } Y
I ANNUAL SALARY„CQST 111
FOR PULPING StATIONS
1
f
50
1 ~
04
40 - -~,0*4
t cc
y~*y
t a
4 30
M
1
low
oe
t
"i
t
h 20
1
10
a
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40, OOD
_ HORSEPOWER
=11. Mtt,t FNO NiCHOL6
~ >YBII
tl 1 roff''' n :v a e N f.[ M,0 J;h F
x ~ Y 1 An~n~i~ej Cost for
Sulphur; Bluff Water Supply
' January, 1974 Costs
From "North Central Texas Regional Water Supply Study."
URV;7orrest and Cotton. Inc,, Freese and Nichols,
November 1974.
' Sulphur Bluff 1
' Capital Cost $560170,000
Interest During Construction 6,6172000
$O&M Cost E 104.500
i
Sulphur Bluff II
Capital cost E1$,5?,a,040
Interest During Construction 1 369 000
OUI Cost $ 14,000 I
e
January 1975 Costs
Capital costs include 19.6% inflation i
O&M cost includes 12.2% cost of living increase
Sulphur Bluff I
1
Capital Cost $67,179,000
' Interest During Construction 62118,000
57318970000
O&M Cost $ 117.200
Sulphur Bluff II
Capital Cost $22.i-7,0Ob
Interest During Construction 1 661` C
S;C00
O&M Cost E 151100
' B-3
/01162 AND A/tNOI, ~---~q-~-
!Sw r r ''1'!• "s.C,.~". a ..,r~ 4.:.: t~r':'~ r,i'+r i
Table
Estimated Cost of Bois d' Arc Creek Reservoir
unit Unit, Cost -QU-a-n-t-1-tY- Amount
item $ 1005000
' -
Preparation of site L.S. t 1.00 244,530 244,500
C.Y.
Core tren& excavation 1,20 3,411,530 4,093,800
Wetted and rolled embankment C.Y.
610,300
Riprap blanket C.Y. 18.00 33,908
t C.Y. 20.00 816707 1,634,100
Riprap 410,000
-
Service spillway and outlet L.S. 48 57,600
Ac. 1200.04
Mulching . 21,600
L.S.
Srrigation system
Ac. 150.06 40461 669,290
.
Land clearing 29952,20.E
t -
Relocate FM 1396 L.S.
Relocate 138 KY power _ 413,200
L.S.
transmission line
Wrap and weight 16-inch natural L.S. 78,800
'
gas line
Riprap protection. on downIstrean _ L.S. 1790200
'
slope of lake Bonham dam
Engineering and contingencies 2,8_,, 82 60fl
' 0 25°6 $14,413,100
Subtotal - Reservoir
500.00 19,670 9,835,000
Ac.
Land purchase in fee
Flood easement Ac. 100.00 4,680 468,000
5 23 rv Q
Land acquisition $25,235,600
Total
interest during construction 2 524 000
yrs.
'total
' B-4
1 IM;//L AND NICNOI, r
1
1
Tablo 8-2
Pertinent Data and Estimated Ca ital Cost for
Raw a er a ver stem rom Su
to oooer eservofr ur 8 uff i
Pertinent Data
Average annual oumpage
Desiggn delivery capacity 107,4 MGD
Pipeline length.; 125 MGD
Pipeline diame ar 8.7 Miles
Number of pumping unitl (including standby) 66 Inches
Name plate capacity per unit 6
Total dynamic head 25 MGD
Horsepower pper unit 233 Feet
Total installed horsepower 1[100"HP
6,600 H?
Estimated Cost
Pump station
Intake Structure $1.502,600
4,45 miles Of 66 in4h,'100 class pipe 766,000
4,25 miles of ,66-inch, 150 cress pipe 11929,200
Contingencies '@ 15% 2~ ~ 900
Engineering 6 administration @ 7.112% 931.600
53(; ,500
Right-of-way 8.7 miles @ $3,000/mile
Conflicts 26,000
Estimatod Total Cost 615 000
WWI
Denton pro rata share for 30 MG7 supply (30/107.4); $2,334,900
8-5
1
i? k 1 it d W Y 1" J ±a 1'` a Q.
gd w, 4 Jt Y f 1r ~ f ' ~ct T'•.
i7 { S'f Y + } ~ f f fF
Table 8-3
Pertinent Data and Estimated Ca ital Cost for
Raw ater De ver stem from 'Coo er esevo r
to anon Lake
Pertinent Data Lake Station Booster Station
' Average annual pumpage 212 MGD 212 HGD
Design delivery capacity 240 MGO 240 MGD
Pipeline length 16.7 Miles 15.9 Miles
' Pipeline' diameter 96 Inches 96 Inches
Number of pumping units
(including standby) 5 5
t dame plate capacity per unit 60 MGO 60 MGD
Total dynamic head 280 Feet 243 Feet
Horsepower per unit 30700 HP 39200' Hp
Total installed horsepower 14,760 HP 120800 HP
Estimated Cast
Lake pump station $ 2,603400
Booster station 213680200
Lake intake structure 924;400
2 b,MG ground storagggtanks 441r100
30.8 miles of class 100 Pipeline 23' 51,300
i-8'miles of class 160 pipeline 1;6y5,400
Contingencies @ 15% 40720,600
' Engineering 6 administration @ 7-1/216 ?,714,300
Right-of-way 32.6 miles @ 539000/mile 3 979800
Conflicts
r Estimated Tota1`Cost $4 j 000
Denton pro rata share for 30^HGD supply (30/212); $5,964,300
1
1
8-6
M
-7. 7
17T -17-777
{
Table B-4
Pertinent Data and Estimated Ca ital Cost for
Raw ''a e`r Cana s em rom ooper eservo r to
Layon Lake
t Pertinent Data
Average annual flow* 307 MGD
Maximum flow 340 MGD
Canal length 38,8 Miles
' Total lift 279 Feet
Estimated Cost
' Pump stations $ 6,894,500
Intake structure 907,000
Intake channel dredging 392,600
w Control station 1030
Earthwork 102331000
Canal lining 199990000
Inverted siphons 414,200
Site preparation and clearing 61 900
Gate strueturgs 1,164,800
Overflow spiliways 82,800
Local drainage 2,218,000
Access roads and fences 1,210,800
Bridgges 41833,600
Pipetine crossings 39,000
Transmission line crossings 900000
Arnold Creek clearing and lining T94~000
' :subtotal $22o761,200
Contingencies @ 25% ~5 6A, 90
W00
Subtotal $2-8,451,600
' Engineering @ 5.5% 1,5649800
Supervision @ 4.5% 1,280,300
Total Cost of Design and Construction $11,296,600
1
' B-7
w~- - IMt/C AND NlCHOLS
111,7'-- 71V
{5 5 e i' +ytt r 2 i 4r'~'"!',r?lyyNx 'A Y. } .~Y a\ t 4}.. ..,ME 1.
Table S-4 (Continued)
1
Land and improvements s 182$00
Land contingencies @ 25% 51,000
Land administrative costs @ 7% Relocation assistance @ 1% 7,300 969 600
Total Cost of Land and Relocations -662661200
Estimated Capital Cost
Denton pro rata share for 30 MGD supply, $4,565,700, computed on
the basis of 30/212 where 212 MAD is the si!pply to be transported
to Lavon assuming transmission of Cooper t4ater and Sulphur Bluff I
water.
' *1t is assumed that a canal would be built to eventually transport
the combined yield of Cooper, Sulphur Bluff I, and Sulphur Bluff 11,
or 307 MGD.
1
1 `
1
~ _ r„ fFt//1 Ah0 NICNOL/ -=---1
1 f ,r r.°v:A~. R 9r ;T. 8
7 7
7r~i
' Table B-5 }
Pertinent Data and estimated Capital Cost for F,
30 MGD Delivery stem (from tavon a e to
Lewisville Take
Pertinent Data Lake Station Booster Station
Average annul pumpage 30 MGD 30 MGD
Design delivery capacity 33.5 MGO 33.5 MGD
Pipe length 7.8 Miles 16.1 Miles
Pipeline diameter 42 Inches 42 inches
Number of pumping units
(including stand-by) 4 4
Name plate capacity per unit 10 MGD 10 MGD
Total dynamic head 222 Feet 237 Feet
Horsepower per unit 600 HP 600 HP
Total installed horsepower ':1800 HP 1800 HP
Estimated Cost
30 MGD lake pump station $ 600,200
30 MGa booster station 6210600
Lake intake structure 642,300
1.6 MG gground storage tank 110,3
20.9 miles of 42" class 100 pipe 4,111,400
3.0 miles of 42" class 160 pipe 668,600
' Conti ngenci 61 15% 9980200
Engineering and Administration @ 7.1/2ie 6730900
Right-of-Way 23.9 miles @ $3000/mile 71,700
Conflicts 2,625,000
Estimated Total Cost $100239200
x,11
I
I
B-9
- PRIM AND HIEMOLD -
...i f t ;1 .,1 t r,_` Y ••4 !„F. Y. ¢ ..a .J s !r r` 'c!B,G
77,
r Table B-6
Pertinent Uate and Estimated Ca ~ital Cost for
aw water Deliver stem from
BOIS d'Arc Sita to Aubrey Reservoir
r Pertinent Data Lake Station Booster Station No. 1
Average annual pumpage 84.3 MGD 84,3 MGD
Design deiivcry capacity 95 MGD 95 MGD
Pipeline length 18 Miles 16 Miles
r Pipeline diameter 60 Inches 60 Inches
Number of pumping units
(including standby) 5 5
Name plate capacity per unit 25 MGO 25 MGD
Total dynamic head 366 Feet 252 Feet
Horsepower per unit 19500 HP 10100 HP
Total installed horsepower 7,500 HP 51500 HP
r Pertinent Data Booster Station No. 2
Average annual pumpage 69.3 MOD
r Design delivery capacity 67.5 MGD
Pipeline length 8.6 Miles
Pipeline diameter; 64 inches
Number of pumping units
r (including stareiby) 4
Nao* plate cap%City per unit 20 MOD
r Total dynamic head 301 Feet l
Horsepower per unit 1,126 HP
Total installed horsepower 41500 HP
r Estimated Cost
Bois d'Arc Reservoir to Sherman Takeoff
r Lake pumpp station $ 1,6890700
Booster Station No, 1 1,3141900
r Bois d'Arc intake structure 620,900
24.6 miles of 60 inch) 100 class pipeline 90056,000
9.4 miles of 60 inch, 150 class pipeline 3,8011200
r l - 5 MG ground storage tank 264,400
` Contingencies 0 15% 2,497,100
Engineering b administration 0 7-1/2% 1,4351800 R°~•.
r Right-of-way 34 miles @ ;3,000/mile 102,000
Conflicts 2 299 000
Estimated Total Cost 2,981►000
'r
r B-10
r
1y
'q 77 't 'k,9,.; 47,77-7,777, "T
•.y _ r r
77 "F40 (Continued)
M Sherman Takeoff to Range Creek
Boaster Station No. 2 51,055,400
6.6 miles of 54 inch. 100 class pipeline 2,052,200
260 miles of 54 inch, 150 class pipeline 087,600
1 - 6 Ma ground storage tank 264,400
Contingencies @ 16% x'900
Engineering 6 Administration 0 7-1/2% 3509100
Right-of-way 8.6 miles @ $3,000/mile
1 Conflicts 250.800
Estimated Total Cost 593 000
Mir, ~`8~
Denton share of Bois d'Arc Reservoir to Sherman Takeoff Pipeline
(30/84.3); $8,176,600
Denton share of Sherman Takeoff to Range Creek Pipeline (30/59.'3);
$2,852,000
0
t
' 8-11
eft
Tab le-=7
Pertinent Data and Estimated Cap-ta~l_
er a ver "stem From
Coy or aw 8:l _y
tewisvi: e a ® o entan ater reatment lant
r 19'lb Development
8.0
Replace number 2 and number 3 raw water pumps witstationGO pumps.
' Total stall 0 milli o ~n gallon tank and low lift pump
lgg0 Development Stage ,
Construct 125 MGD pump statli n (2/5 capacity) and 42" pipeline to
' Denton Water Treatment Plant.
Pertinent Data
r Average annual pumpage* 588 MGD
Desiggn delivery capacity 8,5 Miles
Pipeline length 4Z inches
pipeline diameter
Number of pumping units 25 MGD
Name plate capac tlo per unit 3 5 Feet
Total dynamic head 308 Fe
3orSepower per unit 29000 HP
Total horsepower
r E timated O .St
E 783,100
Lake pump station (50 MGD installed capacity) 482,880
Intake structure (125 MGD capacity) 991,400
5.0 Miles of 42" Class 100 pipeline 7~9~540
3.5 Miles of 42" Class 150 pipeline 455,600
Contingencies @ 15% 2619900
Engineering and Administration @ 1-l/2~ 25,500
Right-of-Way: 8.5 Mites @ 53,ODO/mile 283.100
Conflicts
E4,063,200
Total Cost - Stage i
*A3sume new pump station will carry full load; use old station for
' peaking.
r 8.12
..r-- rRe, 9Ha N C
r
s,
Tabta g_1 (Continued)
200DeYel ent - Stage 11
Install additional 75 MGD capacity in existing pump station and construct
48" pipeline to Denton Water Treatment Plant.
Pertinent Data.
' 27 MGD
*Average annual'pumpage 75 MGD
Design delivery capacity ~ 5 Miles
pipeline lengt i;8 Inches
pipeline diameter 3
Number of pumping units 25 MGD
Name Plate capacity per unit 367 Feet
Total dynamic head 2000 HP
Horsepower per unit 6000 HP
Total Horsepower
Estimated Cost
15 MGD pump installation .230,100
2700
5.0 Milos of 48" Class 100 pipe 1 991,600 i
3.5 Miles of 48" Class 150 pipe 376,300
' Contingencies @ 16%
Engineering and Administration @ 1-1/2% 2159800
Right-of-Way: 8.5 miles @ 53000/mile 250500
?23,100
Conflicts $39401,900
Total Cost - Stage It
Overall Cost 511465000
* in addition to stage 1 average capacity; total - 55 MGD.
M
1
0
a-l3
{I INt({l AND NIC NYr '1