HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAKE RAY ROBERTS STUDIES
DRIFT
ES-4
which operates Lake Tawskoni and the Lake Fork Reservoir,, have retained
water rights in the reservoirs which appear to be adequate to-meet pos-
a1ble future demands for surface eater supplies it their neighboring
counties. Accordingly, the planningarea was reduced to 11 counties.
Analysis
The next step in the analysis was to identify and document the major
i
wholesale and retail watev systems 'in the 11-county arsa'and the `surface
water' rights available to them. A -list of these water,, utilities by
county, is shown on page ES-5.
E The analysis of stater demand and supply at the year 2000 in these
areas led to the following conclusionsi z
Substantial portions of Cooke', Grayson, and Denton t
Counties are, not presently served by arutility with
E surface water rights and *y,need surface_"ter sup-
plies before the year 2000. The western portion of
Collin County and the southern edge of, Dallas County
are not now served.
In the remaining portions of the ll~county area,
water supplies and institutional Arrangements appear
adequate for local needs. {
t
Other factors considered in the analysis included: the economics of
i
extending service to distance conaunities and the consideration of drain-
age basin' boundaries. The boundary of the E1* fork drainage basin ap,-
pears to be a logical,, limiting factor, especially in Cooke, Grayson, and
E
Collin counties.
I ~
Recommendation
.
Based on th'r analysis, we recommend that the planning area for
water service by Dallas Water Utilities be:' j
f
► 1. All of Dallas County not served by other wholesale
suppliers. i-
j
1
F
:
ES-5
t
t: WATER UTILITIES IN THE 11-COUNTY AREA
v WITH SURFACE 'WATER` `SUPPLIES
ilia county panain County
Ellis county WCID No. ! honhala Water Authority
city 'of'Bnais
City of Midlothian Gxaveon County
Trinity River-Authority
Tarrant County WCID No. ! sitq of Denison
City of Pottsboro 3
Red River Authority i
Nava io Count
City of Corsicana Cooke Count
Kaufman County None
' City of Terrell Denton ^Cout,ty
Tarrant Count? WCYD No. 1 s
' North Texas Municipal Utility City of Denton
District Collin County
Rockwall Y c
North Texas Muaici~r,+ Water Din-
,
North Texas Municipa+. Utility ttiict
} District City of Dallas'
Dallas County
Hunt Cvurit
City of Greenville City of Dallas`
i iC{ty of Comsurce North Texas Municipal Water District
F Sabine River- Authority Park Cities MUD No. 2
S
r
s
1
4
{j
C!
iS a
' t. 4 t J r. i. ~r.
a
I
RS-6
2. All of Denton County east of Denton Creek not served
i by the City of Denton.
r 3. That portion of Collin County falling inside the
drainage basin of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
s 4. That portion of Cooke and Grayson county falling
inside the drainage basin'of the glm Fork of the
i Trinity River (providing Aubrey is constructed).
This plaraing area is shown on the accompanying illustration. If
sti%ti a service area is Acceptable to the Ctcy of Dallas, the City should 2
coniiaus its long-range planning and reservoir development necessary to
5
net the 'raw water needs of the populatioiprojected for the area for the N,
next 50 to 75 years. After Lake Aubrey is constructed, the supplies
?
available to the Dallas Systen appear adequate to asset the needs of this
area until the year 2000 and beyond (see the table on page-ES-7). 'there- 1
a
after, lead time is available to plan carefully for water supplies to
the 'year 2050.
It is nor intended that Dallas' planning for water supplies imply an
obligation on cities not now served by %llas to purchase dater from the '
•
system. Rather, it should be construed as a willingness to slake water
available on reasonable terms to those who may request services.
OPTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF
THE TREATED WATER SERVICE AREA
By definition, communities that receive either treated water ser-
r
vibes or raw water services from the Dallas System are benefitting from
i
the raw water supplies 'available to the system. However, the extension
of treated water services as contrasted withmaking raw water avail-
able in the reservoir involves greater amounts of capitol investment
and requires carefully coordinated planning. Therefore, the definition a
3 ,
T
r-7- -ppF
ES-7
r, .
CAPACITY OF THE 'DALLAS SYSTEK TO MEET
r THE RAW WATER RF*IREi =S OF THE,
FLAMING AREA in THE YEAR 2000
Safe Yield of the Dallas System
ld
Reservoir r..~ At ~
Lewisville 84.2 i
Gra~~evne 10.3 a
56.3 s
Rubbird 164.6
Tomkoni 102.0
Palestine
54.0
Aubrey` ?
TOTAL SAFE YIELD 471.4 1)
r
a
Water De nd Within the General deter service Plana Area
Area Ertinia____ ted _Desand_:. (Bad-
251.2(2)
)-City of Dallas
Present Custo*sr JurisdiGtioae : 124.1(3)
25.0(4)
PoT`entf.el Nov Service Areas
TOTAL - WATER DIREAND 400
(1) Dos- not i0olude treated eater purchases out c Lake Lavon. '
(2)' At 239 9pc;l1
(3) At 211 gpe.d.
At 210 gpcd*
h1 i
f
t
t 4;,
t
olk"
1 Ls`Y,~~4:51* .l-.. NFF.'r H.•aF L
f
Q
ES-8 ;
l of a probstle service area for treated water ia.,particularly, important.
f Identified are four options that could guide the City's decision.
{ 1. Treated water could be provided only to the City of
t Dallas and its present customer jurisdictions.
2. Treated eater could be provided to the City, its
present customers, and all communities in Dallas f
County presently having only groundwater supplies.
3. Treated water could be provided to the City,_its
present customers, groundwater areas in Dallas Coun-
ty,'aad,to new customer jurisdictions contiguous to
Dallas oV its present cus`nvors outside of Dallas '
County.
0
4, Treated water could be provided to the City, its }
present customers, and-to any jarisdiction in the ;
designated planning area. 4
To the extent practical, it is, recommended that the treated stater
1 '
service or" for the Dallas System: r
Permit the orderly and efficient use and txpan''a ion of
the water`treatte'at and distribution system;
Comply with the City'a'historical twimitments to
provide water service in the ?area; and
promote the efficient and ecinrmic extension of
municipal service to urbaniziug areas.
! Both alternatives two and three appear to 'meet these objectives.
Alternative `three is recommended.
Other Considerations
The service recommendations were based on the premise that all areas
of the 11-county planning region presently served by other major whole-
sale water systems would continue to be served by those,systema. Accord-
1
ingly, these areas, including communities in Dallas County now served by
1
1 ~
► i
r I1
f 4
DiiAfT
s
ES-9
t i.
the North Texas Municipal WatAr.District, wet•-e defined out of the Aseigrr-
t ,
scent. we recognize, however, that Zuture events cannot: be assured,; and
the: the City of Dallas could , it sobs timebe requested, to carve 's com-
munity now Vithin'the service area of `another utility.
In that event, we recommend the following general pririoiplea a9
planning guides. First, requests for service from -these Jurisdictions }
might be considered only,, if adequke water' supplies would remain avail-
able to beet the anticipated raw water and treated water needii of the
planning area established pursuant to this report.:
Second, priority night be given to requests from juriedictioos in
r
Dallas County. These areas and the City of. Dallas are geographtt.ally'*ad
economically integrated, and service could `likely be provided-in as offi-
cient manner.
OPTIO AL WNDITIONS OF SLRVICE,
In addition to identifying service areas, the report sets forth it a
3 "ties of conditions of service the City may consider in asking water
I
torvices available. They includes rates, technical requirements, and
nstitutionai or organisational conditions.
i Treated Water Raid Options
There ere two basic options in rate philosophy: (1) All treated
i water rates being the same to all 'customer Jurisdictions and (2) dif-
ferential rates being established for new customer edtitiess
because the Dallas System is an integrated system, differential
are not preferred, Treated water services,!ottended within a°de-
rates
F fined geographic area and in an orderly manner, should be "provide& on the
I
sans rate basis as service to present customer cities6 The.principles
t
f
I ~ v:. - 1~.14: .i >,•'tt: a. ,.,p,it r
E
7
A
ORAFt
ES-l0
governing the current agreement between DaVas and customer jurisdictions
E
F and the 'resulting rates could be extended to any new treated,water cua-
tower Joining the Dallas Systepw,, However, as a precondition to receiving
such rate-j, new customers Ahoild pay those "upfront" costs identified
1
3
i with the entension of service to that customer. If the-coat-of extending
servica is paid bv'the bensfitting community, the possibility of subsidy
to new citevelopment in these emerging areas is eliminated or minimixod.
y
i Several reasons stay be advanced in 'favor of the common treated aate~
rate. Most obviously, a,common water rate would build upon the eoncenaus
p
expressed in the current agreement. Moreover# discussions with represen--
te ives of the customer cities indicate a villinguess•,to accept-:new
cw+tomers,on this basis. Also, by encouraging growth in Dallas!County I
and in contiguous areas to the present, system, the City as a corporate
entity and all customer jurisdictions benefit from the orderly sx:apsion
of lother urban services.
` E
Finally, the rate can be applied consistently to all customer Syria- t
diction,, for many years. By requiring advance payment;, for all coats
directly attributable to a new customer, as a-condition of service at
common rates, the Dallas System would seem to'avoid,the possibility of a '
differential rate structure being collapsed by future administrative
II
j action of state` regulatory agencies.
law Water-Rote . tions ' ;
I The circumstances in pricing raw water are.different from those just
discussed regarding treated.water rights. No concensue has been d eel-
oped' regarding raw water rates; rev water sales are not made from an
integrated system; sales could be from any, specific reservoir- under j
{
{ s ,
ORAFI
ES-11
various eircumstIancea and at widely varying load factors. Accordingly, a
' more thorough dpveloptent'of the options is warranted.
1f The allocation of costs is the principal issue to be addressed when
considering an appropriate rate structure. 'these basic options were
a I
{
identified:
Average cost - Charges to all raw water customers i
would bsassa eb d on the average cost of all reservoirs
and raw water•tronssission lines.
Replacement cost - Charges to`any,particular cue-
tomsr mould be based an costs of replacing raw water
at the point in'the system whole water is taken or
R
its affects identified.
Incr^ a~ntal or mRrainal costs - Charges would be
based oo the sarginai coo impob' id' on the systeR by
each new class of customer.
Based on K review of these alternatives, the incremental or marginal a
cost method 'of cost allocation is recarmanded. That method reflects how K g
the system is actually operated and hov coots are generated. The Dallas
~
System' operates taking all available yield from the gravity supplies in
Bla Fork reservoirs because no transmission costs are incurred. Accord- i
field in the Elsa Fork- Basin is committed a
_ingly, all available y to Dallas
and preseut customers, Therefore, the marginal cost of providing raw
,
water to ab stew customer IA, the Elm Fork Basin is the cost of trans-
' y
sitting the water froo Tawakoti or (in the future) Palestine to replace
the lower-cost water being Diverted "to the new, custowar• These trans- f
I i
mission touts would 'include Vie capital costs of constructing the line j
k ( and the operations and maintenance" costs incurred in delivery of the }
t watero Under this marginal cost theory, the capital costs of* all raser-
I i voirs would be averaged. 1
i
i i
i
„
r
ES-12 ;
This option is preferred for several reasons. It is equitable. Any
water sold from the Elm Pork reservoirs must be replaced from the most
recently connected ;system. The City and its present customers, would not
percent of the cost of pumping higher coat water
„ ~ ~ expected to pay, 100
be
j
to replace that being sold to a new raw crater customer. Moreover,. the.
delivery costs of, water reflect the City's actual costa; thus, the new
customer would not be paying a disproportionate share of the burden.
Technical Requirements
The Dallas Systep may wish to establish' technical criteria to bemet
if service to to be provided. These are intended to minimize; operating {
problems and to promotethe efficient, and`'offactive operation of the
system,
Any applicant for water service for municipal was i
should be required.to demonstrate to the City that
it has (or will have) adequate water storage and
distribution facilities. j
I
Water pupplies should be available ogly to eligible i
jurisdictions With adequate sewage collection and
treatment 'systems. I
The City should retain the right, to use,sop addi-
tional capacity designed into _anseission facili-
ties dpwloped. to service customr jurisdictions.
The City should avoid contractual arrongeaents.that
would trigger now or unplanned expansion of its
treatment and transmission facilities,
Institutional Conditions
In addition to establishing rates and technical requirements as
f conditions of service, the City may wish 'ta impose institutional or
organisational conditions as well. Under all circumstances, the City. may
h
wish to maintain contractual control of water being sold out of its water
} rights. r`
~ i
i
I
R
:
owl
ES-13
j
An t`,nal Panning Tool
In addition to these basic financial, technical, and organizational ,
issues, the City may cant to consider other impacts of the extension of
water_ service. Some of these ' impacts are identified and presented in the
report, The presentation includes an optional planning tool designed to
permit tha City to consider a vide range' of factors in establishing
5
priorities for the construction of eater service facilities., Generally, x
these embrace the consequences of service extension for the location and
f
quality of growth in the area and for the efficient operation of the `
t
system itself. These factors also include the "moral" or extra-legal
obligations the Dallas System may have as `a good steward and good neigh-
bor within the region. In its present coofigarstion, the model, permits
the identification and weighting of variables in 5,400 different combi-
nations. E
f 3
f y
{ 41
M
r ~
,,t.?, .ri .A._.:k,. .....P. ..,.f:;; . . ~.:r. .f,.:; -.u• w a.ur~..._iA~~+.•~r3'.m..vv`,~k .4
I
i
_ r
J V-
d
{F{
lrrwle
/ 101001i
, rrr
tl
/ b IfAIMW ~ .
ooze
b If+M~ 11Y
- flrlwf.
1 I ~ b r+R..,.
o i
~ MIIR IIR ~
b
Yh: Yf.lf ~ n , 1
Y I l I r l t 11 •flMl U
1 t•If~u furlY
_ -
-
t b 4r'
L -
o f
-Y f~wRt Q r.)M
I ` pYM1 ArF'•rr^ IYiA I b wIW
~ I n
I
II ~ ~
r .
~ n rlrr ~pY ~ R+r
b e
b trll
4 _ - ..•Wnli r1Y.1 RMM CIS' yam. aft1Yt11 T$
~ IT py ❑ rr u~MrIY+1
t 4>
a M Y+
e r g s 1 ,f. rn b 17 1 u IYr IYIIM l a i r 1 t II
R:swvw++. ~ wstx : ~ •rw~ MIRY
*WW
IY Or tlN~ + r. Ml b
( I wNMI M•I
W Iy fl+l_r it \Mf
glwY IY11M11r
Ynwbrr111 ~ b
4r1Pir YN4..
' 1wY1M "pN '~b b
Wf O b 111!1/
Illrrl IIIIYr1 Vs l: fanwl
M411 ~ IlflrflY !1114
ANALYSIS OF WATEP SERVICE AREA
FOR
DALLAS WATER UYLJTWS
b
Q PLANNING AREA '
• Pw.ralr~+~a Ik1~IIfN
V
ad-1=>es~.a+cs,rt&pa'.!.A~'d ~.wr.. r'.', ~✓4a :.fit.. .mow..,.. d ♦r, ..I.: rl a,_..i ~t.s +,:fti lii ,~•Ye~',j';-y ,iS: #~l p.
T
1
'
i
9
s.
r
AGE14DA
§
:REVIEW of DALLAS & DENTON SUPPLY
AND DEMAND FOR WATER a
r
FUTURE SUPPLIES
REVIEW OF, POTENTIAL
a DISCUSSION OF AUBREY
R
COST
r
YIELD
}
SUMMARY OF VARIABLES
p
STUDY PLAN
' i
1
,
r
,
F
I
: as t.
900
}J5 I v ~ ~ ~ T ~ u
i t
( 1
1 i ~ E
800. I
J' 700 I - - - - CONDITION I
I f DALLAS LOkG RANGE
I TER SUPPLY STUDY
Goo 1
. t=~ 304
f
ii'a0 ' - - CONDITION 2
NCTCOG ~4
•
>
i e
..y
no
-7 j I
. 100 1
G l970 1980 1990 2000 '2010
2020 2030 200 208q' i
YEAR
t CITY OF DALLAS] TEXAS
f. AUBREY LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY
,
` DEMANDS FOR UNLIMITED SERVICE POLICY
j FIGURE .6_I` I
i
I it
{ 'l
i~ DENTON -.WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
t ' DEVELOPMENT TO YEAR 1997
1
I 1
€ 40
ti
' l
r k
20
1~1
!VOW
{
- r
! 590. 2000 2010 1020
1970 1980
VEAR
f
"
i 1
;
` j FIGURE 3.1
i
y x-
„r .4r I. ".1 l x r" Ai
• 1
G
t
CURRENT SUPPLY (1975)
S' SHARE DENTON'S SNARE
DALLA
UAW
MIIEU"
j mum 4,5
88f4 4.
LEWISVILLE
11f0
!
6RAW NE
~ 58f1
' RAY Hui3sARD
IG4 f 8
TAWAKONI
102,0
PALESTINE 4.5
161
RN FLOWS
r
R'ru 448 f 4
{
DEtiTON' S INTER IM +1., 0
PuRcmASE `pRot4 DALLAS -13.0 t
4T PRESENTLY DEVELOPED Cq $
}
17fa ~
1
268f6 MGD i
AgILI"TY
PRESENT DAp i
fQ UTILIZATIONS.
F•
l s
i
1 s1
T_1Mdr~v-
I[[ 1 .ur.rr.. t: J$n.ks45'r.!55. 1 4 r
800 - - - -7 - - - 7 - I .
I NOTE ' UPPER LINE DENOTING EXISTING SUPPLIES INCLUDES
I RETURN FLOWS RESULTING 100M RAPIO GROWTH TREND&
i ( LOWER LINE INDICATES RETURN FLOWS'. RESULTING PROM
j SLOWER pR0 . N{MUMON IN SUPPLY IN IW REFLECTS
i 8c)0 POTENTIAL LOSS OF RETURN (LOWS- TO- L-AKE RAY
HUSRARD DUE TO UPSTREAM REUSE AND/OR DIYERSION
I AROUNb LAKE i
CONDITION I I
700
DALLAS. LM RANGE
WATER SUPPLY STUDY
600
I ~ I
SCO - - I ' - I
- I
I {
0000, T
o I fl ~ I
I W
4OrO EXI5TIN0 / CONDITION 9 _
SUP Y NCTCOG
,
- f ooo,I I f
,
M 300 I T~ i I:
j
E 200 I
f {
-
k ~
I 104
' 1910; 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2060
YEAR
R' CITY Of 'DALLASi 'TEXAS
AUBREY LAKE' FEASIBILITY STUDY
DEMANDS 'OR UNLIMITED SERVICE POLIC'Y'
FIGURE 5-I
] I
..a• S, Y,s`'• ..r:....iY l.. [ft,,4..6.:{I
t !
F
{
F
d
t
.j r
, t
i
DENTON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM I
DEVELOPMENT TO YEAR 1997
60
E
ao
I
I 4
30
AIR
r I, 18 #
MF r ~I w rr r ' r♦Y ~r r
r r~rW . emu. rr 40rr ~ .t
•iE l
i
10
,
rE r I: r
{
M
4.3 M Q OEMTf{ Y ELG` FROM .M a
f aISYIlis lE IsYIIIE I 111
1970 1980 1990 7000 7010 1010
YEAR
E
E , .
FIGURE 3. Z' E'
~.':.7.~ .4'bl. ].J n. h'3Y 4 ri f..s?!rAM?"V•"•
i
,
1
f
1
• i O f 1. T A
,(A L
C O L L 1 N f~ff , I H b P ...w 1
t ~ . 4*
1 ,
yfwn,H. 1' i { sw:ssa,w r i FRA IRf+
0 ,}AOPg4!R
At $ D E k T 1 r 54.m.awr ~ uldfltn j .
I '/.tlwi~ , I ~ ' 1,,,r.l.``, FGN«rp ,1l.Vl 1 ~
f`"" i ` H u N r Ik 1 ~.'7
li rrr.« JI,A 7wrrrA~nf iwr4 a
I
• ~Jr4 M 1 r I.+.r •M•' iKgvlWl ~ ~ ~ /a,{I' .~0~
y Ula C
Ra Ye.
r v ;y :van y
C K WA (~AS,MMal1 1 4 b ~ t"
`IA ~wASTA1$1 ~hN t raw .Y 1 ~ 11 U ~
X. ~.lr of L3!r tR `k~ 1 yiy I•~ I ;I
'•~•y✓.~ I y[~alw4( , 4 t. 1 1. 1
k71 ',aw'pIq~lw`"3',. 'I 'y 'S 4 1 .O ! I,I I I IM 1 .
Z [«R~[ A N A rll earn 1 / I +
K
' ' w t i [C ` t^w Ii ` N I r D T
} y unclsl«: A gyp,` M A V A o
t..,
A
Y@iQdi~4V I ItlMlstt r , $gi~EB~ ` It1V
},N...~ ~ 1 1 Ir •.YM 1
OcHils V11
to 40414s
T ~,flabj H E N G g O f
4. LIMN
" / ~ tart ' i ~ ' .1c
A v ; A[ At DALLAS
Y .I ,I,Ift✓.4ml or ws f 'yI,
wow N
EXISTING
H E R d K,
j :7 f«,kytra p 0 'N + ylls 141'
I. ~ al~+ ' A N E ~ duLes..
,
~ ` ,•~r~ ply ~krn Jif11. ~
. mrgtN KNltl~kMpl4a'.~'A+4 r.a..~w..I.xrSaYnx.M1U,Nhh}#,a~
' _ ..:..ra4uaxu
1' t
L
.
I
1
P i
1
i
UNIT COST OF WATER Y
I
RE,SEB-yo IR COATS SM I SS ION - COS'CS UNIT COST
QUANTITY OF WATER (SAFE YIELD) OF WATER
RESERVOIR COSTS
• CAPITAL INVESTMENT
- ~ F
i - LOCAL INTERESTS
.1 ANNUAL AMORTIZATION
OPERA1' I NG $ MAINTENANCE
f~. ~
r
TRANSMISSION COSTS
le ANNUAL AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT r
k • bPERAT,ING & MAINTENANCE
POWER
OTHER
f
r ,
k ' r
4 4
44
1
V
1
1
zr
f
4 i
SEPTEMBER 19761 COST OF WATER
1
DELIVERED TO DELIVERED YO
EAST SIDE 'OR SOUTHERST
ELM FORK
TREATMENT PLANT TREATMENT"PIANT
100,6 AUBREY (MINIMUM YIELD)
100
100
-
423 AUBREY OUD YIELD)
40
k. 40
J{ i
~ .`rrl~MMM~ p
y ~i/ fr
rirrh
AUBREY~ r
27o(COMPS YIELD MI A 26.1
us
ULpkuk BLUP
EWER" ~ ;f
4 5 • Boas` D'ARc (1975 costs)
TpNNBSSB:Col.bNY 206
20
20
PALESTINE 18,6 j
r
TAwAKbHI 10,3. -1
10
16 RAY HUBBARD
RAY HUBBARDO 0,8
0
r.
t
L.U
F
I
4 -
i
1
e
► COST TO BUILD AUBREY
i SPECIFICATIONS
r
E
Coops 1973 DesIGK•
EXCHANGE FLOOD CONIRQL STORAGE +
` WITH LEW I SV I LLE
j ELEVATION 627,0
- NET SAFE YIELD 64v6 MGD
4- ! CORPS; 1974 DESIGN ~
EXCHANGE FLOOD CONTROL STORAGE
WITH LEwISVILLE
ELEVATION' 632m5
NET SAFE YIELD $1s4 MGD
! MATER SUPPLY ONLY E!hCAL),
w NO 6XCHANGfi WITH UWI'VILLE
ELEVATION 63.0
NET SAFE YIELD 6561 ND
a
,t
pR t`".:
{ 1
1
44 i Yi«xr.
I
H
a
1
E COST TO BUILD AUBREY
r CORPS ESTIMATES
300 TOTAL CAPITAL COST INCLUDING INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION
280
260 \
24
I4 ~ ;
t
j' 2
1
18 18110
5S,4
,r'14 4405
124,6
08, 8
101 ~0
• 92,4 {
WATER SUPPLY ONLY) i
' E
2
y ,
,195fi ' 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1~U
ti
i
77"1
x
s
r
FINANCING. OPTIONS ;n
f
f CORPS OF ENGINEERS f
- CORPS 30%, Loot; 70%
RECREATION SPLIT 54-50
rl IF
--INTEREST ` RATE 3 3/4% - 6 718%
~
LOCAL SPONSORSHIP
<
CREATE SEPARATE MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY }
x F- ~
~n f
E 11 ~
f a
1
d.h:. i411T5~~4.~NiilA3~ •m[£xi'th PF?~{~~k
III
X111
1-7
N
LAKE
{ ✓ `1+ Hi{ lleYM ✓ttK kLt f : ki~•
4 \•.~"'i f ')S !l. Y.r:, w~lt.t. .ir W.~YnU t + , ~ 1 ~ y ~ ~ ~ w'•
:,ka ! J f~ I Cd , 11 irVR.~
R+? er Jt~tr
' ' .w.ewr \ >alfFrary,:. 11,Kw ° Dow
' ~ /r \ rsr C ( guar
• G `~i w Lw~wayva an
~ 't^ 1~ v= 11~ I ° J JI w RLQ 1V i1 sr 1.: ,
\Q I M ►1►LLSNL ANO
0 0 K
N
I~Z `b2 ~ialnlsvllk t
fM "
ii
AUBIi£Y ~ ~ ~ 1Mre.le . I
I+GSEf{fVlR
'r"
x 1~ ri \Yr r 4 t ✓ ~ ~ x~r eNYe 1
.
V4 'N .
• r~£r. _ , ♦,rr -Y~4 ~Y r'~~ il. fN~ I``•I !C:t O 4.._ 1
1~ ` ~,1 1 +'4~. } + < $Y ftfi{ I rN r ,oMt• a °
M4CID~°Yi •Nb' i {
tir a~~w~Ma 1 I ~ IrN
y 1y [ t , 11 e
.,/f/!( ~•'wtiSt
trr..lEW1KViLL£\ 11
ewe a
.r~ ~ SFfjV(JhR, ~t• 4LAV*L
rt is a l •.y<w' Spel.n w"Y".•1M°k~ F
kqS ;e >ti+tf~~--..
` rya -.I-'a ; ya -.t.; +L -
5/ ~rwt ~ ' ° SP"'"gin. i
aUMAFtVII('~JS Ir+ .~r ►^la~ v a+ (Ctrs df0i ~ C lkfl i
n+.y ~4Y.arw%
t+/,I .Lf. ra 1
I I r+ G U+ LAkE ` X1411;
*Ay mull
' \ WE ;~rr, tIi t f
`rryLAR£
hW~t7H6NfOR4 T WITI ' Briny i~ fti, !
~M\~y'f. rry~ ~[.fc' C' f1~~+y .f~tit I1 .yl r'.+/+f..~"lay~r r,1r S
{ r ny
' +~1; IYV3 kr~t(G~ ~j~~r'j.r 1: t.r ..t r r~.'S `1.•.IY ✓7 _T . i}r i' = .Il 4~ j• +•I ' 1, a A~~~,, C rr<
_ ' 'u\ E
tt ~
sqV
s i
~,.{try i Ji r 1f ~a
` I LEGEND\r~ i'rr~✓~~ ;.`tS 1 Aillnp! nflL'~~!~ y
L7fl$71NO RE8ahV01R7 fJ ryl%,fA'N.~RLk1fLA%4 f/' 1
' .~C I ARL NOTON
hROP05£0 RESERVOIR
DALLAS LONG RANGE WATtR SUPPLY S7UbY
E'LM FORK 7RINl7'Y MVER
EXISTING AND P&ENTIAL WA'TrR SUPPLY 'DEVELOPMENT j
i
L , FIGURE'S
:
1
~ , t r
r
•r
,
{
SAFE YIELD
W ^1
Yp-tf~ J
~ F
Ri Y
r r 1
y _ 1 yyy
4 i r5
rl
tRMCAL
PERIOD
TIME (YRS)
e
S
f
STORAGE`+ RUNOFF - EVAPORATION USE
r
I r rl r t.
1
t r
J
{{{999
Was
y„ let.. .i' 4 rsR ?Aw
i
Y
' i'1 3f
r
r r
I'f
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DENTON & DALLAS
]gS CONTRACT FOR GARZA-'LITTLE ELM RESERVOIR
DALLAS PAID 95.2% OF LOCAL COST.
DENTON PAID '4.$% OF LOCAL. COST
f `
1962, CONTRACT BETWEEN DALLAS $ DENTON
{
- SHARE AU$REY COSTS & BENEFITS 74%/25%
i WI SV I LLE SUPPLY WAS
- - DENTON S SHARE OF LE
4,8%, OF' SAFE YILU oR` 4.5 MGD
s
r
K~
- DENTON TO PAY DALLAS>LFOR ANY I:EWISVILLE
VATER USED`IN EXCESS of 4+8z OF SAFE YIELD
j!
- DALLAS WILL SELL DENTON UP.TO I3 O M~D
! FROM'LEWISVILLE'THROUGH 1980
I
is
i
r;
.
r
t
.a e+r va. r. ..t.•
.tee.
!i r t
-
} ti
hm DALLAS OPERATING STRATEGIES
v
OVERDRAFTING ELM FORK
f • GRAVITY FLOW
h = - REDUCE ExMI) MIRES FOR POWER
MAKE USE OF ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL
s, GROWTH OF.POOULATION
0 CAN REPLACE WITH WATER FAOM EAST
TEXAS SOURCES
r~ ;
f
4
*•v as.., n i t.. .-s a,a,. . - nr. ,-o,x .t..w.4 ~Y+lW.
S' t). a.c rMw. r ~k'3
r
, -
1
i
k I
i
W.HY AMEY?
• TAKE SOME FLOOD'CONTROL CAPACITY FROM
'LEWISVILLE
WATER STORAGE
< FILL LEWISVILLE 7 FEEY `HIGkfR
Au R Y GIVES MDITIONAI STpRAGE AT i
BEGINNING OF CRITICAL DROUGHT
11
Y p
i
r
k
i
I 1
~ I 4
i
'ffi Ia I 3
1~ I
ti
I _y
I
W 1.a I t -e 1[S. yap.,-3c -+a•-5MF`
I
-
I I.
4 '
r
i
' i
AUBREY YIELD
(DOES.:NOT CONSIDER OVERDRAFTING OR WATER RIGHTS)
~ s
FLOOD WATER 1980
CONTROL STORAGE YIELD
eta (Ac'AE-FEET) (ACRE-FEAT) (MGD)
LAKE LEWJSVILLE (ExisTYNG) 480,500 267,600 90','2
LAKE LEWISVILLE 341,300 648,400
MUM RZ=SERVO IR 265
TOTAL 606,300. 1,448;000 171,6
f' Net CHARGE 125,800 1,080,400 81,4
e
.k
3
`PAF ~ ~ [Y a i.4.., r.c o- A tit!. MS-F N.i.
j
t
rcv,•;
5
SAFE YIELD AS A FUNCTION OF RESERVOIR LEY
}r EL
• r
i
,
LIME (YRS). RtTICAI
~ .PERIOD
1
_ yt _ .....rte
L 1 •f '3
c t.
SL'QP f
SAFE YIELD _
w'
,
„
rtME~
YYRS)
r~
r
.
} i
r
r r
• a ♦ , a
f ,
r.
♦ ;
, r
~ J { rid i ,
v
a ,
r
I
tf w _
r r'
~ I
t~~ ~ I I ti
j ,
. t
{E i rc
r
r
, ' ~ a
I I
, . ~
SOPLY AuNS
OuY .BEFa'RE END !OF CRITICAL PERIM
r..
,
1 u'~
'r
• i
S
A
: a
r
_ I y
i
b- i
{ i ~ ~ ' i t f ! r I r {
,
f
,
~,yt r t 1 1 1
~Fa 3 1~ f i 1 : ! ` -
- Y
.
I ! i - o
z
r
1 E
e
.
r.
i
5 r
L .
a
1
I~ , 1
STRETCH SUPPLY To LAST ENTIRE CRITICAL PERIOD s'
i lr. }
r r
• I
}
f
j,
a
ING ON SYSTEM YIELD
IMPACT .OF OVERDRAFT
• WHEN ELM FORK RESERVOIRS OVERDRAFTEDI
EAST TEXAS RESERVOIRS. WILL BE FULL,
WITH EXCESS MATER SPILLING OVER DAMS
• SAME GENERAL DROUGHT CONDITIONS APPLY.
TO ELM FORK, EAST ;FORK, SABINE.* AND
SULPHUR RIVER BASINS '
Pt 1, • AVERAGE ANNUAL USE OF TAWAKONI AND
PALESTINE LIMITED To DALLAS SHARE
.
'OF SAFE YIELD !
ate„ - , i
GIVEN SPECIFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS,
i
OVERDO'— INe LEWISVILLE RESULTS IN A t
4
LOSS 0 SAFE YIELD IN. EAST TEXAS
RESERVOIRS
01
W
F .,s.,.tr ,a@.R3kG4gi k~F'+„R~+' liri{ae~Y7rt!.
1
F
1
1
f' l
!
{
i
l
WATER RIGHTS
1 CERT1FIt:D FILING No. 75 (19100
61VES DALLAS FIRST PRIORITIES ON FLOWS
IN THE ELM FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER
41y l..
PERMIT NOS 798 (1924);
AUTHORIZES DALLAS TO DIVERT 268 MGD FROM
' LAKE DALLAS {LATER INUNDATED BY`GARZA-LITYLE S
ELM RESERVOIR}
D Y
'E1
PERMIT Na, 1476 (19+x$);
- AUTHORIZES DALLAS TO `DIVERT 370 MGD INCLUDING
Z68 MDG PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PRom.GARZA-LITTLE
ELM RESERVOIA
t ~ N
y No, 1706 408)
4 PERMIT
AUTHORIZESDENTON TO DIVERT 948 MGD FROM
r
GARZA-LITTLE= ELM RESERVOIR.
k BOTH DALLAS' AND DENTON''S WATER RIGHTS EXCEED;
THE SAFE YIELD aF L.AKE Lt~WISVILLE/GARZA-LITTLE ELM
.
y'
• Hr
•t r.1 ..3 . NY Dti£A9e2a'), yi:(3 d
v
rr
, FUTURE SUPPLIES UNDER CONSIDERATION ; .
x
CONSIDERED BY.
r
Dot WATT: RIGHTS
• ~
AUSRtY X X 74% DALwo 26% DENTON
rah ~
NAY APPI.18D FOR
X
r BotS VARC
l~, COOPER X; SULPHUR, ktvm AWD,
IRVING
rt NTMWll,
wF = a
. { SutPHUa BLUFF .I X X• Na`r APpLtIi FoR ,
SUCP±oR BLUFF II X X . NOT APFLtED FOR
~ IIN£CLA X X NOT APPLIED PW" s
I,I+KE FOLKK X `X 20M0 AVAILI .REST F W
'r PowER GENtkA iON
s
Yt
BtG 'SANDY
NdT APLt~D FOR !
TENNESSEE COLONY X' E
:j
F r'
•
r
3
i
I
6
F
r
c
N '
M
,
SOURCE FOR EXISTING'NUMBERS UPDATES
CORP RS/F&C F b N 1sFNBW/ DALLAS LWFW COG
rt O T TO BUILD * i.
~ Reservoirs
a
• Aubrey
.
C60
Design X
local Design X X
r • Bois O'Arc x
X X
0 cooper
• Sulphur Bluff I X X '
Sulphur Bluff. II X X
TV* SMiis'ion'Fai;iili ties
• Bois D'Ara x
• Cooper x a
r r
r Sulphur Buff x X
v
• SulpMir. 91 Of I Y X X
FII1+4K T~IS*
5
i Aubrry ~
• Cori x
» Local. X
I - Other x
I. a Bois D'Arc
• Comer. X X i
ph X'
k • 'Sul ur Bluff 1
• Sulphur Bluff II X. i
F ,
Operating Potts
Power Usage {KWIC}
{
• Bois 0'A-rc x
• Cooper X
• Sulphur Stuff I X X
•'Sulphur Bluff II X X ;
VAr aibles for whfch sensitivity analysis'Oill be, performed
r
r {
t .
x SOURCE FOR EXISTING NUMBERS4, UPDATES
13t S'It/ ~
CORP RS/F&C F & N FMB, DALLAS 'LWFW COG
Other
s'Aubroy, X X X }
• Bois D'Arc X
X X
• Cooper
• Sulphur B14'ff I X X
• Sulphur Bluff II %
DEPM_ABLE YIELDS
Aub~ay` 'r
Sol *c X
• C-6Oper'
• Sulphur,$ltiff I % X
k • Sulphur Bluff it X X
Other Significant Yar.
X
, X`
Pow Cos t
! .
1, For Writer X
i
t
i
Variables for which enaitivitk analysis wi11 be performed
'
•L• .M
e♦ - a <.1t 1'Al.n tl.e :vl ,.ek ..'/dhi., x . ..,.a
t
tl
t
1
SHORT TERM PLANS
1
I, UPDATE CAPITAL & OPERATIONS COSTS'
LWFW'
r - CORPS OF ENGINEERS
URS/FORREST & COTTON
FREESE & 'NI'CHOL,S
II. CONDUC'C TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON "SAFE YIELD
" WEEK ENDING I1/2
W ,
,a.. . . - 1WFW
URSIFORREST &COTTON
S
FREESE & NICHOLS
DALLAS WATER UTILITIES,DEPARTMENT
I
AUSREY STEERING COMMITTEE
! III, CONDUCT WORKSHOP ON'SPONSORSHIP/FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
WEEK ENDING
ZOO l LWFW
` FIRST SOUTHWEST ,CORPORATION
f
FIR$T NATIONAL BANK E
r CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AUSREY STEERING COMMITTED
IV, DEVELOP "FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODEL"
LWFW
.r,au
t ; 0.t Yv.v .4la K*ArtFrk4a;N . >3
i ,
,
y
t 1 ~
S
h TECHNICAL WORKSHOP
' VARIABLES TO REVIEW/UPDATE'
f _
i t
l
' DALLAS OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
DEMAND FOR WATER
r :MINIMUM POWER-USE CRITERIA
DRAWDOWN OF RESERVOIRS.
- DALLAS DEMAND UNDER CF 75 [QUALS RETltRN PLOWS'
Y
,
. x
WATER' AiGHTS
- CF 75 PRIORITY TO Rtrum PLOWS
r' DENTaN`S YIELD Du RING CRITICAL. DROUGHT
- DENTON`$ OVERDRAFT OF ELM FORK
LOSS 0P SYSTEM CAPACI7Y`DOE. TO NERORAFTING
- 'EFFECT ON SAFE YIELD
- EOECT ON CJSIT OF WATER
F. _
E ~S {
b, l
4~ , 4
L , , ~ i... c M-a. . • }k tv. A .v NA3nm'Ft:lit.C.tF.h:• ,~=M IM, 14i'TF°+Yelfai'+w r+?
sF 1
i,f
1 tee.
1 J3
A fA
FUTURE SUPPLIES UNDER CONSIDERATION
CONSIDERED BY$
1ALlAS IIJ WATER R16HT5
A jjffY. -X X 74% 0ALLAs; 26% DiN Oir
Boys VARC X NOTAPk ED' FOR
COOPER X
$ULPNUft "IYR 'MtIDr
` NT*D ;IJIVINo,
$ULpUuR BLUFp I X X
NAT APPLYD FO'N
i
SULPHUR BLUF .II X X " Nor'APPL D FoR
MINEOL A X '
- X NOT APPW~EIa FOR
,
JAKE',, ORK X X 20 .MD A4ILj ,'REST. FOR
NWO GENERATION
Bid. SANDY X x NOT APPLIED FOR
TENNESSEE COLONY X N0t,APP LIED FOR
I
I
f ;s
.r
s. '
~ . '-77-7
' e f'K Ai V , d F .
ve,
r
XPI
i ,
t it jf Y ~I 1 I( o '~~,a ix {Il V ~ i
14
AUBREY LAKE
k 6a ' r
ghtt~a
4 u a I F
t /
l
o f of l
♦e t l~
i y. fI i, '
c
k yAFyy
b MM ~ I t
9
. „
t
~C z
t a ,
Sit G a
YiJI it ♦y i.
I
i• I
f "
, .f
GENERAL DESCRIPTION ;
The Aubrey Lake Project is a proposed large impoundment above.Lewisville
.
Lake on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. It is designed to nWoOze the
{ yield from the Elm Fork. To do this, the project. Involves 'the 'maximum stor-
Fr" age possible,, Thus,, not only does the Aubrey.Project have the'MaiIMM amount
P, of conservation storage (any mare and long-.term evaporation from the lake
surface;woula exceed long-term inflow), but 'the E.ewiswilte Lake Project down-
~~a' y `
stitaim WouI'd'be ihcreased.in' conservation storage 'space as weld, This latter
Increase is to,be made possible by transferring flood.storage space;to Aubrey ,
rap
Lake find conU$rting part cf the flood storage space in Lewisvitle lake to.
F
conservation storage.
x Lewisville Lake is a federally owned project (Corps of engineers). Aubrey
` Lake has been planned by the Corps of,En91w.: s.
,
1
xK
.
S 4
3
i
k;
It;
J
\iP f*t.e ,>i+a4 r X71 ,VS Sy,'s :v'l tk4 it:>khi" .4},f M1ayyj ,I 1~~' Vpl..~nPi].!INJ£t •:s;: J~'..a iVr
i. rj
1
1
V
V 9
r
1 ;
v
e !
PARTIAL HISTORY OF AUBREY LAKE
1953: Dallas Water Survey Committee included an Aubrey Project to most
DaIIar,,water requirements for the year. 2000.
;1958: TRA Master Plan recognized Aubrey Lake as a proposed pro3ect for
Dallas. The.plan, for construction envisioned transferring flood'
" storage from L`eWisviIIe to Aubrey in drder to'isicrease water . F
supply in Lewisville. The `Master plan 'cited the water supply,
storage in Aubrey 'as 600,000 acre/feet.
4 . „ 1962s Corps of Engineers Su"rvey Report 'recommended an Aubrey Project of,
about 600,000 acre/feet of storage.
1965: "Congress authorized AubreyaLake as a federal project' (H D276?89/1
1970: Congress appropriated money for pre-construction planning. Local
sponsors to be Dallas and Denton.
1971: Dallas Water Supply Advisory Committee included Aubrey in its plans
for needs through year 2020. 3
`i 1974: Congress appropriated money fora construction start,
1976: Texas Water Rights commission granted Dallas and Denton rights to
" 982,000 acre/feet of storage including! 799,600 acre/feet in Aubrey
and an `increase of 182,400 acre/feet in Lewisville Lake,
1
Yr ,
i
•:a •.E,tt. 0.,;,>,tyj`~y'klxt'ei }).}g~X,i.Fit°!seH;~#°P~~r .i
,
L
LITIGATION
Rate Case r
7 4
April 1973: Farmers Branch initiates action against Dallas on water
rates; October 1973 Grand Prairie loins suit.,
y '
0a11aspasses resolution that ft will make capital int-
V , February 1976: 3
1-4
}
provelnent investments only for'acilities that serve ins
u side 'Dal 1as until, the rate case was settled,
-
s
k .A 5
r Under appeal to Travis County District Court.
5'tatus:
District court
ems; { vi s County
September 1475: City of Frisco petitioned Tra i
is permit'
water righ ' king to set aside
see the
5 5
v
I.
i
i`
-lr
I
) ,3
1 ~
~s_ 1 1 <>•a.. .a.,c-s .V.i^re.VXS,x '.F 4v1YW~i'#°.~~!+''~~~V}~ 1
t. 1
II
cl .
I
i
1
PRESENT STATUS
i
Aubrey lake has been Congressionally authorized for construction and
monies have bee+l.appropriated since FY 1915. The fta~di69 history has been
aS 'follows:
ro nations since FY 1975 35,12Q,000
Total app p 520,000
o $2
R60' graamed to other projects or expended
on,design, etc.
$20600,000
,r.
Si 000_►000
s~ E FY 1919 request by Corps
CkST ESTIPATd
196 Minton
Total prajeG`'costs: 9 Million
Non.reimbursab.le items Ba1 ante' 4181 Million
i
F
ALLOCATIONS,
s1~1"Million
Water'SiOpily Costs (60 pct) 65 Million
Recreation Costs♦,(40 pct)
COST 6REAKDOWN - MAJOR ITEMS
s 95 Mf)lion
f 32 "M1111on.. i
s Land
` Relocations - 38.Miiltion
06m . 10 ;Million .
Recreation; 13 Million
Engineer Design, Administration
Ty r
LOCAL C0S*S.(Investment)
121 Million
Water Supply
Recreation 9 , Mi11 ion
u,
hi
Z
S
iS
r~ #
'S
S
4
L.
l~
E
,
STEPS NEEDED TO INITIATE CONSTRUCTION
AS A FEDERAL PROJECT
The project"is ready to be started by the federal government. The
' EIS has been an file for some time now and construction funds (although
meager) are on hand.
There are certain administrative actions that must take place before
cor~sEr+ tio6 carp be started.. The local sponsors must execute contracts 1
recreation. follow-
fi for repayment of costs attributable to water supply and
1
iog signature by the' local"sponsors and the District En"gineer; the Secretary
t of the.Ai* must apprdve the contracts.
to i {It;
t, Da11ds, of course. hri postponed signing water.suppiy' contrast until
k,
the water rates issue is resolved in its Customer service area. Haw Dallas
he city and county .
would undertake a recreation responsibility outside of
limits is unknown. The recreation contract must be signed before construction
' can conmencet
tientan must also sign recreation and water supply contacts before 'the
federal government will commence canstruct;ian.
t
S j
i .i
`
t ~ 1
f
{ I
v, 5E
h'
.r 9 .,Ir M,..,1:41.11M. ',)A. •Y... fi+`.A~ati.V'y"3W
sly 1
ILI
C ALTERNATIVES TO A FEDERAL PROJECT
As has been Previously shown the Aubrey Project represents a $187 i
million project whose local interest costs represent $130 million 0 r'70
f.
percent of the project costs. In reality, the project's' only federal pur- 1
Pose is recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement.
'The project could be built. by local interests as a
non-federal project.
, 14
First the federa'1 project must be described:
I Ft k,
Aubrey Lake was sized to capture the maximum amount of Elm' Fork water.
To gain more yield, the conservation pool in Lewisville was tb be raised 7
a. c .
feet. The combination of these two proposed actions maxi mifed the yield
frry 'S
from the Elm Farm. 'Raising the conservation pool in Lewisville was to•be
Made Posts ible'by tra6si ferrfng flood storage space to Vie Aubrey project..
The following table shows the relationships between the proJects:'
A: Independent Safe Yield of Existing Lewisvil'ie
96 mgd
B. Yield of tniarged Lewisville After Aubrey Constructed ,mgd
C.' Yield of Aub
I'f rey 98 mod ;
00 System yield (a a C)
177 mgtl •
` E, Net Increase of Elm Fork Yield Over Existing (d•A); 81 mgd
l
( lEnlarged Lewisville loses safa yield since Aubrey intercepts much of the a
drainage area which heretofore had supplied Lewisville.
r
• i
r i
r"
i
+ `1`5 rr
;'i„4,7 r:
P j
a
i
It it
L
n
717
r
c
if the project ti,ere to be' built non-federally, three options would be
available.-
1. Build Aubrey and enlarge Lewisville
2. Build Aubrey but do riot enlarge leriisville
3. Build Aubrey to same other size (smaller) "
1
The following is an analysis of various pra3ect purposes generally con= 1
51dering the options: k
s ' 4later.su 1 The w
main
.P~_Y purpose of Aubre
YLake-is a ter supplyo Sixty
a
percent of the federal protect`is.dedicated to. the water su i
1 PP Y PPOJect. .The
•
yield is significant, but~the'amount'is open to interpretation because of the 7
a
rlafmS of downstream `appropriators (Dallas).
The ,Following table lists the approximate yields ,under conditions rioted;
t' I. Ind .
ependent Yield of Aubrey, 98 mgd
•2. ' Effect of Aubrey on Lewisville
at `Independent yield of existing Lewisville
gb'. Nigd
b. Yield'of enlarged Lewisville after Aubrey is built 79 mgd'
c. Yield of existing Lewisville after Aubrey is 6010 3.. Effective Yield of'Aubrey Considering
a. Enlarged Lewisville 81 r4d
b. Existing Lewisville ' 58 mgd
40 City,'of Dallas Estimate' of Effective Yield 'of Aub my
F
Yields are from Corps of Engineers except as noted. '
I i Note 1: Estimate based on an assumption of no net inflow into Lewisville and a
storage used to satisfy demand over a•seven»year period.
Note 2; From Forrest and Cotton report on Aubrey, November 19 77.
creation. The Aubrey Project has been de's igne,d,for full recreation
use. The'Corps`,,pldn calls for $10 Million in' recreation facilities alone. '
Some land 'is also needed for parks and other recreation areas. The ender-
. ..~i,
takin of such a venture by local interests would probably be prohibitiver
however, some recreation could be provided, it also might be' possible to
4ye
buy certain acreage for future development.
Secause,of its extremely'!,krge volume (800,0U0 acre/feet), Aubrey Lake
' will have a(varying lake surface elevation. It will only infrequertly reach
!i full conservation level (elevation 632.6.feet msl). Forrest and Cotton, in
pool level would
mean
its 1977 Aubrey'feasibili,ty report, determined that the
be about 13 feet below full pool level. For'cortsaarative purposes, Lewisville
A.
Lake'sns:an pool level has only been one foot below the full level since it
` hay been in 'operation.
~f
The, Variable pool level will have a deleterious effect on recreation. An :t
ry~ + +
alternative Would be to.buiId a smaller lake. Iflis would stabitiize to pool.
level somewhat, it would also' reduce the yield of the project for water, supply.'
The federal project provides cer-
t
•.Fish and Wildlife Management Function.
fain designated areas as Wildlife Management Areas. The areas could be util-
ized for the same purpose if the project were constructed by non-federal in-
terests. If another Aubrey configuration were constructed, there+ would be
some change to the available areas for wildlife management. ,
ldhl
Hrdroe' 16 triC-&* t'his' project has a potential for hydropower. '.A ma-
vT
jority,of the potential water supply customers have intakes downstream. Thus,
releases from Aubrey could be used to produce power, Peally, releases would
be made fro m Aubrey in surges to meet peaking requirements. The water would
}
,
•
-_,r~er,. !..:.b'r ,..~.-a7..rltia iN4n'rt'•'..vr'Srca~et'.-.~€.p~+.:
}.,a.t...• +,'.-,e a.u.,.-.;+.ie'9'tx...hi..5 't..+: A~+.;'-k.,,,.AS+. .A4nr,xr.. nee,. ;:A i .13:y .',1F~L v'r
i. i
,
t
' be temporari]y stored in Lewisville and released in un
F iform amounts.
For example Aubrey will produce 152 cfs dependable yield. If th
were released 16 a six-hour is 1 Period for fI ve' days a week, about 850
be cfs coin d
released without affecting the yield. This amount of f]ow c a4 produce a
fairy large amount of power.
k f ~ `
'Assume net head'is 70 feet:
Power
(850 cfs) (70 Feet) (0,072) = 4284 KW
.r
Transferring water in from other watersheds (say a)' Reservoir.) could
also make more flow available which coui,d step the power 'ab
ove. 5000 KW.
Allis Chalmers 1s Producing a low hood axial turbine that is very econo+M-
1 ca I .
It is goad "or heads up to 50 feet, It would be possible to get l
' prob
ably so0b 4000`KW peeking power from such an installation at a very ]owaincre. ,
R
aaerttal cost
1f ilt were not Possible {
to use Lewisville as,a'rgulati.on pbo] f
the h dro .'cthen
R, 4. Y power, would be less feasible, since releases wou]d be dictate4 b
water supply withdrawal rates. by
1
Nt
t:
M T \ 1 l i ~p
' N
l ,
(pF~
/
nt.~~r,! y,tiL'd i
Jfr?:,(1l -.Nr i~yr4 ,Y (Y 1Yl~~ 1
1
4.
r
1
:1.
} J :i' j
APPROXIMATE COSTS OF NON-FEDERAL PROJECT
,.r The federal
project involves transferring flood 'storage to Aubrey from
r
Lewisville. This means the Land acquisition for AubreYwill he extensive.
If the non-federal interests were to build a protect to maximize the yield
5 of the El* Fork, land costs would be the same, therefore,, the on]
` g Y savings
would be recreational costs which would be minor, !t is assumed, therefore
r ,
thAt local costs would be approximately the same as federal costs (say 70
1 ~
percent'less).
if the profec,t were built to the maximum size of Aubrey, but no~im-
provenients w ere made in 'Lewisville, then considerable land savings Would be
real i
10 Yed since no flood storage "would haul to be provided
in Aubrey.. land .
sayings are estimated to be about $30 million, Relocations and darn-construe-,
lion COSEf~S should change another '$15 million. The overall project then might €
t
cosh mfl i Ion (or, f8.8 mill ion ,-for 30 years at 6.5
percent interest rate
,
.
COSTS .
Detailed' cost 'estimates have.not been f
perforii)ed, therefore, it is not
possible to accurately estimate the cast of water. For comparison purposes,
the following Unit costs were deveiopedr
t
The Aubrey on, yct
pro,e would be the cheapest to'bufld, but its water
IC a•
supply Yield is somewhat constrained.
,
1
8
r
' 9 `'r.%4v } ,awls eiVNh it
~ t
4
I 1 I
/
r 'f'~. j as
r
d
f magnitude estimate of 5819
of. using the or
'water
The unit cost` der 4
avaiIabilIity would be #0,42/thousand gallons.
q
4 ~ i~✓
This cost 46es not include 0 b M nor interest d4rli6q, construction. j,r}
The larger project (enlar}ged Lewisville), if federally built, would
cost $121 'million for water supply alone, This would represent a unit cost
9 r
` .6f `water of ~,0.26/thousand gallons based on a system yield of 81 "do Again,'
frx this does not include '0 6 M nor .interest during construction, nor does this
atcount for $5 million required to be repaid for recreation or recreation
' u M.
1i
{t S \
The 1oca1'cost of building the l{lrge project as anon-federal-,project
would be somewhat higher, perhaps on the order of 10435%thausand gallons since.
no costs would be covered by the federal government.
r
FA,,
'
,
r t, ,
r
Y /
l
a
. r e.
i.Ca
ry '
,t
Y~ 1
Y
S
. a i/-.J.rHYr •.r....w+u.l{gyp?'':"4F5ai. ° Rhi'~1`:+N.`~FxD,T~r\ -r
r .
~ n/ 5''•# i . F. iy • gi fdil.6.Ss•A{v s )hr qi M
JI
r
r
r .r •
1 `
ti, 1
(l
o
r
3 1 ~ ~ `a
4
v ADVANTAGES TO PURSUING ANON-F€DERAL PROJECT f3
There are.fcertain advantages in pursuing a non-federal projop -
1. Control of 0 a M. The federal government can increase i}i.0 a M
l1 ,
expenditures without regard to.local sponsorM,,,desiresexperience
f on Bardwell and Navarro Mills Lakes has shown tha4 0 6 M costs have
gone up 300 percent while inflation indices would onlyraccount for
200 percent,increase in 0 6 M costs.
2. Recreation and other casts can be tailored to f t'project needs,
30 Control of schedule for construction and subsequent operation Would
l
E be in local sponsors' hands.
4
4h of hydropower could be accoffiplishod based on',financial
d fra
l;
considerations. Hydropower would probably not survive in a ede
a
project because of;the,method the federal, 0' veMW Ot use's; to evaluaste'
# projects,
f( 5. Similarly, If the federal government built the proiect, there would
~ t
be no guarantee as' to who would receive the. power generated' since
the federal government markets the power.
1
;~eR .gal ,,'4 4
4 I k u
n 1( , , y
E
f y
ra
f I
1 1
1^
4
f pp
i
4 .
:I
F
.
r.
,
1.
POSSIBILITIES FOR AUGMENTING AUBREY' YIELD ~
There are a number of feasible `alternatiYes to augmenting the Elm
Fork Yield. As a first consideration, there wi U be a,requirement far. more i
surface water than the Elm !
ork can produce, This will occur after, the year .
w+ i „
-2000 if Aubrey is constructed
The most immediate solution would be to transfer water from Cooper
Reservoir, Irving has rights to 39,6 mgd. This water could be available,
for the Elm Fork, ',The'logical sy$teM of pipelines wnui''d be from Goopetl`~ to
t
Lavon'to Lewisville, Aubrey is over one hundred feet higher in elevation
k than Lavon or Lewisville so there would, be an economic loss 'in pumping to
Aubrey itself. Nevertheless, the,water would be available if temporarily
stored or passed through L'ewisviile.'
a
The Sulphur'Bluff Projocb which could be built immediately down3trean'
}
, r4
from. Cooper is another ;source of auginentati`on water: This. proect> 'will Yield.
I' a substantial amount of water (228 Riga for both Sulphf~ 81uff proect), `All {
or ,a part of this water could be imported to the Elm Fork.
Red River water is.another possibility for interbasin transfer, The
Corps of Engineers has a project underway tip improve the water quality of the
Red River water. When this project is complete,, the Red River water. could, be',,:'
pumped across the divide into the Elm Fork and then into Aubrey Lake. This is
f
{ perhaps the.pestJ.,roject economicaiiy; however, Ili co~Id require the Corps
many years to complete the project. The project is prl~sentl,y~ two parts.
I I
is r.~....,~~titld~.`~...?a;n71~•_
1
,
,
r
•
,r
r. r
o One dart is in con' struction, while the other is In the planning phase. The
total proyect rill 'cost about $200 million. Optimistically, the project
could be completed by 1990..
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1
1. Dallas must play a role An any altewtative considered.. The positioa
Y, of Dallas will have a large bearing on feasibility,
2. Water, rights on the Elm Fork are complex, mainly because of the
past practice of permitting annual'diversion equivalent to, the '
total storage.
30 If the yfeld,of tho Elm'fork is to be maximized, it will be necessary
to transfer flood storage space from Lewisville to Aubrey. 'Il• Aubrey
t'.I` tf J
is built as a non-federal project, it may be difficult to convince
the CoY ig to transfer flood control from a federal ,pro ect 1R6 ` a hbn-
a
federal orie; this action probably xould require'specifi0 Con'9ression-
a1 6uthoriz6t166'.
N j
~r
L
Ff p y
~.W!)4A34t!s s"fr,-i5f?t.c;5437s5w1 Ar\ ?~>+`>}I .c •L,,r .r.. r:.u4e r..,.,;t+ly r?aer I. :v E'er ~t n.,e..: .,,r r:xa~rrii t'. E. . aes ~!*n
.
.
1
E r
r
k r \rl~
.r
r •
. r
,r
r
, r
r
I is r
Z W
r
a Q. r
a z, '
.
CD
C4 w
40
f11! ~ .fir r i
1 -4
a°_ 'a t
I 3 b b' , v
F~
It Il i s
I ~ o a k :Z1 I
v I
I . i m p J
~ I Q
f a Y o
06
' d J' i '
o o r~
o V - g ;
~ +r
t
.
r o ° ~S
W a
a ' < r ~ ~ y
1
S t'1 r r• 1:
2w cr
P c
sr r" S A
t ~ 1 1
a to
'
0 or b 1
, O
~ E
O w _
C
' I
N 2
.r
1
'BSI N ~ ~ l
1 v i
4' Cl' tr .e f} 5 a~ .h 1
L
M '
it r
,PLAN FOR IMPLtMBNTATION:OF UBREY LAKE BY TRA
r t. Basic issues to be resolved by Denton and Pallas.
C A. That Aubrey Lake be constructed as,a local, project.
B. The size and location of the local project.
C. The maximum; annual diversion rights to which the following entities
are, anti t' ad),
t
(1) Dallas,
f , (2) ' Denton , and
r
(3) TRA for the benefit of prospettive water purchasers in Cooke and
7z Denton Counties and possibly C011in County.
2. ' Steps to imPlementation:
A. Draft and agree upon a,throe-party contract'(DentontDallas-TRA).
Some key contract conoepts are ;set out in.the attachment:
` B. Amend ,TRA's statute. to:
E (l) Add to ERA's territory to Include all of Denton County and
x parts of Cooke and Grayson Countyk
p£ (2) Add birectoet, to TRA's Bcard"to provide representation for
thpel Denton County area and the Cooke and Grayson.Counties
t . , area •
I 31, 1919.
4 this amendment could be effective bV' y
0n'•the',effeotive date of the amendment to TRA's statute, execute the
'thr~e•party contract.
D, Organize the project Advisory'CounciL,
E. If necessary, obtbin Federal withdrawal from.the project.
F. .'Obtain a permit amendment fromthe Texas Water Commission reflecting
the provisions Of .the three-party contract.
'revenue bonds to design the project and to commence
S611 interim
G. S land acquisition.
H. Apply for and.obtain the Federal Section 404 permit. I
i
I.` advertise and receive bids for construction of the dam and related
fatipS.
a
21
,
~ pwAklir;'.,,,.k,sJv.C.':i,W}d 43`Yf~t!'taf1,+}
,'~Sh'T': ,l.,tr~✓n.wfx=.,,....,t.:ss:. ti.u..,,:e,,.,*.. 6a>.c
-n:
44
Page 2
1
g ,rill . 1 a
J\ $ell permanent revenua bonds to fund r'" ng construction'costs.
s
K: Com»ence,cpnstruction of the dam and related facilities and ell ~
other fad lities:
3. The protect could be operational by, December 1982 unless there were
extremely adverse weether conditions.
/
pp '4 ,pry
4 ~ C
~ V
~;y~~` i
It
F
e FS$ F
r j S
i
I
1
7
1
a g l`
a r
' V ll. VlIA tl
V
ll~ti'L 1 !
i~ s \ .l: 1 li 5
31 s E ~ `
r t / 1'
11 4 --r
F j
3 '
{ ~ I
'Ic T4
r{
l
1
II
1 •
4 KfY CONTRACT CO CEPTS
R CT. ~
OfN_~-ASR' KE. T E 3fCT,E
oses
The project would have three purp
rimary;purpose)
P~ A. Water supply (p
purpose)
r anillary s g, Recreation c ur ose to obtain a section 40A
Wildlife'S,Ianagement (an ancillary p p
C. g2-500) h droelectri-
pemit under P,L• urposes y
i sion should be included for another ancillary P ;
feasible. en sneer jointly specified
Prov should it be found to be
city, the consulting g '
: The project would be designed by
2.
by Dallas and Denton. dwrled and operated by TRH
constructeds
uld be .
3, the acqui
The project wos
„ and to
t on costs. rel ati tJ t6 the water
proceeds of
q. All construo.i , the recreation u1d be paid from
sition of and for. said bonds to. by secured bYa
tht of cbonsheuc-
certain ne .minimal recreondsn Denton. diby1~e's +wo The expenditure
revenue b and Dal l as o et,~,pproved Y
pledge of.rgvenues from a•construction bud$ €
overned by of. Di rectors.
tion funds would beg Council and by TpA s Boar,
below-described Advisory eratlon and murnposes
all 'admini st+^ati wildlife oP. ement p
aid anf analgbasiss to be
.
5. Upan.canpl,etion of constou~ a°w~ter saiid;1costss .described Advisory
tena►~ce c.ost5 rel~allas an""ton' . ved by the below.
would paid. operating budget appro 1 ,
governed by an Board- of Directors
. Obtained fr~n,the,Texas
Council and by TRA s
erinit vJoul,d be i bond water.
t edam find to di erted.
C u~d'' h ~
fi. ,A9 t0 the Watet^ SUUh rjxin$TRA"CO CanstrUCt`` h - 11
d that ahnually, 4,
a. s which
star: ater
nto` the pro'3et•,b',~,ney`. #or
Conn. l .i
N ecify the anaunt of 'w l
E .the permit would sp arties,IRA wo a5 an amount
ol p s`eid
' of the"threa p ro act
t be a credit proratamitsashareof the p re
by each
fec
rate e designed to Pro
in ef i r
ave been
each acre-foot otowbeebased schedul retired.
:NY on a. ermanent bonds h
construction t
o
a~tnunt of ma'. c the time the p Col11 ci l t approve
would be h regard to the project`s water i
included for an Advisory
share of;theosts by TRA a reed upon by Denton and
vision ;ets and ta' advise wit i
would be on the basis g
and•annual bud9
t
' supply purpose. 14embership after,
, diverts
Dallas and Denton to
their ~
enable
e 'roject is funetionals
signs would be included to Da11as
' th p uld also
the the project at actual cost. Provisians wo
F. 7. ':Prv~etirWeOt of bonds and so long 'as
parties.'
other, ps'.to assign their raspective rights to
shares•of water from the ors
1 of the other two gfinal
i.
ncluded'for panton anthgaap
be artits subject to
' p
r