HomeMy WebLinkAboutBV Long-Range Water Suppy StudyBRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
FY
H ._ 5 (i N
S'4.O,U/\ t.S,r NC
Engineering & knvirol rnentd1 Con uttants
ESPEY,
HUSTON &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineering & Environmental Consultants
Document No. 890674
EH&A Job No. 11753
BRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
Prepared for:
City of Bryan
and
City of College Station
Prepared by:
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 519
Austin, Texas 78767
in association with
R.W. Harden and Associates, Inc.
3409 Executive Center Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
August 1990
916 Capital of Texas Highway South • P.O. Box 519 • Austin, Texas 78767 • (512) 327-6840 • FAX (512) 327-2453
BRAZOS VALLEY LONG-RANGE REGIONAL
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 REGIONAL PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.2.1 Primary Study Area 1-3
1.2.2 Secondary Study Area 1-3
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1-5
2.0 REGIONAL SETTING 2-1
2.1 PHYSICAL 2-1
2.2 INSTITUTIONAL 2-1
2.3 ECONOMICS 2-2
2.3.1 State of Texas 2-2
2.3.2 Planning Area 2-5
2.4 HISTORICAL POPULATION 2-5
2.4.1 Primary Study Area 2-5
2.4,2 Secondary Study Area 3-1
3.0 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.2 REVIEW OF PLANNING DATA SOURCES 3-2
3.2.1 Texas Water Development Board 3-2
3.2.2 Texas State Data Center 3-3
11753/890674 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
3.2.3 US Bureau of the Census 3-4
3.2.4 Brazos Valley Development Council 3-5
3.2.5 Participant Surveys and Interviews 3-5
3.2.6 Local Planning and Engineering Studies 3-7
3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3-7
3.3.1 Primary Study Area 3-7
3.3.2 Secondary Study Area 3-10
3.4 MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3-12
3.4.1 Primary Study Area 3-18
3.4.2 Secondary Study Area 3-18
3.5 MUNICIPAL AND MANUFACTURING WATER DEMAND 3-18
PROJECTIONS
3.5.1 Average Day Water Demand 3-21
3.5.1.1 Primary Study Area 3-21
3.5.1.2 Secondary Study Area 3-?3
3.5.2 Average Day Water Demand With Conservation 3-23
3.5.3 Peak Day Water Demand 3-23
3.5.3.1 Primary Study Area 3-26
3.5.3.2 Secondary Study Area 3-26
3.5.4 Peak Day Water Demand With Conservation 3-29
3.6 EXISTING FACILITIES IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA 3-29
3.7 EXISTING CAPACITY AND PROJECTION OF SUPPLY DEFICIT 3-33
4.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS 4-1
4.1 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 4-1
4.1.1 Purpose 4-1
4.1.2 Goal 4-2
11753/890674 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
4.1.3 Potential Benefits 4-2
4.1.4 Elements of Plan 4-3
4.2 DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN 4-4
4.2.1 Purpose 4-4
4.2.2 Elements of Plan 4-4
5.0 GROUND -WATER RESOURCES 5-1
5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 5-1
5.2 SIMSBORO AQUIFER 5-1
5.2.1 Character, Location and Extent 5-1
5.2.2 Present Use 5-5
5.2.3 Water Quality 5-10
5.2.4 Water Levels in Wells 5-16
5.2.5 Hydraulic Characteristics 5-18
5.2.6 Recharge, Discharge and Movement of Water 5-19
5.2.7 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of Year 2020 5-22
5.2.8 Interference Effects from Pumping by Others 5-29
5.2.9 Effects of Pumping on Fresh WaterBrackish Water Interface 5-33
5.3 OTHER AQUIFERS 5-36
5.3.1 Introduction 5-36
5.3.2 Location 5-36
5.3.3 Present Use 5-38
5.3.4 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of Year 2020 5-40
5.4 GROUND -WATER RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT AS A 5-43
SOURCE OF WATER
6.0 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 6-1
6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 6-1
11753/890674
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
6.2 EXISTING RESOURCES 6-1
6.2.1 Brazos River 6-1
6.2.2 Lake Somerville 6-3
6.2.3 Lake Limestone 6-3
6.2.4 Twin Oaks Reservoir 6-3
6.2.5 Gibbons Creek Reservoir 6-4
6.2.6 Lake Livingston 6-4
6.2.7 Lake Conroe 6-4
6.2.8 Camp Creek Lake 6-4
6.3 PROPOSED RESOURCES 6-5
6.3.1 Millican Lake 6-5
6.3.2 Bedias Reservoir 6-5
6.3.3 Lake Navasota 6-6
6.3.4 Caldwell Reservoir 6-6
6.3.5 Brazos Coal Lake 6-6
6.3.6 Upper Keechi Creek Reservoir 6-7
6.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES SCREENING PROCESS 6-7
6.5 RECOMMENDED SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES 6-8
7.0 RECOMMENDED AL I'hRNAT1VE SOURCES 7-1
7.1 GENERAL 7-1
7.2 GROUND -WATER ALTERNATIVE 7-3
7.2.1 Simsboro Aquifer Wells 7-3
7.2.1.1 General 7-3
7.2.1.2 Supply Facilities 7-5
7.2.1.3 Treatment Facilities 7-5
7.2.1.4 Pumping and Transmission 7-8
11753/890674 V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
7.3 SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES 7-9
7.3.1 General 7-9
7.3.1.1 Raw Water Intake - 7-13
7.3.1.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-14
7.3.1.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-14
7.3.1.4 Booster Pumps and Transmission Main 7-16
7.3.2 Alternative No. 2 - Lake Somerville 7-16
7.3.2.1 . Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-16
7.3.2.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-18
7.3.2.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-18
7.3.2.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-18
7.3.3 Alternative No. 3 - Brazos River 7-19
7.3.3.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-19
7.3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-19
7.3.3.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-19
7.3.3.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-23
7.3.4 Alternative No. 4 - Millican Lake 7-23
7.3.4.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station 7-23
7.3.4.2 Raw Water Transmission Main 7-23
7.3.4.3 Water Treatment Plant 7-23
7.3.4.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main 7-25
7.3.5 Cost Estimates 7-26
7.3.5.1 Ground Water Costs 7-26
7.3.5.2 Surface Water Costs 7-29
8.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1 GENERAL 8-1
11753/890674 vi
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
8.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOURCE 8-3
8.3 UNIT COST OF TREATED WATER 8-4
9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND FINANCING 9-1
9.1 OVERVIEW 9-1
9.2 REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES 9-2
9.2.1 Regional System Operated by a Maior city or Cities 9-2
9.2.1.1 Administration 9-2
9.2.1.2 Powers 9-2
9.2.1.3 Accountability 9-3
9.2.2 Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority 9-3
9.2.2.1 Administration 9-4
9.2.2.2 Powers 9-5
9.2.2.3 Accountability 9-5
9.2.3 Newly -created Water District 9-5
9.2.3.1 Administration 9-6
9.2.3.2 Powers 9-6
9.2.3.3 Accountability 9-6
9.2.4 Newly -created Water Authority 9-6
9.2.4.1 Administration 9-7
9.2.4.2 Powers 9-7
9.2.4.3 Accountability 9-7
9.3 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS 9-8
9.3.1 Conventional Long -Term Financing Methods 9-8
9.3.1.1 General Obligation Bonds 9-8
9.3.1.2 Revenue Bonds 9-9
9.3.2 Water Development Board Funds 9-9
11753/890674
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Section Page
10.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE 10-1
10.1 RECOMMENDED PLAN 10-1
10.2 RECOMMENDED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASES - 10-1
10.3 RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS 10-3
11.0 CONCLUSIONS 11-1
12.0 REFERENCES 12-1
APPENDIX A - Entities Notified with Questionnaire
APPENDIX B - Questionnaire
APPENDIX C - Projected Municipal Population
APPENDIX D - Letters
11753/890674 \ill
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Primary and Secondary Study Areas 1-2
1-2 Regional Planning Study Area 1-4
3-1 County Population Projections, Brazos County 3-9
3-2 County Population Projections, Grimes County 3-13
3-3 County Population Projections, Leon County 3-14
3-4 County Population Projections, Madison County 3-15
3-5 County Population Projections, Robertson County 3-16
3-6 County Population Projections, Secondary Study Area 3-17
5-1 Schematic Cross Section A - A' 5-3
5-2 Extent of Simsboro Aquifer 5-4
5-3 Annual Simsboro Pumpage By Bryan, College 5-14
Station, and Texas A & M University
5-4 Historical Static Water Levels in Various 5-17
Bryan and College Station Simsboro Wells
5-5 Cross Section Showing Conditions in Typical 5-21
Artesian Sand
5-6 Plan View Showing Flow Lines in Typical 5-23
Artesian Sand
5-7 Conceptual Well Field to Meet Brazos County 5-26
Municipal Water Demand to Year 2020
5-8 Projected Pumpage from the Carizo/Wilcox 5-31
Aquifer for Mining and Power Plant Purposes
5-9 Location of Sparta, Queen City, Calvert Bluff 5-37
and Hooper Aquifers
7-1 Ground Water System 7-6
7-2 Well Field Alternative 1 7-7
7-3 Typical Surface Water Facilities 7-10
7-4 Typical Treatment Process 7-15
7-5 Lake Somerville Alternative 2 7-17
11753/890674 ix
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Figure Page
7-6 Brazos River Alternative 3
7-7 Millican Lake Alternative 4
11753/890674 X
7-20
7-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Historical Population Trends by County 2-6
2-2 Historical Population Trends by City 2-7
3-1 Summary of Questionnaire Responses 3-6
3-2 Projected Population Comparison 3-8
3-3 Projected Population Comparison by City 3-11
3-4 Historical and Projected Per Capita Municipal Water Usage, 3-19
Brazos County
3-5 Historical and Projected Per Capita Municipal Water Usage, 3-20
Secondary Study Area
3-6 Projected Average Day Water Demand, Brazos County 3-22
3-7 Projected Average Day Water Demand, Secondary Study Area 3-24
3-8 Projected Average Day Water Demand with Conservation, 3-25
Brazos County
3-9 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand, Brazos County 3-27
3-10 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand, Secondary Study Area 3-28
3-11 Projected Maximum Day Water Demand with Conservation, 3-30
Brazos County
3-12 Inventory of Existing Water Facilities in Brazos County 3-31
3-13 Projected Ground -Water Deficit from Existing Facilities, 3-35
Average Day Water Demands, Brazos County
3-14 Projected Ground -Water Deficit from Existing Facilities, 3-36
Maximum Day Water Demands, Brazos County
5-1 Municipal and Industrial Ground -Water Use for 1987 5-6
5-2 Municipal Ground -Water Use by Aquifer for 1987 5-7
5-3 City of Bryan, Average Monthly and Yearly 5-11
Simsboro Pumpage - MGD
5-4 City of College Station, Average Monthly 5-12
and Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD
5-5 Texas A & M University, Average Monthly 5-13
and Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD
11753/890674 xi
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
5-6 Chemical Quality of Water From Simsboro Wells 5-14
5-7 Conceptual Well Field and Estimated Pumping Levels 5-28
-5-8 Summary of Projected Pumpage from Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer 5-32
for Mining and Power Plant Purposes
5-9 Typical Aquifer Values 5-41
6-1 Existing and Proposed Surface Water Resources 6-2
6-2 Screening Matrix of Surface Water Resources 6-9
7-1 Construction Phases 7-3
7-2 Construction Cost Estimates, Well Field - 7-28
Alternative No. 1
7-3 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, Well Field 7-30
Alternative No. 1
7-4 Construction Cost Estimates, Lake Somerville - 7-33
Alternative No. 2
7-5 Construction Cost Estimates, Brazos River - 7-34
Alternative No. 3
7-6 Construction Cost Estimates, Millican Lake - 7-35
Alternative No. 4
7-7 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-37
Lake Somerville - Alternative No. 2
7-8 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-38
Brazos River - Alternative No. 3
7-9 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates, 7-39
Millican Lake - Alternative No. 4
8-1 Cost Comparison, Ground Water vs. Surface Water 8-2
8-2 Alternative 1 - Simsboro Ground Water, 8-5
Without Conservation
8-3 Alternative 1 - Simsboro Ground Water, 8-6
With Conservation
8-4 Alternative 2 - Lake Somerville,
Without Conservation
11753/890674
xii
8-7
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table Page
8-5 Alternative 2 - Lake Somerville, 8-8
With Conservation
8-6 Alternative 3 - Brazos River, 8-9
Without Conservation
8-7 Alternative 3 - Brazos River, 8-10
With Conservation
8-8 Alternative 4 - Millican Lake, 8-11
Without Conservation
8-9 Alternative 4 - Millican Lake, 8-12
With Conservation
10-1 Preliminary Schedule for the Required Facility Expansions 10-2
11753/890674
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 1989, the cities of Bryan and College Station contracted with the firm of
Espey, Huston and Associates, Inc. (EH&A) to conduct a regional water supply planning study
for a, 5-county area composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson Counties.
EH&A was joined in this effort by R.W. Harden and Associates, Inc. (RWH&A), consulting
hydrologists and geologists. Funding for this study has come from the cities of Bryan and College
Station, Texas A&M University, and matching funds from the Texas Water Development Board
(TWDB). Although this study evaluates the water demands of the 5-county study area, the central
focus of master planning for a regional system has been confined to Brazos County, as set forth
by the terms of the TWDB matching planning grant.
Brazos County, with an area of 589 square miles, is the most populous of the 5-
county region, where approximately 69% (124,389) of the total regional population resides.
Similarly, Brazos County has claimed an equally high proportion (71%) of the municipal water
demand within the 5-county study area. The cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas
A&M University) are the most significant municipal communities in Brazos County, generating
in 1985 over 93% of the total county -wide municipal water demand.
Since 1970, each of the five counties that comprise the study area has increased in
population. Brazos County has led this population growth, more than doubling its population
since 1970. With regard to the future population of Brazos County, population growth is
expected to continue throughout the study period (1990 - 2020). This forecasted population
growth is expected to be fueled in part by increased employment in the high technology and
research and development sectors of the local economy that are typically associated with the Texas
A&M University system. The industrial manufacturing sectors are also expected to stimulate
some growth in the Bryan -College Station area economy.
Historical and projected municipal and manufacturing water demands of the 5-county
study area have been evaluated for the period of 1980 - 2020. Water demand projections for the
11753/890674
xiv
primary study area have been developed from both the Texas Water Development Board and self -
reported data provided by Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University. Following close
coordination and a thorough review of all data, these entities selected a final set of water demand
projections from which the regional master plan was developed. These final demand projections
were also modelled under a water conservation scenario.
Conducted concurrently with the selection of final water demand projections was an
evaluation of the projected water supply deficit for the primary study area. A water supply
deficit would be encountered at the point when water demands exceed the capacity of existing
facilities. The determination of a supply deficit was based in large part on a conservative estimate
of the production capacity of existing ground -water wells that draw from the Simsboro aquifer.
This production estimate did not include the capacity of facilities that draw from sources other
than the Simsboro aquifer, nor from facilities that would be expected to be phased out of long-
term use.
With a base production capacity combined for Bryan, College Station, and Texas
A&M University, it was determined that a supply deficit would likely occur within the next decade
if no expansions or improvements were made. The combined production capacity for these three
entities was conservatively estimated at 30.24 mgd. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the water
supply deficits under average day conditions, both with and without the implementation of
conservation measures.
In recognition that water demands will exceed the capacity of existing facilities within
the next decade, the study team evaluated four alternative sources of water supply. These
alternative supplies included both ground -water and surface water sources. Based on an
evaluation by RWH&A, the Simsboro aquifer presented the best available ground -water source
in terms of both water quality and quantity.
Following a thorough evaluation of fifteen existing and proposed surface water
supplies, three surface water alternatives were selected: (1) Lake Somerville, (2) the Brazos
River, and (3) the proposed Millican Lake. The selection of the three surface water alternatives
11753/890674 xV
was based on a preliminary screening according to several key criteria: sufficient yield, conveyance
costs, designated use, and suggestions and recommendations from either the Brazos River
Authority or the Trinity River Authority.
Based on the concept of supplementing the capacity of existing facilities through the
development of regional facilities, each of the four supply alternatives was comparatively
evaluated. Each supply alternative was carried from preliminary engineering design through the
estimation of construction costs and annual operations and maintenance costs under both with and
without conservation scenarios.
The sizing of facilities and phasing of construction was based on a regional system
that would act as wholesale supplier to participating entities in Brazos County. This proposed
regional system would supplement the capacities of existing Bryan, College Station, and Texas
A&M University facilities. It has been assumed that some flexibility would be inherent in the
phasing of construction. Therefore, the initial construction phase has been set to correspond to
the milestone year of 2000. A second phase of construction has been assumed to occur in 2010.
This second phase would provide sufficient capacity to meet the water demands of the primary
study area through 2020.
Based on a comparison of the four water supply alternatives, the study team has
recommended the use of ground -water for supply of Brazos County. The ground -water supply
alternative is the least -cost alternative in terms of both construction costs and annual operations
and maintenance costs. Table ES-2 provides a summary of the facilities and the related
construction costs for this alternative under with and without conservation scenarios. These
significantly lower construction and operations and maintenance costs likewise translate into the
lowest unit costs for treated water.
Although the unit cost of treated water that would be provided by a regional water
system would be expected to vary over time, the initial cost per 1000 gallons has been estimated
at $2.39 under the without conservation scenario for the year 2000. Assuming the implementation
of conservation measures, this unit cost has been estimated at $3.57 per 1000 gallons in 2000.
11753/890674 XVI
Although the unit cost (per 1,000 gals.) with conservation is greater than the unit cost without
conservation, there is a reduction in water demand and a corresponding reduction in the
construction cost with conservation. For the ground water supply, the year 2000 average day
water demands would be reduced by 2.7 mgd using conservation. The reduction in water demand
will have a corresponding reduction in construction costs of approximately 20% if conservation
measures are implemented. Conservation, therefore, provides significant cost savings to users of
a regional water supply -system.
This report also evaluates the institutional structures available to potentially create,
construct, operate, and manage a regional water supply system in Brazos County. The
institutional structures that have been examined in this report are:
• Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities;
• Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority;
• Newly -created Water District;
• Newly -created Regional Water Authority.
Each of these structures has certain advantages and disadvantages with respect to such
considerations as administration, legal powers, and assurance of accountability to participants in
the regional system. The study team has recommended that the regional participants closely
examine these options prior to selecting a final institutional arrangement for a regional water
system.
The study team has also provided an overview of the options available to finance a
regional water supply system. Generally, these include conventional long-term methods such as
the issuance of general obligation bonds and/or revenue bonds, as well as use of the funds
provided through the Water Development Fund.
11753/890674
xvii
Finally, based on the recommendation to continue the use of ground -water, the study
team has provided some general guidelines for implementation of the recommended plan. These
guidelines also emphasize the need to confirm participation in a regional system, as well as to
tailor the sizing and phasing of facilities to optimize the relationship between capital expenditures
and the participants' ability to pay.
117531890674 Xvlii
TABLE ES-1
PROJECI ED GROUND -WA 1'h.R DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMANDS
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 - 2000 2010 2020
Average Day Demands
Municipa1° 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437
Manufacturing° 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712
Total Water Demand 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149
GW Production 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240
Surplus/(Deficit) 5.0 (5.5) (12.7) (18.9)
Average Day Demands with Conservation
Municipal' 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171
Manufacturing' 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605
Total Water Demand 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776
GW Productionb 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240
Surplus/(Deficit) 5.62 (2.83) (7.30) (11.54)
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
° From Table 3-6.
b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan,
College Station, and TAMU wellfields.
From Table 3-8.
11753/890674 XiX
0)
q
7
0
0
8
Q
§ § § 25 25 25 ?5
Vi
I t I
O
• pS 5 n
enM — O - 00 00
6 b b a 6 O §§ 1
O V1} Oa
W h 1
'7 •t N lS 00 f3 N
§p § § 2p5 § § 2S mp& §
ONO N 8 g 00 E aY g
H er
aM.. M-i �p
00
M M M
O
.r
W
N
O O O O O O O N O O O.1
vo.
q
pp p O
pMp �M�pp M 4ff-. n P��1 of N
d ^
e e o e
• g .. o
3 a 6 Ua 6(D • 8
3 0
o • B
o
a
� • p
• w
Lands and Rights -of -Way
Well Field Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
4
Lands and Rights -of -Way
9;
Without Conservation Plan
0.11
arm
11753/890674
LO INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND
In April 1989, the cities of Bryan and College Station contracted with the firm of
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A) to conduct a regional water supply planning study for
a 5-county area composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson counties. EH&A
was joined in this undertaking by the firm of R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., consulting
hydrologists and geologists. The cities of Bryan and College Station and Texas A&M University
have jointly funded the plan with financial assistance provided by the Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB) in the form of a matching planning grant. As defined by the terms of the
planning grant, the central focus of this regional water supply plan has been on the primary study
area of Brazos County. A secondary study area composed of the remaining four counties has also
been evaluated with respect to a regional water system.
Underlying this regional planning effort has been close coordination with local officials
and representatives of the cities of Bryan and College Station, Texas A & M University, the
Brazos Valley Development Council, and the five counties that compose the study area. In
addition, this coordination has extended to the many representatives of the town governments,
as well as the many owners and operators of private and cooperative water supply systems
throughout the 5-county area. Finally, EH&A has coordinated closely with representatives of the
TWDB, drawing extensively from the State's large collection of population and water demand
data. EH&A wishes to recognize the contributions of the many individuals that have made this
report possible.
L2 REGIONAL PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION
The Brazos Valley Water Supply Planning Study encompasses a 5-county region of
approximately 3,803 square miles. The study area is composed of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison
and Robertson counties as shown in Figure 1-1. Recent estimates (State Data Center, 1989) put
the total population of the 5-county area at approximately 180,707 inhabitants, over 60% of whom
11753/890674
1-1
PROJECT NO.
GRIMES
COUNTY
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
BRAZOS COUNTY
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
ROBERTSON COUNTY
LEON COUNTY
MADISON COUNTY
GRIMES COUNTY
500000
0 50000
MIEN AIM
SCALE IN FEET
- SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, IN(
Engineering & Environmental Consultants
FIGURE I -I
PRIMARY AND SECONDARYt
STUDY AREAS
are residents of the twin cities of Bryan and College Station in Brazos County. For the purposes
of regional planning, Brazos County has been defined as the primary study area due to the
magnitude and concentration of both its population and municipal water demand. The remaining
four counties have been defined as the secondary study area because of their generally rural
character. Figure 1-2 provides a schematic representation of the regional planning area with
divisions among the primary and secondary study areas.
1.2.1 Primary Study Area
Brazos County, with an area of 589 square miles, is defined as a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. As a whole, the county is the most
populous of the 5-county region, where approximately 69% (124,389 inhabitants) of the current
total regional population resides. Similarly, Brazos County has historically claimed an equally high
share of the total municipal water demand for the study area. In 1985, municipal water demand
for Brazos County was 71% of the total municipal water demand for the 5-county area.
The cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas A&M University) are the
two most significant municipal communities in the county, generating in 1985 over 93% of the
total county -wide municipal water demand.
1.2.2 Secondary Study Area
The secondary study area is composed of Grimes, Leon, Madison and Robertson
Counties. The total combined area of these counties is approximately 3,214 square miles, with
a total estimated population of 56,318 inhabitants. These counties can generally be characterized
as rural, with only moderate concentrations of county inhabitants located in small communities.
The City of Navasota (Grimes County) is the largest community within the secondary
study area with an estimated population of 6,773. The City of Hearne (Robertson County) is
the second largest community within this area, with an estimated population of 5,813.
11753/890674
1-3
FIGURE 1-2
REGIONAL PLANNING STUDY AREA
Primary and Secondary Study Areas
BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL
PLANNING AREA
3,803 Square Miles
Pop.- 180,707
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Brazos County
589 Square Miles
Pop. - 24,389
City of Bryan
Pop. - 58,120
City of College Station
Pop. - 53,301
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
4-County Area
3,214 Square Miles
Pop. - 56,318
Grimes County
799 Square Miles
Pop. - 17,330
Robertson County
864 Square Mites
Pop. - 15,102
Leon County
1,079 Square Miles
Pop. - 12,210
Madison County
472 Square Mites
Pop. - 11,676
1-4
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
Historically, Bryan, College Station, and Texas A & M University have been the
largest consumers of municipal water in Brazos County, collectively accounting for over 93% of
the total county municipal water usage in 1985. In contrast to the smaller communities located
throughout the secondary study area, the urban area of Brazos County is characterized by large
municipal demand within a geographically central location. Therefore, this regional water supply
plan focuses primarily on the long-range water needs of Brazos County.
Section 2.0 of this report begins with a definition and description of the 5-county
study area. This description includes a review of the historical and current trends in population
and economic growth for the primary and secondary study areas.
Section 3.0 provides an overview of the methodology and the data sources used to
evaluate and develop population and water demand projections for the primary and secondary
study area. Key elements of the water demand equation were reviewed in detail: population, per
capita usage, peaking factors, and demand reductions through conservation. Finally, an inventory
and description of existing water supply, treatment, and storage facilities was developed for the
primary study area of Brazos County.
Section 4.0 describes the purposes and potential benefits of the implementation of
conservation and drought contingency programs. This section includes a thorough description of
the elements of the programs and also a draft water conservation plan and drought contingency
plan.
Section 5.0 provides a thorough evaluation of ground -water resources in the study
area, including an inventory of aquifers, water quality, and recharge characteristics. This section
also evaluates the availability of existing ground -water resources to meet the future demands of
the primary study area.
11753/890674
1-5
Section 6.0 examines the potential for the use of surface water to supplement existing
ground -water supplies. An inventory of existing and proposed surface water resources has been
developed and evaluated according to criteria related to available yield, conveyance costs,
designated use, and recommendations by managing water authorities.
Section 7.0 describes four regional water supply alternatives that have been developed
to meet the future water demands of Brazos County. The first alternative is developed on the
assumption that future water needs will be met through the expansion of ground -water facilities.
The remaining three alternatives assume future demands will be supplemented through the
development of surface water sources. This section includes a detailed description of regional
facilities, as well as associated costs.
Section 8.0 provides a comparison of the four regional water supply alternatives. This
section includes an estimate and comparison of the unit costs for providing wholesale treated
water via a regional water supply system. This section concludes with a recommended source.
Section 9.0 describes the institutional and financial arrangements that are potentially
available to construct and operate a regional water supply system.
Section 10.0 provides guidance and recommendations for implementation of a regional
water system using the preferred source of water. This section includes a discussion of the
construction phases and scheduling of capital improvements.
Section 11.0 includes the overall conclusions pertaining to the development of future
water resources for Brazos County.
11753/890674
1-6
2.0 REGIONAL SETTING
The 5-county area defined for this study encompasses approximately 3,803 square
miles. The majority of the study area is located within the watershed of the Brazos River, with
the remainder located within the watershed of the Trinity River. Recent estimates (TDC, 1988)
for the 5-county area reveal a population of approximately 180,707 inhabitants. The majority of
these inhabitants are located in Brazos County, most of whom reside in the twin cities of Bryan
and College Station.
2.1 PHYSICAL
The 5-county area is situated within the vegetative communities of the Blackland
Prairie and the Post Oak Savannah associations. The topography of these associations is gently
rolling to hilly, with elevations in the study area ranging from approximately 150 to 500 feet above
sea level. Land use is variable, ranging from the urbanized areas of Brazos County to the
agricultural uses that predominate in the secondary study area. Agricultural uses consist of
cultivated lands and native and improved pastures for the grazing of livestock.
The Post Oak Savannah is largely composed of native and improved pastures
interspersed by some farmland. The overstory generally consists of post oak and blackjack oak,
with an abundant understory of native and introduced species of grass.
The Blackland Prairies consist of generally fertile soils that have historically led to
widespread cultivation. The native vegetation is characteristic of true prairies, with blackjack oak
and post oak common to areas with medium to light -textured soils.
2.2 INSTITUTIONAL
The overall study area consists of Brazos, Grimes, Madison, Leon and Robertson
Counties. Political subdivisions within these counties generally are divided into county and city
governments, school districts, special districts, and regional water authorities that serve the public.
11753/890674
2-1
In most cases, some overlap of boundaries exists among each of these levels of government,
although the enabled powers of each may differ.
In general, the provision of municipal water service is accomplished either through
public, quasi -public or private means. Appendix A contains a list of public and private entities
that provide water service within the 5-county study area. Included in this list are some local
county and city governments that have local decision -making authority, although they do not
provide water service.
2.3 ECONOMICS
2.3.1 State of Texas
In spite of numerous contingencies (the recovery of the real estate and financial
sector, the price of oil, the success or failure of numerous local, regional, and state initiatives and
programs, etc.), there are some long-range patterns in demographics and industrial performance
within the state which permit long-term economic forecasting.
11753/890674
Some basic forecasts for future business activity within the state include the following:
• Nominal gross state product will advance at an annual compounded rate of
7.2%. When adjustments are made for anticipated inflation, real output would
be expected to expand by 2.7% per year. This pace would slightly exceed
projected growth for the nation through 2010 (Texas Economic Publishers, Inc.,
1989).
• Personal income will increase by 7.1% per year on a compounded basis, with
real gains of 2.5% forecasted.
• Aggregate employment will grow at an annual rate of 1.5%, while population
will increase at an annual compounded rate of 1.3%.
2-2
• The services sector will continue to be the leading source of employment
expansion, followed by manufacturing.
In general, forecasts reveal an economically healthy and viable future, as the state's
economy continues to diversify. Diversification has strengthened the state's national economic
interdependencies, decreasing the sensitivity of Texas' economy to local and state business
fluctuations.
2.3.2 Planning Area
The following summary will discuss recent trends in population and employment
growth, proposed major projects, and local economic development initiatives within the primary
and secondary study areas.
Primary Study Area
Recent trends in employment and population growth, coupled with the economic
growth potential of the Bryan -College Station area, provide the basis for an optimistic economic
forecast for the primary study area. From 1985 to 1989, the civilian labor force has increased in
Brazos County by 7.00%, compared to 1.94% for the state (TEC, 1985-89). From August 1988
to August 1989, the Bryan -College Station Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) saw a 2.4%
increase in employment, adding an estimated 1,200 jobs during the period. Recent unemployment
rates are consistently lower than other metropolitan counties.
Similarly, population grew by 2.8% annually from 1985 to 1987, compared to 1.3%
annually for the state. Projections by both the TWDB and the 'WC call for continued growth,
at rates substantially greater than those projected for the state.
Texas A&M University (TAMU) provides the basic foundation for employment and
population growth in the Bryan -College Station area. TAMU ranks first in research funding
11753/890674
2-3
among universities in the Southwest and is among the top 20 nationally. Growth potential is
substantially enhanced by the 440-acre Texas A & M University Research Park. The park will
serve to establish a close relationship between the research capabilities of TAMU and selected
industrial and commercial entities engaged in compatible research.
Three additional industrial parks in the Bryan -College Station area offer facilities for
light to heavy industry, for research and development, and for high technology industrial growth.
Employment in Brazos County is concentrated in state and local government (42%),
trades (23%), services (16%) and manufacturing (7%). Each of these sectors will benefit from
continued development of the research and development and industrial parks mentioned above.
In conclusion, employment growth should continue at current rates over the short-term, and
continue to exceed state levels over the planning period.
Secondary Study Area
The 4-county secondary study area is primarily rural, with no communities larger
than 7,000 inhabitants. The covered labor force of these counties is generally employed within
the local and state government, trade, services and durable goods manufacturing sectors. To a
lesser extent, the construction and the transportation and public utilities sectors contribute to the
local economy in terms of both covered employment and earnings. The farming sector has
historically made significant contributions to earnings, particularly in Leon and Madison counties,
although these contributions are not usually revealed in covered employment statistics.
Lignite mining and energy development projects are both ongoing and planned for
the 4-county area -and will influence growth to an undetermined extent on both the local area
and a larger region.
11753/890674 2-4
2.4 HISTORICAL POPULATION
2.4.1 Primary Study Area
In the last two decades, Brazos County has experienced steady population growth,
increasing almost 35% from a 1980 population of 93,588 to an estimated 1988 population of
124,389 (TDC, 1989). The twin cities of Bryan and College Station have captured the majority
of the county's population growth, increasing by approximately 31% and 43%, respectively, during
the same 80-88 period. The 1988 estimated populations of Bryan and College Station are 58,120
and 53,301, respectively, for a combined total population of 111,421. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide
a summary of historical population trends by county and city for the primary study area.
2.4.2 Secondary Study Area
The 4-county secondary study area has experienced slight to moderate population
growth during the last two decades. Since 1980, the collective population of these four counties
has increased 17% from 48,476 to an estimated 1988 population of 56,318, resulting in an overall
net increase of 7,842 inhabitants. Refer to Table 2-1 for a summary of historical population
trend by county. Table 2-2 provides a summary of population for major towns within the
secondary study area.
11753/890674
2-5
TABLE 2-1
HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS BY COUNTY
1960 1970 1980 1988
Primary Study Area
Brazos Co. 44,895 57,978 93,588 124,389
Secondary Study Area
Grimes Co. 12,709 11,855 13,580 17,330
Leon Co. 9,951 8,738 9,594 12,210
Madison Co. 6,749 7,693 10,649 11,676
Robertson Co. 16,157 14,389 14,653 15,102
SUBTOTAL 45,566 42,675 48,476 56,318
5-County Study Area 90,461 100,653 142,064 180,707
State of Texas 9,580,000 11,198,655 14,229,191 16,840,881
ANNUALIZED COMPOUNDED GROWTH
60-70 70-80 80-88
Primary Study Area
Brazos Co.
Secondary Study Area
Grimes Co.
Leon Co.
Madison Co.
Robertson Co.
SUBTOTAL
Total Study Area
State of Texas
2.59%
-0.69%
-L29%
1.32%
-1.15%
-0.65%
L07%
L57%
4.90% 3.62%
1.37%
0.94%
3.30%
0.18%
1.28%
3.51%
2.42%
3.09%
3.06%
L16%
0.38%
1.89%
3.05%
2.13%
SOURCE: 1960-80, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972 and 1982.
1988, Texas State Data Center, 1989.
11753/890674
2-6
TABLE 2-2
HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS BY CITY
Place
Numerical Percent
1980 1988 Change Change
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Bryan 44,337 58,120 13,783 31.09%
College Station 37,272 53.301 16,029 43.01%
SUBTOTAL 83,589 113,409 29,820 35.67%
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
Bremond 1,025 995 (30) -2.93%
Buffalo 1,507 2,052 545 36.16%
Calvert 1,732 1,723 (9) -0.52%
Centerville 799 915 116 14.52%
Franklin 1,349 1,456 107 7.93%
Hearne 5,418 5,813 395 7.29%
Madisonville 3,660 4,174 514 14.04%
Marquez 231 288 57 24.68%
Navasota 5,971 6,773 802 13.43%
Normangee 636 796 160 25.16%
Oakwood 606 745 139 22.94%
SUBTOTAL 22,934 25,730 2,796 12.19%
SOURCE: 1980, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1982.
1988, Texas State Data Center, 1989.
11753/890674
2-7
3.0 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
3.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING METHODOLOGY
The projection of water demand is based in large part on historical trends in
population growth, per capita usage characteristics, and water demand from industrial, agricultural,
-and other land uses that have no direct link to local population. The methodology that is used
for this study is one that combines the review and evaluation of best available published data with
a thorough cross-referencing of data sources.
This study employs a 30-year planning horizon, beginning in 1990 and spanning to
2020. This period was defined as reasonable in light of the availability and reliability of
population and water demand forecasts, as well as the economic life of many public works
projects and major capital improvements.
A primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the adequacy of existing and future
water supplies to meet short -and long-term regional future water demands. Included in this
evaluation is the examination of alternative supplies, in particular, the conversion of selected
current ground water uses to surface water. Note that for this analysis, only the municipal and
manufacturing water use categories have been included. These two categories best represent the
water uses that would have the greatest potential for conversion, assuming economic and technical
feasibility. The water demands from other categories (steam electric, mining, irrigation and
livestock) have not been used in this analysis for several reasons. The steam electric and mining
categories represent either minimal demand or have been assumed to rely on self -developed water
supplies. The patterns of agricultural water demand (livestock and irrigation) and the exercise
of existing water rights are not expected to significantly change in the study area. In addition,
much of this demand is currently met with surface water.
11753/890674 3-1
3.2 REVIEW OF PLANNING DATA SOURCES
Within the 5-county study area, water demand has historically been met through
supply by a wide variety of entities, including municipalities, investor -owned systems, non-profit
water supply corporations, special districts, individual on -site systems, and private agricultural and
industrial water supply systems. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has been the
clearinghouse for most historical self -reported water usage data within the state and has been
relied upon extensively for water demand projections for this study. Additionally, the TWDB
projections have been supplemented with data obtained by questionnaire from water suppliers
(cities, water supply corporations, etc.).
Population data has been drawn from more diverse sources, including the TWDB
and other state and local agencies. The data sources for both water demand and population that
have been used in this study are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
3.2.1 Texas Water Development Board
The TWDB maintains an extensive data base on both historical and projected water
demand and population statistics. This data base incorporates self -reported historical data that
includes, but is not limited to, ground -water and surface water sources, type of utility, category
of water use, population served, and total number of connections. The TWDB projects water
demand among the following water use categories: (1) municipal, (2) manufacturing, (3) steam
electric, (4) irrigation, (5) mining, and (6) livestock. Much of the data compiled by the TWDB
is used in the Texas Water Plan and therefore may be potentially disaggregated into a variety of
geographical areas, including cities, counties, and river basins.
In the application of its projection methodology, the TWDB relies on a
comprehensive approach that incorporates self -reported population, per capita usage, and
non -municipal water usage into a state-wide water demand projection model. For the municipal
water use category, population projections are generated under a cohort -component (survival)
method under a low and high series. Projections are presented at both the county and city level.
11753/890674
3-2
The TWDB population projections serve as the basis for the projection of the
municipal water demand category. In its simplest form, municipal water demand is derived by
multiplying the projected population of the selected entity by the per capita water usage derived
for the same entity. As with population, two per capita usage statistics are derived: an average
and a high. Typically, the average per capita statistic represents the historical average of the most
recent 10-year period, when available. The high per capita statistic is generally the highest per
capita usage recorded during the same period. In all cases, these per capita statistics are applied
to the projected low and high series population projections to obtain municipal water demand
projections.
Additionally, the TWDB incorporates a conservation component into its municipal
water demand projections. This conservation component assumes that if municipal water
conservation measures were implemented the per capita usage would decline over time rather
than remain constant as in the average and high per capita scenarios previously described.
Finally, the TWDB conducts an extensive program of public input in the development
of population and water demand projections. Private and public interests are provided with the
opportunity to review and comment on TWDB projections. Public comments and revisions are
continually compiled for the updating of the state-wide water demand projection model. The
TWDB has recently completed an update of the population and water demand projection model
and this study reflects the most current data available.
3.2.2 Texas State Data Center
The Texas State Data Center (TSDC) of the Texas Department of Commerce is a
recognized source of population statistics at both the local, county and state level. The reliability
of these projections is further strengthened by TSDC's local knowledge (being prepared by the
Texas Population Projections Program at Texas A&M University, College Station) andthe recent
date of preparation and publishing (December, 1988).
11753/890674 3-3
The TSDC projections are developed using a cohort -component method that is based
on a 1986 update of 1980 US Bureau of the Census Population and Housing statistics.
Adjustments to the base population are made for special populations that do not normally exhibit
the same demographic characteristics of the local population. These special populations are
usually linked with local institutions such as universities, military bases or prisons.
The TSDC projects population by county under three scenarios: 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0.
Scenario 0.0 is referred to as the Zero Migration Scenario, and assumes that county inmigration
equals outmigration, resulting in population growth by natural increase. Typically, this scenario
serves as the base population projection and does not accurately reflect the demographic processes
found in all counties. For counties that experienced growth through net inmigration, the Zero
Migration Scenario (0.0) results in the lowest population projection of the three scenarios.
Likewise, this scenario results in the highest projection for counties that have historically
experienced population decline due to net outmigration.
Scenario 1.0 is referred to as the 1970-1980 Migration Scenario, and bases future
population projections on the trends in age, sex, and race/ethnicity net migration rates of the
high -growth period of the 1970's. This scenario generally results in projections that are highest
for counties that have experienced net inmigration during the 1970's, while counties with net
outmigration during the same period result in the lowest projections.
Scenario 0.5 is referred to as the Middle -Range Migration Scenario, and generally
represents an average of the Zero Migration (0.0) Scenario and the 1970-1980 Migration (1.0)
Scenario. The TSDC notes that this scenario best reflects the characteristics of recent (since
1980) population growth at the county and state level, and represents a "most likely scenario" for
most counties.
3.2.3 US Bureau of the Census
The Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce is the source of
the most comprehensive set of demographic statistics for the entire nation. In addition to
11753/890674
3-4
conducting the national census each decade, the Bureau also maintains a wide range of population
estimates for interim years. County -level population estimates developed by the Census Bureau
were reviewed for the 5-county study area, but were generally found to be lower than those
developed by the TSDC. This can likely be attributed to slight differences in the population
estimation methodology employed by these agencies.
3.2.4 Brazos Valley Development Council
The Brazos Valley Development Council (BVDC) is the local council of governments
that, in addition to the 5-county study area, also includes Burleson and Washington counties. The
BVDC routinely distributes population projection data compiled from other sources. County -level
population projections currently used by the BVDC were prepared by the Texas Department of
Health and only extend to the year 2000. The study team reviewed BVDC data and determined
that these projections would be of limited value due to the limitations of a year 2000 horizon.
3.2.5 Participant Surveys and Interviews
The study team has coordinated with local officials, utility operators and managers,
and city public works staff in order to solicit insight into local patterns of water usage, existing
or anticipated utility system deficiencies, and projections of future water demand and population.
A survey questionnaire was prepared and distributed by certified mail to approximately 43 public
and private entities within the 5-county area, including county governments, cities, water supply
corporations and special districts. Thirteen questionnaires were returned, comprising a response
rate of approximately 30 percent. Refer to Table 3-1 for a summary of responses. Also refer
to Appendix B of this document for a sample copy of the questionnaire.
In addition, the study team has had personal communications with representatives of
many local and state agencies concerning this project.
11753/890674
3-5
8�
A
0
c5
a
a
x
C ❑
0 0
z z 13 z z� z z 33 z Z 'geb
E
0 .�
z z affi ffi.
z
x x x
a.
v) 13 C 5 a
x r o sx
°Z'• 0 0 z 0
z z z
e 0 r-
r°$ e
k
o'
oel §•-• 0'0-N
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o; ,6
wa a 3 ga a a a 3 3 a M 3 3
O v v �i N M M M e(1.9. .... a. 0'
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
o g A
tR;2,ScoC.g
w 0 o 0 o R g 0
oc X A r b 0 °c z,
z W W 3 U n; U U a Os)
College Station
g ffi tl g ffi g g g
°C pa,'�•�
'0•
000 O0•0•00
zzzz z XzX
40
City of Navasota
0
9
(3
City of Buffalo
City of Calvert
Institutional
3-6
3.2.6 Local Planning and Engineering Studies
The study team has reviewed and evaluated local planning and engineering reports
that have been provided by surveyed cities and institutions. These documents have been used as
a means to supplement and cross-reference the published sources.
3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
3.3.1 Primary Study Area
Brazos County
The primary study area of Brazos County has historically experienced moderate but
steady population growth over the last three decades. All but one of the county -level projections
considered for this study generally indicate a continuation of this trend throughout the 30-year
planning period. Table 3-2 summarizes the 1990-2020 population projections by county and by
primary and secondary study area.
Figure 3-1 graphically depicts the TWDB and TSDC population projections for Brazos
County. At the outset of the projection period (1990), both TWDB High and Low Series
projections fall slightly below those developed by the TSDC. However, by the late 1990's this
situation is reversed, with both TWDB projections exceeding those of the TSDC until 2020.
From 2000 to 2020, the range of county population projections is defined at the high end by the
TWDB High Series projections and at the low end by the TSDC 1.0 Scenario.
Across the 30-year period, the TWDB Low Series projections track closely with the
TSDC projections, eventually falling roughly midway between the TWDB High Series and TSDC
1.0 Scenario. In addition, at its most divergent point in 2020, the TSDC "Most Likely" Scenario
(0.5) is only slightly lower than the TWDB Low Series projection. Although in later years there
is considerable variation among the county population projections, both the TWDB and TSDC
projections confirm the trend of continued population growth in Brazos County.
11753/890674
3-7
TABLE 3-2
PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Primary Study Area
BRAZOS COUNTY
TWDB Low Series 93,588 120,188 148,545 164,770 175,694
TWDB High Series 93,588 120,754 176,608 197,376 214,150
TSDC 0.0 93,588 133,765 144,447 156,631 168,307
TSDC 0.5 93,588 134,444 144,693 155,219 163,613
TSDC 1.0 93,588 134,780 141,655 145,081 142,092
Secondary Study Area
GRIMES COUNTY
TWDB Low Series 13,580 19,876 23,757 27,233 31,065
TWDB High Series 13,580 20,075 24,996 28,690 32,908
TSDC 0.0 13,580 17,918 19,982 22,765 26,096
TSDC 0.5 13,580 18,560 22,402 27,176 32,850
TSDC 1.0 13,580 19,160 24,634 31,184 38,148
LEON COUNTY
TWDB Low Series 9,594 12,587 14,533 14,875 15,216
TWDB High Series 9,594 12,807 14,939 15,429 16,785
TSDC 0.0 9,594 12,387 12,779 13,702 14,950
TSDC 05 9,594 13,060 15,145 18,017 21,516
TSDC 1.0 9,594 13,684 17,499 22,247 27,329
MADISON COUNTY
TWDB Low Series 10,649 11,871 12,893 13,661 14,388
TWDB High Series 10,649 12,153 13,289 14,104 15,195
TSDC 0.0 -10,649 11,710 12,318 13,232 14,108
TSDC 0.5 10,649 12,317 14,418 17,076 20,035
TSDC 1.0 10,649 12,879 16,818 22,080 27,878
ROBERTSON COUNTY
TWDB Low Series 14,653 15,627 16,513 17,280 18,449
TWDB High Series 14,653 15,701 16,820 17,852 20,299
TSDC 0.0 14,653 15,865 17,504 19,814 22,687
TSDC 0.5 14,653 15,910 17,556 19,788 22,498
TSDC 1.0 14,653 15,986 17,524 19,177 20.286
SECONDARY SUBTOTAL
TWDB Law Series 48,476 59,961 67,696 73,069 79,118
TWDB High Series 48,476 60,736 70,044 76,075 85,187
TSDC 0.0 48,476 57,880 62,583 69,513 77,841
TSDC 0.5 48,476 59,847 69,521 82,055 96,899
TSDC 1.0 48,476 61,709 76,475 94,688 113,641
TOTAL STUDY AREA
TWDB Low Series 142,064 180,149 216,241 237,839 254,812
TWDB High Series 142,064 181,490 246,652 273,451 299,337
TSDC 0.0 142,064 191,645 207,030 226,144 246,148
TSDC 0.5 142,064 194,291 214,214 237,274 260,512
TSDC 1.0 142,064 196,489 218,130 239,769 255,733
STATE OF TEXAS
TWDB Low Series 14,229,191 17,925,073 20,854,280 23,636,765 26,565,012
TWDB High Series 14,229,191 18,303,462 22,034,172 25,711,412 30,019,490
TSDC 0.0 14,229,191 17,400,293 19,052,863 20,895,095 22,872,225
TSDC 0.5 14,229,191 17,809,286 20,682,019 23,999,093 27,723,601
TSDC 1.0 14,229,191 18,226,855 22,460,425 27,598,050 33,669,910
SOURCE: Texas Water Development Board, 1989.
Texas State Data Center, 1988.
11753/890674
3-8
P
0
P
U
L
A
T
I
0
N
225,000
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
Figure 3-1
County Population Projections
Brazos County
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2010
2020
3-9
i
Municipal Population
The twin cities of Bryan and College Station are the two largest municipalities within
Brazos County. In the last decade almost 90 percent of the total county population has been
resident in these two cities, with the remainder located in rural and suburban areas. Generally,
given the trend towards increased growth and urbanization of metropolitan areas, the vast majority
of the future Brazos County population would be expected to remain consolidated in Bryan -
College Station.
Population projections for Bryan and College Station have been derived from two
sources: the TWDB and from data reported by the cities. Following an extensive review by city
officials, the self -reported projections were selected as best representing the future population
growth of these municipalities. Generally, the self -reported population projections were lower
for 1990 than the TWDB projections, but in later years fall approximately midway between the
TWDB High and Low Series. Refer to Table 3-3 for a summary of these projections.
3.3.2 Secondary Study Area
The 4-county secondary study area has over the last three decades experienced slight
population growth. Population outmigration has in part contributed to periodic decreases in
county population for all but Madison County. In 1960, the combined population of the
secondary study area was 45,566 inhabitants (US Bureau of the Census, 1972). By 1970, the
4-county population had declined by approximately 6% to 42,675 inhabitants. During the period
from 1970 to 1988, all counties generally experienced population growth, although the net
increases were slight.
The county population projections developed by both the TWDB and the TSDC
assume that population growth will continue at a slight to moderate pace throughout the 30-year
planning period. Refer to Table 3-2 for a summary of population projections by county, including
a secondary study area subtotal. From the initial "clustering" of TWDB and TSDC data points
11753/890674
3-10
TABLE 3-3
PROJECTED POPULATION COMPARISON BY CITY
1990 2000 2010 2020
City of Bryan
TWDB Low 62,034 64,123 70,994 74,552
TWDB High 62,327 76,238 85,043 90,870
Self -Reported 56,000 66,345 76,845 81,478
City of College Station
TWDB Low 47,134 57,326 63,467 66,648
TWDB High 47,356 68,156 76,027 81,236
Self -Reported 44,636 57,926 65,000 74,000
Source: Texas Water Development Board, 1989
Survey Questionnaires
11753/890674 3-11
at 1990, the projections moderately diverge. For Grimes, Leon and Madison counties, the high
end of the projection range is generally defined by the TSDC 1970-1980 Migration (1.0) Scenario;
the low end is generally defined by the TSDC Zero Migration (0.0) Scenario. The range for
Robertson County is defined at the high end by both the TWDB High Series and the TSDC Zero
Migration (0.0) Scenario, while the low end of the projection range is defined by the TWDB Low
Series. Figures 3-2 through 3-6 graphically depict the projected populations of each county and
the total secondary study area. -
Generally, at the most divergent point (2020), the net difference between the TWDB
High and Low Series projections for all secondary study area counties is minimal. Similarly, there
is generally a minimal net difference between the TWDB High and Low Series projections and
the TSDC Mid -Range (0.5) Scenario throughout the 30-year period for Grimes and Robertson
Counties. The net difference among the TWDB projections and the TSDC Mid -Range for Leon
and Madison counties is potentially significant, although the differences only become pronounced
late in the 30-year planning period.
3.4 MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Population and per capita water usage are the two key components of the equation
used to project municipal water demand. The study team has reviewed and evaluated per capita
statistics from two sources: the TWDB and participant questionnaires.
The TWDB develops per capita statistics from self -reported data compiled from
public and private water suppliers. The TWDB per capita statistics take the form of both a high
and an average. The average per capita usage is typically based on the .most recent 10-year
period for which data is available. The high per capita statistic is typically based on the extreme
reported during the same period. Both average and high statistics are developed for most major
municipalities within each county.
11753/890674 3-12
40,000
30,000
P
0
P
u
L
A
T
0
N
20,000
10,000
Figure 3-2
County Population Projections
Grimes County
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2010
2020
3-13
30,000
25,000
P
0 20,000
L
u
T
0 15,000
N
1 0,000
5,000
Figure 3-3
County Population Projections
Leon County
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2010
2020
3-14
P
0
P
u
L
A
T
0
N
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
Figure 3-4
County Population Projections
Madison County
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2020
3-15
P
0
P
u
L
A
T
I
0
N
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
Figure 3-5
County Population Projections
Robertson County
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2010
2020
3-16
120,000
110,000
100,000
P 90,000
0
P
U
A
• 80,000
T
I
O
N 70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
Figure 3-6
County Population Projections
Secondary Study Area
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
2010
2020
3-17
In addition, the TWDB also projects water demand based on the implementation of
conservation measures. Assuming conservation, the per capita water demand is assumed to
decrease over gradually over time, as opposed to remaining constant.
Based on responses to the survey questionnaire, several cities provided estimates of
per capita usage and these have been incorporated into the projection model.
3.4.1 Primary Study Area
There is considerable variation in per capita water usage within Brazos County. A
review of historical estimates by the TWDB reveals that rural residents use slightly over
100 gallons per capita, on average, as compared with urban residents who have been estimated
to use over 245 gallons per capita on average. TWDB estimates of peak usage are even higher,
reaching over 335 gallons per capita for College Station. It should be noted again that the
TWDB includes the water usage of Texas A&M University with that of the City of College
Station, thus leading to a higher per capita usage. Table 3-4 provides a summary of both
historical and projected per capita water usage statistics for both the cities of Bryan and College
Station and the rural areas of Brazos County.
3.4.2 Secondary Study Area
Due to the large area and relatively small population dispersed among rural
communities, the per capita usage characteristics of the secondary study area have been addressed
at the county level. Generally, per capita usage at the county level has been moderate, resulting
in a projected range of between 100 and 200 gallons per person per day. Table 3-5 provides a
summary of historical and projected per capita usage for the 4-county secondary study area.
3.5 MUNICIPAL AND MANUFACTURING WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
As noted previously, water demands within the primary and secondary study areas
consist of several general use categories, as defined by the TWDB. These categories are
11753/890674
3-18
TABLE 3-4
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL WATER USAGE
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
Gallons Per Day
1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Bryan
Actual 173 145
TWDB Average 160 160 160 160
With Conservation 156 148 140 136
TWDB High 185 185 185 185
With Conservation 180 171 162 157
Self -Reported [a] 164 164 164 164
College Station
Actual 233 245
TWDB Average 266 266 266 266
With Conservation 259 246 233 226
TWDB High 335 335 335 335
With Conservation 327 310 293 285
Self -Reported [a] 161 189 228 248
Other
Actual 105 104
TWDB Average 110 110 110 110
With Conservation 107 102 96 94
TWDB IIigh 139 139 139 139
With Conservation 135 128 121 118
[a] Provided by Survey Questionnaire.
SOURCE: TWDB, 1989
11753/890674
3-19
TABLE 3-5
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL PER CAPITA WA1'hR USAGE
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
Item
1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
GRIMES COUNTY
Actual 98 146
TWDB Average 111 111 111 111
With Conservation 108 103 97 94
TWDB High 140 140 140 140
With Conservation 136 129 122 119
LEON COUNTY
Actual 129 128
TWDB Average 127 126 126 125
With Conservation 124 117 111 107
TWDB High 158 158 158 158
With Conservation 154 146 138 133
MADISON COUNTY
Actual 144 182
TWDB Average 157 157 157 157
With Conservation 153 145 137 133
TWDB High 198 198 198 198
With Conservation 193 183 173 168
ROBERTSON COUNTY
Actual 179 133
TWDB Average 148 149 149 147
With Conservation 144 138 130 125
TWDB High 179 181 181 178
With Conservation 174 167 158 151
SOURCE: TWDB, 1989
11753890674 3-20
municipal, manufacturing, steam electric, irrigation, mining, and livestock uses. For the purposes
of this regional study, only the water demands associated with the municipal and manufacturing
user classes have been carried forward into the master planning for a potential regional system.
Further, master planning has focused only on the municipal and manufacturing water demand
associated with the primary study area of Brazos County, although water demand projections for
the secondary study area have been evaluated and presented in the following sections.
The water demand projections for the municipal and manufacturing use categories
have been developed from the adopted population and per capita usage statistics discussed in
previous sections of this report. In the following sections, average day and maximum day water
demand projections are presented, including demands under a water conservation scenario.
3.5.1 Average Day Water Demand
3.5.1.1 Primary Study Area
The future water needs of Brazos County will continue to be dominated by the
demands of the twin cities of Bryan and College Station, including Texas A&M University. To
a much smaller extent, the "other municipal" category has been included to account for the water
demands of smaller private water systems located within the county. Based on extensive
coordination with representatives of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M and a thorough
review of TWDB data, the water demand projections for Brazos County have been derived largely
from self -reported data. Table 3-6 presents projected municipal and manufacturing water
demands for Brazos County under average day conditions.
Generally, the average day projections for the county for municipal and manufacturing
water usage range from an estimated 25.2 mgd in 1990 to 49.1 mgd in 2020. Based on a
comparison with TWDB data, these adopted projections fall below the TWDB high series
projections, but above the TWDB low series water demand projections. Refer to Appendix C
for a thorough comparison of TWDB and self -reported population, per capita and water demand
data.
11753/890674
3-21
TABLE 3-6
PROJECFt D AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
MUNICIPAL (mgd)
Bryan [a] 9.184 10.881 12.603 13.362
College Station [a] 7.200 10.959 14.794 18.356
Texas A&M [a] 7.000 9.000 9.900 10.890
Other Municipal [b] 1.535 4.465 5.032 5.828
Municipal Subtotal 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437
MANUFACTURING [c] 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712
COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] Self -reported average day water demand.
[b] TWDB high population and high per capita projection.
[c] TWDB high projection.
11753/890674
3-22
3.5.1.2 Secondary Study Area
Municipal and manufacturing water demand in the secondary study area is generally
evenly divided among Grimes, Leon, Madison, and Robertson counties in 1990, ranging from
approximately 2.0 to 2.8 mgd, and totalling 9.9 mgd for the entire area. Future demands under
the TWDB high series projections indicate increased water demand, although over the 30-year
planning period the net increase is projected at only slightly over 3 mgd. Because of the size of
the secondary study area (3,214 square miles) and the rural character of these counties, there is
a wide geographic distribution of water demand throughout the area.
Table 3-7 presents a summary of municipal and manufacturing water demand
projections for the secondary study area under average day conditions. All projections are based
on the TWDB high series projections.
3.5.2 Average Day Water Demand with Conservation
The implementation of water conservation measures would provide participating
municipalities with the opportunity to reduce water demands within the primary study area of
Brazos County. The TWDB assumes that the demand reductions associated with conservation
programs would occur gradually over time, beginning with a 2.5% reduction in 1990 and
increasing to a 15% reduction in 2020. The factors of demand reduction used by the TWDB have
been applied to both the municipal and manufacturing categories of water demand. Refer to
Table 3-8 for a presentation of water demand projections for 'Brazos County under a water
conservation scenario.
3.5.3 Peak Day Water Demand
Seasonal weather patterns are a primary factor contributing to fluctuations in
municipal water demand. Certain components of a municipal water supply system are sized
according to peak or maximum demands, as opposed to average demands. Peak day demand is
11753/890674 3-23
TABLE 3-7
PROJEC.1'ED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
MUNICIPAL [a]
Grimes County 2.778 3.320 3.806 4.341
Leon County 1.994 2.289 2.341 2.376
Madison County 2.346 2.550 2.702 2.842
Robertson County 2.792 2.982 3.128 3.276
Municipal Subtotal 9.910 11.141 11.977 12.835
MANUFACTURING [b]
Grimes County 0.204 0.271 0.334 0.402
Leon County 0.135 0.112 0.121 0.121
Madison County 0.068 0.080 0.094 0.109
Robertson County 0.020 0.027 0.033 0.041
Manufacturing Subtotal 0.427 0.490 0.582 0.673
COMBINED TOTAL
Grimes County 2.982 3.591 4.140 4.743
Leon County 2.129 2.401 2.462 2.497
Madison County 2.414 2.630 2.796 2.951
Robertson County 2.812 3.009 3.161 3.317
SECONDARY TOTAL 10.337 11.631 12.559 13.508
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] TWDB high population and high per capita projection.
[b] TWDB high series manufacturing demand projections.
11753/890674 3-24
TABLE 3-8
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND WITH CONSERVATION
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
CONSERVATION FACTOR 2.5% 7.5% 12.5% 15.0%
MUNICIPAL (mgd)
Bryan [a] 8.954 10.065 11.027 11.358
College Station [a] 7.020 10.137 12.945 15.603
Texas A&M [a] 6.496 8.130 8.663 9.257
Other Municipal [b] 1.496 4.130 4.403 4.954
Municipal Subtotal 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171
MANUFACTURING [c] 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605
COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776_
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] Self -reported average day water demand.
[b] TWDB high population and high per capita projection.
[c] TWDB high projection.
11753/890674
3-25
frequently calculated by applying a peaking factor to the average day water demand. In the
absence of historical peak -to -average demand statistics, a peaking factor of 2.0 is commonly
applied to the average, indicating that the peak day demand is 200% of the average day.
For the purposes of calculating a peak day municipal water demand for Brazos
County, EH&A reviewed peaking factors reported by the twin cities of Bryan and College Station,
as well as Texas A&M University. Generally, these self -reported peaking factors ranged from
1.99 to 1.57. Following consultation with representatives of Bryan, College Station, and Texas
A&M University, the self -reported peaking factors were selected as best representing the historical
trends of peak -to -average use. Table 3-9 provides a summary of peaking factors used for
calculating the maximum day water demands. Note that a peaking factor of 2.0 has been applied
to the "other municipal" demand category. The manufacturing water demand category has not
had a peaking factor applied to the average day demand, reflecting the assumption that the water
demand of manufacturing industries is not typically related to seasonal use.
3.5.3.1 Primary Study Area
The projected peak day municipal and manufacturing demand of the primary study
area of Brazos County is presented in Table 3-9. The demands range from approximately 45.7
mgd in 1990 to 89.2 mgd in 2020. These projections do not assume the adoption or
implementation of conservation and/or drought contingency measures.
3.5.3.2 Secondary Study Area
Although master planning of a regional water system has been limited to Brazos
County, the projected peak day municipal and manufacturing demands for the secondary study
area have been calculated for purposes of comparison. Peak day demands have been
conservatively estimated using a peaking factor of 2.0 applied to the average day demand. In 1990
the peak day municipal and manufacturing water demand has been projected to be approximately
20.2 mgd, increasing to 26.3 mgd in 2020. Refer to Table 3-10 for a summary of peak day water
demand projections for the secondary study area.
11753/890674
3-26
TABLE 3-9
PROJEC:1bD MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
PEAKING FACTOR
Bryan [a] 1.85 1.75 1.67 1.73
College Station [a] 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Texas A&M [a] 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57
Other Municipal [b] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND [c]
MUNICIPAL
Bryan [a] 16.990 19.041 21.046 23.117
College Station [a] 14.300 21.798 29.408 36.593
Texas A&M [a] 10.990 14.130 15.543 17.097
Other Municipal [b] 3.069 8.930 10.065 11.655
Municipal Subtotal 45.349 63.899 76.062 88.463
MANUFACTURING [d] 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712
COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 45.680 64.348 76.634 89.175
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] Self -reported average day water demand.
[b] Assumed peaking factor.
[c] Average day (Table 3-6) times peaking factor.
[d] No peaking factor applied to manufacturing.
11753/890674 3-27
TABLE 3-10
PROJEC, ED MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND
SECONDARY STUDY AREA
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
MUNICIPAL [a]
Grimes County 5.556 6.640 7.612 8.682
Leon County 3.988 4.578 4.682 4.752
Madison County 4.692 5.100 5.404 5.684
Robertson County 5.584 5.964 6.256 6.552
Municipal Subtotal 19.820 22.282 23.954 25.670
MANUFACTURING [b]
Grimes County 0.204 0.271 0.334 0.402
Leon County 0.135 0.112 0.121 0.121
Madison County 0.068 0.080 0.094 0.109
Robertson County 0.020 0.027 0.033 0.041
Manufacturing Subtotal 0.427 0.490 0.582 0.673
COMBINED TOTAL
Grimes County 5.760 6.911 7.946 9.084
Leon County 4.123 4.690 4.803 4.873
Madison County 4.760 5.180 5.498 5.793
Robertson County 5.604 5.991 6.289 6.593
SECONDARY TOTAL 20.247 22.772 24.536 26.343
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] Based on peaking factor of 2.0 applied to average day.
[b] TWDB high projection; no peaking factor applied.
11753/890674
3-28
3.5.4 Peak Day Water Demand with Conservation
As disclnssed previously in Section 3.5.2, the adoption and implementation of water
conservation measures would provide the opportunity to reduce water demands within the primary
study area of Brazos County. The TWDB assumes that the demand reductions associated with
conservation programs would occur gradually over time, beginning with a 2.5% reduction in 1990
and increasing to a 15% reduction in 2020. The factors of demand reduction used by the TWDB
have been applied to both the municipal and manufacturing categories of peak day water demand.
Refer to Table 3-11 for a presentation of water demand projections for Brazos County under a
water conservation scenario.
3.6 INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Water service within the primary study area of Brazos County is delivered through
a broad range of existing private and public utility systems. The cities of Bryan and College
Station are the largest systems, serving the majority of the county's municipal water needs. The
Texas A&M University water system also meets the significant institutional water demand of the
university and its research facilities. In addition to the three largest facilities, municipal water
demand within the county is met through approximately 24 smaller systems. Table 3-12 presents
a list of the existing water supply systems in Brazos County, as reported in the Water Hygiene
Inventory, a data base maintained by the Texas Department of Health.
Based on a survey conducted by EH&A and supplemented with data furnished by the
Texas Department of Health (TDH), a brief description of the major utility systems found in the
primary service area is provided in the following paragraphs:
City of Bryan
The City of Bryan is the largest municipal system within the study area, relying
entirely on ground -water sources. Bryan has 13 wells with an existing production capacity of 26.2
11753/890674
3-29
TABLE 3-11
PROJECTED MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND WITH CONSERVATION
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
PEAKING FACTOR
Bryan [a] 1.85 1.75 1.67 1.73
College Station [a] 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99
Texas A&M [a] 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57
Other Municipal [b] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
MAXIMUM DAY WATER DEMAND [c]
MUNICIPAL
Bryan [a] 16.566 17.613 18.416 19.649
College Station [a] 13.942 20.163 25.732 31.104
Texas A&M [a] 10.715 13.070 13.600 14.533
Other Municipal [b] 2.992 8.261 8.807 9.907
Municipal Subtotal 44.215 59.107 66.554 75.193
MANUFACTURING [d] 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605
COUNTY TOTAL (mgd) 44.538 59.522 67.055 75.798
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
[a] Self -reported peaking factor.
[b] Assumed peaking factor.
[c] Average day with conservation (Table 3-8) times peaking factor.
[d] No peaking factor applied to manufacturing.
11753/890674
3-30
TABLE 3-12
4.
5 5
55�EE�55555 EE EEE EEEE EEEEE
z z z
z P
z0. R 4 Rt�°u R 4°cc� 4 Q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 R R 4 4 2 400
:_o",
. �, - ... 0.. I. , I. 0.. I. a. a. I. a. I. O. s. I. ►. ►.. I. Rf c� �,
O O O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' "' O h
�-. .y+ ... o-NN+ Vi to e.. .
o
6; 6 H 6 6 6 6; 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4
Pn e-�i�.�ro� �►�". �.r"rr�i �r�ro-�"ie-r'i�e-�.r��i�o-�e=i� 4
o
trt
A oQQ ogsQ Q 'Q g§§§ Q g§§Q Q gQ
2§§0 EA&
M E°°0000Nooei000000000000000r0000
E�-+
a '0
U i
Cs.
CA
wE-� rc� � °
o ° CigQ 5oQQosQQoobAg§g45'g�i§tgE 00
ON 0
3Q E" 13 C O O o N O O vi C C C C C C O C O O C o O G O G eV C O C
a w
0
0 m
z , .o
w a 5
X • 0
w
—00 l( NetCD Nkr)Inv-4yl00oOp�tkn00O�tet.-,Vp l .-genet
.-400 vnNNen tom.-avI NN enN�en•-+t-etNv)v)vOON "
o zg "g
5 4..,4 a
o ,F
w a. �' = G to
o A. m • e 4)8 to0 p °C
Ea�.5... �, E Otn�x o cd �'
3• � ���
°= q'3 :ca o=9a0a)a. 6`I atn0 o
cn o0M c e 3 "" 5,e z'd 2 >.1 'a°qx o o 04b�V E-•v�a
t,v,3aat �c.., ,boa 4.1 �rx.0 �xd ' 3 o v
U pA O (3. O O `� b N «s yEj 'c ap «Y GL rn A r4 [11
sao4aat)ddC�wwc7x3 1 ig, zOaxrncntncnE- ;:3 0 0
cn z
Abbate r
3-31
mgd. Following chlorine treatment near the wellhead, potable water is conveyed to the city via
a 30-inch transmission line. Storage facilities consist of four ground storage tanks and two
elevated storage tanks with a total combined capacity of 12 million gallons. Proposed storage
expansions by the City of Bryan include an additional 1 million gallon elevated storage tank.
The City of Bryan municipal water system provides retail service to city residents, as
well as wholesale service to the Fairview -Smetana Water Supply Corporation.
City of College Station
The City of College Station is the second largest municipal system within the primary
study area, also relying entirely on ground -water sources. The City of College Station currently
has four wells with a total capacity of approximately 16 mgd. An additional well with an
estimated capacity of 4 mgd is scheduled to be placed in service in 1991. Following chlorine
treatment near the wellhead, potable water is conveyed from the well field via a 30-inch
transmission line to the city distribution system. College Station has three ground storage tanks
with a combined capacity of 10 million gallons, as well as two elevated storage tanks with a
combined capacity of 3 million gallons. Long-range plans by the city include an additional 2
million gallon elevated storage tank to be placed in service in 1998.
The City of College Station provides retail service to city residents and wholesale
service on a limited basis to the Wellborn Water Supply Corporation and the Texas World
Speedway.
Texas A&M University
Texas A&M University has an estimated well production capacity of approximately
14 million gallons per day from a total of 10 wells. Transmission lines from the wellfield include
18-inch and 24-inch mains. Campus storage includes a 2 million gallon elevated storage tank and
two 2 million gallon ground storage reservoirs. Storage expansions include another 2 million
gallon ground storage reservoir proposed in 1990.
11753/890674 3-32
The Texas A&M University water system provides service to all facilities within the
university complex, as well as limited wholesale service to the Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
and the City of College Station.
3.7 EXISTING CAPACITY AND PROJECTION OF SUPPLY DEFICIT
For the purposes of this study, the primary study area will encounter a water supply
deficit at the point when future demands exceed the capacity of existing facilities. The current
ground -water production capacity of Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M has been estimated
at approximately 30.240 mgd following a review of the existing facilities (see Section 5.0). This
current production capacity has been conservatively estimated and is based on certain assumptions
that pertain to ground -water sources and the condition of existing facilities.
The first assumption that underlies the estimated 30.240 mgd production capacity
pertains to the existing and future sources of ground -water. The majority of recent historical and
current ground -water pumpage by the Bryan -College Station area occurs in the Simsboro Aquifer,
and this trend is expected to continue into the future, particularly as older wells that currently
pump from other aquifers would be expected to be phased out of primary operation. The
Simsboro Aquifer, therefore, has been assumed to be the primary and most reliable source of
ground -water that would be available to supply the future water demands of the Bryan -College
Station area. Given this assumption, only the estimated production of Simsboro wells has been
used to derive the total production capacity for the Bryan -College Station area.
A second assumption underlying the estimation of the current ground -water
production capacity pertains to the condition of existing facilities. The cities of Bryan and College
Station and Texas A&M University have been determined to have a current total of 14 wells
that pump from the Simsboro Aquifer. Of these 14, it has been assumed that four of these wells
will be phased out of operation, resulting in 10 fully -producing wells from the Simsboro Aquifer.
Although the individual production of the 10 wells varies, an average yield of 2,100 gpm
11753/890674
3-33
(3.024 mgdfwell) has been assumed. For a complete evaluation of the existing ground -water
resources, refer to Section 5.0.
Table 3-13 provides a summary of surpluses and deficits under average day demand
conditions. This table also includes demands under a conservation scenario. Table 3-14
summarizes the maximum day demands for Brazos County, highlighting projected supply deficits.
11753/890674
3-34
TABLE 3-13
PROJECI'hD GROUND -WATER DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMANDS
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990 2000 2010 2020
Average Day Demands
Municipal" 24.918 35.305 42.329 48.437
Manufacturing' 0.331 0.449 0.572 0.712
Total Water Demand 25.249 35.754 42.901 49.149
GW Production 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240
Surplus/(Deficit) 5.0 (5.5) (12.7) (18.9)
Average Day Demands with Conservation
Municipal` 24.295 32.657 37.038 41.171
Manufacturing` 0.323 0.415 0.501 0.605
Total Water Demand 24.618 33.072 37.538 41.776
GW Productionb 30.240 30.240 30.240 30.240
Surplus/(Deficit) 5.62 (2.83) (7.30) (11.54)
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
" From Table 3-6.
b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan,
College Station, and TAMU wellfields.
From Table 3-8.
11753/890674 3-35
TABLE 3-14
PROJECTED GROUND -WA I'ER DEFICIT FROM EXISTING FACILITIES
MAXIMUM DAY WAl'ER DEMANDS
BRAZOS COUNTY
Item
1990
2000
2010
2020
Maximum Day Demands
Municipal°
Manufacturing'
Total Water Demand
GW Production
Surplus/(Deficit)
Maximum Day Demands with
Municipal`
Manufacturing`
Total Water Demand
GW Production
Surplus/(Deficit)
45.349
0.331
45.680
30.240
(15.4)
Conservation
44.215
0.323
44.538
30.240
(14.30)
63.899
0.449
64.348
30.240
(34.1)
59.107
0.415
59.522
30.240
(29.28)
76.062
0.572
76.634
30.240
(46.4)
66.554
0.501
67.055
30.240
(36.81)
88.463
0.712
89.175
30.240
(58.9)
75.193
0.605
75.798
30.240
(45.56)
Note: All units in millions of gallons per day.
° From Table 3-9.
b Estimated reliable ground -water production based on Simsboro aquifer pumpage from Bryan,;
College Station, and TAMU wellfields.
From Table 3-11.
11753/890674 3-36
4.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS
Water conservation and drought contingency plans have become an integral part of
long-range water supply planning on a local, regional and statewide level. In 1985 the 69th Texas
Legislature passed House Bill 2 which was subsequently implemented by a constitutional
amendment approved by Texas voters on November 5, 1985. One of the provisions of the
legislation and constitutional amendment was a requirement that a political subdivision must
include water conservation and drought contingency plans as part of an application to the TWDB
for financial assistance. The TWDB has adopted rules and guidelines for developing plans for
municipal water conservation and for management of water supply problems during prolonged
droughts or other periods of emergency.
The scope of this water supply planning study includes the development of a draft
water conservation plan and a drought management plan. These draft plans are proposed for the
cities of Bryan and College Station (including Texas A&M University) but also could be modified
and adapted for other water service providers in the study area.
4.1 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
4.1.1 Purpose
A water conservation plan is designed to reduce water use through a combination of
methods which minimize waste, improve efficiency in the initial use, and encourage reuse
wherever possible. There are a number of methods which can be used to reduce the quantity
of water used for various functions without necessarily eliminating any uses. These methods
accomplish the objective of reduced water usage with a combination of permanent changes to
more efficient water -using devices and also in the habits and lifestyles of individual water users.
11753/890674 4-1
4.1.2 Goal
The cities of Bryan and College Station have not adopted any form of water
conservation program. The cities reported water consumptions during 1988 which equate to an
average usage of 173 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) for Bryan and 159 gpcpd for College
Station. The goal of the water conservation plan is to level off the historical trend of increasing
per capita water use. Ultimately, per capita usages could be reduced by 5 to 10%, or more, with
a well developed and comprehensive plan which is aggressively implemented and enforced.
4.1.3 Potential Benefits
An effective water conservation program can result in significant benefits for a utility
and individual customers. Even without an apparent shortage of existing or potential supplies
of water, conservation of natural resources is good public policy. Water conservation also will
reduce environmental effects such as drawdown of ground -water levels, depletion of aquifers, or
reduction in stream flows or reservoir levels.
A water utility can benefit from reductions in average and peak demands with direct
cost savings in operations and better levels of service. Capital expenditures for new supply,
treatment and distribution facilities can be reduced and deferred. Similar savings in wastewater
system operations and capital expenditures can be realized from the expected reduction in
wastewater volume.
Individual water customers will realize direct savings in costs from reductions in water
and energy usage as a result of changes to conservation habits and more efficient water -using
devices. Any extra cost to customers for efficient water -using devices can generally be recovered
in a relatively short period. For example, a family reducing usage by 50 gallons a day would
realize an annual savings of about $23 at an assumed rate of $1.25 per thousand gallons.
For a utility, a reduction of 10%, or about 15 gpcpd, in the average water usage can
equate to a significant savings in water. The annual savings in water requirements would be
11753/890674 4-2
approximately 300 million gallons and 245 million gallons, respectively, for Bryan and College
Station based on the 1990 population estimates.
The water savings which result from repairs of leaks, repairs of inaccurate meters, and
reduction of other losses from unauthorized or unmetered uses will produce direct benefits to a
utility because lost water does not generate sales revenues.
Water savings by individual customers through conservation habits will initially
decrease revenues to the utility. However, the revenues can be replaced as the water becomes
available for sale to new customers without the corresponding cost for extra capacity; in effect,
conservation is a source of supply.
In summary, the potential benefits from a water conservation plan are maximized
when a plan becomes . integrated with long-range water planning and also with the overall
management and operation of an efficient water system.
4.1.4 Elements of Plan
The TWDB guidelines include nine elements which must be considered in developing
a water conservation plan. The specific activities of each element which are feasible and
appropriate for the entity and its particular circumstances should be included in the plan.
The nine plan elements to be considered are:
1. Education and Information
2. Plumbing Codes
3. Retrofit Program
4. Water Rate Structure
5. Universal Metering and Meter Maintenance
11753/890674
4-3
6. Water Conserving Landscaping
7, Water Audits and Leak Detection
8. Recycling and Reuse
9. Implementation and Enforcement
4.2 DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN
In addition to a water conservation plan, a water utility should also plan for
management of water supply problems during prolonged droughts or other periods of emergency.
Consumer demands significantly increase during summer drought periods, and extended periods
of high usage can cause failures or problems with certain components of the water system. Even
during times of average demand, a major breakdown or other disaster could cause a crisis because
of a loss of water supply or an inability to treat or deliver sufficient water.
4.2.1 Purpose
A drought contingency plan is designed to significantly reduce water demand during
a temporary emergency, using voluntary and/or mandatory procedures that may even prohibit
certain water uses during the emergency. The existence of a plan will facilitate a more
reasonable, effective, and efficient response to a sudden emergency.
4.2.2 Elements of Plan
The TWDB guidelines list the following six elements to be included in a drought
contingency plan:
1. Trigger Conditions
2. Drought Contingency Measures
3. Information and Education
4. Initiation Procedures
11753/890674
4.4
5. Termination Notification
6. Means of Implementation
11753/890674 4-5
DRAFT WA 1hR CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Education and Information
Several methods will be used to educate and inform water users about the benefits
of water conservation and of ways to save water.
A. Initial Program
1. Publish an article in the local newspaper announcing the adoption of the
plan, providing information on the availability of details of the plan, and
notifying the public of the intent to distribute educational materials.
2. Distribute an initial announcement of the plan, fact sheet, and educational
material to existing customers.
3. Maintain a supply of the educational brochures and pamphlets which are
available from the TWDB and other sources.
4. Provide a supply of the brochures and pamphlets for distribution at city
offices, schools, libraries, and other public places.
5. Provide a packet of the conservation plan fact sheet, brochures and
pamphlets to new customers.
B. Long -Term Program
1. Continue the distribution of brochures and pamphlets to new customers
and once a year as inserts in water bills.
11753/890674 1
2. Cooperate with builders, developers, businesses, governmental agencies,
schools, and Texas A&M University to develop water conservation exhibits
and programs for inclusion at seminars and trade association conventions.
II. Plumbing Codes
Adopt a plumbing code which requires the use of water saving fixtures for all new
construction and for replacements in existing structures. The standards that are recommended
by the TWDB represent readily available products and technology at a minimal, if any, extra cost
over previous standards.
The standards are:
Tank -type toilets
Flush valve toilets
Tank -type urinals
Flush valve urinals
Shower heads
Lavatory and kitchen
faucets
Hot water lines
Swimming pools
Maximum 3.5 gallons per flush
Maximum 3.0 gallons per flush
Maximum 3.0 gallons per flush
Maximum 1.0 gallons per flush
Maximum 3.0 gallons per minute
Maximum 2.75 gallons per minute
- Insulated
- Recirculating filtration equipment
Revisions to the standards will be considered and adopted as improved products
become available, practical, and economical.
Retrofit Program
Provide information through the education program to plumbers and customers about
the advantages and availability of retrofit devices for fixtures in existing homes and businesses.
11753/890674 2
Encourage the voluntary installation and use of low -flow shower heads, faucet aerators, and toilet
dams. Encourage local retail stores which sell plumbing supplies to include low water -using
fixtures in their inventory.
IV. Water Rate Structure
Consider and evaluate the adoption of a water rate structure which encourages water
conservation. Such rate structures include an increasing block rate, a continuously increasing rate,
peak or seasonal load rates, and excess use fees. Require a uniform rate structure as a minimum
condition of any future contract for sale of water to other utilities.
V. Universal Metering and Meter Maintenance.
Require meters for all water users, including separate meters for each living unit in
multi -family complexes and also for all utility, city, and other public facilities.
Establish a meter maintenance program which includes regularly scheduled testing and
repairs and replacement as necessary. Meters should be inspected and/or tested for any apparent
problem and upon customer complaint for any unusual and significant variation in normal usage.
The recommended regular testing schedule is as follows:
Production (master) meters -
Meters larger than 1"
Meters 1" or smaller
00.
VI. Water Conserving Landscaping
once a year
once a year
once every ten years
Provide information through the education program to homeowners, home builders,
developers, business owners, landscapers, and irrigation contractors about the methods and
benefits of water conserving landscaping.
11753/890674 3
The following methods will be promoted:
A. Encourage the use of adapted, low water using plants and grasses for
landscaping new homes and sites for commercial, office, and retail development.
B. Encourage the use of drip irrigation systems when possible and other water
conserving irrigation systems, with efficient sprinklers and a layout that
accommodates prevailing winds.
C. Encourage the use of ornamental fountains that recycle water and use the
minimum amount.
D. Encourage nurseries and businesses to offer adapted, low water using plants and
grasses and efficient irrigation systems and to promote their use with
demonstration projects and advertisement programs.
VII. Water Audits and Leak Detection
Continue monthly records and accounting which compares water production and water
delivery. On a regular basis and when otherwise indicated by the apparent water losses, perform
investigations to detect and locate major leaks or other sources of lost water. Make repairs and
corrective actions as soon as problems are discovered.
VIII. Recycling and Reuse
Evaluate the potential for recycling and reuse of water. Encourage the use of treated
effluent for irrigation if it is found to be feasible, environmentally sound, and within the
parameters of regulations of the Texas Department of Health and Texas Water Commission.
11753/890674 4
IX. Implementation and Enforcement
The process of developing and adopting a water conservation plan will include the
appropriate resolutions, policy statements, city code revisions, and budget allocations necessary
to implement the various elements of the program. A program administrator will be responsible
for directing the implementation and enforcement of the program and also for monitoring public
response and compliance. An annual report will be prepared on the progress, public acceptance,
effectiveness, and net benefits of the program.
An acceptable water conservation plan will be required as a condition of a contract
between a regional authority and its customer utilities.
11753/890674 5
DRAFT DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN
I, TRIGGER CONDITIONS
Trigger conditions will be set to indicate the need for drought contingency measures
to be put into effect. Trigger conditions will be set for mild, moderate, and severe conditions to
indicate the need for the corresponding level of contingency measures.
A. Mild Condition
1. Daily water usage is at or above 90% of the firm capacity of the water
system for three consecutive days.
2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a
continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system.
B. Moderate Condition
1. Daily water usage is at 100% of the firm capacity of the water system for
three consecutive days.
2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a
continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system.
C. Severe Condition
1. Daily water usage exceeds the firm capacity of the system for three
consecutive days.
2. Weather conditions, forecasts, and the season of the year indicate a
continuing and possibly increasing level of demand on the water system.
11753/890674 1
3. Regardless of recent water usage and drought conditions, there is an
impending or actual failure of a major component of the water system
which could cause a serious disruption of service to part or all of the
service area.
The trigger conditions will be modified when plans and projects for a regional system
are finalized.
II. DROUGHT CONTINGENCY MEASURES
Drought contingency measures and an implementation plan will be established for the
corresponding levels of trigger conditions. The measures for the second and third levels of
severity will include the measures of the preceding level.
A. Mild Condition
1. Advise the public through the news media that the trigger condition has
been reached and provide daily updates until the situation has returned
to normal.
2. Encourage the public through the news media to voluntarily reduce water
consumption by using to the greatest extent possible the suggested steps
included in the news release.
3. Advertise and promote a voluntary lawn watering schedule.
11753/890674 2
E. Moderate Condition
1. Continue the public information program and emphasize the continuing
and increasing severity of the problem.
2. Advise the public of a mandatory lawn watering schedule which restricts
a customer to off-peak times of a certain day on a recurring schedule.
3. Prohibit ornamental and other non -essential water uses.
4. Encourage industrial and commercial users to stop or modify water usage
where possible.
C. Severe Condition
1. Continue the public information program and emphasize the critical
nature of the problem.
2. Prohibit all outdoor water uses such as lawn watering, car washing, street
and driveway washing, swimming pool filling, and other non -essential uses.
3. Enforce all restrictions and penalize those who fail to comply.
III. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
After adoption of a drought contingency plan, all customers will be informed of the
trigger conditions, corresponding contingency measures, and the means of implementation of the
plan. The news media and also letters and brochures for water customers will be used to inform
11753/890674 3
and educate the public upon adoption of a plan. The news media will be used to provide daily
information and updates throughout the duration of an emergency.
IV. INITIATION PROCEDURES
- Formal written procedures will be established to ensure that the plan will be
understood and capable of being implemented almost immediately if necessary. A program
administrator will be responsible for beginning notification procedures and advising the public
about approaching trigger conditions with sufficient advance notice. All required regulatory
ordinances and contract provisions will be established. Notification procedures and press releases
will be prearranged and coordinated with all the news media.
V. TERMINATION NOTIFICATION
The news media will be used to inform the public about successful results of the
drought contingency plan, improving conditions and the corresponding downgrading of contingency
measures, and the termination of the emergency.
VI. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
The drought contingency plan will be implemented and enforced with all necessary
and appropriate resolutions, policy statements, ordinances, plumbing code revisions, contract
revisions, and budget allocations. A program administrator will be responsible for directing the
implementation of the program and monitoring public response and compliance.
11753/890674 4
5.0 GROUND -WATER RESOURCES
5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Several aquifers representing substantial ground -water resources exist in parts of the
five -county planning area. The Sparta Sand, Queen City Sand, Carrizo Sand and Wilcox Group
(composed of the Calvert Bluff, Simsboro and Hooper Formations) are each important water
sources in some parts of the five -county area. The Simsboro is by far the most important and
currently furnishes water to the three largest users in Brazos County. This study emphasizes the
Simsboro Aquifer because of its wide lateral extent and large potential for additional development.
The Simsboro is capable of meeting projected future water needs for College Station, Bryan, and
Texas A&M University through the year 2020.
Other aquifers including the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Hooper, and Calvert Bluff
furnish supplies to numerous, widely -scattered, mostly small users. These aquifers are capable
of furnishing additional quantities of water over the northern part of the planning area, and
resources are sufficient to meet the small to moderate future water needs of most current users.
Some other aquifers exist in the southern part of the planning area, particularly in Grimes
County. These include sands in the Yegua, Jackson, Catahoula, and Fleming Formations. Except
for the Fleming in southernmost Grimes County, only small amounts of water are reported
available from these units. However, because future projected demands in the southern part of
the study area are relatively small, these aquifers are probably capable of supplying most of those
needs. If well fields are located in southernmost Grimes County in the Fleming, all water
demands for Grimes County could likely be met through the year 2020.
5.2 SIMSBORO AQUIFER
5.2.1 Character, Location and Extent
The Wilcox Group is comprised, from shallowest to deepest, of the Calvert Bluff,
Simsboro and Hooper Formations. The Simsboro exists throughout the entire five -county area,
11753/890674
5-1
but comprises an important fresh water aquifer in only the northern half of the study area.
Figure 5-1 is a schematic cross section which shows the position and thickness of the more
important geologic and water -bearing units, including the Simsboro. The section extends from
northern Robertson County to the Bryan -College Station area and passes through the Cities of
Calvert and Hearne, and through the City of College Station's well field. Within the five -county
area, the Simsboro outcrops at the surface only in the very northwestern corner of Robertson
County as shown on Figure 5-2. Elsewhere, the Simsboro outcrop extends across about 150 miles
of Central Texas from near Bastrop to beyond Fairfield.
The northwestern extent of the Simsboro Aquifer corresponds to the northwestern
edge of the Simsboro outcrop. From the outcrop the Simsboro extends southeast as a thick,
consistent sand unit. The Simsboro is thin only in the northwestern part of its outcrop. It
thickens downdip to the southeast and is typically 300 to over 600 feet thick. The Simsboro dips
to the southeast at an average rate of about 100 feet per mile. Near Calvert, the position of the
Simsboro is affected by faulting within the Mexia-Talco Fault System. Coastward, the Simsboro
occurs at progressively greater depths, reaching a depth of over 3,000 feet near Bryan.
Water -table conditions exist in the sands of the Simsboro in the outcrop area, but artesian
conditions exist in all areas downdip to the southeast.
The Simsboro is one of the thickest water -bearing sands in Texas and is typically a
massive, thick -bedded zone consisting mostly of fine- to medium -grained, well -sorted sands. The
Simsboro contains some, but relatively few, beds of clay and silty clay. Generally in the
Bryan -College Station area, the Simsboro consists of over 70 percent of fine- to medium -grained,
moderately permeable sand. Screen lengths in wells of Bryan and College Station range from 250
feet to over 450 feet.
The extent of the Simsboro capable of furnishing potable water, up to 1,000
milligrams per liter (mg/1) or less of total dissolved solids content, encompasses only the northern
half of the five -county area. Figure 5-2 shows the approximate extent of potable or fresh water
in the Simsboro. The fresh/brackish water boundary generally extends from near Bryan to
Normangee and into the very southeastern portion of Leon County. The boundary shown on
11753/890674
5-2
Section A - A'
0
0
10n0-1 eag ueaw MoIO (-) Jo anogy ;Oad 'uo11eAal3
0
0
0
0
0
141
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
M
0
c,)
0
coo
Cr/ co
°' c(1)
0 ro a'
CU T c'
w
mo
U
n)
E
2
>.Itf_ 6)
U ° m
U
oD-
O 0
ET)O
0
0
CbCD
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
N
I0A01 eag ueaw MOIeg(-) )o enoq' )ea3 'UOIPAOI3
Iw
Vi «
N
1 I
0 0
0 0
o 14)
M CO
c
0
°
•
ni
c• o
• °
a)
L (0
E
.p G'
a) -co
u)
l0
'0 0
to C
0) O
'O 0
C °
O • 0
.0 ..
° N
L
ate'
if) ta
d
d
0
Z
5-3
Figure 5-2
Extent Of Simsboro Aquifer
College Station -
Well Field '''''
LE:ON
C 0 UNT
ju:wot 1 , ,• .
• •
• • -,,,,,,
.•• •
•. . ,
•‘.' ,'' ., .Y. \/
. •
..• ... .
) \
.• •
„••••
,•'" • - ' ' P. OcBcE; :,...FILTTSy9 N ('
„ ,',," Marquez
•
••••
?, ... .
I, ..
I !'• „
. s
, .
A• . ,,•,.
, ,'''•' ',. .i \
• \,..
/ 4'
Fr oilKiii I .'
„,...
„ • • '. /'-'
, • • */
, ', NOrirl:•11• NV,: r ..)
•••' L,
.s.‘
,••' • ' V • -ii4 111,':lio
Ncirli) Zulch .. s.. ••
. ' BRAZOS ( •
,.• • .--, ;
." COUNTY l ,....". '.,.
/
. ,
mAdisoN ••
Bryan : cOUNTY----1‘.''—'—
' .••.. • •
\
Well •
)
Field „,-: Bedias E__.• __............_. . ..... •
• K.. • A..
1 '.
liN :. I.
l •,,•,,,, , , \
'.'.•' • ••. Sir vji ••• lori i
; \
Texas A & . A
University tor;•
Well Field
EXPLANATION
Simsboro outcrop
Estimated southeastern limit of
Simsboro water containing less
than 1000 mg/I total dissolved
solids
A Location of cross section shown
AV in Figure 1.
Location of Simsboro wells and
well field
• Ficons
,•1 P; &Hie
•
, ..
. 1
. ; , • 1,
\ il
.••, (\ .:, Aild;;If..0i1
..'i
?. ,../-4".
, ,... L'. ' '
t :
CARiMES
COUNT Y
..... ......
5-4
Figure 5-2 is from Texas Water Commission (1989) mappings as modified in the local
Bryan -College Station area to reflect site specific data.
5.2.2 Present Use
Included in tables showing water demand projections to 2020 are water use figures
for the five -county area for 1980 and 1985. The values reflect both ground water and surface
water use, and the only significant surface water use is by a power plant in Grimes County.
Virtually all of the other present and past water use in the five -county area has been from
ground -water sources.
Table 5-1 provides the 1987 municipal and industrial use from ground -water sources
by county. Virtually all use is for municipal purposes with only low amounts used for industrial
purposes. Some irrigation use occurs, but virtually all is from shallow alluvial sources located
adjacent to the Brazos River. Neither the Simsboro nor the other aquifers addressed herein
furnish significant amounts of irrigation pumpage.
Table 5-2 provides the 1987 municipal ground -water use by aquifer and user according
to reports to the Texas Water Development Board (1989). The aquifer/formation identifications
are those used by the Texas Water Development Board, and they do not always attribute
ground -water use to individual aquifers. In cases where a user obtains supplies from two aquifers,
the amounts are frequently grouped together and listed in a combined category. For example,
nearly all of the City of Bryan's and Texas A&M University's use is from the Simsboro, with
only a•little being from the Sparta. The listing shows this pumpage under the aquifer heading
Wilcox Group/Sparta Sand. There are other small inconsistencies such as the City of Hearne
being listed under Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group when in actuality all of the pumpage is from the
Simsboro portion of the Wilcox.
Based on the available records, reports of owners, and estimates of the applicable
water -bearing units, the estimated distribution of pumpage by individual aquifer units for 1987 for
the five -county area for municipal purposes is as follows:
11753/890674
5-5
TABLE 5-1
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROUND -WATER USED FOR 1987
County
Municipal Industrial Total
MGD Ac-Ft MGD Ac-Ft MGD Ac-Ft
Brazos 20.70 23,188.14 0.05 56.01 20.75 23,244.15
Robertson 2.13 2,381.49 0.03 33.61 2.16 2,415.10
Leon 1.42 1,590.68 0.22 246.44 1.64 1,837.13
Madison 1.35 1,512.27 0.00 0.00 1.35 1,512.27
Grimes 1.48 1.657.90 0.19 212.84 1.67 1.870.73
Total 27.08 30,330.48 0.49 548.90 27.57 30,879.38
SOURCE: Texas Water Development Board, 1989.
MGD is millions of gallons per day.
Ac-Ft is acre-feet.
11753\890674
5-6
Table 5-2
Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987
(Source: Texas Water Development Board, 1989)
Aquifer: Carrizo Sand
User
Hilltop Lakes Resort
City of Oakwood
City of Normangee
City of Nordheim
St. Paul Shiloh-Timesville WSC.
. . . . .........
Aquifer: Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group
User
City of Jewett
FLO WSC
Robertson County Water Supply Corp.
Twin Creek Water Supply Corp.
City of Leona
Wheelock Water Supply Corp.
City of Hearne
Leon Homeowners Association
Lake Limestone Coves
Aquifer Jackson Group
User
Carlos Water Supply Corp.
City of Shiro
Aquifer Oakville / Lagarto
User
Grimes Co. M.U.D. #1
Aquifer: Queen City Sand
User
Aquifer:
City of Centerville
County MGD Ac - Ft
Leon 0.15863 177.70
Leon 0.11911 133.43
Leon 0.09335 104.58
Leon 0.04676 52.38
Leon 0.03166 35.47
County MGD. Ac-Ft
Leon 0.17634 197.53
Leon 0.16236 181.88
Robertson 0.12539 140.47
Robertson 0.09211 103.18
Leon 0.03145 35.24
Robertson 0.01971 22.08
Robertson 1.20719 1352.30
Leon 0.00785 8.80
Robertson 0.00673 7.54
County MGD Ac - Ft
Grimes 0.14750 165.22
Grimes 0.01501 16.82
County MGD Ac - Ft
Grimes 0.00115 1.29
County MGD Ac - Ft
Leon 0.24398
273.31
Flynn Water Leon 0.00910 10.19
Sparta Sand
User
City of Madisonville
Midway Water Supply Corp.
Texas Department of Corrections
County MGD Ac - Ft
Madison 0.54941 615.44
Madison 0.02776 31.10
Grimes 0.71241 798.04
5-7
Table 5-2
Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987 - Cont'd
Aquifer: Wilcox Group
User
City of Calvert
City of Buffalo
City of Franklin
City of Bremond
City of Marquez
City of New Baden
D & S Water Co.
City of Calvert
Aquifer: Yegua Fm.
User
Ramblewood MHP
North Zulch M.U.D.
City of Iola
Bedias Water System
Aquifer. Catahoula Tuff/Jackson Group
User
City of Anderson
Aquifer. Wilcox Group / Sparta Sand
User
Brushy Water Supply Corp.
City of Bryan
Texas A-M Physical Plant Dept.
Aquifer. Evangeline
User
Dobbins-Plantersville WSC #2
Aquifer: Jasper
User
City of Navasota
Aquifer. Upper Jasper / Evangeline
User
Texas Department of Corrections
County MGD
Robertson 0.38355
Leon 0.30239
Robertson 0.15255
Robertson 0.12745
Leon 0.04916
Robertson 0.00442
Robertson 0.00345
Robertson 0.00203
County MGD
Brazos 0.01200
Madison 0.05552
Grimes 0.02077
Grimes 0.02614
County MGD
Grimes 0.05031
County MGD
Brazos 0.11513
Brazos 9.03844
Brazos 5.56493
Ac - Ft
429.65
338.74
170.88
142.77
55.06
- 4.96
3.87
2.27
Ac - Ft
13.44
62.19
23.26
29.28
Ac - Ft
56.35
Ac - Ft
128.97
10124.86
6233.84
County MGD Ac - Ft
Grimes
0.04365
...............
48.90
County MGD Ac - Ft
Grimes
County
Grimes
0.61614
MGD
0.25813
690.20
Ac - Ft
289.16
5-8
Table 5-2
Municipal Ground -Water Use By Aquifer For 1987 - Cont'd
Aquifer: Simsboro Sand
User
City of College Station
Wixon Water Supply Corp.
Aquifer: Other
User
Texas Department of Corrections
Dobbins-Plantersville WSC #3
Benchley Oaks Subdivision
Richards Water System
Shadow Lake Subdivision
D & S Water Co.
Emmett Water Co.
H & T Water Supply
Glenn Oaks MHP
Leon I.S.D.
Roans Prairie WSC
D & S Water Co.
D & S Water Co.
D & S Water Co.
West Cedar Creek W.S.
D & S Water Co.
Forest Lake Water System
Grassy Creek MHP
D&SWaterCo.
East Cedar Creek Water System
D & S Water Co.
D & S Water Co.
Lake Winona Subdivision
County MGD Ac - Ft
Brazos 5.61158 6286.09
Brazos 0.29090 325.86
County MGD Ac - Ft
Grimes 0.19802 221.82
Grimes 0.04314 48.33
Brazos 0.02166 24.26
Grimes 0.02103 23.55
Grimes 0.01971 22.07
Brazos 0.01471 16.47
Grimes 0.00879 9.84
Leon 0.00750 8.40
Brazos 0.00747 8.37
Leon 0.00653 7.32
Grimes • 0.00612 6.86
Brazos 0.00584 6.54
Brazos 0.00503 5.63
Brazos 0.00419 4.69
Leon 0.00391 4.37
Brazos 0.00385 4.31
Brazos 0.00345 3.87
Grimes 0.00315 3.53
Brazos 0.00242 2.71
Leon 0.00240 2.69
Brazos 0.00230 2.58
Robertson 0.00136 1.52
Grimes 0.00082 0.92
5-9
Aquifer
1987 Municipal Pumpage Percent of Total
Ac-ft Municipal Pumpage
Simsboro 24,758 81
Carrizo 927 3
Queen City 284 1
Hooper and Calvert Bluff 819 3
Sparata 1,742 6
All Others 1 837 6
Total
30,367 100
Over 80 percent of the pumpageis from the Simsboro. Over 23,000 ac-ft was
produced from the Simsboro in 1987, of which approximately 20,366 ac-ft, or 87 percent, was by
the well fields serving Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Other Simsboro users
include Hearne, Calvert, Wixon Water Supply Corp., and several other smaller users scattered
over a large area mostly in Robertson County. These smaller users tend to be listed under the
Wilcox Group or Carrizo Sand/Wilcox Group in Table 5-2.
Tables 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 show historical Simsboro pumpage for the Bryan, College
Station and Texas A&M University well fields from 1954-1988. Figure 5-3 is a graphic
representation of the Simsboro pumpage for these three well fields. The locations of the well
fields are shown on Figure 5-2.
5.2.3 Water Quality
Chemical quality of ground water is largely determined by the type of soil and rock
through which the water has passed. Consequently, the amounts and kinds of minerals in solution
depend on the composition and solubility of the geologic materials. Table 5-6 provides a
summary of water quality in the Simsboro Aquifer at various locations in the artesian portion of
the aquifer starting immediately downdip of the Simsboro outcrop (Tidwell Prairie Well) in
northwest Robertson County and continuing downdip along Highway 6 through Hearne, the
11753/890674
5-10
Table 5-3
City of Bryan
Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage MGD
YEARLY
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG
1954 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.86 0.32, 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
1955 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.38 1.71 1.25 0.61 1.92 2.78 2.36 0.93
1956 2.56 0.35 0.01 0.04 0.51 1.32 2.59 2.69 3.16 1.26 0.00 0.06 1.21
1957 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.79 3.16 1.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52
1958 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.43 1.52 1.40 1.93 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49
1959 0.25 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.08 0.78 1.38 0.97 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35
1960 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.52 2.49 1.36 1.32 1.57 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.64
1961 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.25 1.72 1.11 0.59 2.06 1.24 0.58 0.12 0.05 0.65
1962 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.22 1.62 1.27 2.84. 4.45 1.06 0.86 0.34 0.04 1.08
1963 0.41 0.16 0.46 0.75 1.80 3.13 3.98 5.00 1.91 2.03 0.58 0.54 1.73
1964 0.61 0.41 0.44 0.92 1.96 2.79 4.37 3.13 2.70 1.48 0.77 0.68 1.69
1965 0.83 0.70 0.66 1.42 1.64 3.05 5.04 2.03 3.71 1.91 3.08 3.05 2.26
1966 3.37 3.34 1.61 2.47 1.42 4.48 6.71 4.15 2.17 2.68 2.71 2.43 3.13
1967 2.44 2.21 2.26 2.07 1.49 5.76 5.34 6.20 2.96 2.20 1.84 2.48 3.10
1968 2.29 2.30 3.01 3.07 3.12 2.88 3.96 7.46 4.06 3.72 2.72 4.35 3.58
1969 2.13 3.63 3.72 3.53 4.29 6.28 9.84 7.05 3.95 3.64 4.44 3.46 4.66
1970 4.06 3.50 2.58 3.71 4.58 5.72 8.91 10.54 4.44 4.52 5.19 3.88 5.14
1971 3.06 3.14 5.29 5.58 4.20 7.69 10.31 6.08 5.61 3.82 3.45 2.89 5.09
1972 2.90 2.83 4.37 5.52 5.66 8.31 7.53 7.06 6.67 5.43 3.31 3.15 5.23
1973 3.06 2.84 2.99 3.87 * 5.51 5.31 8.66 7.78 6.54 5.77 5.60 5.03 5.25
1974 4.83 * 3.20 4.46 12.57 * 12.78 * 12.02 * 11.11 9.85 * 12.78 * 13.29 * 11.87 * 10.81 * 9.97 *
1975 11.77 * 11.90 * 11.68 * 12.41 * 12.25 * 11.64 * 9.12 * 9.63 * 9.51 * 9.46 * 13.27 * 13.02 * 11.31
1976 12.63 * 13.39 * 13.12 * 14.13 * 7.55 * 9.75 * 9.65 * 11.08 8.02 4.55 6.22 5.11 * 9.60 *
1977 23.70 * 5.45 5.31 5.62 6.78 7.95 14.70 11.27 11.00 * 10.15 * 7.28 * 6.02 9.60 *
1978 6.06 6.69-* 7.61 * 5.86 * 7.89 * 10.13 * 12.91 12.13 6.03 12.49 * 6.88 * 12.22 * 8.91 *
1979 7.65 * 3.20 2.90 3.11 3.77 5.06 5.68 5.68 5.53 5.78 4.47 3.46 4.69 *
1980 3.30 3.6/ 3.76 " 5.25 " 4.07 9.60 12.56 10.77 4.68 6.00 5.28 6.01 * 6.25 *
1981 7.22 * 7.32 * 7.57 * 8.66 * 5.35 6.88 10.60 13.18 10.18 9.14 8.64 7.74 8.54 *
1982 8.44 8.55 8.07 8.08 8.27 11.24 13.47 13.47 11.83 11.24 * 10.61 * 7.74 10.09 *
1983 7.55 7.50 7.55 9.01 9.32 9.86 12.59 11.36 10.23 8.52 7.99 5.76 8.94 *
1984 9.55 * 11.09 * 10.75 * 11.48 10.61 10.00 12.84 12.32 11.67 11.75 * 11.52 * 10.51 * 11.17 *
1985 10.05 * 9.50 * 8.51 * 7.36 7.58 10.82 11.22 15.02 11.34 7.56 6.68 6.66 9.36 *
1986 6.69 6.67 7.87 8.14 9.49 * 10.41 * 13.18 10.73 7.44 6.87 6.26 6.10 8.32 *
1987 5.99 5.77 6.14 8.55 7.59 7.30 10.44 15.19 9.20 8.38 9.21 * 6.37 * 8.34 *
1988 6.12 6.23 6.32 10.21 * 9.41 11.79 11.24 15.90 12.72 12.65 * 10.08 * 8.88 * 10.13 *
1989 8.95 * 8.31 * 6.25 7.97 7.71 8.82 11.20
* Portion of water used to fill cooling lake
5-11
Table 5-4
City of College Station
Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage - MGD
YEARLY
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG
1981 0.08 0.12 0.85 2.46 0.29
1982 3.37 3.74 3.48 2.80 3.30 4.33 5.19 5.98 5.66 5.61 4.67 4.31 4.37
1983 3.63 3.76 3.62 3.25 4.24 4.67 6.04 5.52 6.02 5.74 5.24 4.76 4.71
1984 4.67 4.62 4.72 4.72 6.53 6.10 7.19 7.26 6.75 5.59 4.78 4.21 5.60
1985 4.64 4.98 4.55 3.78 4.75 6.81 7.54 8.93 7.64 5.47 4.94 4.16 5.68
1986 4.36 4.91 5.62 4.76 5.32 4.86 8.23 6.77 5.52 5.13 4.73 4.28 5.37
1987 3.90 4.48 4.47 4.56 5.27 4.53 6.90 9.35 6.37 5.99 5.29 4.34 5.45
1988 4.58 4.42 3.98 3.41 4.16 4.39 4.17 6.05 5.23 4.80 3.57 3.46 4.35
1989 3.41 4.18 4.49 4.02 4.44 4.59 5.47
5-12
Table 5-5
Texas A & M university
Average Monthly And Yearly Simsboro Pumpage m MGD
YEARLY
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVG.
1958 0.08*
1959 0.08*
1960 0.08*
1961 0.9
1962 0.9
1963 0.9
1964 0.9
1965 No Monthly Data Available 1.0
1966 1.1
1967 1.1
1968 0.9
1969 0.9
1970 1.72*
1971 1.90*
1972 1.78 * 1.90 * 1.85 * 1.99 * 2.12 * 2.26 * 2.22 2.22 2.47 2.26 2.13 2.01 * 2.10
1973 2.13 2.27 2.22 2.39 2.55 2.72 2.79 2.76 3.46 3.34 2.92 2.41 2.66
1974 2.18 2.64 2.89 2.86 2.83 2.72 3.27 2.97 3.14 2.99 2.59 2.36 2.79
1975 2.61 2.79 2.81 3.19 3.00 3.14 2.76 3.15 3.91 3.53 2.95 2.49 3.03
1976 2.69 1.90 2.95 * 3.35 * 3.15 * 3.30 * 2.90 * 3.31 * 4.11 * 3.71 * 3.10 * 2.61 * 3.09
1977 0.56 3.28 3.03 3.35 3.26 3.55 3.78 4.07 3.97 4.23 4.03 3.55 3.39
1978 3.45 3.83 3.56 4.06 4.11 4.59 4.75 5.10 * 5.40 * 5.04 4.71 4.09 4.39
1979 4.38 4.00 4.85 5.32 4.69 5.37 4.56 4.93 5.37 5.32 4.28 4.11 4.77
1980 3.91 5.04 4.81 5.89 4.77 7.31 5.82 5.88 5.42 4.62 3.65 3.75 5.07
1981 4.56 4.05 1.15 3.81 4.13 4.31 4.95 7.10 7.44 5.98 6.21 4.31 4.83
1982 3.93 4.13 3.75 3.92 3.77 4.33 4.06 3.07 4.29 2.83 1.25 0.88 3.35
1983 2.36 2.63 2.35 3.45 3.19 3.20 3.44 3.30 1.11 0.99 0.56 1.72 2.36
1984 2.60 3.23 2.50 1.12 3.40 4.45 4.01 4.46 4.95 4.05 3.59 2.74 3.42
1985 3.14 3.72 3.43 4.06 3.41 3.86 3.87 4.44 5.26 3.87 3.36 3.00 3.79
1986 2.56 3.47 4.80 3.76 2.92 2.19 4.19 3.67 3.94 3.71 3.24 2.80 3.44
1987 2.75 3.34 2.76 4.08 3.42 4.27 5.89 6.59 6.73 5.31 4.29 3.28 4.39
1988 2.93 3.90 4.30 4.52 4.94 5.44 6.20 6.85 6.04 5.72 4.32 3.94 4.93
1989 3.93 4.47 4.44 5.68 4.99
* Estimated
5-13
Ac-Ft.
25,000
20,000
Rgure 5-3
Annual S$msboro Pumpage By
Bryan, College Station, and Texas A & M University
I I i
.;...........................;.......t............_..............,..__I ...,......
!I I
i 1 1 j I
1 i i !! 1 I i
1 1 1 1 1 I 1
j11kk11Ml 1 1 1 1 1 I 1( I 1 1, 1
1 1 I
i 1 i I
! I ! 1 ! I I I I !
1 1111Ii1111 1
1 ; , 1 1 1 I I. i I;izI
1 1 1( 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1
I
I 1i
1 I I ii I i i 1! 1,
, 1 i; i i , I 1 1!
.......1._._.l......1._._. ._._.I.........__.I..__ i_.._.-1--l.......1
i
11 1 I 1 i I 1 1
1 i 1!!
15,000—
10,000
5,000
0
1—
�I
1
1954 1959
I
1
1964
1969
1974
1
1979
■ College Station ® Texas A & M ❑ Bryan
1984
Table 5-6
Chemical Quality Of
Water From Simsboro Wells
TDH Tidwell City of City of City of
Drinking Prairie Hearne College Station College Station
Water Standards Well Well 3 Well 1 Test Hole
Sample Date — 3/6/86 2/25/71 9/5/79 8/ - /75
Laboratory — IML TDH TDH EW
pH (units) 6.5 - 8.5 7.67 8.5 8.5 7.7
Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) — 450 702 973 —
Calcium (Ca) 65 4 3 32
Magnesium (Mg) — 8.6 2 1 12
Sodium (Na) — 38 172 220 2902
Bicarbonate (HCO3) — 244 394 500 1391
Carbonate (CO3) — <1 7 7 0
Sulfate (SO4) 300 40 <4 4 10
Chloride (C) 300 30 44 54 3752
Silica (Si02) — 16 18 — 22
Flouride (F) 4.0 <0.01 0.3 0.5 —
Nitrate (NO3) 45 <0.09 <0.4 <0.04 2.5
Iron (Fe) 0.3 0.14 — 0.06 —
Manganese (Mn) 0.05 0.25 — <0.02
Total Alkalinity (CaCO3) — 200 335 422
Total Hardness (CaCO3) — 260 18 10 —
Total Dissolved Solids (calculated) 1,000 321 441 540 7410
Note: All concentrations are expressed In mg/I unless specified.
TDH: Texas Department of Health Laboratory, Austin, Texas
IML: Intermountain Laboratories, College Station, Texas
EW: Edna Wood Laboratory, Houston, Texas
5-15
College Station well field, and to the City of College Station, generally along the schematic
section shown in Figure 5-1. The City of College Station Test Hole, referenced in Table 5-6, is
located approximately at the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue. Included on
Table 5-6 for comparison purposes are the constituent concentrations for current drinking water
standards of the Texas Department of Health.
Generally, water in the Simsboro becomes more mineralized with depth. Some local
variations occur, probably due to faulting and varying geochemical processes. Between the
outcrop and the Bryan -College Station well fields, mineralization only increases slightly, but rapidly
deteriorates between the well fields and the center of College Station. As shown in Table 5-6,
the change is from a generally low mineralized water to a highly mineralized unpotable water.
As shown on Figure 5-2, the 1,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids boundary lies southeast of the Bryan,
College Station, and Texas A&M well fields.
Updip of the 1,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids boundary, Simsboro water for public
supplies typically meets all drinking water standards. The water consists of a sodium bicarbonate
water suitable for municipal use. However, on occasion and principally in updip, shallow parts
of the aquifer, the water can exceed recommended iron and manganese levels.
Simsboro water temperature increases in the downdip direction. In the outcrop area
in Robertson County the water is about 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature increases with
depth to the southeast to about 115 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit at the Bryan -College Station well
fields. Forced -draft cooling towers are utilized to treat the water from those well fields.
5.2.4 Water Levels in Wells
When many of the wells of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University were
drilled, the artesian pressure in the Simsboro was high enough that water levels were above the
land surface, and wells would flow. Figure 5-4 depicts the water -level decline through time for
various Simsboro wells in the Bryan and College Station well fields. Since the 1950s, water levels
have declined and in amounts proportional to pumpage. By the spring of 1966, pumpage had
11753/890674
5-16
Depth to Water,
Above (+) or Below (-)
Ground Level (Feet)
+ 40
0
- 40
- 80
- 120
- 160
Figure 5-4
Historical Static Water Levels In Various Bryan
and College Station Simsboro Wells
i
I I I I
11.l1 ►1
•
;Ground Level.;....,..._.,_._..,
•
t_...T_ .I_...t t' !
I l i I I 11 I i i I i i
i
-,ICity of Bryan _.
1 j 11 City of College Station i
.... Well 1
r_._..._
1955
1960
1965
I i I I
i ! I i
1970
Year
1975
1980
1985
WeII 141
•.4 We1110!
1990
5-17
reduced the pressure in Bryans wells so that water levels were below land surface. At that time,
static water levels in Texas A&M University's well field were still above land surface primarily
due to the relatively low surface elevation at the wells.
Figure 5-4 indicates the general amount of water -level decline which has occurred.
From 1954 (when Bryan started pumping from the Simsboro) to date, water levels have declined
about 160 feet. By a comparison of Figure 5-4 and the combined pumpage of the Bryan, College
Station and Texas A&M University well fields, the amount of water -level decline in relation to
pumpage can be approximated. The continued decline in Simsboro water levels is largely due to
the continued increase in pumpage in the Bryan -College Station area. If pumpage were to remain
constant (no future increases), water levels within a few years would essentially stabilize. Current
static water levels are estimated to range from a few tens of feet to about 180 feet below land
surface. Pumping levels are typically 50 to 100 feet deeper.
5.2.5 Hydraulic Characteristics
Based on available tests of wells completed in the Simsboro, the hydraulic conductivity
of the Simsboro Sand generally ranges from about 100 gpd/sq ft (gallons per day per square foot)
to over 350 gpd/sq ft. The lower values are generally representative of the finer sands present
in the Simsboro while the higher values generally represent coarser sands.
The relatively high hydraulic conductivities coupled with the thick sands present give
rise to high transmissivities for the Simsboro. Locally within the area of Bryan, College Station
and Texas A&M University well fields, aquifer tests indicate transmissivities ranging from 90,000
gpd/ft (gallons per day per foot) to 125,000 gpd/ft (Harden, 1977). Such high values indicate a
very productive aquifer in the vicinity of the subject well fields. These values are similar to those
for the largest, most important aquifers in Texas. Regionally, Simsboro values for transmissivity
are probably more typically between 40,000 gpd/ft and 80,000 gpd/ft.
From regional geologic studies and comparisons of actual and computed drawdowns
due to past pumping in the Bryan -College Station area, it is known that the long-term, effective
11753/890674
5-18
transmissivity is not as large as in the vicinity of the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M
University well fields. Somewhat thinner sands exist in other areas, and faulting within the
Mexia-Talco Fault System disrupts the continuity of the sands. The result is that more water -level
drawdown has occurred in the Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University well fields
from the pumping to date than would be indicated by the local transmissivities measured in the
well fields. It has been calculated (Guyton, 1971) (Harden, 1977) that the effective transmissivity
after about one weeks pumping is between 50,000 and 60,000 gpd/ft as opposed to the local
transmissivities measured in the well fields.
Coefficients of storage for the Simsboro outcrop generally range between .1 and .2
where water -table conditions exist. In downdip areas artesian conditions prevail, and the
coefficient of storage generally ranges from .0001 to .001. Based on tests of many wells in the
Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University well fields, the average storage coefficient
is about .00035 (Harden, 1977).
5.2.6 Recharge, Discharge and Movement of Water
The sands of the Simsboro receive recharge in their outcrop areas primarily from
precipitation but also from streamflow losses where water tables are below the elevation of creek
beds. The mapped recharge area forms a belt one to six miles wide, extending about 150 miles
from just south of the Colorado River in Bastrop County to the Trinity River in northeastern
Freestone County. The recharge area averages about three miles in width and covers
approximately 460 square miles.
The principal factors influencing the amount of recharge to the Simsboro are the
amount and character of precipitation, topography, character of surface materials, type and
amount of vegetation, and the ability of subsurface materials to accept recharge and transmit it
to areas of discharge. It is virtually impossible to measure the total available recharge directly,
but estimates based upon studies in adjacent areas are available (Texas Water Development
Board, undated; Cronin and Wilson, 1967). The maximum amount of recharge is estimated to
range up to about three to four inches per year which is about 10 percent of the average annual
11753/890674
5-19
precipitation. Accordingly, over a 460 square mile area, recharge of up to 74,000 to 98,000
acre-feet per year or 66 to 87 mgd (million gallons per day) may be applicable.
While recharge is fairly large, recharge alone is not too important or a limiting factor
with respect to the availability of water to wells located in downdip artesian areas because of the
large quantities of water in storage in the Simsboro. For example, where water -table conditions
exist in the recharge area, the coefficient of storage (amount of water drainable from the sands)
is estimated to be between 0.1 and 0.2 based on experience with typical sands. Using a value of
0.15, the amount of water drainable from just the upper 10 feet of saturated sand in the outcrop
area amounts to over 440,000 acre-feet. In the upper 50 feet the amount would be five times
as large which is equivalent to pumping 67 mgd for 30 years. Thus, large amounts are available
for decades from downdip pumping wells with relatively small water -level declines in outcrop areas
even without recharge.
At present, a very large percentage of the natural recharge is rejected, and the
Simsboro is essentially full to overflowing. Recharged water reaching the water table in outcrop
areas moves slowly in the direction of the hydraulic gradient which is from areas of topographic
highs towards areas of discharge along the principal stream valleys. Most of the discharge takes
place by evapotranspiration in low areas along the principal drainage ways in the outcrop areas.
Other discharge occurs by seepage, but these amounts are mostly small. A small part of the
recharge also moves down the hydraulic gradient to downdip areas. Under natural conditions and
prior to pumping, a small amount moves generally downdip for many miles. Natural ground -water
movement rates in the Simsboro are very slow, most probably between about 50 and 200 feet per
year.
Pumping from a well changes the local flow pattern so that water moves to the well
from all directions. Figure 5-5 is a schematic diagram showing the Simsboro Sand, its recharge
area, and the position of the potentiometric surface (defined by the water levels in wells) both
prior to pumping and during pumping. Figure 5-5 also shows the cone of depression resulting
from pumping, and the movement of water to a well from both updip and downdip directions
11753/890674
5-20
5-21
during pumping. Figure 5-6 shows a plan view of the movement towards a pumping well, and
depicts typical flow lines from an outcrop/recharge area.
Prior to well development the flow regime in the Simsboro was in a state of
equilibrium with the total recharge to the system being equal to the total discharge from seeps
and evapotranspiration. Pumping by wells disrupts this equilibrium and causes a withdrawal of
water from storage and a concurrent decline of water levels. As water levels fall, natural
discharge from the system is reduced, and recharge may be increased. In time, these changes in
natural inflow and outflow may be sufficient to balance the withdrawal. If that occurs, a new
equilibrium is achieved in which recharge is balanced by the sum of natural outflow and pumpage.
Under such conditions depletion of storage no longer occurs. Such an equilibrium, however, is
not always possible, especially if the rate of withdrawal is large. Also, it would take tens of feet
of lowering of water levels in the outcrop area to capture the water currently being rejected from
the Simsboro via evapotranspiration and seeps. However, for the Simsboro and other deep
artesian aquifers, if the well pumpage should exceed the reductions in natural outflow which could
be achieved and any increases in recharge which could be induced, the wells would continue to
furnish water from storage.
Because the outcrop is so extensive and the amount of water in storage is so large,
very large developments can be supported with only relatively small, continuing water -level
declines. Thus, the present recharge rate, while theoretically important, has little relation to the
amount of ground water which is practicable to be developed from deep artesian wells over a
period of time -- or even over many decades.
5.2.7 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of the Year 2020
The amount of water capturable by a given well field is a function of the water
transmitting capacity of the aquifer, the available drawdown in a given well field, the amount of
recharge to the aquifer, and the amount of water in storage in the aquifer. Generally the
transmissivity in the artesian portion of the Simsboro Aquifer is quite high, and where sufficient
available drawdown is available, large well and well field yields are capable of being developed.
11753/890674
5-22
5-23
In fact, the Simsboro is one of the most productive aquifers in Texas and is largely undeveloped
at present.
Available drawdown is the distance between the static water level and the top of the
aquifer (or screen in the well). Generally available drawdown increases to the southeast
corresponding to the dip in the formation. This is due to the top of the Simsboro dipping
coastward at a much greater rate than the potentiometric surface. Therefore, available drawdowns
in the north and northwestern parts of the study area near the Simsboro outcrop are reasonably
small, while in downdip areas available drawdown is quite large. Figure 5-1 generally indicates
the dip of the top of the Simsboro, and the dramatic increase in available drawdown from
northwest to southeast. Near the Simsboro outcrop and near the City of Calvert, available
drawdown is reasonably small and generally ranges from just a few tens of feet to about 200 feet.
Near the City of Hearne, available drawdown increases several hundred feet, and it continues to
increase to the southeast toward the Bryan -College Station well fields.
Near the Simsboro outcrop and within just a few miles downdip . of the outcrop,
available drawdown limits well yields generally to less than several hundred gallons per minute.
Where available drawdown generally exceeds 100 to 200 feet, reasonably large well yields in excess
of 1,000 gpm (gallons per minute) can be obtained where thick sands of the Simsboro exist. In
the vicinity of the Bryan -College Station well fields, individual well yields are more limited by well
and pump diameters than by other factors. Typically, wells have been designed to furnish 1,500
to 3,000 gpm per well which is equivalent to 2.2 to 4.3 mgd per well.
Typical well field yields in the downdip portion of the Simsboro Aquifer are, to date,
only a function of the users needs rather ;than limitations of the Simsboro Aquifer to furnish
water. The following table provides the 1987 Simsboro pumpage and number of Simsboro wells
in use in 1987 by Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University:
11753/890674
5-24
1987 Pumpage
Well Field Number of Wells (ac-ft)
Bryan 8 9,343
College Station 3 6,105
Texas A&M University 3 4,918
Since 1987; College Station has added one well to its well field. These well field
yields are only indicative of municipal water needs of the area and not indicative of the availability
of water from the Simsboro. In fact, the Simsboro is capable of furnishing substantially more
than the amount of water currently being pumped.
The largest projected future water demand in the five -county area will occur in the
primary study area (Brazos County) and will be for the largest present users, Bryan, College
Station, and Texas A&M University. Their combined municipal demand is projected to increase
from approximately 23.4 mgd in 1990 to approximately 42.6 mgd in year 2020. The increased
demand is much too large to be obtained from any of the aquifers present in the planning area,
except the Simsboro.
To generally indicate the Simsboros capability to provide increased demand, a
hypothetical well field was located in northern Brazos and southern Robertson County and
calculations made of future pumping levels. The hypothetical well field was designed to yield up
to an average of 49.1 mgd, the total projected demand in Brazos County for 2020. Well spacings
were assumed to be at 2,000-foot intervals; individual well yields of 2,100 gpm were assumed.
The number of wells required is based on meeting the projected maximum day water demand for
Brazos County as furnished earlier in this report. The general layout of the hypothetical well
field is shown on Figure 5-7. The conceptual layout includes using 10 of the 14 existing Simsboro
wells of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Additional wells were then added
to the well field to meet the estimated future peak daily demands. The wells were added at
2,000-foot spacings along a line extending north toward the City of Hearne. Many other
alternative well field layouts would also be possible, but generally should include appropriate well
spacings (2,000 feet or more) and well field expansion toward the northwest, away from poorer
11753/890674
5-25
Figure 5-7
Conceptual Well Field
To Meet Brazos County Municipal Water Demand
To Year 2020
iNN
VIelben
CeY►N
MUMF U1U
Scale In Miles
EXPLANATION
• Assumed location for Simsboro well
.\•
BENCH n
ww►N
1 O,IMM*nl
- Al
5-26
quality water. Also, actual well field expansion should be based on appropriate test drilling.
Table 5-7 shows the results of calculations of future pumping levels and lists the number of wells
necessary in five-year increments through year 2020 to meet projected peak demands.
The future pumping levels shown in Table 5-7 were estimated using a
computer -assisted mathematical model based on the Theis equation. This mathematical model
was developed by the Texas Water Development Board (1973). The calculations are based on
a non -leaky artesian solution. The model allows simulation of drawdown (artesian pressure
decline) by input of parameters including pumpage, transmissivity, storage coefficient, and
boundary conditions by use of image wells. The following hydraulic characteristics were used for
the model:
Transmissivity = 100,000 gpd/ft for the first 7 days of any pumping or pumping increase
and 55,000 gpd/ft thereafter
Storage Coefficient = .00035
Outcrop = 25 miles from existing Bryan and College Station well fields
Well Yield = 2,100 gpm per well
Pumpage for each five-year period was held constant at the average well field
pumpage rate shown in Table 5-7 which is the projected Brazos County demand at the end of
the five-year period. For example, during the entire period 1990 to 1995, 30.5 mgd was pumped
continuously. This water was pumped from 10 wells each pumping about 2,100 gpm. However,
as shown in the table, 19 wells are needed in the well field to meet projected peak daily demands.
As water demand increased with time, the number of wells and the pumpage used in the model
was increased, as shown in the table.
The average depth of pumping levels shown in Table 5-7 is the calculated average
pumping level in the conceptual well field after pumping continuously to the end of the specified
period of time. The average depth of the pumping level is based on the computed drawdowns
plus an assumed depth of static water level of 100 feet below ground level and also 30 feet of
interference drawdown from others. This interference drawdown is based on calculations and
11753/890674
5-27
TABLE 5-7
CONCEPTUAL WELL FIELD AND ESTIMATED PUMPING LEVELS
Average
Well Field Well Field Average
Total No. Pumpage Capacity Depth of
Time Period of Wells (MGD) (MGD) Pumping Level*
1990-1995 19 30.5 57.5 425
1995-2000 22 35.8 66.5 450
2000-2005 24 393 72.6 480
2005-2010 26 42.9 78.6 510
2010-2015 28 46.0 84.7 545
2015-2020 30 49.1 90.7 575
Feet below ground level.
11753\890674
5-28
estimates to provide for a few million gallons per day of Simsboro pumpage in Leon County and
approximately 20 mgd of pumpage in Robertson County near Calvert, Texas. The pumpage in
Robertson County is based on estimated ground -water requirements for power plant and mining
purposes. As shown, the estimated average pumping level in 2020 is approximately 575 feet
below ground level. During peak water demands, such as during the summer demand, pumping
levels will temporarily be lower, while during times of low water demand levels will be higher
than those shown. These seasonal water -level fluctuations are mostly unimportant with respect
to water availability from the Simsboro.
The results of modeling and the calculations indicate that the Simsboro Aquifer is
capable of providing, with some safety factor, all the municipal water requirements for Brazos
County including Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University. Calculations show that
pumping water levels would generally only decline about 350 feet from the present until 2020.
With even lower pumping levels, quantities of water in excess of that required to meet projected
2020 demands could be produced.
Typically, the construction of existing Simsboro wells in Bryan/College Station well
fields allow high -capacity pumps to be set as deep as 600 to 700 feet below ground level. By
modifying and setting pumping equipment in existing wells below pumping levels projected
through 2020, existing wells can be used in meeting future projected water requirements. If in
some wells, pumping levels fall below the maximum pump setting depth, new wells can be
constructed with casings of adequate diameter set sufficiently deeper to provide for 2020 pumping
levels or even deeper levels.
5.2.8 Interference Effects From Pumping by Others
Relative to the Bryan -College Station demand, any potential future development of
the Simsboro by others will be mostly for relatively small supplies or at distant locations. No
other significant demands are forecast for the entire five -county area. Thus, the potential
interference effects on future Bryan -College Station Simsboro developments are not likely to be
a limiting factor to those developments. Also, interference on others from Bryan -College Station
11753/890674
5-29
developments is not likely to be overly significant because of the small projected demand and
distant locations. Future projected municipal demands which might logically be obtained from
the Simsboro by others are both few and small. Little agricultural development is anticipated,
but some moderate to large industrial developments primarily for power plant supplies or in
association with lignite mining are anticipated from the Simsboro.
The Texas Water Development Board water use projections provided earlier in this -
report include projections for future power plant use. Included are 21.4 mgd in 2020 in
Robertson County and 10.7 mgd in 2020 for Grimes County. The Robertson County use will
likely all be from the Simsboro, and the Grimes County use from surface water sources. Other
projections of pumpage from the Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer for mining and power plant purposes
are available (R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., 1986). Figure 5-8 and Table 5-8 portray these
data.
The available data are incomplete and are not necessarily current. Even so, water
requirements for individual projects are reported to range from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year
to over 30,000 acre-feet per year. In general, several projects are reported to involve withdrawal
rates between about 10,000 and 20,000 acre-feet per year. The information appears sufficient to
indicate that substantial pumpage will likely occur with some being located in the northern portion
of the planning area or in adjoining counties to the southwest. Moreover, the data indicate that
nearly all of the pumpage likely will be from the Simsboro with little being from other aquifers.
The locations of future potential Simsboro pumping by others appear to be mostly at distances
of about 20 to over 70 miles from the Bryan -College Station area. Because of the large distances,
no overly large, or limiting, interference effects on potential future Bryan -College Station
Simsboro well fields appear likely.
The effect of a well field, producing 20,000 acre-feet per year from the Simsboro,
located in northern Robertson County would be between about 20 to 30 feet of interference
drawdown on the present Bryan -College Station well fields. Interference of that magnitude, or
even substantially larger, will have little impact on the overall availability of water from the
Simsboro in northern Brazos and southern Robertson Counties to meet Bryan -College Station use
11753/890674 5-30
Figure 5-8
Projected Pumpage From The Carrizo / Wilcox Aquifer
For Mining And Power Plant Purposes
Calvert
Calvert
Milam
(34,000)
Alcoa
Power
(11,705)
Big Brown
and
Power Plant
/!
Limestone Power
(1,000)
Twin Oak Mine
Mine
(12,000) "s
Power Plant ,/ °LE`
(NA) /
r\
Mine -�
,.w1.4..;s08,
Mine,
and L f
Plant .
rR0.v1 -�'
° .• '
\ cc ion
Mine
- -
-nOERSOn c
.1
2
�"�R50h .
t.
. Jewett Mine (NA)
111
r \-'
........ ----....---\--.,
�nGy:TWI�
I
Knolle Mine (NA) •
ea �-
Mine (NA)
q� -
r
\
1
ram\ ww.tER 1
1 %.� _.1
1
(NA)
iii
-----_
-i�HRO ?
r� a
Plant , \m
\
""---�FREE ONE
`I mESTE On
\
(NA)
.- LEON
'� \� Oak
r FA.Es
- Cole Creek
\ `
• - BERTSOn 1 ,./--_(__.
/ / , ------
; wuMES
LBAAZOS f
- E �-
BURLESOa ,
%
North Camp Swift Mine
l ..° NASnanaTON ° _
1 Camp Swift Mine
' -' , (17,000) -
' ` ��—tea l
AUST W
Powell Bend Mine t
1(12,900)
\ / Li;‘ I
COWRAOOy A
, \ %
/ \ -
\ ,d,/
\ -/
v
°
(nATs ,\` /
/
6 f01'/
% c- •,,
XimETTE
•
/
GOn1AtES ^s
Scan In Was
Twin Oak Mine Approximate
•
(12,000) Maximum
NA indicates
/'' Boundary
EXPLANATION
location and name of mine or power plant
projected pumpage (acre-feet per year)
no protection available
of the Carrizo/Wilcox outcrop
5-31
8
HSI Consultants, Inc. 1981
act
CI) CI) U
ca
Q Q
2� Z5 A
z a
`Powell Bend Mine
c'
0
a
c3
gc C 00
co A Q co d g
� zzzzz N
0
g
`Calvert Power Plant
Q4
Robertson and Limestone
0) 0
02
el:b 0 0
o
0.4
`Limestone Power Plant
Brown Power Plant
SOURCE: R.W. Harden & Associates, Inc., 1986
5-32
through year 2020. Basically, only lifting costs would be increased slightly. Such developments
would also not appreciably change gradients near fresh/brackish water boundaries, and so would
not appreciably affect intrusive movement of poor quality water.
From a water quality standpoint, it is unlikely that mining operations in Robertson
or adjoining counties will be of any real significance to future well developments in the Simsboro.
This is especially true with respect to any future well field developments by Bryan, College Station
and Texas A&M University. This is because of the distant locations and because the lignite
being mined typically is interbedded with thick deposits of silt and clay and tends to be separated
from the Simsboro (and other significant water -bearing units). Degradation of water quality in
aquifers adjacent to the lignite tends to be precluded by these natural silt/clay barriers to
ground -water movement. While mine drainage sometimes has the potential to be of poorer
quality than some natural ground waters, whether that quality would be of any importance would
depend on local conditions.
Regardless, the travel of any poor quality water which might result from mining
operations or other sources would be limited by low ground -water movement rates. For example,
the Bryan -College Station area is about 20-25 miles from the nearest mining operations in
northern Robertson County, and typical Simsboro ground -water movement rates are only 100 to
200 feet per year. Thus, 20 miles is equivalent to a travel time of 528 to 1,056 years. Mining
operations which are miles away should be of little concern to future Simsboro developments
chosen to meet 2020 demands. For similar reasons, any other type of contamination in outcrop
recharge areas should not be a concern in planning 2020 supplies from well fields located at even
moderate distances from these recharge areas.
5.2.9 Effects of Pumping On Fresh Water/Brackish Water Interface
At present, pumpage from aquifers in the five -county area is either relatively small
or the distances from pumping wells to the location of poor quality water (the fresh
water/brackish water interface) is typically large. Under such circumstances, there is no likelihood
of the poor quality water moving into existing fresh water wells. Similarly, future encroachment
11753/890674
5-33
of this poor quality water is unlikely unless there is development of heavy pumping close to areas
where the poor quality water is located. Only under such conditions can the poor quality water
be drawn into wells.
Pumping can affect the position of the fresh water/brackish water interface. This is
because the original slope of the potentiometric surface from the outcrop to downdip areas of
the aquifer is small and because the cone of depression caused by heavy pumping can be relatively
deep and can extend over wide areas. Under such conditions, the cone of depression results in
a gradient from the fresh water/brackish water interface towards the pumping well field. For
example, in the case of the Simsboro, flow lines to the pumping wells originate in the outcrop.
However, they do not go straight to the wells because of the radial nature of the flow to wells.
Some of the flow lines pass by on either side of the wells and then turn and come back to the
wells from the direction of the fresh water/brackish water interface. Depending on well location,
some of the flow lines can actually pass from the outcrop into the area containing the poor
quality water and then turn and move toward pumping wells. This circumstance causes the fresh
water/brackish water interface to move, quite slowly, toward the pumping wells. This situation
would be the most severe if the pumping were very large and were located very close to the fresh
water/brackish water interface.
Currently, the cone of depression as a result of pumping from the Simsboro by Bryan,
College Station, and Texas A&M University is undoubtedly causing some movement of the
fresh/brackish water interface toward the well fields. However, there is no indication from
chemical analyses that the water from any of the wells is increasing in mineralization. The
following listing shows the concentration of some of the major constituents from early and rer" nt
analyses of water from the City of Bryan's Simsboro Well 10. This well is closest to the fresh
water/brackish water interface of all the Bryan, College Station, and Texas A&M University
Simsboro wells and has been utilized for the longest time. Bryan's Well 10 would be expected
to be one of the first wells to show an increase in mineralization if noticeable encroachment of
poor quality water were occurring.
11753/890674
5-34
Month/Year 3/54 12/87
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/l
Bicarbonate, mg/l
Sodium, mg/1
775
75
2
659
318
774
66
.13
617
307
From inception of Simsboro pumping by the City of Bryan in 1954 and through the
development of the Texas A&M University and the City of College Stations Simsboro supplies,
no deterioration of water quality has been observed in Well 10 or any of the other Simsboro
wells. However, it is possible that given enough time there will be a noticeable increase. It
should be anticipated that the first increases will occur in those wells closest to the poor quality
water. The process is very, very slow, however, because of the large amounts of water in storage
in the Simsboro, the large distance to the fresh water/brackish water interface, and because the
water moves radially to the centers of pumping from all directions. As a result, it takes many
years for water to move any great distance.
The amount of water in storage in the Simsboro is on the order of 76,800 acre-feet
per square mile or 25 billion gallons per square mile. This is equal to pumping for one year at
the rate of 68 mgd. Using this value and geometry, approximations can be made of the number
of years for water to move to wells fields from any distance. Five examples are shown below
using various distances, pumping rates, and assuming a porosity of 30 percent for the Simsboro.
Well Field
Pumping
Rate
Example A 2 mgd
Example B 20 mgd
Example C 60 mgd
Example D 60 mgd
Example E 120 mgd
Distance to
Brackish Water
1 mile
2 miles
4 miles
8 miles
10 miles
Time Required
For Brackish Water
To Move To Well Field
108 years
43 years
57 years
230 years
179 years
11753/890674
5-35
The existing Simsboro well fields of Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M
University collectively represent a condition somewhere between Examples A and B. If the full
projected 2020 demand for Brazos County were developed from the Simsboro at a distance of
four to eight miles from brackish water, a condition somewhere between Examples C and D
would be applicable.
In summary, only very large developments located close to poor quality water can
draw in poor quality water, or even cause much lateral movement of the fresh water/brackish
water interface except over long time periods. Also, any change in water quality is normally slow.
If monitoring of water quality is done, there is a long lead time available to relocate wells or to
otherwise deal with the situation. With proper location of future well fields, the threat of
brackish water encroachment should not be a limiting factor in ground -water development to meet
2020 demands.
5.3 OTHER AQU11~HRS
5.3.1 Introduction
Several other aquifers in addition to the Simsboro are located in the five -county area
and are included in the scope of this study. From shallowest to deepest they are the Sparta,
Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, and Hooper. Although these other aquifers are capable of
meeting water requirements for some of the smaller municipal and industrial users, they are not
nearly as important quantitatively as the Simsboro and are also not likely to be important factors
in any regional integration of supplies.
5.3.2 Location
Figure 5-1 shows the relative vertical position and extent of the Sparta, Queen City,
Carrizo, Calvert Bluff and Hooper Aquifers. Figure 5-9 shows the lateral extent. The northwest
boundary of each of the aquifers is at the northwest boundary of its outcrop area. The downdip
or southeastern extent of each aquifer is the southeastern extent of fresh water (up to 1,000 mg/1
11753/890674
5-36
Figure 5-9
Location Of Sparta, Queen City, Calvert Bluff And Hooper Aquifers
Queen City
EXPLANATION
Fresh water area
Outcrop (recharge) area
0 20 40
Scale In Mlle•
5-37
total dissolved solids content). Each aquifer dips from northwest to southeast generally at a rate
of approximately 100 feet per mile. The Sparta is the shallowest, and it overlies the Queen City.
The Carrizo Sand directly overlies the Wilcox Group which is composed of the Calvert Bluff,
Simsboro, and Hooper Formations. Each aquifer is of importance in only about the northern half
of the five -county area or less. The downdip boundaries of fresh water as shown on Figure 5-
9 are from Texas Water Commission (1989) mappings.
5.3.3 Present Use
Industrial and municipal use of ground water within the five county study area is small
(Table 5-1), except for use by Bryan, College Station and Texas A&M University. Table 5-2
shows the 1987 ground -water use by municipal users by aquifer as reported by the Texas Water
Development Board (1989). This information indicates the total distribution of municipal
ground -water pumpage in the five -county area and the number and size of current municipal
users.
To better evaluate the importance of the individual aquifers to present users, the
available information was distributed according to the total amount of use from each aquifer. The
distribution is:
Aquifer
1987 Municipal Pumpage Percent of Total
Ac-ft Municipal Pumpage
Simsboro 24,758 81
Carrizo 927 3
Queen City 284 1
Hooper and Calvert Bluff 819 3
Sparata 1,742 6
All Others 1 837 6
Total 30,367 100
11753/890674
5-38
I tss than 6,000 acre-feet of ground -water pumpage occurred for municipal use from
the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, Hooper, and other aquifers in the five -county area
in 1987. About 1,700 acre-feet was from the Sparta, most of which was from Texas A&M
University's Sparta well field. The remainder was produced by over 40 small municipal users
scattered over the five -county area. Most of the users produced less than 200 acre-feet in 1987.
Moderate users include the City of Centerville in Leon County, the City of Madisonville in
Madison County, Texas Department of Corrections in Grimes County, the City of Buffalo in Leon
County, and the City of Navasota in Grimes County.
In the general vicinity of the Cities of Bryan and College Station, and their respective
well fields, the only aquifers capable of furnishing potable water are the Sparta Sand and
Simsboro Sand. Water in the Sparta within Bryan -College Station proper is mineralized with total
dissolved solid concentrations in excess of 2,000 mg/l. However, to the west mineralization is
lower, and both Bryan and Texas A&M have developed well supplies from the Sparta having
total dissolved solids content of about 300 mg/t. The City of College Station has never developed
any Sparta supplies.
The City of Bryan has an older well field in the Sparta which is not currently used,
except on occasion to meet peak summer demands. Texas A&M University is the only major
user of the Sparta in the Bryan -College Station area. In 1987 about three percent of their total
pumpage was from the Sparta. The remaining pumpage was from the Simsboro. The Texas
A&M University Sparta well field coupled with the earlier Bryan pumpage from the Sparta,
virtually resulted in full development of the Sparta (Guyton, 1971), so any significant future
ground -water development could only be from the Simsboro.
The City of College Station used one Queen City production well located within the
City. The water was of moderately high mineralization, (about 1,700 mg/1 total dissolved solids
content) and was mixed with Simsboro water. In 1987 the City of College Station produced only
about 0.5 percent of their total pumpage from the Queen City. In recent years this Queen City
well has been little used.
11753/890674
5-39
5.3.4 Availability of Water to Meet Demands of the Year 2020
The northern half of the five -county planning area is endowed with significant
ground -water resources which could be utilized to meet water demand through 2020. Six aquifers
are present including the Sparta, Queen City, Carrizo, Calvert Bluff, Simsboro, and Hooper. Each
can furnish significant additional supplies to present users from expanded or properly -located well
fields. In many areas the extent of the aquifers overlaps, and potential users of small supplies
will have some options with respect to which zones can be utilized. Local water quality and
available well yield likely will dictate choices.
To generally evaluate the potential availability of water from the six aquifers, some
typical hydraulic and common characteristics of the aquifers and larger -capacity wells are
presented in Table 5-9. Included are typical values which can be used to compare transmissivity,
well screen length, and well yield for the different aquifers. The source of the information is
primarily published reports which has been supplemented by information from owners and
experience in evaluating or developing water supplies from each of the aquifers.
The transmissivity values shown in Table 5-9 represent the typical maximums which
can be expected where wells screen the full sand thicknesses commonly present in those areas
which have been developed by wells or in those areas considered more favorable for development.
Other factors being equal the availability of water from the aquifers is proportional to their
transmissivity. It can be seen that the Simsboro is overwhelmingly the most important, however
other units have significant availability of water, especially in relation to the widely -scattered and
small projected 2020 demand for those small to moderate users in the planning area.
Table 5-9 also shows typical well screen lengths for high -capacity wells completed in
the aquifers as well as typical well yields for high -capacity wells. The last column in Table 5-9
ranks the estimated availability of ground water from the aquifers. The numbers are comparative
only and reflect the relative quantitative potential of the aquifers. For example, the Queen City,
Hooper, and Calvert are considered to have the least water available and to be about equal, with
the Sparta considered to have about twice the availability that the Calvert Bluff, Hooper or Queen
11753/890674
5-40
TABLE 5-9
TYPICAL AQUIFER VALUES
Aquifer
Well Estimated
Transmissivity Screen Well Relative Water
(gpd/ft) Length (ft) Yield (gpm) Availability
Sparta 12,000 <100 500 2X
Queen City <10,000 <100 250 1X
Carrizo 25,000 100 1,000 4X
Calvert Bluff <10,000 <100 250 1X
Simsboro 100,000 300+ 2,400 16X
Hooper <10,000 <100 250 1X
11753\890674 5-41
City has. The Carrizo is considered to have about twice the availability that the Sparta has. The
Simsboro is considered to have about four times the availability that the Carrizo has in as much
as the Simsboros transmissivity is about four times larger.
Within Robertson, Leon, and Madison counties, future municipal demands are not
significantly larger than existing ground -water pumpage. Also, users are widely scattered and have
little interference effects on one another. It is judged from Table 5-9 and the amounts of the
projected 2020 demand that all small and moderate users will likely be able to obtain future
amounts from the same sources which they are currently using or from nearby well fields in
available aquifers. The same is likely true for projected industrial demands which are all small
(except for Robertson County). The projected industrial use for Robertson County will be from
the Simsboro, and the amount is considered available from local well fields.
In southern Brazos County and in Grimes County some other aquifers exist. These
include sands of the Yegua Formation, Jackson Group, Catahoula Formation, and Fleming
Formation. Evaluations of these aquifers are outside the scope of this study. However, some
estimates of availability for Grimes County are given in Baker, et al (1974). They are:
Aquifer Amount
Yegua 3.5 mgd
Jackson 2.2 mgd
Catahoula 4.5 mgd
Fleming 36 mgd
The values are relatively small excepting for the Fleming. The Fleming is present
only in southernmost Grimes County. Both the current and projected demand in the southern
part of the planning area are also small. This suggests the aquifers probably are capable of
supplying most of those needs, especially if some well fields were located in the Fleming.
11753/890674
5-42
5.4 GROUND -WATER RECHARGE ENHANCEMENT AS A SOURCE OF WATER
A variety of methods have been used to artificially recharge aquifers in order to
maintain or augment the natural supply. However, artificial recharge methods are generally not
applicable to supplementing the type of storage/transmission system present in either the Simsboro
or the other aquifers considered herein.
Artificial recharge is defined as augmenting the natural movement of water into
underground formations by some method of construction, by spreading of water, or by artificially
changing natural conditions. (Todd, 1959) A variety of methods have been used including water
spreading via basins, stream channels, ditches, flooding and irrigation. Other techniques employ
pits or recharge wells. In addition, sometimes wells are located specifically near surface water
bodies and pumped to induce recharge. The particular methods used are governed by local
geohydrologic conditions, the quantity of water available to be recharged and the use of the
recharged water. In many situations, recharge projects also assist to overcome local problems
such as progressive lowering of ground -water levels or brackish water intrusion. Of course,
adequate amounts of water must be available in order to place water underground for future use.
Common sources include storm runoff collected for subsequent recharge, treated wastewater, or
importation of distant surface water sources.
Water spreading techniques or artificially changing natural conditions in outcrops of
the water -bearing formations are generally not applicable to the Simsboro or other regional
aquifers. At present, the recharge areas of all of the aquifers are full to overflowing. Water levels
in outcrop areas adjacent to major stream valleys are a few to several tens of feet higher than
the adjacent stream valleys. Thus, any amounts recharged would not benefit downdip areas where
wells are located but would only serve to increase natural discharge in outcrop areas. With
current water levels, recharging in outcrop areas would do little to increase storage and would
not affect transmission to wells in downdip areas.
Recharging in downdip artesian areas could only be accomplished by wells.
Recharging via wells is normally done to combat adverse conditions such as brackish water
11753/890674
5-43
intrusion or progressively declining water levels in addition to maintaining or augmenting the
supply. No progressive declines of water levels, excepting those caused by pumpage increases,
are occurring in the study area. Also, no troublesome brackish water intrusion is occurring, and
there is no lack of overall supply. Recharging via wells in the artesian portion of the aquifers,
especially in the Simsboro, would only serve to raise water levels (artesian pressures) and lessen
pumping levels in adjacent well fields with the amount being related to the locations and amounts
recharged. The net benefit would only be small reductions in lifting costs. At present, lifting
costs are essentially an unimportant part of ground -water development costs, and the large capital
and operating expenses associated with recharge wells certainly would be an uneconomical way
to raise water levels. Furthermore, there would have to be a source for the water used to
recharge with that source being large in quantity and of good quality. No such source which
could not more economically be utilized directly is available.
11753/890674
5-44
6.0 SURFACE WA 1'ER RESOURCES
6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Municipal and manufacturing water demands within the primary study area are
currently met exclusively from ground -water sources. However, in the future it is to be expected
that the demand- for water in the primary study area will exceed the capacity of existing well
facilities. The development of surface water supplies represents an alternative course of action
to the expansion of existing ground -water supplies. The following sections describe the existing
and proposed surface water resources that may be available to supplement the future municipal
water demands of Brazos County that would not be met by ground -water sources. Refer to
Table 6-1 for a summary of existing and proposed reservoirs.
6.2 EXISTING RESOURCES
6.2.1 Brazos River
The Brazos River is the primary source of a basin -wide water supply system managed
by the Brazos River Authority (BRA). In addition to the management of the Brazos River, the
BRA manages 11 water supply reservoirs throughout the basin. The BRA reports that a long-
term water supply capable of providing over 45 mgd is currently available from the Brazos River
near College Station (see Appendix D for BRA's letter of recommendation). This quantity is
well in excess of the projected deficiencies that would occur if no new ground -water supplies were
developed to meet future water demands. The river is located approximately 5 miles to the
southwest of the Bryan -College Station area.
While water quality within the Brazos River is generally satisfactory for water supply,
the BRA reports some problems with elevated salt concentrations, particularly during periods of
low flow. Because of the available water rights and the close proximity to the Bryan -College
Station area, the Brazos River has been carried forward as a potential source of water supply for
the primary study area.
11753/890674 6-1
17,
ago
.5
ras
z
00 try 00 00
N 00 A A v 00 N
z z
z - 8 z z § § §`Rp,� �o
N M b '4 N M N
j
Polk, San Jacinto
0
8
as
11111
a a $3. a a
E a . .� • .
h) 6 11 5 § i 6
ER a 8 n . 8 a. § z 0
24 i
11753/890674
6-2
6.2.2 Lake Somerville
Lake Somerville is a multi -purpose reservoir located in Burleson County,
approximately 23 miles to the southwest of College Station. With a surface area of approximately
11,460 acres, Lake Somerville has a total capacity of 160,110 ac-ft and a 2020 estimated yield of
37,900 ac-ft. The BRA notes a current available yield of 31,136 ac-ft/yr, or approximately
27.8 mgd, from Lake Somerville. See Appendix D for BRA's letter of recommendation. This
yield exceeds the projected deficiencies that have been identified if no new ground -water
development occurs.
Water quality from Lake Somerville is excellent for water supply. This source has
been carried forward as a potential source of water supply for the primary study area of Brazos
County.
6.2.3 Lake Limestone
Lake Limestone is located on the Navasota River approximately 45 miles north of the
City of Bryan. This reservoir was constructed and is operated by the BRA. Lake Limestone
currently supplies make-up water for off -channel cooling lakes that serve the lignite -fueled steam
electric power plants located in the area. The lake has a total estimated capacity of 225,400 ac-ft
and an estimated yield of approximately 65,500 ac-ft/yr, or approximately 58.5 mgd. Although
Lake Limestone has some available water rights, this source has been eliminated for consideration
due to the high costs that would be associated with transmission from the reservoir to the Bryan -
College Station area.
6.2.4 Twin Oak Reservoir
The Twin Oak Reservoir is located in Robertson County, approximately 35 miles to
the north of the Bryan -College Station area. This 2,330 surface acre reservoir is operated by the
Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) and provides cooling water for the lignite -fueled
11753/890674
6-3
steam electric power plant located in the area. Based on this single purpose use and distance
from Bryan -College Station, this reservoir has been eliminated as a potential source of water
supply for the primary study area.
6.2.5 Gibbons Creek Reservoir
Gibbons Creek Reservoir is owned and operated by the- Texas Municipal Power
Agency for the sole purpose of providing cooling water for a lignite -fueled steam electric power
plant. This reservoir was eliminated for consideration as a potential source of water for the
primary study area for this reason.
6.2.6 Lake Livingston
Lake Livingston is a multi -purpose reservoir located in the Trinity River Basin
approximately 65 miles to the east of the Bryan -College Station area. This reservoir is operated
by the Trinity River Authority. See Appendix D for TRA's letter of recommendation. Although
the TRA has indicated that sufficient water rights exist to meet the future water demands of the
primary study area, it has been assumed that this source would not be economically feasible in
light of the high costs associated with conveyance.
6.2.7 Lake Conroe
Lake Conroe is located in the San Jacinto River Basin approximately 45 miles to the
southeast of the Bryan -College Station area. Although this reservoir may have some available
yield for allocation, it has been eliminated for consideration as a viable source of water supply
due to the high costs of transmission from the lake to the twin cities area.
6.2.8 Camp Creek Lake
Camp Creek Lake is located in Robertson County approximately 26 miles to the
north of the cities of Bryan and College Station. This lake has a total capacity of approximately
11753/890674
6-4
8,550 ac-ft and is used primarily for recreation. Because of its small size and its distance from
the Bryan -College Station area, this surface water option has been eliminated from consideration
as a potential source of water supply.
6.3 PROPOSED RESOURCES
6.3.1 Millican Lake
Millican Lake is a planned multi -purpose reservoir that has been proposed for
construction on the Navasota River in portions of Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison and Robertson
counties. At its closest point, the site would be located several miles to the east of the cities of
Bryan and College Station. This proposed reservoir would be constructed and operated by the
BRA, and would have an estimated total storage capacity of approximately 1,973,000 ac-ft, and
an available reservoir yield of approximately 248,600 ac-ft/yr, the equivalent of 222 mgd. Although
still in the planning stages, this reservoir was suggested by BRA and has been carried forward as
a potentially viable water supply option for Brazos County. See Appendix D for BRA's letter of
recommendation.
6.3.2 Bedias Reservoir
The proposed Bedias Reservoir has been studied by the Trinity River Authority
(TRA) and the Bureau of Reclamation as a potential municipal supply for the Houston area and
local areas. See Appendix D for TRA's letter of recommendation. As proposed, the 17,000
surface acre Bedias Reservoir would be located in portions of Madison, Grimes, and Walker
counties and have a projected yield of approximately 76 mgd. In the absence of firm
commitments from users, however, the TRA halted all planning for this potential project in early
1988. If constructed, the proposed reservoir would be located in the Trinity River basin
approximately 25 miles from the Bryan -College Station area. Because of the high costs associated
with transmission of water from the Trinity River basin to the Brazos River basin, this proposed
reservoir has been eliminated for consideration as a viable source of water supply.
11753/890674
6-5
6.3.3 Lake Navasota
Lake Navasota is a proposed water supply project on the Navasota River that has
been under joint study by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the BRA. The proposed location
in Robertson and Leon Counties would be approximately 22 miles from Bryan -College Station.
As currently planned, Lake Navasota would have a total capacity of approximately 1,384,900 ac-
ft and a yield of approximately 231,600 ac-ft/yr. In light of the distance from the Bryan -College
Station area, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration as a viable surface water
source for Brazos County.
6.3.4 Caldwell Reservoir
The proposed Caldwell Reservoir has been reviewed for feasibility by a number of
entities including the Corps of Engineers and is currently under study by the BRA as a potential
source of water supply. The proposed reservoir would be located in Burleson and Milam
counties. The damsite is proposed on Cedar Creek west of FM 1362, near Goodwill,
approximately 8 miles northeast of Caldwell. Projected yields of this reservoir are approximately
97,438 ac-ft/yr, or approximately 87 mgd. The reservoir would be developed from stormflow down
Cedar Creek, and because of the small size of the reservoir it would need to be supplemented
by unregulated high flows directly from the Brazos River. Because of its location to the primary
study area, Caldwell Reservoir is a potentially viable surface water source and was suggested by
BRA. See Appendix D. However, because supplementary flows from the Brazos River were
necessary with an additional cost for conveyance, direct pumpage from the Brazos River as
discussed in Section 6.2.1 was considered in lieu of pumpage from Caldwell Reservoir,
6.3.5 Brazos Coal Lake
The Brazos Coal Lake is a proposed reservoir that is in the early stages of planning
by a private developer. Proposed for location in Brazos County on Peach Creek, a tributary of
the Navasota River, approximately 10 miles south of College Station, this lake would have an
estimated surface area of approximately 1,500 to 2,500 acres. As planned, a primary purpose of
11753/890674
6-6
this lake would be to serve as an amenity feature for surrounding land development. The yield
of this proposed lake has been estimated at approximately 1.8 mgd. In light of the size and
available yield, this project was eliminated for consideration as a surface water alternative for
Brazos County.
6.3.6 Upper Keechi Creek Reservoir
The Upper Keechi Creek reservoir is a potential project located in the Trinity River
basin. As planned, this potential project would be located in Leon County and would have an'
estimated firm yield of 25 mgd. This surface water alternative has been eliminated from
consideration due to distance -related conveyance costs.
6.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES SCREENING PROCESS
Based on the wide range of existing and proposed surface water resources potentially
available to serve Brazos County, EH&A conducted a screening of these resources in order to
select alternatives for master planning of a regional system. This screening process consisted of
an evaluation of each of the previously described surface water alternatives according to several
general criteria:
• Sufficient and Available Yield;
• Distance -related Conveyance Costs;
• Designated Use; and,
• Recommendation or suggested consideration by BRA and TRA.
Where possible, EH&A gave consideration to the use of existing resources over proposed.
However, in several cases the economic costs of conveyance, for example, would be expected to
be prohibitively high, resulting in the consideration of proposed projects situated in closer
proximity to the Bryan -College Station area. In the screening of proposed reservoirs, EH&A did
not attempt to evaluate the technical, economic, or political feasibility of these projects. Instead,
all proposed projects were generally assumed to have an equal probability of construction.
11753/890674
6-7
Based on a screening of the surface water alternatives noted in Table 6-1, EH&A
identified three potential sources of surface water for the Bryan -College Station area. Table 6-
2 provides a screening matrix of the existing and proposed surface water resources considered for
the master planning of a regional water supply system.
6.5 RECOMMENDED SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES
Based on a screening of all surface water resources with potential to supplement the
existing ground -water supplies in the primary study area, EH&A selected three alternatives.
These alternatives are: 1) the Brazos River, 2) Lake Somerville, and 3) Lake Millican. Although
Lake Millican is a proposed project, this alternative was selected because of its high yield and
close proximity to the Bryan -College Station area. The Lake Millican alternative was also
suggested by the BRA.
11753/890674
6-8
PRELIMINARY SCREENING MATRIX
tn
741
V)
U
r
a
0
E
E
0
8
�
0 „
Ea
v
0
a
EXISTING:
■ ® a ® a a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
• • 1 • • • I •
• • • O O • • • • • • • O •
•• O O• 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0
• • • O O • • O • • • • O •
ca
5
0
Lake Limestone
PROPOSED
Millican Lake
0
Caldwell Reservoir
Brazos Coal Lake
6-9
7.0 RECOMMENDED AL 1hRNATIVE SOURCES
7.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this section is to describe the selected water resources and the
methodology used to evaluate the alternatives for a regional water supply for the primary study
area. The water demands for the study period have been identified and can be found in Section
3.0, Population and Water Demand Projections. This section will identify four alternative sources
selected to meet the expected water demands, describe the necessary improvements and the
associated cost of those improvements for each alternative, and develop a reasonable
determination of the unit cost of raw water.
In general, three surface water resources and the Simsboro Aquifer wells have been
selected. This section provides an economic comparison of each resource. The surface water
improvements will consist of intake facilities, pump station, raw water transmission mains,
treatment facilities, booster pump stations and treated water transmission mains. The ground
water improvements will consist of a well field, well field transmission main, cooling towers,
booster pump station and treated water transmission mains. The design of each alternative has
been developed using the following criteria:
• Because surface water alternatives are being compared to ground water
alternatives, all reservoir alternatives assume the reservoir is in place.
Estimated reservoir construction costs were not considered, and the technical,
economic, and political feasibility and probability of proposed reservoirs were
not evaluated in detail. The cost to purchase water from reservoirs was
obtained from the Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per acre-foot. See
Appendix D.
• Alternatives were developed for a regional water supply system. Additional
facilities to distribute and store water for individual participants in the regional
supply system were not considered. Therefore, the cost for regional facilities
11753/890674
7-1
terminates prior to the individual delivery facility. The cost to convey water
from the regional system to smaller municipalities and water supply corporations
is discussed in Section 8.0, Comparison of Alternatives.
• Alternative water sources and the necessary facilities were developed only for
the primary study area.
• The alternatives assume that throughout the planning period a total of 10
existing Simsboro wells will remain in use. As described in Section 3.7 and
Section 5.0, these wells each are assumed to have a capacity of 2,100 gpm, for
a total of 30.24 mgd of demand to be supplied by the existing wells throughout
the study period. Two construction phases have been considered. The first
phase is in the year 2000, with construction meeting the demands for the
year 2010. The second phase will be in the year 2010 and will meet the
demands for the year 2020. Demands prior to the year 2000 will be met by the
existing wells. Ten year construction intervals provide sufficient time to study,
plan, permit, design and construct each phase. Conservation factors were
applied to each construction phase to develop parallel construction costs.
Table 7-1 describes each of the construction phases and the year of construction,
the conservation factor being applied to the demands, and the demands used
for design.
11753/890674
7-2
TABLE 7-1
CONSTRUCTION PHASES
Total Demands2
Construction Demand Project' Conservation Q Max -Day Q Average -Day
Year Year Phase Factor Applied mgd mgd
2000 2010 I N/A 46.39 12.66
2000 2010 Ic 12.5% 36.81 7.30
2010 2020 II N/A 58.94 18.91
2010 2020 IIc 15.0% 45.56 11.54
'Phase with subscript "c" have Conservation Factors applied.
2Brazos County demands assume 10 existing wells at flow of 2,100 gpm per well, or 30.24 mgd
maintained throughout life of study period. See Section 3.0 for demand descriptions.
7.2 GROUND -WATER ALTERNATIVE
7.2.1 Simsboro Aquifer Wells
7.2.1.1 General
The proposed water supply source for Alternative No. 1 is from a well field located
in the Simsboro Aquifer north of Bryan. Section 5.0 of this report discusses the feasibility of
using well fields to meet the demands of the primary study area. Table 5-7 and Figure 5-7
describe the quantity and location of a well field. Section 5.0 also describes the effects of a well
field upon the Simsboro Aquifer. Specifically, it was determined that a well field used to meet
the year 2020 demands will provide good quality drinking water with a minimal potential for salt
water intrusion and with acceptable projected declines in pumping levels.
11753/890674
7-3
This section will describe the design of the improvements used to develop a ground-
water supply system and the conveyance facilities used to transfer raw and treated water to the
regional delivery points. To develop the costs associated with Alternative No. 1, design
assumptions described in Section 5.0 were utilized to determine the engineering requirements of
the ground -water system. These assumptions are as follows:
1. Ten existing Simsboro wells were maintained throughout the study period.
Although there are more wells existing currently, it is assumed that some of
these wells will become ineffective.
2. All wells, both existing and proposed, are assumed to yield 2,100 gpm.
3. Well spacing is at 2,000-foot intervals.
4. Water from all proposed wells will require cooling from 120°F to 88°F with
•
cooling towers.
The ground -water supply system was also developed using the following additional
assumptions:
1. Design intervals were assumed at 10-year increments beginning in year 2000 and
meeting the demands with and without the conservation factors noted in
Table 7-1.
2. Because this is a regional water supply study, individual municipal facilities
necessary to receive and further distribute the treated water at the delivery
points were not included in the scope.
In general, the ground -water alternative will consist of a well field north of Bryan as
described in Section 5.0 and as shown on Figure 5-7. The well field will be staged to meet
demands of each construction phase. A well field transmission main will convey ground -water
11753/890674
7-4
to cooling towers. The water will then be chlorinated, stored in clearwells and pumped from the
booster pump station to two delivery points. A schematic showing the well field design can be
found on Figure 7-1 and a map showing the location of well field facilities can be found on
Figure 7-2.
7.2.1.2 Supply Facilities
Ground -water shall be obtained to meet maximum day demands from a series of wells
north of Bryan, Texas and located in proximity to Highway 6 as shown on Figure 7-2. The wells
will be constructed to meet the phasing demand as shown in Figure 7-1. Each well will be
located on a separate lot and consist of a standard deep well, pump, motor with an electrical
motor starter, and radio telemetry. Wells will have increased pumping head due to drawdown
levels shown on Table 5-7. Increased power costs and possible pump replacement will be
expected due to increased drawdown levels. The well Geld will tie into a well field transmission
main which will be sized for each construction phase to provide maximum flow at a velocity of
less than or equal to 10 feet per second. The size and length of each .phased pipeline is shown
on Figure 7-1.
7.2.1.3 Treatment Facilities
As described in Section 5.2.3, the temperature of the water from the Simsboro wells
will require cooling towers. The cooling towers will reduce the temperature from approximately
120° to 88°F. Cooling towers will also be sized and staged in accordance with the construction
phases. The quality of the Simsboro Aquifer is considered acceptable with minimal treatment.
Post -chlorination will be added following the cooling process and air stripping will also be
accomplished by the cooling towers.
11753/890674
7-5
STAGED WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN
PHASE IIC
PHASE IC
COOLING
TOWERS
WELL FIELD
18' DIA.
6,000 L.F.
30' DIA.
12,000 L.F.
36' DIA.
14,000 L.F.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20' DIA. 36' DIA.
7.000 L.F. 16,000 L.F.
0
O O 0 0
42' DIA.
16,000 L.F.
PHASE 11
PHASE I
COMBINED
CITIES TRANSMISSION MAIN
WITH CONSERVATION = 36' DIA.
WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 42' DIA.
29,600 L.F.
BRYAN
DELIVERY POINT1_____t____J
COLLEGE STATION
AND TEXAS A&M
TRANSMISSION MAIN
WITH CONSERVATION = 30' DIA.
WITHOUT CONSERVATION = 36' DIA.
57,600 L.F.
CONSTUCTION\
PHASE
COLLEGE STATION 1
®j & TEXAS A&M 1
DELIVERY POINT
J
PHASE
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR
COOLING
TOWERS
CLEARWELL
GALLONS
WITHOUT CONSERVATION PLAN
I
2000
11
2,300,000
11
2010
3
800,000
WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
IC
2000
9
1,500,000
IIC
2010
3
600,000
CHLORINE
SOLUTION
CLEARWELL
STORAGE
TANKS
PHASE I-
II i
WELL FIELD
PUMP STATION
0-
0-
0
0-
0-
I
ESPEY. HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
FIGURF 7-1
GROUND WATER SYSTEM
BOOSTER
PUMP STATION .
WELL FIELD
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
[COLLEGE STATION
TEXAS A & M
COLLEGE STATION/
TEXAS A& M
DELIVERY POINT
BRYAN
DELIVERY
POINT
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
r
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
COOLING TOWER
DELIVERY POINT
WELL FIELD •
WELL FIELD
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
10000
0
0
A
OEM ---
10000
SCALE IN FEET
C SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD
/.�' (�=` ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC
��� Engineering & Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 7-2
WELL FIELD
ALTERNATIVE I
7.2.1.4 Pumping and Transmission
The pump station will use clearwell storage of treated water to reduce the cycle time
of the pumps. The preliminary design of the clearwells was developed to store treated water
prior to pumping to the delivery points. For the purpose of this study the clearwells are sized
assuming a 6-hour storage of average day flow between pump starts. The clearwells will be
welded steel and above ground. The size of the clearwells at the different construction phases
and the schematic location can be found on Figure 7-1.
A booster pump station will be constructed to deliver the maximum day demands
of a regional system. The structure will be initially sized to meet year 2020 demands, with only
the required pumps being installed to meet each construction phase demands. The pumps will
be multi -stage vertical turbine pumps. The reinforced -concrete station will be below ground, with
a control building with heat, ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting. Auxiliary power may be
from an internal combustion engine, gas turbine or .secondary electrical source. The station will
be complete with valves, piping, and radio telemetry.
The proposed treated water transmission main was aligned along existing road right-
of-ways so as to minimize the impact to property and to minimize the right-of-way acquisition
effort. The transmission main was sized to ultimate capacity to provide a single line for all
phases. Low velocities will occur during the first phase with increased velocities to a maximum
of 10 feet per second at Phase II maximum day demands. Two delivery point locations were
selected. The proposed transmission line will carry the flow for the entire primary study area,
approximately 5.6 miles along FM 2818 to the intersection of State Highway 21 where treated
water will be delivered to the City of Bryan. This transmission main will be a 42-inch diameter
without the conservation plan and transporting 58.94 mgd, and will be 36-inch diameter with the
conservation plan and transporting 45.56 mgd. The transmission main will continue along
FM 2818, approximately 10.9 miles, to the intersection of FM 60, delivering the remaining treated
water to the second delivery point for College Station and Texas A&M. This transmission main
will be 36-inch diameter without the conservation plan, delivering a maximum flow of 41.26 mgd,
and will be 30-inch diameter with the conservation plan, delivering a maximum day flow of
11753/890674
7-8
31.89 mgd. The delivery points were located as shown on Figure 7-2 such that the cities' own
facilities can easily be tied into the regional transmission main.
7.3 SURFACE WATER ALTERNATIVES
7.3.1 General
Three surface water sources were selected to compare construction costs and
operation and maintenance costs with the ground water alternative. Many surface water sources
were considered; however, Lake Somerville, the Brazos River and Millican Lake were used for
this study. Section 6.0 describes the screening process used to select the alternatives.
This section will describe the improvements used to develop the surface water systems
to deliver water for the primary study area for each alternative. Section 7.3.1 will describe those
features and assumptions that are common for the three surface water alternatives. Features and
assumptions which are unique to each alternative will be described in the paragraphs which
follow each alternative.
In general, the alternatives will consist of a raw water intake channel and pump
station located near the reservoir dam or river's edge. Raw water will be pumped through a raw
water transmission main to a treatment plant. Treated water will be stored in clearwells and a
booster pump station will deliver water to two delivery points through two treated water
transmission mains. The typical surface water system can be found on Figure 7-3.
The surface water supply system was based on accepted engineering practices and the
following conceptual design criteria:
1. The quality of water supplied must meet current criteria of the Texas
Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
The following are the U.S. EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations:
11753/890674 7-9
RAW WATER
INTAKE
RESERVOIR
OR RIVER
RAW WATER
PUMPING
STATION
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
WITHOUT
CONSERVATION = 42" DIA.
WITH
CONSERVATION = 36" DIA.
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
R.O.
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
(WHERE
APPLICABLE
CLEARWELL
STORAGE
TANKS
PHASE
PHASE
PHASE
III
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
WITHOUT
BOOSTER CONSERVATION = 24" DIA.
PUMP WITH
STATION CONSERVATION = 20" DIA.
BRYAN
DELIVERY
-1
I POINT J
BP. COLLEGE STATION I
& TEXAS A&M
DELIVERY POINT I
J
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
WITHOUT
CONSERVATION = 36" DIA.
WITH
CONSERVATION = 30" DIA.
e ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
n ENGINEERING & ENVIRONAIENTAL CONSULTANTS
FIGURE 7-3
TYPICAL SURFACE
WATER FACILITIES
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Contaminant MCL (enforceable)*
Organics
2,4-D 0.1 mg/L
Endrin 0.0002 mg/L
Lindane 0.0004 mg/L
Methoxychlor 0.1 mg/L
Toxaphene 0.005 mg/L
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.01 mg/L
Trihalomethanes
(sum of chloroform, bromoform,
chloromethane, dibromochloromethane) 0.10 mg/L
Inorganics
Arsenic 0.05 mg/L
Barium 1.0 mg/L
Cadmium 0.010 mg/L
Chromium 0.05 mg/L
Fluoride. 1.4-2.4 mg/L+ (ambient temperature)
Lead 0.05 mg/L
Mercury 0.002 mg/L
Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/L
Selenium 0.01 mg/L
Silver 0.05 mg/L
Sodium and corrosion No MCL; monitoring and reporting
only
Radionuclides
Beta particle and photon radioactivity
Gross alpha particle activity
Radium-226 plus radium-228
Microbials
Colifonxns
Turbidity
4 mrem (annual dose equivalent)
15 pCi/L
5 pCi/L
<1/100 mL
1 ntu (up to 5 ntu)
*Monitoring and reporting for each contaminant are also required.
+Revised MCL and MCLG for fluoride is 4 mg/L.
11753/890674 7-11
NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Contaminant
Current SMCLs
SMCL Being
SMCLs Proposed Considered Under
Under Phase II• Phase V•
Chloride
Color
Copper
Corrosivity
Fluoride
Foaming agents
Iron
Manganese
Odor
pH
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
Aluminum
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Monochlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Silver
Toluene
Xylene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
250 mg/L
15 cu
1 mg/L
Noncorrosive
2 mg/L+
0.5 mg/L
0.3 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
3 Threshold odor number
6.5-8.5
250 mg/L
500 mg/L
5 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.01 mg/L
0.005 mg/L
0.03 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
0.03 mg/L
0.09 mg/L
0.04 mg/L
0.02 mg/L
0.008 mg/L
*Phases are identified and defined in the text.
+The SMCL for fluoride was revised in 1986.
2. Each surface water alternative has sufficient water to meet the average day
demands for the year 2020.
3. Demands for all surface water alternatives assume 10 existing Simsboro wells
will yield 2,100 gpm each throughout the study period.
11753/890674 7-12
4. For the purpose of this study the first construction phase will be in the year
2000 and is designed to meet the demands of the year 2010. The second
construction phase will be in the year 2010 meeting the demands of the year
2020. Cost scenarios were determined with and without the implementation of
conservation measures. Design flows meet the demands of Table 3-13 and 3-14
and are summarized on Table 7-1.
5. Because this is a regional water supply study, individual city facilities necessary
to receive and further distribute the treated water at the delivery points were
not included in the scope.
7.3.1.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station
The location of each alternative's raw water intake and pump station was optimized
based on reducing the length of raw water transmission pipeline, minimizing the amount of
earthwork required for the construction of the structures and providing good access for
maintenance. The intakes were assumed to be channels extending from the reservoir or river to
the pump station. The intake will be equipped with bar screens to protect the pumps from
debris. The pump station will be a reinforced -concrete structure sized to meet the year 2020
demands and containing vertical turbine pumps added at each construction phase to match the
demands at each design phase. In general, three pumps will be installed in the first construction
phase: two pumps combined to meet maximum day demand and one pump to serve as a back-
up pump. The three pumps will be alternated to provide equal usage time. The second
construction phase will add one pump meeting Phase II demands. An electrical control building
with heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting and auxiliary power is also included. Stations
will be complete with valves, pipes, fittings and controls.
11753/890674
7-13
7.3.1.2 Raw Water Transmission Main
A raw water transmission main was sized to meet maximum day demands for the year
2020 at a velocity of 10 feet per second or less. The pipeline was designed to follow existing road
right-of-way to the treatment plant, thereby reducing right-of-way costs. The main is sized with
and without the implementation of water conservation measures. The cost of the pipelines
includes valves, fittings and borings at road crossings.
7.3.1.3 Water Treatment Plant
In general, the design will include pretreatment disinfection, taste and odor control,
pH control, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, covered clearwell storage, and post -treatment
disinfection and fluoridation. The treatment process is outlined in Figure 7-4. Coagulation,
flocculation and sedimentation will occur in solid contact type upflow clarifiers. The filtration
system removes any remaining turbidity after the clarifiers. The filters were assumed to be mixed
media filters. Sludge waste and backwash systems were also included in the preliminary design.
The treatment plant was designed for peak flow at each construction phase demand
per Table 7-1. However, treatment capacities are divided to meet construction phases:
Phase
Demand
(mgd)
Water Treatment
Plant Size (mgd)
I 46.39 50
Ic 36.81 38
II 12.55 10
IIc 8.75 8
11753/890674 7-14
RAW WATER INTAKE
RESERVIOR AND
OR PUMP STATION
RIVER
INTAKE SCREEN
FROM
CLEARWELL
iguil�ll=�1
111
U A
\STRIJCTION
-II-AL.-Ai
��Yi�un_IwY=
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
BOOSTER
PUMP
STATION
AS
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
TO SPLITTER
BOX
TO DELIVERY
POINTS
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
DECANT
PUMP
STATION
Ia
UPFLOW
CLARIFIERS
MIXED
MEDIA
FILTER
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
y 16ialoorr= Y�ui=uil
II�11r
„IT wali�
PHASE
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT MGD
CLEARWELL
GALLONS
WITHOUT CONSERVATION
I
2000
50
2,300,000
II
2010
10
800,000
WITH CONSERVATION
IC
2000
38
1,500,000
IIC
2010
8
600,000
�rslacLL�
A
4
EFFLUENT
JUNCTION
BOX
-III nfl ten- r
CLEARWELL
F^ur.11k=
III
.. ^III
HIE=
--,..Ill YI
iYl°II
ma nI
C1111
m�
Tit
Iill—YIII IUIt Qua
1
WASH WATER
WASTE BASIN
411
WASH WATER
RECYCLE
SUMP
4471
4
}
117
TO BOOSTER
PUMP STATIO
TO
SPLITTER
BOX
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, IN
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
FIGURE 7-4
TYPICAL TREATMENT
PROCESS
7.3.1.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main
Booster pump stations will use clearwell storage to reduce pump cycle times.
Clearwell sizing assumed storing average day demands and a 6-hour storage between pump starts.
The clearwells will be above ground and welded steel construction. The size of the clearwells at
different construction phases can be found on Figure 7-4.
To deliver maximum day demands a booster pump station will be constructed. The
structure will be sized to meet year 2020 demands, with pumps being added to meet construction
phase demands. The pumps will be multi -stage vertical turbine pumps. The reinforced -concrete
station will be below ground, equipped with heat, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, auxiliary
power and control instrumentation.
The treated water transmission mains were aligned along existing road right-of-way
so as to reduce impact upon property. To minimize cost, a single transmission main was designed
to meet year 2020 demands for each alternative. In general, delivery points for each alternative
were located to provide each city with a minimum distance to tie to their own system.
7.3.2 Alternative No. 2 - Lake Somerville
7.3.2.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station
The raw water intake and pump station from Lake Somerville will be located on the
northeast end of the lake near the dam . (see Figure 7-5). The intake channel will be
approximately 1,000 feet long. The pump station will be located at the end of the channel. The
raw water pumps will pump against approximately 120 feet of elevation.
11753/890674
7-16
PROJECT NO.
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
COLLEGE STATION/
TEXAS ABM
DELIVERY POINT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
DELIVERY POINT
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
RESERVOIR
20000
0
A
...- ONO
0 20000
I11111■11111110
ffimm
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC
Engineering & Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 7-5
LAKE SOMERVILLE
ALTERNATIVE 2
7.3.2.2 Raw Water Transmission Main
The transmission pipeline alignment was selected to follow FM 60 approximately
22 miles from the pump station to the treatment plant site located in proximity to the intersection
with FM 2818. The alignment along FM 60 is relatively clear of existing utilities. A 42-inch
pipeline from the pump station will provide 58.94 mgd without the conservation plan, and a 36-
inch pipeline will provide 45.56 mgd with the conservation plan.
7.3.2.3 Water Treatment Plant
The preliminary design of the treatment process for water from Lake Somerville
evaluated the existing water treatment process used by the City of Brenham, Texas whose supply
is also from Lake Somerville. In general, the treatment process will be as that described in
Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown in Figure 7-4. The water quality from Lake Somerville is
favorable for drinking water. The proposed treatment plant will be located at the intersection
of FM 60 and FM 2818.
7.3.2.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main
The facilities for the booster pump station including clearwells and pump station will
all be located with the water treatment plant at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818.
Clearwells and pump stations were sized as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.4. The size of the
clearwells can be found on Figure 7-4. The vertical turbine pumps will pump against
approximately 25 feet of elevation. The transmission facilities will consist of two pipelines from
the booster pump station, one line to a delivery point for the City of College Station and Texas
A&M, and one line to a delivery point for the City of Bryan.
The pipeline for the College Station and Texas A&M delivery point was assumed to
be 500 feet along FM 60. The transmission main was designed to provide 41.26 mgd and will
be 36-inch diameter without a conservation plan and was designed to provide 31.89 mgd and will
be 30-inch diameter with the conservation plan.
11753/890674 7-18
The pipeline for the Bryan delivery point will follow FM 2818 north 5.4 miles to the
intersection of State Highway 21. The transmission main was designed to provide 17.68 mgd
and will be 24-inch diameter without a conservation plan, and was designed to provide 13.67 mgd
and will be 20-inch diameter with a conservation plan. There are some existing utilities along
FM 2818 which would need to be considered in order to locate the transmission main.
7.3.3 Alternative No. 3 - Brazos River
7.3.3.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station
The proposed raw water intake for this study was located on the Brazos River at
FM 60. The intake will be a channel approximately 200 linear feet. Location of Alternative
No. 3 can be seen on Figure 7-6. The pump station located adjacent to FM 60 will pump raw
water from the river to the water treatment plant. The raw water pumps will pump against
approximately 150 feet of elevation.
7.3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission Main
The transmission pipeline alignment will follow FM 60 approximately 4.5 miles to the
treatment plant site located at the intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818 which is the same site as
that used in Alternative No. 2. The pipeline was designed to provide 58.94 mgd and will be 42-
inch diameter without a conservation plan, and was designed to provide 45.56 mgd and will be
36-inch diameter with the conservation plan.
7.3.3.3 Water Treatment Plant
Water from the Brazos River exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
maximum level of total dissolved solids of 500 mg/1 as described in Paragraph 7.3.1. Texas A&M
performed a statistical evaluation of the salt concentrations in the Brazos River. The statistical
analysis is provided in a letter from the Brazos River Authority, dated March 8, 1990 and
11753/890674 7-19
Th
HEARNE
BRYAN
DELIVERY
POINT
\..s.,-
-
'('''-- •,-,
-.-_-;'9>
4111...••• 1.4
-4‘
L+) I :5 T
e? • \
,Jf-
Y _ •
tY'
COLLEGE STATION/
TEXAS AaM
DELIVERY POINT
flE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION
<
E
0
'7
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
DELIVERY POINT
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
20000
r1111111111111,
0
El
alga 41//111, OEM 61111
0 20000
MI= AMR
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC
Engineering & Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 7-6
BRAZOS RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 3
provided in Appendix D. The analysis indicated that at the College Station Gage the total
dissolved solids exceeds 500 mg/1 about 50 percent of the time. Therefore, an alternative means
of reducing the concentration of total dissolved solids must be provided.
Two alternative methods of reducing the total dissolved solids were considered,
Termination Storage and Reverse Osmosis treatment.
11753/890674
A. Termination Storage
To achieve the maximum levels of total dissolved solids with termination
storage, a pond was designed to store water during periods of lower told
dissolved solids concentration. If water is stored at an assumed concentration
of 400 mg/1 or less, which, according to the Texas A&M analysis occurs
30 percent of the time, then it can be mixed with water at 600 mg/1 or less,
which according to the analysis occurs 70 percent of the time, to achieve the
required 500 mg/l. The volume of the termination pond was determined based
on filling with 400 mg/1 water and providing 6 months storage at 30 percent of
the maximum demand. Without the conservation plan, the volume is
3,177 acre-feet, and with the conservation plan will be 1,940 acre-feet. Pond
costs were assumed at $5,000 per acre-foot. Therefore, costs were estimated
at $15.9 million without a conservation plan, and $9.7 million with a
conservation plan. Termination storage will also require the addition of low
head, mix -flow pumps and a pump station located at the intake structure.
B. Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is a treatment process whereby water diffuses through a
semipermeable membrane. The membrane acts as a barrier to dissolved solids.
Reverse osmosis can be utilized during low river flow and high dissolved solids
concentrations to provide concentrations within the EPA standards. To achieve
an acceptable level of dissolved solids, raw water will be mixed with water
7-21
treated by reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis will reduce the concentration to
near zero. Reverse osmosis capacities were determined assuming maximum
day demand, a raw water concentration of 600 mg/1, and mixing with water from
reverse osmosis at 1 mg/1. The following capacities were determined in order
to achieve 500 mg/1:
Year Capacity (mgd)
2000 7.75
2000 with conservation 6.15
2010 9.85
2010 with conservation 7.61
The cost for construction was determined using $1.00 per gpd.
In comparing the cost of providing reverse osmosis versus constructing an off -channel
reservoir, the construction cost for the reverse osmosis for year 2020 is about half the cost of the
termination pond without considering the additional pump station made necessary by the pond.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study reverse osmosis was selected as the method of providing
water with an acceptable level of dissolved solids from the Brazos River.
The treatment process described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown on Figure 7-4,
will be operated in parallel when there is a need for the reverse osmosis system. If the river
concentration is below the EPA regulated total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/1, the
reverse osmosis system is not needed and the treatment plant will operate without it. The
treatment plant will be located in the same location as that used for Alternative No. 2 at the
intersection of FM 60 and FM 2818.
11753/890674 7-22
7.3.3.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main
The facilities for the booster pump station and the treated water transmission main
are identical in location and size to those facilities presented for Alternative No. 2 - Lake
Somerville, specifically Paragraph 7.3.2.4. Therefore, the location and size of facilities and the
alignment, size and lengths of the booster pump station and transmission facilities can be found
in Alternative No. 2 description.
7.3.4 Alternative No. 4 - Millican Lake
7.3.4.1 Raw Water Intake and Pump Station
The location of the dam for this alternative is located at mile 36 on the Navasota
River. The raw water intake and pump station will be located near the intersection of FM 159
and the dam for the reservoir (see Figure 7-7). The design of the facilities are described in
Paragraph 7.3.1. The intake channel will be approximately 1,000 linear feet. The raw water
pumps will pump against approximately 80 feet of elevation.
7.3.4.2 Raw Water Transmission Main
The transmission pipeline designed to provide 58.94 mgd will be a 42-inch diameter
for non -conservation flows, and to provide 45.56 mgd will be 36-inch diameter for conservation
flows. The pipeline will follow FM 159 northwest 4.6 miles until it intersects State Highway 6
where the treatment plant will be located. The alignment along FM 159 is considered relatively
clear of other utilities.
7.3.4.3 Water Treatment Plant
The water quality of the Navasota River is considered good, and raw water from
Millican Lake will require the treatment facilities described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3 and as shown on
11753/890674
7-23
COLLEGE STATION/
TEXAS A&M
DELIVERY POINT
7-c
0
•
, • ; • •_--2-7
)
-
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TEXAS A&M
BRYAN
;,,,,N, .T•7-, :,>,...___,,:'•-<--
1-:
/
MIN
r •
• 4 t ,
7---- ,,-- z,), , s....._-' '
.
4......•••••••• -4-1,12%'',..,_„,--i‹.- ........,\•_;': \ 0,--;:,.?„
— 7 .. ...\ '• -'. ••• -,._
.- .., ......
'I''''''.1-7, ...---°E2-; ,
---, / • ._.....
. ,. ,•• ' = '....•'.' '''‘) I .
•,.-- . • . A• -/•'•( •' / /
-.- ,I,. ) 9:4-,I,C7,.,:).,.Th,, ,.1,.I., ' c_L_;rz,.'_„.t.,.i„,.,'.,• . ,7,• .
•
.x xl• .'. ' , -
4:...'....—
?/
.-P.
.._..-c,;;..7
/n.A,.d z
, . •
... , : \ '''-4( ,I._,',--; - :,----.'3., r —... - ' ..-...<'nf-'.!'", r '''''''• ,....<),, r -- , A, ,
. , •
\ 1•3 •,-1/4—''---- ‚-
.
•
„ --`• -,.-.$' _, -,,,- '‘. \, k: ' ...---",.......
1 1.'!'<, .
--,-- • .../7--,r-- c-,-,‘ \ ' ,
•-._-' I 1. i C, \.,\ --....-..::-,•'.,- •
I • ....,.----' L-'2....^P7----` (....,„6-Yr) 'c•i>/"` \ --"C. '`''..-.--.. .
' 7-,..:‘,.--r..> ': ,:,,, ,—..1 1.., -',.., ....,-,"' . .> • .„.....„-.• -‘,. :....---,-4
‘''''''..---, • 4/ •-•,.......k -.„..5, ,
, -.\:- a. ,..k.... •-../ ,,,c. -.-.." . .,• • _,. -c,...., • .."-, \ .,.,• c...•-• ...t.
..,cc•)1:-.;'.: - ..z, •/' --7-,s--------.., s'-'7?• 0/ ,,..‘_`,•,..,1 . -2. -,•:., '''' V.\ \.!..<3r'n -, . , :' ,.... \ Y '17-,,,, ; . i .....„.•,..d5.--.,
• 1... :el-- ... ,i: - -- ,,...,, _, e , ....1., .....
.Z.-
•
.9•2 \ ••",
\
er ,•••
- • •
HEARNE
,,,c,..,/ C1•5'''',
• 4)' '0" ", f'/-1
..,..)X!.../7..,"---"•- , X-...,--• '--.7
..,-:.....-.---,(-0.
(f-,.--..-..— --,..,::.: .,,,,, - --1-).,-;',i7-.
, ... „K!,, • •
. ) • ... .-- •
• ,
•
S'Pr
•
•
— •
^
SOMERVILLE
k/J
4 ---
, - •
•
m •
, • • • • 't ‘1e: . s'9=' `
--'`-;r4e1*t •
.-.
LAKE
SOMERVILLE
•
<7.)
LEGEND
PUMP STATION
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
DELIVERY POINT
RAW WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
TREATED WATER
TRANSMISSION
MAIN
RESERVOIR
20000
0
A
IMP OEM MIND MIMI
0 20000
F1111111111111P'
31MINK
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: USGS 7.51 TOPO QUAD
ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineering & Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 7-7
MILLICAN LAKE
ALTERNATIVE 4
Figure 7-4. The treatment plant will be staged as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.3. The plant will
be located at the intersection of FM 159 and State Highway 6.
7.3.4.4 Booster Pump Station and Transmission Main
The facilities for the booster pump station including clearwells and pumps will be
located with the water treatment plant at the -intersection of FM 159 and State Highway 6. The
booster pump station was designed as described in Paragraph 7.3.1.4. The size of the clearwells
can be found on Figure 7-4. A single structure will be constructed for Phase I, and each
additional phase will add pumps, piping, fittings and instrumentation necessary to increase the
capacity. The vertical turbine pumps. will pump against approximately 100 feet of elevation from
the booster pump station to the delivery points.
A treated water transmission main will follow State Highway 6 northeast
approximately 4.4 miles to a delivery point for College Station and Texas A&M, located at the
intersection of FM 60 and State Highway 6. The transmission main was sized to minimize costs
by providing a single line for all phases. The pipe was sized to meet the maximum -day demand
of 58.94 mgd and will be 42-inch diameter for demands without conservation, and was sized to
meet maximum -day demands of 45.56 mgd and will be 36-inch diameter with the conservation
plan. The transmission main will be downsized to deliver flows for the second delivery point for
the City of Bryan. The transmission main will be 24-inch diameter for demands without the
conservation plan of 17.68 mgd and 20-inch diameter for demands with the conservation plan of
13.67 mgd. The line will continue to follow State Highway 6 for 4.7 miles to the intersection with
FM 21. The transmission main can be seen on Figure 7-7.
11753/890674
7-25
7.3.5 Cost Estimates
The cost estimates presented in this report are intended to provide an economic
comparison of the selected alternatives for a regional water supply system.
7.3.5.1 Ground Water Costs
A. General
The probable cost associated with the improvements necessary to provide water
under Alternative No. 1 are described in this section. The costs are presented according to the
construction phases.
B. Construction Costs
In general, construction costs will include costs associated with the construction
of wells, well field transmsision main, cooling towers, booster pump station,
storage tanks, treated water transmission mains and the land and rights -of -way
for the facilities. The costs for the construction of facilities have been
developed using current estimated unit costs for construction and the following
criteria:
• Well cost includes pump, motor, well, site work, electrical and
instrumentation.
• Each well is expected to require approximately one-half acre of land.
• The land requirement for new water transmission main is assumed to be
50 feet of right-of-way, and land costs are assumed to be $10,000 per
acre for sites 5 acres and smaller and $5,000 per acre for sites greater
than 5 acres.
• Clearwell storage tank costs were based upon welded steel above ground
construction, estimated at $0.56 per gallon.
11753/890674
7-26
• The costs for the transmission mains include pipe, fittings, road crossings
and miscellaneous appurtenances, and were estimated according to the
following schedule:
Pipe Diameter (in.) Cost per Linear Foot
18 $ `0
20 45
30 60
36 70
42 80
• Costs do not include the storage facility located at each delivery point nor
the pumping and transmission facility to each city system.
• Costs do not include relocation of existing facilities nor mitigation costs.
• Costs include engineering and contingency at 20 percent of construction
costs.
The estimated capital cost to construct Alternative No. 1 can be found in
Table 7-2.
C. Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements have been assessed to
determine the annual O&M cost for the well field system. The assessment
included requirements for staff, equipment, power, and facility maintenance.
The estimated cost for O&M of the facilities was developed using historical
unit costs and the following criteria:
• The annual O&M cost for wells is based upon $1,500 per well.
• The annual O&M cost for the transmission line is based upon $7.50 per
inch -diameter per mile.
11753/890674
7-27
7
TABLE 7-2
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
WELL FIELD • ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
Description
Phasc:1 1 Ic II Ile
Well Field - Pumps, Motor, Well S7,200,000 S5,850,000 S1,800,000 51,350,000
Electrical and Instrumentation 336,000 273,000 84,000 63,000
Lands and Rights -of -Way 80,000 65,000 20,000 15,000
WcII Field Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
2,400,000 1,700,000 315,000 200,000
185,000 150,000 40,000 35,000
Cooling Towers and Chlorination 993,000 813,000 284,000 224,000
Clcarwcll 1,288,000 840,000 448,000 336,000
Booster Pump Station 1,727,200 1,403,400 268,800 187,400
Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,000 50,E
Treated Water Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
6,400,000 5,528,000 --
20,000 20,000
SUBTOTAL S20,679,200 S16,692,400 S3,259,800 S2,410,400
Contingency and Engineering 413.iR(10 3,338,500 somommali
652.000 482,100
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OOSf 524,815,000 S20,030,900 S3,911,800 S2,892500
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
I lc
II Bc
11753/890674
7-28
• The annual O&M cost for the cooling towers is based upon 1.0 percent
of construction costs.
• The annual O&M cost for the booster pump station is based upon $5.20
per horsepower.
• The electrical power cost is based upon $0.063 per kilowatt-hour.
• The electrical power costs include well draw down levels, static and
friction heads.
• Administration fees were included based on 15 percent of total operation
and maintenance costs excluding pump power costs.
The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost for Alternative No. 1 can
be found in Table 7-3.
7.3.5.2 Surface Water Costs
A. General
The costs associated with the improvements necessary to provide water from the three
surface water alternatives are described in this section. The costs are based on historical unit
costs for construction and applying engineering judgment. In general, the costs are determined
for those facilities necessary to take raw water from the source and to deliver potable water to
the primary study area. The costs presented in this report will serve as a basis for comparison
among the proposed alternatives. This section will provide those assumptions used to arrive at
the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs.
11753/890674
B. Construction Costs
In general, construction costs will include those costs associated with the
construction of the raw water intake and pump station, raw water transmission
pipes, water treatment facilities, booster pump station, storage tanks, treated
water transmission mains and the land and right-of-ways for the facilities.
7-29
TABLE 7-3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
WEI I FIELD - ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
Description
Phase:1 I Ic II IIc
Salaries and Wages
Employee F-*penses and Benefits $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000
Salaries and Wages 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Operational Supplies and Service
Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 50,E 50,E 50,000 50,000
Miscellaneous Operating
Pump Station Power2
Well Field 731,200 398,100 1,283,200 718,900
Booster Pump Station 58,500 20,800 142,000 82,800
Maintenance and Repair
Pipelines - Well Field and Treated Water 6,500 5,200 6,700 5,400
Wells 24,000 19,500 6,000 4,500
Cooling Towers 9,800 8,000 2,800 2,200
Booster Pump Station 200 100 700 400
SUBTOTAL OPERATION $971,200 $592,700 S1,582,400 $955,200
AND MAINTENANCE
Administrative and General3
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
27.200 26.100 23.600
$998,400 S618,800 $1,606,000 $978,200
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
1 Ic
II IIc
2 Power cost determined at S0.063 per KWH
3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power
11753/890674
7-30
The estimated costs for the construction of surface water facilities are based on
the following criteria:
• This regional system is a stand-alone system not tied into the
existing water supply facilities of the primary study area. The costs
for facilities assumes the source of water is in place, begins with
diversion facilities and ends with the transmission facility to the
individual delivery points.
• The cost for surface water facilities assumes that 10 existing
Simsboro wells will remain active throughout the study period.
These wells will produce at 2,100 gpm each.
The cost of land was assumed to be $10,000 per acre for sites less
than or equal to 5 acres and $5,000 per acre for sites greater than
5 acres.
• Clearwell storage tank costs were based on welded steel, above
ground construction, estimated at $0.56 per gallon.
• Water treatment plant costs were based upon $0.70 per gallon for
the first construction phase and $0.50 per gallon for the second
construction phase.
• Reverse osmosis cost was based upon $1.00 per gallon.
• Land costs for the clearwell and booster pump station are included
in the water treatment plant land and right-of-way costs.
11753/890674
7-31
• Transmission mains follow roads and rights -of -way where possible.
The cost for transmission mains includes pipe, valves, fittings, road
crossings and miscellaneous appurtenances and were estimated based
upon the following:
Pipe Diameter (in.I Cost per Linear Foot
18 $ 40
20 45
24 50
30 60
36 70
42 80
• The costs include engineering and contingency costs at 20 percent
of construction costs.
• Costs do not include relocation of existing utilities and facilities nor
mitigation costs.
The estimated capital cost to construct Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 can be found in
Tables 7-4, 7-5 and 7-6. Surface water construction costs are compared to
ground -water costs in Section 8.0.
C. Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements for the surface water
alternatives have been assessed to determine the annual O&M cost. The
assessment includes requirements for staff, equipment, power, and facility
maintenance for each surface water alternative. The estimated costs for the
O&M of the facilities were developed using historical unit costs and the
following criteria:
7-32
11753/890674
TABLE 7-4
CONS IRUC1ION COST ESTIMATES
LAKE SOMERVILLE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
Description
Phase:1 I
lc
000 51,200,000
200,-
Raw Water Intake Approach Channel $1,$wg 800 $187,400
Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station
1,656,100 1,314,500
Lands and Rights -of -Way
50,000 50,000
Raw Water Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,E 4,000,000
Water Treatment Plant 448 000 336,000
Clearwell 1,288,000 840,000 wg 800 187,400
Booster Pump Station
1,656,100 1,314,500
Lands and Rights -of -Way
150,000 100,000
Treated Water Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
SUBTOTAL
851,823,600 $40,933,200 $5,985,600 $4,710,800
Contingency and Engineering
10�364 700 8 186 600 1.197f100 942,200
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $62,188,300 $49,119,800 $7,182,700 $5,653,000
9,292,800 8,131,200
50,000 50,E
1,460,600 1,313,000
20,000 20,E
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
I Ic
II IIc
11753/890674
7-33
TABLE 7-5
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
BRAZOS RIVER - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
Description
Phase:1 1
lc
Raw Water Intake Approach Channel
5240,000 $240,000 '-
Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station 1,656,100 1,314,500 $268,800
Lands and Rights -of -Way
50,000 50,000
• Raw Water Transmission Main 1,900,800 1,663,100
Lands and Rights -of -Way
20,000 20,000
35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,000 4,000,000
Water Treatment Plant 336,000
448,000
Clearwell 1,288,000 840,000187,400
1,656,100 1,314,500 268,800
Booster Pump Station 1,460,000
Reverse Osmosis
7,750,000 6,150,003 2,100,000
Lands and Rights -of -Way
150,000 100,000 —
$187,400
Treated Water Transmission Main
Lands and Rights -of -Way
SUBTOTAL
Contingency and Engineering
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
1,460,600 1,313,000
20,000 20,000
$51,191,600 S39,625,100 $8,085,600 $6,170,800
10.238.300 7.925.000 1.617.100 1.234.200
$61,429,900 S47,550,100 $9,702,700 $7,405,000
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
lc
II IIc
11753/890674
7-34
TABLE 7-6
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
MILLICAN LAKE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
Description
Phase:1 I
Ic
Raw Water Intake Approach Channel 51,200,000 S1,200,000
Raw Water Intake Structure and Pump Station
1,656,100 1,314,500 5268,800 $187,400
Lands and Rights -of -Way 50,E 50,000
Raw Water Transmission Main Z,259,800 1,977,400
Lands and Rights -of -Way • 30,000 30,000
Water Treatment Plant
35,000,000 26,600,000 5,000,000 4,000,000
1,288,000 840,000 448,000 336,000
Clcarwell
1,656,100 1,314,500 268,800 187,400
Booster Pump Station Lands and Rights -of -Way
150,000 100,000 - —
Treated Water Transmission Main 3,347,600 2,742,800 — —
Lands and Rights -of -Way 20,000 20,000 —
SUBTOTAL S46,657,600 S36,189,200 S5,985,600 $4,710,800
Contingency and Engineering 9.331.500 7.237.800 , 1.197.100 942.200
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST S55,989,100 S43,427,000 S7,182,700 S5,653,000
1 Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
I Ic
II IIc
11753/890674
7-35
• The annual O&M cost for the transmission mains is based upon
$7.50 per inch -diameter per mile.
• The annual O&M cost for the raw water intake is based upon
$5.20 per horsepower.
• The annual O&M costs for the water treatment plant are based on
2 percent of the construction costs.
• The electrical power costs are based upon $0.063 per kilowatt-hour.
• The cost of raw water is based on average day demands at the unit
cost of water as proposed by the Brazos River Authority's letter
dated March 8, 1990 and provided in Appendix D. The cost is
$85.00 per acre-foot.
• Administration costs were included based on 15 percent of total
operation and maintenance costs excluding pump power costs and
costs for raw water.
The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost associated with the three
surface water alternatives can be found in Tables 7-7, 7-8 and 7-9. Surface
water O&M costs are compared to ground water O&M costs in Section 8.0.
11753/890674
7-36
TABLE 7-7
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
LAKE SOMERVILLE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
Description
Phase:1 I
Ic
Salaries and Wages
Employee Expenses and Benefits 530,000 S30,000 S30,000 $30,000
Salaries and Wages 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Operational Supplies and Service
Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,E
Miscellaneous Operating
Pump Station Power2
Raw Water Intake 189,400 104,800 353,000 204,700
Booster Pump Station 34,300 23,700 63,600 42,500
Water Treatment Plant Chemicals 50,E 50,000 60,000 60,E
Maintenance and Repair
Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 7,900 6,800 7,900 6,800
Raw Water Pump Station Z,400 1,300 4,200 2,600
Water Treatment Plant 70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200
Booster Pump Station 500 500 800 800
SUBTOTAL OPERATION 5544,500 $430,300 $759,500 $568,600
AND MAINTENANCE
Administrative and General3 48,100 45,300 51,400 48,200
Raw Water Supp1Y4 1.205.600 695.200 1,800,800 1.099,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION S1,798,200 S1,170,800 52,611,700 $1,715,800
AND MAINTENANCE
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
I Ic
II IIc
2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH
3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply
4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D)
11753/890674
7-37
TABLE 7-8
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
BRAZOS RIVER - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
Description
Phase:1 I
Ic
Salaries and Wages $30,000
Employee Expenses and Benefits $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Salaries and Wages
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
- Operational Supplies and Service
Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees,
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Miscellaneous Operating
Pump Station Power2
Raw Water Intake
197,900 113,300 310,000 187,000
Booster Pump Station 34,300 23,700 66,600 42,500
Reverse Osmosis
509,200 403,E 138,000 96,E
Water Treatment Plant Chemicals
50,000 50,E 60,000 60,E
Maintenance and Repair
Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 2,400 2,000 2400 2,400
2,500 1,400 3,900 2,400
Raw Water Pump Station Water Treatment Plant
70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200
Booster Pump Station
500 500 800 800
SUBTOTAL OPERATION S1,056,800 5838,000 S851,700 $642,700
AND MAINTENANCE
Administrative and General3
47,300 44,600 50,600 47,500
Raw Water Supply
4 1.205.600 695.200 1.800.800 1.099.000
ILIIAL ANNUAL OPERATION S2,309,700 $1,577,800 52,703,100 $1,789,200
AND MAINTENANCE
1 Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
lc
II Bc
2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH
3 Administrative cost determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply
4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at S85.00 Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D)
11753/890674
7-38
TABLE 7-9
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
MILLICAN LAKE - ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
Description
Phase:1 I
lc
Salaries and Wages
Employee Expenses and Benefits $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Salaries and Wages 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Operational Supplies and Service
Equipment Supplies, Professional Fees, 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Miscellaneous Operating
Pump Station Power2
Raw Water Intake 110,500 62,600 182,200 108,500
Booster Pump Station 152,000 85,100 260,300 155,900
Water Treatment Plant Chemicals 50,E 50,000 60,000 60,E
Maintenance and Repair
Pipelines - Raw Water and Treated Water 3,900 3,300 3,900 3,300
Raw Water Pump Station 1,400 900 2,300 1,400
Water Treatment Plant 70,000 53,200 80,000 61,200
Booster Pump Station 1,900 1,100 3,300 2,000
SUBTOTAL OPERATION S579,700 $446,200 $782,000 $582,300
AND MAINTENANCE
Administrative and General3 47,600 44,800 50,900 47,700
Raw Water Supply4 1,205i600 695,200 1,800,800 a1,099,000
1131AL ANNUAL OPERATION $1,832,900 S1,186,200 S2,633,700 $1,729,000
AND MAINTENANCE
1
Construction Phases
Year
2000
2010
Without Conservation Plan With Conservation Plan
l lc
II IIc
2 Power cost determined at $0.063 per KWH
3 Administrative coat determined at 15% subtotal O&M excluding Pump Station Power and Raw Water Supply
4 Unit cost of raw water per Brazos River Authority at $85.00 per Ac.-Ft. (see Appendix D)
11753/890674
7-39
8.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
8.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this section is to present the comparison of costs for the construction
of facilities to provide water to the primary study area from the four alternatives: Alternative 1 -
Ground water from proposed Simsboro Aquifer wells; Alternative 2 - Surface water from Lake
Somerville; Alternative 3 - Surface water from the Brazos River; Alternative 4 - Surface water
from Millican Lake.
It is important to recognize that this study presents the costs for improvements for
a regional system to provide water to the primary study area and does not present additional costs
for all improvements necessary to provide individual cities and other private water supply
corporations with potable water.
Table 8-1 presents a summary of construction costs and operation and maintenance
costs for each alternative for each construction phase with and without the conservation factors.
These costs represent current values.
To provide water from the regional water system for the secondary study area would
require, in many cases, extensive transmission and pumping facilities, thereby increasing the cost
of construction. For example, to pump the maximum day demands of .038 mgd from the Bryan
delivery point to the Madison County Water Supply Corporation would require 27 miles of 2-
inch diameter pipe and an additional booster pump station. The transmission line cost is
estimated at $1,400,000 versus the cost for a well which would be about $400,000. Therefore,
from an economic viewpoint, supplying the secondary study area with water from a regional
facility would not be recommended. Madison County W.S.C. was the only entity in the secondary
study area which responded with a favorable interest in a regional water supply system.
11753/890674 8-1
8.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SOURCE
The purpose of this section is to provide a recommendation for a regional water
supply for the future demands of the primary study area. This study reviewed three surface water
sources and provided the cost for those facilities that would be required to provide potable water
to the delivery points, and compared those costs to the ground water source.
One objective of the investigation of a water source for the future demands was to
determine the feasibility of continuing to use ground water. Section 5.0 discusses the effects on
the Simsboro Aquifer with the addition of wells to meet the future demands. The conclusion of
Section 5.0 was that the addition of wells to meet the demands is feasible.
To compare surface water alternatives with the ground water alternative, the most
feasible surface water sources were selected. The selections were based on location, availability
of water supply, and designated uses as discussed in Section 6.0.
Table 8-1 summarizes the construction cost and the operation and maintenance cost
for each alternative, and Tables 8-2 through 8-9 show a comparative unit cost of water. The
ground -water alternative is shown to be approximately 50 percent of the construction cost and
operation and maintenance cost of any of the surface water alternatives.
Because wells can be constructed to meet the demands of the primary study area
without a significant impact to the Simsboro Aquifer and because the cost for construction and
operation and maintenance is approximately 50 percent of any surface water source, we
recommend that the ground -water alternative be used to meet the demands through the year
2020. In addition, as shown in Section 8.1, water supply from a regional facility for the secondary
study area is not considered feasible and is not recommended.
11753/890674
8-3
8.3 UNIT COST OF TREATED WATER
A key aspect in the evaluation of regional water system alternatives is the comparison
of the estimated unit costs of treated water. The final cost of treated water is dependent upon
many factors, including, but not limited to, the construction costs, the annual operations and
maintenance (0 & M) expenditures, the terms of project financing, and the mechanisms by which
revenues would be collected.
Each alternative has been evaluated under both a "with" and "without" water
conservation scenario. The construction costs and estimated annual 0 & M costs have been
previously described in Section 7.0 and further summarized in Table 8-1. For the purposes of
this comparison, the capital construction costs have been assumed to be financed from revenue
bonds, a conventional long-term financing method. All alternatives have assumed equal annual
debt service payments according to a fixed interest rate (8.5%) and a 20-year bond life. The bond
issues have been assumed to correspond with the two construction phases (2000 and 2010) and
sized to account for fiscal, legal, and bond counsel expenses, as well as reserve fund requirements.
0 & M costs have been estimated for the project, beginning in 2000 and continuing
through the defined planning horizon at 2020. Both the annual debt service on capital
expenditures and the annual 0 & M costs have been summed to comprise an estimated annual
cost of service for a regional system. These annual costs have been divided by the projected
annual water usage in the milestone years to determine the unit cost of water. A unit of 1000
gallons has been selected for the purposes of comparison. Upon completion of construction
phases in 2000 and 2010, the corresponding water usages in those years would be the lowest for
that phase's capacity and thus reflect a highest unit cost for that phase. In subsequent years as
water usages increase, the unit costs would decrease.
Tables 8-2 through 8-9 present the financing and cost of service summaries for the
four regional water supply alternatives under both "with" and "without" water conservation
scenarios. It should be noted that all of the figures in these tables are presented in uninflated
and undiscounted 1990 dollars, and do not include an evaluation or estimation of system
11753/890674
8-4
TABLE 8 - 2
ALTERNATIVE 1 - SIMSBORO GROUND -WATER
WITHOUT CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
WELL FIELD
WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN
COOLING TOWERS & CHLORINATION
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
$7,536,000
$2,400,000
$993,000
$1,288,000
$1,727,200
$6,400,000
$335,000
2010
$1,884,000
$315,000
$284,000
$448,000
$268,800
$60,000
2020
os
Le
$0 $20,679,200
$0 $4,135,800
$0 $24,815,000
$0 $287,700
$0 $575,400
$0 $3,040,200
$0 $51,700
$3,259,800
$652,000
$3,911,800
$45,900
$91,700
$484,500
$51,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $28,770,000 $4,585,000
$0 $3,040,200 $484,500
$0 $3,040,200 $3,524,700
$0
$0
$484,500
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$91,000 $91,000
$839,700 $1,475,200
$40,500 $16,200
$27,200 $23,600
$91,000
$1,475,200
$16,200
$23,600
$0 $998,400 $1,606,000 $1,606,000
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$0 $3,040,200 $3,524,700 $484,500
$0 $760,100 $881,200 $121,100
$0 $998,400 $1,606,000 $1,606,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $0 $4,798,700
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0
PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA
5.5
2,007.5
$6,011,900
12.7
4,635.5
$2.39 $1.30
$2,211,600
18.9
6,898.5
$0.32
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issued Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-5
TABLE 8 - 3
ALTERNATIVE 1 - SIMSBORO GROUND -WATER
WITH CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
WELL FIELD
WELL FIELD TRANSMISSION MAIN
COOLING TOWERS & CHLORINATION
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
$6,123,000
$1,700,000
$813,000
$840,000
$1,403,400
$5,528,000
$285,000
2010
$1,413,000
$200,000
$224,000
$336,000
$187,400
$50,000
2020
$0 $16,692,400
$0 $3,338,500
$0 $20,030,900
$0 $232,400
$0 $464,700
$0 $2,455,300
$0 $51,700
$2,410,400
$482,100
$2,892,500
$34,100
$68,100
$359,800
$50,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $23,235,000
$0 $2,455,300
$0 $2,455,300
$3,405,000
$o
$359,800 $0
$2,815,100 $359,800
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$91,000
$468,900
$32,700
$26,100
$91,000
$851,700
$12,500
$23,000
$91,000
$851,700
$12,500
$23,000.
$0 $618,700 $978,200 $978,200
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd)
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg)
PRICE PER 1000 GALS
$0 $2,455,300 $2,815,100
$0 $613,800 $703,800
$0 $618,700 $978,200
$359,800
$90,000
$978,200
$0 $3,687,800 $4,497,100 $1,428,000
0.0
0.0
NA
2.8
1,033.0
7.3
2,664.5
$3.57 $1.69
11.5
4,212.1
$0.34
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-6
TABLE 8 - 4
ALTERNATIVE 2 - LAKE SOMERVILLE
WITHOUT CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
1990 2000
$2,856,100
$9,292,800
$35,000,000
$1,288,000
$1,656,100
$1,460,600
$270,000
2010
$268,800
$5,000,000
$448,000
$268,800
2020
os
$0- $51,823,600
$0 $10,364,700
$0 $62,188,300
$0 $720,100
$0 $1,440,200
$0 $7,609,400
$0 $52,000
$5,985,600
$1,197,100
$7,182,700
$83,700
$167,400
$884,500
$51,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS $0 $72,010,000
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $0 $7,609,400
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE $0 $7,609,400
$8,370,000
$884,500
$8,493,900
$0
$0
$884,500
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$333,700
$80,800
$48,100
$1,205,600
$130,000
$536,600
$92,900
$51,400
$1,800,800
$130,000
$536,600
$92,900
$51,400
$1,800,800
$0 $1,798,200 $2,611,700 $2,611,700
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
$0 $7,609,400 $8,493,900 $884,500
$0 $1,902,400 $2,123,500 $221,100
$0 $1,798,200 $2,611,700 $2,611,700
$0 $11,310,000 $13,229,100 $3,717,300
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0
PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA
5.5
2,007.5
$5.63
12.7
4,635.5
18.9
6,898.5
$2.85 $0.54
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-7
TABLE 8 - 5
ALTERNATIVE 2 - LAKE SOMERVILLE
WITH CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
$2,514,500
$8,131,200
$26,600,000
$840,000
$1,314,500
$1,313,000
$220,000
2010
$187,400
$4,000,000
$336,000
$187,400
2020
$0 $40,933,200
$0 $8,186,600
$0 $49,119,800
$0 $568,900
$0 $1,137,800
$0 $6,011,600
$0 $51,900
$4,710,800
$942,200
$5,653,000
$66,000
$132,000
$697,400
$51,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $56,890,000
$0 $6,011,600
$0 $6,011,600
$6,600,000
$697,400
$6,709,000
$0
$0
$697,400
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$238,500
$61,800
$45,300
$695,200
$130,000
$367,200
$71,400
$48,200
$1,099,000
$130,000
$367,200
$71,400
$48,200
$1,099,000
$0 $1,170,800 $1,715,800 $1,715,800
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd)
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg)
PRICE PER 1000 GALS
$0 $6,011,600
$0 $1, 502., 900
$0 $1,170,800
$6,709,000
$1,677,300
$1,715,800
$697,400
$174,400
$1,715,800
$0 $8,685,300
0.0
0.0
2.8
1,033.0
NA $8.41
$10,102,100
7.3
2,664.5
$3.79
$2,587,600
11.5
4,212.1
$0.61
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-8
TABLE 8 - 6
ALTERNATIVE 3 - BRAZOS RIVER
WITHOUT CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
$1,896,100
$1,900,800
$35,000,000
$1,288,000
$1,656,100
$7,750,000
$1,460,600
$240,000
2010
$268,800
$5,000,000
$448,000
$268,800
$2,100,000
2020
$0 $51,191,600
$0 $10,238,300
$0 $61,429,900
$0 $711,300
$0 $1,422,600
$0 $7,516,400
$0 $49,800
$8,085,600
$1,617,100
$9,702,700
$112,900
$225,700
$1,192,500
$51,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $71,130,000 $11,285,000
$0 $7,516,400
$0 $7,516,400
$0
$1,192,500 $0
$8,708,900 $1,192,500
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$851,400
$75,400
$47,300
$1,205,600
$130,000
$634,600
$87,100
$50,600
$1,800,800
$130,000
$634,600
$87,100
$50,600
$1,800,800
$0 $2,309,700 $2,703,100 $2,703,100
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd)
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg)
PRICE PER 1000 GALS
$0 $7.,516,400
$0 $1,879,100
$0 $2,309,700
$8,708,900
$2,177,200
$2,703,100
$1,192,500
$298,100
$2,703,100
$0 $11,705,200
0.0
0.0
5.5
2,007.5
NA $5.83
$13,589,200
12.7
4,635.5
$2.93
$4,193,700
18.9
6,898.5
$0.61
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-9
TABLE 8 - 7
ALTERNATIVE 3 - BRAZOS RIVER
WITH CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
- $1,554,500
$1,663,200
$26,600,000
$840,000
$1,314,500
$6,150,000
$1,313,000
$190,000
2010
$187,400
$4,000,000
$336,000
$187,400
$1,460,000
2020
$0 $39,625,200
$0 $7,925,000
$0 $47,550,200
$0 $550,800
$0 $1,101,500
$0 $5,819,800
$0 $52,700
$6,170,800
$1,234,200
$7,405,000
$86,300
$172,500
$911,400
$49,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $55,075,000
$0 $5,819,800
$0 $5,819,800
$8,625,000
$911,400
$6,731,200
$0
$0
$911,400
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$650,900
$57,100
$44,600
$695,200
$130,000
$445,900
$66,800
$47,500
$1,099,000
$130,000
$445,900
$66,800
$47,500
$1,099,000
$0 $1,577,800 $1,789,200 $1,789,200
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd)
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND
PRICE PER 1000 GALS
$0 $5,819,800
$0 $1,455,000
$0 $1,577,800
$6,731,200
$1,682,800
$1,789,200
$911,400
$227,900
$1,789,200
$0 $8,852,600
0.0
0.0
2.8
1,033.0
NA $8.57
$10,203,200
7.3
2,664.5
$3.83
$2,928,500
11.5
4,212.1
$0.70
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars. 8_10
TABLE 8 - 8
ALTERNATIVE 4 - MILLICAN LAKE
WITHOUT CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
POTABLE WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
1990 2000
$2,856,100
$2,259,800
$35,000,000
$1,288,000
$1,656,100
$3,347,600
$250,000
2010
$268,800
$5,000,000
$448,000
$268,800
2020
$0 $46,657,600
$0 $9,331,500
$0 $55,989,100
$0 $648,400
$0 $1,296,700
$0 $6,851,200
$0 $49,600
$5,985,600
$1,197,100
$7,182,700
$83,700
$167,400
$884,500
$51,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS $0 $64,835,000
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $0 $6,851,200
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE $0 $6,851,200
$8,370,000
$884,500
$7,735,700
$0
$0
$884,500
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$372,500
$77,200
$47,600
$1,205,600
$130,000
$562,500
$89,500
$50,900
$1,800,800
$130,000
$562,500
$89,500
$50,900
$1,800,800
$0 $1,832,900 $2,633,700 $2,633,700
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
$0 $6,851,200 $7,735,700 $884,500
$0 $1,712,800 $1,933,900 $221,100
$0 $1,832,900 $2,633,700 $2,633,700
$0 $10,396,900 $12,303,300
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd) 0.0
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg) 0.0
PRICE PER 1000 GALS NA
5.5
2,007.5
12.7
4,635.5
$5.18 $2.65
$3,739,300
18.9
6,898.5
$0.54
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-11
TABLE 8 - 9
ALTERNATIVE 4 - MILLICAN LAKE
WITH CONSERVATION
ITEM
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WATER INTAKE
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
CLEARWELL
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION
LANDS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FISCAL
LEGAL
RESERVE FUND
COST OF BOND ISSUANCE
BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
CUMULATIVE DEBT SERVICE
1990
2000
$2,514,500
$1,977,400
$26,600,000
$840,000
$1,314,500
$2,742,800
$200,000
2010
$187,400
$4,000,000
$336,000
$187,400
2020
$0 $36,189,200
$0 $7,237,800
$0 $43,427,000
$0 $503,100
$0 $1,006,100
$0 $5,315,800
$0 $53,000
$4,710,800
$942,200
$5,653,000
$66,000
$132,000
$697,400
$51,600
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $50,305,000
$0 $5,315,800
$0 $5,315,800
$6,600,000
$697,400
$6,013,200
$0
$0
$697,400
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
SALARY & WAGES
SUPPLIES & SERVICE
MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
ADMINISTRATION
RAW WATER PURCHASE
0 & M SUBTOTAL
$130,000
$257,700
$58,500
$44,800
$695,200
$130,000
$384,400
$67,900
$47,700
$1,099,000
$130,000
$384,400
$67,900
$47,700
$1,099,000
$0 $1,186,200 $1,729,000 $1,729,000
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TIMES COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND (mgd)
ANNUAL WATER DEMAND (mg)
PRICE PER 1000 GALS
$0 $5,315,800
$0 $1,329,000
$0 $1,186,200
$6,013,200
$1,503,300
$1,729,000
$697,400
$174,400
$1,729,000
$0 $7,831,000
0.0
0.0
2.8
1,033.0
NA $7.58
$9,245,500
7.3
2,664.5
$3.47
$2,600,800
11.5
4,212.1
$0.62
NOTES:
Engineering and Contingency estimated at 20% of construction cost subtotal.
Fiscal estimated at 1% of bond issue; Legal estimated at 2% of bond issue.
Reserve fund consists of one year's debt service.
Debt service based on equal annual payments over 20 years at 8.5% interest.
Times coverage assumed at 25% of debt service.
All figures are in 1990 dollars.
8-12
improvements beyond 2020. Additionally, the unit prices presented in these tables are assumed
to approximate the wholesale price to regional customers.
Table 8-2 summarizes Alternative 1, the use of ground -water from the Simsboro
aquifer. As modelled, this alternative has the lowest unit cost ($2.39 per 1000 gals in 2000) of
all the alternatives under consideration, including the conservation scenario presented in Table
8-3. In the later milestone years of 2010 and 2020 the unit costs are seen to decrease, providing
some indication that the regional water demand is more closely reaching the design capacity of
the system. In addition, decreasing unit costs can also be attributed to the up -front construction
of certain facilities (e.g., treated water transmission) that would be sized to meet the ultimate
system capacity. With inflation, the actual unit cost would likely increase over time.
Table 8-3 summarizes the ground -water alternative under a water conservation
scenario. This evaluation indicates a higher unit cost ($3.57 per 100 gals in 2000), reflecting a
diminution in the economy of scale under the without conservation scenario in Table 8-2.
However, because of the reduction in water demands there is a corresponding reduction in the
overall cost of construction, equating to a savings to the customers water bill.
For the surface water alternatives, Alternative 2, obtaining surface water from Lake
Somerville, has a significantly higher unit cost than the ground -water alternatives previously
discussed. The estimated unit cost to wholesale customers in 2000 ($5.63 per 1000 gals) would
be over twice that estimated under the ground -water. Under the conservation scenario (see
Table 8-5), the unit cost of delivering treated water to the customer cites from Lake Somerville
via a regional system would be an estimated $8.41 per 1000 gallons in 2000. This cost would
be over 135% higher than the comparable ground -water option presented in Table 8-3.
Similarly, the development of the Brazos River as a regional water supply source
would be a potentially feasible alternative, but at a much higher unit cost than ground -water.
Initially, in 2000, the unit cost would be an estimated $5.83 per 1000 gallons under a without
conservation scenario (see Table 8-6). This unit cost represents a 144% higher cost than that
11753/890674
8-13
projected for the comparable without conservation ground -water alternative. A similar magnitude
is projected in the later milestone years of 2010 and 2020, in spite of decreasing unit costs.
Under a water conservation scenario, the Brazos River would have a much higher
initial unit cost of $8.57 per 1000 gallons in 2000 (see Table 8-7) than that projected under the
without conservation scenario. Unit costs are significantly higher than the comparable ground-
water alternative discussed previously.
Finally, the proposed Millican Lake alternative also represents a potentially feasible
surface water supply option, although at an initial unit cost in 2000 ($5.18 per 1,000 gals) that has
been estimated to be 116% higher than of the comparable ground -water alternative. Table 8-8
provides a summary of the unit costs for this proposed surface water alternative. As with the
other alternatives, the unit cost of treated water has been projected to drop as water demands
approach the design capacity of the regional system.
Table 8-9 presents the proposed Millican Lake surface water alternative under a
conservation scenario. As with the other alternatives, the unit cost of treated water is significantly
higher ($7.58 per 1,000 gals in 2000) than the without conservation scenario under the same
alternative, thus reflecting, in part, a diminished economy of scale.
11753/890674
8-14
9.0 INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND FINANCING
9.1 OVERVIEW
In order to establish a regional water system that operates efficiently and
economically, and provides quality service, it is necessary to select an institutional structure that
can effectively represent the interests of the whole region. Each institutional structure brings
certain authorities (and restrictions) that pertain to the administration, operation, and financing
of a regional system, and, therefore, must be selected only after a thorough and careful
evaluation.
The following sections of this report contain an evaluation of several institutional
arrangements that could be potentially used in Brazos County. This evaluation provides a general
overview of these institutional structures and is not intended to serve as an exhaustive analysis
of the many legal, financial, administrative, and political elements that must be considered before
selecting a final alternative.
The institutional structures that have been evaluated are:
Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities;
Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority;
Newly -created Water District;
Newly -created Regional Water Authority.
The preceding list does not include all possible institutions potentially available in Texas, such as
non-profit water supply corporations or private investor -owned utilities. However, given the
limitations of such entities when viewed in a regional context, only those institutional structures
considered politically, economically, and administratively feasible have been evaluated.
11753/890674
9-1
A ! !
9.2 REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES
9.2.1 Regional System Operated by a Major City or Cities
The cities of Bryan and College Station offer some potential, either individually or
collectively, to serve as a sponsor and operator of a regional water system for Brazos County.
Generally, this would be accomplished through means currently available to the cities and would
not require any significant legislative action. Under this scenario, one or both of the cities would
construct and operate a regional water system that would supply wholesale service to other
customers and entities in the regional area.
9.2.1.1 Administration
As with most publicly -owned municipal water systems, much of the final authority and
responsibility for administration would lie with the Director of Public Works, and, by extension,
the City Manager and elected council members of the sponsoring city.
In the case of a regional system jointly operated by the cities of Bryan and College
Station, for example, the administration, financing, and operation of facilities would likely be
accomplished through a framework built on inter -local agreements.
9.2.1.2 Powers
A city has the power to contract for water sale with neighboring entities, as in the
way the cities of Bryan and College Station currently provide treated water on a wholesale basis
to the small water supply corporations in outlying areas. With a regional system, the sponsoring
city or cities would be required to employ similar contractual arrangements with its wholesale
customers, although perhaps stipulating a greater degree of long-term assurance of participation
than may now be the case.
11753/890674
9-2
The review and adoption of a water rate structure and related fees and charges would
typically be the sole responsibility of the sponsoring city. It would be recommended that all such
rates, fees, and/or charges be clearly based on the cost of service in order to minimize disputes
over the calculation methodology. In the event of a rate challenge, the Texas Water Commission
would generally have appellate jurisdiction. In addition, a city -sponsored regional system would
retain powers to condemn land inside and outside the defined corporate limits for project -related
facilities.
The powers to finance regional improvements would generally be limited to those
currently afforded municipal governments, subject to certain restrictions. For example, a city -
sponsored regional system would be able to meet bond -related debt service payments from rate
collections and up -front cash contributions, but would not be able to pledge or collect ad valorem
taxes outside of its corporate limits.
9.2.1.3 Accountability
The relationship between a city -sponsored regional system and its participants would
effectively be no different than that which now exists between major cities and their wholesale
customer cities or agencies. Negotiation of inter -local agreements among regional participants may
provide additional assurance to the sponsoring city of minimal financial participation, as in the
case of "take -or -pay" contracts. For the customer cities, these same inter -local agreements may
provide opportunities for oversight and representation in the rate -setting process, as well as
establishing minimal levels of service.
There would be no significant changes expected in the functional relationship between
a city -sponsored regional system and the State and Federal governments.
9.2.2 Regional System Operated by the Brazos River Authority
The BRA offers some potential for operation of a regional water supply system to
supplement the future water demands of Brazos County. Brazos County is located entirely within
11753/890674 9-3
the Brazos River Basin and BRA would, therefore, be the logical choice among existing river
authorities. The enabling legislation that led to the creation of the BRA permits the development
of treatment and transmission facilities to serve municipalities.
As with all of the BRA's operating projects, any regional facilities would be owned
and operated by the BRA, although their use would be pledged to benefit the contracting parties.
Distribution systems for retail sales- and localized needs would be maintained by the existing
municipalities or owners of quasi -public or private water supply systems.
9.2.2.1 Administration
If the BRA were established as the regional water authority, an Advisory Committee
would likely be established to provide for representation by the participating entities. An
Advisory Committee would be expected to create and implement certain procedures and by-laws
for operation of a regional system. The purpose of the Advisory Committee would be to:
• consult with and advise the BRA on all matters pertaining to operation,
maintenance and administration of a regional system;
• review and recommend approval of annual budgets;
• review and recommend capital expenditures when system needs are identified;
• assist in providing a framework for the negotiation of contracts among
participating entities and the BRA.
In conjunction with the Advisory Committee, BRA would plan, design, construct,
operate, maintain and manage a regional system in accordance with the terms of a regional
contract.
9-4
11753/890674
9.2.2.2 Powers
The BRA would contract with participating entities to provide wholesale water service.
Rates would be established and collected according to a cost -of -service basis. The BRA would
maintain current powers of eminant domain within its territorial boundaries, which include all of
Brazos County. BRA has no powers of taxation, therefore, all revenue would be derived from
rate collections and/or participant contributions as negotiated under contracts between the BRA
and its wholesale customers.
9.2.2.3 Accountability
The functional relationship between the BRA and its participating entities would likely
be through the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee would share responsibility to
review and approve all matters pertaining to annual operating budgets, needed capital
improvements, and system policies. The size and structure of an Advisory Committee would be
a function of the level of participation by entities within Brazos County.
9.2.3 Newly -created Water District
The Texas Water Code allows for the creation of water districts to construct, operate,
and manage systems for public water supply. The most common forms of water districts in Texas
consist of Water Control and Improvement Districts (WCIDs) and Municipal Utility Districts
(MUDs), created under Chapters 51 and 54, respectively, of the Texas Water Code.
WCIDs and MUDs are political subdivisions of the State of Texas, and, therefore,
typically have certain powers of bonding and taxation that are set forth at the time of creation.
Although water districts may be created by the Texas Water Commission and under certain
conditions by a county commissioners court, most regional water districts are created by an act
of the State Legislature. In virtually all cases, the creation of water districts is subject to
confirmation elections by resident voters within the proposed boundaries of the district.
11753/890674
9-5
9.2.3.1 Administration
The administration of a water district is typically carried out by an elected board,
usually consisting of five resident members. The District Board oversees the operations staff and
makes policy decisions, although subject to certain limitations. For example, the issuance of
district bonds is normally subject to approval by district residents.
Water districts may under certain conditions provide service outside of their defined
service area. The out -of -district customers, however, are not typically eligible to participate in the
administration of the district, although certain contract terms could possibly ensure some role.
9.2.3.2 Powers
Water districts, as political subdivisions of the state, typically have certain powers
that ensure viability of the system. These powers include the ability to negotiate contracts with
out -of -district parties, as well as to collect revenues for capital expenditures and 0 & M costs
through rates, fees, and charges, and to levy ad valorem taxes. As with most rate -setting, the
method should be based on actual cost of service in order to minimize the likelihood of rate
challenges or litigation.
9.2.3.3 Accountability
Because water districts are generally governed by elected board members, the primary
accountability for operation of the system is to resident voters. To the extent stipulated by the
terms of contracts negotiated with out -of -district customers, the district would also be accountable
to this constituency.
9.2.4 Newly -created Water Authority
A final institutional option that has been used for other regional systems around the
state would involve the creation of a regional water authority. A regional water authority would
11753/890674
9-6
have to be created by a special act of the Texas Legislature for the express purpose of
supplementing the water supply of participating entities within Brazos County. The creation of
such an authority would be defined by the participants, in accordance with state laws, including
the Texas Water Code. Generally, an authority of this type would act in the capacity of a
wholesaler of treated water to participating entities.
9.2.4.1 Administration
A newly -created water authority would likely be governed by a Board of Directors,
with each participating entity appointing one local member. The Board would elect from among
themselves a President, Vice -President, Secretary and Treasurer. The Board would also be
responsible for the hiring of a General Manager of the Authority. Once constructed, the General
Manager would generally assume responsibility and authority for the operation, maintenance and
management of the regional system.
9.2.4.2 Powers
A newly -created authority would have the power to contract with either public or
private entities. The power of eminent domain could also be provided by the enabling legislation.
The agency would typically be organized as a non-profit agency, thereby setting rates
according to an actual cost -of -service basis. The authority would stipulate to the member entities
the conditions of service for wholesale water supply. The agency would have the ability to issue
long-term or short-term debt and be eligible for financial assistance from the State or Federal
government. Water authorities are not typically granted ad valorem taxing powers, thereby
limiting the generation of revenue to largely rate- and fee -based mechanisms.
9.2.4.3 Accountability
A water authority would be first accountable to its participating members, although
still subject to the terms of contracts negotiated with outside parties. Participation in a regional
11753/890674
9-7
water authority would not be limited to only municipal government, but would also be potentially
open to quasi -public and private entities, such as Texas A & M University and water supply
corporations. The extent of the authority's accountability to participating members would be
defined within the enabling legislation.
9.3 ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS
The construction of major capital improvements requires that a long-term financing
strategy be developed by the project sponsor. In the case of a regional system for Brazos County,
the financing mechanisms that would be available would depend upon the institutional
organization that would construct, operate, maintain, and manage the system. The following
sections evaluate the most prevalent long-term methods for financing major capital improvement
projects.
9.3.1 Conventional Long -Term Financing Methods
The most prevalent method of providing long-term financing for major projects is
through the issuance of bonds, many of which provide tax-exempt returns to the bond purchaser.
Generally, the two most common bonds issued by political subdivisions are (1) general obligation
bonds and (2) revenue bonds.
9.3.1.1 General Obligation Bonds
General obligation (GO) bonds are generally the strongest pledge of security available
to an issuing institution at the lowest effective interest cost. GO bonds are backed by the full
faith and credit of the issuing entity, typically relying on tax collections to retire the debt
obligation. The administration of these bonds is relatively simple and, therefore, bonds are able
to be issued at a lower cost when compared with other types of bonds.
A primary disadvantage of GO bonds is that voter approval prior to issuance is
typically required. This process is likely to take a relatively long period of time, which could
11753/890674
9-8
have adverse impacts on project scheduling and construction. Regional systems throughout the
State of Texas do not generally rely upon GO bonds for water utility project financing.
9.3.1.2 Revenue Bonds
The issuance of revenue bonds constitutes a second long-term financing mechanism
for a regional water utility system. Revenue bond debt is generally retired from revenues
collected from operations of the financed capital improvements. A primary advantage of revenue
bonds is that the general obligation bond debt limitations are not impacted by issuance of these
bonds, thus leaving the GO bonds available for other uses.
A primary disadvantage of revenue bonds is that the costs of issuance are typically
higher due to the complexities of the financing method. Another disadvantage of revenue bonds
is that the interest rates are generally higher than GO bonds, since debt retirement cannot be
secured from tax collections.
9.3.2 Water Development Board Funds
Another financing alternative would be to obtain financing from the TWDB through
the Water Development Fund (WDF), which can finance certain water supply projects, and which
offers extremely competitive interest rates. The WDF is funded by the sale of State of Texas
general obligation bonds. The bond proceeds are then used to purchase bond issues from
political subdivisions and non-profit water supply corporations for -water projects. As the political
subdivision bonds are repaid to the TWDB, the general obligation bonds ► s d to fund the
program are repaid by the State. The program is currently self-supporting.
11753/890674
9-9
10.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE
10.1 RECOMMENDED PLAN
Based on a comparative evaluation of the four sources of water supply for Brazos
County, the recommended alternative would be to continue the use of existing ground -water
resources, particularly the Simsboro aquifer. As discussed in detail in Section 5.0, this alternative
has been estimated to sustain a yield sufficient to meet the future water needs of Brazos County.
The following sections provide a recommended implementation plan for meeting the future water
needs through a regional water supply system.
10.2 RECOMMENDED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASES
The construction of a regional water supply system should typically occur in phases
in order to optimize the relationship between capital expenditures and the participants' ability to
pay. Failure to adequately relate the facility design capacity with the timing of future demands
may result in an overbuilt and overcapitalized system, leading to high unit costs and long-term
underutilization of facilities. Conversely, undersizing of regional facilities may provide lower initial
costs, but diminish the quality and level of service available to system customers.
The use of existing facilities should be relied upon to the greatest possible extent in
developing the implementation plan for a regional system. Reliance on existing facilities provides
some flexibility in the scheduling and sizing of potential regional improvements. For example,
the useful life of some existing ground -water wells that would normally be phased out over the
next decade could potentially be extended to match the phased construction of a regional system.
For the purposes of this regional master plan, construction has been assumed to occur
in two phases, beginning in 2000. The second phase has been scheduled for 2010. Table 10-1
presents a preliminary schedule and description of the facilities that would be constructed in the
first and second phases of a regional water supply system. It should be noted that this schedule
and inventory of facilities is based on full participation within Brazos County, and, therefore,
11753/890674
10-1
TABLE 10-1
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
FOR THE REQUIRED FACILITY EXPANSIONS
(ALTERNATE NO. 1)
Regional Expansion Capacity
Description Unit I Ic II IIc
(2000) (2010)
Well Capacity mgd 48.38 39.31 12.10 9.07
Well Field mgd 60.48 48.38 —
Transmission Main
Cooling Towers mgd 46.39 36.82 12.55 8.75
Clearwell Storage gals 2,300,000 1,500,000 800,000 600,000
Tanks
Booster Pump Station mgd 46.39 36.82 12.55 8.75
Treated Water mgd 46.39 36.82
Transmission Main
11753/890674
10-2
would be subject to change in the event of decreased levels of participation, shifts in water
demand, and/or modifications to the capacity of existing facilities.
10.3 RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS
It is recommended that the following steps be taken to begin implementation of a
regional plan:
11753/890674
1, The final number of regional participants and their associated level of
involvement should be determined. Provisions for future participation should
be considered.
2. The regional participants should review, evaluate, and select the institutional
entity that will be responsible for the implementation of the recommended
regional plan. The necessary legal and organizational framework should be
determined and created, as required under state and local laws.
3. Agreements between the designated entity and the regional participants (or local
entities desiring to become customers of the regional system) should be
negotiated.
4. The regional entity should further develop the regional system concept as
required to prepare a project financing plan, including the completion of project
funding applications and the selection of mechanisms for the generation of
revenue. Other project -related aspects of project financing and permitting
should be considered, including such items as defining the terms of cost -sharing
and the assessment of project -related environmental consequences,
5. A construction and installation management plan should be developed and
should include a prioritization of project facilities. This list of priorities would
10-3
i i t
11753/890674
be used to determine the sequence of construction and installation of project
facilities.
6. The detailed design required for preparation of construction documents for
various segments of the project should be developed. An updated opinion of
design capacities and probable costs should be prepared.
7. Project operation and maintenance procedures should be formalized and
adopted to assure that the project adequately meets the regional water supply
requirements for all customers.
10-4
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following are the conclusions of the long-term regional water supply planning
study:
• Population growth within the primary study area of Brazos County is expected
to continue throughout 2020. Based on current estimates, the population of
Brazos County is approximately 124,389, and is projected to increase to 197,522
by 2020.
• Municipal and manufacturing water demand in the primary study area is
expected to increase significantly over the next 30 years. Current average day
water demand is estimated at approximately 25.2 mgd and is expected to
increase to 49.1 mgd in 2020. With the implementation of conservation
measures, 2020 water demand would be projected at approximately 41.8 mgd.
• Projected water demand would be expected to exceed the capacity of existing
facilities in the primary study area within the next decade if no significant
system improvements or expansions are made.
• Following an evaluation of both ground -water and surface water sources to meet
projected water demands, the use of ground -water was determined to be the
most economically feasible source of long-range water supply. This selection
is reinforced by the determination that the Simsboro Aquifer can be used with
no significant impacts with respect to aquifer yield and/or related declines in
water quality.
• A regional water supply for entities in the secondary study area is not
considered feasible.
11753/890674
11753/890674
• If additional study and future monitoring of ground water in the Simsboro
Aquifer indicate that continued and increased usage of the aquifer may result
in significant adverse impacts, another detailed study of a surface water
alternative, with consideration of direct and indirect costs associated with long-
term environmental impacts, should be considered. Another study may also be
relevant if BRA, TRA, or any other major user plans and proceeds with any
of the reservoirs proposed in the area.
• A number of diverse institutional arrangements are potentially available to
construct, operate, and manage a regional water system within Brazos County.
It has been recommended that the study participants closely review these
institutional arrangements.
• An equally broad range of financing mechanisms are available to fund the
construction and operation of a regional system. The financing mechanisms are
dependent in large part on the institutional framework of a regional system.
As with the institutional arrangements, these should be thoroughly reviewed by
potential participants in a regional system prior to selection of a final
alternative.
11-2
12.0 REFERENCES
American Water Works Association Journal, February 1990, November 1989. May 1986. Water
Conservation Handbook.
Baker, E.T., Jr., C.R. Follett, G.D. McAdoo and C.W. Bonnett. 1974. "Ground -Water Resources
of Grimes County, Texas": Texas Water Development Board, Report 186, 190 p.
Bovay Engineering, Inc. May 1984. Texas A&M University Research Park Master Plan.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1989. Bearfacts for Brazos, Grimes, Lear, Madison and Robertson
Counties and Bryan -College Station.
Burns & McDonnell, Engineering Co., Inc. 1989. Report on the Bedias Investigation. Prepared
for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Cronin, J.G., C.R. Follett, G.H. Shafer and P.L. Rettman. 1963. "Reconnaisance Investigation
of the Ground -Water Resources of the Brazos River Basin, Texas": Texas Water
Commission, Bulletin 6310, 152 p., figs.
Cronin, James G. and Clyde A. Wilson. 1967. "Ground Water in the Flood -Plain Alluvium of
the Brazos River, Whitney Dam to Vicinity of Richmond, Texas": Texas Water
Development Board, Report 41, 206 p., figs.
Directory of Texas Manufacturers. 1989. Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at
Austin.
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. 1989. "Application to Texas Water Development Board for
a Regional Water Supply Planning Grant": Report prepared for City of Bryan and City of
college Station, 19 p., appendices.
. February 1986. Water Availability Study for the Guadalupe and San Antonio River
Basins. Chapter 8.
Follett, C.R. 1974. "Ground -Water Resources of Brazos and Burleson Counties, Texas": Texas
Water Development Board, Report 185, 194 p.
Gould, F.W. 1975. Texas Plants, A checklist and ecological summary. Texas Agriculatural
Experiment Station.
Guyton, William F. & Associates. 1967. "Report on Ground -Water in the Simsboro Sand at
Bryan, Texas": Report prepared for Brown and Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, 19 p., tables,
maps.
11753/890674
12-1
. Associates. 1971. "Future Pumping Levels in Wells in Simsboro Sand at Bryan, Texas":
Report prepared for Spencer J. Buchanan and Associates, Inc. and the City of Bryan, Texas,
31 p., tables, figs.
Hall Southwest Water Consultants, Inc. 1985b. "Geologic and Ground -Water Investigation for
Permit Renewal Including Overburden Characterization and Projections, Sandow Mine,
Milam County, Texas": Report prepared for Texas Utilities Generating Company, and in
Aluminum Company of America, 1985, "Sandow Surface Mine Permit No. 001, Permit
Renewal Application": submitted to Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad
Commission of Texas, Appendix C, Exhibit 1.
Harden, R.W. and Associates, Inc. Inc. 1977. "Results of Siting Investigation for Simsboro Well
Field for the City of College Station, Texas": Report prepared for Riewe & Wischmeyer,
Inc., Consulting Engineers and the City of College Station, 19 p., tables, maps.
. 1986. "The Most Suitable Areas for Management of the Carrizo/Wilcox Aquifer in
Central Texas":. Report prepared for Aluminum Company of America and submitted to
Texas Water Commission, 71 p., tables, maps.
HSI Consultants, Inc., 1981. "Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation Related to Possible Mining
Operations, Bastrop County, Texas": Report prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority,
Project No. 1266-81.
Ingersoll Rand. 1984 Cameron Hydraulic Data.
McGill, Ms. Trisha. 1989. Brazos Valley Development Council. Personal Communication to C.
Sanders, EH&A. College Station. October 11.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1981. Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of Wastewater.
. 1985. Houston Water Master Plan, Inventory of Surface Water Resource.
Peckham, Richard C., Vernon L. Souders, Joe W. Dillard and Bernard B. Baker. 1963.
"Reconnaissance Investigation of the Ground -Water Resources of the Trinity River Basin,
Texas": Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6309, 110 p.
Peckham, Richard C. 1965. "Availability and Quality of Ground Water in Leon County, Texas":
Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6513, 43 p., appendices, plates.
Phillips Coal Company. 1986. "Surface Minig and Reclamation Permit Application for the Calvert
Lignite Mine, Robertson County, Texas": Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining and
Reclamation Division.
Riewe and Wischmeyer, Inc. June 1980. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. A
Study of the Domestic Water System.
11753/890674 12-2
I I
. August 1984. Texas A&M University Proposals, Specifications, Contract and Bond Forms
for Upgrade Campus Water System.
Rose, Nicholas A. 1955. "Development of Ground -Water Supply from Simsboro Sand": Report
prepared for City of Bryan, Bryan, Texas, 8 p.
Texas A&M University. April 1986. Five -Year Plan, 1985-1990, Texas A&M University.
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Economic Analysis Center. 1989. Fiscal Notes, Issue
89:11.
Texas Department of Water Resources. 1979. "Ground -Water Availability In Texas": Texas
Department of Water Resources, Report 238, 77 p.
. 1984. "Water for Texas, A Comprehensive Plan for the Future": Texas Department of
Water Resources, GP-4-1, Volumes 1 and 2.
. 1984. Water for Texas.
Texas Department of Health. January 1989. Water Hygiene Inventory.
Texas Economic Publishers. 1988. The Perryman Report.
Texas Public Utilities Commission. 1982. "Testimony of J. Frank Davis on Texland Electric
Cooperative's Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Before the Texas
Public Utilities Commission": Texas Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. 3838 and
3896, 78 p., figs.
Texas State Board of Water Engineers. 1942. "Robertson County, Texas": Texas State Board
of Water Engineers, 61 p.
. 1943. "Grimes County, Texas": Texas State Board of Water Engineers, 37 p.
Texas State Date Center. 1989. Texas Department of Commerce. Estimates of the Total
Populations of Counties and Places in Texas.
Texas Water Commission. 1989. "Ground -Water Quality of Texas": Texas Water Commission,
Report 89-01, 197 p., figs.
Texas Water Development Board. 1973. "IMAGEW-1 Well Field Drawdown Model": A
Program Documentation and User's Manual, 37 p.
. 1980-1986. Survey of Ground and Surface Water Use for Calendar Years 1980-1986.
. 1984. Survey of Ground and Surface Water Use, 1984 Municipal Pumpage (by County),
unpublished use datafile.
11753/890674
12-3
. April 1986. Guidelines for Municipal Water Conservation and Drought Contingency
Planning and Program Development.
. 1989. "Computer Listing of Reported Municipal/Industrial Ground -Water Use for 1955-
1987."
. October 1989. Projections of County Populations.
. Projections of Population and Municipal Water Demands.
The Marley Cooling Towers. June 1989.
Thorkildsen, David and Robert D. Price. In preparation. "Ground -Water Resources of the
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in the Central Texas Region": Texas Water Development Board,
Volume I, 104 p.
Todd, David Keith. 1959. "Grounddwater Hydrology": Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
535 p.
Turner, Samuel F. 1937. "Leon County, Texas": Texas Board of Water Engineers, 74 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1989. Total Population, Texas and
Counties, 1980-1988. Distributed by Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at
Austin.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. "Proposed Camp Swift Lignite Leasing, Bastrop
County, Texas": Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. 1 and 2.
. 1981. "Limestone Electric Generating Station and Jewett Mine in Freestone, Limestone,
and Leon Counties, Texas": Environmental Impact Statement.
11753/890674
12-4
LIST OF ENTITIES NOTIFIED
BY CERTIFIED MAIL
COUNTIES
Brazos County
County Courthouse
Bryan, Texas 77803
Grimes County
County Courthouse
Anderson, Texas 77830
Leon County
County Courthouse
Centerville, Texas 75833
Madison County
101 West Main
Madisonville, Texas 77864
Robertson County
County Courthouse
Franklin, Texas 77856
CITIES
City of Navasota
P.O. Box 910
Navasota, Texas 77868
City of Buffalo
P.O. Box 219
Buffalo, Texas 75831
City of Centerville
P.O. Box 279
Centerville, Texas 75833
City of Leona
P.O. Box 126
Leona, Texas 75850
City of Jewett
P.O. Box 189
Jewett, Texas 75846
890009
City of Marquez
P.O. Box 128
Marquez, Texas 77865
City of Normangee
P.O. Box 37
Normangee, Texas 77817
City of Oakwood
P.O. Box 96
Oakwood, Texas 75855
City of Madisonville
P.O. Box 549
Madisonville, Texas 77864
City of Bremond
P.O. Box E
Bremond, Texas 76629
City of Calvert
P.O. Box 505
Calvert, Texas 77837
City of Franklin
P.O. Box 428
Franklin, Texas 77856
City of Hearne
210 Cedar Street
Hearne, Texas 77859
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Brazos Valley Development Council
P.O. Drawer 4128
Bryan, Texas 77805-4128
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Brazos County Water Control
_Improvement District No. 1 -
Creek
Route 4, Box 790
Navasota, Texas 77868
Brazos River Authority
P.O. Box 7555
Waco, Texas 76714-7555
and
Big
Grimes County Municipal Utility
District No. 1
c/o Andrew P. Johnson, III
2707 North Loop West, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77002-5087
North Zulch Municipal Utility
District
P.O. Box 118
North Zulch, Texas 77872
San Jacinto River Authority
P.O. Box 329
Conroe, Texas 77305
Trinity River Authority
P.O. Box 60
Arlington, Texas 76010
WATER SUPPLY CORPORATIONS
Brushy W.S.C.
P.O. Box 1134
College Station, Texas 77841
Fairview -Smetana W.S.C.
Route 5, Box 596F
Bryan, Texas 77803
890008
Wellborn W.S.C.
P.O. Box 1040
Wellborn, Texas 77881
Wixon W.S.C.
P.O. Box 3297
Bryan, Texas 77802
Carlos W.S.C.
P.O. Box 310
Iola, Texas 77861
Dobbins-Plantersville W.S.C.
P.O. Box 127
Plantersville, Texas 77363
Concord Robbins W.S.C.
P.O. Box 35
Concord, Texas 77850
Flo W.S.C.
P.O. Box 1090
Buffalo, Texas 75831
Flynn W.S.C.
P.O. Box 125
Flynn, Texas 77855
St. Paul Shiloh-Timesville W.S.C.
Route 2, Box 106
Oakwood, Texas 75855
Madison County W.S.C.
P.O. Box 537
Madisonville, Texas 77864
Midway W.S.C.
P.0, Box. 136
Midway, Texas 75852
Bethany -Hearne W.S.C.
Route 2, Box 98
Hearne, Texas 77859
North Hamilton Hill W.S.C.
P.O. Box 555
Franklin, Texas 77856
-Robertson County W.S.C.
P.O. Box 875
Franklin, Texas 77856
Tri-County W.S.C.
P.O. Box 976
Marlin, Texas 76661
Twin Creek W.S,C.
P.O. Box 88
New Baden, Texas 77870
Wheelock W.S.C.
P.O. Box 49
Wheelock, Texas 77892
890000
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
Agency
Date
Please return this completed questionnaire to:
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 519
Austin, Texas 78767
ATTN: Ken Schroeder
Please contact Ken at 512/327-6840 if you have questions.
WATER SUPPLY
1. Please provide a map showing limits of your current service area. Also indicate any known
or anticipated expansion of your service area and the timing of the expansion.
2. Do you purchase all or part of your water supply on a wholesale basis from another
agency? . If so, please describe.
3. Provide map showing location of water supply facilities
Raw water intake, pump station and transmission line
• Treatment facilities
• Wells
• Distribution system including pump station
• Ground and elevated storage
11753/900674 1
4. Provide the following information on your current water supply source.
Source
a) Wells No. Capacity MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
b) Surface Water
1) Raw (Source)
*Water Rights (MGD)
(or Acre -Feet)
2) Treated (Source)
Supplier
Quantity (MGD)
* If water rights are held by other agency, provide name of agency, contract quantity
and length of contract.
Please list the cities you serve and indicate whether wholesale or retail.
Also indicate what entities other than cities that you serve. Retail or wholesale?
5. Type of Agency. Please describe your agency.
(a) Investor Owned
(b) Non-profit corporation
(c) Utility district
(d) Authority
(e) Other (describe)
11753/900674 2
6. Provide the following population data for your service area if available:
Historical Projection
1960 1990
1970 1995
1980 2000
1988 2010
2015
2020
7. Provide the following information concerning water consumption if available:
Historical
Average day demand
Maximum day demand
# of customer connections
Gallons per capita per day
Projected
Average day demand
Maximum day demand
Gallons per capita per day
Source of projections
1960 1970 1980 1988
1990 2000 2010 2015 2020
Water demand may be in MGD (million gallons per day) or gpm (gallons per minute).
Please indicate units used.
11753/900674 3
8. Provide the following information on existing and proposed expansion of your water supply
facilities:
Raw Water Pumping Facilities
Current capacity MGD Planned expansion
Ultimate capacity MGD Scheduled in-service
(year)
Estimated Construction
Cost
Raw Water Pipeline
Planned New Line
Capacity MGD Capacity
Size Size
Length Length
MGD
MGD
Scheduled in-service
(year)
Estimated Construction
Cost
Treatment Facilities
Current capacity MGD Planned expansion
Ultimate capacity Scheduled in-service
(year)
Estimated Construction
Cost
MGD
11753/900674 4
No. of tanks
Ground Storage
Planned additional
storage capacity
Storage capacity Scheduled in-service
of each tank (year)
Current total
storage capacity
No. of tanks
Estimated Construction
Cost
Elevated Storage
Planned additional
storage capacity
Storage capacity Scheduled in-service
of each tank (year)
Current total Estimated Construction
storage capacity Cost
New Wells
a) Capacity
Scheduled in-service (year)
Estimated construction cost
b) Capacity
Scheduled in-service (year)
Estimated construction cost
GAL
GAL
IMPORTANT
For any of the above facilities for which you indicate a "planned expansion," please list any
of the planned facilities that are currently under contract, under construction, or for which
you have a firm commitment to construct.
9. Please provide current rate schedule for water service.
11753/900674 5
10. Indicate any treatment that is provided and note any problems associated with meeting the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State Drinking Water Standards.
11. Describe significant customer complaints associated with taste, odor, color, pressure.
12. Please identify any Capital Improvement Programs, Engineering Reports or Planning
Reports you have that may relate to or be useful in this regional planning effort for water
supply.
We would appreciate receiving a copy of the above. Please indicate if we need to return
the reports to you.
13. Is your public water supply "Approved" by the State?
14. Do you consider your existing water supply adequate to meet your....
• . Present Needs
• . Year 1990 Needs
• . Year 2000 Needs
• . Year 2010 Needs
• . Year 2020 Needs
YES NO
If you do not consider your existing water supply adequate to mect your short or long range
needs, is your entity actively planning or negotiating to meet your present or future needs?
. If yes, please describe.
15. Would your agency be interested in participating in a regional water supply delivery system?
If so, please indicate the year in which your participation would be feasible.
11753/900674 6
16, Has your agency adopted any water conservation plan or drought management plan?
If yes, please provide a copy.
Please provide the name and telephone number of the person in your organization who can
be contacted concerning questions or additional information on the above requested data
and information:
Name
Telephone No.
11753/900674 7
TABLE C-1
PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE
AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND
City of Bryan
BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
ITEM
1990 2000 2010 2020
POPULATION
TWDB LOW 62,034 64,123 70,994 74,552
TWDB HIGH 62,327 76,238 85,043 90,870
SELF -REPORTED 56,000 66,345 76,845 81,478
PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd)
1980-86 AVERAGE 158 158 158 158
TWDB AVERAGE 160 160 160 160.
W/ CONSERVATION 156 148 140 136
TWDB HIGH 185 185 185 185
W/ CONSERVATION 180 171 162 157
SELF -REPORTED 164 164 164 164
WATER DEMAND (mgd)
TWDB LOW POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE
TWDB AVERAGE
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH
W/ CONSERVATION
SELF -REPORTED PC
TWDB HIGH POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE
TWDB AVERAGE
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH
W/ CONSERVATION
SELF -REPORTED PC
9.801
9.925
9.677
11.476
11.166
10.174
9.848
9.972
9.723
11.530
11.219
10.222
SELF -REPORTED POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE 8.848
TWDB AVERAGE
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH
W/ CONSERVATION
SELF -REPORTED PC
8.960
8.736
10.360
10.080
9.184
10.131
10.260
9.490
11.863
10.965
10.516
12.046
12.198
11.283
14.104
13.037
12.503
10.483
10.615
9.819
12.274
11.345
10.881
11.217
11.359
9.939
13.134
11.501
11.643
13.437
13.607
11.906
15.733
13..777
13.947
12.142
12.295
10.758
14.216
12.449
12.603
11.779
11.928
10.139
13.792
11.705
12.227
14.357
14.539
12.358
16.811
14.267
14.903
12.874
13.036
11.081
15.073
12.792
13.362
MINIMUM (mgd)
MAXIMUM (mgd)
MEDIAN (mgd)
DIFFERENCE (mgd)
8.7
11.5
10.1
2.8
9.5
14.1
11.8
4.6
9.9
15.7
12.8
5.8
10.1
16.8
13.5
6.7
SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90
EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989.
TABLE C-2
PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE,
AND PROJECTED AVERAGE DAY WATER DEMAND
City of College Station
BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
ITEM
1990 2000 2010 2020
POPULATION
TWDB LOW 47,134 57,326 63,467 66,648
TWDB HIGH 47,356 68,156 76,027 81,236
SELF -REPORTED 44,636 57,926 65,000 74,000
PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd)
1980-86 AVERAGE. 261 261 261 261
TWDB AVERAGE 266 266 266 266
W/ CONSERVATION 260 246 233 226
TWDB HIGH 335 335 335 335
W/ CONSERVATION 327 310 293 285
SELF -REPORTED 161 189 228 248
WATER DEMAND (mgd) [a]
TWDB LOW POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE 12.302 14.962 16.565 17.395
TWDB AVERAGE 12.538 15.249 16.882 17.728
W/ CONSERVATION 12.255 14.105 14.772 15.069
TWDB HIGH 15.790 19.204 21.261 22.327
W/ CONSERVATION, 15.395 17.764 18.604 18.978
SELF -REPORTED PC 7.603 10.846 14.445 16.533
W/ TAMU [b] 14.603 19.846 24.345 27.423
TWDB HIGH POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE 12.360 17.789 19.843 21.203
TWDB AVERAGE 12.597 18.129 20.223 .21.609
W/ CONSERVATION 12.313 16.770 17.695 18.367
TWDB HIGH 15.864 22.832 25.469 27.214
W/ CONSERVATION 15.468 21.120 22.285 23.132
SELF -REPORTED PC 7.639 12.894 17.304 20.151
W/ TAMU [b] 14.639 21.894 27.204 31.041
SELF -REPORTED POPULATION x
1980-86 AVERAGE 11.650 15.119 16.965 19.314
TWDB AVERAGE 11.873 15.408 17.290 19.684
W/ CONSERVATION 11.605 14.253 15.129 16.731
TWDB HIGH 14.953 19.405 21.775 24.790
W/ CONSERVATION 14.579 17.950 19.053 21.072
SELF -REPORTED PC 7.200 10.959 14.794 18.356
W/ TAMU [b] 14.200 19.959 24.694 29.246
MINIMUM (mgd)
'MAXIMUM (mgd)
MEDIAN (mgd)
DIFFERENCE (mgd)
7.2
15.9
11.5
8.7
10.8
22.8
16.8
12.0
14.4
27.2
20.8
12.8
15.1
31.0
23.1
16.0
SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90
EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989.
[a]. TWDB WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR COLLEGE STATION
ALSO INCLUDE TAMU WATER DEMAND.
[b]. SELF -REPORTED W/TAMU PROJECTIONS INCLUDE AVERAGE
DAY PROJECTIONS OF 7 AND 9 mgd FOR 1990 AND 2000.
TABLE C-3
PROJECTED MUNICIPAL POPULATION, PER CAPITA USAGE
AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
Other Municipal - Brazos County
BRAZOS VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY
ITEM
1990 2000 2010 2020
POPULATION
TWDB LOW
TWDB HIGH
11,020
11,071
27,096
32,214
30,309
36,306
34,494
42,044
PER CAPITA USAGE (gpd)
TWDB AVERAGE 110 110 110 110
W/ CONSERVATION 107 102 96 94
TWDB HIGH 139 139 139 139
W/ CONSERVATION 135 128 121 118
WATER DEMAND (mgd)
TWDB LOW POPULATION x
TWDB AVERAGE
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH POPULATION x
TWDB AVERAGE
W/ CONSERVATION
TWDB HIGH
W/ CONSERVATION
1.212
1.182
1.527
1.489
1.218
1.187
1.535
1.496
2.981
2.757
3.756
3.474
3.544
3.278
4.465
4.130
3.334
2.917
4.201
3.676
3.994
3.494
5.032
4.403
3.794
3.225
4.781
4.064
4.625
3.931
5.828
4.954
MINIMUM 1.2 2.8 2.9 3.2
MAXIMUM 1.5 4.5 5.0 5.8
MEDIAN 1.4 3.6 4.0 4.5
DIFFERENCE 0.4 1.7 2.1 2.6
SOURCE: TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1989. Apr-90
EH&A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 1989.
BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY
4400 COBBS DRIVE a P. O. BOX 7555 ® TELEPHONE AREA CODE817776-1441
WACO, TEXAS 76714-7555
March 8, 1990
U P S
1'
Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E.
Senior Staff Engineer
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 519
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1990
concerning potential surface water supplies for Brazos County.
The Brazos River Authority operates a basin -wide water supply
system consisting of eleven major reservoirs, from which water
supply is committed to supply needs both in the immediate
vicinity of the individual reservoirs and in areas downstream,
areas all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. It is from this
basin -wide system that the Authority could make available
surface -water supplies to Brazos County on a long-term,
dependable basis.
Your letter includes two potential scenarios for surface water
supply based on maximum -day demands. Since the adequacy of
surface water supplies is determined by their ability to meet
average -day, rather than maximum -day demands, the maximum -day
demands presented in your table were converted to average -day
using a factor of 2.0. The following table of average -day
demands table collates with the maximum -day demand table in your
letter:
Surface -Water Required
in MGD(Acre-Feet/Year)
SCENARIO NO.
1990
2000
2010
2020
No. 1
(10 wells)
7.75
17.1
23.2
29.5
(8680)
(19152)
(25984)
(33040)
No. 2
22.85
32.2
38.3
44.6
(no wells)
(25592)
(36063)
(42896)
(49952)
Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. March 8, 1990
Page 2
Sufficient supplies are currently available from the Authority's
Basin -wide System to provide for the long-term (year 2020)
demands under either scenario. Two supply sources are currently
available to meet these demands. First, the demands can be
supplied entirely from System supplies diverted from the Brazos
River near College Station. The long-term, dependable supply
that can be made available at the Brazos River near College
Station is currently over 45.0 mgd. The second currently
available source is Lake Somerville; however, sufficient supply
is not currently available from Lake Somerville to meet the
long-term (year 2020 under Scenario 1 and year 2000 under
Scenario 2) demand under either scenario. The dependable
long-term supply currently available from Lake Somerville is
approximately 27.8 mgd (31,136 AF/Yr). If Lake Somerville were
used, future supplemental supplies from the Brazos River or from
a new supply source would be needed.
Lake Somerville offers excellent water quality (low dissolved
constituents); however, it is -located substantially further from
the Bryan -College Station area than the Brazos River.
Conversely, the Brazos River at College Station has periods of
elevated salt concentrations. A statistical evaluation of the
reoccurrence intervals for salt (chloride) concentrations in the
Brazos River at the College Station gauge has recently been done
by Texas A&M University. This analysis indicates that the 250
mg/1 chloride concentration is exceeded 10 percent of the time;
a 100 mg/1 chloride concentration is maintained about 35 percent
of the time (a copy of the duration curves for total dissolved
solids, chlorides, and sulfates is attached). Termination
storage is one method that has been used successfully to provide
potable supplies during periods of elevated salt concentrations.
The storage must be of sufficient volume to provide the
maximum -day demand for the treatment plant during periods when
the chloride concentrations are elevated. If Lake Somerville is
used in combination with the Brazos River, termination storage
would not be required. The supply system could be designed to
overdraft Lake Somerville during periods of high salinity and to
overdraft the Brazos River during periods of low salinity.
With regard to the price of long-term System water supply, the
Authority has recently formulated a price proposal for future
commitments of System water supply that would achieve a uniform,
equitable price. This proposal was made to a large group of
entities located throughout the Brazos Basin that needed
additional water supply to meet present and future demands. This
proposed pricing structure for available System supplies is being
reviewed by the Texas Water Commission in a rate proceeding that
began in August 1989. The final decision of the Commission will
govern the System price that the Authority can offer. Since this
proceeding has just gotten underway, it may be some time before
the final price is determined.
Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E. March 8, 1990
Page 3
Our proposal specifies an initial term and an extended term.
During the initial term, which is a period from January 1, 1991
through December 31, 2025, the water supply made available for
diversion (Current Use Water) is priced as follows:
1991-92 $35.00 per acre-foot
1993-94 $65.00 per acre-foot
1995 and thereafter $85.00 per acre-foot
This price, which will escalate in accordance with the Consumer
Price Index, is based on the assumption that at least 86,000
acre-feet per year (76.8 mgd) of available System supply will be
sold as Current Use Water before the end of 1990. During the
initial term, the price of the Current Use Water will never
exceed the 1995 price. The price would be adjusted downward as
additional water is sold and existing pre-1990 water supply
contracts expire and are rolled -over as long-term contracts.
Option Water can be reserved for use during -the extended term
beginning in the year 2026. Option Water is not available for
diversion until additional water supply facilities are made
available. The proposal includes a procedure for exercising the
option to convert Option Water to Current Use Water during the
extended term, which would begin in January 2026 or whenever
additional water supply facilities become operational, whichever
is later. The price of Option Water for the initial term is
$10.00 per acre-foot.
As requested in a subsequent telephone conversation, I have
enclosed information on Lake Caldwell, a potential reservoir site
located in Burleson County, and on Lake Millican, the former COE
project proposed for the Panther Creek dam site. I understand
that this information is needed for a complete evaluation of all
potential supply sources.
Please review the information provided in this letter. If you
have any questions about the availability of price for surface
water to meet the needs of Brazos County, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
J. TOM RAY, P.E.
Planning Division Manager
JTR:rp
Table 73
CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE
FOR TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS:
Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond
Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage
or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.01 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978
0.05 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978
0.1 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978
0.2 15,400 2,810 2,050 1,360 978
0.5 15,000 2,800 1,580 1,260 910
1 14,500 2,710 1,560 1,040 902
2 13,700 2,540 1,520 1,010 845
5 12,700 2,420 1,400 870 701
10 11,900 2,290 1,250 763 635
15 11,000 2,190 1,210 704 601
20 10,500 2,090 1,170 659 566
30 8,530 1,890 1,070 596 498
40 7,320 1,780 1,000 557 426
50 6,220 1,620 945 -505 382
60 5,270 1,510 864 448 346
70 4,320 1,420 750 412 317
80 3,320 1,350 723 370 264
85 2,800 1,300 699 339 250
90 2,420 1,130 666 313 235
95 1,870 948 639 270 218
98 1,400 739 567 238 198
99 1,290 583 552 231 169
99.5 1,190 508 487 228 164
99.8 817 500 476 225 161
99.9 774 495 472 223 160
99.95 742 492 469 221 159
99.99 692 486 464 218 157
100 618 475 456 212 153
A-92
��r
Table 74
CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE
FOR CHLORIDE
Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond
Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage
or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.01 7,740 1,100 771 512 355
0.05 7,740 1,100 771 512 355
0.1 7,740 1,100 771 512 355
0.2 7,740 1,100 771 512 355
0.5 7,270 1,100 637 370 340
1 6,850 1,100 625 364 328
2 6,530 1,000 612 353 290
5 6,110 989 551 288 213
10 5,760 949 484 250, 192
15 5,270 892 451 220 176
20 4,850 844 437 198 162
30 3,810 756 400 173 •135
40 3,240 706 376 154 108
50 2,610 652 350 134-c* 93
60 2,210 594 316 113 80
70 1,690 562 270 91 67
80 1,290 522 256 79 55
85 1,080 503 247 69 49
90 851 447 236 60 43
95 647 362 218 41 36
98 455 282 176 35 34
99 339 223 169 32 33
99.5 .297 195 156 30 32
99.8 271 192 148 28 31
99.9 256 190 146 27 31
99,95 244 189 145 26 30
99,99 224 187 143 24 30
100 190 183 139 20 28
A-93
Table 75
CONCENTRATION -DURATION CURVE
FOR SULFATE
Percent Seymour Possum Kingdom Whitney College Station Richmond
Equalled Gage Gage Gage Gage Gage
or Exceeded (mg/1) (mg/I) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.01 2,220 582 481 262 185
0.05 2,220 582 481 262 185
0.1 2,220 582 481 262 185
0.2 2,220 582 481 262 185
0.5 2,090 582 325 239 172
1 2,040 574 317 213 166
2 2,010 547 313 191 157
5 1,910 501 291 170 124
10 1,800 481 267 143 113
15 1,720 459 237 133 105
20 1,640 436 228 121 98
30 1,400. 396 214 109 86
40 1,300. 364 195 100 73
50 1,160 328 181 90 64
60 986 309 160 80 58
70 854 289 141 72. 51
80 686 273 132 62 45
85 604 258 127 57 40
90 539 219 122 51 37
95 367 180 116 41' 33
98 281 147 103 39' 29
99 224 118 93 38• 27
99.5 145 99 83 38. 25
99.8 137 98 80 37 25
99.9 132 97 79 37 25
99.95 128 97 79 37 25
99.99 122' 96 79 36. 24
100 112 94 78 35 24
A-94
Tria'.`)tv of Texas
General Office
2011/4001
March 1, 1990
Mr. Ken Schroeder, P.E.
Senior Staff Engineer
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 519
Austin, Texas 78767
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
In response to your letter regarding surface water alternatives in the
Trinity River Basin, I offer the following:
1. TRA at present has sufficient water rights in Lake Livingston
to meet the needs as specified in Scenario Nos. 1 and 2.
As for preferred conveyance locations, we would consider all
reasonable alternatives based on further engineering analyses
and the customers' needs and desires.
2. The Authority, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation,
completed a feasibility study of the Bedias Reservoir located
in southwest Madison and northwest Walker Counties in 1988
which has a projected yield of about 76 mgd. The Bureau of
Reclamation estimated construction of the reservoir to be
approximately $150 Million, not including recreational
facilities.
Conveyance of .water from Bedias Lake to the west is expected
to require an intake on the south shore; the exact site to be
based on further engineering considerations. We have
previously provided a copy of the Bedias report.
Regarding your question concerning services the Authority can provide.
TRA is willing and capable of providing three levels of service. Under
contract with other municipalities in the Trinity Basin, IRA has
financed, constructed and operated; financed and constructed; or tinancea
only projects similar to those that would be necessary to supply surface
water to Bryan or College Station from the Trinity. Enclosed is a
general b)ochure that outlines projects ir which the Authority is
involved.
P.O. Box 60
Arlington, Texas 76004
Metro (817) 467-4343
TeleFax (817) 465-0970
Letter to Mr. Ken Schroeder
2003/4001
March 1, 1990
Page Two
T believe there are several options of service the Authority is capable
of providing under the two scenarios presented above. Our overall
approach is to design projects in conjunction with the water customer so
as to provide the most efficient project. We would welcome the
opportunity to visit you and representatives of the cities of Bryan and
College Station about several of these options and how they could be
evaluated.
Should further detailed information be needed, you should contact Mr.
Grady Manis, TRA's Southern Region Manager, 1117 loth Street, Huntsville,
Texas 77340 (409) 295-5485.
Yours very truly,
SAM" SCOTT
Executive Services Manager
JSS/cc
Enclosure
cc: Mr. C. Grady Manis, TRA Southern Region Manager
TABLE 8-1
COST COMPARISON
GROUND WATER VS. SURFACE WATER
Construction Costs' Total Construction Costs
I lc II IIc
Source: Well Field S24,815,000 S20,030,900 S3,911,800 S2,892,500
Lake Somerville 62,188,300 49,119,800 7,182,700 5,653,000
Brazos River 61,429,900 47,550,100 9,702,700 7,405,000
Millican Lake 55,989,100 43,427,000 7,182,700 5,653,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs2 Total Annual Operation and Maintenance
I lc II Ile
Source: Well Field S998,400 S618,800 S1,606,000 $978,200
Lake Somerville 1,798,200 1,170,800 2,611,700 1,715,800
Brazos River 2,309,700 1,577,800 2,703,100 1,789,200
Millican Lake 1,832,900 1,186,200 2,633,700 1,729,000
1 Construction Costs include contigency and engineering.
2 Operation and Maintenance Costs include Administrative.
11753/890674
8-2