INTRODUCTION
Under consideration at this meeting is the possible development of a casino by the Indian tribes.  This development has the potential of causing significant impacts upon the ability of the city to provide services both to the current citizens and businesses as well as to the casino.  My particular concern has been the ability of the city to provide drinking water to meet demand.

CITY SERVICES:  WATER
The city has been unable, at least since 1998, to meet the peak demand for water from its own resources.  The demand has been met by purchasing water from the Heceta Water District.  To eliminate the reliance on Heceta Water District water, the city is undertaking an expansion by adding five new wells.  Three of these new wells are under contract with construction to begin soon.  The projection for the additional water to be produced by the five new wells during peak periods of demand is 1,000,000 gallons per day.  Based upon the actual demonstrated ability of the current seven wells, that seems to be a reasonable estimate (200,000 gallons per day per well during peak demand periods).

Included in the addition of five wells is the upgrade in the treatment capability.

However, there appears to be a time gap between having the wells in operation and meeting the summer 2003 demand.  one can only hope the casino does not require water prior to the summer of 2004.

BACKGROUND
I provided an analysis of the ability of the city to meet its demand for drinking water.  The Director of Public Works, Mr. Lanfear, provided the data by which this analysis was done.  I submitted my final report on drinking water for 2002 on October 18, 2002 to the City Manager.  The bottom line was that the city had NEVER, since 1998, been able to produce enough water to meet its peak demand for any extended period.

The addition of a casino would create a significant increase in the demand for water.  It is incumbent on the city to ensure that the increased demand created by the casino is carefully analyzed and evaluated.

DEMAND
The demand for water in the summer months is increasing each year.  A rough estimate of the increase in demand could be considered to be on the order of 20% per year.  This projected increase does not include the impact of a casino.

Peak Net Demand Per Day
The peak net demand for a single day was 2,808,000 gallons on 14 August 2002.  Our net production on that day was 1,743,000 gallons.  The city was able to augment the need by purchasing 260,000 gallons of water that day.  However, the city had to draw about 800,000 gallons from the reservoirs.

Average Net Production Per Day
The highest average daily production from the city well field during the summer months has been 1,678,000 gallons in August 2002.  Although the data shows that average daily net production is increasing over the years, this increase appears to be far below what will be required to meet the potential demand for 2003, without any requirements to meet the casino demand.

Peak Production for One Day
The city, since 1998, has been projecting the ability of the well field to produce 2,000,000 gallons of water per day.  The data shows that the highest net production for a single day reached by the city well field is 1,873,000 gallons on 19 July 2002.  The maximum single day net production frequently reached 1.7 to 1.8 million gallons per day, but was unable to meet the demand in many cases.

The demand can be met for short periods of time by drawing down the reservoirs, but it is felt that this action poses a significant danger to the city in the event of a fire.  We must depend upon our reservoirs to provide the water to fight a fire.

CONCLUSIONS
If the conclusion on the increase in demand is correct, then the summer of 2003 may show average demands on the order of 2,500,000 gallons per day, with a peak demand around 3,300,000 gallons on a peak day.  Of course, climatic conditions could affect the demand significantly.  If we have a wet summer, then perhaps the demand will be lower than projected.  However, one should prepare for the worst, and not depend on climatic changes for the good.

The ability of the current well field to meet the demand for water in the summer of 2003 is not adequate.  Even with the addition of the projected five new wells, our ability to meet the increasing demand would appear to be marginal.  It is questionable that the three new wells under contract will be producing in time to significantly help the city meet the demand.  The time scale for the last two wells is uncertain, and is not likely to help in the summer of 2003.
Based upon my analysis of the ability of the city to meet the demand for drinking water, the city may well not be able to provide adequate amounts of water to the casino without considerable expense.  The size of the problem is a function of time.  If the casino is not developed in the near term, then the city will have adequate time to improve its production capability.

At the least, the casino will force the city to develop the proposed new well field much earlier than planned (2006).  A question that needs to be considered is "Where will the city come up with another $12 or $13 million to do that?"  This is also a time consuming process, so adequate advance planning will be required.

If the casino is to be developed in the near term, the city may not be able to meet the increased demand.  The city has been unable, at least since 1998, to meet Th. peak demand for water form its own resources.  We already have taken steps to begin a "Water Conservation" program.  The effectiveness of the "Water Conservation" program has not yet been measured.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city begin now to estimate the impact of the development of a casino in terms of the production capability of drinking water, including the necessary time scale and attendant costs.  This planning should include the construction of the necessary piping to reach the casino site, the necessary increases in treatment capacity, and the development of a new well field.

It would be hoped that the tribes would pay for such engineering studies.

Richard Walker
Florence, Oregon

To:             Planning Commission
Subject:     Water Usage based on actual data. For consideration on the following annexation cases:
        Resolution 01-01-09-02 (Morales 40 acres)
        Resolution 01-01-09-04 (Matthews, et al 51.85 acres)
        Resolution 01-01-09-03 (Kuebler 80 acres)

At the Planning Commission, during the review of the annexation request for the Morales 40-acre parcel, Mr. Lanfear, Florence Public Works Director, testified on the water supply future. Mr. Lanfear used figures that were contained in the staff report for all three annexations. Therefore, it is assumed that the Planning Commission will accept his testimony as
representing all three annexations.

I cannot let this pass since the testimony as to the production capability of the water well field is misleading. Mr. Lanfear used the 220 gallons per minute capability for each well. He also used the well field capability of 2.2 million gallons per day. Interestingly, if each of seven wells really produced 220 gallons per minute the field would produce 2.2 million gallons per day. So he is figuring on the basis of a production capability that has never been met over the long run in actual production. Certainly, a given well might produce at 220 gallons per minute for a limited period of time but the production data shows that this does not happen for the entire field over a period of time as long as a month.

I am entering this letter into the record to question two factors in the ability of the City to provide adequate water to the residents of the city. The first factor is the projected date for the expanded well field to become operational. The second factor is the actual production capability of the well field during peak demand periods.

FIRST - SCHEDULE.

The following schedules have shown up recently. They do not appear to be consistent, which leads to uncertainty in their accuracy. The dates and statements published recently are:

WATER DATES

Dec. 18 Schedule        Treatment Plant substantial completion  1-14-02
Jan. 2 Council  New Wells and plant expansion on line late fall 2001
Planning Commission, Agenda Item 4, Jan. 9
        New wells begin production of water prior to Summer 2002
Planning Commission, Agenda Item 5, Jan. 9
        New wells begin production of water prior to Summer 2002
Planning Commission, Agenda Item 6, Jan. 9
        New wells completion end Oct 2001
Planning Commission, Agenda Item 7, Jan. 9
        New wells begin production of water prior to Summer 2002

Of interest to me was contained in the Dec. 18 schedule. It showed, as part of the overall schedule that Line item #5 entitled "Develop schedule", gave 2 days to accomplish, Start date was 4/25/00, Finish date was 4/26/00. So, apparently this schedule has existed since April 26, 2000.

SECOND - PRODUCTION DATA.

The 1998 Water Facilities Plan uses the following figures:
        * The seven existing wells yield approximately 220 gallons per minute.
        * Annual average per capita demand is 188 gallons.

Those planning factors have presumably been used to determine the required capacity for the upgrade of the water facilities. They have also been used in the staff report on each of the annexation proposals. The problem is that neither factor is verified by actual water usage data. I have data sheets from Heceta Water District and a letter with data from the City on water usage for 1998 and 1999. These data form the basis for the following analysis.

A.      WATER PRODUCTION.

        (1) SEVEN WELLS IN THE WELL FIELD

The 1998 Water Facilities Plan uses the following figures:
*       The seven existing wells yield approximately 220 gallons per minute.

Using the data, the peak demand periods are the months of August 1998, July 1999, and August 1999.

For August 1998, the City well field generated 35.6 million gallons of water. For the 31 days in August this means that the well field generated an average of 164,055 gallons per well per day (divide 35.6 by 31 and 7). Each day has 1,440 minutes. So divide 164,055 by 1,440 and one finds that each well in the well field generated an average of 113.9 gallons of water per minute.

For July 1999, the City well field generated 38.2 million gallons of water. Performing the same calculations as above, one finds that each well in the well field generated an average of 122.2 gallons of water per minute.

For August 1999, the City well field generated 38.0 million gallons of water. Performing the same calculations as above, one finds that each well in the well field generated an average of 121.6 gallons of water per minute.

These data and calculations show that there is the distinct possibility that the water capable of being generated by our well field is greatly over estimated. Rather than a factor of 240 gallons per minute per well, the factor should probably be something like 120 gallons per minute per well.

If our wells are really capable of generating 220 gallons per minute per well for each of our seven wells then a question should be, "Why are the wells not generating at that level during the times of our peak needs?" This has led to the need to purchase large amounts of water from the Heceta Water District.

At 120 gallons per minute per well, our expanded well field would generate a maximum of 2,073,600 gallons per day (120 times 1440 times 12). This equates to a maximum of 64 million gallons for a month of 31 days. For a four-month period of 122 days, this calculates to a maximum of about 253 million gallons of water.

The usage data shows that:
For the four-month period of Jun. - Sept. 1998, the City consumed 200.6 million gallons.
For the four-month period of Jun. - Sept. 1999, the City consumed 195.5 million gallons.

The data from Heceta was for two-month periods so I had to decide which peak usage period to use. I decided to use the entire four-month period. One should remember that these are averages for the entire period and there undoubtedly were days when the daily demand was considerably higher as well as days when the demand was considerably lower than the average.

        (2) SIX WELLS IN THE WELL FIELD

Because of the wording of the City letter, there is the possibility that we had only six wells in operation during these periods. If so the data yields the following results:

For August 1998, each well in the well field generated an average of 132.9 gallons of water per minute.

For July 1999, each well in the well field generated an average of 142.6 gallons of water per minute.

For August 1999, each well in the well field generated an average of 141.9 gallons of water per minute.

At 140 gallons per minute per well, our expanded well field would generate a maximum of 2,419,200 gallons per day (140 times 1440 times 12). This equates to a maximum of about 75 million gallons for a month of 31 days.  For a four-month period of 122 days, this calculates to a maximum of about 295 million gallons of water.

        (3) MARGIN

The above data show that the 12 well field, with a production capability of either 120 or 140 gallons per minute per well is capable of meeting our peak demand of two years ago and for last year.

However, it seems prudent management to provide a margin for growth as well as a margin for mechanical breakdowns (like one well going out of commission during a peak usage period). For each well that cannot produce, the total decreases by 21 million gallons for the four-month period. The decision on what margin is acceptable should be available to the Council to
allow informed decisions, if not to allow a decision by the Council on an acceptable margin.

These calculations show that as the production rate increases the margin increases. However, it is no where near the amount that would be available if the wells did produce 220 gallons per minute per well. At 220 gallons per minute per well, our expanded well field would generate a maximum of 3,801,600 gallons per day (220 times 1440 times 12). This equates to a
maximum of about 1.178 billion gallons for a month of 31 days. For a four-month period of 122 days, this calculates to a maximum of about 464 million gallons of water.

Based upon the peak usage during the two periods analyzed, a margin of 2.3 appears to exist. (Peak generation capability of 464 million gallons of water divided by the peak consumption of 200 million gallons.) If, however, the peak generation capability is that actually provided to meet the two peak periods analyzed the margin becomes something like 1.47. (295 divided
by 200). This is a significant difference. The margin becomes important when demand increases or when problems occur. The margin is essentially the insurance policy for the City to prevent a water shortage within some acceptable level.

B.      PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION

The 1998 Water Facilities Plan uses the following figures:
*       Annual average per capita demand is 188 gallons.

Using average figures to predict demand is a recipe for disaster. Projections of the amount of water that a City must produce should focus on peak demands unless the City has a back-up source of supply. The back-up source was eliminated when the City Council withdrew from the cooperative agreement with Heceta Water District.

Again using the peak demand, for the peak usage periods, I have selected the following periods:

For the period Jun. - Sept. 1998 the City used 200.6 million gallons of water. 121.6 million gallons of this water was provided from City wells while 79.0 million gallons were purchased from the Heceta Water District.

For the period Jun. - Sept. 1999 the City used 195.5 million gallons of water. 149.2 million gallons of this water was provided from City wells while 46.3 million gallons were purchased from the Heceta Water District.

Using the population figure of 6865 in the Planning Commission staff report on Agenda Item 4, 5, and 7 for the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2001, the average per capita daily usage would be:

For the period Jun. - Sept. 1998 - 240 gallons per person per day.
For the period Jun. - Sept. 1999 - 233 gallons per person per day.

These are calculated by dividing the total usage (200.6 million gallons for 1998 and 195.5 million gallons for 1999) by the number of days (122) to produce the average daily usage for the entire population (1.644 million gallons for 1998 and 1.602 million gallons for 1999). Then dividing the average daily usage by the population (6865) yields the average per capita daily usage. If the population figure used is higher than the population actually was then the per capita daily usage numbers would increase.

Another area of uncertainty arises in our water supply plan. The above analysis shows that:

1       The 1998 Water Facilities Plan has overstated the amount of water that has actually been produced by our well field.

2       The 1998 Water Facilities Plan has understated the amount of water that has actually been produced by our well field.

Significant errors in either of these factors could lead to poor decisions. Significant errors in both of these factors could lead to the need in the future to make expensive changes. In the meantime, the residents of Florence could suffer.

I hope that this analysis will be helpful in your decision.

Thank you,

Richard S. Walker
411 Sherwood Loop, Florence, OR 97439