|
<br />"
<br />
<br />-'
<br />
<br />TABLE 3
<br />SECONDARY AREA POPULATION AND
<br />WATER DEMAND FORECASTS
<br />
<br />Population
<br />Raw Water Demand
<br />,(adt/yr)
<br />
<br />1975
<br />24,090
<br />
<br />3,850
<br />
<br />1980
<br />32,720
<br />
<br />1990
<br />50,870
<br />
<br />2000
<br />73,360
<br />
<br />2010
<br />95,340
<br />
<br />5,390
<br />
<br />8,670
<br />
<br />13,100
<br />
<br />18,100
<br />
<br />"bedroom" communities, agricultural centers, second home
<br />areas, and tourist centers.
<br />Within this area, there are 37 water supply agencies with
<br />populations ranging from ten people to well over 5,000.
<br />Included are fourteen municipal systems, sixteen special
<br />districts, two water associations, two mutual water com.
<br />panics, two areas served by non-profit corporations and one
<br />area with no organization.
<br />
<br />Population
<br />
<br />Projected population fOf secondary area agencies is
<br />shown in Table 3. The current populutioll totals 24,090
<br />people and is projected to reach 95,340 by the year 2010.
<br />Projections do not include pout-yellr residents who swell
<br />many agencies' service populations in the summer and on
<br />weekends. Instead, it is assumed that these people would
<br />only be occupying "second" homes and would be included
<br />elsewhere in the areas of their permanent residence.
<br />
<br />Water Demand
<br />
<br />Each agency was asked to supply historic consumption
<br />data as part of the study questionnaire. Where this data was
<br />unavailable, estimutes of I.:urrent water consumption have
<br />been made by comparing areas of similar configuration.
<br />From this data and from an analysis of the economic base
<br />and type of growth expected in each area, per capita
<br />consumption projections have been derived for each study
<br />year. From these projections and from the population
<br />forecasts, the yearly supply requirements were determined
<br />for each agency. These are also summarized in Table 3. As
<br />shown in the table, the present raw water requirements for
<br />the secondary area total about. 3,500 acre-feet per year and
<br />are expected to reach nearly 17,000 acre-feet per year by
<br />the end of the study period.
<br />
<br />Raw Water Supply
<br />
<br />Within the secondary area, twenty-one agencies utilize
<br />wells as their current source; seven agencies utilize surface
<br />water; four agencies purchase water as it is needed, and five
<br />agencies utilize mOl'e than one type of source. The use of
<br />wells obviously predominates, and there are currently 90
<br />active wells in the area. r-,'Iost of those agencies which
<br />operate wells also hold surface rights. The State Engineer's
<br />rules Jnd regulations regarding wells are affecting and will
<br />increasingly affect these agencies, though many are either
<br />unaware of or unconcerned with these regulations at
<br />present.
<br />
<br />Treated Water Facilities
<br />
<br />Most secondary area agencies treat their water, although
<br />four serve ul1chlorinated well water and five serve unfiltered
<br />surface water. Two agencies serve unchlorinated surface
<br />water. Total filtration capacity is 21.6 MGD and treated
<br />water storage is 14.5 MG.
<br />
<br />Financial Data
<br />
<br />Total depreciated system value for secondary area
<br />agencies is nearly $12,200,000. This figure does not include
<br />the value of water rights for most agencies. Yearly
<br />operation and maintenance cost totals approximately
<br />
<br />Page 4 - COG notations - January 1975
<br />
<br />$630,000. Bonded indebtedness amounts to approximately
<br />94% of depreciated system value, or $11,3<:)7,927.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />
<br />Most primary area agencies are doing a good job, many
<br />an excellent job, of supplying water service. Most of the
<br />deficiencies that do exist nmong the major suppliers are
<br />attributable to the enormous growth experienced during
<br />the period since the study wns last conducted in 1968 and
<br />to the increasing difficulty experienced in the construction
<br />of new facilities. Deficiencies among minor agencies, on the
<br />other hand, are more often the result of a balance having
<br />been reached between consumer concern and the cost of
<br />the remedy. The net result is that the primary area is
<br />deficient by about 25 MGD in treatment capacity, that raw
<br />water supplies will be deficient before sufficient new
<br />supplies can be developed, and that some isolated cus-
<br />tomers receive significantly lower levels of service than do
<br />their neighbors on larger systems.
<br />The social atmosphere and physical and financial con-
<br />ditions in which the metropolitan water agencies are
<br />operating have undergone a severe change since the previous
<br />study in 1968. The effpcts of thi~ changing frnmework
<br />within which water supply decisions are made are impor-
<br />tant features emphasized by this study.
<br />Based on the results of this study, a new horizon is
<br />coming into focus for those who make water supply
<br />decisions. By 1980, most present water projects will be
<br />completed, and after that time the projects appear to be
<br />even more controversial, costly and complex. Because of
<br />these frustrat.ing factors, an attempt is being made by most
<br />agencies to find some other agency to assume water supply
<br />responsibilities. \Vhilc the desire for a metropolitan-wide
<br />water agency to solve the problems appears to be very clear
<br />to everyone, there is no concensus regarding details of the
<br />structure and responsibility of such an agency.
<br />Within the secondary area, there are several well de-
<br />signed and operated systems. Many of the 37 agencies do
<br />suffer, however, because their customers do not attribute a
<br />high priority to water supply, as evidenced by the many
<br />systems which are run by overworked part-time or volun-
<br />teer managers.
<br />While most agencies are complying: with health depart-
<br />ment standards for treatment, a significant number arc not.
<br />For many of these systems, treatment should be recognized
<br />as a major priority to receive immediate attention. With
<br />rapid development and the concurrent increase in septic
<br />tanks and leaching fields, the onc:e virgin water available to
<br />some agencies is disappearing. This is particularly a matter
<br />of concern in the mountain portions of the study area.
<br />
<br />A significant number of well users are either unaware of
<br />or unconcerned with the State Engineer's requirements for
<br />augmentation. For these agencies, acquisition of sUI'face
<br />rights and the filing of augmentation plans also should be
<br />given an early priority. For all agencies, the acquisition and
<br />development of supply, with its attendant costs, will be the
<br />major concern in the future.
<br />These comments pertain only to certain aspects of
<br />service and to certain agencies. The majority of agencies in
<br />the study area are doing a good job, within often tight
<br />constraints, of supplying water to their customers.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />0783
<br />
|