Overview and Project Approach  Clinton is currently experiencing surface water supply shortages in their raw water source, Clinton Lake, and has been relying solely on their treated water allocation from the Foss Reservoir.  A long-term water study was conducted by Garver USA, LLC, and the City requested that Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. (PEC) review the findings and develop recommendations.  Project Approach: – Revise population projection and water demand – Identify potential surface water sources – Identify potential ground water sources – Determine raw water source recommendations based on establishing a diverse water source portfolio

Population and Water Demand YearPopulation Average Daily Demand (MGD) Residential Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) Residential Average Daily Demand (MGD) Residential + Commercial Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) Residential + Commercial , , , , , , , , , , ,

Existing Sources  Clinton Lake – Good water quality – Very low water levels and small drainage basin – Water treatment plant capable of producing 2.5 MGD – Due to low lake levels, the water treatment plant has not been in operation since November 2011  Foss Reservoir – Poor water quality – Able to provide Clinton with 0.7 – 2.19 MGD – Water treatment plant in poor condition  Burns Flat Well Field – Unknown water quality – Located on the Elk City aquifer – City has water rights for approximately 0.2 MGD – Existing well field has not been used in 40 years – Low existing well yields Clinton Lake – June 2012 Foss Reservoir – February 2011

Potential Sources - Purchasing Water  City of Clinton purchasing water from east Custer County – Known well fields currently using the aquifer as a source. – The amount of water provided to Clinton would depend on supplier’s demand and treatment capability. – Arsenic is found in some areas and would require treatment. – Purchasing water would require a pipeline.

Potential Sources - Surface Water LakeCounty Distance from City of Clinton Area (acres) Capacity (acre-feet) Water Quality Water Availability Foss Reservoir Custer9.5 miles8,800256,220PoorFair Clinton Lake Washita-3353,980GoodPoor Fort Cobb Reservoir Caddo30 miles4,10080,010GoodFair Rocky Lake Washita20 miles3504,120Poor Lugert-Altus Reservoir Greer35 miles6,260132,830GoodFair

Potential Sources - Ground Water AquiferArea (acres) Minimum Yield (MGD) Maximum Yield (MGD) Dissolved Solids (mg/L) Distance from City (miles) Rush Springs 896, < Elk City 193,

Alternatives  Alternative 1 – Construction of a transmission line from the Lugert-Altus Reservoir, and either augmenting Clinton Lake or directly treating it. – While the Lugert-Altus Reservoir is currently experiencing lower water levels, it has the largest drainage basin of the surface water options, and has the highest probability of recovery. – Requires construction of an intake structure, pipeline, easements, and upgrading of the water treatment plant.  Alternative 2 – Obtain water rights and construct a well field in the Rush Springs aquifer. – Would require little treatment, and could be put directly into the distribution system. – Requires construction of a well field, transmission line and a disinfection station.  Alternative 3 – Construction of a transmission line from the Lugert-Altus Reservoir and the well field at the Rush Springs aquifer. – Could fill Clinton Lake and treat with existing water treatment plant. – Rush Springs well field to provide a yield of approximately 1.3 MGD.

Alternative Cost Estimates  Alternative 1 – Total = $16,475, – Does not include easements or upgrades to the water treatment plant.  Alternative 2 – Minimum Yield Total = $12,575, – Maximum Yield Total = $11,975, – Does not include easements.  Alternative 3 – Lugert-Altus Total = $16,475, – Rush Springs Total = $11,975, – Total = $28,450, – Assuming maximum yield from well field. – Does not include easements. – Phased construction over several years. Phase 1 is Burns Flat well field improvements. Phase 2 is the Rush Springs well field – completed incrementally. Phase 3 is the construction of the transmission line from the Lugert-Altus Reservoir.

Water Conservation Recommendations – Clinton should begin a mandatory water conservation policy with the goal to limit the maximum daily demand to 2.19 MGD. – Residents of Clinton should be required to limit their water usage and minimize non- essential water usage. – The residents should be made active participants in water conservation with incentives to comply and fines for non-compliance. – The highest industrial users should explore water reuse options. – Water from irrigation wells with poor water quality should be utilized with point-of-use treatment.

Raw Water Supply Recommendations  Diverse raw water supply – Foss Reservoir Continue to utilize their allotment Only dependable water source available in the short term – Burns Flat Well Field Investigate the existing well field on the Elk City aquifer for yield and water quality Inspect, rehabilitate the wells, stand pipe and transmission lines Phase 1 construction – Cost Estimate Range: $5,396, to $10,331, – Rush Springs Well Field Obtain water rights Phase 2 construction – based on water demand, and to be completed incrementally – Cost Estimate Range: $11,975, to $12,575, – Lugert-Altus Reservoir Obtain water rights Phase 3 construction – Cost Estimate $16,475,500.00

Fort Cobb Reservoir Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, TRAFFIC CONTROL1LS $ 2, WATER LINE158,400LF $ $ 13,464, INTAKE STRUCTURE1LS $ 750, ADJUSTMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES1LS $ 5, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 14,231,500.00

Rocky Lake Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, TRAFFIC CONTROL1LS $ 2, WATER LINE105,600LF $ $ 8,976, INTAKE STRUCTURE1LS $ 750, ADJUSTMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES1LS $ 5, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 9,743,500.00

Lugert-Altus Reservior Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, TRAFFIC CONTROL1LS $ 2, WATER LINE184,800LF $ $ 15,708, INTAKE STRUCTURE1LS $ 750, ADJUSTMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES1LS $ 5, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 16,475,500.00

Rush Springs Minimum Yield Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, GROUNDWATER WELL11EA $ 100, $ 1,100, WATER LINE132,000LF $ $ 11,220, WELL HOUSE1LS $ 200, TESTING1LS $ 30, CLEAN UP1LS $ 15, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 12,575,000.00

Rush Springs Maximum Yield Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, GROUNDWATER WELL5EA $ 100, $ 500, WATER LINE132,000LF $ $ 11,220, WELL HOUSE1LS $ 200, TESTING1LS $ 30, CLEAN UP1LS $ 15, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 11,975,000.00

Elk City Minimum Yield Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, GROUNDWATER WELL125EA $ 100, $ 12,500, WATER LINE105,600LF $ $ 8,976, WELL HOUSE1LS $ 200, TESTING1LS $ 30, CLEAN UP1LS $ 15, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 21,731,000.00

Elk City Maximum Yield Cost Estimate ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, GROUNDWATER WELL11EA $ 100, $ 1,100, WATER LINE105,600LF $ $ 8,976, WELL HOUSE1LS $ 200, TESTING1LS $ 30, CLEAN UP1LS $ 15, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 10,331,000.00

Burns Flat Well Field ITEMDESCRIPTIONQUAN.UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION1LS $ 10, GROUNDWATER WELL20EA $ 100, $ 2,000, WATER LINE36,960LF $ $ 3,141, WELL HOUSE1LS $ 200, TESTING1LS $ 30, CLEAN UP1LS $ 15, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 5,396,600.00