lake mead intake no. 3 - nevada...
TRANSCRIPT
Lake Mead Intake No. 3
1
PUMPING STATION
Lake Mead Intake No. 3Total Project Scope
INTAKE 1
INTAKE 2
WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
INTAKE STRUCTURE
ACCESS SHAFTS
CONNECTOR TUNNEL
2
Lake Mead Intake No. 3Total Project Scope
INTAKE 1
INTAKE 2
WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
INTAKE STRUCTURE
ACCESS SHAFTS
CONNECTOR TUNNEL
Vegas Tunnel Constructors
- 60% Complete -
Barnard - Complete -
Renda Pacific- 50% Complete -
3
Timeline of Intake Issues and Events
59%
25%
53% 51%
73%68%
102%105%
62%
Normal River Flow
88%
73%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 4
C-2
Timeline of Intake Issues and Events
Normal River Flow
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Lake
Mea
d E
leva
tion
(feet
)
59%
25%
53% 51%
73%68%
102%105%
62%
88%
73%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
5
Timeline of Intake Issues and Events
Water Quality
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Lake
Mea
d E
leva
tion
(feet
)
59%
25%
53% 51%
73%68%
102%105%
62%
88%
73%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Normal River Flow
Water Quality
Concernsat Intake
No. 1 ConstructPipe
Extension for Intake
No. 1Evaluation
of Pipe Extension for Intake
No. 2
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
CWC Outfall
6
C-3
Timeline of Intake Issues and Events
Pumping Capacity & Water QualityWater Quality
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Lake
Mea
d E
leva
tion
(feet
)
59%
25%
53% 51%
73%68%
102%105%
62%
88%
73%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Normal River Flow
Water Quality
Concernsat Intake
No. 1 ConstructPipe
Extension for Intake
No. 1Evaluation
of Pipe Extension for Intake
No. 2
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
1% Evaluation of Tunnel
Alternatives for Intake
No. 3Intake No. 3
Added to Capital Plan
Design of Intake No. 3
Construction of Intake No. 3
CWC Outfall
7
Underlying Intake No. 3 Factors• Lake Mead is the primary
water source for So. Nevada – 90% of supply
• No guarantees on:– Lake water quality– Lake water level
• Nevada is responsible for:– Water treatment– Water conveyance
When lake water level was high, as it was from 1975 to 2000, there were no difficulties achieving water quality and water conveyance objectives.
8
C-4
Lake Mead Historic Water Elevations
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
feet
abo
ve s
ea le
vel
In the month of January each year
1971SNWS became
operational
Source: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead-elv.html
9
Water Quality Concerns in 2002
• Beginnings of an extreme drought– Rapidly declining lake
levels– Decreasing lake water
quality• Increasingly stringent
water quality regulations• Increasing concern about
climate change effects
108011001120114011601180120012201240
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Lake Elev. feet
10
C-5
Lake Elevation 1,169-ft.
Las Vegas Wash DischargePrimary Source of Undesirable Constituents
Existing Intakes
Las Vegas Wash
Colorado River
Hoover Dam
Algae growth at the surface – an indicator of many other constituents
2004 Computer Model Results 11
Intake 1
Intake 2
Water Quality of Lake Mead
Typical August Temp. Profile
Saddle Island
Intakes below the thermocline substantially avoid the impactsof poor water quality effects from Las Vegas Wash discharges
86
82
79
75
72
68
64
61
57
54
50
Temp.(°F)
Thermocline Thermocline
12
C-6
Intake 1
Intake 2
Water Quality of Lake Mead
Typical November Temp. Profile
Saddle Island
Intakes below the thermocline substantially avoid the impactsof poor water quality effects from Las Vegas Wash discharges
86
82
79
75
72
68
64
61
57
54
50
Temp.(°F)
Thermocline Thermocline
13
Intake 1
Intake 2
Water Quality of Lake Mead
Typical January Temp. Profile
Saddle Island
Intakes below the thermocline substantially avoid the impactsof poor water quality effects from Las Vegas Wash discharges
86
82
79
75
72
68
64
61
57
54
50
Temp.(°F)
14
C-7
Lake Elevation 1,150-ft
Impact of Lower Lake Level in 2002
INTAKE NO. 2
INTAKE NO. 1
Thermocline
INTAKE NO. 1
15
Lake Elevation 1,126-ft. (Aug 2004)
Initial Water Quality Responseto Lower Lake Level
INTAKE NO. 2
INTAKE NO. 1
( gThermocline
16
C-8
Water Level 1,126-ft.
86
82
79
75
72
68
64
61
57
54
50
Temp.(°F)
Saddle Island
Intake 1
Intake 2
Water Quality of Lake MeadAug. 2004
Thermocline Thermocline
17
• At lower lake levels, intakes downstream of Las Vegas Wash would be impacted by degraded water quality
• Additional water treatment processes would be required to meet new regulations for treating water from:
1. Above the Thermocline or
2. Close to Wastewater Discharge Source• These additional treatment process could cost hundreds
of millions of dollars (estimated in 2004 - current estimates are closer to $1 billion)
Water Quality Factors Relative toNew Intake Alternatives
18
C-9
Lake Mead End-of-Calendar Year Elevation
BOR’s simulation assumed mandatory shortages would be imposed oncombined Colorado River water use to absolutely protect a lake elevation of1,000 feet. There is no guarantee for protecting a lake elevation of 1,000 feet.Below elevation 1,000 feet, SNWA Intake No. 2 becomes inoperable.
940
960
980
1000
1020
1040
1060
1080
1100
1120
1140
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Mea
d Po
ol E
leva
tion
(ft) Initial Mead Elevation
1125-ft.
Applying 1953 to 1973 runoff pattern to future years
SimulatedActual
Computer Simulation by BOR in 2004
Intake 1
Intake 2
19
• Water demands are rapidly increasing.
• If lake level falls below 1,050-ft, Intake No. 1 will be out of service.
• Total system capacity will be reduced from 900 mgd to less than 600 mgd
Relevant Conditions in 2003-2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1080
1100
1120
1140
1160
1180
1200
1220
1240
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Lake Elev. (ft.)
Water Demand
(mgd)
20
C-10
Conclusion in 2004
• Only a third intake tunnel could address both:
– Water quality and
– Pumping capacity
at very low lake levels
21
Thermocline Thermocline
Water Surface 1,000-ft.
86
82
79
75
72
68
64
61
57
54
50
Temp.(°F)
Intake 1
Intake 2
Saddle Island
Target Depth for
New Intake
Water Quality of Lake Mead
22
C-11
Stakeholder Participants inBroad-based Community Decision Making
Presentations and discussions on the third intake concepts were conducted with the following stakeholders from 2004 to 2005:
• Water Purveyor Technical Managers
• City, County and Water Agency General Managers
• Clean Water Coalition
• Integrated Water Planning Advisory Committee
• Colorado River Basin States
• SNWA Board Members
23
Shortlist of CWC Outfall Alternatives in 2004SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSShhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooorrttlliiissssttttttttt oooooooooooooooooooffffffffffffffffff CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCWWWWWWWWWWCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC OOOOOOOOOOOOuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttttffffffffffffffffffffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000044444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
SentinelIsland
Boulder CanyonIntake
CallvilleBay Tower
Intake
Black Canyon Intake
Black IslandIntake
IPS-3
AMSWTF
Las Vegas Wash
LegendSubmarine Pipe TunnelOpen Cut PipelineIntake Alternates
Saddle Island
Black Island Intake Alternative 24
C-12
Saddle Island
Las Vegas Wash
Intake 1
Intake 2
Tunnel Alternatives Black Island
• Allows installation of pumping station, pipelines, and power lines very close to existing SNWA facilities.
• The tunnel would be long and would cross under the Las Vegas Wash.
• Intake would be upstream of Las Vegas Wash (near Black Island).
• A pipe could extend intake farther upstream for improved water quality, if necessary.
Intake 3
25
1200 ft.1140 ft.1100 ft.1080 ft.1060 ft.1040 ft.1020 ft.1000 ft.980 ft.980 ft.
Saddle Island
Hoover Dam
Boulder Islands
Callville Bay
Las Vegas Bay
IPS-3
Tunnel Alternatives
26
C-13
27
Lake Elevation 1,000-ft.Algae growth at the surface – an indicator of many other constituents
Existing Las Vegas Wash Discharge
2004 Computer Model Results
Selected Intake Location
Existing Intakes
28
C-14
1,000-ft.1,050-ft.
Intake No. 2
Intake No. 3
~ 1/3 mile
Tunnel Alternatives
~ 3 miles
Intake No. 1
860-ft.
29
• Meets both water quality and pumping capacity objectives– Facilitates construction of an intake upstream of LV
Wash to secure desired water quality benefits, including reduced treatment costs.
– Preserves the ability to pump water at lake levels at least as low as for the existing Intake No. 2 and even deeper, if needed.
• Provides good operational flexibility for changing conditions
2004 Tunnel Conclusions
30
C-15
All revenue streams have been impacted.
Funding Sources
Sources of FundsFY 2005/2006
Sources of FundsFY 2009/2010
Wholesale Delivery Charge
Regional Connection
Charge
CommodityCharge
Sales TaxReliabilitySurcharg
e
Sales TaxWholesale
Delivery Charge
CommodityCharge
Regional Connection
Charge
ReliabilitySurcharg
e
31
Small water systems throughout rural Clark County benefit from the sales tax
Sales Tax Helps Small Systems
Boulder City $7,794,748Virgin Valley $8,160,987Laughlin $7,031,772Moapa Valley $3,289,505Big Bend $571,480 Kyle Canyon $567,407Jean $382,602Searchlight $319,456Blue Diamond $148,245
32
C-16
• Infrastructure sales tax will sunset in June 2025, or when $2.3 billion has been collected, whichever occurs first.
• Over the past decade, the tax has generated approximately $823 million, with the SNWA retaining $509 million.
• Clark County is the only county where a sunset on its sales tax was imposed, making it difficult to be used for long-term bonding of water projects.
• The quarter-cent sales tax enhances the credit worthiness of bonds backed only by revenues.
Why do we need SB 432?
33
Why do we need SB 432?
• The Infrastructure Sales Tax law is enabling; county commissions decide to impose it
• SB 432 treats all counties equally by removing the state limitation on Clark County
• Clark County is still required to review the tax at least once every 10 years and vote to continue imposition
• Without the sales tax, water rates will have to generate at least $42 million more each year to make up the lost revenue 34
C-17