I’m confused.

Dave Schmidt, the City’s water rights consultant, has been working on our water issues for five years.  

In 2005, “Mr. Schmidt stated that the City had ample water under the existing water rights to run the City and even if the City was to grow there would be enough water to meet the increased demands.” and “that there was enough water to meet the demands of any growth.”

He also noted “The City would be selling water to the coal plant at 4.6 million gallons per day.”

In 2004, we had the water service agreement with IMC. That agreeement is for 1,500 gpm, or 2,419 Acre feet (AF).

in 2005, we have the water service agreement with SME. That agreement is for 3,200 gpm or 4,850 AF.

In 2007, we have the agreement with Montgomery Energy, for 1,500 gpm.

1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs, IMC
1,500 gpm = 3.34 cfs, ME
3,200 gpm = 7.13 cfs, SME
Add them up and you get 13.81 cfs.

During the meeting regarding Montgomery, Commissioner Rosenbaum inquired what portion of that reservation has the City now proven up on, or potentially proven up on. Ms. Balzarini answered that the City has a total of 11.5 cubic feet. Between this plant, the Highwood Generating Station and the malting plant, she believes that leaves another three cubic feet.

Now lets look at the report WRSI recently submitted to the City.

In this report, Mr. Schmidt has outlined the City water rights, reservations, use, projected future use, and long term strategies the city should take to ensure sufficient water is available to meet the likely demands of its citizens as well as foreseeable economic development and growth in the future.   

Of note are the quantities of water.

SME- 5.49 cfs
IMC- .67 cfs (originally 3.34, 80% of which is leased from FWP. If the 10 year lease is not renewed, we are required to supply water under the original agreement.)
ME- 3.28 cfs

Total=9.44 to 12.11 out of 11.5 cfs. You will, I’m sure, notice the discrepancies between the report and the service agreements. Funny Ms. Balzarini didn’t, since she is a numbers person.

I also find it a bit troubling that Ms. B also ”looked at the flow of the river in the area that it will be drawing from. The flow is reflected in cubic feet per second. The river, at its lowest point in September of 2001, had 3,867 cubic feet per second. This plant will be using between 1.2 and 2.3 cubic feet per second. Basically, it will be using .06 percent of the flow on the lowest point, and that was assuming it was using the 1.5 million gallons.”

Using the 1.5 million gallons would be 3.34, not 2.3. September, 2001 was not the lowest flow for the year, or the lowest flow on record. I can find no reason this date was picked.

Lets look at SME. The water services contract says 3,200 gpm = 7.13 cfs = 4,850 AF. This is the amount of water in the RUS app and the final EIS. So why does the WRS study say 5.49 cfs, or 3,999 af.

Why is the water use suddenly decreased, and what happens if the plant were to need more water than that?
 

6 March 2008 | Life | Comments