LEE CREEK! Last Chance -by Nov 30 (Corrected AGAIN- 30th)

[Sasquatch]

My statement

Ms. Laura Cameron
I believe everyone in this great country should have a renewable source of drinking water. I also believe that the RVRWD deserves its own control over said water source. That being said I have also known for years and in past meetings the RVRWD alternate agenda is to have a recreation lake.
Knowing that the RVRWD has pushed and succeeded on a relaxing stance on the ERW for the purpose of drinking water only. Because the red flag here is, what will stop them from changing THAT status once and if the Pine Mountain dam is built? Not to mention the precedence this is setting up to allow other ERW streams in ARKANSAS to also be DAMMED!
As we go forward in this millennia, during the age of GOING GREEN the thought of even considering construction or even funding a study of construction of said DAM seems middle ages.
Our great state of ARKANSAS is considered to be rural and pristine. We carry the banner of ARKANSAS THE NATURAL STATE! Building additional dams, choking off CO2 consuming forest, extinguishing endangered species, moving families and flooding our heritage would leave us in a dilemma of facing our youth with sins on our hands. Looking ahead do you want to be known as the proponent of changing the backward thinking of the RVRWD or be forever known as an integral part of the demise of the NATURAL STATE?

[Lupe]

Here's something else to say in comments:

Why aren't alternatives being seriously considered? Why is an environmentally destructive, economically costly option being forced on tax payers, when far LESS COSTLY and MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE options exist?

Dam Lee Creek (Pine Mt Dam):

• minimum cost of $250,000,000
  years of litigation ahead
  years to build
  environmentally devastating

Horizontal Collector Wells (like Dardanelle is doing):

• $2,000,000 cost - that is less than ONE HUNDREDTH OF THE COST OF THE DAM!
  no Corp of Engineers permit needed
  most environmentally sound water intake system available according to the US EPA

Now, I can understand that we might have a hard fight to convince our citizens and our govt that we should spend a hundred times more money in order to use a more environmentally sound alternative...but that is not the case here! We are saying you can use an environmentally sound alternative and SAVE $248,000,000. That is called a win-win, and it's crazy that so much of OUR money is being WASTED debating Pine Mt Dam when this should have been put aside years ago!

[ndcanoe]

Here is a link to pretty good article about the meeting last night.
http://www.thecitywire.com/?q=node/6653

Also, while it is important to let everyone know where you stand; Don't neglect to get your comments on the record (either written or by using the court reportor). If you just show up and do not get your comments on the offical record you can easily be ignored!!

[GN YAKN]

So, how was the Fayetteville version of the non-meeting, meeting?

Anybody have a "trip" report?

Dave

[John Ware]

Here's something else to say in comments:

Dam Lee Creek (Pine Mt Dam):

• minimum cost of $250,000,000
  years of litigation ahead
  years to build
  environmentally devastating

Horizontal Collector Wells (like Dardanelle is doing):

• $2,000,000 cost - that is less than ONE HUNDREDTH OF THE COST OF THE DAM!
  no Corp of Engineers permit needed
  most environmentally sound water intake system available according to the US EPA

With all due respect, if the numbers in this thread are correct, Dardanelle is getting 5MGD from their $2M wells. The Corp says Pine Mountain Lake would yield somewhere on the order of 60MGD. So while Dardanelle's wells are still cheaper, per MGD, claiming that the wells are "ONE HUNDRETH OF THE COST OF THE DAM!" is not exactly a valid argument.

[Fish]

True. It's $0.4M/MGD compared to $4M/MGD, so it's a factor of 10 times as expensive to go with the dam for water production, not 100. Still quite significant... if all you want is water (which is most likely not what they really want).

A UA Chem E prof who is an a expert in municipal water systems and water purification spoke at a much earlier meeting and stated that getting water from the Ark. river was many times more cost efficient than getting it from a lake, even factoring in the turbidity, etc. of the Ark R. water. It's old news that it's inefficient to get more water for Van Buren by damming Lee Cr. But it's not really about drinking water, is it? It's about wanting a lake.

- Fish

[Sasquatch]

True. It's $0.4M/MGD compared to $4M/MGD, so it's a factor of 10 times as expensive to go with the dam for water production, not 100. Still quite significant... if all you want is water (which is most likely not what they really want).

A UA Chem E prof who is an a expert in municipal water systems and water purification spoke at a much earlier meeting and stated that getting water from the Ark. river was many times more cost efficient than getting it from a lake, even factoring in the turbidity, etc. of the Ark R. water. It's old news that it's inefficient to get more water for Van Buren by damming Lee Cr. But it's not really about drinking water, is it? It's about wanting a lake.

- Fish

Yep, you nailed it Fish.
I went to the NW meeting also. I was a little more informative. I talked to the Core engineers a bit. They said they have yet to be informed from the RVRWD on how much water they actually need?
I think that would be the first data you would throw out there if you really where looking at a water source for drinking, instead of a lake

[Lupe]

True. It's $0.4M/MGD compared to $4M/MGD, so it's a factor of 10 times as expensive to go with the dam for water production, not 100. Still quite significant... if all you want is water (which is most likely not what they really want)... It's old news that it's inefficient to get more water for Van Buren by damming Lee Cr. But it's not really about drinking water, is it? It's about wanting a lake.

- Fish

Edited to add: I was typing this as Sasquatch posted...it's along the same line of thought...

Well, you also have to know what the real water needs are. Ft. Smith has projected that the entire regions water needs will be less than 50 MGD per day in the year 2040 - that's Ft. Smith, Sebastian AND Crawford combined. So clearly just Crawford alone is not going to need 60MGD.

But like Fish said...I guess these arguments about economics only make sense if we're actually talking about drinking water...It all gets real fuzzy if we're talking about something else...(or if some of the people at the table are talking about something else, whether they say so or not).

(Here's where I got the water need projections: http://www.southwestarkansas.com/kfsm/fswater.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

[RomanLA]

It took a few emails and phone calls, but Mark Singleton, the Executive Director of American Whitewater, is now aware of the situation. Hopefully, they'll get involved and kick a little butt. After that great ARG rafting story, I figure they owe y'all one! Lol

[DeBo]

First of all, the 60mgd number is not the output of the Pine Mountain Dam; that number is much smaller. 60mgd is the projected water need for the entire region in 2070! In addition, I asked a Corp official about the number and was told that it is not even a real number, just RVRWDs gross estimate. The first thing the study will do is determine a more scientific prediction of true needs.

Next, horizontal wells come in all sizes. The larger ones can produce as much as 80mgd and still cost a tiny fraction of what a dam would cost.

[John Ware]

First of all, the 60mgd number is not the output of the Pine Mountain Dam; that number is much smaller. 60mgd is the projected water need for the entire region in 2070! In addition, I asked a Corp official about the number and was told that it is not even a real number, just RVRWDs gross estimate. The first thing the study will do is determine a more scientific prediction of true needs.

Next, horizontal wells come in all sizes. The larger ones can produce as much as 80mgd and still cost a tiny fraction of what a dam would cost.

Again, I'm not trying to be critical, but be careful throwing out numbers without providing sources. It does not take critics long to fact check them.

The Pine Mountain Dam General Reevaluation Study Project Management Plan (May 2009) says: As originally authorized, the Pine Mountain project would provide a municipal and industrial water supply in the amount of about 60 MGD. Previous analysis has determined that the project could be designed to provide up to 92 MGD.

Water needs...

The document goes on to say: By 2050, the members [RVRWD] are projected to have a need of about 35 MGD on average and 64 MGD peak capacity.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. released a report in July of this year on a study they conducted for the city of Fort Smith. In it, they predicted an 83.2 MGD maximum demand by 2060. The report stated Lee Creek plant can produce 15 MGD, and with additional pumping, treatment, and transmission capacity, Lake Fort Smith can produce 70 MGD - thus meeting their projected demand through 2060.

The discrepancy is in the projected water supply and demand of the region. The RVRWD cites a need for 64 MGD peak by 2050 and new water sources as early as 2018. Fort Smith says the peak for their customers will be 83.2 MGD by 2060, and that they will be able to produce up to 85 MGD by that time.

The handout sheet available at the October 26-27 meetings says: This year we will evaluate the needs for the River Valley Regional Water District. We will look at existing supplies to see how the two compare. If the needs can be met into the future, there will be no government interest in the project.

Everyone has their own interests in mind, but the fair approach is to first determine what the needs are of the region. Once our needs are determined and a yield analysis on our existing water sources is completed, there either will or will not be a supply deficit. If a deficit exists, we must find a way to accommodate it.

[Fish]

Everyone has their own interests in mind, but the fair approach is to first determine what the needs are of the region. Once our needs are determined and a yield analysis on our existing water sources is completed, there either will or will not be a supply deficit. If a deficit exists, we must find a way to accommodate it.

I agree with that. It's very hard for all parties to agree on such long range projections, and they probably won't in the end, but you have to try to estimate it and get some consensus. And it is important to get a good estimate, since people need access to clean water at an affordable price. I know I do.

However, the choice of dam vs. horizontal well would not appear to depend on the projected supply deficit - it comes down to some pretty basic (and readily understandable I would think) economic logic in choosing a solution that fits the problem. If the area we are talking about was relatively "landlocked" or in an arid region fed only by distant snowmelt sources, then a large reservoir would be a much more attractive option. However, the adjacent Arkansas R. provides a dependable flow that would meet even the most ambitious predictions of demand in the next several decades. 50 Mgd is about 75 cfs, a very small flow compared with Arkansas R. flows at Van Buren that are typically in the thousands (or often tens of thousands) of cfs. The cost per Mgd appears to be an order of magnitude lower for horizontal wells than for a dam, even accounting for concerns such as filtration, pumping, etc. Also, such wells are a more scalable solution should there be a need to adjust to actual demand. And they have much lower environmental impact and much less impact on existing property owners (the ones under the lake, not the ones who would have "lakefront" property after the lake is filled).

So the question really is: whatever the estimate demand for water in Van Buren and the surrounding area turns out to actually be, why would taxpayers (like me) think it was a good idea to build a lake like the one proposed when there is a much more attractive option available? I know why Crawford Co. would want a lake for other reasons, but "water supply" just doesn't appear to be one where the lake makes sense economically for that region.

I hope that government officials and agencies will spend our money wisely in this project (and others) and that the people in Crawford Co. will have access to clean and affordable water in the coming decades.

- Fish

[DeBo]

It is true that a lot of suspect numbers are being thrown around. The study commissioned by the RVRWD has already shown many flaws. As for the capacity of the lake, no one really knows because the last study looked at more than one elevation.

Again, I asked the engineer about the number and was told, in person, that it was a rough projection and would have to be examined.

As for the capacity of a large collector well, the 80mgd number comes directly from the company.

Here is a discussion of the Ranney well which discusses the pros and cons:


Reassessing Ranney Wells
The ins and outs of horizontal collector wells
By D. Scott Riegert

Ranney wells have come a long way since Leo Ranney installed the first horizontal collector well in the 1920s. These high-capacity wells offer an alternative to fields with many vertical wells.
Ranney wells comprise a central concrete caisson—typically 16 feet in diameter—excavated to a target depth at which well screens project laterally outward in a radial pattern. In a practice referred to as riverbank filtration, the wells are designed to induce infiltration from a nearby surface water source, combining the desirable features of groundwater and surface water supplies.
The result is an abundant, dependable supply of high-quality water with a constant temperature, low turbidity, and low levels of undesirable constituents such as viruses and bacteria. Riverbank filtration also provides an additional barrier to reduce precursors that might form disinfection byproducts during treatment.

Ranney wells, which consist of a central concrete caisson, are designed to induce infiltration from a nearby surface-water source.
Ranney wells have been designed with capacities from 2 to 80 mgd and cover a wide range of applications. Design options for the lateral screens are nearly endless, so the wells can be installed in various settings. In the right location, a Ranney well will produce the same volume of water as several vertical wells whileusing less area than a conventional well field. Additionally, a properly designed Ranney well has enough screens to minimize the entrance velocity of groundwater, reducing the frequency of required maintenance.
In the past, Ranney wells have been categorized by some state agencies as surface water sources because of their proximity to rivers and reliance on induced infiltration. Municipal water supplies that use Ranney wells designated as ground-water under the direct influence of surface water must decommission the wells, or upgrade treatment facilities and operator certifications to meet surface water treatment requirements. In most cases, upgrading a well presents operational and/or financial limitations the purveyor cannot overcome.
For example, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule recently promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires water sources with this designation to meet more stringent surface water treatment requirements, including two-log cycle removal of Cryptosporidium, three-log cycle removal of Giardia, and four-log cycle removal of viruses.
State regulators sometimes designated Ranney wells as “under the influence” using EPA criteria. However, this practice is changing slowly as well owners have requested reviews of these designations. This process has involved evaluating site-specific aquifer conditions, a well's specific lateral intake configurations, and properly abandoning laterals with the potential to contribute surface water. Once a well's physical and hydrogeological design is found to meet the requirements for designation as groundwater, the investigation turns to the acquisition of extensive water quality data. If these data effectively demonstrate that a well is not susceptible to microbial contaminants from surface water sources, regulators may revisit its designation.
The city of Oxford, Ohio, is working closely with the EPA's district office to test, sample, and reconfigure their radial collector well #2. It had been taken offline 10 years ago after being designated a “surface water source.” When complete, this program will result in the state's redesignation of the radial collector well as a groundwater source.
— D. Scott Riegert is a senior hydrogeologist with Leggette, Brashears & Graham Inc., Columbus, Ohio; David D. Weihrauch is the water treatment plant manager for the city of Oxford, Ohio.

Large wells have been installed on the banks of the Ohio River

[Aunt Bee]

I would hate to see families forced off their land along Lee Creek for the sake of somebody's suspicious pet project. Where do I send my comments by November 30th?

[DeBo]

Here is the contact info for your comments:


"Written comments about the alternatives should be provided to Ms. Laura Cameron, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 867, Little Rock, AR 72203-0867. If you should have any questions concerning this request, please contact Ms. Laura Cameron by phone at (501) 324-5037 or by e-mail at laura.l.cameron@usace.army.mil for clarification or discussion. Scoping comments will be accepted until November 30, 2009."

Thanks for sending you comments to the Corp.