SJRA and the Catahoula November 7, 2011

1. SJRA AND THE
CATAHOULA
November 7, 2011

2. Table of Contents
• SJRA GRP Plan (2 slides)
• What is known or needs to be known about the Catahoula?
(12 slides)
• How are questions about the Catahoula answered? (11
slides)
• How is the feasibility of Catahoula water different from the
use of brackish water in other areas of the state? (4 slides)
• How is the feasibility of Catahoula water different between an
individual water system operator and a regional water system
operator? (2 slides)
• Conclusions (4 slides)
• Questions?

3. SJRA GRP Plan
• Objective
• Develop and implement the most cost-effective regional strategy to
reliably provide quality drinking water in meeting regulatory
compliance for all GRP Participants while also developing
additional water supplies to supplement and extend existing
surface water all in a manner which appropriately and
professionally manages risks and protects the health and welfare of
all consumers.
• Results
• LSGCD approval of largest Joint GRP.
• Executed contracts with 84 LVGUs representing more that 80% by
volume of demand of Montgomery County.
• Established active/engaged GRP Review Committee to review all
activities.
• Design, land acquisition, permitting underway.

4. SJRA GRP Plan
• Use of existing known, sustainable, renewable and reliable
surface water supply in Phase 1
• Meet LSGCD regulatory requirements
• Phase 1 Surface Water Facilities - $1.41/1000 gallons
• Raw water intake and pump station
• Water treatment plant (30 mgd) with robust process
• Finished water storage
• Phase 1 Delivery System - $1.04/1000 gallons
• Finished water pump station
• Extensive transmission (57 miles) and delivery network (18 plants)
• Thoroughly evaluate alternative strategies for future use
• Brackish groundwater (Catahoula Aquifer)
• Wastewater reuse
• Additional surface water
• Conservation
• Drought Management

5. What is known or needs to be known
about the Catahoula?

6. TWDB Report on Brackish Groundwater
• “..almost 2.7 billion acre-feet of brackish groundwater that may
be available for use in the state.”
• Region H
• TDS - 1000 to 3000 mg/L = 60,814,000 acre-feet
• TDS – 3000 to 10,000 mg/L = 25,018,000 acre-feet
• Productivity “High”
• Production Costs “Low to Moderate”
• “To be usable, brackish groundwater needs to be treated
(desalinated).” Without treatment, brackish water can cause
scaling and corrosion problems in water wells and piping..”
• “Conclusions ..There are, however difficulties associated with
implementing such projects that can be particularly challenging
for smaller communities. Chief among them are managing the
desalination waste and predicting the long-term performance of
brackish groundwater aquifers.”
Report 365: Aquifers on the Gulf Coast of Texas, Texas Water Development Board (February
2006)

7. Location
• Proximity to supply, treatment, storage, disposal,
distribution and demand
• Impacts from above and
below ground interferences
• Impacts to environmentally
sensitive areas
• Community impact
necessity and mitigation

8. Conventional Water Plant
Distribution
System
Well Storage Booster
(Evangeline Pump
or Jasper)

9. Depth
• Impacts cost of drilling and energy to produce water
• Contributes to quality and temperature of water
(feet) (feet)
400 400
0 0
-400 -400
-800 -800
-1200 -1200
-1600 -1600
-2000 -2000
-2400 -2400
-2800 -2800
-3200 -3200
-3600 -3600
-4000 -4000
-4400 -4400
-4800 -4800
-5200 -5200
-5600 -5600
-6000 -6000
0 4 8 12 16 MILES

10. Quantity
• Unknown long-term consequences
• Impacted by pumpage over prolonged period of time
• Impacted by ability of aquifer to recharge/replenish
• Impacted by number and location of adjacent wells

11. Quality
• Unknown long-term consequences
• Impacted by pumpage over prolonged period of time
• Impacted by contaminants in sands
• May degrade over time
• Required to meet Federal and State requirements
• Inorganics (arsenic, barium, etc.)
• Organics
• Radionuclides (Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium 226, Radium
228, Uranium, Radon 222, etc.)
• Secondary Constituents (aluminum, chlorides, iron, manganese,
Total Dissolved Solids, taste, odor, etc.)
• Possible risks to consumers (high blood
pressure, health conditions)
• Requires effective treatment

12. Disposal of Wastes
• Deep well injection
• Surface water disposal
• Hauling to disposal facility
• Environmental, permitting, and cost issues

13. Temperature
• Potentially > 110OF
• Preferable by customers = 68OF
• Require cooling towers
for reduction to ambient
temperature
• Additional cooling may
be required

14. Reliability
• Unknown long-term
• Adversely affected by extensive pumpage
• Dependent on no deterioration of water quality
• Dependent on no deterioration of water quantity
• Impacted by interconnectivity of sand layers

15. Regulatory - LSGCD
• Protect sustainability of Evangeline and Jasper Aquifers
• Currently only 30% reduction by January 1, 2016
• Future increased reduction requirement may impact
feasibility
• Potential restrictions on water withdrawals, well spacing
• Possible pumpage fees on withdrawal
• State law may force regulation if pumpage impacts
neighboring counties

16. Costs
• Impacted significantly by facility &
infrastructure requirements
• Production wells (depth drives pumps/motors, power usage)
• Well collection lines (geographical dispersion drives needs)
• Water treatment (contaminants and drinking water standards drive
process)
• Storage (required if blending other water supplies)
• Cooling systems (temperature of groundwater drives needs)
• Waste disposal (type of waste, environmental constraints and
accessibility of disposal sites drives methods)
• Transmission/distribution lines (geographical
location of end users drives needs)

17. Funding/Financial Stability
• Impacted by unproven sources of water supply
• Impacted by unknown long-term reliability
• Impacted by failed or underutilized system that requires
replacement or supplement by proven water source

18. How are the questions concerning
Catahoula water answered?

19. Research
“Much of the engineering feasibility is dependent on the
quality, quantity and reliability of groundwater available for
project implementation. Thus the collection, review, and
preliminary analysis of existing data are critical.”
“One of the most important aspects of planning a brackish
groundwater desalination facility is that of accurately
characterizing the groundwater source to be used….Even
so, the location, quantity and quality of the brackish
groundwater resources in Texas vary widely and must be
evaluated individually.”
Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, (TWDB, April 2008)

20. Phased Approach
“Due to limited availability of data on brackish groundwater
in Texas, a phased approach to evaluating the feasibility of
brackish groundwater development provides the greatest
chance of ultimate success. This process allows the
project to move forward incrementally so that potential risks
and fatal flaws can be identified at the earliest possible time
and with minimal amount of capital investment. As new
information is developed, the scope of additional work can
be tailored to address project needs and minimize risk.”
Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, (TWDB, April 2008)

21. Commitment to Public Health & Welfare
“Engineers shall be entrusted to protect the health, safety,
property, and welfare of the public in the practice of their
profession.”
“Engineers shall not perform any engineering function
which, when measured by generally accepted engineering
standards or procedures, is reasonably likely to result in the
endangerment of lives, health, safety, property, or welfare
of the public.”
Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules Concerning The Practice of Engineering
and Professional Engineering Licensure, Texas Board of Professional Engineers,
September 13, 2011

22. SJRA GRP Contract
• Allows Participants to explore for alternative water
supplies
• No pumpage fees on alternative water supplies
• No restrictions on alternative water supplies
• If applicable, GRP Participant must take planned amount
of surface water

23. SJRA GRP Participation
• City of Willis
• Two wells in Catahoula
• Awaiting Texas Water Development Board Approval
• Montgomery County UD 2
• One well in Catahoula
• On hold – waiting on results of other Catahoula projects

24. Industrial Water Use Prospect
• Feasibility Study due December 2011
• Potential demonstration well – Spring 2012
• Interim Progress
• Constituents of Concern from area pilot/test data (April Sound)
• Aluminum – 0.546 to 3.360 mg/L – NDWSS recommends 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L
• Chlorides – range of 90 to 330 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 250 mg/L &
Texas Secondary Standard is 300 mg/L (max)
• Corrosivity – Langelier Index - 0.30 to – 0.70 – Non-corrosive >0
Ryzner Index ranges from 18.5 to 19.5 – Non-corrosive between 5.0 and 7.0
• Iron – 0.434 to 2.10 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.3 mg/L
• Manganese – 0.040 to 0.076 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.05 mg/L
• Total Dissolved Solids – 584 to 1000 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 500
mg/L, Texas secondary standard limit is 1000 mg/l
• Radionuclides – Radium 226 and 228 – 1.3 to 4.3 pCi/L – Primary Drinking
Water Standard limit is 5 pCi/L

25. Industrial Water Use Prospect
• Interim Progress
• Constituents of Concern from area pilot/test data (Bentwater)
• Aluminum – 0.404 to 0.704 mg/L – NDWSS recommends 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L
• Corrosivity – Langelier Index - 0.34 to – 0.73 – Non-corrosive >0
Ryzner Index ranges from 18.5 to 19.5 – Non-corrosive between 5.0 and 7.0
• Iron – 0.355 to o.383 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 0.3 mg/L
• Total Dissolved Solids – 364 to 504 mg/L – EPA recommends limit of 500 mg/L,
Texas secondary standard limit is 1000 mg/l
• Facilities – if Drinking Water Quality is desired
• Production wells from Catahoula Sandstone
• Conventional treatment
• Reverse Osmosis
• Cooling towers
• Deep well disposal of RO waste stream

26. Facilities Meeting Drinking Water Standards
• Conventional Treatment
• Removal of aluminum, barium, chlorides, iron, manganese and
turbidity to reduce membrane fouling
• Reverse Osmosis
• Remove high levels of sodium, chlorides and total dissolved solids
• 50% of plant throughput

27. Facilities Meeting Drinking Water Standards
• Capital Cost $83,479,000
• Annual O & M Cost $ 9,236,000
• Annualized Capital Cost $1.99/1000 gallons
• Annualized O & M Cost $2.53/1000 gallons
• Total Annualized Cost $4.52/1000 gallons

28. Woodlands Water Well 39

29. Woodlands Water Well 39
• Production well from Jasper Aquifer
• Drill pilot test well below Jasper Aquifer into Catahoula
• Additional 2200 feet
• Pump water for 8 hours and obtain water samples
• Store pumped water
• Dispose of pumped brackish water
• Total Additional Cost = $495,000
• Analyze laboratory results

30. How is the feasibility of Catahoula water
different from the use of brackish water in
other areas of the state?

31. San Antonio Water System
• Existing, reliable, sustainable, and renewable surface
water supply not available
• Capacity = 10.5 mgd
• Production wells = 1000 feet deep
• Salinity = 1500 ppm TDS
• Monitoring wells
• Well collection system
• Treatment facility
• Onsite waste injection well
• Existing distribution
• Capital cost = $121,000,000
• Unit cost = $4.77/1000 gallons

32. City of El Paso
• Existing, reliable, sustainable, and renewable surface
water supply not available
• Capacity = 27.5 mgd
• Rehab/Repair 17 existing production wells
• 17 new production wells screened at 400 to 900 feet deep
• Salinity = 900 to 1800 ppm TDS
• 15.5 mgd treatment facility
• Off site waste injection wells
• Pipelines (<0.25 mile transmission)
• Capital cost = $93,000,000
• Unit cost = $2.56/1000 gallons

33. Aqua Water Supply
• Capacity = 2 mgd
• Salinity = 1400 ppm TDS
• Treatment facility
• Injection well or surface disposal
• Capital cost = $14,000,000
• Unit cost = $3.08/1000 gallon deep well injection or
$2.59/1000 for surface discharge

34. Region H – MUD 8 & 9 Brackish Plan
• Capacity = 2.0 mgd
• Salinity = 1,000 to 5,000 mg/L
• Depth of well = 1700 to 2800 feet
• Treatment facility
• Total capital cost = $12,000,000
• Unit Cost = $2.66/1000 gallons
Region H Water Management Strategy Analysis, Technical Memorandum (TWDB,
December 14, 2009)

35. Summary
Project / Description Capacity Water Depth Salinity Disposal Treatment Delivery Cost Total Cost
Method Cost (per (per 1000 gal) (per 1000
1000 gal) gal)
San Antonio Water System – 10.5 1000 feet 1500 ppm Deep well $4.10 $0.67; Integration $4.77
brackish desalination study MGD injection to existing
distribution
El Paso Water Utility – 27.5 400 to 900 900 to 1800 Deep well $2.56 Assuming no cost $2.56
brackish desalination project; MGD feet ppm injection of integration to
project blends fresh water with existing
desalinated water distribution
system
Aqua WSC, Bastrop – brackish 2 MGD 1400 ppm Deep well $3.08 Assuming no cost $3.08
desalination study injection of integration to
existing
distribution
system
Montgomery Co MUD 8&9 – 2 MGD 1700 to 2800 1000 to Not stated in $2.66 Assuming no cost $2.66
Region H Technical Memo feet 5000 ppm Tech Memo of integration to
summarizing 2009 brackish (estimated) (estimated) existing
desalination study distribution
system
SJRA preliminary cost analysis 10 MGD 3000 feet 1000 ppm Deep well $4.52 $1.00; Assume $5.52
for brackish desalination injection similar to GRP
project based on recent distribution
Catahoula samples
SJRA Phase 1 GRP Project 30 MGD N/A N/A N/A $1.41 $1.04 $2.45
(surface water)

36. How is the feasibility of Catahoula water
different between an individual water
system operator and a regional water
system operator?

37. Risk – Individual System
• Possible unacceptable, unaffordable, unreliable water
supply contained locally
• Affect on public health and welfare
• Moderate investment
• Limited with no well collection system required for single
site
• Limited with use of existing distribution system or no
distribution system

38. Risk – Regional System
• Possible unacceptable, unaffordable, unreliable water
supply contained locally
• Affect on public health and welfare
• Large investment
• Extensive network for water well collection
• Extensive network for transmission and distribution

39. Conclusions

40. SJRA has done its homework!

41. SJRA GRP Plan
• Use of existing known, sustainable, renewable and reliable
surface water supply in Phase 1
• Meet LSGCD regulatory requirements
• Phase 1 Surface Water Facilities - $1.41/1000 gallons
• Raw water intake and pump station
• Water treatment plant (30 mgd) with robust process
• Finished water storage
• Phase 1 Delivery System - $1.04/1000 gallons
• Finished water pump station
• Extensive transmission (57 miles) and delivery network (18 plants)
• Thoroughly evaluate alternative strategies for future use
• Brackish groundwater (Catahoula Aquifer)
• Wastewater reuse
• Additional surface water
• Conservation
• Drought Management

42. Timeline
2012
2014
2015
2013
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2030
2023
2024
2026
2028
2029
2021
2025
2027
Phase 1 Phase 1 Luce Phase 2 Phase 2
Const. GRP Bayou In Service Delayed
Begins Deliver In With No With
Surface Service Alternative Alternative
Water Water Water
Research, Select &
Implement Alternative Water
Strategies

43. SJRA GRP Plan
The most cost-effective regional strategy to reliably
provide quality drinking water in meeting regulatory
compliance for all GRP Participants while also
developing additional water supplies to supplement and
extend existing surface water all in a manner which
appropriately and professionally manages risks and
protects the health and welfare of all consumers.

44. Questions?