Field of View Case Study

1. Field of View Case Study Sustained Compliance for Public Water Systems, Chapter 2, Workshop Department of Environmental Conservation Drinking Water Program Anchorage, September 30, 2011 Jeff Warner Program Coordinator 376-1861 jeff.warner@alaska.gov

2. Presentation Outline • Purpose of the study • Background information about the system • Indications of a problem • Additional challenges • Searching for a new source • Plans for resolution of water quality/quantity • Communication with homeowners

3. Background Information • Initial construction of the water system began in 2004 • Well drilled in September 2004 • 145 feet deep • Flow tested for 4 hours = 30 gpm • System designed for 17 service connections • 600 gallons per day per home = 15,300 gallons per day • Well yield = 43,200 gallons per day

5. Background Information • Original water system design • 2,000 gallon storage tank (required 1,700 gallons of storage) • 2 booster pumps • Three 36 gallon pressure tanks Pressure Tanks Well Booster Pumps Storage Tank To Distribution System

6. Background Information • Final Approval to Operate granted in December 2005 • Approval to Construct granted in December 2005 • Mainline extension and additional 17 service connections for a total of 34 service connections • Approval to Construct granted in June 2006 • Mainline extension and additional 20 lots for a total of 54 service connections on the system • Original plans projected full build-out within 5-10 years

7. Something’s Wrong!! • In 2006, the system began experiencing turbidity • In January 2008, construction approval was granted for a coagulation and filtration treatment system • In July 2008, approval to operate was granted for 50% of the treatment system (2 of 4 required filters) • less than 27 of 54 service connections completed

8. Something’s Wrong • Documented complaints began in May, 2008 • Water is gray, but sediment settled out over time • Turbidity treatment went on-line in July 2008 • 2 of 4 filters installed • Maintenance issues with filters • Supplementing the well with hauled water • Well production had decreased by two thirds • Complaint in June, 2009 • Water “turned to mud”

9. Field of View Water Directly from the tap After settling for 10 days

10. Time to look for a new source • Original well producing 5 gpm • Drilled in six additional locations throughout the subdivision • Where’s all the water?????? • In March, 2009, they finally hit water in well #7. • Initial flow test produced 10 gpm • Within a couple months, production dropped to 5 gpm

12. Drill Baby Drill! • Well #1 – Drilled in 2004 Initial output of 30 GPM By 2009, output had decreased to 5 gpm • Well #2 – Drilled in 2004 Status: Initially produced but quickly diminished to 0 gpm • Well #3 – Drill date unknown Located several lots away from Well #1 Status: DRY • Well #4 - Drill date unknown Located on a separate tract from Well #1 Status: DRY • Well #5 - Drill date unknown Located on a separate tract from Well #1 Status: DRY • Well #5 – Drilled in 2009 Located on a separate tract from Well #1 Status: DRY • Well #7 – Drilled in March 2009 Depth – 340 feet Output of 5-6 gpm • Currently wells #1 & #7 are connected to the system with a combined output of approximately 10 gpm

13. What else can go wrong? • Summary of challenges at this point: • Well production drastically dropped off • Means they have to buy and haul water = $$$ • Drilled 6 additional wells = $$$ • 50% staffed on maintenance staff • Due to other expenses, staff was not getting paid • Diminished water quality • Staining appliances = $$$ • Silt clogging dishwashers/washing machines = $$$ • Homeowners paying water bills

14. Something has to change • New system owner/operator • Took over in February 2010 • Review of records • Meetings with homeowners • Develop a plan to resolve the quality/quantity issue

15. Weighing the Options • Find a new aquifer within the subdivision • Hydro-geologic evaluation of the area • Fractured bedrock with very small veins of ground water • Connect to existing system on neighboring property • Grouse Ridge Subdivision • Individual low producing wells, privately owned • Private owners • Develop a man-made surface water source • Security issues + expenses = unattractive option

17. It’s good to have a plan! • …but how are we going to pay for it? • Sources of funding • Rate payers (homeowners) • Private lenders • USDA Rural Development • DEC, Municipal Grants and Loans • Budget • Plan for the future (5-10 years out) • Communications with homeowners

18. And now, the rest of the story… • October 2011 – Engineering submitted to DEC, loan agreement finalized • November 2011 – Award construction contract • December 2011 – Begin construction • Well house, excavation work, HDPE installation etc. • March 2012 – MEA electrical main installation • May 2012 – Finalize mechanical work • June 2012 – Bring new well on-line • August 2012 – Decommission all existing (old) wells

19. Summary • Purpose of the study • Background information about the system • Indications of a problem • Additional challenges • Searching for a new source • Plans for resolution of water quality/quantity

20. Resources and Contacts • State of Alaska/DEC/Drinking Water Program file – Field of View Park, PWSID #220135 • State of Alaska/DEC/Drinking Water Protection/Anne Gleason – GIS Maps • State of Alaska/DNR/Division of Mining, Land and Water Hydrologic Survey • Ben Winkler – Oasis Water LLC • oasis@ewaterpro.com