Rural Water District No. 5

Douglas County

Study SessionMay 17, 2007

The Importance of Planning

Historical Overview

• 370 Subscribers in 1975

• Original Water Purchase Contract:– Meter Cap of 800– One Percent Annual Growth Upon Reaching the

Cap– Meter Cap Applied Even If Additional Sources of

Water Were Secured– City Intent to Control Rural Growth

Historical Overview

• Additional Water Was Acquired From Clinton Reservoir in 1990 for a Total of 183 Million Gallons Per Year

• Clinton Reservoir Fully Allocated at That Time Due to New Contracts

• District Acquired a Second Source of Supply From RWD No. 3, Douglas County, in 1993

• Meter Cap Reached by 1995• District Grew at an Average Rate of 3.95 Percent

for the First 20 Years

Historical Overview

• District Formed PWWSD No. 16 in 1995 with RWD No. 4, Douglas County

• Preliminary Report was Completed; Intake and Plant Site was Defined

• RWD No. 4 Experienced Large Board Turnover and Removed Themselves From the PWWSD in 1996

• District Did Not Pursue the Project Further

Historical Overview

• A New Water Purchase Agreement was Entered Into with The City of Lawrence in 1998

• The New Agreement Allowed Growth to 1221Benefit Units in 2010, with Zero Growth Through 2013

• District Currently Has 1127 Benefit Units with 65 Remaining to be Added

• Growth Rate From 1995 to 2007 was 2.85 Percent

Historical OverviewBenefit Unit Subscribers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Benefit Units Water Usage

Current Challenges

• Water Supply Beyond 2013– Negotiate New Water Purchase

Agreement with the City of Lawrence

– PWWSD No. 25 • Groundwater Supply• Surface Water Supply

– New Clinton lake WTP

Water Supply Challenges

• New Agreement– Least Capital Cost– Most Restrictive

• Meter Restrictions• Quantity Restrictions

– Rapidly Increasing Price– No Ownership– Diminishing Raw Water Supply

Due to Silting

Water Supply Challenges

• PWWSD No. 25 (Groundwater)– Significant Capital Cost– Non-Restrictive– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase

Price– Ownership as Voting Member– May Require Membership in Kansas

River Assurance District– More Political Hurdles than Surface

Water Option

Water Supply Challenges

• PWWSD No. 25 (Surface Water)– Significant Capital Cost– Non-Restrictive– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase

Price– Ownership as Voting Member– Will Require Water Marketing

Contract– Minimal Political Hurdles– Diminishing Raw Water Supply Due to

Silting

Water Supply Challenges

• New Clinton Lake Facility– Significant Capital Cost– Reduces Opportunity for PWWSD

Due to Water Availability– Initial Price May Exceed Purchase

Price– District Would Be Sole Owner– Would Utilize Existing Water

Marketing Contract– Significant Political Hurdles– Diminishing Raw Water Supply Due to

Silting

Water SupplyCurrent Activity

• New Agreement– Initial Review of Existing

Agreement Complete– Waiting to Submit Draft

Changes for Discussion with District on Annexation Issues

Water SupplyCurrent Activity

• PWWSD No. 25 – Water Rights Application Pending

DWR Approval– Plant Site Options Being

Developed– Discussion Will Soon be Held

with USDA Rural Development Regarding Funding Options

Annexation Challenges

Annexation Challenges

• Approximately 434 Customers Within Urban Growth Area (After Additions)

• Geographic Area of UGA– Minimal Compared to Entire

District– Operation and Maintenance Costs

Will Not Reduce Proportionately