FINAL
INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN Final Report CITY OF MESA PROJECT NO. CP0899
/2
02 5
20 25
BLACK & VEATCH PROJECT NO. 414131
04
2 /2
04
22
PREPARED FOR
City of Mesa APRIL 2025
In association with:
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table of Contents 1.0
2.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1
Project Background .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Report Organization ................................................................................................................. 3
Planning Framework ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Study and Services Area .......................................................................................................... 5
2.3
Water Production and Demands ............................................................................................. 8
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.3.1
Historical Water Production .................................................................................... 8
2.3.2
Historical Distribution System Non-Revenue Water .............................................. 9
2.3.3
Historical Seasonal Factors (Monthly Average) .................................................. 10
2.3.4
Historical Gallons per Capita Water Use .............................................................. 11
2.3.5
Maximum Day Demand ......................................................................................... 13
Historical Water Rates ........................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1
Water Use by Land Use Classification .................................................................. 13
2.4.2
Unit Water Demands by Land Use Classification ................................................. 15
Water Demand Projections .................................................................................................... 16 2.5.1
Vacant/Underdeveloped Land Use Classifications ............................................. 16
2.5.2
Water Demand Projections .................................................................................... 18
Wastewater Flow Projections ................................................................................................ 21 2.6.1
Historical Wastewater Flows................................................................................. 21
2.6.2
Flow Monitoring Field Test .................................................................................... 23
2.6.3
Wastewater Return Rates ...................................................................................... 25
2.6.4
Wastewater Flow Projections................................................................................ 27
Effluent Flow Projections ....................................................................................................... 27 2.7.1
Historical Effluent Flows........................................................................................ 27
2.7.2
Effluent Flow Projections....................................................................................... 30
Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 33 3.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 33
3.2
Water Resources Service Area .............................................................................................. 33
3.3
Water Resources Portfolio ..................................................................................................... 35 3.3.1
Salt River Project .................................................................................................... 36
3.3.2
Colorado River Supplies ......................................................................................... 38
3.3.3
Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 42
3.3.4
New Conservation Space Water ............................................................................ 44
3.4
Water Supply and Demand Normal Year ............................................................................... 47
3.5
Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years ............................................................................. 50 3.5.1
On-Project Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years .......................................... 51
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
i
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.5.2 3.6
Drought Mitigation Strategies................................................................................................ 55 3.6.1
4.0
ADWR Groundwater Pumping Expansion ............................................................. 55
Water System Master Plan........................................................................................................ 56 4.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 56
4.2
Water System Descriptions ................................................................................................... 56
4.3
4.4
4.2.1
Pressure Zones ...................................................................................................... 56
4.2.2
Water Treatment Plants ......................................................................................... 60
4.2.3
Groundwater Wells ................................................................................................. 60
4.2.4
Storage Reservoirs ................................................................................................. 63
4.2.5
Transfer and Booster Pumping Stations .............................................................. 64
4.2.6
Pressure Reducing Valves ..................................................................................... 65
4.2.7
Distribution Pipelines ............................................................................................. 66
4.2.8
Intergovernmental Interconnections..................................................................... 67
Water Model Development and Calibration .......................................................................... 67 4.3.1
Model Construction ............................................................................................... 67
4.3.2
Water Demand Allocation ...................................................................................... 70
4.3.3
Model Calibration ................................................................................................... 70
Water Demand Projections .................................................................................................... 73 4.4.1
4.5 4.6
4.7
4.8
Buildout and Intermediate Year Demands and Allocation................................... 76
Water Production Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 76 4.5.1
5.0
Off-Project Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years.......................................... 53
Seasonal Water Balance ........................................................................................ 77
Water System Evaluations ..................................................................................................... 77 4.6.1
Water Distribution System Criteria ........................................................................ 78
4.6.2
Water Distribution System Assessment Results.................................................. 83
4.6.3
Maximum Day Capacity Assessment ................................................................... 89
4.6.4
Water Quality Assessment .................................................................................. 107
4.6.5
Pipe Criticality Assessment ................................................................................. 112
Improvements Identified Out-Side of IMP........................................................................... 114 4.7.1
Interconnect Pipelines ......................................................................................... 114
4.7.2
Future Groundwater Wells ................................................................................... 117
Recommended Improvements ............................................................................................ 118
Wastewater System Master Plan ............................................................................................ 122 5.1
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 122
5.2
Wastewater System Description ......................................................................................... 122
5.3
5.2.1
Gravity Mains ........................................................................................................ 125
5.2.2
Lift Stations and Force Mains ............................................................................. 125
5.2.3
Water Reclamation Facilities ............................................................................... 132
5.2.4
Summary of WRP Design Capacities .................................................................. 136
Wastewater Model Development and Calibration .............................................................. 136
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
ii
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4
6.0
Model Construction ............................................................................................. 136
5.3.2
Wastewater Flow Allocation ................................................................................ 139
5.3.3
Wastewater Model Calibration ............................................................................ 139
Wastewater System Evaluations ......................................................................................... 143 5.4.1
Wastewater Collection System Performance Criteria ....................................... 144
5.4.2
Wastewater Collection System Assessment Results ........................................ 146
5.4.3
Southeast Growth Areas ...................................................................................... 154
5.4.4
WRP Flow Diversions for Maintenance of Operations ....................................... 156
5.4.5
Wastewater Flow Routing and Major Interceptor Redundancy Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 161
5.4.6
Septic System Connections................................................................................. 164
5.5
Wastewater Flow Routing and Facility Optimization.......................................................... 167
5.6
Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................................... 170
Reclaimed Water System ........................................................................................................ 176 6.1
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 176
6.2
Reclaimed Water Management ........................................................................................... 176
6.3
Existing Reclaimed Water Exchange Agreements ............................................................. 176
6.4
7.0
5.3.1
6.3.1
Sub-Regional Operating Group ............................................................................ 176
6.3.2
Gila River Indian Community ............................................................................... 177
6.3.3
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community ..................................................... 177
Existing Reclaimed System Descriptions............................................................................ 177 6.4.1
Existing Reclaimed Production by Water Reclamation Plant ............................ 177
6.4.2
Northwest Water Reclamation Plant................................................................... 179
6.4.3
Southeast Water Reclamation Plant ................................................................... 180
6.4.4
Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant ................................................................... 181
6.5
Reclaimed Water Projections .............................................................................................. 183
6.6
CMRP Improvements ........................................................................................................... 185 6.6.1
Intermediate Pump Station.................................................................................. 186
6.6.2
CMRP Pipeline ...................................................................................................... 186
6.6.3
Upgrade of SEWRP Pumps .................................................................................. 186
6.7
Long Term Storage Credit Evaluation ................................................................................. 186
6.8
Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................... 187
Capital Improvements Program .............................................................................................. 188 7.1
Planning Level Cost Methodology ....................................................................................... 188
7.2
Water System Recommendations ....................................................................................... 189
7.3
7.2.1
Water Capital Program ........................................................................................ 189
7.2.2
Water Capital Project Cost Summary ................................................................. 192
Wastewater System Recommendations ............................................................................. 192 7.3.1
Wastewater Capital Program .............................................................................. 193
7.3.2
Wastewater Capital Project Cost Summary ....................................................... 196
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
iii
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.4
Reclaimed System Recommendations ............................................................................... 197 7.4.1
Reclaimed Water Capital Program ...................................................................... 197
7.4.2
Reclaimed Water Capital Project Cost Summary ............................................... 197
Appendix A.
Water Facility Schematics .......................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B.
Water System Model Calibration Graphs .................................................................... B-1
Appendix C.
Interim Year MD Results............................................................................................. C-1
Appendix D.
Wastewater Facility Schematics ................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E.
Mesa / Tempe Ownership Maps .................................................................................. E-1
Appendix F.
Wastewater System Model Calibration Graphs ............................................................ F-1
Appendix G.
Major Interceptor Analysis ......................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H.
Supplemental Data for Wastewater Flow Routing Analysis ......................................... H-1
Appendix I.
Southeast Mesa Master Plan........................................................................................ I-1
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1
City of Mesa Historical Water Production............................................................................... 8
Table 2-2
Historical Production vs Metered Sales ................................................................................ 10
Table 2-3
Historical Monthly Water Production .................................................................................... 10
Table 2-4
Historical Maximum Day Water Demands ............................................................................ 13
Table 2-5
Breakdown of Existing Customer Meters ............................................................................. 14
Table 2-6
Historical Unit Rates by Land Use Classification ................................................................. 15
Table 2-7
Vacant Land by Land Use Categorization ............................................................................. 16
Table 2-8
Water Demand Projections Categorized by Pressure Zone................................................. 18
Table 2-9
Water Demand Projections by Scenario ............................................................................... 19
Table 2-10
City of Mesa Compiled Historical Wastewater Flows .......................................................... 21
Table 2-11
City of Mesa Historical Wastewater Flows by Basin ............................................................ 22
Table 2-12
Temporary Flow Monitoring Flow by Meter .......................................................................... 23
Table 2-13
Comparison of Temporary Wastewater Flows versus SCADA ............................................ 25
Table 2-14
Water to Wastewater Factors by Flow Monitoring Basin ..................................................... 26
Table 2-15
Recommended IMP Basin Water to Wastewater Factors.................................................... 26
Table 2-16
Wastewater Flow Projections ................................................................................................ 27
Table 2-17
City of Mesa SROG Commitments ........................................................................................ 29
Table 2-18
City of Mesa Wastewater Delivered to 91st Ave WWTP ....................................................... 29
Table 2-19
City of Mesa GRIC Deliveries ................................................................................................. 30
Table 2-20
City of Mesa GRUSP and River Discharges ........................................................................... 30
Table 2-21
Effluent Flow Projections ....................................................................................................... 31
Table 3-1
City of Mesa Water Normal Year Resources Portfolio ......................................................... 35
Table 3-2
City of Mesa Water Normal Year SRP Resources ................................................................ 36
Table 3-3
City of Mesa Water Normal Year CAP Resources ................................................................ 39
Table 3-4
City of Mesa Water Normal Year Groundwater Resources.................................................. 42
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
iv
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 3-5
City of Mesa Water Existing Well Construction Details........................................................ 45
Table 3-6
City of Mesa WSMP Demand and Supply Reductions ......................................................... 51
Table 4-1
Pressure Zones ....................................................................................................................... 56
Table 4-2
Existing On-Project Potable Water Wells .............................................................................. 61
Table 4-3
Existing Off-Project Potable Water Wells .............................................................................. 62
Table 4-4
Existing Storage Reservoirs ................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-5
Transfer and Booster Pumping Stations............................................................................... 64
Table 4-6
Pressure Reducing Valves ..................................................................................................... 65
Table 4-7
C-Values Based on Diameter, Material, and Age .................................................................. 69
Table 4-8
Calibration Criteria .................................................................................................................. 71
Table 4-9
Calibration Day (June 8, 2022) Demands by Zone ............................................................... 72
Table 4-10
Water Demand Projections .................................................................................................... 73
Table 4-11
MD Water Demand Projections by WTP Service Area ......................................................... 74
Table 4-12
2025 Water Production Plan .................................................................................................. 79
Table 4-13
2030 Water Production Plan .................................................................................................. 80
Table 4-14
2035 Water Production Plan .................................................................................................. 81
Table 4-15
2040 Water Production Plan .................................................................................................. 82
Table 4-16
2040 Buildout Pumping Requirements ................................................................................. 83
Table 4-17
Pumping Improvements ......................................................................................................... 85
Table 4-18
2040 Storage Requirements .................................................................................................. 86
Table 4-19
Storage Distribution by Zone (MG) ........................................................................................ 88
Table 4-20
Maximum Day Hydraulic Modeling Summary ...................................................................... 89
Table 4-21
Future Potable Water Wells ................................................................................................. 117
Table 5-1
City of Mesa Lift Station and Site Information ................................................................... 129
Table 5-2
Wastewater Collection System Diversion Structure Inventory and Operation Scheme ................................................................................................................................. 130
Table 5-3
Mesa Wastewater Treatment Facility and Design Capacity .............................................. 136
Table 5-4
Wastewater Collection System Performance Criteria Summary ....................................... 143
Table 5-5
Recommended Minimum Slopes for Circular Pipes .......................................................... 145
Table 5-6
Lift Station Capacity Evaluation Summary ......................................................................... 147
Table 5-7
RTK Factors Applied to City’s ICM Hydraulic Model .......................................................... 150
Table 5-8
Southeast Growth Areas Infrastructure Summary ............................................................. 154
Table 5-9
Estimated Existing and Future Flows through Sewers Outside the City ........................... 157
Table 5-10
Major Interceptor Redundancy Evaluation Results ............................................................ 162
Table 5-11
Estimated Septic System Area Wastewater Flows ............................................................ 164
Table 5-12
Alternative Wastewater Flow Routing Lift Station / Diversion Locations ......................... 169
Table 6-1
Reclaimed Flows by Water Reclamation Plant Basin ......................................................... 177
Table 6-2
Primary and Secondary Reclaimed Water Delivery Location ............................................. 179
Table 6-3
Effluent Pump Station Capacity........................................................................................... 179
Table 6-4
Reclaimed Water Projections by WRP................................................................................. 183
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
v
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 6-5
SROG Basin Flow vs SROG Commitment ........................................................................... 184
Table 6-6
SROG Basin Flow vs Seasonal SROG Commitment ........................................................... 185
Table 6-7
CMRP Summary of Planned Improvements ....................................................................... 185
Table 7-1
Water System Project and Construction Costs .................................................................. 188
Table 7-2
Wastewater System Project and Construction Costs ........................................................ 188
Table 7-3
Water Capital Improvement Projects .................................................................................. 189
Table 7-4
Water Capital Project Cost ................................................................................................... 192
Table 7-5
Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................ 193
Table 7-6
Wastewater Capital Project Cost......................................................................................... 196
Table 7-7
Reclaimed Water Capital Improvement Projects ............................................................... 197
Table 7-8
Reclaimed Water Capital Project Cost ................................................................................ 197
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1
City of Mesa IMP Water System Study Area ........................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2
City of Mesa IMP Wastewater Study Area .............................................................................. 7
Figure 2-3
City of Mesa Historical Production by Supply Type ............................................................... 9
Figure 2-4
Average Monthly Water Production Peaking Factors for Years 2018 Through 2022 ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2-5
Historical Water Demand and Population ............................................................................. 12
Figure 2-6
Historical per Capita Water Use ............................................................................................ 12
Figure 2-7
Water Deliveries by Land Use Category ................................................................................ 14
Figure 2-8
City of Mesa Land Use Classification ................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-9
Percentage of Vacant Land Use Type ................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-10
Water Demand Projections by Growth Scenario .................................................................. 20
Figure 2-11
Average Monthly Wastewater Flow Values for Years 2018 Through 2022 ........................ 22
Figure 2-12
Temporary Flow Monitoring Sub-Basins ............................................................................... 24
Figure 2-13
Wastewater Flow Projections by Growth Scenario .............................................................. 28
Figure 2-14
Effluent Water Projections by Growth Scenario ................................................................... 32
Figure 3-1
Water Rights Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3-2
Lake Powell and Lake Mead Levels (Joint Colorado River Shortage Preparedness Briefing 5/5/2023).......................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-3
Lower Basin Alternative: Reduction Determination (Arizona Reconsulation Committee Meeting 3/6/2024).............................................................................................. 41
Figure 3-4
Reduction Sharing (Arizona Reconsultation Committee Meeting 3/6/2024)..................... 42
Figure 3-5
Normal Year On-Project Supply vs Demands ....................................................................... 48
Figure 3-6
Normal Year Off-Project Supply vs Demands. ...................................................................... 49
Figure 3-7
On Project Drought Stages Supply vs Demands (At Buildout) ............................................ 52
Figure 3-8
Off-Project Drought Stages Supply vs Demands (At Buildout) ............................................ 54
Figure 4-1
Pressure Zone Cross Section ................................................................................................ 57
Figure 4-2
Existing Treatment and Distribution Facilities ...................................................................... 58
Figure 4-3
Existing Hydraulic Profile Schematic .................................................................................... 59
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
vi
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 4-4
City of Mesa Pipelines by Diameter and Material Type ....................................................... 67
Figure 4-5
Pasadena Flow (PS1) Calibration Comparison .................................................................... 72
Figure 4-6
Water Treatment Plant Service Area ..................................................................................... 75
Figure 4-7
2025 MD Minimum Pressure ................................................................................................. 90
Figure 4-8
2025 MD Maximum Pressure ................................................................................................ 91
Figure 4-9
2025 MD Maximum Velocity.................................................................................................. 92
Figure 4-10
2040 MD Minimum Pressure ................................................................................................. 93
Figure 4-11
2040 MD Maximum Pressure ................................................................................................ 94
Figure 4-12
2040 MD Maximum Velocity.................................................................................................. 95
Figure 4-13
2025 MD+FF ........................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4-14
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #1 ........................................................................................ 98
Figure 4-15
2040 Fire Flow Area #1 Remedy............................................................................................ 99
Figure 4-16
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #2 ...................................................................................... 100
Figure 4-17
2040 Fire Flow Area #2 Remedy.......................................................................................... 101
Figure 4-18
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #3 ...................................................................................... 102
Figure 4-19
2040 Fire Flow Area #3 Remedy.......................................................................................... 103
Figure 4-20
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #4 ...................................................................................... 104
Figure 4-21
2040 Fire Flow Area #4 Remedy.......................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-22
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #5 ...................................................................................... 106
Figure 4-23
2040 Fire Flow Area #5 Remedy.......................................................................................... 107
Figure 4-24
2025 Maximum Day Water Age Results ............................................................................. 109
Figure 4-25
2025 Minimum Day Water Age Results .............................................................................. 111
Figure 4-26
Pipe Criticality Figure ........................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4-27
SE Mesa MP Interconnect Pipes ......................................................................................... 116
Figure 4-28
IMP Water System Improvements....................................................................................... 120
Figure 4-29
2040 Hydraulic Profile Schematic ....................................................................................... 121
Figure 5-1
Wastewater Service Area ..................................................................................................... 123
Figure 5-2
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities................................................................ 124
Figure 5-3
Gravity Main Summary by Diameter and Material .............................................................. 125
Figure 5-4
Force Main Summary by Diameter and Material ................................................................ 125
Figure 5-5
Lift Station Collection Basins............................................................................................... 127
Figure 5-6
Diversion Structure Locations and Basins .......................................................................... 128
Figure 5-7
Water Reclamation Facility Drainage Basins ...................................................................... 133
Figure 5-8
Flow Monitoring Locations and Basins ............................................................................... 141
Figure 5-9
Example DWF Calibration Sheet for Site 2022-04 .............................................................. 142
Figure 5-10
Existing and Future Maximum Month Flow Capacity Deficiencies ................................... 149
Figure 5-11
January 2010 Storm Rainfall Profile ................................................................................... 151
Figure 5-12
Existing Wet Weather Flow Capacity Deficiencies ............................................................. 152
Figure 5-13
Buildout Wet Weather Flow Capacity Deficiencies ............................................................ 153
Figure 5-14
Southeast Growth Areas ...................................................................................................... 155
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
vii
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 5-15
Existing ADF from Mesa to SROG – Normal Operations ................................................... 159
Figure 5-16
Future ADF from Mesa to SROG – Normal Operations ...................................................... 160
Figure 5-17
Major Interceptor Redundancy Locations ........................................................................... 163
Figure 5-18
Septic Area Connections Modeling Results........................................................................ 166
Figure 5-19
Candidate Capital Improvement Projects ........................................................................... 175
Figure 6-1
City of Mesa Reuse System, Proposed and Existing .......................................................... 178
Figure 6-2
Existing NWWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic .................. 180
Figure 6-3
SEWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic .................................. 181
Figure 6-4
GWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic .................................... 182
Figure 6-5
Available Reclaimed Water vs GRIC Commitment ............................................................. 184
Figure 7-1
Water System Improvements .............................................................................................. 191
Figure 7-2
Wastewater System Improvements .................................................................................... 195
Figure 7-3
Reclaimed Water System Improvements ............................................................................ 198
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
viii
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Abbreviations A.A.C.
Arizona Administrative Code
AAD
Annual Average Day Demand
AADF
Annual Average Daily Flow
ACP
Asbestos Cement Pipe
AFY
Acre feet per year
AD
Average Day
ADD
Average Daily Demand
ADEQ
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR
Arizona Department of Water Resources
AJWD
Apache Junction Water District
AMA
Active Management Areas
AWBA
Arizona Water Banking Authority
AWS
Assured Water Supply
AZPDES
Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
BIDD
Buckeye Irrigation and Drainage District
BPS
Booster Pump Station
BRWTP
Brown Road Water Treatment Plant
BV
Black & Veatch
BWCDD
Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District
CAP
Central Arizona Project
CAWCD
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
CITY
City of Mesa
CLR
County Line Reservoirs
CMRP
Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline
COP
City of Phoenix
DBP
Disinfection By-Products
DCP
Drought Contingency Plan
DEM
Digital Elevation Models
DPR
Direct Potable Reuse
DVE
Drought Volume Exemption
DWF
Dry Weather Flow
DWGWF
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
EMI
East Mesa Interceptor
BLACK & VEATCH | Abbreviations
ix
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
EPS
Extended Period Simulation
EQ
Equalization
FF
Fire Flow
GAC
Granulated Activated Carbon
GIS
Geographic Information System
gpad
Gallons per acre day
gpcd
Gallon per capita day
gpm
Gallons per minute
GRIC
Gila River Indian Community
GRUSP
Granite Reef Underground Storage Project
GSF
Groundwater Storage Facilities
GW
Groundwater Wells
GWRP
Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant
HGL
Hydraulic Grade Line
IGA
Intergovernmental Agreements
IPR
Indirect Potable Reuse
IMP
Integrated Master Plan
LTSC
Long-term Storage Credit
M&I
Municipal and Industrial
MAF
Million acre-feet
MDD
Maximum Day Demand
MGD
Million gallons per day
MHD
Maximum Hour Demand
MLM
Multiple or Large Meter
NCS
New Conservation Space
NIA
Non-Indian Agricultural
NRW
Non-Revenue Water
NWWRP
Northwest Water Reclamation Plant
OOS
Out of Service
PCCP
Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe
PHD
Peak Hour Demand
PRV
Pressure Reducing Valve
RDII
Rainfall Derived Inflow and Infiltration
ROW
Right-of-Way
RWCD
Roosevelt Water Conservation District
BLACK & VEATCH | Abbreviations
x
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
SAI
Southern Avenue Interceptor
SBDWPS
Signal Butte Desert Wells Pump Station
SBGWF
Signal Butte Groundwater Facility
SBWTP
Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCIF
SRP-CAP Interconnect Facility
SEIS
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SEWRP
Southeast Water Reclamation Plant
SICE
Sewer Interceptor Capacity Evaluation
SRO
Salt River Outfall
SROG
Sub-Regional Operating Group
SRP
Salt River Project
SRPMIC
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
SRVWUA
Salt River Valley Water User Association
SSOAP
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TTHM
Total trihalomethanes
USBR
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VVWTP
Val Vista Water Treatment Plant
WaPUG
Wastewater Planning Users Group
WMAT
White Mountain Apache Tribe
WRF
Water Reclamation Facility
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
WSA
Water Service Area
WSMP
Water Shortage Management Plan
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
BLACK & VEATCH | Abbreviations
xi
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
1.0 Introduction The City of Mesa (City) retained Black & Veatch (BV), Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo), and Clear Creek to update and integrate the City’s water resources, water, wastewater, and reclaimed water master plans though the year 2040 planning horizon to align with the City’s ongoing Mesa 2050 General Plan update. The Integrated Master Plan (IMP) combines the four components into one holistic, cohesive master plan that will serve as the City’s roadmap for future infrastructure improvements for the Water Resources Department.
1.1
Project Background
For over 100 years, the City of Mesa has been committed to providing safe and reliable drinking water to its customers through robust water resources planning. As part of that commitment, a key component of the City’s water resource portfolio is the collection and treatment of wastewater for beneficial use. The previous water and wastewater master plans were completed individually in 2018. Since the completion of the 2018 Water Master Plan, there has been significant development of, and additional interest in, large scale non-residential development, primarily in Southeast Mesa. Potential significant changes in the demand projections developed in 2018 prompted the City to first complete a water-only master plan focused on Southeast Mesa (SE Mesa) growth which was completed in 2022 (see Appendix I for the report in its entirety). Since 2018, other planning documents have also been prepared that address related topics including water resources, drought management, and treatment facility planning. The City identified the need to update all the master plans for the City’s water, wastewater, and reclaimed water system infrastructure. Given the uncertainty associated with future water supplies with the on-going drought and growth coupled with the City’s desire to optimize its entire water cycle, the City embarked on their first IMP to develop a holistic approach to managing its water infrastructure from potable water supply to wastewater reclaimed water end uses. This IMP provides a roadmap to guide the City as it continues to focus on accommodating growth in undeveloped and redevelopment areas while continuing to provide reliable services to existing customers throughout the entire service area. Accordingly, to meet the City’s current challenges, the IMP emphasizes the following top priorities: ◼ Non-traditional Growth in SE Mesa: Of the 16,600 vacant acres to be developed City-wide, 66% of the vacant parcels are within the limits of SE Mesa; 96% of that growth will be non-residential. With the uncertainty of the extent of development and water use, demand and flow projections for these developments is highly variable and subject to change. To account for potential variability in future growth, a range of growth projections were developed - average, moderate, and aggressive - to capture how varying growth intensities impact the water systems. See Chapter 2 for further details for the development of demand projections. ◼ Balance Water Resources: In total, 95% of new development will occur within areas of Mesa that are considered “Off-Project” in terms of water resources which restricts the types of water resources that can be used to meet those customer demands (see Chapter 3 for further details of “On-Project” and “Off-Project” water resources). While the City’s water portfolio contains a robust mix of water resources available, this IMP focused on expanding / firming water supply sources to meet projected Off-Project demand in the event of a reduced / dry-up Central Arizona Project (CAP) scenario.
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
1
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
◼ Drought Resiliency: The Colorado River is currently experiencing its worst drought in recorded history. In response, the City has been participating in voluntary supply reductions as part of the Lower Basin’s objective to leave behind additional water in Lake Mead in an effort to stabilize shrinking storage capacity. It should be noted that the current 2007 Operating Guidelines for the Colorado River are set to expire at the end of 2026, and additional supply cuts are probable but uncertain at this time. The City of Mesa has been working to offset current and potential future water supply reductions by increasing its water portfolio and identifying strategies to further offset potential cuts. The identified strategies to offset future supply reductions include ordering and treating the City’s New Conservation Space (NCS) water, as well as recovering Long Term Storage Credits (LTSC’s). ◼ Optimize Flow Deliveries to SROG: The City currently delivers wastewater to be treated at the 91 st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in accordance with the member Cities seasonal SubRegional Operating Group (SROG) commitments (as described in Chapter 5). While the City’s SROG commitment varies monthly, diversions in the collection system are set to meet the City’s maximum month SROG commitment which results in the City exceeding the SROG commitment in the remaining months. ◼ Optimize Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) Operations: Another key focus of the IMP was determining if the Southeast WRP (SEWRP) should be decommissioned also described in Chapter 5. The SEWRP has been challenging to operate and the City occasionally needs to bypass a portion of the SEWRP influent flow to SROG due to reduced treatment capacity. This frequent bypassing to SROG ultimately reduces the City’s ability to maximize reclaimed water deliveries to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) for beneficial use. ◼ Maximize Deliveries to GRIC: The City has a long-standing agreement with the GRIC to exchange reclaimed water delivered to the GRIC in exchange for a portion of the GRIC’s raw CAP water that the City can treat at its water treatment plants (see Chapter 6 for further details of the reclaimed water exchange). To meet demands at build-out, the City will need to both increase and maximize its reclaimed deliveries to GRIC to obtain the maximum amount of CAP water the GRIC has agreed to exchange.
1.2
Scope of Work
The scope of the IMP was developed to provide the City with a plan to maintain and, where needed, expand the water, wastewater, and reclaimed water systems. The scope of work included updates to the City’s water resources, water system, wastewater system, and reclaimed water system master plans. The IMP contains the following major activities that contributed to recommendations in the master plan: ◼ Previous studies were reviewed to determine which recommendations are still relevant for the City’s infrastructure going forward. ◼ Water demand projections were developed using the City’s water production, customer billing, Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data, and vacant parcels. Wastewater and reclaimed flow projections were also based on billing data and flow information gathered from field test data. ◼ City’s available water resources were compared to water demand projections throughout the planning periods and for drought conditions. ◼ Hydraulic models were updated for the water, wastewater, and reclaimed water systems using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) data. The water and wastewater models were validated using data collected in the field.
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
2
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
◼ The water system hydraulic model was used to evaluate the capacity of the existing system, confirm adequate service to meet fire flow requirements, evaluate water quality in system, assess critical pipelines, size future infrastructure, and make recommendations for capital improvements. ◼ The wastewater system hydraulic model was converted to a new software, updated, and used to evaluate the capacity of the collection system, evaluate diversion for WRP optimization, size future infrastructure, and make recommendations for capital improvements and operational improvements.
1.3
Report Organization
The IMP includes seven (7) chapters outlining the methodology, results, and recommendations of the analysis conducted. A summary of each chapter is provided below: ◼ Chapter 1 – Introduction provides an overview of the system and provides background information on the project. The chapter also outlines the project goals and organization of the IMP. ◼ Chapter 2 – Planning Framework provides a summary of the existing and future demands and flows developed to identify supply and collection capacity concerns. Summarizes projected reclaimed flows for water resource evaluations. ◼ Chapter 3 – Water Resources provides a summary of the City’s available water resources for meeting current and future water system demands and an analysis of the City’s water supply for normal years and for drought years. ◼ Chapter 4 – Water System includes a description of the City’s water distribution and treatment facilities, provides an overview of the methodology and criteria used for the existing and future system evaluation and summarizes the analyses conducted. Results of the water system modeling effort are summarized in this chapter and the recommended improvements are outlined. ◼ Chapter 5 – Wastewater System includes a description of the City’s wastewater collection and treatment facilities, provides an overview of the methodology and criteria used for the existing and future system evaluation and summarizes the analyses conducted. Results of the wastewater modeling effort are summarized in this chapter and the recommended improvements are outlined. ◼ Chapter 6 – Reclaimed Water System includes a description of the City’s reclaimed water management strategy and recommendations to enable the City to achieve and optimize their long-term reclaimed water use objectives. ◼ Chapter 7 – Capital Improvements Program provides a summary of the recommendations identified throughout the IMP. This chapter also provides a summary of the methodology used for developing project costs, including assumptions used. ◼ IMP Appendices provide supporting information for the development of the IMP analysis and are listed below:
●
Appendix A – Water Facility Schematics
●
Appendix B – Water System Model Calibration Graphs
●
Appendix C – Interim Year MD Results
●
Appendix D – Wastewater Facility Schematics
●
Appendix E – Mesa / Tempe Ownership Maps
●
Appendix F – Wastewater System Model Calibration Graphs
●
Appendix G – Major Interceptor Analysis
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
3
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
●
Appendix H – Supplemental Data for Wastewater Flow Routing Analysis
●
Appendix I – Southeast Mesa Master Plan
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
4
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.0 Planning Framework 2.1
Introduction
The scope of work for the City of Mesa (City) Integrated Master Plan (IMP) includes a planning framework that defines the water demands, wastewater flows, and effluent water supply for the planning periods that are included in the IMP analysis. (Note: The term effluent, reclaimed water and recycled water are commonly used interchangeably to refer to treated wastewater that is recycled for beneficial purposes). The planning framework uses a standard list of assumptions to establish the criteria for which the recommendations of the master plan are based upon. The IMP planning framework aids in developing the water, wastewater and effluent flow projections that will control the City’s future projects and developments, allowing for ample time to size, plan, and execute projects for build-out conditions. The planning framework includes the following: ◼ Study Area ◼ Historical Water Production and Demand Information ◼ Historical Wastewater Flows ◼ Historical Reclaimed Water Flows ◼ Demand and Flow Projections for Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed System
2.2
Study and Services Area
The City of Mesa Water Resources Department currently provides water and wastewater service for a population of approximately 500,000 within a service area of 128 square miles, see Figure 2-1 for the Water Service Area and Figure 2-2 for the Wastewater Service Area. The City’s water service area contains eight water pressure zones which are served by three surface water treatment plants and numerous groundwater wells located throughout the City. The City’s wastewater service area is divided into six major sewer drainage basins and served by four major water reclamation plants (two of them jointly owned with other Cities). Currently the City sends 100% of the reclaimed water generated at the Southeast and Greenfield WRP to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) as part of a water exchange for Central Arizona Project (CAP) surface water. Reclaimed water generated at the Northwest WRP is recharged at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) and or discharged to the Salt River.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
5
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Thomas Rd 3600 N
VVWTP
3 Q
McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend
3 WTP Q McKellips Rd 2000 N
Pressure Zone City Zone
BRWTP
NE Mini Zone
3 Q
SE Mini Zone
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
County Line Apache Junction Range Rider Highlands Usery 1 Usery 2
Southern Ave 1200 S
Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
60
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
SBWTP
3 Q
Streets Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Salt River Airport
Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 2-1
±
Water Service Area
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
Thomas Rd 3600 N
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
McDowell Rd 2800 N
Legend
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
WRP
McKellips Rd 2000 N
WRP Basins NWWRP /SROG SROG
Brown Rd 1200 N
NWWRP WRP
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
GWRP SEWRP SEWRP / GWRP
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets
Southern Ave 1200 S WRP SEWRP
WRPs
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Salt River Airport
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S WRP GWRP
Planning Framework
May 24, 2024
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 2-2
±
Wastewater Service Area
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.3
Water Production and Demands
A water utility must be able to supply water in response to a wide range of fluctuating demands including annual, monthly, daily, and hourly variations. Analysis of historical water production and usage patterns provide a basis for estimating seasonal peaking factors that are used to properly size water production infrastructure to meet seasonal variations in demand. Higher annual and monthly water use occurs during dry years and in hot months. Daily and hourly water use typically follows a diurnal pattern with low night usage and peaks in the early morning and late afternoon hours. Historical rates and patterns important to the hydraulic design and operation of a water system are: ◼ Annual Average Day Demand (AAD) ◼ Monthly Seasonal Factors ◼ Maximum Day Demand (MDD) ◼ Maximum Hour Demand (MHD) The following sections provide a summary and discussion of the historical water demand patterns:
2.3.1 Historical Water Production Water production demand is defined as the amount of water required from production (i.e., WTP and groundwater wells) and to maintain target pressures in the water distribution system. Historical water production was available in the Daily Water Production Reports for years 2018 through 2022 which is summarized in Table 2-1 and shown graphically on Figure 2-3. Table 2-1
City of Mesa Historical Water Production Annual Average Historical Water Production – million gallons per day (mgd)
Year
VVWTP
BRWTP
SBWTP SW
SBWTP GW
City Wells
East Wells
Total Supply
2018
30.4
35.5
11.5
1.7
5.7
1.2
86.0
2019
31.6
29.3
15.0
1.2
5.4
1.1
83.6
2020
27.3
33.3
14.2
0.8
10.5
0.9
87.0
2021
33.3
25.3
16.3
0.1
8.2
1.1
84.3
2022
30.1
29.8
19.0
0.2
4.3
0.5
83.9
5-Year Average =
30.5
30.6
15.2
0.8
6.8
1.0
85.0
Abbreviation: SW = surface water facility GW = groundwater facility
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
8
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-3
City of Mesa Historical Production by Supply Type
2.3.2 Historical Distribution System Non-Revenue Water By comparing customer metered data (retail sales) to historical production, historical distribution system non-revenue water can be determined. For this study, the definition of non-revenue water is the difference between finished water production and metered sales. Non-revenue water is typically a combination of leakage from the distribution system, unauthorized connections, unmetered uses (hydrant flow), and inaccuracies in the supply meter and individual customer meters. A summary of the customer metered sales for the last five years is presented in Table 2-2. The City provides raw CAP water to three customers who are included in the meter sales set. The annual demand of 1.5 mgd from these raw water customers has been removed from the meter sales data set since water delivered to these customers does not originate at the WTPs or wells. Historical non-revenue water for the past five years ranged from 3% to 12%, compared to the 16% average water loss reported by the EPA. For the purposes of this IMP a non-revenue water of 7% is recommended for future planning purposes.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
9
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-2
Historical Production vs Metered Sales
Year
Annual Water Produced (mgd)
Annual Water Demand (mgd)
Non-Revenue Water (mgd)
Non-Revenue Water (%)
2018
86.0
77.5
8.5
10%
2019
83.6
79.0
4.6
6%
2020
87.0
77.6
9.4
11%
2021
84.3
81.7
2.6
3%
2022
83.9
80.3
3.6
4%
5-Year Average =
85.0
79.1
5.9
7%
2.3.3 Historical Seasonal Factors (Monthly Average) Historical monthly demands were evaluated to understand the impact of seasonal variations. Table 2-3 summarizes the historical monthly finished water production. The ratio of Monthly Average Day Production to Annual Average Day Production is presented on Figure 2-4. The maximum month demand has occurred between June and August the past 5-years and is highly dependent on temperature and when monsoon (summer thunderstorms) occur. Table 2-3
Historical Monthly Water Production
Month
2018 (mgd)
2019 (mgd)
2020 (mgd)
2021 (mgd)
2022 (mgd)
Average (mgd)
January
61.6
57.7
56.9
62.4
61.6
60.0
February
63.6
55.9
57.5
65.4
63.7
61.2
March
69.2
61.7
57.9
70.5
71.9
66.2
April
82.8
80.4
74.9
85.6
83.7
81.5
May
103.9
83.3
100.8
101.1
100.1
97.8
June
114.9
106.3
111.7
114.8
113.7
112.3
July
109.5
112.2
115.9
101.6
106.8
109.2
August
99.6
107.5
117.6
89.7
95.9
102.1
September
95.9
95.2
104.7
88.4
91.5
95.1
October
72.0
88.9
94.2
87.9
84.2
85.4
November
78.1
85.9
82.4
81.2
74.6
80.4
December
80.1
60.1
68.5
64.7
58.6
66.4
Annual Average =
86.0
83.6
87.0
84.3
83.9
85.0
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
10
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-4
Average Monthly Water Production Peaking Factors for Years 2018 Through 2022
2.3.4 Historical Gallons per Capita Water Use Figure 2-5 shows the annual average water demand and the City population from 1990 through 2022. Figure 2-6 shows the resulting annual average daily gallon per capita (gpcd) use. As shown on Figure 2-5 the City’s water demands significantly decreased from 2007 to 2010, likely due to the economic recession between 2008 and 2012, and since 2010 the demands within the City have remained relatively flat while population within the City continued to increase. As a result, the City has seen a steady decline in gpcd from 220 gpcd to 164 gpcd over the last 20 years. The trend of decreasing water demand during times of population growth is a trend seen throughout municipalities in Arizona which is likely the result of conservation measures implemented by the Cities, replacement of fixtures with higher efficiencies as well drought concerns / education within the customer base. The decrease in gpcd has begun to level off and has remained between 165-175 gpcd over the past 5 years. While there will continue to be some further decrease in gpcd due to conservation, it is assumed that most high-water fixtures have be replaced and the remaining reduction in water consumption will be less significant than seen since the early 2000’s.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
11
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-5
Historical Water Demand and Population
Figure 2-6
Historical per Capita Water Use
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
12
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.3.5 Maximum Day Demand Maximum Day Demand (MDD) is the maximum quantity of water used on any one day of the year. The maximum day rate is used to size water production facilities (WTP and groundwater wells) which must have a sufficient capacity to refill water storage reservoirs following a maximum day. The raw water facilities must be adequate to supply water at the maximum day rate, and treatment facilities must be capable of processing this quantity of water. Historical maximum day production was extrapolated from the Daily Water Production Reports for years 2018 through 2022 and are summarized in Table 2-4. For the IMP, a design MD Peaking Factor of 1.5 is recommended. Table 2-4
Historical Maximum Day Water Demands
Year
AAD (mgd)
MD (mgd)
MD: AAD Peaking Factor
2018
86.0
126.9
1.5
2019
83.6
120.7
1.4
2020
87.0
127.5
1.5
2021
84.3
123.4
1.5
2022
83.9
120.3
1.4
5-Year Average =
1.5
2.4
Historical Water Rates
2.4.1 Water Use by Land Use Classification Customer meter sales data was aggregated into land use classifications to calculate historical unit rates for different land use types. As of 2022, the City of City’s water customer billing database had approximately 175,000 individual accounts. This database holds a record of monthly water use for each customer and is linked to the Geographic Information System (GIS) meter layer which contains the geographic location of each meter. Of the City’s water meters, 86 percent are classified as residential (Low, Medium and High Density) and account for 73 percent of the annual water use. Commercial (Community, Neighborhood and Regional) meters accounts represent 4 percent of the meters and account for 8 percent of the water demand. Mixed Use (Community and Employment) meters account for 6 percent of meters and account for 5.5 percent of demand. Office (including Business Park) account for 1.5 percent of the meters and 3.5 percent of the annual demand. The remaining 9.5 percent of water use is accounted for by the meters associated with the other land use classifications shown in Table 2-5. Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the distribution of water use by land classification.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
13
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-5
Breakdown of Existing Customer Meters
Land Use Classification
Number of Accounts
Consumption (mgd)
Percent of Total Demand (%)
Residential
144,167
59.7
73.3%
Commercial
6,477
6.2
7.7%
Mixed Use
10,179
4.5
5.5%
Office
2,551
3.0
3.5%
Industrial
1,642
2.4
2.9%
Education
971
2.3
2.8%
Public / Semi Public
1,276
1.9
2.8%
Parks
876
1.2
1.5%
Open Space
84
0.1
0.1%
168,223
81.3
100
Total =
Figure 2-7
Water Deliveries by Land Use Category
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
14
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.4.2 Unit Water Demands by Land Use Classification Unit water rates for undeveloped residential and non-residential land areas were calculated using City of Mesa’s historical water demand data. Geo-coded metered sales records were intersected with the land use parcel data to establish historical unit rates for selected residential and non-residential land uses. The historical residential and non-residential unit rates were calculated on a historical gallons per acre day (gpad) basis using geo-coded water metered sales and the underlying residential and non-residential land use classifications. Unit rates were calculated based on the Average Growth (50 th Percentile), Moderate Growth (75th Percentile) or Aggressive Growth (90th Percentile) which are summarized in Table 2-6. Table 2-6
Historical Unit Rates by Land Use Classification Average Growth (gpad)
Moderate Growth (gpad)
Aggressive Growth (gpad)
Business Park
500
1,100
2,000
Community Commercial
1,100
2,000
3,200
Neighborhood Commercial
1,400
2,400
4,100
Regional Commercial
1,100
2,200
4,200
Office
1,000
1,800
3,000
General Industrial
400
1,100
2,500
Light Industrial
400
1,100
2,500
Mixed-Use/Community
1,200
1,700
2,400
Mixed Use/Employment
1,100
2,100
3,300
Public/Semi-Public/Education
1,200
2,000
3,000
Low Dens Res (0-1 dwelling units/acre)
600
1,100
1,800
Low Dens Res (1-2 dwelling units/acre)
1,200
2,000
2,700
Med Dens Res (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
1,400
2,100
2,900
Med Dens Res (4-6 dwelling units/acre)
1,200
2,000
2,800
Med Dens Res (6-10 dwelling units/acre)
1,300
2,000
3,000
High Dens Res (10+ dwelling units/acre)
1,900
3,400
6,700
Town Center / Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ dwelling units/acre)
1,100
1,900
3,300
Open Space1
1,400
2,600
3,500
Parks
1,200
2,000
2,900
Type
Notes: 1.
Open Space acreage in the Upper Zones (County Line and higher) were assumed to be native desert open space areas with no irrigation demand.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
15
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.5
Water Demand Projections
The location of growth within the City was based on GIS information provided for the vacant parcels within the City. From there, water projections were developed using the land use information for the vacant parcels and the unit rates developed in the previous section. Water demands for the vacant parcels were calculated based on the following unit rate methodologies: 1.
Average Growth – calculated gallons per acre day (gpad) based on the historical 50 th percentile unit rate for the land use type. This growth projection is to evaluate a status quo or slightly lower water use projection.
2.
Moderate Growth – calculated gpad based on the historical 75th percentile unit rate value for the land use type. This growth projection is the growth that will be used for capacity analysis and is assumed to be slightly higher than existing customer usage to account for the types of users that will develop in SE Mesa.
3.
Aggressive Growth – calculated gpad based on the historical 90th percentile unit rate value for the land use type. This growth projection is to account for the potential higher more intensive water use that could develop in SE Mesa including data centers and high water use industrial.
The following sections will discuss the updated demand projections (average, moderate, and aggressive) as it relates to the water consumption rates for the planning framework periods of 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 (also referred to as Buildout).
2.5.1 Vacant/Underdeveloped Land Use Classifications The City provided a GIS shapefile of the City Vacant Parcels which provided land use and vacant/ underdeveloped parcel acreage within the City’s boundary. Table 2-7 presents the vacant/ underdeveloped land parcels identified by land use classification as of 2022 which are shown on Figure 2-8. This shows that most of the vacant/underdeveloped land is located within southeast Mesa with over 11,000 acres of the 16,647 or 68% of the vacant/underdeveloped land located in southeast Mesa. The percentage of the major categories of land use type included in the vacant/ underdeveloped lands is shown on Figure 2-9 which indicates that over half of the vacant/ underdeveloped land is planned to develop as industrial and mixed use. Future land use for vacant/underdeveloped parcels may change as development occurs, which may change future water demand projections. Table 2-7
Vacant Land by Land Use Categorization
Land Use Type
Acres
Land Use Type
Acres
Business Park
1,310
Low Dens Res (0-1 dwelling units/acre)
941
Community Commercial
119
Low Dens Res (1-2 dwelling units/acre)
1,560
Neighborhood Commercial
101
Med Dens Res (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
112
Regional Commercial
261
Med Dens Res (4-6 dwelling units/acre)
351
Office
78
Med Dens Res (6-10 dwelling units/acre)
119
General Industrial
3,382
High Dens Res (10+ dwelling units/acre)
68
Light Industrial
2,355
Mixed-Use/Community
2,623
Town Center / Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ dwelling units/acre)
397
Mixed Use/Employment
1,228
Open Space1
481
Public/Semi-Public/Education
750
Parks
411 Total Vacant =
1.
16,646
Of the 481 acres of Open Space 411 acres are located in the Upper Zones with no demand associated with it.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
16
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial
McKellips Rd 2000 N
Regional Commercial General Industrial Light Industrial
Brown Rd 1200 N
Mixed Use/Employment Mixed-Use/Community Business Park
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Office Education Public/Semi-Public Low Dens Res (0-1 dupa) Low Dens Res (1-2 dupa) Med Dens Res (2-4 dupa) Med Dens Res (4-6 dupa)
Southern Ave 1200 S
Med Dens Res (6-10 dupa) High Dens Res (10-15 dupa) High Dens Res (15+ dupa)
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ dupa) Town Center (25% at 15+ dupa)
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Open Space Parks
Other Features Boundary
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Highways Streets Canals
Warner Rd 4400 S
Railroads Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Salt River Airport
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 2-8
±
Vacant/Underdeveloped Land Use Classification
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-9
Percentage of Vacant Land Use Type
2.5.2 Water Demand Projections Average water demand projections were developed using the unit water demands developed from the recommended water unit rates by land classification and the year 2022 water customer billing data. Table 2-8 presents the existing and projected 2040 (buildout) water demand by pressure zone for each of the three growth scenarios. Demand projections include 7% NRW water. Demand projections do not include interagency (Apache Junction and Arizona Water Company) demands. Table 2-8
Water Demand Projections Categorized by Pressure Zone 2040 Average Growth (mgd)
2040 Moderate Growth (mgd)
2040 Aggressive Growth (mgd)
City Zone
34.1
34.5
35.1
NE Mini Zone
2.4
2.7
3.2
SE Mini Zone
1.2
1.2
1.2
Falcon Field
20.5
24.7
30.9
Desert Wells
27.5
32.4
40.2
Desert Sage
9.7
11.5
14.4
County Line
2.7
3.0
3.4
Pressure Zone
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
18
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2040 Average Growth (mgd)
2040 Moderate Growth (mgd)
2040 Aggressive Growth (mgd)
Apache Junction
1.3
1.5
1.8
Range Rider
0.5
0.6
0.7
Highland
0.2
0.3
0.4
Usery
0.0
0.1
0.1
Total Water Demand
100.2
112.5
131.3
Pressure Zone
Intermediate year demands were developed by applying linear interpolation between the existing and buildout demands. Table 2-9 and Figure 2-10 present the projected water demand for each of the three demand scenarios for the planning periods analyzed in the IMP with a non-revenue water factor of 7 percent. Table 2-9 Demand Scenario
Water Demand Projections by Scenario Average Annual Water Demand (mgd) by Planning Year 20221
Average Moderate
83.9
Aggressive 1.
2025
2030
2035
2040
88.3
92.2
96.2
100.2
90.3
97.7
105.1
112.5
93.5
106.1
118.7
131.3
2022 values based on historical production.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
19
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-10
Water Demand Projections by Growth Scenario
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
20
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.6
Wastewater Flow Projections
2.6.1 Historical Wastewater Flows Historical wastewater flows are used in preparing future wastewater flow projections and analyzing seasonal flow patterns. Table 2-10 presents the City’s historical wastewater flow data for the years 2018 through 2022. Figure 2-11 illustrates the historical wastewater flow data represented in Table 2-10. Table 2-10
City of Mesa Compiled Historical Wastewater Flows
Month
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average
Jan
34.4
35.1
35.4
29.8
34.9
33.9
Feb
35.2
36.1
36.5
32.8
35.3
35.2
Mar
35.5
36.1
35.4
35.1
35.3
35.5
Apr
35.0
35.4
33.2
34.5
35.2
34.7
May
33.1
34.4
32.8
33.7
33.8
33.6
Jun
32.9
34.5
31.7
33.5
33.2
33.2
Jul
33.9
34.4
30.9
34.4
33.1
33.3
Aug
35.3
26.7
33.8
32.7
34.9
32.7
Sep
34.3
37.9
33.9
31.6
34.7
34.5
Oct
36.2
37.8
33.1
34.8
33.7
35.1
Nov
35.3
38.6
33.8
35.3
34.8
35.6
Dec
34.2
24.6
33.5
35.0
34.5
32.4
Average
34.6
34.3
33.7
33.6
34.4
34.1
Maximum
36.2
38.6
36.5
35.3
35.3
35.6
Maximum: Average Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
21
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
45 40 35
Flow (mgd)
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan
Feb
March
April
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month 2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Average
Note: 2019 data showed irregularities for SROG meter in August and December Figure 2-11
Average Monthly Wastewater Flow Values for Years 2018 Through 2022
2.6.1.1 WRP Basin Historical Flows There are three permanent flow meters owned by the City of Phoenix that are installed on the SubRegional Operating Group (SROG) Salt River Outfall (SRO) and Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI) interceptors to measure flow conveyed to the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In addition, there are flow meters / influent flumes at the Northwest Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), the Southeast WRF and two meters that monitor the City’s flow into the Greenfield WRF. Table 2-11 presents the historical flows observed at the GWRP, SEWRP, NWWRP, and SROG from the Aggregate Meter reports for 2018 through 2022. The change in total wastewater flows is small for this five-year period. System-wide there has been minor change in the wastewater generated. Table 2-11
City of Mesa Historical Wastewater Flows by Basin
Delivery Location
2018 (mgd)
2019 (mgd)
2020 (mgd)
2021 (mgd)
2022 (mgd)
GWRP
5.1
5.1
4.1
5.8
5.9
SEWRP
4.7
5.1
5.3
4.9
4.6
NWWRP
8.7
7.5
7.3
7.4
8.1
SROG
16.1
16.6
17.0
15.5
15.8
Average Daily Flow =
34.6
34.3
33.7
33.6
34.4
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
22
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.6.2 Flow Monitoring Field Test The flow monitoring field test included 25 temporary flow meters deployed in the collection system from 2/8/2023 through 2/28/2023 to collect field data. The sites for temporary metering were selected through discussions with the City. The locations of the temporary meters and their associated collection basins are shown in Figure 2-12. Table 2-12 summarizes the minimum, average, and maximum flows observed at each temporary flow monitoring location during the field test. The City provided additional flow data for the permanent meters (i.e., MS01, MS02, MS04, MS06 and MS09). Table 2-12
Temporary Flow Monitoring Flow by Meter
Temporary Meter
Manhole ID
Minimum (mgd)
Average (mgd)
Maximum (mgd)
2022-01
SSMH22354
1.2
2.9
4.8
2022-02-01
SSMH17139
0.3
0.8
1.3
2022-02-02B
SSMH17942
0.4
1.0
2.2
2022-04
SSMH34189
0.5
1.3
2.1
2022-05-01
SSMH5851
1.4
3.8
5.7
2022-05-02
SSMH6571
0.9
2.0
3.0
2022-05-03
SSMH4813
0.3
0.9
1.5
2022-06
SSMH7528
0.8
2.2
3.6
2022-07-01
SSMH7972
0.4
1.2
2.4
2022-07-02
SSMH8035
1.8
5.2
10.6
2022-07-03
SSMH8220
0.8
2.4
4.2
2022-08
SSMH13256
1.8
4.5
7.7
2022-09-01
SSMH29322
0.0
0.0
0.0
2022-09-02
SSMH28823
0.3
0.7
1.3
2022-10
SSMH28779
0.6
2.1
4.0
2022-12-01
SSMH18262
0.3
0.9
1.7
2022-12-02
SSMH27209
0.3
1.1
2.3
2022-12-03
SSMH27578
1.4
4.0
6.8
2022-13
SSMH18132
0.1
0.4
4.3
2022-14
SSMH28276
1.6
4.3
7.6
2022-16
SSMH3777
0.1
0.5
0.9
2022-19
SSMH8599
0.3
0.9
1.6
2022-20
SSMH29343
0.1
0.4
1.2
2022-21
SSMH28742
0.6
2.3
4.6
2022-22
SSMH15985
0.8
1.9
3.3
MS06
Permanent Meter
0.1
0.5
1.1
MS09
Permanent Meter
0.0
3.9
21.9
MS01
Permanent Meter
5.3
11.8
22.0
MS02
Permanent Meter
0.1
2.0
4.5
MS04
Permanent Meter
1.9
3.6
5.1
In Basin 1
Temporary Meter
0.1
0.4
1.2
In Basin 2
Temporary Meter
0.6
2.3
4.6
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
23
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Power Rd 6800 E
" J" J
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
" J
" J " J
In Basin 2
2022-19 101
! 4
202
! 4
MS-02
WRP
! 4
! 4
2022-04
2022-16
! 4
2022-19
McKellips Rd 2000 N
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend
" J Lift Station WRP
Force Main
4-inch and Smaller 6-inch - 8-inch
Brown Rd 1200 N
2022-01
14-inch and Larger Gravity Main 8-inch and Smaller
NW WRP
10-inch - 15-inch
! 4
2022-05-01
2022-05
! 4
2022-06
2022-22
! 4 2022-17
! 4
2022-05-03
2022-05-02
! 4
! 4
2022-07-01
2022-07-03
MS-01
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
2022-02-02B
! 4! 4 2022-02-02
2022-22
ME01
Water Reclaimation Plant
! Permanent Metering Station 4 ! Temporary Metering Station 4 10-inch -12 inch
! 4 2022-02
2022-06
2022-07
! 4
! 4!
2022-07-02
16-inch 24-inch Greater than 24-inch EMI New Basins 2022-01 2022-02 2022-03 2022-04
Southern Ave 1200 S
2022-13
60
" J
2022-08
2022-02-01
" J
! 4 " J
! 4
McDowell Rd 2800 N
2022-04
2022-03
! 4
Thomas Rd 3600 N
" J
In Basin 1
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
" J
2022-16
" J
! 4
In association with:
2022-08
2022-05 2022-06 2022-07
60
2022-13
WRP
! 4
! 4
2022-12-01
! 4
2022-01
2022-12
2022-18
! 4
" J
! 4
2022-10 2022-13
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
2022-15
" J
2022-09 2022-12
2022-12-02
2022-14
2022-08
Baseline Rd 2000 S
! 4
2022-14 2022-15
2022-12-03
2022-16
Elliot Rd 3600 S
2022-14
2022-17 2022-18 2022-19
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
! 4
2022-21
2022-21
! 4
2022-10
2022-10
! 4
2022-09-02
MS-09
2022-09
2022-09-01
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
! 4
202
! 4 24
MS-06
" J
!! 4 4 2022-20
2022-20
Pecos Rd 6800 S
Temp Flow Meters
April 30, 2024
2022-22 Other Features Highways Streets Canal Railroads Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 2-12
Germann Rd 7600 S WRP
2022-21
Boundary
Ray Rd 5200 S
2022-15
2022-20
±
Temporary Flow Monitoring Locations
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-13 comparison the wastewater flows observed during the flow monitoring period for each outfall calculated from the temporary meters and compares them to the flows observed in the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) data system. The overall temporary flow monitoring data was approximately 0.2 mgd lower than the flows measured at the City’s and SROG permanent meters. The difference in observed flow between the temporary flow monitoring equipment and the permanent meter for the flow to the permanent meters is reasonable given the expected accuracy of the metering equipment. Discussions with Staff indicated that there are known issues associated with the influent flume at the NWWRP and they are currently completing a project to rectify the issue. Table 2-13
Comparison of Temporary Wastewater Flows versus SCADA Flow Monitoring (mgd)
City SCADA Data (mgd)
Flow Difference (mgd)
NWWRP
6.7
6.2
0.5
SEWRP
4.8
4.9
(0.1)
GWRP (MS06)
0.5
0.5
0.0
GWRP (MS09)
3.5
3.9
(0.4)
SROG (MS01)
3.6
3.6
0.0
SROG (MS04)
11.7
11.8
(0.1)
30.8
31.0
(0.2)
Temporary Meter
Total =
2.6.3 Wastewater Return Rates Water to wastewater factors, also known as percent return, were developed for each flow monitoring basin using the flow monitoring data and the City’s water metered sales data. Because the flow monitoring basins are an aggregate of multiple land use classifications, the water to wastewater factors are not solely representative of either residential or non-residential development. Rather, they represent a combined factor determined by the water use and wastewater flows from multiple land use classifications. The return ratio averages between 30% and 50% depending on the land use types within a basin. Basins with higher residential and multi-family land use will have a higher return ratio whereas industrial basins will have a lower return ratio. The water consumption to wastewater return factors represents the portion of water demand that becomes wastewater flow. For the unit wastewater flow estimates, areas that are served by septic systems were removed from calculations. Table 2-14 presents the water consumption to wastewater return factors for each of the temporary meter sub-basins. Using the temporary meter sub-basin water demand to wastewater return factors, return factors for the larger basins (i.e. WRP basins) were calculated and are summarized in Table 2-15. The larger basin water to wastewater factors in Table 2-15 are the factors applied to the water demand projections (minus the 7% NRW) for the vacant parcels to calculate projected wastewater flows that will be generated in the vacant parcels.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
25
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-14
Water to Wastewater Factors by Flow Monitoring Basin Average Wastewater Flow (mgd)
Average Water Demand (mgd)
Sub-basin Water to Wastewater Factor
2022-01
2.9
5.2
0.6
2022-02
1.8
6.8
0.3
2022-03
2.7
6.7
0.4
2022-04
0.8
1.3
0.6
2022-05
3.2
5.5
0.6
2022-06
1.3
4.9
0.3
2022-07
3.9
7.9
0.5
2022-08
3.6
8.4
0.4
2022-09
0.8
3.4
0.2
2022-10
1.4
3.4
0.4
2022-12
3.2
7.7
0.4
2022-13
1.2
2.5
0.5
2022-14
0.2
1.0
0.2
2022-16
0.5
1.0
0.5
2022-17
4.4
4.4
0.8
2022-18
2.2
6.0
0.4
2022-19
0.9
3.0
0.3
2022-20
0.4
1.4
0.3
2022-21
0.1
0.2
0.8
2022-22
0.9
0.9
1.0
Total
36.4
81.6
0.4
Temporary Meter
Table 2-15
Recommended IMP Basin Water to Wastewater Factors
WRP Basin
Water to Wastewater Factor
NWWRP
0.45
SEWRP
0.44
GWRP
0.36
SROG
0.44
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
26
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
2.6.4 Wastewater Flow Projections Future wastewater flows were estimated using the water to wastewater factor discussed in the previous section multiplied by the projected water demands for vacant parcels shown on Figure 2-13. Table 2-16 presents the existing and projected buildout wastewater flows by WRP Basin for each of the three growth scenarios. Because wastewater flows estimates are directly tied to the water consumption demands, the timing of future flows correspond with the same projections that formed the water demands. The values provided in Table 2-16 exclude areas that are currently served by septic areas. The wastewater master plan evaluation includes a capacity evaluation to determine the potential impact flows would have by connecting areas currently served by septic systems to the collection system. Table 2-16
Wastewater Flow Projections Average Growth (mgd)
Moderate Growth (mgd)
Aggressive Growth (mgd)
GWRP
9.1
11.8
17.0
SEWRP
5.4
6.1
7.8
NWWRP
8.4
8.7
9.5
SROG
16.3
17.0
17.5
Average Daily Flow
39.2
43.6
51.8
Delivery Location
Intermediate year flow projections were developed based on a straight-line interpolation between the existing and buildout. Figure 2-13 present the projected wastewater flow projections for each of the three demand scenarios for the planning periods analyzed in the IMP.
2.7
Effluent Flow Projections
2.7.1 Historical Effluent Flows Wastewater effluent, also known as reclaimed water, generated at each of the City’s WRPs is put to beneficial use either through a water exchange or recharged for long-term storage credits. Wastewater sent to the 91st Avenue WWTP is disposed of in accordance with the member Cities seasonal SROG commitments. Effluent production estimates are based on the City’s historical wastewater flow and effluent water flow records in the City’s Aggregate Meter Records. The following sections provide an overview of the City’s historical effluent flows.
2.7.1.1 SROG Commitments The portion of the City’s wastewater that goes into SROG interceptors is treated at the 91 st Avenue WWTP is committed to the Palo Verde nuclear power plant, the Tres Rios wetlands project, and the Buckeye Irrigation and Drainage District (BIDD) and is therefore not available for effluent use by the City. The SROG commitments have seasonal requirements which are summarized in Table 2-17.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
27
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-13
Wastewater Flow Projections by Growth Scenario
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
28
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-17
City of Mesa SROG Commitments
Commitment
Jan to Mar (mgd)
April (mgd)
May (mgd)
Jun to Aug (mgd)
Sep (mgd)
Oct to Dec (mgd)
Annual Average (mgd)
Palo Verde
9.3
9.3
10.6
10.6
10.6
9.3
9.9
Tres Rios (Regulated Wetlands & Overbank Wetlands)
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.8
2.3
BIDD
1.1
2.1
2.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
Total =
12.2
14.1
15.4
16.5
14.4
12.2
13.9
Table 2-18 summarizes the City of Mesa’s historical flows discharged into the SROG interceptors. While the City’s SROG commitment varies monthly, diversions in the collection system are set to meet the City’s maximum month SROG commitment which results in the City exceeding the SROG commitment in the remaining months. Modifying the diversions seasonally would allow the City to optimize deliveries to SROG and allow the City to retain additional wastewater / reclaim water for other uses. Table 2-18
City of Mesa Wastewater Delivered to 91st Ave WWTP Jan to Mar (mgd)
April (mgd)
May (mgd)
Jun to Aug (mgd)
Sep (mgd)
Oct to Dec (mgd)
Annual Average (mgd)
2018
16.1
15.8
15.0
15.7
15.9
16.8
16.1
2019
17.8
17.5
16.6
14.0
20.9
16.1
16.5
2020
18.9
17.7
17.6
16.1
16.0
16.0
17.0
2021
15.6
18.9
17.2
14.5
11.8
16.1
15.5
2022
16.5
16.1
15.3
15.5
15.6
15.4
15.8
Average =
17.0
17.2
16.3
15.1
16.0
16.1
16.2
Commitment
2.7.1.2 GRIC Commitments In 2005 the City entered into an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to exchange effluent water for a portion of the GRIC’s CAP water. The agreement allows for the City to deliver up to 29,400 Acre-feet/year (AF/yr) or 26.5 mgd. In exchange the City will receive 4 AF of CAP water for every 5 AF of effluent water delivered up to 23,530 AF/yr or 21.0 mgd. Currently the City is only able to send effluent water from SEWRP and GWRP to the GRIC however with the completion of the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP), effluent flows from the NWWRP can be used to meet the commitments of the GRIC exchange. Table 2-19 summarizes the historical deliveries to the GRIC from both the SEWRP and the GWRP. Based on discussions with City Staff there are known issues associated with the effluent pump station at the GRWP and each City’s effluent water is calculated by multiplying the respective City’s influent by the WRPs overall efficiencies (Effluent / Influent). Due to irrigation demands there are months when the City of Mesa sends more effluent water to the GRIC than influent observed at the WRPs (specifically the GWRP influent vs GWRP GRIC deliveries). At the end of the year any overages of effluent water sent to
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
29
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
GRIC are rectified with the other Cities. For the purposes of this study the effluent water above the City of Mesa’s calculated effluent is assumed to be used by the respective Cities and not available for Mesa. Table 2-19
City of Mesa GRIC Deliveries
WRP
2018 (mgd)
2019 (mgd)
2020 (mgd)
2021 (mgd)
2022 (mgd)
SEWRP
3.9
4.2
4.3
3.7
3.5
GWRP
3.6
4.1
3.5
5.2
5.9
Total GRIC Deliveries (mgd) =
7.5
8.3
7.8
8.8
9.4
Total GRIC Deliveries (AF/Yr) =
8,434
9,330
8,736
9,890
10,472
2.7.1.3 Granite Reef Underground Storage Permit Long term storage credits are created through artificial recharge of excess CAP surface water or wastewater effluent. For each AF of effluent water, the City recharges, the City receives 0.95 AF of effluent water long-term storage credit. Effluent water from the NWWRP is recharged directly into the aquifer at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) and can be recovered for later use via groundwater wells. However, due to the hydrogeology in the area there are times of the year when recharge at the GRUSP is not available, and flow must be discharged to the river. When flow is discharge to the river the City does not receive LTSC. As mentioned in the previous section the City is currently designing the CMRP which will enable the City to convey effluent water from NWWRP to GRIC. . Table 2-20 summarizes the historical deliveries to the GRUSP and the river. The influent flume at the NWWRP is known to have issues associated with it. The City is currently completing a project to correct issues with the flume. The City has high confidence with the metering associated with the effluent water disposal. Table 2-20
City of Mesa GRUSP and River Discharges
Location
2018 (mgd)
2019 (mgd)
2020 (mgd)
2021 (mgd)
2022 (mgd)
GRUSP
6.3
5.0
0.0
4.9
7.9
River Discharge
2.9
2.7
7.8
2.8
0.3
Total (mgd) =
9.2
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.2
Total (AF/Yr) =
10,349
8,613
8,770
8,523
9,173
2.7.2 Effluent Flow Projections Future wastewater flows were estimated using the water to wastewater projections developed in Section 2.7 accounting for a 10% treatment loss through each of the City’s WRPs. Because wastewater effluent is a valuable resource for the City it is assumed that the City will develop operational or physical modifications to the collection system to enable the City to divert flows in the SROG basin that are in excess of the City’s SROG commitment (13.9 mgd) to one of the City’s three other WRPs. Table 2-21 presents the projected buildout wastewater effluent by WRP Basin for each of the three growth scenarios.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
30
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 2-21
Effluent Flow Projections
Location
Average Growth (mgd)
Moderate Growth (mgd)
Aggressive Growth (mgd)
GWRP
8.2
10.6
15.3
SEWRP
4.9
5.5
7.0
NWWRP
7.6
7.8
8.6
SROG Diverted to Mesa WRPs
2.2
2.8
3.2
Average Daily Flow with SROG =
22.8
26.7
34.1
Intermediate year flow projections were developed based on a straight-line interpolation between the existing and buildout. Figure 2-14 present the projected wastewater effluent projections for each of the three demand scenarios for the planning periods analyzed in the IMP.
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
31
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 2-14
Effluent Water Projections by Growth Scenario
BLACK & VEATCH | Planning Framework
32
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.0 Water Resources 3.1
Introduction
The City of Mesa (City) has multiple water resources that are available for meeting current and future water system demands. These include both surface water and groundwater resources. With the enactment of the 1980 Groundwater Code and the establishment of the Phoenix Active Management Areas (Phoenix AMA) there has been a concerted effort to reduce the utilization of groundwater and move towards renewable supplies. The primary water resource utilized by the City of Mesa is surface water (both Central Arizona Project and Salt River Project Water) delivered to customers from the three surface water treatment plants; the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant (VVWTP) which is co-owned with and operated by the City of Phoenix which treats Salt River Project (SRP) Water, and the City of Mesa operated Brown Road Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) and the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant (SBWTP). Both BRWTP and SBWTP are located off-project and treat Colorado River surface water supplied by Central Arizona Project (CAP). Groundwater utilization, though reduced, is still utilized by the City. The City currently owns and operates several groundwater production wells to supplement supply when a surface water treatment plant is offline or to supplement surface water during peak demand periods. Figure 3-1 shows the City of Mesa service area, existing water treatment plants, and groundwater wells.
3.2
Water Resources Service Area
The two distinctions for water resources within the City are On- and Off-Project lands, with reference to the Salt River Project (SRP). SRP water originates in the Salt and Verde River watersheds and is delivered to the City through a network of canals and laterals where water is conveyed to the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant (VVWTP) and other municipalities. The portion of the City’s water service area that is not part of the SRP service area is considered “OffProject” lands and is served primarily from CAP water supplied through the BRWTP, the SBWTP, and groundwater wells. Figure 3-1 shows the water rights jurisdictional boundaries within the City’s water service area (On-project – Blue; Off-project – Green).
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
33
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
Thomas Rd 3600 N
VVWTP
3 Q
McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Water Resources
McKellips Rd 2000 N
BRWTP
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
WRP
3 Q
NWWRP
Brown Rd 1200 N University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Off-Project On-Project WRP
3 WTP Q Other Features Highways Highways Streets Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Southern Ave 1200 S 60
WRP
SEWRP
WRPs
Airport
60
Salt River
Baseline Rd 2000 S Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
SBWTP
3 Q
Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S
202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
202
WRP
GWRP
Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 3-1 Water Rights Jurisdictions
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.3
Water Resources Portfolio
Under a normal year (non-drought conditions), the City’s renewable water resources portfolio is comprised of the following major components which are summarized in Table 3-1. 1.
2.
3.
4.
Salt River Project (SRP) Water consisting of: a.
Normal Flow
b.
Stored Water
c.
Developed Water
Colorado River Water consisting of: a.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water
b.
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water lease
c.
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Water lease
d.
Welton-Mohawk Exchange Water
e.
Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) CAP allocation
f.
Hohokam Water
g.
Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) exchange water
Groundwater that can be legally pumped consisting of: a.
Incidental Recharge and Groundwater Allowance as determined by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
b.
Reclaimed Water that is recharged for long-term storage credits (LTSC)
New conservation space (NCS) Water, when available
Reclaimed water (which is used to establish the potential for LTSC) is directly tied to water demands through wastewater returned. Water resources were calculated separately for each buildout growth scenarios discussed in the previous Chapter. The following sections each of the resources listed in Table 3-1 is further developed providing additional detail in support of the planning of water production infrastructure in Chapter 4. Table 3-1
City of Mesa Water Normal Year Resources Portfolio
Mesa Water Resources
Existing
Average Growth
Moderate Growth
Aggressive Growth
2025
2040
2040
2040
On-Project (SRP) Surface Water Resources Total SRP Water (ac-ft/yr)
63,122
69,315
69,315
69,315
Total SRP Water (mgd)
56.4
61.9
61.9
61.9
Off-Project Surface Water Resources Total CAP Surface Water (ac-ft/yr)
64,066
77,070
80,161
80,161
Total CAP Surface Water (mgd)
57.2
68.8
71.6
71.6
Peak Month (2) (mgd)
75.5
90.8
94.5
94.5
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
35
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Mesa Water Resources
Existing
Average Growth
Moderate Growth
Aggressive Growth
2025
2040
2040
2040
Renewable Groundwater Resources Total Renewable Groundwater (ac-ft/yr)
22,568
18,568
19,079
26,065
Total Renewable Groundwater (mgd)
20.1
16.6
17.0
23.2
Total Water Resources Total City Water Resources (1) (ac-ft/yr)
149,755
164,954
168,556
175,541
Total City Water Resources (1) (mgd)
134
147
150
157
Note: 1. Does not include NCS water when available. 2. Peak Month factor (1.32) derived from CAP restriction that the City can only take a maximum of 11% of allocation in a single month.
The following sections provide additional details for each of the City’s water resources.
3.3.1 Salt River Project 3.3.1.1 Resource Evaluation SRP water resources are tied to the land, meaning that water can only be used to serve customers within the SRP service area. These are areas of the City that were originally part of the Salt River Valley Water User Association (SRVWUA) and are referred to as “On-Project.” Any SRP water delivered through the City’s distribution system to non-SRP lands, referred to as “Off-Project” must be transferred / paid back with non-SRP source waters. The City’s On-Project lands include the City Zone and Mini-City Zones located west of the Eastern Canal. The SRP water supply is divided into three categories (SRP cutover land, stored water allocation, and normal flow water availability), summarized in Table 3-2. These allocations are not dependent on growth. Table 3-2
City of Mesa Water Normal Year SRP Resources Existing
Average Growth
Moderate Growth
Aggressive Growth
SRP Resources
2025
2040
2040
2040
SRP Cutover Land (Acres)
21,640
24,368
Surface Water Allocation (af/ac/yr)
2.27
2.27
Stored Water Allocation (ac-ft/yr)
49,122
55,315
Normal Flow Water Availability (ac-ft/yr)
14,000
14,000
TOTAL SRP Water=
63,122
69,315
TOTAL SRP Water (mgd)=
56.4
61.9
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
36
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Surface Water Allocation of Stored Water Surface Water Allocation is stored water from the Salt and Verde watersheds that is stored in one of the reservoirs operated by SRP and delivered through the canal system to VVWTP. Based on the current 21,640 acres of Project land currently in the City’s municipal service area, the City’s current allocation of stored water is 49,122 ac-ft/yr assuming 2.27 af/ac/yr. The unit rate of 2.27 ac-ft/ac is accepted by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) for the purposes of establishing the City’s assured supply. While SRP has been capable of delivering more in many years, the rate of 2.27 ac-ft/ac is appropriate as a planning number for use in this report during non-drought years. The total quantity of Project land in Mesa to be cut-over or converted from agricultural to municipal is projected to increase to 24,368 acres by build-out (2040), bringing the total stored surface water allocation to 55,315 ac-ft/yr.
Normal Flow Normal Flow is the amount of surface water that is naturally occurring in the Salt and Verde Rivers. It refers to flowing water and can be delivered only when it is available. Water users cannot request normal flow water in quantities that exceed the flow into the reservoirs at that time. At times of the year when normal flows exceed demand, the surplus is stored in the reservoirs and ceases to be normal flow water but is then classified as stored water. The City’s right to Normal Flow water varies depending on the relationship of inflow to demand each year but normal flow deliveries have averaged 14,000 ac-ft/yr over the last several decades.
Developed Water In addition to surface water, SRP also pumps and delivers groundwater (referred to as developed water) to their water users through their canal system. It should be noted however that groundwater pumped by SRP and delivered to the City must be debited against the City’s account of groundwater credits. In a normal year, the amount of surface water available, both Stored and Normal Flow water components, exceeds the City’s On-Project demand and the City does not elect to take Developed Water (groundwater) deliveries from SRP. However, in years of drought, the City can take Developed water to make-up for shortfalls in surface water supplies, allowing normal operations to be maintained at its Val Vista WTP.
3.3.1.2 Operational Constraints For practical purposes, the following constraints apply to all three components of the SRP resource, Stored, Normal Flow and Developed Water.
On-Project Restrictions SRP water may only be used for demands from On-Project lands. Unused SRP allocations cannot be delivered for use off-project unless the service provider has an exchange agreement with SRP. With an exchange agreement, SRP water can be used to satisfy Off-Project demands, however it must be replaced with an equal amount of non-SRP water delivered On-Project.
System Dry-Up The Southern Canal is typically dried up on an annual basis for one month every winter. The four-week dry-up is usually scheduled for a time when demand is low (typically November) and allows SRP to clean the canal and maintain canal gates and structures. In years when both a CAP and SRP dry-up is scheduled, dry-up times would be coordinated so as not to occur at the same time and the SRP dry-up may be shifted to December, January, or February. Any supply concept utilizing SRP water must consider this one month dry-up period (occurring between November to February) when no water will be delivered.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
37
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Seasonal Variations and Peaking Limits To date, SRP has not imposed peaking limits on the delivery of Project water and can supply 90 mgd for the City’s share of the Val Vista WTP when ordered.
3.3.1.3 Drought Constraints Over time, the annual allocation of 2.27 af/ac has proven to be a conservative number, and, in most years, SRP has been capable of delivering more to member lands. Since 1950, the average annual allocation has exceeded 3.0 af/ac. However prolonged drought on the Salt and Verde Watersheds would reduce the quantity of stored water which could be allocated to project lands. SRP has a goal to maintain a minimum allocation of 2.0 ac-ft/ac for member lands for all hydrologic conditions. To achieve the minimum allocation of 2.0 ac-ft/ac, SRP would designate a portion of the supply to come from Developed Water. This would require a debit to the City’s groundwater account but would allow the City to maintain normal operations. Along with the utilization of Developed Water, other sources to mitigate the shortfall could include the use of excess CAP water, subject to availability.
3.3.2 Colorado River Supplies 3.3.2.1 Resource Evaluation The Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built by the Federal Governments and is operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD). CAP is designed to deliver to central and southern Arizona approximately 1.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of Colorado River water annually. CAP water users (subcontractors) are classified as: Municipal and Industrial (M&I), Indian, and Non-Indian Agricultural (NIA). Different priorities in times of drought and different costs per acre-foot are assigned to each category of CAP water. CAP water allocated to the City includes M&I, NIA and Indian water allotments which are summarized in Table 3-3. Most of the CAP allotments remain the same throughout the planning years except for the WMAT and GRIC Exchange Water. The City is anticipating finalizing the agreement with the WMAT for additional leased water, and it is anticipated that water will be available by 2025. In 2005 the City entered into an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to exchange effluent water for a portion of the GRIC’s CAP water. The agreement allows for the City to deliver up to 29,400 ac-ft/yr or 26.25 mgd. In exchange, the City will receive 4 AF of CAP water for every 5 AF of effluent water delivered up to 23,520 ac-ft/yr or 21.0 mgd. Currently, the City is only able to send effluent water from SEWRP and GWRP to the GRIC. However, with the completion of the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP), effluent flows from the NWWRP will be able to be used to achieve the agreement limit of the GRIC exchange. It will be necessary for the City to modify seasonally the flow that is sent SROG to minimize flow sent to SROG to the City’s commitment of 13.9 mgd.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
38
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 3-3
City of Mesa Water Normal Year CAP Resources Existing (ac-ft/yr)
Average (ac-ft/yr)
Moderate (ac-ft/yr)
Aggressive (ac-ft/yr)
2025
2040
2040
2040
3,157
3,157
Mesa Water Resources
Priority
Current CAP Allocation
M&I
Future WMAT Lease Water
Indian
SRPMIC Lease Water
Indian
1,669
Welton-Mohawk Exchange Water
Indian
2,761
RWCD Assignment Water
NIA
627
Hohokam Water
Indian
4,924
GRIC Exchange Water
Indian
Notes: 1.
43,503 -
3,157
10,582
20,429
23,520
23,520
Total CAP Surface Water =
64,066
77,070
80,161
80,161
Total CAP Surface Water (mgd) =
57.2
68.8
71.6
71.6
Peak Month (1) (mgd) =
75.5
90.8
94.5
94.5
Peak Month factor (1.32) derived from CAP restriction that the City can only take a maximum of 11% of allocation in a single month.
3.3.2.2 Operational Considerations For practical purposes, the following constraints apply to all three components of the CAP resource, M&I, Indian and NIA water.
System Dry-Up The CAP system is an interruptible supply and while there has not been an annual interruption in the delivery of CAP water to Mesa, outages are possible because of failures and will be required for periodic maintenance in the future. In 2019 there was a 6-week outage due to a siphon outage. CAP has indicated that, in the future, short dry ups (ranging from one week to one month in duration) are envisioned for maintenance purposes. A back-up to the CAP water supply will be required and the City’s groundwater production infrastructure has been planned to accommodate periodic CAP dry ups occurring at some point from November to February. In those years where a CAP outage is scheduled for November, the SRP outage would be scheduled so as to not occur at the same time and would occur in February.
Take or Pay Charges CAWCD charges Take or Pay fees to provide for the repayment of the capital cost of the CAP. The Take or Pay charge will be charged to City whether their CAP allocation is utilized or not. The City therefore has an incentive to utilize their full CAP allocation each year.
Seasonal Variations and Peaking Limits CAP water can be ordered year-round, but deliveries are limited to a peak of no more than 11 percent of the annual supply in any given month. This equates to 1.32 times the annual average flowrate of CAP
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
39
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
water in any given month. To date, this limitation of the peak rate of delivery has not been strictly enforced because the canal system is not yet operating at capacity. However, it is anticipated that CAWCD will begin enforcing the peaking limitation when full utilization of the CAP is achieved or during drought deliveries.
3.3.2.3 Drought Susceptibility Water managers in the Colorado River basin have historically held concerns that the River is overallocated based on observed inflows over the last century. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 apportioned 7.5 million-acre-feet (MAF) each to the Upper and Lower Division States and the 1944 Treaty with Mexico allotted 1.5 MAF to Mexico for a total of 16.5 MAF. From 1906 to 2022, observed historical natural flows in the river at Lees Ferry, Arizona have averaged 14.6 MAF. More recently, from 2000 to 2022 natural flows have averaged only 12.1 MAF with this period noted to be the driest 23-year period on record. Overall consumptive use and other losses within the basin continue to exceed natural flows in most years, resulting in a “structural deficit” which causes declines in system storage. Due to the Colorado River experiencing its worst drought in recorded history and water stored in Colorado River reservoirs were the lowest volume in over a half-century, the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) was adopted in 2019 by the seven Colorado River basin states. The DCP was designed to protect the Colorado River system through voluntary reductions and increased conservation. If Lake Mead should experience continued water level elevation declines, the DCP established pre-determined “trigger” elevations where water deliveries to Arizona and the CAP would be reduced. Tier 3 is the greatest reduction to CAP supplies at 720,000 AF/year at elevation <1,025 feet in Lake Mead as shown on Figure 3-2. The terms of the DCP are set to expire in 2026 which will trigger a reconsultation process among water users and agencies in Arizona and the other lower basin states.
Figure 3-2
Lake Powell and Lake Mead Trigger Levels (Joint Colorado River Shortage Preparedness Briefing 5/5/2023)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
40
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was released on March 5, 2024. The Lower Basin states developed and submitted a draft alternative to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to address the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead after the terms of the DCP expire. As part of this alternative, the users at and downstream of Lake Mead commit to reducing their use of Colorado River water by 1.5 million acre-feet each year. Additionally, these new guidelines propose a more holistic approach of water use as a function of the actual hydrology and total system contents as opposed to elevations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Figure 3-3 shows how total system contents would translate to reductions.
Figure 3-3
Lower Basin Alternative: Reduction Determination (Arizona Reconsulation Committee Meeting 3/6/2024)
This alternative indicates that water use reductions are shared predictably among the Lower Basin water users and Mexico under most system conditions, as shown in Figure 3-4. The Lower Basin Alternative also outlines opportunities for storage and augmentation, retaining some of the core concepts of the 2007 Interim Guidelines regarding conservation, augmentation, and storage. The alternative proposes that Reclamation analyze 5-10 million acre-feet of water for storage by the Lower Basin States and Mexico based on conservation and augmentation to provide more flexibility in managing reductions. Finally, the Lower Basin Alternative establishes releases from Lake Powell that are adaptable to a broad range of hydrologies and adjusts to respond to Upper Basin depletions under certain release regimes: equalization release, “hydrologic shortage”-based release, reduced release ramp, static release.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
41
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 3-4
Reduction Sharing (Arizona Reconsultation Committee Meeting 3/6/2024)
3.3.3 Groundwater 3.3.3.1 Resource Evaluation To reduce pumping of groundwater, the Arizona Legislature adopted a comprehensive groundwater code in 1980. The code dictates strict requirements for the use of groundwater resources within the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) with the goal of achieving safe yield. Under safe yield, the amount of annual groundwater pumped must equal the amount recharged. Following the enactment of the 1980 Groundwater Code, renewable surface water sources became the main component of the City’s potable water supply. The City’s goal is to maximize the use of renewable surface water resources first and utilize groundwater second as a supplemental resource during times of peak summer demand, drought, or canal dry up. Upon reaching buildout, surface water resources will be fully utilized on Off-Project Lands, and it will be necessary to begin utilizing groundwater as a base portion of the City’s water supply during the higher demand periods. The City’s renewable groundwater resources are summarized in Table 3-4 and are discussed in detail below: Table 3-4
City of Mesa Water Normal Year Groundwater Resources
Renewable Groundwater Resources
Existing (ac-ft/yr)
Average (ac-ft/yr)
Moderate (ac-ft/yr)
Aggressive (ac-ft/yr)
2025
2040
2040
2040
Assured Water Supply Groundwater
12,043
Existing Long Term Storage Credits
5,525
Future Long Term Storage Credits
5,000
1,000
1,512
8,497
Total Renewable Groundwater =
22,568
18,568
19,079
26,065
Total Renewable Groundwater Water (mgd) =
20.1
16.6
17.0
23.2
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
42
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Assured Water Supply Groundwater (Incidental Recharge & Groundwater Allowance) The City’s legal availability of groundwater is limited by the 1980 Groundwater Management Act that indicates the volume of groundwater within the City’s Groundwater Allowance Account which includes the groundwater allowance and incidental recharge. The designated Assured Water Supply (AWS) can be pumped annually without having to be replenished. The City’s groundwater allowance per the 2010 AWS was set at 12,043 ac/ft/yr. For the purposes of this IMP, the City’s AWS Groundwater is divided 1/3 for On-Project Use and 2/3 Off-Project use, respectively. Currently, the City is applying to renew their Designation of AWS with ADWR. In May 2023, the City, ADWR, Black and Veatch, and Clear Creek attended a Pre-application meeting to discuss the application process and the application was submitted by December 2023. ADWR will review and approve this application by the end of 2025.
Existing Long Term Storage Credits Annual and long-term storage credits are accrued by recharging renewable supplies (effluent, CAP or NCS) at groundwater storage facilities (GSF). Besides the reclaimed water sent to the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP), the City has additional LTSC stored at Granite Reef, RWCD, Red Mountain, SRP, and Gila River GSFs. The City’s 2021 LTSC balance is 552,479.64 which equates to 5,525 ac/ft/yr over 100 years.
Future Long Term Storage Credits With the completion of the CMRP, most of the effluent generated at the NWWRP will be conveyed to the GWRP to be exchanged for GRIC CAP surface water. However, there will be times of the year when the City will need to send flow to the GRUSP for recharge. It was assumed the recharge at the GRUSP would decrease from 5,000 acre/ft/yr to 1,000 ac/ft/year with the completion of the CMRP. It is assumed that a minimum of 1,000 ac/ft will be sent to the GRUSP during times water cannot be sent to the GRIC. Depending on the growth scenario (Average, Moderate or Aggressive), the volume of effluent available (beyond the GRIC commitment) for recharge / exchange could increase. Table 3-4 indicates that under the average growth scenario, the City will need approximately 494 ac-ft of groundwater annually to meet projected demands. However, under the Moderate and Aggressive Growth Scenarios there is surplus effluent of 4,655 ac-ft/yr and 12,934 ac-ft/yr respectively, that is available for additional effluent disposal. For the purpose of this chapter, any surplus effluent above the GRIC commitment is assumed to be available for future LTSCs. However, additional effluent options will be explored in subsequent Chapters.
3.3.3.2 Operational Considerations The City has developed several groundwater productions wells throughout its service area. Groundwater resources are not subject to peaking limits, seasonal dry-ups, and drought in the same manner as are the surface water supplies. There are no daily or monthly peaking limits on the rate of groundwater withdrawal as each well has a permitted annual allotment (in acre-feet) not to be exceeded. The permitted capacity for each well is evaluated and approved by ADWR. The permitted capacity for a given well is determined based on several factors including hydrogeologic conditions, distance to neighboring wells, and well completion details. Table 3-5 summarizes the well construction details, permitted capacity details, well impact analyses, and theoretical maximized permittable capacity volumes.
3.3.3.3 Drought Considerations Groundwater resources are not subject to drought in the same manner as are the surface water supplies. The City can bank excess recharge credits in years of surplus, for use in years of drought. This makes groundwater the ideal resource in this situation for the purposes of both peaking and emergency supply.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
43
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.3.4 New Conservation Space Water 3.3.4.1 Resource Evaluation The City of Mesa has a 15 percent ownership in the 268,000 ac-ft of additional water storage space, referred to as the “New Conservation Space” (NCS) resulting from the construction of Modified Roosevelt Dam. The City’s share of the NCS volume is 40,200 ac-ft of storage. SRP modeled the yield of the NCS volume using more than 100 years of historic runoff records and predicted the long-term annual yield of NCS water. To maximize the yield of the NCS volume, the runoff which is captured must be utilized that year so as to free-up the storage space to capture the next year’s runoff. The quicker the storage space is emptied, the more likely that additional runoff could be captured during years of peak runoff. According to ADWR, the City’s NCS ownership is expected to yield 12,500 ac-ft/yr on average. Much like the City’s SRP supplies, NCS availability varies year to year due to hydrological and climatic conditions of the Salt and Verde watersheds. To maximize the use of this water, the City must be prepared to take on water delivery up to the full amount of 40,200 ac-ft in years which those deliveries are available.
3.3.4.2 Operational Considerations NCS water can be conveyed through the SRP canal system to the City’s VVWTP where it can be treated and directly delivered to meet customer demands. Once the SRP-CAP Interconnect Facility (SCIF) is constructed, it would be possible to convey the City’s NCS water and other non-SRP supplies to the BRWTP and SBWTP.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
44
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 3-5
City of Mesa Water Existing Well Construction Details
Casing Depth (ft)
Case Diameter (in)
ADWR Reported Pump Capacity (gpm)
Installed Pump Capacity (gpm)
SCADA Value (gpm)
Permitted Volume (AFY)
Permitted Volume (gpm 100% Duty)
Increase Capacity? (Y/N)
Estimated Volume Increase (AFY)
Estimated Volume Increase (gpm - 100% Duty)
Well, #
Reg No.
Cadastral
Owner Name
Well Depth (ft)
CW-7
225769
A01005022AAD
CITY OF MESA
890
870
21
3000
3000
3300
4399
2727
Yes
5245
3252
55-206245 (Citrine 1, LLC)
CW-8
225569
A01005015DBD
CITY OF MESA
820
810
21
3000
2500
2840
4839
3000
No
NA
NA
55-206245 (Citrine 1, LLC)
CW-9
236569
A01005014BCC
CITY OF MESA
1010
1010
20
3500
NA
NA
4608
2857
Yes
6935
4300
55-223506 (SRP)
CW-10
584716
A01005022CDC
CITY OF MESA
910
908
20
1250
1250
1125
3121
1935
No
NA
NA
55-206245 (Citrine 1, LLC)
CW-11
218261
A01005022ABB
CITY OF MESA
1100
950
20
2000
3300
3150
2847
1765
Yes
5004
3102
55-206245 (Citrine 1, LLC)
CW-12
215460
A01005015DCB
CITY OF MESA
920
910
21
3333
3300
3000
5376
3333
No
NA
NA
55-206245 (Citrine 1, LLC)
CW-13
629604
A01005022DDD
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
1875
1875
NA
3024
1875
TBD - Following replacement/installation of new well.
55-644248 (Hochstetler)
CW-14
221425
A01005026BDA
CITY OF MESA
875
840
20
3200
3000
3000
3584
2222
Potentially
5435
3370
Need to confirm 55-644248 does not exist
CW-15
629606
A01005024DDD
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
18
2400
2500
2500
4208
2609
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-216450 (SRP)
CW-16
629607
A01005021DBB
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
1765
1875
2200
2847
1765
TBD - Following replacement/installation of new well.
CW-17
701744
A01005029DDA
CITY OF MESA
490
480
20
NA
NA
NA
2000
1240
No
NA
NA
55-617840 (SRP)
CW-18
629608
A01006018CCB
CITY OF MESA
0
543
NA
2000
NA
NA
3226
2000
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-617120 (SRP)
CW-19
629618
A01006007BCC
CITY OF MESA
0
545
0
2500
2500
2800
1000
620
Yes
2702
1675
55-607709 (SRP)
CW-20
508798
D01005006BDA
CITY OF MESA
1450
1045
20
2650
2650
2350
1000
620
Potentially
2742
1700
55-608418 (SRP) need to confirm well locations
CW-21
512354
A02006031DAB
CITY OF MESA
1030
1022
20
2000
NA
NA
2420
1500
No
NA
NA
55-206403 (Cemex)
CW-22
517843
D01005004DAA
CITY OF MESA
1000
60
20
2160
2000
1700
1742
1080
Yes
1935
1200
55-617840 (SRP)
CW-23
521659
A01006008CBB
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
2000
1650
NA
3000
1860
No
NA
NA
55-631239 (Preston)
CW-24
523556
A01005012BBA
CITY OF MESA
1023
1023
32
2000
2000
2075
3000
1860
No
NA
NA
55-565175 (SRP)
CW-25
546718
A01005016CBC
CITY OF MESA
1300
1290
20
2500
2000
2000
2016
1250
No
NA
NA
55-617841 (SRP)
CW-26
553992
A01005020CDA
CITY OF MESA
1202
1190
20
2500
2400
2500
2020
1252
Potentially
4194
2600
55-607746 (SRP), NXP NE wells may be an issue
CW-27
583894
A01005018AAA
CITY OF MESA
1065
980
20
2000
2000
2075
1613
1000
Yes
3387
2100
55-803663 (V&P Nurseries)
DW-3
581366
A01007031DDA
CITY OF MESA
1050
925
21
1500
1500
1600
1452
900
No
NA
NA
55-518151 (Global Water)
DW-5
629613
A01007030DAB
CITY OF MESA
922
922
12
588
NA
NA
948
588
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-518151 (Global Water)
DW-6
629614
D01007004BCC
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
16
600
800
763
987
612
Yes
1371
850
55-626922 (Sunland Village Golf)
DW-7
236568
D01007004BCC
CITY OF MESA
1200
910
20
1600
1600
NA
794
492
Yes
1548
960
55-626922 (Sunland Village Golf)
DW-8 (FF14)
522924
D01007006BAB
CITY OF MESA
930
930
18
2000
2510
NA
3000
1860
Yes
4196
2600
55-518151 (Global Water)
DW-9
511595
D01007003AAB
CITY OF MESA
820
820
20
1500
1500
1350
2419.5
1500
No
NA
NA
55-569388 (Augusta Ranch Community)
DW-10
505767
A01007033CCC
CITY OF MESA
874
870
32
900
NA
NA
1451
900
No
NA
NA
55-626922 (Sunland Village Golf)
DW-11
575995
D01007036CCD
CITY OF MESA
1490
1350
20
1200
1200
NA
996
617
No
NA
NA
55-640304 (Aretta)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
Nearest Non-city well
55-617841 (SRP)
45
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Casing Depth (ft)
Case Diameter (in)
ADWR Reported Pump Capacity (gpm)
Installed Pump Capacity (gpm)
SCADA Value (gpm)
Permitted Volume (AFY)
Permitted Volume (gpm 100% Duty)
Increase Capacity? (Y/N)
Estimated Volume Increase (AFY)
Estimated Volume Increase (gpm - 100% Duty)
Well, #
Reg No.
Cadastral
Owner Name
Well Depth (ft)
DW-12
585924
D02007003BBB
CITY OF MESA
1510
990
21
700
700
700
1370.8
850
No
NA
NA
55-613581 (Buckeye Casa Grande LP)
DW-13
560667
D01007011DDD
CITY OF MESA
1060
999
20
1600
1600
1819
1290
800
Potentially
2420
1500
55-590211 (Blue Valley Land)
DW-14
562864
D02007001ADD
CITY OF MESA
1470
1456
20
1450
1500
NA
724
449
No
NA
NA
55-205658 (Michael Thompson)
DW-15
564333
D02007001DDD
CITY OF MESA
1245
1225
34
1400
1400
1450
2258
1400
No
NA
NA
55-619771 (Zimmerman Dairy LTD)
DW-16
595238
D01007011CCD
CITY OF MESA
1000
570
21
2000
750
900
1613
1000
Potentially
3024
1875
55-5635112 (SRP) may require TH wells
DW-17
209402
D01007010DDC
CITY OF MESA
1010
750
21
1850
1500
1525
1492
925
Yes
2758
1710
55-636279 (BR Estates)
DW-18
237515
D01007013CBC
CITY OF MESA
1160
1160
20
1200
1200
NA
1516
940
DW-19
224922
D01007024BCC
CITY OF MESA
1200
1200
21
1000
1100
1050
1119
694
Yes
1387
860
55-908801 (Gordon Bluth)
DW-20
225159
D01007024CCC
CITY OF MESA
1190
790
21
900
700
575
686
425
No
NA
NA
55-908801 (Gordon Bluth)
DW-21
213207
D01007012CDD
CITY OF MESA
1160
1110
21
2000
1500
1300
1210
750
Yes
3387
2100
55-590211 (Blue Valley Land)
DW-22
215425
D01007012CAA
CITY OF MESA
1160
1130
21
1600
1500
1500
1089
675
Yes
2880
1786
55-590211 (Blue Valley Land)
DW-23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Potentially
1945
1206
Based on DW-17 Impact. 55-636279 (BR Estates)
DW-24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TBD
1782
1105
55-569388 (Augusta Ranch Community)
DW-25
238689
D01007015CCD
CITY OF MESA
NA
NA
NA
600
NA
NA
1054
650
TBD
1054
650
55-610152 (DMB)
DW-26
238294
D01007015DBB
CITY OF MESA
NA
NA
NA
600
NA
NA
968
600
TBD - Following replacement/installation of new well.
Drilling in 2023
DW-27
238141
D01007014CBB
CITY OF MESA
NA
NA
NA
850
NA
NA
1371
850
TBD - Following replacement/installation of new well.
Drilling in 2023
FF-2
629609
A01006010BBD
CITY OF MESA
976
976
20
2000
2500
NA
3226
2000
No
NA
NA
55-237516 (RWCD)
FF-5
629612
A01006017DDD
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
1935
NA
NA
3121
1935
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited Data 55-617690 (SRP)
FF-7
500994
A01006015ACD
CITY OF MESA
1202
1202
18
2021
2000
NA
3260
2021
No
NA
NA
55-620497 (RWCD)
FF-8
55512235
A (1-6)8BBB
CITY OF MESA
1010
990
20
2500
NA
NA
4032
2500
Yes
4839
3000
55-617865 (SRP)
FF-15
575993
D01007006CCA
CITY OF MESA
960
920
20
1000
1000
NA
1584
982
Yes
1637
1015
55-620510 (RWCD)
DS-9
583887
A01007027DBB
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
1500
1500
NA
1855
1150
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-522329 (Katherine Leegate)
DS-10
608947
A01007022AAD
CITY OF MESA
670
670
16
500
500
NA
806
500
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-522329 (Katherine Leegate)
DS-12
608949
A01007027DAB
CITY OF MESA
775
740
20
1250
1200
NA
510
316
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-522329 (Katherine Leegate)
DS-13
529939
A01007026BCC
CITY OF MESA
1005
900
32
2000
200
NA
3000
1860
Yes
7580
4700
55-616590 (Arizona Water Company
WGA-5
618436
D01007031BBC
CITY OF MESA
1000
1000
20
1725
1725
NA
2782
1725
Potentially
NA
NA
Limited data, 55-229417 (Town of Gilbert)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
TBD - Following replacement/installation of new well.
Nearest Non-city well
Well construction underway
46
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.3.4.3 Drought Considerations NCS supplies are based on excess surface water storage in the SRP system therefore NCS water is highly susceptible to drought. The City does have the ability to keep some water in storage from year-to-year, subject to losses due to evaporation. For this IMP, it was assumed that NCS water would not be available in years where SRP's allocations were less than the Normal year allocation.
3.4
Water Supply and Demand Normal Year
Figure 3-5 compare the projected total water resources with the potable water demands; for the three Growth Scenarios for base year (2025) through a buildout-out year (2040) for On-Project Lands. Figure 3-6 compare the projected total water resources with the potable water demands; for the three Growth Scenarios for base year (2025) through a buildout-out year (2040) for Off-Project Lands. The following key conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of annual normal year supply vs. annual demand. 1.
On-Project SRP surface water resources exceed on-project demand in normal years leaving 20,000 to 26,000 af/yr of surface water resources untapped and unavailable due to SRP’s onproject use requirements. While groundwater is not needed under normal years, a portion of AWS is needed On-Project during canal outages.
2.
Currently, CAP surface water resources combined exceed the near term Off-Project demand, However, by 2039, CAP resources fall short of meeting projected Moderate and Aggressive Growth Off-Project demand, by approximately 2,600 af/yr under Moderate Growth to 22,600 af/yr under Aggressive Growth.
3.
a.
It will be necessary to supplement CAP resources with AWS groundwater resources under the Moderate Growth and LTSCs under the Aggressive Growth scenario.
b.
To keep with the City’s policy of not using LTSC to meet Normal Year Demands, an analysis was conducted to determine the maximum use rate, in gallons per acre day, that an Off-Project vacant parcel could request. The recommended maximum unit rate for OffProject Lands is 1,800 gpad. Any parcel that requires a use rate greater than 1,800 gpad should be required to bring water resources to the City prior to connecting.
Under normal year supplies the City is recommended to continue with the strategy to maximize surface water utilization and minimize groundwater utilization to retain LTSC for drought / emergency conditions.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
47
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
80,000
70
70,000 60 60,000
50,000 40 40,000 30 30,000
Demand (mgd)
Acre-ft/year
50
20 20,000
10
10,000
-
Figure 3-5
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
On-Project AWS Groundwater (af/yr)
4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014 4,014
On-Project Surface Water Resources (af/yr)
63,122 63,536 63,950 64,363 64,777 65,191 65,605 66,019 66,433 66,847 67,261 67,675 68,089 68,503 68,916 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315 69,315
Average Growth On-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
37.0
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.2
37.2
37.3
37.3
37.4
37.4
37.5
37.5
37.6
37.6
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
Moderate Growth On-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
37.0
37.1
37.2
37.3
37.4
37.5
37.6
37.7
37.8
37.9
38.0
38.1
38.2
38.3
38.3
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
Aggressive Growth On-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
37.0
37.3
37.5
37.6
37.8
37.9
38.1
38.2
38.4
38.5
38.7
38.8
39.0
39.2
39.3
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
0
Normal Year On-Project Supply vs Demands
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
48
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
120,000 100
100,000 90,000
80
80,000 70,000
60
60,000 50,000
Demands (mgd)
Water Resources (Acre-ft/year)
110,000
40 40,000 30,000 20
20,000 10,000 -
Figure 3-6
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Additional Future LTSC (Aggressive Growth) (af/yr)
0
466
931
1,397
1,863
2,328
2,794
3,260
3,726
4,191
4,657
5,123
5,588
6,054
6,520
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
6,985
Additional Future LTSC (Moderate Growth) (af/yr)
0
34
68
102
136
171
205
239
273
307
341
375
409
443
477
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
Future LTSC - Average Growth (af/yr)
5,000
4,733
4,467
4,200
3,933
3,667
3,400
3,133
2,867
2,600
2,333
2,067
1,800
1,533
1,267
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Existing Long Term Storage Credits (af/yr)
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
Off-Project AWS Groundwater (af/yr)
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
8,029
GRIC Exchange Water (af/yr)
10,582 11,526 18,527 18,911 19,295 19,679 20,063 20,447 20,831 21,216 21,600 21,984 22,368 22,752 23,136 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520 23,520
CAP Resources (Excluding GRIC) (af/yr)
53,484 53,694 53,905 54,115 54,326 54,536 54,747 54,957 55,168 55,378 55,589 55,799 56,010 56,220 56,431 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641 56,641
Moderate Growth Off-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
53.3
54.6
56.0
57.4
58.8
60.1
61.5
62.9
64.3
65.6
67.0
68.4
69.8
71.2
72.5
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
Average Growth Off-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
53.3
53.2
53.4
54.1
54.8
55.5
56.3
57.0
57.7
58.4
59.2
59.9
60.6
61.3
62.1
62.8
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
62.4
Aggressive Growth Off-Project AAD Demand (MGD)
53.3
57.7
60.1
62.4
64.8
67.2
69.6
72.0
74.4
76.7
79.1
81.5
83.9
86.3
88.6
91.0
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
91.7
0
Normal Year Off-Project Supply vs Demands.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
49
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.5
Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years
The prolonged drought conditions in the Southwest have resulted in utilities developing a better understanding of the drought impacts affecting their surface water supplies and to develop drought mitigation strategies. The City has adopted a Water Shortage Management Plan (WSMP) that provides a framework to mitigate and respond to water shortage conditions and to keep the public informed regarding impacts. The purpose of the WSMP is to endorse a management framework for: ◼ Addressing shortage conditions when they occur ◼ Prevent the need to implement drastic demand reduction measures, such as curtailment of water supplies. ◼ Planning for future shortage conditions before they occur The City’s WSMP outlines four (4) Drought Stages which are described below: ◼ Stage 1 Water Watch - The City may declare a Stage 1 Drought when a prolonged reduction in surface water supplies can be predicted several months prior to the actual announcement of a reduction in surface water deliveries. At this stage, the City is capable of meeting demand through remaining surface and groundwater supplies. The City has currently declared it is at Stage 1. ◼ Stage 2 Water Alert - The City may declare a Stage 2 Drought when SRP combined deliveries of storage and developed water are cut to less than 50% and/or CAP subcontract and GRIC water availability is cut to an amount that is less than 80%. At this stage, the City is capable of meeting demand through its remaining surface water and groundwater supplies. Under Stage 2 Drought the City would implement some mandatory conservation measures include limiting the hours of landscape watering, eliminating the use of decorative water features, and vehicle washing only at commercial facilities or with a bucket. ◼ Stage 3 Water Warning - The City may declare a Stage 3 Drought when SRP combined deliveries of storage and developed water are cut to less than 33% and or CAP subcontract and GRIC water availability is cut to an amount that is less than 60%. At this stage, the City is capable of meeting demand through its remaining surface water and groundwater supplies. Under Stage 3 Drought the City would implement additional mandatory conservation measures including requiring large commercial, industrial, and institutional customers to develop and implement a compliance plan, reduce the use of potable water for construction or dust control, and limit lawn watering per a published schedule. ◼ Stage 4 Water Emergency - The City may declare a Stage 4 Drought when available surface water and groundwater are insufficient to meet current demands. Under Stage 4 Drought the City would implement mandatory conservation measures to ensure that basic water needs for residents and businesses will be met. The demand and supply reductions for the City’s WSMP Drought Stages are summarized in Table 3-6.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
50
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 3-6
City of Mesa WSMP Demand and Supply Reductions Stage 1 Water Watch
Stage 2 Water Alert
Stage 3 Water Warning
Stage 4 Water Emergency
Voluntary
Voluntary & Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Demand Reduction (%)
5%
10%
15%
20%
SRP SW Reduction (%)1
0%
50%
67%
n/a3
CAP SW Reduction (%)2
0%
20%
40%
51% (w/o NCS)
Demand Reduction Response
75% (w/ NCS) Notes: 1.
Reduction in SRP supplies were applied only to surface water allocation. The normal flow component was developed using an historical average and already includes the drought conditions.
2.
Reduction in CAP supplies was applied only to M&I and NIA. It was assumed that Indian Water would not be reduced.
3.
SRP’s goal is to supply a minimum of 2.0 ac-ft/ac which is significantly higher than the Stage 2 and Stage 3 conditions therefore no Stage 4 SRP Drought was evaluated.
3.5.1 On-Project Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years Figure 3-7 presents a comparison between the Normal Year and the City’s WSMP Drought Stages OnProject surface water supplies and demands at buildout. As previously mentioned, SRP’s goal is to supply a minimum of 2.0 ac-ft/ac which is significantly higher than the Stage 2 and Stage 3 conditions assumed in Figure 3-7. The higher reductions developed as part of the City’s WSMP were used in this IMP to help the City understand the potential impacts of a severe cut on the City’s SRP resources, understanding that a cut below 2.0 ac-ft/ac is unlikely. It was assumed there would be no cut to the normal flow component of the SRP resources since the assumption of 14,000 ac-ft is based on a 20-year historical average and reflects previous drought year impacts. Additionally, Off-Project water resources can be used to meet OnProject shortfalls if available. For these reasons it is not anticipated that the City would experience an OnProject Stage 4 Drought. The following observations can be made for On-Project water resources for a Drought Year: ◼ Increased conservation reduces need for additional resources during server droughts. ◼ Under Stage 1 and Stage 2 Drought Conditions, there is adequate surface water supply to meet OnProject Demands. ◼ Under a Stage 3 Drought Condition, groundwater (or other supply) needed to meet On-Project Demand is between 3,628 ac-ft/yr to 5,336 ac-ft/yr depending on the Growth Scenario. The City’s current AWS for On-Project is 4,016 ac-ft / yr. To mitigate the additional shortfall the City could:
●
Utilize a portion of SRP Developed Water that would debit against the City’s LTSC and
●
Utilize additional AWS groundwater (allocated to Off-Project)
●
Utilize excess CAP water (if available)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
51
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 3-7
On Project Drought Stages Supply vs Demands (At Buildout)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
52
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.5.2 Off-Project Water Supply Analysis for Drought Years Figure 3-8 presents a comparison between the Normal Year and the City’s WSMP Drought Stages OffProject surface water supplies and demands at buildout. The City’s WSMP cuts to CAP are greater than those currently proposed by the USBR. Due to the state of flux surrounding the CAP potential cuts, using the City’s WSMP proposed cuts will give the City a range of conditions that will identify potential shortfalls and provide the City guidance in selecting mitigation strategies. As previously discussed, there is a priority-based system depending upon the category of water within the CAP system. Non-Indian Agriculture (NIA) water has the lowest priority and deliveries of this supply would be reduced before cuts were implemented to the M&I or Indian priority water supplies. Reductions in NIA priority water often will provide buffer to CAP M&I water subcontractors against the effects of drought in the Colorado River watershed. Based on recent conversations with CAP planning staff and analysis of the historical hydrology within the Colorado River watershed, it is reasonable to conclude that without other measures being taken, the City’s CAP allocation will be susceptible to drought and subsequent reductions. Because the City cannot use excess On-Project resources Off-Project, the analysis was conducted to determine at what CAP cut level the City would need to rely on LTSC to meet Off-Project demands (i.e., limiting Off-Project groundwater utilization to AWS groundwater of 8,000 ac-ft/yr). This analysis was conducted both with and without NCS water available and was defined as the Stage 4 Drought condition. The following observations can be made for Off-Project water resources for a Drought Year: ◼ For Stage 1 through Stage 3 Drought Scenarios, the City has adequate surface water and AWS groundwater to meet Average and Moderate Off-Project Demands. However, the groundwater needed to meet Aggressive Growth demands exceed the City’s Off-Project AWS groundwater. As previously discussed herein, the City plans to impose maximum limits on the use rate for vacant parcels located within Off-Project Lands to 1,800 gpm which would require developers to bring additional water resources to the City prior to connection to help off-set potential drought resource shortfalls. ◼ The City can withstand up to a 51% cut to CAP with no NCS water and up to a 75% cut in years when NCS water is available and still meet the demands projected under the Moderate Growth Scenario.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
53
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Water Resources/Demands (ac-ft/yr)
120,000
20% Water
100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Normal Year
Stage 1 Drought
Stage 2 Drought
Stage 3 Drought
Stage 4 Drought (No NCS)
Stage 4 Drought (With NCS)
Additional Groundwater Required (Aggressive)
19,405
19,405
17,465
16,495
15,524
17,072
Additional Groundwater Required (Moderate)
1,460
1,460
2,627
7,247
7,083
5,893
0
0
0
0
0
0
Groundwater Required (Average)
Figure 3-8
No Water Conservation
NCS
0
0
0
0
0
12,500
CAP (NIA)
627
627
0
0
0
0
CAP (Indian Water )
36,013
36,013
36,013
36,013
36,013
36,013
CAP (M&I )
43,503
43,503
34,802
26,102
22,187
8,701
Average Growth Drought Demand
69,151
69,151
62,236
58,779
55,321
55,321
Moderate Growth Drought Demand
81,603
81,603
73,442
69,362
65,282
65,282
Aggressive Growth Drought Demand
101,008
101,008
90,907
85,857
80,806
80,806
Off-Project Drought Stages Supply vs Demands (At Buildout)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
54
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
3.6
Drought Mitigation Strategies
The City’s water resource portfolio provides a water supply that is sufficient for normal years and is dependent on conservation to help with the projected water demands in the more severe drought stages. As the City continues to develop, water conservation is one approach that it will continue to take to ensure water supplies are at least equal to water demands. In addition to increasing the City’s available water resources, increased conservation may also reduce energy, equipment wear, and water treatment costs on a per customer basis potentially providing additional cost benefits to the City of Mesa. Each of the City’s WSMP call for a reduction in overall water demand from 5% in Stage 1 up to 20% in Stage 4. The WSMP details proposed actions by the customer base to achieve demand reductions. Since 1982, the City has promoted and encouraged voluntary water conservation, regardless of the amount of water available. However, if water short conditions prevail for an extended period, it may be necessary to initiate water use restrictions. As a result of voluntary water conservation measures the City has been experiencing a decreasing trend in per capita water usage over the past 15 years as older plumbing fixtures are replaced with more efficient fixtures, landscaping water use declines, and personal habits change as the awareness of water conservation increases. As discussed in the previous Chapter the City has experienced a 25% reduction in per capita usage with the average per capita usage decreasing from 220 gpcd to 163 gpcd. One objective of the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) is to mitigate the effects of a Colorado River shortage on CAP M&I subcontracts by firming groundwater supplies during a shortage. AWBA has stored water in underground aquifers which can be withdrawn and used to supplement Colorado River water during a reduction in supplies. In the event of a declared shortage, AWBA LTSCs will be recovered to benefit water users firmed by the AWBA. Recovery of AWBA credits could occur through increased groundwater pumping and delivery through the CAP canal network, independent recovery performed by an M&I subcontractor or by credit exchange with a CAP contractor or subcontractor (recovering from their permitted recovery wells). AWBA has indicated that they will firm CAP M&I priority contracts up to 20 percent but has not officially finalized the number. Because AWBA may firm the City’s CAP water by transferring long-term storage credits to the City rather than continuing wet water deliveries through the CAP. For this reason, Mesa needs to ensure that adequate well capacity exists to meet the increased groundwater pumping needs during drought years.
3.6.1 ADWR Groundwater Pumping Expansion AWS Rules state that a drought volume exemption which would allow the municipality to pump groundwater that does not need to be replenished. The implementation of the groundwater pumping exemption is at the discretion of the Director of ADWR and requires the City to request the exemption. The exemption can be initiated when surface water supplies have been reduced to 80 percent of normal. The City is obligated to replace the first 20 percent shortfall outside legally and physically of the City’s groundwater allocation. For further supply reductions under the exemption, the City must replace surface water shortfalls physically with groundwater pumping but is not required to deduct this pumping from its LTSC account.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Resources
55
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.0 Water System Master Plan 4.1
Introduction
The Water System Master Plan describes the existing potable water distribution and treatment systems in the City of Mesa (City) and provides an evaluation of future infrastructure needs for two intermediate planning years (2030 & 2035) and buildout (2040). Evaluation of the water system includes water demands, operational criteria, water storage requirements, pump station requirements, water quality, fire flow volumes and durations, distribution system pressure and velocity requirements, drought resilience considerations, and redundancy criteria. Infrastructure deficiencies identified in the water system evaluations are described along with recommendations to address them.
4.2
Water System Descriptions
The City’s Water System provides for a population of approximately 500,000 within a water service area (WSA) of 128 square miles as shown in Figure 4-1. There are eight major water pressure zones within the City’s service area which are served by three surface water treatment plants and numerous groundwater wells located throughout the City. The existing treatment and distribution facilities are also shown in Figure 4-2. A schematic hydraulic profile of the existing distribution system is shown in Figure 4-3. The following sections summarize the various components of the potable water distribution system. Detailed Facility Schematics for the major facilities are provided in Appendix A.
4.2.1 Pressure Zones The City’s WSA contains eight major pressure zones and two boosted pressure zones in the City Zone referred to as City-Mini Zones. The system also includes several reduced pressure zones located in the Falcon Field, Desert Wells, and Range Rider Zones. Water system elevations range from 1195 feet (ft) in the southwest area to 2060 ft in the northeast. These eight pressure zones are established to provide acceptable system pressure across the distribution system. Table 4-1 summarizes the pressure zone elevations and hydraulic grade line (HGL). Table 4-1
Pressure Zones Ground Elevation (ft)
Static HGL (ft)
Typical Static Pressure Range (psi)
City Zone
1195-1290
1400
48-89
Falcon Field
1280-1410
1511
44-100
Desert Wells
1375-1525
1634
47-112
Desert Sage
1480-1635
1731
42-109
County Line
1575-1735
1836
44-113
Apache Junction
1685-1845
1941
42-110
Range Rider
1810-1920
2050
56-104
Highland
1905-2060
2164
45-112
Zone
Note: 1.
PRVs are required at customer connections where pressure exceeds 80 psi.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
56
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Pressure zone HGLs are established by floating storage facilities. The exception being City Zone as there is no floating storage. To establish the HGL, a typical HGL was established using pumping station elevation and discharge pressure information and calculated to be approximately 1400 ft. A cross section of the pressure zones in the distribution system is shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1
Pressure Zone Cross Section
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
57
DSR1 CLPS1 VVWTP PRV31
! <
PRV26
! <
3 Q
U UT T 55
DWR1 "" DSPS1
" L TS3
CW24
! <
B ! ã " )
B " ) 3 CLPS2 Q
TS2
" L
CW27
! ã
Lindsay
CW9 CW25
CW12 CW11
Brooks CW26
! ã U5 T "
U5 T " ! ã ! ã Pasadena ! ã ã ! CW7
CW8
! ã
CW10
CW16
! ã
! ã
! ã
CW18
! ã
FF5
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Brown Rd 1200 N University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
PRV4
! <
U DWR2 T CW15
CW13
! ã
! ã
CW14
! ã
PRV5
! <
PS5
B " )
PRV6
! <
Southern Ave 1200 S 60
DW3
PRV27
! <
FF14
! ã
CW20
! ã
Highland
Facility Type
B Booster Station " )
U" T 5 Storage w/ Booster
U Storage T " L Transfer Station
3 WTP Q ! <
Pressure Reducing Valve
! ã
Existing Well
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone
" L
! PRV29 <
DW9
! ã ! ã DW7
! ã
Apache Junction
Baseline Rd 2000 S
TS5
DW6 CW22
County Line
60
! PRV9 <
!< ã ! PRV10
Desert Sage
Range Rider
B " )
! <
! ã
Falcon Field
McKellips Rd 2000 N
CLPS3
PRV3
U5 T " TS1 " L
City Zone Desert Wells
U CLR2, CLR3 T U DSR2 T
BRWTP
Legend Existing Water Mains
" )
! ã
PS4
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
McDowell Rd 2800 N
AJPS1 B ! HLPS2 < RRPS1
FF2
CW19
202
! PRV17 <
PRV14
FFR1
Thomas Rd 3600 N
HLPS1
PRV36
U5 T " DWPS1
Crismon Rd 10000 E
U T U HLR1, HLR2 T AJR1 U5 T " RRPS2
U5 T "
! <
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
RRR3
101
! ã
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
CLR5 AJPS2
In association with:
Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Apache Junction Range Rider
DW22
DW17
! ã ã ! DW16
! SBWTPã
Highlands
Elliot Rd 3600 S
3DW21 ! ã !Q ã
DW13
Usery 1 Usery 2 Arizona Water Company
! ã
Warner Rd 4400 S
Queen Creek
Other Features Boundary
DW19
! ã
202
Highways
PRV35
! <
Streets
Ray Rd 5200 S
DW20
! ã
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Williams Field Rd 6000 S 24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
DW12
202
! ! ã <
PRV28
DW14
! ã
DW15
! ã
Germann Rd 7600 S
Airport Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 4-2
±
Existing Treatment and Distribution Facilities
South Canal (SRP)
CAP Canal
Val Vista WTP & Reservoir
90 MGD
Brown Road WTP & Reservoir
In association with:
Res 1 20 MG
1323.0'
BR R1&R2 40 MG
1288.0'
TS3
R3 10 MG
1832.0'
31.5 MGD
59.6 MGD
Pump Station
2162.5' 1730.7'
DSR2 3.0 MG
2050.0' 1730.8'
RRR3 0.5 MG
1835.3'
DSR1 1.0 MG
HLR2 0.25 MG
HLR1 0.075 MG
Pressure Reducing Valve
CLR5 1.0 MG
PRV 28 PRV 29 PRV 35
TS5-FCV1&2 4.2 MGD
5 MGD CLPS3
3.4 MGD AJPS1
TS5
ALT PRV 27
CLPS2
SBFF PS
1940.0'
AJR1 1.0 MG
PRV 17
HLPS1
DW9, 14, 15 16 MGD
RRPS2
Water Treatment Plant
0.72 MGD
DW3, 6, 7, 12
FF 5,14
3.46 MGD
MGD Rated
1 MGD
SCAP-FCV1 7 MGD SBDS PS
RRPS1
0.7 MGD HLPS2
Zone X HGL
PS5
DWR2 1.0 MG
5 MGD
AJPS2
Highlands Zone HGL=2164
PRV 10
1634.2'
4 MGD
Range Rider Zone1 HGL=2050
7.48 MGD
PRV 9
CLPS1
County Line Zone HGL=1836
TS1
Desert Wells Zone1 HGL=1634
PRV 36
4.4 MGD
DSPS1
Apache Junction Zone HGL=1941
4.8 MGD DWPS1
PRV 26
16 MGD
CW 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24
DWR1 1.0 MG
Well
PS4
SE Mini Zone
Storage Tank
7.5 MGD
29 MGD
City Zone HGL=1400
6.92 MGD
NE Mini Zone
1632.6'
1510.1'
SCAP-FCV2
PRV 31
FFR1 1.5 MG
Falcon Field Zone HGL=1511
Lindsay
59.6 MGD
Pasadena
PS3
Overflow Elevation
CLR3 0.5 MG
Firm Capacity (MGD)
39 MGD
BRDW PS
TS2
PS1
1834.0'
CLR2 0.5 MG
Desert Sage Zone HGL=1731
R1 10 MG
Legend
SBDW PS
1258.7'
R2 10 MG
41.8 MGD
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
24 MGD
1224.5'
Brooks
BRDS PS
CW 8, 9, 11, 12
CW 26
PS2
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
30.3 MGD
1543.0'
CW 25
CW 27
72 MGD
Zone Name Hydraulic Grade Line
1467.0'
SBR1 8.0 MG FF 2 Irrigation
Signal Butte WTP & Reservoir DW 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Figure 4-3 Existing Hydraulic Profile Schematic
24 MGD
CAP Canal
1. Reduced pressure zones within major pressure zones are not shown for clarity
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.2.2 Water Treatment Plants The City receives potable water supplies from three surface water treatment plants: Val Vista Water Treatment Plant (VVWTP), Brown Road Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP), and the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant (SBWTP).
4.2.2.1 Val Vista Water Treatment Plant The VVWTP is co-owned with and operated by the City of Phoenix and treats Salt River Project (SRP) water. The plant is located in Mesa near the South Canal and N. Val Vista Dr. The raw water supply is delivered by the SRP canal system which conveys water from the Salt and Verde watersheds stored in multiple reservoirs operated by SRP. The VVWTP is a conventional water treatment facility with a rated capacity of 220 million gallons per day (mgd). The City owns 90 mgd of the total rated capacity at the treatment plant. The VVWTP treatment process includes rapid mix and pre-sedimentation, flocculation and sedimentation, filtration, and chlorine disinfection. The media in the filters was recently changed from anthracite to granulated activated carbon (GAC) to improve system water quality by reducing disinfection by-products (DBPs).
4.2.2.2 Brown Road Water Treatment Plant The BRWTP is located in northeast Mesa north of Brown Rd. and west of the Red Mountain Loop 202 Freeway. The BRWTP was initially constructed in 1985 and has been expanded twice since in 24-mgd increments to meet increasing demands. The plant treats Colorado River water supplied via the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal and has a current capacity of 72 mgd with six conventional treatment trains. The BRWTP treatment process includes rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and chlorine disinfection.
4.2.2.3 Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant The SBWTP is located in south Mesa on the northeast corner of Elliot Road and Signal Butte Road and was commissioned in 2018 at 24 mgd capacity. The plant also treats Colorado River water supplied via the CAP canal and conveyed to the site via a 3-mile transmission main. The SBWTP treatment process includes raw water pH adjustment and ozone, rapid mix, sand-ballasted flocculation, sedimentation, intermediate ozone, GAC filtration, and chlorine disinfection. The City is currently in the process of expanding the SBWTP to its buildout capacity of 48 mgd which includes the addition of the second 8 MG reservoir and expansion of the Falcon Field and Desert Wells Pump Station.
4.2.3 Groundwater Wells Groundwater wells are currently a supplemental resource for the City during times of peak summer demand, drought, canal dry up, or emergency conditions at a facility.
4.2.3.1 Existing Groundwater Wells There is a total of 32 existing active groundwater wells in the City with approximately 90 mgd of installed well capacity among 16 on-project wells (those wells within the SRP service area), 8 off-project direct connect wells (those wells outside of the SRP service area), and 8 off-project groundwater wells conveyed to the SBWTP Finished Water Reservoir. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 provide a summary of the onproject and off-project groundwater wells, respectively.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
60
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-2
Existing On-Project Potable Water Wells
Name
Location
Connection Type
Nominal Capacity (MGD)
CW7
City Zone
Direct Connect
4.32
In-Service
CW8
City Zone
Pasadena Reservoir/Val Vista Transmission/Direct Connect
3.60
In-Service
CW9
City Zone
Pasadena Reservoir/Val Vista Transmission/Direct Connect
4.75
In-Service, re-drilled
CW10
City Zone
Direct Connect
1.80
In-Service
CW11
City Zone
Pasadena Reservoir/Val Vista Transmission/Direct Connect
4.75
In-Service
CW12
City Zone
Pasadena Reservoir/Val Vista Transmission/Direct Connect
4.75
In-Service
CW13
City Zone
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, being re-drilled
CW14
City Zone
Direct Connect
4.32
In-Service
CW15
City Zone
Direct Connect
3.60
In-Service
CW16
City Zone
Direct Connect
2.70
In-Service, being re-drilled
CW17
City Zone
N/A
N/A
Disconnected
CW18
City Zone
Direct Connect
3.12
In-Service
CW19
City Zone
Direct Connect
3.60
In-Service
CW20
City Zone
Direct Connect
3.82
In-Service
CW21
City Zone
Disconnected
N/A
Disconnected, Transferred to SRP
CW22
City Zone
Direct Connect
2.88
In-Service
CW23
City Zone
Lindsay Reservoir
N/A
Inactive, Idled due to high DBCP1
CW24
City Zone
Direct Connect
2.88
In-Service
CW25
City Zone
Direct Connect/Val Vista Transmission
2.88
In-Service
CW26
City Zone
Brooks Reservoir/Val Vista Transmission
3.40
In-Service
CW27
City Zone
Val Vista Transmission Main
2.88
In-Service
Status
Total In-Service (MGD)2
60.05
In-Service Firm (MGD)2
48.04
Note: 1.
DBCP = 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (dibromo chloropropane)
2.
Total In-Service is the sum of the total capacity of the wells based on their status (excludes Inactive and Disconnected). A factor of 0.8 is applied to the total in-service value to obtain firm capacity.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
61
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-3
Existing Off-Project Potable Water Wells Nominal Capacity (MGD)
Name
Location
Connection Type
FF2
Falcon Field
Irrigation
3.60
Disconnected from potable system. Used for irrigation
FF4
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, idle due to high DBCP
FF5
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
3.1
In-Service
FF7
Falcon Field
N/A
N/A
Inactive, idle due to high arsenic
FF8
Falcon Field
N/A
N/A
Inactive, idle due to high DBCP and arsenic
FF14 (DW8)
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
3.10
In-Service
FF15
Falcon Field
Not Connected
N/A
Inactive, idle due to high arsenic
WGA5
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive
DW3
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
2.16
In-Service
DW5
Desert Wells
Not Connected
N/A
Leased to Golf Course
DW6
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
1.15
In-Service
DW7
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
2.30
Well at 60% design level
DW9
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
2.16
Used sparingly, produces hot water in the 100° range
DW10
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, removed due to elevated levels of nitrates
DW11
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive due to high arsenic
DW12
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
1.00
In-Service
DW13
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP / Direct Connect
2.30
In-Service
DW14
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
2.13
In-Service
DW15
Desert Wells
Direct Connect
2.02
In-Service
DW16
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP / Direct Connect
1.08
In-Service
DW17
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP / Direct Connect
2.16
In-Service
DW18
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.44
Replacement well installed in 2023, final permitting in 2024
DW19
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.59
In-Service
DW20
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.00
In-Service
DW21
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP / Direct Connect
2.16
In-Service
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
Status
62
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Name
Location
Connection Type
Nominal Capacity (MGD)
DW22
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
2.16
In-Service
DS9
Desert Sage
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, due to high arsenic
DS10
Desert Sage
Disconnected
N/A
Inactive
DS12
Desert Sage
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, due to high arsenic
DS13
Desert Sage
Direct Connect
N/A
Inactive, due to high arsenic
Status
Total In-Service (MGD)1
29.91
In-Service Firm (MGD)1
23.93
Note:
1.
Total In-Service is the sum of the total capacity of the wells based on their status. (excludes Inactive and Disconnected). A factor of 0.8 is applied to obtain firm capacity.
4.2.4 Storage Reservoirs The City has 19 storage reservoirs providing a total storage capacity of 109.3 MG. Existing storage reservoirs are summarized in Table 4-4. Table 4-4
Existing Storage Reservoirs Volume (MG)
Bottom Elevation (ft)
Overflow Elevation (ft)
Water Depth (ft)
Name
ABBR.
Pressure Zone(S)
Val Vista WTP
VVR1
City Zone
20
1325
1345
20.00
BRWTP CAP Reservoir 1
BRR1
Falcon Field, Desert Wells, Desert Sage
20
1523.00
1543.00
20.00
BRWTP CAP Reservoir 2
BRR2
Falcon Field, Desert Wells, Desert Sage
20
1523.00
1543.00
20.00
Signal Butte Reservoir 1
SBR1
Falcon Field, Desert Wells, Desert Sage
8
1445.00
1467.00
22.00
Brooks
R1
City Zone
10
1201.50
1224.50
23.00
Pasadena
R2
City Zone
10
1240.60
1258.68
18.08
Lindsay
R2
City Zone
10
1265.00
1288.00
23.00
Falcon Field Reservoir 1
FFR1
Falcon Field
1.5
1486.98
1510.08
23.10
Desert Wells Reservoir 1
DWR1
Desert Wells
1
1610.00
1632.60
22.60
Desert Wells Reservoir 2
DWR2
Desert Wells
1
1601.50
1634.05
32.55
Desert Sage Reservoir 1
DSR1
Desert Sage
1
1699.27
1730.77
31.50
Desert Sage Reservoir 2
DSR2
Desert Sage
3
1707.15
1730.65
23.50
County Line Reservoir 2
CLR2
County Line
0.5
1808.25
1831.60
23.35
County Line Reservoir 3
CLR3
County Line
0.5
1800.00
1832.00
32.00
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
63
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Volume (MG)
Bottom Elevation (ft)
Overflow Elevation (ft)
Water Depth (ft)
Name
ABBR.
Pressure Zone(S)
County Line Reservoir 5
CLR5
County Line
1
1810.00
1835.25
25.25
Apache Junction Reservoir 1
AJR1
Apache Junction
1
1918.00
1940.00
22.00
Range Rider Reservoir 3
RRR3
Range Rider
0.5
2026.00
2050.00
24.00
Highlands Reservoir 1
HLR1
Highlands
0.075
2147.00
2162.50
15.50
Highlands Reservoir 2
HLR2
Highlands
0.25
2147.00
2162.50
15.50
4.2.5 Transfer and Booster Pumping Stations The City uses 25 existing transfer and booster pump stations to provide sufficient flow and pressure throughout the distribution system. Table 4-5 provides a summary of the transfer and booster pumping stations in the City’s system. Table 4-5
Transfer and Booster Pumping Stations
Name
ABBR
From Pressure Zone(s)
To Pressure Zone(s)
Installed Capacity (mgd)
Firm Capacity (mgd)
Booster Pump Stations Pasadena
PS1
Pasadena Reservoir, Val Vista Reservoir 1
City Zone
67.8
59.6
Brooks
PS2
Brooks Reservoir, Val Vista Reservoir 1
City Zone
47.8
41.8
Lindsay
PS3
Lindsay Reservoir, Val Vista Reservoir 1
City Zone
67.5
59.6
Northeast Mini-Zone Pump Station
PS4
City Zone
Northeast Mini Zone
10.38
6.92
Southeast Mini-Zone Pump Station
PS5
City Zone
Southeast Mini Zone
11.22
7.48
SB Falcon Field Pump Station
SBFFPS
SBWTP Reservoir
Falcon Field
24.0
16.0
BRWTP DW Pump Station
BRDWPS
BRWTP Reservoir
Desert Wells
48.0
39.0
SB Desert Wells Pump Station
SBDWPS
SBWTP Reservoir
Desert Wells
40.0
29.0
DW Pump Station 1
DWPS1
Falcon Field
Desert Wells
12.5
7.5
BRWTP DS Pump Station
BRDSPS
BRWTP Reservoir
Desert Sage
39.3
30.3
SB Desert Sage Pump Station
SBDSPS
SBWTP Reservoir
Desert Sage
10.5
7.0
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
64
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Name
ABBR
From Pressure Zone(s)
To Pressure Zone(s)
Installed Capacity (mgd)
Firm Capacity (mgd)
DS Pump Station 1
DSPS1
Desert Wells
Desert Sage
6.4
4.8
CL Pump Station 1
CLPS1
Desert Sage
County Line
6.6
4.4
CL Pump Station 2
CLPS2
Desert Sage
County Line
7.5
5.0
CL Pump Station 3
CLPS3
Desert Sage
County Line
7.5
5.0
AJ Pump Station 1
AJPS1
County Line
Apache Junction
5.1
3.4
AJ Pump Station 2
AJPS2
County Line
Apache Junction
6.0
4.0
RR Pump Station 1
RRPS1
County Line
Range Rider
1.5
1.0
RR Pump Station 2
RRPS2
Apache Junction
Range Rider
5.19
3.46
HL Pump Station 1
HLPS1
County Line
Highlands
1.42
0.72
HL Pump Station 2
HLPS2
Range Rider
Highlands
1.4
0.7
Transfer Stations Transfer Station 1
TS1
City Zone
Falcon Field
24.0
16.0
Transfer Station 2
TS2
Falcon Field
BRWTP CAP Reservoirs
42.0
31.5
Transfer Station 3
TS3
Val Vista WTP
Falcon Field
32.0
24.0
Transfer Station 5
TS5
Desert Wells
Desert Sage
6.3
4.2
4.2.6 Pressure Reducing Valves Pressure reducing valves (PRVs) are located between the pressure zones to deliver water from the higher gradient zone to the lower gradient zone, with an associated reduction in pressure between the zones. The City currently has 17 PRV stations throughout the water distribution system. Pertinent information concerning the PRVs included in the distribution system model is presented in Table 4-6. Table 4-6
Pressure Reducing Valves Upstream Setting (psi)
Downstream Setting (psi)
From Zone
To Zone
5804 E. Adobe St.
65
55
Desert Wells
Dreamland Villas
PRV41
5928 E. University Dr.
67
57
Desert Wells
Dreamland Villas
PRV5
7147 E. Broadway Rd.
-
54
Desert Wells
AZ Golf Resort
PRV6
830 S. 75th St.
-
60
Desert Wells
AZ Golf Resort
PRV9
7601 E. Inverness Ave.
-
53
Desert Wells
Falcon Field
PRV10
1939 S. Sossaman Rd.
-
55
Desert Wells
Falcon Field
Name
Address
PRV31
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
65
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Upstream Setting (psi)
Downstream Setting (psi)
From Zone
To Zone
8540 E. McDowell Rd.
-
80
Range Rider
Thunder Mountain
PRV14
3040 N. Hawes Rd.
-
75
Range Rider
Thunder Mountain
PRV17
3221 N. 91St St.
-
49
Highlands
Range Rider
PRV26
2455 E. McDowell
-
55
Falcon Field
NE Mini Zone
PRV27
1935 S. Greenfield Rd.
-
63
Falcon Field
SE Mini Zone
PRV281
6815 S. Ellsworth Rd.
83
76
Desert Wells
Falcon Field
PRV291
8351 E. Baseline
60
50
Desert Wells
Falcon Field
PRV31
1834 E. Lehi Rd.
-
60
NE Mini Zone
City Zone
PRV351
8720 E. Ray Rd.
90
48
Desert Wells
Falcon Field
PRV36
3210 N. Val Vista Rd.
-
45
Falcon Field
Northeast Mini Zone
Name
Address
PRV13
Note: 1.
Stations have secondary upstream pressure sustaining function.
4.2.7 Distribution Pipelines The City’s potable water network includes over 2,500 miles of pipe ranging from 1 to 72 inches in diameter. This total includes both transmission and distribution mains. The City considers pipelines 20inch and larger as transmission mains. Figure 4-4 summarizes the City’s pipelines by diameter and material. The majority of the pipes in the system are less than 12” in diameter with only 3% of the system’s pipes being transmission mains. The majority of the Cities pipes are asbestos cement (ACP), accounting for 54% of the system’s pipe material, and ductile iron (DIP) accounting for 41% of the system’s pipe material. The remaining 5% of the system includes a concrete cylinder pipe (CCP), cast iron pipe (CIP) and a mix of copper, galvanized iron, prestressed concrete cylinder, polyvinyl chloride, reinforced concrete, or steel.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
66
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 4-4
City of Mesa Pipelines by Diameter and Material Type
4.2.8 Intergovernmental Interconnections The City currently has two intergovernmental agreements (IGA) for interconnections in the Desert Sage Zone. The IGA with Arizona Water Company is for emergencies only and is limited to a flow rate of 1.5 MGD not to exceed 50 acre-feet/year. The IGA with Apache Junction Water District (AJWD) is a treat and wheel agreement with a monthly limit of 7 acre-feet. AJWD may use the connection for emergencies and is limited to 100 acre-feet/year.
4.3
Water Model Development and Calibration
As part of the 2010 Master Plan, Black & Veatch developed a water model using InfoWater by Innovyze. The City has continued to update the model to reflect changes in the distribution system that have occurred. This hydraulic model includes distribution and transmission mains, wells, storage, and other major facilities (WTPs, BPS, and PRVs). The following sections describe the steps that were taken to update and calibrate the water model for the 2023 IMP.
4.3.1 Model Construction The City provided Black & Veatch with the latest GIS potable pipe network which was then reviewed to determine active vs not active pipe and the active pipe was imported to the hydraulic model. The imported pipe network excludes fire hydrant laterals and customer service laterals to private meters. The following steps were completed to update the model in InfoWater: 1.
The imported pipe network was connected to all the existing pumps, valves, reservoirs, tanks, and nodes in the system and adjusted so that facility configurations in the model matched the facility schematics and drawings provided by the City.
2.
The connectivity of the model was evaluated using the Trace Network tool in InfoWater to confirm there were no disconnected pipes and address instances of features in close proximity needing to be connected.
3.
Elevations were assigned to the model nodes and other critical features from 1 meter resolution digital elevation models (DEM) from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) database.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
67
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.
Using the City’s pressure zone boundary shapefile, features in each zone were assigned to the respective zone. Pipes serving a particular zone that traversed through other pressure zones were then manually changed to reflect the zone that the pipe serves.
5.
The pipes connecting the pressure zones to one another were closed to ensure that any flow between the zones is through the PRVs.
6.
Physical data (tank volumes, reservoir water surface elevation, etc.) and settings (pump curves, pressure setpoints, etc.) were verified and updated or added where missing.
7.
Roughness factors, C-Values, were assigned for all pipes based on material, diameter, and age. A summary of the C-Factors applied to the pipe network is provided in Table 4-7.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
68
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-7
C-Values Based on Diameter, Material, and Age Material
Diameter (in.) < 10
Asbestos Cement (AC)
10-18
> 18
< 10
Cast Iron (CI)
10-18
> 18
< 10
Concrete Cylinder (CC)
10-18
> 18
Copper (Cu)
Ductile Iron (DI)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
< 10
< 10
Age (years)
C-Factor
<15
120
15-75
114
>75
108
<15
126
15-75
120
>75
114
<15
132
15-75
126
>75
120
<15
105
15-75
95
>75
86
<15
110
15-75
100
>75
90
<15
116
15-75
105
>75
95
<15
120
15-75
114
>75
108
<15
120
15-75
120
>75
114
<15
120
15-75
126
>75
120
<15
137
15-75
130
>75
124
15-75
114
>75
108
15-75
120
>75
114
15-75
126
>75
120
<15
120
69
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Material
Diameter (in.)
10-18
> 18
< 10 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 10-18
< 10
Steel (STL)
10-18
> 18 Unknown
Unknown
Age (years)
C-Factor
15-75
114
>75
108
<15
126
15-75
120
>75
114
<15
132
15-75
126
>75
120
<15
129
15-75
123
<15
131
15-75
125
<15
110
15-75
105
>75
99
<15
116
15-75
110
>75
105
<15
121
15-75
116
>75
110
Unknown
120
4.3.2 Water Demand Allocation Detailed information on system demands, peaking factors, and non-revenue water were developed and provided in the Planning Framework (Chapter 2). Demands representing the annual, summer, and winter average daily demand (ADD) were allocated to the model using the customer billing database and GIS data. Customer accounts were spatially defined in GIS with the billing account address which allowed all the demands to be assigned to the nearest junction using the Allocation tool in InfoWater.
4.3.3 Model Calibration To confirm that the model accurately represents existing system conditions, an extended period simulation analysis (EPS) calibration of the distribution system was performed. The model was calibrated to a 24-hour period in 1-hour increments to simulate demand and operational conditions that occurred during the maximum system demands for 2022 (June 8). This calibration verifies the model can simulate overall system pressures, reservoir/tank levels, and other system parameters within reasonable tolerances for maximum day system conditions. For the purposes of this master plan, Table 4-8 lists the criteria used to define a calibrated model.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
70
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-8 Parameter
Acceptable Criteria 75% of Modeled Flow within 10% of Recorded Flow
Flow
90% of Modeled Flow within 20% of Recorded Flow
Pressure Level
Calibration Criteria
75% of Modeled Pressure within 5 psi of Recorded Pressure 90% of Modeled Pressure within 10 psi of Recorded Pressure 90% of Modeled Tank Level within 3ft of Recorded Level
4.3.3.1 Methodology The main objective for the EPS model calibration is to evaluate model results against SCADA values for pumped flow, pressure points, reservoir levels, and water supplies to verify model pipe connectivity, pump characteristics, and an accurate spatial distribution of demands in the model. The following steps were taken to calibrate the model: 1.
Data was gathered for major system components from the City’s SCADA system.
2.
A 24-hour diurnal demand pattern was developed for each pressure zone from a mass balance calculation using water production, pumping, and tank level records.
3.
A scenario titled CALIBRATION_2023 was created for the calibration analysis.
4.
The spatially allocated metered sales demands were scaled within the model to match the 24hour production total that occurred during the June 8, 2022, calibration period.
5.
Operational control patterns, settings, and initial status of pumps, reservoirs, and wells were determined from SCADA data and entered into the model to mimic operational conditions on June 8, 2022.
Model outputs for flow, pressure, and tank levels were compared to the recorded data and adjustments were made to model input parameters to confirm the model simulated actual system conditions within reasonable tolerances.
4.3.3.2 Calibration Demands and Diurnal Patterns Hourly demand patterns and 24-hour demand totals were developed from the City’s SCADA system data for all eight pressure zones and for each of the mini zones for June 8, 2022. The diurnal curves applied to the model for each zone are shown in Appendix B. The diurnal patterns were applied to the adjusted demands to achieve the actual demands for each hour during the June 8, 2022, calibration period. Diurnal curves were also generated for typical summer usage that were applied to the pressure zones for capacity analyses which are also provided in Appendix B. Table 4-9 summarizes the calculated calibration day demand for each zone.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
71
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-9
Calibration Day (June 8, 2022) Demands by Zone
Zone
Demand (mgd)
City Zone
40.1
Northeast Mini Zone
2.0
Southeast Mini Zone
1.9
Falcon Field Zone
19.8
Desert Wells Zone
32.4
Desert Sage Zone
9.5
County Line Zone
3.3
Apache Junction Zone
1.4
Range Rider Zone
0.4
Highlands Zone
0.1
Total
110.9
4.3.3.3 EPS Model Calibration Results Accurate calibration of the entire model was achieved as demonstrated in the graphical comparisons provided of modeled flows, pressure, and tank levels versus recorded data at pump stations, wells, reservoirs, and metering stations over the June 8, 2022, 24-hour period. For the 24-hour calibration, 90% of the flows were within 10% of the recorded values and 87% of pressure readings were within 5 psi, 84% of the model tank levels were within 3 feet. Figure 4-5 shows the calibration comparison graph for the flow output at the Pasadena Pump Stations (PS1) which outlines the SCADA recorded flow in blue and the model output in orange. The remaining calibration comparison graphs for booster stations, wells, and reservoirs for the 24-hour calibration are provided in Appendix B.
Figure 4-5
Pasadena Flow (PS1) Calibration Comparison
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
72
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.4
Water Demand Projections
The City’s historic water usage data and the vacant land GIS data were used to develop a potential range of projected future water use which is described in detail in the Planning Framework (Chapter 2). The demand analysis included an Average, Moderate and Aggressive Growth Scenario. For the purpose of this IMP the Moderate Growth Scenario was used for all hydraulic analyses. The demand summary presented in this section is included to describe the location and timing of projected demands as they relate to the City’s water service area. Table 4-10 summarizes the average day (AD), maximum day (MD), and peak hour (PH) demands by pressure zone for each IMP planning period (2025 through 2040). The PH factors for each zone were developed as part of the calibration task and are shown on the diurnal curves in Appendix B. Table 4-11 summarizes the water demands on a maximum day for the three WTP service areas for each IMP planning period, shown in Figure 4-6. Table 4-10
Water Demand Projections
Zone
Year 2025
Year 2030
Year 2035
Year 2040
Average Day Demand (mgd) City Zone
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.4
Falcon Field Zone
17.6
20.0
22.3
24.7
Desert Wells Zone
23.0
26.2
29.3
32.4
Desert Sage Zone
8.6
9.6
10.5
11.5
County Line Zone
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Apache Junction Zone
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
Range Rider Zone
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
Highlands Zone
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
Total AD
90.2
97.7
105.0
112.4
Maximum Day Demand (mgd) City Zone
55.5
56.3
57.0
57.6
Falcon Field Zone
26.4
30.0
33.5
37.1
Desert Wells Zone
34.5
39.3
44.0
48.6
Desert Sage Zone
12.9
14.4
15.8
17.3
County Line Zone
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
Apache Junction Zone
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.3
Range Rider Zone
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
Highlands Zone
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
Total MD
135.4
146.6
157.7
168.8
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
73
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Zone
Year 2025
Year 2030
Year 2035
Year 2040
Peak Hour Demand (mgd)1 City Zone
72.8
73.3
74.7
75.5
Falcon Field Zone
36.8
41.8
46.7
51.7
Desert Wells Zone
49.4
56.3
63.1
69.6
Desert Sage Zone
22.6
25.2
27.6
30.3
County Line Zone
6.4
6.9
7.5
8.0
Apache Junction Zone
2.8
3.1
3.6
3.9
Range Rider Zone
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.7
Highlands Zone
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
Total PH
192.3
208.5
225.4
241.8
Year 2035
Year 2040
Note: 1.
Based on typical operational diurnal curves for each pressure zone.
Table 4-11
MD Water Demand Projections by WTP Service Area
WTP Service Area
Year 2025
Year 2030
Average Day Demand (mgd) VVWTP Service Area
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.4
BRWTP Service Area
30.7
33.2
35.3
37.1
SBWTP Service Area
22.5
27.0
31.7
36.9
Total AD
90.3
97.7
105.0
112.4
Maximum Day Demand (mgd) VVWTP Service Area
55.5
56.3
57.0
57.6
BRWTP Service Area
46.1
49.8
53.0
55.8
SBWTP Service Area
33.8
40.5
47.7
55.4
Total MD
135.4
146.6
157.7
168.8
Peak Hour Demand (mgd) VVWTP Service Area
72.8
73.3
74.7
75.5
BRWTP Service Area
70.9
76.2
81.2
85.3
SBWTP Service Area
48.6
59.0
69.5
81.0
Total PH
192.3
208.5
225.4
241.8
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
74
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Other Features
McKellips Rd 2000 N
Boundary Highways Streets
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
WTP Service Area BRWTP
Southern Ave 1200 S
SBWTP
60
60
VVWTP
Baseline Rd 2000 S Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 4-6
±
Water Treatment Plant Service Area
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.4.1 Buildout and Intermediate Year Demands and Allocation GIS and model demand allocation tools were used to apply the intermediate years and buildout demands in the hydraulic model similar to the base year demand allocation process described in the calibration discussion (Section 4.3.3). Demands were projected for vacant parcels and allocation in the model was done by assigning the demand point locations to the closest node.
4.5
Water Production Infrastructure
This section provides a discussion of issues which affect production capacity at the City’s water production facilities. The City’s supply water resources have been discussed in detail in the Water Resources chapter (Chapter 3). Key conclusions drawn from a comparison of annual normal year supply vs. annual demand include: 1.
On-Project SRP surface water resources exceed on-project demand in normal years leaving 20,000 to 26,000 af/yr of surface water resources untapped and unavailable due to SRP’s onproject use requirements. While groundwater is not needed under normal years, a portion of Assured Water Supply (AWS) is needed On-Project during canal outages.
2.
Currently, CAP surface water resources combined exceed the near term Off-Project demand, However, by 2039, CAP resources fall short of meeting projected Moderate and Aggressive Growth Off-Project demand, by approximately 2,600 af/yr under Moderate Growth to 22,600 af/yr under Aggressive Growth. a.
It will be necessary to supplement CAP resources with AWS groundwater resources under the Moderate Growth and LTSCs under the Aggressive Growth scenario.
b.
LTSC’s may be used to meet demand during surface water shortage and for Multiple or Large Meter (MLM) Customers under Chapter 10 of Title 8 of the Mesa City Code.
The prolonged drought conditions in the Southwest have resulted in utilities developing a better understanding of the drought impacts affecting their surface water supplies and to develop drought mitigation strategies. The City has adopted a Water Shortage Management Plan (WSMP) that provides a framework to mitigate and respond to water shortage conditions and to keep the public informed regarding impacts. The following observations can be made for On-Project water resources for a Drought Year: ◼ Increased conservation reduces need for additional resources during severe droughts. ◼ Under Stage 1 and Stage 2 Drought Conditions, there is adequate surface water supply to meet OnProject Demands. ◼ Under a Stage 3 Drought Condition, groundwater (or other supply) needed to meet On-Project Demand is between 3,628 ac-ft/yr to 5,336 ac-ft/yr depending on the Growth Scenario. The City’s current AWS for On-Project is 4,016 ac-ft / yr. To mitigate the additional shortfall the City could:
●
Utilize a portion of SRP Developed Water that would debit against the City’s Long Term Storage Credit (LTSC) and
●
Utilize additional AWS groundwater (allocated to Off-Project)
●
Utilize excess CAP water (if available)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
76
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The following observations can be made for Off-Project water resources for a Drought Year: ◼ For Stage 1 through Stage 3 Drought Scenarios, the City has adequate surface water and AWS groundwater to meet Average and Moderate Off-Project Demands. However, the groundwater needed to meet Aggressive Growth demands exceed the City’s Off-Project AWS groundwater. As previously discussed herein, the City plans to impose maximum limits on the use rate for vacant parcels located within Off-Project Lands to 1,800 gpm which would require developers to bring additional water resources to the City prior to connection to help off-set potential drought resource shortfalls. ◼ The City can withstand up to a 51% cut to CAP with no NCS water and up to a 75% cut in years when NCS water is available and still meet the demands projected under the Moderate Growth Scenario.
4.5.1 Seasonal Water Balance Water production must be balanced against demand for each month over the course of a year in order to assess seasonal peaking impacts and determine the maximum and minimum required production capacity for each facility. Utilizing the resource constraints developed in the Water Resources chapter (Chapter 3), water production had to comply with the following criteria: ◼ Maximize the use of renewable CAP and SRP surface water sources. ◼ Match the use of SRP water resources with On-Project demands. ◼ Adjust water production rates to match daily and season variations. ◼ Accommodate annual SRP Dry-Up (January). ◼ Accommodate potential CAP Dry-Up (November). While typically has not occurred, Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) could dry up the CAP canal for maintenance in the future. ◼ Maintain peak CAP deliveries within the 1.32 peaking factors. Table 4-12 through Table 4-15 provide detailed water balancing showing how the above conditions are met over the course of a year of normal water supply for 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 assuming moderate growth projections. These production plans established a basis and provided a starting point for the hydraulic analysis of the planning years.
4.6
Water System Evaluations
This section provides an overview of the hydraulic evaluations of the City’s water distribution system during existing and future demand conditions. Using the calibrated hydraulic model, Black & Veatch performed a comprehensive distribution system analysis. The analysis included assessments of the system’s performance under a variety of scenarios including maximum daily demand (MDD), peak hour demand (PHD), fire flow, and CAP dry-up. These scenarios were run, assuming moderate growth projections, for the base year (2025) and buildout planning year (2040), with consideration of phasing of improvement for the two interim planning year (2030 and 2035). Scenarios were developed and analyzed based on the existing system configuration as well as implementing the recommended improvements. The system analysis evaluated the adequacy of the existing distribution system and highlights areas requiring improvements to meet the system performance criteria established in Section 4.6.1. The results of the distribution system assessment are summarized in the remainder of this section.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
77
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
In general, system improvements are sized to accommodate buildout demands and then phased using the intermediate year analyses. Therefore, the evaluation of wells, booster stations, and reservoir was initially conducted using buildout demands. If system improvements were identified, intermediate year analyses were then conducted to develop improvement project phasing.
4.6.1 Water Distribution System Criteria This section presents the planning criteria and methodologies used to evaluate the performance of the City’s existing water distribution system. The following criteria were used to evaluate the overall performance and adequacy of the water distribution system: 1) adequacy of pumping and storage, 2) acceptable pressure ranges, 3) acceptable maximum pipeline velocities, and 4) required fire flow (FF). Criteria developed for normal operating conditions are summarized in Error! Reference source not found..
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
78
T A B L E 4 - 12 :
2025
ANNUAL
WATER
RESOURCES
TO
PRODUCTION BALANCE
2025 Annual Average af/yr mgd DEMAND City Zone
January Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
93% 97% 34.3 32.4 19.1 85.8
103% 63% 27.1 0.0 24.0 51.1
102% 78% 27.1 30.0 0.0 57.1
98% 101% 28.4 25.0 17.0 70.4
100% 100% 36.0 29.2 22.4 87.6
100% 100% 43.0 40.0 21.7 104.7
2.8 0.0 1.8 4.6
0.0 0.0 13.0 13.0
0.0 0.0 7.9 7.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90.4 0.0
64.1 -0.8 0.0 (mgd) -0.8
65.0 -0.4 0.0 (mgd) -0.4
70.4 0.5 0.0 (mgd) 0.5
87.6 -0.1 0.0 (mgd) -0.1
RESOURCE TRANSFER (+ On Project & - Off Project)
x
PRODUCTION PLANS
101,235
Annual Balance (ac-ft) 2 Running Balance =
(ac-ft) -74 7
1.13
(ac-ft) -40 -33
26.7 26.7 12.7 16.6 6.2 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 73.3
0.78
1.13
(ac-ft) 46 13
28.9 28.9 13.7 18.0 6.7 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.4 79.4
0.97
1.13
(ac-ft) -6 7
35.9 35.9 17.1 22.4 8.4 2.3 1.1 0.4 0.1 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6 98.8
May Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
PRODUCTION SRP Ratio Surface Water CAP Ratio SRP - Val Vista WTP 38,433 Brown Road WTP 36,295 Signal Butte WTP 21,364 Total Surface Water Production = 96,092 Groundwater TOTAL +> VVWTP Service Area Wells 3,099 BRWTP Service Area Wells 0 SBWTP Service Area Wells 2,044 Total Groundwater Production = 5,144 Total Production = Hydraulic Transfer (+ Off to On / - On to Off)=
0.72
April Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
37.0 37.05 17.6 23.0 8.6 2.4 1.1 0.4 0.1 53.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.3
1.13
26.3 26.3 12.5 16.4 6.1 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 37.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.1 72.3
March Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
41,500 41,500 19,718 25,816 9,651 2,662 1,240 409 156 59,652 0 0 0 101,152
Total Mesa On Project (SRP) Falcon Field Zone Desert Wells Zone Desert Sage Zone County Line Zone Apache Junction Zone Range Rider Zone Highlands Zone Total Mesa Off Project (CAP) Other IAG - AZWC (Off) Other IAG - AJ (Off) Total Interagency (IAG) Total System Demand = Max Day Demand =
0.71
February Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
1.16
1.13
(ac-ft) -2 5
43.0 43.0 20.4 26.7 10.0 2.8 1.3 0.4 0.2 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.7 118.1
June Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.33
1.13
49.3 49.3 23.4 30.6 11.5 3.2 1.5 0.5 0.2 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.1 135.4
July Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.29
1.13
47.8 47.8 22.7 29.7 11.1 3.1 1.4 0.5 0.2 68.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.5 131.4
August Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.2
44.5 44.5 21.1 27.7 10.3 2.9 1.3 0.4 0.2 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.4 122.2
1.13
September Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.12
41.5 41.5 19.7 25.8 9.6 2.7 1.2 0.4 0.2 59.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.1 114.1
1.13
October Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1
37.0 37.0 17.6 23.0 8.6 2.4 1.1 0.4 0.1 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.3 101.8
1.13
November (Dry-Up) Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 35.2 35.2 16.7 21.9 8.2 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 50.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.8 96.7
0.95
1.13
December Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 0.78
1.13
28.9 28.9 13.7 18.0 6.7 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.4 79.4
100% 100% 49.3 46.8 24.0 120.1
99% 99% 47.3 45.2 23.0 115.5
99% 101% 44.0 42.3 22.1 108.4
100% 100% 41.4 38.2 21.5 101.1
100% 100% 37.2 34.1 19.0 90.3
0% 104% 0.0 31.6 21.0 52.6
107% 95% 30.9 26.4 13.2 70.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
33.2 0.0 0.0 33.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
104.7 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
120.1 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
116.5 0.5 0.0 (mgd) 0.5
108.4 0.5 0.0 (mgd) 0.5
101.1 0.1 0.0 (mgd) 0.1
90.3 -0.2 0.0 (mgd) -0.2
85.8 2.0 0.0 (mgd) 2.0
70.5 -2.0 0.0 (mgd) -2.0
MAX DAY JUNE/JULY M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with SRP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Peak Val Vista WTP = 0.99 55.6 55.6 Mesa On Val Vista WTP = 0.00 0.0 39.7 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 54.0 46.0 BR Area Brown Road WTP = 35.0 32.9 BR Area 1.36 1.01 Signal Butte WTP = 24.0 33.8 SB Area Signal Butte WTP = 23.0 24.2 SB Area On Project Wells = 0.0 On Project Wells = 34.0 Off Project Wells = 1.8 Off Project Wells = 4.7 Total Production = 135.4 135.4 Total Total Production = 96.7 96.7 Total Hydraulic Transfer = 0.0 (+On & -Off) Hydraulic Transfer = 5.7 (+On & -Off) Notes: (1) Annual Average Supply Utilization only includes City of Mesa WSA demands. AZWC, and Apache Junction demands are ommitted.
70.80 1.24
(ac-ft) -3 2
(ac-ft) 46 46
(ac-ft) 42 88
M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with CAP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Val Vista WTP = 1.15 65.0 39.7 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 0.0 32.9 BR Area 0.00 Signal Butte WTP = 0.0 24.2 SB Area On Project Wells = 10.0 Off Project Wells = 21.7 Total Production = 96.7 96.7 Total Hydraulic Transfer = -35.3 (+On & -Off)
(ac-ft) 9 97
(ac-ft) -14 82
(ac-ft) 186 268
(ac-ft) -187 81
A N N U A L A V E R A G E S U P P L Y U T I L I Z A T I O N(1)
SW @ VV WTP= SW @ CAP WTPs= GW Credits = Total =
Available Consumed 63,122 38,433 64,066 57,659 12,043 5,144 139,231 101,235
Unused 24,689 6,407 6,899 37,995
2025 Demand & Production Balance Curve
2025 Demand & Production Balance Curve 240
220
200 Max Day Demand
180
Avg Monthly Demand
160
Avg Monthly Surface Production
140
Avg Monthly Val Vista 100 Avg Monthly Brown Road 80 Avg Monthly Signal Butte 60
40
20
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG
Month
JUL
JUN
MAY
APR
MAR
FEB
0 JAN
MGD
Avg Monthly Well Production 120
T A B L E 4 - 13 :
2030
ANNUAL
WATER
RESOURCES
TO
PRODUCTION BALANCE
2030 Annual Average af/yr mgd DEMAND City Zone
January Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
92% 96% 34.6 37.3 20.4 92.2
113% 56% 30.2 0.0 24.0 54.2
101% 81% 27.3 35.0 0.0 62.3
100% 100% 29.2 27.4 19.6 76.2
99% 101% 36.0 35.9 22.8 94.7
99% 101% 43.0 46.7 23.6 113.3
3.0 0.0 2.5 5.4
0.0 0.0 15.1 15.1
0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
97.7 0.0
69.3 -3.6 0.0 (mgd) -3.6
70.3 -0.3 0.0 (mgd) -0.3
76.2 0.1 0.0 (mgd) 0.1
94.7 0.4 0.0 (mgd) 0.4
RESOURCE TRANSFER (+ On Project & - Off Project)
x
PRODUCTION PLANS
109,399
Annual Balance (ac-ft) -1 Running Balance =
(ac-ft) -333 -118
1.13
(ac-ft) -27 -145
27.0 27.0 14.4 18.8 6.9 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.3 79.3
0.78
1.13
(ac-ft) 5 -140
29.3 29.3 15.6 20.4 7.5 2.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.2 85.9
0.97
1.13
(ac-ft) 36 -104
36.4 36.4 19.4 25.4 9.3 2.5 1.2 0.4 0.2 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.7 106.8
May Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
PRODUCTION SRP Ratio Surface Water CAP Ratio SRP - Val Vista WTP 38,750 Brown Road WTP 41,738 Signal Butte WTP 22,843 Total Surface Water Production = 103,331 Groundwater TOTAL +> VVWTP Service Area Wells 3,305 BRWTP Service Area Wells 0 SBWTP Service Area Wells 2,763 Total Groundwater Production = 6,068 Total Production = Hydraulic Transfer (+ Off to On / - On to Off)=
0.72
April Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
37.509 37.509 19.960 26.153 9.570 2.591 1.238 0.429 0.194 60.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.6
1.13
26.6 26.6 14.2 18.6 6.8 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.1 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.3 78.2
March Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
42,019 42,019 22,360 29,297 10,721 2,903 1,387 481 217 67,366 0 0 0 109,385
Total Mesa On Project (SRP) Falcon Field Zone Desert Wells Zone Desert Sage Zone County Line Zone Apache Junction Zone Range Rider Zone Highlands Zone Total Mesa Off Project (CAP) Other IAG - AZWC (Off) Other IAG - AJ (Off) Total Interagency (IAG) Total System Demand = Max Day Demand =
0.71
February Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
1.16
1.13
(ac-ft) 48 -56
43.5 43.5 23.2 30.3 11.1 3.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.3 127.7
June Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.33
1.13
49.9 49.9 26.5 34.8 12.7 3.4 1.6 0.6 0.3 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 129.9 146.5
July Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.29
1.13
48.4 48.4 25.7 33.7 12.3 3.3 1.6 0.6 0.3 77.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.0 142.1
August Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.2
45.0 45.0 24.0 31.4 11.5 3.1 1.5 0.5 0.2 72.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.2 132.2
1.13
September Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.12
42.0 42.0 22.4 29.3 10.7 2.9 1.4 0.5 0.2 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.4 123.3
1.13
October Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1
37.5 37.5 20.0 26.2 9.6 2.6 1.2 0.4 0.2 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.6 110.1
1.13
November (Dry-Up) Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 35.6 35.6 19.0 24.8 9.1 2.5 1.2 0.4 0.2 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.8 104.6
0.95
1.13
December Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 0.78
1.13
29.3 29.3 15.6 20.4 7.5 2.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 46.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.2 85.9
99% 98% 49.3 54.7 24.0 128.0
97% 102% 47.0 55.0 24.0 126.0
98% 95% 44.0 45.6 23.0 112.6
99% 99% 41.4 45.0 22.0 108.4
99% 101% 37.0 38.6 22.0 97.6
0% 100% 0.0 36.4 21.0 57.4
105% 97% 30.7 26.8 18.7 76.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 4.6 4.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.4 0.0 0.0 35.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
113.3 0.5 0.0 (mgd) 0.5
129.9 0.6 0.0 (mgd) 0.6
126.0 1.4 0.0 (mgd) 1.4
117.2 1.0 0.0 (mgd) 1.0
108.4 0.6 -1.0 (mgd) 0.6
97.6 0.5 0.0 (mgd) 0.5
92.8 0.2 0.0 (mgd) 0.2
76.2 -1.4 0.0 (mgd) -1.4
MAX DAY JUNE/JULY M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with SRP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Peak Val Vista WTP = 0.97 56.2 56.3 Mesa On Val Vista WTP = 0.00 0.0 40.2 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 60.0 49.8 BR Area Brown Road WTP = 38.0 35.5 BR Area 1.27 0.93 Signal Butte WTP = 24.0 40.4 SB Area Signal Butte WTP = 23.8 28.9 SB Area On Project Wells = 0.0 On Project Wells = 34.0 Off Project Wells = 6.3 Off Project Wells = 8.8 Total Production = 146.5 146.5 Total Total Production = 104.6 104.6 Total Hydraulic Transfer = 0.1 (+On & -Off) Hydraulic Transfer = 6.2 (+On & -Off) Notes: (1) Annual Average Supply Utilization only includes City of Mesa WSA demands. AZWC, and Apache Junction demands are ommitted.
78.70 1.19
(ac-ft) 55 -1
(ac-ft) 129 129
(ac-ft) 94 224
M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with CAP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Val Vista WTP = 1.12 65.0 40.2 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 0.0 35.5 BR Area 0.00 Signal Butte WTP = 0.0 28.9 SB Area On Project Wells = 14.0 Off Project Wells = 25.6 Total Production = 104.6 104.6 Total Hydraulic Transfer = -38.8 (+On & -Off)
(ac-ft) 57 281
(ac-ft) 48 328
(ac-ft) 22 350
(ac-ft) -135 215
A N N U A L A V E R A G E S U P P L Y U T I L I Z A T I O N(1)
SW @ VV WTP= SW @ CAP WTPs= GW Credits = Total =
Available Consumed 65,191 38,750 74,216 64,581 12,043 6,068 151,450 109,399
Unused 26,441 9,635 5,975 42,051
2030 Demand & Production Balance Curve
2030 Demand & Production Balance Curve 240
220
200 Max Day Demand
180
Avg Monthly Demand
160
Avg Monthly Surface Production
140
Avg Monthly Val Vista 100 Avg Monthly Brown Road 80 Avg Monthly Signal Butte 60
40
20
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG
Month
JUL
JUN
MAY
APR
MAR
FEB
0 JAN
MGD
Avg Monthly Well Production 120
T A B L E 4- 14 :
2035
ANNUAL
WATER
RESOURCES
TO
PRODUCTION BALANCE
2035 Annual Average af/yr mgd DEMAND City Zone
January Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
92% 96% 35.1 37.7 26.9 99.6
113% 83% 30.5 0.0 39.3 69.8
100% 82% 27.3 39.7 0.0 67.0
100% 100% 29.6 27.6 24.7 81.9
98% 101% 36.0 39.1 26.7 101.8
102% 99% 45.0 46.5 30.3 121.8
3.0 0.0 2.5 5.4
0.0 0.0 4.7 4.7
0.0 0.0 8.6 8.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
105.1 0.0
74.5 -3.5 0.0 (mgd) -3.5
75.6 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
81.9 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
101.8 0.8 0.0 (mgd) 0.8
RESOURCE TRANSFER (+ On Project & - Off Project)
x
PRODUCTION PLANS
117,698
Annual Balance (ac-ft) 4 Running Balance =
(ac-ft) -330 10
1.13
(ac-ft) 4 14
27.3 27.3 16.1 21.1 7.6 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.6 85.3
0.78
1.13
(ac-ft) 2 15
29.6 29.6 17.4 22.8 8.2 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 52.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.9 92.4
0.97
1.13
(ac-ft) 78 93
36.8 36.8 21.6 28.4 10.2 2.7 1.3 0.5 0.2 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.8 114.9
May Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
PRODUCTION SRP Ratio Surface Water CAP Ratio SRP - Val Vista WTP 39,264 Brown Road WTP 42,214 Signal Butte WTP 30,134 Total Surface Water Production = 111,611 Groundwater TOTAL +> VVWTP Service Area Wells 3,305 BRWTP Service Area Wells 0 SBWTP Service Area Wells 2,782 Total Groundwater Production = 6,087 Total Production = Hydraulic Transfer (+ Off to On / - On to Off)=
0.72
April Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
37.97 37.97 22.32 29.26 10.53 2.81 1.37 0.49 0.25 67.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.0
1.13
27.0 27.0 15.8 20.8 7.5 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.5 84.1
March Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
42,537 42,537 25,002 32,779 11,791 3,144 1,534 553 278 75,081 0 0 0 117,619
Total Mesa On Project (SRP) Falcon Field Zone Desert Wells Zone Desert Sage Zone County Line Zone Apache Junction Zone Range Rider Zone Highlands Zone Total Mesa Off Project (CAP) Other IAG - AZWC (Off) Other IAG - AJ (Off) Total Interagency (IAG) Total System Demand = Max Day Demand =
0.71
February Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
1.16
1.13
(ac-ft) -89 4
44.0 44.0 25.9 33.9 12.2 3.3 1.6 0.6 0.3 77.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.8 137.4
June Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.33
1.13
50.5 50.5 29.7 38.9 14.0 3.7 1.8 0.7 0.3 89.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 139.6 157.5
July Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.29
1.13
49.0 49.0 28.8 37.7 13.6 3.6 1.8 0.6 0.3 86.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.4 152.8
August Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.2
45.6 45.6 26.8 35.1 12.6 3.4 1.6 0.6 0.3 80.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.0 142.1
1.13
September Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.12
42.5 42.5 25.0 32.8 11.8 3.1 1.5 0.6 0.3 75.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.6 132.6
1.13
October Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1
38.0 38.0 22.3 29.3 10.5 2.8 1.4 0.5 0.2 67.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.0 118.4
1.13
November (Dry-Up) Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 36.1 36.1 21.2 27.8 10.0 2.7 1.3 0.5 0.2 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 112.5
0.95
1.13
December Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 0.78
1.13
29.6 29.6 17.4 22.8 8.2 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 52.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.9 92.4
100% 93% 50.5 50.0 33.2 133.7
100% 93% 49.0 49.0 31.4 129.4
100% 94% 45.5 48.0 27.9 121.4
94% 103% 40.0 47.2 30.4 117.6
96% 102% 36.5 40.0 28.5 105.0
0% 101% 0.0 38.7 25.6 64.3
104% 98% 30.7 26.4 24.8 81.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9
0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0
0.0 0.0 4.6 4.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.4 0.0 0.0 35.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
121.8 -1.0 0.0 (mgd) -1.0
139.6 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
135.4 0.0 0.0 (mgd) 0.0
126.0 0.1 0.0 (mgd) 0.1
117.6 2.5 0.0 (mgd) 2.5
105.0 1.5 0.0 (mgd) 1.5
99.7 0.7 0.0 (mgd) 0.7
81.9 -1.1 0.0 (mgd) -1.1
MAX DAY JUNE/JULY M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with SRP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Peak Val Vista WTP = 0.95 56.9 57.0 Mesa On Val Vista WTP = 0.00 0.0 40.7 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 54.0 53.0 BR Area Brown Road WTP = 38.0 37.8 BR Area 1.36 0.99 Signal Butte WTP = 40.0 47.6 SB Area Signal Butte WTP = 30.0 34.0 SB Area On Project Wells = 0.0 On Project Wells = 34.0 Off Project Wells = 6.6 Off Project Wells = 10.5 Total Production = 157.5 157.5 Total Total Production = 112.5 112.5 Total Hydraulic Transfer = 0.1 (+On & -Off) Hydraulic Transfer = 6.7 (+On & -Off) Notes: (1) Annual Average Supply Utilization only includes City of Mesa WSA demands. AZWC, and Apache Junction demands are ommitted.
83.20 1.21
(ac-ft) 0 4
(ac-ft) -1 -1
(ac-ft) 6 5
M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with CAP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Val Vista WTP = 1.08 65.0 40.7 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 0.0 37.8 BR Area 0.00 Signal Butte WTP = 0.0 34.0 SB Area On Project Wells = 18.0 Off Project Wells = 29.5 Total Production = 112.5 112.5 Total Hydraulic Transfer = -42.3 (+On & -Off)
(ac-ft) 236 241
(ac-ft) 137 378
(ac-ft) 63 441
(ac-ft) -101 340
A N N U A L A V E R A G E S U P P L Y U T I L I Z A T I O N(1)
SW @ VV WTP= SW @ CAP WTPs= GW Credits = Total =
Available Consumed 67,261 39,264 77,188 72,348 12,043 6,087 156,492 117,698
Unused 27,997 4,841 5,956 38,794
2035 Demand & Production Balance Curve
2035 Demand & Production Balance Curve 240
220
200 Max Day Demand
180
Avg Monthly Demand
160
Avg Monthly Surface Production
140
Avg Monthly Val Vista 100 Avg Monthly Brown Road 80 Avg Monthly Signal Butte 60
40
20
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG
Month
JUL
JUN
MAY
APR
MAR
FEB
0 JAN
MGD
Avg Monthly Well Production 120
T A B L E 4 - 15 :
2040
ANNUAL
WATER
RESOURCES
TO
PRODUCTION BALANCE
2040 Annual Average af/yr mgd DEMAND City Zone
January Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
92% 97% 35.5 39.6 31.9 107.0
117% 82% 32.0 0.0 42.8 74.8
106% 82% 29.3 43.6 0.0 72.9
99% 101% 29.6 31.5 26.5 87.6
97% 102% 36.0 39.9 33.1 109.0
101% 99% 45.0 46.5 38.8 130.3
3.0 0.0 2.5 5.4
0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
112.4 0.0
79.8 -4.7 0.0 (mgd) -4.7
80.9 -1.6 0.0 (mgd) -1.6
87.6 0.4 0.0 (mgd) 0.4
109.0 1.3 0.0 (mgd) 1.3
RESOURCE TRANSFER (+ On Project & - Off Project)
x
PRODUCTION PLANS
125,941
Annual Balance (ac-ft) 1 Running Balance =
(ac-ft) -440 -21
1.13
(ac-ft) -152 -173
27.7 27.7 17.8 23.3 8.3 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.9 91.2
0.78
1.13
(ac-ft) 35 -138
30.0 30.0 19.2 25.2 9.0 2.4 1.2 0.4 0.2 57.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6 98.8
0.97
1.13
(ac-ft) 120 -18
37.3 37.3 23.9 31.4 11.1 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.3 71.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.0 122.9
May Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
PRODUCTION SRP Ratio Surface Water CAP Ratio SRP - Val Vista WTP 39,786 Brown Road WTP 44,389 Signal Butte WTP 35,707 Total Surface Water Production = 119,882 Groundwater TOTAL +> VVWTP Service Area Wells 3,305 BRWTP Service Area Wells 0 SBWTP Service Area Wells 2,754 Total Groundwater Production = 6,059 Total Production = Hydraulic Transfer (+ Off to On / - On to Off)=
0.72
April Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
38.44 38.44 24.68 32.37 11.48 3.02 1.50 0.56 0.30 73.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 112.3
1.13
27.3 27.3 17.5 23.0 8.2 2.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.8 90.0
March Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
43,056 43,056 27,644 36,260 12,862 3,385 1,681 625 339 82,796 0 0 0 125,852
Total Mesa On Project (SRP) Falcon Field Zone Desert Wells Zone Desert Sage Zone County Line Zone Apache Junction Zone Range Rider Zone Highlands Zone Total Mesa Off Project (CAP) Other IAG - AZWC (Off) Other IAG - AJ (Off) Total Interagency (IAG) Total System Demand = Max Day Demand =
0.71
February Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd)
1.16
1.13
(ac-ft) -39 -57
44.6 44.6 28.6 37.5 13.3 3.5 1.7 0.6 0.4 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 130.3 147.0
June Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.33
1.13
51.1 51.1 32.8 43.1 15.3 4.0 2.0 0.7 0.4 98.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 149.4 168.5
July Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.29
1.13
49.6 49.6 31.8 41.8 14.8 3.9 1.9 0.7 0.4 95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 144.9 163.5
August Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.2
46.1 46.1 29.6 38.8 13.8 3.6 1.8 0.7 0.4 88.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.8 152.0
1.13
September Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1.12
43.0 43.0 27.6 36.3 12.9 3.4 1.7 0.6 0.3 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.8 141.9
1.13
October Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 1
38.4 38.4 24.7 32.4 11.5 3.0 1.5 0.6 0.3 73.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.3 126.7
1.13
November (Dry-Up) Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 36.5 36.5 23.4 30.8 10.9 2.9 1.4 0.5 0.3 70.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.7 120.4
0.95
1.13
December Peaking Flowrate Factor (mgd) 0.78
1.13
30.0 30.0 19.2 25.2 9.0 2.4 1.2 0.4 0.2 57.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6 98.8
99% 95% 50.5 51.6 41.4 143.5
99% 94% 49.0 54.0 35.9 138.9
99% 95% 45.5 49.4 35.3 130.2
97% 102% 41.6 49.0 35.2 125.8
96% 102% 37.0 42.0 33.3 112.3
0% 102% 0.0 40.0 31.3 71.3
102% 99% 30.7 28.0 28.9 87.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9
0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0
0.0 0.0 4.6 4.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.4 0.0 0.0 35.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
130.3 -0.4 0.0 (mgd) -0.4
149.4 0.6 0.0 (mgd) 0.6
144.9 0.6 0.0 (mgd) 0.6
134.8 0.6 0.0 (mgd) 0.6
125.8 1.4 0.0 (mgd) 1.4
112.3 1.4 0.0 (mgd) 1.4
106.7 1.1 0.0 (mgd) 1.1
87.6 -0.7 0.0 (mgd) -0.7
MAX DAY JUNE/JULY M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with SRP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Peak Val Vista WTP = 0.93 57.6 57.7 Mesa On Val Vista WTP = 0.00 0.0 41.2 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 60.0 55.6 BR Area Brown Road WTP = 43.0 39.7 BR Area 1.43 1.02 Signal Butte WTP = 42.0 55.2 SB Area Signal Butte WTP = 30.0 39.4 SB Area On Project Wells = 0.0 On Project Wells = 37.0 Off Project Wells = 8.9 Off Project Wells = 10.4 Total Production = 168.5 168.5 Total Total Production = 120.4 120.4 Total Hydraulic Transfer = 0.1 (+On & -Off) Hydraulic Transfer = 4.2 (+On & -Off) Notes: (1) Annual Average Supply Utilization only includes City of Mesa WSA demands. AZWC, and Apache Junction demands are ommitted.
93.00 1.30
(ac-ft) 58 1
(ac-ft) 54 54
(ac-ft) 58 112
M A X D A Y N O V E M B E R (with CAP Dry-Up) P R O D U C T I O N (mgd) DEMAND (mgd) Peak Val Vista WTP = 1.05 65.0 41.2 Mesa On Brown Road WTP = 0.0 39.7 BR Area 0.00 Signal Butte WTP = 0.0 39.4 SB Area On Project Wells = 20.0 Off Project Wells = 35.4 Total Production = 120.4 120.4 Total Hydraulic Transfer = -43.8 (+On & -Off)
(ac-ft) 135 248
(ac-ft) 134 382
(ac-ft) 104 486
(ac-ft) -67 418
A N N U A L A V E R A G E S U P P L Y U T I L I Z A T I O N(1)
SW @ VV WTP= SW @ CAP WTPs= GW Credits = Total =
Available Consumed 69,315 39,786 80,161 80,096 12,043 6,059 161,519 125,941
Unused 29,529 65 5,984 35,579
2040 Demand & Production Balance Curve
2040 Demand & Production Balance Curve 240
220
200 Max Day Demand
180
Avg Monthly Demand
160
Avg Monthly Surface Production
140
Avg Monthly Val Vista 100 Avg Monthly Brown Road 80 Avg Monthly Signal Butte 60
40
20
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG
Month
JUL
JUN
MAY
APR
MAR
FEB
0 JAN
MGD
Avg Monthly Well Production 120
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.2 Water Distribution System Assessment Results 4.6.2.1 Pumping Capacity Booster Station pumping capacity was analyzed to ensure that maximum day peak hour demand conditions will be met. The capacities of the pumping facilities were first analyzed using an Excel-based desktop model to evaluate the adequacy of the existing facilities and to identify any deficiencies in capacity based on performance criteria. For all required pumping capacity evaluations, it is assumed that groundwater wells are not used to meet peak hour demands. For all pressure zones with floating storage (all pressure zones except for the City, Northeast and Southeast Mini Zones) the pumping stations should be able to meet maximum day demands within the zone. For the City Zone and the Northeast and Southeast Mini Zones, pumping stations should be able to meet 120% of peak hour demands for operational flexibility and to provide a margin of reserve. Table 4-16 summarizes the calculated pumping capacity required to meet performance criteria under buildout demand conditions, assuming moderate growth projections. Table 4-16
2040 Buildout Pumping Requirements
Zone
MDD (MGD)
PHD (MGD)
Required Pumping Capacity (MGD)
Existing Firm Pumping Capacity (MGD)
City Zone
57.7
75.6
90.7
175.4
Falcon Field Zone
37.1
51.7
51.7
87.5
Desert Wells Zone
48.7
69.8
69.8
75.5
Desert Sage Zone
17.3
30.3
30.3
46.3
County Line Zone
4.5
8.0
8.0
14.4
Apache Junction Zone
2.3
3.9
3.9
7.4
Range Rider Zone
0.9
1.7
1.7
4.5
Highlands Zone
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.4
Total
169.0
242.1
257.2
412.4
As shown above, the results of the desktop analysis indicates that the existing pumping capacity meets the required total pumping capacity for buildout demand conditions. While the desktop analysis did not indicate a need to expand the City’s pumping capacity, the following pumping station improvement have been identified and discussed in detail in the following sections: ◼ DSPS1 – Expansion is necessary for operations during maximum day and CAP dry-up. ◼ CLPS1 – Expansion is necessary for operations during maximum day and CAP dry-up. ◼ TS1 – This expansion is necessary to provide adequate flow to the Falcon Field Zone during the CAP dry-up scenarios. ◼ TS3 – This expansion is necessary to provide adequate flow to the Falcon Field Zone during the CAP dry-up scenarios. ◼ SBWTP – Expansion of the Desert Wells PS as being included with the WTP expansion. Expansion of Falcon Field PS for buildout conditions.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
83
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
◼ DWGWF – The Desert Wells Groundwater Facility (DWGWF) may be needed to meet a 2040 CAP dry-up if City is unable to develop sufficient well capacity connected to the SBWTP. Two new pump stations, a Falcon Field and a Desert Wells pump station will be needed at the future DWGWF. The City may consider constructing a PRV from the DWGWF to bleed flow to the Falcon Field zone as an alternative to the pump station during detailed design. Table 4-17 summarizes the phasing of the recommended pumping improvements needed for efficient system operation.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
84
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-17
Pumping Improvements Phase 1 (2030)
Phase 2 (2035)
Phase 3 (2040)
Pumping Station
Zone Served
Base year (2025) Pumping Units (No. of units @ capacity of each unit)
Existing Installed Capacity (mgd)
PS1 (Pasadena)
CW
5 @ 8.2 mgd; 1 @ 6 mgd; 4 @ 5.2 mgd
67.8
59.6
-
0.0
67.8
59.6
-
0.0
67.8
59.6
-
0.0
67.8
59.6
PS2 (Brooks)
CW
2 @ 6 mgd; 2 @ 5.4 mgd; 5 @ 5 mgd
47.8
41.8
-
0.0
47.8
41.8
-
0.0
47.8
41.8
-
0.0
47.8
41.8
PS3 (Lindsay)
CW
5 @ 7.9 mgd; 4 @ 7 mgd
67.5
59.6
-
0.0
67.5
59.6
-
0.0
67.5
59.6
-
0.0
67.5
59.6
NECWPS
NECW
3 @ 3.46 mgd
10.4
6.9
-
0.0
10.4
6.9
-
0.0
10.4
6.9
-
0.0
10.4
6.9
SECWPS
SECW
3 @ 3.74 mgd
11.2
7.5
-
0.0
11.2
7.5
-
0.0
11.2
7.5
-
0.0
11.2
7.5
204.7
175.4
0.0
204.7
175.4
0.0
204.7
175.4
0.0
204.7
175.4
City Zone Total
Existing Firm Capacity (mgd)
Additional Pumping Units
Additional Capacity (mgd)
Total Installed Capacity (mgd)
Total Firm Capacity (mgd)
Additional Pumping Units
Additional Capacity (mgd)
Total Installed Capacity (mgd)
Total Firm Capacity (mgd)
Additional Pumping Units
Additional Capacity (mgd)
Total Installed Capacity (mgd)
Total Firm Capacity (mgd)
SBFFPS
FF
3 @ 8 mgd
24.0
16.0
-
0.0
24.0
16.0
1 @ 8 mgd
8.0
32.0
24.0
-
0.0
32.0
24.0
DWGWFFFPS
FF
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 @ 5 mgd
20.0
20.0
15.0
24.0
16.0
0.0
24.0
16.0
8.0
32.0
24.0
20.0
52.0
39.0
Falcon Field Total BRDWPS
DW
2 @ 6 mgd; 4 @ 9 mgd
48.0
39.0
-
0.0
48.0
39.0
-
0.0
48.0
39.0
-
0.0
48.0
39.0
SBDWPS
DW
3 @ 6 mgd; 2 @ 11 mgd
40.0
29.0
3 @ 11 mgd1
33.0
50.0
44.0
-
0.0
50.0
44.0
-
0.0
50.0
44.0
DWGWFDWPS
DW
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 @ 5 mgd
20.0
20.0
15.0
DWPS1
DW
1 @ 2.5 mgd; 2 @ 5 mgd
1 @ 5 mgd
-
-
Desert Wells Total
12.5
7.5
100.5
75.5
5.0
17.5
12.5
5.0
105.5
80.5
0.0
17.5
12.5
22.0
115.5
95.5
0.0
17.5
12.5
31.0
135.5
110.5
BRDSPS
DS
1 @ 6.3 mgd; 3 @ 9 mgd; 1 @ 6 mgd
39.3
30.3
-
0.0
39.3
30.3
-
0.0
39.3
30.3
-
0.0
39.3
30.3
SBDSPS
DS
3 @ 3.5 mgd
10.5
7.0
-
0.0
10.5
7.0
-
0.0
10.5
7.0
-
0.0
10.5
7.0
DSPS1
DS
4 @ 1.6 mgd
-
-
-
Desert Sage Total
6.4
4.8
56.2
42.1
0.0
6.4
4.8
0.0
56.2
42.1
0.0
6.4
4.8
0.0
56.2
42.1
0.0
6.4
4.8
0.0
56.2
42.1
CLPS1
CL
3 @ 2.2 mgd
6.6
4.4
-
0.0
6.6
4.4
1 @ 2.2 mgd
2.2
8.8
6.6
-
0.0
8.8
6.6
CLPS2
CL
3 @ 2.5 mgd
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
CLPS3
CL
3 @ 2.5 mgd
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
-
0.0
7.5
5.0
21.6
14.4
0.0
21.6
14.4
0.0
23.8
16.6
0.0
23.8
16.6
County Line Total AJPS1 (Waterbury)
AJ
3 @ 1.7 mgd
5.1
3.4
-
0.0
5.1
3.4
-
0.0
5.1
3.4
-
0.0
5.1
3.4
AJPS2
AJ
2 @ 2 mgd
6.0
4.0
-
0.0
6.0
4.0
-
0.0
6.0
4.0
-
0.0
6.0
4.0
11.1
7.4
0.0
11.1
7.4
0.0
11.1
7.4
0.0
11.1
7.4
Apache Junction Total RRPS1
RR
3 @ 0.5 mgd
1.5
1.0
-
0.0
1.5
1.0
-
0.0
1.5
1.0
-
0.0
1.5
1.0
RRPS2
RR
3 @ 1.73 mgd
5.2
3.5
-
0.0
5.2
3.5
-
0.0
5.2
3.5
-
0.0
5.2
3.5
6.7
4.5
0.0
6.7
4.5
0.0
6.7
4.5
0.0
6.7
4.5
Range Rider Total HLPS1
HL
2 @ 0.36 mgd; 1 @ 0.7 mgd
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
HLPS2
HL
2 @ 0.7 mgd
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
-
0.0
1.4
0.7
2.8
1.4
0.0
2.8
1.4
0.0
2.8
1.4
0.0
2.8
1.4
Highland Total Transfer Station (Pumping) TS1
FF
2 @ 4 mgd; 2 @ 8 mgd
24.0
16.0
2 @ 8 mgd2
16.0
32.0
24.0
-
0.0
32.0
24.0
-
0.0
32.0
24.0
TS2
FF
4 @ 10.5 mgd
42.0
31.5
-
0.0
42.0
31.5
-
0.0
42.0
31.5
-
0.0
42.0
31.5
12.0
44.0
36.0
0.0
6.3
4.2
TS3
FF
2 @ 4 mgd; 3 @ 8 mgd
32.0
24.0
1 @ 8 mgd
8.0
40.0
32.0
-
0.0
40.0
32.0
2 @ 6 mgd3
TS5
DS
3 @ 2.1 mgd
6.3
4.2
-
0.0
6.3
4.2
-
0.0
6.3
4.2
-
Notes: 1. Replace 3 existing pumps @ 6 mgd with 2 pumps @ 11 mgd; Project included in the SBWTP Expansion, slated for completion in 2026. 2. Replace 2 existing pumps @ 4 mgd with 2 pumps @ 8 mgd. 3. Replace 2 existing pumps @ 4 mgd with 2 pumps @ 6 mgd or replace one existing pump @ 4 mgd with one pump @ 8 mgd
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
85
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.2.2 Storage Reservoir Capacity Storage reservoirs are an essential component of the distribution system. The storage volume is used to equalize peak hourly demands over the course of a day, moderate hydraulic grade, and provide a reserve volume which can be tapped for firefighting. The key criteria used for establishing the required volume of storage includes: Equalization (EQ): refers to the volume needed to meet maximum hour demands while the production facilities continue operating at a steady 24-hour daily level. EQ volume is calculated as the difference between maximum hour demand and maximum day demand for a period of 6 hours. Fire Reserve: calculated based on providing a 3,500 gpm FF for a 3-hour duration or 0.63 MG; the upper pressure zones are calculated as 2,000 gpm FF for a 2-hour duration or 0.24 MG. The typical practice for sizing system storage reservoir capacity is to provide the greater of either 1EQ+Fire Reserve or 2EQ. In addition to the 2EQ needed to provide equalization storage for distribution system pumping, additional storage is needed at water production facilities to equalize variation in plant operations. The capacities of the storage facilities were also analyzed using an Excel-based desktop model to evaluate the adequacy of the existing facilities and to identify any deficiencies in capacity based on performance criteria. Table 4-18 shows the calculated storage volume required to serve each zone. Table 4-18
2040 Storage Requirements
Zone
MDD (mgd)
PHD (mgd)
Required EQ Volume (MG)1
Required Fire Volume (MG)2
Required Total Volume (MG)3
Existing Storage Volume (MG)4
City Zone
57.7
75.7
4.48
0.63
9.0
50.0
Falcon Field Zone
37.1
51.7
3.65
0.63
7.3
18.8
Desert Wells Zone
48.7
69.8
5.27
0.63
10.5
24.7
Desert Sage Zone
17.3
30.2
3.24
0.63
6.5
12.0
County Line Zone
4.5
8.0
0.88
0.63
1.8
2.0
Apache Junction Zone
2.3
3.9
0.40
0.24
0.80
1.0
Range Rider Zone
0.9
1.7
0.21
0.24
0.41
0.5
Highlands Zone
0.5
1.1
0.17
0.24
0.34
0.33
Total
169.0
242.3
18.3
3.9
36.0
108.3
Notes: 1.
Equalization storage requirements based on meeting peak hour demand in excess of maximum day demand for a period of 6 hours. EQ Vol = (PHD-MDD) * 6/24.
2.
Based on the Insurance Service Offices (ISO) guidelines of providing a 3,500-gpm fire flow for 3-hour duration, or 0.63 MG. For the upper pressure zones, ISO guidelines is 2,000 gpm for a 2-hour duration, or 0.24 MG.
3.
Calculated as the greater of twice the equalization volume storage requirement or equalization storage plus fire reserve.
4.
Storage at the Brown Road WTP and Signal Butte WTP is proportionally distributed based on the buildout demands of the Zones they serve (Falcon Field, Desert Wells, and Desert Sage).
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The City’s existing storage volume meets the required total volume for buildout demand conditions within each pressure zone. No additional storage improvements are needed to meet the storage requirement. However, a second 8 MG tank at the SBWTP and a 5 MG tank at the future DWGWF will be needed for normal operation at the corresponding facility. Table 4-19 shows how the total recommended storage for each zone will be provided in 2040 using a combination of new and existing reservoirs.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 4-19
Storage Distribution by Zone (MG) Buildout Storage Facility
Reservoir
Distribution Storage Facility
City
Additional Future Storage by Facility
Existing Storage Facility
Val Vista WTP
20
20
20
20
Brooks
10
10
10
10
Pasadena
10
10
10
10
Lindsay
10
10
10
10
FFR1
1.5
1.5
Brown Road WTP1
40
14.4
18.9
6.7
Signal Butte1
8.0
2.9
3.8
1.3
DWGWF1
0.0
DWR1
1.0
DWR2
1.0
DSR1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
DSR2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
CLR2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
CLR3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
CLR5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
AJR1
1.0
RRR1
0.5
HLR1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
HLR2
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Total
109.3
Distribution by Storage Facility 1.5
14.4
18.9
6.7
40
8.0
5.8
7.6
2.6
16
5.0
2.2
2.8
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 0.5
18.8
Highland
1.5
1.0
50.0
Range Rider
Apache Junction
County Line
Desert Sage
Desert Wells
Falcon
Distribution by Zone
City
Highland
Range Rider
Apache Junction
County Line
Desert Sage
Desert Wells
Falcon
Distribution by Zone
24.7
12.0
2.0
Incremental Increase2
1.0
0.5
1.0 0.5
0.3
13.0
0.5
50.0
23.8
31.3
13.3
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
122.3
0.0
5.1
6.6
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
Note: 1.
Storage at the Brown Road WTP, Signal Butte WTP, and DWGWF is proportionally distributed based on the buildout demands of the Zones they serve (Falcon Field, Desert Wells, and Desert Sage).
2.
Incremental value represents the volume of storage (MG) gained at a pressure zone by buildout.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
88
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3 Maximum Day Capacity Assessment The calibrated hydraulic model was used to evaluate the distribution system for its ability to meet the performance criteria summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. This analysis identifies undersized pipelines or limited transmission capacity that may be impacting the system’s ability to deliver required flow or pressure under moderate growth MDD conditions. Distribution pipelines must be adequately sized to convey water from points of production to points of demand without incurring excessive headloss which would lead to low service pressures or excessive back pressures (pressure mounding). The system capacity analysis also reviewed pipe velocity results for each planning year. The production plans presented in Section 4.5 were the basis for the development of the maximum day model runs and facilities were adjusted, as necessary. Table 4-20 summarizes the maximum day hydraulic model runs and corresponding water supplies from the WTPs and groundwater wells (GW) that were used to evaluate the ability of the existing distribution system to meet the evaluation criteria under moderate growth demand projections. Table 4-20 Run
Maximum Day Hydraulic Modeling Summary Description
Demands
Supplies Val Vista WTP = 55.6 mgd Brown Road WTP = 54 mgd
2025MD
2025 Maximum Day EPS
135.4
Signal Butte WTP = 24 mgd On-Project GW = 0 mgd Off-Project GW= 1.8 mgd Val Vista WTP = 56.2 mgd Brown Road WTP = 60 mgd
2030MD
2030 Maximum Day EPS
145.9
Signal Butte WTP = 24 mgd On-Project GW = 0 mgd Off-Project GW= 6.3 mgd Val Vista WTP = 56.9 mgd Brown Road WTP = 54 mgd
2035MD
2035 Maximum Day EPS
156.9
Signal Butte WTP = 40 mgd On-Project GW = 0 mgd Off-Project GW= 6.6 mgd Val Vista WTP = 57.6 mgd Brown Road WTP = 60 mgd
2040MD
2040 Maximum Day EPS
167.2
Signal Butte WTP = 42 mgd On-Project GW = 0 mgd Off-Project GW= 8.9 mgd
The results of this assessment show that the distribution system operates well within the performance criteria and that outside of the planned improvements, the system does not require distribution or transmission capacity improvements to meet moderate growth MDD conditions through 2040. Figures showing minimum pressures, maximum pressures, and maximum velocity under MDD for 2025 and buildout (2040) are shown in Figure 4-7 through Figure 4-12. Figures showing pressure and velocity results for interim years are provided in Appendix B.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
89
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
65
10 110 0
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
105
60
75
100
35
70
0 11
55
40
70
95
55
Thomas Rd 3600 N
65
105
90
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
50
50
55
70
45 35
60
80
100
45
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
45
60
70
In association with:
McDowell Rd 2800 N
85
90
80
Legend Pressure Contour Lines (PSI) City Zone (NE+SE)
95
Falcon Field
85
McKellips Rd 2000 N
50 80
95
50
Brown Rd 1200 N
70
70
85
45
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
5 10
10 0
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field
55
Desert Wells
80 85
60
Desert Sage
Southern Ave 1200 S
55
85
70
75
60
Range Rider Highlands
65
65
Apache Junction
45 40 60 5 5 5 0
65
Desert Sage County Line
75
75
55
80
90
80
60 202
60
65
Desert Wells
Apache Junction
60
75
Range Rider
Baseline Rd 2000 S
80
65
45 50
95
75
County Line
Highlands Usery 1
60
Usery 2
90
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Arizona Water Company
Boundary Highways Streets
Warner Rd 4400 S
Canals Railroads
80
85
Light Rail Track
65
70
Ray Rd 5200 S
60
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
202
Other Features
95
100
202
Elliot Rd 3600 S
90
55
50
Queen Creek
Salt River Airport
0
5000
10000 ft
±
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 4-6 4-7 2025 MD Minimum Pressure
95
70
100
70
80
50 75
95
0
50
85
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
90
0
50
11 5
90
80
95 10 5 10
75
0
65
0
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
50
60
5
10
60
County Line Apache Junction Range Rider Highlands
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field
70
90 85
60
65
80
85
Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Range Rider Highlands
90
55
80
Desert Wells
Southern Ave 1200 S
50
75
70
60
Desert Sage
Brown Rd 1200 N
55
70
75
Desert Wells
45
10
65
Falcon Field
McKellips Rd 2000 N 70
11
55 85
60
55
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI) City Zone (NE+SE)
65
95
202
110
Legend
55
85
10
65
90
85
80
McDowell Rd 2800 N
5
105
60
11
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
60
45
105
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Higley Rd 5200 E 115
40 0 11
70
35
70
65
75
55
90
85
65
55
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
80
75
80
In association with:
10
0
Usery 1
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
95
70
65
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
55
60
105
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
95
Warner Rd 4400 S
100
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S
90
85
202
Streets
Salt River Airport
65
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S 60
202
Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 4-7 4-8
±
2025 MD Maximum Pressure
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
Legend Maximum Velocity (ft/s) Less than 2 ft/s
202
McKellips Rd 2000 N
2-3 ft/s
Brown Rd 1200 N
5-7 ft/s
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
3-5 ft/s Greater than 7 ft/s
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals
Southern Ave 1200 S
Railroads
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Airport
Light Rail Track
60
60
Salt River
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
±
Pecos Rd 6800 S
Figure 4-8 4-9
Germann Rd 7600 S
2025 MD Maximum Velocity
10 110 0
105
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
65
105
35
11 85
100
McDowell Rd 2800 N
45
80
95
40
85
75
75
60
McKellips Rd 2000 N
85
70
85
50
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
45
5 0
90
10
85 80
110
95
City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
60
Range Rider
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Highlands Usery 1
50
55
70
50
70
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Other Features Boundary Highways
60
55
95
Usery 2
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
85
65
80
Pressure Zone
Southern Ave 1200 S 75
60
Range Rider Highlands
10 65
50
60
Apache Junction
35 55
60
70
Desert Sage
Brown Rd 1200 N
45
75
Desert Wells
County Line
50
40
55 65
City Zone (NE+SE) Falcon Field
80
45
55
90
95
60
202
65
75
60
80
50
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI)
5
10
90
50
70
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Legend
95
65
60
55
0
55
70
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
40
65
50
80
40
70
75
85
In association with:
Streets
90
Warner Rd 4400 S
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
80
202
Salt River
Ray Rd 5200 S
85
Airport
60
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
65
55
202
0
5000
10000 ft
±
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
4-10 Figure 4-9 2040 MD Minimum Pressure
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Power Rd 6800 E
35
11
5
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
55
110 0 10
60
70
45
50
45
City Zone (NE+SE) Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage
Brown Rd 1200 N
Apache Junction Range Rider
45 11
5
5
10
85
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI)
McKellips Rd 2000 N
65
90
50
65
50
Legend
95
70
85
55
5
County Line
60
202
McDowell Rd 2800 N
11
55
65
0 65 75 5 9 80 8 00 95 1
105
75
40
75
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
60
80
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
110
5 90 4
80
In association with:
75
50
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field
10
0
10
95
75
70
60
Highlands
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
60
80
95
70
85
90
65
80
60
Southern Ave 1200 S
55
110
60
0
Desert Wells
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Highlands Usery 1
90
70
65
Range Rider
Usery 2
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Arizona Water Company
85
Queen Creek
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Other Features Boundary
95
100
105
85
202
90
60
Highways Streets
Warner Rd 4400 S
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S
Salt River
70
Airport
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S 65
202
Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Figure 4-10 4-11 2040 MD Maximum Pressure
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
Legend Maximum Velocity (ft/s) Less than 2 ft/s 2-3 ft/s
McKellips Rd 2000 N
3-5 ft/s 5-7 ft/s
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Greater than 7 ft/s
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals Railroads
Southern Ave 1200 S
Light Rail Track
60
60
Airport
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Salt River
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Figure 4-11 4-12 2040 MD Maximum Velocity
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The 2025 and 2040 maximum day scenarios (which include the planned City improvements outlined in Section 4.8) confirm the City can meet these emergency interconnection commitments by increasing production out of the BRWTP Desert Sage Pump Station. The 16-inch piping to the AZ Water Company experiences velocities of 3.5 ft/s when the 3.5 MGD flow is being provided. It was noted the 12-inch piping to the Apache Junction interconnect experiences velocities greater than 10 ft/s in the surrounding pipe serving the connection when the 5 MGD flow is being provided.
4.6.3.1 Fire Flow Assessment In addition to meeting the MD demands and pressure requirements, the water distribution system must also be able to provide large volumes of water in a concentrated area during a fire event while still maintaining minimum pressure requirements throughout the distribution system. This is known as fire flow (FF) demand. The amount of fire flow required varies based on the structure’s size, use, and building materials. Following City precedence, it was decided for the fire flow analysis, a fire flow demand of 3,500 gpm was to be used for City Zone through County Line Zone and a fire flow demand of 2,000 gpm was to be used for Apache Junction, Range Rider, and Highlands Zones. The fire flow analyses were conducted for 2025 to identify existing deficiencies and to develop recommended improvements. The 2040MD+FF was then run to size and confirm identified fire flow improvements. The 2025 MD+ FF deficiency areas are shown in Figure 4-13. While the majority of the system performs well under the fire flow assessment, five (5) areas were identified as having fire flow deficiencies which are described in the following sections.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
96
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
Existing Water Mains City Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells
McKellips Rd 2000 N
Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
Area #4
Area #2
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Area #5 Area #3 Area #1
Range Rider Highland
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage
Southern Ave 1200 S
County Line Apache Junction
60
60
Range Rider
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Highlands Usery 1 Usery 2 Arizona Water Company
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Queen Creek
Other Features Boundary
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Highways Streets Canals
Warner Rd 4400 S
Railroads Light Rail Track
202
Airport
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 4-13 4-12
2025 MD+FF Deficiency Areas
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3.2 Fire Flow Area #1 – South Vineyard Fire flow area #1 is located along South Vineyard and W. 1st Avenue and is the only area of concern identified near a critical customer. The model results predicted the system would provide an available fire flow of 1,000 gpm to 2,000 gpm to the residential area located along South Vineyard as shown in Figure 4-14.
Figure 4-14
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #1
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
98
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
To meet fire flow criteria at the critical customer, the City should consider proactively upsizing 1,260 L.F of 8-inch pipe along W. 1st Avenue to connect to the 8-inch pipe along South Country Club Drive and S. Date. The remainder of the 4-inch pipe in this block should be upsized to 8-inch per the City’s pipeline replacement program, as shown in Figure 4-15.
Figure 4-15
2040 Fire Flow Area #1 Remedy
The 2040MD fire flow run shows that with the upsizing of the pipes described above, including the 4-inch pipes along W. Mahoney Avenue and W. Dana Avenue, a majority of the nodes show an increase in available hydrant flow. In particular, the nodes surrounding the critical customer would provide an available fire flow of greater than 3,500 gpm.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
99
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3.3 Fire Flow Area #2 – W. 8th Place The second deficiency area is located along W. 8th Place off of N. Westwood. The model results predicted the system would provide an available fire flow of less than 1,000 gpm along W. 8th Place and between 1,000 and 2,000 gpm along W. 9th Street as shown within the red circle in Figure 4-16.
Figure 4-16
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #2
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
100
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
To improve the available fire flow at the deficient areas, the City may consider completing the loop by adding a 6-inch pipe along W. 8th Place to connect to the 6-inch pipe along N. Westwood and the 6-inch pipe along N. Lafayette. Figure 4-17 shows the available fire flow which increased with the 8-inch improvement.
Figure 4-17
2040 Fire Flow Area #2 Remedy
The 2040MD fire flow run shows that adding 580 L.F. of 8-inch pipe along W. 8th Place to complete the loop increased the available fire flow to between 1,000 and 2,000 gpm where before there was less than 1,000 gpm available.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
101
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3.4 Fire Flow Area #3 – North of E. Main St. The third deficiency area is located north of E. Main Street on N. 54 th Street and N. 57th Street. The model results predicted the system would provide an available fire flow between 1,000 and 2,000 gpm as shown in Figure 4-18.
Figure 4-18
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #3
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
102
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The City may consider adding 8-inch pipe, to loop the system from N. 54th Street to E. Main Street and along N. 57th Street to the north shown in red in Figure 4-19.
Figure 4-19
2040 Fire Flow Area #3 Remedy
The model predicts the system would provide an available fire flow between 2,000 and 3,500 gpm in a majority of the nodes that, without the proposed improvements, had been able to provide less than 2,000 gpm.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
103
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3.5 Fire Flow Area #4 – Red Mountain High School The fourth deficiency area is located off of Brown Road near the Red Mountain High School. The model results predict the system would be able to provide fire flow between 500 - 2,000 gpm as shown in Figure 4-20.
Figure 4-20
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #4
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
104
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The City may consider adding 8-inch pipe along the west side of the main building. Figure 4-21 shows the impact of the proposed pipe on the available fire flow.
Figure 4-21
2040 Fire Flow Area #4 Remedy
Completing the loop behind the main building with 8-inch pipe increases the available fire flow to between 2,000 and 3,500 gpm or greater than 3,500 gpm within school grounds.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
105
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.3.6 Fire Flow Area #5 – N. 99th St. The fifth deficiency area is located between E. Quarterline Road and E. University Drive along N. 99 th Street. The model predicts the system would provide an available fire flow between 500 and 1,000 gpm and less than 500 gpm near E. University Drive as shown in Figure 4-22.
Figure 4-22
2025 Fire Flow Deficiency Area #5
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
106
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
To improve the available fire flow in this area, the City should upsize all the pipes to 8-inches and relocate the pipes to the main streets when this area is up for quarter section replacement since the City is no longer installing new water mains in alleys. The City may consider adding two 8-inch connections from E. University Drive to the pipe that will run along E. Cicero Street in the future. The proposed connections and pipes suggested for upsizing and/or relocation are shown in Figure 4-23. The figure shows the increased available fire flow in 2040 when incorporating the proposed recommendations.
Figure 4-23
2040 Fire Flow Area #5 Remedy
The addition of the two connections and the upsizing of all the pipes in this section increases the available fire flow to at least greater than 2,000 gpm for all the nodes.
4.6.4 Water Quality Assessment Water age simulations were performed as part of the water system analyses under 2025 demand conditions to set a baseline for comparing existing distribution system water quality to future year water quality. The calibration process of the model confirmed its ability to simulate system pressures, tank levels, and system flows under maximum day conditions in the existing system. This results in a model that accurately represents the water quality dynamics within the system. To further validate the model’s effectiveness in reflecting real-world conditions, the simulated water age was compared against the Trihalomethane (TTHM), Haloacetic Acid (HAA5), and Free Chlorine data provided by the City for various sites within the system. For the purposes of this study, water age is used as a surrogate parameter for water quality in the distribution system. The water age simulation calculates the water age at each node in the system for each hour of the extended period simulation. The age at each node is defined as the length of time water at that node has been in the distribution system since being produced at the treatment plant or well.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
107
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Water age analyses were performed for system conditions representative of the maximum demand day and the minimum demand day to assess water quality in the distribution system under seasonal supply and operating conditions. Both of these conditions present different water quality concerns. ◼ In the wintertime, when system demands are lower, water age in the distribution system tends to increase unless storage volume is reduced. This increase in water age occurs despite lower temperature and lower Total Organic Carbon (TOC), which typically result in slower formation of TTHMs. ◼ In the summertime, while increased system demands lowers water age in the system, higher water temperatures and seasonally higher TOC in the SRP source water causes higher TTHM formation. The model was run under both of these demand conditions to understand how water age varies under each condition. The model runs start with a water age of zero within the distribution system and must run for a duration which is sufficient to ensure the calculated water ages and sources had stabilized or reached equilibrium. Operational controls were input to the model to simulate typical operations. The County Line Reservoir 5, Apache Junction Reservoir 1, Range Rider Reservoir 3, and Highlands Reservoir 2 include air stripping to mitigate TTHM formation. The water age of flow leaving these sites was re-set to zero. The scenarios were simulated with and without air stripping to provide a comparison of the benefit the City is achieving with the aeration equipment. The results of the hydraulic model indicate that there is a 100-hour reduction for a minimum day and a 200-hour reduction for a maximum day with the addition of the aeration equipment. The reduction was calculated by looking at the average water age reduction on nodes within the County Line, Apache Junction, Range Rider, and Highland’s pressure zones. The greater reduction on the maximum day scenario is a result of the higher turnover rates during periods of high demand. The results of the scenarios without aeration are shown in Appendix C.
4.6.4.1 Maximum Day Demand Water Quality Model Results The 2025 maximum day water age results are shown in Figure 4-24.The 2025 maximum day results show the water age of the system is primarily less than 72 hours (3 days) with small pockets in the upper pressure zones that exceed 72 hours. The higher water age in Desert Sage and the upper pressure zones is primarily due to lower system demand. The 2025 maximum day water age results for the scenario simulated without air stripping shows water age exceeding 96 hours in a majority of the Range Rider and Highlands zones. The water age in the northern region of the Apache Junction Zone increases from mostly less than 48 hours to a water age greater than 72 hours when air stripping is removed. The water age results of the 2025 maximum day scenario without air stripping are shown in Appendix C.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
108
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! WTRSAMP107 !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! WTRSAMP184 ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! Avg. Water Age: 46 hrs ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP166 !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !! !!!! !!! !! Avg. Water Age: 32 hrs ! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !!! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.062 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 39 hrs ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.059 mg/L ! !!!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! HAA5: 0.016 mg/L ! ! ! TTHM: 0.070 mg/L !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.015 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! Free Chlorine: 0.730 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.015 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! Free Chlorine: 0.361 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! Free Chlorine: 0.598 mg/L !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP158 ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 42 hrs ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! WTRSAMP175 ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.071 mg/L ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!! ! Avg. Water Age: 65 hrs !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! HAA5: 0.018 mg/L ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.061 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.710 mg/L !!!!! 101 ! ! !!!! ! !! !!!!! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.017 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.546 mg/L ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !!! !!!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP161 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! !!! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! Avg. Water Age: 53 hrs !!!!! ! !! !!!!!! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! TTHM: 0.061 mg/L ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! HAA5: 0.013 mg/L ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 1.013 mg/L ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 202 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !!!! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !!! !!! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! !!!! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! !! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! 60 !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! 60 ! !! !!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! WTRSAMP157 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! Avg. Water Age: 49 hrs !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP112 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! WTRSAMP196 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.062 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!! !!! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 64 hrs !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 30 hrs ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! HAA5: 0.018 mg/L !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.064 mg/L ! ! WTRSAMP178 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.047 mg/L ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! Free Chlorine: 0.872 mg/L ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !!!!! !!!! ! ! HAA5: 0.005 mg/L ! Avg. Water Age: 58 hrs !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.011 mg/L ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! Free Chlorine: 0.295 mg/L TTHM: .068 mg/L !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.755 mg/L !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! HAA5: 0.005 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.280 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP169 ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! Avg. Water Age: 69 hrs ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.061 mg/L ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! HAA5: 0.011 mg/L ! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!!!! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.570 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! 202 !! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP212 ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! Avg. Water Age: 152 hrs !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.065 mg/L !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! HAA5: 0.004 mg/L ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.217 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 24 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! 202 ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
Water Age (hours)
! ! ! ! !
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
less than 24 hours
24 - 48 hours
48 - 72 hours
72 - 96 hours
greater than 96 hours
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
Southern Ave 1200 S
Range Rider Highlands Usery 1
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Streets Canals Railroads
Warner Rd 4400 S
Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Note: Results derived from resetting water age to zero in reservoirs that have aerators.
0
5000
10000 ft
±
Figure 4-23 4-24 2025 Maximum Day Water Age Results
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.4.2 Minimum Day Demand Water Quality Model Results The minimum day water age results are shown in Figure 4-25. The results for the 2025 minimum day indicate higher water age levels throughout the distribution system, with the majority of the City Zone experiencing water age exceeding 48 hours. Furthermore, a greater portion of the system exhibits a water age that exceeds 96 hours (4 days) when compared to the maximum day results. In a similar trend to the maximum day results, the water age is higher in the upper pressure zones due to the lower demand. The water age is also greater on the outskirts of the City Zone as the distance from the Pasadena, Lindsay, and Brooks pump stations increases. The Southeast Mini Zone experiences high water age which the City mitigates by using PRV27 as the primary flow into the zone. There is a large pocket of nodes in the County Line Zone near the County Line Reservoirs 2 and 3 (CLR2 & CLR3) that exceeds 4 days. Currently, the City adjusts operation and rainbow pumps through County Line Reservoir 5 which includes air stripping to combat low water quality in CLR2 and CLR3. Rainbow pumping refers to the practice of operating a pump station at a higher capacity than needed to maintain flow requirements. In this case, the flow requirements are specifically for preventing high water age and subsequently lower water quality. The nodes near the Arizona State University Polytechnic site indicate a water age greater than 4 days. Currently, the City mitigates the high-water age by running PRV28 and backing off the Signal Butte Falcon Field pumps. The City may also consider using an automatic flush valve at this site to improve water age. The 2025 minimum day water age results for the scenario simulated without air stripping show that the water in the Apache Junction, Range Rider, and Highlands zones would exceed 96 hours in a large majority of the zone. The water age results of the 2025 minimum day scenario without air stripping are shown in Appendix C.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
110
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WTRSAMP184 !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! WTRSAMP107 ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! Avg. Water Age: 44 hrs ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! WTRSAMP166 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!!! !!! !! Avg. Water Age: 72 hrs ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !!! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.033 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! Avg. Water Age: 88 hrs ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! TTHM: 0.035 mg/L !! !! !!!!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.020 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.041 mg/L ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.011 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! Free Chlorine: 1.048 mg/L ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.011 mg/L ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Free Chlorine: 0.862 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !! Free Chlorine: 0.830 mg/L ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !!! !!!! WTRSAMP158 ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Avg. Water Age: 87 hrs ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! WTRSAMP175 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !!!! !! TTHM: 0.042 mg/L ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 58 hrs ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! HAA5: 0.012 mg/L !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.033 mg/L ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! !! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.741 mg/L !!! !!! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.019 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! Free Chlorine: 1.112 mg/L ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! WTRSAMP161 !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !!!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!! !! Avg. Water Age: 90 hrs ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !!! !! ! !! !!! !!!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! TTHM: 0.033 mg/L !!! !!! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !! !!!!!! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.005 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! Free Chlorine: 1.002 mg/L ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 202 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !!! !! ! !!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !!!! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!! !!! !! !!! !!! !!! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! !! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !!! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!!! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! !!!! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! !! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !!!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! 60 !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! 60 ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! !!! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !! !!!!! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! !! !!!!! !!! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!! !! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!! !! ! WTRSAMP157 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 75 hrs ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! WTRSAMP112 !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! WTRSAMP196 !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.039 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 108 hrs ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !!!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! !!! !! !! !!!! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 63 hrs ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! WTRSAMP178 !!! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.009 mg/L ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! !! TTHM: 0.041 mg/L !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.029 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Avg. Water Age: 122 hrs ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! !!! Free Chlorine: 0.778 mg/L !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! HAA5: 0.007 mg/L ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! HAA5: 0.006 mg/L !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! TTHM: .044 mg/L ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.591 mg/L ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!! !!!!!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.850 mg/L !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! HAA5: 0.007 mg/L !! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! Free Chlorine: 0.586 mg/L ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! WTRSAMP169 !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! !!! Avg. Water Age: 115 hrs !! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! TTHM: 0.037 mg/L ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! HAA5: 0.006 mg/L ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! Free Chlorine: 0.891 mg/L !!!!! ! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! 202 !! ! !! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!! !! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!! ! !!!! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! WTRSAMP212 !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! Avg. Water Age: 215 hrs !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! TTHM: 0.046 mg/L ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! HAA5: 0.005 mg/L ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! Free Chlorine: 0.447 mg/L !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 24 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 202 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
Water Age (hours)
! ! ! ! !
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
less than 24 hours
24 - 48 hours
48 - 72 hours
72 - 96 hours
greater than 96 hours
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
Southern Ave 1200 S
Range Rider Highlands Usery 1
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Streets Canals Railroads
Warner Rd 4400 S
Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Note: Results derived from resetting water age to zero in reservoirs that have aerators.
0
5000
10000 ft
±
4-24 Figure 4-25 2025 Minimum Day Water Age Results
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.6.5 Pipe Criticality Assessment The Bentley WaterGEMS Pipe Criticality Tool was used to identify the most critical mains out in the distribution system. The pipe criticality assessment was conducted using a demand of 62 mgd, the 2025 average day demand for the month of May. The tool evaluates each pipes “criticality” by evaluating the follow outages: ◼ Pipe/Segment – each selected pipe or system segment is isolated, and the effect of that shutdown is analyzed by calculating the demand shortfall and/or a pressure drop below 30 psi in the system when the segment is shut down. ◼ Valve – the distribution isolation valves are added as a layer file to the model and each isolation valve was analyzed individually to determine the effect of shutting down the segment containing that valve. Each of the City’s large distribution mains (20-inch and larger) was isolated from the system at each pair of consecutive isolation valves to simulate a pipeline inspection and conduct an assessment on system performance. The criticality assessment results give an indication of the importance of the shutdown of a segment in terms of the amount of demand met. The pipe criticality assessment tool also gives an indication of which segments will be placed out of service when an upstream segment is shut down. In highly looped systems with multiple sources, there will be very few outage segments, while in tree shaped segments with a single source, there will be numerous large outage segments. Large outage segments usually indicate portions of the system where a single break or shutdown can place large numbers of customers out of service. Figure 4-26 shows both the pipes that result in the largest shortfall in demand (shown in red) as well as the longest segments of pipe that will be out of service due to a single pipe outage (shown in dark blue).
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
112
DSR1 CLPS1
PRV31
! <
101
PRV26
! <
U UT T 55
DWR1 "" DSPS1
3 Q
! <
U5 T
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Thomas Rd 3600 N
HLPS1
PRV14
FFR1 " DWPS1
" L TS3
Crismon Rd 10000 E
U T U HLR1, HLR2 T AJR1 U5 T " RRPS2
U5 T "
! <
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
RRR3
PRV36
VVWTP
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
CLR5 AJPS2
In association with:
Legend
! PRV17 < McDowell Rd 2800 N
AJPS1 B ! HLPS2 < RRPS1
" )
Highest Criticality Pipe Segments Longest Pipe OOS Segments
PIPESIZE 6" and smaller
CW24
! ã
FF2
! ã
PS4
B ! ã " )
BRWTP
CW19
TS2
! ã
Lindsay
U5 T " ! !ã ã Pasadena CW11 ã ! ã ! CW7
CW25
CW8
! ã
CW12
CW18
! ã
U5 T " " L
! <
! ã U5 T "
CW10
CW16
CLPS3
! ã
! ã
U DWR2 T PRV5
! ã
CW14
! ã
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
! <
CW15
! ã
Brown Rd 1200 N
PRV4
FF5
! <
PS5
B " )
8" - 10" 12" - 18" 20" - 24"
B " )
PRV3
TS1
Brooks
CW26
U CLR2, CLR3 T U DSR2 T
" L
CW27
202
B CLPS2 " 3) Q
McKellips Rd 2000 N
PRV6
Greater than 24"
Facility Type
B Booster Station " )
U" T 5 Storage w/ Booster
U Storage T " L Transfer Station
3 WTP Q
Southern Ave 1200 S PRV9 DW3
PRV27
! <
FF14
! ã
CW20
! ã
PRV10
! ã
NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone
PRV29
! " Lã
! <
Falcon Field
Baseline Rd 2000 S
TS5 DW9
DW6
! ã ! ã DW7
CW22
Existing Well City Zone
60
! <
!< ã !
Pressure Reducing Valve
! ã
Pressure Zone
! <
60
! <
Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line Apache Junction
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Range Rider Highlands
DW22
DW17
! ã
Usery 1
! ã SBWTP
! ã DW16
Usery 2
Elliot Rd 3600 S
3DW21 ! ã !Q ã
DW13
Warner Rd 4400 S
Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Other Features Boundary Highways
DW19
! ã
202
Streets
PRV35
! <
Canals
Ray Rd 5200 S
DW20
! ã
Railroads Light Rail Track Airport
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Salt River
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
DW12
202
! !ã <
PRV28
0
5000
10000 ft
DW14
! ã
DW15
! ã
Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 4-25 4-26
Pipe Criticality
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.7
Improvements Identified Out-Side of IMP
The following sections summarize recommended improvements that were not evaluated as part of the 2023 IMP but include improvements needed to provide the City added redundancy and resiliency.
4.7.1 Interconnect Pipelines As part of the Southeast Mesa Master Plan, completed in 2022, several outage scenarios under buildout moderate growth demand conditions were used to analyze the transmission main improvements needed to enable the City to meet MD demands with any one of the three WTPs out of service. The following outage scenarios were selected by the City for evaluation. ◼ Val Vista WTP out of service (OOS) under MD demand conditions - Under the Val Vista WTP OOS scenario, demands within the City Zone typically supplied by Val Vista are met through a combination of direct connect City Zone wells and off-project supplies (Brown Rd WTP, SBWTP and off-project groundwater (direct connects, SBGWF and DWGWF) transferred into the City Zone through TS1 and TS3. ◼ Brown Rd WTP OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by Brown Rd WTP are met through a combination of on-Project water conveyed off-Project through pumping through TS1 and TS3 as well as additional pumping out of SBWTP and the DWGWF. ◼ SBWTP WTP OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the SBWTP OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by SBWTP are met through a combination of additional pumping out of Brown Rd WTP and increased utilization of SBGWF and DWGWF. Additional Val Vista WTP water is conveyed into FF through pumping at TS1 and TS3. ◼ CAP Canal OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the CAP Canal OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by SBWTP and Brown Rd WTP are met through a combination increased utilization of SBGWF, DWGWF, direct connect wells and excess Val Vista WTP water is conveyed into FF through pumping at TS1 and TS3. Key observations for the outage scenarios are as follows: ◼ Under the Val Vista OOS Scenario, in order to pump the necessary flow out of the SBWTP a new FF improvement pipe was needed. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios it was necessary to increase the discharge pressure set points which results in slight pressure mounding by the SBWTP FF and DW FWPS. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, it will be necessary to run all the existing installed pumps at the SBWTP FF FWPS to meet system demands. Two additional 8 mgd pumps were previously planned as part of the SBWTP Expansion, however only one additional pump is needed to maintain utilization of firm capacity for all scenarios analyzed. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, it will be necessary to run all the planned installed pumps at the SBWTP DW FWPS to meet system demands. It is recommended that, as a minimum, the three existing 6 mgd DW pumps are replaced with 11 mgd pumps. In lieu of operating all installed pumps at the DW FWPS, the City may consider only installing one of the two planned FF FWPS and reserving the additional can for either a future FF FW pump or potentially installing a sixth DW in the empty FF can and complete the necessary modifications need to convert that pump to a DW pump in the future.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
114
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, pumping both the SBWTP and DWGWF at higher rates simultaneously will be challenging even with the recommended FF and DW improvement pipe. When pumping a significant flow from both the SBWTP FW pumps and the DWGWF, the stations can compete with one another (i.e., as SBWTP increases its flow the DWGWF reduces). In the outages modeled, the system performed better if the FF pumps at the DWGWF were turned off and only the DW pumps were used. ◼ Additionally, under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, running the DW connection pipe in Guadalupe was more effective at pushing water to the north than running the pipe in Elliot Road. ◼ Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS Scenario, to pump the necessary flow out of the SBWTP, a new DW improvement pipe was needed. ◼ Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS Scenario, it will be necessary to run all the existing installed pumps at the SBWTP DS FWPS to meet system demands. Since this station is not frequently used there is less risk that one of the pumps will be out of service for maintenance, however this underscores the need to keep up to date on maintenance of all the pump. ◼ Under the SBWTP OOS Scenario the discharge set points at Brown Rd WTP did not need to be modified. There is significant groundwater production in SE Mesa (at both SBGWF and the DWGWF) which provides a significant supply locally in SE Mesa. Additionally, under this scenario no interconnect pipes were needed to meet system demands. ◼ Under the CAP Canal OOS Scenario, no modifications to the system were required to meet system demands. ◼ While the initial sizing of the recommended interconnect pipelines was completed using the moderate growth projections, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential impact on interconnect sizing requirements in the event that the City would develop at densities projected for the aggressive growth. Two additional MD scenarios were run under the aggressive growth scenario for BRWTPOOS and SBWTPOOS.
●
It should be noted the VVWTPOOS scenario was not evaluated because, under the MD aggressive growth demand condition, the remaining water sources available do not have adequate capacity to meet the projected aggressive growth demands when VVWTP is out of service. Under that condition, it is likely the City would need to implement water restrictions or obtain additional supply capacity prior to buildout.
The City conducted an alignment study that identified and evaluated potential routes for the interconnect pipelines the selected alignments are shown on Figure 4-27.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
115
DSR1 CLPS1 VVWTP PRV31
! <
PRV26
! <
3 Q
U UT T 55
DWR1 "" DSPS1
! <
U5 T
CW24
! ã
! ã
B ! ã " )
TS2
" L
CW27
! ã
202
B " ) 3 CLPS2 Q
Lindsay Pasadena
U5 T " ! !ã ã CW11 ã ! ã ! CW7
CW25
CW8
! ã
Brooks CW26
! ã U5 T "
CW18
! ã
CW12
CW15
! ã
! ã
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
! <
U DWR2 T
CW10
CW16
Brown Rd 1200 N
PRV4
! ã
PRV5
! ã
CW14
! ã
! <
PS5
B " )
PRV6
! <
Southern Ave 1200 S 60
DW3
PRV27
! <
FF14
! ã
CW20
! ã
CW22
! ã
Falcon Field Interconnect
Pipe Diameter 6" and smaller 8" - 10" 12" - 18"
B " )
! <
FF5
McKellips Rd 2000 N
CLPS3
PRV3
U5 T " TS1 " L
Interconnect Pipes Desert Wells Interconnect
U CLR2, CLR3 T U DSR2 T
BRWTP
CW19
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
AJPS1 B ! HLPS2 < RRPS1
FF2
PS4
! PRV17 <
" )
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
HLPS1
PRV14
FFR1 " DWPS1
Crismon Rd 10000 E
U T U HLR1, HLR2 T AJR1 U5 T " RRPS2
U5 T "
! <
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
RRR3
PRV36
" L TS3
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
CLR5 AJPS2
In association with:
20" - 24" Greater than 24"
Facility Type
B Booster Station " )
U" T 5 Storage w/ Booster
U Storage T " L Transfer Station
3 WTP Q ! <
Pressure Reducing Valve
! ã
Existing Well
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone
60
! PRV9 < !< ã ! PRV10 < ! PRV29 DW6 ! ã ! ã
! " Lã
SE Mini Zone
Baseline Rd 2000 S
TS5 DW9
Falcon Field Desert Wells Desert Sage
DW7
County Line
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Apache Junction Range Rider
DW22
DW17
! ã
Highlands
! ã SBWTP
! ã DW16
Usery 1
Elliot Rd 3600 S
3DW21 ! ã !Q ã DW13
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Warner Rd 4400 S
Other Features Boundary
DW19
Highways
! ã
202 PRV35
! <
Streets
Ray Rd 5200 S
DW20
! ã
Canals Railroads Light Rail Track Airport
Williams Field Rd 6000 S 24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
DW12
202
! !ã <
PRV28
DW14
! ã
DW15
! ã
Germann Rd 7600 S
Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 4-26 4-27
±
SE Mesa MP Interconnect Pipes
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.7.2 Future Groundwater Wells As part of the City’s water resources strategy to plan for drought conditions and extended loss/reduction of surface water treatment plant supplies (see Chapter 3 - Water Resources), the City continues to develop additional groundwater well capacity. The City is currently planning 25 additional groundwater wells with a majority of the focus on developing wells conveyed to SBWTP finished water reservoir(s), as shown on Figure 4-28. Table 4-21 provides a summary of the planned groundwater wells and the anticipated capacity based on field work of the future wells. A conservative estimate of 1.5 mgd capacity was assumed for all of the future wells based on the 2.1 mgd average anticipated flow for the near-term wells the City is currently developing (DW23, DW24, DW25, DW26). The City should continue to monitor the capacity and quality of the future wells to determine the ultimate number and capacity future wells as well as treatment needed at both the potential future Signal Butte Groundwater Facility (SBGWF) and the potential future Desert Wells Groundwater Facility (DWGWF). Table 4-21
Future Potable Water Wells
Name
Location
Connection Type
Anticipated Capacity (MGD)
CW28
City Zone
Direct Connect
7.2
FF18
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
1.5
FF20
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
1.5
FF21
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
1.5
FF22
Falcon Field
Direct Connect
1.5
DW23
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
2.2
DW24
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
2.9
DW25
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
2.2
DW26
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
2.2
DW28
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW29
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW30
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW31
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW32
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW33
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW34
Desert Wells
Signal Butte WTP
1.5
DW35
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW36
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW37
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW38
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW39
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW40
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
117
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Anticipated Capacity (MGD)
Name
Location
Connection Type
DW41
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
DW42
Desert Wells
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
1.5
4.8
Recommended Improvements
A summary of recommendations resulting from the water system evaluations through buildout demand conditions are presented below and are shown in Figure 4-28. A hydraulic schematic of the distribution system at buildout is shown in Figure 4-28. 1.
W01 - TS2 Expansion: The firm capacity at Transfer Station 2 should be increased to 31.5 MGD by replacing the 4 existing 8.6 MGD pumps with 4 pumps at 10.5 MGD. This improvement is part of CP0830PS08.
2.
W02 - SBFFPS Expansion: The firm capacity at the Signal Butte Falcon Field Pump Station should be increased to 24 MGD with the addition of one 8 MGD pump.
3.
W03 - SBDWPS Expansions: The firm capacity at the Signal Butte Desert Wells Pump Station (SBDWPS) should be increased to 44 MGD by buildout in two phased expansions. The first phase increases the firm capacity at SBDWPS to 39 MGD by replacing two of the existing 6 MGD pumps with 2 pumps at 11 MGD. This improvement is included with the SBWTP expansion project (CP0372). The 39 MGD firm capacity is sufficient for the 2040 MD scenario. The second phase increases firm capacity at SBDWPS to 44 MGD by replacing an existing 6 MGD pump with a pump at 11 MGD. This second expansion fulfills the flow needed out of this pump station during a Val Vista or Brown Road WTP outage scenario which was evaluated as part of the 2022 Southeast Master Plan. As part of SBWTP expansion all three 6 mgd pumps will be replaced with an 11 mgd pump. Anticipated completion date of Q1 2026.
4.
W04 - SBWTP 8 MG Reservoir: A second 8 MG reservoir should be installed at the SBWTP to increase total storage to 16 MG. The second reservoir is recommended to accommodate the plant and well flows with the increasing demands in Southeast Mesa. This improvement is included with the SBWTP expansion project (CP0372). Anticipated completion date of Q1 2026.
5.
W05 - TS1 Expansion: The firm capacity at Transfer Station 1 should be increased to 24 MGD by replacing two of the existing 4 MGD pumps with two pumps at 8 MGD. This expansion is necessary to provide adequate flow to the Falcon Field Zone during the CAP dry-up scenarios.
6.
W06 - TS3 Expansions: The firm capacity at Transfer Station 3 (TS3) should be increased to 36 MGD in two phased expansions. The first phase increases firm capacity at TS3 to 32 MGD with the addition of one 8 MGD pump. The second phase expansion increases firm capacity to 36 MGD by replacing two of the existing 4 MGD pumps with two pumps at 6 MGD.
7.
W07 - DWPS1 Expansion: The Desert Wells Pump Station 1 (DWPS1) should be expanded to a firm capacity of 12.5 MGD with the addition of one 5 MGD pump to provide flow during the CAP dry-up scenarios. A 12.5 MGD firm capacity at DWPS1 assumption was used to size the pumps for the redesign of Transfer Station 2.
8.
W08 - CLPS1 Expansion: Firm capacity at the County Line Pump Station 1 should be increased to 6.6 MGD with the addition of one 2.2 MGD pump.
9.
W09 – PRV51: A PRV station is recommended from Desert Wells Zone to the Falcon Field Zone to resolve the dead-end on Higley and improve water quality in this region.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
118
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
10.
W10 - Falcon Field Interconnect: An interconnect pipeline with the proposed alignment shown in Figure 4-28 should be installed to increase conveyance capacity from Southeast Mesa to the northern portion of Falcon Field zone to convey water out of Southeast Mesa during a Val Vista WTP outage.
11.
W11 - Desert Wells Interconnect: An interconnect pipeline with the proposed alignment shown in Figure 4-28 should be installed to increase conveyance capacity from Southeast Mesa to the northern portion of Desert Wells zone to convey water out of Southeast Mesa during a Brown Road WTP outage.
12.
W12 - Val Vista Road Transmission: A 36” transmission along Val Vista Road from McKellips Road to Brown Road is recommended to provide sufficient capacity in the Falcon Field Zone. The alignment is shown in Figure 4-28.
13.
W13 - Pasadena Feed: A 60” feed into Pasadena with the proposed alignment shown in Figure 4-28 should be installed if the existing PCCP line were to fail. This improvement is pending future condition assessment of the existing feed into the Pasadena Pump Station and is not necessary to meet the hydraulic analysis performance criteria. The existing PCCP main has already been slip lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe.
14.
W14 – Well Improvement Program: The 25 groundwater wells outlined in Table 4-21 are recommended for the City to develop to plan for drought conditions or extended loss/reduction of surface water treatment plant supplies and to meet demand during plant outages and CAP siphon outages.
15.
W15 - Desert Wells Groundwater Facility: The Desert Wells Groundwater Facility (DWGWF) is not needed to meet performance criteria for the 2040 MD scenario. The facility may be needed to meet a 2040 CAP dry-up scenario. The City should continue to monitor the capacity of the future wells planned to be connected to the SBWTP. As additional data becomes available for wells connected to the DWGWF the City can evaluate the need for additional groundwater capacity.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water System Master Plan
119
12"
12"
12"
PRV31
! <
PRV26
! <
DSR1 CLPS1
3 Q
! <
U5 T
B " )
" L
Lindsay Pasadena CW8
CW11
Brooks
U5 T "
CW18
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Brown Rd 1200 N
B " )
! <
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
! <
W10: Falcon Field Interconnect
CW15
U DWR2 T
PRV5
! <
CW14
PS5
B " )
PRV6
! <
60
DW3
PRV27
! <
FF14
! PRV10 <
CW20
Southern Ave 1200 S
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
TS5
" L
! PRV29 <
2035 Pipe Improvement 2040 Pipe Improvement Developer Pipe Future Collection Lines
Facility Type
B Booster Station " )
U Storage T " L Transfer Station
3 WTP Q ! <
Pressure Reducing Valve
Facility Improvements
U" T 5 2030 Booster Station Improvement
" L 2030 Transfer Station Improvement
W11: Desert Wells Interconnect
! PRV9 <
2030 Pipe Improvement
U" T 5 Storage w/ Booster
PRV4
FF5
Greater than 24"
McKellips Rd 2000 N
CLPS3
PRV3
CW7
CW10
CW16
W05: TS1 Expansion
U5 T " TS1 " L
20" - 24"
Timing
12"
CW26
U5 T "
B " ) 3 CLPS2 Q
TS2
W13: Pasadena Feed
CW12
BRWTP
W01: TS2 Expansion
CW19
CW25
12" - 18"
U CLR2, CLR3 T U DSR2 T
FF2
PS4
6" and smaller
McDowell Rd 2800 N
AJPS1 B ! HLPS2 < RRPS1
" )
W07: DWPS1 Expansion
Pipe Diameter 8" - 10"
W12: Val Vista Rd. Transmission
CW24
CW27
Thomas Rd 3600 N
! PRV17 <
PRV14
FFR1 " DWPS1
" L TS3
Legend
HLPS1
! <
W06: TS3 Expansion
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
U T U HLR1, HLR2 T AJR1 U5 T " RRPS2
U5 T "
101
202
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
U UT T 55
DWR1 "" DSPS1
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
RRR3
PRV36
VVWTP
12"
! <
W09: PRV51
12"
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Recker Rd 6000 E
W08: CLPS1 Expansion
PRV51 CW28
CLR5 AJPS2
In association with:
DW9
DW6
U" T 5 2035 Booster Station Improvement
3 2035 WTP Improvement Q 3 2040 GWF Improvement Q ! <
2030 PRV Improvement
Pressure Zone City Zone
CW22
NE Mini Zone DW7
W14: Well Improvement Program DW24
DW23
12"
DW32
DW30
16"
DW31
30"
12"
20"
DW16
16"
County Line Apache Junction Range Rider
DW28
DW25
30"
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Ray Rd 5200 S
DW34
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals Railroads Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
16"
DW20
Usery 1
DW19
FF21 PRV35
! <
Highlands
Warner Rd 4400 S
DW33
12"
16"
FF20
Desert Sage
DW26 20" 12"
202
Desert Wells
Elliot Rd 3600 S
DW21
DW13
Falcon Field
W02 - W04: SBFF & SBDW PS Expansions, 8 MG Reservoir
3 Q
12"
12"
DW22
SBWTP
16"
DW17
SE Mini Zone
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DW37
DW38
" 12 24"
DW39
DW12 PRV28
16"
FF18
Pecos Rd 6800 S
3 Q GWF
DW41
DW14
DW29 DW42
12"
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
24 DW11
DW40
! <
202
12"
16"
DW36
24"
DW35
W15: Desert Wells Groundwater Facility DW15 12"
Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 4-27 4-28
±
IMP Water System Improvements
South Canal (SRP)
CAP Canal
Val Vista WTP & Reservoir
Brown Road WTP & Reservoir
90 MGD
Res 1 20 MG
In association with:
1323.0' 1543.0'
BRDS PS
1832.0'
BRDW PS
1510.1'
TS1
PRV 51 PRV 9 PRV 10 PRV 28 PRV 29
PS5
PRV 35
DSR1 1.0 MG
RRR3 0.5 MG
1835.3'
HLR2 0.25 MG
4.4 MGD
DSPS1
1634.2'
DWR2 1.0 MG TS5-FCV1&2 4.2 MGD
CLPS1
5 MGD CLPS2
5 MGD CLPS3
4 MGD AJPS2
3.4 MGD AJPS1
TS5
ALT
3.46 MGD RRPS2
1940.0'
AJR1 1.0 MG
0.72 MGD DW 3, 6, 7, 12
SBDW PS
SBFF PS
FF 5,14 FF 20, 21
HLPS1
DW 9, 14, 15
SCAP-FCV1
DWDW PS
DWFF PS
DWGWF
DW 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, FF18
CAP Canal
Proposed 2030 Overflow Elevation
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station
Proposed 2035 Overflow Elevation
RRPS1
0.7 MGD HLPS2
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valve Well
Proposed 2040 Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valve Well
Zone X HGL
SBR2 8.0 MG
24 MGD
Water Treatment Plant
Well
1467.0'
DWGWFR1 5.0 MG
MGD Rated
Pressure Reducing Valve
1 MGD
SBDS PS
DW 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, DW 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
Well
Overflow Elevation
7 MGD
SBR1 8.0 MG
UPS2
PRV 17
Pressure Reducing Valve
HLR1 0.075 MG
CLR5 1.0 MG
PRV 27
24 MGD
SE Mini Zone
1730.8'
Highlands Zone HGL=2164
24 MGD
7.48 MGD
FF 2 Irrigation
DSR2 3.0 MG
2050.0'
Range Rider Zone1 HGL=2050
PRV 36
PS4
CW 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24
1730.7'
Apache Junction Zone HGL=1941
PRV 26
Desert Wells Zone1 HGL=1634
City Zone HGL=1400
6.92 MGD
Pump Station 2162.5'
4.8 MGD
DWPS1
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
12.5 MGD
44 MGD
NE Mini Zone
SCAP-FCV2
PRV 31
DWR1 1.0 MG
Overflow Elevation
CLR3 0.5 MG
1632.6'
FFR1 1.5 MG
Falcon Field Zone HGL=1511
PS3
59.6 MGD
Lindsay
59.6 MGD
Pasadena
41.8 MGD
TS2
39 MGD
31.5 MGD
PS1
1834.0'
CLR2 0.5 MG
Usery Zone 2 HGL=2420
TS3
Existing
Usery Zone 1 HGL=2300
1288.0'
R3 10 MG
County Line Zone HGL=1836
R1 10 MG
Desert Sage Zone HGL=1731
1258.7'
R2 10 MG
Legend 36 MGD
1224.5'
Brooks
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
CW 8, 9, 11, 12
CW 26
PS2
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
30.3 MGD
BR R1&R2 40 MG
CW 25
CW 27
72 MGD
Zone Name Hydraulic Grade Line
Figure 4-29
Signal Butte WTP & Reservoir
2040 Hydraulic Profile Schematic 1. Reduced pressure zones within major pressure zones are not shown for clarity
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.0 Wastewater System Master Plan 5.1
Introduction
The Wastewater System Master Plan describes the City of Mesa’s (City) existing wastewater collection and treatment systems and provides an evaluation of future infrastructure needs for years 2030, 2035 and buildout (2040). The evaluation of the wastewater collection system includes pipe and lift station capacity as well as a comparison of wastewater flow volumes to the rated capacities of the City’s water reclamation facilities. A wastewater flow routing and treatment facility capacity optimization evaluation is also included. Candidate capital improvement projects to restore capacity to existing sewers or provide wastewater service to growth areas are also identified.
5.2
Wastewater System Description
The City’s Wastewater System serves the majority of the City’s 500,000 residents within the approximately 160 square mile service area as shown in Figure 5-1. The City’s Wastewater Service area is divided into six major sewer drainage basins and served by four water reclamation plants (two of them jointly owned with other Cities). The City’s wastewater infrastructure includes 1,750 miles of collection mains, 14 lift stations, 21 odor control stations, and 31 diversion structures. There are two water reclamation plants wholly owned by the City within the City’s service area, namely the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP) and Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP). The City jointly owns the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP) with the Towns of Gilbert and Queen Creek. Finally, the City is a member of the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) and has both collection system capacity in the SROG system and treatment capacity at the City of Phoenix 91 st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). As shown in Figure 5-1, flows in the collection system are routed to either the GWRP, NWWRP, SEWRP or through the SROG metering stations (ME01, ME02, or ME03) conveyed to the 91st Avenue WWTP. The routing of flows through the SROG metering stations is described further in Section 5.2.3.4. Figure 5-2 shows the existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The following sections summarize the components of the existing wastewater collection system. Detailed Facility Schematics for the lift stations and diversion structures are provided in Appendix D.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
122
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Thomas Rd 3600 N
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
g̀
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
g̀ NWWRP/ME03
g̀
Drainage Area GWRP ME01 (SROG)
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
ME01
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
g̀
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
SROG Metering Station
ME02
/
60
ME02 (SROG) NWWRP / ME03 (SROG) SEWRP SEWRP / GWRP WRP
Other Features
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
Boundary Canal
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Railroads
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Highways
Salt River
Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-1 Wastewater Service Area
±
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
"J J "
" J
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS11
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
LS5
" J
McKellips Rd 2000 N
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Lift Station/Pump Station
" J Existing/Active " J Inactive
WRP
202
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
ME03
Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
g̀
Central Mesa Interceptor
" J
g̀
Southern Ave Interceptor
ME01
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
LS27
"g̀ J
Baseline Interceptor
ME02
g̀ SROG Metering Station Gravity Main by Diameter 15" or Less
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
LS2
15"-24" Greater than 24" Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Southern Ave 1200 S
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Major Interceptors Larger than 24"
/
60
WRP
Treatment Plant
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
Other Features LS6
" J
Boundary
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J
LS17
" J
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
Warner Rd 4400 S
LS14
Airport
202
ep tor
Ray Rd 5200 S
Eas tM
esa
Int erc
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
202
WRP
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
0
Figure 5-2 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.2.1 Gravity Mains The City’s existing wastewater collection system is comprised of roughly 1,741 miles of gravity main pipelines up to 78-inches in diameter. Figure 5-3 presents a summary of the known gravity mains by diameter and by material. As shown in Figure 5-3, nearly 80 percent of the system is 8-inches in diameter or smaller.
Figure 5-3
Gravity Main Summary by Diameter and Material
5.2.2 Lift Stations and Force Mains The City’s existing wastewater collection system is comprised of roughly 3 miles of force mains up to 30inches in diameter. Figure 5-4 presents a summary of the force mains by diameter.
Figure 5-4
Force Main Summary by Diameter and Material
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
125
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The City operates and maintains 14 wastewater lift stations throughout the system and has two lift stations currently in planning/design. Lift Station 27 (LS27) is located near the southwest corner of Price Road and Baseline Road and was designed to convey flow from the 54-inch diameter Baseline Road Interceptor to a parallel 33-inch diameter interceptor that outfalls in the SROG collection system (see Section 5.2.3.4 for more details). LS27 is currently not operating but could be brought back into service to manage flow conveyed to the SROG basins. Figure 5-5 shows the location of each lift station and the tributary area upstream of each lift station. A summary of all the lift stations including locations, pumping capacity and back-up power type is presented in Table 5-1. There are 31 flow diversion structures in the City’s collection system and two diversion structures planned in the future. In addition, there is one diversion (DS30) that is a siphon inlet structure located in the intersection of College Road and Baseline Road in Tempe. These diversion structures provide operational flexibility in conveying flows to alternate treatment facilities or to the SROG outfalls. Figure 5-6 shows the location and drainage basin upstream of each diversion structure. The flow diversion structures, and their normal operations (January 2023) are described below in Table 5-2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
126
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
LS16 (FM DIA = 6-in)
LS15 (FM DIA = 8-in)
" J
Inset A
Thomas Rd 3600 N
" J
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4 (FM DIA = 6-in)
LS5 (FM DIA = 8-in)
" J
" J
McKellips Rd 2000 N
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10 (FM DIA = 4-in)
" J
101
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS9 (FM DIA = 10-in)
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS11 LS8 (FM DIA = 4-in) (FM DIA = 4-in)
In association with:
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Lift Station/Pump Station
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J Water Reclamation Plant
WRP
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
LS2 (FM DIA = 6-in)
" J
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Force Main Lift Station Collection Basin LS1 LS2
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
" J LS6
LS1 (FM DIA = 8-in)
(FM DIA = 14-in)
" J
LS6 LS8 LS9
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
" J
LS8 (FM DIA = 4-in)
LS14 (FM DIA = 12-in)
" J J "
LS14 LS15
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J
LS11 (FM DIA = 4-in) LS10 (FM DIA = 4-in)
LS13
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J Inset A
LS10 LS11
LS17 (FM DIA = 12-in)
" J
LS5
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
LS27
LS4
LS16 LS17
202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
LS9 (FM DIA = 10-in)
" J
LS13 (FM DIA = 4-in)
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Other Features Parcels Boundary
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-5 Lift Station Collection Basins
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
" J
LS5
DS51
DS37
DS2 DS53
DS35
LS2
DS9
DS22
" J
DS57
DS6
DS25
60
DS36
" J
DS19
DS16
DS45
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DS1 WRP
/
60
DS8
" J
Diversions
DS41 DS42
LS1
" J
" Existing/Active J " J Inactive
Gravity Main by Diameter 10"-15" 15"-24" Greater than 24" Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary Diversion Structure Basins
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
DS52
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Water Reclamation Plant
Lift Station/Pump Station
Baseline Rd 2000 S
DS28
DS40
LS6
Legend
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS21
DS39
LS27
Brown Rd 1200 N
DS3
DS20
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
WRP
McKellips Rd 2000 N
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202 DS14
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
WRP
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
0
Grav GWRP
DS21
Grav ME01
DS22
Grav ME02
DS28
Grav NWWRP
DS3
Grav SEWRP
DS37
DS25
DS39
DS35
DS40
DS57
DS41
DS53
DS43
DS51
DS5
DS2
DS8
DS20
DS9
5,000
10,000 ft
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Figure 5-6 Diversion Structure Locations and Basins
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 5-1
City of Mesa Lift Station and Site Information
Address
Pump Type
No. of Pumps
Design Flow (gpm)
Design Head (ft)
Motor Horsepower (HP)
Dry or Wet Well
2004
1166 W. Guadalupe Rd.
Flygt
2
1,400
25
15
Wet
63 kVA/ 50 kW
Natural Gas
Broadway
1981
2524 W. Broadway Rd.
Flygt
2
220
11
1.5
Wet
6.5 kVA
Natural Gas
LS4
Hermosa Vista
NA
4233 E. Hermosa Vista Dr.
Flygt
2
350
29
7.5
Wet
NA1
Natural Gas
LS5
Center Street
2001
2395 N. Center St.
Flygt
2
286
40
5
Wet
35 kW
Natural Gas
LS6
Noche de Paz
2004
2750 W. Guadalupe Rd.
Flygt
3
1,200
35
20
Wet
75 kVA/ 60 kW
Natural Gas
LS8
Ranier
NA
4341 E. Ranier Cir.
Flygt
2
100
35
4
Wet
Portable
Diesel
LS9
Star Valley
2004
3820 E. Shenandoah Rd.
Flygt
2
800
90
30
Wet
250 kW
Natural Gas
LS10
Eagle Crest
NA
7260 E. Eagle Crest Dr.
Flygt
2
320
24
5
Wet
Portable
Diesel
LS11
Vanguard
NA
6718 E. Vanguard Dr.
Flygt
2
300
25
5
Wet
Portable
Diesel
LS13
Williams Gateway
2001
6833 E. Pecos Rd.
Flygt
2
1,000
27
15
Wet
100 kVA/ 80 kW
Natural Gas
LS14
Warner
2000
7011 E. Warner Rd.
Flygt
2
1,500
125
88
Wet
250 kW
Natural Gas
LS15
Lehi Crossing
2011
2545 E. Lehi Rd
Flygt
2
530
83
20
Wet
100 KW
Diesel
LS16
Granite Mountain
NA
8747 E. Regina Cir.
Flygt
2
350
35
10
Wet
100 kW
Natural Gas
LS17
Desert Place
2012
18723 E Elliot Rd
Flygt
2
360
27
5
Wet
25 kW
Diesel
LS18
Tyler Ranch
Future
NA
Flygt
2
350
38
5.5
Wet
50 kW
Diesel
LS19
North Higley
Future
NA
NA
2
360
163
NA
Wet
NA
NA
GIS ID2 Site
Install Year
LS1
Alma School
LS2
Generator Capacity/ Type
Generator Fuel
Note: NA = Not Available Does not include LS currently not active (i.e., LS27)
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
129
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 5-2
Wastewater Collection System Diversion Structure Inventory and Operation Scheme
Diversion Structure ID [MH ID]
Location
Type
Description
Normal Operation (January 2023)
DS53
Intersection of Recker Rd. and University Dr.
Splitter Manhole
This manhole splits flow from the north and east and can divert to the west or south. To the south, the flow can be diverted to the SEWRP or to the Baseline 2 outfall at diversion SS9. Flow to the west is diverted to the Baseline Rd. outfall system via the Greenfield Rd. sewer line.
There are no gates, flow splits hydraulically
Intersection of Power Rd. and Brown Rd.
Splitter Manhole
This manhole splits flow from the north and east and can divert to the west or south. Flow to the south can be diverted to the SEWRP or to the Baseline 2 outfall at diversions SS6, SS9, or SS1. Flows to the west can be diverted to the Greenfield Road Interceptor.
There are no gates, flow splits hydraulically
East bank of the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) canal approximately 300' northwest of Baseline Rd.
Diversion Structure
This is a reversed flow structure allowing flow to be diverted into or away from the SEWRP. There is a gate to the east to divert flow towards or away from the plant, and a gate to the south to divert flow to the Baseline Rd. outfall system.
East gate open, south gate closed
Diversion Structure
The gate to the north goes to NWWRP. There is an 18-inch diameter line to the west that allows flow to be diverted to the Salt River Outfall (SRO) (ME03).
North gate open, west gate closed
[SSMH29731]
On the Central Mesa Interceptor (CMI) at the northeast corner of Rio Salado and Riverview Dr.
DS3
At the entrance to the NWWRP
Diversion Structure
This is the diversion structure into the NWWRP. The gate to the West goes to NWWRP. A motor operated gate to the south bypasses flow to the SRO (ME03).
West gate open, south gate closed
Westbound Broadway Rd. 200 feet east of 56th St.
Diversion Structure
The gate to the southwest diverts flow to the SEWRP while the gate to the west directs flow to DS9 from where flow can be directed to either the SEWRP or to Greenfield Rd.
Southwest gate open, west gate closed
Diversion Structure
Positioned on the 36-inch diameter sewer line, this structure can divert flow to the SEWRP by opening the south gate or to the Baseline Rd. outfall system by opening the west gate.
South gate open, west gate closed
[SSMH29764]
Westbound fast lane of Baseline Rd. 380 feet west of Power Rd.
DS9
Westbound Broadway Rd. 60 feet west of 56th St.
Diversion Manhole
This diversion structure can be used to divert flow coming down 56th St. and down Broadway Rd. towards or away from the SEWRP. The gate to the south directs flow to the plant down the 24-inch diameter sewer running along the RWCD canal and the gate to the west directs flow toward Greenfield Rd and into the Baseline 2 outfall.
South gate open, west gate closed
Diversion Manhole
Flow can be diverted south to the SRO (ME03). Flow can be diverted north to the NWWRP.
North gate open, west gate closed
[SSMH29733]
North of Rio Salado Parkway on the west side of Riverview Dr.
DS16
North of Baseline Rd., west of Greenfield Rd.
Diversion Structure
This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Rd.
South gate open, west gate closed
Northeast corner of Horne Ave. and Baseline Rd.
Diversion Structure
This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Rd.
South gate closed; west gate open
Intersection of 2nd Ave. and Extension Rd.
Diversion Manhole
The gate to the south diverts flow to the CMI at Broadway Rd. or to the Southern Ave. Interceptor (SAI). The gate to the west directs flow down the railroad alignment and into the CMI at Dobson Rd.
South gate open, west gate closed
On the CMI at the intersection of Extension Rd. and Broadway Rd.
Diversion Manhole
In this diversion structure, the 18-inch diameter sewer running north and south crosses over the CMI. Gates in the 18-inch diameter sewer allow flow to be diverted west to the CMI or south to the 8th Ave interceptor and then into the CMI at Dobson Rd.
West gate open, south gate closed
North and center of intersection at Broadway Rd. and Lindsay Rd.
Diversion Structure
This structure has stop plates to divert flow west on Broadway Rd. or south on Lindsay Rd.
West gate closed; south gate open
[SSMH29752] DS25
Intersection of 8th Ave. and Extension Rd.
Diversion Manhole
In this diversion structure, gates allow flow to be diverted west into the 21-inch diameter sewer and ultimately to the CMI or south to the SAI.
West gate open, south gate closed
Intersection of Ellsworth Rd. and Baseline Rd.
Diversion Manhole
Allows flow to be diverted west to the SEWRP or Baseline Road Interceptor or south to the East Mesa Interceptor (EMI) and GWRP.
South gate open, west gate closed
[SSMH29757] DS51 [SSMH18911] DS1 [SSMH29762] DS2
[SSMH29732]
DS6 [SSMH29759] DS8
[SSMH29758]
DS14
[SSMH29754] DS19 [SSMH29749] DS20 [SSMH29746] DS21 [SSMH29745] DS22
[SSMH3008] DS28 [SSMH29768]
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
130
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Diversion Structure ID [MH ID]
Location
Type
Description
Normal Operation (January 2023)
DS30
Siphon inlet structure in the intersection of College Rd. and Baseline Rd. in Tempe
Siphon Inlet
Allows flow to be diverted west to Western Canal Interceptor or south to Southern Avenue Interceptor.
South gate closed
Diversion Manhole
This diversion structure has a gate to the west to divert flow to the CMI and a gate to the south to divert flow to the SAI.
West gate open, south gate closed
[SSMH9190]
South manhole in the intersection of Gilbert Rd. and University Dr.
DS36
West of intersection of Emerson Ave. and Baseline Rd.
Diversion Structure
This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Rd.
North gate open, west gate closed
Intersection of Brown Rd. and Greenfield Rd.
Diversion Manhole
This manhole has a gate to the west to divert flow to the CMI and a gate to the south to divert flow to the Baseline Rd. Outfalls. However, the flow cannot be diverted west to the CMI due to capacity restrictions.
South gate open, west gate closed
Intersection of Horne Ave. and Southern Ave.,
Diversion Manhole
Flow can be diverted west to the SAI or south to the Baseline Road Interceptor
Both gates open
In the Public Utility Easement (PUE) north of Baseline Rd. 300 feet west of Power Rd.
Diversion Manhole
This diversion structure is located on the 24-inch diameter sewer running just north of Baseline Rd. Flow can be diverted into the SEWRP by inserting the stop plate in the outfall to the north, or away from the SEWRP and into the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting the stop in the outfall to the west.
North gate closed; west gate open
Northbound lanes of Power Rd. approximately 1,000 feet north of Guadalupe Rd.
Diversion Manhole
Located on 24-inch diameter sewer line, this diversion manhole can be used to divert flow away from the SEWRP and into the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the north outfall, or to divert flow into the plant and out of the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the west outfall.
North gate open, west gate closed
Diversion Manhole
Located on 24-inch diameter sewer line this diversion manhole can be used to divert flow between two sewer interceptors going to the SEWRP or Baseline Road Interceptor.
North gate closed; west gate open
[SSMH29770]
Eastbound lanes of Guadalupe Rd. approximately 1,200 feet east of Power Rd.
DS43
Intersection of Ellsworth Rd. and Olney Ave.
Diversion Manhole
Allows flow to be diverted west to the SEWRP south to the EMI and GWRP.
South gate open, west gate closed
Northwest corner of Lindsay Rd. and Baseline Rd.
Diversion Structure
This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Road.
West gate open, south gate closed
Intersection of Ray Rd. and Mountain Ave.
Diversion Structure
Allows flow to be diverted west to the EMI/GWRP or south to the Germann Rd. Interceptor/GWRP.
West gate open, south gate closed
Intersection of Power Rd. and Broadway Rd.
Diversion Manhole
This diversion manhole installed in 2007 diverts flow from north and east to either Broadway Rd. to the west or to Power Rd. to the south.
West gate open, south gate closed
McKellips Road and Gilbert Road
Diversion Structure
This future diversion structure will allow flow to be sent west on McKellips Road through the proposed parallel line, or south on Gilbert Road through an existing line.
To be determined
Pecos Road and Ellsworth Road
Diversion Structure
This future diversion structure will send flow to either the existing 18-inch diameter pipeline, or to the proposed parallel 18-inch diameter pipeline in Pecos Road.
To be determined
[SSMH29778] DS35
[SSMH29747]
DS37 [SSMH29756] DS39 [SSMH6354] DS40 [SSMH29765] DS41 [SSMH29767] DS42
[SSMH29771] DS45 [SSMH29750] DS52 [SSMH29772] DS57 [SSMH17839] Future DS [SSMH8417] Future DS [SSMH29408]
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
131
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.2.3 Water Reclamation Facilities The City owns/co-owns and operates four water reclamation plants – Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP), Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP), and Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP). GWRP is a shared facility with the Towns of Gilbert and Queen Creek. In addition, the City is a member agency of the SROG, along with the cities of Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe, and as such sends a portion of the wastewater generated within the City to the regional 91 st Avenue WWTP. The City’s wastewater system is comprised of six primary drainage basins. While there is some operational flexibility to shift flows between some basins, each of these basins has a primary outfall. The drainage basins and their primary outfalls are shown in Figure 5-7.
5.2.3.1 Northwest Water Reclamation Plant The NWWRP is located near Dobson Road and 8th Street. The NWWRP has a current design capacity of 12.0 mgd annual average daily flow (AADF) and was originally master planned for 30 mgd AADF. Current flows seen at NWWRP are approximately 9 mgd AADF. The City currently has a commitment to provide treatment capacity for up to 4 mgd from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) on an annual average basis as defined by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that was renegotiated in 2013. The IGA provides that SRPMIC will provide payment to the City for variable wastewater treatment costs and a fixed 4 mgd capacity reservation cost. The NWWRP serves the northern and western portions of the City’s collection system. There are diversion structures that can be adjusted to deliver wastewater to the NWWRP from an adjacent tributary area in the northeastern parts of the City. Emergency flows, or flows in excess of the NWWRP capacity, can be sent to the SROG regional interceptors for treatment at the 91st Avenue WWTP. Reclaimed water from the NWWRP has historically been delivered to either the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) where the City owns 25 percent of the recharge capacity and/or direct discharge to the Salt River under an existing Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) permit. A small percentage of the water has also been used for freeway right-of-way (ROW) irrigation. The amount of wastewater that the City may want to ultimately treat at the NWWRP is heavily influenced by the water disposal options from this WRP. The GRUSP recharge project is permitted for 200,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr); however, the City has only been able to recharge approximately 5,000 AFY in recent years. The City is in the process of design and construction of the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP), which extends from the NWWRP west through north Mesa, then south to the SEWRP. This will allow the City to convey their reclaimed water from the NWWRP and SEWRP to the GWRP using the reclaimed water pump station and pipeline already installed at the SEWRP that routes reclaimed water to the GWRP (See Chapter 6 for further details). The City has an existing AZPDES permit for discharge to the Salt River at the NWWRP site. In the future, ADEQ may adopt stricter water quality standards for the water that would be discharged into the river, particularly lower total nitrogen, and phosphorous levels. Should future stricter water total nitrogen and/or phosphorous limits be imposed on the NWWRP, the impact on capital and annual operating costs would need to be evaluated for the existing plant capacity as well as potential future expansions if the City desires to maintain the option to discharge to the Salt River.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
132
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
"J J "
" J
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS11
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
202
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
LEGEND McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
LS5
" J
LS2
Southern Ave Interceptor
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
"g̀ LS27 J
Baseline Interceptor
ME02
NWWRP / ME03 (SROG) SEWRP SEWRP / GWRP
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
" J
ME01
ME02 (SROG)
Brown Rd 1200 N
Central Mesa Interceptor
g̀
ME01 (SROG)
McKellips Rd 2000 N
WRP
g̀
Drainage Area GWRP
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
ME03
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
/
60
Lift Station/Pump Station
" J Existing/Active " J Inactive WRP
Major Interceptors Gravity Main by Diameter 10"-15"
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
15"-24" Greater than 24"
LS6
" J
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J
Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
LS17
" J
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
Warner Rd 4400 S
LS14
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
g̀
SROG Metering Station Boundary
202
Me
sa Int erc
ep tor
Ray Rd 5200 S
Eas t
202
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
WRP
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
0
Figure 5-7 Water Reclamation Facility Drainage Basins
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.2.3.2 Southeast Water Reclamation Plant The SEWRP is located near Power Road and Baseline Road. The current capacity of the SEWRP is 8.0 mgd AADF with no on-site solids handling. In the past, primary, and secondary solids from the SEWRP used to be pumped to the GWRP for treatment and disposal. After an evaluation in 2021, the City decided to send the solids to the SROG 91st Ave WWTP by discharging the solids to the Baseline Interceptor which is adjacent to the SEWRP. The SEWRP was originally constructed to serve specific developments north of the SEWRP. The SEWRP is physically located such that wastewater flows can be treated at the WRP, sent to SROG via the Baseline Road Interceptor, or potentially pumped (diverted) to the GWRP (would require improvements to do so). Therefore, the infrastructure at and near this site is important for providing operational flexibility to the collection system. All reclaimed water produced at the SEWRP is conveyed to the GWRP through a 42-inch diameter reclaimed water force main between the SEWRP and the GWRP. This reclaimed water is conveyed to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) for irrigation purposes (See Chapter 6 for further details). There are existing diversion structures in the collection system near the SEWRP that can be set to allow flow to bypass the SEWRP and flow to the SROG ME02 basin/outfall. There is also a diversion structure near Ellsworth Road and Baseline Road (DS 28) that can be operated to convey flows away from SEWRP to the East Mesa Interceptor (EMI), which then conveys the flow to GWRP. A key focus area of the IMP was evaluating the potential to retire the SEWRP and consolidating flows from the SEWRP and GWRP basins at the GWRP. Due to age and condition of the SEWRP process equipment and the capital requirements required to keep the facility in operation, decommissioning the plant and constructing a lift station or gravity sewer conveyance at the SEWRP to pump wastewater to the GWRP was evaluated as described in Section 5.5.
5.2.3.3 Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant The GWRP is located near Greenfield Road and Germann Road in the Town of Gilbert. The plant was brought online in early 2007, when it was converted from a lift station to a full-fledged water reclamation plant, as part of what is known as GWRP Phase II Expansion. The City shares ownership in this facility with both the Town of Gilbert and the Town of Queen Creek. The current capacity of the GWRP is 30.0 mgd AADF, with the City’s current share of this capacity at 14.0 mgd AADF, as part of Phase III Expansion of the GWRP which was completed in 2021. The original master-planned capacity of this facility at buildout is 52.0 mgd AADF for all three communities. This was increased to 55.6 mgd in Phase 3. Most of the remaining growth areas in Mesa are in the GWRP service areas. This WRP is planned to take the wastewater flows from southeast Mesa and may also take flows from the basins served by the SEWRP. All of the City’s reclaimed water from the GWRP is sent to the GRIC (See Chapter 6 for further details). There are four existing wastewater mains that run between the SEWRP and the GWRP. One 10-inch diameter pipeline was used in the past to transfer combined primary and waste activated sludge from the SEWRP to the GWRP solids handling facilities. One 10-inch diameter and one 16-inch diameter pipelines are currently set up to be used as a potential bypass up to approximately 3 mgd of raw wastewater from the GWRP to the SEWRP, but potentially could be reversed. However, these pipes have not been used in many years. The City has made some attempts in recent years to pressure test and assess these force mains to determine if they could be brought back into service, but these efforts have been inconclusive,
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
134
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
and the pipe condition remains unknown. Finally, as noted previously, a 42-inch diameter force main conveys reclaimed water from the SEWRP to the GWRP reclaimed water pump station.
5.2.3.4 91st Avenue WWTP The City owns approximately 26.5 mgd of AADF treatment capacity (based on an official maximum month average day capacity of 29.1 mgd, which includes a 10% reserve capacity) in the SROG regional 91st Avenue WWTP out of a total design capacity of 230 mgd. The City also owns capacity in the Salt River Outfall (SRO) interceptor and Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI), which convey flows from the City to the 91st Ave WWTP. These interceptors collectively convey flows from Mesa, Scottsdale, Phoenix, and Tempe to the 91st Ave WWTP. The flow ownership capacity of each city in these interceptors varies by segment and is defined in the 2018 SROG Interceptor Capacity Evaluation (SICE -Final Technical Memorandum No. 7 – Interceptor Ownership Capacity, Table 6). The City’s flow enters the SROG system at three metering stations, named ME01, ME02 and ME03 as shown in Figure 5-7. The City’s ownership capacity at two locations in the SRO is important for monitoring flows from the ME03 metering station and flows from the ME01 metering station that could be diverted north to the SRO at Priest Drive and Southern Ave. As defined in the 2018 SICE Study, TM 7, Table 6, the segments are: ◼ Along the north side of the Loop 202 Freeway from the SD01 metering station to College Ave, the City’s ownership is 5.3 mgd (d/D = 0.75) and 6.2 mgd (d/D = 0.90). ◼ In Broadway Road between 59th Avenue and 75th Avenue, the City’s ownership capacity is 6.4 mgd (d/D = 0.75) and 7.5 mgd (d/D = 0.90). The City’s ownership capacity at one location in the SAI is important for monitoring flows from the ME01 and ME02 metering stations. This segment is: ◼ Along Broadway Road between 55th and 59th Avenue, the City’s ownership capacity is 15.3 mgd (d/D = 0.75) and 17.8 mgd (d/D = 0.90). Flows from ME01 (Southern Avenue) and ME02 (Baseline Road) are conveyed through sewers in Tempe that are either owned and operated by Tempe and Mesa or solely owned by Mesa. The City’s flows from ME01 and ME02 are conveyed as follows: ME01 – Flow through the ME01 metering station is conveyed through a 36-inch diameter sewer in Southern Avenue to a siphon structure that crosses the Loop 101 freeway and then reduces back to a 36inch diameter sewer. At Mill Avenue, the sewer diameter increases to 48-inches and continues to Priest Drive where a diversion structure can direct flow north to the SRO or west to the SAI. It is understood that the current diversion setting directs flows from the east to the north through a 48-inch diameter sewer in Priest Drive that crosses beneath the Salt River and joins the SRO south of the Loop 202 Freeway. ME02 – Flow through the ME02 metering station is conveyed through a 60-inch diameter sewer in Baseline Road to a siphon structure that crosses the Loop 101 freeway then joins to a 54-inch diameter sewer. The City’s Lift Station 27 (currently out of service) is located at the outlet of the siphon structure, west of the Loop 101 freeway and has the capability to divert 4 mgd to an 18-inch diameter gravity sewer that then increases to 33-inches in diameter and runs parallel to the 54-inch diameter sewer in Baseline Road. Just east of College Avenue, the 33-inch diameter sewer increases to 36-inches in diameter and then it turns north on College Avenue and continues north to Mill Avenue where it connects with the 48inch diameter sewer in Southern Avenue and combines with flows from ME01. The 54-inch diameter sewer continues past College Avenue and connects to a 42-inch diameter sewer that follows the north side of the Western Canal then turns north on Priest Drive to the Priest Drive/Southern Avenue diversion structure. It is understood that flows that approach this diversion structure from the south are directed
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
135
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
west to the SAI. The City solely owns the 54-inch diameter sewer in Baseline Road and shares capacity with Tempe in the 33-inch, 36-inch, 42-inch and 48-inch diameter sewers. Flows from ME03 (Rio Salado) are conveyed through the SRO. The City’s flows from ME03 are conveyed as follows: ME03 – Flow through the ME03 metering station is conveyed through a 36-inch diameter sewer in Rio Salado Parkway to a siphon structure that crosses the Salt River at McClintock Drive. From there it is conveyed west to the SRO, which begins as a 54-inch diameter main near the City of Scottsdale SD01 SROG metering station, just west of McClintock Drive. The ownership capacity of Tempe/Mesa sewers is defined in agreements that date back to the early 1960s. As part of the IMP, these agreements were reviewed to identify the available capacity for the City’s flows in these sewers. The locations, diameters, owner, and City ownership capacity of these sewers is illustrated in Appendix E, Figure E-1.
5.2.4 Summary of WRP Design Capacities A summary of the current design capacities of the City’s water reclamation plants and the City’s portion of the 91st Avenue WWTP are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3
Mesa Wastewater Treatment Facility and Design Capacity
Mesa Wastewater Facilities
AADF Design Capacities (mgd)
NWWRP
12
SEWRP
8
GWRP
14
SROG Regional 91st Avenue WWTP
26.5
Total
60.5
5.3
Wastewater Model Development and Calibration
A wastewater collection system model is a simplified representation of the actual wastewater system that is used to estimate the magnitude, timing and routing of wastewater flows in the collection system. Wastewater system models can be applied to assess the remaining conveyance capacity in a collection system and to assess the impacts of future developments and land use changes. The City’s collection system hydraulic model was updated using a multi-step process utilizing data from various sources cited below.
5.3.1 Model Construction The City’s previous wastewater collection system hydraulic model was developed in Innovyze’s InfoSewer hydraulic modeling software. The original model was developed in 2009 and has been updated and maintained by the Water Resources Department. The last update was in 2018 and this version was used as the starting point for the IMP. and included all lift stations, water reclamation plants, diversion structures and most of the wastewater collection system pipes 8-inches in diameter and larger. As part of IMP, the hydraulic model was converted to the InfoWorks ICM software (also by Innovyze). InfoWorks ICM routes flow through the collection system using a dynamic wave process that represents the full solution to the 1-Dimensional St. Venant equation. This approach provides a more accurate BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
136
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
representation of flows and makes InfoWorks ICM a valuable tool to evaluate the capacity of existing pipes and determine where capacity constraints occur. This was a key step to provide better modeling results for the City to use in making decisions. InfoWorks ICM was selected by the City prior to the IMP and offers the following benefits: ◼ Robust hydraulic calculations that model complex situations including backwater and diversion structures, which is important for the City’s collection system which contains multiple diversion structures. ◼ Advanced GIS integration capabilities. ◼ Features that allow detailed tracking of changes, data flagging, and scenario change tracking. ◼ Advanced model results viewing tools in tabular, graphic and pipe profile (hydraulic grade line) tools. ◼ Flexible modeling run options, with an extended period simulation solver only.
5.3.1.1 Elements of a Hydraulic Model The following provides an overview of the elements of hydraulic wastewater model and the required input parameters associated with each: 1.
Manholes: Sewer manholes are placed between pipeline segments, where pipe sizes change, where pipelines intersect, or where force mains connect to gravity mains. Required model inputs for manholes include diameter, ground (rim) elevation, and invert elevation. Manholes can also be used to represent locations where flows are split or diverted between two or more downstream links.
2.
Conduits: Gravity sewers are represented as conduits in the hydraulic model. Input parameters for conduits include length, diameter, material, friction factor (Manning’s n value), and upstream and downstream invert elevations.
3.
Weirs: Weirs in the City’s hydraulic model were used to represent the various diversion structures throughout the system. These were full width weirs with input parameters including the width and crest height. The diversion structures were modeled using weirs. By adjusting the weir crest height, the flow direction can be changed.
4.
Force Mains: Required input parameters are length, diameter, invert elevations, and friction factor (i.e., Hazen Williams C factor).
5.
Breaks: Breaks are included in the hydraulic model as break nodes. Breaks are used to connect multiple force main pipe segments. They are needed when an individual pipe changes in diameter or material and can be used to represent a pressure gauge. Required input includes ground elevations.
6.
Wet Wells: Wet Wells are represented as storage objects in the hydraulic model. Required input parameters for wet wells include wet well base area, ground level, and a storage array that specifies the wet wells bottom and top elevations along with the corresponding area at that elevation.
7.
Pumps: Pumps are included in the hydraulic model as links. Input parameters for pumps vary based on the type of pump (fixed discharge, variable frequency drive, rotodynamic pump, etc.). For all pump types, operational controls (on/off set points) are required. Other input parameters that are required for the different pump types are pump capacity/head information, nominal speed, minimum/maximum speed, positive/negative change in speed (rate at which the speed of
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
137
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
the pump increases or decreases). Variable frequency drive pumps require real time controls. All of the City’s pumps were modeled as fixed discharge with on and off set points that correspond to levels within the wet well. 8.
Outfalls: Outfalls represent areas where flow leaves the system. For sewer system modeling, an outfall typically represents the connection to the influent pump station at a wastewater reclamation plant. Required input parameters include ground elevation.
9.
Patterns: Diurnal patterns are represented as wastewater profiles (called trade waste profiles in InfoWorks) in the hydraulic model. Diurnal patterns are used to simulate the variation in flow throughout the day. Patterns can be established for weekday or weekend flows and span a 24hour period. Data is input in 1-hour increments.
10.
Subcatchments: Often referred to as flow loading polygons, sewer sheds, or manhole/pump station tributary areas, subcatchments are used in the dry and wet weather scenarios. Required input parameters for both scenarios include total area, outflow element (typically a manhole), rainfall profile (based on rainfall in each flowmeter basin), additional foul flow (loaded flow for each subcatchment), wastewater profile, trade flow (loaded future flow for each subcatchment), trade profile (trade waste profile).
11.
Wet Weather Parameters: Additional parameters that are required for wet weather scenarios are land use type which varies based on the wet weather response of each flowmeter basin. Each land use type has three runoff surface types that can be correlated with it. A runoff surface is the type of surface (impervious, pervious, etc.). Each runoff surface has a different runoff routing value which designates the time in which the runoff will enter the collection system. Each subcatchment has three runoff area percentages for each runoff surface. The runoff area percentage affects the amount of infiltration and inflow (I/I) flow to a particular manhole. A smaller runoff area percentage will have less I/I than a larger percentage.
5.3.1.2 Hydraulic Model Update Following the software conversion, the hydraulic model was updated to include areas of the collection system that have developed since the model was previously updated. The model conversion and update process consisted of seven steps, as described below: 1.
The 2018 InfoSewer modeling information was exported to GIS shapefiles. This existing model was provided to Carollo by the City and included any updates the City made internally since the model was initially built in 2009. The export from the model included the pipelines, manholes, outfalls, wet wells, and pumps.
2.
The shapefiles exported from the InfoSewer model were imported into InfoWorks ICM and the data was spot checked to ensure that everything imported correctly.
3.
The City’s GIS data was compared to the existing model. Pipes and manholes that were in the GIS that were not in the model were imported into the model. These areas generally included newer residential developments that have occurred since the last model update.
4.
After all of the pipes and manholes were imported into the model, the pipeline profiles were reviewed, and data gaps were identified. The City’s GIS data was used as the primary source of information for pipe diameters, inverts, and connectivity. If the GIS shapefiles did not have the data required, engineering judgement was applied to fill data gaps for inverts and pipe connectivity using minimum slope criteria, linear interpolation, and extrapolation. When changes to GIS data attributes were made in the model, the assumptions used were documented using the InfoWorks flagging system.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
138
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.
The pump stations and diversion structures were updated to reflect their current operating status and configuration. The City provided updated pump capacities, pump on and off setpoints, and wet well parameters. Additionally, the City provided the current operational settings for the diversion structures. The diversion structures were modeled using weirs as stated previously.
6.
Subcatchments were created for the system using the City’s GIS parcel data. Each parcel was assigned a manhole where the flow from that parcel was assumed to enter the collection system. These subcatchments, defined at the parcel level, were then assigned to a manhole.
7.
The last step was to allocate the dry weather flows from the flow monitoring program to the appropriate subcatchment.
5.3.2 Wastewater Flow Allocation Determining the quantity of dry weather wastewater flows generated by a municipality and how they are distributed throughout the collection system is a key component of the hydraulic modeling process. Various techniques can be used to assign wastewater flows to individual manholes, depending on the type of data that is available. Accurate estimates of the volume of wastewater are important in maintaining and sizing wastewater collection system facilities, both for existing and future conditions. Baseline wastewater flows were allocated to specific manholes in the hydraulic model based on the water billing data provided by the City and wastewater return rates developed from the flow monitoring data, which are described in Chapter 2. This approach provides a means to convert the volume of potable water that is provided to the community into an average dry weather flow (DWF) that is anticipated to enter the collection system. The process to achieve this for the IMP is described below: 1.
The City’s service area was broken up into individual subcatchments. Each subcatchment represents the geographic area that contributes flows into a single model manhole. Each subcatchment in the model correlates to a single parcel within the system. The subcatchments were set up this way to easily assign existing and future dry weather flows on a parcel level.
2.
The flows were calculated for each subcatchment using GIS spatial analysis by combining the water billing data points that reside within each subcatchment. This allocates a single combined flow value for each subcatchment. Water billing data from February 2023 was used as a basis for the wastewater flow loading.
3.
The GIS subcatchments were imported into the model and associated with the manholes so that the average dry weather flow is assigned to the appropriate manhole.
4.
The allocated flows were adjusted as necessary during the DWF calibration process to closely match the actual measured DWFs recorded during the flow monitoring period.
5.3.3 Wastewater Model Calibration Hydraulic model calibration is a crucial component of the hydraulic modeling effort and is typically associated with a flow monitoring program. The wastewater return rates developed from the flow monitoring data were applied to each subcatchment and are included in Appendix F. For the IMP, flow monitoring was conducted at 25 sites from February 6, 2023, to March 3, 2023. Calibrating the model to match data collected during the flow monitoring program provides confidence that the model is a reasonable representation of the collection system. The calibration process consisted of aligning measured pipe flows, velocities, and depths with modeled values for dry weather conditions. This section summarizes the overall methodology used to calibrate the wastewater collection system hydraulic model and describes the calibration results.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
139
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.3.3.1 Calibration Guidelines The hydraulic model was calibrated in accordance with international modeling guidelines. While there are not universally adopted hydraulic modeling standards, the Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG), a section of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, has established agreed upon principles for model verification. The dry weather calibration focused on meeting the recommendations on model verification contained in the “Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modeling of Sewer Systems,” published by the WaPUG (WaPUG 2002), as summarized below: ◼ Dry Weather Calibration: Dry weather calibration should be carried out for two dry weather days and the modeled flows and depths should be compared to the field measured flows and depths. Both the modeled and field measured flow hydrographs should closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude. In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria as a general guide:
●
The timing of flow peaks and troughs should be within 1 hour.
●
The peak flow rate should be within the range of ±10 percent.
●
The volume of flow (or the average rate of flow) should be within the range of ±10 percent. If applicable, care should be taken to exclude periods of missing or inaccurate data.
5.3.3.2 Dry Weather Flow Calibration The Dry Weather Flow calibration process or the IMP included the following steps: ◼ Divide the system into tributary areas for each flowmeter. This step delineates the tributary areas upstream of each flowmeter. The locations of each flow monitoring site and their associated tributary areas are shown in Figure 5-8. ◼ Define flow volumes within each area. This step allocates flow volumes within each tributary area using the flow allocation step, described previously, that uses the City’s water billing data and wastewater return rates established from the flow monitoring data analysis. ◼ Create diurnal patterns to match the temporal distribution of flow. This step develops diurnal curves, which are hourly multipliers that are applied to the additional flow to simulate the variation in flow that occurs throughout the day. Two diurnal curves were developed for each flow monitoring tributary area, one representing weekday flow and one representing weekend flow. The diurnal patterns were initially developed based on the flow monitoring data and adjusted as part of the calibration process until the model simulated flows matched the field measured flows as closely as possible. The InfoWorks flow routing accounts for flow attenuation that occurs as flows are combined and conveyed from upstream to downstream in the model. The calibration process accounts for this by making minor adjustments, when needed, to match observed flow peaks with model predicted flow peaks. As an example, Figure 5-9 shows the calibrated weekday and weekend diurnal patterns for the area tributary to Site 2022-04. Additional diurnal patterns were developed for all flowmeter tributaries. These diurnal patterns are found on the DWF calibration sheets that are included in Appendix F.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
140
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
"J J "
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
LS11
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
LS5
ME03
g̀
g̀ g̀
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J g̀ 2022-16
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202
g̀
2022-19
" J
g̀
WRP
2022-05-01
g̀
g̀
g̀
ME01
g̀
2022-05-03
2022-05-02
g̀ g̀
Jg̀ LS27 "
2022-07-03
g̀g̀
2022-07-02
Legend
g̀
Flow Meters Flow Monitoring Basins 2022-01 2022-13
Brown Rd 1200 N
2022-22
g̀
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
2022-02-02
2022-07-01
60
ME02
2022-02-01
2022-06
LS2
" J
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
McKellips Rd 2000 N
2022-04
g̀
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
g̀
2022-08
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
2022-13 WRP
/
60
2022-11-01
g̀
g̀g̀ g̀g̀ 2022-12-01
2022-01
2022-02-01
2022-14
2022-03
2022-15
2022-04
2022-16
2022-05
2022-17
2022-06
2022-18
2022-07
2022-19
2022-08
2022-20
2022-09
2022-21
2022-10
2022-22
2022-12 Lift Station/Pump Station
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
Gravity Main by Diameter 10"-15"
Baseline Rd 2000 S
15"-24" Greater than 24"
LS6
" J
LS1
" J
g̀
2022-12-02
LS17
"g̀ J
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
g̀
2022-14
Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
2022-12-03
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
g̀
2022-21
g̀
2022-10
g̀
2022-09-02
2022-09-01 MS-09
g̀
LS13
g̀MS-06 g̀" Jg̀2022-20
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Figure 5-8 Flow Monitoring Locations and Basins
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
◼ Adjust model variables to match field measured velocity and flow depths. Once the model simulated flows acceptably matched the field measured flows, the model simulated velocity and flow depth were compared to the field measured velocity and flow depth. Adjustments were made to model parameters until the modeled and measured velocity and depth closely matched one another. The primary varied parameters for this process are pipeline roughness (Manning’s n) and sediment buildup in the pipe, although other parameters can also be adjusted as calibration results are generated. When adjusted, the Manning’s coefficient was adjusted for the entire flow meter tributary area. ◼ Manning’s roughness coefficients, or n values, have industry accepted ranges based on several variables. Roughness coefficients increase over time depending on the construction methods, installation quality, system maintenance, and other environmental factors. There can be certain factors within the City’s collection system that can result in roughness coefficients that differ from the typical range. For example, pipeline bellies, joint misalignment, cracks, and debris (e.g., root intrusion, etc.) lead to increased turbulence in a pipe, as well as the apparent Manning’s n factor. ◼ If the model is unable to reasonably match the field measured flow depth and velocity without leaving the acceptable range of Manning’s roughness coefficients, further investigation is conducted to help determine the cause of the discrepancy. Issues that could cause such a discrepancy can include errors in the slope or diameter of a pipeline, downstream blockages, pipeline sags, and, in some cases, influences from downstream pump station operations. The sites with the largest deviations in velocities and flow depths measured versus those that were modeled include: 2022-02-02B, 2022-0501, 2022-05-03, 2022-07-01, and 2022-13.
5.4
Wastewater System Evaluations
Following the dry weather flow calibration, a capacity analysis of the existing and future collection system was performed. The capacity analysis entailed identifying areas in the sewer system where flow restrictions occur or where the pipe capacity is insufficient to convey maximum month flows. Table 5-4 summarizes the performance criteria used to evaluate the wastewater system for the IMP. The performance criteria are described in detail in the following sections. Table 5-4
Wastewater Collection System Performance Criteria Summary
Description
Criteria
Minimum Velocity
≥ 2.5 fps
Maximum Velocity
≤ 9 fps
Flow Depth, d/D: New Sewer Mains
≤ 0.67
Flow Depth, d/D: Existing Mains
≤ 0.80
Gravity mains
Manning’s n = 0.013(1)
Pressure mains
Hazen William’s C = 120
Manholes with mains intersecting at ≥ 90 degrees
Provide 0.2 ft of invert drop
Manholes with mains intersecting at < 90 degrees
Provide 0.1 ft of invert drop
Peaking Factor, Dry Weather
2023 ADS flow monitoring data-derived factors
Peaking Factor, Wet Weather
SROG SICE Study values
(1) Initial values before calibration. Model Manning’s n values range from 0.012 and 0.017.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
143
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.1 Wastewater Collection System Performance Criteria Performance criteria for wastewater collection systems primarily addresses pipe capacity and lift station pumping capacity requirements. Performance criteria are more general than design criteria, which provide specific requirements for construction of new infrastructure. The City provided a list of design criteria for new developments. The wastewater system performance criteria are also based on legal requirements and engineering best practices. The Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) states that sewage collection systems shall be designed using good engineering judgement and engineering best practices (R-18-9-E301). These "standards of measurement" are considered good engineering practice and provide the City with acceptable levels of wastewater system performance.
5.4.1.1 Pipe Capacities Sewer capacities are dependent on many factors, including roughness, maximum allowable depth of flow, and limiting velocity and slope. The Continuity Equation and Manning's Equation are used for the hydraulic calculations. The Manning's Coefficient 'n' is a friction coefficient that varies with respect to pipe material, size of pipe, depth of flow, smoothness of joints, root intrusion, and other factors. For gravity sewers, the Manning's coefficient typically ranges between 0.011 and 0.020. For planning purposes, a Manning’s 'n' value of 0.013 was used for this project, except were modified during hydraulic model calibration. Typically, newer sewers have lower ‘n’ values than existing sewers or sewers prone to solids deposition. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requires a Manning's coefficient of 0.013 for the design of new sewers (A.A.C. R18-9-E301-D). For pressure mains, Hazen William’s Coefficient, C of 120 was used.
5.4.1.2 Flow Depth When designing sewers, it is common practice to adopt variable flow depth criteria for various pipe sizes. This criterion is expressed as a ratio of maximum depth of flow to pipe diameter (d/D). Design d/D ratios typically range from 0.5 to 1.0, with the lower values typically used for smaller pipes that may experience flow peaks greater than planned or may experience blockages from debris. The flow depth criterion for the new sewer is 0.67. However, existing sewers will be evaluated based on a flow depth criterion of 0.80 at peak flows because current flows can be quantified, especially in established, built out areas, and because there is no need to replace or provide relief for an existing sewer until flows are at the capacity of the pipe, other than for a wet weather allowance. This approach avoids the problem of replacing or upgrading existing sewers prematurely. To minimize the settlement of solids in the flow and promote scour, it is standard design practice to specify that a minimum velocity of 2.5 feet per second (fps) be maintained. At this velocity, the sewer flow will prevent debris from collecting at the bottom of the pipe. The City’s minimum velocity criteria for a sewer pipeline is 2.5 fps and the maximum velocity criteria for a sewer pipeline is 9 fps. The dry weather peaking factor value is derived from the 2023 ADS flow monitoring data, and the wet weather peaking factor is derived from Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) Sewer Interceptor Capacity Evaluation (SICE) Study Values. Table 5-5 lists the minimum slopes for maintaining self-cleaning velocities at full flow or with a d/D value of 1.0, and a d/D of 0.67. The minimum practical slope for gravity sewer construction is 0.0008 feet per foot (ft/ft). Therefore, pipes greater than 30 inches in diameter should not have a slope that is less than this value. Greater slopes are desirable if the slopes are compatible with existing topography, as long as the wastewater velocity does not exceed 9 fps. BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
144
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 5-5
Recommended Minimum Slopes for Circular Pipes Description
Criteria
Pipe Size (in)
Minimum Slope (ft/ft)
Pipe Capacity (mgd) d/D= 1
Pipe Capacity (mgd) d/D= 0.67
8
0.00522
0.57
0.45
10
0.00388
0.88
0.70
12
0.00303
1.27
1.00
15
0.00225
1.99
1.57
18
0.00176
2.86
2.25
21
0.00144
3.90
3.08
24
0.00120
5.08
4.01
Notes: 1.
Slopes are calculated using a Manning's coefficient of 0.013 for full pipe flow with a minimum velocity of 2.5 fps.
2.
Sewers larger than 30-inches in diameter should have a slope ≥0.0008.
3.
Pipe capacity is based on full pipe flow.
Abbreviations: mgd = million gallons per day; ft/ft = feet per foot; in = inch(es)
5.4.1.3 Change in Pipe Sizes at Manholes For new mains, when a smaller sewer joins a larger sewer, the invert of the larger sewer should be lowered sufficiently to maintain the same energy gradient. Typically, a drop of 0.1 ft is sufficient to maintain the energy grade line across the manhole. An approximate method for securing these results is to match sewer crowns, which also maintains air flow between the joining sewers. For master planning purposes, proposed sewer crowns will be matched at manholes when a smaller sewer joins a larger one.
5.4.1.4 Manholes Manholes with mains intersecting at an angle greater than 90 degrees are not allowed. For manholes with main intersecting at angle less than 90 degrees, an invert drop of 0.1 ft should be provided. These performance criteria are based on engineering judgement and are consistent with the City’s Engineering & Design Standards.
5.4.1.5 Lift Stations Lift stations should be evaluated based on firm capacity. The firm capacity of a lift station is the capacity of the lift station with the largest pump out of service. Each lift station should have sufficient firm capacity to pump peak maximum month dry weather flow. Wet well volume should be sufficient to not allow the sewage retention time to exceed 30 minutes to promote cycling and mitigate hydrogen sulfide formation.
5.4.1.6 Force Mains Force mains should be sized for normal operating minimum velocity of 4 feet per second (fps) to provide scour velocity so that the solids deposited while the pumps are off will be transported when the pumps are operating. Additionally, the minimum force main size is 6-inches in diameter to allow for maintenance
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
145
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
operations. Pipe retention times should also be considered in sizing force mains to avoid excessive hydrogen sulfide generation. The maximum flow velocity for force mains is 9 fps.
5.4.1.7 Gravity Sewer Planning Guidelines Gravity sewers should be designed and constructed to have a minimum of six feet of cover or sufficient depth to serve the ultimate drainage area. Gravity sewers and force mains should have a minimum separation of six feet from potable water mains unless they are encased in concrete, as per ADEQ requirements. Specific guidance on gravity sewer pipeline design for a development should be based on the City’s Engineering & Design Standards.
5.4.2 Wastewater Collection System Assessment Results The system evaluation was performed by running the model for maximum month flow conditions (which was based on the flow monitoring completed in February 2023) and represents the average daily flow for the maximum month of the year) and identifying capacity deficiencies based on the evaluation criteria. For the City’s collection system, the average daily flow for the maximum month of the year was estimated to be approximately 11-percent higher than the annual average daily flow. Improvement projects were identified to alleviate gravity main, force main, and pump station deficiencies. This section discusses the locations of current and projected hydraulic deficiencies resulting from flows exceeding the maximum flow depth criteria.
5.4.2.1 Gravity System Capacity Evaluation In accordance with the established flow depth criteria for existing sewers, pipelines with a maximum d/D greater than 0.80 were flagged for further investigation. Pipelines with a d/D value exceeding 0.80 are not necessarily capacity deficient. In some cases, the surcharged condition identified by the model for a given pipeline is due to backwater effects created by a downstream bottleneck (i.e., upstream surcharging caused by downstream pipeline deficiencies). In many cases, smaller diameter mains connecting to larger interceptors where the GIS data shows the inverts are matched, were also identified as surcharged. For example, an 8-inch diameter main flowing into a 24-inch diameter sewer flowing half full will be flagged by the model as surcharged. While it is possible that the pipes in this example are constructed this way, it may be a result of incorrect or incomplete GIS invert data. Several dozen pipe segments like this were flagged by the model but are not actual capacity deficiencies. Most of these pipes are less than 200-ft and the surcharging terminates in the pipe segment immediately upstream of it. Each pipe flagged by the model was analyzed to determine if there was a legitimate capacity deficiency and if so, identify the pipeline segments that are the cause of the surcharged conditions.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
146
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The system was evaluated under existing and build out system flows. Gravity mains that were identified as having a d/D greater than 0.80 were identified for both conditions. These sewers are shown in Figure 5-10. The sewers exceeding d/D of 0.8 for existing sewers are shown in red and the build out deficiencies are shown in purple. Each pipe that exceeded the evaluation criteria was viewed in closer detail to evaluate the severity of the deficiency. There were four locations identified as deficient for existing conditions, including: 1.
The 12 and 15-inch diameter gravity mains in McKellips Rd from the Eastern Canal to Gilbert Road, and along Gilbert Road from McKellips Road to Hackamore Street (Approximately 6,200-ft).
2.
The 15-inch diameter gravity main in Lindsay Road from Broadway Road and Pueblo Avenue (Approximately 3,100-ft).
3.
The 8-inch diameter gravity main in Power Road north of Eagle Crest Drive (Approximately 1,500ft).
4.
The 10-inch diameter gravity main in Main Street from 70th Street and Sunvalley Boulevard (Approximately 1,300-ft).
Under future conditions, no additional deficiencies were identified. However, the future conditions worsen the four existing system deficiencies.
5.4.2.2 Lift Station and Force Main Evaluation The lift stations and associated force mains were evaluated under maximum month, dry weather flow conditions. The City’s hydraulic model includes 14 operational lift stations. The future Tyler Ranch, North Higley, and Northwest Loop 202 Lift Stations were included for the buildout analysis only. LS27 was not included in the analysis. The lift stations were evaluated to determine if they could convey the estimated peak flows generated upstream from each station (including flows from upstream lift stations, where applicable). The lift stations with flows above the existing firm capacity of the station were identified as deficient. Table 5-6 summarizes the results of the lift station evaluation for existing and buildout flow conditions. Table 5-6
Lift Station Capacity Evaluation Summary
Lift Station
No. of Pumps
Design Flow (gpm)
Existing Peak Dry Weather Flow (gpm)
Existing Surplus/ (Deficit) (gpm)
Buildout Peak Dry Weather Flow (gpm)
Buildout Surplus/ (Deficit) (gpm)
Buildout Surplus/ (Deficit) (1) (%)
Alma School
2
1,400
265
1,135
265
1,135
81%
Broadway
2
220
14
206
14
206
94%
Hermosa Vista
2
350
67
283
132
218
62%
Center Street
2
286
24
262
54
232
81%
Noche de Paz
3
1,200
437
763
448
752
63%
Ranier
2
100
15
85
18
82
82%
Star Valley (2)
2
800
597
203
589
211
26%
Eagle Crest
2
320
21
299
29
291
91%
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
147
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Lift Station
No. of Pumps
Design Flow (gpm)
Existing Peak Dry Weather Flow (gpm)
Existing Surplus/ (Deficit) (gpm)
Buildout Peak Dry Weather Flow (gpm)
Buildout Surplus/ (Deficit) (gpm)
Buildout Surplus/ (Deficit) (1) (%)
Vanguard
2
300
6
294
6
294
98%
Williams Gateway
2
1,000
125
875
225
775
78%
Warner
2
1,500
160
1,340
533
967
64%
Lehi Crossing (3)
2
530
173
357
518
12
2%
Granite Mountain
2
350
31
319
86
264
75%
Desert Place
2
360
107
253
393
(33)
(9%)
North Higley (4)
2
360
Future LS 18
101
259
72%
Tyler Ranch (4)
2
350
Future LS 19
32
318
91%
Northwest Loop 202 (4)
2
140
Future LS 63
63
77
55%
Note: (1) Percent surplus of design flow capacity based on the estimated buildout peak, dry weather flow. (2) Portions of the existing upstream collection area for the Star Valley Lift Station will be re-routed to the North Higley Lift Station in the future. (3) The anticipated future Northwest Loop 202 Lift Station is assumed to be routed to the Lehi Crossing Lift Station. (4) Future lift stations were evaluated for buildout conditions only.
For current conditions, all lift stations are estimated to have capacity to convey peak, dry weather flow with all existing peak flows predicted to be well below the design capacities of those stations. For buildout conditions, the following were observed: ◼ Desert Place Lift Station is estimated to have peak, dry weather flows produced upstream that exceed its design capacity. The Lehi Crossing Lift Station’s anticipated buildout peak dry weather flows are within 98% of the total design capacity of the lift station, which results in only 12 gpm of available capacity (out of the 530gpm design capacity of the station) to accommodate wet weather flows. It is recommended that the City monitor the dry weather flows to this lift station and consider a project to expand pumping capacity. The design capacity of the proposed Northwest Loop 202 lift station directly impacts the flows to Lehi Crossing. As this area develops, options to dampen peak flows, including potentially installing variable speed pumps at the Northwest Loop 202 Lift Station should be considered in addition to expanding Lehi Crossing. Projects to add capacity to the Desert Place and Lehi Crossing lift stations are required by buildout. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor flows to these stations as well as the potential for new development to occur upstream of them (within the tributary area) to confirm the IMP flow projections as the City grows towards buildout.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
148
LS10
LS9
" J Future Max Month Flows causes additional deficiencies 101
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
" J
" J
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
LS5
WRP
Future Max Month Flows causes additional deficiencies
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
WRP
LS6
" J
LS1
" J
Existing Pipelines with d/D > 0.80 Future Pipelines with d/D > 0.80 Inverse Slope Small Diameter Main and Large Diameter Main Inverts Matching Siphon
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
LS2
" J
Legend
Brown Rd 1200 N
" J
LS27
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
McKellips Rd 2000 N
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
Future Max Month Flows causes additional deficiencies
LS15
" J
In association with:
Future Max Month Flows cause slight deficiencies along Baseline Road. (could be alleviated by use of parallel pipelines)
Lift Station/Pump Station
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant Force Main
Gravity Main by Diameter 8" and Less
Baseline Rd 2000 S
10"-15"
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Greater than 24"
15"-24"
Other Features Parcels
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
Airport Boundary
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Future Max Month Flows causes additional deficiencies
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-10 Existing and Future Max Month Flow Capacity Deficiencies
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.2.3 Wet Weather Analysis A wet weather sensitivity analysis was performed for the existing and build out flow conditions. This analysis was not used to size future pipelines but is meant to provide the City with insight on the areas of the collection system that could be susceptible to infiltration and inflow (I/I) during a storm event. The basis of the wet weather analysis was the SROG Interceptor Capacity Evaluation (SICE) study that was completed in 2014.
5.4.2.3.1 SICE Wet Weather Modeling Approach and Application to City’s Model For the 2014 SICE study, a full wet weather calibration was conducted and focused on the cities of Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. In the SICE study, the model was calibrated under wet weather conditions using the available flow and rainfall data for six storms between 2008 and 2013. The RTK (R=Response Ratio, T= Time to Peak, K=Recession Limb Ratio) method was then used to analyze the system’s response to rainfall. Flow meter data from across the area was gathered and analyzed using the U.S. EPA’s Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning (SSOAP) Toolbox. Observed and predicted peak flows and flow volumes are displayed graphically in SSOAP to determine the appropriate combination of R, T and K values. This is an iterative process to determine the coefficients that simulate the rainfall derived inflow and infiltration (RDII) curve that matches the actual wet weather response from the flow meter data. All storms were evaluated and averaged and used for the model calibration. These wet weather flow parameters were applied to the InfoWorks ICM model developed for the IMP. There are 21 SICE model subcatchments that represent the City and the following steps were taken to assign the SICE model parameters to each of the City’s subcatchments in the IMP ICM model: 1.
Assign each City subcatchment to one of the 21 SICE model subcatchments.
2.
Join the matching Land use IDs, rainfall profiles and RTK hydrographs used in the SICE model.
3.
Copy the subsequent Land use IDs, Runoff Surfaces, and RTK hydrographs from the SICE model into the IMP ICM model.
Table 5-7 summarizes the RTK factors applied in the City’s ICM hydraulic model. Table 5-7
RTK Factors Applied to City’s ICM Hydraulic Model Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
RTK Hydrograph ID
R
T
K
R
T
K
R
T
K
(ratio)
(hours)
(ratio)
(ratio)
(hours)
(ratio)
(ratio)
(hours)
(ratio)
GWRP
0.001
1.580
1.000
0.001
4.290
1.790
0.001
6.570
3.000
ME01
0.001
1.000
1.300
0.002
2.900
1.540
0.001
5.800
4.800
ME02
0.001
1.583
1.000
0.001
4.286
1.786
0.001
6.571
3.000
ME03
0.001
1.125
1.000
0.003
3.125
1.313
0.001
5.125
2.125
NWWRP
0.001
1.130
1.000
0.003
3.130
1.310
0.001
5.130
2.130
SEWRP
0.001
1.000
1.300
0.002
2.900
1.540
0.001
5.800
4.800
R = Response Ratio; T = Time to Peak; K = Recession Limb Ratio
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
150
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.2.3.2 Design Storm Selection To perform the wet weather flow sensitivity analysis for the IMP it was important to use a storm that showed a response in the City. By evaluating each of the storms, the storm from January 2010 showed the greatest response with an average 2.25 inches of rainfall volume in 24 hours. Due to the shape of the storm and varying response across the city, there are 20 rainfall profiles applied in this scenario. An example rainfall profile is shown in Figure 5-11. The winter storms are typically larger in area than summer storms, primarily due to larger areas of light rain between localized regions of intense rainfall.
Rainfall Profile 20 0.6
Rainfall (in.)
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1/17/10 12:00 AM
1/19/10 12:00 AM
1/21/10 12:00 AM
1/23/10 12:00 AM
1/25/10 12:00 AM
Date Figure 5-11
January 2010 Storm Rainfall Profile
5.4.2.4 Wet Weather Flow Capacity Analysis Following the design storm selection and model update, the City’s model was run to see the impacts of the design storm on the system. The January 2010 storm increased the peak outfall flow for existing conditions to 51.4 mgd, which is an increase of 1.0 mgd compared to the maximum month peak dry weather flow. Figure 5-12 shows the pipes that have a predicted d/D exceeding 0.8 for existing peak wet weather flow conditions. At buildout, the January 2010 storm increased the peak outfall flow to 67.4 mgd, which is an increase of 2.0 mgd compared to the buildout maximum month peak dry weather flow. Figure 5-13 shows the pipes that have a predicted d/D exceeding 0.8 for buildout peak wet weather flow conditions. The locations of the wet weather flow deficiencies generally match the locations of the dry weather flow deficiencies. This analysis was used to demonstrate the collection system’s sensitivity to additional I/I and was not used to recommend or size candidate capital improvement projects.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
151
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
LS5
" J
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
McKellips Rd 2000 N
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Lift Station/Pump Station
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
WRP
d/D > 0.80
Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
LS2
" J
Inverse Slope Inverts Matching Siphon Force Main Gravity Main by Diameter 8" and Less 10"-15"
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
LS27
" J
Water Reclamation Plant
15"-24" Greater than 24" Other Features Parcels
LS6
" J
Boundary
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J
" J
Airport
202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-12 Existing Peak Wet Weather Flow Capacity Deficiencies
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
LS5
" J
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
McKellips Rd 2000 N
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Lift Station/Pump Station
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
WRP
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
d/D > 0.80
Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
LS2
" J
Inverse Slope Inverts Matching Siphon Force Main Gravity Main by Diameter 8" and Less 10"-15"
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
J LS27 "
Water Reclamation Plant
15"-24" Greater than 24" Other Features Parcels
LS6
" J
Boundary
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J
" J
Airport
202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-13 Future Peak Wet Weather Flow Capacity Deficiencies
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.3 Southeast Growth Areas The southeast area of the City is defined for the IMP as the area east of Power Road, west of Meridian Road, south of Guadalupe Road, and north of Germann Rd. Southeast Mesa has large undeveloped areas with potential for significant future development. Proposed collection areas for future sewers were determined at the parcel level. This is intended to assist City staff in responding to development proposals in the southeast area that include anticipated points of connection for new developments. Collection basins for each major interceptor were determined using natural grade elevation changes and the locations of existing sewers. Every parcel within the southeast area was assigned a major interceptor that would receive the flows from that parcel. Table 5-8 shows the proposed collection areas as well as the color-coded parcels and interceptors. This data in Figure 5-14 was also provided to the City as an interactive web map. The proposed alignments for future sewers in this area expand on the existing collection system and provide service to future users. The proposed sewers consist of approximately 16 miles of pipelines ranging in diameter from 8 to 36-inches and generally are positioned along the half mile streets. The purpose of these proposed sewers is to layout a potential option for the larger interceptors within the southeast area of the system. Table 5-8 summarizes the sewer main diameters and approximate lengths for the southeast growth areas. Table 5-8
Southeast Growth Areas Infrastructure Summary
Southeast Growth Areas Elliot
Diameter Range (inches)
Length (feet)
8
7,090
15
1,340
8
6,300
10
1,760
18
10,700
24
5,500
36
5,080
Mountain Rd
8
7,200
8
2,140
Ray
18
7,300
24
900
RWCD
Pecos
8
12,500
18
5,500
21
5,200
27
5,700
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
154
North
Guadalupe Rd
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
North
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
202
E Elliot Rd
In association with:
E Elliot Rd
Elliot Rd
Legend Existing Interceptor
Pkw
E Elliot Rd E Germann Rd E Mesa E Pecos Rd E Pt TwentyTwo Blvd
Warner Rd
E Ray Rd E Williams Field Rd North S Eastmark Pkwy S Ellsworth Rd
y
E Ray Rd
Interceptors
S Mountain Rd
S Signal Butte Rd
East Mesa
S Ellsworth Rd
rk ma
202
E Pt tyTwo Twen Blvd
ast SE
S Power Rd
Future Interceptor
E Ray Rd
S Mountain Rd S Power Rd S Signal Butte Rd
Ray Rd SS
os
an
EW
Rd
illia
ms
Fie
ld R
/
d
S Sossaman Rd Contributing Parcels E Elliot Rd E Germann Rd E Mesa E Pecos Rd E Pt TwentyTwo Blvd E Ray Rd
Williams Field Rd
E Williams Field Rd Other North S Eastmark Pkwy S Ellsworth Rd S Mountain Rd S Power Rd S Signal Butte Rd
Ea st M
es
a
24
S Mountain Rd
sa m
E Pecos Rd
Pecos Rd
S Sossaman Rd Parcels
E Pecos Rd 0
n Rd
E German
4,000 ft
Meridian Rd
Germann Rd Signal Butte Rd
Crismon Rd
Ellsworth Rd
Hawes Rd
Sossaman Rd
Power Rd
S Germann Rd
2,000
Figure 5-14 Southeast Growth Areas
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.4 WRP Flow Diversions for Maintenance of Operations There are times when flow to NWWRP and SEWRP need to be diverted or bypassed to perform maintenance of existing equipment, install new equipment, or respond to emergencies. Currently, full, or partial bypassing of flow from the NWWRP or SEWRP results in additional flow being sent to the SROG 91st Ave WWTP. It is important to identify the downstream impacts in the City’s collection system, the sewers in Tempe that the City has shared ownership capacity in, and the SROG interceptors when these plants are offline. The City’s hydraulic model was used to evaluate the impacts of flow routing through sewers both inside and outside of Mesa and bypassing WRP flows for the following scenarios: ◼ Normal Operations (NWWRP, SEWRP and GWRP operating, normal flows to SROG) ◼ NWWRP Offline ◼ SEWRP Offline ◼ NWWRP and SEWRP Offline Appendix E, Figure E-1 shows the sewers outside of the City that convey the City’s flows to SROG by segment, identified as either Mesa-owned, Mesa-Tempe jointly owned, or owned by SROG. Sewer segment general locations, diameters and interceptor ownership capacities are also identified. Figures E-2 through E-4 show how the City’s diversion structures were set to route flows for the four scenarios above.
5.4.4.1 Normal Operations The Normal Operation scenario is summarized in Table 5-9 that presents the existing and future projected flows to SROG for average day, maximum month conditions by segment. The Normal Operation flow routing for sewers through Tempe in all scenarios is as shown in Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15, for existing and buildout flow conditions respectively. This routing assumes that all flows from the east into the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure (from MT-2) are routed north (to MT-3) and all the flows from the south (from MT-5) into the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure are routed west (to MT-6). The current understanding of this diversion structure is that the incoming pipe from the east on Southern Ave (MT-2) is 9 feet lower than the outgoing pipe to the west in Southern Ave (MT-6). It may be possible to shift flows from east to west, therefore the analysis presented here identifies the volumes of flow that would need to be shifted from east to west, in order to allow the City to balance flows between the SRO and SAI in instances where this would be required. For the existing conditions, there is not a need to divert flows from the east in Southern Ave to the west through the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure. The City has interceptor ownership capacity in all shared sewer segments except MT-5 (Western Canal Interceptor). As shown in Table 5-9, the estimated existing average daily flow through this segment is 10.8 mgd ADF. The City is evaluating constructing a diversion structure near Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd, which could shift up to 4 mgd from the City’s 54-inch diameter main (Segment M-2) to the 36-inch diameter interceptor in College Ave and Mill Ave (MT-4). Diverting 4 mgd into Segment MT-4 would reduce the flows in Segment MT-5 to 6.8 mgd (current ADF). The current flow would then meet the City’s interceptor ownership capacity of 7.4 mgd. For future conditions, the City has interceptor ownership capacity in all shared sewer segments except MT-5. The estimated average daily flow through Segment MT-5 is 11.8. Even with the Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure conveying 4.0 mgd away from MT-5, the remaining 7.8 mgd in Segment MT-5 would exceed the City’s interceptor ownership capacity of 7.4 mgd.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
156
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The existing and future Normal Operation scenarios result in between 17.2 and 18.4 mgd ADF, respectively, being sent to SROG from the City. This is less than the City’s total SRO and SAI interceptor ownership capacity of 21.7 mgd. This suggests that if the City can balance flows within the shared MesaTempe sewers that there would be sufficient capacity in the SROG collection system to convey flows for normal operations. Table 5-9 Interceptor Segment
Estimated Existing and Future Flows through Sewers Outside the City Diameter (in)
Mesa Ownership Capacity (mgd)
Mesa Ownership Capacity Basis
Existing Flows – Normal Operations
Future Flows – Normal Operations
M-1
36
6.2
ADF
0.9
1.1
SRO-1
54
5.3
d/D 0.75
0.9
1.1
SRO-2
51/54
6.0
d/D 0.75
0.9
1.1
SRO-3
72
6.4
d/D 0.75
6.4
6.6 (1)
MT-1
36
11.0
ADF
5.5
5.5
MT-2
48
15.0
ADF
5.5
9.5
MT-3
48
15.0
ADF
5.5
5.5
M-2
54
18.0
PHF
10.8
11.8
MT-4
33/36
4.0
ADF
0
4.0
MT-5
42
7.4
ADF
10.8 (2)
7.8 (3)
MT-6
48
15.3
d/D 0.75
10.8
11.8(4)
SRO Total
6.4
6.6
SAI Total
10.8
11.8
SROG Total
17.2
18.4
Mesa’s SRO + SAI Capacity
21.7
21.7
Surplus / (Deficit)
4.5
3.3
Notes: 1.
Mesa’s flow capacity is exceeded without a flow diversion of at least 0.2 mgd at Priest Dr./Southern Ave.
2.
Mesa’s flow capacity is exceeded without a flow diversion at Lakeshore Dr./Baseline Rd. or diversion of flow from LS27.
3.
Mesa’s flow capacity is exceeded by 0.4 mgd even with a flow diversion near Lakeshore Dr./Baseline Rd. or diversion of flow from LS27.
4.
Requires 4.0 mgd to be diverted from MT-2 at the Priest Dr./Southern Ave. diversion structure.
Abv M=Mesa Only Ownership MT=Mesa Tempe Ownership SRO=Salt River Outfall (SROG Ownership)
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
157
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.4.2 WRP Bypass Operations Appendix E, Table E-1 summarizes the flows for scenarios where either the NWWRP, SEWRP, or both NWWRP and SEWRP are out of service. For existing flow conditions, the following observations were made: ◼ For the NWWRP Offline scenario, 6.2 mgd would need to be diverted from MT-2 to MT-6, from east to west through the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure so that that City would not exceed its ownership capacity in the SRO. The total flow to SROG in this scenario is 24.2 mgd ADF, which is greater than the City’s 21.7 mgd ADF ownership capacity. If the City constructs the Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure, 4 mgd could be shifted out of MT-5 (Western Canal Interceptor) resulting in a flow of 7.6 mgd ADF, which exceeds the City’s ownership capacity of 7.4 mgd ADF. ◼ For the SEWRP Offline scenario, 1.7 mgd would need to be diverted from MT-2 to MT-6, so that the City would not exceed its ownership capacity in the SRO. The total flow to SROG in this scenario is 21.3 mgd ADF, which is less than the City’s 21.7 mgd ADF ownership capacity. If the City constructs the Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure, 4 mgd could be shifted out of MT-5 resulting in a flow of 9.2 mgd ADF, which exceeds the City’s ownership capacity of 7.4 mgd ADF. ◼ For the NWWRP and SEWRP Offline scenario, 6.2 mgd would need to be diverted from MT-2 to MT-6, so that the City would not exceed its ownership capacity in the SRO. However, the total SROG flows in this scenario is 28.3 mgd ADF, which exceeds the City’s ownership capacity of 21.7 mgd ADF. Therefore, if flows are kept to 6.4 mgd in the SRO, the resulting flows to the SAI are 21.9 mgd, which exceeds the City’s 15.3 mgd ownership capacity. The proposed Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure would reduce the flows in MT-5 from 15.7 mgd to 11.7 mgd ADF but that exceeds the City’s 7.4 mgd ownership capacity in MT-5. For future flow conditions, the following observations were made: ◼ For the NWWRP Offline or NWWRP and SEWRP Offline Scenario (with or without the SEWRP to GWRP flow consolidation) the total SROG flows range from 26.1 mgd to 31.1 mgd ADF, which exceed the City’s SROG interceptor ownership capacity of 21.7 mgd. It is possible to keep the SRO within the 6.4 mgd ADF capacity by diverting between 5.2 and 7.0 mgd at the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure from east to west. These diversions will result in exceedances by as much as 9.4 mgd ADF in the SAI. ◼ For the SEWRP Offline Scenario (without the SEWRP to GWRP flow consolidation) the total SROG flows are 23.3 mgd ADF, which exceeds the City’s SROG interceptor ownership capacity of 21.7 mgd ADF. Diverting 2.0 mgd at the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure from east to west will allow the City to stay within its ownership capacity in the SRO. The proposed Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure could reduce flows in MT-5 to 10.9 mgd ADF, but that would still exceed the City’s 7.4 mgd ADF ownership capacity in that line. ◼ For the SEWRP Offline Scenario (with the SEWRP to GWRP flow consolidation) the total SROG flows are 18.4 mgd ADF, which is within the City’s SROG interceptor ownership capacity of 21.7 mgd ADF. Diverting at least 0.2 mgd at the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion structure from east to west will allow the City to stay within its ownership capacity in the SRO. The proposed Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure could reduce flows in MT-5 to 7.8 mgd ADF, but that would still exceed the City’s 7.4 mgd ADF ownership capacity in that line.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
158
27.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
6.0 mgd (d/D 0.75)
In association with:
72
54 54 51
SRO-1 0.9 mgd (SRO-1)
54
g̀ SD01
36
McClintock Dr
SRO-2 0.9 mgd (SRO-2)
Mesa's capacity in Segment SRO-35 (located on Broadway Rd between 59th Ave and 75th Ave) is 6.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
5.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
18" and 21" Siphon
SRO-3 6.4 mgd (SRO-3)
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
0.9 mgd (M-1) 36
Rio Salado Pkwy
M-1
ME03
g̀
Legend
30
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Inset A
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
15.0 mgd ADF
Existing Mesa Sewer Main
gd m 0.0 mgd 0. 0
X.X mgd ADF = Hydraulic Capacity X.X mgd (SRO-2) = ADF Value
10.8 mgd
Abbreviations: ADF = Average Daily Flow d/D = Depth to flow to pipe diameter M = Mesa MT = Mesa-Tempe SAI = Southern Avenue Interceptor SRO = Salt River Outfall
11.0 mgd ADF 36
Southern Ave
36
l
7.4 10
mg
.8
College Ave
42
MT -5
dA
mg
d(
DF
MT -5)
0 mgd (MT-4)
M-2 has a peak hydraulic capacity of 18 mgd
ana
36
MT-1 5.5 mgd (MT-1)
g̀
0
Potential future diversion structure at College/Baseline would allow 4.0 mgd to be conveyed north to Southern. This would relieve segment MT-5.
54
Baseline Rd
±
Figure 5-15 33
33
4 mgd ADF
1,000 2,000 ft
LS27 has capacity of 4 mgd
10.8 mgd (M-2)
M-2
ME01
42
Mill Ave
MT-2 5.5 mgd (MT-2)
Inset A
SROG Metering Station Pipe Diameter Transition
48
¢ " C
rn C
Lift Station
5.5 mgd
15.0 mgd ADF
Wes te
[ Ú
g̀
Priest Dr
TP03
48
MT-6 10.8 mgd (MT-6)
Diversion Structure
10.8 mgd
Mesa's capacity in Segment SAI-34 (located on Broadway Rd between 55th Ave and 59th Ave) is 15.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
g̀ 54
¢ " C
Manhole
48
MT-3 5.5 mgd (MT-3)
5.5 mgd
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
MT-4
g̀ [ Ú
Existing ADF from Mesa to SROG - Normal Conditions
27.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
6.0 mgd (d/D 0.75)
In association with:
54 54 51
SRO-1 1.1 mgd (SRO-1)
54
SRO-2 1.1 mgd (SRO-2)
Mesa's capacity in Segment SRO-35 (located on Broadway Rd between 59th Ave and 75th Ave) is 6.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
g̀ SD01
36
5.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
18" and 21" Siphon
SRO-3 6.6 mgd (SRO-3)
McClintock Dr
72
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
1.1 mgd (M-1) 36
Rio Salado Pkwy
M-1
ME03
g̀
30
Legend SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Inset A
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
15.0 mgd ADF
Existing Mesa Sewer Main ¢ " C
Diversion Structure
[ Ú
Lift Station Manhole
g̀
48
MT-3 5.5 mgd (MT-3)
5.5 mgd
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
11.8 mgd
0
4.
SROG Metering Station Pipe Diameter Transition
gd
9.5 mgd
m
X.X mgd ADF = Hydraulic Capacity X.X mgd (SRO-2) = ADF Value
Priest Dr
7.8 mgd
Abbreviations: ADF = Average Daily Flow d/D = Depth to flow to pipe diameter M = Mesa MT = Mesa-Tempe SAI = Southern Avenue Interceptor SRO = Salt River Outfall
Mesa's capacity in Segment SAI-34 (located on Broadway Rd between 55th Ave and 59th Ave) is 15.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
36
48
Southern Ave
MT-2 9.5 mgd (MT-2)
Inset A
Wes te
M-2 has a peak hydraulic capacity of 18 mgd
rn C
ana
l
7.4 7.8
36
42
mg
MT -5
dA
mg d
(M
DF
T-5 )
4.0 mgd (MT-4)
¢ " C
College Ave
TP03
48
MT-6 11.8 mgd (MT-6)
36
MT-1 5.5 mgd (MT-1)
g̀
0
Potential future diversion structure at College/Baseline would allow 4.0 mgd to be conveyed north to Southern. This would relieve segment MT-5.
54
Baseline Rd
±
Figure 5-16 33
33
4 mgd ADF
1,000 2,000 ft
LS27 has capacity of 4 mgd
11.8 mgd (M-2)
M-2
ME01
42
Mill Ave
g̀ 54
11.0 mgd ADF
15.0 mgd ADF
MT-4
0 mgd (MT-4)
g̀ [ Ú
Buildout ADF from Mesa to SROG - Future Conditions
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.5 Wastewater Flow Routing and Major Interceptor Redundancy Evaluation The City’s collection system diversion structures allow for operational flexibility in directing flows to multiple WRPs or the SROG interceptor system. These diversion structures are generally located on major interceptors and can also be used to minimize flows in parts of the collection system, as needed. It is important for the City to understand the operational flexibility the diversion structures provide when it comes to reducing or potentially eliminating the need for bypass pumping for planned outages required to perform inspections, construct new mains/relief sewers, or rehabilitate existing mains. Twenty major interceptors were identified through collaborative discussions with the City for a redundancy analysis. The primary criteria applied to select these locations were interceptors with average daily flows greater than 1.0 mgd that were in parts of the collection system where diversion of flows was possible. Figure 5-17 shows the major interceptors selected and the upstream and downstream extent of each interceptor reach that was included in this analysis. The hydraulic model was applied to adjust the City’s existing diversion structures to direct flow away from the interceptors. The estimated peak flows before and after the diversion structure changes were recorded to determine how much flow could potentially be diverted away from an interceptor. Each interceptor was evaluated independently, and any adverse downstream impacts, such as d/D values that exceed 0.9, were noted. Table 5-10 presents the results of the major interceptor redundancy evaluation. This table shows the following information: ◼ Extent of the interceptor: the location of the interceptor including beginning and endpoints for the analysis. ◼ Normal Diversion Settings: flow routing controls as they are currently set for typical operations. ◼ Estimated 2024 Flows with Normal Diversion Settings: These are the range of flows within the extent of each interceptor under existing operating conditions, which correlates to the diversion structure operations listed previously in Table 5-2. ◼ Adjusted Diversion Settings: flow routing controls used to shift flows out of the interceptor. In some cases, the adjusted settings resulted in more flow going to the interceptor because the flows to these interceptors are already minimized. Regardless, this provides the City with an understanding of how much flow is currently being diverted away from these interceptors. ◼ Estimated 2024 Remaining Flow with Adjusted Diversion Settings: These are the range of flows within each extent of pipe after the diversion structures were adjusted to direct flow away from the interceptors. For certain locations, the adjusted flows increase because the diversion structures in those areas are already directing flow away from the interceptor with the Normal Diversion Settings. ◼ Deficiency Caused: This column indicates whether diverting flows away from these interceptors causes any deficiencies in other pipelines close to these areas. Three locations resulted in deficiencies (Baseline Road, Greenfield Road, and Lindsay Road). The maximum hydraulic grade line graphs for these locations are shown in Appendix G. The CMI, EMI, as well as the Southern Ave., Horne Ave., Baseline Rd., Greenfield Road, and RWCD interceptors were identified as having potential to divert significant flow volumes by adjusting the existing diversion structures. The Baseline Road Interceptor (northern line), Brown Road Interceptor (diverting flow away from Greenfield Road), and Lindsay Interceptor have the potential to surcharge if all potential flows are diverted to them. It is recommended that temporary flow metering be used in conjunction with the hydraulic model if there is a need to take an interceptor out of service temporarily for inspection / rehabilitation so that the flows in the hydraulic model can be validated with the metered flows near the timing of when the interceptor would need to be taken offline. This additional flow monitoring would also help confirm how much bypass pumping would be needed during inspection/rehabilitation activities.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
161
Table 5-10
Major Interceptor Redundancy Evaluation Results
Interceptor
CMI
Southern Horne
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Extent
Normal Diversion Settings
Estimated 2024 Flow Range in Interceptor with Normal Diversion Settings (mgd)
Adjusted Diversion Setting(s)
Estimated 2024 Remaining Flow Range in Interceptor with Adjusted Diversion Settings (mgd)
Deficiency Caused Elsewhere by Diversion of Flow out of Interceptor?
University Dr from Gilbert Rd to Mesa Dr, Mesa Dr from University Dr to Main St, Main St from Mesa Dr to Country Club Dr, Broadway Rd from Country Club Dr to Dobson Rd, and Dobson Rd from Broadway Rd to NWWRP.
DS20 sends flow south DS21 sends flow west DS25 sends flow west
3.68 to 6.15
DS20 sends flow south DS21 sends flow south DS25 sends flow south
0 to 1.70
No
DS39 splits flow hydraulically DS25 sends flow west
3.21 to 5.41
DS39 sends flow south DS25 sends flow west
0 to 1.39
No
DS39 splits flow hydraulically
3.94 to 4.06
DS39 sends flow west
0.70 to 0.82
No
DS16 sends flow west DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north
4.68 to 11.2
Yes
0 to 4.46
No
0.79 to 0.83
No
5.49 to 8.11
No
Southern Ave from Horne Ave to Dobson Rd Horne Ave from Southern Ave to Baseline Rd
Baseline Rd from Greenfield Rd to Alma School Rd
Baseline Rd from Greenfield Rd to Alma School Rd
DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north
0 to 7.09
5.43 to 5.50
DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow south DS36 sends flow west DS16 sends flow west DS19 sends flow west (north line) DS36 sends flow north DS16 sends flow south DS19 sends flow south DS36 sends flow west
Gilbert
Gilbert Rd from University Dr to Southern Ave
DS35 sends flow west
0 to 0.96
DS35 sends flow south
2.05 to 3.00 (2)
No
Greenfield
Greenfield Rd from Brown Rd to Baseline Rd
DS37 sends flow south
2.71 to 4.58
DS37 sends flow west
0 to 1.89
Yes
RWCD Canal
East of RWCD Canal from Broadway Rd to Baseline Rd
DS57 sends flow west DS6 sends flow south DS9 sends flow south
1.93 to 1.99
DS57 sends flow south DS6 sends flow west DS9 sends flow west
0 to 0.06
No
Power
Power Rd from Broadway Rd to Baseline Rd
DS57 sends flow west
0 to 0.25
DS57 sends flow south
1.14 to 1.38
Lindsay
Lindsay Rd from Broadway Rd to Baseline Rd
DS22 sends flow south
1.13 to 1.68
DS22 sends flow west
0 to 0.56
Yes
no diversions in this area
0.78 to 0.96
no diversions in this area
--
--
no diversions in this area
0.72 to 1.33
no diversions in this area
--
--
DS28 sends flow south DS43 sends flow south
3.26 to 6.94
DS28 sends flow west DS43 sends flow west
0 to 2.56
No
DS52 sends flow west
0.28 to 0.36
DS52 sends flow south
0.36 to 0.44
No
DS52 sends flow west
0.38 to 0.42
DS52 sends flow south
0.46 to 0.50
No
DS52 sends flow west
0.22 to 2.19
DS52 sends flow south
0 to 2.11
No
DS43 sends flow south
0 to 1.21
DS43 sends flow west
1.08 to 2.28 (2)
No
No
McDowell
Northwest Interceptor
EMI
Pecos (Reach 1) Pecos (Reach 2) Ray
Guadalupe
McDowell Rd from Recker Rd to Greenfield Rd McLellan from Country Club Dr to Alma School, Alma School from McLellan to Brown Rd, Brown Rd from Alma School to the NWWRP Ellsworth Rd from Baseline Rd to Elliot Rd, Elliot Rd from Ellsworth Rd to the RWCD Canal, east of RWCD Canal from Elliot Rd to Germann Rd, continuing west on Germann Rd to the GWRP Pecos Rd from Mountain Rd to Ellsworth Rd Pecos Rd from Ellsworth Rd to Power Rd Ray Rd from Signal Butte Rd to Ellsworth Rd Guadalupe Rd from Sossaman Rd to Power Rd, Sossaman Rd from Guadalupe to Olney Ave, Olney Ave from Sossaman Rd to Ellsworth Rd
South Power Rd (east line)
Power Rd from Guadalupe to Baseline, continuing west to the SEWRP
DS41 sends flow to east line (north gate open)
1.22 to 1.53
DS41 sends flow to west line (west gate open)
0 to 0.31
South Power Rd (west line)
Power Rd from Guadalupe to Baseline, continuing west to the SEWRP
DS41 sends flow to east line (north gate open)
0 to 0.03
DS41 sends flow to west line (west gate open)
1.22 to 1.25
Ellsworth
Ellsworth Rd from north of University Dr to Baseline Rd
no diversions in this area
1.22 to 2.86
no diversions in this area
--
(2)
(2)
Notes on Deficiency
Deficiencies from Gilbert Road to Alma School Rd. Surcharging to the top of the (1) pipe, but not into the manhole.
Deficiencies west on Brown Road; (1) surcharging nearing the manhole rims.
No
No --
Abbreviations: CMI = Central Mesa Interceptor EMI = East Mesa Interceptor RWCD = Roosevelt Water Conservation District GWRP = Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant SEWRP = Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (1) Improvements for these deficiencies are not provided in the IMP. The City will determine if/when there is a need for an improvement in these locations. (2) Current diversion setting already minimizes the flows in this interceptor. The adjusted flows range shows how much flow would be in the interceptor if the diversion operations were changed to "Adjusted Diversion Settings" indicated for this interceptor.
Deficiencies west on Broadway Road; surcharging nearing the manhole rims. (1)
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
" J
LS15
" J 101
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
" J
" J
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202
Legend
McDowell
LS5
DS51
DS37
WRP DS3
Central Mesa Interceptor DS35
60
" J
Baseline Interceptor DS36
LS6
" J
DS19
DS45
DS16
Ellsworth
Power
Greenfield
Lindsey
Gilbert
DS39
DS57
DS6
CD RW
Horne
DS21 DS25
Southern Ave Interceptor
LS27
DS9
DS22
" J
Interceptors
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
" J
Brown Rd 1200 N
Gravity Main by Diameter
Southern Ave 1200 S
WRP
Inactive
Water Reclamation Plant
10"-15" 15"-24" Greater than 24" Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Other Features Boundary
DS28
DS8
Existing/Active
8" and Less
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Canals Salt River Streets
DS41 DS42
LS1
" J " J
60
DS1 WRP
DS40
McKellips Rd 2000 N
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS53
DS20
LS2
Diversions
Lift Stations
NW Interceptor
DS14 DS2
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
Guadalupe
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
Highways Railroads Airport
LS17
" J
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
Warner Rd 4400 S
LS14
202
Ray
DS52
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
±
24
LS13
" J
202
East Mesa Interceptor GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Pecos (Reach 1) Pecos (Reach 2)
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-17 Major Interceptor Redundancy Locations
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.4.6 Septic System Connections The City has approximately 23 areas that are served by septic systems. It is possible that these areas could connect to the City’s collection system in the future. Sewer flows were estimated for each of these areas and conceptual pipeline layouts were also developed. Table 5-11 shows the estimated flows that are anticipated to be generated by each area served by septic systems. As shown in Table 5-11, total average annual daily flow from these areas is 1.52 mgd, which accounts for a very small percentage of the City’s overall wastewater flows. Table 5-11
Estimated Septic System Area Wastewater Flows Septic System Area Name
Estimated Wastewater Flows (mgd) (1)
Area B
0.217
Area C
0.427
Area D
0.13
Area E
0.083
Area F
0.046
Area G
0.11
Area H
0.033
Area I
0.058
Area J
0.041
Area K
0.02
Area L
0.012
Area M
0.029
Area N
0.085
Area O
0.155
Area P
0.024
Area Q
0.001
Area R
0.013
Area S
0.004
Area T
0.004
Area U
0.005
Area V
0.003
Area W
0.004
Area Y
0.016
Total
1.52
Note: (1) Wastewater flows were calculated using the projected water demands multiplied by the return to sewer ratio (included in Chapter 2 – Planning Framework) for whichever flow meter basin each septic area was in.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
164
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The estimated flows for each septic system area were added into the model and the system was evaluated for any potential impacts or deficiencies in collection system capacity. The locations of the septic system areas and conceptual pipeline layouts are shown on Figure 5-18. The additional flow from the septic areas does not cause any additional collection system capacity deficiencies.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
165
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
Area M
LS16 Area O
" J
LS15
" J
Area N
LS4
" J
" J
Area Q
McDowell Rd 2800 N
Area H
Area B Area I
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
202
WRP
Area D Area P LS2 Area R
Area F Area S Area T
Area C
Area U
Area V
60
Area Y
Area W
Area A
" J LS6
" J
Lift Station/Pump Station
" J Existing/Active " J Inactive WRP
8" and Less 10"-15" 15"-24" Greater than 24"
Southern Ave 1200 S
Force Main
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
" J
LS17
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Other Features Parcels Airport
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
LS14
Water Reclamation Plant
Gravity Main by Diameter
/
SOUTHEAST Area E WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
LS1
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
60
WRP
LS27
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
Area G
" J
Septic Pipelines Septic Areas
Area L Area J
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend
Area K
LS5
101
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Boundary
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
24
LS13
Pecos Rd 6800 S
" J
202
Area X GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Germann Rd 7600 S
Figure 5-18 Septic System Connections
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.5
Wastewater Flow Routing and Facility Optimization
A water quantity mass balance tool that provides a multi-criteria approach to alternatives analysis was applied to the City’s wastewater collection system to evaluate flow routing options and identify favorable reclaimed water resource management opportunities. The purpose of applying this tool in the IMP is to guide the City’s decision-making process in determining WRP capacity expansion requirements and identifying the “highest and best” use of reclaimed water for the City. The analysis developed for the IMP includes capital, operations, and maintenance (O&M) costs for infrastructure alternatives, as well as non-cost factors that were developed under the following guiding principles: ◼ Reclaimed water is a valuable part of the City’s water resources portfolio that reduces the City’s reliance on pumping groundwater. ◼ Meeting the City’s GRIC reclaimed water/raw CAP water exchange commitment is a high priority for the City because the exchanged CAP water provides a physical water supply that can be directly delivered to any of the City’s water treatment plants. ◼ Leveraging available capacity and operational flexibility in the City’s existing collection system and treatment capacity is preferred, when possible, to take advantage of the investment the City has already made in existing infrastructure. Appendix H contains the details of the wastewater flow routing analysis including development of the planning criteria, initial scenario definitions and screening, and the wastewater flow routing optimization analysis. Key conclusions and outcomes of this task include: ◼ Consolidating flows from the SEWRP at the GWRP by decommissioning the SEWRP and constructing a conveyance is advantageous for the City for cost, operations, maintenance, and risk considerations. In addition to saving capital costs required to maintain the SEWRP, it will also allow the City to utilize the capacity and investments more fully it has made at the GWRP. ◼ In order for the City to only send flows to SROG that meet the City’s commitment, it will be necessary to construct a second pumpback to convey to a City WRP. While previous wastewater master planning efforts evaluated a pumpback on Baseline Road to the SEWRP as a means to optimize flows to SROG, the current IMP evaluated a pumpback to the NWWRP (within its current capacity) that would allow the City to treat the flow and deliver reclaimed water to the GRIC through the CMRP. This has a direct impact on the City’s raw CAP supply because it increases the volume of reclaimed water delivered to the GRIC under the CAP water exchange agreement. These pumpback alternatives may be revisited in future master plans as water resources become scarcer. There are several alignment and design considerations that will need to be evaluated and confirmed outside of this IMP that may impact the location and number of lift stations ultimately needed to optimize flow management between localized wastewater treatment and flow discharged to SROG. To preserve flexibility as the City continues to explore the feasibility to consolidate treatment at GWRP and NWWRP, the following alternative lift station and or gravity flow diversion structure locations were identified as potential alternative locations to divert flow from the collection system to optimize flow management at the consolidated WRP facilities.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
167
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Alternative Lift Station Locations: ◼
Baseline Road and Price Road
◼
Southern Avenue and Extension Road
Alternative gravity diversions may be located at: ◼
Sossaman Road and Baseline Road
◼
Greenfield Road and Broadway Road
◼
Greenfield Road and University Drive
It should be noted that not all of these alternatives result in the same ultimate flow being delivered to the consolidated WRPs and many require multiple improvements to achieve the ultimate flow desired. Additionally, these alternatives may route additional flows to the NWWRP beyond what is currently projected at buildout (currently planned for 12 mgd). If the City decides to expand treatment at NWWRP, the alternative lift station / gravity diversion locations will enable the City to divert flow to NWWRP. For the conceptual alternatives, the hydraulic model was used to estimate the average annual daily flow that is expected at each potential lift station and gravity diversion location. Table 5-12 summarizes these alternatives, the infrastructure (lift station and/or flow diversion) included in each, and the buildout, average annual daily flow estimates anticipated at each lift station/flow diversion point. This information provides general guidance to the City in taking steps to further evaluate these alternatives in the future. If the City’s assessment of expanding the NWWRP is selected, it is recommended the City further evaluate these flow management alternatives in greater detail. Further analysis of these alternatives will require: ◼
Identifying appropriate locations and available property for lift stations and/or gravity flow diversions.
◼
Completing corridor and pipeline alignment studies to identify utility conflicts and confirm connections with existing infrastructure.
◼
Completing hydraulic modeling analyses to confirm flows in the collection system can be routed as desired while meeting the City’s collection system performance criteria.
◼
Evaluating reclaimed water pumping requirements from the NWWRP to the GWRP to confirm existing infrastructure capacity and identify any needed improvements.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
168
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table 5-12
Alternative Wastewater Flow Routing Lift Station / Diversion Locations
Alternative No.
Description
NWWRP Lift Station Location
SEWRP Lift Station Location
Gravity Diversion Location
1
One Lift Station: Lift Station at Baseline, near western City boundary, to pump north to the CMI (or further, if required) and to NWWRP
Baseline Rd/Price (17.5 mgd)
NA
NA
2
Two Lift Stations: Lift Station at Southern Ave & Dobson to pump north to CMI; Lift Station at SEWRP to pump back to the GWRP (IMP Option No. 7)
Southern/Extension (4.4 mgd)
SEWRP (5.4 mgd)
Sossaman/Baseline (1.2 mgd)
3
One Lift Station: Lift Station at Southern Ave & Dobson to pump north to CMI; Gravity Diversion at Greenfield/University from SROG Basin to NWWRP
Southern/Extension (4.4 mgd)
NA
Greenfield/University (4.0 mgd)
4
One Lift Station: Lift Station at Southern Ave & Dobson to pump north to CMI; Gravity Diversion at Greenfield/Broadway from BRI Basin to SAI
Southern/Extension (4.4 mgd)
NA
Greenfield/Broadway (4.6 mgd)
5
No Lift Station. Gravity Diversion at Greenfield/University from SROG Basin to NWWRP
NA
NA
Greenfield/University (4.0 mgd)
6
One Lift Station: Lift Station at Southern Ave & Dobson to pump north to CMI Gravity Diversion from SEWRP Basin to GWRP
Southern/Extension (4.4 mgd)
NA
Sossaman/Baseline (1.2 mgd)
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
169
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
5.6
Proposed Improvements
Following the capacity evaluations, candidate capital improvement projects were identified to restore the identified capacity deficiencies. Candidate capital improvement projects are sized to accommodate maximum month dry weather flow. A total of 25 gravity main improvements and two lift station improvements are recommended to mitigate capacity deficiencies and expand the system for future growth. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 5-19 and described below. The gravity main improvements are organized by priority, and both lift station improvements are long term, build out improvements. Projects needed to address the current capacity deficiencies include WW01 through WW04, as described below. 1.
WW01 – McKellips Road and Gilbert Road: The modeling analysis confirmed that a 15-inch diameter sewer main from the intersection of McKellips Road and Gilbert Road, west on McKellips Road to Stapley Drive, and south on Stapley Drive to discharge into the intersection of Stapley Drive and Brown Road is required to address capacity deficiencies. This project was previously identified by the City and is currently being designed. It is recommended that the City continue the design of and construct this sewer. (approximately 2.0 miles)
2.
WW02 – Lindsay Road: It is recommended that the existing 15-inch diameter sewer main along Lindsay Road between Broadway Road and Meadowgreen Park be paralleled with a 10-inch diameter pipeline to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. If paralleling the existing line is not feasible, the existing 15-inch diameter sewer main would need to be upsized to an 18inch diameter main. (approximately 0.49 miles)
3.
WW03 – Main Street: It is recommended that the existing 10-inch diameter sewer main along Main Street between Power Road and Sunvalley Boulevard be upsized to a 12-inch diameter to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. It is recommended that additional investigation of this location, specifically verifying manhole inverts, be completed prior to implementation. (approximately 0.48 miles)
4.
WW04 – Sonoran Hills: It is recommended that the existing 8-inch diameter sewer main west of Sonoran Hills between Upper Trail Circle and Eagle Crest Drive be upsized to a 12-inch diameter to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. (approximately 0.23 miles)
Projects that are anticipated to be installed by developers were identified in order to route flows to future growth areas. Projects WW05 through WW25 are anticipated to be installed by developers, not the City. 1.
WW05 – Sossaman Road and Elliot Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Sossaman Road north of Elliot Road to Prairie Avenue is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.35 miles)
2.
WW06 – 80th Street and Elliot Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along 80th Street north of Elliot Road to Paloma Avenue is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.50 miles)
3.
WW07 – Hawes Road near Elliot Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Hawes Road near Elliot Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.75 miles)
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
170
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
4.
WW08 – Warner Road: An 18-inch diameter sewer main along Warner Road between the Roosevelt Water Conservation District Canal and Loop 202 is recommended to provide service to future development. (approximately 1.90 miles)
5.
WW09 – Sossaman Road and Warner Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Sossaman Road north and south of Warner Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.61 miles)
6.
WW10 – 80th Street and Warner Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along 80th Street north of Warner Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.44 miles)
7.
WW11 – Hawes Road and Warner Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Hawes Road north of Warner Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.47 miles)
8.
WW12 – Hawes Road and Ray Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Hawes Road north of Ray Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.41 miles)
9.
WW13 – Williams Gateway: An 18-inch diameter sewer main along Williams Gateway is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.87 miles)
10.
WW14 –Warner Road west of Ellsworth: An 18-inch diameter sewer main along Warner Road between the Ellsworth Road and just west of Loop 202 is recommended to provide service to future developments. There is an existing 18-inch diameter pipeline freeway crossing under Loop 202 that this project would tie in to. (approximately 0.51 miles)
11.
WW15 – Old Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Old Pecos Road between the Power Road and Ellsworth Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 2.47 miles)
12.
WW16 – Sossaman Road and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Sossaman Road north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.32 miles)
13.
WW17 – Ellsworth Road and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Ellsworth Road north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.31 miles)
14.
WW18 – Crimson Road and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Crimson Road north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.52 miles)
15.
WW19 – 22nd Street and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along 22nd Street north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.45 miles)
16.
WW20 – Signal Butte Road and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Signal Butte Road north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.45 miles)
17.
WW21 – Mountain Road and Pecos Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main west of Mountain Road north of Pecos Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.32 miles)
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
171
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
18.
WW22 – 22nd Street and Williams Field Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along 22nd Street south of Williams Field Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.19 miles)
19.
WW23 – Williams Field Road and Mountain Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Williams Field Road east of Mountain Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.46 miles)
20.
WW24 – Galveston Street and Mountain Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Galveston Street east of Mountain Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.45 miles)
21.
WW25 – Ivanhoe Street and Mountain Road: An 8-inch diameter sewer main along Ivanhoe Street east of Mountain Road is recommended to provide service to future developments. (approximately 0.44 miles)
22.
LS1- Desert Place Lift Station: Upgrade the existing Desert Place lift station to a firm capacity of 425 gpm.
23.
LS2- Northwest Loop 202 Lift Station: Based on the IMP flow assumptions, it is recommended that a 140-gpm firm capacity lift station be constructed in the area northwest of the Lehi Crossing Lift Station (on the west side of the Loop 202) in order to serve future users. The estimated flows for this area are approximately 35 gpm and a peaking factor of 4 was assumed. These values should be re-evaluated when more specific information is known regarding the proposed development(s). This proposed lift station will send flow to the 10-inch diameter gravity sewer main in Preston Street, on the east side of the Loop 202, which will convey flows by gravity to the Lehi Crossing lift station. The sewer main in Preston Street has sufficient capacity to accommodate these flows. It is recommended that when this area begins to develop, the capacity of the Lehi Crossing lift station be reevaluated and confirmed using the actual design criteria for the Northwest Loop 202 Lift Station.
In addition to the improvements identified by the hydraulic analysis, there are five existing improvements that the City has planned. Those improvements were incorporated and are described below. 1.
McKellips Relief Sewer: This project is described in project WW-01.
2.
WW27 – Thomas Road Improvements: This project includes the addition of the 12-inch diameter sewer main along 56th street between Thomas Road and Longbow Parkway that travels south and ties into the existing sewer main in Longbow Golf Course. Additionally, the pipeline that goes through the Longbow Golf Course will be upsized to an 18-inch diameter. This project was identified in the 2018 Master Plan to serve growth in this area.
3.
WW28 – Tyler Ranch Lift Station: This project includes the development of a single-family residential housing development which is located south of The Salt River Indian Reservation, between Val Vista Drive and the East 202 Red Mountain Freeway. It will include the construction of a lift station consisting of two 350 gpm pumps and 6-inch diameter associated force main that ties into the existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer on Thomas Road.
4.
WW29 – Pecos Road Improvements: This project includes a parallel line along Pecos Road from Ellsworth Road to Power Road. The recommended sizing of this line was evaluated under varying diameters and it is is recommended that the City construct the parallel line in a combination of 18-inch, 21-inch, and 27-inch diameter pipelines. The City could confirm the recommended Additionally, a new 24-inch diameter sewer main will be installed east of Power Road, through the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus. The purpose of this line will be to convey flow
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
172
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
south by gravity and bypass the Williams Gateway lift station (LS13). As part of this project, the Williams Gateway lift station will be decommissioned. Also included in this project is a 36-inch diameter pipeline along Pecos Road from Power Road to the Roosevelt Canal/EMI that will carry flows from the new parallel sewer from the east and the new 24-inch sewer from the north to the EMI. A model sensitivity analysis was performed that confirmed the current sizing of this project. 5.
WW30 – Higley Lift Station: This project includes the construction of a lift station that consists of two 360 gpm pumps and an associated 6-inch diameter force main, as well as 8-inch diameter gravity collection system near Thomas Road and Higley Road to serve this area. The force main will discharge into the new Thomas Road sewer improvements described above.
6.
WW31 - Greenfield Phase 4 Expansion: This project is anticipated to expand the capacity of the GWRP between 6 and 16 mgd. At the time this report was being finalize, the City was leaning toward no expansion (0 mgd) in the City’s ownership capacity during Phase IV, primarily because of the excess capacity the City currently owns at the GWRP.
Two other projects were identified in the wastewater master planning evaluations, including: 1.
WW32 - SEWRP Pumpback: This project will consolidate flows from the SEWRP and the GWRP at the GWRP. It will require a lift station, sited at the SEWRP that will accommodate the estimated buildout average daily flow of 5.7 mgd (11.4 mgd peak), assuming that the diversion structures east of the SEWRP (DS28 and DS43) are adjusted to convey flow south to the GWRP. The SEWRP Pumpback would discharge to a 24-inch diameter force main that would connect at the EMI, south of Elliot Road on the east side of the RWCD canal. It is recommended that the City evaluate conveyance options, which might include diverting partial flow by gravity, during preliminary design. a.
NWWRP Pumpback: It is recommended that in future master plans the City evaluate the need to construct a second pumpback to pump additional flows to NWWRP allow the City to continually maximize deliveries to SROG. The City may also consider the potential to eliminate SEWRP pumpback by diverting more flow to a NWWRP via a NWWRP pumpback station while sending part of the flow that currently conveyed to SEWRP to the gravity to GWRP using a future diversion structure and the EMI to convey flow to GWRP.
2. WW33 - Baseline Road Interceptor Diversion: This project is needed to redirect the City’s flows from the Mesa-Tempe jointly owned Western Canal Interceptor to keep average daily flows within the City’s ownership capacity. The City evaluated the feasibility of installing a new diversion structure near Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd that would divert up to 4 mgd from the Baseline Road Interceptor to the Southern Avenue Interceptor. This project would redirect flows to Southern Avenue/Mill Ave that would otherwise be conveyed to the Mesa-Tempe jointly owned Western Canal Interceptor and eventually to the SAI. From Southern Ave/Mill Ave flows would be diverted at the Priest Dr/Southern Ave diversion either north to the SRO or west to the SAI. This evaluation showed that a Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion was infeasible. It is recommended that the City pursue recommissioning LS27 to convey flows out of the Baseline Road Interceptor, which would accomplish the same flow routing to the Southern Avenue Interceptor that the Lakeshore Dr/Baseline Rd diversion structure would have provided. Up to 4 mgd could be conveyed from LS27 to the jointly owned Mesa-Tempe interceptor in Baseline Road west of Price Road. From here, flows would be routed up College Ave and Mill Ave to the Southern Avenue Interceptor.
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
173
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater System Master Plan
174
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202
WW-01
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
" J
W
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
LS2
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
WW-02
" J
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
" J
Pipeline Improvements
Development Related Improvements Planned Improvements Lift Station/Pump Station
" J Existing/Active " J Inactive
Water Reclamation Plant
WRP
Gravity Main by Diameter 8" and Less 10"-15" 15"-24"
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J 202
WW-08
WW-11 WW-07
LS14
WW-14
WW-25 WW-24 WW-19 WW-22 WW-20
WW-18
WW-15
WW-17
WW-16
W
LS13
WW-23
WW-21
W - 29
-13
" J
Elliot Rd 3600 S
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Warner Rd 4400 S
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
WRP
Parcels
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Airport Boundary
0
5,000
10,000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
WW-29
Germann Rd 7600 S
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
Other Features
WW
202
Greater than 24" Force Main
WW-12
" J
WW-10 WW-06
LS17
WW-05
" J
WW-09
" J
" J Capacity Improvements Related " J Development Improvement " J Planned Improvements
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
LS6
Lift Station/Pump Station Improvements
Capacity Improvements
WW-03
LS27
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
" J
WW-26
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
WW-04
"J J "
LS4
LS5
" J
LS11
W
LS15
101
" J Higley LS LS9 "WW-3J J " 0 -27
" J
WW -28
" J " J
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Northwest Loop 202 LS
Tyler Ranch LS
LS8
In association with:
±
Figure 5-19 Proposed Capacity Improvements
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
6.0 Reclaimed Water System 6.1
Introduction
The reclaimed water master plan element of the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) describes the City of Mesa (City’s) existing reclaimed water infrastructure including recharge facilities, reclaimed water management, and reclaimed water transmission system infrastructure to end users. The City’s reclaimed water management strategy is described, and recommendations are provided to enable the City to achieve their long-term reclaimed water use objectives.
6.2
Reclaimed Water Management
The City’s current reclaimed water management strategy includes non-potable reuse and reclaimed water recharge of the reclaimed water generated at the City’s three Water Reclamation Plants (WRP). The City has developed policies that guide the development of the Water Resources Plan: ◼ Continue to develop and use reclaimed water as an integral part of the City’s water resource portfolio, including the development and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. ◼ Maximize efficient development and use of reclaimed water, considering water quality, public acceptance, and cost. However, prioritize delivery of reclaimed water to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) in order to meet the City’s commitment of up to 29,400 AC-FT/YR of reclaimed water. ◼ During times when GRIC cannot take delivery due to seasonal fluctuation in demand, system maintenance, or other unforeseen events, supplies will be recharged as a key component of the City’s Water Resource Plan and its designation of Assured Water Supply (AWS) from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). The City receives one acre-foot (AF) of reclaimed water long-term storage credit for each AF of reclaimed water the City recharges at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP). The City intends to make maximum utilization of its reclaimed water supplies to meet its long-term storage credit (LTSC) account needs to offset non-renewable groundwater pumping during normal demand conditions and drought conditions.
6.3
Existing Reclaimed Water Exchange Agreements
The City has agreements with several entities for reclaimed water deliveries.
6.3.1 Sub-Regional Operating Group As a member of the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG), the City has an agreement that obligates them to send a portion of the City’s wastewater that is treated at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant for cooling water. The SROG commitment also includes deliveries to the Tres Rios wetlands project and the Buckeye Irrigation and Drainage District (BIDD). The 91st Ave WWTP is not connected to the City’s reclaimed system; flow is delivered via diversion structures set in the collection system set to meet the City’s maximum month SROG commitment. This delivery of water does not add to the City’s water resources portfolio. Consequently, the City intends to optimize their seasonal deliveries to SROG to retain additional wastewater for discharge locations that will contribute to their LTSC account.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
176
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
6.3.2 Gila River Indian Community The City has an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to exchange effluent water for a portion of the GRIC’s CAP water. The agreement states that the City can deliver up to 29.4 mgd in exchange for up to 24 mgd of raw CAP water, an exchange rate of 4 AF for every 5 AF of reclaimed water delivered to the GRIC. The reclaimed water is used for agricultural irrigation.
6.3.3 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community The City entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SPRMIC) in 1998 to transport and treat up to 6 mgd of SRPMIC wastewater at the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP). This agreement was renegotiated in August 2013 and updated to state the City has to reserve a capacity of 4 mgd at the NWWRP for the treatment of SRPMIC wastewater. This IGA has a term of 20 years.
6.4
Existing Reclaimed System Descriptions
The City’s reclaimed system manages the reclaimed water from three water reclamation plants: the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, the Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP), and the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP). The reclaimed system consists of approximately 28.5 miles of transmission mains that deliver reclaimed water from the three WRP to either the GRUSP from NWWRP or to the GRIC from the GWRP and SEWRP. Figure 6-1 provides an overview of the existing reclaimed system and indicates the proposed facilities currently under design to expand the CMRP system. Completion of the CMRP system plays a critical role in the City’s water resource portfolio and is anticipated to be on-line in 2025. The CMRP system will include a 10.5 mile 36-inch concrete cylinder pipeline that will connect the reclaimed system starting at the NWWRP to the GWRP. In addition to the 36-inch pipe the CRMP system will include an intermediate pump station to convey the NWWRP flows over the high points of the CMRP, and the installation of additional pumps at the SEWRP pumping station. The CMRP system increases the reclaimed water that can be sent to the GRIC and helps the City maximize their GRIC commitment.
6.4.1 Existing Reclaimed Production by Water Reclamation Plant The City’s three existing WRPs treat and produce 17.6 mgd of reclaimed water annually, with up to 15.8 mgd of raw wastewater being diverted to the SROG interceptors. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the reclaimed flow by basin, accounting for a 10% treatment loss of the wastewater through each of the City’s WRPs. Table 6-1
Reclaimed Flows by Water Reclamation Plant Basin
Basin
Existing Wastewater (mgd)
Loss Through WRP (%)
Existing Reclaimed (mgd)
NWWRP
9.0
10%
8.1
SEWRP
4.6
4.2
GWRP
5.9
5.3
SROG
15.8
Total
35.6
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
n/a
0.0 17.6
177
" 5
Ellsworth Rd
Hawes Rd
Sossaman Rd
Power Rd
Recker Rd
Higley Rd
Greenfield Rd
Val Vista Dr
Lindsay Rd
Gilbert Rd
Stapley Dr
Mesa Dr
Country Club Dr
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
GRUSP
Thomas Rd
McDowell Rd
36"
101
McKellips Rd
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Brown Rd
WRP
University Dr
36"
Main St Broadway Rd
Southern Ave SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Baseline Rd
SEWRP EMF
Guadalupe Rd
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
42" 202 Ray Rd
Williams Field Rd
Pecos Rd
Germann Rd
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Queek Creek Rd
72" GWRP EMF
Ocotillo Rd
54"
Chandler Heights Rd
Riggs Rd San Tan Blvd
GRIC Turnout
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Drainage Area
Existing Water Reclamation Plant
" 5
SEWRP
Other Features
SEWRP / GWRP SROG
Existing Pipe Diameter Less than 8" 12" - 16" 18" - 24" In association with:
WRP
NWWRP /SROG
GWRP
Greater than 24" Proposed Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline
Proposed Intermediate Pump Station
Figure 6-1
Highways
City of Mesa Reuse System, Proposed and Existing
Arterial Streets Canal Railroads Light Rail Track Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The reclaimed water produced at the WRPs is either conveyed to the GRUSP or GRIC for recharge / reuse. Table 6-2 provides a summary of the primary (preferred location) and secondary (if primary location is not available) reclaimed delivery locations for each WRP. Table 6-2
Primary and Secondary Reclaimed Water Delivery Location
WRP
Primary Location
Secondary Location
Northwest WRP1
GRUSP
NWWRP basins or Salt River
Southeast WRP
GRIC
East Maricopa Floodway (EMF) at Guadalupe Road, EMF at Queen Creek Road
Greenfield WRP
GRIC
EMF at Queen Creek Road
Note: (1) Upon completion of the CRMP project the Primary Location for the NWWRP will be GRIC with the Secondary Location modified to the GRUSP.
Table 6-3 summarizes the existing reclaimed pump characteristics. Table 6-3
Effluent Pump Station Capacity
Number of Pumps
Pump Capacity (mgd)
TDH (feet)
Firm Reclaimed Water Pumping Capacity (mgd)
NWWRP
3
7.9
384
15.8
SEWRP
4
8.1
33
24.3
GWRP
2 small pumps
8.6
105
96.5
2 medium pumps
13.7
105
4 large pumps
17.3
105
Effluent Pump Station
6.4.2 Northwest Water Reclamation Plant Currently, the NWWRP produces an annual average of 8.1 mgd of reclaimed water. The current strategies for managing the reclaimed water from the NWWRP include aquifer recharge at the GRUSP, recharge at the NWWRP basins, and discharging at the Salt River. The completion of the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP) will add the option for the City to send its reclaimed water to the GRIC in exchange for the GRIC’s CAP water. Currently, the City’s primary strategy for the NWWRP reclaimed water is to discharge to the GRUSP recharge facility, where the City owns 25% of the recharge capacity. This is no longer the City’s preferred reclaimed delivery location option as it is not always available and has been closed occasionally due to high groundwater elevations resulting from discharges from the SRP reservoir system. If the City needs to discharge, the City can discharge either to the NWWRP basins or the Salt River under the facility’s Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES/NPDES) permit. These discharge locations are not favorable because the City does not obtain long-term storage credits for discharges to the river or the NWWRP basins. The NWWRP effluent pumping station is currently designed to deliver flows to the GRUSP outlet. It includes three identical pumps (2 duty + 1 standby), each rated for 5,450 gpm (7.9 mgd) at 348 ft TDH.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
179
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The existing NWWRP reclaimed water pipeline is a 36-inch diameter concrete cylinder pipe (CCP), from the NWWRP effluent pumping station to the tee to the GRUSP. The branch to the GRUSP outlet is a 36inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) which includes a short section of reduced diameter (24-inch) for the crossing under the Loop 202 Freeway. The NWWRP pipeline continues beyond the tee as a 36-inch diameter DIP and terminates just south of the SRP canal, at the intersection of N. Val Vista Dr. & E. Quenton Dr., where it will connect to the proposed 36-inch CMRP. Figure 6-2 presents a schematic of the existing NWWRP effluent pumping station and piping to the GRUSP outlet. The GRUSP outlet is a free discharge outlet into the Salt River through a passive weir structure. The GRUSP outlet weir is at elevation 1288.2 ft.
Figure 6-2
Existing NWWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic
6.4.3 Southeast Water Reclamation Plant The SEWRP produces an annual average flow of 4.2 mgd of reclaimed water. The current strategy for managing the reclaimed water from the SEWRP is conveying it to the GWRP through a 42-inch diameter reclaimed water force main to be sent to the GRIC for irrigation purposes. In emergencies, the City can discharge the reclaimed water generated at the SEWRP to waste at the EMF at Guadalupe Road or the EMF at Queen Creek Road. The City can also allow flow to bypass the SEWRP and divert the flow to the Baseline Interceptor for delivery to the SROG 91st Avenue WWTP. The SEWRP effluent pumping station is currently designed to deliver flows to the GWRP wet well and to the SEWRP East Maricopa Floodway (EMF). It includes four identical pumps (3 duty + 1 standby), each rated for 5,600 gpm (8.1 mgd) at 33 ft TDH. The existing SEWRP reclaimed water pipeline starts as a 36-inch CCP from the SEWRP effluent pumping station to the tee to the SEWRP EMF outlet. The branch to the SEWRP EMF is 48-inch CCP. The SEWRP pipeline continues beyond the tee as a 42-inch CCP all the way to the GWRP wet well. The proposed 36inch CMRP will connect to the existing SEWRP near the intersection of Recker Rd. and Houston Ave. Figure 6-3 presents a schematic of the SEWRP effluent pumping station discharge system and outlets. The SEWRP EMF outlet is a normally open free discharge high level outlet through two parallel 24-inch gooseneck pipes at centerline elevation 1344.8 ft. Each 24-inch outlet includes one normally open manual isolation butterfly valve. The SEWRP pipeline discharge at the GRWP wet well is a submerged outlet through a 36-inch diameter manual isolation butterfly valve. Normal operating levels inside the GWRP wet well range from EL. 1274.5 ft to EL. 1280.0 ft. BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
180
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure 6-3
SEWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic
6.4.4 Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant The GWRP is jointly owned by the City of Mesa, the Town of Gilbert, and the Town of Queen Creek. Their flows are currently combined in the wet well of the GWRP effluent pumping station. The GWRP produces an annual average of 5.3 mgd of reclaimed water. The current strategy for managing the reclaimed water from the GWRP is sending it to the GRIC for irrigation purposes. In emergencies or when no other end use options are available, the City can discharge the effluent to the EMF at Queen Creek Road. Discharge to the EMF is limited to 60 calendar days per year. If the City exceeds 60 days of discharge, installation of monitoring wells will be required and will become part of the plant’s monitoring plan for the life of the permit. The City of Mesa shares ownership of this facility with both the Town of Gilbert and the Town of Queen Creek. The three partners also have ownership of the 72-inch effluent pipeline that delivers water from the GWRP to the EMF. There is a discharge point along the 72-inch pipeline to the RWCD canal where Queen Creek must deliver 1 mgd of reclaimed water at a constant rate during the irrigation season. The Town of Gilbert reservoir is located east of the GWRP effluent pump station and is able to take additional flows that cannot be delivered to the GRIC or the RWCD canal. The City of Mesa’s reclaimed water allocation is delivered to the GRIC outlet through the GRIC pipeline and controlled at the inlet of the GRIC pipeline (GRWP metering station) by a 54-inch control valve (butterfly valve). The GRIC pipeline is a 54-inch CCP terminating by a short section of 42-inch concrete pipe discharging into the GRIC Canal. At the outlet, the 42-inch pipe has an invert at elevation 1290.7 ft, which can be submerged by an estimated maximum of 7 feet when the canal is full.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
181
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The GWRP effluent pumping station is currently designed to deliver flows to the GRIC Canal, the Town of Gilbert (TOG) Reservoir and into the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) Main Canal for the Town of Queen Creek (TOQC); with excess flow to be discharged to the GWRP EMF. Figure 6-4 presents a schematic of the GWRP effluent pumping station discharge system and outlets.
Figure 6-4
GWRP Effluent Pumping Station & Discharge System Schematic
The GWRP effluent pumping station has a total of eight pumps, including: ◼ Three small 200 hp units (pumps No.1, 6 and 7) each rated for 6,000 gpm (8.6 mgd) at 105 ft TDH. ◼ One medium 300 hp unit (pump No. 2) rated for 9,500 gpm (13.7 mgd) at 105 ft TDH. ◼ Four large 400 hp units (pumps No. 3, 4, 5, and 8) each rated for 12,000 gpm (17.3 mgd) at 105 ft TDH. Under normal operation all pumps discharge to a common 60-inch diameter manifold increasing to 72inch (once buried), from which the flow is diverted to the different GWRP outlets. The GWRP effluent pumping station can also operate in split mode in the event the GWRP water is noncompliant. In this rare event, the wet well of pumps No. 1 and 2 is isolated from the main wet well, only receiving SEWRP water, which can be conveyed to the GRIC Canal through pumps No. 1 and 2 and the second manifold (36-inch diameter). Pump No. 3 is a swing pump that can be valved to operate with pumps No. 1 and 2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
182
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
6.5
Reclaimed Water Projections
Table 6-4 provides a summary of the projected reclaimed water by WRP basin for each of the three growth scenarios through buildout. The reclaimed flows were calculated using projected wastewater flows, assuming a 10% treatment loss through each of the City’s WRPs. As discussed in Chapter 5, the City is considering removing the SEWRP from service and will convey flow generated in the SEWRP to the GWRP. Regardless of the treatment location, all of the wastewater generated in the GWRP and SEWRP will be treated, and the reclaimed water will be sent to the GRIC. Table 6-4
Reclaimed Water Projections by WRP
Location
Average Growth (mgd)
Moderate Growth (mgd)
Aggressive Growth (mgd)
2025 GWRP
5.8
6.2
7.0
SEWRP
4.3
4.4
4.6
NWWRP
7.3
7.4
7.5
Total =
17.4
17.9
19.1
2030 GWRP
6.6
7.7
9.8
SEWRP
4.5
4.7
5.4
NWWRP
7.4
7.5
7.9
Total =
18.5
19.4
23.0
2035 GWRP
7.4
9.1
12.5
SEWRP
4.7
5.1
6.2
NWWRP
7.5
7.8
8.2
Total =
19.6
21.9
26.9
2040 GWRP
8.2
10.6
15.3
SEWRP
4.9
5.5
7.0
NWWRP
7.6
7.8
8.6
Total =
20.6
26.7
30.9
GRIC Commitment = Deficit (-) / Surplus (+)
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
26.3 -5.3
0.4
4.6
183
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
It can be seen in Table 6-4 that under the Average Growth Scenario, the City will not produce enough reclaimed water at the existing WRPs to meet the City’s GRIC commitment of 26.5 mgd, whereas the City has adequate reclaimed water production under the Moderate and Aggressive Growth Scenarios. Comparison of available reclaimed water to GRIC commitment is shown graphically on Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-5
Available Reclaimed Water vs GRIC Commitment
If the City develops under the Average Growth scenario and the City wants to produce enough reclaimed water to meet the City’s GRIC commitment, it would be necessary for the City to divert a portion of the wastewater flow out of the SROG basin to one of the City’s existing WRPs, that is in excess of the SROG commitments. Table 6-5 compares the projected average day SROG Basin Flows to the annual SROG Commitment to establish the diversion potential. Table 6-5
SROG Basin Flow vs SROG Commitment
Year
SROG Basin Average Growth – Average Day Flows (mgd)
2025
17.5
2030
17.8
2035
18.1
2040
18.5
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
SROG Annual Commitment (mgd)
Wastewater Available for Diversion (mgd) 3.6
13.9
3.9 4.2 4.6
184
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
While the City has an annual commitment to SROG, the City’s commitments vary seasonally which are summarized in Table 6-6. The comparison of available flow in the SROG Basin to the seasonal SROG commitment indicates that between 2 mgd and up to 6 mgd are available to be diverted out of the SROG Basin. In order to divert this flow, the City would need to construct a pump back facility to divert flow out of the SROG Basin but would also need to ensure the receiving WRP has adequate capacity to treat the additional wastewater flow. Based on the analysis completed in Chapter 5, the most feasible location of the pump back would be near Southern Ave and Extension Rd and the receiving WRP the NWWRP. At buildout, the NWWRP is projected to have contributing basin flow of 8-9 mgd (depending on the growth scenario). The current treatment capacity of the NWWRP is 12 mgd, limiting the maximum diversion to 34 mgd. Table 6-6
SROG Basin Flow vs Seasonal SROG Commitment Jan to Mar
Apr
May
Jun to Aug
Sep
Oct to Dec
Annual Average
Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District (BWCDD) (mgd)
1.1
2.1
2.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
Tres Rios (mgd)
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.8
2.3
Palo Verde (mgd)
9.3
9.3
10.6
10.6
10.6
9.3
9.9
Total (mgd)
12.2
14.1
15.4
16.5
14.4
12.2
13.9
4.1
6.3
4.6
Commitment
2040 SROG Basin Flow (mgd) Flow Available for Diversion (mgd)
18.5 6.3
4.4
3.1
2.0
Since the growth in the southeast is highly variable and the water resource picture is uncertain, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor both the climate surrounding surface water resources availability and WRP production and re-evaluate the feasibility and payback potential with the construction of the NWWRP pump back facility.
6.6
CMRP Improvements
As previously stated, the completion of the CMRP is a critical component to the City’s water resource portfolio and essential to meeting the City’s GRIC commitment. Table 6-7 summarizes the planned improvements to the City’s reclaimed water system. Table 6-7 Location IPS
CMRP Summary of Planned Improvements Tank Capacity (MG)
Pump Improvements (mgd)
Total Capacity (mgd)
0.5 MG Suction Tank
3 @ 7.5 mgd at 230’ TDH
18
2 @ 3.0 mgd at 60’ TDH
6
SEWRP1 Note:
As part of the decision to consolidate treatment at GWRP the number of pumps at SEWRP requiring improvements reduced from 4 pumps to 2 pumps. The reclaimed pumps improvements at SEWRP will allow the City to continue to maximize deliveries to GRIC during the decommissioning of SEWRP and construction of the SEWRP Pump Station. BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
185
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
6.6.1 Intermediate Pump Station An intermediate pumping station (IPS) is required to convey the NWWRP flows over the high points of the proposed 36-inch CMRP. A hydraulic break tank was recommended to provide a full hydraulic disconnect between the NWWRP-GRUSP system and the southern system, instead of an in-line booster, which would expose the existing NWWRP effluent pumping station and pipeline to complex operations and increased risk of over-pressurization. Under normal operation, when the entirety of the NWWRP flows is conveyed to the GRIC outlet, the IPS will match the NWWRP flows. For this reason, it is recommended to install the same number of pumps (2 duty + 1 standby) rated for approximately the same flow. A preliminary duty point for the new pumps/impellers was estimated to be near 9 mgd at 275 ft TDH for buildout peak hour conditions. The proposed design is therefore considering the installation of three pumps (2 duty + 1 standby), each rated for 7.5 mgd at 230 ft TDH for the initial phase operation; to be upgrade as needed in the future. The recommended GRUSP outlet control valve, allowing SEWRP discharge to GRUSP, will be located at the IPS site. Piping configuration at the IPS will allow for NWWRP flows to the discharged to GRUSP, to GRIC (through the proposed IPS break tank and pumping station) or split between both. Additionally, IPS piping will allow NWWRP flows to be discharged to GRUSP through two paths; either through pressurized closed conduit for flows up to 18 mgd, or through the IPS break tank overflow for flows up to 16.5 mgd.
6.6.2 CMRP Pipeline The entire CMRP pipeline will include a nearly 36 mile long starting at the NWWRP and ending at the GRIC outlet. Completion of the CMRP will include connecting the existing NWWRP pumping station and GRUSP outlet in the north to the existing SEWRP and GWRP pumping stations and GRIC outlet in the south. The pipeline that will connect the GRUSP to the SEWRP pumping stations will include a 10.5-mile 36-inch CCP and is shown as the red dashed line on Figure 6-1.
6.6.3 Upgrade of SEWRP Pumps As mentioned in Scenario 2 of the CMRP Hydraulic Analysis (Normal Operation – Buildout Peak Hour), an upgrade of the existing SEWRP pumps will be required. In Scenario 1 (Normal Operation – Initial Average Day) where 9 mgd is pumped from NWWRP and 5 mgd is pumped from SEWRP, the existing units can still operate. However, the required TDH (45 ft) under that scenario is near the limit of the pumps’ best efficiency range; and the existing pumps would operate outside the manufacturer’s recommended zone for combined flows (NWWRP+SEWRP) greater than 17 mgd, which is less than current peak hour flow. Therefore, a pump upgrade is recommended for the initial phase of this project. The duty point for the upgraded pumps/ impellers was estimated to be near 5.5 mgd at 160 ft TDH for buildout peak hour conditions (assuming 2 duty + 2 standby). However, pump selection will also need to provide for safe operation at reduced flows and pressures in the initial phase. The proposed design is therefore considering the installation of two pumps, each rated for 3.0 mgd at 60 ft TDH for the initial phase operation; to be upgraded as needed in the future.
6.7
Long Term Storage Credit Evaluation
In the event that the GRIC is not available for reuse, the City will maintain its ability to recharge since reclaimed water is used to establish the potential for LTSCs and is directly tied to water demands through wastewater returned. The City will continue to accrue these credits by recharging renewable supplies at groundwater storage facilities. The City has LTSC stored at the GRUSP, NWWRP, RWCD, Red Mountain, SRP, and Gila River Water Storage, LLC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
186
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The completion of the CMRP will alter the current operations at the NWWRP so that a majority of the effluent generated at this plant is exchanged for GRIC CAP surface water instead of being sent to the GRUSP. It is assumed the recharge at the GRUSP will decrease from 5,000 acre/ft/yr to 1,000 ac/ft/yr with the completion of the CMRP. Any surplus effluent above the GRIC commitment is assumed to be available for future LTSCs.
6.8
Conclusion and Recommendations
◼ The City should continue their policy to maximize efficient development and use of reclaimed water, considering water quality, public acceptance, and cost. ◼ It is also recommended to continue to prioritize delivery of reclaimed water to the GRIC in order to meet the City’s commitment of 29,400 AC-FT/YR of reclaimed water.
●
The completion of the CMRP is a critical component of the City’s water resource portfolio and essential to meeting the City’s GRIC commitment. Table 6-7 summarizes the planned improvements to the City’s reclaimed water system.
◼ The comparison of available flow in the SROG Basin to the seasonal SROG commitment indicates that between 2 mgd in the summer months and up to 6 mgd is available to be diverted out of the SROG Basin. In order to divert this flow, the City would need to construct a pump back facility to divert flow out of the SROG Basin but would also need to ensure the receiving WRP has adequate capacity to treat the additional wastewater flow. Based on the analysis completed in Chapter 5 the most feasible location of the pump back would near Southern Ave and Extension Rd and the receiving WRP the NWWRP however not enough flow may be available to make this diversion viable and alternative locations such as Baseline Road and Price Road may be more advantageous and are recommended for further evaluation. ◼ At buildout, the NWWRP is projected to have contributing basin flow of 8-9 mgd (depending on the growth scenario). The current treatment capacity of the NWWRP is 12 mgd, limiting the maximum diversion to 3-4 mgd. The City is currently evaluating the potential for solids intensification at NWWRP which could potentially increase capacity for relatively low capital spend which would allow for additional flow diversions to NWWRP. ◼ Since the growth in the southeast is highly variable and the water resource picture is uncertain, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor both the climate surrounding surface water resources availability and WRP production and re-evaluate the feasibility and payback potential of the proposed NWWRP pump back facility. ◼ During times when GRIC cannot take delivery due to seasonal fluctuation in demand, system maintenance, or other unforeseen events, supplies will be recharged as a key component of the City’s Water Resource Plan and its designation of Assured Water Supply (AWS) from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). The City receives one acre-foot (AF) of reclaimed water long-term storage credit for each AF of reclaimed water the City recharges at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP). The City intends to make maximum utilization of its reclaimed water supplies to meet its long-term storage credit (LTSC) account needs to offset non-renewable groundwater pumping during normal demand conditions and drought conditions.
BLACK & VEATCH | Reclaimed Water System
187
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.0 Capital Improvements Program This section of the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) summarizes the recommendations from the water, wastewater, and reclaimed water portions of the IMP.
7.1
Planning Level Cost Methodology
Cost estimates were prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International for a Class 5 estimate for each capital improvement project. Project costs for infrastructure were developed based on information from previous infrastructure projects in the region, current bid tabs, and the City of Phoenix “Water and Wastewater Facility Unit Cost Study Update” (2019). Additionally, the project cost must include costs for the expenses of design, inspection, construction, project management, and contingency that are included in an overall construction cost. To obtain the construction cost, the project cost is multiplied by a factor of 1.45. All project and construction cost are in 2024 dollars. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 summarize the project and construction cost used for IMP CIP Improvements. There are two projects on the IMP CIP list that are in detailed design / starting construction (SBWTP expansion and CMRP Pipeline) and detailed project costs were available and used for the CIP costing. Additionally, as part of the flow routing study a detailed cost estimate for the SEWRP Pumpback was development and used for the CIP costing. Table 7-1
Water System Project and Construction Costs
Infrastructure Type
Project Cost
Construction Cost
Water Mains
$45/dia-inch/L.F.
$65.25/dia-inch/L.F.
Booster Station (New)
$1.15M / mgd
$1.67M / mgd
Booster Station (Expansion)
$0.25M / mgd
$0.36M / mgd
$3.25/gal
$4.71/gal
PRVs
$375,000/PRV
$543,750/PRV
Wells
$4.5M/well
$6.5M/well
$3/gal
$4.35/gal
Ground Storage
Arsenic Treatment
Table 7-2
Wastewater System Project and Construction Costs
Infrastructure Type
Project Cost
Construction Cost
Gravity Mains (D < 30”)
$35/dia-inch/L.F.
$50.75/dia-inch/L.F.
Gravity Mains (D = 30”-36”)
$65/dia-inch/L.F.
$94.25/dia-inch/L.F.
Gravity Mains (D ≥ 42”)
$85/dia-inch/L.F.
$123.25/dia-inch/L.F.
Force Mains
$45/dia-inch/L.F.
$65.25/dia-inch/L.F.
N/A
N/A
$0.35M / mgd
$0.51M / mgd
$30/gal
$43.5/gal
Lift Station (New) Lift Station (Expansion) WRP Expansion
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
188
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.2
Water System Recommendations
A summary of recommendations resulting from the water system evaluations are presented in the following sections.
7.2.1 Water Capital Program The following water capital improvement projects have been identified based on the completed system evaluation provided in Chapter 4 and are shown in Figure 7-1. The improvements are summarized in Table 7-3. Table 7-3
Water Capital Improvement Projects
CIP No.
CIP Name
Trigger
CIP Description
W01
TS2 Expansion
CAP Dry-Up
The firm capacity at Transfer Station 2 should be increased to 31.5 MGD by replacing the 4 existing 8.6 MGD pumps with 4 pumps at 10.5 MGD. This improvement is part of CP0830PS08.
W02
SBFFPS Expansion
Redundancy/Resiliency
The firm capacity at the Signal Butte Falcon Field Pump Station should be increased to 24 MGD with the addition of one 8 MGD pump. This improvement is planned to be included with the SBWTP expansion project (CP0372).
W03
SBDWPS Expansions
Growth
The firm capacity at the Signal Butte Desert Wells Pump Station should be increased to 44 MGD by buildout. While the construction of the station could be phased, for simplicity it is recommended that the expansion be completed in a single phase. This improvement is planned to be included with the SBWTP expansion project (CP0372).
W04
SBWTP 8 MG Reservoir
Growth
A second 8 MG reservoir should be installed at the SBWTP to increase total storage to 16 MG. The second reservoir is recommended to accommodate the plant and well flows with the increasing demands in Southeast Mesa. This improvement is included with the SBWTP expansion project (CP0372).
W05
TS1 Expansion
CAP Dry-Up
The firm capacity at Transfer Station 1 should be increased to 24 MGD by replacing two of the existing 4 MGD pumps with 2 pumps at 8 MGD. This expansion is necessary to provide adequate flow to the Falcon Field Zone during the CAP dry-up scenarios.
W06
TS3 Expansion
CAP Dry-Up
The firm capacity at Transfer Station 3 should be increased to 36 MGD in two phased expansions. The first phase increases firm capacity at TS3 to 32 MGD with the addition of one 8 MGD pump. The second phase expansion increases firm capacity to 36 MGD by replacing 2 of the existing 4 MGD pumps with 2 pumps at 6 MGD.
W07
DWPS1 Expansion
CAP Dry-Up
The Desert Wells Pump Station 1 should be expanded to a firm capacity of 12.5 MGD with the addition of one 5 MGD pump to provide flow during the CAP dry-up scenarios. A 12.5 MGD firm capacity at DWPS1 assumption was used to size the pumps for the redesign of Transfer Station 2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
189
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
CIP No.
CIP Name
Trigger
CIP Description
W08
CLPS1 Expansion
Growth
Firm capacity at the County Line Pump Station 1 should be increased to 6.6 MGD with the addition of one 2.2 MGD pump.
W09
PRV51
Water Quality
A PRV station is recommended from Desert Wells Zone to the Falcon Field Zone to resolve the dead-end on Higley and improve water quality in this region.
W10
Falcon Field Interconnect
Redundancy/Resiliency
An interconnect pipeline should be installed to increase conveyance capacity from Southeast Mesa to the northern portion of the Falcon Field zone to convey water out of Southeast Mesa during a Val Vista WTP outage. (approximately 7.6 miles)
W11
Desert Wells Interconnect
Redundancy/Resiliency
An interconnect pipeline should be installed to increase conveyance capacity from Southeast Mesa to the northern portion of the Desert Wells zone to convey water out of Southeast Mesa during a Brown Road WTP outage. (approximately 9.0 miles)
W12
Val Vista Road Transmission Main
Growth
A 36” transmission along Val Vista Road from McKellips Road to Brown Road is recommended to provide sufficient capacity in the Falcon Field Zone.
W13
Pasadena Feed
Condition Assessment
A 60” feed into Pasadena should be installed if the existing PCCP line were to fail. This improvement is pending future condition assessment of the existing feed into the Pasadena Pump Station and is not necessary to meet the hydraulic analysis performance criteria.
W14
Well Improvement Program
Drought
The City plans to develop 25 groundwater wells to plan for drought conditions or extended loss/reduction of surface water treatment plant supplies. Locations and capacities for groundwater wells will be determined during well design.
W15
Desert Wells Groundwater Facility
CAP Dry-Up
The Desert Wells Groundwater Facility (DWGWF) is not needed to meet performance criteria for the 2040 maximum day scenario. The facility may be needed to meet a 2040 CAP dry-up scenario. The City should continue to monitor the capacity of the future wells planned to be connected to the SBWTP. As additional data becomes available for wells connected to the DWGWF the City can evaluate the need for additional groundwater capacity.
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
190
12"
12"
12"
PRV31
! <
PRV26
! <
DSR1 CLPS1
3 Q
! <
U5 T
B " )
" L
Lindsay Pasadena CW8
CW11
Brooks
U5 T "
CW18
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Brown Rd 1200 N
B " )
! <
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
! <
W10: Falcon Field Interconnect
CW15
U DWR2 T
PRV5
! <
CW14
PS5
B " )
PRV6
! <
60
DW3
PRV27
! <
FF14
! PRV10 <
CW20
Southern Ave 1200 S
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
TS5
" L
! PRV29 <
2035 Pipe Improvement 2040 Pipe Improvement Developer Pipe Future Collection Lines
Facility Type
B Booster Station " )
U Storage T " L Transfer Station
3 WTP Q ! <
Pressure Reducing Valve
Facility Improvements
U" T 5 2030 Booster Station Improvement
" L 2030 Transfer Station Improvement
W11: Desert Wells Interconnect
! PRV9 <
2030 Pipe Improvement
U" T 5 Storage w/ Booster
PRV4
FF5
Greater than 24"
McKellips Rd 2000 N
CLPS3
PRV3
CW7
CW10
CW16
W05: TS1 Expansion
U5 T " TS1 " L
20" - 24"
Timing
12"
CW26
U5 T "
B " ) 3 CLPS2 Q
TS2
W13: Pasadena Feed
CW12
BRWTP
W01: TS2 Expansion
CW19
CW25
12" - 18"
U CLR2, CLR3 T U DSR2 T
FF2
PS4
6" and smaller
McDowell Rd 2800 N
AJPS1 B ! HLPS2 < RRPS1
" )
W07: DWPS1 Expansion
Pipe Diameter 8" - 10"
W12: Val Vista Rd. Transmission
CW24
CW27
Thomas Rd 3600 N
! PRV17 <
PRV14
FFR1 " DWPS1
" L TS3
Legend
HLPS1
! <
W06: TS3 Expansion
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
U T U HLR1, HLR2 T AJR1 U5 T " RRPS2
U5 T "
101
202
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
U UT T 55
DWR1 "" DSPS1
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
RRR3
PRV36
VVWTP
12"
! <
W09: PRV51
12"
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Recker Rd 6000 E
W08: CLPS1 Expansion
PRV51 CW28
CLR5 AJPS2
In association with:
DW9
DW6
U" T 5 2035 Booster Station Improvement
3 2035 WTP Improvement Q 3 2040 GWF Improvement Q ! <
2030 PRV Improvement
Pressure Zone City Zone
CW22
NE Mini Zone DW7
W14: Well Improvement Program DW24
DW23
12"
DW32
DW30
16"
DW31
30"
12"
20"
DW16
16"
County Line Apache Junction Range Rider
DW28
DW25
30"
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Ray Rd 5200 S
DW34
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals Railroads Light Rail Track Airport Salt River
16"
DW20
Usery 1
DW19
FF21 PRV35
! <
Highlands
Warner Rd 4400 S
DW33
12"
16"
FF20
Desert Sage
DW26 20" 12"
202
Desert Wells
Elliot Rd 3600 S
DW21
DW13
Falcon Field
W02 - W04: SBFF & SBDW PS Expansions, 8 MG Reservoir
3 Q
12"
12"
DW22
SBWTP
16"
DW17
SE Mini Zone
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DW37
DW38
" 12 24"
DW39
DW12 PRV28
16"
FF18
Pecos Rd 6800 S
3 Q GWF
DW41
DW14
DW29 DW42
12"
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
24 DW11
DW40
! <
202
12"
16"
DW36
24"
DW35
W15: Desert Wells Groundwater Facility DW15 12"
Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5000
10000 ft
Figure 4-27 4-28 Figure 7-1
±
IMP Water System Improvements
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.2.2
Water Capital Project Cost Summary
The recommended water capital projects are presented in Table 7-4. Each project was assessed based on unit construction costs with multiplier for contingencies to estimate the total project costs. The costs for the Signal Butte improvements were provided by the City. Table 7-4
Water Capital Project Cost Planning Year
Diameter (in)/ Flow +(mgd)/ Volume (MG)
Length (ft) or Number
Construction Cost
CIP No.
CIP Name
W02-W04
Signal Butte Improvements
2030
W05
TS1 Expansion
2030
16 mgd
$4,000,000
$5,800,000
W06-1
TS3 Expansion
2030
8 mgd
$2,000,000
$2,900,000
W07
DWPS1 Expansion
2030
5 mgd
$1,250,000
$1,810,000
W09
PRV51
2030
1
$500,000
$730,000
W12
Val Vista Rd. Transmission
2030
5,400 ft
$8,750,000
$12,680,000
W14-1
Well Improvement Program
2030
9
$40,500,000
$58,730,000
2030 Water CIP =
$285,410,000
$202,760,000
36-inch
W08
CLPS1 Expansion
2035
2.2 mgd
W10
Falcon Field Interconnect
2035
36-inch
W11
Desert Wells Interconnect
2035
Well Improvement Program
2035
W14-2
$550,000
$800,000
40,000 ft
$64,800,000
$93,960,000
36-inch
48,300 ft
$78,250,000
$113,460,000
42-inch
4,700 ft
$8,880,000
$12,880,000
2
$9,000,000
13,050,000
2035 Water CIP = W06-2
TS3 Expansion
2040
12 mgd
W13
Pasadena Feed
2040
60-inch
W14-3
Well Improvement Program
2040
W15
DWGWF Treatment
2040
$234,150,000
$3,000,000
$4,350,000
3,600 ft
$9,720,000
$14,100,000
13
$58,500,000
$84,830,000
18 mgd
$54,000,000
$78,300,000
18 mgd
$20,700,000
$30,020,000
2040 Water CIP =
$211,600,000
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Water Improvements =
$752,870,000
DWGWF Booster Stations
7.3
Project Cost
Wastewater System Recommendations
A summary of recommendations resulting from the wastewater system evaluation are presented in the following sections. BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
192
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.3.1 Wastewater Capital Program The following wastewater capital improvement projects have been identified based on the completed system evaluation provided in Chapter 5 and are shown in Figure 7-2. Developer constructed improvements are not included in City CIP Projects. Table 7-5
Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects
CIP No.
CIP Name
Trigger
CIP Description
WW01
McKellips Road and Gilbert Road
System Deficiency
A 15-inch diameter sewer main from the intersection on McKellips Road and Gilbert Road, west on McKellips Road to Stapley Drive, and south on Stapley Drive to discharge into the intersection of Stapley Drive and Brown Road. This project was previously identified by the City and is currently being designed. (approximately 2.0 miles)
WW02
Lindsay Road
System Deficiency
It is recommended that the existing 15-inch diameter sewer main along Lindsay Road between Broadway Road and Meadowgreen Park be paralleled with a 10-inch diameter pipeline to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. If paralleling the existing line is not feasible, the existing 15-inch diameter sewer main would need to be upsized to an 18-inch diameter main. (approximately 0.49 miles)
WW03
Main Street
System Deficiency
It is recommended that the existing 10-inch diameter sewer main along Main Street between Power Road and Sunvalley Boulevard be upsized to a 12-inch diameter to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. (approximately 0.48 miles)
WW04
Sonoran Hills
System Deficiency
It is recommended that the existing 8-inch diameter sewer main west of Sonoran Hills between Upper Trail Circle and Eagle Crest Drive be upsized to a 12-inch diameter to mitigate existing and future system deficiencies. (approximately 0.23 miles)
WW27
Thomas Road Improvements
Growth
This project includes the addition of the 12-inch diameter sewer main along 56th street between Thomas Road and Longbow Parkway that travels south and ties into the existing sewer main in Longbow Golf Course. Additionally, the pipeline that goes through the Longbow Golf Course will be upsized to an 18-inch diameter. This project was identified to serve growth in this area.
WW28
Tyler Ranch Lift Station
Growth
This project includes the development of a single-family residential housing development which is located south of The Salt River Indian Reservation, between Val Vista Drive and the East 202 Red Mountain Freeway. It will include the construction of a lift station consisting of two 350 gpm pumps and 6-inch diameter associated force main that ties into the existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer on Thomas Road.
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
193
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
CIP No.
CIP Name
Trigger
CIP Description
WW29
Pecos Road Improvements
Growth
This project includes a parallel line along Pecos Road from Ellsworth Road to Power Road. This parallel line consists of 18inch, 21-inch, and 27-inch diameter pipelines. Additionally, a new 24-inch diameter sewer main will be installed east of Power Road, through the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus. The purpose of this line will be to convey flow south by gravity and bypass the Williams Gateway lift station (LS13). As part of this project, the Williams Gateway lift station will be decommissioned. Also included in this project is a 36-inch diameter pipeline along Pecos Road from Power Road to the Roosevelt Canal/EMI that will carry flows from the new parallel sewer from the east and the new 24-inch sewer from the north to the EMI.
WW30
Higley Lift Station
Growth
This project includes the construction of a lift station that consists of two 360 gpm pumps and 6-inch diameter associated force main, as well as 8-inch diameter gravity collection system near Thomas Road and Higley Road to serve this area. The force main will discharge into the new Thomas Road sewer improvements described above.
WW31
Greenfield Phase 4 Expansion
Growth
This project is anticipated to expand the capacity of the GWRP between 6 and 16 mgd. The City’s final capacity portion will be determined during the plant system evaluation phase of the project.
WW32
SEWRP Pumpback
Optimization
This project will consolidate flows from the SEWRP and the GWRP at the GWRP. It will require a lift station, sited near the SEWRP that will accommodate the estimated buildout average daily flow of 5.7 mgd (11.4 mgd peak), assuming that the diversion structures east of the SEWRP (DS28 and DS43) are adjusted to convey flow south to the GWRP. The SEWRP Pumpback would discharge to a 24-inch diameter force main that would connect at the EMI, south of Elliot Road on the east side of the RWCD canal. It is recommended that the City evaluate conveyance options, which might include diverting partial flow by gravity, during preliminary design.
WW33
Baseline Road Interceptor Diversion
Optimization
This project is needed to redirect the City’s flows from the MesaTempe jointly owned Western Canal Interceptor to keep average daily flows within the City’s ownership capacity. Two options are recommended for further evaluation (only one is needed to accomplish objective): College Ave/Baseline Rd diversion structure or LS27 recommissioning.
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
194
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202
WW-01
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Thomas Rd 3600 N
LS16
" J
W
McKellips Rd 2000 N Brown Rd 1200 N
WRP
LS2
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
WW-02
" J
Southern Ave 1200 S SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
60
/
60
" J
Pipeline Improvements
Development Related Improvements Planned Improvements Lift Station/Pump Station
" J Existing/Active " J Inactive
Water Reclamation Plant
WRP
Gravity Main by Diameter 8" and Less 10"-15" 15"-24"
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
LS1
" J 202
WW-08
WW-11 WW-07
LS14
WW-14
WW-25 WW-24 WW-19 WW-22 WW-20
WW-18
WW-15
WW-17
WW-16
W
LS13
WW-23
WW-21
W - 29
-13
" J
Elliot Rd 3600 S
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Warner Rd 4400 S
Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
WRP
Parcels
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
Airport Boundary
0
5,000
10,000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S
WW-29
Germann Rd 7600 S
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe
Other Features
WW
202
Greater than 24" Force Main
WW-12
" J
WW-10 WW-06
LS17
WW-05
" J
WW-09
" J
" J Capacity Improvements Related " J Development Improvement " J Planned Improvements
Baseline Rd 2000 S
WRP
LS6
Lift Station/Pump Station Improvements
Capacity Improvements
WW-03
LS27
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend McDowell Rd 2800 N
" J
WW-26
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
WW-04
"J J "
LS4
LS5
" J
LS11
W
LS15
101
" J Higley LS LS9 "WW-3J J " 0 -27
" J
WW -28
" J " J
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
Northwest Loop 202 LS
Tyler Ranch LS
LS8
In association with:
Figure 5-19 Figure 7-2
±
Proposed Capacity Proposed Capacity Improvements Improvements
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.3.2 Wastewater Capital Project Cost Summary The recommended wastewater capital projects are presented in . Developer constructed improvements are not included in City CIP Projects. Table 7-5. Each project was assessed based on unit construction costs with a multiplier for contingencies to estimate the total project costs. Table 7-6 presents the cost overview for the wastewater capital projects for each of the planning years. Table 7-6
Wastewater Capital Project Cost Planning Year
Diameter (in)/ Flow Rate (mgd)/ Volume (MG)
Length (ft) or Number
Construction Cost
Project Cost
CIP No.
CIP Name
WW01
McKellips Road and Gilbert Road
2030
15-inch
10,560 ft
$5,540,000
$8,040,000
WW02
Lindsay Road
2030
10-inch
2,587 ft
$910,000
$1,310,000
WW03
Main Street
2030
12-inch
2,534 ft
$1,060,000
$1,540,000
WW04
Sonoran Hills
2030
12-inch
1,214 ft
$510,000
$740,000
WW31
Greenfield Phase 4 Expansion
2030
2 MGD
$60,000,000
$87,000,000
WW32
SEWRP Pumpback
2030
12 MGD
WW33
Baseline Road Interceptor Diversion
2030
$43,400,000 $1,500,000 2030 Wastewater CIP =
WW27
WW28
WW29
WW30
Thomas Road Improvements
2035
Tyler Ranch Lift Station
2035
Pecos Road Improvements
Higley Lift Station
2040
12-inch
2,700 ft
18-inch
4,600 ft
1.01 MGD
2 pumps
6-inch
4,700 ft
8-inch
4,500 ft
$143,530,000
$4,030,000
$5,850,000
$2,880,000
$4,180,000
2035 Wastewater CIP =
$10,030,000
$29,230,000
$42,380,000
$1,300,000
$1,890,000
2040 Wastewater CIP =
$44,270,000
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Wastewater Improvements =
$197,830,000
2040
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
18-inch
5,500 ft
21-inch
5,200 ft
24-inch
5,500 ft
27-inch
5,700 ft
36-inch
5,100 ft
1.04 MGD
2 pumps
6-inch
1,500 ft
8-inch
1,900 ft
196
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
7.4
Reclaimed System Recommendations
A summary of recommendations resulting from the reclaimed system evaluations are presented in the following sections.
7.4.1 Reclaimed Water Capital Program The following reclaimed water capital improvement projects, summarized in Table 7-7, have been identified based on the system evaluation provided in Chapter 6 and are shown in Figure 7-3. Table 7-7 CIP No.
Reclaimed Water Capital Improvement Projects CIP Name
Trigger
CIP Description
RW01
Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline (CMRP)
Optimization
A 36” pipeline is being constructed to increase flexibility of the NWWRP effluent discharge points. This will also help the City maximize flow delivery to the GRIC. (CP0896)
RW02
Intermediate Pump Station
Optimization
A new 22.5 mgd station will be constructed to convey NWWRP flows through the CMRP. (CP0896)
RW03
SEWRP Effluent Pump Upgrade
Optimization
The installation of two pumps, each rated at 3.0 mgd and 60 ft THD, at SEWRP will allow the City to continue to maximize deliveries to GRIC during the decommissioning of SEWRP and construction of the SEWRP Pump Station. (CP0896)
7.4.2 Reclaimed Water Capital Project Cost Summary The recommended reclaimed water capital projects are presented in Table 7-8. Each project was assessed based on unit construction costs with the multiplier for contingencies to estimate the total project costs. The costs for the CMRP and IPS were provided by the City. Table 7-8
CIP No.
Reclaimed Water Capital Project Cost
CIP Name
Planning Year
Diameter (in)/ Flow Rate (mgd)/ Volume (MG)
Length (ft) or Number 64,200 ft
RW01
Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline
2030
36-inch
RW02
Intermediate Pump Station
2030
22.5 MGD
RW03
SEWRP Effluent Pump Upgrade
2030
6 MGD
Construction Cost
Project Cost $187,480,000 $39,900,000
$1,500,000
$2,180,000
2030 Reclaimed Water CIP =
$229,560,000
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan Reclaimed Water Improvements =
$229,560,000
BLACK & VEATCH | Capital Improvements Program
197
" 5
Ellsworth Rd
Hawes Rd
Sossaman Rd
Power Rd
Recker Rd
Higley Rd
Greenfield Rd
Val Vista Dr
Lindsay Rd
Gilbert Rd
Stapley Dr
Mesa Dr
Country Club Dr
Alma School Rd
Dobson Rd
GRUSP
Thomas Rd
McDowell Rd
36"
101
McKellips Rd
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
Brown Rd
WRP
University Dr
36"
Main St Broadway Rd
Southern Ave SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Baseline Rd
SEWRP EMF
Guadalupe Rd
Elliot Rd
Warner Rd
42" 202 Ray Rd
Williams Field Rd
Pecos Rd
Germann Rd
GREENFIELD WATER RECLAMATION PLANT WRP
Queek Creek Rd
72" GWRP EMF
Ocotillo Rd
54"
Chandler Heights Rd
Riggs Rd San Tan Blvd
GRIC Turnout
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Legend Drainage Area
Existing Water Reclamation Plant
" 5
SEWRP
Other Features
SEWRP / GWRP SROG
Existing Pipe Diameter Less than 8" 12" - 16" 18" - 24" In association with:
WRP
NWWRP /SROG
GWRP
Greater than 24" Proposed Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline
Proposed Intermediate Pump Station
7-3 Figure 6-1
Highways
City of Mesa Reuse System, Proposed and Existing
Arterial Streets Canal Railroads Light Rail Track Salt River
0
5000
10000 ft
±
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix A.
Water Facility Schematics
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix A
A-1
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE AJ RESERVOIR 1 APACHE JUNCTION AJR1 Apache Junction Res. 8425 E Scarlet DESCRIPTION This reservoir floats on the Apache Junction Zone and is fed from the County Line Zone through AJPS1 and AJPS2. HLPS1 and RRPS2 are located onsite and are fed off of the common fill drain line into the tank. This reservoir is equipped with an aerator to remove DBPs.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
AJR1
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic UCC.AJR1_LI00101_PV.F_CV
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE Below Grade
CAPACITY (MG) 1
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1918
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1940
*Volume[MG](depth[ft]) = -0.00007d^3 + 0.0034d^2 + 0.007d + 0.0042
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE BRWTP RES FALCON FIELD BROWN ROAD WTP BRWTPR DESERT WELLS 7750 E. Brown Road DESERT SAGE DESCRIPTION CPFFR1 is located on the Brown Road WTP site and is fed water directly from the treatment process. This reservoir supplies the Desert Wells and Desert Sage highservice pumps as well as Falcon Field via TS2. During CAP dry-up, water is boosted to CPFFR1 from the Falcon Field Zone via TS2 to supply water to the Desert Wells and Desert Sage high-service pumps.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
FFCPR1
Hopper Bottom
Concrete w/ liner
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Bubbler FFR1_RES_LEV
Below Grade
CAPACITY (MG) 20
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1523
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1543
*Volume[MG](depth[ft]) = (139000d[ft])(7.48 [gal/1 ft])(1 [MG]/ 1000000 [gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL RESERVOIR 2 CLR2 1800 Foot Tank COUNTY LINE 1855 N. 93rd St DESCRIPTION CLR2 floats on the County Line Zone. Can either be fed from the Desert Sage Zone via CLPS2 or CLPS3.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
CLR2
Flat Bottom
Steel
Above Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer ucc.CLR2_LVL.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 0.5
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1808.25
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1831.6
*V[MG] = π(30.186^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL RESERVOIR 2 CLR3 1800 Foot Tank COUNTY LINE 1855 N. 93rd St DESCRIPTION CLR2 floats on the County Line Zone. Can either be fed from the Desert Sage Zone via CLPS2 or CLPS3.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
CLR3
Flat Bottom
Concrete
Partial Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer ucc.CLR3_LVL.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 0.5
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1800
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1832
*V[MG] = π(25.785^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL RESERVOIR 5 CLR5 Falcon Ridge COUNTY LINE 3851 N 80th St DESCRIPTION This reservoir floats on the County Line Zone and is fed primarily from DSR1 via CLPS1. AJPS2 pumps water from the Reservoir feed line to the AJ zone. This Reservoir is equipped with an aerator to remove DBPs.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
CLR5
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
Buried
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic ucc.CLR5_RES_LEV.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 1
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1810
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1835.25
*Volume[MG](depth[ft]) = -0.00007d^3 + 0.0034d^2 + 0.007d + 0.0042
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DS RESERVOIR 1 DSR1 Painted Tank DESERT SAGE 3631 N. Sagewood Cir DESCRIPTION This reservoir floats on the Desert Sage Zone and is fed primarily by DSPS1. CLPS1 pumps water from the reservoir feed line to the County Line Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
DSR1
Flat Bottom
Steel
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer DSR1_RES_LVL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE Above Grade
CAPACITY (MG) 1
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1699.27
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1730.77
*V[MG] = π(22.85^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal]) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DS RESERVOIR 2 DSR2 Crismon DESERT SAGE 1636 N Crismon DESCRIPTION DSR2 floats on the Desert Sage Zone. BRDSPS, the primary feed pumps to this zone, are controlled by the level in this reservoir.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
DSR2
Hopper Bottom
Concrete w/ liner
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic ucc.DSR2_RESV_LEVEL
Buried
CAPACITY (MG) 3
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1707.15
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1730.65
*Volume[MG](depth[ft]) = -0.0001d^3 + 0.0057d^2 + 0.0735d + 0.0061
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DW RESERVOIR 1 Concrete Tank DWR1 DESERT WELLS 7039 East Sierra Morena Circle DESCRIPTION This reservoir floats on the Desert Wells zone. Water is also pumped from the reservoir feed line to the Desert Sage Zone via DSPS1.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
DWR1
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
At Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic ucc.DWR1_LI00101_PV.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 1
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1610
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1632.6
*Volume[MG](depth[ft]) = -0.00007d^3 + 0.0034d^2 + 0.007d + 0.0042
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DW RESERVOIR 2 Twin Knolls DWR2 DESERT WELLS 8450 E Main St DESCRIPTION DWR2 floats on the Desert Wells Zone. The level of this reservoir is used to control operation of BRDWPS, the primary feed pumps to the zone. This site can accommodate two additional reservoirs.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
DWR2
Flat Bottom
Steel
Above Grade
Level Inst Pressure Transducer SCADA Tag ucc.DWR2_RESV_LEVEL
CAPACITY (MG) 1
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1601.5
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1632
*V[MG] = π(37.35^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE FF RESERVOIR 1 Recker/McDowell FFR1 FALCON FIELD 6102 E. McDowell DESCRIPTION FFR1 floats on the Falcon Field Zone. Water is also pumped from this reservoir to the Desert Wells Zone via DWPS1.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
FFR1
Flat Bottom
Steel
Above Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic ucc.FFR1_RES_LEV
CAPACITY (MG) 1.5
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1486.98
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1510.08
*V[MG] = π(52.565^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal]) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE HL RESERVOIR 1 Highlands North Tank HLR1 HIGHLANDS 3970 N Hawes Rd DESCRIPTION HLR1 floats on the Highlands Zone through a line shared with HLR2.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
HLR1
Flat Bottom
Steel
Above Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer HLR1R2_RES1_LVL.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 0.25
FLOOR (FEET EL) 2147
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 2162.5
V[MG] = π(26^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal/ft])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE HL RESERVOIR 1 Highlands South Tank HLR2 HIGHLANDS 3970 N Hawes Rd DESCRIPTION HLR2 floats on the Highlands Zone through a line shared with HLR1. HLR2 has an aerator to remove DBPs.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
HLR2
Flat Bottom
Steel
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer HLR1R2_RES2_LVL.F_CV
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE Above Grade
CAPACITY (MG) 0.075
FLOOR (FEET EL) 2147
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 2162.5
V[MG] = π(14.25^2[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
ID
NAME/ADDRESS PASADENA RES.
LOCATION MAP
ZONE
R1
CITY ZONE 601 N. Pasadena DESCRIPTION R1 stores water from the Val Vista WTP supply line during low demand and supplies water to PS1 during peak demands. This reservoir is also operated during SRP dry-up to store water from City Wells 8, 9, 11, and 12.
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
R1
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
At Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Sonic PS1.PS1_RESLVL.F_cv
CAPACITY (MG) 10
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1240.6
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1258.68
V[MG]=(π140^2[ft]h[ft]+(π165.5^2[ft]h[ft]-π140^2[ft]h[ft])2/3)(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE RESERVOIR 2 Brooks R2 CITY ZONE 310 S. Brooks DESCRIPTION R2 stores water from the Val Vista WTP supply line during low demand and supplies water to PS2 during peak demands. This reservoir can also be supplied by CW26 which is plumbed directly into the reservoir. Hydraulic grades are such that the max reservoir level is below the 42" supply HGL.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
R2
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
At Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Sonic UCC.PS2_L100101_PV.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 10
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1201.5
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1224.5
MG = L(0.00002244L^2+0.00480216L+0.31514736) Limits 0 to 23; L = Height of water in reservoir
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE RESERVOIR 3 3130 E. Adobe R3 CITY ZONE 310 S. Brooks DESCRIPTION R3 stores water from the Val Vista WTP supply line during low demand and supplies water to PS3 during peak demands. This reservoir can receive water during SRP dry-up from CW23 (inactive) and TS4 which are plumbed into the 42" supply line.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
R3
Hopper Bottom
Concrete
At Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic UCC.PS3_RESLVL.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 10
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1265
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1288
Level (d) = 0 to 21.5ft: Vol(MG)=d*(22.44d^2+4802.16d+315,147.36)/1,000,000 Level (d) = 21.5 to 23.0ft: Vol(MG)=0.5717d-3.0728
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
ID
NAME/ADDRESS RR RESERVOIR 3
LOCATION MAP
ZONE
RRR3
HIGHLANDS
8452 E. Valley Vista Circle DESCRIPTION RRR3 floats on the Highland Zone.
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
RRR3
Flat Bottom
Steel
Above Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Pressure Transducer UCC.RRR3_LVL.F_CV
CAPACITY (MG) 0.5
FLOOR (FEET EL) 2026
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 2050
V=π30.50^2[ft]*(h[ft])(7.48[gal/ft])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE SB RESERVOIR 1 Signal Butte Res. SBR1 DESERT WELLS 10950 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION This reservoir floats on the Desert Wells Zone and is fed from ground water.
LOCATION MAP
ID
RES
TYPE
MATERIAL
RESERVOIR INVENTORY PROFILE
SBR1
Flat Bottom
Concrete
Below Grade
Level Inst SCADA Tag
Ultrasonic UCC.CAPS_RESVRI_Li00011_pv.f_cv
CAPACITY (MG) 8
FLOOR (FEET EL) 1445
OVERFLOW (FEET EL) 1467
V[MG]=(234[ft])(234[ft])(h[ft])(7.48[gal]/1[ft^3])(1[MG]/1,000,000[gal])
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE AJ PUMP STATION 1 Waterbury AJPS1 APACHE JUNCTION 2762 N Waterbury DESCRIPTION AJPS1 pumps water from the County Line Zone to the Apache Junction Zone. Pump operation is controlled by the water level in AJR1 (overflow elevation 1940.00 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4
Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Future MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
HEAD FT 140 140 140
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1200 1.7 75 1200 1.7 75 1200 1.7 75
YEAR 2014 2014 2014
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
UCC.AJPS1_PI00101_PV.F_CV
PT EL=
1780
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI 5.1 3.4
UCC.AJPSI_DISCH_PSI.F_CV
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1780
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE AJ PUMP STATION 2 AJPS2 Countly Line North APACHE JUNCTION 3851 N 80th St DESCRIPTION This pump station feeds the Apache Junction Zone water from the County Line Zone via CLR5. This is the primary feed for the Apache Junction Zone. Pump operation is controlled by the level in AJR1 (overflow elevation 1941.03 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis
HEAD FT 124 124 124
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1390 2 60 1390 2 60 1390 2 60
YEAR 2015 2015 2015
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
6 4
AJPS2_DISCH_FLO
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
AJPS2_DISCH_PSI 1840.92
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL PUMP STATION 1 CLPS1 Painted Tank COUNTY LINE 3631 N. Sagewood Cir DESCRIPTION This pump station serves the base demand in the County Line Zone by pumping water from DSR1 to the distribution zone and CLR5. Pump operation is based on the water level in CLR5 (overflow elevation 1835.25 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5 6
Ingersoll Dresser Ingersoll Dresser Ingersoll Dresser Future Future Future
HEAD FT 120 120 120
PUMP INVENTORY HP FLOW GPM MGD 1550 2.2 100 1550 2.2 100 1550 2.2 100
YEAR 2002 2002 2002
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
6.6 4.4
CLPS1_FLOW
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
CLPS1_PSI 1699.88
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL PUMP STATION 2 CLPS2 Usery Pass COUNTY LINE 8059 E. McLellan DESCRIPTION CLPS2 supplies water supply for the County Line Zone. The pumps transfer water from the County Line distribution system. Pump operation is based on water level in the CLR2 (overflow elevation 1830.20 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Aurora Aurora Aurora
HEAD FT 165 165 165
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1740 2.5 100 1740 2.5 100 1740 2.5 100
YEAR 2014 2014 2014
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1597.5
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
7.5 5
CLPS2_FLOW
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
CLPS2_DISCH_PSI 1597.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CL BOOSTER STATION 3 CLPS3 Elmwood COUNTY LINE 9802 E. Elmwood St. DESCRIPTION CLPS3 is used to pump water from the Desert Sage Zone to the County Line Zone. This pump station is used to boost pressures in the southern portion of the County Line zone through the existing 12" main along Elmwood Street.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Alis Chalmers Alis Chalmers Alis Chalmers
HEAD FT 145 145 145
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1740 2.5 75 1740 2.5 75 1740 2.5 75
YEAR 2008 2008 2008
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
CLPS3_Pl100101.PV
PT EL=
1649
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
7.5 5
CLPS3_FI00102_LD_FQI.F_CV
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
CLPS3_Pl100102.PV 1649
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE BROWN ROAD DS PUMP STATION BRDSPS Brown Road WTP DESERT SAGE 7750 E. Brown Road DESCRIPTION The Desert Sage high service pumps deliver treated CAP water from the Brown Road WTP reservoir (CPFFR1) to the Desert Sage Zone. These pumps serve the base demand for the Desert Sage Zone and can operate on water transfering to the Brown Road WTP reservoir from the Falcon Field Zone during CAP Canal dry-up. Operation of the pumps is controlled by the water level in DSR2 (overflow elevation 1730.65 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
*DS 1 *DS 2 *DS 3 *DS 4 *DS 5 DS 6
Fairbanks Morse Simflo Ingersoll Rand Flowserve Peerless Future
HEAD FT 210 210 210 210 215
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 4375 6.3 300 6250 9 400 4200 6 300 6255 9 500 6255 9 450
YEAR 1997 2002 1985 2007 2011
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI CP1_PS2_DSEFF_FLOW
PT EL= MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
39.3 30.3
* Soft Start FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
CP1_PUMPSTA_DS_PSI 1542.67
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE BROWN ROAD DW PUMP STATION BRDWPS Brown Road WTP DESERT WELLS 7750 E. Brown Road DESCRIPTION The Desert Wells high service pumps deliver treated CAP water from the Brown Road WTP reservoir to the Desert Wells Zone. These pumps serve the base demand for the Desert Wells Zone and can operate on water transfering to the Brown Road WTP reservoir from the Falcon Field Zone during CAP Canal dry-up. Operation of these pumps is controlled by the water level in DWR2 (overflow elevation 1634.16 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
*DW 1 *DW 2 *DW 3 *DW 4 *DW 5 *DW 6
Fairbanks Morse Fairbanks Morse Peerless Flowserve Flowserve Peerless
HEAD FT 110 110 119 115 115 119
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 4160 6 150 4160 6 150 6255 9 250 6255 9 300 6255 9 300 6255 9 250
YEAR 1997 1997 2011 2005 2005 2011
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI CP1_DWEFF_MGD
PT EL= MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
48 39
N/A
CP1_DWEFF_PSI 1542.67
*Adjustable Frequency Drive FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE PUMP STATION 1 PS1 Pasadena CITY ZONE 601 N. Pasadena DESCRIPTION PS1 pumps water from the Val Vista WTP supply line to the City Zone. Pumps 1-5 serve base demand while three primary and one secondary flow control valves transfer Val Vista WTP supply water to R1 for storage. During peak demands, pumps 6-10 deliver water from R1 to the City Zone. This pump station also operates during SRP dry-up when R1 is supplied by City Wells 8, 9, 11 &12 which are plumbed directly into R1.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Aurora Aurora National Aurora Aurora
HEAD FT 120 120 120 120 120 165 165 153 165 165
MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
67.8 59.6
PUMP INVENTORY HP FLOW GPM MGD 5700 8.2 300 5700 8.2 300 5700 8.2 300 5700 8.2 300 5700 8.2 300 3600 5.2 250 3600 5.2 250 4167 6 250 3600 5.2 250 3600 5.2 250
YEAR 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 1982 1982 2012 1982 1982
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI PS1_DISFLO
PT EL=
*Variable Speed FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
PS1_DISPSI 1250.49
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE PUMP STATION 2 PS2 Brooks CITY ZONE 310 S. Brooks DESCRIPTION PS2 pumps water from the Val Vista WTP supply line to the City Zone. Pumps 1-5 serve base demands while a flow control valve transfers Val Vista WTP supply water to R2 for storage. During peak demands, pumps 6-8 deliver water from R2 to the City Zone. This facility can be run during SRP dry-up when R2 is supplied by CW26 which is plumbed directly with R2.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4* 5* 6 7 8* 9 10
Flowserve Flowserve Flowserve Flowserve Flowserve Aurora Aurora Flowserve Flowserve Future MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
HEAD FT 101 101 101 101 101 215 215 195 195
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 3472 5 300 3472 5 300 3472 5 250 3472 5 200 3472 5 200 3750 5.4 300 3750 5.4 300 4164 6 300 4164 6 250
YEAR 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 1974 1974 2012 2012
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI PS2_DISFLO
PT EL= 47.8 41.8
*Variable Speed FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
PS2_DISPSI 1250.49
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE PUMP STATION 3 Lindsay PS3 CITY ZONE 3130 E. Adobe DESCRIPTION PS3 pumps water from the Val Vista WTP supply line to the City Zone. Pumps 1-5 serve base demands while a flow control valve transfers Val Vista WTP supply water to R3 for storage. During peak demands, pumps 6-9 deliver water from R3 to the City Zone. This facility can be run during SRP dry-up when the 42" supply line is supplied by CW23 or TS4.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aurora Aurora Aurora Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse National Flowserve Flowserve Flowserve Future MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
HEAD FT 100 130 130 100 100 117 119 119 119
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 5500 7.9 200 5500 7.9 300 5500 7.9 300 5500 7.9 200 5500 7.9 200 4861 7 300 4858 7 250 4858 7 300 4858 7 250
67.5 59.6
YEAR 1976 1976 1976 1990 1990 2012 2012 2012 2012
PUMP REPLACED 1991
PUMP IMPELLER 1985 1983
1991 1991
1991 1991 1991
*Variable Speed FACILITY SCHEMATIC
MOTOR REPLACED 1991 1991
ID
NAME/ADDRESS NORTHEAST PUMP STATION 4
ZONE
LOCATION MAP
PS4
CITY MINI 1645 N. Gilbert Dr DESCRIPTION These pumps serve as the primary feed to the City Mini Zone. When these pumps are not in service the Mini Zone is fed through PRV 26 & 36.
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Aurora Aurora Aurora
HEAD FT 74 74 74
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 2400 3.46 60 2400 3.46 60 2400 3.46 60
YEAR 2005 2005 2005
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
10.38 6.92
PS _FLOW
PS _PSI
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1279
ID
NAME/ADDRESS SOUTHEAST PUMP STATION 5
ZONE
LOCATION MAP
PS5
CITY MINI 761 S. Val Vista Dr. DESCRIPTION These pumps serve as the primary feed to the City Mini Zone. When these pumps are not in service the Mini Zone is fed through PRV 27.
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Aurora Aurora Aurora
HEAD FT 60 60 60
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 2600 3.74 50 2600 3.74 50 2600 3.74 50
YEAR 2005 2005 2005
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PS5_INLET_PSI
PT EL=
1271
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
11.22 7.48
PS5_LD_FLOW
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PS5_DSCRG_PSI 1271
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DS PUMP STATION 1 DSPS1 Concrete Tank DESERT SAGE 6917 E. Saddleback DESCRIPTION DSPS1 pumps water from the DWR1 to the Desert Sage Zone and DSR1. These pumps help serve the base demand in the Desert Sage Zone and are used year round to maintain water quality in the zone. Pump operation is based on the water level in DSR1 (overflow elevation 1730.77 ft). There is a 6" PRV 32 which can be used to bleed water from DS to DW zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4
Byron Jackson Byron Jackson Byron Jackson Goulds
HEAD FT 144 144 144 112
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1100 1.6 50 1100 1.6 50 1100 1.6 50 1100 1.6 50
YEAR 2019 2019 2019 2022
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI DSPS1_FI00101_PV.F_CV
PT EL=
N/A N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
6.4 4.8
DSPS1_FI00102_PV.F_CV
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
DSPS1_PI00102_PV.F_CV 1622.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DW PUMP STATION 1 DWPS1 Recker / McDowell DESERT WELLS 2951 N. Recker DESCRIPTION DWPS1 pumps water from FFR1 the Desert Wells distribution system. This pump station is operated year round to maintain water quality in the zone and is also used as a transfer station during CAP canal dry-up. Pump operation is based on the water elevation in DWR1 (overflow elevation 1642.36 ft).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4
Fairbanks Morse Peerless Peerless Future
HEAD FT 155 155 155
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1725 2.5 100 3500 5 200 3500 5 200
YEAR 2002 2005 2005
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
12.5 7.5
DWPS1_DISCH_FLO
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
DWPS1_DISCH_PSI 1490.38
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE DW PUMP STATION 2 DWPS2 Higley Boosters DESERT WELLS 2208 N. Higley Rd DESCRIPTION Pump station no longer in service. Site is currently used for PRV #1.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
HEAD FT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD
YEAR
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
N/A
N/A
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE HIGHLAND PUMP STATION 1 HLPS1 Apache Junction Reservoir HIGHLANDS 8425 E Scarlet DESCRIPTION These pumps serve as the primary feed to the Highlands Zone by transfering water from the Apache Junction Zone via AJR1 to the Highlands Zone, feeding up to HLR1 and HLR2. ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Simflo Simflo Simflo
HEAD FT 239 239 241
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW YEAR GPM MGD 250 0.36 1998 250 0.36 1998 487 0.7 2011
LOCATION MAP
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
1.42 0.72
HLPS1_FI00102_PV
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HLPS1_PI00102_PV 1924.33
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE HIGHLAND PUMP STATION 2 HLPS2 Waterbury HIGHLANDS 2762 N Waterbury DESCRIPTION HLPS2 pumps water from the County Line Zone to the Highlands Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2
Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis
HEAD FT 415 415
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 456 0.7 75 456 0.7 75
YEAR 2014 2014
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
1.4 0.7
N/A
N/A
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1779.16
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE RANGE RIDER PUMP STATION 1 RRPS1 Waterbury RANGE RIDER 2762 N Waterbury DESCRIPTION RRPS1 pumps water from the County Line Zone to the Range Rider Zone. Pump operation is controlled by the water level in RRR3 (overflow elevation 2050.00).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Gould Gould Gould
HEAD FT 280 290 290
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 350 0.5 30 350 0.5 30 350 0.5 30
YEAR 2008 2008 2008
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
1.5 1
HLPS2_FLOW
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HLPS2_DISCH_PSI 1924.33
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE RANGE RIDER PUMP STATION 2 RRPS2 Apache Junction Reservoir RANGE RIDER 8425 E Scarlet DESCRIPTION These pumps feed to the Range Rider Zone by transfering water from the Apache Junction Zone via AJR1 to the Range Rider Zone. Pump operation is controlled by the water level in RRR3 (overflow elevation elevation 2050.00).
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Ruhrpumpen Ruhrpumpen Ruhrpumpen
HEAD FT 142 142 142
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1200 1.73 60 1200 1.73 60 1200 1.73 60
YEAR 2006 2006 2006
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
5.19 3.46
RRPS2_Fl00102
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
RRPS2_Pl00102 1924.33
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE SB Pump Station SBDSPS Signal Butte Res. DESERT SAGE 10950 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION These pumps feed to the DS Zone from Signal Butte Reservoir.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Peerless Peerless Peerless
HEAD FT 339 339 339
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 2430 3.5 300 2430 3.5 300 2430 3.5 300
YEAR 2009 2009 2009
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
UCC.CAPS_EFF_DS_F100312_ UCC.CAPS_EFF_DS_P100312_PV.F PV2.F_CV _CV
10.5 7
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1473.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE SB Pump Station 1 SBDWPS Signal Butte Res. DESERT WELLS 10950 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION These pumps feed to the DW Zone from Signal Butte Reservoir.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5
Peerless Peerless Peerless Floway Floway
HEAD FT 216 216 216 207 207
MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
40 29
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 4200 6 300 4200 6 300 4200 6 300 7640 11 500 7640 11 500
YEAR 2009 2009 2009 2018 2018
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
1473.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE SB Pump Station SBFFPS Signal Butte Res. FALCON FIELD 10950 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION These pumps feed to the FF Zone from Signal Butte Reservoir.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Floway Floway Floway
HEAD FT 125 125 125
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 5550 8 250 5550 8 250 5550 8 250
YEAR 2018 2018 2018
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
24 16
N/A
N/A
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1473.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE TRANSFER STATION 1 CITY ZONE / TS1 Lindsay Transfer FALCON FIELD 3134 E Adobe DESCRIPTION The Lindsay Transfer Station (TS1) is used primarily to transfer water between the City and Falcon Field Zones. This facility consists of two main components; (1) a pump station to pump water from the City Zone and discharge it into the Falcon Field Zone during CAP dry-up, and (2) a pressure-reducing facility to release water from the Falcon Field Zone to the City Zone during SRP dry-up.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4
Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Fairbanks-Morse Peerless
HEAD FT 120 120 120 120
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 2778 4 125 2778 4 125 5555 8 250 5555 8 250
YEAR 1988 1988 1988 2007
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
TS1_INLET_PSI
PT EL=
1295.51
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
24 16
TS1_FLO
TS1_DISCH_PSI
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1595.51
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE TRANSFER STATION 2 FALCON FIELD/ TS2 Recker Transfer CPFFR1 6450 E Brown Rd DESCRIPTION Under normal operation water is fed from the Brown Road WTP Reservoir through the flow control valve at this station to the Falcon Field Zone. Flow down operation is based on the water level in FFR1. During CAP dry-up, TS2 pumps water from the Falcon Field Zone to CPFFR1 to supply the Desert Wells and Desert Sage high-service pumps. Pump operation is based on water levels in CPFFR1.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gould Gould Gould Gould Future Fuure MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
HEAD FT 85 85 85 85
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 7300 10.5 175 7300 10.5 175 7300 10.5 175 7300 10.5 175
YEAR 2023 2023 2023 2023
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
TS2_FF_PSI
PT EL=
1463.56
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI 42 31.5
TS2_FLO
TS2_CAP_PSI
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1463.56
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE TRANSFER STATION 3 VAL VISTA WTP/ TS3 Val Vista Pump Station FALCON FIELD 3030 E. McDowell DESCRIPTION TS3 is one of 2 transfer stations that supply the Falcon Field Zone with water directly from the Val Vista WTP supply line. This transfer station can pump water from the Val Vista Feed Line to the Falcon Field Zone, bleed water down from the Falcon Field Zone to the Val Vista Supply Line.
LOCATION MAP
ID
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3 4 5
Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis Fairbanks Nijhuis
HEAD FT 220 220 220 220 220
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 2777 4 250 2750 4 250 5555 8 450 5555 8 450 5555 8 450
YEAR 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
TS2_FF_PSI
PT EL=
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
32 24
N/A
N/A
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1332.25
ID
NAME/ADDRESS BASELINE TRANSFER
ZONE
LOCATION MAP
DESERT WELLS/ DESERT SAGE
TS5
9710 E Baseline Rd DESCRIPTION TS5 transfers water between the Desert Wells and Desert Sage Zones. Water can be pumped from Desert Wells to Desert Sage and bled down from Desert Sage to Desert Wells. Currently this facility is being used to transfer water down to Desert Wells to prop-up local pressures in that zone.
PUMP
MAKE
1 2 3
Aurora Aurora Aurora
HEAD FT 150 150 150
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW HP GPM MGD 1450 2.1 100 1450 2.1 100 1450 2.1 100
RPM 1800 1800 1800
SUCTION SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
TS5_INLET_PSI
PT EL=
1476.5
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
6.3 4.2
TS5_FLOW
TS5_DISCH_PSI
PT EL= FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1332.25
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 7 CW7 CITY ZONE 212 N. Mesa Drive DESCRIPTION CW7 was redrilled in 2018 and pumps water to the 30" transmission main in Hibbert Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
TDH FT
Active
National pump
428
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3000
4.32
HP
DRILLED
450
2018
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
180 868
ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1248
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 8 CW8 CITY ZONE 604 N. Pasadena DESCRIPTION CW8 pumps chlorinated well water to R1 (Pasadena Reservoir). Well can also be valved to the Val Vista Transmission Main or distribution.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
National pump
TDH FT 262
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2500 3.6
HP
DRILLED
250
2018
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
810 140
ft ft (2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1249
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 9 CW9 CITY ZONE 416 E. 8th St DESCRIPTION CW9 pumps chlorinated well water to R1 (Pasadena Reservoir).
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
TBD
TDH FT 390
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3500 5.04
HP
DRILLED
450
2023
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1010 141
ft ft (1956) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1236.69
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 10 CW10 CITY ZONE 225 S. Robson DESCRIPTION CW10 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 12" DIP line in Robson.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Simflo
TDH FT 500
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1250 1.8
HP
DRILLED
250
2001
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
910 184
ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
1235.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 11 CW11 CITY ZONE 31 E. MLK Way DESCRIPTION CW11 pumps chlorinated well water to R1 (Pasadena Reservoir). Well can also be valved to the Val Vista Transmission Main or distribution.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Active
National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 240 1000 140
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3300 4.75 ft ft (2009) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
300
2009
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1247
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 12 CW12 CITY ZONE 32 E. 6th St. DESCRIPTION CW12 pumps chlorinated well water to R1 (Pasadena Reservoir). Well can also be valved to the Val Vista Transmission Main or distribution.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 225 1000 140
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3300 4.75 ft ft (2008) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
300
2008
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1248.5
NAME/ADDRESS CITY WELL 13 261 E 3rd Ave DESCRIPTION
ID CW13
LOCATION MAP
ZONE CITY ZONE
CW13 was re-drilled in 2023.
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
TDH FT
Operational
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3500 5.04
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI
2023 PT EL =
Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1200 119
ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 14 CW14 CITY ZONE 652 S. Horne DESCRIPTION CW14 pumps chlorinated water to the City Zone. The well has a variable frequency drive that allows the discharge pressure to be set. The well can be valved to pump to waste into onsite retention basin or SRP.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Active
National Pump
TDH FT 363
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 3000 4.32
HP
DRILLED
350
2014
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
954 140
ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1233.08
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 15 CW15 CITY ZONE 331 S. Shouse DESCRIPTION CW15 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 18" CCP line running along Broadway.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Flow Serve Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 476 1004 250
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2500 3.6 ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1965
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1245.1
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 16 CW16 CITY ZONE 301 S. Extension DESCRIPTION CW16 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 12" ACP and 12" DIP line running along Extension.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Worthington Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 490 1000 269
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1875 2.7 ft ft (1970) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1970
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1233
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 17 CW17 CITY ZONE 1000 S. Alma School Rd. DESCRIPTION CW17 is currently inactive and disconnected from the distribution system.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Inactive
Not Equipped Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 0 ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 18 CW18 CITY ZONE 501 N. Gilbert Road DESCRIPTION CW18 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via an 18" line running along Gilbert Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Ingersol Rand
TDH FT 435
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2166 3.12
HP
DRILLED
400
1980
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 267
ft ft (1980) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1260.29
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 19 CW19 CITY ZONE 1626 N Gilbert Rd DESCRIPTION CW19 pumps chlorinated well water to either the City Zone via 16" CCP line running along Gilbert or the Northeast City Mini-Zone via 12" ACP line depending on the valve positions in Gilbert Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
American Turbine
TDH FT 480
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2500 3.6
HP
DRILLED
500
1980
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
997 302
ft ft (1980) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1280.68
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 20 CW20 CITY ZONE 2251 S Dobson Rd DESCRIPTION CW20 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 14" ACP line running along Dobson Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould
TDH FT 400
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2650 3.82
HP
DRILLED
500
1984
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 158
ft ft (1984) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1201.87
NAME/ADDRESS CITY WELL 21 CW21 2649 E. Lehi Rd. DESCRIPTION CW21 has been transferred to SRP. ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
SRP
American Turbine Well Depth Static Depth to Water
LOCATION MAP
ZONE CITY ZONE
TDH FT 460 1020 257
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88 ft ft (1986) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1986
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 22 CW22 CITY ZONE 2402 S Country Club Dr DESCRIPTION CW22 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 24" CCP line running along Country Club Drive.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
American Turbine
TDH FT 480
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88
HP
DRILLED
400
1988
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 230
ft ft (1990) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1212.64
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 23 CW23 CITY ZONE 1541 N. Lindsay Road DESCRIPTION CW23 pumps chlorinated well water to R3 (Lindsay Reservoir) via the 42" supply line running along Lindsay Road. Idled due to high DBCP
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Idled
American Turbine Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 365 1000 306
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1644 2.37 ft ft (1991) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1989
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 24 CW24 CITY ZONE 1320 E. June Street DESCRIPTION CW24 pumps chlorinated well water to either the NE City Mini-Zone or the City Zone depending on how its valved.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Ingersoll Rand
TDH FT 326
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88
HP
DRILLED
400
1989
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 273
ft ft (1990) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1398.65
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 25 CW25 CITY ZONE 1159 W. 7th St. DESCRIPTION CW25 pumps chlorinated well water to the City Zone via a 12" DIP and 18" CCP line running along Alma School Rd.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Simflo Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 484 1300 178
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88 ft ft (1996) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
300
1996
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1240
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 26 CW26 CITY ZONE 310 S. Brooks DESCRIPTION CW26 pumps chlorinated well water directly to R2 (Brooks Reservoir).
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 260 1202 160
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2361 3.4 ft ft (1998) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
250
1997
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1228
NAME/ADDRESS ZONE CITY WELL 27 CW27 CITY ZONE 1002 N. Dobson Road DESCRIPTION CW27 pumps chlorinated water to the Val Vista Transmission Main. The well pumps to waste into Riverview Park Lake.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Active
National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 266 925 170
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88 ft ft (2014) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
200
2001
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1456.3
NAME/ADDRESS DESERT SAGE 9 DS9 9601 E Pueblo DESCRIPTION DS9 is currently out of service due to high arsenic.
ZONE
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water
LOCATION MAP
DESERT SAGE
TDH FT 702 1000 484
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (2001) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
2001
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1516
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT SAGE 10 DESERT SAGE DS10 220 N. Crismon DESCRIPTION DS10 is currently inactive and disconnected from the distribution system.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Inactive
Worthington Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 583 617 505
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 500 0.72 ft ft (1961) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
150
1961
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT SAGE 11 DESERT SAGE DS11 9197 E. Florian DESCRIPTION DS11 is currently inactive and disconnected from the distribution system. This well is abandoned and the site will be used for a sulfide station.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Inactive
Not Equipped Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT
907 360
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 0 ft ft (1973) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED 1973
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
NAME/ADDRESS DESERT SAGE 12 DS12 827 S. 98th Street DESCRIPTION DS12 is currently out of service due to high arsenic.
ZONE
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould
LOCATION MAP
DESERT SAGE
TDH FT 646
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1200 1.73
HP
DRILLED
300
1976
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
775 431
ft ft (1976) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1525.54
NAME/ADDRESS DESERT SAGE 13 DS13 725 S Crismon DESCRIPTION DS13 is currently out of service due to high arsenic.
ZONE
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
American Turbine
LOCATION MAP
DESERT SAGE
TDH FT 704
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88
HP
DRILLED
500
1991
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1005 484
ft ft (1991) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1537.52
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 3 DESERT WELLS DW3 1840 S Sossaman Rd DESCRIPTION DW3 pumps chlorinated well water to either the Desert Wells Zone or the Falcon Field Zone via a 12" DIP line. It is normally valved to the Falcon Field Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 681 1050 369
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
2001
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1395
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 5 DESERT WELLS DW5 830 S. 75th St. DESCRIPTION DW5 is currently leased out to Golden Hills Golf Course for irrigation use. It is not connected to the distribution system.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Leased Out
Not Available Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 0 ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 6 DESERT WELLS DW6 2345 S Hawes Rd DESCRIPTION DW6 can be valved to pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 12" ACP line running along Baseline Road OR to the Falcon Field Zone via a 12" ACP line in Baseline Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Worthington
TDH FT 788
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 800 1.152
HP
DRILLED
250
1974
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 215
ft ft (1974) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1408.46
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 7 DW7 DESERT WELLS 2357 S. Hawes Rd DESCRIPTION DW7 can be valved to pump chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 12" DIP line running along Hawes Road OR to the Falcon Field Zone via a 16" DIP line in Hawes Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Worthington
TDH FT 702
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1600 2.3
HP
DRILLED
450
2022
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1200 313.68
ft ft (2022) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 9 DW9 DESERT WELLS 9710 E Baseline Rd DESCRIPTION DW9 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" DIP line running along Baseline Road. This well is used sparingly because it produces hot water in the 100 ̊ range.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Floway Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 710 820 426
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (1976) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1986
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1476.5
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 10 DESERT WELLS DW10 8404 E Baseline Rd DESCRIPTION DW10 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" ACP line running along Hawes (84th Street). This well has recently been put on inactive status due to high levels of nitrates. Equipment has been removed.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
TDH FT
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD
Inactive
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
868 488
ft ft (1984) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1427.63
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 11 DESERT WELLS DW11 10940 E Pecos Rd DESCRIPTION DW 11 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 12" DIP line. The well has been taken out of service due to high arsenic.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 779 1450 300
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1200 1.73 ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
350
2000
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1426
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 12 DW12 DESERT WELLS 9231 E Pecos Rd DESCRIPTION DW 12 pumps chlorinated well water to Falcon Field Zone via a 12" DIP line that connects immediately downstream of PRV 28 to the 20" DIP line in Ellsworth road. There is an Inter-tie valve to the Desert Wells Zone which is normally closed.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 725 991 353 556
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 700 1 ft ft (Jun 6, 2018) ft (Jun 6, 2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
200
2002
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1392
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 13 DW13 DESERT WELLS 10702 E Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION DW13 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" line running along Elliot Road. A future well collection line will connect DW13 to the reservoir and pump station at Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant. This well produces warm water in the 90° F range.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 720 1060 479 604
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1600 2.304 ft ft (Sep 8, 2017) ft (Sep 8, 2017) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1997
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A N/A PT EL = 1483
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 14 DW14 DESERT WELLS 7144 S Meridian DESCRIPTION DW14 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" ACP line running along Meridian Road. This well was redrilled in 1998.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 775 1470 339 640
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (Oct 11, 2017) ft (Oct 11, 2017) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1998
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL =
N/A 1445.22
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 15 DW15 DESERT WELLS 7562 S Meridian DESCRIPTION DW15 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" DIP running north along Meridian Road. This well was redrilled in 1998.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Active
Gould Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 694 1245 292 495
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1400 2.02 ft ft (Jan 31, 2018) ft (Jan 31, 2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
400
1998
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL =
N/A 1445.67
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 16 DW16 DESERT WELLS 10144 E Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION DW16 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells Zone via a 16" ACP line running along Elliot Road. A future well collection line will connect to the reservoir at the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS Operational
PUMP MAKE National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 694 1000 456 564
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 750 1.08 ft ft (Dec 13, 2017) ft (Dec 13, 2017) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
250
2004
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1439
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 17 DW17 DESERT WELLS 9820 E Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION Desert Well 17 pumps chlorinated well water to the Desert Wells zone via a 16" ACP line running along Elliot Road. A future well collection line will connect to the reservoir at the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS Operational
PUMP MAKE National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 724 743 370 502
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (Sep 7, 2017) ft (Sep 7, 2017) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
350
2007
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1428.8
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 18 DW18 DESERT WELLS 4161 S Signal Butte Rd DESCRIPTION Desert Well 18 pumps chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot. DW18 was redrilled in 2023.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
TDH FT
Operational Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
1300 405 720
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1000 1.44 ft ft (2023) ft (2023) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
250
2023
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1460
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 19 DW19 DESERT WELLS 4731 S Signal Butte Rd DESCRIPTION Desert Well 19 pumps chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS Active
PUMP MAKE National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 545 1190 402 565
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1104 1.59 ft ft (Jun 25, 2018) ft (Jun 25, 2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
250
2018
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1454
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 20 DW20 DESERT WELLS 5217 S Signal Butte Rd DESCRIPTION Desert Well 20 pumps chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS Active
PUMP MAKE National Pump Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 694 802 368 575
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 694 1 ft ft (Jun 25, 2018) ft (Jun 25, 2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
150
2018
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1454
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 21 DW21 DESERT WELLS 11010 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION DW21 pumps chlorinated water to the Desert Wells Zone. It is connected to the distribution system via a 16" ACP line running along Elliot Road. It is also connected to the well collection line that connects to the reservoir at the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant. During normal operations it will be valved into the reservoir.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS Operational
PUMP MAKE American Turbine Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 584 1060 469 568
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (Dec 13, 2017) ft (Dec 13, 2017) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
300
2007
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1477.8
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 22 DW22 DESERT WELLS 11144 E. Elliot Rd DESCRIPTION DW22 pumps chlorinated water to the well collection line that connects to the reservoir at the Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant. During an emergency the check valve on DW21 discharge header could be disabled to allow flow into the DW Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
TDH FT 550 1070 463 526
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft (Jan 24, 2018) ft (Jan 24, 2018) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
300
2007
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1485
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 24 DW24 DESERT WELLS 3101 - 3199 S Chatsworth Cir. DESCRIPTION DW24 has been drilled and is in the process of beind equipped. This well will pump chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2000 2.88 1300 ft 428.8 ft 547 ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC TDH FT
HP
DRILLED 2023
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL =
N/A
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 25 DW25 DESERT WELLS 9321 E. Warner Rd. DESCRIPTION DW25 has been drilled and is in the process of beind equipped. This well will pump chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Being Equipped Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 1220 ft 320.98 ft 920 ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC TDH FT
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI
2023 PT EL =
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS DESERT WELLS 26 DW26 DESERT WELLS 4020 South Helios DESCRIPTION DW26 has been drilled and is in the process of beind equipped. This well will pump chlorinated well water to the Signal Butte reservoir located at Signal Butte and Elliot.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
TDH FT
Being Equipped Well Depth Static Depth to Water Pumping Depth to Water
1300 326 720
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1500 2.16 ft ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI
2023 PT EL =
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS FALCON WELLS 2 FF2 FALCON FIELD 1804 N. 46th St. DESCRIPTION FF2 supplies an irrigation force main to the citrus groves at Greenfield and Mcdowell. There is a connection to supply Red Mountain Ranch irrigation that has been disconnected. Treatment was installed to remove DBCP in order to pump to the distribution system. The treatment is currently abandoned in place and the well is completely disconnected from the distribution system.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Irrigation
National Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 642 926 450
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2500 3.6 ft ft (1959) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
500
1959
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
N/A
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS FALCON WELLS 5 FF5 FALCON FIELD 3522 E. University DESCRIPTION FF5 pumps chlorinated well water into the Falcon Field Zone via a 16" ACP and 12" ACP line running along Val Vista.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
Worthington Well Depth Static Depth to Water
TDH FT 670 1000 384
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2300 3.51 ft ft (1978) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
HP
DRILLED
450
1978
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL =
1291
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS FALCON WELLS 14 FF14 FALCON FIELD 7201 E. Baseline Road DESCRIPTION FF14 pumps chlorinated well water to the Falcon Field Zone via two 16" ACP lines running along Baseline Road.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
Operational
American Turbine
TDH FT 700
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 2150 3.1
HP
DRILLED
400
1990
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
1000 360
ft ft (2000) FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1366.92
ZONE NAME/ADDRESS FALCON WELLS 15 FF15 FALCON FIELD 6959 E. Monterrey Ave DESCRIPTION FF15 is idle due to hight levels of arsenic. It is still equipped and manually run to waste for maintenance monthly.
LOCATION MAP
ID
STATUS
PUMP MAKE
IDLE
National Pump
TDH FT 720
WELL INVENTORY CAPACITY GPM MGD 1000 1.44
HP
DRILLED
300
2000
SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL = Well Depth Static Depth to Water
920 318
ft ft FACILITY SCHEMATIC
N/A 1345.21
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV3 STATION 3 DESERT WELLS TO DREAMLAND VILLA 5804 E Adobe ST DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to DreamLand Villa homes.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 8 2.5
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW FLOW GPM MGD GPM MGD 200 0.268 3100 4.464 30 0.0432 300 0.432
YEAR 2014 2014
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 0
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
4.9 0.43
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 0
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
100 - 105
55
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 55 57
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI 65 65
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE DESERT WELLS TO DREAMLAND VILLA PRV4 STATION 4 HOMES 5928 E University Dr. DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to Dreamland Villa Homes.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 8 2.5
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW FLOW GPM MGD GPM MGD 200 0.268 3100 4.464 30 0.0432 300 0.432
YEAR 2014 2014
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 0
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
4.9 0.43
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 0
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
100 - 105
57 to 61
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 57 61
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI 67 67
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE DESERT WELLS TO ARIZONA GOLF PRV5 STATION 5 RESORT 7147 E Broadway DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to Arizona Golf Resort Reduced Pressure Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 6 1.5
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW FLOW GPM MGD GPM MGD 115 0.1656 1800 2.59 10 0.0144 1285 1.85
YEAR 1990 1990
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1405.84
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
4.44 1.85
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1405.84
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
95 to 97
54 to 58
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 54 58
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE DESERT WELLS TO ARIZONA GOLF PRV6 STATION 6 RESORT REDUCE PRESSURE AREA 830 S 75th St DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to Arizona Golf Resort Reduce Pressure Area.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 6 1.5
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.1656 10 0.0144
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 1800 2.59 125 0.18
YEAR 1990 1990
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1405.84
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
2.77 0.18
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1405.84
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
92 to 95
60
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 60 62
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV9 DESERT WELLS TO FALCON FIELD STATION 9 7601 E Inverness Ave DESCRIPTION Conveys water from Desert Wells Zone to Falcon Field Zone. Located in an underground 4' x 6' Concrete Vault.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 8 2
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.17 15 0.0216
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 2300 3.31 210 0.3
YEAR 2018 2018
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL=
N/A 1402
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
3.61 0.3
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 1402
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
95 to 105
53 to 50
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 50 53
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV10 DESERT WELLS TO FALCON FIELD STATION 10 1939 S Sossaman Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to the Falcon Field Zone. Located in an underground 4' x 6' Concrete Vault.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 8 2
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.17 15 0.0216
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 2300 3.31 210 0.3
YEAR 2018 2018
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
PT EL=
N/A 1391
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
3.61 0.3
N/A
PT EL=
N/A 1391
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
80 TO 90
55 TO 65
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 55 60
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE FROM RANGE RIDER ZONE TO PRV13 STATION 13 REDUCED PRESSURE AREA 8540 E McDowell Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water to the Thunder Mountain Subdivision. Replaced in 2011 and moved to Waterbury pump station.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 6 2
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.1656 15 0.0216
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 1800 2.59 210 0.3
YEAR 2011 2011
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1781
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
2.89 0.3
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1781
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
110-120
80 TO 90
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 81 83
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE FROM RANGE RIDER ZONE TO PRV14 STATION 14 REDUCED PRESSURE AREA 3040 N Hawes Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water to the Thunder Mountain Subdivsion. Rebuilt in 2011 and brought above grade. Not connected to SCADA system.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 6 2
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.1656 15 0.0216
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 1800 2.59 210 0.3
YEAR 2011 2011
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1787
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
2.89 0.3
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1787
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
110-120
75 TO 77
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 75 77
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV17 FROM HIGHLANDS TO RANGE RIDER STATION 17 3221 N 91ST ST DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Highlands Zone to the Range Rider Zone. Site was rebuilt in 2019 and tied into SCADA.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY VALVE
MAKE
1 2
Cla-Val Cla-Val
DIA. INCH 6 2
MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 115 0.1656 15 0.0216
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD 1800 2.59 210 0.3
YEAR 2001 2001
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1923
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
2.89 0.3
N/A
N/A
PT EL=
1923
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
114
49
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 49 50
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD Not Metered
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES LOCATION MAP PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV26 FALCON FIELD TO NE MINI ZONE STATION 26 2455 E. McDowell DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Falcon Field Zone to the NE City Mini Zone. Every evening at Midnight PS4 shuts off and allows PRV26 to be the primary source of water into the mini zone for half an hour. Located inside a 32' x 24' block wall enclosure. ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
12
400
0.576
7000
10.08
2004
2
Cla-Val
4
50
0.072
800
1.15
2004
FLOW MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
11.23 1.15
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI UCC.PRV26_INLET_PSI.F _CV
N/A
PT EL=
1311.25
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS PSI
UCC.PRV26_FLOW.F_CV
UCC.PRV26_OUTLET_PSI.F_CV
PT EL=
1923
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
90 TO 85
60 TO 55
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 55 80
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 0 TO 0.5, PEAK = 1
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV27 STATION 27 FALCON FIELD TO SE MINI ZONE 1935 S Greenfield Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Falcon Field Zone to the SE City Mini Zone. Every evening at Midnight PS5 shuts off and allows PRV27 to be the primary source of water into the mini zone for half an hour. Located inside a 15' x 6' Concrete Vault.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW FLOW GPM MGD GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
10
300
0.432
4900
7.06
2004
2
Cla-Val
4
50
0.072
800
1.15
2004
FLOW MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
8.21 1.15
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI UCC.PRV27_INLET_PSI.F _CV
N/A
PT EL=
1270
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS PSI
UCC.PRV27_FLOW.F_CV
UCC.PRV27_OUTLET_PSI.F_CV
PT EL=
1270
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
98 TO 90
69 TO 63
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 63 69
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 0 TO 0.5 PEAK = 1
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV28 DESERT WELLS TO FALCON FIELD STATION 28 6815 S Ellsworth Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to the Falcon Field Zone. A CLA_VAL Model CRD-33 electronic actuated pressure reducing pilot control was installed on the two 12-inch PRVs. This actuator will allow the UCC operator the ability to enter the downstream pressure set point.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
12
400
0.576
7000
10.08
2 3
Cla-Val Cla-Val
4 (REMOVED) 12
400
0.576
7000
10.08
MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
20.16 10.08
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI
2005
N/A
UCC.PRV28_INLET_PSI.F _CV
PT EL= 2010 DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI
UCC.PRV28_FLOW.F_CV
1391.2
UCC.PRV28_OUTLET_PSI.F_CV
PT EL=
1391.2
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
1 2 3
80 TO 100
76 TO 86
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 51
45 FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI 83 83
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 2.09 TO 3.57 PEAK = 4.54
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV29 DESERT WELLS TO FALCON FIELD STATION 29 8351 E Baseline DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to the Falcon Field Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
6
115
0.1656
1800
2.59
2004
2
Cla-Val
2.5
20
0.0288
300
0.43
2004
FLOW MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
3.02 0.43
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI UCC.PRV29_INLET.PSI.F _CV
N/A
PT EL=
1416
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS PSI
UCC.PRV29_FLOW.F_CV
UCC.PRV29_OUTLET.PSI.F_CV
PT EL=
1416
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
90 TO 85
55 TO 50
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 50 55
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI 60 60
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 0 TO 2 PEAK = 3
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV31 STATION 31 NE MINI ZONE TO CITY ZONE 1834 E Lehi Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the North East Mini Zone to the City Zone.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
4
50
0.072
800
1.15
2009
2
Cla-Val
2.5
20
0.0288
300
0.43
2009
FLOW MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
1.58 0.43
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI CC.PRV31_PI00102_PV. F_CV
N/A
PT EL=
1256
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS PSI
UCC.PRV31_FI00102_PV.F_CV
UCC.PRV31_PI00102_PV.F_CV
PT EL=
1256
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
75
60 TO 65
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 60 65
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI -
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 0 TO 0.1; PEAK = 0.5
NAME/ADDRESS ZONES PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE PRV35 DESERT WELLS TO FALCON FIELD STATION 35 8720 E Ray Rd DESCRIPTION Conveys water from the Desert Wells Zone to Falcon Field Zone. A CLA_VAL Model CRD-33 electronic actuated pressure reducing pilot control was installed on the two 8-inch PRVs. This actuator will allow the UCC operator the ability to enter the downstream pressure set point.
LOCATION MAP
ID
VALVE INVENTORY MIN. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
MAX. RECOMMENDED FLOW GPM MGD
VALVE
MAKE
DIA. INCH
1
Cla-Val
8
200
0.288
3100
4.46
2010
2
Cla-Val
8
200
0.288
3100
4.46
2010
FLOW MAXIMUM CAPACITY FIRM CAPACITY
9.36 4.9
YEAR
INLET SCADA TAGS FLOW PSI UCC.PRV35PI00101_PV. F_CV
N/A
PT EL=
1376
DISCHARGE SCADA TAGS PSI
UCC.PRV35FI00102_PV.F_CV
UCC.PRV35PI00102_PV.F_CV
PT EL=
1376
OPERATIONAL NOTES
VALVE 1 2
TYPICAL UP STREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI 90 TO 110
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE RANGE PSI
PRESSURE REDUCING SETTING PSI 50 56 48 TO 58 58 FACILITY SCHEMATIC
PRESSURE SUSTAINING SETTING PSI 90 90 90
TYPICAL STATION FLOW RATE MGD 0 TO 2.5 PEAK = 5
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix B.
Water System Model Calibration Graphs
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix B
B-1
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix C.
Interim Year MD Results
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix C
C-1
South Canal (SRP)
CAP Canal
Val Vista WTP & Reservoir
Brown Road WTP & Reservoir
90 MGD
Res 1 20 MG
In association with:
1323.0' 1543.0'
BRDS PS
1288.0'
TS3
R3 10 MG
1832.0'
BRDW PS
Pump Station
2162.5' 1730.7'
DSR2 3.0 MG
2050.0' 1730.8'
DSR1 1.0 MG
RRR3 0.5 MG
1835.3'
HLR2 0.25 MG
Pressure Reducing Valve
HLR1 0.075 MG
CLR5 1.0 MG
Well MGD Rated
TS1 7.48 MGD
PS5
PRV 9 PRV 10 PRV 28 PRV 29 PRV 35
4.4 MGD
DSPS1
1634.2'
DWR2 1.0 MG TS5-FCV1&2 4.2 MGD
CLPS1
5 MGD CLPS2
5 MGD CLPS3
4 MGD AJPS2
3.4 MGD AJPS1
TS5
ALT
Water Treatment Plant
Proposed 2030
PRV 27
Overflow Elevation
3.46 MGD RRPS2
1940.0'
AJR1 1.0 MG
PRV 17
Highlands Zone HGL=2164
24 MGD
CW 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24
1632.6'
Range Rider Zone1 HGL=2050
PS4
PRV 51
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Apache Junction Zone HGL=1941
PRV 26 PRV 36
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valve Well
0.72 MGD DW 3, 6, 7, 12
FF 5,14
HLPS1
DW 9, 14, 15 SBDW PS
SE Mini Zone
Overflow Elevation
4.8 MGD
DWPS1
Desert Wells Zone1 HGL=1634
City Zone HGL=1400
6.92 MGD
CLR3 0.5 MG
12.5 MGD
44 MGD
NE Mini Zone
SCAP-FCV2
PRV 31
DWR1 1.0 MG
FFR1 1.5 MG
Falcon Field Zone HGL=1511
PS3
1510.1'
59.6 MGD
Lindsay
PS1
59.6 MGD
Pasadena
41.8 MGD
TS2
39 MGD
31.5 MGD
Existing
1834.0'
CLR2 0.5 MG
County Line Zone HGL=1836
R1 10 MG
Desert Sage Zone HGL=1731
1258.7'
R2 10 MG
Legend 32 MGD
1224.5'
Brooks
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
CW 8, 9, 11, 12
CW 26
PS2
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
30.3 MGD
BR R1&R2 40 MG
CW 25
CW 27
72 MGD
1 MGD
SCAP-FCV1 7 MGD SBDS PS
SBR1 8.0 MG
RRPS1
0.7 MGD HLPS2
Zone X HGL
1467.0'
SBR2 8.0 MG
Zone Name Hydraulic Grade Line
FF 2 Irrigation
DW 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, DW 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32
24 MGD
CAP Canal
Appendix C
Signal Butte WTP & Reservoir
2030 Hydraulic Profile Schematic 1. Reduced pressure zones within major pressure zones are not shown for clarity
115
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
55
60
75
40 80
45
0 11
Desert Wells Desert Sage County Line
Brown Rd 1200 N
65
75
Apache Junction Range Rider
45
45
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
55 60
95
80
50
60
10
85 90
75
65
Falcon Field
55
5 10
50
75
Highlands
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells
Southern Ave 1200 S
Desert Sage County Line
0
60
95
Apache Junction
Baseline Rd 2000 S
0
10
80
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI) City Zone (NE+SE)
70
60
Legend
McKellips Rd 2000 N
95
80
50
65
0
90
55
70
McDowell Rd 2800 N
75
85
65
60
85
0 11
70
5
75 90 85 00 95 1
5 50 5
70
10
70
11
105
65
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
60
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
35
90
80
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
75
In association with:
Highlands
65
60
70
Range Rider
Usery 1
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
80
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company
55
60
105
Queen Creek
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
Warner Rd 4400 S
95
Streets Canals
100
202
Railroads
85
90
Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S
Salt River Airport
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S 65
70
70
202
Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Appendix C 2030 MD Maximum Pressure
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
Legend Legend Maximum Velocity (ft/s) Less than 2 ft/s
McKellips Rd 2000 N
2-3 ft/s 3-5 ft/s
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
5-7 ft/s Greater than 7 ft/s
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals
Southern Ave 1200 S
Railroads Light Rail Track
60
60
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Airport Salt River
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Appendix C
±
2030 MD Maximum Velocity
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E 30
50
95
55
60
105
50
65
45
70
55
5
100
11 0
65
95
55
McDowell Rd 2800 N
65
45
Legend Pressure Contour Lines (PSI) City Zone (NE+SE) Falcon Field
McKellips Rd 2000 N
40
75
45
70 85 80
90
60
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
35
10
35
101
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
70
80
115
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
65
In association with:
Desert Wells
40
85
60
65
95
11 0
80
80
90
50
60
55
75
202
Desert Sage
55
70
10
60
0
85 45
65
40 50
70
55
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
45
65
90
Apache Junction Range Rider Highlands
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field
95
75
55
80
85
5
70
Desert Wells
Southern Ave 1200 S
10
60
County Line
Brown Rd 1200 N
Desert Sage County Line
60
75
Apache Junction
45
95
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Range Rider
50 55
Highlands
65
Usery 1
60
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company
50
Queen Creek
100
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Other Features Boundary
55
Highways
Warner Rd 4400 S
Railroads Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S
80
85
Canals
75
95
202
Streets
Salt River Airport
90
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
5000
10000 ft
65
24
85
202
0
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
±
Appendix C 2030 MD Minimum Pressure
South Canal (SRP)
CAP Canal
Val Vista WTP & Reservoir
Brown Road WTP & Reservoir
90 MGD
Res 1 20 MG
In association with:
1323.0' 1543.0'
BRDS PS
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
CW 8, 9, 11, 12
1288.0'
TS3
R3 10 MG
1832.0'
BRDW PS
24 MGD
TS1 7.48 MGD
PRV 51 PRV 9 PRV 10 PRV 28 PRV 29
PS5
PRV 35
DSR2 3.0 MG
2050.0' 1730.8'
DSR1 1.0 MG
RRR3 0.5 MG
1835.3'
HLR2 0.25 MG
Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valve
HLR1 0.075 MG
CLR5 1.0 MG
Well MGD Rated
DSPS1
1634.2'
DWR2 1.0 MG TS5-FCV1&2 4.2 MGD
CLPS1
5 MGD CLPS2
5 MGD CLPS3
4 MGD AJPS2
3.4 MGD AJPS1
TS5
ALT
DW 9, 14, 15
FF 5,14
SBDW PS
SBFF PS
DW 3, 6, 7, 12
Overflow Elevation
3.46 MGD RRPS2
1940.0'
AJR1 1.0 MG
PRV 17
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station Pressure Reducing Valve Well
Proposed 2035 Overflow Elevation
Storage Tank
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Pump Station
0.72 MGD
Pressure Reducing Valve
HLPS1
Well
1 MGD
SCAP-FCV1 7 MGD SBDS PS
SBR1 8.0 MG
Water Treatment Plant
Proposed 2030 4.4 MGD
PRV 27
24 MGD
CW 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24
1730.7'
Highlands Zone HGL=2164
PS4
SE Mini Zone
Firm Capacity (MGD)
Range Rider Zone1 HGL=2050
PRV 36
Storage Tank
2162.5'
4.8 MGD
DWPS1
PRV 26
Desert Wells Zone1 HGL=1634
City Zone HGL=1400
6.92 MGD
Overflow Elevation
12.5 MGD
44 MGD
NE Mini Zone
SCAP-FCV2
PRV 31
DWR1 1.0 MG
Existing
CLR3 0.5 MG
1632.6'
FFR1 1.5 MG
Falcon Field Zone HGL=1511
PS3
1510.1'
59.6 MGD
Lindsay
59.6 MGD
Pasadena
41.8 MGD
Brooks
TS2
39 MGD
31.5 MGD
PS1
1834.0'
CLR2 0.5 MG
Apache Junction Zone HGL=1941
R1 10 MG
County Line Zone HGL=1836
1258.7'
R2 10 MG
32 MGD
1224.5'
Legend
Desert Sage Zone HGL=1731
CW 26
PS2
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
30.3 MGD
BR R1&R2 40 MG
CW 25
CW 27
72 MGD
RRPS1
0.7 MGD HLPS2
Zone X HGL
1467.0'
SBR2 8.0 MG
Zone Name Hydraulic Grade Line
FF 2 Irrigation
DW 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, DW 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
24 MGD
CAP Canal
Appendix C
Signal Butte WTP & Reservoir
2035 Hydraulic Profile Schematic 1. Reduced pressure zones within major pressure zones are not shown for clarity
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
90
120
55 35
60
110
80
45
70
70
5
90
70
County Line Apache Junction Range Rider
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
55 95
Highlands
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field
0
45 0 5
10
60
Desert Wells
90
75
Southern Ave 1200 S
Desert Sage
85
County Line
60
80
95
Apache Junction
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Range Rider Highlands
65
80
5
Desert Wells
Brown Rd 1200 N
105
0 11
45
75
100
10
Falcon Field
Desert Sage
60
60
65
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI)
40
65
60
Legend
McKellips Rd 2000 N
65
11
85
55
50
City Zone (NE+SE)
65
55
McDowell Rd 2800 N
5
95
70
100 105
50
80 75 90 85 00 95 1
110
60
85
60 55
11
105
65
70 50
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N 40
75
40
101
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
95
85
75
In association with:
70
60
55
105
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Other Features Boundary Highways
Warner Rd 4400 S
95
Streets Canals
100
90
202
Usery 1
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
Railroads
Ray Rd 5200 S
Light Rail Track Salt River Airport
70
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S 75
65
202
Germann Rd 7600 S
Appendix C
±
2035 MD Maximum Pressure
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N McDowell Rd 2800 N
101
Legend Maximum Velocity (ft/s) Less than 2 ft/s
McKellips Rd 2000 N
2-3 ft/s 3-5 ft/s 5-7 ft/s
Brown Rd 1200 N
202
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
Greater than 7 ft/s
Other Features Boundary Highways Streets Canals
Southern Ave 1200 S
Railroads
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Airport
Light Rail Track
60
60
Salt River
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S Elliot Rd 3600 S Warner Rd 4400 S 202
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
0
5000
10000 ft
24
202
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
Appendix C
±
2035 MD Maximum Velocity
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
Hawes Rd 8400 E
105
0
10
115
105
45
65
90 35
McDowell Rd 2800 N
0
65
100
70
55
11
70
95
75
65
80
Falcon Field
McKellips Rd 2000 N
40
90
95
80
Desert Wells Desert Sage
50
60
County Line
Brown Rd 1200 N
11
65
0
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
55
95
45
90
65
45
70
60
75
80
105
95 50
55
85
75
60
60
Apache Junction Range Rider
40 50
75
0 10
85
70
Pressure Contour Lines (PSI) City Zone (NE+SE)
85
45
50
55 60
55
Legend
75
90
45
80
60
50
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
55
101
202
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
50
75
85
60
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
65
In association with:
Highlands
Pressure Zone City Zone NE Mini Zone SE Mini Zone Falcon Field Desert Wells
Southern Ave 1200 S
Desert Sage County Line
60
Apache Junction
90
Range Rider Highlands
65
50 5 5
0
10
Baseline Rd 2000 S
Usery 1
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S 50
100
55
Usery 2 Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
Elliot Rd 3600 S
Other Features Boundary Highways
Warner Rd 4400 S
Canals Railroads
80
90
85
95
202
Streets
Light Rail Track
Ray Rd 5200 S
Salt River Airport
65
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
5000
10000 ft
±
24
Pecos Rd 6800 S 60
202
0
Germann Rd 7600 S
Appendix C 2035 MD Minimum Pressure
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix D.
Wastewater Facility Schematics
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix D
D-1
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS ALMA SCHOOL LIFT STATION 1166 W. GUADALUPE
ID LS-01
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 155 GPM PEAK: 310 GPM
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 80-KW NATURAL GAS 480V
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-97638
DESCRIPTION The Alma School Lift Station was constructed in 1979 and was rehabilitated in 2002. The two Flygt submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift wastewater approximately 20 feet and discharge to a manhole approximately 50 feet west of the lift station, from where the wastewatery flowing north to the Baseline #1 Interceptor. There is a 15" bypass pipeline from the wet well to the discharge manhole to prevent SSO at the wet well.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP1 SSLSP2
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL CP3153X-415 CP3153X-415
Schematic
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 25 1400 2.02 25 1400 2.02
YEAR 2004 2004
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 2800 1400
MGD 4.03 2.02
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
8"
10"
ELEVATION (FT)
15"
1,203.87
15"
1
HP 15 15
DEPTH (FT) 34.9
2
1,196.64
30.9 11.1 10.1
Influent
Basin Map 1,177.39
9.4
8.4 6.9 6.4 3.5
1,169.00
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-01 Alma School LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS BROADWAY RD. LIFT STATION 2430 W. BROADWAY RD
ID LS-02
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 6.5 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 13 GPM PEAK: 20 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A176852 (2016)
DESCRIPTION The Broadway Rd. Lift Station was constructed in 1981 and was rehabilitated in 2016. Two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift wastewater approximately 5.6 ft and discharge to a manhole 45 ft away from the wet well. The wastewater is then conveyed south to the Southern Ave Interceptor which ultimately discharges into the 91st Water Reclamation Plant.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP18 SSLSP19
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL 3085.092 3085.092
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 11 220 0.32 11 220 0.32
HP 3 3
YEAR 2016 2016
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 440 220
MGD 0.63 0.32
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic
4"
ELEVATION (FT)
1
3"
1203.87
DEPTH (FT) 19.4
6"
6"
6"
2
3"
M
1190.82
6"
18.1 7.3
Discharge
Influent
6.3
Basin Map 1190.56
6.0
5.0
4.5 4.0 3.5
1184.50
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-02 Broadway Rd LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS HERMOSA VISTA LIFT STATION 4233 E. HERMOSA VISTA
ID LS-04
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 30 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 30 GPM PEAK: 65 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-109192
DESCRIPTION The Hermosa Vista Lift Station was constructed in 1984 and was rehabilitated in 2005. The submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 23 ft higher and discharge to a manhole located about 80 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP22 SSLSP23
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL 3102.095 3103.090
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 29 350 0.50 29 350 0.50
HP 5 5
YEAR 2005 2005
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 700 350
MGD 1.01 0.50
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT) 1,356.54
DEPTH (FT) 34.0
Influent
1,356.54
30.0 3.9 2.9
Basin Map 1,328.93
0.6
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.5
1,322.52
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-04 Hermosa Vista LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS CENTER ST LIFT STATION 2329 N CENTER ST
ID LS-05
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 8 GPM PEAK: 45 GPM
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 35 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-85583
DESCRIPTION The Center Street Lift Station was constructed in 2003 and was never rehabilitated. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 27 ft higher and discharge to a manhole located about 200 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP24 SSLSP25
MANUFACTURER FLYGT KEEN
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 40 286 0.41 40 286 0.41
MODEL 3102.090 KRVN75M4-43
HP 5 7.5
YEAR 2003 2003
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 572 286
MGD 0.82 0.41
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic Influent
1
8"
ELEVATION (FT) 6"
8"
8"
15" M
2
Discharge
1225.25
DEPTH (FT) 43.2
6"
1220.60
39.2 12.0 11.0
Basin Map 1191.44
9.4
5.5 5.0 4.5 3.5
1182.08
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\LS-05 Center St LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS NOCHE DE PAZ LIFT STATION 2738 S NOCHE DE PAZ
ID LS-06
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 60 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 826 GPM PEAK: 1310 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-98551
DESCRIPTION Noche De Paz lift station was constructed in 1974 and was rehabilitated in 1995 and 2003. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 17 ft higher and discharge to a manhole on a 21” gravity pipeline that flows north to the SROG Baseline Rd metering station. There is a 21" bypass pipeline from the wet well to the discharge manhole to prevent SSO at the wet well.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP26 SSLSP27
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 35 1200 1.73 35 1200 1.73
MODEL 3153.095 3153.090-5047-414
HP 15 15
YEAR 2003 2003
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 2400 1200
MGD 3.456 1.728
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT) 1,194.12
1,183.00
DEPTH (FT) 34.8
30.8 9.8 8.8
Basin Map 1,168.50
7.8
6.9 5.0 4.0 3.5
1,159.33
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-06 Noche de Paz LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS RANIER LIFT STATION 4339 N. RANIER CIRCLE
ID LS-08
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY
OPER. FLOWS 10 GPM AVE: PEAK: 45 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-172595
PORTABLE DIESEL
DESCRIPTION The Ranier Lift Station was constructed in 1991 and was rehabilitated in 2015. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 15 feet and discharge to a manhole located about 900 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP30 SSLSP31
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 35 300 0.43 35 300 0.43
MODEL 3102.070 3102.070
HP 5.0 5.0
YEAR 2021 2021
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 600 300
MGD 0.86 0.43
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic
ELEVATION (FT)
DEPTH (FT)
8“ Influent
1422.90
11.9
4"
4“
1422.50
7.9 6.7 5.7
Basin Map 1415.00
4.7
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5
1411.00
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-08 Ranier LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS STAR VALLEY LIFT STATION 3820 N SHENANDOAH
ID LS-09
OPER. FLOWS 285 GPM AVE: PEAK: 428 GPM
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 250 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-98006
DESCRIPTION The Star Valley Lift Station was constructed in 1985 and was rehabilitated in 2005. The two submersible operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 64 ft higher and discharge to a manhole located about 1 mile from the lift station. A gate valve installed in the sewer main upstream SSMH25640 was used for SSO emergency response in the past, but shall not be used due to the new development in the surrounding area.
ASSET ID SSLSP32 SSLSP33
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL 3171.090-0214-454 3171.090-0214-454
HP 30 30
YEAR 2005 2005
CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 800 800
MGD 1.15 1.15
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Influent
PUMP 1 2
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 90 800 1.15 90 800 1.15
ELEVATION (FT) 1,401.00
1,400.00
DEPTH (FT) 20.0
17.00 15.0 14.0
Discharge
Basin Map 1,386.90
7.0
6.0 4.5 4.0 3.4
1,381.00
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-09 Star Valley LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS EAGLE CREST LIFT STATION 7260 E. EAGLE CREST DR
ID LS-10
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 30 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 10 GPM PEAK: 32 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-66943
DESCRIPTION The Eagle Crest Lift Station was constructed in 1997 and was rehabilitated in 2017. The two pumps are Flygt 5 HP. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 18 ft higher and discharge to a manhole located about 930 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP3 SSLSP4
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL 3102.180-1592-433 3102.180-1592-433
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 24 320 0.46 24 320 0.46
HP 5 5
YEAR 2017 2017
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 640 320
MGD 0.92 0.46
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic
ELEVATION (FT) 1,573.80
DEPTH (FT) 17.2
4"
1,572.53
13.2 9.1 8.1
Discharge
Basin Map 1,563.00
6.4
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5
1,556.60
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-10 Eagle Crest LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS VANGUARD LIFT STATION 6718 E. VANGUARD
ID LS-11
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 40 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 10 GPM PEAK: 30 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-188496
DESCRIPTION This lift station was constructed in 1993 and was rehabilitated in 2018. The two Flygt submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 18 ft higher and discharge to a manhole located about 610 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP3 SSLSP4
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL 3085.930 3085.930
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Schematic
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 25 300 0.43 25 300 0.43
HP 3.5 3.5
YEAR 2018 2018
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 600 300
MGD 0.86 0.43
Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT) 1,537.70
DEPTH (FT) 17.1
13.1
Influent
1,536.45 9.7
4"
8.7 Discharge
Basin Map 1,527.00
7.0
5.5 5.0 4.5 3.5
1,520.60
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-11 Vanguard LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS WILLIAMS GATEWAY LIFT STATION 6833 E. OLD PECOS RD
ID LS-13
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 125 GPM PEAK: 245 GPM
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 80 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-81692
DESCRIPTION The Williams Gateway lift station was constructed in 1999 and was never rehabilitated. The two pumps are FLYGT 15 HP. The pumps and motors are submersible. Two pumps operate in lead-lag control. The wastewater is lifted by about 16 ft higher and discharged to a manhole located at the lift station. This lift station is to be abandoned with the construction of Pecos Rd Sewer.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP43 SSLSP11
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH FT GPM MGD 27 1000 1.44 27 1000 1.44
MODEL 3153.095 CP3152X-436
HP 15 15
YEAR 2003 2021
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 2000 1000
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic
ELEVATION (FT)
DEPTH (FT)
Influent 18" 18"
1,333.0 2
8" 21"
34.3
18"
8"
1
Discharge
MGD 2.88 1.44
1,331.4
30.3 3.5 2.5
Basin Map 1,306.1
1.5
0.0 6.0 4.0 3.5
1,298.7
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-13 Williams Gateway LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS WARNER LIFT STATION 7011 E. WARNER RD
ID LS-14
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 250 KW NATURAL GAS
OPER. FLOWS AVE: PEAK:
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING
DESCRIPTION
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 125 1500 2.16 125 1500 2.16
HP 15 15
YEAR 2002 2002
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 3000 1500
MGD 4.32 2.16
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT) 1,293.5
DEPTH (FT) 7.0
1,331.4
Basin Map 1,292.7
1,286.5
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-14 Warner LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS LEHI CROSSING LIFT STATION 2545 E. LEHI RD
ID LS-15
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 100 KW DIESEL 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 73 GPM PEAK: 165 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-139641
DESCRIPTION Lehi Crossing Lift Station was constructed in 2011 and never rehabilitated. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 65 ft higher and discharge to a manhole about o.5 milet from the lift station at north of McDowell and 26th Street. The wastewater then flows to the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP34 SSLPS35
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH (FT) GPM MGD 83 530 0.76 83 530 0.76
MODEL 3153.095 3153.095
HP 20 20
YEAR 2011 2011
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 1060 530
MGD 1.52 0.76
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT) 1,270.33
DEPTH (FT) 31.8
Discharge
1,269.69
27.8 12.2 11.2
Basin Map 1,247.47
9.0
7.5 6.0 4.5 3.5
1,238.50
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-15 Lehi Crossing LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS GRANITE MOUNTAIN LIFT STATION 8747 E. REGINA CIR.
ID LS-16
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 5 GPM PEAK: 25 GPM
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 100 KW NATURAL GAS 480V
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-124826
DESCRIPTION The Granite Mountain Lift Station was constructed in 2009 and never rehabilitated. The two submersible. The two submersible pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 65 ft higher and discharge to a manhole about 700 ft from the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP16 SSLSP17
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH (FT) GPM MGD 35 350 0.50 35 350 0.50
MODEL C3127 C3127
HP 10 10
YEAR 2009 2009
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 700 350
MGD 1.008 0.50
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic Discharge
8“
ELEVATION (FT) 1,928.00
DEPTH (FT) 31.7
4" 4"
6“
4"
6“
M
8“
1,912.80 8“
28.7 12.3
8“
11.3
Basin Map 1,905.90
9.6
5.5 5.0 4.5 3.5
1,896.30
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-16 Granite Mountain LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS DESERT PLACE LIFT STATION 18723 E. ELLIOT RD
ID LS-17
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 25 KW DIESEL 480V
OPER. FLOWS AVE: 25 GPM PEAK: 75 GPM
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING A-148618
DESCRIPTION The Desert Place lift station was constructed in 2012. The design for the wet well was for three pumps but only two have been installed. The two pumps operate in a lead-lag control. They lift the wastewater by about 30 ft higher and discharge to the manhole located at the lift station.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID SSLSP36 SSLSP37
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
PUMP INVENTORY FLOW TDH (FT) GPM MGD 27 360 0.52 27 360 0.52
MODEL 3102.06 3102.16
HP 5 5
YEAR 2012 2012
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 720 360
MGD 1.037 0.52
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile
Schematic 8"
8"
ELEVATION (FT) 15“
DEPTH (FT)
Influent
8"
1,334.73
31.5
M
4"
8“
1,334.73
27.5 12.0
Discharge
11.0
Basin Map 1,311.99
8.7
6.5 5.0 4.5 3.5
1,303.27
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\LS-17 Desert Place LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
0.0
2/27/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS TYLER RANCH LIFT STATION Recker Road and Thomas Road
ID LS-18
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 50 KW DIESEL
OPER. FLOWS AVE: PEAK:
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING
DESCRIPTION Future sewer lift station to serve new development.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID
Schematic
MANUFACTURER FLYGT FLYGT
MODEL
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 38 350 0.50 38 350 0.50
HP 6 6
YEAR Future Future
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 700 350
MGD 1.008 0.504
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT)
DEPTH (FT) -
Basin Map
0.0
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-18 Tyler Ranch LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS NORTH HIGLEY LIFT STATION Higley Road and Mcdowell Road
ID LS-19
GEN TYPE/VOLTS/CAPACITY 50 KW DIESEL
OPER. FLOWS AVE: PEAK:
LOCATION MAP
RECORD DRAWING
DESCRIPTION Future sewer lift station to serve new development.
PUMP 1 2
ASSET ID
Schematic
MANUFACTURER
MODEL
PUMP INVENTORY TDH FLOW FT GPM MGD 163 360 0.52 163 360 0.52
HP
YEAR Future Future
CAPACITY MAXIMUM CAPACITY SINGLE-PUMP CAPACITY
GPM 720 360
MGD 1.037 0.518
FACILITY SCHEMATIC Wet Well Profile ELEVATION (FT)
DEPTH (FT) -
Basin Map
0.0
D:\Grace Work\Clients\Mesa\Report\Facility Inventory\LS-19 North Higley LS Inventory Sheet.xlsx
6/28/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS TYPE East bank of the Roosevelt Water Conservation DS1 SSMH29762 Diversion Structure District (RWCD) canal approximately 300' northwest of Baseline DESCRIPTION This is a reversed flow structure allowing flow to be diverted into or away from the SEWRP. There is a gate to the east to divert flow towards or away from the plant, and a gate to the south to divert flow to the Baseline Rd. outfall system. ID
LOCATION MAP
Model ID
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Open Gate SSMH29762
24-inch Diameter
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS2
SSMH29731
On the Central Mesa Interceptor (CMI) at the northeast corner of 8th St. and Riverview
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION The gate to the north goes to NWWRP. There is an 18-inch line to the west that allows flow to be diverted to the Salt River Outfall (SRO) (ME03).
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29731 18-inch Diameter
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS3
SSMH29732
NAME / ADDRESS At the entrance to the NWWRP
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This is the diversion structure into the NWWRP. The gate to the West goes to NWWRP. A motor operated gate to the south bypasses flow to the SRO (ME03).
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
36-inch Diameter
Open Gate SSMH29732 60-inch Diameter
36-inch Diameter
48-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS6
SSMH29759
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
West bound Broadway 200' east of 56th St.
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This diversion structure can divert flow to SEWRP and away from the Baseline 2 outfall or vice versa. The gate to the southwest diverts flow to the SEWRP while the gate to the east directs flow to Greenfield Rd. and into the Baseline 2 outfall.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29759 12-inch Diameter
12-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS8
SSMH29764
West bound fast lane of Baseline Rd. 380' west of Power
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION Positioned on the 36-inch sewer line, this structure can divert flow to the SEWRP by opening the south gate or to the Baseline Rd. outfall system by opening the west gate.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29764 36-inch Diameter
36-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS9
SSMH29758
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
West bound Broadway 60' west of 56th St.
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This manhole can be used to divert flow coming down 56th St. and down Broadway towards or away from the SEWRP. The gate to the south directs flow to the plant down the 24-inch running along the RWCD and the gate to the West directs flow toward Greenfield Rd and into Baseline 2.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29758 12-inch Diameter
12-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS TYPE On the 24-inch line, this pair of manholes is DS14 SSMH29733 located just north of 8th St. on the west side of Diversion Manhole Riverview DESCRIPTION The gate to the west diverts flow to the SRO (ME03) and the gate to the north diverts flow to NWWRP. ID
LOCATION MAP
Model ID
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
24-inch Diameter
Open Gate
SSMH29733
15-inch Diameter
N
24-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
12/13/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS16
SSMH29754
NAME / ADDRESS North of Baseline, west of Greenfield
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Road.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29754
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS19
SSMH29749
NAME / ADDRESS Northeast corner of Horne and Baseline
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Road.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Open Gate SSMH29749
21-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS20
SSMH29746
NAME / ADDRESS Intersection of 2nd Ave. and Extension
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION The gate to the south diverts flow to the CMI at Broadway or to the Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI). The gate to the west directs flow (west) down the RR alignment and into the CMI at Dobson.
Closed Gate
15-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29746
18-inch Diameter
14-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS21
SSMH29745
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
On the CMI at the intersection of Extension and Broadway
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION In this manhole, the 18-inch sewer running north and south crosses over the CMI. Gates in the 18inch sewer allow flow to be diverted west to the CMI or south to the SAI.
Open Gate
18-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29745
18-inch Diameter
42-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS22
SSMH29752
North and center of intersection at Broadway and Lindsay
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This structure has stop plates to divert flow west on Broadway or South on Lindsay.
Closed Gate
18-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29752
15-inch Diameter
15-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS25
SSMH3008
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
Intersection of 8th Ave. and Extension
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION In this manhole, the 18-inch sewer running north and south cross over a 21-inch sewer that flows into the CMI. Gates on the 18-inch sewer allows flow to be diverted into the 21-inch sewer and ultimately to the CMI or south to the SAI.
Open Gate
18-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH3008
21-inch Diameter
21-inch Diameter
21-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS28
SSMH29768
NAME / ADDRESS Intersection of Ellsworth and Baseline
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION Allows flow to be diverted west to the SEWRP of south to the EMI and GWRP.
Closed Gate
36-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29768
36-inch Diameter
30-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS35
SSMH9190
South manhole in the intersection of Gilbert and University
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This manhole has a gate to the west to divert flow to the CMI and a gate to the south to divert flow to the SAI.
Open Gate
27-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH9190
30-inch Diameter
27-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS36
SSMH29747
West of intersection of Emerson and Baseline
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Road.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Open Gate
Closed Gate SSMH29747 33-inch Diameter
N All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY NAME / ADDRESS
ID
Model ID
DS37
SSMH29756
Intersection of Brown and Greenfield
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This manhole has a gate to the west to divert flow to the CMI and a gate to the south to divert flow to the Baseline Rd. Outfalls
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate SSMH29756
24-inch Diameter
30-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS39
SSMH6354
Intersection of Horne and Southern, manhole MH17781
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This diversion structure diverts flow from Horne. The south gate diverts flow to the Southern Interceptor. A project is currently being completed to install a gate to the west.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
27-inch Diameter
Open Gate
SSMH6354
30-inch Diameter
33-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
12/13/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS40
SSMH29765
In the Public Utility Easement (PUE) north of Baseline 300' west of Power
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This manhole is located on the 24-inch sewer running just north of Baseline Rd. Flow can be diverted into the SEWRP by inserting the stop plate in the outfall to the north, or away from the SEWRP and into the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting the stop in the outfall to the west.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
18-inch Diameter
Closed Gate SSMH29765 24-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS41
SSMH29767
NAME / ADDRESS North bound lanes of Power approximately 1,000' north of Guadalupe
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION Located on 24-inch sewer line, this diversion manhole can be used to divert flow away from the SEWRP and into the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the north outfall, or to divert flow into the plant and out of the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the west outfall.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
24-inch Diameter
Open Gate SSMH29767 30-inch Diameter
24-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
DS42
SSMH29770
East bound lanes of Guadalupe approximately 1,200' east of Power
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION Located on 24-inch sewer line this diversion manhole can be used to divert flow away from the SEWRP and into the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the west outfall, or to divert flow into the plant and out of the Baseline Rd. outfall system by inserting a stop plate into the north outfall.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
24-inch Diameter
Open Gate SSMH29770 24-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS43
SSMH29771
NAME / ADDRESS Intersection of Ellsworth and Olney
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION Allows flow to be diverted west to the SEWRP of south to the EMI and GWRP.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29771
24-inch Diameter
24-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS45
SSMH29750
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
Northwest corner of Lindsay and Baseline
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION This structure has weir plates in the manhole to shift flows between the two lines in Baseline Road.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Open Gate SSMH29750 30-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS51
SSMH18911
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Splitter Manhole
Intersection of Power and Brown
DESCRIPTION This manhole statically splits flow from the north and east and can divert to the west or south if manhole level rises. Flow to the south can be diverted to the SEWRP or to the Baseline 2 outfall at diversions DS6, DS9, or DS1. Flows to the west can be diverted to the SEWRP, Baseline Rd. outfalls or to the CMI via splitter manhole MH 6709.
18-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH18911 Invert = 1466.33 ft 18-inch Diameter
10-inch Diameter
Invert = 1466.35 ft
10-inch Diameter
N
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS52
SSMH29772
NAME / ADDRESS Intersectoin of Ray and Mountain
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Structure
DESCRIPTION Allows flow to be diverted west to the EMI/GWRP or south to the Germann Interceptor/GWRP.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Open Gate SSMH29772
12-inch Diameter
Closed Gate
N All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS53
SSMH29757
NAME / ADDRESS
TYPE
Intersection of Recker and University
LOCATION MAP
Splitter Manhole
DESCRIPTION This manhole splits flow from the north and east and can divert to the west or south. To the south, the flow can be diverted to the SEWRP or to the Baseline 2 outfall at diversion SS9. Flow to the west is diverted to the Baseline Rd. outfall system via the Greenfield Rd. sewer line.
8-inch Diameter
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
SSMH29757 Invert = 1385.5 ft
Invert = 1386.27 ft
8-inch Diameter
10-inch Diameter
12-inch Diameter
N
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY INVENTORY ID
Model ID
DS57
SSMH17839
NAME / ADDRESS Intersection of Power and Broadway
TYPE
LOCATION MAP
Diversion Manhole
DESCRIPTION This diversion manhole installed in 2007 diverts flow from north and east to either Broadway to the west or Power to the south.
FACILITY SCHEMATIC
Closed Gate
SSMH17839
18-inch Diameter
24-inch Diameter
Open Gate
N
All gate positions shown are normal gate positions.
c:\pw_working\carollo_200000\d0211159\Diversion Structure Inventory Sheets.xlsx
9/18/2024
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix E.
Mesa / Tempe Ownership Maps
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix E
E-1
Table E-1 - Sewer Capacity Analysis for Sewers Outside Mesa
Existing ADF (mgd) (1) Interceptor Interceptor Extent Segment
Diameter (in)
M-1
Rio Salado/McClintock/Loop 202 from ME03 to SD01 (2)
SRO-1
Loop 202 from SD01 to College Ave
SRO-2
Loop 202 from College Ave to Priest Dr
SRO-3
Loop 202 from Priest Dr to SR 143 (3)
72
Mesa Mesa Ownership Ownership Capacity Capacity Basis (mgd)
Future ADF (mgd) No SEWRP Pumpback
Future ADF (mgd) SEWRP Pumpback
Scenario E1: Normal Operations
Scenario E2: NWWRP Offline
Scenario E3: SEWRP Offline
Scenario E4: NWWRP and SEWRP Offline
Scenario F-1: Normal Operations
Scenario F2: NWWRP Offline
Scenario F3: SEWRP Offline
Scenario F4: NWWRP and SEWRP Offline
Scenario F5: SEWRP Offline
Scenario F6: NWWRP and SEWRP Offline
36
6.2
ADF
0.9
3.5
0.9
3.5
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
54
5.3
d/D 0.75
0.9
3.5
0.9
3.5
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
51/54
6.0
d/D 0.75
0.9
3.5
0.9
3.5
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
1.1
3.8
6.4
d/D 0.75
6.4
12.6
8.1
12.6
6.6
13.4
8.4
13.4
6.6
11.6
MT-1
Southern Ave from ME01 to Mill Ave
36
11.0
ADF
5.5
9.1
7.2
9.1
5.5
9.6
7.3
9.6
5.5
7.8
MT-2
Southern Ave from Mill Ave to Priest/Southern Diversion
48
15.0
ADF
5.5
9.1
7.2
9.1
5.5
9.6
7.3
9.6
5.5
7.8
MT-3
Priest Dr from Priest/Southern Diversion north to Rio Salado
48
15.0
ADF
5.5
9.1
7.2
9.1
5.5
9.6
7.3
9.6
5.5
7.8 14.5
(4)
M-2
Baseline Rd from ME02 to Western Canal
MT-4
Baseline Rd from ME02 to College/Mill/Southern (5)
MT-5 MT-6
54
18.0
PHF
10.8
11.6
13.2
15.7
11.8
12.7
14.9
17.7
11.8
33/36
4.0
ADF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Western Canal from Baseline Rd to Priest/Southern Diversion
42
7.4
ADF
10.8
11.6
13.2
15.7
11.8
12.7
14.9
17.7
11.8
14.5
Southern Ave from Priest/Southern Diversion west to 91st Ave WWTP (SAI)
48+
15.3
d/D 0.75
14.5
10.8
11.6
13.2
15.7
11.8
12.7
14.9
17.7
11.8
Total Flow to the SRO
6.4
6.4
12.6
8.1
12.6
6.6
13.4
8.4
13.4
6.6
11.6
Total Flow to the SAI
15.3
10.8
11.6
13.2
15.7
11.8
12.7
14.9
17.7
11.8
14.5
Total Flow to SROG
21.7
26.1
17.2
24.2
21.3
28.3
18.4
26.1
23.3
31.1
18.4
Mesa's SRO + SAI Capacity
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
Surplus / (Deficit)
4.5
(2.5)
0.4
(6.6)
3.3
(4.4)
(1.6)
(9.4)
3.3
(4.4)
Notes: (1) Estimated average flows from the City's 2024 IMP Hydraulic model are based on maximum month. Values shown in red are predicted to exceed capacity of the pipe segments based on the "Mesa Ownership Capacity" criteria. (2) The hydraulic capacity of Segment M-1 is matched to the downstream capacity of Segment SRO-1 to which this line flows. (3) The hydraulic capacity of Segment SRO-3 is 27.4 mgd (d/D 0.75). Value shown in table above reflects capacity in downstream segment SRO-35 (Broadway Rd between 59th Ave and 75th Ave), which is 6.4 mgd (d/D 0.75). (4) The peak hydraulic capacity of Segment M-2 is noted as 18 mgd in the City's Baseline Sewer Lift Station (LS27) Evaluation Memo, February 2020. Note Segment M-2 conveys flow to the Western Canal Interceptor (MT-5) capacity, of which Mesa has a capacity of 7.4 mgd ADF. (5) For this line to be used, LS 27 is required. LS 27 is currently out of service.
27.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
6.0 mgd (d/D 0.75)
In association with: In association with:
72
g̀ SD01
54 54
SRO-1 51
36
54
Mesa's capacity in Segment SRO-35 (located on Broadway Rd between 59th Ave and 75th Ave) is 6.4 mgd (d/D 0.75)
McClintock Dr
SRO-2
5.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
18" and 21" Siphon
SRO-3
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131 36
Rio Salado Pkwy
M-1
ME03
g̀
Legend
30
SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI)
Inset A
Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main
15.0 mgd ADF
¢ " C
Diversion Structure
[ Ú
Lift Station Manhole
g̀
48
MT-3
Existing Mesa Sewer Main
SROG Metering Station Pipe Diameter Transition
X.X mgd ADF = Hydraulic Capacity
Priest Dr
Abbreviations: ADF = Average Daily Flow d/D = Depth to flow to pipe diameter M = Mesa MT = Mesa-Tempe SAI = Southern Avenue Interceptor SRO = Salt River Outfall
Mesa's capacity in Segment SAI-34 (located on Broadway Rd between 55th Ave and 59th Ave) is 15.3 mgd (d/D 0.75)
36
48
¢ " C
Southern Ave
MT-2
Inset A
M-2 has a peak hydraulic capacity of 18 mgd
Wes te
rn C
ana
l
7.4
36
MT-1
ME01
g̀
42
0
36
1,000 2,000 ft
42
mg
College Ave
TP03
48
MT-6
Mill Ave
g̀ 54
11.0 mgd ADF
15.0 mgd ADF
MT -5
dA
DF
Potential future diversion structure at College/Baseline would allow 4.0 mgd to be conveyed north to Southern. This would relieve segment MT-5.
54
M-2
Baseline Rd
LS27 has capacity of 4 mgd
Figure E-1 33
33
4 mgd ADF
MT-4
g̀ [ Ú
Sewers Outside City of Mesa
±
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
LS16
" J
LS15
" J
" J
" J
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202 WRP
DS14
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
Gravity Main by Diameter DS51
DS20
DS53
DS9
DS22
DS21 DS25 DS39
60
DS36
" J
DS19
DS45
DS16
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DS1 WRP
60
DS8
Baseline Rd 2000 S
DS28
DS40 DS41 DS42
LS1
" J
15"-24" Greater than 24"
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS57
DS6
10"-15"
Brown Rd 1200 N
DS3 DS2
" J
" J
Water Reclamation Plant
WRP
McKellips Rd 2000 N DS37
LS2
LS6
Diversions
Lift Stations
DS35
LS27
Legend
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
LS5
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary
/
Diversion Structure Basin Grav GWRP DS21
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
DS52
Ray Rd 5200 S
Grav ME01
DS22
Grav ME02
DS28
Grav NWWRP
DS3
Grav SEWRP
DS37
DS25
DS39
DS35
DS40
DS57
DS41
DS53
DS43
DS51
DS5
DS2
DS8
DS20
DS9
Williams Field Rd 6000 S 24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER WRP RECLAMATION PLANT
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
Figure E-2 Flow Diversion Assumptions Normal Operations
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
LS16
" J
LS15
" J
" J
" J
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202 WRP
DS14
Gravity Main by Diameter DS51
DS20
DS53
DS9
DS22
DS21 DS25 DS39
60
DS36
" J
DS19
DS45
DS16
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DS1 WRP
60
DS8
Baseline Rd 2000 S
DS28
DS40 DS41 DS42
LS1
" J
15"-24" Greater than 24"
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS57
DS6
10"-15"
Brown Rd 1200 N
DS3 DS2
" J
" J
Water Reclamation Plant
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
McKellips Rd 2000 N DS37
LS2
LS6
Diversions WRP
Lift Station/Pump Station
DS35
LS27
Legend
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
LS5
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary
/
Diversion Structure Basin Grav GWRP DS21
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
LS17
" J
LS14
" J
DS22
Grav ME02
DS28
Grav NWWRP
DS3
Grav SEWRP
DS37
DS25
DS39
Elliot Rd 3600 S
DS35
DS40
DS57
DS41
Warner Rd 4400 S
DS53
DS43
DS51
DS5
DS2
DS8
DS20
DS9
202
DS52
Grav ME01
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER WRP RECLAMATION PLANT
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
Figure E-3 Flow Diversions Assumptions NWWRP Offline
±
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
LS9
" J
LS16
" J
LS15
" J
LS4
" J
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202 WRP
DS14
Water Reclamation Plant Diversions
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
McKellips Rd 2000 N
Gravity Main by Diameter DS51
DS37
DS20
DS53
" J
DS9
DS22
DS21 DS25 DS39
60
DS36
" J
DS19
DS45
DS16
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DS1 WRP
60
DS8
Baseline Rd 2000 S
DS28
DS40
LS27
DS41 DS42
LS1
" J
15"-24" Greater than 24"
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS57
DS6
10"-15"
Brown Rd 1200 N
DS3 DS2
LS2
" J
WRP
Lift Station/Pump Station
DS35
LS6
Legend
McDowell Rd 2800 N
" J
LS5
101
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary
/
Diversion Structure Basin Grav GWRP DS21
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
LS17
Elliot Rd 3600 S
" J
LS14
Warner Rd 4400 S
" J 202
DS52
Ray Rd 5200 S
Grav ME01
DS22
Grav ME02
DS28
Grav NWWRP
DS3
Grav SEWRP
DS37
DS25
DS39
DS35
DS40
DS57
DS41
DS53
DS43
DS51
DS5
DS2
DS8
DS20
DS9
Williams Field Rd 6000 S 24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER WRP RECLAMATION PLANT
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
Figure E-4 Flow Diversion Assumptions SEWRP Offline
±
Meridian Rd 11600 E
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
"J J "
Hawes Rd 8400 E
" J
LS11
Sossaman Rd 7600 E
Power Rd 6800 E
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Stapley Dr 1200 E
Mesa Dr 400 E
Country Club Dr 400 W
Alma School Rd 1200 W
Dobson Rd 2000 W
LS8
In association with:
City of Mesa Integrated Master Plan
LS10
City Project No. CP0899 BV Project No. 414131
LS9
" J
LS16
" J
LS15
" J
" J
" J
NORTHWEST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 202
DS21 DS25 DS39
60
DS36
LS27
" J
LS6
" J
DS19
DS45
DS16
Southern Ave 1200 S
SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT DS1 WRP
DS41 DS42
" J
15"-24" Greater than 24" Force Main SROG Sewer (SRO/SAI) Mesa (M) Sewer in Tempe Mesa-Tempe (MT) Joint Sewer Main Boundary
/
Diversion Structure Basin DS21
Grav ME01
DS22
Grav ME02
DS28
Grav NWWRP
DS3
Grav SEWRP
DS37
DS25
DS39
Elliot Rd 3600 S
DS35
DS40
DS57
DS41
Warner Rd 4400 S
DS53
DS43
DS51
DS5
DS2
DS8
DS20
DS9
Baseline Rd 2000 S
DS28
DS40
LS1
10"-15"
Grav GWRP
60
DS8
Water Reclamation Plant
Diversions
University Dr 400 N Main St 0 Broadway Rd 400 S
DS57
DS6
DS9
DS22
WRP
Brown Rd 1200 N
DS53
DS35
LS2
" Existing/Active J " Inactive J
Gravity Main by Diameter
DS51
DS37
" J
Lift Station/Pump Station
McKellips Rd 2000 N
DS3 WRP DS2 DS14
DS20
Legend
McDowell Rd 2800 N
LS4
LS5
101
Thomas Rd 3600 N
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
DS43
LS17
" J
LS14
" J 202
DS52
Ray Rd 5200 S Williams Field Rd 6000 S
24
LS13
" J
202
GREENFIELD WATER
WRP RECLAMATION PLANT
Pecos Rd 6800 S Germann Rd 7600 S
0
5,000
10,000 ft
±
Figure E-5 Flow Diversion Assumptions NWWRP and SEWRP Offline
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix F.
Wastewater System Model Calibration Graphs
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix F
F-1
Table F-1 - Wastewater Return Rates for Calibration Flow Meter Basin
Return to Sewer Rate
2022-02 2022-03
28% 42%
2022-04
68%
2022-05
85%
2022-06
19%
2022-07 2022-08
58% 46%
2022-09
22%
2022-10
41%
2022-12
50%
2022-13
56%
2022-14
18%
2022-15
39%
2022-16
49%
2022-17
50%
2022-18
37%
2022-19
31%
2022-20
29%
2022-21
30%
2022-22
104%
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix G.
Major Interceptor Analysis
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix G
G-1
Baseline Road (northern line)
Greenfield Road
Lindsay Road
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix H. Supplemental Data for Wastewater Flow Routing Analysis
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-1
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
1.0 Approach The approach taken in wastewater flow routing and facility optimization task included: ◼ Establishing Planning Criteria – the cost and non-cost factors to be included in the analysis as well as assumptions for comparing alternatives. ◼ Develop Initial Scenarios – conceptual development of scenarios, including the major features of each, advantages/disadvantages, and special planning considerations. ◼ Scenario Screening – following discussions with the City, some scenarios were screened out and not carried forward further. The remaining scenarios were analyzed in more detail, including development of specific alternatives for each scenario. ◼ Wastewater Flow & Optimization Analysis – detailed analysis of the scenarios selected to carry forward, including input and validation from the InfoWorks ICM model developed or the IMP.
2.0 Planning Criteria The planning criteria establish the base assumptions used in the analysis. This includes flow projections, capital, O&M, and life cycle cost assumptions, how existing infrastructure/facility capacity is accounted for, how infrastructure improvements currently underway addressed, as well as technical feasibility of proposed alternatives at the master planning (as opposed to the preliminary design) level. The following planning criteria were applied in the analysis: ◼ Establishment of a Baseline Scenario – this is defined as the way in which the City is operating currently: with all three WRPs and the 91st Ave WWTP operating and the City using the current infrastructure capacity and flexibility (through diversion structures) to route flows. When the Central Mesa Reuse Pipe is in place by the end of 2025, most of the City’s reclaimed water will be delivered to the GRIC, and there may be some recharge at the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) when that facility is available. ◼ Cost Differential Approach – the cost of an alternative is compared to the Baseline Scenario. Cost factors that are common between all scenarios are not included. Examples include the GWRP Phase 4 Expansion, the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline, miscellaneous, and on-going capital improvements at the GWRP. ◼ Flow Projections – it was assumed that the “buildout average” flow projection for wastewater would be used. ◼ Non-Cost Factors – the City’s standard decision matrix was selected for the scoring and weighting of alternatives. The matrix criteria include Cost, Ease of Operation, Ease of Maintenance, and Risk.
3.0 Initial Scenarios and Scenario Screening Multiple reclaimed water management options were discussed in the early phases of scenario development. These included both indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR) options to provide the City with a comprehensive set of approaches it could take in the future. Table H-1 summarizes the objectives, tactics, and advantages/disadvantages of the initial scenarios discussed at the conceptual level.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-2
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H1 Objective
Potential Reclaimed Water Management Objectives and Tactics Tactic
Advantages
Disadvantages
• Wastewater pump back from SEWRP to GWRP • Wastewater pump back from SROG Interceptor to NWWRP
• Increases raw water supply through exchange, enhancing drought resilience, and reducing future costs for raw water. • Leverages recent wastewater treatment infrastructure investments the city has made. • Makes reclaimed water delivered to GRIC more reliable. • Using of existing agreement/infrastructure including CMRP
• Lack of full redundancy for reclaimed water delivery for extended periods of time if a major change were to occur in the GRIC’s need for reclaimed water
Regional Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)
• City of Phoenix Advanced Water Purification Facility
• Increased potable supply direct to distribution. • Use of existing infrastructure (SROG interceptors, distribution system interconnects) • Could allow the City to optimize their wastewater flow to SROG
• Less local control of water resources • Higher capital and O&M cost than GRIC exchange
Local DPR
• VVWTP Advanced Water Purification Facility • SEWRP Advanced Water Purification Facility
• Increased potable supply direct to distribution. • More local control of water resources
• Higher capital and O&M cost than GRIC exchange • Public Acceptance
• Use of existing facility • SRP manages and maintains the underground storage facility permit
• Recharge occurs outside the area of hydrologic impact of City wells. • Facility is unreliable; City may have difficulty delivering reclaimed water at times
• Potential to increase/maintain groundwater physical availability
• Permitting could be challenging (new water storage and underground storage facility permits would be required)
Increase deliveries to the GRIC and/or produce more reliable reclaimed water
Increase Local Recharge
• Recharge at GRUSP
Increase Local Recharge
• New aquifer storage and recovery wells in southeast Mesa
The scenario selected to carry forward to detailed analysis was to increase and/or make more reliable deliveries to the GRIC. The primary reasons for this include the significant impact this agreement has on the City’s immediate and long-term water supply in the CAP system.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-3
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
While both regional and local DPR may be options in the future, the current “average buildout” wastewater flow projections show that after meeting the City’s SROG commitment, there is 25.3 mgd available for other reclaimed water use (39.3 mgd total average annual daily flow generated by the City less 13.9 mgd average annual daily flow commitment to SROG = 25.3 mgd). Under the current GRIC agreement, the City can send 26.3 mgd average annual daily flow. Therefore, the GRIC agreement would allow the City to send all its excess reclaimed water to GRIC, within the allotted ceiling of 26.3 mgd AADF. The concept of consolidating flows from the SEWRP to the GWRP was incorporated into the analysis. This was done for several reasons including: ◼ The SEWRP is an aging facility, and the City anticipates at least $60M in on-going capital improvements will be needed over the next 10-years. Before making this investment, the City would like to vet alternatives that may be more beneficial for the City long-term. ◼ As an older facility, there are concerns about the SEWRP’s ability to consistently produce reclaimed water of adequate quality to meet the GRIC commitment. There are also safety considerations around mechanical/electrical equipment, chemical storage, etc. ◼ Consolidation of flows may relieve the City’s current challenge of keeping both WRPs fully staffed with experienced/qualified operators. ◼ The City currently has 14 mgd of available treatment capacity at the GWRP that is not fully utilized, making it possible to divert all current SEWRP flows to the GWRP, without the need for a plant expansion. ◼ Operating one plant versus two provides opportunities for O&M savings. It should be noted that the buildout flows projection of 14.5 mgd for the City’s flow contribution to GWRP is within the margin of error estimates when compared to the 14 mgd capacity at GWRP. At the time of this report completion, it is assumed that no expansion would be required at GWRP. Should the flows at buildout turn out to be much different, modifications can be planned for and addressed as the City reaches buildout. As the City finalizes plans for the decommissioning of SEWRP additional information will become available which may impact recommendations for the NWWRP.
3.1
Wastewater Flow & Optimization Analysis
There were eight alternatives developed for the scenario to increase and/or make more reliable reclaimed water deliveries to the GRIC. These were approached in a two-step manner: ◼ Development of four alternatives that would consolidate flows from the SEWRP to the GWRP to determine if it was advantageous for the City to decommission the SEWRP. ◼ Development of four alternatives that would add a pump-back system in the NWWRP/SROG basin in order to capture additional water resources that could be sent to the GRIC while not sending flows in excess of the City’s flow commitment to SROG. Alternative 1 compares the cost of decommissioning the SEWRP to sending more flow to 91st AVE WWTP. Alternatives 2 through 4 compare the flow volumes and cost of taking the SEWRP offline and conveying flows to GWRP through a new lift station and force main, or by a combination of a lift station and force main and a gravity sewer. Alternatives 5 through 8 include the conveyance of flow from the SEWRP to the GWRP but also evaluate the potential to capture more wastewater to treat and deliver to the GRIC using the CMRP. Alternative 5 compares the cost of sending more flow to 91 st Ave rather than capturing more flow to deliver to the GWRP. Alternatives 6 through 8 include the option of a wastewater pump back (lift station) to the NWWRP, where flows would be treated then conveyed through the CMRP
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-4
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
to the GWRP. All alternatives are compared to a Baseline alternative, which represents the City’s current mode of operating the SEWRP, NWWRP, GWRP and sending flows to SROG. The details of each alternative will be discussed in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Figure H1 shows the locations of the alternatives evaluated.
Figure H1
Reclaimed Water Management Alternatives
Figure H2 shows the Blue Plan-it® model developed for the City’s wastewater collection and reclaimed water systems that was applied in the flow routing analysis. The reclaimed water management tactics described in Table 5-10 were included in the Blue Plan-it® model.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-5
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H2
Blue Plan-it® Model of Mesa’s Wastewater Collection and Reclaimed Water System
The basis for planning utilizes the buildout (future) average flow projections for outfall at the facilities. The data is presented in Table H2. Table H2
Buildout Average Annual Daily Flow Projections
Outfall
Buildout Average Annual Daily Flow (AADF) (mgd)
Northwest Water Reclamation Plant (NWWRP)
8.4
Sub-regional Operating Group (SROG)
16.3
Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant (GWRP)
9.1
Southeast Water Reclamation Plant (SEWRP)
5.4
Total
39.2
The analysis is based on a cost differential approach. The capital and O&M costs are not to be interpreted as the total cost required to achieve an alternative. As discussed previously, factors that were common to all alternatives were excluded in the cost differential analysis such as the CMRP which is in construction, and on-going capital and other miscellaneous improvements at the GWRP. Also, in considering the decommissioning of the SEWRP, the full cost to remove concrete structures, equipment, and full restoration of the site were not studied or included in the cost analysis. However, costs to cease operations of the plant including, draining, and washing bains/equipment were included in the cost analysis. Several assumptions were also made in the analysis, specific to the flow consolidation scenario: The combined average flow projection for SEWRP and GWRP basins at buildout is 14.5 mgd AAFD. It should be noted that the flow projections are estimates, and because the 14.5 mgd estimate is within the margin of error of estimates compared to the 14 mgd capacity at the GWRP, it is assumed that no expansion would be required at the GWRP based on the information available at this time. Should the
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-6
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
flows at buildout turn out to be much different, it can be planned for and addressed as the City approaches buildout. Also, the SEWRP has many flexibilities including bypassing all flows to SROG, which could be recaptured and sent to the NWWRP, treated, and sent to GRIC. This would need to be addressed in future revisions of the IMP. The on-going SEWRP capital improvement costs included an evaluated range from $1M to $6.3M per year. The GWRP vs. SEWRP O&M cost ratio was evaluated in sensitivity analysis in a range from 0.24 to 4. The time required to design and construct a new lift station and force main at the SEWRP to pump flows to the GWRP is assumed to be 3 years. The life cycle analysis duration is 20 years.
3.1.1 Analysis of Flow Consolidation Alternatives 1 to 4 Table H3 presents the summary of flow consolidation Alternatives 1 through 4, which focus on whether to consolidate SEWRP and GWRP flows at the GWRP. Alternatives 2 and 4 include the construction of a pump back station and force main to send flows to the GWRP. Alternatives 3 and 4 include the construction of gravity main to send flows from the SEWRP to GWRP. In all these alternatives, the SEWRP is assumed to be offline.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-7
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H3 Summary of Flow Consolidation Alternatives 1 through 4 Alternative
SEWRP
Baseline
Online
Pump Back to GWRP
Gravity Main to GWRP
Description All City WRPs operate Flow Bypassed to SROG through existing diversion structures
Alt 1
New Lift Station at SEWRP, pump back to GWRP through new force main
☑
Alt 2 Offline Alt 3
☑Smaller
Alt 4
☑
Partial flow (~2.5 mgd) diversion to GWRP by gravity main, remainder of SEWRP flow to SROG
☑
Partial flow by gravity main, smaller capacity lift station and force main.
3.1.1.1 Cost and Flow Comparison Table H4 summarizes the flow and cost detail of each of the four alternatives. A 20-year life cycle cost was calculated. As compared to the Baseline alternative, all alternatives result in a lower life cycle cost, with Alternative 1 providing the lowest cost with no construction, and Alternative 2 providing the highest life cycle cost with the construction of a full-size lift station. Alternative 2 and 4 are identical to the Baseline alternative in terms of flows anticipated to be delivered to the GRIC. Table H5 presents the differential cost and flow for Alternatives 1 through 4. Alternatives 1 and 3 were not carried forward future than this into the final analysis because they cannot meet the City’s reclaimed water resources requirements. Table H4
Alternative 1 through 4 Flow and Cost Summary
Buildout Condition
Baseline
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Flow to SROG
16.3
21.7
16.3
19.2
16.3
Reclaimed Water to GRIC
22.9
17.5
22.9
20.0
22.9
Capital Cost
$95M
$14M
$58M
$23M
$54M
O&M Cost (20Year)
$338M
$299M
$333M
$315M
$333M
Life Cycle Cost
$433M
$313M
$391M
$338M
$387M
Assumption: -
Exclude GWRP expansion capital and CMRP capital. O&M cost: $1.67/kgal for SEWRP; $1.62/kgal for GWRP (based on WRP ownership ratio)
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-8
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H5
Comparison of Alternative 1 through 4 Flow and Cost to Baseline Condition
Buildout Condition
Baseline
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Flow to SROG
16.3
+5.4
0
+2.9
0
Reclaimed Water to GRIC
22.9
-5.4
0
-2.9
0
Capital Cost
$95M
-$81M
-$38M
-$72M
-$42M
O&M Cost (20Year)
$338M
-$38M
-$4M
-$23M
-$4M
Life Cycle Cost
$433M
-$119M
-$42M
-$95M
-$46M
Assumption: -
Exclude GWRP expansion capital and CMRP capital. O&M cost: $1.67/kgal for SEWRP; $1.62/kgal for GWRP (based on WRP ownership ratio)
Figure H3 presents the capital and 20-year O&M costs for Alternatives 1 through 4. Categories shown in darker colors represent capital costs, and categories shown in lighter colors represent the 20-year O&M costs.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-9
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H3
Life Cycle Costs Breakdown for the Baseline Alternative and Alternatives 2 and 4
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-10
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H4 demonstrates the cost benefit ratio chart for the Baseline Alternative and Alternatives 2 and 4. This figure compares the anticipated GRIC deliveries for each alternative on the x-axis, and its corresponding 20-year life cycle costs at y-axis.
Figure H4
Cost Benefit Ratio of Life Cycle Costs vs. Flow to GRIC for the Baseline Alternative and Alternatives 2 and 4
Despite the lower 20-year life cycle costs, Alternatives 1 and 3 were eliminated for final consideration due to the inability to meet the City’s reclaimed water contractual commitment. Alternatives 2 and 4 both meet the reclaimed water flow deliveries requirement and have lower life cycle costs as compared to the Baseline Condition. Alternative 4 has a slightly lower life cycle cost of $387M while Alternative 2 has a life cycle cost of $391M.
3.1.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis Through collaboration with the City, several assumptions regarding the GWRP and SEWRP O&M costs were developed. Due to the complexities of the O&M cost portion of the GWRP cost model, a sensitivity analysis was completed to evaluate the potential impacts of varying SEWRP vs. GWRP O&M cost assumptions on life cycle costs. This was done as a O&M cost ratio whereby the GWRP O&M cost was evaluated as being up to four times higher and four times lower than the SEWRP O&M cost. The analysis was run with the Baseline and Alternative 2 (SEWRP offline and lift station to GWRP) to show the difference between SEWRP online and offline performance. The SEWRP improvements cost was calculated for 20 years when kept online or, for 3 years when taken offline. The SEWRP improvement cost of $0M, $1M, $2.5M, $4M, $5M and $6.3M per year were used for comparison in the analysis.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-11
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H5 and Figure H6 present the result for the sensitivity analysis using SEWRP improvement cost of $2.5M per year and $5M per year. Y-axis represents the 20-year life cycle costs, while x-axis represents the ratio of SEWRP vs GWRP O&M costs. For reference, at 1.0, the cost of the SEWRP and GWRP O&M are equal ($/gal), and at 3.0, the O&M cost of SEWRP is three times that of GWRP. The grey area in the figure shows the condition where the SEWRP is less expensive to operate and would be more cost effective to keep the SEWRP online. The white area indicates where the GWRP is less expensive to operate, and it will be more cost effective to decommission the SEWRP. The results show that if $2.5M per year for SEWRP improvements are required, the O&M costs for operating the SEWRP are expected to be the same as the GWRP O&M costs. At $5M per year SEWRP improvement cost, the costs for operating SEWRP online and offline break even at about 0.6 SEWRP: GWRP cost ratio. The result of this sensitivity analysis suggests that, as the required SEWRP improvement costs increase, decommissioning the SEWRP is more economical under most anticipated conditions, unless the GWRP O&M costs becomes four times higher than the SEWRP O&M costs.
Figure H5
Impact of SEWRP: GWRP O&M Cost Ratio on Life Cycle Costs (SEWRP Improvement Costs = $2.5M/Year)
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-12
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H6
Impact of SEWRP: GWRP O&M Cost Ratio on Life Cycle Costs (SEWRP Improvement Costs= $5M/Year)
3.1.1.3 Decision Matrix To score and weight each alternative, the City’s Decision Matrix was used to craft Risk, Operations, Maintenance, and Cost criteria. The description of each decision criteria is listed in Table H6. The scoring result is presented in Table H7. Table H6
City Decision Matrix Criteria Applied to Wastewater Flow Routing Analysis
Criteria
Weight
Risk
30%
Ease of Operations
Ease of Maintenance
Cost
10%
10%
50%
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
Description Subcategory components include: -
Safety considerations (chemicals, mechanical/electrical equipment)
-
Reliability considerations to produce adequate quality reclaimed water.
-
Potential to need to expand GWRP beyond 2.0 mgd.
-
WRP staffing
-
Maximizing reclaimed water deliveries to GRIC
Factors, methods, and procedures involved: -
Complexity of the equipment to be operated.
-
Operator familiarity
-
Time required to monitor and access the equipment.
-
Capacity of equipment to meet operating parameters
Factors, methods, and procedures involved: -
Complexity of the equipment to be maintained.
-
Maintenance familiarity
-
Time required to access the equipment
Capital and O&M cost (20-year life cycle)
H-13
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H7
Decision Scoring Matrix for Alternatives 2 and 4
Desire/Criteria
Alt 2: SEWRP Offline, Lift Station to GWRP
Baseline
Weight/ Priority Value Score
(2)
Weighted Score
Score
(2)
Alt 4: SEWRP Offline, Partial Lift Station and Gravity Main to GWRP
Weighted Score
Score
Weighted Score
(2)
Risk
30%
4.4
1.32
4.9
1.46
4.9
1.46
Ease of Operation
10%
1
0.10
3
0.30
3
0.30
Ease of Maintenance
10%
1
0.10
3
0.30
3
0.30
50%
3.6
1.81
4.0
2.00
4.0
2.02
Cost
(1)
Weighted Total
(3)
3.3
Estimated Life Cycle Cost
4.1
$433M
4.1
$391M
$387M
Notes: (1) Cost score = (lowest cost alternative / alternative cost) x 5. (2) Score 1 to 5. Best performing = 5. For risk, 1 is highest risk and 5 is lowest risk. (3) Perfect weighted total score = 5.
According to the results shown in Table H7, the overall weighted scores of the two proposed alternatives are similar and exceed the performance of Baseline alternative. Since Alternatives 1 and 3 did not meet the City’s reclaimed water requirement, they are not shown in Table H7. Alternative 2 and 4 display the best performance in risk category and slightly lower score in operation and maintenance. Due to the comparable results between these two alternatives, further examination in risk criteria was performed to evaluate the alternatives. The result of risk decision matrix is shown in Table H8. Table H8
Risk Matrix for Baseline and Alternatives 2 and 4 Alt 2: SEWRP Offline, Lift Station to GWRP
Alt 4: SEWRP Offline, Partial Lift Station and Gravity Main to GWRP
Weighted Score
Score
Weighted Score
Score
Baseline Risk Sub-categories
Weight/ Priority Value Score (1)
(1)
(1)
Weighted Score
Safety considerations (chemicals, mechanical/electrical equipment)
5%
1
0.05
4
0.20
4
0.20
Reliability considerations to produce adequate quality water
5%
1
0.05
5
0.25
5
0.25
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-14
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Alt 2: SEWRP Offline, Lift Station to GWRP
Alt 4: SEWRP Offline, Partial Lift Station and Gravity Main to GWRP
Weighted Score
Score
Weighted Score
Score
Baseline Risk Sub-categories
Weight/ Priority Value Score (1)
(1)
(1)
Weighted Score
Potential to need to expand GWRP beyond 2 mgd
5%
5
0.25
3
0.15
3
0.15
WRPs sufficiently staffed with qualified/experienced operators
10%
3
0.30
5
0.50
5
0.50
Maximizing reclaimed water deliveries to the GRIC
75%
5
3.75
5
3.75
5
3.75
Weighted Total
(2)
4.4
4.9
4.9
Notes: (1) For risk, 1 is highest risk and 5 is lowest risk. (2) Perfect weighted total score = 5.
Alternatives 2 and 4 perform identically in all risk subcategories. Both alternatives earned full scores in reliability, staff, and operation, and maximizing reclaimed water resources categories. The results of the decision matrix suggest that taking the SEWRP offline is beneficial in terms of long-term life cycle cost. This will allow the City to meet their reclaimed water commitment to the GRIC and while saving costs. The similar risk profiles of Alternatives 2 and 4 suggest that additional analysis is needed to determine the preferred conveyance method from the SEWRP to the GWRP. This could be done as part of preliminary design where technical feasibility of each alternative conveyance can be further vetted.
3.1.2 NWWRP Pump Back Alternatives 5 to 8 Alternatives 5 through 8 include taking the SEWRP offline (as recommended previously). Alternatives 6 through 8 include an additional lift station to capture wastewater that would otherwise be sent to SROG and pump it back to the NWWRP. This will allow additional reclaimed water to be delivered to the GRIC through the CMRP. Alternatives 5 through 8 include the construction of a lift station to pump back flows to the NWWRP. Alternatives 6 and 8 include a pump back to the GWRP (similar to Alternatives 2 and 4). Alternatives 7 and 8 include the construction of a gravity main to the GWRP. Table H9 shows the summary of Alternatives 5 to 8.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-15
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H9
Flow Consolidation at GWRP and SROG Flow Optimization – Alternatives 5 to 8
Alternative
SEWRP
Baseline
Online
Pump Back to NWWRP
Pump Back to GWRP
Gravity Main to GWRP
Description All City WRPs Operating
Alt 5
New pump station to NWWRP
Alt 6
New pump station to NWWRP and from SEWRP to GWRP
Alt 7
Partial flow (~2.5 mgd) diversion to GWRP by gravity main, remainder of SEWRP flow to SROG and some pumped back via New NWWRP pump station.
Offline
Alt 8
New lift station to NWWRP and from SEWRP to GWRP, partial flow (~2.5 mgd) diversion to GWRP by gravity main
Smaller
3.1.2.1 Cost and Flow Comparison Table H10 presents the wastewater flow and cost summary of Alternatives 5 through 8. The 20-year life cycle cost was calculated and flows deliveries for each alternative were compared to the Baseline condition. Alternatives 5 and 7 have lower 20-year life cycle costs compared to the Baseline condition, but Alternative 5 is not able to match the Baseline condition flow available to the GRIC. Alternatives 6 and 8 both exceed the existing cost of Baseline condition but are able to maximize the reclaimed water flow sent to the GRIC. Differential costs and flows are presented in Table H11. Table H10
Alternatives 5 through 8 Flow and Cost Summary
Buildout Flow
Baseline
Alt 5
Alt 6
Alt 7
Alt 8
Flow to SROG
16.3
18.1
13.9
15.1
13.9
Reclaimed Water to GRIC
22.9
21.1
25.3
23.6
25.3
Capital Cost
$95M
$67M
$110M
$76M
$106M
O&M Cost (20Year)
$338M
$323M
$349M
$341M
$348M
Life Cycle Cost
$433M
$389M
$459M
$414M
$454M
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-16
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Table H11
Comparison of Alternative 5 through 8 Flow and Costs to Baseline Condition
Buildout Flow
Baseline
Alt 5
Alt 6
Alt 7
At 8
Flow to SROG
16.3
+1.8
-2.4
-0.7
-2.4
Reclaimed Water to GRIC
22.9
-1.8
+2.4
+0.7
+2.4
Capital Cost
$95M
-$29M
+$15M
-$19M
+$11M
O&M Cost (20-Year)
$338M
-$15M
+$11M
+$3M
+$10M
Life Cycle Cost
$433M
-$44M
+$26M
-$19M
+$21M
It should be noted that the treatment capacity at the NWWRP and the City’s flow commitment to SROG will constrain maximum flow that the City can deliver to the GRIC. Alternatives 5 and 7 are constrained by the NWWRP’s current treatment capacity (12 mgd). There is a need to review flows to reflect seasonal variations and to account for NWWRP capacity. It is expected that flows will exceed NWWRP during peak seasonal conditions. Figure H7 presents the life cycle costs for Alternatives 5 through 8 and the Baseline condition. Alternatives 6 and 8 show a higher capital cost, and all alternatives share similar O&M costs as compared to Baseline conditions. Categories shown in darker colors represent capital costs, and categories shown in lighter colors represent the 20-year O&M costs calculated.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-17
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H7
Life Cycle Costs Breakdown for the Baseline Alternative and Alternatives 5 through 8
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-18
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H8 shows the cost benefit ratio chart of life cycle costs vs. flow to GRIC of all alternatives (excluding Alternatives 1 and 3). Alternatives 6 through 8 show higher flow delivery flow to the GRIC. Alternative 5 is not able to provide as much to the GRIC as the Baseline condition. The 20-year life cycle costs of Alternatives 6 and 8 are the highest and Alternatives 6, 7 and 8 are all higher than the Baseline condition.
Figure H8
Cost Benefit Ratio of Life Cycle Costs vs. Flow to GRIC of Alternative 1 to 8 (Buildout Scenarios)
3.1.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis examining the impact of NWWRP pump back vs. GWRP pump on life cycle costs and reclaimed flow deliveries to GRIC was performed. The GWRP pump back capacity was evaluated at 0, 2.75, 5.5, 8.25, and 11 mgd respectively, while the NWWRP pump back capacity was evaluated at 0, 3 and 5 mgd. SEWRP was offline for all scenarios. Figure H9 presents the result of the sensitivity analysis. The x-axis represents the 20-year life cycle costs, and the y-axis represents the flows delivered to the GRIC. Capacities of GWRP pump back can be differentiated by color: ◼ Blue represents 0 mgd. ◼ Orange represents 2.75 mgd. ◼ Yellow represents 5.5 mgd. ◼ Green represents 8.25 mgd. ◼ Grey represents 11 mgd.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-19
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
The shapes of the markers can be used to differentiate the capacities of NWWRP pump back: ◼ Square represents 0 mgd. ◼ Circle represents 3 mgd. ◼ Triangle represents 5 mgd. A purple diamond data point for Baseline Condition was also added to the graph for comparison. The results show that as the pump back capacity increases, the flows to the GRIC increase. However, it should be noted that there is the limitation to continue to send flow to GRIC due to GRIC exchange agreement capacity of 26.3 mgd. The graphical trend of the GWRP pump back at 5.5, 8.25 and 11 mgd remain similar with the same pattern of sending flows to the GRIC. Most of the alternatives have life cycle costs lower than the Baseline alternative, which suggests that decommissioning the SEWRP is more economical. In the condition where the NWWRP pump back is at 3 mgd, the GWRP pump back is at 5.5 and 8.25 mgd (shown as yellow and green circle in figure), both scenarios result in lower 20-year life cycle costs and higher GRIC deliveries as compared to the Baseline alternative. This result demonstrates that both the NWWRP pump back and the GWRP pump back can be beneficial in terms of reclaimed water delivery to the GRIC and lower costs to the City.
Figure H9
Sensitivity Analysis: Impact of NW Pump Back vs. GWRP Pump Back on Life Cycle Costs and Water Resources Conserved
3.1.2.3 Decision Matrix The City’s risk matrix was applied to Alternatives 5 through 8 and is included in Table H12.The risk profiles or scoring did not change between Alternatives 1 through 4 and Alternatives 5 through 8. This is because the addition of a NWWRP pumpback increases the reclaimed water delivery to the GRIC equally among all alternatives. Therefore, the differences of reclaimed water delivery volumes between Alternatives 1 through 4 remain unchanged.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-20
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Similarly, the total capital costs increase between Alternatives 1 through 4 and Alternatives 5 through 8 is the same. While this does result in some minor adjustment of scoring in the cost category of the Risk matrix, it does not fundamentally change the total scoring differences between the alternatives. As a result, Alternatives 6 and 8 remain the highest scored alternatives, with Alternatives 7 and 5 scored slightly lower. The decision to add an additional pumpback for the NWWRP is independent of the decision to consolidate flows from the SEWRP and GWRP. However, this analysis shows that by moving forward with flow consolidation at the GWRP, the City will still be in a favorable position to decide on the need and timing for a NWWRP pumpback.
3.1.3 Conclusions The results of the wastewater flow routing analysis suggest that it would be more economical and advantageous to the City due to other factors for the City to decommission the SEWRP and construct a conveyance to consolidate SEWRP and GWRP flows at the GWRP. Out of the eight alternatives, Alternative 4 provides the lowest 20-year life cycle cost of $387M and matches the GRIC flow delivery of Baseline condition of 22.9 mgd. Despite the construction of a 2.5 mgd lift station to GWRP and a gravity main to GWRP, the capital and O&M costs are still more economical than the Baseline condition of operating SEWRP. Alternatives 6 and 8 provide the highest flow delivered to the GRIC, with a proposed flow of 25.3 mgd, which maximizes the GRIC reclaimed water deliveries to the greatest extent possible with the current wastewater flow projections. However, both of these alternatives exceed the Baseline life cycle cost of $433M by more than $20M. Based on the cost and scoring, Alternatives 2 and 4, both of which include a lift station and conveyance from the SEWRP to the EMI, are the most promising alternatives, and are recommended for further evaluation during preliminary design. Although, not economically feasible currently, the pump back to the NWWRP or from the Baseline Road Interceptor to the GWRP should be revisited in future master plans or at times when the water resources become scarce, and the City may need to rely on recovering long-term storage credits to meet annual potable demands. Table H12 presents the flow and costs summary of Alternatives 2 and 4 through 8. Numbers in green indicate that the alternative performs better than the Baseline condition, and numbers in red indicate that the alternative performs worse than the Baseline condition. Table H12
Alternatives 1 to 8 Flow and Cost Summary
Alt 5: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back
Alt 6: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back and Lift Station to GWRP
At 7: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back, Gravity Main to GWRP
At 8: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back, GWRP Lift Station and Gravity Main
16.3
18.1
13.9
15.1
13.9
22.9
22.9
21.1
25.3
23.6
25.3
$58M
$54M
$67M
$110M
$76M
$106M
Baseline
Alt 2: SE Offline Lift Station to GWRP
Alt 4: SE Offline + Partial Lift Station and Gravity Main to GWRP
Flow to SROG
16.3
16.3
Reclaimed Water to GRIC
22.9
Capital Cost
$95M
Buildout Condition
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-21
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Alt 5: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back
Alt 6: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back and Lift Station to GWRP
At 7: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back, Gravity Main to GWRP
At 8: SE Offline NWWRP Pump Back, GWRP Lift Station and Gravity Main
$333M
$323M
$349M
$341M
$348M
$387M
$389M
$459M
$414M
$454M
Baseline
Alt 2: SE Offline Lift Station to GWRP
Alt 4: SE Offline + Partial Lift Station and Gravity Main to GWRP
O&M Cost (20-Year)
$338M
$333M
Life Cycle Cost
$433M
$391M
Buildout Condition
Assumption: -
Excluding GWRP expansion capital and CMRP capital.
-
O&M cost: $1.67/kgal for SEWRP; $1.62/kgal for GWRP (based on WRP ownership ratio)
-
Alternatives 1 and 3 are excluded in the final analysis
It should be noted that towards the end of the this study, the potential to expand the capacity at NWWRP to 18 mgd, at a much lower cost than conventional expansion using intensification technology came to the attention of the City and Consulting Team. This could potentially move up Option 7 higher in its ranking and therefore, at this time the only recommendation that can be made is to consolidate the SEWRP flow at GWRP. Further investigations of alternatives are recommended prior to selecting the final alternative.
3.1.4 Potential Pumpback Station Locations The hydraulic model was applied to identify potential locations of the SEWRP and NWWRP pumpback station locations. Figure H10 shows the conceptual locations of both pumpback stations. The SEWRP Pumpback was assumed to be located on or immediately adjacent to the SEWRP site as shown in Figure H11. The estimated buildout average daily flow is 5.7 mgd (11.4 mgd peak), assuming that the diversion structure east of the SEWRP are adjusted to convey flow directly to the GWRP. The lift station would discharge to a 24-inch diameter force main that would connect at the EMI, south of Elliot Road on the east side of the RWCD canal. The hydraulic model did not identify any capacity deficiencies in the EMI with this configuration.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-22
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Figure H10
Conceptual Pumpback Station Locations
Figure H11
Conceptual SEWRP Pumpback Station and Force Main
The NWWRP Pumpback was assumed to be located near Southern Ave and Extension Rd as shown in Figure H12. There are limited open parcels along Southern Ave between Extension Rd and Dobson Rd, therefore it may be challenging to locate this lift station and it is likely the City would need to purchase both property and easements to site a lift station in this area. The estimated flow required to optimize flows to SROG based on the IMP projections, is 3.5 mgd average annual daily flow. The NWWRP pumpback force main would need to connect to the exiting 48-inch diameter sewer in Broadway Road and Dobson Rd to be able to convey 3.5 mgd without causing surcharging in the existing sewers. The
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-23
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
hydraulic model did not identify any capacity deficiencies in the CMI and on to the NWWRP with this configuration.
Figure H12
Conceptual NWWRP Pumpback Station and Force Main
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix H
H-24
City of Mesa | Integrated Master Plan
Appendix I.
Southeast Mesa Master Plan
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix I
1
FINAL
TM 206 - SOUTHEAST MASTER PLAN Technical Memorandum B&V PROJECT NO. 408115 B&V FILE NO. 41.0000
PREPARED FOR
City of Mesa 2 MARCH 2022
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table of Contents 1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2 Demand Updates .......................................................................................................................6 2.1 Model Demand Approach ...................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Spatial Allocation of Existing Demand ............................................................................. 9 2.3 Specific Developments ........................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Unit Rates for Vacant Parcels .............................................................................................10 2.5 City-Wide Demands ...............................................................................................................13 Resource Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Wastewater Return Evaluation .........................................................................................14 3.2 City Water Resource Portolio ............................................................................................15 Hydraulic Assessment .......................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Production Plans.....................................................................................................................19 4.2 Model Set Points .....................................................................................................................21 4.3 Model Results ...........................................................................................................................21 4.3.1 Normal Operating Scenarios .............................................................................22 4.3.2 Outage Assessments .............................................................................................22 4.4 Storage Requirements ..........................................................................................................27 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 28
LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 4-1 Table 4-2
Existing and Buildout Groundwater Capacity ............................................................... 2 Existing SE Mesa Annual Average Demands .................................................................. 9 Specific Development Demands ......................................................................................... 9 Vacant Land in SE Mesa by Land Use..............................................................................10 Unit Rates for Vacant Parcel Land Use Types ..............................................................11 SE Mesa Buildout Demand ..................................................................................................12 City-Wide Buildout Demands ............................................................................................13 GRIC Exchange and LTSC Calculation .............................................................................15 Existing Water Resource Portfolio ..................................................................................16 City-wide Buildout Demands versus Available Resources (AFY) ........................17 Model Scenarios ......................................................................................................................19 Water Production Plans (MGD) ........................................................................................20
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
i
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5
Discharge Pressure Set Points for SBWTP Finished Water Pump Stations .......................................................................................................................................21 Normal Operating Conditions SBWTP FW Pumping Requirements ..................22 Outage Conditions SBWTP FW Pumping Requirements .........................................24
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 4-1
Buildout City Water Distribution System........................................................................ 4 Extents of Southeast Mesa .................................................................................................... 5 Specific Developments in SE Mesa ..................................................................................... 7 Vacant Parcels in SE Mesa ..................................................................................................... 8 Proposed Interconnect Pipelines .....................................................................................25
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents
ii
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
1.0 Introduction The City of Mesa (City) Signal Butte Water Treatment Plant (SBWTP) is a 24 million-gallonper-day (mgd) facility with an existing nominal capacity of 24 mgd and a planned capacity of 48 mgd. Black & Veatch (BV) has been retained by the City to provide pre-design services for the SBWTP Expansion. As part of the SBWTP Pre-design, the City requested several hydraulic analyses of the City’s distribution system to assess potential impacts to the design of the SBWTP expansion. This work is referred to as the Southeast Mesa Master Plan (SE Mesa MP). The following technical memorandum (TM), summarizes the results.
1.1 BACKGROUND The City service area is divided into eight major pressure zones. In addition to the eight major pressure zones, there are two boosted pressure zones in the City Zone referred to as City-Mini Zones. In addition, there are reduced pressure areas in Falcon Field (FF), Desert Wells (DW), and Range Rider Zones. There are nineteen storage reservoirs located throughout the distribution system providing a total storage capacity of approximately 91 million gallons (MG). Each pressure zone is served by at least one reservoir. There are also 25 pump stations located throughout the distribution system. Those labeled as Pumping Station (PS) are generally located adjacent to reservoirs and pump water directly from ground level to the hydraulic grade line (HGL) of the pressure zone served. Those labeled as Transfer Station (TS) generally operate as in-line pumps that transfer water directly from one pressure zone to another. There are currently three surface water treatment plants (WTPs) that serve the City. ◼ Val Vista WTP – The City currently owns 90 mgd of the 220 mgd Val Vista WTP coowned with the City of Phoenix. Val Vista WTP primarily serves the City Zone pressure zone. The surface water source of the Val Vista WTP is the Salt River Project (SRP) canal system. ◼ Brown Rd WTP – A 72 mgd WTP that serves the northern portions of the off-project pressure zones (all zones except City Zone). The surface water source of the Brown Rd WTP is the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal. ◼ SBWTP – An existing 24 mgd WTP, currently in-design to be expanded to 48 mgd, which primarily serves the southern portions of the FF, DW and Desert Sage (DS) pressure zones. The surface water source of the SBWTP is the CAP canal. In addition to the treated surface water from the three WTPs, a portion of the annual consumption is met by groundwater wells. There is approximately 82 mgd of existing installed well capacity between on-project direct connect wells, off-project direct connect
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
1
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
wells and groundwater wells conveyed to the SBWTP Finished Water Reservoir. At buildout the groundwater capacity is planned to increase to approximately 118 mgd including the construction of a new Desert Wells Groundwater Facility (DWGWF). The buildout groundwater capacity is summarized in Table 1-1. Table 1-1
Existing and Buildout Groundwater Capacity
WELL TYPE / LOCATION
INSTALLED CAPACITY (MGD)
FUTURE CAPACITY (MGD)
Direct Connect Well Capacity City Zone (On-Project)
54.1
60.6
Falcon Field (Off-Project)
10.9
14.1
Desert Wells (Off-Project)
6.9
3.1
Signal Butte Groundwater Facility (SBGWF)
17.9
23.4
DWGWF
--
16.6
Total Well Capacity
89.8
117.8
Ground Water Facility Wells
The buildout City water distribution system is shown on Figure 1-1.
1.2 PROJECT SCOPE The purpose of the SE Mesa MP is to provide design information for the SBWTP Phase 2 Expansion, while addressing the following tasks: ◼ Develop updated buildout water demands for Southeast Mesa (SE Mesa). For the purpose of this analysis, SE Mesa is defined as southeast portions of FF, DW and DS pressure zones that are south of Baseline Road as shown on Figure 1-2. ◼ Complete a desktop water resource evaluation to compare updated demand projections within SE Mesa and those provided by the City outside SE Mesa through buildout with existing water rights. ◼ Conduct buildout hydraulic model evaluations to determine: ● Recommended pumping requirements for the Finished Water PS (FWPS) (to pump to
FF, DW and DS pressure zones) and recommended finished water storage volume at SBWTP (Reservoir 2).
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
2
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
● Preliminary corridor locations, connections and sizing of interconnect pipelines to
enable the City to meet Maximum Day (MD) demands with reduced surface water production due to an outage at any of the City’s three surface WTPs.
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction
3
CITY OF MESA SOUTHEAST MESA MP
1700
0 40
1
00
16
1400 24 00 "
20"
16 16"
20"
FF14
20 24"
16
# *
12
24"
30 30" 36
12"
36"
20
12
ù
Desert Wells
Supply
" 6
New or Expanded Pump Station
! (
Reservoir
12
16" 24"
24
12"
16"
IS5
$
16
DW9
12
Apache Junction
Desert Wells
County Line
Falcon Field
City of Mesa (City Zone)
High Land
SE Mini Zone
NE Mini Zone
Desert Sage
Range Rider
16
12
24
24"
16"
#20 * ' 1
Range Rider
12"
16"
60
TS5 16"
30"
Desert Sage
2
# *
30
No Zone Designation
Water Pressure Zones
12
12''
PRV29
# * # DW7 *
12"
12
12
12
30"
20"
12" 36"3
16 20
DW19
12"
12
DW34 DW34
# *
16 20"
12
DW20
"
12"
12
16
12''
DW41 DW42
12''
16"
DW14
DW42
# * 12
DW41
16"
12"
FF18
DW11
16
FF18
16''
20"
DW11
DW29
12
12
20
" 6! ( DW29
24
DWGWF DWPS
24
12"
12
"
"
12"
20
DW39
16
20"
DW39
20
DW40
12 12"
24''
16"
16"
DW40
12
16
16
DW12ù # *
12"
DW38
24"
12
12"
PRV28
16"
16"
'
DW38
DW37
20"
' 12
DW37
2 4" 24
24''
20''
"
12
DW36
12
24"
24''
16
24
DW36
16''
DW35
16
DW35
16''
16
''
WG5
24" 1 6"24
20
16
30''
DW33
12"
16"
16"
12"
20
16
16" 16"
24"
16
24 12
24"
24
# *
16"
20
DW33
12"
16
18
12
ù
FR2
" ( 6 FR1 FR3 ! WGFPS
WG5
12
16" 16
12"
30"
20" 20
PRV35
# *
15 15
" 16
2 4"
"
16
30
16
12
DW28
DW18
DW28
"
12"
16"
24"
54"
12"
16''
12
24
# *
16"
12
Queen Creek
24"
DW27 DW27
12
202
# *
DW13
Arizona Water Company
" 642 616" DW21 "" 6 " ( 20! 24
16"
12''
12
DW25
DW25
12" 12
DW16
Service Area
6
30
20''
12'' 30''
12
24"
16''
# *
42"
24 24"
20
12"
" 20
16"
# *
DW26
DW26 12''
42''
16
42"
12 12"
16"
24
16
DW17
12" 12
36 36"
16
12"
42" 42
16"
54"
30"
30
DW24
20"
12
12''
16"
DW30 DW30
16"
12
24"
DW32
DW23
DW23
DW32
DW24
12"
Signal DW31 Butte* DW31 # DW22 '' 16 WTP
"
16 16" 12"
12"
20"
24"
24
20"
12
12"
16"
20
16
12"
16
DW6
CW22
20
202
12"
24"
24
12" 36
36" 36 "
ù PRV10
16 16"
16 16"
12 16"
20"
12"
24
City of Mesa (City Zone)
16
16''
36
Highland
IIP
16" 16
12
16"
16"
20"
DW3
# *
County Line
Developer
12"
12"
PRV9
Falcon Field
Well Sites
"
ù
Apache Junction
Future Water Mains
12
" 12
12
16"
16
WTP
16"
16" 12 "
12 30
16"
16
24
PRV6
16" 16
12
12"
12"
16
12
12
PRV27 12
12
12" 30"
30
# Well *
Future Facilities
12"
16" 16
16
12" 12
12
16 14"
ù
12"
20" 2 4"
16"
20"
16"
ù
12
20"
" 14
Western Canal
24"
12"
14 12"
12
12"
14
30" 16"
16"
l
20"
! (
30"
16
16 16"
12
24 24"
18
30 30"
16" 16
12"
24
14" 14
na
16
12"
12
12"
36"
30"
12"
16
12"
12
12 12"
16
30"
20"
12
36" 30" 30 18
18"
12"
" 120 0
18
16"
30
16"
42"42
12
20"
20
18
1200
0 120 0 120
PRV5
20"
12"
14
12
ù
24"
16
" 6 16
" 30 30
16
" 36
16"
12"
CLPS3
12
20
"
16"
Ca
12"
DWR2
12"
2" "4 30 2 4
16
1700
16"
16 16"
24
16"
CA P
16
16"
12
14"
Reservoir
12
12
16
12"
16
1600
12
20"
20
18"
36 36"
" 6
12"
# *
12"
VPGPS
12
20
36
12
12
24"
14
12
CW20
PS5
"
20" 20
30"
30
14"
16
12
" 6
12"
230
0
12" 12
66
66"
12
12
30"
PRV4
30
12"
12
12"
16"
12
20
l
16"
12
20"
12" 12
! (
! (
12
na
# *
20
20"
CW14
20"
20
# *
20
12"
Ca
16
18"
18"
18
Pump Station
Treatment Plant
Existing Water Main
DSR2
180 0
16
30
12"
CD
12
20 14
20"
20
24
12
24 20"
36
20
30"
12
16 16"
18 18"
RW
# * 14"
24"
12"
12"
CW15
12
12
"
16" 16"
12"
16"
20 20" 24"
12
16"
24" 12
20
14" 14
12" 48
12
12
00 12
20"
12" 12
60
30"
12"
l na
1200
12"
16"
Ca
# *
24
16
rn ste
CW10
CW16
16"
Ea
12
12
" 6
'
12''
CLR2
CLR3 ! ! ( (
" 6 CLPS2
BRFFR2
"
PS2 CW26 * #" ( 6! CR2 36 24 24"
1200
12"
12"
12"
12"
16
12"
16"
1
12
" 16
16" 20"
12
16" 24"
24
16
14
20"
12
30"
48" 24"
24"
ù
30
12
# *
12
# *
12"
12
12
12
12"
! (" 6 " 6$BRDWPS2 ! (
16"
ù 12"
12"
FF5
12"
24
30
24"
# *
16"
12
24
PRV3
24"
Brown Rd WTP BRFFR1
'
24
30"
42 18 42" 18"
CW18
12
24" 16 12
12"
18"
42 16"
16
l
PS3 TS1-PMP3&4 (" " 6! ' TS1 6 CR3
12
18
24
24"
16"
24
16"
16 16" 36
36"
36''
16"
72" 18"
36 36"
na
42"
TS2
48 16 48"
48"
48
12"
Ca
24
12
16
24"
12
108
72
12 16
16" 12
60''
te d
16
12 12"
da
12" 16"
12
18 18"
oli
36 36"
14 14"
16
12
16"
12
24"
12" 12 24"
# *
UCC1
CW12 PS1 $ ! ( #" 6 # * * CW8 CR1 12 CW11 CW7 16 * #
20" 20
16"
CW9
18
# *
42 42" 24 24"
48
CW25
42 42"
12"
16 16"
48"
14" 14
12"
12" 12
9
90"
12
12"
108"
20"
24
"
24
1 12 2" 16 1 6 "
12" 12
12
20
20" 12
96 96"
12
00 24"
" 96
ns
36"
12
12
36"
12
60"
60
20
1800
12
Co
60"
60
ù Pressure Reducing Station
"
4 8"
12
12"
12"
00
90
"
1900
20"
12"
Interagency Station
$
1900
" ù 6
12 12"
14
12
12
Existing Water Facilities
12" 12
20
60"
12"
12"
90"
FF2
12" 12
14"
# *
16" 16
12"
30"
30 16"
16
00
# *
30"
13
202
ù
PRV1
PRV17
24"
12"
12"
CW27
PS4 CW19 * " 6 #
"
ù
16
24" 24
30"
12"
' 96"
12
00
DWPS1-PMP4
30 30"
ù
19
12"
96
96
30 30"
12
0
# * 96"
96
DWPS1 FFR1 " " 6 6 ! (
150
96"
12
0 210
00
00
24
TS4
CW24
12"
00 22
20 18
" 12
20" 12"
PRV36
! (! ! ( (
24 ( "! 6 12
0 170
'
36"
TS3
12"
LSGPS
12
PRV26
ù " 6 6 ! ( ! ( "
" 6 12"
ù
12"
12
16"
0
ù 20
PRV31
101
Val Vista WTP
" 6 ! (
20"
20 24
16
16
20
1900
ù
12
2
" 12
12"
'
16
16"
12''
' 12
16"
12''
24"
" 6
1 4"
''
12 "
12
25
RMGPS
" 12
12"
Figure 1-1 City of Mesa Water Distribution System
00
00 18
1600
DW15
12"
# *
54" 54
54"
12
24"
24
12"
30
12
12"
24
12
16"
12"
16"
12
12"
12
12
36"
20 20"
16" 16
12"
36
12" 12
"
12
12"
24
36"
12"
12"
Southern Ave
16
16
16"
12
16
16"
16
12
12"
16"
16"
12
12
" 30
"
12
16" 16
20"
12"
16"
16
12"
16 "
12" 12
16"
16"
12
30
16"
16
12"
12"
12
16 16"
60
16"
36"
20
12
1
30" 30
16"
16
TS5 # 30" 20 * '
16"
12
16
16
16 12"
16"
12
"
12"
24"
12 12"
16"
24"
24 12
16" 16"
Signal Butte*# DW22 WTP
16
16"
42 16"
16
# *
24" 42"
24
DW16
30
#42 *
30"
DW13
# *
DW21
DW18
"
12"
# *
12
16" 16
"
12
12
12" 12
16"
12
16"
24"
16
# *
16" 16
12 16"
30
16"
16" 16
12
16" 16
DW19
24"
12 12"
16"
12" 12
DW20
16" 16
Ray Rd
16"
16"
16
# *
12"
16
12"
16
24"
20
16"
"
16
16"
36" 36
12" 12
16
15
ù
16" 20"
16
24"
16
24
20" 20
12" 12
PRV35
24"
12 "
12"
30"
12"
12"
24 24"
12
12" 1
2
12
12
16
"
20
24" 24
12"
20
12
"
30"
12
20
202
Warner Rd
16"
24
"
20"
12" 12" 12
5 4"
20"
24" 16
"
16
54
12 12"
12"
12 16
Elliot Rd
54" 24" 24
16"
16
24" 24
16" 16
20
16" 16
16"
20
12" 12
24"
24
16
12 12"
24" 12 12"
12"
6 ! ("
16"
16"
16"
20"
42"
16
12"
42
24
42
42"
20
# *
12 36" 16 36 16"
20" 20
42"
16"
30 30"
12"
12" 12
20"
54" 54
20"
16"
36" 20"
42"
20
24"
DW17
20"
12
16
12"
12
16"
12"
16
16" 16
12"
12
16
12"
12
12"
"
12
12
12"
12
12"
24"
12"
12" 12"
Guadalupe Rd
16
12"
12"
12 12"
12
12"
36
12
12
16"
16 16"
20"
16"
24
12
12" 12
12
16"
00 14
24"
12
16
20
12" 12
12"
12
12"
24
12" 12
Baseline Rd
12
DW7
12
16" 16
16"
12"
" 12
12
# * # *
12
12
12"
12"
DW6
16" 16
$
DW9
12
12"
IS5
16"
16" 16
16
12"
16 16"
16"
ù
12
"
12 12
PRV29 16"
16
24"
24
PRV10
6
20"
# *
24"
36"
ù
24"
12"
20
12"
"
FF14
16
20"
24
12
16"
12 "
12
36
12"
# *
"
12
1500
" 36
DW3
16"
16 20" 20
20"
"
" 30
42
12"
42
12
PRV9
ù
12
12
36
20
30
20"
24
12"
24"
30"
12"
12"
12
24"
16
12
12
20"
16
16" 16
16
Extents of Southeast Mesa
12" 16"
16"
16"
12"
12"
12
ù
30"
30
12
30"
16 16"
24"
16"
16
ù
16
24"
PRV5
12"
16"
16
12"
12
12"
24
12
1 2" 16"
16
PRV6
20"
16
16 16"
16
12"
16
24
16
12
24"
00
12
14
12" 12
16 16"
"
" 18 8 1
16
16"
12"
16
WGFPS
24"
FR3
24
12
30 4" " 2 30
16"
12" 12
! ( ! ( " 6 FR1 ! (
12"
FR2
16"
24
12" 20
24"
Williams Field Rd
24"
24
12
12" 12
12
16
24"
12
12
16"
24 24"
16"
12"
12
24
12" 16"
2"
16
1
16
12" 12
16 16"
16"
16
Pecos Rd
20"
# *
16
20"
12"
20
12
16"
DW15 12
12"
# *
Signal Butte Rd
12"
Crismon Rd
Hawes Rd
Sossaman Rd
12
Ellsworth Rd
12"
12"
Power Rd
12"
12"
12
12
12
12"
20
DW14 12"
20"
16 16"
12
20
16 16"
20" 20
12
20"
16
16"
16"
12"
16
12" 12
12"
DW12ù*#
16"
20
PRV28
12
12" 12
24
24"
16
20"
16
16"
"
" 12
" 16
12"
16"
16"
16"
12"
00 16
12"
12
1 6" 16
16
30"
30
30" 12" 16"
12
12"
! (
1600
30 30" 20"
12
20
12"
36 "
12" 12
30" 30
12"
12
12"
12
Maxar
Legend Boundary WTP Existing Water Facilities $
Interagency Station
ù Pressure Reducing Station
Water Service Zones Apache Junction County Line City of Mesa (City Zone) SE Mini Zone
" 6
Pump Station
Desert Sage
! (
Reservoir
Desert Wells
'
Treatment Plant
Falcon Field
# Well *
High Land
Servce Area
NE Mini Zone
Arizona Water Company Queen Creek
CITY OF MESA SOUTHEAST MESA MP
Range Rider
Figure 1-2 SE Mesa
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
2.0 Demand Updates The City completed a Master Plan Update in 2018 (2018 MP) which included developing demands through buildout. Since the completion of the 2018 MP, there has been significant development of, and additional interest in, large scale non-residential development in SE Mesa which has the potential to impact previous demand projections. Since the area outside of SE Mesa is much closer to buildout (i.e. significantly less vacant or infill parcels), and the demand projections developed as part of the 2018 MP are assumed to still be valid, demands were only updated for SE Mesa.
2.1 MODEL DEMAND APPROACH Demands were allocated to the model in SE Mesa through the following activities: ◼ Spatial Allocation of Existing Mesa Customer Demand - Allocation of existing SE Mesa customer demands to the model were based on geocoded customer meters. ◼ Buildout demand was calculated by adding the following increments of projected new demand to the existing demands. ● Specific Developments – New demand associated with specific developments planned
within SE Mesa. Projected demands are based on development agreements between developers and the City. Specific developments are shown on Figure 2-1.
● Buildout Demands for Vacant Parcels – New demand associated with the development
of parcels identified as vacant was calculated by multiplying the acreage for each vacant parcel times the applicable water unit rate in gallons per acre day (gpad) based on the land use type classification for that parcel. Historical unit rates were utilized to guide the development of unit rates for the land use classes for the vacant parcels in SE Mesa. Parcels identified as vacant are shown on Figure 2-2.
Water demands for the specific developments were calculated based on the following methodologies: ◼ Average Demand – 50% of development agreement ◼ Moderate Demand – 75% of development agreement ◼ Aggressive Demand – 100% of development agreement Water demands for the vacant parcels were calculated based on the following methodologies: ◼ Average Growth – calculated gpad based on the historical 50th percentile unit rate value for the land use type ◼ Moderate Growth – calculated gpad based on the historical 75th percentile unit rate value for the land use type ◼ Aggressive Growth – calculated gpad based on the historical 90th percentile unit rate value for the land use type BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
6
S
th
E
S 80
S Chesh i r e
S 1 04 t h S t
na
S Si g n al B utte Rd
S Cr i smon Rd
S 98th St
S 97th Pl
S 97th Way
S 8 8t h St
S 97th St
8 6 t h St
Ca
l
Superstition Country Subdivision
E Wier Ave
E Grove St
E b ola Ave
E Su n l a n d A ve
E Forge Ave
Ca
E F a r m d al e A v e
th St
E S ou t he r n Ave
S 8 0 t h St
S 96
Mountain Vista Medical Center
an al
n Ave
Su p e r s t i ti on Fw y
Su p er s tit ion Fwy
60
60
d
AZ -2 02 -L O O
an S B utt e rcu p
t
S
So
m
S La ns
b o Ave
E Me d i na A v e
in g
E Me s eto Ave
E Ki o w a A
w
ve
Augusta Ranch Golf Club
tri
dg
e
S A v o ca D r
od
as SE
a Av e
S 96th S t
iri
E
an
w
n
Power l i ne FEl oodway Ray Rd
R WC
Powerline Floodway
a r io n E St
S Crim son Rd
S
am a n R d
En
mA
co
E R ay Rd
ve
E W illi ams Field Rd
ss
er
S 2 22nd St
t th S
ar
Dr
S
d
tte
nh
ou
se
Rd
E
ro Ar
wh e
ad T
rl
E Queen Creek Rd
E Q ueen C r eek R d Queen Creek Middle School Canyon State Academy
E Ja a
St
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS Platypus Development LLC Commercial Metal Company Stone Applications LLC DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC Pacific Proving LLC C1-Mesa LLC
S Ellswo rth Rd
6th
Boundary
o adway 1
Signal Butte Rd
R
a n Rd
E Q uee n C r eek R d
E Ba r nes P k w y
E Alyssa Rd
S S i gna l Butt e Rd
nd
18
Legend
E S t i r ru p S t
Queen Creek Marketplace
Ry
Maxar, City of Mesa, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
S Crismon Rd
ra
S
l vd
S Hawes Rd
ca B
E Qu een C r ee k R d
S 220 t h St
Trilogy Golf Club at Power Ranch
E
S Me r i d i an D r
Q uee n C r e ek
ek R
Ri
E Ryan Rd
S 206th P l
E Q uee n C r e
E
E W i lli ams F i e ld Rd
E Germann Rd
E Ry an R d
S So ssa man Rd
E
e n Cree k Rd Qu e
Ellsworth Rd
Hawes Rd
Sossaman Rd
Power Rd
1 88
pl
Williams Field Rd
E Pec o s Rd
S S i gn al Bu t te R d
d
Po
E Er i e S t
S S i g n a l B utte Rd
R
S Merr i ll Rd
n
E Galveston St
Pecos Rd
S Crismon Rd
ya
E S u p e r st i t io n D r
S Cr i smon R d
ER
E
S Ellswor t h Rd S Ellsworth Rd
Rd
E G e r mann R d
E Alamosa Dr S H awes Rd
an
S Atwood
Rd
E
Ry
S 80 th S t
e r m a n n Rd
use nh o
E G
te
e l ine P k w y
nn Rd
t
E P ec o s R d
S Hawes R d
nc
e r ma
Ri
Rd
S 89t h St
Fe
EG
S
os
e
E P e c o s Rd
Crismon Rd
S Po w e r Rd
E P e co s Rd
li Av
S M o un t ai n R d
Rd y
E Pe c os Rd
ec
E T ri p o
re
E Ve r o n a A ve
EP
E Ivanhoe St
S M e r idia n Rd
w
lvd
E R ay R d
S Ells wo rth Rd
Po
B
illiu
Ray Rd
n A ve
S M o un t a i n R d
RW
CD
E Tr
S St e r l i n g St
S
E
Wa
r Ave ge an S E Av e E V iv id Dr c ti e E K in
Ave
E T ex a s Ave
So
it y
n A ve tear e A ve ie r um
E S
r
E Lincol
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport
c V elo
ne A ve
S S ig na l Butt e R d
S Blu e j a y D r
S
ve
E R aEy Ray R d Rd
E Cadence Pkwy
E U n ity Ave
Te
wy
E R a y Rd
P ower li ne Floodwa y
on
Pk
i r ia
e
wy
al
sp
k
In
Av
gA
i mo
E L
ar
S
ere
E S
as
Pk
S Falc o n D r
Can
E
vd
tm
l oB
E
p Am
rt
rin
S M eridian Rd
Pk
ve
ve
Tosca a n
sp
nA
S V ia
In
S
y Rd
S M e r id i a n Rd
S
rbi
eb E S
S
tan
y Fw
y
ay
E U n i on Av e
S
Warner Rd
E Warner Rd
Toka Sticks Golf Club
ASU Polytechnic Campus
n
E Me sq u i t e S t
S Sig n al Bu t te Rd
S Ellsworth Rd
S 80th S t
Power l ine F lo o dw
r to
Elliot Rd
E E l li ot Rd E Elliot Rd
E Po i nt Twen t y- T w
Ra
e ll A ve
E Pa m pa A v e
E Elliot Rd
Santan Fwy y E R a Rd
E
E N
e Rd
S 202 nd Pl
S Hawe s Rd
S So s saman R d
S an
R
lu p
S Me r i d i a n R d
AZ-202-LO O P N
nal
E Peters o n Ave
E Nu nneley Rd
E
da
it a
lan
o E C
E S om e
ua
an ta R
S Hawes Rd
D Ca
S 80 t h St
R WC
S Po we r Rd
D Ca nal
t t le w o
S S
EG
E Wa r ner Rd
ay
S P i n a l Dr
S Wa
0 2 -LO OP N
S 72 n d S t
EP
E Elliot Rd
Rd
ve
Guadalupe Rd
E G u ada l up e R d
E P e ra l t a Av e
AZ-202-LOOP W
aA
Sunland Springs Village Golf Course
E Madero Ave
Hls
E Nopa l Ave
E G uad al upe R d
AZ-202-LOOP E
E K il a r e
4 th S t
AZ-2
E N opal A v e
ld
er
o n t e Ave E N id o Av e
Ba
nip
E M
E Neville Ave
Monterey Park
S
Ju
ve
Lo
S Hawes Rd
sA
E
Sunland Village East Golf Course
S A c an t hus
gla
S Power R d
u Do
a
S Cr i sm on R
E K i va Ave
Baseline Rd
in
Dr
S 72 n d S
s
ss
E Bas e l i n e Rd
S S i gna l But t e Rd
Rd
E B a s e l i ne R d
Wi l d ro s e
e
ow
60
S
M
ad
S uper s tit i on F w y
60
E I m pa l a A v e
S El lswo rth Rd
E Base li n e R d
E Ba s e li ne Rd
N E
S 80th P l
vd
Superstition Springs Golf Club
Desert Sands Golf Course
S 82nd S t
i o n S p r ings Bl
S 80 th St
rst it
S 78th S t
upe
S 72 nd S t
E S
t Dr
P S
E I n ve r n e s s A v e es
US 60
S C r i smon Rd
B e a r V alle y R d
ET
E S u n l and Av e
l
C
pt o
na
ap
am
Ca
C
Superstition Springs Center E H
E So u thern A ve
S P a lo Ve r d e S t
E So uthern Av e
p
Southern Ave
E Florian Ave
E S o uthern A v e
E Pueblo Ave
E P ue b l o A v e
S M e ri d ia n Rd
ve
p
N M cKenzie Rd
l
E Emelita Ave
Ca
S M eridian Rd
S
th P 78
E E d Rice A
E Pue b l o A ve
E Cor a l b e l l A v e
S 9 8th S t
E Pu eb l o A ve
Fountain of the Sun t
rt e
Extents of Southeast Mesa S
No
S Hawes Rd
E Bro a dw a y Rd
S 90th St
E B ro a d w a y Rd
S
E 4 t h Ave
E 6 t h A ve
S 9 6 th St
S 84th Way
E B a l s am A ve
S 96th Pl
E 6 th A ve
S 83rd P l
E 5th Ave
S 82nd Way
Pl
S 7 9 th Pl
E 4th Ave
S Sossaman Rd
a
Arizona Golf Resort
Leisure World
72 nd S t
Vi
Leisure World Country Club
e
E 3rd Ave
E Apache Tr l
S M e ri d i a n R d
S Po we r R d
E Bro a d wa y R d
C a pr i D r
Av
S 75 th
S 72 n d P
l
S 72 nd S t
oo d
S 7 4 th P l
S Jef f ers o n Ave
S 70th St
St
Fountain East
E B a yw
E Apa c h e T r l S 1 02 nd S t
3 rd
Banner Baywood Medical Center
E 2nd Ave
S 80 th St
S6
E A r bo r Ave
E 1st Ave
E Abil en e A ve
S 8 2n d St
E A l de r A v e
Sunset Trail Ranch
E Apache Trl
S 92nd St S E l l s worth Rd
E M ain S t
S Gl e nm a r R d
E M ain S t
Buckhorn
CITY OF MESA SOUTHEAST MESA MP E Appleby Rd
Figure 2-1 Specific Developments in SE
W Pi m a R d
S
th
E
S 80
S Chesh i r e
S 1 04 t h S t
na
S Si g n al B utte Rd
S Cr i smon Rd
S 98th St
S 97th Pl
S 97th Way
S 8 8t h St
S 97th St
8 6 t h St
Ca
l
Superstition Country Subdivision
E Wier Ave
E Grove St
E b ola Ave
E Su n l a n d A ve
E Forge Ave
Ca
E F a r m d al e A v e
th St
E S ou t he r n Ave
S 8 0 t h St
S 96
Mountain Vista Medical Center
an al
n Ave
Su p e r s t i ti on Fw y
Su p er s tit ion Fwy
60
S C r i smon Rd
B e a r V alle y R d 60
S B utt e rcu p
t
S
So
d
m
S La ns
b o Ave
E Me d i na A v e
in g
E Me s eto Ave
E Ki o w a A
w
ve
Augusta Ranch Golf Club
tri
dg
e
S A v o ca D r
od
as SE
a Av e
S 96th S t
iri
E
an
w
n
Power l i ne FEl oodway Ray Rd
R WC
Powerline Floodway
a r io n E St
S Crim son Rd
S
am a n R d
En
mA
co
E R ay Rd
ve
E W illi ams Field Rd
ss
er
S 2 22nd St
t th S
ar
Dr
S
d
tte
nh
ou
se
Rd
E
ro Ar
wh e
ad T
rl
E Queen Creek Rd
E Q ueen C r eek R d Queen Creek Middle School Canyon State Academy
E Ja a
6th St
Boundary Land Use Type
Mixed Use/Employment Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ dwelling units/acre)
Business Park
Public/Semi-Public
Community Commercial
Low Dens Res (0-1 dwelling units/acre)
Neighborhood Commercial
Low Dens Res (1-2 dwelling units/acre)
Regional Commercial
Med Dens Res (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
Office
Med Dens Res (4-6 dwelling units/acre)
General Industrial
Med Dens Res (6-10 dwelling units/acre)
Light Industrial
High Dens Res (10-15 dwelling units/acre)
Mixed-Use/Community
High Dens Res (15+ dwelling units/acre)
S Ellswo rth Rd
18
Legend
E S t i r ru p S t
Queen Creek Marketplace
o adway 1 R
a n Rd
E Q uee n C r eek R d
E Ba r nes P k w y
E Alyssa Rd
S S i gna l Butt e Rd
nd
S
l vd
Ry
Maxar, City of Mesa, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
S Crismon Rd
ra
S Hawes Rd
ca B
E Qu een C r ee k R d
S 220 t h St
Trilogy Golf Club at Power Ranch
E
CITY OF MESA SOUTHEAST MESA MP E Appleby Rd
Figure 2-2 Vacant Parcels in SE Mesa
S Me r i d i an D r
Q uee n C r e ek
ek R
Ri
E Ryan Rd
S 206th P l
E Q uee n C r e
E
Signal Butte Rd
Hawes Rd pl
E W i lli ams F i e ld Rd
E Germann Rd
E Ry an R d
S So ssa man Rd
E
e n Cree k Rd Qu e
Ellsworth Rd
Sossaman Rd
Power Rd
1 88
d
Po
Williams Field Rd
E Pec o s Rd
S S i gn al Bu t te R d
R
E Er i e S t
S S i g n a l B utte Rd
n
S Merr i ll Rd
ya
E Galveston St
Pecos Rd
S Crismon Rd
ER
E S u p e r st i t io n D r
S Cr i smon R d
Rd
E
S H awes Rd
an
E G e r mann R d
E Alamosa Dr
S Ellswor t h Rd S Ellsworth Rd
Rd
E
Ry
S Atwood
S 80 th S t
e r m a n n Rd
use nh o
E G
te
e l ine P k w y
nn Rd
t
E P ec o s R d
S Hawes R d
nc
e r ma
Ri
Rd
S 89t h St
Fe
EG
S
os
e
E P e c o s Rd
Crismon Rd
S Po w e r Rd
E P e co s Rd
li Av
S M o un t ai n R d
Rd y
E Pe c os Rd
ec
E T ri p o
re
E Ve r o n a A ve
EP
E Ivanhoe St
S M e r idia n Rd
w
lvd
E R ay R d
S Ells wo rth Rd
Po
B
illiu
Ray Rd
n A ve
S M o un t a i n R d
RW
CD
E Tr
S St e r l i n g St
S
E
Wa
r Ave ge an S E Av e E V iv id Dr c ti e E K in
Ave
E T ex a s Ave
So
it y
n A ve tear e A ve ie r um
E S
r
E Lincol
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport
c V elo
ne A ve
S S ig na l Butt e R d
S Blu e j a y D r
S
ve
E R aEy Ray R d Rd
E Cadence Pkwy
E U n ity Ave
Te
wy
E R a y Rd
P ower li ne Floodwa y
on
Pk
i r ia
e
wy
al
sp
k
In
Av
gA
i mo
E L
ar
S
ere
E S
as
Pk
S Falc o n D r
Can
E
vd
tm
l oB
E
p Am
rt
rin
S M eridian Rd
Pk
ve
ve
Tosca a n
sp
nA
S V ia
In
S
y Rd
S M e r id i a n Rd
S
rbi
eb E S
S
tan
y Fw
y
ay
E U n i on Av e
S
Warner Rd
E Warner Rd
Toka Sticks Golf Club
ASU Polytechnic Campus
n
E Me sq u i t e S t
S Sig n al Bu t te Rd
S Ellsworth Rd
S 80th S t
Power l ine F lo o dw
r to
Elliot Rd
E E l li ot Rd E Elliot Rd
E Po i nt Twen t y- T w
Ra
e ll A ve
E Pa m pa A v e
E Elliot Rd
Santan Fwy y E R a Rd
E
E N
e Rd
S 202 nd Pl
S Hawe s Rd
S So s saman R d
S an
R
lu p
S Me r i d i a n R d
AZ-202-LO O P N
nal
E Peters o n Ave
E Nu nneley Rd
E
da
it a
lan
o E C
E S om e
ua
an ta R
S Hawes Rd
D Ca
S 80 t h St
R WC
S Po we r Rd
D Ca nal
t t le w o
S S
EG
E Wa r ner Rd
ay
S P i n a l Dr
S Wa
0 2 -LO OP N
S 72 n d S t
EP
E Elliot Rd
Rd
ve
Guadalupe Rd
E G u ada l up e R d
E P e ra l t a Av e
AZ-202-LOOP W
aA
Sunland Springs Village Golf Course
E Madero Ave
Hls
E Nopa l Ave
E G uad al upe R d
AZ-202-LOOP E
E K il a r e
4 th S t
AZ-2
E N opal A v e
ld
er
o n t e Ave E N id o Av e
Ba
nip
E M
E Neville Ave
Monterey Park
S
Ju
ve
Lo
S Hawes Rd
sA
E
Sunland Village East Golf Course
S A c an t hus
gla
S Power R d
u Do
a
in
Dr
S 72 n d S
s
ss
S Cr i sm on R
Rd
an
E K i va Ave
Baseline Rd S S i gna l But t e Rd
e
ow
E Bas e l i n e Rd
Wi l d ro s e
M
ad
60
S
N E
E B a s e l i ne R d
S El lswo rth Rd
E Base li n e R d
E Ba s e li ne Rd
S uper s tit i on F w y
60
E I m pa l a A v e
AZ -2 02 -L O O
vd
Superstition Springs Golf Club
Desert Sands Golf Course
S 82nd S t
i o n S p r ings Bl
S 80 th St
rst it
S 80th P l
upe
S 78th S t
E S
t Dr
S 72 nd S t
es
P S
E I n ve r n e s s A v e
ET
E S u n l and Av e
l
C
pt o
na
ap
am
Ca
C
Superstition Springs Center E H
E So u thern A ve
S P a lo Ve r d e S t
E So uthern Av e
p
Southern Ave
E Florian Ave
E S o uthern A v e
E Pueblo Ave
E P ue b l o A v e
S M e ri d ia n Rd
ve
p
N M cKenzie Rd
l
E Emelita Ave
Ca
S M eridian Rd
S
th P 78
E E d Rice A
E Pue b l o A ve
E Cor a l b e l l A v e
S 9 8th S t
E Pu eb l o A ve
Fountain of the Sun t
rt e
Extents of Southeast Mesa S
No
S Hawes Rd
E Bro a dw a y Rd
S 90th St
E B ro a d w a y Rd
S
E 4 t h Ave
E 6 t h A ve
S 9 6 th St
S 84th Way
E B a l s am A ve
S 96th Pl
E 6 th A ve
S 83rd P l
E 5th Ave
S 82nd Way
Pl
S 7 9 th Pl
E 4th Ave
S Sossaman Rd
a
Arizona Golf Resort
Leisure World
72 nd S t
Vi
Leisure World Country Club
e
E 3rd Ave
E Apache Tr l
S M e ri d i a n R d
S Po we r R d
E Bro a d wa y R d
C a pr i D r
Av
S 75 th
S 72 n d P
l
S 72 nd S t
oo d
S 7 4 th P l
S Jef f ers o n Ave
S 70th St
St
Fountain East
E B a yw
E Apa c h e T r l S 1 02 nd S t
3 rd
Banner Baywood Medical Center
E 2nd Ave
S 80 th St
S6
E A r bo r Ave
E 1st Ave
E Abil en e A ve
S 8 2n d St
E A l de r A v e
Sunset Trail Ranch
E Apache Trl
S 92nd St S E l l s worth Rd
E M ain S t
S Gl e nm a r R d
E M ain S t
Buckhorn
W Pi m a R d
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
2.2 SPATIAL ALLOCATION OF EXISTING DEMAND In order to spatially allocate existing customer demands to the model, the GIS shapefile (“AllWater_Consumption20200304”) was used to calculate the average daily demand. The resulting 2020 average day (AD) demands were then allocated to the model to the nearest node using the InfoWater Demand Allocation tool. The total AD allocated to Mesa by WTP Service Area is summarized in Table 2-1. An unaccounted-for factor of 7% was added to the existing demands. Table 2-1
Existing SE Mesa Annual Average Demands
EXISTING CUSTOMER DEMAND
SE MESA (GALLONS PER DAY [GPD])
Existing Metered Sales
16,077,855
7% Unaccounted for Water
1,125,450
Existing SE Mesa Demand plus Unaccounted for Water
17,203,305
2.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS The City provided demands for the specific developments with SE Mesa which are summarized below in Table 2-2. Table 2-2
Specific Development Demands
DEVELOPMENT
AVERAGE DEMAND (GPD)
MODERATE DEMAND (GPD)
AGGRESSIVE DEMAND (GPD)
Total Specific Developments
4,900,000
7,350,000
9,800,000
Based on historical use patterns and / or discussions between the Specific Developments and the City, it was determined that several of the Specific Developments would not follow a typical use pattern (i.e. peak demand in the morning and evening). Currently CMC Steel and Niagara Water usage is held constant throughout the day (i.e. no diurnal peaking) and future water use will follow a similar pattern. Several of the developments will rely on water for facility cooling which will require higher water usage during the warmest time of the day (i.e., peaking during mid-afternoon to early evening). For these large-scale specific development, non-typical diurnal curves were developed and applied to the applicable Specific Development. Since the Specific Development demands are based on a maximum
BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
9
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
demand, as established in the development agreement, unaccounted-for demand was not added.
2.4 UNIT RATES FOR VACANT PARCELS The City provided BV with GIS shapefiles of the City Land Use and Vacant Parcel which provided land use and vacant parcel acreages within the City’s boundary. Table 2-5 summarizes the vacant parcels by land use type. Table 2-3
Vacant Land in SE Mesa by Land Use
LAND USE TYPE
ACRES
LAND USE TYPE
ACRES
Business Park
978
Public/Semi-Public
297
Community Commercial
34
Low Dens Res (0-1 du/acre)
13
Neighborhood Commercial
93
Low Dens Res (1-2 du/acre)
115
Regional Commercial
363
Med Dens Res (2-4 du/acre)
4
Office
16
Med Dens Res (4-6 du/acre)
94
General Industrial
2,456
Med Dens Res (6-10 du/acre)
37
Light Industrial
2,609
High Dens Res (10-15 du/acre)
13
Mixed-Use/Community
2,564
High Dens Res (15+ du/acre)
16
Mixed Use/Employment
1,399
Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ du/acre)
136
Total Vacant Parcels
11,237
Geo-coded metered sales records were intersected with the land use parcel data to establish historical unit rates for selected residential and non-residential land uses. The historical residential and non-residential unit rates were calculated on a historical gallons per acre day (gpad) basis using geo-coded water metered sales and the underlying residential and non-residential land use classifications within SE Mesa. Unit rates were calculated based on the Average Growth (50th Percentile), Moderate Growth (75th Percentile) or Aggressive Growth (90th Percentile) which are summarized in Table 2-4.
BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
10
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 2-4
Unit Rates for Vacant Parcel Land Use Types
LAND USE TYPE
AVERAGE GROWTH GPAD
MODERATE GROWTH GPAD
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH GPAD
Business Park
735
1,219
2,404
Community Commercial
1,142
1,837
3,305
Neighborhood Commercial
1,388
2,181
3,881
Regional Commercial
1,237
2,028
4,174
Office
1,296
1,938
3,183
General Industrial
727
1,309
2,651
Light Industrial
338
673
1,941
Mixed-Use/Community
1,025
1,385
2,088
Mixed Use/Employment
1,099
1,871
3,337
Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ du/acre)
1,097
1,682
3,362
Public/Semi-Public
1,248
1,880
2,928
Low Dens Res (0-1 du/acre)
732
1,105
1,934
Low Dens Res (1-2 du/acre)
1,337
1,841
2,683
Med Dens Res (2-4 du/acre)
1,473
1,978
2,883
Med Dens Res (4-6 du/acre)
1,329
1,868
2,800
Med Dens Res (6-10 du/acre)
1,385
1,960
3,077
High Dens Res (10-15 du/acre)
1,823
2,800
6,157
High Dens Res (15+ du/acre)
1,657
2,531
4,970
The project demands for the vacant parcels are summarized below in Table 2-5 along with the existing and specific developments for the total buildout SE Mesa projected demands. Like the existing demands, a 7% was applied to vacant parcel demands.
BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
11
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 2-5
SE Mesa Buildout Demand UNIT RATES (GPAD) ACRES TO BE DEVELOPED IN SE MESA
DEMANDS (GPD)
AVERAGE GROWTH (50TH PERCENTILE )
MODERATE GROWTH (75TH PERCENTILE )
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH (90TH PERCENTILE)
AVERAGE GROWTH (50TH PERCENTILE)
MODERATE GROWTH (75TH PERCENTILE)
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH (90TH PERCENTILE)
MAJOR LAND USE TYPE
SUB-CATEGORY LAND USE TYPE
Commercial
Business Park
978
735
1,219
2,404
718,663
1,192,402
2,351,076
Community Commercial
34
1,142
1,837
3,305
38,936
62,638
112,686
Neighborhood Commercial
93
1,388
2,181
3,881
129,707
203,768
362,558
Regional Commercial
363
1,237
2,028
4,174
448,597
735,330
1,513,581
Office
16
1,296
1,938
3,183
20,375
30,472
50,054
General Industrial
2,456
727
1,309
2,651
1,785,610
3,216,164
6,510,261
Light Industrial
2,609
338
673
1,941
882,797
1,756,791
5,063,590
Mixed-Use/Community
2,564
1,025
1,385
2,088
2,629,448
3,550,332
5,354,002
Mixed Use/Employment
1,399
1,099
1,871
3,337
1,537,095
2,617,357
4,669,200
Mixed Use/Res (30% at 15+ du/acre)
136
1,097
1,682
3,362
148,791
228,073
455,958
Public/Semi-Public
297
1,248
1,880
2,928
370,360
557,820
868,559
Low Dens Res (0-1 du/acre)
13
732
1,105
1,934
9,837
14,841
25,969
Low Dens Res (1-2 du/acre)
115
1,337
1,841
2,683
154,336
212,591
309,849
Med Dens Res (2-4 du/acre)
4
1,473
1,978
2,883
6,300
8,460
12,326
Med Dens Res (4-6 du/acre)
94
1,329
1,868
2,800
124,383
174,880
262,167
Med Dens Res (6-10 du/acre)
37
1,385
1,960
3,077
50,617
71,621
112,446
High Dens Res (10-15 du/acre)
13
1,823
2,800
6,157
22,899
35,171
77,355
High Dens Res (15+ du/acre)
16
1,657
2,531
4,970
26,200
40,019
78,581
Total Projected SE Mesa Vacant Parcel Demand
9,104,953
14,708,731
28,190,217
7% Lost and Unaccounted for Water
637,347
1,029,611
1,973,315
Total SE Mesa Demand for Vacant Parcels plus Unaccounted for Water
9,742,300
15,738,342
30,163,532
Existing SE Demand (see Table 2-1)
17,203,305
17,203,305
17,203,305
Specific Development Demand (see Table 2-2)
4,900,000
7,350,000
9,800,000
Total SE Mesa Buildout Demand
31,845,605
40,291,647
57,166,837
31.8
40.3
57.2
Industrial Mixed Use
Residential
Total SE Mesa Buildout Demand (mgd)
BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
12
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
2.5 CITY-WIDE DEMANDS While this study focused on updating the demands within SE Mesa, City-wide demands must also be taken into consideration to complete the desktop water resource evaluation and the hydraulic analyses. Demands outside of SE Mesa were calculated using the same approach as SE Mesa for the VVWTP and BRWTP service areas which are summarized in Table 2-6. In the VVWTP and BRWTP service areas, there are no Specific Developments identified, however wholesale deliveries to Arizona (AZ) Water and the Town of Apache Junction (AJ) are provided in the BRWTP Service Area. Table 2-6
City-Wide Buildout Demands HISTORICAL AVERAGE (50TH PERCENTILE) (MGD)
SERVICE AREA
MODERATE GROWTH (75TH PERCENTILE) (MGD)
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH (90TH PERCENTILE) (MGD)
On-Project (SRP) Demands Projected Val Vista WTP Service Area
38.0
38.1
40.0
Off-Project (CAP) Demands Projected Brown Rd WTP Service Area
44.3
47.1
53.0
Projected SBWTP Service Area 1
31.8
40.3
57.2
Total Projected Off-Project Demands3
76.1
87.4
110.2
Total Projected System Wide AD Demands
114.1
12.6.0
150.2
Total Projected System Wide MD Demands3,4
174.5
192.1
229.3
1) Signal Butte Service Area = SE Mesa demands 2) Includes 8.5 mgd AZ Water or Apache Junction demand 3)Peaking Factor: MD = 1.6 AD only applied to City of Mesa Demands not water delivered to AZ Water or Apache Junction 4) Peaking Factor applied to Specific Developments is provided in Table 2-2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Demand Updates
13
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
3.0 Resource Evaluation The City has several surface water and groundwater resources available for meeting water demands. However, wastewater return is first evaluated to identify the City’s overall water resources available.
3.1 WASTEWATER RETURN EVALUATION The City has an agreement with the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to exchange reclaimed water from the City’s wastewater reclamation plants (WRPs) for Central Arizona Project (CAP) allocation. Per the agreement, for every acre foot of reclaimed water delivered to the GRIC, the City will receive 0.8 acre-ft of CAP allocation up to 29,680 acre-ft delivered. To determine the potential buildout reclaimed water that could be delivered to the GRIC, a desktop analysis was performed which: ◼ Calculated the percent of potable water delivered to customers that is returned as wastewater to the three City WRPs. ● Due to existing system diversions, Basin Influent for Northwest WRP (NWWRP) and
SROG were combined. ● Basin Influent for Southeast WRP (SEWRP) and Greenfield WRP (GWRP) were
combined.
◼ Applied the applicable percent return to the projected buildout demands to establish the GRIC exchange allocation. ● The percent return calculated for the combined NWWRP and SROG Basins was applied
to projected Val Vista WTP service area projected demands
● The percent returned for SEWRP and GWRP was applied to the Brown Road and Signal
Butte WTP service area projected demands.
◼ Calculated if additional reclaimed water is available for Long Term Storage Credits (LTSC) via recharge with the assumption of 10% loss through each WRP. Table 3-2 summarizes the calculated percent returns for each of the service areas and the projected GRIC Exchange and available groundwater for LTSC for each of the three growth scenarios.
BLACK & VEATCH |
14
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 3-1
GRIC Exchange and LTSC Calculation
LAND USE TYPE Projected City Zone Demands (mgd)
AVERAGE GROWTH
MODERATE GROWTH
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH
38.0
38.6
40.0
SROG/NWWRP Percent Return Projected BRWTP and SBWTP Demands (mgd)1
48% 67.6
GWRP/SEWRP Percent Return
78.9
101.7
33%
Total City of Mesa WW Flow (mgd)
40.5
44.5
52.7
SROG Commitment (mgd)
17.0
17.0
17.0
Wastewater Treated by City of Mesa (mgd)2
23.5
27.5
35.7
Percent Loss Through WRPs
10%
10%
10%
Flow Available for GRIC (mgd)
21.1
24.7
32.1
GRIC Exchange (ac-ft/year)
23,655
27,709
29,400
Flow Available for Recharge (mgd)
0
0
5.8
Groundwater available for LTSC (ac-ft/yr)
0
0
6,552
1) 2)
Excludes water delivered to AZ Water and AJ Total WW Generated withing City of Mesa – SROG Commitment
3.2 CITY WATER RESOURCE PORTOLIO Using the returned wastewater calculation in the previous section along with updated resource portfolio information provided by the City, the available resources are summarized in Table 3-2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Resource Evaluation
15
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 3-2
Existing Water Resource Portfolio
MESA WATER RESOURCES (ACRE FEET PER YEAR [AFY])
AVERAGE GROWTH
MODERATE GROWTH
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH
ON-PROJECT (SRP) SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Total SRP Water =
69,315
Total SRP Water (mgd) =
61.9
OFF-PROJECT SURFACE WATER RESOURCES CAP Project Resources Current CAP Allocation
43,503
Future WMAT Lease Water
3,157
SRPMIC Lease Water
1,669
Wellton-Mohawk Exchange Water
2,761
RWCD Assignment Water
627
Hohokam Water
4,924
Developer Water1
6,858
GRIC Exchange Water2
18,924
22,167
23,520
Total CAP Surface Water =
82,423
85,666
87,019
Total CAP Surface Water (mgd) =
73.6
76.5
77.7
Total Renewable Groundwater3 =
16,893
16,893
23,445
Total Renewable Groundwater (mgd) =
15.1
15.1
20.7
Total Off-Project Water Resource =
99,316
102,559
110,176
Total Off-Project Water (mgd) =
88.7
91.6
98.4
168,631
171,875
179,491
Renewable Groundwater Resources
Total City Water Resource4 =
1) Calculated based on Specific Developments Aggressive Growth demand projections. 2) Assumes GRIC agreement at 80% of 26.25 mgd delivered 3) Includes Assured Water Supply (AWS) Groundwater (12,043 ac-ft), Existing LTSC (4,850 ac-ft), and Future LTSC, if available 4) Does not include New Conservation Space (NCS) water when available
Table 3-3 shows a comparison of the available resource versus the buildout demands developed in the previous section.
BLACK & VEATCH | Resource Evaluation
16
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 3-3
City-wide Buildout Demands versus Available Resources (AFY) AVERAGE GROWTH
AREA
MODERATE GROWTH
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH
On-Project (SRP) Projected On-Project Service Area Demands (acre-ft/yr)
42,550
43,246
44,784
SRP Resources (acre-ft/yr)
69,315
69,315
69,315
Shortfall
none
None
none
Off-Project (CAP) Total Projected Off-Project Demands (acre-ft/yr)
92,655
96,258
104,293
Total CAP Resources (acre-ft/yr)
82,423
85,666
87,019
Shortfall without Renewable Groundwater (Demands minus Resources) (acre-ft/yr)
2,816
12,222
36,383
Renewable Groundwater (acreft/yr)
16,893
16,893
23,157
Shortfall with Renewable Groundwater (Demands minus Resources) (acre-ft/yr)
none
none
13,226
Key observations from Table 3-3 regarding meeting water demand and the water City’s resource utilization goals include: ◼ On-project SRP resources are significantly greater than on-project demands for all demand scenarios, providing a secure supply for the on-project portion of the City’s WSA. It should be noted that the SRP resources in excess of on-project demand cannot be transferred and utilized off-project. ◼ The City’s off-project demands exceed the off-project surface water resources for all demand scenarios. ● Since the CAP resources fall short of meeting projected off-project demand, they must
be supplemented with groundwater pumping between 2,816 and 36,383 AFY.
● For the low and moderate growth scenarios the shortfall can be covered by the City
projected renewable groundwater resources. The City currently has 12,043 ac-ft per year of AWS groundwater and 4,850 ac-ft per year of existing LTSCs. However, it should be noted that a portion of the groundwater will need to be reserved for the City Zone for well maintenance and WWTP outages, therefore some groundwater utilization needs to remain in reserve for Off-Project use.
BLACK & VEATCH | Resource Evaluation
17
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
● Under the aggressive growth scenario, the shortfall exceeds all projected available
renewable groundwater including all of the existing LTSC and the Future LTSC projected. The City should closely monitor development within the off-project areas and routinely evaluate water consumption and update projected demands / resource balances. Additionally, the City should continue requiring development contingent of acquisition of additional water resources.
◼ NCS resources were not listed in Table 3-3 as they are not guaranteed to be available every year but only in years of above average run-off on the SRP watershed. However, in those years when available, NCS resources could be utilized to reduce off-project groundwater pumping and/or consumption of more expensive CAP resources. ◼ The City asked the project team to evaluate whether the SBWTP should be expanded beyond 48 mgd. Using the Moderate Growth demand scenario, the AD demand for offproject lands is 85.9 mgd or 96,258 AFY, which exceeds the CAP allotment of 77.5 mgd or 87,019 AFY. The City’s shortfall of 9,239 AFY on an annual basis for surface water available would be met by the surplus of available, renewable groundwater. Since the City does not currently have enough CAP surface water rights to meet all the off-project demand with surface water, expanding SBWTP to greater than 48 mgd would require the City to acquire additional CAP resources. Additionally, a higher capacity at SBWTP, would require excess SBWTP to be conveyed into the BRWTP service area. Using SBWTP to meet Brown Rd WTPs service area demand requires higher pumping and treatment cost at SBWTP and a reduction of BRWTP’s production capacity. The additional travel time to the service area may impact water quality. Therefore, maintaining the planned expansion of SBWTP to 48 mgd is recommended.
BLACK & VEATCH | Resource Evaluation
18
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
4.0 Hydraulic Assessment A series of hydraulic analyses were performed to confirm and/or refine the capacity of the SBWTP FWPS and recommended storage volume of Reservoir 2. The Moderate Growth Demand was selected for the hydraulic analysis to ensure that recommended facilities were adequately sized to meet the potential range of growth projections without oversizing facilities and negatively impacting water age. Additionally, the hydraulic model was used to assess system performance and recommended pipe improvements to enable the system to meet MD buildout demands with any one of the three WTPs out of service. Seven scenarios were selected to analyze the distribution system as summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 #
Model Scenarios
SCENARIO NAME
DEMAND CONDITIONS
1
Buildout MD Normal Operations (Ops) Analysis
Buildout Moderate Growth MD
2
Buildout AD Normal Ops Analysis
Buildout Moderate Growth AD
3
Buildout Minimum Day (MinD) Normal Ops Analysis
Buildout Moderate Growth MinD
4
Val Vista WTP Out of Service
Buildout Moderate Growth MD
5
Brown Rd WTP Out of Service
Buildout Moderate Growth MD
6
Signal Butte WTP Out of Service
Buildout Moderate Growth MD
7
CAP Canal Out of Service
Buildout Moderate Growth Winter Day
4a
Brown Rd WTP Out of Service
Buildout Aggressive Growth MD
5a
Signal Butte WTP Out of Service
Buildout Aggressive Growth MD
PURPOSE
Analyze the finished water pumping capacity and reservoir volumes
Analyze the finished water pumping capacity and reservoir volumes. Determine pipe sizes and preliminary corridor alignment for interconnection pipes Sensitivity analysis on the impact to pipe size
(Note: Due to the timing of the tasks there are there are minor differences in the revised demands in the previous sections and Section 4 however the model results and recommended outcome remains the same and will be verified once the recommended alignment for the interconnect pipes has been established.)
4.1 PRODUCTION PLANS Initial water production plans were generated to identify the key water production infrastructure that would be used to meet projected demands for each of the model scenarios. The demand placed upon each key component of water production infrastructure for each of the scenarios was analyzed as well as the recommended facility sizing such that demands will be met with sufficient reserve capacity (80% of available groundwater capacity) under normal and outage conditions, summarized in Table 4-2 below.
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
19
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
The normal operating condition scenarios assumed that all facilities (WTPs and GWFs) are in service and available. For the outage scenarios it was assumed that only one WTP was out of service at a time. Table 4-2
Water Production Plans (MGD)
VAL VISTA WTP OUTAGE MD
BROWN RD WTP OUTAGE MD
SBWTP OUTAGE MD
CAP CANAL OUTAGE MAX NOVEMBER DAY
48
43
76
76
76
43
Off-Project Demands (mgd)
133
86
74
133
133
133
74
Total Demands (mgd)
209
134
118
209
209
209
118
NORMAL OPS AD
76
NORMAL OPS MD
On-Project Demands (mgd)
DEMAND / PRODUCTION SOURCES
AVALABLE CAPACITY 1
NORMAL OPS MAX NOVEMBER DAY
UTILIZATION
Demands
WTPs Val Vista WTP (mgd)
90
76
42
40
0
90
90
90
Brown Rd WTP (mgd)
72
68
53
42
72
0
72
0
SBWTP (mgd)
48
44
24
20
48
48
0
0
Groundwater2 On-Project Wells (mgd)
60.6
0
6
3
483
30
2
0
Off-Project Wells (mgd)
17.7
0
0
4
143
143
143
0
SBGWF (mgd)
23.4
12
6
6
183
183
183
183
DWGWF (mgd)
16.6
9
3
3
9
9
133
10
1) Installed Capacity 2) Maximum well utilization 80% of installed capacity 3) Groundwater capacity at full utilization
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
20
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
It is noted that groundwater is utilized throughout the year to meet off-project demands due to the shortfall of available surface water (see Table 3-3). By using groundwater year-round, it allows the City to maximize the utilization of surface water and limit the number of groundwater wells needed during the higher demand periods.
4.2 MODEL SET POINTS The City provided standard operating procedures (SOPs) which detailed the normal operation and emergency strategies for the surface water pump stations at the Brown Rd WTP and SBWTP. The SOPs detailed the normal, high (HI) and high high (HIHI) operating pressure set points for the FWPSs. For the outage model scenarios, it was assumed that the pressure set points could be increased up to the HIHI operating set points to help meet system demands. The operational set points for the Brown Rd WTP and SBWTP FWPSs are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3
Discharge Pressure Set Points for SBWTP Finished Water Pump Stations
FALCON FIELD (FF) (POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH [PSI])
DESERT WELLS (DW) (PSI)
DESERT SAGE (DS) (PSI)
Normal Ops
na1
30-40
na2
Outage Conditions
na1
60 HI Alarm 65 HIHI Alarm
na2
25-30
65-70
110 psi
35 HI Alarm 40 HIHI Alarm
78 HI Alarm 83 HIHI Alarm
130 HI Alarm 135 HIHI Alarm
DISCHARGE PRESSURE SET POINTS BRTWP
SBWTP Normal Ops Outage Conditions
1) Flow from Brown Rd WTP is delivered through a PRV at TS2. 2) BRWTP DS Pumps are not controlled by discharge pressure but are control by tank level at DSR1 and DSR2.
4.3 MODEL RESULTS Using the City’s updated InfoWater model, BV developed buildout model scenarios to analyze the system performance (pressure, velocity, pumping and storage requirements) and identify recommended improvements needed to improve system performance under the outage conditions using Moderate Growth projections.
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
21
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
4.3.1 Normal Operating Scenarios The normal operating condition hydraulic modeling scenarios were used to establish the range of finished water pumping requirements to ensure the selection of installed pumps are adequate to not only meet peak pumping requirements but under low flow conditions. Additionally, the SBWTP range of pumping requirements are also utilized for the chemical feed requirements. The normal operating scenarios analysis showed that the existing distribution system maintains adequate minimum pressures and does not indicate excessive stress under buildout conditions with all facilities in operation. Table 4-4 summarizes the range of pumping requirements needed under normal operating conditions. It can be seen in Table 4-4 that under normal operating conditions the maximum pumping requirements remain below the firm capacity of the station. Additionally, the range of installed pumps provides adequate coverage for the range of pumping requirements predicted under the normal operating condition. Table 4-4
Normal Operating Conditions SBWTP FW Pumping Requirements DWPS (MGD)
DSPS (MGD)
Existing Capacity
3 x 8 mgd 24 mgd Installed 16 mgd Firm 8 mgd Min
3 x 6 mgd 2 x 11 mgd 40 mgd Installed 29 mgd Firm 6.0 mgd Min
3 x 3.5 mgd 10.5 mgd Installed 7 mgd Firm 3.5 mgd Min
Planned Capacity
5 x 8 mgd 40 mgd Installed 32 mgd Firm 8 mgd Min
5 x 11 mgd 55 mgd Installed 44 mgd Firm 11 mgd Min
No change to existing
SBWTP FWPS CAPACITY
FFPS (MGD) Installed Capacity
Model Results MinD- Minimum Hour
7.8
9.2
2.5
AD – Average Flow
10.5
19.2
3.1
MD – Peak Hour
15.8
26.9
5.8
4.3.2 Outage Assessments The purpose of the outage assessments was to ensure that the recommended SBWTP FWPS pump selections are sized such that the recommended pump capacities are adequate to meet the outage condition pumping requirements. Additionally, the outage scenarios were used to analyze the transmission main improvements needed to enable the City to meet MD demands with any one of the three WTPs out of service. The following outage scenarios were selected by the City for evaluation.
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
22
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Val Vista WTP out of service (OOS) under MD demand conditions - Under the Val Vista WTP OOS scenario, demands within the City Zone typically supplied by Val Vista are met through a combination of direct connect City Zone wells and off-project supplies (Brown Rd WTP, SBWTP and off-project groundwater (direct connects, SBGWF and DWGWF) transferred into the City Zone through TS1 and TS3. Brown Rd WTP OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by Brown Rd WTP are met through a combination of on-Project water conveyed off-Project through pumping through TS1 and TS3 as well as additional pumping out of SBWTP and the DWGWF. SBWTP WTP OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the SBWTP OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by SBWTP are met through a combination of additional pumping out of Brown Rd WTP and increased utilization of SBGWF and DWGWF. Additional Val Vista WTP water is conveyed into FF through pumping at TS1 and TS3. CAP Canal OOS under MD demand conditions - Under the CAP Canal OOS scenario, demands that are typically supplied by SBWTP and Brown Rd WTP are met through a combination increased utilization of SBGWF, DWGWF, direct connect wells and excess Val Vista WTP water is conveyed into FF through pumping at TS1 and TS3. The maximum pumping requirements for each of the SBWTP FWPSs for each of the outage conditions are summarized in Table 4-5.
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
23
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
Table 4-5
Outage Conditions SBWTP FW Pumping Requirements DWPS (MGD)
DSPS (MGD)
Existing Capacity
3 x 8 mgd 24 mgd Installed 16 mgd Firm 8 mgd Min
3 x 6 mgd 2 x 11 mgd 40 mgd Installed 29 mgd Firm 3.0 mgd Min
3 x 3.5 mgd 10.5 mgd Installed 7.0 mgd Firm 3.5 mgd Min
Planned Capacity
5 x 8 mgd 40 mgd Installed 32 mgd Firm 8 mgd Min
5 x 11 mgd 55 mgd Installed 44 mgd Firm 11 mgd Min
No change to existing
SBWTP FWPS CAPACITY
FFPS (MGD) Installed Capacity
Model Results1 Val Vista OOS
25.6
45.2
6.3
Brown Rd OOS
24.2
48.5
8.8
SBWTP OOS
9.3
4.2
0
CAP Canal OOS
3.5
18.4
4.4
1) OOS = out of service; Maximum flow on the outage scenario (Peak Hour of MD)
Key observations for the outage scenarios are as follows: ◼ Under the Val Vista OOS Scenario, in order to pump the necessary flow out of the SBWTP a new FF improvement pipe was needed. The preliminary alignment and sizing of the recommended improvement are shown on Figure 4-1. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, the discharge set points of the SBWTP FF and DW FWPS needed to be adjusted up to the HIHI set points. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, it will be necessary to run all the existing installed pumps at the SBWTP FF FWPS to meet system demands. Two additional 8 mgd pumps are planned as part of the SBWTP Expansion, however only one additional pump is needed to maintain utilization of firm capacity for all scenarios analyzed. ◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, it will be necessary to run all the planned installed pumps at the SBWTP DW FWPS to meet system demands. It is recommended that, as a minimum, the three existing 6 mgd DW pumps are replaced with 11 mgd pumps. In lieu of operating all installed pumps at the DW FWPS, the City may consider only installing one of the two planned FF FWPS and reserving the additional can for either a future FF FW pump or potentially installing a sixth DW in the empty FF can and complete the necessary modifications need to convert that pump to a DW pump in the future. BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
24
42" SCP
Brown Rd WTP
20" ACP
48" PCCP
30" CCP
36" CCP
CD 30" SCP
l na Ca
CA P
Ca n
al
" 16 DI
30" DIP
30" DIP
P
Alignment TBD
16" SCP
20" CCP
" 36
a te
P
lid
C 30 " S
o ns Co
Broadway Rd 400 S
Alignment TBD
36" DIP
anal
36"
dC
16" ACP
60
16" ACP
" 36 SC P
Baseline Rd 2000 S
24" DIP
30" DIP
24" SCP
Guadalupe Rd 2800 S
24" DIP
Elliot Rd 3600 S
30" DIP
20" DIP
42" DIP
Warner Rd 4400 S
24" DIP
24" DIP
20" DIP
Ray Rd 5200 S
Williams Field Rd 6000 S
24" DIP
Desert Wells Water Service Zone Falcon Field Water Service Zone Other Water Service Zones Water Treatment Plants Salt River 0.25
0.5
1 Miles
42 " DIP
202
Streets
0
42" DIP
Connect future 42" pipe to the Desert Wells pump station at the SBWTP DW pump station header
30" DIP
Falcon Field Existing Water Mains
This map is for presentation purposes only and may not reflect exact locations. \\isr04\UTWRGISShare\GIS\Projects\Caitlin\MapRequests\MASTER_PLANS\Water_Master_Plan\InterconnectPipes\2021-12-09 Interconnect Pipes.mxd
Signal Butte WTP
36" DIP
24" SCP
Desert Wells Existing Water Mains
Highways
16" DIP
Connect future 36" pipe to the future 42" pipe in Signal Butte and Guadalupe
Interconnect Pipes
Canals
16" ACP
24" DIP
Proposed East Mesa Interconnect Pipes December 2021
16" DIP
42"
Figure 4-1
24" DIP
16" ACP
Connect future 36" pipe to the existing 30" pipe in Sossaman and Elliot
16" ACP
36" SCP
30" DIP
Southern Ave 1200 S
Connect future 42" pipe from the Desert Wells pump station discharge at the BRWTP DW pump station header to Main St. Connect future 36" pipe from Main St. to Signal Butte and Guadalupe.
48" SCP
RW
University Dr 400 N
Signal Butte Rd 10800 E
Connect future 36" pipe to existing 36", 42" or 48" pipe in Brown Rd between Greenfield & 64th St
Crismon Rd 10000 E
Ellsworth Rd 9200 E
30" DIP
36" SCP
Hawes Rd 8400 E
Sossaman Rd 7600 E 202 16" ACP
36" DIP
Connect future 36" pipe to existing 36" pipe in Val Vista and McKellips and Val Vista and Brown Rd
36"
16" ACP
Power Rd 6800 E
16" DIP 30" CCP
16" ACP
Brown Rd 1200 N
16" ACP
36" CCP
McKellips Rd 2000 N
Recker Rd 6000 E
Higley Rd 5200 E
Greenfield Rd 4400 E
Val Vista Dr 3600 E
Lindsay Rd 2800 E
Gilbert Rd 2000 E
Val Vista WTP
Pecos Rd 6800 S 20" DIP
Germann Rd 7600 S
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
◼ Under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, pumping both the SBWTP and DWGWF at higher rates simultaneously will likely be challenging even with the recommended FF and DW improvement pipe. When pumping a significant flow from both the SBWTP FW pumps and the DWGWF, the stations can compete with one another (i.e. as SBWTP increases its flow the DWGWF reduces). In the outages modeled, the system performed better if the FF pumps at the DWGWF were turned off and only the DW pumps were used. In future modeling, the City may want to consider removing the FF pumps from the future facility. However, since this study focused on specific operating conditions it is recommended that this is looked at in greater detail in the next Master Planning Study. ◼ Additionally, under the Val Vista and Brown Rd WTPs OOS scenarios, running the DW connection pipe in Guadalupe was more effective at pushing water to the north than running the pipe in Elliot Road. ◼ Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS Scenario, to pump the necessary flow out of the SBWTP, a new DW improvement pipe was needed. The preliminary alignment and sizing of the recommended improvement are shown on Figure 4-1. ◼ Under the Brown Rd WTP OOS Scenario, it will be necessary to run all the existing installed pumps at the SBWTP DS FWPS to meet system demands. Since this station is not frequently used there is less risk that one of the pumps will be out of service for maintenance, however this underscores the need to keep up to date on maintenance of all the pump. ◼ Under the SBWTP OOS Scenario the discharge set points at Brown Rd WTP did not need to be modified. There is significant groundwater production in SE Mesa (at both SBGWF and the DWGWF) which provides a significant supply locally in SE Mesa. Additionally, under this scenario no interconnect pipes were needed to meet system demands. ◼ Under the CAP Canal OOS Scenario, no modifications to the system were required to meet system demands. ◼ While the initial sizing of the recommended interconnect pipelines was completed using the moderate growth projections, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential impact on the interconnect pipeline sizing requirements in the event that the City would develop at densities projected for the aggressive growth. Two additional MD scenarios were run under the aggressive growth scenario for 4a) BRWTPOOS and 5a) SBWTPOOS. 4a) The BRWTPOOS aggressive growth scenario result indicated no changes to the interconnect pipelines would be needed to accommodate the increased demand. 5a) The SBWTPOOS aggressive growth scenario indicated the DW interconnect pipeline size be increased in pipe diameter (42-inch versus 36-inch) between the BRWTP and Main Street to facilitate easier operation to convey flows into SE Mesa. Because a significant portion of the increased demand occurs in SE Mesa under the aggressive growth scenario, a significant portion of the BRWTP and VVWTP excess production capacity is required to be conveyed south to supplement the groundwater
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
26
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
currently and planned to be available in SE Mesa. Starting with a nominally larger pipeline at BRWTP facilitates ensures water reaches SE Mesa with the proper pressure. ◼ It should be noted the VVWTPOOS scenario was not evaluated because, under the MD aggressive growth demand condition, the remaining water sources available do not have adequate capacity to meet the projected aggressive growth demands when VVWTP is out of service. ◼ Since the interconnect pipelines are planned for a future condition, it is recommended the interconnect pipeline alignment study assume 42-inch pipe from the BRWTP to Main Street. As growth occurs in SE Mesa over time, the ultimate pipeline size can be re-evaluated at a future date.
4.4 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS Storage reservoirs are an essential component of the distribution system. The storage volume is used to equalize peak hourly demands over the course of a day, moderate hydraulic grade and provide a reserve volume which can be tapped for firefighting. The key criteria used for establishing the required volume of storage includes: ◼ Equalization (EQ); refers to the volume needed meet peak hour demands while the production facilities continue operating at a steady 24-hour daily level. EQ volume is calculated as the difference between peak hour demand and MD demand for a period of 6 hours (Peak Hour – MD) * 6/24. ◼ Fire Reserve (City Wide): was calculated based on the Insurance Service Office (ISO) guideline of providing a 3,500 gpm fire flow with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi for a 3-hour duration or 0.63 MG. This fire reserve will be applied to all zones except for the upper zones of Apache Junction, Range Rider and Highlands where the City has indicated that the required fire flow is to be 2,000 gpm with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. ISO requires flows of 2,500 gpm or less to use a duration of 2 hours for calculating storage, which yields 0.24 MG. BV experience with numerous water distribution system studies indicates that sizing reservoirs to provide the greater of either; 1EQ + Fire Reserve or 2EQ will provide adequate storage capacity for most systems. In addition to the calculated volume needed for equalization and fire, additional storage volume is needed at water production facilities (WTP and/or GWF) to equalize variations in plant operations. Therefore, a minimum storage of 2.5 EQ shall be provided at production facilities. For each of the normal operating and outage scenarios 2.5 EQ storage was calculated the 48 mgd SBWTP. The minimum reservoir volume to maintain 2.5 EQ ranged from 8 MG for the normal operating MD up to 11 MG for the Val Vista WTP OOS scenario. Based on discussion with City Staff it was recommended that the City size Reservoir 2 for 8 MG in the design of the SBWTP Expansion. While the second 8 MG (increasing the total volume up to 16 MG) is larger than the 3 MG required minimum (for a total of 11MG), the additional storage will provide the following benefits while maintaining an appropriate storage volume to minimize negatively impacting water quality / water age:
BLACK & VEATCH | Hydraulic Assessment
27
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
◼ Additional operational flexibility ◼ Contact time ◼ Additional storage in the event of a plant upset
5.0 Recommendations The following summarizes the recommendations developed as part of the SE Mesa MP. The recommendations were developed using the updated buildout SE Mesa growth projections (moderate growth) and includes projects needed to meet projected customer demands under both normal operating conditions and WTP / canal outage conditions. Many of the recommended improvements are planned to be included as part of the SBWTP expansion. However, there are recommended improvements that may either need further evaluation and/or be monitored to determine if they should be revised in future planning studies (i.e. the City should continually monitor development within SE Mesa to evaluate if demand projections are representative of new development which may impact the need for pumping at the future DWGWF). The improvements related to the interconnection pipelines are not directly tied to growth alone but provide a crucial role in increasing the City’s redundancy and reliability during outage conditions. During the detailed corridor study, it is recommended the City confirm initial pipe sizing as well as connections of the interconnect pipeline to the existing distribution system to ensure adequate distribution of flow during outage or non-typical operating conditions. Below is a summarized list of the recommended improvements at SBWTP and beyond. ◼
Expand SBWTP to the planned 48 mgd capacity (not beyond).
◼
Construct SBWTP Reservoir 2 at 8 MG to provide adequate equalization and operational flexibility.
◼
At the SBWTP FF FWPS, install one of the two planned FF FW pumps. Reserve the fifth can for either a future FF or DW pump in the future.
◼
At the SBWTP DW FWPS, replace three of the 6 mgd DW FW pumps with three 11 mgd pumps.
◼
At the SBWTP DS FWPS, no changes recommended.
◼
For the SBWTP FWPSs, verify previous transient analyses for the FF and DW FWPSs and conduct a transient analysis for the DS FWPS. There have been modifications to pumping requirements at the SBWTP FWPSs for FF and DW; no previous transient analysis was completed for the DS FWPS.
◼
Evaluate the need for FF pumps at the DWGWF in the next Master Planning Update.
BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations
28
City of Mesa | TM 206 - Southeast Master Plan
◼
Install a new 30-36 inch FF interconnect pipeline as shown on Figure 4-1 from Sossaman & Power to Brown & Greenfield to increase conveyance capacity from SE Mesa to the northern portion of FF to convey water out of SE Mesa during a Val Vista Outage. Portions of the FF interconnect pipe is located in a similar corridor as the proposed GRIC reclaimed water line and there may be cost savings opportunities to construct these two pipelines at the same time.
◼
Install a new 36-42 inch DW interconnect pipeline as shown on Figure 4-1 from Signal Butte & Guadalupe to Brown Rd WTP to increase conveyance capacity from SE Mesa to the northern portion of DW to convey water out of SE Mesa during a Brown Rd WTP outage.
BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations
29