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

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

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

4. 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. 11

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

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

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

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

16. 16

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

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

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

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

21. 21