Water Management and Conservation Plan with OWRD...

Civil Engineering and Land Surveying

City of Hood River 1200 18th Street Hood River, Oregon September 2013

Bell Design Company Civil Engineering and Land Surveying PO Box 308 Bingen, Washington

Prepared by:

WATER MANAGEMENT AND

CONSERVATION PLAN March 2013

Revised September 2013

2013 Hood River Water Management and Conservation Plan


CITY OF HOOD RIVER, OREGON

WATER MANAGEMENT AND

CONSERVATION PLAN

March 2013

Revised

September 2013


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIER DESCRIPTION .............................................. 3

1.1 Name of Supplier ......................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Population ................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Water Supply Sources ................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Water Rights and Permits ........................................................................................... 6

1.5 System Operation to Meet Municipal Needs ............................................................... 8

1.6 Water System Schematics .......................................................................................... 8

1.7 System Limitations ...................................................................................................... 8

1.8 System Capacity During Average Year and Peak Water Season ............................... 9

1.9 Discussion of System Operation ............................................................................... 10

1.10 Changes to System Operation .................................................................................. 10

1.11 Average Annual Water Use ....................................................................................... 11

1.12 Peak Water Demands ............................................................................................... 12

1.13 Maximum Water Delivery During Peak Demands ..................................................... 12

1.14 Water Account Information ........................................................................................ 13

1.15 Unmetered Accounts ................................................................................................. 13

1.16 General Water Use Characteristics ........................................................................... 14

1.17 Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Estimates ................................................... 16

1.18 Consumption Versus Replenishment ........................................................................ 16

SECTION 2 - WATER CONSERVATION ELEMENT .............................................................. 17

2.1 Past Water Conservation Efforts ............................................................................... 17

2.2 Conservation Measures ............................................................................................ 17


2.3 Other Conservation Measures .................................................................................. 26

2.4 Progress Report on Previous WMCP ........................................................................ 27

2.5 Water Use Measurement and Reporting Program .................................................... 27

SECTION 3 - WATER CURTAILMENT PLAN ........................................................................ 29

3.1 Supply Deficiencies in the Last 10 Years .................................................................. 29

3.2 Loss of Water Supply Scenarios ............................................................................... 29

3.3 Shortfalls Triggering Community Action .................................................................... 29

3.4 Capacity Limitations .................................................................................................. 30

3.5 Plan of Action for Water Curtailment ......................................................................... 30

SECTION 4 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY ......................................................................... 35

4.1 Future Water Supply Service Area and Build-Out ..................................................... 35

4.2 Long-Range Water Demand ..................................................................................... 35

4.3 Intergovernmental Agreements and Interconnections ............................................... 38

4.4 Additional Water Supplies in the Next 20 Years ........................................................ 39

4.5 Projected Schedule for New Water Supply Development ......................................... 40

Appendices Appendix A – Coordinated Planned Growth Scenario

Appendix B – Customer Type Characteristics

Appendix C – Oregon Municipality’s Water Consumption per Capita

Appendix D – City of Hood River Water Rates

Appendix E – Demand Projections


Figure References (Most figures are located at the end of each section)

Figure 1-1: Spring Boxes and Central Collection Box .............................................................. 5

Figure 1-2: Valve Works at Central Collection Box .................................................................... .5

Figure 1-3: Water System Facility Map ...................................................................................... 8

Figure 1-4: Pressure Zones and PRV Locations ........................................................................ 8

Figure 1-5: 24” Transmission Line Hydraulic Profile ................................................................. 9

Figure 1-6: Monthly Customer Demands for Calendar Years 2010 and 2011 ......................... 12

Figure 2-1: Lead Jointed Pipes ................................................................................................. 20

Figure 3-1: Locations of Interties and Possible Connections .................................................... 38

Index of Tables Table 1-1: Streamflow-Dependent Species Listed by State and Federal Agencies ................. 4

Table 1-2: City of Hood River Water Supply Source ................................................................ 6

Table 1-3: Estimated Diverted Flows by Source ...................................................................... 6

Table 1-4: City of Hood River Water Rights Information .......................................................... 7

Table 1-5: Historical Water Production/Use ........................................................................... 11

Table 1-6: Estimated Spring Collector Production .................................................................. 13

Table 1-7: Water Account Information .................................................................................... 13

Table 1-8: Average Water Use Per Capita for Samples Municipalities .................................. 14

Table 1-9: Top 10 Water Users .............................................................................................. 15

Table 2-1: Known Non-Metered Water Uses ......................................................................... 19

Table 2-2: City of Hood River’s Housing Breakdown ............................................................. 24

Table 4-1: Current and Future Water Demands ..................................................................... 35

2013 Hood River Water Management and Conservation Plan Page 1 of 40

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) is to comply with the requirements of Chapter 690, Division 86, of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). This chapter establishes the process and criteria for approving water management and conservation plans required under the conditions of permit, permit extensions, and other orders of the Oregon Water Resource Department. Approved WMCP are required for the authorization of diversion and use of water under a permit extension. The City of Hood River’s water system is currently operating under several permit extensions. Upon approval of the City’s 2002 WMCP, these permits were extended to November 2008 with a combined diversion limit of 9-cfs and with the requirement that an updated WMCP plan be submitted by November 2008. Over this period of time, the City of Hood River has been diligently working on the replacement of their 85-year old transmission line that was structurally failing. Due to the time and resources expended in this effort, the City requested and received deadline extensions from OWRD for submitting this updated WMCP.

This WMCP has been organized around the document entitled Water Management and Conservation Plans, A Guidebook of Oregon Municipal Water Suppliers, dated May 2003 and prepared for the League of Oregon Cities, the Oregon Water Utilities Council, and the Special Districts Association of Oregon, in association with the Oregon Water Resources Department. This report is organized into the following major sections

Section 1: Municipal Water Supplier Description

Section 2: Municipal Water Conservation

Section 3: Municipal Water Curtailment

Section 4: Municipal Water Supply

The affected Local Governments and Indian Tribes to which this plan was sent for comments were:

Hood River County Public Works Department

Hood River County Planning Department

Hood River County Engineering Department

Port of Hood River

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Ice Fountain Water District

Crystal Springs Water District

Farmers Irrigation District

Dee Irrigation District

City of Hood River Planning Department

City of Hood River Public Works Department

Much of the information provided in this WMCP was obtained from the City of Hood River Water Master Plan Update that is currently being prepared by the City of Hood River. The anticipated submittal of the Water Master Plan Update to the Oregon Drinking Water Program is April 2013. The history, description, operation, and analysis of the system were compiled from Chapter 3,


"Existing Water System," Chapter 5, "System Analysis," and Chapter 6, "Conservation Program and Source of Supply Analysis." Portions of the conservation element were presented in Chapter 6, and long-range demands were obtained from Chapter 4, "Basic Planning Data."

Plan Update Schedule

The City of Hood River proposes to update and resubmit this plan to the Oregon Water Resource Department by December 2022.


SECTION 1 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIER DESCRIPTION

1.1 Name of Supplier

The City of Hood River is the supplier for water users in the City of Hood River, some areas within the Urban Growth Boundary, and areas along the City's 18-mile long transmission line.

1.2 Population

The population of Hood River, as of July 1, 2011, was 7,320. Population data was obtained from Portland State University, Center for Population Research and Census. This agency is the official source of population for the State of Oregon for years falling between the federal censuses conducted each decade.

The population that the water system serves outside of the City limits along the transmission line is estimated to be approximately 270 people. Therefore, the total population served by the City’s system was approximately 7590 in 2011.

The population growth rate for the City, urban growth area, and county have been established by Hood River County in the Hood River County Coordinated Population Forecast, prepared by ECONorthwest in 2008. The population within the UGB was estimated by the Oregon Department of Transportation in the City of Hood River’s Transportation Plan in 2011. A population annual average growth rate of 2% per year was established in these documents for both the city and its urban growth area.

Based on a 2 percent growth rate, the City of Hood River is basing their future water system needs on a projected population of 13,297 people by the year 2031. Appendix A – Coordinated Plan Growth Scenario documents the population and growth assumption used in the new Water Master Plan Update currently being prepared.

1.3 Water Supply Sources

The City of Hood River’s water source is three springs located in the upper Hood River Valley. The springs are located below Lost Lake Butte along Laurel Creek and Lake Branch Creek. The springs are tributary to Lake Branch and the West Fork of Hood River. No known populations of endangered or threatened fish species exist in Laurel Creek.

Bull Trout is a federally listed threatened fish species. There was a recorded sighting of a Bull Trout in the 1990’s in Lake Branch, but no known populations exist in Lake Branch currently. The Lake Branch and West Fork of the Hood River currently support Spring Chinook runs, which are listed as threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The West Fork of the Hood River currently supports Summer Steelhead runs, which are also listed as threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Table 1-1: Streamflow-Dependent Species Listed by State and Federal Agencies shows the various fish species listed by the State of Oregon Department of Fish and Wild Life and or the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the Northwest Region. The check mark in the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Distinct Population Segment (DPS) row indicates that the species is listed in the corresponding water body. If the box is blank then the species is not listed in the corresponding


water body. The second row under the corresponding water body indicates whether the particular species is present (P), absent (A), or if there is a potential for the species to be present (PO).

Table 1-1: Streamflow-Dependent Species Listed by State and Federal Agencies was created with the help of Rod French of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rod also reviewed the final table for accuracy and completeness.

Table 1-1: Streamflow-Dependent Species Listed by State and Federal Agencies

Species

Lower C

olumbia R

iver

Chinook Salm

on

Lower C

olumbia R

iver

Coho Salm

on

Lower C

olumbia R

iver

Steelhead

Columbia R

iver C

hum

Salmon

Bull Tro

ut

Coastal C

utth

roat

Trout

Inlan

d Columbia

Redban

d Tro

ut

Weste

rn Brook

Lamprey

Pacific Lam

prey**

State of Oregon Listing Status* SC E SC NL SC SV SV SV SV

Federal Listing Status* T T T T T NL NL NL NL

Laurel Creek

ESU/DPS Habitat Boundary UK

Present (P), Absent (A), Potential (PO) A A P A A A A A PO

Lake Branch


Present (P), Absent (A), Potential (PO) P A P A A A A A PO

West Fork


Present (P), Absent (A), Potential (PO) P P P A PO A A A PO

Lower Hood River

ESU/DPS Habitat Boundary

Present (P), Absent (A), Potential (PO) P P P A P P A A PO

Lower Columbia River

ESU/DPS Habitat Boundary

Present (P), Absent (A), Potential (PO) P P P P P P A A PO

*SC, Sensitive‐Critical; SV, Sensitive‐Vulnerable; E, Endangered; T, Threatened; NL, Not Listed ** (UK, Unknown) Pacific lamprey distribution is currently unknown for the Hood River and its tributaries due

to the recent removal of Powerdale Dam. ESU= Evolutionarily Significant Unit, DSP= Distinct Population Segment

Source: NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Office, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rod French, Mid‐Columbia District Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife


A potential barrier to anadromous fish runs was the Powerdale Dam located on the main stem of the Hood River. This dam was removed circa 2010. According the Rod French, District Fish Biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the lower reaches of Laurel Creek and Lake Branch Creek have potential for supporting steelhead and Chinook runs. These species may populate these reaches now that the dam has been removed.

The Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) does not have any water quality information on Laurel Creek. Currently, the ODEQ Water Quality Assessment Database – 2010 Integrated Report shows the following water quality listing for Lake Branch:

Flow Modification (water quality limited not needing a Total Maximum Daily Load, (TMDL)); Habitat Modification (water quality limited not needing a TMDL); and Temperature – summer (TMDL approved).

The aforementioned ODEQ database also lists the West Fork of Hood River as being water quality limited in the following parameters:

Beryllium (water quality limited not needing a TMDL) pH (water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed); Thallium (water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed): and Temperature – summer (TMDL approved).

The springs provide water of excellent quality. Initially developed in 1929, Cold Spring provides an estimated 80 percent of the flow. Stone Spring I was later developed and connected to the system. Stone Spring II was developed in 1979, but connections to the system did not occur until improvements to all three springs were conducted in 1998. The source is regulated by the Oregon Health Authority - Drinking Water Services (ODWS) as groundwater.

All springs have been sumped and are collected through perforated pipes into spring boxes. The spring boxes feed a central collection box and valve yard that can be used to regulate the flows between the three springs. The spring box at Cold Spring continually overflows via a 24-inch overflow pipe. The central collection box is equipped with a 20-inch overflow pipe that also flows continuously. Figure 1-1: Spring Boxes and Central Collection Box shows the locations of Cold Springs, Stone Springs I, Stone Springs II, and the central collection box, with respect to each other. Figure 1-2: Valve Works at Central Collection Box shows the various piping configurations for the spring connections and bypass piping around the central collection box location.

Although flow meters were installed before and after the central collection box in 1998 to provide metering of water use and calculation of overflow quantities, they are not functioning properly. The nearest electrical source to the collectors is over 20,000 feet away, which limits metering options.

Due to the overflow configuration of the Cold Spring collector box, determination of the spring's flow is difficult. Estimates presented in the Water System Master Plan indicate the flow is between 9,500 gallons per minute (gpm) and 10,500 gpm. David Evans & Associates made flow measurements of Stone Spring I and Stone Spring II in 1991 and found flows of 720 gpm and 1,390 gpm, respectively. These estimates and measurements were performed prior to the improvements constructed in 1998. Therefore, the actual current production capacity could vary considerably from these values. A summary of data for the City's water supply is provided in Table 1-2: City of Hood River Water Supply Source.


Table 1-2: City of Hood River Water Supply Source

Source Approximate

Elevation Developed Estimated Production

Percentage of Supply

Cold Spring 1600 1929 9,500 to 10,500 gpm 80 percent

Stone Spring I 1615 Unknown 720gpm 4 percent

Stone Spring II 1611 1979 1,390 gpm 16 percent

TOTAL 11,610 to 12,160 gpm

Based on the above measurements, estimates of the amount and rate of water diverted from each source can be made. All of the flow of Stone Spring I and Stone Spring II and a portion of Cold Spring are diverted to the central collection box. Since the maximum capacity of the 14-inch transmission line was 3200 gpm, the flow rate from the central control box to the Riverdale Reservoir has been a constant 3200 gpm for many years. Any portion of this flow in excess of the City’s water demand has been diverted at the reservoir. Table 1-3: Estimated Diverted Flows by Source presents the estimated diverted Peak Flows, Annual Volumes, and Average Monthly and Daily Volumes from each spring source and water right. Table 1-3: Estimated Diverted Flows by Source also presents the estimated portions of sources diverted from the central collection box to the Riverdale Reservoir.

Table 1-3: Estimated Diverted Flows by Source

Source/Water Right Peak Flow

Annual Volume

Average Monthly Volume

Average Daily

Volume

(gpm) (MG) (MG) (MG)

Estimated Flows Diverted to Central Collection Box

Cold Spring (S8387) 10500 5518.8 439.2 14.4

Stone Spring I (14276) 720 378.4 31.6 1.04

Stone Spring II (S15312) 1390 730.6 61.0 2.00

Estimated Flows Diverted from Central Collection Box to City

Cold Spring (S8387) 2665 1400.5 117.0 3.84

Stone Spring I (14276) 183 96.0 8.0 0.26

Stone Spring II (S15312) 353 185.4 15.5 0.51

The diverted flows shown in Table 1-3 have been constant and consistent over the past 5 years.

1.4 Water Rights and Permits

The City has water rights for the three springs currently used by the City, and the City also has water rights for Tucker and Hakel Springs, which are being explored for possible development as future or backup sources. All water rights are for municipal use and have year-round periods of use. A summary of water right information is presented in Table 1-4: City of Hood River Water Rights Information.


Table 1-4: City of Hood River Water Rights Information

Source Cold Spring/ Laurel Creek

Stone Spring

South/ North Stone

Spring

Tucker Spring

Hakel Spring T

ota

ls

App No S9173 S18656 S19447 S294 S6524

Permit No S8387 S14288 S15312 S113 S4091

Cert No N/A 14276 N/A 1017 2474

Priority Date 9/13/1923 4/10/1940 8/7/1941 9/11/1909 5/9/1919

Use Municipal* Municipal Municipal

Irrigation Domestic Supplies

and Municipal

Municipal

Allowed Rate (cfs)

19.0* 3.5 2.0** 2.0 0.5 27

Allowed Rate (gpm)

8,527 1,570 900 900 220 12,117

Authorized Completion

Date 10/1/2000

N/A - Certificated

10/1/1998 N/A -

Certificated N/A -

Certificated

Notes

Active

An Extension of Time Application is on File and Pending with OWRD

Active

Referred to as: Stone Spring I

Active

Referred to as: Stone Spring II

An Extension of Time Application is on File and Pending with OWRD

Evaluating Evaluating

* As specified in Special Order Vol. 5, Pg. 337 (issued Dec. 23, 1946), the City of Hood River abandoned its power right under Permit S-8387, therefore, the quantity of water allowed under Permit S-8387 was reduced to 19.0 cfs

** 2.0 cfs being 1.5 cfs from South Spring, and 0.5 cfs from North Spring.

The South and North Stone Spring Source have been combined into one diversion with the improvements completed in 1998. The City refers to this source as Stone Springs II. The City refers to Stone Spring as Stone Spring I. Cold Springs, Stone Springs I, and Stone Springs II are combined and share a common bypass back to Laurel Creek at the central collection box. These three spring sources are in use and have an estimated water right of 10,997 gpm. This full capacity is not currently utilized by the City of Hood River, as there is a continuous overflow at the Cold Spring collector and the central collection box. The City has recently installed a new 24-inch ductile iron pipeline from the central collection box to its Riverdale Reservoir. Water has been flowing through the 24-inch line since February 2013. The maximum capacity of the transmission line is 12,250 gpm. The OWRD’s Final Order Approving Water Management and Conservation Plan, dated January 13, 2004, authorized the City to divert up to 9 cubic feet per second (cfs) for permits S8387 and S15312. When this is combined with the 3.5 cfs from certificate 14276, the City is authorized to divert up to 12.5 cfs or 5,610 gpm. The City's current water use is less than the authorized water use for the three springs currently in use. Peak diversion into the City from the central collection box has historically been approximately 7.13 cfs or 3200 gpm due to the old 14-inch transmission line’s limiting capacity.


1.5 System Operation to Meet Municipal Needs

The spring collectors supply water to the City's distribution system via a 14-mile gravity fed transmission line with a chlorine treatment station located a little less than 4 miles down from the central collection box. The transmission line feeds the 5 million gallon (MG) Riverdale Reservoir, which is the first of the City's three reservoirs. The Coe and Wilson reservoirs provide an additional storage capacity of 1.2 MG for a total capacity for the City of 6.2 MG. Water coming down the transmission pipeline entering the Riverdale Reservoir in excess of the City's water demand is overflowed into and provides additional supply to a nearby irrigation ditch. Water is also bypassed through the Coe Reservoir to keep the water in the reservoir from becoming stagnant. This is necessary due to the reservoir’s inability to deliver water to its service area under normal demand conditions. Currently the reservoir serves primarily as emergency storage for the City’s downtown area.

With the implementation of the new 24-inch transmission line from the source to the Riverdale Reservoir, six new pressure zones along the transmission line have been created. These serve the existing services that were located along the old 14-inch steel transmission line. The City has also installed a new ChlorTech on-site chlorination system with the ability to chlorinate flow rates up to 5000 gpm.

The City has a moderately well looped distribution system consisting of approximately 53.3 miles of water lines ranging from 2 to 16 inches in diameter. The City's distribution system is gravity fed and separated into five pressure zones fed by reservoirs and/or pressure regulator valve (PRV) stations with redundancy for backup if one PRV station fails. The City has a telemetry system that transmits the water level of the Riverdale Reservoir to the City's Public Works Department. Since the system is gravity fed with a continual overflow condition at the Riverdale Reservoir, system operation consists primarily of monitoring reservoir levels, operating the five pressure zones via the PRV stations, and performing maintenance as necessary for the continued serviceability of the various components of the system. Additional information on the operation of the water system is presented in Section 1.9: Discussion of System Operation.

1.6 Water System Schematics

Figure 1-3: Water System Facilities Map shows a schematic of the water supply, transmission pipeline, chlorine treatment station, reservoirs, and service area for the City of Hood River. The areas served include areas along the pipeline and the 2,132 acres within the City limits, with additional services inside the 2,721-acre Urban Growth Boundary. Approximately 320 acres of these areas are submerged in the Columbia River. Figure 1-4: Pressure Zones and PRV Locations presents the distribution system with its five pressure zones and the location of the pressure reducing valves.

1.7 System Limitations

Until recently, the most limiting component of Hood River's water system was the 14 miles of transmission pipeline extending from the spring collectors to the 5-MG reservoir. The 14-inch line then ran from the Riverdale Reservoir to the Wilson Reservoir. Installed in 1929 the line had exceeded its design life, leaving it prone to leaks and, due to its location in many areas along the route, susceptible to natural disasters. The installation of PRV stations and an electric control valve at the 5 MG Riverdale Reservoir in a 1997 improvement project to reduce or eliminate overflow at


the reservoir and regulate pressures over the length of the line has caused increased static pressures and increased problems with leaks along the aged pipeline.

In an effort to reduce the problems brought on by the transmission line PRV’s and electronic control valve, the valves were set to operate in the fully open position. This returned operation to the previous free flow state with an overflow occurring at the Riverdale Reservoir. With pipeline friction being the only control, City personnel have estimated this free flow condition resulted in a continuous flow rate of 3,200 gpm through the transmission line to the Riverdale Reservoir.

This is how the system operated until February 2013, when the section of 14-inch line between the City’s source and the Riverdale Reservoir was replaced and the new line was brought into service. The new line is made of ductile iron and can withstand the static pressures associated with low flows in the transmission line as shown in Figure 1-5: 24”-Transmission Line Hydraulic Profile. A new electronic control valve with a pressure-sustaining feature is located at the lower end of the transmission line just upstream of the Riverdale Reservoir. This valve has been set to regulate the flow rate into the City at approximately 1,600 gpm during this low flow period. The City is currently affecting repairs and maintenance to the Riverdale Reservoir. When these repairs have been made the electronic control valve will function as an altitude valve and eliminate the overflows at the Riverdale Reservoir that have been occurring since the construction of the reservoir in 1956. Prior to 1956, overflows occurred at the Wilson Reservoir.

The section of 14-inch line between the Riverdale Reservoir and the Wilson Reservoir is still a source of system leakage and occasional breakage. Currently the City is working on completing construction drawings to replace this section of pipeline. The City hopes to replace this line in September of 2013.

The City is currently experiencing low pressures in its distribution system on the western portion of the City. This is because the topography of the area rises as one travels west. The water system has been expanded along roads traveling to the west without sufficient looping, which has created areas with insufficient pressures during high demand periods. The City’s Fire Marshal has also increased the City’s fire flow requirements, which has also affected the western portion of the City’s water system and the commercial area in the eastern portion of the City. The City now has insufficient fire flows in these areas and needs to construct water lines that originate from higher pressure zones to these areas that are experiencing insufficient fire flows and system pressures.

As mentioned above, the City’s chlorination system can supply enough chlorine to provide adequate residuals within the transmission line for flows up to 5000 gpm. If the City requires flows above this level, the chlorination system would need to be up-sized.

1.8 System Capacity During Average Year and Peak Water Season

The City of Hood River is able to meet current average and peak season water demands with its existing water system. With the current chlorination system, the City is capable of producing 5,000 gpm or 7.2 MG per day to meet an average daily demand of 1.54 MG per day and maximum daily demand of 3.87 MG per day. Maximum daily demand is not estimated to exceed supply until well after the 20-year planning horizon.


1.9 Discussion of System Operation

The City of Hood River's water system is gravity fed with overflow occurring at the Cold Spring collector and the central collection box. Power is not available at the collection site and metering devices have not provided reliable data. Disinfection using chlorine occurs 3.8 miles down the transmission pipeline where the power lines are located nearest to the water source. The water transmission line continues an additional 10.2 miles to the Riverdale Reservoir, where a continuous overflow of approximately 2,000 gpm flows into a nearby irrigation ditch, as the system was initially designed and built. However, in 1997, changes were made in an effort to eliminate the constant overflow. This change, which consisted of an electronically controlled valve and PRV stations along the transmission pipeline caused water hammer and increased the frequency of transmission line breakage. In 2001, the operation was returned to the continuous overflow condition. The old transmission line has now been replaced with a higher strength ductile iron pipeline between the central collection box and the Riverdale Reservoir and a new control valve placed near the reservoir. After repairs and maintenance to the reservoir have been made, the control valve will eliminate overflows at the reservoir.

From the 5 MG reservoir, parallel 14-inch and 16-inch transmission lines feed the Wilson Reservoir. A PRV station on each of these lines marks the start of the distribution system. Historically, the City was broken into five pressure zones, as shown in Figure 1-4: Pressure Zones and PRV Locations. The PRV stations on the 14-inch and 16-inch transmission lines from the 5 MG reservoir create Zone 1, called the Main Line Pressure Zone. Zone 2, or First Regulation, is fed by PRV’s from Zone 1. The Wilson Reservoir feeds the Wilson Reservoir Zone, or Zone 3. However, during a pipe-looping project, this pressure zone was linked into the Coe pressure zone, thus increasing the pressures in the Coe zone. The Wilson Reservoir also supplies water to the Coe Reservoir. Coe Reservoir no longer supplies the Coe zone, which is Zone 4, and this zone is instead supplied by a series of PRV’s. The Coe pressure zone in turn provides water to the Port Industrial Zone, Zone 5, through two PRV stations.

An overflow of approximately 250 gpm occurs at the Coe Reservoir. This occurs to keep the reservoir from becoming stagnant. The new water master plan is recommending that the Coe pressure zone be reduced to allow the reservoir to begin feeding the pressure zone under normal flow conditions. In order for this to occur, two new PRV stations will need to be installed. One station will feed the lower western portion of the City along Cascade and County Club Road and one station will allow the Wilson Pressure zone to be re-established within the City’s distribution system.

1.10 Changes to System Operation

The Water System Master Plan, completed in January 2001, and the Updated Water Master Plan, scheduled to be completed in April of 2013, both propose and recommend many changes to equipment, management, and operation of the City of Hood River water system. The City’s efforts and resources have been focused on designing and installing the 14-miles of new 24-inch water line, which was necessary for constant overflows to be eliminated at the Riverdale Reservoir. Now that this project is near completion, the City will continue to implement projects to make its water system more efficient. One such project is designed to correct the meter operations on the central collection box and add metering to the Cold Spring overflow. Metering of the spring's water supply will permit acquisition of long-term water production data to aid in planning for future water demands. Improved meter records at the source and at the Riverdale Reservoir will help to determine quantities of unaccounted water within the distribution system.


Another objective of the project is to evaluate alternative water sources. The potential for groundwater sources in the area may be assessed with a hydrological study of the area near the Riverdale Reservoir. Also, monitoring of the Hakel and Tucker Spring sources may be conducted to determine the flow potentials and the sources' ability to meet emergency City demands.

The potential installation of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for the entire water system is being evaluated depending on the availability of funds. The system would consist of a central control station located at the Public Works building that monitors and records each of the various system flow meters, reservoir levels, and control valve positions, improving system operation for efficiency. If funds for the SCADA system installation are not available during construction of the other improvements, provisions will be made for addition of the equipment at a later time, when funds become available.

Additional recommendations are presented in the Water System Master Plan for City staff to take action. They include miscellaneous improvements in the distribution system, reservoirs, and record keeping for pipes, valves, and other appurtenances of the water system.

1.11 Average Annual Water Use

The City does not have long-term water use records. The City does have some annual water meter readings that were obtained with a meter on the Cold Spring pipeline before the central collection box was installed with its corresponding non-working meters. These readings cover water years from 1994/1995 through 1996/1997. These readings reflect the amount of water the City was conveying to the Riverdale Reservoir, most of which then overflowed to a nearby irrigation canal. These flows also do not include the portion of water being bypassed at the Cold Spring cistern. Annual water use, as recorded by the aggregation of the City’s water meters, is also shown for the years 1998/1999 through 2000/20001. The water data for 1999 was used to produce the 2001 Water Master Plan. Annual water use for 2010 and 2011 are also included in Table 1-5: Historical Water Production/Use.

Table 1-5: Historical Water Production/Use

Water Year

Total Use (Million Gallons)

Average Daily Demand

(Million Gallons)

Maximum Daily Demand

(Million Gallons)

Peak Hour Demand

(gpm) 1994-1995 1,903 5.21 ---- ----

1995-1996 1,884 5.16 ---- ----

1996-1997 1,899 5.20 ---- ---

1997-1998 525 1.44 ---- ----

1998-1999 438 1.20 ---- ----

1999-2000 435 1.13 2.26 2,388

2000-2001 342 0.94 ---- ----

2010 513 1.40

2011 482 1.32 3.83 3,932

The 2011 reading reflects the aggregation of actual water meter readings. The Water Master Plan Update adds an additional 15%, assuming the system has unaccounted water due to system leakage. This raises the annual system demand to 555 MG and the average daily demand to 1.52 MG.


1.12 Peak Water Demands

A chart of monthly demands shown in Figure 1-6: Monthly Customer Demands for Calendar Years 2010 and 2011 (next page) indicates that peak water use can occur anytime in the period of July through September, depending on the precipitation and heat conditions each year. Daily source production records are not available due to the metering problems experienced by the City. The Water System Master Plan Update estimates maximum or peak daily demands and peak hour demand values by using equations developed through analysis of other water systems. The year 2011 maximum daily demand is estimated to be 3.83 MG per day. The occurrence of these peak demands in summer months can likely be attributed to lawn and garden irrigation, park irrigation, industrial food processing, and increased consumptive use that is typical during the summer months.

As previously stated, the average year water use is estimated to be 555 MG per year. The average daily demand, as published in the Water System Master Plan Update, is 1.52 MG per day with a peak day demand of 2.83 MG per day. Comparing the City's water use to the 19.7 MG per day water right of the three springs currently in use, it is clear that the City has sufficient water rights to meet their needs.

Figure 1-6: Monthly Customer Demands for Calendar Years 2010 and 2011

1.13 Maximum Water Delivery During Peak Demands

The maximum level of water production at the springs is not readily known due to collector inefficiencies and metering problems at the collector site. Estimates of spring production were included in the Water System Master Plan and are presented in Table 1-6: Estimated Spring Collector Production for each spring's source


Table 1-6: Estimated Spring Collector Production

Source Estimated Flow

Rate (gpm)

24-Hour Production Capability

(Million Gallons)

Cold Spring 9,500 -10,500 13.7 -15.1

Stone Spring I 720 1.0

Stone Spring II 1,390 2.0

TOTAL 11,610 - 12,610 16.7 - 18.1

Based on current maximum daily demands of 3.83 MG per day (mgd), it is evident that the City's supply can meet demand. The new 24-inch transmission line has a maximum capacity of approximately 12,250 gpm or 17.64 mgd. The new chlorination facility can produce 24 lbs of chlorine per day, which can treat up to 5,000 gpm or 7.2 mgd. The distance to the first connection from the chlorination facility is approximately 10,700 feet, which allows for CT (chlorination value x time) values of 16 mg/l-min at 7.2 mgd to 6.6 mg/l-min at 17.64 mgd. If the City source should become managed under the ODWS’s Groundwater Rule, the required CT value that the City would most likely have to maintain would be 6 mg/l-min or greater. Therefore, the maximum conveyance capacity of the transmission line would not be limited by CT criteria.

1.14 Water Account Information

Water account information is based upon 2011 data published in the Water System Master Plan Update. A breakdown of accounts is presented in Table 1-7: Water Account Information. The 2011 date is compared to the 1999 data that was used in the previous water master plan and was also the basis for demand information presented in the previous WMCP. A more detailed breakdown of customer types is presented in Appendix B – Customer Type Characteristics.

The account information shows that a majority of the City of Hood River’s accounts are residential by number while only a little more than half of the City of Hood River's water use is residential.

Table 1-7: Water Account Information

Number of Accounts

Percentage of Total Accounts

Yearly Volume (MG)

Percent of Yearly Volume

Account Type 1999 2011 1999 2011 1999 2011 1999 2011

Residential 1760 2677 82.0% 88.4% 225.5 268.1 58.7% 55.6%

Commercial/Other 371 343 17.0% 11.3% 148.20 160.3 38.6% 33.2%

Government 8 9 <1.0% 0.3% 10.5 53.9 2.7% 11.2%

TOTAL 2,139 3,029 100% 100% 100% 482.3 100% 100%

1.15 Unmetered Accounts

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the City implemented a metering program with the goal of having all users metered. This goal has been achieved and all known water hookups are now metered.


1.16 General Water Use Characteristics

The City of Hood River had an average daily demand of 1.52 mgd for a population of approximately 7590 in 2011. The average daily demand assumes an unaccounted water volume of 15%. This equates to a 200-gallon per person, per day demand or gallons per capita day (gpcd). The City had a metered average daily demand of 1.32 mgd. This equates to a 174-gallon per person, per day demand or gallons per capita day (gpcd). In the previous water management and conservation plan, an average per capita per day demand of 191 gpcd was calculated. This demand did not include un-metered unaccounted water. Therefore, it appears that the City is using less water per capita than it was using in 1999. If only the residential account demand of 0.7345 mgd is considered, the consumption rate is 96.8-gallons per person per day demand.

In 2009 the League of Oregon Cities conducted a Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Rates and Charges survey. 112 cities contributed water service information. Although, the survey did not report average water use, Appendix A-3: Drinking Water Quantity of the report, presented, among other things, city populations and volumes of water treated. Of the 112 respondents, 78 cities had treated water. If the annual volume of water treated is divided by the city’s population and then divided by 365 day/year, an estimate of average day per capita demand per city could be calculated. Table 1-8: Average Water Use Per Capita for Sampled Municipalities presents these finding. The raw data is presented in Appendix C – Oregon Municipality’s Water Consumption per Capita.

Table 1-8: Average Water Use Per Capita for Samples Municipalities Average Water

Treated Per Capita Per day

(gpcd)

Number of Reporting Cities

>-900 1

600-900 1

500-600 3

400-500 3

300-400 6

200-300 17

100-200 39

0-100 10

Approximately 30 cities had an average day demand per capita that exceeded 200 gpcd while 39 Cities were between 100 gpcd and 200 gpcd. Only 10 cities reported using less than 100 gpcd. For some of the lower water users, it is not clear if all their water was treated or if the reported volume was supplemental to their main source. As stated above, Hood River’s water use is most likely between 174 gpcd (determined by customer meters) and 200 gpcd (the value derived from an estimated water loss assumption of 15%). Therefore the City’s water use is very close to the average of those cities reporting in the survey.

A review of top water users, presented in the Water System Master Plan, reveals a mixture of government, industry, commercial businesses, hospitals, nursing homes, apartments, and trailer parks. Table 1-9: Top 10 Water Users presents the top 10 water users in the City of Hood River.

The largest consumer of water within Hood River is the wastewater treatment plant. The treatment plant has increased its water demand by a factor of nearly 700 percent as compared to its water use


of 7.63 MG in 1999. The treatment plant underwent a major series of improvement projects in 2001. It is thought that some old waterlines within the older portion of the plant that were thought to be abandoned may have been damaged. An investigation is currently underway to determine where and how this water is being used or wasted at the treatment plant.

Full Sail Brewery uses 13.6 MG per year, or 2.8 percent of the average yearly production. The third top user is Providence Hospital, using 13.1 MG per year or 2.7 percent, followed by the City of Hood River’s Wilson Reservoir irrigation at 11.0 MG per year or 2.3 percent. City Staff are currently monitoring the Wilson Reservoir irrigation account. Since the initial investigations showed that the meter was not running when there was no irrigation occurring, the staff will be monitoring water usage during the irrigation season. Staff has reported that they have not observed any areas that appear over irrigated or soggy. It maybe that the meter is not functioning properly; however this account is still under investigation.

Table 1-9: Top 10 Water Users

Customer Name Total Volume

(MG) Percent of Total Metered Demand

CITY OF HR TREATMENT PLANT 50.4 10.4%

FULL SAIL BREWERY 13.6 2.8%

PROVIDENCE HR MEMORIAL 13.1 2.7%

CITY OF HOOD RIVER (Wilson Res. Irrig.) 11.0 2.3%

TURTLE ISLAND FOODS 9.8 2.0%

BEST WESTERN HOOD RIVER INN 8.9 1.8%

HOOD RIVER JUICE CO 6.7 1.4%

GORGE TRAILER PARK 3.6 0.7%

QUEEN HEIGHTS APT/HOPE 3.5 0.7%

HOOD RIVER DISTILLERS 3.3 0.7%

WAL-MART 3.2 0.7%

INDIAN CREEK VILLAGE APARTMENT 3.0 0.6%

HORIZON SCHOOL-IRRIG 2.9 0.6%

LEGACY MANAGEMENT 2.8 0.6%

DOWN MANOR 2.7 0.6%

CITY OF HOOD RIVER JACKSON PRK 2.6 0.5%

PROVIDENCE H.R. MEMORIAL (Health Services) 2.4 0.5%

LSREF GOLDEN -OPS 26 (OR) LLC (Hawks Ridge) 2.4 0.5%

SAFEWAY #1123 2.3 0.5%

ROSAUER'S 2.0 0.4%

The largest use of water by classification is residences. Review of water use data indicates that 55.6 percent of water goes to homes, apartments, and trailer parks. The housing unit records for the City of Hood River indicate that 47 percent of the current housing was built after 1980. Initial changes to the plumbing code occurred in the late 1970’s, which required the use of more efficient low flow fixtures. Therefore, data indicates that 47 percent of the residences in Hood River likely have these lower flow devices installed.


1.17 Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Estimates

The City does not monitor flows on a daily basis; therefore, the maximum daily value must be estimated based on the calculated average daily system demands. A commonly used ratio between the maximum daily demand and average daily demand is 2.0. However, for systems with MDD/ADD ratios of 2.0 a ratio between maximum monthly demand and average daily demand around 1.28 is also common. The City of Hood River’s ratio of MMD to ADD for the 2011 data was approximately 1.8. Therefore, it is most likely that the City has a higher peaking factor for MDD than 2.0. The measured peaking MMD factor is approximately 1.4 times higher than the generally accepted value of 1.28. Therefore, MDD factor of 2 was increased by the same factor of 1.4 to yield a MDD/ADD factor of 2.5. The MDD peaking factor was also doubled for seasonal water uses such as irrigation and car washes, which tend to occur primarily during a 6-month period. Peak hour demand estimates were calculated with a separate peaking factor (PHD/MDD) for single-family residences (1.71), multi-family residences (1.5), and commercial/industrial/light industrial (1.3). The single-family residence PHD/MDD peaking factor was determined using a regression formula created by the Washington State Department of Health.

Estimates for the MDD and PHD from the 2011 customer meter data were 2,526 gpm and 3,794 gpm, respectively. The unaccounted water use was estimated at 198,212 gallons per day (gpd). This equates to a continuous flow rate of 138 gpm. Therefore, the final MDD and PHD have this flow rate added to them. The estimated MDD and PHD including unaccounted water are 2,264 gpm and 3,932 gpm, respectively.

1.18 Consumption Versus Replenishment

The natural water source for the City of Hood River has demonstrated itself as a long-term, reliable source since its development in 1929. Studies of the source geology have been performed by EMCOM in 1989, Roger M Smith Associates in 1993, and Buffalo Geological Consulting in 1996. Although the exact boundaries of the aquifer recharge area are not known, it is generally thought, from the aforementioned studies, that the springs originate from aquifers that are recharged in the area extending southwesterly of the spring location to the top of Lost Lake Butte. Most of this area lies within the Mt. Hood National Forest, with a portion lying between the Mt. Hood National Forest and the spring area controlled by the City. According to geological studies referenced in the same document, the groundwater is diverted by Northwest Trending Fault(s) at the northeast end of Sawtooth Mountain.

Assessment of actual water production of the springs is hampered by the remoteness of the site and the lack of electrical power to permit reliable, long-term monitoring. The unmetered overflow at the Cold Spring collector and the central collector, combined with inconsistent metering values, has left the City without an understanding of spring production over time. As stated in Section 1.17: Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Estimates, estimates of supply indicate that it is sufficient for the City's needs. Members of City staff have stated that flows from the springs do not appear to fluctuate heavily between summer and winter periods. Fluctuations over drought and wet cycles are not known at this time, and the supply from the collectors has been consistently sufficient to meet demand.


SECTION 2 - WATER CONSERVATION ELEMENT

2.1 Past Water Conservation Efforts

Through the years, the City of Hood River has taken action toward conservation by necessity and as a process of improving the water system. These measures have included water rationing, installation of service meters, billing based on water use, leak repair programs, and operational changes to reduce overflow.

In the early 1980’s, while providing significant quantities of water to other area water systems, the City experienced shortages that required rationing to reduce demands. This was successful on a temporary basis during high demand periods. In the late 1980’s, the City continued to experience shortages during summer periods. An investigation was initiated that revealed problems with the pressure reducer valve stations and leaks in the transmission pipeline between the spring collectors and the distribution system. Repairs and maintenance were performed on the PRV stations and leaks were repaired on the transmission pipeline. Metering of service connections was also started in the later part of the 1980’s, which began to achieve reductions in water use. Around 1990, the downtown area had its water system facilities replaced as part of an urban renewal project. Metering of 100 percent of the service connections was completed in the early 1990’s. A water system improvements project conducted in 1998 refurbished the spring collectors to improve water quality. Pressure reducer valve stations and an electronic control valve were installed to reduce the amount of overflow occurring at the Riverdale Reservoir. As stated in Section 1.9: Discussion of System Operation, the operational change with the PRV stations and control valve were reversed to resume continuous overflow and prevent damage occurring to the aging transmission pipeline. With the installation of the new 24-inch ductile iron transmission line, the City hopes to end this continuous overflow by July 2013, after the refurbishing of the Riverdale Reservoir. Also in 1998, the City eliminated the Ice Fountain Water System demands from the City's water system. This, combined with the loss of major water users over the years, has resulted in reductions in demand on the water supply. These and other conservation measures are discussed in more detail below.

2.2 Conservation Measures

OAR 690-086-0150 requires municipal water systems serving populations over 7500 to address 14 conservation elements. These elements are:

Full metering of the system Meter testing and maintenance program Annual water audits Leak detection program Leak repair and line replacement program A rate structure based on quantity of water measured Rate structure and billing practices that encourage conservation A public education program Technical and financial assistance programs Retrofit and replacement of inefficient fixtures Reuse, recycling, non-potable opportunities Other proposed measures Documentation of water use reporting


List of measures already implemented

A discussion of the appropriateness and feasibility of each measure for the City of Hood River is presented below.

Full Metering of Systems

Current Conditions/Program. All water accounts in Hood River have water meters installed. This was completed in the early 1990’s. Although source meters have been installed, they currently are not operational. A new ultrasonic meter was added at the chlorination facility and has recently begun collecting data.

Future Assessment/Implementation. New Mag-Style source meters will be added before and after the central collection box at the Cold Spring/Stone Springs 1 and 2 sources. This is scheduled to occur by June 2013. New Mag-Style meters will be added after the Riverdale Reservoir. This is scheduled to occur by September 2013.

Meter Testing and Maintenance Program

Current Conditions/Program. When a meter is suspected of functioning improperly or a customer informs the City that they think they have a leak in their service line, a visual inspection by the water department is made to identify possible problems with proper functioning of the meter. If the meter is older than 10 years old, it is replaced. If the meter is newer than 10 years old, it is taken back to the public works shop and tested. Dependent upon the finding, the meter is repaired or replaced. This method of meter repair and replacement has been very effective for the City, and malfunctioning meters are routinely replaced as part of this program.

Maintenance and testing of the new large source and mainline meters will be per the manufacturers’ recommendations. Sensus recommends testing the accuMAG meters every three to four years. The City will employ an independent testing agency to test the meters for accuracy at this interval. No maintenance beyond testing is required. Since magnetic meters cannot be calibrated, if the meters are not measuring flows accurately, they will have to be replaced under warranty. The accuMAG meters are rated to measure flows within 1.5% of the actual flow over the anticipated flow ranges that the system can produce. It is anticipated that battery replacement will occur at the time of meter testing.

Future Assessment/Implementation. The City of Hood River began installing water service meters in the mid-1980’s. Since that time, all of these older meters have been replaced with TouchRead® meters. The city is now on a three-year schedule to upgrade all their TouchRead meters to new lead free Sensus iPERL meters with meter transceiver units (MXU). This will enable the City to read all of their meters in one day. It currently takes several weeks to read all the of the City’s meters. This will allow for more accurate monthly readings because the readings will all occur on the same day. In addition, the wireless program that receives the meter information has diagnostic evaluating software that will flag a meter that might be functioning improperly.

Service Meter Replacement Policy. The Sensus iPERL meters are warranted for accurate uninterrupted use for a period of 20 years by the manufacturer. The manufacturer recommends replacement after 20 years, but the City has implemented policy to replace the iPERL meters after 15 years of service.


Annual Water Audit

Current Conditions/Program. As stated previously in this Water Management and Conservation Plan, the City does not yet have functional source water meters, but the City is very close to achieving installation of these meters. The replacement of the turbine style flows meters before and after the central control structure is scheduled to occur in June of 2013 as the last part of the City’s 14-inch transmission line replacement project. These meters will be Mag-Style meters and will have onboard data storage, which has the capacity to store hourly flow rate over the entire winter. This data will be downloaded in the late spring when the City has access to the spring area. The meters are battery operated, and the batteries can last several years before needing replacement. The master meter on the old 16-inch steel line downstream and on the new 24-inch line downstream of the Riverdale Reservoir are scheduled to be replaced with Mag-Style meters by September 2013 at part of the Phase IIA pipeline project. The meter at the chlorination facility was placed on-line in January 2013 and has begun measuring flows.

Future Assessment/Implementation. Once these improvements are completed and master metering data is available, annual water audits will be conducted to assess quantities of unaccounted for water. The location of master meters at the water source, water treatment facility, and below the Riverdale Reservoir will assist in isolation of unaccounted for water to the areas of the system where leaks or illegal connections may be occurring. The first audit should be performed in December of 2014. By that time the City should have a full year’s worth of source data that can be compared with the customer meter information. Known unmetered water uses currently in the system are shown below in Table 2-1: Known Non-Metered Water Uses. Volumetric estimates are also presented in the table.

Table 2-1: Known Non-Metered Water Uses Known Non-metered Water Uses Estimated Yearly Use (Gallons) Continual Bypassing at Riverdale Reservoir 963,000,000

Overflows at Bypassing at Coe Reservoir 131,500,000

Fire Hydrant Testing 500,000

Fire Suppression 500,000

Street Cleaning 50,000

Line Flushing 400,000

Construction Activities 50,000

Estimated Total Non-Metered Unaccounted Use 1,096,000,000 Leakage Unknown

It is anticipated that bypassing of the Riverdale Reservoir will cease by September of 2013. By the end of December 2014, bypassing of the Coe Reservoir will cease. This volume, an estimated 1,094,500,000 gallons, shall be diverted back into Lake Branch/Laurel Creek when these system modifications have been completed. Internal audits will occur thereafter on an annual basis.

Leak Detection Program

Current Conditions/Program. The City has implemented leak detection programs in the past, but has not had an active program in sixteen years due to budgetary limitations. The City currently controls leakage in the following manner. When a leak is suspected or reported, the water department goes to the reported location and checks for visual confirmation. When visual confirmation is not present,


the City uses its electronic leak detector device to pinpoint leaks to dig up and repair. If the City is unable to locate the leak, a professional leak detection company is brought in to find the leak. In addition, the fire department exercises approximately 5% of the City’s hydrants per year. If they observe leaks, they report it to the City’s water department as well.

The City keeps records of areas that have high incidents of confirmed leaks and repairs and this information is used to help identify capital improvement projects during the master planning process. A program of checking areas that are at high risk for leaks has already been implemented. These areas occur primarily along the old 16-inch pipeline and the 14-inch line between the Riverdale and Wilson Reservoir. Other areas of high leak incidences are in the locations of the old lead jointed pipelines.

The City currently does not have pipe age information available, but the lead jointed pipe tends to be the older pipe within the system. Figure 2-1: Lead Jointed Pipes shows the areas of lead jointed pipes.

Future Assessment/Implementation. As previously stated, inconsistent data from the master meters have eliminated any confidence in the information, leaving the City with the inability to calculate unaccounted for water and quantify any water losses. With new meters scheduled to be installed, annual water audits will soon be performed. Once data is available for annual water audits, the City will be able to determine the extent of its unaccounted non-metered water (leakage). At that point the City will be able to evaluate if an ongoing preemptive leak detection program is warranted. Evaluation of the City’s current leak detection program should occur around June 2015.

Leak Repair/Line Replacement Program

Current Conditions/Program. Known water losses were associated with leaks along the old 14-mile transmission line. The portion between the City’s source and the Riverdale Reservoir has now been replaced, which should result in a reduction of water loss. The design for the replacement of the remaining 25,000 feet of 14-inch waterline between the Riverdale and Wilson Reservoirs is underway and the project is scheduled to be completed by September 2013. Line replacement projects in the distribution system, as outlined in the Water System Master Plan update, are conducted as resources permit. Much of the downtown area’s old waterlines have been replaced through Urban Renewal efforts. In 2005, the City replaced 837 feet of old lead joined pipe along Oak Street. The latest urban renewal project will replace approximately 2,000 feet of old lead jointed pipe along State Street and Front and Oak. When leaks are detected, they are addressed as quickly as possible to repair or replace the affected lines.

Future Assessment/Implementation. The city anticipates taking the 16-inch line off-line once the replacement of the 14-inch line with a new 24-inch line between the Riverdale and Wilson Reservoirs has been completed. The city is also in the process of replacing their old lead jointed pipes. This will occur over the next 15 to 20 years. Review of the annual water audit data, once the master meters have been replaced and data has been collected, will also assist in directing these efforts to areas of most concern. In general, the City will prioritize areas that have the highest pressures, because these tend to have the highest leakage rates. The city has a limited water budget so the replacement will be phased over the next 15 to 20 years. The City is currently budgeting approximately $200,000 per year for replacement of these lead jointed pipes. The average cost per foot of replacing these pipes with 8-inch lines is $100/ft. There is a total of 34,000


feet of distribution pipe that needs to be replaced. Therefore, the City will replace approximately 2,000 feet per year.

The City will be rehabilitating its Riverdale Reservoir. This project will be completed by July 2013. This will eliminate some observed leakage. The Water Master Plan Update will also recommend the rehabilitation of the Wilson Reservoir. Visible weeping near the base of the reservoir has been observed. The concrete reservoir will be resealed which will also reduce water leakage within the City.

Water Rate Structure Based on Quantity of Water Metered

Current Conditions/Program The City of Hood River has adopted a declining block rate structure without stepped, or tiered, rates for higher consumption. The City ceased its policy of increasing the base volume an additional 5,000 gallons of water per month during summer watering periods (June through September) in 2005. The current residential rate for a ¾-inch meter was adopted in 2011 and is $28.74 per 5000 gallons with a commodity rate of $1.78 per 1000 gallons after the initial 5000 gallons. The full water charge schedule is included in Appendix D – City of Hood River Water Rates.

Future Assessment/Implementation. The City does not plan on changing its rate structure at this time, but it does plan on increasing its rates every two to three years. This will, at a minimum, keep the cost of water at its present value and not allow the real cost to diminish over time.

Water Use Rate Structure to Promote Efficient Water Use

Current Conditions/Program. As noted above the City currently has a commodity charge for monthly water use over 5000 gallons for residential customers. An increasing block rate structure can encourage consumers to further use less water because the more water they use, the higher the unit cost is for each additional block of water. Some City’s have utilized base fees and commodity charges using a seasonal differential that charges more per unit of water consumed in dry season compared with the wet season.

The City is not currently planning on adopting an increasing block-rate structure or seasonal differential base fee at this time primarily because of past resistance by its citizens and the City Council. It was not long ago that the City allowed a 10,000 gallon base rate for high flow periods and there is still a desire by some to go back to that system of billing.

The City reads its customers water meters on a monthly basis. Its customers are billed the next month. This allows customers to see their water use and, if desired, make changes to their water use, thus conserving water.

Future Assessment/Implementation. Further conservation of water can sometimes be achieved if customers are able to see their water use for the previous month and compare it to the water use of that month a year earlier. Discussions with the City’s Account Technician indicated that the City’s current billing system could provide the previous year’s monthly water use to compare with the current months water use.

Within the next 5 years, the City will evaluate the feasibility of including the previous year’s monthly water use on current water bills in order to provide a comparison with the current month’s water use.


If this is found to be feasible, the City will provide an implementation schedule for including this information on monthly water bills to OWRD.

Information showing customer techniques for reducing water use could also be included with or on the water bills. See Public Education Programs below.

Public Education Programs

Current Conditions/Program. The City of Hood River does not currently have a public education program.

Future Assessment/Implementation. The City anticipates beginning to build partnerships with local conservation groups such as the Hood River Soil and Water Conservation District and the Columbia Riverkeepers to develop public awareness information. This information, in the form of brochures, will be available at City Hall where customers pay their bills and make inquiries about their water services. Other forms of information will be included with the billing statements on a quarterly basis. These educational materials will address subjects such as landscape watering, household leak prevention, and other water conservation issues. The City hopes to build relationships with various conservation organizations and have materials available by July 1, 2015. Conservation information could be included on billings by the September 2015 billing.

Technical and Financial Assistance Programs

Current Conditions/Program. The City of Hood River does not currently have any technical and financial assistance programs. Some examples of technical and financial assistance program are listed below:

Rebate programs, where the cost of purchasing water-efficient fixtures or equipment can be partially offset;

Cost-share programs where the cost of a customer’s water conservation measures will be paid, in whole or in part, by the water supplier;

Water audits offered to some individual customers to assess their water uses and identify opportunities for water savings;

Providing training opportunities for customers to learn about specific types of water saving equipment or actions. These may be targeted towards specific groups such as homeowners, apartment managers, building maintenance staff, or grounds maintenance staff.

Providing training opportunities to businesses that provide goods or services to a water supplier’s customers. This could include landscaping businesses, construction contractors, air conditioning contractors, building centers, and lawn and garden centers.

Technical and financial assistance to local parks and golf courses to improve irrigation management and/or purchase improved control systems.

Public information items that provide technical information to assist customers save water (also see discussion of public education, above).

Future Assessment/Implementation. The City has limited financial and staffing resources. Incremental costs of water production per 1,000 gallons will most probably increase if the City is required to produce additional water beyond current capacity. If the City can reduce the need for


this water through incentives or education at costs equal to or less than producing more water, then these measures will be cost effective.

Within the next 5 years, the City will evaluate the feasibility of providing water audits to residential, commercial, and industrial users, and of offering to pay a portion of the cost of a consultant specializing in industrial water audits for more complex and or larger users. If found to be feasible, the City will provide an implementation schedule for implementing these activities to OWRD.

The City will perform an audit of its wastewater treatment plant to determine methods of reducing water consumption and/or leakage. Currently the wastewater treatment plant is using 10 percent of the water metered by the city. The audit will occur by June of 2013 and projects to remedy the high water use will be implemented by June 2014.

Retrofit or Fixture Replacement Program

Current Conditions/Program. The City of Hood River does not currently have a fixture replacement program. In the early 1990s, a showerhead replacement program was conducted by Pacific Power and Light as an energy conservation program. However, the rate of participation by residents is not known. Studies have shown that significant reductions in water demand can be achieved with improved toilets and showerheads in the home. With the single highest category of user in the City of Hood River being residences, the potential for improved efficiency in this area exists.

The previous Water Management and Conservation Plan calculated potential water savings if older homes were converted to low flow showerheads and low flow flush toilets. The calculations made at that time are still considered to be valid and are repeated in this section:

Determining the actual amount of water savings achievable with a fixture replacement program is very difficult. The resulting savings depends upon the existing conditions and fixtures that are installed, plus the participation rates of actual fixture replacement. A rough estimate of possible savings can be accomplished by reviewing housing records and making assumptions for fixture types based on home age. Then, by applying known data for per capita day savings of a replacement fixture and estimating levels of participation in a replacement program, gallons saved can be calculated.

Upon review of census housing records for the City of Hood River, it was determined that approximately 1,800 homes, or 53 percent of the current homes, were built prior to 1980 and the institution of stricter building codes for showerhead and toilet flows. Records also indicate that approximately 470 homes, or 14 percent, were built between 1980 and 1990. This is approximately when the current regulations for 2.5 gpm showerheads and ultra low flush toilets were instituted. In determining the potential for water savings, it is also necessary to account for upgrades in fixtures in the normal process of remodeling or replacing damaged fixtures. Table 2-2: City of Hood River’s Housing Breakdown identifies the percentage of households in these different categories.


Table 2-2: City of Hood River’s Housing Breakdown

Approximate Number of

Homes Percentage Period Condition

1800 53 Pre-1980 Construction

Prior to building codes reducing showheads and toilet flows

470 14 Pre-1992 Construction

Prior to 2.5 gpm showheads and ultra low flush toilets

1107 33 Post-1992 Construction

Build to current building codes and with 2.5 gpm showheads and ultra low flush toilets

Older showerheads are estimated to use 10 gpm, with conventional showerheads installed since 1980 consuming 4.5 gpm. Current state requirements are for fixtures to consume 2.5 gpm. Converting a pre-1980 showerhead to a current fixture results in an 8.1 gpcd savings. Converting a post-1980 showerhead results in a 4.3 gpcd savings. The City of Hood River averages 2.24 persons per home, so these savings converted to a per-home basis results in approximately 18 gpd saved for a home equipped with an older fixture and 9.6 gpd saved per home equipped with the post-1980 fixtures when the home is upgraded to a modern 2.5 gpm showerhead.

Based on the following assumptions and calculations, the City of Hood River has the theoretical potential to save over 27,000 gpd or 10 million gallons per year.

Showerhead Savings Assumptions:

60 percent of pre-1980 homes with older showerheads would upgrade to current 2.5 gpm flow standards.

20 percent of pre-1980 homes have previously upgraded to conventional showerheads and will upgrade to current 2.5 gpm flow standards.

100 percent of homes built between 1980 to 1992 with conventional showerheads will upgrade to current 2.5 gpm flow standards.

Showerhead Replacement Water Saved

Pre-1980 Homes 1,800 x 60 percent =1,080 homes

1,080 x 18 gal savings/home/day = 19,440 gpd

Pre-1992 Homes 470 + (1,800 x 20 percent) =830 homes

830 x 9.6 gal savings/home/day = 7,968 gpd

27,408 gpd = 10 MG/year

Water conservation through replacement of toilet fixtures can provide even more significant water savings with installation of the current standard ultra low flush toilets. Savings of 22 gpcd can occur


when replacing toilets dating before 1980, and savings of 8 gpcd can occur when replacing low flush models that were installed from 1980 to 1992. Accounting for the current per-home occupancy rate of the City of Hood River, this results in approximately 18 gpd per home when replacing a low flush model and approximately 49 gpd per home when replacing a toilet installed prior to 1980.

The assumptions and calculations presented below indicate that a toilet fixture retrofit program could have a theoretical savings of nearly 90,000 gpd or 32.65 million gallons per year.

Toilet Fixture Savings Assumptions:

90 percent of pre-1980 homes with older high flush volume fixtures would upgrade to current ultra low flush toilets.

5 percent of pre-1980 homes having previously upgraded to low flush model fixtures will upgrade to current ultra low flush toilets.

100 percent of homes built between 1980 to 1992 with low flush model fixtures will upgrade to current ultra low flush toilets.

Toilet Replacement Water Saved

Pre-1980 Homes 1,800 x 90 percent =1,620 homes

1,620 x 49 gal savings/home/day = 79,380 gpd

Pre-1992 Homes 470 + (1,800 x 5 percent) =560 homes

560 x 18 gal savings/home/day = 10,080 gpd

89,460 gpd = 32.65 MG/year

Future Assessment/Implementation. The cost of a toilet fixture or showerhead replacement program could become quite expensive depending upon how the City implements it. Actual water savings achieved through such a program may vary significantly from the theoretical values presented above. Flow rates of currently utilized fixtures and participation in an upgrade program by City residents will vary the values used for these examples. Surveys may provide additional insight and accuracy in savings projections should the City choose to pursue this water conservation measure.

The City could offer partial assistance for upgrades. Showerheads costs vary wildly based on style and quality. If the City was to offer a $50 rebate for shower head replacement and 1910 (1,080+830) residential units participated over the next 10 to 15 years, the present cost to the City would be $95,500. This would save approximately 10 MG/year. If the showerheads lasted for 20 years the water saved would be 200 MG at a cost of $0.478 per 1000 gallons saved.

A new ultra-low flow toilet costs approximately $300. Installation is about $150. If the City offered to pay half the cost of the fixtures and 2180 (560+1620) residential units participated over the next 10 to 15 years, the present cost to the City would be $327,000. This would save an estimated 32.65


MG/year. If the life of the toilet were 30 years, the water savings would be 979.5 MG at a cost of $0.333 per 1000 gallons saved. Within the next 5 years, the City will form a committee to conduct a survey to determine interest level and the feasibility of offering a rebate program. The committee will present the findings to City Staff and, as applicable, to the City Council in order to help in determining the best course of future actions. If found to be feasible, the City will provide a schedule for implementing a rebate program, as appropriate, to OWRD.

Water Reuse

Current Conditions/Program. The City of Hood River does not currently have a water reuse program. It should be noted, however, that the overflow which occurred at the Riverdale Reservoir does flow into an irrigation ditch for further use.

Of possible consideration for reuse is the water use at the City of Hood River wastewater treatment plant. The treatment plant is currently the highest single user in the City, using 50.4 MG, or 10.4 percent of the annual City demand, per year. It appears there are plenty of opportunities to reduce demand at this facility. In addition to eliminating leaks and or wasted water, the installation of an impure water system that reuses all, or at least a significant portion, of this water could be utilized to further reduce water use. There also exists the opportunity to use reclaimed water as irrigation for the City’s Water Front Park.

Future Assessment/Implementation. Within the next 5 years, the City will study the feasibility of using reclaimed water from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation of the City’s Waterfront Park. If found to be feasible, the City will provide a schedule for implementing the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes, to OWRD.

2.3 Other Conservation Measures

The City’s Coe Reservoir currently has a continuous overflow of approximately 250 gpm. The Water Master Plan Update will be recommending operational procedures that will lower the City’s existing Coe pressure zone so that the reservoir will again be able to serve this area during normal flow conditions without overflowing. The installation of some new PRV stations will be required to feed higher elevation areas within the Coe Pressure Zone so that the pressure can be reduced. This will save an estimated 131,400,000 gallons per year.

The City is considering operational changes to most of their pressure zones that will reduce the total pressures within these zones. Reduction of pressure within the water distribution system will reduce the rate of leakage within the system.

The City of Hood River receives an average annual precipitation of 31 inches, which moderates the demand for landscape irrigation. Many of the older parts of the City have lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet, which also helps to reduce irrigation demands. As metering of water services was added and water rates have increased, summer demand has seen reductions. Voluntary reduction of water use has also occurred as ecologically-conscious residents let lawns go brown in order to improve water flows for fish migration. The City itself used conservation measures in the early 1990’s when, with the installation of many trees in the downtown area, they utilized a drip irrigation system to reduce water consumption. The City has achieved the status of being a Tree City USA for the past 3 years in a row since 2009. All planter landscaping along the City streets which


require irrigation utilize drip irrigation. The City also has utilized xeriscape landscaping along its streets as well.

2.4 Progress Report on Previous WMCP

The following conservation elements were identified to be implemented by the City in the 2002 Water Management and Conservation Plan. This section reports on the degree of implementation of those elements.

Rate Structure based on Quantity of Water: In the previous WMCP the city had an expanded flat rate block of water that changed from 5,000 gallons per month during the fall, winter, and spring periods to10,000 gallons per month in the summer months. This practice has ceased.

Leak Repair/Line Replacement: The 14-miles of 14-inch steel pipeline that was originally installed in1928 were successfully replaced. The will greatly reduce leakage and will also enable the City to cease its practice of overflowing water at the Riverdale Reservoir.

Annual Water Audit: The previous WMCP anticipated annual water audits to be performed sometime after the 14-inch transmission line between Cold Springs and the Riverdale Reservoir was replaced. The plan anticipated this to occur sometime after 2004. However, because of funding limitations and delays, the project did not occur until 2010 through 2012. The final portion of waterline was brought on-line in February 2013. Master meters are anticipated to be installed in July of 2013. Because of these delays the Annual Water Audits were not been performed.

Meter Testing and Maintenance Program: The City was able to replace the older remaining 400 water meters with TouchRead meters.

Leak Detection Program: The City anticipated reviewing the need for a formal leak detection program once data from the annual water audit data was available. Due to the delay in the transmission line project, this never occurred.

Public Education Programs. The 2002 WMCP called for a public awareness program to be implemented, primarily in the form of quarterly newsletter submitted with the billing statements. The City indicated that this did not occur because of lack of funding and resources. It is hoped that partnering with local conservation groups will allow this type of public education and awareness program to become established within the community.

Reuse: In 2005, the City Engineer prepared a short memorandum that briefly looked at some regulatory requirements that would be associated with reuse of the WWTP’s effluent to irrigate Block 6 within the Port of Hood River area. No technologies or costs were presented. The technical memorandum concluded that it would be much cheaper to provide irrigation via the City’s current water system.

2.5 Water Use Measurement and Reporting Program

The City of Hood River has water-metering systems at several locations in the supply line. Sensus propeller meters are set before and after the central collection box and Sensus propeller meters are installed on both of the pipelines leaving the Riverdale Reservoir (5 MG reservoir). A new Dynasonic ultrasonic meter is located near the chlorine treatment station and is used to pace chlorine injection


proportional to water flow. As previously stated, the meters at the central collection box have not worked properly since their installation and their readings are suspect. This is also true of the meters installed at the Riverdale Reservoir. These old master meter problems are scheduled to be replaced with new magnetic meters by September 2013.

The Oregon Water Resource Department’s Water Use Report database shows monthly water use records for the Cold Springs Facility that include diversions from Cold Spring, Stone Spring I, and Stone Spring II dating back to 1989. The data between 1989 and 1997 reports significantly greater diversions than water volumes reported after 1997. The diverted water reported between 1989 to 1997 originated only from Cold Spring and Stone Spring 1 and included water that overflowed at the Riverdale and Coe Reservoirs. The water use reported after 1997 is from aggregated customer water meter readings and does not include water overflowed at the Riverdale and Coe Reservoirs. Data is missing for the water years of 2009 and 2010. This was most likely due to staffing changes at the City. Reporting was reinitiated in 2011.

Compliance reporting requirements include reporting water produced on a monthly basis for each permitted source and that these volumes are reported within a 15% accuracy level. The sources at the central collection box are reported together. This includes Cold Spring, Stone Springs I, and Stone Springs II. New magnetic style meters are schedule to be installed by July 2013, which will measure flows well within a 15% percent accuracy range (usually within 2%). The City of Hood River’s Reporting program measurement standards comply with OAR Chapter 690, Division 85.


SECTION 3 - WATER CURTAILMENT PLAN

3.1 Supply Deficiencies in the Last 10 Years

City staff has stated that there has not been a need for water rationing since the installation of water meters in the early 1990’s. Historically, when the old transmission line developed a break or leak that required repair, the transmission line was drained, which impacted service connections along the transmission line. The reservoirs continued to meet the City's water needs, providing that the time required to complete the repairs never exceeded the capacity of the Riverdale Reservoirs' ability to meet the water City’s water demand. Once repairs were completed on the transmission line and the line was refilled, all service was restored. With the completion of the new 24-inch transmission line it is anticipated that these interruptions to transmission line service will be significantly reduced or eliminated.

3.2 Loss of Water Supply Scenarios

The Water System Master Plan Update presents an analysis of the water supply reliability. As the system is entirely gravity flow, it is not dependent on electrical power or mechanical devices such as pumps, which tends to improve its reliability. The transmission line has one PRV station at the Dee crossing approximately half way between the source and the reservoir. Another control valve exists near the reservoir that will regulate flow into the reservoir. If the Dee PRV should fail open, the new transmission line can withstand the entire static pressure created from the elevation of the central collection box. Also, there is a pressure relief valve located at Schaffer’s Crossing that will act to help relieve pressure of the pipeline. If the Dee PRV should fail closed, it can be manually overridden at the PRV station to allow water to flow to the Riverdale Reservoir. The Riverdale control valve also has many features that can be manually overridden if the valve should malfunction.

The water sources are in a remote location where activity that could contaminate the source is unlikely to occur. It is not known if Cold Springs, Stone Spring I, and Stone Spring II come from the same source; however, if they are separate or from separate recharge areas of the water bearing strata, the chance for both sources becoming contaminated is much less likely.

A natural disaster in the form of a flood, landslide, or earthquake could potentially take out a portion of the pipeline, leaving the City without its source. Depending on the extent of the damage, it is possible that a prolonged interruption of service could occur. It is for this reason that a study for a new source that would serve for emergency conditions will be initiated by the City.

3.3 Shortfalls Triggering Community Action

The City of Hood River has considerable water supply capacity beyond the City's current needs The City also has 6.2 MG of storage available to help meet demands. In the event the City's water supply source is interrupted, the City would need to assess the need to initiate community action to curtail water use. Restrictions to water use could include such items as prohibiting lawn irrigation, car washing, or restricting supply to industrial users. In the event conditions worsen, the City would need to initiate their curtailment plan, a copy of which is attached to this WMCP.


3.4 Capacity Limitations

The City of Hood River has water rights and capacity beyond current demands. The City now also has the capacity to convey that water to their users. Currently, the limitation on capacity is the chlorination facility, which has capacity to meet the City’s projected maximum day demand to the year 2054. However, without secondary water sources, the ability to maintain delivery of water in a shortfall situation is limited. With the addition of Tucker and Hakel Springs, or the addition of a well in conjunction with the water system improvements, the City will have additional flexibility as these alternate sources could be utilized during a shortfall situation. In addition, the City has agreements with the water systems with which they have interties that could supplement the City's primary supply during a shortfall or emergency situation.

3.5 Plan of Action for Water Curtailment

This Water Curtailment Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of ORS 536.780 and OAR Chapter 690-19-090 and to provide guidelines for the City of Hood River to follow in the event that the Water Department finds a severe or continuing drought is likely to occur or an immediate and/or prolonged water supply shortage occurs because of system failure, source contamination, sabotage, or other unforeseen cause.

BACKGROUND

The City of Hood River's water system is comprised of a groundwater source and a 24-inch 14-mile ductile iron pipeline that carries the water from the source to a five-million gallon primary reservoir outside the southerly edge of the City. Parallel steel pipelines, 14-inches and 16-inches in diameter, carry water from the primary reservoir another three miles into the City distribution system, which includes two smaller reservoirs.

The source, which includes groundwater from Cold Spring and Stone Springs I and Stone Springs II, is of very high quality and does not require chlorination. The spring intakes and the collection system were upgraded in 1997. The springs were sealed from surface water influences during that project. Owing to the natural slope of the terrain, the entire water transmission and distribution system is able to operate under gravity head. There are no pumps in the system.

There are approximately 123 metered services tapped into the transmission main outside the Urban Growth Boundary because of agreements that were made when an earlier 14-inch steel pipeline was constructed across private property in 1929 and subsequently. There are approximately 3,030 metered services in total.

EMERGENCY CURTAILMENT PLAN

Emergency water curtailment could be needed to meet any unexpected malfunction of the water system, including a failure of the transmission main, or if a significant threat occurs to the spring water source. As the City's primary source and the only water supply capable of meeting current demands, a malfunction that requires shutting down the flow in the transmission main could create a scenario where water curtailment would be required. The City’s Riverdale Reservoir, with a storage capacity of 5 million gallons, can supply water for several days during an average daily demand. The reservoir can even supply the maximum daily projected 20-year maximum daily demand.


However, should an emergency situation occur that lasts more than a day, water curtailment procedures should be implemented.

The City has chosen a four-stage Water Curtailment Plan. Each step corresponds to the potential severity of the situation and the extent to which water consumption must be reduced. The four-stage plan is as follows:

Stage 1 - Alert Status

Activation

The Stage 1 Alert Status will be activated when the Water Department determines that the potential exists for demands to exceed the supply and storage capabilities of the water system. The Mayor will have the authority to implement Stage One Curtailment Activities. Any of the following triggers will be used to establish the Stage 1 - Alert Status:

1. The combined source of supply drops by 25%. 2. The daily demand exceeds the projected 20 year maximum day demand

of 5.18 mgd. 3. The daily demand exceeds 70 percent of the chlorination facility capacity

of 7.4 mgd (5000 gpm).

Curtailment Activities

The City will initiate a voluntary conservation program, inform customers of the potential for a water shortage, and request individual water users to make a concerted effort to voluntarily reduce their consumption. The City will also curtail hydrant flushing during Stage 1. This voluntary conservation program will be initiated by the City by making public radio and newspaper advertisements.

Stage 2 - Warning Status

Activation

Stage 2 Warning Status will be activated when the Water Department determines a high likelihood exists that consumption will exceed the supply and storage capabilities of the system, or when there is a major malfunction of the water system equipment affecting supply based upon system demands at the time of the malfunction. The Mayor will have the authority to implement Stage Two Curtailment Activities. Any of the following triggers will be used to establish the Stage 2 - Warning Status:

1. The combined source of supply drops by 40%. 2. The daily demand exceeds the projected 20 year maximum daily demand

of 5.18 mgd for three consecutive days. 3. The daily demand exceeds 80 percent of the chlorination facility capacity

of 7.4 mgd (5000 gpm).



The City will initiate a program to reduce non-essential water use by limiting yard and garden watering to evening hours and early morning hours. This curtailment activity will also be imposed upon all school and park watering, and no hydrant flushing will be performed. Stage 2 will be initiated by the City by using radio and newspaper advertisements and direct contact with large users such as parks and schools.

Stage 3 - Critical Status

Activation

The City will initiate the Stage 3 Critical Status curtailment plan when the Water Department determines there is a definite threat that water demands will exceed the supply and storage capabilities of the water system. Stage 3 will be activated by the use of newspaper and radio advertisements as well as direct personal contact with major users. The Mayor will have the authority to implement Stage Three Curtailment Activities. Any of the following triggers will be used to establish the Stage 3 - Critical Status:

1. The combined source of supply drops by 60%. 2. The daily demand reaches 90% of the system’s ability to supply demand

and refill reservoirs. 3. The daily demand exceeds 85% of the chlorination facility’s capacity of

7.4 mgd (5000 gpm).


The City will initiate a program to limit nonessential water use, which will include no lawn watering, no car washing, no washing down of driveways, no hydrant flushing, no park or school irrigation, and voluntary reduction of industrial commercial usage. Under Stage 3, the City will conduct periodic patrols to ensure that non-essential water usage is curtailed.

Stage 4 - Emergency Status

Activation

The City will activate the Stage 4 Emergency Status when the Water Department determines there is an immediate health or safety hazard as it relates to demands exceeding the supply and storage capabilities of the water system. Stage 4 will be activated by the use of newspaper and radio advertisements, delivery of pamphlets, and direct personal contact with all users, as appropriate. The Mayor will have the authority to implement Stage Four Curtailment Activities. Any of the following triggers will be used to establish the Stage 4 - Emergency Status:

1. The combined source of supply drops by 70%.


2. System is not able to meet daily demand and fill storage reservoirs within 24 hour period.

3. The daily demand exceeds 95% of the chlorination facility’s capacity of 7.4 mgd (5000 gpm).


The City will initiate a program to prohibit non-essential water use and limit essential water use. Under Stage 4, all outside water use will be prohibited and water usage will be limited to providing human and animal consumption and proper sanitation health needs.

SUMMARY

In the event that the Mayor cannot be contacted or is unable to execute his duties with regard to implementing the aforementioned curtailment activities, the City Manager will have the authority to implement any stage of the Emergency Curtailment Plan. This four-stage Water Curtailment Plan has been developed by the City to meet the various potential or actual emergency conditions that may arise related to the City's water supply. The City believes this Curtailment Plan meets the intent of the State regulations and provides the necessary procedures and guidelines for managing a shortfall of supply or system failure.


SECTION 4 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY

4.1 Future Water Supply Service Area and Build-Out

The City of Hood River's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is shown in Figure 1-3: Water System Facilities Map. The estimated year build-out will occur in the UGB around the year 2058, according to the Water System Master Plan Update. The population projection for build-out is 22,650. A projected population of 13,297 was projected for the year 2031 based on the City's Planning Department projected growth rates of 2 percent per year within the urban growth area.

4.2 Long-Range Water Demand

The City of Hood River's long-range water demands were prepared for the Water System Master Plan Update. These projections were based on current water demands projected forward with the City's estimated growth rates. Table 4-1: Current and Future Water Demands summarizes the projected demands for the years 2016, 2031, and forecasted buildout (2058).

Table 4-1: Current and Future Water Demands

YEAR 2011 ADD MDD MDD PHD gpd gpd gpm gpm

Urban Growth Area

Residential 688,641 1,798,486 1,248.9 2,048.9

Commercial 337,403 1,100,863 764.5 1,000.2

Industrial/Light Industrial 97,033 242,582 168.5 219.0

School 9,559 23,897 16.6 21.6

Treatment Plant 138,027 345,068 239.6 359.4

Urban Growth Area Totals 1,270,663 3,510,897 2,438 3,649

Rural Area

Residential 45,904 114,760 79.7 134.2

Commercial 4,849 12,123 8.4 10.9

Rural Total 50,753 126,884 88 145

UGA and Rural Total 1,321,416 3,637,781 2,526 3,794

Unaccounted Water (15%) 198,212 198,212 138 138

Total System 1,519,629 3,835,993 2,664 3,932


YEAR 2016 ADD MDD MDD PHD gpd gpd gpm gpm

Urban Growth Area

Residential 760,315 1,985,674 1,378.9 2,266.6

Commercial 370,668 1,167,732 810.9 1,060.5


School 10,554 26,385 18.3 23.8

Treatment Plant 138,027 345,068 239.6 359.4


Rural Area

Residential 45,904 114,760 79.7 134.2

Commercial 4,849 12,123 8.4 10.9

Rural Total 50,753 126,884 88 145



Total System 1,703,101 4,250,485 2,952 4,350

YEAR 2031 ADD MDD MDD PHD

gpd gpd gpm gpm

Urban Growth Area

Residential 1,023,284 2,672,456 1,855.9 3,065.4

Commercial 413,130 1,305,781 906.8 1,185.1


School 14,204 35,510 24.7 32.1

Treatment Plant 138,027 345,068 239.6 359.4


Rural Area

Residential 45,904 114,760 79.7 134.2

Commercial 4,849 12,123 8.4 10.9

Rural Total 50,753 126,884 88 145



Total System 2,078,743 5,177,346 3,595 5,355


Buildout (circa 2058) ADD MDD MDD PHD

gpd gpd gpm gpm

Urban Growth Area

Residential 1,746,630 4,561,579 3,168 5,263

Commercial 493,964 1,546,137 1,074 1,402

Industrial/Light Industrial 205,136 512,841 356 463

School 24,245 60,612 42 55

Treatment Plant 138,027 345,068 240 359

Urban Growth Area Totals 2,616,232 2,608,003 7,026,238 4,879

Rural Area

Residential 45,904 114,760 80 134

Commercial 4,849 12,123 8 11

Rural Total 50,753 126,884 88 145


Unaccounted Water (15% ADD) 398,813 398,813 277.0 277.0

Total System 3,057,570 7,551,935 5,244 7,964

The Water System Master Plan determined future water demands by quantifying areas that could be developed for residential and commercial uses, taking into account rights-of-way and non-buildable areas. Residential water use and irrigation associated with that use was projected into the future at a 2% annual growth rate, which is the same rate that the City and the Urban Growth Area are anticipated to grow. Water use associated with schools was also projected forward at a 2% growth rate. All water demand outside the City and Urban growth area was held constant as there is a moratorium on new hookups outside the City limits. Commercial flows were estimated based on a flow per acres basis. A GIS program was used to capture water demands within these areas of town. A demand per acre was calculated using this method. Light industrial water demands per acre were determined in a similar manner. City staff identified commercial and light industrial areas that were believed to be developed within the 5-year and 20-year horizon (See Appendix A- Coordinated Planed Growth Scenario). Commercial and light industrial flow projections for the 5-year and 20-year demands were made in this manner. No new heavy industrial uses were forecasted. The wastewater treatment plant water use was held constant with the hope that this element will be reduced in the future. Irrigation for parks was held constant for the next 5 years and then it was assumed that one new park would be added by the 20-year horizon.

Irrigation of yards and landscaped areas was included in the residential and commercial use for existing conditions with the City limits. Since these unit demands were used to project growth into the UGB, irrigation demands (as associated with residential and commercial activities) are included in these flow projections. The Farmers Irrigation District (FID) currently serves approximately 464 acres within the UGB. FID has an active Intergovernmental Urban Services Agreement (Agreement) with the City. According to the agreement, FID may cease or desire to cease to provide irrigation water services to parcels annexed by the City. If the district ceases providing irrigation services to annexed land, and such lands are withdrawn from the district according to Oregon law, FID would meet with the City to discuss the terms for transferring district facilities into the City's portfolio. Ice Fountain has a similar agreement with the City for the areas that they serve with the UGB.


The City does not allow farming type irrigation to be supplied from its system. Therefore, the City typically only annexes developed areas, or areas that are proposed to be developed, as residential, commercial, or light industrial areas into the City limits. Therefore, it is anticipated that as new areas are annexed into the City, the flow patterns will remain similar to the demands the City currently services. There are several residential areas within the UGB that are currently served by Ice Fountain Water District and Farmers Irrigation District. If these developments are annexed and FID decides to continue to serve the properties with irrigation, the actual demands per residential connection would be less than what is anticipated in the above demands, because the irrigation component would be supplied by FID. If FID decides to cease providing service, then it is anticipated that the residential service connection demands would remain as those projected above. Therefore, the projected demands are conservative with regards to residential, commercial, and light industrial irrigation within the UGB. Appendix E - Demand Projections presents estimated demands graphically over the next 20 years for ADD, MDD, and PHD.

A buildout population was estimated based on the zoned residential areas within the City and UGB and the number of units per acre based on the various residential land use zones. The buildout year of 2058 was estimated assuming a 2% growth rate. Commercial and light industrial demand for buildout conditions were estimated using the average annual growth rate calculated between projected demands at the years 2016 and at 2031.

Unaccounted water quantities are unknown at this time due to current problems with the master meters. However, an allowance of 15% based on the annual metered demand was added to the totals. The water system improvement projects currently completed and in process should reduce water losses within the transmission and distribution system. It is also anticipated that master meter data will begin to be collected as more projects are completed in 2013. When the master meters have been installed, the quantity of supply necessary to meet the demand, which includes unaccounted for water quantities, can be determined.

It is impossible to accurately predict the timing or types of development that will occur in the City limits of Hood River. The addition of another food processing plant could greatly affect the City's future water demand. If conservation measures show reduction of average annual water use in the future, or a large water use business is added or deleted from the City's system, then projection of future demands will be revised accordingly.

4.3 Intergovernmental Agreements and Interconnections

The City of Hood River had interconnections in the past that have been both a demand on the system and a source. Ice Fountain Water District, in particular, has had many interties. Over the years many of these interties have been reduced and abandoned. The active interties between the City and the Ice Fountain and Crystal Springs water systems are shown in Figure 3-1: Locations of Interties and Possible Connections. Connection No. 1 is comprised of a vault and can serve water to the City or to Ice Fountain under emergency conditions. Connection No. 2 consists of a vault and can only serve water from the City to Ice Fountain under emergency conditions (low pressure). Connection No. 3 and No. 4 consist of two tees and a gate valve. These interties can only serve water to the City from Ice Fountain. Connection No. 5 is scheduled to come on line this year. It will be able to serve water to both the City and to Ice Fountain. This intertie is to be equipped with a meter and backflow prevention devices. The most recent Intergovernmental Service Agreement between the City of Hood River and the Ice Fountain Water District, dated 2005, provides for either party to provide surplus water to the other in cases of planned outages or emergencies. The City


also has an intertie with the Crystal Springs Water District. The connection between the two water systems was located on the old 14-inch transmission line between the 5 MG reservoir and the spring collectors as shown in Figure 3-1: Locations of Interties and Possible Connections. Currently, connection No.6 is disconnected due to the replacement of the 14-inch line in this area. The City anticipates improving this intertie with a meter and backflow devices and reconnecting this intertie within the year. This intertie can serve both the Crystal Springs system and the City of Hood River water system. An emergency agreement for sale of surplus water permits the City to purchase up to 250 gpm of water.

4.4 Additional Water Supplies in the Next 20 Years

As stated in Section 1.18, the spring collectors and new 24-inch transmission pipeline can provide sufficient supplies through the City’s anticipated buildout conditions, which will occur approximately 45 years from now. The spring source itself has a capacity well beyond even the 45-year projected maximum daily demands. The replacement of the old 14-inch steel transmission pipeline with the 24-inch pipeline has greatly increased its capacity and the reliability of the transmission line. Figure 1-5: 24” Transmission Line Hydraulic Profile shows that with the Dee PRV station providing a minimum of 40 psi back pressure at the high points in the Dee Flats area, the transmission line will still provide approximately 11,665 gpm. The new line will convey the entire water right of 11,000 gpm, which is well beyond the projected 45-year maximum daily demand rate.

Regardless of the capacity available to the City, the City has recognized the importance of having a secondary water source for emergencies that is near the City and is less dependent on the 14-mile transmission line. A redundant source should be able to supply the projected 20-year average daily demand of the system, which is 1.76 mgd. To this effect, the City will begin investigating two alternative sources of water for the City's system. The first is exploring the alternative of two springs located south of the City. The City possesses water rights for Tucker and Hakel Springs. City staff have indicated that the water quality of the springs is pristine. The water rights on the two springs are 1,122 gpm combined, which could provide a portion of the City’s average daily demand in the event of an emergency.

The remaining amount of redundant/emergency source capacity could further be reduced by the use of interties between Ice Fountain and the City. For this to occur, the intertie connections would have to be placed along Ice Fountain’s waterline where significant flows could be delivered to the City’s system, or Ice Fountain’s lines would need to be increased to allow higher flows to the existing intertie locations to accommodate the City’s needed demands. Currently, the interagency agreements between Ice Fountain and the City primarily focus on fire flow needs, and the monetary compensation for any extended use would be quite expensive. In order for interties to be useful as part of the redundant supply for the City, a more equitable interagency agreement between Ice Fountain and the City would need to be developed that would allow for greater volumes and higher flow rates to be secured during an emergency situation.

A third source the City is investigating is the development of a groundwater source. A hydrogeological study will be performed that will estimate the potential of groundwater sources in the area of the Riverdale reservoir. The desire would be to locate a well near the reservoir or transmission pipeline to minimize additional pipeline construction with a source that could meet at least the average daily demand of the system.


If the entire projected 20-year average day demand was to be met with the new groundwater source a new water right of 1.76 mgd would be required. It is hard to predict the level at which the aforementioned water conservation measures could reduce the City’s current water use, but it is estimated that the proposed conservation methods could reduce the City’s water use by as much as 6% (down to 1.65 mgd). If developing a new groundwater source proves to be more feasible than developing the existing springs, it may be found that the water rights for Hakel and Tucker Springs could be converted and transferred to the well location. This would reduce the amount of new water right needed for the groundwater source.

4.5 Projected Schedule for New Water Supply Development

As mentioned above, the City will start work related to determining the feasibility of developing a new source for reliability and redundancy purposes. The studies and work exploring alternative sources will be completed in within the next 5-years.

The OWRD requires that the WMCP provide an estimate of when new water rights will be required for a water system. The City is currently limited to the OWRD’s Final Order Approving Water Management and Conservation Plan, dated January 13, 2004, with an authorized amount of 9 cfs for permits S8387 and S125312. When this is combined with the 3.5 cfs from certificate 14276, the City is authorized to divert up to 12.5 cfs or 5,610 gpm. Therefore, the City would need to be authorized to divert more water when their maximum daily demand reaches this value. The estimated maximum daily demand at buildout conditions is estimated to be 5,244 gpm. A MDD of 5,610 is predicted to occur around the year 2063.

At the central collection area, a combined permitted rate of 24.5 cfs or 10,997 gpm is documented. It would take approximately 75 years (Year 2106) for the City MDD to reach this level based on current projected growth rates for residential, commercial, and industrial use.


Appendix A – Coordinated Planned Growth Scenario

City of Hood River Capital Facilities Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM –T2.1

Coordinated Planned Growth Scenario

TO: Kevin Liburdy Senior Planner City of Hood River

PO Box 27 211 2nd Street

Hood River, OR 97031 Phone: (541) 387-5224 Fax: (541) 387-5222

Mark Lago Director of Public Works City of Hood River

PO Box 27 1200 18th Street

Hood River, OR 97031 Phone: (541) 386-2383 Fax: (541) 387-5222

FROM: Stoner W. Bell, P. E. City of Hood River Engineer Bell Design Company PO Box 308 Bingen, WA 98605 Fax: (509) 493-3885 Phone: (509) 493-3886

DATE: December, 2012

SUBJECT: Coordinated Planned Growth Scenario for Water, Sanitary, and Stormwater Master Plans

PROJECT: Bell Design Project #11B165 – T2.1

Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to establish planning parameters and values to guide the master planning efforts of the water, sanitary, and stormwater master plans. The recommendations and assumptions established in the technical memorandum are intended to provide uniformity and consistency across the three plans in areas concerning population and growth, land use, anticipated development, and system growth.

of 17

The primary planning document adopted by the City is their City of Hood River Comprehensive Plan. The plan was created and adopted in 1980 and states that it purpose was to project growth and the needs of the community through the year 2000. However, the plan has been updated throughout the years. The plan presents fourteen major goals with various policies and implementation strategies that are to be used to guide the city’s development. These goals are very much still applicable to the City in 2012.

Population and Housing Growth and Forecasts Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1980, forecasts of population- and housing growth have been made in association with several planning efforts including the following: 2001 Capital Facilities Plans The average number of persons per household used in the 2001captital facility plans (CFP)s was 2.643. This number was provided by the City of Hood River planning department in 2000. Hood River County Coordinated Population Forecast, 2008-2028: Hood River County commissioned ECONorthwest to prepare a coordinated population forecast for the county which included forecasts for the two cities, Hood River and Cascade Locks, located within the county. The report was finished in October of 2008 and forecasted populations between the years 2008 and 2028. The report’s preferred growth scenario recommended a residential average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 2% for the City of Hood River. This growth rate included growth due to annexation as well as growth within the current city limits. The AAGR outside of the city was determined to be 0.8%. The certified population used for this report was 6,710 from the year 2007. A population of 7,263 was predicted for the year 2011 for the medium growth scenario (2.0% growth rate, preferred scenario) and 7,407 for the high growth scenario (2.5% growth rate). The current population estimate for the City of Hood River, certified as of December 15 2011 is 7,320. This equates to a AAGR between 2007 and 2011 of 2.199%, slightly higher than the 2% rate assumed by the ECONorthwest report. The 2001 master plans assumed a 2.195% growth rate from the year 2000 to 2015 and then a slow growth rate of 2% thereafter. The growth rates used in the plan were provided by the City of Hood River Planning Department. It appears that the short term growth rate assumptions were fairly accurate. 2010 Census Data from the 2010 US census is available for the City of Hood River and Hood River County. The population portion of this data has been revised to reflect annexations and other clerical anomalies by the Portland State University Population Research Center (PSUPRC). The data shows the unincorporated portion of Hood River County grew by an AAGR of 0.433% between 2000 and 2010 and that the City of Hood River grew by an AAGR of 2.103% between 2000 and 2010. During the previous decade the City of Hood River and the unincorporated areas grew by 2.3295 and 1.732% respectively. The US Census Bureau 2010 data showed that the number of housing units in the City of Hood River were 3,473. Of these 32.7% are multi-family units. The census data also shows an average number of persons per household to be 2.45 with the number of households being 2,764 for 2010.

of 17

2011 Transportation System Plan: The City updated their transportation facility plan (TSP) in October of 2011. The plan was prepared by the Oregon State Department of Transportation (ODOT). Planning data in terms of population and dwelling unit forecasts for the City and the urban growth area are presented in the TSP’s Appendix C – Draft Technical Memorandum #2 Future Forecasting and in Appendix D Future Transportation System Needs. The TSP used a growth rate of 2% to project the future populations both within the City and the UGB. The base population for the study was the 2006 population of 6,580. A roof top count from aerial photos was used to estimate the number of dwelling units within the City, 2,927 and in the entire UGB, 3,583. The number of people per dwelling unit in the City was calculated by dividing the 2006 population of 6,580 by 2,927, the number of dwelling units in the City based on roof top counts. This methodology resulted in 2.248 people per dwelling unit, which the report rounds this value to 2.25 people per dwelling unit. However, the first value, 2.248 was used in the TSP’s subsequent calculations. The TSP lists other values used in past studies and reports. The values range as shown in Table 1 – Past References for Persons-Per-Dwelling-Units Estimates. Table 1 - Past References for Persons-Per-Dwelling-Units Estimates Source People/Dwelling Unit Ratio

City of Hood River Goal 10 Study, 1983 2.04

US Census Bureau, 2000 2.20

Hood River Public Facilities Plan, 2001 2.64

Housing Market Analysis, Oregon Downtown Development Association, 2005

2.38

In addition since the TSP was started, other person‐per‐dwelling‐units estimates have been made.

Hood River Coordinated Population Forecast, 2008 2.24

US Census Bureau, 2010 2.45

The TSP calculated at total population of 8,055 for the entire UGB using 2.248 people per dwelling unit value and the roof top count of 3,583 within the entire UGB. This equated to 1,475 people living between the UGB and the city limits in 2006. Table 2 – Comparison of City of Hood River Population Projections compares population estimates for the City of Hood River and its UGA as predicted by the TSP, the Hood River Coordinated Population Forecast (HRCPF) and that proposed for the utility master plans.

of 17

Table 2 – Comparison of City of Hood River Population Projections

Year

TSP

UGA City UGA‐City HRCPF

2% 2% 2% UGA

2006 8,055 6,580 1,475 2%

2007 8,216 6,712 1,505 6,710

2008 8,380 6,846 1,535 6,844 Proposed HR Master Plans

2009 8,548 6,983 1,565 6,981 UGA City UGA‐City

2010 8,719 7,122 1,597 7,121 2% 2% 2%

2011 8,893 7,265 1,629 7,263 8,949 7,320 1,629

2012 9,071 7,410 1,661 7,408 9,127 7,466 1,661

2013 9,253 7,558 1,694 7,557 9,310 7,616 1,694

2014 9,438 7,710 1,728 7,708 9,496 7,768 1,728

2015 9,626 7,864 1,763 7,862 9,686 7,923 1,763

2016 9,819 8,021 1,798 8,019 9,880 8,082 1,798

2017 10,015 8,181 1,834 8,179 10,077 8,244 1,834

2018 10,216 8,345 1,871 8,343 10,279 8,408 1,871

2019 10,420 8,512 1,908 8,510 10,485 8,577 1,908

2020 10,628 8,682 1,946 8,680 10,694 8,748 1,946

2021 10,841 8,856 1,985 8,854 10,908 8,923 1,985

2022 11,058 9,033 2,025 9,031 11,126 9,101 2,025

2023 11,279 9,214 2,065 9,211 11,349 9,284 2,065

2024 11,505 9,398 2,107 9,396 11,576 9,469 2,107

2025 11,735 9,586 2,149 9,584 11,807 9,659 2,149

2026 11,969 9,778 2,192 9,775 12,044 9,852 2,192

2027 12,209 9,973 2,236 9,971 12,284 10,049 2,236

2028 12,453 10,173 2,280 10,170 12,530 10,250 2,280

2029 12,702 10,376 2,326 10,374 12,781 10,455 2,326

2030 12,956 10,584 2,372 10,581 13,036 10,664 2,372

2031 13,215 10,795 2,420 10,793 13,297 10,877 2,420

The Hood River Coordinated Population Forecast recommended using an AAGR of 2.0. The growth projection starts with a slightly adjusted city population for the year of 2007 and forecasts a 2031 UGA population which is very close to the TSP’s projected population for the City. There is some confusion as to how the population forecast starts out with the population for the City of Hood River and ends up projecting the entire UGA’s population from this same number. Three possible scenarios could account for these population forecasts.

1. The forecast is only for the City of Hood River’s population, but accounts for its future growth into the UGA, where growth within the City, outside the City, and the annexing thereof aggregate to an AAGR of 2%, based on the current population of the City only.

2. The forecast is for the entire UGA, but assumes a negligible population outside of the City limits in 2007.

3. There is an error in the methodology.

of 17

The populations shown under the heading Proposed Hood River Master Plans in Table 2 follow the same methodology as the TSP with the exception that the 2011 population for the City of Hood River has been modified to the 2011 population of 7,320 as certified by the Portland State University Population Research Center. This results in a 2031 population of 10,877 within the City and a 2031 population of 13,297 within the entire UGA.

Commercial Growth and Forecasts In 2010 the City of Hood River commissioned the FCS Group to conduct an Economics Opportunities Analysis (EOA) to review and update Goal 9 of the Comprehensive Plan, (Economic Development). The EOA was a collaborative effort between the City, a business related advisory group, citizens and other stakeholders. The plan was completed in 2011 and states that the “Hood River Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) will serve as a basis for the City of Hood River to document and adopt local policies and actions that help make Hood River a “more economically viable” community while maintaining a good quality of life for residents, businesses, and workers.“ The document served several purposes: 1) inventory the available amount of commercial and industrial land, 2) review employment trends and project the number of jobs that are expected to be created in the next 20 years, 3) determine the surplus or shortage of available land currently zoned for these activities, 4) make recommendations for changes within Goal 9 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The report looked at three different employment growth scenarios within the UGA and forecasted employment growth demands. Based on available land within the UGB, the report recommended Scenario B which predicted an employment increase from 2010 to 2031 of 1,786 jobs (See Table 3). For Scenario B, the demand for additional developed employment creating land was predicted and is show in Table 3 - Hood River UGB Employment Growth Forecast Scenarios, 2010 to 2031, Scenario B Table 3 – Hood River UGB Employment Growth Forecast Scenarios, 2010 to 2031, Scenario B Sectors Existing Jobs 2031 New Jobs AAGR

Natural Resources 57 18 1.32%

Retail and Commercial Trades (C2) 2162 530 1.05%

Services (C1) 2610 835 1.33%

Industrial (I/LI) 649 116 0.79%

Government (OS) 275 287 3.46%

Total 5,753 1,786 1.30%

As can be seen the employment growth is anticipated to vary by sector. The average growth over all sectors is anticipated to be around 1.3%

of 17

Table 4 – Hood River UGB Vacant Land Needs by General Land Use Zone Classification - 20 Year Forecast (buildable acres), Scenario B Land Use Classification Acres

Commercial/Retail (C2) 28

Employment/Office (C1) 17

Industrial/Government/Other (I/LI) 16

Total 60

The study found that the City had approximately 111 acres of employment creating land (employment creating land defined as C-1, Office Residential; C-2, General Commercial; LI, Light Industrial; and I, Industrial). Of this area, 60.8 acres were determined to be available for development within five years of the EOA adoption. The only category of commercial land that was found to be lacking was Office Space (C1); the study only found a supply of 0.7 acres resulting in a net need of 16.3 acres. However, the city’s zoning allows office space within General Commercial (C2) areas so this is not considered to be a problem.

Anticipated Areas of Growth and Timing Figure 1 – Planned Urban Growth Scenario shows a predicted commercial and residential growth scenario over the next 20 years within the UGB. The colored shading in Figure 1 indicates the City’s zoning. The UGB as well as the 2012 City limits are shown on the map. Areas where growth is anticipated are indicated with black boundaries. The acreage of each block is also shown on the drawing. Table 5 – Anticipated Sequential Residential Growth by Blocks within the City and the Urban Growth Area shows the details of the predicted residential growth within the City for the next 20 years. The areas of residential growth are listed in the order that their development is anticipated to occur. Blocks 1 through 6 are already developed with lots available for construction. The anticipated cumulative housing growth within the City and within the UGB is tallied in the last few columns. The table also shows the number of residential units that are expected to be developed outside the current city limits but are expected to be annexed in over the planning period. The assumptions used to create this table are as follows. 20% of the area to be developed will be required for roads. An additional 10% of the block areas will occupied with open space or environmental needs (ie. floodplain, critical habitat, steep slopes). The unit density per acre (or square foot as the case may be) used to calculate the number of residential units that are anticipated to be created within a block are per the Hood River Zoning Ordinance. They are as shown in Table 6 – Maximum Number of Residential Units per Unit Area for Build-out Conditions. Table 6 – Maximum Number of Residential Units per Unit Area for Build-out Conditions.

Land Use Classification Number of Units

R1 6.2 per acre

R2 8.7 per acre

R3 2 units for first 5000 sqft 1 unit per each additional 1500 sqft

Table 5 ‐ Anticipated Sequencial Residental Growth by Blocks within the City and Urban Growth Area.

Potential

New Units

Existing Units

within

Development

Area

Existing

Vacant

Lots

Potential

New Units

Existing

Units

within

Developm

ent Area

Existing

Vacant

Lots

1 R1 21 21 21 Vacant Lots North of Pacific Along 3rd Street

2 R3 18 39 39 Vacant Lots Along Mt Rainier LP and Selkirk Lane

3 R2 30 69 69 Vacant Lots South of May Street Between Rocky Road and Ordway Road

4 R1 4 73 73 Vacant Lots Along Nina Lane Area

5 R3 16 89 89 Vacant Lots North of Sherman Ave on Creekside Loop

6 R1 14 89 103 Vacant Lots Along Makena Ln and Ryan Ln

7 R2 12.627 70% 8.8389 8.7 76 2 163 177 Undeveloped R2 Area North of Eliot Drive and East of 5th Street

8 R1 11.017 70% 7.7119 6.2 47 2 208 222 Undevleoped R1 Area North of Indian Creek and East of Avalon Way

9 R1 14.531 70% 10.1717 6.2 63 4 267 281 Undeveloped R1 Area North of May and East of 30th Street

10 R1 5.208 70% 3.6456 6.2 22 2 267 301 Undeveloped R1 Area Between Indian Cliff Rd and Kendal Ln

11 R1 20.121 70% 14.0847 6.2 87 0 354 388 Undeveloped R1 Area North of Sherman and West of Rand Road

12 R1 12.778 70% 8.9446 6.2 55 1 354 442 Undeveloped R1 Area West of Frankton Road and North of Summitview Way

13 R2 3.746 70% 2.6222 8.7 22 3 373 461 Undeveloped R2 Area South of Sherman and West of Rand Road

14 R3 1.251 70% 0.8757 See Note 24 0 397 485 Vacant R3 zoned Lots Between Hazel and Eugene Street, east of 7th Street.

15 R3 1.073 70% 0.7511 See Note 20 0 417 505 Undeveloped R3 Area South of I‐84 and West of 18th Street

16 R3 7.91 70% 5.537 See Note 159 2 574 662 Undeveloped R3 Area North of Sherman and West of Rand Road

17 R1 4 578 666 Vacant Lots Along Elan Ln

18 R1 11.3 70% 7.91 6.2 49 0 627 715 Undeveloped R1 Area Along East Slope of Sieverkropp Area

19 R1 23.47 70% 16.429 6.2 101 3 725 813 Undeveloped R1 Area West of Rocky Road

20 R3 8.578 70% 6.0046 See Note 173 0 898 986 Undeveloped R3 Area East of Mt Adams and North of Sherman Ave

21 R1 9.254 70% 6.4778 6.2 40 2 38 936 1024 Annexation of Undeveloped Area South of Samantha and Rachel Way & North of Indian Creek

22 R1 4.786 70% 3.3502 6.2 20 2 18 954 1042 Annexation of Undeveloped R1 Area East of Rocky Road

23 R1 0 18 972 1042 Annexation of Existing R1 Lots Along Rocky Ridge Court

24 R1 17.895 70% 12.5265 6.2 77 20 57 1029 1099 Annexation of Area East of Frankton Rd and North of May St, Includes W. Prospect Ave

25 R1 17.19 70% 12.033 6.2 74 3 71 1100 1170 Annexation of Undeveloped R1 Area East of Frankton Road and North of Prospect Avenue

26 R1 12.367 70% 8.6569 6.2 53 1 1100 1222 Undeveloped R1 Area West of Frankton Road and North of Summitview Way

27 R2 55.375 70% 38.7625 8.7 337 19 318 1418 1540 Annexation of Undeveloped R2 Area South of May & West of 22nd

28 R1 1.621 70% 1.1347 6.2 7 0 1425 1547 Undeveloped Area South of May Street and West of Rocky Rd.

29 R2 37.064 70% 25.9448 8.7 225 9 1425 1763 Development of Undeveloped R2 Area North and West of Belmont DR.

30 R1 21.000 70% 14.7 6.2 91 1 1515 1853 Development of R1 Area north of May St. across from Rocky Road currently owned by School

31 R1 17.061 70% 11.9427 6.2 74 16 58 1573 1911 Redevelopement of R1 Area East of Frankton Rd and South of May Street

32* R1 14 1573 1925 Infill of Vacant R1 Parcels North of Westcliff Drive

33 R1 3 1573 1928 Vacant R1 Lots in Stone Gate Drive Area

34 R1 5 1573 1933 Vacant R1 Lots South and East of Avalon Drive

35 R2 0 19 1592 1933 Annexation of Existing Developed Area North of Avalon Drive & East of 22nd Street

Note: R3 Density Calculated using 5000 sqft Total for first 2 units and 1500 sqft for each additional unit.

City Limits refers to the 2012 Hood River City Limit Boundary

*For this plannnig period (2011to 2031), Area wide densification (redevelopment) of lots within this are is not anticipated.

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Infill of Existing Parcels

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Already Developed

Block Description of Area Contributing Units

Cumulatiave

Number of

Units w/in UGB

Cumulative

Number of Units

w/in City

Potential

Units to

Be

Annexed

To City

Inside City Limits Outside City Limits

Unit

Density

(Units Per

Acre)

Area

Available

For Units

Percent of

Area

Available

to

Develop

AcresZoning

of 17

It is assumed in this analysis that full build-out of all blocks shown in Figure 1 – Planned Urban Growth Scenario will occur, except for Block 32. Block 32 is an area that lays along the northern portion of the UGB outside the city limits along a bluff overlooking the Columbia River. The area is zoned R1, but the existing parcels in this area are much larger than the allowed density of 6.2 units per acre. This area is not expected to develop to maximum density within the 20 year planning horizon due to utility and environmental constraints. However, there are some vacant parcels that are expected to have housing units built on them over the 20 year planning horizon. This is reflected in Table 5 ‐ Anticipated Sequential Residential Growth by Blocks within the City and Urban Growth Area. . Table 5 also shows the number of residential units that are expected to be developed outside the current city limits but are expected to be annexed into the city over the planning period. Table 7 - Predicted Cumulative Increase in Population and Housing Units 2011 to 2031 shows the predicted increase in population and housing units over the next 20 years. The populations and number of units show for each year are accumulative starting at the year 2011. The increased housing units are calculated using the cumulative population and the person per housing unit ratio of 2.248 used in the TSP. Table 7 - Predicted Cumulative Increase in Population and Housing Units 2011 to 2031

Year UGA City UGA City

Base Population Base Housing Units

2011 8,949 7,320 3,981 3,256

Increase in population

Increase in Housing Units

2012 179 146 80 65

2013 362 296 161 132

2014 548 448 244 199

2015 738 603 328 268

2016 931 762 414 339

2017 1,129 924 502 411

2018 1,331 1,088 592 484

2019 1,536 1,257 683 559

2020 1,746 1,428 777 635

2021 1,960 1,603 872 713

2022 2,178 1,781 969 792

2023 2,400 1,964 1,068 873

2024 2,627 2,149 1,169 956

2025 2,859 2,339 1,272 1,040

2026 3,095 2,532 1,377 1,126

2027 3,336 2,729 1,484 1,214

2028 3,582 2,930 1,593 1,303

2029 3,832 3,135 1,705 1,394

2030 4,088 3,344 1,818 1,487

2031 4,349 3,557 1,934 1,582

of 17

Between 2011 and 2016, 414 new housing units will be added within the UGA of which 339 housing units will be added within the city limits. The population and development predicted would occur around the time that Area 12 is developed. Therefore Areas 1 through 12 are anticipated to develop within the near term (5-year window as defined by DLCD, Division 11-Public Facilities Planning definitions). In the near term, most of the new development will occur within the western portion of the city. However, some additional residential units are anticipated in the south west corner of the city limits and along the northern bank of Indian Creek in Block 8 as shown in Figure 1 - Planned Urban Growth Scenario. For the planning period of 20 years, most of the residential development will occur within the western portion of city limits and the urban growth area. This is shown in also shown in Figure 1 - Planned Urban Growth Scenario. The City of Hood River Planning Department had identified areas where employment producing land development is most likely to occur over the next 20-years. These areas are shown in Figure 1 as Blocks A through L. Table 8 – Areas Available for Development Within the Next 20-Years lists these properties in the order that their development is most likely to occur.

of 17

Table 8 – Areas Available for Development Within the Next 20 Years

Blocks

Employment Producing Areas (Acres)

Zoning Description of Employment Producing Properties

A 8.855 LI Port of Hood River's Lot 1

B 3.975 GC Property lying immediately southeast of I84 exit 62 and just south of Cascade Ave

C 3.876 GC Property lying at the southeast corner of Cascade Ave and Mt Adams

D 15.741 GC Property lying south of Country Club immediately south of I84 exit 62

E 12.666 LI Property lying south of Country Club and southwest of I84 exit 62

F 6.739 GC Redevelopment of Bob Stones Motors and Les Schwab Property north of west Cascade Ave

G 4.343 LI Property immediately west of the intersection of Broken Tee Dr. and Indian Creek Rd.

H 0.71 LI Redevelopment of Old Diamond Fruit Building southwest of I84 exit 63

I 1.998 LI Port of Hood River's Lot immediately Northwest of I84 exit 63

J 5.507 GC Redevelopment of Property on Northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 35 and State Street

K 6.681 GC Development of Property on Northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 35 and State Street.

L 2.14 GC Development of Property on southwest corner of I84 exit 64

Total 73.231

The planning department has identified Blocks A through E as being the most likely to develop within the near term (by year 2016). These areas are show on Figure 1 - Planned Urban Growth Scenario and are located in the Port of Hood River and along the western end of Cascade Avenue. The majority of the rest of the employment producing Blocks will be located in the western portion of the city and UGA and are anticipated to develop with the 20-year planning period. It is projected that the last commercial areas to develop will be within the eastern portion of the UGA, south of the Button Bridge and east of the Hood River. This is primarily due to the high costs associated with serving this area with water and sewer.

Build-out Conditions The total area for each zoning designation within the UGB was measured. These areas include roads, steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive areas within the UGB. Areas within the UGB

of 17

that were not included in these measurements were those areas occupied by the Hood River, Columbia River, Interstate 84, and the Union Pacific Railroad. A similar analysis used to create Table 5 – Anticipated Sequential Residential Growth by Blocks within the City and the Urban Growth Area was employed to estimate the potential build-out population within the City limits and the UGA. The assumptions made were that 70 percent of the gross area would be available for development. Residential unit densities are as per Table 6 – Maximum Number of Residential Units per Unit Area for Build-out Conditions., and the average number of people per housing unit would remain at 2.248. Table 9 - Build-out Residential Units and Population shows the estimated population that would result within the City and UGA using the aforementioned assumptions. Table 9 - Build-out Residential Units and Population

Zoning Designation Gross Area (acres)

Percent of Area

Available for Development

Area Available for Development

(acres)

Residential Unit

Density

Potential Units

Potential Population

Within Current City Limits

Urban Low Density 276.30 70% 193.41 6.2 1,199 2,695

Urban Medium Density 363.74 70% 254.62 8.7 2,215 4,979

Urban High Density 206.60 70% 144.62 See Note 4,198 9,437

Sub‐totals 846.64 7,612 17,111

Within UGA, Outside of Current City Limits

Urban Low Density 358.33 70% 250.83 6.2 1,555 3,496

Urban Medium Density 149.33 70% 104.53 8.7 909 2,043

Sub‐totals 507.67 2,464 5,539

Total 1354.31 10,076 22,650

Note: R3 Density Calculated using 5000 sqft Total for first 2 units and 1500 sqft for each additional unit.

Figure 2 – Build-out Areas shows the number of gross acres for each land use zone inside the City limits and within the UGA. The build-out condition year can be estimated using the 2011 total UGA population estimate of 8,949 and the projected build population of 22,650. Using a AAGR of 2%, the build-out population would be reached in approximately 47 years or in the year 2058. Table 10 – Projected Number of Jobs at Build-out Year (2058) shows the estimated number of jobs resulting from the various commercial, industrial, and public zonings within the City and UGA at the project residential build-out year of 2058.

of 17

Table 10 - Projected Number of Jobs at Build-out Year (2058)

Zoning Designation Gross Area (acres)

Percent of Area

Available for Development

Area Available for Development

(acres)

Projected Growth Rate

Projected Number of Jobs at Build‐out Year

Within Current City Limits

Office Residential 20.86 70% 14.60 1.05% 4,263

General Commercial 284.51 70% 199.16 1.33% 2,879

Industrial 19.23 70% 13.46 0.79% 114

Light Industrial 104.34 70% 73.04 0.79% 619

Open Space/Public Facility 157.96 70% 110.57 3.46% 1,116

Recreational Commercial 17.69 70% 12.38 1.33% 179

Sub‐totals 604.59 423.21 9,170

Within UGA, Outside of Current City Limits

General Commercial 95.50 70% 66.85 1.33% 966

Light Industrial 34.44 70% 24.11 0.79% 204

Open Space/Public Facility 34.81 70% 24.37 3.46% 246

Sub‐totals 164.75 115.33 1,417

Totals 769.34 538.54 10,587

Capital Facility Plan Guidance Analysis Periods: The sanitary and water system shall be evaluated for the following periods:

Current Conditions: 2011 Short Term 2016 Long Term 2031

The stormwater system shall be evaluated for the near term and far term (20 year horizon). Sanitary, Water, and Stormwater Facility Plan Modeling/Analysis Growth Assumptions. Because the sanitary and water system of the City serve areas outside the current city limits and even outside the urban growth area, the number of connections served will not necessarily correlate to the city’s number of housing and commercial units. The modeling/analysis assumptions are summarized in Table 11 – Modeling/Analysis Growth Assumptions.

of 17

Table 11 – Modeling/Analysis Growth Assumptions Service Type Growth Assumptions Location of Growth

Residential Connections Total residential services inside and outside of the City limits but within the UGB will grow at the established city AAGR of 2% and as shown using Table 5 and Table 7.

As show on Figure 1

Multi‐Unit residential Connections

As shown using Table 5 and Table 7

As show on Figure 1

Schools Increase measured schools flows by 2% AAGR

At Existing Locations

Other non‐residential growth rates

As shown using Table 5 and Table 7

As shown on Figure 1.

Growth outside the UGB As per Hood River County Coordinated Population Forecast 0.8%

Everywhere outside UGA

Other Utility Specific Considerations: Sanitary Sewer: Assume the area served within the Windmaster Corner area and outside the UGB will have connections grow at a rate so that the residential area will be completely served by 2031. Also assume that the Windmaster Corner industrial/commercial area will also be served by 2031. Also assume that no zoning changes will occur within this area that would allow increases in parcel densities. The final Indian Creek Pump Station Engineering preliminary engineering report completed by Berger/Abam, dated June 2012,will be consulted for sizing and flow assumptions. Water System No new connections will occur outside the UGB. Build-Out Conditions When considering improvements that involve facilities with life expectancies beyond 60 years and that serve more than a local area or basin, consider the build-out conditions, when making a final determination on size of the facility (i.e. pipe diameter). The intent of this directive is to attempt to prevent new facilities from becoming overcapacity before the end of their useful life expectancies. For facility serving most of the City, simply increasing the flow components by the values shown in Table 12 – Build-out Flow Scaling Factors should be sufficient to evaluate if the facility is of sufficient size to handle build-out conditions. Table 12 – Build-out Flow Scaling Factors

Flow Type Improvement Trigger Year

2011 2016 2031

Residential1 2.54 2.30 1.71

Non‐Residential2 1.84 1.72 1.42

1Residential factors were determined using 2% flow increase to the year 2058. 2Non-residential factors were determined using the average 1.3% flow increase to the year 2058.

of 17

For improvement in the western portion of the City and the UGA, professional engineering judgment should be used to decide how to evaluate build-out conditions on flows and long term facility capacity. A short summary addressing the predicted effect of build out conditions on the proposed improvement should be included with the description of the deficiency or need for the project.

of 17

Figures

Appendix B – Customer Type Characteristics

2011 Number of Service Connections and ERU

Number

of Active

Accounts

Location Type

Yearly

Volume

(gallons)

Percent

of Total

Flow

Percent of

Single

Family

Residential

Flows

Flow per

Connection

per Year

(gallons)

ERU

Based

on

Annual

Use

ERU per

Connection

78 City Apartment, Condo 39,516,000 8.19% 20.07% 506,615 497.4 6.4

3 City Bed & Breakfast 307,000 0.06% 0.16% 102,333 3.9 1.3

2 City Car Wash 2,379,000 0.49% 1.21% 1,189,500 29.9 15.0

18 City Church 1,416,000 0.29% 0.72% 78,667 17.8 1.0

143 City Commercial 37,980,000 7.87% 19.29% 265,594 478.1 3.3

24 City Doctor 3,427,000 0.71% 1.74% 142,792 43.1 1.8

2 City Funeral Home 469,000 0.10% 0.24% 234,500 5.9 3.0

5 City Gas Station 1,860,000 0.39% 0.94% 372,000 23.4 4.7

2 City Hospital 15,510,000 3.22% 7.88% 7,755,000 195.2 97.6

6 City Hotel & Motel 6,336,000 1.31% 3.22% 1,056,000 79.8 13.3

2478 City House 196,852,000 40.81% 100.00% 79,440 2,478.0 1.0

6 City Industrial 27,264,000 5.65% 13.85% 4,544,000 343.2 57.2

86 City Irrigation 46,420,000 9.62% 23.58% 539,767 584.3 6.8

3 City Laundromat 3,696,000 0.77% 1.88% 1,232,000 46.5 15.5

36 City Restaurant 22,623,000 4.69% 11.49% 628,417 284.8 7.9

7 City School 3,489,000 0.72% 1.77% 498,429 43.9 6.3

1 City Trailer Park 3,590,000 0.74% 1.82% 3,590,000 45.2 45.2

2 City Treatment Plant 50,380,000 10.45% 25.59% 25,190,000 634.2 317.1

4 City Warehouse 107,000 0.02% 0.05% 26,750 1.3 0.3

3 Rural Commercial 1,770,000 0.37% 590,000 22.3 7.4

119 Rural House 15,886,000 3.29% 133,496 200.0 1.7

1 Rural Trailer Park 1,040,000 0.22% 1,040,000 13.1 13.1

3,029 Totals 482,317,000 100% 6,071.5

1999 Number of Service Connections and ERU (previous WMCP)

Number of Active Accounts

Location Type Yearly Volume (Gallons)

Percent of Single Family

Residential Flows

Flow Per Connection Per Year (Gallons)

ERU Based on

Annual Use

ERU Per

Connection

117 City Apartment, Condo, 49,034,000 32.91% 419,094 494.9 4.2

2 City Bakery 77,000 0.05% 38,500 0.8 0.4

6 City Bed & Breakfast 877,000 0.59% 146,167 8.9 1.5

2 City Car Wash 1,380,000 0.93% 690,000 13.9 7.0

19 City Church 3,326,000 2.23% 175,053 33.6 1.8

187 City Commercial 38,258,000 25.67% 204,588 386.1 2.1

23 City Doctor 4,049,000 2.72% 176,043 40.9 1.8

3 City Hospital 5,708,000 3.83% 1,902,667 57.6 19.2

1 City Funeral Home 317,000 0.21% 317,000 3.2 3.2

5 City Gas Station 1,475,000 0.99% 295,000 14.9 3.0

3 City Hotel & Motel 1,129,000 0.76% 376,333 11.4 3.8

1504 City House 149,015,600 100.00% 99,080 1504.0 1.0

10 City Industrial 21,139,000 14.19% 2,113,900 213.4 21.3

60 City Irrigation 27,399,000 18.39% 456,650 276.5 4.6

3 City Laundromat 4,013,000 2.69% 1,337,667 40.5 13.5

36 City Restaurant 36,445,000 24.46% 1,012,361 367.8 10.2

4 City School 2,455,000 1.65% 613,750 24.8 6.2

3 City Trailer Park 8,569,000 5.75% 2,856,333 86.5 28.8

3 City Treatment Plant 7,853,300 5.27% 2,617,767 79.3 26.4

2 City Warehouse 74,000 0.05% 37,000 0.7 0.4

1 Rural Apartment, Condo, 213,000 213,000 2.1 2.1

5 Rural Commercial 2,535,000 507,000 25.6 5.1

138 Rural House 18,638,600 135,062 188.1 1.4

1 Rural Irrigation 18,000 18,000 0.2 0.2

1 Rural School 210,000 210,000 2.1 2.1

2139 Totals Totals 384,207,500 3877.8

Appendix C – Oregon Municipality’s Water Consumption per Capita

City Population

Total Amount of Water Treated in 2008 (MG)

Calculated Average Daily Demand (gpcd)

Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24 hour Period (MG)

Treated Water Storage (MG)

Untreated Water Storage (MG)

Detroit 92 30 893 0.24 0.2 0.2 Richland 150 30 548 0.4 0.33 0.33 Burns 2,664 503 517 3

Ontario 10,991 2,069 516 9.8 10.75 10.75 Bay City 1,265 225 487 1.33 1.4 1.4 Warrenton 4,448 693 427 3.16 5.1 5.1

Klamath Falls 19,462 2,910 410 18.1 16.4 16.4 Elgin 1,730 228 361 0 1.75 Arlington 650 85 358 0.58 1.3 1.3

Medford 76,300 9,762 351 56 36.42 36.42 Sisters 1,875 212 310 1.6 1.6 Heppner 1,420 159 307 0.86 1.35 1.35

Cannon Beach 1,650 183 304 0.74 2.63 2.63 Echo 715 72 276 0.54 0.35 0.35 Joseph 1,105 107 265 1.44 1.3 1.3

The Dalles 11,500 1,100 262 7 17 17 Westfir 325 29 244 0.19 0.25 0.25 Dayton 2,500 218 239 0.58 2.27 2.27

Malin 805 70 238 0.8 0.45 0.45 Butte Falls 450 39 237 0.37 0.75 0.75 Powers 730 63 236 0.35 0.47 0.47

Toledo 3,612 310 235 1.57 2.3 2.3 Astoria 9,851 845 235 3.78 26 26 Rockaway Beach 1,350 115 233 1 3.3 3.3

Seaside 6,100 485 218 2.47 6.5 6.5 Idanha 227 18 217 0.25 0.3 0.3 Reedsport 4,593 358 214 1.8 3.31 3.31

Carlton 1,755 134 209 0.6 1.58 1.58 Garibaldi 881 67 208 0.52 0.52 Hillsboro 66,226 4,940 204 26.18 32.7 32.7

Yachats 780 56 197 0.5 1.25 1.25 John Day 1,845 131 195 20.33 2.41 2.41 Salem 154,510 10,310 183 47.1 137 137

Bandon 3,300 218 181 1 3 3 Oakland 954 63 181 0.31 1 1 Portland 550,000 36,000 179 162 300 10,000.00

Rufus 214 14 179 0.19 0.4 0.4 Dallas 15,360 996 178 5.73 8.13 8.13 Yoncalla 1,115 70 172 0.72 0.72

Banks 1,435 90 172 0.2 1.57 1.57 Lake Oswego 33,800 2,067 168 14.96 27 27 Albany 48,770 2,975 167 16.5 19.1 19.1

Grants Pass 33,217 1,998 165 13.93 19 19 Creswell 5,058 303 164 2 4.3 4.3 Brookings 6,465 386 164 2.05 3.77 3.77

Silverton 9,649 563 160 2.8 4.5 4.5 Amity 1,480 84 155 0.3 1 1 Ashland 21,800 1,197 150 6.8 6.5 6.5

City Population






Glendale 955 51 146 0.21 1 1 Monmouth 9,565 500 143 1.5 5 5

Sheridan 6,020 306 139 1.4 4.08 4.08 Corvallis 54,880 2,770 138 16 23 23 Brownsville 1,755 87 136 0.63 1.3 1.3

Vale 2,000 98 134 9.68 1.35 1.35 Port Orford 1,275 60 129 0.39 1 1 Sandy 8,823 410 127 2.46 3.75 3.75

Mill City 1,680 73 119 0.18 1.25 1.25 Sweet Home 9,045 389 118 0 4.58 4.58 Myrtle Point 2,541 108 116 0.57 3 3

Newberg 22,953 975 116 6.07 12 12 Scio 783 33 115 0.15 0.5 0.5 Waldport 2,145 90 115 350 2.3 2.3

Florence 9,410 385 112 1.99 4.5 4.5 Jefferson 3,085 123 109 0.82 1.75 1.75 Molalla 7,590 301 109 2.2 3.2 3.2

Philomath 4,610 182 108 1.16 1.25 1.25 Beaverton 60,000 2,274 104 1.7 38.25 38.25 Lincoln City 17,260 646 103 3.04 7.25 7.25

Rogue River 2,185 77 97 0.74 0.75 0 Lowell 950 28 81 0.31 0.5 0.5 Falls City 965 28 79 0.65 0.8 0.8

Dayville 175 5 78 0.03 0.13 0.13 Halsey 840 22 72 0.17 0.75 0.75 Gervais & Willamina 2,406 63 72 0.42 0.35 0.35

Lafayette 3,925 97 68 0.69 0.5 0.5 Junction City 5,345 105 54 3.6 2.8 2.8 Columbia City 1,975 27 37 0.14 1.4 1.4

West Linn 25,236 220 24 19.8 5.5 5.5 Fairview 8,000 3 1 1.8 6.3 6.3 Hermiston 15,297 2 0 10 7.01 7.01

Roseburg 21,235 2 0 9.39 10.7 10.7 Redmond 25,000 2 0 12.4 10 10 Cave Junction 1,730 0 2.5 2.5

Condon 795 0 0.03 0.03 Coos Bay 16,670 0 Cornelius 11,464 0 1.5 1.5

Culver 1,325 0 Damascus 12,851 0 0 Dunes City 1,467 0

Gaston 610 0 1.33 1.33 Gold Hill 1,100 0 0.95 0.95 Gresham 101,221 0 11.95 27.25 27.25

Haines 435 0 0.01 0.01 Halfway 355 0 Happy Valley 12,643 0 0

Imbler 283 0 Independence 9,375 0 2 3 3 Ione 314 0

Island City 995 0

City Population






Johnson City 600 0 Jordan Valley 240 0

La Grande 12,682 0 8.5 11.5 11.5 Lakeside 1,560 0 Lexington 260 0

Lyons 1,150 0 Madras 6,640 0 Merrill 869 0

Myrtle Creek 3,665 0 1.5 1.5 North Bend 9,636 0 North Plains 1,905 0 1 1

Rivergrove 345 0 Seneca 183 0 Shady Cove 2,850 0

Sherwood 16,450 0 9.5 9.5 Spray 140 0 Springfield 57,320 0

Stanfield 2,100 0 Stayton 7,800 0 5.4 5.4 Sublimity 2,285 0 1.5 2 2

Tualatin 26,040 0 13 13 Turner 1,730 0 0.5 0.5 Ukiah 249 0

Union 1,954 0 1.2 0.75 0.75 Waterloo 239 0 Weston 745 0

Winston 5,800 0 Yamhill 965 0 0.53 1 1

Appendix D – City of Hood River Water Rates

Resolution 2011 - 24

(A Resolution Setting Revised Water Service Rates) WHEREAS, Title 12 of the Hood River Municipal Code provides for the establishment of water rates and charges to provide for use, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the water system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hood River City Council that:

The water service rates set forth in the attached Exhibit A shall be effective October 1, 2011. Approved by the Hood River City Council this 27 day of June, 2011 to take effect October 1, 2011. ___________________________ Arthur Babitz, Mayor _____________________________ Jennifer Gray, City Recorder

EXHIBIT A

WATER CHARGES (12.01.030) Monthly meter fee is:

Meter Size Fee

¾” $28.74

1 “ $48.86

1 ½” $86.23

2” $154.32

3” $307.52

4” $479.93

6” $957.04

Residential only meter fee includes the first 5,000 gallons used per billing period. Residential water commodity charge is $1.78 per 1,000 gallons used per billing period thereafter. Other than residential, commodity charge is $1.78 per 1,000 gallons used per billing period

Appendix E – Demand Projections

3 800

4,000

4,200

4,400

4,600

4,800

5,000

5,200

5,400

5,600

5,800

1 200 000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

1,800,000

1,900,000

2,000,000

2,100,000

2,200,000

and Peak

Hour Deman

d (gpm)

ge Day Deman

d (gpd)

Projected Total System Demands

ADD (gpd)

MDD (gpm)

PHD (gpm)

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

3,800

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033

Maxim

um Day

Averag

Year

000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

y an

d Peak

Hour Deman

d (gpm)

age Day Deman

d (gpd)

Projected Total System Demands to Current Permtted Rate (12.5‐cfs)(9‐cfs from Permits S8387 and S125312)

ADD (gpd)

MDD (gpm)

PHD (gpm)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

‐

500,000

1,000,000

Maxim

um Day

Avera

Year

800 000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

lons per Day

Projected Average Day Demands within UGA

School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

Gall

Year

1 000 000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

llons per Day

Projected Average Day Demands within UGA With Unaccounted Water

Unaccounted Water (15% ADD Est)

School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gal

Year

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

s per Minute

Projected Maximum Day Demands within UGA

School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gallon

Year

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

s per Minute

Projected Maximum Day Demands within UGA With Unaccounted Water


School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gallon

Year

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

s per Minute

Projected Peak Hour Demands within UGA

School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

1,000

2,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gallon

Year

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

s per Minute

Projected Peak Hour Demands within UGA With Unaccounted Water


School

Treatment Plant

Industrial/LI

Commercial

Residential

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Gallon

Year

Water Management and Conservation Plan with OWRD...

Documents

Transcript of Water Management and Conservation Plan with OWRD...