Document Murray_doc_8c6effad9e

Murray City Water Master Plan Prepared for: Murray City 4646 South 500 West Murray, Utah 84123 Prepared by: Bowen, Collins & Associates 756 East 12200 South Draper, Utah 84020 September 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WATER MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES i MURRAY CITY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ES-1 Introduction Supply and Demand Water Distribution System Peak Day Demand Peak Hour Demand Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Pipe Condition Water Distribution System Improvements Operational Budget Recommendations Chapter 1 – Introduction Introduction Scope of Services Additional Study Chapter 2 – Demand Projections Service Area Population Historic Water Use Peaking Factors Existing and Future Conditions Chapter 3 – Existing Water System Storage and Pumping Facilities Distribution Facilities Water Production and Metering Chapter 4 – Supply and Storage Evaluation Source Capacity Annual Supply Peak Day Source Capacity Peak Hour Transmission/Boosting Capacity Storage Equalization Storage Fire Suppression Storage Emergency Storage Conclusions and Recommendations Annual Supply Peak Day Supply Peak Hour Supply ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WATER MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ii MURRAY CITY Table of Contents (continued) Page Storage Emergency Storage Chapter 5 – Hydraulic Modeling Development Evaluation Water System Model Chapter 6 – Distribution System Evaluation Operating Criteria 2010 Development Conditions Peak Hour Demand Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow 2100 Development Conditions Peak Day Demand Peak Hour Demand Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Reported Deficiencies Pipe Breaks Operational Deficiencies Pressure Zone Inter-Connection Chapter 7 – Recommended System Improvements Pipe Replacement Costs Pipe Improvements Aging Pipelines Four-inch Pipelines and Hydrants Fire Flow Improvements Replace Steel Pipelines and Other Corroded Pipes Transmission Storage Facilities Other Improvements Conclusions ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WATER MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES iii MURRAY CITY Table of Contents (continued) TABLES Table No. Title Page No. ES-1 Water Demands for 2010 and 2100 Development Conditions ES-2 One-time Project and System Study Costs ES-3 Annual Water System Budget Recommendations 2-1 Estimated Murray City Water Service Area Population 2-2 Annual Murray City Water Production 2-3 Murray City Historic Water Use 2-4 Water Demand for Existing and Future Conditions 3-1 Murray City Water Rights 3-2 Murray City Water System Wells 3-3 Murray City Water System Storage Facilities 3-4 Booster Pumps at Reservoirs 3-5 Well and Booster Pump Control Settings 3-6 Murray City Pressure Reducing Valves 3-7 Murray City Pipe 4-1 Estimated Production – Murray City Dry and Average Water Years 4-2 Peak Day PDD Supply and Demand 4-3 Transmission/Pumping Capacity vs. Peak Hour Demand 4-4 Murray City Storage Requirements 4-5 Murray City Auxiliary Powered Source Capacity 5-1 Hazen-William Coefficients Utilized in the Hydraulic Computer Model 5-2 2008 Peak Day Recorded Pressures vs. Hydraulic Model Simulated Pressures 6-1 Low Available Fire Flow Neighborhoods 6-2 Recommended PRV Settings 7-1 Prioritization of Recommended Pipe Replacement Projects 7-2 Murray City Storage Replacement Costs 7-3 One-time Project and System Study Costs 7-3 Annual Water System Budget Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WATER MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES iv MURRAY CITY Table of Contents (continued) FIGURES Figure No. Title After Page No. ES-1 2100 Peak Hour Demand – Existing Facilities ES-2 2100 Peak Day Demand – Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow at 25 psi ES-3 Recommended Pipe Improvement Sizes ES-4 Recommended Pipe Improvement Type ES-5 Recommended Pipe Improvement Priority 2-1 Murray City Water Service Providers and Existing Land Use 2-2 Population Growth Curve 2-3 Murray Population Projection 2-4 Murray City Future Land Use 2-5 Average Day Demand and Annual Precipitation 2-6 Average Day Demand and Cooling Degree Days 2-7 2008 Peak Day Demand 2-8 Murray Annual Demand 3-1 Murray City Existing Water System Facilities 3-2 Murray City Water System Schematic 3-3 Proportion of Water Volume Sold to Volume Produced 4-1 Murray Annual Water Supply (Dry Year) 4-2 Murray Peak Day Production (Dry Year) 4-3 Murray Peak Hour Production (Dry Year) 5-1 Future Areas of Growth 5-2 Murray City Reported PRV Pressure Settings 5-3 2008 Simulated Peak Day Demand 5-4 2008 Simulated Peak Hour Demand 5-5 Hydraulic Model “Existing” Model PRV/Pressure Settings 6-1 2010 Peak Hour Demand – Existing Facilities 6-2 2010 Peak Day Demand – Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow 6-3 2100 Peak Hour Demand – Existing Facilities 6-4 2100 Peak Day Demand – Existing Facilities 6-5 2100 Peak Day Demand – Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow 6-6 2100 Peak Day Demand – Existing Facilities Power Failure – Available Fire Flow 6-7 Waterline Breaks and Pipe Age ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WATER MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES v MURRAY CITY Table of Contents (continued) FIGURES Figure No. Title After Page No. 7-1 Recommended Pipe Improvement Sizes 7-2 Recommended Pipe Improvement Type 7-3 System Pipe Improvement Priority 7-4 Fire Hydrant Coverage ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-1 MURRAY CITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Murray City retained Bowen, Collins and Associates (BC&A) to prepare a water system master plan to help plan for needed water system improvements in the City’s current water system service area. Most of the master planning work was associated with the following two tasks: • Evaluating the adequacy of existing water sources to meet projected Murray City water demands. • Evaluating the water distribution system capacity to meet desired operating criteria under various water demand conditions fire flows during peak day demand). SUPPLY AND DEMAND Since implementing a new water rate schedule in 2003, Murray City has made significant progress in encouraging its customers to conserve water. The average day demands between 2003 and 2008 were collectively 21 percent lower than the City’s 2000 average day demand. Continuing the successful water conservation efforts is crucial to ensure that Murray City water sources can meet projected future water demands as summarized in Table ES-1. Table ES-1 Water Demands for 2010 and 2100 Development Conditions 2010 2100 Total Annual Water Use mg 3,725 3,560 Service Area Population 37,974 45,367 Average Day Demand (ADD) mgd 10.21 9.75 gpm 7,087 6,774 gpcd 269 215 Peak Day Demand (PDD) mgd 25.04 29.91 gpm 17,388 20,772 gpcd 659 659 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) mgd 34.84 41.62 gpm 24,191 28,901 gpcd 917 917 mg = million gallons mgd = million gallons per day gpm = gallons per minute gpcd = gallons per capita per day Although the population of the Murray City water system service area is projected to increase to approximately 45,000 people, average day demands (average water use over the entire year) are expected to decline as a result of conservation and construction of higher density developments with lower outdoor irrigation requirements. The projected demands presented in Table ES-1 were developed assuming that per capita water use (as measured in the year 2000) is reduced by ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-2 MURRAY CITY 25% by the year 2050. Despite this reduction in projected average day demands, peak day demands (highest water use in one day during the year) and peak hour demands (highest water use in one hour on the peak day) are projected to increase. These demands are projected to increase because conservation efforts may not affect outdoor water use patterns as much during the hottest days of the year. Water for the water system in Murray City’s service area is supplied by 7 springs and 19 wells. These sources currently have adequate capacity to meet the projected future demands assuming that all sources are operating. However, in planning for needed system water source capacity, it is important to consider the potential of mechanical failure, equipment maintenance, source contamination, as well as the potential for unforeseen changes in zoning that could include new large water users. To account for these possibilities, it is Murray City’s goal to meet projected peak day water demand with a 30 percent water source reserve. Based on this planning criterion, Murray City does not have sufficient source reserve. The following recommendations are needed to satisfy Murray City’s water supply reserve requirement: • Conservation – Murray City should continue developing and implementing conservation efforts. Money should be included in the annual water system budget to promote water conservation in an effort to meet conservation goals. • Data Collection Improvements – The effects of conservation may only be tracked through accurate documentation of total and peak water use. Murray City should make modifications to the data parameters collected by its existing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to document annual peak day and peak hourly its water use and production to make it possible to accurately track water use patterns and confirm that the desired conservation goals are being met. • Increase Source Capacity – Murray City collectively owns enough water rights to meet projected source requirements, but existing well and equipment capacities should be increased by at least 2.1 mgd to satisfy the desired source capacity requirements. The recommended first step in accomplishing this goal is to conduct a Well Investigation Study to determine which of Murray City’s wells have the best potential for increasing production capacity. Some wells will likely have to be rehabilitated or reconstructed to attain the 2.1 mgd increase in source capacity. The static water levels in all wells should be closely monitored to ensure that annual withdrawals are sustainable by the aquifer. • Protect/Maintain Existing Sources o Well Maintenance Budget – As part of the Well Investigation Study, an annual Well Maintenance Budget should be established for use in a proactive well and pump maintenance program to keep pumps and motors in good operating condition and to keep wells operating in a hydraulically efficient manner. This program should significantly reduce unplanned failures. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-3 MURRAY CITY o McGhie Springs Earthquake Protection – A seismic study should be completed to identify improvements that are needed to protect existing McGhie Spring’s facilities from failing during an earthquake. o Whitmore West Auxiliary Power – Auxiliary power at Whitmore West should be installed to provide a water source to the City’s primary storage tank in the event of an extended power outage. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A hydraulic model of Murray City’s water distribution system was developed using Murray City pipe, source, production, and water meter sales data. The model was used to simulate several demand scenarios for 2010 and 2100 Development conditions. Model results were used to identify potential water distribution system improvements for the following conditions: • Peak Day Demand • Peak Hour Demand • Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Peak Day Demand Under Peak Day Demand for both 2010 and 2100 conditions, Murray City’s distribution system is capable of delivering water while maintaining a minimum operating pressure in the system of 50 psi (Murray City’s desired pressure requirement). Peak Hour Demand During Peak Hour Demand conditions for 2010 and 2100, the hydraulic model indicates that operating pressures in some parts of Murray drop below Murray City’s desired 50 psi operating criterion between the hours of 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. However, operating pressures in most areas in the system remain above the State of Utah minimum requirement of 30 psi. One exception to this is at a high point in the system west of the Jordan River on Winchester Blvd (currently undeveloped). During 2100 development conditions, model pressures at this point drop below 30 psi during the projected peak hour demand, as shown in Figure ES-1 (all figures are located at the end of this section). Because there are no pressure records at this location and for some other parts of the water system, Murray City personnel should verify these model simulation results during the 2010 high water demand periods to determine if this area is experiencing problems with low operating pressures. This can easily be done with a computerized water pressure data logger. Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow The State of Utah requires water distribution systems to meet fire flow requirements with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. Murray City desires its water distribution system to meet required fire flows with a residual pressure of at least 25 psi. The required fire flow for most ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well Reservoir Well Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well McGhie Springs/Well U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure ES-1 2100 Peak Hour Demand - Existing Facilities 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions Pressure (psi) <30.0 30.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 ÍÎ $ ³ Pressure Reducing Valve Murray Source U T Murray Reservoirs Water Mains Size (in) 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" I-215 I-15 Beginning of Upper System (see panel below) Continuation of Upper System (from panel above) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-4 MURRAY CITY areas in Murray City is 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The Murray City fire department has identified some special fire flow areas where the required fire flow is higher than 1,500 gpm. Figure ES-2 shows available fire flows in Murray City under 2100 development conditions in the left panel. Areas with available fire flows less than 1,500 gpm are identified in orange, red, and black. As Figure ES-2 indicates, most of the model nodes with available fire flows less than 1,500 gpm are located at the end of dead-end lines. Special Fire Flow Areas identified by the Murray City fire department are identified in the right panel. Those areas are primarily schools or large, multi-story wood-framed buildings. Areas where improvements are needed are shown in red. Pipe Condition In addition to hydraulic model results, pipe condition information that was collected and provided by Murray City personnel was also considered in identifying potential water distribution system improvements. Pipes with a history of waterline breaks or the potential for waterline breaks based on their age and material were identified and evaluated while developing the list of recommended water distribution system improvements. Water Distribution System Improvements Figures ES-3 through ES-5 show potential water distribution system improvements based on deficiencies identified in the model in the above scenarios. Figure ES-3 indicates the locations and sizes of pipe improvements. Figure ES-4 shows the primary reason for the improvements. Figure ES-5 presents a prioritization of the recommended improvements based on a number of factors including: potential damage that could result from a pipe break, potential for improving fire flows, potential for increasing peak demand water pressures, proximity to schools or hospitals, the age and material of the pipe. Because it is important to coordinate pipe construction projects with road reconstruction projects, the implementation of the prioritized pipeline improvement projects shown in Figure ES-5 may vary as funds become available for road projects. • Pipe Improvements – It is recommended that Murray City implement pipe improvements as shown in Figures ES-3 through ES-5 to address hydraulic and condition deficiencies as funds become available. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Other recommendations that Murray City should consider to improve its system operations include the following: • Corrosion Study – Because most of Murray City’s pipes are greater than 30 years old, a Corrosion Study should be conducted to determine which areas of the city are most susceptible to accelerated pipe corrosion. The information from that study would be helpful in approximating the remaining service life of metallic pipes and allow for better and more accurate planning for replacement pipes. ---PAGE BREAK--- REQ=3500 Q = 992 REQ=2375 Q = 1736 REQ=4750 Q = 3632 REQ=4000 Q = 3278 REQ=3500 Q = 2823 REQ=6750 Q = 3294 REQ=5000 Q = 3443 REQ=2500 Q = 1490 REQ=4750 Q = 3122 REQ=6000 Q = 4485 REQ=3375 Q = 2233 REQ=8000 Q = 2500 REQ=8000 Q = 5124 REQ=3000 Q = 2337 REQ=7000 Q = 2495 REQ=2000 Q = 1170 REQ=4750 Q = 1026 REQ=3500 Q = 1709 REQ=3375 Q = 1314 REQ=3500 Q = 2129 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine ³ Figure ES-2 2100 Peak Day Demand - Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow at 25 psi 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City REQ = 2000 Label Q = 2500 Required Fire Flow Available Fire Flow Junctions Available Fire Flow (gpm) <500.0 500.1 - 1000.0 1000.1 - 1500.0 1500.1 - 3000.0 >3000.0 Water Mains SIZE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" Legend Special Fire Flow Areas FAIL PASS ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 ³ Figure ES-3 Recommended Pipe Improvement Sizes 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\FigES-3-Improvements.mxd Legend Existing Pipes Water Source Pipe Improvements SIZE 8" 10" 12" 16" 20" ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 ³ Figure ES-4 Recommended Pipe Improvement Type 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\FigES-4-Improvements.mxd Legend Existing Pipes Water Source Primary Reason for Improvement 4-inch (under-sized) Pipe Breaks (pipe condition) Dead End Fire Flow Operational Steel (corrosion/material) Transmission (capacity) ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 3 37 23 14 6 29 2 34 9 41 58 25 7 40 5 28 33 11 19 8 38 10 46 13 20 31 4 18 55 22 30 39 43 49 54 50 21 35 57 27 45 52 44 48 51 12 59 32 63 64 47 24 15 61 72 69 74 73 36 66 76 65 53 71 16 67 75 62 68 17 56 1 70 14 ³ Figure ES-5 Recommended Pipe Improvement Priority 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\FigES-5-Improvements.mxd Legend Existing Pipes Water Source NOTE: Each Project is identified with a different color and labeled with its recommended priority ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-5 MURRAY CITY • Water Meter Replacement Budget – Most of Murray City’s water meters are greater than 25 years old. A meter replacement program was recently implemented. That program should be continued until all old meters have been replaced. The new meters should significantly reduce metering errors which will aid in encouraging conservation and help reduce lost revenues associated with inaccuracies of old meters. • Power Generation Study – Because of the large amount of elevation difference between Murray City’s service area and some of its sources, there may be potential for a power generation facility on Murray City’s transmission mains. A study should be conducted to determine the feasibility of such a power generation facility. • Water Rate Study – Murray City should complete a new water rate study to determine if any rate changes are needed properly fund system operations and the recommended water system capital improvements plan. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the recommendations listed above, it is recommended that Murray City allocate funds for system improvements as presented in Tables ES-2 and ES-3. Table ES-2 One-time Water System Project and Study Costs Project Description Estimated Cost SCADA Improvements Perform required programming to improve data collection and control. $80,000 Well Investigation Study Study to determine which Wells are most suitable for rehabilitation based on age, water quality, etc. $7,000 Well Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of Wells identified from the Well Investigation Study. $200,000 McGhie Springs Study1 Study to stabilize McGhie Springs facilities against earthquake damage. $30,000 Whitmore Backup Power Backup power to supply Whitmore West Well in the event of a power failure. $200,000 Corrosion Study Study to determine which areas of Murray require additional corrosion protection. $75,000 Power Generation Study1 Study to investigate the potential of adding a generation facility(s) on Murray City transmission mains. $25,000 Water Rate Study Study to determine adequate rates required to accommodate system improvements. $10,000 Total $627,000 1 – Does not include engineering and construction costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES ES-6 MURRAY CITY Table ES-3 Annual Water System Budget Recommendations Type Description Estimated Cost Conservation Budget1 The annual cost of promoting conservation programs $40,000 Well Maintenance Program1 Annual cost that should be budgeted for maintaining Murray City wells, pumps, and motors $130,000 Water Meter Replacement The annual cost that should be budgeted for replacing old water meters $30,000 Pipe Replacement Annual cost that should be budgeted for pipe replacement based on an average pipe design life of 100-years $1,300,000 Future Master Plan Updates The annual cost that should be budgeted for master plan updates $10,000 Total2 $1,510,000 1 – May need to be adjusted to meet Murray City goals. 2 – 2009 Dollars. Should be adjusted annually to account for inflation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 1-1 MURRAY CITY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In 1999, Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) completed a Water System Master Plan for Murray City (City). Since that time, Murray City has completed multiple projects to improve its water system facilities based on recommendations from the 1999 Water System Master Plan report. The purpose of this study is to identify needed improvements based on updates or changes to the City’s existing water system facilities and General Plan. Recommendations from this report will assist City officials in planning to meet future water system needs. SCOPE OF SERVICES The major tasks completed while conducting this study are identified below: 1. Collect and organize available data needed to develop an updated hydraulic computer model of the City’s existing water distribution system. 2. Update estimates of water system demands for projected full build-out conditions in Murray City. 3. Identify existing and projected future water system deficiencies. 4. Evaluate alternative system improvements that would resolve identified water system deficiencies. 5. Identify recommended water system capital improvement projects and develop cost estimates for the recommended improvements. 6. Develop a water system capital improvements plan for budgeting and planning purposes. Subsequent chapters of this report document the results of each of these tasks. ADDITIONAL STUDY This master plan report is a working document. Some of the recommendations included in this report are based on the assumption that development will occur in a certain manner. If assumed future growth or development patterns change significantly from those documented in this report, the recommended system improvements may need to be revised. Hence, this report and the associated recommended improvements should be updated every five to ten years. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-1 MURRAY CITY CHAPTER 2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS SERVICE AREA Because the City corporate boundaries include an area larger than the City water system service area, projecting demands requires identifying the service area population and potential growth of that service area. Figure 2-1 shows existing Murray City corporate boundaries, water system service boundaries, and existing land use. The Murray City water system service area serves approximately 80 percent of the City area. The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District supplies approximately 13 percent of the City while Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPUD) supplies the remaining 7 percent area. Murray City has no plans to expand its existing water service area to serve the Jordan Valley or Salt Lake water service areas in the future. Therefore, all future demand projections in this report are based on the population within the Murray City Water System Service Area. POPULATION Demand projections of water use are based on projections of population growth within the City water system service area. Population projections for the City have previously been estimated by the State of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) and the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). However, these projections refer to the City corporate boundary and do not represent the population growth within the City water system service area. Population projections for the Murray City Water System Service Area were previously developed as part of the 2006 “Salt Lake County Demand and Supply Study” prepared by BC&A for several of the water service providers in the Salt Lake valley including Murray City. For this study, the build- out population of the Murray City Water System Service Area was provided by the Murray City planning department. The work performed for the 2006 Study was based on the assumption that the build-out population will occur in 2100. Population growth from 2000 to 2100 was then estimated based on the assumption that the City population growth will follow the typical S-shaped growth curve shown in Figure 2-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- k k k k 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S 1300 E Vine Legend Murray City Water Service Providers Murray City Jordan Valley Water SLC Public Utilities k TraxStations Existing Land Use Zoning Type Commercial/Retail Industrial Residential Single Family Low Density Residential Single Family Medium Density Residential Multiple Family Low Density Residential Multiple Family Medium Density Residential Multiple Family High Density Public (quasi public) Schools, Churches, Office Vacant Land Parks and Open Space Mixed Use File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig2-1.mxd ³ Figure 2-1 Murray City Water Service Providers and Existing Land Use 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 3,000 6,000 Feet Murray City ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-2 MURRAY CITY Figure 2-2 Population Growth Curve The growth curve shown in Figure 2-2 is based on the concept that population growth in a given area will be determined by the ratio of the current population to the full development (or saturation) population. As the population approaches the full development population, annual growth becomes a function of the population deficit (full development population less the current population). In other words, the rate of growth decreases as the population approaches the full development population (declining rate of growth). Based on the current level of development in Murray and input from City personnel, it was assumed that the City water service area population growth rate will plateau by approximately 2030 with a declining rate of growth toward 2100. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1 show the estimated population growth in the City water service area from 2000 to 2100. Table 2-1 Estimated Murray City Water Service Area Population Year Murray 2000 34,777 2010 37,974 2020 40,184 2030 41,731 2040 42,214 2050 42,668 2060 43,197 2070 43,731 2080 44,271 2090 44,816 2100 45,367 Arithmetic Growth, dP/dt α 1 Declining Rate of Growth, dP/dt α (Psat – P) Geometric Growth, dP/dt α P Time, t Population, P Full Development or Saturation Population, Psat ---PAGE BREAK--- 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Total Population Figure 2-3 Murray Population Projection Bowen Collins Associates Murray City 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-3 MURRAY CITY Because much of the service area is already developed, it is expected that much of the projected population increase will occur as a result of re-development or changes in development. Figure 2-4 shows projected future City land use as a result of changes to the City’s General Plan. The major difference in the future general plan is the addition of a new “Mixed Use” zoning category. This “Mixed Use” zone was adopted in January 2008 and is intended to allow a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Because this zone can allow up to 50 units/acre, it is expected that up to 90 percent of future service area population growth will occur within mixed use zones. The remaining 10 percent of future growth will occur across the City and will mostly be focused in the remaining undeveloped areas of the City. HISTORIC WATER USE Historic per capita water use fluctuates considerably from year to year based on seasonal variations in precipitation and temperatures. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 show the average day water demand for the Murray City water system from 1994 to 2008 plotted against various climate data. Figure 2-5 shows the total annual precipitation and per capita average day demand (ADD), or the estimated volume of water used by one resident during a year divided by 365 days. As expected, in years with higher precipitation, the average day demand for the year decreases. Figure 2-6 shows the annual per capita ADD with the total number of Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for each year. A CDD is a quantitative index designed to reflect the demand for energy needed to cool a home or business to a comfortable temperature. In essence, a CDD reflects the amount of energy to air condition homes or businesses on hot days. Figure 2-6 illustrates that in years with hotter summers, the average day demand for the year increases due to higher irrigation demands. In 2002, BC&A prepared a “Murray City Water Rate and Impact Fee Study” which made recommendations for new water rates and fees to encourage conservation. This rate schedule was implemented in 2003. Figure 2-6 shows the 5-year average of the ADD before and after implementation of the new water rate schedule. Despite normal variations in climate, it is apparent that the new rate schedule has been instrumental in reducing per capita demand. The State of Utah conservation goal is defined as a 25 percent reduction of the 2000 per capita water use by the year 2050. Table 2-2 summarizes the total water production by the Murray City water system on an annual and per capita basis since 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- k k k k k 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine Legend Murray City Water Service Boundary k Trax Stations Future Land Use Zone Type Commercial Retail Industrial Residential Single Family Low Density Residential Single Family Meduim Density Residential Multi-Family Low Density Residential Multi-Family Meduim Density Residential Multiple Family High Density Public Quasi-Public (Churches, Schools, Govt.) Office Vacant Land Parks and Open Space Mixed Use File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig2-1.mxd ³ Figure 2-4 Murray City Future Land Use 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 20 25 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 l Precipitation (inches) ge Day Demand (gpcd) Figure 2-5 Average Day Demand & Annual Precipitation Annual Average Day Demand Total Annual Precipitation Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 5 10 200 210 220 [PHONE REDACTED] 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Annual Averag Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 al Cooling Degree Days ge Day Demand (gpcd) Figure 2-6 Average Day Demand & Cooling Degree Days Annual Average Day Demand 5-Year Average Before & After 2003 Cooling Degree Days Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 200 210 220 [PHONE REDACTED] 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Annua Averag Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-4 MURRAY CITY Table 2-2 Annual Murray City Water Production Population Annual Production (acre-ft) Annual Production Difference from 2000 ADD (gpcd) Per Capita Difference from 2000 2000 34,777 11,168 0% 287 0% 2001 35,059 11,451 3% 292 2% 2002 35,342 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 35,624 8,979 -20% 225 -22% 2004 35,906 8,833 -21% 220 -23% 2005 36,188 8,667 -22% 214 -25% 2006 36,545 9,344 -16% 228 -20% 2007 36,902 10,261 248 -13% 2008 37,260 9,547 -15% 229 -20% Per capita water demand in 2005 met the State of Utah 2050 conservation goal. Although 2005 was a relatively cool and wet year based on recorded climate data, this still demonstrates an impressive rate of conservation. Peaking Factors In addition to considering the average day demand, other important water use parameters include peak day demand and peak instantaneous demand or peak hour demand. Typically, peak day demand and peak hour demands are related to the ADD with system-specific peaking factors based on historic water use data. Murray City has enough historic water use data to allow these factors to be estimated. These factors are illustrated in Figure 2-7 which shows Murray City 15- minute demands based on water production numbers from August 17, 2008 (the day with largest water demand in 2008). Figure 2-7 indicates that the largest demand for water in 2008 occurred in the early morning hours with the peak hour demand occurring between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. This would suggest that the City’s efforts to encourage irrigating between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. as a means of conserving have been successful in 2008. Although conservation has reduced annual and average day water usage, there is not yet enough water use data available to accurately estimate the effect of conservation on Peak Day and Peak Hour demands. This is because Peak Day and Peak Hour demand patterns can be affected by holidays, unusual weather conditions, or other special events. Table 2-3 shows available data collected since 1999. There was some decline in per capita peak day and peak hour demands ---PAGE BREAK--- 20,000 Figure 2-7 2008 Peak Day Demand 16 000 18,000 20,000 Average Day Demand (gpm) Peak Day Demand (gpm) 15-min Water Demand (gpm) Peak Hour Factor = PHD / ADD on August 17, 2008 14,000 16,000 10,000 12,000 mand (gpm) Peak Day Factor = PDD / ADD 6,000 8,000 Dem Peak Day Factor = PDD / ADD 2,000 4,000 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Hour Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 2-3 Murray City Historic Water Use Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1999 MP Average Total Water Use mg 3,485 3,758 3,584 3,178 2,926 2,878 2,824 3,045 3,344 3,111 Population 34,428 34,777 35,059 35,341 35,624 35,906 36,188 36,545 36,902 37,260 Average Day Demand (ADD) mgd 9.55 10.30 9.82 8.71 8.02 7.88 7.74 8.34 9.16 8.52 8.79 gpm 6,631 7,150 6,819 6,046 5,567 5,476 5,373 5,793 6,362 5,919 6,106 gpcd 277 296 280 246 225 220 214 228 248 229 267 Peak Day Demand (PDD) mgd 18.02 16.48 16.46 20.52 gpm 12,515 11,446 11,428 14,249 gpcd 498 451 442 623 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) mgd 23.13 25.94 23.56 27.33 gpm 16,064 18,011 16,362 18,976 gpcd 639 710 632 832 Peak Day Factor 2.33 1.98 1.93 2.3 Peak Hour Factor 2.99 3.11 2.76 3.2 Data Not Available BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-5 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 2-6 MURRAY CITY after implementation of the new rate schedule in 2003. However, there is not sufficient data to conclude that conservation has a significant impact on peak day and peak hour demands. For planning purposes, it was assumed that peak day and peak hour per capita demands are expected to remain the same as year 2000 per capita demands. This assumes that while conservation reduces average day demands, it has little impact on peak day and peak hour demands typically associated with outdoor water use during unusually wet and dry periods. As more data becomes available, it may be possible to reduce projected peak demands as a result of proven reductions in peak water use patterns. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS Based on recorded production numbers in the City service area, it would appear that Murray City met the State conservation goal in 2005 and has maintained a lower per capita water use since 2003. However, it is assumed that 2005 represented and unusually high conservation rate due to higher precipitation and cooler weather. For planning purposes, this report will assume that the Murray City demands will not meet the 25 percent State anticipated conservation goal until the year 2050. Projected demands with and without conservation are shown in Figure 2-8 along with historic demands since 2000. Table 2-4 lists the 2010 and 2100 demands based on estimated service area population growth, conservation rates, and peaking factors. Table 2-4 Water Demands for Existing and Future Conditions 2010 2100 Total Water Use mg 3,725 3,560 Population 37,974 45,367 Average Day Demand (ADD) mgd 10.21 9.75 gpm 7,087 6,774 gpcd 269 215 Peak Day Demand (PDD) mgd 25.04 29.91 gpm 17,388 20,772 gpcd 659 659 Peak Hour Demand (PHD) mgd 34.84 41.62 gpm 24,191 28,901 gpcd 917 917 Peak Day Factor 2.45 3.07 Peak Hour Factor 3.41 4.27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 nual Production (acre-ft) Figure 2-8 Murray Annual Demand 25% Conservation Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 0 2,000 4,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 Ann Year Murray Demand - With Conservation Murray Demand - No Conservation Observed Demand ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 3 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM The Murray City water system relies on well water as its predominant supply source producing about 84 percent of annual system water demand. McGhie Springs, located near the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon, makes up approximately 15 percent of annual water production while an exchange agreement with Salt Lake City provides approximately 1 percent. The City has a physical connection to the system. However, this connection has not been used since 1988 and is not considered part of the City’s water system service area water supply. Figure 3-1 shows the location of each of the wells, system storage tanks, pressure reducing valves, distribution piping, and approximate pressure zone boundaries. The figure shows two panels. The top panel shows the Murray City water service area, and the bottom panel shows the Murray City upper system which contains Murray City’s largest storage tank along with several major water sources. Table 3-1 identifies the water supply sources and the associated water rights associated with the City’s water system service area. Table 3-2 summarizes existing construction and operating parameters of each well. Table 3-1 Murray City Water Rights Name Location Appropriated cfs mgd Wells Powerhouse 155 West 4800 South 5.0000 3.23 600 West 5300 South 600 West 3.0000 1.94 500 East 5300 South 550 East 3.0100 1.95 Howe 5600 South 900 East 1.5000 0.97 300 West 5800 South 300 West 3.0000 1.94 Grant 8 East 6100 South 3.0000 1.94 Vine Street 986 Vine Street 1.3820 0.89 700 West 700 West 6600 South 2.5000 1.62 900 East 6600 South 900 East 2.0170 1.30 Reservoir 1500 East 7000 South 4.6000 2.97 Whitmore West 6860 South Courtland 6.8000 4.39 Whitmore East 6862 South Eagle Ray Court 3.0000 1.94 McGhie Springs 3555 Big Cottonwood Road 3.7500 1.95 360 West 360 West 4900 South 3.0100 1.67 BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-1 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-2 MURRAY CITY Table 3-1 Murray City Water Rights (Continued) Name Location Appropriated cfs mgd Wells Millrace 558 East 4775 South 2.5900 0.68 Park 330 East 5100 South 1.0450 0.81 4500 South 300 West 4515 South 1.2500 2.42 Monroc 6653 Benecia Drive 3.8990 2.52 Hyland 636 East Wood Oak Lane 1.2500 0.81 John Bair* 2.2500 1.45 Other Sources McGhie Springs 3555 Big Cottonwood Road 3.5500 2.29 SLC Exchange 1.2500 0.81 TOTALS 62.6530 40.49 *Not currently part of existing water system ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well Legend Source ÍÎ $ ³ Pressure Reducing Valve U T Murray Reservoirs Water Mains SIZE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" Pressure Zones Pressure Zone 1 Pressure Zone 2 Pressure Zone 3 File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig2-1.mxd ³ Figure 3-1 Murray City Existing Water System Facilities 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City [ Ú U TU T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well Reservoir Well Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well McGhie Springs/Well Beginning of Upper System (see panel below) Continuation of Upper System (see panel above) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 3-2 Murray City Water System Wells Location Casing Size (inches) Hp Depth of Casing (ft) Date Drilled Static Water Level (ft) Pumping Water Level (ft) Draw Down (ft) Approx. Total Lift (ft) Equipment Capacity (gpm) Powerhouse 155 West 4800 South 16 [PHONE REDACTED] 51 155 [PHONE REDACTED] 600 West 5300 South 600 West 16 [PHONE REDACTED] 27 170 [PHONE REDACTED] 500 East 5300 South 550 East 16 [PHONE REDACTED] Artesian 60 60 60 1100 Howe Well 5650 South 941 East 20 [PHONE REDACTED] 45 112 67 112 1050 300 West 5800 South 300 West 20 [PHONE REDACTED] 43 143 100 143 800 Grant Park Well 6100 South 8 East 20 [PHONE REDACTED] 77 125 48 125 2400 Vine Street 986 Vine Street 12 [PHONE REDACTED] 24 140 [PHONE REDACTED] 700 West 700 West 6600 South 14 [PHONE REDACTED] 11 125 114 125 900 900 East 6600 South 900 East 16 75 685 1957 50 141 91 141 750 Reservoir 1500 East 7000 South 16 [PHONE REDACTED] 110 117 7 117 1200 Whitmore West 6860 South Courtland 16 [PHONE REDACTED] 185 195 10 195 2400 Whitmore East 6862 South Eagle Ray Court 12 [PHONE REDACTED] 171 188 17 188 1450 360 West 360 West 4900 South 16 [PHONE REDACTED] 27 151 [PHONE REDACTED] Millrace 558 East 4775 South 16 [PHONE REDACTED] Artesian 29 29 29 850 Park 330 East 5100 South 12 60 355 1978 Artesian 12 12 12 700 4500 South 300 West 4515 South 16 75 747 1960 53 100 47 100 600 Monroc 6653 Benecia Dr. 20 [PHONE REDACTED] 295 311 16 311 1850 Highland 636 East Wood Oak Lane 12 10 225 1966 5 14 9 14 750 BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-3 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN STORAGE AND PUMPING FACILITIES The City has five tanks or reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 12 million gallons to provide operating and emergency storage. Table 3-3 summarizes information related to these facilities. Table 3-3 Murray City Water System Storage Facilities Name Location Capacity (mg) Year Built Base Elevation (ft) Dimensions Reservoir #2 1500 East 7000 South 1.0 1954 4,452 13' Ht x 111' Dia Reservoir #3 1500 East 7000 South 2.0 1964 4,452 13' Ht x156' Dia Reservoir #4 2655 East 7000 South 5.0 1973 4,730 30' Ht x170' Dia Reservoir #5 – Hi- Land 636 East Wood Oak Lane 2.0 1995 4,319 25' Ht x120' Dia Reservoir #6 – Grant Park 8 East 6100 South 2.0 2003 4,324 16' Ht x120' W x 140' L Only Reservoir #4 flows into the City system via gravity. Water from the other storage tanks is pumped into the water system via eight booster pumps at three locations, as summarized in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 Booster Pumps at Reservoirs Location Horsepower Capacity (gpm) Reservoirs 2 & 3 1500 East 7000 South 50 1,200 1500 East 7000 South 50 1,200 Hi-land Tank 636 East Wood Oak Lane 25 500 636 East Wood Oak Lane 40 750 636 East Wood Oak Lane 75 1,500 Grant Park Tank 8 East 6100 South 50 800 8 East 6100 South 125 2,080 8 East 6100 South 150 2,500 BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-4 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN The Grant Park Tank boosters, as well as many of the pumps at wells, are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFD) to maintain specified pressures as defined by the City. VFDs are able to do this by varying motor speed and related pumping rate depending on system demands. Pumps at other wells operate at a constant speed and maintain system pressures by turning on and off at specified pressures. Current pressure settings at Murray City wells and booster pump stations are listed in Table 3-5. Table 3-5 Well and Booster Pump Control Settings1 Location VFD Setting (psi) Pump On (psi) Pump Off (psi) Powerhouse 90 600 West 70 90 500 East 86 360 West 72 114 300 West 65 80 Vine Street 61 700 West 68 102 900 East 51 70 Howe Well 68 Millrace 76 99 Park 65 90 Hi-land Booster 1 70 83 Hi-land Booseter 2 57 69 Hi-land Booster 3 40 65 4500 S 82 108 Grant Park 68 1 – Control settings for all pumps were not available during this study. DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES The Murray City water distribution system is divided into three pressure zones, which are referred to as the Pressure Zone 1, Pressure Zone 2, and Pressure Zone 3 as illustrated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Pressure Zone 1 has no system demands or services and includes the Whitmore Wells, Monroc Well, and McGhie Springs. Because of its location in the system, Reservoir 4 can only be supplied with water from these four sources. Pressure Zone 2, which includes areas with elevations between 4,350 ft and 4,450 ft, contains two sources, the 900 East well and the Reservoir Well (near Reservoirs 2 and Zone 2 is also connected to Zone 1 via two pressure reducing valves (PRVs). BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-5 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3-2 Murray City Water System Schematic Demand (gpm) ADD PDD PHD 2008 5,023 9,193 14,718 2010 5,811 14,258 19,837 2100 5,555 17,033 23,699 Total Demand (gpm) Source Capacity = 21,500 gpm, Booster Capacity = 24,500 gpm Pressure Zone 3 80% of Demands Other Wells Source Reservoirs lll Pressure Reducing Valves Water Meter M Pumps (gp ) ADD PDD PHD 2008 6,126 11,211 17,949 2010 7,087 17,388 24,191 2100 6,774 20,772 28,901 Demand (gpm) ADD PDD PHD 2008 1,103 2,018 3,231 Pressure Zone 2 20% of Demands Source/Boost Capacity = 1,950 gpm Other Wells PRV 80psi PRV 67psi PRV 60psi lll lll Hi‐Land (2MG) Grant (2MG) Source Reservoirs lll Pressure Reducing Valves Water Meter M Pumps Grant Hi‐land Well Transmission Capacity = 14,200 gpm at 7 ft/sec , , , 2010 1,276 3,130 4,354 2100 1,219 3,739 5,202 Source/Boost Capacity = 7,461 gpm 0% of Demands Pressure Zone 1 lll lll McGhie Springs/Well Monroc Whitmore East Whitmore West M M 9th East Other Wells 24‐Inch 20‐Inch 16‐Inch Booster Pump Reservoir 4 (5MG) 14‐Inch Meter 16‐Inch Meter PRV 30psi PRV 70psi PRV 80psi PRV 67psi PRV 60psi PRV 49psi lll lll Hi‐Land (2MG) Grant (2MG) Source Reservoirs lll Pressure Reducing Valves Water Meter M Pumps Grant Well Hi‐land Well Reservoir Transmission Capacity = 14,200 gpm at 7 ft/sec lll lll McGhie Springs/Well Monroc Whitmore East Whitmore West M M 9th East Other Wells 24‐Inch 20‐Inch 16‐Inch Booster Pump Reservoir 2&3 (3MG) Reservoir 4 (5MG) 14‐Inch Meter 16‐Inch Meter PRV 30psi PRV 70psi PRV 80psi PRV 67psi PRV 60psi PRV 49psi lll lll Hi‐Land (2MG) Grant (2MG) Source Reservoirs lll Pressure Reducing Valves Water Meter M Pumps Grant Well Hi‐land Well Reservoir Well Transmission Capacity = 14,200 gpm at 7 ft/sec Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-6 MURRAY CITY Pressure Zone 3, which includes areas below elevation 3,350 ft. contains the majority of Murray City’s well sources. It is also supplies with water from Pressure Zones 2 and 1 via PRVs. Table 3-6 lists the PRVs in the Murray City system and currently reported settings. Table 3-6 Murray City Pressure Reducing Valves No. Location Installation Year Elev. (ft) Setting (psi) Setting (ft) Dia (in) Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 1 1500 E. Fort Union Blvd. 2000 4,447 30 4,517 14 2 6400 S. 900 E. 1980 4,398 49 4,511 16 Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 3 3 5900 S. 900 E. 1971 1 4,353 602 4,491 10 4 5770 S. Fashion Blvd. 1985 4,343 672 4,498 12 5 5900 S. State Street 1969 4,335 802 4,520 8 6 6400 S. State Street 1995 4,353 702 4,514 12 1 – This PRV is scheduled to be replaced within the next 3 years 2 – Setting values based on observed outlet pressure May 1, 2009 Table 3-7 lists the sizes and corresponding of pipe in the Murray City distribution system. Table 3-7 Murray City Pipe Dia (in) Length (ft) % ≤ 4 52,729 5.3% 6 443,247 44.5% 8 260,568 26.1% 10 55,234 5.5% 12 88,739 8.9% 14 52,170 5.2% 16 11,170 1.1% 18 1,779 0.2% 20 15,933 1.6% 24 15,593 1.6% Total 997,163 100.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 3-7 MURRAY CITY WATER PRODUCTION AND METERING An important element of providing water to Murray City residents is the metering of total water sold and total water produced. Production numbers come from flow meters installed at wells or on major transmission pipes. Total water sale numbers come predominantly from residential and commercial water meter data. Figure 3-3 shows a graph comparing total water sold to total produced water at Murray City sources. Although it is not possible to account for 100 percent of produced water due to factors such as water system leaks, fires, hydrant flushing, etc., accurate accounting of water sales is important for producing needed revenue and for analyzing the system for potential areas of improvement. Since 1994, there has been a significant improvement in accounting for the difference between water produced and water sold in the Murray water system service area. The improvement from 1994 to 1998 can largely be attributed to installing meters at city parks to meter irrigation use. Improvements from 1999 to 2008 are largely the result of replacing malfunctioning or inaccurate meters within the Murray City service area. By identifying where and when demands are highest in the City, it is possible to encourage conservation. This is important to ensure that the City can maintain or improve its current level of conservation. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 otal Volume (MG) Figure 3-3 Proportion of Water Volume Sold to Volume Produced Total Water Sold (MG) Total Water Production (MG) Meter Inefficiency (MG)* Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 0 500 1000 1500 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 To Year *Meter Inefficiencies include: fire hydrant flushing, leaks, inaccuracies from older meters, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 4 SUPPLY AND STORAGE EVALUATION SOURCE CAPACITY State of Utah Drinking Water regulations require that drinking water sources satisfy two criteria. First, sources shall legally and physically meet the anticipated water demand on the peak day of demand. Second, the sources shall be able to provide one year’s supply, or the average annual demand. These guidelines should be met under worst case conditions, including drought periods. Water for the water system in Murray City’s service area is supplied by 7 springs and 19 wells. Each of these water sources is dependent on pumps and motors to deliver water to the water distribution system. It is important to consider the potential of mechanical failure, equipment maintenance, source contamination, as well as the potential for unforeseen changes in zoning that could include new large water users. To account for these possibilities, it is Murray City’s goal to develop the capacity to meet peak day water system demands with a 30 percent reserve in its water source capacity. Wells – Murray City has 19 wells that are currently used to meet service area demands. Based on information in the Salt Lake County Supply & Demand Study completed in 2007, the reliable annual yield from these wells is 12,823 acre-feet/year. This reliable yield takes into account potential impacts on wells from mechanical failure, contamination, etc. McGhie Springs – Discharge from the seven McGhie Springs fluctuates depending on water conditions. Based on historic records, the average annual yield of the spring is 1,606 acre-feet. During drought years, the estimated reliable annual yield of the spring is estimated to be 1,135 acre-feet. Annual Supply Based on the estimated production of the sources described above, the total annual supply for Murray is summarized in Table 4-1 for both dry and average water years. Table 4-1 Estimated Production – Murray City Dry and Average Water Years Supply Category Estimated Production – Dry Year (acre-feet) Estimated Production – Average Year (acre-feet) Wells 12,823 12,823 McGhie Springs 1,135 1,606 Total 13,958 14,429 In average water years, it is estimated that City sources can produce almost 500 acre-feet of water more than in dry years. For planning purposes, only dry year production estimates will be BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-1 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-2 MURRAY CITY used as Murray City’s annual supply capacity. Figure 4-1 compares projected annual water demands (as described in Chapter 2 and Figure 2-8) to the estimated dry-year production capacity from Murray City’s existing sources. Without conservation, it is projected that Murray will not have sufficient annual source capacity to meet projected annual water demands by approximately Year 2060. That scenario is shown to emphasize the need for conservation in Murray City. It was assumed that Murray City will meet conservation requirements by 2050. With conservation, it is projected there will be adequate supply to meet Murray City annual demands till at least the Year 2100. In fact, 2100 annual demands (10,926 acre-feet) are projected to be less than 2010 (11,432 acre-feet) annual demands as per capita demands are projected to decrease through contained conservation. Peak Day Source Capacity In addition to evaluating the annual supply capacity, Peak Day source capacity was evaluated. Figure 4-2 shows projected peak day demand (based on an estimated peaking factor) against Murray City’s existing source pumping capacity. Observed PDD in Murray has been less than projected demands based on three years of available data. However, the peak day demand observed in 1998 recorded a water use of 22.1 mgd. Therefore, it was assumed that these three years represent unusually high conservation years and that projected PDD will grow as shown by the solid black line in Figure 4-2. It is apparent from this figure that Murray City has adequate equipment capacity to accommodate peak day demands through 2100 as long as each source is operating at full capacity. However, Murray City projected peak day demands will exceed 70 percent of current source equipment capacity in 2010. These demands will begin to exceed 70 percent of Murray City water rights by approximately 2030. Based on the previously stated City goal to maintain a 30 percent water source reserve capacity for (projected) peak day demands, Murray City does not have sufficient source redundancy estimated peak day as shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 Peak Day PDD Supply and Demand Year Peak Day Demand (mgd) 70% of Existing Equipment Capacity1 (mgd) Redundancy Excess / Shortage (mgd) 70% of Water Rights (mgd) Water Rights Excess / Shortage (mgd) 2010 25.0 23.8 -1.2 27.3 +2.3 2100 29.9 23.8 -6.1 27.3 -2.6 1 – Based on capacity values provided by Murray City personnel Murray City will need to add approximately 6.1 mgd of additional peak day equipment capacity to meet its goal to maintain a 30 percent reserve in equipment capacities at its water sources. Adjustments to water rights may also be needed to account for increases in future production capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 nnual Production (acre-ft) Figure 4-1 Murray Annual Water Supply (Dry Year) Well Total McGhie Springs Observed Annual Demand Projected Annual Demand with Conservation Projected Annual Demand without Conservation Well Capacity + McGhie Springs Capacity Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 0 2,000 4,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 An Year McGhie Springs Source Capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 25 30 35 40 45 pacity Production (mgd) Figure 4-2 Murray Water System Peak Day Production (Dry Year) 30% Production Capacity 70% Production Capacity 1998 Observed PDD 100% of Murray City Water Rights 70% of Murray City Water Rights Projected PDD 100% of Peak Day Production Capacity 70% of Peak Day Production Capacity Bowen Collins & Associates Countywide Demand and Supply Study 0 5 10 15 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 Cap Year Observed PDD ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-3 MURRAY CITY Peak Hour Transmission/Boosting Capacity Normally, peak instantaneous demands are partially met by utilization of equalization storage in tanks and reservoirs. However, only Reservoir #4 can meet peak instantaneous demands without the use of booster pumps. This reservoir and the other sources located east of the Murray City service area are referred to as the Upper System: Upper System Facilities • Reservoir #4 (Pressure Zone 1) • McGhie Springs (Pressure Zone 1) • Monroc Well (Pressure Zone 1) • Whitmore East Well & Whitmore West Well (Pressure Zone 1) • Reservoir Well (Pressure Zone 2) • Reservoir 2 & 3 (Pressure Zone 2) Water from the Upper System is conveyed to the Murray City water service area via two transmission mains as shown in the system schematic on Figure 3-2. The estimated capacities of the 24-inch and 16-inch transmission pipelines are based on a maximum allowable flow velocity of 7 feet per second under peak hour demand conditions. The other 15 wells in Pressure Zones 2 and 3 can supply water to the system based on available pumping capacity. That capacity was assumed to equal the equipment capacity shown in Table 3-2 with the exception of the Grant Park and Hi-Land wells. The booster pump capacities from the storage tanks associated with those two wells can exceed that of the wells during peak hour demands. The estimated booster pump capacities during peak hour demand for the Grant Park and Hi-Land tanks is 4,000 gpm and 2,000 gpm, respectively. Figure 4-3 shows projected peak hour demands compared to the combined transmission capacity out of the Upper System and the pumping capacities of Murray City’s remaining wells. In 1997, observed peak hour water use in Murray was approximately 26,000 gpm. Again, although observed data over the last 5 years is less than the projected demand, the 1997 demand suggests that actual peak hour demand has the potential of exceeding the projected PHD. Based on Figure 4-3 and Table 4-3 below, Murray City will lack sufficient transmission/pumping capacity to satisfy the desired 30% source capacity reserve. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 pacity Production (gpm) Figure 4-3 Murray Peak Hour Production (Dry Year) 1997 1997 Observed Peak Hour Demand Projected Peak Hour Demand 70% of Transmission/Boosting Capacity 100% of Transmission/Boosting Capacity Bowen Collins & Associates Murray City 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100 Cap Year Remaining Well Boosting Capacity Upper System Transmission Capacity at 7 ft/sec ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-4 MURRAY CITY Table 4-3 Transmission/Pumping Capacity vs. Peak Hour Demand Year Peak Hour Demand (gpm) 70% of Transmission/Boosting Capacity1 (gpm) Redundancy Excess / Shortage (gpm) 2010 24,200 28,000 3,800 2100 28,900 28,000 -900 1 – Assumes a pumping capacity of 4,000 gpm at Grant and 2,000 gpm at Hi-land Murray City will need to add at least 900 gpm of transmission or pumping capacity to satisfy its peak hour reserve requirement prior to build-out. It should be emphasized that this is not a source production deficiency, but is related to how much water is instantaneously available to the Murray system from its tanks, reservoirs, and wells based on existing equipment capacity. STORAGE There are three types of storage requirements addressed in State of Utah Drinking Water regulations: equalization storage, fire suppression storage, and emergency storage. Each is discussed in the following paragraphs. Equalization Storage Equalization storage is the storage required to meet demand fluctuations during periods of high water use. This storage volume requirement can be estimated a number of different ways. For this report, it will be defined as the storage volume required to satisfy the projected average day demand. The estimated average day demand for 2010 development conditions is 10.2 MG. The required equalization volume is therefore 10.2 MG. This estimated equalization volume requirement is expected to be reduced as Murray City average day demands are reduced by conservation. The projected build-out equalization volume is 9.8 MG based on projected future demands (with conservation). Fire Suppression Storage Fire suppression storage is the volume of water needed to provide a required fire flow for a specified period of time. In consultation with the Murray City Fire Department, the maximum fire suppression need for Murray City has been determined to be a fire flow of 8,000 gpm for a duration of four hours. The resulting fire suppression storage volume is 2 MG. Equalization Storage and Fire Suppression storage are shown in Table 4-4 with total required and available storage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 4-4 Murray City Storage Requirements Type 2010 Storage (MG) 2100 Storage (MG) Equalization 10.2 9.8 Fire Suppression 1.9 1.9 Required Storage 12.1 11.7 Available Storage 12.0 12 Excess (+)/Shortage -0.1 +0.3 Emergency Storage State guidelines for emergency storage state that the amount of emergency storage shall be based upon an assessment of risk and the desired degree of system dependability. Because the Murray City water system depends largely on wells and pumps, access to its primary water source (the aquifer) is limited by Murray City’s pumping capacity. For this reason, the worst emergency scenario for Murray City supply is an extended city-wide power outage longer than 24-hours. Adequate auxiliary power should be provided so that Murray City can meet indoor water demands during an extended city-wide power outage. This assumes that most outdoor irrigation systems would not operate during a power failure. Indoor water demands are equal to approximately 50 percent of average day demands based on Murray City 2008 production data (2008 January ADD versus 2008 Annual ADD). This equates to approximately 5.10 MG for present and future conditions (with conservation). Auxiliary power currently is only available at McGhie Springs, Grant Park Well, and the Reservoir Well. Table 4-5 lists the production capacities of each of these sources. Table 4-5 Murray City Auxiliary Power Source Capacity Source Capacity (MGD) McGhie Springs1 0.65 Grant Park Well 3.46 Reservoir Well 1.58 Total 5.69 1 – based on dry year peak day capacity Based on the amount of auxiliary power that Murray City has, there should be sufficient production capacity to meet indoor demands in the event of a City-wide power failure. Most of this capacity is provided by the Grant Park Well. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-5 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Reservoir In the event that the Grant Park well and booster pump station are not in operation during a power outage, the system would draw mostly from Reservoir McGhie Springs is the only auxiliary source that supplies Reservoir This source can supply approximately 0.65 mgd during the peak day of demand during a dry-year (based on historical records). Because this reservoir controls the pressure for most of Murray City system; Murray City should consider providing additional auxiliary power to this reservoir’s supply sources. Auxiliary power at the Whitmore West well would provide approximately 3.46 mgd of additional capacity in the event the Grant Park well was not operating during a power failure. McGhie Springs. In the event of an earthquake, flow from McGhie springs could be severely reduced. Because of the importance of this water source, a study should be conducted to identify steps that would make this source more reliable following a significant seismic event. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Annual Supply Without conservation, projected Murray City demands will exceed available supplies based on current population projections. With conservation, existing Murray water sources will be sufficient to meet projected annual demands based on current population projections. • Conservation – Murray City should continue developing and implementing conservation efforts. The following methods could be considered: o Continue the “Slow the Flow” program and outdoor watering time restrictions o Develop ordinances for inside plumbing fixtures. o Develop public matching grant programs to replace old fixtures. o Construct a local conservation garden to educate Murray residents on methods to conserve. • Conservation Budget – Murray City should establish a base conservation budget to implement conservation measures and adjust that budget as necessary to meet its conservation goals. Peak Day Supply Murray City will have a 6.1 mgd deficiency in production capacity by 2100 based on its desired 30 percent source reserve requirement. The supply capacity deficiency will be approximately 2.1 mgd by 2015 based on current demand projections. • Conservation – A primary goal of conservation should be to reduce peak day demand water use. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-6 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN • Data Collection Improvements – In order to document peak day water use patterns, it is recommended that Murray improve its existing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system to record total daily production and document the maximum day of demand each year as the Peak Day Demand. This value should be recorded in Murray City’s annual water reports. • Increase Production Capacity – Murray should increase its Peak Day Demand capacity by at least 2.1 mgd to satisfy its redundancy requirement by 2015. This may be accomplished using the following methods: o Conduct a Well Investigation study to determine which City wells have the most potential for increases in capacity based on water quality, aquifer specific capacity, water rights, well age, etc. o Rehabilitate wells identified in the Well Investigation Study. • Well Maintenance Budget – Because Murray City does not have the desired reserve in source capacity, it is recommended that Murray City develop a maintenance program to maintain each of its system wells approximately every 7 years to prevent well capacity degradation and/or sudden pump failures. This maintenance program should be based on recommendations from the aforementioned Well Investigation Study. • Adjust Water Rights – As the production capacity of the system is improved, it may be necessary to amend or change water rights to accommodate additional capacity. Peak Hour Supply Murray City will have a 900 gpm peak hour transmission/boosting capacity deficiency when serving the 2100 population projections from this study. • Conservation and Data Collection – Similar to Peak Day Supply concerns, conservation and improved data collection may be able to reduce the magnitude of peak hour demand projections. Peak Hour Demands should be recorded as the highest measured flow through the transmission mains leaving the Upper System along with total production from the 900 East Well and wells in Pressure Zone 3. This Peak Hour Demand should be recorded in Murray City’s annual water reports. • Increase Transmission Capacity – Because the 16-inch steel transmission main east of 900 East on Winchester has a history of waterline breaks and has higher velocities than the 20-inch ductile iron pipe directly upstream, it is recommended that this pipe be replaced with a 20-inch ductile iron pipe to reduce velocities and increase transmission capacity. Storage Murray City has adequate storage to provide equalization and fire flow storage. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-7 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 4-8 MURRAY CITY Emergency Storage Murray City has adequate auxiliary power at the Grant Park Well, McGhie Springs, and the Reservoir Well to accommodate indoor demands during a power failure. However, supply to Reservoir 4 is insufficient to maintain the water level in this tank in the event that the Grant Park Well does not operate during a power failure. • Whitmore West Auxiliary Power – Murray City should consider providing auxiliary power to the Whitmore West well to maintain the water level in Reservoir 4 in the event of an emergency. • McGhie Springs Improvement Study – Murray City should conduct a study to protect McGhie Spring’s existing facilities from the effects of an earthquake. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 5 HYDRAULIC MODELING DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION Water System Model Computer Modeling. A hydraulic computer model is a digital representation of physical features and characteristics of the water system, including pipes, valves, storage tanks and pumps. Key physical components of a water system are represented by a set of user-defined parameters that represent the characteristics of the system. The computer model utilizes the digital representation of physical system characteristics to mathematically simulate operating conditions of a water distribution system. Computer model output includes pressures at each node and flow rate for each pipe in the water system. There are several well-known computer programs for modeling water distribution systems. InfoWater 5.0 developed by MWH Soft was used for this study. This program uses the EPANET computing engine. Model History. For this study, the hydraulic model developed for Murray City in 2002 was imported into the InfoWater modeling platform and the pipe network was updated to represent existing pipe conditions in the Murray City water system. Modeling for this study was performed using steady-state conditions operating conditions. Murray City GIS Data. The City GIS Department has compiled extensive data on the City's water system. That data was used to update the model of the 2002 hydraulic model. The GIS data used to update the water system model included: • Pipeline locations, diameters, materials and ID numbers • City-based maps including parcel polygons, land use polygons, and building footprint polygons • Water demand data and water billing records for 2008. The City provided additional data that was used to update the water system model. These included: • Source flow rates and pressures • Fire flow requirements. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-1 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Additional Data. Most of the data needed to update the model was acquired from the City’s GIS database. The task that remained was to develop additional data required by the model. The data that was added to the model included: • Obtaining 1.25 meter resolution elevation data • Updating Node elevations • Updating wells and reservoir information including the addition of the Grant Park Well and Howe Well replacement • Pipe Age, Diameter, Material. Pipe roughness coefficients from the previous master plan were used except for pipes that were installed within the last 10 years. A Hazen-Williams coefficient of 140 was used for these pipes under existing conditions. For future conditions, however, the pipe roughness was reduced to 110 to reflect future scaling or pipe deterioration. The values used are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Hazen-William Coefficients Utilized in the Hydraulic Computer Model Age in Years Steel Pipe C.I. or D.I. Pipe 0-10 135 140 10-20 120 125 20-30 110 110 30 + 105 105 These roughness values were modified as the model was calibrated. Since the last master plan, higher resolution elevation data has become available from various government agencies. The elevation data was transferred to the nodes using tools within the InfoWater software program, making the level of vertical accuracy plus or minus two feet at the system nodes. The hydraulic computer model developed for this study was developed to simulate steady-state operating conditions. Boundary conditions for existing conditions were based on flow data provided by Murray City. Boundary conditions for future conditions were based on estimated flows and capacities required to satisfy future demands. Demand Distribution. Demand distribution is the process that estimates the water demand at each individual node in the water system. The sum of the demands from all the nodes in the system is equal to the total system demand. The demand distribution allows the model to simulate system operating conditions. The accuracy of the model depends upon how the model BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-2 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN demands that are distributed throughout the water system nodes match the actual system demand distribution. Demand distribution data was developed using Murray City water billing records for the year 2008 in conjunction with total water source production numbers to develop the 2008 Average Day Demand. The Average Day Demand from 2008 water meter data was assigned to the correct geographic location in the city using a meter-specific identification number and Murray City’s GIS water meter database. The 2008 adjusted source data was then assigned to the nearest model node using GIS tools. As discussed in Chapter 2, it was assumed that 90 percent of future population growth will occur in mixed use zones with 10 percent occurring in undeveloped areas. Based on input from City personnel, and estimates of future growth, future growth was assigned to the areas shown in Figure 5-1 and future demands we estimated accordingly. The water system operating conditions was then simulated for future development conditions. Calibration. Calibration is the task of adjusting hydraulic model parameters so that model output results correlate with actual observed conditions in the water system. Calibration is an iterative process that is repeated until the model output results match field measurements to an acceptable level of accuracy. The level of accuracy is the difference between the model result value and measured field value, divided by the field value, expressed as a percentage. The level of accuracy is an indicator of how closely the model is simulating actual conditions in the system. For this study, the target level of accuracy was to be within 10 percent. The field data used in the calibration of this model included: • Peak Day Flow and Pressure measurements at available sources • Peak Hour Flow and Pressure measurements at available sources • Recent Fire Flow tests. The worst case scenario low system operating pressure is associated with fire flows, peak day demands, and peak hour demands. The model was calibrated based on Peak Day and Peak Hour data collected for the peak day in 2008. Water model demands and boundary conditions were adjusted to match observed Peak Day demands and boundary conditions for the Peak Day in 2008. Similarly, for peak hour demands, model conditions were calibrated to match recorded Peak Hour conditions for the Peak Hour in 2008. Pressure measurements at wells, flow meters, or pressure reducing valves (PRVs) were used where available to compare observed pressures to simulated pressures. During the calibration process, an inter-connection between pressure zones was discovered near the 6400 South State Street PRV. Because the PRV settings are based on observed outlet pressures at each PRV, those PRV settings may not be accurate as they were likely affected by the inter-connection. Figure 5-2 shows the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) at each PRV based on the outlet pressure readings provided by Murray City personnel. The figure shows that PRV #5 and #6 have HGLs significantly higher than the other two PRVs in the Pressure Zone 3. It was assumed that these hydraulic grade lines are a reflection of the inter-connection near PRV BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-3 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- k k k k k k 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S 1300 E Vine Legend Future Area of Growth Murray City Water Service Boundary k Trax Stations ³ Figure 5-1 Future Areas of Growth 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 5-2 Murray City Reported PRV Pressure Settings ft GSE psi out ft HGL 4800 4700 4600 13 4730 4760 PRVs from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 Reservoir 4 PRVs from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 3 ft GSE ft GSE psi out psi out ft GSE ft GSE ft GSE ft GSE ft HGL ft HGL psi out psi out psi out psi out ft HGL ft HGL ft HGL ft HGL ft GSE psi out ft HGL 67 4447 30 4400 4600 4500 4497.8 4335 80 4519.8 4516.3 4491.6 4343 4447 4353 60 30 4353 70 4514.7 4516.3 4398 49 4511.2 4450 1 2 3 PRVs from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 Reservoir 4 Reservoir 2&3 Booster PRV #1-Ft. Union PRV #5 5900 S. State PRV #6 6400 S. State PRVs from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 3 PRV #2-900 E. PRV #4 5770 S. Fashion PRV #3 5900 S. 900 E. PRV Setting ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN In addition to the inter-connection, recorded pressure readings near the 5900 South 900 East PRV (PRV indicate that pressures of the PRV drop well below the reported PRV setting of 60 psi during peak hour demands. Because this PRV is of a large transmission main, pressures should not drop significantly during high demands. There are two possible explanations for low observed pressures during the Peak Hour demand adjacent to this PRV. • Transmission Losses – Low pressures can be caused by friction losses in undersized transmission mains, pipes with severe scaling or sediment, and over long distances. The pipe upstream of the 5900 South 900 East intersection is large enough to prevent significant pipe wall friction. However, it is possible that the pipe has scaling problems because of its age. • Closed or Inoperable Valves or PRVs. Closed or inoperable Valves and/or PRVs could cause low pressures by causing significant minor losses or by forcing water to flow through a more circuitous route. Transmission losses as water is conveyed via longer routes could account for the lower pressures. Further field investigations by City personnel confirmed that PRV #4 is closed during high demands. Observations near PRV #3 showed that pressures were low on the side of the PRV as well as at a hydrant near the southeast corner of 5900 South 900 East. It was assumed that these low pressures are the result of significant minor losses through the deteriorating portion of steel pipe in 900 East. Although the exact cause of the low pressures observed during peak hours could not be verified during this study period, minor losses along 900 East were adjusted to account for the lower pressures during peak hour demand. Hazen-William roughness coefficients were also adjusted in some areas to calibrate the model. Subsequent results of the model can thus be considered an accurate representation of the system during peak day and peak hour conditions. Table 5-2 shows the recorded field and model simulation results for various source locations throughout the system. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-4 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-5 MURRAY CITY Table 5-2 2008 Peak Day Recorded Pressures vs. Hydraulic Model Simulated Pressures Well Recorded Average Pressure on Peak Day (psi) Modeled Peak Day Pressure (psi) PDD % Recorded Peak Hour Pressure (psi) Modeled or Model- Predicted Peak Hour Pressure (psi) PHD % 600 W 81.9 82.54 0.8% 61.0 60.0 -1.7% Hi-land 71.7 68.55 -4.4% 53.8 51.2 -4.8% Howe 63.9 64.38 0.8% 48.0 50.4 5.1% BP Outlet 29.6 30 1.3% 29.0 30.0 3.4% Powerhouse 85.0 82.54 -2.9% 65.0 63.0 -3.1% 500 E 80.5 82.05 1.9% 63.0 64.8 2.8% 360 W 96.4 97.8 1.5% 72.7 75.9 4.3% 300 W 71.7 71.66 0.0% 54.2 55.9 3.2% Vine 56.7 54.08 -4.6% 40.0 44.0 10.0% 700 W 85.7 87.32 1.9% 60.0 64.5 7.5% Millrace 91.1 92.94 2.1% 72.0 76.9 6.8% 4500 S 99.2 99.35 0.1% 81.0 78.8 -2.8% Park 88.2 86.57 -1.8% 67.4 900 E 51.0 54.16 6.1% 47.0 51.0 8.5% Grant 64.8 64.4 -0.7% 51.0 52.6 3.2% The level of accuracy obtained was an average of 5 percent (-psi)with a maximum of 10 percent (-psi) near the Vine Street Well. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show the peak day and peak hour simulated system pressures throughout the Murray water system for the peak day of demand in 2008 (August 17). The model output was reviewed and verified for accuracy and reasonableness by City personnel. For existing facilities, the inter-connection near 6400 South and State Street was closed and PRV settings were adjusted as shown in Figure 5-5 so that the HGL across the zone boundary is close to identical at each PRV. Existing Facility conditions reflect this adjustment. Modeling Assumptions. Some key assumptions made in setting up the computer model were: • The water system service area would remain constant. • Pipe hydraulic data, flow data, and pressure data provided by the City was accurate. • Areas that did not have available 15-minute data included: the Vine Street Well, Whitmore Wells, Hi-land Well, and Booster Pump. Peak Day flows were assumed to be the average flow from the source over the day. Peak Hour flows at Vine Street and ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T "M "M "M "M "M ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well McGhie Springs Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well k k k U T U T "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig2-1.mxd ³ Figure 5-3 2008 Simulated Peak Day Demand 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions PRESSURE <40.0 40.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 Pipes "M Well k TraxStations ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T "M "M "M "M "M ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well McGhie Springs Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well k k k U T U T "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M "M ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig2-1.mxd ³ Figure 5-4 2008 Simulated Peak Hour Demand 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions PRESSURE (psi) <40.0 40.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 Pipes "M Well k TraxStations ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 5-5 Hydraulic Model "Existing" Model PRV/Pressure Settings ft GSE psi out ft HGL 4800 4730 13 4760 4700 4600 Reservoir 4 ft GSE ft GSE psi out psi out ft GSE ft GSE ft GSE ft GSE ft HGL ft HGL psi out psi out psi out psi out ft HGL ft HGL ft HGL ft HGL ft GSE psi out ft HGL 4600 4500 4447 4398 30 49 4353 4343 4335 4353 4516.3 4511.2 60 65 68 60 4400 4491.6 4492 4492.1 4491.6 4447 30 4516.3 4450 1 2 3 Reservoir 4 Reservoir 2&3 PRV #1-Ft. Union PRV #5 5900 S. State PRV #6 6400 S. State PRV #2-900 E. PRV #4 5770 S. Fashion PRV #3 5900 S. 900 E. PRV Setting ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 5-6 MURRAY CITY Hi-land were assumed to be the capacity of each well. Peak Day and Peak Hour flows for the Booster Pump were assumed to be the capacity of the booster. Peak hour flows for the Whitmore wells were adjusted to balance flow from Reservoir 4. • The roughness coefficients of the pipes were consistent according to assumed age and materials. • Water pipelines are four feet below the ground surface. • Future conditions used in 2010 and 2100 “Existing Facilities” analyses assume that the deteriorated portion of steel pipe in 900 East is replaced; any closed or partially closed valves are fully open, and the pressure zone interconnection near State and Winchester is corrected; and pressure settings are adjusted as shown in Figure 5-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION The hydraulic model was used to simulate the following scenarios: • 2010 Development Conditions ο Peak hour demand ο Peak day demand with fire flows • 2100 Development Conditions ο Peak day demand ο Peak hour demand ο Peak day demand with fire flows ο City-wide power failure with fire flows. Water demands for existing and future conditions are described in Chapter 2. City-wide power failure assumes city demands are equal to approximately 50 percent of average day demands. During a City-wide power failure, the Grant Park well, McGhie Springs, and the Reservoir Well are the only sources equipped with auxiliary power to supply Murray City in-door water demands. Any demands in excess of these sources will draw water from Reservoir 4. OPERATING CRITERIA Regulations established by the State of Utah require that a water distribution system be able to maintain a minimum pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) at all points within the system during peak day demands, 30 psi during peak instantaneous demands and 20 psi during peak day demands with fire flow. However, for the purposes of this study the City has established the following minimum operating criteria for the City water system, which are more stringent than the State criteria: • Pressure will not be less than 50 psi during peak hour demand anywhere in the system. • Pressure will not be less than 25 psi during peak day demand with fire flows anywhere in the system. Minimum fire flows shall be defined as 1,500 gpm. • Flow velocity will not exceed 7 feet per second (fps) anywhere in the system under peak hour demands. 2010 DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Peak Hour Demand Figure 6-1 shows the model simulation results for peak hour demand under existing development conditions. Although the City pressures remain well above the State of Utah requirement of 30 psi during peak instantaneous demands, pressures drop below the 50 psi threshold across much BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-1 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well Reservoir Well Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well McGhie Springs/Well U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-1 2010 Peak Hour Demand - Existing Facilities 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions Pressure (psi) <30.0 30.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 Murray Source ÍÎ $ ³ Pressure Reducing Valve U T Murray Reservoirs I-215 I-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-2 MURRAY CITY of the City during peak hour demands. The largest areas affected by low pressures include higher elevations in Pressure Zone 2 (closer to the 900 E PRV) and areas west of I-15. System improvements will be required to increase these pressures. Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Most of the Murray City water distribution system is capable of delivering a fire flow much more than 1,500 gpm with a residual pressure of 25 psi. This is apparent in Figure 6-2 which shows available flows at system nodes at 25 psi. The exceptions are mostly limited to areas that have 4-inch and 6-inch distribution pipes and long dead-end pipelines. High velocities through these smaller pipes at fire flows cause significant friction losses reducing available pressure for fire protection. The location of fire flow deficiencies is discussed in more detail under 2100 Development conditions. 2100 DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Peak Day Demand Figure 6-3 shows model simulation results for the existing distribution facilities under projected future peak day demands. There are a few areas where pressures are below 50 psi. PRV settings near these areas have pressure settings below 50 psi. In order to improve pressures in these areas, the City will need to change the existing settings. Any changes in existing pressure settings will require educating local residents on the effects of the change. Peak Hour Demand Figure 6-4 shows model simulation results for the existing distribution facilities under future peak hour demands. The low pressures seen during the 2010 Development conditions as shown in Figure 6-1 become more severe and widespread. Pressures drop below the State minimum requirement (30 psi) near 1300 West and Winchester. The major causes of the pressure drops across the city are transmission losses within Pressure Zone 3. Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Figure 6-5 shows available fire flows for the existing distribution facilities under 2100 Peak Day Demands. Any flows less than 1,500 gpm represent fire flow deficiencies and are color coded orange, red, and black based on their severity. Many of the fire flow deficiencies are the result of under sized pipes. The 10 largest areas of low available fire flows are clouded in red. Table 6-1 lists the approximate location of each area and the recommended priority of the area based on the size and number of residents that would be affected by low fire flows. ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-2 2010 Peak Day Demand - Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City Junctions Available Fire Flow (gpm) <500.0 500.1 - 1000.0 1000.1 - 1500.0 1500.1 - 3000.0 >3000.0 Water Mains SIZE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well Reservoir Well McGhie Springs Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-3 2100 Peak Day Demand - Existing Facilities 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions Pressure (psi) <30.0 30.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 Pipes Murray Source ÍÎ $ ³ Pressure Reducing Valve U T Murray Reservoirs ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú U TU T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ Monroc Well Reservoir 4 Reservoirs2&3 9th East Well Reservoir Well Whitmore East Well Whitmore West Well McGhie Springs/Well U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-4 2100 Peak Hour Demand - Existing Facilities 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Murray City Legend Junctions Pressure (psi) <30.0 30.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 60.0 60.1 - 70.0 70.1 - 80.0 80.1 - 90.0 90.1 - 100.0 100.1 - 120.0 >120.0 ÍÎ $ ³ Pressure Reducing Valve Murray Source U T Murray Reservoirs I-215 I-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- REQ=3500 Q = 992 REQ=2375 Q = 1736 REQ=4750 Q = 3632 REQ=4000 Q = 3278 REQ=3500 Q = 2823 REQ=6750 Q = 3294 REQ=5000 Q = 3443 REQ=2500 Q = 1490 REQ=4750 Q = 3122 REQ=6000 Q = 4485 REQ=3375 Q = 2233 REQ=8000 Q = 2500 REQ=8000 Q = 5124 REQ=3000 Q = 2337 REQ=7000 Q = 2495 REQ=2000 Q = 1170 REQ=4750 Q = 1026 REQ=3500 Q = 1709 REQ=3375 Q = 1314 REQ=3500 Q = 2129 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine ³ Figure 6-5 2100 Peak Day Demand - Existing Facilities Available Fire Flow 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City REQ = 2000 Label Q = 2500 Required Fire Flow Available Fire Flow Junctions Available Fire Flow (gpm) <500.0 500.1 - 1000.0 1000.1 - 1500.0 1500.1 - 3000.0 >3000.0 Low Fire Flow Areas Water Mains SIZE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" Legend Special Fire Flow Areas FAIL PASS ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 6-1 Low Available Fire Flow Neighborhoods Location Priority 4500 South State (east) 1 5700 South State (east) 2 5900 South Utahna Drive 3 Avenue and State Street 4 Rainbow and Mountain View Drive 5 4800 South Lake Pines Drive 6 4800 South and Lincoln Street 7 4500 South State (west) 8 5400 South Woodrow Street 9 700 West Winchester Drive 10 Special Fire Flow areas are also identified in Figure 6-5. These locations were first identified in the 1997 Water Master Plan Report. Figure 6-6 shows model simulation results for existing water distribution facilities under 2100 power failure conditions. In this scenario, Murray City demands are equal to approximately 50% of 2100 average day demands because of the reduced ability to irrigate outdoors during a power failure. Based on the results of this simulation, there are no areas that would have significantly less fire flows as the result of a power failure. Areas with low available fire flow during normal conditions (peak day demand) continue to have low available fire flows during a power outage, but are not significantly worse because of the power failure. The available auxiliary power at the Grant Park Well, McGhie Springs, and the Reservoir Well are capable of providing sufficient supply to satisfy fire flow requirements without a significant decrease in available flow or pressure. REPORTED DEFICIENCIES Pipe Breaks In addition to the computer model simulations, City personnel were consulted to identify problems and deficiencies related to the condition of pipes. Condition deficiencies included sections of old steel pipe, pipelines with recurring breaks and leaks, and pipelines and fire hydrants less than four inches in diameter. Figure 6-7 shows pipe breaks since the year 2000 along with pipe age across the City. Red crosses indicate areas with multiple breaks along the same street. Green crosses indicate relatively isolated waterline breaks. This information was used to prioritize recommended system improvements. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-3 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-6 2100 Peak Day Demand - Existing Facilities Power Failure - Available Fire Flow 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City Junctions Available Fire Flow (gpm) <500.0 500.1 - 1000.0 1000.1 - 1500.0 1500.1 - 3000.0 >3000.0 Water Mains SIZE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24" ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ D D D DD D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D DD DDD D D D D D DD D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D DD DDD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D DDD D D D D DDD D DDD D D D D DDD D DD D D D DD D D D DD D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D DDD D D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D DDD D D D D D D DD D D DD 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine 360 West Millrace Howe Well Park Well Grant Well 45th South Power House Hi-land Well 7th West Well 6th West Well 5th East Well 9th East Well Vine St. Well 3rd West Well ³ Figure 6-7 Waterline Breaks and Pipe Age 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City Waterline Breaks D Multiple Repairs D Single Repair Water Main Age >30 Years or Unknown 20 - 30 Years Old 10 - 20 Years Old <10 Years Old ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Operational Deficiencies During the model calibration period, field measurements show that 2009 peak hour demands reduce pressures in the City system to below 50 psi. Some of these low pressures are the result of low pressure settings at the 6400 South 900 East PRV (PRV and the Fort Union PRV (PRV These PRV settings should be increased by 10 psi (to 59 psi) to eliminate low pressures in Pressure Zone 2 and provide additional pressure to Pressure Zone 3 during Peak Hour demands. The resulting pressure increase should resolve many of the existing peak hour demand pressure deficiencies in Murray. As a precaution, it should not be implemented until the deteriorating portion of steel pipe in 900 East is replaced. Residents should be alerted to the effects of the change so that they can take necessary precautions. Low Peak Hour pressures observed near the Vine Street Well were discussed in Chapter 5. These low pressures may be resolved by verifying that valves are correctly positioned along the 900 East pipeline. Once this is complete, peak hour pressures near the 5900 S 900 E PRV should be checked during peak demands (early morning in summer) to determine if there are any remaining low pressure problems. The 16-inch steel transmission main in Winchester Boulevard east of 900 East reportedly has a valve throttled to keep the 6400 South 900 East PRV open. This is likely the result of an imbalance in HGL setting between the Fort Union PRV and the 6400 South 900 East PRV (observable in Figure 5-2). Increasing the PRV setting at the 900 East PRV should eliminate the need to throttle flow through the 16-inch pipe by allowing more flow through the 24-inch transmission main. It is also recommended that the 16-inch pipe be replaced with a 20-inch pipe to reduce velocities. This pipe has had a history of waterline breaks. Once the PRV setting at 6400 South 900 East is modified, it will be necessary to make adjustments to the Fort Union PRV setting to ensure flow is balanced between each PRV. Balancing flow is important to prevent high velocities on the two transmission mains from Pressure Zone 1 to 900 East. Adjusting PRV settings may not be the most efficient method of balancing flow through these pipes as changing demands can significantly affect the hydraulics of flow through each PRV. An alternative to balance flow includes replacing both the 6400 South 900 East PRV and the Fort Union PRV with one PRV on the main 24-inch transmission main above the Reservoir Well. This would decrease pressures to Pressure Zone 2 as required and allow flow through each transmission main to self-balance as flow takes the path of least resistance. As an alternative to a new PRV, a hydroelectric generation facility could be used to drop pressure while producing electricity for the City. It is recommended that a generation study be conducted to determine if such a facility would be cost effective. Murray City should also consider replacing the 6400 S 900 E PRV and Fort Union PRV as funds become available. Pressure Zone Inter-Connection The pressure zone inter-connection near State Street and Winchester should be eliminated. Once this is done, PRV settings at each of Murray City’s PRVs should be field verified to determine if the PRVs are functioning correctly and settings should be set as recommended in Table 6-2. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-4 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 6-5 MURRAY CITY Table 6-2 Recommended PRV Settings No. Location Installation Year Elev. (ft) Setting (psi) HGL Setting (ft) Dia (in) Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 1 1500 E. Fort Union Blvd. 2000 4,447 38 4,534 14 2 6400 S. 900 E. 1980 4,398 59 4,534 16 Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 3 3 5900 S. 900 E. 1971 4,353 60 4,491 10 4 5770 S. Fashion Blvd. 1985 4,343 65 4,491 12 5 5900 S. State Street 1969 4,335 68 4,491 8 6 6400 S. State Street 1995 4,353 60 4,491 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Before evaluating pipe improvements, the approximate replacement cost of the City’s existing water system was evaluated to estimate the costs per year that the City should allocate toward water system pipe improvements. PIPE REPLACEMENT COSTS The estimated present day value of Murray City’s pipe distribution network is $130 million (2009 Dollars). Murray City currently spends approximately $1.3 million/year for pipe replacement. This is equivalent to 1 percent of Murray City’s distribution pipe network. If Murray City continues to spend $1.3 million/year for pipe replacements (increasing with inflation); Murray City should expect to replace the pipes in its water system distribution network every 100-years. The anticipated service life of a ductile iron water pipe in Murray is between 60 and 120 years. PIPE IMPROVEMENTS Figures 7-1 through 7-3 show the locations of the recommended pipeline improvement projects. Figure 7-1 displays the diameter of proposed system improvements. Figure 7-2 identifies the primary reason for the improvement. Figure 7-3 shows each project with a difference color labeled with its recommended priority. Table 7-1 lists each project in order of priority with parameters used to prioritize the improvements including the primary reason for replacement, number of recorded waterline breaks, average peak hour flow through the pipeline, average friction loss per 1,000 feet, and the average fire flow in the vicinity of the pipeline. In general, projects were prioritized using the following criteria: • Likelihood of additional waterline breaks • Proximity to schools or hospitals • Among lowest fire flow neighborhoods in Murray • Higher friction losses (transmission deficiency) • Estimated peak hour flow. Aging Pipelines Where the primary reason for replacement lists “pipe breaks”, pipes with more than four breaks were identified first as required system improvements to prevent emergency repairs and/or water outages. Improvements were prioritized according to the number of recorded waterline breaks and average peak hour flow through the pipe. Pipes that had higher flows in the hydraulic model peak hour simulation were given higher priority because of the higher potential of street and property damage from a waterline break. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-1 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 ³ Figure 7-1 Recommended Pipe Improvement Sizes 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig7-1-Improvements.mxd Legend Pipe Improvements Diam (in) 8" 10" 12" 16" 20" Existing Pipes Water Source ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 ³ Figure 7-2 Recommended Pipe Improvement Type 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig7-2-Improvements.mxd Legend Existing Pipes Water Source Primary Reason for Improvement 4-inch (under-sized) Pipe Breaks (pipe condition) Dead End Fire Flow Operational Steel (corrosion/material) Transmission (capacity) ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 3 37 23 14 6 29 2 34 9 41 58 25 7 40 5 28 33 11 19 8 38 10 46 13 20 31 4 18 55 22 30 39 43 49 54 50 21 35 57 27 45 52 44 48 51 12 59 32 63 64 47 24 15 61 72 69 74 73 36 66 76 65 53 71 16 67 75 62 68 17 56 1 70 14 ³ Figure 7-3 System Pipe Improvement Priority 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig7-3-Improvements.mxd Legend Existing Pipes Water Source NOTE: Each Project is identified with a different color and labeled with its recommended priority ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 7-1 Prioritization of Recommended Pipe Replacement Projects Name Project Priority1 Primary Reason for Replacement Future Size (in) Length (ft) Unit Cost Construction Costs Engineering/ Administrative Total Cost (2009 No. Waterline Breaks Average Head Loss per 1000 lf (ft) Average Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Average Fire Flow in Vicinity (gpm) State & Winchester 1 Operational 8 66 $120 $7,920 $1,188 $10,000 1,100 900 E Steel Pipe 1 2 Steel 16 2,016 $171 $344,558 $51,684 $397,000 14 2.58 2,159 1,500 5900 S Steel Pipe 3 Steel 12 2,756 $139 $384,402 $57,660 $443,000 10 1.51 805 10,700 Fashion Blvd PVC (corrosion issue) 4 Pipe Breaks 8 520 $120 $62,400 $9,360 $72,000 9 0.74 190 6000 Murray Parkway 5 Pipe Breaks 12 789 $139 $110,041 $16,506 $127,000 9 0.16 138 6,600 Anderson Ave 6 Pipe Breaks 8 1,957 $120 $235,472 $35,321 $271,000 6 1.93 136 4,300 Walden Wood 7 Pipe Breaks 8 811 $120 $97,606 $14,641 $113,000 6 0.62 71 4,800 Bullion St 8 Pipe Breaks 8 2,356 $120 $283,490 $42,524 $327,000 5 0.31 56 3,500 Mt Vernon Dr 9 FF 8 2,308 $120 $277,726 $41,659 $320,000 4 2.50 137 700 Walden Meadows 10 Pipe Breaks 12 1,695 $185 $312,826 $46,924 $360,000 4 0.33 322 6,700 6240 S 440 E 4-inch 11 Pipe Breaks 8 1,457 $120 $175,366 $26,305 $202,000 4 0.99 90 1,200 235 E 5600 S Pipe Breaks 12 Pipe Breaks 8 1,760 $120 $211,746 $31,762 $244,000 4 0.16 <50 800 Viewmont Elementary 13 FF 8 4,329 $120 $520,875 $78,131 $600,000 2 0.42 86 1,400 5900 S 700 W to RR 14 Transmission 12 3,310 $139 $461,563 $69,234 $531,000 0 4.86 470 1,300 Wahlquist Ln 14 4-inch 8 751 $120 $90,120 $13,518 $104,000 0 0.55 <50 600 Hillcrest Jr 15 FF 10 1,528 $139 $213,144 $31,972 $246,000 0 0.52 53 1,000 Cottonwood Hospital 16 FF 8 348 $120 $41,910 $6,286 $49,000 0 0.55 138 10,000 4500 S State (East) 12-inch 17 FF 12 264 $139 $36,791 $5,519 $43,000 0 0.86 116 5,500 4500 S State (East) 10-inch 18 FF 10 1,982 $139 $276,354 $41,453 $318,000 1 0.10 <50 1,200 5770 S State (east) 19 FF 8 5,044 $120 $606,954 $91,043 $698,000 3 1.22 [PHONE REDACTED] S Utahna Dr 20 FF 8 2,743 $120 $330,046 $49,507 $380,000 1 3.18 82 1,200 Rainbow & Mountain View Dr 21 FF 8 3,216 $120 $386,948 $58,042 $445,000 1 1.50 <50 1,300 Murray City Hall 22 FF 10 1,642 $139 $228,967 $34,345 $264,000 0 1.22 151 1,300 Benbow St & Golfcourse 23 FF 12 4,810 $139 $670,745 $100,612 $772,000 0 0.16 <50 1,400 Laura & Pinehill Dr 24 FF 8 500 $120 $60,133 $9,020 $70,000 0 0.00 <50 1,300 Lake Pine Apt 25 FF 10 1,431 $139 $199,566 $29,935 $230,000 0 0.30 61 2,200 4500 S State (west) FF 26 FF 12 1,009 $139 $140,698 $21,105 $162,000 3 9.16 107 1,100 Woodrow St 27 FF 8 1,999 $120 $240,517 $36,077 $277,000 2 2.56 111 1,200 Winchester 1000 W 28 FF 8 2,339 $120 $281,375 $42,206 $324,000 0 1.78 945 600 Winchester 700 W to RR 29 Transmission 12 3,273 $139 $456,401 $68,460 $525,000 1 10.30 691 5,000 State St 5300 S 30 Pipe Breaks 12 2,624 $139 $365,997 $54,900 $421,000 1 4.90 918 9,700 1 – See Figure 7-3 for location and extent of project BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-2 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 7-1 (continued) Prioritization of Recommended Pipe Replacement Projects Name Project Priority1 Primary Reason for Replacement Future Size (in) Length (ft) Unit Cost Construction Costs Engineering/ Administrative Total Cost No. Waterline Breaks Average Head Loss per 1000 lf (ft) Average Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Average Fire Flow in Vicinity (gpm) Rose Circle 31 4-inch 8 1,578 $120 $189,911 $28,487 $219,000 0 2.53 166 1,400 Atwood & 4800 S 32 4-inch 8 1,793 $120 $215,749 $32,362 $249,000 0 4.20 147 1,200 Old University of Phoenix 33 FF 8 2,071 $120 $249,227 $37,384 $287,000 0 3.93 254 4,200 900 E Steel Pipe 2 34 Steel 16 2,551 $171 $435,941 $65,391 $502,000 0 3.74 1,816 13,000 Creekside Dr 35 Steel 8 1,554 $120 $187,028 $28,054 $216,000 3 3.42 239 7,400 Sanford Dr 36 Pipe Breaks 8 831 $120 $99,990 $14,998 $115,000 3 3.36 317 4,600 Winchester State to 900 E 37 Steel 16 7,336 $171 $1,253,794 $188,069 $1,442,000 0 3.19 1,057 10,400 Sports Mall 38 FF 8 1,686 $120 $202,887 $30,433 $234,000 0 2.14 285 3,100 Sorenson Bio Science 39 FF 10 783 $139 $109,265 $16,390 $126,000 0 1.38 262 3,600 Spartain AMC 40 FF 8 1,346 $120 $161,963 $24,295 $187,000 0 1.96 102 2,600 Woodoak Lane 41 FF 10 1,498 $139 $208,928 $31,339 $241,000 0 1.32 81 1,500 Edison Ave 42 FF 8 821 $120 $98,804 $14,821 $114,000 1 0.66 <50 1,100 Riverpoint Dr 43 Pipe Breaks 8 696 $120 $83,801 $12,570 $97,000 3 0.19 141 1,300 Avalon Dr 44 Pipe Breaks 8 2,792 $120 $335,941 $50,391 $387,000 0 1.25 95 3,700 Miller St 45 Pipe Breaks 8 1,178 $120 $141,716 $21,257 $163,000 2 0.45 <50 4,100 LaSalle Dr 700 W to 6100 S 46 4-inch/Breaks 8 3,276 $120 $393,120 $58,968 $453,000 3 2.85 75 1,300 Belview Ave & 400 E 47 4-inch 8 505 $120 $60,785 $9,118 $70,000 0 1.58 114 2,100 Clay St 48 4-inch 8 1,640 $120 $197,314 $29,597 $227,000 1 1.31 648 500 Kenwood Dr 49 4-inch 8 1,964 $120 $236,318 $35,448 $272,000 0 1.22 55 800 Spruce Glen Cir 50 4-inch 8 665 $120 $79,988 $11,998 $92,000 0 0.91 151 900 Montrose & Alpine 51 4-inch 8 1,861 $120 $223,891 $33,584 $258,000 0 0.70 377 1,100 Fairbourne & 4460 S 52 4-inch 8 1,154 $120 $138,836 $20,825 $160,000 1 0.36 <50 700 Bonny View Ave & 300 W 53 4-inch 8 1,107 $120 $133,226 $19,984 $154,000 0 1.06 58 1,100 300 W & Anderson 54 4-inch 8 748 $120 $89,962 $13,494 $104,000 0 0.00 <50 500 Constitution 55 4-inch 8 859 $120 $103,350 $15,503 $119,000 1 0.00 <50 700 Fountain Cir 56 4-inch 8 166 $120 $19,994 $2,999 $23,000 0 0.00 <50 500 4600 S 200 E 57 4-inch 8 1,801 $120 $216,641 $32,496 $250,000 2 0.88 <50 1,300 Winchester 900 East to River 58 Steel 20 1,498 $212 $317,410 $47,611 $366,000 2 8.50 1,027 9,900 Jones St 4-inch 59 4-inch 8 659 $120 $79,277 $11,892 $92,000 0 4.78 88 2,400 Roanoke Cir 60 FF 8 131 $120 $15,717 $2,358 $19,000 0 0.12 128 1,300 1 – See Figure 7-3 for location and extent of project BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-3 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-4 MURRAY CITY Table 7-1 (continued) Prioritization of Recommended Pipe Replacement Projects Name Project Priority1 Primary Reason for Replacement Future Size (in) Length (ft) Unit Cost Construction Costs Engineering/ Administrative Total Cost No. Waterline Breaks Average Head Loss per 1000 lf (ft) Average Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Average Fire Flow in Vicinity (gpm) 1280 W 6190 S 61 Dead End 8 466 $120 $56,096 $8,414 $65,000 0 0.04 <50 1,300 Chesterbrook CV 62 Dead End 8 616 $120 $74,094 $11,114 $86,000 0 0.06 <50 1,500 670 W & 640 W 5465 S 63 Dead End 8 985 $120 $118,560 $17,784 $137,000 0 1.16 75 1,500 Vine St & Commerce Dr 64 Dead End 8 534 $120 $64,215 $9,632 $74,000 0 0.00 <50 1,500 500 W 4200 S 65 Dead End 8 359 $120 $43,186 $6,478 $50,000 0 0.00 <50 1,200 Ute Circle 66 Dead End 8 503 $120 $60,579 $9,087 $70,000 0 0.09 <50 1,300 Walnut Brook Dr 67 Dead End 8 757 $120 $91,070 $13,660 $105,000 0 0.03 <50 1,300 450 E Wilford Ave 68 Dead End 8 303 $120 $36,512 $5,477 $42,000 0 0.00 <50 1,000 Glen Ln 5900 S 69 Dead End 8 457 $120 $54,994 $8,249 $64,000 0 2.78 118 1,500 5900 S State 70 Dead End 8 14 $120 $1,696 $254 $2,000 0 0.00 <50 600 Labrum Ave 725 E 71 Dead End 8 614 $120 $73,856 $11,078 $85,000 0 3.38 368 1,300 620 E 5900 S 72 Dead End 8 586 $120 $70,528 $10,579 $82,000 0 1.03 328 1,500 Woodshire Circle 73 Dead End 8 426 $120 $51,220 $7,683 $59,000 0 0.56 53 1,400 Aspen Glen Condos 74 Dead End 8 700 $120 $84,283 $12,642 $97,000 0 0.06 <50 1,100 Malstrom Ln 75 4-inch 8 312 $120 $37,537 $5,631 $44,000 0 0.00 <50 1,300 Wallin St & Stratler St 76 4-inch 8 365 $120 $43,898 $6,585 $51,000 0 7.53 297 900 1 – See Figure 7-3 for location and extent of project ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Four-inch Pipelines and Hydrants One of the primary causes of fire flow deficiencies in the Murray City water system are 4-inch pipelines and fire hydrants. These pipes should be replaced with larger pipelines. Although these pipelines cause fire flow deficiencies wherever they exist, some are more critical because of the number and size of homes and businesses affected. Fire Flow Improvements System improvements which list “fire flow” as the primary reason for the recommended pipe project could be caused by one or more the following deficiencies: undersized pipes, long dead- end pipes, and high fire demands for special buildings. Replace Steel Pipelines and Other Corroded Pipes It is recommended that all steel pipelines be replaced with ductile iron pipe. It is also recommended that all older cast iron or ductile iron pipelines that have experienced multiple breaks and leaks also be replaced. It is recommended that a corrosion study be performed to identify areas in the water system service area where additional corrosion protection may be necessary or where metallic pipe should not be used. Transmission Hydraulic model simulations of Peak Hour Demands indicate there will be several areas in the Murray City water service area where operating pressures will drop below the desired pressure of 50 psi. Pressures remain well above the minimum pressure required by the State of Utah (30 psi) for most of the city, even during 2100 development conditions. The one exception includes a high point west of the Jordan River along Winchester Street where simulated operating pressures drop below 30 psi (see Figure 6-4). Because there is no operating pressure data available for this area, Murray City personnel should verify pressures during periods of peak demand to confirm whether low pressures are experienced in this area. This could easily be accomplished using a computerized water pressure data logger. Pipe improvements that list “Transmission” as the primary reason for replacement are intended to eliminate the simulated low pressures during peak hour demand conditions. Storage Facilities The structural integrity of Reservoir #2 (first constructed in 1954) was evaluated in 2005 and was determined to be in satisfactory condition. The design life of most tanks and pump stations is between 50 and 70 years. Murray City should budget funds to regularly maintain all storage tanks and ultimately budget to replace the existing facilities as they reach the end of their service life. Table 7-2 lists the approximate replacement cost of Murray City’s storage facilities. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-5 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Table 7-2 Murray City Storage Replacement Costs Name Capacity (MG) 2009 Dollars Reservoir #2 1.0 $1,250,000 Reservoir #3 2.0 $2,500,000 Reservoir #4 5.0 $5,000,000 Reservoir #5 – Hi-Land 2.0 $2,500,000 Reservoir #6 – Grant 2.0 $2,500,000 Total 12.0 $13,750,000 Although Murray does not plan to replace any of its storage facilities in the near future, the City should allocate funds on an amortized basis for storage facility replacement. In addition, consideration should be given to a future day when the tanks will be replaced to ensure that the City owns property on or near the existing tank sites that can be used in constructing a replacement facility. For instance, it would likely require about 18 months to construct a 5 million gallon tank to replace Reservoir Because it may not be feasible to take Reservoir #4 out of service during the summer months, owning a nearby parcel where a new tank could be constructed while the existing tank remains in service may be critical to the success of such a project. Owning property that can be used to replace aging structures is a critical part of the planning for future system operations. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Fire Hydrant Coverage. A cursory evaluation was performed using information in the City's GIS database to identify areas along City streets where spacing between fire hydrants may exceed 500 feet. These areas are shown in Figure 7-4 and indicate a possible need for additional fire hydrants. Schools with poor fire hydrant coverage are also identified. It is recommended that the information presented in Figure 7-4 be field verified and that Public Services personnel work closely with Fire Department personnel in resolving any deficiencies that may exist. Any undocumented Fire Hydrants should be added to Murray City’s existing database. Water Meters. According to City personnel, about 50 percent of the water meters in the City are at least 25 years old and about 25 percent are over 30 years old. The use of old water meters usually results in inaccurate metering (underestimating actual water use). Replacing old, inaccurate water meters should increase water sales revenues through increased metering accuracy. In addition, new automated meter reading technology can significantly reduce the labor costs associated with meter reading. The City has started a meter replacement program. It is recommended that the City continue with that program until all old meters have been replaced with meters with automated reading features. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-6 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- U T U T ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ ÍÎ $ ³ 5300 S 4500 S Winchester 900 E State 700 W 5900 S Vine I-215 I-15 I-215 ³ Figure 7-4 Fire Hydrant Coverage 2009 Water System Master Plan 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Murray City Legend Buildings Areas with No Fire Hyrant Coverage Schools with Poor Fire Hydrant Coverage Printing Date: August 13, 2009 File: P:\Murray City\2009 Water Master Plan\GIS\Fig7-4-FH-Coverage.mxd ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Additional Projects. Table 7-3 lists estimated costs for projects that are not directly associated with pipe replacement. Table 7-3 One-time Project and System Study Costs Project Description Estimated Cost SCADA Improvements Perform required programming to improve data collection and control. $80,000 Well Investigation Study Study to determine which Wells are most suitable for rehabilitation based on age, water quality, etc. $7,000 Well Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of Wells identified from the Well Investigation Study. $200,000 McGhie Springs Study1 Study to stabilize McGhie Spring facilities against earthquake damage. $30,000 Whitmore Backup Power Backup power to supply Whitmore West Well in the event of a power failure. $200,000 Corrosion Study Study to determine which areas of Murray require additional corrosion protection. $75,000 Power Generation Study1 Study to investigate the potential of adding a generation facility(s) on Murray City transmission mains. $25,000 Water Rate Study Study to determine adequate rates required to accommodate system improvements. $10,000 Total $627,000 1 – Does not include engineering and construction costs. Table 7-4 Annual Water System Budget Recommendations Type Description Estimated Cost Pipe Replacement Annual cost that should be budgeted for pipe replacement $1,300,000 Well Maintenance Program1 Annual cost that should be budgeted for maintaining Murray City Wells $130,000 Future Master Plan Updates The annual cost that should be budgeted for master plan updates $10,000 Conservation Budget1 The annual cost of promoting conservation programs $40,000 Water Meter Replacement The annual cost that should be budgeted for replacing old water meters. $30,000 Total2 $1,510,000 1 – May need to be adjusted to meet Murray City goals. 2 – Should be adjusted annually for inflation. BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-7 MURRAY CITY ---PAGE BREAK--- 2009 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN BOWEN, COLLINS & ASSOCIATES 7-8 MURRAY CITY CONCLUSIONS It is recommended that Murray City budget at least $1.51 million per year in 2009 dollars to fund the recommended projects identified in Table 7-4. An additional $627,000 (2009 dollars) should be budged over the next 5 years to pay for one-time study or project costs that are intended to increase source supply, maintain and protect supply sources, prevent operating problems, and improve operations as identified in Table 7-3.