HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Water Resources Plan and Technical Advisory Committee Progress UpdateCITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
ALTERNATIVES
IU1 (Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse):
Two northside golf courses (1 MGD each) and
new development (6,000 homes for 2 MGD, or
3,000 homes for 1 MGD growth) should receive
the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF)
effluent. Lyman System Expansion to 7 MGD
(total of 6,771 ac-ft firm yield possible) and
improvement to delivery of distribution system
will be required. Supply will include expanded
Lyman supply to full Lyman right, golf course
offset through contracting irrigation flows and
piping to Lyman system, and consolidated
extraneous groundwater and surface water rights
with a change of use to the East Gallatin River.
Outdoor Usage will be reduced by the proposed
new development.
IU2 (Northside and Southside Non-Potable
Water Reuse): Two northside golf courses
and southside golf course and MSU should
receive the BWRF effluent. The Lyman supply
and consolidated rights, along with contracted
irrigation rights from the northside golf courses
would go to Lyman. The southside golf course
may also be able to go to Lyman through a
Bozeman Creek transfer. The City could contract
with MSU for the offset to their irrigation system
that draws from Hyalite Reservoir for a total
amount up to 163 ac-ft. New development of
around 1,200 homes, initially, would be necessary
to take the rest of the BWRF flows. New
development would need to account for all flow
increases beyond the current estimated discharge
of around 4 MGD.
IU3 (Northside Non-Potable and Potable Water
Reuse): This alternative is the same as IU1, but
instead of serving 14,000 people through new
development, the 2 MGD would be sent to the
Lyman system and treated with the irrigation
flows, Lyman reservoir flows, and East Gallatin
flows. The Lyman Plant would be constructed to
at least 9 MGD.
IU4 (Northside and Southside Non-Potable and
Potable Water Reuse): Same as IU2, except we
would pipe additional flows to Lyman WTP (on
north side) and the existing WTP (on south side).
IU5 (Agricultural Irrigation Water Reuse):
A variation of IU1 to 4, with an agricultural
irrigation user contracting the water. Potential
agricultural irrigation uses are located on both
the north and south sides of the City of Bozeman.
However, a willing and interested land owner has
not been identified.
WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT
Consolidate Existing, but Unused Water Rights
Modify Lichtenburg Rights for Year Round Withdrawal
Determine Extent of Annexation Rights Acquired and Available in the Growth Area
Determine Extent of Hyalite Reservoir Rights to be Acquired
Consider Reduction of Shrinkage Rate from Hyalite
Shift Water Supply Utilization to Optimize Availability and Reduce Water Shortage Potential in Winter Months
CONSERVATION MEASURES - To be prosposed at TAC Meeting #2
INTEGATED UTILITY PLANNING (IU)
22
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
IU6 (Industrial Water Reuse): A variation of
IU1 to 4, with an Industrial user contracting for
the water. Wet Industrial Users are not presently
located in the City of Bozeman, so an end user
has not been identified.
IU7 (Groundwater Recharge): A variation of
IU1 to 4, with groundwater recharge in the form
of an infiltration gallery or an aquifer storage
and recovery system could be considered for up
to 4 MGD.
Note: Stormwater Capture has been considered
as a potential IU alternative. However,
the quantity of water is anticipated to be
relatively small in comparison to water supply
development needs give the low rainfall amounts
for the City of Bozeman during peak water
use conditions. Stormwater Capture has not
been eliminated from consideration, but will
be evaluated as a water conservation effort as
opposed to a water supply alternative.
WSD1 (Sourdough Reservoir): Sourdough
reservoir development will include up to 6,000
ac-ft constructed as an impoundment in the
Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek) Watershed.
This alternative has been evaluated in the 1999
Feasibility Study for the Sourdough Creek Dam
Project and the 2011 Sourdough Reservoir
Development Plan. An additional study
effort that could be referenced for additional
information on this alternative is the 2004
Sourdough Creek Watershed Assessment, which
evaluates the watershed from a catastrophic risk
perspective.
WSD2 (Canyon Ferry Import): The Canyon
Ferry Import Project, would include a contract
with the Bureau of Reclamation for up to a
full replacement of planning water demands
from Canyon Ferry Reservoir (currently holds
approximately 300,000 ac-ft of uncontracted
water). The contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation is a fairly straightforward process.
The challenge is distance. However, this option
also leads to a potential regional project that
could serve other municipalities in the Gallatin
Valley and even serve other water right holders
(private). Two options exist:
• WSD2A (Reservoir Delivery): would bring
water the entire 60 miles from the Reservoir
to the Gallatin Valley.
• WSD2B(Confluence Delivery): would
bring water from the confluence of the
Madison, Gallatin, and Jefferson Rivers.
Mitigation of water rights with users
between the confluence and the Reservoir
would need to be evaluated.
WSD3 (Groundwater): Groundwater
development was considered in the 1999
Feasibility Study for the Sourdough Creek
Dam Project. Three potential sources were
considered, including the Belgrade Subarea, the
Gallatin Gateway Subarea, and the Madison
Aquifer. These alternatives were originally
compared on the basis of water quantity, threats
to water quality, and distance and elevation
differences relative to the City of Bozeman. The
Gallatin Gateway Subarea was chosen as the
preferred option to evaluate further, but it was
noted that additional study could be completed
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (WSD)
23
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
in all areas. The original goal was to provide an
untreated groundwater supply. Treatment, on one
side of Bozeman or the other could be considered.
It would need to be proven that the aquifers were
not tied to surface water or sufficient rights from
other areas in the basin would need to be transferred
to the identified wellfield to make any of these
alternatives viable. The following alternatives could
be considered.
• WSD3A (Madison Aquifer): The Madison
Aquifer could be diverted in the Sourdough
Creek Basin, directly to the existing WTP where
it could be either treated or combined with
treated effluent, depending on quality.
• WSD3B (Belgrade Subarea): The Belgrade
Subarea could be piped to the north end of the
City of Bozeman and combined with an updated
Lyman System in some variation that may or may
not include treatment.
• WSD3C (Gallatin Gateway Subarea): The
Gallatin Gateway Subarea could be piped to the
south end of the City of Bozeman, with either
direct delivery to the distribution system and/or
treatment at the existing WTP.
WSD4 (Yellowstone River Import): Imported
water supplies from the Yellowstone River is also a
possibility. The Yellowstone River, near Livingston
is less than 30 miles from the City of Bozeman and is
still an open basin. The most likely withdrawal point
would be near the City of Livingston, with a pipeline
constructed over Bozeman Pass. Elevation and
pumping challenges should be considered. The water
would likely be delivered to the existing WTP for
treatment prior to delivery to the distribution system.
This import alternative may also be developable from
a regional perspective, although piping distances
to other local municipalities could be longer than
a pipeline from the confluence of the Madison,
Jefferson, and Gallatin Rivers near Three Forks, MT.
WSD5 (Adjacent Drainage Development): Surface
water rights in adjacent drainage basins could
be identified to determine whether any adjacent
drainages could be developed. Water supplies would
likely need to be diverted to the existing WTP site for
treatment. Due to the basin closure, this alternative
would only be viable if a secured water right with a
low priority date, excellent historical use information,
and an attractive firm yield could be identified. To
date, this type of opportunity has neither presented
itself, nor studied in extensive detail.
WSD6 (Canal Company Impoundment): Valley
impoundment of water by local canal companies
has been considered in the past and continues to
be evaluated by others at the present time. An
impoundment project would need to assure a
consistent pool of water, water rights that could be
contracted for year round use, or use during key
months when water demands are a challenge to meet,
and a delivery mechanism to either the existing WTP
or a north end WTP would need to be identified.
WSD7 (Sourdough Pond Storage): As an
alternative to the Sourdough Creek Reservoir project,
small, “pocket” storage could be developed in the
Sourdough Creek Drainage at various locations
and volumes that could total the development of
up to the 6,000 ac-ft of historic rights the City of
Bozeman had originally tied to the Mystic Lake Dam.
Suitable sites have not been identified for sizing and
operations of these types of storage reservoirs.
24
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
The above noted alternatives could be developed
either independently, or as part of a matrix of
Integrated Utility Options and Water Supply
Development Options, for a total number of potential
alternatives of 87 Unique Water Supply Portfolios.
There could be additional alternatives depending on
treatment or non-treatment and delivery locations
for the various Groundwater Alternatives. Not all
of these Alternatives will be possible to evaluate in
extensive detail as part of the proposed IWRP. It
will the responsibility of the TAC to narrow the
alternatives to a manageable and sensible set of
alternatives through screening levels #1 and #2, prior
to modeling and cost estimating efforts, proposed for
screening level #3.
WSD1 WSD2A WSD2B WSD3A WSD3B WSD3C WSD4 WSD5 WSD6 WSD7
IU1
IU2
IU3
IU4
IU5
IU6
IU7
Matrix of 70 Alterna
t
i
v
e
s
Each of the 17 Alternative Could Also Stand Alone, Depending on Extent of Development and
Service Population. Potential Water Supply Alternatives = 87.
Our job is to reduce the world of alternatives
to a managable number of sensible solutions.
25
SCREENING LEVEL #1 | Water Rights Legal Assessment
Green Project - Meets Water Rights Laws, Developable Resource
Yellow Project - Does not meet Water Rights Laws, which could be Changed, Uncertainty of Validity of
Water Right, or May meet Water Rights Laws with Right Approach
Red Project - Does not meet Water Rights Laws, and is Unlikely or Impossible to Change
Note: Green Projects Move Forward, Yellow Projects May Move Forward, Red Projects Eliminate
SCREENING LEVEL #2 | Qualitative Criteria
Note: Criteria Above a Certain Threshold will be Moved into Conceptual Cost Development. The TAC shall
be given 2 weeks to provide the weight factors for the ranking criteria to the Technical Team. The Technical
Team will then use these weight factors to score the 17 (or more or less) alternatives proposed. The
qualitative ranking outcome will be presented at TAC #2 for consensus from the group and prioritization of
alternatives that will move on to Screening Level #3.
Categories of Evaluation Criteria Weight (%)Score
Technical Criteria
Environmental Criteria
Social Criteria
Economic Criteria
Total (must equal 100%)100%
Technical Criteria Weight (%)Score
Constructability
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
Water Reuse
Water Supply Redundancy
Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets
Meets 50-Year Planning Horizon Targets
Total (must equal 100%)100%
Environmental Criteria Weight (%)Score
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
In-stream Flow Maintenance
Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements
Climate Impacts Resiliency
Energy Requirements
General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas)
Total (must equal 100%)100%
Social Criteria Weight (%)Score
Customer Service Satisfaction
Public Health and Safety
Quality of Life Impacts
Overall Public Support
Economic Development and Growth
Total (must equal 100%)100%
Economic Criteria Weight (%)Score
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Developable
Water Supply
Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs
Eligibility for Outside Funding
Economy of Scale Impacts
Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth
Total (must equal 100%)100%
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #1 - JUNE 6, 2012
SCREENING LEVEL #3 | Cost Analysis
Conceptual Capital Costs
Conceptual O&M Costs
Life Cycle Costs
$/Acre-Foot Cost
TAC TECHNICAL TEAM
26
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
SCORING APPROACH:
The TAC will be tasked with establishing weighting
criteria for each of the ranking criteria shown in the
attached table. The total for each subheading of
ranking criteria (Technical, Social, Environmental,
and Economic) should be 100 percent. The Technical
Team will then utilize the weighted criteria to score
the identified portfolios of water supply alternatives.
The summarized scores will then be presented at
TAC #2 for review and consensus by the TAC and
Technical Team. Lower scoring alternatives may be
eliminated from further consideration. This process
has successfully been applied in other Integrated
Water Resources Planning efforts to capture the
intrinsic differences between the experiences,
exposure, and priorities of a broad spectrum of
professionals tasked with long-range, big picture,
planning efforts.
The following descriptions of each scoring
category are provided to assist in standardizing the
interpretations of each of the categories listed above.
Note that alternatives should be scored as they relate
to each other. In cases where alternatives qualitatively
address the ranking category in the same way, the
same scores can be applied. However, every attempt
should be made to do a comparative analysis of the
alternatives to be considered.
Constructability
To receive points for constructability, the evaluator
should consider the process of physically
constructing an alternative. For example:
• Would the construction site for the project have
accessibility issues?
• Are the site conditions where the alternative will
be located unknown, challenging, or dangerous?
• Does the alternative require specialized and
unique construction strategies that may be
difficult and costly to bring to Montana?
• Are there barriers to construction, such as natural
features (mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.)
• Would there be any timing/seasonal issues that
could make constructing an alternative more
challenging?
• Will alternative construction involve construction
related inconveniences to the public?
Any of the above types of considerations, or others
that are similar in nature to the construction of
an alternative should result in a reduction in total
allowable points for this category.
Regulations and Drinking Water
Quality Impacts
To receive points for this category, the evaluator
should consider the following:
• Is the proposed water supply consistent with
current water supplies for which treatment
processes are already in place to treat the water to
existing potable drinking water regulations?
• Can treatment processes be constructed to treat
the proposed water source to existing potable
drinking water regulations?
• Are there regulatory issues with the water
supply that will result in regulatory issues in
the future and may have public health impacts
if implemented prior to regulations being
put into place (endocrine disruptors, human
health standards for nitrates, cytotoxins (algae)
by-products, high organic carbon or organic
matter, requiring unique disinfection strategies
with byproducts that could be regulated more
stringently in the future, etc.). Higher points
RANKING CRITERIA DESCRIPTIONS
27
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
should be given to alternatives where water
quality is known and regulations can thoroughly
be addressed now, with the flexibility to address
them into the future as they change.
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
This category will require that that evaluator consider
whether the proposed alternative optimizes use of
existing infrastructure. For example:
• Does the proposed solution allow for full
utilization of the City of Bozeman WTP that
is under construction? The facility is being
constructed to a peak capacity of 22 mgd and
consists of membrane treatment technologies
designed to water quality standards associated
with Bozeman Creek, Middle Creek, and Hyalite
Reservoir.
• Is there infrastructure already in place to deliver
water to the distribution system and serve the
different zones of the system effectively?
• Can new infrastructure be constructed to
complement the existing infrastructure? If so,
rank the alternatives in term of general feasibility
of the infrastructure necessary as they compare to
each other.
Water Reuse
Does the proposed solution involve a water reuse
component, particularly one associated with effluent
from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility?
• Does the proposed project assist in compliance
with the City’s Wastewater Permit?
• Is the proposed solution acceptable to the general
public?
• Does the solution provide a non-potable water
supply to another water rights hold that could
then contract its water right to the City for
drinking water purposes?
Water Supply Redundancy
A redundant water supply should not only be
considered in terms of overall quantity of water from
one source (i.e. the source has twice the water in
reserve than necessary to serve the community in dry
year), but more appropriately:
• Are the supplies developed in two (or more)
distinct water sources that have different
responses to climate conditions, different delivery
mechanisms to the system, different treatment
needs, and can effectively replace the other in the
event of an emergency (i.e. fire in the Bozeman
Creek/Hyalite Watershed, contamination of the
water supply, slope failure in Bozeman Creek
resulting in temporary loss of the stream, failure
of the treatment process equipment, prolonged
drought, etc.)?
Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to
meet water demand and population targets that have
been established for this study effort in the 30-Year
Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with
other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Meets 50-Year Planning Horizon Targets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to
meet water demand and population targets that have
been established for this study effort in the 50-Year
Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with
other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
Does this alternative have components that can
assist in watershed water quality improvements,
particularly as they relate to various TMDLs
(Nutrient, Sediment, and E.Coli) in the Lower
Gallatin Watershed? Examples include:
• Wastewater Reuse to prevent discharge of
wastewater into the East Gallatin River during
Seasonal Permitted Conditions
• Application of reuse water in a manner that
reduces the use of chemical fertilizer applications
• Reduction of direct stormwater discharge to local
streams
28
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
• Provision of augmentation flows to increase
low flow conditions in areas of the watershed
where water quality impairments could be a
challenge (i.e. an out-of-basin import project
or impoundment constructed with additional
capacity to maintain minimum stream flows
at a healthy level could be an example. While
this would not offset water supplies, it may be
possible to put existing or new water supplies
to use under different conditions either on a
temporary or permanent basis to achieve this type
of compliance objective in the future).
In-Stream Flows
Does the proposed project have the potential to
compromise in-stream flows during low flow
conditions? Does the proposed project have the
potential to add flexibility in mitigating instream flow
issues during low flow conditions?
Permitting, Environmental Impact
Statements, and Easements
Does the proposed alternative require an extensive
permitting, environmental clearance, and easement
development process? If so, does the extent of
this effort carry risk that the alternative may not be
viable or carry with it, the possibility of legal action
against the City? If a permit or easement cannot be
developed for an alternative, or environmental issues
result in a need to modify the alternative, can the
alternative be modified to address the concern?
Climate Resiliency
Is the proposed alternative capable of sustaining
reasonable service levels with regard to the potential
range of long-term climate impacts? If so, can it also
withstand temporary and harsher climate conditions
such as drought? Is the water supply able to return
to normal conditions relatively quickly after drought
events?
Energy Requirements
Does the raw water supply delivery system
associated with the proposed alternative require
extensive pumping and energy requirements? Will
new treatment processes be required that could
involve increased mechanical treatment and energy
requirements to meet drinking water regulatory
requirements? Could the new water supply be used
to generate energy?
General Environmental Impacts (Forests,
Wildlife, Water Quality, etc.)
Does the project have the potential to have a
significant impact on local forested areas, fish and
wildlife, historical and cultural resources, and water
quality?
Customer Service Satisfaction
Will the proposed solution result in acceptable levels
of customer satisfaction with regard to aesthetics,
water quality and quantity, and cost? How will it
compare to the service levels that customers are
accustomed to, today?
Public Health and Safety
Outside of regulatory requirements and potable
drinking water quality (which were addressed in
previous categories), does the proposed alternative
present any public health and safety concerns? For
example, a reservoir above the City could pose some
flood risk if a breach were to occur. Operator safety
in maintaining and managing an alternative could be
considered in this category as well.
Quality of Life Impacts
Would the water supply alternative carry any
impacts that could increase or decrease the quality
of life for the City of Bozeman. In the case of an
impoundment, could it be used for recreational
activities, or does it limit or eliminate recreational
activities? Could it be used to sustain a recreational
29
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
activity that may use large amounts of water (i.e.
golf course or park irrigation)? Does developing a
large, imported water supply encourage growth that
impairs quality of life in Bozeman, or does it allow
for structured growth that will continue to attract
people to the area that will enhance the quality of life
of those in Bozeman? While there are many ways
that this category could be scored, it should be scored
relative to the other alternatives evaluated, to the
greatest extent possible.
Overall Public Support
Does the proposed alternative seem consistent with
public sentiment from past water supply planning
efforts in regards to what a final project should
consider? Does it feel like a project that the City of
Bozeman community would generally support, fund,
and advocate for in the future.
Economic Development and Growth
Does the proposed alternative include components
that will hinder Economic Development and
Growth in any way? For example, would the
proposed alternative improve or sustain recreational
opportunities based on use of our local water supply
resources? Would the alternative allow for flexible
and appropriate Economic Development and Growth
in the City of Bozeman? Would moratoriums on
certain types of service sectors be a possibility
under certain conditions? If the baseline planning
conditions set forth in this study effort are no longer
applicable due to unanticipated growth, increased
water use, climate, or natural disaster, does the
proposed alternative provide flexibility to adapt? Is
the alternative easily expandable to allow for large
water using industries to locate to the Bozeman area,
if desired? Can it accommodate unpredictable swings
in growth, both through expansion to serve new
growth and overall cost considerations to minimize
the pressures of building large infrastructure projects
for future populations that don’t develop as planned?
Can it be combined with other solutions to delay the
project until constructing the project is necessary
without sacrificing service levels?
Magnitude of Capital Investment per
Acre-ft of Developable Water Supply
Although cost information is not available for all
alternatives at this level of the alternatives evaluation,
the goal of this category is to provide relative
consideration for each alternative as they compare to
each other. In general, ranges of developable acre-ft
for each alternative are provided in the alternative
information. The goal of this category is to consider
levels of investment versus the amount of water and
flexibility that could be developed. For example, the
Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project has included cost
estimates of $50 to $70 million dollars for a possible
6,000 ac-ft of water supply. While the alternative
evaluation will place some risk on the potential for
6,000 ac-ft (there is some concern regarding the
potential of securing the full amount, or any of the
6,000 ac-ft due to water rights law in Montana), in
the event that this project could be completed, this
results in a range of $8,333/ac-ft to $11,666/ac-ft.
Likewise, the current cash in-lieu program charges
developers $6,000/ac-ft or the relinquishment of
water rights equal to what is necessary to serve
the development so that new water rights could be
purchased. Likewise, a large development project,
such as an import project, may run well over
$100 million (perhaps even $200 million) dollars,
but result in the development of 30,000 acre-ft,
for a relative cost per ac-ft of much less than the
alternatives.
Relative Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) Costs
While detailed O&M costs have not been developed
at this time, the evaluator should consider whether
extensive O&M will be required for various
alternatives. Will new treatment be necessary? Will
pumping be necessary? Will additional staff be
required?
30
CITY OF BOZEMANIntegrated Water Resources Plan
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
June 6, 2012
®
Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
Eligibility for Outside Funding
Would the proposed alternative be eligible for
funding assistance to offset the rate impacts of the
project to the City of Bozeman rate payers? Projects
that involve regional approaches and address water
issues across service sectors (service sectors being
municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural) could
be projects that would be eligible for federal and
possibly even special State grant funding. The Red
River Valley Water Supply Project in North Dakota
imports water from the Missouri River to the Red
River and is funded through a cost share of 1/3rd
federal, 1/3rd state, and 1/3rd local funding. The
local portion is allocated based on water reserved
from the project by each community participating.
Other examples of regional funding programs
could be discussed, such as the Rocky Boy’s/North
Central Montana Regional Water System Project,
the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Project
(South Dakota), the Western Area Water Supply
Project (WAWSP), in Northwestern North Dakota,
etc. While some of these projects have unique
circumstances that may not make their strategies
directly applicable to a regional project in the
Gallatin Valley, these projects are coordinated with
the Bureau of Reclamation and funding for both
collaborative planning efforts and future projects
has been available in the past, is available now, and
could be developed in the future. The extent of
outside funding would need to be further explored,
but some alternatives considered as part of this study
effort could be eligible for funding, where others will
primarily be the City of Bozeman’s responsibility to
fund.
Economy of Scale Impacts
A project that can be constructed to serve a larger
population base now and in the future will result in
economy of scale benefits. The evaluator should
consider the population that could be served by each
alternative in relationship to the cost of constructing
and operating the system. Although one project may
be more expensive up front, if it can serve a larger
population over the long-term, a cost/benefit analysis
may result in the more costly alternative in the future.
Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage
Growth to Pay for Growth
This ranking category will mostly be associated with
alternatives that involve phasing, organizational
mechanisms, or temporary solutions that allow for
the delay of infrastructure construction until the
population is in place to support the project. Not all
alternatives will receive scores in this category.
31