The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFINAL 2026 0203 Special Meeting AgendaMoses Lake City Council Dustin Swartz, Mayor | Don Myers, Deputy Mayor | Mark Fancher, Council Member | Joel Graves, Council Member David Skaug, Council Member | Victor Lombardi, Council Member | Jeremy Davis, Council Member Special Meeting Agenda Moses Lake Civic Center Council Chambers – 401 S. Balsam Tuesday, February 3, 2026 Call to Order – 6 p.m.   #1 #2 #3 #4 Water Conservation and Endpoint Project Report - pg 3 Presented by Water Services Manager Chad Strevey Aquifer Storage and Recovery Feasibility Report - pg 9 Presented by Aspect Consulting Jill Van Hulle Potential New Deep Wells Presented by Aspect Consulting Jill Van Hulle Surface Water a.Potential Lake Withdrawal Locations Presented by Aspect Consulting Jill Van Hulle b.Bureau Municipal and Industrial Water Transfer from the Lake Presented by City Engineer Richard Law c.East Low Branch Canal Feasibility Study Presented by Public Works Director Brian Baltzell d.Well 20 Canal Port of Moses Lake Project Presented by Western Pacific Engineering Kevin Richards #5 Shallow Wells a.Progress on Deep to Shallow Exchange Discussions Presented by City Engineer Richard Law February 3, 2026, City Council Meeting Page 2 b. Most Viable New Shallow Well Locations Presented by Aspect Consulting Jill Van Hulle Adjournment   Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for February 10, 2026 NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the in-person meeting who require an interpreter or special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, need to contact the City Clerk at (509) 764-3703 or Deputy City Clerk at (509) 764-3713 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Link to online agendas:   1/30/2026 1 CITY OF MOSES LAKE Public Works 2025 Conservation And Endpoint Program Updates Monthly System Production 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecMillion Gallons2005-2023Averaged 2025 2024 1 2 1/30/2026 2 •Peak Day reflects the highest production day of the year in million gallons. •17.57 million gallons is the average for 2014-2023 •2024 15.81 million gallons •2025 15.48 million gallons Peak Day System Production 0 5 10 15 20 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Million Gallons10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Million Gallons•Average Daily system production May thru August. •13.5 million gallons is the average for 2014-2023. •2024 12.6 million gallons. •2025 12.3 million gallons Average Daily Summer System Production 3 4 1/30/2026 3 •Education stops by Conservation Tech. Water Conservation Cases 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 March April May June July August September October 2024 2025 •2024 9 violations resulting in fine. •2025 110 violations resulting in fine. Water Conservation Violations 5 6 1/30/2026 4 •14 Days of unrestricted watering for new sod/grass seed Irrigation Allowance Cases 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 March April May June July August September October 2024 2025 •Provisioned •Endpoint associated with an account. •Per-provisioned •Activated endpoints not associated with an account. •Available •Endpoints in inventory to be installed. Endpoint Status 7 8 1/30/2026 5 2026 Endpoint Deployment Map Beacon Leak Statistics 9 10 1/30/2026 6 Eye on Water Users Chad Strevy Water Services Manager cstrevy@cityofml.com 507 764 3948 For comments and questions: 11 12 Moses Lake Water Supply Work 2.3.2026 Jill Van Hulle & Andrew AustrengGeosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Presentation Outline Subtitle of Section ASR Concept Overview ASR Alternatives Analysis Deep Well Siting Surface Water Diversion Siting (including Blue Heron) Shallow Well Siting Priorities ASR Concept Subtitle of Section ASR involves pumping treated water into aquifer for storage and later use. Aquifer Storage and Recovery A component of Water Supply Sustainability Strategy Optimize Seasonally Available Surface Water through Treatment, Direct Use, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) The depleted aquifer is a large storage vessel that can be recharged. Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) 6 MGD Treatment Facility Excess Treatment Capacity City Demand Utilizes excess treatment capacity Portion of treated water not needed to meet demand Recharge typically aligned with low demand periods Small added costs to couple ASR with new source Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Hydrogeology and Groundwater Declines Water Level Changes from Recharge: Static Level Model by Golder Associates, Inc. Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Hydrogeology and Groundwater Declines Water Level Changes from Recharge: ~1,600 AF recharge in 2018 17-foot rise From: City of Walla Walla 2017-2018 Annual ASR Report by EA Engineering, Inc Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) ASR Components City of Othello ASR Demonstration Test Can be modular and/or scalable Multiple Options for treatment tech Can use existing wells Aquifer Storage and Recovery Alternatives Evaluation Subtitle of Section Hydrogeology and Cross Sections Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Intersection with E-W Section Target ASR Locations Hydrogeologic Model: Areas Most Impacted Intersection with E-W Section Ideal ASR Locations Hydrogeologic Model: Areas Most Impacted Intersection with E-W Section Ideal ASR Locations Water Quality Sampling Water Quality Sampling and Evaluation Four surface water locations Sampled twice to evaluate temporal variability 263 total analytes run for each sample Three groundwater wells Sampled once – no temporal variation expected 65 total analytes run for each sample Water Quality Sampling and Evaluation Analyte Unit WAC 173-200- 040 Chapter 246-290 WAC Primary Drinking Water Standard Chapter 246-290 WAC Secondary Drinking Water Standard Well 12 Well 18 Well 33 ML-1 ML-2 E20 E25 ML-1 ML-2 E20 Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept Sept Oct Oct Oct ND ND ND 42.2 67.4 131.0 49.3 45.0 39.6 112.0 ND ND ND 22.4 20.7 20.0 15.7 15.6 22.8 17.3 12.3 11.7 11.1 40.2 47.3 52.5 34.3 35.1 38.9 43.1 5.29 2.33 ND ND ND 2.0 2.7 ND ND ND ND 26.3 14.8 48.0 22.6 353.0 32.8 18.6 48.1 52.7 ND ND 10.3 14.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.49 1.6 11.3 19.6 24.4 5.3 7.0 8.9 7.2 3.61 1.84 2.04 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.6 1.2 ND 4.74 2.66 ND 1.7 2.7 9.0 3.5 2.7 2.1 7.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.33 3.11 ND 1 1.77 2.56 1.55 2.04 1.5 1.94 Exceedances: Bacteria pH (Penn Park) Turbidity (Penn Park) Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Geochemical Modeling Predicted water quality changes during storage are positive due to similarities Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Modeled Water Quality Changes During ASR Geochemical model used to evaluate mineral (rock) and mixing reactions Water quality will improve compared to native groundwater due to mixing with the higher quality recharge water. pH, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids concentrations would improve during storage. Performance similar across all wells Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Storage capacity not constrained by hydrogeology No hurdles with chemical compatibility (across wells and aquifers) ASR could be incorporated into WTP to extend and retime benefits: Example recharge capacity per well: 1,250 gpm -month irrigation season Stabilize or reverse water level declines at key groundwater sources Added cost for incorporation of ASR into new source and WTP is nominal (e.g., $25k to $250k per existing well) Summary of ASR Study Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Deep Well Siting Subtitle of Section Wells can display declining yields due to: • Declining static water levels • Pumping interference • Confinement / Boundary Condition • Operations Aquifer Conditions • Rehabilitation Changes in well health • Repair or replacement Problems with pumping equipment Historical Groundwater Level Declines Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Review of SCADA by Aspect (2025). Avg. Minimum Depth to Water Assumed to Represent Static Water Level (non-pumping) Main causes vary across individual wells Many wells (10, 11, 17, 24, 28) show significant seasonal variation Are Declining Well Yields Caused by Declining Aquifer Levels? Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Well Performance Declines: Well Aging Well 33 - Well Discharge and Performance from 2015 to 2021 Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Options for Deep Well Development 1) Deepen wells on existing well sites to access Grande Ronde: Well 18, recent decline in production, central to east side Well 24, recent declines in production, central to north side Grande Ronde typically has lower production potential of the Wanapum 2) Drill new Wanapum on Grande Ronde Well Site E.g., Well 17 Site 3) Can be narrowed/prioritized based on Pressure Zone & Permeability Data Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Deep Well Placement Siting Alternatives Potential locations for installing deep well in Grande Ronde Deep Well Location Options Intersection with E-W Section Deepen to Grande Ronde Deep Well Location Options Intersection with E-W Section Deep well in Grande Ronde Deep Well Site Alternatives on other City Properties City properties without deep wells Surface Water Diversions W20 Canal Extension Kevin Richards, WPE Surface Water Diversions Subtitle of Section Surface Water Right Pathways Lake Sources Seasonal Bureau of Reclamation M&I Contract MLRID Contract– targeted towards irrigation Canal Sources Bureau of Reclamation M&I Contract May be some winter water available through return flow Recommendation: USBR M&I Contract for Lake or Canal Water Not MLRID because it could require Ecology Concurrence (and possibly additional permitting) Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Lake Siting Alternatives Goal Identify locations for new diversion on Moses Lake for M&I contract application. Criteria City or publicly-owned properties Direct lake or right-of-way access Near existing basalt wells Adequate footprint for treatment Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) 34 Blue Heron Site: Lake Water Extraction from Shoreline (shallow well) Subtitle of Section Blue Heron Site Yield Analysis (modeling) Extremely permeable aquifer materials Lake recharge stabilizes drawdown quickly Yield limited by available saturated thickness and well screen transmitting capacity Lake Bathymetry Contour Lines (6’) near Blue Heron Park. Sourced from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Blue Heron Site Yield Analysis (modeling) “Interference Drawdown” is minimal Allows for multiple withdrawal locations Modeled drawdown at single well (less than 1 ft) Modeled drawdown at two wells (minimal interference) Well 1 Well 1 Well 2 Lake Capture & Water Rights Lake provides 90 to 95% of supply to well(s) Conceptual Cross-Section of Groundwater Flow (Pitz, 2003) Shallow Well Siting Subtitle of Section Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Shallow Well Site Screening Shallow Well Location Screening Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Summary and Next Steps Subtitle of Section Source Alternative Summary and Next Steps Surface Water Diversion Siting to Access M&I Water Blue Heron for M&I water? Advance site selection? Advance pre-design? ASR (component of New Surface Water Source) Advance permitting, planning, and grant funding? New Deep Well Further refine priority sites? Shallow Well Siting Advance and/or expand Site selection? Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) Contact geosyntec.com Jill Van Hulle, CWRE Jill.VanHulle@Geosyntec.com Andrew Austreng, LHG, RG Andrew.Austreng@Geosyntec.com Formerly Aspect Consulting Summary and Next Steps Supplemental Slides Shallow Well Location Screening Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) City of Moses Lake – Well Characteristics Summer Yield, gpm (2024 WSP) Year Min Casing Diameter (in) Depth to Top Open Interval (ft, bgs) Depth to Bottom Open Interval (ft, bgs) Total Open Interval (ft) Est. Available Head for ASR (ft) SC from Orig. Log SC from SCADA (March) SC from SCADA (Sept) Cooper-Jacob Hourly SCADA Data 4 GR Central 780 1954 8 711 1000 289 260 6,211 7 GR Central 690 1957 14 620 950 330 160 4,194 10 Wan Central 1390 1970 16 269 692 423 185 4,001 16,041 21,388 31 GR Central 1060 2008 16 843 970 127 150 2,373 9 Wan and GR Knolls Vista 970 1964 16 360 825 465 375 2,710 14 GR Knolls Vista 680 1990 10 735 1025 290 205 2,333 33 GR Knolls Vista 910 2009 16 681 994 313 165 2,378 2,005 3,361 11 Wan Lakeview 1100 1976 10 650 708 58 253 13,367 13,902 14,704 3,676 12 Wan Lakeview 2070 1947 16 108 568 460 55 5,504 21,655 29,943 21 Wan Larson 600 1943 12 420 730 310 280 5,792 23 Wan and GR Larson 1170 1953 16 408 791 383 241 15,787 24 Wan Larson 1350 1981 16 452 730 278 240 42,212 62,826 62,826 28 Wan Larson 1450 1961 20 259 750 492 259 55,608 55,608 20,186 8 Wan and GR Montlake 720 1960 16 702 1045 343 180 3,461 19 Wan Moses Pointe 770 2008 16 365 755 390 215 4,901 17 GR Wheeler 780 1994 16 686 1240 554 319 6,684 16,575 12,565 18 Wan Wheeler 1260 2003 16 280 585 305 95 3,921 Estimated Transmissivity (ft2/day) AquiferWell Pressure Zone Well Construction Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect) City of Moses Lake Supply Capacities From RH2, 2024, City of Moses Lake Water System Plan Update Facility Number Pressure Zone 2015 Reported Capacity (gpm)1 2019 Reported Capacity (gpm)2 2022/2023 Summer Average Summer Capacity (gpm)3 2043 Projected Capacity (gpm)4 SWL Decline (feet/year)5 Well No. 177 1,500 1,130 780 2,110 6.6 Well No. 18 2,000 1,670 1,260 1,030 18.9 Well No. 11 1,130 1,200 1,100 900 9.0 Well No. 12 1,990 1,930 2,070 1,690 0.2 Well No. 8 Montlake 680 800 720 580 1.5 Well No. 4 930 930 780 640 4.0 Well No. 7 910 800 690 570 5.4 Well No. 10 1,720 1,670 1,390 1,130 3.7 Well No. 31 950 1,475 1,060 870 7.4 Well No. 346 NA NA 1,000*1,000 NA Well No. 19 Moses Pointe 825 870 770 630 11.1 Well No. 97 1,230 1,200 970 790 7.3 Well No. 14 630 800 680 560 0.9 Well No. 33 1,000 930 910 740 19.8 Well No. 206 NA NA 1,200*1,200 NA Well No. 21 690 652 600 490 4.5 Well No. 238 1,480 1,200 1,170 0 7.1 Well No. 24 1,790 1,600 1,350 1,110 4.0 Well No. 28 1,640 1,640 1,450 1,190 3.4 Well No. 298 700 600 620 620 0.1 21,795 21,097 18,370 17,850 - Larson Total9 Wheeler Lakeview Supply Facility Capacities Central Knolls Vista Geosyntec Consultants (formerly Aspect)