Page has five water infrastructure options on the table. The goal is to add redundancy to ensure Page and LeChee have a backup water source and to increase delivery capacity to allow for future …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
Page has five water infrastructure options on the table. The goal is to add redundancy to ensure Page and LeChee have a backup water source and to increase delivery capacity to allow for future growth. Page Utility Enterprises (PUE) is working with Richard Humphreys and team from Carollo Engineers to find a solution.
Carollo provided a study covering four of the five possibilities. A fifth possibility is contingent on negotiations with the Navajo Nation to repurpose the closed Navajo Generating Station’s water system. Briefly, an agreement would have PUE purchasing raw water from Navajo Nation and Navajo Nation purchasing wastewater services from PUE. It is essentially a swap.
Navajo Nation is also planning a major development on its land bordering Horseshoe Bend. While their initial concept plans call for an array of solar panels and water wells, developers and investors will likely need more assurances. Page could help provide a reliable utility infrastructure. It could be a win-win situation for Page and Navajo Nation. Each has something the other needs.
The four water infrastructure possibilities in the 2019 Carollo study are:
Option 1: An 18” pipe connection to hollow jet tubes within the dam.
Option 2: A water intake upstream from Glen Canyon Dam as recommended in the 2004 Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) study.
Option 3: Connection to the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline to St. George, Utah.
Option 4: Drilling wells along Hwy. 89 and Hwy. 98.
From interviews and public discussions, Option 3 and Option 4 are long shots.
Option 3, the Lake Powell Pipeline, is likely more than 20 years out if happens at all. Environmentalist and water conservation groups are fighting the project. While Page’s cost to tap into the line is estimated at around $30 million, the current overall project cost estimates range between $2.4 billion and $4 billion and will likely increase each year.
Utah’s Zach Renstrom, the general manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District, said the project isn’t dead but part of a “very long-term strategy.”
"In the next 20 years, we are focused 100% on conservation and development of our local water supplies,” said Renstrom. “Lake Powell Pipeline is still a project for the state of Utah, but it’s out in the quite a bit distant future."
While the Lake Powell Pipeline project is on hold indefinitely, Carollo still recommends pursuing it for Page’s future development on the west side of the Colorado River.
Option 4 is similar to the Navajo Nation’s Horseshoe Bend development plans, expensive and risky. Building a water field is the most expensive of the five options. The 2019 estimate was $47,139,000. According to PUE manager Bryan Hill, costs have risen around 30% since 2019, kicking the estimate up to $61 million.
There are many unknown variables drilling for water. In addition to drilling and not finding water or having to go deeper than anticipated, the water quantity and quality, if found, is unknown. “That's high risk,” said Hill. “Even at the $60 million, that presumes that every well you punch will be successful and not have arsenic in it.”
Hill distinguishes absolute options from possible options. He believes the only viable options currently on the table are Option 2, the 2004 USBR study, or Option 5, a possible agreement with the Navajo Nation. A Navajo-Page agreement would require a study and working with various federal departments.
Option 2, the 2004 USBR study, will require updates to meet code regulatory changes since 2004. The original study could be amended. “The guys at the Bureau, they know the dam, that [study] is loaded up with information that's in the dam,” said Hill. “I mean, it has a lot of information on our pumping system and where we get our water and how it's conveyed a lot of great information in that 2004 report. All that is still true. When they looked at the situation, stepped back and looked at it, that that was their conclusion. My personal opinion and [in] operating the utility is, I agree with the Bureau.
“And, you know, we all have opinions. My opinion is the Bureau is right.”
Hill worked for the USBR before taking charge of Page’s utilities. “I started there in March of 2002 and worked there through Sept. 2003, and that's when the Board and Council hired me to operate their utility -- because I came from Arizona Public Service. I just came up on a little jaunt just to get a little hydro experience and do the little Mayberry thing. I was invited to go back to Arizona Public Service in 2009, and I elected to stay in Page.”
Mayor Bill Diak and Hill have worked toward getting funds using the 2004 USBR study to get a foot in the door. You can’t ask for millions of dollars without something to stand on. The 339-page USBR study was the city’s calling card. Any other option would need a similar study. This is why Carollo Engineering plays a critical role in Page’s success. The engineering firm has specialized in water and wastewater solutions for over 90 years, so they understand water infrastructure.
The Chronicle reviewed two reports from Carollo, one dated April. 2019 and an update based on new information dated Sept. 19, 2024. The update said the pump station and transmission main designed and maintained by USBR appeared well maintained, however the switchgear for the pumps is outdated and due to the critical nature of their function, should be replaced as soon as practical. The report states, “The electrical equipment is a single point of failure for the raw water pump station at the Glen Canyon Dam.”
Perhaps more troublesome is the unknown condition of some components. According to the Sept. 19, 2024, Carollo report, “The 12-inch raw water intake that takes water from the face of the dam is undersized for current flows, very difficult to inspect, maintain, and impossible to expand. This raw water intake was constructed in the 1950s, and the remaining useful life of this intake is not known and possibly not knowable. Therefore, Page should work to obtain a redundant water supply that provides additional capacity and does not rely on the 12-inch pipe going through the dam.”
The 12-inch diameter pipe between the raw water pump station and the tunnel entrance is not capable of meeting Page’s projected growth. Carollo recommends Page “proceed immediately to expand the capacity of the raw water supply system.”
Option 1, estimated at $30 million, is the least expensive of the possibilities studied by Carollo. However, its potential only offers partial redundancy. Increasing pipe sizes from 12” to 18” to increase capacity requires a USBR engineering study “to determine if it is practical to cut 18-inch diameter holes through the concrete all the way to the raw water pump station, expand the pump station, and then construct an 18-inch pipeline from the pump station to the entrance to the tunnel.”
It's clear that USBR involvement in the process is essential before making any assumptions about which direction to go. The Chronicle’s Water Infrastructure coverage will continue over the next few weeks as Page closes in on a solution.