Comprehensive Water System Plan - City of Duvall

City of Duvall 

Comprehensive 

Water System Plan 

November 2004 

Mayor 

Becky Nixon 

City Council 

Tom Loutsis 

Jeffrey Possinger 

Will Ibershof 

Steve Hotchkiss 

Pat Fullmer 

Heather Page 

Greg Von Tobel 

Director of Public Works/City Engineer 

Steve Schuller, P.E. 

Associate City Engineer 

Steven Leniszewski, P.E. 

Prepared by: 


RH2 Engineering, Inc. 

15535 Main Street NE 12100 NE 195th Street, Suite 100 

Duvall, WA 98019 Bothell, WA 98011 

Contact: Steven Leniszewski, P.E. Contact: Thomas C. Lindberg, P.E. 

425.788.3434 425.951.5318 

Financial Subconsultant 

FCS Group, Inc. 

Contact: Karyn Johnson 

425.867.1802 

Printed on Recycled Paper

Certification 

This Comprehensive Water System Plan for the City of Duvall was prepared under the 

direction of the following registered professional engineers. 

6o:',,d 

k",r r,,u9 

STGNED: 

/// 

EXPIRES 8/2/04 

.#trRq} i"_I',re\ 

Thomas C. Lindberg, P.E. 

Q,t,rr,,t9 

5 / tt/o+ 

Certifi cation.doc (OSl 14lO47.2O AM\


Comprehensive Water System Plan 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose of the Plan.............................................................................................................................................ES-1 

Changes Since The Last Plan Update...............................................................................................................ES-1 

Summary of Key Elements of the Plan...............................................................................................................ES-2 

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 

Water System Ownership and Management.....................................................................................................1 

Overview of Existing System ..............................................................................................................................1 

Authorization and Purpose..................................................................................................................................2 

Summary of Plan Contents.................................................................................................................................3 

Definition of Terms ..............................................................................................................................................4 

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................6 

CHAPTER 2 – WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Water Service Area .............................................................................................................................................1 

Water Service Agreements.................................................................................................................................2 

Satellite System Management............................................................................................................................2 

Existing Water Facilities ......................................................................................................................................3 

Water System Operation.....................................................................................................................................11 

Adjacent Water Systems.....................................................................................................................................12 

CHAPTER 3 – LAND USE AND POPULATION 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Compatibility With Other Plans ...........................................................................................................................1 

Land Use..............................................................................................................................................................4 

Population............................................................................................................................................................4 

CHAPTER 4 – WATER DEMANDS 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Current Population and Service Connections....................................................................................................2 

Existing Water Demands ....................................................................................................................................2 

Future Water Demands.......................................................................................................................................15 

Water Use Data Collection..................................................................................................................................18 

CHAPTER 5 – POLICIES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Supply Policies ....................................................................................................................................................2 

Customer Service Policies..................................................................................................................................3 

Facility Policies ....................................................................................................................................................5 

Financial Policies.................................................................................................................................................11 

Organizational Policies........................................................................................................................................13 

12/30/04 2:25 PM i J:\data\DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\TOC.doc




CHAPTER 6 – WATER SOURCE AND QUALITY 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Existing Water Sources.......................................................................................................................................1 

Water Rights........................................................................................................................................................4 

Drinking Water Regulations ................................................................................................................................6 

Source Water Quality and Treatment.................................................................................................................15 

Distribution System Water Quality......................................................................................................................20 

Planning of Future Water Supplies.....................................................................................................................23 

CHAPTER 7 – WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1 

Pressure Zones ...................................................................................................................................................1 

Supply Facilities...................................................................................................................................................2 

615 Zone Booster Pump Station ........................................................................................................................4 

Storage Facilities .................................................................................................................................................6 

Distribution and Transmission System...............................................................................................................9 

Pressure Reducing Stations ...............................................................................................................................15 

Telemetry and Supervisory Control System ......................................................................................................15 

System Capacity..................................................................................................................................................16 

CHAPTER 8 – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Normal Operations ..............................................................................................................................................1 

Emergency Operations .......................................................................................................................................10 

Preventive Maintenance .....................................................................................................................................12 

Staffing .................................................................................................................................................................15 

Operations and Maintenance Improvements.....................................................................................................16 

CHAPTER 9 – WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Description of Improvements ..............................................................................................................................1 

Estimating Costs of Improvements.....................................................................................................................10 

Prioritizing Improvements....................................................................................................................................11 

Schedule of Improvements .................................................................................................................................14 

CHAPTER 10 - FINANCIAL PROGRAM 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 

Historical Financial Performance........................................................................................................................1 

Capital Funding Options......................................................................................................................................4 

Projection of Financual Performance .................................................................................................................7 

Capital Funding Strategy.....................................................................................................................................8 

Water Operations ................................................................................................................................................10 

Revenue Requirements ......................................................................................................................................11 

Rate Assessment ................................................................................................................................................13 

12/30/04 2:25 PM J:\data\DUV\102-081\01\Plan\TOC.doc 

ii




TABLES 

Table 1-1 Water System Ownership Information ...........................................................................................1-1 

Table 1-2 2002 Water System Data................................................................................................................1-2 

Table 1-3 Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................1-6 

Table 2-1 Water Main Diameter Inventory......................................................................................................2-9 

Table 2-2 Seattle Contractual Minimum Supply Heads .................................................................................2-12 

Table 3-1 Population Trends ..........................................................................................................................3-5 

Table 3-2 Population Projections ...................................................................................................................3-6 

Table 4-1 Average Annual Metered Consumption and Service Connections ..............................................4-3 

Table 4-2 2002 Largest Water Users..............................................................................................................4-5 

Table 4-3 Historical Supply and Per Captial Demands..................................................................................4-6 

Table 4-4 2002 Demands by Pressure Zone .................................................................................................4-7 

Table 4-5 Demands by supply Facility............................................................................................................4-8 

Table 4-6 Unaccounted-for-Water ..................................................................................................................4-9 

Table 4-7 Unaccounted-for-Water Breakdown...............................................................................................4-10 

Table 4-8 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU’s).............................................................................................4-11 

Table 4-9 Peak Day Demands and Peaking Factors.....................................................................................4-14 

Table 4-10 General Fire Flow Requirements ...................................................................................................4-15 

Table 4-11 Future Water Demand Projections.................................................................................................4-16 

Table 4-12 Future ERU Projections ..................................................................................................................4-17 

Table 6-1 SPU Contractual Minimum Supply Heads.....................................................................................6-1 

Table 6-2 2002 Source Water Quality – Primary Standards .........................................................................6-17 

Table 6-3 2002 Source Water Quality – Secondary Standards ....................................................................6-18 

Table 6-4 2002 Source Water Quality – Non Regulated Parameters...........................................................6-19 

Table 7-1 Minimum and Maximum Deistribution System Pressures ............................................................7-2 

Table 7-2 Water Supply Evaluation.................................................................................................................7-3 

Table 7-3 615 Zone Booster Pump Station Supply Evaluation .....................................................................7-5 

Table 7-4 Existing Storage Evaluation............................................................................................................7-8 

Table 7-5 Future Storage Evaluation ..............................................................................................................7-9 

Table 7-6 Pressure Analysis Summary ..........................................................................................................7-12 

Table 7-7 Hydraulic Analysis Summary..........................................................................................................7-13 

Table 7-8 Existing System Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................7-17 

Table 7-9 6-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis .................................................................................7-18 

Table 7-10 20-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis (Average Projection) ............................................7-19 

Table 7-11 20-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis (Maximun Projection)...........................................7-20 

Table 8-1 Organization Chart..........................................................................................................................8-2 

Table 8-2 Personnel Certification....................................................................................................................8-2 

Table 8-3 Equipment and Supplies.................................................................................................................8-4 

Table 8-4 Staffing Requirements ....................................................................................................................8-17 

Table 9-1 Water System Improvements Completed Since 1994 ..................................................................9-2 

Table 9-2 Water Main Unit Costs....................................................................................................................9-10 

Table 9-3 Water Main Improvements Priority Ranking Criteria .....................................................................9-12 

Table 9-4 Prioritized Annual Water Main Replacement Projects ..................................................................9-13 

Table 9-5 Proposed Improvements Implementation Schedule .....................................................................9-15 

Table 10-1 Historical Performance – Operating Fund ....................................................................................10-2 

Table 10-2 Historical Performance – Water Improvement Captial Fund ........................................................10-3 

Table 10-3 General Facilities Charge ...............................................................................................................10-7 

Table 10-4 Capital Financing Plan (Inflated $$) ...............................................................................................10-9 

Table 10-5 Operating and Maintenance Expenses..........................................................................................10-10 

Table 10-6 Revenue Requirements.................................................................................................................10-12 

Table 10-7 Schedule of Residential Rates .......................................................................................................10-14 


iii




CHARTS 

Chart 4-1 2002 Water Connections by Customer Class .................................................................................4-4 

Chart 4-2 2002 Water Consumption by Customer Class ................................................................................4-4 

Chart 4-3 Future Water Demand and ERU Projections...................................................................................4-18 

FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 Existing Water System 

Figure 2-2 Existing System Hydraulic Profile 

Figure 2-3 Service Area and Adjacent Systems 

Figure 3-1 Zoning Map 

Figure 6-1 SPU’s Regional Water Supply System 

Figure 9-1 Proposed Water System Improvements 

Figure 9-2 Proposed Improvements Hydraulic Profile 

Figure J-1 Wellhead Protection Areas 

Figure L-1 Coliform Monitoring Plan 

Figure N-1 Hydraulic Model Node Diagram 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A – SEPA Checklist 

Appendix B – Water Service Area Agreements 

Appendix C – Water Purveyor Contract 

Appendix D – Water System Facilities Data 

Appendix E – Water Facilities Inventory (WFI) Form 

Appendix F – Water Conservation Plan 

Appendix G – Cross Connection Control Program 

Appendix H – Water Shortage Response Plan 

Appendix I – Water System Construction Standards 

Appendix J – Wellhead Protection Program 

Appendix K – Water Right Certificate and Self-Assessment Forms 

Appendix L – Water Quality Monitoring Plan 

Appendix M – Consumer Confidence Report 

Appendix N – Hydraulic Model Node Diagram 

Appendix O – Emergency Response Plan 

Appendix P – Water Ordinances 

Appendix Q – Consistency Statement Checklist 

Appendix R – Agency Review Comments 


iv

Executive Summary 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The City of Duvall (City) water system is a major infrastructure, much of which is invisible to 

the people that receive water from it. The water system requires qualified personnel to manage, 

operate, and maintain it and an ongoing capital improvement program to replace old components 

to meet the requirements mandated by federal and state laws and the expectations of its 

customers. The primary purpose of the City of Duvall Comprehensive Water System Plan is to 

identify and schedule water system improvements that correct existing system deficiencies and 

provide a safe and reliable supply of water to current and future customers. This Plan complies 

with Washington State Department of Health (DOH) regulations under WAC 246-290-100, 

which requires water purveyors to update their water system plans every six years. 

CHANGES SINCE THE LAST PLAN UPDATE 

The City’s last Comprehensive Water System Plan was approved by DOH in 1995. Many 

changes have occurred since the last update that affect water system planning for Duvall: 

• The Safe Drinking Water Act, which sets standards and monitoring requirements for water 

quality, was amended and re-authorized in 1996. 

• The Washington State Department of Health published the Water System Planning 

Handbook in April of 1997, which included an extensive list of requirements for water 

system plans. 

• The Washington State Department of Health published updated drinking water regulations in 

April of 1999. The revisions address lead and copper monitoring, wellhead protection, and 

cross connection control, all of which affect the City of Duvall. 

• Puget Sound's wild chinook salmon and bull trout were listed as a threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999. 

• In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the United States Congress passed the 

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (H.R. 

3448), which became effective June 12, 2002 and requires all public water systems serving a 

population of over 3,300 persons to prepare a water system Vulnerability Assessment Plan 

and update or prepare an Emergency Response Plan. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN ES-1 DUV\102-081\PLAN\ExecutiveSummary (12/29/04 11:48 AM)


• The 2003 Municipal Water Law (HB1338), which became effective September 9, 2003, 

identifies additional elements related to water rights, system capacity, service area 

consistency, and conservation that are required in all water system plans. 

SUMMARY OF KEY ELEMENTS 

The City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan presents a description of the existing water 

system and service area, forecast of future water demands, policies and design criteria for water 

system operation and improvements, water system analyses, the operations and maintenance 

program, a schedule of improvements, and a financial plan to accomplish the improvements. 

The Plan also includes several ancillary elements, which include a water conservation plan, 

cross-connection control plan, water quality monitoring plan, wellhead protection plan, and 

emergency response plan. A summary of the key issues related to these elements is provided in 

the following sections. 

Water Service Area 

The City provides water service to approximately 1,954 customer accounts throughout its water 

service area for a population of approximately 5,190 people in 2002. The water service area 

boundary is not expected to change and is the same as the planning area boundary for the 

purpose of this Plan. The City provides water service to mostly single family residents, which 

make up approximately 94 percent of all accounts and use approximately 80 percent of all water 

supplied. 

Single Family 

94% 

Single Family 

80% 

Government 

Education 

1% 

Multi-Family 

2% Government 

Education 

3% 

Multi-Family 

4% 

Commercial 

Industrial 

3% 

Commercial 

Industrial 

13% 

2002 Water Connections 

2002 Water Consumption 

Past Water Usage and Conservation 

Total system-wide water usage has increased approximately 40 percent from 1995 to 2002, 

primarily due to additional customers added to the system from growth. During this same time 

period, the average amount of water demand per person has decreased from approximately 99 

gallons per day in 1995 to approximately 80 gallons per day in 2002. This trend of decreasing 

DUV\102-081\PLAN\ExecutiveSummary (12/29/04 11:48 AM) ES-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


water demand on a per capita basis is likely the result of water conservation practices and an 

increase in the number of homes with water efficient plumbing. The City’s 1995 - 2002 average 

per capita demand of 92 gallons per day and average demand per equivalent residential unit of 

228 gallons per day are slightly less than the average for the Puget Sound area. The City’s 

average amount of unaccounted-for water from 1995 to 2002 was 8.3 percent, which is below the 

industry average of 15 to 20 percent. The City’s Water Conservation Plan identifies a water use 

reduction goal of one percent per year through the year 2010, which is consistent with the Seattle 

Public Utilities regional water conservation goal. 

1,800 

10,000 

Peak Day Demand (gpm) 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1997 

1998 

Existing - 2002 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Maximum Peak Day Demand without Conservation 

Maximum Peak Day Demand with Conservation 

Maximum Equivalent Residential Units 

+ 6 years - 2008 

2010 

Year 

+ 20 years - 2022 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

Average Peak Day Demand without Conservation 

Average Peak Day Demand with Conservation 

Average Equivalent Residential Units 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's) 

Past and Future Water Demands and ERU’s 

Future Water Demands and Water Supply 

Overall water demand within the City’s system is estimated to increase between approximately 

48 and 58 percent within the next six years and between approximately 89 and 177 percent 

within the next 20 years, depending on the amount of future water use reductions from the City’s 

conservation program and the rate at which growth actually occurs in the system. The City has 

sufficient water supply from its two existing Tolt Pipeline connections to meet the demand 

requirements of the system through the 20-year planning period. 



Water Source and Quality 

The City receives its water from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) under the terms of the 1981 Water 

Purveyor Contract, which will expire at the end of 2011, but can be extended in 15-year 

increments. Water that the City receives from SPU is from the Tolt River source, which is 

located approximately 15 miles east of the City. 

The City relies on the personnel and procedures of SPU to provide a reliable and high quality 

supply of water to the City’s system. SPU is responsible for the quality of the water from the 

source to the City’s two metered supply connections. The City is responsible for water quality 

within its water service area boundary. The City monitors water quality in its system, but does 

not provide water treatment; all water treatment is provided by SPU. Source water quality has 

been good in the past, but not without some problems related to SPU’s regional water system. 

SPU completed construction of a new water treatment plant in 2000 that should increase the 

reliability and quality of water supplied from the Tolt River source. 

Operations and Maintenance 

The City’s operations and maintenance organization is staffed by well-qualified, technically 

trained personnel. City staff regularly participates in safety and training programs to keep 

abreast of the latest changes in the water industry and to ensure a smooth and safe operation of 

the water system. The current staff of supervisory and maintenance personnel have effectively 

operated and maintained the water system in the past. However, approximately one to two 

additional staff is necessary to fulfill the optimum preventive maintenance requirements of the 

water system. The City plans to add staff to properly maintain the system and to keep up with 

system growth as the budget allows. 

The City has taken several steps to prepare for emergency situations. The Emergency Response 

Plan, which was prepared as part of this Comprehensive Water System Plan, provides 

information to prepare and assist the City in responding to emergency events. The City is also 

conducting a vulnerability assessment of its water system, which is scheduled for completion in 

June 2004. The City’s Water Shortage Response Plan identifies procedures for managing water 

demand during a water supply emergency or shortage situation. Water system improvements 

completed by the City over the last several years and proposed improvements identified in this 

Plan will reduce the vulnerability of the water system during emergency situations. 

Water System Evaluation 

The existing water system was evaluated to determine its ability to meet the policies and design 

criteria of the City and those mandated by the Department of Health. The results of the 

evaluation are summarized below: 

• The City’s existing reservoirs and Tolt supply stations have adequate capacity for the next 20 

years. 

DUV\102-081\PLAN\ExecutiveSummary (12/29/04 11:48 AM) ES-4 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


• Improvements to the Big Rock Road 2.2 MG Reservoir are necessary to improve water 

quality in the reservoir and to make more storage available to the system. 

• The Crestview Estates 0.5 MG Reservoir needs to be recoated within the next six years. 

Prior to recoating, a seismic evaluation will be performed to determine the reservoir’s ability 

to withstand a seismic event and to identify required seismic improvements. 

• The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station has adequate capacity for the next six years, but will 

need improvements to increase its capacity before the end of the 20-year planning period. 

• The water system does not have pressure relief facilities to protect the system from overpressurization. 

• Several water mains, most of which are located in the older downtown area of the City, need 

to be replaced with new water mains to increase fire flows and resolve deficiencies related to 

undesirable pipe material and aging water main. 

• Several pressure reducing stations can be abandoned upon completion of proposed water 

main improvements, which will reduce future maintenance and improvement costs for these 

facilities. 

• Telemetry, operation and control improvements are necessary to simplify the operation of the 

water system and optimize control of the facilities with reduced operation costs. 

Proposed Water System Improvements and Financing Plan 

Improvements to the system are primarily necessary to resolve existing system deficiencies, but 

also to improve operations and accommodate future water customers. Improvements identified 

for the first six years of the capital improvement program (2005 - 2010) are estimated to cost 

approximately $3,594,000, which results in an average expenditure of approximately $599,000 

per year (in 2003 dollars). Improvements in the following six years (2011 – 2016) are estimated 

to cost approximately $2,566,000. 

The financial analysis is intended to illustrate the feasibility of funding the operation and 

maintenance and capital improvements planned for the water system for the next six years. The 

first six years of capital improvements can be funded from existing capital reserves, general 

facilities charge revenues, and revenue bonds. The City has updated the water system general 

facilities charge and plans to implement the new charge in 2005. Moderate rate increases will be 

necessary during the next six years to support the future costs of operations and maintenance and 

capital improvements. The rate increases are expected to average less than four percent per year 

from 2005 to 2010. 


Introduction 

1 

WATER SYSTEM OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 

The City of Duvall (City) is a municipal corporation that owns and operates a public water 

system within its corporate boundaries. Water system data on file at the Department of Health 

(DOH) for the City is shown below in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1 

Water System Ownership Information 

Information Type Description 

System Type Group A - Community - Public Water System 

System Name City of Duvall 

County King 

DOH System ID Number 207508 

Owner Number 1625 

Address 15535 Main St. NE - P.O. Box 1300, Duvall, WA 98019 

Contact Mr. Steven Leniszewski, P.E., Associate City Engineer 

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM 

The City provided service to approximately 1,954 customer connections, or 2,280 equivalent 

residential units (ERU’s) in 2002, within the City’s water service area, which extends beyond the 

city limits. The city limits comprise an area of approximately 2.3 square miles and the water 

service area is approximately 6.6 square miles. However, most of the water service area is 

undeveloped at this time. The 2002 population within the city limits was 5,190. 

All water supply to the City is provided by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) through its Tolt supply 

pipeline at two supply stations. Water supply from SPU is both fluoridated and chlorinated. 

Water storage is provided by two reservoirs that have a total maximum capacity of 2.7 million 

gallons (MG). In addition, the City’s water system has five pressure zones with 19 pressure 

reducing stations, one closed zone booster pump station, and almost 36 miles of water main. A 

summary of 2002 water system data for the City’s system is shown in Table 1-2: 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1-1 DUV\102-081\PLAN\WCPCH1.DOC (12/29/04-11:53)

CHAPTER 1 

Table 1-2 

2002 Water System Data 

Description 

Data 

Population 5,190 

Water Service Area 

6.6 square miles 

Total Connections 1,954 

Total ERU's 2,280 

Demand per ERU (1995 - 2002 Average) 

228 gallons per day 

Demand per Capita (1995 - 2002 Average) 92 gallons per day 

Annual Supply 

151,798,372 gallons 

Average Day Demand 

289 gpm 

Unaccounted-for Water (1995 - 2002 Average) 8.3% 

Peak Day/Average Day Demand Factor 1 2.20 

Peak Hour/Peak Day Demand Factor 1 1.80 

Number of Pressure Zones 5 

Number of Supply Stations & Total Capacity 2 (2,960 gpm) 

Number of Pump Stations & Total Capacity 1 (2,000 gpm) 

Number of Reservoirs & Total Capacity 

2 (2.7 MG) 

Number of Pressure Reducing Stations 19 

Total Length of Water Main 

36 miles 

1 = Sufficient data unavailable, typical value assumed. 

AUTHORIZATION AND PURPOSE 

In July 2002, the City authorized RH2 Engineering to prepare a comprehensive water system 

plan as required by state law under WAC 246-290-100. In accordance with WAC 246-290-100, 

the plan shall be updated and submitted to the State Department of Health every six years. The 

previous comprehensive water system plan was prepared for the City in 1994 and approved by 

DOH in March 1995. The purpose of this updated comprehensive water system plan is as 

follows: 

• To evaluate recent water demand data and project future water demands. 

• To analyze the existing water system to determine if it meets minimum requirements 

mandated by DOH and the City’s own policies and design criteria. 

DUV\102-081\PLAN\WCPCH1.DOC (12/29/04-11:53) 1-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN

Introduction 

• To identify water system improvements which resolve existing system deficiencies and 

accommodate future needs of the system for at least 20 years into the future. 

• To prepare an implementation schedule of improvements and financing plan that meets 

the goals of the financial program. 

• To evaluate past water quality and identify water quality improvements. 

• To document the operations and maintenance program. 

• To prepare conservation, emergency response, wellhead protection and cross connection 

control plans. 

• To comply with all other water system plan requirements of DOH. 

SUMMARY OF PLAN CONTENTS 

A brief summary of the content of the chapters in the plan is as follows: 

• Executive Summary: Provides a brief summary of the key elements of this plan. 

• Chapter 1 - Introduction: Introduces the reader to the Duvall water system, the objectives 

of the plan, and the plan organization. 

• Chapter 2 - Water System Description: Presents the water service area, describes the 

existing water system, and identifies the adjacent water purveyors. 

• Chapter 3 - Land Use and Population: Presents related plans, land use, and population 

characteristics. 

• Chapter 4 - Water Demands: Identifies existing water demands and projected future 

demands. 

• Chapter 5 - Policies and Design Criteria: Presents the City’s operational policies and 

design criteria. 

• Chapter 6 - Water Source and Quality: Discusses the City’s water source and water 

quality monitoring program. 

• Chapter 7 - Water System Analysis: Discusses the water system analyses and existing 

system deficiencies. 

• Chapter 8 - Operations and Maintenance: Discusses the City’s operations and 

maintenance program. 

• Chapter 9 - Water System Improvements: Presents the proposed water system 

improvements, their estimated costs, and implementation schedule. 


CHAPTER 1 

• Chapter 10 - Financial Program: Summarizes the financial status of the City and presents a 

program for funding the water system improvements. 

• Appendices: Contain additional information and plans that supplement the main chapters of 

the plan. 

DEFINITION OF TERMS 

The following terms are used throughout this plan: 

General Facilities Charge: A one-time fee paid by a property owner when connecting to the 

water system. This fee pays for the new customers’ equitable share of the cost of the existing 

system. This fee offsets the costs of providing water to new customers and recognizes that the 

existing water system was largely built and paid for by the existing customers. 

Consumption: The true volume of water used by the water system’s customers. The volume is 

measured at each customer's connection to the distribution system. 

Connection Charge: A one-time fee paid by a property owner when connecting to the City’s 

system and is made up of both the General Facilities Charge and Meter Installation Charge. 

Cross-Connection: A physical arrangement that connects a public water system, directly or 

indirectly, with anything other than another potable water system and, therefore, presents the 

potential for contaminating the public water system. 

Demand: The quantity of water required from a water supply source over a period of time 

necessary to meet the needs of domestic, commercial, industrial, and public uses, and to provide 

enough water to supply fire fighting, system losses, and miscellaneous water uses. Demands are 

normally discussed in terms of flow rate, such as million gallons per day (mgd) or gallons per 

minute (gpm), and are described in terms of a volume of water delivered during a certain time 

period. Flow rates pertinent to the analysis and design of water systems are: 

• Average Day Demand (ADD): The total amount of water delivered to the system in a 

year divided by the number of days in the year. 

• Peak Day Demand (PDD): The maximum amount of water delivered to the system 

during a 24 hour time period of a given year. 

• Peak Hour Demand (PHD): The maximum amount of water delivered to the system, 

excluding fire flow, during a one hour time period of a given year. A systems peak hour 

demand usually occurs during the same day as the peak day demand. 

Equivalent Residential Units (ERU’s): One ERU represents the amount of water used by one 

single family residence for a specific water system. The demand of other customer classes can 

be expressed in terms of ERU’s by dividing the demand of each of the other customer classes by 

the demand represented by one ERU. 


Introduction 

Fire Flow: The rate of flow of water required during fire fighting, which is usually expressed in 

terms of gallons per minute (gpm). 

Head: A measure of pressure or force by water. Head is measured in feet and can be converted 

to pounds per square inch (psi) by dividing feet by 2.31. 

Head Loss: Pressure reduction resulting from pipeline wall friction, bends, physical restrictions, 

or obstructions. 

Hydraulic Elevation: The height of a free water surface above a defined datum; the height 

above the ground to which water in a pressure pipeline would rise in a vertical open-end pipe. 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The maximum permissible level of contaminant in the 

water that the purveyor delivers to any public water system user, measured at the locations 

identified under WAC 246-290-300, Table 3. 

Meter Installation Charge: The installation charge or hook-up fee is a fee paid by a property 

owner to reimburse the City for the cost incurred to make the physical connection to the water 

system. This cost includes both direct and indirect cost for installing the service line off of the 

system’s water main to the customer’s water meter. 

Potable: Water suitable for human consumption. 

Pressure Zone: A portion of the water system that operates from sources at a common 

hydraulic elevation. For example, 555 Zone refers to the City’s second highest pressure zone 

which has a reservoir with a maximum water elevation (i.e., overflow elevation) of 555 feet. 

Purveyor: An agency, special purpose district, subdivision of the State, municipal corporation, 

firm, company, mutual or cooperative association, institution, partnership, or persons or other 

entity owning or operating a public water system. Purveyor also means the authorized agents of 

such entities. 

Supply: Water that is delivered to a water system by one or more supply facilities which may 

consist of supply stations, booster pump stations, and wells. 

Storage: Water that is “stored” in a reservoir to supplement the supply facilities of a system and 

provide water supply for emergency conditions. Storage is broken down into the following five 

components which are defined and discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: operational storage, 

equalizing storage, standby storage, fire flow storage, and dead storage. 

Unaccounted-for Water: Water that is measured as going into the distribution system but not 

metered as going out of the system. 


CHAPTER 1 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

The abbreviations listed below in Table 1-3 are used throughout this plan: 

Table 1-3 

Abbreviations 

Abbreviation Description 

ADD Average Day Demand 

AWWA American Water Works Association 

CCR Consumer Confidence Report 

CIP Capital Improvement Program 

City City of Duvall 

CWA Cascade Water Alliance 

DOH Department of Health 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERU Equivalent Residential Unit 

fps feet per second 

GMA Growth Management Act 

gpm gallons per minute 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

MG Million Gallons 

MGD Million Gallons per Day 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

PDD Peak Day Demand 

PHD Peak Hour Demand 

psi pounds per square inch 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SPU Seattle Public Utilities 

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 


Water System Description 2 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the City of Duvall’s (City) existing and future water service areas and 

water service agreements, and provides a thorough description of the water system and its 

individual components. The results of the evaluation and analyses of the existing water system 

are presented later in Chapter 7. 

WATER SERVICE AREA 

History 

Duvall was settled in the late 1800’s, originally as a small lumber and farming based community. 

It was later incorporated as a city in 1913 and in the late 1970’s the City began transforming into 

a suburban bedroom community with a rapidly growing population. The City currently provides 

water service to approximately 1,954 customer connections. 

Topography 

Duvall’s service area is located on the east side of the Snoqualmie River Valley, just west of a 

ridge that runs parallel to the Snoqualmie River. The topography of the area served by the City’s 

water system varies greatly in elevation. The lowest areas served are located along the edges of 

the Snoqualmie River and have an elevation of approximately 40 feet. The highest areas served 

are located near the easterly boundary of the City, in the vicinity of the Crestview Estates 

Reservoir, and have an elevation of approximately 500 feet. The topography of the City’s 

service area slopes generally downward from east to west. 

Although the westerly boundary of Duvall lies within the Snoqualmie River’s flood control zone, 

the City’s water system has not expanded into this area. 

Existing Water Service Area 

The City of Duvall is located in north central King County, Washington, on the banks of the 

Snoqualmie River. The City’s corporate boundary encompasses an area of approximately 2.3 

square miles, as shown in Figure 2-1. A small portion of the City’s existing water distribution 

system extends beyond these limits, as shown in the figure. The existing water system extends 

as far north as NE Cherry Valley Road, south to approximately Big Rock Road NE and east to 

292nd Avenue NE. The Snoqualmie River serves as the distribution system’s westerly 

boundary. 

The City’s retail water service area boundary was defined in the 1989 East King County 

Coordinated Water System Plan and is shown in Figure 2-3. The City of Duvall is responsible 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 2-1 DUV\102-081\PLAN\WCPCH2 (12/29/04 12:25 PM)

C H A P T E R 2 

for providing public water service, utility management and water system development within this 

area. The City’s retail water service area boundary encompasses an area of approximately 6.6 

square miles and extends north to NE Cherry Valley Road, west to the Snoqualmie River, and 

south and east to the boundary of King County Water District No. 119. 

WATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS 

Water Service Area Agreement 

All purveyors located within the East King County Critical Water Supply Service Area are 

required to have a water service area agreement that identifies the external boundary of their 

water service area. The City updated its water service area agreement in 1997 as part of the 

1996 East King County Coordinated Water System Plan Update. A copy of this agreement is 

contained in Appendix B. 

Seattle Purveyor Contract 

The Water Purveyor Contract is essentially a long-term agreement that requires Seattle Public 

Utilities (SPU) to supply a reliable source of treated water to the City of Duvall at wholesale 

prices, based upon the City’s long-term commitment for water demand. The original contract, 

dated November 1981, was amended on June 6, 1994. A copy of the contract and its amendment 

is contained in Appendix C. 

The Water Purveyor Contract will remain effective until January 1, 2012, at which time it will 

terminate. SPU formally notified the City and all other purveyors in August of 1996 that the 

purveyor contracts would not be renewed in their present form. However, a contract is expected 

to be negotiated by 2012 if a new regional water supply entity is not formed by then. Additional 

information on the Water Purveyor Contract and the City’s long-term water supply planning is 

presented in Chapter 6. 

SATELLITE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT 

A Satellite Management Agency (SMA) is defined as a person or entity that is certified by the 

Department of Health (DOH) to own or operate more than one public water system without the 

necessity for a physical connection between such systems. SMA’s were created to stop the 

proliferation of small water systems, many of which could not meet federal and state water 

quality and water system planning regulations. Based on the success of these SMA’s, DOH 

made recommendations to the legislature to include rules for designating entities as qualified 

SMA’s. 

In July 1995, Senate Bill 5448 became a law that governs approvals of new water systems and 

sets forth requirements for SMA’s. The goal of the law is to ensure that the people of this state 

receive safe and reliable water supplies in the future from professionally managed or properly 

operated water systems. 

DUV\102-081\PLAN\WCPCH2 (12/29/04 12:25 PM) 2-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN

Water System Description 

SMA’s can provide 3 different levels of service. 

1. Ownership of the satellite system 

2. Operations and management of the satellite system 

3. Contract services only 

The service can be provided to new systems, existing systems which are no longer viable or 

existing systems placed into receivership status by DOH. 

The City of Duvall, in accepting its service area, has accepted responsibility for providing water 

service to all customers in this area. Currently, only the Riverview School District’s small water 

systems exist within the City’s water service area boundary. The populated areas surrounding 

the City’s service area are currently being served by large, stable water systems that are unlikely 

to be a future satellite water system operated by the City. 

In the event that a neighboring water system needs the City’s assistance, Duvall will cooperate to 

provide the necessary satellite management services to meet their needs. Upon agreement 

between the two systems to have the City provide these services, the City will pursue the 

necessary steps to become an approved SMA. These include: 

• Submitting a notice of intent to the DOH; 

• Participating in a pre-submittal meeting with the DOH; 

• Submitting a SMA plan to DOH that meets the plan requirements; 

• Obtaining approval of the plan from DOH. 

EXISTING WATER FACILITIES 

This section provides a detailed description of the existing water system and the current 

operation of the facilities. The analysis of the existing water facilities is presented in Chapter 7. 

Detailed data on all of the water system facilities is contained in Appendix D. General water 

system facility data is summarized on the Department of Health Water Facilities Inventory 

(WFI) form. A copy of this form is contained in Appendix E. 

Pressure Zones 

The City serves customers within an elevation range of approximately 55 feet near the banks of 

the Snoqualmie River to approximately 500 feet near the Crestview Estates Reservoir. The wide 

elevation range requires that the water pressure be increased or reduced to maintain pressures 

that are safe and sufficient to meet the flow requirements of the system. This is achieved in the 

City’s system by dividing the water system into five different pressure zones, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. The pressure in each pressure zone is regulated by reservoir levels, pressure 



reducing station settings, pump station settings or a combination of these, as illustrated in the 

hydraulic profile, Figure 2-2. 

Hydraulic Profile Overview 

The pressures in the 450 Zone and the 555 Zone are regulated by reservoir levels, as illustrated 

in the hydraulic profile, Figure 2-2. Pressures in the 450 Zone are established by the surface 

water level in the Big Rock Road Reservoir, which has an overflow elevation of 450.5 feet. The 

450 Zone is primarily located between 3rd Avenue NE and 272nd Avenue NE and serves 

customers within an elevation range of approximately 170 feet to 300 feet. Pressures in the 555 

Zone, which has a maximum hydraulic elevation of 555 feet, are established by the surface water 

level in the Crestview Estates Reservoir. The 555 Zone is predominately located between 272nd 

Avenue NE and 278th Avenue NE and serves customers within an elevation range of 

approximately 290 feet to 440 feet. 

The 615 Zone is a closed zone, or a zone without storage, which is supplied by the 615 Zone 

Booster Pump Station. This zone serves customers within an elevation range between 

approximately 405 feet to 500 feet and is primarily located east of 278th Avenue NE. 

The 485 Zone and the 330 Zone are supplied with water by a series of pressure reducing stations 

that decrease the pressure of water supplied to these zones. The 485 Zone, which is the system’s 

smallest zone, is supplied through two pressure reducing stations with water from the 555 Zone 

and is located south of NE 141st Place and west of 278th Avenue NE. Elevations in the 485 

Zone range from approximately 295 feet to 370 feet. The lowest pressure zone, the 330 Zone, is 

supplied by a series of ten pressure reducing stations with water from the 450 Zone. The 330 

Zone is predominately located west of 3rd Avenue NE, and elevations within this zone range 

from approximately 55 feet to 290 feet. 



Supply Facilities 

Introduction 

All water supply to the City’s system is provided 

by SPU from its Tolt supply pipeline. Most of 

the water that the City receives is from the Tolt 

River source. Water from this source is delivered 

to the City from east to west in a 66-inch 

transmission main that is routed approximately 

two miles south of the City’s downtown business 

district. Water is provided to the City’s system 

from this transmission main through two active 

metered supply connections. Tolt 1 Supply 

Station is located near the southeast corner of the 

City’s Urban Growth Area Boundary and Tolt 2 

Supply Station is located to the west of Tolt 1 

Supply Station. 

Water Treatment 

Tolt 1 Supply Station Interior 

All water treatment is currently provided by SPU. The City’s water is chlorinated to disinfect 

and kill harmful bacteria that may be present in the water and fluoridated to assist in the 

prevention of tooth decay. Additionally, filtration and ozonation of SPU’s Tolt River source is 

provided by the Tolt Treatment Facility, which became operational at the end of 2000. 

Additional information on the City’s source of supply, water treatment, and water quality 

monitoring is contained in Chapter 6. 

Tolt 1 Supply Station 

Tolt 1 Supply Station, located near the intersection of NE Big Rock Road and SPU’s Tolt 

Pipeline No. 1 right-of-way, provides supply directly to the 615 Zone and indirectly to all other 

zones (through pressure reducing stations and an altitude valve). This station was constructed in 

1984 and has a capacity of approximately 1,750 gpm. Improvements to the facility were 

constructed in 1996. Tolt 1 Supply Station consists of two below-grade concrete vaults with a 

single 12-inch inlet pipe from the Seattle supply system, 12-inch outlet piping to the 615 Zone, 

and 4-inch and 8-inch flow control/pressure reducing valves which are located in the larger 

vault. A 12-inch flow meter is located in the smaller, upstream concrete vault. Both vaults are 

equipped with sump pumps and intrusion switches. 

Tolt 2 Supply Station 

Tolt 2 Supply Station, located near the intersection of 274th Avenue NE and SPU’s Tolt Pipeline 

No. 1 right-of-way, provides supply directly to the 450 Zone and indirectly to all other zones 



(through pump and pressure reducing stations). This station was originally constructed in 1962 

and has a capacity of approximately 1,200 gpm. Improvements to the facility were constructed 

in 1973 and 1996. The station consists of two below-grade concrete vaults with a single 12-inch 

inlet pipe from the Seattle supply system, 12-inch outlet piping that reduces to 10-inches to the 

450 Zone, and 4-inch and 10-inch flow control/pressure reducing valves that are located in the 

larger vault. A 12-inch flow meter is located in the smaller, downstream concrete vault. Both 

vaults are equipped with sump pumps and intrusion switches. 

Taylor’s Landing Well 

Taylor’s Landing Well is an artesian well 

located southwest of the intersection of 

Main Street NE and NE Allen Street. The 

City holds a water rights certificate for the 

use of the well, which is currently 

disconnected from the water system. 

Historically, water was hauled from the 

Taylor’s Landing Well to augment low or 

dry private wells in the unincorporated areas 

north of Duvall. The City capped the well 

and closed it to open public use in 2000 for 

liability reasons. The well is now securely 

capped and locked and is only used in the 

summer by the City’s Public Works 

Department to fill water trucks for irrigation 

purposes. 

Taylors Landing Well 

Pump Station Facilities 

615 Zone Booster Pump Station 

The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station is 

located at the site of the 2.2 MG Big Rock 

Road Reservoir, which is east of NE Big 

Rock Road and south of Roney Road. The 

station is a fairly new facility that was 

constructed concurrently with the Big Rock 

Road Reservoir in 1996. The station pumps 

water from the 450 Zone Big Rock Road 

Reservoir to the 615 Zone to meet the 

demand requirements of the 615 Zone and to 

transfer storage from the 2.2 MG Reservoir 

to the 0.5 MG Reservoir via an altitude 

valve. 

615 Zone Booster Pump Station 



A CMU block building houses the booster pump station’s mechanical and electrical equipment. 

The station has a total capacity of approximately 2,000 gpm, which is delivered by one 350 gpm 

vertical turbine pump with a 30 horsepower motor and two 1,000 gpm vertical turbine pumps 

with 60 horsepower motors. All three pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives. The 

station was designed to accommodate an additional fourth pump, as needed in the future. A 6- 

inch pressure relief valve is located on the discharge header and protects the 615 Zone from high 

pressures during pump operation. A 6-inch altitude valve with backpressure sustaining and 

pressure relief override is located outside the pump station in a below-grade vault. This control 

valve allows the transfer of water from the 615 Zone to the 450 Zone when Tolt 1 Supply Station 

is supplying water to the 615 Zone and protects the 615 Zone from high pressures during this 

operation. A stationary engine generator set, located in a room adjacent to the pumps, is 

equipped with an automatic transfer switch and provides backup power supply to the facility. A 

12-inch flow meter is located outside and adjacent to the pump station in a below-grade concrete 

vault. The site is fully enclosed by a chain link fence. Both the metering vault and pump station 

building are equipped with intrusion switches. 

Storage Facilities 

450 Zone 2.2 MG Big Rock Road Reservoir 

The 2.2 MG Big Rock Road 

Reservoir, which is located east of 

NE Big Rock Road and south of 

Roney Road, provides water storage 

directly to the 450 Zone and 

indirectly to the other zones in the 

system. The reservoir site is shared 

with the City’s 615 Zone Booster 

Pump Station. The 138-foot 

diameter, 27-foot tall steel reservoir 

was constructed in 1996 and provides 

approximately 111,000 gallons of 

storage per foot height. The 

reservoir’s base elevation is at 

approximately 430 feet and the 

overflow elevation is at 450.5 feet. 

2.2 MG Big Rock Road Reservoir 

The interior of the reservoir was cleaned in 2001 and the exterior was pressure washed in 2002. 

The reservoir is equipped with an exterior level gauge and has a single 12-inch water main that 

serves as its common inlet/outlet pipe. A recently installed internal level sensor provides 

accurate level measurements for data logging and level control purposes. The reservoir may be 

filled either from the 450 Zone through a 12-inch transmission main in Big Rock Road or from 

the 615 Zone through a 6-inch altitude valve. The altitude control valve is located onsite and 

adjacent to the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station building in a below-grade concrete vault and is 



equipped with an intrusion switch. The altitude valve is programmed with a delayed opening 

and is also equipped with backpressure sustaining and pressure relief mechanisms to maintain 

minimum pressures and to relieve excess pressures in the 615 Zone. 

555 Zone 0.5 MG Crestview Estates Reservoir 

The 0.5 MG Crestview Estates Reservoir is located near the 

intersection of NE 144th Street and 283rd Street NE. The 

reservoir provides storage for the 555 Zone and can provide 

supplemental storage to the lower pressure zones when 

supplied through the pressure reducing stations. The 63- 

foot tall steel reservoir was constructed in 1988 and 

provides approximately 8,400 gallons of storage per foot 

height. The reservoir has a base elevation of approximately 

496 feet and overflow elevation of 556 feet. 

The interior of the reservoir was cleaned in 2001. A mural 

is painted on the reservoir’s exterior coating. The reservoir 

is equipped with an exterior level gauge and has a 6-inch 

water main that serves as its inlet pipe from the 615 Zone 

and a 12-inch water main that serves as its outlet pipe to the 

555 Zone. The reservoir has an elevated inlet pipe that 

discharges water into the reservoir at an elevation of 

approximately 545 feet. A 4-inch altitude valve, which 

controls the level of water in the reservoir, is located on the 0.5 MG Crestview Estates Reservoir 

reservoir’s inlet piping in a below-grade concrete vault. A 

pressure transducer, which measures the pressure of the 615 Zone at this location, is also located 

in this vault. An 8-inch insertion meter, which was installed in 1996 in a separate below-grade 

concrete vault upstream of the altitude valve vault, measures the flow rate of water from the 615 

Zone to reservoir. Both vaults are equipped with sump pumps and intrusion switches. The 

reservoir site is fully enclosed and secured with a chain link fence topped with barbed wire. 

Distribution and Transmission System 

The City’s water system contains almost 36 miles of water main ranging in size from 2-inches to 

12-inches. As shown in Table 2-1, most of the water main (approximately 63 percent) within 

the service area is 8-inch diameter, and more than three-quarters of all water main is 8-inch 

diameter or smaller. 



Table 2-1 

Water Main Diameter Inventory 

Diameter 

Length 

(Inches) (Feet) % of Total 

2 239 0.1% 

4 17,254 9.2% 

6 10,851 5.8% 

8 117,333 62.5% 

10 13,948 7.4% 

12 28,069 15.0% 

Totals 187,694 100% 

All of the water main in the City’s system is constructed of asbestos concrete, PVC and ductile 

iron, with two-thirds of the water main constructed of ductile iron. All new water main 

installations are required to use ductile iron water main in accordance with the City’s 

development and construction standards. 

Approximately fifteen-percent of the water main within the system is 40 years old, nearing the 

50-year general life expectancy of water main. The majority of this older water main is asbestos 

concrete. The remainder of the water main in the City’s water system is primarily 20 years old 

or less and is generally in good condition. 

Pressure Reducing Stations 

Pressure reducing stations are connections between adjacent pressure zones that allow water to 

flow from the higher pressure zone to the lower pressure zone by reducing the pressure of the 

water as it flows through the station, thereby maintaining a safe range of pressures in the lower 

zone. A pressure reducing station is essentially a below-grade vault (typically concrete) which 

normally contains two pressure reducing valves, a pressure relief valve, piping, and other 

appurtenances. The pressure reducing valve hydraulically varies the flow rate through the valve 

(up to the flow capacity of the valve) to maintain a constant pressure on the downstream side of 

the valve for water flowing into the lower pressure zone. 

Pressure reducing stations can serve multiple purposes. They can function as an active supply 

facility by maintaining a continuous supply of water into a lower zone that has no other source of 

supply. The pressure reducing stations that serve the 330 Zone and 485 Zone are this type. 

Pressure reducing stations can also function as standby supply facilities that are normally 

inactive (no water flowing through them). The operation of this type of station is typically 

triggered by a drop in water pressure near the downstream side of the station. A typical 

application of this function is a pressure reducing station that is only needed to supply additional 



water to a lower zone during a fire flow or other emergency situation. The pressure setting of the 

control valve within the station allows it to remain closed during normal system operation and 

open only during high demand conditions, like fire flows, to provide the additional supply 

needed. The pressure reducing stations that serve the 450 Zone and 555 Zone are of this type, 

since both of these zones have reservoirs that maintain pressures in their zone. 

The Duvall water system has a total of 19 pressure reducing stations, as shown in plan view in 

Figure 2-1 and in profile view in Figure 2-2. A total of ten pressure reducing stations actively 

supply water from the 450 Zone to the lower 330 Zone, which serves the downtown area. Four 

pressure reducing stations serve the 450 Zone from the 555 Zone, while the 485 Zone and the 

555 Zone are served by a total of two and three pressure reducing stations, respectively. All of 

the City’s PRV stations are located in underground vaults and are not equipped with pressure 

relief valves. A listing of all pressure reducing stations and related data is contained in 

Appendix D. 

Water System Interties 

Water system interties are physical connections between two adjacent water systems. A closed 

isolation valve or control valve is the part of the intertie that normally provides the separation of 

the two water systems. Emergency supply interties provide water from one system to another 

during emergency situations only. An emergency situation may occur when a water system loses 

its main source of supply or transmission main and is unable to provide a sufficient quantity of 

water to its customers for drinking or fire flow purposes. Normal supply interties provide water 

from one system to another during non-emergency situations and are typically supplying water at 

all times. The City does not have interties with adjacent water systems. However, an emergency 

intertie between the City’s water system and the Water District No. 119 water system is possible, 

should either system become interested in the future. 

Telemetry and Supervisory Control 

System 

Successful operation of any municipal water 

system requires gathering and using accurate 

water system information. A telemetry and 

supervisory control system gathers information 

and can efficiently control a system by 

automatically optimizing facility operations. A 

telemetry and supervisory control system also 

provides instant alarm notification to operations 

personnel in the event of equipment failure, 

operation problem, flood, fire, or other 

emergency situations. 

Level Recorder at Crestview Estates Reservoir 



The City’s telemetry and supervisory control system was installed in approximately 1997 by 

Systems Interface. The system consists of a master telemetry unit (MTU) at the public works 

building and remote telemetry units (RTU) at each of the two supply facility sites and two 

reservoir sites. The RTU’s communicate with the MTU using dedicated leased telephone lines. 

The system, however, is not quite fully operational for data collection and alarm notification at 

all facilities. The City plans to have the system fully operational within the next year. 

WATER SYSTEM OPERATION 

Overview 

All water supply is provided through two metered connections from SPU’s Tolt Pipeline No. 1 

that follows an alignment directly south of the City, as shown in Figure 2-1. Tolt 1 Supply 

Station provides water to the 615 Zone and indirectly fills the 0.5 MG Crestview Estates 

Reservoir in the 555 Zone through an altitude control valve at the reservoir site. Water from this 

supply station can also indirectly fill the 450 Zone 2.2 MG Big Rock Road Reservoir through an 

altitude control valve at the reservoir site. Tolt 2 Supply Station provides water directly to the 

450 Zone and the Big Rock Road Reservoir. The settings of the supply facilities and water 

usage throughout the system dictate the amount of water either flowing into or out of the 

reservoirs. The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station draws water from the 450 Zone Big Rock Road 

Reservoir and pumps it into the closed 615 Zone (i.e., no storage within the zone) to meet 615 

Zone demands and to supply water to the 0.5 MG Crestview Estates Reservoir when the altitude 

valve opens for filling the reservoir. The 485 Zone and the 330 Zone are supplied by pressure 

reducing stations with water that originates from the 555 and 450 Zones, respectively. 

The City’s supply facilities have been designed to operate under a wide variation of supply heads 

and to comply with SPU’s demand metering requirements. The following two sections describe 

the operation of the City’s facilities during the demand metering period. 

SPU Demand Metering Requirements 

The Water Purveyor Contract with SPU requires the City to maintain a relatively constant 24- 

hour demand on the Seattle supply system by supplying peak demands from storage, or pay a 

substantial demand surcharge. The demand surcharge is imposed when the average of the 

demand factors from the 10 maximum supply days during the demand metering period exceeds 

1.3. The current demand metering period is from May 16th through September 15th of each 

year. 

The demand factor is calculated from the ratio of the 15-minute peak flow rate to the 24-hour 

average flow rate of the same day. The City’s two supply facilities are considered as a single 

supply connection for the purpose of calculating the demand factor. The demand surcharge is 

calculated in the fall of each year based upon the supply rates during the demand metering 

period. The demand surcharge, if imposed, is applied for one year beginning in January 

following the summer that the peak demands occurred. To avoid the demand surcharge, the City 



operations personnel operate the supply facilities in a flow control mode during the summer 

months and adjust the flow rate of each station on a daily basis to maintain maximum storage 

levels and a relatively constant supply from SPU. The rate of supply is set early in the morning 

each day based on the prior days demand, the prior days flow control valve settings, the level in 

the reservoirs, and the forecasted weather condition for the upcoming day. 

When demand metering is not in effect during the lower water usage months of the year, the 

supply facilities are usually set to maximize water turnover and maintain adequate water quality 

in the reservoirs. 

Seattle Supply Head Variation 

The hydraulic head, or pressure, of the water entering the City’s supply facilities from the Tolt 

pipeline varies throughout the year, based on the overall water demand of users of the SPU 

regional system. The hydraulic head at the City’s supply facilities is highest during the winter 

and lowest during the summer, especially during periods of extreme temperatures and high water 

use throughout the region. The Water Purveyor Contract with SPU identifies the minimum 

hydraulic head of water supply that SPU must maintain at each of the City’s supply facilities. 

The City’s supply facilities are capable of providing adequate pressures and flows throughout the 

system, even if the SPU supply system is operated at minimum contract head levels. The 

minimum head requirements are shown below in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2 

Seattle Contractual Minimum Supply Heads 

Pressure Min. Head 1 

Supply Facility Location Zone (feet) 

Tolt 1 Supply Station NE Big Rock Rd & Tolt Pipeline No. 1 R.O.W. 615 644.7 

Tolt 2 Supply Station 275th Ave NE & Tolt Pipeline No. 1 R.O.W. 450 639.7 

1 - Mininimum head values shown are based on the NAVD88 datum 

ADJACENT WATER SYSTEMS 

The area outside and immediately adjacent to Duvall’s existing water service area is 

unincorporated King County and only a portion of the area immediately adjacent to the City is 

served by a public water system. Two large water systems are located in close proximity to the 

City’s system, as shown in Figure 2-3. In addition, one of SPU’s main supply lines, Tolt 

Pipeline No. 1, is located within the City’s service area boundary. The following provides a 

brief description of each water system. 



King County Water District No. 119 

King County Water District No. 119 is immediately adjacent to the east and south sides of the 

City’s water service area. The District has approximately 1,100 service connections and 

provides water to a population of approximately 3,000 people within unincorporated King 

County. The District also purchases its water supply from SPU. The City has no plans for an 

intertie between the two systems at this time. Five single family customers located within the 

District’s service area are currently served by the City under the terms of a 1998 interlocal 

agreement between the City and the District, which was amended in 2000. These customers are 

located southeast of the City’s current retail service area in the vicinity of the Tolt 1 Supply 

Station. A copy of the agreement and its amendment is contained in Appendix B. 

Woodinville Water District 

Woodinville Water District is located approximately one mile west of the City’s water system 

and is bordered by several other water systems, which include Northshore Utility District, City 

of Bothell, City of Kirkland, and the City of Redmond. The District is a combined water and 

sewer district which serves approximately 13,000 water customers and 2,500 sewer customers 

within the City of Woodinville, a portion of the City of Bothell and unincorporated King County. 

The system serves a population of approximately 41,000 people. Similar to the City of Duvall, 

the District receives all of its water supply from SPU. There are no plans for interties between 

this system and the Duvall water system at this time. 


Land Use and Population 3 

INTRODUCTION 

The City of Duvall (City) Comprehensive Plan was completed in April 1994 and was last 

updated in December 2000. The City is currently preparing an update to the 2000 Plan, which is 

scheduled for completion by the end of 2004. The plan was developed to meet the requirements 

of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires, among other 

things, consistency between land use and utility plans and their implementation. This chapter 

demonstrates the compatibility of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan with other plans, 

identifies the designated land uses within the existing and future service area, and presents 

population projections within the Duvall planning area. 

COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER PLANS 

Introduction 

To ensure that the Comprehensive Water System Plan is consistent with the land use policies 

that guide it and other related plans, the following planning documents were examined. 

• Growth Management Act 

• City of Duvall Comprehensive Plan 

• King County Countywide Planning Policies 

• East King County Coordinated Water System Plan 

Growth Management Act 

The State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 and its 1991 and 1993 amendments 

defined four goals relevant to this water plan: 

1. Growth should be in urban areas. 

2. There should be consistency between land use and utility plans and their implementation. 

3. There should be concurrency of growth with public facilities and services. 

4. Critical areas should be designated and protected. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 3-1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\WCPCH3 (12/29/04 12:30 PM)

CHAPTER 3 

Urban Growth Area 

The GMA requires that King County and Duvall cooperate in designating an Urban Growth Area 

(UGA). As part of the development of its 1994 Comprehensive Plan, the City designated an 

UGA that would accommodate the City’s projected population growth and provide resource 

conservation. 

Consistency 

The GMA requires planning consistency from two perspectives. First, it requires consistency of 

plans among jurisdictions. This means that plans and policies of Duvall and King County must 

be consistent (RCW 36.70A.100). Second, the GMA requires the implementation of the plan be 

consistent with the comprehensive plans (RCW 36.70A.120). 

Concurrency 

Concurrency means that adequate public facilities and services are provided at the time growth 

occurs. For example, growth should not occur where schools, roads and other public facilities 

are overloaded. Concurrency ensures that public dollars are used efficiently and that quality of 

life is preserved. To achieve this objective, the GMA directs growth to areas already served or 

readily served by public facilities and services (RCW 36.70A.10). It also requires that, when 

public facilities and services cannot be maintained at an acceptable level of service, the new 

development should be prohibited (RCW 36.70A.100). 

Critical Areas 

The GMA requires that critical areas be designated and protected. Critical areas include aquifer 

recharge areas, wetlands and steep slopes. The SEPA checklist in Appendix A addresses other 

environmental concerns. 

City of Duvall Comprehensive Plan 

The Land Use Element of the City of Duvall’s 1994 Comprehensive Plan is the City’s vision of 

how growth and development should occur over a 20-year horizon. While the Land Use 

Element goals and policies set forth general standards for locating land uses, the Zoning Map, 

which has been reproduced and is shown in Figure 3-1, indicates geographically where certain 

types of uses may be appropriate. 

The Land Use Element articulates many of the same goals and concerns of the GMA. Like the 

GMA, the Land Use Element seeks to accommodate growth while maintaining the City’s 

residential but rural character and protecting the environmentally sensitive areas. It seeks to 

promote a strong local economy and vital commercial and industrial districts by focusing 

economic development within them and establishing development guidelines. The Utilities and 

Capital Facilities Elements ensure that new development will be adequately serviced without 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\WCPCH3 (12/29/04 12:30 PM) 3-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN

Land Use and Population 

compromising existing levels of service, similar to principal of concurrency as defined in the 

GMA. 

The City encompasses an area of approximately 1,500 acres or 2.3 square miles. Some 

undeveloped lots still exist within the City’s business district, or Old Town, and infilling is 

expected and encouraged in these areas. Because vacant land is limited, the City must annex and 

broaden its boundaries to accommodate the growth mandated by the GMA. The Duvall UGA 

consists of approximately 2,000 acres or approximately 3.1 square miles. 

King County Countywide Planning Policies 

The King County Council adopted the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) in 

July 1992. Since this time, the plan has been amended several times with the last amendment 

occurring in November 2002. The CPPs serve as the framework for the County’s and cities’ 

own comprehensive plans, including the City of Duvall Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with 

the GMA’s goals, it establishes an UGA within the County to encourage growth in urban areas 

and to reduce urban sprawl. The CPPs also guide development in rural, unincorporated King 

County. Similar to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the County’s policy goals seek to reduce 

urban sprawl, protect rural areas, provide affordable housing throughout the County, and 

coordinate protection of environmentally sensitive areas. 

East King County Coordinated Water System Plan 

The East King County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) is the result of a study 

performed by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) under the direction of the King 

County Council and the East King County Regional Water Association (RWA). The RWA is a 

group of water purveyors that provide service within the Critical Water Supply Service Area 

(CWSSA) that was designated by the King County Council on December 15, 1985, for purposes 

of the CWSP. Most of the water purveyors within the RWA obtain their water supply from 

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). The CWSP was prepared in 1989 and most recently updated in 

1996. 

The purpose of the CWSP is to assist the area’s water utilities in establishing an effective process 

for planning and development of public water systems and restricting the proliferation of small 

public water systems. The plan accomplishes this by establishing service area boundaries; 

minimum design standards; service review procedures; appeals procedures, long-term regional 

water supply strategy; water conservation program and goals; and the satellite system 

management program. As can be seen in the following sections of this plan, the City has 

established policies, design criteria and goals that meet or exceed the requirements and goals of 

the CWSP. 


CHAPTER 3 

LAND USE 

Land Use within City Service Area 

The city limits currently encompass an area of approximately 1,500 acres. The City’s UGA 

encompasses an additional 500 acres outside of the current city limits. Duvall has also 

designated an urban reserve area, which lies within the UGA just east of the city limits as shown 

in Figure 2-1. This urban reserve area encompasses approximately 330 acres. The water 

service area is significantly larger than the City’s UGA with 4,230 total acres. The City’s zoning 

designations, as shown in the Zoning Map on Figure 3-1, guide development in Duvall. Zoning 

outside of the city limits is designated by King County. 

The area served by the City is primarily residential, comprised largely of single-family residents. 

Approximately 63 percent of the land area within the City is currently designated for single-family 

residential use; 3 percent is designated for multi-family residential use; 6 percent is designated for 

mixed commercial and residential use; 8 percent is designated for commercial or industrial use; and 

21 percent is designated for public facilities. 

Multi-family residential, commercial and industrial development is concentrated along the major 

traffic corridor of SR 203, or Main Street, through the area known as Old Town. The higher 

plateaus of the east side of the City are zoned solely for single family residential and public facility 

use, as shown on Figure 3-1. 

POPULATION 

Household Trends 

Duvall is primarily a residential community comprised largely of single-family residences with 

most of the population commuting to nearby suburban cities for employment. In 2000, 

approximately 84 percent of these residences were single family, whereas 5 percent were multifamily 

and 11 percent were mobile homes. Since 1980, Duvall has experienced a slow trend 

towards providing more multi-family housing units than single-family housing units and it is 

expected that this trend will continue through buildout. 

The average household size in Duvall was 2.88 persons per household in 2000. The average 

household size in all of King County was 2.39 persons per household in 2000. The higher 

average household size in Duvall reflects the higher percentage of single-family home base of 

the Duvall community. The City’s slight decrease from the 1990 average household size of 2.93 

persons per household suggests Duvall’s gradual shift from a rural service center to a suburban 

city. 


Land Use and Population 

Existing and Future Population 

King County has experienced rapid population growth and extensive physical developments in 

recent years. The population of the County increased more than 15 percent from 1990 to 2000. 

The population of Duvall increased approximately 67 percent during the same period. Duvall 

has been experiencing this rapid growth rate since the late 1970’s. Prior to this, the City’s 

population fluctuated only slightly as the small farming and lumber community’s population 

remained under 1,000 people for nearly a century. Table 3-1 illustrates the historical population 

growth since 1980. 

Table 3-1 

Population Trends 

Year 

Population 

Historical 

1980 729 

1990 2,770 

1991 3,012 

1992 3,109 

1993 3,178 

1994 3,247 

1995 3,422 

1996 3,599 

1997 3,813 

1998 4,051 

1999 4,328 

2000 4,616 

2001 4,860 

2002 5,190 

NOTE: The historical population represents the population 

within the city limits. 

The historical population data shown in the table above represents the population within the 

established city limits for each year, whereas projected population data is based on growth 

estimates under two scenarios: maximum population and average population growth. The 

maximum population projections represent buildout (expected to occur in approximately 2022) 

within all areas of the City’s UGA. These projections assume that development in Duvall will 

spread into the City’s urban reserve area, which is shown in Figure 2-1. The average population 

projections assume that growth within the City will not occur in the urban reserve area. The 

average buildout population in the City, therefore, represents growth within the UGA excluding 

the urban reserve area. Table 3-2 shows both the average and maximum projected future growth 

of Duvall. 


CHAPTER 3 

Table 3-2 

Population Projections 

Population 

Year Average Maximum 

2008 (+ 6 years) 7,184 7,184 

2010 7,494 7,946 

2022 (+ 20 years) 9,360 12,516 

NOTE: The maximum projected population is based on estimated growth within the current City 

limits and the UGA, including the City's urban reserve area. The average projected population 

is based on growth within this same area, however, excludes the urban reserve area. 

These population projections, along with the historical per capita water use data presented in 

Chapter 4, form the basis for determining the future water demands of the City’s water system. 

This analysis and the results are presented in Chapter 4 – Water Demands. 


Water Demands 4 

INTRODUCTION 

A detailed analysis of system demands is crucial to the planning efforts of a water supplier. A 

demand analysis first identifies current demands to determine if the existing system can 

effectively provide an adequate quantity of water to its customers under the most crucial 

conditions, in accordance with federal and state laws. A future demand analysis identifies 

projected demands to determine how much water will be needed to satisfy future growth of the 

water system and continue to meet federal and state laws. 

The magnitude of water demands is typically based on three main factors: 1) population, 2) 

weather, and 3) water use classification. Population and weather have the two largest impacts on 

water system demands. Population growth has a tendency to increase the annual demand; 

whereas, high temperature has a tendency to increase the demand over a short period of time. 

Population does not solely determine demand because different populations use varying amounts 

of water. The use varies based on the number of users in each type of customer class, land use 

density, and irrigation practices. Water conservation efforts will also impact demands and can 

be used to accommodate a portion of system growth without increasing a system's supply 

capacity. 

Demands on the water system determine the size of storage reservoirs, supply facilities, water 

mains, and treatment facilities. Several different types of demands were analyzed and are 

addressed in this chapter, including: average day demand, peak day demand, peak hour demand, 

fire flow demand, future demands, and a conservation demand reduction forecast. This chapter 

also identifies the City’s water use data collection requirements and current compliance status. 

Certificate of Water Availability 

In accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), a building permit 

cannot be issued until water is available. A "Certificate of Water Availability" (CWA) is issued 

by the City if there is sufficient water supply to meet the domestic water service and fire flow 

requirements of the applicant’s proposed project. The requirement for providing evidence of an 

adequate water supply was codified in 1990 under Title 19.27.097 of the Revised Code of 

Washington (RCW) in the Building Code Section. To assist governments with implementing 

these requirements, the Department of Health has developed a handbook titled Guidelines for 

Determining Water Availability for New Buildings. 


CHAPTER 4 

CURRENT POPULATION AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS 

Residential Population Served 

The area served by the City of Duvall is primarily residential, comprised largely of single family 

residents, as described in Chapter 3. Approximately 63 percent of the land area within the City is 

currently designated for single family residential use, 3 percent is designated for multi-family 

residential use, 6 percent is designated for mixed commercial and residential use, 8 percent is 

designated for commercial or industrial use, and 21 percent is designated for public facilities. The 

total population of the City in 2002 was approximately 5,190 people. A more detailed 

discussion of the City’s population and household trends is contained in Chapter 3. 

In 2002, the City provided water service to an average of 1,954 customer accounts, of which 

approximately 1,840 accounts, or 94 percent, were single family residential customers; 34 

accounts, or 2 percent, were multi-family residential customers; and 80 accounts, or 4 percent, 

were all other customer types. 

Water Use Classifications 

Duvall has divided all water customers into fourteen different classes for billing purposes. For 

planning purposes, the water customers have been combined into four user groups – single 

family residential, multi-family residential, commercial and industrial, and government/other. 

The government/other group includes the following billing classes: government, schools, 

sprinklers, hydrants and group homes. The demand analysis that follows will report on the water 

use patterns of the four user groups. 

EXISTING WATER DEMANDS 

Water Consumption 

Water consumption is the amount of water used by all customers of the system, as measured by 

the customers’ meters. Table 4-1 shows the historical average number of connections, average 

annual consumption, and average daily consumption per connection of each customer group 

within the City from 1995 through 2002. 

As shown in Chart 4-1, the single family residential class represents approximately 94 percent 

of all connections, but only 80 percent of total system consumption, as shown in Chart 4-2. 

This is due to the lower consumption per connection of the single family residential customers as 

compared to the other customers. 


Water Demands 

Table 4-1 

Average Annual Metered Consumption and Service Connections 

Customer Class 

Year Single Family Multi-Family Comm./Indust. Gov't./Other Totals 

Average Number of Connections 

1995 1,056 17 64 6 1,143 

1996 1,093 20 67 11 1,190 

1997 1,146 20 63 11 1,241 

1998 1,266 20 66 12 1,363 

1999 1,507 19 63 11 1,600 

2000 1,565 19 64 12 1,659 

2001 1,666 20 64 13 1,762 

2002 1,840 34 65 15 1,954 

Average Annual Consumption (gallons) 

1995 82,256,812 7,123,204 10,109,220 5,267,416 104,756,652 

1996 82,628,568 15,654,144 9,967,100 6,583,148 114,832,960 

1997 95,298,192 12,232,792 10,489,204 4,802,160 122,822,348 

1998 110,119,064 22,257,488 11,128,744 4,520,912 148,026,208 

1999 136,355,912 7,276,544 13,406,404 10,225,160 167,264,020 

2000 122,998,876 5,272,652 11,824,384 3,223,880 143,319,792 

2001 106,480,792 5,541,184 25,446,960 2,941,136 140,410,072 

2002 118,953,692 5,164,192 19,143,564 4,155,140 147,416,588 

Average Daily Consumption Per Connection (gal/day/conn) 

1995 214 1,158 432 2,233 

1996 207 2,190 409 1,591 

1997 228 1,676 456 1,161 

1998 238 3,049 465 1,054 

1999 248 1,045 581 2,606 

2000 215 760 508 763 

2001 175 772 1,089 628 

2002 177 416 807 759 

Avg 95-02 1 208 1,240 522 1,301 

1 = Average consumption excludes 1998, 1999 and 2001 data. 


CHAPTER 4 

Chart 4-1 

2002 Water Connections by Customer Class 

Single Family 

94% 

Government 

Education 

1% 

Multi-Family 

2% 

Commercial 

Industrial 

3% 

Chart 4-2 

2002 Water Consumption by Customer Class 

Single Family 

80% 

Government 

Education 

3% 

Multi-Family 

4% 

Commercial 

Industrial 

13% 

As shown in Table 4-1, single family residential customers use an average of approximately 208 

gallons per day per connection, multi-family customers use an average of approximately 1,240 

gallons per day per connection, commercial and industrial customers use an average of 

approximately 522 gallons per day per connection, and government and other customers use an 

average of approximately 1,301 gallons per day per connection. The higher consumption of the 

other customers is expected, since these customers include multi-family residential customers 

where one connection typically serves several units, and commercial customers that include the 

system’s highest individual water users. The average computation does not include data from 

1998, 1999, and 2001, which are years that the data is thought to be somewhat inaccurate, as 

described later in the “Unaccounted-for Water” section. 



Table 4-2 shows the largest water users of the system in 2002 and their total amount of metered 

consumption for the year. The total water consumption of these 20 water accounts represented 

approximately 8 percent of the system’s total consumption in 2002. The list of accounts in the 

table primarily consists of apartment complexes, schools, and businesses. 

Table 4-2 

2002 Largest Water Users 

Name Address Annual Consumption (gals) 

Riverview School District 29000 NE 150th St 2,644,357 

Safeway Inc 14020 Carnation-Duvall Rd 1,577,488 

Duvall Market Square 15820 Main St NE 1,050,920 

Bill King 15410 Main St NE 800,339 

Depot Village M.H.P. 26220 NE Stella St 781,488 

Town Center Mini Mart 15410 Main St NE 657,910 

Whitfield Plaza 15715 Main St NE 534,497 

Ixtapa Restaurant 15329 NE Brown Ave 513,312 

Linda/Malcolm Jenkins 15910 1st Ave NE 479,201 

K & S Associates 15926 1st Ave NE 439,075 

Country Crossing 26525 NE Cherry Valley Rd 420,875 

The Park Apartments 16115 4th Ave NE 350,686 

Riverview School District Irrigation Connection 319,417 

ER Properties 15222 1st Ave NE 296,093 

Duvall Café 15505 Main St NE 293,056 

Valley Center 26331 NE Valley St 227,729 

Rutledge Chiropractic Care 15435 Main St NE 225,058 

Duvall Plaza 15705 Main St NE 214,548 

Sound Property Management 15320 1st Ave NE 201,023 

Riverview School District 26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd 197,410 

Largest Water Users Total 12,224,483 

Water System Total 147,416,588 

Percent of Total 8% 


CHAPTER 4 

Water Supply 

Water supply is the total amount of water supplied to the system, as measured by the meters at 

both of the City’s supply facilities. Water supply is different than water consumption in that 

water supply is essentially the recorded amount of water put into the system and water 

consumption is the recorded amount of water taken out of the system. The measured amount of 

water supply is typically more than the measured amount of water consumption, due to water 

system leaks and non-metered water uses, which will be described more in the next section. 

Since all of the City’s water is provided by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the total amount of 

water supplied in a given year is the same as the total amount of water purchased from SPU for 

the same time period. Table 4-3 summarizes the total amount of water supplied to the system 

from 1995 through 2002, the City’s average population, and the calculated average day demand 

of the entire system and on a per capita basis. 

Table 4-3 

Historical Supply and Per Capita Demands 

Average Daily Average Demand 

Average Annual Supply Demand Per Capita 

Year Population (gallons) (gpm) (gal/day/capita) 

1995 3,422 124,144,064 236 99 

1996 3,599 125,081,308 238 95 

1997 3,813 130,025,588 247 93 

1998 4,051 145,696,188 277 99 

1999 4,328 144,931,732 276 92 

2000 4,616 158,029,960 301 94 

2001 4,860 126,222,008 240 71 

2002 5,190 151,798,372 289 80 

Average 1995 - 2002 1 92 

1 = Average demand excludes 1998, 1999 and 2001 data. 

The City has experienced a trend of decreasing per capita water demand since 1995, as shown in 

the above table, which is most likely the result of water conservation practices. This historical 

demand per capita is relatively low compared to other systems in the Puget Sound area. The 

City’s average per capita demand of 92 gallons per day from 1995 through 2002 will be used 

later in this chapter to forecast average water demands in future years, based on future 

population projections. The average demand computation does not include data from 1998, 

1999, and 2001, which are years that the data is thought to be somewhat inaccurate. 



Table 4-4 shows the average demand of each of the City’s five existing pressure zones, based on 

2002 water demand data. Most of the water system demand is in the 615 Zone, as shown in the 

table. 

Table 4-4 

2002 Demands by Pressure Zone 

2002 Average Daily Percent of 

Pressure Annual Supply Demand Total Demand 

Zone (gallons) (gpm) (%) 

615 62,295,532 118 41.0% 

555 43,431,800 83 28.6% 

485 1,535,176 3 1.0% 

450 16,361,186 31 10.8% 

330 28,174,678 54 18.6% 

Total 151,798,372 289 100% 

Table 4-5 shows the total annual amount of supply from each of the City’s Tolt supply facilities 

from 1993 through 2002. The Tolt 1 Supply Station has supplied an average of more than 75 

percent of the water to the system since 1993. 


CHAPTER 4 

Table 4-5 

Demands by Supply Facility 

Total Supply from Each Facility 

Tolt 1 Supply Station Tolt 2 Supply Station Total 

Year (gals / % total) (gals / % total) (gals / % total) 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

71,916,460 21,217,020 93,133,480 

77.2% 22.8% 100.0% 

87,156,960 42,747,452 129,904,412 

67.1% 32.9% 100.0% 

89,106,248 35,037,816 124,144,064 

71.8% 28.2% 100.0% 

95,343,820 29,737,488 125,081,308 

76.2% 23.8% 100.0% 

86,805,400 43,220,188 130,025,588 

66.8% 33.2% 100.0% 

115,839,020 29,857,168 145,696,188 

79.5% 20.5% 100.0% 

112,649,548 32,282,184 144,931,732 

77.7% 22.3% 100.0% 

157,670,172 359,788 158,029,960 

99.8% 0.2% 100.0% 

102,086,292 24,135,716 126,222,008 

80.9% 19.1% 100.0% 

115,753,748 36,044,624 151,798,372 

76.3% 23.7% 100.0% 

Total (1993 - 2002) 1,034,327,668 294,639,444 1,328,967,112 

Percent of Total 77.8% 22.2% 100% 

Unaccounted-for Water 

The difference between the amount of water supply and water consumption is the amount of 

unaccounted-for water. Unaccounted-for water is simply water that is supplied to the system, 

but not metered (accounted-for) as it is taken out of the system. There are many sources of 

unaccounted-for water in a typical water system including: water system leaks, inaccurate supply 

metering, inaccurate customer metering, fire hydrant usage, water main flushing, illegal water 

system connections or water use, and malfunctioning telemetry and control equipment resulting 

in overflowing of reservoirs. 



The amount of unaccounted-for water in the City’s system varied significantly from 1995 

through 2002, as shown in Table 4-6. Although the City’s 1998, 1999, and 2001 supply and 

consumption records were reviewed in detail, some of the data shown is not accurate, which is 

evident from the negative unaccounted-for water values presented in the table. Inaccurate supply 

and customer metering or data recording is likely the cause of these improbable values. The 

unaccounted-for water in these years was consequently disregarded in arriving at the 8.3 percent 

average amount of unaccounted-for water for the City. This average is less than the average 

unaccounted-for water of most systems in the area. 

Table 4-6 

Unaccounted-for Water 

Total Supply Total Consumption Unaccounted-for Water 

Year (gallons) (gallons) (%) 

1995 124,144,064 104,756,652 15.6% 

1996 125,081,308 114,832,960 8.2% 

1997 130,025,588 122,822,348 5.5% 

1998 145,696,188 148,026,208 -1.6% 

1999 144,931,732 167,264,020 -15.4% 

2000 158,029,960 143,319,792 9.3% 

2001 126,222,008 140,410,072 -11.2% 

2002 151,798,372 147,416,588 2.9% 

Average 1995 - 2002 1 

8.3% 

1 = Average unaccounted-for water excludes 1998, 1999 and 2001 data. 

Table 4-7 shows an estimated breakdown of unaccounted-for water in 2002. The table lists 

several types of unaccounted-for water that includes unauthorized hydrant and water service use, 

permitted hydrant use (for construction purposes), County vactor truck water use, fire fighting, 

water main flushing, leaking water mains, reservoir overflows and meter inaccuracies. The 

amount of water for each classification, except for leaking water mains, was estimated based on 

City data and estimates. The amount of unaccounted-for water attributed to leaking water mains, 

reservoir overflows and meter inaccuracies was then assumed to be the remaining portion of 

unaccounted-for water. Some of the classifications in Table 4-7, such as fire fighting activities, 

permitted hydrant use, water main flushing and County vactor truck, can be considered nonrevenue 

accounted-for water when it is accurately recorded. However, the amount of 


CHAPTER 4 

unaccounted-for water for each of these activities is estimated and was not actually accountedfor. 

In the future, the City will require improved recordkeeping for these activities. 

Table 4-7 

Unaccounted-for Water Breakdown 

2002 Unaccounted-for Water Total Amount Unaccounted-for Water 

Classification (gallons) (%) 

Unauthorized Hydrant and Service Use 5,000 0.1% 

Permitted Hydrant Use 30,000 0.7% 

County Vactor Truck 2,500 0.1% 

Fire Fighting Activities 500,000 11.4% 

Water Main Flushing 510,000 11.6% 

Leaking Water Mains, Reservoir Overflows, Meter Inaccuracies 3,334,284 76.1% 

Total 4,381,784 100% 

Equivalent Residential Units 

The demand of each customer class can be expressed in terms of equivalent residential units 

(ERU’s) for demand forecasting and planning purposes. One ERU is equivalent to the amount 

of water used by a single family residence. The number of ERU’s represented by the demand of 

the other customer classes is determined from the total demand of the customer class and the 

demand per ERU from the single family residential demand data. 

Table 4-8 presents the computed number of ERU’s for each customer class from 1995 through 

2002. The demands shown are based on supply data that was computed from the consumption 

of each customer class and the average amount of unaccounted-for water from each year. 



Table 4-8 

Equivalent Residential Units (ERU’s) 

Average Average Annual 

Number of Demand Demand per ERU Total 

Year Connections (gallons) (gal/day/ERU) ERU's 

Single Family Residential 

1995 1,056 97,480,157 253 1,056 

1996 1,093 90,002,812 226 1,093 

1997 1,146 100,887,205 241 1,146 

1998 1,266 108,385,725 235 1,266 

1999 1,507 118,150,326 215 1,507 

2000 1,565 135,623,330 237 1,565 

2001 1,666 95,721,191 157 1,666 

2002 1,840 122,489,450 182 1,840 

Average 1995 - 2002 1 228 

Multi-Family Residential 

1995 17 8,441,502 253 91 

1996 20 17,051,209 226 207 

1997 20 12,950,216 241 147 

1998 20 21,907,142 235 256 

1999 19 6,305,015 215 80 

2000 19 5,813,831 237 67 

2001 20 4,981,262 157 87 

2002 34 5,317,692 182 80 

Commercial/Industrial 

1995 64 11,980,143 253 130 

1996 67 10,856,621 226 132 

1997 63 11,104,371 241 126 

1998 66 10,953,571 235 128 

1999 63 11,616,445 215 148 

2000 64 13,038,024 237 150 

2001 64 22,875,612 157 398 

2002 65 19,712,584 182 296 


CHAPTER 4 

Table 4-8 

Equivalent Residential Units (ERU’s) – Continued 

Average Average Annual 

Number of Demand Demand per ERU Total 

Year Connections (gallons) (gal/day/ERU) ERU's 

Government/Other 

1995 6 6,242,262 253 68 

1996 11 7,170,666 226 87 

1997 11 5,083,795 241 58 

1998 12 4,449,750 235 52 

1999 11 8,859,946 215 113 

2000 12 3,554,775 237 41 

2001 13 2,643,942 157 46 

2002 15 4,278,647 182 64 

System-Wide Totals 

1995 1,143 124,144,064 253 1,344 

1996 1,190 125,081,308 226 1,519 

1997 1,241 130,025,588 241 1,478 

1998 1,363 145,696,188 235 1,702 

1999 1,600 144,931,732 215 1,848 

2000 1,659 158,029,960 237 1,823 

2001 1,762 126,222,008 157 2,197 

2002 1,954 151,798,372 182 2,280 

1 = Average demand per ERU excludes 1998, 1999 and 2001 data. 

The average demand per ERU from 1995 through 2002 was 228 gallons per day. This is slightly 

below the average single family demand for the Puget Sound area that is typically between 250 

and 300 gallons per day. The City’s average demand per ERU of 228 gallons per day will be 

used later in this chapter to forecast ERU’s in future years, based on estimated future demands. 

This demand per ERU value will also be used to determine the capacity (in terms of ERU’s) of 

the City’s existing water system in Chapter 7. 

Average Day Demand 

Average Day Demand (ADD) is the total amount of water delivered to the system in a year 

divided by the number of days in the year. The average day demand is determined from 

historical water use patterns of the system and can be used to project future demand within the 

system. Average day demand data is typically used to determine standby storage requirements 

for water systems. Standby storage is the volume of a reservoir used to provide water supply 



under emergency conditions when supply facilities are out of service. Water supply records 

from the City’s two supply facilities were reviewed to determine the system’s average day 

demand, which is shown in Table 4-3. 

Peak Day Demand 

Peak Day Demand (PDD) is the maximum amount of water used throughout the system during a 

24-hour time period of a given year. Peak day demand typically occurs on a hot summer day 

when lawn watering is occurring throughout much of the system. In accordance with WAC 246- 

290-230 - Distribution Systems, the distribution system shall provide fire flow at a minimum 

pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demand (i.e., peak day demand) conditions. Supply 

facilities (i.e., supply stations, booster pump stations, interties) are typically designed to supply 

water at a rate that is equal to or greater than the system’s peak day demand. 

Water supply records and reservoir telemetry reports are typically used to determine a system’s 

peak day demand. However, sufficient daily water production and chart recordings of reservoir 

levels were not available for all of the City’s supply and storage facilities. Therefore, the 

system’s peak day demand could not be computed based on actual system data. Instead, it was 

estimated by applying a typical peak day demand/average day demand ratio of 2.20 to the 

system’s actual average day demand amount. This resulted in an estimated peak day demand of 

636 gpm for 2002, as shown in Table 4-9. 

Peak Hour Demand 

Peak Hour Demand (PHD) is the maximum amount of water used throughout the system, 

excluding fire flow, during a one-hour time period of a given year. In accordance with WAC 

246-290-230 - Distribution Systems, new public water systems or additions to existing systems 

shall be designed to provide domestic water at a minimum pressure of 30 psi during peak hour 

demand conditions. Equalizing storage requirements are typically based on peak hour demand 

data. 

The peak hour demand, like the peak day demand, is typically determined from the combined 

flow of water into the system from all supply sources and reservoirs. Similar to the peak day 

demand, sufficient information was not available to calculate the City’s peak hour demand based 

on actual system data. Therefore, the peak hour demand was estimated based on a typical peak 

hour demand/peak day demand ratio of 1.80, resulting in a peak hour demand of 1,144 gpm for 

2002. 

Table 4-9 shows the peaking factors of the water system based on the average day, peak day, 

and peak hour demand data presented above. These peaking factors will be used later in this 

chapter, in conjunction with projected average day demands, to forecast future peak day and 

peak hour demands of the system. 


CHAPTER 4 

Table 4-9 

Peak Day Demands and Peaking Factors 

Peak Day Demand Data 

Demand 

Demand Type Date (gpm) 

Average Day Demand (ADD) 2002 289 

Peak Day Demand (PDD) Data unavailable 636 

Assumed PDD/ADD = 2.20 

Peak Hour Demand (PHD) Data unavailable 1,144 

Assumed PHD/PDD = 1.80 

Peaking Factors 

Description 

Factor 

Peak Day Demand/Average Day Demand (PDD/ADD) 1 2.20 

Peak Hour Demand/Peak Day Demand (PHD/PDD) 1 1.80 

Peak Hour Demand/Average Day Demand (PHD/ADD) 3.96 

1 = Typical value assumed. 

Fire Flow Demand 

Fire Flow Demand is the amount of water required during fire fighting as defined by applicable 

codes. Fire flow requirements are established for individual buildings and expressed in terms of 

flow rate (gpm) and flow duration (hours). Fighting fires imposes the greatest demand on the 

water system because a high rate of water must be supplied over a short period of time, requiring 

each component of the system to be properly sized and configured to operate at its optimal 

condition. Adequate storage and supply is useless if the transmission or distribution system 

cannot deliver water at the required rate and pressure necessary to extinguish a fire. 

General fire flow requirements were established for the different land use categories to provide a 

target level of service for planning and sizing future water facilities in areas that are not fully 

developed. The general fire flow requirement for each land use category within the City’s 

service area is shown in Table 4-10. The water system analyses presented in Chapter 7 are 

based on an evaluation of the water system providing sufficient fire flow in accordance with 

these general fire flow requirements. 



Table 4-10 

General Fire Flow Requirements 

Fire Flow Requirement Flow Duration 

Land Use Category (gpm) (hours) 

Low Density Residential 1,000 2 

Medium Density Residential 1,750 2 

High Density Residential 2,500 2 

Commecial/Business Park 3,000 3 

Light Industrial 3,500 3 

Schools 3,500 3 

FUTURE WATER DEMANDS 

Basis for Projecting Demands 

Future demands were calculated from the system's per capita demand data from Table 4-3 and 

the projected population data from Chapter 3. Future demand projections were computed for 

the average and maximum population projections, with and without a further reduction in water 

use from conservation. The existing per capita demand of 92 gallons per day was used for all 

demand projections without water conservation. The per capita demand was reduced to reflect 

the water use reduction goals contained in the City’s Water Conservation Plan and used as the 

basis for future water demand projections with the conservation component. The City’s Water 

Conservation Plan, contained in Appendix F, presents a goal of one percent water use reduction 

per year from 2003 through the year 2010, which is consistent with the SPU regional water 

conservation goals. All cost-effective conservation measures identified in the Water 

Conservation Plan will be implemented to achieve this conservation goal. 

Applying the City’s water use reduction goals to the existing per capita demand of 92 gallons per 

day results in projected per capita demands with conservation of 86 gallons per day in the year 

2008 (6-year forecast) and 84 gallons per day in the year 2022 (20-year forecast), as shown in 

Table 4-11. 


CHAPTER 4 

Table 4-11 

Future Water Demand Projections 

Description 

Actual 1 

Projected 

Average 2 

Maximum 3 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2022 2022 

(+ 6 yrs) (+ 20 yrs) (+ 20 yrs) 

Population Data 

Population in Water Service Area 4,860 5,190 5,460 5,720 5,992 6,277 6,842 7,184 9,360 12,516 

Demand Basis Data (gal/day/capita) 

Avg Day Demand without Conservation 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 

Avg Day Demand with Conservation 91 90 89 88 87 86 84 84 

Average Day Demand (gpm) 

Demand without Conservation 240 289 349 365 383 401 437 459 598 800 

Demand with Conservation 345 357 370 384 413 429 546 730 


Demand without Conservation 528 636 768 803 843 882 961 1,010 1,316 1,760 

Demand with Conservation 759 785 814 845 909 944 1,201 1,606 

Peak Hour Demand (gpm) 

Demand without Conservation 950 1,144 1,382 1,445 1,517 1,588 1,731 1,818 2,368 3,168 

Demand with Conservation 1,366 1,414 1,465 1,521 1,635 1,699 2,162 2,891 

1 = 2001 and 2002 Peak Day Demand and Peak Hour Demand values are based on actual average day demand amounts for the 

given year and typical peaking factors, and do not necessarily represent actual peak demands for these years. 

2 = Average demand projections are based on growth within the City's UGA, excluding the urban reserve area. 

3 = Maximum demand projections are based on growth within the City's UGA, including the urban reserve area, and start in the 

year 2009. 

Demand Forecasts and Conservation 

Table 4-11 presents the incremental 6-year, 20-year, and buildout development water demand 

forecasts for the City’s water system. The actual demand data from 2001 and 2002 is also shown 

in the table for comparison purposes. The future average day demands were projected based on 

population estimates for the given years under both the average and maximum growth scenarios, 

and the estimated demand per capita values. The future peak day and peak hour demands shown 

were computed from the projected average day demands and the existing system peaking factors 

shown in Table 4-9. The future demand projections are also shown with and without estimated 

reductions in water use from achieving the conservation goals described earlier. 

The analysis and evaluation of the existing water system with proposed improvements, as 

presented in Chapters 7 and 9, is based on 20-year projected demand data under both the 

average and maximum growth scenarios without conservation reductions. This ensures that the 

future system will be sized properly to meet all requirements, whether or not additional water use 



reductions from conservation are achieved. However, the City will pursue further reductions in 

per capita water use by implementing the Water Conservation Plan contained in Appendix F. 

Table 4-12 presents the projected number of equivalent residential units (ERU’s) of the system 

for 2008 and 2022. The 6-year and 20-year ERU forecasts are based on the projected water 

demands from Table 4-11 and the average demand per ERU that was computed from the actual 

1995 through 2002 data, as shown in Table 4-8. The historical and projected water demand and 

ERU data from Tables 4-11 and 4-12 are also shown graphically in Chart 4-3. 

Table 4-12 

Future ERU Projections 

2008 2022 2008 2022 

Projected Projected Projected Projected 

Description (+ 6 yrs) (+ 20 yrs) (+ 6 yrs) (+ 20 yrs) 

Demand Data (gpm) 

Avg Day Demand without Conservation 459 598 459 800 

ERU Basis Data (gal/day/ERU) 

Demand per ERU without Conservation 228 228 228 228 


Average 1 Maximum 2 

Total System ERU's 2,900 3,778 2,900 5,052 

1 = Average projections are based on growth within the City's UGA, excluding the urban reserve area. 

2 = Maximum projections are based on growth within the City's UGA, including the urban reserve area. 


CHAPTER 4 

Chart 4-3 

Future Water Demand and ERU Projections 

1,800 

10,000 


1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1997 

1998 

Existing - 2002 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Maximum Peak Day Demand without Conservation 

Maximum Peak Day Demand with Conservation 

Maximum Equivalent Residential Units 

+ 6 years - 2008 

2010 

Year 

+ 20 years - 2022 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

Average Peak Day Demand without Conservation 

Average Peak Day Demand with Conservation 

Average Equivalent Residential Units 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 


WATER USE DATA COLLECTION 

Requirements and Compliance Status 

In an effort to promote water use efficiency, a document titled Conservation Planning 

Requirements was prepared by the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, and the 

Washington Water Utilities Council in 1994. A part of this document addresses water use data 

collection requirements for public water systems. It identifies the minimum data required to 

project water demand and to provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation 

programs. At least five years of continuous water use data is required. The City has collected 

and kept on file more than five years of data, which is presented earlier in this chapter. 

The water use data collection requirements vary, depending on the size of the water system. The 

water use data for the City is presented in the tables of this chapter and discussed throughout. 

The following identifies the water use data requirements for the City and the City’s status of 

compliance in meeting these requirements. 



Source of Supply Meter Readings 

Requirement: Read meters daily. Record monthly and annual totals. 

Compliance Status: Water supply to the City is currently provided by its two supply facilities 

that have connections to SPU’s Tolt Pipeline No. 1. Each supply facility has a SPU meter that is 

connected to SPU’s telemetry system and the City’s telemetry system. Flows are being recorded 

continuously on each telemetry system. The City is currently tabulating monthly totals of water 

purchased and providing annual reports to SPU. Likewise, SPU provides monthly supply reports 

to the City, based on the recorded readings of the meters. 

Peak Day/Peak Month 

Requirement: Record each year’s peak day and peak month totals. 

Compliance Status: The City has been recording peak day and peak month demand data from 

the City’s telemetry reports and water usage reports provided by SPU. 

Non-Revenue Unaccounted-for Water 

Requirement: Record annual totals. 

Compliance Status: Non-revenue unaccounted-for water is determined from the annual supply, 

consumption, and non-revenue accounted-for water data. The City has calculated this 

occasionally in the past; however, will now begin computing it on a more frequent, annual basis. 

Non-Revenue Accounted-for Water 

Requirement: Record annual totals. 

Compliance Status: Non-revenue accounted-for water is metered water that is used for 

construction projects, water main flushing, and various other purposes. The City has recorded 

water used for construction projects, but not water used for flushing. 

Customer Service Meters 

Requirement: a) Record monthly totals. Monthly totals may be estimated if water usage is 

billed less frequently; b) Record usage for the following classes: single family, multi-family, 

commercial, industrial, government, and agricultural. If different classes of users are used, 

include in water system plan, a timetable for when data will be collected for customer classes 

that is consistent with the above requirements. 

Compliance Status: All customer service meters are currently read every month and the City 

has grouped all customers into several classes that meet the requirements stated above. 

Population Served 

Requirement: Record annually the estimated number of customers and connections served in 

the residential classes and the number of connections served in each of the other classes. 


CHAPTER 4 

Compliance Status: The City has been recording the total number of connections in each 

customer class and population estimates on an annual basis as part of the annual reporting 

required by SPU. 

Economic Data 

Requirement: Record existing water rates for each customer class. 

Compliance Status: The City has established water rates for each of the customer classes. The 

existing water rates information is contained in Chapter 10 of this plan. 

Conservation Data 

Requirement: Record annually the type of measure, the level of implementation, the duration of 

the measure, and the date at which they began. 

Compliance Status: The City’s Water Conservation Plan is included in Appendix F of this 

plan. 

Water Use Data Collection Improvements 

The City’s current data collection program meets the requirements of several, but not all of the 

data collection items listed above. The City plans to attain full compliance status through 

implementation of the following data collection improvements. 

• Require metering of all non-revenue water usage for water main flushing, street cleaning, 

etc. Record this water usage on an annual or more frequent basis. 

• Implement the Water Conservation Plan in Appendix F and maintain records of the 

conservation measures, as required above. 


Policies and Design Criteria 

5 

INTRODUCTION 

The City of Duvall (City) operates and plans water service for City residents according to the 

design criteria, laws, and policies that originate from the following seven sources, listed in 

descending order from those with the broadest authority to the most narrow. 

Agency 

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington State Department of Health 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

King County Council 

Duvall City Council 

American Water Works Association 

Design Criteria/Laws/Policies 

Federal Regulations 

Federal Regulations 

State Regulations 

State Regulations 

County Regulations 

Administrative Policies 

Design Criteria 

These laws, design criteria, and policies guide the City's operation and maintenance of the water 

system on a daily basis and its planning for growth and improvements. Their overall objective is 

to ensure the City provides high quality water service at a minimum cost to its customers. They 

also set the standards that the City must meet to ensure the water supply is adequate to meet 

existing and future water demands of the system. The system's ability to meet these demands is 

detailed in Chapter 7 and the recommended improvements are identified in Chapter 9. 

The highest three governmental entities establishing policies and laws – U.S. Government, 

Washington State and King County Council – establish requirements in statutes, regulations or 

ordinances. The Duvall City Council and Mayor adopt policies that cannot be less stringent or in 

conflict with those established by governments above them. The City’s policies take the form of 

ordinances, memoranda and operation procedures, many of which are summarized in this 

chapter. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 5-1 DUV\102-081\Plan\WCPCH5 12/29/04 12:18 PM

CHAPTER 5 

The policies associated with the following categories are presented in this chapter: 

• Supply 

• Customer Service 

• Facilities 

• Finance 

• Organization 

SUPPLY POLICIES 

Quality Protection 

• The City will pursue steps to meet or exceed all water quality laws and standards. 

• The City will take all reasonable measures to protect its system and customers. 

Cross-Connection Control 

• The City has a responsibility to protect the public water system from contamination due to 

cross-connections. Cross-connections which can be eliminated will be eliminated. 

• The City has a cross-connection control program for eliminating cross-connections. A copy 

of the City of Duvall Cross-Connection Control Plan is contained in Appendix G. 

• The City has staff that is certified for backflow prevention and testing. 

• The City will comply with the backflow prevention assembly installation and testing 

requirements as indicated in WAC 246-290-490 and as published in the manual entitled, 

Cross Connection Control Manual Accepted Procedure and Practice – Pacific Northwest 

Section – American Water Works Association (AWWA). 

Quantity 

• The City currently utilizes supply from the City of Seattle Tolt River transmission pipeline to 

supply all customers within the City’s service area. 

• The City will plan for at least 20 years into the future, so that future water resource 

limitations can be handled effectively. 

• The City will ensure that the capacity of the system, including supply sources, pump stations, 

and transmission mains, is sufficient to meet the peak day demand of the system. 

DUV\102-081\Plan\WCPCH5 12/29/04 12:18 PM 5-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


Fire Flow 

The City will plan to provide the following minimum fire flows: 

Low Density Residential: 1,000 gpm for 2 hours duration 

Medium Density Residential: 1,750 gpm for 2 hours duration 

High Density Residential: 2,500 gpm for 2 hours duration 

Commercial/Business Park: 3,000 gpm for 3 hours duration 

Light Industrial: 

3,500 gpm for 3 hours duration 

Schools: 

3,500 gpm for 3 hours duration 

Conservation 

• The City will promote the efficient and responsible use of water and will conserve water 

during a water shortage. 

• The City has a water conservation plan. A copy of the City of Duvall Water Conservation 

Plan is contained in Appendix F. 

• The City has a water shortage contingency plan. A copy of the City of Duvall Water 

Shortage Response Plan is contained in Appendix H. 

Regional Participation 

• The City will participate in regional supply management and planning activities to reduce 

cost of service and to improve reliability, water quality and quantity. 

• The City will supply all customers within the City’s water service area boundary, as 

determined by the City Engineer. 

CUSTOMER SERVICE POLICIES 

Water Service and Connection 

• The City will strive to provide potable water service to all people within the city limits and 

designated water service area, provided all policies related to service can be met. 

• All proposed developments within the city limits and designated water service area will 

connect directly to the City’s water system, unless deemed unfeasible by the City at the time 

of the request. 


CHAPTER 5 

• Water system extensions required to provide water service to proposed developments will be 

approved by the Department of Public Works and must conform to the City’s adopted design 

criteria, and construction standards and specifications, as shown in the City’s Water System 

Construction Standards contained in Appendix I. All costs of the extension will be borne by 

the developer. 

• Requests for new water service will be processed by the City’s permit coordinator in 

accordance with Section 9.02.020, Duvall Municipal Code. Applications must be received at 

least one week prior to connection of water service. Once applications are received by the 

permit coordinator, the location of the proposed service will be reviewed to ensure it is 

within the City’s retail water service area and will be evaluated to determine fire flow 

availability, meter size and improvements necessary for adequate water pressure, fire flow, 

looping or extensions. The adequacy of water system capacity to serve the applicant’s 

property will also be evaluated at this time. New water service applications will be 

processed within one week of receipt of application and associated fees. 

• The City will determine whether adequate water system capacity is available to serve the 

applicant’s property, based on available capacity from supply, storage and transmission. 

This will be accomplished through the ongoing tracking of equivalent residential units served 

by the City in comparison to the maximum number of equivalent residential units that can be 

served by the system, as computed in Chapter 7 of this Plan. 

• Water availability certifications will expire at the time that the associated building permit 

expires or in the event that the water service is not made ready by the applicant for 

connection by the City within 120 days of the approval of the water service application. 

• Time extensions in regards to water availability will be granted in accordance with the 

associated building permit requirements. When extensions are denied, a written notice of 

appeal, together with an appeal filing fee, may be submitted in person to the Permit Center. 

Appeals must be made within the time period specified under the requirements of the 

associated permit and in accordance with Section 14.08, Duvall Municipal Code. 

• Delays resulting from non-technical conditions that affect the City’s ability to provide new 

water service will be the responsibility of the applicant. These conditions include, but are 

not limited to, environmental assessments, local ordinances and annexation procedures. 

• Water service can be extended outside of the city limits and within the UGA as long as the 

project is in compliance with the City’s adopted land use plan, zoning and development 

regulations and a statement of intention to annex to the City is signed by the property owner. 

• Water service can be extended outside of the City’s UGA and within the City’s retail water 

service area, if the project is in compliance with King County’s adopted land use plan, 

zoning and development regulations and a statement of intention to annex to the City is 

signed by the owner of the property requesting water service. 



• Water service to areas outside of the City’s retail water service area boundary will be 

coordinated with adjacent water purveyors and the Department of Health, and evaluated on a 

case by case basis by the City Council. Water service to these areas shall be in compliance 

with King County’s adopted land use plan, zoning and development regulations. 

Annexations 

• Areas annexed without existing municipal supply will be served by the City. 

• Areas annexed with existing municipal supply will be upgraded to City of Duvall water 

standards within a reasonable amount of time. 

Temporary Services 

No temporary service is allowed, unless there are plans for permanent water service that meets 

all City standards. 

Emergency Service 

• Compliance with standards may be deferred for emergency water service. 

• Policy criteria may be waived for emergency service. 

Planning Boundaries 

For planning purposes, the City will use water service boundaries established by agreement as a 

result of the regional coordinated water system plan (East King County Coordinated Water 

System Plan). 

FACILITY POLICIES 

This section describes the planning criteria and policies used to establish an acceptable hydraulic 

behavior level and a standard of quality for the water system. Additional criteria are contained 

in the City of Duvall Water System Construction Standards, a copy which is included in 

Appendix I of this Plan. 

Minimum Standards 

• All proposed developments within the City’s existing and future service areas shall conform 

to the City’s adopted design criteria, construction standards and specifications. 

• All projects within unincorporated King County right-of-way must be designed and 

constructed in accordance with the King County Road Standards and must be inspected and 

approved by King County Utility Inspection. 


CHAPTER 5 

Pressure 

• The City will endeavor to maintain a minimum pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) at 

customer meters during normal demand conditions, excluding a fire or emergency. 

• The City will endeavor to maintain a maximum pressure of 120 psi in the water mains during 

normal demand conditions, excluding pressure surges. Individual residences are responsible 

for reducing pressures over 80 psi. 

• The City will endeavor to maintain a minimum pressure of 30 psi at customer meters during 

all demand conditions, excluding a fire or emergency. 

• During fire conditions, the minimum pressure at customer meters and throughout the 

remainder of the system will be 20 psi. 

• During a failure of any part of the system, the maximum pressure will not exceed 150 psi. 

Velocities 

• During normal demand conditions, the velocity of water in a water main should be less than 

5 feet per second (fps). 

• During emergency conditions, such as a fire, and for design purposes, the velocity of water in 

a water main may exceed 5 fps, but may not exceed 8 fps. 

Storage 

• Storage within the distribution system must be of sufficient capacity to supplement supply 

when system demands are greater than the supply capacity (equalizing storage) and still 

maintain sufficient storage for proper pump operation (operational storage), fire suppression 

(fire flow storage), and other emergency conditions (standby storage). 

• Standby storage must be stored above the elevation that yields a 20 psi service pressure to all 

services in the zone under peak hour demand conditions. 

• Fire flow storage must be stored above the elevation that yields a 20 psi service pressure to 

all services in the zone under peak day demand conditions. 

• The City will provide sufficient standby storage for an emergency condition in which a major 

supply source is out of service. The volume of storage will be sufficient to maintain 

uninterrupted supply to the system during the emergency condition. 

• The City will provide sufficient storage for a fire condition equal to the system’s maximum 

fire protection water demand and the required duration. 

• The City will have high-water level and low-water level alarms at the Operations and 

Maintenance office. 



• Water level indicators will be located at the Operations and Maintenance office. 

• Storage facilities will be located in areas where they will satisfy the following requirements: 

1. Minimize fluctuations in system pressure during normal demands. 

2. Maximize use of the storage facilities during fires and peak demands. 

3. Improve the reliability of supply to the City’s water system. 

Transmission and Distribution 

• Where practical, transmission and distribution mains will be looped to improve water quality 

and increase reliability, fire flow capacity and decrease head losses. 

• All mains will comply with the generally recognized design criteria from the AWWA and 

Department of Health guidelines that follow. 

1. All new construction will be in accordance with the City of Duvall Water System 

Construction Standards, a copy of which is included in Appendix I of this plan. 

2. Distribution system design assumes that adequately sized service lines will be used. 

All residential service lines will be one-inch or larger. Service lines will be the same 

size as the meter or larger. 

3. The minimum diameter of distribution mains will be eight inches. Water mains not 

required to carry fire flow, as determined by the City, may be six inches in diameter. 

All water mains will be ductile iron pipe. 

4. All new distribution mains will be sized by a hydraulic analysis. 

5. All new mains providing fire flow will be sized to provide the required fire flow at a 

minimum residual pressure of 20 psi and maximum pipeline velocity of eight feet per 

second during peak day demand conditions. In general, new water mains that will 

carry fire flow in residential areas shall be a minimum of eight inches in diameter, 

and looped for multi-family residential developments. New water mains in 

commercial, business park, industrial, and school areas shall be a minimum of twelve 

inches in diameter, and looped. 

6. Valve installations will satisfy the following criteria: 

a. Zone valves will be located at all pressure zone boundaries to allow future 

pressure zone realignment without the need for additional pipe construction. 


CHAPTER 5 

b. Isolation valves will be installed in the lines to allow individual pipelines to 

be shut down for repair or installing services. Unless it is impractical to do 

so, the distance between isolation valves will not exceed 1,000 feet. A 

minimum of three valves will be provided per cross and two valves per tee. 

c. Air/vacuum release valves will be placed at all high points or “crowns” in all 

pipelines. 

d. Blowoff assemblies shall be located at main dead ends where there is not a 

fire hydrant. If a water main extension is expected in the future, the blowoff 

assembly shall have a valve the same size as the main with concrete thrust 

blocking. 

e. Individual pressure reducing or check valves must be installed in all new 

customer service lines in the City. The Uniform Plumbing Code requires 

pressure reducing valves on customer service lines if pressures are greater 

than 80 psi. Pressure reducing valves protect customers from high pressures 

in case a mainline pressure reducing station fails. Check valves prevent hot 

water tanks from emptying into the water system when the water main is 

empty or when the pressure in the main is less than the pressure in the tank, 

and prevent contamination of the system mains caused by possible crossconnections 

in the customer's pipes or fixtures. 

7. Fire hydrant installations will satisfy the following criteria: 

a. Fire hydrants serving detached single family dwellings or duplex dwellings on 

individual lots will be located not more than 600 feet on center such that all 

single family lots are within 300 feet from a fire hydrant, as measured along 

the path of vehicular access. 

b. Fire hydrants serving any use other than detached single family dwellings or 

duplex dwellings on individual lots will be located not more than 300 feet on 

center, and will be located so that at least one hydrant is located within 150 

feet of all structures, but not closer than 50 feet, unless approved by the 

Duvall Fire Department. 

c. Hydrants located in dead-end areas or cul-de-sacs shall service an area of no 

more than 120,000 square feet. 

d. One fire hydrant shall be installed per intersection. 

e. The Duvall Fire Department will review all proposed fire hydrant installations 

to ensure the correct number, location, and spacing of fire hydrants for each 

project. 



Supply and Booster Pump Stations 

• All existing and future supply and booster pump stations will be modified/constructed to 

comply with the following minimum standards. 

1. All structures will be non-combustible, where practical; 

2. All buildings will have adequate heating, cooling, ventilation, insulation, lighting, and 

work spaces necessary for on-site operation and repair; 

3. Sites will be fenced to reduce vandalism and City liability, where appropriate; 

4. Each station will be equipped with a flow meter and all necessary instrumentation to 

assist personnel in operating and troubleshooting the facility; 

5. Emergency power capability will be provided to at least one booster pump station 

supplying each pressure zone. 

• Pumps will be operated automatically with flexibility in pump start/stop settings. 

• Stations will be operated with the provision for at least two methods of control to minimize 

system vulnerability. 

• Manual override of stations will be provided for and located at the Operations and 

Maintenance office using the City’s telemetry and supervisory control system. 

• Stations will be monitored with alarms for the following conditions: 

1. Pump started automatically or manually; 

2. Power phase failure; 

3. Communication failure; 

4. Water in structure; 

5. Low suction pressure; and 

6. High discharge pressure. 

• Stations will have the following indicators: 

1. Local flow indication and totalizing; 

2. Flow indication and totalizing at the Operations and Maintenance office; and 

3. Recording of combined supply flow to the system. 


CHAPTER 5 

• Stations will be placed wherever necessary to fulfill the following criteria: 

1. Provide supply redundancy to a pressure zone; 

2. Improve the hydraulic characteristics of a pressure zone; 

3. Maximize storage availability and transmission capacity; and 

4. Improve water quality (i.e., increase circulation) and quantity. 


• All pressure reducing valves will be placed in vaults that are large enough to provide ample 

work space for field inspection and valve repair. 

• Vaults will drain to daylight or be equipped with sump pumps to prevent vault flooding. 

• Pressure relief valves will be provided on the low-pressure side of the pressure reducing 

valves to prevent system over-pressurizing in case of a pressure reducing valve failure and 

will be sized by hydraulic analysis. 

Control 

The City’s control system must be capable of efficiently operating the water system's 

components in accordance with this Plan and in response to reservoir levels, system pressures, 

abnormal system conditions, electrical power rate structure, and water costs. The system must 

be reliable and kept up to date to avoid disruption of customer water service and maintain 

efficient use of water supplies. 

Maintenance 

• Facility and equipment breakdown is given highest maintenance priority. Emergency repairs 

will be made even if overtime labor is involved. 

• Equipment will be scheduled for replacement when it becomes obsolete and as funding is 

available. 

• Worn parts will be repaired, replaced, or rebuilt before they represent a high failure 

probability. 

• Spare parts will be stocked for all equipment items whose failure will impact the ability to 

meet other policy standards. 

• Equipment that is out of service will be returned to service as soon as possible. 

• A preventive maintenance schedule will be established for all facilities, equipment, and 

processes. 



• Tools will be obtained and maintained to repair all items whose failure will impact the ability 

to meet other policy standards. 

• Dry, heated shop space will be available for maintenance personnel to maintain facilities. 

• All maintenance personnel will be trained to efficiently perform their job descriptions. 

• Maintenance will be performed by the water maintenance staff and supervised by the City 

Engineer. 

• Written records and reports will be maintained on each facility and item of equipment 

showing operation and maintenance history. 

Joint Use 

• All joint use facilities (with other public water systems) must comply with the City of Duvall 

policy and design standards. 

• All joint use facilities will be maintained by the Water Department. 

• Joint use facilities will be pursued in those areas that improve reliability or reduce operating 

costs. 

FINANCIAL POLICIES 

General 

• The City will set rates that comply with standards established by the AWWA. 

• Rates and additional charges established for the City should be: 

1. Cost-based rates that recover current, historical, and future costs associated with the 

City’s water system and services; 

2. Equitable charges to recover costs from customers, commensurate with the benefits 

they receive; and 

3. Adequate and stable source of funds to cover the current and future cash needs of the 

City. 

• Existing customers of the City will pay the direct and indirect costs of operating and 

maintaining the facilities through user rates. In addition, the user rates will include debt 

service incurred to finance the capital assets of the City. 


CHAPTER 5 

• New customers seeking to connect to the water system will be required to pay a connection 

charge for an equitable share of the historical cost of the system and for the system's capital 

improvement program (CIP). Connection charge revenues will be used to fund the CIP in 

conjunction with rate revenue. 

• New and existing customers will be charged for extra services through separate ancillary 

charges based on the costs to provide the services. Ancillary charges can increase 

equitability, as well as increase operating efficiency by discouraging unnecessary demand for 

services. The charges should be reviewed regularly and updated annually based on 

increases in the Consumer Price Index. Revenue from ancillary charges will be used to 

finance annual operations and maintenance. 

• The City will maintain information systems that provide sufficient financial and statistical 

information to ensure conformance with rate-setting policies and objectives. 

• User charges must be sufficient to provide cash for the expenses of operating and 

maintaining the system. To ensure the fiscal and physical integrity of the utility, each year 

an amount should also be set aside and retained for capital expenditures, which will cover 

some portion of the depreciation of the physical plant. The amount may be transferred from 

the Maintenance Fund to the Construction Fund for general purposes or for specific 

purposes. 

• A Working Capital Reserve will be maintained to cover unanticipated emergencies and 

fluctuations in cash flow. The City will maintain a cash reserve for the Maintenance Fund. 

• Water rates will be based on either the Base-Extra Capacity Method or the Commodity- 

Demand Method. Both methods strive to equitably charge customers with different service 

requirements based on the cost of providing the water service. Service requirements relate to 

the total volume of water used, peak rates of use, and other factors. 

• Fees and charges are calculated for the service area as a whole. Rates will be the same 

regardless of service location for existing customers. Rates charged in annexed areas will be 

evaluated on an individual basis by the City. 

Connection Charges 

• Owners of properties that have not been assessed, charged, or borne an equitable share of the 

cost of the water system will pay one or more of the following connection charges prior to 

connection to a water main. 

1. Latecomers Fees: Latecomers fees are negotiated with developers and property 

owners; they provide for the reimbursement of a pro rata portion of the original cost 

of water system extensions and facilities. 



2. General Facilities Charge: The connection charge will be assessed against any 

property that has not participated in the development of the water system. Meter 

charges, or hookup fees, are additional in order to recover the cost of meter and 

service line installation. 

3. Developer Extension Charges: These charges are for the administration, review, and 

inspection of developer extension projects. 

ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES 

Staffing 

• Personnel certification will comply with state standards. 

• The Water Department will promote staff training. 

Relationship with Other Departments 

• The Finance Department is responsible for customer billing, payment collection, project cost 

accounting, fund activity reporting, employee records, union labor negotiations and salary 

schedules. 

• The Police Department is responsible for enforcing violations of City water ordinances. 

• The Fire Department uses water utility facilities for fire protection and establishes fire flow 

requirements. 

• The Fire Department is responsible for emergency responses to hazardous events at water 

system facilities. 

• The Fire Department is responsible for hydrant fire flow testing. 

• Fire hydrant testing is performed jointly by the Fire Department and the Water Department. 



6 

INTRODUCTION 

The two basic objectives of a water system are to provide sufficient water quantity to meet 

demands and to provide high quality water. Chapter 7 discusses the City’s ability to supply a 

sufficient quantity of water. This chapter discusses the City’s existing water source, water 

quality issues, and water quality monitoring results. 

EXISTING WATER SOURCES 

Supply Arrangement 

The City of Duvall has received its water from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) since 1962. SPU 

supplies water to its direct retail service customers and to 28 neighboring suburban cities and 

special water districts that are wholesale customers of SPU. The supply of wholesale water from 

SPU to the City of Duvall is provided under the terms of the 1981 Water Purveyor Contract and 

its subsequent amendments. The City’s contract with SPU will remain in effect until 2012, when 

it may be extended in 15-year increments. 

The water purveyor contract identifies the minimum hydraulic gradient that SPU must maintain 

for water supply at each of the City’s supply facilities, as shown below in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1 

SPU Contractual Minimum Supply Heads 

Pressure Min. Head 1 

Supply Facility Location Zone (feet) 

Tolt 1 Supply Station NE Big Rock Rd & Tolt Pipeline No. 1 R.O.W. 615 644.7 

Tolt 2 Supply Station 275th Ave NE & Tolt Pipeline No. 1 R.O.W. 450 639.7 

1 - Mininimum head values shown are based on the NAVD88 datum 

SPU is obligated to provide water supply at pressures that meet or exceed these minimum heads 

and the City is responsible for providing pumping equipment, as necessary, to further increase 

the pressure of the water being supplied to meet the demands of the system. The City is also 

required to provide sufficient equalizing storage to avoid placing peak demands on SPU’s 

regional supply system. 


CHAPTER 6 

The City also owns the Taylor’s Landing Well near the intersection of Duvall-Monroe Road and 

Cherry Valley Road. The City stopped using this well for municipal water supply in the 1960’s, 

but still maintains water rights for the well. 

Primary Source Description 

The primary sources of water for SPU’s regional supply system are from the Cedar River and 

Tolt River. The water that the City receives from SPU is from the Tolt River source, which is 

located approximately 15 miles east of the City, as shown in Figure 6-1. The Tolt River source, 

which was first put into use in the early 1960’s, provides approximately one-third of the total 

water supply for SPU’s regional supply system. The Tolt River system includes a 19-squaremile 

watershed that drains into the 60,000 acre-foot South Fork Tolt Reservoir. Water is 

diverted from the reservoir into the Tolt Regulating Basin, then to the Tolt Treatment Facility, 

and finally into the Tolt Pipeline No. 1, which transports the water to purveyors that are 

primarily located north and south of Seattle. The City’s transmission mains connect to Tolt 

Pipeline No. 1 at two locations. One is approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the city limits, near 

the intersection of 292nd Ave NE and NE Big Rock Road. SPU’s transmission main runs 

westerly towards the City’s second connection to the pipeline, located on 274th Avenue NE 

approximately 2,800 feet south of the City limits. The transmission main proceeds west to its 

terminus in Bothell at the Tolt Eastside Supply Line (TESSL) junction. Here, a portion is 

diverted into the TESSL supply line which runs south into Kirkland, Redmond, and Bellevue and 

the remaining portion is transported northwesterly to the 60 million gallon (MG) Lake Forest 

Park Reservoir. 

The Cedar River system, which was first put into use in the early 1900’s, provides approximately 

two-thirds of the total water supply for SPU’s regional supply system. The Cedar River system 

primarily supplies south Seattle and communities east of Lake Washington and south of I-90. 

The Cedar River source originates from the 1,680 acre Chester Morse Lake located in the upper 

portion of the Cedar River Watershed in southeast King County. Water from the lake travels 

down the Cedar River for approximately 12 miles, where a portion is diverted at Landsburg and 

conveyed to Lake Youngs, an approximate 700-acre reservoir. The Lake Youngs Reservoir 

serves as a regulating basin for the Cedar system by providing a nearly constant pressure as a 

result of the elevation of the water stored in the reservoir. The water passes through the control 

works at Lake Youngs and into four Cedar River pipelines (CRPL No. 1 through 4). Water from 

CRPL No. 4 supplies the Cedar Eastside Supply Line (CESSL) which follows a north-south 

alignment on the east side of Lake Washington. The TESSL and CESSL supply lines are 

connected in Bellevue, so it is possible to supply the City and other purveyors from either 

source. 



Figure 6-1 

SPU’s Regional Water Supply System 


The City is primarily served with water that originates from the Tolt River System, but will on 

occasion receive water from the Cedar River system. Until recently, this change of water source 


CHAPTER 6 

typically occurred when the Tolt River source experienced excessive turbidity levels as a result 

of stormwater runoff during these periods of heavy rain, which required SPU to shut down the 

Tolt River source and use the Cedar River source. However, the construction of the Tolt 

Treatment Facility in 2000 has since increased the reliability of the Tolt River source by 

enabling SPU to operate during periods of high turbidity. Water supplied to the City from the 

Cedar River source is now expected only during emergency or routine maintenance periods. 

Three production wells, located south of Seattle in the Highline area (referred to as the Highline 

Well Field), also provide supplemental water supply to SPU’s system during periods of peak 

water demands. This water does not enter the City’s system because their small output 

(approximately 10 MGD) results in the water being used in the localized area of the wells. 


The City’s water supply is treated by SPU before it reaches the City. Therefore, the City does 

not treat its drinking water. Currently, water treatment for the Tolt River supply includes 

screening, ozonation, coagulation and flocculation, filtration, chlorination, fluoridation, and 

corrosion control. The Cedar River supply currently is treated through four steps: screening, 

fluoridation, corrosion control, and disinfection with chlorine. A new treatment facility for the 

Cedar River supply is expected to be completed by late 2004 and will add ozone and ultraviolet 

light treatment to the disinfectant process. Historically, the water quality in both the Tolt and 

Cedar River sources has been good. 

WATER RIGHTS 

Overview 

A water right is a legal authorization to use a specified amount of public water for specific 

beneficial purposes. The water right amount is expressed in terms of instantaneous withdrawal 

rate and annual withdrawal volume. Washington State law requires users of public water to 

receive approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology (i.e., Ecology) prior to 

actual use of the water. This approval is granted in the form of a water right permit or 

certificate. However, a water right is not required for certain purposes that use 5,000 gallons per 

day or less of groundwater from a well. 

The process for obtaining a water right involves obtaining a water right permit first, then a water 

right certificate. A water right permit provides permission to develop a water right by 

constructing, developing, and testing the water source. A water right permit remains in effect 

until a water right certificate is issued (if all terms of the permit are met) or the permit has been 

canceled. A water right certificate is issued by Ecology following a review process and 

determination that the amount of water put to beneficial use is consistent with the amount and 

conditions indicated on the water right permit. 

A water right permit is issued by Ecology only if the proposed use meets the following 

requirements: 



• Water will be put to beneficial use; 

• No impairment to existing or senior rights; 

• Water is available for appropriation; 

• Issuance of the requested water right will not be detrimental to the public’s interest. 

The water right decision process also considers existing basin management plans, stream 

closures, instream flows, hydraulic continuity (surface water interconnected to groundwater), 

seawater intrusion, utilization of existing water sources, water conservation, and availability of 

alternative water supplies, among other things. The water right decision process is increasingly 

becoming more complex and time consuming, due to the many competing interests for water, 

environmental issues, and regulatory requirements. 

Existing Water Rights 

The City of Duvall currently holds a water right certificate for the Taylor’s Landing Well, 

located in the northwest portion of the City. Water right certificate number 674 D certifies a 

maximum instantaneous withdrawal of 65 gpm or a maximum annual withdrawal of 35 acre-feet 

of groundwater from Taylor’s Landing Well for the purpose of municipal supply. The priority 

date for the groundwater right is April 8, 1940 and the water right place of use has been 

established as the City of Duvall. The 2003 Municipal Water Law defines the place of use as the 

area served. Thus, the place of use for this water right is Duvall’s retail service area, which 

extends beyond the City’s corporate boundaries as shown in Figure 2-3. 

The City capped the Taylor’s Landing Well and closed it to open public use in 2000 for liability 

reasons. The well is now securely capped and locked and is only used in the summer by the 

City’s Public Works Department to fill water trucks for irrigation purposes. However, the City 

is leaving the option open that the well may be used in the future as an emergency backup source 

for the water system. The City’s Wellhead Protection Program, which is included in Appendix 

J, has been prepared in the event that the City decides to use the well in the future for purposes 

other than irrigation. Additional water rights information is contained on the Taylor’s Landing 

Well water right certificate, which is included in Appendix K. 

Water right claim G1-026854CL, which has a maximum instantaneous withdrawal of 15 gpm 

and a maximum annual withdrawal of 5 acre-feet, is also held by the City, but not used. It is 

unknown whether this claim represents a vested water right and the City is not interested in 

pursuing the development of this water right claim for future use. 


CHAPTER 6 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

Overview 

The quality of drinking water in the United States is regulated by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Under provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the EPA is allowed 

to delegate primary enforcement responsibility for water quality control to each state. In the 

State of Washington, the Department of Health (DOH) is the agency responsible for 

implementing and enforcing the drinking water regulations. For the State of Washington to 

maintain primacy (delegated authority to implement requirements) under the SDWA, the state 

must adopt drinking water regulations that are at least as stringent as the federal regulations. In 

meeting these requirements, the State in cooperation with DOH has published drinking water 

regulations that are contained in Chapter 246-290 of the Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC). 

The discussion that follows provides a brief summary of existing and planned future drinking 

water regulations that are either applicable to the City now or possibly in the future. The 

drinking water regulations that affect the City in the future will be dictated by the City’s supply 

arrangement at that time. If the City receives treated water from SPU or another regional system 

in the future and most of the monitoring is accomplished by the regional purveyor, the impacts 

on the City will most likely be minor. If the City develops its own source of water supply in the 

future, many of the existing and future drinking water regulations will apply and result in a 

substantial increase of water quality monitoring and reporting for the City. 

Existing Regulations 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974, as a result of public concern about 

water quality. The SDWA sets standards for quality of drinking water and requires water 

treatment, if these standards are not met. The SDWA also sets water testing schedules and 

methods that water systems must follow. In 1986, the SDWA was amended as a result of 

additional public concern and frequent contamination of groundwater from industrial solvents 

and pesticides. The 1986 Amendments require water systems to monitor and treat for a 

continuously increasing number of water contaminants identified in the new federal regulations. 

EPA regulated approximately 20 contaminants between 1974 and 1986. The 1986 Amendments 

identified 83 contaminants that EPA was required to regulate by 1989. Implementation of the 

new regulations has been marginally successful due to the complexity of the regulations and the 

associated high costs. To rectify the slow implementation of the new regulations, the SDWA 

was amended again and re-authorized in August of 1996. 

In response to the 1986 SDWA Amendments, EPA established six rules, known as the Phase I 

Rule, Phase II & IIb Rules, Phase V Rule, Surface Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule, 

and Lead & Copper Rule. EPA regulates most chemical contaminants through the Phase I, II, 

IIb, and V Rules. All of these rules apply to the City’s source that is provided by SPU. The 

rules indirectly impact the City because SPU is primarily responsible for monitoring, reporting, 

and compliance for most of the rules. 



EPA set two limits for each contaminant that is regulated under the rules. The first limit is a 

health goal, referred to as the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). The MCLG is zero 

for many contaminants, especially known cancer-causing agents (carcinogens). The second limit 

is a legal limit, referred to as the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). The MCL’s are equal to 

or higher than the MCLG’s. However, most MCL’s and MCLG’s are the same, except for 

contaminants that are regulated as carcinogens. The health goals (MCLG’s) for these are 

typically zero, because they cause cancer and it is assumed that any amount of exposure may 

pose some risk of cancer. 

To fully understand the discussion that follows, a brief definition of several key terms is 

provided below: 

• Organic Chemicals – Animal or plant produced substances containing carbon and other 

elements such as hydrogen and oxygen. 

• Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOC’s) - Man-made organic substances including 

herbicides, pesticides, and various industrial chemicals and solvents. 

• Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC’s) - Chemicals, as liquid, that evaporate easily into 

the air. 

• Inorganic Chemicals – Chemicals of mineral origin that are naturally occurring 

elements. These include metals such as lead and cadmium. 

A summary of existing rules and regulations that were established by the SDWA is provided 

below. The impact of each rule and regulation on the City is also identified. Several of the rules 

do not directly impact the City because SPU provides most of the monitoring and reporting of 

water quality within the City’s distribution system as part of its regional monitoring program. 

Phase I Rule 

The Phase I Rule, which was EPA’s first response to the 1986 Amendments, was published in 

the Federal Register on July 8, 1987, and became effective on January 9, 1989. This rule 

provided limits for eight VOC’s that may be present in drinking water. VOC’s are used by 

industries in the manufacture of rubber, pesticides, deodorants, solvents, plastics, and other 

chemicals. VOC’s are found in everyday items such as gasoline, paints, thinners, lighter fluid, 

mothballs, and glue, and are typically encountered at dry cleaners, automotive service stations, 

and elsewhere in industrial processes. Since VOC’s are monitored at the source by SPU, the 

City is not directly impacted by this rule under the current water supply arrangement. 

Phase II & IIb Rules 

The Phase II & IIb Rules were published in the Federal Register on January 30, 1991 and July 1, 

1991, and became effective on July 30, 1992 and January 1, 1993, respectively. These rules 

updated and created limits for 38 contaminants (organics and inorganics), of which 27 were 

newly regulated. Some of the contaminants are frequently applied agricultural chemicals 

(nitrate), while others are more obscure industrial chemicals. Since organics and inorganics are 


CHAPTER 6 

monitored at the source by SPU, the City is not directly impacted by this rule under the current 

water supply arrangement. 

Phase V Rule 

The Phase V Rule was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 1992, and became effective 

on January 17, 1994. This rule set standards for 23 additional contaminants, of which 18 are 

organic chemicals (mostly pesticides and herbicides) and 5 are inorganic chemicals (such as 

cyanide). Since organics and inorganics are monitored at the source by SPU, the City is not 

directly impacted by this rule under the current water supply arrangement. 

Surface Water Treatment Rule 

The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 

1989, and became effective on December 31, 1990. Surface water sources, such as rivers, lakes, 

reservoirs (which are open to the atmosphere and subject to surface runoff), and groundwater 

sources that are under the direct influence of surface water (referred to as GWUDI sources) are 

governed by this rule. The SWTR seeks to prevent waterborne diseases caused by microbes, 

Legionella and Giardia lamblia, that are present in most surface waters. The rule requires 

disinfection of all surface water sources and GWUDI sources. Since the City receives all of its 

water from another system (i.e., SPU), this rule requires that the City maintain at a minimum, a 

detectable residual disinfectant concentration in the distribution system. Currently, the City’s 

water is monitored and tested weekly and during these tests the amount of chlorine residual is 

measured. All surface water sources and GWUDI sources must also be filtered, unless a 

filtration waiver is granted. A filtration waiver may be granted to systems with pristine sources 

that continuously meet stringent source water quality and protection requirements. 

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

EPA proposed the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) on July 29, 1994. 

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1998, and became 

effective on February 16, 1999, concurrent with the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By- 

Products Rule. The rule primarily applies to public water systems that serve 10,000 or more 

people and use surface water sources or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water 

(GWUDI). The rule also requires primacy agencies (i.e., Department of Health in Washington 

State) to conduct sanitary surveys of all surface water and GWUDI systems, regardless of size. 

The rule is the first to directly regulate the protozoan Cryptosporidium and has set the MCLG for 

Cryptosporidium at zero. Water systems affected by this rule must have complied with it by 

December 16, 2001. 

Total Coliform Rule 

The Total Coliform Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1989, and became 

effective on December 31, 1990. The rule set both health goals (MCLG’s) and legal limits 

(MCL’s) for total coliform levels in drinking water, and the type and frequency of testing that is 

required for water systems. The rule requires more monitoring than under the prior 



requirements, especially for small systems. In addition, every public water system is required to 

develop a coliform monitoring plan, subject to approval by DOH. 

Coliforms are a group of bacteria that live in the digestive tract of humans and many animals, 

and are excreted in large numbers with feces. Coliforms can be found in sewage, soils, surface 

waters, and vegetation. The presence of any coliforms in drinking water indicates a health risk 

and potential waterborne disease outbreak, which may include gastroenteric infections, 

dysentery, hepatitis, typhoid fever, cholera, and other infectious diseases. 

The rule established the health goal for total coliforms at zero. To comply with the legal limit, 

systems must not find coliforms in more than five percent of the samples taken each month. The 

monitoring and testing of coliforms under this rule is currently conducted by SPU. However, the 

City is required to prepare a coliform monitoring plan in accordance with the rule. A copy of the 

City’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan is included in Appendix L. 

Lead & Copper Rule 

The Lead and Copper Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 1991, and became 

effective on December 7, 1992. On January 12, 2000 the EPA published some minor revisions 

to the rule in the Federal Register, which primarily improved the implementation of the rule. 

The rule identifies “action levels” for both lead and copper. An action level is different than a 

MCL in that a MCL is a legal limit for a contaminant, and an action level is a trigger for 

additional prevention or removal steps. The action level for lead is greater than 0.015 mg/L. 

The action level for copper is greater than 1.3 mg/L. If the 90th percentile concentration of 

either lead or copper from the group of samples exceeds these action levels, a corrosion control 

study must be undertaken to evaluate strategies and make recommendations for reducing the lead 

or copper concentration below the action levels. The rule requires systems that exceed the lead 

level to educate the affected public about reducing its lead intake. Systems that continue to 

exceed the lead action level after implementing corrosion control and source water treatment 

may be required to replace piping in the system that contains the source of lead. Corrosion 

control is typically accomplished by increasing the pH of the water to make it less corrosive, 

which reduces its ability to breakdown water pipes and absorb lead or copper. 

Lead is a common metal found throughout the environment in lead-based paint, air, soil, 

household dust, food, certain types of pottery, porcelain, pewter, and water. Lead can pose a 

significant risk to health if too much of it enters the body. Lead builds up in the body over many 

years and can cause damage to the brain, red blood cells, and kidneys. The greatest risk is to 

young children and pregnant women. Lead can slow down normal mental and physical 

development of growing bodies. 

Copper is a common, natural, and useful metal found in our environment. It is also a trace 

element needed in most human diets. The primary impact of elevated copper levels in water 

systems is stained plumbing fixtures. At certain levels (well above the action levels), copper 

may cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. It can also lead to serious health problems in people 

with Wilson’s disease. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of copper in drinking water could 

also increase the risk of liver and kidney damage. 


CHAPTER 6 

The City is affected by this rule, which has required the City to perform monitoring that was not 

previously required in the past. 

Radionuclides Rule 

EPA established interim drinking water regulations for radionuclides in 1976, under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. MCL’s were established for alpha, beta and photon emitters, and radium 

226/228. Radionuclides are elements that undergo a process of natural decay and emit radiation 

in the form of alpha or beta particles and gamma photons. The radiation can cause various kinds 

of cancers, depending on the type of radionuclide exposure from drinking water. The regulations 

address both man-made and naturally occurring radionuclides in drinking water. 

The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA finalized the regulations for radionuclides by eliminating 

the term "interim". The Amendments also directed EPA to promulgate (publish as law) healthbased 

maximum contaminant level goals, as well as maximum contaminant levels. EPA failed to 

meet the statutory schedules for promulgating the radionuclide regulations, which resulted in a 

lawsuit. In 1991, EPA proposed revisions to the regulations; but a final regulation based on the 

proposal was never promulgated. The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA directed EPA to revise a 

portion of the earlier proposed revisions, adopt a schedule, and review and revise the regulations 

every six years, as appropriate, to maintain or improve public health protection. Subsequent to 

the 1996 Amendments, a 1996 court order required EPA to either finalize the 1991 proposal for 

radionuclides or to ratify the existing standards by November 2000. 

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000 and became effective 

on December 8, 2003. The rule established an MCLG of zero for the four regulated 

contaminates and MCL’s of 5 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and radium-228, 15 pCi/L for 

gross alpha (excluding radon and uranium), 4 mrem/year for beta particle and photon 

radioactivity, and 30 ug/L for uranium. This rule does not directly impact the City under the 

current water supply arrangement. 

Wellhead Protection Program 

Section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA Amendments mandates that each state develop a wellhead 

protection program. The Washington State mandate for wellhead protection and the required 

elements of a wellhead protection program are contained in WAC 246-290-135 Source 

Protection, which became effective in July of 1994. In Washington State, DOH is the lead 

agency for the development and administration of the State’s wellhead protection program. 

A wellhead protection program is a proactive and ongoing effort of a water purveyor to protect 

the health of its customers by preventing contamination of the groundwater that it supplies for 

drinking water. All federally defined Group A public water systems that use groundwater as 

their source are required to develop and implement a wellhead protection program. All required 

elements of a local wellhead protection program must be documented and included in either the 

Comprehensive Water System Plan (applicable to Duvall) or Small Water System Management 

Program document (not applicable to Duvall). A copy of the City’s Wellhead Protection 

Program is contained in Appendix J of this plan. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the City 

does not currently use the Taylor’s Landing Well, but may intend to do so in the future. 



Consumer Confidence Report 

The final rule for the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) was published in the Federal Register 

on August 19, 1998, and became effective on September 18, 1998. Minor revisions were posted 

in the Federal Register on May 4, 2000. The Consumer Confidence Report is the centerpiece of 

the right-to-know provisions of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. All 

community water systems, like the City of Duvall, were required to issue the first report to 

customers by October 19, 1999. The annual report must be updated and re-issued to all 

customers by July 1 of each year thereafter. 

The CCR is a report on the quality of water that was delivered to the system during the previous 

12 months. The reports must contain certain specific elements, but may also contain other 

information that the purveyor deems appropriate for public education. Some, but not all, of the 

information that is required in the reports include the source and type of the drinking water, type 

of treatment, contaminants that have been detected in the water, potential health effects of the 

contaminants, identification of the likely source of contamination, violations of monitoring and 

reporting, and variances or exemptions to the drinking water regulations. A copy of City’s latest 

Consumer Confidence Report at the time of this writing is included in Appendix M. 

Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule 

Disinfection by-products (DBP’s) are formed when free chlorine reacts with organic substances, 

most of which occur naturally. These organic substances (called “precursors”) are a complex 

and variable mixture of compounds. The disinfection by-products themselves may pose health 

risks. Trihalomethanes is a category of disinfection by-products that is currently regulated. 

EPA proposed the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (D/DBPR) on July 29, 

1994. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1998, and became 

effective on February 16, 1999. The rule applies to most water systems, including systems 

serving fewer than 10,000 people, which add a chemical disinfectant to the drinking water during 

any part of the treatment process. The rule reduced the MCL for total trihalomethanes, which 

are a composite measure of four individual trihalomethanes, from the previous interim level of 

0.10 mg/L to 0.08 mg/L. The rule established MCL’s and requires monitoring of three 

additional categories of disinfectant by-products (0.06 mg/L for five haloacetic acids, 0.01 mg/L 

for bromate, and 1.0 mg/L for chlorite). The rule also established maximum residual disinfectant 

levels (MRDL’s) for chlorine (4.0 mg/L), chloramines (4.0 mg/L), and chlorine dioxide (0.8 

mg/L). The rule also requires systems using surface water or groundwater directly influenced by 

surfaced water to implement enhanced coagulation or softening to remove DBP precursors, 

unless alternative criteria is met. Compliance with this rule must have been satisfied by 

December 16, 2001 for large surface water systems (those serving over 10,000 people) and by 

December 16, 2003 for smaller surface water systems and all groundwater systems. 

Since the City purchases its water supply from SPU and does not add additional chemical 

disinfectants, only SPU is required to conduct monitoring and testing of DBP’s within the City’s 

system under this rule. 


CHAPTER 6 

Arsenic 

EPA established interim drinking water regulations for arsenic in 1976 under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. Arsenic is highly toxic, affects the skin and nervous system, and may cause cancer. 

The 1996 SDWA Amendments require EPA to conduct research to assess health risks associated 

with exposure to low levels of arsenic. The EPA issued a proposed regulation on June 22, 2000, 

and allowed a 90 day public review period. The final rule, which was published in the Federal 

Register on January 22, 2001, was to become effective on March 23, 2001, except for certain 

amendments to several sections of the rule. However, on May 22, 2001, EPA announced that it 

was delaying the effective date for the rule until February 22, 2002 to allow time to reassess the 

rule and to afford the public a full opportunity to provide further input. 

The final rule sets the MCLG of arsenic at zero and reduces the MCL from the current standard 

of 0.05 mg/L (50 ppb) to 0.01 mg/L (10 ppb). Arsenic’s monitoring requirements will be 

consistent with the existing requirements for other inorganic contaminants. Community water 

systems with arsenic levels greater than 10 ppb must include the arsenic sampling results, along 

with a statement on health risks, in the annual Consumer Confidence Report. Water systems that 

have arsenic levels of 5 to 10 ppb must include an educational statement about arsenic in their 

Consumer Confidence Reports. The regulation will require that the lower MCL is met starting 

January 23, 2006. Since the City’s water source is owned and operated by SPU, the City is not 

directly impacted by this rule under the current water supply arrangement. 

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 

The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 

2001, and became effective on August 7, 2001. The rule addresses the backwash techniques of 

treatment facilities in which poor recycling practices may compromise the performance of the 

treatment process and in turn degrade water quality. Recycled filter backwash water, sludge 

thickener supernatant and liquids from dewatering processes under this rule are required to be 

returned to a location where they will be subject to all treatment processes. The proposed rule 

was originally published by the EPA in conjunction with the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment Rule which addresses treatment technique requirements, but leaves specific 

regulations for the recycling of filter backwash water to the FBRR. Water systems that utilize 

direct or conventional filtration processes to treat water supplied from surface water sources or 

GWI sources and who recycle backwash water within the treatment process are governed by this 

rule. Compliance with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule must be satisfied by August 7, 2004. 

Since the City’s source is owned and operated by SPU, the City is not directly impacted by this 

rule under the current water supply arrangement. 



Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

This is the follow up rule to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which became 

effective in December of 1998. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(LT1ESWTR) was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2002 and the final rule 

became effective on February 13, 2002. This rule, which was proposed in conjunction with the 

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, addresses water systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people 

and use surface water sources or GWI sources. 

This rule dictates that filtered systems must achieve at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium 

through meeting strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity limits and must continuously 

monitor individual filter turbidity by January 11, 2005. Unfiltered systems are required to 

improve Cryptosporidium control through enhanced watershed control plans by January 14, 

2005. Additionally, the LT1ESWTR mandates that systems serving less than 500 people 

commence development of a disinfection profile by January 1, 2004 and complete the profile by 

January 1, 2005. Systems that serve a population between 500 and 9,999 people must 

commence the development of a disinfection profile and complete their profile by July 1, 2003 

and July 1, 2004, respectively. Lastly, the LT1ESWTR mandates that water systems provide 

covers for all reservoirs constructed after March 15, 2002. Since the City’s source is owned and 

operated by SPU, the City is not directly impacted by this rule under the current water supply 

arrangement. 

Future Regulations 

The drinking water regulations are continuously changing in an effort to provide higher quality 

and safer drinking water. Modifications to the existing rules described above and 

implementation of new rules are planned for the near future. A summary of upcoming drinking 

water regulations that may affect the City of Duvall is presented below. 

Groundwater Disinfection Rule 

In accordance with the 1986 SDWA Amendments, EPA is developing a Groundwater 

Disinfection Rule (GWDR) that specifies the use of disinfectants for groundwater systems, as 

necessary. The proposed rule was published May 10, 2000 in the Federal Register and EPA’s 

target date for the final rule was the spring of 2003, but has not been published to date. The 

proposed rule requires periodic groundwater sanitary surveys, hydrogeologic assessments of 

wells, source water monitoring for at risk wells, correction of sensitive wells and/or eliminating 

the contamination and/or disinfecting, and monitoring of disinfection treatment. It is likely that 

the rule will require all public water systems using groundwater to disinfect at each source, 

unless the system qualifies for a variance or satisfies “natural disinfection” criteria. Natural 

disinfection criteria considers historical source water contamination, distances to nearest 

potential source of fecal contamination, groundwater and pathogen travel time, hydrogeologic 

features, and well construction standards. This rule will not directly impact the City under the 

current water supply arrangement, but will if the City were to develop its own source. 


CHAPTER 6 

Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-products Rule 

This rule is the second part of the Disinfectants/Disinfection By-products Rule, of which the 

Stage 1 D/DBPR became effective in February 1999. The Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection 

By-products Rule (Stage 2 D/DBPR) was published on August 18, 2003 in the Federal Register 

and the target date for the final rule is sometime during the summer of 2004. The EPA is 

expected to implement this rule simultaneously with the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule. 

Similar to the Stage 1 D/DBPR, this rule applies to most water systems that add a chemical 

disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment process. However, unlike the 

Stage 1 D/DBPR, it is anticipated that this rule will also apply to systems that purchase water 

treated with chemical disinfectants, such as Duvall. The proposed Stage 2 D/DBPR changes the 

calculation procedure requirement of the MCL’s established in Stage 1 D/DBPR by requiring 

each sampling location to determine compliance with MCL’s based on their individual annual 

average disinfectant by-product levels (termed the Locational Running Annual Average), rather 

than utilizing a system-wide annual average. The rule also proposes new MCLG’s for 

chloroform (0.07 mg/L), trichloroacetic acid (0.02 mg/L) and monochloroacetic acid (0.03 

mg/L). Additionally, the proposed rule will require systems to document peak disinfectant byproduct 

levels and prepare an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) report to identify 

Stage 2 D/DBPR compliance monitoring sites. Monitoring for compliance with the new rule 

will be performed by the City. 

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

Following the publishing of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, EPA 

introduced the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule to supplement the 

preceding regulations. The second part of the regulations of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment Rule, which recently became effective in February 2002, will be mandated in 

the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). The proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003. The final rule’s target date is 

sometime during the summer of 2004, after which it is expected to be implemented 

simultaneously with the Stage 2 D/DBPR described in the previous section. This rule applies to 

all systems which use surface water or GWI sources. 

This rule establishes treatment technique requirements for filtered systems based on their risk 

level for contamination, calculated from the system’s average Cryptosporidium concentration. 

Additional requirements will include up to 2.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment in addition to 

existing requirements under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. Filtered systems that demonstrate 

low levels of risk will not be required to provide additional treatment. Unfiltered systems under 

this proposed rule must achieve at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium if the source water 

is monitored for Cryptosporidium and its mean level remains below 0.01 oocysts/L. If an 

unfiltered system elects not to monitor, or the mean level of Cryptosporidium exceeds 0.01 

oocysts/L, the proposed LT2ESWTR will require the system to provide a minimum 3-log 

removal of Cryptosporidium. All unfiltered systems will also be required to utilize a minimum 

of two disinfectants in their treatment process. 



The LT2ESWTR also addresses systems with unfinished water storage facilities. Under this 

rule, systems must either cover their storage facilities, provide at least a 4-log virus removal, or 

perform state-approved risk mitigation. Lastly, the proposed rule extends the requirement of the 

disinfection profiles mandated under the LT1ESWTR to the proposed Stage 2 D/DBPR. Since 

the City’s source is owned and operated by SPU, the City is not directly impacted by this rule 

under the current water supply arrangement. 

Radon 

In July of 1991, EPA proposed a regulation for radon, as well as three other radionuclides. The 

1996 SDWA Amendments required EPA to withdraw the 1991 proposal, due to several concerns 

that were raised during the comment period. A new proposed regulation was published in the 

Federal Register on November 2, 1999. Final federal requirements for addressing radon were 

expected to be implemented in March 2003, however they have not been published to date. The 

rule proposes a 300 pCi/L MCL for community water systems that use ground water, or an 

alternative, less-stringent MCL of 4,000 pCi/L for water systems where their state implements an 

EPA-approved program to reduce radon risks in household indoor-air, as well as tap water. 

Since the City’s source is owned and operated by SPU, the City is not directly impacted by this 

rule under the current water supply arrangement. 

Sulfate 

Sulfate is currently on the national secondary standards list, which unlike the national primary 

standards, secondary standards contaminants do not affect health. Therefore, systems are not 

required by federal law to comply with the sulfate standard, but are encouraged to do so. 

However, the State of Washington has adopted regulations that require compliance with the 

sulfate standard. 

EPA issued a proposed regulation for sulfate on December 20, 1994. The 1996 SDWA 

Amendments required EPA to make a final determination by August 6, 2001 of whether or not to 

regulate sulfate under the national primary standards. EPA, however, is still in the process of 

reviewing pertinent information on the health effects of sulfate, which includes public comments 

on the previously proposed rule and the results of a heath effects study on sulfate that was 

completed in January 1999. If the determination is to regulate sulfate, then the proposed rule 

was to be expected by August of 2003, however it has not been published to date. It is unknown 

at this time whether possible sulfate regulations will impact the City. 

SOURCE WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT 

Description 

The City relies on the personnel and procedures of SPU to provide a reliable and high-quality 

supply of water to the City’s system. SPU is responsible for the quality of the water from the 

source to the City’s two metered supply connections. The City is responsible for the quality of 

the water within the City’s water distribution system. The City monitors water quality in its 


CHAPTER 6 

system, but does not provide water treatment; all water treatment is provided by SPU. Water 

treatment for the Tolt and Cedar River water sources currently consists of intake screening, 

chlorination, fluoridation, and pH and alkalinity adjustment. Additionally, the Tolt supply is 

filtered and treated with ozone, and by late 2004 the Cedar source will also be treated with ozone 

and ultraviolet (UV) light. Chlorine is added to kill naturally occurring bacteria, and fluoride is 

added to prevent tooth decay. Alkalinity and pH adjustment is provided for corrosion control 

treatment. Filtration increases the reliability of the Tolt River source by enabling the facility to 

be operated during periods of high turbidity, such as heavy rain or low reservoir levels. Ozone 

and UV light are used to kill additional bacterial contaminants, such as Cryptosporidium, which 

are resistant to chlorine. Unlike chlorine, ozone and UV light treatments do not leave a residual 

in the water, meaning that chlorination is still necessary. 

Drinking Water Standards 

Drinking water quality is regulated at the federal level by EPA and at the state level by DOH. 

Drinking water standards have been established to maintain high quality drinking water by 

limiting the levels of specific contaminants (i.e., regulated contaminants) that can adversely 

affect public health and are known or are likely to occur in public water systems. Non-regulated 

contaminants do not have established water quality standards and are generally monitored at the 

discretion of the water purveyor and in the interest of customers. 

The regulated contaminants are grouped into two categories of standards – primary standards 

and secondary standards. Primary standards are drinking water standards for contaminants that 

could affect health. Water purveyors are required by law to monitor and comply with these 

standards and notify the public if water quality does not meet any one of the standards. 

Secondary standards are drinking water standards for contaminants that have aesthetic effects, 

such as unpleasant taste, odor, or color (staining). The national secondary standards are 

unenforceable federal guidelines or goals where federal law does not require water systems to 

comply with them. States may, however, adopt their own enforceable regulations governing 

these contaminants. The State of Washington has adopted regulations that require compliance 

with some of the secondary standards. Water purveyors are not required to notify the public if 

water quality does not meet the secondary standards. 

Source Monitoring Results 

The water quality laboratory of SPU routinely monitors the quality of water at the Cedar and 

Tolt River sources for regulated and non-regulated contaminants. The following three tables 

(Table 6-2, Table 6-3, and Table 6-4) present the results of source water quality monitoring in 

2002, as published by SPU, for both the Cedar and Tolt River sources. 



Table 6-2 

2002 Source Water Quality – Primary Standards 

Water Quality Parameter MCL Units Cedar Source Tolt Source 

Antimony 6 µg/L ND ND 

Arsenic 50 µg/L ND ND 

Asbestos, million fibers/L (>10um long) 1 7 µg/L ND ND 

Barium 2000 µg/L ND ND 

Beryllium 4 µg/L ND ND 

Cadmium 5 µg/L ND ND 

Cyanide 200 µg/L ND ND 

Chromium 100 µg/L ND ND 

Fluoride 4 mg/L 0.92 0.98 

Nickel 100 µg/L ND ND 

Mercury 2 µg/L ND ND 

Nitrate-Nitrogen 10 mg/L 0.022 0.120 

Nitrite-Nitrogen 1 mg/L ND ND 

Selenium 50 µg/L ND ND 

Thallium 2 µg/L ND ND 

Trihalomethanes, Total 2 100 µg/L 29.3 28.1 

Turbidity 

5.0 (Cedar) 

0.3 (Tolt) 

NTU 0.56 0.06 

Residential Action Levels (Not MCLs) 

Copper 3 1.3 mg/L 0.263 0.969 

Lead 3 0.015 mg/L 0.011 0.031 

Samples collected April 30, 2002, unless otherwise noted 

Primary Standards = standards for contaminants that could impact health and are enforceable by law 

ND = not detected at lowest detection limit 

µg/L = microgram per liter (equivalent to 1 part per billion) 

mg/L = milligram per liter (equivalent to 1 part per million) 

1 = test results from 12/15/95 (analysis not required in 2002) 

2 = average of the last 4 quarters testing, through 5/02 

3 = measured at 90th percentile of overnight standing residential samples from homes with 

copper pipes and lead solder-1997 (source waters were ND for copper & lead) 


CHAPTER 6 

Table 6-3 

2002 Source Water Quality – Secondary Standards 


Aluminum 50 - 200 µg/L 34.7 40.3 

Chloride 250 mg/L 3.56 2.17 

Color 15 std units ND ND 

Copper 1 mg/L 0.0012 ND 

Fluoride 2 mg/L 0.92 0.98 

Iron 0.3 mg/L 0.03 0.01 

Manganese 50 µg/L 3 ND 

pH, range 1 6.5 - 8.5 pH units 8.03 - 8.64 7.31 - 8.55 

Silver 100 µg/L ND ND 

Solids,Total Dissolved 500 mg/L 45 38 

Specific Conductance 700 umhos/cm 60.6 49.5 

Sulfate 250 mg/L 1.1 1.2 

Zinc 5 mg/L ND ND 


Secondary Standards = Standards for contaminants that have aesthetic effects such as taste, 

odor, or staining. 

ND = not detected at lowest detection limit 



1 = January - May 2002, 10-90th percentile 

The Tolt River water source is naturally corrosive. Corrosive water reduces the service life of 

plumbing, water mains, pumps, reservoirs, and treatment systems. Corrosive water also 

increases the rate at which lead and copper is introduced into the water system from lead solder 

fittings, lead joint pipe, copper pipe, and other materials containing these metals. SPU signed a 

bilateral compliance agreement with the DOH to meet the requirements of the Lead and Copper 

Rule (i.e., reduce lead concentrations in the water). The Tolt Treatment Facility now treats the 

source water to reduce the level of lead concentration to meet these requirements. The 

completion of the Tolt Treatment Facility in 2002 also resolved turbidity problems SPU was 

experiencing in which it had received monitoring violations at the Tolt River source in past 

years. 



Table 6-4 

2002 Source Water Quality – Non Regulated Parameters 


Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) None mg/L 16.6 16.1 

Calcium, (as CaCO3) None mg/L 20.3 22.7 

Hardness, (as CaCO3) None mg/L 24.2 24.3 

Hardness, (as CaCO3) None grains/gal 1.4 1.4 

Magnesium None mg/L 0.94 0.39 

Oxygen, Dissolved None mg/L 12 20 

Phosphorus, Soluble Reactive None µg/L 4 2 

Potassium None mg/L 0.25 0.15 

Silica, Reactive None mg/L 6.9 5.5 

Sodium None mg/L 2.22 0.97 

Temperature, annual range None degree C 5 - 20 5 - 20 

Total Organic Carbon None mg/L 0.98 1.27 


Non-Regulated Parameters = aesthetic parameters that are not required to be monitored 



Source Water Quality Improvements Planned by SPU 

The supply sources that are owned and operated by SPU present several water quality issues. 

SPU’s two main sources (Tolt River and Cedar River) are surface waters that are regulated by 

the Surface Water Treatment Rule and recently promulgated Interim Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule. These new rules and past water quality violations have resulted in requirements 

that SPU treat these sources at levels greater than what has been practiced in the past. SPU 

recently fulfilled these requirements at its Tolt River source when it brought the Tolt Treatment 

Facility online. 

In 1992 and again in 1998, fecal coliform concentrations in the Cedar River source exceeded the 

limits established by the Surface Water Treatment Rule for unfiltered sources. Consequently, 

SPU is under an Agreed Order from DOH to implement additional treatment for its Cedar River 

source. Water quality improvements planned by SPU include an ozone and UV disinfection 

facility and relocation of the point of primary disinfection from the Cedar River diversion at 

Landsburg to the outlet of the Lake Youngs Reservoir. The disinfection facility will also be 

designed to accommodate the addition of filtration, which may be required in the future. Other 

improvements are also being evaluated as part of the work plan that SPU has agreed to 

accomplish. Upon completion of the Cedar River source improvements, the quality of water 


CHAPTER 6 

supplied by SPU should be better and SPU’s ability to meet both existing and planned future 

water quality regulations should be improved. 

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY 

Monitoring Requirements 

The City is responsible for water quality within its system, although much of the monitoring and 

testing is accomplished by SPU. Water quality monitoring requirements are contained in WAC 

246-290-300. SPU has an agreement with DOH that permits SPU to submit 70 percent of the 

number of samples listed in WAC 246-290-300 for each purveyor they supply with water. In 

accordance with WAC 246-290-300 and this agreement, the City must comply with the following 

monitoring requirements because it receives completely treated water from another public water 

system (i.e., SPU): 

1. Collect coliform samples in accordance with WAC 246-290-300(2). In summary, this 

consists of: 

a. Collecting a minimum of six (6) coliform samples per month, based on the population 

served by the City, and submitting the samples to a certified laboratory for analysis. 

Collect and submit additional samples, as required, when a coliform sample is 

determined invalid. SPU’s agreement with DOH reduces the minimum number of 

samples per month to five (5). 

b. Preparing a Coliform Monitoring Plan and updating it, as necessary. 

2. Perform distribution system monitoring in accordance with Section 7 of WAC 246-290-300 

for disinfection by-product (DBP), disinfectant residuals, and disinfection by-product 

precursors (DBPP). Since the City purchases its water from SPU, SPU must perform water 

quality monitoring in accordance with this section. 

3. Perform lead and copper monitoring required under 40 CFR 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. The 

first round of monitoring was required during the first half of 1992 and the second round of 

monitoring was required during the second half of 1992. Two successive six-month followup 

rounds of monitoring were required in 1997, then most recently in 2003 and 2004. 

4. Perform distribution system monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 141.23(b) for asbestos, if 

applicable. Since the City has asbestos cement pipe in its water system, the City is required 

to sample water from a tap that is served by an asbestos cement pipe during the first threeyear 

compliance period of each nine-year asbestos compliance cycle. 

If unsatisfactory samples from the above monitoring are detected, the procedures in WAC 246- 

290-320, -480, and -330 must be followed for repeat sampling, Department of Health 

notification, and customer notification. 



Monitoring Results 

The City has been in compliance with all monitoring requirements for the past several years. A 

summary of the City’s compliance status for the monitoring requirements identified above is 

presented below. 

Coliform Monitoring 

SPU provides coliform monitoring of the City’s water system as part of its regional monitoring 

program. The City is responsible for follow-up or repeat sampling if samples collected by SPU 

test positive for coliforms. SPU currently collects a minimum of five samples each month from 

water quality monitoring sample stands at two different locations in the City’s distribution 

system. These locations are at the intersection of 3rd Avenue NE and NE Stewart Street, and at 

28522 NE 151st Street. SPU uses its own certified laboratory for the water quality analysis 

work. The results of coliform tests from the last ten years have all been satisfactory. 

The City prepared a Coliform Monitoring Plan in 1994 and received plan approval from DOH. 

A Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which presents a more detailed discussion of the coliform 

monitoring activities, is contained in Appendix L. 

Trihalomethane Monitoring 

Trihalomethanes (THMs) are disinfection by-products that are formed when free chlorine reacts 

with organic substances, most of which occur naturally. Formation of THMs is dependent on 

such factors as amount and type of chlorine used, water temperature, concentration of organic 

substances, pH, and chlorine contact time. Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) is a composite 

measure that sums the concentrations of four individual trihalomethanes. 

SPU provides trihalomethane monitoring of the City’s water system as part of its regional 

monitoring program. Prior to the end of 1999 the City was required to collect a minimum of one 

water sample every three months from the end of the distribution system and submit it to a 

certified laboratory for analysis of total trihalomethanes. During the twelve sampling periods 

between 1997 and 1999, SPU reported trihalomethane levels ranging from 0.054 mg/L and 0.083 

mg/L. Beginning in 2000, the City was required to collect a minimum of one water sample 

every three years and submit it to a certified laboratory for analysis of total trihalomethanes. The 

results of the past sample collected during the sampling period in 2002 indicated a 

trihalomethane level of 0.025 mg/L. This level marks a large decrease in trihalomethane 

concentrations, which is attributed to the recent construction of the Tolt Treatment Facility. 

Based on these results, the City has not exceeded the prior maximum contaminant level (MCL) 

of 0.10 mg/L and is not exceeding the recently reduced level of 0.08 mg/L for TTHM. 

Residual Disinfectant Concentration Monitoring 

In accordance with WAC 246-290-662, the minimum residual disinfectant concentration entering 

the City’s distribution system shall be at least 0.2 mg/L. Samples taken within the distribution 

system are required to have a residual disinfectant concentration that is detectable in at least 95 


CHAPTER 6 

percent of the samples taken each calendar month. The results of the residual disinfectant 

concentration monitoring must be reported to DOH using DOH approved forms within ten days 

after the end of each month, unless otherwise directed by DOH. A further discussion of the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements is contained in Chapter 8 (Operations and 

Maintenance). 

Tolt River water is initially disinfected at the treatment plant with ozone for the initial kill of 

harmful microbials and disinfected a second time at the treatment plant with gaseous chlorine to 

maintain a residual throughout the regional transmission system. The samples collected by SPU 

for coliform analysis were also analyzed for residual disinfectant concentration by the SPU 

Water Quality Laboratory. The average residual disinfectant concentration of water within the 

City’s distribution system in 2002 was 0.65 mg/L at the DU-1 sample site and 0.71 mg/L at the 

DU-2 sample site. The results of individual samples taken in 2002 ranged from a low of 0.13 

mg/L to a high of 1.20 mg/L. Although samples taken in June of 2002 did not contain a residual 

disinfectant concentration of at least 0.2, the City was in compliance with disinfection 

requirements, because all samples taken that month had a detectable residual disinfectant 

concentration and constituted over 95 percent of the samples taken that month. 

Lead and Copper Monitoring 

The Lead and Copper Rule identifies “action levels” for both lead and copper. An action level is 

different than a MCL in that a MCL is a legal limit for a contaminant, and an action level is a 

trigger for additional prevention or removal steps. The action level for lead is greater than 0.015 

mg/L. The action level for copper is greater than 1.3 mg/L. If the 90th percentile concentration 

of either lead or copper from the group of samples exceeds these action levels, a corrosion 

control study must be undertaken to evaluate strategies and make recommendations for reducing 

the lead or copper concentration below the action levels. 

The City participates in SPU’s regional lead and copper monitoring program. The City obtained 

samples from one location within the water service area most recently in 1997 for the regional 

monitoring program and submitted the samples to the SPU Water Quality Laboratory for 

analysis. Although the City’s sample did not exceed the action levels, the regional testing did, 

requiring annual public education and treatment improvements because compliance is 

determined on a regional basis. Duvall provides information on lead and copper to customers in 

their annual drinking water quality report to comply with public notification requirements for 

lead and copper. 

Corrosion control studies prepared by SPU and submitted to DOH have concluded that the 

corrosion control facilities that were installed in the early 1980’s are optimized, but are unable to 

keep the level of lead in some parts of the system below the action level. Through a bilateral 

compliance agreement with the DOH and SPU, the EPA lead and copper monitoring 

requirements for SPU (which included the City of Duvall) were lifted until corrosion control 

improvements could be constructed. Through these improvements, an increased level of 

corrosion control is now being provided within the treatment processes of the Tolt Treatment 

Facility. This facility is expected to maintain lead and copper concentrations well below the 

action levels. SPU is planning to conduct another corrosion control study to ensure that all lead 



and copper requirements are now being met, and lead and copper monitoring is now scheduled to 

resume in 2003 and 2004. 

Asbestos 

Asbestos monitoring is required if the sources are vulnerable to asbestos contamination or if 

more than ten percent of the distribution system contains asbestos cement pipe. Asbestos cement 

pipe is present in the City’s water system and constitutes over ten percent of the City’s 

distribution system, therefore the City must monitor for asbestos in the distribution system. The 

current MCL for asbestos is seven million fibers per liter and greater than ten microns in length. 

Monitoring must be accomplished during the first three-year compliance period of each nineyear 

compliance cycle. The water sample must be taken at a tap that is served by an asbestos 

cement pipe under conditions where asbestos contamination is most likely to occur. The City 

took samples to test for asbestos monitoring purposes in the years of 1998, 1999, and 2000. The 

measured samples during these years were all below the MCL for asbestos. The City is now 

required to monitor for asbestos once every nine years. 

PLANNING OF FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES 

Taylor’s Landing Well 

The City currently holds a water right to the Taylor’s Landing Well which permits a maximum 

of 35 acre-feet of water to be used annually, or approximately 11.4 million gallons. This is less 

than 10 percent of the City’s annual water demand, which is expected to increase in the future. 

Although the Taylor’s Landing Well may not be able to provide the City with a sole source of 

water supply, the development of this water supply may be utilized to supplement future sources, 

possibly presenting a cost savings to the City by reducing the amount of water purchased from 

regional suppliers in the future. However, development of this source will require the City to 

comply with many of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements outlined earlier in this 

chapter. The costs of these water treatment and monitoring requirements, which are currently 

provided in most part by SPU, may outweigh the potential cost savings in the reduction of 

purchased water. 

The City may also pursue the acquisition of additional water rights to fully supply its customers 

with water produced by the City. Given the complexities involved and the lengthy process of 

obtaining additional water rights, this may not be a feasible option. The future use of 

groundwater, whether from the existing Taylor’s Landing Well or from another source within the 

City, will be analyzed in an extensive geologic, hydrologic and financial feasibility basis if the 

City decides to pursue this option. 

Purchased Water from SPU 

The 1981 Water Purveyor Contract is a long-term agreement that requires SPU to supply a 

reliable source of treated water to the City of Duvall at wholesale prices, based upon the City’s 

long-term commitment for water demand. The original contract, dated November 1981, was 


CHAPTER 6 

amended on February 3, 1982, February 26, 1982, and June 6, 1994. A copy of the contract and 

its amendments is contained in Appendix C. The contract will remain effective until January 1, 

2012, at which time it will terminate. SPU formally notified the City and all other purveyors in 

August of 1996 that the purveyor contracts will not be renewed in their present form. However, 

the contract is expected to be renegotiated in 2012. 

SPU presented a new water supply contract to the City in 2002, which would replace the existing 

contract and extend the supply arrangement beyond the current contract’s expiration date. The 

City has reviewed the new water supply contract at length and has decided not to enter into the 

new contract at this time. The City will continue to evaluate the new water supply contract, the 

Taylor’s Landing Well, as well as other options, in an effort to fulfill its commitment to provide 

existing and future customers with a continuous supply of safe, reliable, and affordable water. 


Water System Analysis 7 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the analysis of the City of Duvall (City) existing water system. Individual 

water system components were analyzed to determine their ability to meet policies and design 

criteria under both existing and future water demand conditions. The policies and design criteria 

are presented in Chapter 5 and the water demands are presented in Chapter 4. A description of 

the water system facilities and their current operation is presented in Chapter 2. Proposed 

improvements that resolve the deficiencies identified in this chapter are presented in Chapter 9. 

The last section of this chapter presents the existing system capacity analysis that was 

performed to determine the maximum number of equivalent residential units (ERU’s) that can be 

served by the City’s water system. 

PRESSURE ZONES 

The ideal static pressure of water supplied to customers is between 40 and 80 psi. Pressures 

within a water system’s distribution system are commonly as high as 120 psi, requiring pressure 

regulators on individual service lines to reduce the pressure to 80 psi or less. It is difficult for 

the City’s water system and most others to maintain distribution pressures between 40 and 80 

psi, primarily due to the topography of the water service area. 

Table 7-1 lists each of the City’s five pressure zones, the highest and lowest elevation served in 

each zone, and the minimum and maximum distribution system pressures within each zone, 

based on maximum static water conditions (full reservoirs and zero demands). The City is 

currently providing water at pressures of at least 40 psi throughout the entire water system, as 

shown in the table. The highest pressures in the distribution system occur on the west side of the 

450 Zone, on NE 145th Street near the boundary of the 330 Zone. The services at this location, 

as well as services in other pressure zones, have static pressures greater than 80 psi. All water 

services in these high pressure areas have individual pressure reducing valves to reduce the 

service pressure to 80 psi or less. Additionally, the City requires individual pressure reducing 

valves on all new services. 


CHAPTER 7 

Table 7-1 

Minimum and Maximum Distribution System Pressures 

Highest Elevation Served Lowest Elevation Served 

Elevation Static Pressure Elevation Static Pressure 

Pressure Zone (feet) (psi) (feet) (psi) 

615 Zone 497 51 406 91 

555 Zone 442 49 299 111 

485 Zone 372 49 294 83 

450 Zone 296 67 187 114 

330 Zone 220 48 54 120 

SUPPLY FACILITIES 

This section evaluates the City’s two supply stations to determine if they have sufficient capacity 

to provide water supply to the system at a rate that meets the existing and future demands of the 

system. This section also identifies facility deficiencies that are not related to the capacity of the 

facilities. 

Supply Analysis Criteria 

Supply facilities must be capable of adequately and reliably supplying high quality water to the 

system. In addition, supply facilities must provide a sufficient quantity of water at pressures that 

meet the requirements of WAC 246-290-230. The capacity of supply facilities in a pressure zone 

that has adequate storage must be sufficient to provide water at a rate that is equal to or greater 

than the peak day demand of the zone being served. This approach assumes that demands in 

excess of the peak day demand will be supplied by reservoirs (i.e., equalizing storage). Since 

both of the City’s supply facilities are capable of providing supply to pressure zones that can also 

be supplied from storage for intraday peak demands, the supply requirement of each facility is 

equal to the peak day demand of the zone it serves, including zones that are indirectly served 

through pressure reducing stations or booster pump stations. 

Supply Analysis 

The Tolt 1 Supply Station provides water directly into the 615 Zone, which in turn fills the Big 

Rock Road Reservoir and the Crestview Estates Reservoir. The Tolt 2 Supply Station provides 

water directly into the 450 Zone, which will also fill the Big Rock Road Reservoir when the 

water supply rate is greater than the system demand. Water supply from the Tolt 2 Supply 

Station can also be used to fill the Crestview Estates Reservoir through the 615 Zone Booster 

Pump Station. Since all pressure zones in the system normally receive water from both supply 


Water System Analysis 

stations, the supply analyses are based on an evaluation of the existing supply facilities providing 

water to the system as a whole. 

Table 7-2 summarizes the current and future water supply requirements of the system. The 

existing water supply evaluation is based on 2002 supply requirements (i.e., demands) and 

current supply capacities of the facilities. The future water supply evaluation is based on future 

6-year and buildout development supply requirements (i.e., projected demands) and current 

supply capacities of the facilities. The demands used in the evaluation are future demand 

projections without reductions from conservation efforts, as shown in Table 4-10 of Chapter 4. 

Therefore, if additional reductions in water use are achieved in the future through water 

conservation efforts, the total supply required in the future will be less than that shown in the 

table. 

The results of the water supply evaluation indicate that the City currently has approximately 

2,324 gpm of excess supply capacity based on 2002 demand levels. Table 7-2 also indicates that 

the existing supply facilities are sufficient to meet the demand of existing and future customers 

through 2022, even through buildout of the City’s urban reserve area (i.e., maximum projection). 

It is estimated that the City will have approximately 1,644 gpm of excess supply capacity if the 

average growth projections are realized, and approximately 1,200 gpm of excess supply based on 

maximum growth projections. 

Table 7-2 

Water Supply Evaluation 

Existing Average Projection 1 Maximum Projection 2 

Description 2002 2008 2022 2008 2022 

Required Source Capacity (gpm) 

Peak Day Demand 636 1,010 1,316 1,010 1,760 

Available Source Capacity (gpm) 

Tolt 1 Supply Station 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 

Tolt 2 Supply Station 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 

Totals 2,960 2,960 2,960 2,960 2,960 

Surplus or Deficient Source Capacity (gpm) 

Surplus or Deficient Amt. 2,324 1,950 1,644 1,950 1,200 




CHAPTER 7 

Reliability Analysis 

The configuration of the existing system provides the City with the ability to supply all 

customers throughout the system through one supply station in the event that the other supply 

station is out of service. Currently, each supply station is capable of providing adequate supply 

to individually meet the demand requirements of the existing system. The future water supply 

evaluation shown in Table 7-2 indicates that the Tolt 2 Supply Station is not capable of meeting 

the future demand requirements though 2022 in the event that the Tolt 1 Supply Station is out of 

service. However, it is during this type of an event that standby storage is used to augment the 

supply to customers. Currently, the Tolt 2 Supply Station’s available supply is limited by the 10- 

inch transmission main that connects the station with the remainder of the system. The supply 

capacity of the Tolt 2 Supply Station will be increased to approximately 1,760 gpm upon 

completion of the proposed transmission main improvements described in Chapter 9. 

Facility Deficiencies 

The Tolt 1 Supply Station and the Tolt 2 Supply Station are both in fairly good condition. The 

two facilities, however, are not drained adequately and commonly have standing water that 

contributes to excess moisture within the vaults. Both supply stations lack pressure sensors on 

the upstream and downstream sides of their control valves that would enable the telemetry 

system to monitor system pressures at these locations and utilize this data for improved system 

operation and notification of abnormal conditions. Proposed improvements that resolve 

deficiencies for the supply stations are identified in Chapter 9. 

615 ZONE BOOSTER PUMP STATION 

This section evaluates the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station to determine if it has sufficient 

capacity to provide water supply to the zones that it serves at a rate that meets existing and future 

demands. This section also identifies facility deficiencies that are not related to the capacity of 

the booster pump station. 

Supply Analysis Criteria 

The criteria for evaluating the capacity of the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station is different than 

the criteria described above for the supply facilities. The 615 Zone does not have storage, so all 

water supply, including fire flow, must be provided by the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station. 

Therefore, the capacity of the booster pump station must be sufficient to meet the peak hour 

demand of the zone and simultaneously provide fire flow at a rate equal to the largest fire flow 

requirement of the zone. Additionally, the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station indirectly provides 

water supply to the 555 Zone and subsequently to the 485 Zone. The Crestview Estates 

Reservoir, however, provides water storage for the 555 Zone and the 485 Zone, thus, fire flow 

and peak hour demands in excess of peak day demands are provided by the reservoir in these two 

zones. The pump station, therefore, is required to provide peak day demands to the 555 Zone 

and the 485 Zone in addition to the 615 Zone’s peak hour demand and fire flow supply 

requirements. Although the Tolt 1 Supply Station can supplement the pump station’s supply into 



the 615 Zone, depending on the Tolt Pipeline gradient and discharge head at the 615 Zone 

Booster Pump Station, this analysis assumes that no supply is provided by the Tolt 1 Supply 

Station. 

Supply Analysis 

Table 7-3 summarizes the total supply requirements of the 615 Booster Pump Station based on 

existing demands as well as average and maximum growth projections for 2008 and 2022 

demand conditions. The table also shows the existing capacity of the 615 Zone Booster Pump 

Station. 

Table 7-3 

615 Zone Booster Pump Station Supply Evaluation 

Existing Average Projection 1 Maximum Projection 2 

Description 2002 2008 2022 2008 2022 

Required Supply (gpm) 

615 Zone Peak Hour Demand 469 574 660 574 1,765 

615 Zone Max. Fire Flow Demand 3 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Transfer to 555/485 Zones 188 341 465 341 383 

Total Required Supply 1,658 1,915 2,125 1,915 3,148 

Available Supply (gpm) 

615 Zone Booster Pump Station 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Surplus or Deficient Supply (gpm) 

Surplus or Deficient Amt. 342 85 -125 85 -1,148 



3 = Fire flow to the 555 and 485 Zones is provided by the Crestview Estates Reservoir. 

The results of the analysis indicate that the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station has sufficient 

capacity to meet the existing and 2008 demand projections. However, the station will need 

between approximately 125 gpm and 1,150 gpm of additional capacity by 2022. Planned 

improvements to provide this additional capacity are identified in Chapter 9. 

Reliability Analysis 

The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station has three pumps that provide water supply to the 615 Zone. 

The reliability of supply to the 615 Zone is achieved with the multiple pump arrangement and 

supply also being provided by the Tolt 1 Supply Station. The booster pump station is also 

equipped with a stationary engine generator set equipped with an automatic transfer switch to 


CHAPTER 7 

enable operation of the station in the event of a power outage. The reliability of supply to the 

615 Zone is sufficient and does not warrant additional improvements for this purpose. 


The booster pump station is less than ten years old and the facility is in good condition. 

Modifications to the control valves and control system are needed to improve system operation 

of the pump station and water system in general. Proposed improvements to resolve this 

deficiency are identified in Chapter 9. 

STORAGE FACILITIES 

This section evaluates the City’s existing water storage facilities to determine if they have 

sufficient capacity to meet the existing and future storage requirements of the system. This 

section also identifies facility deficiencies that are not related to the capacity of the water 

reservoirs. 

Analysis Criteria 

Water storage is typically made up of the following components: operational storage, equalizing 

storage, standby storage, fire flow storage, and dead storage. Each storage component serves a 

different purpose and will vary from system to system. A definition of each storage component 

and the criteria used to evaluate the capacity of the City’s reservoirs is provided below. 

Operational Storage - Volume of the reservoir represented by the average amount of drawdown 

during normal operating conditions, which is essentially storage that will most likely not be 

available for equalizing storage, fire flow storage, or standby storage. 

Equalizing Storage - Volume of the reservoir used to supply the water system under peak 

demand conditions when the system demand exceeds the total rate of supply of the sources. The 

criteria for determining the equalizing storage requirements for the City’s system is based on an 

evaluation of the diurnal demand curve of the City’s peak day demand event. The Department of 

Health (DOH) requires that equalizing storage be stored above an elevation that will provide a 

minimum pressure of 30 psi at all service connections throughout the system under peak hour 

demand conditions. 

Standby Storage - Volume of the reservoir used to supply the water system under emergency 

conditions when supply facilities are out of service due to equipment failures, power outages, 

loss of supply, transmission main breaks, and any other situation that disrupts the supply source. 

DOH recommends that standby storage be stored above an elevation that will provide a 

minimum pressure of 20 psi at all service connections throughout the system. The criteria for 

determining the standby storage requirements for the City’s system, which has multiple supply 

sources, is based on the DOH Water System Design Manual formula that requires average day 

demand, ERU’s, and supply capacity data. 



Fire Flow Storage - Volume of the reservoir used to supply water to the system at the maximum 

rate and duration required to extinguish a fire at the building with the highest fire flow 

requirement. The magnitude of the fire flow storage is the product of the fire flow rate and 

duration of the system’s maximum fire flow requirement, as established by the local fire 

protection authority. DOH requires that fire flow storage be stored above an elevation that will 

provide a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all service connections throughout the system under 

peak day demand conditions. The fire flow storage requirements shown in the evaluation that 

follow are based on a 3,000 gpm fire flow rate and 3-hour duration. In addition, the fire flow 

and standby storage components were not consolidated, as shown in the storage evaluation 

tables. 

Dead Storage - Volume of the reservoir that cannot be used, because it is stored at an elevation 

that does not provide system pressures that meet the minimum pressure requirements established 

by DOH without pumping. This unusable storage occupies the lower portion of most ground 

level reservoirs. Water that is stored below an elevation that cannot provide a minimum pressure 

of 20 psi is considered dead storage for the analyses that follow. 

Storage Analysis 

Similar to the supply facility analysis, the storage analyses are based on an evaluation of the 

existing reservoirs providing water to the system as a whole, since water from either reservoir 

may be utilized by any zone in the system through pressure reducing stations or booster pump 

stations. The demands used in the evaluation of future storage requirements are future demand 

projections without reductions from conservation efforts, as shown in Table 4-10 of Chapter 4. 

Existing Storage Evaluation 

Table 7-4 summarizes the results of the water storage evaluation for the existing system, based 

on 2002 storage requirements (i.e., demands) and existing storage capacities of the reservoirs. 

The maximum combined storage capacity of the two reservoirs that provide storage to the City’s 

system is 2.7 MG, as shown in Table 7-4. Unlike most water systems, the City’s reservoirs do 

not contain dead storage (i.e., non-usable storage). Therefore, the capacity of the Big Rock Road 

Reservoir and the Crestview Estates Reservoir may be fully utilized as usable storage for 

operational, equalizing, standby, and fire flow purposes. The results of the existing water 

storage evaluation indicate that the City has adequate storage to meet existing demands. 


CHAPTER 7 

Table 7-4 

Existing Storage Evaluation 

Existing System 

Description 2002 

Available/Usable Storage (MG) 

Maximum Storage Capacity 2.70 

Dead (Non-usable Storage) 0.00 

Total Available Storage 2.70 

Required Storage (MG) 

Operational Storage 1.10 

Equalizing Storage 0.10 

Standby Storage 0.46 

Fire Flow Storage 0.63 

Totals 2.29 

Surplus or Deficient Storage (MG) 

Surplus or Deficient Amt. 0.41 

The amount of required operational storage, as shown in Table 7-4, currently totals almost half 

of the existing system’s required storage. The majority of this operational storage volume is due 

to an average drawdown of nine feet in the large diameter Big Rock Road Reservoir. The City 

has operated the reservoir at this level in an effort to maintain adequate chlorine residual for the 

stored water. Replacement of the reservoir’s single inlet/outlet water main with a separated inlet 

and outlet configuration, as well as operational improvements listed in Chapter 9, will enable 

the City to operate the reservoir more consistently at higher levels, thereby reducing the amount 

of required operational storage. 

Future Storage Evaluation 

Future storage requirements of the system were computed for the 6-year and 20-year planning 

periods, under both average and maximum growth scenarios, and were based on year 2008 and 

2022 demand projections. The analyses were performed to determine the adequacy of the City’s 

existing reservoirs to meet storage requirements of the future. The analyses are based on 

completion of proposed inlet/outlet and operational improvements for the Big Rock Road 

Reservoir that will allow the City to operate the reservoir at a higher level, decreasing the 

required volume of operational storage and thereby making additional storage available for 

future equalizing, standby and fire flow storage purposes. These improvements are planned to 

be completed prior to 2008 and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. 



As shown in Table 7-5, no additional storage facilities will be required through 2022 under 

either growth scenario if the proposed Big Rock Road Reservoir water quality improvements are 

accomplished. 

Table 7-5 

Future Storage Evaluation 

Average Projection 1 Maximum Projection 2 

Description 2008 2022 2008 2022 

Available/Usable Storage (MG) 

Maximum Storage Capacity 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 

Dead (Non-usable Storage) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total Available Storage 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 

Required Storage (MG) 

Operational Storage 3 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 

Equalizing Storage 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.29 

Standby Storage 0.58 0.76 0.58 1.01 

Fire Flow Storage 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 

Totals 2.14 2.36 2.14 2.69 

Surplus or Deficient Storage (MG) 

Surplus or Deficient Amt. 0.56 0.34 0.56 0.01 



3 = Operational storage based on completion of proposed reservoir improvements. 


The Big Rock Road Reservoir is relatively new and in good condition. However, the reservoir’s 

combined inlet/outlet currently limits full utilization of the available storage capacity. The 

Crestview Estates Reservoir exterior coating is peeling off at the base and needs to be repainted. 

Modifications to the control valves at both reservoir sites are also needed to improve overall 

system operation and efficiency. Proposed improvements to resolve these deficiencies are 

identified in Chapter 9. 

DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 

This section evaluates the City’s existing distribution and transmission system (i.e., water mains) 

to determine if they are sized and looped adequately to provide the necessary flow rates and 


CHAPTER 7 

pressures to meet the existing and future requirements of the system. This section also identifies 

deficiencies that are not related to the capacity of the water mains. 


Distribution and transmission water mains must be capable of adequately and reliably conveying 

water throughout the system at acceptable flow rates and pressures. The criteria used to evaluate 

the City’s distribution and transmission system are the state mandated requirements for Group A 

water systems contained in WAC 246-290-230 Distribution Systems. The pressure analysis 

criteria states that the distribution system “…shall be designed with the capacity to deliver the 

design peak hour demand quantity of water at 30 psi under peak hour demand flow conditions 

measured at all existing and proposed service water meters”. It also states that if fire flow is to 

be provided, “… the distribution system shall also provide maximum day demand (MDD) plus 

the required fire flow at a pressure of at least 20 psi at all points throughout the distribution 

system”. 

Hydraulic analyses of the existing system were performed under existing peak hour demand 

conditions to evaluate its current pressure capabilities and to identify existing system 

deficiencies. The existing system was also analyzed under existing peak day demand conditions 

to evaluate the current fire flow capabilities and to identify additional existing system 

deficiencies. Additional hydraulic analyses were then performed with the same hydraulic model, 

but under future peak day demand conditions and with proposed improvements to demonstrate 

that the identified improvements will eliminate the deficiencies and meet the requirements far 

into the future. Following is a description of the hydraulic model and the operational conditions 

and facility settings used in the analyses. 

Hydraulic Model 

Description 

A computer-based hydraulic model of the existing water system was created using version 2.0 of 

the WaterGEMS program, developed by Haestad Methods. All facilities and water mains in the 

City’s water system, including dead-end mains, were modeled using current data. The water 

mains were entered from AutoCAD water system maps and as-built records provided by the 

City. Elevation data for the model’s junction nodes was electronically extracted from digital 

contour maps provided by the City. A hydraulic model node diagram that provides a graphical 

representation of the model of the existing water system is contained in Appendix N. 

Demand Data 

The hydraulic model of the existing system contains 2002 average day demand data. Supply 

data from the 2002 average day demand was distributed throughout the junction nodes of the 

model, based on actual consumption patterns of the system, as represented by the consumption 

levels for each of the City’s development plats. Peaking factors shown in Chapter 4 were used 

to analyze the system under peak hour and peak day demand conditions. 



The hydraulic model of the proposed system contains 20-year demand levels that are projected 

for the year 2022. The distribution of demands is based on estimated future demand levels in 

each pressure zone. 

Facilities 

The hydraulic model of the existing system for the pressure analysis contains all active existing 

system facilities with settings that correspond to peak hour demand events. All sources of 

supply were operating at their normal rates of supply. The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station was 

modeled with the one of the large pumps operating, which is consistent with its current 

operational status. The reservoir levels were modeled to reflect full utilization of operational and 

equalizing storage. All active pressure reducing stations were modeled as being in service and at 

their normal set points. 

The hydraulic model of the existing system for the fire flow analyses contains all active existing 

system facilities with settings that correspond to peak day demand events. All sources of supply 

were operating at their normal rates of supply. The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station was 

modeled with the two large pumps operating. The reservoir levels were modeled to reflect full 

utilization of operational, equalizing, and fire flow storage. Fire flow storage for the 330 Zone, 

450 Zone, and 615 Zone, based on the maximum requirement in these zones of 3,500 gpm for 3 

hours or 630,000 gallons, was provided by the Big Rock Road Reservoir in the 450 Zone. Fire 

flow storage for the 485 Zone and 555 Zone, based on the maximum requirement in these zones 

of 1,750 gpm for 2 hours or 210,000 gallons, was provided by the Crestview Estates Reservoir in 

the 555 Zone. All active pressure reducing stations were modeled as being in service and at their 

normal set points. 

The hydraulic model of the proposed system in the year 2022 contains all active existing system 

facilities and proposed system improvements that are identified in Chapter 9. The settings for 

all active existing and proposed facilities were set to correspond to the future peak day demand 

events for the fire flow analysis of the proposed water system. Otherwise, facility settings were 

the same as in the existing system analyses. 

Calibration 

Hydraulic model calibration is the process of using field pressure and flow data to improve the 

accuracy of the hydraulic model data. Hydraulic model calibration is achieved by adjusting the 

roughness coefficients of the water mains in the model, so the resulting pressures and flows from 

the hydraulic analyses closely match the pressures and flows from actual field tests under similar 

demand and operating conditions. Calibration also involves adjusting junction node elevation 

data, based on elevation computations from field static pressures and reservoir level data. Initial 

Darcy-Weisbach roughness coefficients were entered in the model based on computed estimates 

of the coefficients from available pipe age and material data. For example, older water mains 

were assigned higher roughness coefficients than new water mains; thereby assuming that the 

internal surface of water pipe becomes rougher as it gets older. Additional calibration of the 

model was achieved using field flow and pressure data, which was collected throughout the 

system for this purpose. 


CHAPTER 7 

Hydraulic Analyses 

Several hydraulic analyses were performed to determine the capability of the system to meet the 

pressure and flow requirements identified in Chapter 5 and contained in WAC 246-290-230. The 

first analysis was performed to determine the pressures throughout the system under existing 

(i.e., 2002) peak hour demand conditions. The second analysis was performed to determine the 

pressures throughout the system under future (i.e., 2022) peak hour demand conditions. The 

results of these analyses were used to identify locations of low and high pressures. To satisfy the 

minimum pressure requirements, the pressure at all water service locations must be at least 30 

psi during these demand conditions. In addition, the system should not have widespread areas 

with high pressures, generally considered to be more than approximately 100 psi. All areas of the 

system had pressures greater than 30 psi and a few areas had pressures greater than 100 psi, as 

shown in Table 7-6. 

Table 7-6 

Pressure Analysis Summary 

Description 

Approximate Location 

Pressure 

Zone 

Node 

Number 

Existing 

Dynamic 

Pressure (psi) 

Highest Pressure Areas 

Commercial Area NE Bird St & ~Railroad Ave NE 330 77 120 

Commercial Area NE 145th St & Carnation-Duvall Rd NE 330 1060 108 

Multi Family Area Park Apartments 450 298 107 

Single Family Area NE 145th St, West of Juniper Glen 450 1050 104 

All water mains with pressure greater than 100 psi, as identified from the analyses, were 

generally located along pressure zone boundaries. Water services in these areas, as with any 

future services, are equipped with pressure regulators to limit the maximum pressure to 80 psi 

for water provided to customers. 

The second set of analyses was performed to determine the capability of the existing water 

system to provide fire flow throughout the existing water system under peak day demand 

conditions. A separate fire flow analysis was performed for each node in the model to determine 

the available fire flow at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. Over 400 individual fire flow 

analyses were performed to comprehensively evaluate the water system. For each node 

analyzed, the resulting fire flow was compared to its general fire flow requirement, which was 

assigned according to the land use classification that it is located within. A summary of the 

results of the analyses for representative system nodes is presented in Table 7-7. 

Table 4-9 in the Water Demands chapter lists the general fire flow requirements for each land 

use classification. Since the fire flow requirement varies for buildings within each land use 

classification, the land use based fire flow requirements are only used as a general target for the 



primary purpose of the system-wide analyses that were performed for this plan. The results of 

the fire flow analyses were used to identify undersized water mains and proposed water main 

improvements. A summary of the fire flow deficiencies from these analyses is contained near 

the end of this section of the plan. 

Table 7-7 

Hydraulic Analysis Summary 

Available Fire Flow (gpm) Target 

Pressure Node Existing Future Fire Flow 

Description Approximate Location Zone Number System w/Improvements (gpm) 

Mobile Home Park ~280th Ave NE & ~NE 143rd St 615 160 1,910 2,540 1,000 

Mobile Home Park ~282nd Ave NE & ~NE 143rd St 615 210 1,550 2,480 1,000 

Single Family Area 279th Ln NE & NE 149th Pl 615 700 1,750 2,370 1,000 

Single Family Area 278th Ave NE & NE 145th Pl 555 193 2,380 3,120 1,000 

Single Family Area 278th Ave NE & NE 152nd St 555 134 1,860 2,100 1,000 

Single Family Area 272nd Pl NE & NE 144th Pl 555 860 1,850 1,770 1,000 

Single Family Area NE 140th Pl & ~NE 276th Wy 485 395 2,850 2,840 1,000 

Single Family Area ~NE 276th Wy & NE 140th Ct 485 364 1,740 1,730 1,000 

Single Family Area 271st Pl NE (end of cul de sac) 450 297 580 1,630 1,000 

Single Family Area NE Kennedy Dr & 4th Pl NE 450 1220 370 1,920 1,000 

Single Family Area NE Dorothy Way & ~4th Pl NE 450 1310 2,630 2,900 1,000 

Single Family Area NE Cherry St & 4th Ave NE 450 1540 870 3,840 1,000 

Single Family Area NE Virginia St & 4th Ave NE 450 1810 610 2,570 1,000 

Depot Village MHP 26220 NE Stella St 330 1580 1,790 4,270 3,000 

Bill King 15410 NE Main St 330 1460 4,900 4,560 3,000 

Mixed Use Area 1st Ave NE & NE Anderson 330 57 1,980 4,580 2,500 

Cherry Valley Elementary 26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd 330 33 2,340 4,400 3,500 

Whitfield Plaza NE Main St & NE Cherry St 330 1590 2,530 4,190 3,000 

Single Family Area NE Ring St & Broadway 330 26 370 2,810 1,000 

City Hall 15535 NE Main St 330 1570 3,080 4,270 3,000 

Duvall Market Square 15820 NE Main St 330 1630 3,230 4,210 3,000 

Single Family Area NE Stephens & 2nd Ave NE 330 1360 4,500 4,630 1,000 

Once all deficiencies were identified, proposed water main improvements were included in the 

model and pressure and fire flow analyses were performed throughout the system to demonstrate 

that the improvements will eliminate the deficiencies and meet the flow and pressure 

requirements. These analyses were modeled under projected year 2022 peak day demand 

conditions to ensure that the improvements are sized sufficiently to meet the needs of the future. 

A summary of the results of these analyses is shown in Table 7-7 for the same areas that were 

summarized from the existing water system analyses. The results of the analyses indicate that all 

fire flow deficiencies are resolved with the proposed improvements. A description of these 

improvements and a figure that shows their locations are presented in Chapter 9. A brief 

description of the deficiencies identified from the hydraulic analyses is presented in the 

following section. 


CHAPTER 7 

Deficiencies 

This section presents a summary of the distribution and transmission system deficiencies that 

were identified from the results of the hydraulic analyses of the existing water system and also 

includes deficiencies not related to the capacity of the mains. These deficiencies will be 

eliminated upon completion of the proposed improvements that are presented in Chapter 9. 

Fire Flow Deficiencies 

The following areas have low fire flows that do not meet the City’s target fire flow levels. 

• Low fire flows and high water velocities near the north end of Main Street NE, primarily 

due to undersized water mains serving the area. 

• Low fire flows and high water velocities in the Cherry Valley Elementary School area, 

primarily due to the undersized water mains that supply water to that area. 

• Low fire flows and high water velocities in the residential areas of the 330 Zone along 

Ring Street, Richardson Street, and Park Street, primarily due to the undersized water 

mains serving the areas. 

• Low fire flows and high water velocities in most areas of the 450 Zone north of NE Stella 

Street and east of 3rd Avenue NE, primarily due to the undersized water mains serving 

the areas. 

• Low fire flows and high water velocities in the 450 Zone along NE Kennedy Drive west 

of 4th Place NE, primarily due to the 4-inch water main serving the area. 

• High water velocities in the section of 8-inch water main along 284th Avenue NE 

between NE 144th Street and NE 147th Place. 

Other Deficiencies 

Several areas, most notably in the 330 Zone, have sufficient fire flow, but experience high water 

velocities in the distribution system due to undersized water mains. Operating the system with 

high water velocities can potentially damage the system, due to the high surge pressures that 

commonly occur with high water velocities. Replacement of undersized water mains in the 

future will eliminate these high water velocity areas. 

Some areas of the system have water mains that are more than 40 years old, which is 

approaching the average life expectancy of water mains of 50 years. Most of the older water 

mains are located in the downtown area of the City in the 330 Zone and the 450 Zone. The 10- 

inch asbestos cement (AC) transmission main between the Tolt 2 Supply Station and the 450 

Zone is more than 40 years old and is approaching the end of its service life. Other water main 

in the system, approximately fifteen percent of the City’s water main, is AC water main and is 

also in need of replacement. Most of the AC water main is located in the older areas of the City. 



The City is planning to replace these deficient water mains in the future, as shown in the 

schedule of planned improvements in Chapter 9. All new water main installations are required 

to use ductile iron water main in accordance with the City’s Water System Standards, a copy of 

which is included in Appendix I. 

PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS 

This section evaluates the City’s existing pressure reducing stations to identify deficiencies 

related to their current condition and operation capability. 

Evaluation and Deficiencies 

The City’s water system has a total of 19 pressure reducing stations, of which most are in 

relatively good condition. However, as one of the City’s oldest PRV’s, the 3rd and Stewart 

PRV, is located in a manhole without a ladder access and the station’s valves and piping are not 

properly supported. Standing water was observed on the bottom of the manhole during a recent 

site visit. The PRV located near the intersection of NE 143rd Place and 268th Avenue NE is 

undersized to meet fire flow demands in the 330 Zone that it serves. None of the City’s pressure 

reducing stations are equipped with pressure relief valves, which are commonly installed on the 

lower pressure zone side of the reducing valve to protect the lower zone from high pressures in 

the event of a failure of the reducing valve. Proposed improvements for the pressure reducing 

stations are addressed in Chapter 9. 

TELEMETRY AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL SYSTEM 

This section evaluates the City’s existing telemetry and supervisory control system to identify 

deficiencies related to its current condition and operation capability. 

Evaluation and Deficiencies 

The City’s existing telemetry and supervisory control system was installed in approximately 

1997. Improvements to the system are currently underway and are anticipated to continue into 

2005. The completed improvements will provide data collection and alarm notification at all 

facilities, and increased functionality and efficiency in system operation. A more detailed 

description of the improvements is in Chapter 9. 


CHAPTER 7 

SYSTEM CAPACITY 

This section evaluates the capacity of the City’s water system components (supply, storage, and 

transmission) to determine the maximum number of equivalent residential units (ERU’s) it can 

serve. Once determined, system capacity becomes useful in determining how much capacity is 

available in the water system to support new customers that apply for water service. The system 

capacity information, together with the projected growth of the system expressed in ERU’s, as 

shown in Chart 4-3 of Chapter 4, also provides the City with a schedule of when additional 

system capacity is needed. 


The capacity of the City’s system was determined from the limiting capacity of the supply, 

storage, and transmission facilities (i.e., facility with the least capacity). The supply capacity 

analysis was based on the limiting capacity of the supply facilities and the system’s peak day 

demand per ERU. The storage capacity analysis was based on the total capacity of the storage 

facilities and the computed storage requirement per ERU. The storage requirement per ERU was 

determined from the existing storage requirements presented previously in this chapter and the 

existing number of ERU’s presented in Chapter 4. The transmission capacity analysis was 

based on the total capacity of the transmission system for the supply sources and the system’s 

peak day demand per ERU. The ERU-based demand data was derived from the average day 

demand of the system and demand peaking factors from Chapter 4. 

System Capacity Analysis 

A summary of the results of the system capacity analysis for the existing system is shown in 

Table 7-8. The results of the supply and transmission portion of the capacity analysis indicate 

that each facility type can support up to a maximum of approximately 8,501 ERU’s. The results 

of the storage system analysis indicate that the storage system can support up to a maximum of 

approximately 2,689 ERU’s, therefore, the limiting capacity of the system is storage. As shown 

near the bottom of Table 7-8, there are approximately 408 ERU’s of available system capacity. 



Table 7-8 

Existing System Capacity Analysis 

Demands Per ERU Basis 

Average Day Demand Per ERU (gal/day) 228 

Peak Day Demand Per ERU (gal/day) 501 

Peak Hour Demand Per ERU (gal/day) 902 

Supply Capacity 

Limiting Supply Rate - 2 Supply Facilities (gal/day) 4,262,400 


Maximum Supply Capacity (ERU's) 8,501 

Storage Capacity 

Maximum Storage Capacity (gal) 2,700,000 

Storage Requirement Per ERU (gal) 1,004 

Maximum Storage Capacity (ERU's) 2,689 

Transmission Capacity 

Limiting Transmission Capacity (gal/day) 4,262,400 


Maximum Transmission Capacity (ERU's) 8,501 

Maximum System Capacity 

Based on Limiting Facility - Storage 2,689 

Unused Available System Capacity 

Maximum System Capacity (ERU's) 2,689 

Existing (2002) ERU's 2,280 

Unused Available System Capacity (ERU's) 408 

A summary of the results of the system capacity analysis for the 6-year projected system is 

shown in Table 7-9. The results of this analysis are similar to the existing system capacity 

analysis, except for the storage capacity portion of the analysis, although storage remains to be 

the limiting capacity component of the system. 


CHAPTER 7 

Table 7-9 

6-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis 











Storage Requirement Per ERU (gal) 738 











Unused Available System Capacity (ERU's) 1,380 

The storage capacity analysis reflects the proposed inlet/outlet and operational improvements for 

the 2.2 MG Big Rock Road Reservoir, which are planned for completion within the 6-year 

period. These improvements will allow the City to operate the reservoir at a higher level, 

decreasing the required volume of operational storage and thereby making additional storage 

available for future equalizing, standby and fire flow storage purposes. The reduced storage 

requirement per ERU shown in Table 7-9 reflects this smaller operational storage requirement, 

which results in more capacity for future ERU’s. The storage requirement per ERU also 

decreases as more customers are added to the water system, because the operational and fire flow 

storage requirements remain constant, regardless of the number of customers served. As shown 

near the bottom of Table 7-9, the water system will be capable of supporting an additional 1,380 

ERU’s upon completion of the planned reservoir improvements. 



A summary of the results of the system capacity analysis for the 20-year projected system is 

shown in Table 7-10, which is based on the average 20-year population projections (growth in 

UGA only) and Table 7-11, which is based on the maximum 20-year population projections 

(growth in UGA and urban reserve area). 

Table 7-10 

20-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis (Average Projection) 
























CHAPTER 7 

The results of these analyses reflect the proposed improvements to the Tolt 2 Supply Station 

transmission main (CIP WM2), which will provide an increase in supply and transmission 

capacity. However, storage remains to be the limiting capacity component of the system for both 

of these analyses. Depending on how growth occurs in the system during the next 20 years, the 

water system will be capable of supporting an additional 2,034 to 2,788 ERU’s beyond the 

number of ERU’s that were served in 2002. 

Table 7-11 

20-Year Projected System Capacity Analysis (Maximum Projection) 
























Operations and Maintenance 8 

INTRODUCTION 

The City of Duvall operations and maintenance program consists of the following elements: 

• Normal Operations 

• Emergency Operations 

• Preventive Maintenance 

NORMAL OPERATIONS 

City Personnel 

The City’s Public Works Department functions under the direction of the Public Works 

Director/City Engineer, Mr. Steve Schuller. The current water department operations and 

maintenance staff consists of several maintenance personnel that function under Mr. Schuller, as 

shown in Table 8-1. The water system tasks that are performed by the operations and 

maintenance staff include inspection, testing, installation, and repair of system facilities, routine 

operation and preventive maintenance, record keeping, administrative tasks, general clerical 

work, and corrective or breakdown maintenance required in response to emergencies. 

Washington State Law (WAC 246-292) requires the City’s system to be operated by one or more 

certified operators. In addition, specialty certification is required for backflow device testing. 

Table 8-2 shows the current certifications of the City's operations and maintenance staff. It is 

City policy to maintain a well-qualified, technically-trained staff. The City annually allocates 

funds for personnel training, certification, and membership in professional organizations, such as 

the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The City believes that time and money 

invested in training, certification, and professional organizations are repaid many times in 

improved safety, skills, and confidence. 


CHAPTER 8 

Table 8-1 

Organization Chart 



System Operations 


Mike Marty 

Field Work and Repairs 

Jerry Marlette 

Mike Fisher 

Mike Marty 

Maintenance Staff 

Joe Chriest 

Brad Laurer 

Dustin Crawford 

Kyle Carrigan 

Table 8-2 

Personnel Certification 

Name Position Certification 

Steve Schuller, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer 

Steven Leniszewski, P.E. Associate City Engineer WDM2, CCS 

Jerry Marlette Public Works Supervisor WDM2 

Mike Fisher Public Works Superintendent WDM2, CCS 

Mike Marty Operations Manager WDM2 

Joe Chriest Maintenance 2 

Brad Lauer Maintenance 2 

Dustin Crawford Maintenance 1 

Kyle Carrigan Maintenance 1 

Certification Definitions 

WDM - Water Distribution Manager 

CCS - Cross Connection Control Specialist 



Personnel Responsibilities 

The key responsibilities of the water operations and maintenance staff are summarized below. 

Director of Public Works/City Engineer: Directs the activities of all divisions of the Public 

Works Department. Represents the City at regional activities. 

Associate City Engineer: Responsible for overseeing the water system. Along with the 

Operations Manager, is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the water system. The 

associate City Engineer acts as a telemetry operator and also assists in the scheduling of 

maintenance and operations for the system. He is involved in the decision making process 

during system troubleshooting, emergency response situations, implementation of system 

upgrades, and is part of the budget process for system improvements. 

Public Works Supervisor: Plans and directs the construction, maintenance and operations 

activities of the water system. 

Public Works Superintendent: Assists the Public Works Supervisor in directing construction, 

maintenance and operations activities in the water system. 

Operations Manager: Acts as the telemetry coordinator and as a telemetry operator. This staff 

member is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the water system including adjusting the 

water system supply and storage facilities to meet daily demands. 

Maintenance Staff: Assists the Public Works Supervisor in maintenance and operations 

activities, including on-call and emergency duties. These activities also include water system 

inspection, repair, hydrant exercising, and valve exercising. 

Available Equipment 

The City has several types of equipment available for daily routine operation and maintenance of 

the water system. The equipment is stored at the City's Public Works Facility. If additional 

equipment is required for specific projects, the City will rent or contract with a local contractor 

for the services needed. An inventory of supplies in sufficient quantities for normal system 

operation and maintenance and short term emergencies is stored at the Public Works Facility. A 

list of equipment and supplies used in the normal operation of the water system is shown in 

Table 8-3. 


CHAPTER 8 

Table 8-3 

Equipment and Supplies 

Major Equipment 

2 - Dump Truck 

2 - Backhoe 

Minor Equipment 

1 - Water Service Tapping Machine (1" max.) 

3 - Compactor 

1 - Flow Diffuser and Dechlorinator 

Miscellaneous small tools, etc. 

Communications Equipment 

Two-Way Radios in All Vehicles 

Pagers 

Cell Phones (two-way Nextel) 

The Water Department utilizes several different types of communications equipment to ensure a 

reliable and redundant means of communication within the Department. All vehicles are 

equipped with mobile two-way radios that are capable of communicating with similar base 

radios at the City's Public Works Department and other departments. The radios also provide the 

capability for personnel to communicate, as necessary, with other cities and the County. In 

addition, all public works vehicles and equipment are equipped with two-way radios and most 

Water Department personnel carry pagers, hand held two-way radios and cell phones. 

Routine Operations 

Routine operations involve the analysis, formulation, and implementation of procedures to 

ensure that the facilities are functioning efficiently and meeting pressure requirements and other 

demands of the system. The City's maintenance procedures are good, with repairs being made 

promptly, assuring customers receive high-quality water service and limited interruptions. 

Continuity of Service 

As a municipality, the City of Duvall has the structure, stability, authority, and responsibility to 

assure that water service will be continuous. For example, changes in the Council or Staff would 

not have a pronounced effect on the City's customers or quality of service. 



Routine Water Quality Sampling 

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has adopted federal regulations that specify 

minimum monitoring requirements for water systems. The sampling requirements depend on the 

population served, source type, and treatment provided. The specific requirements are contained 

in WAC 246-290-300 and the minimum monthly routine coliform sampling requirements are 

summarized in Table 2 (page 69) of the April 1999 “Drinking Water Regulations”. Seattle 

Public Utilities (SPU) currently performs all routine coliform sampling throughout the 

distribution system and has an agreement with DOH for reduced monitoring. The agreement 

specifies a minimum of five (5) samples to be collected from the City’s water system every 

month. However, SPU typically collects six (6) samples each month, which is the minimum 

amount specified in WAC 246-290-300. A further discussion of the water quality monitoring 

program is contained in Chapter 6 and in the City's Water Quality Monitoring Plan, located in 

Appendix L. 


The City has adopted a cross-connection control program to comply with WAC 246-290-490 

pertaining to contamination of potable water due to cross-connections. Backflow prevention 

devices are required at service connections where a potential for contamination exists. 

Appendix G includes a copy of the City’s Cross-Connection Control Plan. As shown in Table 

8-2, the City employs a certified Cross-Connection Control Specialist. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

DOH has enacted regulations for recordkeeping and reporting that may be found in WAC 246- 

290-480. The regulations identify recordkeeping and reporting procedures for operations and 

water quality testing. 

Recordkeeping 

Records shall be kept for chlorine residual and other information as specified by DOH. DOH 

requires retention of critical records dealing with facilities and water quality issues as 

summarized below. 

1. Bacteriological analysis results: 5 years 

2. Chemical analysis results: for as long as the system is in operation 

3. Daily source meter readings: 10 years 

4. Other records of operation and analyses as may be required by DOH: 3 years 

5. Documentation of actions to correct violations of primary drinking water 

standards: 3 years after last corrective action 


CHAPTER 8 

6. Records of sanitary surveys: 10 years 

7. Project reports, construction documents and drawings, inspection reports, and 

approvals: life of the facility 

The City’s recordkeeping procedures are as follows: 

Reporting 

1. The field technicians provide information to the foreman, who must review the 

information prior to it being filed. 

2. The information is given to the secretary for their input before it is filed at the 

maintenance shop. 

1. The City must report the following to DOH: 

• Within 48 hours: A failure to comply with the primary standards or treatment technique 

requirements specified in WAC 246-290. 

• Within 48 hours: A failure to comply with the monitoring requirements specified in WAC 

246-290. 

• Within 48 hours: A violation of a primary maximum contaminant level (MCL). 

• Within one business day: A backflow incident, per WAC 246-290-490 (8)f. 

2. The City must submit to DOH all applicable reports required by WAC 246-290. Monthly 

reports are due by the tenth day of the following month, unless otherwise specified. 

3. Daily source meter readings must be made available to DOH on request. 

4. Total annual water production records for each source must be made available to DOH on 

request. 

5. Water facilities inventory and report form (WFI) must be submitted to DOH within 30 days 

of any change in name, category, ownership, or responsibility for management of the water 

system. 

6. The City must notify DOH of the presence of: 

• Coliform in a sample within 10 days of notification by the testing laboratory. 

• Fecal coliform or E. coli in a sample by the end of the business day in which the City is 

notified by the testing laboratory. 

7. When a coliform MCL violation is determined, the City must: 

• Notify DOH within 24 hours of determining acute coliform MCL violations. 



• Notify DOH before the end of the next business day when a non-acute coliform MCL is 

determined. 

• Notify water customers in accordance with WAC 246-290-49. 

8. If VOC monitoring is required, a copy of the results of the monitoring and any public notice 

must be sent to DOH within 30 days of receipt of the test results. 

Other Reports 

Several other reports are required for state agencies, including the Department of Revenue, 

Department of Labor and Industries, Department of Social and Health Services, Department of 

Ecology, and the Employment Security Department. All of these reports are completed 

according to their instructions. 

Operations and Maintenance Records 

Facilities Operations and Maintenance Manuals 

Operations and maintenance manuals are available for staff members' reference. The equipment 

and operational maintenance manuals required for all supply stations and equipment therein, 

PRV stations and equipment therein, booster stations and equipment, and reservoirs are 

maintained and housed in the equipment maintenance file at the Public Works Facility. The City 

intends to maintain its policies of requiring complete operation and maintenance manuals for all new 

equipment. 

Mapping and As-Built Drawing Records 

Maintenance of drawings is essential to maintenance crews, city planners, developers and 

anyone else needing to know how the water system is laid out throughout the City. Duvall 

maintains a comprehensive mapping and record keeping system of the City’s water system. This 

mapping is comprised of physical maps, historical data books and computer generated maps in 

AutoCAD and GIS formats. Mapping of the system is a continuous process of incorporating 

new data from surveys, sketches and digital pictures. The drawing records are stored at the 

Public Works Facility and are maintained by the Public Works Department. 

Operation and Maintenance Records 

Records are stored at City Hall for the following items: 

• Water usage 

• Bacteriological tests 

• Backflow and cross-connections 


CHAPTER 8 

• SPU water quality monitoring reports 

• Water samples from new developments 

• Chlorination levels 

• Water used for construction 

• Hydrant repairs 

• Precipitation 

• Hydrant meter forms 

• Water maintenance 

• Hydrant databases 

• Confined spaces 

• Vandalism forms 

• Water consumable inventory 

• Water main notes 

• Water worksheets 

• Customer complaints 

Safety Procedures and Equipment 

Safety is the concern and responsibility of all water operations and maintenance staff. To 

maintain the highest level of safety, the City has taken steps toward educating its staff and 

providing resources to ensure a safe working environment. The City will strive to improve its 

safety program on an on-going basis. The American Water Works Association publishes a 

manual entitled, Safety Practices for Water Utilities (M3), which describes safety programs and 

provides guidelines for safe work practices and techniques for a variety of water utility work 

situations. This manual is available to all department personnel. Safety training classes in First 

Aid, CPR, traffic safety and flagging, air testing, confined space entry and equipment calibration 

are required of all water department staff. 

The following identifies procedures to be followed for operations and maintenance tasks that 

involve the most common potential work place hazards in the water system. 



Use of Chlorine or Chlorine Products 

Standard Procedure - Handle with care, provide adequate ventilation, wear safety glasses, rubber 

gloves and a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). 

Working in Confined Spaces 

Standard Procedure - Follow state requirements for confined space entry. 

Working in Trenches 

Standard Procedure - Obtain proper training and follow all safety procedures for working in 

trenches. 

Working Around Heavy Equipment 

Standard Procedure - Obtain proper training and follow all safety procedures. 

Working in Traffic Areas 

Standard Procedure - Wear proper clothing and provide adequate signage and flagging for work 

area. 

Working on or Around Water Reservoirs 

Standard Procedure - Follow proper safety harness procedures for working on tall structures. 

Working in or Around Pump Stations 

Standard Procedure – Obtain proper training and follow all safety procedures for working on 

pumps and electrical equipment. 

Working on Asbestos Cement (AC) Water Main 

Standard Procedure – Obtain proper training and follow all safety procedures for working with 

asbestos materials. 

Working on Pressurized Water Main 

Standard Procedure – Obtain proper training and follow all safety procedures for working with 

pressurized water mains. 

The following includes a list of safety and first aid equipment available to water department staff 

to carry out safety procedures for operations and maintenance tasks. 

• First Aid kits in each department vehicle, workshop and lab. 

• Eye wash stations in each facility. 

• Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) equipment for confined spaces. 


CHAPTER 8 

• Trench shoring equipment. 

• Air tester for confined spaces. 

• Traffic safety equipment. 

• Gas monitoring equipment. 

• Radios and cell phones. 

The Public Works Department follows all appropriate OSHA and WISHA regulations in its dayto-day 

operations and complies with the following state requirements. 

• WAC 296-62-145 to 14529 Part M - Entry into confined spaces. 

• WAC 296-155-650 to 66411 Part N - Shoring of open ditches. 

• WAC 296-155-429 - Lockout-tagout for work on energized or de-energized equipment or 

circuits. 

• WAC 296-155 Part C1 - Fall restraint for access to the top of the City’s water reservoirs. 

• MUTCD - Traffic control for work in the public right-of-way. 

Environmental Awareness Practices 

Protecting the environment is a high priority of the City. The operations and maintenance staff 

have been made aware of the City’s commitment to protecting the environment through 

education and field training. The City recognizes that it can play a major role in protecting the 

environment, due to its close proximity to the Snoqualmie River and the topography of existing 

and future land development. 

Chinook salmon and bull trout were listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in 1999. The City has established practices to operate, maintain, repair, 

improve, and expand the water system in a manner that does not adversely affect the 

environment. For example, the City does not allow chlorinated water to enter surface water 

bodies or storm drainage systems that discharge to surface water bodies. 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 

Capabilities 

The City is well equipped to accommodate short-term system failures and abnormalities. Its 

capabilities are as follow: 



Multiple Connections to the Tolt Pipeline 

Should the City lose the operation of one connection, water could be routed throughout the City 

from the other Tolt connection. Such a failure would not adversely affect the City’s ability to 

meet the water demands of its customers. 

Multiple Reservoirs 

Water storage is provided by two active reservoirs that are located at different sites. The 

duplication of reservoirs in separate pressure zones, coupled with the water system’s ability to 

transfer water between zones through a series of pressure reducing stations and a booster pump 

station, provides sufficient redundancy to prevent service disruption when one of the reservoirs 

is out of service for cleaning, painting, or repairs. 

Distribution System 

The City has attempted to loop water mains, wherever possible, to improve water circulation (i.e. 

water quality) and minimize impacts to the system in the event that a portion of the distribution 

system must be taken out of service for maintenance or repairs. 

Emergency Equipment 

The City is equipped with the necessary tools to deal with common and serious emergencies 

associated with water main failures. If a more serious emergency should develop, such as a 

major weld rupture or collapse, the City will hire a local contractor to make repairs to alleviate 

the emergency condition. 

Emergency Telephone 

Key or "on-call" personnel can be reached by the City’s internal phone system, Police 

Department, Fire Department and 911. 

On-Call Personnel 

The on-call technician is equipped with a pager, cell phone, service vehicle and can respond to 

emergency calls within 30 minutes. A list of emergency telephone numbers is provided to each 

on-call employee. New employees are not placed on-call until they are familiar with the water 

system and maintenance procedures. 

Material Readiness 

Some critical repair parts, tools, and equipment are on-hand and kept in fully operational 

condition. As repair parts are used, they are re-ordered. Inventory is kept current and is 

adequate for most common emergencies, which can reasonably be anticipated. The City has 


CHAPTER 8 

access to an inventory of repair parts, including parts required for repair of each type and size of 

pipe within the service area. 

Emergency Response Program 

The City of Duvall Emergency Response Plan identifies procedures that would be carried out in 

the event of a serious emergency or disaster situation. The Emergency Response Plan also 

contains a list of water personnel responsible for making decisions in emergency situations. A copy 

of this plan is included in Appendix O. 

Public Notification 

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and WAC 246-290-495 require purveyors to 

notify their customers if any of the following conditions occur: 

• Failure to comply with a primary MCL described under WAC 246-290-310. 

• Failure to comply with a surface water treatment technique. 

• Failure to comply with monitoring requirements under WAC 246-290. 

• Failure to comply with testing requirements. 

• Failure to comply with a DOH order. 

• Failure to comply with a variance or exemption schedule from DOH. 

• If system is identified as a source of waterborne disease outbreak. 

• If DOH issues the system a category red operating permit. 

• If DOH issues an order. 

• If the system is operating under a variance or exemption. 

Specific notice content, distribution channels, and time limit requirements as specified in WAC 

246-290-495 must be in compliance when notification is required. 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 

Maintenance schedules that meet or exceed manufacturer's recommendations have been 

established for all critical components in the water system. The following schedule is used as a 

minimum for preventive maintenance: 



Storage Facilities 

Daily 

Weekly 

3-Year Intervals 

As Needed 

Visual and audio inspection. 

Check security and inspect facilities for proper operation. 

Inspect interior and exterior of reservoirs. Clean exterior of reservoirs. 

Repaint and repair interior and exterior as needed on tanks. 

Distribution System 

Water Mains 

Annually or As Needed 

Annually 

Supply and Pump Stations 

Weekly 

Weekly 

Annually 

Annually 

As Needed 

Engine Generator Sets 

Weekly 

As Needed 

As Needed 

Leak survey. 

Flush. 


Annually 

Observe and record motor current draw (three phases); check packing; 

log and record volume delivered and pump motor hours; check motor 

oil level; measure and record discharge pressure; check motor noise, 

temperature, vibration. 

Check security. 

Take inventory of parts, pumps and motors. 

Change motor oil. 

Calibrate flow meter; maintain electrical and mechanical equipment; 

paint structures and piping. 

Operate to achieve normal operating temperatures; observe output. 

Replace fluids and filters in accordance with manufacturer's 

recommendations (or more frequently depending on amount of use). 

Perform tune-up; replace parts as necessary. 

Flush and check all valves and screens; check pressure settings; rebuild 

and paint every three years, or as necessary. 


CHAPTER 8 

Isolation Valves 

Annually 

Hydrants 

Annually 

Meters 

Operate full open/closed; uncover where buried; clean out valve boxes 

and repair as necessary. 

Check for leakage and visual damage. Operate and flush; check drain 

rate; lubricate as necessary; measure and record pressure; paint as 

necessary. Check nozzle and cap threads, clean and lubricate per 

manufacturer’s recommendations. Replace lost and damaged gaskets. 

Check and operate auxiliary valve in accordance with the valve 

maintenance schedule. Leave in open position. Inspect drain system 

to ensure proper drainage and protection from freezing weather. 

2-10 Year Intervals Time and measure volume of meter-delivered flow; dismantle, clean, 

and inspect all parts, replace worn or defective parts; retest meter for 

accuracy. Frequency varies based on meter size. 

Air and Vacuum Release Valve Assemblies 

Annually 

Blowoff Assemblies 

Annually 

Backflow Prevention Devices 

Annually 

Telemetry and Control System 

Monthly 

Semi-Annually 

Semi-Annually 

Semi-Annually 

Semi-Annually 

Semi-Annually 

Annually 

Flush and inspect. 

Flush and inspect. 

Inspect and record status. 

Visually inspect cabinets and panels for damage, dust, and debris. 

Inspect inside of cabinets and panels for damage, dust, and debris. 

Vacuum clean all modules. 

Test alarm indicator units. 

Clean and flush all pressure sensitive devices. 

Visually inspect all meters to coordinate remote stations. 

Check master and RTU’s for proper operation; repair as necessary. 



Tools and Equipment 

Rolling Stock 

Daily 

As Needed 

Tools 

As Needed 

Check all fluid levels and brakes. 

Replace fluids and filters in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations 

(or more frequently depending on type of use). 

Clean after each use; lubricate and maintain as necessary. 

STAFFING 

The preventive maintenance procedures, as well as the normal and emergency operations of the 

City, are described in the previous sections. The hours of labor and supervisory activity required 

to effectively carry out the work of these on-going maintenance and operations schedules form 

the basis for determining adequate staffing levels. 

Current Staff 

The current staff includes supervisory personnel, engineers, and maintenance workers engaged 

in operating and maintaining the water system. There are currently nine employees in the 

operations and maintenance organization that support the water system. Since these employees 

also support other City utilities, only a portion of their time is available for the water utility. 

Therefore, the City has allocated approximately two, full-time staff equivalents to support the 

water utility. 

Staffing Requirements 

The estimated hours of work required to achieve optimum operation and maintenance of the 

water system (excluding time required for clerical tasks) is shown in Table 8-4. The upper 

section identifies the staffing time for preventive maintenance tasks and the lower section 

identifies the staffing time for operational tasks. 

To achieve the level of operations and maintenance shown in Table 8-4, approximately 3.5, fulltime 

staff equivalents are required for the water system alone. The City’s current staff of two, 

full-time water system personnel equivalents will not provide the optimum level of operation and 

maintenance shown in Table 8-4. At the current staffing level, the City is capable of adequately 

operating the water system and complying with the minimum requirements of DOH. However, 

approximately 1.5 additional staff equivalents would be required to achieve optimum operation 

and maintenance of the water system, as shown in Table 8-4. The City plans to add staff to 

optimize preventive maintenance and meet the additional requirements from system expansion as 

the budget allows. 


CHAPTER 8 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS 

The City completed telemetry and supervisory control improvements in the late 1990’s that have 

enhanced the routine operation of the water system. Other telemetry and supervisory control 

improvements are underway at the time of this writing, as well as system operation 

improvements. Once completed, these will allow the existing operations staff to concentrate on 

preventive maintenance, equipment repair, and the other specialized needs of the organization, 

while eliminating the "human factor" from routine tasks and increasing system efficiency and 

reliability. Other improvements which may allow the operations staff more time for such tasks 

include a system-wide meter replacement. The water department staff spends a considerable 

amount of time reading customer water meters every month and will spend more time as the 

population of the City grows. The City is considering installation of automatic meter reading 

equipment at each meter to provide faster and more accurate meter readings. 

Other proposed improvements not mentioned above are addressed in Chapter 9 and included in 

the City’s Capital Improvement Program. 



Table 8-4 

Staffing Requirements 

Total Units Frequency Time/Unit Time/Year 

Description In System (Times/Year) (Hours) (Hours) 

Preventive Maintenance 

Hydrants 263 1 0.5 132 

Isolation Valves, Hydrant Valves 688 1 0.25 172 

Air and Vacuum Release Valves 4 1 0.5 2 

Blowoff Assemblies 4 1 0.25 1 

Scheduled Meter Replacement 1,954 0.1 2 391 

Leak Survey of Water Mains 36 miles 1 0.5 18 

Flushing Water Mains 36 miles 1 4 144 

Booster Pump Stations 1 2 12 24 

Pressure Reducing Stations 19 1 4 76 

Supply Stations 2 2 4 16 

Reservoirs 2 1 16 32 

Telemetry and Control System 1 2 8 16 

Operations 

Monitor System 4 260 0.3 312 

False Alarm Response 1 12 2 24 

Meter Reading 1,954 6 0.03 352 

Groundskeeping 2 12 6 144 

Inventory 1 1 40 40 

Meter Repair/Replace 20 1 2 40 

Main Breaks 1 2 8 16 

System Failures 1 4 16 64 

Hydrant Repairs 5 1 8 40 

Service Repairs 10 1 8 80 

New Service Connections 100 1 8 800 

Main Connections 5 1 16 80 

Water Quality Testing 2 12 1 24 

Telemetry and Control System 1 260 1 260 

Administration 1 260 8 2,080 

Total Requirements 

Total Hours Required 5,379 

Total Full Time Staff Required (based on 1,540 hours per year per person) 3.5 

Time Availabe Per Year Per Person 

Beginning Hours Available 2,080 

Less average vacation of 3 weeks per year -120 

Less average sick leave of 2 weeks per year -80 

Less holidays of 11 days per year -88 

Less average training of 40 hours per year -40 

Less average small tasks other than above of 1 hour per day -219 

Net Total Available Hours Per Year Per Person 1,533 


Water System Improvements 9 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents proposed improvements to the City of Duvall water system that are 

necessary to resolve existing system deficiencies and accommodate the projected growth of 

water customers. The water system improvements were identified from an evaluation of the 

results of the water system analyses presented in Chapter 7. The water system improvements 

were sized to meet both the existing and future demand conditions of the system. 

A Capital Improvement Program number, herein referred to as a CIP number, has been assigned 

to each improvement. Numbers were assigned to the improvements starting at the north end of 

the system and, in general, incrementally increase to the south, as shown in Figure 9-1, a plan 

view of the improvements. The improvements are also illustrated in the hydraulic profile of the 

future water system that is shown in Figure 9-2. The improvements are organized and presented 

in this chapter according to the following categories: 

• Water System Improvements Since Last Water System Plan 

• Water Main Improvements 

• Pressure Reducing Station Improvements 

• Facility Improvements 

• Miscellaneous Improvements 

The remainder of this chapter presents a brief description of each group of improvements, the 

criteria for prioritizing, the basis for the cost estimates, and the implementation schedule. 

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 

This section provides a general description of each group of improvements and an overview of 

the deficiencies that they will resolve. Most of the improvements are necessary to resolve 

existing system deficiencies. The locations of improvements are shown in Figure 9-1. 


CHAPTER 9 

Water System Improvements Since Last Water System Plan 

The water system has undergone changes since 1994, when the City last updated its 

Comprehensive Water System Plan. The City has implemented a majority of the recommended 

projects from the 1994 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Some notable improvements include 

the new 2.2 million gallon Big Rock Road Reservoir, the 615 Zone Booster Pump Station, a 

telemetry and supervisory control system, and replacement of thousands of feet of asbestoscement 

pipe. The City’s most recent project involved a pressure zone realignment in 270th Place 

NE which converted a portion of the 330 Zone to the 450 Zone, improving service pressures and 

fire flows to several existing customers. The water system improvements are summarized in 

Table 9-1 below. 

Table 9-1 

Water System Improvements Completed Since 1994 

1994 CIP No. Project Description Size 

M-7 Bruett Road Extension 1,700 LF 

PRV-7 Bruett Road PRV 2.5" & 8" 

M-10 & M-11 Batten Road Intertie and Extension 2,400 LF 

T-2 Big Rock Road Reservoir 2.2 MG 

BPS-1 615 Zone Booster Pump Station 2,000 gpm 

M-3 SR203 Extension 2,800 LF 

M-5 Big Rock Road Water Main Installation 7,150 LF 

PRV-5 Big Rock Road PRV Installation 4" & 10" 

M-8 NE 150th Street Extension 1,500 LF 

PRV-8 NE 150th Street PRV 2.5" & 8" 

MR-12 Virginia Street Replacement 2,000 LF 

MR-14 Stephens Street Replacment 1,450 LF 

PRV-14 Stephens Street PRV Replacment 3" & 8" 

Non-CIP Telemetry and Supervisory Control System N/A 

Non-CIP 450 to 485 Zone Conversion N/A 

Non-CIP 330 Zone Reconfiguration N/A 

Water Main Improvements 

The following water main improvements were identified from the results of the distribution and 

transmission system analyses discussed in Chapter 7. Most of the water main improvements are 

replacements of existing distribution water main and are grouped in the “Annual Water Main 

Replacement Program” project (CIP WM1). The individual water main improvement projects 


Water System Improvements 

within this group are numbered 1 – 28, as shown on Figure 9-1. The other water main 

improvements are mostly larger diameter water mains that function more like transmission than 

distribution mains and are identified as individual projects (CIP WM2 – WM5). 

CIP WM1: Annual Water Main Replacement Program 

Deficiency: Most of the water main improvements shown in Figure 9-1 are required to resolve 

fire flow deficiencies caused primarily by undersized water mains. Some areas also contain 

water main that have had reported occurrences of leaks or breaks, or are constructed of nonstandard 

(e.g., asbestos cement) water main materials. 

Improvement: Replace existing water main with new ductile iron water main in accordance 

with the City’s construction standards. The individual water main improvements grouped under 

this project are numbered 1, 2, 3, etc., as shown in Figure 9-1. The selection of specific projects 

will be accomplished annually during the City’s budget development process and will be guided 

by the prioritization presented later in this chapter. This provides the City with the flexibility to 

coordinate these projects with other projects that may occur within the same area. An allowance 

of $160,000 per year has been established for the annual replacement of water mains. 

CIP WM2: 12-inch Water Main in 274th Avenue NE from NE Big Rock Road to Tolt 2 

Supply Station 

Deficiency: The existing transmission main is constructed of aging 10-inch asbestos-cement 

pipe and is undersized to meet future system needs. 

Improvement: Replace existing water main with new 12-inch ductile iron water main along 

274th Avenue NE from NE Big Rock Road to the Tolt 2 Supply Station. 

CIP WM3: 12-inch Water Main in 3rd Avenue NE from NE Park Street to NE Big Rock Road 

Deficiency: The existing transmission main is constructed of aging 10-inch asbestos-cement 

pipe, is undersized to meet future system needs, and is located within an easement that is 

difficult to access for maintenance and repairs. 

Improvement: Install new 12-inch ductile iron water main along 3rd Avenue NE from NE Park 

Street to NE Big Rock Road. Abandon the existing 10-inch asbestos cement water main that 

traverses this area. 

CIP WM4: 8-inch and 12-inch Water Main in 3rd Avenue NE from 3rd and Virginia PRV to 

NE Park Street 

Deficiency: The existing transmission main is constructed of 10-inch asbestos-cement pipe and 

is undersized to meet future system needs. The asbestos-cement pipe also has a history of water 

main breaks. Additionally, the water system lacks proper water main looping in the 330 Zone to 

provide adequate fire flow and water circulation. Several pressure reducing stations along 3rd 


CHAPTER 9 

Avenue NE are closely spaced, which prevents proper low-flow control and results in inadequate 

water circulation in this area. 

Improvement: Replace the existing 450 Zone 10-inch asbestos cement water main with new 

12-inch ductile iron water main along 3rd Avenue NE from the 3rd and Virginia PRV to NE 

Park Street. Connect the Stephens Street PRV to the proposed 12-inch water main at the 

intersection of NE Stephens Street and 3rd Avenue NE. Install a new parallel 8-inch water main 

in the 330 Zone along 3rd Avenue NE from NE Park Street to NE Ring Street and in 3rd Avenue 

NE from NE Stella Street to NE Stewart Street. Extend the existing 330 Zone dead-end water 

main in NE Ring Street and NE Richardson Street to the new 8-inch main. Open the closed 

valve near the intersection of NE Valley Street and Broadway Avenue NE. Construction of 

these improvements will eliminate the need for four pressure reducing stations (Stewart, Cherry, 

Stella, Park) in this area and should coincide with the pressure reducing station abandonments in 

CIP number PRV2, PRV3, PRV4 and PRV5. 

CIP WM5: 12-inch Water Main in 3rd Avenue NE from NE Cherry Valley Road to the 3rd 

and Virginia PRV 

Deficiency: The existing 8-inch water main is currently undersized to provide adequate fire 

flow to the Cherry Valley Elementary School and other areas in the 330 Zone. 

Improvement: Replace the existing 8-inch water main with new 12-inch ductile iron water 

main along 3rd Avenue NE from NE Cherry Valley Road to the 3rd and Virginia PRV station. 

Future Water Main Extensions and Replacements 

All new water main extensions and replacements shall be installed in accordance with the City’s 

Water System Standards, which are included in Appendix I. All new water mains shall be 

ductile iron pipe and sized by a hydraulic analysis to ensure that all pressure, flow, and velocity 

requirements, as stated in Chapter 5, are met. In general, new water mains that will carry fire 

flow in residential areas shall be a minimum of 8-inches in diameter and looped for multi-family 

residential developments. New water mains in commercial, business park, industrial, and school 

areas shall be a minimum of 12-inches in diameter and looped. All work performed in King 

County road right-of-way must conform to the most recent edition of the King County Road 

Standards. 

Pressure Reducing Station and Pressure Relief Improvements 

The following pressure reducing station improvements were identified to resolve existing system 

deficiencies, but have been sized to accommodate future water system demands. 

CIP PRV1: System-Wide Pressure Relief Improvements 

Deficiency: The existing water system does not have pressure relief facilities to prevent overpressurizing 

in the event that a pressure reducing station or supply station control valve fails in 

the open position. 



Improvement: Install new pressure relief stations or modify existing pressure reducing stations 

to include a pressure relief valve. A system-wide analysis will be performed during the 

preliminary design phase of the project to determine the size, location, and recommended 

improvements to provide pressure relief to the existing water system. 

CIP PRV2: 3rd and Stewart (450/330 Zone) PRV Abandonment 

Deficiency: The existing pressure reducing station is an aging facility in need of replacement; 

however, the operation of the station is not required to provide adequate supply to the 330 Zone 

during a fire flow or other high demand event. Removal of this PRV station will eliminate the 

ongoing operation and maintenance requirements of this facility. 

Improvement: Abandon the existing 3rd and Stewart PRV station. The abandonment of the 

station should coincide with the construction of the 330 Zone 8-inch looped water main in 3rd 

Avenue NE (CIP WM4). 

CIP PRV3: 3rd and Cherry (450/330 Zone) PRV Abandonment 

Deficiency: The operation of the existing pressure reducing station is not required to provide 

adequate supply to the 330 Zone during a fire flow or other high demand event. Removal of this 

PRV station will eliminate the ongoing operation and maintenance requirements of this facility. 

Improvement: Abandon the existing 3rd and Cherry PRV station. The abandonment of the 



CIP PRV4: 3rd and Stella (450/330 Zone) PRV Abandonment 




Improvement: Abandon the existing 3rd and Stella PRV station. The abandonment of the 



CIP PRV5: NE Park Street (450/330 Zone) PRV Abandonment 




Improvement: Abandon the existing NE Park Street PRV station. The abandonment of the 




CHAPTER 9 

CIP PRV6: 143rd & 268th (450/330 Zone) PRV Replacement 

Deficiency: The existing pressure reducing station is undersized to provide adequate supply in 

the future to the 330 Zone during a fire flow or other high demand event. 

Improvement: Replace the existing valves with larger valves, which may require a new vault to 

house the larger valves. The large pressure reducing valve should be a 8-inch valve and the 

small valve should be a 2-inch valve. The station should also include a pressure relief valve, 

sized during the design, to relieve pressures in the 330 Zone in the event of a failure of one of the 

pressure reducing valves. The new station should be installed near the same time that the 

proposed 12-inch water main is installed in NE 143rd Place (CIP 26 and 27). 

Facility Improvements 

The following water system facility improvements were identified from the results of the water 

system analyses that are discussed in Chapter 7. The improvements are primarily necessary to 

resolve existing system deficiencies, but have also been sized to accommodate projected growth. 

CIP F1: Taylor’s Landing Well Monitoring and Study 

Deficiency: The Taylor’s Landing Well is not currently monitored and the City would like to 

ensure the well’s water supply is properly protected. 

Improvement: Ongoing monitoring, testing and additional wellhead protection efforts of the 

Taylor’s Landing Well. 

CIP F2: Crestview Estates Reservoir Recoating 

Deficiency: The exterior coating of the steel reservoir is peeling. The interior of the reservoir 

was last recoated in approximately 1988, and is reaching the end of its life expectancy as well. 

The reservoir should be recoated every 15 to 20 years, based on the typical life of coatings on 

steel reservoirs. 

Improvement: Recoat the interior and exterior of the Crestview Estates Reservoir to prevent 

premature corrosion of the facility. Thoroughly inspect and sample the interior and exterior 

reservoir coatings approximately one year prior to the commencement of the project to determine 

the properties of the existing coating and extent of required recoating. 

CIP F3: Crestview Estates Reservoir Seismic Evaluation and Improvements 

Deficiency: The reservoir was constructed in 1988 and may not have sufficient restraint to 

withstand seismic events. 

Improvement: Conduct a seismic evaluation to determine the reservoir’s ability to withstand a 

seismic event and identify required seismic improvements. Construct seismic improvements to 

the reservoir, based on the results of the seismic evaluation. Since the amount of, if any, seismic 

improvements won’t be known until completion of the seismic evaluation, the preliminary cost 



estimate shown in the table near the end of this chapter is provided for budgetary purposes only 

and will need to be adjusted at the proper time in the future. 

CIP F4: Big Rock Road Reservoir Recoating 

Deficiency: The interior and exterior of the reservoir will need to be recoated every 15 to 20 

years, based on the typical life of coatings on steel reservoirs. 

Improvement: Regularly inspect the condition of the interior and exterior coating and recoat, as 

needed. It is anticipated that the reservoir will need to be recoated sometime between the year 

2010 and 2015. Thoroughly inspect and sample the interior and exterior reservoir coatings 

approximately one year prior to the commencement of the project to determine the properties of 

the existing coating and extent of required recoating. 

CIP F5: Big Rock Road Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Improvements 

Deficiency: The reservoir has a single inlet/outlet pipe for flow into and out of the reservoir, 

which prevents optimum turnover and water quality. The lack of turnover in the reservoir and 

potential for loss of chlorine residual, forces the City to operate the reservoir at a low level, 

which prevents full utilization of its available storage capacity. Implementation of this 

improvement will increase the amount of available storage, which in turn enables the City to 

serve a larger number of new connections, since storage is the limiting facility in the City’s 

water system, as shown in the capacity analysis in Chapter 7. 

Improvement: Construct inlet/outlet improvements to improve water turnover within the 

reservoir, which would enable the City to operate it at higher levels and provide a larger volume 

of usable storage. 

CIP F6: 615 Zone Pump Station Improvements 

Deficiency: The 615 Zone Pump Station will have insufficient supply capacity to meet the 

future demands of the 615 Zone when demands within the zone increase as a result of future 

growth. It is anticipated that the deficiency will occur sometime between the years 2008 and 

2022. However, since the need for the improvement depends on the timing and amount of 

development in the 615 Zone, it is prudent to evaluate the 615 Zone supply requirements every 

few years. 

Improvement: Increase the capacity of the pump station by adding a fourth pump in the 

available pump bay and replacing one or more of the other three pumps, as necessary, to 

optimize the operation of the pump station for meeting the future increased demand of the 615 

Zone. The pump improvements will also require improvements to the electrical system and 

modifications to the telemetry and control system. The sizing of the pump and electrical 

improvements will be accomplished during the preliminary design phase of the project. The 

capacity of the pump station will need to be increased by as much as 1,150 gpm to meet the 615 

Zone demands in the year 2022. 


CHAPTER 9 

CIP F7: Tolt 1 Supply Station Improvements 

Deficiency: The supply station lacks pressure sensors on the upstream and downstream side of 

the control valves to enable sufficient monitoring of pressures through the telemetry system and 

optimum control of the station. Additionally, the sump pump in the existing vaults does not 

operate properly, which typically leads to standing water in the bottom of the vaults. 

Improvement: Install pressure sensors on the upstream and downstream side of the control 

valves and integrate supply station pressure data into the telemetry and control system. Provide 

improvements to adequately drain the existing vaults. 

CIP F8: Tolt 2 Supply Station Improvements 

Deficiency: The supply station lacks pressure sensors on the upstream and downstream side of 

the control valves to enable sufficient monitoring of pressures through the telemetry system and 

optimum control of the station. Additionally, the sump pump in the existing vaults does not 

operate properly, which typically leads to standing water in the bottom of the vaults. 

Improvement: Install pressure sensors on the upstream and downstream side of the control 

valves and integrate supply station pressure data into the telemetry and control system. Provide 

improvements to adequately drain the existing vaults. 

CIP F9: Telemetry, Operation and Control Improvements 

Deficiency: The existing system is difficult to operate, requires too much manual intervention, 

and is not optimized. The existing telemetry system is not fully operational and is not currently 

setup to provide data collection and alarm notification at all facilities. 

Improvement: Provide modifications to the existing system operations to enable a more 

simplified, automated control of the water system facilities with reduced operations costs. 

Modify the control valves at the supply stations and reservoirs, as necessary, to enable a more 

automated and efficient operation of the system during two different operational scenarios: 1) 

during low water usage periods to optimize turnover in the reservoirs; and 2) during the summer 

demand metering periods to maintain steady supply station flow rates to avoid demand 

surcharges from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). 

Modifications to the telemetry and supervisory control system will also be required to 

incorporate these water system operation modifications and to provide full data collection and 

alarm notification at all facilities. These improvements should be implemented in conjunction 

with or following the completion of CIP F7 and F8. 



Miscellaneous Improvements 

The following miscellaneous improvements are planning efforts and program elements that are 

required to comply with various water regulations or are improvements that don’t fit into one of 

the previous categories. 

CIP M1: Duvall Highlands Mobile Home Park Meter Removal 

Deficiency: The water meters were originally installed years ago to meter total water usage 

within the Duvall Highlands mobile home park, but are no longer needed since individual meters 

have been installed for all mobile homes. The mainline meters permit flow in one direction only, 

thereby reducing the available fire flows in the area. 

Improvement: Remove the existing meters located at the two entrances to the Duvall 

Highlands mobile home park, located near the intersection of NE 142nd Street and 282nd Place 

NE, and just south of the intersection of NE 144th Street and 280th Avenue NE. 

CIP M2: Conservation Program and Leak Detection 

Deficiency: The City’s existing billing system does not provide customers with consumption 

history information on the water bills and the City does not currently perform leak detection on a 

regular basis. Several water conservation measures must also be carried out on an ongoing basis 

to comply with State conservation requirements. 

Improvement: Improvements to the billing system will be implemented to provide previous 

years’ consumption information on water bills. The City will continue its water main 

replacement program to reduce the amount of older and potentially leaking water mains and will 

also implement a comprehensive leak detection/water main repair program to reduce the amount 

of unaccounted-for water. The City will perform other ongoing conservation measures, 

including public education programs, as outlined in the Water Conservation Plan included in 

Appendix F. 

CIP M3: Water Reclamation Activities 

Deficiency: Treated water that will be produced at the City’s future upgraded Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (estimated completion in 2005) may provide an opportunity for the City to use 

reclaimed water to supplement existing water supply from SPU for irrigation and other nonpotable 

applications. 

Improvement: Ongoing review of the potential use of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant 

effluent for irrigation and other non-potable applications throughout the City. 

CIP M4: Cross-Connection Control Program 

Deficiency: The City does not have an updated ordinance, facility risk inventory, and crossconnection 

control program that meets current Washington State requirements. 


CHAPTER 9 

Improvement: The City’s Municipal Code will be updated to address the new regulations in 

WAC 246-290 and the current Cross-Connection Control Program included in Appendix G. The 

City will develop and implement an evaluation program that assesses the risk of existing water 

service connections. Potential high-risk cross-connection premises will be evaluated first. The 

City will then evaluate other premises, based on potential risk to the water system and budget 

availability. The City will carry out other cross-connection control program requirements as 

outlined in the Cross-Connection Control Program. 

CIP M6: Comprehensive Water System Plan Update 

Deficiency: WAC 246-290-100 requires the City to update its Comprehensive Water System 

Plan every six years and submit to the Department of Health for review and approval. Drinking 

water regulations are continuously changing and must be addressed in the City’s Comprehensive 

Water System Plan. 

Improvement: Update the Comprehensive Water System Plan every six years to meet the 

requirements that are in effect at the time of the update. 

ESTIMATING COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS 

Project costs for the proposed improvements were estimated, based on costs of similar water 

projects in the Duvall area and are presented in 2003 dollars. The cost estimates include the 

estimated construction cost of the improvement and indirect costs estimated at 35 percent of the 

construction cost for engineering preliminary design, final design, and construction management 

services, permitting, legal, and administrative services. The construction cost estimates include a 

10 percent contingency and sales tax. 

Construction cost estimates for water main projects were determined from the water main unit 

costs (i.e., cost per foot length) shown in Table 9-2 and the proposed diameter and approximate 

length of each improvement. 

Table 9-2 

Water Main Unit Costs 

Water Main 

Diameter 

(inches) 

Construction Cost 

Per Foot Length 

(2003 $/LF) 

8 $130 

12 $150 

16 $180 



The unit costs for each water main size are based on estimates of all construction-related 

improvements, which includes materials and labor for the water main installation, water services, 

fire hydrants, fittings, valves, connections to the existing system, trench restoration, asphalt 

surface restoration, and other work for a complete installation. The unit costs also include a 

contingency and sales tax. Additional costs were added to some water main improvements to 

cover anticipated, increased costs related to the project location and degree of difficulty. 

PRIORITIZING IMPROVEMENTS 

The water system improvements were prioritized from established criteria to formulate a 

schedule that identifies projects with the most deficiencies and greatest need for improvement to 

be completed prior to projects with fewer deficiencies. A description of the criteria and method 

for prioritizing each category of improvements is provided below. 


Table 9-3 lists criteria that were established for prioritizing the water main improvements. The 

criteria are based on the underlying deficiencies of the existing water main that will be replaced 

by the proposed water main improvements. The criteria are arranged in five different categories 

with a weight factor assigned to each category. The Existing Water Main Fire Flow Capability 

and the Occurrence of Leaks or Breaks were given the most weight. 


CHAPTER 9 

Table 9-3 

Water Main Improvements Priority Ranking Criteria 

Weight Weighted 

Points Category Factor Points 

Existing Water Main Fire Flow Capability 

3 Available Fire Flow is 69% or Less of Required Fire Flow 4 12 

2 Available Fire Flow is 70-89% of Required Fire Flow 4 8 

1 Available Fire Flow is 90-100% or More of Required Fire Flow 4 4 

Occurrence of Leaks or Breaks 

3 Multiple Reports of Leaks or Breaks 4 12 

2 Single Report of a Leak or Break 4 8 

1 No Leaks or Breaks Reported 4 4 

Existing Water Main Year of Installation 

3 Before 1960 3 9 

2 1960 - 1980 3 6 

1 After 1980 3 3 

Existing Water Main Material 

3 Asbestos Cement 3 9 

2 Galvanized Iron, Steel, or Cast Iron 3 6 

1 Ductile Iron or PVC 3 3 

Existing Water Main Benefit Area 

3 Large Benefit Area (i.e. transmission main) 2 6 

2 Medium Benefit Area 2 4 

1 Small Benefit Area (i.e. localized area) 2 2 

The Existing Water Main Fire Flow Capability category ranks the water main improvements 

based on the ability of the existing water mains to provide the required fire flow, as determined 

from the results of the hydraulic analyses addressed in Chapter 7. The Occurrence of Leaks or 

Breaks category ranks the water main improvements based on the number of reported leaks or 

breaks that the City currently has on record. The Existing Water Main Year of Installation 

category ranks the water main improvements based on the age of the existing water main. The 

Existing Water Main Material category ranks the water main improvements based on the 

material of the existing water main. The Existing Water Main Benefit Area category ranks the 

water main improvements based on the size of the area that will benefit from the water main 

replacement. 



The water main priority ranking criteria was applied to the annual water main replacement 

projects, which are grouped under CIP WM1 and numbered CIP 1-28. The water main 

replacement projects are presented in Table 9-4 with their priority ranking and are also shown in 

Figure 9-1. 

Table 9-4 

Prioritized Annual Water Main Replacement Projects 

Size Description Estimated Priority Rank 

No. Length Diam In From To Cost * Points 

1 1,040 12 NE Cherry Valley Rd ~2nd Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $209,000 H 31 

2 1,720 12 ~2nd Ave NE NE Virginia St NE Cherry Valley Rd $346,000 H 37 

3 730 8 270th Pl NE (330 Zone) 4th Ave NE 271st Pl NE $127,000 L 26 

4 590 8 4th Ave NE NE Stewart St NE Stella St $103,000 H 31 

5 780 8 NE Bird St Railroad Ave NE 2nd Ave NE $135,000 L 20 

6 250 8 1st Ave NE NE Virginia St NE Bird St $44,000 L 19 

7 1,360 12 Main St NE NE Stephens St NE Bird St $341,000 H 37 

8 690 8 NE Stewart St 3rd Ave NE 4th Ave NE $120,000 H 35 

9 1,280 8 NE Stewart St Main St NE 3rd Ave NE $224,000 M 29 

10 700 8 NE Cherry St 3rd Ave NE 4th Ave NE $122,000 H 31 

11 1,310 8 NE Cherry St Main St NE 3rd Ave NE $230,000 H 33 

12 710 8 NE Stella St 3rd Ave NE 4th Ave NE $124,000 H 31 

13 1,080 8 NE Stella St 1st Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $188,000 M 27 

14 380 8 NE Stella St Main St NE Railroad Ave NE $66,000 H 35 

15 280 8 NE Stephens St Ex. 8" Main Dead-end $48,000 L 16 

16 1,130 8 2nd Ave NE NE Stephens St NE Park St $197,000 M 29 

17 1,120 8 NE Ring St 1st Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $195,000 H 35 

18 1,120 8 NE Richardson St 1st Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $196,000 M 27 

19 1,110 8 NE Valley St 1st Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $194,000 M 27 

20 700 8 NE Park St 2nd Ave NE 3rd Ave NE $123,000 H 31 

21 650 8 NE Kennedy Dr ~Dougherty Pl NE Ex. 8" Main $114,000 L 25 

22 1,200 8 278th Ave NE (615 Zone) NE 144th St ~ NE 148th Pl $209,000 L 18 

1,030 8 278th Ave NE (555 Zone) ~ NE 145th Pl NE 150th St $181,000 L 18 

23 360 8 ~2nd Ave NE NE 145th St Dead-end $62,000 L 20 

24 840 12 284th Ave NE NE 147th Pl NE 144th St $170,000 L 20 

25 300 8 NE 145th St 3rd Ave NE Dead-end $53,000 L 25 

26 1,750 12 NE 143rd Pl 268th Ave NE ~ 265th Ave NE $354,000 M 29 

27 1,440 8 NE 143rd Pl 272nd & 143rd PRV 268th Ave NE $252,000 M 29 

28 720 8 Batten Rd NE NE Roney Rd NE 140th PL $126,000 L 18 

Total - Annual Water Main Replacement Projects $4,853,000 

* Priority: H = High, M = Medium, L = Low (flexibility in scheduling allowed for specific needs) 

Other Improvements 

The additional water main, pressure reducing station, and facility improvements were prioritized 

based on existing deficiencies, safety concerns, maintenance requirements, and capacity 

requirements. The miscellaneous improvements were prioritized based on regulatory 

requirements and assessment of the water system needs. The priority order of these 


CHAPTER 9 

improvements is reflected in the schedule of improvements, which is presented in the next 

section. 

SCHEDULE OF IMPROVEMENTS 

The results of prioritizing the improvements were used to assist in establishing an 

implementation schedule that can be used by the City for preparing its 6-year CIP and yearly 

water utility budget. The implementation schedule for the proposed improvements is shown in 

Table 9-5. An allowance of $160,000 per year for the first 12 years has been established for the 

annual replacement of the smaller water mains. A more aggressive replacement program is 

planned starting in the 13th year. The City will identify and schedule the replacement of these 

smaller water mains during the annual budget process. This provides the City with the flexibility 

to coordinate these projects with road or other projects within the same area. 

Future Project Cost Adjustments 

All cost estimates shown in the tables are presented in year 2003 dollars. These cost estimates 

will need to be adjusted to account for the effects of inflation and changing construction market 

conditions to determine future costs at the actual time of project implementation. Future costs 

can be estimated using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the 

Seattle area or by applying an estimated rate of inflation that reflects the current and anticipated 

future market conditions. 


Table 9-5 

Proposed Improvements Implementation Schedule 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 9-15 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\WCPCH9 (12/29/04 2:31 PM) 

Estimated 

20-Year Schedule of Improvements 

Cost Planned Year of Project and Estimated Cost in 2003 $$ 

No. Description (2003 $$) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-16 2017-24 


WM1 Annual Water Main Replacement Program $4,853,000 $160K $160K $160K $160K $160K $160K $960K $2,933K 

WM2 12" in 274th Ave NE from Big Rock Rd to Tolt 2 Supply Station $618,000 $309K $309K 

WM3 12" in 3rd Ave NE from NE Park St to NE Big Rock Rd $814,000 $150K $664K 

WM4 8" & 12" in 3rd Ave from 3rd & Virginia PRV to NE Park St $744,000 $144K $600K 

WM5 12" in 3rd Ave NE from Cherry Valley Rd to 3rd & Virginia PRV $360,000 $360K 

Pressure Reducing Station and Relief Improvements 

PRV1 System-Wide Pressure Relief Improvements $200,000 $100K $100K 

PRV2 3rd and Stewart PRV Abandonment $5,000 $5K 

PRV3 3rd and Cherry PRV Abandonment $5,000 $5K 

PRV4 3rd and Stella PRV Abandonment $5,000 $5K 

PRV5 NE Park St PRV Abandonment $5,000 $5K 

PRV6 143rd and 268th PRV Replacement $90,000 $90K 

Facility Improvements 

F1 Taylor's Landing Well Monitoring and Study $100,000 $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $30K $40K 

F2 Crestview Estates Reservoir Recoating $60,000 $60K 

F3 Crestview Estates Reservoir Seismic Evaluation/Improvements $350,000 $15K $335K 

F4 Big Rock Road Reservoir Recoating $80,000 $80K 

F5 Big Rock Road Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Improvements $80,000 $80K 

F6 615 Zone Pump Station Improvements $200,000 $200K 

F7 Tolt 1 Supply Station Improvements $10,000 $10K 

F8 Tolt 2 Supply Station Improvements $10,000 $10K 

F9 Telemetry, Operation and Control Improvements $50,000 $25K $25K 

Miscellaneous Improvements 

M1 Duvall Highlands Mobile Home Park Meter Removal $2,000 $2K 

M2 Conservation Program and Leak Detection $170,000 $9K $9K $9K $9K $9K $9K $51K $68K 

M3 Water Reclamation Activities $100,000 $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $30K $40K 

M4 Cross-Connection Control Program $100,000 $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $5K $30K $40K 

M5 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update $405,000 $135K $135K $135K 

Total Estimated Project Costs $9,416,000 $411K $618K $508K $669K $908K $483K $2,566K $3,256K 

Water System Improvements

Financial Program 

10 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this Financial Program (Program) is to summarize the financial status of the City 

of Duvall’s (City) water utility and evaluate its ability to financially support necessary capital 

improvements identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and to provide for the ongoing 

operational requirements of the water system. Specifically, this Program reviews the prior six 

years’ financial history; identifies revenue sources available to fund capital projects; and 

forecasts financial performance over the next six years. Further, this Program reviews the 

utility’s current rate structure with respect to rate adequacy, promotion of water conservation, 

and customer affordability. 

HISTORICAL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 

The utility operates on a cash basis, recording revenues and expenditures as received. A review 

of past operating results indicates that the City’s water utility is generally in good financial 

health, providing positive cash flow and significantly exceeding bond covenant obligations. 

Table 10-1 and Table 10-2 present a summary of revenues and expenditures for the past six 

years for the water operating fund (Fund 401) and the water capital improvement fund (Fund 

407), respectively. 


Prepared by FCS Group, Inc.

CHAPTER 10 

Table 10-1 

Historical Performance - Operating Fund 

Water Operating Fund (401) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Operating Revenue 

Charges for Services $ 608,987 $ 754,910 $ 990,187 $ 1,009,303 $ 1,145,818 $ 1,288,446 

Intergovernmental - - 4,796 - - - 

Fines & Forfeits - - 19,364 10,386 20,446 37,175 

Miscellaneous 21,569 20,796 31,194 32,983 13,493 45,507 

Other Financing Sources - - 7,466 - - - 

Total Operating Revenue $ 630,556 $ 775,706 $ 1,053,007 $ 1,052,672 $ 1,179,757 $ 1,371,128 

Operating Expenditures 

Physical Environment $ 524,126 $ 562,140 $ 597,030 $ 852,574 $ 964,318 $ 1,061,516 

Total Operating Expenditures $ 524,126 $ 562,140 $ 597,030 $ 852,574 $ 964,318 $ 1,061,516 

Other Financing Uses $ 25,000 $ 74,000 $ 55,700 $ 269,575 $ 57,649 $ - 

Net Cash from Operations $ 81,430 $ 139,566 $ 400,277 $ (69,477) $ 157,790 $ 309,612 

Other Revenues/Expenditures 

Non-Revenues $ 22,085 $ - $ - $ 5,695 $ - $ - 

Non-Expenditures (5,158) - - (4,354) - - 

Net Other Revenues/Expenditures $ 16,927 $ - $ - $ 1,341 $ - $ - 

Net Cash $ 98,357 $ 139,566 $ 400,277 $ (68,136) $ 157,790 $ 309,612 

Beginning Cash Balance $ 77,087 $ 175,444 $ 315,010 $ 715,287 $ 647,151 $ 804,941 

Ending Cash $ 175,444 $ 315,010 $ 715,287 $ 647,151 $ 804,941 $ 1,114,553 

Funds Available to Pay Debt Service [a] $ 106,430 $ 213,566 $ 455,977 $ 200,098 $ 215,439 $ 309,612 

Revenue Bond Debt Service - 58,963 58,963 58,963 58,963 58,963 

Debt Service Coverage n/a 3.62 7.73 3.39 3.65 5.25 

[a] Excludes GFC revenues 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\WCPCH10 (12/29/04 2:35 PM) 10-2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 



Table 10-2 

Historical Performance – Water Improvement Capital Fund 

Water Capital Fund (407) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Revenue 

Charges for Services $ 244,000 $ 209,500 $ 240,500 $ 914,600 $ 201,094 $ 40,500 

Intergovernmental - - - - - - 

Fines & Forfeits - - - - - - 

Miscellaneous 14,614 4,804 2,788 31,094 - 9,367 

Other Financing Sources - - 223,868 - - - 

Total Revenue $ 258,614 $ 214,304 $ 467,156 $ 945,694 $ 201,094 $ 49,867 

Expenditures 

Physical Environment $ 339,990 $ 87,348 $ 107,333 $ 19,959 $ 488,762 $ 5,595 

Total Expenditures $ 339,990 $ 87,348 $ 107,333 $ 19,959 $ 488,762 $ 5,595 

Debt Service $ 91,240 $ 92,967 $ 91,367 $ - $ - $ 164,227 

Other Financing Uses $ 85,000 $ 130,000 $ 70,000 $ 120,000 $ - $ 67,885 

Net Cash $ (257,616) $ (96,011) $ 198,456 $ 805,735 $ (287,668) $ (187,840) 

Other Revenues/Expenditures 

Non-Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Non-Expenditures - - - (106,722) - - 

Net Other Revenues/Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ (106,722) $ - $ - 

Net Cash $ (257,616) $ (96,011) $ 198,456 $ 699,013 $ (287,668) $ (187,840) 

Beginning Cash Balance $ 355,283 $ 97,667 $ 1,656 $ 200,112 $ 899,125 $ 611,457 

Ending Cash $ 97,667 $ 1,656 $ 200,112 $ 899,125 $ 611,457 $ 423,617 

It is important to note that while the utility provides positive cash flow under the “cash basis” of 

accounting; annual depreciation expense is not accounted for, thereby creating a significant 

unfunded liability. Absent a mechanism for funding system replacement, this liability will 

continue to grow and likely result in substantial rate increases in the future. The City has 

evaluated the feasibility of establishing a replacement reserve to be funded through rates. Due to 

the impacts of combined water and sewer rate increases over the next several years, the City 

does not plan to implement such a policy in the near term, but will re-visit this policy option with 

each annual budgeting process. 



CHAPTER 10 

CAPITAL FUNDING OPTIONS 

The funding options available to the City for capital projects consist of state and federal 

programs that offer low interest loans and grant funding, bonded debt, and cash funding through 

rates and general facilities charges. These funding mechanisms are described below. 

State and Federal Funding Programs 

Historically, federal and state grant programs were available for financial assistance; however, 

these have been mostly eliminated or replaced by loan programs. Remaining miscellaneous grant 

programs are generally funded lightly and heavily subscribed. Nonetheless, the benefit of even 

low-interest loans makes the effort of applying worthwhile. State programs reviewed as potential 

funding sources for the utility improvements set forth in this Comprehensive Water System Plan 

are summarized below. 

• Public Works Trust Fund - The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) is a commonly used, 

low cost revolving loan fund established in 1985 by the state legislature to provide 

financial assistance to local governments, such as the City, for public works projects. 

Eligible projects include repair, replacement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or 

improvement of eligible public works systems to meet current standards for existing users. 

Growth-related projects are not eligible. 

• PWTF Loans are available at interest rates of 0.5 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent, with 

the lower interest rates given to applicants who pay a larger share of the total project costs. 

The loan applicant must pay a minimum of 5 percent towards the project cost to qualify 

for a 2 percent loan, 10 percent for a 1 percent loan, and 15 percent for a 0.5 percent loan. 

The useful life of the project determines the loan term up to a maximum of 20 years. 

• The applicant must be a local government, such as a city, county or special purpose utility 

district, and have an approved long-term plan for financing its public works needs. Local 

governments must compete for PWTF dollars, since more funds are requested each year 

than are available. The Public Works Board evaluates each application and transmits a 

prioritized list of projects to the legislature. The legislature then indicates its approval by 

passing an appropriation from the Public Works Assistance Account to cover the cost of 

the approved loans. Once the Governor has signed the appropriations bill into law, the 

local governments receiving the loans are offered a formal loan agreement with the 

appropriate interest rate and term, as determined by the Public Works Trust Fund Board. 

• Community Economic Revitalization Board - Managed by the Department of 

Community Trade and Economic Development, this program provides grants and loans to 

fund public facilities that result in specific private sector development. Eligible projects 

include water, sewer, roads, and bridges. Funding varies. 




• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program - Also administered by the 

State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, the CDBG program 

provides grants and loans for infrastructure improvements, including water projects, for 

business development that create or retain jobs for low and moderate-income residents. 

• Department of Ecology - The Department of Ecology Water Quality Financial Assistance 

Program sponsors four grant and loan programs: the Centennial Clean Water Fund, Federal 

319 Programs, State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans, and the Aquatic Weeds Grant 

Programs. While most of the funding goes to wastewater programs, projects such as 

development and implementation of groundwater and wellhead protection programs are 

included. Congress has authorized a limited amount of money for the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan specifically for programs to improve water quality. 

Funding is generally limited to 50 percent and comes in the form of either a grant or low 

interest loan (0 percent for up to 5-years, increasing to 4.8 percent for 15 to 20 years). 

Of these programs, the PWTF is the most attractive program for the City. The emphasis of 

PWTF loans on replacement and rehabilitation fits well with the City’s water main replacement 

program at an estimated cost of $7.4 million (current day dollars) over the next 20 years. To be 

conservative in the crafting of our analyses, the recommended capital financing strategy assumes 

no funding assistance from low-interest programs and that projects will be completed within the 

means of the City’s existing capital reserves with any shortfall funded through the issuance of 

revenue bonds. However, we recommend the City actively pursue PWTF loans as means to 

reduce costs to its ratepayers. 

Bonded Debt 

Revenue Bonds - The most common source of funds for construction of major utility 

improvements is the sale of revenue bonds. These tax-free bonds are issued by utilities and are 

typically repaid from rate revenues. In order to qualify to sell revenue bonds, the City must 

show that its net operating income (gross income less expenses) is equal to or greater than a 

factor, typically 1.2 to 1.4, times the annual service on all par debt. This factor is commonly 

referred to as the coverage factor, and is applicable to revenue bonds sold on the commercial 

market. Coverage requirement is one of two factors (together with cash needs) that could trigger 

future rate increases. Although commonly used, revenue bonds incur relatively high interest 

rates and therefore, should be relied upon only after all other grant and low-interest loan options 

have been exhausted. 

Utility Resources 

Utility financial resources available for capital funding include rate funding, capital reserves, and 

general facilities charges. 

• Rates and Rate Funding – As previously mentioned, the City does not currently have a 

policy in place to provide for annual water system replacement through rates. 



CHAPTER 10 

• Capital Reserves – The City maintains a separate Capital Fund (fund 407) dedicated to 

water utility capital expenses. At the beginning of 2004, this fund had a total of $423,600 

available to support capital project costs. 

• General Facilities Charges – The City imposes a general facilities charge (GFC) on all 

new connections to the water system. The current GFC is $2,000 for a 5/8-inch meter and 

increases with the size of the meter. Revenues generated from this source are projected at 

just over $100,000 in 2004 and, per City policy, will be used first to pay annual debt 

service with remaining dollars available to fund capital projects. The updated GFC, 

described in detail below, is $5,256 for a 5/8-inch meter, and is expected to generate over 

$275,000 in 2005 and roughly $2.5 million through 2010. 

General Facilities Charges (GFCs) 

General facilities charges (GFCs) are sources of funding typically used by utilities to support 

capital needs. They are a form of connection charge, as authorized in the Washington Revised 

Code 57.08.010, and are imposed on new customers connecting to the water system as a 

condition of service, in addition to actual costs incurred to physically connect to the system. The 

underlying premise of a GFC is to recover from growth all water system capital costs that have 

been or will be incurred on their behalf to provide service capacity (i.e., require growth to pay 

for growth). 

The purpose of the GFC is two-fold: 1) to provide funding sources for capital financing, in the 

case of the City of Duvall, to be used to meet annual debt service obligations, and 2) to recover 

an equitable level of investment in the system from new customer connections. In the absence of 

such a right-to-connect charge, existing customers would be required to bear the burden of all 

capital costs, including capacity-related costs, through rates. In addition, the current customers’ 

net investment in the utility would be diluted by the addition of new customers absent a GFC. 

This dilution would, in effect, be a subsidy to new customer connections. 

Typically, the basis for the GFC is the cost the utility has incurred or will incur to provide the 

water system. The cost of the system to be recovered by the general facilities charge can be 

defined in two parts: 

• Many of the City’s water facilities, such as storage tanks, pumping facilities and 

transmission mains, were constructed with available capacity to provide water service to 

growth as it occurs. The GFC is designed to recognize this investment, made by the 

existing ratepayers on behalf of future development, and recover an equitable and 

proportionate share of this cost. This cost is net of donated facilities, whether from grants, 

developers or through Local Improvement District assessments. In addition, State statute 

allows for inclusion of up to 10-years of interest in the existing cost basis. 

• The GFC calculation also accounts for planned upgrade/improvement projects that benefit 

all customers, as well as projects to be undertaken solely to provide available capacity for 

new development. For this analysis, we have included all capital projects identified in the 

20-year Capital Improvement Program, excluding replacement projects and those projects 




to be funded by developers or other contributions. Repair and replacement projects may 

not be included in the GFC cost basis, and rather, must be funded by existing ratepayers as 

those assets are retired. Upgrade projects identified within the CIP are assumed to benefit 

all customers and, as such, existing and future customers share the costs proportionately. 

Capacity-increasing projects should be financed by those new customers requiring water 

availability and therefore are recovered solely from growth. 

A summary of the GFC calculation is displayed in Table 10-3. 

Table 10-3 

General Facilities Charge 

Allocable Cost of Existing and Planned Facilities Serving All Customers 

Net Allocable Existing Water Plant-in-Service Cost of Capital $ 17,375,224 

Net Allocable Planned Future Improvement Facilities 1,643,000 

Total Allocable Cost Basis $ 19,018,224 

Allocable Cost of Existing and Planned Facilities Serving Growth Only 

Cost of Planned Future Facilities for New Growth $ 380,000 

Capacity Analysis in Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) 

Existing ERUs 2,064 

Future ERUs (Incremental) 1,714 

Total ERU Base 3,778 

Calculation of General Facilities Charge 

Total Existing Cost Basis / Total Capacity + Total Future Cost Basis / Growth (1) $ 5,256 

(1) Existing facilities plus non-growth capital projects are divided by the total number of system ERUs, 

thus sharing expense proportionately among current and future customers. Growth related capital 

necessary to serve growth only, and thus the sole responsibility of growth. 

PROJECTION OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 

The projection of financial performance begins with the six-year capital funding strategy, 

followed by the projection of cash operating expenses, and finally a summary of revenue 

requirements and necessary rate adjustments. A number of forecast assumptions are used in the 

analyses: 



CHAPTER 10 

• Capital projects planned over the next six years (2005 through 2010) total $3.6 million 

(current day dollars) and function as the basis for evaluating funding rate impacts. 

• Capital expenses include annual inflation of 3.5 percent. 

• Revenue bond terms include an interest rate of 5.5 percent, issuance costs of 2.0 percent, a 

20-year repayment schedule, and bond coverage of 1.25 times annual debt service 

payments. 

• Customer growth is conservatively estimated at roughly 2.5 percent per year (2004 – 2007) 

and 4.0 percent per year (2008 through 2010). 

• The City’s fund interest earnings rate is conservatively estimated at 1.5 percent. 

• General cost inflation is estimated at 3.0 percent. 

• Labor cost inflation is estimated at 3.50 percent. 

• Purchased water costs (SPU) are estimated to increase 7.0 percent in 2005 and 2.0 percent 

in 2006. No additional increases are anticipated. Estimates are based on the best 

information at the time of this analysis. As a result of excess revenues generated from SPU 

over the last year, it is possible these increases will not materialize. 

CAPITAL FUNDING STRATEGY 

The City has historically funded capital projects through general facilities charge revenues, 

PWTF loans, and revenue bonds. We have analyzed the City’s ability to fund the proposed sixyear 

Capital Improvement Program (incorporating annual inflation). Table 10-4 summarizes the 

proposed capital funding strategy. 




Table 10-4 

Capital Financing Plan (Inflated $$) 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Uses 

Capital Improvement Projects $ 15,000 $ 266,735 $ 165,199 $ 44,753 $ 426,379 $ 103,257 $ 202,292 

Repair & Replacement Projects - 173,538 519,989 538,188 368,183 1,012,906 412,218 

Total Capital Costs $ 15,000 $ 440,273 $ 685,188 $ 582,942 $ 794,562 $ 1,116,164 $ 614,511 

Sources 

Developer Contributions/LID $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Grants - - - - - - - 

R&R Reserve - - - - - - - 

Capital Reserves 15,000 440,273 685,188 480,915 192,836 469,954 481,642 

Additional Rate Funding - - - - - - - 

Alternative Debt Instrument - - - - - - - 

Revenue Bonds - - - 102,026 601,726 646,210 132,869 

Total Funding Sources $ 15,000 $ 440,273 $ 685,188 $ 582,942 $ 794,562 $ 1,116,164 $ 614,511 

This analysis assumes that the City implements the updated general facilities charge to become 

effective by the beginning of 2005. Applying future growth estimates provided by the City, the 

utility is projected to generate $2.5 million in GFC revenues through 2010. While roughly 50 

percent of this revenue will be used to pay debt service, nearly $1.2 million will be available to 

fund capital projects. It should be noted that while the City’s reliance on GFC revenues helps 

mitigate projected future rate increases, actual GFC revenues can vary substantially from 

projections if growth does not occur as planned. Should lower levels of growth occur, the City 

may need to implement additional rate increases and/or issue additional debt to ensure adequate 

revenues are available to pay expenditures and to ensure that debt service coverage is met. 

Assuming the adequacy of future GFC revenue as discussed above, the City has sufficient capital 

reserves (including GFCs revenues used for capital) to fund the CIP through 2006. The financing 

strategy and resultant rate revenue requirements assume issuance of revenue bonds in the 

amounts necessary to meet each year’s revenue shortfall. In practice, however, it may be more 

cost effective to issue revenue bonds to cover expenditures for a three-year period (in keeping 

with arbitrage rules). For example, the City could cash fund the 2007 shortfall from rates and 

issue a single $1.2 million bond to cover the next three-year shortfall. Although this strategy 

would result in the same cumulative rate increase over the period, larger increases would be 

required sooner to cover the debt service payments on the larger bond issue. 



CHAPTER 10 

WATER OPERATIONS 

The City’s 2004 water operating budget is used as a baseline for projecting future operating and 

maintenance costs. The forecast shown in Table 10-5 incorporates the effects of annual inflation 

and other known operational changes. 

Table 10-5 

Operating and Maintenance Expenses 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Administration - General 

Department of Revenue Tax $ 73,264 $ 75,098 $ 76,932 $ 78,767 $ 82,157 $ 85,548 $ 88,939 

Utility Taxes (to General Fund) 67,328 69,014 70,699 72,385 75,501 78,617 81,733 

Equipment and Maintenance 

Meters, Valves, Hydrants $ 85,000 $ 87,550 $ 90,177 $ 92,882 $ 95,668 $ 98,538 $ 101,494 

R&R Existing Mains 44,550 46,109 47,723 49,393 51,122 52,911 54,763 

Touch-to-Read Meter Install 45,000 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 52,167 53,732 

Operations - General 

Salaries and Wages $ 181,407 $ 187,756 $ 194,328 $ 201,129 $ 208,169 $ 215,455 $ 222,996 

Personnel Benefits 55,072 57,000 58,995 61,059 63,196 65,408 67,698 

Office & Operating Supplies 15,250 16,089 16,965 17,878 19,184 20,552 21,983 

Operation Fuel 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 

City of Seattle Water Purchase 401,623 439,791 459,329 470,280 490,524 510,769 531,013 

Small Tools and Minor Equipment 3,300 3,399 3,501 3,606 3,714 3,826 3,940 

Professional 34,500 35,708 36,957 38,251 39,590 40,975 42,409 

Communications 17,200 17,716 18,247 18,795 19,359 19,940 20,538 

Travel 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 

Advertising 700 721 743 765 788 811 836 

Insurance 16,620 17,119 17,632 18,161 18,706 19,267 19,845 

Public Utilities 15,500 15,965 16,444 16,937 17,445 17,969 18,508 

Repair & Maintenance Vehicles 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 

Training 4,600 4,738 4,880 5,027 5,177 5,333 5,493 

Machinery & Equipment 7,450 7,674 7,904 8,141 8,385 8,637 8,896 

Computer Hardware/Software 3,300 3,399 3,501 3,606 3,714 3,826 3,940 

Membership Dues / Fees 3,900 4,017 4,138 4,262 4,389 4,521 4,657 

Miscellaneous 2,900 2,987 3,077 3,169 3,264 3,362 3,463 

Operating Transfers Out 

Transfers to 001 General Admin $ 62,756 $ 62,756 $ 62,756 $ 62,756 $ 62,756 $ 62,756 $ 62,756 

Total Operating Expenses $ 1,150,720 $ 1,210,740 $ 1,252,745 $ 1,286,802 $ 1,334,150 $ 1,382,200 $ 1,430,975 




REVENUE REQUIREMENTS 

The revenue requirements analysis determines if the operating revenues are sufficient to fund 

operating expenses, reserve funding, debt service and coverage requirements. Two separate 

conditions must be met for user charge revenues to be sufficient: periodic cash needs must be 

met and the minimum revenue bond debt service coverage requirement must be realized. 

The cash flow test identifies cash requirement for the utility in the year addressed. Those 

requirements can include cash operating and maintenance expenses, debt service, directly funded 

capital outlays or transfers to the capital fund, and any projected additions to reserves. The total 

cash needs are then compared to projected utility revenues. Any shortfalls are identified and the 

level of rate increase necessary to make up the shortfall is estimated. 

The coverage test is based on the bond covenants for revenue bonds, which require that a 

specific test of revenue sufficiency be met. The City’s current bond covenants require that 

revenues (including GFCs) must be sufficient to meet operating expenses plus a factor of 1.25 

times annual debt service on all revenue bond debt issued. The coverage factor adds some 

protection for bondholders against the risk of poor financial performance. Although the current 

covenants allow for the inclusion of GFC revenues, we recommend the City establish a separate 

coverage test that excludes GFC revenues in order to enhance or maintain credit worthiness 

should growth not occur as planned. For purposes of this analysis, two coverage tests are 

applied: 

• Revenues, including GFCs, must be sufficient to cover operating expenses plus a factor of 

1.50 times annual revenue bond debt service. 

• Revenues, excluding GFCs, must be sufficient to cover operating expenses plus a factor of 

1.25 times annual revenue bond debt service. 

Table 10-6 summarizes revenue requirements through 2010, including total revenues, expenses, 

revenue sufficiency/deficiency, and necessary annual revenue increases. As shown, the water 

utility is projected to need about an 8.0 percent increase in 2006, with inflationary level increases 

in all other years. As mentioned previously, this schedule of projected rate increases is based on 

two important assumptions: a) GFC revenues are generated as projected, and b) debt service is 

issued as needed annually. If the GFC revenues do not materialize as projected, the utility may 

not only have to generate additional funding for debt service/capital funding, but it may also 

need to implement additional rate increases to meet revenue bond coverage requirements. While 

the GFC revenue assumption is material to the financial forecast, the second assumption is more 

benign and only relates to the magnitude and timing of debt issues and resultant rate increases. 

If, for example, the City were to issue a single revenue bond (instead of four smaller issues in 

the 2007-2010 period), the City would need to adopt a larger initial rate increase in 2007 instead 

of smaller annual increases later on. The timing and magnitude of debt issues and resultant rate 

increases is a matter of preference for the City, although from efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

standpoint, it is generally more advantageous to issue a single, larger issue to cover up to three 

years of capital expenses. 



CHAPTER 10 

Our analysis shows that coverage requirements will drive the City’s rates for the foreseeable 

future. Should the City pursue and secure PWTF loans to fund some of the capital projects, 

revenue bond issues could be reduced, resulting in lower required increases (PWTF loans have 

lower interest rates and do not require coverage). 

Table 10-6 

Revenue Requirements 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Revenues 

Water Service Charges $ 1,100,000 $ 1,127,539 $ 1,155,078 $ 1,182,617 $ 1,233,526 $ 1,284,435 $ 1,335,344 

Public Works Inspection 10,000 10,250 10,501 10,751 11,214 11,677 12,139 

Water Hook-ups 13,250 13,582 13,913 14,245 14,858 15,472 16,085 

Miscellaneous Penalties 30,000 30,751 31,502 32,253 33,642 35,030 36,418 

Investment Interest 19,928 6,448 6,448 6,690 6,920 7,880 8,953 

Water Shut-offs 4,500 4,635 4,774 4,917 5,065 5,217 5,373 

Rental of Fire Hydrant - - - - - - - 

Misc Revenues - - - - - - - 

GFC Revenue towards Debt Service 106,000 160,632 158,636 166,063 201,764 259,985 270,797 

Total Revenue $ 1,283,678 $ 1,353,837 $ 1,380,852 $ 1,417,537 $ 1,506,988 $ 1,619,695 $ 1,685,110 

Expenses 

Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,150,720 $ 1,210,740 $ 1,252,745 $ 1,286,802 $ 1,334,150 $ 1,382,200 $ 1,430,975 

Existing Debt Service 162,627 160,632 158,636 156,641 136,768 135,309 133,850 

New Debt Service - - - 9,423 64,995 124,676 136,947 

Additions to R&R Reserve - - - - - - - 

Add'l Rate Funding for Capital Projects - - - - - - - 

Replacement Funding - - - - - - - 

Additions to Operating Reserve - - - - - - - 

Total Expenses $ 1,313,347 $ 1,371,372 $ 1,411,382 $ 1,452,865 $ 1,535,914 $ 1,642,185 $ 1,701,772 

Deficiency 

Cash Deficiency $ 29,670 $ 17,535 $ 30,529 $ 35,329 $ 28,926 $ 22,490 $ 16,662 

Additional Coverage Deficiency - - 73,704 85,482 154,948 229,549 244,888 

Use of Reserves (29,670) - - - - - - 

Total Revenue Deficiency $ (0) $ 17,535 $ 104,233 $ 120,811 $ 183,873 $ 252,039 $ 261,549 

Required Rate Increases 

Annual Rate Increase Required 0.00% 1.73% 8.15% 1.20% 4.68% 4.49% 0.00% 

Cumulative Rate Increase Required 0.00% 1.73% 10.02% 11.34% 16.55% 21.79% 21.79% 

Debt Service Coverage (After Rate Increases) 

Without GFC Revenues 0.46 0.03 1.44 1.44 1.41 1.40 1.40 

With GFC Revenues 2.25 4.76 6.17 5.52 5.65 4.26 4.08 




RATE ASSESSMENT 

The rate assessment includes a review of projected rate levels and affordability, as well as a 

discussion of the effectiveness of the current rate structure to address conservation. 

Rate Levels 

The City’s rates and charges are adequate to support the cost of the improvements identified in 

this plan with relatively moderate rate increases over the next six years. These projections 

include funding of well-founded fiscal policies, which identify reasonable minimum operating 

reserves (45 days of O&M) and capital contingency reserves (roughly equal to 1% of utility 

fixed assets). The City’s good financial position is projected to continue. Implementation of a 

funding mechanism for system replacement will further enhance the utility’s financial health in 

the future. 

The Washington Department of Health requires that small water systems, as part of the water 

system plan development process, conduct a median household income index analysis. To 

complete this test the system must compare the existing and projected average residential bills to 

1.5% of median household income for all six years. This analysis provides an indication of a 

residential connection’s ability to pay the existing and projected rates. If rates exceed 1.5% of 

the median household income in any year of the budget, it suggests that the system’s rates may 

not be affordable. 

The year 1999 median household income for King County, where the City is located, was 

$54,671 (according to the year 2000 census). This amount, inflated at the assumed inflation 

rates, is equivalent to about $62,200 in 2004 and $74,300 in 2010. One and a half percent of 

these amounts are about $933 annually for 2004 and $1,115 for 2010, or a maximum monthly 

bill of $78 in 2004 and $93 in 2010 for the City’s residential customers. 

The current average monthly water bill for a residential customer (using 600 cubic feet of water 

per month) is $31.33. The water utility’s revenue requirements are projected to increase by 

about 21.79% over the next six years, which implies a residential rate of about $38.16 a month 

by 2010. This amount is well within the limits described above, indicating that the City meets 

the median household income test requirements. This holds true for customers using as much as 

1400 cubic feet of water per month. 

Rate Structure 

The City’s current water rate structure is conservation-oriented and is based on tiered usage 

blocks with appropriate pricing signals. The utility has five blocks for its monthly residential 

bills (2-4 ccf, 4-6 ccf, 6-8 ccf, 8-10 ccf, greater than 10 ccf) with each block costing more per 

unit than the previous block. Our analysis assumes that the projected percentage rate increases 

would be applied to the existing water rate structure components, without modifying the 



CHAPTER 10 

structure itself. Table 10-7 summarizes projected residential rates through 2010. Copies of the 

ordinances setting the current water rates and charges are included in Appendix P. 

Table 10-7 

Schedule of Residential Rates 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Monthly Base Fee (includes 2 ccf) $ 18.65 $ 18.97 $ 20.52 $ 20.77 $ 21.74 $ 22.71 $ 22.71 

Volume Charge - $/ccf 

200 - 400 cubic feet $ 2.77 $ 2.82 $ 3.05 $ 3.08 $ 3.23 $ 3.37 $ 3.37 

401 - 600 cubic feet $ 3.57 $ 3.63 $ 3.93 $ 3.97 $ 4.16 $ 4.35 $ 4.35 

601 - 800 cubic feet $ 4.36 $ 4.44 $ 4.80 $ 4.85 $ 5.08 $ 5.31 $ 5.31 

801 - 1,000 cubic feet $ 5.16 $ 5.25 $ 5.68 $ 5.75 $ 6.01 $ 6.28 $ 6.28 

Over 1,001 cubic feet $ 5.95 $ 6.05 $ 6.55 $ 6.62 $ 6.93 $ 7.25 $ 7.25 

Average Monthly Bill (600 cubic feet) $ 31.33 $ 31.87 $ 34.47 $ 34.88 $ 36.52 $ 38.16 $ 38.16 

There are some modifications that the City could make in the future to further enhance the 

effectiveness of its water rates towards conservation and equitable cost recovery. Some examples 

of potential rate structure enhancements that the City could consider in the future are: 

• Tailor, or individualize, the price signals. Adjust the residential structure to one perhaps 

based on each residence’s average winter usage. The City could charge customers a 

certain price for their winter average or some fraction there of, and then establish a series 

of usage blocks of fixed size which begin at the benchmark volume. 

• Develop a pattern-based rate structure. This structure would have a conservative user 

discount and actively reward customers that use less water. Examples of this program 

could include sending a rebate check at the end of the year if the customer met certain 

conservation goals or having an automatic adjustment on their bills to reward them if their 

usage history conforms to some targeted pattern. 




ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 

TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 

1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Water Comprehensive Plan Update 

2. Name of applicant: City of Duvall – Engineering Department 

Mailing Address: PO Box 1300 

Duvall, WA 98019 

3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): City of Duvall – Steven Leniszewski 

4. Name of Legal Owner: City of Duvall Telephone: 425.788.3434 

Mailing Address: PO Box 1300 

Duvall, WA 98019 

5. Date checklist prepared: 5/17/04 

6. Agency requesting checklist: City of Duvall 

7. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing and construction dates, if applicable): 

Project is scheduled to be completed within the next four months. This is a non-project 

SEPA so there is no construction related to this project. 

8. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or 

Connected with this proposal. If yes, explain. This plan is required to be updated every 

six years. 

9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be 

prepared, directly related to this proposal. NA

10. List all permits for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you 

have applied or will apply. 

AGENCY 

PERMIT 

TYPE 

DATED 

SUBMITTED NUMBER STATUS 

WA-DOH 5/28/04 Pending 

King County 5/28/04 Pending 

* LEAVE BLANK IF NOT SUBMITTED 

** APPROVED, DENIED, OR PENDING 

11. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other 

proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 

NA 

12. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the 

size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to 

describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this 

page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on 

project description.) 

We are in the process of updating our City’s Water Comprehensive Plan. This plan guides 

the City in it’s water system planning and design also identifying service capacity and 

identifying any deficiencies we may have. 

13. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise 

location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township 

and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or 

boundaries of the sites(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and 

topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by 

the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any 

permit applications related to this checklist. 

Tax identification number: City wide & water service boundary 

Site address: City of Duvall 

Page 2 of 22 May 17, 2004

Located at: 


See vicinity map and plans: 


TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

1. EARTH 

A. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, 

steep slopes, mountainous, other _______________. Describe 

location and areas on the site that have different topography. 

The project is a non-project action, the adoption of a Water 

Comprehensive Plan. Site-specific information will be provided 

at the time of project implementation in the project specific SEPA 

document. Generally, the topography of the City of Duvall rises 

gently from the Snoqualmie River along the western edge of the 

City to a plateau region. Some steep slopes are encountered in 

the northern end of the City. 

B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 

Describe location and areas of different topography. 

Most of the City has slopes of 1 to 10 percent. The steepest 

section is found in the north central portion of the City at 

approximately 70 percent. 

C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, 

clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of 

agricultural specify them and note any prime farmland. 

The proposal is a non-project action, the adoption of a Water 

Comprehensive Plan. Site-specific information will be provided 

at the time of project implementation. Generally, the soils 

generally found within the region have been classified as 

Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Everett soils, Kitsap soils, and 

other less extensive soil types. 

D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the 

immediate vicinity? If so, describe. 

N/A. The proposal is a non-project action, the adoption of a 

Water Comprehensive Plan. Site-specific information will be 

provided at the time of project implementation. 

E. Describe the purpose, type, location, and approximate quantities of 

any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of some of the 

provisions of the plan will involve grading (e.g. mainline pipe 

installations). The purpose, type, and quantities will be provided 

at the time of project implementation. 


F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If 

so, generally describe. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of some of the 

provisions of the plan may result in erosion. Additional 

information will be provided at the time of project 

implementation. 

G. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious 

surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or 

building)? 

N/A. The proposal in a non-project action, the adoption of a 

Water Comprehensive Plan. When implemented, most of the 

provisions of the plan will not result in increased impervious 

surfaces. For example, the proposed pipeline projects will be 

constructed beneath existing paved areas or along the shoulder of 

existing right-of-ways. For those that will result in additional 

impervious surface area, additional information will be provided 

at the time of project implementation. 

H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts 

to the earth, if any. 

None are proposed at this time. The proposal is a non-project 

action, the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. When the 

plan is implemented, an objective of the project designs will be to 

balance the required cuts and fills to the extent possible to 

minimize the import of fill material. For those projects that 

require it, imported fill material will be obtained from local 

suppliers to the extent possible. In addition, best management 

practices will be implemented to control erosion. The 

construction documents for an individual project will include the 

specific erosion control requirements for that project. The above 

measures will be identified in the project-specific SEPA 

document. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

2. AIR 

A. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal 

(i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during 

construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally 

describe and give approximate quantities if known. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the plan may 

result in emissions to the air (e.g. dust & exhaust during 


construction). Additional information will be provided in projectspecific 

SEPA document. 

B. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect 

your proposal? If so, generally describe. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Additional information will be 

provided in the project specific SEPA document. 

C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impact 

to air, if any. 


action, the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Measures 

to reduce or control dust and exhaust will be considered during 

project-specific SEPA review. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

3. WATER 

A. Surface 

1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity 

of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, 

saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type, 

location and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream 

or river it flows into. Provide a sketch if not shown on site 

plans. 

The project is a non-project action, the adoption of a Water 

Comprehensive Plan. Site-specific information will be 

provided at the time of project implementation in the projectspecific 

SEPA document. Generally, the Snoqualmie River 

and Lake Rasmussen are the major surface waters in the 

planning area. Coe-Cemmons Creek is tributary to the 

Snoqualmie River. Wetlands are interspersed throughout the 

service area and are discussed and shown in the King County 

Critical Areas Folio. 

2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to 

(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe 

and attach available plans. Note approximate distance between 

surface of waters and any construction, fill, etc. 



provided at the time of project implementation. Generally, 

the intent of the plan and subsequent design is to avoid work 

over, in, or adjacent to surface waters when possible and to 

otherwise minimize such work. 


3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be 

placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and 

indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the 

source of fill material, if from on site. 



provided at the time of project implementation. Again, to the 

extent possible, the filling or dredging of surface waters or 

wetlands will be avoided or minimized. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or 

diversions. Give general description, purpose, and 

approximate quantities if known. 



provided in the project-specific SEPA document. 

5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note 

the location on the site plan. 



provided at the time of project implementation. Some future 

improvements may lie within the 100-year flood plain as 

shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Map for the City of Duvall 

(not provided). 

6) Does the proposal involve any discharge of waste material to 

surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and 

anticipated volume of discharge. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the plan may 

ultimately result in an increase in discharge of treated 

effluent from the treatment plant to the Snoqualmie River. 

The effluent will be treated to Washington State Department 

of Ecology standards prior to the discharge. Additional 

information will be provided in the project-specific SEPA 

document. 

B. Ground 

1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to 

ground water? Give general description, purpose, and 

approximate quantities if known. 




provided at the time of project implementation. Any projects 

constructed as a result of this facility plan should remove 

existing septic systems and or water wells, thereby 

eliminating the discharge of wastewater to the local ground 

water. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground 

from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: 

Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following 

chemicals; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the 

system, the number of such systems the number of houses to be 

served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the 

system(s) are expected to serve. 

None. The Comprehensive Plan proposes service to areas 

currently have no service or are served by on-site septic 

systems. 

C. Water Runoff (including storm water). 

1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and 

method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if 

known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into 

other waters? If so, describe. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. During the construction of some 

of the proposed improvements, stormwater run-off from 

disturbed areas could contain turbidity in excess of water 

quality standards. Construction zones will be required to use 

BMPs to convey the stormwater through temporary erosion 

control and treatment devices prior to release to existing 

roadside ditches or the City’s stormwater collection system. 

These features will be included in construction drawings and 

described in the project-specific SEPA document. 

2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, 

describe. 




D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and drain 

off water impacts, if any: 

None proposed at this time. The proposal is a non-project action, 

the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. A number of local, 


state, and federal regulations will guide the development of 

measures to reduce or control the project-specific impacts to 

water quality and quantity. These measures will be included in 

the project-specific SEPA documents. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

4. PLANTS 

A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 

X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 

X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 

X shrubs 

X grass 

X pasture 

crop or grain 

X wet soils plants: cattail, butter cup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other` 

X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 

X other types of vegetation 

B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 



provided at the time of project implementation. Many of the 

proposed improvements will not involve the removal or 

alternation of vegetation. For example, mainline upgrades will 

be contained primarily within the existing right-of-ways. 

C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the 

site. 




D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to 

preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Such measures will 

be considered as part of project-specific design development and 

SEPA review. 

5. ANIMALS 

A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near 

the site or are known to be on or near the site: 


Birds: hawk heron eagle songbirds 

other: 

Mammals: deer bear elk beaver 

rodents coyotes other: 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near 

the site. 



provided at the time of project implementation. There are, 

however, threatened or endangered species known to be in or 

near Duvall. Chinook salmon and bull trout in the Snoqualmie 

River are listed as endangered species. The eagle and heron are 

listed as endangered species and are occasionally found within 

the confines of the UGA boundary. 

C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. The Snoqualmie River is part of the 

migration routes for Pacific Northwest Salmon species. 

Migratory waterfowl may use surface waters. Deer pass through 

and inhabit the UGA area. 

D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Such measures will 

be considered as part of project-specific design development and 

SEPA review. 

6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood, stove, solar) 

will be used to meet the completed project’s energy needs? 

Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the Plan will 

require potential electricity for equipment, pump stations and 

lighting for many individual proposed projects. 

B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by 

adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 





C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the 

plans on this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or 

control energy impacts, if any. 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Additional 

information will be provided in the project-specific SEPA 

document. During implementation of the plan, motor efficiencies 

and horsepower requirements will be taken into consideration 

when choosing mechanical equipment for pump stations and other 

equipment. All specifications will contain requirements to meet 

the State of Washington energy code. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to 

toxic chemicals, risk or fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous 

waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, 

describe. 




1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 




2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health 

hazards, if any. 

None proposed at this time. The proposal is a non-project 

action, the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. 

Measures to reduce or control hazards will be considered 

during project implementation and project-specific SEPA 

review. 

B. Noise 

1) What type of noise exists in the area which may affect your 

project (i.e. traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 





2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or 

associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis 

(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate 

what hours noise would come from the site. 



provided in the project-specific SEPA document. Short-term 

noise increases may occur during construction of facilities 

proposed under the comprehensive plan. No long-term noise 

changes are anticipated. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. 

None proposed at this time. The proposal is a non-project 

action, the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. 

Measures will be considered during project implementation 

and project-specific SEPA review. Construction equipment 

must meet State of Washington standards for noise protection. 

Noise producing equipment will be chosen on a projectspecific 

basis. Construction hours will likely be limited as a 

condition of local permits. 

8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE 

A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 


Water Comprehensive Plan that encompasses the entire Duvall 

Urban Growth Area. Uses in Duvall include vacant lots, 

residential, commercial, and industrial lots. Site-specific 

information will be provided at the time of project implementation 

in the project-specific SEPA document. 

B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. 



provided at the time of project implementation. Historically, the 

City was a timber-based community. Currently the City acts as a 

bedroom community for the Seattle-Bellevue area. 

C. Describe any structures on the site. 



provided at the time of project implementation. Various 

residential, commercial, and industrial buildings exist in the 

service area. 


D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 



provided at the time of project implementation. However, no 

demolition is anticipated. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 



provided at the time of project implementation. Zoning is 

designated on the City of Duvall Zoning Map adopted by 

Ordinance 814, as amended in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 

Zoning categories include: low, medium and high-density 

residential, commercial, employment, and public use. 

F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 




G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program 

designation of the site? 



provided at the time of project implementation. The applicability 

of the shoreline master program requirements to the provisions of 

the Water Comprehensive Plan will be assessed on a projectspecific 

basis. 

H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally 

sensitive area? If so, specify. (If unsure, check with the City.) 



provided at the time of project implementation. Wetlands are 

interspersed throughout the service area and are discussed and 

shown in the King County Critical Areas Folio. Impacts to 

wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas will be 

assessed on a project-specific basis. 

I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the 

completed project? 





EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

J. Approximately how many people would the completed project 

displace? 




displacements are expected. 

K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if 

any: 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Measures to avoid 

or reduce displacements, if applicable, will be considered during 

project implementation and project-specific SEPA review. 

L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with 

existing and projected land use and plans, if any. 

The Water Comprehensive Plan sets out potential improvements 

to the city’s water distribution system that will allow service to 

the entire Water Service Boundary, including the Urban Growth 

Area Reserve. 

Work within sensitive areas or their buffers will be regulated by 

the City’s sensitive area ordinance. Work within a shoreline 

environment will be regulated by the City’s Shoreline Master 

Program. 

9. HOUSING 

A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? 

Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Indirectly, the plan would allow for 

development of previously undeveloped land. The impacts of 

development are considered at Comprehensive Plan adoption and 

at the time of project-specific proposals. 

B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? 

Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. 





elimination of housing units is expected. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Measures to 

reduce or control housing impacts will be considered during 


10. AESTHETICS 

A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not 

including antennas; what is the principal exterior building 

material(s) proposed? 




B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or 

obstructed? 




C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. 



reduce or control aesthetic impacts will be considered during 


11. LIGHT AND GLARE 

A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time 

of day or night would it mainly occur? 




B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or 

interfere with views? 





C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your 

proposal? 




EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if 

any. 



reduce or control light and glare impacts will be considered 

during project implementation and project-specific SEPA review. 

12. RECREATION 

A. What designated and information recreational opportunities are in 

the immediate vicinity? 



provided at the time of project implementation. The City of 

Duvall has a number of parks; McCormick Park, Taylor’s 

Landing, Taylor Park, and Big Rock Park. 

B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational 

uses? If so, describe? 




C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation 

including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or 

applicant, if any. 



reduce or control recreational impacts will be considered during 


13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 

A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for national, 

state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the 

site? If so, generally describe. 




provided at the time of project implementation. There are several 

historic homes and sites within the service area. Pioneer 

Cemetery and Dougherty Farm are local preservation areas. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, 

archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on 

or next to the site. 



provided at the time of project implementation. There are several 

historic homes and sites within the service area. Pioneer 

Cemetery and the Dougherty Farm are local preservation sites. 

Big Rock Park is a local landmark near project sites. 

C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. 


the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Measures to avoid, 

reduce, or control impacts will be considered during projectspecific 

design development. In the event any archeological 

evidence is uncovered during any proposed construction, work 

will immediately halt and the appropriate agency or tribe will be 

contacted. Fisheries impacts will be mitigated, where 

appropriate for stream crossings. 

14. TRANSPORTATION 

A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe 

proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, 

if any. 



provided at the time of project implementation in the projectspecific 

SEPA document. Primary access to the City of Duvall is 

by SR 203. SR 203 runs north-south through the City along the 

eastern edge. Collector arterials include NE 152 nd /Bruett Road, 

150 th Street, 275 th Avenue and Big Rock Road. The collector 

arterials generally run east-west and connect to SR 203. 

B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the 

approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 



provided at the time of project implementation. The City of 

Duvall is served by METRO Transit. 


C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? 

How many would the project eliminate? 



provided at the time of project implementation 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or 

improvements to existing roads or streets, not including 

driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or 

private). 


Water Comprehensive Plan. Some water line replacements and 

new water line construction are likely to be included in future 

road improvements. Impacts will be reviewed at the time of 

specific project proposal. 

E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, 

rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 




F. How many weekday vehicular trips (one way) per day would be 

generated by the completed project? 0 If known, indicate when 

peak volumes would occur. am & 0 pm How many of these trips 

occur in the a.m. peak hours? 0 How many of these trips occur in 

the p.m. peak hours? 0 

G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if 

any. 


action, the adoption of a Water Comprehensive Plan. Measures 

to reduce or control transportation impacts will be considered 

during project implementation and project-specific SEPA review. 

Projects that implement the Plan could result in temporary delays 

impacting local traffic during construction projects. The City‘s 

Comprehensive Plan outlines the City’s effort to maintain a Level 

of Service (LOS) throughout the service area. Any projects 

constructed within the service area will be designed to meet the 

City’s LOS requirements and will require additional 

environmental review. 

15. PUBLIC SERVICES 


Date Submitted: 5/27/04 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

Relationship to signer to project: 

Water Distribution Manager 

18. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS 

(DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS) 

Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them 

in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. 

When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or 

the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the 

item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not 

implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 

a. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; 

emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous 

substances; or production of noise: 

Implementation of the Water Comprehensive Plan would result in 

no increases in water discharge. Construction activities for various 

projects proposed under the Plan would result in construction 

related air emissions (e.g., dust and construction vehicle and 

equipment exhaust) and noise. Project specific environmental 

review will consider the impacts of specific capital improvements. 

Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 

The potential impacts of growth on water discharges, noise, air 

discharges and toxic/hazardous substances will be considered at 

the time of construction. 

b. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or 

marine life? 

The Water Comprehensive Plan will allow for improved levels of 

water service. The resulting system improvements will protect 

residences and businesses, improve storage capabilities and improve 

overall water quality throughout the distribution system. 

Construction projects associated with the distribution system will be 

primarily within existing rights-of-way and roads. Work within 

waters may not be necessary and will be avoided to the extent 

possible. Such impacts will be considered on a project-specific 

basis. 

Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or 

marine life are: 


The potential impacts of growth on plants, animals, fish, and marine 

life will be considered at the time of a project specific SEPA. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

c. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural 

resources? 

The operation of pump stations and storage facilities will require 

energy. Energy efficient equipment will be considered for cost 

impacts on operation as well as energy conservation. 

d. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural 

resources are: 

The potential impacts of the growth on energy and natural resources 

will be considered at the time of a project specific SEPA 

e. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally 

sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for 

governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic 

rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural 

sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands: 

The planning area includes environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., 

wetlands) and areas designated for governmental protection (e.g., 

parks). During detailed design-development, alternatives to avoid 

impacts to these areas will be considered. An assessment of any 

impacts will be included in the project-specific SEPA document. 

Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce 

impacts are: 

The potential impacts of growth on sensitive areas will be 

considered at the time of a project specific SEPA. 

f. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, 

including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses 

incompatible with existing plans? 

The proposal is consistent with the Duvall Comprehensive Plan in 

that it includes the entire Urban Growth Area as part of its study 

area. The Urban Growth Area encompasses the existing city limits, 

the Urban Growth Area, and Urban Growth Area Reserve for the 

City of Duvall. The Water Comprehensive Plan addresses the 

provision of water distribution and service to all areas within the 

service area. While the implementation of the plan will facilitate 

development, the development is part of the “planned and 

controlled” growth for the City of Duvall, addressed by the City’s 

Comprehensive Plan. 


Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts 

are: 

The potential impacts of growth on shorelines and land will be 

considered at the time of a project specific SEPA. 

EVALUATION 

FOR AGENCY 

USE ONLY 

g. How would the proposal be likely to increase on transportation or 

public services and utilities? 

The implementation of the proposed improvements will not directly 

result in an increase on demands in transportation and public 

services. The plan accommodates an increase in demand on the 

water distribution system. 

Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 

The potential impacts of growth on transportation and utilities will 

be considered at the time the Duvall Comprehensive Plan is 

amended. 

h. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, 

state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the 

environment. 

The Plan presents no such conflicts and is required under the 

Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48.110 and is a means of 

protecting the environment. 




Supply Station Facilities Data 

Supply Facility Data 

Suction Discharge Above or Maximum Flow Have Have Have 

Pressure Pressure Year Below Capacity Meter Standby Pressure Surge 

Name Zone Zone Const. Grade (gpm) Size Power Relief Protection 

Tolt 2 Supply Station (Sta 111) SPU 450 1963 Below 1,200 12 No No No 

Tolt 1 Supply Station (Sta 112) SPU 615 1984 Below 1,760 12 No No No 

Control Valve Data 

Control Control Valve 

Valve 

Valve Valve Valve Elv Set Point 

Name Description Size Model Mfgr (feet) (psi) (feet H.E.) 

Tolt 2 Supply Station (Sta 111) Mainline 10 131G-12BCSYKX Cla-Val 269 75 442 

Tolt 2 Supply Station (Sta 111) Bypass 4 131G-12BCSYKX Cla-Val 269 80 454 

Tolt 1 Supply Station (Sta 112) Mainline 8 131G-12BCSYKX Cla-Val 467 65 617 

Tolt 1 Supply Station (Sta 112) Bypass 4 131G-12BCSYKX Cla-Val 467 70 629 

Control Data 

Supplied Supply Station 

Control Pressure To Zone Operation Have 

Name Component Zone Priority Priority Telemetry 

Tolt 2 Supply Station (Sta 111) Flow Rate Controlled 450 Yes 

Tolt 1 Supply Station (Sta 112) Flow Rate Controlled 615 Yes 

Other Data 

Ground Control Valve SPU Min. Normal Pressure 

Elv Elv Con. Head Inlet Outlet 

Name (feet) (feet) (feet) 1 (psi) (psi) 

Tolt 2 Supply Station (Sta 111) 274 269 630 220 80/75 

Tolt 1 Supply Station (Sta 112) 472 467 635 100 70/65 

1 Minimum head elevations based on City of Seattle datum rounded to nearest 5 feet. Revised 12/13/96, effective 12/13/00 due to Tolt Filtration Plant improvements. 

To convert between City of Seattle and NAVD88 Datums, use: ("City of Seattle Datum" + 9.7 ft. = NAVD88) 

J:\DATA\DUV\102-081\01\ExSystem-Analyses\FacilitiesDataSheets.xls [SupplyStations] 5/11/2004



Pump Station Facilities Data 

Pump Station Data 

Suction Discharge Above or Maximum Meter Have Have Have 

Pressure Pressure Year Below Capacity Size & Standby E.G. Set Surge 

Name Zone Zone Const. Grade (gpm) Model Power Receptacle Protection 

615 Zone BPS 450 615 1996 Above 2,000 12" Yes Yes 6" SAV 

Pump Data 

Current Design Design Motor Control 

Pump Pump Pump Pump Pump Rate Capacity Head Motor Size Valve Size 

Name Manufacturer Model Type (gpm) (gpm) (feet) Mfgr (HP) & Model 

Booster Pump #1 Floway 8 JOH VT 6 stage 350 154 GE 30 Check only 

Booster Pump #2 Peerless 2624332/MC VT 4 stage 1000 165 GE 60 Check only 

Booster Pump #3 Goulds DWI 12RJLC VT 3 stage 1000 158 US Electric 60 Check only 

Notes: 

All pumps have VFD's 

Pump Curve Data 

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 

Pump 

Pump Flow Head Flow Head Flow Head Pump Impeller 

Name (gpm) (feet) (gpm) (feet) (gpm) (feet) Serial Number Diameter 

Booster Pump #1 21245-1-1 

Booster Pump #2 

Booster Pump #3 

FR426919 

Pump Control Data 

Supplied Supply Pump Station 

Pump Control Pressure To Zone Operation Have 

Name Facility Zone Priority Priority Telemetry 

Booster Pump #1 615 Zone pressure 615 Secondary, Tolt 1st Primary Yes 

Booster Pump #2 615 Zone pressure 615 Secondary, Tolt 1st 1st Lag Yes 

Booster Pump #3 615 Zone pressure 615 Secondary, Tolt 1st 2nd Lag Yes 

J:\DATA\DUV\102-081\01\ExSystem-Analyses\FacilitiesDataSheets.xls [Pump Stations] 5/11/2004



Storage Facilities Data 

Reservoir Data 

Overall Water Overflow Ground Seismic 

Reservoir Pressure Year Capacity Height Diameter Base Elv Elv Elv Restraint 

Name Zone Const. Material (gallons) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Y or N) 

Crestview Estates 555 1988 Steel 500,000 63.2 38 496.0 556.0 496 Y 

Big Rock Road 450 1996 Steel 2,200,000 27.3 138 430.0 450.5 430 N 

Piping Data 

Outlet Inlet Elevated Altitude Valve Overflow Drain Meter 

Reservoir Size Size Inlet Elv. Size Setting Size Size Size 

Name (in) (in) (feet) (in) (feet) (in) (in) (in) Notes 

Crestview Estates 12 8 to 6 545 4 6 12/6 n/a 1 

Big Rock Road 12 inlet/outlet combo n/a 6 8 12 n/a 2 

1. Altitude control valve with backpressure sustaining and 8" insertion flow meter on inlet piping 

2. Altitude control valve (Cla-Val 210-03-ADS) with solenoid control from 615 Zone 

Storage Data 

Max Water Volume 

Reservoir Height Per Foot 

Name (feet) (gallons) 

Crestview Estates 60.0 8,484 

Big Rock Road 20.5 111,887 

Level Control Data 

Reservoir Normal 

Reservoir Controlled Have Operating Range 

Name Supply Facility Telemetry (feet) 

Crestview Estates 615 Zone Pump Station Yes 544 - 555 

Big Rock Road Tolt 2 Supply Station Yes 440 - 450 

J:\DATA\DUV\102-081\01\ExSystem-Analyses\FacilitiesDataSheets.xls [Reservoirs] 5/11/2004



Pressure Reducing Station Data 

Station Data 

Upper Lower Ground Normal Pressure Station 

PRV Pressure Pressure Year Elv Inlet Outlet Operation 

Name Zone Zone Const. (feet) (psi) (psi) Status 

Kennedy Drive 450 330 213 99 54 Active 

26500 145th 450 330 168 118 73 Active 

Park Street 450 330 200 104 60 Active 

3rd & Virginia 450 330 222 95 50 Active 

3rd & Stewart 450 330 220 96 51 Active 

3rd & Cherry 450 330 220 96 51 Active 

3rd & Stella 450 330 220 96 51 Active 

143rd & 268th 450 330 235 89 44 Active 

NE Big Rock Road 450 330 173 116 71 Active 

Stephens St & Broadway 450 330 188 110 65 Active 

272nd & 143rd 555 450 300 106 63 Active 

Sunset Heights 144th 555 450 292 109 67 Active 

Millers Home Stead 555 450 317 98 56 Active 

Bruett Road 555 450 320 97 55 Active 

Kasper Heights 555 485 360 80 56 Active 

275th & 141st 555 485 336 90 66 Active 

150th & 278th 615 555 436 77 49 Active 

Manion & 156th 615 555 434 78 50 Active 

282nd & 140th 615 555 406 90 62 Active 

PRV Set Point Data 

Valve 

Valve Valve 

PRV Size Valve Valve Elv Set Point 

Name Description (inches) Mfgr Model (feet) (psi) (feet H.E.) 

Kennedy Drive 

26500 145th 

Park Street 

3rd & Virginia 

3rd & Stewart 

3rd & Cherry 

3rd & Stella 

143rd & 268th 

NE Big Rock Road 

Small PRV 3 Cla-Val 0G-01A W/X47 195 48 306 

Large PRV -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1-1/4 

4 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

90G-01AS 

90G-01AS 

90G-01AS 

90G01AJ 

90G-01AS 

90G-01AS 

90G-01AS 

90G-01YBC 

208 

163 

217 

215 

215 

215 

230 

168 

50 

66 

50 

50 

50 

50 

35 

65 

324 

315 

333 

331 

331 

331 

311 

318 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

6 

6 

6 

-- 

-- 

-- 

4 

10 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

-- 

-- 

-- 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

90G-01AB 

90G-01AB 

90G-01AB 

-- 

-- 

-- 

90G-01AB 

90G-01YBC 

208 

163 

217 

-- 

-- 

-- 

230 

168 

45 

61 

45 

-- 

-- 

-- 

30 

60 

312 

304 

321 

-- 

-- 

-- 

299 

307 

Small PRV 3 Cla-Val 90G-01AS 183 55 310 

Stephens St & Broadway 

Large PRV 8 Cla-Val 90G-01AB 183 50 299 

272nd & 143rd 

Sunset Heights 144th 

Millers Home Stead 

Bruett Road 

Kasper Heights 

275th & 141st 

150th & 278th 

Manion & 156th 

282nd & 140th 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

Small PRV 

3 

2 

2 

2-1/2 

3 

2 

2-1/2 

2 

3 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

90G-01AS 

90G-01AS 

90G-01YS 

90G-01YCS 

90G-01YS 

90G-01AS 

90G-01CSY 

90G-01YCS 

90G-01ABCS 

295 

287 

312 

315 

355 

331 

431 

429 

401 

45 

55 

48 

43 

56 

62 

28 

30 

42 

399 

414 

423 

414 

484 

474 

496 

498 

498 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

Large PRV 

6 

6 

6 

8 

8 

6 

8 

6 

8 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

Cla-Val 

90G-01AB 

90G-01AB 

90G-01YBS 

90G-01YBC 

90G-01YBC 

90G-01ABC 

90G-01BCY 

90G-01BCY 

90G-01ABCS 

295 

287 

312 

315 

355 

331 

431 

429 

401 

40 

50 

43 

38 

46 

52 

25 

27 

39 

387 

403 

411 

403 

461 

451 

489 

491 

491 

J:\DATA\DUV\102-081\01\ExSystem-Analyses\FacilitiesDataSheets.xls [PRV's] 11/15/2004

CITY OF DUVALL 

Water Conservation Plan 

INTRODUCTION 

The City of Duvall recognizes that water is a valuable and essential natural resource that needs 

to be used wisely. This Water Conservation Plan provides an approach to increase water use 

efficiency within the City’s water service area. 

BACKGROUND 

State Conservation Planning Requirements 

The Conservation Planning Requirements published by the State Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) and State Department of Health (DOH) in March 1994, identifies the water use 

reporting, forecasting and conservation program requirements for public water systems. A water 

conservation plan meeting these requirements is a necessary element of a Water System Plan as 

required by DOH and is necessary to obtain water right permits from Ecology. The Conservation 

Planning Requirements defines the necessary components of a water conservation plan as (1) 

water use data collection, (2) water demand forecasting, and (3) water conservation program. 

The Conservation Planning Requirements requires the water conservation program to identify its 

goals and objectives, evaluate alternative conservation measures, and identify the selected 

measures including their schedule, cost, monitoring requirements, and estimated water savings. 

Additional requirements that conservation planning programs must now meet are outlined in the 

2003 Municipal Water Law, which became effective on September 9, 2003. The conservation 

planning portion of the law focuses on increasing water use efficiency through evaluating the 

cost effectiveness of conservation measures and through exploring opportunities for water 

reclamation. 

Regional Water Conservation Planning 

There are two primary groups promoting water conservation on a regional basis in King County. 

The Saving Water Partnership is comprised of a group of local utilities that receive their water from 

the Cedar and Tolt River watersheds. The City of Duvall, as well as its primary water supplier, 

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), are participating utilities in the program. The Saving Water 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Water Conservation Plan (12/29/04-14:39)


Partnership encourages customers to conserve water through public education materials, education 

programs, and rebate programs for using resource efficient appliances. The Saving Water 

Partnership also conducts evaluations of their programs to ensure that they are meeting their 

conservation goals. The Water Conservation Coalition of Puget Sound includes members from the 

greater Puget Sound area, including cities, water districts, regional water associations, and others. 

Its programs, thus far, include coordinating the distribution of summer lawn watering calendars and 

public education. 

WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

As described above, the three required elements of a water conservation plan are water use data 

collection, demand forecasting, and the conservation program. The water use data and systemwide 

demand forecasts are contained in Chapter 4 of the City of Duvall’s Comprehensive Water 

System Plan, and the conservation program is described herein. The City is committed to 

continue collecting water use data beyond the data presented in Chapter 4 for evaluation of its 

conservation program and water use patterns, and for forecasting demands for future facility 

requirements. The City’s water conservation program that follows includes a description of 

previous conservation efforts, a statement of its goals and objectives, the evaluation and 

selection of alternative conservation measures, the conservation program schedule and budget, 

and the method of program monitoring. In 2002, the City provided water service to 

approximately 1,954 customers, thus is subject to the conservation requirements defined in the 

Conservation Planning Requirements of a medium sized system. 

Previous Conservation Efforts 

Most conservation efforts in Duvall are currently implemented at the regional level by the Saving 

Water Partnership. The regional conservation program, referred to as the 1% Program, has set forth 

a goal of reducing total water consumption by one percent per year through 2010, and since the 

commencement of the program in 2000, the region has exceeded these conservation goals. SPU 

publishes an annual report which monitors the performance of the 1% Program to ensure the 

program is meeting its goals and that it is being managed efficiently. According to the Regional 1% 

Water Conservation Program 2002 Annual Report, 2002 was a highly successful year for the 1% 

Program. The Saving Water Partnership’s programs such as plumbing and fixture rebates, 

landscaping audits, outreach and technical assistance, and conservation marketing have helped the 

region achieve water savings that are 7 percent below the 1% Program’s goals for 2002. All current 

conservation measures have been successful in reducing regional water use and will therefore 

continue to be supported. 

Prior to the 1% Program’s implementation in 2000, SPU’s Long Range Regional Water 

Conservation Plan guided conservation efforts in the region. These efforts included modified rate 

structures, the adoption of water conservation plumbing fixture codes, public education and 

DUV\102-081\01\\PLAN\Water Conservation Plan (12/29/04-14:39) 2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


plumbing and fixture rebates. As a result of this conservation program, per capita water use in the 

region was reduced by 20 percent from 1989 to 1998. 

Conservation Program Goals and Objectives 

The goals and objectives of the City of Duvall Water Conservation Program consist of: 

• Achieving system-wide average water use reduction of one percent per year from 2003 

through the year 2010, which is consistent with SPU’s regional water conservation goals. 

• Increase awareness among all water users of the value and importance of conserving water 

and of the methods available to achieve reductions in water use. 

• Continue to evaluate the use of reclaimed water from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant 

for irrigation or other non-potable applications. 

The City of Duvall will achieve these goals and objectives through the implementation of the 

water conservation program that follows. 

Evaluation and Selection of Alternative Conservation Measures 

The City's evaluation of conservation measures and selected levels of implementation are presented 

below. 

Public Education 

School Outreach - This conservation measure is only required for large systems. This measure 

requires educational programs that increase awareness of local water resources and encourage 

water conservation. 

This measure is currently accomplished through the Saving Water Partnership; therefore, the 

City will not duplicate this effort. Because resources to accomplish this conservation measure 

are allocated at the regional level, rather than directly from Duvall, this measure is highly costeffective 

for the City. 

Speakers Bureau - This conservation measure is only required for large water systems and is 

described in the Conservation Planning Requirements as “Seeking speaking opportunities and 

making speakers available to a wide cross-section of services, community, and other groups.” 

The City will encourage and make information available about upcoming water conservation 

speakers or meetings to City customers. At any time, as resources allow, the City will strive to 



schedule speakers or have City staff speak to residents regarding water conservation measures 

and benefits. The cost of this program and its predicted water savings are included in the 

program promotion measure described in the following section. 

Program Promotion - This item is a required element of all water conservation programs. The 

Conservation Planning Requirements provides the following definition for this measure: 

“Publicize the need for water conservation through television and radio public service 

announcements, news articles, public water systems’ bill inserts, or other means. This includes 

promoting efficient indoor and outdoor water usage, distribution of Ecology/Health conservation 

brochures of other printed material, informing customers, builders and contractors of new 

plumbing code regulations requiring efficient plumbing fixtures, and other efforts.” 

The City will continue to support the regional conservation promotion activities of the Saving 

Water Partnership. Water conservation information can also be accessed by Duvall customers 

via informational material created by the Saving Water Partnership. This includes newspaper 

articles, radio and television public service announcements, informational websites, displays at 

local fairs and mall shows, water-related conferences and seminars, community presentations, 

quarterly newsletters, conservation education courses for children, and various conservation 

programs for the elementary, middle, and high schools. The City will also provide water 

conservation brochures in water bills to further increase the promotion of conservation 

programs. 

Through a public education program that is comprised of program promotion, speaker bureaus 

and conservation minded customer assistance for residential or commercial customers, it is 

anticipated that the City may reduce total water use within a six year period by approximately 2 

percent. Over the next six years, the City is expected to achieve an average reduction in annual 

water usage of approximately 2.6 million gallons and an average annual savings of 

approximately $5,050 in water purchased from SPU and from power costs. Although the public 

education program will only cost the City approximately $3,500 annually to implement, it is 

anticipated that water savings will result in an annual reduction in revenue from water sales of 

approximately $9,900. While this is not a cost-effective measure, it is prudent in continuing to 

support the City’s long-range efforts to conserve regional water resources. 

Theme Shows and Fairs – The evaluation of this measure is not required for Duvall, because 

the Conservation Planning Requirements lists it as a recommended measure for large and 

regional systems only. This measure requires that a portable display be made, along with 

educational materials to be exhibited at local fairs and theme shows. 

This measure has been accomplished by the Saving Water Partnership in the past. Therefore, 

the City will not duplicate this effort. Because resources to accomplish this conservation 

measure are allocated at the regional level, rather than directly from Duvall, this measure is 



highly cost-effective for the City. 

Technical Assistance 

Purveyor Assistance - This item is required for medium water systems such as Duvall and is 

described in the Conservation Planning Requirements as “assistance from wholesale suppliers to 

aide wholesale customers in developing and implementing conservation programs tailored to 

their needs, and in carrying out the wholesale suppliers conservation program.” 

This measure will not be included in the City’s conservation program at this time, because the 

City currently does not have any wholesale customers. However, as a wholesale water 

purchaser, the City will continue to comply with SPU conservation requirements. 

Customer Assistance - This conservation measure is required for medium water systems such as 

Duvall. The Conservation Planning Requirements defines this conservation measure as the 

utility providing “assistance and information to customers which facilitates water conservation.” 

A great deal of the information on water conservation will be disseminated to customers in the 

distributed brochures, radio advertisements, and newspaper articles described above under 

“Program Promotion”. 

The City will distribute conservation information at the local level and coordinate with the 

Saving Water Partnership, as needed, on regional activities. The cost of this program and its 

predicted water savings are included in the program promotion measure section. 

Technical Studies - This conservation measure is only required for large water systems and 

requires that “Studies would be designed and conducted by the public water system and/or 

regional organization.” 

The City will utilize studies conducted by the Saving Water Partnership and larger water 

systems such as SPU. These studies will be used to evaluate the latest water conservation 

techniques applicable to the City’s water system and how they can best be implemented. 

Because resources to accomplish this conservation measure are allocated at the regional level, 

rather than directly from Duvall, this measure is highly cost-effective for the City. 

Bill Showing Consumption History - This conservation measure is required for medium water 

systems such as Duvall. According to the Conservation Planning Requirements, water billings 

should display a comparison of current water use with past water use from the same period of the 

previous year, and show a percent increase or decrease. The City is not currently providing this 

information on water bills, because the billing system is not capable of this function. However, 



the City is currently upgrading its meter reading and billing system, which includes the 

capability to show previous year’s consumption data. 

The City will provide previous year’s consumption information on water bills when the meter 

reading and billing system is upgraded, which is estimated to be completed in 2005. Additional 

resources outside of the meter reading and billing system upgrade project will not be necessary 

to implement this conservation measure; therefore, this is a cost-effective measure for the City. 

System Measures 

Source Meters - Metering of all sources is required for all new or expanding public water 

systems needing additional water rights. Periodic meter testing and meter repair program is also 

required under this measure. 

Both of the City’s supply sources are currently equipped with meters and are recorded 

continuously. The meters are periodically tested and repaired, or replaced, as necessary. The 

City has allocated $500 per year to fund this program. While the City does not expect to receive 

any additional water savings from the program, the maintenance of source meters is vital to 

sustain current conservation levels, for accurate unaccounted-for water calculations, to ensure 

accurate billing from SPU, and to maintain proper operation of the water system during SPU’s 

demand metering periods. 

Service Meters - The Conservation Planning Requirements recommends that all utilities install 

individual service meters for all water users and maintain a periodic meter testing and repair 

program. 

All of the City’s service connections are metered. As part of improvements that include the 

meter reading and billing system upgrade, all meters are currently being replaced within the 

City. The City currently maintains a program in which meters are periodically tested and 

repaired or replaced, as necessary. The City has allocated $1,000 per year to fund this 

program. While the City does not expect to receive any additional water savings from the 

program, the maintenance of service meters is vital to sustain current conservation levels, for 

accurate unaccounted-for water calculations, and to ensure accurate customer billing. 

Unaccounted Water/Leak Detection - This conservation measure is required for medium-sized 

water systems. This measure is defined in the Conservation Planning Requirements as the 

following: “Conduct a regular and systematic program of finding and repairing leaks in system 

mains and laterals. This includes on-site testing using computer-assisted leak detection 

equipment on water distribution mains, valves, services, and meters.” If unaccounted-for water 



is greater than 20 percent, the conservation program must include a program to detect and repair 

leaks, evaluate and repair meters if the meters are not functioning properly, or correct other 

system operation problems that may be contributing to the high level of unaccounted-for water. 

The City will continue its water main replacement program to reduce the amount of older and 

potentially leaking water mains. The City will also require the metering of all non-revenue 

unaccounted-for water usage such as water main flushing and street cleaning. Although the City 

has never experienced unaccounted-for water in excess of 20 percent, the City will implement a 

comprehensive leak detection/water main repair program to further reduce the amount of 

unaccounted-for water. With an expected cost of $2,000 per year and an expected total water 

reduction of 1 percent by 2008, it is anticipated that the City can achieve an average annual 

water savings of approximately 1.3 million gallons per year. This results in an average annual 

savings of approximately $2,500 in water purchased from SPU and in power costs, making this a 

cost-effective measure for the City to implement. 

Incentives/Other Measures 

Single-Family/Multi-Family Kits - This conservation measure is required for medium-sized 

water systems. The Conservation Planning Requirements defines this measure as the following: 

“Distribute kits containing easily installed water saving devices to single-family residential 

homes and the owners and managers of apartment buildings and condominiums.” These kits 

could include shower flow restrictors, toilet tank water displacement bags, leak detection dye 

tablets for toilets, and informational brochures. 

The 1993 State Plumbing Code requires all new construction to install fixtures that comply with 

the following maximum water usage: toilets - 1.6 gallons per flush, urinals -1.0 gallon per flush, 

shower heads and faucet aerators - 2.5 gallons per minute. 

The City will make available water conservation kits for all water system customers. The City 

will support and promote other regional plumbing retrofit programs and will also enforce the 

use of low-flow plumbing fixtures through the building permit process. The City will spend 

approximately $1,000 annually to support this program, which is anticipated to reduce per 

capita water use by approximately 9.5 gallons per day on average. Over the next six years, the 

City is expected to see a decrease in overall water usage of approximately 6.0 million gallons of 

water per year and an average annual savings of approximately $11,500 in water purchased 

from SPU and from power costs. However, it is anticipated that this water savings will result in 

an annual reduction in revenue from water sales of approximately $22,600. Although this is not 

a cost-effective measure, it is prudent in continuing to support the City’s long-range efforts to 

conserve regional water resources. 



Nurseries/Agriculture - This item is also required for medium-sized water systems such as 

Duvall. The Conservation Planning Requirements defines this measure as the following: 

“Encourage and/or require the application of current technology to water use practices of large 

agriculture/irrigation operations. Examples include nurseries and commercial agriculture.” 

The City will encourage agricultural landowners and large irrigation operations to utilize the 

latest technology available to help conserve water. For example, devices are available that 

automatically check the water content in soil and set sprinklers to run only when needed. Costs 

to the City to encourage large irrigation users to utilize current technology in water use 

practices and their expected water savings are included in the program promotion measure. 

Landscape Management/Playfields - Xeriscaping - This conservation measure is required for 

medium-sized water systems. The Conservation Planning Requirements defines this measure as 

the following: “Promote low water demand landscaping in all retail customer classes (private, 

public, commercial, industrial, etc.).” The promotion of low water demand landscaping can be 

accomplished by (1) preparing a demonstration garden which can provide an example of this 

type of landscaping to interested customers and developers, (2) working with local nurseries to 

promote the availability of low water demand plants and/or (3) developing codes that require 

landscaping on new development that is of the low demand type. The Saving Water Partnership 

works with the landscape industry to promote water conservation practices within the industry 

and to its customers. The Saving Water Partnership has worked with the Washington 

Association of Landscape Professionals and the Washington State Nursery and Landscape 

Association to develop informational brochures on proper irrigation and landscaping practices. 

The City currently supports the conservation efforts of these groups through the Saving Water 

Partnership. Because resources to accomplish this conservation measure are allocated at the 

regional level, rather than directly from Duvall, this measure is highly cost-effective for the City. 

Conservation Pricing - This conservation measure is also required for medium-sized water 

systems. All conservation programs are required to consider the benefits and costs of 

implementing rate design techniques to provide economic incentives to conserve water. The 

City's rates are structured to emphasize the commodity charge more than the base charge to 

enable customers to have more control over their water bill and recognize the benefits of 

conserving water. 

The City will continue to establish an increasing block rate structure that provides economic 

incentives for conserving water. Future funds will not be required to continue to support this 

conservation measure; therefore, this is a cost-effective measure for the City. 



Utility Financed Retrofit - This conservation measure is only required for large systems. This 

measure requires that the City “install water efficient fixtures in existing residences and 

commercial/industrial facilities by: (a) providing fixtures at no cost, (b) giving a rebate for 

consumer purchased fixtures, or (c) arranging for suppliers to provide fixtures at a reduced 

price.” Currently, the Saving Water Partnership has a rebate program for toilets, water-efficient 

washing machines, and sprinkler system upgrades for rain sensors or evapotranspiration 

controllers. 

The City will continue to support and promote the regional water fixture rebate program of the 

Saving Water Partnership. Because resources to accomplish this conservation measure are 

allocated at the regional level, rather than directly from the City, this measure is highly costeffective 

for the City. 

Seasonal Demand Management - This includes conservation measures aimed at controlling 

peak seasonal demand. The evaluation of this measure is not required for Duvall, because the 

Conservation Planning Requirements lists it as a recommended measure for large and regional 

systems only. 

The City will allocate $500 annually to implement a lawn-watering schedule to control 

summertime peak water demands and maximize lawn watering efficiency. It is anticipated that a 

total water savings of approximately 1 percent may be achieved within six years of 

implementation of this measure. This would equate to an average reduction in water use of 

approximately 1.3 million gallons annually over the next six years and an average annual 

savings of approximately $2,500 in water purchased from SPU and for power costs. However, it 

is anticipated that this water savings will result in an annual reduction in revenue from water 

sales of approximately $4,900. Although this is not a cost-effective measure, it is prudent in 

continuing to support the City’s long-range efforts to conserve regional water resources. 

Recycling/Reuse – Ecology requires that the City “Examine opportunities for water reuse and 

recycling as an approach to providing additional water.” The City currently operates its own 

Wastewater Treatment Plant that could be a source of reclaimed water for non-potable uses such 

as irrigation, commercial and/or other beneficial uses, once improvements to the plant are 

completed in 2005. A list of Duvall’s largest water users in 2002 is shown in Table 4-2 of the 

City of Duvall’s Comprehensive Water System Plan. The use of reclaimed water by these 

customers may have the most impact on reducing overall water consumption; therefore, the City 

will strive to pursue water reclamation activities that target these large water users. 

The following identifies potential water reclamation opportunities that the City may pursue. 

These potential uses for reclaimed water are also summarized in the Reclaimed Water Checklist 

on page 14 of this plan. A more detailed feasibility analysis will be performed as part of CIP 

M3, as described in Chapter 9 of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan, to determine 



the reclamation activities that will be implemented by the City in the 6-year and 20-year 

planning periods. 

Riverview School District 

Potential Use: Landscape irrigation at Cherry Valley Elementary School 

Potential Water Savings: 320,000 gallons per year estimated 

Operational Feasibility: The Cherry Valley Elementary School is located approximately one 

mile northeast of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Irrigation pipe and associated appurtenances 

will need to be constructed to convey reclaimed water to the school. Alternatively, water trucks 

may instead be used to haul water to the elementary school site as is currently done by the City 

to irrigate parks with water from the Taylor’s Landing Well. Regular irrigation of all 

landscaping would require a significant effort from City or school district staff. 

Financial Feasibility: Construction of approximately one mile of irrigation pipe, most of which 

would be located in the City’s business district, would be quite costly. Further financial analyses 

will need to be performed to determine potential cost sharing opportunities that may be achieved 

between the City, the school district, and other potential reclaimed water users that may be 

located along the proposed alignment. The City will need to perform a more detailed feasibility 

analysis to determine the cost effectiveness of constructing an irrigation system to the 

elementary school. The labor hours necessary to haul water to irrigate all landscaping is more 

than the cost savings that may be realized by using reclaimed water. However, it may be feasible 

to irrigate a portion of the school district’s landscaping with reclaimed water to supplement the 

potable water supply from the existing irrigation system. 


Potential Use: Landscape irrigation at city parks; street sweeping; washing sidewalks; dust 

control and other construction purposes. 

Potential Water Savings: 100,000 gallons per year estimated 

Operational Feasibility: Currently, the City hauls water in water trucks from the Taylor’s 

Landing Well to irrigate city parks. Utilizing reclaimed water from the Wastewater Treatment 

Plant, a similar program may be implemented with minimal impact to existing maintenance 

practices. Additionally, reclaimed water may be hauled for use by the City for street sweeping, 

dust control, and dust control at construction sites, which currently utilizes the City’s potable 

water supply. 



Financial Feasibility: This program may be implemented with minimal costs to the City since a 

similar practice is already in place to haul water. The cost savings that may be realized from 

limiting the use of potable water for landscape irrigation at city parks, street sweeping, washing 

sidewalks, dust control and other construction purposes make this a cost-effective option for the 

City to implement. 

Duvall Village 

Potential Use: Landscape irrigation for multi-family development. 

Potential Water Savings: 1,000,000 gallons per year estimated 

Operational Feasibility: The City is currently coordinating with the developers of Duvall Village 

to evaluate the extent that reclaimed water from the Wastewater Treatment Plant can be used on 

the property for fire suppression, wetland mitigation and landscape irrigation purposes. The 

proposed development is located immediately south of the Wastewater Treatment Plant; 

therefore, minimal piping will be necessary to convey reclaimed water to the property. A 

reclaimed water system separate from the potable water system would need to be installed onsite 

in the buildings with a backflow prevention assembly to prevent potential cross contamination. 

The reclaimed water system would otherwise operate in the same manner as a system utilizing 

solely potable water. 

Financial Feasibility: This project will be developer funded. The City will likely supply 

reclaimed water to Duvall Village at a reduced rate and because the property has not yet been 

developed, installation of the additional piping to convey the reclaimed water supply will be 

relatively inexpensive compared to retrofitting an existing building or development. The value 

of the water savings to the future residents that may be realized from the construction of this 

project is approximately $75,000 over a 20-year period. To be cost-effective, the costs 

associated with the installation of the proposed piping, as well as the cost of the reclaimed water 

supplied, will have to be less than $75,000 over a 20-year period. 

The City will evaluate methods that would provide reclaimed water from the new Wastewater 

Treatment Plant for non-potable uses to City parks, the Riverview School District, Duvall 

Village or other water system customers for irrigation or other purposes. The City will also 

further consider reclaimed water use for large water users that have large potential water 

savings and will begin to implement reclaimed water use once it is deemed cost-effective at these 

locations. As shown in Table 9-5 of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan, the City will 

begin implementing on-going water reclamation activities in 2005 and has budgeted $5,000 

annually to support these conservation efforts. 



Conservation Program Schedule and Budget 

The conservation measures described above and selected for implementation by the City are 

summarized in Table 1 with their corresponding schedule and budget. The successful 

implementation of this conservation program is expected to achieve a one percent water use 

reduction per year through 2010 and meet the other goals and objectives stated earlier. 

Table 1 

Conservation Program Schedule and Budget 

Conservation Measure Schedule Budget 


School Outreach* Ongoing --- 

Speakers Bureau 2005 $500/year 

Program Promotion Ongoing $1,500/year 

Theme Shows and Fairs* Ongoing --- 

Technical Assistance 

Customer Assistance Ongoing $1,000/year 

Technical Studies* Ongoing --- 

Bill Showing Consumption History 2005 --- 

System Measures 

Source Meters - maintenance and repair of existing Ongoing $500/year 

Service Meters - maintenance and repair of existing Ongoing $1,000/year 

Unaccounted Water/Leak Detection Ongoing $2,000/year 

Incentives/Other Measures 

Single-Family/Multi-Family Kits 2005 $1,000/year 

Nurseries/Agriculture 2005 $500/year 

Landscape Management/Playfields - Xeriscaping* Ongoing --- 

Conservation Pricing Ongoing --- 

Utility Financed Retrofit* Ongoing --- 

Seasonal Demand Management 2005 $500/year 

Recycling/Reuse 2005 $5,000/year 

* Programs are funded through the Saving Water Partnership. 



Conservation Program Monitoring 

The City will continue to monitor overall water use, per capita water use, and the amount of 

unaccounted-for water on an annual basis. The City will monitor the success or failure of its 

water conservation program by analyzing this data and determining the long-term trend in per 

capita water usage. The City will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of water conservation 

methods, both implemented and not implemented, to determine if existing programs should be 

continued, or if new methods should be instituted. If the results of the program monitoring show 

that the water savings’ goals for per capita water use are not being met, more rigorous program 

implementation or additional program items will be considered. 



Reclaimed Water Potential Use 

Checklist 

Est. Annual 

Use 

Est. 

Annual 

Savings 

Crop Irrigation 

 

Trees N/A N/A 

Sod N/A N/A 

Nursery N/A N/A 

Pasture N/A N/A 

Irrigation of Food Crops N/A N/A 

Landscape Irrigation 

Cemeteries N/A N/A 

Freeway Landscapes N/A N/A 

Other Restricted Landscape Areas N/A N/A 

Golf Courses N/A N/A 

Parks 50,000 gal $100 

Playgrounds N/A N/A 

Schoolyards 320,000 gal $640/$1,200 1 

Other Open Access Areas N/A N/A 

Residential Landscapes 900,000 gal $1,800/$3,400 1 

Ponds 

Landscape Impoundments N/A N/A 

Recreational Impoundments N/A N/A 

Water Trucks 

Street Sweeping 30,000 gal $60 

Fire fighting & protection N/A N/A 

Washing of Corporation Yards, Lots, and Sidewalks 10,000 gal $20 

Dust Control (Dampening Unpaved Roads, Other Surfaces) 10,000 gal $20 

Dampening Soil for Compaction (Construction Sites, Landfills, N/A_______ __N/A_____ 

Pipelines, etc.) 

Other 

Toilet and Urinal Flushing N/A N/A 

Lift Stations N/A N/A 

Ship Ballast N/A N/A 

Fish Hatchery Basins N/A N/A 

Washing Aggregate and Making Concrete N/A N/A 

Flushing of Sanitary Sewers N/A N/A 

Industrial Boiler Feed N/A N/A 

Industrial Cooling N/A N/A 

Industrial Process N/A N/A 

*Other uses not listed above 

Duvall Village Wetland Mitigation 100,000 gal $200/$375 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 = Annual savings based on customer purchase price. 




Program 

INTRODUCTION 

A cross-connection control (CCC) program is a proactive and ongoing effort of a water purveyor 

to protect the health of its customers by preventing contamination of the municipal water supply 

that it supplies by preventing backflow of contaminants through cross-connection. A crossconnection 

is any physical connection, actual or potential, between a water system and any 

source of non-potable substance. All public water systems in Washington State are required to 

implement a cross-connection control program. All required elements of a local CCC program 

must be documented and included in either the Comprehensive Water System Plan (applicable to 

Duvall) or Small Water System Management Program document (not applicable to Duvall). The 

State mandate for a CCC program and the required elements of a CCC program are contained in 

WAC 246-290-490 Cross-Connection Control, which became effective in April of 1999. The 

minimum required elements in a CCC program are as follows: 

• Adopt a local ordinance, resolution or code that establishes the purveyor’s legal 

authority, describes operating policies and the corrective actions of a CCC program. 

• Develop and implement procedures and schedules for evaluating new and existing 

service connections to assess hazards. 

• Develop and implement procedures and schedules that eliminate or control crossconnections 

and ensure approved backflow preventers are properly installed. 

• Ensure that personnel, including one certified Cross-Connection Control Specialist 

(CCS), are provided to develop and implement the CCC program. 

• Develop and implement procedures to ensure approved backflow preventers are properly 

inspected and tested. 

• Develop and implement a backflow prevention assembly testing quality control assurance 

program. 

• Develop and implement procedures for backflow incident response. 

• Include cross-connection control program information in customer education materials. 

• Develop and maintain CCC program records. 

• Meet any additional CCC requirements if reclaimed water is distributed or received in the 

water service area. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Cross Connection Control Plan (12/29/04-14:51)


PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

This document establishes minimum standards for the City to protect the public water supply 

from possible contamination from backflow. This document also describes minimum CCC 

program operating policies, provides guidelines for installation, testing and maintenance of 

approved backflow devices. In addition, permitting and inspection requirements for existing and 

new backflow prevention devices are described. The document concludes with recommendations 

that the City of Duvall is advised to address in order to comply with the updated CCC program 

requirements. 

AUTHORITY 

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and the statutes of the State of Washington Title 

43 RCW require purveyors to protect the public water systems from contamination. In addition, 

Washington Administrative Code WAC 246-290-490 establishes cross-connection control 

program requirements for the State. In Washington State, the Department of Health (DOH) and 

the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development are the lead agencies for the 

development and administration of the State’s cross-connection control program. The City has 

an adopted cross-connection control ordinance in Section 9.02.040(c), Water Systems, Cross 

Connections and Back Flow Prevention of the City’s Municipal Code. This code establishes the 

City’s authority in implementing a cross-connection program and prohibits cross-connections. 

RESPONSIBILITY 

The City is responsible for protecting its public water supply from contamination, due to 

backflow of pollutants through water service connections. If the City determines that a backflow 

prevention device is necessary at a customer’s premise, the City will notify the customer to 

install an approved backflow device on the premise. Installation of said backflow device(s) shall 

be a condition of continued water service from the City. Upon installation, the customer shall 

notify the City requesting inspection and testing of said device(s). The customer will be 

responsible for all applicable testing and inspection fees. 

FAILURE TO COMPLY 

Any person, firm, or corporation who violates any of the provisions of this document or Duvall 

Municipal Code Section 9.02.040(c), may be punished in accordance with Duvall Municipal 

Code. Any person, firm or corporation who violates any provisions and requirements of this 

document shall be subject to discontinuance of supply of City water to the premise. 

Discontinuance of the City potable supply to the premise shall remain in effect until corrective 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Cross Connection Control Plan (12/29/04-14:51) 2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN

Cross-Connection Control Program 

action, as required by the City, is completed, tested and approved. 

CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM 

The City has implemented some of the required elements of the CCC program as listed above. 

This document will describe the City’s current CCC program and will also discuss areas that the 

City needs to address in order to comply with the new CCC program requirements. The City is 

committed to protecting the public water supply from contamination by eliminating potential 

cross-connections. The City’s CCC program that follows includes a statement of its goals and 

objectives, the evaluation of CCC elements, the program implementation schedule, and 

recommendations. 

CCC Program Goals and Objectives 

The goals and objectives of the City of Duvall Water CCC Program consist of: 

• Prevent contamination of the public water supply by eliminating cross-connections. 

• Inventory all potential cross-connection hazard areas. 

• Establish an inspection and maintenance program for all backflow prevention devices. 

The City of Duvall will achieve these goals and objectives through the implementation of the 

CCC program that follows. 

Evaluation of CCC Program Elements 

The City of Duvall is required to develop and implement a cross-connection control program. 

All required elements of a local CCC program must be documented and included in the City’s 

Comprehensive Water System Plan. The evaluation of these CCC program elements and current 

level of implementation are presented below. 

Cross-Connection Control Ordinance 

This CCC program element requires that the purveyor “adopt a local ordinance, resolution, code, 

bylaw, or other written legal instrument” outlining the purveyor’s program. In addition, this 

document must establish the purveyor’s legal authority to implement a CCC program. Operating 

policies, technical provisions and corrective actions of the CCC program must also be addressed 

in the legal document. The City currently has an adopted cross-connection control program, as 

described in Section 9.02.040(c) of the City’s Municipal Code. This section establishes the 



City’s authority in implementing a cross-connection program and prohibits cross-connections. 

However, this ordinance was written prior to the new requirements contained in WAC 246-290. 

This document updates the City’s CCC program in order to comply with the new WAC 246-290 

requirements. In addition, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) published a 

manual entitled, “Recommended Practice for Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection 

Control (AWWA M14)” that outlines cross-connection control procedures that are recommended 

by the WAC requirements as a tool for developing a CCC program. This manual specifically 

lists types of backflow devices that should be used for different premises. Duvall’s CCC 

program currently references the AWWA document as part of its program. 

The City’s Municipal Code will be updated to address the new regulations in WAC 246-290 

and the current CCC program contained in this document. 

Evaluation of Service Connections 

This CCC program element requires that the purveyor develop and implement procedures for 

evaluating existing and new service connections to assess the risk of connecting the consumer’s 

premises to the City’s public water system. This element also requires that the purveyor notify 

the consumer within a reasonable time frame of the evaluation results. New connections are 

required to be evaluated prior to service. Existing connections shall be inspected on a schedule 

acceptable to DOH. The City has an established procedure for evaluating new service 

connections for potential cross connection. This risk assessment evaluation is performed during 

the building permit process for new water service applicants. If a backflow device is required as 

a result of this evaluation, the device, owners name, property address, and other pertinent 

information is recorded on a list that is filed at the City’s Public Works facility. The City has not 

performed a system-wide risk assessment of all existing service connections. 

The City will develop and implement an evaluation program that assesses the risk of existing 

water service connections. Potential high-risk cross-connection premises will be evaluated 

first. The City will then evaluate other premises, based on potential risk to the water system 

and budget availability. 

Table 1 lists standard abbreviations for backflow prevention devices. These abbreviations will 

be used in the tables that follow. 



Table 1 

Abbreviations 

Abbreviation Description Level of Protection 

AG Air Gap 1 

RPBA Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly 2 

RPDA Reduced Pressure Detector Assembly 2 

DCVA Double Check Valve Assembly 3 

DCDA Double Check Detector Assembly 3 

PVBA Pressure Vacuum Breaker Assembly 4 

AVB Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker 5 

Table 2 shows typical premises located within a water service area and the appropriate backflow 

device necessary to prevent contamination to the public water system. 

Table 2 

Premises Requiring Mandatory Service Protection 

Premises Protection Premises Protection 

Beverage Bottling Plants RPBA Nursing Homes RPBA 

Car Washes RPBA Petroleum Processing or Storage Plants RPBA 

Chemical Plants RPBA Piers and Docks RPBA 

Fire Sprinkler Services DCVA Radioactive Material Processing Plants 

Food Processing Plants DCVA or Nuclear Reactors 

RPBA 

Sewage Lift Stations RPBA Hospitals, Medical Centers and Clinics RPBA 

Sewage Pump Stations RPBA Sewage Treatment Plants RPBA 

Laboratories RPBA Tall Buildings (Over 30', Domestic Water) DCVA 

Metal Plating Industries RPBA Unapproved Auxiliary Supply RPBA 

Mortuaries 

RPBA 

Table 3 shows various facilities and the minimum level of required protection for each facility. 

Table 4 lists fixtures, equipment, and areas that have the potential to contaminate the public 

drinking water system. The table also shows the minimum protection required by the City to 

prevent such contamination. 



Table 3 

Facilities Requiring Backflow Protection 

Facilities Protection Facilities Protection 

Battery Manufacturing or Repair Facilities RPBA Film Processing Facilities RPBA 

Boat Marinas RPBA Ice Manufacturing Plants RPBA 

Canneries DCVA Mobile Home Parks DCVA 

Cold Storage Plants RPBA Packing Houses (Slaughter Houses) RPBA 

Commercial Laundries RPBA Paper Product Plants RPBA 

Concrete Mixing Plants DCVA Parks and Playgrounds DCVA 

Dairies DCVA Plasma Centers RPBA 

Dry Cleaners RPBA Sand and Gravel Plants DCVA 

Dry Docks RPBA Ship Repair Facilities RPBA 

Farms DCVA Shopping Centers DCVA 

Table 4 

Fixtures, Equipment and Areas with Backflow Potential 

Fixtures, Equipment and Areas Protection Fixtures, Equipment and Areas Protection 

Air Compressors DCVA Laboratory Equipment RPBA 

Air Conditioning Systems RPBA Laundry Machines, Commercial RPBA 

Air Washers RPBA Lavatories AVB 

Aquarium Make-Up Water AG/RPBA Livestock Drinking Tanks AG/AVB 

Aspirators, Medical AVB Make-Up Tanks AG/RPBA 

Aspirators, Weedicide/Herbicide/Pesticide AVB Mobile Carpet Cleaners RPBA 

Autoclaves RPBA Mop Sinks AVB 

Autopsy Tables RPBA Outboard Motor Test Tanks AG/AVB 

Baptismal Founts AG/AVB Perchlorethylene Reclaim RPBA 

Bathtub, Below Rim Filler Not Allowed Pesticide Applicator Trucks AG/RPBA 

Bedpan Washers AVB Photo Developing Tanks and Sinks RPBA 

Beverage Dispensers using CO2 RPBA Photostat Equipment RPBA 

Bidets AG-Internal Pipette Washers AVB 

Boat Lifts RPBA Potato Peelers AVB 

Boiler Feed Lines AG/RPBA Poultry Feeders RPBA 

Bottle Washing Equipment RPBA Private Hydrants DCVA 

Box Hydrants PVBA/DCVA Processing Tanks AG/RPBA 

Brine Tanks AG/DCVA Pump Seal Water AG 

Can Washing Equipment AVB/PVBA Pumps, Pneumatic Ejector RPBA 

Chemical Feeder Tanks AG/RPBA Pump Prime Lines DCVA 

Chilled Water Systems RPBA Pumps, Water Operated Ejector RPBA 

Chlorinators RPBA Radiator Flushing Equipment RPBA 

Continued on Next Page 



Table Continued 

Fixtures, Equipment and Areas Protection Fixtures, Equipment and Areas Protection 

Coffee Urns AG/AVB Recreational Vehicle Dump Stations RPBA 

Computer Cooling Lines AG/RPBA Serrated Faucets AVB 

Condensate Tanks AG/RPBA Service Sinks AVB 

Cooking Kettles AG/AVB Sewer Connected Equipment AG 

Cooling Towers AG/RPBA Sewer Flushing AG 

Decorative Ponds AG/RPBA Shampoo Basins/Hose Rinse AVB 

Degreasing Equipment RPBA Showers, Telephone AVB 

Demineralized Water Systems RPBA Sitz Baths AVB 

Dental Cuspidors RPBA Soap Mixing Tanks AG/AVB 

Detergent Dispensers (Dishwasher) AVB Solar Heating Systems RPVA 

Dialysis Equipment RPBA Solution Tanks AG/RPBA 

Dishwashers AVB Spas AG/RPBA 

Drinking Fountains AG Specimen Tanks AG/RPBA 

Dye Vats and Tanks AG/RPBA Starch Tanks AG/DCVA 

Dynamoters DCVA Stream-Air Sprays RPBA 

Emergency Generators RPBA Steam Cleaners RPBA 

Etching Tanks AG/RPBA Steam Ejectors RPBA 

Fermenting Tanks AG/RPBA Steam Generating Facilities RPBA 

Fertilizer Injection Equipment RPBA Sterilizers RPBA 

Film Processors RPBA Stills RPBA 

Fire Department Connections DCVA Sumps AG 

Fire Sprinkler Systems DCVA Swimming Polls AG/RPBA 

Floor Drains AG Toilets (Internal) AG 

Flushing Floor Drains AVB Trap Primers AG 

Foamite Systems RPBA Ultrasonic Baths AG 

Fountains, Ornamental AG/RPBA Urinals (Internal) AG 

Fume Hoods AVB Used Water Systems RPBA 

Garbage Can Washers AVB/PVBA Vats AG/AVB 

Garbage Disposals AVB Washing Pools AG/RPBA 

Heat Exchangers RPVA Wall Hydrants AVB 

Heat Pumps RPBA Wash Basins AG/AVB 

High Pressure Washers DCVA Wash-Up Sinks AG/AVB 

Hose Bibs AVB Wash Tanks AG/AVB 

Hoses, Kitchen Rinse AVB Wastewater Lines AG 

Hot Tubs AG/RPBA Water-Air Sprays DCVA 

Hot Water Heating Systems RPBA Water Closets (Internal) AG 

Hot Water Boilers RPBA Water Cooled Equipment DCVA 

Humidifier Tanks and Boxes AG Water Ejectors RPBA 

Hydraulically Operated Equipment DCVA Water Recirculating Systems DCVA 

Hydrotherapy Baths AVB Water Settling DCVA 

Ice Makers AG Water Treatment Tanks AG/RPBA 

Industrial Fluid Systems RPBA Water Trucks DCVA 

Interties (Looped) Water Systems DCVA Wet Vacuum Systems RPBA 

Irrigation Systems AVB/PVBA Whirlpool Baths AVB 

Janitor Sinks AVB Windshield Washer Fluid Aspirators RPBA 

Kitchen Equipment AVB X-Ray Processors RPBA 



Cross-Connection Control and Elimination 

This CCC program element requires that the purveyor eliminate existing cross-connections 

wherever possible. If elimination is not possible, then approved backflow devices should be 

installed properly to eliminate the risk of contamination. 

The City will endeavor to eliminate potential cross-connections where possible. The City will 

not allow any potential cross-connection unless it is protected by an approved backflow device 

for which a permit has been issued. Owners shall be responsible for following the provisions 

of the City’s cross-connection control program. In addition, owners shall be responsible for 

the elimination or protection of all cross-connections on their premises. The City will conduct 

an inventory of existing backflow devices that it currently operates, maintains, and inspects. 

This inventory will include all devices on a customers’ premise that are the responsibility of 

the customer to maintain. The City will keep this inventory on file at the Public Works 

facility, and shall update the inventory as necessary. 

The City shall begin eliminating potential cross-connections and requiring installation of 

backflow devices at all premises deemed to be “high-risk”, such as water service connections 

at sewage facilities. Once potential “high-risk” cross-connections are eliminated, the City will 

concentrate its efforts on reducing potential medium and low risk cross-connections. 

Personnel Certification 

WAC 246-290-490 requires that personnel, including one certified Cross-Connection Control 

Specialist (CCS), are provided by the purveyor to develop and implement a CCC program. 

Table 5 shows the City’s personnel certifications. Mr. Steven Leniszewski, Associate City 

Engineer, and Mr. Mike Fisher, Public Works Superintendent, are both certified as Cross- 

Connection Control Specialists. 

The City will continue to provide properly certified personnel to implement the CCC program. 

The City has certified staff to implement and maintain a CCC program as outlined by the 

State. 



Table 5 

Water Division Personnel Certification 

Name Position Certification 



Steven Leniszewski, P.E. Associate City Engineer WDM2, CCS 

Jerry Marlette Public Works Supervisor WDM2 

Mike Fisher Public Works Superintendent WDM2, CCS 

Mike Marty Operations Manager WDM2 

Joe Chriest Maintenance 2 

Brad Lauer Maintenance 2 

Dustin Crawford Maintenance 1 

Kyle Carrigan Maintenance 1 

Certification Definitions 

WDM - Water Distribution Manager 

CCS - Cross Connection Control Specialist 

Backflow Device Inspection and Testing 

DOH requires that all backflow devices are routinely inspected and tested by certified personnel. 

Inspections are required at the time of installation, annually thereafter, after a backflow incident, 

and/or after the assembly is repaired, reinstalled, or relocated. 

The City is responsible for maintaining those devices that are installed on the public water 

distribution system, not including those devices installed after a meter on private premises. 

For devices installed on a customers’ premise, the customer shall contact the City requesting 

inspection and testing of said devices. The customer will be subject to all applicable 

inspection and testing fees as may be established. On new installations, the City will (1) 

provide on-site evaluation and/or inspection of plans in order to determine the type of 

backflow device, if any, that will be required, (2) issue permits, and (3) perform inspection. 

For existing premises, the City will perform evaluations and inspections of plans and/or 

premises and inform owners by letter of any corrective action deemed necessary, the method 

of achieving the correction, and the time allowed for the correction to be made. Ordinarily, 

corrections must be made within sixty days; however, the City may shorten this time period 

depending on the degree of hazard involved and the history of the device(s) in question. The 

City will then inspect the premises on or after the expiration date of the required action to 

correct a cross-connection. If found to be not in compliance with the City’s request, the owner 

shall receive written notice that water service to the premises will be discontinued. If the 

owner informs the City of extenuating circumstances as to why the correction has not been 

completed within five working days of receipt of the notice of termination, the City may grant 

a time extension up to, but not exceeding, thirty days. 



Inspection and testing of devices shall be done (1) during the initial installation, (2) during 

on-site reviews of existing installations, (3) after any repairs or maintenance, (4) after any 

relocation, and (5) on an annual basis. When an initial installation or annual test indicates 

that a backflow device is not functioning properly, the owner shall correct the malfunction 

within five working days as directed by the City. The owner shall contact the City after 

correcting the problem for re-inspecting and testing of the device(s). 

The owner shall be responsible for the payment of all fees for (1) permits, (2) annual or semiannual 

device inspection/testing, (3) re-testing if the device fails to operate correctly, and (4) 

any re-inspections for non-compliance with City requirements. The fee for a backflow device 

permit shall be the same as the fee for a plumbing permit as specified in the Duvall Municipal 

Code. The City will continue to maintain records of backflow device inspections. 

Testing Quality Control Assurance Program 

This program element requires development and implementation of a quality control assurance 

program for the testing of backflow prevention devices. Successful implementation of this 

program element assures that all backflow prevention devices are tested in a similar manner and 

kept in optimal condition. 

The City shall ensure that all testing procedures are completed in a consistent manner. Only 

certified personnel shall be utilized to test all backflow devices. Testing shall be recorded on 

the proper forms and maintained at the Public Works facility. Examples of testing forms can 

be found in the AWWA “Recommended Practice for Backflow Prevention and Cross- 

Connection Control” manual. Personnel shall be trained as outlined by the State, fulfilling all 

necessary requirements in order to comply with WAC 246-290-490. 

Testing personnel shall adhere to the following steps: (1) use only properly operating and 

calibrated gauge equipment; (2) follow proper field test procedures; (3) consult the 

manufacturer’s repair and maintenance manual when disassembly is required; (4) use only 

original manufacturer spare parts; and (5) retest the backflow device immediately after repair 

or maintenance. 

In addition to the above steps, the following testing procedures shall be performed by a 

certified test personnel: (1) advise customer of an impending test/inspection so that the 

customer’s staff may participate; (2) notify the fire department when shut down of a fire 

service is necessary; (3) flush residential dirt through test cocks before attaching test gauges; 

(4) ensure that the high and low pressure bypass hoses of the test kit are connected to the 

proper test cocks and open test cocks slowly when bleeding air through the bypass hoses; (5) 

test gauges shall be properly calibrated by a certified testing agency; (6) and assemblies 

should be tested before the warranty expiration date. For further testing details, refer to the 

AWWA manual. 



Incident Response 

This CCC program element requires that the purveyor develop a backflow incident response 

plan. The following paragraph outlines the City’s response to a backflow incident. Other 

emergency response procedures are included in the City of Duvall Emergency Response Plan. 

Emergency Condition : Water System Contamination Due to a Backflow Incident 

Impact on System : Potentially major impact. Water not suitable for potable use - loss of 

supply. 

Emergency Response : 

1. Notify the City CCS personnel of the incident. 

2. Shut down the affected mains, if possible, to contain the affected 

contaminants. 

3. Notify DOH of the backflow incident. 

4. Notify all customers of the problem and instruct them to boil all water 

to be used for consumption and cooking or issue a no-drinking 

warning. 

5. Flush affected water mains to remove contaminants. 

6. Disinfect reservoirs and water mains, as necessary, to remove 

contaminated residuals. 

7. Analyze water quality in other parts of the distribution system to 

ensure that all contaminants were contained. 

This document (and the City of Duvall Emergency Response Plan) outlines procedures to be 

followed if an emergency arises. When a cross-connection control emergency is called into 

the Duvall Police Department, or other emergency responder during non-business hours, the 

responder will notify the Public Works Department on-call person. This person will assess the 

emergency and notify any water division personnel, as deemed necessary, depending on the 

severity of the emergency. All emergencies will be reported to Mr. Steven Leniszewski, 

Associate City Engineer. This person will be responsible for coordinating with water division 

personnel, as well as other emergency responders, if necessary. 


Another CCC program requirement is that educational information of the CCC program be 

included in existing water system materials that are distributed to customers. Educational 

materials can be included in pamphlets, brochures, bill inserts, public service announcements, 

and consumer confidence reports. 

The City will develop education materials and include them as bill inserts. 



Record Keeping 

Purveyors must also develop and maintain records of their CCC program, as mandated by DOH. 

At a minimum, purveyors must maintain the following records: 

• Master list of service connections and/or premises where backflow devices are 

protecting the public water system. 

• Assessed hazard level of each backflow device. 

• Inventory information on approved air gaps that includes location, degree of hazard, 

installation date, inspection history, inspection results, and personnel conducting 

inspections. 

• Backflow inventory information that includes location, assembly description, 

installation date, inspection history, test and repair history, test results, and inspecting 

personnel. 

• Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker (AVB) inventory that includes location, description, 

installation date, inspection history, and inspecting personnel. 

• Program summary and backflow incident reports. 

The City currently maintains some program records including backflow device inspection 

reports. The City will keep records as required by the new CCC program. At a minimum the 

City will maintain the following information: (1) installation date of devices, (2) location of 

backflow devices, (3) inspection and testing reports of backflow devices, (4) performances of 

backflow devices, and (5) performance of licensed testers. All records will be on file at the 

Public Works facility to allow access by water system personnel. 

Reclaimed Water Requirements 

The final CCC program requirement is for systems that distribute or receive reclaimed water 

within their water service area. For these systems, additional cross-connection control 

requirements may be imposed by DOH in any permits issued in accordance with Chapter 90.46 

RCW. 

The City currently does not distribute or receive reclaimed water within its service area; 

therefore, these requirements are not applicable. However, if reclaimed water is used in the 

future, then the City will follow all requirements of the permits issued under Chapter 90.46 

RCW. 



PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The City’s cross-connection control program is an ongoing effort that requires staffing and 

resources to ensure its effectiveness in protecting the quality of drinking water in the distribution 

system. It is recommended that the first step the City takes is to update its cross-connection 

control ordinance. The language in this ordinance needs to be updated to reflect the 

requirements of WAC 246-290-490 and adopt the CCC program outlined in this document. In 

addition, the City should reference the American Water Works Association (AWWA) manual 

entitled, “Recommended Practice for Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control 

(AWWA M14)” for the development of its updated CCC program ordinance. 

The City should also adopt a hazard evaluation program based on risk to the public drinking 

water supply. This evaluation should rank existing and potential cross-connections as high, 

medium and low risk. Based on the results of this evaluation, the City should then begin an 

elimination program, eliminating the high-risk cross-connections first. 

The City should also continue its inspection practices of installed approved backflow devices. 

The City should continue documenting inspections in order to comply with the regulatory 

requirements. 

The City currently meets the regulatory requirement of having at least one CCS (crossconnection 

specialist) within the water division to administer its CCC program. The City is 

encouraged to continue its active training program in order to comply with these requirements. 

Finally, it is recommended that the City update its public education materials to include 

information on the City’s CCC program. The City could either add CCC program information to 

bill inserts and handouts distributed to customers or create a separate CCC program handout. 


WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN

CHAPTER 2 

WATER DESIGN STANDARDS 

JUNE 1995 

Prepored by: 

Hommond, Collier & Wode - Llvlngslone Assocloles, Inc. 

4010 Slone WoY Norlh 

Seollle, Woshinglon 98103

CHAPTER 2 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION 1: 2-0.00 WATER........................................................................................................... 2 

2-0.10 General ............................................................................................................................. 2 

2-0.20 Design Standards.............................................................................................................. 3 

2-0.30 Connection to Existing Water Main ................................................................................. 3 

2-0.40 Service Interruption.......................................................................................................... 3 

2-0.50 Water System ....................................................................................................................3 

2-0.60 Hydrants ........................................................................................................................... 6 

2-0.70 Valves................................................................................................................................ 9 

2-0.80 Pressure Reducing Stations and Pressure Reducing Valves .......................................... 10 

2-0.90 Service Connection ......................................................................................................... 11 

2-1.00 Steel Casing ....................................................................................................................13 

2-1.10 Galvanized Iron Pipe...................................................................................................... 13 

2-1.20 Blowoff Assembly............................................................................................................ 13 

2-1.30 Concrete Bedding and Blocking ..................................................................................... 13 

2-1.40 Joint Restraint.................................................................................................................14 

2-1.50 Backflow Prevention....................................................................................................... 14 

2-1.51 Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly with Detector .................................................... 14 

2-1.52 Double Check Valve Assembly ....................................................................................... 15 

2-1.53 Double Check Valve Assembly with Detector ................................................................ 15 

2-1.54 Backflow Device Resilient Seated Shut-off Valves ......................................................... 15 

2-1.60 Water Main/Sanitary Sewer Crossings........................................................................... 16 

2-1.70 Staking ............................................................................................................................ 16 

2-1.71 Trench Excavation.......................................................................................................... 16 

2-1.80 Backfilling....................................................................................................................... 17 

2-1.81 Controlled Density Fill................................................................................................... 18 

2-1.82 Temporary Street Patching............................................................................................. 18 

2-1.83 Trench Backfill and Restoration..................................................................................... 18 

2-1.90 Hydrostatic Tests ............................................................................................................ 20 

2-2.00 Sterilization and Flushing of Water Mains..................................................................... 21 

SECTION 2: GENERAL NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS (WATER MAIN 

INSTALLATION).............................................................................................................................. 22 

SECTION 3: WATER SYSTEM APPROVED MATERIALS LIST................................................ 23 

1.i

SECTION 1: 

2-0.00 WATER 

CHAPTER 2 


2-0.10 General 

Any extension of the City of Duvall Water System must be 

approved by the Department of Public Works. All extensions 

must conform to Department of Health guidelines, the East King 

County Coordinated Water System Plan, City of Duvall 

Comprehensive Water System Plan, and Duvall-King County Fire 

District No. 45 requirements. All work performed in King County 

road right-of-way must conform to the most recent edition of the 

King County Road Standards. 

In designing and planning for any development, it is the 

developers responsibility to see that adequate water for both 

domestic use and fire protection is attainable. The developer 

must show, in the proposed plans, how water will be supplied 

and whether adequate water pressure will be attained in case of 

fire. An analysis performed by the City of the system may be 

required if it appears that the system might be inadequate. The 

developer shall be assessed any and all applicable fees for the 

analysis. 

Anyone who wishes to extend or connect to the City’s water 

system should contact the Department of Public Works for a 

water extension/connection fee estimate. This fee estimate is an 

estimate of the costs due the City for a waterline extension or 

connection. A copy of the estimate form may be found in the 

appendix. 

Prior to the release of any water meters, all Public Works 

improvements must be completed and approved including 

granting of right-of-way or easements, and all applicable fees 

must be paid. 

Issuance of building permits for new construction of single family 

residences shall not occur until final Public Works approval is 

given. For commercial projects, building permits may be issued 

upon completion and acceptance of the required fire protection 

facilities. A construction bond, in accordance with Section 

9.02.020 Duvall Municipal Code (DMC), will be required for the 

remaining public works improvements. Certificate of occupancy 

2

will not be issued until final Public Works approval is given for all 

improvements. 

2-0.20 Design Standards 

The design of any water extension/connection shall conform to 

City Standards and any applicable standards as set forth herein 

and in Title 9 of the City of Duvall Municipal Code. 

The layout of extensions shall provide for the future continuation 

and/or “looping” of the existing system as determined by the 

City. Utility mains shall be extended to and through the 

extremes of the property being developed. Main extensions shall 

be extended as required in Section 9.02.030 D.M.C. 

The General Notes at the end of this chapter shall be included on 

any plans dealing with water system design. 

2-0.30 Connection to Existing Water Main 

The developer’s engineer shall be responsible for determining the 

scope of work for connection to existing water mains. 

It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to field verify the 

location and depth of the existing main and the fittings required 

to make connections to the existing mains. 

2-0.40 Service Interruption 

The Contractor shall give the City a minimum of 72 hours notice 

of any planned connection to an existing pipeline. This includes 

all cut-ins and live taps. Notice is required so any disruptions to 

existing services can be scheduled. The City will notify 

customers involved or affected of the water service interruption. 

The Contractor shall make every effort to schedule water main 

construction with minimum interruption of water service. In 

certain situations, the City may dictate scheduling of water main 

shutdowns so as not to impose unnecessary shutdowns during 

specific periods to existing customers. 

2-0.50 Water System 

A. Materials: All materials shall be new and undamaged. The 

same manufacturer of each item shall be used throughout 

the work. 

Where reference is made to other specifications, it shall be 

the latest revision at the time of construction, except as 

noted on the plans or herein. 

3

All materials not specifically referenced shall comply with 

applicable sections of ANSI, ASTM, AWWA or the 

APWA/WSDOT Standard Specifications. 

Approved manufacturers and model numbers of various 

materials are listed in Approved Materials List of this 

chapter. When specific manufacturers or models are listed, 

no substitutions will be allowed without prior approval by 

the City Engineer. 

B. Main Line: Water mains shall be sized to provide adequate 

domestic and fire flow demands at the required residual 

pressure. Fire flow requirements will be determined by 

Duvall-King County Fire District 45; however, the quantity of 

water required will in no case be less than 1000 gpm at 20 

psi residual pressure for single family residential areas. 

The minimum water main size shall be 8 inches diameter as 

long as fire flow requirements can be met. Larger size mains 

are required in specific areas outlined in the Comprehensive 

Water System Plan. Nothing shall preclude the City from 

requiring the installation of a larger sized main in areas not 

addressed in the Comprehensive Water System Plan if the 

City determines a larger size is needed to meet fire protection 

requirements or for future service. 

C. Dead End Line: No dead end line shall be less than 4 inch 

diameter or longer than 200 lineal feet. Fire protection must 

be attainable for all lots from main line hydrants and it is 

apparent that the main will not be extended at any time in 

the future. 

D. All pipe for water mains shall have flexible gasketed joints 

and shall comply with the following: 

Ductile Iron Pipe: Ductile iron pipe shall conform to AWWA 

C 151 thickness Class 52 and have a cement mortar lining 

conforming to AWWA C 104. All pipes shall be joined at a 

minimum using non-restrained joints which shall be rubber 

gasketed, push-on type or mechanical joint, conforming to 

AWWA C 111. 

The Contractor shall furnish certification from the 

manufacturer of the pipe and gasket being supplied that the 

inspection and all of the specified tests have been made and 

the results thereof comply with the requirements of the 

above referenced standards. 

E. All fittings for ductile iron pipe shall be ductile iron compact 

(short body) fittings conforming to AWWA C153 or Class 250 

4

gray iron conforming to AWWA C110 and C111. All fittings 

shall be cement mortar lined conforming to AWWA C 104. 

Plain end fittings shall be ductile iron if mechanical joint 

retainer glands are installed on the plain ends. All fittings 

shall be connected by flanges or mechanical joints. 

Rubber gaskets for push-on-joints or mechanical joint (M.J.) 

shall be in accordance with AWWA C111. 

Gasket material for flanges shall be neoprene, Buna N, 

chlorinated butyl, or cloth-inserted rubber. 

The type of connections shall be specified on the plans as 

push-on joint, mechanical joint (M.J.), plain end (P.E.), 

flanged (FL), and threaded. 

F. Polyethylene encasement shall be eight mil. tube or sheet 

stock and shall be furnished with all D.I. pipe unless 

otherwise specified. Materials shall comply with AWWA 

C105. 

G. The minimum cover for all water mains from top of pipe to 

finish grade shall be 42 inches, and maximum depth of 60 

inches, unless otherwise approved. 

H. Couplings: Flexible couplings and transition coupling cast 

components shall be ductile iron. Center rings and end 

rings shall be ductile iron in accordance with ASTM 536-80, 

Grade 65-45-12. 

Gasket material shall be virgin SBR in accordance with 

ASTM D2000 3 BA715. 

Bolts shall be high strength, low alloy steel trackhead bolts 

with national course rolled thread and heavy hex nuts. Steel 

shall meet AWWA/ANSI C111/A21.11 composition 

specifications. 

I. Adapters: All flange by mechanical joint (FL x MJ) adapters 

and asbestos cement by mechanical joint (AC x MJ or Hub x 

MJ) adapters shall be ductile iron. 

J. Bolts in Piping: Bolts shall be malleable iron Cor-ten, or 

stainless steel. 

T-bolts shall be malleable iron Cor-ten in accordance with 

AWWA/ANSI C111/A21.11. Stainless steel bolts shall meet 

the requirements of ASTM A-307, Grade A. Shackle rods, 

nuts, and washers shall be hot-dipped galvanized in 

accordance with AASHTO M232 and coated thoroughly with 

coal-tar/asphaltic material. 

5

Stainless steel nuts, bolts, and washers shall be type 304. 

2-0.60 Hydrants 

A. All buildings constructed in the City of Duvall or areas 

served water by the Duvall water system shall be served by 

fire hydrants. Such fire hydrants shall be served by the City 

or by other adequate means as approved by the City 

Engineer and Duvall-King County Fire District 45. 

B. The lead from the service main to the fire hydrant shall be 

ductile iron cement mortar lined Class 52 no less than 6 

inches in diameter, with a maximum length of lead of 50 

feet. (DMC 9.02.030). 

C. Fire hydrants shall have two, 2-1/2 inch outlets and one 4 

inch pumper port outlet. All outport threads shall be 

National Standard thread. The valve opening shall be 5-1/4 

inch diameter. The hydrant shall have a positive and 

automatic barrel drain and shall be of the “safety” or breakaway 

style. (DMC 9.02.030). 

Hydrants shall be M & H Reliant Style 929, or Mueller A- 

423(MJ), with 4” Stortz quarter turn fitting. All hydrants 

shall be bagged until system is approved. 

D. The Department of Public Works and Duvall-King County 

Fire District 45 work together to ensure that adequate 

hydrant spacing and installation are achieved. 

Unless otherwise required by the governing authority, the 

following guidelines shall apply for hydrant number and 

location: 

1. At least one hydrant shall be installed at all 

intersections. 

2. All hydrants newly installed in a single family residential 

area shall be supplied by not less than eight (8) inch 

circulating mains. Dead end mains supplying fire 

hydrants must be at least eight (8) inches in diameter, 

except hydrant leads up to fifty (50) feet long may be six 

(6) inches in diameter. 

3. Hydrant spacing of 600 feet shall be required for single 

family residential areas. 

4. The installation of fire hydrants in accordance with this 

Ordinance shall be required of the owner and/or 

developer of any future business, commercial, 

institutional, or industrial facility. 

6

When any portion of a proposed building is in excess of 

200 feet from a public street right-of-way, on-site 

hydrants shall be required. Such hydrants shall be 

located per Duvall-King County Fire District 45 and 

easements for such hydrants, leads, and water mains, 

shall be granted to the City. 

a) Buildings having required fire flows of less than 

2500 gpm, may have fire hydrants on one side of 

the building only. 

b) When the required fire flow is over 2500 gpm, the 

fire hydrants shall be served by a main which loops 

around the building or complex of buildings and 

reconnects back into the distribution main. 

c) The number of fire hydrants shall be determined on 

an average spacing of three hundred (300) feet 

computed on an imaginary line parallel to and not 

less than fifty (50) feet from the structure. All 

hydrants are to be accessible to fire department 

pumpers over roads capable of supporting such fire 

apparatus. The City Engineer shall determine the 

location of the fire hydrants depending on utility, 

topography, and building location. Hydrants shall 

be a minimum of fifty (50) feet out from the 

building, minor deviations may be granted. 

d) The lead from the service main to the hydrant shall 

be no less than six (6) inches in diameter. Any 

hydrant leads over fifty (50) feet in length from 

service to the hydrant shall be no less than eight (8) 

inches in diameter. The provisions of this part 

shall apply without exception and regardless of the 

size of the service main. 

e) Fire hydrants shall be set as shown in standard 

detail 2-060-001. 

f) For requirement regarding use, size, and location of 

a fire department connection (FDC) and/or post 

indicator valve, contact Duvall-King County Fire 

District 45. Location of FDC shall be shown on 

water plans. 

g) Where needed, the Department of Public Works or 

Duvall-King County Fire District 45 may require 

hydrants to be protected by two or more posts, 

each four inches in diameter by five feet in height 

made of either reinforced concrete or steel pipe 

filled with concrete. 

7

h) Fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and 

accepted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 

(DMC 13.60.170). 

I) Fire hydrants shall be installed with an auxiliary 

gate valve between the service main and the 

hydrant sufficient to permit repair and replacement 

of the hydrant without disruption of water service. 

The location of all valves and fire hydrants installed 

shall be properly and accurately marked on 

identifiable plans or drawings. 

j) Hydrants shall stand plumb, be set to the finished 

grade with the lowest outlet of the hydrant no less 

than eighteen (18) inches above grade and no less 

than thirty-six (36) inches of clear area about the 

hydrant for clearance of a hydrant wrench on all 

outlets and on the control valve. The pumper port 

shall face the street. Where the street cannot be 

clearly defined or recognized, the port shall face the 

most likely route of approach and location of the 

fire truck while pumping as determined by the City 

Engineer. 

k) Fire hydrants shall be installed at the ends of dead 

end lines which are more than three hundred (300) 

feet in length. Said hydrants may later be moved to 

conform to standard spacing requirements when 

the main is again extended, under supervision of 

the Superintendent. 

l) All fire hydrants installed as required by these 

standards shall be served by the City of Duvall 

unless conditions warrant a waiver of this 

provision. 

m) The installation of private hydrants as defined 

herein shall be limited to those cases when the 

number of public hydrants installed under the 

distance provision of this Ordinance shall be 

insufficient in number. Private hydrants shall meet 

City requirements for public hydrants and shall be 

located as designated by the approving authority. 

The City of Duvall shall have the right to go upon 

the premises and to use the private hydrant for 

public purposes, including testing, flushing, and 

emergency uses. 

n) No one shall plant any vegetation, erect any 

structure, or perform any action which results in 

8

obstructing the view of a fire hydrant for a distance 

of fifty (50) feet. The owner and/or occupant of any 

area in which a hydrant is located shall be 

responsible for removing weed and tree growth from 

around the hydrant for a distance of not less than 

ten (10) feet. The purpose of this part is to 

maintain a clear visual area around the hydrant. 

2-0.70 Valves 

All valves and fittings shall be ductile iron with ANSI flanges or 

mechanical joint ends. All existing valves shall be operated by 

City employees only. 

Valves shall be installed in the distribution system at sufficient 

intervals to facilitate system repair and maintenance, but in no 

case shall be less than one valve every 1000 feet. Generally, 

there shall be two valves on each tee and three valves on each 

cross. Specific requirements for valve spacing will be made at the 

plan review stage. 

A. Gate Valves, 4 inch to 12 inch. The design, materials, and 

workmanship of all gate valves shall conform to AWWA 

C509-80 latest revision. Gate valves shall be resilient wedge 

non-rising stem (NRS) with two internal O-ring stem seals. 

Gate valves shall be Mueller or M & H. 

Gate valves shall be used on all 4-inch to 12-inch lines. 

B. Butterfly valves shall conform to ANSI/AWWA C504, Class 

150, with cast iron short body and “O” ring stem seal. 

Valves in chambers shall have a manual crank operation. 

Buried valves shall have a stem extension with AWWA 2-inch 

operating nut and suitable valve box. Butterfly valves shall 

be Mueller. 

Butterfly valves shall be used on all lines 14 inches and 

larger. 

C. Valve Box. All valves shall have a standard APWA cast iron 

water valve box set to grade with slip type, cast iron riser 

from valve. Valve box shall have a lug type cover, 8” top and 

24” bottom. If valves are not set in paved area, a 3 foot by 3 

foot by 4 inch concrete pad shall be set around each valve 

box at finished grade. In areas where valve box falls in road 

shoulder, the ditch and shoulder shall be graded before 

placing asphalt or concrete pad. See standard drawing 2- 

070-001. 

9

D. Valve Operating Nut Extension. Use where valves are 

installed more than 3’ below finished grade. Extensions are 

to be a minimum of 1’ with only one extension per valve. 

E. Valve Marker Post. Valve marker posts shall be 4 inch x 4 

inch reinforced concrete posts 5 feet long stamped with “W” 

and distance to valve. Post shall be painted with 1 base coat 

and 2 coats blue oil base enamel. See standard drawing 2- 

070-002. 

F. Check Valve. Check valves shall be for 150 psi working 

pressure, unless otherwise specified. Valve shall have 

adjustable tension lever and spring to provide non-slamming 

action under all conditions unless otherwise specified. 

G. Air and Vacuum Release Valve. Air and vacuum release 

valves (ARV) shall be APCO 145C combination air release 

valve. Installation shall be as shown on standard drawings. 

The installation shall be set at the high point of the line 

when required. Where possible pipes are to be graded to 

limit the number of ARV’s needed. 

2-0.80 Pressure Reducing Stations and Pressure Reducing Valves 

A. Unless otherwise noted in Comprehensive Water Plans, a 

standard pressure reducing station shall have a Cla-Val 

model 90G-01 ABCSKC 6” pressure reducing valve with 

threaded ends. Pressure reducing valves shall have flow 

opening/closing speed controls, epoxy coated body, and 

valve position indicator. Pressure reducing valves, 3” and 

smaller, shall be equipped with stainless steel trim (seat, 

stem, and cover bearing). Pilot controls shall be on side of 

PRV facing vault interior. 

Strainers shall be installed on the inlet side of each pressure 

reducing valve. The bypass shall be fitted with bronze ball 

valves sized to correspond with the bypass inlet and outlet 

size. A 2” Cla-Val model 50G-01KC pressure relief valve with 

threaded ends shall be installed on the discharge side of the 

2” pressure reducing valve line for all pressure reducing 

stations servicing the 450 and 330 pressure zones (refer to 

Comprehensive Water Plan for pressure zone boundaries). 

Strainers shall be iron bodied “Y” type equal in size to 

corresponding pressure reducing valve. Strainer shall 

feature bolted cover machined to hold screen securely in 

place and tapped with iron pipe threads for corporation stop. 

Screen shall be constructed from perforated stainless steel. 

10

Main-line strainer shall have flanged-ends and bypass 

strainer shall have threaded ends. 

The vault shall be equal to Utility Vault Co. model 687-LA 

with cover as specified in the standard detail. Vault exterior 

shall be coated with coal tar enamel, or equal. See standard 

drawings. 

B. Individual Pressure Reducing Valve (Residential). When 

individual lot pressure exceeds 80 psi, an individual 

pressure reducing valve shall be installed and shall be 

direct-action piston type with integral strainer and bypass. 

Valve body shall be bronze with threaded outlet end and 

integral union on inlet end. Valve shall be line-sized with 

spring range from 25 to 75 psi. Individual pressure reducing 

valves shall be Wilkens 600 series, Watts U5, or approved 

equal. 

A Ford Tandem Copper Setter Model No. TV-172-15W and all 

other appurtenances shall be as shown in the Standard 

Drawing 2-080-001. 

C. Individual Pressure Reducing Valve (Multi-Family or 

Commercial). Individual pressure reducing valve (PRV) shall 

be Mueller Model H-9300 or an approved equal. An 

individual PRV shall be preceded by a strainer. PRV’s shall 

be direct-acting and diaphragm actuated with a spring 

mechanism for a range of 25-85 psi. Valve shall be line 

sized. Valve body shall be cast bronze with inside iron pipe 

threads on both ends. All other appurtenances shall be as 

shown in the standard drawing 2-080-001. 

2-0.90 Service Connection 

A. All service connections relating to new development shall be 

installed by the developer at the time of mainline 

construction. After the lines have been constructed, tested, 

and approved, the Owner may apply for a water meter. The 

City will install a water meter after the application has been 

made and all applicable fees have been paid. Water meters 

will be set only after system is inspected and approved. 

B. When water is desired to a parcel fronting an existing main 

but not served by an existing setter, an application must be 

made to the City. Upon approval of the application and 

payment of all applicable, fees, the City will allow tapping of 

the main, and installation of the meter, box, and setter. 

C. Corporation stop shall be all bronze and shall be Ford, 

Mueller, or approved equal in accordance with AWWA 

11

Standard C800 with AWWA tapered thread (CC) inlet by 

compression fitting for copper outlet, complete with coupling 

nut for copper service for single services and with iron pipe 

threads conforming to AWWA C800 for dual services. 

Corporation stops for 1” tap shall be either the plug-type or 

ball valve type. Corporation stops for 1-1/2” and 2” tap shall 

be the ball valve type. 

For plastic PE pipe, the corporation stop shall be with AWWA 

tapered thread (CC) inlet by Insta-Tite outlet. All joints with 

plastic pipe shall be made utilizing stainless steel inserts 

along with couplings or adapters. 

D. Service saddle shall be all bronze with stainless steel straps 

and shall be Romac style 202S, Rockwell 313 or approved 

equal. All clamps shall have rubber gasket and iron pipe 

threaded outlets. 

E. Service lines shall be either copper or high density 

polyethylene pipe, such as Phillips Drisco 5100 ultraline. 

All copper pipe for underground water service 2” or less shall 

be seamless conforming to ASTM B88 (ANSI H33.1) Type “K” 

annealed tubing. 

Copper service pipe 2-1/2” or larger shall be Type K hard 

drawn, 20’ lengths. 

All high density polyethylene pipe for underground water 

service 1” or less shall be manufactured from ultrahigh 

molecular weight, high density polyethylene resin PE 3408. 

It shall meet the requirements of Type III, Class C, category 

5-P34 polyethylene as defined by ASTM specification D-1248 

and D-2239. Minimum pressure class 200 psi. No glued 

joints will be accepted. Tracer tape shall be installed on all 

service lines. 

F. Master meters will not be allowed for service to more than 

one per building. An approved backflow prevention system 

must be installed in conjunction with any master meter. 

Deviations to this may be granted by the City Engineer. 

G. Meter Setter. Meter setters (1” and smaller) shall have 

double purpose couplings, unless otherwise specified, angle 

meter valve with drilled wings for padlock, twelve (12”) 

inches high. The angle copper setter for the size meter to be 

installed, see Standard Details. 

1-1/2” meter setters shall have vertical inlet and outlet tees 

with 1” lateral bypass, flanged ball meter valves on inlet and 

12

outlet, ball valve on bypass, and padlock wings on all valves, 

see Standard Details 2-090-003. 

H. Meter Box. Concrete and steel diamond plate frame meter 

boxes shall be complete with lid as specified in the standard 

details. 

2-1.00 Steel Casing 

Steel casing shall be black steel pipe conforming to ASTM A53. 

Casing wall thickness shall be 0.250 inch for casings 24 inches 

or less in diameter and 0.375 inch for casings over 24 inches in 

diameter. 

Carrier pipe for water shall be Ductile Iron, Class 52. Carrier 

pipe for sanitary sewer shall be P.V.C., AWWA C900. 

Pipe spacers shall be Cascade style CC5 with 8-inch runners as 

available from Cascade Waterworks. Casing pipe and spacers 

shall be sized for pipe being installed. Install minimum of three 

spacers per section of pipe. 

2-1.10 Galvanized Iron Pipe 

Where galvanized iron pipe is specified, the pipe shall be 

standard weight, Schedule 40, steel pipe per Standard 

Specification for black and hot-dipped, zinc-coated (galvanized) 

welded and seamless steel pipe for ordinary uses (ASTM A-120). 

Fittings shall be screwed malleable iron galvanized per ANSI 

B16.3. Galvanized pipe shall be used only for dry pipe in 

pressure relief and vacuum breaker assemblies. 

2-1.20 Blowoff Assembly 

If a fire hydrant is not located at the end of a dead end main, a 

blowoff assembly shall be required. On water mains which will 

be extended in the future, the valve which operates the blowoff 

assembly shall be the same size as the main and provided with a 

concrete thrust block. The pressure rating for blowoff assemblies 

shall be 200 psi. Installation shall be as shown on standard 

drawing 2-120-001. 

2-1.30 Concrete Bedding and Blocking 

Bedding, blocking, encasement, or slope anchor concrete shall be 

mixed from materials acceptable to the Engineer and shall have a 

30-day compressive strength of not less than 2,500 psi. The mix 

shall contain five (5) sacks of cement per cubic yard and shall be 

of such consistency that the slump is between 1 inch and 5 

inches. All concrete shall be mechanically mixed. 

13

Location of thrust blocking shall be shown on plans. Thrust 

block concrete shall be poured against undisturbed earth. A 

plastic barrier shall be placed between all thrust blocks and 

fittings. See standard detail numbers 2-130-001, 2-130-002, 

and 2-130-003 for thrust block locations and calculations. 

2-1.40 Joint Restraint 

Joint restraint methods shall be as per the approved materials 

list and/or the Standard Drawings. 

2-1.50 Backflow Prevention 

All water system connections to serve buildings or properties with 

domestic potable water, fire sprinkler systems, or irrigation 

systems shall comply with the minimum backflow requirements 

as established by the Department of Health (DOH) and the City of 

Duvall. 

The installation of all backflow devices is required to protect the 

existing water system and users from possible contamination. 

All approved Reduced Pressure Backflow Assemblies are listed on 

the most current copy of “Accepted Cross-Connection Control 

Assemblies” published by Washington State Department of 

Health. The assembly shall include a tightly closing resilient 

seated shut-off valve on each end of the body and each assembly 

shall be fitted with four properly located resilient seated test 

cocks. 

All other appurtenances shall be as shown in the standard detail 

2-151-001. 

Public Works shall get the certificate of testing of any backflow 

prevention device before releasing the certificate of occupancy on 

any building. A list of approved testers may be obtained from 

Washington Environmental Training Resource Center (WETRC) 

located in Auburn, Washington. 

Duvall-King County Fire District 45 will test the fire line and 

obtain the certificate for underground piping. In any situation, 

Duvall-King County Fire District 45 will not test their portion of 

underground until Public Works has tested and approved their 

main up to the fire line. 

2-1.51 Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly with Detector 

This assembly shall include a line-sized D.O.H. approved (listed 

on the most current copy of “Accepted Cross-Connection Control 

Assemblies” published by Washington State Department of 

Health. Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly with a parallel 

14

3/4” meter and 3/4” D.O.H. approved Reduced Pressure 

Backflow Assembly. Each assembly shall include a tightly 

closing resilient seated shut-off valve on each end of the body and 

each assembly shall be fitted with four properly located resilient 

seated test cocks. 

All other appurtenances shall be as shown in standard detail 2- 

151-001. 

2-1.52 Double Check Valve Assembly 

All Double Check Valve Assemblies shall be the one listed on the 

most current copy of “Accepted Cross-Connection Control 

Assemblies” published by Washington D.O.H. The assembly 

shall include a tightly closing resilient seated shut-off valve on 

each end of the body and each assembly shall be fitted with four 

properly located resilient seated test cocks. 

2-1.53 Double Check Valve Assembly with Detector 

This assembly shall include a line sized D.O.H. approved (listed 

on the most current copy of “Accepted Cross-Connection Control 

Assemblies” published by Washington Department of Health 

Double Check Valve Assembly with a parallel 3/4” meter and 

3/4” approved double check valve assembly. Each assembly 

shall include a tightly closing resilient seated shut-off valve on 

each end of the body and each assembly shall be fitted with four 

properly located resilient seated test cocks. 

All other appurtenances shall be as shown in the standard detail. 

2-1.54 Backflow Device Resilient Seated Shut-off Valves 

Each valve shall be marked with model number with designation 

of resilient seat; such as “RS” or “R”, which must be cast, 

molded, or affixed onto the body or bonnet of the valve. All 

ferrous bodied valves shall be coated with a minimum of 4 mils. 

of epoxy or equivalent polymerized coating. 2” and smaller 

R.P.B.A.s and D.C.V.A.s shall use ball valves, and all 2-1/2” and 

larger R.P.B.A.s and D.C.V.A.s shall use resilient seated gate 

valves for domestic supply and resilient seated O.S. and Y. valves 

for firelines. 

The minimum requirements for all resilient seated gate valves 

shall, in design, material, and workmanship, conform to the 

standards of AWWA C509. 

15

2-1.60 Water Main/Sanitary Sewer Crossings 

The Contractor shall maintain a minimum of 18 inches of vertical 

separation and 10 feet of horizontal separation between sanitary 

sewers and water mains. The minimum cover for water main of 

42 inches may be reduced to 24 inches upon approval by the City 

Engineer to provide for as much vertical separation as possible. 

The longest standard length of water pipe shall be installed so 

that the joints will fall equidistant from any sewer crossing. In 

some cases where minimum separation cannot be maintained, it 

may be necessary to encase the water pipe and/or sewer service 

in a carrier pipe or concrete. No concrete shall be installed 

unless specifically directed by the City. 

2-1.70 Staking 

All surveying and staking shall be performed by an engineering or 

surveying firm capable of performing such work. The engineer or 

surveyor directing such work shall be licensed as a Professional 

Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor by the State of 

Washington. 

A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the City prior to 

commencing staking. All construction staking shall be inspected 

by the City prior to construction. 

The minimum staking of waterlines shall be as directed by the 

City Engineer or as follows: 

A. Stake centerline alignment every 50 feet with cut or fill to 

invert of pipe maintaining 42 inches of cover over pipe. Cuts 

are normally not required when road grade has been built to 

subgrade elevation. 

B. Stake alignment of all fire hydrants, tees, water meters, 

setters and other fixtures and mark cut or fill to hydrant 

flange finished grade. 

2-1.71 Trench Excavation 

A. Clearing and grubbing where required shall be performed 

within the easement or public right-of-way as permitted by 

the City and/or governing agencies. Debris resulting from 

the clearing and grubbing shall be disposed of by the owner 

or contractor in accordance with the terms of all applicable 

permits. 

B. Trenches shall be excavated to the line and depth designated 

by the Plans to provide a minimum of 42 inches of cover over 

the pipe. Except for unusual circumstances where approved 

16

y the City, the trench sides shall be excavated vertically and 

the trench width shall be excavated only to such widths as 

are necessary for adequate working space as allowed by the 

governing agency. The trench shall be kept free from water 

until joining is complete. Surface water shall be diverted so 

as not to enter the trench. The owner shall maintain 

sufficient pumping equipment on the job to ensure that 

these provisions are carried out. 

C. The Contractor shall perform all excavation of every 

description and whatever substance encountered and 

boulders, rocks, roots, and other obstructions shall be 

entirely removed or cut out to the widths of the trench and to 

a depth 6 inches below water main grade. Where materials 

are removed from below water main grade, the trench shall 

be backfilled to grade with pit run sand and gravel and 

thoroughly compacted. 

D. Trenching and shoring operations shall not proceed more 

than 100 feet in advance of pipe laying without approval of 

the City, and shall be in conformance with Washington 

Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA) and 

Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety 

Standard. 

E. The bottom of the trench shall be finished to grade with 

hand tools in such a manner that the pipe will have bearing 

along the entire length of the barrel. The bell holes shall be 

excavated with hand tools to sufficient size to make up the 

joint. 

2-1.80 Backfilling 

Backfilling and surface restoration shall closely follow installation 

of pipe so that not more than 100 feet is left exposed during 

construction hours without approval of the City. Selected backfill 

material shall be placed and compacted around and under the 

water mains by hand tools to a height of 6 inches above the top 

of the water main. The remaining backfill shall be compacted to 

95 percent of the maximum density modified proctor in traveled 

areas, 90 percent outside traveled area. Where governmental 

agencies other than the City have jurisdiction over roadways, the 

backfill and compaction shall be done to the satisfaction of the 

agency having jurisdiction. If suitable backfill material is not 

available from trenching operations or temporary traffic control 

and traffic safety issues exist, the City may order the placing of 

bedding around the water main and gravel base or controlled 

density fill for backfilling the trench. 

17

2-1.81 Controlled Density Fill 

Controlled density fill (CDF aka, flowable fill) shall be a mixture of 

portland cement, flyash (optional), aggregates, and water. It shall 

be proportioned to provide a grouty, non-segregating, free 

flowing, self-consolidating and excavatable material that will 

result in a non-settling fill which has measurable unconfined 

compressive strength. Unless otherwise specified, unit weights 

shall range from 125 lbs. per cubic foot to 155 lbs. per cubic foot. 

Materials testing shall be with unconfined compressive test 

cylinders. Test data may be either laboratory trail batch test data 

or field test data. 

Specific mix designs may be required at the Engineer’s discretion. 

The unconfined compressive strength at 28 days shall be a 

minimum of 50 psi and a maximum of 100 psi. Material shall be 

a sand/grout slurry proportioned to be hand-excavatable after 

long-term strength gain. 

2-1.82 Temporary Street Patching 

Temporary restoration of trenches shall be accomplished by 

using 2” Class B Asphalt Concrete Pavement when available or 2” 

medium-curing (MC-250) Liquid Asphalt (cold mix), 2” Asphalt 

Treated Base (ATB), or steel plates. 

ATB used for temporary restoration may be dumped directly into 

the trench, bladed and rolled. After rolling, the trench must be 

filled flush with the existing asphalt concrete pavement to provide 

a smooth riding surface. 

All temporary patches shall be maintained by the Contractor 

until such time as the permanent pavement patch is in place. If 

the Contractor is unable to maintain a patch for whatever reason, 

the City will patch it at actual cost plus overhead and materials. 

2-1.83 Trench Backfill and Restoration 

Trench restoration shall be either by a patch or patch plus 

overlay as required by the City. 

A. All trench and pavement cuts shall be made by spade bladed 

jackhammer or sawcuts. The cuts shall be a minimum 

distance outside the trench width as prescribed by the City 

Engineer. 

B. All trenching shall be backfilled with crushed surfacing 

materials conforming to the WSDOT/APWA Standard 

Specifications. The trench shall be compacted to 95 percent 

18

maximum density, as described in Section 2-03 of the 

WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications. 

If the existing material is determined by the City to be 

suitable for backfill, the Contractor may use the native 

material except that the top 8 inches of trench below the 

crushed surfacing layer shall be 1-1/4 inch minus ballast. 

All trench backfill materials shall be compacted to 95% 

density. 

Backfill compaction shall be performed in 6 inch lifts. 

Replacement of the asphalt concrete or portland concrete 

cement shall be of existing depth plus 1 inch or 3 inches, 

whichever is greater. 

C. Tack shall be applied to the existing pavement and edge of 

cut and shall be emulsified asphalt grade CSS-1 as specified 

in the WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications. Tack coat 

shall be applied as specified in the WSDOT/APWA Standard 

Specifications. 

D. Asphalt concrete Class B shall be placed on the prepared 

surface by an approved paving machine and shall be in 

accordance with the applicable requirements of the 

WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications, except that 

longitudinal joints between successive layers of asphalt 

concrete shall be displaced laterally a minimum of 12 inches 

unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Fine and 

coarse aggregate shall be in accordance with the 

WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete 

over 2 inches thick shall be placed in equal lifts not to 

exceed 2 inches each. 

All street surfaces, walks or driveways within the street 

trenching areas affected by the trenching shall be feathered 

and leveled to an extent that provides a smooth-riding 

connection and expedites drainage flow for the newly paved 

surface. Leveling and feathering as required by the City 

Engineer shall be accomplished by raking out the oversized 

aggregates from the Class B mix as appropriate. 

Surface smoothness shall be per the WSDOT/APWA 

Standard Specifications. 

E. All joints shall be sealed using paving asphalt AR4000W. 

F. When trenching within the roadway shoulder(s), the 

shoulder shall be restored to its original or better condition. 

19

G. The final patch shall be completed as soon as possible and 

shall be completed within 30 days after first opening the 

trench. This time frame may be adjusted if delays are due to 

inclement paving weather, or other adverse conditions that 

may exist. However, delaying of final patch of overlay work 

is allowable only subject to the City Engineer’s approval. 

2-1.90 Hydrostatic Tests 

The City Engineer or his representative will inspect and observe 

the hydrostatic test of the pipe within 24 hours after notification 

by the Contractor that a section is ready for inspection and test. 

The Contractor shall contact the Engineer at least 24 hours in 

advance of the completion of sterilization and flushing and his 

representative shall be present when water samples are taken. 

Prior to the acceptance of the work, the installation shall be 

subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test of 240 psi for 15 minutes 

at the high point in the line and any leaks or imperfections 

developing under said pressure shall be remedied by the 

Contractor before final acceptance of the work. No air will be 

allowed in the lines. The mains shall be tested between valves. 

Insofar as possible, no hydrostatic pressure shall be placed 

against the opposite side of the valve being tested. Test pressure 

shall be maintained while the entire installation is inspected. 

The Contractor shall provide all necessary equipment and shall 

perform all work connected with the test. Tests shall be made 

after all valved connections have been made. At unvalved 

connection points, a temporary plug (or 2” blow-off assembly on 

lines without hydrants) shall be installed at the end of the new 

main. This shall include concrete blocking necessary to 

withstand pressures encountered during the hydrostatic test. 

Once the new line is successfully tested and disinfected, the plug 

(blow-off) shall be removed and the connection to the existing 

main completed. For approval, pressure shall not drop more 

than 2 psi for 15 minutes. The Contractor shall perform the test 

to assure that the equipment to be used for the test is adequate 

and in good operating condition and the air in the lines has been 

released before requesting the City Engineer witness the test. 

The City Engineer shall witness the test; if the test does not pass 

inspection for any reason, additional trips required to witness the 

test shall be done at the Contractor’s expense. 

The Contractor shall provide special plugs and blocking 

necessary in those locations where it would be necessary to test 

against butterfly valves to ensure that the pressure rating of 

these valves is not exceeded during testing. 

20

2-2.00 Sterilization and Flushing of Water Mains 

Sterilization of water mains shall be accomplished by the 

Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the State 

Health Department and in a manner satisfactory to the City 

Engineer. The section to be sterilized shall be thoroughly flushed 

at maximum flow established by the City Engineer prior to 

chlorination. Flushing period must be approved by the City. 

Sections will ordinarily be sterilized between adjacent valves 

unless, in the opinion of the City Engineer, a longer section may 

be satisfactorily handled. Chlorine shall be applied by solution 

feed at one end of the section with a valve or hydrant at the 

opposite end open sufficiently to permit a flow through during 

chlorine application. The chlorine solution shall be fed into the 

pipeline already mixed by an automatically proportioning 

applicator so as to provide a steady application rate of not less 

than 60 ppm chlorine. Hydrants along the chlorinated section 

shall be open during application until the presence of chlorine 

has definitely been detected in each hydrant run. When a 

chlorine concentration of not less than 50 ppm has been 

established throughout the line, the valves shall be closed and 

the line left undisturbed for 24 hours. 

As an alternative, the Contractor may use granulated chlorine. 

Granulated chlorine (dry calcium hypochlorite at 65% - 70% 

chlorine) shall be placed in the pipe to yield a dosage of not less 

than 50 ppm. The number of ounces of 65% test calcium 

hypochlorite required for a 20-foot length of pipe equals .00843ld, 

in which “d” is the diameter in inches. The line shall then be 

thoroughly flushed and water samples taken for approval by the 

local health agency. Flushing period must be approved by the 

City. The Contractor shall exercise special care in flushing to 

avoid damage to surrounding property to conform to Water 

Quality Considerations. 

Should the initial treatment result in an unsatisfactory 

bacteriological test, additional chlorine using the first procedure 

shall be repeated by the Contractor until satisfactory results are 

obtained. The Contractor shall be responsible for disposal of 

treated water flushed from mains and at no time shall 

chlorinated water from a new main be flushed into a body of 

fresh water. This is to include lakes, rivers, streams, storm 

drainage systems and any and all other waters where fish or 

other natural water life can be expected. Disposal may be made 

to any available sanitary sewer provided the rate of disposal will 

not overload the sewer. 

21

Main extensions shall not be connected to the City water system 

until pressure and bacteriological tests have passed all required 

standards. 

SECTION 2: 

GENERAL NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS (WATER MAIN 

INSTALLATION) 

1. All workmanship and material shall be in accordance with City 

of Duvall standards and the most current copy of the State of 

Washington/APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, 

and Municipal Construction. 

2. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the City prior to 

the start of construction. 

3. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to locate or have 

located by the appropriate companies all utilities prior to 

beginning construction. 

Call Underground Locate at 1-800-424-5555 a minimum of 48 

hours prior to any excavations. 

4. Water pipe shall be ductile iron pipe standard thickness Class 

52 cement-lined unless otherwise specified and shall conform to 

ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51. 

5. Gate valves shall be resilient wedge, NRS (Non Rising Stem) 

with O-rings seals. Valve ends shall be mechanical joint or 

ANSI flanges. Valves shall conform to AWWA 509-80. Valves 

shall be Mueller, M & H, Clow R/W or Waterous Series 500. 

6. Fittings shall be ductile iron short body compact conforming to 

AWWA C110, C11 and C153 and shall be cement-mortar lined 

conforming to AWWA C104. 

The City will be given 72 hours notice prior to scheduling a 

shutdown. Where connections require “field verification”, 

connection points will be exposed by Contractor and fittings 

verified 48 hours prior to distributing shut-down notices. 

7. Fire hydrants shall conform to AWWA C501 and shall be of 

standard manufacture and of a pattern approved by Duvall, 

with Stortz 4” quarter turn fitting. Hydrants shall be M & H 

Reliant Style 929 or Mueller A-423 (MJ). Hydrants shall be 

bagged until system is approved. 

8. All lines shall be disinfected, flushed, and pressure tested in 

conformance with WSDOT/APWA standards and specifications. 

All pipe shall be tested at 240 psi. The Contractor shall furnish 

all temporary plugs, testing devices, etc. The City shall be 

22

present for all testing. The City will take purity tests, and 

connection will be authorized following passing of the tests. 

The Contractor shall not operate any valve or part of the City 

water system without notification and specific supervision of 

the City utility superintendent. The Contractor shall make all 

connections to the system required after making arrangements 

with the City in advance. Work and procedures shall conform 

to APWA Sec. 7-11.3(9). 

9. Installation of pipe, fittings and valves, hydrants, and 

appurtenances shall conform to WSDOT/APWA standard 

specifications. Cover shall be 42 inches over the top of pipe 

unless otherwise noted on plans. In the event grade revision 

following water main construction results in cover over the 

water main of less than 3 feet or in excess of 5 feet, the water 

main shall be reconstructed by the Owner to conform to the 

specifications of the City of Duvall. All added costs of 

inspecting such water main reconstruction shall be charged to 

the developer. 

10. Prior to construction of any water mains, the lot corners shall 

be staked and water main locations established by survey, cost 

of which is to be borne by the developer. 

11. To maintain the required alignment, use short lengths and 

deflect the joints or use necessary bends. 

12. Bedding material meeting the requirements for rigid pipe shall 

be placed under the pipe and to a depth of at least 8 inches over 

the top of the pipe. The bedding materials hall be rammed and 

tamped around the pipe by the use of shovels or other approved 

hand-held tools so as to provide firm and uniform support over 

the full length of all pipe, valves, and fittings. Care shall be 

taken to prevent any damage to the pipe or its protective 

coating. Pea gravel is not an acceptable bedding material. 

13. Separation of water and sewer mains shall conform to W.D.O.E. 

standards or special construction requirements. 

14. Services, blow-offs, and miscellaneous details shall be shown 

on the drawings or standard plans. 

SECTION 3: 

WATER SYSTEM APPROVED MATERIALS LIST 

The following manufacturers have been approved for use for 

water and sewer. Where specific manufacturers are listed no 

other manufacturer may be used without prior approval by the 

Utility. 

23

DUCTILE IRON PIPE 

All manufacturers that meet the performance requirements 

specified under the material section of the standards. 

DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS 



GALVANIZED IRON PIPE 



JOINT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS 

EBAA Iron (MEGALUG Series 1100) 

Griffin Pipe Products Company (Snap-Lok, Bolt-Lok) 

Romac (Grip Ring) 

Star National Products (Shackle Products) 

US Pipe (TR FLEX) 

COUPLINGS 

Romac, Dresser 

STAINLESS STEEL REPAIR BANDS 

Romac, Ford 

CASING INSULATORS 

Pipeline Seal and Insulator Co. 

8” band Model C8G 

12” band Model C12G 

Cascade Waterworks Mfg. Co. 

Stainless Steel Casing Spacers (catalog number depends on 

size) 

CASING END SEALS 

Pipeline Seal and Insulator Co., 

Standard Pull-on (Model S) 

Custom Pull-on (Model G) 

24

GATE VALVES 



PRV STATION 

• PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES 

CLA-VAL 90G-01ABCSKC } 6” 

CLA-VAL 90G-01ACSKC } 2” 

• STRAINERS 

MEUSSCO 751 } 6” 

MEUSSCO 11-BC } 2” 

(With brass or stainless steel perforated screen, 1/16” diameter, 144 holes per 

square inch) 

• PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES 

CLA-VAL 50G-01KC } 2” 

INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES (Residential) 

Wilkins 600 with built-in bypass. 

INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES (Commercial) 

• PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES 

Mueller H-9300, No. 2 setting 

• PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES 

CLA-VAL 55F 

SERVICE SADDLES 

1” tap: Romac 101S 

Ford FS101 (4” through 8” mains) 

1-1/2” & Romac 202S 

2” tap Ford FS202 

CORPORATION STOPS 

1” size: Ford F1000, FB1000 

Mueller No. H-15008 

1-1/2” size: Ford Ballcorp FB400 

Mueller Oriseal No. H-9968 

2” size: Ford Ballcorp FB400 

Mueller Oriseal No. H-9968 

25

ANGLE METER VALVES 

1-1/2” Irrigation: Ford FV13-666W 

Mueller 1-1/2” H-14286 

2” Irrigation: Ford FV13-777W 

Mueller 2” H-14286 

VALVE BOXES 

Rich Manufacturing Co. #940 

BUTTERFLY VALVES 



CHECK VALVES 

Rennselaer List 340 

AIR AND VACUUM RELEASE VALVES 

APCO No. 143-C, Val-Matic No. 201C, Crispin U10 

FIRE HYDRANTS 

Mueller Centurion 

M&H 129T or 929 

METER SETTERS 

5/8” X 3/4”: (horizontal): 

Ford V72-12W, TV-172-15W 

Mueller 5/8” x 3/4” No. H-1404 x 12 with multi-purpose 

connection No. H-14222 

5/8” x 3/4” (vertical): 

Ford V72-82 x 12W 

1” x 1” (horizontal): 

Ford V74 

Mueller 1” No. H-1404 x 12 with multi-purpose connection 

No. H-14222 

1” x 1” (vertical): 

1-1/2” Domestic: 

2” domestic: 

26

METER BOXES 

1” X 3/4” Service: Fog-Tite 1-D 

Fog-Title B-10T 

Fog-Tite J-20S 

Brooks 3614 

1” x 1” Service: Fog-Tite B-10D 

Fog-Tite B-10% 

1-1/2” and 2” Fog-Tite No. 2 

Domestic: Fog-Tite No. 2T 

1-1/2” and 2” Fog-Tite No. 2 

Irrigation: Fog-Tite No. 2T 

Concrete boxes equal to those manufactured by Brooks may be 

substituted for above Fog-Tite models. 

REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES 

As approved on the most current Department of Social and 

Health Services list for cross connection devices. 

DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLIES 

As approved on the most current Department of Social and 

Health Services list for cross connection devices. 

RESILIENT SEATED SHUT-OFF VALVES 



PVC PIPE (ASTM D3034) 4” - 15” 



PVC PIPE (ASTM F679) 18” - 27” 



PVC PIPE (AWWA C900) 4” - 12” 



AWWA C900 FITTINGS AND MANHOLE ADAPTERS 

Head Manufacturing (Idaho) 

Vassallo (Florida) 

27

CONTROLLED DENSITY (FLOWABLE) FILL 

Stoneway, CADMAN 

RECYCLED CONCRETE (FOR USE AS CRUSHED SURFACING 

BASE COURSE MATERIAL) 

Stoneway Recycling 

Renton Recycling (with certification that the material is free of 

contaminants) 

28

z 

F 

o- 

o- 

3'0rA. 

GRAVEL 

PAD 

51/4" MVO HYORANT (MUELLER 

4-423 MIL OR MsdI RELIANT STYLE 929) 

4" STORTZ 1/4 TURN FTTnNG 

BREAKER FLANGE,4" _ 6,' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE 

HYDRANT EXTENSION 

LENGIH AS REQ'D 

CAST IRON 2-PIECE 

VALVE BOX. 

TAR PAPER OR 

PLASTIC 

1 1/2" WASHED 

ROCK 

12"x12"x4" 

CONCREIE BLOCK 

---.1 vnnheLe 

Z-Jl + UIA. IIE i

GRADE 

EXTENSIONS W/ ROCK PLATE ARE REOUIRED WHEN 

THE VALVE NUT IS MORE THAN 30" INCHES BELOW 

FINISHED GRADE. EXTENSIONS ARE TO BE A 

MTNTMUM OF ONE (1) FOOT LONC. ONLY ONE 

EX1ENSION TO BE USED PER VALVE. OPERAI1NG 

NUT TO BE WITHIN 3O'' OF FINISHEO GRAOE. 

I/J 

TOTAL LENGTH 

2'' SQUARE 

ROCK PLATE _- 

4 1 /4" OtA. 

1/8" MrN. THTCKNESS 

r " soLtD 

METAL STOCK 

LENGTHAS REQUIRED 

ALL EXTENSIONS ARE TO BE MADE OF 

STEEL SIZED AS NOTED, AND PAINT 

ENNRE EXTENSION ASSEMBLY WTH 

TWO COATS OF CARBON ELASTIC 

(AICO #222) OR APPROVED EOUAL. 

2 

2 

1/4" INSIDE MEASUREMENT 

1/4" OEPTH 

City of Duval 

VALVE OPERATING 

NUT EXTENSION DETAIL 

sTlloAFD Fl|l. 2-dtll

ALIGN VALVE BOX EARS IN THE DIRECTION 

OF THE WATER MAIN (AS SHOW\) 

-6 -+ 

VALVE BOX 

MAIN 

VALVE BOX EAR DETAIL 

DISTANCE 

TO VALVE 

VALVE MARKER POST 

NOTES: 

1 VALVE MARKER POST PER VALVE. 

q WAIER MAIN 

VALVE MARKER POST SHALL BE A FOGTITE VALVE MARKER OR APPROVED EQUAL. 

lHE POST SHALL BE SET AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE ROADWAY FROM THE VALVE 

AND SHALL 8E SITUATED IN A SAFE ANO REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS LOCATION. 

PAINT VALVE MARKER WTH 2 COATS SAFETY YELLOW. 

STENCIL DISTANCE (TO lHE NEAREST FOOT) TO THE 

LINE VALVE IN 2" BLACK CAPITAL LETTERS. 

VALVE BOX FOR BUTTERFLY VALVES TO BE LOCATED 

ON NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF MAIN. 

City of DuvalX 

VALVE MARKER 

POST DETAIL 

SIAI'AE) 

?!A2-O'H

1,_O'' FROM SIDEWALK 

OR BACKSIDE OF DITCH 

TEEL LIO 

UNION 

4' OF 1 

WASH E D 

1 /2" 

R OCK 

UNION 

GENERAL NOTTS 

ALL PIPE ANO FITIINGS FROM THE MAIN TO IHE AIR & VACUUM VALVE 

SHATL BI BRASS WITH IP THREADS, 

AIR AND VACUUM VALVE ASSEMBLY MUST BE INSTALLED AT HIGHEST POINT IN LINT, IF HIGH 

POINT FALLS IN LOCATION WHIRI ASSEMBLY CANNOT BE INSTALLED, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 

DEPTH OF LINE IO CRIATE HIGH POINT AT A LOCATION WHERE ASSEMBLY CAN BE INSTALLED. 

KIYID NOTES 

O 2'' BRONZE BEEHIVE STRAINER, 2'' RETURN BEND. PAINTED SAFETYELLOW 

O EXTEND 2'' PIPE HoRIzoNTALLY THRoUGH BACK oF Box 

O 2" ArR AND vAcuuM VALVE, APco 145c oR touAL. 

O casr rRoN 2 prEcE VALVE Box w/ LtD & LIFING HANDLE. SEATTLI sTyLE 045 

O LENGTH AS NECESSARY To PRoVIDE SAFE TRAFFIc_FREE LocATIoN 

@ 2'' DOUBLE STRAP SADDLE WTH IP BALL CORP STOP 

O MAINTAIN PoSITIVE SLoPE FRoM MAIN To AIR RELEASE VALVE 

@ 2" R/s GATE VALVE, CAST rRoN BoDy, scREwED, NoN-RrsrNG sTEM, 2" souARE 

OPERATINC NUT 

@ z" snlss PIPE wrTH 90'ELBow 

@ z" srnrrr 90' BENos 

O 3/4'' CATE VALVE W/ HANDWHEEL 

@ swrvEL ELBows As sHowN 

G 2-#2 FoCTTTE CONCRETE BOXES W/STEEL 

TRAFFIC BEARING LID 

(A INSTALL BoX PERPENDICULAR TO PAVING, 

INSUTATE W/ FIBERGLASS INSULATION TO TOP 

OF AIR/VACUUM VALVE, 

2'' AIR AND 

VACUUM VALVE 

City of Duvaln 

STANDAFD Pt l.l2_0t0-001

CONCRETE BLOCKING 

MJ x FL TEE 

FL x MJ GAIE VALVE 

OMAC FLEX COUPLING 

OR (MJ) SLEEVE 

18,' DUCTILE IRON NIPPLE 

CUT_INS TO EXISI1NG CgOO OR C9O5 PVC, 

C,I., OR D.I. PIPE REOUIRE 

1-18" D.t. NTPPLE 

1-(MJ) SLEEVE 

CUT-INS TO EXISTING 

A.C. OR STL PIPE REOUIRE 

2-18" D.t. N|PPLES 

2_ROMAC FLEX COUPLINGS 

CUT-IN TO MAINS 8" AND SMALLER 

CONCRETE BLOCKING 

U.S. PIPE HYORA GATE 

TAPPING VALVE #6860 

WITH (MJ) OUTLET OR 

MUELLER TAPPING CATE 

VALVE #H-667. 

U.S. PIPE. SMITH D.I. DUAL 

COMPRESSION TAPPING SLEEVE 

#T_28 WITH FLANGE OUTLET, 

OR MUELLER (MJ) TAPPING 

SLEEVE. OR EPOXY COAIED STEEL 

TAPPING SLEEVE (USE STAINLESS 

SIEEL FOR AC. PIPE) 

WET TAP MAINS 1O'' AND LARGER 

NOTE: 

ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING MAINS V,/ILL BE MADE 

WTH CITY OF DUVALLPERSONNEL 

PRESENT. 

ALL FTTTTNGS TO BE SWABBEO W/CL2 SOLUION (s0 PPM) 

STEEL PIPES SHALL BE RECOAIED WHERE WRAPPING 

HAS BEEN DISTUREED. 

ity of Duval 

CUT-INS AND 

UVE TAPS 

sTAlo F!' 

Na-aro_

S DEWALK 

OR 

6 0" FROM 

EACK OF CURB 

VARIES 

!? 

FORD TANDEM COPPERSETTER 

rv 1121a 

INSTALL,WITH 

KEY FACING UP. 

6' TOTAL PIT RUN SAND 

(3" ALr ARoUND) 

WILKENS OR 

WATTS PRV 

METER BOX LOCATION 

]. SIDEWALKS ]VETER BOX ]' BEH]ND SIDEWALK 

2. THICKENED EDGE . SET METER 8OX 3, oFF RIGHT oF wAY LINE (WTH]N R/W) 

3. SHOULDER ROADS - SET METER ON BACKSDE OF DITCH (WITHN R/W) 

4, SPECAL CIRCUMSTANCES - CONSULT CTY ENGINEER 

5. CURB NO SDEWALK _ 6' BEHIND BACK OF CURB (WITHN R/W) 

6. SET METER PERPENDICULAR TO PAVING 

NOT[: SERVCE LoCATION SHALL BE DETERMINED SIMULTANIoUSLY W/ 

OTHER UTLITE SO THAT CONFLICTS ARE NOT ENCOUNTERED. 

BACKFILL W/ TOPSOIL TO 2'' ABOVE METER LD 

StE STRVIC[ NOITS 

DETA t FOR KEYTD NOTES 

(STANDARD PLAN 2-090-004) 

City of Durvann 

5/8',3/2" S \G-L vF-FR SLRvTCT 

WIF PRESSI]RI RTDJL\G VAI VE 

STAiIDAFD FL.AN 2-030 AOl

WATER METER 

FURNISHED BY PERSON 

INSTALLING PRV ASSEMBLY 

PROPERTY LINE 

FLOW 

PVC 

CAP 

BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL 

TO 2" ABOVE VAULT 

o 

@ 

\!-/ 

@ 

@ 

KEYED NOTES FOR PRV 

3/4' COMETNATTON TA|L PTEC END CONNECTION 

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE W/ STRAINER _ 3/4,, VIIIH UNION COUPLING ON 

THE INLET; EOUAL TO: wlLKlNS #600, WATTS #U58, OR SEARS #42A1789. 

INSTALL SIDEWAYS TO ALLOW ACCESS TO STRAINER AND ADJUSTING SCREW. 

3/4'' BRASS GATE VALVE 

2-#2 FOc-rfi€" CONCRETE METER BOXES W/SOLTD COVER 0R TRAFFIC BEARING Llo 

AS NECESSARY. 

CONCRETE: 10 1/2" x 17 1/4" INSIDE DIMENSIONS, EOUAL TO FOGTITE METER 

SEAL CO. #B-9. 

s/q" BRASS PIPE 

INSTALLATION 

''DOWNSTREAM' 

THE PRESSURE REDUCING VALVESHALL BE LOCATEO 

OF THE METER. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPER INSTALLATION, AND 

OPERATION OFTHE VAL!€ SHALLBE THAT OF THE CONTRACTOR, 

Clty of Duvan 

5/8'fi/a' SNGLE METER SERVT 

WlH PRESSURE REDUCING VAL\ 

sT toASD Pt l{2-C

--TE(sJlh 

1 - _ 0.\t vrLE (fL x 

cnNcRm aLoo

41/2' PRESSJRE CAIJCE. TURREI CAs€ 

o - 2@ P.S,t. 

rlouNl 0N tNgot 0f A@€ss oPEllTNG. 

5/A' ' DRTIIED 

o{lrcE @{|< 

r/a' Ea^ss 90' 89{D 

r/,r' BRASS lEE 

L oDER A{D ndJXnNC 90tTS Slt&! aE @tStruClED 

OF HOI OIPP€D CAVANIZED STEEL 

0R[! AXo lrF A 1/a HOLE t{ _ D.t. P|PE fOR NSTILIAio . 

N.T.S, 

GAUGE ASSEMBLY 

x.T.s. 

MATERIALS LIST 

I. - PRESSJRE RDUONC VA\JE (Ct YI(N aoo-ol lDc) 

2. _ P^ESSJRE R!0UOI6 V^Lr€ (drYto eoo-01 As) 

!. l' oF _- D.r. (FL X CROO\€) 

1, VCIUAIC COJPLT{C Of Eo(JAI- 

5, 16' O€ _ 0.r. (FL) 

6. _ vyE SIRANER (FL), r/l Or^rr. SCREEN, $rH 

2' CORP STOP ON OR'JN 

7. _ 0.r PIPE (rL X PE) 

6. _ r,P. SERVIC€ S DrX.E Nr'tH Do.JALE STATNLESSlt€L STRAPS 

9._ARASSCl!Vtl\€ 

t1. _ t0' EENO 

12. _ lJNtoN 

!J, _ WyE SIRI|NER Slll 20 rlESH SCREEII 

1'. - 

REDUCEi 

15. CAUCE ASSAnALY 

'6. IO.ruSTAALE PIPE CJPPORT 

r& tEE 

19, _ r/4' CruCE COCr( ',ND PRESSURE CAIJGE 

PRV DESCRIPNONS 

1. PRESSURE REDUCING VALIE 

A) - oLo6a 

A) FIACED 

c) drss r25 

0) APPiOXAT^I! oollrslnElrr PiESSURE SETln.I6 - _ 

ps.t, 

E] fiE STFA'TER d{ PILOI UX' 

F) TLO|I CLOSNC SP€ED @NIROI 

c) v^!\E PodnoN Norc ToR 

H) SI TNLES S]EEL IRM ofi lr^rN ANo PIOT V lVE 

2 PRESS1JRE REDUSNG VAL\E 

_ 6foBE 

fiRITDED ' 

qlss 125 

APPROXUATE DOfiSIRf t PRESSJRE S€nNG - _ P,S.t. 

talE slRArN€R 0N PttoT u*E 

FLOfI OPEr.l'lC 5P€40 Cd.ttROL 

v^tvE Podllo rNorc^toR 

SIAINLISS SIEEL 1RIM OII YAIN ANO PILOT VAI\€ 

alr PiPE ANo nTnNGS 3' DtA. AND StAlrER SltA[ 

!N|ES_S l,lOlED OnER$g. 

AE 6RAS5 

City of Duval 

PRESSURE REDUCING 

STA]ION NOTES 

STIITDIFD P!l}l!*F

SIDEWALK 

OR 

6'-O" FROM 

BACK OF CURB 

VARIES 

. I 

I 

I 

& 

36'' MIN 

COVER 

INSTALL ViI TH 

KEY FACING UP. 

6'' TOTAL PIT RUNSAND 

(3,' ALL AROUND) 

SEE SERVICE NOTES 

DETAIL FOR KEYED NOTES 

(STANDARD PLAN 2_ O9O_OO4) 

METER 8OX LOCATION 

1. SIDEWALKS - METER BOX 1' BEHIND SIDEWALK 

2. THICKENED EOGE _ SET METER BOX 3' OFF RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 

3. SHOULDEROADS - SET MEIER ON BACKSIDE OF DITCH (WITHIN 

4. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES - CONSULT CITY ENGINEER 

5. CURB NO STDEWALK - 6' BEHIND EACK OF CURE (WTHIN R/W) 

6. SET METER PERPENDICULAR TO PAVING 

NOTE: SERVICE LOCAIION SHALL BE DETERMINED SIMULTANEOUSLY W/ 

OTHER UTILITIESO THAT CONFLICTS ARE NOT ENCOUNTERED. 

BACKFILL W/ TOPSOIL TO 2'' ABOVE METER LID 

(wrHrN R/w) 

R/w) 

Citv of Duvall 

5rl8"x3rl4" SINGLE 

METER SERVICE 

slal|)tto P(rN t-do-d

SlDEWALK 

OR 

VARIES 

BACK OF CURB 

36- MrN 

COVER 

INSTALL WI]H 

KtY FAC NG UP 

6 TOTAL PIT RUN SAND 

(r" ALLAROUND) 

12" 

M]N 

ON DUAL SERVICES THE 

1- LINE IS TO BE 

BRANCHTD W/ 1 fi/a 

MUELLER 14'' YOKE FI]TING. 

]/4" BRASS TUBING TO MT]ERS 

SIE SERV]Ct NOT[S 

DTTAIL FOR KIYID NOTTS 

(STANDARD PLAN 2- o9o- oo4) 

SEE SINCLE SERVICE DETAIL FOR METER 

BOX LOCATION, 

BACKFILL WTH TOPSOIL 

2'' ABOVE METTRLID. 

Clty of Duvall 

5 /B'8/a" DOUBLE 

I'/ E TER SERVICE

]'_ O'' FRON,4 SiDEWAL( 

OR BACKSIDE OF DITCH 

F- 

u 

a* 

o 

o: 

o_ 

z 

- 

z 

TY 

o 

TOTAL PIT RUN SAND 

ALL AROUND) 

* BAcKFILL W/ToPSoIL 10 2'' 

ABOVE [,1ITER LID. 

G)1" oR 2 r.p. sERVlct SADDLI w/ DoUBLE sTRAps EQUAL To RoMAc 0R 

SMITH BLAIR. 

(B) t oR 2" Lp. B^LL VALVE CORPORATTON SIOP W/ CoMPRESSTON ADAPTOR 

FOR TYPE K COPPER SERVICE EOUAL TO MUELLER. FORD BALLCORP. 

]NSTALLED @ A 45' ANGLE WIIH I(EY FACING UP. 

O 1" oR 2" HrcH oENSrTy poLyETHyLENE prpE PRESSURE cLAss 200. 

.D) - 

MTTIR SETTER W/ BYPASS, MUELLER, FORD, OR APPRoVED E0UAL, SPACE BETWEIN 

ANGLE STOP AND CHECK ANGLE SHALL BE 13 1/2" faR I SERV|CE OR 17 1/2' 

FOR 2' SERVICE. SETTER SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWINC FEATURIS: 

PADLOCK WINGS ON KEY VALVE 

ANGLE CHECK ON METIR OUTLET 

IRON PIPE CONNTCTIONS 

SETTER INLET AND OUILET 

COMPRESSION ADAPTOR ON SETTER INLET 

1" By PASS W/PADIOC( W|NCS ON CURE STOP 

(E) NO 2 FOGTITE CONCRETE MITIR BOX W/ ]/8'' STEET IRAFFI COVER AND READER 

WINDOW OR APPROVED EQUAL, METER BOXES LOCATTD lN DRIVTWAYS, PAVED AREAS 

OR AREAS SUBJICT TO TRAFFIC SI.lALL BE TRAFFIC BEARING. 

(F) INSTALL IDLER PRIOR TO MITER INSTALLATION IF METER ]S TO BT INSTALLED AT 

LATER DATE, 

@ r" on 2" DtA 12" LoNc BRASs 

NIPPLI W/ PVC CAP. 


1" 1A 2" 

SIN GLE SER VICES 

STANDARD PLAN 2_O9O-OO

GTNtRAt NOTTS 

I INSTALLATION: FAULTY INSTALLATION OR PoOR WORKMANSHIP NOT CORRTCTED By 

THE DE\€LOPER WILL BE CORRECTED BY THE C|TY, THE COST OF SUCH 

CORRECT]ONS WILL BE CHARGED TO THE DEVELOPIR. 

2. SERVCES: NSTALLATIONS SHALL BE lN ACCORDANCT WlTH THE STRVCE DETATL 

DR A WIN 6S. 

3. ALL FITTINGSHALL BE BRASS ALL JOINTS ON F TTNGS SHALL BE 

NSTA_T TI BY MEULLER, 

KIYID NOTES 

@ 3/4" OR I SERV|CE P PE: 

SINGLE SERV]CE SHALL BE J/4'' HICH DENSITY POLYETHYLINT PIPE PRESSURL CLASS 2O 

PIPE SHALL BE NIW AND FREE OF SHARP BENDS. KINKS, OR DENTS. ALL DOUBLE 

SERVIcES (REGARDLTSS oF LENGTH) AND SINGLE SERVIcE LINIS oVER 5O'IN LENGTH 

SHALL BI 1" MINIMUM DOUBLE SERVICE SHALL BE SET WTH FORD, OR MUTLLIR 

14'' YOKE FITTING. OR APPROVTD EQUAL. STANLESS STEEI, INSERTS AND 

LOCATOR WIRI SHALL BE RIOUIRED. 

@ coRPoRAloN cocK: 

SHALL BE BALI VALVT TYPI OR PI UI] iYPE EOUAI. IO FORD OR MUIttFR W/lAPERED 

THRTAD (CC) rNLtl, OUTLET W/|NSTA lrTt FTTTNC fOR BRASS OUTLit. 

@ SADDLTS: 

ON 4 DUCTILIRON PPt. USE DOUBIT SIRAP SADI]LES FOR ALL TAPS ON IHCKNESS 

CLASS 52 DUCTLT IRON P]PE 6'' AND LARGER, ONt INCH DIRTC TAP SI]AII BE 

ACCEPTABLT ON AC PIPE, PVC PIPI AND WELDED STEIL PIP[, 

USE ROMAC STYLE 202 S SADDLE OR APPROVTD EQUAL DIRICT TAPS ARF NOT 

ACCEPTABLL ON THEST PIPE MATER]AtS, 

o MITER BOX: 

MEIIR 8OX TO BE FURN1SHED AND INSTALLID BY CONTRACTOR AND ADJUSTID TO 

FINISHED GRADT PRIOR TO METTR NSTAI.LATION. 5/8 t 3/4 MEIERS SHATL BE 

INSIATLED lN A FOGTTI 89 BOX W,/ H NGED RIADER LDS J/4'AND 1" METERS 

SHALL BE INSTALLED N A FOCTI]E B1O _ BOX W/ HNGED READER LIDS, BOXES 

INSTALLED ]N TRAFF1C ARIAS SHALL BE EOUPPTD WTH CAST IRON LIDS & SHALL BE 

TRAFFIC B[ARINC. ALL BOXES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPTNDICULAR IO PAVING. 

o l5 BRASS MEIER SITTER - MUELLER FORD, OR APPROVED TQUAL 

15 BRASS SITTER ]O BI EOUIPPED AS FOLLOWS 

. PADLOCK WNCS ON KIY VALVE 

.ANGLE CHECK ON METER OUTLET 

.IRON PIPI CONNECTIONS 

SETTER 

INLIT AND OUTLTT 

.INSTA-TITE F TTNG ON SETTER NLtT 

.18 BRASS NIPPLT ON SETTER OUTLET 

O METIRI 

METER TO BI FURNISHTD AND NS]ALI TD BY 

THE CTY UNLESS O'T}]ERW SE NOTED. 

O sERVrct L|NE: 

SIRVICT LINE CONSTRUCIED BY PROPERTY OWNER 

1N ACCORDANCE W/ APPLICABLE CODES. 

Clty of Duvaln 

METER SERV CE N OTES 

sTAl.oreo PL^N 2 090

LADDER (RUNGS 

TO BE IN-LINE 

W/EDGE OF 

OPENING 

''LADDER 

WITH 

BITCO 

UP" POLE 

FLOW 

FLANGE 

' t I CoUPLING 

epoxv doareo sTEEL- 24"MtN i\ADAPTER / 

cnoSs x'" x"" 2" 

'\w/REr. 

\ I 

IUGS 

[4ETE 

BYPASS MTH 

LOCKING BALL 

vAtvEs (sEE 

CHART 

FOR otLS) 

12'' MIN. TYP. 

BOTH SIDES 

INK SEALS 

EA. SIDE 

RETAINING RING 

ON D,I, P. WITH 

CONC. THRUST 

RES TRAIN T 

(PLACE PLASTIC 

O\€R LINK SEAL 

PLACING CONC.) (rYPrcAL) 

BEFORE 

STRAINER 

RESILIENT SEATc.v. 

PLAN 

N,T,S. 

24;MrN 

6" MrN. 

ALUMINUM DOUBLE DOORS 

WlTH GUTTER DRAIN HS_ 20 

VEHICLE RATING AND LOCKING HASP 

FLOW_ 

SLOPE FLOOR 

TO DRAIN 

counsr --{j'. 

6" LEVELING 

OVER UNDISTURBEDBEARIN G 

NOTES: 

SECTION 

N, T. S. 

], COVER SHALL EXTEND 6" ABOVE GRADE WHEN 

VAULT IS NOT IN TRAFFIC AREA AND SHALL BE 

FLUSH IN TRAFFIC AREA. 

2. SLOPE PAVEMENT AWAY FROM VAULT WHEN 

VAULT IS IN TRAFFIC AREA. 

3. VAULT TO BE RATED FOR HIGHWAY USE 

(HS-20 VEHTCLE RAflNG M|N|MUM). 

4. DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY 

MUST BE INSTALLED BETWEEN METER 

AND POINT OF USE (BUILDING). 

ALL BYPASSE SMALLER THAN 4" 

SHALL BE SADDLED. 

GRINNEL OR EO. 

PIPE SUPPORT 

METER 

SIZE 

3 

6 

8 

SUMP W/GALV. 

STL, GRATE W/ 

ELEC. 

-TO 

SUMP. PLU 

BE LOCATED 1 

MAX FROM HATCH 

OR DRAIN TO 

DAYLIGHT OR 

RECOMMENDEO APPROVED 

8 \trASS S|ZE COLLECTION 

SYS TEM. 

1 1/2" COPPER 

1 1/2" COPPER 

2,'COPPER 

4" D.t. P. 


ME'TER VAULT ASSEMBLY 

(ME.IERS 2" AND LARGER)

P A VEMEN T 

STEEL CASING 

CASING SEAL 

CASING SPACER 

1/2,' CLEARANCE BETWEEN STEEL 

CASING & END BELL OF O-I. PIPE 

* DEPTH PER APPLICABLE COUNTY/STATE REOUIREMENTS 

SPACING TO BE 

SAND FILLED 

D,I, PIPE 

S'TEEL CASING 

CASINC SPACER 

N OTE Si 

CASING 

SIZE AND MINIMUM THICKNESS OF CASING SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE 

CONTRACT DRAWNGS, HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE 

FOR SELECTING THE THICKNESS CONSISTENT WTH HIS OPERATION. 

CASING SEAL 

MINIMUM 3/16', THIcK, sHEET TYPE SYNTHETIc RUBBER WTH STAINLESS 

STEEL BANDS. 

City of Dr-rvall 

PIPE CASING 

stA{rAio ?tl|l

P-\ 

SEE VAL\€ TIARKER DETAIL 

METER BOX 

''FOCTITE'' 

''B_10" 

TRAFFIC 

t 

f 

O 

2- 2' 90' ELBOWS 

(BRASS) 

4 CU. fr 1 1/2' 

WASHED ROCK 

BOX ADJACENT 

TO PROPERTY LINE 

UNLESS OTHERWISE 

SPECIFIED. 

N4AINCAURD MODEL #78 

BLOW_OFF HYDRANT 

R/S GATE VALVE 

SO OPER, NUT 

2" BRASS P|PE 

LENGTH AS REOUIRED, 

VARIABLE 

NOTTS: 

ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS FROM THE MAN TO TI.]E CATI VALVT 

SHALL BE BRASS W/ I.P. THREAD, 

1' O'' FROM SDIWALK OR 

BACK SIDE OF DITCH 

EARIH B ACKF Lt 

BRASS PIPE 

2-2 9A 

ELBOWS 

(BRASS) 

O 

2" TAPPED TEE 

CORPORATION 

STOP. PROVIDE 

IHRUST BLOCK 

AT LINI 

TERIVINATiON 

(SEE BILOW FO 

END OF LINT 

CONNECT ON) 

.- TO BLOW OFF ASSEI,/BLY 

(sEE ABovr) 

2OOO PSI BLOCKING 

1 /2" STEEL PLATE 

DtP W/12" X 6 SLOT FOR 

ELOW OFF ASSIMBLY 

DIP W/ TAPPED 

PLUG OR CAP 

tND OI LINE CONNICT]ON 

City of Duvann 

2' BLOW OFF 

ASSE[IBLY 

STANDMD Pt-Atl 2-120 00i

GALVANIZED ROD 

PIPE 

SIZE 

!€RTICAL BLOCKING 

FOR 11 1/4' & 22 1/2' SENDS 

V 8 CU FT D L 

11 1//4' 8 2.O' 3/4" 1.5 

22 1 /2' 1l 2.2' 2.O' 

6 11 1 /4' t1 2.2 3/4" 2.4 

22 1' /2' 25 2.9' 

8- 11 1/4' 2.s' 3/4" 2.0' 

?) 1 /?' 47 

12 111/4' 

32 3.2 3 /4" 2.0' 

22 1/2' 88 4.5' 7 /8" J.0' 

tl 

22 1,/4' 70 

1/2' 184 4.1 

a./ ,',l3ll 3.0' 

4.0' 

20' 11 1/4' 91 4.5 

22 1 /2' 225 o_t ,',lu,l J.O' 

4.0 

24" );r'#;' 128 t.u 1" J.5 

J20 o.6 13 /8" 

VERTICAL BLOCKING FOR 45' BENDS 

t- 

L 

VERTICAL BLOCKING 

FOR 11 1/4" 22 1/2' 

& 30' 8EN0S 

._?.-'-- 

,,,,p 

UNDISTURBED 

EARTH 

GALVANIZED RODS 

4' 45' JO J.1 3/4" 2.O' 

6- 68 4.t 

o 123 J.U 

12" 232 3 /4" 

lo 478 7.8' t1 /8 4.0' 

20' 560 a.2' 11/+ 

24' 420 9.4' 13/8" 

t 

t_ 

,.N, 

AY" r*o,.,r*r.o 

Z---- 

VERTICAL BLOCKING 

FOR 45' BENDS 

NOTE: CONCRETE ELOCTINC BA SEO 

ON 2OO PSI PRESSURE AND 

25OO PSI CONCRETE 


VER'IICAt 

THRUST BLOCKING

BLINO FLANGE 

CAPPED CROSS 

90'BEND 

PLU G 

*-----+nt^ 

--ft-.ltr 

=-ur.-] 

( srD) 

OR 

NOTCH 

BLOWOFF 

SMALLERSIZE PIPE 

ONE PIPE SIZE SMALLER 

THAN DEAD ENDING PIPE 

c 

CROSS 

45'BEND 

BLOCK DIMENSION (TYP.) 

SEE THRUST BLOCK TABLE. 

11 1/4' BEND 

NOTES: 

sEE THRUST BLOCK TABLE FOR ALL NOTES. 

PROVIOE POLYETHYLENE SHEETING TO COVER 

BOLTS AND JOINTS FOR DISMANTLING, 


CONCRE'TE BLOCKING 

STAT,OA O PL|N 2-l

IEBUS].ELOEL_-3BLE 

MIN. BEARING AREA AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL 

SQUARE FEET 

P I P E A B C D 

szE (Fr.2) G1.2) (rr.z; Ft21 

3" 3 2 2 2 

6" 4 4 2 2 

6 7 6 + 2 

10" t1 10 

5 

11' 16 14 9 5 

14" 22 19 12 6 

to 29 25 to 8 

18" 36 

20 to 

20' 

39 24 1J 

22" 

47 29 

t3 

24' 64 56 

18 

28" 87 

48 24 

30" 101 87 55 2A 

145 125 78 40 

171 107 55 

48" za/ 223 140 71 

E 

(rr.z; 

2 

2 

2 

2 

J 

3 

4 

5 

6 

t1 

I 

12 

14 

20 

27 

NOTES: 

1. BEARING AREA OF CONC. THRUST BLOCK BASED ON 2OO PSI PRESSURE 

AND SAFE SOIL BEARING LOAD OF 2,OOO POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT. 

2, AREAS MUST BE AOJUSTED FOR OTHER PIPE SIZES, PRESSURES ANO 

sorL coNDtTtoNs. 

3. CONCRETE BLOCKING SHALL BE CAST IN PLACE ANO HAVE A MINIMUM 

BEARING SURFACE OF 6" X 6'' SOUARE AGAINS THE FITTING, 

4. BLOCK SHALL BEAR AGAINST FIT]INGS ONLY AND SHALL BE CLEAR OF 

JOINTS TO PERMIT TAKINC UP OR DISMANTLINC OF JOINT. 

CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BLOCKING ADEQUATE TO WTHSTANO FULL 

TEST PRESSURE AS WELL AS TO CONTINUOUSLY WTHSTAND OPERATION 

PRESSURE UNDER ALL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE. 

6. 

ALL BOLTS AND NUTS SHALL BE POLYWRAPPED PRIOR TO POURING 

CON CRETE, 


]HRUST BLOCK TABLE 

STA'AND 'LA

LADDER (RUNGS TO BE IN LINE 

W/EDGE 

"LADDER 

OF OPENING) WTH 

BILCO UP" POLE 

5/8" & 3/4" FORD 72-12 DOUELE 

PURPOSE COPPERSETTER W/ ANGLE 

CHECK VALVE. 

24"MtN 

ubc nppnovEo 

DPUBLE 

CI]ECK VALVE 

FLOW 

RETAINING RING 

oN D.r.P. W/CONC 

HRUST RESTRAIN 

(PLACE PLASTIC 

OVER LINK SEAL 

BEFORE PLACTNG CONC.) 

>_-4-.--- - _ _ _ _ _ :-_-



INTRODUCTION 

A wellhead protection program is a proactive and ongoing effort of a water purveyor to protect 

the health of its customers by preventing contamination of the groundwater that it supplies for 

drinking water. Section 1428 of the 1986 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) mandates that each state develop a wellhead protection program. In Washington State, 

the Department of Health (DOH) is the lead agency for the development and administration of 

the State’s wellhead protection program. All federally defined Group A public water systems 

that use groundwater as a water source are required to implement a wellhead protection program. 

All required elements of a local wellhead protection program must be documented and included 

in either the Comprehensive Water System Plan (applicable to Duvall) or Small Water System 

Management Program document (not applicable to Duvall). The State mandate for wellhead 

protection and the required elements of a wellhead protection program are contained in WAC 

246-290-135 Source Protection, which became effective in July of 1994. The minimum required 

elements of a wellhead protection program for water systems in Washington State that rely on 

groundwater are as follows: 

• A completed susceptibility assessment of each water source. 

• Delineation of wellhead protection areas for each water source. 

• An inventory of known and potential contaminant sources located within the defined 

wellhead protection areas. This inventory list shall be updated every two years. 

• Documentation of the purveyor’s notification to all owners/operators of known and 

potential sources of groundwater contamination within the defined wellhead protection 

areas. 

• Documentation of the purveyor’s notification to regulatory agencies and local 

governments of the defined boundaries of the wellhead protection areas and the findings 

of the contaminant source inventory. 

• A contingency plan to ensure that customers have an adequate supply of water in the 

event that contamination causes a temporary or permanent loss of the system’s principal 

source of supply. 

• Documentation of the purveyor’s coordination with local emergency spill responders 

(including police, fire, and health departments), including notification of wellhead 

protection area boundaries, results of susceptibility assessment, inventory findings, and 

contingency plan. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Wellhead Protection Program (12/29/04-14:56)


The City of Duvall is not required to prepare a Wellhead Protection Program, because all potable 

water supply is provided by Seattle Public Utilities. However, the City is taking a proactive 

approach to protecting the Taylor’s Landing Well in the event that the City decides to use the 

well in the future as a source of potable water. 

PAST PROTECTION EFFORTS 

The City of Duvall currently holds a water rights claim to the Taylor’s Landing Well, which is 

located southwest of the intersection of Main Street NE and NE Allen Street. The well is an 

artesian well that was historically used to augment low or dry private wells in the unincorporated 

areas north of Duvall by hauling water from the well site. The Taylor’s Landing Well was 

closed to the public on May 31, 2000 for liability reasons and as a result, the well is currently not 

used for potable water supply. The well, which is now securely capped and locked, is only used 

in the summer by the City’s Public Works Department to fill water trucks for irrigation purposes. 

The City is retaining the water rights and ownership of the well for possible future use. This 

wellhead protection plan has been prepared to protect the wellhead in the event that this effort is 

pursued in the future. The City has no record of previous wellhead protection efforts, but is 

prepared to begin implementing protection efforts to ensure good water quality is maintained in 

the well. 

WATER QUALITY 

The Taylor’s Landing Well has a history of good water quality, both before and after public use 

of the well, which was terminated in May of 2000. Water quality samples were last taken from 

the Taylor’s Landing Well in December of 2001 as part of the East King County Groundwater 

Monitoring Program. These were the second round of water samples for the well and were 

tested for a substantially larger number of parameters than the first round. Samples were 

collected by King County Water and Land Resources Division staff and analyzed by the King 

County Environmental Lab. The samples were tested for standard inorganic and organic 

compounds and were all found to be satisfactory in regards to the organic and inorganic 

parameters. Additionally, many of the organic compounds could not be detected because their 

concentrations were below the laboratory’s method detection limit (MDL). 

SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT 

In 1994, DOH developed the Susceptibility Assessment Survey Form for water purveyors to 

complete for use in determining a drinking water source’s potential for contamination. The 

results of the susceptibility assessment may provide monitoring waivers which allows reduced 

source water quality monitoring. 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Wellhead Protection Program (12/29/04-14:56) 2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


The City of Duvall has not performed a susceptibility assessment for this well in the past, since 

the well is not used for potable water supply and is not considered a source of drinking water. 

The City will complete and submit a susceptibility assessment of the Taylor’s Landing Well to 

DOH if the City decides to use the well as a potable water source in the future. 

DELINEATION OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS 

A wellhead protection area is the surface and subsurface area surrounding a well, well field, or 

spring through which contaminants are likely to pass and eventually be transported into the 

drinking water system. This is the area around the source that must be managed to protect the 

water supply from contamination. Establishing, or delineating, the boundaries of the wellhead 

protection area for each source is most commonly accomplished using the time of travel rates of 

groundwater. 

Wellhead Protection Area Zones 

The first component of a wellhead protection area is the sanitary control area required by WAC 

246-290-135. This protective area should already be tightly controlled by the purveyor to 

minimize direct contamination at the wellhead. The minimum sanitary control area for a well 

shall have a radius of 100 feet around the wellhead. The construction, storage, disposal, or 

application of known or potential contaminants is prohibited within this area, unless permitted by 

DOH and the water purveyor. The City’s only active well is located on City owned property that 

extends beyond the minimum required sanitary control area. 

Wellhead protection areas are commonly based on 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year time of travel 

zones. For example, a 1-year time of travel zone represents an area around the well or well field 

in which contaminants could reach the well within one year. Each zone has different 

management strategies based on the urgency of response and characteristics of risks to public 

health posed by contaminants within the zones. An additional zone, called “buffer zone”, may 

also be established to provide an area of added protection outside the 10-year time of travel zone 

for the wellhead protection area. 

Delineation Methods 

There are several delineation methods that can be used, but the simplest approach is the 

Calculated Fixed Radius (CFR) method. This method requires the least amount of technical data 

and is typically used for the initial delineation for identifying immediate threats to water quality. 

However, the major drawback of this method is that groundwater rarely behaves as simply as 

predicted with this method. Applying the CFR method yields a circular boundary around each of 

the wells or well fields, based on the data entered into a simple volumetric flow equation. Data 



input includes the annual volume pumped by the well, the open interval or length of well screen, 

aquifer porosity, and the desired travel time (typically 6-month, 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year). 

Other more complex, but probably more accurate delineation methods utilize analytical models, 

hydrogeologic mapping, and computer flow models. 

Delineation Results 

The CFR method was utilized during preparation of the City’s 2004 Comprehensive Water 

System Plan to establish the wellhead protection area boundaries. Table 1 presents data for the 

Taylor’s Landing Well and the results of the CFR computations, which are based on the well’s 

water rights information, since pumping rate information is not available. The wellhead 

protection area boundaries for the 6-month, 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year time of travel 

computations are presented in Figure 1. 

Table 1 

Well Data and Calculated Fixed Radius Values 

Description 

Taylor's Landing Well 

Data 

Source No. 

N/A 

Sec-Twp-Rng 

Govt Lot 4 13-26N-6E 

Year Water Rights Granted 1940 

Ground Elevation (ft) 48 

Screened Open Interval (ft) 10 

Current Pumping Rate (gpm) 0 

Annual Water Right (gal) 11,404,008 

Aquifer Porosity (estimated) 0.22 

Calculated Fixed Radius (CFR) Values 

6-Month Time of Travel (ft) 332 

1-Year Time of Travel (ft) 470 

5-Year Time of Travel (ft) 1,050 

10-Year Time of Travel (ft) 1,485 

Delineation Update Requirements 

DOH recommends water systems with a low or moderate susceptibility rating upgrade their 

initial delineation using a more sophisticated groundwater flow model approach within five years 

following the initial delineation. If the water system has a high susceptibility rating, DOH 



recommends upgrading their initial delineation within two years following the initial delineation. 

In addition, wellhead protection area boundaries should be reviewed and revised when new wells 

are brought on-line or when there is a change in the annual volume pumped from a well. DOH 

recommends re-evaluation of the wellhead protection area boundaries during the update of the 

Comprehensive Water System Plan, which occurs on a 6-year schedule. 

INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 

An essential element of wellhead protection is an inventory of all potential sources of 

groundwater contamination throughout the delineated wellhead protection areas. The purpose of 

the inventory is to identify past, present, and proposed activities that may pose a threat to the 

source of water supply (i.e., the aquifer). An initial inventory of a wellhead protection program 

should include, at a minimum, all potential sources of contamination within the 1-year time of 

travel zone and high risk potential contaminant sources within the 10-year time of travel zone. 

Inventory Approach 

An inventory of potential sources of groundwater contamination was conducted in 2004 during 

preparation of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan. Several databases maintained by 

the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) were searched for known and potential contaminant sources. 

The inventory efforts completed to date have been somewhat limited, due to budget limitations. 

The City will endeavor to budget additional resources in the future to accomplish a more detailed 

inventory of potential sources of groundwater contamination. 

Inventory Findings 

The inventory efforts described above revealed several potential sources of contamination 

located within a broad area around the well. The approximate location of the sites is shown in 

Figure 1 and a list of the potential sources of contamination is shown in Table 2. Only two of 

these potential sources are located within the 10-year time of travel zones of the wellhead 

protection area for the Taylor’s Landing Well, as shown in Figure 1. All of the potential sources 

of contamination were found on the Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank List. 



Table 2 

Potential Sources of Contamination 

Material 

WHPA 

No. Name Address Stored Location 

L-1 Valley Shell 15729 NE Main Street Diesel/Unleaded Gas Inside 10-year 

L-2 Cherry Valley Elementary School 26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd Diesel/Heating Oil Inside 10-year 

L-3 Town Center Mini Mart 15410 Main St NE Unleaded/Leaded Gas Outside 10-year 

L-4 Harding's Backhoe & Bulldozing, Inc. 14441 Carnation-Duvall Rd NE 

Diesel/Unleaded Gas, 

Used Oil/Waste Oil 

Outside 10-year 

Source of Information: 

L = Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank List 

Other potential sources of contamination that are not specifically shown in Figure 1 or listed in 

Table 2 are discussed below. A further investigation of these will be conducted during future 

inventory efforts. 

Hazardous Spills on Highways – State Route 203 passes through the 6-month, 1-year, 5-year 

and 10-year time of travel zones of the Taylor’s Landing Well Wellhead Protection Area. 

Automobile accidents within this section of Highway 203 could result in spills of gasoline or 

other transported hazardous materials that would threaten the aquifer of the well. 

Pesticide and Herbicide Use along Roads – Pesticides and herbicides are typically applied along 

county roads by King County and along state highways by the Washington State Department of 

Transportation. Although the chemicals in pesticides and herbicides are a potential source of 

contamination to the Taylor’s Landing Well, the proper application of them will most likely 

avoid contaminating the groundwater. 

Septic Systems – Septic systems for wastewater disposal and treatment are found in areas of the 

City that are not served by the City’s sewage collection system. These onsite sewage disposal 

systems, which typically consist of a septic tank and drainfield, may pose a threat to the City’s 

groundwater source. The ability to remove pollutants from the discharge of these systems 

depends on the type of the surrounding soil. In addition, septic systems may be unlawfully used 

for disposal of toxic materials. 

Home Oil Furnace Tanks – Some residents in the Duvall area may be using oil furnaces to heat 

their homes. The number and location of these is unknown. The fuel for oil furnaces can be 

stored in above-grade or buried tanks. The City’s groundwater source may be threatened by 

heating oil that leaks out of the tanks into the underlying soil. The risk of this potential 

contaminant depends on the location of leaking tanks relative to the City’s wells, the amount and 

rate of leakage, and the type of underlying soil. 



Hazardous Household Materials – Almost all households have hazardous materials that are 

commonly used for a variety of cleaning and maintenance purposes. Some of these materials 

include cleaning solvents, paints, antifreeze, and engine oil. Improper use or disposal of these 

may result in contamination of the City’s groundwater source. The Taylor’s Landing Well is 

located in an area that has several single family residences within its wellhead protection area. 

Private Wells – Poorly constructed private wells with inadequate seals and improperly 

abandoned wells may pose a threat to the City’s groundwater source. Poorly constructed private 

wells with insufficient seals provide a direct pathway for contaminants from stormwater runoff, 

rodents, insects, and other pollutants to enter the aquifer used by the City’s well. 

Stormwater – Stormwater runoff can potentially contaminate the City’s groundwater source. 

Runoff from industrial and commercial areas can contain high levels of metals and 

hydrocarbons. Runoff from residential areas is typically high in nutrients, pesticides, and metals. 

As development of new housing areas in Duvall occurs more stormwater will need to be 

detained, likely through stormwater detention ponds. There are several areas of recent and 

upcoming land development within the Taylor’s Landing Well wellhead protection area. 

Water Courses – Water courses located within wellhead protection areas can carry contaminants 

that may pose a threat to the City’s groundwater source. The Snoqualmie River is the largest 

water course within the Duvall area. The mainstream of the Snoqualmie River is located within 

the Taylor’s Landing Well’s 6-month, 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year time of travel zone. 

Agricultural Practices – Ranches within the wellhead protection areas can be a threat to the 

City’s groundwater source. Inadequate cleanup of animal waste is the most likely source of 

potential contamination found on ranches. 

Inventory Update Requirements 

In accordance with WAC 246-290-135, the inventory list of actual and potential groundwater 

contaminant sources located within the delineated wellhead protection areas must be updated 

every two years. The timing of the updates will be scheduled such that every third update is 

accomplished at the same time as the re-evaluation of the wellhead protection area boundaries, 

that is required during each 6-year Comprehensive Water System Plan update. 

NOTIFICATION OF INVENTORY FINDINGS 

Owners and operators of known and potential sources of groundwater contamination will be 

notified of their location within the delineated wellhead protection areas. In addition, all water 

customers will be notified (via a billing insert) of the City’s potential groundwater source, the 



Wellhead Protection Program, and the importance of protecting the City’s potential sources. 

Regulatory agencies, local governments, and emergency response agencies will also be notified 

of the location of the wellhead protection areas, contaminant source inventory findings, 

contingency plans, and emergency response procedures. Table 3 lists all of the recipients that 

will be receiving these notifications. An example of each of the four types of notification letters 

that will be sent is attached. 

Table 3 

Notification Recipients 

Agency or Business Contact Person Mailing Address City, State Zip 

Businesses within Wellhead Protection Area 

Valley Shell Owner 15729 NE Main Street Duvall, WA 98019 

Cherry Valley Elementary School Owner 26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd Duvall, WA 98019 

Regulatory Agencies and Local Governments 

Wa State Dept. of Health Robert James 20435 72nd Ave S, Suite 200 Kent, WA 98032-2358 

Wa State Dept. of Ecology Ray Hellwig 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 

King County Health Dept. Dr. Alonzo Plough 999 3rd Ave, Ste 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 

Duvall Planning Dept. Doreen W. Booth PO Box 1300 Duvall, WA 98019 

King County Water and Land Resources Director 201 S. Jackson St, Ste 600 Seattle, WA 98104 

King County D.D.E.S. Stephanie Warden 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 

Wa State Dept. of Transp. Lorena Eng PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 

Emergency Response Agencies 

King County Fire District 45 Fire Chief 15600 First Ave NE Duvall, WA 98019 

Duvall Police Dept. Glenn Marryman PO Box 1500 Duvall, WA 98019 

King County Sheriff Dave Reichert 516 3rd Ave Seattle, WA 98104 

Wa State Patrol Chief 2803 156th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98007 

City of Duvall Water Customers 

All Water Customers Varies Varies Duvall, WA 98019 

CONTINGENCY PLANNING 

An Emergency Response Plan has been developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Water 

System Plan. The Emergency Response Plan includes a contingency operation plan for the well 

and other water system facilities. The contingency operation plan for the well in the event of 

contamination of the water source is as follows. 

Emergency Condition : Aquifer Contamination 



Impact on System : Minor impact. Water not suitable for potable use - loss of supply. The 

City currently uses two connections to Seattle Public Utilities Tolt 

Supply Line for supply. Taylor’s Landing Well would most likely be 

used to supplement water received from the Tolt Supply Line. If the 

aquifer were to be contaminated, the well could be shut down with 

minimal impact to the City’s water customers. 


1. Shut down the well that pumps water from the aquifer that is 

contaminated and use the other water source. 

2. Notify DOH of the aquifer contamination. 


to be used for consumption and cooking, as necessary. 

4. Analyze water quality of water within reservoirs and dispose of 

properly if contaminated. 



6. Adjust control of system facilities, as necessary, to provide supply 

from storage facilities if water within them is not contaminated. 

7. Monitor water quality at affected well field and investigate cause of 

contamination. 

8. Contact Seattle Public Utilities to request additional supply from the 

Tolt Supply Line, if required. 

9. Implement water use reduction measures, as necessary, to ensure an 

adequate supply of water. 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The City of Duvall Wellhead Protection Program is an ongoing effort that requires staffing and 

resources to ensure its effectiveness in protecting a potential source of future drinking water. As 

discussed previously in this document, the regulations require that the City complete a 

Susceptibility Assessment Survey Form as well as perform an inventory of all potential sources of 

groundwater contamination throughout the delineated wellhead protection areas every two years. 

In addition, DOH recommends water systems using the calculated fixed radius method, like the 

City of Duvall, upgrade their initial delineation using a more sophisticated groundwater flow 

model approach within two or five years following the initial delineation, depending on their 

susceptibility rating. At a minimum, the City must re-evaluate the wellhead protection area 

boundaries during the Comprehensive Water System Plan update process, which occurs every 

six years. 



The following tasks will be pursued as part of the City’s on-going Wellhead Protection Program: 

• Develop and adopt a wellhead protection ordinance that addresses permitted uses and 

performance standards for properties located within designated wellhead protection areas. 

• Complete and submit a Susceptibility Assessment Survey Form to DOH. 

• Perform a more accurate delineation of the wellhead protection area boundaries utilizing 

analytical models, hydrogeologic mapping, and computer flow models. 

• Perform a more detailed inventory of potential sources of groundwater contamination. 

• Confirm location, condition, and proper closure of abandoned private wells, especially 

those within 1-year time of travel zones. 

• Distribute the required notifications of delineations and inventory findings. 

• Develop and distribute public education materials within the wellhead protection areas to 

address groundwater protection and household, landscape, and gardening practices that 

could affect groundwater quality. Coordinate with and utilize existing information 

developed by King County and DOH. 

• Establish a Wellhead Protection Committee to promote public education and awareness 

of the City’s groundwater source and contaminant prevention. Coordinate these efforts 

with the regional agencies. 

• Restrict land uses in the 1-year time of travel zones that pose a high risk to groundwater, 

such as gas stations, oil recycling, dry cleaners, fuel storage facilities, high density 

animal keeping, high density septic systems, and golf courses. Coordinate these efforts 

with King County. 

• Develop signage at the perimeter of and at strategic locations around the wellhead 

protection areas to inform people that they are entering an area that contains a potential 

drinking water source that is vulnerable to surface activities. 


Existing Water Right(s) Status 

Permit Certificate or Claim # 

Name of 

Rightholder or 

Priority Date 

Source 

Number 

Primary or 

Supplemental 

Existing Water Rights* 

(Irrigation Use) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 

Flow Rate (Qi) 

Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Existing Consumption 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Current Water Right Status 

(Excess/Deficiency) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Permits/ Certificates 

1 674 D* Town of Duvall 4/8/1940 N/A Primary 65 35 5 0.15 60 34.85 

2 

3 

Claims 

1 

2 

3 

TOTAL 

********* ****** ****** ********** 65 gpm 35 af 5 gpm 0.15 af 60 gpm 34.85 af 

Intertie Name/Identifier 

Name of Purveyor Providing Water 

Existing Limits on Intertie Water 

Use 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Existing Consumption Through 

Intertie 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Current Intertie Supply Status 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

1 Tolt 1 Supply Station Seattle Public Utilities Not Restricted 485 355 N/A 


3 

4 

TOTAL 

********* ****** ****** ********** 0 gpm 0 af 636 gpm 466 af 0 gpm 0 af 

Pending Water Right 

Applications 

Name on Permit 

Date Submitted 

Primary or 

Supplemental 

Pending Water Rights 

Maximum Instantaneous Flow Maximum Annual Volume (Qa) 

Rate (Qi) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

* This water right is not used for consumption and is occasionally used for irrigation purposes only. All potable water supply is provided by SPU. 

11/18/2004, 1:52 PM J:\data\DUV\102-081\01\Source-Quality\Water Rights Self Assessment.xls

Forecasted Water Right(s) Status 

Permit Certificate or Claim # 

Name of 

Rightholder or 

Claimant 

Priority Date 

Source 

Number 

Primary or 

Supplemental 

Existing Water Rights* 

(Irrigation Use) 

Forecasted Water Use From 

Sources (20 Year Demand) 

Forecasted Water Right Status 

(Excess/Deficiency 20 Yr 

Demand in Water Right) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Permits/ Certificates 

1 674 D* Town of Duvall 4/8/1940 N/A Primary 65 35 5 0.15 60 34.85 

2 

3 

Claims 

1 

2 

3 

TOTAL 

********* ****** ****** ********** 65 gpm 35 af 5 gpm 0.15 af 60 gpm 34.85 af 

Intertie Name/Identifier 

Name of Purveyor Providing Water 

Existing Limits on Intertie Water 

Use 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Existing Consumption Through 

Intertie 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 

Current Intertie Supply Status 

(Excess/Deficiency) 

Maximum 

Instantaneous 


Maximum 

Annual Volume 

(Qa) 



3 

4 

TOTAL 

********* ****** ****** ********** Not Restricted 636 gpm 466 af N/A 

Pending Water Right 

Applications 

Name on Permit 

Date Submitted 

Primary or 

Supplemental 

Pending Water Rights 

Maximum Instantaneous Flow 

Rate (Qi) 

Maximum Annual Volume (Qa) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

* This water right is not used for consumption and is occasionally used for irrigation purposes only. All potable water supply is provided by SPU. 

11/18/2004, 1:52 PM J:\data\DUV\102-081\01\Source-Quality\Water Rights Self Assessment.xls, Future


Water Quality Monitoring Plan 

INTRODUCTION 

This Water Quality Monitoring Plan presents the requirements for monitoring water quality in 

the City of Duvall’s (City) distribution system in accordance with the drinking water regulations 

contained in WAC 246-290-300. This plan also provides a summary of the existing water system 

facilities and system operation. 

Existing Water System Description 

Water System Information 

The City is a municipal corporation that owns and operates a public water system within its 

corporate boundaries. Water system data on file at the Department of Health (DOH) for the 

Duvall system is as follows: 

Information Type 

Description 

System Type 

Group A - Community - Public Water System 

System Name 


County 

King 

DOH System ID Number 207508 

Owner Number 1625 

Address 15525 Main St. NE, Duvall, WA 98019 

Contact 

Mr. Steven Leniszewski, P.E., Associate City Engineer 

Contact Phone Number (425) 788-3434 

Water System Operation and Control 

The existing water system is divided into five pressure zones, due to the wide range of elevations 

that are served (between 55 feet and 500 feet). All water supply is provided through two 

metered connections from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Tolt Pipeline No. 1 that follows an 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Water Quality Monitoring Plan (12/29/04-14:58)


alignment directly south of the City. The Tolt 1 Supply Station provides water to the 615 Zone 

and indirectly fills the 0.5 MG Crestview Estates Reservoir in the 555 Zone through an altitude 

control valve at the reservoir site. Water from this supply station can also indirectly fill the 450 

Zone 2.2 MG Big Rock Road Reservoir through an altitude control valve at the reservoir site. 

Tolt 2 Supply Station provides water directly to the 450 Zone and the Big Rock Road Reservoir. 

The settings of the supply facilities and water usage throughout the system dictate the amount of 

water either flowing into or out of the reservoirs. The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station draws 

water from the 450 Zone Big Rock Road Reservoir and pumps it into the closed 615 Zone (i.e., 

no storage within the zone) to meet 615 Zone demands and to supply water to the 0.5 MG 

Crestview Estates Reservoir when the altitude valve opens for filling the reservoir. The 485 

Zone and the 330 Zone are supplied by pressure reducing stations with water that originates from 

the 555 and 450 Zones, respectively. 


A list of the City’s existing pressure zones and their respective maximum hydraulic elevation is 

presented in Table 1. The table also shows the estimated connections and population in each 

pressure zone in 2002, based on a review of 2002 water supply data. 

Table 1 


Name 

Maximum Hydraulic 

Elevation 

Water Demand 

Allocation 

Estimated 

Connections 

Estimated 

Population 

615 615 feet 41% 801 2,128 

555 555 feet 29% 567 1,505 

485 485 feet 1% 19 52 

450 450 feet 11% 215 571 

330 330 feet 18% 352 934 

Totals 1,954 5,190 

Water Sources 

The City’s existing active water source is presented below in Table 1. All of the City’s water is 

currently purchased from Seattle Public Utilities. 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Water Quality Monitoring Plan (1/6/05-15:20) 2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


Table 2 

Water Sources 

DOH 

No. Source Name Category Use 

S01 77050Y/Seattle Purchase - Treated Permanent 

Water Storage 

A list of the City’s existing water storage facilities is presented below in Table 3. 

Table 3 

Water Storage 

Name Pressure Zone Material 

Volume 

(gallons) 

Overflow Elv. 

(feet) 

Current 

Status 

Big Rock Road 450 Steel 2,200,000 450 Active 

Crestview Estates 555 Steel 500,000 555 Active 


All water treatment is currently provided by SPU. The City’s water is chlorinated to disinfect 

and kill harmful bacteria that may be present in the water and fluoridated to assist in the 

prevention of tooth decay. Additionally, filtration and ozonation of SPU’s Tolt River source is 

provided by the Tolt Treatment Facility, which became operational at the end of 2000. 

Pump Stations 

The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station pumps water from the 450 Zone to the closed 615 Zone. 


A list of the City’s existing pressure reducing stations is presented below in Table 4. 



Table 4 


Name 

Upper Zone 

(From) 

Lower Zone 

(To) 

Current 

Status 

3rd & Stewart 450 330 Active 

3rd & Cherry 450 330 Active 

3rd & Stella 450 330 Active 

3rd & Virginia 450 330 Active 

Park Street 450 330 Active 

Kennedy Drive 450 330 Active 

265th and 145th 450 330 Active 

143rd & 268th 450 330 Active 

NE Big Rock Road 450 330 Active 

Stephens St & Broadway 450 330 Active 

Sunset Heights 144th 555 450 Active 

272nd & 143rd 555 450 Active 

Bruett Road 555 450 Active 

Millers Home Stead 555 450 Active 

275th & 141st 555 485 Active 

Kasper Heights 555 485 Active 

282nd & 140th 615 555 Active 

Manion & 156th 615 555 Active 

150th & 278th 615 555 Active 

SOURCE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

The quality of drinking water in the City’s water system is regulated by the requirements that are 

contained in Chapter 246-290 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Since all water 

is supplied to Duvall from SPU, the City relies on the personnel and procedures of SPU to 

provide a reliable and high-quality supply of water to the City’s system. SPU is responsible for 

the quality of the water from the source to the City’s two metered supply connections, whereas 

the City is responsible for the quality of the water within the City’s water distribution system. 

SPU is required to perform water quality monitoring at each of the two active sources for 

inorganic chemical and physical substances, organic chemicals, unregulated inorganic and 

organic chemicals, and radionuclides. The water quality laboratory of SPU routinely monitors 

the quality of water at the Cedar and Tolt River sources for these substances and subsequently 



reports the results to Duvall and its other regional supply customers. 

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

The City is required to perform water quality monitoring within the distribution system for 

coliform bacteria, disinfectant (chlorine) residual concentration, lead and copper, and 

trihalomethanes in accordance with WAC 246-290. However, most of the City’s required 

monitoring and testing is accomplished by SPU. 

Monitoring Requirements and Procedures 

Coliform Bacteria Routine Sampling – SPU provides coliform monitoring of the City’s water 

system as part of its regional monitoring program. Specific requirements are contained in WAC 

246-290-300. Duvall receives all of its water from SPU, which has an agreement with DOH that 

allows purveyors using water supplied by SPU to collect 70 percent of the samples required. 

Based on the population served by the City, a minimum of six (6) coliform samples are required 

each month; however, SPU’s agreement with DOH reduces the minimum number of samples per 

month to five (5). If a coliform presence is detected in a sample, repeat samples must be taken in 

accordance with the repeat sampling discussion below. 

Table 5 lists the addresses of the City’s routine sampling locations, including the upstream and 

downstream sampling locations in the event that repeat sampling is necessary. The sample sites 

are also shown in Figure 1 and correspond to the assigned numbers in the table. 

Table 5 

Coliform Monitoring Sampling Locations 

Pressure 

Number Address Zone 

DU-1 Intersection of 3rd Ave NE and NE Stewart St 450 

* DU-1R1 15826 3rd Ave NE (Residence) 450 

* DU-1R2 26804 NE Cherry St (Residence) 450 

DU-2 28522 NE 151st St 615 

* DU-2R1 28518 NE 153rd St (Residence) 615 

* DU-2R2 15217 286th Avenue NE (Residence) 615 

* Repeat sampling sites 



A total of five samples are collected each month in accordance with the schedule shown in Table 

6. Samples are taken at each site every month. 

Table 6 

Coliform Monitoring Sampling Rotation Schedule 

Month Sites Repeat Sites 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1 

DU-2 

DU-1R1, DU-1R2 
























Coliform Bacteria Repeat Sampling – The City is responsible for follow-up or repeat sampling 

if samples collected by SPU test positive for coliforms. In the event that a sample tests positive 

for coliform, a repeat sample shall be taken at the same location as the suspect sample and two 

additional samples shall be taken within five service connections upstream and downstream of 

the suspect sample. These repeat samples shall be taken by the end of the next business day after 



receiving the unsatisfactory results. If the results conclude that a maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) is exceeded (i.e., coliform are present in two or more samples for the month, including 

repeat samples), the City shall proceed with public notification in accordance with WAC 246- 

290. 

Disinfectant Residual Concentration – Specific requirements are contained in WAC 246-290 

for disinfectant residual concentration monitoring. The samples collected by SPU for coliform 

analysis are also analyzed for residual disinfectant concentration by the SPU Water Quality 

Laboratory. The minimum residual disinfectant concentration entering the City’s distribution 

system should be at least 0.2 mg/L. Samples taken within the distribution system are required to 

have a residual disinfectant concentration that is detectable in at least 95 percent of the samples 

taken each calendar month. 

Asbestos – Specific requirements are contained in 40 CFR 141.23(b). Since the City has 

asbestos cement pipe in its water system, the City is required to sample water from a tap that is 

served by an asbestos cement pipe once every nine years. The current maximum contaminant 

level for asbestos is seven million fibers per liter and greater than ten microns in length. 

Fluoride Concentration – Specific requirements are contained in WAC 246-290-460 for 

systems that are fluoridating drinking water. SPU currently fluoridates the City’s water supply 

and is therefore required to maintain fluoride concentration in the range of 0.8 through 1.3 mg/L. 

Determinations of fluoride concentrations shall be made daily, and reports of the analyses shall 

be submitted to DOH within ten days of the end of the reporting month. Monthly check samples 

shall be taken downstream of each fluoride injection point, at the first sample tap where adequate 

mixing has occurred. 

Disinfection By-Products – SPU provides disinfection by-products monitoring of the City’s 

water system as part of its regional water quality monitoring program. Specific requirements are 

contained in WAC 246-290-300. 

Lead and Copper – Specific requirements are contained in Title 40, Parts 141.86, 141.87, and 

141.88 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The City participates in SPU’s regional lead 

and copper monitoring program. The City obtained samples from one location within the water 

service area most recently in 1997 for the regional monitoring program and submitted the 

samples to the SPU Water Quality Laboratory for analysis. Although the City’s sample did not 

exceed the action levels, the regional testing did, requiring annual public education and treatment 

improvements because compliance is determined on a regional basis. SPU is resuming lead and 

copper monitoring in 2003 and 2004, now that the treatment improvements are completed at the 

Tolt Treatment Facility. 

Duvall provides information on lead and copper to customers in their annual drinking water 

quality report to comply with public notification requirements for lead and copper. 


2003 

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report 


Duvall Has High Quality Drinking Water 

We're pleased to present to you this year's Annual Quality Water Report. This report is designed to 

inform you about the quality of water and services we deliver to you every day. Our constant goal is to 

provide you with a safe and dependable supply of drinking water. We want you to understand the efforts 

we make to continually improve the water treatment process and protect our water resources. We are 

committed to ensuring the quality of your water. This report is written to keep you informed about the 

excellent water and services we have delivered to you over the past year. Our goal is and always has 

been, to provide to you a safe and dependable supply of drinking water. 

Do You Know Whom Provides And Maintains Your Drinking Water? 

Seattle provides many City and Water Districts with water to supply their customers. The City of Duvall 

purchases all of its water from the Seattle Public Utility Department (SPU). SPU has a large water main 

located South of the city limits. 

Two transmission mains connect the City distribution system to the SPU supply system. A 10-inch water 

main is nearly two miles long and extends from the SPU pipeline to the intersection of Third Avenue and 

Stephens Street. A second transmission main, consisting of a 12-inch pipe, connects to the SPU pipeline 

where it crosses Big Rock Road and extends to the intersection of NE 142 nd Pl. and 282 nd Avenue NE. 

The water system consists of over 20 miles of water mains, a 2.2 million gallon storage tank, a 0.5 

million gallon storage tank, and 25 pressure reducing stations. The type of materials being used for the 

transmission main consists of Asbestos Cement, PVC, and Ductile Iron. Currently there are 1,948 service 

connections to the City transmission system. (When you read the tables below note that the City only 

receives water from the Tolt Water Supply and not the Cedar Water Supply) 

Information For Your Review 

The City has on file, for customer review, the 1994 Water Comprehensive Plan, a Cross-Connection 

Control Plan, Development Design Standards, and the Water Shortage Response Plan. We are currently 

in the process if updateing our water comprehensive plan so that we can more accurately address the 

Cities growing needs as well as deliver the highest quality water to our customers. Also on file are testing 

results conducted by the City and the Seattle Public Utilities Department. 

The City is pleased to report that our drinking water is safe and meets all federal and state requirements. 

You Own The Water System 

The citizens of Duvall own the City water distribution system. City council meetings are held on the 2 nd 

and 4 th Thursday of each month. They are held in the Rose Room, lower level of the library, starting at 

7:00pm. Your questions and concerns can be presented at the beginning of any council meeting. The 

telephone number for City Hall is (425) 788-1185. The operator in charge of the water system is Steven 

Leniszewski, PE and his phone number is (425) 788-3434 extension 225. He may be contacted with any 

questions and will answer them as quickly as possible. We want our valued customers to be informed 

about their water utility. 

1

2002 Water Quality Monitoring Results 

The Seattle Public Utility Department (SPU) routinely monitors for constituents in your drinking water 

according to Federal and State laws. The following are results of water monitoring for 2002. We like to 

provide all the results that we have even though we only purchase water from SPU out of their Tolt 

Watershed, so when you read the following results remember that the Tolt supply water is the water you 

purchase and use. 

All drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts 

of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a 

health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. 

Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminates in drinking water than the general population. 

Immune-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have 

undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, 

and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking 

water from their health care providers or the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. 

The 2002 water quality monitoring confirmed that there were no contaminants at or above established 

levels of concern for the general public. The table titled “Water Quality Monitoring Results” lists the 

contaminants detected in 2002 together with their concentrations and possible sources. The following 

paragraphs describe the significance of a few of these contaminants. If you would like a copy of the list 

of undetected contaminants, please call (425) 788-3434 extension 225 and the City will contact SPU to 

obtain your requested information. 

Water Clarity 

Turbidity, which is a measure of water's clarity, has no direct health effect but indicates the overall 

quality of the water. High turbidity can reduce the effectiveness of disinfection. The water the City 

purchases from SPU has a very low turbidity. The unit of measurement for turbidity is the NTU 

(nephelometric turbidity unit). 

Cryptosporidium 

Cryptosporidium Parvum is a protozoan pathogen (disease-causing organism) commonly found in the 

natural environment. Most rivers and streams across the country have detectable concentrations of this 

pathogen. In the water we purchase from SPU for our drinking, Cryptosporidium sources include deer, 

elk, and wolves in the watershed. Chlorinating is ineffective against Cryptosporidium; however, there 

have been no disease outbreaks associated with SPU or Duvall's drinking water. SPU has recently 

upgraded the disinfection process by adding Ozonation to the treatment of our water. Ozonation is the 

adding of ozone gas, a powerful disinfectant which is very effective at destroying Cryptosporidium, 

Giardia, bacteria and viruses and aids the filtration process. 

Source water Cryptosporidium monitoring was conducted for 2002. Cryptosporidium samples were not 

collected from the Tolt supply due to removal and inactivation of Cryptosporidium by the Tolt Filtration 

Plant. Furthermore, the method used for detecting Cryptosporidium cannot determine if the organisms, 

which are detected, are alive and possibly harmful, or dead and presumably harmless. 

2

“Water Quality Monitoring Results” 

EPA’s 

Allowable 

Limits 

Detected Compounds Units MCLG 

MCL 

Levels in 

Cedar Water 

Levels in Tolt 

Water 

Average Range Average Range Typical Sources 

Clarity (Measured Before Treatment) 

Turbidity NTU NA TT 0.7 0.2 – 4.0 0.07 0.05– 0.2 Soil runoff 

Inorganic and Organic Parameters (Measured After Treatment) 

Fluoride ppm 4 4 1.0 0.9 – 1.1 1.0 0.1 – 1.2 Water additive that promotes 

strong teeth. 

Nitrate ppm 10 10 0.022 --- 0.12 --- Erosion from natural 

deposits 

Only one sample was collected for nitrate for each supply. 

TT = treatment technique 

100% of the samples from the Tolt Treatment Facility were below 0.5 NTU for each month in 2002. 

Disinfection Byproducts 

(Measured in 

the Distribution System) 

Units 

MCLG 

MCL 

City of 

Duvall 

Range 

(Low) 

Range 

(High) 

Typical Sources 

Total Trihalomethanes PPB NA 100 25.0 11.0 45.0 Soil runoff 

Definitions 

Parts per billion (ppb) or Micrograms per liter - one part per billion corresponds to one minute in 2,000 

years, or a single penny in $10,000,000. 

Parts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/l) - one part per million corresponds to one minute in 

two years or a single penny in $10,000. 

FML > 10um: Million Fibers per Liter greater than 10um in length. Samples with values higher than 

seven (7) MFL are above the EPA maximum contaminant level MCL and must be reported to the 

appropriate state agency for an assessment of vulnerability. 

Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminate that is allowed in drinking 

water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology. 

MCL’s are set at very stringent levels. To understand the possible health effects described for many 

regulated constituents, a person would have to drink 2 liters of water every day at the MCL level for a 

lifetime to have a one-in-a-million chance of having the described health effect. 

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal ( MCLG): The level of a contaminate in drinking water below which 

there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. 

Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking 

water. 

Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant, which, if exceeded, triggers treatment, or other 

requirement, which a water system must follow. 

NA: Not applicable 

ND: Not detected1 mg/l = 1000 ug/l 

For water samples: 1 part per million (PPM) = 1 mg 

1 part per billion (PPBP) = 1 ug/l 

3

Residential Tap Monitoring for Lead and Copper 

The source waters do not contain lead or copper. However, lead and copper can leach into residential 

water from building plumbing systems containing copper plumbing, lead-based solder, brass fixtures, or 

some types of zinc coatings used on galvanized pipes and fittings. Homes built or plumbed with copper 

pipe prior to the 1980 Seattle or King County lead solder bans would have likely used lead-based solder, 

and are considered "high risk" per EPA's criteria. Brass fixtures, regardless of age, generally also contain 

some lead. Metals leach into building plumbing systems when water is stagnant in the pipes for extended 

periods of time (6 hours or greater). 

By regulation, lead and copper monitoring is conducted at "high risk" homes. Samples are collected from 

these homes after the water is allowed to stand in the pipes overnight. The city is required to report the 

"90 th percentile" result of the testing. This means that 90 percent of the "high risk" homes have 

concentrations less than the reported value, and 10 percent have concentrations higher than the report 

value. Lead and Copper monitoring was conducted most recently in 1997. Homes in Seattle were tested 

at the same time as homes located in cities and districts that purchase water from SPU. This testing 

included the City of Duvall. Compliance is determined on a regional basis. 

Lead And Copper 

Combined Regional Monitoring for 

Lead and Copper 


Lead and Copper 

Lead and Copper – Regional Monitoring Program Results 

Parameter and Units MCLG 90 th Percentile Regional 90 th Number of Homes Source 

Action Level Percentile Exceeding Action Level 

Lead, ppb 0 15 19.3 53 of 390 (14%) Corrosion of household 

Copper, ppm 1.3 1.3 0.6 0 of 390 plumbing systems 

Lead and copper data from 1997 sampling at customers’ taps. Next sampling round in 2003 – 2004. 

Even though Duvall concentrations do not exceed the Action Level, the 90 th percentile lead concentration 

for regional monitoring does exceed this level. Because regional testing exceeded the Action Level 

annual public education and additional treatment improvements are required. Because the 90 th percentile 

lead concentration is not expected to change significantly until after the Seattle Water Department's new 

Tolt treatment facilities are in operation, Seattle and the City has entered into a Bilateral Compliance 

Agreement with the Washington State Department of Health which allows us to suspend customer tap 

sampling until the new facilities are in operation. This Agreement was signed in May 1997. 

Infants and young children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than the general 

population. It is possible that lead levels at your home may be higher than at other homes in the 

community as a result of materials used in your home’s plumbing. If you are concerned about elevated 

lead levels in your home’s water, you may wish to have your water tested and flush your tap for 30 

seconds to 2 minutes before using tap water. Additional information is available from the EPA’s Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). 

Infants and children who drink water containing lead in excess of the action level could experience 

delays in their physical or mental development. Children could show slight deficits in attention span and 

learning abilities. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high 

blood pressure. 

SPU has provided the City a source water protection plan, available for your review that provides 

information such as potential sources of contamination. 

4

Tolt River Treatment Facility – A Noticeable Improvement 

The new and improved facility utilizes a state of the art ozonation process that is used to provide 

increased levels of disinfection. In addition, the Tolt Treatment Facility increases reliability and 

flexibility by permitting continuous operation through periods of elevated source water turbidity and 

allows for increased use of water from the Tolt supply. The plant is designed to provide up to 120 million 

gallons of water per day to Seattle and their 26 original wholesale customers (including our district), and 

includes the following treatment processes: 

1. Ozonation – Adding ozone gas, a powerful disinfectant that destroys Cryptosporidium, Giardia, 

bacteria, and viruses and aids the filtration process. 

2. Coagulation and flocculation – Gently stirring the water with small doses of chemicals to bring 

small particles together to form large particles that can be more easily filtered. 

3. Filtration – Removing the suspended solids (particles) by passing the water through a 6-foot deep 

bed of anthracite (crushed coal). 

4. Chlorination – Adding a secondary disinfectant to provide continued protection in the 

distribution system against microbial contamination. 

5. Fluoridation – Adding fluoride, which helps prevent tooth decay. 

6. Corrosion Control – Adding minerals, which increase the pH and alkalinity, to help reduce 

corrosion in building plumbing systems. 

All of these processes are monitored continuously at the facility, which is staffed 24 hours a day. 

Here are some of the expected improvements in water quality: 

• Reduced turbidity (improved clarity) of the water 

• Reduced disinfection by-product levels 

• Improved stability of pH and chlorine residual levels leaving the plant; slight reduction in 

chlorine residuals 

• Protection against microbes including Cryptosporidium 

To learn more about the Tolt Treatment Facility, see SPU’s website at 

www.cityofseattle.net/util/DW/TOLT or call their water quality information telephone at 206-615-0827. 

Looking into the future 

Thank you for helping us to continue providing your family with clean, quality water this year. This has 

been a community effort. In order to maintain a safe and dependable water supply we sometimes need to 

make improvements that will benefit all of our customers. Last years improvements included a new 

distribution main in NE Virginia Street from Main Street to Fourth Avenue with included the connection 

of preiously stand alone lines for improvement in water pressure and circulation. The City is also 

underway in installing and using the Touch-to-Read meter reading system. These improvements are 

sometimes reflected as rate structure requests. Thank you for your understanding and support. Due to 

recent events throughout the nation, we have heightened the security of our water supply network and 

tried to limit the access to the system for your protection. 

We at the City of Duvall work around the clock to provide top quality water to every tap. We ask that all 

our customers help us protect our water sources, which are the heart of our community, our way of life 

and our children’s future. 

Please call our office at (425) 788-3434 if you have questions. 

5


Emergency Response Plan 

INTRODUCTION 

This plan is designed to assist the City of Duvall (City) Water Department personnel in 

responding to water system emergencies. The use and success of this plan depends upon the 

accuracy of its contents. It is a working tool that must be maintained and updated regularly as 

changes in the water system occur. This plan contains the following six elements: 

• An overview of the existing water system. 

• Water system personnel responsible for making decisions in emergency situations. 

• Procedures for notification of water-related emergencies to water customers, the public, 

local health department, and the State Department of Health. 

• Vulnerability assessment of the water system facilities. 

• Contingency operation plan for responding to emergency events. 

• Recommendations. 

This document and a current map of the water system should be kept at the Public Works 

Facility so it will be readily available for use by Water Department personnel in the event of an 

emergency. 

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM 

The City provided water service to approximately 1,954 customer accounts in 2002 within an 

area of approximately 2.3 square miles. The City’s water service area is significantly larger than 

the existing city limits. 

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) provides all water supply to the City through two metered 

connections. Water from SPU originates from the Tolt Treatment Plant that provides filtration 

and ozonation, as well as chlorination and fluoridation. Currently, no interties exist with 

adjacent systems to provide supplemental or emergency water supply to the City’s system. 

Water storage is provided by two reservoirs (both located on the eastern side of the City), which 

have a total capacity of 2.7 million gallons (MG). Duvall’s water system has five pressure zones 

with 19 pressure reducing stations, one booster pump station, and more than 36 miles of water 

main. 

CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN 1 DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Emergency Response Plan (12/29/04-15:04)


EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSONNEL 

Mr. Steven Leniszewski, Associate City Engineer, manages and supervises daily operations of 

the water system. Mr. Leniszewski is also the Deputy Director of Emergency Management for 

the City. 

When an emergency is reported to the City of Duvall Police Department during non-working 

hours, the police contact the Public Works on-call person. This person assesses the emergency 

situation and calls the necessary Water Department personnel to respond, depending on the 

severity of the emergency situation. 

All emergency situations are reported to the Associate City Engineer. If the Associate City 

Engineer is not available, the emergency situation should be reported to the Public Works 

Superintendent. One of these persons will direct the efforts to respond to the emergency 

situation, including proper notification of personnel described in the next section. The Associate 

City Engineer or Public Works Superintendent will be responsible for assessing the water system 

emergency and coordinating with water system personnel, other City departments, fire, and 

police, as necessary, to resolve the emergency situation. A list of these water system personnel 

and others responsible for making decisions in emergency situations is shown in Table 1 - 

Duvall Water System Personnel Emergency Call-Up List. 

The Water Department may require outside assistance to properly respond to an emergency 

situation. For example, the City may need to retain engineering consultants to assist in 

evaluating affected facilities and planning a course of action, or may need to hire construction 

contractors to assist in repairing affected facilities. Coordination with SPU may be required if 

the emergency affects the regional supply system. A list of these and other support personnel 

that can assist the City during an emergency event is shown in Table 2 - Water System 

Support Services Call-Up List. 

DUV\102-081\01\PLAN\Emergency Response Plan (12/29/04-15:04) 2 CITY OF DUVALL COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN


Table 1 

Duvall Water System Personnel Emergency Call-Up List 

The following is a list, in ranked order, of Duvall water system personnel that should be contacted 

in the event of an emergency. 

Contact Person 

(Name/Job Title) Personnel Responsibilities Work Phone Other Phone 


Associate City Engineer 

Mike Fisher 

Public Works Superintendent 

Mike Marty 

Operations Manager 

Jerry Marlette 

Public Works Supervisor 

Joe Chriest 


Brad Lauer 


Dustin Crawford 


Kyle Carrigan 


Oversees water system. Also acts as a telemetry 

operator and schedules water system O&M activities. 

425-788-3434 C 206-255-1601 

Responsible for day-to-day operation of water system. 425-788-3434 C 206-255-1374 

Telemetry coordinator and operator. Also responsible 

for day-to-day operation of water system. 

Plans and directs the construction and O&M activities of 

the water system. 

Performs O&M of water facilities. 425-788-3434 

Performs O&M of water facilities. 

Performs O&M of water facilities. 

425-788-0257 C 206-255-1372 

425-788-3332 C 425-471-1632 

425-788-3434 

425-788-3434 

Performs O&M of water facilities. 425-788-3434 



Table 2 

Water System Support Services Call-Up List 

The following is a list of organizations outside the City of Duvall that can assist the City 

during an emergency event. 

Organization/ 

Contact Person Type of Service Address Phone No. 

Engineering Services 

RH2 Engineering, Inc. 12100 NE 195th St. #100 

Engineering Support 800-720-8052 

Tom Lindberg, Rick Harbert Bothell, WA 98011 

Telemetry Services and Equipment 

Northern Systems 9009 W. Mall Drive #2108 

Telemetry 425-210-2381 

Art Larson Everett, WA 98208 

GC Systems PO Box 848 

Control Valves 

800-525-9425 

Dale Fletcher Sumner, WA 98390-0848 

RH2 Engineering, Inc. 12100 NE 195th St. #100 

Telemetry 800-720-8052 

Jim Swanson, Lee Tumbleson Bothell, WA 98011 

Water System Material Suppliers 

Familian Northwest 

1012 132nd SW 

Pipe, Valves, Etc. 

425-742-4748 

Everett, WA 98206 

H.D. Fowler 

6016 29th Dr. NE 

Pipe, Valves, Etc. 360-651-2400 

Marysville, WA 98270 

Western Utilities 

4106 134th St. NE 

Meters 206-722-4800 

Tom Rontin Marysville, WA 98271 

Pump and Motor Suppliers 

PumpTech 

12020 SE 32nd Street, Suite2 

Supplies and Service 425-644-8501 

Doug Davidson Bellevue, WA 98005 

PACO/Johnston Pumps 

3215 S. 116th Street 

Supplies and Service 206-433-2600 

Seattle, WA 98168 

Adjacent Water Purveyors 

Woodinville Water District Equipment, Materials, 17238 NE Woodinville-Duvall Rd 

and Manpower Support Woodinville, WA 98072 

King County Water District 119 Equipment, Materials, 11106 318th Pl. S 

and Manpower Support Carnation, WA 98014 

425-483-9104 

425-788-2885 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

Water customers, the public, local health department, State Department of Health, King County 

Utility Inspection, and others may be notified during an emergency, depending on the type and 

severity of the emergency situation. A list of organizations that may be contacted during an 



emergency is shown below in Table 3 - Emergency Notification Contact List. Following this 

table is a summary of the procedures for notification during an emergency event. 

Table 3 

Emergency Notification Contact List 

The following is a list of organizations that may be notified of an emergency event related to 

the City of Duvall Water System. 

Agency Contact Person Location Phone No. 

King County 

911 or 

Jim Lambert 


Fire District 45 425-788-1625 


911 or 

Operator 


Police Department 425-788-1519 

King County 

Department of Public Health 

King County 

Utility Inspection 

Water Program 

Jay Fulwider 

Bellevue 

Seattle 

206-296-4932 

206-296-8122 

Seattle Public Utilities 

Ernie Dunston 

Seattle 

206-684-5551 

Washington State 

Department of Health 

Washington State 

Department of Ecology 

Verizon Telephone 

Puget Sound Energy 

KING 5 Television 

KIRO 7 Television 

KOMO 4 Television 

KSTW 11 Television 

KCPQ 13 Television 

KCTS 9 Television 

KIRO 710 AM Radio 

KOMO 1000 AM Radio 

Seattle Post-Intelligencer 

(Newspaper) 

The Seattle Times 

(Newspaper) 

Derek Pell, P.E. 

Ray Hellwig 

Kent 253-395-6763 

Bellevue 425-649-7010 

800-483-4000 

800-321-4123 

Seattle 206-448-5555 

Seattle 800-777-5476 

Seattle 206-443-4000 

Tacoma 253-441-7945 

Tacoma 206-625-1313 

Seattle 206-728-6463 

Seattle 206-726-7000 

Seattle 206-223-5700 

Seattle 206-448-8000 

Seattle 206-464-2111 



Customers 

Customers and the general public will be notified in the event of an emergency situation that 

affects either the quantity or quality of water supply. The customers will be notified through the 

radio and television news media of the emergency situation and how it affects them. If the 

emergency situation affects water quality, customers may be asked to boil water prior to drinking 

or cooking. If the emergency situation affects water quantity, customers may be asked to 

conserve water to prevent depletion of a potentially limited quantity of emergency supply. 

Priority Customers 

Priority customers that require uninterrupted water service will be notified directly. These 

customers could include home care kidney dialysis patients, medical facilities, and commercial 

customers that are especially vulnerable to loss of water service. At this time, no priority 

customers exist within the City’s boundaries. 

Health Departments 

The local health department and State Department of Health will be contacted directly if there 

are water quality problems, water shortage concerns, or any other emergency situations where 

public health is threatened. 

Police and Fire 

Police or fire personnel will be notified in the event of a fire or human safety emergency 

situation. The emergency phone number for these types of emergency situations is 911. 

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 

A vulnerability assessment of the City’s water system was performed to determine the impact on 

the water system from different types of emergency events. The results of the assessment shown 

in Table 4 – Vulnerability Rating identify the water system components that are most 

vulnerable during a given emergency event. The emergency events considered for the 

assessment are earthquakes, windstorms, snowstorms, fire, vandalism and volcanic eruptions. 

For each emergency event, there are several resulting emergency conditions, many of which are 

identical for different types of emergency events. For example, a power outage type of 

emergency condition could be the result of any of the emergency events described above. 



Table 4 

Vulnerability Rating 

Wind Snow Volcanic 

Facility Earthquake Storm Storm Fire Vandalism Eruption 

SPU Supply System 

High 

Low 

Low 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Supply Stations 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Big Rock Road Reservoir 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Moderate 

Low 

Crestview Estates Reservoir 

Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low 

Big Rock Road Pump Station 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Low 

PRV's 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Water Mains 

High 

Low 

Moderate 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Telemetry System 

High 

High 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Low 

The results of the vulnerability assessment indicate that the telemetry system is the most 

vulnerable component of the water system, primarily because it relies on telephone lines for the 

transfer of data from the facilities to the master telemetry unit located at the Public Works 

Facility. 

CONTINGENCY OPERATION PLAN 

The following section contains contingency operation plans for responding to potential 

emergency conditions for each of the major system components. The prevention program 

outlines procedures and programs related to the use and care of personal protective equipment, 

respiratory protection, chemical and hazardous material identification, and hazard 

communication. 

Seattle Public Utilities 

Emergency Condition : Contamination 

Impact on System 

: Potentially major impact. Water not suitable for potable use - complete 

loss of supply. Seattle Public Utilities supplies all of the potable water 

for Duvall. 


1. Shut down both of the supply stations. 



Emergency Condition : Pipeline Break 


2. Coordinate with Seattle on notifying customers. 

3. Notify DOH. 

4. Analyze water quality of water within reservoirs and dispose of 

properly if contaminated. 



6. Adjust control of system facilities, as necessary to provide supply from 

storage facilities if water within them is not contaminated. 

7. Implement water shortage response plan, as necessary, to ensure an 


: Potentially major impact. Reduction or complete loss of supply quantity 

and pressure. 


1. Coordinate with SPU on extent of damage and duration of reduced 

supply. 

2. Adjust control of system facilities, as necessary, to provide supply 

from storage facilities if water within them is not contaminated. 



Supply Stations 

Emergency Condition : Power Outage 


: Probably minor impact. Unable to adjust control valves via electronic 

controls. Sump pumps will not operate. 

Emergency Response : Contact Puget Sound Energy to restore power. Visit each station to 

monitor operation and manually adjust control, as necessary. 

Emergency Condition : Telemetry and Control Failure 


: Probably minor impact. Unable to remotely monitor and control supply 

stations. 

Emergency Response : Visit each station to monitor operation and manually adjust control, as 

necessary. 

Emergency Condition : Control Valve Failure 


: Potentially moderate impact. Unable to supply water to the system from 

this supply station. 


1. Locate the failed control valve and close upstream and downstream 

valves to isolate it from the system. 



2. Adjust other supply station, as necessary, to maintain proper supply to 

the system until failed valve is repaired. 

Reservoirs 

Emergency Condition : Structural Damage 


: Potentially major impact depending on reservoir (or reservoirs) 

damaged. Loss of storage capacity and reduced fire flow. 


1. Isolate reservoir from water system. 

2. Notify police and nearby residents of potential danger. 

3. Notify local fire departments of reduced fire fighting capabilities in 

areas served by the reservoir. 

4. Drain reservoir, as necessary, to reduce level of damage and threat to 

local residents. 

5. Determine the extent of damage. 

6. Adjust control of other system facilities to operate system without the 

damaged reservoir. 




Impact on System : None 

Emergency Response : Contact Puget Sound Energy to restore power. 



: Probably minor impact. Unable to remotely monitor and control 

reservoirs. 

Emergency Response : Visit each reservoir to monitor levels and manually adjust control for 

inflow and outflow, as necessary. 

Pump Stations 


Impact on System : None. The 615 Zone Booster Pump Station is equipped with an 

emergency engine generator set. 



Impact on System : Probably minor impact. Unable to remotely monitor and control 615 

Zone Booster Pump Station. 

Emergency Response : Visit pump station to monitor operation and manually adjust control, as 

necessary. 





Impact on System : None 


Emergency Condition : Pressure Reducing Valve Failure 


: Probably moderate impact, depending on type of failure. If valve fails in 

the open position, localized high water pressures may occur in the zone 

supplied by the PRV station because the PRV stations and zones they 

supply are not equipped with pressure relief valves. The reservoir in the 

zone supplied by the PRV station will overflow if the PRV station is not 

shut down in time and if the reservoir’s altitude valve fails. If valve fails 

in the closed position, localized low pressures may occur in the zone 

supplied by the PRV. 


1. Locate the suspect PRV station and close upstream and downstream 

valves to isolate it from the system. 

2. Adjust other PRV stations, as necessary, to maintain adequate 

pressures until failed valve is repaired. 

Transmission and Distribution Mains 

Emergency Condition : Water Main Break 


: From minor to potentially major, depending on size and location of 

water main and size of break. Loss of water from reservoirs, reduction 

or loss of fire protection capability, disruption of water service to 

customers, potential damage to adjacent property. 


1. Notify affected customers. 

2. Isolate, shut down, and repair damaged water main. 

3. If one of the major transmission mains must be shut down, adjustments 

to the control and operation of other facilities may be necessary. 

Emergency Condition : Water System Contamination Due to a Backflow Incident 

Impact on System : Potentially major impact. Water not suitable for potable use - loss of 

supply. 


1. Notify the City CCS personnel of the incident. 

2. Shut down the affected mains if possible to contain the affected 

contaminants. 



3. Notify DOH of the backflow incident. 


to be used for consumption and cooking and/or issue a no-drinking 

warning. 

5. Flush affected water mains to remove contaminants. 



7. Analyze water quality in other parts of the distribution system to 

ensure that all contaminants were contained. 

Telemetry System 

Emergency Condition : Remote Telemetry and Control Equipment Failure 


: Probably minor to moderate impact. Unable to control affected facility 

(reservoirs, supply stations, pump station). The remote telemetry and 

control equipment, commonly referred to as RTU’s (remote telemetry 

units), are connected to the City’s master telemetry unit (MTU) at the 

Public Works Facility via telephone lines. The RTU’s send and receive 

data between the water system facilities and the MTU and control the 

operation of the facilities using this data. A brief description of the 

control of the facilities with RTU’s is as follows: 

• The 555 Zone is controlled by the level in the Crestview Estates 

Reservoir. 

• The 450 Zone is largely controlled by the level in the Big Rock Road 

Reservoir and supply from the Tolt 2 Supply Station. 

• Pressure in the 615 Zone is largely controlled by the 615 Zone 

Booster Pump Station and Tolt 1 Supply Station. 

• The remaining pressure zones are not controlled by the telemetry 

system. 

• A telemetry receiver is located at the Public Works Facility. 


1. Shut down the facility affected by the failed RTU, if necessary. 

2. Make necessary adjustments to use the other facilities for supply or 

manually operate the facility with the failed RTU. 

3. Call necessary personnel to repair or replace the failed RTU 

equipment. 

Emergency Condition : Master Telemetry and Control Equipment Failure 

Impact on System : Probably minor to moderate impact. Unable to remotely monitor and 

control facilities (reservoirs, supply stations, pump station). The RTU’s 

at each of the facilities described above will continue to control the 



operation of the facilities after a failure of the MTU. 


1. Call necessary personnel to repair or replace the failed equipment at 

the MTU. 

2. Visit each facility controlled by an RTU to monitor, verify proper 

operation, and adjust control, as necessary. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Emergency Operations Center 

It is recommended that a primary and alternate Emergency Operations Center (EOC) be 

established and fully equipped for emergency response in the event of a major earthquake or 

other major emergency. Each center should be provided with all necessary information for 

emergency response. This includes, but is not limited to current water system maps and plans, 

lists of emergency contacts for service personnel, parts, and equipment, City and County 

officials, and various media sources. 

Safety Preparations 

It is critical that reliable emergency communication be available to the staff to facilitate and/or 

expedite emergency functions of the City. It may be necessary to have separate radio channels 

for fire, police, and public works. Critical staff members should be given emergency radios to 

assure timely communication with other staff members if transportation systems and telephone 

lines are severed or restricted. Other staff members should be instructed to call in, if possible, or 

automatically report to work following an emergency to help re-establish emergency fire flows 

and drinking water supplies. Emergency water treatment supplies should be kept on hand in the 

event of an emergency. 

Since it is very likely that both power and telephone service will be incapacitated in a major 

earthquake, customers should be provided with emergency instructions in advance of the event 

of water supply loss. These instructions could be in the form of a billing insert or separate 

mailer. Power outages would prevent boiling of water for purification at most households. 

Alternative methods should be fully explained and described in sufficient detail with emergency 

instructions. Other necessary information might include volume and type of emergency food and 

water to store and other items customers should have on hand, such as a fire extinguisher, 

battery-operated radio, first aid kit, flashlight, and wrench for turning off gas or water service 

lines, if necessary. Directions for the aftermath of the earthquake should describe how and when 

to shut off gas, water mains, and electricity, and where to go for emergency medical services, 

food, water, and shelter. 



Design Criteria for Future Improvements 

Redundancy and reliability are critical throughout all parts of the water system, including 

sources, storage, and distribution. The following factors should be considered in future designs 

for minimizing Duvall’s seismic vulnerability. 

Reservoirs: Flexible piping connections and adequate anchorage. 

Distribution System: Ductile iron piping generally performs much better in an earthquake than 

more brittle materials, such as asbestos cement and cast iron. Frequent and well-located 

isolation valves are beneficial in preventing water loss due to leaks or breaks. Buried piping 

usually performs better than above-grade piping. Back pressure sustaining valves in pressure 

reducing stations reduce "draining" of upper pressure zones and subsequent low pressures when 

main breaks occur downstream of pressure reducing stations. 

Telemetry: Radio telemetry is more reliable in an earthquake and major storms than hard-wire 

telemetry, which is vulnerable to ground faulting, settlement, slides, and underground 

construction activities, all common during or following major earthquakes. Consideration 

should be given for replacing the existing hard-wire telephone-based telemetry system with a 

radio-based telemetry system. 

Power: Backup power to pump stations and other critical electrically powered facilities, 

including emergency response stations, is often critical. Power loss is the norm rather than the 

exception in a large earthquake and major storms. Future pump-based supply facilities should be 

equipped with a standby emergency generator and automatic transfer switch. As a minimum 

requirement, they should have an emergency generator connection and manual transfer switch 

for use with a portable engine generator set. 


strATE o,E WAshlt I N G]-O N 

DEPARTN,4 E NT OF N,]1 FALTH 

2fi4357Zna Ave. 5. , SlMi1te 20a, K'r 7-'tr2" Kent, Waskingtan gfur032 -2.-JSE 

September 23,2004 

STEVE LENISZEWSKI 

DUVALL, CITY OF 

PO BOX 1300 

DWALL WA 98019 

RECEIVED 

stP 2 4 ?004 

.jlTv OF DUVALL 

RE: Duvall, City of, Water System, D# 20750 

King County 

Water System Plan 

Submittal # 04-0604 

Dear Mr. Leniszewski: 

Thank you for submitting the draft Water System Plan (WSP) for the City of Duvall (the City), 

received in this office on May 28,2004. We have reviewed the plan and offer the following 

comments. The comments must be adequately addressed prior to approval 

Water Demand (Chapter 4) 

1. Please provide Average Day and Peak Day demands on an annual basis for the years 

2004 to 2010, with and without water conservation savings. Presentation of this data in a 

tabular format would be helpful. 

Water Source (Chapter 6) 

2. Please complete the enclosed Water Right Self-Assessment Forms and include them in 

Chapter 6. 

Onerations and Maintenance 

3' The original THM regulations have been phased out of WAC 246-290-300 (6). The 

Stage 1 DisinfectantsiDisinfection By-Product Rule does not apply to Duvall (i.e., does 

not apply to water systems that pwchase all their water and do not chlorinate). However, 

it is anticipated that the Stage 2 Rule will apply to purchasing systems. Please revise 

Chapter 6 and Appendix L accordingly. 

ada-#s-t7

4. The Water System Construction Standards do not appear to follow Figure 5-10 of the 

Pacific Northwest Section AWWA Cross-Connection Control Manual for new water 

main construction. Please consider revising the standards to avoid the cross-connection 

potential in connecting and testing new water mains. 

Other Documentation 

5. Please include Consistency Statement Checklists from the City of Duvall and King 

County with the final draft of the WSP. 

6. Please provide a signed copy of the Determination of Non-Significance for the SEPA 

checklist. 

7 . Please address the issues identified in the September 16,2004letter from the Department 

of Ecology (attached). I notice that the Water Reclamation Checkiist is included in 

Appendix F (Water Conservation Plan) of the WSP. 

We hope that you have found these comments to be clear, constructive and helpful in the 

development of your final draft WSP. We ask that you submit the revised WSP on or before 

December 25,2004. In order to expedite the review of your revised submittal, please include a 

cover letter summarizing how each of the above comments was addressed in the revised WSP 

and where each response is located (i.e., page numbers, Appendices, etc.) 

Regulations establishing a schedule for fees for review of planning, engineering and construction 

documents have been adopted (WAC 246-290-990). Please note that we have included an invoice 

in the amount of $3,473.00 for the review of the Water System Plan. This fee covers our cost for 

review of the initial submittal, plus the review of one revised document. Please remit your 

complete payment in the form of a check or money order within thirty days of the date of this 

letter to: DOH, Revenue Section, P.O. Box 1099, Olympia, WA 98507-1099. 

Thank you again for submitting your draft Water System Plan for our review. If you have any 

comments or questions conceming our review, please contact me. 

Sincerelv. 

/'t 

.L l" tt-//l 

[n-ho'# 

(w:a,tg*

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOCY 

Northwest Regional Office . 3190 160th Avenue SE , Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 . (425) 649-7000 

September 16,2004 

Department of Health 

NW Drinking Water Operations 

ATTN: Mr. Richard Rodriguez 

2043572"d Ave South, Suite 200 

Kent, WA 98032-2358 

RFCEIYED 

sFp 2onn 

- 

,vw DRrNru;' 

,i,lru^ 

RE: City of Duvall Water System, ID # 04-0604, King County; Review of WSP 

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: 

Thank you for forwarding the City of Duvall Water System Plan to our office for review. 

Consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Health and 

Ecology regarding joint review and approval of water system plans, this letter is being sent to 

your office with Ecology's comments on the Water System Plan. I have reviewed the relevant 

portions of the plan and have no objections to its approval. The inaccuracies as described in the 

following paragraphshould be corrected, and the requested additions should be made. 

Chapter6-WaterSource 

On page 6-5 under the heading 

"Existing Water Rights", the plan erroneously refers to the right 

associated with the Taylor's Landing Well as a claim, when it is actually a certificated water 

right. The certificate number in Ecology's database lists the right as 674-D, not 574-D. 

Ecology records do show water right claim Gl-026854CL under the name 

"Town of Duvall" for 

15 gpm and 5 afy for the purposes of "Domestic and Livestock during dry months". The city is 

reminded that in order for this claim to represent a vested water right, evidence must exist that water 

was first put to use on or before June 6, 1945. As a result of the Sinking Creek court case, the 

Department of Ecology is limited to making a tentative determination as to the validity and extent of 

a water right claim. The fue validity and extent of a water right claim can only be made by a judge 

during a water rights adjudication in superior court. Since the claim is not mentioned in the Plan, it 

is possible that certificate 674-D superseded it, or the claim is not being used as a water source at this 

time. In the interest of completeness. the Plan should mention the existence and status of this claim 

as the city sees it. 

Since water right certific ate 674-D is not being used and all water for the Town of Duvall cunently 

comes from the Seattle Public Utilities disbibution system, no analysis of water rights in relation to 

existing and projectedemand is necessary, 

Chapter 9 - Water System Improvements 

On page 9-9 under heading 

"CIP M3: Water Reclamation Activities", the Plan briefly discusses 

potential opportunities for use of reclaimed water. RCW 90.46.120(3) requires municipalities with 

greater than 1000 connections ensure that opportunities for the use of reclaimed water are evaluated.

A worksheet entitled "Water Reclamation Checklist for Systems with 1000 or more Connections" 

can assist in fulfilling this obligation. This worksheet has been included with the copy of this letter 

sent directly to the city, and should be filled out and included in the plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Duvall Water System Plan. Please contact 

me at (425) 649-4342 if you have any questions regarding this comment letter. 

Sincerely, 

A rt r'rl- 

l/ l/ /.--- (/- 

f.,(I 

/ v \ 

c-Ar'--.2 

n 

Paul Fabiniak 

Water Resources Program 

Encloswe: Water Reclamation Checklist for Systems with 1000 or more Connections 

cc: Mr. Steven Leniszewski, P.E., City of Duvall

UTRC Meeting Minutes 

October 13, 2004 

Attendees: 

Bruce Bennett 

Delite Morris 

Bernard Thompson 

Don Sorenson, Skyway Water and Sewer District Commissioner 

Cheryl Scheuerman, Skyway Water and Sewer District Manager 

Dennis Fields, Cascade Water Alliance 

Marty Penhallegon, Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers 

Ember Fry, Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers 

Steve Leniszewski, City of Duvall 

Tom Lindberg, RH2 

Review of Skyway Water and Sewer District water and sewer plans 

The UTRC had a lengthy discussion with the District regarding its review of the plan, 

specifically its comments concerning the District’s water conservation program. Statements 

made in the District’s plan concerning water conservation were not sufficiently supported by 

data. To evaluate the District’s conservation program, the UTRC requested additional data 

from the District and analyzed several months of billing data. The UTRC made the following 

observations: 

• The District’s existing rate structure does appear to support conservation in that there 

does not appear to be a subsidy for high water use. Approximately 50% of the water 

used by the residential rate class is being used by approximately 25% of the homes. 

Those same 25% of the homes are generating approximately 50% of the rate revenue. 

• The inclined blocks defined in the structure may not be appropriately placed, however, 

as they do not appear to adequately capture higher water use. For example, the first 

rate block captures use from 0-10 ccf per month. Over 90% of the residential rate 

class falls into this block. This first block could be divided into perhaps 3 or 4 blocks 

to more accurately reflect actual usage patterns. In fact, it might be possible to reduce 

rates for those using lesser amounts of water while shifting the revenue burden to 

those using more water. This could more effectively send a conservation message. 

The District indicated that a 2005 rate study would examine this issue in more detail. 

Prior to county approval, the UTRC has requested that the following changes be made: 

1. The plan should be changed to reflect the comments discussed in the August 30, 2004 

letter from Penhallegon Associates to the UTRC. 

2. The plan should fully address the comments provided by the Washington State 

Department of Health in its September 7, 2004 letter to the District. Of particular 

interest to the UTRC is the ability of the Cascade Water Alliance to fully account for 

both supplies and demands on an annual basis for the next 20 years.

3. Page 6-3 of the plan (section 6.3.1.1) should be changed to include a statement that the 

District’s water rates will be evaluated and changed, if necessary, to ensure an 

equitable rate structure that promotes water conservation. 

Upon receipt of 5 copies of the water and sewer plan that addresses the comments above, the 

UTRC will forward the plan to the Executive for his transmittal to the King County Council. 

The ordinance proposing approval of the plan may contain a requirement that the District 

provide the UTRC with a copy of its annual rate studies. 

Review of City of Duvall water plan 

The UTRC was impressed with the city’s plan, particularly its water conservation data 

analysis. There were only two requested improvements made by the UTRC: 

1. On page 9-4 of the plan (“Future water main extensions and replacements”) and page 

2-1 of Appendix I, please include the following statement: “All work performed in 

King County road right-of-way must conform to the most recent edition of the King 

County Road Standards.” 

2. In Table 1 of Appendix O, please include emergency contact information for King 

County: King County Utility Inspections 

Jay Fulwider 

206-296-8122 

Please modify the plan accordingly and send 5 sets of replacement pages to the UTRC Chair. 

The UTRC will then forward the plan to the Executive for his transmittal to the King County 

Council. 

Braun Appeal 

The UTRC has been notified of an appeal of water service from Mark Braun. Mr. Braun is 

disputing the Sallal Water Association’s contention that it can provide timely and reasonable 

service. The UTRC Chair will schedule a hearing to review this appeal.

Comprehensive Water System Plan - City of Duvall

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?