Tech Resources

  • See Technical Specifications, Design Criteria and Standard Details for the planning and construction process on the Technical Resources page.

Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility

Overview | Community Involvement | FAQ | Contact Us | Links

Wakarusa WRF Public Open House #1

Attendance:
Community residents, representatives from the Public Advisory Committee, City Staff, and Consultant Team were in attendance at the meeting held at South Junior High School from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Introductions and Project Team:
Debbie Van Saun (Assistant City Manger) opened the meeting and introduced Patti Banks (Patti Banks Associates) who introduced the City Staff, Public Advisory Committee, and Consultant Team as outlined below.

City Staff
End user of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility

  • Dave Wagner, Assistant Director Wastewater
  • Philip Ciesielski, Utilities Engineer
  • Mark Hegemann, Wastewater Treatment Manager
  • Jeanette Klamm, Residuals Coordinator

Public Advisory Committee
Conduit for public input and engagement through the evaluation process

  • Mr. Tom Bracciano, Lawrence Public Schools - Facilities and Operations Planning Division Director
  • Mr. Warren Corman, University of Kansas - Business and Financial Planning, University Architect
  • Mr. Rod Geisler, Kansas Department of Health and Environment - Bureau of Water Chief, Municipal Programs
  • Mr. John Craft, Neighbor to Kaw Wastewater Treatment Plan
  • Ms. Lavern Squier, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO
  • Mr. Michael Campbell, Kansas Sierra Club (Wakarusa Group), Chair
  • Ms. Mary Lynn Stuart, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, Secretary
  • Mr. Michael Caron, Save the Wetlands, President
  • Ms. Carrie Lindsey, League of Woman Voters - Lawrence/Douglas County, President
  • Mr. Ross Marshall, Kansas City Area Historic Trails Association, Secretary
  • Ms. Alison Reber, Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance - Kansas StreamLink Program, Executive Director
  • Ms. Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Home Builders Association, Executive Director
  • Ms. Laura Calwell, Kansas Riverkeepers - Friends of the Kaw

Black and Veatch
Technical Consultant for wastewater collection and treatment

  • Mike Orth, Project Director
  • John Keller, Project Manager
  • Cindy Wallis-Lage, Process Department Head
  • Page Surbaugh, Design Engineer

Patti Banks Associates
Outreach coordination

  • Patti Banks
  • Lisa Briscoe

Bartlett and West
Surveying

  • Joe Caldwell

HNTB
Permitting

  • John Pasley
  • Jennifer Johnson

Wastewater 101:
Cindy Wallis-Lage, Black & Veatch, provided a general overview of a typical wastewater collection system and the treatment process. Wallis-Lage described the differences between a wastewater treatment plant and a water reclamation facility. She noted that wastewater treatment plants treat collected wastewater while reclamation facilities treat collected wastewater and provide a beneficial reuse of a portion of the waste products and/or treat the effluent to a higher quality, depending upon the desired use. She also noted that the City has the opportunity to create an asset at the site by considering multi-use of the surrounding buffer area for the public's use.

Typical Concerns
Wallis-Lage summarized Lawrence's current wastewater collection system and treatment plan. She reviewed the typical concerns associated with wastewater treatment and discussed associated typical solutions that may be considered including:

  • Generation of odors
  • Aesthetics
  • Noise
  • Plant and site lighting
  • Increased truck traffic
  • Disposal of residuals
  • Property value impacts

Project Overview:

Why We Area Here Today
Mike Orth, Black & Veatch, provided a summary of the origin, rationale, and purpose of the Study. He specifically noted that the existing treatment plant is nearing capacity and can accommodate a population basis of approximately 100,000. The City's existing population is approximately 85,000. Based upon the growth projections utilized in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan, it is anticipated that the 100,000 population basis will be reached around 2011. As a result of the current plant's capacity and the projected growth, the Master Plan recommends that the City develop the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

Horizon 2020/Land Use

  • The City's Comprehensive Plan and its growth recommendations for 2025 are the starting point for the Wakarusa WRF.
  • The Plan recommends that Lawrence plan for residential growth to the west and south.

2003 Wastewater Master Plan

  • The Plan Recommends that a new wastewater facility be constructed that will discharge into the Wakarusa River.
  • The anticipated effluent limitations would be equal for the Kansas and Wakarusa Rivers based upon the nutrient levels for the rivers. This is a change from previous planning documents where more stringent limits were placed on the Wakarusa.
  • Constructing a Wakarusa WRF is more cost-effective than transporting all the flow and expanding the existing plant.

Growth Rate May Be Exceeding Population Projections

  • The design population for the existing wastewater treatment plant is 100,000 people.
  • Lawrence's 2003 wastewater service area was originally expected to reach the design population around 2011.
  • There is a potential that the overall City growth is occurring at a faster rate, and more densely, than originally forecasted. This may require acceleration of the completion of the Wakarusa WRF project. Therefore, it is important to maintain the planned schedule and improve upon it where feasible.

Timeline
Orth outlined a compressed schedule that involved reducing site acquisition time, starting preliminary designs early, and considering design build may be necessary to construct the Wakarusa WRF prior to 2011. A construction schedule that utilizes a traditional design/bid/build approach would entail:

  • 2005 - 2006: Siting
  • 2006 - 2007: Permitting/Closing on the site
  • 2007 - 2008: Design
  • Early 2009: Bid
  • 2009 - 2011: Construction

Study Area Considerations
Orth noted that a vision for ultimate build-out should be created as a part of the Study. He stressed that no preconceived facility locations had been selected and that gravity flow should be accommodated to the extent possible. Important project constraints include:

  • Maximizing the use of the existing collection system
  • Wetlands, cultural, and historic locations
  • Engineering issues:
    • Floodway
    • Floodplain
    • Environmental permitting
    • Site geology
    • Site topography
    • Proximity to utilities
    • Proximity to roadways
    • Affordability within rate plan

Introduction to the Process:

Public Input into the Criteria for Selection
Patti Banks stated that public input related to public acceptability factors, site utilization, compatibility with land uses, and appearance would be considered in the criteria for site selection of the water reclamation facility.

Stakeholder Interviews
Banks said that community stakeholders are currently being interviewed and scheduled for interviews. The purpose of the stakeholder interview process is to provide background information on which issues are most important to the public. The interviews seek to gain a range of perspectives about the project and include individuals from the Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club and from individual property owners to University representatives. Thus far, twenty-seven interviews have been requested, twenty-four accepted, and eighteen conducted.

Peer Group Roles
Banks explained the roles and qualifications of the Peer Group participants as follows:

  • Dr. Robert Kadlec
    • Renowned expert in wetland treatment
  • Dr. Ross McKinney
    • Professor Emeritus, University of Kansas
    • Specialized in wastewater treatment
  • Mr. John Metzler
    • Currently Chief Engineer for Johnson County Wastewater
    • Operates three major wastewater treatment facilities within heavy residential areas
    • Former regulatory official at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
  • Mr. Charlie Stryker
    • President of CAS Construction
    • Expertise in project scheduling and constructability
  • Mr. Joe Zoba
    • Chief Executive Officer of Yucaipa Valley Water District, Columbia
    • Holds MPA, which shapes the vision of his utility growth plans
  • Description of the Process
    • Banks said that it was anticipated that the study would run through mid-2006 and that during that period there would be PAC meetings and public meetings as follows:

      • PAC Introductory Meeting
        Overview        		 Public Meeting No. 1
        Overview
        Workshop No. 1
        Criteria determination        		 Public Meeting No. 2
        Discuss criteria
        Workshop No. 2
        Apply Criteria to Areas        		 Public Meeting No. 3
        Review Criteria Application
        Workshop No. 3
        Detailed Criteria Application        		 Public Meeting No. 4
        Final Results

Questions and Answers:
Orth opened the meeting for questions and answers from the public. Participants commented as follows:

  • The use of wetlands should be explained in terms of expense and site size. Will it increase the size of the facility?
  • Will there be an impact on wildlife.
  • Will analysis be completed for when things fail in relation to security issues?
  • Can you examples of how buffer areas are used in other communities?
  • What can grey water be used for and at what treatment level?
  • Are reclamation sites an opportunity for naming (donation)?
  • Are environmental studies a part of this process?
  • What plans are required, in what timeframe and what are the costs associated?
  • Explain the reports for sites A and B.
  • Have you identified a site?
  • How far north and south of the Wakarusa River will you look?
  • Energy efficiency is important. If the PAC were to agree that energy efficiency were important would that impact site location?
  • Is there access to data related to current design solutions in other places?
  • Has water conservation worked to help reduce flows, such as credits for replacing toilets?
  • How do you control odors?
  • What are hydraulic soils?
  • How do you determine who is interviewed?
  • Did we have this discussion ten years ago with the same projections?
  • What does the $80 million pay for?
  • What is the date, time and location of the next pubic meeting?

Open House:
Orth explained that the remainder of the meeting would be an open house and encouraged participants to complete a project survey before leaving the meeting. He advised that next public meeting would be advertised through local media channels and posted on the City's project website.