ML20087N580

Draft, Will County Public Water Supply Study,Phase I

ML20087N580
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	01/31/1984
From:	Fagan E METCALF & EDDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20087N570	List: ML20087N569 ML20087N580
References
NUDOCS 8404040051
Download: ML20087N580 (96)

Text

. ..

e-1 WILL COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

STUDY I

[ PHASE EPORT t

s i -

PO ATION A D

. I WATE P R O J E.C TI O N S

?

JANUARY, 1984 Y

e METCALF & EDDY,INC./ ENGINEERS

~'

D DO OOOO6 PDR A

Metcalf & Eddy,Inc.

- Engineers & Planners

< . . t rr > ^ ; . 3 : % ?3 500

~

-P<  :- rc s 60C05-4422 e ;e, ,

January 20, 1984 J-8538 Mr. John R. Gallagher, Jr.

Director of Development Will County Regional Planning Commission 501 Ella Avenue Joliet, Illinois 60433 r

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

I j We are pleased to submit this report on Phase I of the Will County Public Water Supply Study.

As required by our contract, Phase I addresses the subject of a Population and Water Usage Projections for a 25 year planning period.

We are prepared to meet with you and the Will County Regional Planning Commission to discuss this report.

r-i very truly your ,

D /

1 1 AVp Ni

, s Edward K. Fagan, P.E.

Associate

.I a.

).

c_

o-~

S.

04

.tr ,

7 o,

yo r l

tr v' ,

l.

WILL COUNTY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY STUDY e

1 1

)

i PHASE I REPORT I

J y.

POPULATION AND WATER USAGE PROJECTIONS

.t.

n-L

' JANUARY, 1984

, L.

h.

!f i

bl-I t

th

~'

i 1-da 1~

os i

84 I

D 1

w-J.

q- TABLE OF CONTENTS b.

Page

?. I l- Letter of Transmittal 1P List of Tables 11 List of Exhibits iii t

-j Report Chapter 1 - Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summary 1-1 Conclusions 1-2 l- Recommendations 1-3

]

Chapter 2 - Background and Scope of Work

! Background Information 2-1

'- Scope of Work 2-1 Chapter 3 - Population L

County Population 3-1 r Township Population 3-2 Municipal Populations 3-6

)'

Other Population Projections 3-12 1

Chapter 4 - Water Use Municipal Water Use 4-1 i Nonmunicipal Water Use 4-17 L. Industrial and Institutional Water Use 4-21 Water Accountability 4-30 Water Conservation 4-31 J

i' Chapter 5 - Development of Conclusions and Recommendations Population 5-1 Water Use 5-2 I Appendix 1 - Bibliography A-1 L

Appendix 2 - Terminology A-4 e.

l' .

1

, Ca

]',

I C4

C:

a.

V

],

n, LIST OF TABLES 1.

9' Table Page l

3-1 3-3 f 3-2 County Population Township Populations 3-4 3 3-3 Projected Township Populations 3-5 1 3-4 Municipality Populations 3-7 9

3-5 Projected Municipal Populations 3-8 1 4-1 Municipal Water Use Data - 1980 4-3 4-2 Municipal Water Use Data - 1982 4-4 i 4-3 Projected Municipal Water i

Consumption - 1990 4-5 4-4 Projected Municipal Water Consumption - 2000 4-6 r 4-5 Projected Municipal Water h- Consumption - 2010 4-7 4-6 Nonmunicipal Water Use Data - 1980 4-18 4-7 Nonmunicipal Water Use Data - 1982 4-19 4-8 Projected Nonmunicipal Water Consumption 4-20 n 4-9 Projected Water Consumption for Rural Will County Residents 4-22 I 4-10 Industrial & Institutional Data 1

& Projections 4-23 to 4-29 t

l O.

8.

n

c. ii Os

L c'

i LIST OF EXHIBITS s'

}

Exhibit Following Page i

8 3-1 Population Projections - Will County 3-1 I

3-2 Will County Townships 3-3 e 3-3 Will County Municipalities 3-6

} 3-4 Population Projections -

Village of Beecher 3-8 l 3-5 Population Projections -

Village of Bolingbrook (Will County Portion) 3-8 3-6 Population Projections -

I Village of Braidwood 3-8 J -~

3-7 Population Projections -

Village of Channahon 3-8 1* . 3-8 Population Projections -

. City of Crest Hill 3-8 3-9 Population Projections -

Village of Crete 3-8 3-10 Population Projections -

Village of Elwood 3-8 3-11 Population Projections -

Village of Frankfort 3-8 3-12 Population Projections -

Village of Godley (Will County Portion) 3-8 3-13 Population Projections -

l t. City of Joliet 3-8 l .

3-14 Population Projections -

City of Lockport 3-8 3-15 Population Projections -

,[ Village of Manhattan 3-8 l 6 iii I G4

?

T l:

,- LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) i 1.

v-

[ Exhibit Following Page f 3-16 Population Projections -

Village of Minooka (Will County Portion) 3-8 s 3-17 Population Projections -

Village of Mokena 3-8 3 3-18 Population Projections -

i Village of Monee 3-8 3-19 Population Projections -

j, City of Naperville (Will County Portion) 3-8 3-20 Population Projections -

Village of New Lenox 3-8 J.

3-21 Population Projections -

T' Village of Park Forest

$' (Will County Portion) 3-8 t- 3-22 Population Projections -

t Village of Park Forest South 3-8 3-23 Population Projections -

Village of Peotone 3-8 3-24 Population Projections -

I r Village of Plainfield 3-8 2

3-25 Population Projections -

1 Village of Richton Park (Will County Portion) 3-8 j 3-26 Population Projections -

• - Village of Rockdale 3-8

. 3-27 Population Projections -

g, Village of Romeoville 3-8 3-28 Population Projections -

0 Village of Shorewood 3-8

{

1

.. iv

?

I o:

.- LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)

Exhibit Following Page 3-29 Population Projections -

Village of Steger (Will County Portion) 3-8 3-30 Population Projections -

village of Symerton 3-8

- 3-31 Population Projections -

Village of Tinley Park (Will County Portion) 3-8 3-32 Population Projections -

City of Wilmington 3-8 i

1.

1' 5.

I

-9 l

s.

t e

0.

T~

32 Am e

e. V -

0-

I I

I ~.... _ ,

hy-J y f. -

PL Airtygg

. a, .

';"W

" w . . - . .

'/ggg l souer s=y, "%$ f,^Q

- uw l o.. - abenr a:::,

es r

~o~ - = coats th j n.af

~

pg 0 4

7Awo,.

~

ELwoop g Q W ANHATTA88 W EE .,

o

., r,- o .a..

u .

.xgg

,em ,,

n HJ a t.

g =o

'j 3 GODLty l

EXHIBIT ,. 3-3 1

AGk WILL COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES I

l

• ETCatt a rop,

- - - - . - , . . . - - - , . , , . _ , _ . . . , , , , _ . . . , - , . - . . - - - . . , . . . , - _ _ , , - , _ - - . . , . - ~ . _ - - , . - . , - - , . . - - . _ - ,

0-1-

Cr k.

Q' b-r @

WHEATLAND DUPAGE

}

PLAINFIELD LOCKPORT HOMER l'

I TROY JOLIET NEW FRANKFORT 4'

i CHANNAHON JACKSON MANHATTAN

" MONEE

, CRETE G RDEN L

t-i WILMINGTON FLORENCE WILTON PEOTONE WILL WASHINGTON I

i WESLEY REED CUSTER lr li

! , EXHIBIT 3-2 s

r-L.

WILL COUNTY TOWNSHIPS ne weic.6, a roc.

c-e-

CHAPTER 1

SUMMARY

, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This rep. ort summarizes population and water use projections for Will County municipalities, water service areas and significant industries. It constitutes the Phase I portion of the Will County Water Supply Study. Phases II and III which will follow

. will address Water Supply System Alternativas (Phase II) and Economic Evaluation (Phase III),

Summary We reviewed historical population and water use data and projections by others including NIPC and independent projections

by municipalities. The report considers past projections and is

- based on these along with more recent data to provide updated

projections. The report considers all Will County i municipalities, the larger nonmunicipal water service areas and industries and institutions likely to be served by a Will County regional water system.

Considered in our analysis of water' demand projections were factors including high and low growth and water use projections of others, water conservation, water accountability, per capita

' use, commercial use, industrial use, and the relationship of

' maximum day to average day water use.

Discussion of water demand projections for maximum and average day, including discussion of the effects of conservation and improved water accountability are presented in Chapter 4. These water demand projections including the impacts of high and low

.. 1-1

G-c~

1 e- water utilization will be considered along with possible range's I in system capacity and staging of construction in the later

,. phases of the study.

I I

Collecting data on water quality and hydrology for the Kankakee River and obtaining costs on the operation and maintenance of '

existing wells for use in Phases II and III was also accomplished

' as part of Phase I work.

• Grouping of municipalities into regional service areas and summarizing projected populations and water demand for these areas will be part of the Phase II Report - Water Supply System

, Alternatives - which will follow. The Phase III Report -

Economic Evaluation - will complete the study.

Conclusions Past total domestic water use has been determined and is r projected for Will County as follows:

4

, Year Population Domestic Water Use - MGD Average Maximum Day Day s

8.

1980 324,460 36 63

$ 1990 400,000 45 78 2000 455,700 52 90

' 2020 500,000 58 100 e.

3 Industrial water use has been projected separately for industries

i. which could conceivably connect to a regional system and these selected industries could add to capacity requirements as follows:

a 1-2 a.

c, o-t Average Day Maximum Day MGD MGD 1980 9 14 1990 9 14 2000 8.5 13.5 4

2010 8 13 i

o The potential effect of industrial projections on any regional

,. water system will be considered in later reports.

The population and water use projections made in this report 1

serve as an adequate data base for the later phases of the

! study. They will be used to consider alternative regional system

'~

configurations and costs.

s.

Periodic review of the projections will be necessary as

. additional information becomes available through the passage of

,- time. A more detailed study of municipal systems, individual

[. water service areas and other users will be necessary before final design and construction of any water system proceeds.

1 i-Recommendations 1

The development of alternative regional water supply systems l' should proceed based on the water use projections presented 8- herein. The present water source for virtually all Will County

, municipalities, water service areas and those industries and

.. institutions considered herein is groundwater from deep and shallow wells. Continued use of the groundwater source is dependent on the ultimate effect of the current " mining" of this resource as reflected by declining water levels and quality, increased pumping costs and the potential requirement for

• ~

additional treatment.

O l-3 4

t - . - . - - . - . . .

o

.x

,_ The projected future source for any regional water system involving all or some of those considered is the Kankakee River.

The economics and delivered quality of surface water compared to groundwater will determine the configuration and timing of any regional system. The system would be sized based on projection of amount and geographic location of water use, economics of

• system capacity, storage and staging of construction to achieve 4 adequate periods of use before expansion is required, while not i investing in facilities which will remain unused for long periods

- of time.

1 Determination of system capacity to be constructed and staging of construction must consider the probability of increased cupacity. The economic effect of such system capacities will be considered in the Phase III report. However, the cost of systems to meet higher future demands must be paid for based on the lower

{

a- average day pumpages anticipated in the near term future.

s-i The proposed regional water supply system must consider points of connection to municipality distribution systems, location of storage and system pressures. Storage volumes in the regional system must also be considered.

4.

t 5

e.

s 4

9 1-4

O L

[

CHAPTER 2 g

f.

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK s

j 4^ Background Information j j l g Will County, located in Northeastern Illinois, has historically L used wells as the primary source of water for both domestic and j

industrial needs. Decades of overpumping those wells has created a groundwater mining situation, in which water withdrawn from the aquifer exceeds the capacity of the aquifer to replenish I

Undesirable effects arising from this mining have

[ itself.

included declining water levels in wells, increased water

withdrawal costs, and deteriorating water quality. In response I' to this situation, several studies have been conducted to 1- evaluate various water sources and needs, and to recommend L. alternate water supply systems. Little action has been taken on y , these past studies.

L Although a water shortage of crisis proportions has not yet j occurred, the continued overpumping of wells in Will County and the surrounding Chicago metropolitan area will result in a l progressive deterioration in quality and availability of well water. A reliable water supply system should be identified and j it's utilization planned in order to meet the anticipated-future I needs of the County.

1 L Scope of Work Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., along with it's subcontractor Geotech, Inc., has been engaged by Will County to conduct a Public Water i Work is being coordinated by the Will County Supply Study.

Regional Planning Commission.

• ~

2-1

e C'

I.

This study is divided into three phases: Phase I - Population and 7

j Water Usage Projections; Phase II - Water Supply System Alternatives; and Phase III - Economic Evaluation. Phase I -

e Population and Water Usage Projections is the subject of this

{

report.

e l The goal of the three phases is to update and reevaluate selected a proposals made by previous studies and to avoid duplication of past work. Phase I of the study analyzes present water

, consumption, and projects future water consumption.

4 Phase I - Population and Water Usage Projections. The Phase I report develops a reliable water consumption projection based upon current projections of population, per capita water usage,

' and industrial growth. Projections are made for a 25 year planning period, extending to the year 2010. The tasks involved in this phase are summarized as follows:

l.- Collect historical population data and population projections 9

!. for all communities in Will Co.

I

2. Collect historical water pumpage and metered usage data from all communities and public water systems in the County.

3. Collect historical water usage data for major industries and j' other large water users. Also, collect data on projections

• of future industrial water usage.

i

. 4. Tabulate current population projections and compare to previous projections. Consult with County and local officials to develop projections to be used for this study.

2-2

o*

.i .

Q'

].

,. 5. Correlate historical population growth data to historical j_ water consumption to develop trends of per capita water <

usage. Also, determine water usage peaking factors.

v-

6. Tabulate the projected water usage of major industry and

?' other large water users. s 1.

1 7. Develop projected total water usage for a 25 year planning

! period for all communities in the County and for major

, industry.

e i

In addition to the tasks listed above, data on the water quality and hydrology of the Kankakee River and data from water system operators on the operating and maintenance cost of existing wells

[ were collected for analysis in Phases II and III, respectively.

d.

I' L .

b.

1 L

l' ll Y

d.

O.

d.

4 .

II.

2-3

(

c,

G i

c-l CHAPTER 3 POPULATION 8

3 To estimate the future requirements of any public water system it I

is necessary to collect and analyze statistics such as population 4

land use, industrial growth and commercial development. This I chapter addresses population projections. Projections of future

, population growth are combined with projected water use patterns l to estimate future water requirements in Chapter 4.

I County Population A projection of future County population growth was developed by examination of historical population data and current population j forecasts by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission I (NIPC). Historical county census data were obtained for the period from 1870 to 1980. The current official NIPC forecast, l revised in Nover2ber 1981, estimated that Will County population will be 455,700 in the year 2000. Interpolation to the year 1990 and extrapolation to the year 2010 estimated County population to be 400,000 and 500,000, respectively. These estimates of l population for the County are shown on Exhibit 3-1 as "NIPC 1981(1)".

Previous population projections examined were those from the y

NIPC, August 1976 projection and the State of Illinois Bureau of a the Budget (IBOB) 1976 and July 1982 projections. The 1976 NIPC and 1982 IBOB projections also appear on Exhibit 3-1.

I i

NIPC is presently in the process of revising its population

} forecast for Will County. The new forecast, to be finalized by n:

y 3-1 0:

Y C'

L s

1.

600 i

< g-1B_OB_

v NIPC 1976 / 1982

.. j 480 141PC 198 3'( 3 ) h'

/

I E / DP b / jr' 1 o s.

,/ l- NIPC 1981 2

O

,. I j 240 9' O / " CENSUS DATA

$_ L T' 120 i

I I

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 L

YEAR l

t

4. 1 e_ EXHIBIT 3-1 1

i POPULATION PROJECTIONS

. WILL COUNTY t

c.

O. wrtcatt 4 (CD*

I c:

L Y

L o, A preliminary forecast, released in July 1983, appears on Exhibit

f. 3-1 as "NIPC 1983 (3) " . This forecast is also presented in Table 3-1. A more recent preliminary forecast was released in October j 1983, and is also presented in Table 3-1. The October preliminary forecast is within 0.15 percent of the interpolated i j

projection for the year 1990. The preliminary forecast for year 2000 represents a 2.7 percent increase over the 1981 NIPC F

. forecast. The October projection for the year 2005 was f

approximately 5000 less than the July forecast. A similar r decrease applied to the July forecast for the year 2010 results in an estimated population within 1.2 percent of the extrapolated 7

projection. The projection presented on Exhibit 3-1 and in Table

3-1 is within 1.2 percent of the October NIPC forecast.

'l Township Populations L

Census data for Will County townships was obtained for the period from 1920 to 1980 and appears in Table 3-2. The location of Will County townships are shown on Exhibit 3-2.

, Township forecasts were projected by NIPC for the year 2000.

j [ These unofficial forecasts were obtained by combining municipal forecasts and forecasts for the unincorporated portions of each

'f township. Minor discrepencies were reconciled to balance the

. municipal township and county projection.

l 8

Projections of 1990 township populations were determined by j interpolating between 1980 census data and the adjusted year 2000 t .C 'NIPC forecasts. Totals for the County and for each township were i reconciled so as to balance. Projections for 2010 populations m were determined by extrapolating census data and 1990 and 2000 projections. Projected township populations appear in Table 3-3.

1, fL os 3-2

, , . _ . . . . , _ _ ~. -.. _ , _ , - - . . _ . - _ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . , _ _ _ _

e-j.

c- l e- Municipal Populations i.

7 The location of municipalities within Will County are shown on

)

Exhibit 3-3. Census data for Will County municipalities was ~

obtained for the period from 1920 to 1980 and is presented in Table 3-4. The relationship between individual municipal growth and county growth was examined to identify correlations and 8

trends. These were then compared to projected populations for I

each municipality and the County as forecast by NIPC. For the majority of Will County municipalities the 1981 NIPC revised

! municipal forecasts for the year 2000 were incorporated into the municipal projections used in this study. For Godley and j Minooka, both of which extend into Grundy County and have relatively small Will County populations, the 1983 NIPC 1'

preliminary forecast represented a significant change from the J.

1981 NIPC forecast, and was used in its place.

7, Projections for the year 1990 were obtained by interpolation and i' for the year 2010 by extrapolation. Individual municipal L population projections were compared with projected county population to verify consistent trending.

L Projections of municipal populations are presented in Table 3-5 along with the 1980 census data. Projected and historical population for individual communities are shown on Exhibits 3-4

} through 3-32.

t Other projections of population by NIPC (1976) and Consoer, l

8. Townsend & Associates (1972) are illustrated for comparison. Any individual municipal population projections are also illustrated 7

d, for comparison. The key and notes for the exhibits follow the exhibits.

ca t'

.. 3-6

I O

s' l i i I

T 5 1

5 j NIPC 1976 ../ e 4

/

V 5 '

/

o /

s

< o ..

/

1 o / Js

" 3

/ Wr" i 2 O

/

0

'/

p . ,s j #' NlPC 1981(I) 2 o 7 ra. 8

n. r X s CENSUS DATA 1,

1 4.

! 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 s

YEAR i

I

, s i EXHIBIT 3-4 i

POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF DEECHER

.l

o. w r ec .s e a vee.

- . . - , . , . . . . . - n. ,

O'

}.

s-i e

b.

! 200 L

W~

l 160 CT&A 1972 l

O ./

c

/

O 120

• ./

g

/

L z 9 /

1- H /

4 80 / NIPC 1976 j / ~~~

.}~

- a / """ o CENSUS DATAm

'.. / ~ ~,0K,,-4 t' \

i.-

40 ' e ', (NIPC 1981 (1)

I 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

) 1950 YEAR p

n n.

}

EXHIBIT 3-5

.c 3.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS I VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK a- (WlLL COUNTY PORTION)

o. ,,,... . ,ee.

c-i.

o' a-10 l

i 1

8 l m m

I' O O

O 6 r-NIPC 1981 j

w ,d>

I Z f 9

t &

D 'e# ~

4 4 /

J #

[ CENSUS DATA / ,

t o O m

/ _ . . -

I' 2 NIPC 1976 i g~

l b

l 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 7

j- YEAR i

I 1.

EXHIBIT 3-6 l ,.

L

~

POPULATION PROJECTIONS CITY OF BRAIDWOOD r

i I es ast9fas* 4 f7O*

0- \

o4 l e~

,- 20 1

1' 16 I

I E O

1: o O

,- 12 w

5 Z N!PC 1981(l) s /

I o .y G ,X

< 8 '

i. j

,/

s' ./,

,,s '

e s *,

1 O h

a. '

CENSUS DATAg ./

\ NIPC 1976 4

J,.

f i

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR I

I j.

I

j. EXHIBIT 3-7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

. VILLAGE OF CHANNAHON e.

4 Oe oric. .. roe,

o

?^

s' I

j 20 i

s' l

, 16

{

u) NIPC 1981(1)-\ '

i o y,#- 's b

o

- 12 f

,/g ,/

l w

f ' . .-

I z /

O

- /

- NIPC 1976 n ,

Q-LCENSUS DATA f 4 i

t 4

j 195b 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR n

I s.

EXHIBIT 3-B d_

POPULATION PROJECTIONS CITY OF CREST HILL 34

.g,cate a rec.

c. i I

i l

• l l

20 I i

r i /

16 /

/

NIPC 1976 /

s _p o V y o /

I O 12  ! r D

- /

/ /s z j ,A I O  !

,/

r / -

< 8 '

/

.  : s k CENSUS DATA f

/ L NIPC 1981(l)

<- O /

~

l.

4 t' g i

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 J..

YEAR J

i 1.

3-

[ EXHIBIT 3-9 a POPULATION PROJECTIONS

,. VILLAGE OF CRETE O

Q. w a tc ai r a ror.

C.

i.

Cr s-l T' 1500 1.

s l NIPC 1976 ..

/

5 1200 N,. /

I ,..

/ ,,s o

.. .. ('

CENSUS DATA

\ j' 900 #

\ ,,\

s#

g e x p NIPC 1981 (1) d- j soo a

a j- O r e

r-

' 300 t

i 1

l 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 5

YEAR i

a 8.

I 3.

EXHIBIT 3-10 f

C.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF ELWOOD SW es t f ( a t a n yep,

Q-5.

c -

.f e-I T' 20

j. s

/

i' /

\

e'

/

16 s

/

CT&A 1972 /

, m e T -

8 ,/  !

O '

/ '

/ )>

12 - -

e

/ / s'

/ /,/ ,/

2 / /

/ / )'

k 0 l l ,/

I j NIPC 1976 Q /

O / /[ NIPC 1981(1) i- L

/,/

CENSUS DATA 3 4 \ >

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR EXHIBIT 3-11 POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF FRANKFORT

, , , , , . . ,,ee. l

ci 1.

r-e-

>- 500 NIPC 1983 (2) ,g sO

,s ' '

/

400 -

b ,U 8 /

l /

t' 300 / n CENSUS DATA z \ \

O

, 5 NIPC 1981(1)-

$ 200 I D Q.

O 1

100 4

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR t'

i i

j l

y EXHIBIT 3-12 L '

} POPULATION PROJECTIONS d- VILLAGE OF GODLEY (WILL COUNTY PORTION) l 4.

C- ,,,c,,, ,,,o,

- . , . , . . . , . - - . . _ = , . . - - _ . . - . .

O' i

e

}.

T' 200 l.

W ,

160 NIPC 1976 3g,, /

CT&A 1972 .-

. m, u \/ '

b ,- ./

D o ,

/ 'r- JOLIET'F' 120 w /

/

/ . u 1976 5

z o

[r ~~~~

,____o

~

7- -

I-1 j

< 80 __.'JrfL NIPC 1981 1 O M

\ CENSUS DATA y' 40 8,

T 1

l 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 i

YEAR l

e i

t.

.. EXHIBIT 3-13 1

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

, CITY OF JOLIET O.

O wrec as e a reev

_~- . _ , , _ _ _

0-i T

l.

v-I 100

[

4 1

80 q

1 ~

4 0

o I o

- 60 e

~

/

i Z /

9 b- CT&A 1972 3 V

/'/

j 40 ,.

=> ./

a.

O l r

. L j NIPC 1976 /

J, .

',m -

CENSUS DATA

) #

~

' NIPC 1981(1) j y 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 t

j YEAR t

l~

L i

' EXHlBIT 3-14 i

n.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS CITY OF LOCKPORT So wr ec at r a eco,

O' o- .

I.

C' i

v-s-

I 4

$ m m '

I C 0 NIPC 1981 (1) l o

- 3 z jr 7,Y O \ s" ' -

p %V

_,s's f's

~

< g 's -

j NIPC 1976 g- o, O

f

' CENSUS DATA f 1 ln 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 j

YEAR

(

e-l ls.

3

• ~

EXHIBIT 3-15 i POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF MANHATTAN j ..

l l

e wyera6* 4 *PP*

o i

O' a

b 500 g

I s 400 t

)

I l 300 NIPC 1983 (2) q

{ Z 1- 9

~ _

9 I 200 3 ""< > _ .o - s I

e >

CENSUS DATAm j y.

a. 1 _p 3

0 ****

O-L.

100 7

i \

NIPC 1981 (1) f 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 l

s YEAR i .I I I l

i [..

i l' EXHIBIT 3-16 s

L. POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF MINOOK A (WILL COUNTY PORTION) er MITCek# A fDD*

- - - ~ - - - , . _ . _ , _ , _ _-__ _ _

C~

c-l.

T J.

s:

20

1. /

/

c 16

/

NIPC 1976 [

'o '

O 1 /

l O w

12

/

./ /

/

d

' / /

Z / /

1. O / p'

j

>' NIPC 1981 Il}

J 8 y i -) f p' O - ./ '

' /'

- ,//

4 ) s $. .

l' f

i. CENSUS DATAg CT&A 1972

*r

< 4.

1= 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 i

a YEAR i

a.

d, EXHIBIT 3-17 3'

.s POPULATION PROJECTIONS

, VILLAGE OF MOKENA

.. ...c. . ,,re.

9' J. ,

I v

• b.

C' 1:

10 1.

v-

.1 8

e.

i ~ /

cn b e l

1 o /

o 6 w /

I w

./

2 O- /

j~ NIPC 1976 mj' i 4 4 ,

a r D /

!. c. '

L O n.

r. /

/ n *d>

2 ,- ,s#'

s ,',#

1 CENSUS DATA m p g3) g NIPC 1981 J #

i l1 1980 1990 2000 2010 l I. 1950 1960 1970

' YEAR 4-I s,

i

, a EXHlBIT 3-18 l POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF MONEE l

..... . ..=e.

c-

'l .

C' g..

20

]~

?

I

, 16

! n u)  ;>

l

$ NIPC 1981 3 /

o  %/Y

- 12 w /

1 z '

/

O p s' e /

< /

8 J B /

3 /

e- Q. /

I n-o /

a.

gf i- /

4 j CENSUS DATA /

r

)

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR i

I L

I EXHIBIT 3-19 l

t POPULATION PROJECTIONS CITY OF NAPERVILLE l c (WlLL COUNTY PORTION) i  ;

0, ,e , , , , , , , ,,re.

L

c-r 50 t

, 40 I a co e O O

I O --

- 30 4

i z /

O /

I NIPC 1976 /

< / -CT& A j 20 7 tiiTf

$ /

1.

1 o .' .s* ,

/ , -

L. a. / e"a I' /.bI.[j in CENSUS DATA NIPC 1981 III p

1 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

- YEAR t

a.

• ~ EXHIBIT 3-20 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

~

VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX

.. ..,c. .. ,-o.

01 ei -

10

/j

-i

^/

8 <

3

^ NIPC 1981 III /

l~ 03 \ /

$ Y/

}

j o /

- 6

~ /

/

f$

i.

f

~

/

> /

e-4 /

J 4  ?

s 3 /

1 /

/

1' O 1 e L h j' 2 8' CENSUS DATA-i 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR

.n

't l

A.

4- EXHlBIT 3-21 4

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

' VILLAGE OF PARK FOREST (WlLL COUNTY PORTION) t

-,,c... ,,ee.

I

Y i

er l 1

)

i'j. l i

r 50 l

i-40 1

m (n

~

o o NIPC 1976 -

7*/

- 30

- /

z / o 9 P ARK FORES T SOUTH 1983 /

/

/

H /

< V '

20

/

/ >,~

/

1 O '

\

~

1. a / p >

CENSUS DATA- f

/ NiPC 1981 v) 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR r

4.

1 a_

3-

.= EXHIBIT 3-22 i

i POPULATION PROJECTIONS

VILLAGE OF PARK FOREST SOUTH

• Mf1(ag* A FPPt

S' 4

0.

S' s

j 5 NIPC ,1976 3 5 N i

Y j'/

3 4 ,/

l g PEOTONE 1983 g ;/

i

,../[' /,,d >

~, / } ,yf,. 3 / -

O 1

C

- 3 ',1'$,

3

• (NIPC 1981(1) l O f J

' CENSUS DATA j [

[.

S C. f

/

T' j 1 J'

l 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 i

YEAR i.

?

a i

e4 EXHISIT 3-23 e a POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF PEOTONE em ufscate a fcr*

?

j.

o-t 1

i 50

}.

40 1 -

p o o

O 30 w

1 J z 9

1 j 20 e

'O

}~ /

NIPC 1981(1) /

L C. /

j

/

1 10 =- -

,' )>/ ..

~

CENSUS DATA \

\ '

1. g .T"" \ _,

I L l A {NIPC 1976 I I l1 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR I

i 4

L EXHIBIT 3-24

• ^

POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD k

0-5 W

4 l -

1! o

- 3 8 NIPC '1981 f l 2 w 1 &

< /

) (

J J 2 f D /

1 1 /

O s

'" E /

/

r /

1 O L /

/

[ 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR g-a i

k.

Y

' EXHIBIT 3-25 T'

i.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF RICHTON PARK

• ' (WILL COUNTY PORTION)

..c., , , . - .

c-a-

n' i- 10 l

5 s t

8

^

I p

O 1 o I 3 '

6 w

I CT&A 1972 /,/

l Z /

9 P

,  ; /

_; 4

/

/

D

o. / m NIPC 1976 i O / _ . .

i n. -  ; ...

CENSUS DATA A-7,- W"

2 "'

NIPC 1981 i

i l 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 s

YEAR 1

1 l

a.

I

=- EXHIBIT 3-26 POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF ROCKDALE Mff(&aF 4 I00*

O'

. 100 1 l

1 l a

4 1

80 l'

I e i

.M o

1 o

o v

- 60 CT&A 1972 '

7-9 \y '/

< /

i a 40 y

[ j

/ NIPC 1976 f ,.r , _ ,

20 CENSUS DATAq . ./ & ~~~

t*

i ,E "s r NIPC 1981(1)

' 1980 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1990 i

YEAR r-l l

l i

e

, EXHIBIT 3-27 l

i POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF ROMEOVlLLE I

l ..

l

..e. . ,,en.

o-6 4 I

e-s k.

.- 20 i

1 16

^

I

.m o

u o

o /

- 12 ,

y NIPC 1976 /

l Z / n y

S H

/

/

/'s'"

s.

j 2

o.

8

/

/ .4, s/s Y O 1

L'2 \

d.

/

/ (NIPC 1981(1) t- 4 i

J-CENSUS DATA m

, i 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 l-YEAR I

i 1

a.

P

... EXHIBIT 3-28 POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD i .

oe.c... voo.

a e-t i' 20 I

r

.} -

16 4

1 m

?

I 0 j O O

w 12 I

1 z O I

' 5 NIPC 1981 t-

' < G ,, _

s j

9-

a. CENSUS DATA 3 _,#

y"

• O <

L a, v.

4 L

1 i

i 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 j

YEAR j'

a

s. j a.

4 l EXHIBIT 3-29 f

ee POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF STEGER l (WILL COUNTY PORTION) l 1

Oe es t

• c a t a e TOP =

o-e-

• 500

?'

400 l

f NIPC 1983(2) 300 I

NIPC 1976 I Z 7 o

ge _b<

]- 5j 200 , _ , , _ , ,,

D CENSUS DATA /

L 1

o i tf

- [ \ _/

100 NIPC 1981 (1)

I I

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 j

YEAR a

4 .

I e

EXHIBIT 3-30 POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF SYMERTON

• 'Cak' 4 TOD*

Q:

4.

g .

e*

,A ,

j 5

/

4

/

/

p' 4 /

4 m

NIPC 1981(I} ' /

w s /

/

o /

- 3 /

v 4

/

i z i r

, 9 /

s /

J < 2 i I

D /

1 a i f

). O a- i

/

s- #

1

} 1 CENSUS DATA /

\ !

1 I 1' /

f i

j- 1980 1990 2000 2010 1 1950 1960 1970 YEAR

[

n a.

I~

s EXHIBIT 3-31 i

POPULATION PROJECTIONS VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK (WlLL COUNTY PORTION)

=s s e e a g a e r O C'

• c- -

e=

4 .

e-

.- 10 4

e

}

8 NIPC 1976, . /

y-

- /-

m /

O /

1 O

, 6 /

/ w"', 4:>

w j

/ j "~

' 'T z 'p I J o

- f H -

NIPC 1981(1)

< 4 /-  %

c.

-- o CENSUS DATA 1 n.

e s- 2 i

li 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 t

YEAR 1

f

i. EXHIBIT 3-32

.t POPULATION PROJECTIONS CITY OF WILMINGTON

.... . .eer.

0-a, e-

• KEY TO CHAPTER 3 EXHIBIT SYMBOLS 2

30 Census data e-

• -@- Metcalf & Eddy interpolation, extrapolation '

A NIPC 1981 i

s u NIPC 1983(2)

---

NIPC 1983(3)

-- NIPC 1976 I

U IBOB 1982

-- CT&A 1972 a-

- -x- - Municipal population projections l'

l_

r i.

1 4

Y 5-1 a

I e_

Y^

i.

t 3-9 es t T C A L F a5007 s

_-. 1 o' l I

s I

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3 EXHIBITS l l

o-l' (1.) NIPC 1981 - Population projection consisting of the i

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Revised Population

=I Forecast, November 1981, and Metcalf & Eddy interpolation to 1990 and extrapolation to 2010.

i i

l (2.) NIPC 1983 - Population projection consisting of the r

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Preliminary Municipal Forecast, October 1983, and Metcalf & Eddy interpolation to 1990 and 2000 and extrapolation to 2010.

i

' (3.) NIPC 1983 - Preliminary population forecast by the l Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, July 1983.

e (4.) NIPC 1976 - Population forecast by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, August 1976.

(5.) IBOB 1982 - Preliminary projection by .he Illinois Bureau of the Budget, July 1982.

(6.) CT&A 1972 - Population projections appearing in " Preliminary

- Engineering Report on Kankakee River Water Study. . . " by Consoer, Townsend and Associates, June 1972.

(7.) Joliet "F" 1976 - Population projection "F", appearing in

" Executive Summary: Population and Employment

~

Characteristics and Projections", City of Joliet, March

, 1976.

3-10

_ .- _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _. _~ _ _ . - - _ . _. . _ _ _

9 m -

i c- (8.) Park Forest South-1983 - Village population estimate by the l' Village of Park Forest South, 1983.

b (9.) Peotone 1983'- Village population projection by the Village of Peotone, 1983.

a' i

4 I

)

1 f-

~l i

I.

1:

-l I

ea 3-11

0 ,

C'

.i .

.- Other Population Projections 4

Populations for other water service areas were considered.

[ Evaluation of population for those areas was made a part of the calculations for water use. The estimates for the other water service areas are included with discussion of those areas in Chapter 4 " Water Use".

5

, k i

i I

{

I .

I' h.

I' 1.

1.

I(

A.

ua I'

,, 3-12 l V 1

l

ty i

n l

?

l.

q,. CHAPTER 5 i

DEVELOPMENT OF CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS T

i

? This report has considered the various factors relating to

-l projection of future water requirements in Will County. These a factors-have been analyzed, projections have been made and I conclusions have been drawn. These are summarized below.

E

'l Population l(

Population growth has been considered in Chapter 3. In most cases, the revised 1981 NIPC forecasts were used for year 2000 F

population projections. Interpolation of census data and the L'

NIPC forecasts for 2000 were used to project year 1990 1 populations. Extrapolation the NIPC forecasts for 2000 were used L to project year 2010 populations.

Population projections developed for this study reflect anticipated growth trends. County population will continue to

\ grow through the year 2010, but will do so at a continually p

declining rate. The degree to which township populations are 1 projected to increase varies and is largely dependent on i

municipal growth. Municipal populations are projected to i

{ increase due to both growth within present municipal limits, and 8 extension of municipal limits. Populations of incorporated portions of townships on a county-wide basis will decrease L s+l

^

slightly as unincorporated land area decreases and municipal boundaries expand.

L f

1 e.

(

j. 5-1 4

?

1.

r t

i.

7 Pop'ulation data and projections of population growth have been

j. tabulated in Tables 3-1 through 3-5, and illustrated in Exhibits 3-1 and 3-4 through 3-32.

T' l.

Water Use I

' Historical and projected water demand have been discussed in

[ Chapter 4. Municipal water supplies, nonmunicipal water I supplies, larger industries, and other large water users y

including" institutions were contacted to obtain water use data.

l This data is tabluated in Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-10.

Data was compared to supplemental information obtained from NIPC, t

ISWS and IEPA.

I For any given water supply or user the available data was i

examined to identify trends in total and per capita water use.

{ Current per capita water use ranges from 54 gped to 192 gped.

5- Trends in the ratio of maximum day pumpage to average day pumpage 9, were examined. Current ratios range from 1.2 to 3.9. Trends in j water accountability (the percentage of water pumped which appears as metered usage) were examined. Accountability I.

j currently ranges from 61% to over 95% with the average being 79%.

I t-For each domestic water supply, per capita use trends were used to project future per capita water use. Projected changes in per

! capita use followed trends established by NIPC. These were used b in conjunction with projected service area population to determine average daily water demand. The average water demand i was multiplied by the projected maximum day ratio to determine the projected maximum day water demand, a-II O

l'

& 5-2 i~

c.

0-m

.a.

For unincorporated portions of townships, a future per capita demand of 80 gped was established to allow projection of average future water demands. Projected water demands for industrial and a-large water users were determined by extrapolating trends observed in available data. Projected future water demands are i' tabulated in Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10.

I t Projections of water requirements reveals significant trends.

Increasing municipal population is chiefly responsible for the increased projections of municipal water demand. The increased j

demands from 1982 to 2010 range from approximately 25% for Joliet to 746% for the Will County portion of Naperville. Increased demand for nonmunicipal supplies is comparitively much smaller.

Water requirements for industrial and large water users surveyed will, on the whole, decrease over the planning period, although 8

the change varies from user-to-user.

s-I a.

7 h.

I i

1.

I s.

i i

n 4.

f 4.

I 5-3 7

O4

e c-

APPENDIX I BIBLIOGRAPHY f

.l . 1. POPULATION g " Census of Population", U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980, j 1970, 1960, 1950, 1940, 1930.

, " Revised Preliminary Year 2005 Municipal Population and j Household Forecasts", Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, October 1983.

! " Preliminary Year 2005 Population Forecast Alternatives", <

l Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, May, 1983.

" Population and Household Forecasts, 1980-2000",

9 g Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Revised November, 1981.

! " Population and Household Forecasts, 1980-2000",

L Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, September, 1980.

l' " Illinois Population Projections (Revised, 1976), Summary L. and By County, 1970-2025", Illinois Bureau of the Budget, July, 1976.

7

" Executive Summary: Population and Employment Characteristics and Projections", Joliet Plan Commission, March, 1976.

2. . WATER USE j Public Water Supply Data Sheets, obtained from the Illinois 3 Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Public Water Supplies, data sheets dated from June, 1979, to September, 1983.

{

8 Listing of Will County Public and Non-public Water Supplies with 1982 pumpage data, Illinois State Water Survey.

I

1. "In the Matter of Lake Michigan Water Allocation: Opinion and Order", Illinois Department of Transportation, Division J-of Water Resources, 1977.

i

" Estimated Future Water Supply Demands for Northeastern Illinois", Northeastern 7111nois Planning Commission,

! August, 1976.

a.

1'

. A-1 c.

O 1.

I

'l v "Public Water Supplies Data Book", Illinois Environmental l

Protection Agency, July, 1975.

3. PREVIOUS WATER SUPPLY STUDIES s'

l " Adequacy and Economics of Water Supply in Northeastern Illinois: Proposed Groundwater and Regional Survey Water s' Systems, 1985-2010", Illinois State Water Survey, May, 1980.

I

" Regional Water Supply Plan", Northeastern Illinois Planning g Commission, June, 1978 i " Regional Water Supply, A Planning Study for Northeastern Illinois", Keifer & Associates, March, 1977.

" Water Supply Resources for the City of Joliet, Illinois",

Clark, Dietz & Associates, November, 1975.

4 l " Preliminary Engineering Report on Kankakee River Water System for Public Water Commission of Frankfort, Joliet, e

Lockport, Mokena, New Lenox, Rockdale and Romeoville",

Consoer, Townsend & Associates, June, 1972.

1 Addendum Number One to the above, by Consoer, Townsend &

1 Associates, October, 1973.

L.

Addendum Number Two to the above, by Consoer, Townsend &

1, Associates, October, 1975.

" Lower Des Plaines Valley Water Resources Study", Stanley Engineering Company, May, 1964.

I 4. OTHER WILL COUNTY PLANNING STUDIES

} " Natural Resources Element - Will County General Plan", Will a County Development Department, Forest Preserve District of Will County, and Environmental Intern Programs - Great y Lakes, October, 1982.

"Will County Transit Study", Will County Development Department and the Northeastern Illinois Regional

.! Transportation Authority, August, 1982.

L "Will County Industry Retention Program 1981 Report", Will l

County Economic Affairs Commission and the Illinois a Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.

. "Will County Land Use Plan", Will County Regional Planning Commission, April, 1978.

I

c. A-2 C

0- .

$7 gr-i

" Acquisition Plan for the Will County Forest Preserve i District", Will County Regional Planning Commission, 1 October, 1974.

31 1

-I .

e i

4 l

4 j'

f I'

b.

T,

'I 1

i i.

s' r

1

'e, f

'i..

's .

54 A-3

$4

Cr N 4

-1.

O' b.

,- APPENDIX 2 TERMINOLOGY r

'j IBOB -

Illinois Bureau of the Budget NIPC -

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

v. IEPA -

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ISWS -

Illinois State Water Supply

{

MGD -

Million Gallons per Day

, GPCD -

Gallons per Capita per Day l

Maximum Day Ratio - Ratio of Maximum daily water demand to average daily water demand, i

J u

e I

i

-4 I

e 7

If n

a.

o.

I

d. A-4 b

o-h.

?

1.

CHAPTER 4 9'

l.

WATER USE I

1.

.t~ Future water requirements may be estimated by considering present J and past water pumpage along with projections of population, i comercial growth and industrial development. Water demands have

. been projected to the year 2010 based on analysis of present and past demand together with projected populations, per capita and 3

industrial use. Projected water system accountability and the possible effect of water coaservation practices are considered separately.

4.

Municipal Water Use i

Water use data was obtained from municipalities by sending them

. questionnaires and concurrent telephone inquiries. Details

-regarding the following information were requested for the period

{,

. 1950 to 1982

population served / number of customers number of wells pumpage metered usage i

. Information was also requested relating to system storage capacity, water quality data and individual well data.

i.

Responses to questionnaires varied widely. Data obtained from

municipal respondents was compared to water use information

^~

obtained from NIPC, the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), and 2

the Illinois Environemtnal Protection Agency (IEPA). Any L

e 4-1 e

r O'

i.

G' 1;

, discrepancies were resolved so"as to provide the most useful data

, base. Table 4-1 shows water use data for 1980. Where data was unavailable, or where conflicts existed in data, 1981 figures are shown. Table 4-2 shows water use data for 1982.

'~

For each municipality, projected population growth, projected per capita use, and the projected ratio of maximum daily demand to average daily demand (hereafter referred to as the Maximum Day Ratio) were used to estimate future water consumption. Projected

. per capita water use was developed for each water service area

. bas.3d on historical water use and 1976 NIPC projections for per capita use. The NIPC projections were used to project change in

., rate of per capita use and adjusted to reflect more recent trends. The projected per capita use and the projected service area populations were used to projec future water demands.

1 Projections of future consumption for 1990, 2000 and 2010 are

! shown in Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 respectively.

l.

- Water use data and projections for each municipality are

. discussed separately as follows:

BEECHER The Village of Beecher, located in Washington Township has a

'~

current water demand of 0.215 mgd or approximately 102 gped. 67 percent of the water pumped is accounted for, and the mean maximum day ratio is 1.7. The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.32 mgd or 105 gped, and the projected maximum day

.- ratio is 1.7.

4 6.

l

. 4-2

t' f

.. TABLE 4-1 MUNICIPAL WATER USE DATA

,, 1980 PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION CONSUMPTION AVE. DAY . MAX. DAY

',~ (GPCD)

(4) Beecher 2,060 104 0.212 0.356 (1) Bolingbrook 36,107 92 3.31 Braidwood 3,429 94 0.322 (2) Channahon 3,734 70 0.260 Crest Hill 9,252 109 1.01 Crete 5,417 80 0.435 a

(4) Elwood 817 89 0.072 Frankfort 4,357 146 0.634 (1) (2) Godley 322 93 0.030

, (4) Joliet 78,800 139 (3) 11.0 14.6

Lockport 9,170 150 1.38 Manhattan 1,944 79 0.154 0.179 (1) Minooka 138 114 0.016 Mokena 4,578 86 0.393

.. Monee 993 79 0.079 (1) Naperville 901 168 0.152 0.263 j- New Lenox 5,792 122 0.708 0.745 (1) Park Forest 3,311 84 0.277 0.488 Park Forest South 6,243 159 0.999

, (4) Peotone 2,860 118 0.337 Plainfield 3,767 163 0.613 (4) Rockdale 1,960 216 0.423 0.480 Romeoville 15,519 92 1.42 (2) Shorewood 4,714 66 0.311-

.. (1) Steger 5,855 115 0.673 (2) Symerton 120 91 0.011 e Wilmington 4,424 121 0.536 i

Notes:

(1) Will Co. portion L (2) Water Use estimated (3) Excludes Lockport Township Water Use j' (4) 1981 Data t

4-3

m s

TABLE 4-2 MUNICIPAL WATER USE DATA 1982 i

PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

MUNICIPALITY POPULATION CONSUMPTION AVE. DAY MAX. DAY (GPCD)

Beecher 2,100 102 0.215 0.367 (1) Bolingbrook 37,700 .99 3 72 Braidwood '

- 3,650 97 0.357 (2) Channahon .. 4,250 69 0.292 Crest Hill 9,690

~

83 0.802 Crete 1 5,750 81 , 0.466

. Elwood 820 90 0.074 Frankfort , 4,760 ' 130 0.619

. (1) (2) Godley , 350' '93 0.033 Joliet 1^

~

79,90.0- 146 (3) 11.7 14.3 Lockport  % 9,860 '- 114 (3) 1.12

'  ; Manhattan .

2,010 92 0.185 0.248 (1) Minooka -

145. 100 0.015 l

Mokena _ _

~5,440 -73 0.397 0.722 j~ Monee , ,'s' 17090 >~_ ~67 . 0.073 (1) Naperville 1,700 >

168 0.285 0.431

g. New Lenox 6,460 92 0.595 0.823

(1) Park Forest 3,640 81 0.293 0.516 Park Forest South 7,140 106 0.755 Peotone 2,890 117 -

0.337 Plainfield 4,590 132 0.604

. Rockdale 2,010 192 0.386 0.560 Romeoville 16,250 100 1.62 2 72 i (2) Shorewood 5,100 78 0.398 (1) Steger 6,050 89 0.538 0.012 (2) Symerton 135 91 '

, Wilmington 4,590 114 0.524 'O.850 Notes:

(1) Will Co. portion (2) Water Use estimated

. (3) Excludes Lockport Township Water Use (4) 1981 Data t

4 1

4 e 4

, 4'i4 ,.

__ 1 _ _ _ _ - __..c,_._ _ - _ _ -_ _.

7 ..

TABLE 4-3 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WATER CONSUMPTION - 1990 4 MUNICIPALITY POPULATION PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

CONSUMPTION (GPCD) AVE. DAY MAX. DAY Beecher 2,440 103 0.251 0.427

• Bolingbrook 44,000 101 4.44 7.99 Braidwood 4,520 102 0.461 0.830 Channahon 6,400 74 0.474 0.853 Crest Hill 11,360 87 0.988 1.78

? Crete 8,000 85 0.680 1.22 Elwood 880 97 0.085 0.153 Frankfort 6,920 140 0.969 1.74

• Godley 400 94 0.038 0.068 Joliet 84,000 153 12.9 18.1 i Lockport 13,600 125 1.70 3.06 i v' Manhattan 2,320 95 0.220 0.396

• Minooka 170 105 0.018 0.032 Mokena 8,400 85 0.714 1.28 Monee 1,600 75 0.120 0.216

*Naperville 5,000 170 0.850 1.53 New Lenox 9,600 105 1.01 1.52 j

• Park Forest 5,200 93 0.484 0.968 Park Forest South 12,000 130 1.56 2.81

Peotone 3,200 119 0.381 0.686

Plainfield 8,800 150 1.32 2.38 i *Richton Park 1,000 87 0.087 0.157 Rockdale 2,240 204 0.457 0.686 Romeoville 19,160 100 1.92 3.26 Shorewood 6,800 80 0.544 1.47

• Steger 6,800 99 0.673 1.21 Symerton 160 91 0.015 0.027

• Tinley Park 2,500 113 0.283 0.509 Wilmington 5,320 120 0.638 1.02

• Will County portion

7. . ._

p.. .- -- . . . . .

TABLE 4-4 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WATER CONSUMPTION - 2000 MUNICIPALITY POPULATION PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

CONSUMPTION (GPCD) AVE. DAY MAX. DAY Beecher 2,800 104 0.291 0.495

• Bolingbrook 50,000 102 5.10 9.18 Braidwood 5,300 102 0.541 0.974 Channahon 9,100 75 0.683 1.23 Crest Hill 13,000 88 1.14 2.05 Crete 10,600 85 0.901 1.62 Elwood 1,000 98 0.098 0.176 Frankfort 9,800 142 1.39 2.50

• Godley 450 94 0.042 0.076 Joliet 89,900 154 13.8 19.3

. i Lockport 18,600 126 2.34 4.21

• Manhattan 2,600 95 - 0.247 0.445

• Minooka~ 190 106 0.020 0.036 Mokena 11,500 90 1.04 1.87 Monee 2,000 78 '

0.156 0.281

• Naperville 10,500 172 1.81 3.26 New Lenox 13,200 108 1.43 2.15

• Park Forest 7,800 93 0.725 1.45 i Park Forest South 18,800 134 2.52 4.54 Peotone 3,500 119 0.417 0.751 _

4.27-Plainfield 15,700 151 2.37 .

• Richton Park 2,300 88 0.202 0.364 Rockdale 2,500 205 0.513 0.770 Romeoville 22,000 101 2.22 3.77 Shorewood 8,600 81 0.697 1.88

• Steger 7,600 100 0.760 1.37 Symerton 200 91 0.018 0.032

• Tinley Park 4,200 117 0.491 0.884 Wilmington 6,000 121 0.726 1.16

• Will County portion

r. .

, - . _ . ... _ . . _ . . .. . . . ~... ._ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . - , . , , _. . _ .

7-TABLE 4-5 PROJECTED MUNICIPAL WATER CONSUMPTION - 2010 MUNICIPALITY POPULATION PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

CONSUMPTION (GPCD) AVE. DAY MAX. DAY Beecher 3,050 105 0.320 0.544

• Bolingbrook 54,000 102 5.51 9.92 Braidwood 5,850 102 0.597 1.08 Channahon 11,100 76 0.844 1.52 Crest Hill 14,100 88 1.24 2.23 Crete 12,250 86 1.05 1.89 Elwood 1,100 98 0.108 0.194 Frankfort 12,500 144 1.80 3.24

• Godley 490 95 0.047 0.085 Joliet 95,000 156 14.8 20.7

, Lockport 20,400 127 2.59 4.66 i Manhattan 2,850 96 0.274 0.493 '

" 200 107 0.021 0.038

• Minooka Mokena 13,750 90 1.24 2.23 Monee 2,200 81 0.178 0.320

• Naperville 14,000 172 2.41 4.34 New Lenox 15,500 110 1.71 2.57

• Park Forest 9,000 93 0.837 1.67 Park Forest South 25,500 135 3.44 6.19 Peotone 3,700 120 0.444 0.799 Plainfield 21,500 152 3.27 5.89

• Richton Park 3,200 88 0.282 0.508 Rockdale 2,750 205 0.564 0.845 Romeoville 24,000 101 2.42 4.11 Shorewood 10,150 82 0.832 2.25

• Steger 8,100 101 0.818 1.47 Symerton 220 91 0.020 0.036

• Tinley Park 5,000 120 0.600 1.08 Wilmington 6,500 122 0.793 1.27

• Will County portion

a, t

.1 ,

o,

=> BOLINGBROOK The Village of Bolingbrook, whose municipal limits extend into j_ DuPage County, is located in DuPage Township in the Northern portion of the County. Two separate water supply systems serve Village residents. The Village itself provides water to residents in roughly the Northeastern portion of the Village, including those residents living in DuPage County. Citizens Utilities provides water to roughly the Southern and Western

portions of the Village, and is interconnected with the Santa Fe

Industrial District water supply.

Examining the Village as a single entity, current water demand for the Will County portion is 3.72 mgd or approximately 99 j

gped. 79 percent of pumped water is accounted for. The projecte'd 2010 average water demand is 5.51 mgd or 102 gped for the Will Co. portion and the projected maximum day ratio is assumed to be 1.8-based on ratios in othe.r Will County l" communities.

, BRAIDWOOD The Village of Braidwood is located in Reed Township in the Southwestern corner of the County. Current water demand is 0.357 mgd or approximately 97 gped. The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.60 mgd or 102 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

f

• - -CHANNAHON i

-[. The Village of Channahon is located in Channahon Township, with municipal limits extending into Troy Township. A small portion of.the Village, Fairhaven Heights Subdivision, is served by a a- 4-8 9

Se

T J.

o-

}

q. public water supply system; other residents obtain water through

l. individual wells. Current water demand including those on wells is 0.29 mgd or approximately 69 gped. Assuming a public water j supply for the entire community, the jrojected 2010 average water demand is 0.84 mgd and 76 gped. The projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. s L

CREST HILL

. The Village of Crest Hill is located in Lockport Township, with municipal limits extending into Joliet, Plainfield and Troy Townships. Current water demand is 0.80 mgd or approximately 83 sped, with 85 percent of pumped water accounted for. The projected 2010 average water demand is 1.24 mgd or 88 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

CRETE The Village of Crete is located in Crete Township in Eastern Will County. Current water demand is 0.47 mgd or 81 gped. The projected 2010 average water demand is 1.05 mgd or 86 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

ELWOOD s.

]

The Village of Elwood is located in Jackson Township. Current

' water demand is 0.07 mgd or approximately 90 gped. The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.11 mgd or 98 gped, and the

.- projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather such as wet and dry seasons could increase water use in Elwood by up to 5 gped for any year.

4-9

.d

c, T '

I.

FRANKFORT The Village of Frankfort is located in Frankfort Township. The curent water demand is 0.62 mgd or 130 gped, but has been typically higher in the recent past. The projected 2010 average water demand is _.80 mgd or 144 gped, and the projected maximum

' day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather could increase water use

in Frankfort by up to 5 gped for any year.

.- GODLEY The Village of Godley, whose municipal limits extend into Grundy County, is located in Reed Township, in Southern Will County. As no public water system currently exists, all residents use individual wells. NIPC has estimated current usage to be 0.03 4

mgd or 93 gped for the Will County portion. The projected 2010 j average water demand is0.05 mgd or 95 gped, for the Will County

!- portion and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

f

• i

! JOLIET The City of Joliet, the largest city in Will County, is located on the Des Plaines River in Joliet Township. Municipal limits extend into Channahon, New Lenox, Plainfield and Troy Townships.

Over the past 14 years, the accountability of water pumped has varied between 62 percent and 74 percent. During the same period, the maximum day ratio has varied between 1.2 and 1.4, L while water demand has varied between 120 gped and 168 gped. The relatively high per capita use is due, in part, to a large number

{ of water-using industries.

146 gped.

Current water demand is 11.7 mgd or T

4-10

.- , . - - . - - . , - . . , , . , - . - - , . , . - . - . . . , . , , . . , - . - , , , - . . -,-.._c-

. ~. -. . -. .-.. ... . ~ .. - . - - - - - - _ - . - - .

iL G*

The projected 2010 average water demand is 14.8 mgd or 156 gped, l

j and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.4. Variations in weather could increase water use in Joliet by up to 5 gped for any year.

LOCKPORT i- The City of Lockport is located in Lockport Township.  ;

.t Approximately 61 percent of the water pumped is accounted for in customer billing. Current usage is 1.12 mgd or 114 gped deducting is made for water provided to Lockport Township. The f projected 2010 average water usage is 2.59 mgd or 127 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is to be 1.8. Variations in weather could increase water use in Lockport by up to 10 gped for

• I

• any year. Lockport township is considered separately as a water service area.

. MANHATTEN  !

g

[

The Village of Manhatten is located in Manhatten Township.

Current water demand is 0.18 mgd or 92 gped and the present maximum day ratio is 1.34, although it has been as high as 1.77. The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.27 mgd or 96

,l gped, and the projected maximum day' ratio is 1.8.

MINOOKA l

The Village of Minooka, located in Eastern Grundy County, has

!, municipal limits which extend into Channahon Township. Curent

-water demand for the Will County portion is 0.015 mgd or approximately- 100 gped. The projected 2010 average water demand for the Will' County portion is 0.021 mgd or 107 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

4-11 1

F..

.. . - - . _ . - ~__. .-. - - -. . - . . .. - . -

MOKENA The Village of Mokena is located in Frankfort Township. The current water demand is 0.40 mgd or approximately 73 gped, although it has been as high as 129 gped in the past 5 years.

The current maximum day ratio is approximately 1.8. The projected 2010 average water demand is 1.24 mgd or 90 gped, and

. the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather

, could increase water use in Mokena by up to 5 gped for any year.

MONEE The Village of Monee is located in Monee Township in Western Will County. Present water demand is 0.07 mgd or approximately 67 gped, but has been quite varible in the recent past. The I

projected 2010 average water demand is 0.18 mgd or 81 gped, and i the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather i

i .. could increase water use in Monee by up to 5 gped for any year.

I' NAPERVILLE The City of Naperville, located in DuPage County, has municipal limits extending into Northern DuPage and Wheatland Townships.

NIPC has projected significant growth of Naperville's Will County portion. Current village-wide water demand is 168 gped; the 4

1 maximum day ratio is presently 1.5 and approximately 88 percent i of the water pumped is accounted for. Current demand for the

, Will County portion is 0.28 mgd. The projected 2010 average

!, water demand for the Will County portion is 2.41 mgd or 172 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

?

I e 4-12 I

-- . - . . - - - - - - - -- - _ - . ._ -- - ~ _- __. - - - ..

k 4

NEW LENOX The Village of New Lenox is located in New Lenox Township. Two storage and distribution systems serve residents. Combined current water demand is 0.60 mgd or approximately 92 gped; the present maximum day ratio is approximately 1.4. Accountability has averaged 95 percent for the past four years. The projected 2010 average water demand is 1.71 mgd or 110 gped, and the

. projected maximum day ratio is 1.5. '

, PARK FOREST i

l' The Village of Park Forest is located in Southern Cook County, 1

with municipal limits extending into Monee and Crete Townships.

l NIPC has forecast little growth for the Cook County portion of I

i the Village, but has forecast significant growth for the Will t- County portion.

I 1.

Approximately 91 percent of the water pumped is accounted for.

I. Current water demand for the Will County portion is 0.30 mgd or f j

i approximately 81 gped; the maximum day ratio has historically been roughly 1.8. The projected 2010 average water demand for

. the Will County portion is 0.84 mgd or 93 gped and the projected maximum day ratio is 2.0. Variations in weather could increase ,

water use in Park Forest by up to 5 gped for any year.

I 1 + PARK FOREST SOUTH i

L The Village of Park Forest South is located in Monee and Crete Townships in Eastern Will County. Water demand is presently 0.76 mgd or 106 gped, with approximately 90 percent of the water ,

pumped accounted for. The projected 2010 average water demand is 3.44 mgd or 135 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 4-13

cr w-l.8. Variations in we'ather could increase water use in Park Forest South by up to 10 gped for any year.

PEOTONE

.i e The Village of Peotone is located in Peotone and Will l

Townships. Current water demand is 0.34 mgd or approximately 117 s- gped, with 73 percent of the water pumped accounted for.

1 Projected 2010 average water demand is 0.44 mgd or 120 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

I PLAINFIELD i

The Village of Plainfield is located in Plainfield Township in

' Northwestern Will County. Approximately 80 percent of the water

' pumped is accounted for. Current water demand is 0.60 mgd or 132

gped, but was as high as 163 gped in 1980. The projected 2010 l .. average water demand is 3.27 mgd or 152 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather could increase j, water use in Plainfield by up to 10 gped for any year.

RICHTON PARK The Villace of Richton Park is located in Southern Cook County, but is forecast by NIPC to expand over county lines into Monee J

Township. NIPC has projected a 2010 average water demand of 88 E gped or 0.28 mgd for the Will County portion. The projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

i.

ROCKDALE 1

4.

The Village of Rockdale is located in Joliet Township in central l~ Will County. A small portion of Rockdale residents have water 62 Y

4-14

provided by the City of Joliet; the major-ity are serviced by the Village. Current water demand is 0.39 mgd or 192 gped; the present maximum day ratio is 1.45. Like Joliet, the large per capita demand is due to industrial water users.

The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.56 mgd or 205 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.5. Variations in

. weather could increase water use in Rockdale by up to 10 gped for any year.

ROMEOVILLE The Village of Romeoville is located west of the DuPage River in DuPage and Lockport Townships. Three separate distribution systems serve residents. Current water demand is 1.62 mgd or approximately 100 gped, and the present maximum day ratio is approximately 1.7. The projected 2010 average water demand is

. 2.42 mgd or 101 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.7.

I

, SHOREWOOD The Village of Shorewood, located in Troy Township, has approximately 70% of its residents served by the Will County Water Company. The balance of its residents use individual wells. All residents including those on wells and on Will County

• water currently use approximately 0.40 mgd or 78 gped; the

- current maximum day ratio is 2.5. Similar usage data is assumed

, to apply to those on individual wells. The projected average 2010 water demand is 0.83 mgd or 82 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 2.7.

4-15

Y

.~

e-i

.. STEGER The Village of Steger is located in Crete' Township, with municipal limits extending into Southern Cook County. Current 4.

Will County water demand is 0.54 mgd or approximately 89 gped, although past demand has typically been higher. 72 percent of

'~

the water pumped is accounted for. The projected 2010 Will

• County average water demand is 0.82 mgd or 101 gped, and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8. Variations in weather could

,. increase water use in Steger by up to 10 gped for any year.

t SYMERTON i

The Village of Symerton is located in Florence Township. As in I

Godley, all residents obtain water from individual wells. NIPC

~ '

has estimated usage to presently be 91 gped or 0.012 mgd. The J. projected 2010 water demand is 0.020 mgd at 91 gped, and the I- projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

!~

TINLEY PARK The Village of Tinley Park is located in Cook County, but has municipal limits which extend into Frankfort Township. Although I the 1980 Will County portion of the Village was quite small, significant growth is forecast for the area. NIPC has projected an average 2010 Will County water demand of 120 gped or 0.60 mgd,.

and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.8.

.- WILMINGTON The City of Wilmington is located on the Kankakee River in Wilmington Township. Current water demand is 0.52 mgd.or 114 gped, and the current maximum day ratio is approximately 1.6.

)

,. 4-16 l

O' V

L y,

The projected 2010 average water demand is 0.79 mgd or 122 gped,

l. and the projected maximum day ratio is 1.6. Variations in weather could increase water use in Wilmington by up to 5 gped s-for any year.

l v-l Nonmunicipal Water Use i

b Water use data was obtained for the larger nonmunicipal water y

service areas supplied by both utility companies and semi public j systems such as service districts and homeowners associations.

An inventory of these non-municipal supplies was obtained from the IEPA Division of Public Water Supplies and suppliers serving communities with a 1980 population greater than 500 were b

contacted. Water system information was requested for the period 1950 to 1982. All information received was considered in making i projections. Water use for 1980 and for 1982 is shown in Tables t- 4-6 and 4-7, respectively.

7 i, With the single exception of Lockport Township, which obtains water from the cities of Joliet and Lockport, all service areas contacted obtain water from their own wells. Prestwick Utility Co. is the only community contacted which is not entirely in Will I

i county.

1 Using available population and water usage data, projections of

' future water consumption for the 17 water service areas examined wera made. These projections are shown in Table 4-8.

8.

Other users of water for domestic purposes include those residents served by smaller water supply systems, and using individual wells. These are not included in the previously

} discussed water service areas. Population projections and c2

.. 4-17 De

o .-

3 TABLE 4-6 l NONMUNICIPAL WATER USE DATA 1980 PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

• WATER SERVICE POPULATION CONSUMPTION AVE. DAY MAX. DAY AREA (GPCD) 1 Bonnie Brae-

'I Forest Manor 2,000 71 0.141 0.229 Chickasaw Hills 3,402 99 0.336 0.800 Citizens Utilities -

1 Arbury Hills 1,291 116 0.149 College View 600 72 0.043 Crystal Lawns 1,442 88 0.127 j Derby Meadows 3,900 83 0.324 0.400 Eastmoreland -- -- --

Ingalls Park -- --

0.048 0.062 (1975) 8- Kankakee Water Co. -

Dixie Dells 540 70 0.038

Willowbrook Estates 830 131 0.109

'-b Lakewood Shores 885 80 0.071 0.085 (1978) r- Lockport Heights 1,000 83 0.083

! Lockport Township 2,800 61 0.170 Preston Heights 1,870 93 0.173 Utilities, Inc.:

}. Cherry Hill 800 70 0.056

8. (1981)

Frankfort Square 4,690 74 0.350 0.460 (1979)

. Prestwick -- -- --

I' n

I 4

}

t.

u

.p

..e J

4-18

_. _ . . _ .. _ . ~ _ _. . _ . . . _ _ _ -. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ . . . , _ . . - . . _ - . _ . ~ . . . _ , , _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ , _ _ _

o e..

TABLE 4-7 NONMUNICIPAL WATER USE DATA 1982 PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND (MGD)

.- WATER SERVICE POPULATION CONSUMPTION AVE. DAY MAX. DAY AREA (GPCD)

Bonnie Brae-Forest Manor 2,000 73 0.145 Chickasaw Hills 3,685 92 0.340 1.20 8

Citizens Utilities -

, Arbury Hills 1,300 120 0.156 0.613 College View 600 72 0.043

, Crystal Lawns 1,442 67 0.097 Derby Meadows -- --

0.350 Eastmoreland 625 67 0.042 Ingalls Park 759 72 0.055 0.070 Kankakee Water Co. -

1. Dixie Dells 550 75 0.041 Willowbrook Estates 850 151 0.129 0.393 Lakewood Shores 750 55 0.041 j~ Lockport Heights 1,000 80 0.080 Lockport Township 3,060 54 0.166

,., Preston Heights 1,860 102 0.189 Utilities, Inc.:

8 Cherry Hill 805 99 0.079 Frankfort Square 5,096 80 0.407 1

(1)Prestwick 1,327 84 0.111 (1) Will County portion t

i 8.

1 a.

-f S.

G.

4-19

. . . .. .. . - ..- . . . .. _ _ . . . . o TABLE 4-8 PInTECI1D N0tMJNICIPAL WATER CONSENPI' ION 1990 2000 2010 AVE. DAY MAX. DAY AVE. DAY MAX. DAY AVE. DAY MAX. DAY WATER SERVICE AREA POPUIATION DEMAt0 DEMAt0 POPUIATION DEMAND DIMMO POPUIATION DEMAND DEMAm Bonnie Brae - Ebrest Manor 2,000 0.146 0.248 2,000 0.146 0.248 2,000 0.146 0.248 01ickasaw Hills 4,000 0.372 1.30 4,200 0.391 1.37 4,400 0.409 1.43 Citizens Utilities:

Arbury Hills 1,350 0.162 0.632 1,380 0.166 0.647 1,400 0.168 0.655 College View 600 0.043 0.060 600 0.043 0.060 600 0.043 0.060 Crystal Lawns 1,400 0.094 0.188 1,350 0.090 0.180 1,300 0.087 0.174 Derby Meadows 3,800 0.315 0.410 3,700 0.307 0.399 3,650 0.303 0.394 Eastmoreland 650 0.044 0.088 650 0.044 0.088 650 0.044 0.088 Ingalls Park 850 0.061 0.079 900 0.065 0.085 900 0.065 0.085

, Kankakee Water Co.:

1 Dixie Dells 600 0.044 0.088 630 0.047 0.094 660 0.049 0.098

$ Willowbrook Estates 900 0.131 0.393 950 3.138 0.414 1,000 0.145 0.435 Lakewood Shores 700 0.042 0.050 650 0.039 0.047 650 0.039 0.047 Inckport IIeights 1,050 0.084 0.126 1,100 0.088 0.132 1,150 0.092 0.138 Inckport Township 3,000 0.168 0.336 2,500 0.140 0.280 2,000 0.112 0.224 Preston lleights 1,900 0.186 0.261 1,950 0.191 0.268 2,000 0.196 0.274 Utilities Inc.:

Cherry 11i11 820 0.074 0.148 820 0.074 0.148 820 0.074 0.148 Frankfort Square 5,300 0.424 0.551 5,350 0.428 0.556 5,400 0.432 0.562

• Prestwick 1,450 0.126 0.164 1,550 0.135 0.176 1,600 0.139 0.181 Totals 2.516 5.122 2.532 5.192 2.543 5.241

• Will County portion

o-e s

estimates of per capita usage were used to develop future water consumption projections for those county residents not included o' in the preceeding usage estimates. Water use projections by township for those residents appear in Table 4-9. Any areas

, where significant water use is projected will be considered in

} the analysis of alternate regional water systems.

I j Industrial and Institutional Water Use Industrial participation can have significant impact on the planning of a regional water system. Several Will County j industries and companies and other institutions were contacted to 1 obtain water use information. Based on contacts made with i

industries and information obtained from the ISWS, larger water

j. users were requested to furnish current and historical water use data, as well as projected future water use.

I L

Responses to questionnaires varied widely and with two I'i~ exceptions, estimates for future water use were not provided. As a result, projections were developed by extrapolating available historical data. Where d'ta a did not show a growth trend, l

J- generally constant future water use was projected. Municipal water demand projections included those industries to which the g

1. municipality supplies water, and those industries are not included in this analysis.

e Table 4-10 summarizes historical and projected water use for I larger industrial and institutional water users. Water use shown L

for 1983 and prior years represent data provided by the user

-I' and/or the ISWS. Projected water use is shown for years

$- following 1983.

'l c

3

• ~

4-21 em

- - , . - . . . - . ,. g .~_ . . - . . . . . - . . - - ,, . . - . . _ .-. ,--

o~

I,

'T 1.

O TABLE 4-9 L

PROJECTED WATER CONSUMPTION FOR

,. RURAL WILL COUNTY RESIDENTS AVERAGE PROJECTED WATER DEMAND (MGD)

TOWNSHIP 1990 2000 2010 Y

1 Channahon 0.126 0.127 0.128

Crete 0.645 0.663 0.679

{ Custer 0.112 0.116 0.133 DuPage 0.080 0.048 0.041 Florence 0.089 0.103 0.114 I Frankfort 0.444 0.478 0.505 Green Garden 0.144 0.150 0.156 Homer 0.900 1.18 1.40 I Jackson 0.196 0.214 0.228 l Joliet 1.03 0.756 0.512 Lockport 0.538 0.281 0.201 y Manhattan 0.128 0.135 0.140 j Monee 0.118 0.113 0.089 New Lenox 0.880 0.802 0.732 Peotone 0.068 0.076 0.080 C Plainfield 0.711 0.303 0.201

$. Reed 0.048 0.074 0.081 Troy 0.353 0.281 0.220 r Washington 0.153 0.166 0.176 j, Wesley 0.164 0.129 0.121 Wheatland D.352 0.272 0.220

Will 0.096 0.100 0.100 Wilmington 0.180 0.192 0.201

' Wilton 0.068 0.076 0.084

] Totals 7.62 6.84 6.54 L

I s

6.

L i

et

• ~

4-22

((

I-C' l.

7 TABLE 4-10 INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS s-

, i WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS e

l Alcan Aluminum 1983 0.060 0.144 Ave. Day - ISWS Data Max. Day - Alcan Est.

I 1990 0.060 0.144 l 2000 0.060 0.144 2010 0.060 0.144 I

l Amoco Chemicals 1975 2.12 1976 1.31 q 1977 1.28 g

1978 1.30 1979 1.25 1980 1.36 I 1981 1.45

}. 1982 1.31 1983 -- --

t g 1990 1.69 Amoco Projection 2000 1.36 Amoco Projection

v. 2010 1.00 Amoco Projection i

Caterpillar Tractor 1975 0.932 Water obtained from 1976 0.917 wells & City of

! 1977 0.909 Joliet

1. 1978 0.989 1979 1.018 1 1980 0.995 j 1981 1.163 1982 0.965 1983 -- --

8 1990 1.00 2000 1.00 i 2010 1.00 i

Chicago Joliet Livestock 1983 0.03 C-J Livestock

Estimation i 1990 0.03

2000 0.03 l ,

2010 0.03 6

i e,

4-23

.- ~, - . _

.w 3

i

,, TABLE 4-10 (Continued)

I- INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS c-

l. WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY M AX . DAY COMMENTS I

I Citizens Utilities - 1975 0.023 Santa Fe Industrial 1976 0.046 District 1977 0.076 1978 0.069 1979 0.124 1 1980 0.280 l 1981 0.430 1982 0.038 0.750 i

1983 -- --

b 1990 0.110 0.75 2000 0.120 0.75

.} 2010 0.120 0.75 L

0.516 Commonwcalth Edison - 1982 0.351 Well water usage 1- Station 29 1983 -- --

1990 0.360 0.525 t, 2000 0.360 0.525 2010 0.360 0.525 J.

Commonwealth Edison - 1977 0.211 Well water usage H Station 9 1978 0.188 I! 1979 0.205 1980 0.174 1981 0.174 1982 0.212 2.296 1983 --

I 1990 0.200 2.30 8- 2000 0.200 2.30 2010 0.200 2.30

,_ Commonwealth Edison - 1975 0.532 Well water usage Will Co. Station 1976 0.562

': - 1977 0.630 1978 0.692 1979 0.642

, 1980 0.594 1981 0.764 6- 1982 0.615 1983 -- --

c.

~

4-24

t t

4

. . TABLE 4-10 (Continued) i -

INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS s-1 WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS Y

i Commonwealth Edison - 1990 0.700 Will Co. Station 2000 0.750 (Continued) 2010 0.750 F Desoto Chemical 1983 0.025 Desoto Estimation 1990 0.025 e 2000 0.025 l

2010 0.025 Dow Chemical 1983 0.050 Dow Estimation i 1990 0.050 2000 0.050

2010 0.050 L

Elgin, Joliet & 1960 0.178 0.340 Water obtained from

,- Eastern Railway Co. 1965 0.208 0.370 wells & City of j 1970 0.244 0.330 Joliet 1975 0.143 0.225 1976 0.146 0.250 1977 0.152 0.250 4 1978 0.156 0.330 1979 0.175 0.500 1

1980 0.164 0.300

, 1981 0.165 0.240 1982 0.123 0.250 3

1983 -- --

i 8-1990 0.140 0.250 2000 0.130 0.240 l 2010 0.120 0.230 o

Glidden Durkee 1982 0.712 Durkee estimates j4 1983 -- --

constant usage from g, 1975 to 1982

y. 1990 0.712 2000 0.712 6- - 2010 0.712 1

.. 4-25

O' i.

e-

.- TABLE 4-10 (Continued)

INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS c WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS s-

}

Joliet Army Ammunition 1975 0.647 Well water usage y- Plant 1976 0.647 l

1977 0.630 1978 0.630 0

1979 0.740 1980 0.740 1 1981 0.712 1982 0.740 1983 -- --

~

1990 0.740 g 2000 0.740 2010 0.740 Joliet Correctional 1978 0.326 1

Center 1979 0.296 L. 1980 0.288 1981 0.280 v- 1982 0.262 y 1983 -- --

1990 0.220 2000 0.200 h

2010 0.190 l Joliet Park District - 1983 0.150 0.200 Ave. Day - ISWS Data <

1 Pilcher Park Max. Day - Park Est.

1990 0.150 0.200 l- 2000 e 0.150 0.200 2010 0.150 0.200 4

' Joyce Beverages 1983 0.120 Joyce Estimation 1990 0.120 2000 0.120

.. 2010 0.120 Lewis College 1982 0.108 1983 -- --

4-26

c, CV TABLE 4 10 (Continued)

t. INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS

, WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS

! Lewis College 1990 0.108

• (Continued) 2000 0.108 2010 0.108 l

Manville Corp. 1982 0.216 Manville Estimation

1983 -- --

1990 0.216 2 2000 0.216 2010 0.216 s.

Mobil Chemical 1983 0.045 Mobil Estimation i 1990 0.045 Mobil Projection 2000 0.045 g- 2010 0.045 i

'~

Mobil Corporation 1983 0.070 Well water usage

! 1990 0.070 2000 0.070 2010 0.070 1 .'

Olin Chemicals 1975 2.397 1976 1.781 1977 1.628 g 1978 1.272 1979 1.068 1980 1.147 l 1981 0.967 s 1982 0.917 1983 -- --

}

3, 1990 0.700 2000 0.600 2010 0.550 6

o '-

,7 4-27

c7 1

7 1.

p TABLE 4-10 (Continued)

INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS 9

WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS 9

i Prairie State Paper 1983 0.720 Prairie Estimation y Well water usage 1990 0.720 2000 0.720

'! 2010 0.720 i

Peoples GL&C Co. 1978 0.958

{ 1979 0.548 j 1980 0.350 1981 0.349 1.176 t 1982 0.422 1.475 1983 -- --

" 1990 0.350 1.20 2000 0.300 1.10

t. 2010 0.300 1.00 r Stateville Correctional 1977 1.160 1.40 j 1978 1.035 1.20 1979 1.026 1.10 1980 0.863 1.00 1981 0.766 0.90 9

1982 0.801 0.90 1983 -- --

R 1990 0.500 0.600 2000 0.400 0.470 y 2010 0.350 0.400 Stepan Chemical 1979 0.772 1980 0.885 1981 0.986 8-1982 0.861 1983 -- --

.. 1990 0.860 2000 0.860

.,- 2010 0.860 i

4-28

O-T 1

c. TABLE 4-10 (Continued) 4 L INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DATA & PROJECTIONS tr j WATER USE (MGD)

NAME YEAR AVE. DAY MAX. DAY COMMENTS i e' l' Union Oil Co. 1982 0.189 Well water usage 1983 -- --

$- 1990 0.190 2000 0.190 0 2010 0.190 i

.a J.

f' 4 ..

9 4

8 i .

4 4-29

0:

l, of L

r _The possibility of participation by large industrial and l- institutional water users in a regional water system has been addressed in this report only as a basis for presentation of

{ water use data. Industries and institutions currently using large amounts of well water were selected for inclusion of data. Industries using both surface water sources and wells where participation in a regional system is a possibility were 8' also included. These are Commonwealth Edison Co., Mobil Oil Corp., Union Oil Co. and Joliet Army Ammunition Plant which q maintains surface sources on a standby basis.

1 Other industries using surface water sources were considered as g not likely to participate in any regional system.

I The impact of industrial and institutional participation or nonparticipation in any regional water system will be considered

'" in_the analysis of alternate regional systems.

- l.

r Water Accountability Based upon information provided by Will Coun.y public rater i ;, supply systems current water accountability in the County i

averages approximately 79 percent. This figure could increase in the future as a result of individual water system improvements.

-An evaluation of water system management to determine any

'l- improvement would include meter replacement or recalibration, hydrant improvement, valve maintenance, leakage detection and

establishraent of procedures to account for water used, but not

.. metered. By taking actual measurements, or by using existing technology ~to make reasonable estimates of water uses such as L7

j. fire fighting, system leakage, water main flushing, street cleaning, and use at Municipal buildings, it should be possible to reduce the unaccounted water usage to approximately 12-15 1 percent.

l l 4-30 L

c.

o- .

. An assessment of factors involved in water accountability may be used as a guideline in order for each municipality or water service area to assess the extent to which the accountability of water may be increased.

A major item of unaccounted for water is meter inaccuracies. As the ordinary disc meter wears out, it under-registers, which is

' in favor of the customer, i Unrecorded municipal usage is another source of unaccounted water usage. Examples of this type of usage include sewer flushing, street draining, hydrant flushing, fire fighting, and unmetered municipal usage.

In every water distribution system there is a percentage of water lost because of detectable and non-detectable leakage. A

' continuing leak detection program either by staff or consultant E service would locate leaks in mains so they can be repaired.

Fire hydrants would be checked for leakage, proper shut off and 7

4 auxiliary shut off valves. Valves are probably the most neglected part of the water system when it comes to preventive maintenance. Defects found by inspection of valves are of three types: the valves being inaccessible, inoperable, or closed.

Because valves must be closed in the shortest possible time to prevent damage and loss of water from breaks, the importance of preventing these types of defects is apparent.

Water Conservation A survey of water conservation policies and practices for public water suppliers was not performed for Will County. Significantly reduced usage could result if new conservation ordinances are initiated, or if existing ordinances are enforced where this is not now the case.

4-31

c>

l ~- .

o~

l.

e- Possible conservation measures include:

3. ,

,, 1) Metering of all new water services,

j. _

2) Conducting leakage detection and control programs on all i

public water systems on an annual, basis.

j

! 3) Establishing water rate structures at flat or increasing l' rates so as to discourage excessive water use. j-

, 1 1 4) Modifying local plumbing ccdes where necessary to ens,ure that new construction makes use of water conserving devices,

.; fixtures.and trim. -

q f <

5) Discontinuing of sewer flushing with potable water.

a.

/

Private utility companies maylnot be able to enforca any, water

{'- , ,

conservation ordinances and would have to rely on the+

r municipality [in which their ser'vice is situated.

a n .,

As discussed, i'mprovement in' water accountability would help to reduce water demand. The present rahue in water accountability is estimated to {ary from 61 percent'to over 95 percent. It might be expected,that an increase ~in,watirisecountability from an average of 79 percent to approximately 86 percent would not result in,a similar full 7 p'elcent /reduction in water demand.

[

Some of the newly"identi'fied use would become char,geable use, with the rem'ainders refiecting actual loss reduction. We estimate the savings due t6 increased acco6ntability woyld be 4 percent.

A 5 percent To 15 percent redNet, ion in water d6ma$d may be achieved'through conserYation practices. Results may be expected to vary seasonally and between municipalities. However, a

- ,- 4-32

• #w

r reasonable average estimate of savings realized for the J.

municipalities and water service areas considered would be 7

, percent.

i The total effect of these measures on reduction is estimated to average 11 percent. This is subject to variations in 5.

interpretation, along with the other considerations relating to 1

variations in estimates included earlier in this chapter.

I I

I f

a L

l' h

s.

1 4

l' I

e e

O-1 e

8 4-33

..