Hualapai Aquifer Ground Water Infiltration Project Feasibility Studies Date: 2/20/2018
Quail Run Flood Control Infiltration Basin Constructed by Mohave County Flood Control District
- The Quail Run Subdivision flooded in June 2007. 192,000 gallons of ponded storm water had to be pumped out of the subdivision.
- Flood Control devised a plan to construct rapid infiltration basins which would cut a hole through the clay layer and allow water to soak through the underlying sand layer to relieve future flooding.
- The project was completed in the spring of 2012. The total cost was $228,000.00
Kingman Monsoon Park Infiltration Basin
- In a 100 year frequency event, this basin will fill
- Currently, there is an outlet culvert which drains into city streets
- Rather than letting the flow go into city streets, Flood Control proposed to drain the basin by letting it recharge into the aquifer
- Estimated cost of construction is $65,000.00
Valle Vista Flood Control Infiltration Basin
The project is being constructed in cooperation with Mohave County Public Works to reduce future road maintenance and prevent flooding of down-stream areas.
- In April of 2016 Mohave County Flood Control District purchased land on Mano Drive to be used for a Flood Control/Infiltration basin.
- The Design of the first phase is complete
- A bid has been selected for the construction of Phase 1
- Preconstruction meeting is scheduled for February 26th and construction is anticipated to be completed within three months.
- The total cost of phase 1 $294,112.02
Rattlesnake Wash Infiltration Basins
Mohave County Flood Control has been exploring the potential benefits of installing flood control/infiltration basins on the main stem of a significant wash such as Rattlesnake Wash or in the upper watershed of such a wash.
Five proposed basin sites were selected within the watershed of the main stem of Rattlesnake Wash or its tributaries with the purpose of reducing downstream flow rates and volumes.
The final report presents the analysis of several infiltration basins and shows their impact on the wash and the downstream floodplains
Proposed Infiltration Basins with alternatives 1 through 3
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
A | 1,213 | 0 | 65 | 3,494 | 1,046 | 84 |
B | 382 | 0 | 19 | 1,201 | 111 | 46 |
C | 707 | 0 | 25 | 2,199 | 31 | 48 |
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
A | 1,213 | 0 | 65 | 3,494 | 1,046 | 84 |
B | 382 | 0 | 19 | 1,201 | 111 | 46 |
C | 707 | 0 | 25 | 2,199 | 31 | 48 |
D (small) | 777 | 0 | 68 | 2,973 | 526 | 229 |
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
A | 1,213 | 0 | 65 | 3,494 | 1,046 | 84 |
B | 382 | 0 | 19 | 1,201 | 111 | 46 |
C | 707 | 0 | 25 | 2,199 | 31 | 48 |
E | 637 | 0 | 64 | 2,910 | 616 | 231 |
Proposed Infiltration Basins with alternatives 4 through 6
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
D (Big) | 1,524 | 0 | 150 | 5,336 | 326 | 379 |
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
D (Small) | 1,524 | 0 | 150 | 5,336 | 1,890 | 229 |
Basin | 10-Year Inflow (CFS) | 10-Year Outflow (CFS) | 10-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) | 100-Year Inflow (CFS) | 100-Year Outflow (CFS) | 100-Year Volume Retained (Acre Ft) |
E | 1,421 | 0 | 147 | 5,193 | 2,487 | 231 |
The analysis concluded that construction of flood control infiltration basins in the upper and lower watercourses would have a significant impact on rate and volume of runoff in the wash
Peacock Mountains Infiltration Sites Utilizing Existing Ponds on Private Properties
- All sites are privately owned
- Four sites have been approved for survey by the property owner
- The surveys were completed in the fall of 2017 and topography has been received
- Due to the proximity to the mountains, the soil conditions at each property are promising for infiltration
- With property owner’s permission, soil testing could begin in the near future
Bank St. at Kingman High School Flood Control Infiltration Basin
- Access to high school frequently compromised with rainfall events
- Potential offline flood mitigation basin would also serve as an infiltration basin
- The basin would serve as a multi use recreational facility when not inundated with flood waters
Kingman Reclaimed Water Project
City of Kingman
Design Concept Report
Reclaimed Water Recharge Project
Hazen Project 200900-000
DRAFT - October 10, 2017
- The City of Kingman commissioned an engineering design concept report (DCR) for injection wells to recharge a portion of their treated waste water to the aquifer
- Based on the DCR, the total cost of an injection well would be in the range of $1 Million. With the additional system components of pumps, piping, contingency, engineering, etc. a system with a single well would cost about $1.8 Million and with two wells about $3.3 Million
- Kingman Wastewater Plant Capacity Average Daily Flow is 1.6 MGD. That is about 4.9 AFD and would result in approx. 800 AF per year. That would amount to about 22% of Kingman’s average annual water demand of approx. 8,000 AF