current supply and what is needed for future conditions; this is not the total water demand for these utilities.

Transcription

1

2 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 2 current supply and what is needed for future conditions; this is not the total water demand for these utilities. The Maximum Day Demand Gap was calculated using two methods both summarized in Table 1. The first method to calculate the Maximum Day Demand was calculated by applying the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Minimum Design Standards for Missouri Community Water Systems (MDNR Design Standards), effective December 2013, by multiplying the AVD by a minimum of 150-percent. Tri-State members Maximum Day Demand factor is higher than this factor so the AVD was calculated by multiplying by The second method used the 201 Water Resource Study Summary that provided monthly demand gaps over the course of the year. The maximum month demand gap (MMD) for each sub-region was disaggregated by utility based on population served and compared to the calculated values from method one described above. The higher of the two values, in this case MMD, was used for system sizing. Because the Tri-State Water membership does not represent the entire 1-county region, a 30- percent growth factor was also added to the AVD and MMD values to allow for additional members to be added to the water distribution network in the future. Tri-State Water, the USACE, and MDNR agreed that 30-percent was reasonable to use for a growth factor. The MMD with the 30-percent growth factor for the individual Tri-State Water membership was used in sizing the water transmission and treatment systems. Figure 1 illustrates the total demand for the 1-county region compared to the demands for current and future Tri-State members. Table 1 Tri-State Water Demand Gap Projections by Municipality 1 County Region Municipality Average Day Demand (mgd) Max Day Demand (mgd) MMD (mgd) AVD with 30% Growth (mgd) 2 MMD with 30% Growth (mgd) 2 Barry 1 Monett Cassville Barton 1 Lamar Jasper 1 Carthage Mo American Joplin Wholesale Mo American Joplin Customers Webb City Christian 2 Nixa Greene 2 Springfield Lawrence 2 Mount Vernon Total of all Sub-region 1 and 2 Counties Notes: 1. Table is rounded to two significant digits. 2. Demand Gap volume increased by 30-percent to provide additional growth capacity for Tri-State Water.

3 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 3 Figure 1 Water Demand Needs for 1 County Region and Tri-State Members Source Water Options Stockton Lake and Pomme de Terre are potential surface water options to fill the projected gap of the Tri-State Water membership. The water demand gap and associated acre-feet of storage necessary to meet that demand will be calculated by a yield analysis. A yield analysis is determined by the USACE using the Hydrologic Engineering Center s Reservoir Simulation Program to determine reservoir releases based on a guide curve approach and user specified operation rules to provide for lake operation in accordance with current lake Water Control Manuals and varies by source. The yield analysis for both Stockton and Pomme de Terre will be provided in the Stockton Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study and the Pomme de Terre Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study when they are completed. For purposes of this analysis three raw water delivery options were identified from both Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes in case Stockton Lake is unable to meet the future needs of Tri-State Water. Table 2 defines the annual average daily demand met by each of the three raw water options considered in this report. Table 2 Tri-State Water Demand by Source Water Option Option Source Water AVD with 30% Growth (mgd) 1 Stockton Lake 39 2 Stockton Lake 30.5 Pomme de Terre Pomme de Terre 39 Providing water solely from Pomme de Terre is not as cost-effective as providing water from Stockton Lake, thus Option 3 was removed from further study. Only Source Water Options 1 and 2 will be included in the development of the water transmission and treatment alternatives.

4 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 4 Water Transmission and Treatment Alternatives There are three water transmission and treatment alternatives that were selected in partnership with Tri-State Water and the USACE. Each of the three main alternatives are evaluated for Raw Water Option 1, Stockton Lake Only, or Raw Water Option 2, Stockton Lake and Pomme de Terre Lake. Alternatives for Raw Water Option 2 are denoted with an A after the alternative number. Alternative 1: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water with raw water. Alternative 1A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes supply Tri-State Water with raw water. Alternative 2: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water through two intakes at Stockton Lake. Alternative 2A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes supply Tri-State Water raw water using two intakes at Stockton Lake and one at Pomme de Terre. Alternative 3: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water with water for a large regional Water Treatment Plant (WTP) at Springfield. Alternative 3A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes supply Tri-State Water with water for a large regional WTP at Springfield. Design Criteria WaterCAD V8i (SelectSeries) hydraulic modeling software was used to perform a conceptual hydraulic analysis on the overall system for each alternative. Table 3 provides a summary of the basis of design for distribution systems as listed in Chapter 8 of the MDNR Design Standards. The lower minimum pressure in the raw water line design criteria is acceptable with standard practice. The criteria were chosen to minimize energy costs while optimizing storage and pumping facilities. The output data is provided in Appendix A. The hydraulic models were developed as a tool to identify pipeline sizing recommendations, pump station location and capacity, and storage location and size for these alternatives. Table 3 Modeling Development Criteria Model Constraint Finished Water Modelling Assumptions Raw Water Modelling Assumptions Allowable Friction Headloss Range feet per mile feet per mile Allowable Pressure Range PSI PSI Maximum Transmission Velocity 4.0 feet per second 4.0 feet per second Transmission Storage Tank Volume 5% Transmission Flow 5% Transmission Flow Plant Storage Tank Volume 15% Transmission Flow 15% Transmission Flow Hazen Williams Roughness Coefficient for steel pipe

5 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 5 Assumptions for pipe material by pipe diameter are included as Table 4. Table 4 Modeling Development Criteria Assumed Material and Pressure Class Pipeline Diameter C905 PVC, Pressure class inch pipe and Less Ductile Iron, Pressure class 200 Between 12 inch and 42 inch pipe Welded Steel Pipe, Pressure class inch pipe and larger The pump stations were sized to provide flow for maximum daily demand in a 24-hour delivery period. Due to the size requirements for the pumps, 480V or 410V power supply may be necessary. The pump horsepower assumptions were based on the model output, assuming 80percent pump efficiency, and 75-percent wire to water efficiency. The calculated horsepower and initial pump sizing was checked against Flygt and Flowserve using their online available pump selector tools to verify initial horsepower assumptions for the selected pumps. Each pump station is assumed to have at least one installed spare pump for redundancy and in compliance with MDNR Design Standards. Ground storage tanks (GST) and elevated storage tanks (EST) were included in the design recommendations. GSTs were used at booster pump locations and ESTs were used elsewhere. One sustainable feature for Tri-State Water to consider when constructing the GST is the potential inclusion of a turbine generator to convert and reduce the available pressure into generating electricity as water enters the GSTs. Photos of an example illustration are shown in Photo 1 and 2. Photo 1 GST Turbine Photo 2 - Sleeve Valve Alternative 1: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water with raw water, and Alternative 1A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes supply Tri-State Water with raw water. The water treatment and transmission system map for Alternative 1 is included as Figure 1, Alternative 1A as Figure 2. For Alternative 1, the primary raw water line will parallel the existing Springfield pipeline right-of-way between the Stockton Lake intake point and Springfield. The remaining pipelines and infrastructure proposed would be located adjacent to existing roadways to provide access to the utilities. Tables 5, 7, and 8 summarize the pipeline, pump station, and storage tank sizing recommendations.

6 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page The goal of this alignment was to supply the existing Tri-State Water membership WTPs with raw water and add small package plants as necessary for those members that do not currently own and operate their own facility. Alternative 1 expands the existing Springfield WTP and would supplement the current Fellows Lake water with the proposed raw water lines from Stockton Lake. Additionally, there is one proposed 4.5 mgd WTP owned and operated by Tri-State Water near Mount Vernon to supply Mount Vernon and Monett finished water. The Springfield WTP would provide finished water to Nixa and the Missouri-American (MO-Joplin) facility would supply finished water to Webb City. Water treatment plants were sized per maximum day demand. Lamar and Carthage both receive raw water in this alternative. The water service for Tri-State Water Membership (MMD of 80 mgd) is supplied as: 8 mgd of raw water service: Springfield, Lamar, MO-Joplin, and Carthage 12 mgd of finished water service: Nixa, Mt. Vernon, Monett, and Webb City Table 5 Alternative 1 and 1A: Pipe Size and Length Pipe Diameter Alternative 1, Pipe Length (Miles) Alternative 1, Pipe Description Alternative 1A (Pipe Length Miles) Alternative 1A, Pipe Description 72 Raw Water 32.5 Stockton Lake/Springfield WTP 32.5 Stockton Lake/Springfield WTP 0 Raw Water 31.5 Springfield WTP/Mt Vernon WTP 31.5 Springfield WTP/Mt Vernon WTP 54 Raw Water 30.5 Mt Vernon WTP/Carthage 30.5 Mt Vernon WTP/ Carthage 48 Raw Water 12.0 Carthage/MO Joplin WTP 13.5 Carthage/ MO Joplin WTP 3 Raw Water 30.5 Pomme de Terre Lake/ Walnut Grove 24 Finished Water 24.0 Mt Vernon WTP/Monett 24.0 Mt Vernon WTP/ Monett 18 Raw Water 23.5 Carthage/Lamar WTP 23.5 Carthage/ Lamar WTP 18 Finished Water 12.0 Springfield WTP/Nixa 12.0 Springfield WTP/ Nixa 12 Raw Water Finished Water 4 MO Joplin WTP/Webb City 4 MO Joplin WTP/ Webb City Total Pipeline Length Table Alternative 1 and 1A - Pump Station Sizing Information Alternative 1 Alternative 1A Pump Station Quantity HP of Each Total Pump Quantity of HP of Each Total Pump of Pumps 1 Pump Station HP Pumps 1 Pump Station HP Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS ,00 Stockton Lake Raw Water PS 1,000, ,000 4,000 Walnut Grove Raw Water PS , ,500 Springfield Raw Water PS 750 3, ,750 Springfield Finished Water PS 350 1, ,750 Mt Vernon Raw Water PS , ,000 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS The total quantity of pumps at each pump station includes one stand-by pump.

7 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 7 Table 7 Alternative 1 and 1A Raw and Finished Water Storage Tank Location Water Type Alternative 1 Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Water Type Alternative 1A Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS Raw Lake Stockton Lake Raw Water PS Raw Lake Raw Lake Walnut Grove Raw Water PS Raw Ground Tank 4.0 Raw Ground Tank 4.0 Springfield Raw Water PS Raw Ground Tank 2.0 Raw Ground Tank 2.0 Springfield Finished Water PS Finished Ground Tank 3.0 Finished Ground Tank 3.0 Mt Vernon Raw Water PS Raw Ground Tank 2.0 Raw Ground Tank 0.5 EST Near Carthage Raw Elevated Tank 3.0 Raw Elevated Tank 3.0 Table 8 Alternative 1 and 1A Location and WTP Assumptions Surface Water Treatment Plant Max Day Capacity (mgd) Alternative 1 and 1A Finished Water Tank Size (MG) Water Facility Expansion Type Springfield WTP 40.0 Large Expansion Mt. Vernon WTP New Construction MO Joplin WTP Large Expansion Lamar WTP Small Expansion Carthage WTP Existing WTP Alternative 2: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water through Two Intakes at Stockton Lake Alternative 2A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes Supply Tri-State Water Raw Water using Two Intakes at Stockton Lake and One at Pomme de Terre The water treatment and transmission system map for Alternative 2 is included as Figure 3, Alternative 2A as Figure 4. For Alternative 2, the primary raw water lines will be split between two raw water intake points at Stockton Lake. Two intakes were chosen to add more flexibility for future phasing of the system to Tri-State. The remaining pipelines and infrastructure proposed would be located adjacent to existing roadways to provide access to the utilities. Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12 summarize the pipeline, pump station, and storage tank sizing recommendations. The goal of the second alignment alternative was to supply the Tri-State Water Membership that own existing WTPs with raw water from two directions. The two large proposed WTPs at MO-Joplin and Springfield will receive raw water from two independent intake points from Stockton Lake. The Lamar and Carthage WTP will remain in service to provide finished water to Lamar. The MO-Joplin WTP provides finished water to MO-Joplin and Webb City. The Springfield WTP would provide finished water to Nixa, Mount Vernon and Monett. The water service for each Tri-State Water member (MMD of 80 mgd) is supplied as identified below: 8 mgd of raw water service: Springfield, Lamar, MO-Joplin, and Carthage 12 mgd of finished water service: Nixa, Mt. Vernon, Monett, and Webb City

8 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 8 Table 9 Alternative 2 and 2A Pipe Size and Length Pipe Diameter Alternative 2 Pipe Lengths (Miles) Alternative 2, Pipe Description Alternative 2A Pipe Lengths (Miles) 72 Raw Water 0 Raw Water Raw Water 17.0 Stockton Lake South/Springfield WTP, Stockton Lake West/Lamar Lamar/Raw Water EST, Springfield WTP/Springfield Alternative 2A, Pipe Description Stockton Lake South/Springfield WTP, Stockton Lake West/Lamar Lamar/Raw Water EST, Springfield WTP/Springfield 48 Raw Water 22.5 Carthage/MO Joplin WTP 31.5 Raw Water EST/MO Joplin WTP 3 Raw Water 30.5 Pomme de Terre Lake/Walnut Grove 24 Finished Water 5.5 Springfield WTP/Monett, Carthage/Carthage WTP 5.5 Springfield WTP/Monett, Carthage/Carthage WTP 18 Finished Water 12.1 Springfield WTP/Nixa 12.1 Springfield WTP/Nixa 12 Raw Water 2.0 Lamar/Lamar WTP 2.0 Lamar/Lamar WTP Total Pipeline Length Table 10 Alternative 2 and 2A Pump Station Sizing Information Pump Station Quantity of Pumps 1 Alternative 2 HP of Each Pump Total Pump Station HP Quantity of Pumps 1 Alternative 2A HP of Each Pump Total Pump Station HP Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS ,00 Stockton Lake South Raw Water PS , ,25 Stockton Lake West Raw Water PS , ,500 Walnut Grove Raw Water PS , ,750 Springfield Finished Water PS West , ,000 Springfield Finished Water PS South , ,750 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS West , ,000 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS South The total quantity of pumps at each pump station includes one stand-by pump. Table 11 Alternative 2 and 2A Raw and Finished Water Storage Tank Location Water Type Alternative 2 Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Water Type Alternative 2A Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS Raw Lake Stockton Lake South Raw Water PS Raw Lake Raw Lake Stockton Lake West Raw Water PS Raw Lake Raw Lake Walnut Grove Raw Water PS Raw Ground Tank 2.5 Raw Ground Tank 2.5 Springfield Finished Water PS Finished Ground Tank 3.5 Finished Ground Tank 3.5 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS Finished Ground Tank 0.5 Finished Ground Tank 0.5 EST Near Carthage Raw Elevated Tank 3.0 Raw Elevated Tank 3.0

9 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 9 Table 12 Alternative 2 and 2A Location and WTP Assumptions Water Treatment Plant Max Day Capacity (mgd) Alternative 2 and 2A Finished Water Tank Size (MG) Water Facility Expansion Type Springfield WTP Large Expansion MO Joplin WTP Large Expansion Lamar WTP Small Expansion 1. Water treatment plants sized per maximum day demand Alternative 3: Stockton Lake supplies Tri-State Water with water for a Large Regional Water Treatment Plant (WTP) at Springfield, and Alternative 3A: Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes supply Tri-State Water with water for a Large Regional WTP at Springfield The water treatment and transmission system map for Alternative 3 is included as Figure 5, Alternative 3A as Figure. For Alternative 3, the primary raw water line will parallel the existing Springfield pipeline right-of-way between the Stockton Lake intake point and Springfield similar to Alternative 1. The remaining proposed pipelines and infrastructure would be located adjacent to existing roadways to provide access to the utilities. Tables 13, 14, 15, and 1 summarize the pipeline, pump station, and storage tank sizing recommendations. The goal of this alignment was to supply the Tri-State Water Membership customers with finished water from one large regional WTP located at Springfield. Thus, there is one 80 mgd WTP near Springfield to supply finished water to all Tri-State Water customers. A finished water booster pump station (BPS) would convey water south to Mt. Vernon and Monett and west to the finished water EST. The EST would provide Webb City, Carthage, MO-Joplin, and Lamar with finished water via gravity. Table 13 Alternative 3 and 3A Pipe Size and Length Pipe Diameter Alternative 3 Pipe Length (Miles) Alternative 3 Pipe Start/Pipe End Alternative 3A Pipe Length (Miles) Alternative 3A Pipe Start/Pipe End 72 Raw Water 32.0 Stockton Lake/Springfield WTP 32.0 Stockton Lake/Springfield WTP 0 Finished Water 54 Finished Water 31.5 Springfield WTP/Mt Vernon 31.5 Springfield WTP/Mt Vernon 48 Finished Water 40.0 Mt Vernon/MO Joplin 40.0 Mt Vernon/MO Joplin 3 Raw Water 30.5 Pomme de Terre Lake/ Walnut Grove 24 Finished Water 25.0 Mt Vernon/Monett 25.0 Mt Vernon/Monett 18 Finished Water 35.0 Finished Water EST/Lamar, Springfield WTP/Nixa 35.0 Total Pipeline Length Finished Water EST/Lamar, Springfield WTP/Nixa

10 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 10 Table 14 Alternative 3 and 3A Pump Station Sizing Information Pump Station Quantity of Pumps 1 Alternative 3 HP of Each Pump Total Pump Station HP Quantity of Pumps 1 Alternative 3A HP of Each Pump Total Pump Station HP Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS ,00 Stockton Lake Raw Water PS 1,000, ,000 4,000 Walnut Grove Raw Water PS , ,500 Springfield Finished Water PS West , ,000 Springfield Finished Water PS South , ,750 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS West , ,000 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS South The total quantity of pumps at each pump station includes one stand-by pump. Table 15 Alternative 3 and 3A Raw and Finished Water Storage Tank Location Water Type Alternative 3 Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Water Type Alternative 3A Storage Location Total Volume Stored (MG) Pomme de Terre Raw Water PS Raw Lake Stockton Lake Raw Water PS Raw Lake Raw Lake Walnut Grove Raw Water PS Raw Ground Tank 4.0 Raw Ground Tank 4.0 Springfield Finished Water PS Finished Ground Tank 3.0 Finished Ground Tank 3.0 Mt Vernon Finished Water PS Finished Ground Tank 3.0 Finished Ground Tank 3.0 EST Near Carthage Raw Elevated Tank 3.0 Raw Elevated Tank 3.0 Table 1 Alternative 3 and 3A Location and WTP Assumptions Water Treatment Plant Max Day Capacity (mgd) Alternative 3 and 3A Finished Water Tank Size (MG) Water Facility Expansion Type Springfield WTP Large Expansion Sustainability Considerations Sustainability considerations affect different aspects of the alternatives. For the major improvements including the plant upgrades and pump stations, sustainable building materials and green architecture can be used to improve the sustainability of the overall improvements. Green architecture serves to reduce energy costs at the structures; for instance, providing the maximum access to natural lighting will reduce the need for indoor lighting, thus reducing the energy demand.

11 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 11 At the pump stations, variable frequency drives (VFDs) can be used to reduce the power of each pump when demand is low. VFDs can be used to optimize the pumping system and operate at the most efficient condition to minimize the amount of power to meet the design point. Recording and analyzing data across the entire system can also be used to optimize the entire system and reduce overall energy consumption. The elevations and finished water pressure requirements to maintain minimum required pressures in the pipelines generate additional backpressure at the ground storage tank locations. This pressure can be converted to electricity by powering a small turbine at these sites as opposed to installing a back-pressure valve and losing the energy. The turbine uses the excess pressure to generate electricity for the BPS that could be sold back to the electricity grid. The BPSs in this system may be good candidates for consideration of energy recovery turbines. Cost Estimates and Assumptions A planning level project cost was developed for each of the six alternatives described previously. Because this is a high-level planning cost, the following assumptions were made in its development and consistently applied to all alternatives. General Assumptions: This planning level cost is in 2017 dollars and is not intended for use to secure project funding. This planning level cost does not include escalation to the mid-point of construction. A 30-percent construction contingency is included for design development. All planning level costs include 15-percent Engineering, Legal, and Administration fees and services. Pipeline Assumptions: The project includes between 10 and 200 miles of pipeline across seven counties in southwest Missouri. This area is mostly undeveloped and is in a rocky part of the state. It is assumed that 30-percent of the overall pipeline length linearly will require rock excavation. Areas disturbed by the excavation and pipeline installation will be restored by hydroseeding. Type 5 Backfill and aggregate per AWWA Standard C105. No cathodic protection is included for the plastic pipelines. It is assumed that the metal pipes are coated, wrapped in polyethylene and installed with tracer wire and tape for the entire length of the pipeline. Cathodic protection is included for the steel and ductile iron pipe. A minimum bury depth of 42-inches shall be followed for the installation. Isolation valves and air release valves are installed every half mile and flushing hydrants every mile. During detailed design, best locations and sizing for these valves should be performed in conjunction with surge analysis of the system. To develop the estimated right-of-way acquisition costs, a sample of 50 properties currently listed for sale were compared. The property data was acquired from the seven counties the pipeline is in and ranged in land and size from 1 to 1,000 acres. A summary of the right-of-

12 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 12 way cost analysis is included in Table 17 below and the overall cost table is included in Appendix B. Table 17 Right-of-way Cost Assumptions ROW Parameter Value Acre Properties (25 Properties) $10,000/acre Acre Properties (10 Properties) $5,000/acre Acre Properties ( Properties) $3,000/acre >500 Acre Properties ( Properties) $4,500/acre Average Cost/Acre Average Cost/Acre (Parcels >100 Acres) Average Cost/Acre (Parcels >200 Acres) Average Cost/Acre (Parcels >300 Acres) Permanent ROW Acres/Mile Temporary ROW Acres/Mile Estimated ROW Cost per Mile $7,400/acre $4,500/acre $3,00/acre $3,700/acre 12 acres/mi acres/mi $100,000/mi BPS Assumptions: CMU brick pump building, site work with an access road, and security fencing with limited security systems. Pump station costs include all duty pumps and one stand-by pump. The voltage and electrical service is assumed to be 480V for pumps less than 350 HP and 410V for pumps larger than 350 HP. No cost for a new electrical service is included. The SCADA for the system is included as a percentage of the total project cost and WTP SCADA is included in the estimated dollars per gallon of capacity. Storage Tank Assumptions: Elevated storage tanks are assumed to be steel hydropillar, single-column style tanks. An example of an EST designed by Caldwell Tanks is illustrated in Photo 3 below. All ground storage tanks are assumed to be Type II pre-stressed concrete tanks on shallow foundations, no deep foundations are included. An example of a type 2 per DN Tanks is illustrated in Photo 4.

13 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 13 Photo 3 Caldwell EST Photo 4 DN Tank GST WTP Assumptions: To generate a planning level cost for new water treatment plants, 7 dollars per gallon construction cost was assumed for plants with less than 10 mgd of treated capacity and dollars per gallon was assumed for plants with capacities greater than 10 mgd. WTP cost allowances include General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance, Bonding, and Contingency. The cost per capacity information for the WTPs was derived based on recent construction bids and engineering estimates for new Greenfield facilities located in the Midwest, assuming standard equipment selection and does not include advanced treatment process. The design and selection of the treatment process is not included in the overall scope of this project. The overall cost includes a contingency for engineering design fees, and legal and administration fees. The estimated planning level cost summaries for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Table 18 and Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3A are presented in Table 19. Detailed cost summaries for all six Alternatives are included in Appendix B. Table 18 - Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Stockton Lake Planning Level Cost Summary Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Pipelines $544 M $491 M $501 M Pump Stations $49 M $45 M $52 M Storage Tanks $12 M $9.8 M $11 M General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance, Bonding (25%) $152 M $137 M $141 M Pipe, BPS and Storage Construction Total $70 M $80 M $710 M ROW Acquisition $17M $17 M $17 M Engineering, Legal, Administration (15%) $114 M $102 M $10 M Contingency (30%) $227 M $205 M $212 M Pipeline Opinion of Probable Cost Sub Total $1,100 M $1,000 M $1,000 M Water Treatment Plant Cost Allowances 1 $472 M $481 M $480 M Engineering, Legal, Administration (15%) $71 M $72 M $72 M Contingency (30%) $142 M $144 M $144 M WTP Opinion of Probable Cost Sub Total $90 M $700 M $700 M Total Opinion of Probable Cost $1,800 M $1,700 M $1,700 M Notes: 1. Water Treatment Plant cost allowances include General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance, Bonding, and Contingency. 2. Full detailed cost breakdowns are included in Appendix B. 3. Total and Subtotal costs rounded to two significant figures.

14 Southwest Missouri Water Delivery Systems, Hydraulic Analysis of Alternatives June 28, 2017 Page 14 Table 19 Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3A Stockton and Pomme de Terre Lakes Planning Level Cost Summary Description Alternative 1A Alternative 2A Alternative 3A Pipelines $11 M $547 M $57 M Pump Stations $49 M $49 M $53 M Storage Tanks $11 M $9.8 M $11 M General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance, Bonding (25%) $18 M $152 M $158 M Pipe, BPS and Storage Construction Total $840 M $758 M $790 M ROW Acquisition $20 M $20 M $20 M Engineering, Legal, Administration (15%) $12 M $114 M $118 M Contingency (30%) $252 M $227 M $23 M Pipeline Opinion of Probable Cost Sub Total $1,200 M $1,100 M $1,200 M Water Treatment Plant Cost Allowances 1 $494 M $480 M $480 M Engineering, Legal, Administration (15%) $74 M $72 M $72 M Contingency (30%) $148 M $144 M $144 M WTP Opinion of Probable Cost Sub Total $720 M $700 M $700 M Total Opinion of Probable Cost $2,000 M $1,800 M $1,900 M Notes: 1. Water Treatment Plant cost allowances include General Conditions, OH&P, Insurance, Bonding, and Contingency. 2. Full detailed cost breakdowns are included in Appendix B. 3. Total and Subtotal costs rounded to two significant figures. Alternative 1 and 1A are the most expensive options due to the larger pipe diameters and use of smaller water treatment plants. The smaller water treatment plants have a higher cost estimate than the larger WTPs. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 have a $30M difference in overall construction costs. Alternative 2 has the lowest cost of the three alternatives evaluated due to the smaller pipe sizes exiting the Stockton Lake BPS. The major cost factor between all three alternatives is the pipeline costs. The addition of 8.5 MGD connection at Pomme de Terre Lake adds $130M to the cost of the project which is 7.5-percent of the total cost. The water treatment plant costs would be included in an overall system, but would likely be carried by the individual utilities and not by the Tri-State Water Commission. The water treatment plant costs also address the needed expansion to produce enough water to meet 200 population requirements, which will be an expense that will need to be covered whether or not the Stockton Lake and/or Pomme de Terre transmission systems are constructed.

15 Appendix A Pipe Velocity, Flow Rate, Headloss, Node Pressure and Elevation

16 Stockton Primary Alternative 1 - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 1 - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Model Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Model Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) ID (psi) (ft) 93 P , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P-193 5, , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P-197 4, , , P-199 4, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P-235 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P-105 5, , , P-10 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-181 5, , , P , , , P-182 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1940, , , P , , P , , , P-140 1, , , P-198 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-104 5, , , P-108 5, , , P-114 5, , ,280.00

17 2245 P-118 5, , , P-182 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-170 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-159 5, , , P , , , P-138 5, , , P-139 5, , , P-140 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-200 5, , , P-147 5, , , P , , , P-150 5, , , P-155 5, , , P , , P-157 5, , , P-158 5, , , P , , P , , P , ,740.00

18 135 P-34 1, , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-145 5, , P-147 5, , P-148 5, , P-149 5, , P-150 5, , P-13 5, , P-14 2, , P , , P-171 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-178 5, , P , , P , , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, , P-140 1,

19 Stockton Primary Alternative 2 - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 2 - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) ID Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) (psi) (ft) 93 P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-213 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-214 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-215 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-210 5, , , P-211 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P-214 5, , , P-215 2, , , P , , P , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P-193 5, , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-197 4, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P-34 1, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-147 5, , , P-148 5, , , P-149 5, , , P-150 5, , ,150.00

20 2290 P-13 5, , , P-14 2, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-143 5, , , P-145 5, , , P-171 5, , , P , , , P-178 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-159 5, , , P , , , P-138 5, , , P-139 5, , , P-140 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , P-200 5, , P-235 5, , P , , P-147 5, , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P-150 5, , P-155 5, , P , P-157 5, , P-158 5, , P-105 5, , P-10 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , ,

21 2381 P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-181 5, , P , , P-182 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-1940, , P , P , P , P , P , P , P , , P-140 1, , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, , P-140 1, P , P , , P ,

22 Stockton Primary Alternative 3 - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 3 - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Model Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Model Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) ID (psi) (ft) 839 P , , P , , P , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P-193 5, , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P-197 4, , , P-199 4, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , P-235 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P-105 5, , , P-10 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-181 5, , , P , , , P-182 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1940, , , P , , P , , P , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , ,180.00

23 2033 P-140 1, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P-198 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-104 5, , , P-108 5, , , P-114 5, , , P-118 5, , , P-182 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-170 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-159 5, , , P , , , P-138 5, , , P-139 5, , , P-140 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-200 5, , P-147 5, , P , , P-150 5, , P-155 5, , P , P-157 5, , P-158 5, , P , P , P ,

24 2105 P , , P-34 1, , P , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-145 5, , P-147 5, , P-148 5, , P-149 5, , P-150 5, , P-13 5, , P-14 2, , P , , P-171 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-178 5, , P , , P , , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, , P-140 1,

25 Stockton Primary Alternative 1a - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 1a - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Model Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Model Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) ID (psi) (ft) 2038 P , , , P , , , P , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P , , P , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-200 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P-197 4, , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P-235 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-105 5, , , P-10 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-181 5, , , P , , , P-182 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1940, , , P , , P-198 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-104 5, , , P-108 5, , , P-114 5, , , P-118 5, , , P-182 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , ,10.00

26 2387 P-170 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-140 1, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P-129 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1871, , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-219 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , ,000.00

27 219 P-159 5, , P , , P-138 5, , P-139 5, , P-140 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-200 5, , P-147 5, , P , , P-150 5, , P-155 5, , P , P-157 5, , P-158 5, , P , P , P , P , , P-140 1, P-34 1, , P , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-145 5, , P-147 5, , P-148 5, , P-149 5, , P-150 5, , P-13 5, , P-14 2, , P , , P-171 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-178 5, , P , , P , , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, ,

28 Stockton Primary Alternative 2a - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 2a - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) ID Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) (psi) (ft) 3030 P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-213 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-214 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-215 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-210 5, , , P-211 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P-214 5, , , P-215 2, , , P , , P , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-200 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-197 4, , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P-34 1, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-147 5, , , P-148 5, , , P-149 5, , , P-150 5, , , P-13 5, , , P-14 2, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , , P , , , P , , ,130.00

29 2752 P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P , , , P , , , P-143 5, , , P-145 5, , , P-171 5, , , P , , , P-178 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-129 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1871, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-219 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P-159 5, , P , , P-138 5, , P-139 5, , P-140 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , ,

30 2405 P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-200 5, , P-235 5, , P , , P-147 5, , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P-150 5, , P-155 5, , P , P-157 5, , P-158 5, , P-105 5, , P-10 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-181 5, , P , , P-182 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-1940, , P , P , P , P , P , P , P , , P-140 1, , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, , P-140 1, P , P , , P ,

31 Stockton Primary Alternative 3a - Pipes Stockton Primary Alternative 3a - Nodes Model Model Diameter Flow Headloss Model Pressure Elevation Length (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Model Label ID Label (in) (gpm) (ft) ID (psi) (ft) 825 P-200 5, , , P , , P , , P-183 5, , , P-184 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-18 5, , , P-187 5, , , P-188 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P-191 5, , , P , , P , , P , , P-194 5, , , P-195 5, , , P-19 5, , , P-197 5, , , P-198 5, , , P-199 5, , , P-202 5, , , P-203 5, , , P-20 5, , , P-207 2, , , P-208 5, , , P-209 5, , , P-210 5, , , P-212 5, , , P-213 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-197 4, , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , P-235 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P-105 5, , , P-10 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-181 5, , , P , , , P-182 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1940, , , P , , P , , P , , P-217 5, , , P-218 5, , , P-219 3, , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-143 5, , , P , , , P , , ,10.00

32 2185 P , , , P-119 5, , , P-194 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-104 5, , , P-108 5, , , P-114 5, , , P-118 5, , , P-182 5, , , P-185 5, , , P-189 5, , , P-190 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-170 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , P , , P-129 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-1871, , , P , , , P , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P-219 5, , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , , P , , P , , , P , , , P , , ,000.00

33 219 P-159 5, , , P , , P-138 5, , P-139 5, , P-140 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-200 5, , P-147 5, , P , , P-150 5, , P-155 5, , P-157 5, , P-158 5, , P , P , P-34 1, , P , P , , P , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-145 5, , P-147 5, , P-148 5, , P-149 5, , P-150 5, , P-13 5, , P-14 2, , P , , P-171 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-178 5, , P , , P , , P , , P , , P , , P-220 5, , P-221 5, , P-222 5, , P-223 5, , P-224 5, , P-225 5, , P-22 5, , P-227 5, , P-228 3, , P-229 5, , P-232 5, , P-233 2, , P-234 5, , P-140 1, P ,

34 Appendix B Detailed Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost

35 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 1 - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 72-inch Pipe LF 171,000 $ 1,03 $ 181,710,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 34 $ 4,57 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 1 $ 254,147 $ 250,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 254,147 $ 70,000 0-inch Pipe LF 17,000 $ 807 $ 134,730,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 11 $ 4,204 $ 50,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 9 $ 185,928 $ 1,70,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 11 $ 185,928 $ 2,050,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 1 $ 185,928 $ 190, inch Pipe LF 11,000 $ 0 $ 10,20,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 110 $ 4,204 $ 40,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 22 $ 185,928 $ 4,090,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 28 $ 185,928 $ 5,210,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 185,928 $ 1,120, inch Pipe LF 4,000 $ 575 $ 3,790,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 17 $ 3,840 $ 70,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 2 $ 145,800 $ 290,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580, inch Pipe LF 12,000 $ 242 $ 30,500,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 18 $ 3,477 $ 0,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 2 $ 90,937 $ 180,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 90,937 $ 270, inch Pipe LF 187,000 $ 177 $ 33,030,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 3,295 $ 270,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 83,127 $ 1,080,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 83,127 $ 1,250,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 83,127 $ 500, inch Pipe LF 2,000 $ 134 $ 270,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 544,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 80 MGD Raw Water Pump Station,,000 HP w/ Lake Storage -,000 HP (5 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 1000 HP $ 2,055 $ 12,330, MGD Raw Water BPS - 4,900 HP ( Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 700 HP 7 $ 2,055 $ 10,070, MGD Springfield Raw Water BP - 1,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 350 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 3,00,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MGD Mount Vernon Raw Water BP - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 9,70,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 49,000,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 170' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100,000 4 MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,443,205 $ 1,440,000 2 MG Ground Storage Tanks (Raw Water) LS 1 $ 944,723 $ 940,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tank (Finished Water) LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220,000 2 MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 944,723 $ 940,000 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 11,40,000 Pipeline, PS, and Storage Construction Subtotal $ 05,000,000 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 151,000,000 Pipeline, PS, and Storage Construction Total $ 75,000,000 ROW Acquisition 1 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 17,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 113,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 227,000,000 Pipeline Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,110,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost ($/gal) Total Cost Springfield 40 MGD WTP LS 40 $ $ 240,000,000 Lawrence County (Mt Vernon & Monet) 4.4 MGD WTP LS 4.4 $ 7 $ 30,800,000 Lamar 1.8 MGD WTP LS 1.8 $ 7 $ 12,00,000 Carthage 5.5 MGD WTP LS $ $ 33,000,000 MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP LS 2 $ $ 15,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 472,400,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 71,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 142,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 90,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,800,000,000

36 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 1a - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 72-inch Pipe LF 171,000 $ 1,03 $ 181,710,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 34 $ 4,57 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 1 $ 254,147 $ 250,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 254,147 $ 70,000 0-inch Pipe LF 17,000 $ 807 $ 134,730,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 11 $ 4,204 $ 50,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 9 $ 185,928 $ 1,70,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 11 $ 185,928 $ 2,050,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 1 $ 185,928 $ 190, inch Pipe LF 11,000 $ 0 $ 10,20,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 110 $ 4,204 $ 40,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 22 $ 185,928 $ 4,090,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 28 $ 185,928 $ 5,210,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 185,928 $ 1,120, inch Pipe LF 4,000 $ 575 $ 3,790,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 17 $ 3,840 $ 70,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 Creek or River Crossings? Ea. 2 $ 145,800 $ 290,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 3-inch Pipe LF 11,000 $ 393 $ 3,190,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 5 $ 3,58 $ 20,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 20 $ 128,475 $ 2,570,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 4 $ 128,475 $ 510,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 128,475 $ - 24-inch Pipe LF 12,000 $ 242 $ 30,500,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 18 $ 3,477 $ 0,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 2 $ 90,937 $ 180,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 90,937 $ 270, inch Pipe LF 187,000 $ 177 $ 33,030,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 3,295 $ 270,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 83,127 $ 1,080,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 83,127 $ 1,250,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 83,127 $ 500, inch Pipe LF 2,000 $ 134 $ 270,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 11,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 2 MGD Raw Water Pump Station, 2MG /,000 HP - 3,000 HP (3 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 1000 HP 4 $ 2,055 $ 8,220, MGD PdT Pump Station, 2MG /,000 HP - 1,200 HP (3 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 4 $ 2,055 $ 3,290, MGD (WALNUT GROVE) Raw Water BPS, 8MG /,000 HP - 5,500 HP (5 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 920 HP $ 2,055 $ 11,340, MGD Springfield Raw Water BP, 20 MGD - 1,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 350 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 3,00,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MGD Mt Vernon Raw Water BP - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 9,880,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 49,000,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 170' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100,000 4 MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,443,205 $ 1,440,000 2 MG Ground Storage Tanks Raw Water LS 1 $ 944,723 $ 940,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tanks Finished Water LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220, MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 331,383 $ 330,000 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 11,030,000 Pipeline, PS, and Storage Construction Subtotal $ 71,000,000 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 17,750,000 Pipeline Construction Subtotal $ 839,000,000 ROW Acquisition 197 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 20,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 12,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 252,000,000 Pipeline Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,240,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost ($/gal) Total Cost Springfield 40 MGD WTP LS 40 $ $ 240,000,000 Lawrence 4.4 MGD WTP LS 4.4 $ 7 $ 30,800,000 Lamar 3. MGD WTP LS 3. $ 7 $ 25,200,000 Carthage 11 MGD WTP LS 11 $ $,000,000 MO-Joplin 22 MGD WTP LS 22 $ $ 132,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 494,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 74,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 148,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 720,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,90,000,000

37 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 2 - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 0-inch Pipe LF 327,000 $ 807 $ 23,790,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 74 $ 4,204 $ 310,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. $ 185,928 $ 1,120,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 12 $ 185,928 $ 2,230, inch Pipe LF 89,000 $ 0 $ 58,740,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 4,022 $ 330,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 15,43 $ 2,150,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 15,43 $ 2,480,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 15,43 $ 990, inch Pipe LF 119,000 $ 575 $ 8,400,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 17 $ 3,840 $ 70,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 2 $ 145,800 $ 290,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580, inch Pipe LF 299,000 $ 242 $ 72,380,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 27 $ 3,477 $ 90,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 11 $ 90,937 $ 1,000,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 14 $ 90,937 $ 1,270,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 1 $ 90,937 $ 90, inch Pipe LF 4,000 $ 177 $ 11,300,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 74 $ 3,295 $ 240,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 9 $ 83,127 $ 750,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 9 $ 83,127 $ 750,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 3 $ 83,127 $ 250, inch Pipe LF 9,000 $ 134 $ 1,210,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 491,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 4 MGD Stockton Lake South Raw Water Pump Station - 2,500 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 500 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 5,140,000 4 MGD (Walnut Grove) Raw Water BPS - 2,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 550 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 5,50, MGD Stockton West Raw Water Pump Station - 2,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 550 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 5,50,000 4 MGD Springfield WTP and BPS Finished Water - 3,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 00 HP 5 $ 2,055 $,170,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MGD Mount Vernon BPS - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 8,920,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 44,580,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 200' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100, MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,08,307 $ 1,070, MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,340,413 $ 1,340, MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 331,383 $ 331,383 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 9,841,383 Pipeline, PS, Storage Tank Construction Subtotal $ 545,000,000 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 13,250,000 Pipeline Construction Subtotal $ 81,000,000 ROW Acquisition 172 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 17,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 102,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 204,000,000 Pipeline Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,000,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost ($/gal) Total Cost Springfield 4 MGD WTP LS 4 $.00 $ 27,000,000 Lamar 2 MGD WTP LS 1.8 $ 7.00 $ 12,00,000 MO-Joplin 34 MGD WTP LS 32 $.00 $ 192,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 480,00,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 72,090,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 144,180,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 700,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,700,000,000

38 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 2a - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 0-inch Pipe LF 279,000 $ 807 $ 225,070,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 4 $ 4,204 $ 270,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. $ 185,928 $ 1,120,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 11 $ 185,928 $ 2,050, inch Pipe LF 89,000 $ 0 $ 58,740,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 4,022 $ 330,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 15,43 $ 2,150,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 15,43 $ 2,480,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 15,43 $ 990, inch Pipe LF 17,000 $ 575 $ 95,990,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 27 $ 3,840 $ 100,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 145,800 $ 440,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 145,800 $ 580,000 3-inch Pipe LF 11,000 $ 393 $ 3,190,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 5 $ 3,58 $ 20,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 20 $ 128,475 $ 2,570,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 4 $ 128,475 $ 510,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 128, inch Pipe LF 299,000 $ 242 $ 72,380,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 27 $ 3,477 $ 90,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 11 $ 90,937 $ 1,000,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 14 $ 90,937 $ 1,270,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 1 $ 90,937 $ 90, inch Pipe LF 4,000 $ 177 $ 11,300,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 74 $ 3,295 $ 240,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 9 $ 83,127 $ 750,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 9 $ 83,127 $ 750,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 3 $ 83,127 $ 250, inch Pipe LF 9,000 $ 134 $ 1,210,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 547,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 28 MGD Stockton South Raw Water Pump Station - 1,300 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 325 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 3,340,000 4 MGD WALNUT GROVE Raw Water BPS - 3,100 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 775 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,90, MGD PdT Pump Station, 2MG /,000 HP - 1,200 HP (3 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 4 $ 2,055 $ 3,290, MGD Strockton West Raw Water Pump Station - 2,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 550 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 5,50,000 4 MGD Springfield WTP and BPS Finished Water - 3,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 00 HP 5 $ 2,055 $,170,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MGD Mount Vernon BPS - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 9,870,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 49,330,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 200' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100, MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,08,307 $ 1,070, MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,340,413 $ 1,340, MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 331,383 $ 331,383 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 9,841,383 Pipeline, PS, Storage Tank Construction Subtotal $ 0,171,383 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 151,540,000 Pipeline Construction Subtotal $ 758,000,000 ROW Acquisition 202 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 20,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 114,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 227,000,000 Pipeline Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,120,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost ($/gal) Total Cost Springfield 4 MGD WTP LS 4 $ $ 27,000,000 MO-Joplin 34 MGD WTP LS 34 $ $ 204,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 480,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 72,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 144,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 700,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,820,000,000

39 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 3 - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 72-inch Pipe LF 19,000 $ 1,03 $ 179,00,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 34 $ 4,57 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 1 $ 254,147 $ 250,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 254,147 $ 70,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 254,147 $ - 54-inch Pipe LF 180,000 $ 0 $ 118,800,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 83 $ 4,022 $ 330,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 20 $ 15,43 $ 3,310,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 20 $ 15,43 $ 3,310,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 15,43 $ 0, inch Pipe LF 211,000 $ 575 $ 121,280,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 2 $ 3,840 $ 240,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 8 $ 145,800 $ 1,170,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 13 $ 145,800 $ 1,900,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 145,800 $ 870, inch Pipe LF 12,000 $ 242 $ 30,500,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 2 $ 3,477 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 18 $ 90,937 $ 1,40,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 90,937 $ 270,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 90,937 $ - 18-inch Pipe LF 187,000 $ 177 $ 33,030,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 3,295 $ 270,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 83,127 $ 1,080,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 83,127 $ 1,250,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 83,127 $ 500, inch Pipe LF 2,000 $ 134 $ 270,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 501,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 80 MGD STOCKTON LAKE Raw Water Pump Station -,000 HP (5 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 1000 HP $ 2,055 $ 12,330, MGD WALNUT GROVE Raw Water BPS - 4,900 HP ( Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 700 HP 7 $ 2,055 $ 10,070, MGD Springfield Finish Water BP - 3,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 00 HP 5 $ 2,055 $,170,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MGD Mount Vernon Finished Water BP - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 10,410,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 52,030,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 170' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100,000 4 MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,443,205 $ 1,440,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220,000 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 10,980,000 Pipeline, PS, Storage Tank Construction Subtotal $ 54,010,000 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 141,000,000 Pipeline Construction Subtotal $ 705,000,000 ROW Acquisition 1 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 17,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 105,750,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 211,500,000 Pipeline Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,040,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Springfield 80 MGD WTP LS 80 $ $ 480,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 480,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 72,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 144,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 700,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,740,000,000

40 Tri-State Water Commission Opinion of Probable Cost Assumptions for Alternative 3a - Stockton Lake June 2, 2017 Pipeline Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 72-inch Pipe LF 19,000 $ 1,03 $ 179,00,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 34 $ 4,57 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 1 $ 254,147 $ 250,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 254,147 $ 70,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 254,147 $ - 54-inch Pipe LF 180,000 $ 0 $ 118,800,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 83 $ 4,022 $ 330,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 20 $ 15,43 $ 3,310,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 20 $ 15,43 $ 3,310,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. 4 $ 15,43 48-inch Pipe LF 211,000 $ 575 $ 121,280,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 2 $ 3,840 $ 240,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 8 $ 145,800 $ 1,170,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 13 $ 145,800 $ 1,900,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 145,800 $ 870,000 3-inch Pipe LF 11,000 $ 393 $ 3,190,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 5 $ 3,58 $ 20,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 20 $ 128,475 $ 2,570,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 4 $ 128,475 $ 510,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 128, inch Pipe LF 12,000 $ 242 $ 30,500,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 2 $ 3,477 $ 10,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 18 $ 90,937 $ 1,40,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 3 $ 90,937 $ 270,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. - $ 90,937 $ - 18-inch Pipe LF 187,000 $ 177 $ 33,030,000 Open-Cut City/County Road Crossings Ea. 81 $ 3,295 $ 270,000 Jack & Bore Highway Crossings Ea. 13 $ 83,127 $ 1,080,000 Creek or River Crossings Ea. 15 $ 83,127 $ 1,250,000 Railroad Crossings Ea. $ 83,127 $ 500, inch Pipe LF 2,000 $ 134 $ 270,000 Pipeline Subtotal $ 57,000,000 PUMP STATIONS 2 MGD Raw Water Pump Station, 2MG /,000 HP - 3,000 HP (3 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 1000 HP 4 $ 2,055 $ 8,220, MGD PdT Pump Station, 2MG /,000 HP - 1,200 HP (3 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 400 HP 4 $ 2,055 $ 3,290, MGD Raw Water BPS, 8MG /,000 HP - 5,500 HP (5 Duty, 1 Standby) Raw Water 920 HP $ 2,055 $ 11,340, MGD Springfield Finished Water BPS - 3,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 00 HP 5 $ 2,055 $,170,000 3,750 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 750 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 7,710, MG Mount Vernon Finished Water BPS - 2,000 HP (4 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 400 HP 5 $ 2,055 $ 4,110, HP (2 Duty, 1 Standby) Finished Water 200 HP 3 $ 2,055 $ 1,230,000 SCADA System - Assumed 25% of Pump Station Costs LS - - $ 10,520,000 Pump Stations Subtotal $ 52,590,000 STORAGE TANKS 3 MG Elevated Storage Tank (Carthage) 170' above grade LS 1 $ 7,100,000 $ 7,100,000 4 MG Ground Storage Tanks (Walnut Grove) LS 1 $ 1,443,205 $ 1,440,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220,000 3 MG Ground Storage Tanks LS 1 $ 1,215,447 $ 1,220,000 Storage Tanks Subtotal $ 10,980,000 Pipeline, PS, Storage Tank Construction Subtotal $ 30,570,000 General Conditions, OH&P, Bonding and Insurance 25% $ 157,40,000 Pipeline Construction Subtotal $ 788,000,000 ROW Acquisition 19 Miles 100,100 $/mi $ 20,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 118,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 23,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,10,000,000 Water Treatment Plant Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Springfield 80 MGD WTP LS 80 $ $ 480,000,000 Water Treatment Plants Allowance Subtotal $ 480,000,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administration 15% $ 72,000,000 Project Contingency 30% $ 144,000,000 WTP Opinion of Probable Cost $ 700,000,000 Overall Project Opinion of Probable Cost $ 1,80,000,000

41 County Acreage Price ($) Price/Acre Barton 0 15,000 2,00 Bates 510 1,29,450 3,195 11,990 Average Cost/Acre Bates 0 299,500 4,992 4,3 Average Cost/Acre (>100 Acres) Cedar 41 97,000 2,3 3,43 Average Cost/Acre (>200 Acres) Christian ,000 3,079 3,58 Average Cost/Acre (>300 Acres) Christian ,000 3,591 Christian ,000 3, SF/Acre Christian ,000 4, Permanent ROW Acres/LF Christian ,000 8, Temporary ROW Acres/LF Douglas ,000 1, Permanent ROW Acres/Mile Douglas Temporary ROW Acres/Mile Douglas ,000 1,248 Douglas 225,000 3, ,000 Permanent ROW Cost/Mile Jasper ,950,000 3,24 18,200 Temporary ROW Cost/Mile Jasper 20 1,495,000 5,750 Jasper 33 1,250,000 3, Estimated Pipe Length, Miles McDonald ,250 4,049 32,40,000 Estimated ROW Cost Newton ,000 3,714 Nixa ,500 17,500 Ozark ,250 1,375 Polk ,000 11,500 Polk 30 9,000 3,200 Stone ,800,000 10,295 Stone ,000 83,84 Stone 877 7,900,000 9,008 Stone ,000 10,191 Stone 2.8 5,000 23,214 Stone 110 1,89,000 15,355 Stone ,000 5,723 Stone 40 99,900 2,498 Stone ,000 37,55 Taney 34 92,500 2,721 Taney ,200,000 13,447 Taney 135 1,34,25 9,975 Vernon ,000 9,15 Vernon 405 1,091,475 2,95 Webster 10 35,000 3,500 Webster ,900 37,18 Webster 14 49,900 3,54 Webster ,000 10,313 Wright , Wright 72 1,478,400 2,200 Wright 15 59,000 3,933 Wright ,900 4,471 Wright ,000 4,272 Wright ,000 1,500 Wright ,000 1,500 Wright 293 1,195,000 4,078 Wright 83 2,200,000 2,32 Wright ,000 3,509

42 Figure 1 Alternative 1 Transmission System March 2017 Pipe Diameter 72 Q V e r n o nstorage Tank (EST) Elevated Pump Station WTP Weir Alba Cherokee 4.2 MGD 21. MGD Joplin Lamar f7 Buffalo 2'' D a d egreenfield Golden City Missouri Mt Vernon 32 MGD Raw Water PS Miller Q 3 Mt Vernon 4.4 MGD Mount 0.9 MGD Vernon Regional WTP Mount Vernon Lawrence Aurora Verona Monett 17,000 LF of 0'' Newton Ottawa Neosho Seneca Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Diamond Pierce City Granby Monett 3.4 MGD Barry Willard Greene Fair Grove Ash Grove LF of 54'' 12 3,0 00 Walnut LF of Grove 72'' Walnut Grove 80 MGD Raw Water PS Lockwood Sarcoxie MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP Pleasant Hope Republic Billings Clever Marionville Springfield 40 MGD Raw Water PS Strafford Springfield 40 MGD WTP Springfield Springfield 3.3 MGD Battlefield Fremont Hills Nixa Nixa Duenweg Bolivar Polk 5.5 MGD Q 3 Loma Linda Fo Q MGD Jasper 3 MG Raw Water EST Mo American Joplin Leawood 4 8,00 0L Lamar Lamar 22 MGD MGD WTP WTP F of 48'' 00 L 4,0 Webb Carthage Carthage City Oronogo 12'' 12'' Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options mxd Stockton Lake 80 MGD Raw Water PS 123,000 LF of 18'' CDMSmith Jasper Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Author: BRADSTREETN Pittsburg Oklahoma Dallas Stockton Lake Crawford Baxter Springs Stockton Sheldon Demand MGD Frontenac Galena Cedar Finished Water Barton Carl Junction I Pomme de Terre Lake Humansville Tri-State Customer Liberal Kansas Hickory Nevada Raw Water 18 Mulberry Arma Weaubleau Webster Q 3 4,000 LF of 18'' BPressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <10 <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 El Dorado Springs 134,000 LF of 24'' Fort Scott Camden St. Clair 3.9 MGD Ozark Rogersville Sparta Christian Highlandville Crane Stone mi

43 Figure Alternative 1a Transmission System March 2017 Pipe Diameter 72 Q Nevada V e r n o nstorage Tank (EST) Elevated Crawford Weir Liberal Loma Linda MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP Newton Ottawa Oklahoma 2' ' Neosho Seneca Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Diamond Granby D a d egreenfield Golden City Missouri Mt Vernon 40 MGD Raw Water PS Miller Q 3 17,000 LF of 0'' Republic Sarcoxie Monett 3.4 MGD Barry Billings Clever Marionville Springfield 40 MGD Raw Water PS Strafford Webster Springfield Sp 80 MGD WTP 40 Springfield Springfield Battlefield Nixa Mt Vernon Lawr 2.2 MGD MGD Regional WTP Wate Mount Mount Vernon Vernon Lawrence Aurora Verona Pierce City Monett Willard Greene Fair Grove Ash Grove LF of 54'' 12 3,0 00 Walnut LF of Grove 72'' Walnut Grove 80 MGD Raw Water PS Lockwood Pleasant Hope 134,000 LF of 24'' Leawood Polk 12'' 12'' Q 3 Baxter Springs f7 Galena Fo Q MGD Jasper 3 MG Raw Water EST Alba J a s p e r Carl Oronogo Junction 8'' 4 f Fo 0L 4.2 MGD Carthage Carthage,00 4 Webb City 5.5 MGD 21. MGD Duenweg Joplin Mo American Joplin Buffalo Bolivar Dallas Stockton Lake 2 MGD Raw Water PS 48,0 00 L Lamar 2 MGD WTP Cherokee Stockton Stockton Lake Lamar Pomme de Terre 18 MGD Raw Water PS Sheldon 123,000 LF of 18'' CDMSmith Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Author: BRADSTREETN Pittsburg Kansas Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options 1a-3a v mxd Cedar Finished Water Demand MGD Pump Station WTP Barton Frontenac Humansville Tri-State Customer Raw Water 12 I Pomme de Terre Lake Hickory 3'' 48 Mulberry Arma Weaubleau 11,000 LF of BPressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <10 <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 El Dorado Springs Q MGD 4,000 LF of 18'' Fort Scott Camden St. Clair Rogersville Fremont Hills Nixa 3.9 MGD Ozark Sparta Christian Highlandville Crane Stone mi

44 Figure Alternative 2 Transmission System BPressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 Pipe Diameter Q 18 V e r n o nstorage Tank (EST) Elevated WTP Cedar Finished Water Sheldon Lamar Dallas 15,000 LF of 0'' Lamar 2 MGD WTP 48,0 00 Crawford 7,000 LF of 54'' CDMSmith Weir Golden City Cherokee Baxter Springs Leawood Loma Linda MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP Newton Ottawa Oklahoma Neosho Seneca Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Diamond Granby Lockwood Walnut Grove 12 3,0 00 LF of 0 '' Ash Grove Mt Vernon MGD 40 MGD MGD Finished Water PS Willard Miller 17,000 LF of 24'' Mount 0.9 MGD Vernon Mount Vernon Lawrence Verona Pierce City Monett Monett 3.4 MGD Barry Springfield Lawr 40 MGD 4.4 Finished Water PS Wate Greene Strafford Springfield Springfield 4 MGD WTP Springfield Springfield 3.3 MGD Battlefield Fremont Hills Nixa Nixa Webster 3 Q Republic Fair Grove Sarcoxie Bolivar Pleasant Hope souri Lawrence Mt Vernon 3 Q D a d egreenfield Missouri Galena Walnut Grove 4 MGD Raw Water PS Polk 0 12'' Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options mxd Kansas of Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Author: BRADSTREETN Pittsburg LF Buffalo '' Barton 1.8 MGD Jasper 3 MG Raw Water EST 3 MG Alba Finished Water EST Jasper Carl '' 8 4 Oronogo f Carthage o Junction LF 00 0, 4.2 MGD 9 Carthage 11 Webb 5.5 MGD City 21. MGD Duenweg Joplin Mo American Joplin Stockton Lake utstockton G Lake South 4 28 MGD Wate Raw Water PS Q 3 Frontenac I Pomme de Terre Lake Stockton Stockton Lake West 34 MGD Raw Water PS Liberal Mulberry Hickory Humansville Tri-State Customer Pump Station Raw Water 12 Weaubleau Nevada Demand MGD Arma El Dorado Springs Billings Clever Marionville 4,000 LF of 18'' March 2017 Fort Scott Camden St. Clair 3.9 MGD Ozark Aurora Rogersville Sparta Christian Highlandville Crane Stone mi

45 Figure Alternative 2a Transmission System March Q Nevada V e r n o nstorage Tank (EST) Elevated Stockton Lake West 34 MGD Raw Water PS Liberal Lamar Weir Cherokee Lamar 2 MGD WTP Loma Linda MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP Newton Ottawa Oklahoma Neosho Seneca Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Polk 48,0 00 LF o D a d egreenfield Golden City Missouri EST Walnut Grove Walnut Grove 4 MGD Raw Water PS Lockwood Pleasant Hope 12 3,0 00 LF of 0 '' Ash Grove Willard souri Lawrence Mt Vernon Mt Vernon MGD 40 MGD MGD Finished Water PS Miller Mount 0.9 MGD Vernon Mount Vernon Lawrence Verona Monett 17,000 LF of 24'' Pierce City Monett 3.4 MGD Barry Springfield Lawr 40 MGD 4.4 Finished Water PS Wate Greene Republic Billings Clever Marionville Strafford Webster Springfield 4 MGD WTP Springfield Springfield Battlefield Nixa 3 Q Sarcoxie Fair Grove Diamond Granby Buffalo Bolivar 12'' 3 Q Leawood Baxter Springs Stockton Lake Galena Dallas Stockton Lake South 28 MGD Raw Water PS Q MGD Jasper 3 MG Raw Water Alba J a s p e r Carl Oronogo f 48'' Junction F o Carthage L MGD 9,0 Carthage 1 1 Webb 5.5 MGD City 21. MGD Duenweg Joplin Mo American Joplin Kansas 15,000 LF of 0'' 7,000 LF of 54'' CDMSmith Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Author: BRADSTREETN Pittsburg Pomme de Terre 18 MGD Raw Water PS 1,0 Sheldon ' 0' f Crawford Stockton Raw Water Barton Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options 1a-3a v mxd Cedar Finished Water Demand MGD Pump Station WTP Frontenac Humansville Tri-State Customer 3.3 MGD 4,000 LF of 18'' 54 Mulberry Arma I Pomme de Terre Lake Hickory 0 0 L F of 3'' Pipe Diameter 0 Weaubleau 1 BPressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <10 <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 El Dorado Springs 134,000 LF of 24'' Fort Scott Camden St. Clair Rogersville Fremont Hills Nixa 3.9 MGD Ozark Aurora Sparta Christian Highlandville Crane Stone mi

46 Figure Alternative 3 Transmission System March 2017 BPressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <10 <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 Pipe Diameter Q Weaubleau V e r n o nstorage Tank (EST) Elevated Pump Station WTP Cedar Finished Water Stockton Dallas Sheldon Demand MGD Stockton Lake Wa 2 MGD 80 Raw Water PS Ra Stockton Lake Liberal Cherokee Baxter Springs Leawood Loma Linda Diamond Newton Ottawa Oklahoma Neosho Seneca Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Granby Walnut Grove 80 MGD Raw Water PS D a d egreenfield Golden City 12 3,0 Lockwood Ash Grove Mt Mt Vernon Vernon MGD MGD Finished Water Raw Water PS PS Mount 0.9 MGD Vernon Mount Vernon Lawrence Verona Pierce City Monett 17,000 LF of 54'' Monett 3.4 MGD Barry Republic Billings Clever Marionville Springfield 40 MGD Finished Water Raw Water PS PS Strafford Springfield 80 MGD WTP Springfield Springfield 3.3 MGD Battlefield Fremont Hills Nixa Nixa Sarcoxie Fair Grove 2'' Willard Greene Pleasant Hope 00 LF of 7 Miller Walnut Grove Missouri Bolivar Polk 72 Joplin of Galena LF 134,000 LF of 24'' Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options mxd Kansas MGD Jasper 3 MG Alba Finished Water EST 14,000 LF of 48'' Jasper Carl Oronogo Carthage Junction Webb 4.2 MGD Carthage City 5.5 MGD 21. MGD Duenweg Joplin Mo American 123,000 LF of 18'' CDMSmith Author: BRADSTREETN Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Weir 48,0 0 Buffalo '' Pittsburg Lamar Barton Crawford I Pomme de Terre Lake Humansville Tri-State Customer Frontenac Hickory Nevada Raw Water 12 Mulberry Arma El Dorado Springs Webster 3 Q 4,000 LF of 18'' Fort Scott Camden St. Clair 3.9 MGD Ozark Aurora Rogersville Sparta Christian Highlandville Crane Stone mi

47 Document Path: C:\SW Missou\mxd\SW Missouri - Alt 1 Transmission System - Options 1a-3a v mxd Date Saved: 3/29/2017 Author: BRADSTREETN CDMSmith Weir Fort Scott B Pressure o u r b o Node n - PSI <10 <20 <35 <40 <55 <150 >150 Arma Kansas Baxter Springs Frontenac C r a w f o r d Pittsburg C h e r o k e e O t t a w a klahoma Figure 1 Alternative 3a Transmission System March 2017 Galena Mulberry Seneca Carl Junction 4.2 MGD 21. MGD Loma Linda Pipe Diameter Liberal Leawood Oronogo Webb City Joplin Mo American Duenweg Joplin 3Q Alba J a s p e r MO-Joplin 2 MGD WTP Nevada Elevated V e r n o n Storage Tank (EST) Tri-State Customer Pump Station WTP B a r t o n 4,000 LF of 48'' El Dorado Springs 3.4 MGD Humansville Pomme de Terre 18 MGD C e d a r Raw Water PS Stockton Sheldon Stockton Lake 2 MGD Bolivar Raw Water PS Stockton P o l k Lake Lamar 2 MGD WTP Lamar Walnut Grove 3Q 80 MGD Pleasant Raw Water PS Hope 1.8 MGD D a d e Walnut Greenfield Golden Grove City Lockwood Jasper Ash Grove Missouri Willard 3 MG Mt Vernon Finished Water EST 40 MGD G r e e n e 3Q Miller Finished Water PS Springfield Springfield 3Q Carthage Carthage 5.5 MGD 0.9 MGD Mount Republic Battlefield Vernon Mount Vernon Fremont Sarcoxie Billings L Hills a w r e n c e Nixa Nixa Clever Marionville Diamond 3.9 MGD Aurora Pierce Verona City Highlandville Granby Monett Monett Crane N e w t o n Neosho Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Q Finished Water Raw Water Demand MGD 123,000 LF of 18'' 14,000 LF of 48'' 134,000 LF of 24'' B a r r y S t. C l a i r 48,000 LF of 72'' Weaubleau 17,000 LF of 54'' S t o n e H i c k o r y 11, ,000 LF of 72'' 3'' of LF Pomme de Terre Lake 4,000 LF of 18'' Springfield 40 MGD Finished Water PS 3.3 MGD Fair Grove Springfield 80 MGD WTP Ozark Buffalo Strafford C h r i s t i a n D a l l a s Sparta I C a m d e n W e b s t e r Rogersville mi