An integrated approach towards WDS reliable management focusing on NRW reduction and socially just water pricing

Transcription

1 An integrated approach towards WDS reliable management focusing on NRW reduction and socially just water pricing Vasilis KANAKOUDIS Civil Engineer, PhD Assistant Professor, Laboratory of Hydromechanics & Environmental Engineering Civil Engineering Dept., University of Thessaly, GREECE IWA, EWRA member Member of the IWA Task Group Repair vs Replace Member of the WaterLoss (MED) project working team Expert on Water Resources and Water Supply/Distribution Networks management An Integrated approach towards WDS reliable management focusing on NRW

2 subject 1 Introduction: Why turn to NRW reduction? 2 Following the path from its starting point No of slides Agenda contents 2 Justification of the NRW confrontation importance word wide 1 PDCA cycle 3 WDNs problems 2 main problems, causes and ways to tackle them 4 Presenting the successive steps (Road map) towards WDN s reliable management (1 slide) 4 1: a) familiarizing with the WDS (mapping with GIS); b) Understanding the way the WDS operates and reacts through monitoring (SCADA) and Simulation of its hydraulic operation; c) Recognizing the WDS s problems through their symptoms; d) Understanding the problems defining their causes; e) Connecting the symptoms with the main or secondary causes; f) Connecting the causes with the main corrective measures of the timebuying ones, 2-4: the matrices 5 The Water Balance of a WDN 1 the Standard WB, the 1st modification, the 2nd modification 6 Assessing the WB 3 Tips & tricks of trouble shooting 7 Choosing the right time period for the WB Assessment 1 The main idea to work on smaller time steps instead of the annual estimation 8 The case study of Kos Town 4 The most representative figures 9 The Minimum Charge Difference: a common water pricing practice met in the EU-Mediterranean area 10 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area 3 It has to do with the Fixed Cost. How it is expressed; How it is defined/calculated; opportunity cost Distinction between the right and the wrong way to treat the Fixed Cost 6 Results showing the importance of the MCD component 2

3 subject 11 Performance Indicators: a valuable tool No of slides Agenda 1 The basic categories in a table contents 12 Developing new PIs 3 The 42 new PIs and the 40 new variables 13 Making the best out of the PIs 3 Figures explaining the way a water manager/operator should treat PIs 14 Prioritizing the PIs 2 Figures explaining the way to prioritize them (WATERLOSS) 15 Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH 3 The basis worksheets 16 Developing the hydraulic simulation model of a WDS 2 The SAWDSL approach for reliable water demand allocation at the model s nodes 17 The case study of Kos Town 3 The most representative figures 18 Water pricing 3 The main details of the FWC (sot vs value vs price of the water) 19 Socially just allocation of the water cost 3 Who should pay for the NRW? 20 The suggested methodology 3 The 19 successive steps 3

4 Introduction: Why turn to NRW reduction? If NRW levels are reduced by 50% only in the developing world, 90 million people would have access to water without any increase in demand or exploitation of new water resources Countries Supplied population, millions (2002) System Input Volume (SIV) l/capita/ day NRW as % of SIV Real losses Ratio (%) ESTIMATES OF NRW Apparent losses Real losses Volume, billion m 3 /year Apparent losses Developed 744, Eurasia (CIS) Developing 837, Source: World Health Organisation, IB-Net. TOTAL Total NRW Countries Marginal cost of water (US$/m 3 ) Average tariff (US$/m 3 ) Cost of real losses Lost revenue due to apparent losses Estimated value (US$ billions/ year) Total cost of NRW Developed Eurasia (CIS) Developing TOTAL Revenues losses represent 25% of the investments in water works 4

5 Introduction: Why turn to NRW reduction? NRW=Water + Revenues + Energy LOST There is a potentially available water resource to a supplying capacity of as much as 25.6% of the total fresh water volume entering the whole world s water delivery systems (System Input Volume SIV) If the NRW levels could be reduced to the accepted value of 5-10% of the SIV, then with the same water resources reserves we could be able to satisfy the fresh water needs of an additional 21% to 27,7% earth s population! Water Footprint Energy Carbon Footprint: Reducing water losses by 30%, consumed energy will be reduced by 20-30% 5

6 Presenting the successive steps (Road map) towards WDN s reliable management Familiarizing with the WDS (mapping with GIS); Understanding the way the WDS operates and reacts through monitoring (SCADA) and simulation of its hydraulic operation; Recognizing the WDS s problems through their symptoms; Understanding the problems defining their causes; Connecting the symptoms with the main or secondary causes; Connecting the causes with the main corrective measures of the time-buying ones 6

7 Following the path from its starting point PLAN: design the measures to solve the problem (e.g. PRVs installation in a pilot area) DO: implement the measures (e.g. PRVs installation) CHECK: check the results ACT: proceed to corrective actions, if necessary, or extend the measure 7

8 Water Distribution Networks Problems Main Problems o Water losses o Structural failures o Carrying capacity failures o Poor water quality Causes o Corrosion of metallic pipes o Low carrying capacity o Leaks & breaks o Water quality degradation o Miscellaneous Ways to tackle the problems o Structural strengthening o Operation & maintenance o Data acquisition 8

9 WDNs problems and their symptoms WL WATER LOSSES SF STRUCTURAL FAILURES WL1 Pipe corrosion holes SF1 Breaks at bimetallic connections-joints WL2 Leaks in pipe-joints and connections SF2 Breaks below the level of the groundwater table WL3 High percentage of night consumption SF3 Breaks in clay soil bedding-backfill WL4 High per capita non-industrial consumption SF4 Breaks in high alkalinity soils WL5 High value of NRW index SF5 Frequent circumferential breaks WL6 Low per capita domestic consumption SF6 Often accidental pipe breaks-crushes WL7 High values of water losses indices SF7 Frequent longitudinal breaks WL8 Poor leak detection results SF8 Increased pipe break rates in winter WL9 Poor results of the water metering system SF9 Increased pipe break rates WL10 Deficit in the water balance of the network SF10 Pressure peaks WL11 Signs of water (surface) SF11 Signs of water (surface) CCF CARRYING CAPACITY FAILURES PWQ POOR WATER QUALITY CCF1 Cloudy water PWQ1 Customers complaints for dirty water CCF2 Corrosion of lining used items PWQ2 High asbestos levels CCF3 Failure in supplying pressure under peak demands PWQ3 High lead levels CCF4 Poor performance of the pumping system PWQ4 Poor Langelier index (LI) CCF5 Decreased Hazen - Williams (C) coefficient PWQ5 Customers complaints for red water CCF6 Poor hydrant test results CCF7 Pumping system capacity exhaustion CCF8 Scale or tubercles in pipe CCF9 Very high velocities CCF10 Wide storage tank fluctuations Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp,

10 The causes of the WDNS s problems C CORROSION LB LEAKS & BREAKS C1 Aggressive - Corrosive water LB1 Poor joint material C2 Bimetallic connections LB2 Direct contact with other structures C3 Direct contact with electricity source LB3 Poor load bearing capacity pipes C4 Aggressive/corrosive neighbouring environment LB4 Poor pipe material C5 Unlined pipes LB5 Insufficient bedding depth LCC LOW CARRYING CAPACITY WQD WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION LCC1 Insufficient size of pipes LCC2 Inadequate capacity of pumping system LCC3 Insufficient pressure reducing valves WQD1 Intrusion of substances WQD2 Disturbed water characteristics LCC4 Improper valve maintenance and control M MISCELLANEOUS LCC5 Debris in pipes M1 Insufficient surge control LCC6 Insufficient storage capacity of the tanks M2 Illegal connections LCC7 Scale and tubercle build-up M3 Incomplete water consumption metering M4 Inaccurate water consumption metering M5 M6 Insufficient number of cut-off valves Insufficient number of air-release valves Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp,

11 Ways to tackle the problems SS Structural Strengthening OM Operation & Maintenance SS1 Additional boosters & pressure reducing valves OM1 Change of valves settings SS2 Increase of tanks storage capacity OM2 Regular pipe flushing SS3 Additional cut-off valves OM3 Repair of leaks SS4 Cathodic protection OM4 Calibration of water use metering network SS5 Network cleaning OM5 Check of water use metering network SS6 Avoid bimetallic connections OM6 ph adjustment of water SS7 Avoid direct contact with electricity source OM7 Proper checking of valves operation SS8 Improved pipe installation practices OM8 Improvement of water treatment techniques SS9 Increase pumping capacity SS10 Installation of release valves DA Data acquisition (& handling) SS11 Adoption of in-system chlorination SS12 Check and repair of joints SS13 Pipe cleaning and lining SS14 Looped network operation SS15 Installation of proper metering network SS16 Construction of alternative supply paths-mains SS17 Implementation of pipe insertion SS18 Pipe replacement with corrosion-free material SS19 Surge control Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp, 2004 DA1 Hydraulic simulation of the system DA2 Implementation of leak detection techniques DA3 System mapping using G.I.S. DA4 Keeping full data records (normal-abnormal) DA5 Systematic control of billing records DA6 Intrusion control in high-risk points 11

12 Symptoms, Main and possible causes SYMPTOM MAIN CAUSE POSSIBLE CAUSE WATER LOSSES WL1 C2 C4 WL2 LB1, M1 WL3 LB1 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, M1, M2 WL4 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB1, M1, M2, M3, M4 WL5 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB1, M1, M2, M3, M4 WL6 M4 M2 WL7 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB1, M2, M3, M4 WL8 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB1 WL9 M4 LCC7 WL10 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB1, M2, M3, M4 WL11 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB2, LB3, LB4, M1 STRUCTURAL FAILURES SF1 C2 C4 SF2 C4 LB4 SF3 C4 LB4 SF4 C4 LB4 SF5 LB2, LB3, LB4, LB5 C4 SF6 LB2, LB3, LB4, LB5 SF7 C4, LB4, M1 SF8 LB5 C4, LB3, LB4 SF9 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, LB2, LB3, LB4, M3 SF10 M1 SF11 LB1, LB2, LB3, LB4, LB5, M1 C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 12 Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp, 2004

13 Symptoms, Main and possible causes SYMPTOM MAIN CAUSE POSSIBLE CAUSE CARRYING CAPACITY FAILURES CCF1 M6 CCF2 C1 CCF3 LCC1, LCC2, LCC4, LCC5, LCC6, LCC7 C1, C5, LCC3 CCF4 LCC2 LCC1, LCC3, LCC4, LCC5, LCC6, LCC7 CCF5 C1, C5, LCC7 CCF6 LCC1, LCC2, LCC4, LCC5, LCC6 C1, C5, LCC3 CCF7 LCC2 LCC1, LCC3, LCC4, LCC5, LCC6, LCC7 CCF8 C1, C5, LCC7 CCF9 LCC1 CCF10 LCC6 LCC1, LCC3, LCC4, LCC5, LCC6, LCC7 POOR WATER QUALITY PWQ1 C1 WQD1, WQD2, M6 PWQ2 WQD2 PWQ3 WQD2 PWQ4 C1 PWQ5 C1,C5 WQD2 Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp,

14 Causes, Main and emergency actions FAILURE CAUSE MAIN ACTION EMERGENCY ACTION CORROSION OF METALLIC PIPES C1 OM6, OM8 SS13, SS14, SS17, SS18, OM2, DA4 C2 SS6, SS18 SS4, DA3, DA4 C3 SS7 SS18, DA3 C4 SS4 SS18, DA2, DA3, DA4 C5 SS13, SS17, SS18 SS4 LOW CARRYING CAPACITY LCC1 SS14, SS16, SS17 SS1, SS2, SS5, SS13, DA1 LCC2 SS1, SS9 SS2, DA1 LCC3 SS1 DA1, DA3 LCC4 OM1, OM7 DA4 LCC5 SS5, SS8, SS17, SS18 OM2, DA1 LCC6 SS2 SS9, DA1 LCC7 SS5, OM6, OM8 SS14, SS16, SS17, SS18 Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp,

15 Causes, Main and emergency actions FAILURE CAUSE MAIN ACTION EMERGENCY ACTION LEAKS & BREAKS LB1 SS12, SS18 SS13, OM3, DA2, DA3, DA4 LB2 SS8 LB3 SS8, SS17, SS18 DA3, DA4 LB4 SS17, SS18 SS13, DA2, DA3, DA4 LB5 SS8, SS18 DA4 WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION WQD1 DA6 SS18 WQD2 SS11, OM8 SS13, SS14, SS18, OM2, OM6, DA3, DA4 MISCELLANEOUS M1 SS8, SS19 M2 SS15, OM5, DA5 M3 SS15 OM4, DA3, DA4 M4 OM5 OM4, DA4, DA5 M5 SS3 DA1, DA3 M6 SS10 Source: V. Kanakoudis J.WSRT-AQUA, IWAp,

16 The Water Balance of a WDN IWA International Standard Water Balance McKenzie et al modification, 2007 Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli modification, 2010 System Input Volume (A3) Authorize d Use (A14=A10 +A13) Water Losses (A15=A3- A14) Billed Authorized Use (A10=A8+A9 ) Unbilled Authorized Use (A13=A11+A 12) Apparent Losses (A18=A16+A 17) Billed Metered Use (A8) Billed Unmetered Use (Α9) Unbilled Metered Use (A11) Unbilled Unmetered Use (A12) Unauthorized Use (Α16) Customer Meter Inaccuracies and Data Handling Errors (A17) Real Losses (A19=A15-A18) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Non Revenue Water (NRW) (A21=A3- A20) Water billed and paid for (Free Basic) (A24=A8+A9-A23) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Water not being sold (Non-Revenue Water/real NRW) (A21=A3-A24-A23) Revenue Water (A24=A8+A9-A23) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Accounted for Non Revenue Water (A26=A3-A24-A23-A25) Water Losses generating revenues (Minimum Charge Difference) A25

17 Assessing the WB Step 1: Define SIV and enter in A3 Step 2: Define Billed Metered Consumption & Billed Unmetered Consumption and enter in A8 & A9 respectively. Calculate Billed Authorised Consumption (A10=A8+A9) & Revenue Water as A20=A8+A9 (actually A10=A20) Step 3: Calculate the NRW as A21=A3-A20 Step 4: Define Unbilled Metered and Unmetered Consumption and enter in A11 and A12 respectively. Calculate Unbilled Authorised Consumption as A13=A11+A12 Step 5: Calculate Authorised Consumption as A14=A10+A13 17

18 Assessing the WB Step 6: Calculate Water Losses as A15=A3-A14 Step 7: Assess components of Unauthorised Consumption and Metering Inaccuracies and enter in A16 and A17 respectively. Calculate Apparent Losses as A18=A16+A17 Step 8: Calculate Real Losses as A19=A15-A18 Step 9: Assess components of Real Losses Step 10: Define MCF and enter in A23. Calculate NRW when MCD is deducted as A24=A21-A23 18

19 Assessing the WB: Tips & Tricks Billed Metered Consumption: the period used in the calculation should be consistent with the auditing period Billed Unmetered Consumption: Define the household customers without meters and implement a pilot project during a small period. For commercial customers the pilot project should be more precise Unbilled Unmetered Consumption: It should not be overestimated. In Australia it is 0.5% of SIV, in the UK it is 1.25% of the SIV. IWA suggests that unbilled authorised consumption should be less than 1% of SIV Unauthorised Consumption: In the UK an acceptable estimate is 0.25% of SIV, while in Australia is 0.1% of SIV. In Greece (EYDAP) field studies showed that unauthorised consumption is 1% of SIV 19

20 Assessing the WB: Tips & Tricks Customer Meter Inaccuracies: In the UK the household meters under register 3.3% of the household consumption and 4.7% of the non household consumption. In Australia the household meters under register 2% of the household consumption and 2% of the non household consumption. In Greece (EYDAP) field studies showed that the customer meter errors go up to 15% of the SIV Apparent Losses: IWA considers that they can range from 0 to 10% of SIV for direct pressure systems, while they are more for systems with customer storage tanks Real Losses: they can be assessed using techniques such as: Component analysis: background leakage at joints and fittings, reported leaks and bursts and unreported leaks and bursts Analysis of night flows: Minimum Night Flow (MNF) Minimum Charge Difference: difference between the actual metered consumption level and the billed one. In Greece it is found to be 42.9% of the real losses (Larisa case study 10.2% of SIV) and 23.8% of the real losses (Kos case study 8.3% of SIV) 20

21 Choosing the right time period for the WB Assessment IWA proposes WB assessment to be performed annually However, in cases with high variations in water consumption within the year (such as tourists destinations) the IWA methodology should be applied in smaller time steps Time periods such as the billing periods adopted by the local water utilities, are preferred to monitor the WB components It is proven that when the analysis is performed annually, the indicators take their average values, not revealing their peaks, being the essence of the problem Utility managers cannot define when high pressure related leakage occurs, especially in cases where no monitoring tools are in place to assist them. 21

22 m 3 (milloins) / 2 months The case study of Kos Town 1,2 1,0 Kos Town: Capital city of Kos island, a famous tourists destination (4 th in Greece) Population: 17,347 during winter, exceeds 50,000 during summer DEYAK is the municipal water utility The distribution network consists of: PVC (63.9%); asbestos-cement (22.95%); cast-iron (10.75%); steel (1.35%); PE (1.05%); Water extracted Water Consumed Water Billed 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,

23 m 3 (millions) / 2 months % SIV m 3 ( millions) / 2 months 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 The case study of Kos Town UAC AL RL RW The basic SIV components 0,4 0,2 0,0-0, ,6 Water Losses components in m 3 /2months and as % of SIV 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 RL AL RL (% SIV) AL (% SIV) , ,2 23 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0-0,1-0,2

24 2,2 8,1 15,6 ILI values m 3 (hundrend thousand) -5,0-2,7 NRW by volume (% SIV) 15,8 9,8 21,0 21,0 25,3 26,7 38,6 42,0 41,5 34,0 33,5 33,0 31,5 31,2 45,7 50,7 50,1 47,0 41,8 46,6 45,3 38,3 38,6 37,9 37,1 54,0 52,8 48,7 64,4 65,2 60,8 58,4 65,6 74,7 73, The case study of Kos Town 50,1 63,8 35,4 26,2 55,3 32,8 60, ,1 57,4 53,3 62,1 27,5 34,6 51,7 15,3 28,7 NRW as % SIV ILI values and water consumption ILI (5000 conn) Consumption

25 260% 240% 220% 217,7% The case study of Kos Town 249,5% 227,8% NRWs (max) NRWb (max) RLs (max) RLb (max) 232,2% 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% 155,2% 201,1% 157,9% 197,7% 158,7% 150,5% 152,8% 143,1% 153,4% 141,4% 127,9% 126,5% 206,0% 207,3% 193,2% 171,3% 162,5% 202,4% 190,8% 159,0% 152,6% 194,2% 172,2% 205,3% 143,3% 143,8% 147,9% 138,3% 11/99-10/00 11/00-10/01 11/01-10/02 11/02-10/03 11/03-10/04 11/04-10/05 11/05-10/06 11/06-10/07 44,8% 42,1% 28,3% 19,9% 73,5% 72,1% 58,6% 56,5% 52,8% 56,9% -18,3% 49,5% 46,6% 38,0% 30,7% 37,5% 28,7% -17,7% NRWs (min) NRWb (min) RLs (min) RLb (min) 47,4% 41,0% 17,1% 61,7% 56,7% 56,2% 52,1% 32,6% 4,4% 1,6% -5,8% 11/99-10/00 11/00-10/01 11/01-10/02 11/02-10/03 11/03-10/04 11/04-10/05 11/05-10/06 11/06-10/07-34,7% 17,6% NRW and Real Losses per connection: maximum and minimum sixmonthly and bimonthly values, compared to their annual ones (the annual values are considered as base values - 100% - ) -60% -65,9% -80% 25

26 The Minimum Charge Difference: a common water pricing practice met in the EU-Mediterranean area The Minimum Charge Difference has to do with the fixed charge water utilities charge their customers: Calculating the MCD when the Fixed Charge is expressed in m 3 When the Fixed Charge is expressed in m 3, the MCD expresses the water volume (in m 3 ) sold but not actually consumed by the water users. Calculation: used Q tot If is the total actual water use and billed Q tot If is the total billed water use Then: MCD billed used Q tot Qtot 26

27 The Minimum Charge Difference: a common water pricing practice met in the EU-Mediterranean area Calculating the MCD when the Fixed Charge is expressed in : The Minimum Charge Difference (MCD) expresses the equivalent water volume (m 3 ), that if sold (on net water price, excluding the fixed cost) would have resulted in the same revenues (in ). Calculation: The total revenues R (in ) related to water sold (and the related water services) is: Rfc R Rfc Rwuc where: is the revenues (in ) related to the fixed cost, and Rwuc is the revenues (in ) related to the water sold The total water volume (in m 3 ) entering the system is: Qwst Qws Qwns Qws Qwst Qwns where: Qwst is the System Input Volume in m 3 (the IWA variable Α3), Qws is the water volume sold (in m 3 ), Qwns is the water volume (in m 3) not sold for various reasons, e.g. leaks, breaks, water theft, zero charge, etc. 27

28 The Minimum Charge Difference: a common water pricing practice met in the EU-Mediterranean area Qws is the water volume generating revenues to the utility, while the rest does not generate revenues: where: Qwsnp Qwsp The mean water use charge Qws Qwsp Qwsnp is the water volume (in m 3 ) generating revenues, is the water volume sold (in m 3 ) but not generating revenues to the utility Awuc in ( /m 3 ) is: Awuc Rwuc / Qwsp The mean water revenues ( /m 3 ) > mean water use charge ( /m 3 ): A R/ Qwsp Obviously the mean water revenues > mean water use charge. Thus, MCD (in m 3 ) is: MCD Rfc /( Rwuc / Qwsp) 28

29 The Minimum Charge Difference: a common water pricing practice met in the EU-Mediterranean area There are two types of fixed costs forming the fixed charge included in a water tariff : expenses not related to the amount of water a customer uses (e.g. water meters maintenance, water connection fee etc.). These are the correct and socially just fixed costs that each customer must pay, regardless of its actual water consumption. They all form the so-called opportunity cost. expenses related (proportionally) to the amount of water a customer uses (e.g. costs related to pipe breaks rehabilitation etc). These expenses should not be considered as fixed charge, although water utilities tend to consider them as such. There also other types of water use, e.g. fire fighting free of charge, other public water use free of charge, that should be considered as fixed charge (opportunity cost) Other kinds of cost, e.g. related to pipes/tanks flushing water should be considered as of type 2 (as they have to do with the network s percentage of use index an non IWA one) The utility s operating (running) costs should be recovered through the water rates (revenues of water consumption), excluding the first type of fixed costs (unless they are also included in the operating costs). 29

30 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area Baho ; Argeles-sur-mer; Thuir (FR) Kozani (EL) Castellbisbal (ES) SIEL (FR) Larisa (EL) Partner's No LP=PP1 PP2 Partner's full NAME Aristotle University of Thessaloniki - AUTH Conseil Général des Pyrénées Orientales - PO Partner's official sign Partner's City Thessaloniki Perpignan Partner's Country Greece France PP3 Water Board of Nicosia - WBN Nicosia Cyprus PP4 Regional Development Centre - RDC Slovenia Melito di Napoli (IT) Kos (EL) Nicosia (CY) PP5 Metropolitan Area of Barcelona - AMB Barcelona Spain PP6 Kozani Municipal Water & Sewerage Utility - DEYAK Kozani Greece PP7 Autorità di Bacino dei Fiumi Liri- Garigliano-Volturno - LG Caserta Italy PP8 University of Ljubljana-Faculty for Civil & Geodetic Engineering - UL Ljubljana Slovenia PP9 Department of Herault - DH Montpelier France 30

31 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area MCD and Accounted for NRW as % of NRW 263, , ,8 70,2 56,4 43,6 52,747,2 54,7 45,3 69,6 74,2 30,4 25, Thuir SIEL Melito di Napoli WBN Baho Kozani Argeles-surmer Castellbisbal MCD Accounted for NRW -163,

32 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area 350 % MCD % NRW 300 MCD % Real Losses 250 MCD as % of NRW and % of Real Losses 263,82 327, ,00 16,43 47,53 49,45 52,75 43,64 45,32 29,76 37,78 57,55 Thuir SIEL Melito di Napoli 69,65 79,40 100,46 74,16 Baho WBN Kozani Argeles-surmer Castellbisbal 32

33 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area Kozani Case Fixed Charge = 17 /4 months m ,7 69, ,8 61,9 69,8 72,8 NRW MCD MCD % NRW 72,8 64, A 2009B 2009C 2010A 2010B 2010C 33 0

34 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area m Larisa Case - Fixed Charge = 20 m 3 /2 months ,71% ,22% ,53% 20,45% ,32% NRW 35% MCD MCD % NRW ,93% 30% 25% 20% % % % %

35 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area MCD as % SIV, % Billed Authorized Consumption and % Real Losses in Larisa case 45 % 42,8 42,9 39, ,7 33, , ,9 13,2 14,4 15,6 13, ,2 10,1 9,4 10,2 8,0 8,6 8, % SIV % Billed Auth. Cons. % Real Losses 35

36 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area m Kos Case Fixed Charge = 8 m 3 /2 months 70,3% NRW MCD MCD % NRW 80% 70% 60% % % 24,5% 30% ,2% 21,5% 7,4% 9,4% 11,2% 10,4% 7,7% 9,5% 6,0% 11,9% 16,2% 17,2% 12,8% 14,8% 12,0% 20% 10% 0% 0 2/1999 1/2000 2/2000 1/2001 2/2001 1/2002 2/ ,4% 1/2003 2/2003 1/2004 2/2004 1/2005 2/2005 1/2006 2/2006 1/2007 2/2007 1/ % % 36

37 Presenting selected cases from Greece and the Med Area MCD as % SIV, % Billed Authorized Consumption and % Real Losses in Kos case % 59, ,1 23,6 22,2 17,9 17,4 14,7 15,5 12,5 10,8 12,0 10,5 8,3 8,5 6,4 7,4 8,0 8,2 4,4 3,9 4,7 1,5 4,2 5,4 5,1 3,0 1, % SIV % Billed Auth. Cons. % Real Losses 37

38 Performance Indicators: a valuable tool (Alegre et al., 2006) PIs / Number PIs / Number PIs / Number Water Resources (WR) 4 Operational (Op) 44 Financial (Fi) 47 Personnel (Pe) 26 Inspection & maintenance of physical assets 6 Revenues 3 Total Personnel 2 Instrumentation calibration 5 Costs 3 Personnel per main function 7 Vehicle availability 1 Technical services personnel per activity 6 Electrical & signal transmission equipment inspection 3 Composition of running costs per type of costs Composition of running costs per technical function activity Personnel qualification 3 Mains/valves/service connections rehabilitation 3 Composition of capital costs 2 Personnel training 3 Inspection & maintenance of physical assets 2 Investment 3 Personnel helath & safety 4 Pumps rehabilitation 2 Average water charges 2 Overtime work 1 Operational Water Losses 7 Efficiency 9 Quality of Service (QS) 34 Failure 6 Leverage 2 Service coverage 5 Water metering 4 Liquidity 1 Public taps & standpipes 4 Water Quality monitoring 5 Profitability 4 Pressure & continuity of supply 8 Physical (Ph) 15 Economic Water Losses Quality of supplied water 5 Treatment & Storage 3 Composition of running costs per main Customer complaints 9 Pumping 4 function of water undertaking Service connections & meter installation & repair 3 Transmission & distribution 2 Meters 4 Automation & control

39 Developing new PIs The 42 new PIs

40 Developing new PIs The 42 new PIs 40

41 Developing new PIs The 40 new variables Name New Suggested Variables units Name New Suggested Variables units A25 Minimum Charge Difference m3 D71 Total number of repairs no. A26 Accounted for NRW m3 D72 Carbon Footprint produced during the entire water supply chain/process A27 z Water volume taken from water resource z m3 D73 Actual energy dissipated in friction losses KWh C26 Roof Tanks Number no. D74 Value of friction losses in a leak-free network KWh C27 Roof Tanks Volume m3 D75 Energy delivered to users KWh C28 Average building height m D76 Minimum required useful energy KWh C29 Domestic water meters aged < 5 years old no. D77 Outgoing energy through leaks KWh C30 Domestic water meters aged 5-10 years old no. D78 Input energy supplied by the reservoir KWh C31 Domestic water meters aged > 10 years old no. D79 x Number of failures of mains of the same x material no. C32 x Pipes length of material x Km D80 y Number of failures of mains of the same y diameter no. C33 y Pipes length of diameter y Km D81 w Number of same w type failure in mains & fittings no. C34 xy Pipes length of material x & diameter y) Km E12 Residential consumption m 3 C35 v Pipes length of age v Km E13 Commercial consumption m 3 C36 Roughness coefficient mm E14 u Water use type (residential, commercial, industrial) m 3 C37 Total number of devices no. F24 Number of satisfied customers no. D66 Network minimum operating pressure F25 Number of satisfied customers drinking tap water no. D67 Network maximum operating pressure m F26 Number of customers affected by the taste and chlorination of potable water D68 Energy used KWh F27 Number of water low pressure - related complaints no. D69 Flow meters replaced no. F28 No. of employees considering satisfied customers no. D70 Respond time to repair leakage events hours G59 Cost to safeguard water supply 41 tons of CO 2 no.

42 Making the best out of the PIs OBJECTIVES Which results are to be reached in the future? STRATEGIES How can those results be reached? CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS Depending on the constraints and the context, the optimum strategies to reach objectives PIs Have the objectives been reached? What happened with the critical success factors? OBJECTIVE: Reduce NRW by 2% STRATEGIES: New metering program Increase leakage detection CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS: To replace non-accurate meters by new/more accurate ones To more accurately read/report meters To increase leakage detected volume PIs Op8 Meter replacement Op30 Customer reading efficiency Op4 Leakage Control Op23 Apparent Losses Op28 Real losses per mains length 42

43 Identification of the data required Is all necessary data available? Yes Reliability Accuracy No PI and CI selection procedure PI Modify / Add data collection procedures Yes Is it efficient to obtain the data? No Yes Are reliability and accuracy acceptable? No CI Is it efficient to obtain this CI? Yes Confirm selection of PI and CI Reject PI No Reject CI

44 PI system implementation process phases

45 Prioritizing the PIs the 75 IWA PIs out of the

46 Prioritizing the PIs the 75 IWA PIs out of the

47 Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH WB/PI Calc-UTH WATER AUDIT TOOL WATER BALANCE AND PIs ASSESSMENT WATER UTILITY: Relations Variables Performance Indicators WB DEVELOPED BY: Laboratory of Hydromechanics WB-1stMOD' and Environmental Engineering WB-2ndMOD' Civil Engineering Department University of Thessaly

48 Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH no of Variable no of PI A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 Α23 Α24 Α25 Α26 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 1 WR WR WR WR Pe1 1 6 Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe9 1 1 Variables: symbol, meaning, value, units Α/Α VARIABLE MEANING VALUE MEASURED IN COMMENTS Α1 Annual yield capacity of own resources Maximum annual volume of water that can potentially be abstracted from own resources, based on the availability of water resources and on any legal or contractual constraints m3/year Α2 Annual imported water allowance Maximum alloawance of raw and treated water importation m3/year Α3 System input volume The water volume input of the global system during the assessment period m3 Α4 Maximum water treated daily Maximun daily volume of water treated in treated plans during the assessment period m3/day Α5 Exporter raw water Total volume of raw water transferred to other water undertaking or to another system from the same supply area during the assessment period m3 Α6 Water produced Total volume of water treated for input to water transmission lines or derectly to the distribution system during the assessment period m3 Α7 Exported treated water Total volume of treated water exported to other water undertaking or to another system from the same supply area during the assessment period m3 Α8 Billed metered consumption Total amount of billed metered authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period m3 Α9 Billed unmetered consumption Total amount of billed unmetered authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period m3 Α10 Billed authorised consumption Total amount of billed authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period 0,00 m3 Α11 Α12 Α13 Α14 Unbilled metered consumption Unbilled unmetered consumption Unbilled authorised consumption Authorised consumption Total amount of unbilled metered authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period Total amount of unbilled unmetered authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period Total amount of unbilled authorised consumption (including exported water) during the assessment period Total volume of metered and/or non-metered water that, during the assessment period, is taken by registered customers, by the water supplier itself, or by others who are implicitly authorised to do by the water supplier, for residential, commercial, industrial or public purposes. It includes water exported. Variables / PIs Relations 48 m3 m3 0,00 m3 0,00 m3

49 PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE WATER RESOURCES Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH Α/Α WR1 WR2 WR3 WR4 Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 Pe6 Pe7 Pe8 Pe9 GROUP Water Resources Total Personnel Personnel per main function PERFORMANCE INDICATORS MEANING FORMULA VALUE MEASURED IN COMMENTS Inefficiency of use or (Real losses during the assessment period / system input volume during the assessment period) x water resources 100 WR1=(A19/A3)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Water resources (System input volume during the assessment period x 365 / assessment period) / (annual yield availability capacity of own recourses + annual imported water allowance) x 100 WR2=((A3*365/H1)/(A1+A2))*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Own water resources ((System input volume during the assessment period x 365 / assessment period)/ annual yield availability capacity of own recourses)) x 100 WR3=((A3*365/H1)/A1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Reused supplied water Reused supplied water during the assessment period / system input volume during the assessment period x 100 WR4=(A22/A3)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking / number of service connections Employees per connection Pe1=(B1/C24)*1000 x 1000 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Νο./1000 connections Employees per water (Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking / (water produced the produced assessment period x 365 / assessment period)) x 10^6 Pe2=[B1/(A6*365/H1)]*10^6 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Νο./(10^6m3/year) Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to directorate, central administration, strategic General management planning, marketing and comunications, other stakeholder relations, legal affairs, internal audits, Pe3=(B2/B1)*100 personnel environmental management, new business development and general co. #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Human resources management personnel Financial and commercial personnel Customer service personnel Technical services personnel (Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to personnel administration, education and training, occupational safety and health services and social activities / Number of full time equivalent Pe4=(B3/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % employees of the water undertaking) x 100 (Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to economic and financial planning, economic administration, economic controlling and purchasing and material management / Number of full Pe5=(B4/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % time equivalent employees of the water undertaking) x 100 (Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to accounting and control and to customer relations and management activities / Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking) x 100 (Number of full time equivalent employees dedicated to planning, construction, operations and maintenance activities / Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking) x 100 Pe6=(B5/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Pe7=(B6/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Planning and construction (Number of full time equivalent employees of technical services working in planning & construction personnel / Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking) x 100 Pe8=(B7/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % Operations and (Number of full time equivalent employees of technical services working in operations & maintenance personnel maintenance / Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking) x 100 Pe9=(B8/B1)*100 #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! % 49

50 Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH IWA Standard International Water Balance 1st Modification of IWA Standard International Water Balance (McKenzie, 2007) System Input Volume (A3) Authorized Consumption (A14=A10+A13) Water Losses (A15=A3-A14) Billed Authorized Consumption (A10=A8+A9) Unbilled Authorized Consumption (A13=A11+A12) Billed Metered Consumption (A8) Billed Unmetered Consumption (A9) Unbilled Metered Consumption (A11) Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (A12) Unauthorized Consumption (A16) Apparent Losses (A18=A16+A17) Customer Meter Inaccuracies and Data Handling Errors (A17) Real Losses (A19=A15-A18) Revenue Water (A20=A8+A9) Non Revenue Water (NRW) (A21=A3-A20) Authorized Consumption (A14=A10+A13) Billed Authorized Consumption (A10=A8+A9) Billed Metered Consumption (A8) System Input Unbilled Authorized Unbilled Metered Consumption Volume Consumption (A11) (A3) (A13=A11+A12) Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (A12) Water Losses (A15=A3-A14) Apparent Losses (A18=A16+A17) Billed Unmetered Consumption (Α9) Unauthorized Consumption (Α16) Customer Meter Inaccuracies and Data Handling Errors (A17) Real Losses (A19=A15-A18) Water billed and paid for (Free Basic Recover Revenue) Revenue Water (A24=A8+A9-A23) (A24=A8+A9-A23) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) Water which A23 does not generate revenues (TOTAL Non-Revenue Water not being sold (Non- Water) Revenue Water/real NRW) (Α23+A21) (A21=A3-A24-A23) 2nd Modification of IWA Standard International Water Balance (Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli, 2009) Water billed and paid Billed Authorized Billed Metered Consumption (A8) Revenue Water for (Free Basic Recover Revenue) Revenue Water (water billed and paid for) Consumption (A20=A8+A9) (A24=A8+A9-A23) (A24=A8+A9-A23) (A10=A8+A9) Water billed but NOT Authorized Billed Unmetered Consumption PAID for (apparent Water billed but NOT PAID for Consumption (Α9) NRW) (apparent NRW) (A14=A10+A13) A23 A23 System Input Unbilled Authorized Unbilled Metered Consumption Volume Consumption (A11) Non Revenue Water not being sold (A3) (A13=A11+A12) Unbilled Unmetered Consumption Water (NRW) (Non-Revenue (A12) Unauthorized Consumption (A21=A3-A20) Water/real NRW) (A21=A3-A24-A23) Accounted for Non Revenue Water (A26=A3-A24-A23-A25) (Α16) Water Losses Apparent Losses Customer Meter Inaccuracies and (A15=A3-A14) (A18=A16+A17) Data Handling Errors (A17) reduction Real Losses and socially just water pricing (A19=A15-A18) Water Losses generating revenues (Minimum Charge Difference)

51 Personnel Performance Water Resources Performance IWA Pis Presenting the WB/PI Calc-UTH existing selected WR1 WR2 WR3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Inefficiency of use or water resources Water resources availability Own water resources availability Pe1 Employees per connection Pe2 Employees per water produced MEANING FORMULA MEASURED IN PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 (Real losses during the assessment period / system input volume during the assessment period) x 100 (System input volume during the assessment period x 365 / assessment period) / (annual yield capacity of own recourses + annual imported water allowance) x 100 ((System input volume during the assessment period x 365 / assessment period)/ annual yield capacity of own recourses)) x 100 Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking / number of service connections x 1000 (Number of full time equivalent employees of the water undertaking / (water produced the assessment period x 365 / assessment period)) x 10^6 WR1=(A19/A3)*100 % 1 WR2=((A3*365/H1)/(A1+A2))*100 % 1 WR3=((A3*365/H1)/A1)*100 % 1 Pe1=(B1/C24)*1000 Pe2=[B1/(A6*365/H1)]*10^6 Νο./1000 connections Νο./(10^6m3/y ear) Existing Pis (different denominator) Op45a Real Losses / pipes length of the same material a A19 / C32a #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45b Real Losses / pipes length of the same material b A19 / C32b #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45c Real Losses / pipes length of the same material c A19 / C32c #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45d Real Losses / pipes length of the same material d A19 / C32d #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45e 1 Real Losses per pipe material Real Losses / pipes length of the same material e A19 / C32e #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! m 3 /km Op45f Real Losses / pipes length of the same material f A19 / C32f #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45g Real Losses / pipes length of the same material g A19 / C32g #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45h Real Losses / pipes length of the same material h A19 / C32h #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! Op45i Real Losses / pipes length of the same material i A19 / C32i #ΔΙΑΙΡ/0! 40 New Variables ΔA19 Initial Real losses minus Final Real Losses (related to pressure change) m3 1 A25 Minimum Charge Difference 0,00 m3 1 A26 Accounted for NRW 0,00 m3 1a A27a Water volume abstract from the same water resource (a) 1b A27b Water volume abstract from the same water resource (b) 1c A27c Water volume abstract from the same water resource (c) 1d A27d Water volume abstract from the same water resource (d) 1e A27e Water volume abstract from the same water resource (e) 1f A27f Water volume abstract from the same water resource (f) 1g A27g Water volume abstract from the same water resource (g) 1h A27h Water volume abstract from the same water resource (h) 1i A27i Water volume abstract from the same water resource (i) 1 C26 Roof tanks number no. 1 C27 Average building height m 1 C28 Domestic water meters aged less than 5 years no. 1 C29 Domestic water meters aged between 5-10 years old no. 1 C30 Roof Tanks Volume m3 1 C31 total number of devices no. m3 51 ΣA27(a-i) 0

52 Developing water pipe networks hydraulic simulation models: SAWDSL - a new approach towards accurate water demand spatial allocation A new method SAWDSL-spatial allocation of water demand at street reference level Takes into account the respective water demand patterns of the various types of water users, considering the water being lost through the leaks/breaks occurring as a competitive water use. Reduces the computational time needed for the model calibration having thus a significant impact on its cost effectiveness. Kos town WDS was used as the case study to present the new method The results of the SAWDSL method are compared to the ones of the mean population density method (using Thiessen polygons), along with field measurements. 52

53 SAWDSL - a new approach towards accurate water demand spatial allocation To allocate the water demand, usually the Thiessen polygons method (based on the mean population density) is used This method may lead to misleading results regarding the demand patterns at nodes level When the demand pattern is not accurate, during the development of the model, false pipe roughness coefficients are used to merge the gap between real and estimated pressure values (if not strict calibration is used) Thus misleading results are derived regarding the PIPES AGING FACTOR. This results in false prioritization of interventions and investments If strict calibration is used, then the entire process is more time consuming The results of the SAWDSL method are compared to the ones of the mean population density method (using Thiessen polygons), along with field measurements. 53

54 SAWDSL - a new approach towards accurate water demand spatial allocation The new method (SAWDSL) is based on the accurate location of all water meters at street level All water meters are listed in three groups The first includes those located within the urban area limits, considered linearly distributed along the street they belong based on their address details. Then, at street level, the allocation of the water demand at each node is based on the street length each node supplies, according to the equations (1) and (2), presupposing that each node supplies 50% of the total length of the pipeline connecting it with the next node: WD A = Σ(WMR A ) (1) WD AJ = (L AJ /L A )*WD A (2) where, WD A is the total water demand of the water meters located in the street A, Σ(WMR A ) is the Sum of these water meters readings, L AJ is the equivalent length of the street supplied the node J and L A is the total length of street A. 54

55 SAWDSL - a new approach towards accurate water demand spatial allocation The second group of water meters includes those whose reference streets are partly located within the urban area limits, i.e. along arteries, that although considered as town exits, the respective water supply main laying below continues to run for kilometers beyond the end of the artery. In those cases, the allocation of the water demand is achieved in a combined manner. The same equivalent street length distribution approach is followed, apart from the nodes within the urban tissue, where increased equivalent street length factors are applied, based on the increased density of the water meters or/and buildings/residences as revealed either by the full address details of the water meters or/and by satellite images and GIS layers of the specific area (if available) The last group of water meters includes those recording the water consumption of rural areas. In those cases, the water demand of this area is equally allocated to the nodes included in this area. 55

56 Developing the hydraulic simulation model of a WDS The case study of Kos town Kos town network with the territorial influence of nodes colored according to the weighted factors appointed based on the buildings height 56

57 Comparing the results of the two methods 57

58 Comparing the results of the two methods 58

59 Comparing the results of the two methods 59

60 Comparing the results of the two methods 60

61 Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Hydraulic Simulation Model: water use and water losses approaches 1,8 Stepwise Pattern Pattern - 2 1,6 Stepwise Pattern Pattern - 1 1,6 1,4 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 Water use profile (residents) Water use profile (residents) 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 Water use profile (hotels) 0,0 0,0 4,0 8,0 12,0 16,0 20,0 24,0 Time (hr) 1,4 Stepwise Pattern ÁÐÙËÅÉÅÓ 0,0 0,0 4,0 8,0 12,0 16,0 20,0 24,0 Time (hr) 1,2 1,0 Water losses profile (entered as water use) 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 4,0 8,0 12,0 16,0 20,0 24,0 Time (hr)

62 The case study of Kos town 62

63 The case study of Kos town 63

64 Water pricing Full Water Cost Recovery Principle: direct-dc, includes the costs the utility pays to provide water of sufficient quantity / appropriate quality to the end-users environmental-ec, expresses damages caused by waterworks and increased water use, directly to the environment and indirectly to the users resource-rc, two definitions, based on whether water scarcity or surplus conditions exist 64

65 Direct Cost: Water pricing affected by the infrastructure used, including parameters related to the characteristics of the water resources used; water-intake works; water aqueducts; raw water treatment plants; water storage tanks; and water-pipe system affected by the day-to day water utility operation practices, including parameters related to the continuous training of its staff and the speed/quality of maintenance works the input volume is limited to an initial level during the starting period without storage capacity limits in order to be included in the next period (Kanakoudis et al, 2011) 65

66 Water pricing Environmental Cost: environmental taxes/charges related to freshwater/sewage services included in water bills are the EC recovery policies applied today WFD principle states that: environmental damage = cost required to restore the environment to its original condition, based on the assumption that the lowest value of an environmental good equals the necessary cost for its protection each water body should be classified regarding its quality, based on its ecological/chemical characteristics, in five groups (high; good; moderate; poor; and bad) the most representative amount of compensation of any water use related environmental impact environmental damage restoration cost (EDRC) environmental damage avoidance cost (EDAC) 66

67 Water pricing Resource Cost: Resource Cost : expresses lost revenues due to water misallocation equals to lost profits suffered by other users/uses, when a water resource exploitation rate exceeds its supplying capacity (areas facing drought) occurs when water is not used to its most profitable use compared to other uses (CIS-WG2.6, 2002) (areas not facing drought) Key factors forming the optimal water allocation: economic criteria (local economy characteristics, productive sectors sizes) social criteria strategic interests Water resource opportunity cost gets higher under scarcity conditions and decreases when water storage is possible DC, EC & RC tend to decrease with time after its full assessment 67

68 The Water Balance of a WDN IWA International Standard Water Balance McKenzie et al modification, 2007 Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli modification, 2010 System Input Volume (A3) Authorize d Use (A14=A10 +A13) Water Losses (A15=A3- A14) Billed Authorized Use (A10=A8+A9 ) Unbilled Authorized Use (A13=A11+A 12) Apparent Losses (A18=A16+A 17) Billed Metered Use (A8) Billed Unmetered Use (Α9) Unbilled Metered Use (A11) Unbilled Unmetered Use (A12) Unauthorized Use (Α16) Customer Meter Inaccuracies and Data Handling Errors (A17) Real Losses (A19=A15-A18) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Non Revenue Water (NRW) (A21=A3- A20) Water billed and paid for (Free Basic) (A24=A8+A9-A23) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Water not being sold (Non-Revenue Water/real NRW) (A21=A3-A24-A23) Revenue Water (A24=A8+A9-A23) Water billed but NOT PAID for (apparent NRW) A23 Accounted for Non Revenue Water (A26=A3-A24-A23-A25) Water Losses generating revenues (Minimum Charge Difference) A25

69 Water Losses Reduction Strategies: Who is going to pay the bill? Speed and Quality of Repairs Current Annual Real Losses Pressure Management Unavoidable Annual Real Losses Potentially Recoverable Real Losses Pipeline and Assets Management Economic Annual Real Losses Active Leakage Control each one of these WLRS mean new investments! Who is going to pay the bill? the public is constantly questioning the predominant practice of the water utilities: the adoption of any WLRS usually (not to say) always result in higher water prices major problems arise when public water utilities are involved where the elected Mayor is the decision maker (the case in Greece) and the political cost is the only variable in the EXPERT Decision Support System Is after all water a commercial or a social good? How should we treat it?

70 Basics As the water network gets better the UARL level decreases UARL=(18*mains length+0.80*no of connections+25*connections length)*operating pressure As the water value increases, EARL, UARL and their distance tend to decrease making the water losses reduction measures more cost-effective, worth trying and attractive (PBSC)! water losses must be considered as a potential water resource. Reducing their level results in less DC, EC and RC => the water price finally comes to a balanced level!

71 Socially just allocation of the water cost Utility, consumers and the state should pay their part a. Both utility and consumers should pay their part for meter replacement at the end of its useful life b. End-users should pay the FWC of a minimum accepted water losses level (5% of SIV), in return for having access to water (opportunity cost) c. Both end-users and the utility should pay for the FWC of the remaining UARL, based on the water volume each one uses d. The utility must pay the CARL-EARL FWC, as a penalty for the system poor performance e. The State should pay its part of the above costs (grants to the utility) if initially involved in the network s construction/management 71

72 Socially just allocation of the water cost Water quantities per water use in the WDN Customer Water Utility Q CUST =a*q SIV Q DN =(1-a)*Q SIV Q RW (60%) Q RW (60%) Q RW (60%) 100%* (60%) - Q UNB (5%) Q UNB (5%) 100%* (5%) - Q AL (15%) Q WTH (2%) - 100%* (2%) Q MER (10%) 100%* (10%) - Q SIV (100%) Q NRW (40%) Q RER (3%) - 100%* (3%) Q CARL-EARL (5%) - 100%* (5%) Q RL (20%) Q EARL-UARL (5%) a%* (5%) (1-a)%* (5%) Q UARL-UARLopt (2%) - 100%* (2%) Q UARLopt (8%) 100%* (8%) - Q CUST =(83+5a)%*Q SIV Q DN =(17-5a) )%*Q SIV 72

73 NRWS cost suggested allocation Regarding the investment costs necessary to reduce the CARL level to the EARL one (resulting in reduced DC, EC, RC due the reduced water demand achieved) the following allocation is proposed: The water utility must directly pay the biggest part of these costs (instead of asking its customers to do so through specific charges included in the water tariffs - expansion charges). The customers should cover only a part of these costs, as they will enjoy the benefits of reduced water prices, due to the reduced EC and RC resulting from the reduced water demand level due to the minimized water losses. Finally, the State should pay its part (by the form of grants to the water utilities) if involved in the construction and initial management of the network infrastructure. The size of the State s contribution should be discussed (negotiated) with the water utility

74 The suggested methodology 1. Assess the system s supplying capacity 5. Form the network s Water Balance and assess its NRW level 2. Monitor with a SCADA the entire system 6. Estimate the EARL level, based on the existing water pricing policy 3. Develop the entire system s simulation model 4. Estimate the UARL level based on the network s current operating pressure UARL = (18 Lm Nc + 25 Lp) P 7. Determine the water demand level 8. Estimate the FWC components (DC, EC and RC) based on the current total water demand. Calculate the FWC level including the CF and the WF costs 9. Determine the new (higher) water price levels based on the current FWC levels (ex-ante) 1 74

75 The suggested methodology Determine the new (lower) water demand level and the new (lower) EARL level based on the new (higher) water prices set 11. Pinpoint the crucial network points for pressure management or even DMAs formation. Apply the most cost-effective strategy 12. Estimate the new (lower) UARL/NRW levels based on the network s reduced operating pressure 13. Estimate the new (reduced) water demand level due to the higher price and reduced losses 14. Estimate the new (lower) DC, EC, RC (thus FWC) due to the reduced water demand. Calculate the new (lower) FWC level 15. Determine the new (lower) water price level based on the lower FWC 16. Determine the (increased) EARL levels based on the new (reduced) water prices set 17. Pinpoint the new crucial points in the network to act. Implement the most cost effective solution 18. Determine the new UARL/NRW levels due to the reduced water losses due to the interventions 19. Estimate the new increase water demand because of the new reduced water prices 75

76 WATERLOSS project fellowship Partner's No LP=PP1 Partner's full NAME Aristotle University of Thessaloniki - AUTH Partner's official sign Partner's City Thessaloniki Partner's Country Greece PP2 Conseil Général des Pyrénées Orientales - PO Perpignan France PP3 Water Board of Nicosia - WBN Nicosia Cyprus PP4 Regional Development Centre - RDC Slovenia PP5 Metropolitan Area of Barcelona - AMB Barcelona Spain PP6 Kozani Municipal Water & Sewerage Utility - DEYAK Kozani Greece PP7 Autorità di Bacino dei Fiumi Liri- Garigliano-Volturno - LG Caserta Italy PP8 University of Ljubljana-Faculty for Civil & Geodetic Engineering - UL Ljubljana Slovenia PP9 Department of Herault - DH Montpelier France 76

77 WATERLOSS Milestones COMPONENT CO1: Communication CO2: Management CO3: Monitoring of the performance of Water Supply Systems (WSSs) & evaluation of NRW CO4: Development of a DSS tool for appropriate NRW reduction strategy CO5: Demonstration of the DSS tool into specific PHASE 1.1-Information & Communication Strategy 3.1 -Overview of Water Supply Systems & performance assessment 3.2-Establishment of an efficient PI system 4.1-Preparation of a database of NRW management methods 4.2 Development of the DSS tool June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May EXTENSION Co 3 Completed Co 4 & Co 5 Ongoing 77

78 WATERLOSS main milestones Component 3: Establish a common methodology for WSS assessment Phase 3.1.: Adopt the 2 nd Modification of IWA Standard International WB & the 170 IWA Pis Phase 3.2.: Develop new PIs adapted to the local conditions & new challenges => 42 new PIs introduced (11 resulting from existing ones + 31 new ones), also 38 new variables to define those PIs Component 4: Develop a reliable DSS for NRW reduction strategy planning Phase 4.1.: Define reliable NRW reduction strategies/measures Phase 4.2.: Develop a reliable DSS Component 5: Demonstrate the DSS in as many study cases as possible 78

79 WATERLOSS Decision Support System Performance Indicators dependency search Reporting Status & Evaluation process

80 Decision Support System WATERLOSS final goal will be a user friendly Decision Support System (DSS), currently being developed: (a) forming the WDS WB to determine possible NRW sources; (b) using new PIs developed, based on conditions met across the Mediterranean (environmental/social/health factors, water quality problems etc.), to assess the WDS performance; (c) using PIs weighting factors to prioritize efficient NRW control measures; and (d) considering their environmental impact to suggest the most costeffective ones. The tool will be validated/re-adjusted, using pilot areas thoroughly selected. 80

81 81 NRW Components Real Losses Tank Overflo ws Unbilled Metered Consump tion Unbilled UnMetered Consumpti on Leaks & Breaks NRW Water theft & Illegal Use Unbilled Authorized Consumption Apparent Losses Meter & Metering Inaccura cies Data Handling Errors 81

82 Causes of NRW components occurrence 1. Unbilled Authorized consumption 1.1. Unbilled metered Authorized consumption Cause to Cause 1.1.n Unbilled un-metered Authorized consumption Cause to Cause 1.2.n. 2. Apparent Losses 2.1. Meter & Metering Inaccuracies Cause to Cause 2.1.n Data Handling Errors Cause to Cause 2.2.n Water Theft & Illegal Use Cause to Cause 2.3.n. 3. Real Losses 3.1. Breaks Cause to Cause 3.1.n Leaks Cause to Cause 3.2.n Tanks Overflows Cause to Cause 3.3.n. NRW components NRW subcomponents NRW subcomponents causes 82

83 A Step-wise approach to understand & confront the problem-dss development 1 st : Define the components of your NRW problem 2 nd : Define the sub-component of each component/problem 3 rd : Define the cause(s) of each sub-component and the significance of each cause to one or more sub-components 4 th : Define the parameter(s) affecting the causes (usually these parameters are the measurable variables) 5 th : Define the PI(s) that will monitor the progress of the problem (this will be also used to evaluate the impact of each corrective measure implemented) 6 th : Define the variables that have an impact on these PI(s) 7 th : Define the corrective measures that have an impact on these variables (that are parameters affecting the causes of the problems) 8 th : Define the impact of the corrective measures on the variables and thus to PI(s) 9 th : Define the benefit/cost ratio of each corrective measure (this is its weighted factor) 83

84 1 st EWaS-MED International Conference Improving Efficiency of Water Systems in a changing natural and financial environment Organized by: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Chemistry Dept.) University of Thessaly (Civil Engineering Department) Supported by: European Water Resources Association (EWRA) When: April 2013 Where: Thessaloniki, Greece (Aristotle University Campus) Themes and topics: Water Resources Management Urban Water Systems Management (water distribution/sewage networks) Water Losses Abstract Submission Deadline: 1 st October 2012 to the Conference Secretary, Mrs S. Tsitsifli tsitsif@otenet.gr Further Information / Contacts: Vasilis Kanakoudis, Assistant Prof. Univ. of Thessaly, Conf. Vice President, Petros Samaras, Associate Prof. TEI of Thess., Conf. Vice President, Stavroula Tsitsifli, Conf. Secretary, tsitsif@otenet.gr