Lars Hanson, P.E. Triangle J Council of Governments WRRI 2013 March 20, 2013

Transcription

1 Lars Hanson, P.E. Triangle J Council of Governments WRRI 2013 March 20, 2013

2 Formed in 2009 by 12 (eventually 13) local governments and utilities. BE IT RESOLVED, that the signatories will participate in the Jordan Lake Partnership for regional water supply planning related to Jordan Lake with the goal of collaboratively defining Jordan Lake s role in a long term sustainable and secure regional water supply for the Research Triangle Region Support provided by Triangle J Council of Governments and Fountainworks, LLC.

3 Apex Cary Chatham County - North Durham Hillsborough Holly Springs Morrisville Orange County OWASA Pittsboro Raleigh Sanford Wake County (RTP South)

4

5 The purpose of the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan is to support efforts to provide for long-term, sustainable and reliable water supplies for the communities in the Region. The goals of this regional water supply planning effort are to: 1. Identify the future service areas of the Region s water systems, 2. Determine and verify the future water supply demand projections provided by the systems, 3. Examine current water supply sources and estimated yields, and 4. Identify future water supply needs, and 5. Present an array of potential strategies for meeting those future needs.

6 Customer Base Sector breakdown» Non-revenue Source and treatment type Structure/Operations Overall Use Per Capita Use ,000 0% 82% RES 10% 35% NonRev (MGD) All (gpd) RES (gpd) All

7 Develop robust estimates of 50-yr regional water demand (and regional water supply need) that provide a solid basis for water supply alternative development. Build trust and understanding between partners.

8 We might have a problem Current Supply

9 Gather Information 1 st Cut Projections Define Terms Summarize Methodology Peer Review Oral Presentation of Methods Written Summary of Methods Anonymous Peer Review and Evaluation Revise Projections Assess Need and Report Results Compile Report Peer review of Report Text Share report with Managers and Stakeholders Revise Report

10 How do we define sectors?» e.g. Unaccounted for? WTP Process Distribution System Process Other non-revenue What sort of demand projections are we talking about? How do we include conservation and efficiency in our projections?

11 Summarized the methods each partner used in a conceptual form.

12 TAZ basically a total use

13 development analysis by major tracts and well-defined user classes linear growth as rate of change in meter equivalents detailed breakdown defined as meter equivalents Reclaimed Water WTP process water recycled

14 zone-based analysis by percent of area built out residential and non- residential

15 Gather Information 1 st Cut Projections Define Terms Summarize Methodology Peer Review Oral Presentation of Methods Written Summary of Methods Anonymous Peer Review and Evaluation Revise Projections Assess Need and Report Results Compile Report Peer review of Report Text Share report with Managers and Stakeholders Revise Report

16 Each partner presents their own methodology, including assumptions, base data used, and projections. All partners have an opportunity to ask questions about methodology.

17 All partners projections and methodologies compiled into written report and distributed to all other partners. Numeric rating and free response evaluation of three criteria:» Methodology Clarity» Base data and assumptions» Overall Credibility

18 3 METHODOLOGY CLARITY How clearly was the methodology presented? S C O R E F O L L O W - U P 1- NOT CLEAR (the methodology was insufficient/incomplete, or very unclear) 2-3- ACCEPTABLE CLARITY (the methodology was descibed in a satisfactory manner) 4-5- VERY CLEAR (methdology described very clearly and thoroughly) Why did you rate the presentation of this methodology as you did; and/or what might have increased your rating on Question 3? (e.g. It wasn t clear how population estimates or usage rates were determined; )

19 Every partner revised their projections, some more than once. Types of changes» Updated base data» Growth rates and growth basis» Water use rates» Non-revenue factors

20 Projected Triangle Area Water Demand (JLP Members) Year Average Daily Water Demand (MGD) Average Daily Total System Demand (MGD) Apex Cary Morrisville RTP South Chatham County N Durham Hillsborough Holly Springs Orange County OWASA Pittsboro Raleigh & Merger Sanford

21 Projected Triangle Area Water Demand (JLP Members) Year First Draft of Needs Assessment Most Recent Projections Average Daily Total System Demand (MGD) ~ Cary 2010 ~ Durham 2010 ~10% Reduction in Demand Projections. 40 MGD by Reduction from Initial Apex Cary Morrisville RTP South Chatham Durham Hillsborough Holly Springs Orange OWASA Pittsboro Raleigh & Merger Sanford

22

23

24 Gather Information 1 st Cut Projections Define Terms Summarize Methodology Peer Review Oral Presentation of Methods Written Summary of Methods Two more chances for review. Anonymous Peer Review and Evaluation Revise Projections Assess Need and Report Results Compile Report Peer review of Report Text Share report with Managers and Stakeholders Revise Report

25 The peer review process was the single most valuable component for getting everyone on the same page during the planning process, Ed Holland, OWASA if we re all going to put our names on it [the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan], then we want to be assured that it contains credible information. Peer review resulted in improvements in the methods and demand projections for some of the Partners. Peer review resulted in better documentation of the methods for all of the Partners. Perhaps most important, peer review engaged Partners in the regional planning process much more actively and that engagement carried over into other Partnership activities. - Sydney Miller, Town of Cary

26 Upgrades to monitoring systems (meters, software, etc.) that will aid future billing, planning, reporting, and efficiency programs. Partners decided to invest in interconnection studies (both modeling, and actual pump tests).

27 Shared accountability builds trust Fully understand differences so that all Partners can respect them Presenting to peers and reviewing peers work can clarify thinking about own projections Work at multiple levels of engagement Don t expect less, expect better

28 The hard part is over, now for the really hard part. Developing the Regional Water supply plan Water Supply Alternatives Analysis Scenario Modeling in CF-Neuse OASIS model Jordan Lake Allocation Applications Planning Infrastructure Investments

29 Apex John Cratch, Tim Donnelly, Jessica Bolin Cary Sydney Miller, Leila Goodwin Chatham County David Hughes Durham Don Greeley, Vicki Westbrook Hillsborough Kenny Keel Holly Springs Stephanie Sudano Morrisville Rich Cappola, Amanda Boone* TJCOG Mike Schlegel Orange County Tom Davis, Kevin Lindley, Craig Benedict, David Stancil OWASA Ruth Rouse, Ed Holland* Pittsboro Stuart Bass, John Poteat, Scott Jewell*, Bill Terry* Raleigh Kenny Waldroup Sanford Victor Czar, Paul Weeks Wake County Mike Aull, John Roberson* Hydrostructures, PA Becky Smith Fountainworks Warren Miller * Moved on to other opportunities

30 Say a little more about that Ed Holland, OWASA (Ret.)

31 TRIANGLE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN VOLUME I REGIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT Collaboration for Sustainable and Secure Water Supply for the Triangle Region Prepared For: Prepared By: Lars Hanson, P.E. Triangle J Council of Governments lhanson@tjcog.org Mike Schlegel Triangle J Council of Governments mschlegel@tjcog.org Jordan Lake Partners February 20, 2012 Triangle J Council of Governments Warren Miller Fountainworks, LLC warren@fountainworks.com