THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF WATER CONSERVATION: THE TUCSON STORY CANDICE RUPPRECHT WATER CONSERVATION MANAGER TUCSON WATER MARY ALLEN, P.E. BUSINESS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PETER MAYER, P.E. PRINCIPAL WaterDM
AWE AVOIDED COST STUDY Alliance for Water Efficiency grant funds from Walton Family Foundation focused on Colorado River Basin Initiative WaterDM and City of Westminster Study Tucson, AZ and Gilbert, AZ selected to participate Goal of the study is to examine the impact of increased water use efficiency on customer rates
WATER USE IN THE US, 1900-2010 Includes fresh and saline water. Source USGS and Pacific Institute 2015
M&I WATER USE IN THE US, 1900-2010 Source USGS and Pacific Institute 2015
Water Production for TW Service Area (Acre-Feet) TUCSON WATER ANNUAL PRODUCTION (1940-2016) 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Total Potable Water Use at 1985 Level CAP Reclaimed Water 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2016 Year Potable Production CAP Production TARP Production Reclaimed Production TARP
Indoor Average Gallons Per Capita Per Day (gpcd) RESIDENTIAL INDOOR GPCD 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 69.3 58.6 1999 vs. 2016 = 15.4% reduction 30.0 20.0 36.7 2016 vs. HE = 37.4% reduction 10.0 0.0 REU1999 REU2015 High-Efficiency (Aquacraft 2011d) Source: Water Research Foundation (2016) Residential End Uses of Water Update #4309. Denver, CO.
Gallons per capita per day (gpcd) INDOOR GPCD COMPARISON 20 18 16 14 12 10 Statistically significant reductions in: Clothes washer Toilet Dishwasher 8 6 4 2 0 Toilet Clothes washer Shower Faucet Leak Other Bath Dishwasher REU1999 18.5 15.0 11.6 10.9 9.5 1.6 1.2 1.0 REU2015 14.2 9.6 11.1 11.1 7.9 2.5 1.5 0.7 Source: Water Research Foundation (2015) Residential End Uses of Water Update #4309. Denver, CO.
WATER EFFICIENCY IS NOT ONE, BUT MANY APPROACHES Utility-sponsored conservation & education programs Rebates, Youth & Professional Education Community outreach campaigns: Pete the Beak; Water Reliability Increasing block rate structures 4-Tier structure: $1.55,1-7 ccf; $3.00, 8-15 ccf; $7.48, 16-30 ccf; $11.75 > 30 ccf Local ordinances: Xeriscape Landscaping (1991), Water Waste (1984) & Comm. Rainwater Harvesting (2008) International Plumbing Code Tucson Plumbing Code National Policy that drives Innovation & technology improvements Energy Star (2002) & WaterSense (2006)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SF Household Avg. Annual Use (CCF) 180 160 SINGLE FAMILY AVG. ANNUAL USE 1985-2015 140 1960s & 1970s Typical landscape 120 100 80 Preferences shift A typical landscape today Present-day Typical landscape 60 40 20 0
System GPCD TOTAL SYSTEM GPCD 1980-2015 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Gallons per Capita Per Day Population POPULATION AND PER CAPITA WATER AND WASTEWATER USE 200 800,000 180 188 717,875 700,000 160 140 600,000 120 512,000 130 500,000 100 80 60 40 105 78 400,000 300,000 200,000 20 100,000-1989 2015 System Per Capita Water Use (gallons/day) System Per Capita Wastewater Use (gallons/day) Service Area Population -
Avg. Daily Production/Flow (MGD) HYPOTHETICAL, NON-CONSERVING WATER DEMAND 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 96.4 93.3 134.4 80.0 Daily Water Production & Wastewater Flows: -1989 actual - 2015 actual - 2015 hypothetical 60.0 54.0 56.2 1989: 188 / 107 gpcd Pop. 512,000 40.0 2015: 130 / 79 gpcd Pop. 717,875 20.0 0.0 1989 2015 2015 Hypothetical Water Wastewater
Due to conservation, per capita water use in Tucson has dropped 45% and wastewater by 35% since 1989. Yet. costs to customers continue to increase. Some customers are confused and frustrated. What is the impact on water and wastewater rates due to conservation? WHY ARE MY RATES GOING UP AGAIN WHEN I KEEP CONSERVING WATER?!
WATER SYSTEM AVOIDED COSTS Water Treatment Infrastructure Pumping & transmission expansion Water Resources Operating Costs How Much Additional Cost to Tucson Water meet nonconserving, hypothetical demand of 134 mgd?
WASTEWATER SYSTEM AVOIDED COSTS 2015 Avg. Daily Flow ~ 56.2 MGD Hypothetical Non-Conserving Avg. Daily Flow ~ 80 MGD Current System Max. Treatment Ability ~ 95 MGD In this analysis, wastewater treatment capacity water increased to 107 MGD to meet Hypothetical Non-Conserving Daily Flow range What additional wastewater system infrastructure and costs to meet 80 mgd avg. daily flow?
ADDITIONAL COSTS OF MEETING A NON-CONSERVING DEMAND THAT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED Additional $22 million per year for water system O&M $140,000,000 for new Avra Valley Transmission Main CIP $15 million for new 7 MGD recycled water facility Additional $6.4 million per year for wastewater treatment O&M $195,000,000 for additional 12 MGD of wastewater capacity, financed over time
CUSTOMER RATE IMPACT Current avg. single-family, water customer uses 98.9 ccf/year, and pays for 84 ccf/year of wastewater treatment. At current water rates, the avg. single-family customer pays $847 per year for water and sewer. Under the non-conserving scenario (assuming 188 gpcd) the average single-family customer would pay $976 per year for water and sewer. Due to water efficiency, rates today are nearly 15.3% LOWER than otherwise necessary.
Annual Water and Wastewater Use (kgal) Annual Water & Wastewater Bill - $ 120 Impact to an Average Single-Family Customer - Tucson, AZ $1,200 100 $976 $1,000 80 $847 82.8 $800 60 63.0 $600 97.2 40 74.0 $400 20 $200 0 $- 2015 Actual Non-Conserving Hypothetical Water Use (kgal) Wastewater Discharge (kgal) Annual Water & Wastewater Bill - $
BREAKDOWN OF AVOIDED COSTS Tucson Water rates are 22.3% lower today and Pima County WR rates are 7.8% lower today than otherwise necessary if per capita water demand had not been reduced. Wastewater Treatment, 21.8% Wastewater Treatment Operation, 10.8% Water Transmission, 11.8% Reclaimed Water, 0.0% Water Treatment Operation, 38.6% Interest and Debt Service, 17.0%
Average Strength (mg/l)/year Flow in Million Gallons/year STRENGTH OF SEWER FLOWS 500 23500 450 22781 429 23000 400 22500 350 338 22000 300 250 200 150 216 205 20424 21500 21000 20500 20000 19500 100 19000 50 18500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 18000 TSS BOD Combined Influent Flows for Agua Nueva and Tres Rios
IMPACT TO THE SEWER PIPES Scour velocities may take longer to attain in newer developments with lower flows Flushing of pipes may be required Potential for more odors in pipes Potential for corrosion in pipes Terminal ends may require steeper slopes Cost goes up for deeper sewers
FLUSHING THE PIPES
PIPE MAY REQUIRE STEEPER SLOPES Table 5.1 Minimum Slopes for Gravity Sewer Lines Pipe Diameter (inches) Minimum Slope (ft/ft) *Full-Flow Velocity (ft/sec) 6 (terminal reach) 0.0110 3.0 8 (terminal reach) 0.0100 3.5 8 (non-terminal reach) 0.0044 2.3 10 0.0025 2.0 12 0.0019 2.0 15 0.0014 2.0 18 0.0011 2.0 24 0.0008 2.0 *Manning s (n) value of 0.013 used
ODORS AND CORROSION
Water and wastewater rates have increased because of the increasing costs of providing 24/365 service, while maintaining and improving infrastructure to meet regulatory treatment requirements. Decreasing demands are a balancing act: Revenue v. Resources The typical Tucson single-family customer pays 15% less today, than they would need to be if water efficiency had not been achieved. Bottom Line: When Everyone Conserves, Everyone Saves
QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION THANK YOU! MARY.ALLEN@PIMA.GOV CANDICE.RUPPRECHT@TUCSONAZ.GOV