The past several "What's Up" newsletters have contained a line or two about the Water Division presentations. I wanted to give you all a taste of presentations by reprinting the minutes from just one of the presentations so far. Few members of the public ever crack open the minutes of Council meetings unless they are looking for ammunition to fight against something.
Skim through, or read to whatever level of interest you have. I hope you will be struck by the professionalism of Provo's water team, the level of detail of this presentation, and the amount of work that goes into providing customers with safe and reliable water on-demand. Remember this is just one of the services that Provo provides our residents and businesses. I also hope you a struck by the effort and professionalism our Council Office puts into creating these minutes. Enjoy.
Dave Decker, Public Works Director, presented this item. Mr. Decker introduced several members of the Public Works staff in attendance who are involved with the Water Division and its operations: • Gary Calder, Water and Waste Water Division Director • Jimmy McKnight, Public Works Finance Analyst • Rebecca Andrus, Engineer IV • Shane Jones, Engineer IV • Ryan York, Manager of Water Sources • Matt Hutchings, Manager of Distribution Systems In addition to these key staff members, there are over 30 key employees in the Water division. Mr. Decker introduced the direction of this series of presentations, beginning with the first topic for that day’s discussion, an overview of the Executive Summary of the Water Master Plan which was completed in 2013. Mr. Decker distributed a handout titled “2016 Fact Sheet for Provo City Water System” (see attachment) and gave some additional background information and context to help Council Members understand what these numbers mean. He cited peak day, average day, and minimum day water consumption figures; peak consumption is generally in July, and minimum consumption usually falls in the winter months. The average day consumption for 2016 was 24.7 million gallons; peak day consumption for 2016 was 50 million gallons; minimum day consumption for 2016 was 13.2 million gallons. The total annual consumption in 2016 was 9.01 billion gallons. In the industry, billion gallons is commonly referred to in acre feet. Mr. Decker explained this term and the measurement conversion; as the name suggests, an acre foot refers to an acre of ground with one foot of water sitting on it. The definitions and conversions section of the handout refers to several common abbreviations and measurements: • 1 acre foot = 325,000 gallons • 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons • 1 cfs (cubic feet per second) = 450 gpm (gallons per minute) • 1 MGD (million[s] of gallons per day) = 700 gpm (gallons per minute) Mr. Decker continued, explaining that the annual water consumption for 2016 of 9.01 billion gallons translates to approximately 27,500 acre feet of water. Gary Calder, Water Division Director, suggested an example for better visualization: picture an acre of land, then picture something 27,500 feet tall—nearly the elevation of Mount Everest—and this gives a good idea of how much water Provo uses annually. The 2016 peak day consumption was 50 million gallons of water. On average, 35,000 gallons per minute must be produced to meet this demand. This equals about 120 five-gallon buckets of water per second that Provo has to produce. Mr. Decker and his staff had set up 10 five-gallon buckets as a visual reference; multiply this quantity by 12 to equal the needed supply for water per second. Mr. Decker stated that on an average consumption day, the figure is about 60 to 65 five-gallon buckets per second. Mr. Decker referenced some facts regarding Provo’s water sources. Provo Canyon springs product between 7,000 – 12,000 gallons per minute (variation depending on dry versus wet year). With all 15 current wells operating, Provo’s well production capacity is 32,000 gallons per minute. Provo’s current water storage capacity is 32 million gallons; this will increase by 10 million gallons in 2017 with the completion of two tanks currently under construction: a Columbia Lane reservoir which will hold 6 million gallons, and a new reservoir on Slate Canyon Drive which holds 4 million gallons. Provo City has approximately 2 million linear feet of water lines, which equates 390 miles. There are ten large-capacity booster pump stations, which can move about 27,500 gallons per minute. Most of the water sources are in lower elevation zones of the City, so much of this water movement is to move water to systems at higher elevations such as areas on the east bench of the City. The City also has 33 PRVs, or Pressure-reducing valve. These valves are of various diameters and divide various water zones of the City. The valves are clamped shut and when water is needed, controls on either side of the valve can be adjusted a small amount to allow water through at a desired pressure. Ryan York is the Water Division staff member responsible for maintenance of Provo’s PRVs, eight of which are privately owned. Council Member Kim Santiago asked a few questions to clarify some of the information about the City’s water storage capacity. Mr. Decker clarified that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is not a replacement of the existing Slate Canyon water facility; the intent is to keep both Slate Canyon tanks online. The old Slate Canyon tank holds 5 million gallons of water. The old water storage facility at Slate Canyon (built in 1970) is at an elevation 17 feet below the Main and the Gallery, the two water storage reservoirs near the MTC. In order for these tanks to work in tandem, they should be located at the same elevation (Mr. Decker clarified that the two new reservoirs—on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon Drive—have been constructed at the same elevation, to work in tandem). During the summer, they are unable to fill the old Slate Canyon reservoir entirely—they can only fill it to half its entire capacity. During non-peak times, they can fill that reservoir completely. The Water Division intends to use this reservoir as much as they can for additional storage and to move water to the newly constructed Slate Canyon reservoir upon its completion. They will continue to use the old Slate Canyon reservoir until they see either structural or water quality issues that would make them want to take it offline. The old tank had been constructed above an old landfill, so there have been some issues with compaction which have been addressed, but will not prolong the life of the tank indefinitely, but has lengthened its usability for the time being. The new Slate Canyon tank was designed to be able to have a second tank added alongside it; Public Works intends for this additional tank to be built when use of the old Slate Canyon tank is discontinued. The old Slate Canyon tank is not seismically sound, which is another reason that Public Works intends to eventually discontinue its use. The Gallery is the water storage reservoir located at the MTC with a volleyball court atop of it, built in 1935. While the Gallery was not designed for seismic conditions, since it is buried it has some inherent structural protection. Council Member Kay Van Buren noted that the design of the interior includes beautiful Grecian columns. Gary Calder indicated that the new Slate Canyon reservoir is completed and the Water Division staff offered to give Council a tour of the tank. The reservoir will be put into operation once the Columbia Lane reservoir is up and running too. Mr. Decker outlined the list of seven discussion topics which he sent to the Mayor, and which he would be happy to share with the Council and Leadership for more direction. • Overview of the 2010 Water System Master Plan • Financial review of the Water Utility Fund • Review of financial recommendations for the future • Water Rights • Water Audit and Water Conservation • Water System Operations • Water System Testing and Regulations Water zones within a city are generally broken down by contour elevations. In the western United States, elevation is used to build pressure. The “Existing Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map shows designated water zones in colors coordinating to their corresponding tanks. These tanks are generally located 250 feet uphill from the lowest point in the water zone. Based on current usage, Public Works identified some issues which would necessitate dividing some of the pressure zones, including high pressure amounts and pipe corrosion. The “Future Pressure Zones and Storage Tanks” map illustrates the Master Plan recommendation to split this zone into two parts, with corresponding tanks on Columbia Lane and Slate Canyon marked in yellow. Mr. Decker clarified further that some of the existing water zones in the Foothills area, depicted as the purple zone “Intermediate Zone,” are very simplified. The Master Plan breaks this purple zone into 26 different water zones. He will explain these 26 zones further at a later point, but he wanted to simplify the illustration at this point in the discussion. Mr. Decker distributed copies of the Executive Summary of the Water System Master Plan (see attachment). He gave some background on the Master Plan history, reviewing former Water Master Plans created for the City of Provo: • 1961 Master Plan – Interesting from historical standpoint and very informational. • 1979 Master Plan – Completed by a group in NYC; $11 million improvements recommended • 1989 Master Plan – Public Works had some concerns about this master plan. $1.6 million improvements recommended. Mr. Decker clarified that some significant progress had been made in the interim between the 1979 and 1989 master plans, relative to the suggested $11 million improvements in 1979. Mr. Decker explained that some significant line replacement [of older water lines] had taken place; his reading of a 2002 water rights study, which included minor updates to the master plan, indicated that from about 1980 to 2000, the City replaced 70 miles of water lines in the water system. These earlier master plans recommended addition of two new water tanks in the 1980s, neither of which was built. • 2002 Water Rights Study – This is a very detailed study. There will be a future 60-minute presentation on this. In the back there is one chapter with some recommendations (hydraulic modeling helped to generate these recommendations). • 2010 Water System Master Plan & Executive – This master plan was completed by the same consultant as the 2002 Water Rights Study. In this study they used the trend at that time • 2010 Impact Fee and Rate Study – done in conjunction with the 2010 Water System Master Plan. These historic master plans help to give context and background to some of the concerns of the Public Works Department and Water Division, particularly in looking at the difference from the 1979 Master Plan to the current master plan (2010). Mr. Decker noted some serious gaps: from $11 million recommended improvements in 1979, to $1.6 million recommended improvements in 1989, to the current $60 million recommended improvements of the current master plan. He hoped this overview helped to illustrate the cause for some of their concern. Mr. Decker began a review of the 2010 Water System Master Plan Executive Summary. There were some significant increases to the Water Demand Projections, due to a significant annexation on the west side as well as changes to development patterns as outlined in the 2010 General Plan. Table ES-1 illustrates Projected Water Production Requirements and uses the industry standard measure of acre-feet. Mr. Decker repeated that the current annual demand for Provo is 27,500 acre feet. Mr. Decker emphasized that Provo’s water production is coming in pretty significantly under these demands, even on a peak day, however in the past, Provo has exceeded a consumption level of 50 million gallons in a day. With all water sources functioning at optimum levels, Provo can meet the demand of its water consumption, but there is not much leniency should an issue arise; wells are mechanical systems and may experience failure. During the summer it is common to have anywhere between one and four wells offline; this is not ideal, but simply an illustration of the fact that the systems are not foolproof. Public Works is doing maintenance work on one of the wells right now; it is easier to work on a well in the winter, and Public Works has tried to plan scheduled work in order to accommodate the seasonal needs of the system. Council Member David Harding asked for some clarification on the projected production requirements versus projected usage and actual usage. Mr. Decker explained that during the summer, Provo takes about 5 cfs, or cubic feet per second, from surface water. Provo has surface water rights in Deer Creek Reservoir and Jordanelle Reservoir. Provo has to pay for water treatment in Orem, then the City uses this surface water to supplement the springs. With this surface water, combined with spring production and well water, Provo is able to produce 50,000 gallons per minute to meet demand. Mr. Decker indicated that this is the ideal scenario, but generally not the reality of the water supply and sources; Provo is well below the projected need, but the water sources are maxed out. The usage trend had been showing a steady increase from 1990 to 2000. Consequently, the 2010 Master Plan and study was based on the upwards trend, even though the trend took a dip and had been showing decreases from 2000 to 2010. Mr. Decker noted that some of the decrease may be due to the effects of conservation efforts, but there are likely other factors which would explain the downturn in usage. In particular, one of the largest contributing factors is that BYU moved many green fields to secondary water systems; BYU has water rights with canal systems on the east bench, so they have been proactive in moving many of their fields from culinary systems to secondary water systems with the canal companies. During construction on Stadium Avenue this year, BYU is also installing a secondary 12-inch water line down Stadium Avenue; their goal is to get this across the parking lot across Canyon Road to the intramural fields on University Avenue, so these fields can be transitioned to secondary water. Mr. Decker indicated that these figures are good from a conservation standpoint, but not all the gains can be attributed to conservation efforts; there were some significant changes which also had an impact. Mr. Decker explained some concern in the water rights industry about the disparity between water rights on paper versus wet water. During wet years, for example, this year based on the heavy snow pack, water rights become easy to manage; this year the City’s water will be plentiful and Mr. Decker doesn’t anticipate issues. In dry years or during times of drought, that is when managing water rights becomes more difficult, and senior water rights versus junior water rights come into play. Mr. Decker was not as familiar with BYU’s water rights, but he confirmed that Provo has many senior water rights. One of the biggest water rights on the Provo River is for Provo City through the Morris Decree in the early 1900s. Provo received a healthy majority of the Direct Flow Rights in the Provo River. Provo is also entitled, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Water District, to up to 8,000 acre feet of water. Over the last five years, Provo has received between 50-80% of this, with the levels varying to some extent based on the snow pack. Provo purchases this water from the Metropolitan Water District. Based on the water that Provo takes from the spring sources, the City must return an equal amount of water to the Provo River. Because the spring water is good, drinkable water, the City uses this surface water [which for culinary use, would require treatment in the Orem water treatment facility] from Deer Creek to replenish the Provo River. The water to which Provo is entitled but does not use of the 8,000 acre-feet per annum allotment is referred to as ‘carryover water’ and the exact amount per year may vary. Currently, Provo City has 13,000 acre feet of carryover water stored in Deer Creek Reservoir—this is equivalent to about half the annual consumption rate. During wet years, Provo’s water supply in Deer Creek is subject to ‘Pay-per-spill.’ This is one of the most critical water rights issues for Public Works staff at present; Public Works is trying to move water into Jordanelle Reservoir, where Provo has, with the Metropolitan Water District, 10,000 acre feet of water storage (in Mr. Decker’s words, “think empty boxes”). If Provo City can move water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle, the City has rights to store 10,000 acre feet of water there. Provo also has two water storage rights upstream of Jordanelle, called the Lost Lake Water storage rights. Since there is likely risk of spillover in Deer Creek this year, staff is focused on moving some of Provo’s water from Deer Creek to Jordanelle for more secure storage via Lost Lake. If water rights for springs and wells remain stagnant, surface water resources such as Deer Creek and Jordanelle become crucial. Mr. Decker indicated that there are some well rights which are currently undeveloped, but these water rights are not enough to meet the projected growth. Ms. Santiago asked more about well rights and whether these rights are tied to a specific geographic location or just permission to dig wells in general. Mr. Decker explained that well rights are coordinated through the State engineers and generally refer to a cumulative entitlement of water received from wells. Some well rights are specific for a point of diversion and amount, others are consolidated to a massive water right with the State. Wells in certain locations in the City are more productive than others, which introduces further considerations for Public Works when planning future well sites and utilization of those well water rights. Page 3 of the Executive Summary addresses the treatment of Provo’s surface water at the Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. Provo generally takes 5 cfs (cubic feet per second) from surface water, which equates roughly 1000-1500 acre feet of water, through the treatment plant per year; out of 27,500 acrefeet water consumed per year, only about 1000-1500 acre feet comes from surface water, which represents significant cost savings to the City. As far as cost of water, the water belongs to Provo; we are only paying for the treatment of Provo-owned water at a rate of $95/acre foot. Water coming through the treatment plant costs the City approximately $0.30 per thousand gallons. Well water costs approximately $0.12-$0.15 per thousand gallons. Spring water is the cheapest water; not including pumping costs to direct water to the east bench of the City, the cost is approximately $0.02-$0.03 per thousand gallons. The current rate is $1.20 per thousand gallons; Mr. Decker will go into more detail regarding the costs the City needs to recoup through the water utility rates. Mr. Decker referenced a map illustrating where some of our water sources are, including Big Springs, South Fork, and Rock Canyon Springs. Table ES-2 addresses Availability versus Water Rights of the City in a dry year versus an average year. From an annual basis, the City’s water rights are in a good place, well above the annual consumption. Mr. Decker referenced Figure ES-1, “Annual Projected Production Requirement (Dry Year),” which depicts amounts of all the City’s water rights in a graph alongside projections with and without conservation and actual uses. Public Works made some updates to these graphs to reflect historic production through 2016, which graphs can be found in Mr. Decker’s PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Harding asked for clarification as to why the amount for Deer Creek water rights decreased significantly; Rebecca Andrus explained that this decrease represents the exchange water which was diverted to the Provo River based on the amount of water drawn from Big Springs, shown in cyan on the graph and showing a comparable increase in conjunction with the decreased amount from Deer Creek. Mr. Decker also directed staff to create a graph depicting an average year; the Executive Summary showed the water rights for a dry year only, but water rights might shrink based on the snowpack (or lack thereof) during a dry year. In Chapter 3 of the Master Plan, there is a graphic showing the same graph in an average year without water conservation. In an average year without conservation, the projections show that Provo should have enough water, but in a dry year, it shows Provo running out of water. Mr. Decker reiterated that the authors of the Master Plan were being very conservative in the projections and depictions of water rights. Mr. Decker addressed a question from Ms. Santiago regarding water conservation. Rather than restricting water usage, the Master Plan refers to a broader, holistic approach to water conservation, encouraging landscaping changes and xeriscaping to result in less intensive water uses. There was not sufficient time to address the entire presentation, so this discussion was continued to a future work meeting. Mr. Decker will distribute electronic copies of the Master Plan to Council.van
No comments:
Post a Comment