• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Sustainable Water Infrastructure






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 13

http://www.cnt.org 13



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sustainable Water Infrastructure Sustainable Water Infrastructure Presentation Transcript

    • Sustainable WaterInfrastructure Region 5 Report Navigating the Infrastructure Replacement Era February 4, 2011 Louann Unger U.S. EPA Region 5 Unger.louann@epa.gov
    • Setting the Stage EPA issued a Gap Analysis Report (2002) $533 Billion
    • Setting the StageThe National ASCE Report Card (2009)
    • Setting the StageThe Illinois Section ASCE Report Card (2010)
    • A National EPA emphasis on“Sustainable Infrastructure” emerged Reduce the Funding Gap! Revenue and Cost
    • Where is the opportunity? Green Infrastructure Asset Management Energy Efficiency Water Efficiency Financing Incentives (SRF) Full Cost Pricing Emergency Preparedness Planning
    • How do we address these practices? • Provide outreach/education • Understand barriers/benefits • Integrate into core programs
    • Green Infrastructure (1 of 7) “a paradigm shift”
    • Green InfrastructureCirculate Information/Reduce barriers • Information on costs • Data on performance, technical specifications • Targeted training for engineers • Local codes and ordinances • Recognition programsUse Clean Water Act tools • Stormwater permits • Combined Sewer Overflow LTCPs • Total Maximum Daily Loads • Antidegradation • CWA Section 404 • Great Lakes Restoration Initiative • CWA Section 319State Initiatives IL – Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act
    • Green Infrastructure mitigates CSOPRE-DEVELOPMENT CIRCA 1960
    • Green Infrastructure mitigates CSO
    • Energy Efficiency Importance Energy ~ 25% to 30% of total plant O&M cost $4 billion spent annually for energy, nationally Opportunity to reduce GHG emissions EPA Region 5 is Providing outreach on energy management Collaborating with Regions and HQ Learning from the Indiana energy management pilot 2009 - 2011
    • Energy Efficiency (2 of 7) Pilot Energy Management Practices 1st quarter Mid-course 2nd quarter Workshop assessment Workshop assessment Project Project Conclusion Kick-off * 2010 20112008 2009-2011 Indiana Energy Management Pilot
    • Energy EfficiencyPay attention to kWh used
    • Energy Efficiency Dialogue
    • Energy Efficiency Develop a Management SystemEnergy Improvement Goal #1 of 5Activity: PumpsOperation: Booster stations and elevated tanks / / High service pumpsObjective: Reduce energy used by pumpsTarget: Reduce energy usage by 5% by October 15, 2011 Responsible Performance Tasks Party Timeframe Measures Comments of Key Subtasks ScottyDevelop baseline of energy usage Montgomery Completed kWhGenerate new scheduling plan Christine Chapel 30-Sep-11 PlanImplement and assess plan(measure improvementscontinuously) Leonard McCoy 31-Aug-11 kWhReport savings to Utility Boardand staff James Kirk 30-Sep-11 kWh Water staff prepare report
    • Water Efficiency (3 of 7)“Make Every Drop Count” EPA’s WaterSense product labeling and partnership program for water conservation and efficiency EPA Region 5 is working to Increase the number of promotional partners (e.g. utilities, gov’t agencies) Increase WaterSense brand awareness
    • Water EfficiencyProducts
    • Water EfficiencyPartnerships and Activities Over 30 new partnerships last year (including WI DNR) Kohler Company – Partner of the Year Partnership advocated in NE IL Regional Water Supply Plan
    • Financing Incentives (4 of 7)State Revolving Fund (SRF) Green Project Reserve (GPR) Shift from gray infrastructure to GREEN NEW in 2009, 20% of each State’s capitalization grant for SRF to be used for “Green Reserve” projects: Energy efficiency * Water efficiency * Green Infrastructure * Innovative A Major Impact of GPR Awareness of Green approaches/benefits
    • Green Project Reserve, Nationally
    • Financing Incentives GPR Impact ARRA GPR Project Types (In Millions) Illinois Indiana MichiganMinnesota OhioWisconsin $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 Energy Efficiency ($132 M) Water Efficiency ($71 M) Green Infrastructure ($45 M) Innovative ($61 M)
    • Financing IncentivesGPR Project ExamplesEnergy Efficiency Replacing old pumps and motors with high efficiency versions Installation of waste heat recovery systemsWater Efficiency Targeted drinking water pipeline replacement due to excessive leakage Reclamation and recycling of treated water effluentGreen Infrastructure Use of stormwater retention ponds Removing downspouts from a combined sewer systemEnvironmentally Innovative Incorporation of LEED concepts into new drinking water or wastewater plant design New operation design for a drinking water system that will result in less frequent water withdrawal from an aquifer
    • Community Based EmergencyResponse Planning (5 of 7)Build Community Recognition ofInterdependencies with the Water Sector Facilitate a water/food processing sector resiliency and preparedness workshop Distribute reports from the Evanston Emergency Water Roundtable Host Evanston Roundtable follow-up
    • Asset Management (6 of 7)Training One-day asset management training Two-day asset management workshopSoftware Check-up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS)http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/cupss/
    • Full Cost Pricing (7 of 7)
    • EPA Sustainability Policy Released in October 2010 Approach – promote sustainability on three fronts water infrastructure, water sector systems, and the role that both of these play in the overall sustainability of our communities.
    • Region 5 DirectionContinued outreach on sustainability practicesInvolvement by states and other stakeholdersIntegrate with regulatory programsNPDES permits, antidegradation, enforcementCase Studies through community involvementEnergy pilot, Community outreachUnderstand where pricing fit into programsIncoporate Climate Ready Utilities Tools
    • Frame of Reference Co Co n mm mm tio ora un un iica llab ca ttiio Co onn Connection ICLEI STAR HUD/DOT/EPA Community Index EPA Urban Waters Sustainable Jersey• Outreach Initiative• Understand Chicago Metropolitan• Integrate Environmental Justice Agency for Planning Showcase Communities GoTo 2040
    • Proactive, triple bottom line approachThe difference between treating disease, and pursuing wellness.
    • Credits and Resources•The Gap Report is at http://www.epa.gov/owm/gapreport.pdf•ASCE ILhttp://www.isasce.org/web/images/2010%20Infrastructure%20report/Clipboard01.jpg•Energy management guidebook.http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/upload/2009_07_21_waterinfrastructures_guidebook_si_energymanagement.pdf•Clean Water SRF GPR funding statushttp://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/gpr_funding_status.pdf•Effective Utility Management Primer.http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/tools_si_watereum_primerforeffectiveutilities.pdf•Climate Ready Utilities Toolboxhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/climate/toolbox.html•Triple bottom line image. http://www.gcbl.org/system/files/sustainability-venn-sm.jpg•Stoney, Nancy, EPA Office of Water (12/7/2010) “Sustainable WaterInfrastructure. Presented at the 2010 Urban Water SustainabilityConference•Sustainable Jersey www.sustainablejersey.com•ICLEI http://www.icleiusa.org/
    • Bonus Slides (2)
    • Bonus Slide 1. Financing IncentivesGPR Impact – Clean Water SRF ARRA GPR Green ProjectsState Grant ($M) Projects Funded ($M)IL 177 25 41 (23%)IN 94 20 22 (23%)MI 169 14 34 (20%)MN 72 3 18 (21%)OH 221 79 49 (22%)WI 106 14 53 (50%)Region 5 839 155 217 (25%)
    • Bonus Slide 2. Financing IncentivesGPR – Drinking Water SRF ARRA GPR Green Projects State Grant ($M) Projects Funded ($M) IL 80 27 22 (28%) IN 27 19 6 (21%) MI 67 15 23 (35%) MN 25 3 5 (20%) OH 58 39 23 (40%) WI 38 34 12 (31%) Region 5 295 137 91 (31%)