Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Decision h2 o m&c ss 10-18-2011

776 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Decision h2 o m&c ss 10-18-2011

  1. 1. Decision H 2 O Summary & Recommendations Jeff Biggs, Tucson Water Presentation to Mayor & Council October 18, 2011
  2. 2. Presentation Agenda <ul><li>Background and History </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hayden-Udall Treatment Plant </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tucson’s Assured Water Supply </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tucson’s Clearwater Program </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Water Plan 2050 and Update </li></ul><ul><li>Decision H 2 O </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consumer Panels </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kiosk Outreach </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Triple Bottom Line Assessment </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Update </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul>
  3. 3. Background and History <ul><li>Tucson’s historical reliance on local groundwater </li></ul><ul><li>Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act (1980) </li></ul><ul><li>Need to Shift to Renewable Supplies (1989) </li></ul><ul><li>Importing CAP Water & Tucson’s Hayden-Udall WTP (1992-1994) </li></ul><ul><li>Initiated Clearwater Program (1996) </li></ul><ul><li>Tucson’s Assured Water Supply (1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Water Plan: 2000-2050 & Update (2004, 2008) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Clearwater Program Evolution 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 1996 CAVSARP Authorized 1998-2000 Target water quality developed & demonstrated 1997 CAVSARP Expanded Pilot Recharge Facility Constructed May 2001 Blended Water Delivery Initiated 2004 – Present SAVSARP (Clearwater Phase II) Implementation 2008 – Present CAP recovery from Pima Mine Rd. Recharge Project via Santa Cruz Wellfield
  5. 5. Water Plan: 2000-2050 “ Water Plan: 2000-2050 was developed to initiate a dialogue between Tucson Water and the community about the water-resource challenges which must be addressed in the coming years.”
  6. 6. Water Plan: 2000-2050 Identified Decision Points for Water Supplies <ul><li>Expansion of recharge or Hayden-Udall WTP rehabilitation </li></ul><ul><li>Acceptable long-term mineral content for Clearwater Blend </li></ul><ul><li>Level and methods of effluent utilization </li></ul>
  7. 7. Clearwater Infrastructure Increasing Capacity and Redundancy for Supply Reliability CAVSARP SAVSARP Pima Mine Rd Recharge Project Central Wellfield Santa Cruz Wellfield Avra Valley Wellfield TARP & Southside Wellfield
  8. 8. The Decision H 2 O Program <ul><li>Program Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Educate about need for Colorado River Water </li></ul><ul><li>Inform about rising Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels and impacts of mineral control </li></ul><ul><li>Provide opportunities to taste and learn </li></ul><ul><li>Gather consumer preferences </li></ul>
  9. 9. 450 mg/L TDS Was Found to be Acceptable During 1990s Public Outreach ( At the Tap ) Taste and Odor Workshops Bottled Water Distribution Neighborhood Outreach
  10. 10. Mall and Traveling Kiosks Consumer testing carried out at three different levels: Flavor Profile Analysis Consumer Panels Determining Customer Preferences
  11. 11. Kiosk Results Taste Preference 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 450 650 No Preference Percentage of Each Choice Total Responses ~ 14,000 Taste Preference 57% 28% 15%
  12. 12. Kiosk Results Overall Preference 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 450 650 No Preference Percentage of Each Choice Total Responses ~ 14,000 Overall Preference 50% 35% 15% 0% 450 650
  13. 13. <ul><li>50% of customers are willing to pay more to have lower mineral content </li></ul><ul><li>50% preferred 650 or had ‘no preference’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>35% prefer the higher mineral content option </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15% have no preference </li></ul></ul>Oct 2006 and Jan 2007 Outreach Results Due to large investment to achieve 450, additional information was needed before a recommendation could be made.
  14. 14. Additional Steps Needed for Making a Recommendation <ul><li>Conduct additional due diligence on the potential treatment technologies and costs </li></ul><ul><li>Perform sustainability evaluations for the two mineral content options </li></ul>
  15. 15. Triple Bottom Line Assessment is one Method to Evaluate Sustainability TBL Assessments Equally Weight Three Factors
  16. 16. Triple Bottom Line Assessment
  17. 17. <ul><li>Evaluation of the 650 and 450 TDS options’ impacts on the community </li></ul><ul><li>4 social panels were conducted with Tucson Water customers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitated by outside expert </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Panelists represented the demographics of Tucson Water customers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>External social reviewers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provided independent oversight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviewed the panel results </li></ul></ul>Social Category Evaluation Approach
  18. 18. Social Criteria Were Discussed and Evaluated <ul><li>Perception of water quality </li></ul><ul><li>Affordability </li></ul><ul><li>Willingness to pay </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>Site issues </li></ul><ul><li>Community issues </li></ul>Panelists ranked and scored each criterion for each TDS option
  19. 19. <ul><ul><li>Panelists applied importance weighting to each criterion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Panelists ranked the impacts of each criterion from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CRITERION SCORE = Importance weighting x ranking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OVERALL SOCIAL SCORE = total of criterion scores </li></ul></ul>All Category Evaluation Steps
  20. 20. Social Category Results Increasing benefit
  21. 21. Triple Bottom Line Assessment
  22. 22. Environmental Category Evaluation Approach <ul><li>Independent environmental reviewers participated in the process </li></ul><ul><li>Tucson Water and the independent reviewers identified environmental criteria </li></ul><ul><li>The same scoring method used for the social category was employed </li></ul>
  23. 23. Environmental Criteria <ul><li>Carbon Dioxide Emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Water Loss </li></ul><ul><li>Solid Waste Generation </li></ul><ul><li>Salinity Loading </li></ul><ul><li>Land Use </li></ul><ul><li>Local Site Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife Impacts </li></ul>
  24. 24. Environmental Results Increasing benefit
  25. 25. Triple Bottom Line Assessment
  26. 26. Financial Category Evaluation Approach <ul><li>Financial category includes both capital and operating costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment studies performed to refine basis of costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conceptual costs developed for treatment approach to maintain 450 mineral content </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monthly average bill increase used to represent overall financial impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tucson Water’s financial staff modeled rate impacts </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Conceptual Costs Cost Category 450 Option Capital Costs $416 Million Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs (Year 2015) $10 Million Results in a monthly average water bill increase of $11 to $12
  28. 28. Financial Category Result Increasing benefit
  29. 29. Overall TBL Results Increasing benefit
  30. 30. Tucson Water Recommendations <ul><li>Continue to allow mineral content of Clearwater Blend to gradually rise, approaching Colorado River Water mineral levels </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and customer feedback and provide customer education </li></ul><ul><li>Develop long-term plans to address salinity </li></ul>
  31. 31. <ul><li>Continue to allow mineral content of Clearwater Blend to gradually rise, approaching Colorado River Water mineral levels (~650 mineral content) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 10 years of operation, Clearwater Blend mineral content has increased to more than 500 mg/L and continues to gradually rise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TBL evaluation does not currently justify the significant expenditures necessary to achieve 450 mineral content blend </li></ul></ul>Tucson Water Recommendations
  32. 32. <ul><li>Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and customer feedback and provide customer education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor mineral content-related issues on a continuing basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Update and distribute outreach materials addressing hard water in the home (English and Spanish) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor advances in water treatment technologies that may improve financial feasibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide updates to Mayor & Council </li></ul></ul>Tucson Water Recommendations A future decision to implement mineral content control for Clearwater would require a multi-year implementation period (minimum 4 to 5 years)
  33. 33. <ul><li>Develop long-term plans to address salinity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Long-term effects of salt buildup through importation of Colorado River water are an issue of regional and Statewide concern </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tucson’s Water Plan: 2000-2050 identifies options for where salinity control might be implemented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Recycled Water Master Plan currently underway includes salinity considerations </li></ul></ul>Tucson Water Recommendations
  34. 34. Decision H 2 O Summary & Recommendations Jeff Biggs, Tucson Water Questions? Presentation to Mayor & Council October 18, 2011

×