Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Similar to Case Study: The City of Fort Worth’s Application for SWIFT Funds: Process and Lessons Learned
Similar to Case Study: The City of Fort Worth’s Application for SWIFT Funds: Process and Lessons Learned (20)
More from Texas Living Waters Project
More from Texas Living Waters Project (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Case Study: The City of Fort Worth’s Application for SWIFT Funds: Process and Lessons Learned
- 1. Water Conservation and Efficiency Projects for SWIFT Funding: Fort Worth’s Application Process and Lessons Learned SWIFT Funding Workshop June 23, 2016
- 2. City of Fort Worth consists of approximately 350 square miles Population of 792,727 Fort Worth Water Department provides both retail & wholesale water (31) & wastewater (23) services Total population served (water) Water: 1,169,061 Wastewater: 1,104,433 Background
- 4. Residential programs SmartFlush toilet retrofit CARE (Conservation Assistance and Retrofit Efficiency) program for elderly and low income ICI programs SmartFlush toilet retrofit SmartWater Audit Outdoor programs Smart Irrigation Audits (residential customers) Current Efficiency Initiatives
- 5. Current Efficiency Initiatives • Ordinances Waste of water No more than twice per week watering schedule • Public Education Texas SmartScape e-magazine Chasing Leaks 5k race Public events School programs • Drought Planning
- 6. Water Use Is Trending Downward 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Annual GPCD 216.20 167.32 194.26 172.71 170.10 190.16 168.79 164.74 160.32 5 Year Avg 207.01 199.24 197.18 191.85 184.12 178.91 179.20 173.30 170.82 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 GPCD HISTORIC WATER USE TRENDS
- 7. Current water loss: 17% Total non-revenue water: 24% Increasing/Fluctuating Water Loss
- 8. Implementation of a fixed based Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system to significantly reduce water loss Replacement of older, inaccurate water meters Retrofit remaining water meters Right sizing/typing of large water meters Automatic leak detection system Meter Data Management system District area metering Conservation Project for SWIFT
- 9. Better rate on loans AAA rated debt vs. our AA Additional subsidy Flexibility – ability to split project up in multiple debt issues Large percentage of money set aside for conservation/efficiency projects Why SWIFT?
- 10. Expected revenue increase with AMI, related to conservation/efficiency Significantly reduce apparent water loss (paper losses from meter reading errors and mistakes with data, theft) Increases in additional wastewater billing Reducing real water loss (reducing treatment of real water loss, identifying leaks and breaks more quickly, better understanding of our water balance) Non-revenue related…better data = better decision making Cost Benefit
- 11. Expected revenue increase with AMI, related to operational efficiencies Reduce customer calls Elimination of 3rd party meter reading agreement Reduction in truck roll outs Re-reads/rechecks Fleet costs Meter lock outs Initial and final readings Cost Benefit
- 12. Council project concept approval Project must be in 2012 State Water Plan to be eligible for SWIFT Requested Region C letter of support for project and request that TWDB determine if project would be a minor (or major) amendment to 2011 Region C Plan (and 2012 State Water Plan) Fort Worth submitted proposed amendment material to TWDB (abridged application) Timeline
- 13. TWDB determined it was a minor amendment Region C approval of minor amendment to 2011 Region C Plan TWDB approval of minor amendment to the 2012 State Water Plan SWIFT application process & approval Council final approval and acceptance Timeline
- 14. Fort Worth used a consultant, familiar with the SWIFT application process, to ensure timeliness and accuracy of document submittal. What did they do for us? What did we do on our own? What value did we receive that we could not have received by doing the entire process on our own? Lessons Learned
- 15. Conservation projects need to be in the State Water Plan Calculate, evaluate & communicate Take Aways!
- 16. Conservation delays costly expansion projects 2019 20352028 Twice a week watering 2029 2022 2038 2010 - $87M 2013 - $73M Westside Southwest 2008 - $14M Rolling Hills 16 $20 million annual financing
- 17. 17 Efficient water use defers costly new supply
- 18. Questions?
- 19. Micah Reed Water Conservation Manager City of Fort Worth Water Department micah.reed@fortworthtexas.gov 817-392-8211
Editor's Notes
- Here you see our trends for Gallons Per Capita Per day usage. The blue bars represent the total by year. That number will vary with the weather so we’ve track a rolling 5 year average. That is reflected in the red line. You can see a steady reduction over time as customers become more aware of the importance of conservation and replace aging fixtures. It is important to note the differences in the two most prominent drought years; 2006 and 2011. Although 2011 was the driest single year on record, GPCD was still well below the 2006 level. Est. 2015 gpcd is 152
- Fort Worth estimates that approximately 7,000 acre feet/year will be saved thru this project.
- Additional subsidy is 35%. This equates to a savings of several million dollars. Total was 1.64% vs about 3% for our rates on 15 year debt.
- Rapid reduction of apparent water loss expedites revenue recovery and provides a positive rate impact by 2020. 5 year cumulative revenue increase of $23 million
- The good news is…you won’t have to go thru this if your proposed project is already in the State Water Plan!
- How do we communicate conservation savings?
- The other thing we have to consider is that reduced consumption allows us to delay costly capital projects. CLICK The 2005 Water Master Plan required the expansion or construction of three water plants… with an expanded Westside and Rolling Hills Plan and the construction of a Southwest Water Treatment Plant. Here you see the proposed year of construction and the projected cost. CLICK The annual financing cost of those projects is estimated at $20M for 2014. CLICK As a result of declining per capita consumption, resulting from Conservation efforts we were able to delay those capital projects up to 20 years. That saved $20M from the current rate calculation. CLICK With the add impact of year-round twice per week, we expect to be able to further delay those projects a few more years.
- In addition to the deferred costs for Fort Worth., TRWD benefits financially from conservation efforts. Here you see their cost per 1000 gallons from various future water sources. We talk quite a bit about the cost impact of the Integrated Pipeline project but that pales in comparison to the cost of new reservoirs like Marvin Nichols and Toledo Bend. The district indicates that current conservation strategies and adding twice per week should delay the need for a major water supply project, like Toledo Bend ($2.75 B), for decades