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.

Case Study: The City of Fort Worth’s Application for SWIFT Funds: Process and Lessons Learned

87 views

Published on

Presentation by Micah Reed, Water Conservation Manager for the City of Fort Worth, at the 2016 SWIFT Funding Workshop in Grapevine, Texas.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Case Study: The City of Fort Worth’s Application for SWIFT Funds: Process and Lessons Learned

  1. 1. Water Conservation and Efficiency Projects for SWIFT Funding: Fort Worth’s Application Process and Lessons Learned SWIFT Funding Workshop June 23, 2016
  2. 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
  3. 3.  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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6.  Current water loss: 17%  Total non-revenue water: 24%  Increasing/Fluctuating Water Loss
  7. 7.  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
  8. 8.  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?
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11.  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
  12. 12.  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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14.  Conservation projects need to be in the State Water Plan  Calculate, evaluate & communicate Take Aways!
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 17 Efficient water use defers costly new supply
  17. 17. Questions?
  18. 18. Micah Reed Water Conservation Manager City of Fort Worth Water Department micah.reed@fortworthtexas.gov 817-392-8211

×