Final master plan - wp workshop 5-16-13

1,327 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,327
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Final master plan - wp workshop 5-16-13

  1. 1. Ken Weinberg, Director of Water ResourcesDave Chamberlain, Principal Engineer
  2. 2. Supply/Demand Analysis and Scenario PlanningEvaluation Thresholds and Decision MetricsBaseline System PerformanceStorage Utilization AnalysisNew Supply and Conveyance Options (Long-Term)Recommended Near-Term System ImprovementsProject Costs and Rate ComparisonsCEQA ProcessSelection of Preferred Alternative2
  3. 3.  Demand Uncertainty and Sensitivity Revisit the Role of Storage to OptimizeManagement of Supplies Measuring System Performance Facility Options to Improve SystemPerformance Remaining Work3
  4. 4.  2010 UWMP Implementation and SupplyReliability◦ No Supply/Demand Gaps for Normal Weather Dependent on member agencies achieving conservationand local supply targets◦ Supply/demand gaps occur in dry years Multi-year dry weather with MWD allocation of importedsupplies Compounded with lower levels of local supplydevelopment Continued uncertainty in imported water availability4
  5. 5.  Baseline System Analysis Evaluation Metrics and Thresholds◦ When, how long are facilities operated at maximum?◦ Is there a risk of eroding level ofservice?◦ Are there supply reliability shortages?◦ How much shortage is acceptable risk?◦ What is expected frequency andduration?5
  6. 6. Supply and Demand ScenariosScenario DescriptionBaseline(2010 UWMP)• Supplies and demands per 2010 UWMP• All member agency local supply development - “verifiable”• Conservation targets per SBX7-7 are achieved• Climate change evaluated as a subset of the Baseline ScenarioNo Added LocalSupplies• Current member agency local supplies• Conservation same as 2010 – SBX7-7 not met• Upper boundary for WA supply developmentMaximum LocalSupplies• Higher member agency local supply development - “verifiable” and“planned”• Conservation targets per SBX7-7 are achieved• Lower boundary for WA supply development50% of LocalSupplies• 50% of verifiable member agency local supply development• Conservation savings reach 50% of planned amounts (allows formember agency uncertainty to meet established targets)• Intermediate scenario - compare project timing 6
  7. 7. 86007008009001,0002020 2025 2030 2035TotalDemand(TAF)Baseline Demand without Price EffectBaseline Demand with Price EffectSBX 7-7 Compliance
  8. 8. 542 (actual)647675718754786500600700800201220152020202520302035TotalDemand(TAF)Total Water DemandsActual 2012 Demand Compared to 2010 UWMPNormal Year Baseline Demand Forecast (TAF)2010 UWMPNormal YearForecast9
  9. 9. 3.443.913.333.742.003.004.0020202035Population(millions)Series 12 Series 13Comparison of SANDAG Adopted Series 12 andPreliminary Series 13 Population ProjectionsWater Authority Service Area3% Decrease4% Decrease10
  10. 10. 21 TAF32 TAF-1020304020202035PotableDemandDecrease(TAF)4% DecreaseEstimated Decrease in Total Potable DemandDue to Population Reduction(Derived based on difference between SANDAG Series 12 and 13 PopulationProjections applied to Water Authority 2010 UWMP Potable GPCD Target of 167)3% Decrease11
  11. 11. 542 (actual)647675718754786615641682716747500600700800201220152020202520302035TotalDemand(TAF)Sensitivity Analysis - Total WaterDemand (for comparative purposes)12
  12. 12. 443 (actual)478 (projected)5385575956296605115295655986275515716126466785716407107728295355245595916226066617097524004505005506006507007508008502012201320152020202520302035WaterAuthorityDemand(TAF)2010 UWMP Normal Year Demand Forecast (A) 5% Reduction Sensitivity Scenario2010 UWMP w/ Climate Change (A2) No Added Local (B)Maximum Local (C) 50% of Local (D)Sensitivity Analysis – Demand on theWater AuthorityNo Added Local SupplyDevelopmentMaximum Local SupplyDevelopment13
  13. 13.  Regional and Local Storage has Various Purposes◦ Emergency Storage – manage supply interruptions◦ Carryover Storage – manage short-term supply shortages◦ Seasonal Storage – manage peak conveyance constraints◦ Operational Storage – capture local runoff, provide forebays for WaterTreatment Plants◦ Other – includes recreation, flood protection needs Master Plan Evaluation Included◦ Modeling reservoir operationsbased on Member Agency input◦ Optimizing regional storage forseasonal and carryover operations◦ Evaluating benefits/impacts ofadditional regional storage on newinfrastructure15
  14. 14.  Total Available Capacity:740,000 AF Reservoirs Not Connectedto Aqueduct System:210,000 AF Balance Available forRegional Use: 530,000 AF◦ Includes forebay storage16
  15. 15. 17In-Region Storage CapacityTotal Connected Storage Capacity 530,000 AFUnavailable Dead Pool 17,000 AFEmergency Storage Pools:• Member Agency 175,000 AF• Water Authority 90,000 AFCarryover Storage 100,000 AFBalance for Local Operations, OtherUse148,000 AF
  16. 16.  Local Operations Pool (Local Runoff)◦ First priority supply use, when available Emergency Pool◦ Not available for operations Carryover Pool◦ Available in allocation years◦ Short-term supply for 3 years Seasonal Storage Volumes◦ Water Authority: 40 – 50,000 AF asneeded◦ Member Agency: contribution is part ofnormal operations Modeled 90,000 AF increase inregional storage for carryover andseasonal use0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000RegionalStorageCapacity18Dead PoolEmergency PoolCarryover PoolLocal OperationsPoolNot Connected toAqueducts
  17. 17. 19Local OperationsEssential to capture local surfacerunoff for local supply, manage flow tolocal treatment plantsSeasonal StorageAbility to manage short-term supplyimbalances and conveyance limitationsCarryover Storage Reduces severity of supply shortagesIncreased RegionalStorage• Greater operational flexibility andextends drought protection• Management of short-term (1 or 2years) supply imbalances• Constrained by conveyancelimitations on reservoir puts/takes• Potential supply availabilityconstraints
  18. 18. Determining the Need to Add CapacityWhat are the Warning Signs?Metric Threshold BasisConveyanceUtilization• Exceed 95% of pipelinecapacity for 45 days eachyear and 15 sequential daysduring peak season• Two consecutive yearsConveyance utilizationbelow 95% providesoperational flexibility tomanage daily MA flowrequestsRisk of exceeding Conveyance Utilization threshold:• May not meet daily delivery requests• May draw down emergency or carryover storage pools• May not be able to refill storage pools• No system redundancy21
  19. 19.  Separate evaluations of treated and untreatedwater conveyance systems◦ Increase demand for untreated supplies to meetregion’s expanded treatment plant capacity Treated system has sufficient capacitythrough 2035 planning horizon Untreated system has existing and futurepotential system constraints◦ Evaluate expected magnitude and frequency22
  20. 20. MiramarOtayPerdueLevyAlvaradoTwin Oaks Valley100 MGDEscondido/Vista IDPowayBadgerOlivenhainWeeseUntreated Water Delivery System Conveyance Constraints23Future System CapacityConstraint - Pipelines 3 and 5(beyond 2020)Existing / Future SystemCapacity Constraint – ServingSouth County WTPsCrossover Pipeline to serveWTP (beyond 2025)SV Pump Station(to optimize storage use)
  21. 21. Total Number ofDays During PeakSeasonYear in which 5% or More of Traces IndicateExceeding ThresholdUWMPDemandsMaximumLocal50% ofLocal45 2017 2019 201560 2018 2022 201690 2020 2024 2017120 2024 2027 202124• Untreated conveyance use is less sensitive to selection of thresholdsor demand scenario – Pipelines need to operate at near capacity tomeet summer peak demands• Use of greater frequency (e.g. 25% of traces rather than 5%) movestime of need out by 2-3 years
  22. 22. 255%25%10%Lines represent % of traces (frequency)Urban Water Management Plan Scenario (Expected)45 days60 days90 days120 days50% 75%
  23. 23. 265%25%10%Lines represent % of traces (frequency)Maximum Local Scenario (IPR and Other Local Projects)45 days60 days90 days120 days50%75%
  24. 24. 275%25%10%Lines represent % of traces (frequency)Urban Water Management Plan Scenario (Expected)45 days60 days90 days120 days50%
  25. 25.  Conveyance Risks (untreated water)◦ Conveyance risks increase around 2020◦ Suggested time frame for new infrastructuredevelopment is 2020 to 2023◦ Coordination with member agencies can reduce near–term conveyance risk◦ Existing system bottlenecks should be addressed toimprove operationalreliabilityConveyance Constraint 28Max Fill
  26. 26. Addressing Supply Availabilitythrough Facility ImplementationMetric Threshold BasisDeliveryReliability• Annual supply shortageexceeds 20 TAF• Two consecutive yearsAnnual shortages below 20 TAFmay be mitigated by operationalor management actions. Wouldnot provide basis for newinfrastructure or supplydevelopment.Risk of exceeding Delivery Reliability threshold:• Regional supply shortage (economic impacts)• May draw down emergency storage pools• Member Agencies will bear risk of shortages29
  27. 27. Supply ShortageYear in which 5% or More of Traces IndicateExceeding ThresholdUWMPDemands50% ofLocalNo AddedLocal20,000 AF/Year 2033 2027 202130,000 AF/Year >2035 2028 202140,000 AF/Year >2035 2029 202150,000 AF/Year >2035 2030 202230• Supply shortages are sensitive to demand scenario (no substantial shortagesfor UWMP demands or lower)• Magnitude of shortage is generally driven by supply uncertainty; when supplyis unavailable the uncertainty is larger than the 20 TAF threshold• Use of greater frequency (e.g. 10% or 25% of traces rather than 5%) reducesshortage magnitude
  28. 28. 315%25%10%Lines represent % of traces (frequency)Urban Water Management Plan Scenario (expected)112 years of Hydrology20,000 AF30,000 AF40,000 AF50,000 AF
  29. 29. 325%25%10%Lines represent % of traces (frequency)50%50% of Future Local Supplies Scenario112 years of Hydrology20,000 AF30,000 AF40,000 AF50,000 AF
  30. 30.  Supply Shortage Risks (untreated water)◦ Shortage risk is low through 2025, regardless of demandscenario◦ Beyond 2025, shortage risk strongly depends on demandgrowth, member agency achievement of establishedtargets for conservation, and local supply development◦ Some shortages will be caused by conveyance limitations,but these will likely be short duration and relatively smallin magnitude◦ City of San Diego IPR resolves most long-term supply-demand imbalances33
  31. 31. MiramarOtayPerdueLevyAlvaradoTwin Oaks Valley100 MGDEscondido/Vista IDPowayBadgerOlivenhainWeeseUntreated Water Delivery System Conveyance Constraints35Capacity Constraint -Pipeline 3-4 Conversion,North County ESP PumpStation, Regulatory StorageExisting System CapacityConstraint –Pipeline 3 and 4 IntertieCrossover Pipeline(low probability; beyond2025)SV Pump Station(to optimize storage use)Third Pump to increase flowFuture System CapacityConstraint –Mission Trails Suite of Projects
  32. 32. Project Purpose Estimated CostNew 30 Inch South CountyInter-tieAlleviate conveyance bottlenecksouth of Alvarado$6,000,000Pipeline 3/4 ConversionAddress untreated water conveyanceconstraint at MWD delivery point$220,000,000North County ESP PumpStationMeet ESP delivery needs $21,563,000Construct as DefinedProject Purpose Estimated CostMission Trails Suite ofprojectsIncrease untreated waterconveyance to serve South CountyWTPs$63,917,000Regulatory StorageProvide operational storage forincreased deliveries$55,650,000Third VFD San Vicente PS Meet ESP, Carryover Storage needs $8,044,000Revise Scope, Size and Timing
  33. 33. Project Purpose Estimated CostPipeline 6Address untreated water deliveryconstraint at MWD delivery point$480,000,000Second CrossoverPipelineAddress untreated water deliveryconstraint s/o Twin Oaks$371,041,000Delay Beyond 2030
  34. 34.  Continue to meet with Member Agency TAC◦ Review cost and technical data◦ Comments and input on selecting a preferred alternative Comprehensive evaluation of proposed projects andmodifications to current CIP◦ Integrating long-term supply options into analysis◦ Project cost estimates and comparison to future imported water costs◦ Status of “Deferred Projects”◦ Analysis of reliability improvements Decision matrix on project timing◦ Dependency on Member Agency actions◦ No regrets actions◦ Timing of future Water Authority Board decisions39
  35. 35. Date DescriptionMay 23, 2013 Water Planning Committee Meeting - Report on May 16th Workshopaction itemsJune 2013 Member Agency Technical Advisory Committee MeetingJune 27, 2013 Water Planning Committee Meeting - Discuss comprehensive evaluationof all alternativesJuly 2013 Member Agency Technical Advisory Committee MeetingJuly 2013 Special Meeting of the Water Planning Committee – Review draftMaster Plan document, project costs, and rate impactsJuly 25, 2013 Water Planning Committee – Board input for final preparation of thedraft Master Plan, CAP, and PEIR for public reviewAugust 2013 Water Planning Committee – Obtain Committee approval of “StaffRecommended Alternative.”September 2013 Public Release of the Draft Program EIR, CAP and Draft Master Plan forthe 45-day review period.February 2014 Regular Board Meeting - Certification of Final PEIR and approval of FinalMaster Plan and CAP. 40

×