Play video — original link
Play video
All documents
Citizen Communications - Beki Halpin — original pdf
Backup
Citizen Communications - Beyond Coal Campaign — original pdf
Backup
Citizen Communications - Paul Robbins — original pdf
Backup
Citizen Communications - Richard Halpin — original pdf
Backup
Citizen Communications - Susan Lippman — original pdf
July 10, 2014 TO: The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force FROM: Susan Lippman RE: Proposed changes to the Equity section of the Task Force’s July 7 draft Report I thank the Task Force for your hard work and the meaningful goals expressed in the report. I have spoken about the concern that if the low- and moderate-income goal, at the 10% of Demand Savings level, were immediately and literally implemented, and the demand side budget was viewed as a zero-sum source, the goal could drain substantial resources from the other programs. But I have no objection, in fact I approve, of the expansion of the weatherization program in a way that doesn’t inadvertently carve out, or hollow out, the demand response budget. These are my thoughts: Weatherization has important benefits in addition to demand savings: (1) economic development, (2) potential workforce development, and (3) health and safety (I can only anticipate, with global warming, that extreme heat waves will occur in Austin. Europe lost 70 thousand lives in the heat wave of 2003. Our underserved population is vulnerable, and I think those most vulnerable--e.g., elderly, children -- should be prioritized.) I think that when you have enormous economic and workforce development and health protection potentials, you shouldn’t expect your utility company to shoulder all of that by themselves. So it is appropriate seek greater support from Council. I’m fine with expansion of free weatherization, but not at the significant expense of other programs in AE. We should both prepare and prevent: Prepare for the already baked-in (sorry) effects of climate change, and try to prevent, or ameliorate, with effective energy efficiency programs, and carbon pollution reduction. I suggest the following revisions: To the recommendation: The Energy Efficiency Goal for saving energy in the underserved customer population should be increased to 2% to 10% of the Current Demand Reduction Goal. City Council should work with a Consumer Commission and Austin Energy toward accomplishment of the 10% goal. To the narrative: By 2020, Austin Energy and the City of Austin should • Increase low-and low-moderate income weatherization to meet 2% to 10% of its energy efficiency demand reduction goal through these programs, without diminishing the energy savings progress of other demand response programs.” … • Create a consumer commission to make recommendations to City Council and Austin Energy regarding development, funding, and design of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for …
Citizen Communications - Texas Legal Services Center — original pdf
Backup
Draft Report & Recommendations as of July 21, 2014 — original pdf
THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of 14 meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. DRAFT AS OF JULY 21, 2014 2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 The Task Force has received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report on the three pillars of Sustainability, on the …
FINAL REPORT (minor corrections made in August 2014) — original pdf
2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 3 THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of 14 meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. 4 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 The Task Force has received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report …
Items 2 and 3 - Updated Draft Report and Recommendations as of July 7, 2014 — original pdf
THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Resource Generation Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate City Council Resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force itself to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of a dozen meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. DRAFT AS OF JULY 7, 2014 2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 We have received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report on the three pillars of Sustainability, on …
REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS - July 31, 2014 — original pdf
2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 3 THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of 14 meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. 4 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 The Task Force has received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report …
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting by calling (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2, 2014 2:30 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, ROOM 1101 (BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM) 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – July 2, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the June 23, 2014 meeting CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications ADJOURNMENT
Play video — original link
Play video
Item 2 - Draft Task Force Report as of 070314 — original pdf
THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Resource Generation Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate City Council Resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force itself to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of a dozen meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. 2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 We have received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report on the three pillars of Sustainability, on the things we think we know, …
Agenda — original pdf
Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force June 25, 2014 – 10:00 a.m. Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 East 10th Street Austin, Texas For more information go to: Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force AGENDA Sharlene Leurig, Chair Tom Mason, Vice Chair Kris Bailey Christianne Castleberry Luke Metzger Marisa Perales Paul Robbins Lauren Ross Stefan Schuster Brian Smith Jennifer Walker A. CALL TO ORDER – June 25, 2014, 10:00 a.m. B. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda, but related to the charge of the task force, with up to 3 citizens donating their time to one individual. Citizens donating their time must be in the room at the time the speaker is at the podium and must have been in the first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order. C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of the meeting minutes from the June 19, 2014 Task Force meeting D. VOTING ITEMS FROM TASK FORCE 1. Consider and approve recommendations and wording for report to City Council on water resources 2. Approve Final Report and Recommendations to City Council Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force Regular Meeting June 25, 2014 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 4 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Felicia Cancino at the Austin Water Utility Department at 512-972-0114, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711 Page 2 of 2 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE’S REVIEW 1. Discussion of Task Force and Working Group Goals including discussion of prioritizing short term supply side and demand side drought response options and recommendations F. STAFF BRIEFINGS, PRESENTATIONS, AND OR REPORTS 1. As needed, staff briefing on any Task Force requests related to prioritizing options or Task Force development of recommendations G. REPORTS BY TASK FORCE 1. Working Group Updates 1) Evaluate City’s Water Needs 2) Examine Future Water Sources 3) Evaluate Potential Water Management Scenarios H. NON VOTING DISCUSSION ITEMS None I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS J. ADJOURN
Final Recommendation Report — original pdf
MEMORANDUMTo:MayorandCouncilFrom:GregMeszaros,Director,AustinWaterDate:July10,2014Subject:AustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForceRecommendations,RevisedReportAttachedisarevisedreportfromtheAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce.ThereportisthesameastheonethatwasdistributedtoyouearlierthisweekexceptfortheadditionofthepageinbetweenthecoverpageandtableofcontentsthatincludesthelistoftheTaskForcemembers.cc:MarcA.Ott,CityManagerRobertGoode,P.E.,AssistantCityManagerAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce AustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForceReporttoCityCouncilJuly2014(CouncilResolutionNo.20140410-033) AUSTINWATERRESOURCEPLANNINGTASKFORCEMemberAppointedlElectedByStefanSchusterMayorLeffingwellPaulRobbinsMayorProTernColeLaurenRossCouncilMemberMorrisonSharleneLeurig—ChairCouncilMemberRileyJenniferWalkerCouncilMemberTovoTomMason—ViceChairCouncilMemberSpelmanMarisaPeralesCouncilMemberMartinezBrianSmithEnvironmentalBoardLukeMetzgerResourceManagementCommissionKrisBaileyJointCommitteeonAWUFinancialPlanChristianneCastleberryWaterandWastewaterCommission TABLEOFCONTENTSPageEXECUTIVESUMMARY2CHAPTERI—INTRODUCTION3CHAPTERII—GUIDINGPRINCIPLESFORAUSTIN’SWATERCHOICES4CHAPTERIII—AUSTIN’SWATERNEEDS5CHAPTERIV—KEYRECOMMENDATIONS7SECTION1.0IntegratedWaterResourcePlanandIndependentConservationAssessment8Subsection1.1BasicGoals8Subsection1.2AdditionalFocus10SECTION2.0—WaterConservationandSupplyProjectEvaluationMatrix11SECTION3.0—WaterConservationandSupplyRecommendations13Subsection3.1Short-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategies13Subsection3.1.1ProactiveImplementationonDroughtResponseStages13Subsection3.1.2PriorityWaterConservationMeasures13Subsection3.1.3Mid-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategies14Subsection3.2Short-andMid-TermWaterSupplyStrategies15Subsection3.2.1Short-TermStrategies15Subsection3.2.2Mid-TermStrategies15SECTION4.0Funding16CHAPTERV—RECOMMENDEDSTRATEGIESFORSTUDY16CHAPTERVI—CODESANDORDINANCES17CHAPTERVII—DEVELOPINGACULTUREOFWATERSTEWARDSHIPINNOVATION18SECTION1.0—BecomingtheMostWater-EfficientCommunityinTexas18SECTION2.0—LeadingaNewEraofRegionalCooperation19SECTION3.0—TappingintotheCityscapeasaWaterSupplySource20APPENDIXAppendixA—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-DemandAppendixB—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-SupplyAppendixC—WaterSupplyProjectDescriptionsAppendixD—Definitions—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteriaAppendixE—RecommendedScoringSystem-COADroughtResponseDecisionMatrixAppendixF—ModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesRichardHoffpauir,Ph.D.,P.E.—June25,2014AppendixG—LakeAustinDrawdownSummaryAppendixH—WaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesAppendixI—AustinWaterNeedsEstimatesLaurenRoss,Ph.D.,P.E. EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisreportbytheAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForcerecommendsimmediateactionsthatshouldbetakenbytheCityofAustintomitigatetheimpactofourongoingdroughtandtocatalyzeinvestmentinawater-resilientandwater-efficienteconomy.TheTaskForcerecommendsthattheCityofAustinfirstinvestinprotectingandoptimizingwaterfromtheColoradoRiverunderitsexistingcontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthority.SpecificrecommendationsonpriorityeffortstoincreasewaterconservationandtooptimizeourexistingcontractwaterareofferedinSection3.0.TheTaskForcerecommendsthattheCityCouncilandAustinWaterUtilityfocusonlocalopportunitiestoenhanceAustin’swatersupplies.Theseincludeoptionsthatpreviouslyhavenotbeenconsideredatscale,suchascommercial/industrialwaterreuseandrainwatercaptureandinfiltration.Implementationofthesewatermanagementstrategiesmaybeachievedthroughrevisionstoexistingcodesandordinances,suchastheWatershedProtectionOrdinance.Italsomeansrenewingourcommitmenttowaterreuseforourdistributedwatersystem.Asafast-growingcitydependentonwatersuppliesthataresusceptibletodrought,itisprudentforAustinWatertoconsideroptionsforimprovingthereliabilityofourwatersupplies.TheevaluationofoptionsshouldbeundertakenaspartofanIntegratedWaterResourcePlanthatconsiderstherateimpactsofAustinWatercustomersandthepoliticalriskofprojectsthatcouldaffectAustin’srelationshipwithitsneighbors.ProjectsbeyondourexistingLCRAcontractshouldbeconsideredaspartofatransparentandcompetitiveprocesswithpublicinput.InvestmentsintheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanandrecommendationsinSubsections3.1and3.2shouldbeaccountedforintheFY15budget.Thesestepscannotbedelayed.Page2of2l I.INTRODUCTIONAustin’songoingdroughtisareminderofthesusceptibilityofoursolewatersource,theColoradoRiver’sHighlandLakes,toprolongeddrought.Weknowourregionislikelytoenduremoredroughtsinthefuture,andtobecomedrierovertime,bringinglessinflowtotheHighlandLakesfromlocalprecipitationandtributaryriversfromWestTexas.Wealsoknowthathighertemperaturesarelikelytocausegreaterevaporationfromourlakes,makingthemalessdependabletoolforwaterstorage.Austinisgrowingrapidly,andourregionisexpectedtodoubleinpopulationinthenext25years.Recognizingtheabove,theHighlandLakeswillremaintheCityofAustin’sprimarywatersupply.TheCitymustcontinuetoprotectandstewardbothourseniorwaterrightsintheColoradoandourcontractedfirmyieldwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthority.AnimportantelementofmaintainingareliableHighlandLakeswatersupplyisreducingdemandsduringalllakestages,notjustduringdrought.Weneedtoseizeuponthisopportunitytohastentheongoingculturalshiftinhowweuseandprovidewater.ThisisnecessarysothatAustincanretainitseconomiccompetitivenessandqualityoflifeandachieveitswateraffordabilityandsustainabilitygoals.Recentwaterusedatashowsthatbothresidentsandbusinessesarewillingandabletoembraceamorewater-efficientwayoflife.ThisreportistheTaskForce’srecommendationonimmediateactionsthatshouldbetakenbyAustinWaterUtilityandtheCityCounciltomitigatethewatersupplyimpactfromtheongoingdroughtandtocatalyzeinvestmentinawater-resilientandwater-efficienteconomy.TheTaskForceemphasizesthattheKeyRecommendationsofferedinChapterIVofthisreportshouldbeincorporatedintotheFY15budget.Therecommendednear-termstrategiesinthisreportareaneffectiveandappropriateresponsetotheexistingdroughtconditions.Thepresentdroughtishydrologicallyunprecedented,however,andweunderstandthattheCitymustplanforandanticipateafutureinwhichdroughtpersistsandevenintensifies.Shouldthisoccur,theCityofAustinmayneedtoinvestinadditionalwatersuppliesorstoragebeyondtherangeofeitherthecurrentorrecommendedstrategiesfordemandreductionandsupplyaugmentation.DuringtimesofcrisisAustinmaybeforcedtoexecutewaterdemandreductionandalternativesupplyoptionsthatmightnototherwisebeconsistentwithcommunityvalues.Forthesereasons,wehaveofferedadecisionmatrixforusebyAustin’sleadershiptoevaluatenewsupplyandstorageoptions.WealsooffertoCityCouncilourviewonprinciplesthatshouldguideourcommunity’sdecisionsinhowwemanageandsecurewaterforthefuture.Page3of21 II.GuidingPrinciplesforAustin’sWaterChoicesBasedonpublictestimonypresentedatourmeetingsandourowncollectivedecadesofexperienceinwaterresourcesmanagementandplanning,theAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForcerecommendsthefollowingprinciplestoguideourcommunity’swatermanagementdecisions:•WatertomeetbasichumanneedsmustbeaffordableforeveryAustinresident.•Watertomeettheneedsofhomes,businesses,andindustrymustbereliablysourced.•Watersuppliesshouldbelocallysourced,andwateruseshouldreflectthelocallyavailablesupply.LocalizedwatersupplyprojectstosupplementAustin’sHighlandLakes,suchasAquiferStorageandRecoveryandbrackishwaterdesalination,shouldbeevaluatedandprioritized,beforewaterfromotherareasisimported.•Savingwater,orreducingdemand,iswidelyrecognizedasthemostreliable,affordable,andsustainablewaytomeetwaterdemands.Buildingawater-efficienteconomyshouldtakepriorityoverdevelopingsuppliesthatcanbeexpensive,capitalandenergy-intensive,andenvironmentallyharmful.Conservationandre-useshouldbeahigherprioritytomeetAustin’swaterdemandsthaninvestinginnewwatersuppliesfromareasoutsideofAustin.•WatermanagementstrategiesshouldfurtherAustin’sgoalofdevelopinganewcultureofwaterstewardship,reducingpercapitapotablewateruse,andencouragingreuseandefficiency.•Indevelopingthisnewcultureofwaterstewardship,broadparticipationandsocialequityareessential.•Watermanagementstrategiesmustbeenvironmentallysustainableandcost-effective.•Severalwaterdemandmanagementstrategiesmustbeimplementedtoachievethemosteffectiveresults,includingaggressivewaterconservationandproactiveimplementationofAustin’sDroughtContingencyPlanbeforeemergencyconditionsdevelop.•TheCitymustinvestindemand-managementstrategies,inadditiontosupplyaugmentationstrategies,toeffectivelyachieveasignificantreductioninwaterdemand.Page4of21 •Cityeffortstodiversifywatersupplysourcesshouldnotcomeattheexpenseofaffordability,sustainability,andCityenvironmentalprotectiongoals.•WatermanagementstrategiesmustbeconsistentwiththeImagineAustinComprehensivePlan,particularlythegoalofsustainablymanagingourwaterresources,directingdevelopmentawayfromtheBartonSpringsEdwardsAquiferwatershed,andbuildinganeconomythatiswaterandenergyefficientandreducesgreenhousegasemissions.•TheCitymustactincoordinationwithandtakeintoaccounttheconcernsofneighboringcommunitieswhenconsideringwatermanagementstrategiesthatmayimpacttheirwaterresources.•TheCitymustactinconcertwithLCRAandotherstakeholderstoassureanLCRAwatermanagementplanthataccuratelyreflectsbestestimatesoffuturehydrologyinwatershedscontributingtoColoradoRiverflowsandthefirmyieldoftheHighlandLakeswatersupply.•Austinmustconsiderthelinkedimplicationsofincreasedwaterdemandsandenergy-intensivesupplyoptionsalongwithelectricalproductionmanagement,particularlyduringdroughtconditions.•Ourwatersupplyoptionsmustconsiderimpactstothenaturalenvironment,Austin’surbanforestcanopy,spring,creek,andriverflows,andthemyriadhumanandnonhumanlivesthatdependuponthem.•Austinvaluesitsresidentialandurbangardensandfarms,andthefoodsecurityandindependencethattheyrepresent.Forthewidestpossiblerangeofdroughtconditions,watertoirrigatelocally-producedfoodshouldcontinuetobemadeavailable.•AustinWaterUtility’shistoricalbusinessandfinancingmodelbasedonrevenuefromwatercommoditysalesbiasesdecisionsinfavorofsupplyoptionstothedetrimentofdemandmanagement.Thevision,inspiration,andmanagementofAustin’swaterdemandstrategymustcomefromoutsidethesehistoricalcommodity-basedbusinessandfinancialframes.III.Austin’sWaterNeedsAustinWaterUtilitydemandforecastinghashistoricallybeenlinkedtotheutilitybusinessmodel.Utilityforecastshavefocusedonindoorandoutdoorwaterusebycustomerclassasabasisforpredictingrevenueandforsizinginfrastructuretoaccommodatedemandpeaks.Page5of21 Theutility’swaterconservationgoalshavebeenlumpedintoasinglevalueof140gallonsperpersonperday.Thisoneconservationgoalencompasseswaterdemandconsequencesfromdecisionsaswide-rangingascoolingtowerinfrastructure,theefficienciesofcomputerchipmanufacturing,andwhetherthereismulchonourgardens,backyardsarecontouredtocatchrainrunoff,andwefixleakytoiletflappervalves.Itfailstodistinguishbetweenaspirationalgoalsandactualwaterneeds.AsAustinmanagesboththecurrentdroughtandanuncertainwaterfuture,weneedamorespecificanduse-disaggregatedmodelfordefiningandpredictingcommunitywaterneeds.Likeaspeedometerinacar,weneedawaterdashboardthatprovidesinformationspecifictoourvariedwaterusedecisions—onethatgivesusinformationfromwhichstrategicchoicescanbemadetotargetdemandmanagement,measurestheconsequencesofdemandmanagementandsupplydecisions,andevaluatesourperformanceagainstcommunitysustainabilitystandards.TheWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce,comprisedofcommunityvolunteers,hadneitherthetimenorresourcestodevelopthewaterdemandmodelthatwebelieveAustindeserves.Wedid,however,segmentwaterusedataprovidedbyAustinWaterUtilityandwherepossiblecomparethesegmenteddatatoefficiencystandards.Ourevaluationofwaterneedsdemonstratesanuntappedpotentialtosetspecificandmeaningfulcommunitygoalsforwaterdemandmanagement.DataprovidedbyAustinWaterUtilityforouranalysisispresentedinAppendixH.Adescriptionofourevaluation,itsresults,anditslimitationsispresentedinAppendixI.Afewofthekeyconclusionsofouranalysisarethese:•Residentialindoorwateruseisthesinglehighestwaterusecategory.AverageSingle-FamilyandMultifamilyResidentialcustomeruseinFiscalYear2013rangedfrom58to54gallonsperpersonperday.Thisamountishighcomparedto45.2gallonsperpersonperdayforefficienthomes.1Thepotentialwatersavings,ifeverycustomerhouseholdinAustinachievedthiswaterefficiencystandard,wouldbe11,300acre-feetperyear.•SinglefamilyresidentialoutdoorwaterusewasthesecondhighestwaterusecategoryinFiscalYear2011,andthefourthhighestinFiscalYear2013.Year2013wasrainierthan2011.Theaverageamountofoutdoorwaterforsingle-familyresidentialusewas50gallonsperpersonperdayforFiscalYear2011and25gallonsperpersonperdayinFiscalYear2013.Multi-familyoutdoorwaterusewas47and28gallonsperpersonperdayforthesameperiods.Singlefamilyandmulti-familyresidentialoutdoorwateruseappearstoberesponsivetorainfallamounts.•TherewasnodataavailabletothetaskforcefromwhichtocalculateestimatedneedsforindoorcommercialuseorusebyAustinWaterUtility’ssixlargecustomers.2The1AmericanWaterWorksAssociation,http://www.drinktap.org/home/water-information/conservation/water-usestatistics.aspx,accessedJune14,2014.2Samsung,Freescale,UniversityofTexas,Spansion,Hospira,andNovati.Page6of21 proposedIntegratedWaterPlanwouldfillthisgapinAustin’sabilitytoestablishawaterneedbudget.•NotalloftheCityofAustinwaterdemandsarereflectedinAustinWaterUtilitydata.AdditionalsignificantwaterdemandsnotreflectedintheutilitydataincludewaterforelectricalgenerationbyAustinEnergyandparklandirrigationusingdirectlakewithdrawals.AcompletewaterdemandpictureandfuturewaterroadmapfortheCitymustincludeallwateruses.NoonepersonorentitywillorcancontroleveryAustinwaterdemanddecision.AsecureandsustainablewaterfutureforAustindependsonbuildingacommunityvisionofwhatispossibleintherealmofdemandreductionsandwhatitwouldtaketoachievethat.Adisaggregatedwaterdemandmodelprovidesimportantinformationonwherethebiggestpotentialsforwaterconservationlie,allowsustosetmoremeaningfuldemandmanagementgoals,andprovidesabetterbenchmarkagainstwhichtocompareourwateruse.WerecommendthattheAustinWaterUtilitycreateacomprehensiveprojectedwaterdemandmodelbasedondisaggregatedusesandregularlyupdatedtoreflectadvancesinwaterefficiencyandconservationtechnologyandtocaptureotherfactorsthatweknowaffectwaterusage,includinglanduse(i.e.,density),waterpricing,andclimatetrends.IV.KeyRecommendationsTheTaskForcestronglyrecommendsthatAustinexploreadifferentapproachbeyondthecurrentutilitymodel.•WeencouragetheCityCouncil,AWU,andthecommunitytoembracenewdecentralized3modelsinadditiontotraditionalcentralizedmodels.•WeencouragetheCityCouncil,AWU,andbusinessandresidentstoexploreoptionsthatmaynothavebeenattractive25yearsagobasedoncost,wateravailability,andotherissues.•Theutilityneedstolookinwardandcriticallyassessinternalprocessesanditsabilitytorespondtochangingwatersupplyconditionsandtoimplementwatersupplystrategies.•Implementarisk-basedrenewalplanningapproachtofutureutilityneeds.Highriskassetsshouldbeaddressedfirst.•AustinWaterUtilityneedstoplaceapriorityondevelopingpartnershipswiththecommunity,withothercitydepartments,andwithotherentitiesinourregionthatshareourgoals.Refertopage10ofthisReportforadescriptionof“decentralization.”Page7of21 •DiversifyingsourcesandinvestingindeepwaterconservationwillrequirethatAustinWaterUtilitycontinuetoexamineitsratestructureandbalancerevenuereliabilitywithvolumetricratesthatstronglydiscouragewaterwaste.1.0IntegratedWaterResourcePlanandIndependentConservationAssessmentTheCityofAustinandAustinWaterUtilitymustdeveloparealisticIntegratedWaterResourcePlansimilartoLCRAWaterManagementPlanandAustinEnergyIntegratedResourcePlan.ThisplanshouldbebudgetedfortheFY15cycle.1.1BasicGoals•AnIntegratedWaterResourcePlanwillassistinidentifyingandfacilitatingopportunitiesforregionalpartnerships,technologycostsharing,balancedregionalwaterreliability,andimproveddroughtpreparedness.•Austinisnowthe11thlargestcityintheUnitedStates.ForacityofthissizenottohaveanIntegratedWaterResourcePlanisanunacceptablesourceofrisktoourlong-termeconomicsecurityandourqualityoflife.•Indevelopingthisplan,Austinshouldevaluatetheimpactofvariouswatersupplyandclimatescenariostoensuresustainabilityofwatersupplyandtoassesstherangeofoutcomesthatweshouldbepreparedtoaddress.•Multi-departmentalandcommunityinputindevelopinganIntegratedWaterResourcePlanisessential.oAustinEnergyshouldparticipateindevelopingandimplementingtheplan,openingupmuch-neededcollaborationontheenergydemandsofourwatersystemandthewaterdemandsofourelectricgrid.oWatershedProtectionshouldbeinvolvedindevelopingandimplementingtheplan.Theirexpertiseintheimportanceofmaintainingminimumflows,achievingthehighestqualityofnaturalwatersintheurbanenvironment,protectingnaturalhabitats,andthepotentialforrainwaterandstormrunofftosupplementpotablewatersuppliesarekeytoasecurewaterfuture.oTheOfficeofSustainabilityshouldalsobeinvolvedinthisplanandhelptochampioninterdepartmentalsolutions.•Demand-sideoptions(i.e.,waterconservation)mustbeincludedintheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanandbeplacedonparwithsupplyaugmentationoptions.Assuch:oThePlanshouldincludeademandforecastthatgoesbeyondextrapolatinghistoricwateruseorasimpleassumptionof140gpcdtoactuallyreflectthepossibleeffectsofpopulationgrowth,climatechange,landusechangesandwaterpricingondemandforecasts.ThisiscriticaltoensurethatAustinWaterPage8of21 doesnotoverbuildassetstosatisfywaterdemandthatisnotsupportedwithevidence.ThisTaskForcerecommendsusingthe“UrbanWaterDemandinCaliforniato2100:IncorporatingClimateChange”opensourcetoolmadebythePacificInstituteasamodelfordemandforecasting.oTheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeanAustinwaterneedsbudgetdisaggregatedbycustomerclassesandindoorandoutdooruse.Adisaggregatedwaterdemandmodelprovidesimportantinformationonwherethebiggestpotentialsforwaterconservationlie,allowstheCityCouncil,AWU,andthecommunitytosetmoremeaningfuldemandmanagementgoals,andprovidesabetterbenchmarkagainstwhichtocompareourwateruse.oTheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeanindependentanalysisofthepotentialwatersupplybenefitsofimplementedandnon-implementedconservationprograms.ThisConservationPotentialAssessmentshouldincludeacost-benefitanalysisofindividualconservationprogramsandwouldideallypresentacostcurveofwaterconservationprogramoptionstoguidedecision-makingonprograminvestment.TheConservationPotentialAssessmentshouldassesswhereuntappedopportunitiestoachievewatersavingsstillexisttohelpprioritizeconservationspendingbyAustinWaterUtility.TheConservationPotentialAssessmentcreatedforCascadeWaterAlliancemaybeamodelforthisanalysis.•Austin’swaterratesarelikelytobeaffectedbythestepswetaketoensurewaterreliability,whethertheseactionsaretoconserveourwater(reducingvolumetricsales)ortoincreasesupply(especiallynewcapitalassets).TheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeacomparisonoftherateimpactsofselectedstrategies.SanAntonioWaterSystem’sIntegratedWaterResourcesPlanshouldserveasamodelforthisanalysis.•Theplanshouldconsiderallwaterthatthecityisusingandnotjustwaterthatis“run”throughtheutility.•Meaningfulpublicparticipationinwatersupplystrategiesisparamounttocreatinganewwaterparadigmtomeetfuturewatersupplychallenges.ThiswillenableAustinresidentsandAWUcustomerstobecomeeducatedandengagedregardingourwatersupplychallengesandtobepartnersinsolutions.•WorkonthisPlanshouldbeginimmediately,guidedbythisreporttoAustinCityCouncil,andshouldbebudgetedintheFY15cycle.Availableathttp://pacinst.org/publication/urban-water-demand-to-2100/.Page9of21 1.2AdditionalFocus•Decentralization:Thedecentralizedconceptistheideathatstormwaterandwastewateraremosteffectivelyandefficientlymanagedbytreatingit—andreusingit—asclosetowhereitisgeneratedaspractical.Infrastructurefailureandvulnerabilitiesareminimizedwhilewaterresourceutilizationismaximizedonalocalandhighlyintegratedlevel.Theoverallsystembecomesmorereliableandadaptabletoavarietyoffuturedevelopmentscenarios.DecentralizedstormwaterorwastewatertreatmentinfrastructurecanbepartofAustinWaterUtility’scapitalportfolio.ItcanalsobedevelopedeconomicallybyinstitutionsandprivatedevelopersatacompetitivecostofservicetowhatAWUoffers,amodelthatfreesupAustinWater’scapitaltomeetotherneeds•Watersharingwithagriculture:Austin’swholesalewaterprovider,theLowerColoradoRiverAuthority,provideswatertomanydifferentsectors,includingmunicipaluserslikeAustinandagriculturalwaterusers.Intheearlyyearsoftheongoingdrought,mostofthewaterdeliveredfromtheHighlandLakeswasdeliveredforagriculturalwateruse.AlthoughthepresentconditionoftheHighlandLakeshasresultedininterruptionofwaterdeliveriesformanyagriculturaluserscontractedwithLCRA,theremaybeopportunitiestogainmunicipalsupplythroughvoluntarycooperationwithagriculturalwateruserswithfirmcontracts.ThemostseniorrightontheColoradoRiverisheldbytheGarwoodIrrigationDistrict,whichusesthemajorityofitsrightsforagriculturalpurposes.TheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldexaminethepotentialcostandwatersupplybenefitofvoluntarywatersharingwithGarwoodandotheragriculturaluserswithfirmrights.ThereisprecedentforsucharrangementsinSouthernCalifornia,whereSanDiegoCountyWaterAuthorityanditswholesaleprovider,MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthernCalifornia,gainedsubstantiallong-termwaterdeliveriesbyfinancingconservationeffortsbyagriculturaluserswithseniorwaterrightstotheColoradoRiver.•Codesandordinances:Codeandregulatoryimpedimentsliketheprohibitiononrainwateruseforpotablesupplywithin100feetofcentralizedwaterserviceshouldbecarefullyexaminedinlightofhistoricalandscientifically-basedriskdata.Graywaterandrainwateruseshouldbeallowed,supported,andencouragedinallsituationsforwhichanyhealthrisksarenomorethanotherwidely-allowedactivities.Regulatorydecisionsshouldbeindependentofanyconcernregardingtheconsequencesofmorewidely-availablewateralternativesontheUtility’sincome.•Diversificationofsupplysources:Reliabilityofwatersupplycanbeimprovedbydiversifyingsupplysources,afterwefirstassurethatexistingsuppliesareprotectedandusedefficiently.Newsuppliesthatarelocaland,whereappropriate,decentralized,arepreferredoverremotesourcesthatrequireenergyandcost-intensivepumpingandlargeupfrontcapitalcosts.Page10of21 •Developandfosterregionalcooperationtobuildareliableandwater-efficienteconomyforourregion,inpartnershipwithentitieswhoshareourgoalsofsustainability.•Focusonmultiplecyclereuseofexistingwatersupplies.Thelowestcostwateristhatwhichisalreadyunderourcontrol.•Waterdemandshouldbeaddressedbyrealisticallyassessingwaterneedsversuswants.•AustinWaterUtilityshouldmitigatetheratepayerimpactsofinvestinginnewsupplyoptionsbyadoptingacapitalplanningapproachthatattemptstodiscoverrevenue-positiveorrevenue-neutralopportunitiesthroughoutitsassetportfolio.Designingwastewatertreatmentfacilitiestocapture(andmonetize,wherepossible)thewastewaterenergyandnutrientloadisonewayofdiscoveringthisratepayerbenefit.Progressiveutilitiesaroundthecountry,includingSanAntonioWaterSystem,AlexandriaRenewEnterprisesandEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrictalreadygenerateenergyorsellnaturalgasfromtheirwastewaterfacilities.•AustinWaterUtilitycanalsomitigateratepayerimpactsbyencouragingtheuseofprivatecapitaltofinancedecentralizedinfrastructurethroughoutthecity.GivenAustin’sextraordinarygrowthandthescaleofnewdevelopmentandredevelopmentcitywide,thereisvastuntappedpotentialtoprovidewatersolutionsthatdonotimplicatethebalancesheetofAustinWater,whichisalreadychallengedbynecessaryeffortsatwaterconservationandessentialcapitalinvestments.InNewYorkCityandSanFrancisco,privatelanddevelopershavedemonstratedtheeconomicopportunityofdevelopingparcel-scalestormwaterandwastewaterreuseprojects.Theseprojectsprovidewastewatertreatmentandnon-potablewateratacostof$11—$15per1,000gallons,makingitcompetitivewithAustin’scombinedwaterandwastewaterrates.Betterstill,theseprojectscanbedesignedtobenetenergyneutral,usingtheheatfromonsitewastewatertreatmenttoprovidehotandchilledwaterloopsthatcanoffsettheenergyneedsofthebuilding.Theeconomiccompetitivenessoftheseprojectsscaleswithsize,butwiththesmallesteconomicprojectpeggedat300,000sq-ft,therearemanyopportunitieswithinourgrowingcity.OneexampleofsuchaprojectistheNewSchoolinNewYorkCity.52.0WaterConservationandSupplyProjectEvaluationMatrixTheTaskForcedevelopedamatrixthatwerecommendbeusedtoevaluatedifferentpotentialwatersupplyprojects.ThismatrixincludesevaluationcriteriathatwebelievereflectsAustin’svaluesandrangesfromcosttosocialimpacts.Weencouragethecitycounciltodirecttheutilitytousethisorasubstantiallysimilarapproachtoevaluatepossiblewatersupplyprojects.Wehaveprovideddefinitionsofthewatersupplyprojectevaluationcriteriaandscoringcriteriainordertobeclearabouttheaspectsthatwefeelareimportanttoconsiderwhenevaluatingwatersupply.CoststatisticsfromEdClerico,NaturalSystemsUtilities,whichdesignedtheNewSchoolwastewaterproject.Page11of21 Despitetheimportancethiscommunityplacesonsustainabilityandwaterefficiency,dataprovidedbytheAustinWaterUtilityonthedemandmanagementandsupplywateryieldandcostsfavorsupplysideoptionsoverdemandmanagement.Potentialdemandmanagementyieldshavebeenunderestimated.Whilethepotentialdemandmanagementoptionyieldshavebeenunderestimated,costsfordemandsidemanagementoptionsweresystematicallyoverestimated.Althoughsupplyoptionswerecapitalizedover30years,demandmanagementcostswereinitiallybasedonallcostsoccurringduringthefirstimplementationyear.Theutilitymadesomeadjustments,buttherearestillaccountingdiscrepanciesinthecostcalculationsthatareunfavorabletodemand-sideoptions.Whileitisimportanttoevaluatewatersupplyprojects,theTaskForcedidnotfeelthatitwasappropriatetoscorethewatersupplyprojectsthatwerepresentedtousforseveralreasons.Wedidnothavesufficienttimetogointothelevelofdetailonstrategyyieldandcostthatisnecessarytoaccuratelypopulatethismatrix.ThenumbersthatwereprovidedtotheTaskForcewerefromdifferentsourcesandinsomecasesvarieddramatically.Differentmethodologieswereusedtoarriveatcostandsavingsconclusionsfordifferentalternatives.Thismadescoringprojectsinameaningfulwaydifficultinthistimeframe.Byscoringthestrategies,theTaskForcewouldhavegiventheillusionofprecisionwhenwedon’thaveenoughinformationtoprovideprecisescoringoneachofthesestrategies.Werecommendthatwhenpopulatingthematrices,AWUandtheCityshouldtakecaretodevelopcostsforbothsupplyanddemandmanagementprojectsusingconsistentmethodologytoallowforappropriatecomparison.Thefulllifecyclecostsofeachprojectmustbeconsideredoverthelifetimeofthatproject’sestimatedlife,includingconstruction/procurementcosts,landacquisitioncosts,costsofrequiredtreatment,pumpingandtransmission.Supplyprojectsshouldincludetheestimatedcostburdenonwastewaterthatwouldbeproducedbytheadditionalwaterthroughput.Onlywhenallcostsareaccountedforcansupplyprojectsbeaccuratelycomparedagainstdemandmanagementprograms.Inaddition,AustinWatershouldlooktootherwaterutilitiesthathavecapitalizedwaterconservationprograms,whichhasthebenefitofsmoothingthecostimpactonratepayers.Associatedcapitalexpendituresforallprojects,regardlessofdemandorsupplymanagement,shouldbeamortizedoverasetperiodandaddedtotherelatedannualoperationsandmaintenance(O&M)costforatotalannualcostoftheproject.AlthoughitisnotcurrentlyCityfinancialpolicytobondfinanceassociatedcapitalcomponentsofdemandmanagementstrategies,thisapproachprovidesforrelativecomparisonofstrategieswithsupply-sideoptionsandrecognizesthestatutoryandconstitutionalauthorityintheStateofTexastobondfinancedemandmanagementexpenditures.Progressivecities,suchasLasVegas,Seattle,andNewYorkCity,haveusedtheirenterpriserevenuebondstofinancewaterconservationeffortsontheprivatepropertyoftheircustomersonthebasisthattheeffortsservethepublicinterest,havequantifiablewatersavingsthatextendforatleastaslongasthelifetimeofthedebtusedtofinancethem,andaresecuredthroughsomemeans,suchasaconservationeasementorcontractwiththepropertyowner.Page12of2l 3.0WaterConservationandSupplyRecommendationsTheTaskForcebelievesthatAustinfacesimmediateandlong-termwatersupplychallenges.WerecommendthatAustintakeimmediateactiontouseourcurrentsuppliesmoreefficientlywhilemovingtodevelopadditionalsupplies.Ourrecommendationsareasfollows:3.1Short-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategiesThedroughtresponseandwaterconservationdiscussedbelowshouldbeimplementedimmediately.Conservationshould,however,notbelimitedtojusttheseprograms.3.1.1ProactiveImplementationonDroughtResponseStagesWesupportthedevelopmentandimplementationofanInterimStage3droughtrestrictionassoonasfeasiblypossibletopreservewatersupplies.WerecommendtheimplementationofStage3Interimatnolaterthan500,000acre-feet(combinedstorageforHighlandLakes)andStage4atnolaterthan400,000acre-feet(combinedstorageforHighlandLakes).PriortoimplementingStage4,however,theUtilityshouldremoveallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatcomplywithgraywaterrequirementsofthe2012UniformPlumbingCode.Thisgraywateroutdoorwateringoptionwouldhelptopreservelandscapesandtheurbantreecanopy.(SeeCodesandOrdinancesChapterVI.)3.1.2PriorityWaterConservationMeasuresCosteffectivestrategiesthatreducewateruseshouldbeapriority.WerecommendthattheCityplaceastrongfocusonimplementingdemandsidestrategies(strategiesthatreduceperpersonwateruse)beforeimplementingsupply-sideoptions.Usingthesuppliesthatwecurrentlyhaveasefficientlyaspossibleisparamounttosustainablymanagingourwatersupplieswhetherindroughtoroutofdrought.AustinWaterUtilityshoulddevelopbenchmarkswiththeaidofindependentconsultantswithahistoricalcommitmenttoconservation,reuse,anddecentralizedoptionstouseinevaluatingpotentialwaterconservationprograms.Benchmarksshouldincludecostandotherfactors.•Costeffectivestrategiesthatreducewateruseshouldbeapriority.•Toiletreplacementprograms—replacingolder,inefficienttoiletsshouldbeapriority.Thereareavarietyofprogramscontemplatedbytheutilitythattargettoiletreplacement.•Capturingcoolingtowercondensateinnewfacilitiesshouldberequired.•Removeallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatcomplywithgraywaterrequirementsofthe2012UniformPlumbingCode.ThisgraywateroutdoorwateringoptionwouldPage13of21 helptopreservelandscapesandtheurbantreecanopy.Othercodesandordinancesthatstandinthewayofincreasingourwaterefficiencyandexpandingtheuseoflocalwaterresourcesshouldalsoberemoved.(SpecificrecommendationsonthisareofferedinChapterVI:CodesandOrdinances.)•Engagehomeandcommercialbuilderstodiscouragein-groundirrigationsystemsandlimitirrigatedareainnewdevelopment(similartoprogramsimplementedbyGeorgetown,SanAntonio,andtheLCRA).Impactfeesshouldbehigherfornewconstructionbuiltwithirrigationsystemsandotherfeaturesthatusemorewaterandlowerforwaterefficientorwaterneutralnewconstruction.•Investincustomerwaterreportsoftwareorservicesthatcanrealizegreatercustomerwatersavingsandmorecost-effectivelymarketAustinWater’sexistingincentiveprograms.OneexampleisWaterSmartSoftware,whichhasachieveda5%reductionintotalwaterdemandin6monthsattheEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrict.Thesoftwaregivescustomerspersonalizedreportsonrelativewaterusagecomparedtoneighborsandidentifiesopportunitiesforrebatestheyhaven’tused.Athird-partyestimatepeggedthecostofwatersavedthroughWaterSmartatamidpointunitcostof$380/acre-footforemailreportsand$400/acre-footforwrittenreportstocustomers.•Developingtheremainderofthecorereclaimedwatersystemhasthelargestpotentialwatersupplyimpactofanydemand-sidestrategiestobetterutilizeexistingwatersupplies.•LeakandPipeFailureDetectionandRemediation—ContinueandenhanceeffortstoreduceleaksandsystemlossesfromAWUinfrastructure,withgreatertransparencyoncurrenteffortsandacost-benefitanalysisofoptionsforreducingsystemwaterlosses.Specifically,developandsharetherelationshipbetweenlossreductionsandcosts.3.1.3Mid-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategiesWaterconservationprogramsshouldincludeamixofregulatoryandbehavior-basedoptions.•Buildingandplumbingcodemodifications;•BehaviorModification,includingsoftwaretoolstohelpAustinwatercustomersidentifywater-savingopportunities;•Education-ValueofWaterinitiativesandbuildingaconservationcultureshouldbeapriority;•Rebatesandincentives(e.g.,irrigationsystemremoval);•Consumptioncomparisonsonaveragehouseholdbill;•Thedecentralizedconcept(discussedabove);•Reclaimingstormwaterforbeneficialpurposes.Page14of21 3.2Short-andMid-TermWaterSupplyStrategiesInaddition,werecommendthatthecitypursueseveralwatersupplystrategiesassoonaspossible.3.2.1Short-TermStrategies•AutomationofLonghornDamGates;•WalterLongLakeOff-ChannelStorage(existingcapacity);•VaryingLakeAustinOperatingLevel—Implementatbelow600,000acre-feetofcombinedstorage.Thisstrategyshouldbecoupledwitharobusteducationcampaigntoinformthepublicwhythisisbeingdone.UnliketheLCRAproposal,thisproposalwouldbelimitedtonon-peakrecreationalmonths.6ForarepresentationoftheapproximateoutlinesofportionsofLakeAustinwitha3-footdrawdown,seeAppendixG.•CapturinglocalinflowstoLadyBirdLake.AustinWaterUtilityshouldimmediatelycalculatetheestimatedcostandyieldofthisoption.3.2.2Mid-TermStrategiesWeexpectthatthecitywillstudytheseoptionsinmoredetailtofullyevaluatetheirsuitabilityforwatersupplysolutions.•Tieredimplementationapproach.DiversificationofwatersupplysourcesshouldbeachievedthroughintegrationofregionalstrategiesidentifiedinCityandRegionKwaterplanningprocesses.Beginwiththeendinmind.•IfthereispotentialtoreplaceDeckerPowerStationatLakeWalterE.Long,andnewelectricsuppliesdonotneedthiswatersupply,theuseofWalterLongLakeenhancedoffchannelstorageshouldbeimplemented.•IndirectPotableReuse—TheuseofLadyBirdLaketoconveytreatedwastewatereffluentfromtheSouthAustinRegionalplanttoanintakefortheUllrichWaterTreatmentPlantrepresentsasignificantdeparturefromhistoricalpractice.Whilewastewatereffluentisroutinelytreatedtoaqualitythatmeetsdrinkingwaterstandards,thosestandardsarenotprotectiveofmoresensitiveecosystems.WeareawareofnoimplementedwastewatertreatmenttechnologyonamunicipalscalethatreliablyachievesthenutrientconcentrationlevelscurrentlymeasuredinLadyBirdLake.6AustinWatershouldclearlydistinguishbetweenthecurrentAustinWaterproposalandtheLCRAplanconsideredlastyear.Austin’sproposalisnotforayear-rounddrawdown;itmaintainsnormallakelevelsduringthemonthsofJunethroughSeptember,therecreationalhighseason.Page15of21 Nevertheless,underseveredroughtconditions,thiswatersupplyrepresentsasourcethatisinalignmentwithcommunityvaluestoexhausteveryavailablelocalsupplybeforeimportingwaterfromotherregions.Therefore,werecommendthattheCityofAustinconsiderexercisingthisoptionintheeventof400,000acre-feetofcombinedstorageorless.Dischargeintothelakeshouldoccurfortheshortestpossibletime.CouncilshouldrecognizethatpermittingforthewastewaterdischargepermitintoLadyBirdLakecouldtakeaconsiderableamountoftime.4.0Funding•TheCityshouldinvestigatealternativefinancialdeliverymechanismsforfuturewatersupplyprojects.•CityofAustinsignedacontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthorityin1999toensurethattheagencywouldprovidefuturewatertotheCityduringarepeatofthedroughtofrecord,prepaying$100milliontosecurethesupply.LCRAshouldparticipateinfundinganyfuturewatersupplyprojectsthatarenecessaryforareliablefuturesupplyofcomparablevolumetotheCityofAustin.V.RecommendedStrategiesforStudyDuringthecourseofevaluationsbytheWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce,anumberofstrategieswereconsideredthatcouldpotentiallyserveassourcesofwaterwithinalong-termframeworkorcouldprovideotherbenefitsoverbothshortandlongperiods.SomebenefitsfromemployingthesestrategiesarediversificationofAustin’swatersupply,minimalenvironmentalimpacts,andmakinguseofgroundwaterandaquifersthatarenotbeingusedtotheirfullestsustainablepotential.TheTaskForcedidnotfeeltherewassufficientinformationtoevaluatethecostsandbenefitsoftheseapproachesagainsteachother,butdidfindtheretobesufficientvalueinthediversificationofAustin’swatersupplyandstoragetomeritfurtherconsiderationandstudy.Thesestrategiesandbriefdescriptionsarepresentedbelow(forfulldescriptions,seeAppendixC:WaterSupplyProjectDescriptions):•ReclaimedWaterInfiltration-recharge(injection)oftreatedwastewaterintoalluvialsedimentsalongtheColoradoRiverandpumpingfromalluvialsedimentsdown-gradient.•AquiferStorageandRecovery(ASR)-includingintheTrinityAquifer,brackishEdwardsAquifer,andCarrizo/WilcoxAquifer.ASRbeendonesuccessfullybySanAntonioWaterSystems(SAWS)andthecitiesofElPasoandKerrville.•Desalination-brackishEdwardsandCarrizo/WilcoxAquifers.SAWSiscurrentlyconstructingalarge-scaledesalinationsystem.•PermanentintaketocapturespringinflowsfromLadyBirdLake.AnotherstrategytobeconsideredisflowaugmentationatBartonSprings.Thiswillnotprovideadditionalwater,butwillprovidesignificantenvironmentalbenefits.TheCityofAustinisinapositiontoincreaseflowatBartonSpringsduringdroughtwhenlowflowanddecreasedwaterPage16of21 qualitythreatentheendangeredsalamandersatthesprings.ThiscanbeaccomplishedbyprovidingwatertoEdwardsAquiferusersduringseveredrought,providingwatertorechargetheaquifer,andpurchasinggroundwaterproductionpermitsfromEdwardsAquiferpermittees.TheseactionswouldallowformoredischargeofgroundwaterfromBartonSprings,therebyimprovingtheconditionsforthesalamandersandminimizingharmtothesalamandersduringseveredrought.TheWRPTFrecommendsthattheCitygivethesestrategiesseriousconsiderationand,whereappropriate,conductstudiestoevaluatetheirfeasibility.Inadditiontoathoroughengineeringanalysis,thesestrategiesshouldbeevaluatedaccordingtothePrinciples(ChapterII)andDecisionMatrix(AppendixE)providedinthisreport.VI.CodesandOrdinancesWaterconservationanddiversificationofwatersupplysourcesareprioritiesfortheCityandarefundamentalresponsibilitiessharedbyallofitsdepartments,operations,andfacilities.TheseobjectivesshouldbereflectedintheCity’scodesandordinances,policies,andotherguidancedocuments.RevisionstoexistingordinancesanddevelopmentofnewordinancesmaybewarrantedtoachievetheCity’sgoalofdevelopingacultureofwaterstewardshipandacknowledgingthetruevalueofwater.Wherefeasible,suchmeasuresshouldbeimplementedasexpeditiouslyaspossible.Forexample,theWatershedProtectionDepartmentrecentlyconcluded,andtheCityrecentlyenacted,Phase1ofanewWatershedProtectionOrdinance,includingover220improvementstotheLandDevelopmentCode.ThepurposeoftheWPOis,inpart,toimprovecreekandfloodplainprotectionandimprovetheoverallhealthofthewatershed.TheWatershedProtectionDepartmenthasnowcommencedPhase2oftheWPOrevisions,whichexploreswaterqualitycontrolmeasuresthatincorporatebeneficialuseofstormwater.ThisPhase2processprovidestheWatershedProtectionDepartmentwithanopportunitytoensurethattheprinciplesofwaterconservationandenhancementofwatersupplysourcesareprioritizedintheirdevelopmentofordinancerevisions.Forinstance,WatershedProtectionshouldevaluaterequiringrainwaterharvesting,tiedintoadripirrigationsystem,forcommercialandmulti-familyprojects.Further,stormwatertreatmentsystemsshouldmaximizeinfiltration.Similarly,in2010,theLandscapingOrdinancewasrevised,butfurtherrevisionsarestillwarranted.AstheCitymovestowardbecomingamoreeffectivewatersteward,itshouldevaluateandrevisetheLandscapingOrdinancetoensurethatitisconsistentwiththeCity’swaterconservationobjectivesandmaximizeswaterreuseoptions.Examplesofoptionsthatshouldbeconsideredinclude:•incentivizesustainablelandscapes;•limitsizeofirrigatedturflawnsinnewdevelopments;Page17of21 •totheextentthatcurrentcodesandordinancesrequireturfgrasslandscapesbeforecertificatesofoccupancybeissued,theserequirementsshouldberemoved;•reduceallowableuseofpotablewaterforirrigation;•maximizeuseofreclaimedandharvestedwaterforirrigation;•requirecommercialandindustrialsitestouseairconditioningcondensate;•reviseexistingauxiliarywaterordinancesandrulestoeliminaterequirementstoreplaceexistingpipewithpurplepipe;•requireautomatedirrigationsystemstousedripirrigation(asopposedtosprayirrigation).Innovativewaterconservationmeasures,suchasresidentialgraywaterreuse,havebeenexploredbytheCity,andpilotprojectsareunderway.TheCityshouldcontinueinpursuingthesenewstrategies,andshouldinvestmoreresourcestoexpeditiouslyevaluateandimplementthem.Forinstance,theCityshouldremoveallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatarecompliantwiththe2012UniformPlumbingCode.TheCityshouldalsoevaluate“laundry-to-landscapegraywatersystems”formulti-familydevelopments(newandretrofit).Decentralizedstormwaterandwastewatertreatmentandreusecanlimitcapitalexpendituresbycitydepartmentsforcentralizedwaterinfrastructureandcanprovidecost-effectiveservicesforlargedevelopment.TheCityshouldadaptitspermittingrequirementstoenabledecentralizedstormwaterandwastewatertreatmentfornon-potableusesandwhereeconomicallyjustifiable,providefinancialincentivesforthisalternativewaterservicemodeltobeimplemented.CodeNEXTprovidesanadditionalopportunitytoprioritizewatermanagementstrategies,suchaswaterreuse,intheCity’sLandDevelopmentCode.TheCityshouldusethisopportunitytodevelopaprogramthatencourageszero-net-waterhomesandbusinesses.Inshort,effectivewatermanagementstrategiesmaybeachievedviaregulatorymeasures,withrelativelyminimalcapitalinvestment.Accordingly,watermanagementshouldbeaguidingprincipleimplementedbyallCitydepartments.VII.DevelopingaCultureofWaterStewardshipInnovation1.0BecomingtheMostWater-EfficientCommunityinTexasAustinrightlytoutsitselfasaworld-classcityandcenteroftechnicalinnovationwithawealthofintellectualcapital.Austinshouldcapitalizeontheseassetsanditsreputationbycreatingadramaticandachievablegoalofbecomingthe“mostwater-efficientcityinTexas.”ThiswillPage18of21 requireclear,understandablemetricsthatgobeyondthecurrent140gallonspercapitaperday(gpcd)target,whichistheresultofthelegislativeprocessanddoesnotrepresenttheultimateachievablegoalforpercapitawateruse.Achievingthisgoalwillalsorequireaconsistentpublicmessageabouttheneed,andurgency,forachievingit(forexample,dramaticpopulationgrowthduringatimeofunprecedenteddroughtandclimatechange;recognitionofwaterasafiniteresourcethatiscriticaltothecity’shealth,economy,culture,andidentity).Unfailingpubliceducationeffortsarerequiredtoinstillanewwaterethic,aswellasanunderstandingoftherealcosts—andvalue—ofwaterinthe21stcentury.AustinwillrightlyfaceimmediatecomparisonswithotherTexascities—mostnotablySanAntonioandElPaso—thathavereducedwaterconsumptionanddevelopedanewwaterethicamongtheirresidents.ThosecitieshavealreadysurpassedAustin’sstatedgoalof140gpcd.Austinshouldcopy,andimproveupon,lessonsfrombothofthesesuccessstories,butitshouldalsolookoutsidestateboundariesforexamplesofinnovativemunicipalwaterprogramsthatmightbeappliedincentralTexas(e.g.,LasVegas,Nevada;citiesinsouthernCalifornia;Tucson,Arizona;SantaFe,NewMexico).AspartoftheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanrecommendedbythisTaskForce,theCityofAustinshouldadoptastretchtargetforourwaterdemand.ThisTaskForcerecommendsconsiderationofambitioustargetssuchasCalifornia’s20by2020plan,whichrequirescitiestoreducetotalwateruseby20%of2008levelsby2020.Anotheristhe90gpcdby2020challengefortheColoradoRiverBasinintheIntermountainWest.2.0LeadingaNewEraofRegionalCooperationAlongwithourrecommendationthatAustindiversifyitswaterportfolioratherthanrelysolelyonLCRAsurfacewater,wealsothinktheCityshouldleadaneweraofregionalwatercooperationratherthancedethatrolesolelytoLCRA.UnlikeLCRA,whichischargedwithaprimaryfocusonrawsurfacewatersuppliesfromthelowerColoradoRiverandHighlandLakes,theCityhasastrong“retail”focusonendusersoftreatedwaterinamunicipalsetting.AustinmayalsobebettersituatedthanLCRAtoworkwithitsneighboringwaterusers(cities,counties,waterdistricts)whomaynotbeintheLCRAserviceareaorwhomaybeinterestedinwaterfromsourcesotherthantheHighlandLakes.Ratherthanviewingwaterresourcesasazerosumgame,Austinshouldworkwithitsneighborsasaregionalleader.Aspartofthisleadership,Austinshouldregularlyconvenearegionalwatersummitwhereitshould:•shareitsstaffresources,ideas,planning,andbestpracticeswithregionalneighbors,andinvitethemtodothesame;•invitenearbycities,waterdistricts,counties,andriverauthoritiestoparticipate;and•stateanoverarchinggoalofachievingregionalbenefitsthatwouldotherwisebemoredifficultwithoutcooperation(loweredcosts,moreefficientuseofwaterPage19of21 supplies,increasedpublicinfluence),aswellasreinforcinganewregionalwaterethictoachieveefficientuseoflocalsupplies.AustinshouldcontinuetocooperatewithLCRAinregionalwaterissueswhiletakingfulladvantageoftheLCRA!COAWaterPartnership(formedundertheJune2007settlementagreement)bystaffingitatthehighestlevel.TheCityshouldalsocontinuetotakeanactiveleadershiprole,andencourageregionalneighborstodothesame,inparticipatinginrevisionstotheLCRAWaterManagementPlaninordertoprotecttheCity’slong-termfirmwatersupply.3.0TappingintotheCityscapeasaWaterSupplySourceUntiltheturnofthe20thcentury,Austin’smostreliablesourcesofwaterweretheBartonSprings!EdwardsAquiferandrainwaterstoredthroughleantimes.WiththeadventofcentralizedwatertreatmenttechnologiesandconstructionoftheHighlandLakesinthe1940s,AustingraduallyshifteditsreliancetowaterfromtheColoradoRiver.TodayweareremindedofwhatAustin’searliestsettlersknew:droughtisaregularpartoflifeinCentralTexas,makingtherainwaterthatfallsoutsidetheHighlandLakescatchmentareaallthemorevaluable.CentralizedwaterstorageandtreatmentislikelyalwaysgoingtobepartofAustin’swaterportfolio.However,anewgenerationofwatertreatmenttechnologiesmakespoint-of-usetreatmenteconomicallyfeasible.Point-of-usecaptureandtreatmentmaybecomeeconomicallycompetitivewithcentralizedwaterservicesasthecostsofpoint-of-usetechnologiesimproveandastheeconomicsofcentralizedwaterservicesadjusttohighersourcingandtreatmentcosts.Atthesametime,AustinWatershedProtectionDepartmentisembracingtheconceptofaugmentingitscentralizedstormwaterinfrastructurewithcityscapewaterstorage,recognizingtheeconomiclimitationsofapurelycentralizedapproachtocapturing,retainingandtreatingstormwater.(Itisworthnotingthat“stormwater”isatermthatregardsrainwaterasapollutantvectorandfloodsourceratherthanaresource.)Lookedatinthisway,ourentirecityscapecanbedesignedandretrofittedtofunctionasawatersupplysource.Theeconomiccapacityofthiscityscapeapproachtowatersupplyisnotfullyunderstood.Whatwedoknowiswearebarelyscratchingthesurfaceofwhatourcityscapecanprovidethroughthethoughtfuldesignofstreets,buildingsandparkstocapture,storeandtreatwaterforbeneficialuseintheCityofAustin.ThispresentsbothrisksandopportunitiestoAustinWateranditsratepayers.Ifweignorethepotentialfordistributedinfrastructureacrossourcityscape,weriskoverbuildingourcentralizedsystemandforcingwaterratesupward.Aswaterratesrise,theeconomicsofprovidingpointof-sourcesystemsbecomeevenmoreattractive,drivingevenmorecustomersawayfromthecentralizedservices,causingtheutilitytoadjustratesupwardtomakeupforlostsales,andonandoninaviciouscycleofrateincreases.Wearebetteroffrecognizingthepotentialforthisdisruptivetechnologyanddesigningourpoliciestoencourageitsdevelopmenttobestaugmentourcentralsystem.Page20of21 Wecanencourageinvestmentinthisdistributedwaterinfrastructurethroughcodeandordinancerevisions,creditstotapfeesandratestructurerevisiontoreflecttheeconomicbenefitofthewaterservicesprovidedbyprivatepropertyowners.Forexample,AustinWaterUtilitycouldadjustitsconnectionfeestoreflectthetruecostofserviceforlargecommercialcustomerswhoprovidetheirownwatersupplythroughonsitecaptureand/ortreatment.Page21of21 AppendixAWaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-Demand AppendixBWaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-Supply AppendixCWaterSupplyProjectDescriptions WaterSupplyProjectsDescriptionsDEMANDMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIESOptimizeExistingSuppliesviaEfficiency&ConservationConservation-(DroughtResponse)Stage3Stage3DroughtResponse,asoutlinedincitycodeandthecity’sdroughtcontingencyplan,allowsupto6hoursofoutdoorwateringperweek,limitsoperationalhoursforsplashpads,andprohibitsfillingofspas/hottubs.Stage3Interim(HandWateringOnly)Asaninterimdroughtresponsemeasure,theutilityhasproposedanoptionthatwouldallowoutdoorirrigationonlywithahand-heldhose.Allautomaticandhose-endsprinklerswouldbeprohibited,but,consistentwithStage3,vehiclewashingatcertifiedfacilitieswouldcontinuetobeallowed,aswouldmaintenanceofnurserystockandoperation/installationofpools.ThismeasurewouldbeimposedwithintheDirector’sauthorityasauthorizedincitycode.Stage4Stage4EmergencyResponse,asoutlinedincitycodeandthecity’sdroughtcontingencyplan,prohibitsalldiscretionarypotablewaterusesincludingirrigation,repairofirrigationsystems,vehiclewashing,surfacewashing,andfillingofpools,spasandfountains.Conservation-(DemandManagement)MandatoryToiletRetrofitonResidentialResaleThisstrategywouldrequireahomeowner,inordertofinalizesaleofaproperty,toprovidecertificationbyalicensedplumberthatalltoiletsinthehomehaveflushvolumesatorbelowthespecifiedflushvolume(1.6gpfattimeofrecommendation,currently1.28gpf).MandatoryToiletChangeoutforCommercial&MultifamilyBuildings—PointinTimeThisstrategywouldrequireallcommercialandmultifamilybuildingstoprovide,byaspecifieddate(2017),certificationbyalicensedplumberthatalltoiletsonthepropertyhaveflushvolumesatorbelowthespecifiedflushvolume(1.6gpfattimeofrecommendation,currently1.28gpf),orbesubjecttonon-compliancefines.Limitirrigatedareainnewresidentialdevelopment—Thisstrategywouldlimittheareathatcanbeservedbyanautomaticirrigationsystemtonomorethan2.5timesthebuildingfootprint.Itwouldrequiresomeformofplanreview,whichiscurrentlynotrequiredforresidentialproperties,aswellasfinalinspection.RequirenewfacilitiestocaptureA/Ccondensateforreuse—BuildingspermittedafterthestartdateoftheordinancewouldberequiredtocapturecondensatefromA/CPage1of9 systemsforbeneficialreuseindoors(toiletflushing)oroutdoors(irrigationorrequiredlandscapearea),theoreticallylimitingthepotablewaterdemandofnewdevelopment.Requireretrofitofexistingcoolingtowerstomeetefficiencystandards—Thisstrategywouldrequirepropertieswithcoolingtowerstoprovidebyacertaindatecertificationbyalicensedplumberthattowersareoperatingatnofewerthantheminimumcyclesofconcentrationandwithallconductivitycontrollers,blowdownmetersandotherconditionsofthecurrentplumbingcode.Requirehomeauditsattimeofsale—Thisstrategywouldrequirethat,asaconditionofsale,homeownerswouldhavetohaveaprofessionalconductanauditofinteriorandexteriorwater-usingfixturesandprovideacopyofthereport,alongwithrecommendationsforconservationpotential,tothebuyerandtheCity.Savingsareassumedtocomefromgreaterawarenessbythebuyers,butarebasedonauditprogramsinotherstateswhereauditsareperformedforexistinghomeowners.TheCitywouldalsoneedtoencourageandtrainwaterauditprofessionalstomeetdemand,andtheprogramwouldlikelyrequireoutdoorauditstobeperformedbylicensedLandscapeIrrigationInspectorsaccordingtoTCEQrules.Mandatoryirrigationauditsforhighusers—Thisstrategywouldrequirethatcustomerswhousemorethan40,000gallonspermonthinanytwomonthsofa12-monthperiodundergoanevaluationoftheirirrigationsystem.Savingswouldbecontingentonthehomeownersimplementingrecommendationsoftheauditor;auditscouldbeprovidedby(additional)Citystaff,orfromathirdpartyatthehomeowner’sexpense.ImplementsmartmetersforresidentialcustomersThisstrategyassumesthatapproximately190,000residentialwatermetersareexchangedfor“smart”metersthatallowuserstoaccessreal-timedataonwateruse.Savingsarefromgreaterhomeownerawarenessofwateruse,andassumedtobeapproximately10%basedonresultsfromothercities.Theutilitywouldalsosavemoneyfromreducedlaborcosts,reducedwatertheft,andlesstimespentbycustomerserviceagentsonbillcomplaints.Additionalstaffformarketingreclaimedwaterprogram—Thisstrategyaddsanadditionalstaffmemberdedicatedtorecruitingnewcustomersforthereclaimedwaterprogramalongexistingandplannedlinestoreducepotablewaterdemandandcreateeconomiesofscaleinthereclaimedwatersystem.Waterbudgetrates(appliedtoirrigation-onlymeters)—Thisstrategywouldapplyadifferentratestructuretodedicatedirrigationmeters(typicallyatcommercialandmultifamilyproperties);possiblyapplyingtheresidentialtieredrate,orpricingallwateraboveacertainamountatthehighestresidentialrate.Savingsarebasedonpriceelasticityestimatesforreductionsinwateruse.Thestrategywouldrequirebillingsystemchanges,andcouldhaveequityorcost-of-serviceconcerns,asnotallcornmercialpropertieshavededicatedirrigationmeters.Page2of9 Hotwaterondemandincentives—Thisstrategywouldprovidea$100rebatetocustomersinstallingqualifyinghotwaterondemandsystems,designedtominimizethewasteofwaterwhilewaitingforthedesiredtemperatureinbathroomsandkitchens.ProviderebatesforO.8gpftoiletsThisstrategywouldprovidea$50rebatetocustomersinstalling0.8gallonperflushtoiletstoreplace1.6gpforhighertoilets.Currently,thereisonlyoneknownmanufactureroffixturesatthisflushvolume.Other-(DemandManagement)Leakdetection—Continueandimproveleakdetectionprogram.Decentralization(WW/Reuse/Reclaimed/NetZeroSystems)—Thedecentralizedconceptistheideathatwastewaterismosteffectivelyandefficientlymanagedbytreatingit—andreusingit—asclosetowhereitisgeneratedaspractical.Infrastructurefailureandvulnerabilitiesareminimizedwhilewaterresourcesutilizationismaximizedonalocalandhighlyintegratedlevel.Theoverallsystembecomesmorereliableandisadaptabletoavarietyoffuturedevelopmentscenarios.DirectReuse-CompletionofCoreReuseSystem(DemandManagement)-Thisstrategyinvolvesanear-termconstructionprogramtocompletethecentralpartofAustinsdirectreusesystemandinvolves19milesofpipelinemains,apumpstationandstoragetank.Completingthecorereusesystemwillenableasystemcapacityincreaseto2.2billiongallonsperyearforaprojected135customers.RegulatoryBuildingcodemodifications—DevelopmentinAustinshouldbedirectedatwaterconservationandintelligentwatermanagement.Thebuildingcodeshallincludepositivereinforcementofrainwaterharvesting,reclaimedwateruse,plumbingforgraywater/reuseopportunities,urbancanopy,waterconservationinnovations,andotherconsiderationstoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromotewaterconservation.Plumbingcodemodifications—Plumbingcodeshallincludemodificationstoimproveefficiencystandards,plumbingforgraywater/reuseopportunities,andincludeotherconsiderationstoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromoteconservation.Stormwatermanagementprograms/incentives—CityofAustinshouldreviewexistingpoliciesandprogramsandevaluateadditionalopportunitiesforthecaptureofadditionalwatersupplyfromstormwaterflows.Theseprogramsshouldincludetheevaluationofexampleutilitiesinthathavesuccessfullyimplementedtheseprogramsandtheconsiderationofphysicalinfrastructuretoaccomplishsuchgoals.Landusemanagementprograms/incentives—Developandfocusonlow-impactdevelopmentstrategytargetedtoretainandrestorethehydrologytomorenativeconditions.Page3of9 Graywateruseprograms/incentives—CityofAustinshouldreviewexistingpoliciesandprogramsandevaluateadditionalopportunitiesforexpansionoftheuseofgraywaterwithinitsjurisdiction.Theseprogramsshouldincludetheevaluationofexampleutilitiesinthathavesuccessfullyimplementedtheseprogramsandtheconsiderationofphysicalinfrastructuretoaccomplishsuchgoals.Developers/industrybringtheirownwater—CityofAustinshouldrequireanynewdevelopmenttoprovideasecurewatersupplytothedevelopmentatthetimeofpermitapplication.ThiscanincludeCityofAustinwatersupplybutshouldincludefirmdeliveryamountsandagreementspriortobuildingapproval.ParticipateinLCRAManagementPlanprocess—CityofAustinsignedacontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthorityin1999toensurethattheagencywouldguaranteefuturewatertothecity,prepaying$100milliontosecurethesupply.LCRAshouldparticipateinfundinganyfuturewatersupplyprojectsthatarenecessaryforareliablefuturesupplyofcomparablevolumetotheCityofAustin.TheCityshouldcontinueitsparticipationintheLCRAmanagementplanprocesswithafocusonearlierimplementationofwaterconservationanddroughttriggerresponses.Inaddition,thisparticipationshouldpromotethestorageintheHighlandLakesandwaterconservationprogramconsistencyamongwaterusersoftheLCRAsystem.Waterpricingstructures—Developmoreaggressivewaterpricingstructuresfordroughtandwatersupplyrestrictions.Enterintodroughtstagesearlier—Enterintowatersupplyrestrictionsanddroughtdeclarationsearlierbasedonimprovedtriggersandrecentdata.BehavioralIncentivesforconservationprograms—Waterconservationshouldbepromotedandincentivizedwhereopportunitiesexist.ThemostaffordablewateriswaterthatisalreadyundertheCity’scontrol.Citycodes,policies,andproceduresshouldallbegearedtoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromoteconservation.Incentivesforrainwaterharvestingsystems—CityofAustinshouldincentivizeopportunitiesforadditionalexpansionofrainwaterharvestingprogramswithinjurisdiction.Cityshouldconsideroptionssuchasaddingrainwaterharvestingtoprovidedecentralizedopportunitieswithincurrentdistributionsystemandexpandingtheexistingrebateprograms.Reviewofexistingregulationsandpoliciesshouldbeconductedtofindopportunitiesforwaterefficiencythroughrainwatercapture.Thesepoliciesshouldbereviewedinconjunctionwithstormwatermanagementpoliciestoidentifyopportunitiestoworktogether.WaterEducationInitiatives—CityofAustinshoulddevelopaneducationprogramtoinstillanewwaterethic,aswellasanunderstandingofthecost/valueofwaterwithinthecommunity.ThiseducationwouldinvolveaconsistentpublicmessageabouttheneedandurgencytomeetPage4of9 theCity’swaterneedsforourrapidlygrowingpopulationwhilesustainingafiniteresourcethatiscriticaltohealth,economy,culture,andidentity.Consumptioncomparisonaverageonwaterbill—AWUcustomerwouldreceiveamonthlywaterusecomparisonwithneighborhood/zipcodewaterconsumptioncomparisonontheirCQAutilitybill.Theintentoftheprogramistobringawarenesstotheirwateruseandprovideabasisforcomparisontoaverageuseintheirareaorseasonaluse.SUPPLYMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIESAugmentationofSuppliesSystemOperationalImprovementsofExistingSuppliesLonghornDamGateOperation—PrimaryreleasesfromLonghornDamarefrombasculegates.Pulseflowsresultinexcessreleases.LCRAdesignedandfundedinstallationofknifegatesforimprovedperformancebutstillcannotcontrolflowstomatchdownstreamflowneeds.ProjectisbeingcoordinatedbyLCRAandAE,whichinvolvesshiftingoperationstouseexistingliftgatestoreleasewaterthroughLonghornDam.Providesmoreflexibilityandbetterdebriscontrol.Notethatthisoperationapproachwasusedhistoricallypriortotheinstallationoftheknifegates(sometimesreferredtoaskeyholes).ReducedLakeEvaporation-includeFayette—NSF-approvedproductappliedtolakestoformamonolayerthatreducesevaporation.Productismadefrominsolublefattyacidsfromcoconutsandpalmandcomesinapowderformwhichbiodegradeswithin72hours.Literatureontheproductandprocessindicatesthatevaporationcouldbereducedby20to30%.Theproductwouldneedtoberegularlyappliedtothelakesurfacesusingaspreadingprocesssuchasapplicationfromthesternofamotorboat.Forthepurposesofcomparativeanalysis,estimatesofwatersavingsfromreducedevaporationfromthisprojectfromLadyBirdLakeandLakeLongweredeveloped.Theremaybeotherproductsormethodsinthearenaofevaporationthatcouldbeexplored.WalterLong(Decker)LakeOff-ChannelStorage—LakeLongisusedforcoolingwaterforDeckerPowerStation.WaterfromtheColoradoRiverisdivertedtoprovidemakeupwaterforevaporationtomaintainthislakeforsteam-electriccoolingpurposes.Thepowerplantcanoperatewitha3-ft.variationinlakelevel(whichrepresentsavolumeofapproximately3,750AF).TheapproachwouldbetosavemorewaterinlakesTravisandBuchananthroughstrategiclakerefilloperationscoordinationwithLCRAinwetterlocalconditionsand,potentially,throughtimelyreleasesfromtheLakeLong’sdamtopossiblysatisfydownstreamrequirements,includingmeetingenvironmentalflowrequirements.Page5of9 SARDischargeRelocationaboveAustinGauge—ProjecttorelocateaportionoftheSARWWTPtreatedeffluentdischargetoupstreamoftheriverflowgageknownasthe“Austingage”,whichislocatednearUS183bridgeovertheColoradoRivernotfardownstreamofLonghornDam.TheapproachwouldbetousedischargeflowtomeetenvironmentalflowrequirementsattheAustingage.LCRA’sWaterManagementPlan(WMP)requiresLCRAtomaintaina46cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)minimumflowatthatgage.ThisprojectwouldonlybebeneficialwhenenvironmentalflowmaintenanceatthisgageisthecontrollingfactorinLCRAreleasesfromupstreamreservoirs.TheKriegFieldreclaimedwaterlinecouldbeusedtodischargeflowbelowLonghornDam.Thisprojectwouldrequireawastewaterdischargepermit.LakeAustinVaryingOperatingLevel—ProjecttovaryLakeAustinlakelevelsseasonallytoallowlocalflowstobecapturedratherthan“spilled”downstream.Droughtresponseemergencyoperationalapproachwouldbetoletlocalusagedrawthelakeleveldownafewfeettobeabletocatchrunofffromlocalstormeventsshouldtheyoccur.Thisapproachwouldallowforcontrolleduseofthatrunoffasopposedtothatwaterspillingoverthedamtoflowdownstreamevenifisnotneededdownstreamatthattime.Recentraineventsin2012and2013inAustinareexamplesofeventthatcouldhaveresultedincombinedstoragebenefitstothisoperationalapproach.TheseeventsdidnotprovidesignificantinflowstolakesTravisandBuchananbutdidprovidelargeamountsofrunoffintoLakeAustinandotherareasofAustintotheeast.EnhancedOperationsInvolvingAdditionalCapital,PermittingorCommunityImpactAutomateLonghornGates—ProjecttoautomateLonghornDamknifegatestoprovideimprovedoperationalcontrolonflowreleases.Thisprojectwouldalsoprovidetrashrackstopreventclogging.Theprojectwouldminimizestafftimerequiredtoconductgateoperationstofinetuneflowcontrol.WalterLong(Decker)LakeOff-ChannelStorage(enhancedstorage)—EnhanceoperationsofLongLaketoallowmorefluctuationinlakeleveluptoapproximately25feet.ProjectwouldresultinoperatingLongLakeessentiallyasanoff-channelstoragereservoirtobenefitstoragelevelsinlakesTravisandBuchanan.LakeLongholdsapproximately30,000AFwhenfull.TheconceptwouldallowwaterfromLongLaketobereleasedtomeetdownstreamneeds,includingenvironmentalflowsandotheruses,whichwouldotherwiseneedtobereleasedfromlakesTravisandBuchanan.ProjectwouldrequiremakingimprovementstoincreaseabilitytorefilllakebyincreasingpumpingcapacityatColoradoRiverpumpstationandbybuildingareclaimedwatermainfromWalnutCreekWWTPtoLakeLong.AreclaimedwatermainalongthisgeneralrouteisincludedintheReclaimedMasterPlanandwouldbebeneficialforotherpurposes.ProjectwouldnecessitatetakingDeckerPowerStationPlantoff-line.AustinEnergy(AE)isintheprocessofconductingtheir2014GenerationPlanupdate.AEisevaluatingfutureoptionsatthissite.ItisanticipatedthatsignificantchangesmaybePage6of9 forthcoming,whichmaycreateimprovedopportunitiesforuseofLakeLonginthismanner.AWUwillcontinuetocoordinatewithAEontimingaspects,asnecessary.CaptureLocalInflowstoLadyBirdLake—ProjectwouldinstallafloatingpumpintakebelowTomMillerDamandatransmissionmaintopumpwaterfromLadyBirdLake(LBL)intotheUllrichWaterTreatmentPlantintakelinefortreatmentanddeliveryintoAustin’swaterdistributionsystem.Thisprojectwouldallowforthecaptureofspringflows,includingflowsfromBartonSpringsthatflowintoLBL,andotherstormflowswhentheyarenotneededdownstreamforenvironmentalflowmaintenanceorfordownstreamseniorwaterrights.AquiferStorage&Recovery—Projectwouldstorewaterundergroundforlateruse.Keystothisprojectincludesourcewaterandlocatingasuitableaquifer.ColoradoRiversourcedwaterwouldnotaddressthecurrentdrought.Conceptuallywaterisstoredintimeswhenexcesswaterisavailableforstoragesothatitcanbetakenoutforusewhenneeded.UseofreclaimedwaterforthepurposesofstoringwaterfortheASRprojectcanincreasenear-termsupplybutmaynotprovidebenefitstocombinedstorageoflakesTravisandBuchananifwaterwouldneedtobereleasedfromthelakestomakeupthewaterbeingstoredintheASRproject.ProjectconsideredNorthernEdwardsAquiferwithWalnutCreekWWTPasasourceofreclaimedwater.ProjectrequiresconstructionofconveyancepipelineandASRwells.IndirectPotableReuse-SARtoLadyBirdLake—ProjectwouldmoveaportionoftheSouthAustinRegional(SAR)WastewaterTreatmentPlant(WWTP)dischargetoLadyBirdLake(LBL).RequiresaccelerationofreclaimedwatermainsidentifiedintheReclaimedMasterPlan.WaterwouldbewithdrawnfromanewintakepumpstationonLBLbelowTomMillerDam.ProjectwouldrequireconstructionofpumpingfacilitiesandpipelinetomovethewaterfromLBLintotheUllrichWTPintakeline.Systemwouldonlyoperatewhendownstreamdemandsarebeingmet.Basedonpreliminaryassessment,theretentiontimeinLBLforthiswaterisapproximately6months.ProjectwouldrequirenutrientremovalatSARWWTPforthetreatedWWTPeffluentwatertobedischargedintoLBL.BartonSpringsCapture&Augmentation—Groundwaterpumpingcouldbeoffsetbyconnectiontoalternatewatersupply,includingCityofAustin,toallowforadditionalspringflowduringcriticalflowneeds.Environmentalbenefitsareexpected,however,nonewwatersupplyvolumeisgeneratedfromthisstrategyasadditionalsurfacewaterwouldmeetmostoffsetdemand.Waterrightretirementorpurchaseisanothercomponentofthisstrategythatoffersbenefitswithoutanyinfrastructureorsupplyimpacts.Page7of9 NewGroundwaterSuppliesBlueWaterSystems(Treat&Deliver)—ExistingprojectsupplyingCarrizo-WilcoxwatertoalocationeastofAustinneartheCityofManor.BlueWaterSystemsholdspermitsforexportofupto75,000AF/yearfromthePostOakSavannaGCD.Theprojectcurrentlysupplies1-2MGDtootherentitieseastofAustininthevicinityofSH130andUS290.ExistingsystemcanbeexpandedtosupplyAustinwithapproximately10MGD.BlueWaterwouldberesponsibleforexpansionconstructionwithcostrecoveredinrates.Atake-or-paycontractwouldberequired.Acontractcouldbeforbetween5and30years.Forestar—ForestarhasgroundwaterleasesinBastropandLeeCounties.However,thereisnoexistinginfrastructure.ForestarhasacontractwithHaysCountytoreserve45,000AF/yearfor$1millionperyear.Thecompanyhasappliedfor45,000AFperyearinpermitsfromtheLostPinesGCDbutreceivedpermitsforonly12,000AF/year.Forestarhasfiledsuitforpermits.Infrastructuredevelopmentdependsonlong-termcontract.Availabilityisunknown.NorthernEdwardsWeilfield—NorthernEdwardshasbeenusedbyentitiesinthepast(LamplightVillage),however,thewellyieldsaretypicallylow1MGD.Thewaterqualityisgood,however,compatibilitywouldneedtobedeterminedandverified.Projectwouldrequirelandpurchases.VistaRidge—ConsortiumincludingBlueWaterSystems,whichrespondedtoSAWS’srequestforproposalsforwatersupply.50,000AFofpermittedCarrizo-Wilcoxwater.ProjectwouldincludeconstructionofapipelinefromBurlesonCo.toSanAntonioandothertreatmentanddeliveryfacilities.Hays-CaldwellPublicUtilityAuthority—BriefDescription:PublicUtilityAuthoritymadeupofSanMarcos,Kyle,Buda,CrystalClear,andCanyonRegional.Thereisnoexistinginfrastructure.HCPUAhaspermitsfor10,400Ac-Ft/YrfromtheGonzalesCountyGCDandapartnershipwithTexasWaterAllianceforanadditional15,000Ac-Ft/Yr.TrinityAquiferSupplies—ExploreopportunitiesforlimitedwatersupplydiversificationinthewesternandsouthernportionsoftheCity’sserviceareathathaveaccesstothesesupplementalwatersupplies.OtherNewSuppliesBrackishdesalination—DevelopwellsindowndipbrackishzoneoftheEdwardsAquifer,generallyinthesoutheastareaofAustinnearUS183andSH130.Projectwouldrequiredesalinationplant,drillingandcompletionof20productionwellsand8disposalwells,andextensivelandpurchases.Page8of9 Reclaimedwaterbankinfiltration—SpreadeffluentfromtheSouthAustinRegional(SAR)WWTPinaninfiltrationbasin,whichwouldrechargeintothelocalColoradoAlluviumformation.Thenrecapturethewaterinalluvialwellsalongtheriver.Oncethewaterisrecaptured,itispumpedtothewatertreatmentplanthroughapipeline.Thisoptionrequiressignificantlandpurchases.ColoradoBedandBanks—Recapturedischargedeffluentdownstreamtobepumpedbackupstreamfortreatment.CityofAustinandLCRAhaveappliedjointlyforthewaterrightspermit,inaccordancewiththetermsofthe2007settlementagreementbetweenAustinandLCRA.Rainwaterharvesting—WatersupplyaugmentationforCityofAustinwatersuppliesshouldbeconsideredunderthegeneralprinciplethatdiversificationofwatersourcesshouldbeprioritized.CollectingandutilizingyourrainwaterisasoldasTexashistoryandshouldbeanimportantconsiderationinfutureoptionstoincludeinthewatersupplyportfolio.Commercial—TheCityofAustinshouldconsiderprovidingincentiveprogramsandretrofitprogramstocapturelarge-scaleinstitutionalrainwatercatchmentsystems.Thisapproachcanfacilitatedecentralizationstrategiesandprovideabalancedapproachtomanagingtheutilitiesinfrastructure.Residential—TheCityofAustinshouldcontinuetofundandexpandresidentialopportunitiesforrainwaterharvestingtooffsetpeaksummerloaddemands.Incentiveandrebateprogramsshouldbediversifiedtomeetawiderangeofuserneedsandpromoteconservationandwaterefficiency.ASR-Regional/Desalination(RegionalNon-EdwardsAquifer)—CityofAustinshoulddevelopandparticipateinlarge-scaleregionalASRsystemwithpartnerssuchasLCRA,CitiesincludingPflugerville,RoundRock,Buda,Kyle,andotherstodevelopadroughtproofregionalwatersupplystorageandwithdrawalsystemtoaugmentexistingsuppliesusingacombinationofsourcessuchasgroundwater,desalinatedsupplies,andreusesources.Page9of9 Appendix0Definitions-WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria Definitions-WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteriaWaterSupplyBenefit1.SupplyVolume-Doestheproposedwatersupplystrategyprovideasignificantvolume?Howhighisourconfidenceinthereliabilityofthewatersupply(appliestostrategiesthataresavingsorsupplybased)?2.DroughtResilience-Doestheamountofwatersupplyfromwatersupplystrategychangebasedondroughtcondition(isit“droughtproof”)?3.Improvedreliabilityandutilizationofexistingsupplies-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyextendexistingsuppliessothatwecanservemorepeopleforlongerwiththesameamount?DoestheproposedwatersupplystrategymaintainnecessarydownstreamsuppliessuchthatHighlandLakesstorageisextended?4.Qualitycompatibilitywithexistingdistributionsystems-Wouldexistinginfrastructureortreatmentprogramneedtobemodifiedtoaddresswaterqualityconcernsfromanewsource?5.LocalControl(resilience&risk)-DoestheproposedwatersupplystrategysecuresupplyfromalocalwatersourceunderthecontroloftheAustincommunity?IstheproposedwatersupplystrategyassociatedwithpotentialriskforfutureaccessibilityifnotunderlocalcontroloftheAustincommunity?6.Diversification—DoesthewatersupplystrategydiversifyAustin’scurrentwatersupplyportfolio?EconomicImpacts1.AnnualCost-Annualcosttoimplementstrategy(shouldincludeallconstruction,treatment,distributionandsystemupsizingcostsonthewaterandwastewaterside,unlessotherwisenoted).Ahigherannualcostisassumedtohaveahighereffecttoratepayers.2.TreatmentNeed/Cost-Doescostofproposedwatersupplystrategyincludetreatment?Ifnot,whatistreatmentcost(ifknown)?3.EnergyIntensity-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyhavealargerenergyassociatedwithproduction,treatmentandtransportthancurrentAustinWatersupplies?4.EnergyGeneration-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyhaveanopportunityforenergygeneration/offset?EnvironmentalImpacts1.ImpactsonotherWaterSupplies-Doestheproposedwatersupplystrategyhavepotentialforwaterqualityorquantityimpactsofanothersource/supply?2.InstreamFlow-DoesthewatersupplystrategydecreaseinstreamflowsintheColoradoRiverorothercontributingstreams?3.Endangered/ThreatenedSpeciesimpact-Doeswatersupplystrategynegativelyimpactspecieshabitat(terrestrialoraquatic)orenvironmentalflowsforanaquaticspecies?4.Wetlands-Doeswatersupplystrategyimpactsizeorproductivityofexistingwetlands?5.WaterQuality-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategynegativelyimpactwaterqualityinanyway?DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyenabledevelopmentontheBartonSprings/EdwardsAquifercontributingorrechargezones? SocialImpacts1.ImagineAustinPlan-DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyconformtoImagineAustingoals?InparticularIAPlanGoal2:SustainablyManageourWaterResources.Pages191-192.http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/ImagineAustin/webiacpreduced.pdf2.BalanceEconomicandEnvironmentalImpactswithCommunityInterests-DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyreflectAustin’scommunityvaluesandqualityoflifegoals?3.Recreation-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyimpactwater-basedrecreationactivities?(Ex.kayaking/SUP/fishingandotherrecreationactivitiesonLadyBirdLake,ColoradoRiverPaddlingTrailinBastrop)Implementability1.RequiredExternalAdoption-Arenecessaryentitiescoordinatingonproposedwatersupplystrategy?IsthereanMOUrequired/present?DoesAustincurrentlypossesthewaterrightsorcontractforproposedwatersupplystrategy?IfnotAustin,doessupplyingentity/individualhaveclearaccesstowater?DoesAustinneedtogetanypermits?TCEQ,COE,etc?2.LandAcquisition—Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyrequirelandacquisition?3.TimingofImplementation-Howfastcanproposedwatersupplystrategybeputonline/implemented?4.RegulatoryApproval-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyrequireanyregulatoryapproval?Isitroutine(i.e.quick)processormoreinvolved?5.PoliticalOpposition-Istherepoliticaloppositiontotheproposedwatersupplystrategy(localand/orinwatersourcearea)6.PublicAcceptance-Doespublic“embrace”proposedwatersupplystrategy.Willtherebeanissuewithpublicacceptance?Ifwatersupplystrategywasimplemented,wouldsurroundingcommunitiesobject?7.LegalUncertainties—Aretherelegaluncertaintiesassociatedwithwatersupplystrategy?Willtheseissuesaffectyieldoraccessibilitytowater?RiskofAlternativeSupplies1.DependenceonClimaticConditions-Isthepredictedsupplyyieldoftheproposedwaterstrategyaffectedbyclimateconditions?Isvariabilityofyieldexpectedwithachangeinclimateconditions?3.Hydrologicstorageriskforpotentialenvironmentalrelease-IsthesupplyyieldoftheproposedwatersupplystrategylikelytoresultinoverallnosignificantnetgaininHighlandLakestorageduetocurrentLCRAWMPoperations? AppendixERecommendedScoringSystem—COADroughtResponseDecisionMatrix RecommendedScoringSystemforCOADroughtResponseDecisionMatrix-Example,RequiresCompletionSupplyVolumeAnnualCostTreatmentNeed/CostEnergyIntensityEnergyGenerationImpactsonotherWaterSuppliesInstreamFlowEndangered/ThreatenedSpeciesImpact________________Wetland5WaterQualityImagineAustinPlanSalanceseconomic&environmentalimpactsw/comrnunityinterests-RecreationRequiredExternalAdoptionLandAcquisitionTimingofImplementation_________________RegulatoryApprovalPoliticalOpposition_____________________________LegalUncertaintiesPublicAcceptanceDependenceonClimaticConditionsScoringSystemcategoryISub-Category-2-10[2Minimal(<_AF)Moderate(_AF<a<AF)Significant(>AF)GreatlyreducedreliabilityNotablereducedreliabilitySlightlyreducedreliability100%reliabiliitythroughDroughtResilienceNeutralduringdroughtduringdroughtduringdroughtdroughtWSPextendsexistingsuppliesWSPsignificantlyextendsWSPdoesnotimproveCriteria1:WaterSupplyImprovedreliabilityandutilizationofexistingWSPextendsexistingsuppliesWSPextendsexistingsuppliestoservemorepeopleandexistingsuppliestoserveBenefitsuppliesreliabilityandutilizatIOnoftoservemorepeopletoservemorepeopleprotectsHighlandLakesmorepeopleandprotectsexistingsuppliessupplyHighlandLakessupplyQualitycompatibilitywithenistingdistributionsystemsLocalControlIResilienceandRisklDiversificationCriteria2:EconomicImpactCriteria3:EnvironmentalImpactsCriteria4:SocialImpactsCriteria5:lmplementabilityCriteria6:RiskofAlternativeSuppliesHydrologicstorageriskforpotentialenvironmentalreleasezF-TobeCompleted AppendixFModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesRichardHoffpauir,PhD.,P.E.—June25,2014 ModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesAustinWaterResourcesPlanningTaskForceJune25,2014RichardHoffpauir,Ph.D.,RE. DroughtResponseStrategies•DroughtresponsestrategiesweremodeledforthepurposesofexemplifyingsimulatednetbenefitsonstorageinlakesBuchananandTravisunderrepeateddroughtconditions.•Simulatingseveralgroupingsor“tiers”canuncoverstrategysynergiesorinterferences.•ThetieredstrategymodelsinthishandoutarebasedontaskforcerequestfromtheJune19,2014AWRPTFmeeting.Thetieredstrategygroupingsarenotnecessarilyreflectiveoffinaltaskforcerecommendations. AssumptionsforAustinDCPImplementationProjectedDiversionsinThousandAcre-Feet(TAF)-RoundedtoNearest0.5TAFAssumption:ModeledStageHighlandLakesCombined201420152016201720182019Storage_Level_Trigger_(AF)ConservationFullto1.4MAF155.0158.0159.5161.0162.5164.0StageStage11.4MAFto900,000150.5153.5155.0156.0157.5159.0Stage2900,000to600,000142.0144.5145.5147.0148.5149.5Stage3600,000to500,000124.5125.5127.0128.5129.5131.0lnterim*500,000to400,000109.0110.0111.0112.0113.0114.5Stage4400,000andbelow99.5100.5101.0102.5103.5104.5*Includesconceptual“Interim”stage-potentiallyincludeshand-wateringonlyincludesestimatedreductionsofindoorusecorrelatingtocommunityresponsetodroughtseverityNote:1acre-foot(AF)=325,851gallons*Asof5/2014,estimatessubjecttochange Tier1StrategiesKeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationOperatingrangeofLakeWalterE.Top3,700acre-feetoflakeStartofsimulation,Longadjustedtoallowforapprox.capacityisfilledwithlocalandJune20143’ofdrawdownbeforecallingforrun-of-riverwateronly.LCRAstoredwaterLonghornDamgate6,000acre-feetperyear(afy)June2014improvementstoincreaseofimprovedreleaseefficiencyefficiencyofdownstreamreleasesIncreasedAustinmunicipalconservation,beyondsavingsdueDemands(previouspage)areJanuary2015todroughtcontingencystagereducedby5%inallstagesimplementationIncreaseAustinmunicipaldirect1,800afyinallDCPstagesJanuary2020reuse,“CompletingtheCore”IncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage.ThekeymodelingassumptioncolumnforallthreetierstrategiesisnotnecessarilyreflectiveoftheannualHighlandLakesstoragesavings.TheHighlandLakesstoragesavingscollectivelyfromallstrategiesareshowngraphicallyinthemodelingresults. Tier2Strategies.KeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationCapturelocalinflowsinLadyBirdLake,includingfromBartonSpringsandDeepEddy.“Excessflow”isdivertedonLadyBirdVariableamountofexcessLake.Excessflowissimulatedaswaterisflowisdivertedpermonth,...January2016notrequiredforpassagetodownstreamdependingonhydrologicseniorwaterrightsandnotneededtomeetconditionsdownstreamLCRAenvironmentalflowrequirements.LakeAustinOperationsOperateLakeAustinwithina3’rangetoallowlocalflowstobecapturedratherthan“spilled”SeptemberthroughMaydownstream.DroughtresponseemergencyTop3’ofLakeAustinisusedoperationalapproachwouldbetoletlocalforcapturinglocalexcessonlyafterBuchananandusagedrawthelakeleveldownafewfeettobeflow,approx.4,500acre-Traviscombinedstorageabletocatchrunofffromlocalstormeventsfeetoflakecapacity.fallsbelow600,000shouldtheyoccur.LakeAustinoperationsareacre-feetmodeledonlyinthemonthsofSeptemberthroughMaywhenthecombinedstorageoftheHighlandLakesfallsbelow600,000acre-feet.IncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage. WalterLongOff-ChannelStorage(EnhancedCapacity)AssumesDeckerpowerplantisofflinewhenthisstrategyisineffect.DuringthesimulationperiodLCRAstoredwaterisnotcalledformaintainingstoragecontentsinLakeLongwhilethepowerplantisoffline.DeckerCreekinflows,ColoradoRiver“excessflows”,andreclaimedwaterarestoredinLakeLong.ReleasesofstoredwateraremadetoDeckerCreektomeetdownbasindemandsandtomeetLCRAinstreamflowandbay&estuaryinflowrequirements.IndirectPotableReuse—SARtoLadyBirdLakeIndirectreusethroughLadyBirdLakeforaugmentingpotablewatersupply.Indirectreusesimulatedasaconstantmonthlyamount.ReleasesofstoredwaterfromLakeLongaremadetooffsetdecreasedreturnflowdischargeabovetheBastropgage.BothTier3strategiesaresimulatedanytimeafterJanuary1,2016whenBuchananandTraviscombinedstoragefallsbelow420,000acre-feet.Tier3strategiesceaseifcombinedstoragerecoversto650,000acre-feet.WithregardtotheDeckerstrategy,nodecisionshavebeenmaderegardingactualfutureoperationsofDeckerpowerplant.Tier3StrategiesKeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationTop25’ofLakeLongisusedforreleasingtoDeckerCreek,approx.23,400acre-feetoflakecapacity.20Mgd,approx.22,400afyIncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage. BaselineModelingAssumptions•CombinedStorageinitializedto787,000acre-feet,asobservedonJune1,2014•AllsimulationsbeginJune1,2014andendJanuary1,2024•Dry/referenceyeardemandswhennotsimulatingcurtailmentduetolakecombinedstoragebelow600,000acre-feet,i.e.,pro-ratacurtailmentduetoadeclarationofadroughtworsethanthedroughtofrecord(DWDR)byLCRA•Austinmunicipaldemandgrowth•AustinmunicipaldemandsreducedaccordingtoAustin’sDCPstages•Otherfirmcustomerdemandsreducedinitiallyby20%underDWDR.Reductionby30%below500,000acre-feetofcombinedstorage.•InterruptiblestoredwatercutoffunderDWDR•LCRAWMPEmergencyOrderforcutoffofinterruptiblestoredwaterifDWDRnotineffect•LCRAtemporaryamendmentsforadditionaldiversionpointsofLCRArun-ofriverrightsbelowtheHighlandLakes•LCRAEmergencyOrdertoreducethespringinstreamflowrequirementbetweenBastropandColumbusfrom500to300cfsfor6-consecutiveweeks•CorpusChristirun-of-riverdiversionof35,000afybegins,July2015 BaselineModelingAssumptions(continued)•LatestColoradoRiverBasinhydrologydatasetfromTCEQisused.Thehydrologydatasetincludesallyearsofthecurrentdroughtexceptfor2014.•Thepercentreductionsofthe2011-2013hydrologyrepeatsadjustsstreamflowsatallgagesinthebasinbythestatedpercentage.•LCRA’sgroundwatersupplyinBastropcountyissimulatedasasourceformeetingpowerplantdemandsonLakeBastrop.LCRAgroundwaterissimulatedas5,000afy,andincreasedto10,000afyifdroughtconditionsexistinBastropcountyonJanuary1ofeachyear.•LCRAinstreamflowandbay&estuaryfreshwaterinflowrequirementsarereducedinthesimulationby20%and30%whencombinedstoragefallsbelow600,000and500,000acre-feet,respectively.•TheBaselineandStrategyTiersimulationsdonotcontaintheLCRALowerBasinReservoirProject(LBRP).Thereservoirisexpectedtobeoperationalin2017andwillbelocatedupstreamofBayCity. SimulationHydrology•Thebaselineandstrategytiersweresimulatedwithtwohydrologicconditionsrepeatingfor9fullyears.Thefollowingsequencesbeginwith2015:•2011-2013streamflowrepeating•70%of2011-2013streamflowrepeating•HydrologyforJune-December2014issimulatedbyrepeatingthehydrologyofJune-December2013.The70%streamflowreductionisalsoapplied. SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisBaselineSimulationwithJune1,2014StartIncorporatedintotheBaselineresultshownhere,andallthreetierstrategies,isimplementationoftheAustinDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage.2,100,0001,800,0001,500,000aJLI1,200,00004-ILI,900,000-C-oE0L)600,000300,0000(ioj ResultsforSimulationswithRepeatof2011-2013StreamFlow(11) SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorage900,000800,000700,0004-Ia)600,000a)1U500,000oj0400,000300,000E0200,000100,0000(12)ryN’N’N’r.4N’N’rN’N’r4 TimeSpentatVariousCombinedStorageLevelsBaselineTier1Tier2Tier3StorageNumberofMonthsAtorAbv.600k32495255500-599k45474847400-499k31151614Blw.400k8500116116116116StoragePercentofTotalMonthsAtorAbv.600k28%42%45%47%500-599k39%41%41%41%400-499k27%13%14%12%BIw.400k7%4%0%0%100%100%100%100%(13] DifferencefromBaselineinSimulatedCombinedStorageoflakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorage100,00090,00080,000a)LI70,000a)60,00004-’If.,50,000-DE40,0008C30,000a)a)20,00010,0000(14)N>-->->->t-yN ResultsforSimulationswith70%Repeatof2011-2013StreamFlow(15) SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorageAWRPTFTierStrategySet900,000800,000700,000•1-’ww600,0009-wIU500,00004-,400,000-DC300,000200,000100,0000(16)>..-c7,‘.4‘.‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.-yr.4‘y‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.1‘.4 TimeSpentatVariousCombinedStorageLevelsAWRPTFTierStrategySetBaselineTierlTier2Tier3StorageNumberofMonthsAtorAbv.600k13131313500-599k7899400-499k13172027BIw.400k83787467116116116116StoragePercentofTotalMonthsAtorAbv.600k11%11%11%11%500-599k6%7%8%8%400-499k11%15%17%23%BIw.400k72%67%64%58%100%100%100%100%(17) DifferencefromBaselineinSimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorageAWRPTFTierStrategySet200,000175,000150,0004-’125,0001;100,00075,00050,000CQiC)25,0000(18)-c7,>•-q’-N-,7YN>1 Observations•Asstrategiesincreasecombinedstorage,firmdemandsandenvironmentalflowrequirementscanincrease.Thebenefitofthestrategycanbemeasuredin:•absolutegainincombinedstorage,and•thenumberofmonthsspentatlevels:•abovethetriggerforpro-ratareductionsandimplementingAustin’sDCPstages,and•athigherlevelsofenvironmentalflowmaintenance•The70%streamflowscenarioresultsincombinedstoragebelow500,000acre-feetformostofthesimulation.Includesassumptionpro-ratacurtailmentreducesinstreamflowandbay&estuaryinflowrequirementsby30%attheselevels.(19) Observations(Continued)•Inthemodel,excessflowcaptureonLakeAustin,LadyBirdLake,andattheriverpumpstationforLakeLongincreasesasthecombinedstorageintheHighlandLakesfallsandfirmcustomerdemandsandenvironmentalflowrequirementsarecurtailed.•Inthemodel,excessflowcaptureonLakeAustin,LadyBirdLake,andindirectpotablereusethroughLadyBirdLakeworksynergisticallywithoperationofLakeLongasanexcessflowstorageandreleasefacility.ReleasesfromLakeLongincreasethenumberofmonthswhenupstreamflowscanbecountedasexcess.Likewise,LakeLongreleasesoffsetthedecreaseinreturnflowsbelowLonghornDamduetoindirectpotablereuse.(20) OtherConsiderations•Certainassumptionsweremadeinthemodelingregardingwaterrightpermittingandpriorityorderconsiderationofstreamflows.ModifyingoperationsofexistingwaterrightsmayrequireapplicationforawaterrightamendmentatTCEQ.(21) AppendixGLakeAustinDrawdownSummaryCityofAustin—WatershedProtectionDepartment LakeAustinDrawdownSummaryPreparedbyChrisHerrington,PE,CityofAustinWatershedProtectionDepartmentChris.Herrinpton@AustinTexas.Gov,(512)974-284005/16/2014,revised06/20/2014OnepotentialalternativewatersupplyaugmentationevaluatedbytheAustinWaterUtility(http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/FinaISupply-SidePresentationAWRPTF5-19-14.pdf)involvesseasonallyvaryingtheoperatinglevelsofLakeAustintoallowcaptureoflocalflowsratherthanpassingthoseinflowsdownstreamintheColoradoRiver.Watersurfaceelevationmaybedecreasedupto3feetfromthecrestofthedamunderthispotentialstrategy.ThenormalwatersurfaceelevationofLakeAustinis492.8ftabovemeansealevel.TheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB)occasionallyconductsbathymetricstudiesofLakeAustin.TWDByear2009lakedepthinformationwasusedtovisuallyapproximatethedifferenceina3footdrawdownofwatersurfaceelevationsatselectedlocationsonLakeAustinfordemonstrationpurposes.Pleasenotethatthelakebathymetrylayerdoesnotexactlyalignwiththeunderlyingaerialimageryshown,andtheTWDBusesa5footcontourintervalsuchthatthedifferingelevationsareonlygeneralizedapproximations. NormalShoreline3footDrawdownL.Figure1.DownstreamLakeAustinnearTomMillerDamshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation. Figure2.LakeAustinmid-reachnearLoop360bridgeandBullCreekCoveshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation.NormalShoreline3footDrawdownd. Figure3.LakeAustinuppermid-reachnearEmmaLongMetropolitanParkshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation.NormalShoreline3footDrawdownL.v.A‘I‘320480640L. AppendixHWaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesCityofAustin—AustinWaterUtility WaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesDisaggregatedWaterUseCategoriesResidentialIndoor:FY11:10,842,075,705(54%ofclass)FY13:11,279,989,930(70%ofclass)ResidentialOutdoor:FY11:9,238,288,595(46%ofclass)FY13:4,776,815,370(30%ofclass)MultifamilyIndoor:FY11:7,582,167,600(80%ofclass)FY13:7,139,734,800(79%ofclass)MultifamilyOutdoor:FY11:1,895,844,800(20%ofclass)FY13:1,860,760,400(21%ofclass)CommercialIndoor:FY11:6,691,880,400(53%ofclass)FY137,153,964,400(67%ofclass)CommercialOutdoor:FY11:5,830,801,400(47%ofclass)FY13:3,591,125,510(33%ofclass)WholesaleIndoor:FY11:2,227,506,000(63%ofclass)FY13:2,197,483,200(74%ofclass)WholesaleOutdoor:FY11:1,286,937,400(37%ofclass)FY13:756,792,728(26%ofclass)*NotesTheresidentialclassincludesduplexes,triplexesandfourplexes.TheMultifamilyclassincludesfiveplexesandhigher.Theindoor/outdoorsplitsarebasedonvariedassumptionsamongdifferentuserclasses.Allindoor/outdoorsplitsarebasedonbilledconsumptionoftheindividualclasses. LargeVolumeUse:FY11:Samsung-1,212,413,000Freescale—651,613,700UniversityofTexas—547,009,600Spansion—419,899,000Hospira—114,565,000Novati—69,790,000Total—3,015,290,300(Totaldoesnotincludeanadditional599,992,400gallonsofUniversityofTexasCommercialclassconsumption)FY13:Samsung-1,436,772,000Freescale—644,751,000UniversityofTexas—464,694,200Spansion—389,113,000Hospira—83,756,000Novati—64,112,000Total—3,083,198,200(Totaldoesnotincludeanadditional384,509,800gallonsofUniversityofTexasCommercialclassconsumption)SystemUseandLosses:SeeattachedWaterLossSummary UseFactorsNumberofconnectionsResidential—193,278Multi-family—5,692Commercial—16,906Industrial(LargeVolume)—28Wholesale-51Totalconnections—215,955(Source:TWDBAnnualWaterConservationReportforWaterSuppliersfortheCityofAustinFY13)PersonsperconnectionFY13ResidentialServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—523,798FY13Multi-familyServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—350,608FY13WholesaleServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—53,620FY13TotalServiceAreaPopulation(Residential+Multifamily÷Wholesaleprojected)—928,026(SourceforServiceAreaPopulation:UtilityBillingDataset)AverageHouseholdSize—2.49AverageFamilySize—3.27(Sourcefordemographicdata:AmericanCommunitySurveyProfileReport2012forAustin)PerCapitaIncomePerCapitaIncome-$31,130MedianHouseholdIncome-$52,453MeanHouseholdIncome-$76,287(Sourceforincomedata:AmericanCommunitySurveyProfileReport2012forAustin)RainwaterHarvestingDateRangeSystemParticipantsCapacity2010-2014Over500Gallons303799,909Under5002010-2014Gallons929140,9762003-2010RainBarrel3,170401,490Totals4,4021,342,375(Source:WCTSquery) GraywaterReuse2gravitysystems(Source:AuxiliaryWaterPermitSearchCY12-CY14)4systemsofunknowntype(Source:Informalstaffdiscussions)Weather:MaximumTemperature—1994—104,07-251995—103,07-281996—102,06-201997—100,08-091998—108,06-141999—106,07-202000—112,08-052001—105,07-182002—102,07-262003—110,07-082004—101,07-052005—107,08-252006—104,07-242007—100,07-132008—105,07-142009—106,06-262010—107,08-242011—112,08-282012—109,06-262013—108,06-29MeanMonthlyMaxTemp1994—80.11995—78.81996—80.11997—76.41998—80.51999—82.12000—80.62001—78.82002—78.92003—79.9 2004—78.92005—80.82006—82.92007—78.82008—82.92009—81.82010—79.52011—84.02012—82.62013—81.3Precipitation(Calendaryear/inches)-1994—41.161995—33.981996—29.561997—46.791998—39.121999—23.932000—37.272001—42.872002—36.002003—21.412004—52.272005—22.332006—34.72007—46.952008—16.072009—31.382010—37.762011—19.682012—32.982013—41.03(Sourceforweatherdata:NOAA,MabrySite) AWuWaterLossCalculationFY11FY12FY13WATERUTILITYGENERALINFORMATIONWaterUtilityNameAustinWaterUtilityAuatinWaterUtilityAustinWaterUtilityOctaberl,2OtOtaOctaberl2011taOctaberl,2012September30September30toSeptember30ReportingPeriod201120122013RetailPopulationU55,69t855,U69874406SYSTEMINPUTVOLUMEWate’VnlumetmmownSaarcea52,834,738,00047,t37,782,00045,927,345,000gals243,014,931mGPruductonMeterAccuracy(%(9800%9800%tUUl%potCorrectedSystemlnpLtVolume53,912,997,95948,099,777,55146,864,637,755gals247,974,419388WhnlessleImportVnlumesU71,845,008Ut,098,000tSt,t43,080TotalSystemInputVolumeS39t29t7,9S948,t71,622,SSt46,952,735,75524t,t34,362,3t0AUTHOWOCONSUMPTIONBilledMeteredUt11%48,t65,3t3,3008934%43,970,260,0879128%41,793,546,1388900%gala221,481,472325tilledUrmetemd070%tU7,t97,505035%3,310,877001%4,265,t2t001%galaN3t70462t1222,t32,176,945UnbilledMetered(amountusedatAWUnuildngs/tacil’ties)020%70,478,8000t3%55,604,700012%36,241,600012%gals342911660UnbiliedUnmetered(amountusedbyothercityOenartnienls043%94,727,346018%73,059,t20O1S%69,148,969012%gals563024394906,755,994TntalAuthanoedConsumptiont944%40,Slt,216,9518999%44,102,315,4049153%41,923,202,5358926%gals223,038,932939223,Ott,t32,93tWaterLtsses(Systeminputunlumeminusauthansedcnasumptian(1056%S,394,5ti,00t1001%4,069,307,067845%5,029,533,2281071%galsTotalApparentLouses226%1,062,369,523197%1,063,431,734221%1,006,723,469214%gals5,393,388,660TotalRealLosses831%4,332,211,485t04%3,005,875,333624%4,022,009,751857%gals19,742,040,78025,905,429,448UnavoidableRealLosses,inMGI324%3,9U2,260270%4,007,127304%4,054,298315%MGI1i*iàààftñisi1saä?R%iciIlossvaleme(divby365jdividedbyunavodable________________________________________________RetailPnceotWater$412$440$453Costpsr8,000galCostofApparentLosses$4,376,962$4,667,768$4,560,457VanableProducbnnCostotWater*$033$039$041Costper1,060galCostofRealLosses$1,429,630$1,173,296$1,662,145TotalCostImpactofApparentandRealLosses$5,806,592$5,841,663$6,222,602SAVINGSFROMREDUCINGILlFROMFYUULEVELRealWateFLossatFY08ILl4,742,031,9654,771,643,31t4,827,814,033CUmUlativesavingsActaalrealmaterloss4,332,211,4U53,005,875,3334,622,809,751SaVngsingal409,828,4881,765,767,985ets,0t4,2t2####It#######galSaVngslnAF1,257.695418.9429692,47t9,836AFSavngsin$$135,240.76$688,649.51$33t,t51.76llUllllUOtlltllUUllTWDBreliabilityassessmentscore696967.55yearsuersgeWsserlosslPCl1727130315761617wstrlosspercentagewithoutwholesaleSysarsvnrsge‘1loss1011% AppendixIAustinWaterNeedsEstimatesLaurenRoss,PhD.,P.E. Appendix:AustinWaterNeedsEstimatesTheAustinWaterResourcesTaskForceundertookanefforttoestimateAustin’swaterneedsbasedonavailablehistoricalwateruse,population,andlandusedata.OurvolunteereffortsfallshortofthedetailedwaterneedsmodelthatwouldbepartoftherecommendedIntegratedWaterPlan.Despitetheirlackofdetail,however,ourmethodsandresultsprovideusefulinformationregardingAustin’shistoricalwateruseindisaggregatedcategoriesandwheretherearepotentialfordemandreductions.Theyarealsoillustrativeoftheusefulnessofsuchananalysisandforthatreasonweareincludingtheminthisappendix.InformationSourcesWaterneedsresultspresentedinthisappendixarebasedoninformationfromthefollowingthreesources.AustinWaterUtilityDataTheAustinWaterUtilityprovidedwateruseinformationindisaggregatedcategoriesforresidential[single-family),multifamily,commercial,wholesaleandAustin’ssixlargestcustomers:Samsung,Freescale,UniversityofTexas,Spansion,Hospira,andNovati.Datawasprovidedforfiscalyears2011and2013.EachfiscalyearbeginsonOctober1andextendsthroughSeptember30.Thisdataisincludedintheprecedingappendix.Waterconsumptiondataforresidential,multifamily,commercialandwholesaleusesweredisaggregatedintooutdoorandindooruses.Thisdisaggregationisbasedonwaterusedifferencesbetweenlow(winter)monthsandothermonthswhenlandscapeirrigationismorecommon.Thisdisaggregationprocessproducesinaccurateestimates.Utilitycustomerirrigationmetersshowsomeirrigationoccursineverymonth.Thisinformationis,however,thecurrentlybestavailableandwasusedinthisanalysis.’AustinWaterUtilityalsoprovidedinformationregardingthenumberofpeopleservedinthreeofitscustomerclasses.ThisinformationispresentedinTable1.1Basedonconversationswithwaterutilitystaff. Table1AustinWaterUtilityCustomerPopulationFiscalYearFiscalYearCustomerClass20112013Single-Family503,463523,798Multi-Family336,996350,608Wholesale51,53853,620Total891,997928,026AustinGeographicalInformationSystemDataTheCityofAustinmakesGISdataavailabletothepublic.GISdataincludeinformationontheWaterUtilityservicearea,onlanduse,andonimperviousarea:buildingsandtransportation.TheseGISdatawereusedtocalculateperviousandimperviousareasbylanduseclasswithintheutilityservicearea.Table1summarizesthesedata.Table2.LandUsewithinAustinWaterUtilityServiceAreaPerviousBuildingTransportationTotalAreaLandUse(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)Single-Family49,7419,68969060,119Multi-Family6,1871,9802,00010,167Commercial5,2891,3743,2459,908Industrial8,9471,3242,54912,820Civic8,5229981,43410,954Other227,0881,80919,334248,232Totalarea305,77317,17429,253352,200Figure1showsthelandusewithintheAustinWaterUtilityboundary.Figure2isamapshowingimperviousareasurroundingtheWallerCreekCenterat625East10thStreet.Thesizeofperviousareasforlandusesassociatedwitheachcustomerclasswereusedtocalculateoutdoorwaterdemands.EvapotranspirationDataTheTexasAgriLifeExtensionService2maintainspotentialevapotranspirationdatabasedonweatherstationsaroundthestate.Thesedataareusedtoestimateirrigationdemandsforawiderangeofvegetation,includingturfandlandscapeplants.Theperiodsofrecord2http://texaset.tamu.edu/. UondUseKey——.lobiiehome—LargelotsnrgIefamiIy———InduStrlI—cLan—Openspoon———UndewIspndruralW..®E25510Figure1.LandUsewithinCityofAustinWaterUtilityWaterandWastewaterFeeBoundaryJune14.2014 ImperviousAreasImperviousTransportationAreasImperviousBuildingAreasFigure2.ImperviousAreasUsedtoIdentifyNetAreaforLandscapeIrrigationJune14,2014 IndoorWaterUseforEfficientandMaintainedResidentialPlumbingInformationwasobtainedfromfivedifferentsourcesregardingthedailywateruseforhouseholdsusingefficientandwell-maintainedresidentialplumbing.Dailywaterusevaluesrangedfrom36.5to52.6gallonsperpersonperday.DatafromthesesourcesischartedinFigure4.forpotentialevapotranspirationstationsacrossTexasarevaried.AtimeseriesofdailypotentialevapotranspirationwascompiledfromfourCentralTexasStations:Georgetown;Austin;AustinMorrison;andSanAntonioNorth.Fordayswithoutdatafromanyofthesestations,potentialevapotranspirationdatawascalculatedusingtheHargreavesequation.Irrigationdemandswerecalculatedusingawarmseasonturffactor(0.6]andahighstressqualityfactor(0.4).Figure3showsestimatedannuallandscapewaterdemandsforeachyearfrom2008through2013,alongwiththetotalrainfallamountsineachyear.Figure3.EstimatedAnnualLandscapeWaterDemand37403530250)20WaterDemand—Rain15105341,8001,6001,4001,2001,00035281,5521427(0a)I..UCoLI,0(0LI,a)0)za)0.(0U(I,CCo-J0)toIa)>800600-400200200820092010201120124822013 Figure4.IndoorWaterUseEstimatesforEfficientandMaintainedPlumbing60>.3::c100r0EastBayofMunicipalUtilityDistrict,CaliforniaAnalysisTheinformationdescribedabovewasusedtocalculateindoorandoutdoorwateruseperpersonperdayforresidential,multi-family,andwholesalecustomers.Anestimatedneedwasalsocalculatedforindoorresidentialusebasedon45gallonsperpersonperday.Thisvalueislowerthanhistoricaluse,butwellwithintherangeofachievableindoorwaterefficiencies.Figure5compareshistoricaldailyuseinfiscalyears2011and2013,intermsofgallonsperpersonperday,totheestimatedindoorneed.Thischartshowsthatwateruseforallresidentialcustomerclassesexceedsthestandardforefficientindoorplumbing.Theestimatedneedforoutdoorwaterusewasbasedon400gallonsperacreperdayforperviousareasineachofthecorrespondinglanduseclasses.Thisvalueisapproximatelyone-thirdofaveragelandscapeirrigationdemandvaluesforyears2008through2012shownonFigure3.Theyear2013waswetterthanusualandoutdoordemandswerecorrespondinglower.AmericanWaterWorksAssociationUtahDivisionWaterResourcesAquacraft,Sustainablelnc.caseFocusforstudy,p.37Adelaide,AustraliaModelValue Figure5.HistoricUseandEstimatedNeedforIndoorResidentialWater•FiscalYear2011(gallons/person/day)•FiscalYear2013_______________(gallons/person/day)•ModelAssumptions(gallons/person/day)—1—--_______________—---—--——-ResidentialIndoorMultifamilyIndoorWholesaleIndoor140120-100I‘I595945Outdoorwaterdemandforeachcustomerclasswascalculatedbymultiplying400gallonsperacreperdaybythenumberofperviousacresinlanduseareasassociatedwiththatcustomerclassinTable2.Waterdemandinfiscalyears2011and2013arecomparedtotheestimatedwaterneedinTable3andinFigure6.Thedatashowthatwaterdemandsinfiscalyear2013were12,630acre-feethigherthanthiscalculationoftheneededwateramount,includingsomelandscapeirrigation.Mostofthiswatersavingswouldbeachievedbyreducingresidentialandmulti-familyindoorwateruse. Table3.AComparisonofFiscalYears2011and2013WaterDemandwithanEstimatedWaterNeedbyCustomerClassClassFiscalYear2011FiscalYear2013EstimatedNeedResidentialIndoor33,27534,61926,405ResidentialOutdoor28,35314,66122,288MultifamilyIndoor23,27021,91317,674MultifamilyOutdoor5,8195,7112,772CommercialIndoor20,53821,956CommercialOutdoor17,89511,0226,379WholesaleIndoor6,8366,7442,703WholesaleOutdoor3,9502,3232,323SixLargeCustomers9,2549,463CivicOutdoor-3,819TotalCustomerDemand149,191128,411115,78140,000Figure6.Austin’sHistoricalWaterUseandEstimatedNeedbyCustomerClassLi0anU,IJSci:35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000-liii’-IIIF”I.JEh2iJ•FiscalYear2011•FiscalYear2013•EstimatedNeed‘e\oo’_o0—‘-
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting by calling (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JUNE 23, 2014 2:30 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL – ROOM 1029 (STAFF BULLPEN) 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – June 23, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the June 18, 2014 meeting CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications ADJOURNMENT
Approved Minutes — original pdf
Page 1 of 1 The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (‘the Task Force’) convened in a meeting at Austin City Hall, Room 1029, 301 West Second Street, Austin, Texas. CALL TO ORDER – Michael Osborne called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m. Task Force members in attendance: Carol Biedrzycki, Clay Butler, Barry Dreyling, Michael Osborne, Tom “Smitty” Smith and Michele Van Hyfte. Grace Hsieh, Cyrus Reed and Mike Sloan were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. The motion to approve minutes of the June 18, 2014 meeting, by Ms. Biedrzycki and seconded by Mr. Smith, passed on a vote of 6-0. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The following person addressed the Task Force: Susan Lippman – Provided an analysis of the low- and moderate-income weatherization goals. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing – Mr. Osborne distributed copies of the draft report to Task Force members. The group discussed which sections were mostly complete and which sections required work. During the discussion of the Environmental section, Mr. Butler urged the group to recommend a goal of zero emissions by 2030 (instead of 2040 or 2050) unless it breached the 2% affordability goal. For the Equity section, members discussed revising the recommendation regarding dedicating 10% of the energy efficiency budget to low income customers. During the discussion about the price of carbon and proposed EPA rules, Mr. Osborne said everyone should work to make sure that state laws were written to protect early adopters like Austin. Regarding the Fayette Power Project, Mr. Osborne said that several attorneys had discussed with him the idea that Austin could consider buying 100% of one unit to be in a position to ramp down and ultimately close the unit. The group discussed other sections and writing assignments. Ms. Biedrzycki offered to draft the Energy Efficiency section and Mr. Smith offered to draft the Zero Energy Buildings section. 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report – There was no action on recommendations, however, on behalf of Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith made a motion to request that Austin Energy run two additional scenarios, one based on high gas and the other on high storage. The motion died for lack of a second. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications – Mr. Osborne said that at the next meeting on July 2, the …
Citizen Communications: Susan Lippman's analysis of proposals regarding energy efficiency and weatherization goals for low, moderate income — original pdf
6-23 2014 To: Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force From: Susan Lippman An Analysis of the Low- and Moderate-Income Weatherization goals, as a Percentage of a Megawatt Goal, Compared to Percentage of a Budget—a Mostly Mathematical Discussion I have been studying and analyzing Austin Energy data a great deal since the June 12 meeting of Austin Interfaith’s Green Team (energy subcommittee). I hope to contribute some perspective from what I’ve been learning, with most emphasis on the mathematics and trying to see the numbers in their proportional contexts, and I hope this will be helpful to everyone interested in the discussion. Nothing here has been reviewed by members of any group I’m in. I’m focusing on the proposal for 10% of the demand reduction goal of 429 megawatts to be designated for low-income and moderate-income weatherization over 10 years. At the time we met I didn’t have the background to gauge whether this is an “incredibly high” target, or not, and I still want to mostly avoid value judgments, and focus on the math. (I will just say for myself that I place a very high value on both the climate protection and the equity goals of the task force.) Carol B., I appreciate what you are saying about a setting a goal that will be a challenge. I have a copy of Lanetta Cooper’s Memorandum to the Gen Plan Task Force, which recommends 10% of the demand savings as above, or “alternatively, 20% of AE’s Energy Efficiency budget should be spent on low and moderate income customer households with at least 10% prioritized for a low income weatherization program.” I will return to this alternative later. To summarize the results that will be reached at the end of these three pages, the percent of the annual EE budget that could be needed (under the assumptions employed) to meet the megawatt target could range from 40% to 80% of the current EE budget. These 3 results hinge on whether the MW savings of the Low- and moderate-income program is 1.0 MW, 0.75 MW, or 0.5 MW: Low estimate: $6,020,000 / $15,000,000 = 40% of EE budget Medium estimate: $7,980,000 / $15,000,000 = 53% of EE budget High estimate: $12,040,000 / $15,000,000 = 80% of EE budget Expansive changes in the assumptions used here could change everything of course, and are to be hoped for. My intent is to explain the …
Agenda — original pdf
Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force June 19, 2014 – 3:30 p.m. Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 East 10th Street Austin, Texas For more information go to: Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force AGENDA Sharlene Leurig, Chair Tom Mason, Vice Chair Kris Bailey Christianne Castleberry Luke Metzger Marisa Perales Paul Robbins Lauren Ross Stefan Schuster Brian Smith Jennifer Walker A. CALL TO ORDER – June 19, 2014, 3:30 p.m. B. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda, but related to the charge of the task force, with up to 3 citizens donating their time to one individual. Citizens donating their time must be in the room at the time the speaker is at the podium and must have been in the first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order. C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of the meeting minutes from the June 16, 2014 Task Force meeting D. VOTING ITEMS FROM TASK FORCE 1. Consider and approve recommendations and wording for report to City Council on water resources Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force Regular Meeting June 19, 2014 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 4 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Felicia Cancino at the Austin Water Utility Department at 512-972-0114, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711 Page 2 of 2 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE’S REVIEW 1. Discussion of Task Force and Working Group Goals including discussion of prioritizing short term supply side and demand side drought response options and recommendations F. STAFF BRIEFINGS, PRESENTATIONS, AND OR REPORTS 1. As needed, staff briefing on any Task Force requests related to prioritizing options or Task Force development of recommendations G. REPORTS BY TASK FORCE 1. Working Group Updates 1) Evaluate City’s Water Needs 2) Examine Future Water Sources 3) Evaluate Potential Water Management Scenarios H. NON VOTING DISCUSSION ITEMS None I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS J. ADJOURN