Austin Water Utility

140 Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)

Conservation Plan

January 27, 2011

 Presentation Outline

• Purpose, Background & Context

• Overview of the 140 Plan

• Focus and Next Steps

2
 Purpose
• May 2010 – City Council accepted the Citizen’s Water
Conservation Implementation Task Force (CWCITF) report
and directed AWU to develop an action plan to reduce
water use to an average of 140 GPCD by 2020.

• The resolution calls for the plan to include:

 Technical and cost-benefit evaluations of recommendations
 A 10 year conservation action plan that incorporates educational
programs, marketing & outreach and cost beneficial strategies
 An implementation schedule, responsibility and estimated water
savings and costs
 An analysis to assist City Council in assessing whether the goal
is achievable
 Report back to City Council
• Written report with plan details
• Presentation overview

3
 Austin Conservation History

• Strong customer incentives in 1990s and 2000s

 Implementation began in 2007

• Aggressive conservation rates since 1994

• 2006 Council goal to reduce peak use 1% per year

over 10 years
 Implementation began in 2007
 Mandatory watering restrictions
 Reclaimed water system investments
 Plumbing Code changes
 Implemented 5th tier for residential high users in 2010

4
 GPCD

120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
FY 1990

FY 1992

FY 1994

FY 1996

FY 1998

FY 2000

FY 2002

FY 2004

FY 2006
GPCD from FY 1990 to 2010

FY 2008

FY 2010
5
 140 Plan Background
• Where does the 140 number come from?
 2004 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) report
recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs)
 Report suggests goal to reduce water use by at least 1%
annually until reaching 140 gallons per capita per day
 TWDB recommended using GPCD to measure internal
progress, not to compare between cities
• Austin’s Plan and TWDB Recommendations
 Through historical and current conservation programs,
Austin has addressed 21 of 22 TWDB BMPs
 The 140 Plan reduces water use by 1.52% per year
average
• Pending legislation (SB 181) recommends moving
to uniform GPCD reporting

6
140 Plan Overview

7
 Developing the 140 Plan

• Staff analyzed over 100 recommendations from

the CWCITF
 Quantified savings and costs using research from other
cities, AWWA, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Water
Research Foundation

• Established six overarching program goals used

in selecting strategies
 Reach 140 GPCD goal by 2020
 Reduce peak demand
 Pursue cost-effective strategies
 Ensure conservation reaches all customer sectors
 Ensure consumer awareness of conservation
 Promote innovation in water conservation

8
 Developing the 140 Plan

• Staff screened CWCITF potential measures using

a tool developed by the Alliance for Water
Efficiency
• Selected strategies showed either positive
benefit-cost ratio or complemented one of the
other program goals.
• After screening, final package of strategies
analyzed for 10-year financial impact

9
 New Conservation Strategies
Improve Irrigation Audit Follow -up

Pilot Test Irrigation Devices

Large Meter Testing Program

Stormw ater Reuse Ordinance

Reclaimed Program Marketing

Extend 2x w eek w atering schedule

A/C Condensate

Retrofit Packages for Institutions

Retrofit Packages for Commercial Sectors

Water Waste Administrative Enforcement

Limitations on Irrigated Area

Irrigation Design Review

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Estimated GPCD Reduction by 2020
 Projected Savings by Task Force
50

45

CWCITF
40 2007 WCTF
Existing

35

30
GPCD Savings

25

20

15

10

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
 Easy-Moderate Implementation

• Shift some funding from incentives to water waste

enforcement
• Extend mandatory watering schedule to year-round
for residential customers
• Market to customers along existing reclaimed lines
• Pursue contracts to market retrofit packages to
commercial and institutional sectors
• Transition to administrative enforcement of water
waste fines
• Implement marketing & education strategies

12
 Additional Stakeholder Input Needed

• Impose limits on irrigated area for

residential and commercial customers

• Implement irrigation design plan review

• Implement conservation rates for

commercial & multifamily customers

13
 CWCITF Recommendation Examples
• Residential Customers
 Limit new permanent irrigation systems to no more than
2.5 times building footprint
 Require design plan review of new systems
 Would apply to both new development and existing
properties installing a new system or major modifications
to existing system
 Sample ratios:
– Mueller development ~ 1.6 ratio of landscape to footprint
– Avery Ranch ~ 2.9 ratio of landscape to footprint
– Circle C ~ 3.4 ratio of landscape to footprint
• Commercial & Multifamily Customers
 Limit new permanent irrigation systems to no more than
1.5 times the required landscape area
 Require design plan review of new systems
14
 140 GPCD Plan
Average Per Capita Demands
200.0

180.0
G a llo n s p e r C a p it a p e r D a y ( G P C D )

160.0

140.0

120.0

With Program Savings

100.0
Dry Year (+10%)

80.0 Wet Year (-15%)

140 Goal
60.0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

15
Financial Impact

16
 140 GPCD Plan Financial Impacts

• Total Water Rate Impact of

Achieving 140 GPCD by 2020 25% to 35%
 In 2020, revenue will be reduced by approximately $100 million
on an annual basis

• Less: Rate Impacts Included

In Previous Forecast 7% to 11%
 Reclaimed Water
 Other Conservation Programs

• Net Additional Water Rate

Increase Through 2020 18% to 24%

• Average Residential Customer

Water Bill Impact by 2020 $9 to $10 /mo
17
 140 GPCD Plan Financial Impacts
• Possible strategies for addressing revenue loss
associated with 140 plan:
 Increase rates
 Operating Cost reductions/Service reductions
 Create new fees (“Conservation Rider”) to offset lost revenue
 Increase development and other fees
• Possible strategies for addressing increased
revenue volatility associated with conservation
 Higher reserves
 Higher minimum charge
 Increase blocks 1 & 2 more than 3-5
 Mid-Year / Emergency rate changes during periods of very low
usage
 Add a variable component to rates that could be adjusted
periodically as system-wide usage increases or decreases

18
Focus and Next Steps

19
 Summary
• The report provided includes the detail on the items called
for in the Council Resolution:
 Technical and cost-benefit evaluations for Task Force
recommendations
 A 10 year conservation action plan that incorporates educational
programs, marketing & outreach and cost beneficial strategies
 An implementation schedule, responsibility and estimated water
savings and costs
 An analysis to assist City Council in assessing whether the goal
is achievable

20
 Next Steps

• Continue implementation of 2007 Task Force

Strategies
• Closely monitor GPCD Legislation
• Continue involvement in LCRA Water
Management Planning Process

21
 LCRA Water Management Plan
• Austin’s water supply comes from a combination of:
 State-granted surface water rights (run-of-river)
 Water supply contracts with LCRA (providing firm back-up to
ROR rights)

• Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) operates and manages

the Highland Lakes system for water supply, flood control, and
other purposes

• LCRA’s State-approved Water Management Plan (WMP):

 Guides Highland Lakes’ water management for all LCRA customers
who use stored water
 Sets out decision making process for release of water downstream for
agricultural uses, primarily rice irrigation, based on the combined
storage of Lakes Buchanan and Travis
 Includes drought management plan and other components
22
 2009 Highland Lakes and Run-of-River Water Use
Including Lake Evaporation

600,000

49%
500,000

City of Austin -
400,000 Municipal Use
Water Use (AF/yr)

300,000

200,000
15% 15%

10%
100,000
6%
3%
-
t
s

er

l
y*

se
s
pa
en
se

ie
io

io
g

th

U
li t
at

nm

ici

at
er
ea

-O

pa

er
ig

or
un
En
el

ro
Irr

at
ap
ici
-M
ric
R

vi
in

lW
un
rm

Ev
En
y

ct
st
nc

in

ra
le
Fi
Au

s
st
ge

-E

ke

tu
er
l&

Au

ul
am
er

th

La
na

ric
Em

O
te

nd
io

Ag
l/ S
at

la
re

ria

gh
ec

st

Hi
du
R

* STP water use included in

In

Industrial/Steam-Electric-Other
Stored (Lake) Water Run of River Water ** Total water use includes stored
water & run-of-river water
 Water Conservation and Lake Levels

• Under the current WMP:

 On the supply-side, water that Austin conserves becomes
available for other uses and does not necessarily remain in
the Highland Lakes
 The fuller the lakes are at the beginning of the year the
greater the likelihood that more water will be available for
“interruptible” agricultural water releases
– “Open supply” when combined storage is above 1.4 M AF/yr on
January 1st each year

• WMP revision process is underway with the City of

Austin involved as a firm water stakeholder
 Revisions anticipated to be submitted to TCEQ by late Fall
2012, TCEQ will then review and conduct formal public input
process
 Key outcome is to strengthen the link between conservation
and lake levels 24
 Next Steps

• Continue implementation of 2007 Task Force

Strategies
• Closely monitor GPCD Legislation
• Continue involvement in LCRA Water
Management Planning Process
• Future Council Work Session for further
discussion

25
Questions

26