Download - Water extremes in austin texas
Water Extremes in Austin, Texas Daryl Slusher, Assistant Director
Raj Bhattarai, Division Manager
David Greene, Climate Program Coordinator
Austin Water Utility
Summary
• Austin and Water
• Wildlands
• Water Conservation
• Heat, Drought, & Fire
Barton Springs
Lake Travis Image Courtesy of LCRA
Austin Drinking Water Supply
Wildlands ConservationWildlands Conservation 39,000 acres managed for water quality 39,000 acres managed for water quality
and endangered species protectionand endangered species protection Protecting drinking water quality long Protecting drinking water quality long
before it reaches treatment plantsbefore it reaches treatment plants Protecting Barton Springs water qualityProtecting Barton Springs water quality Reviving Texas natural heritage and native Reviving Texas natural heritage and native
ecosystemsecosystems
Onion Creek-Wet Year Walk for Karst Features Spring 2007
• Onion Creek November 2010.
Photo: Marc Opperman
Onion Creek February 2011
2007 WCTF Recommendations Ten-Year Estimated Peak Day Savings
Mill
ions
of G
allo
ns p
er D
ay
51st Street Reclaimed Tank• Service to UT, city golf
course, and eventually state Capitol. . .
• Photovoltaics
• On edge of old airport redevelopment in central Austin
• Aesthetics
• 1st of 7 tanks
Residential Water Bills 0 – 10,000 Gals.
13
Residential Water Bills 0 – 60,000 Gals.
14
Austin’s Water Use and Population
How Hot Is It?•Record 87 88 89 90 days above 100 in Austin during summer 2011.
•Driest 12 month period since Texas began keeping records in 1895
•Record low inflow amounts to the Highland Lakes
•Record high electricity use
Photo: George Steinmetz
Stage 2 Restrictions & Enforcement• One watering day per week, no automatic irrigation after
10 a.m.
• Restrictions on vehicle & pavement washing, fountains, fill valves for pools, water in restaurants
• Routine patrols, “sweeps,” and 311 investigations
• Witnessed violations result in warning, must return proof of compliance to avoid citation
• Class C misdemeanor, $475+
Barton Springs. Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas• Capital of Texas
• Deep in the heart of Texas
• Area: ~289 sq. miles
• Metro Area Population:
~1.7 million Mexico Gulfof
Mexico
OklahomaNewMexico
AUSTIN WATER-City-owned Utility-Operates both waterand wastewater systems-Population Served: 901,000
Water System-Two water treatment plants-Total Capacity: 285 MGD
Water System (contd…)
-Historic Peak Demand: 250 MGD-34 Reservoirs, 24 pump stations-167 million gallons of storage-3,700 miles of distribution system-33,000 Fire hydrants
Wastewater System-2,700 miles of collection system (separate)-52,200 manholes-126 wastewater lift stations-2 major wastewater treatment plants: 75 MGD each-9 small wastewater treatment plants-Average wastewater flow: 86 MGD-One central biosolids management plant – beneficial use of biosolids, “Dillo Dirt”
Austin Water Utility• 1,070 employees
• 6 Program areas: Treatment, Pipeline Operations, Engineering, Finance & Administration, Water Resources Management, Environmental Affairs & Conservation
• 30 Divisions
• Annual O&M Budget: $470 million
• Capital Improvement Program: $1.1 billion for 5 years
153,429156,397
168,965173,038
176,096178,608 182,977184,659188,441
192,511
197,511 200,972
207,997
209,994210,901
212,658215,165
140,324143,298
154,498
159,157160,744163,610
168,159169,330
174,593178,574
184,022 187,971
194,684
196,842198,116
199,863202,391
1,056 1,051 1,051 1,045 1,045 1,034 1,044 1,044 1,005 1,020 1,033 1,036 1,036
1,057 1,070 1,070 1,069
900
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000
210,000
220,000
230,000
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11CYE
11-12Proj
Tota
l FTE
s
Cus
tom
ers
Water Customers Wastewater Customers Total FTEs
Full Time Employees (FTEs) vs. Customer Growth
$117.64 $116.94
$97.08 $84.24
$79.67 $72.25 $72.21 71.54$71.36
$69.98 $64.34 $63.75
$59.81 $50.80
$46.72 $45.99 $45.87
$41.35 $38.81
$33.32
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140
Atlanta, GASeattle, WA
San Diego, CASan Marcos, TX
Portland, ORPflugerville, TX
Corpus Christi, TXHouston, TX
Cedar Park, TXLubbock, TX
Austin, TXGeorgetown, TXRound Rock, TXFort Worth, TX
Dallas, TXAbilene, TX
Arlington, TXSan Antonio, TX
Phoenix, AZEl Paso, TX
Austin, TexasCurrent - $64.34
Combined Water & Wastewater
Average Residential Bill Comparison
1.99%1.74%
1.66%1.52%
1.37%1.36%
1.30%1.16%
1.10%1.05%1.05%
1.03%0.97%0.97%
0.89%0.85%
0.82%0.81%
0.69%
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Atlanta, GASeattle, WA
Corpus Christi, TXLubbock, TX
San Marcos, TXPortland, ORHouston, TX
Cedar Park, TXPflugerville, TX
Abilene, TXAustin, TX
Georgetown, TXEl Paso, TX
Round Rock, TXFort Worth, TX
San Antonio, TXDallas, TX
Arlington, TXPhoenix, AZ
The percentage of median household income was calculated by taking the results of each individual city's bill based on that city's rates and the usage of the Austin average consumption and flows. From those results, we divide the annual amount by the individual city's median income.Median Income source: http://www.huduser.org/datasets
Comparison of Monthly Residential BillPercent of Median Family Income
Early 1980s: Spills, Chills and Fish Kills• Inadequate Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
• Emergency trucking of wastewater – “Sewage on Wheels”
• Permit Limits: 20 mg/L BOD5, 20 mg/L TSS
• Permit Violations: 1982 – 324; 1983 – 335
• River DO – 1982 – 2.4 mg/L; 1983 – 1.6 mg/L; 1984 – 1.4 mg/L (Standard – 5 mg/L)
• 1986 – Stricter Permit Limits, Plant Expansions and Upgrades: 10 mg/L CBOD5, 15 mg/L TSS and 2 mg/L NH3-N (monthly average)
• 1990 – Austin volunteered for even stricter limits: 5 mg/L CBOD5, 5 mg/L TSS and 2 mg/L NH3-N (annual average)
1990 – 2011: Two Decades of Exceptional Water Quality
• Permit Violations dropped to 3 in 1990. Excellent compliance record since then.
• 1994 – River DO Standard raised to 6 mg/L (exceptional quality) Typically exceeds 7 mg/L
• 1984 to 1992 – Flow increased 68% (from 49 to 82 MGD) Discharge of O2 Consuming Matter (BOD5 and
NH3) dropped 84%
• 56% Population Increase from 1992 to 2011, wastewater flow increased by only 5%.
• Water Conservation, Collection System Improvements, Reduction in Inflow and Infiltration.
Downstream ofLady Bird Lake - Exceptional
Lady Bird Lake - High
Lake Austin - High
Water Quality of Segments of theColorado River near Austin
Drinking Water
Treated Effluent
Lake Travis - Exceptional
Austin Clean Water ProgramA Decade of Collection System Improvements
• 1999 – EPA issues Administrative Order: Elimination of overflows
• 14 Broad and Separate Tasks
• $400 million
• 100 Major Projects– I/I Studies, SSES, Collection System Replacements, Upgrades
– Private Lateral Ordinance – Low Interest Loan for Homeowners
– Public Input - Citizen Advisory Group
– Numerous Meetings with Neighborhood Groups – Citizen Support
• Completed in 2009
Hornsby Bend Biosolids
Management Plant
Ecohouse Offices
for Treefolks and Austin Youth River
Watch
Administration offices
and CER
Digesters
Biosolids Research Fields
Compost Pad
Public Entrance
to Ponds
Pond 1 W
Pond 1 EPond
2
Pond 3
N
FM 9
73
SH 71
Austin
Airport
Aquatic
Greenhouse
River Trail South Entrance
River Trail
North Entrance
Riparian
Resea
rch A
rea
FM
973
Platt Lane to North
Entrance
Public Safety Training Houses
Riparian Research Area
Birding Shelter
Storage basins
Restricted area
Restricted area
Restricted area/
/
SidestreamTreatment
Plant
Center for Environmental Research at Hornsby Bend
MISSION
Urban Ecology and Sustainability
• Community
• Education
• Research
PARTNERS• Austin Water Utility
• University of Texas
• Texas A&M University
RESEARCH AREAS
• Soil Ecology, Sewage Recycling and Reuse
• Hydrogeology of the Alluvial Aquifer
• Riparian Ecology and Restoration • Avian Ecology
Center for Environmental Research at Hornsby Bend
RESEARCH AREA• Soil Ecology, Biosolids Recycling and Reuse
RESEARCH AREA• Hydrogeology of the River and Alluvial Aquifer
RESEARCH AREA• Avian Ecology
Dr. Bayani Cardenas and Dr. Jack Sharp
RESEARCH AREA • Riparian Ecology and Restoration
Clean Water Federal Stimulus Award• Hornsby Bend ranked #1 in Texas
among “green” projects
• $31.8 million zero-interest Federal Stimulus Loan
• $30.7 million in interest savings
• 80% of the funds for the “Green Reserve” projects through the Texas Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Hornsby Bend# 1
Two Contracts with Stimulus Funds1. $6.95 million for Compost Pad
expansion• Addition of 15-acre compost
pad• Double composting capacity
to use 10,000 dry tons of biosolids per year
2. $27.95 million for digester upgrades and plant-wide efficiency improvements
• Sludge dewatering improvements – increase capacity, reduce operation cost
• Digester upgrades – improve process efficiency, increase gas production and capture, reduce use of polymers
Benefits of Stimulus Fund Projects• Hundreds of local jobs during three
years of construction• Increase digester gas production• Compost capacity doubled to
produce exceptional quality Class A compost
• Reduce diesel fuel use by 30,000 gallons/yr
• 41% reduction in polymer use• Extra 16,000 yd3/yr of yard and tree
trimmings used in composting by 2012
• 300 tons of fly ash in concrete for compost pad
Benefits of Stimulus Fund Projects (continued…)
• 6,500 tons of CO2 equivalent GHG reduction by 2012
• 55% increase in energy production by 2012
• 1.75 MW electricity from a related biogas generator project – $1.2 million grant from U.S. Dept. of Energy through Austin Energy
• Waste heat from generators for heating digesters and other uses
• Generate enough electricity for Hornsby Bend
Barton Springs. Austin, Texas
Climate – Mitigation & Adaptation
• Barton Springs repairs pinched by drought, heat and threat of flood
Carbon Flows
GHG Emission Inventory
• Electricity - 121,000 MTCO2e (89%)
• Fleet & other fuels - 5,000 MTCO2e (4%)
• Fugitives - 9,000 MTCO2e (7%)
• TOTAL: 135,000 MTCO2e
AWU 2010 GHG Emissions Inventory
GHG Inventory Variables
Energy Emissions
Biogenic CO2
Graphic adapted from CHEAPet
Outsourced Activities
Improved Accounting (of GHG Emissions from biosolids, from Brown, 2011)
Marginal Cost of GHG Mitigation Projects
Cost effectiveness:
1. Efficiency (buildings, transportation, industry)
2. Agriculture & Land Management
3. Power
McKinsey MACC Curve from March 2009 National Geographic Magazine
Pumping & System Efficiency
• Evaluating embedded energy in water delivery impacts benchmarking, planning, and even (potentially) rates
Generating power from biogas
• Highest Value?– Electricity
– Heat
– CNG
– Pipeline
Managing biological carbon flows
• Wildlands – how do current goals impact C sequestration?
• Sludge and Compost – at what sensitivity does it become ‘better’ to keep solid C as C instead of extracting energy? What are best methods for sequestering C
• Green Infrastructure Wetponds – High C sequestration potential per unit