potomac basin case study

Potomac Basin Case StudyCooperative Water Supply Planning & Operations

AWWA Regional Collaboration Webinar

September 24, 2018

Cherie Schultz, Ph.D.Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP)Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)

Lisa RagainMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

Outline

The Washington, DC, metropolitan area has had a cooperative water supply system for 35 years

• How was the system established?

• How does the system operate today?

• Regional vulnerabilities/potential options

• New challenges/next steps

Location

Potomac River Basin•Area: 14,670 mi2

•Population: 6.1 million

Washington DC metropolitan area (WMA)•Annual demand: 486 MGD• July demand: 572 MGD

Upstream areas•Annual consumptive use: 99

MGD•Summertime consumptive

use: 134 MGD

Washington, DC

Average Daily Demand

485 mgd

Water mains + 14,500 mi

Fire hydrants ≈ 114,000

Metered accounts + 1,000,000

People served + 5,000,000

Regional Water Supply

How was the system established?

• WMA water supply was originally a Federal matter

• USACE, instructed by Congress

• Built the District of Columbia’s water supply system

• Conducted WMA water supply studies Washington Aqueduct/Cabin John Bridge, 1861

Growing water supply concerns

• 1966 - historic Potomac River low flow

• 1977 - severe drought in VA’s Occoquan watershed

• Forecasted shortages

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

De

ma

nd

, M

GD

Actual WMA demand

Forecasted WMA demand*

*US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1963

1966 Potomac

River low flow

Early institutional support

1940 Congress authorizes interstate compact

• Creates ICPRB

• Pollution was the original focus

• No regulatory powers

1970 Congress amends compact to include land & water resources

1979 ICPRB Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP)

ICPRB enhances, protects, and conserves the water and associated land resources of the Potomac River basin through regional and interstate cooperation.

A sense of crisis

US Congress authorizes series of USACE studies

1979 US Senate hearings

1976 WRDA requires an emergency allocation agreement

1978 Low Flow Allocation Agreement (LFAA) specifies emergency water allocations

Cooperative solution drivers

• Supplier vulnerabilities- MD supplier: intake difficulties in 1966

- VA supplier: reservoir almost emptied in 1977

- DC supplier (USACE): most downstream intake

• Technical studies show cooperative operations benefits during drought

• Federal pressure

- Via permitting authority

- LFAA demand ‘freeze’ clause would penalize growth

OutcomeA framework for cooperation

New agreements

1982 Water Supply Coordination Agreement (WSCA)

Reservoir Cost-Share Agreements

Little Seneca Construction & O&M

Jennings Randolph Water supply storage, construction & O&M

Savage portion of O&M

2000 Drought Response Plan Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)

Two new reservoirs

Jennings Randolph Reservoir

Little Seneca Reservoir

How does the system operate today?• WSCA governs drought planning & operations

• Coordination of operations during droughts • Planning forecasts every 5 years• Construction of new resources when need arises• Technical & managerial support by ICPRB CO-OP Section

• LFAA specifies allocations in event of water shortages

• COG Drought Plan governs imposition of water use restrictions

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Log

flo

w

Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Maryland

1930 1966 1999, 2002

WSCA

Governance

• WSCA established an Operations Committee to oversee implementation

• Committee consists of General Managers from the 3 suppliers

• Decisions are made by consensus

Cost-sharing

• Fixed formula for ICPRB CO-OP support

• Fixed formulas for original shared reservoirs

• Growth-based formula for new storage – if it is needed 50%

30%

20%

Cost-share for Jennings Randolph capital/O&M

WSSC WA FW

WMA cooperative system

• Suppliers

• VA: Fairfax Water

• MD: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

• DC & VA: Washington Aqueduct Division of USACE

• Shared resources – 78%

• Potomac River

• Upstream reservoirs for low flow augmentation

• Individual resources – 22%

• Occoquan Reservoir (Fairfax Water)

• Patuxent reservoirs (WSSC)

Potomac River intakes

Patuxent reservoirs

Occoquan Reservoir

Little Seneca Reservoir

Jennings Randolph Reservoir

Savage Reservoir

West Virginia

Pennsylvania

Maryland

Virginia

District of

Columbia

Water supply added to ICPRB scope

Low Flow Allocation Agreement

ICPRB Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations

Water supply storage at Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca

Water Supply Coordination Agreement

Water Supply Emergency Plan

Water Supply & Drought Response Plan

Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership

Regional Redundancy Study

NCR Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network

Emergency water supply planning

Updated source water assessment

Regional water system resiliency study

Long-term Cooperative Water Supply Planning & Management

1970

1978

1979

1982

1982

1994/04/09

2000

2004

2007

2008

2013-16

• Cooperative regional monitoring of source & finished water

• Collaborative training, exercises & contingency planning

• Regional communication & coordination

Regional vulnerabilities & options

WMA Water Supply Alternatives (ICPRB, 2017)

Drought vulnerability study

Regional Water Supply and Distribution System Resiliency (COG, 2016)

Water supply contamination event or outage vulnerability study

Water supply alternatives study

Driver 2015 planning forecasts indicated need for new resources

Objective Assess relative abilities of alternatives to meet challenges of growth and climate change

Alternatives 4 structural, 6 operational

Results 3 multi-step options

Recommended alternatives ability to meet forecasted July demands

300

475

650

825

1000

2040Baseline

Ops 5-8 Ops 5-8 +Vulcan 1

Ops 5-8 +Vulcan 1 +

Luck 1 +35% FCimprove.

Ops 5-8 +Vulcan 1 +

Travilah

RO plant +Vulcan 1 +

35% FCimprove.

RO plant

Avera

ge J

uly

dem

and,

MG

D

SSSY, CC50 SSSY, CC75 SSSY, CC90

2040 forecast

Option A

Option B

Option C

New challengesNew water supplies

• Dual purpose – drought & spills

• How will it be funded?

Broadening the cooperative system

• Revisions of WSCA?

• A new agreement?

• How can cost-sharing and governance be updated?

• Should states be involved?

Additional areas

• Source water protection

• Monitoring

• Collaborative research

DOING MORE WITH MANY: CASE STUDIES OF REGIONAL

COLLABORATIONAWWA RESEARCH PRESENTATION

TIFFANY TRAN

SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Co-Authors: Adam Carpenter and Pam Kenel

• Utility Support:

• DC Water

• Fairfax Water

• Loudoun Water

• Washington Aqueduct (USACE)

• Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

• All agencies that participated in interviews

RESEARCH PROJECT SCOPE

Regional collaboration can have many benefits. What are the

mechanisms that make it possible?

Research Questions:

1. What are the drivers that motivate regional collaborative groups?

2. How do they govern themselves and make decisions on shared goals

or projects?

3. How do they equitably fund the implementation of these decisions?

Literature Review

Research of Publicly

Available Documents

Outreach via e-mail or

phone

30-45 minute phone

interview

Follow-up questions

Write-up/ Presentation

METHODS

WHERE IN THE WORLD?

6 Partnerships

6 Projects

18 States

15+ Million People Served

= Approximate location

TASK OF COMPARING

TYPES OF COLLABORATIONS

1. Planning and Management Partnerships

2. Collaborative Projects

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships can occur within watershed boundaries or political ones. Can be regulatory

and are shaped around shared management goals.

Organization/Project Name Acronym LocationNumber of Members

Range of Populations Served

Coordination Level Shared Investment Value

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission ORSANCO Ohio River Basin 9 Basin Population Interstate + Federal $3.3 million FY Budget

Delaware River Basin Commission DRBC Delaware River Basin 5 Basin Population Interstate + Federal $4.2 million FY Budget

Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group CWWMGCatawba-Wateree

River Basin20 Up to 1,000,000 Interstate $550,000 (Annual Dues)

Yadkin-Pee Dee Water Management Group YPDWMGYadkin-Pee Dee River

Basin18 3,000 - 1,000,000 Interstate $87,500 (Annual Dues)

Middle Rio Grande Stormwater MS4 Compliance Monitoring Cooperative

CMC New Mexico 12 1,000 - 550,000 Interagency $132,000

Municipal Water District of Orange County MWDOC California 32 25,000 - 2,500,000 Interagency varies widely

COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS

Collaboration is spurred by an opportunity to create, join, or expand a current

project. The addition of regional partners increases net benefits.

Organization/Project Name Acronym LocationNumber of Members

Range of Populations ServedService Area Population

Shared Investment Value

Logan-Todd Regional Water Commission LTRWC Kentucky, Tennessee 12 300 - 12,500 40,000 $77.5 million

Alliance Water n/a Texas 4 13,000 - 135,000 170,000 $300 million

Long Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant LCRWTP North Carolina 3 10,000 - 1,000,000 1 million $300 million

Ship Canal Water Quality Project n/a Washington 2 630,000 - 1,700,000 2.3 million $570 million

Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency Partnership WISE Colorado 3 320,000 - 1,400,000 2 million $650 million

Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project LVE California 15 Agricultural - 2,700,000 6 million $980 million

COMMON DRIVERS FOR COLLABORATION

1. Increased or forthcoming regulatory pressure

2. Shared regional concerns or issues

3. Potential for cost savings through achieving economies of scale,

reducing duplicative efforts

4. Increased funding opportunities

TYPES OF GOVERNANCE / DECISION MAKING

Governing Board

of Representatives

Equal representation Proportion-based

representation

Population within

service area

50-year demand

forecast

Staff driven

decision-making

Lead Agency

FINANCIAL STRUCTURE / COST ALLOCATION

Equal cost-share

across all parties

Cost of services /

service level

Proportion based

cost-share

Watershed Area Watershed

Population

50-year demand

forecast

Proportion of

avoided cost

INTERESTING CASE STUDIES

Governance and cost-share mechanisms differ:

1. ORSANCO and Catawba-Wateree MWG

2. Ship Canal Project

3. Long Creek Regional WTP and WISE Partnership

COMMON FACTORS FOR SUCCESS

• Have a forum for regular communication among agencies.

• Build relationships and trust between agencies.

• Conduct studies to understand the shared water space, possibilities

for collaboration.

• Regulatory agencies can be a useful resource.

• Built to last and adjustable over time, make room for reopeners.

If you want to go fast, go alone.

If you want to go far, go together.

-African proverb

If you want to solve a localized issue, go alone.

If you want to address a regional issue by pooling resources to fully leverage

existing capital and assets, use regional collaboration.

-generous interpretation of African proverb

AWWA Regional Collaboration

September 24, 201836

AWWA Webinar September 24, 2018

37

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

• Off-stream reservoir in Contra Costa County

• Operated in conjunction with four Delta

intakes

• Capacity of 160 TAF

• Uses:

➢ Water quality

➢ Drought storage

➢ Emergency storage

➢ Flood control

➢ Recreation


38

• 20,000-acre watershed managed by CCWD for protection of:➢ Water quality

➢ Sensitive species and habitat

• CCWD also manages more than 5,000 acres of mitigation properties:➢ Contra Costa

➢ Alameda

➢ San Joaquin

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Marina


39

Long History on Project

CCWD financed and implemented

➢ 1998 dam, intake, and conveyance construction

➢ 2009 new intake

➢ 2012 dam raise

Completed on schedule and on budget

September 27, 2011


40

Proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project

What are the objectives?• Environmental Water• Water Supply Reliability• Improved Water Quality• Enhanced Recreation

Who will benefit?• San Joaquin Wildlife Refuges

• Bay Area Water Agencies

• South-of-Delta CVP Contractors

• Statewide Water System

How will benefits be achieved?• Construct new pipelines, new pump stations, raise the dam

• Re-operate existing facilities

• Integrate regional systems

• Coordinate with other state-wide water operations

San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge


41

Benefits to Local Agencies

• Increased Municipal &

Industrial Supply

• Drinking Water Quality

Improvements

• Agricultural Supply


42

Local Agency Partners

1. Alameda County Water District

2. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency

3. Byron-Bethany Irrigation District

4. City of Brentwood

5. East Bay Municipal Utility District

6. East Contra Costa Irrigation District

7. Grassland Water District

8. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

9. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority

10. Santa Clara Valley Water District

11. Zone 7 Water Agency

12. Del Puerto Water District

13. San Luis Water District

14. Westlands Water District

Additional agencies on a waiting list


43

Federal Feasibility Findings

Bureau of Reclamation determined:

• Technically and environmentally feasible

• Economically feasible➢ Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio = 1.25

• Financially feasible➢ M&I and agricultural beneficiaries have financial ability to

pay

• Resilient: maintains its benefits under➢ Wide range of climate change scenarios

➢ California WaterFix


44

Existing Agreements

•MOU with local, state and federal agencies (2001)

•Cost Share MOU with Reclamation (2015)

• Individual Funding Agreements with LAPs (2017)

•Various agreements with EBMUD for use of

existing intertie

•Permits and water rights


45

Key Decision Milestones

•Execute Multi-party Agreement – Fall 2018

• CCWD and Local Agency Partners (LAPs)

•Execute Early Funding Agreement – Fall 2018

• CCWD and California Water Commission

•Partners & CCWD negotiate key terms of costs and

governance – Winter 2018/2019

•Commitment to form Joint Powers Authority (JPA) –

Spring 2019

•Execute JPA agreement and file paperwork with State

– Summer 2019


46

Other Agreements

• MOU with DWR

• Construction easement to tie Transfer-Bethany Pipeline into

California Aqueduct

• Conveyance agreement (use of California Aqueduct and South Bay

Aqueduct)

• Coordinated operations agreement

• Monitoring for public benefits (required by Prop. 1)

• Changes to State Water Project water rights

• MOU with Reclamation

• Long term contract with Refuge Water Supply Program

• Coordinated operations agreement

• Changes to Central Valley Project water rights

• Agreements with LAPs to backstop CCWD’s water

supply during construction


47

Near Term Activities


48

Thank you

Questions?

Project Informationhttp://www.ccwater.com/lvstudies

Contact InformationMarguerite Patil

Contra Costa Water

District

P.O. Box H20

Concord, CA 94524

(925) 688-8018

[email protected]

Maureen Martin

Contra Costa Water

District

P.O. Box H20

Concord, CA 94524

(925) 688-8323

[email protected]


49

Proposed Facilities

• New Neroly High-Lift Pump Station

• EBMUD system improvements for increased use of EBMUD-CCWD Intertie

• New Delta-Transfer Pipeline

• Expanded Transfer Facility

• New Transfer-Bethany Pipeline

• Expanded reservoir capacity of 275 TAF

• Enhanced recreation facilities

Contra Costa Water District 5/30/17

Contra Costa Canal

Expanded Los Vaqueros

Reservoir

Mokelumne Aqueduct

Possible New Facilities

Existing Facilities

Clifton Court Forebay

Delta-Transfer Pipeline

Old River Pipeline Expanded Transfer Facility

EBMUD Intertie Pump Station

EBMUD Walnut Creek Pump Plant VFDs


50

275-TAF Dam


51

Other Options Available to Partners

LVE provides a cost-competitive option, close to home, with higher reliability, certainty, and flexibility

Local Bay Area Supply Alternatives Cost ($ / AF)

SFPUC’s 2017-18 wholesale water rate $1800 (treated), $1600 (untreated)

Water Transfers (below normal years, TRD) (2030-2045) $267 - $632

* Local Groundwater (extraction, treatment, replenishment) $400 - $1,600

** Stormwater Capture and Recharge $570 - $1,600

** Recycled Water $1,500 - $9,000

** Advanced Water Purification (Potable Reuse) $1,600 - $2,700

** Desalination $1,000 - $5,500

Phase 2 LVE Project (capital, O&M) $580 ($300 - $700)(not including emergency storage)

* ACWD, SCVWD, and SFPUC (2018)

** Pacific Institute (2016) and SFPUC (2018)

CONTACTS

Marguerite Patil

Contra Costa Water

District

[email protected]

Lisa Ragain

Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments

[email protected]

Cherie Schultz

Interstate Commission on

the Potomac River Basin

[email protected]

Maureen Martin

Contra Costa Water

District

[email protected]

Tiffany Tran

American Water Works

Association

[email protected]

Adam Carpenter

American Water Works

Association

[email protected]

Pamela Kenel

Loudoun Water

[email protected]