ACWD Board Meeting December 13 th 2012
Purpose Expand the District’s water conservation programming reach to
low income customers:
Current District programs for residential customers include: Free water efficient fixtures
Showerheads, faucet aerators Toilet leak detection kits
Rebates High efficiency clothes washer Water efficient landscape
Free residential survey program Landscape workshops/classes, educational materials and literature
Many of these programs may not be fully utilized by the District’s
low-income customers due to affordability and other factors.
Program Description Provide a full service water efficient home upgrade for low-income qualified single-family homeowner customers:
Free water efficient toilets (with installation) Free showerheads and faucet aerators (with installation) Free water use survey, including checking for, and fixing
plumbing leaks Financial incentive to participate
Program Description (continued) Services will be provided by a state licensed plumbing
contractor hired through a Request for Proposal process.
Year 1 Budget: $100,000, est. approximately 100 homes. State grant funds (Proposition 84) expected to cover about 50% of costs.
Anticipated Start Date: May 2013
Program Qualifications Must be an ACWD Single family homeowner and
customer. Must meet household income/size criteria:
Similar to PG&E’s CARE Program - total household income from all sources must be below income guidelines for household size.
Must provide documentation (Federal Tax Return or other documentation).
May also qualify if they participate in one or more public assistance programs.
Participation Process Customer submits application ACWD staff reviews application, issues approval Contractor contacts customer to schedule the
survey/installation. Contractor/Customer agreement Contractor performs work Additional ACWD activities:
Pre- and post-inspections Tracking activity and water savings
Proposed Incentives for Participation Financial incentive to be offered to all participating low
income customers Credit to be applied to water bill after confirmation of
program participation Funding source to be from revenue from District’s
agreement with Homeserve Staff proposal: Provide annual credit of $50 for two
years (subject to funding availability and annual program review)
Required Steps to Launch Program Secure State grant funds (completed)
Prop. 84 grant funding for 1,000 toilet installations@ approx. $225/installation (through 2015).
Establish a Labor Compliance Program (LCP) (in progress) LCP required for “public work” projects using Prop 84 funds Board adoption of LCP required (Jan/Feb 2013) Department of Industrial Relations approval required
Retain a qualified program contractor (in progress) Issue RFP - Jan/Feb 2013 Board approval – April/May 2013
Launch program (May 2013) Market through a variety of outreach avenues
Cationic Polymer, $99,750
Nonionic Polymer*, $1,998
Calcium Hypochlorite, $4,560
Anionic Polymer****, $12,500
Citric Acid, $8,145
Aqua Ammonia*, $65,607
Sulfuric Acid***, $10,000
Anti-scalant, $47,103
Sodium Hypochlorite, $173,481
Ferric Chloride**, $488,574
Carbon Dioxide, $24,780
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, $152,943
Sodium Hydroxide (50%)**, $511,634
Sodium Hydroxide (25%)**, $17,484
Water Treatment Chemicals - Two New Chemical Contracts ($67,605) - Annual Treatment Chemical Cost ($1,613,809) *New Contract Jan-Dec 2013 ** Total cost reflects Annual Estimate (6-mo contract) *** Sulfuric Acid Currently used at MJSWTP only **** Purchased by PO
The chemicals underlined are current, and are not included in the December 2012 Staff Report
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Year 2013 Commodity Rates & Service Charge
December 13, 2012
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
1
FISCAL PRESSURES & CHALLENGES Regulatory – Comply with Endangered Species Act
Alameda Creek Fisheries Various fish ladder and fish screen projects ~$26 million spanning years 2008 to 2014
Regional, Local and Redevelopment Programs Pipeline relocations to accommodate SFPUC Extending casing around mains under new tracks for BART Pipeline relocations for Kato Rd and Warren Ave grade separations and Niles Blvd ~$8 million spanning years 2010 to 2014
Seismic Improvement – Phase 1 Fault crossings Emergency Response/Mutual Aid Seismic adders for new pipelines Phase 1 Seismic studies/analysis for design ~$21 million spanning years 2010 to 2019
Cost of Imported Water Supply Reliability Potential District Share of State Water Project: $200 million San Francisco PUC $4.6 billion WSIP: 38% rate increase this year, double rates by 2020.
Water Main Replacement Program ~$1 Billion spanning over about 100 years.
2
COST SAVING MEASURES & REVENUE STREAMS BEING PURSUED
Pursue grant funding and rebate opportunities aggressively
Refinance bond issues at lower rates as opportunity arises
Capital project deferrals and eliminations due to reduced demand and other reasons
Careful use of new debt for intergenerational equity of cost of service
Constantly looking for opportunities to cut expenses, work more efficiently, and find other revenue streams
3
RANKING OF SERVICE CHARGE PROPOSED INCREASE
4
SERVICE AGENCY CHARGE
CITY OF BURLINGAME $66.74 CONTRA COSTA WATER DIST 52.25 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 51.69 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 44.00 CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - BEAR GULCH 42.24 CITY OF LIVERMORE 40.30 CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - LOS ALTOS 40.24 CITY OF PALO ALTO 36.56 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICE DIST 33.98 CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO (AMERICAN WATER) 33.20 CITY OF FOSTER CITY ( ESTERO) 31.60 CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - SOUTH SF (BAYSHORE) 31.12 CALIF WATER SVS CO. - MID-PENINSULA 31.12 MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT 31.02 CITY OF SAN BRUNO 30.64 CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - LIVERMORE 29.96 ACWD (Proposed) 29.86 CITY OF MILPITAS 27.94 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 27.46 EAST BAY MUD 26.74 CITY OF MILLBRAE 26.60 CITY OF DALY CITY 26.08 NORTH MARIN WATER DIST - NOVATO 25.00 CITY OF PLEASANTON 24.46 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 23.81 CITY OF SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL WATER 21.31 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT (SFPUC) 19.40 CITY OF SUNNYVALE 18.04 CITY OF HAYWARD 16.30 ACWD (Current) 14.93 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 14.60 CITY OF SANTA CLARA 0.00
TOTAL BILL IMPACT IN DOLLARS FOR PROPOSED INCREASE
5
Impact of Proposal for 2013 *
Bimonthly Commodity
Rate Total
BimonthlyService Charge
Total Overall
Bimonthly Bill
Increase Per
Bimonthly Bill
Increase Per Month
Increase Per Day
Current $72.50 $14.93 $87.43 -- -- --
Proposed $72.50 $29.86 $102.36 $14.93 $7.47 $0.25
* For the Average Single Family Residential Customer (23 units)
2013 COST COMPARISON* - AVERAGE WATER BILL
(Based on Bimonthly Consumption of 23 HCF – Commodity & Service Charge)
6 * Comparisons based on September 2012 data. (Dollars)
$87.43
$102.36
CITY OF PLEASANTONCITY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL WATER
EAST BAY MUDCITY OF MILPITAS
CITY OF SUNNYVALENORTH MARIN WATER DIST - NOVATO
CITY OF FOSTER CITY ( ESTERO)CITY OF LIVERMORE
CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - LIVERMORE
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEWDUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICE DIST
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTCALIF WATER SVS. CO. - LOS ALTOS
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANYCITY OF DALY CITY
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO (AMERICAN WATER)CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTCITY OF HAYWARD
CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - SOUTH SF (BAYSHORE)CALIF WATER SVS CO. - MID-PENINSULA
SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT (SFPUC)CITY OF MILLBRAE
CALIF WATER SVS. CO. - BEAR GULCHCITY OF SAN BRUNO
MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICTNORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF PALO ALTOCITY OF BURLINGAME
ACWD (Current)
ACWD (Proposed)
Theoretical “First Drop of Water” Costs Using FY 2012/13 Budget
8
Fixed Costs
Debt Service $ 4,559,300
Capital $ 24,900,600
Admin & General $ 9,091,600
Other O&M Expenses $ 36,127,500
Fixed Costs Sub-Total $ 74,679,000
Variable Costs Purchased Water $ 18,717,600 Chemicals $ 2,176,900
Power $ 3,266,200 Variable Costs Sub-Total $ 24,160,700
Grand Total $ 98,839,700
SERVICE CHARGE SCENARIOS as a % of TOTAL WATER SALES REVENUE
9
Service Charge, $8,002,658 ,
12%
Commodity, $57,172,737 ,
88%
Base Case (FY 2011/12)
Total $65,175,395
Service Charge, $18,368,403 , 23%
Commodity, $62,313,991 , 77%
100% (2x) Service Charge Increase (MRP) (FY 2013/14)
Total $80,682,394
Service Charge, $26,678,093 , 30%
Commodity, $62,313,991 , 70%
200% (3x) Service Charge Increase (BMP11) (FY 2013/14)
Total $88,992,084
Service Charge, $64,289,414 , 72%
Commodity, $24,925,596 , 28%
600% (7x) Service Charge Increase (Variable in Commodity only) (FY 2013/14)
Total $89,215,010
2
• Formed in 1914 • Elected Board of Directors • Population Served: 331,000 • Customer Accounts: 82,500 • Average Daily Water Demand: 43.0 MGD
Mission • Reliable Water Supply • High Quality Water • Reasonable Price
About ACWD
3
San Jose
San Francisco
Oakland
San Francisco Bay
Newark
C
Fremont
ACWD Service Area
Union City
~105 Square Miles
4
ACWD Water Supply
San Francisco Bay
C
Quarry Lakes and Well Fields
Brackish Groundwater Desalination
Alameda Creek Hetch-Hetchy (SFPUC)
South Bay Aqueduct
5
ACWD Water Supply Local
(Alameda Creek Watershed and Desalination)
40%
State Water Project
(via the South Bay Aqueduct)
40%
City and County of San Francisco (via the Hetch-Hetchy System)
20%
6
Why is Water System Reliability So Important?
• Water is required for residential occupancy. • Water is needed for fire protection. • Water is the lifeblood of the economy. • Water is needed for critical facilities, such as
hospitals, schools, potential emergency shelter sites, etc.
7
Hayward M7.1, M6.7 ACWD
Service Area
Calaveras M6.8
San Andreas M7.9
Hayward Fault San Andreas Fault Calaveras Fault
Seismic Vulnerability
7
8
Hayward Fault • The Hayward Fault bisects the ACWD service
area. • On average, the Hayward Fault has ruptured
every 140 years. • It’s been over 144 years since the 10/21/1868
~M7 earthquake. • It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when the
next large earthquake occurs.
9
Previous strategic investments in improving water service reliability
• Mowry Emergency Generator (1998) • Canyon Heights Tank Replacement (2000) • South Bay Aqueduct Isolation Valve (2002) • Ohlone Tank Upgrades (2002) • Middlefield Reservoir Upgrades (2002) • Newark Brackish Water Desalination Facility (2003/2009) • MSJWTP Operations Bldg. and Treated Water Tank (2004) • Appian Tank Upgrades, Phase 1 (2004) • Headquarters Water Quality Laboratory (2005) • Hidden Valley Tank Upgrades (2007) • Vineyard Heights Tank Upgrades (2009)
$23M 2012 Revenue Bonds
72%
14%
4% 10%
Seismic
Water Service & Fireflow
Env Steward/ ProductionReliabilityWater Quality/ ProductionReliability
Bond Allocation
10
11
Current Seismic Improvement and Fire Protection-Related Projects
• Peralta-Tyson Wellfield Emergency Generator • Appian Tank Replacement • Retrofit critical pipelines at the Hayward Fault • Mayhew Reservoir Roof Replacement • Canyon Heights Water Main Replacement Project • SFPUC / Hetch-Hetchy WSIP • Procure Emergency Materials and Supplies
13
Distribution System Vulnerabilities • ACWD’s distribution system contains over 850 miles of
water mains. • The estimated service life of most of ACWD’s water mains is
75 years. • 20% of ACWD’s water mains were installed before 1960. • ACWD’s service area is vulnerable to liquefaction and
landslides during a major earthquake. • A recent study predicts that ACWD’s distribution system
may require over 1,800 repairs after a M7.1 event resulting in lengthy water service outages.
“Echo Wave” of Failures
• Expect to see failures which “echo” installation curves.
• Need to plan for high future replacement costs.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Miles of AC Pipe Installed by Year
Mile
s
14
15
Impacts of Water Main Failures • Public Health and Safety
– Flooding, Property Damage – Fire Protection
• Regional and Local Economy – Reduction in Gross Regional Product (>$2 Billion*) – Local Businesses and Residents – Impacts to Critical Facilities, such as hospitals.
• Unplanned and Emergency Repairs are Costly
* Based on FEMA –adopted values. Assumes M7.1 on the Hayward Fault.
16
Daly City, November 13, 2012
• 4:20 a.m. pipeline failure • 78-year old pipe • 12 Homes evacuated • Estimated 45,000 gallons
16
17
Balance to Increase the Reliability of the Distribution System
Strive to achieve a balance of reduced risk vs. cost
$$$ Risk
Moderate Liquefaction
Low Liquefaction
Landslide
w w Mowry Wellfields
P-T Wellfields
Appian
Canyon Hts
Ohlone
Vineyard Hts
Hidden Valley
Avalon
Whitfield
Decoto
Alameda
Middlefield
Mayhew
Patterson
High Liquefaction
Vulnerability Legend Very High Liquefaction
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
T T
B
Desal
TP-1
TP-2
P-T Blending
• “Backbone” pipes • Very High liquefaction (10 miles) • High liquefaction (24 miles) • Long term replacement (281 miles) • Landslide areas • Est. cost > $ 400M
Water Main Replacement Program
30” Decoto
16” Durham Rd.
30” Middlefield
48” Union St.
30” Mission Blvd.
18”,24”,36” Mowry to PT
42” Shinn
18
Moderate Liquefaction
Low Liquefaction
Landslide
High Liquefaction
Very High Liquefaction Hazard Areas
18
Service Category Description As Is
w/ Bond
Projects
w/Water Main
Replacements
Life Safety
Minimal secondary damage and risk to the public •e.g., no chemical releases, no flooding from storage facilities
Limit extensive damage to system facilities (Avoid damage to facilities critical for post EQ emergency response)
Water Quality All water introduced into the distribution system, minimally disinfected
Fire Service
Provide limited fire service to 75% of service area within 24 hours after the earthquake
Normal, pre-EQ, fire service to almost all hydrants within 75 days
Critical facilities (shelters and other emergency facilities)
Potable water via distribution system or truck within 3-10 days Source may be either District or outside aid
Impaired service within 3 days Winter demand, occasional pressure fluctuations and brief outages possible
Normal, pre-EQ, service within 5 days
General Service (Residential, Commercial, etc.)
Impaired service to 75% of customers in 8 days Winter demand, occasional pressure fluctuations and brief outages possible
Normal, pre-EQ, service to 99%+ of customers within 75 days
Performance Objectives Met 1 3 10
Hayward M7.1 Event – Levels of Service
6 days
44 days
210 days 102-140 Days 44 days
19
20
Annual Pipe Replacement Costs Steel = 100 yrs & Other Pipe = 75 yrs
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 2071 2081 2091 2101
Replace as needed $10M/year $15M/year
2nd round replacements begin in 2090
21
Summary • Many of the pipelines that provide water service to
residences and businesses in Fremont, Newark, and Union City were installed over 50 years ago.
• Aging pipelines are at risk of failure, especially as a result of ground surface rupture or liquefaction during a major earthquake.
• Additional and significant investments in infrastructure are needed to provide water service reliability and fire protection.
• Because pipeline replacements will benefit all ACWD customers, a service charge increase is an appropriate mechanism to fund the water main replacement program.
24
Service Category
No. Description ACWD Objectives $545/pers
SFPUC(a) $540/pers
EBMUD(b) $231/pers
CCWD(c) $280/pers
Japan(d) $300-
$1,000/pers
Life Safety
1 Minimal secondary damage and risk to the public
_
2 Limit extensive damage to system facilities
_
Water Quality 3 All water introduced into the distribution system minimally disinfected
_
Fire Service
4 Limited fire service to within 24 hours after the earthquake
75% of service area
_ _ Emergency service in 8
hours
_
5 Normal, pre-EQ, fire service to almost all hydrants
75 days _ 100 days _ _
Critical facilities shelters and
6 Potable water via distribution system or truck
3-10 days _ 3-10 days _ 3 days
Other emergency
7 Impaired service 3 days _ 10 days ASAP _
facilities) 8 Normal, pre-EQ, service 5 days _ 30 days 10 days 30 days
General Service (Residential,
9 Impaired service 75% customers 8
days
70% customers in 24 hours
70% customers
10 days
10 days _
Commercial, etc.)
10 Normal, pre-EQ, service to 99%+ of customers
75 days 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days
What Others are Doing (Objectives and expenditure)
(a, b, c) Source: J. Eidinger, Tech Memo 7; d) Source: J. Eidinger, Tech Memo 7 (cost data), 5th AWWARF/JWWA Water System Seismic Workshop (objectives) 24