HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-24 Water Advisory Committee Agenda PacketAS AND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 PM, Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26, 2017
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. WATER MASTER PLAN — CONSERVATION MODEL
A. Presentation and run through of conservation model
VI. AWAC CHARGE
A. Discuss current charge of group
VII. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER MEETING DATES
A. Recommend postponing next meeting until January due to holidays
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 6:00 PM
CITY OF
ASHLAND C.�.�
ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 26t", 2017
These minutes are pending approval by this Committee
CALL TO ORDER
John Williams called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM
Committee Members Present: Darrell Boldt, Joe Graf, Rich Miller, Pat Acklin, Alex
Amarotico, Kate Jackson, John Williams (chair), Don Morris, Michael Morris (Council
liaison)
Committee Members Absent: Donna Rhee
Staff present: Tami De Mille -Campos, Scott Fleury, Steve Walker, Michael Morrison,
Greg Hunter, Kevin Caldwell, Julie Smitherman, Paula Brown
Staff absent: None
Consultants: Jeff Ballard (RH2)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Paula Brown gave background on herself and the committee then gave around the
room introductions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 27, 2017
Boldt/Graf m/s to approve minutes. Approved unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
None
NEW 2.5 MGD WATER TREATMENT PLANTICROWSON II RESERVOIR PROJECT
UPDATE
Brown shared with the committee that she has been back as Public Works Director for
three weeks and one of the things she asked about when she became Director was
where are we and what has been happening. In the past three weeks a few things have
happened which brings her to recommend taking a pause and allow time to finish the
siting study which should be finalized before the next meeting. Keller and Associates
lost an intricate member of the group and because of this staff felt it was appropriate to
part ways with Keller and look at what phase II brings. With phase II we need to look
closer at what problem the committee is looking to solve and why we would want to
build a new plant while continuing to operate the old plant. She is a bit perplexed as to
why we would operate two plants for a town of our size. She is proposing a phase II for
the committee which would be a much deeper review and would include hiring a new
consultant to evaluate our existing plant from the standpoint of what lifespan does that
plant have left and what risks currently exist and look at what is fiscally responsible.
Brown said a lot has changed since the committee re-formed, one of the biggest things
is we now have TAP (Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie). Brown would like the committee
to look at what the policy is for using TAP and what is the realistic expectation for TAP.
She wonders how we should best use it, if we are "paying for it' maybe we should be
using it more than we are. She feels there should be a more detailed analysis and
doesn't feel we have the necessary information right now to move forward with a new
plant. Brown questions if the old plant won't last longer than ten years, should we decide
to scrap it and just build a new one or if it turns out that the existing plant will last twenty
years, then it may be a good deal to keep the old plant and not build a new plant. If the
old plant will last between ten and twenty years for a reasonable price then that is a
debate we may need to have. She suggests that we spend roughly fifty to seventy five
thousand to do a detailed study of a fifty year time period and what the costs of
retrofitting the old plant would be versus building a new plant. This study could take
three to six months with a new consultant. She is going to put together an RFP (request
for proposal) before the next meeting. commented [Tci]: This is still being worked on and
pending a cost analysis.
There was discussion amongst the committee regarding what has transpired since the
committee began its work and Brown said she had a pretty good handle on what this
committee has been looking at and in her discussions with support staff she has looked
at risk versus affordability and she doesn't feel comfortable moving forward without
taking a deeper look at what is best for the community. Acklin shared when they came
up with the plan they didn't think there was a good enough solution to the flooding,
landscape, seismic issue and they felt like that was a precarious place for the sole
treatment plant to be, the thinking was that we have to find another location at some
point because it is susceptible. She agreed that several things have changed since they
made their original recommendations, including TAP. She also feels if we do not know
more about what citizens are willing to conserve we will know a lot more in the future as
a result of the computer modeling which is currently underway. While this committee
has discussed TAP, they have been circular discussions and the committee hasn't
necessarily arrived at a conclusion for how often we use it. She feels it would be foolish
to not stop and look more carefully. Graf shared he thought the vision of this committee
always was that there would be one plant (the new plant) and the recommendation that
came out was a compromise because there was a lot of difficulty amongst the
committee in regards to TAP and other things. They landed on 2.5mgd largely because
that was the average winter consumption. He doesn't think anyone had any desire in
operating two plants long term. Williams shared that for him the idea of a new treatment
plant came out of an economic analysis and when looking at the cost of continuing to
use the old treatment plant, given the information that was available at that time, it was
so close to the cost of building a new treatment plant with the additional advantages of a
new treatment plant that was a no brainer for him and that is why he supported that
recommendation. Brown said she would love to have a new 7.5mgd treatment plant that
does everything we want it to but she would be remiss in not taking these options and
the various cost options to City Council. Jackson shared as a continuing member of this
committee she feels we need to understand how the decision was made, she can't
recall how they decided, other than what Graf eluded to which was there was a lot of
disagreement. She's wondering how the committee should reopen the discussion
without revisiting all of the old arguments. Councilor Morris recalled at the Council level
the discussion was all about the redundancy of running two plants. He shared that he
never saw enough of the technical side. His personal opinion is he has always felt that
Ashland's problem isn't the impoundment of treated water but it is more the
impoundment of untreated water (reservoir) but he never saw real numbers on that at
the council level. Boldt shared that when the committee started this process there were
two key factors they were keeping in mind were reliability and redundancy and based on
the information they spent a lot of time looking at different options for conservation and
with climate change coming along we know that is going to be even more critical. The
information they got on the existing plant all weighed into the fact that it has a limited life
span that won't be easily extended which then made a lot more sense to phasing the
old one out and building a new plant. The redundancy part of the equation was TAP and
now that TAP is in place this changes the equation. He is never opposed to going back
and revisiting something just to verify that we are going in the right direction. He agrees
with Brown's recommendation to step back and make sure the right decision is being
made and it is justifiable.
Brown estimated this cost analysis would probably take three to six months and cost
maybe fifty to seventy-five thousand. Ballard said a seismic evaluation creates a whole
different level of evaluation. Williams said there was a lot of talk about how much money
was going to need to be spent on keeping the old plant going and it was adding up and
they just want to make sure that even if it does have some lifespan left that it makes
financial sense. Brown doesn't believe we have spent bad money at the existing plant
and this plant has served the city well through three floods in recent history, there is
capacity that may be untapped and there are risk issues that haven't been fully
addressed but we owe it to the community to spend the money wisely. Graf said he
expected this committee would have to wrestle with the notion of a 2.5mgd plant and it
sounds like this is the data staff feels they need in order to make a recommendation and
he is fully supportive of moving ahead with this study. He also indicated he has always
thought operating two plants is a bad idea. Acklin said as she remembers the process,
Pieter Smeenk was instrumental in helping us get what we needed out of Carollo.
Brown said the information we have from Carollo and Keller is great information and not
something you throw out but she isn't sure if it went deep enough, but we can go
deeper. Brown will draft the phase II RFP and hopefully get it out for publishing before
the next committee meeting. If there are things that she missed we will bring it back and
get those added. She will give an update to the City Administrator and then the plan
would be to take it to the November 6, 2017 Council Study Session for their input. The
committee voiced unanimous agreement for Brown to draft the phase II RFP.
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Jeff Ballard, Rh2 Engineering passed around a handout (see attached) and Brown
passed around the original committee charter (see attached).
Ballard shared they have all the information they need and the modeling is going
through the final steps of calibration and then they will move on to the system
evaluation. They are in the process of working with the conservation consultant and
should be able to bring that information to the October meeting. He is continuing to build
the Water Master Plan Update document itself, but the conservation element will be a
big part of it. Thus far there haven't been many surprises, there could be some zone
change recommendations made but other than that the system is fairly simplistic with
the water all flowing downhill.
Ballard presented the Level of Service Goal recommendations (see attached), those
shown in red are his recommendations.
Walker shared that cross -connection (backflow) is really important to make sure we
don't have a user who infects the entire supply. Currently we satisfy the Oregon Health
Authority regulations requirement which is that we have a database that tracks the
testing of the backflow devices that we know of in town. One of the areas that this
community hasn't gotten to is going around property by property and identifying hazards
on that property and ensuring the homeowner has the proper level of protection
installed. That is a huge task and politically it is a hot topic if not handled properly, there
is a lot of public outreach to be done to ensure it is handled properly. He said that is a
pretty simplistic explanation of it but he hopes this is something we can take a look at in
the future. Brown said in addition to the water plant having cross connections, the waste
water plant also has cross connection issues. She thinks we will at some point be
asking Council to update the ordinances to give the City permission to monitor, check
and report on every residential backflow situation, along with the public outreach
component which the water conservation division has already been trying to do when
they are out with property owners doing irrigation audits.
Acklin asked what the potential is to have power generated with all of our gravity flow.
Ballard answered that we started to go down that path as part of the water master plan
update, he isn't against evaluating it but where they landed is that within the existing
system we have limited locations where there is steady flow which is needed to
generate good power. They City's system operates on pressure reducing valves
(PRV's) so it allows water to come through as there is demand, you need a large
volume of water at a consistent flow rate. There are places where you could generate
power but it comes down to cost effectiveness. Graf said with the Climate Energy Action
Plan (CEAP) we are going to desperately being looking for ways to save energy and
this may come up again because we may come up against a limit as to where we are
going to save. Brown said she would like to explore that but that would be a future
phase to the plan. Williams said we spent a lot of time talking about a fifty year climate
prediction study for our watershed and staff may want to research and see if they did a
more recent study during the CEAP process. Ballard said they are using updated
climate data for the supply model and so we will want to make sure to have that
conversation at the end of next month to make sure we are consistent with what
Williams is talking about.
Brown asked the committee to review the original committee charter (year 2010
estimate) handout between now and the next meeting and come back to the next
meeting with any questions or comments.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille -Campos
Public Works Administrative Supervisor
ASHLAND WATER REUSE AND CONSERVATION STUDY
WATER MASTER PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
- CHARTER -
PURPOSE:
Ashland is committed to undertaking an integrated Water Reuse and Conservation
Study and Water Master Plan Water Program) to address long-term grater supply
including luding climate change issues, security and redundancy, watershed health,
conservation and reuse, and stream health. The Water Pr gran will address Ashland's
multiple grater sources & multiple options for combining them to meet demands while
considering climate change, improving reliability of supply and increasing environmental
stewardship. The -purpose of the Ashland Water Advisory Committee i'tt is to provide a link
with the community and to involve impacted persons and interest groups with Ashland's
Neater Supply Planning Program and Utility. The -Advisory Committee will provide
critical local input to the planning and policies that will guide the Water Supply Utility t
defining goals, objectives and rate structure.
DUTIES:
Identify and prioritize community issues, goals, and concerns related to the- Water
Master Plan including grater conservation, grater recycling, public health protection,
grater supply reliability, and water quality.
2. Work with City staff, the Technical Review w -Committee, and the consultant -team t
adopt level of se-rwce-goals for the Neater Master Plan.
3. Review planning alternatives--- and planning recommendations and comment on
their ability to satisfy the established level of service goals- and address- other
identifiedcomm-unity g als, issues, and concerns. ._
. Assist in gaining community input into the planning process- and educating the
community about grater planning issu s.
AUTHORITY-,
The Ashland Water Advisory Committee I AC is to be established in accordance
with -Ashland's committee policies and will be in existence throughout development and
implementation of -the program. The purpose- of this Committee is to serge as an
advisory group to the City and its water staff. As such, its authority will be limited d t
collecting information, conducting analyses and making recommendations. All position
statements r recommendations f the Committee mitt will be trans itt d by its Chairman t
the City Council.
ORGANIZATION:
The AEI AC will be- chaired by a person [appointed by the Mayoror] l t d- by fellow
Task Force members. The Chairperson will establish the ruffs of order and conduct all
meetings. Each member will have one vote except for the Chairperson who will serge
as a non -voting member except in the case of ties. City staff will provide direct support
to the Committee and its Chairperson.
A Technical Review Committee consisting of the Director of the Talent Irrigation District,
the Ashland Water Department Project Manager, Treatment Plant Operator, Distribution
System Operator and Water r Conservation Officer will provide technical support, input
and oversight to the A 11AC.
MEETINGS:
It is anticipated that the Committee will meet approximately once every two months over
the next 16 months. The day of creek and time for meetings will be established by the
Task Force at its initial meeting. The actual date of each meeting will set by the
Chairperson. As the program takes shape additional meetings or subcommittee
meetings may -be requested by the Chairperson. An initial schedule for committee
meetings, with suggested agendas is attached.
The agenda for each meeting will be established by the Chairperson and distributed to
each member prig to the meeting. Suggestions for agenda items may be made to the
Chairperson by any member. A majority of the total n .rnb r of Task Force members
may amend the agenda at any meeting.
Position -statements regarding issue papers must be approved by a -majority of the total
-numb r of Committee members.
The Chairperson wil-I document issues raised -by the Committee as well as a -ray recom-
mendations from the Comm ttee .an -transmit them to the City. Meeting summaries dill
be kept by Pr ject- taff and transmitted with the agenda and supporting materials ria-ls to
each member prior to the subsequent meeting. All summaries or other written
comn-runications from the Committee may. be amended with approval of a majority of the
total number of Committee members,
M embers of the Com m ittee will_ not be compensated for their s rvloes or the expense of
attending meetings.
REPRESENTATION: ESE TATION: (suaaested
City Council Member; Neig hbo-rhood Community Group ; School District Committee;
Ashland Downtown Association; Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association;
Ashland os ita 1, Ashland Fire Department; ent; WISE Project, Ashland Coalition, utility
System Development Charges S C Committee, League of Women ea oters,
Environmental Groups , others.
Suggested Committee size of 9.
PROPOSED MEE-TING SCHE LEITOPI :(suggested)
February — Kick --off, Intro to Program and background, Intro to Level of Service
Goads
• April — Finalize Level of Service Goads
• .dune — Water Rights, Environmental Impacts, Climate Charge
• August= Supply Alternatives
• October -Alternatives Analysis and Selection Workshop
• December — Draft Water Reuse and Cnsrvartion Study
• February — [raft Plaster Plan and SC-tes
• April — Final Meeting
�PROPOSEID ASSOCIATED MEETINGS: (suggest d
• March — Public Dearing (-Program Intro and Public Listening Session)
• May — Deport to City Council
• September — Public Hearing (Program Update and Listening Session)
• I em er— Report to City Council
• Aril --Final Report to City Council
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
wvvw tZli"'OP11
'fladbox @ 1'2.111� or'111
80(1721'180521
WASHINGTON LOCATIONS
IIII 01
M,ii%114 OFFICII��
291`' rive S[&.ftir� 21I 10
W,111\ 9802,"II
I111 G H Jki 10
WHiLik
II IIII 1A 1111
OREGON LOCATIONS
II )ORTI A, 14
615100 SW Mac;ac arn W 1�
September 26, 2017 Ashland Water Advisory Committee
Meeting Talking Points
Level of Service (LOS) Goals Discussion
2.3 WCRS LEVEL OF SERVICE GOAL
Table 2.1 Selected LOS Goals
Goal Area
Goal
Water System
Have sufficient supply to meet projected demands that have
Capacity
reduced based on 5 percent additional conservation base year
2009. However, City will have a goal of achieving 15 percent
conservation.
Water System
Community will accept curtailments of 45 percent during a severe
Reliability
drought. The City will prioritize source water available during
drought conditions.
Water System
Implement redundant supply project to restore fire protection and
Redundancy
supply for indoor water use shortly after a treatment plant outage.
Supply ADD with redundant supply.
Regulatory
Meet or exceed all current and anticipated regulatory requirements
Requirements
including cross connection program improvements.
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
all
2.4.1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PIPING
LOC Goals AWAC
September 26, 2017
Page 2
Table 2.2 Distribution System Criteria
Parameter
Criterion
Minimum Service Pressure under Peak Hour Demand
30 psi
Minimum Service Pressure under Peak Day Demand plus Fire Flow
20 psi
High Pressure Limits
120 psi
Pipe Velocity Maximums
• During normal operation
5 fps
• During emergency conditions
8 fp s
All new mains providing fire flow will be sized to provide the required fire
flow at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi.
• Residential lines shall be looped
8 -inch min
• Commercial, business park, industrial and school areas shall be looped
12 — inch min
Isolation valves will be installed in the lines to allow individual pipelines to be
1000 ft max
shut down for repair or installation of water appurtenances. A minimum of
three valves ® be provided per cross and two valves per tee.
Individual pressure reducing valves must be installed in all customer service
Pressure > 80 psi
lines in the City.
Fire Hydrant Spacing
• Fire hydrants serving detached ® or duplex dwellings
Travel path < 300'
• Fire hydrants not serving detached single-family or duplex dwellings
300' Spacing
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WIVIP 2016WEETING DOCUMENT&TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23-17.DOCX
all
2.4.2 PUMP STATIONS
LOC Goals AWAC
September 26, 2017
Page 3
Table 2.3 Pump Station Evaluation Criteria
Parameter
Criterion
Supply Maximum Day Demand to service zone assuming
Capacity for service levels with storage
the single largest capacity pump is off line (i.e., firm
facilities
capacity)
Capacity for service levels with no storage
Supply Peak Hour Demand and fire flow assuming the
facilities
single largest capacity pump is off line (i.e., firm
capacity).
Power Supply
New pump stations require a main power source and
an emergency source.
Secondary power source for new pumps stations to be
sized to meet full pump station demands.
City will plan and design facilities to optimize energy
efficiency
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
all
2.4.3 PUMP STATIONS
LOC Goals AWAC
September 26, 2017
Page 4
Table 2.4 Storage Evaluation Criteria
Parameter
Criterion
0.25 x Maximum Day Demand of the area served by each
Operational Storage
reservoir
Evaluate actual operating storage volume (based on pump
station start/stop levels)
Equalization Storage
ES = (PHD — Qs)(l 50 minutes), but in no case less than zero
Where:
ES=Equalization Storage in Gallons
PHD = Peak Hour Demand, in gpm
Qs = Sum of all installed and active sources, except
emergency supply, in gpm
Fire Storage
Provide volume for single most severe required fire flow
and duration for each reservoir service area.
System -wide, provide volume for two largest fires.
Emergency Storage
0.5 x Maximum Day Demand of the area served by each
reservoir
Nesting. The City will allow nesting of fire flow and emergency storage to maximize the use of the
exiting storage facilities throughout the system.
Emergency Storage. With the establishment of redundant supplies, does the City still feel that ADD is
sufficient emergency storage.?
09/26/17 1:35 PIVI Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WIVIP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23-17.DOCX
i
f
i
i
. . . . .. . .
..... .. . .
. . . . .. . .
. . . . .. . .
. . . . .. . .
..... .. . .
. . . . .. . .
. . . . .. . .
. . . . .. . .
i
r
j
i
O
Cp
LIO
.L
N
w
Q)
E
L
Qj
Q
+j
Q)
Q)
0
O
DC
4-,
(2)
>
cn
o
L40
to
4-1
O
a-J
v
�_
O
—
•Ln
(
�'
CL
c6
s
v,
O
ul
O
O
cn
4-,
/
16
c
O
E
(6
(/i
(/)
O
N
LL
a--J
a--+
E
O
Q
(/)
>
c6
U
L
E
�
cn
_
E�
0
s
i
},
CO
W
O
N
p
E
+�
J
O
O
O
�
s
}'
• �
cn
L U
cn
p
c6
�
CCU:
C
•�
O
O
�-'
.--+
c6
O
f 6
aA
E
+�
E
Q)
2
N
>.
0
QU
cn
�
>
w
U
L
�,
>
L
O
O
Q
�"'
O
O
O
-0
E
N
0
Q,
p
J
L
o
�
�
N
M
-0
�
-P
�,
�
L
Op�
a--'
p
O
-0
b.0
•�
cr
w
v
Q
J
Q�
N
Q�
L
U
c6
c�=
c6
O
'�
•�
w
w
M
N
('6
p
"�
Q)
(6
N
UQ)'
—
O
�
•
O
a)
W
ro
ro
OUa1
a
DC
�jN++s
O
N
L
N
L
'�
a�
ca
O
=
0
E
c6
L
O
cn
ca
oC
•
=
U
0)
ca
O
O�_0_0>
L
0)
oC
oC
O
2
3
Ln
•—
0
E
cn
_
U
=
U
ca
3
L
0
Q
U
On=
cn
>
>
N
L
a
w
DC
J
ca
cn
cn
C�
—
rl
N
m
00
�
L)
,
to
,
I�
,
00
,
Ol
O
rl
rl
rl
N
rl
M
rl
rl
Lli
rl
�o
rl
I�
rl
00
rl
Ql
rl
O
N
rl
N
N
N
M
N
�
N
Ll)
N
to
N
I�
N
00
N
Ql
N
O
m
rl
rn
N
rn
��
owj
cn
O
L
0-
co
Ln
N
O
cn
cn
C
� V
N O
� C
a
p
rl
N
0
0
W
lD
N�
Ol
N
N
N
Ol
Ln
I�
N
00
o
u
c
o m
� Ip
3 � o
c d
0
N
7
0
7
O�
�
,ri
IN
O
�
.-i
Il1
0
N
a
n
,e,
O
OM�
0
�
,�
ONyam.
a
te,
V
C
O Q
3
V1
0,��ooao
00
N
o
rl
IA
i
l0
.N
e
�
N
V1
.-i
^
�
'~
*ONON
ul
,ma00
o a`
V
L
3 c
C E O
m 7 V
�
00
O
.ti
M
00
'
�
O
M
'�
rl
rj
�
�
M
�
rl
fY1
N
�y
.ti
u1ON
^
"No
V1
lD
a
a
C
� N
N
u a �
�
tD
rn
N
Ln
Ol
m
a
0
0
0
��
owj
V)
o?S
Ln
cu
E
0
0
Ln
Ln
0
N
Uv
s
s
O
+_+ bA
O _0
-IMJ O
}'
}'
}'
v
v
-a
_0
_0
E
E
E
I✓
C +-+
E
c :3
O
O
O
E
s
E s
bn
W
w
tiA
N-0
Ul-0
Q
Q
Q
ro
o O
c O
c O
v
v
a�
o -0
Ln -0m
-0
Q
+i a)+�
N
U
Q
U
cobA
N U
U
U D i
V p
to "
boo
ca
� v crs
� v ca
E crs
E ca
E ca
aJ
O
4— by O
w 0 \
bap N
w �
c6 v
.�
c6 N
f6 v
bA
can N bA
N dJ bA
0 bA
o z W
w
I
6170 Z
L170 Z
Si70 Z
EV0 Z
Zi7OZ
6EOZ
LEN
SEOZ
EEOZ
ZEOZ
6ZOZ
LZOZ
SZOZ
EZOZ
TZOZ
6ZOZ
LZOZ
SZOZ
EZOZ
ZZOZ
60O Z
L00 Z
SON
O O O O O O O o
0 0 o O O O O
� N O 00 lD � N
r-I r-I r-I
O
cu
a�
V
c6
E
a�
0
a�
O
Ln
Ln
r')
Projected Water Demand
Year
,,NNES,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Historical Average
Demand
(mg/year)
Cost Effectiveness
Demand Projection
Average Demand
without Plumbing
Code
(mg/year)
Cost Effectiveness
Demand Projection
Average Demand
with Plumbing Code
(mg/year)
Program A 10%
Average Demand
with Plumbing Code
(mg/year)
Program B 15%
Average Demand
with Plumbing Code
(mg/year)
,
Program C 23%
Average Demand
with Plumbing Code
(mg/year)
2005
11220
2006
1,251
2007
11218
2008
1,196
2009
11073
2010
950
2011
943
2012
969
2013
1,059
2014
968
2015
990
2016
11000
2017
11080
11080
11070
11070
11070
2018
11085
11083
11063
11060
11059
2019
11091
11085
11062
11055
11055
2020
11096
11088
11059
11042
11026
2021
11102
11091
11057
11032
11001
2022
1,107
11093
11055
11023
976
2023
11113
11096
11053
11014
952
2024
1,118
11099
11051
11005
929
2025
1,124
11102
11050
11003
927
2026
11130
11105
11048
11001
925
2027
11135
11108
11048
11000
924
2028
11141
11111
11048
11000
924
2029
11147
11114
11048
11000
924
2030
1,152
11118
11051
11002
926
2031
1,158
11121
11053
11004
928
2032
1,164
1,124
11056
11007
931
2033
119170
1,127
11059
11009
933
2034
119176
11131
11062
11012
936
2035
11181
11134
11065
11015
938
2036
11183
11133
11064
11014
937
2037
11184
11132
11063
11012
936
2038
1,185
11132
11062
11011
935
2039
1,186
11131
11061
11010
933
2040
1,187
11130
11060
11009
933
2041
1,189
1,130
11059
11008
932
2042
11190
11129
11058
11007
931
2043
11191
11128
11057
11006
930
2044
11192
11128
11056
11005
929
2045
11193
11127
11056
11004
928
2046
11195
11126
11055
11003
927
2047
1,196
11126
11054
11002
927
2048
1,197
11125
11053
11001
926
2049
1,198
1,125
11053
11001
925
2050
119199
1,124
11052
11000
924
DSS Model: Demand Table Preliminary Draft October 17, 2017