community-based regional water supply planning tennessee advisory commission on intergovernmental...
TRANSCRIPT
Community-Based Regional Water Supply
Planning
Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Briefing
TN Duck River AgencySeptember 9, 2010
By Doug Murphy, Executive Director
Presentation Outline
• DRA Organization
• Why the need for Regional Water Supply Planning
• The Water Supply Plan Process– “WORKING TOGETHER WORKS”– “GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH”
Duck River Agency Mission
“To develop, protect and sustain a clean and dependable water resource for all citizens in the Duck River Region”
Bedford, Coffee, Hickman, Marshall, and Maury Counties
“To develop, protect and sustain a clean and dependable water resource for all citizens in the Duck River Region”
Bedford, Coffee, Hickman, Marshall, and Maury Counties
DRA Organization• Established: 1965
• 17 Member Board Appointed by the Governor
• Represent 5 Counties: Coffee, Bedford, Marshall, Maury, and Hickman
• 7 Water Systems: Columbia, Lewisburg, Spring Hill, Bedford County, Shelbyville, Manchester, Tullahoma
• Funding: Water Systems pay a nickel per 1,000 gallons of water sold
Citizens
Board of Directors
Executive Director
Finance Director
DRATAC WRC
Duck River Agency Organization Chart
Presentation Outline
• DRA Organization
• Why the need for Regional Water Supply Planning
• The Water Supply Plan Process– “WORKING TOGETHER WORKS”– “GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH”
Regional Planning• Multiple Uses depend on the Duck River and Normandy Reservoir
– 250,000 resident customers– Industrial and commercial use– Agricultural– Waste load assimilation– Recreation– Biologically diverse river
• 2007 Drought of Record – Normandy Reservoir reached 42% capacity– Flow in the upper Duck River was dependent on Normandy Reservoir
• Politics– House Bill 3545– Senate Bill 2464
• Emotions– Public perception
• No long term creditable regional plan– Good science– Proven decision making model
Project Planning Area
Presentation Outline
• DRA Organization
• Why the need for Regional Water Supply Planning
• The Water Supply Plan Process– “WORKING TOGETHER WORKS”– “GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH”
“You are only as good as your help” hdm
WSP Strategic Team
• O’Brien & Gere – Principal consultant
• CTI Engineers, Inc.– TN engineering firm
• BDY Environmental, LLC– Environmental permitting
• HydroLogics, Inc– Modeling
• Trauger & Tuke– Legal
Comprehensive Regional Water Supply Plan
Duck River Development Agency
Project Approach and Decision Making Process
June 2009 August 2010
Workshop 1
Goals / Kick-off Meeting
Week 2
Workshop 2
Preliminary Feasibility
Week 12
DRA goals and policies
Key issues review Establish
information collection program
Demand projections
Reliability goals Approach to
water supply
permitting Environmental
impacts
Review funding options
Agree on cost estimating techniques
Stakeholders and roles Community impacts
review
Review key issues memo on water
quality / capacity
Select alternatives
Review preliminar
y costs
Review policy
impacts on
alternatives
Screen Alternative
s Review
Tech. Memo
Review key issues memo
Finalize reliability approach
Review draft report
Sensitivity analysis on
present worth
Workshop 3
Developing Alternatives
Week 23
Workshop 4
Evaluating Alternatives
Week 33
Workshop 5
Implementation Planning
Week 42
Workshop 6
Conclusions
Week 50
Water Quality and Capacity
Reliability and Permitting
Financial
Community Impacts and
Public Policy
Data Collection and Initial Investigations
Alternatives Development
Alternatives Evaluations
Report and Decision-Making
Next Steps
Meetings with regulators
Community issues Water supply attitudes
Review stream hydrology and water quality
data Review
population and demands
Peaking factors
Meetings with participants
Review reservoir release
requirements and NPDES
permits Revisit redundancy approaches
Develop basis for costing for
each participant
Review unit costs
Gather input on non-cost factors
Website development
Interview key stakeholders
Refine service
areas and demands
Identify supply
alternatives
Review demands / capacity policies
Regulatory
discussion
Develop cost estimate, based
on technical studies (above)
Load cost model
Draft Cost Model
Define evaluation factors
Website updates
Draft Key Issues Memo
Water Quality /
Regulatory Compliance
Draft Key Issues Memo
Reliability Goals and Approach
es
Draft Key Issues Memo
Cost Estimating Methods
Draft Key Issues Memo
Community Impacts
Service areas /
demands
Water
supply options
Review key issues memo on reliability
policy Approach
for supply
permitting and stream
quality
Finalize costing
methods
Identify evaluation
factors Develop
pair-wise comparison
Draft Key Issues Memo
Water Quality /
Treatment
Capacity Projection
s
Draft Key Issues Memo
Redundancy
Approach
Permitting Issues /
Obstacles
Review key issues memo – redundancy Discuss
permitting obstacles Adopt reliability approach
Decision Model
Finalize cost estimates
Compare PW cost / benefits
Meetings with
participants
Key Issues Memo Water
Supply Alternative
s
Compare PW cost / benefits
of alternative approach
es
Update Key Issues
Memo Permitting Issues and Approache
s
Present Worth Cost
Analysis
Draft report section on
costs Review
funding options
Update decision
model with PW costs and
revisit pair-wise
Finalize Community Impact
Assessment
Review draft report
Select alternatives
Draft report and executive
summary
Pre-scoping
meeting for permits
and obstacles
Refine costs and funding options
Briefings for elected officials
Public meeting
Briefings for elected officials
Open House Meetings
Review public input
Finalize alternative selection
Scoping meeting for permits and environment
al studies
Expert panel
discussion on
regulatory approache
s
Approve scope for
supplemental studies If
needed
Finalize report and executive
summary Draft
Implementation Plan
Adopt Implementatio
n Plan Authorize
design
Meetings with regulators
Updated Cost Model
Open House Meetings
Review input from
stakeholders Plan Public
meeting
Select preferred funding
plan
Select preferred
funding plan
Meetings with potential funding
agencies
Endorse funding plan
Retain legal and financial counsel for
bonding
Communication plan for
implementation phase
Draft Report Final
Report
Open House Meetings
Oasis Model
Schematic of Duck River System as Modeled with OASIS
110
Normandy
112
ResSpill
114
115
Manchester
120
Tullahoma
125
TimsFord
130
140
Shelbyville
150
Shelbyville Gg.
155160170
180
Bedford County
190
200 Lewisburg205
Big Rock Ck.
210
212
FountainCk
215220
230
Spring Hill
240
250
Columbia
260
Columbia Gg.
270280285
Kettle Mills
KettleBkPmp
290300999
Centerville Gg.
$$,$$$.$$
“The project goal is to have a Comprehensive Plan that will provide direction to the Duck River
Agency regarding the management of available water resources, including the implementation of
specific water supply infrastructure projects.”
“The project goal is to have a Comprehensive Plan that will provide direction to the Duck River
Agency regarding the management of available water resources, including the implementation of
specific water supply infrastructure projects.”
17File Location
Roles of Key Participants in the Decision Process
DRA Board (Decision-Maker)
Executive Director
Consultant Team
Recommendation
50-Year Plan
Public & Stakeholder
Input
Water Resources Council
Duck River Agency Technical Advisory
Committee
Public & Stakeholder Input (Workshops and Open
Houses)
Information Exchange
Input
Information Exchange
Recommendation
Collaboration or Recommendation
Open Process• 6 Workshops• 3 Public Open Houses• www.duckriveragency.org• Media coverage• Civic Group Presentations• Garden Club Presentations• One-on-One meetings
Participants• Water Systems
– Bedford County Utility District– Columbia Power and Water Systems– Duck River Utility Commission– HB&TS Utility District– Lewisburg Water and Waste Water – Manchester Water Systems– Maury County Water System– Tullahoma Utility Board– Shelbyville Water and Sewer– Spring Hill Water Systems
• Federal Agencies– Natural Resource Conservation Service– Tennessee Valley Authority– U S Department Agricultural– U S Fish and Wildlife Service– U S Geological Survey
• State Agencies/Committees– Tennessee Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations – Tennessee Department of Environment– Tennessee Water Resource Technical Advisory
Committee– Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency
• Legislators– Senator Bill Ketron– Senator Jim Tracy
• Non – Government Organizations
– Duck River Watershed Association– Friends of Short Springs– Tennessee Environmental Council– Tennessee Duck River Agency Board– Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation– The Nature Conservancy– World Wildlife Fund
• Municipals– Columbia– Lewisburg– Manchester– Tullahoma– Shelbyville– Spring Hill– Wartrace
• Companies/Professionals– AMEC Earth & Environment– BDY Environmental, INC– Consolidated Technologies, Inc– Energy and Water Economics– HydroLogic’s, Inc– Garver Engineers, Inc – Geoservices, LLC– Gresham, Smith and Partners– Obrien & Gere Engineers, Inc – Trauger & Tuke
Water Supply Plan: 3 Parts
• NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
• IMPLEMANTATION PLAN
Needs Assessment
Normandy Reservoir and the Duck River supply virtually all the public water supply needs in the five county planning area
The drought of 2007-2008 heightened awareness of the limitations of the Duck River, as Normandy Reservoir fell to approximately 42% capacity– Water use restrictions and emergency reductions to releases from
Normandy Reservoir were approved Population projections from CBER and current water usage patterns
were used to project future water usage, which will roughly double by 2060
OASIS model utilized the water demand projections, current flow constraints and 87 years of hydrologic data to assess the reliability of the Normandy Reservoir and Duck River to meet the water supply and environmental needs of the Duck River Region– A 4 mgd deficit currently exists under the drought of record and current
constraints– A deficit of up to 32 MGD in the year 2060 is projected under the drought of
record and current constraints which equates to 1.4 BG to 3 BG of storage
Projections
Need Assessment
Deficit
based on worst
case
drought of p
ast 87 years
(1-
year in 87-year e
vent)
Deficit
based on droughts
that occu
r approxim
ately
1-year in 10-years
Water Supply Plan: 3 Parts
• NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
• IMPLEMANTATION PLAN
Alternatives
Started with over 40 then identified 26 non-structural and structural alternatives including:
Implementing additional water efficiency measures Implementing a regional drought management plan Changing operation of Normandy Reservoir Modifying river constraints Constructing pipelines from reservoirs, rivers or other water systems Constructing tributary reservoirs (Fountain Creek Reservoir) Building off-stream storage reservoirs (pumped storage) Utilizing quarries Raising Normandy Dam
Evaluation Criteria Reliable Capacity
Raw Water Quality
Cost
Implementability / Risk of Delays– permittable– public acceptance– property acquisition
Flexibility– phased implementation
Environmental Benefits Recreation
Alternative ScreeningAlternatives were sorted into one of these
groups:
– Baseline – an alternative that was selected to be a component of the recommended water supply plan
– Fatally Flawed or Highly Unlikely – an alternative that was eliminated from further consideration
– Back-up – an alternative that was not selected as a Cornerstone, but will be considered as a potential component of the 50-year water supply plan
– Cornerstone - an alternative in the “shortlist” that could satisfy the entire deficit, and is receiving further consideration as a key element of the 50-year water supply plan
Water Supply Plan: 3 Parts
• NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
• IMPLEMANTATION PLAN
Baseline Alternatives
Regional Drought Management Plan
Water-use Efficiency Program
Optimize Releases from Normandy Reservoir
Comprehensive 50-year Water Supply Plan with 100-year Vision
30
Relocate Columbia’s water withdrawal to a new intake approximately 25 miles downstream, where there is adequate flow to satisfy projected needs
Relocate Columbia’s water withdrawal to a new intake approximately 25 miles downstream, where there is adequate flow to satisfy projected needs
Implement a water use efficiency program and develop a regional drought management plan
Implement a water use efficiency program and develop a regional drought management plan
Raise Normandy Dam and optimize releases from Normandy Reservoir to enhance the reliable yield available for all Duck River uses
Raise Normandy Dam and optimize releases from Normandy Reservoir to enhance the reliable yield available for all Duck River uses
Advantages of Implementing all Components
Multiple sources of supply – Increases reliability by utilizing multiple sources of water supply
Regional solution with benefits beyond water supply– Enhances instream flow for entire Duck River region
– Extends recreation (reservoir and river) during droughts
– Reduces flood risk downstream of Normandy Dam Finances – Encourages financial support from entire region/ lower cost per
customer … “Working Together Works”
Flexibility – Combination of structural and non-structural components address uncertainty in future conditions including:– Alteration of instream flow conditions – Changes in projected water demands or water use characteristics – Changes in regulatory requirements– Likelihood of more severe hydrologic/climatic conditions– Changes in land use and hydrologic conditions in watershed
Estimated Project Cost
Williamsport Intake and Raw Water Pipeline to Columbia (with one 30-inch pipeline for 20 mgd)
Raise Normandy Dam
Baseline Alternatives
Total Costs
– $38 million
– $20 million
– $4 million
– $62 million
Philosophy
Cost sharing:
– “Growth Pays For Growth”
• System development charge for new services and
larger services
– “Working Together Works”
• Common charge based on all water withdrawals
Financial Strategy Three examples of initial estimated increase in cost per
household (typical usage = 5,000 gallons/month)1. Using solely water withdrawal fees:
• Approximately $3.00/month
2. Using water withdrawal fees (all customers) and System Development Charges (for new services and larger services):
• Approximately $1.50/month
3. Using water withdrawal fees (all customers) and System Development Charges (for new services and larger services), plus phasing the construction and using current reserve funds:
• Approximately $0.60/month
Potential Schedule and Phasing Approach
35File Location
Next Steps
Receive comments at Open House public meeting
Complete Report with Recommendations and
Implementation Plan
Develop Financial Strategy
Develop Communication Plan
Board endorses Report and Recommendations in
October
Implementation
TVA Normandy Operating Guidehttp://www.tva.gov/river/lakeinfo/index.htm
Operating guide
2007 Elevations
2008 Elevations
Comprehensive 50-year Water Supply Plan with 100-year Vision
• Implement Baseline Alternatives
• Increase Storage Capacity at Normandy Reservoir
• Locate new intake for Maury County