Water Source / Supply Study Workshop #2 Joint Shared Service - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water Source / Supply Study Workshop #2

Joint Shared Service Committee July 13th

2

Purpose of the Source Supply Study

• Review and prioritize known

sources

– 3 primary sources nearing capacity (7-10 years, subject to usage and growth) – Water enabler of OCP goals – Emerging challenges/opportunities to water supply

• Develop a refined solution set

– Evaluate and identify (1) conservation, (2)

• ptimization and (3) source/supply
• pportunities

– Phased, incrementable, affordable, sustainable, resilient, flexible approach

3

Presentation Overview

Water System Review Water Demand Planning

Determine Solution Sets

Supply Source Needs Develop a Soultion

• Sources and Infrastructure
• Water Issues
• Population and Water Use
• Supply Needs to 2041
• New Source Criteria
• Determine multiple

solution sets

4

Workshop Overview

• Explore key elements of Solution

Sets

• Review broad range of choices

and narrow based on feasibility

• Present performance results for

short-list of Solution Sets

• Frame next steps for Fall direction

setting

5

Conservation

Demand Planning: Adopt reliable trend in water use & reductions

Optimization Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2041

Source Expansion

Invest in the development of the best suited source for needs of the Commission

Solution Sets

• Policy setting and programming
• Moderate OR Advanced reductions
• Pipe and reservoir upgrades
• Meet levels of service: now + future

NEW #1 #2 #3

• Long-term supply resiliency
• Address emerging gaps in portfolio

6

Criteria to Prioritize Solution Sets

• Consistency over

time e.g. droughts

• Amount and

severity of hazards; risks

• Ability to phase

for growing demands

• License/regulatory

assurances

• Convenience to

interconnect

• Operational

footprint e.g. effort

Strategically prioritize sources using criteria that enhance our portfolio.

• Relative cost

performance

• Cash flow and

rates considerations

• Public

perception of water quality

• Stakeholder

conflicts

Desirability

7

OCP Alignment

Abbotsford ~1.5% Growth = OCP

1. Residential 2. ICI 3. Agriculture 4. NRW

• Pop. 141,000
• Pop. 200,000

Low Demand High Demand No Conservation

Total population is slightly greater than serviced population.

8

148 MLD Status Quo

Max capacity = 123MLD

Currently MDD = 102MLD*

Restrictions Conservation Densification Efficiency Leaks Growth Drought Redundancy

* Based on four year Average

9

Capacity Portfolio

Cannell

Ground- water Wells

Norrish

• High-elevation, good quality source
• Fraction of supply needs; small watershed
• Best for winter demands or summer

demand complement.

• Not able to expand capacity.
• Reliable, low-treatment supply all year
• Trending water quality concerns and

higher operational footprint

• Distributed source to address summer

use and demands from growth.

• Able to expand source capacity.
• Largest source with advanced treatment
• Turbidity spikes and drought lowers capacity
• Transmission limited by pipe size
• Concerns regarding ability and cost to

expand source storage

• Reflects your largest asset-investment.
• Able to expand source capacity.

Generally adequate capacity under normal conditions however new demands, drought and turbidity spikes may affect supply resiliency in 7 to 10 years. Emerging gap

A go-to source for unplanned events (e.g. turbidity) and planned long- term growth.

10

Conservation

Demand Planning: Adopt reliable trend in water use & reductions

Optimization Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2041

Source Expansion

Invest in the development of the best suited source for needs of the Commission

Conservation

• Policy setting and programming
• Moderate OR Advanced reductions

11

High Demand Scenario Low Demand Scenario

0.7% 1.2%

Medium Demand Scenario

0.35%

135MLD 123 MLD 108MLD

148 MLD Status Quo

Max capacity = 123MLD

Conservation Program Choices

MDD

Dictates source + system capacity and focuses conservation targets

Maximum Day Demand

Steady program with strategic add-ons.

Currently = 102MLD Restrictions Conservation Densification Efficiency Leaks Growth Drought Redundancy

12

Conservation Blueprint

Use Blueprint to Design Water Efficiency Plan  Target 0.35%/yr  10% overall in 25 years

 Low-Impact Development  Guelph e.g. Blue Built Certification

• Most efficient hardware in new buildings
• Low land-scape requirements
• Incentives for reuse and rain water harvesting

 Maintain Restrictions

• Maximize AMI data to reduce peaks and lower MDD
• Redesign setpoints for messaging

 Expand Social Marketing

• Direct ties to AMI
• Messages, incentives and education to suit major customer

groups: residential, Industrial-Commercial, Institutional and Agriculture

 Frequent Billing

• Gradually transition to tiered price-structures
• Direct ties to Social Marketing

 Pursue Universal Metering with grants  Strategic Rebates to Suit Customer Patterns

• Low-income/rental rebate update
• Capacity buyback programs
• Built in leak detectors
• At time of development/redevelopment

MDD Target = 135MLD in 2041

Resident NRW ICI Agriculture

• 10%
• 15%
• 5%

+9MLD

Status Quo High Demand Medium Demand

13

Conservation

Demand Planning: Adopt reliable trend in water use & reductions

Optimization Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2041

Source Expansion

Invest in the development of the best suited source for needs of the Commission

Optimization

• Pipe and reservoir upgrades
• Meet levels of service: now + future

14 Optimization

Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2040

Optimization Projects

Allow for full access to source potential and prevent issues with pressure/supply during maximum day use.

Optimization projects remove transmission bottlenecks for current and future customers.

Only 90% of source capacity can be used because of unoptimized system.

unusable capacity Full Capacity

15 Optimization

Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2040

Optimization Projects

• Water utilities that serve growth communities are

regularly improving the efficient transmission of water to key areas

• Timing and levels of service dictate investments
• Optimization projects help to:
• Meet demands during max days and average days (one source
• ut of service) e.g. no drop in reservoir levels
• Provide equitable access everywhere e.g. pressures
• Provide redundancy e.g. Norrish Supply Line pipe failure
• Meet the needs of future customers
• Provide reliable source operations e.g. Norrish

16

Optimization Projects to Review

Change title Order of Magnitude (Costs) Purpose

Norrish Creek Pipeline Twin (~6km) $35M Relieve existing pipe bottleneck to meet provide +12 MLD Norrish Creek Pipeline Twin (~9km) $50M Maximize source capacity to provide an additional +30 MLD Mission Zone 4 Reservoir $6-12M Meet ADD with Cannell out of service Maclure Booster Station $4-5M 14 MLD pump station to convey groundwater flows to Mission for system redundancy

17

Conservation

Demand Planning: Adopt reliable trend in water use & reductions

Optimization Projects

Affirm investment levels to meet levels of service to 2041

Source Expansion

Invest in the development of the best suited source for needs of the Commission

Source Expansion

NEW #1 #2 #3

• Long-term supply resiliency
• Address emerging gaps in portfolio

18

Capacity Portfolio

• Supply Max Daily Demand

– Current @ 102 MLD – 2041 @ 135 MLD*

*Requires optimization works to maximize existing source supplies or expansion of new source.

• Supply Average Daily Demand

– with one source out of service  1-6 months – e.g. turbidity, drought  achieves redundancy – Current @ 67 MLD – 2041 @ 86 MLD

Performance

* Based on High Demand Scenario of 0.35% reductions per year

2016 2041 2051 2016 2041 2051

+25MLD

+32MLD

Emerging gap

To meet source supply service levels with redundancy requires a new source for up to 25MLD before 2041.

The water supply gap projection has reduced significantly from 2011.

Recent efforts to conserve, optimize and plan for new customers has reframed the search for a complementary source that bolsters a more resilient system.

+12MLD

+29MLD

19

Source Review Capacity Portfolio

2011 Long List of Source Options AMWSC reports applied 8 criteria to funnel the choices. Feasibility: Pre-Screen the Long List

20

Feasibility Pre-Screen the Long List

Critical Drawbacks

Active Watershed with High Upfront Costs No Eco-Political Feasibility

• Wastewater Reuse
• Connect to

MetroVancouver

• Connect to Clearbrook
• Chilliwack Lake
• Harrison Lake

Lowest Engineering Feasibility

• Temporary Storage

(Unreliable for medium-term)

• Hayward Lake

(Leachate concerns)

• Fraser River Intake

(Storage requirements for high turbidity events, contamination concerns)

21

Source Review Capacity Portfolio

Collector Wells (Fraser River) New Groundwater Max-Norrish Miracle Valley

Stave Lake

22

Source Expansion

Collector Wells (Fraser River) New Groundwater Max-Norrish Miracle Valley Stave Lake

How do these top 5 source options perform against the criteria? Are there key differentiators that narrow the options further?

Resiliency (R) Adequacy (A)

Serviceability

(S)

Affordability

(Af)

Desirability

(D)

Strategic Lens

Criteria

23

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Up to 45MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

Resiliency Adequacy Serviceability Affordability Desirability

24

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

Resiliency Adequacy Serviceability Affordability Desirability

25

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

Resiliency Adequacy Serviceability Affordability Desirability

26

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

Resiliency Adequacy Serviceability Affordability Desirability

27

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

28

Collector Wells

(Fraser River)

$25-50M +$15-20M

• 25MLD
• 50MLD
• Must be verified by field

conditions

Groundwater Expansion

(Abbotsford)

$10-15M +$10-15M

• 25MLD
• Requires pumping to service

Mission customers

• Many wells creates
• perational + permit

complexity; must be field verified; some quality issues

Expand Dickson Lake

(Norrish)

$10M +$25M +$85M

• 0 MLD; resiliency

buffer

• 45MLD to

maximize source capacity; pipe and treatment

• Cannot meet redundancy

needs

• Fish flows and drought add

resiliency issues

Miracle Valley

$30-60M

• 17MLD (max)
• Cannot be a reliable long-

term source which diminishes its value

Stave Lake

$300M+

• 100 to 400MLD
• Increases supply costs

dramatically in part by writing off existing assets

Source Name Criteria

Performance + Score

Capital Cost Capacity

Initial + Ultimate

R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D R Ad S Af D

Risk

Considerations

Highest Cost Insufficient Capacity No Added Redundancy

29

Collector Wells (Fraser River) New Groundwater Max-Norrish Miracle Valley

Stave Lake

Collector Wells (Fraser River) New Groundwater

30

Conservation + Optimization + Source

Solution Set Conservation Optimization Source Expansion Cost

1 High Demand Scenario 0.35%/ year reduction

• Mission Zone

4 Reservoir Collector Well $31 to 62M 2 High Demand Scenario 0.35% / Year reduction

• Mission Zone 4

Reservoir

• Maclure

Booster Station Groundwater Well $20 to 32M

• Life-cycle costing may yield a notable difference in results.
• Norrish twinning increases redundancy on supply main but

not needed with additional source capacity.

• Dickson Lake storage upgrades required near 2041 to

improve seasonal operations.

31

Conduct life-cycle analysis on Scenario 1 (Collector Wells) and Scenario 2 (Groundwater) to select best optimization method to meet service levels and accommodate growth Scenario 1 or Scenario 2

High Demand Scenario

Moderate reductions for all customers by enhancing current program

13 MLD reduction from Status Quo

Deeper evaluation Collector Wells or Groundwater for Fall 2017 direction +12MLD by 2025

+25MLD by 2041 +32 by 2051

Next Steps

Conduct in-depth analysis and reporting on the implementation plans for the two solution sets for direction by AMWSC in fall 2017.

Narrowed Solution Sets Conservation Optimization Source Expansion

32

Schedule

• Engage with public +

stakeholders through the summer and fall

• Return to JSSC September 14th

with refined Solution Sets - Workshop #3

• Return to JSSC November 9th

with preferred solution and Decision

Engagement Focus Areas

Core questions related to

The future water needs of Abbotsford and Mission Present optimization projects Present source options for feedback

Existing Engagement

Joint Council Workshop #1 – May 18th Abbotsford Committee Workshop – May 25th Mission Farmers market – June 24th Canada Day Abbotsford – July 1st Mission Council – July 10th Joint Council Workshop #2 – July 13th

Planned Upcoming Events

Mission Farmers market – August Abbotsford Farmers Market – August Continuing events through the Fall

33

Questions and Further Discussion