Decision HDecision H22OOSummary & RecommendationsSummary & Recommendations

Jeff Biggs, Tucson WaterJeff Biggs, Tucson Water

Presentation toPresentation toMayor & CouncilMayor & CouncilOctober 18, 2011October 18, 2011

Presentation AgendaPresentation Agenda

Background and HistoryBackground and History• Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act • Hayden-Udall Treatment Plant Hayden-Udall Treatment Plant • Tucson’s Assured Water Supply Tucson’s Assured Water Supply • Tucson’s Clearwater Program Tucson’s Clearwater Program

Water Plan 2050 and Update Water Plan 2050 and Update Decision HDecision H22O O

• Consumer PanelsConsumer Panels• Kiosk OutreachKiosk Outreach• Triple Bottom Line AssessmentTriple Bottom Line Assessment• UpdateUpdate

RecommendationsRecommendations

Background and HistoryBackground and History

• Tucson’s historical reliance on local groundwater Tucson’s historical reliance on local groundwater

• Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act (1980)Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act (1980)

• Need to Shift to Renewable Supplies (1989)Need to Shift to Renewable Supplies (1989)

• Importing CAP Water & Tucson’s Hayden-Udall Importing CAP Water & Tucson’s Hayden-Udall WTP (1992-1994)WTP (1992-1994)

• Initiated Clearwater Program (1996)Initiated Clearwater Program (1996)

• Tucson’s Assured Water Supply (1997)Tucson’s Assured Water Supply (1997)

• Water Plan: 2000-2050 & Update (2004, 2008)Water Plan: 2000-2050 & Update (2004, 2008)

1996CAVSARP Authorized

Clearwater Program EvolutionClearwater Program Evolution

1995 2000 2005 2010 2011

1998-2000Target water quality

developed & demonstrated

1997CAVSARP Expanded

Pilot Recharge Facility Constructed

May 2001Blended Water

Delivery Initiated

2004 – PresentSAVSARP

(Clearwater Phase II)Implementation

2008 – PresentCAP recovery from

Pima Mine Rd. Recharge Project via Santa Cruz Wellfield

Water Plan: 2000-2050Water Plan: 2000-2050

“Water Plan: 2000-2050 was developed to initiate a dialogue between Tucson Water and the community about the water-resource challenges which must be addressed in the coming

years.”

“Water Plan: 2000-2050 was developed to initiate a dialogue between Tucson Water and the community about the water-resource challenges which must be addressed in the coming

years.”

Water Plan: 2000-2050 IdentifiedWater Plan: 2000-2050 IdentifiedDecision Points for Water SuppliesDecision Points for Water Supplies

• Expansion of recharge or Expansion of recharge or Hayden-Udall WTP rehabilitationHayden-Udall WTP rehabilitation

• Acceptable long-term mineral Acceptable long-term mineral content for Clearwater Blendcontent for Clearwater Blend

• Level and methods of effluent Level and methods of effluent utilizationutilization

Clearwater InfrastructureClearwater InfrastructureIncreasing Capacity and Redundancy for Supply ReliabilityIncreasing Capacity and Redundancy for Supply Reliability

CAVSARP

SAVSARP

Pima Mine RdRecharge Project

CentralWellfield

Santa Cruz

Wellfield

Avra Valley Wellfield

TARP & SouthsideWellfield

The Decision HThe Decision H22O ProgramO Program

Program ObjectivesProgram Objectives

• Educate about need for Educate about need for Colorado River WaterColorado River Water

• Inform about rising Total Inform about rising Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels and impacts of levels and impacts of mineral controlmineral control

• Provide opportunities to Provide opportunities to taste and learntaste and learn

• Gather consumer Gather consumer preferencespreferences

450 mg/L TDS Was Found to be Acceptable 450 mg/L TDS Was Found to be Acceptable During 1990s Public Outreach During 1990s Public Outreach ((At the TapAt the Tap))

Taste and OdorTaste and OdorWorkshopsWorkshops

Bottled Water Bottled Water DistributionDistribution

Neighborhood OutreachNeighborhood Outreach

Mall and Traveling KiosksMall and Traveling Kiosks

Consumer testing Consumer testing carried out at three carried out at three different levels:different levels:

Flavor Profile AnalysisFlavor Profile Analysis

Consumer PanelsConsumer Panels

Determining Customer PreferencesDetermining Customer PreferencesDetermining Customer PreferencesDetermining Customer Preferences

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

450 650 No Preference

Per

cen

tag

e o

f E

ach

Ch

oic

e

Total Responses ~ 14,000Total Responses ~ 14,000

Kiosk ResultsKiosk ResultsTaste PreferenceTaste Preference

Taste Preference

57%

28%

15%

Kiosk ResultsKiosk ResultsOverall PreferenceOverall Preference

20%20%

40%40%

60%60%

80%80%

100%100%

450450 650650 No PreferenceNo Preference

Per

cen

tag

e o

f E

ach

Ch

oic

e P

erce

nta

ge

of

Eac

h C

ho

ice

Total Responses ~ 14,000Total Responses ~ 14,000

Overall PreferenceOverall Preference

50%

35%

15%0%

Taste65%

Other6%

Household Maintenance

20%

Cost9%

Taste65%

Other6%

Household Maintenance

20%

Cost9% 37%

8%

7%

48%Taste

Other

Household Maintenance

Cost37%

8%

7%

48%Taste

Other

Household Maintenance

Cost

450450 650650

• 50% of customers are willing to pay more 50% of customers are willing to pay more to have lower mineral content to have lower mineral content

• 50% preferred 650 or had ‘no preference’ 50% preferred 650 or had ‘no preference’ 35% prefer the higher mineral content option35% prefer the higher mineral content option

15% have no preference15% have no preference

Oct 2006 and Jan 2007 Outreach ResultsOct 2006 and Jan 2007 Outreach Results

Due to large investment to achieve 450, additional information was needed before a recommendation could be made.

Additional Steps NeededAdditional Steps Neededfor Making a Recommendationfor Making a Recommendation

• Conduct additional due diligence on the Conduct additional due diligence on the potential treatment technologies and costspotential treatment technologies and costs

• Perform sustainability evaluations for the Perform sustainability evaluations for the two mineral content optionstwo mineral content options

Triple Bottom Line Assessment is one Triple Bottom Line Assessment is one Method to Evaluate SustainabilityMethod to Evaluate Sustainability

TBL Assessments TBL Assessments Equally Weight Three Equally Weight Three FactorsFactors

Triple Bottom Line AssessmentTriple Bottom Line Assessment

• Evaluation of the 650 and 450 TDS options’ impacts Evaluation of the 650 and 450 TDS options’ impacts on the communityon the community

• 4 social panels were conducted with Tucson Water 4 social panels were conducted with Tucson Water customerscustomers

– Facilitated by outside expertFacilitated by outside expert

– Panelists represented the demographics of Tucson Water Panelists represented the demographics of Tucson Water customerscustomers

• External social reviewersExternal social reviewers

– Provided independent oversightProvided independent oversight

– Reviewed the panel resultsReviewed the panel results

Social Category Evaluation ApproachSocial Category Evaluation Approach

Social Criteria Were Discussed and EvaluatedSocial Criteria Were Discussed and Evaluated

• Perception of water qualityPerception of water quality

• AffordabilityAffordability

• Willingness to payWillingness to pay

• Environmental responsibilityEnvironmental responsibility

• Site issuesSite issues

• Community issuesCommunity issues

Panelists ranked and scored each criterion for each TDS option

1.1. Panelists applied importance weighting to Panelists applied importance weighting to each criterioneach criterion

2.2. Panelists ranked the impacts of each Panelists ranked the impacts of each criterion from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive)criterion from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive)

3.3. CRITERION SCORE = CRITERION SCORE = Importance weighting x rankingImportance weighting x ranking

4.4. OVERALL SOCIAL SCORE = OVERALL SOCIAL SCORE = total of criterion scorestotal of criterion scores

All Category Evaluation StepsAll Category Evaluation Steps

Social Category Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

650 Option 450 Option

3.1 3.1

Soci

al R

anki

ng

Incr

easi

ng b

enef

itIn

crea

sing

ben

efit

Triple Bottom Line AssessmentTriple Bottom Line Assessment

Environmental Category Evaluation ApproachEnvironmental Category Evaluation Approach

• Independent environmental reviewers participated Independent environmental reviewers participated in the processin the process

• Tucson Water and the independent reviewers Tucson Water and the independent reviewers identified environmental criteriaidentified environmental criteria

• The same scoring method used for the social The same scoring method used for the social category was employedcategory was employed

Environmental CriteriaEnvironmental Criteria

• Carbon Dioxide EmissionsCarbon Dioxide Emissions• Water LossWater Loss• Solid Waste GenerationSolid Waste Generation• Salinity Loading Salinity Loading • Land UseLand Use• Local Site Issues Local Site Issues • Regional Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife Regional Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife

ImpactsImpacts

0

1

2

3

4

5

650 Option 450 Option

2.7 2.9

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ran

king

Environmental ResultsEnvironmental Results

Incr

easi

ng b

enef

itIn

crea

sing

ben

efit

Triple Bottom Line AssessmentTriple Bottom Line Assessment

Financial Category Evaluation ApproachFinancial Category Evaluation Approach

• Financial category includes both capital and Financial category includes both capital and operating costsoperating costs– Treatment studies performed to refine basis of costsTreatment studies performed to refine basis of costs– Conceptual costs developed for treatment approach to Conceptual costs developed for treatment approach to

maintain 450 mineral contentmaintain 450 mineral content

• Monthly average bill increase used to represent Monthly average bill increase used to represent overall financial impactoverall financial impact– Tucson Water’s financial staff modeled rate impactsTucson Water’s financial staff modeled rate impacts

Conceptual CostsConceptual Costs

Cost CategoryCost Category450 450

OptionOption

Capital CostsCapital Costs $416 Million$416 Million

Annual Operation & Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Maintenance Costs (Year 2015)(Year 2015)

$10 Million$10 Million

Results in a monthly average water bill increase of

$11 to $12

0

1

2

3

4

5

650 Option 450 Option

3.0

1.0

Fina

ncia

l Ran

king

Financial Category ResultFinancial Category Result

Incr

easi

ng b

enef

itIn

crea

sing

ben

efit

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

650 Option 450 Option

3.1 3.1

2.7 2.9

3.01.0

Tota

l Sco

re (S

ocia

l, En

viro

nmen

tal F

inan

cial

)

Financial Environmental Social

8.8

7.0

Overall TBL ResultsOverall TBL Results

Incr

easi

ng b

enef

itIn

crea

sing

ben

efit

Tucson Water RecommendationsTucson Water Recommendations

1.1. Continue to allow mineral content of Continue to allow mineral content of Clearwater Blend to gradually rise, Clearwater Blend to gradually rise, approaching Colorado River Water mineral approaching Colorado River Water mineral levelslevels

2.2. Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and customer feedback and provide customer customer feedback and provide customer educationeducation

3.3. Develop long-term plans to address salinityDevelop long-term plans to address salinity

1.1. Continue to allow mineral content of Clearwater Continue to allow mineral content of Clearwater Blend to gradually rise, approaching Colorado Blend to gradually rise, approaching Colorado River Water mineral levels (~650 mineral content)River Water mineral levels (~650 mineral content)

– Over 10 years of operation, Clearwater Blend mineral Over 10 years of operation, Clearwater Blend mineral content has increased to more than 500 mg/L and content has increased to more than 500 mg/L and continues to gradually risecontinues to gradually rise

– TBL evaluation does not currently justify the significant TBL evaluation does not currently justify the significant expenditures necessary to achieve 450 mineral content expenditures necessary to achieve 450 mineral content blendblend

Tucson Water RecommendationsTucson Water Recommendations

2.2. Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and customer Monitor trends in Clearwater Blend and customer feedback and provide customer educationfeedback and provide customer education

– Monitor mineral content-related issues on a continuing Monitor mineral content-related issues on a continuing basisbasis

– Update and distribute outreach materials addressing hard Update and distribute outreach materials addressing hard water in the home (English and Spanish)water in the home (English and Spanish)

– Monitor advances in water treatment technologies that Monitor advances in water treatment technologies that may improve financial feasibilitymay improve financial feasibility

– Provide updates to Mayor & CouncilProvide updates to Mayor & Council

A future decision to implement mineral content control for Clearwater would require a multi-year implementation period (minimum 4 to 5 years)

Tucson Water RecommendationsTucson Water Recommendations

3.3. Develop long-term plans to address salinityDevelop long-term plans to address salinity– Long-term effects of salt buildup through importation Long-term effects of salt buildup through importation

of Colorado River water are an issue of regional and of Colorado River water are an issue of regional and Statewide concernStatewide concern

– Tucson’s Water Plan: 2000-2050 identifies options for Tucson’s Water Plan: 2000-2050 identifies options for where salinity control might be implementedwhere salinity control might be implemented

– The Recycled Water Master Plan currently underway The Recycled Water Master Plan currently underway includes salinity considerationsincludes salinity considerations

Tucson Water RecommendationsTucson Water Recommendations

Decision HDecision H22OOSummary & RecommendationsSummary & Recommendations

Jeff Biggs, Tucson WaterJeff Biggs, Tucson Water

Questions?Presentation toPresentation to

Mayor & CouncilMayor & CouncilOctober 18, 2011October 18, 2011