So, today I was watching a very optimistic presentation on TED (one I had viewed a couple years ago) regarding market incentives to keep water instream. Rob Harmon gives a clear/simple approach for laymen.
Now, by no way am I suggesting that the end of the world is imminent, but can you believe this bullshit of a comment?
herbert tackmann:
Mar 31 2011: Your all wet,David.In W W 2 Battleships etc,desalinated the sea (salt) water,and it was made drinkable.Google it and learn.So there is enough water to drink for the human race,forever.Three quarters of the earth is quite enough.Agriculturally,what is needed for growth of plants can be added to the water,and by the use of irregation fed to them. Plants have been grown in long plastic tubes,indoors for years,by adding same.Google it,learn.Now cost,as a prototype is quite costly vs. the market model,so too an Industrial nation the USA,can go to Mars,can too desalinate ocean water,on a level or in a way to make it inexpensive.The MEDIA is NOT letting us know this as it is owned by the Corporate Powers.So too ,we have NOW cars that run on water(High Tech) little steam engines 120 mph.Another well buried secret.See David,YOU believe what the Newspapers and the TV tell you,..DON"T,they LIE.To make us panic and vote on ,and PAY for things not needed High Pressure Desalination is NOT,NOT,NOT,costly if done on a mass scale.But I ask you what if they did this,and bottled water does a nose dive?They are charging 10,15,times their cost,sorry money comes way before the TRUTH,or whats "good" for us "the masses".Also,cars that run on water?Oil.does a nose dive,sorry,not in our lifetimes.In the future as we start to probe space,and the Earth becomes "Home Base" maybe by then we will just share what's ours already.BUT I truly doubt it,man seems to be to greedy an animal.Maybe like the film."The Day the Earth Stood Still".Other life forms will come here and cancel us out.They DON'T want us ruining the universe,like we ruined the Earth,which was just fine before we got here.We are being used.
This is why I am worried for our freshwater resources. People like this with "all the answers". All of the answers from Goggle, no less! My question to him is why is Herbert not in the water industry? He would make an absolute killing AND be revered worldwide like Salk & Sabin (although even these great protectors of humanity are even being ostracized now - by the same "intellectuals" as Mr. Herbert Tackmann.) Please, continue the "media / fear-mongering" approach instead of dealing with issues head-on, Herbert. Nothin' like kickin' the can down the road for future generations to deal with. Who knows, maybe his gene pool is at a dead-end. One can only hope.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Perfect Segway
I have now refined potential solutions of growing Arizona water demand by discussing options with decision-making professionals to stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance. By no means is this the only solution (desal, recycle/reuse). But it seems to be the largest potential contributor.
There are now a growing number of new policies and building codes to for stormwater compliance. New development often times must adhere to new construction methods including the ones shown here:
The encouraging news is sometimes the same as the source of our water problems: The Southwestern US is growing. It is easy to assume that new buildings will be built & old infrastructure will be removed with old buildings. (Hey, it's the Arizona way - everything must look new and shiny! If it doesn't, tear it down and build a new strip mall!). In the midst of all of this new construction (and old destruction) Arizona needs to make sure we have corresponding new codes that require stormwater infrastructure. This way much of the cost will be folded into construction on a micro-scale. When these smaller systems can be tied into a state, county, or muni perhaps some of the captured water can even be sold to water providers for treatment and direct or indirect human consumption! Incentivizing private entities to do so seems to be working (albeit slowly) with solar power meeting energy demands. Why not stormwater? Everyone stands to win!
Coincidence or not, I happened to be enrolled in Water Harvesting (SWES 554) at the UA this upcoming spring. I can't wait to learn concepts, techniques, & policies from Allan Matthias to apply in my personal life and professional career!
Until we our society has enough gumption to look in the mirror and deal with the source of our water problems - unmitigated growth and southwestern migration - we will have to continue to band-aid our growing water resource problems. Consider stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance ONE BIG BAND-AID!
There are now a growing number of new policies and building codes to for stormwater compliance. New development often times must adhere to new construction methods including the ones shown here:
The encouraging news is sometimes the same as the source of our water problems: The Southwestern US is growing. It is easy to assume that new buildings will be built & old infrastructure will be removed with old buildings. (Hey, it's the Arizona way - everything must look new and shiny! If it doesn't, tear it down and build a new strip mall!). In the midst of all of this new construction (and old destruction) Arizona needs to make sure we have corresponding new codes that require stormwater infrastructure. This way much of the cost will be folded into construction on a micro-scale. When these smaller systems can be tied into a state, county, or muni perhaps some of the captured water can even be sold to water providers for treatment and direct or indirect human consumption! Incentivizing private entities to do so seems to be working (albeit slowly) with solar power meeting energy demands. Why not stormwater? Everyone stands to win!
Coincidence or not, I happened to be enrolled in Water Harvesting (SWES 554) at the UA this upcoming spring. I can't wait to learn concepts, techniques, & policies from Allan Matthias to apply in my personal life and professional career!
Until we our society has enough gumption to look in the mirror and deal with the source of our water problems - unmitigated growth and southwestern migration - we will have to continue to band-aid our growing water resource problems. Consider stormwater capture, storage, and conveyance ONE BIG BAND-AID!
Monday, December 3, 2012
Fresh Faces in CAWCD
One month ago, the Arizona electorate in the 3 county (Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima) service area of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) popularly re-elected two current members of the Board of Directors and elected 3 new members. Compared to several of the "Old Guard", the three new members have quite diverse backgrounds.
Terry Goddard is certainly the newbie with the most name recognition. He was the Mayor of Phoenix from 1984 to 1990. He went on to serve as the State Attorney General from 2003 until 2011.
Heather Macre is represents a youth movement of sorts. Compared to the rest of the board she is very young in age and to Arizona. I am not sure of her background other than qualifications on her website. I do know one thing though, her youth will serve future generations well. Her position & influence will have consequences she will have to live with and see through in her lifetime, unlike other board members.
And finally, Guy Carpenter was elected. Mr. Carpenter will be one of a small handful of board members that has an extensive background in water resources. He has been employed as a city water resource manager in The Valley and as a consultant in a myriad of water issues as an engineer at Carollo Engineers. His current "day job" is VP & Water Resource & Reuse Group Leader.
I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Carpenter today in an informal setting and pick his brain on issues he feels currently need to be addressed and are fluid in the policy arena.
He spoke of his disappointment in the disconnect between land management/uses and their downstream effects on potable water supplies in The Valley. Of particular interest, we talked of how fires in the upper Salt River Watershed were carbon loading into Salt River Project reservoirs and the costs and stresses that can put onto municipal supplies because of the extra treatment it will require. When hydrocarbons in SRP-supplied water have contact time with microbiological-killing chlorine (added by Valley municipalities to mitigate microbial growth, particularly in the hot summers) they form what is called tri-halo methanes (THMs) and halo-acetic acids (HAAs). These can be harmful to humans and must be removed. I informed him that the U of A is doing great research in the experimental watersheds and rangelands peripheral to Tucson. I also told him how my advisor, Gregg Garfin, and others are trying hard to bridge the gap between the academic scientific research community and decision-makers statewide. These decision-makers are slowly becoming less resistant to outside research and we both hope that relationship would continue to grow.
One of the most frightening scenarios we discussed was the risk-assessment and provisional emergency plans should infrastructure of the CAP canal be compromised. As some of you may know, the canal was breached (extremely far upstream, relative to the population corridor in Central-South AZ) earlier in the fall. Mr. Carpenter stated that because the canal failure happened upstream of Lake Pleasant, service was not interrupted and continued on as normal. However, he said that if this failure happened down stream of Lake Pleasant, not only would water deliveries cease for the foreseeable future, there is no contingency plan in place to bring new (temporary) supply on line. Although much water has been pumped back into the aquifer through Central Arizona Water Replenishment District (CAWRD, under the umbrella of CAWCD), there is no production/recovery wells to pump the groundwater rapidly enough as not to notice a disruption in service. This seems like it should be a high priority, given this day of natural disasters and terror targets.
Mr. Carpenter also spoke to growing population and demand in Arizona. Contractors to CAP have relative comfort regarding their delivery reliability. However, smaller municipalities and water districts do no have this luxury. There is talk of them banding together to create a more formidable voice regarding their own supplies. In one way this is good, because the smaller townships and water districts that do not have a voice, one day might have a seat at the table with the big players. One the other hand, it just creates competition in a already competitive market. This premise is currently supported by a program sponsored by CAP called Add Water.
As a reuse/recycle expert, Carpenter told me "if every single drop of effluent in the United States were recycled" it would increase our supply total by a measly 6%. Nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the solution to a burgeoning demand.
Somehow, it always comes back to stormwater capture. Perhaps it's me. Perhaps I inevitably steer us back to it as our next great undeveloped source of water. But, both Carpenter and Chan (whom I interviewed November 30th, 2012) believe in the vast potential of stormwater capture and usage.
An interesting scene played out recently regarding stormwater, the City of Prescott, & the City of Scottsdale. I will blog about Scottsdale's blunder tomorrow.
Terry Goddard is certainly the newbie with the most name recognition. He was the Mayor of Phoenix from 1984 to 1990. He went on to serve as the State Attorney General from 2003 until 2011.
Heather Macre is represents a youth movement of sorts. Compared to the rest of the board she is very young in age and to Arizona. I am not sure of her background other than qualifications on her website. I do know one thing though, her youth will serve future generations well. Her position & influence will have consequences she will have to live with and see through in her lifetime, unlike other board members.
And finally, Guy Carpenter was elected. Mr. Carpenter will be one of a small handful of board members that has an extensive background in water resources. He has been employed as a city water resource manager in The Valley and as a consultant in a myriad of water issues as an engineer at Carollo Engineers. His current "day job" is VP & Water Resource & Reuse Group Leader.
I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Carpenter today in an informal setting and pick his brain on issues he feels currently need to be addressed and are fluid in the policy arena.
He spoke of his disappointment in the disconnect between land management/uses and their downstream effects on potable water supplies in The Valley. Of particular interest, we talked of how fires in the upper Salt River Watershed were carbon loading into Salt River Project reservoirs and the costs and stresses that can put onto municipal supplies because of the extra treatment it will require. When hydrocarbons in SRP-supplied water have contact time with microbiological-killing chlorine (added by Valley municipalities to mitigate microbial growth, particularly in the hot summers) they form what is called tri-halo methanes (THMs) and halo-acetic acids (HAAs). These can be harmful to humans and must be removed. I informed him that the U of A is doing great research in the experimental watersheds and rangelands peripheral to Tucson. I also told him how my advisor, Gregg Garfin, and others are trying hard to bridge the gap between the academic scientific research community and decision-makers statewide. These decision-makers are slowly becoming less resistant to outside research and we both hope that relationship would continue to grow.
One of the most frightening scenarios we discussed was the risk-assessment and provisional emergency plans should infrastructure of the CAP canal be compromised. As some of you may know, the canal was breached (extremely far upstream, relative to the population corridor in Central-South AZ) earlier in the fall. Mr. Carpenter stated that because the canal failure happened upstream of Lake Pleasant, service was not interrupted and continued on as normal. However, he said that if this failure happened down stream of Lake Pleasant, not only would water deliveries cease for the foreseeable future, there is no contingency plan in place to bring new (temporary) supply on line. Although much water has been pumped back into the aquifer through Central Arizona Water Replenishment District (CAWRD, under the umbrella of CAWCD), there is no production/recovery wells to pump the groundwater rapidly enough as not to notice a disruption in service. This seems like it should be a high priority, given this day of natural disasters and terror targets.
Mr. Carpenter also spoke to growing population and demand in Arizona. Contractors to CAP have relative comfort regarding their delivery reliability. However, smaller municipalities and water districts do no have this luxury. There is talk of them banding together to create a more formidable voice regarding their own supplies. In one way this is good, because the smaller townships and water districts that do not have a voice, one day might have a seat at the table with the big players. One the other hand, it just creates competition in a already competitive market. This premise is currently supported by a program sponsored by CAP called Add Water.
As a reuse/recycle expert, Carpenter told me "if every single drop of effluent in the United States were recycled" it would increase our supply total by a measly 6%. Nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the solution to a burgeoning demand.
Somehow, it always comes back to stormwater capture. Perhaps it's me. Perhaps I inevitably steer us back to it as our next great undeveloped source of water. But, both Carpenter and Chan (whom I interviewed November 30th, 2012) believe in the vast potential of stormwater capture and usage.
An interesting scene played out recently regarding stormwater, the City of Prescott, & the City of Scottsdale. I will blog about Scottsdale's blunder tomorrow.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Manager Grace Chan, Resource Planning & Development Section
On Friday afternoon I had the pleasure of speaking with Grace Chan, Manager of the Resource Planning & Development Section of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. As an agency of a region that has dealt with consistent unprecedented growth since its inception, MWD is well versed in policy regarding growth in its service area. Its primary roles are to import supplementary water to meet Southern California water demands (including as a contractor to The State Water Project) and to coordinate regional planning efforts. Ms. Chan's section is the department that deals with growth. They are responsible for identifying potential challenges and designing programs to meet and overcome those challenges. These programs are to incentivize conservation, recycling, etc.
Their guiding document is the Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP. In short, it is a 3-pronged approach:
1) Using past data to provide a known history of supply and demand variations.
2) Going above and beyond to cover spikes in demand and dips in supply.
3) "Foundational" actions to guard against future uncertainties.
#3 is what I have been interested in addressing.
Of these actions, seawater desalination, stormwater capture, and potable reuse are the three primary pillars of future supply augmentation.
Stormwater capture seems to be the hot public trend among the three. Because of channelization of the Los Angeles River and other streams earlier in the 20th Century, large precipitation events lose 100,000s acre feet of water to the ocean every year. The quick basin exportation of stormwater was done in the name of flood control. Even though much is captured and recharged, more stormwater could be conserved and folded back into MWD's supply portfolio. There are thing prohibitive reasons an infrastructure has not been built to maximize capture:
1) Cost
2) Property/Land issues. Right of way. Cost of purchasing land vs. what the land is worth to development.
3) Idle - the infrastructure is well worth it for the couple times of years it would catch runoff that is not currently being used, but what would it do the other 360 days? Sit idle? If it could be used as a multi-purpose channel, perhaps feasibility would increase.
This "Aggressive Stormwater Capture" has been most successful in Orange County where they only lose 10,000s acre feet of stormwater each year. The rest is captured and recharged.
I asked Ms. Chan if there is any infrastructure improvements planned in the immediate future. She said beyond regularly scheduled maintenance, there is none. The 5 existing water treatment plans suffice for operational supply and demand right now.
Of note, a plan for a desalination plant was approve in the San Diego area November 29th. As part of its incentivization programs, MWD pays for the difference in development of new supplies from what MWD charges its customers. This is a very effective program to have local districts take more control over their own supplies without being financially punished for doing so.
Their guiding document is the Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP. In short, it is a 3-pronged approach:
1) Using past data to provide a known history of supply and demand variations.
2) Going above and beyond to cover spikes in demand and dips in supply.
3) "Foundational" actions to guard against future uncertainties.
#3 is what I have been interested in addressing.
Of these actions, seawater desalination, stormwater capture, and potable reuse are the three primary pillars of future supply augmentation.
Stormwater capture seems to be the hot public trend among the three. Because of channelization of the Los Angeles River and other streams earlier in the 20th Century, large precipitation events lose 100,000s acre feet of water to the ocean every year. The quick basin exportation of stormwater was done in the name of flood control. Even though much is captured and recharged, more stormwater could be conserved and folded back into MWD's supply portfolio. There are thing prohibitive reasons an infrastructure has not been built to maximize capture:
1) Cost
2) Property/Land issues. Right of way. Cost of purchasing land vs. what the land is worth to development.
3) Idle - the infrastructure is well worth it for the couple times of years it would catch runoff that is not currently being used, but what would it do the other 360 days? Sit idle? If it could be used as a multi-purpose channel, perhaps feasibility would increase.
This "Aggressive Stormwater Capture" has been most successful in Orange County where they only lose 10,000s acre feet of stormwater each year. The rest is captured and recharged.
I asked Ms. Chan if there is any infrastructure improvements planned in the immediate future. She said beyond regularly scheduled maintenance, there is none. The 5 existing water treatment plans suffice for operational supply and demand right now.
Of note, a plan for a desalination plant was approve in the San Diego area November 29th. As part of its incentivization programs, MWD pays for the difference in development of new supplies from what MWD charges its customers. This is a very effective program to have local districts take more control over their own supplies without being financially punished for doing so.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Interview Pending
I have set up an interview to ask a few questions to Grace Chan regarding supply and growth in MWD's service area.
Ms. Chan is the Manager in the Resource Planning and Development Section of MWD.
Click here for MWD's organizational chart - follow the flow chart:
Under General Manager -->
click on Assistant General Manager Chief Operating Officer (org chart) -->
You will find her under the Water Resources Management Groups umbrella.
The phone interview is tentatively set for November 30th, 2012.
Ms. Chan is the Manager in the Resource Planning and Development Section of MWD.
Click here for MWD's organizational chart - follow the flow chart:
Under General Manager -->
click on Assistant General Manager Chief Operating Officer (org chart) -->
You will find her under the Water Resources Management Groups umbrella.
The phone interview is tentatively set for November 30th, 2012.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Tapping New Supplies
Developing New Water Options for Southern California
MWD serves a broad geographic area in Southern California that is heterogeneous in its clients' demand. Meeting demand of a growing population and planning for more growth in the future has long been MWD's biggest challenge.
Add that up with contemporary restraints from environmental awareness and reliability issues of imported supply and the complexities of MWD's policies grow into a tangled web quickly.
A sampling of supply issues:
MWD serves a broad geographic area in Southern California that is heterogeneous in its clients' demand. Meeting demand of a growing population and planning for more growth in the future has long been MWD's biggest challenge.
Add that up with contemporary restraints from environmental awareness and reliability issues of imported supply and the complexities of MWD's policies grow into a tangled web quickly.
A sampling of supply issues:
- On-going Colorado River Basin drought extending into decades.
- Possible climate change makes annual/seasonal forecasting supply difficult, e.g. change in natural storage systems.
- Endangered species protection in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System presents operational (pumping) restraints. This causes uncertainty to clients supplies supplemental to MWD's.
- A dynamic regulatory atmosphere, including environmental review processes, permitting, recycled water programs, and seawater desalination projects (including waste products).
- Public perception of recycled water use, whether direct ("toilet-to-tap" / groundwater replenishment) or indirect (used as salt water buffers in aquifers or <golf course/public parks> landscape watering).
A few operational conundrums:
- Water-Energy nexus - costs and use including greenhouse gas production.
- Invasive species, e.g. Quagga Mussels, in conveyance systems increasing maintenance costs and reducing flexibility.
- Increasing salinity demanding further treatment.
And of course, uncertainty of growth dynamics such as location and density of future growth.
The buzz phrase over past couple decades has been "Integrated Resource" planning. In my opinion, this relies heavily on developing flexibility within MWD's operations.
Conservation programs, as an example, adds a component of flexibility by reducing demand. You can think of demand reduction as a supply addition. Many of these programs have been in place for years as my wife would testify. She remembers awareness programs when she was a young girl to turn off the water while brushing her teeth.
Not listed by MWD: Buying new technology for far away users outside of MWD's footprint. This is becoming very popular in Western U.S. metro areas, just ask Las Vegas and Pat Mulroy. They have offered to build a desalt plant for San Diego and/or Tijuana so Southern Nevada can use their share of the Colorado River Compact.
Current Resources Identified:
- Conservation
- Local Resources (Recycling & Groundwater recovery)
- Seawater Desalination
- Stormwater
- Central Valley storage and transfers
- In-Region Groundwater Storage
- In-Region Surface Water Storage
- Colorado River Aqueduct
- State Water Project
Potential Resource Development:
Stormwater runoff in urban areas has long been overlooked as a potential resource in Southern California.
Listen to these stats!!!
... 1,000,000 acre-feet of urban runoff is generated within MWD's service area ...
... of that only 477,000 acre-feet is captured and recharged ...
... yet, 3,200,000 acre-feet of storage is available within MWD's service area ...
This could greatly buffer supply!!!
Last winter, I heard on an LA radio program that an awesome amount of water flows off of the San Gabriel mountains each year goes unused. I am going to try to find the amount.
...
Another potential option? -- Graywater. Plentiful resource at a minimal cost because it is not over-treated. Public backlash could stifle its use though.
...
And finally, one of my favorites (besides stormwater runoff): Transfers. Shrewd and thoughtful planning can re-allocate water to more valuable usage. This can occur within or outside of MWD's service area (e.g. between cities, between industries, or between wholesalers - MWD & SWP).
...
There are options! Small options... but that can aggregate into a large solution!
Last winter, I heard on an LA radio program that an awesome amount of water flows off of the San Gabriel mountains each year goes unused. I am going to try to find the amount.
...
Another potential option? -- Graywater. Plentiful resource at a minimal cost because it is not over-treated. Public backlash could stifle its use though.
...
And finally, one of my favorites (besides stormwater runoff): Transfers. Shrewd and thoughtful planning can re-allocate water to more valuable usage. This can occur within or outside of MWD's service area (e.g. between cities, between industries, or between wholesalers - MWD & SWP).
...
There are options! Small options... but that can aggregate into a large solution!
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Metro Water District Growth Policies
White Paper on: Growth-Related Infrastructure Cost Recovery For Wholesale Water Providers
(January 2008)
Prepared by Red Oak Consulting
725 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
As I had ended my last post, I find it important to evaluate Southern California's existing wholesale water supplier's (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) growth policies.
As a baseline, I found this white paper to be a good starting point.
Much to my naivete's surprise, many of my grandiose ideas of tier-structured growth fees are already in existence.
Let me start by saying that I know full well it is not the place of Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to promote or curtail growth.
However, I thought it important to see how they levee taxes and fees for imminent population and industrial growth in light of continuing widespread drought and political battles to the north.
The classic mechanism to recover costs for growth is a one-time service connection fee. This is still very popular in smaller districts. MWD has grown much too big and complex for this to be their only option, though.
New facilities often need to be built as growth causes capacity boundaries to be broken. The cost of the new facilities needs to be recovered. Most of these recovery costs are levied against new demand. The fees are usually proportionately shared to pay for new capital investments. New development and existing customers all should benefit from new infrastructure.
System development charges can be thought of as:
(Buy-in Fee for Existing Facilities) + (Incremental Fees for New Facilities)
Each of the two components is a composite of several technical components, of which I will not get into at this time.
...
Red Oak's Recommendation:
This white paper contains Red Oak’s review of various financial mechanisms for
determining, implementing, and administering growth-related charges – either as a
recurring rate or as a one-time fee – and provides policy options and objective ranking
criteria for consideration by Metropolitan’s Board.
Based on the criteria developed in Section 5, it is recommended that the Long Range
Finance Plan Rate Structure Group (LRFP) evaluate, provide comments and rank these
criteria. In addition it is recommended that the LRFP confirm and provide suggestions
on the associated growth-related fee options, as mentioned in Section 6. Based on LRFP
comments and suggestions, Red Oak, along with Metropolitan staff, can determine which
growth-related fee should be analyzed and developed for Board consideration.
...
Basically, "having growth pay for growth".
...
The size of development fee can be parsed into different tiers so that the fees assessed (either once or incrementally) is proportionate to the growth.
...
Technically sound, yet technically boring.
(January 2008)
Prepared by Red Oak Consulting
725 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
As I had ended my last post, I find it important to evaluate Southern California's existing wholesale water supplier's (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) growth policies.
As a baseline, I found this white paper to be a good starting point.
Much to my naivete's surprise, many of my grandiose ideas of tier-structured growth fees are already in existence.
Let me start by saying that I know full well it is not the place of Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to promote or curtail growth.
However, I thought it important to see how they levee taxes and fees for imminent population and industrial growth in light of continuing widespread drought and political battles to the north.
The classic mechanism to recover costs for growth is a one-time service connection fee. This is still very popular in smaller districts. MWD has grown much too big and complex for this to be their only option, though.
New facilities often need to be built as growth causes capacity boundaries to be broken. The cost of the new facilities needs to be recovered. Most of these recovery costs are levied against new demand. The fees are usually proportionately shared to pay for new capital investments. New development and existing customers all should benefit from new infrastructure.
System development charges can be thought of as:
(Buy-in Fee for Existing Facilities) + (Incremental Fees for New Facilities)
Each of the two components is a composite of several technical components, of which I will not get into at this time.
...
Red Oak's Recommendation:
This white paper contains Red Oak’s review of various financial mechanisms for
determining, implementing, and administering growth-related charges – either as a
recurring rate or as a one-time fee – and provides policy options and objective ranking
criteria for consideration by Metropolitan’s Board.
Based on the criteria developed in Section 5, it is recommended that the Long Range
Finance Plan Rate Structure Group (LRFP) evaluate, provide comments and rank these
criteria. In addition it is recommended that the LRFP confirm and provide suggestions
on the associated growth-related fee options, as mentioned in Section 6. Based on LRFP
comments and suggestions, Red Oak, along with Metropolitan staff, can determine which
growth-related fee should be analyzed and developed for Board consideration.
...
Basically, "having growth pay for growth".
...
The size of development fee can be parsed into different tiers so that the fees assessed (either once or incrementally) is proportionate to the growth.
...
Technically sound, yet technically boring.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)