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.
Wednesday, November 21, 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)