Water Extremes in Austin, Texas Daryl Slusher, Assistant Director

Raj Bhattarai, Division Manager

David Greene, Climate Program Coordinator

Austin Water Utility

Summary

• Austin and Water

• Wildlands

• Water Conservation

• Heat, Drought, & Fire

Barton Springs

Lake Travis Image Courtesy of LCRA

Austin Drinking Water Supply

Wildlands ConservationWildlands Conservation 39,000 acres managed for water quality 39,000 acres managed for water quality

and endangered species protectionand endangered species protection Protecting drinking water quality long Protecting drinking water quality long

before it reaches treatment plantsbefore it reaches treatment plants Protecting Barton Springs water qualityProtecting Barton Springs water quality Reviving Texas natural heritage and native Reviving Texas natural heritage and native

ecosystemsecosystems

Onion Creek-Wet Year Walk for Karst Features Spring 2007

• Onion Creek November 2010.

Photo: Marc Opperman

Onion Creek February 2011

2007 WCTF Recommendations Ten-Year Estimated Peak Day Savings

Mill

ions

of G

allo

ns p

er D

ay

51st Street Reclaimed Tank• Service to UT, city golf

course, and eventually state Capitol. . .

• Photovoltaics

• On edge of old airport redevelopment in central Austin

• Aesthetics

• 1st of 7 tanks

Residential Water Bills 0 – 10,000 Gals.

13

Residential Water Bills 0 – 60,000 Gals.

14

Austin’s Water Use and Population

How Hot Is It?•Record 87 88 89 90 days above 100 in Austin during summer 2011.

•Driest 12 month period since Texas began keeping records in 1895

•Record low inflow amounts to the Highland Lakes

•Record high electricity use

Photo: George Steinmetz

Stage 2 Restrictions & Enforcement• One watering day per week, no automatic irrigation after

10 a.m.

• Restrictions on vehicle & pavement washing, fountains, fill valves for pools, water in restaurants

• Routine patrols, “sweeps,” and 311 investigations

• Witnessed violations result in warning, must return proof of compliance to avoid citation

• Class C misdemeanor, $475+

Barton Springs. Austin, Texas

Austin, Texas• Capital of Texas

• Deep in the heart of Texas

• Area: ~289 sq. miles

• Metro Area Population:

~1.7 million Mexico Gulfof

Mexico

OklahomaNewMexico

AUSTIN WATER-City-owned Utility-Operates both waterand wastewater systems-Population Served: 901,000

Water System-Two water treatment plants-Total Capacity: 285 MGD

Water System (contd…)

-Historic Peak Demand: 250 MGD-34 Reservoirs, 24 pump stations-167 million gallons of storage-3,700 miles of distribution system-33,000 Fire hydrants

Wastewater System-2,700 miles of collection system (separate)-52,200 manholes-126 wastewater lift stations-2 major wastewater treatment plants: 75 MGD each-9 small wastewater treatment plants-Average wastewater flow: 86 MGD-One central biosolids management plant – beneficial use of biosolids, “Dillo Dirt”

Austin Water Utility• 1,070 employees

• 6 Program areas: Treatment, Pipeline Operations, Engineering, Finance & Administration, Water Resources Management, Environmental Affairs & Conservation

• 30 Divisions

• Annual O&M Budget: $470 million

• Capital Improvement Program: $1.1 billion for 5 years

153,429156,397

168,965173,038

176,096178,608 182,977184,659188,441

192,511

197,511 200,972

207,997

209,994210,901

212,658215,165

140,324143,298

154,498

159,157160,744163,610

168,159169,330

174,593178,574

184,022 187,971

194,684

196,842198,116

199,863202,391

1,056 1,051 1,051 1,045 1,045 1,034 1,044 1,044 1,005 1,020 1,033 1,036 1,036

1,057 1,070 1,070 1,069

900

1,100

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

120,000

130,000

140,000

150,000

160,000

170,000

180,000

190,000

200,000

210,000

220,000

230,000

95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11CYE

11-12Proj

Tota

l FTE

s

Cus

tom

ers

Water Customers Wastewater Customers Total FTEs

Full Time Employees (FTEs) vs. Customer Growth

$117.64 $116.94

$97.08 $84.24

$79.67 $72.25 $72.21 71.54$71.36

$69.98 $64.34 $63.75

$59.81 $50.80

$46.72 $45.99 $45.87

$41.35 $38.81

$33.32

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

Atlanta, GASeattle, WA

San Diego, CASan Marcos, TX

Portland, ORPflugerville, TX

Corpus Christi, TXHouston, TX

Cedar Park, TXLubbock, TX

Austin, TXGeorgetown, TXRound Rock, TXFort Worth, TX

Dallas, TXAbilene, TX

Arlington, TXSan Antonio, TX

Phoenix, AZEl Paso, TX

Austin, TexasCurrent - $64.34

Combined Water & Wastewater

Average Residential Bill Comparison

1.99%1.74%

1.66%1.52%

1.37%1.36%

1.30%1.16%

1.10%1.05%1.05%

1.03%0.97%0.97%

0.89%0.85%

0.82%0.81%

0.69%

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Atlanta, GASeattle, WA

Corpus Christi, TXLubbock, TX

San Marcos, TXPortland, ORHouston, TX

Cedar Park, TXPflugerville, TX

Abilene, TXAustin, TX

Georgetown, TXEl Paso, TX

Round Rock, TXFort Worth, TX

San Antonio, TXDallas, TX

Arlington, TXPhoenix, AZ

The percentage of median household income was calculated by taking the results of each individual city's bill based on that city's rates and the usage of the Austin average consumption and flows. From those results, we divide the annual amount by the individual city's median income.Median Income source: http://www.huduser.org/datasets

Comparison of Monthly Residential BillPercent of Median Family Income

Early 1980s: Spills, Chills and Fish Kills• Inadequate Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity

• Emergency trucking of wastewater – “Sewage on Wheels”

• Permit Limits: 20 mg/L BOD5, 20 mg/L TSS

• Permit Violations: 1982 – 324; 1983 – 335

• River DO – 1982 – 2.4 mg/L; 1983 – 1.6 mg/L; 1984 – 1.4 mg/L (Standard – 5 mg/L)

• 1986 – Stricter Permit Limits, Plant Expansions and Upgrades: 10 mg/L CBOD5, 15 mg/L TSS and 2 mg/L NH3-N (monthly average)

• 1990 – Austin volunteered for even stricter limits: 5 mg/L CBOD5, 5 mg/L TSS and 2 mg/L NH3-N (annual average)

1990 – 2011: Two Decades of Exceptional Water Quality

• Permit Violations dropped to 3 in 1990. Excellent compliance record since then.

• 1994 – River DO Standard raised to 6 mg/L (exceptional quality) Typically exceeds 7 mg/L

• 1984 to 1992 – Flow increased 68% (from 49 to 82 MGD) Discharge of O2 Consuming Matter (BOD5 and

NH3) dropped 84%

• 56% Population Increase from 1992 to 2011, wastewater flow increased by only 5%.

• Water Conservation, Collection System Improvements, Reduction in Inflow and Infiltration.

Downstream ofLady Bird Lake - Exceptional

Lady Bird Lake - High

Lake Austin - High

Water Quality of Segments of theColorado River near Austin

Drinking Water

Treated Effluent

Lake Travis - Exceptional

Austin Clean Water ProgramA Decade of Collection System Improvements

• 1999 – EPA issues Administrative Order: Elimination of overflows

• 14 Broad and Separate Tasks

• $400 million

• 100 Major Projects– I/I Studies, SSES, Collection System Replacements, Upgrades

– Private Lateral Ordinance – Low Interest Loan for Homeowners

– Public Input - Citizen Advisory Group

– Numerous Meetings with Neighborhood Groups – Citizen Support

• Completed in 2009

Hornsby Bend Biosolids

Management Plant

Ecohouse Offices

for Treefolks and Austin Youth River

Watch

Administration offices

and CER

Digesters

Biosolids Research Fields

Compost Pad

Public Entrance

to Ponds

Pond 1 W

Pond 1 EPond

2

Pond 3

N

FM 9

73

SH 71

Austin

Airport

Aquatic

Greenhouse

River Trail South Entrance

River Trail

North Entrance

Riparian

Resea

rch A

rea

FM

973

Platt Lane to North

Entrance

Public Safety Training Houses

Riparian Research Area

Birding Shelter

Storage basins

Restricted area

Restricted area

Restricted area/

/

SidestreamTreatment

Plant

Center for Environmental Research at Hornsby Bend

MISSION

Urban Ecology and Sustainability

• Community

• Education

• Research

PARTNERS• Austin Water Utility

• University of Texas

• Texas A&M University

RESEARCH AREAS

• Soil Ecology, Sewage Recycling and Reuse

• Hydrogeology of the Alluvial Aquifer

• Riparian Ecology and Restoration • Avian Ecology

Center for Environmental Research at Hornsby Bend

RESEARCH AREA• Soil Ecology, Biosolids Recycling and Reuse

RESEARCH AREA• Hydrogeology of the River and Alluvial Aquifer

RESEARCH AREA• Avian Ecology

Dr. Bayani Cardenas and Dr. Jack Sharp

RESEARCH AREA • Riparian Ecology and Restoration

Clean Water Federal Stimulus Award• Hornsby Bend ranked #1 in Texas

among “green” projects

• $31.8 million zero-interest Federal Stimulus Loan

• $30.7 million in interest savings

• 80% of the funds for the “Green Reserve” projects through the Texas Clean Water State Revolving Fund

Hornsby Bend# 1

Two Contracts with Stimulus Funds1. $6.95 million for Compost Pad

expansion• Addition of 15-acre compost

pad• Double composting capacity

to use 10,000 dry tons of biosolids per year

2. $27.95 million for digester upgrades and plant-wide efficiency improvements

• Sludge dewatering improvements – increase capacity, reduce operation cost

• Digester upgrades – improve process efficiency, increase gas production and capture, reduce use of polymers

Benefits of Stimulus Fund Projects• Hundreds of local jobs during three

years of construction• Increase digester gas production• Compost capacity doubled to

produce exceptional quality Class A compost

• Reduce diesel fuel use by 30,000 gallons/yr

• 41% reduction in polymer use• Extra 16,000 yd3/yr of yard and tree

trimmings used in composting by 2012

• 300 tons of fly ash in concrete for compost pad

Benefits of Stimulus Fund Projects (continued…)

• 6,500 tons of CO2 equivalent GHG reduction by 2012

• 55% increase in energy production by 2012

• 1.75 MW electricity from a related biogas generator project – $1.2 million grant from U.S. Dept. of Energy through Austin Energy

• Waste heat from generators for heating digesters and other uses

• Generate enough electricity for Hornsby Bend

Barton Springs. Austin, Texas

Climate – Mitigation & Adaptation

• Barton Springs repairs pinched by drought, heat and threat of flood

Carbon Flows

GHG Emission Inventory

• Electricity - 121,000 MTCO2e (89%)

• Fleet & other fuels - 5,000 MTCO2e (4%)

• Fugitives - 9,000 MTCO2e (7%)

• TOTAL: 135,000 MTCO2e

AWU 2010 GHG Emissions Inventory

GHG Inventory Variables

Energy Emissions

Biogenic CO2

Graphic adapted from CHEAPet

Outsourced Activities

Improved Accounting (of GHG Emissions from biosolids, from Brown, 2011)

Marginal Cost of GHG Mitigation Projects

Cost effectiveness:

1. Efficiency (buildings, transportation, industry)

2. Agriculture & Land Management

3. Power

McKinsey MACC Curve from March 2009 National Geographic Magazine

Pumping & System Efficiency

• Evaluating embedded energy in water delivery impacts benchmarking, planning, and even (potentially) rates

Generating power from biogas

• Highest Value?– Electricity

– Heat

– CNG

– Pipeline

Managing biological carbon flows

• Wildlands – how do current goals impact C sequestration?

• Sludge and Compost – at what sensitivity does it become ‘better’ to keep solid C as C instead of extracting energy? What are best methods for sequestering C

• Green Infrastructure Wetponds – High C sequestration potential per unit