UPDATE ON WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

John M. Stomp III, PE,Chief Operating Officer

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority

May2014

2

Background: Ground and surface water resources

• Aquifer can no longer sustainably supply water at needed levels

• Additional sources and management are required

Aquifer

Rio Grande

Water Table Wells

San Juan-Chama

3

Pumping Cone of Depression in 2002

Albuquerque Ground-Water Levels Show

Huge Declines

Water Authority’s 2007 Water Resources Management Strategy

• Conservation• Reuse for industry and irrigation• Use of surface water (Colorado San Juan-Chama

trans-basin diversion to Rio Grande)• Aquifer storage and recovery (related to surface

water treatment)• New Supplies

4

Water Authority’s water resource management strategy includes:

5

Non-Renewable

100,000

200,000

300,000

Wa

ter

De

ma

nd

(a

cre

-fe

et/y

ea

r)

Renewable

Recycling

Newsources

Year1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

0

Conservation

~100KAFY Surface WaterOwned by Water Authority

AquiferDrawdown

~50KAFY Renewable Groundwater

Comparison of Water Conservation Programs – Colorado River Users

• Water Authority – 136 gpcd

• Salt Lake City area – 244 gpcd• Tucson – 131 gpcd• Phoenix – 251 gpcd• Las Vegas – 251 gpcd• Los Angeles – 152 gpcd

7

8

#

Navajo Reservoir

#

Heron Lake

#

Abiquiu Reservoir

#

LITTLE NAVAJO RIVER

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO #

26 Milesof Tunnels

#

Diversions

#

RIO BLANCO

#

NAVAJO RIVER

10 0 10 Miles

N

San Juan-Chama Project

Reservoir Operations

9

Surface Water Supplies - Storage Projections

10

Transition to Renewable Supplies – SJC DWP

#

#

#

#

#

##

Coronado

Volcano Cliffs

College

DonBurton

Leyendecker

Surface WaterDiversion

I-40

I-25

No

rth

Div

ersi

on C

ha

nne

l

SA

N P

ED

RO

#

98TH ST

#

ATRISCO

#

PASEO DEL NORTE

#

HERMOSA

CharlesWells

#

SANANTONIO

MENAUL

MONTGOMERY

MARQUETTE

#

EDITH BLVD

CAMPBELL

ALV

AR

AD

O

COORS

MONTANO#

UNSER

CENTRAL

SEQUOIA

#

TIERRA PINTADA

#

110TH

LOU

ISIA

NA

WaterTreatment

Plant

Rio Grande

#

#

#

#

#

##

Coronado

Volcano Cliffs

College

DonBurton

Leyendecker

Surface WaterDiversion

I-40

I-25

No

rth

Div

ersi

on C

ha

nne

l

SA

N P

ED

RO

#

98TH ST

#

ATRISCO

#

PASEO DEL NORTE

#

HERMOSA

CharlesWells

#

SANANTONIO

MENAUL

MONTGOMERY

MARQUETTE

#

EDITH BLVD

CAMPBELL

ALV

AR

AD

O

COORS

MONTANO#

UNSER

CENTRAL

SEQUOIA

#

TIERRA PINTADA

#

110TH

LOU

ISIA

NA

WaterTreatment

Plant

Rio Grande

Raw Water Pipeline

Existing Reservoir#

Surface Water Transmission Line

Legend

Surface WaterDistribution System

0.9 0 0.9 1.8 2.70.45 Miles

³

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Dem

and

Month

SJC DWP Restricted Diversions During Drought

Remaining Ground Water Use

Drought

Minimum Ground Water Use

Drinking Water Project Operations

• 2008 – 367 (1%)• 2009 – 21,357 (21%)• 2010 – 42,803 (40%)• 2011 – 41,281 (40%)• 2012 – 43,208 (41%)• 2013 – 39,929 (42%)• 2014 – 40,000 (?)

13

Groundwater Storage and Water Levels -

Recent trends with DWP

14

What is happening to the aquifer?

DWP Online

Future Reduced Depletions and Available Return Flows

• More return flow is expected to be available in the future for other uses

16

ASR Projects

• Bear Canyon Arroyo ASR Project– Completed two seasons of

pilot testing– Application for full scale

permit to be submitted in March 2014

• Large Scale ASR– Direct injection– Existing Wells – high arsenic– In design and testing phase

17

Water Authority’s Next Water Resources Management Strategy

• Public Process – alternative development• Fall 2014 – Fall 2015• Conservation – new goal?• Additional Reuse – indirect/direct potable• Diversion of native water rights• Aquifer storage and recovery (related to surface

water treatment)• New Supplies

18

Overall Satisfaction with the Services Provided by the Water Authority

VerySatisfied

SomewhatSatisfied

SomewhatDissatisfied

VeryDissatisfied

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

57%37%

3% 1%

94% of customers are satisfied

Water Rates Should Be Increased to Cover the True Costs to Treat and Deliver Water to Our Homes and Businesses

44%

21%

11%20 %

4%

Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon't Know

64% of customers agree

Investing in the Repair and Replacement ofOld Water & Sewer Lines

64%

24%

7%

3%2%

Very Important

Somewhat Important

SomewhatUnimportantNot Important

Don't Know

88% of customers feel it is important

Condition of Water LinesThe majority (57%) of residential customers express satisfaction. However, only 18% are very satisfied and over one-quarter (29%) report dissatisfaction with the condition of water lines.

 Very

SatisfiedSomewhatSatisfied

Somewhat/ Very

Dissatisfied

Condition of the water lines throughout the city such as the number of leaks you observe

2014 18% 39% 29%

2012 25% 31% 26%

2010 26% 43% 15%

Condition of Sewer LinesThe majority (60%) of residential customers report satisfaction regarding the condition of sewer lines, though 17% say they are dissatisfied.

 Very

SatisfiedSomewhatSatisfied

Somewhat/ Very

Dissatisfied

Condition of the sewer lines throughout the city such as the number of overflows/backups you observe at the city sewer lines or manholes

2014 22% 38% 17%

2012 26% 35% 16%

2010 30% 38% 10%

Water and Wastewater Service Charges- Residential 5/8” Meter

Item Existing FY2014

ProposedFY 2015

Water$8.63 $9.92

Strategy Implementation$3.95 $4.51

Sewer$8.25 $9.12

Total$20.83 $23.55

Bill Comparison – Local Low Use

Bill Comparison – Local High Use

Bill Comparison – Regional Low Use

Water Commodity Rates – FY14/15

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Revenue $182,191 $207,370 $228,393 $233,489 $246,899 $253,926 $255,318 $ 267,313 $ 271,257 $ 277,394

Expenditures $180,783 $196,466 $214,555 $218,581 $227,272 $235,240 $237,979 $248,552 $248,850 $253,900

Revenue over Expenditures $ 1,411 $ 10,904 $ 13,839 $ 14,908 $ 19,627 $ 18,685 $ 17,339 $ 18,790 $ 23,494 $ 23,494

Rate Revenue Adjustment 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Finance Plan Summary

in thousands

Increase CIP Spending

30

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Basic Rehab w/ Increase AMP Rehab

$ 50,000 $ 43,000 $ 46,000 $ 49,000 $ 52,000 $ 55,000 $ 58,000 $ 61,000 $ 64,000 $ 67,000

Steel Line $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

AMI $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

Growth $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,000 $7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000

in thousands

Asset Management Program defines needed CIP renewal spending

Revenue shortfall will delay ramp-up in Renewal Program spending

32