Municipal Water Leader January 2017

Volume 3 Issue 1

January 2017

Maintaining, Developing, and Using Water Wisely: A Conversation With Washington County Water Conservancy District General Manager Ron Thompson

Planning for Utah’s Water Future

By Kris Polly

C

hange is the one constant, especially in the municipal water world. Managers and their respective water agencies must correctly plan for changes in supply and demand caused by population growth, all while maintaining safe and reliable drinking water. This issue of Municipal Water Leader examines efforts in Utah to meet the water needs of state’s population, which is expected to double by 2060. “Protect what we have, use it wisely, and provide for the future” is the motto of the four largest water conservancy districts in Utah, as they work together to prepare a Statewide Water Infrastructure Plan. Mr. Ron Thompson, general manager of Washington County Water Conservancy District and incoming president of the National Water Resources Association, exemplifies this philosophy. “Our role is to plan, conserve, and provide water for the community in response to the growth that’s dictated and managed by our elected officials. This is best accomplished through a proactive, collaborate approach.”

One major planned water infrastructure project to meet Utah’s projected population growth demands is the Lake Powell Pipeline. With an estimated cost of $1.4 billion, this 139-mile, 69-inch pipeline will deliver up to 86,249

acre-feet of Colorado River water from Lake Powell to Washington County. The statewide plan, developed by the four major water conservancy districts working with the 11 major river basins that constitute the state of Utah, has been named Prepare60. The estimated costs of the needed water infrastructure identified by the Prepare60 plan is $33 billion.

When asked in his interview what his message to Congress is, Mr. Thompson said, “My primary message is that the economy of this country is dependent on safe and reliable water supplies. We can talk about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, but none of that will matter if we do not maintain our water infrastructure systems.”

Kris Polly is editor-in-chief of Municipal Water Leader and Irrigation Leader magazines. He is also president of Water Strategies LLC, a government relations, marketing, and publishing company he began in February 2009 for the purpose of representing and guiding water, power, and agricultural entities in their dealings with Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal government agencies. He may be contacted at Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

NWRA 2017 Federal Water Issues Conference Embassy Suites DC Convention Center

March 20–22, 2017 Hotel information now available on NWRA website at NWRA.org Early registration and hotel cut-off date is February 26, 2017 2

Municipal Water Leader

JANUARY 2017

C O N T E N T S 2 Planning for Utah's Water Future

By Kris Polly

VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1 Municipal Water Leader is published 10 times a year with combined issues for July/August and November/December by Water Strategies LLC 4 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 STAFF: Kris Polly, Editor-in-Chief John Crotty, Senior Writer Matt Dermody, Writer Robin Pursley, Graphic Designer Capital Copyediting LLC, Copyeditor SUBMISSIONS: Municipal Water Leader welcomes manuscript, photography, and art submissions. However, the right to edit or deny publishing submissions is reserved. Submissions are returned only on request. For more information, please contact John Crotty at (202) 698-0690 or john.crotty@waterstrategies.com.

ADVERTISING: Municipal Water Leader accepts one-quarter, half-page, and full-page ads. For more information on rates and placement, please contact Kris Polly at (703) 517-3962 or Municipal.Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

CIRCULATION: Municipal Water Leader is distributed nationally to managers and boards of directors of water agencies with annual budgets of $10 million or more; the governors and state legislators in all 50 states; all members of Congress and select committee staff; and advertising sponsors. For address corrections or additions, please contact our office at Municipal.Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.

Copyright 2017 Water Strategies LLC. Municipal Water Leader relies on the excellent contributions of a variety of natural resources and water industry professionals who provide content for the magazine. However, the views and opinions expressed by these contributors are solely those of the original contributor and do not necessarily represent or reflect the policies or positions of Municipal Water Leader, its editors, or Water Strategies LLC. The acceptance and use of advertisements in Municipal Water Leader do not constitute a representation or warranty by Water Strategies LLC or Municipal Water Leader magazine regarding the products, services, claims, or companies advertised.

COVER PHOTO: Ron Thompson, General Manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District

4 Maintaining, Developing, and Using

Water Wisely: A Conversation With Washington County Water Conservancy District General Manager Ron Thompson

10 Building Reliability and Growth in

Southwestern Utah: The Lake Powell Pipeline

16 Prepare60: Securing the Future

of Utah Water

20 Amid Drought, Eastern Municipal

Water District Innovates and Retrofits to Put Recycled Water to Use

DISTRICT FOCUS

24 Jordan Valley Water Conservancy

District

By Richard Bay

LEADERSHIP PROFILE

28 Driving Water Technology

Innovation to Foster Economic Growth: A Conversation With The Water Council’s Dean Amhaus

32 Innovative Approaches and Practical

Results: A Conversation With Freese & Nichols CEO Brian Coltharp

INTERNATIONAL

34 Pitt Meadows Moving Weeds

to Move Water Out of Floodplains

By Randy Evans

Municipal Water Leader

3

Maintaining, Developing, and Using Water Wisely:

A Conversation With Washington County Water Conservancy District General Manager Ron Thompson

A

s a state’s population grows, so too does its demand for water. Nowhere is this more true than in Utah, where the population is expected to double over the next few decades. One of the people working to meet that challenge is Ron Thompson, general manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD).

Mr. Thompson has been with the district for more than 30 years and has led the development of many water infrastructure projects. He also has worked with other districts to establish a statewide plan for the future of Utah water.

Mr. Thompson sat down with Irrigation Leader’s editorin-chief, Kris Polly, to discuss the effect of a growing population on Utah’s water, the importance of working collaboratively to devise solutions to those issues, and the future of water infrastructure.

4

Kris Polly: Please tell us about the WCWCD and its history.

Ron Thompson: The district was created in 1962 by a vote of the people to provide water to support the county’s growing population and economy. The county has grown from 13,000 people to more than 160,000 since the district was created.

The district is primarily a wholesale water provider to the county’s various municipalities, but it does operate small retail and wastewater systems as well. More than 40 employees oversee administrative and operational efforts, including the management of reservoirs, pipelines, dams, hydropower stations, wells, and the county’s largest water treatment facility.

Municipal Water Leader

Kris Polly: Where does the district’s water supply come from?

Ron Thompson: All of Washington County’s water currently comes from the Virgin River basin. Most of our water is from surface supplies of the Virgin River, which we treat through our 60-million-gallon-per-day water treatment plant and deliver to the cities. We also have some groundwater that we’re able to capture from wells.

We use a big transmission line to interconnect our cities from Hurricane in the east to Ivins in the west. We also have negotiated an agreement with our municipal customers to combine resources so that water can be obtained from more sources on a given day when needed.

Kris Polly: What would you say are your biggest challenges as a district?

Ron Thompson: Like everyone in the West, we dedicate significant time and resources to comply with federal regulations. Much of the land is owned by agencies of the federal government, including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the United States Forest Service, as well as by Native American tribes. We also have to deal with issues relating to the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Antiquities Act, the waters of the United States rule, and the Endangered Species Act. We have many endangered fish and other species that inhabit our water sources, and others that are native to the desert streams.

Kris Polly: Washington County is growing rapidly. What are some of the water supply and development projects and plans that WCWCD is undertaking to meet growing demands?

Ron Thompson: The state is projecting that Washington County’s population will grow to 600,000 by the year 2060.

We have a fair amount of reserve water stored for short-term use, but we’re working to develop several local and regional projects for reliable yield to meet the anticipated future demand. Those projects include new pipelines, reservoirs, wells, and hydropower stations.

We’re concerned, because water projects require long planning horizons. Utah’s four largest water conservancy districts, which provide water to 85 percent of the state’s population, recently worked together to prepare a Statewide Water Infrastructure Plan. The plan identifies available supplies, projected population growth, current and anticipated water demands, new water resource options, and the estimated costs to develop new sources as well as repair and replace existing infrastructure. This plan has a 45-year horizon— we recognize the need to be proactive, since most water infrastructure projects take decades to complete.

The four districts work together with the shared motto to protect what we have, use it wisely, and provide for the future.

Kris Polly: What can you tell us about the district’s efficiency and conservation programs?

Ron Thompson: Given that our delivery system is fairly new, it is extremely efficient. Some of our cities with older systems have recently upgraded or replaced their systems, The view from behind Glen Canyon Dam.

Municipal Water Leader

5

resulting in considerable loss reductions.

Washington County was the first water district in Utah to develop a conservation plan and is leading the state in terms of use reduction. From 2000 to 2010, Washington County’s water use decreased 26 percent [latest number reported by the Utah Division of Water Resources]. The district requires its municipal customers to have a conservation plan, a tiered conservation rate structure, landscape ordinances, and time-of-day watering ordinances to purchase water from the district. Various rebates, classes, and community events are offered by the district annually.

In addition, the district funds local and statewide advertising campaigns that promote efficient water use. Conservation is an ongoing top priority for the district.

Kris Polly: Over your long career with the district, what are some of the key lessons you have learned about facilitating growth and making sure people get the water they need?

Kris Polly: You have been with the district for a long time. How did you get started?

Ron Thompson: My primary message is that the economy of this country is dependent on safe and reliable water supplies. We can talk about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, but none of that will matter if we do not maintain our water infrastructure systems. Many of our biggest and most important water projects were built by government entities, and these entities must continue to maintain and expand those projects as needed. Those of us in the water industry have great strength if we tell our story, work together, and present a united front against the challenges we face.

Ron Thompson: Approximately 32 years ago, the district’s board approached me to do some legal work for them. The board was familiar with my work as the county attorney and knew I was experienced in dealing with state processes. While serving them as a legal consultant, they offered me a job at the district to manage the county’s first water development project. I accepted the job and have been involved in all district projects completed to date, including the building of the Quail Creek and Sand Hollow reservoirs.

6

Ron Thompson: Our role is to plan, conserve, and provide water for the community in response to the growth that’s dictated and managed by our elected officials. This is best accomplished through a proactive, collaborative approach.

We work closely with our state and local elected officials, water managers, and other stakeholders to ensure that we have a safe, reliable water supply for our community. We’ve accomplished great things working together.

Kris Polly: You will be the incoming president of the National Water Resources Association in January. What is your message to Congress and the new administration?

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Remote Solar-Powered Flood Control Rubicon’s automated sluice gates and management software provide safe and reliable solutions for off-site flood water management.

Gates can be remotely managed via secure SCADA or cellular telemetry networks. They integrate with existing SCADA systems, or you can use our desktop or smartphone software to adjust gates, view real-time and historical information and receive alerts to warn of any issues.

Plus, solar power and five days’ battery capacity means operation is not impacted by blackouts and brownouts.

• Low maintenance CableDrive™ actuation mechanism for long service life in harsh conditions • Inbuilt water level and gate opening measurement • Meets AWWA C562 leakage requirements in both on-seating and off-seating head conditions • Integrated frame assembly allows quick and easy installation and maintenance inspection • Local manual override Contact us today to find out why Rubicon Water has sold more than 20,000 automated gates worldwide.

Call 970 482 3200 email inquiry@rubiconwater.com or visit www.rubiconwater.com California contractor’s license number 984209

ADVERTISEMENT

Wa te r S u p p ly • F lo o d Pr ot ect i on • Wat er Qual i t y • Recr eat i on

Enriching communities.

Improving the quality of life.

8 0 0 E . North s id e D riv e , F o rt Wo rt h, TX 76102 | ( 817) 335- 2491 | www.t r wd.com

Building Reliability and Growth in Southwestern Utah: The Lake Powell Pipeline

W

ashington County is nestled into the far southwestern corner of the state of Utah, amid red sandstone mesas and cliffs with the Pine Mountains looming to the north. It is beautiful country that has attracted the attention of young families, retirees, and snowbirds alike. The county, and its seat of St. George, has experienced rapid growth over the past 25 years. St. George has grown from a one-stoplight town to southern Utah’s urban center. That growth will continue. The Utah Office of Management and Budget projects the county’s population, which is currently 160,000, to increase 252 percent by 2060.

One significant factor in that projection is water.

The Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD), a subdivision of the state of Utah, is the main purveyor of water in the county. It derives much of the region’s potable water from the Virgin River, a desert tributary of the Colorado River. The Utah Division of Water Resources projects demand for water to triple in Washington County by 2060, with developable supplies and system efficiencies only increasing supply by approximately 20 percent. That gap between supply and demand is a source of concern for the state of Utah.

The Pipeline

With sufficient water rights in hand, the state’s solution is the construction of a 139-mile, 69-inch pipeline, along with pumping stations and hydroelectric generation facilities,

to deliver up to 86,249 acre-feet of Colorado River water a year from Lake Powell to Washington County and its neighbor to the east, Kane County. The estimated $1.4 billion project would provide a reliable water supply to the region and help to ensure its economic viability.

The first half of the project would pump water uphill from the takeoff point near Glen Canyon Dam. From the halfway point down to Sand Hollow Reservoir, just south of Hurricane in Washington County, the pipeline would function, according to Barbara Hjelle, WCWCD associate general manager and counsel, as a very long penstock. The second half of the pipeline would employ a series of hydropower stations that take the head off the water. The project is 134–139 total miles, depending on the alignment.

From Legislation to Permitting

In 2006, the Utah legislature passed the Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act and created a management committee to oversee project development. Additional legislation authorized funding for the project. The Utah Board of Water Resources, which oversees funding of state water projects, has a representative on the management committee and is in charge of the pipeline project.

Given the length of the proposed pipeline and the amount of federal land it will cross, permitting is a Lake Powell at Glen Canyon Dam.

10

Municipal Water Leader

Alignment of the proposed pipeline.

challenge. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) governs the hydropower permitting. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) licenses rights-of-way for the length of the pipeline on BLM land. The project’s first pump station will be sited on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation land and requires approval. The pipeline route also runs through a National Recreation Area managed by the National Park Service. The project will also need highway rights-ofway under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Utah Department of Transportation in addition to rights-of-way agreements with BLM, the state, and private landowners.

Ms. Hjelle discussed some of the other regulatory components of the project, of which there are many. “In addition to the permitting, there will also be Endangered Species Act issues, Clean Water Act sections 404 and 401, and a myriad of other state and local approvals that will have to be resolved.” There are three alternative alignments under consideration. The preferred alignment skirts the Kaibab– Paiute Indian Reservation, while the other two alignments go through the reservation.

FERC is the lead permitting agency, and the project proponents are working through FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process, which is different from traditional environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the the NEPA process, after an Municipal Water Leader

application for a right-of-way is filed, the federal agency with jurisdiction initiates scoping. The public comments on potential environmental issues related to the project. The federal agency issues a draft environmental impact statement, which then goes out for public comment. The agency then issues the final environmental impact statement and, finally, a record of decision.

FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process requires study plans that are open to public comment, final study plans, and an examination of all project resources. For the Lake Powell Pipeline, there were 23 study plans covering a range of resource issues brought up in scoping. Those plans have already undergone updates to address climate change and population growth, leading to some delays in the project timeline.

The state of Utah filed a preliminary license application with FERC on December 2, 2015.

Subject to public comment, BLM alone had almost 1,700 comments. Ms. Hjelle reported that the state has addressed most comments from the agencies and the public and that the final license application was filed in May 2016. FERC has looked at the final application and issued additional information requests.

According to Ms. Hjelle, “That’s the process we are in right now.”

11

Why the Pipeline?

Sources of future supply are at the crux of the growth issue for Washington County. Ms. Hjelle described the situation. “The Virgin River is stretched to its limit right now. We have significant endangered species and riparian needs, so there is a certain amount of water that has to be maintained in the river. There is a limited window of opportunity to improve that dynamic. The Colorado River [via the pipeline] essentially provides a stable and reliable source of water that is a statistically insignificant amount relative to the capacity of Lake Powell.”

Karry Rathje, WCWCD public information manager, explained that while WCWCD expects to add approximately 20 percent to its supplies using resources that are available locally, these resources are insufficient to meet the anticipated demand of a population expected to increase 252 percent, according to state projections.

“There is a definite need for additional water resources.

To provide some perspective, if we stopped all outdoor watering [in Washington County] completely, it would yield an additional 25,000–35,000 acre-feet of water.

By comparison, the Lake Powell pipeline will provide 86,249 acre-feet of water at a lower cost to residents than many conservation initiatives, including municipal turf rebate programs. The pipeline provides the highest yield of water for the lowest cost.”

Those considerations are made in light of WCWCD’s current conservation efforts. Ms. Hjelle noted, “WCWCD has a very robust program. We have added and updated water conservation programs every five years since 1995.”

She believes the district does not get enough credit for its conservation work. Much of the misperception comes from how water use is calculated. “The Utah Division of Water Resources determines water use by taking the amount of water that is diverted, including secondary water, and dividing that by the number of permanent residents. Most states and municipalities have different accounting practices that exclude some water use types

or allow for return flow credits, making it difficult to compare water use efficiencies. When you consider the fact that 20–30 percent of Washington County’s residences are second homes, the 6 million tourists that visit the region every year, and the businesses that operate here, we believe our water usage overall is comparable to similarly situated areas.”

Public Outreach

Ms. Rathje discussed WCWCD’s initial communications efforts. “Our outreach is still preliminary based on the fact that we are not sure how the project is going to look or operate, but providing accurate and timely information to the public is an ongoing effort and priority. Outreach initiatives will continue and magnify as we move forward in the process.”

WCWCD has issued a series of newsletters and press releases. While there is information on the pipeline on WCWCD’s website, the district is in the process of creating a distinct website for the project. There also has been an effort to do face-to-face outreach, including media interviews and presentations to rotary clubs, city councils, and the state legislature. Citizen involvement is also an important component of the outreach program.

Ms. Rathje stated, “We have organized a citizens’ committee that participated in a series of classes talking about all facets of water development, including the Lake Powell Pipeline.”

Moving Forward

FERC requires an approximately two-year NEPA review process. There also will be a few years for project design. According to Ms. Rathje, “We expect construction to begin in the early 2020s, with water delivery beginning after 2025. Much of that is dependent on the timeline of the environmental process, so it is subject to change. The current timeline assumes that we will have a record of decision by 2018, which may be optimistic.”

Lake Powell.

12

Municipal Water Leader

At Westlands Water District, workplace safety is more than just a priority.

It’s a way of life.

3130 N. Fresno Street, P.O. Box 6056, Fresno, CA 93703 (559) 224-1523 | info@westlandswater.org | wwd.ca.gov

AN WAT ER ICT

THE

STR

ME

T

OLIT

DI

P RO

YEARS OF WATER DELIVERY

2016

1941

IA

OF

SO

UT

HERN C

O ALIF

RN

Engineering a Marvel It is easy to forget the sheer audacity of it all.

The Colorado River stopped 300 miles east of the Southern California coastal plain.

Bridging this gap required erecting an aqueduct in the middle of the desert.

No roads, no telephone lines, no electricity, and certainly no air conditioning.

And doing it in the middle of the biggest economic collapse that the nation had ever seen.

It was the 1930s equivalent of a moon shot.

Su r ve y t e a m expl or i ng pos s i bl e a q u e d uct r out es , 1 9 2 7 .

Start of aqueduct work celebration, Cabazon, CA., 1933.

Aqueduct drilling contest winners, 1934.

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Aqueduct tunnel workers, 1934.

mwdh2o.c om /75years Twitter.com/mwdh 2o_75years

Prepare60:

L

Securing the Future of Utah Water

ike many western states, Utah faces a growing population with limited water supplies. The state’s population is expected to double by 2060, raising the question of how to best provide water for the homes and businesses that will be built as a result.

This is particularly challenging due to the high cost of building water infrastructure and reduced federal funding with which to do so. Upon realizing this dilemma, Utah’s governor and lawmakers sat down with leaders of the state’s four largest water districts and asked them to help devise a statewide strategy to allow water infrastructure and supply to keep up with the state’s growing population.

Richard Bay, general manager and chief executive officer of Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, was among those who met with Utah officials to find a new way forward. Mr. Bay and the other district leaders issued a report on the state’s water needs and a plan detailing how to fund them. The plan, known as Prepare60, was developed with the 11 major river basins that constitute the entire boundaries of Utah in mind.

The planning process was both incremental and intensive. Mr. Bay explained, “In each river basin, we went in 10-year time steps through the next 50 years and

16

identified the current and growing populations in each time step, current water use, and per capita water use. We tracked water conservation goals and what the goals should be, using either a 25 percent or 30 percent reduction in per capita water use in each river basin as the goal. We identified what new water supplies are needed and what

An exhibit in the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District conservation demonstration garden that shows pipes that bring water to the valley. The exhibit gives visitors an idea of the scope of water service.

Municipal Water Leader

Source: Governor's Office of Management and Budget

to come back even as our population rate is expanding rapidly. We had discussions with the legislative leadership and told them we desperately need to develop a new model.”

Mr. Bay said the most challenging issue is the upfront financing of the increasingly large capital costs of water infrastructure projects that have to be built in advance before going into repayment in subsequent decades by water users. Mr. Bay said he and the other water district leaders explained to state leaders that water has always been a user-pay system in Utah, in which water users have always repaid 100 percent of the costs with interest, and that is expected to continue in the future.

The acceleration of Utah’s population growth since it became a state.

infrastructure needs to be built. We also looked at the capital costs for infrastructure for each river basin.”

The plan includes a cost estimate of $33 billion to allow Utah’s water infrastructure to keep up with the growing population through 2060, with $18 billion being used to repair and replace existing infrastructure and $15 billion for bringing in new water supplies.

Mr. Bay notes that during the group’s meetings with the legislature and the governor, “we determined that the model we had been using for the past century to finance water has been a team-shared approach in which water conservancy districts financed about one-third the cost. The federal government had financed another third of all water infrastructure in the state, which was a conscious decision made by Utah in the early 1900s. Utah decided to actively pursue and invite those federal funds, and we’ve been very successful at doing so. The final third comes from cities, water improvement districts, and an existing water revolving loan fund that the legislature has been funding for several decades. We noted in our report that federal funding has vanished from funding water projects in the past few years, and it is not likely Municipal Water Leader

17

The proposed Prepare60 model replaces federal dollars for Utah’s water projects with the combination of a state-driven revolving loan fund and greater contributions from Utah’s four water conservancy districts.

Based on that principle, the four water conservancy districts created a financing proposal, which included a new model for Utah to fund water projects up front and have them be repaid by users. Mr. Bay said the plan “focused on preserving the two-thirds of the financing we have already discussed, and proposed that water conservancy districts take on half the remaining third and the state take on the other half in a new role of financing in a miniature version of what the federal government used to do.”

“We recommended that the state involvement focus only on three issues: the Bear River Development Project, an interstate river development for northern Utah; the Lake Powell Pipeline Project, a Colorado River development project for southern Utah; and partial financing of replacement of aging federal water infrastructure where there are no federal funds available for that purpose. We suggested that financing for the third component come from a new revolving loan fund as opposed to direct financing with later repayment for the first two components. This new model was accepted by the legislative leadership.”

The water conservancy districts worked with legislators to create a new fund, the Water Infrastructure

18

Restricted Account, in March 2015. During the March 2016 session, the legislature identified a revenue stream to start putting money away for the financing of projects. The revenue stream is a 1/16-cent statewide sales tax that would generate $36 million per year before growing to $42 million per year after five years and growing further from there. Mr. Bay said that the key to this revenue stream was that it is not a new tax, but rather a repurposing of a revenue stream that was approved as a water earmark 20 years ago, transferred to statewide and local transportation projects, and then returned to water after the legislature created new funding opportunities for transportation.

According to Mr. Bay, the plan was well received, but he noted that one of its most distinguishing features is the collaboration of four districts to create it through a quasi public–private process, rather than through the formal state government process. Mr. Bay said the Prepare60 plan is now used by the legislature and the governor for guidance on water issues and could serve as a model for other western states facing similar challenges of growing population, limited water supply, and even more limited funds to expand those supplies.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

TRUST THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND. You wouldn’t ask a mechanic to prepare your annual report. Or an architect to exercise your valves. WHY TRUST YOUR PROJECT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CONTRACTOR WHO ACTUALLY BUILDS IT?

GARNEY. THE STRENGTH OF SELF-PERFORMANCE.

100% EMPLOYEE OWNED

100% INVESTED IN YOUR PROJECT’S SUCCESS

KANSAS CITY, MO

ATLANTA, GA

DENVER, CO

HOUSTON, TX

MIAMI, FL

NASHVILLE, TN

ORLANDO, FL

PHOENIX, AZ

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

START YOUR PROJECT AT

GARNEY.COM

Amid Drought, Eastern Municipal Water District Innovates and Retrofits to Put Recycled Water to Use

I

n 2015, as California was facing a historic and relentless drought, agencies throughout the state were asking landscape customers to continue to reduce water use.

The result was that many landscapes, parks, and school grounds were browning, diminishing the functional and recreational uses that many communities depend on.

Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), however, had a different idea: What if it could fast-track a program that would allow nearly two dozen of those sites to retrofit to recycled water through an innovative program that would also fund those conversions for the end users?

The idea—developed by agency staff and unanimously supported by its board of directors—became the foundation for the Recycled Water Accelerated Retrofit Program, a groundbreaking and nationally recognized program that will save 400 acre-feet of potable water annually and that required minimal new infrastructure.

“This program was about developing a pathway that would allow areas that provide community benefit to remain green while offering immediate cost savings to the customers and potable water savings for EMWD,” EMWD General Manager Paul D. Jones, II, said. “When we began evaluating options, we were able to identify ways we could change our internal practices to better meet the needs of our customers while offering a cost-effective solution that did not ask other organizations to immediately foot the bill for those retrofits. The result was a program that we hope serves as a template for helping sustain functional turf areas that provide significant benefit to the community, even during times of drought.”

EMWD is California’s sixth-largest retail water agency, providing water, wastewater, and recycled water to 795,000 people in a 555-square-mile service area in western Riverside County. The district is an industry leader

Eastern Municipal Water District recognized eight Accelerated Retrofit Program participants with an honorary purple pipe during its December 7, 2016, board of directors meeting.

20

Municipal Water Leader

for its recycled water efforts, meeting 36 percent of its demand through tertiary treated reclaimed water and has for the past three years used 100 percent of its recycled water supply for irrigation of crops, school grounds, parks, streetscapes, recreational facilities, environmental, and industrial use.

But despite selling nearly 35,000 acre-feet of recycled water each year and having more than 300 active customers, there was an opportunity to do more, particularly in the arena of functional, public benefit areas that would otherwise be subjected to significant state-mandated cutbacks as California wages its ongoing battle against a years-long drought.

EMWD was able to identify main roadblocks to existing customers’ retrofitting sites to be served with recycled water: the cost of the permitting, design, and construction.

EMWD initially identified potential candidates—the proverbial low-hanging fruit—that were adjacent to existing recycled water infrastructure but had not been connected during a $150,000 retrofit study that was funded in part by the State Water Resources Control Board several years prior. That study was dusted off and served as a

Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District was the largest program participant in EMWD’s Accelerated Retrofit Program.

Four sites, including La Paloma Park in Menifee, California, and the Leon Road Paseo in the unincorporated community of French Valley will combine for 77 acre-feet per year in potable water savings.

Municipal Water Leader

21

roadmap for identifying low-cost, high-volume sites that could be completed in an extremely short time frame.

EMWD’s board of directors approved $2.2 million in funding for the 24-site program, which allowed agency staff to take the lead on design and permitting the retrofits as well as provide reimbursement of construction costs to the customer. The funding will be paid back through a special recycled water rate that is lower than potable water rates, providing immediate cost savings to the end user, but higher than the traditional recycled water rate. After the eight-year payback period, the users will transition to EMWD’s standard recycled water rates.

“Many of the organizations that participated had been asking for recycled water but did not have the capital to invest,” EMWD Board Member Randy Record said. “By our board providing the funding, we are able to assist those customers and provide a program in which everybody realizes immediate benefits. This is a great example of EMWD taking the opportunity to provide a solution and work with partners to recognize benefits for our water supply and our community.”

EMWD and its design consultant served as the lead entities on the planning, permitting, and design and asked for in-kind services from the end users, such as providing as-built construction drawings of existing facilities and conducting detailed site surveys or soliciting help from facilities staff to coordinate onsite work.

Among the users that participated were the region’s largest park district, two cities, a community college district, two school districts, a homeowners association, and a

hospital that will now have recycled water service to a large citrus orchard on its site. Many of the public agencies had multiple sites retrofitted. Although this was a markedly different approach, it was necessary to ensure that the projects could be completed quickly and help realize the immediate savings that would be necessary for the district to continue seeing significant potable water savings in the face of California’s ongoing drought.

“EMWD prides itself on the partnerships it has with the communities it serves,” Mr. Jones said. “We are proud that we were able to work collaboratively to ensure that facilities such as parks and schools are now able to maintain functional turf in a cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner.”

A major objective of the Accelerated Retrofit Program was to ensure that spaces such as parks were insulated from potable water restrictions during the current and future drought cycles.

By converting public areas to recycled water, the program ensures community facilities may remain green.

22

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

DISTRICT FOCUS

By Richard Bay

T

he Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District ( JVWCD) was formed in 1951 and served Utah well during the housing boom following World War II, creating a quasi-public regional water provider for the growing cities, towns, and unincorporated areas in the Salt Lake Valley. Today, JVWCD is predominantly a wholesale regional water provider of municipal and industrial water to 10 member cities, 5 water improvement districts, 2 departments of the Utah state government, and 3 large corporations.

JVWCD has 8,900 retail water connections scattered throughout Salt Lake Valley. The reason we provide retail service is that at the time those lands were developed 50 years ago, there was no city or water improvement district to serve the residents. We were the only option, and we provided the service.

Since that time, some of our retail areas have annexed to cities as they have grown.

Our main service area is Salt Lake County, the most populous county in Utah and home to Salt Lake City. Salt Lake County’s population has nearly

doubled in the last 35 years, and will double again by 2060. Utah as a state will double its population by that time as well. There are currently 1.1Â million people in Salt Lake Valley, and of those, JVWCD directly serves 650,000. We indirectly provide water to another 350,000 people through contracts with other water providers.

Service and Planning

JVWCD’s key services include providing water supply and operating the infrastructure system, managing demand and increasing efficiency, and actively developing future water supplies so that we are ahead of the curve. The development director from one of our larger cities said that his city not only needed to have water available before development happens, but also that the city would not be able to attract the businesses and industries if there was any risk of falling behind on water delivery. Our fast-growing population makes it important for us to maintain a long-term planning horizon and to constantly develop the next water supply source.

Because of that, our district maintains an active 50-year planning horizon.

A well house in the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District.

24

Municipal Water Leader

A base map of West Jordan, Utah, in 1977, with an overlay of development since. West Jordan is one of the cities served by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District.

Supply Portfolio

We currently deliver 95,000 acre-feet per year of municipal and industrial water and 30,000 acre-feet per year of agricultural water. Twenty percent of our municipal water originates from sources here in Salt Lake Valley, mostly groundwater developed with 40 deep production wells that go 1,000-feet deep or more. That water is considered to be a stored water supply in the underground water system. Those 40 wells provide much of our water supply during peak demand times in the summer. Local creeks in the Salt Lake Valley serve as a source of 4,000 acre-feet of surface water.

Our newest supply is an underground well field source in Utah Valley, south of Salt Lake Valley. Central Utah Water Conservancy District developed that supply, and JVWCD contracts for delivery of part of it.

Peak flow demands increase six-fold from winter to summer. That means that in summer our infrastructure must be able to operate at six times the delivery rate of

Municipal Water Leader

the winter months, and our sources have to yield at that higher rate as well.

The other 80Â percent of our water is imported from outside the Salt Lake Valley, mostly from three river basins: Provo, Weber, and Duchesne. The Duchesne River is tributary to the Colorado River, which is imported via a tunnel through the Uintah Mountains.

JVWCD stores its surface supplies in three dams and reservoirs.

Challenges

The water industry is held to higher standards than any other industry. People expect water to be delivered consistently and safely all day, every day. It is also an industry in which compliance with all state and federal rules is expected 100 percent of the time. With that in mind, there are three big challenges for our district.

The first challenge is in operating and repairing JVWCD’s water delivery infrastructure. JVWCD has 25

We cannot afford to let a lack of municipal and industrial water be a limiting factor to growth. The governor asked for a long-term plan for water development to guide us through the next 50 years.

Together, we set to work and created a statewide water infrastructure plan that is being used as a guide by the legislature and governor for water policy. We also created a center called Prepare60 to better inform state leaders about the plan.

Conservation

A historic photo of the Duchesne Tunnel under construction.

worked to create a sense of mission and teamwork among our 150 employees, so that they all have a sense of purpose and see the big picture of what we are trying to accomplish.

We use performance indicators to measure how we are doing in 10 attributes that are accepted industry-wide for effective utility management. We report the results to our board and our employees monthly. Each department is responsible for at least one performance indicator. This allows them to see whether they are achieving the defined target.

The second challenge is population growth, much of which will come from our own children and grandchildren growing up and remaining here. We have to keep that 50-year planning horizon in line with the growing population and find current and new water supplies as needed. We are actively developing each supply on a 50-year time horizon, with the next one set to come online in 5 years. It will be a trans-basin importation of Colorado River water from Strawberry Reservoir through a recently completed tunnel.

The third challenge is statewide planning and involvement in water planning. Eighty-seven percent of Utah’s population resides within the boundaries of the four biggest water districts, including JVWCD. Four years ago, our governor identified this fact and asked for a meeting with the general managers of those districts and the director of the Utah Division of Water Resources.

The governor told us that our population is exploding and that Utah’s top priorities are economic growth, prosperity, and creating a great place for our growing families to live.

26

Another aspect of statewide involvement is in water conservation, with implementation of smart, effective conservation programs.

The decision of whether to pursue active conservation programs was debated by our board in the mid- to late-1990s. There was resistance at first. But then we realized that with the population growth we have, we must conserve and become more efficient.

In 1999, JVWCD’s board set the goal of a 25 percent reduction in our per capita water use over a term beginning in the year 2000 and ending in 2025. We created the Slow the Flow campaign, and it quickly became the most successful public campaign ever conducted in Utah. The Slow the Flow campaign was converted into a statewide campaign. We used the education campaign to promote a series of conservation programs.

Our residential customers have already reached the 25 percent goal. Our next goal is to help our industrial and commercial sectors do the same.

Through these and other measures, our district is meeting the water challenges we face in the present and will face in the future. Planning well into the future, analyzing future trends, devising solutions, and working with private and public stakeholders to implement our measures have been keys to our success. In this way, we will allow Utah to continue its trajectory of growth well into the 21st century.

Richard Bay is the general manager and chief executive officer of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. You can reach him at Richardb@jvwcd.org.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

Small Changes Yield Big Savings Using energy optimization, we helped one of the nation’s largest wastewater utilities realize big savings. Minor equipment modifications, improved processes and electrical demand management at three regional plants reduced HRSD’s operational costs by over $400,000 annually.

Their investment paid for itself within two years.

hdrinc.com

LEADERSHIP PROFILE

Driving Water Technology Innovation to Foster Economic Growth: A Conversation With The Water Council's Dean Amhaus

N

early 10 years ago, efforts by Milwaukee’s business leaders, universities, and local governments to find ways to realize the region’s economic potential led to the creation of The Water Council, headquartered in Milwaukee. The council has fostered a culture of innovation, ingenuity, and collaboration, facilitating the emergence of new water technologies and solutions to difficult water issues.

Dean Amhaus was involved with this effort from its inception and is now the council’s president and chief executive officer. Mr. Amhaus recently sat down with Municipal Water Leader’s editor-in-chief, Kris Polly, to discuss the council’s origin, the work it is doing to bring stakeholders together to innovate and solve problems, and the effect its work may have on water policy going forward.

Kris Polly: How did The Water Council get started?

Dean Amhaus: It’s important to understand this not something that we invented recently. As part of a regional economic development initiative, we had to determine what our strengths and weaknesses were as a 28

region. What we discovered was a unique and globally significant water technology cluster with roots back to the brewing industry that was dominant here over 150 years ago. Many of the companies we represent were suppliers to those large water users. They made pumps, valves, meters, pipes, fixtures, and everything else that is part of processing water. Over the years, many of the breweries have left, but the suppliers have remained.

Then, 40 years ago the Clean Water Act changed the landscape of these water intensive businesses, and roughly 10 years ago, we realized we needed to tap into the businesses in this sector. A local economic development firm looked at those in the industry and realized what they were doing was all related to water technology; it was that realization that drove stakeholders to move forward on this partnership. We brought industry, academia, utilities, governments, and other stakeholders together with the goal of advancing water technology here in Milwaukee.

Kris Polly: How long have you been associated with the council?

Municipal Water Leader

Members of The Water Council convene during a quarterly networking event called the Bubbler in the Global Water Center to hear from local organizations, discuss current opportunities, and brainstorm strategy to help spur new ideas and partnerships.

Dean Amhaus: I have been involved with the council since day one. At the time, I had been with another group, developing the marketing for the regional economic development effort. I was in the initial meetings when that “Aha!” moment occurred, and I was able to connect with others who saw it as well. It was remarkable that a number of us could come together with cooperating interests rather than competing ones, and it helped move things forward.

Kris Polly: That’s a great segue to talk about the council’s mission. What are you trying to accomplish?

Dean Amhaus: At its core, The Water Council is an economic development organization specializing in water technology. We have three core areas of concentration.

The first is economic development with a focus on how we grow the regional economy to make local businesses successful. Our belief is that making our businesses successful and supporting entrepreneurs will trigger other businesses from around the world to set up operations in Milwaukee.

The second core competency is talent development. We want to find talented young people and recruit them to pursue a career in water, both here and nationwide.

Technology development is the third area of focus for the council. Industry and universities are working together on research and development (R&D) to innovate new ideas that are beginning to solve the water problems of today as well as those of tomorrow.

All three of those areas of emphasis are interconnected and are dependent on each other, and all are needed to move forward. A fourth area—and one we have only recently become involved in—is policy. We never really had time to devote to it in the past, but we are now starting to move in that direction. We are looking at policy issues at both the state and federal levels, and our engagement is Municipal Water Leader

focused on what outcomes will benefit our industry. We want to come to the table with ideas on how businesses can help resolve water challenges. At the federal level, we are interested in a range of issues, including funding for infrastructure and developing new R&D initiatives.

Kris Polly: What can you tell us about the The Water Council’s technology incubator, the Global Water Center, and the types of companies that you have there?

Dean Amhaus: We really started getting it underway in 2010 with the goal of finding ways to enact the council’s three primary goals. We decided that we would be best served if we were all housed in a central location, and this was the impetus for developing the Global Water Center. We believed there was value in having many small companies located in the same area or same buildings.

Even if they are working on different water technology products or services, they can gel together and help each other. We also believe that bringing large companies and universities into the fold is important to help with the R&D and financing. Having vice presidents of R&D from those entities in the same location as entrepreneurs, university professors, and graduate students was also something that we wanted to pursue.

We found investors who agreed with our ideas and were willing to help lease facilities, so we moved forward and opened the center in September 2013. In a matter of 18–24 months, our building was completely filled. We now have nearly 50 businesses and universities that are in the original building, and we are finalizing the architectural drawings on a second building that we have purchased within a short walking distance from the Global Water Center. Renovations should begin in March, and we expect to open by the end of 2017. The new facility will be especially focused on international startups and small 29

Water technology startups showcase their businesses during an annual open house in the Global Water Center.

businesses, and they will be able to be part of this industry network that we have built up.

Kris Polly: Please describe how the council facilitates the financing of new technologies.

Dean Amhaus: The first program that was enacted was spearheaded by the National Science Foundation’s Industry–University Cooperative Research Center program. Under that program, two universities have to come together with at least six businesses, and the National Science Foundation will provide funds for the management and administration of the center. In exchange, the businesses will each provide $50,000 annually that goes toward the actual R&D work that is being performed by the universities.

We also have another program called the BREW Accelerator. [BREW stands for Business Research Entrepreneurship in Wisconsin.] Each year, we work with six entrepreneurs who compete for the rights to work at the Global Water Center for a year; during that year at the center, we provide them with R&D support, business training, networking support, and other assistance that can help them grow their business. That program has spun off into another program for corporations similar to the BREW model, but with a focus on connecting entrepreneurs with multinational corporations that sponsor their training.

This past September, we launched the ICE Institute. [ICE stands for Innovation, Commercialization, and Exchange.] Through the ICE Institute, we are able to work with national laboratories across the country and find R&D projects that are close to commercialization but have yet to be discovered. Following an evaluation process, the ICE Institute 30

Municipal Water Leader

helps to make industry aware of such technology efforts so that companies can do their due diligence and see whether the research efforts are worth investing in. We’re also taking ICE overseas to connect with universities and small businesses across the world.

This helps companies to focus on those technologies or innovations that are truly promising and that fit with their needs and philosophies, saving both time and money.

Kris Polly: What is your message to our elected officials and municipal water managers about the work you are doing?

Dean Amhaus: The most important point is that while this innovative effort has been driven by the private sector, we want to work with academic and government entities to bring about positive results. Water touches every aspect of society, and it needs to be approached through a true partnership between the public and private sectors.

The other message I would want to convey is that we must ensure that water is viable beyond just drinking water. Water is an economic driver across our region and the whole country. Without water, we cannot manufacture cars, we cannot produce food— thousands of people would be laid off. Decisionmakers need to realize the magnitude of water’s importance, just like they do for power and energy. If the water stops flowing, businesses shut down.

Global Water Center I is a 98,000 sq. ft. facility housing water-centric research facilities for universities existing water-related companies and accelerator space for new, emerging water technology companies. With over 40 tenant organizations, the center continues to be a magnet for foreign dignitaries, water technology businesses, economic development organizations, and students at all levels.

Municipal Water Leader

31

Innovative Approaches and Practical Results: A Conversation With Freese and Nichols CEO Brian Coltharp

B

rian Coltharp of Freese and Nichols Inc. (FNI) is a leader with long-term vision. Mr. Coltharp has been with FNI since 1992, recently serving as chief operating officer and water practice leader. On January 1, 2017, Mr. Coltharp became president and chief executive officer. He recently spoke with Municipal Water Leader’s senior writer, John Crotty, about long-term water infrastructure planning and investment, innovation in the water industry, and what is next for the industry and FNI. John Crotty: Much of this issue focuses on long-term water infrastructure planning. What are some the planning essentials and best practices that water districts should consider when looking to address both aging infrastructure and increased demand over 50-year horizons?

Brian Coltharp: Condition assessments are one of the most important planning tools available to address aging infrastructure. Accurately determining the condition of infrastructure projects is important to our entire industry, and technology is constantly improving to allow us to do so more accurately. It is also important to accurately estimate the remaining lifespan of that infrastructure.

Water managers have to prioritize which projects to focus resources on when crafting capital improvement 32

plans based on risk assessments. The projects that are most crucial to maintaining a water infrastructure system are given precedence over less-vital projects.

As for meeting increasing demand, managers and planners have to calculate and use accurate population growth projections. Examining historic information, trends, economics, and other factors is essential for accurately determining future water needs for a given area or municipality. Water conservation is also becoming a more prominent aspect of water delivery projects, particularly in western states that have experienced severe drought.

Planners have to determine how water conservation will affect demand projections when planning projects.

A final factor to consider is cost. Customers will always be concerned about water rates, so we need to determine how capital improvement plans—both for aging infrastructure and increased demand—will affect rates and develop a balanced approach with that in mind. Projects cost money, so rates will always go up, but we need to do it in a balanced way that is politically and economically feasible.

John Crotty: Our story on the Lake Powell Pipeline describes the regulatory complexities and challenges that large water projects face today, especially those that involve Municipal Water Leader

federal lands. How do water districts effectively and efficiently navigate permitting and licensing processes on large projects without breaking the bank?

John Crotty: What water-related technology or design has impressed you in recent years in terms of significantly improving water delivery to meet public needs?

Brian Coltharp: Not breaking the bank is often the most challenging aspect in those cases. We have learned that trying to develop partnerships and work hand in hand with the permitting agencies is crucial. Education is also the core of that effort. It greatly helps us when we can educate the agencies on both the benefits and the effects of a project. This allows us to meet the needs of the permitting agency and the needs of the project as efficiently as possible.

Brian Coltharp: The Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and the automation that we are able to use today to operate these systems are among the most impressive innovations. When I started in this business 25 years ago, there was a lot of manual operation when turning on pumps and monitoring equipment. But things like SCADA, satellites, and computers allow an operator to sit in one room and see which pumps are running, turn various pumps on and off, monitor water levels in reservoirs, and adjust the system to meet the needs that are placed on it.

John Crotty: The new administration is weighing a potential injection of funding into infrastructure. Based on your experience working for water providers, when it comes to water infrastructure, where are those funds best directed? Are there specific areas of need that may not be a major topic of discussion but require attention and funding?

Brian Coltharp: Growing demand and aging infrastructure are really the two most critical water infrastructure issues we face. Those areas are actually talked about often, and rightly so given how complex and important those issues are for the future of states and communities in the West.

Coastal renewal is another water infrastructure issue that needs to be addressed but is not talked about as often.

This is important for coastal areas that can have shorelines eroded by hurricanes or other natural disasters, particularly on the eastern seaboard and the Gulf Coast. Ports, levees, and natural coastal barriers could all benefit from additional attention and funding to repair and improve their resiliency.

John Crotty: What are the types of water projects that excite you, and as the incoming chief executive officer, how do hope to position FNI to take them on?

Brian Coltharp: Part of the oath of an engineer is to protect the health and welfare of society, and water is essential to life. We do not exist as a society without water, so fulfilling that basic need excites me and is important to our future. We also want to do environmentally sound projects that are a win both for the environment and the needs of the public. We want to work on projects that are sustainable and that wisely use our natural resources in a cost-effective manner. Projects resilient to drought and natural disasters, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, are also going to be more important going forward.

Municipal Water Leader

John Crotty: Whether from a technology or design perspective, what do you see as the next game-changer in the water industry? How has FNI embraced and adopted innovation in its work and how will it do so going forward?

Brian Coltharp: It is very hard to predict. I think the next chapter of the industry is really focusing on projects that meet many of the criteria we have talked about, including being environmentally sound, sustainable, cost effective, and resilient while still meeting our growing demand for water. I cannot say exactly what technology will make that happen, but it is a challenge as an engineer to keep up with all the new innovations that are always coming out.

Our approach to embracing new ideas is best summarized by our mission statement: “Innovative approaches . . . practical results . . . outstanding service.” We want to be at the forefront of new ideas or technology while still developing solutions that are practical and can be implemented to address the real needs of our clients.

We have an innovation committee that meets regularly to discuss ways to integrate new ideas and technologies into our work. We also give annual awards for innovative projects or processes.

One recent Innovation Award–winning project speaks to the issue of aging infrastructure. In Fort Worth, the Interceptor Condition Assessment Program inspects large sewer lines with sonar and 3-D lasers to determine where repairs are needed. It’s the largest known implementation of this technology in the world, and it has already saved the city $6 million in cleaning costs and $26 million in reduced capital improvements.

33

INTERNATIONAL Pitt Meadows Moving Weeds to Move Water Out of Floodplains

By Randy Evans

P

itt Meadows is a small city of about 18,000 people located inland of Vancouver, British Columbia, at the confluence of the Pitt and Fraser Rivers. The elevation of much of the city is at or below sea level. In the early 1900s, the city built a series of dikes around its north, west, and south borders for protection against seasonal overflows of the Alouette, Pitt, and Fraser Rivers. We have over 69 total kilometers of earthen dikes, which average about 5 meters in height. Pitt Meadows, in conjunction with the neighboring city of Maple Ridge, operates a diking district that spans almost 8,800Â acres of floodplain to facilitate drainage and water flows through a series of ditches, sloughs, and man-made channels.

Half the dikes were upgraded in the late 1960s through a cost-sharing effort among the city, provincial, and national governments. Also as a result of this initiative, the dikes were brought up to a uniform standard. Without these dikes, the rivers would rise to an elevation higher than that of the city during times of heavy rain or snowpack melt, causing flooding.

The location of Pitt Meadows relative to the rivers creates a number of unique challenges for our drainage district. One challenge is maintaining a proper level 34

Municipal Water Leader

of water in the sloughs, ditches, and channels. All three rivers are tidal, so their height varies at different times of the day. Thus, the district must maintain a constant flow of water through its conveyance channels so the water does not remain trapped within the bounds of the district.

The Pump Stations

The district operates six pumping stations located at outlets where the sloughs, channels, or ditches intersect with the surrounding rivers. The outlets are important because they allow water to escape from within the city when the tide is out, and we use the pumps to push water out when the tide is in. The pumps come on automatically when the water rises to a certain level and shut off when the water drops below a certain level. The pump controls are built into the system and can be monitored from our operations center, including alarms for overloads, failures, or any other problems that may come up.

All the pump stations were built at the same time as dike upgrades in the late 1960s. We are currently performing additional upgrades over the next decade to improve and modernize each station as needed. The district has completed this process for three stations and is working to do so for the remaining three. After that, we will replace the pumps, sensors, and communications equipment.

Screening Weeds to Facilitate the Movement of Water

The growth of aquatic weeds in our sloughs, ditches, and channels has been a challenge for the district. There are several species that are particularly problematic, including parrot feather, which is an invasive South American plant. As the weeds fill up the drainage systems, they begin to break down and disintegrate.

When the pieces of the plants flow downstream and reach our pumps, they clog and block traditional trash racks, impeding the flow of water to our pumps.

The solution to this issue has been the installation of International Water Screens (IWS) traveling screens in the water near the pumps. Before we installed the IWS screens, we had to send crews out during the dry season to clean the trash racks by hand with rakes and pitchforks, which is very labor intensive and places workers at risk of injury. The new traveling screens have completely solved this problem. The screens act like large conveyer belts that allow water to pass through but retain the weeds and vegetation, bring them out of the water onto another conveyor belt, and deposit them in a large bin. We compost the organic debris, if it is free of nonorganic material, at a large facility in town.

Invasive plant species choke the ditches and waterways in and around Pitt Meadows, impeding drainage of its low-lying areas.

Manual weed removal was time and labor intensive for the city.

Municipal Water Leader

35

An IWS traveling screen at work at a Pitt Meadows pumping station.

The installation of the traveling screens is ongoing.

Our financial resources limit how quickly we can install the screens at all our pump stations. We expect it to be several more years before we are finished installing them. We have completed two screens and hope to finish a third soon.

Sharing Best Practices

There are various models and systems in place for moving and storing water that are used throughout the region. The Frasier River valley is predominantly an agricultural region with small cities dotted throughout— each with its own water needs. The municipalities have recently begun to hold forums to discuss water issues and determine how to address mutual challenges for everyone’s

36

benefit. We hope to begin standardizing drainage practices and cooperating more in the future. This will allow us to share best practices, such as installing traveling screens to ensure the movement of water, resolve conflicts over joint water resources, and use water more efficiently for the benefit of all users.

Randy Evans is the operations superintendent for the city of Pitt Meadows in British Columbia. You can reach Randy at revans@pittmeadows.bc.ca.

Municipal Water Leader

ADVERTISEMENT

“IWS provided a debris management system for our project that met our expectations for equipment performance. They have been very responsive when handling issues during commissioning and are continuing to provide great service during the warranty period.”

- Alan W. Hansten P.E Manager North Side Energy Canal Co., Ltd. CONTACT RICH GARGAN (661) 979-1815 iwsrich@sbcglobal.net

CHRIS GARGAN (661) 979-7206 iwschris@sbcglobal.net

JOEL IRVING (310) 614-4681 iwsjoel@sbcglobal.net

International Water Screens 11007 Ainswick Dr. Bakersfield CA 93311 w: internationalwaterscreens.com Phone: (661)-746-7959

ADVERTISEMENT

Providing

Water • Wastewater • Recycled Water Since 1951

Industry leader in water reuse and brackish water desalination programs Eastern Municipal Water District • Perris, California www.emwd.org

ADVERTISEMENT

Aledo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

S usta ina b le wat e r resourc es in th e 21s t c en tury

Engineering Architecture Environmental Science Planning Program Management Energy Construction Services For water insights and industry news, visit: www.freese.com/fni-water

817-735-7300 www.freese.com

2017 CALENDAR

January 10–11 National Water Resources Association, Leadership Forum, Las Vegas, NV January 17–19 U.S. Conference of Mayors, 85th Winter Meeting, Washington, DC January 18 American Water Works Association, Membership Summit, Denver, CO January 24–26 Idaho Water Users Association, Annual Convention, Boise, ID January 24–26 Texas Ground Water Association, Annual Convention, San Marcos, TX January 25–27 Colorado Water Congress, Annual Convention, Denver, CO February 4–7 National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Winter Conference, Tampa, FL February 6-8 National Rural Water Association, Rural Water Rally, Washington, DC February 7–10 American Water Works Association & Water Environment Foundation, The Utility Management

Conference, Tampa, FL February 22–24 Northwest Hydroelectric Association, Annual Conference, Portland, OR February 25–March 1 National Association of Counties, Legislative Conference, Washington, DC March 6–8 National Waterways Conference, Legislative Summit, Washington, DC March 20–22 National Water Resources Association, Federal Water Issues Conference, Washington, DC March 26–29 Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Water Policy Conference, Washington, DC ___________________________________________________________________________ To include your event in the calendar, e-mail Municipal.Water.Leader@waterstrategies.com.