Resource Recovery Panel

Lessons From the Field:Aurora’s Approach to Sustainable Water Supply Planning

Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Conference

October 16, 2012

Lisa G. Darling, South Platte Program Manager

Today’s Presentation Objectives• To Understand the City of Aurora, Colorado’s

History and Water Development• To Discuss Aurora Water’s Post-2002 Plan -

Project Alternatives & Integrated Resource Planning Process

• Selected Alternative– Prairie Waters Project Overview

• To Look Ahead to Partnerships and our Future

Aurora, Colorado

Aurora

City of Aurora, Colorado

• 3rd largest city in the state – for now• Population 325,000 (2010 census)• Home to Buckley Air Force Base and the

Gateway to the Rockies!

Aurora’s History• Founded in 1891, the city of Aurora was

originally named Fletcher by its founder, former Chicago resident Donald Fletcher.

• 1929 - Colorado's Secretary of State recognized Aurora—with 2,000 residents—as a city, and tax revenues were appropriated for sewers, roads and fire stations. Today, Aurora generates over $140 million in revenues.

• 1954 - Denver Water Board imposes a “Blue Line” in the suburbs beyond which it will no longer grant permits for new water taps. Parts of Aurora fall out of the Denver Water Board service area.

• 1958 - Aurora enters into an agreement with the City of Colorado Springs to construct the “Homestake Project,” designed to use water rights purchased on the Western Slope and bring that water to the two cities.

Homestake Dam Construction

• Photo of the homestake construction something historic…?

26% of System Storage

2002’s Water Supply Crisis

Drought Effects on Water Reservoirs

Homestake Reservoir

• Every drop counts

A New Reality?

Aurora Conducted Comprehensive Integrated Resource Planning

• 50 potential projects• Range of individual project yields: - 2,000 to 48,000 acre-feet/year

• Basins of Origin:- Colorado River

- Arkansas River- South Platte River

• Demand Management Included with Water Supply Forecasts

Integrated Resource Plan Considered Key Criteria in Evaluation of Water Supply

Options

Sustainability

Capital/Operating Costs

Institutional/Government/Public Issues

Environmental/Permitting

Expandability

Yield

Schedule Risk

Prairie Waters Project – The Selected Alternative

34 miles of 60-inch pipeline 3 pumping stations North Campus (bank filtration and aquifer recharge and recovery) 50-mgd water purification facility

Why Was This the Right Sustainable Project for Aurora?

• Responsible Use of Resources– Reduces the need for trans-basin diversions from Western Slope – Maximizing use of an in-basin renewable resource – Uses water rights already owned by the City of Aurora

• River Water Quality Benefits– Minimizes need for waste discharges such as brine from RO – Uses natural treatment systems

• Environmental Benefits– Avoids the impacts to wilderness landscapes– Maintains rural open space and river corridor habitat

• Protects Public Health– Improves reliability of Aurora’s purification processes – Exceeds current regulations and meets Aurora’s high standards– Can respond to changes in water quality

• Cost Effective and Practical– Reduces cost of purification– Maximizes use of $300 million in water rights already owned by the city

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Syst

em Y

ield

and

Sys

tem

Dem

and

(100

0's

acre

-feet

/yea

r)

Today's SystemPrairie Waters Project - Core ProjectPrairie Waters Project (with Future Additions)

55,500 AF/YR

65,500 AF/YR

105,500 AF/YR

`

Prairie Waters Project Provides Drought Hardening and Meets Long-Term Capacity Needs

PWP Sources of Supply

• Previously Decreed Reusable Return Flows – 10,000 ac-ft in 2011

• New Supplies–Agricultural Transfers/ Leases–Storage Development–Other Supply Development Projects

Plan for Augmentation

• Decreed water sources under Colorado’s prior appropriation doctrine

• Filed on the augmentation of return flows from pumping tributary groundwater

• Replaced in time, quantity and location• Modeled depletive effects to the river• Ability to add new water sources as

“substitute supplies” under notice provisions• Storage firms yield and increases operational

efficiencies

Construction Bid Packages

Bid Package G Segment 1 (13 miles)

Bid Package H Segment 2

(9 miles)

Bid Package I Segment 3 (11 miles)

Bid Package JNorth Campus

Bid Package FBinney Water Purification Facility

Bid Package EPump Stations

Bid Package N Robertsdale Tank and Pump Station

Pipeline RouteE-470 Easement

North Campus

17 riverbank filtration wells along the river.

Pilot testing of aquifer recharge and recovery basins.

Prairie Waters ProjectNatural Purification Systems

Riverbank Filtration (RBF) (10 days travel time) Aquifer Recharge & Recovery (ARR)

(30 days travel time)

The Cost of a Reliable Water Supply

• Cost of residential water usage– 2002 - $2.02 per thousand gallons – 2008 - $4.54 per thousand gallons (3 tier)

• Cost of a tap for a house (10% of cost)– 2002 - $6,711 per residence– 2008 - $20,875 per residence

• Capitalization Cost– $600 million in revenue debt issued

Combining the Best of Natural and Engineered Purification Steps

Taste and Odor

Color

TDS

Nitrate

Pathogens

Organics

Micro-Pollutants

Challenges

Pumping Stations

Pumps and motors undergoing testing.

Pump stations nearly complete.

Forebay tank 1.5 million gallons.

Pump Station 2May 2010 Aerial View

Peter D. Binney Water Purification Facility

Water being delivered to forebay.

Site overview.

Control building completed April 12.

Building façades complete.

Binney Water Purification FacilityMay 2010 Aerial View Robertsdale Tank

and Pump Station

Control Building

Flocculation/Sedimentation Basins

Clearwell Pump Station

Chemical Storage

Softening/Pretreatment

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Filtration/Adsorption

Budget Status

Project Element Current Budget Estimate at Completion

A Storm Drain Bypass Extension $2,245,119 $2,245,119

E Pumping Stations 1, 2, and 3 $65,461,920 $59,923,758

F PDB Water Purification Facility $232,076,786 $215,012,592

G Conveyance Pipeline Segment 1 $65,580,576 $59,294,303

H Conveyance Pipeline Segment 2 $19,973,028 $19,935,261

I Conveyance Pipeline Segment 3 $38,943,516 $34,863,000

J1 North Campus $68,236,542 $62,780,194

L Access Road for Binney Purification Facility $4,849,174 $4,759,433

N Zone 4 Tanks / Zone 5 Pump Station $17,916,251 $17,027,309

OCIP, System Security, Utility Installs $18,631,652 $17,144,298

Engineering, Legal, Program Mgmt. $110,536,819 $106,145,525

Land Acquisition and ROW $49,000,000 $46,970,584

Reserve Funds $61,348,617 $7,898,624

Total Core Project $754,800,000 $653,000,000

Estimated Cost Below Budget ($101,800,000)

Success Factors

• Quality plans and specifications

• Close coordination with interested third parties (regulatory and non-regulatory)

• Pre-qualified, experienced contractors

• Partnering among the owner, designer, construction manager, and contractors to resolve problems equitably and promptly

• Careful budget management by Aurora Water Project Engineers and the Program Team

• Continuous value engineering reviews

Now what?

WISE Partnership

• Three-way partnership – Aurora Denver, South Metro Water Supply Authority (SMWSA)

• Regional project creating efficiencies, maximizing existing water supplies, and cooperating on agricultural water acquisitions

• Cooperative sharing of infrastructure and water that promotes conservation through reuse

WISE Partnership Chronology

2007

• ADW2/ADW2—Denver Water and Aurora begin to evaluate joint opportunities (Cooperative IGA)

• Denver Water and South Metro Pilot Study

2008 • ADW2+ MOU to include SMWSA

2009• ADW2+ MOU Amendment - Agreement to

fund additional studies• WISE Partnership Joint Acquisition IGA

2010• Completion of Pricing Model• Negotiation of Interim Agreement

WISE Partnership

"

South Metro

AuroraDenver

Binney Water Purification Facility

Foothills WTP

Metro WWTP

ECCV Northern Pipeline

ECCV Western Pipeline

PWP Pipeline ECCV Wells and WTP

Rueter-Hess Reservoir

Aurora Reservoir

PWP Wells

Potential WTPConduit 27

Aurora Pipeline

Hypothetical Wet, Normal and Dry Year Operations

Dry Year / DW use of System

Normal YearWet Year

Preliminary Water Supply Results

2012 Plan: AW: firm yield met in all years DWB: 0 ac-ft/yr SMWSA: 8,500 ac-ft/yr (on average)*

* Annual yields range from 5,000 – 11,000 ac-ft in any one year

Long-Term Plan: AW: firm yield met in all years DWB: 15,000 ac-ft/yr (when needed) SMWSA: Up to 60,000 ac-ft/yr (on average) **

**Annual yields range from 0 – 96,000 ac-ft in any one year

WISE Joint Acquisition IGA• In July 2009, Aurora Water, Denver Water

and the South Metro Water Supply Authority entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to facilitate the joint acquisition of water rights and development of water infrastructure, as part of the WISE Partnership process.

Goals?• Provide a framework for sharing water acquisition and

infrastructure opportunities within certain regions of the South Platte River basin.

• Encourage cost savings and other efficiencies with respect to the joint investigation and acquisition of water rights as well as the change of use for those water rights.

• Permit the joint development and use of water infrastructure facilities for a more efficient use (and reuse) of water within the participant's respective service areas.

Benefits to Aurora

Efficient utilization of the Prairie Waters Project (PWP) system

- Offset PWP costs

- Share in the cost of future expansion and water rights purchases

- Protects current and future firm yield of water supply system

Benefits to Denver

3-way new supply for Denver

- Access to unused supplies

- May be used to replace “Strategic Water Reserve”

- New “system feed” from lower South Platte

Benefits to South Metro

Greater regional cohesion Efficient utilization of regional infrastructure Opportunity to meet midterm goals most

efficiently Reduces reliance on groundwater Minimizes the need to purchase water rights

Benefits to Partnership

Connected systems and a cooperative atmosphere will provide added options and redundancy during emergencies

A regional solution to best utilize existing water and infrastructure resources to meet future water supply needs in a regionally sustainable manner

Reducing legal fees and water rights disputes between parties

Strategic Planning Program

• Long and short-range water resources planning• Planning support for the Basin Programs• Development and maintenance of planningmodels and tools• Regional planning• Integrated resources planning• CIP development – supplies, storage,conveyance/treatment• Demand forecasting / water conservation

Water Resources Planning Process

Existing SystemDemand

Projections

Identify Shortages

Identify ProjectsEvaluate

Projects

Draft CIP

Projects vs. Revenue

Finalize CIP

Strategic Issues to be Addressed

Climate Change

Training/Compensation/Succession Planning

Customer Service

Financial Sustainability

Regional Partnerships and Other Cooperative Operating Agreements

Questions?

Please contact me at ldarling@auroragov.org(303) 739-7384

Google/WSA Re-Use Partnership

Peter J. FrostExecutive Director

Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority

TIMETABLE OF EVENTS

o January 2004: Google acquires 101 Aquilla Wayo August 2006: Google submits data

center planso September 2006: Data center plans approvedo October 2006: Data center construction

beginso December 2006: Re-use contract negotiations commenceo August 2007: Data center operations

commenceo December 2007: Google submits re-use plant planso January 2008: Re-use contract

executedo February 2008: Google re-use plans approvedo March 2008: Re-use plant construction

beginso November 2008: WSA begins operationso October 2009: Project formally

accepted

Contract Terms

ConfidentialityInitial constructionOwnershipOperation and

maintenanceExpansionCharges and feesGuarantees

Resource Recovery

69

MaryLynn Lodor,

Environmental Program Manager,MSDGC

What does Resource Recovery Mean for a Utility of the Future & Urban Waters?

70

A new paradigm of urban drainage and used water reuse with resource recovery needs to be developed and implemented.

A Paradigm Shift

• View and Use Water as a Resource

• Integrated approaches (previously siloed) to technology, planning, policy, construction, economics, etc.

• Water in the urban environment must be approached as a single resource that can be continuously reused and recycled.

71

resource recovery: urban drainage

• 4 Rs – Reduce, Reclaim, Reuse, Restore– Reduce – water & energy conservation– Reclaim - Treat for safe discharge into environment & Reclaim

energy (heat), nutrients– Reuse after additional treatment– Restore water bodies as a resource

• 3 Ss – Separate, Sequester and Store– Separate Blue, White, Gray, Yellow & Black Water– Sequester GHGs & remove/detoxify toxics– Store reclaimed water on the surface or underground

• 2 Ts – Toilet to Tap– Reclamation with or without 3Ss for potable reuse

Resource Recovery – Closing the Loop with RSTs

MSD’s Operational Systemresource recovery

Operational & Environmental Performanceresource recovery

FOG to Biodiesel Research Project

75

• Fats, Oils & Grease Program Estimated 10 MG grease trap “waste”

discharged into MSDGC annually. • Working with University of Cincinnati to

characterize the content of trap grease collected from WWTP

• Based on the oil content and the trap grease production each year, the estimated production of biodiesel could be 20,000 gallons/year.

A new paradigm of urban drainage and used water reuse with resource recovery needs to be developed and implemented.

resource recovery

Water Reuse – Strategic Community Redevelopment

76

To Downtown

Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility

⁄

MetroWest Commerce Park – Community Developmentindustrial redevelopment site, minutes from downtown & adjacent to Mill Creek WRF

~18-acre clean site/Ohio DOD approved land for redevelopment

Could be supplied with industrial grade water processed from reclaimed wastewater.

water reuse

Need for Resource Recovery

77

• Centralized Wastewater Disposal – flow deprived streams

• Urbanized effects • Habitat loss and degradation• Increases to peak flow• Decreased base flow • Loss of Streams - conversion to sewers

resource recovery: urban drainage

Lower Mill Creek Watershed75 miles of existing streams, 603 miles of combined sewers303 miles of historical streams

Loss of Streams – conversion to sewers

Institute of Urban & Regional Development

The goal is to manage the water so that an areas’ natural water balance is the same after development as it was before.

Next generation developments maximize the value of water:

– Use water features to form or preserve the landscape, and as recreational and ecological preservation areas.

– Incorporate water resource features that are aesthetically pleasing and serve a function in the water cycle.

– Engineer features or restore or incorporate ponds, creeks and waterways otherwise into the urban design.

79

resource recovery: urban drainage

GOALReduce stormwater inflow into the combined sewer

system and out of the treatment plant• Locate streams, ditches, and swales that flow directly into the

combined sewer system• Divert the flow to a “green” feature to help restore nature

drainage and keep the water within the natural hydrologic cycle

Water Centric Resource Recovery Goalresource recovery: urban drainage

Direct Impact Projects

• Waste reduction/ resource recovery

• Owned and operated by MSD to support its core mission• Remo

ve liability of stormwater

Enabled Impact Projects

• Incorporate GI with public & private partners

• Bioinfiltration practices, green roofs, pervious/porous paving

Inform &

Influence

• Programmatic Elements to support sustainable infrastructure solutions

• Integrated Planning

• Advisory Committee

• Community Engagement

Turning Results into Reality

Turning Results to Reality

83

CSO Contributions within WatershedWho contributes = who pays

Large Box Sites (2) 18 – 23 acre sites

/

18 acre big box16 MG/annual23 acre big box

21MG/annual

¼ acre =0.1MG/ annual

Residential is contributing less than 1% of the flow tributary to a CSO

Need for true costing to incentivize onsite management of reduced inflow

84

CSO Contributions within Watershed Who contributes = who pays

Residential is contributing less than 1% of the flow tributary to a CSO

Need for true costing to incentivize onsite management of reduced inflow

Large Box Sites (2) 15 – 18 acre sites

/

15 acre big box16 MG/annual18 acre big box

21MG/annual

¼ acre =0.1MG/ annual

Water Billing based on Consumption (cubic feet/month)

¼ acre w/ 1 bath $22.33

23 acres of impervious &

6 toilets $48.37

18 acres of impervious & 6

toilets $22.00

Integrated Resource Recovery Facilities

85

– Water conservation, reuse, and recycle reduces GHG emissions

– WWTPs –as renewable resource recovery facilities that produce clean water, recover energy and generate nutrients.

86

Questions