WRF Webcast A Snapshot of Water Loss · © 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Webcast Agenda, 90 min Intro, 5 mi •Maureen Hodgins, WRF Analysis of US Water Audits,

© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.

WRF Webcast

A Snapshot of Water Loss:

Examining the Country’s Water

Audit Submissions

November 5, 2015

© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Webcast Agenda, 90 minIntro, 5 mi

• Maureen Hodgins, WRF

Analysis of US Water Audits, 45 min

• Kate Gasner, WSO

• Lucy Andrews, WSO

Water Loss Control Adoption & Training in TN, 20 min

• Chris Leauber, Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County

Update from AWWA WLCC, 5 min

• Chris Leauber, Chair

Q&A, 15 min


Can download the slides now


Audience Questions

Type in your questions here & hit Send

Questions on the webcast content will be answered in the last 15 minutes


Information available on

www.waterrf.org

• 4372b report – now, search for 4372

• Webcast slides and recording - within 24

hours after the webcast

http://www.waterrf.org/


1990s

UK National

Leakage

Initiative

2000

IWA Performance Indicators

for Water Supply Services

(+AWWA input)

WRF 2811 & 2928

AWWA M36 3rd ed

AWWA Free Water Audit

Utility water audits

2000s

2015

IWA Water Loss

Group – 27 countries

2010 -

20152015 -

2016

Analyze water audits

AWWA WADI

WRF 4372b

Validation

guidance -

WRF 4639

Development of Water Loss Control Best Practices

N. America path

© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Kate Gasner

Director of Water and Energy Efficiency

Water Systems Optimization

Today’s Speakers

Chris Leauber

Executive Director

Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN

Chair, AWWA Water Loss Control Committee

Lucy Andrews

Project Manager

Water Systems Optimization


WSO AGENDA

4372A: Component Analysis of Real Losses

4372B: Water Audits – Water Losses and Data Validity• Research Goals

• Audit Software

• Data Validation

• Regional Audit Programs

• Data Filtering/Methodology

• Water Loss Statistics

• Findings

• Water Loss Control Opportunity!


Component Analysis of Real Losses

www.waterrf.orgsearch for “water losses”

Water Research Foundation 4372A:

Real Loss Component Analysis –

A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control


Component Analysis of Real Losses

AUDIT SOFTWARE 1 2 COMPONENT ANALYSIS MODEL

WATER

AUDIT

TOTAL

REAL

LOSSESBACKGROUND

REPORTED

UNREPORTED


Research Goals

Water Research Foundation 4372B:

Water Audits in the United States –

A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity

1. What are the reporting frameworks of states that track water loss?

2. Is data submitted in water audits reasonable?

3. Has audit data quality changed with repeated auditing?

4. Have reported water loss volumes and relevant metrics changed with repeated auditing?

5. What trends in water loss and cost figures can be observed in the composite data set?

6. How is the quality of audit data affected by reporting requirements and validation?

DATA VALIDITY WATER LOSS METRICS


Water Audits

AWWA Free Water Audit Software

• collects water balance volumes,

cost data, and system data

• grades data validity

• determines total volumes of water

losses

• Apparent Losses

• Real Losses

• Non-Revenue Water

• calculates performance indicators

determine the magnitude of water loss

track/compare performance

customize water loss control activity


Performance Indicators

• Real Losses / service conn / day

• Apparent Losses / service conn / day

• Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI)

Unavoidable

Annual Real

Losses

Current Annual Real Losses

ILI = technical minimum Real Losses

actual Real Losses

percent values not preferred as performance indicator


Data Validationaccurate data inputs accurate results

LEVELS OF DATA VALIDATION

SELF-REPORTED no in-depth review

auditor assigns data validity grades

LEVEL 1 third-party surface-level “desktop” review

no new data – only existing sources

data validity grades are main focus

LEVEL 2 third-party deeper “desktop” review

investigation of all available data sources

validation of SIV and consumption is main focus

LEVEL 3 third-party “desktop” review and field investigation

production and customer meter accuracy testing

pressure data collection

field confirmation of water balance is main focus


REGIONAL AUDIT PROGRAMS

ENTITY ABBREVIATIONPROGRAM

START

LEVEL OF

VALIDATION

California Urban Water Conservation Council CA 2010 self-reported

Delaware River Basin Commission DRBC 2012 self-reported

Georgia Department of Natural Resources GA 2012 level 1

Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury TN 2013 self-reported

Texas Water Development Board TX 2005 self-reported

PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

amount of training, ongoing education, and technical support

extent of validation

driving forces and purpose of auditing

(allocation of funds, quantification of losses, scarcity, etc.)


Key Points

Importance

of

Transparent

Data Validity

Scores

1 Value of

Statewide

Educational

& Validation

Efforts

2

Accuracy

Paves the

Way for

Action!

3


Filtering Process

are self-reported audits realistic?

all audit submissions

audits included for further

analysis, statistics, totals

filtering process


Filtering Process

are self-reported audits realistic?

METRIC CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION

volu

metr

ic

Infrastructure Leakage Index< 1.0

> 20.0

Real Losses < 0 (negative real losses)

cost of Non-Revenue Water > 100% of system operating costs

incomplete audit key fields not filled out

financi

al

Customer Retail Costmore than 2 orders of magnitude off of

the data set’s median

Variable Production Costmore than 2 orders of magnitude off of

the data set’s median

median values preferred over average values

cost figure calculations can vary amongst utilities

but costs still represent financial boundaries/economic potential


Performance Indicators

composite data set = most recent realistic audits from each region

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MEDIAN AVERAGE UNIT

financi

al customer retail unit cost $4.67 $8.33 $ / 1,000 gal

variable production cost $950.00 $2,085.28 $ / million gal

NRW as % of operating cost 7.8% 10.2% % of operating cost

volu

metr

ic

Apparent Losses 5.73 14.9 gal / serv conn / day

Real Losses (serv conns) 39.9 51.8 gal / serv conn / day

Real Losses (mains) 785.5 1,132.4 gal / mile of main / day

Real Losses (pressure) 0.6 0.8 gal / serv conn / day / PSI

ILI 2.48 3.12 (dimensionless)

data validity score 73.1 71.7 points out of 100

data set is skewed – averages are far above medians

values indicate potential magnitudes – not absolute measurements


Findings

Water Loss Performance

higher Variable Production Cost ~ lower Real Losses


Findings


more water imported ~ lower Real Losses


Findings


higher operating pressure ~ higher Real Losses


CA DRBC GA TN TX

total audits 300 517 452 629 2,646

# of unrealistic audits 100 130 74 122 1,065

% of unrealistic audits 33% 25% 16% 19% 40%

Findings

Data Validity

• many audits are unrealistic

• more training (ie GA, TN) produces fewer unrealistic audits

• even level 1 validation doesn’t fully eliminate unrealistic audits


Findings

Data Validity

• utilities with unrealistic audits tended to self-grade their data validity the highest

• unrealistic – 77.1 vs. realistic – 73.1

• GA level 1 validation produced the lowest data validity grades


Key Points

Importance

of

Transparent

Data Validity

Scores

1 Value of

Statewide

Educational

& Validation

Efforts

2

Accuracy

Paves the

Way for

Action!

3


Opportunity

Water loss control offers a significant opportunity for the

recovery of financial losses and water losses.

364,500 MG of annual Real Losses valued at $425,821,000


Water Loss Control Adoption & Training in Tennessee

Chris Leauber

Executive Director

Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN


The Law

• 2007 – Tennessee legislation enacted in

reference to water loss, Public Chapter No. 243

— Because utility increased rates 25%

— Water system billing < 50% of water supplied

• 2013 – Fully transited to reporting with

IWA/AWWA Water Audit Methodology


Utility Management Review Board

• Created in the office of comptroller of the

treasury for the purpose of advising utility

district boards of commissioners in the area of

utility management

• Jurisdiction over public water systems operated

by utility districts

• 9 members - 7 Governor appointed, comptroller

of the treasury designee, commissioner of

environment & conservation designee


Water & Wastewater Financing Board

• Established in the office of the comptroller of

the treasury to determine and ensure the

financial integrity of certain water systems and

wastewater facilities

• Jurisdiction over self-supporting water systems

(municipalities) & treatment authorities

• 9 members - 7 Governor appointed, comptroller

of the treasury designee, commissioner of

environment & conservation designee


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7*T

N U

na

cco

un

ted

fo

r W

ate

r (U

FW

) %

**Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI)

Comparing ILI to TN UFW%Data of 77 TN Systems

* Data source from Unaccounted Water Report, TCA Filing Date: February 1, 2010** ILI calculations based on number of service connections & length of mains provided by others. AWWA Water Audit default values of 1.25% for unbilled unmetered & 0.25%

for unauthorized consumption. 2% used for customer metering inaccuracies & 60 psi for average operating pressure.



Excessive Water Loss

• October, 2010 – UMRB & WWFB set an

excessive water loss percentage at 35%

UFW (the comptroller’s method)

– Must recalculate with AWWA method

– Adopted AWWA method for financial reports

received after 1/1/2013

– Motion approved to seek to change verbiage

in state law to reflect that the water loss be

determined in a manner described by Board


Legislation Changed TCA

• May, 2011 –Tennessee SB 742 & HB 876 Passed

– Deletes term “percentage”

– Allows Boards instead of comptroller of the

treasury to determine manner systems report

water loss

▪ Will allow Boards to adopt AWWA water audit method

• April, 2013 – Tennessee SB 764 & HB 60 Passed

—Deletes term “unaccounted for” and “average

unaccounted for water”

—Uses term “water loss” instead


June 6, 2012, UMRB & WWFB Adopted the

following for Audited Financial Statements

Received on or after 1/1/2013

I. AWWA Free Water Audit Software be submitted in

Excel, & Reporting Worksheet be included in Annual

Audited Financial Statements

II. Failure to include the required schedule

constitutes excessive water loss and referral to

Board

III. Utilities will be referred to Board for submitting an

incomplete AWWA Water Audit


TN Regulatory AWWA Water Audit

Triggers for Referral to Board

Table 2.3 Tennessee reporting thresholds requiring improvement plan submission

DATE EFFECTIVE DATA VALIDITY SCORE NRW AS % OF OPERATING COST

1/1/2013 65 or lower 30% or greater




Sturm, R., K. Gasner, and L. Andrews. 2015. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity. Denver, Colo:

Water Research Foundation. Reprinted with permission.


One Day Training Workshops

• Hands-on AWWA Water Audit Software

• Tennessee Association of Utility District

—15 workshops 2011 – 2015 statewide

—282 trained

• Tennessee Department of Environment &

Conservation, Fleming Training Center

—5 workshops 2013 – 2015 statewide

—69 trained


Two Day Training Workshops

• Hands-on AWWA Water Audit Software

• WRF Component Analysis (2014 & 2015)

• Implementation programs to reduce losses

• 2nd day hands-on in the field work

• Tennessee Association of Utility District

—4 workshops 2013 – 2015

—71 trained


TAUD 2-DAY WATER LOSS


Training Summary

• 26 Workshops—422 trained

•TAUD Circuit Riders technical assistance▪ Over 700 AWWA Water Audits since 2011

• Additional outreach—Annual training of regulatory boards

—Conference presentations

—Utility to utility cross training

—Funding agency communications


Results – Enhanced Audit Quality

Sturm, R., K. Gasner, and L. Andrews. 2015. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity. Denver, Colo:

Water Research Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

Table 4.8 Count of Tennessee (COT) audits by year

YEAR 2011 2012 2013 2014 ALL YEARS

INCLUDED AUDITS 7 126 226 148 507

EXCLUDED AUDITS 2 37 58 25 122

% EXCLUDED 22% 23% 20% 14% 19%

TOTAL AUDITS 9 163 284 173 629


Program Review• Must have organization to do outreach

• Training, training & more training

• Utility presented case studies

• Reliable data challenges

—Data validation

• Financial assistance

—Data validation

—Implementation to reduce losses

• Implementation of available tools

—WRF Real Loss Component Analysis Model


Update on AWWA Water Loss Control Committee

Chris Leauber

Chair, AWWA WLCC


AWWA Water Loss Control Committee

• 76 Members

• Seven Subcommittees

—M-36 Publication

—Apparent Losses

—Real Losses

—Outreach & Education

—Strategic Business Planning for Water Loss Control

—Regulatory Practices for Water Audits

—Water Audit Software


WLCC - The Way Forward

• M36 “Water Audits & Loss Control Programs” Fourth

Edition, February 2016

• Continued Outreach & Education

• Water Audit Data Validity

• Production Meter Accuracy

• District Metered Areas/Night Flow Analysis

• Background Leakage

• Pressure Management

• Water-Energy Nexus

• Cost-effective Water Loss Control Planning


Dec 8-9, 2015

Conference & Expositionwww.gawp.org

Technical sessions on water auditing, loss control program implementation,

addressing Non-Revenue Water through billing, theft, metering, leakage, pressure,

and asset management, and regulatory policy development across North America

Case studies for growing implementation of established IWA/AWWA best practices

and innovations for Water Loss Management

Keynote speakers from U.S. EPA and the California-Nevada Section of AWWA

This event is not-to-be missed!


Q&A


Thank You!

Comments or questions, please contact:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

For more information visit:

www.waterrf.org

mailto:[email protected]




http://www.waterrf.org/


WRF Resources - Water Loss Control

Fanner, Sturm, et al. 2007. Evaluating Water Loss and Planning Loss Reduction Strategies, Report 2811.

Fanner, Sturm, et al. 2007. Leakage Management Technologies, Report 2928.

Barfuss et al. 2011. Accuracy of In-Service Water Meters at Low and High Flow Rates, Report 4028.

Hughes et al. 2011. Continuous System Leak Monitoring-From Start To Repair, Report 3183.

Hughes et al. 2014. Pipe Location and Leakage Management for Small Water Systems, Report 4144.

Cunningham et al. 2014. Effects of Weather on Leakage and Bursts, Report 4392.

LeChevallier et al. 2014. Pressure Management: Industry Practices and Monitoring Procedures, Report 4321.

Sturm et al. 2014. Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control, Report 4372a.

Sturm, Gasner and Andrews, 2015. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Data Validity and Results, Report 4372b.

Ongoing - Project 4639, Establishing Water Utility Guidance And Methodology For Water Audit Validation.


Compilations of Water Audits

Chastain-Howley et al. 2013. Water loss: The North American Dataset. Journal AWWA, 105 (6): 57–60.

Sturm et al. 2014. Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control, Report 4372a. Denver, CO: WRF.

Jernigan. 2014. Trending & Analysis of Validated Water Loss Audits in Georgia. Water Smart Innovations, October 2014.

Sayers, D.A., Najjar, K.F., Barr, J.K. 2015. Analysis of Calendar Year 2012 Water Audit Data from Public Water Supply Systems in the Delaware River Basin. Delaware River Basin Commission. West Trenton, NJ. February 2015.

TODAY’S TALK: Sturm, Gasner and Andrews, 2015. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Data Validity and Results, Report 4372b. Denver, CO: WRF.


Water Loss Control

Manuals and References

American Water Works Association. 2009. Manual M36 –

Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. 3rd ed. AWWA.

Denver, CO.

• 4th edition to be published Feb 2016

AWWA Water Loss Control Resource Community website

Thornton, Sturm et al. 2008. Water Loss Control, 2nd ed.

McGraw-Hill Professional.

Documents

WRF Webcast A Snapshot of Water Loss · © 2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Webcast Agenda, 90 min Intro, 5 mi •Maureen Hodgins, WRF Analysis of US Water Audits,