Download PDF File Water Management and Conservation Plan

PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Water Management and Conservation Plan

FINAL | SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

FROM FOREST TO FAUCET

Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 7 2 Water supplier description 11 2.1 Sources: OAR 690-086-0140(1) 20 2.2 Service areas: OAR 690-086-0140(2) 22 2.3 Adequacy and reliability of existing supply: OAR 690-086-0140(3) 24 2.4 Water delivered: OAR 690-086-0140(4) 34 2.5 Water rights: OAR 690-086-0140(5) 39 2.6 Communities served: OAR 690-086-0140(6) 58 2.7 Interconnections: OAR 690-086-0140(7) 64 2.8 System schematic: OAR 690-086-0140(8) 67 2.9 Water loss: OAR 690-086-0140(9) 76 3 Water conservation 79 3.1 Progress report: OAR 690-086-0150(1) 79 3.2 Water use measurement and reporting program: OAR 690-086-0150(2) 93 3.3 Other conservation measures currently implemented: OAR 690-086-0150(3) 94 3.4 Required conservation measures for 2020–2025: OAR 690-086-0150(4) 97 3.5 Enhanced conservation measures: OAR 690-086-0150(5) 104 4 Water curtailment 109 4.1 Supply deficiencies and capacity limitations: OAR 690-086-0160(1) 109 4.2 Stages of alert and levels of severity: OAR 690-086-0160(2); OAR 690-086-0160(3) 113 4.3 Curtailment actions: OAR 690-086-0160(4) 115 5 Water supply 121 5.1 Current and future service areas: OAR 690-086-0170(1) 121 5.2 Demand forecasts, schedule to exercise permits, and comparison of projected need to available sources: OAR 690-086-0170(2–4) 124 5.3 Alternative sources: OAR 690-086-0170(5) 129 5.4 Quantification of projected maximum rate and monthly volume: OAR 690-086- 0170(6) 130 5.5 Mitigation actions under state and federal law: OAR 690-086-0170(7) 130 5.6 New water rights: OAR 690-086-0170(8) 130

WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | i Appendices A Projected water demand: a technical memo for the Supply System Master Plan B Future water supply analysis: a memo for the Supply System Master Plan C Final order for 2010 Water Management and Conservation Plan D Strategic Plan E Example water sales agreement F Water rights final orders G Water Managers Advisory Board recommended curtailment plan H 2019 seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plan I Water loss audit report for fiscal year 2017–18 J Letter to affected local governments and wholesale customers K Comments from local governments and wholesale customers L Comments from the Oregon Water Resources Department and the public M Notice for final orders N Final orders from Oregon Water Resources Department approving the Water Management and Conservation Plan

ii | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Executive summary

The Portland Water Bureau is pleased to submit this Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP). This plan allows the bureau to comply with conditions set by the Oregon Water Resources Department. These conditions are part of the water right permit extensions for groundwater rights held by the City of Portland. The bureau submitted its first WMCP in 2000 and an updated plan in 2010.

This 2020 plan describes • changes to Portland’s water system; • how the bureau will continue to encourage conservation and prevent water loss; • the bureau’s plans for potential curtailment; and • how the bureau will maintain a strong supply into the future.

This WMCP meets the state requirement for an update every ten years, with a benchmark update every five years. This WMCP also adheres to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Division 86: Water Management and Conservation Plans.

The bureau supplies water to 965,400 people (631,900 in its retail service area and 333,500 through wholesale providers). The bureau’s primary source is surface water from the Bull Run Watershed, which has served Portland since 1895. The bureau also uses a secondary groundwater source from the Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF), which has served Portland since 1985. The Bull Run Watershed is 26 miles east of downtown Portland; the CSSWF is just east of the Portland International Airport.

To prepare this WMCP, the bureau analyzed its future water needs. The bureau concluded that it does not need access to additional water (what is sometimes called “greenlight water”) beyond what is already developed under existing groundwater permits.

The bureau can meet demand with its current water supplies in part because of its successful water conservation program. Per capita water use in Portland’s retail service area declined from 92 gallons per person per day in fiscal year (FY) 2010–11 to 84 gallons per person per day in FY 2017–18.

This WMCP and the bureau’s Supply System Master Plan As it prepared this WMCP, the bureau was also completing a Supply System Master Plan (SSMP), which will update its previous Infrastructure Master Plan. The SSMP focuses on scenario development and analysis to build an adaptive supply system plan that acknowledges multiple possible future scenarios. The SSMP will also identify potential system improvement projects—including enhancing existing conservation programs—and their contributions to meeting service goals. The bureau will complete its SSMP by fall 2020.

Executive Summary WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 1 The bureau used data and analysis generated for the SSMP for this WMCP. These included information about demand forecasting, source reliability, and alternatives analysis. Highlights of Section 2: Municipal water supplier description Section 2 describes Portland’s sources and system.

Overall system About 60 percent of the water the bureau produces serves people within the City of Portland. The remaining 40 percent serves the bureau’s wholesale customers: 19 other cities, special districts, and private water companies.

Expected effects of climate change Since the 2010 WMCP, the bureau has conducted water supply analyses to evaluate climate impacts to Bull Run storage and the future need for groundwater augmentation. Hydrologic impacts from climate change are discussed in Section 2 and include • projected shifts to seasonal patterns as Bull Run moves from a transient rain-snow-fed system to a primarily rain-dominant system by the end of the century; • higher annual and seasonal air temperatures, which are expected to lead to higher evaporation rates and lower soil moisture; • the potential for an earlier and longer dry season; and, consequently, • lower late spring, summer, and early fall streamflows, which are anticipated to result in decreased reservoir inflows during the summer supply peak season.

Upcoming changes to water treatment The bureau is currently planning for two major changes to its treatment processes. Both of these changes are in response to regulatory requirements. • By 2022, the bureau will change its treatment processes to make Portland’s water less corrosive to lead and other metals. (Portland does not have lead pipes in its distribution system, but some home and building plumbing contains lead parts.) • By 2027, the bureau will start filtering Bull Run water. This change follows a series of low-level detections of Cryptosporidium in Bull Run water. The bureau does not currently treat the water for Cryptosporidium and has operated under a variance to the federal treatment requirement.

Well field supply considerations The bureau monitors aquifer yields, operational and equipment limitations, and water quality concerns to ensure that the well field continues to be a reliable water supply. The well field is a critical drinking water source for the bureau and is an important part of its system resilience.

Water use Despite population growth in the retail and wholesale service areas, the bureau’s average daily demand has been relatively flat over the past 10 years. The longer trend is that average daily demand has declined over the past forty years. The decline is due to decreases in per capita

2 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU consumption from shifting land use patterns, plumbing code changes, conservation, the price of water, and other factors (as discussed in Sections 2 and 5). Section 5 discusses projected shifts in demand. Highlights of Section 3: Water conservation Section 3 reports on the bureau’s progress on conservation benchmarks identified in the 2010 WMCP. Section 3 also describes new benchmarks for the bureau’s conservation programs. Major themes of Section 3 include the following: • The bureau continues to operate a successful conservation program with services for all customers and an emphasis on low-income and commercial customers. The bureau has a focus on equity in program design and delivery; this focus is reflected in conservation work. • Conservation plays an important role in meeting Portland’s future water needs. The bureau will research opportunities for potential conservation program expansion. • Since the 2010 plan, the bureau has increased its work to understand and reduce water loss.

Summary of 2025 conservation benchmarks Water audits and water loss Water loss is currently above 10 percent of total water supplied. With a focused water loss analyst now on staff, the bureau will develop a comprehensive Water Loss Action Plan, to be submitted to the state in 2022. The bureau will also continue to perform annual water audits and take steps to reduce water loss based on the results.

Metering and meter testing All of the bureau’s current service connections are metered. The bureau will continue to meter all new service connections. Section 3 lists specific meter testing and maintenance benchmarks by meter size.

Rate structures and billing practices The bureau conducted a conservation rate structure study in 2013. Results indicated that changing Portland’s water rate structure was unlikely to lead to significant reductions in water use. For its 2025 benchmark, the bureau will continue to use the quantity of water metered as the basis for its bills.

Public education The bureau has strong conservation education programs and services and is a member of the Regional Water Providers Consortium. Benchmarks for 2025 continue this important work— from digital communications to community events—with a focus on tying equity goals to conservation education.

Technical assistance The 2025 benchmarks continue technical support of specific customer groups. These groups include commercial, multifamily, low-income, governmental, and landscape-focused users.

Executive Summary WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 3 Retrofit and replacement The bureau offers rebates, incentives, and water-efficient devices. The bureau also offers fixture repair and replacement to income-qualified customers. The 2025 benchmarks continue these programs and offer opportunities for the bureau to evaluate their effectiveness.

Reuse The bureau does not currently have supply limitations that warrant investment in municipal water reuse. For its 2025 benchmark, the bureau will study the benefits and costs of investing in water reuse.

Other conservation As part of its work for 2025, the bureau will complete a Water Conservation Planning Study and continue to invest in curtailment planning and communication. Highlights of Section 4: Water curtailment Portland has not had to curtail water use since 1992. The City has avoided curtailment by investing in reliable, high-quality sources of water; successful conservation programs; supply contingency planning; and strong regional partnerships. However, the City still considers curtailment a critical tool. Section 4 describes the bureau’s supply limitations and how the bureau plans to make sure supplies are sufficient to meet demand. Section 4 also describes • factors the bureau considers when planning for potential curtailment; • curtailment triggers and stages; and • measures the bureau would implement in each stage of curtailment. Highlights of Section 5: Water demand Chapter 5 describes the bureau’s future supply needs.

Wholesale customer changes The biggest change affecting the bureau’s projected supply needs is that one of its current wholesale customers, the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD), has announced plans to stop using water from Portland to supply its service area after June 30, 2026. Because of this, the bureau’s population served will grow until 2026 and then decrease substantially before resum- ing growth again.

Demand forecast The bureau developed a water demand forecast in 2017 as part of its SSMP update. This WMCP incorporates this 2017 demand forecast so that the SSMP and the WMCP use the same future demand assumptions.

The WMCP uses summer average daily demand and peak day demand scenarios from the SSMP to help identify future water needs. As Section 5 describes, demand projections are notably lower than presented in the bureau’s 2010 WMCP. This is mostly because of TVWD’s anticipated departure from the system and overall trends of declining demand. Section 5

4 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU describes these and other factors that led to updated demand projections. Exhibit ES-1 shows peak day and summer average daily demand projections for 2020 to 2040.

Exhibit ES-1. Peak day demand and summer average daily demand projections, 2020–2040

190.0

180.0

170.0

160.0

150.0

140.0

130.0

120.0 Demand (million gallons per day) per gallons (million Demand

110.0

100.0

Summer average daily demand Peak day demand

Future water needs Based on water demand projected for this 20-year planning period, the bureau has determined that between its certificated water rights and the “developed” portions of its water rights permits in the CSSWF, it has sufficient supply to meet projected summer average daily demand in 2040. Therefore, the bureau is not requesting access to the “undeveloped” portion of its groundwater permits (what is sometimes called “greenlight water”).

The bureau may instead develop new wells through water rights transactions, such as transfers and permit amendments. This would allow the bureau to better leverage its certificated water rights and the developed portions of its permits to meet demand and maintain a reliable secondary water source.

Executive Summary WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 5

1 Introduction

1.1 Reason for submittal of this plan The Portland Water Bureau submits this Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) as required under the final order approving its 2010 WMCP. The final order mandates that the City of Portland submit an updated plan in May 2020. This WMCP complies with Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Division 86: Water Management and Conservation Plans. 1.2 Water system changes since the 2010 WMCP Since the 2010 WMCP, the bureau has made significant changes to its system. The bureau is planning more changes to comply with water quality regulations and reduce seismic risk.

Upcoming Bull Run treatment changes Compliance with the federal Lead and Copper Rule The bureau currently reduces the corrosivity of Bull Run water by adding sodium hydroxide. Under an agreement with the Oregon Health Authority, the bureau must improve corrosion control treatment by April 2022. As of late 2019, the bureau had completed a pilot study and started to design the treatment facility. Construction on the new facility will start in August 2020.

Compliance with the federal Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) Since the 2010 WMCP, the bureau has done extensive work to comply with the federal Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2). LT2 requires systems that use an unfiltered surface water source, such as the Bull Run River, to treat for Cryptosporidium. LT2 also requires systems to cover, replace, or install treatment at uncovered finished drinking water reservoirs.

In 2012, after the bureau had demonstrated the very low occurrence of Cryptosporidium in the Bull Run Watershed, the Oregon Health Authority issued the bureau a variance to the treatment requirement for Cryptosporidium. A condition of this variance was that the bureau must continue to routinely test for Cryptosporidium. The state could revoke the variance if testing revealed Cryptosporidium above a certain threshold.

In 2017, the bureau began detecting amounts of Cryptosporidium that exceeded the conditions of the variance. The bureau is now planning a filtration facility that will treat for Cryptosporidium.

Under an agreement with the Oregon Health Authority, the bureau must install this treatment by September 2027. As of late 2019, the bureau had identified the site of the future filtration plant, as well as its size and treatment technology.

Section 1: Introduction WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 7 The bureau has also removed its uncovered finished drinking water reservoirs from service. The uncovered Mount Tabor reservoirs have been disconnected from the water system and their capacity has been replaced by storage at Powell Butte and Kelly Butte. The Mount Tabor reservoir basins remain as decorative features. The uncovered Washington Park reservoirs are currently under construction; one of the reservoirs is being rebuilt underground, while the other has been disconnected and modified for use as a decorative feature.

Strengthening infrastructure to prepare for earthquakes Since the last WMCP, the bureau has done extensive work to prepare its system for major earthquakes. Projects include: • a Water System Seismic Study, completed in May 2017; • burying two of the conduits where they cross the Sandy River; • building more resilient in-town reservoirs; • participating in the design and funding of the City’s Emergency Coordination Center; • rebuilding parts of the bureau’s Interstate facility, a hub for bureau employees and equipment; and • starting work on the Willamette River Crossing, a pipe that will carry water under the Willamette River (the current river crossings are not expected to survive a major earthquake).

Wholesale contracts The bureau’s wholesale service area has changed since the last WMCP. The City of Sandy joined the service area in 2014. The City of Tigard left the service area in 2016. The Tualatin Valley Water District plans to leave the service area after June 30, 2026.

Habitat Conservation Plan work The bureau has completed major infrastructure projects associated with its 2008 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP describes 49 specific mitigation measures the City is under- taking over a 50-year period to address flow, temperature, and habitat impacts of the City’s use of the Bull Run River.

Water loss The bureau has hired a full-time employee to conduct annual audits and develop strategies for reducing water loss to below 10 percent. Sections 2 and 3 of this WMCP contain more detail about the bureau’s water loss work.

Strategic Plan The bureau has a new Strategic Plan. The plan is the result of two years of employee work to identify risks to the bureau and strategies to mitigate those risks. Throughout the planning process, the bureau has focused on embedding equity into all of its work.

The Strategic Plan includes an objective to invest more strategically in Portland’s groundwater system.

8 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Supply System Master Plan The bureau is updating its Supply System Master Plan (SSMP). The SSMP will help the bureau keep its system prepared for and adaptable to changes. Here are some of the factors the bureau is considering through the SSMP: • Supply may be affected by climate change or by natural disasters, such as fires, floods, droughts, and earthquakes. • Demand may rise or fall, depending on population and the types of businesses in the service area. • Water quality changes and new regulations may create new treatment needs. • The cost of service may be affected by regional and national economic factors that limit how much the bureau can afford to invest in supply. 1.3 Major sources of information used for developing the WMCP The bureau used the following sources of information to develop this WMCP:

Bureau records • Maps show service area changes. • Production and consumption data allow the bureau to analyze annual demand, average daily demand, and peak demand, as well as consumption by customer category. • Infrastructure records include information about dams, wells, treatment facilities, distribution and transmission facilities, pump stations, interconnections, and other essential components of the water system. • Water rights records inform the bureau’s descriptions of current rights and planning for future rights. • Water conservation program records allow the bureau to demonstrate conservation program work (such as devices distributed, events attended, and rebates given). • Meter and main break records help the bureau understand and explain water loss in the system. The bureau uses American Water Works Association M36 methodology to calculate unaccounted-for water. • More than 30 City of Portland employees contributed to and reviewed this WMCP.

2010 WMCP The bureau referred to the 2010 WMCP to develop this WMCP’s system information, conservation benchmarks, curtailment plans, and water supply synopses.

GSI Water Solutions GSI Water Solutions prepared Section 5 and helped analyze groundwater rights and the adequacy and reliability of existing supply.

Portland State University Population Research Center The bureau has an intergovernmental agreement with the Population Research Center to provide population estimates and forecasts for its service area. Those forecasts inform this WMCP.

Section 1: Introduction WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 9 1.4 Notice of draft WMCP to affected local governments On March 16, 2020, the bureau posted the draft WMCP to its website and notified local governments and wholesale customers that it was available for review. The bureau kept review open for 30 days.

The bureau notified the following governments and wholesale customers: • Burlington Water District • Green Valley Water Company • City of Beaverton • Hideaway Hills Water Company • City of Fairview • Lake Grove Water District • City of Gresham • Lorna Portland Water, LLC • City of Hillsboro • Lusted Water District • City of Lake Oswego • Metro (regional government) • City of Maywood Park • Multnomah County • City of Portland bureaus (Bureau of • Palatine Hill Water District Planning and Sustainability, Bureau of • Pleasant Home Water District Environmental Services, Portland Parks • Port of Portland and Recreation) • Raleigh Water District • City of Sandy • Rockwood Water People’s Utility District • City of Tigard • Skyview Acres Water Company • City of Tualatin • Tualatin Valley Water District • Clackamas County • Two Rivers Water Association • Clackamas River Water • Washington County • GNR Water District • West Slope Water District 1.5 Proposed dates of next progress report and next WMCP The bureau proposes to issue its next progress report in May 2025 and its next WMCP in May 2030. 1.6 Organization of this document The Table of Contents (just before this introduction) shows organization by content area and Oregon Administrative Rule.

10 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2 Water supplier description

2.1 Sources Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 690-086-0140(1): A description of the supplier’s source(s) of water including diversion, storage and regulation facilities, exchange agreements, intergovernmental cooperation agreements, and water supply or delivery contracts.

The Portland Water Bureau supplies water from two sources: surface water from the Bull Run Watershed and groundwater from the Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF). The Bull Run Watershed is 26 miles east of downtown Portland; the CSSWF is just east of the Portland International Airport (see Exhibit 2-1). The bureau also holds rights to wells in the former Powell Valley Road Water District (PVRWD), which are maintained to be available in an extreme emergency, and surface water from the Willamette River, which is not used for supply.

Exhibit 2-1. Map of Portland’s water system

2.1.1 Bull Run Watershed The 102-square-mile Bull Run Watershed is Portland’s primary water supply. The watershed lies within a 149-square-mile area closed to public entry. See Exhibit 2-2 for a map of the Bull Run Watershed and the Bull Run Watershed Closure Area.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 11 s s d e o n o r H e

d t 8 l 1 9 i 9 M W e k a e t L s k

o a

L L

R l n

u u s

R 3 B n

i e l 1 l 9 9 b k ! ( u a a L C B 8 1 9 9 n a m e t k t c i u H B ! (

a s

m s

o d

a w

l e l t o

l l C s l n u e e e k f

M r i a d f o e L o t d G a l i H W e k y a d L o

s 1

m R a D n i a ! ( h e t k r c s n r e a u u a e e L o r o B C M H e a e g a l r r i a o b A 4 n

8 G o m c § ¨ ¦

i i u r t l n e a o e v t N 5 i c C u 1 9 S o 9 R t k

n r i o o o

L P e

! (

s e

a k e

i R

o b w 2

" m " d m

u a

l e

o H C s D e t l i i T E n M I U 3

t H N n e S m U e R

g a E T n 6 a 8 2 T e 1 2 £ ¤ N g M 0

a A d 2 E n

i e t r a n h n e r s W e b r u D d M ! (

o e m n y t t R n l a a y n r E a

c l p o r e d e l t N i r O e p r t v l W n 1

i v A a u o G a

t y n R u l o S S P U e

u d e r p e r G f B d

A t v e R i u l e

y ! ( R e S a v a l s t n a t l r h r F y v a

a n M c o i a t u l S N P G i L i r s a t a o B C W

L U B C L S P r S d s A e L n d n 0 u a U M w H o o T B O B R R O

N °

8 2 9 0 8 1 0 2 / c i g a s a B . H / 6 6 1 0 p a M d e h s r e t a W n u R l l u B Exhibit 2-2. Map of the Bull Run Watershed and closure area and closure Watershed Exhibit 2-2. Map of the Bull Run

12 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Diversion, storage, and regulation facilities Water in the Bull Run River is impounded in two reservoirs: Reservoir 1, completed in 1929, and Reservoir 2, completed in 1962. These reservoirs store water for municipal drinking water; however, the water can also be used to generate hydroelectricity. Periodically, the bureau relies on storage capacity in Bull Run Lake, a natural lake upstream of the headwaters of the Bull Run River, to augment the supply of the two reservoirs. Exhibit 2-3 details water storage facilities in the Bull Run Watershed.

Exhibit 2-3. Storage facilities in the Bull Run Watershed

Bull Run Lake dam Dam 1 Dam 2 Year built 1917 1929 1962 River mile 25.5 11.1 6.5 Maximum reservoir depth (feet) 273 190 130 Reservoir elevation at full pool (feet) 3,174 1,045.5 860 Reservoir capacity (billion gallons) 14.8 10 6.8 Usable storage (billion gallons) Varies by year 7.4 2.6 Reservoir area (acres) 443 414 418

Reservoir 1 Reservoir 1 is the larger of the two major reservoirs in the Bull Run Watershed, capable of storing 10 billion gallons (bg) of water. Water quality and habitat conservation measures limit how much water can be drawn from the reservoir; of the total volume, 7.4 bg are usable.

The maximum elevation of Reservoir 1 is 1,045.5 feet. Drawdown is limited to a minimum elevation of 970 feet to keep sediment deltas covered with water, maintaining water quality.

In a turbidity event that only affects certain reservoir levels, the bureau can use multilevel intakes to draw water from a reservoir level with lower turbidity.

Reservoir 2 Water is withdrawn from Reservoir 2 through two intake structures. These intakes provide flexibility in water quality and water temperature management and allow for water to be released into the diversion pool or into the lower Bull Run River. From the diversion pool, water can be directed into the water transmission system or into the lower Bull Run River.

The bureau minimizes turbidity by keeping Reservoir 2 as full as possible throughout the year; the reservoir’s surface elevation typically varies between 840 and 860 feet above mean sea level. This strategy allows for upstream turbidity to dilute and settle out before water is diverted for supply. Management of the Reservoir 2 water level is also critical for enabling the bureau to meet downstream water temperature and flow requirements for anadromous fish. Reservoir management is part of the bureau’s Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conversation Plan (HCP).

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 13 Bull Run Lake Bull Run Lake is a natural lake upstream of the headwaters of the Bull Run River. Water flows underground out of Bull Run Lake and emerges in a series of springs downstream. The City maintains a small dam at Bull Run Lake that raises the lake level by 10 feet.

Because Bull Run Lake was formed in part by a landslide, its surface elevation naturally declines during the summer as water seeps through the porous landslide material. During very dry summers, the bureau sometimes draws more water from the lake into the river below.

A 1997 easement with the U.S. Forest Service restricts the available capacity of Bull Run Lake. This easement limits the water volume available and the timing of its use, while requiring extra mitigation and monitoring measures following water releases that prevent the lake from refilling in subsequent years.

The City is currently operating under an extension of the 1997 easement while negotiating a 30-year renewal. Terms and conditions of the new easement are expected to remain largely the same.

The volume available for use in any given year is based on lake levels in the spring after winter rains. In naturally dry years, less water is available from the lake. In any given year, anywhere from 0.0 to 0.6 bg could be available from the lake while still maintaining a high probability of the lake refilling the following year to a water surface elevation of 3,174 feet (the level designated as full pool in the Special Use Authorization with the U.S. Forest Service). Beyond this, an additional 2.8 bg can be released from the lake, but at increasingly high risk of triggering additional mitigation and monitoring requirements.

Inflow Late spring and early fall tributary inflows vary widely from year to year and have a significant impact on the length and degree of Bull Run reservoir drawdown. Summer months are typically dry, with little precipitation falling in the watershed. Though summer precipitation is minimal, streams continue to feed the Bull Run reservoirs and contribute to overall supply. Since the bureau has been recording data at all four primary tributary streams to the Bull Run reservoirs in 1976, average tributary inflow from July to September has been 10 bg.

Treatment facilities Water from the Bull Run River is diverted at the Headworks facility immediately downstream of Dam 2. At Headworks, raw water passes through screens to remove debris, and is disinfected with chlorine. After leaving Headworks, water travels 10 miles west in large-diameter (48- to 66-inch) pipelines to the Lusted Hill treatment facility. At Lusted Hill, the bureau adds ammonia (to form chloramines for secondary disinfection) and sodium hydroxide (to adjust pH, reducing potential corrosion). From Lusted Hill, finished water flows 11 miles by gravity to Powell Butte, site of two 50-million-gallon underground reservoirs.

14 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU The bureau is currently making two major updates to its Bull Run treatment processes: by 2022, the bureau will start a new treatment method for corrosion control; and by 2027, the bureau will start filtering Bull Run water.

Hydropower facilities The City owns hydropower facilities that generate electricity at the two Bull Run dams. These facilities, known as the Portland Hydroelectric Project (PHP), are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as FERC Project No. 2821. PHP facilities are operated with two contracts: one with Energy Northwest (for operations and maintenance) and one with the Eugene Water and Electric Board (for power scheduling and dispatch operations).

The facility at Dam 1 (PHP Powerhouse 1) has an installed capacity of 24 megawatts. The facility at Dam 2 (PHP Powerhouse 2) has an installed capacity of 12 megawatts. Electricity generated by these facilities is sold directly to Portland General Electric in a long-term (15-year) contract. The City’s current FERC license is valid until 2029.

2.1.2 Columbia South Shore Well Field The CSSWF is the largest developed groundwater source in Oregon. On the floodplain of the Columbia River northeast of downtown Portland, this eleven-square-mile area spans portions of Portland, Fairview, and Gresham. The City’s CSSWF water rights enable the bureau to draw from five aquifers: the Sand and Gravel Aquifer (SGA); the Troutdale Sandstone Aquifer (TSA); the Blue Lake Aquifer (BLA); the Troutdale Gravel Aquifer (TGA); and the Columbia River Sand Aquifer (CRSA, also known as the Upper Columbia River Sands).

Groundwater is Portland’s supplemental and emergency supply. The bureau uses 100 percent Bull Run water most of the time, a mix of Bull Run and groundwater when needed for seasonal supply, or 100 percent groundwater when the Bull Run source is unavailable (due to turbidity events, landslides, fires, or other disruptions).

Use of groundwater to augment summer supply is part of the annual Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan. Exhibit 2-4 shows the bureau’s use of the CSSWF for supply augmentation in million gallons per day (mgd) and bg.

Exhibit 2-4. The bureau’s use of the CSSWF for supply augmentation

Days Average daily Range of daily Water Start date Aquifers used used production (mgd) use (mgd) used (bg) July 10, 2019 49 37.5 35.0–89.0 1.8 BLA, SGA, TSA June 20, 2018 120 38.6 17.2–44.6 4.6 BLA, SGA, TSA July 16, 2015 112 47.2 27.0–69.0 5.3 BLA, SGA, TSA September 28, 2009 31 35.9 33.0–36.5 1.1 BLA, SGA, TSA June 25, 2007 73 24 8.0–80.1 1.9 BLA, SGA, TSA August 15, 2006 78 46 4.5–72.0 3.6 TSA, SGA, BLA July 27, 2004 28 36.5 36.0–37.0 1.0 TSA, SGA, BLA

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 15 Days Average daily Range of daily Water Start date Aquifers used used production (mgd) use (mgd) used (bg) July 22, 2003 63 60 20.8–72.6 3.7 TSA, SGA, BLA October 8, 2001 12 38.7 6.9–45.8 0.44 TSA, SGA, BLA August 9, 2000 41 29.6 10.0–36.0 1.7 TSA, SGA, BLA September 4, 1996 27 27.7 13.0–31.0 0.7 BLA August 2, 1994 73 26 2.0–36.0 2.5 TSA, BLA August 17, 1992 45 23 17.0–30.0 1.5 TSA, 55 days; BLA, 45 days August 8, 1990 22 10 — 0.22 BLA September 4, 1987 89 60 38.0–90.0 5.3 BLA, SGA, TSA, TGA, CRSA July 20, 1985 19 20 — 0.38 BLA, SGA, TSA

Groundwater also provides a year-round emergency backup for the Bull Run supply. When Bull Run water exceeds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for turbidity in drinking water, or when supply is limited due to other events (such as landslides), the bureau shuts down the Bull Run supply and uses groundwater. Exhibit 2-5 shows the bureau’s use of the CSSWF during Bull Run shutdowns.

Exhibit 2-5. Use of CSSWF wells during Bull Run shutdown

Average daily Range of Water Days Start date production daily use used Aquifers used Reason used (mgd) (mgd) (bg) September 7, 2017 1 31.0 10.4–36.0 0.01 TSA, SGA, BLA Ammonia delivery delay February 13, 2017 31 75.4 31.2–81.7 2.40 TSA, SGA, BLA Water quality concern June 11, 2015 19 26.1 9.0–52.0 0.49 TSA, SGA, BLA Planned construction July 1, 2014 6 19.5 7.0–28.0 0.12 TSA, SGA, BLA Conduit damage February 23, 2012 5 49.5 41.8–52.8 0.22 TSA, SGA, BLA Turbidity January 21, 2012 10 83.4 82.8–84.5 0.82 TSA, SGA, BLA Turbidity January 16, 2011 16 83.0 69.0–89.0 1.30 TSA, SGA, BLA Turbidity November 13, 2008 8 81.0 61.0–103.0 0.65 TSA, SGA, BLA Turbidity November 7, 2006 14 78.6 27.8–92.2 1.10 TSA, SGA, BLA Turbidity January 29, 2004 4 18.4 18.4 0.04 SGA Turbidity Flood in the Bull Run November 25, 1999 19 78.9 19.0–89.0 1.50 TSA, SGA, BLA River and turbidity in Bull Run supply TSA, SGA, BLA, Turbidity (rain-on-snow December 28, 1998 5 86.4 29.0–93.6 0.35 TGA, CRSA event) BLA, SGA, TSA, February 7, 1996 7 62 5.0–90.0 0.50 Turbidity TGA, CRSA November 28, 1995 26 27 19.0–30.0 0.70 BLA Conduit damage February 25, 1986 23 50 21.0–84.0 1.20 BLA, SGA, TSA Turbidity

Diversion, storage, and regulation facilities As of September 2019, the CSSWF contains 25 active wells that constitute the bureau’s

16 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU baseline groundwater supply. These wells draw on three aquifers: the SGA, the TSA, and the BLA. The sum of the nominal instantaneous pumping capacities of these baseline wells is 95 mgd. However, the reliable capacity is much lower due to interference, equipment functionality, and other factors. Section 2.3 contains more details about these limitations.

A central pump station is equipped with six main pumps and two jockey pumps that combine for a nominal capacity of 112 mgd. In practice, the pump station has an operable capacity of about 100 mgd. This pump station moves the water 4.5 miles south, and 475 feet uphill, to the Powell Butte reservoirs. Exhibit 2-6 is a map of the CSSWF. Exhibit 2-7 contains information about each well currently included in seasonal supply estimates.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 17 Exhibit 2-6. MapExhibit 2-6. of the CSSWF

18 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU - 6.7 17 19.9 23.5 15.8 11.5 32.3 20 20 14.4 28.8 28 11.25 — — — — — — — — — — 277 476 227 649 ity (gpm/feet) Specific capac dynamic head [feet]) dynamic head Pump rating (gpm/total rating Pump 2,300/423 2,400/419 1,000/224 2,500/387 1,000/256 3,000/490 1,500/341 1,500/350 2,500/397 1,500/305 3,000/521 5,000/153.5 7,500/209 2,000/264.5 1,000/194 3,000/450 3,000/~200 7,500/233 7,500/162 1,500/259 1,700/301 1,000/344 3,000/440 2,800/450 3,000/334 3,500/380 2,500/475 ) 2 (gpm 1 3,000 3,400 1,150 2,000 1,100 3,200 1,750 1,550 2,400 1,950 3,200 4,500 7,000 1,700 1,200 3,100 3,000 7,000 7,000 1,600 2,000 1,000 3,000 2,800 3,000 3,500 2,750 Nominal wellNominal capacity 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 22 31.5 12 12 12 31.5 31.5 31.5 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 Nominal screenNominal diameter (inches) diameter 513 504 287 523 327 559 430 440 485 365 572 118 165 352 278 550 160 190 113 411 421 438 657 609 511 609 613 depth (feet) Bottom screen 60 85 80 88 55 398 453 238 369 243 485 325 345 376 282 493 260 195 440 337 375 377 480 480 398 493 515 Top screen Top depth (feet) 531 538 317 534 340 568 450 450 495 375 585 123 169 361 287 560 165 193 118 457 431 457 667 624 521 623 635 Drilled depth (feet) Aquifer SGA SGA TSA SGA TSA SGA SGA SGA SGA TSA SGA BLA BLA SGA TSA SGA BLA BLA BLA TSA TSA TSA SGA SGA SGA SGA SGA

range/section) Location (township/ Location 1N/2E/24 1N/2E/24 1N/3E/19 1N/3E/19 1N/3E/19 1N/2E/13 1N/3E/20 1N/3E/20 1N/3E/19 1N/2E/24 1N/2E/14 1N/3E/21 1N/3E/21 1N/3E/20 1N/3E/19 1N/2E/24 1N/3E/21 1N/3E/21 1N/3E/21 1N/2E/15 1N/2E/15 1N/2E/15 1N/2E/15 1N/2E/15 1N/3E/19 1N/2E/15 1N/2E/23 Nominal well capacity totals are unlikely to be reached with all wells running due to interference and pipeline capacity. interference running due to with all wells be reached unlikely to capacity are totals Nominal well Gallons per minute among the 25 active baseline production wells. not counted are They in the aquifer. high manganese concentrations used due to rarely 17 and 18 are Wells 3 3 Well Well number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 18 26 28 29 34 35 36 37 38 Exhibit 2-7. CSSWF well information (excludes inactive CRSA and TGA wells) TGA inactive CRSA and (excludes information CSSWF well Exhibit 2-7. 1 2 3

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 19 Treatment facilities The bureau treats groundwater at the facility that houses the central pump station. The treatment process for groundwater is similar to that for Bull Run water, except that the groundwater treatment facility uses a different form of chlorine and completes the three treatment steps at one site. The bureau adds sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the water, ammonium hydroxide to form chloramines, and sodium hydroxide to reduce corrosion.

2.1.3 Former Powell Valley Road Water District The City of Portland holds groundwater assets and rights in the former PVRWD in southeast Portland, which was annexed in 2005. The bureau does not currently use this groundwater source for municipal water supply, but could use it to supply water to the local distribution system in an emergency. Water quality concerns have prevented the integration of the PVRWD wells into the bureau’s baseline supply portfolio.

Diversion, storage, and regulation facilities The installed capacity of the PVRWD wells is 9.6 cfs; however, less than half of this capacity is currently available. Gilbert wells 1 and 2 have been abandoned. Gilbert wells 3 and 4 have been capped. Several capital improvement projects are underway to repair the Vivian facilities and make the PVRWD capacity functionally available if needed.

Exhibit 2-8, on page 21, shows information about the six (inactive) production wells. Exhibit 2-9, on page 22, shows the locations of the wells.

Treatment facilities The bureau maintains treatment facilities for the PVRWD wells. If the bureau were to use these wells, the water would be treated with sodium hypochlorite, ammonium hydroxide, and sodium hydroxide. 2.2 Service areas OAR 690-086-0140(2): A delineation of the current service areas and an estimate of the population served and a description of the methodology(ies) used to make the estimate.

Exhibit 2-10, on page 23, shows the bureau’s current service area, including the City of Portland and 19 wholesale customers.

As of 2019, the bureau serves 965,400 people (631,900 in its retail service area and 333,500 through wholesale providers). This population estimate is based on information from the Portland State University Population Research Center. Because many of the wholesale providers use more than one source, the wholesale population estimate is based on the percentage of total water purchased from Portland compared with the percentage of water from other sources.

20 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2.67 14.3 Authorized Authorized duty permit or certificate (cfs) — — 5.4 9.6 1.8 1.5 0.9 (cfs) Maximum rate by C-date by rate instantaneous instantaneous 800 500 765 615 Total 3,000 1,000 Capacity (gpm) Capacity (feet) Screen interval interval Screen Screen 67–92, Screen 93–124, 143–174 Screen 93–185 Screen Multiple from Multiple from 190–491 Screen 180–185, Screen 190–244, 286–348, 357–368 Perforated Perforated 65–74, 75–85 Perforated Perforated 192–196, 210– 215, 275–278, 285–291 183 194 512 477 104 410 (feet) Depth drilled Aquifer UGA UGA TGA TGA Upper Gravel Upper Gravel (UGA) Aquifer TGA range/section) Location (township/ Location 1S/2E/12 (Vivian Well Field) Well 1S/2E/12 (Vivian 1S/2E/12 (Vivian Well Field) Well 1S/2E/12 (Vivian 1S/2E/12 (Vivian Well Field) Well 1S/2E/12 (Vivian 1S/2E/12 (Vivian Well Field) Well 1S/2E/12 (Vivian 1S/2E/11 (Gilbert Well Field) Well 1S/2E/11 (Gilbert 1S/2E/11 (Gilbert Well Field) Well 1S/2E/11 (Gilbert 9 8 7 6 4 3 well well PWB PWB number 8 7 4 3 11 12 well well OWRD OWRD number Permit Permit G-14007 Cert. No 35779 Exhibit 2-8. Wells in the former PVRWD in the former Wells Exhibit 2-8.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 21 Exhibit 2-9. Wells in the PVRWD Wells Exhibit 2-9.

22 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-10. Current service area Current Exhibit 2-10.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 23 2.3 Adequacy and reliability of existing supply OAR 690-086-0140(3): An assessment of the adequacy and reliability of the existing water supply considering potential limitations on continued or expanded use under existing water rights resulting from existing and potential future restrictions on the community’s water supply.

With two high-quality sources of water, the City of Portland has adequate and reliable supply. Section 5 contains more information about supply and demand.

2.3.1 Factors affecting the use of Bull Run water The Bull Run Watershed is a reliable source, having supplied water to Portland since 1895. Factors that affect this supply include natural events, hydrology, climate change, and regulation.

Natural events The Bull Run source can be affected by turbidity, landslides, and fire. Climate change projections suggest that peak flows and floods may increase, which may increase the risk of turbidity events. Turbidity events typically occur during the wet season, and the bureau usually uses groundwater to replace the Bull Run supply during these events. Climate change projections also indicate that a future climate will be hotter and drier during the summer, potentially increasing the risk of wildfire in the Bull Run. However, most water quality impacts from fire would occur during rain events (the wet season), when the bureau could rely on its groundwater source for supply. See below for more information about limitations climate change may pose.

Hydrologic limitations on using water from the Bull Run Watershed Water demand varies annually, driven primarily by weather. In warm, dry summers when demand is high, yield from the Bull Run Watershed is at its lowest. In cool, wet summers, water demand is often lower and yield from the Bull Run tends to be higher.

The duration of the dry season is also important because it determines the period during which the City will rely on the limited storage in the watershed’s reservoirs. Long dry seasons, with longer reservoir drawdown periods, increase the proportion of groundwater the City uses to meet demand. This is in part because of increased demand, and in part because of the City’s obligation to meet river water temperature measures described in the HCP.

The two Bull Run reservoirs are relatively small in comparison to the amount of precipitation and stream discharge in the basin. The reservoirs are not large enough to provide a multi-year water supply, but to date, refill of both Bull Run reservoirs has been achieved every year.

Potential impacts of climate change Over the last 20 years, the City has invested in understanding a range of climate change impacts to the Bull Run Watershed. Since the last update to the Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP), the City has developed in-house hydrologic and climate modeling tools and data for Bull Run by collaborating with regional scientists and research institutions

24 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU (including the University of Washington, University of Idaho, and Oregon State University) and by developing internal staff capacity. The City has also conducted water supply analyses to evaluate climate impacts to Bull Run storage and the future need for groundwater augmentation. See Appendix B for more about these analyses.

Recent climate assessments have identified several future hydrologic impacts in Bull Run that are likely to influence the City’s water supply planning. These include • projected shifts to seasonal patterns as Bull Run moves from a transient rain-snow-fed system to a primarily rain-dominant system by the end of the century; • higher annual and seasonal air temperatures, which are expected to lead to higher evaporation rates and lower soil moisture; • the potential for an earlier and longer dry season; and, consequently, • lower late spring, summer, and early fall streamflows, which are anticipated to result in decreased reservoir inflows during the summer supply peak season.

The City is also conducting research with Portland State University to assess how changes to large-scale weather patterns could shift the timing and intensity of extreme rain events and dry weather systems in the future, potentially affecting seasonal Bull Run reservoir drawdown and refill. The City continues to monitor climate science, and actively collaborates with peer water utilities to develop and apply climate adaptation best practices for the water sector.

The bureau has recorded streamflow at tributaries feeding the Bull Run reservoirs for decades (between 44 and 56 years, depending on the stream gage). Over these years, average June– August streamflow at these sites has declined 0.6 to 0.8 percent per year, although actual streamflow varies considerably from year to year.

Regulatory limitations on using water from the Bull Run Watershed Three major federal regulations affect the use of Bull Run River water: the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Endangered Species Act Since 1998, the ESA has listed several of the Bull Run River’s fish species as threatened: the fall and spring runs of Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), Columbia River Chum Salmon (O. keta), and Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss).

The bureau’s Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) describes the bureau’s work to improve conditions for these fish. Portland City Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service approved the HCP in 2008. The HCP addresses three critical components of protecting ESA-listed aquatic species: river flow, temperature, and habitat.

The Water Bureau must meet the commitments described in the HCP to continue to use the Bull Run River as a water source. Through the HCP, the City protects and improves aquatic habitat

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 25 while continuing to manage the Bull Run Watershed as a water supply. The HCP was developed in coordination with more than a dozen public and private organizations working on salmon recovery in the Sandy River Basin. (The Bull Run Watershed is within the Sandy River Basin.)

The bureau has incorporated the HCP’s flow commitments into its operations. Minimum downstream flow commitments vary by season. The HCP’s temperature commitments require releasing cold water from the Bull Run reservoirs downstream incrementally through the drawdown season. These commitments also require the bureau to manage the Bull Run reservoirs for temperature performance. The City augments the Bull Run supply with groundwater from the CSSWF as needed to meet the combined demands of municipal uses and fish. More information about the HCP is available at portlandoregon.gov/water/hcp.

Clean Water Act The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is responsible for ensuring that bodies of water in Oregon comply with the federal Clean Water Act. ODEQ determines whether water quality standards are being met and whether the beneficial uses of waters are impaired.

In 2005, ODEQ completed a total maximum daily load assessment and report for the Sandy River Basin. ODEQ found that the water in the lower Bull Run River (river miles 0 to 5.8) was water quality limited for temperature.

The bureau prepared a Temperature Management Plan (TMP) for the lower Bull Run River, which was integrated into the HCP. The bureau implements the TMP to comply with Clean Water Act requirements. The TMP includes riparian forest protections, management measures for water temperature, and measures to control the amount of water released to the lower Bull Run River, especially during the summer peak water use season.

The bureau has completed the infrastructure work described in the TMP, and implements the TMP as part of regular operations.

Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments The federal Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments have established drinking water contaminant monitoring and treatment requirements for all public water systems in the United States. Rules promulgated under the SDWA that directly affect the operations of the Bull Run water supply are primarily the Surface Water Treatment Rule and subsequent related rules, which established filtration and disinfection requirements for all surface water systems; and the Lead and Copper Rule, which established additional treatment requirements to reduce the presence of lead at customer taps. The bureau has continuously met the requirements to remain an unfiltered water system since the introduction of the Surface Water Treatment Rule in 1989. This has required meeting bacteriological and turbidity standards as well as site-specific conditions. To continuously meet the unfiltered criteria, the bureau has occasionally shut down the Bull Run system and operated from its groundwater supply when storms and other natural disturbances in the Bull Run reservoirs increased turbidity beyond allowable standards.

26 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Upcoming treatment changes Corrosion control: By 2022, the bureau will change its treatment processes to make Portland’s water less corrosive to reduce leaching of lead and other metals. (Portland does not have lead pipes in its distribution system, but some home and building plumbing contains lead parts.)

Filtration: In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued significant new surface water treatment requirements to improve control of microbial contaminants, particularly the protozoan Cryptosporidium. This 2006 rule, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), significantly affected Portland. The LT2 rule requires unfiltered water systems to provide additional treatment to inactivate or remove Cryptosporidium.

In 2012, the Oregon Health Authority granted Portland a variance to the treatment requirements of the LT2 rule under the condition that Portland continue to meet strict watershed protection, monitoring, reporting, and notification requirements. Portland met all requirements of the variance for nearly five years; however, in early 2017, the bureau detected Cryptosporidium at levels exceeding the concentration limit established by the variance. Later that year, the Oregon Health Authority revoked the variance.

In December 2017, the City of Portland and the Oregon Health Authority entered a Bilateral Compliance Agreement. The agreement establishes that the bureau will install filtration to meet the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of the LT2 rule no later than September 30, 2027. As of late 2019, Portland has chosen a site and filtration method for the plant. Final construction plans and a detailed construction schedule are anticipated by October 31, 2022.

2.3.2 Factors affecting use of the Columbia South Shore Well Field The reliability of the CSSWF supply is affected by current operational limitations and flow condition regulations for the Columbia River. Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12 show a CSSWF water rights and reliability analysis.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 27 — — 0.71 10.79 24.53 157.00 193.04 Permit: Permit: portion undeveloped undeveloped — — — — 59.19 73.46 14.27 Permit: remaining remaining Permit: capacity developed — — — — — 38.80). 35.87 35.86 = capacity 0.71). developed = Permit: reliable reliable Permit: 25.83 − 4.72 − 2 14.27). = — — — — 95.06 14.27 109.33 Permit: Permit: portion developed developed 25.83 − 1 3 — — rate 0.71 10.79 38.80 252.06 302.36 Permit: Permit: authorized authorized — — — — 1.59 17.19 18.78 capacity remaining remaining Certificate: Certificate: — — — — 8.64 3.13 11.77 reliable reliable capacity Certificate: Certificate: — — — — 4.72 rate 25.83 30.54 Certificate: Certificate: authorized authorized BLA BLA BLA SGA SGA, TSA, SGA, TSA, BLA SGA Usable Usable aquifer(s) Of the 64.63 mgd permitted under Permit G-10124, 40.10 mgd were developed per the 2009 permit extension final order. Of the 40.10 mgd, 25.83 mgd were certificated were 25.83 mgd Of the 40.10 mgd, permit per the 2009 extension final order. developed G-10124, 40.10 mgd were Of under Permit the 64.63 mgd permitted certificated but not (40.10 14.27 developed remaining in a resulted 89115), which (Certificate partial in Certificate before perfection 89117 (5.43 G-10479, resulting 5.43 mgd, was Originally of Permit Originally was 64.63 mgd, before partial in Certificate before perfection 89115 (64.63 G-10124, resulting 64.63 mgd, was Originally of Permit Certificate 89115 G-10124 Permit Permit G-10455 Permit Permit G-10479 Permit Permit G-8755 Permit Total Certificate 89117 Water right Water 2 3 1 Water rights Water (in mgd) analysis rights and reliability CSSWF water Exhibit 2-11.

28 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU — — 1.10 37.96 16.70 298.68 242.92 Permit: Permit: portion undeveloped undeveloped — — — — 22.08 91.59 113.67 Permit: remaining remaining Permit: capacity developed — — — — — 55.49 55.49 capacity developed 60.04). Permit: reliable reliable Permit: 1.10). = = 2 22.08). 39.96 7.30 = − − — — — — 22.08 169.16 147.08 Permit: Permit: portion developed developed 39.96 − 1 3 — — 390 rate 1.10 16.70 60.04 467.84 Permit: Permit: authorized authorized — — — — 2.46 29.05 26.59 capacity remaining remaining Certificate: Certificate: — — — — 4.84 18.21 13.37 reliable reliable capacity Certificate: Certificate: — — — — 7.30 rate 47.26 39.96 Certificate: Certificate: authorized authorized BLA BLA BLA SGA SGA SGA, TSA, SGA, TSA, BLA Usable aquifer(s) Usable Originally was 100 cfs, before partial in Certificate before perfection 89115 (100 G-10124, resulting 100 cfs, was Originally of Permit Of the 100 cfs permitted under Permit G-10124, 62.04 cfs were developed per the 2009 permit extension final order. Of the 62.04 cfs, 39.96 cfs were certificated were 39.96 cfs Of the 62.04 cfs, per the 2009 permit extension final order. developed were G-10124, 62.04 cfs Of under Permit permitted the 100 cfs certificated but not (62.04 22.08 developed remaining in a resulted 89115), which (Certificate partial in Certificate before perfection 89117 (8.40 G-10479, resulting 8.4 cfs, was Originally of Permit Water right Water Permit G-8755 Permit Permit G-10479 Permit Certificate 89117 Total Permit G-10455 Permit Permit G-10124 Permit Certificate 89115 1 Exhibit 2-12. CSSWF water rights and reliability analysis (in cubic feet per second [cfs]) per second (in cubic feet analysis rights and reliability CSSWF water Exhibit 2-12. 2 3

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 29 Aquifer reliability overview Groundwater levels in the SGA and TSA have been relatively stable since 1997 after declining during the 1990s. (The decline was due to increased regional development of groundwater for year-round supply, primarily in Clark County, Washington.) No significant change has been observed in BLA groundwater levels since the bureau began collecting regular data in 1994. All of the aquifers experience seasonal fluctuations around the mean stage level of the Columbia River as a result of each aquifer’s hydraulic connection to the river. The aquifers have historically been reliable; however, the City has lost some ability to use water from the BLA because of increased manganese concentrations, and pumping capacity in the SGA and TSA can be limited by interference, both among CSSWF wells and from the influence of other users in the basin.

In the future, pumping rates for the SGA wells (and, to a lesser extent, the TSA wells) may be further limited by increasing withdrawals. Clark County has full-time municipal and industrial uses, and areas east and south of the well field in Oregon are also increasing their use. The bureau anticipates that it can improve the reliability of the supply from these aquifers by optimizing well operations and managing manganese in the BLA. The bureau might also build new wells within these aquifers in locations that minimize interference and water quality issues. The bureau iteratively evaluates how other users’ continuous withdrawals could affect well reliability.

The TGA and CRSA were used until fiscal year (FY) 1998–99, when the City wells in these aquifers were inactivated due to groundwater quality issues (solvent contamination in the TGA and elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the CRSA).

Operational limitations and reliability of the current groundwater system The CSSWF has been a reliable water supply when the bureau has needed it. Current well field baseline capacity can meet short-term (less than 30 days) emergency needs during the nonpeak season, but could not meet demand for nonpeak season events lasting longer than 30 days or peak season demand during a full shutdown of the Bull Run system. Such a shutdown could happen if an emergency or catastrophic event takes place during the peak demand season.

Three operational limitations affect the reliability of current groundwater operations at the CSSWF: • Well yields decline over extended periods of time. • Well maintenance and equipment failures can limit well use. • Manganese limits the use of some wells. Two of the BLA wells have naturally high manganese concentrations, and a third has had increased levels of manganese in recent years. Many of the SGA wells also produce water with relatively high levels of manganese. Manganese can cause discoloration at customer taps and can affect indus- tries and businesses, such as commercial laundries. Manganese may also have health effects at high levels. The bureau has taken the BLA wells affected by high manganese

30 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU concentrations out of routine service and does not include them in estimates of reliable baseline capacity. The bureau plans to avoid using the high-manganese BLA wells unless the bureau needs the full capacity of the well field.

Analysis of the reliable capacity of the CSSWF Recognizing the need to be prepared for longer-term demand, the bureau has analyzed the reliable capacity of the CSSWF in a variety of scenarios, including operation of the system for 90 days or longer (groundwater extended use firm capacity). The analyses have incorporated decreases in well yields over time, accounted for wells with known water quality issues, and assumed that some wells would be inoperable due to mechanical issues or interference between wells.

Well yields: The bureau adjusts the expected capacity of the well field over time to approximate the effects of well inefficiency and drawdown within the different aquifers (Exhibit 2-13). Based on experience operating the well field and observing declines in production rates over long pumping events, the bureau estimates that the wells will produce 90 percent of initial yields after 30 days and 80 percent of initial yields after 90 days.

Exhibit 2-13. CSSWF baseline capacity estimates and peak-season volume

Days of Developed baseline1 Potential peak-season pumping (mgd) volume (bg) <30 64–95 1.9–2.9 30–90 53–85 5.1–8.0 >90 47–76 >5.1

1 Sum of individual baseline wells’ production capacities under a variety of potential operating scenarios. The high end of these ranges represents conditions with minimal well interference and inefficiency (zero wells offline), 100 percent mechanical reliability (zero wells offline), and stable water quality (all wells currently active remain active). The low ends of these ranges represent conditions with substantial interference and inefficiency (two wells offline), 80 percent mechanical reliability (five wells offline), and increased manganese levels at potentially vulnerable wells (one well inactivated).

Water quality: The bureau has accounted for the two BLA wells that have high manganese concentrations by excluding them from the developed baseline capacity. A third BLA well may be limited due to manganese in the future and is excluded from extended use firm capacity scenarios.

Mechanical or interference issues: The bureau’s seasonal estimates of reliable baseline capacity account for the likelihood that some wells will be out of service for maintenance or due to interference. If additional wells are out of service for maintenance or become unavailable due to unexpected equipment failures, the total volume of groundwater available will be incrementally reduced by the lost capacity of the unavailable wells.

Evaluation of the extended use firm capacity in the context of the bureau’s water rights shows that only an estimated 11.77 mgd (18.21 cubic feet per second [cfs]) of the City’s certificated

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 31 water rights and 35.87 mgd (55.49 cfs) of the City’s permitted water rights are reliable after 90 days of operation, for a total of 47.7 mgd, as shown in Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12. These results indicate that the City’s current wells cannot reliably provide sufficient water supply to meet nonpeak season demand in a long-term emergency event. Consequently, the City plans to pursue development of new wells through water rights transactions (such as transfers and permit amendments) to be able to fully use its certificated water rights and the developed portions of its permits.

Regulatory limitations Limits on use of undeveloped portions of permits The final orders on the CSSWF permit extensions include conditions that limit use of the undeveloped portions of the permits. These conditions are based on Columbia River flow targets intended to protect listed fish species. These conditions may affect the reliability of CSSWF water rights when the bureau begins to rely on the undeveloped portions of its CSSWF permits.

Exhibit 2-14 shows the minimum fish flow needs on the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam, as expressed in the final orders for the extension of time for Permits G-8755, G-10124, G-10455, and G-10479, measured as the total outflow discharge from Bonneville Dam. As noted in the final orders, use of the undeveloped portions of the permits that impacts Columbia River surface water (percentage of the undeveloped portion that impacts Columbia River surface water varies by water right permit) and legally can be diverted must be reduced in proportion to the amount by which these target flows are not met based on a seven-day rolling average of mean daily flows measured on the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam (measured as the total outflow discharge from Bonneville Dam, or an equivalent measurement). This reduction will be adjusted by a consumptive use percentage and by all or a portion of the actual HCP flows, as described in extension final orders. Examples of the calculations used to determine the limitation on the use of the City’s undeveloped portions of the permits are described in the final orders for the extension of time for permits G-8755, G-10124, G-10455, and G-10479 (see Appendix F).

Exhibit 2-14. Minimum fish flow needs on the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam

Bonneville Dam total outflow Month discharge (cfs) April 183,000 May 328,000 June 471,000 July 325,000 August 184,000 September 117,000

The consumptive use percentage refers to the percentage of water diverted from the source to serve water system demand that is not returned to the source stream through wastewater discharge (return flows). The bureau’s initial consumptive use percentages are shown in Exhibit 2-15.

32 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-15. Bureau initial consumptive use percentages

Initial consumptive use Month percentages April 3.4% May 15.4% June 29.6% July 42.7% August 42.5% September 29.1%

The bureau could use Bull Run HCP flows to offset Columbia River reductions. The HCP flows are defined as the instream flows provided to the Lower Bull Run River by the City in response to its Bull Run Water Supply HCP habitat conservation measure 7.2.1. The actual HCP flows are based on a seven-day rolling average of mean daily flows measured on the Bull Run River near Bull Run, Oregon (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Gage Number 1414000). All or a portion of the actual HCP flows may be used to offset water use reductions under the extended permits as a result of fish persistence conditions, but the offset may not exceed the actual HCP flows for any seven-day rolling average period.

The overall reduction to a maximum total amount of the undeveloped portion of the permit that impacts Columbia River surface water and legally can be diverted will not exceed 20 percent.

Estimated effects of the use of developed portions of permits on Columbia River flows The bureau conducted the following analysis to understand how pumping the groundwater the bureau has developed could affect Columbia River flows and, thereby, fish habitat.

The bureau determined that the minimum daily mean flow for the Columbia River in the Portland area in 2018, during an exceptionally dry season, was 67,900 cfs. (Data are from USGS Gage 14144700 at Vancouver, Washington, accessed electronically April 25, 2019.) This year represents extreme low conditions for flows in the Columbia, which is typically above 100,000 cfs even during low-flow periods.

The CSSWF currently has an estimated long-term 90-day reliable capacity of 47.7 mgd (73.70 cfs), as previously described. If the bureau’s long-term groundwater pumping had resulted in a direct and full 73.70 cfs reduction in Columbia River flows during the extremely low river discharge of 2018, that reduction in flow would have been at most 0.11 percent of the total minimum river flow (based on the 67,900 cfs minimum flows mentioned above). To put this reduction in perspective, the typical margin of error on measured flows for the Columbia River is ±10 percent, significantly larger than the estimated flow reduction due to groundwater use. In addition, the bureau is confident, based on computer modeling, that there is not a one-to- one relationship between groundwater use and river flow reductions. Based on this analysis of groundwater pumping on Columbia River flows, the bureau does not expect use of the CSSWF to have an effect on Columbia River habitat for salmon and steelhead.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 33 Contamination and remediation Human-caused contamination was first discovered in shallow groundwater aquifers near the CSSWF in the 1980s. Since the early 1990s, the bureau has worked closely with ODEQ to expedite the discovery, assessment, and remediation of contaminant sources and plumes, and to keep the well field operational. Remediation technologies to remove contaminants from soil and groundwater include pump-and-treat, soil vapor extraction, electro-resistive heating, air sparging, and in situ chemical and biological treatment.

The bureau uses an extensive multiaquifer monitoring well network to track changes in groundwater levels and quality over time. City groundwater quality monitoring indicates that the primary deep confined aquifers are free of contamination within the capture zones of active wells.

The bureau runs a Groundwater Protection Program to prevent contamination. The program requires businesses that use, store, or transport hazardous material above a certain amount to implement best management practices to prevent spills on the ground.

The Groundwater Protection Program • works with businesses in the well field to make sure they use, store, and transport chemicals safely; • partners Portland with the Cities of Gresham and Fairview to implement the Groundwater Protection Program; and • educates the public about groundwater protection through groundwater-focused outreach and events.

2.3.3 Former Powell Valley Road Water District Water quality Water quality monitoring has indicated that the Powell Valley wells may be susceptible to contamination from surface water infiltration.

An updated source inventory (completed in 2014) found no significant new contaminant sources since the inventory completed by PVRWD in 1998.

Because the PVRWD wells are not planned for inclusion in the bureau’s baseline supply portfolio, the bureau does not plan to apply the same measure of regulatory oversight to hazardous materials management there as it does in the CSSWF. The bureau will continue to track spill events, periodically update the source inventory, and monitor water quality in support of the PVRWD's intended use as an emergency supply. 2.4 Water delivered OAR 690-086-0140(4): A quantification of the water delivered by the water supplier that identifies current and available historic average annual water use, peak season of use, average day use, and peak day use.

34 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Despite population growth in the retail and wholesale service areas, the bureau’s average daily demand has been relatively flat over the past 10 years. The longer trend is that average daily demand has declined over the past forty years. The decline is due primarily to decreases in per capita consumption patterns from conservation. Changes in land use, the economy, and the price of water have also affected demand.

Total per capita demand (for retail and wholesale customers) has fallen over the last ten years, from 109 gallons per capita per day in FY 2008–09 to 92 gallons in FY 2017–18.

Exhibit 2-16 shows production and consumption information for the bureau’s service area from 2010 to 2018. Production refers to the amount of water sent to in-town facilities, including nonrevenue water, to meet system requirements (demand). Consumption refers to water use measured through water meters.

2.4.1 About per capita consumption The bureau measures per capita consumption in three ways: • Systemwide. This includes both the retail and wholesale service areas, and all types of water uses (residential and industrial, commercial, and institutional). For FY 2017–18, systemwide per capita consumption was 92 gallons a day. • Retail service area. This describes Portland’s retail service area and all types of water uses within it. For this group, per capita consumption is lower, at 84 gallons a day for FY 2017–18. • Retail service area, residential only. This describes what people in the retail service area use at home. This number excludes commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. For FY 2017–18, this group used 50 gallons per person per day.

2.4.2 Current average annual water use In FY 2017–18, the service area used 32.5 bg of water. Between 2012 and 2018, the service area used an average of 32.6 bg of water each year.

2.4.3 Historical average annual water use Exhibits 2-17 through 2-19 show population served, average daily demand, peak day demand, and gallons per capita per day for the service area from 1960 to 2018.

2.4.4 Peak season of use The bureau’s peak season is from June to September, when temperatures are warmer and less precipitation falls on the area. Between 2012 and 2018, the service area used an average of 122 mgd during the peak season.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 35 81 42 97 92 84 50 0.6 8.1 7.7 3.2 121 155 108 13.5 34.9 19.0 10.9 344,000 965,200 621,200 593,564 2017–18 82 41 93 90 83 50 2.7 7.8 7.4 3.2 115 144 102 12.8 31.4 18.4 10.6 342,100 952,600 610,500 583,958 2016–17 85 43 96 89 53 5.3 8.3 7.8 3.3 123 159 100 107 14.4 31.3 19.4 11.1 369,200 966,600 597,400 574,400 2015–16 84 43 96 89 54 0.6 8.1 7.8 3.3 129 163 101 107 14.4 36.1 19.2 11.1 370,400 958,765 588,365 588,365 2014–15 FY — 86 42 98 92 87 52 7.8 7.5 3.2 119 148 100 13.5 35.9 18.5 10.7 371,100 951,324 580,224 580,224 2013–14 — 86 42 96 91 55 7.9 7.9 3.3 124 152 101 103 13.9 36.8 19.1 11.2 372,000 944,999 572,999 572,999 2012–13 8 84 42 97 96 91 55 1.1 7.7 3.3 120 143 103 13.9 34.5 19.0 11.0 368,500 937,398 568,898 568,898 2011–12 8 84 42 98 97 92 55 1.3 7.8 3.3 122 164 103 13.8 34.4 19.1 11.1 366,100 931,912 565,812 565,812 2010–11

1 consumption (bg) consumption 2 Annual consumption (bg) consumption Annual Single-family (bg) annual consumption Multifamily annual consumption (bg) Multifamily annual consumption Daily per capita consumption (g) Daily per capita consumption Total CSSWF water produced does not include pumping for operations and maintenance, supply for the ultraviolet testing facility, or augmentation for Blue Lake. for or augmentation facility, testing the ultraviolet supply for and maintenance, operations not include pumping for does produced CSSWF water Total and institutional. Industrial, commercial, Nov.–Mar. average water produced (mgd) produced water average Nov.–Mar. June–Sep. average water produced (mgd) produced water June–Sep. average Consumption (% of total consumption) (% of total Consumption Peak day flow (million gallons) flow day Peak Population served Population Average annual production (mgd) Average Daily per capita consumption (g) Daily per capita consumption Daily per capita consumption (g) Daily per capita consumption Retail population Daily per capita consumption (g) Daily per capita consumption Retail service area: residential Retail service area: Retail service area: ICI Retail service area: Total Bull Run water produced (bg) produced Bull Run water Total Total CSSWF water produced CSSWF water Total Total people served Total Total annual consumption (bg) annual consumption Total

Wholesale customers Wholesale Systemwide data Systemwide

Retail service area

Population

1 2 2010–11 to 2017–18 FY 2010–11 to for and consumption Production Exhibit 2-16.

36 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-17. Population served, 1960–2018

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 People

400,000

200,000

- 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Exhibit 2-18. Daily demand, 1960–2018. The gap indicates when the data switched from calendar year to FY.

250

200

150

100 Demand (MGD)

0 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Average daily demand Peak day demand

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 37 Exhibit 2-19. Production per capita per day, 1960–2018

200.0

180.0

160.0

140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0 Use per capita per day (gallons) day per capita per Use 20.0

- 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Exhibit 2-20 compares average annual demand with November–March demand and June– September demand for the past five years.

Exhibit 2-20. Average daily demand by season, FY 2013–14 to FY 2017–18

140

120

100

40 Average daily demand (MGD)

0 FY 2013–14 FY 2014–15 FY 2015–16 FY 2016–17 FY 2017–18

Average November–March demand Average annual demand Average June–September demand

38 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2.4.4 Average daily use From FY 2013–14 to FY 2017–18, the system’s average daily production was 98 million gallons.

2.4.5 Peak day use From FY 2013–14 to FY 2017–18, the system’s peak day flow averaged 153.5 million gallons. Exhibit 2-21 shows annual average demand and peak day demand by FY for the past five years.

Exhibit 2-21. Average daily demand and peak day demand, FY 2013–14 to FY 2017–18

180

160

140

120

100 MG 80

Average daily demand in MGD; peak demand in in demand peak MGD; in demand daily Average 0 FY 2013–14 FY 2014–15 FY 2015–16 FY 2016–17 FY 2017–18

Average daily demand Peak day demand

2.5 Water rights OAR 690-086-0140(5): A tabular list of water rights held by the Municipal Water Supplier that includes the following information: (a) Application, permit, transfer, and certificate numbers (as applicable); (b) Priority date(s) for each right; (c) Source(s) of water for each right; (d) Type(s) of beneficial uses specified in each right; (e) Maximum instantaneous and annual quantity of water allowed under each right; (f) Maximum instantaneous and annual quantity of water diverted under each right to date; (g) Average monthly and daily diversions under each right that is con- veyed through the supplier’s distribution system for the previous year, and if available for the previous five years; (h) Currently authorized date for completion of development under each right; and (i) Identification of any streamflow-dependent species listed by a state or federal agency as sensitive, threatened or endangered that are present in the source, any listing of the source as water quality limited and the water quality parameters for which the source was listed, and any designa- tion of the source as being in a critical ground water area.

Exhibits 2-22 to 2-24 list details of the City of Portland’s water rights. Strikethrough numbers signify certificates that were superseded by new approved certificates.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 39

Exhibit 2-22. Potable system Maximum rate of withdrawal Average daily Average monthly Permit Source Source to date diversion (mg) diversion (mg) Authorized Well amend- Claim or Priority Entity name on Type of beneficial Authorized rate (permit well (City Aquifer Application Permit Certificate Annual 5-year 5-year date of field ment or other date water right use (cfs) Instantaneous #) well #) 2014–2018 2018 (2014– 2018 (2014– completion transfer (cfs) (mg) 2018) 2018) Surface water Bull Run and Little Sandy ORS 538.420 2/24/1909 City of Portland Municipal Full flow 348 Rivers Bull Run River, City of Portland, a tributary SW-390 8/6/1886 Portland Water Municipal Full flow 0 of the Sandy Bureau River Little Sandy City of Portland, River, a tribu- SW-391 6/17/1892 Portland Water Municipal Full flow 15 0 0 0 0 tary of the Bull Bureau Run River 28 (of which 15 City of Portland, Willamette has a 1884 priority SW-392 1884, 1891 Portland Water Municipal 28 0 0 0 0 River date; increased to Bureau 28 in 1891) Groundwater Municipal (emergency Well 34, City of Portland, and supplemental in the 155 34 SRMA G-11354 G-10479 89117 3/1/1985 Portland Water water supply for the 7.3 7.3 0.02 0.17 0.57 5.3 Willamette (2015–16) Bureau Portland Municipal River Basin Water System) Municipal (emergency City of Portland, and supplemental Well 34 34 SRMA G-11354 G-10479 3/1/1985 Portland Water water supply for the 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/1/2085 Bureau Portland Municipal Water System) 39.96, being 5.7 Wells 17, 18, City of Portland, from Well 17, and 19 in the 1,443 17, 18, 19 BLA G-10906 G-10124 89115 3/25/1983 Portland Water Municipal 14.80 from Well 39.96 2.7 1.4 81 43 Willamette (2014–15) Bureau 18, and 19.46 Basin from Well 19 City of Portland, Wells 17, 18, 17, 18, 19 BLA G-10906 G-10124 3/25/1983 Portland Water Municipal 60.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/1/2085 and 19 Bureau Well 16 (City 16.7, being 2.8 City of Portland, well 12) and from City Well 12, 13 BLA G-11306 G-10455 8/17/1984 Portland Water Municipal 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/1/2085 Well 15 (City 12 and 13.9 from Bureau well 13) City Well 13

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 41

Maximum rate of withdrawal Average daily Average monthly Permit Source Source to date diversion (mg) diversion (mg) Authorized Well amend- Claim or Priority Entity name on Type of beneficial Authorized rate (permit well (City Aquifer Application Permit Certificate Annual 5-year 5-year date of field ment or other date water right use (cfs) Instantaneous #) well #) 2014–2018 2018 (2014– 2018 (2014– completion transfer (cfs) (mg) 2018) 2018) Groundwater 30 wells (See list G-7578 G-8755 T-10489 11/12/1976 City of Portland Municipal 390, being: below) 1 20 TGA West 27.8 2 21 TGA West 27.8 3 22 TGA West 27.8 4 23 TGA West 27.8 5 24 TGA West 27.9 6 25 TSA West 5.5 7 26 TSA West 5.6 8 27 TSA West 5.6 9 28 TSA West 5.6 10 29 TSA West 5.6 11 30 UCRS West 5.6 12 31 UCRS West 5.6 13 32 UCRS West 5.6 14 33 LCRS West 11.1 N/A 35 SRMA West N/A N/A 37 SRMA West N/A 147.08 3,146 8.62 4.3 262 130 10/1/2085 N/A 38 SRMA West N/A 16 12 BLA East 19.5 15 13 BLA East 19.5 5 1 SRMA East 13.9 6 2 SRMA East 13.9 9 4 SRMA East 13.9 2 6 SRMA East 16.7 13 7 SRMA East 8.4 12 8 SRMA East 8.4 1 11 SRMA East 16.7 14 14 SRMA East 11.1 4 16 SRMA East 13.9 N/A 36 SRMA East N/A 7 3 TSA East 5.6 8 5 TSA East 5.6 3 10 TSA East 8.4 10 9 TSA East 13.9 11 15 TSA East 5.6

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 43

Exhibit 2-23. Nonpotable system, part 1

Permit Maximum rate Maximum rate Authorized Facility name Claim or Type of beneficial Authorized rate Authorized Period of Source (permit well #) Aquifer Application Permit amendment Certificate Priority date Entity name on water right of withdrawal of withdrawal date of used by entity other use (cfs) volume (AF) use or transfer to date (cfs) to date (AF) completion Other Portland Water Bureau water rights (not part of the potable water system) Groundwater Well 1, a tributary Alto Park of Tryon Creek CRB G-2219 G-2043 35676 1/31/1962 Alto Park Water District Municipal 0.33 0.33 Well 2 (Willamette River) 2.23, being 1.78 Well 2 in the Hayden Island City of Portland, Portland Commercial and for commercial Columbia River TGA G-5967 G-5659 67341 12/29/1972 2.23 Well 2 Water Bureau Group Domestic and 0.45 for Basin group domestic Well 4 in the Hayden Island City of Portland, Portland Columbia River TGA G-8595 G-7954 67342 12/29/1977 Quasi-municipal 1.19 1.19 Well 4 Water Bureau Basin 4.45, being 3.56 A well in the Hayden Island City of Portland, Portland Commercial and for commercial Columbia River TGA G-5678 G-5498 67339 12/1/1971 4.45 Well 3 Water Bureau Domestic and 0.89 for Basin group domestic Wells 3 and 4, a "Gilbert Well City of Portland, Portland tributary of Johnson "TGA, 3, G-2606 G-2421 35779 5/1/1963 Water Bureau; Gilbert Group Domestic 2.67 2.67 Creek (Willamette UGA" Gilbert Well 4" Water District River) "Vivian Wells: "TGA, Vivan Well 6, Eight wells in the TGA, City of Portland, Portland Vivian Well 7, G-15095 G-14007 2/28/2000 Municipal 14.31 9.6 10/1/2055 Johnson Creek Basin UGA, Water Bureau Vivian Well 8, UGA" Vivian Well 9" Other City of Portland water rights (not part of the potable water system) Bull Run River, a Hydroelectric tributary of the S-57057 S-43857 PC-865 2/7/1978 City of Portland Power 2000 143 10/1/1981 Sandy River Development Bull Run River, a Hydroelectric tributary of the S-57056 S-43856 PC-864 2/7/1978 City of Portland Power 1500 134 10/1/1981 Sandy River Development Bull Run River, a Hydroelectric tributary of the S-63266 S-49252 PC-876 2/16/1982 City of Portland Power 170 0 10/1/1987 Sandy River Development Mt. Tabor 411 Hydroelectric City of Portland, Water distribution zone S-87565 S-54647 PC-892 10/7/2009 Power 10 0.78 4/13/2012 Bureau reservoirs Development

1 The final order approving the extension of time for Permit G-14007 included a condition limiting development of Permit G-14007 to a maximum of 9.6 cfs. Any appropriation of water beyond 9.6 cfs (not to exceed the maximum amount authorized under the permit, being 14.3 cfs) shall only be authorized upon issuance of a WMCP final order that authorizes access to a greater rate under the permit.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 45

Permit Maximum rate Maximum rate Authorized Facility name Claim or Type of beneficial Authorized rate Authorized Period of Source (permit well #) Aquifer Application Permit amendment Certificate Priority date Entity name on water right of withdrawal of withdrawal date of used by entity other use (cfs) volume (AF) use or transfer to date (cfs) to date (AF) completion Memorial Memorial Coliseum Coliseum Cooling and air Well, a tributary of G-1940 G-1783 30318 2/20/1961 City of Portland 3.3 3.3 through Expo conditioning the Willamette River Commission Keller A Well, tributary of Auditorium G-3314 G-3086 37143 12/8/1965 City of Portland Air-conditioning 0.67 0.67 the Willamette River though City Hall Vermont Creek/ Vermont City of Portland, Bureau 1.7 acre-feet 1.7 acre-feet Pond, tributary to Creek/Pond P-80773 12/15/1995 of Environmental Wildlife of storage of storage Fanno Creek through BES Services 13.22 acre- feet (af), being 0.69 MCDD No. af in Pond 1 and C.O.P. Columbia Slough, City of Portland; 1, 0.27 af in November Parks (Airport Wetland 13.22 a tributary of the R-72641 R-11486 85284 8/31/1992 Multnomah County Ponds 2, 4.61 1 through Way Wetland Enhancement acre-feet Willamette River Drainage District 1 af in Middle June 30 Mitigation Pond-Upper, Reservoirs) and 7.65 af in Lower Pond-Main Columbia 5.6, being 2.0 Wells 1 and 2, a trib- Blvd. Sewage Sewage treat- from Well 1, utary of Columbia G-5933 G-5638 46491 11/2/1972 City of Portland 5.6 Treatment ment plant and 3.6 from Slough Plant (BES) Well 2 Columbia Slough, Blue Lake, and all MCDD #1 drainage water and City of Portland; Maintenance March 1 Wetland 48633 73.90 73.90 springs within the S-18081 S-14393 T-6817 5/18/1939 Multnomah County of four wetland 0.37 0.37 through Mitigation 86638 acre-feet acre-feet District (MCDD #1), Drainage District 1 mitigation ponds October 31 Ponds tributaries to the Columbia River

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 47

Exhibit 2-24. Nonpotable system, part 2 Maximum Permit Maximum rate Authorized Facility name Entity name on water Authorized Rate Authorized rate of Source (permit well #) Application Permit amendment or Certificate Priority date Type of beneficial use of withdrawal to date of Period of use used by entity right (cfs) Volume (AF) withdrawal transfer date (cfs) completion to date (AF) Parks & Recreation water rights (not part of the potable water system) Groundwater Argay Park Well, a trib- City of Portland, March 1 through utary of the Columbia Argay Park G-7140 G-6590 50730 10/23/1975 Irrigation of 9 acres 0.11 0.11 Parks & Recreation October 31 Slough A well in the City of Portland, Cathedral Park G-16340 G-15899 82083 11/10/2004 Municipal 0.56 0.56 Willamette River Basin Parks & Recreation 1.08 cfs, being Irrigation of 78 acres 0.98 cfs for irri- A well in a tributary of City of Portland, March 1 through Delta Park G-2304 G-2124 41717 4/23/1962 and public park gation and 0.10 1.08 the Columbia River Parks & Recreation October 31 purposes cfs for public park purposes Well 2 (original POD) and Well 3 (additional Heron Lakes 44646 City of Portland, Irrigation of 109.8 March 1 through G-4886 G-4601 T-10355 5/20/1969 1.37 1.37 POD), tributary of G.C. 88294 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 Columbia River Well 1 (original POD) Heron Lakes 44646 City of Portland, March 1 through in the Columbia River G-4886 G-4601 T-10355 5/20/1969 Irrigation of 2.4 acres 0.03 0.03 G.C. 83551 Parks & Recreation October 31 Basin Well 3 in the Columbia Heron Lakes City of Portland, Irrigation of 88.77 March 1 through G-16387 G-16140 88454 2/11/2005 1.11 1.11 Slough Basin G.C. Parks & Recreation acres October 31 A well in the Columbia Kelley Point City of Portland, G-15980 G-15580 81283 4/14/2003 Municipal 0.446 0.446 Slough Basin Park Parks & Recreation A well in the Laurelhurst City of Portland, March 1 through G-12139 G-11415 81315 6/7/1990 Irrigation of 29 acres 0.36 0.36 Willamette River Basin Park Parks & Recreation October 31 A well in the Irrigation of 25.45 March 1 through Lents Park G-14132 G-13077 81167 7/20/1995 0.32 0.32 Willamette River Basin acres October 31 COBU received Municipal use to by OWRD on A well in the Johnson City of Portland, include irrigation, 3/31/2016; Parklane Park G-16195 G-15869 2/25/2004 0.557 0.557 Creek Basin Parks & Recreation dust control, and fire pump test suppression received 5/18/2017 1.56 cfs, being Municipal use to no more than Year-round for A well (MULT87891) in Portland include irrigation of 1.42 cfs for municipal use; the Columbia Slough International G-15866 G-15690 89550 10/31/2002 113.47 acres, dust irrigation and 1.56 March 1 through Basin Raceway control, and fire no more than October 31 for suppression 1.56 cfs for irrigation municipal use

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 49

Maximum Permit Maximum rate Authorized Facility name Entity name on water Authorized Rate Authorized rate of Source (permit well #) Application Permit amendment or Certificate Priority date Type of beneficial use of withdrawal to date of Period of use used by entity right (cfs) Volume (AF) withdrawal transfer date (cfs) completion to date (AF) Municipal use to Year-round for Portland include irrigation of 10/1/2008; municipal use; A well in the Columbia International G-15866 G-15690 10/31/2002 113.47 acres, dust 1.11 extension of March 1 through Slough Basin Raceway control, and fire time pending October 31 for suppression irrigation Wells 1 and 2 in the 34819 City of Portland, Irrigation of 107.37 Redtail G.C. G-2456 G-2272 T-7327 9/26/1962 1.34 1.34 Fanno Creek Basin 81471 Parks & Recreation acres A well in the Columbia 56904 City of Portland, Irrigation of 23.03 March 1 through Rose City G.C. G-4015 G-3767 T-9480 8/2/1967 0.29 0.29 River Basin 80592 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 A well (Well #2) in the 56904 City of Portland, Irrigation of 1.97 March 1 through Rose City G.C. G-4015 G-3767 T-9480 8/2/1967 0.02 0.02 Columbia River Basin 83554 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 A well in the Columbia 80518 City of Portland, Irrigation of 27.07 March 1 through Rose City G.C. G-4137 G-3773 T-9483 11/14/1967 0.338 0.338 River Basin 80593 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 A well (Well #3) in the 80518 City of Portland, March 1 through Rose City G.C. G-4137 G-3773 T-9483 11/14/1967 Irrigation of 0.23 acres 0.002 0.002 Columbia River Basin 83555 Parks & Recreation October 31 Irrigation of 59.79 0.75 cfs, being Two wells (Well acres, being 32.02 0.40 cfs from #2 and Well #3) in City of Portland, March 1 through Rose City G.C. G-16038 G-15639 83556 6/26/2003 acres from Well #2 Well #2 and 0.75 Columbia Slough Parks & Recreation October 31 and 27.77 acres from 0.35 cfs from Basin Well #3 Well #3 Well 2 (MULT 1223) City of Portland, March 1 through in Columbia Slough Rose City G.C. G-16812 G-16273 91305 2/26/2007 Irrigation of 5.0 acres 0.062 0.062 Parks & Recreation October 31 Basin A well in the City of Portland, Sellwood Park G-16341 G-15914 82734 11/12/2004 Municipal 0.56 0.56 Willamette River Basin Parks & Recreation A well in the Waterfront G-14498 G-13394 81318 4/14/1997 City of Portland Municipal 0.56 0.56 Willamette Basin Park Well GG-1 in Sullivan Gateway City of Portland, G-18742 G-18323 10/2/2018 Municipal 0.17 0.17 12/6/2039 Gulch Basin Green Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation water rights (not part of the potable water system) Surface water Unnamed Drainage way, a tributary of Westmoreland 56757 City of Portland, Irrigation of 98.95 March 1 through S-41283 S-30829 T-10102 8/26/1965 1.24 1.24 Crystal Springs Creek; G.C. 82102 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 two PT5 of diversion Crystal Springs Creek, Westmoreland 56757 City of Portland, Irrigation of 32.35 March 1 through tributary to Johnson S-41283 S-30829 T-10102 8/26/1965 0.4 0.4 G.C. 87951 Parks & Recreation acres October 31 Creek 9/2/1988 for An unnamed stream, 420.0 acre tributary of the Oaks Bottom feet and City of Portland, 451.6 Willamette River, in R-69704 R-11233 81311 Wildlife habitat 451.6 acre-feet Wildlife Refuge 10/19/1988 Parks & Recreation acre-feet Oaks Bottom Wildlife for 31.6 Refuge Reservoir acre-feet

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 51

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 53

Portland holds water rights for both municipal potable water supply and nonmunicipal water supply. The City uses nonmunicipal water supply for hydroelectric generation, group domestic, commercial, irrigation, and wildlife. The City holds surface water rights for municipal potable water supply in the Bull Run River, the Little Sandy River, and the Willamette River. The City holds groundwater rights for municipal potable water supply in the CSSWF, the former PVRWD, at various sites where Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) draws water, and in a few other areas where the City has small wells.

2.5.1 Bull Run River and Little Sandy River The City has statutory rights to the water in the Bull Run Watershed for municipal drinking water. In 1909, the state legislature enacted Oregon Revised Statute 538.420, granting the City of Portland “the exclusive rights to the use of waters of the Bull Run and Little Sandy Rivers.” The City has also filed claims to pre-1909 water rights, with a priority date of 1886 on the Bull Run River and a priority date of 1892 on the Little Sandy River.

In addition to its right to use Bull Run surface water for municipal drinking water, the City also holds rights to use of the Bull Run River for generating electricity. Prior to diversion for drinking water use, the City diverts Bull Run River water through penstocks to hydroelectric turbines at Dams 1 and 2.

The City has not made use of its statutory water right on the Little Sandy River, although a registered claim was submitted as noted above. The City and Portland General Electric (PGE) are the only entities with water claims or rights on the Little Sandy River.

The City’s statutory rights for the use of the Bull Run River and Little Sandy River are senior to all other rights or claims, other than those unadjudicated pre-1909 claims of PGE for hydroelectric power on the Little Sandy River.

In 2008, PGE dismantled and decommissioned the Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River and assigned its hydroelectric water rights to the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) as instream flow rights. The City has committed to forgo any consumptive use of the Little Sandy River (under its 1892 claim or its 1909 statutory rights) for the 50-year term of the HCP.

2.5.2 Columbia South Shore Well Field The City of Portland initially held four groundwater permits for the CSSWF: • Permit G-10479, for up to 8.4 cfs (5.4 mgd) • Permit G-10124, for up to 100 cfs (64.6 mgd) • Permit G-8755, for up to 390 cfs (252.1 mgd) • Permit G-10455, for up to 16.7 cfs (10.8 mgd)

Combined, these permits authorized up to 515.1 cfs (332.9 mgd). In October 2009, OWRD issued four final orders, approving extensions of time for all four CSSWF permits until October 1, 2085. These final orders also included conditions limiting the amount of water that could

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 55 be appropriated. These “limitations” were to remain in place until OWRD issued a final order approving a WMCP that authorizes access to additional water (the undeveloped portion of the permits). Exhibit 2-25 shows the permits, the developed “accessible” portion per the extension final orders, and the undeveloped “inaccessible” portion requiring access through a WMCP.

Exhibit 2-25. CSSWF water rights permits following issuance of the 2009 extension final orders

Authorized rate Developed portion Undeveloped portion Permit cfs mgd cfs mgd cfs mgd G-10479 8.4 5.43 4.75 3.07 3.65 2.36 G-10124 100.0 64.63 62.04 40.1 37.96 24.56 G-8755 390.0 252.1 147.08 95.06 242.92 157.0 G-10455 16.7 10.8 — — 16.7 10.8 Total 515.1 332.9 213.87 138.2 301.23 194.7

In December 2009, OWRD issued a permit amendment final order for Permit G-8755 that authorized an additional point of appropriation (production well [PW]-38, Well ID L-67558, drilled in 2004), which was superseded in February 2010 by a correcting final order that fixed errors in well location descriptions. PW-38 was originally operated under Limited License 1082, which would have expired in July 2012.

In May 2010, OWRD issued a final order approving the City’s WMCP. That WMCP final order authorized access to an additional 82.59 cfs (53.38 mgd) of the undeveloped portions of permits G-10479, G-10124, G-8755, and G-10455 combined.

Following approval of the WMCP and access to additional water, the City submitted partial perfection claims of beneficial use to obtain water right certificates for a portion of two of its groundwater permits. In March 2014, OWRD issued final orders and the following water right certificates to partially perfect (partially certificate) Permit G-10124 and Permit G-10479 (the City could demonstrate that more than 25 percent of the full water right was put to beneficial use): • Certificate 89117, for use of up to 7.3 cfs (4.7 mgd), out of the 8.4 cfs (5.4 mgd) originally authorized under Permit G-10479; and • Certificate 89115, for use of up to 39.96 cfs (25.82 mgd), out of 100 cfs (65 mgd) originally authorized under Permit G-10124.

As a result of issuance of the certificates, the City presently has “developed” (has access to) the following rates under CSSWF water rights: • 7.3 cfs (4.7 mgd) under Certificate 89117 • 62.04 cfs (40.1 mgd) under a combination of Permit G-10124 and Certificate 89115 • 147.08 cfs (95.06 mgd) under Permit G-8755 Combined, these water rights equal 216.42 cfs (139.86 mgd).

56 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2.5.3 Wells in the former Powell Valley Road Water District With the absorption of the former PVRWD wells in 2006, the City acquired two water rights: one certificated right with a priority date of 1963 (Gilbert Wells) for use of up to 2.67 cfs, and one water right permit with a priority date of 2000 (Vivian Wells) for use of up to 14.3 cfs.

For the Vivian Wells (Permit G-14007), a final order for an extension of time was approved by OWRD on May 5, 2017. The extension final order limits development under Permit G-14007 to a maximum appropriation of up to 9.6 cfs and states that appropriation of water beyond that amount will only be authorized upon issuance of a final order approving a WMCP that authorizes access to a greater rate of appropriation. The extension final order also requires the submission of an updated WMCP by May 5, 2020. Finally, the final order extends the time that the City has to complete development improvements of the water source and to beneficially apply the water to October 1, 2055.

2.5.4 Aquatic resources concerns Water quality The list of water quality impairments in the Bull Run River, Little Sandy River, and Willamette River is in an ODEQ database (Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List). This section of the WMCP summarizes these water quality impairments.

Bull Run: The City’s Bull Run River water rights authorize diversion at approximately river mile (RM) 6. At the authorized diversion, the Bull Run River is on the ODEQ 303(d) list of water quality limited streams for temperature (year round; total maximum daily load [TMDL] approved in 2004).

Little Sandy: The City’s Little Sandy River (called Little Sandy Creek in ODEQ database) water rights do not specify the point of diversion. The Little Sandy River is on ODEQ’s 303(d) list of water quality limited streams for the following parameters: biological criteria (year round) and temperature (year round; TMDL approved in 2004).

Willamette: The City holds surface water claim SW-392 for up to 28 cfs under two priority dates, 1884 and 1891. The Willamette River water rights authorize diversion at approximately RM 13. At the authorized diversion, the Willamette River is on ODEQ’s 303(d) list of water quality limited streams for the following parameters (year round unless otherwise noted): aldrin; biological criteria; chlordane; chlorophyll a (summer); copper; cyanide; DDE 4,4; DDT 4,4; dieldrin; dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD; TMDL approved in 1998); E. coli (fall, winter, and spring; TMDL approved in 2010); hexachlorobenzene; iron; lead; mercury; pentachlorophenol; polychlorinated biphe- nyls (PCBs); polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; and temperature (TMDL approved in 2010).

Listed fish species Exhibit 2-26 shows listed fish species within reach of the points of diversion in the Bull Run River (RM 6), Little Sandy River, and Willamette River (RM 13 and Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge).

S ection 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 57 Exhibit 2-26. Listed fish species

Species Management Unit (SMU) or Federal Species Common name State listing Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) listing

Oncorhynchus Winter steelhead Lower Columbia SMU/ESU Threatened Sensitive: critical mykiss Summer steelhead Lower Columbia SMU/ESU Threatened Sensitive: critical Oncorhynchus Spring Chinook Lower Columbia River SMU/ESU Threatened Sensitive: critical tshawytscha salmon Oncorhynchus Fall Chinook Lower Columbia River SMU/ESU Threatened Sensitive: critical tshawytscha salmon Oncorhynchus Lower Columbia SMU/Columbia River Chum salmon Threatened Sensitive: critical keta ESU Sensitive: vulnerable Oncorhynchus Coastal cutthroat Lower Columbia SMU, including up to — (below Willamette clarkii clarkii trout Willamette Falls Falls) Oncorhynchus Lower Columbia River, including up to Coho salmon Threatened Endangered kisutch Willamette Falls Oregonichythys Willamette Valley/West Cascades Oregon chub — Sensitive: vulnerable crameri ecoregions Salvelinus Bull trout Willamette SMU Threatened Sensitive: vulnerable confluentus Lampetra Petitioned Pacific lamprey — Sensitive: vulnerable tridentata for listing Lampetra Western brook Columbia River system — Sensitive: vulnerable richardsoni lamprey Thaleichthys Southern Distinct Population Segment, Pacific eulachon Threatened Sensitive: vulnerable pacificus Northern Oregon and Washington

Critical groundwater areas None of the City’s groundwater sources are within the boundaries of a designated critical groundwater area. 2.6 Communities served OAR 690-086-0140(6): A description of customers served including other water suppliers and the estimated numbers for each sector; general water use characteristics of residences, commercial and industrial facilities, and any other uses; and a comparison of the quantities of water used in each sector with the quantities reported in the water supplier’s previously submitted water management and conservation plan and progress reports.

The bureau currently supplies the City of Portland and 19 wholesale providers. Exhibits 2-27 to 2-29 show people served and total consumption from FY 2006–07 to FY 2017–18.

58 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-27. People served, FY 2006–07 to FY 2017–18

1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 People served 200,000 0

Total people served Retail people served Wholesale people served

Exhibit 2-28. Consumption by service area segment, FY 2006–07 to FY 2017–18

Water consumed (BG) 5

Retail Wholesale

Exhibit 2-29. Consumption within the retail service area, FY 2006–07 to FY 2017–18

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Water consumed (BG) 2 1 0

Retail: single-family residential Retail: industrial, commercial, and institutional Retail: multifamily residential

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 59 The following exhibits show billing by customer category from 2014 to 2018. The exhibits reflect billing periods, not time of actual use.

Exhibit 2-30. Single-family residential consumption (billed quarterly)

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

Billed use (CCF) 400,000

200,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Exhibit 2-31. Multifamily residential consumption (most billed quarterly)

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000

Billed use (CCF) 150,000 100,000 50,000 0

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

60 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-32. Industrial, commercial, and institutional consumption (most billed quarterly)

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000 Billed use (CCF) 400,000

200,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Exhibit 2-33. Wholesale consumption (billed monthly)

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000 Billed use (CCF)

500,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 61 2.6.1 Retail service area (City of Portland) Portland’s retail service area covers 143.3 square miles, including all of the city except 12 square miles served by Rockwood Public Utility District and Lorna Domestic Water LLC. Within this retail service area, the bureau estimates use by customer class: single-family; multifamily; or industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI).

In FY 2017–18, Portland’s retail area served 621,200 people through 185,600 services. The total population served and number of services have increased since the 2010 WMCP, while average annual consumption has decreased.

Residential use In FY 2017–18, 70 percent of residential consumption was in single-family residences, and 30 percent was in multifamily units. Single-family and multifamily services have both increased since the last WMCP. During that same time, consumption has decreased. This conforms with the trend that per capita water consumption throughout the service area has declined since the 2010 WMCP. Exhibit 2-34 displays these data.

Exhibit 2-34. Residential services and consumption for FY 2006–07 and FY 2017–18

FY 2006–07 (last year 2017–18 (year reported in reported in 2010 WMCP) this WMCP) Single-family services 150,400 153,500 Single-family consumption (bg) 8.9 7.7 Multifamily services 10,400 12,100 Multifamily consumption (bg) 3.6 3.2

Commercial and industrial use In FY 2017–18, the bureau supplied 20,000 ICI services in the Portland retail service area. Portland’s top water user is PP&R. PP&R uses some water from its own groundwater wells and some water from the bureau. Other large ICI customers include healthcare and building facilities, light and heavy manufacturing companies, and food service companies. ICI customers use 43 percent of all retail water.

Comparison to 2010 WMCP Portland’s ICI trend echoes its residential trend: services have increased and demand has decreased. Exhibit 2-35 displays these data.

Exhibit 2-35. ICI services and consumption for FY 2006–07 and FY 2017–18

FY 2006–07 2017–18 ICI services 19,400 20,000 ICI consumption (bg) 8.9 8.1

62 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2.6.2 Wholesale service area Portland currently provides wholesale service to 344,000 people through 112,287 connections. As of FY 2017–18, wholesale water sales account for 19 percent of the bureau’s annual water revenue and 42 percent of annual water demand.

Exhibit 2-36 shows average annual water consumption among Portland’s retail service area and its wholesale customers.

Exhibit 2-36. Water consumption among retail service area and wholesale providers Raleigh Water District West Slope Water 1% District Other wholesale City of Tualatin 1% 5% customers 2% City of Gresham 7%

Rockwood Water PUD 7%

Portland retail 58%

Tualatin Valley Water District 19%

Per capita water consumption is higher among wholesale customers than it is in the retail service area. This is likely because wholesale providers serve areas with less urban density and more single-family homes. Exhibit 2-37 contains information about Portland’s wholesale water providers.

Exhibit 2-37. Wholesale customer statistics for FY 2017–18 Annual consumption Contract Provider (hundred cubic feet Revenue Active services expiration [CCF]) Burlington Water District 17,200 $40,378 113 2026 City of Gresham 2,863,252 $2,657,447 17,074 2026 City of Sandy 222,495 $148,107 3,853 2028 City of Tualatin 2,187,379 $2,303,141 6,985 2026 GNR Water District 3,121 $3,802 25 2021 Green Valley Water Company 332 $750 3 2021 Hideaway Hills Water Company 1,982 $2,596 14 2021

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 63 Annual consumption Contract Provider (hundred cubic feet Revenue Active services expiration [CCF]) Lake Grove Water District 212,040 $393,750 1,273 2026 Lorna Domestic Water, LLC 10,825 $11,960 94 2021 Lusted Water District 74,342 $119,104 411 2026 Palatine Hill Water District 180,386 $478,145 611 2027 Pleasant Home Water District 78,240 $109,089 575 2026 Raleigh Water District 261,272 $341,947 1,015 2026 Rockwood Water PUD 3,012,777 $2,713,064 13,568 2026 Skyview Acres Water Company — $497 73 2021 Tualatin Valley Water District 8,315,151 $8,052,480 62,985 2026 Two Rivers Water Association 695 $1,233 5 2021 Valley View Water District 62,700 $151,564 385 2026 West Slope Water District 608,843 $1,220,189 3,225 2026

Comparison to 2010 WMCP Portland’s wholesale population rose and fell between 2007 and 2018, peaking in FY 2012–13. Some wholesale providers have joined Portland’s system and others have left. The FY 2006–07 figure does not include the City of Sandy, which has since joined. The FY 2012–13 figure does include the City of Tigard, which left the service area as of July 1, 2016. Wholesale consumption has fallen since FY 2006–07. Exhibit 2-38 displays these data.

Exhibit 2-38. Wholesale services and consumption for FY 2006–07, FY 2012–13, and FY 2017–18

FY 2006–07 2012–13 2017–18 Wholesale population 314,700 372,000 344,000 Wholesale annual consumption (bg) 14.6 13.9 13.5

2.7 Interconnections OAR 690-086-0140(7): Identification and description of interconnections with other water supply systems.

The bureau maintains 62 interconnections with other water suppliers. Exhibits 2-39 and 2-40 contain detailed information about interconnections.

Exhibit 2-39. Interconnections

Connection From To Location City of Sandy Supply to District City of Sandy District Hudson’s Intertie Boring Clackamas River Water PWB or Clackamas River Clackamas River Water District District or Portland Portland Water District Water Bureau (PWB) Gresham Supply to PWB Marine Drive Gresham PWB Portland

64 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Connection From To Location Alto Park Lake Oswego supply PWB Portland Stephenson Lake Oswego PWB Portland Arrowood Lake Oswego PWB Portland Lorna Domestic Water, LLC (Tibbetts) Lorna District 168th N Of Tibbetts Portland Milwaukie Milwaukie or PWB PWB or Milwaukie Portland Palatine Hill (Palatine Hill Road) Palatine Hill District Palatine Hill Rd Portland Palatine Hill Supply (PWB at Riverwood) Palatine Hill PWB Portland Palatine Hill Supply (PWB at Carey Lane) Palatine Hill PWB Portland 60th and Vermont (to Beaverton) PWB Beaverton Portland Burlington Saint Helens Road PWB Burlington Water District Portland GNR Water District PWB GNR Water District Sandy Green Valley Water Company PWB Green Valley Water Co. Sandy Gresham 170th and Sandy PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham 172nd and Sandy PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham 181st and Sandy PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham 185th and Riverside PWB Gresham Portland Gresham 242nd and Division PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham 262nd and Powell PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham Grant Butte PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham Public Works PWB Gresham Gresham Gresham North 3148 Division PWB Gresham Gresham Hideaway Hills Water Co PWB Hideaway Hills Water Co Sandy Lake Grove Boones Ferry PWB Lake Grove Water District Lake Oswego Lorna Domestic Water, LLC (Division) PWB Lorna Domestic Water, LLC Portland Lusted Water District (302nd and Pipeline, PWB Lusted Water District Gresham Conduit 2) Lusted Water District (Division and Oxbow, PWB Lusted Water District Troutdale Conduit 4) Lusted Water District (Lusted Rd, Conduit 3) PWB Lusted Water District Gresham Lusted Water District (Pipeline Rd, Conduit 2) PWB Lusted Water District Gresham Palatine Hill (Riverside Drive) PWB Palatine Hill Water District Portland Pleasant Home Pipeline Rd PWB Pleasant Home Water District Boring 60th and Vermont (to Raleigh) PWB Raleigh Water District Portland Raleigh Washington County Supply Line PWB Raleigh Water District Portland Beaverton Hillsdale and Oleson Rockwood 135th and Mill PWB Rockwood Portland Rockwood 148th and Division PWB Rockwood Portland Rockwood 182nd and Division PWB Rockwood Gresham Rockwood 192nd and Division PWB Rockwood Gresham Rockwood 202nd and Division PWB Rockwood Gresham Rockwood 235th and Division PWB Rockwood Gresham Rockwood Pump Station PWB Rockwood Pump Station Gresham Lusted and Hudson PWB Skyview Acres Water Co Boring

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 65 Connection From To Location Southwood Park PWB Southwood Park Oak Creek Oleson and Hall (Tigard at Bradley Corners) PWB Tigard Portland 80th and Florence Lane (Tualatin) PWB Tualatin Tigard 80th and Florence Lane (Tualatin Valley PWB TVWD Metzger Tigard Water District [TVWD]) Oleson and Hall (TVWD at Bradley PWB TVWD Metzger Portland Corners) TVWD 62nd and Multnomah PWB TVWD Metzger Portland TVWD 65th and Garden Home Road PWB TVWD Metzger Portland Arlington Heights (TVWD) PWB TVWD Wolf Creek Portland TVWD Washco Beaverton-Hillsdale PWB TVWD Wolf Creek Portland Highway VVWD (Valley View Water District) 54th PWB VVWD Portland Avenue VVWD Patton Rd and Hillside Drive PWB VVWD Portland Arlington Heights (West Slope) PWB West Slope Water District Portland Clatsop Sunrise Water Authority PWB Portland TVWD Florence at Orchid TVWD PWB Portland TVWD Skyline at Burnside PWB TVWD Portland Metzger Supply to District TVWD 65th and Taylors Ferry Road TVWD Portland 65th TVWD Thompson Rd and Devoto Ln PWB TVWD Portland TVWD Peyton Road at 65th Avenue TVWD PWB Beaverton

Most of these interconnections are from the bureau’s transmission conduits or distribution system to wholesale customers on the east and west sides of the Portland retail service area. These interconnections vary in size. Some are quite small, such as those with Lorna Domestic Water, LLC; Valley View Water District; and small water companies in the area of the Lusted Hill treatment facility. Others are large, including connections off the primary transmission conduits (Gresham and Rockwood PUD) or off the Washington County Supply Line from Powell Butte (Tualatin Valley Water District [TVWD], Raleigh Water District, the City of Tualatin). Very few of these interconnections with wholesale providers can pass supply to Portland, either due to infrastructure issues or because those wholesale customers do not have other supplies available.

Interconnections exist with other providers but do not involve wholesale contracts (Clackamas River Water, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, Southwood Park, Tigard, and the City of Milwaukie). The bureau has an agreement from Milwaukie for emergency water through their interconnection.

The City of Portland has established an emergency agreement effective April 1, 2020 with the City of Hillsboro and TVWD for Portland to provide water to Hillsboro when Hillsboro’s typical water resources are compromised or unavailable. The City has also discussed other interconnection projects with entities on the east side of the Portland service area. No projects are proposed at this time.

66 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2.8 System schematic OAR 690-086-0140(8): A schematic of the system that shows the sources of water, storage facilities, treatment facilities, major transmission and distribution lines, pump stations, interconnections with other water supply systems, and the existing and planned future service area.

2.8.1 Sources of water, storage facilities, and treatment facilities Exhibit 2-1, in Section 2.1, shows Portland’s water system, including sources, major storage facilities, and treatment facilities.

2.8.2 Transmission lines, distribution lines, and pump stations Exhibit 2-41 shows major transmission and distribution lines and pump stations, including the elevations that allow for gravity delivery of water.

Three 22-mile conduits carry water from Dam 2 in the Bull Run Watershed to the bureau’s in-town storage and distribution system. These conduits have a combined capacity of 210 mgd and have interconnections in three places for reliability in case of conduit failure.

Water from the CSSWF is pumped from the well field storage tank to Powell Butte. The transmission main between the well field and Powell Butte is 4.5 miles long.

2.8.3 Distribution system The retail distribution system includes 2,200 miles of mains connected to 52 active storage reservoirs and 33 pump stations.

Mains Exhibit 2-42 summarizes pipeline diameters in the distribution system. Distribution piping is generally made of unlined or lined cast iron; ductile iron; or galvanized steel. A small percentage of distribution piping is made of other materials.

Storage reservoirs The retail water system includes 52 active storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 200 million gallons. This total excludes the Washington Park Reservoir, which, as of 2019, is under construction. Exhibit 2-43 lists each tank or reservoir and its service area, capacity, year built, and overflow elevation.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 67

Exhibit 2-41. System schematic

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 69

Exhibit 2-40. Interconnections map

¤£30 Water supply system interconnections Prepared November 2018 ¨¦§5 Connection Supply Connection Supply ¯ ¨¦§205 Number Number Burlington Interconnections with 1 CITY OF SANDY SUPPLY TO DISTRICT 27 PWB SUPPLY TO LORNA PORTLAND WATER Water Dist. other water providers 2 CLACKAMAS RIVER WD DISTRICT 28 - 31 PWB SUPPLY TO LUSTED WD 3 GRESHAM SUPPLY TO PWB MARINE DR 32 PWB SUPPLY TO PALATINE HILL WD 4, 5, 6 LAKE OSWEGO SUPPLY TO PWB 33 PWB SUPPLY TO PLEASANT HOME WD Urban Growth Boundary 7 LORNA SUPPLY TO DISTRICT 34, 35 PWB SUPPLY TO RALEIGH WD )"13 8 MILWAUKIE DISTRICT¨¦§205 BOUNDARY 36 - 42 PWB SUPPLY TO ROCKWOOD PUD 9 PALATINE HILL SUPPLY TO DISTRICT 43 PWB SUPPLY TO SKYVIEW ACRES WATER CO 10, 11 PALATINE HILL SUPPLY TO PWB 44 PWB SUPPLY TO SOUTHWOOD PARK 12 PWB SUPPLY TO BEAVERTON 45 PWB SUPPLY TO TIGARD 2.5 5 7.5 10 13 PWB SUPPLY TO BURLINGTON WD 46 PWBMiles SUPPLY TO TUALATIN 14 PWB SUPPLY TO1 GNRin = WATER 2 miles CORP. 47 - 52 PWB SUPPLY TO TVWD 15 PWB SUPPLY TO GREEN VALLEY WATER CO. 53, 54 PWB SUPPLY TO VALLEY VIEW WD ¤£30B 16 - 24 PWB SUPPLY TO GRESHAM 55 PWB SUPPLY TO WEST SLOPE WD 25 )"3 PWB SUPPLY TO HIDEAWAY HILLS WATER CO. 56 SUNRISE WATER AUTHORITY SUPPLY TO PWB ¤£30B )"19 1.25 26 PWB SUPPLYCity TO of LAKE GROVE WD 57 - 61 TVWD DISTRICT BOUNDARY )" 62 TWO RIVERS WATER ASSOCIATION SUPPLY TO DISTRICT 30 16)"17 ¤£ )"18 Gresham PO99E ¨¦§205 ¤£30B City of Portland Water Bureau )"60

¤£26 §5 84 ¨¦ PO213 ¨¦§ ¤£30B ¨¦§84 ¤£30 ¨¦§84 ¨¦§84 Tualatin Valley Water Dist. )"58 Rockwood PUD )"51)"55 ¨¦§5 ¤£26 ¨¦§405 )"36 )" West 53 )" )"37 )"27 )"38 )"39)")" )" )" 54 " 2440 41 20 Slope Valley View ¤£26 Lorna )7 )"42 )"22 ¤£26 W. D. Portland )"23 )"29 W. D. 205 26 )"52)"35 99E ¨¦§ ¤£ PO Water )"21 Lusted W. D. 43 )" Raleigh )" PO City of Gresham 28)"31 34)" PO10 W. D. )"61 12 213 )"30 PO )"2 PO217 )"50 )"49 ¨¦§5 ¤£26 )" PO43 )"8 Pleasant Home W. D. )" )")"47 57 )"56 33 )"48 46 )"59 )"45 )" 32)" Tualatin Valley )"9 11 Two Rivers )"10 )"1 Water Dist. )"5 Palatine )"43 Water Assoc. )" Green Valley Water Co. )"15 )"6 4 Hill )" )"44 )"26 14 W. D. GNR Corp. )"62 " Skyview Acres )25 Lake Community Water Co. Hideaway Grove Hills Water Co. W. D.

¨¦§5

City of Sandy City of Tualatin

¨¦§205

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 71

Exhibit 2-42. Pipeline diameters in the distribution system

>36": 2% <4": 2% 24" to 36": 5%

16" to 20": 6%

4" to 6": 38% 12" to 14": 12%

8" to 10": 35%

Exhibit 2-43. Storage tanks and reservoirs

Overflow elevation Name Service area Volume (mg) Year built (feet) 104th & Klickitat Tank Parkrose 4 1978 261 148th & Halsey Tank Parkrose 2 1968 261 160th Avenue 3 million gallon Kelly Butte 3 1962 415 (mg) Tank 160th Avenue 7 mg Tank Kelly Butte 7 1964 415 Alto Park Tank Arnold 0.2 1950 669 Arlington Heights Tank 2 Arlington 1 1959 865 Arlington Heights Tank 3 Arlington 3 1964 865 Arnold Tank 1 Arnold 0.5 1948 685 Arnold Tank 2 Arnold 0.5 1957 685 Arnold Tank 3 Arnold 0.5 1957 685 Bertha Tank 1 Bertha 0.2 1947 1,049 Bertha Tank 2 Bertha 0.85 1963 1,049 Broadway Drive Tank Broadway Drive 0.38 1964 496 Burlingame Tank 2 Burlingame 0.38 1943 644 Burlingame Tank 3 Burlingame 0.38 1951 644 Burlingame Tank 4 Burlingame 0.86 1958 644 Calvary Tank Calvary 1 1957 1,044 Clatsop Tank Clatsop 3 1982 814 Council Crest Tank Council Crest 0.5 1942 1,144

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 73 Overflow elevation Name Service area Volume (mg) Year built (feet) Denver Tank Denver 3 1961 328 Forest Park High Tank Greenleaf 0.5 1996 1,250 Forest Park Low Tank Greenleaf 1.35 2014 1,044 Greenleaf Tank 1 Greenleaf 0.03 1942 1,254 Greenleaf Tank 2 Greenleaf 0.3 1951 1,250 Groundwater Tank N/A 2 1983 54 Kelly Butte Reservoir Kelly Butte 25 2014 427 Lexington Tank Lexington 1 1978 658 Marigold Tank Burlingame 1 1967 634 Marquam Hill Tank 1 Marquam 0.287 1929 737 Marquam Hill Tank 2 Marquam 2.2 1964 737 Mayfair Tank Washington Park 5.6 1967 300 Mt. Scott Tank Mt. Scott 0.4 1967 522 North Linnton Tank Washington Park 1 1973 180 Pittock Tank Pittock 1 1965 990 Portland Heights Tank 2 Portland Heights 0.5 1929 866 Portland Heights Tank 3 Portland Heights 1.8 1975 866 Powell Butte Reservoir 1 Powell Butte 50 1981 530 Powell Butte Reservoir 2 Powell Butte 50 2014 530 Raymond Tank Raymond 2 1960 435 Rocky Butte Tank Rocky Butte 0.5 1981 389 Sam Jackson Tank 2 Washington Park 2.75 1963 300 Sherwood Field Tank Sherwood 0.38 1966 534 Stephenson Tank 1 Stephenson 1 1966 763 Stephenson Tank 3 Stephenson 0.25 1940 763 Tabor Reservoir 7 Tabor 0.2 1912 590 Vermont Hills Tank 4 Vermont 0.527 1958 585 Vernon Intermediate (Low Kelly Butte 2.5 1962 305 Combo) Tank Vernon Standpipe (High Vernon 3.2 1962 362 Combo) Tank Washington Park Reservoir 31 Washington Park 12.6 — 299 Westwood Tank Burlingame 1 1962 653 Whitwood Tank Whitwood 0.13 2002 577 Willalatin Tank Willalatin 0.2 1968 1,200 Willamette Heights Tank Willamette Heights 0.06 1907 445

1 As of early 2020, Washington Park Reservoir 3 is under construction.

Pump stations The distribution system includes 32 pump stations. Exhibit 2-44 lists pump stations and their number of pumps, total nominal capacity of pumps, and total nominal horsepower.

74 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 2-44. Pump stations

Nominal Pump station Service area(s) Pumps Nominal capacity (gpm) horsepower 105th & Fremont Rocky Butte 2 1,250 65 112th Avenue Lexington 3 2,100 225 162nd Avenue Clatsop 3 1,850 230 1st & Kane Conduits 2 920 50 Arlington Heights Arlington Pump 2 180 10 Arnold Stephenson 2 1,900 60 Barbur-Gibbs Marquam 3 2,300 375 Burnside Calvary 2 1,100 100 Calvary Greenleaf 4 3,350 290 Capitol Highway Arnold and Stephenson 3 5,700 225 Carolina Burlingame 6 17,200 2,100 Clatsop Clatsop Pump 3 1,240 65 Greenleaf Penridge 2 310 20 Groundwater Powell Butte 8 78,600 15,100 Hannah Mason Burlingame 5 18,405 1,650 Hoyt Calvary 3 3,950 300 Latigo Lane Latigo Pump 2 300 15 Linnton Whitwood 5 1,330 165 Marquam Hill 1 Bertha 2 1,600 200 Marquam Hill 2 Bertha & Council Crest 2 4,400 500 Portland Heights Council Crest 3 4,500 450 Powell Butte Heights Powell Butte Pump 4 2,200 75 Raymond Raymond Pump 5 2,450 126 Rocky Butte Rocky Butte Pump 2 750 95 Saltzman Saltzman 2 60 15 Broadway Drive & Portland Sam Jackson 6 10,100 1,550 Heights & Marquam Springville Greenleaf & Willalatin 3 1,200 350 Stephenson Stephenson Pump 3 2,250 140 Tabor Tabor 3 2,225 160 Taylors Ferry Arnold 2 4,000 250 Tenino Court Mt. Scott 2 600 30 Verde Vista Pittock 2 2,000 80 Arlington and Portland Washington Park 1 3 4,900 1,050 Heights Arlington, Portland Heights, Washington Park 2 8 14,100 2,300 and Sherwood Arlington and Portland Washington Park 3 2 3,800 700 Heights Whitwood Whitwood 3 1,800 205

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 75 Interconnections Exhibits 2-39 and 2-40 (in section 2.7) show interconnections.

Service area Exhibit 2-10 (in section 2.2) shows the existing service area. The only confirmed change is that TVWD’s current contract expires on June 30, 2026, and TVWD has notified the bureau that it will stop buying water from Portland at that time. 2.9 Water loss OAR 690-086-0140(9): A quantification and description of the system’s Water Losses that includes any available information regarding the sources of significant losses and, to the extent possible, identification of those losses as either real or apparent losses.

In FY 2012–13, the bureau began conducting an annual water loss audit (described more in Section 3). The bureau uses the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M36 methodology and software, which is a sophisticated way of collecting and analyzing water uses beyond billed metered consumption (these uses were previously described as “unaccounted for” or “nonrevenue” water). Exhibit 2-45 summarizes data from the six years of water audits.

Exhibit 2-45. Water loss

FY Water loss performance indicator 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 Total losses (mg) 3,803.00 3,813.84 3,528.27 3,139.79 3,037.92 3,276.99 Total losses (g/connection/day) 56.95 57.03 52.72 46.66 43.09 48.39 Real losses (mg) 3,282.13 3,308.02 3,120.91 2,724.86 2,638.34 2,812.42 Real losses (g/connection/day) 49.15 49.47 46.63 40.49 39.04 41.53 Apparent losses (mg) 520.87 505.82 407.37 414.50 429.19 464.56 Apparent losses (g/connection/day) 7.80 7.56 6.09 6.17 6.36 6.86 Apparent loss: customer meter 415.27 402.82 302.92 309.45 328.97 360.45 inaccuracies (mg) Apparent loss: unauthorized con- 58.10 56.64 57.08 56.68 54.17 56.70 sumption (mg) Apparent loss: systematic data 47.82 46.36 47.36 48.38 46.06 47.42 handling errors (mg) Infrastructure leakage index 2.94 2.95 2.82 2.46 2.37 2.45 Nonrevenue water as % of water supplied 17.69 18.15 17.03 15.30 15.49 15.96 Real loss (leakage) as % of water supplied 14.12 14.58 13.67 11.93 12.09 12.40 Total loss as % of water supplied 16.36 16.81 15.45 13.74 13.92 14.45

Significant real loss Water main breaks and leaks can be a significant source of real loss. Nationally, the average number of main breaks per 100 miles of distribution is 25. The bureau averages 11 breaks per 100 miles. In March 2019, a hundred-year-old main broke, leaking an estimated 28–36 mg.

76 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU However, leaks of this size are exceptionally rare. The bureau’s real loss is likely mostly due to undetected leaks. One of the main strategies used to address this is leak detection, described in more detail in subsection 3.1.5.

When the bureau identifies a leak, it takes immediate steps to address it. Leaks rarely flow for more than 24 hours. Exhibit 2-46 shows the number of main breaks repaired by FY.

Exhibit 2-46. Recent main breaks

FY 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Main break 196 186 205 158 193 243 114 162 repairs

Significant apparent loss One typical source for apparent loss is large meters. In 2015, the bureau found that one of the largest wholesale meters was significantly under-registering consumption. Once the issue was identified, the bureau worked with its wholesale customers to update its contracts and meter testing standards. The bureau now tests all wholesale meters at least twice a year, takes monthly reads, and for some, has installed electronic instruments that send daily reads to the bureau. Most wholesale customers can download use data on a daily basis.

The bureau’s asset management group conducted a large meter analysis in 2015, and identified and prioritized the replacement of hundreds of obsolete meters (the meters most likely to register improperly or fail). The bureau also installed new meters at its Headworks facility to more accurately measure water entering the conduits.

Section 2: Water Supplier Description WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 77 78 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 3 Water conservation

The Portland Water Bureau has offered water conservation programs and services since 1990.

In recent years, the bureau has begun to examine all of its programs and services with an equity lens. At the bureau, this means asking questions like, Who benefits from this program? Who is burdened by it? Who has the power to make decisions about it?

Nationally and regionally, conservation programs often offer solutions that disproportion- ately benefit people with greater wealth, such as rebates (which require the applicant to have money to spend up front) and marketing of programs and services to account holders (which does not benefit renters and other non-account holders). Over the past ten years, the bureau has shifted toward offering equity-informed conservation programs. The bureau • offers assembly programs to schools with high percentages of students of color; • prioritizes participation in community events in racially diverse neighborhoods; and • regularly translates education and outreach materials into Spanish, Russian, and Vietnamese.

This Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) maintains the bureau’s longstanding approaches to conservation programs and services and discusses some of the ways the bureau is addressing equity issues through efficiency programs. 3.1 Progress report Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 690-086-0150(1): A progress report on the conservation measures scheduled for implementation in a water management and conservation plan previously approved by the Department, if any.

The bureau published a WMCP in 2010 and a progress report in 2015. This 2020 WMCP includes a status update on 2010 benchmarks and a description of the bureau’s other water conservation work.

3.1.1 Progress report: Annual water audit OAR language from 2010: An annual water audit that includes a systematic and documented methodology for estimating any un-metered authorized and unauthorized uses.

2010 benchmark: To keep unaccounted-for water at less than 10%. Further benchmarks will be determined once the bureau’s asset management program is completed.

2020 status update: In 2017, the bureau hired Black & Veatch to conduct its annual water loss audit in coordination with bureau staff using the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M36 methodology and audit software. The consultant completed audits for fiscal year (FY) 2012–13 through FY 2016–17. This outside perspective gave the bureau a wide-ranging

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 79 assessment of areas for improvement and brought the bureau’s auditing strategies in line with industry standards. The consultant recommended about 75 measures to improve data quality, update policies and procedures, and reduce real loss in the system. In 2019, the bureau hired a full-time water loss analyst to implement these recommendations.

The 2010 benchmark states that the bureau will keep unaccounted-for water below 10 percent. At the time that benchmark was written, the bureau was not using the AWWA M36 methodology. As the bureau’s auditing process has become more accurate, reported water loss numbers have increased. The audits account for real loss (system leaks) and apparent loss (metering inaccuracies, unauthorized consumption, and data handling errors), as well as all authorized consumption. Exhibit 2-45 shows water loss from FY 2012–13 to 2017–18 in million gallons (mg) per day and gallons (g) per connection per day.

3.1.2 Progress report: Full system metering OAR language from 2010: If the system is not fully metered, a program to install meters on all un-metered water service connections. The program shall start immediately after the plan is approved and shall identify the number of meters to be installed each year with full metering completed within five years of approval of the water management and conservation plan.

2010 benchmark: Bureau customers, both retail and wholesale, are fully metered. All new customers will be metered at 100%.

2020 status update: Retail and wholesale customers are fully metered. Portland City Code requires all new services to be metered at the time of connection.

3.1.3 Progress report: Meter testing and maintenance program OAR language from 2010: A meter testing and maintenance program.

2010 benchmark: Replace all small meters (1” or smaller) every 20 years. Test high consumption and wholesale meters every year. Test other meters 3” and greater per newly implemented Asset Management Plan.

2020 status update: The bureau is committed to testing and maintaining its meters to industry best practices. The 2010 WMCP benchmarks have evolved over the past ten years to reflect internal research and best practices.

The bureau has 181,000 small mechanical meters (defined as one inch or smaller). The bureau no longer has a goal of replacing them every 20 years. (New maintenance regimes are described in the new benchmarks.) Exhibit 3-1 shows small meter replacement for FY 2014–15 to 2018–19.

80 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 3-1. Small meter replacement for FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Small meters replaced 6,336 7,299 4,608 4,818 4,522

The bureau has 12,000 large meters (meters larger than one and a half inches). Testing and replacement practices for large meters, wholesale meters, and source meters are described in subsection 3.4.3. Exhibit 3-2 shows large meter testing and replacement for FY 2014–15 to 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-2. Large meter testing and replacement for FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Large meters tested 527 565 577 496 532 Large meters replaced 126 157 156 240 212

3.1.4 Progress report: Rate structure OAR language from 2010: A rate structure under which customers’ bills are based, at least in part, on the quantity of water metered at the service connections.

2010 benchmark: Review potential conservation rate structures with the goal of implementing a new rate structure as one of the 5-year benchmarks for this WMCP.

2020 status update: The bureau completed a conservation rate structure study in June 2013. The results indicated that changes to Portland’s water rate structure were unlikely to produce significant additional reductions in water use. Based on the results, the bureau did not modify the water rate structure. This was reported in the bureau’s 2015 progress report, and no additional benchmark was set after the 2015 report.

The bureau bills customers based on use, as measured by water meters. The bureau also charges a base charge, which generally covers the cost of reading and inspecting meters, servicing customer accounts, and billing. This charge is based on a cost per day, reflecting the number of days in the service period.

3.1.5 Progress report: Leak detection program OAR language from 2010: If the annual water audit indicates that system leakage exceeds 10 percent, a regularly scheduled and systematic program to detect leaks in the transmission and distribution system using methods and technology appropriate to the size and capabilities of the municipal water supplier.

2010 benchmark: No benchmark was identified.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 81 2020 status update: When the 2010 WMCP was prepared, the bureau was not using the AWWA M36 water auditing methodology, and the bureau did not believe its leakage rate was above 10 percent. Since that time, the bureau started using the M36 methodology for calculating water loss, including real loss (leakage). The M36 methodology is a more sensitive and accurate method for calculating water loss than the methods the bureau was using. Currently the calculated real loss (leakage rate) for the retail system exceeds 10 percent (see Exhibit 2-45 for details).

Despite not setting a leak detection benchmark in the 2010 WMCP, the bureau has conducted leak detection for more than 15 years, even when leakage rates were estimated to be below 10 percent. The bureau’s leak detection survey team consists of two full-time employees who survey 125,000 feet of mains each month with a goal to survey the entire service area every seven years. This team uses acoustic methods to pinpoint non-visible leaks in the system. When leaks are detected, they are submitted for repair.

In addition to these proactive system surveys, the leak detection crew provides leak locating services to the bureau’s field crews. The leak detection crew responds to leak survey requests within 24 hours.

3.1.6 Progress report: Public education OAR language from 2010: A public education program to encourage efficient water use and the use of low water use landscaping that includes regular communication of the supplier’s water conservation activities and schedule to customers.

The bureau has developed extensive education and outreach materials. See current materials at portlandoregon.gov/water/efficiency.

Website 2010 benchmark: Continue to maintain and update City of Portland website with current conservation information for both residential and commercial customers.

2020 status update: The bureau continues to have an active water efficiency section on its website. The site is updated regularly to keep up with current programs. Water efficiency messages are also published monthly on the bureau’s blog and social media outlets. Since the 2015 update, the bureau has joined Instagram and Nextdoor.

Regional Water Providers Consortium electronic communications 2010 benchmark: Support ongoing development of Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) newsletter and other web communications.

2020 status update: The bureau’s Water Efficiency program continues to actively work with the RWPC. The RWPC sends a quarterly email newsletter to a public audience and has an active social media presence.

82 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Public presentations 2010 benchmark: Make 10 public presentations about water conservation in Portland each year.

2020 status update: In-person presentations are a component of public education efforts of the bureau’s Efficiency program. However, staff resources have shifted toward community events, social media, and technical and financial assistance program management. Exhibit 3-3 shows presentations for FY 2014–15 through FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-3. Presentations for FY 2014–15 through FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Internal presentations 3 3 2 2 1 External presentations 5 6 3 7 10 Total presentations 8 9 5 9 11

Bill insert 2010 benchmark: Develop annual bill insert to be included in bills from June through August. The insert will include information on reducing outdoor water use by changing behaviors and providing education on new technologies.

2020 status update: The bureau continues to use a summer bill insert each year to promote outdoor water efficiency messages in every sewer/stormwater/water bill.

Summer media campaign through the Regional Water Providers Consortium 2010 benchmark: Continue to provide input into the RWPC media campaign each spring to be broadcast during the summer with an outdoor watering focus. Continue to use Portland Area Radio Council and partner with the RWPC when appropriate.

2020 status update: The bureau continues to participate in the RWPC annual media campaign, which has broadened to include indoor water conservation messages as well as outdoor messages. Outreach has expanded to include messaging in Spanish. The Portland Area Radio Council no longer exists.

Water system tours 2010 benchmark: Deliver approximately 24 water source tours to more than 550 students and 26 tours to other groups. The bureau will continue to integrate water conservation information on each tour.

2020 status update: The bureau continues to offer water source and system tours to adult and school groups. Water conservation is a component of each of these tours. Exhibit 3-4 shows water source and system tours for FY 2014–15 to 2018–19.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 83 Exhibit 3-4. Water source and system tours for FY 2014–15 to 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Adult tours 37 36 35 37 27 Adult participants 714 775 729 701 534 K–12 school tours 39 42 53 50 66 Student participants 1,194 1,250 1,622 1,460 1,842 Total tours 76 78 88 87 93 Total participants 1,908 2,025 2,351 2,161 2,376

School assemblies 2010 benchmark: Deliver 20 water conservation assembly programs per year to schools within the bureau’s service area, both public and private.

2020 status update: The bureau sponsors an average of 20 youth education assemblies each year. The bureau has contracts with local theater and educational groups to provide these services. In FY 2016–17, the bureau began working with three small theater companies to develop new school assembly programs. During this time, fewer than 20 shows were performed. Exhibit 3-5 shows assemblies performed from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-5. Assemblies performed from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Assembly shows 20 20 19 7 32

Targeted outreach to low-income customers: WaterSmart 2010 benchmark: Develop partnerships to reach 1,000 low-income customers each year on water conservation.

2020 status update: From 2007 to 2015, the bureau provided Home Water Assessments to low-income residential customers in partnership with the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO). This program reached an average of 136 low-income and other single-family customers each year but ended in 2015 when the ETO shifted resources.

In 2016, the bureau launched a three-year pilot project to provide low-income customers enrolled in the City’s bill discount program with customized messages and tips about using water wisely. This program used WaterSmart software to provide nearly 3,500 low-income customers with quarterly home water reports and an online portal. The pilot was expanded in 2018 after the bureau and its contractor completed a randomized control trial that showed water savings and customer satisfaction increases. The bureau is currently offering this service to all customers enrolled in the bill discount program.

84 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU The bureau also participates in Fix-It Fairs, events organized by the City specifically for low-income residents. The bureau staffs a booth and teaches workshops at three Fix-It Fairs each year, interacting with an average of 890 Fix-It Fair attendees annually.

Community outreach: Community events 2010 benchmark: Staff booths at four summer community events each summer – to reach 1,000 customers with conservation messages.

2020 status update: Until 2016, the bureau partnered with other city agencies at community events to provide a cohesive voice from the various city programs fostering sustainable lifestyles. The group was called Your Sustainable City and participated in homeowner fairs, neighborhood events, and Sunday Parkways. Staff participated in an average of five events each year, reaching an average of 807 people annually with conservation messages.

In the summer of 2016, the bureau chose to attend events independently of Your Sustainable City to be able to provide more specific water-related information. The bureau consistently reaches over 1,500 people through conversations at events each year. The events coordination team developed event selection criteria to formalize prioritization of events based on equity goals and now offers language interpretation or language- and culture-specific staffing at select events. Exhibit 3-6 shows events attended and contacts at those events for FY 2014–15 through FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-6. Events attended and contacts at those events for FY 2014–15 through FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Events attended 14 16 12 21 19 Contacts 2,838 2,974 1,622 2,977 2,993

3.1.7 Progress report: Leak repair program OAR language from 2010: A system-wide leak repair program or line replacement to reduce system leakage to 15 percent, and if the reduction of system leakage to 15 percent is found to be feasible and appropriate, to reduce system leakage to 10 percent.

2010 benchmark: No benchmark was identified.

2020 status update: No benchmark was set in 2010. When the 2010 WMCP was prepared, the bureau was not using the AWWA M36 water auditing methodology, and the bureau did not believe its leakage rate was above 10 percent. Since that time, the bureau started using the M36 methodology for calculating water loss, including real loss (leakage). The M36 methodology is a more sensitive and accurate method for calculating water loss than the methods the bureau was using. Currently the calculated real loss (leakage rate) for the retail system exceeds 10 percent, but is below 15 percent (see Exhibit 2-45 for details). In addition to the leak detection program described earlier in this chapter, the bureau has a strong resource commitment to leak repair response.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 85 Leak repair In an average year, the bureau responds to 182 main breaks. The bureau’s current approach to leak repair is to respond to leaks within two hours of when they were reported. Most leaks are repaired that same day. If a leak is not causing damage to people or property and requires locates, traffic control, engineering input, or public involvement, it may require additional time to be repaired. Exhibit 2-46 lists the number of main breaks in recent years.

Line replacement The bureau’s asset management strategy for line replacement balances cost, customer inter- ruption, risk to water quality, and community health. If a conduit or transmission main is in poor condition, the bureau will replace it, but whenever possible, the bureau will extend the life of the asset until it is no longer cost effective to do so.

The bureau applies the same principles to its 186,000 service lines. In 2019, the bureau completed a service line update to its Asset Management Plan. Apart from sensitive or large customer service lines, the bureau only replaces a line once it has failed or is identified as having severe degradation. On average, the bureau has a goal of replacing 400 lines per year.

3.1.8 Progress report: Rechnical and financial assistance programs OAR language from 2010: Technical and financial assistance programs to encourage and aid residential, commercial and industrial customers in implementation of conservation measures.

Sustainability at Work 2010 benchmark: One-stop Shop–partnership with the City’s Office of Sustainable Development (OSD). Receive 12 referrals/year.

2020 status update: The bureau continues to partner with the Sustainability at Work (SAW) program through the City’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. SAW works with more than 800 Portland-based businesses each year on multiple resource conservation efforts, and water efficiency is included on their checklist. SAW staff are trained to identify basic water-saving opportunities and refer businesses with more complicated water efficiency needs to the bureau’s Water Efficiency team. Of the customers SAW refers to the bureau, an average of four per year contact the program and receive advanced assistance. This is less than the goal of 12 set in 2010 in large part because SAW staff are trained to handle many basic water efficiency inquiries and are able to provide the support needed. Exhibit 3-7 shows the number of referrals from FY 2014–15 to 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-7. Referrals from FY 2014–15 to 2018-19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–27 2017–18 2018–19 Number of referrals 4 5 4 4 4

86 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Energy Trust partnership 2010 benchmark: Energy Trust Home Assessment - 100 assessments each year by end of program (pilot program).

2020 status update: The bureau did not meet this goal. In 2015, the ETO discontinued its program to provide home energy assessments to homeowners. Without their partnership, delivering home water assessments to residential customers became too costly to continue. The bureau and the ETO continue to identify opportunities for future collaboration.

Weekly watering number 2010 benchmark: RWPC provision of evapotranspiration (ET) data for customers - ET data provided weekly during summer watering season.

2020 status update: The RWPC continues to offer weekly ET data to interested customers. This weekly watering number can be found at regionalh2o.org/weekly-watering-number.

Technical assistance for industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities 2010 benchmark: Bureau-provided technical assistance to industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI) accounts - 40 site visits each year; provide written reports to customers when needed.

2020 status update: The bureau provides facility surveys to ICI facilities as well as to large multifamily properties. Exhibit 3-8 shows ICI and multifamily site visits from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-8. ICI and multifamily site visits from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Site visits 69 58 43 40 47

Pilot projects 2010 benchmark: Pilot Projects to test new technologies to share with customers - 1 pilot project each year.

2020 status update: The bureau pilot tested two new technologies since 2010: a soil moisture sensor and a cellular meter reading technology. The bureau did not have staff time to manage one pilot test of a new technology each year and found that national organizations like the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Water Research Foundation, and AWWA were already pilot testing new technology. Below is a summary of the two pilot tests that were completed.

Soil moisture pilot project In 2015, the bureau completed a two-year pilot project testing the efficiency of soil moisture

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 87 sensors. Seven commercial customers participated (one for only one season). Each participant received a landscape survey to see if their irrigation systems met minimum performance requirements to participate, then were given soil moisture sensors to be installed at their site. After two seasons, past water use data were used to develop a baseline for pre-test to account for weather variations. The pilot showed an average savings of approximately 27 percent.

Badger Beacon cellular meter reading pilot In 2016, the bureau launched a pilot project to research and test the installation and accuracy of Badger Orion cellular meter reading technology. Phase I of the pilot included installation of 51 cellular meter transmitters on a variety of commercial customer meters. The technology was found to be accurate, easy to install, and valuable to customers. In 2017, the bureau began adding these devices to wholesale meters that were not already linked to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The Water Efficiency team and the Customer Service group are working to determine next steps for using this technology.

Public workshops 2010 benchmark: Educational Workshops - 2 workshops each year.

2020 status update: The bureau offers three Do-It-Yourself Fixture Repair Workshops at City Fix-It Fairs each year. In FY 2018–19, the bureau began partnering with the Rebuilding Center to offer 20 home plumbing workshops each year.

Weather-based irrigation rebates 2010 benchmark: Rebates for weather-based irrigation controllers/equipment – targeted commercial and residential large water users.

2020 status update: In 2013, the bureau began offering rebates for WaterSense-labeled irrigation controllers and multi-stream rotating nozzles. Exhibit 3-9 shows outdoor rebates for FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-9. Outdoor rebates for FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Single-family residential controller rebates 8 22 58 54 78 Multifamily controller rebates 1 1 7 3 0 Commercial controller rebates 2 1 2 0 0 Single-family multi-stream rotating nozzle rebates 205 274 343 69 377 Multifamily multi-stream rotating nozzle rebates 124 19 0 96 0 Commercial multi-stream rotating nozzle rebates 460 154 0 50 24

88 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 3.1.9 Progress report: Retrofit/replacement of inefficient fixtures OAR language from 2010: Supplier financed retrofitting or replacement of existing inefficient water using fixtures, including distribution of residential conservation kits and rebates for customer investments in water conservation.

2010 benchmark: Distribution of 20,000 conservation devices per year: toilet displacement bags; fill-cycle diverters; 1.0-gallon per minute (gpm) bathroom and 1.5-gpm kitchen faucet aerators (0.5-gpm bathroom aerators for multi-family and others who request); 1.5-gpm showerheads; 5-minute shower timers; other devices that become available.

2020 status update: The bureau helps customers replace inefficient fixtures by providing free water efficiency devices to all customer classes. The bureau also offers rebates and incentives to qualifying customers.

Water efficiency device distribution The bureau distributed water efficiency devices at community events, in kits that customers could pick up at the customer service walk-in center, and through an online order form. In FY 2012–13, the bureau shifted resources from device distribution to prioritize toilet rebates. Kits were no longer available to order online; instead, customers were referred to the Energy Trust of Oregon to order kits. This resulted in a reduction of the number of devices given away. In FY 2018–19, the bureau was able to shift resources back to kits through online order forms again, and numbers increased. Exhibit 3-10 shows devices distributed from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19 by type of distribution: to single-family residential customers (SFR); multifamily residential customers (MFR); customers participating in the City's bill discount program; industrial, commercial, and institutional customers (ICI); and people attending events.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 89 Exhibit 3-10. Devices distributed from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19 - FY and customer FY and customer class timers Shower Showerheads aerators Kitchen 1.5 gpm bath aerators 1.0 gpm bath aerators fill cycle Toilet diverters leak detec Toilet tion tablets water Home audit kit Outdoor hose nozzle Pre-rinse spray valve Totals 2014–15 8,795 SFR MFR 4241 631 432 834 0 460 427 161 38 0 3,407 Bill discount ICI 231 183 57 319 355 211 689 0 0 9 2,054 Events 1,407 70 573 534 0 245 385 120 0 0 3,334 2015–16 6,732 SFR 281 181 190 253 15 239 203 85 29 0 1,476 MFR 26 385 336 288 40 58 186 1 1 0 1,321 Bill discount 26 26 18 33 0 25 13 1 7 0 149 ICI 0 25 52 35 100 24 125 4 0 11 376 Events 1,590 254 467 440 0 138 481 32 8 0 3,410 2016–17 5,165 SFR 161 412 158 190 23 178 192 30 3 0 1,347 MFR 44 47 46 81 0 30 228 0 0 0 476 Bill discount 13 14 12 16 1 12 13 1 0 0 82 ICI 55 15 30 33 147 16 74 0 0 5 375 Events 462 238 545 695 0 205 610 120 10 0 2,885 2017–18 11,342 SFR 397 421 360 540 3 479 459 141 23 0 2,823 MFR 48 76 63 113 2 155 422 3 0 0 882 Bill discount 9 11 7 10 0 9 9 1 6 0 62 ICI 0 47 10 49 20 42 101 12 0 10 291 Events 1,948 322 1,914 1,671 0 348 1,042 39 0 0 7,284 2018–19 16,698 SFR 696 737 494 931 6 858 926 353 82 0 5,083 MFR 25 75 56 63 0 47 444 5 20 0 735 Bill discount 136 147 135 141 0 142 150 6 31 0 888 ICI 22 124 93 115 115 36 100 80 1 1 687 Events 2,489 405 1,733 1,982 0 1,063 1,596 13 24 0 9,305

1 In FY 2014–15, devices for SFR, MFR, and bill discount customers were tracked as one category.

90 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Toilet replacement for income-qualified customers 2010 benchmark: 100 low-income toilet replacements per year.

2020 status update: The bureau has two programs that result in toilet replacement for income-qualified customers. The first is an enhanced rebate and the second is direct toilet replacement through our Fixture Repair and Replacement Program.

Enhanced rebates Since 2009, the bureau has offered an enhanced toilet rebate for customers enrolled in its bill discount program. These customers can get $100 rebate per toilet (customers not in the bill discount program can get a $50 rebate). Individual customers can apply for this rebate, and the bureau also partners with community organizations like REACH Community Development Corporation to provide rebates to partner organizations that serve residents with low incomes.

Fixture repair and replacement program for income-qualified customers In addition to the rebate, the bureau directly replaces toilets for income-qualified customers through a partnership with Multnomah County’s Weatherization Program. The Fixture Repair and Replacement Program provides income-qualified homeowners in the bureau’s service area with free home plumbing repairs and fixture replacement. Toilets are one of the primary fixtures replaced through this program.

On average, the bureau has not met the target to replace 100 toilets for low-income customers each year. Exhibit 3-11 shows toilet replacements for income-qualified customers from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

A rebate program is likely not the most effective way to do this work. Low-income customers often cannot pay up front to purchase and pay for the installation of toilets. Toilet replacement through the Fixture Repair and Replacement Program is effective but expensive. This program also currently serves customers with leaks or other more urgent water issues before customers seeking toilet replacements.

Exhibit 3-11. Toilet replacements for income-qualified customers from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Toilets replaced through 17 32 32 31 35 enhanced rebates Toilets replaced through Fixture Repair and 69 53 78 61 69 Replacement Program Total toilets replaced for 86 88 110 92 104 income-qualified customers

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 91 3.1.10 Progress report: Rate structure/billing practices OAR language from 2010: Adoption of rate structures, billing schedules, and other associated programs that support and encourage water conservation.

2010 benchmark: Portland will retain a single consumption-based rate for five years during which a study of different conservation rate structures will be conducted. Any changes will be enacted and reported upon at the 5-year benchmark. The rate structure study will be completed and recommendations for the future rate structure for the Portland retail service area will be made within 5 years of the Final Orders approving the WMCP.

2020 status update: The bureau completed a conservation rate structure study in June 2013. The study results indicated that changes in Portland’s water rate structure were unlikely to produce significant additional reductions in water use by Portland customers. Based on the study results, the bureau chose not to modify the water rate structure. This was reported in the bureau’s 2015 progress report, and no additional benchmark was set after the 2015 report.

3.1.11 Progress report: Reuse, recycling, nonpotable opportunities OAR language from 2010: Water reuse, recycling, and nonpotable water opportunities.

Green Investment Fund 2010 benchmark: Fund and review Green Investment Fund projects, in partnership with the City’s OSD, for commercial and residential projects that incorporate water reuse. Track water use reduction projects, which include water reuse.

2020 status update: This program was ended by its organizer in 2010. This information was reported in the 2015 progress report. No additional benchmark was set at that time.

Water reuse education 2010 benchmark: Work with citywide team to develop educational materials about water reuse for distribution and web posting by FY 2007–08.

2020 status update: In 2008, Water Efficiency staff facilitated a committee of City staff working on rainwater harvesting issues. That committee developed a brochure for the general public called Resources for Rainwater Harvesting. Water Efficiency staff did not develop materials for other forms of water reuse because it uses materials developed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The bureau did, however, host a workshop on gray- water use in 2010. This information was reported in the 2015 progress report. No additional benchmark was set at that time.

Water reuse pilot projects 2010 benchmark: Pilot projects to test potential new technologies that can reuse water in various customer settings to reduce peak-season water use. 1 pilot test of reuse technology in 5 years.

92 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2020 status update: Water Efficiency staff developed a condensate recovery system in the Portland Building to use condensate for cooling tower make-up water in the summer. The pilot project did not save as much water as engineering estimates projected it would, but the permitting process was set for those who want to consider installing such a project in Portland in the future. This information was reported in the 2015 progress report. No additional benchmark was set at that time.

In addition, the bureau has been working with Portland Parks & Recreation staff to determine whether splash pad water can be reused for irrigation. A pilot project of this type would allow for the reuse of single-pass water for irrigation. As of late 2019, PP&R had not been able to identify a suitable site for pilot testing.

3.1.12 Progress report: Other proposed conservation measures OAR language from 2010: Any other conservation measures identified by the water supplier that would improve water use efficiency.

2010 benchmark: Update of the wholesale customers’ Conservation Plans and estimated water savings will be done by 2014 under the specifications in Section 13 of the wholesale contracts. Reports on implementation of Conservation Plans are required annually.

2020 status update: With about 40 percent of the City’s water sold to communities outside Portland, the bureau believes it is important to partner with wholesale customers on water efficiency.

In 2014, all but the three smallest wholesale utilities provided five-year water savings estimates. Each utility that reported data had reductions in water use over the five years: systemwide reductions ranged from 7.6 to 18.2 percent and residential per capita reductions ranged from 7.8 to 13.7 percent. After 2014, the bureau did not require the wholesalers to report estimated water savings from their programs. That level of analysis is difficult for small providers, and the trends toward efficient water use were sufficient to demonstrate responsible water use. 3.2 Water use measurement and reporting program OAR 690-086-0150(2): A description of the water supplier’s water use measurement and reporting program and a statement that the program complies with the measurement standards in OAR Chapter 690, Division 85, that a time extension or waiver has been granted, or that the standards are not applicable.

To meet the requirements of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 537.099, the bureau submits an annual Water Use Report to the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) using OWRD's online reporting tool. In October of each year, output data for the previous water year are taken by individual well or surface source and imported into a spreadsheet for monthly discharge computations. This spreadsheet is the source for the input into OWRD’s online water use reporting database.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 93 All bureau wells are equipped with a flow meter at the well head, which is used for pipe flow measurements as prescribed in OAR 690-085-0150(5). The flow meters are installed and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications and exceed the relative accuracy requirements of ±15 percent as set by OWRD. Flow meter discharge data are transmitted via SCADA system to several central monitoring computer servers for viewing, storing, and evaluating well output by individual well, a combination of wells, or all wells combined.

For the surface waters of the Bull Run River, water is collected in a diversion pool at the base of Dam 2 (Headworks) and diverted into one or more of three large conduits for transmission to Portland. Inside each of the conduits, an electronic multi-path, ultrasonic flow meter has been installed to meet the requirements of OAR 690-085-0150(5). The conduit flow meters have been installed and are maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications and exceed the relative accuracy requirements of ±15 percent as set by OWRD. The flow meter discharge data are transmitted via the SCADA system to several central monitoring computer servers for viewing, storing, and evaluating by individual conduit. 3.3 Other conservation measures currently implemented OAR 690-086-0150(3): A description of other conservation measures, if any, currently implemented by the water supplier, including any measures required under water supply contracts.

Since the 2010 WMCP was published, the bureau has continued to develop programs and partnerships to support the benchmarks identified in the WMCP. Below is a summary of other programs the bureau offers.

Custom incentives for commercial customers In 2012, the bureau began to offer commercial customers incentives for water efficiency projects. Since then, a wide variety of projects has been funded, including bottling line improvements, water-cooled equipment upgrades, kitchen equipment improvements, and recycling systems.

Ice machine incentives In 2019, the bureau began offering incentives for replacing water-cooled ice machines with Energy Star-rated air-cooled models. As of late 2019, the bureau had not received any applica- tions for this rebate.

Toilet and urinal rebates Since 2009, the bureau has provided toilet and urinal rebates for WaterSense-labeled fixtures. Applicants must recycle their old toilet or urinal to receive the rebate. Rebates are $50 per fixture, with a limit of two for single-family accounts and fifty for multifamily and commercial accounts. Exhibit 3-12 shows toilet and urinal incentives from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

94 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Exhibit 3-12. Toilet and urinal incentives for FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Single-family toilet and 723 811 610 572 623 urinal rebates Multifamily toilet and urinal 110 155 59 63 27 rebates Commercial toilet and urinal 37 15 111 19 32 rebates Total toilet and urinal 870 981 780 654 682 rebates

Landscape irrigation site assessments At the end of FY 2015–16, the bureau began working with an irrigation contractor to provide landscape surveys to customers who have automatic irrigation systems. The program serves residential customers and a small number of commercial customers. The goal of the program was to share new outdoor efficiency technologies and practices with customers. Assessments included a site visit and follow-up report. Thirty-one site visits were completed over three years. The contract with the landscape professional ended in 2019, and program evaluation is underway. The bureau continues to research effective ways to provide landscape water efficiency programs.

Energy Trust of Oregon multifamily submeter pilot In 2015, the bureau and the ETO launched a multifamily water submetering retrofit pilot program. The two-year pilot targeted owners of market-rate multifamily properties and homeowners’ associations within the bureau’s service area. The pilot intended to provide incentives for the submetering of approximately 300 dwelling units across multiple buildings that previously had a single water meter per building. The incentive was approximately $300 per submeter, which is roughly half of the total submetering cost. The rebate cost was split between the bureau and the ETO. The pilot recruitment proved difficult. Only properties with individual water heating were eligible for the pilot, and this reduced the pool of potential candidates. The pilot enrolled one market-rate property and one low-income property. This project is no longer recruiting participants. Water and energy savings evaluation will be completed by spring 2020.

SmartDrips Since 2006, the bureau has worked with the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to deliver free water efficiency materials and resources to Portlanders—by bike. PBOT’s SmartTrips program is designed to reach Portlanders with messages about alternative ways to travel. The bureau added SmartDrips messaging about Portland’s water and efficiency information and devices. Since 2006, the SmartDrips program has reached 3,000–6,000 Portlanders each year. This program continues to be a cost-effective way to reach a wide range of customers, including people who do not hold accounts with the bureau.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 95 Hazelwood demonstration garden The Hazelwood water-wise demonstration garden was established in 2007 to showcase water-efficient plants, different types of mulch, and a drip irrigation system with a soil moisture sensor controller. The garden is maintained regularly and is heavily used by the neighborhood and visitors to the neighborhood office that shares the site.

Friends of Outdoor School partnership The bureau sponsors Outdoor School programs for students who live in the bureau's service area. Each year, 4,500 middle school and 1,000 high school students attend Outdoor School, where they learn and teach about natural sciences, including water. Water efficiency and water cycle messages are shared during field study, mealtimes, and cleanup.

ReBuilding Center partnership In 2019, the bureau began working with the ReBuilding Center to provide low-cost home plumbing repair classes. The center teaches about two classes per month for 15–20 people.

Portland Parks & Recreation partnerships The bureau has been partnering with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) for more than a decade. Currently the bureau is working with PP&R to improve its overall water efficiency by 20 percent. The bureau funds equipment upgrades and provides data analysis and review. PP&R is one of the largest water users in the city, and this partnership is a priority.

Children’s Clean Water Festival The bureau is a sponsor of the Children’s Clean Water Festival, and Water Efficiency staff serve on the event planning committee every year. This festival is held each spring at a local college campus. Over 1,000 fourth-grade students attend the event each year, including approximately 300 students from the bureau’s service area.

Fixture repair and replacement for income-qualified customers The bureau works with Multnomah County’s Weatherization Program to provide income-qualified homeowners in the service area free home plumbing repairs and fixture replacement. The bureau funds the repair of underground leaks and fixture leaks, and the replacement of inefficient or broken toilets, faucets, and showerheads. Until 2019, this program was managed by the Customer Service group of the bureau. The Water Efficiency group started managing this program in 2019. Exhibit 3-13 shows fixtures repaired and customers served through this program from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19.

Exhibit 3-13. Fixtures repaired and customers served from FY 2014–15 to FY 2018–19

FY 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 Fixtures repaired 114 64 117 89 128 Customers served 66 42 77 51 69

96 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 3.4 Required conservation measures for 2020–2025 OAR 690-086-0150(4): A description of the specific activities, along with a schedule that establishes five-year Benchmarks, for implementation of each of the following conservation measures that are required of all Municipal Water Suppliers.

This subsection describes specific conservation activities related to the annual water audit; metering; meter testing and maintenance; rate structure; and public education. This subsection also includes a schedule that establishes five-year benchmarks for each of these activities.

These measures reflect the Efficiency Program’s efforts to use data to better understand how its programs benefit and burden communities of color. The Efficiency Program continues to study the equity implications of its work and articulates some of its shifting priorities here.

3.4.1 Annual water audit OAR 690-086-0150(4a): An annual Water Audit that includes a systematic and documented methodology for estimating any un-metered authorized and unauthorized uses, and an analysis of the water supplier’s own water use to identify alternatives to increase efficiency.

In 2019, the bureau created an internal position focused on preparing an annual audit and facilitating implementation of recommendations from previous audits. The creation of this position built on audits the bureau had performed with Black & Veatch starting in 2015.

The bureau is actively taking steps to produce the data necessary to develop long-term water loss strategies and will prioritize measures that will likely have the biggest returns on investment. The bureau collated recommendations from past audits, which resulted in a list of 75 potential measures to reduce water loss. Of these recommendations, 17 have been completed and 12 are either partially complete or in progress. The remaining 46 recommendations will be researched and prioritized as part of the bureau’s Water Loss Action Plan, which will be submitted to the state as described in subsection 3.4.5.

The audit allows the bureau to analyze its own water uses, which are characterized as “authorized consumption” in the audit. These authorized uses highlight opportunities for the bureau to review how it is using water and make efficiency improvements where appropriate. The bureau has been active in improving efficiency at its facilities and will examine additional opportunities for efficiency in its practices. These actions will be identified as part of the Water Loss Action Plan.

2025 benchmark: Perform annual water audit using AWWA M36 methodology.

2025 benchmark: Analyze authorized uses and identify opportunities for increased efficiency.

3.4.2 Full metering of system OAR 690-086-0150(4b): If the system is not fully metered, a program to install meters on all

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 97 un-metered Water Service Connections. The program shall start immediately after the plan is approved and shall identify the number of meters to be installed each year with full Metering completed within five years of approval of the water management and conservation plan.

Retail and wholesale customers are fully metered. Portland City Code Section requires that all new customers be metered at the time of water service connection.

2025 benchmark: All service connections will be metered.

3.4.3 Meter testing and maintenance program OAR 690-086-0150(4c): A meter testing and maintenance program.

The bureau’s meter shop and instrument technicians oversee meter testing and maintenance, with input from asset management and water loss control programs. In 2010, the bureau built a new meter shop. The meter shop exceeds most water industry standards for testing equipment and facilities. The bureau has multiple classifications of meters with different benchmarks for each type. Specific benchmarks are described below.

Supply meters The bureau has seven water supply production meters at its primary water source in the Bull Run Watershed. New meters were installed in 2015, increasing the reliability and accuracy of production data. The bureau uses three ultrasonic in-pipe flowmeters (Cameron Caldon LEFM 880 Series) on the conduits downstream of the primary intake structure and another three of the same meter type downstream of Screenhouse 3. The bureau uses a seventh meter on the South Tower tunnel of Reservoir 2. The bureau has additional sets of meters at the Lusted Hill treatment facility and at Larson’s Intertie. These three sets of meters are monitored to ensure the accuracy of each measurement.

The bureau measures groundwater production with Accusonic ultrasonic meters at the groundwater pump station in the Columbia South Shore Well Field. The bureau also uses ultrasonic meters for individual wells.

Bureau staff check the electronics of all supply meters annually and confirm there are no faults or alarms. Supply meters have a 25-year life expectancy.

In 2027, the bureau will start operating a new water filtration plant. Given that the other production meters are not designed to be easily tested, this is a considerable opportunity to install production meters that allow for accuracy testing in addition to calibration. As the design phase for the new filtration plant begins, the bureau will consider installing a new set of testable production meters. This is a key recommendation from the Water Loss Report.

2025 benchmark: Monitor supply meters for errors and alarms. Calibrate meters annually.

98 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 2025 benchmark: Create a plan for installing a testable set of production meters at the new Bull Run filtration plant.

Wholesale meters The bureau has 57 meters serving its wholesale customers. These are mostly large meters, ranging in size from 1 to 24 inches. By contract with wholesale customers, the bureau tests active meter accuracy twice each year. If the wholesale customer chooses to activate a standby meter, the bureau will test the meter before use and follow wholesale meter protocols. In 2015, the bureau began installing Badger Beacon cellular transmitters on wholesale meters to access and share meter reads more easily. Any concerns about wholesale meters are a high priority for the meter shop and are typically addressed within one business day.

2025 benchmark: Test all active wholesale meters twice a year.

Large meters Approximately 57 percent of all large meters in the system are 1½- and 2-inch meters. Nearly all are positive displacement meters. A few piston-style meters are also in use. In 2012, the bureau began installing OMNI meters for meters three inches and larger. These meters can capture an encoded reading and a pulse output reading.

A large meter asset management plan was completed in FY 2015–16. The plan applied a consequence and likelihood of failure to each of the large meters. The resulting business risk-ex- posure influenced the testing, maintenance, and replacement schedule for each meter.

Large meters are tested, cleaned, and repaired in the field, and then tested again after repairs to ensure that the average accuracy rating is calibrated to as close to 100 percent as possible. AWWA standards allow for accuracy within ±3 percent.

2025 benchmarks: • Test 90 percent of high-consumption large meters (those larger than 3 inches and with 1,000 CCF per month) annually. • Test all large meters before installation to ensure accuracy from the start of use.

Small meters The bureau has 180,000 small mechanical meters (defined as one inch or smaller). The bureau has determined that field testing small meters is not cost effective. The bureau’s practice is to replace small meters when consumption on the meter reaches specific milestone measures of consumption: • 5⁄8-inch meters are replaced after 3,300 CCF pass through the meter. • ¾-inch meters are replaced after 4,400 CCF. • 1-inch meters are replaced after 5,500 CCF.

The bureau also carefully monitors meter reading data for anomalies, which can indicate that a

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 99 meter is not functioning optimally.

2025 benchmark: Replace 5,400 small mechanical meters annually based on milestone measures of consumption: • 5⁄8-inch meters: after 3,300 CCF • ¾-inch meters: after 4,400 CCF • 1-inch meters: after 5,500 CCF

3.4.4 Rate structure OAR 690-086-0150(4d): A rate structure under which customers’ bills are based, at least in part, on the quantity of water metered at the service connections.

The bureau has a commodity and base rate billing structure. The bureau bills customers based on water used, as measured by CCF. The cost per CCF for FY 2019–20 is $5.252. There is also a base charge, which generally covers the cost of reading and inspecting meters, servicing customer accounts, and billing. The bureau bills customer on a 30-day, 60-day, or 90-day basis. The base charge is the same for every bill regardless of billing period length: 90-day bills are prorated at $0.5294 per day; 60-day bills are prorated at $0.7942 per day; and 30-day bills are prorated at $1.5883 per day.

The bureau provides billing services for the City’s stormwater and sewer functions in addition to its water services.

2025 benchmark: The bureau will continue to have a rate structure that uses the quantity of water metered as the basis for its bills.

3.4.5 Water loss management OAR 690-086-0150(4e): If the annual Water Audit indicates that the system’s Water Losses exceed 10 percent: (A) Within two years of approval of the water management and conservation plan, the water supplier shall provide a description and analysis identifying potential factors for the loss and selected actions for remedy; (B) If actions identified under subsection (A) do not result in the reduction of Water Losses to 10 percent or less, within five years of approval of the water management and conservation plan, the water supplier shall: (i) Develop and implement a regularly scheduled and systematic program to detect and repair leaks in the transmission and distribution system using methods and technology appropriate to the size and capabilities of the Municipal Water Supplier or a line replacement program detailing the size and length of pipe to be replaced each year; or, (ii) Develop and implement a water loss control program consistent with American Water Works Association’s standards.

The bureau conducts an annual water audit using the AWWA M36 methodology and audit software. Water loss control has been a rising priority for the bureau. In 2019, the bureau created a new position and hired a full-time water loss analyst. The goal of the position is to perform the annual audit and develop and coordinate recommendations to reduce water loss.

100 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU The most recently completed audit, for FY 2017–18, indicated that the bureau’s water loss rate exceeds 10 percent.

The bureau’s water loss analyst will develop a Water Loss Action Plan, a strategic approach for reducing water loss to 10 percent or less. The bureau has relatively recently begun work to reduce water loss, and it is premature to describe benchmarks for specific actions.

In the process of developing the Action Plan, the bureau will analyze existing leak detection and real loss efforts. The bureau will review and evaluate the existing methodology of the internal two-person leak detection crew charged with monitoring the water system for leaks. The bureau will also investigate potential ways to supplement its manual leak detection efforts and has requested funding to perform a satellite leak detection pilot. In addition, the bureau will determine a strategy to increase the number of distribution main surveys and replacements. Recommendations from past water audits will form the basis for the Water Loss Action Plan.

2025 benchmark: By May 2022, prepare and submit to the state a description and analysis identifying potential factors for water loss and selected actions for remedy. Development of this Water Loss Action Plan will begin in fall 2020.

3.4.6 Public education OAR 690-086-0150(4f): A public education program commensurate to the size of the Municipal Water Supplier to encourage efficient indoor and outdoor water use that includes regular communication of the supplier’s water conservation activities and schedule to customers.

The bureau is committed to providing programs and services that educate customers about the importance of water efficiency. Portland maintains year-round programs, with an emphasis on reducing summer peak use, supporting small business, and supporting low-income customers.

Digital communication The bureau encourages conservation on a detailed webpage and through social media. This type of communication is essential for reaching customers in an increasingly digital world. The Efficiency team posts to social media twice each month (on average), with increased frequency in the irrigation season and around Fix a Leak Week.

2025 benchmark: Continue to develop an annual digital communications strategy for sharing water conservation messages and opportunities with residential and commercial customers through an active digital presence (website and social media).

Regional Water Providers Consortium The bureau is an active member of the Regional Water Providers Consortium. The Consortium provides consistent regional messaging about water efficiency through a television, radio, print, and digital/social media campaign. Over the last few years, the Consortium has created a Spanish-language media campaign.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 101 2025 benchmark: Continue to actively participate in the development of regional conservation communications and education programs through the RWPC. Past communications efforts have included a newsletter; digital communications; radio, television, and social media campaigns; and publication of the weekly watering number.

Customer bill messaging The bureau publishes four bill inserts each year. Typically, the summer insert is dedicated to outdoor water efficiency messages. While the bureau is shifting to digital platforms for much of its communication, bill inserts are still believed to be an effective tool for reaching customers.

2025 benchmark: Continue to develop and publish an outdoor water efficiency-focused bill insert each year.

Community outreach The bureau conducts customer outreach by participating in community events, providing community workshops, leading tours of the Bull Run Watershed, and offering presentations. The bureau will continue to prioritize efforts with immigrant communities and communities of color. Community outreach can be time- and resource-intensive. Water Efficiency staff work with other staff from the bureau’s water quality and affordability teams to share outreach work. The bureau has also worked with local community organizations to partner to offer strong programs.

2025 benchmark: Continue to engage directly in person with customers about water efficiency at community events, during watershed tours, through community workshops, and in presentations.

School assembly programs The bureau has offered water efficiency school assembly programs for almost twenty years. These programs are designed to educate early elementary students about their water sources, water quality, and why saving water is important. While the programs are generally highly reviewed by participating teachers, the bureau has not evaluated the overall impact of these efforts. Before committing to an additional benchmark for school assembly programs, the bureau plans to do a program evaluation.

2025 benchmark: Continue the school assembly program through the end of contract terms (June 30, 2021). Evaluate the school assembly program and determine if the program should be modified, continued, or redeveloped.

Bull Run Watershed tours The bureau hosts Bull Run Watershed tours for students, community members, city employees, and professionals throughout the region. The importance of water efficiency is highlighted as part of the standard content addressing natural resource protection, seasonal water supply

102 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU planning, future water supply planning, and infrastructure/asset planning, operations, and maintenance. These tours have been coordinated through the bureau’s Education Program since the mid-1990s. Demand for tours continues to increase with time. The bureau currently provides tours to about 2,500 individuals per year.

2025 benchmark: Continue to deliver Bull Run Watershed tours.

Children’s Clean Water Festival The bureau is a long-time sponsor and organizer of the Children’s Clean Water Festival. The bureau also provides presentations and staff support on the day of the festival. This regional youth education event reaches over 1,400 fourth-grade students region-wide each year.

2025 benchmark: Continue to fund and support the annual Children’s Clean Water Festival.

Home water reports In 2016, the bureau launched a three-year pilot project to provide low-income customers enrolled in the City’s bill discount program with customized messages and tips about using water wisely. This program used WaterSmart software to provide nearly 3,500 low-income customers with quarterly home water reports and an online portal. The pilot was expanded in 2018 after the bureau and its contractor completed a randomized control trial which showed water savings and increased customer satisfaction. The bureau is currently offering this service to all customers enrolled in the bill discount program. Home water reports are an effective water conservation strategy, reducing customer water use by approximately one percent. The bureau will continue to offer the program to low-income customers and will continually evaluate ways to include water use benchmarking in customer communications.

2025 benchmark: Consider expansion of home water report customer communication tool that demonstrates how individual water use compares to others’ and offers customized tips.

Commercial communication strategy The bureau has strong technical assistance programs for commercial customers, but less-developed communication and education offerings. The bureau will assess the need for water efficiency education for commercial customers and develop an education strategy, which could include workshops, newsletter, educational mailings, and presentations at industry-specific conferences or events.

2025 benchmark: Develop program communication and marketing strategy for commercial customers tying bureau equity goals to program delivery. Evaluate program delivery levels with available staffing resources.

Multifamily communication strategy The bureau has not previously developed communication and education strategies for the multifamily sector. As patterns of development in Portland continue to shift toward increased

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 103 density and building more multifamily dwellings, the bureau needs to identify opportunities to educate tenants and multifamily property owners about water efficiency. The bureau will assess the need for water efficiency education to multifamily customers and develop an education strategy, which could include workshops, newsletters, educational mailings, and presentations at industry-specific conferences or events.

2025 benchmark: Develop program communication and marketing strategy for multifamily customers tying bureau equity goals to program delivery. Evaluate program delivery levels with available staffing resources. 3.5 Enhanced conservation measures OAR 690-086-0150(5): If the Municipal Water Supplier serves a population greater than 1,000 and proposes to expand or initiate diversion of water under an Extended Permit for which resource issues have been identified under OAR 690-086-0140(5)(i), or if the Municipal Water Supplier serves a population greater than 7,500, a description of the specific activities, along with a schedule that establishes five-year Benchmarks, for implementation of each of the following measures; or documentation showing that implementation of the measures is neither feasible nor appropriate for ensuring the efficient use of water and the prevention of waste.

3.5.1 Technical and financial assistance programs (enhanced measure) OAR 690-086-0150(5a): Technical and financial assistance programs commensurate to the size of the Municipal Water Supplier to encourage and aid residential, commercial and industrial customers in implementation of conservation measures.

Since 1993, the bureau has managed a commercial and industrial-focused water efficiency program. The scope of the program and staffing resources have changed over time, but the focus of providing custom site surveys has remained consistent. The bureau has 20,100 commercial accounts and 12,600 multifamily accounts, which together consume nearly 60 percent of retail water. The bureau has two staff dedicated to working with these customers to provide technical assistance through consultation and site surveys. In addition to water savings, this program focus is part of the bureau’s commitment to supporting small businesses and a thriving local economy.

Commercial and multifamily efficiency consultations Bureau staff provide telephone and email consultations to over 75 customers each year. These typically involve a detailed analysis of water use billing records and discussion of leaks, fixture function, and equipment. These can also include data-logging of the meters to evaluate details of leaks or abnormal uses.

2025 benchmark: Provide telephone and email water efficiency consultations for commercial and large multifamily water use patterns, as requested by customers.

Commercial and multifamily site surveys Commercial customers can request on-site visits from water efficiency staff to evaluate

104 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU abnormal use or opportunities for water efficiency improvements. Bureau staff typically visit more than 50 sites each year.

2025 benchmark: Provide on-site water efficiency surveys to commercial and large multifamily customers.

Sustainability at Work support The bureau has partnered with the City of Portland’s Sustainability at Work (SAW) program to reach businesses with information about water efficiency opportunities. The bureau responds directly to customer referrals and provides funding, training, information, and water-saving devices to distribute to customers using their services.

2025 benchmark: Provide funding and an annual training for SAW staff. Track the number of referrals received from the SAW program.

Portland Parks & Recreation water efficiency Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) is one of the largest water users in the city. Much of their water consumption is used for summer irrigation and recreation. Partnering with PP&R is an important way to manage seasonal water efficiency. The bureau has been working with PP&R’s irrigation division for the last decade to support their water efficiency efforts. Past programs have included providing training for staff and access to data, and funding irrigation system improvements and tune-ups.

2025 benchmark: Continue to partner with City of Portland Parks & Recreation to provide technical and financial assistance focused on efficiency in irrigation and seasonal water use.

Water efficiency services for income-qualified customers The bureau is committed to working with low income customers to manage water and sewer bill costs. One of the ways customers can manage costs is by managing their water use. In the past the bureau has helped these customers through its outreach efforts, the Fixture Repair and Replacement Program, enhanced rebates, workshops, and the WaterSmart Home Water Report program.

2025 benchmark: Provide low-income customers with specialized water efficiency services, which could include leak and fixture repair assistance, enhanced rebates, water use data access, and conservation recommendations.

Landscape efficiency programs The bureau has offered landscape consultations, irrigation audits, outreach materials, the weekly watering number, garden tours, and the Hazelwood Water Efficiency Garden to encourage landscape watering efficiency. The effects of these programs have been difficult to measure. The bureau is working on a Landscape Program Plan to better understand how to maximize its limited resources to supporting landscape efficiency.

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 105 2025 benchmark: Continue to offer landscape assistance programs to improve water efficiency. Look for partnerships with other efficiency-minded entities, such as Master Gardeners, Oregon State University Extension, and East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District.

3.5.2 Supplier-financed retrofit or replacement of inefficient fixtures (enhanced measure) OAR 690-086-0150(5b): Supplier financed retrofitting or replacement of existing inefficient water using fixtures, including distribution of residential conservation kits and rebates for customer investments in water conservation.

Rebates and incentives are a significant way the bureau supports water efficiency improvements. The bureau is continuously looking for cost-effective ways to incentivize water efficiency improvements.

Rebates The bureau currently offers toilet, urinal, irrigation controller, multi-stream rotating nozzle, and commercial ice machine rebates. These rebates require the customer to purchase the items and apply for a bill credit (rebate) for the rebate amount.

2025 benchmark: Continue to provide rebates and incentives; continue to provide enhanced rebates for income-qualified residential customers. Evaluate water savings and market satu- ration for existing rebate and incentive programs and use the results to modify and develop appropriate rebates for the bureau. The bureau may consider rebates for washing machines, irrigation maintenance, water-efficient landscape design, drip irrigation, steamers, single-pass refrigeration, cooling tower alarms, cooling tower conductivity controllers, and cooling tower electronic floats.

Custom commercial incentives The bureau offers small incentives to commercial customers with water efficiency projects. The bureau gives priority to small businesses and nonprofit organizations. The bureau will continue to offer this program but is looking for ways to streamline the contracting process.

2025 benchmark: Continue to offer custom commercial water efficiency incentives.

Water-saving device distribution The bureau distributes free showerheads, aerators, leak detection tablets, and shower timers to any resident who requests them.

2025 benchmark: Continue to distribute water conservation devices through online/phone customized kit ordering, the customer service walk-in center, and community partnerships. Evaluate water savings for each item and adjust offerings.

106 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Water efficiency services for low-income customers The bureau offers outreach and technical assistance programs for low-income customers, including resources to retrofit or replace inefficient fixtures. The bureau currently operates a Water Leak Repair Program for income-qualified customers and provides enhanced rebates for customers enrolled in the bureau’s bill discount program. The bureau will continue these efforts and look for other opportunities to support low-income Portlanders.

2025 benchmark: Continue to provide water efficiency services tailored to income-qualified Portlanders. Continue to develop partnerships that support the bureau’s existing rebate and fixture repair programs.

3.5.3 Rate structure/billing practices for conservation (enhanced measure) OAR 690-086-0150(5c): Adoption of rate structures, billing schedules, and other associated programs that support and encourage water conservation.

The bureau last evaluated its rate structure in a 2013 Conservation Rate Study. Study results indicated that changes to Portland’s water rate structure were unlikely to produce significant additional reductions in water use. Rates have continued to increase since the rate study, and demand has continued to decrease. Water use for Portland retail service area residential customers is 50 gallons per person per day, well below the Environmental Protection Agency statistic of 88 gallons per person per day nationally. The bureau believes that the existing rate structure sends effective price signals to customers to conserve water.

Because the bureau bills most of its customers on a quarterly schedule, customers seeking to make informed choices about water efficiency have limited information about their water use. To combat this, the bureau publishes a bill insert about conservation in the summer quarter; however, the bureau seeks to do more. Over the next five years, the bureau intends to investigate the application of smart meters with a focus on values, benefits, and demographic impact. The bureau is actively researching implementation of smart metering technology, which would allow for more frequent billing, automated leak alerts, and, potentially, pressure and water quality information. This is a priority for the bureau.

2025 benchmark: Investigate the application and feasibility of implementing smart metering technology with a focus on equity and conservation benefits.

3.5.4 Water reuse, recycling, and nonpotable opportunities OAR 690-086-0150(5d): Water reuse, recycling, and nonpotable water opportunities.

The bureau does not currently believe it has supply limitations that warrant investment in municipal water reuse, recycling, or nonpotable source development. In its upcoming Supply System Master Plan, the bureau will describe future supply scenarios. Under certain scenarios, conservation may play a role in meeting demand, and water reuse is a potential conservation measure that could be employed under one of the scenarios. The bureau is planning a water

Section 3: Water Conservation WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 107 conservation study, described below, that will look at a suite of conservation programs and compare costs and water savings. However, at this time, the bureau does not have a way to evaluate benefits of investments in reuse systems. The bureau plans to research the costs and benefits of reuse to better understand and develop policies for appropriate investment. Bureau staff have requested funding for a study that will look at the benefits and costs to the municipal water and waste water systems associated with various reuse options.

2025 benchmark: Complete a study of the benefits and costs of water reuse. Study the benefits and impacts of a reuse program as it might fit into long-term supply needs.

3.5.5 Other proposed conservation measures (enhanced measure) OAR 690-086-0150(5e): Any other conservation measures identified by the water supplier that would improve water use efficiency.

The bureau has operated successful water efficiency programs since 1990. However, the bureau has not done comprehensive conservation program planning in nearly twenty years. The bureau proposes three additional conservation measures that it will work on over the next five years to help prepare Portland for a water-efficient future.

Water Conservation Planning Study To determine how conservation measures can be scaled appropriately for demand management, the bureau plans to undertake a Water Conservation Planning Study to look at potential conservation programs and policies and their associated water savings and costs. This study will support long-term supply planning efforts of the Supply System Master Plan.

2025 benchmark: Complete a Water Conservation Planning Study to evaluate opportunities, water savings, and costs of potential future conservation programs.

Water shortage (curtailment) planning and preparation The bureau plans to do additional work on water shortage communications. The bureau’s seasonal supply planning effort, described in Section 4, outlines operational contingencies in the event of a water shortage. As part of its Curtailment Plan described in Section 4, the bureau has developed some communication strategies and will further invest in developing communication tools that could be employed in the event of a water shortage.

2025 benchmark: Expand curtailment planning efforts to include development of a detailed communications plan and standard operating procedures for all major city water use functions.

2025 benchmark: Identify opportunities for communication with large water users. Share information about seasonal water supply issues, and water efficiency, and update curtailment contact list.

108 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 4 Water curtailment

4.1 Supply deficiencies and capacity limitations This section addresses the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 690-086-0160(1): A description of the type, frequency and magnitude of supply deficiencies within the past 10 years and current capacity limitation. The description shall include an assessment of the ability of the water supplier to maintain delivery during long-term drought or other source shortages caused by a natural disaster, source contamination, legal restrictions on water use, or other circumstances.

4.1.1 Frequency of supply deficiencies The Portland Water Bureau has not had supply deficiencies in the past 10 years (the bureau has not had a supply deficiency since 1992). The bureau has achieved this level of supply resilience primarily by investing in its secondary source, the Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF).

The bureau is also committed to proactive supply planning, which mitigates supply deficiencies. Currently the bureau is engaged in three major supply planning processes:

Supply System Master Plan The bureau is updating its Supply System Master Plan (SSMP). The SSMP will help the bureau keep its system prepared for, and adaptable to, changes. Section 5 describes the SSMP.

Strategic Plan One of the objectives of the bureau’s Strategic Plan is to invest strategically in its groundwater system. To achieve this objective, the bureau plans to • make sure its Groundwater Steering Committee is composed of the appropriate level of decision makers to better coordinate groundwater management and planning • improve communication of groundwater planning and operational status across bureau groups (for example, in regular management team updates) • support the Groundwater Steering Committee to review groundwater staffing and asset needs and recommend investments in groundwater resources and infrastructure • when maintaining or replacing equipment, prioritize work that will improve reliability

Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan The bureau has a cross-organization group that prepares an annual Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan (SWSACP). This group meets twice monthly in the spring, summer, and fall, but the SWSACP is a comprehensive strategy for augmenting the bureau’s resources at any time of year. The plan identifies baseline and contingency resources to meet demand, including curtailment and ways the bureau could work with wholesale water customers to offload water supplies. Wholesale customers help inform the plan. The bureau refines the plan during the year to reflect changes in supply status and availability. Exhibit 4-1 shows baseline, augmentation, and seasonal contingency resource availability for supply planning.

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 109 Exhibit 4-1. Baseline, augmentation, and seasonal contingency resource availability Potential rate of use Potential use period Seasonal water supply Potential volume (million gallons per (drawdown: 151 days, resources (billion gallons [bg]) day [mgd]) June 1 to Oct. 29) Baseline primary resources Bull Run Watershed Streamflow Variable 9.5–70 bg Drawdown Reservoirs 1 and 2 Variable 9.9 bg (usable storage) Drawdown CSSWF maintenance operation 18 mgd 0.18 bg 10 days Incorporated into Incorporated into Water efficiency Drawdown demand forecast demand forecast Baseline augmentation resources 69–95 mgd (30 days) 2.1–2.8 bg (30 days) Columbia South Shore Well Field 60–78 mgd (90 days) 5.7–7.5 bg (90 days) Year-round SGA, BLA, and TSA wells1 53–70 mgd (151 days) 8.9–11.8 bg (151 days) A maximum 0.6 bg2 Bull Run Lake increment 1 Drawdown (release not Up to 27 mgd (dependent on lake (above 3,164 feet of elevation) permitted before July 15)3 refill levels) Contingency—tier 14 0.21–2.55 mgd; incorpo- Wholesale agreement summer 0.18 bg; incorporated 122 days maximum rated into demand interruptible water elimination into demand forecast (June–Sept.) forecast A maximum 1.4 bg Bull Run Lake increment 2 (3,164 Drawdown (release not Up to 27 mgd dependent on lake to 3,154 feet of elevation) permitted before July 15)3 refill levels Bureau operations curtailment (limit Tabor operations at Reservoirs 5 and 6, shut down 0.75 mgd 0.02–0.07 bg Year-round bubblers, limit hydrant permits, limit flushing) Citywide operations curtailment 1.2 mgd 0.04–0.2 bg June 1–Oct. 31 (PP&R seasonal uses, irrigation, 0.002 mgd 0.0001 bg Nov. 1–May 31 splashpads, fountains) Voluntary customer curtailment 12 mgd 0.36 bg for 30 days, June 1–Oct. 31 (10 percent demand reduction) 8 mg 0.24 bg for 30 days, Nov. 1–May 31 Wholesale demand offloads 5–16.5 mgd 0.9 bg Year-round Contingency—tier 2 Mandatory curtailment 25 mgd 0.8 bg 30 days (June 1–Oct. 31) (20 percent of demand) 12.5 mgd 0.4 bg 30 days (Nov. 1–May 31)

1 Maximum rates of use and potential volumes are what could be achieved if the CSSWF were fully operational and used at full capacity for the entire peak season, respectively. The minimums represent what could be achieved with one well in each aquifer out of service for repairs and one additional BLA well kept out of service as a water quality precaution. 2 All or part of this increment will release naturally through porous landslide deposits during the summer. 3 Potentially longer period, if the gravity flow rate or temperature considerations require a more prolonged discharge. 4 Contingency resources within a given tier are not listed in priority order.

110 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU Potential rate of use Potential use period Seasonal water supply Potential volume (million gallons per (drawdown: 151 days, resources (billion gallons [bg]) day [mgd]) June 1 to Oct. 29) CSSWF BLA wells5 3.6 mgd (30 days) 0.1 bg (30 days) PW-17 3.2 mgd (90 days) 0.3 bg (90 days) Year-round 2.9 mgd (151 days) 0.5 bg (151 days) 9.4 mgd (30 days) 0.3 bg (30 days) PW-18 8.4 mgd (90 days) 0.8 bg (90 days) Year-round 7.5 mgd (151 days) 1.2 bg (151 days) Additional draft of Bull Run Reservoirs 1 & 2 below 9.9 bg Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified usable storage Contingency—emergency Emergency curtailment 60 mgd 0.8 bg 14 days (June 1–Oct. 31) (50% of demand) 40 mgd 0.6 bg 14 days (Nov. 1–May 31) Bull Run Lake Increment #3 Drawdown (release not Up to 27 mgd Approximately 1.4 bg (3,154 to 3,143 feet of elevation)6 permitted prior to July 15)2 Milwaukie Intertie (with portable Drawdown (less the 2.0 mgd 0.3 bg pump) twenty hottest days) 6.2 mgd (30 days) 0.2 bg (30 days) Vivian Wells (pump to 5.6 mgd (90 days) 0.5 bg (90 days) Year-round (after 6/30/19) distribution) 5.1 mgd (151 days) 0.8 bg (151 days) Clackamas Intertie (with porta- 2.0 mgd 0.3 bg Year-round ble pump) 5 No more than three BLA wells can be operated for supply at the same time, so these Tier 2 resources should be considered replacements for lost baseline resources rather than additional capacity that can be added on top of the baseline capacity. 6 A temporary pump setup would be required to access this increment. Considerable coordination with the U.S. Forest Service would be necessary to gain approval for using this increment of Bull Run Lake.

With complementary water sources, careful planning, and the ability to partner with regional water providers in an emergency, Portland has not needed to curtail water use since 1992.

4.1.2 Current capacity limitations Bull Run Watershed supply limitations and vulnerabilities The Bull Run system is limited by a combination of its total storage, size of conduits, and temperature management commitments. The Bull Run system has 9.9 bg usable storage in the two reservoirs and is managed to meet municipal water demand as well as temperature and flow targets from the bureau’s Habitat Conservation Plan commitments. The conduits have a combined maximum capacity of 210 mgd. The bureau is currently designing a water filtration plant, which will have a total capacity of 145 mgd, to be built by 2027. Bull Run is subject to supply vulnerabilities, including turbidity and other water quality events; climate change; droughts; earthquakes; floods; wind or ice storms; volcanic eruption; forest fire; landslide; intentional acts of contamination, including by terrorism; and infrastructure failures.

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 111 Columbia South Shore Well Field supply limitations and vulnerabilities The groundwater system is limited by its pumping capacity and aquifer recharge. There are some limitations with the groundwater system to sustain capacity over long periods of time, especially when demand is higher than what the well field alone can provide. Section 2 has a detailed explanation of well field reliability and supply limitations.

The CSSWF is vulnerable to climate change; earthquakes; anthropogenic contamination and other water quality impairments; floods (related to Columbia River levee breaks); wildfires; power outage; intentional acts of contamination, including by terrorism; and infrastructure failures (pump failures, pipe breaks).

4.1.3 Ability to maintain delivery during a shortage Portland has two reliable and high-quality sources of water, a commitment to supply contingency planning, and strong regional partnerships, which means the bureau is well prepared to meet demand during most long-term droughts or other shortages. The SWSACP provides a framework for how the bureau would maintain delivery during a water shortage.

If the well field were unavailable or could not supply enough water during a Bull Run shutdown, other contingency supply strategies could be implemented, including demand offloads for wholesale customers who have access to other supplies; using the Powell Valley Wells; and curtailment measures. The bureau may also be able to use water from interconnections with other suppliers; however, if supply is limited by a regional issue (such as weather or natural disaster), it is unlikely that other suppliers would have water to share.

To prepare for emergencies that could affect its sources, the bureau is updating its Emergency Operations Plan (2002), which addresses foreseeable hazards and provides structure and direction for the bureau’s response to a significant emergency. The bureau also has a full-time emergency manager and staff to plan for and coordinate the bureau’s work during an emergency.

The bureau is a member of the Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) Emergency Planning Committee, which has worked since 2001 to improve communication and coordination among water providers and regional emergency managers. The RWPC Emergency Planning Committee has organized and executed several tabletop exercises to test water emergency scenarios.

The RWPC has eight emergency portable water distribution systems that water providers can use when water from their distribution system is unavailable. The RWPC has prepared a regional emergency water distribution plan to support the storage, maintenance, deployment, and use of these portable water distribution systems. The bureau also helped develop and participates in the Oregon Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (ORWARN), which supports and promotes statewide emergency preparedness, disaster response, and mutual assistance for public and private water and wastewater utilities. Participants in ORWARN sign a mutual assistance agreement and can share equipment with members statewide.

112 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 4.2 Stages of alert and levels of severity This section addresses the requirements of: • OAR 690-086-0160(2): A list of three or more stages of alert for potential shortage or water service difficulties. The stages shall range from a potential or mild alert, increasing through a serious situation to a critical emergency. • OAR 690-086-0160(3): A description of pre-determined levels of severity of shortage or water service difficulties that will trigger the curtailment actions under each stage of alert to provide the greatest assurance of maintaining potable supplies for human consumption.

With access to two sources and the ability to work with wholesalers, the bureau does not anticipate triggering curtailment actions unless there is a severe or extended water supply shortage. The bureau’s SWSACP process, in addition to consultation with regional water providers, guides decisions about which contingency resources are the best to pursue in any given year. Curtailment is an important part of the menu of options; however, activation of curtailment has serious impacts on retail and wholesale customers, and the bureau strives to use curtailment only when necessary.

The bureau has developed criteria to guide its curtailment plan: • The plan should be flexible. Each water shortage situation has enough unique characteristics that a plan cannot specifically define all the scenarios and specific supply and demand management actions. The triggers outlined in this document are guideposts to contribute to decision-making, but the bureau will use the SWSACP process to make decisions each year. • Shortage should be shared. A key assumption of this plan is that shortage and risk must be shared among all beneficiaries of the water resource. All wholesale customers obtaining water from the bureau’s system will participate in management of the shortage as outlined in their water sales agreements. Similarly, all retail customer sectors are expected to participate. • Curtailment is different from conservation. Given the bureau’s highly effective long- term conservation program, it is important to distinguish between the short-term curtailment actions necessitated by a water shortage event and the conservation actions the bureau regularly promotes. Conservation focuses on long-term efficiencies, which do not adversely affect users’ accustomed use of water, whereas curtailment actions involve short-term water use reductions or restrictions that can create hardships. • The bureau prefers voluntary curtailment to mandatory curtailment. Water users prefer the opportunity to meet targeted demand reduction levels through voluntary compliance actions. The decision to move to mandatory restrictions is more acceptable if the voluntary approach has been tried first but has not resulted in sufficient demand reduction. • The plan must safeguard water quality. It is essential to closely monitor water quality during water shortages, particularly during warm weather drought. This applies to water quality in rivers as well as to drinking water. Water quality issues must be considered for drinking water and instream uses when supply management decisions are made.

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 113 Stage 3: Stage Critical water shortage water Critical State of emergency. The bureau puts mandatory bureau The emergency. of State all customers use restrictions for in place water and wholesalers. Meet needs. health and safety only basic human - avail of all combined balance projected The (including emergency able supply resources a very demand indicate and high resources) declining of Bull Run reservoirprobability levels minimum below billion gallons or more two fall rains before elevations baseline storage return. or combined of a Bull Run shutdown, In the event (including capacity resources of all supply is less than demand emergency resources) curtail the demand reduction of any despite - measures. ment an emergency declares administrator Bureau of emergency shortage. be may State water declared. - - - Stage 2: Stage Mandatory curtailment jected without the demand be less than demand to reduction of mandatory curtailment. ing mandatory curtailment as outlined in measures Section CityPortland Code 21.32. Reduce demand 20–50%. Reduce supply capac of combined balance projected The baseline augmentation Watershed, ity (Bull Run and contingency resources) and available resources, a verydemand indicates Run of Bull high probability declining one billion gallons or more reservoir levels before elevations storage minimum baseline below return. fall rains or is highly that of a Bull Run shutdown In the event an (or for one week beyond continue likely to extended supply capacity period of time), combined distribution system Field, Well South Shore (Columbia is pro contingency resources) and available storage, shortage, calls a water declares administrator Bureau mandatoryfor curtailment, and adopts rules requir The bureau puts mandatory use restrictions in bureau water The bureau The and wholesalers. customers all for place sets a bureau The penalties. issues fines and other is. extreme the situation reduction goal based on how - Stage 1: Stage Voluntary curtailment Voluntary Reduce demand 10–20%. Reduce shortage a water declares administrator Bureau voluntary curtailment.and calls for The projected balance of combined supply of combined balance projected The - baseline augmen Watershed, capacity (Bull Run - contin available and readily resources, tation a high and demand indicate gency resources) declining of Bull Run reservoirprobability levels elevations storage minimum baseline below return. fall rains before or is that of a Bull Run shutdown In the event one week, beyond continue highly likely to South supply capacitycombined (Columbia stor distribution system Field, Well Shore is contingency resources) and available age, be less than demand without the to projected demand reduction of voluntary curtailment. Curtailment begins for the City of Portland, the City of Portland, Curtailment for begins sets bureau The and customers. wholesalers, extreme the a reduction goal based on how is. situation Stages of alert of Stages and triggers

Goal Trigger Authority Description Exhibit 4-2. Curtailment stages 4.2.1 curtailment shows Exhibit 4-2 stages and triggers.

114 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 4.3 Curtailment actions This section addresses the requirements of OAR 690-086-0160(4): A list of specific standby water use curtailment actions for each stage of alert ranging from notice to the public of a potential alert, increasing through limiting nonessential water use, to rationing or loss of service at the critical alert stage.

Exhibit 4-3 shows curtailment actions for each stage of alert.

Each year, as part of its SWSACP process, the bureau discusses supply conditions. If the bureau moves to contingency resources, staff will prepare for potential curtailment by • updating the curtailment communication plan • reviewing offloading opportunities with wholesale customers to understand what might be available if needed • refreshing wholesale water customers about curtailment commitments in their water sales agreements • connecting with internal city bureaus, informing them about water supplies, and requesting copies of updated drought plans (if applicable) • coordinating with RWPC members about plans and learning what conditions they are projecting for their systems

In the event of an emergency or unplanned curtailment, the bureau would perform these tasks while implementing the required phase of curtailment.

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 115 Stage 3: Stage Critical water shortage water Critical The administrator will update or will update administrator The - man adopt rules requiring datory curtailment measures 21.32. City Code to pursuant Emergency Operations Activate Center. 3 curtailmentInitiate level plan. communication off all Benson Bubblers. Turn use water all outdoor Prohibit necessary where for except public health or safety. Restrict Mount Tabor operations. permits and use. Restrict hydrant Restricttesting. field meter and sources alternative Identify as possible. use other sources — Stage 2: Stage Mandatory curtailment Require curtailmentRequire under the authority of City Section Code in which the administrator 21.32, to and forms procedures, adopt rules, may use as appropriate. restrict water Emergency Center. Operations Activate 2 curtailment plan. Initiate level communication off all Benson Bubblers. Turn Restrict uses. to essential flushing or limit operations. Tabor Restrict Mount permits use. and Restrict hydrant Restricttesting. field meter and adjust if possible. resources Review offload additional demand reductions per Require wholesaler may The curtailmentWMAB plan. mandatoryimplement curtailment actions Management and Water outlined in its own to its best path Conservation or determine Plan system. Portland's demand from reduce - - Stage 1: Stage Voluntary curtailment Voluntary Potentially activate Emergency activate Operations Potentially Center. 1 curtailment Initiate level communication plan. off all Benson Bubblers. Turn Limit flushing. operations. Tabor Limit Mount permits and use. Limit hydrant testing. field Limit meter cur WMAB demand reductions per Require implement may Wholesalers plan. tailment voluntary curtailment actions outlined in Management and Conservation Water their to best path their own or determine Plans system. Portland’s demand from reduce - In coordina Summer supply coordination: and engineer finance, tion with operations, Water with Coordinate Offloadavailable. as Managers Advisory curtailment Board plan. ing staff, evaluate ability, resources, and plans and resources, ability, evaluate ing staff, 2 curtailment level to alert As move to status. measures. preparatory begin appropriate, Type of action Type Emergency Center Operations activation Communication plan Benson Bubbler operations and other Flushing use water outdoor Mount Tabor operations Hydrants testing Meter field Managers Water Advisory Board (WMAB) curtail- plan ment Decision-making process Offloading Group Bureau (internal) Bureau Wholesale partners Exhibit 4-3. CurtailmentExhibit 4-3. each stage of alert actions for

116 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU - Stage 3: Stage Critical water shortage water Critical — — — - informa and share Coordinate tion. Request support. RWPCUpdate members on the of the curtailmentstatus plan media releases. and share water with large Coordinate water. of offloads for Ask users. 2 restric Implement all level language tions and update fire use to restrictto water and other criticalprotection functions only. Stage 2: Stage Mandatory curtailment Coordinate with PP&R to restrict water use as restrict PP&R to with water Coordinate Shortage Plan. Water outlined in their & Rescue to Fire Portland with Coordinate training and truck washing use for restrict water Restricttesting. line fire exercises. restrict and PBOM to PBOT with Coordinate including vehicle in daily operations, use water and irrigation. sweeping, street washing, Request information. and share Coordinate support. RWPCUpdate of the members on the status curtailment media releases. plan and share restrict users to water with large Coordinate as outlined in the mandatory use water curtail- all customers. for actionsment required 1 actions Implement all level with updated If language restricting notice Portlanders uses. these violate that used in ways being water At they should contact the bureau. restrictions, water for can issue fines the bureau this stage, with the restrictions. does not comply use that Stage 1: Stage Voluntary curtailment Voluntary Request that Portland Fire & Rescue limit Fire Portland Request that station fire truck washing, use for water exercises. irrigation, and training limit and PBOM to PBOT with Coordinate - including vehi in daily operations, use water irrigation. and sweeping, street cle washing, Request information. and share Coordinate support. RWPCUpdate of the members on the status curtailment media releases. plan and share nones- users reduce water large Request that use. sential they with users about ways Communicate should and should not use water. Request implementation of the PP&R Water Water of the PP&R Request implementation Shortage Plan. Type of action Type Portland Fire Fire Portland & Rescue coordination Bureau Portland of Transportation (PBOT) and Bureau Portland of Maintenance (PBOM) coordination Bureau Portland of Emergency Management coordination Communication Communication Communication Portland Parks Parks Portland & Recreation coordination Group City of Portland (internal) Water Regional Providers Consortium water Large users General public

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 117 4.3.1 Community curtailment messages In a stage 1 (voluntary curtailment) scenario, the bureau would issue messages asking the community to reduce its water use. For Portland, voluntary curtailment is a critical step in managing water demand, and messages are designed to inspire a significant reduction in use. As stated above, the bureau prefers a strong response in the voluntary curtailment stage to avoid mandatory curtailment. Potential messages to the community include the following: • Do not wash or wet down sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, open ground, or other hard surface areas. • Do not wash trucks, cars, trailers, or other vehicles except at commercial establishments which recycle or reuse the water in their washing processes. • Do not pressure wash. • Do not use water to fill any indoor or outdoor swimming pools or hot tubs. • Do not fill or clean decorative water features. • Limit watering lawns and gardens. If you have newly planted landscapes or plants that will not survive a brief period without water, use water sparingly and only in the eve- ning or early morning when evaporation is at its lowest. • Take shorter showers. Cutting five minutes off your shower will save 12 gallons of water. • Run clothes and dishwashers with full loads or postpone washing until water supplies return to normal. • Turn off water when brushing teeth, shaving, or shampooing. Running a faucet can use two gallons per minute! • Fix leaks immediately. Even small leaks can waste hundreds of gallons. • Install water-saving devices, such as high-efficiency toilets and showerheads.

In a stage 2 (mandatory curtailment) scenario, the bureau would communicate to customers that additional water use reductions are needed and that people who violate the restrictions may be issued fines. The bureau would publish a process for reporting water use violations, including a phone number and email address for filing reports. Restrictions would potentially include the following: • Washing and wetting down sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, open ground, or other hard surface areas is restricted. • Washing trucks, cars, trailers, or other vehicles except at commercial establishments which recycle or reuse the water in their washing processes is strictly prohibited. • Pressure washing is strictly prohibited. • Filling any indoor or outdoor swimming pools or hot tubs is prohibited. • Filling or cleaning decorative water features is prohibited. • Watering lawns and gardens is strictly prohibited.

Additional recommendations might include the following: • Take shorter, less frequent showers. Cutting five minutes off your shower will save 12 gallons of water. • Turn off water when brushing teeth, shaving, or shampooing. Running a faucet can use two gallons per minute!

118 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU • Postpone washing clothing until water supplies return to normal. • Fix leaks immediately. Even small leaks can waste hundreds of gallons. • Install water-saving devices in the home, such as high-efficiency toilets and showerheads.

In a stage 3 (critical water shortage) scenario, the bureau would communicate to customers that water supplies can only be used for health and safety. All other uses are restricted.

4.3.2 Curtailment and state drought declaration The state has the authority to issue a drought declaration; however, a drought declaration does not necessarily mean that Portland’s water supplies are affected. The bureau has not included a state-initiated drought declaration as a trigger for curtailment. However, to best inform its community following a state drought declaration, the bureau would • assess whether to implement curtailment measures, given Portland’s specific supply conditions; • comply with any state order to implement water conservation or curtailment plans described in this WMCP; • regardless of whether curtailment is necessary given Portland's supply, continue to encourage the community to conserve water; and • share information about local water supply status with the community and the media, and share information about the drought the state has declared.

Section 4: Water curtailment WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 119 120 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU 5 Water supply

5.1 Current and future service areas Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 690-086-0170(1): A delineation of the current and future service areas consistent with state land use law that includes available data on population projections and anticipated development consistent with relevant acknowledged comprehensive land use plans and urban service agreements or other relevant growth projections.

5.1.1 Delineation of current and future service areas The Portland Water Bureau’s projected retail and wholesale service areas through 2040, the 20-year planning period for this Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP), are shown in Exhibit 5-1. This map includes the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area, which the bureau plans to stop serving on July 1, 2026 (as requested by TVWD).

Portland Water Bureau retail service area The bureau’s retail service area is not expected to expand beyond the lands currently within the metropolitan area’s urban growth boundary. However, density will continue to increase within the retail service area due to population growth: Portland’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan describes how Portland will grow over the next 25 years with a focus on increased density. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is built on the 2012 Portland Plan, which analyzed infrastructure condition and capacity and determined that the bureau’s primary distribution system can reliably deliver water through 2030 mostly using existing facilities to accommodate projected demand. The bureau intends to expand its water system infrastructure as needed to meet projected demand beyond 2030.

Wholesale service areas The most significant change to the bureau’s wholesale service area is that TVWD has indicated that it plans to stop using water from Portland after June 30, 2026.

Wholesale customers have also identified growth and changes within existing service areas: Sandy expanded its urban growth boundary; Gresham annexed land on its southern edge; Tualatin is annexing land at Basalt Creek; and TVWD is ceding parts of its service area to Beaverton.

In addition to TVWD, some of Portland’s wholesale customers are investing in other water supplies, which will affect Portland’s future total demand. The bureau is exploring the possibility of entering into new service agreements with its wholesale customers, but has not made any specific commitments.

Section 5: Water Supply WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 121 Exhibit 5-1. ServiceExhibit 5-1. map area

122 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU The bureau’s wholesale water sales agreements do not obligate Portland to supply additional water beyond the minimum purchase amounts specified in the original agreements. At this time, the growth projections contained in the WMCP address infill and redevelopment within the existing urban growth boundary. The bureau determines whether any proposed increases by wholesale customers are within system capacity before approving them.

Six wholesale customers are nongovernmental water companies with renewable five-year contracts for water sales. Their demand represents a small percentage of Portland’s water demand. The six contracts are strictly limited in terms of service expansions. These contracts contain provisions that require bureau approval for any service connection expansions.

5.1.2 Population projections The bureau projects that its service area population will grow until 2026, when the population will decrease as TVWD switches supply. After that, the bureau projects that its service area population will continue to grow again. Exhibit 5-2 shows the bureau’s 2014 population projections, which are included here because the 2014 data population data were used for the demand forecast that informed the Supply System Master Plan (SSMP) and this WMCP. Specifically, these projections are based on • 2014 data from the Population Research Center at Portland State University. The Center used data from Metro (a regional government body in the Portland area), including transportation analysis zones, buildable land inventory, and household forecasts; the 2010 Census; the Center’s own files; and the relevant water providers; and • bureau assumptions about wholesale customer demand and offloads. These assumptions are (1) seasonal offloads of wholesale customers will remain at the same proportion as offloads in 2015; (2) the bureau will only serve the 2018 population level of Rockwood People’s Utility District and the City of Gresham, and any growth in the population of their service areas thereafter will be served by sources other than the bureau; and (3) beginning on July 1, 2026, the bureau will not supply TVWD.

Given that the SSMP and WMCP demand projections use a 2014 baseline population, the bureau is also providing Portland State's 2019 population projections for purposes of comparison. As Exhibit 5-2 shows, the 2014 population projections for 2030 and 2040 are lower than the 2019 population projections, which likely reflects differences in birth rates, in-migration, land use, and service area boundaries. The bureau’s long-term water supply planning efforts are ongoing; in the coming years, the bureau will continue to examine the potential range of different future water demand conditions, including updated population figures.

Exhibit 5-2. Population projections for the bureau’s service area (including wholesale customers)

Year 2014 projection 2019 projection 2025 1,029,403 1,078,263 2026 878,768 890,056 2030 905,957 934,427 2040 977,615 1,028,351

Section 5: Water Supply WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 123 5.2 Demand forecasts, schedule to exercise permits, and comparison of projected need to available sources OAR 690-086-0170(2): An estimated schedule that identifies when the water supplier expects to fully exercise each of the water rights and water use permits currently held by the supplier.

OAR 690-086-0170(3): Based on the information provided in section (1) of this rule, an estimate of the water supplier’s water demand projections for 10 and 20 years, and at the option of the Municipal Water Supplier, longer periods.

OAR 690-086-0170(4): A comparison of the projected water needs and the sources of water currently available to the Municipal Water Supplier and to any other suppliers to be served considering the reliability of existing sources.

5.2.1 Municipal water supply system: The Bull Run Watershed and the Columbia South Shore Well Field The bureau developed demand projections in 2017 while updating its SSMP (in progress) to plan for a range of future demand scenarios. The bureau analyzed five demand metrics relevant to water system operation and infrastructure: • Average daily demand (ADD). Used to estimate the amount of water to be provided in emergency conditions or if various key components of the water system are out of service. • Summer ADD (ADD during the peak season, June through September). Used to evaluate the adequacy of existing supply sources to meet summer demand and sizing new sources if needed. • Winter ADD (ADD during the nonpeak season, October through May). Used to estimate the largest amount of water that might be needed from the well field during nonpeak months, typically during a turbidity event. • Peak day demand (PDD). Used to size treatment and transmission systems to provide water during high heat weather, and to avoid short-term curtailment. • 3-day PDD. Used to manage infrastructure to provide water during hot weather, and to avoid short-term curtailment.

The bureau then examined historical years with stressful demand conditions (stress years) for those metrics (excluding winter ADD) to help identify the water supply needed for similar stressful demand years in the future. Next, the bureau used an aggregate model to establish and estimate the relationship between water demand and factors that affect aggregate demand by all customer classes served by the bureau and retail and wholesale areas. Factors considered were • weather during the “stress years” described above and weather-normalized (average) conditions for comparison; • 2014 population and land-use projections; • wholesale demand assumptions, including that TVWD will move off Portland’s system on July 1, 2026; Rockwood Water People’s Utility District and City of Gresham demand

124 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU will flatten starting in 2019; the City of Tualatin will remain solely supplied by the bureau; and no new wholesale customers will be added; • continuation of current water conservation trends, which included water conservation resulting from plumbing code changes; technology improvements in appliances, indoor fixtures, and irrigation; and customer education and incentive programs; • anticipated price increases, starting at 7 percent and plateauing later at 3 percent, which resulted in reduced demand in later years from the compounding effects of rate increases (price increases can affect customer water use behaviors and decisions to install water-saving appliances and fixtures); and • the potential effects of climate change on future air temperature and precipitation, which are key variables in the aggregate demand model (five models were considered; the bureau used the model with the largest effect on demand for use in the aggregate demand model, similar to the “demand stress years” assumption used for weather).

Factors that increased demand include population and climate change. Factors that decreased demand include densifying land use, conservation, retail customer behavior, water prices, and wholesale customer decisions, particularly the planned reduction caused by TVWD leaving the system in 2026 (which created steep declines for each demand indicator thereafter).

For planning purposes, this WMCP focuses on PDD and summer ADD. The bureau must plan to have the infrastructure and water supply (from surface water and groundwater) to meet a PDD, which would occur on a dry and hot summer day. Similarly, the bureau needs sufficient water supply (surface water and groundwater) in summers with prolonged dry periods. Prolonged dry periods occurred in the summers of 2015 and 2018.

The bureau must also plan for a scenario in which its Bull Run water supply becomes unavailable. The bureau identified summer ADD as a reasonable planning target for that scenario given that groundwater infrastructure limitations exist (see Section 2.4.2). If the Bull Run supply were unavailable for a short time during the summer, the bureau would likely rely on storage and groundwater supply to meet the gap between PDD and summer ADD. If the Bull Run were unavailable for a longer time, the bureau would likely use groundwater, off-loads from wholesale customers, and curtailment measures.

Exhibit 5-3 presents PDD and summer ADD projections based on the aggregate demand model. As shown in the exhibit, demand is relatively flat through 2025 and then decreases substantially in 2026 as a result of TVWD leaving the system. Demand increases slowly thereafter through 2040 and does not recover enough to exceed demand of before 2026. Exhibit 5-4 presents PDD and summer ADD projections in 2030 and 2040.

Section 5: Water Supply WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 125 Exhibit 5-3. PDD and summer ADD projections, 2020–2040

190.0

180.0

170.0

160.0

150.0

140.0

130.0

120.0 Demand (million gallons per day) per gallons (million Demand

110.0

100.0

Summer average daily demand Peak day demand

Exhibit 5-4. PDD and summer ADD projections, 2030 and 2040, in cubic feet per second (cfs) and million gallons per day (mgd)

PDD Summer ADD Year cfs mgd cfs mgd 2030 227.0 146.8 162.5 105.1 2040 232.5 150.3 167.2 108.1

As shown in Exhibit 5-4, the bureau projects that its summer ADD will reach 162.1 cfs (104.8 mgd) in 2030 and 166.8 cfs (107.8 mgd) in 2040 and its PDD will reach 227.0 cfs (146.8 mgd) in 2030 and 232.5 cfs (150.3 mgd) in 2040. These demand projections are notably less than demand projections presented in the bureau’s 2010 WMCP. This difference is a result of such factors as TVWD’s plan to no longer supply its service area with bureau water, Rockwood People’s Utility District and the City of Gresham planning to only serve the 2018 population level with bureau water into the future, the relatively slow recovery from the economic recession that began in 2007, the price of water, water conservation, and changes in land use. The bureau intends to use its existing Bull Run Watershed water rights and CSSWF water rights to meet demand in 2030 and 2040.

As described in Section 2, the Bull Run Watershed is the bureau’s primary water source. Oregon law under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 538.420 (enacted in 1909) grants the City of Portland “the exclusive rights to the use of waters of the Bull Run and Little Sandy Rivers.” The bureau also filed claims to pre-1909 water rights, with a priority date of 1886 on the Bull Run River

126 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU under SWR-390 and a priority date of 1892 on the Little Sandy River under SWR-391. Both claims are for full flow of those rivers. However, the bureau has not used any water under SWR-391 and stated in 2008 that it will forgo any consumptive use of the Little Sandy River for the 50-year duration of its Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan. Under the Habitat Conservation Plan, the bureau committed to 49 conservation measures to protect and improve habitat and to avoid or minimize habitat impacts of the Bull Run water supply system. Two measures are for implementation of minimum instream flows, one for normal water years and the other for water years with critical seasons, which can affect the amount of water available for municipal use.

The bureau captures water to fill the two Bull Run reservoirs in late fall, winter, and spring, and to date, the bureau has been able to refill both reservoirs every year. Drawdown of the reservoirs typically starts in June or July and lasts until early October, but sometimes drawdown can start before June or last until November or December. In 2015, 2018, and 2019, drawdown started in May. Management of water stored in the reservoirs varies from year to year based on weather conditions. The onset of hot, dry weather and its duration in the summer determines how much the bureau relies on the limited storage of the reservoirs. The longer the dry conditions persist, the greater the proportion of CSSWF groundwater the bureau uses to help meet demand and downstream flow commitments before fall rains return. The bureau anticipates earlier spring drawdown starts, and a greater draw on reservoir storage, in response to a warming climate. While the decreasing trend in demand is projected to play a mitigating role, the bureau’s analysis has identified an ongoing need for future groundwater augmentation, especially under extreme hydrologic and weather conditions. The bureau has historically been able to meet PDDs greater than the projected PDD in 2040 using a combination of the Bull Run water supply and CSSWF groundwater supply provided through the developed portions of the bureau’s water rights (the bureau’s greatest PDD in the last 10 years was 275.4 cfs/178.0 mgd in FY 2009–10).

In addition to use of the wells in the CSSWF to help meet demand during the summer season when the Bull Run supply is insufficient, the bureau uses its CSSWF wells to provide a backup water supply in the event that the Bull Run supply is shut down as a result of emergency conditions, such as water quality events, landslides, earthquakes, fires, or human-caused disruptions. Historically, the bureau has used the CSSWF to replace the Bull Run supply during nonpeak demand months. As of May 2019, the CSSWF has been activated 30 times since 1985: 15 times for supply augmentation in summer and 15 times for emergency backup (turbidity/ flooding and a landslide in the Bull Run Watershed). Although the most likely scenarios leading to temporary loss of the Bull Run supply would occur in the winter, the bureau also needs to plan for a less likely, but possible, event that would cause loss of the Bull Run water supply in the summer. Consequently, the bureau analyzed its ability to meet the summer ADD for a prolonged period solely using its CSSWF groundwater rights. In that emergency event, the bureau would reduce demand using curtailment and would seek to provide supply adequate to meet summer ADD.

Section 5: Water Supply WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 127 As described in Section 2.3.2, the bureau holds six groundwater rights (permits and certificates) for use of water from the CSSWF. The bureau historically had enough demand to develop up to 216.42 cfs (139.87 mgd) under these water rights. This development is evidenced by • certificate 89117 for use of up to 7.3 cfs; • certificate 89115 for use of up to 39.96 cfs; • the 2009 Final Order approving an extension of time for Permit G-10124 identifying that 62.04 cfs had been developed (beneficially used), such that the bureau has access to the remaining 22.08 cfs under Permit G-10124 that was developed but not certificated (62.04 − 39.96 = 22.08); and • the 2009 Final Order approving an extension of time for Permit G-8755 identifying that 147.08 cfs had been developed, such that the bureau has access to that rate under Permit G-8755.

With its currently certificated groundwater rights and “developed” portions of its groundwater permits, the bureau would be able to meet the projected summer ADD of 162.5 cfs (105.1 mgd) in 2030 and 167.2 cfs (108.1 mgd) in 2040. However, the reliable capacity of the bureau’s CSSWF wells is currently less than the rates allowed under the bureau’s certificated and “developed” portions of permits at the CSSWF. As described in section 2.4.2, the reliable capacity of wells under the certificates combined is 18.21 cfs (11.77 mgd) and the reliable capacity of the wells under the “developed” portion of permits is 55.49 cfs (35.87 mgd), for a total of 73.70 cfs (47.64 mgd).

To ensure that the CSSWF wells and Bull Run supply will have reliable capacity to meet the projected summer ADD in 2040 of 167.2 cfs (108.1 mgd), the bureau intends to add additional wells (i.e., points of appropriation) under its CSSWF water rights through water right transfers and permit amendments over the next 20 years. These water rights transactions will enable the bureau to “recapture” 29.05 cfs (18.78 mgd) of groundwater capacity under certificates and 70.15 cfs (45.39 mgd1) of capacity under the “developed” portion of its permits. The bureau considers the Blue Lake Aquifer, Troutdale Sandstone Aquifer, and Sand and Gravel Aquifer to have the capacity to support additional points of appropriation. Therefore, the bureau’s certificated water rights and “developed” portions of its water right permits at the CSSWF are anticipated to be sufficient to meet the projected summer ADD in 2040. As a result, the bureau does not need to seek access to the “undeveloped” portion of its CSSWF permits (i.e., the bureau is not requesting access to “greenlight water”) during this 20-year WMCP planning period and will not need to develop new water rights.

The bureau continues to anticipate putting its four CSSWF groundwater permits (Permits G-10479, G-10124, G-8755, and G-10455) to full beneficial use by October 1, 2085, in accordance with the Final Orders (issued October 6, 2009) approving extensions of time for these permits. This conclusion is based on the expectation that (1) water demand will continue to increase through 2085 at a rate that is at least similar to the portion of the 20-year demand

1 Summer ADD minus certificated and reliable capacity of the developed portion of permits, or 111.8 − 11.77 − 18.78 − 35.86 = 45.39.

128 | WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN PORTLAND WATER BUREAU projection that occurs after TVWD leaves the system; (2) the bureau will be prepared to use the CSSWF to meet future summer ADD if the Bull Run water supply becomes unavailable; and (3) the bureau must be prepared for the unlikely event that it would need to supply emergency water to other water providers while trying to meet its own water demand.

5.2.2 Emergency water supply: Former Powell Valley Road Water District The bureau also holds Permit G-14007 for municipal use of up to 14.3 cfs of groundwater from the Powell Valley Wells (in the former Powell Valley Road Water District in southeast Portland, near Powell Butte). The bureau could use these wells as an emergency water supply source for the local distribution system if the Bull Run and CSSWF sources become unavailable, as described in Chapter 2. This groundwater supply was not considered to be a source of supply to help meet future demand in the analysis above. The Final Order approving an extension of time for Permit G-14007, dated May 5, 2017, placed a development limitation of 9.6 cfs on Permit G-14007 and extended the completion date to put the water right to full beneficial use to October 1, 2055. The bureau intends to maintain the installed capacity as an emergency supply and currently does not have plans to expand the infrastructure capacity due to the relatively lesser quality of the water as compared to the CSSWF. Therefore, the bureau does not anticipate needing access to the “undeveloped” portion of Permit G-14007 (4.7 cfs; 14.3 − 9.6 = 4.7) during this 20-year WMCP planning period (i.e., the bureau is not requesting access to “greenlight water”) of the Powell Valley Wells. The bureau continues to anticipate putting Permit G-14007 to full beneficial use by October 1, 2055. 5.3 Alternative sources OAR 690-086-0170(5): If any expansion or initial diversion of water allocated under existing permits is necessary to meet the needs shown in section (3) of this rule, an analysis of alternative sources of water that considers availability, reliability, feasibility and likely environmental impacts. The analysis shall consider the extent to which the projected water needs can be satisfied through: (a) Implementation of conservation measures identified under OAR 690-086-0150; (b) Interconnection with other municipal supply systems and cooperative regional water management; and (c) Any other conservation measures that would provide water at a cost that is equal to or lower than the cost of other identified sources.

The bureau currently does not plan to expand or initiate diversion of water allocated under an existing permit during the 20-year planning period of this WMCP. Therefore, this rule does not apply.

However, as previously mentioned, the bureau includes water conservation in its demand projections. The bureau also recently completed an analysis of future water supply availability and the conjunctive use of the Bull Run reservoirs and the CSSWF to inform its SSMP. The analysis assessed water supply conditions through 2059, including future potential reservoir storage and drawdown conditions based on different climate, hydrologic, demand, reservoir drawdown, and groundwater use scenarios. The analysis also incorporated current water temperature management actions based on existing Habitat Conservation Plan commitments.

Section 5: Water Supply WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN | 129 The analysis showed a significant need for groundwater in severe supply stress years, such as years when warm temperatures and dry conditions in the spring contribute to very early drawdown of reservoirs, particularly before July 1, 2026, when TVWD leaves the system. The analysis recommends infrastructure investments, which could include development of new wells to further use the bureau’s groundwater rights, and operational adaptations to ensure flexibility to address a range of supply conditions.

No interconnections or additional conservation measures have been identified as alternative sources to meet projected demand for this update of the WMCP. The bureau will continue to look at potential new conservation measures as part of the bureau’s supply portfolio. 5.4 Quantification of projected maximum rate and monthly volume OAR 690-086-0170(6): If any expansion or initial diversion of water allocated under existing permits is necessary to meet the needs shown in section (3) of this rule, a quantification of the maximum rate and monthly volume of water to be diverted under each of the permits.

The bureau currently does not plan to expand or initiate diversion of water allocated under an existing permit during the 20-year planning period of this WMCP. Therefore, this rule does not apply. 5.5 Mitigation actions under state and federal law OAR 690-086-0170(7): For any expansion or initial diversion of water under existing permits, a description of mitigation actions the water supplier is taking to comply with legal requirements including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. § 300f).

The bureau currently does not plan to expand or initiate diversion of water allocated under an existing permit during the 20-year planning period of this WMCP. Therefore, this rule does not apply.

The bureau does have fish persistence conditions on its groundwater permits and is aware that those conditions can result in reduced access to groundwater. Chapter 2 describes regulations that affect the bureau’s supplies. 5.6 New water rights OAR 690-086-0170(8): If acquisition of new water rights will be necessary within the next 20 years to meet the needs estimated in section (3) of this rule, an analysis of alternative sources of the additional water that considers availability, reliability, feasibility and likely environmental impacts and a schedule for development of the new sources of water. The analysis shall consider the extent to which the need for new water rights can be eliminated through: (a) Implementation of conservation measures identified under OAR 690-086-0150; (b) Interconnection with other municipal supply systems and cooperative regional water management; and (c) Any other conservation measures that would provide water at a cost that is equal to or lower than the cost of other identified sources. The bureau’s existing water rights are sufficient to meet the projected demand described under subsection 5.2 over the next 20 years. Therefore, the bureau currently does not plan to acquire additional water rights to meet those projected demand during that time and this rule does not apply.

Appendix A Projected water demand: A technical memo for the Supply System Master Plan

Technical Memo 3.1 Projected Water Demand

To: Stakeholders From: Jodie Inman, Janet Senior, Hossein Parandvash CC: File Date: February 28, 2017 Re: Projected Water Demand

1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this Tech Memo is to document projected aggregate water demand for the PWB service area through the Supply System Master Plan (SSMP) 20-yr planning window. Aggregate demand is the combined demand of both PWB retail and wholesale customers. This information is essential for developing scenarios as part of Task 9.

2.0 BACKGROUND The 2000 Supply, Transmission, and Storage Analysis (STSA) evaluated and developed demand projections as part of the 2001 Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) process. The STSA used demand data from the 1996 Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP). Per the 1996 RWSP, the demand forecast was based on estimated “status quo” forecast of sales per customer class and application of conservation and price increase adjustments. Peak day demands were projected based on historical ratios of peak day to average day. Table 2-1 summarizes the projected demands for the “Existing Customers” (defined as the City of Portland and existing wholesale customers) from Appendix G of the STSA. Table 2-1 2000 STSA Demand Projections Projected Demand, Million Gallons per Day Metric (MGD) 2000 2010 2020 2050 SAD – Summer average daily demand 157 167 182 246 PDD – Peak day demand 234 253 284 382

When compared to actual demand data from 1996-2016, PWB demands have seen a significant decrease compared to the 2001 IMP and 2000 STSA projections. Figure 1 demonstrates the trend of reduction in actual demand from 1996-2016. Aggregate demand is comparable to “Existing Customers” from the STSA. Table 2-2 quantifies the percent difference from projected demand in the STSA to actual demand, 1996-2016.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 1 of 24 Figure 1 – Actual Aggregate Demand (1996-2016)

230.0

210.0

190.0

170.0

150.0

MGD 130.0

110.0

90.0

70.0

50.0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Winter Average Demand (WAD) Average Daily Demand (ADD) Summer Average Demand (SAD) Peak Day Demand (PDD)

Table 2-2 2000 STSA Projection vs. Actual Demand Comparison 2000 2000 2010 2010 Metric Difference Difference Projected Actual Projected Actual SAD 157 152 -4% 167 121 -27% PDD 234 197 -16% 253 181 -28% * Demands in MGD.

These declines occurred despite a 23% increase in population (770,910 to 951,518) and the addition of the City of Sandy as a wholesale customer (Sandy began drawing water from PWB in 2014). Factors influencing this change in demand include lower per capita use in the retail service area, the 2008-2010 economic recession, conservation, changes in land use patterns, and wholesale customer decisions, among others. These significant differences between projected and actual demands challenged the relevancy of the planning performed as part of the 2001 IMP. New demand projections are needed for the SSMP to better inform supply decisions such as capacity, timing, and sizing of infrastructure.

3.0 KEY METRICS FOR NEW DEMAND PROJECTIONS Five key metrics were identified to focus this memo on demand data most relevant to water system operation and infrastructure planning. These metrics are:

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 2 of 24 1. ADD - Average daily demand 2. SAD – Summer average demand (average daily demand during the peak season, June through September) 3. WAD – Winter average demand (average daily demand during the off-peak season, October through May) 4. PDD - Peak day demand 5. P3D - Peak 3-day demand Average daily demand (ADD) is a useful measure for the amount of water to be provided in emergency conditions or if various key components of the water system are out of service. Summer average demand (SAD) is important for evaluating the adequacy of existing supply sources to meet summer demands and sizing new sources of supply if needed. Winter average demand (WAD) is useful for estimating the largest amount of water that might be needed from the wellfield, typically during a turbidity event. Peak demands (both peak day and peak 3-day) are important for sizing treatment and transmission systems to provide water during high heat weather, and to avoid short-term curtailment. These demand metrics were reviewed against historical weather years to determine which demand weather year was the most stressful on the supply system for that metric. These years, known as “stress years”, provide indicators for the water supply needed to provide for similar stressful weather years in the future. A “stress year” was not applied to WAD as there would likely not be significant variation from the average. See Appendix Section 4.1 for additional description of weather stress years. The stress years were defined, using the historical weather data from 1960 through 2015, as:

Metric Historical Stress Weather Year ADD - Average daily demand 1967 SAD – Summer average demand 1967 PDD - Peak day demand 1981 P3D - Peak 3-day demand 1981

Demands fluctuate from day to day based on the calendar date and whether or not a particular day falls on a weekend or particular holidays (water demand has historically been lower on weekends and some holidays than during the week). Daily demand also changes due to daily weather fluctuations. Since long-term daily weather forecasts are not available, two approaches are considered to reflect the effect of daily weather on future demand. One approach is to project demand under average historical weather conditions. This is similar to assuming that in the future, each day of the year has the same weather as the average weather of that day over the 1960-2015 period. The demand projections under this approach are the “weather normalized” demands. The other approach is to assume that the daily weather

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 3 of 24 conditions of a particular historical “stress year” are repeated in the future. In this approach, the weather conditions of the “stress years” are used to reflect the effect of daily weather on the demand projections. These two approaches provide a comparison of projected demands based on average weather to demands based on a stress year.

4.0 DEMAND MODEL FACTORS PWB used an econometric model1, developed internally, to establish and estimate the relationship between water demand and socio-economic, demographic, weather, and other factors that affect aggregate demand by all customer classes served by PWB in the retail and wholesale areas. PWB considered the following factors known to affect water demand for the update to the aggregate demand model approach from previous iterations: • Weather • Population • Land use • Wholesale customer contracts and behavior • Water conservation policies, programs and behaviors • Price of water (revenue per million gallons from sales of retail and wholesale water is used as a proxy for price) • Climate change These factors are not fixed or static for the term of the SSMP. The degree to which they will change over the planning horizon can only be estimated based on information currently available. The methodologies, major assumptions, and data sources for these estimates are described in the Appendix. To represent these unknowns in the demand model results, PWB defined each factor, generally described as follows: Weather: Weather is represented in the analysis both as the stress years described in Section 3.0, and as weather normalized (average) conditions for comparison. Population and land use: Population in the Portland service area is projected to continue to increase. Population densities will increase as more land area is used for multi-family residential uses versus single family residential uses. These changes are already evident in the retail service area, for example, the Pearl District and close-in Northeast and Southeast Portland. Population for the aggregate service area is estimated at 952,521 for 2018 and rises

1 An Econometric model uses application of statistical and mathematical theories in economics for establishing relationships between the variable of consideration and other variables that are known to affect it, called “explanatory variables”. The model is used for testing hypotheses and forecasting future trends.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 4 of 24 to 1,029,403 in 2025. When TVWD reduces demand on the system in 2026, population served declines to 905,123. By 2045, population served recovers to 1,035,326. Wholesale customers: Aggregate demand incorporated the “most likely” wholesale demand described in Tech Memo 3.2. The most significant change being TVWD reducing wholesale purchases from PWB in 2026 (PWB supply to TVWD Wolf Creek offline - supply to Metzger remaining). Other considerations not part of the “most likely” scenario described in Tech Memo 3.2 may be considered later in the SSMP process, as part of scenario analysis. Water conservation: Two water conservation scenarios were modeled, one that assumed a continuation of current trends and another that assumed more aggressive programs and technological change. The demands shown in Figures 2-6 incorporate the current trend scenario, which includes plumbing code changes since 1992; technology improvements in appliances, indoor fixtures and irrigation; and customer education and incentive programs. Results from the more aggressive conservation scenario may be considered later in the SSMP process, as part of scenario analysis. Price: Price can affect customer water use behaviors and decisions to install water saving appliances and fixtures. The demand estimates incorporate a pattern of anticipated price increases over the planning horizon, starting at 7% and plateauing later at 3%. The price increase projections reduce demand in the later years as a result of the compounding effect of rate increases. Climate change: The Pacific Northwest is expected to experience warmer conditions in the future, which is likely to affect water use especially during the summer season. PWB used five global climate models (GCM) downscaled to the Portland area to estimate the effect on future air temperatures and precipitation, which are key variables in the aggregate demand model. Of the five models evaluated, PWB selected the GCM with the largest effect on demand for the purposes of the demand estimate in this memo (similar to the stress year assumption used for weather). Climate change is projected to increase demands, with more impact on peak metrics such as PDD, P3D and SAD, and less impact on average metrics such as ADD and WAD (see appendix for percentage changes for each metric). Results from the other GCMs can be considered later in the SSMP process, as part of scenario analysis.

5.0 AGGREGATE DEMAND MODEL RESULTS Model results are presented for the five key metrics, comparing weather normalized conditions with the stress year weather. Changes in wholesale customer usage plays a significant role in reducing demand2. Reduction by TVWD in 2026 is clearly evident, with the largest overall effect on anticipated future demand. The change in usage patterns by Rockwood and Gresham

2 The guaranteed purchase quantity for wholesale customers may differ from actual demand. When making capacity and sizing decisions, need to account for and make sure can meet the guaranteed purchase quantity for all wholesale customers.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 5 of 24 to address population growth with alternative (non-PWB) supplies also acts to maintain, vs increase, demand for those customers. In addition, continuing conservation, changes in land use, as well as anticipated price increases, have a negative impact on demands. Population and climate change increase demand. However, these are not enough to counteract the factors causing reduced demand discussed above. When all factors are combined, the modeled projections of demand gently decline to 2026, with a steep drop in 2026, followed by a relatively flat curve with some increase from 2030-2040, and then a leveling off or gentle decline again after 2040. Overall, future demands are expected to be less than historical demand, and significantly lower than previous projections.

Figure 2 – Average Daily Demand (ADD)

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 6 of 24 Figure 3 – Summer Average Demand (SAD)

Figure 4 – Winter Average Daily Demand (WAD)

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 7 of 24 Figure 5 – Peak Day Demand (PDD)

Figure 6 – Peak 3-Day Demand

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 8 of 24 Conclusion As indicated in Figure 1, aggregate demand has been declining over the last 20 years. Each of the demand indicators show declines from the 1990s, despite an increase in population from approx. 770,000 to approx. 950,000. When future stress year demand projections are compared with projections from the 2000 STSA, the reduction in the overall demand is even more significant, with reduction of more than 50% in the out years, see Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Comparison of 2000 STSA Demand Projections vs 2017 Demand Projection

Metric 2020 Old 2020 New Difference 2050 Old 2045 New Difference SAD 182 127 -30% 246 113 -54% PDD 284 177 -38% 382 158 -59% * Demands in MGD.

Factors that increase demand include population, and to a lesser degree climate change. Factors that decrease demand include wholesale customer decisions, densifying land use, conservation, retail customer behavior, and water prices. Of these dampening factors, wholesale customer decisions have the largest effect – namely the reduction in TVWD demand in 2026 creating steep declines for each demand indicator. After 2026, the net effect of these factors results in relatively flat trend forward from 2027 through 2045. Overall, demand is projected to be lower in 2045 than today. Summer average demand is expected to decline from approx. 120 mgd in 2010 (actual) to approximately 110 mgd in 2045 (modeled, stress year weather). Average peak day demand is expected to decline from approx. 180 mgd in 2010 (actual) to approximately 155 mgd in 2045 (modeled, stress year weather). These declines in demand occur despite an increase in population served3 from approx. 945,000 in 2010 (actual) to a modeled estimate of approx. 1,000,000 in 2045. This new pattern in service area water demand, especially in contrast to projected demand from the STSA modeling work in 2000, will impact the timing, sizing and need for new supply infrastructure.

3 Population served includes PWB retail service area as well as proportionate population of wholesale customers. For instance, not all of the population of the TVWD service area are included, as some are served by alternative TVWD supplies.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 9 of 24 A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 10 of 24 APPENDIX Demand Model Methodology

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 11 of 24 A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 12 of 24 Parandvash, Hossein, 2/2017

1.0 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE DEMAND MODEL A regression model was used to estimate the relationship between daily aggregate demand and its major drivers like weather, population, and price. The estimated model along with population forecasts, price projections, and assumptions about future values of other variables were used to forecast daily aggregate demand for water for the 2018-2045 period. Various studies, Hannan (1963), Jorgenson (1964 and 1967), and Harvey and Shephard (1993) show that time series data can be decomposed into trend, seasonal, and irregular components. Chesnutt and McSpadden (1995) show that part of the daily water demand variations can also be decomposed into variables that describe weather effect. A structural time series model is adopted to represent the demand for water by all customer classes. The general specification of the demand model is represented by (1).

D= f(, SWPopPrILT , , ,, ) (1)

where D is daily demand by all customers in the service area, S and W represent seasonal and weather variables respectively, Pop represents the population served, Pr is the proxy for price of water, I represent indicator or dummy variables depicting weekends, holidays, conservation, and some data anomalies, and LT represent long-term trend variables. These variables are explained in more detail in the sections below.

1.1.Seasonal variables There is a distinct bell-shaped seasonal pattern in daily demand for water in the Portland area. Demand during the winter months is very flat, it starts increasing mid-spring, peaks in June- September period, and declines mid-fall. Granger and Watson (1984) suggest the use of a series of 11 dummy variables to represent 11 months of the year to depict seasonal variations. In this approach the 12th month dummy is dropped to avoid singularity. Hannan (1963), Jorgenson (1964 and 1967), Harvey and Sheparrd, (1993), and Dziegielewski and Opitz (2000) also recommend use of Fourier series terms as a continuous function of time to express these seasonal patterns. We consider this approach in this study. For daily demand data these variables can be constructed as

22ππit it SSit = sin and SCit = cos  (2) DIY DIY where i is the number of cycles within each year, t is the day of the year, and DIY is the number of days in the year, i.e., 365 days for regular and 366 for leap years. For instance,

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 13 of 24 SS1 and SC1 (t subscript is dropped to avoid clutter) complete one full Sine and Cosine cycle

and SS2 and SC2 complete two full cycles within a year.

1.2.Weather variables Weather is an important driving factor in daily demand. Daily air temperature and precipitation determine the level of water use, especially during the peak season. Weather is obviously governed by a seasonal pattern, which is reflected in demand as well. Using air temperature and precipitation directly as explanatory variables would entangle the seasonal demand pattern with the daily effect of weather on demand.

To resolve such a problem, seasonal variations are removed from both daily air temperature and precipitation by auxiliary regression equations. Natural logarithm of the maximum daily temperature and daily precipitation are used as the dependent variables and the harmonic variables as the explanatory variables in the auxiliary regression models. The predictions of the auxiliary regression models depict the historical daily conditional means of air temperature and precipitation and the residuals show daily deviations from their respective conditional means. Daily precipitation, DP , is scaled to avoid taking the natural log of zero. Equations represented in (3) show how the seasonally adjusted contemporaneous daily precipitation values are generated.

P=ln( DP + 1) 66 ˆ Pt=++αβˆˆ∑∑ii SS γ j SC j + e t (3) ij=11= 66 ˆ Pdl(0)t=−+ P tαβˆˆ∑∑iiSS + γ j SC j ij=11= Similarly, the seasonally adjusted contemporaneous maximum daily temperatures are generated according to (4).

T= ln( MT ) 66 ˆ Tt=++αβˆˆ∑∑ii SS γ j SC j + ε t (4) ij=11= 66 ˆ Tdl(0)t=−+ T tαβˆˆ∑∑iiSS + γ j SC j ij=11=

where MT is the maximum daily temperature and Pdl(0)t and Tdl(0)t represent contemporaneous deviations from the conditional means, respectively. Various lags of mean adjusted precipitation and temperature variables are used as explanatory variables in the demand model. These variables are also multiplied by low frequency harmonics and used as interaction variables to allow the model to have flexible coefficients for

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 14 of 24 weather variables throughout the year. This allows the demand model to correctly reflect the effect of changes in precipitation and temperature on demand when they matter, that is, more impact during the peak season and less in winter. In addition, the number of consecutive days without precipitation adjusted for conditional mean is included to reflect the impact of dry spells on demand. This variable is also multiplied by low frequency harmonics, used as interaction variables, to allow for flexible coefficients.

1.3.Indicator variables There are variations in daily demand, which are not associated with seasonal, weather, economic, or demographic factors. For instance, depending on the customer composition of the service area, demand might drop or rise on weekends and holidays. Usually, one would see a drop in weekend demand when water consumption by nonresidential customer classes comprise a considerable part of the overall demand. This is due to the fact that most public and private work places, schools, and institutions are closed on weekends and holidays and therefore do not use as much water as they do during week days. These variations are represented by indicator or dummy variables in the demand model. Weekend dummy variable takes the value of one (1) for Saturday and Sunday and zero (0) for the rest of the week. Weekend variable is also interacted with the low frequency harmonics to allow seasonal flexibility for the coefficients. Holidays are represented by a series of dummy variables that take the value of one (1) on the days of observance and zero (0) otherwise. Short- term data anomalies as a result of meter malfunction with known periods of occurrences are also handled by a set of daily or monthly dummy variables.

1.4.Demographic, economic, and trend variables Total demand for water is affected by a variety of demographic and economic factors. Overall, factors that could cause a downward trend in total demand are increases in water and sewer rates, 1992 plumbing fixture code changes for new homes, change in the conservation attitude of customers, impact of conservation programs, changes in land-use, and slowdown in the economy. Positive growth in population, the economy, and income could cause increases in total demand over time. Population and a proxy for the price of water are used to represent demographic and economic factors that could contribute to long-term trend. Other factors that affect long-term trend are depicted by low frequency harmonics. These variables are generated in a fashion similar to the seasonal variables; however, their phase of oscillation occurs over the period of the data used in the demand model for estimation of the coefficients. The variables are generated as 22ππit it LTSit = sin and LTCit = cos  (5) DD DD where i is the number of cycles within the data period, t is the day number in the data period, and DD is the total number of days in the data used in the demand model.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 15 of 24 1.5.Functional form A linear functional form is used to explain the variations in daily demand in terms of the explanatory variables discussed above. Equation (6) shows the compact representation of the functional form. ln(D ) =++αβ SW γ + δln( Pop ) + ε ln( Pr ) ++ θ ILTu ω + (6) where D is daily demand in millions of gallons. S and W are Seasonal and Weather variables as explained in the above. Pop and Pr are population served and price respectively. I are indicator variables representing various factors that affect demand such as weekends, holidays, etc. LT are the long-term trend variables that explain effect of factors such as land-use, conservation, and changes in the demand attitude that are not captured by the implicit variables in the model. a, b , g , deq , , , and w are the unknown coefficient vectors to be estimated and u is the error term with Gaussian properties.

2.0 THE DATA Daily production data at Headworks are available from the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. Production data measure the amount of water supplied to all retail customer classes and wholesale customers plus the unbilled and unaccounted-for water in millions of gallons per day. The daily production data are available since 1960. Data for the 1980-2015 period were used for the estimation of the demand model. The accuracy of the production data is more reliable for this period and the trend in demand is more in line with the changes in demand as a result of conservation and land-use. The historical population for the retail service area and the service areas of the wholesale customers have been provided by the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University. The population numbers for the wholesale service areas have been adjusted for the water that the wholesale customers obtain from sources other than the PWB. Since aggregate demand covers all retail and wholesale customers, there are no single rates or rate structures that can be used in the demand model. Instead, annual revenue per million gallons, adjusted for inflation, is used as a proxy for price. The coefficient of the price variable measures the price elasticity of demand, which is the degree of response to price changes by all customers. Total daily precipitation and maximum daily temperature, measured at the Portland Airport weather station, are available since 1940, by Oregon Climate Service. The weather data are used to generate the explanatory weather variables, which are used in the demand model.

3.0 REGRESSION RESULTS Results of the regression model estimation are presented in Table 1, where the explanatory variables are defined as: S(i) and C(i) are seasonal variable of different sine and cosine frequencies,

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 16 of 24 D_WKND is the dummy variable for weekends,

D_NYD, D_MEMD, D_JUL4, D_LBD, D_VETD, D_TG, and D_XMAS are dummy variables for New Year, Memorial, Independence, Labor, Veterans, Thanksgiving, and Christmas days respectively, NPD is the number of consecutive days without rain,

P_DL(i) are daily precipitation variables with different lags,

T_DL(i) are maximum daily temperature variables with different lags,

Pop is the retail and wholesale population served by PWB sources.

Pr is the annual revenue per million gallons.

D_ECii are annual dummy variables representing changes in demand that could be attributed to the economy, land-use, or other factors that impact demand that are not presented by specific variables.

D_CONS92 is a dummy variable representing the 1992 building code changes of water fixtures.

D_Y92(Jul, Aug, Sep) are dummy variables depicting the reduction in demand as a results 1992 mandatory curtailment.

D_WIN07 is a dummy variable representing the data anomaly in winter of 2007.

C(i)_jj12 and S(i)_jj12 are the long-term cyclical trend sine and cosine wave variables over the 1993-2012 period for PWB retail and 1983-2012 period for Wolf Creek depicting impact of the economy, rates, conservation, land use, etc., C is the constant term, and AR(i) are the error correction terms for autocorrelation. The model shows a strong relationship between daily demand and the explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 is 0.89, which is rather high for daily demand data. Initial run of the model demonstrated autocorrelation among the error terms. First order AR was added for error correction. The AR term is significant and the Durbin-Watson statistics shows that the autocorrelation problem is resolved. Moreover, all coefficients have proper signs.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 17 of 24 Table 1. Aggregate demand regression model. Dependent Variable: Daily Aggregate Demand Variable Coeff. Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. Variable Coeff. Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. Variable Coeff. Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. S1 -0.0990 0.0021 -47.7712 0.0000 T_DL3*C1 -0.0587 0.0112 -5.2226 0.0000 P_DL4*S2 -0.0137 0.0078 -1.7524 0.0797 C1 -0.1998 0.0020 -100.1644 0.0000 T_DL4 0.0340 0.0082 4.1515 0.0000 P_DL5 -0.0322 0.0047 -6.8875 0.0000 S2 0.0871 0.0019 46.1455 0.0000 T_DL4*C1 -0.0567 0.0113 -5.0178 0.0000 P_DL5*C1 0.0365 0.0064 5.7326 0.0000 C2 0.0562 0.0019 29.7888 0.0000 T_DL4*C2 -0.0243 0.0112 -2.1613 0.0307 P_DL6 -0.0303 0.0049 -6.1529 0.0000 S3 -0.0264 0.0019 -14.2137 0.0000 T_DL6 0.0284 0.0079 3.6010 0.0003 P_DL6*C1 0.0341 0.0067 5.1053 0.0000 S4 0.0058 0.0019 3.0550 0.0023 T_DL6*C1 -0.0551 0.0103 -5.3258 0.0000 P_DL6*C2 -0.0032 0.0061 -0.5131 0.6079 C5 0.0063 0.0018 3.4354 0.0006 T_DL6*S1 -0.0349 0.0113 -3.0787 0.0021 LOG(POP) 1.0385 0.0637 16.2975 0.0000 C6 -0.0078 0.0019 -4.2340 0.0000 T_DL6*C2 -0.0076 0.0109 -0.6907 0.4898 LOG(Pr) -0.1812 0.0568 -3.1885 0.0014 D_WKND -0.0312 0.0016 -19.4976 0.0000 P_DL0 -0.0380 0.0059 -6.4700 0.0000 D_CONS92 -0.0532 0.0104 -5.0908 0.0000 D_WKND*C1 0.0043 0.0023 1.9001 0.0574 P_DL0*C1 0.0425 0.0077 5.5046 0.0000 D_Y92JUL -0.2611 0.0187 -13.9538 0.0000 D_WKND*S1 0.0019 0.0023 0.8255 0.4091 P_DL0*S1 0.0290 0.0082 3.5449 0.0004 D_Y92AUG -0.3143 0.0432 -7.2720 0.0000 D_NYD -0.0150 0.0133 -1.1308 0.2582 P_DL0*C2 -0.0183 0.0071 -2.5685 0.0102 D_Y92SEP -0.1924 0.0362 -5.3129 0.0000 D_MEMD 0.0009 0.0113 0.0832 0.9337 P_DL0*S2 -0.0209 0.0075 -2.8021 0.0051 D_WIN07 -0.1112 0.0181 -6.1321 0.0000 D_JUL4 -0.0381 0.0112 -3.3969 0.0007 P_DL1 -0.0623 0.0056 -11.1573 0.0000 D_EC01 -0.0604 0.0137 -4.4129 0.0000 D_LBD 0.0182 0.0128 1.4236 0.1546 P_DL1*C1 0.1014 0.0074 13.6217 0.0000 D_EC02 -0.0591 0.0160 -3.6952 0.0002 D_VETD 0.0200 0.0178 1.1192 0.2631 P_DL1*S1 0.0568 0.0081 7.0160 0.0000 D_EC03 -0.0618 0.0197 -3.1419 0.0017 D_TG -0.0314 0.0097 -3.2538 0.0011 P_DL1*C2 -0.0328 0.0073 -4.4872 0.0000 D_EC04 -0.0605 0.0220 -2.7494 0.0060 D_XMAS -0.0383 0.0082 -4.6884 0.0000 P_DL1*S2 -0.0433 0.0074 -5.8825 0.0000 D_EC05 -0.0585 0.0236 -2.4795 0.0132 NPD_R 0.0025 0.0004 6.3859 0.0000 P_DL2 -0.0464 0.0064 -7.2999 0.0000 D_EC06 -0.1212 0.0236 -5.1425 0.0000 NPD_R*C1 -0.0005 0.0004 -1.0848 0.2780 P_DL2*C1 0.0842 0.0086 9.7675 0.0000 D_EC07 -0.1264 0.0313 -4.0429 0.0001 NPD_R*S1 0.0011 0.0004 2.5144 0.0119 P_DL2*S1 0.0443 0.0087 5.0665 0.0000 D_EC08 -0.1755 0.0345 -5.0807 0.0000 T_DL0 0.2033 0.0082 24.8048 0.0000 P_DL2*C2 -0.0303 0.0076 -3.9741 0.0001 D_EC09 -0.1660 0.0444 -3.7413 0.0002 T_DL0*C1 -0.2733 0.0108 -25.3476 0.0000 P_DL2*S2 -0.0386 0.0083 -4.6627 0.0000 D_EC10 -0.2127 0.0494 -4.3048 0.0000 T_DL0*S1 -0.0566 0.0120 -4.7258 0.0000 P_DL3 -0.0406 0.0059 -6.8404 0.0000 D_EC11 -0.2480 0.0549 -4.5186 0.0000 T_DL0*C2 0.0616 0.0106 5.8119 0.0000 P_DL3*C1 0.0620 0.0073 8.4601 0.0000 D_EC12 -0.2474 0.0590 -4.1945 0.0000 T_DL0*S2 0.0408 0.0109 3.7325 0.0002 P_DL3*S1 0.0321 0.0089 3.6153 0.0003 D_EC13 -0.2709 0.0586 -4.6239 0.0000 T_DL1 0.1172 0.0082 14.3770 0.0000 P_DL3*C2 -0.0109 0.0072 -1.5072 0.1318 D_EC14 -0.2725 0.0615 -4.4314 0.0000 T_DL1*C1 -0.1636 0.0107 -15.3511 0.0000 P_DL3*S2 -0.0265 0.0084 -3.1549 0.0016 D_EC15 -0.3123 0.0647 -4.8248 0.0000 T_DL1*S1 -0.0710 0.0121 -5.8815 0.0000 P_DL4 -0.0395 0.0060 -6.5692 0.0000 C1_8015 0.0397 0.0114 3.4673 0.0005 T_DL1*S2 0.0261 0.0106 2.4600 0.0139 P_DL4*C1 0.0580 0.0077 7.4892 0.0000 S1_8015 0.0678 0.0076 8.9408 0.0000 T_DL2 0.0590 0.0082 7.1883 0.0000 P_DL4*S1 0.0349 0.0079 4.4072 0.0000 C -8.0572 0.9152 -8.8035 0.0000 T_DL2*C1 -0.0889 0.0113 -7.8333 0.0000 P_DL4*C2 -0.0190 0.0068 -2.7887 0.0053 AR(1) 0.4611 0.0048 95.5649 0.0000

R-squared 0.8885 Mean dependent var 4.6748 Adjusted R-squared 0.8877 S.D. dependent var 0.2297 Independent variables = 94 S.E. of regression 0.0770 Akaike info criterion -2.2829 Seasonal = 7 Sum squared resid 77.4 Schwarz criterion -2.2277 Weather = 52 Log likelihood 15106.13 Hannan-Quinn criter. -2.2645 Weekend and holidays = 10 F-statistic 1083.18 Durbin-Watson stat 2.2404 Economy and trend = 17 Prob(F-statistic) 0.0000

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 18 of 24 The population coefficient is 1.03, which indicates that a 1% increase in population results in a little bit more than 1% increase in daily demand for water. Long-term trend, conservation, and economy variables capture the impact of conservation, land-use, and other factors that result in the downward trend in demand. Coefficient of price has the negative sign and estimates a price elasticity of 0.18 that indicates 1.8% drop in demand as a result of a 10% increase in price. The dummy variable representing weekends, along with its interactions with the harmonics, show percent drop in demand that is higher during the peak season. Holiday dummy variables for New Year, Independence, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Days are all negative and statistically significant. Dummy variables for the Memorial, Labor, and Veterans Days are positive but statistically not significant. Coefficients of the seasonal variables are all significant and depict the seasonal variations in the daily demand. The weather variables, although all significant, have different levels of influence on demand. In general, model results indicate that temperature has a higher effect on daily demand than precipitation. As expected, the weather variables that are interacted with the harmonics make the effect of unseasonable rain and temperature less pronounced.

3.1.Decomposition of the effects One of the features of the model is that the variations in demand can be decomposed into the effects of different variables. For instance, the linear combination of all seasonal variables, as estimated by the demand equation, shows the seasonal variations in demand. By adding the linear combination of the weather variables to that of seasonal, the peaking behavior can be demonstrated. The antilog of the linear combination of all variables except for the weather variables, gives us the weather-normalized demand with seasonal variation. For simulation purposes also, weather effect from any weather year can be added to the weather normalized demand of any specific year. This would make it possible to simulate demand for a specific year with a historical sample of weather effects and explore demand under the best and worst case weather conditions.

4.0 FORECASTING In order to use the demand model as a forecasting tool, data on the future values of the explanatory variables are required. The seasonal and weekend variables are predetermined. Some of the indicator variables like conservation can be judgmentally determined as to what value they should take in the future. One can also decide about the effect of the long-term cyclical trend variables. However, the model needs future values of population and price for weather-normalized demand forecasts. Effect of any ongoing or future conservation and land- use need to be determined ex-post and outside of the demand model. For this the Residential End Use demand model, discussed in the “Conservation and land-use impact” section 4.4 below is used, which only applies to the retail service area demand.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 19 of 24 The forecast horizon for the Supply System Master Plan (SSMP) is 20 years, but these demand projections cover the period 2018-2045. The population forecasts provided by PRC are used to project future demand. The wholesale populations are adjusted for seasonal offloads and the assumptions regarding the future wholesale contracts (see Tech Memo 3.2). Annual rates of increase in price, provided by Finance group, are used to project price over the forecast horizon. The projected annual rates of increase in price proxy (revenue per millions of gallons sold to retail and wholesale customers adjusted for inflation) are: 7% over 2017-2021, 5% over 2022-2031, and 3% over 2031-2045.

4.1.Demand under historical weather In order to identify the years that weather driven demand causes stress on the supply system, aggregate demand under historical weather patterns are simulated. The weather variables of the demand model estimate the variation in demand on each day of the historical weather years during the 1940-2015 period. The daily weather effects are applied to the 2017 weather- normalized demand forecasts to simulate demand under 1940-2015 weather conditions. Various demand metrics such as peak day and peak 3-day, peak season average day, annual average day, and average day off-season demands are computed to determine which demand weather years are the most stressful on the supply system. The simulations show that 1981 peak day and peak 3-day demand and 1967 peak season average day and annual average day demand are the most stressful on the system.

4.2.Forecast Evaluation The usual statistics that result from running the regression equation normally report the fit of the model and how significant the coefficients of the explanatory variables are. However, to evaluate the quality of forecast we need to compute different types of statistics. The one that is used in this study is Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of the forecast. The advantage of this statistic is that it is scale-indifferent and easy to explain. It is defined as

1 N DDˆ − MAPE = ∑ tt NDt=1 t where Dˆ and D are Forecast and Actual demands respectively and tN=1,...., is the forecast period.

MAPE for daily forecast over the 1980-2015 period is 6.3%. The accuracy is increased when MAPE is computed for monthly and annual average demand. Over the same period, MAPE computed for monthly and annual average are 3.5% and 1.2% respectively. Daily variations in demand are mainly determined by the weather, therefore, any daily demand behavior that is not weather related adds to the inaccuracy of the forecast. For instance, some wholesale customers start filling their reservoirs in advance when they predict hot days ahead. These

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 20 of 24 types of reservoir operations lower the sensitivity of demand and the demand model to daily weather variations.

4.3.Climate impact PWB used five global climate models (GCMs) downscaled by the University of Idaho (UI) for the Portland area as input data for the demand model. These five models were rated highly by UI for representing weather conditions in the Pacific Northwest. These models were used to recreate 30 years of historical air temperatures and precipitation, and to estimate 30 years of future air temperature and precipitation. The data set from each GCM was used to generate demand projections specific to that GCM. The demand model coefficients along with climate predictions of 5 GCMs were used to estimate the long-term climate impact on demand over 1950-2005 and 2016-2045 periods. First, the auxiliary regression equations were used to establish the conditional mean for temperature, precipitation, and number of consecutive days without precipitation. The simulated historical climate, as projected by each GCM, was used for the 1950-2005 period. Then, the same set of weather variables was generated based on the simulated historical climate projections and their conditional means. Next, weather coefficients were applied to weather variables to estimate the daily weather effect on demand based on the simulated historical climate projections. In the next step, simulated future climate projections were used to generate the same set of weather variables for the 2016-2045 period. However, these variables are in terms of deviations from the conditional means established for the simulated historical projections. Applying the weather coefficients to these variables estimates the weather effect under the changed climate projections relative to the simulated historical projections for each GCM. Climate projections of each GCM for the two periods are applied to 2017 weather-normalized demand forecasts. Then, averages of the various demand metrics were computed for the two periods. The differences between the two sets of demand metrics over the 1950-2005 and 2016-2045 periods measure the long-term change in demand due to climate change according to each GCM over the two periods. Comparing the demand metrics allows us to choose the GCMs that lead to demand conditions that put the most stress on the supply system. The percent difference between the historical period and the future period was then used to estimate the effect of climate change on demand for each GCM and each metric. Of the five GCMs, the GCM with the largest effect on the metric was used to define the percent change for that metric for the results presented in this memo. Calculated percent changes were as follows for aggregate demand (retail and wholesale) are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Calculated GCM percent changes for aggregate demand. HadGEM2- GFDL- CSIRO- Maximum CanESM2 ES ESM2M Mk3-6-0 CNRMCM5 Effect ADD 2.80% 2.07% 2.83% 2.17% 1.76% 2.83%

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 21 of 24 HadGEM2- GFDL- CSIRO- Maximum CanESM2 ES ESM2M Mk3-6-0 CNRMCM5 Effect SAD 5.70% 4.66% 6.17% 4.87% 3.68% 6.17% WAD 0.79% 0.23% 0.51% 0.25% 0.39% 0.79% PDD 3.16% 5.30% 5.13% 3.94% 1.51% 5.30% P3D 3.67% 5.04% 5.07% 4.08% 1.85% 5.07%

Climate change is anticipated to have an increasing effect on air temperature and precipitation over time. The rate and pattern of change during the SSMP planning horizon is not yet known, and year to year variability is still expected to occur. As a simplifying assumption, PWB applied the percent change as follows: the effect at year one, 2018, was defined as zero and the effect at 2045 was defined as 100 percent of the calculated percent difference. The effect is then gradually increased, in a linear progression, from 0 to 100 percent. So, if the percent change for peak season daily demand (historical compared to future) was 6 percent, then the climate effect on demand in 2018 was zero and in 2045 was 6 percent. It is important to note that this procedure assumes that no aggressive adaptation action to reduce water use in response to climate change (in addition to current water efficiency trends) occurs over time. In that respect, the climate impact projections on demand could represent an over-estimate of demand response under each GCM projection. It is not known, however, if actual changes in air temperature and precipitation will be similar to, less than, or maybe even greater than the GCMs selected for this analysis.

4.4.Conservation and land-use impact Downward trend in demand could be attributed to passive and programmatic conservation, changes in land-use and increases in price of water and sewer. The impact of price of water is estimated in the demand model directly and is reflected in the demand forecasts. The impact of conservation and land-use, however, are not directly estimated in the demand model, and therefore not projected into the future. A residential end-use model was developed recently by Aquacraft based on the Water Research Foundation study 4309b, Residential End Use of Water, Version 2 (2016). The model can be used to forecast single and multifamily residential demand. It has parameters on water savings of various water fixtures and appliances and customer behaviors that are used in the embedded mathematical equations to adjust demand. The parameters of the model are based on the national survey and the estimated mathematical equations are based on the national data collected for the study. The parameters were developed for both single and multifamily residential customers. The model can be used to forecast residential demand under various conservation scenarios. PWB has purchased the model for the purpose of estimating future

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 22 of 24 water savings that come as a result of passive and programmatic conservation and changes in land-use. Aquacraft used the available information from PWB and augmented it with information from Tacoma, which was part of the WRF study, in order to fit the model for PWB’s demand forecasting purposes. Tacoma was deemed to be the closest surrogate for the PWB service area among the utilities that participated in the WRF 4309b study. Historical PWB billing data are used to calibrate the parameters of the model. The calibration process is to change the parameters so that the model can generate single and multifamily demand levels that are close to the actual. The calibrated parameters are used to initialize the model for demand forecast. The residential end use demand model allows changes to the parameters over the forecast horizon based on assumptions made about the future changes in technology, land-use, and conservation behavior of the customers. The difference between the baseline forecasts with no changes in the initial parameters and the forecasts with parameters changed based on conservation assumptions, estimates the future savings by the residential classes in the PWB retail service area. Moreover, baseline demand forecasts with no new multifamily development compared with the demand forecasts that incorporate new multifamily development forecasts by the PRC, estimates the impact of changes in land-use on demand. Two conservation scenarios based on the best guesstimates and conjectures by the Water Efficiency group were considered. Scenario 1 is in line with the recent trends in demand and mainly shows the continued impact of passive conservation and 1992 building code changes. Scenario 2 assumes more aggressive water efficiency programs, more inclination to save water on the part of customers, and smaller and more water efficient landscapes. The estimated savings from changes in land-use, pertaining to retail service area new multifamily development, and conservation Scenarios 1 and 2, are used to adjust the aggregate demand forecasts projected by the econometric demand model.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 23 of 24 REFERENCES Hannan, E.J., 1963. The estimation of seasonal variation in economic time series. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 31–44. Jorgenson, D.W., 1964. Minimum variance, linear, unbiased seasonal adjustment of economic time series. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 59, 681–724. Jorgenson, D.W., 1967. Seasonal adjustment of data for econometric analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62, 137–140.

A.C. Harvey, N. Shephard, Structural time series models, in: G.S. Maddala, C.R. Rao, H.D. Vinod (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics, vol. 11, 1993, pp. 261–302.

Chesnutt, T.W., McSpadden, C.N., 1995. Determinant of Phoenix Water Demand. A&T Technical Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA.

Granger, C.W.J., Watson, M.W., 1984. Time series and spectral methods in econometrics. In: Griliches, Zvi, Intriligator, Michael D. (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. II. North Holland and Elsevier Science, New York, pp. 980–1022.

B. Dziegielewski, E. Opitz, Water Demand Analysis, in: L.W. Mays (Ed.), Urban Water Supply Handbook, 2002, pp. 5.3–5.55.

DeOreo, W.B., Mayer, P.W., Dziegielewski, B. and Kiefer, J.C., 2016. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2. Denver, Colo.: Water Research Foundation.

A. SSMP Memo - Projected Demands and demand model methodology Page 24 of 24 Appendix B Future water supply analysis: A memo for the Supply System Master Plan

To: Cindi Lombard (Project Manager) & SSMP Stakeholders Cc: Mark Andersen (Jacobs), Greg Gates (Hazen & Sawyer), GSI Solutions (John From: Kavita Heyn (primary author), Ben Beal, Kristin Anderson, Dave Evonuk Date: May 7, 2019 Re: Final SSMP future water supply availability analysis (to replace TM 5.1)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This memo describes updated results from an internal Portland Water Bureau (PWB) analysis of future water supply availability and the conjunctive use of the Bull Run reservoirs and groundwater from the Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF). Its main purpose is to inform the Supply System Master Plan (SSMP). The methods, findings and recommendations are intended to replace those in technical memorandum (TM) 5.1 from February 2017, which provided preliminary findings of water supply availability.

This new analysis used thousands of data points and a set of climate, hydrologic, demand and a reservoir drawdown/Groundwater Use model to simulate and assess 300 possible future reservoir storage and drawdown conditions. These simulations are based on future modeled reservoir inflows and two future demand year forecasts (2025 with higher water demand, and 2045 with lower water demand, each represented by 150 simulations). The modeling factors in the effect of climate change on both reservoir inflows and demand.

Modeled results below are not predictions. They are instead simulations of plausible futures to help guide SSMP investments, scenarios and alternatives. Results for 2025 are relevant to short- term SSMP decisions and projects, while 2045 results can inform longer-term investments and development of the SSMP roadmap. Results may also be informative to operational planning.

The results for both time periods are organized in terms of the amount of groundwater that would be needed for a given simulated drawdown curve. The amount of groundwater is calculated from “rule curves” in the bureau’s Groundwater Use model. These curves currently inform seasonal (summer) supply operations.

The results are grouped into three types of simulations:

(1) Supply stress simulations are results where modeling estimated a need for 3 BG or more of summertime groundwater augmentation to supplement Bull Run reservoir storage and meet demands; (2) Moderate groundwater use simulations are results where modeling estimated a need for more than 0 BG but less than 3 BG of summertime groundwater augmentation to meet demands; (3) Non-stress simulations are results where modeling estimated that no (0 BG) summertime groundwater augmentation would be needed to meet demands.

1 | Page

Key findings for 2025 water supply availability are summarized below:

1. Supply stress simulations (3 BG or more groundwater pumped) occurred in 17% of the 150 modeled outputs for 2025 (before TVWD leaves the system). Stress on the reservoir supply was precipitated by warm and dry spring weather (from the climate models) that led to very early modeling of drawdown starts (April, May) and extended drawdown seasons (up to ~190 days). These simulations deviate significantly from PWB’s experience of past drawdowns which have historically occurred in early July and persisted for 100 days, on average.

2. Supply stress simulations for 2025 showed a greater draw on reservoir storage, due to both low inflows and the effect of hot weather in elevating demand. Without groundwater supplementation, modeling showed that the reservoirs could be drawn down as far as 6 BG below the baseline storage.

3. Supply stress simulations for 2025 estimated a need for significant groundwater pumping. Most simulations projected ~3 BG to 5.5 BG of groundwater augmentation, but some projected an unprecedented 6 BG to 8 BG would be needed to meet demands, notably higher than the 5.8 BG pumped in 2015. [Note that the amount of groundwater is related to, but not equivalent to, the level of the reservoirs. It is instead determined by the groundwater use “rule curves” in the modeling.]

4. The results suggest that very early drawdown could be a critical indicator of actual supply stress years in the future because all the modeled supply stress simulations were correlated with drawdown starts in April, May and very early June. The modeling supports recent experience when atmospheric ridges, warm temperatures and dry conditions in the spring contributed to very early drawdowns and consequently severe supply stress years in 2015 and 2018.

5. The end of drawdown seems to be a less important driver in creating supply stress conditions since the range of projected dates for the 2025 simulations are not historically unusual (e.g. September, October, November).

6. Almost half (48%) of the 150 simulations for 2025 projected the need for modest groundwater pumping (up to ~3 BG) to meet demands. The timing and duration of drawdown varied in these simulations and reservoir storage was not as low as supply stress simulations, but groundwater pumping was estimated to be needed.

7. Bull Run reservoir storage alone was projected to be enough to meet demands without groundwater in less than one-third (31%) of simulations. These non-stress simulations were the outcome of modeled high inflows caused by ample snowpack and rainfall. Consequently, reservoir levels were projected to be at least 3 BG above the baseline storage threshold, and cooler summer weather moderated demand.

2 | Page

Key findings for 2045 water supply availability are summarized below:

1. Model outputs for 2045 generated fewer supply stress simulations (~6% of the 150 simulations) because the demand forecast is much lower than 2025 demand. The lower demand counteracts the worsening impact of climate change on the hydrology of Bull Run.

2. Supply stress simulations for 2045 were again associated with very early modeled drawdown start dates (April, May) and extended drawdowns (up to 201 days) due to warm and dry spring weather conditions. The 2045 supply stress simulations estimated that between 3 BG and 5.5 BG of groundwater pumping would be needed to meet demands, a lower range than the 2025 stress simulations. This is still a significant amount of groundwater compared to actual historical experience where only five years have required groundwater pumping over 3 BG.

3. Less than half (44%) of the 2045 simulations projected the need for moderate (up to 3 BG) groundwater pumping, similar to the 2025 results. The number of 2045 non-stress simulations (46%) was higher than the number of 2025 non-stress simulations, due to lower customer demand. Non-stress years would not require groundwater augmentation.

Conclusions and recommendations:

1. The potential for supply stress years is higher in the short-term, before TVWD leaves the system and demand falls. Some stress years could be more severe than 2015 or 2018 in terms of early season low reservoir storage levels and resulting need for large quantities of groundwater. PWB should recognize the possibility that an unprecedented amount of groundwater augmentation could be required in the short-term if the reservoirs experience actual stress year conditions like those simulated for 2025.

2. In contrast, the potential for supply stress years decreases after 2025 (as captured in the 2045 model results) due to the drop in demand after TVWD leaves the system. However, supply stress years that do occur in the longer-term could still warrant a need for high groundwater pumping (e.g. up to 5.5 BG). It is important to note this analysis does not consider the possibility of new wholesale demand, beyond what was analyzed in TM 3.1. Additional wholesale demand would increase the future likelihood of supply stress years.

3. SSMP decisions about short-term projects and long-term infrastructure plans will need to weigh the above two opposing factors (higher risk of near-term supply stress years, lower risk of long-term supply stress years) to determine the appropriate levels of investment to meet resilience and reliability goals, especially as related to reliable groundwater supply.

3 | Page

from early June to the end of August (~3 months), followed by pumping at slightly lower rates for a few weeks later in the fall due to another peak in demand. PWB should evaluate these higher ranges against the extended use of groundwater analysis conducted by GSI Solutions to assess whether this volume of pumping is feasible over an extended drawdown season. PWB should also evaluate the extent to which water quality (Manganese) and aging infrastructure could affect well field reliability in future unprecedented high pumping events.

5. Based on the potential for the extreme supply stress conditions modeled in this analysis to actually occur in the future, PWB should ensure there is an opportunity to develop additional groundwater rights in the CSSWF.

6. It is highly likely that moderate amounts of groundwater will be needed in many years in both the short and long-term because almost half (46%) of all 300 simulations projected up to 3 BG of groundwater pumping in both 2025 and 2045. As noted above, PWB should evaluate if the well field can reliably provide even this more modest range of groundwater pumping (e.g. 2 BG to 3 BG) on a regular basis (i.e. every other year) when also factoring in potential water quality and infrastructure reliability issues.

7. In addition to infrastructure investments, operational adaptations like turning on groundwater earlier or at a higher rate early in the drawdown season may also need to play a role.

8. While over one-third of all 300 simulations projected that no groundwater would be needed to meet demand, these findings are based on groundwater “rule curves” that do not factor in the potential for warmer reservoir temperatures due to climate change, or changes to downstream temperature management protocols in the future. The Groundwater Use model applied a simplified approach to incorporate current temperature management based on existing Habitat Conservation Plan commitments. The extent to which future temperature management could affect groundwater use was not modeled in this analysis, due to limited information on future regulations.

9. Modeling from this analysis and other climate change assessments for Bull Run indicates that the bureau should expect more hydrologic drought years like 2015 and 2018, even if the long- term decrease in demand means these future years are not necessarily supply stressors for reservoir storage or groundwater pumping. Drought conditions are likely to become more common in the coming decades due to warmer temperatures, lower seasonal snowpack, higher summer evapotranspiration, and lower summer streamflows. Dry spring weather in particular significantly influences the risk of supply stress years in the Bull Run. However, there is less confidence around whether the spring will definitely be drier (or wetter), due to the complexity of the how the jet stream responds to a changing ocean and atmosphere. PWB is invested in research to learn more about spring time dryness.

4 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 METHOD FOR PROJECTING FUTURE WATER SUPPLY ...... 6 Forecasted demand years ...... 6 Summary of modeling methodology...... 7 2025 water supply availability results ...... 9 Groundwater pumping rates in supply stress simulations ...... 13 2045 water supply availability ...... 14 CONCLUSIONS...... 17 APPENDIX 1: METRICS, HISTORICAL DATA & MODELING METHODOLOGY ...... 19 Water supply metrics of analysis ...... 19 Detailed modeling methodology: Demand model & climate and hydrologic models ...... 21 HCP commitments ...... 25 APPENDIX 2: CLIMATE CHANGE AS A RISK MULTIPLIER ...... 26 Preview of a warmer future ...... 26 Late winter refill – a future black swan? ...... 28 REFERENCES ...... 29

5 | Page

INTRODUCTION

This memo describes updated results from an internal Portland Water Bureau (PWB) analysis of future water supply availability and the conjunctive use of the Bull Run reservoirs and groundwater from the CSSWF. Its main purpose is to inform the Supply System Master Plan (SSMP) scenario development, quantification and alternatives analysis. The methods, findings and recommendations are intended to replace those in TM 5.1 from February 2017, which provided preliminary findings of water supply availability. In contrast to the first analysis which looked at only future average changes, this new analysis included both future average and supply stress conditions by simulating and assessing 300 possible future drawdown curves in the reservoirs and drawing conclusions on what these results indicate for short and long-term reservoir storage and groundwater use.

METHOD FOR PROJECTING FUTURE WATER SUPPLY

The preliminary supply analysis in SSMP TM 5.1 used 2017 demand to project future reservoir storage because long-range demand forecasts were in the process of being updated at the time based on new population projections (TM 5.1 was completed just prior to TM 3.1). Future Bull Run reservoir inflow conditions were projected using five different global climate models and these inputs were run through PWB’s hydrologic and Groundwater Use models. Previous results were based on the average change in supply conditions between a historical (1950-2005) and future (2016-2045) 30-year period for each climate model.

Forecasted demand years

The updated analysis presented in this memo focuses on two future demand years from PWB’s 2018-2045 forecasted demand period. The demand conditions evaluated are aggregate demand (both retail and wholesale) as defined in TM 3.1. These demand years were selected based on their significance to supply and infrastructure planning, and are as follows:

o 2025: This demand year represents the last year before Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) leaves the system and is the highest demand forecast presented. o 2045: This demand year represents the last year of available forecasted demand and is the lowest demand forecast presented1.

Figure 1a and 1b illustrate the forecasted demand trend for peak day demand (PDD) and summer average demand (SAD) from 2018 through 2045, using weather from two historical stress years (1981 and 1967), respectively. Even with stress year weather, which elevates demand, there is a visible and significant forecasted drop in PDD and SAD when TVWD leaves the system. These trends in demand are further described in TM 3.1.

1 This demand year also reflects a future with higher projected air temperatures than 2025. Air temperature is an important driver of outdoor irrigation demand. 6 | Page

Figures 1a and 1b: Forecasted peak day demand (PDD) and summer average demand (SAD) trends from 2018 to 2045, based on stress year weather from 1981 and 1967. Red ovals highlight projected 2025 and 2045 PDD.

177 MGD

160 MGD

Summary of modeling methodology

Figure 2 summarizes the modeling methodology used in this analysis to simulate future Bull Run reservoir storage, drawdown and groundwater use.

7 | Page

The methodology used the same five climate models from the previous analysis (TM 5.1) and a recalibrated hydrologic model to simulate 45 years of future reservoir inflows (orange) from 2016 to 2059. Climate model data were also used to simulate weather effects on aggregated retail and wholesale demand (blue) for the two forecasted demand years. Bull Run inflows and demand were then combined with current Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) fish flow demands (green) in PWB’s Groundwater Use model (purple). The Groundwater Use model generated a range of future combined reservoir storage and drawdown metrics and calculated the need for supplemental summer supply from groundwater based on groundwater use “rules curves”. Appendix 1 provides more detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions, including the hydrologic model recalibration.

Figure 2: Methodology used to simulate future reservoir storage and groundwater use

The methodology resulted in the generation of 300 individual drawdown curves that simulated a range of plausible future Bull Run reservoir storage and drawdown conditions (30 years of weather and climate data x 2 demand years x 5 five climate models)2. The 30 weather years used to model 2025 supply were 2016 to 2045, and the 30 weather years used to model 2045 supply were 2030 to 2059. The methodology used to represent weather variability is described in Appendix 1. The goal was to center climate change effects on 2030 and 2045, respectively, by simulating 15 years of weather on either side. Each demand year generated 150 simulations (or possibilities) of summer season drawdown and groundwater use. The definitions of the drawdown metrics are described in detail in Appendix 1.

2 The analysis did not simulate the greatest possible range of future outcomes because only five climate models and two demand years were evaluated, but the results provide at least some spectrum of different potential outcomes. Results for all 300 simulations are available on request. 8 | Page

RESULTS OF FUTURE WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY

The results below are not predictions. They are instead simulations of plausible future conditions to help guide SSMP investments, scenarios and alternatives. Results for 2025 are presented first as they can be used to inform short-term investment decisions, capital planning, and operational adaptations in the next few years. Results for 2045 are presented after and are most relevant to longer-term planning decisions and development of the SSMP roadmap.

Groundwater use “rule curves” from 2018 were used to calculate the amount of groundwater needed for each simulation during the summer drawdown season to augment supply. The amount of reservoir storage shown in the results (above or below the baseline storage threshold) is not equivalent to the amount of groundwater pumped. Rather, the “rule curves” factor in the timing and rate of drawdown, along with simulated end of season reservoir storage, to determine how much groundwater should be activated ahead of time, without perfect knowledge of how the entire supply season will unfold.

Using groundwater as a backup supply during future turbidity events or during high levels of Cryptosporidium was not considered in this analysis because there are no “rule curves” that estimate the amount of groundwater needed for these two situations. The ability of the new filtration plant to increase the volume of water supplied from the reservoirs was also not incorporated into this analysis because there is currently limited information on what this effect would be.

2025 water supply availability results

Table 1 summarizes 2025 water supply availability results from 143 of the 150 simulations. The remaining seven simulations are outliers shown in Table 4. Three types of simulations are described in Table 1:

(1) Supply stress simulations are results where modeling estimated a need for 3 BG or more of summertime groundwater augmentation to supplement Bull Run reservoir storage and meet demands3; (2) Moderate groundwater use simulations are results where modeling estimated a need for more than 0 BG but less than 3 BG of summertime groundwater augmentation to meet demands; (3) Non-stress simulations are results where modeling estimated that no (0 BG) summertime groundwater augmentation would be needed to meet demands.

3 PWB has used 3 BG or more of groundwater in only five years since the CSSWF was developed: 1987, 2003, 2006, 2015 & 2018. This volume was identified as an appropriate threshold to define “supply stress” conditions. See PWB Development & Use of Groundwater webpage. 9 | Page

Table 1: 2025 results for reservoir storage, drawdown and groundwater use for 143 of the 150 simulations.

Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Projected Minimum Drawdown Drawdown Drawdown Refill Need for Reservoir Start Dates End Dates Duration Completion Summer GW Storage Dates Augmentation Without GW Use Supply stress 0.2 BG to April 19 to September 3 to 128 to 186 October 29 to 3.0 BG to simulations -6.0 BG June 9 November 14 days December 24 8.0 BG

~17% (25) of 150 Moderate GW use 4.1 BG to May 12 to September 6 to 92 to 178 October 7 to 0.1 BG to simulations -0.7 BG July 15 November 27 days December 26 2.9 BG

48% (72) of 150 Non-stress simulations 7.8 BG to May 27 to August 27 to 49 to 152 September 13 to 0 BG 2.6 BG September 25 November 28 days December 26 ~31% (46) of 150

For context, modeled results for 2025 can be compared to average historical supply. Table 2 provides information on historical average drawdown from 1976 to 2014, and the drawdown conditions in two recent supply stress years: 2015 and 2018. See Appendix 1 for more information.

Table 2: Historical average reservoir storage and drawdown, and 2015 and 2018 supply stress years.

Minimum Drawdown Drawdown Drawdown Refill Amount of Reservoir Start Dates End Dates Duration Completion GW Pumped Storage Dates for Supply Without Augmentation GW Use Historical average 3.2 BG July 3 October 13 100 days November 10 Variable from year to year, not (1976-2014) all years required augmentation so cannot be averaged.

2015 -4.1BG May 18 October 25 160 days November 17 5.8 BG

2018 -3.0 BG May 20 October 27 160 days November 29 4.6 BG

10 | Page

Key findings for 2025 supply availability:

Based on the results and information in the tables above, there are five key findings for 2025 water supply availability.

11 | Page

reservoir levels were projected to be at least 3 BG above the baseline storage threshold, and cooler summer weather moderated demand.

Figure 3 helps illustrates the above findings by showing three simulated drawdown curves for 2025. These curves were selected as examples to represent each of the three categories: stress, moderate, and non-stress. These drawdown curves illustrate what drawdown would look like if groundwater is not activated according to “rule curves” in the Groundwater Use model.

Figure 3: Three 2025 Bull Run reservoir drawdown curves depict a supply stress simulation (red), a moderate groundwater use simulation (olive), and a non-stress simulation (purple). Groundwater pump “rule curves” are shown in the green and bright red dashed lines.

Stress

Moderate GW

Non-stress

Baseline threshold

The red curve features the most extreme supply stress simulation identified in this analysis. Drawdown starts in mid-April and persists for 186 days through late October. The reservoirs simulate refill in late November. The projected end of drawdown reservoir storage is 6 BG below the baseline storage threshold (without groundwater use). According to the groundwater use “rule curves”, 8 BG of groundwater augmentation would be needed to meet demands in this simulation.

The red curve also illustrates late drawdown end and refill conditions that could increase turbidity risk due to low reservoir levels. In 2006 groundwater was turned off, only to be re-activated again one week later for two weeks (November 7 to November 20) due to a turbidity event. Prior to filtration, late refills like 2006 can be “nail biters” given the uncertainty of whether a turbidity event will occur and if groundwater will need to be activated in the fall. To date, the baseline storage threshold elevation has been used as an operational guide to help reduce the likelihood of degraded water quality and turbidity events.

12 | Page

The olive curve shows a moderate drawdown starting in late May and lasting 119 days until late September. Refill completion is simulated in early November. Reservoir storage levels drop to 1.4 BG in this simulation, and the groundwater use “rule curves” estimate that 2.1 BG of groundwater would be needed to supplement supply.

The purple curve shows a non-stress simulation with drawdown starting in early July and lasting for 116 days through early November. Refill completion is simulated in early December. The modeled minimum reservoir storage is 3.3 BG, and no groundwater is estimated to be needed to meet demands, based on the “rule curves”.

Groundwater pumping rates in supply stress simulations

The red curve in Figure 3 simulates the greatest amount of groundwater use to augment supply in this analysis (an historically unprecedented amount). Figure 4 provides more detail about the calculated rate of groundwater pumping needed to supply 8 BG of total volume over this particular supply stress simulation. According to the Groundwater Use model “rule curves”, groundwater pumping begins on June 1st in this simulation, at a rate of 36 mgd, is quickly ramped up to 54 mgd for several weeks, and then ramped up again to 72 mgd for over a month. The pumping rate declines in early fall due to a reduction in demand and to maintain minimum flows in the Bull Run conduits, but then is increased again in late fall to respond to high demand until reservoir drawdown ends in late October. The high estimated rates of groundwater pumping may need to be evaluated against the actual reliability of individual wells in the CSSWF.

Figure 4: Groundwater Use model pump rates for the 8 BG total volume supply stress simulation.

Pump rates

13 | Page

2045 water supply availability

Table 3 summarizes the water supply availability results for 2045 across 144 of the 150 simulations. The three same types of simulations are represented in the table: supply stress simulations, moderate groundwater use simulations, and non-stress simulations. Six outlier results are shown in Table 4.

Table 3: 2045 results for reservoir storage, drawdown and groundwater use for 144 of 150 of simulations.

Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Projected Minimum Drawdown Drawdown Drawdown Refill Need for Reservoir Start Dates End Dates Duration Completion Summer GW Storage Dates Augmentation Without GW Use Supply stress -0.1 BG to April 21 to October 15 to 157 to 201 November 6 to 3.0 BG to simulations -3.0 BG May 18 November 20 days December 4 5.5 BG

6% (9) of 150 Moderate GW use 4.3 BG to April 30 to September 3 to 93 to 193 September 23 to 0.1 BG to simulations -1.8 BG June 27 November 24 days December 26 2.9 BG

44% (66) of 150 Non-stress years 8.6 BG to May 24 to August 22 to 41 to 173 September 11 to 0 BG 1.7 BG August 7 November 27 days December 26 46% (69) of 150

Key findings for 2045 supply availability:

Based on the results and information in the tables above, there are three key findings for 2045 water supply availability.

14 | Page

stress simulations. This is still a significant amount of groundwater compared to actual historical experience where only five years have required groundwater pumping over 3 BG.

Figure 5 illustrates three simulations for 2045 (one example from each category).

Figure 5: Three 2045 Bull Run reservoir drawdown curves depict a supply stress simulation (red), a moderate groundwater use simulation (olive), and a non-stress simulation (purple). Groundwater pump “rule curves” are shown in the green and bright red dashed lines.

Stress

Moderate GW

Non-stress

Baseline threshold

The red curve identifies the most extreme stress year simulation for 2045. Drawdown starts in late April, lasting 183 days through late October. Reservoir refill is simulated in late November. The end of drawdown reservoir storage without groundwater is projected to be -3 BG. The groundwater use “rule curves” estimated a need for 5.5 BG of supplemental groundwater supply.

The olive curve simulates a drawdown starting in early May (visible behind the purple curve) and lasting 160 days until mid-October. Refill completion occurs in early December. Reservoir storage levels are projected to drop to 0.5 BG, and a need for 2.8 BG of groundwater pumping is estimated.

The purple curve simulates a drawdown start in mid-July, with a drawdown duration of 114 days through early November. Refill completes in early December. End of drawdown reservoir storage

15 | Page

is projected to be 5.2 BG, and groundwater pumping is not needed according to the groundwater use “rule curves”.

Outlier results

Like any modeling effort with complex methodology and thousands of data points, this analysis generated outliers that are inconsistent with other simulations. The 13 outliers for both 2025 and 2045 are summarized in Table 4. Most (10) of the outliers simulated very late drawdown starts, ends, or refill completion. Drawdown start in late summer has occurred in the past as a result of high seasonal inflows, so this in itself was not a reason to exclude these simulations. However, the projected late refill associated with these simulations was very unusual as it extended in some cases into the following calendar year. Those types of simulations were separated from the other results. Also, none of the outliers in the first two rows of the table modeled a need for groundwater. One simulation even projected drawdown would last 201 days without a need for groundwater supplementation - an unusual outcome compared to other results.

In contrast, three outliers in the third row of the table did simulate a moderate need for groundwater pumping, but also projected very late winter refill. These were separated from other results due to this anomaly.

Table 4: Outlier simulations for 2025 and 2045 (13 of 300 simulations)

Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated Projected Minimum Drawdown Drawdown Drawdown Refill Need for Reservoir Start Dates End Dates Duration Completion Summer GW Storage Dates Augmentation Without GW Use 2025 Non- stress 8.0 BG to September 25 October 25 to 20 to 64 November 1 0 BG outliers 7.7 BG to January 18 February 22 days to March 10

3% (5) of 150 2045 Non- stress 8.4 BG to June 12 to September 26 20 to 201 November 1 0 BG outliers 2.1 BG January 20 to February 22 days to March 1

3% (5) of 150 Other 2025 & 2045 2 BG to May 22 to September 26 126 to 175 January 3 to 1.7 BG to outliers -1.3 BG May 28 to November days February 26 3.5 BG 19 2% (3) of 150

16 | Page

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis summarized the results of 300 future simulations of water supply availability for two key points in time for the SSMP planning horizon: 2025 and 2045. A set of conclusions can be drawn from the findings:

4. The more extreme simulations for 2025 suggest that 6 BG to 8 BG of groundwater might need to be pumped in near-term stress years. Modeled groundwater pump rates for the most extreme supply stress simulation (a total of 8 BG of groundwater over the summer season) indicate that groundwater pumping of 54 to 72 million gallons per day (mgd) would have to be sustained from early June to the end of August (~3 months), followed by pumping at slightly lower rates for a few weeks later in the fall due to another peak in demand. PWB should evaluate these higher ranges against the extended use of groundwater analysis conducted by GSI Solutions to assess whether this volume of pumping is feasible over an extended drawdown season. PWB should also evaluate the extent to which water quality (Manganese) and aging infrastructure could affect well field reliability in future unprecedented high pumping events.

17 | Page

well field can reliably provide even this more modest range of groundwater pumping (e.g. 2 BG to 3 BG) on a regular basis (i.e. every other year) when also factoring in potential water quality and infrastructure reliability issues.

7. In addition to infrastructure investments, operational adaptations like turning on groundwater earlier or at a higher rate early in the drawdown season may also need to play a role.

18 | Page

APPENDIX 1: METRICS, HISTORICAL DATA & MODELING METHODOLOGY

As stated, in contrast to the first analysis which looked at future average changes, this new analysis also evaluated future supply stress conditions by (1) using climate model information to simulate the effect of variable weather on future demand and future inflows; and (2) modeling a longer timeframe (2016-2059) to capture climate effects through the middle of the century.

The summary below highlights the metrics, historical data, and modeling methodology used in this updated SSMP water supply analysis. All modeling exercises have their own set of assumptions and uncertainties, and this effort is no different. This Appendix should be used to understand the modeling methods, instead of the Appendix in TM 5.1.

Water supply metrics of analysis

A set of drawdown and groundwater use metrics were used to describe future water supply results for all 300 projected drawdown curves:

1. Minimum reservoir storage: The combined total storage in both Bull Run reservoirs at the end of the drawdown season serves as a valuable metric for understanding Bull Run storage volume without groundwater use. Low minimum storage is rarely realized since groundwater is activated in response to the drawdown conditions. This metric is calculated retrospectively.

2. Drawdown start: The latest date (before the drawdown end date) on which the combined volume of the Bull Run reservoirs is at full pool; or, if full pool is not reached, then the date at which the combined volume reaches its maximum value prior to entering the annual drawdown period. This metric is calculated retrospectively.

3. Drawdown end: The date on which the combined volume of water in the Bull Run reservoirs reaches its minimum value.

4. Drawdown duration: The number of days between the drawdown start and end dates. This metric is calculated retrospectively.

5. Refill completion: The date on which the Bull Run reservoirs reach 9.9 BG.

6. Groundwater use: The projected amount of groundwater needed to augment supply for a given drawdown curve, based on groundwater use “rule curves” in the Groundwater Use model that are used regularly to inform summer supply operations. For all 300 future simulations, groundwater volume pumped is calculated based on the “rule curves”.

19 | Page

Historical references

The historical references and information in Table 2 are described in further detail below:

1. Baseline storage threshold: Usable storage in the two Bull Run represents 9.9 BG. The metric is defined by elevation thresholds in each reservoir (970’ in Reservoir 1 and 840’ in Reservoir 2).

2. Historical average drawdown statistics: For each metric of analysis, the historical average drawdown statistic is the mean value from 1976-2014. Because demand varies from year, it is impossible to compare each year equally to the other to derive an average. Instead, years were “normalized” by applying 2016 demand to historical stream inflows from each year in the Groundwater Use model. This enables a “like to like” comparison of water supply metrics across the years. Also, stream gage records in the Bull Run water supply are unavailable before 1976, limiting the extent of historical drawdown statistics that can be calculated. Stream records downstream of the dams have a longer historical record but do not directly represent Bull Run inflows.

3. 2015: This year represents the most extreme historical supply stress year in terms of earliest reservoir drawdown start, longest drawdown duration, and lowest potential minimum storage without groundwater use. The reservoirs almost refilled on November 3, but a secondary small drawdown occurred due to increased release of flows for fish under the HCP, and refill ultimately completed on November 17.

Because of the drawdown conditions in 2015, reservoir storage would have been 4.1 BG below the baseline threshold if groundwater had not been activated. PWB pumped 5.8 BG of groundwater (the highest amount to date) to for supply augmentation, including augmentation during conduit maintenance. 2015 was described as a “snow drought” by scientists and water managers, with impacts to water resources across the Northwest.

4. 2018: This year represents another recent reservoir stress year. Drawdown in 2018 started only two days later than 2015, partly due to operational conditions in Reservoir 1. Like 2015, the reservoirs experienced a longer than average drawdown, but 2018 had a much longer and later fall refill period. While total groundwater pumped for supply was less than in 2015, the duration of pumping was longer. The spring in 2018 was abnormally dry.

20 | Page

Detailed modeling methodology: Demand model & climate and hydrologic models

The section below describes the demand model, climate model and hydrologic model data and HCP assumptions used for this updated water supply availability analysis.

Demand model forecasts

For past context, TM 3.1 discusses how PWB’s total aggregate demand has been decreasing over the past 20 years, particularly for Peak Day Demand and Seasonal Average Demand. TM 3.1 is an important reference for this analysis.

The 2018-2045 demand forecasts from TM 3.1 incorporate projected changes in population, conservation, land use, and rates. These forecasts assume water conservation follows current conservation trends and does not change in response to hotter or drier future summer conditions or other factors. This is called “Conservation 1”. Effects of more aggressive water conservation are available in another set of data called “Conservation 2”, which were not used for this analysis. Assuming Conservation 1 may have had the effect of potentially overestimating future demand.

To model variable year to year weather, this supply analysis adjusted weather-normalized demand years using daily “multipliers” from the five climate models used to model reservoir inflows. For 2025 demand, climate data from 2016-2045 (30 years, centered on 2030) were applied to the weather-normalized demand forecast to construct variable future weather years. For 2045 demand, climate data from 2030-2059 (30 years, centered on 2045) were applied to the weather-normalized demand forecast to construct variable future weather years.

Because population data are not currently available past 2045, PWB developed a simplified method to simulate 14 years of weather effects. PWB applied median weather effects to the 2045 weather-normalized demand (holding constant population, land use, and other demand variables from 2045) to generate daily demand values for 2046 through 2059. Daily “multipliers” for these 14 years were generated by identifying the weather year in each climate model that represented the median effect of weather on Summer Average Demand (SAD). The multipliers for the median SAD weather year were then used to represent the daily multipliers for the years 2046 through 2059. The resulting median years are shown below.

Global Climate Model (GCM) Median SAD weather year CanESM2 2042 CNRM_CM5 2031 CSIRO_MK3_6_0 2038 GFDL_ESM2M 2039 HadGEM2-ES365 2042

21 | Page

Using median multipliers instead of the full range of weather variability (including hotter weather conditions) may have had the effect of potentially underestimating demand.

Climate and hydrologic models used to assess supply availability

Definition of terms

 Calibration: Statistically or manually adjusting a model to replicate certain conditions (usually observed or historical).  Climate: The statistics of weather, typically calculated over 30-years or more.  Climate change: A change in the statistics of weather.  Global climate model (GCM): Also known as a General Circulation Model. A computerized model that simulates earth-ocean processes using mathematical algorithms and laws of physics. Global climate models resolve these processes on scales of 50-200 square kilometers. Statistical downscaling enables the larger scale global processes to be localized at smaller resolutions (e.g. 6 square kilometers).  Uncertainty: Refers to the range of climate model projections or estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate models

This climate analysis used state-of-the-art climate modeling and downscaling techniques to improve upon the methods used in PWB’s first climate and water supply analysis, the 2002 Palmer and Hahn Study. To conduct this effort (completed in 2013) the University of Idaho (UI) identified a group of 20 climate models from the most current generation of global models at the time (CMIP5), and then “downscaled” or localized these models to the topography of Bull Run. Downscaling involves both increasing the spatial resolution of the model outputs to specific elevations and topographies of the water supply drainage, and bias-correcting or adjusting the models to the historical weather distribution in and around the Bull Run. This is done first before using the models to project future changes.

The downscaling process was achieved by using a set of weather data from 1915-2011 that included weather station information from Bull Run (e.g. Headworks) and neighboring weather stations. The climate models were then “forced” with future greenhouse gas emissions pathways (see below) to generate daily projections from 1950 to 2100 for minimum and maximum temperature and precipitation in Bull Run across 20 grid cells of 6 square kilometers. The period 2006 through 2099 represents “future” projections in the downscaling.

UI used a statistical downscaling method called MACA (Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs). There are several different statistical downscaling methods, but MACA is widely used in regional climate studies. Dynamical downscaling is another form of downscaling for climate projections. This type of downscaling runs global and regional computerized models thousands of times to localize information. However, resources for dynamical downscaling can be limiting in

22 | Page

terms of costs, computers and data storage, and dynamical methods do not necessarily reduce the range in climate projections. PWB is interested in dynamical downscaling and will consider its use in future climate analyses.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

UI provided the bureau with data for two greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathways for all twenty climate models. Emissions pathways estimate the future amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere globally, and what the subsequent effect will be on global temperatures. In this analysis the bureau is using the higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). This pathway is considered “business as usual”, meaning emissions reductions continue at the same rate as today. Given the current state of the Paris climate agreement and political uncertainty about how and when significant emissions reductions could occur, this is a reasonable assumption. In any case, this higher emissions pathway does not diverge significantly from the lower emissions pathway (RCP 4.5) until after mid-century (2050).

Representative Climate Models

Because of the significant resources needed to run the chain of models in this analysis, PWB selected a subset of five climate models that are representative of the range of changes in temperature and precipitation projected in all twenty climate models downscaled for the bureau. These five models were recommended by UI and are circled in purple in Figure A1.

Figure A1: The five representative climate models used in this analysis.

23 | Page

PRMS hydrologic model

The analysis presented in this memo used a Bull Run hydrology model built and calibrated by the University of Washington (UW) for PWB in 2013. This model is based on the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) platform developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. A schematic of the model is shown in Figure A2. Model calibration involved using the same weather data from 1915- 2011 that was used to calibrate the climate models (see description above). UW tested and compared PRMS against a suite of several other hydrologic models used in regional climate studies. UW then quantified goodness-of-fit statistics and errors in how PRMS was able to replicate observed gauged streamflows in Bull Run on daily, monthly, annual time steps, as well as for flood curves and 7-day low flows. PRMS performed well across a range of statistical tests in its ability to represent Bull Run’s hydrology.

Figure A2: PRMS model structure (Source: U.S. Geological Survey)

PRMS was set up to simulate historical and future aggregate inflows for the Bull Run, from 1950- 2100, to match the time periods of the climate models. Future daily temperature and precipitation data were obtained from the climate models for 2006 through 2099 and fed into the PRMS model to simulate historical and future streamflows.

PRMS recalibration

In late 2017 PWB recalibrated the PRMS hydrologic model originally developed by UW in 2013. The goal was to better simulate summer streamflows for this updated water supply availability analysis. In the previous analysis in TM 5.1, the PRMS model from 2013 had overestimated streamflows during the summer drawdown period, by as much as 50% in some

24 | Page

months. Overestimated flows generally have the effect of creating a bias in minimum reservoir storage (simulating more water in the reservoirs) and reservoir drawdown start (a later drawdown). The overestimation of flows was addressed and significantly improved to better represent actual conditions, and supply stress conditions show up more clearly.

Changes to PRMS included:

• Model recalibrated for better fit to seasonal low flow (June – October) to reduce bias • Model summer flows skill improved based on Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency and percent bias • Remaining considerations: o May and June have a slight negative bias in flow (lower than observed) o Spring calibration is difficult due to high variability in observed weather o Negative spring biases may overestimate the chance of early drawdown or the total amount of minimum reservoir storage. o October has a slight negative bias in flow (lower than observed), however is typically not significant to statistics of drawdown end or refill complete.

HCP commitments

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) commitments to downstream fish flow management were integrated into the Groundwater Use model as detailed in the HCP minimum flow definitions. The model used an average daily flow value of 35 cubic feet per second during the summer drawdown period, and the minimum flow required for the fall months to accommodate fish flow demands. These flows are defined in the HCP commitments. (see https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/178190)

This simplified approach did not take account of the potential for changes to HCP commitments and temperature targets in the future.

25 | Page

APPENDIX 2: CLIMATE CHANGE AS A RISK MULTIPLIER

Climate change is a risk multiplier that will create new, unexpected challenges for the water supply system. As a best practice, multiple large water utilities around the U.S. factor climate change into long-range supply and infrastructure plans4. A warmer climate could exacerbate existing risks and stressors (e.g. low minimum reservoir storage, turbidity events, warm water) and lead to surprises outside the range of PWB’s experience. Climate change is expected to increase the probability (frequency) and consequence (severity) of extreme events in the Northwest region over the next several decades (Dalton et al., 2017; USGCRP, 2017). While there is uncertainty5 around exactly how climate impacts will manifest at local watershed scales, this analysis includes a range of future impacts from localized climate model information.

Preview of a warmer future

In 2015 the Northwest region experienced extreme climatic and hydrologic conditions, including the warmest year on record in Oregon at that time. Winter temperatures were 5-6 °F above average across the region, leading to a severe snow drought (Dalton et al., 2017). Bull Run experienced a very warm winter with little snow and record early snowmelt, followed by a very dry spring and summer with record heat, low Bull Run inflows, and an extended drawdown that began on May 18 and ended on October 25 (160 days).

As a result, PWB used 5.8 BG of groundwater, including augmentation during conduit maintenance. The conjunctive use of Bull Run and groundwater in 2015 prevented the need for curtailment and highlighted the overall resilience of the water supply system. However, groundwater was pumped extensively, and water temperature management for fish was challenging.

Regional climate scientists estimate that the extreme climate conditions experienced in 2015 will become more common in the next few decades and are projected to represent the average conditions by the 2050s, assuming the ongoing high rate of atmospheric warming underway (Dalton et al., 2017).

4 Members of the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA) include Austin Water, Central Arizona Project, Denver Water, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, NYC Department of Environmental Protection, Philadelphia Water Department, San Diego County Water Authority, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Seattle Public Utilities, Southern Nevada Water Authority, and Tampa Bay Water. PWB is a WUCA member.

5 Uncertainty – The climate is unequivocally warming on a global scale (USGCRP, 2017). Uncertainty here refers to four factors: (1) unknown future greenhouse gas emissions that depend on social and political choices, thereby leading to a range of estimates of future climate; (2) the inability of climate models to resolve all atmospheric features at local scales (like clouds and aerosols) so that exact changes in temperature and precipitation can only be projected, not predicted; (3) interannual and decadal variability caused by the El Niño Southern Oscillation and other similar phenomena; and (4) the complexity of the climate system where small changes in temperature can lead to non-linear, exponential changes in Earth system responses.

26 | Page

The more recent experience from 2018 is also informative for future planning. The early drawdown season was caused by a historically warm and dry May (overall driest May in Bull Run in 119 years of record). Due to the historically low rainfall (only 0.72 inches of rain at Headworks) and other operational factors, the reservoirs did not reach full pool during the spring.

Reservoir drawdown began on May 20, 2018 (only two days later than 2015), and groundwater was activated early on June 20. The dry May was caused by a very persistent and amplified “ridge” of high pressure. As a result, the storm track moved much farther north than normal, diverting storms away from Portland, and keeping the region dry, warm, and sunny (Abatzoglou, 2018; Loikith, 2019). Unpredictable jet streams and dry amplified ridges might become more common and/or more persistent because of the melting of Arctic sea ice, but this is the subject of active scientific debate (USGCRP, 2017; Loikith, 2019). The 2018 drawdown season was the same length as 2015, and the refill period was longer, although less groundwater was needed in 2018 to meet demands.

While the climate and hydrologic factors that contributed to an extreme supply year in 2015 (significantly warmer winter, low winter snow, low spring and summer streamflows) were different from those in 2018 (dry spring season with low rainfall, low spring streamflows), both years demonstrate that unusual or extreme climatic conditions can directly impact the supply system. These years are a likely preview of future hydrologic conditions for Bull Run.

Figure A3 is a conceptual model for how a warmer climate is expected to shift future supply conditions in favor of warmer, more stressful water supply years.

Figure A3: Comparison of average historical conditions to conditions in 2015, which are expected to become more common in the future.

27 | Page

Late winter refill – a future black swan?

The Bull Run reservoirs historically refill on an annual basis with the return of fall rains. Past planning and operational practices have relied on this dynamic. It is highly likely that the annual refill nature of the reservoirs will continue through the middle of the century and beyond, but a warmer climate has already contributed to surprising conditions for water systems in other locations (e.g. Hurricane Harvey, Austin Water unprecedented rainfall and turbidity), and could lead to surprises for the Bull Run system. The potential for system surprises increases later in the century as the compounding effects of climate change unfold.

Reservoir refill that does not occur until the next calendar year is unusual, but it is plausible and was simulated in several outliers in Table 4 of this analysis. The physical phenomena that could create such conditions would be a delayed onset of enough fall or winter rainfall or high inflows to reach full reservoir pool. These are clearly extreme outcomes, essentially “black swan” events, (i.e., events that are highly improbable and impossible to predict) which could have significant consequences for managing the reservoirs and operating groundwater. These situations could require winter season groundwater supply augmentation (or other alternatives).

Figure A4 illustrates what a late refill black swan year might look like. The light green curve depicts one of the outlier simulations for 2025. Drawdown begins in late May and ends in late September. However, the reservoirs only partially fill in the fall, and refill does not complete until late February of the following year. In this model run, only 3.4 BG of groundwater is estimated to meet summer supply use needs, but this does not factor in groundwater that might be needed for a potential turbidity event or for supply augmentation during the winter (given that no groundwater rule curves have been developed for winter season).

Figure A4: 2025 drawdown curve simulating extremely late winter refill in the following calendar year.

Late winter refill

28 | Page

REFERENCES

Abatzoglou, John (2018). National Integrated Drought Information System: Pacific Northwest Drought Early Warning System Webinar – June 2018.

Dalton, M.M., K.D. Dello, L. Hawkins, P.W. Mote, and D.E. Rupp (2017). The Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Loikith, Paul (2019). PWB scope of work for research on spring season ridges with Portland State University.

Portland Water Bureau (2019). Development & Use of Groundwater webpage: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/344756

USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp.

29 | Page

Appendix C Final order for 2010 Water Management and Conservation Plan

Water Resources Department reaon North Mall Office Building 725 Summer Street NE, Suite A Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem, OR 97301-1266 503-986-0900 FAX 503-986-0904

May 25, 2010

David G. Shaff, Administrator City of Portland Water Bureau 1120SW5'"Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204

SUBJECT: Water Management and Conservation Plan

Dear. Mr. Shaff

Enclosed, please find the final order approving your water management and conservation plan. We did not receive any appeals of the proposed final order that we issued on April 15,2010.

We appreciate your cooperation in this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any guidance or information as you update your plan.

Sincerely,

Bill Fujii MRS III Field Services Division

Enclosure cc: WMCP file Sabrina White-Scarver, Watermaster Dist 20 Lisa Brown, WaterWatch of Oregon

Received

JUN 0 1 2010 Portland Water Bureau

Page 1 of 1 BEFORE THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Proposed Water ) FINAL ORDER APPROVING WATER Management and Conservation Plan for ) MANAGEMENT AND City of Portland, Multnomah County ) CONSERVATION PLAN

Authority

OAR Chapter 690, Division 086, establishes the process and criteria for approving water management and conservation plans required under the conditions of permits, permit extensions and other orders of the Department. An approved water management plan may authorize the diversion and use of water under a permit extended pursuant to OAR Chapter 690, Division 315.

Background

On March 31, 2008, the City of Portland submitted a draft Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) for review under OAR Chapter 690, Division 086 (November 2002). Submittal of the plan is required under a previously approved WMCP, under conditions of various permits and an order extending the authorized date on those permits.

The Department published notice of receipt of the plan on April 1, 2008. Comments were received from WaterWatch of Oregon.

The Department provided comments on the plan to the City on June 27, 2008 and, in response, the City submitted a revised plan on March 8, 2010.

Findings of Fact

1. The City of Portland Water Management and Conservation Plan contains all plan elements required under OAR 690-086-0125. The projections of future water needs in the plan demonstrate a need for over 53.39 million gallons per day of water available under Permits G- 8755, G-10124, G-10455, and G-10479 to meet demands for the population anticipated in 20 years. These projections are reasonable and consistent with the City's land use plan. The City requires wholesale customers to submit a WMCP. This WMCP addresses the City of Portland's land use plan; the wholesale customer's meet obligations to work with land use entities through concurrent processes.

2. The plan includes 5-year benchmarks for implementation of a rate study, pilot test of reuse, education program, technical services, meter testing and replacement. The system is fully

This final order is subject to judicial review by the Court of Appeals under ORS 183.482. Any petition for judicial review must be filed within the 60-day time period specified by ORS 183.482(1). Pursuant to ORS 536.075 and OAR 137-003-0675, you may petition for judicial review or petition the Director for reconsideration of this order. A petition for reconsideration may be granted or denied by the Director, and if no action is taken within 60 days following the date the petition was filed, the petition shall be deemed denied.

Page 1 of 3 Special Order Volume oQ , Page metered and the rate structure includes a base rate and volumetric charge. Unaccounted-for water is estimated at six percent.

3. The plan includes 5-year benchmarks for evaluation, development, and implementation of programs to perform a rate study and a pilot test of reuse.

4. The plan identifies the Bull Run River, ground water and Crystal Springs Creek as the source of the City's water rights and accurately and completely describes the City's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) consistent with the Federal Endangered Species Act.

5. The water curtailment element included in the plan satisfactorily promotes water curtailment practices and includes a list of four stages of alert with concurrent curtailment actions.

6. The diversion of water in the existing well field will be expanded under Permits G-8755, G- 10124, G-10455, and G-10479. Use from these permits will be initiated during the next 20 years and consistent with OAR 690-086-0130(7):

a. The plan includes a schedule for development of a combination of existing and new conservation measures that provide water at a cost that is equal to or lower than the cost the use of the existing and expanded well field.

b. Use of the additional wells in the well field increases the reliability of the City's water supplies particularly in times of shortage due to drought or catastrophe. Increased use from the source is the most feasible and appropriate water supply alternative available to the supplier.

c. The plan contains documentation that the supplier is complying with mitigation requirements under the HCP developed in cooperation with the Federal action agencies.

Determination and Proposed Action

The water management and conservation plan submitted by the City of Portland appears to be consistent with the criteria in OAR Chapter 690, Division 086. If appeals are not filed pursuant to OAR 690-086-0915(10), the water management and conservation plan will be approved.

If the water management and conservation plan is approved, the final order will include the following:

1. The City of Portland Water Management and Conservation Plan is approved and shall remain in effect until May 25, 2020 unless this approval is rescinded pursuant to OAR 690-086- 0920.

2. The limitation of the diversion of water under Permits G-8755, G-10124, G-10455, and G- 10479 established by the extension of time approved on October 6, 2009 is removed and, subject to other limitations or conditions of the permit, the City of Portland is authorized to divert up to 82.59 cfs under Permits G-8755, G-10124, G-10455, and G-10479. This use does not allow the use of water in excess of any individual permit limitations.

Page 2 of 3 Special Order Volume 3. The City of Portland shall submit an updated plan within ten years and no later than May 25, 2020 and shall submit a progress report containing the information required under OAR 690- 086-0120(4) by May 25, 2015.

th Dated at Salem, Oregon thi^25m day of May 2010

Mailing date: MAY 2 8

Page 3 of3 Special Order Volume %0 , Page Appendix D Strategic Plan

Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Portland Water Bureau STRATEGIC PLAN A five-year risk management approach

1 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Portland Water Bureau STRATEGIC PLAN 2019 Our commitment A strategic plan is many things. It’s a reflection of the values and expertise of an organization, a frame for what’s possible, and a snapshot of what the future holds.

When we—the Water Bureau workforce—began to plan our focus for 2020-2024 , we hoped to create a plan that was adaptable, durable, and more than another document on a shelf. After a two-year collaborative effort at all levels of the bureau and in consultation with community leaders, we’ve arrived on a clear set of priorities to guide our work.

In this plan, we propose solutions to a range of pressing issues, including water service affordability; the effects of climate change on our system; workforce and service equity; regional emergency preparedness and resilence; and a need for deeper community relationships. Addressing risks This plan tackles challenges. To create the plan, we identified strategic risks to the Water Bureau and asked community partners to do the same. We had honest conversations about the challenges we face and how we can address them. Embedding equity We considered equity in every part of this planning process, with the goal of creating a plan that reduces systemic inequality and its impacts on our employees and the people we serve. We collected equity-specific risks, scored risk consequences based on equity, identified strategies that would lead to equitable outcomes, and redefined our organization’s commitment to equity. Directing focus This plan doesn’t describe all the work the Water Bureau does and will continue to do. The plan addresses the risks we identified and focuses us on specific areas that have room for improvement. We will still do the daily work of a water utility, including testing the water, replacing hydrants, building new pipelines, and answering customer calls. Looking ahead As we put the plan into action, we will: • Continue to work across our organization • Measure outcomes. and with stakeholders. • Communicate with our employees, our community, • Regularly revisit and reevaluate strategic risks. and our partners about progress, decisions, and • Consider equity impacts in all of our work. lessons learned.

We’re proud to present this commitment to the people who enjoy the excellent water we deliver every minute of every day.

Onward, The Portland Water Bureau Portland city skyline. Cover: The Bull Run Watershed is the primary drinking August 2019 water supply2 for the City of Portland and its wholesale customers. 3 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

What we do Our new guiding statements What We The Portland Water Bureau’s 600 employees work together to serve almost a million people in the Portland area. Mission We serve excellent water every minute of every day.

The water our community loves is safe and abundant for Vision generations to come. We focus on the people we serve. We Equity We commit to the difficult—and essential—work of work with our transforming Water Bureau policies, practices, and culture to community better serve people in marginalized communities. We work to through customer service, reduce systemic inequality and its impacts on our employees communications, and the people we serve. We manage and protect Portland’s water sources. water efficiency, and education programs. Values Honor our responsibility. We take part in a long legacy of careful stewardship of natural resources, infrastructure, and public trust. We never forget that water is essential. We test and treat the We install and maintain infrastructure, water to make sure from 2-inch water mains to 108-inch Serve our community. it’s safe to drink. water conduits. We maintain dams, We know people depend on us. We are dedicated to listening, reservoirs, tanks, pump stations, valves, communicating, and acting with compassion. and hydrants. Work well. Our strength lies in the skills, expertise, and creativity our employees bring to work every day. We work hard, we work safely, and we adapt. We plan ahead so that we’ll always have excellent water Use money wisely. quality, ample supply, reliable We work to control costs while maintaining high standards. infrastructure, top-line We contribute to a well-run customer service, and strong organization. This means We invest to make our water system stronger, more flexible, environmental stewardship. We managing everything from and better prepared for challenges ahead. plan so that we’ll have a water money—bonds, budgets, and system that will continue to accounting—to properties, Build relationships. work in the face of challenges. work sites, and contracts. We recognize the power of collaboration—with customers, We strive to create an coworkers, and partner organizations. Our relationships guide adaptable Water Bureau, our work. We collect customer supporting each other with payments to fund water organizational change and services and programs, equity work. and we offer financial help to income-qualified customers. 4 5 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Our strategic planning approach Ongoing work The process of developing a strategic plan can be as valuable as the document itself. The strategic risk management goals on the following pages show how the To develop this plan, we collaborated across the bureau and with key partners, Water Bureau plans to change the way it works. While we implement the assessed and prioritized strategic risks, and focused on equity. strategic plan, we remain deeply committed to continuing our work on:

BUREAU Affordability All 7 bureau workgroups participated in the planning process. WORK GROUPS • Enroll income-qualified customers in our financial assistance program. 7 • Improve how we offer financial assistance to people in all types of residences. PEER UTILITY We learned from 14 regional and national utility managers about MANAGERS strategic risk best practices. Stewardship 14 • Combine engineering, economics, and business best practices to identify the most cost-effective and efficient ways to manage assets. COMMUNITY We heard from 55 community partners about how we’re doing. • Prioritize infrastructure repair and replacement based on data. PARTNERS 55 • Protect the natural conditions and ecosystems essential to Portland’s water sources. STRATEGIC Bureau employees and stakeholders shared Seismic resilience over 675 strategic risk ideas. 675 RISK IDEAS • Implement the bureau’s seismic resilience plan. • Finish building a new seismically sound reservoir at Washington Park. RISK EMPLOYEES 72 employees worked in teams to create • Start building a seismically sound pipeline deep underneath the Willamette River. MANAGEMENT our 67 risk management strategies. STRATEGIES 72 67 Water quality BUREAU EQUITY More than 20 Bureau Equity Committee members advised • Monitor water quality—with over 10,000 tests each year—for both Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Well Field water. COMMITTEE MEMBERS throughout the process and identified equity-specific risks. 20 • Install improved corrosion control treatment. • Plan and start building a Bull Run filtration facility. EQUITY AS We applied 5 equity review steps to each strategy. These steps ACTION STEPS helped us consider benefits and burdens, actions to create equitable 5 outcomes, stakeholder engagement, accountability, and evaluation.

6 7 Our capitalPortland improvement Water Bureau projects | FIVE-YEAR support STRATEGIC a growing PLAN city and strengthen Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN our system against disasters like earthquakes. New infrastructure like this underground reservoir at Powell Butte uses a seismically resilient approach. Strategic risk management goals As part of the strategic risk planning approach, bureau staff characterized and grouped risks, brainstormed strategies to address these risks, and evaluated the strategies. These strategies revealed five strategic risk management goals that need particular focus:

System reliability Community relationships Each of the five strategic risk management Workforce & culture goals includes a set of objectives and a Organizational processes preliminary list of strategies. Accountability & leadership

Strategic risk management goal

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS

Objectives Strategies Equity impact Timing Sponsors are further are specific shows when the are the bureau refinement of the actions that will E bureau will start leaders responsible goal and describe mitigate specific indicates to focus on the for leading and the intent of a risks and create strategies that strategy. communicating group of strategies. change. Some have a high 2 the implementation strategies, by potential to of the strategy. their nature, are advance equity. indicates strategies Each strategy has more defined These strategies the bureau will start a Lead Sponsor than others. The focus on to address in the (large font) and Sponsors and underserved and first two years, and Co-Sponsors Transition Teams underrepresented 5 (smaller font). will determine people and places. the scope and indicates strategies “We focused on strategic risks because they performance the bureau will start measures of to address within pose the greatest threat to fulfilling our mission. each strategy as the five-year plan. the first step in By collaborating across the bureau and with implementation.

stakeholders, we uncovered the biggest risks and crafted thoughtful strategies.” — Management Team member 8 9 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

System reliability

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS

1. Make sure the Groundwater Steering Committee is composed of the appropriate A. Groundwater level of decision makers in order to better coordinate groundwater management 2 system and planning. Director of Invest in infrastructure and 2. Improve communication of groundwater planning and operational status across 2 Operations staffing to ensure reliable bureau groups (for example, in regular Management Team updates). performance and annual Chief Engineer availability of the City’s 3. Support the Groundwater Steering Committee to review current groundwater Director of potable groundwater system staffing levels and asset needs and recommend appropriate investments in 2 groundwater resources and infrastructure. Resource Protection as a seasonal supplemental source and emergency 4. When maintaining or replacing equipment, prioritize work that will make the 2 backup. system more reliable.

1. Update, finalize, and share emergency plans. Continue to create an employee 2 Chief Engineer B. Emergency culture of personal and professional preparedness. management Director of Maintenance and Continue to prepare for 2. Work with local, regional, and national partners to plan for equitable emergency E 5 water distribution during systemwide emergencies. Construction regionwide emergencies. Director of Above: Meter shop staff regularly test water meters for accuracy. 3. Establish equipment storage points and staffing processes for fixing Operations Below: We play an important role in fighting fires. Our crews infrastructure after a major disaster. Consider equity when planning for E 2 maintain about 16,000 hydrants in the City of Portland. post-disaster system repair.

1. Help outdoor work crews prepare for extreme weather and wildfire smoke. 2 C. Climate change Director of response 2. Communicate more—internally and externally—about climate planning, Resource including through a report summarizing climate change work. 2 Bring climate change work Protection Director of into organization-wide 3. Continue to work with other agencies and scientists to plan for climate-related 2 planning, communications, changes in supply and demand. Maintenance and Construction and operations. 4. Continue to reduce carbon emissions of bureau facilities and fleet. E 2

D. Technology 1. Hire a Water Bureau Technology Manager to coordinate technology systems expertise within the bureau, and to work with other City employees to meet the 2 Director of “Climate change resilience affects organization’s unique technology needs. Customer & capacity Service the entire bureau. I’m excited that Make sure the technology Director of 2. Develop a technology plan to improve data security and incident response, and 2 Operations we are taking seriously these issues the bureau uses is secure to prioritize investment in data systems. and effective. and organizational challenges!” — Risk management strategy team member E High potential to advance equity 2 Implementation starts within 2 years 5 Implementation starts within 5 years

10 11 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Community relationships

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS

1. Develop and implement an external strategic communications plan that E 2 A. Community prioritizes cultural responsiveness and public trust. connections 2. Enable employees to represent the bureau at community events by clarifying E 2 Modernize communications, time and pay policies and by creating a Community Ambassador Program. prioritizing strong community connections. 3. Create more ways for people from underrepresented communities to E 2 Communications meaningfully inform bureau policies, programs, and projects. Build relationships to Manager better engage underserved 4. Create more and deeper partnerships with community organizations and people and underrepresented from underrepresented communities. Track community engagement and offer E 5 Director of Resource Protection communities. services where they may be missing. Equity Manager 5. Extend the reach of the current education program, focusing on underserved E 5 and underrepresented communities.

6. Support and train employees to implement the Racial Equity Plan’s Above: Our staff attend community events throughout the year to 2 community-oriented strategies. E share information and listen to our community. Below: Come find us! Our portable water station can be found at bureau-sponsored events throughout town. B. Equitable access 1. Research how smart meter technology could affect the bureau and the communities we serve, focusing on equity impacts of smart meter E 2 Director of implementation. Provide equitable access to Customer water service and programs. 2. Study rate structures that prioritize affordability, including rates that incorporate Service E 5 a very inexpensive lifeline (or essential) water use amount. Equity Manager

3. Hire more multilingual employees and research ways to compensate employees E 5 Director of Finance who bring and use multiple language skills.

1. Develop a clearer and more collaborative process for creating procedures that 2 C. City partnerships will affect other bureaus. Director Serve our community of Finance 2. Explore how to develop service level agreements for the work bureaus do for 2 better by strengthening each other. collaboration across city Chief Engineer government. 3. Encourage and support employees to build relationships with staff in other 2 Deputy Director bureaus. Encourage bureau leaders to develop relationships with staff in elected offices.

E High potential to advance equity 2 Implementation starts within 2 years 5 Implementation starts within 5 years “We are hoping to set up and establish more routine, standing ways of communicating, not just on urgent issues. We don’t want to meet each other over the broken pipes.” — Community stakeholder 12 13 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Workforce & culture

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS

2 A. Workplace 1. Reward cross-group collaboration in employee events, awards, and evaluations. communication 2. Establish clear expectations for how employees work across groups and how long internal bureau processes should take. 5 & collaboration Communications 2 Manager Create and embed 3. Create new ways to recognize the contributions and accomplishments of all work groups. E a more positive 4. Provide consistent and more equitable access to cross-group learning opportunities like E 2 Equity Manager and collaborative the SOAKED (Sharing our Assets and Knowledge for Employee Development) program. workplace culture. 5. Implement tools that enable more data sharing and collaboration across groups. E 2

6. Develop an internal strategic communications plan for improving coworkers’ E 2 relationships and understanding of each other’s work. Above: Emergency dispatchers respond to 220 inquiries each day, dispatching services and helping customers after business hours. Below: Our Maintenance and Construction teams work around the 1. Improve recruitment processes by strategically promoting the Water Bureau, writing E 5 B. Recruitment & clear position descriptions, and training managers on hiring best practices. city to maintain our water system—from underground pipes to above-ground hydrants. retention 2. Identify and implement equitable hiring and retention practices. E 2 Create a more 3. Elevate the Racial Equity Plan within the bureau by increasing communication and training E 2 equitable, welcoming, about the plan’s tools and goals, and by connecting all employees work to the plan. flexible, and safe 4. Explore offering flexible schedules and telecommuting opportunities to more employees. E 2 workplace for all Equity Manager employees. 5. Create clear processes for identifying and accommodating individual employee needs. People may need flexible or part-time schedules, accommodations for disabilities, or E 5 Director of Finance equitable access to paid time for professional development. 6. Develop leave standards that are consistent across groups and within City guidelines. E 2 7. Build and maintain leadership development for current and rising leaders to make management more diverse. Embody an inclusive management philosophy to improve E 2 recruitment and retention of women and people of color. 8. Create a workplace culture in which all employees feel (and are) safe, regardless of identity. Implement procedures for reporting and responding to bigotry and hate E 2 directed at any bureau employee.

1. Encourage employee growth through mentorship programs, tuition assistance, and E 5 C. Empowered clearer pathways for promotion; focus on underrepresented groups. employees 2. Increase use of the job shadow program. E 2 Equity Manager Support employees to 3. Institute processes for debriefing major events and identifying how we can Communications E 2 do their best work. do better next time. Manager “The Portland Water Bureau 4. Empower employees to identify safety challenges and uphold safety standards. 2 Director of Customer Service needs to be open to new ideas in 5. Create mechanisms for employees to recommend improvements to bureau work, and 5 attracting and retaining staff.” for managers to consider and potentially implement their recommendations. — Community stakeholder E High potential to advance equity 2 Implementation starts within 2 years 5 Implementation starts within 5 years 14 15 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Organizational processes

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS Timing our focus

1. Identify and assign individuals’ roles and performance expectations 2 We know we can’t do everything at once. A. Project for each project. development Bureau leaders used these questions to Director of determine when to focus energy on and delivery 2. Continue to review and improve E3 (Efficient and Effective Engineering) 2 processes. Maintenance each strategy: Help major projects and 3. Improve and increase contracting and project management training for run smoothly. 2 Construction • Are we already working on this strategy? project managers. Chief Engineer 4. Assign every major project a Management Team sponsor. 5 • What strategies can we start right away? Director of Operations • Do some strategies depend on each 5. Monitor, communicate about, and coordinate project performance at all phases, 5 including during transitions between groups and phases. other? Does one need to come first? • Which strategies will have broad B. Standards of 1. Standardize how we establish and update service levels. 2 organizational impact? practice Deputy 2. Deepen our understanding of each other’s work and how our work connects. 2 Director • Is there a good balance of work between Increase communication strategy sponsors? across the bureau to 3. Build a bureau culture where we treat each other as partners and demonstrate Director of improve efficiency and E 5 Resource respect for each other’s work. Protection collaboration, and to The timing is a guideline, not a rule. Chief Engineer prevent the loss of 4. Identify areas of the bureau where loss of institutional knowledge is greatest 5 We’ll revisit and revise each strategy as institutional knowledge. and work to capture that knowledge. we put the plan into place.

C. Financial 1. Establish performance measures for each budget program. 2 management 2. Improve how groups work together to meet the goals of each budget program. 5 Manage budget programs Director of to improve understanding Finance “The cross-group collaboration and collaboration across 3. Explore how we can better manage budget programs. 2 work groups. (Budget Director of was important. Vital for relationship Maintenance and programs are categories Construction building, priority informing, and of bureau work that show 4. Give managers more tools for managing budgets, particularly in the form of better training about how to use SAP (the City’s financial planning and 2 how money is spent.) general knowledge. budgeting software). — Risk management strategy team member

E High potential to advance equity 2 Implementation starts within 2 years 5 Implementation starts within 5 years

16 17 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Accountability & leadership

OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES EQUITY IMPACT TIMING SPONSORS

1. Identify new and effective ways to help staff engage in work and support the E 2 A. Recognition values of the bureau’s guiding statements. of value Director of Commit to a culture 2. Give employees clear performance expectations and an understanding of how the Portland 2 that values the work their roles fit within the bureau as a whole. Water Bureau of all groups. 3. Encourage and support decision making at the level of those closest to the Director of 2 information and need. Finance

4. Set consistent guidelines for the format and content of performance evaluations. E 5

B. Leadership 1. Train managers and supervisors to recruit and retain excellent employees, build E 2 strong teams, and encourage employee development. Deputy development Above: Our emergency operations center is ready to activate 24/7 to Director Build leadership skills respond to emergency events. Below: Development services staff 2. Create cohort groups in which managers and supervisors can collaborate about review plans to ensure they meet code and safety requirements. so that managers and 2 Director of shared challenges (such as goal setting, rewards, and management style). supervisors can support the Portland Water Bureau employees in bringing 3. Require managers and supervisors to regularly evaluate (and set goals with) each E 2 their best to their work. of their employees. Provide support so that this is practical and effective.

C. Decision making 1. Support teams in recognizing, discussing, and managing conflict. E 2 Deputy Embed effective 2. Make opportunities for employees at all levels to participate in relevant Director E 2 decision-making decision making. processes throughout Director of the organization. the Portland 3. Include many perspectives in decision making and be open with each other E 5 Water Bureau about the decisions we make.

E High potential to advance equity 2 Implementation starts within 2 years 5 Implementation starts within 5 years “As leaders, we’re always working to empower our teams with the resources and support they need to bring their whole selves to work. This plan gives us concrete ways to do that.” — Management Team member

18 19 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

To achieve our goals

We commit to supporting each other and collaborating. Each of us has a role in making the Strategic Plan successful. • The Management Team—as the senior leadership group of the bureau—leads, communicates, supports, and informs We commit to the implementation process. Each member sponsors building and improving processes to connect, specific objectives, holds fellow members accountable, communicate, and measure our work. and facilitates Transition Teams. •• Performance measures help us develop, •• Transition Teams are groups of employees from many analyze, and report metrics to assess outcomes. work groups and organizational levels. These teams work with Sponsors to scope, plan, and implement objectives •• The Timeline shows when we implement and strategies. strategies. The timeline considers short- and

•• The Strategic Plan Program Team supports the long-term execution, how implementation Management Team and Transition Teams with tools might affect current systems, and the need for and resources. reasonable expectations. •• Instituting an annual Strategic Summit allows us to communicate and celebrate our progress, identify new risks, share ideas, and inform the “The collaboration and conversations with one another annual bureau budget. have been invaluable. That process has already initiated change on its own.” — Risk management strategy team member

20 21 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Together we will keep the water our community loves safe and abundant for generations to come.

22 23 Portland Water Bureau | FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN

Want to know more about the Strategic Plan? Visit portlandoregon.gov/water/strategicplan for information on the development process, plans for implementation, and updates.

Have questions? [email protected] 503-823-7412

Printed on 100% recycled paper 24 08/2019

Appendix E Example water sales agreement

WATER SALES AGREEMENT FOR «name» Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 1

REGIONAL WATER SALES AGREEMENT (Water Companies)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page SECTION 1 – NATURE OF SERVICE ...... 3

SECTION 2 – WATER REGULATIONS ...... 4

SECTION 3 – DURATION OF AGREEMENT AND RENEWAL ...... 5

SECTION 4 – RATES AND CHARGES ...... 6

SECTION 5– CONNECTIONS AND METERING ...... 7

SECTION 6 – WATER CURTAILMENT ...... 8

SECTION 7 – BILLING AND PAYMENT...... 9

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 2

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between «name»__, herein called “Purchaser,” and the CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, herein called “City.”

The parties recite:

A. Purchaser is a corporation of the State of Oregon organized pursuant to Articles of Incorporation, and is authorized to operate a water system.

B. City is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon and is authorized by Chapters 2 and 11 of the Charter of the City of Portland to maintain water works for the furnishing of water to the city, its property, its inhabitants, and to non-inhabitants. The Council of the City is further authorized to enter into contracts for the supply of water by the city and to sell water to persons, public and private, outside the city, on terms and conditions the Council finds appropriate.

C. The service and commodity provided by City pursuant to this Agreement are a special contract service and are not provided by City as a common utility service.

D. The City has entered into or expects to enter into 10 and 20 year water sales agreements with a number of public entities who are served water using generally the same water supply assets as is Purchaser. These entities include: Lusted Water District and Pleasant Home Water District.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 3

SECTION 1 – NATURE OF SERVICE

A. Subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, City agrees to furnish and sell, and Purchaser agrees to purchase a firm supply of potable water on an annual basis for the life of this Agreement.

B. The City shall deliver water to the purchaser from the same source or sources of water that City delivers to City inhabitants. The City shall meet all applicable drinking water regulatory requirements up to the purchaser’s point of delivery.

C. Purchaser’s supply of water shall be reduced or terminated only in accordance with the terms of this agreement.

D. Purchaser recognizes and agrees that no liability for damages shall attach to the City on account of any failure of supply or changes in pressure, flow rate, or water quality due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the City acting in accordance with standards of care common and usual in the municipal water supply industry. Examples of such circumstances include, but are not limited to, natural events such as earthquakes, landslides and floods, and human-caused events such as terrorism, malevolent acts, contamination of the water supply, and acts of war.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 4

SECTION 2 – WATER REGULATIONS

A. Purchaser hereby agrees to abide by and be bound by the terms and provisions of Chapter 21.28 of the Code of the City of Portland, Oregon, as it presently exists or as may be amended to comply with federal and state law, during the life of this agreement, to the extent to which such terms and provisions do not conflict with any material provisions of this agreement.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 5

SECTION 3 – DURATION OF AGREEMENT AND RENEWAL

A. The term of this agreement shall be for five years.

B. The agreement shall be automatically renewed for one additional five year term unless either party gives written notice to terminate the agreement within six months of the first five year anniversary.

C. Either party may also terminate the agreement at any time if notice of such termination occurs at least six months prior to the desired termination date. Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 6

SECTION 4 – RATES AND CHARGES

The rate structure shall consist of (a) a fixed monthly charge calculated using the cost of service of typical non-volumetric services such as, but not limited to, meter reading, billing, meter purchases, meter maintenance, and relevant overhead and (b) a volume charge calculated using volumetric rates established as provided herein times the volume of water purchased.

The City shall annually establish volume rates for the Purchaser based generally on the average rate for public entity water purchasers, or their successors, provided water under 10 or 20 year water supply agreements using generally similar water system assets. In establishing rates for Purchaser, the City may also take into account usage or other special circumstances that reasonably differentiate the Purchaser from the public entity water purchasers, using cost of service principles described in the American Water Works Association’s Manual of Water Supply Practices—M1.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 7

SECTION 5– CONNECTIONS AND METERING

A. Meter Ownership and Responsibility

Upon execution of this agreement, all existing water meters used to measure the water supplied by the City to the Purchaser, and associated facilities such as vaults, are the property of the City. The City shall own and maintain the piping and associated appurtenances up to and including the isolation valve located immediately downstream of the meter. When a new meter or meters are required, the City shall install on Purchaser’s main, at a point near the connection with the City's main, a water meter or meters that will at all times measure the water supplied by City to Purchaser. The City shall own and maintain the piping and associated appurtenances up to and including the isolation valve located immediately downstream of the meter. City shall maintain the meter or meters in proper working condition, including periodic testing, calibration, maintenance and replacement of the meter(s) based on generally accepted industry standards. City agrees to notify Purchaser prior to repairing the meter.

B. Meter Costs

The cost of replacing the meter or meters and their operations and maintenance shall be included by the City in calculating Purchaser’s rates.

C. Meter Access

The Purchaser shall be allowed reasonable access to meters and facilities for purposes of installing and maintaining telemetry equipment or other equipment related to the metering function.

D. New Connections

Purchaser shall not make any new or upsized water service connections, beyond the current «services» service connections, to Purchaser’s system without the prior written approval of the Administrator of the City of Portland Water Bureau. Such requests shall be directed in writing and include the location, size and user category of proposed new or upsized service connections. Prior to, or when, reviewing any request by Purchaser for authority to allow new or upsized water service connections, the Administrator may require the Purchaser to provide other information regarding Purchaser’s water system, and the new or upsized connections that the Administrator deems appropriate.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 8

SECTION 6 – WATER CURTAILMENT

A. During times when water supplies are not adequate to meet the aggregate of all demands placed upon the Portland water system, the City and Purchasers need to have a plan in place to reduce or curtail demands so that fire, life, safety and other high priority needs are met. It is to the benefit of all of the users of the Portland water system that plans for curtailment be agreed upon in advance and that plans for curtailments be coordinated among water providers.

B. By signing this agreement, Purchaser and City acknowledge that unforeseen or unavoidable circumstances may limit the amount of water available to City for sale and distribution, whether temporarily or permanently. Should the available supply fall below the aggregate of all demands placed on the City system, or should it be reasonably predicted that supply will fall below demands before other supplies are available, the Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works may declare that a water shortage is in effect.

Whenever the Administrator has declared a water shortage, any adopted Curtailment Plan shall be in effect and Purchaser shall comply with the terms of that plan. If there is no adopted Curtailment plan, the Administrator may require implementation of measures he or she deems necessary or advisable to reduce all demands and the Purchaser shall comply with the Administrator’s measures.

Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016 Page 9

SECTION 7 – BILLING AND PAYMENT

A. Billing

Each bill will include a fixed monthly charge and a volume charge calculated using volumetric rates established as provided in Section 4 times the volume of water purchased.

B. Payment Schedule

Bills are due upon receipt, and subject to a collection fee if not paid on or before the twenty-first day following the billing date. Collection fees shall be established each year in the annual City ordinance establishing rates.

C. Charges In Case of Meter Failure

Should any meter fail to measure accurately the water passing through said meter, the charge for water used during the time the meter is reading inaccurately shall be based on the City’s estimates of the volume of water supplied.

D. Disputes

In the case of disputes over billings for water, Purchaser shall pay the undisputed amount when due and the disputed amount shall be resolved through Dispute Resolution. The Purchaser shall pay interest at a rate equivalent to the rate earned on the City’s internal investment pool managed by the City Treasurer on any disputed amounts found through dispute resolution or litigation to be due the City. Regional Water Sales Agreement (Water Company) July 2016

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Purchaser has, pursuant to official action of its governing body on the ______day of ______, 20____, duly authorizing the same, caused its proper officers to execute this instrument on its behalf and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, and City has caused this instrument to be signed by its Mayor and Commissioner-in-Charge of the Bureau of Water Works, all of which is in triplicate.

PURCHASER: «name»

Purchaser

By Approved as to form: ______(Title)

Attest ______Purchaser’s Attorney (Title)

Date ______

CITY OF PORTLAND:

By ______Commissioner-in-Charge Approved as to form: By ______Water Bureau Administrator

______City Attorney Date ______

Appendix F Water rights final orders

Appendix G Water Managers Advisory Board recommended curtailment plan

Water Managers Advisory Board Recommended Curtailment Plan Adopted December 12, 2018

Introduction

Pursuant to the Regional Water Sales Agreement, Section 14.C, the Water Managers Advisory Board (WMAB) is required to “develop and recommend to the Administrator a Curtailment Plan.” As specified, the “Curtailment Plan shall be designed to accomplish reductions in demand necessary, in the event of a water shortage, to protect the system’s capacity to supply water for fire, life, safety and other high priority needs.”

A water shortage may occur at any time of the year, as a result of natural causes or water system failure, for unknown duration. The Curtailment Plan is intended to be a framework that the Administrator can use to work with the Purchasers.

The Curtailment Plan is predicated on a philosophy that Portland and Purchasers share the responsibility to respond to a water shortage proportionately, recognizing that some, but not all, Purchasers may have access to alternative water supplies.

The Curtailment Plan consists of two primary sets of measures to be undertaken during a water supply shortage. The first set of measures are called mitigation measures. These measures are recommended to mitigate the effects of a shortage. The goal of implementing mitigation measures is to resolve water supply shortages before formal curtailment is required.

The second set of measures contained in the Curtailment Plan are called curtailment measures. If mitigation measures prove insufficient to protect the systems ability to meet total demands, the Administrator may impose curtailment measures to further reduce overall demands on the system.

If curtailment measures are necessary after Purchasers and Portland have worked together and have exhausted possible mitigate measures, the Curtailment Plan provides procedures for allocating the necessary water demand reduction to Purchasers and Portland and to monitor water demand throughout the duration of the water shortage.

The Regional Water Sales Agreement allows two or more participating Purchasers to coordinate their demand reductions to accomplish, jointly, total demand reductions imposed on them by the curtailment measures implemented through the Curtailment Plan.1 Although ad hoc joint curtailment efforts were considered by the WMAB, these joint approaches were found to be infeasible by the WMAB and are therefore not recommended or supported. During a curtailment, the WMAB feels that a regional approach best serves the needs of Portland and Purchases. Having separately

1 Section 14.C. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 1 of 7 administer joint plans makes it difficult to effectively communicate to the region the objectives and approach to various curtailment measures. As a result, no procedures has been developed or included in this Curtailment Plan to allow for the coordinated demand reductions.

Pursuant to Section 14.G. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement, the Administrator may reduce the amount of water supplied to the purchaser if Purchaser is unable to achieve the required reductions, so that it does not exceed the amount specified under curtailment measures. The WMAB recognizes that it may not be feasible or practical for the Administrator to physically reduce the amount of water supplied to purchaser. Therefore, the WMAB recommends that the curtailment measures provide incentives for Portland and Purchasers to reduce demand. The WMAB recommends the Administrator implement these incentives by adjusting Portland’s or a Purchaser’s future rates to reflect the lack of achieving reductions in demands and the consequent impact on peaking factors used to set water rates. The methodology recommended by the WMAB to estimate the impact on peaking factors is described below. WMAB agrees that this would require a modification to the calculation of peaking factors that differs slightly as prescribed in Section 5.B. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement. However, the WMAB recommends the adjustments to peaking factors be considered an option as provided under Section 5.G.1 of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.2

It is the intent of the WMAB to revise the Curtailment Plan as necessary and reviewed at least every two years.

Mitigation Measures

Curtailment has significant financial and public confidence impacts. The WMAB finds that it is in the best interests of Portland and its Purchasers to work collaboratively to reserve curtailment as an action of last resort by maximizing the water supply potential of the region prior to implementing curtailment.

At any time that a water shortage can be anticipated, Portland will work with Purchasers to explore possible mitigation measures that can be deployed to prevent a declaration of a water shortage by the Administrator.

Potential Mitigation Actions

A. “Top” off Storage

Purchasers with storage capacity may be asked to “top” off their storage. The “top” off by Purchasers will not impact their peak-day or peak-season peaking factors.

B. “Off Load” Purchasers Demand

2 Section 5.G.1 addresses reductions in supplies and states in part “…the Administrator may take such steps as are necessary or advisable to protect the system. The WMAB recommends the Administrator implement adjustments to peaking factors as described further in this Curtailment Plan as an advisable measure.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 2 of 7

Certain Purchasers have access to alternate sources of water (e.g., Rockwood and Gresham have wells; TVWD could increase its purchase from the Joint Water Commission and both TVWD and Tualatin may use their ASR wells). To the extent that these and other Purchasers can use alternative sources, they can make more “Portland” water available to the entire region to mitigate and/or reduce the amount of curtailment required of Portland and each of the Purchasers. That additional water from alternative sources may also be used to reduce the curtailment targets when a water shortage is declared by the Administrator.

Portland will work with Purchasers with alternative sources of water to reduce the minimum purchase obligations of the Purchasers who can, to prevent a water shortage, make additional water available to the region.

Exhibit A of this Curtailment Plan includes a list of potential alternative sources. The availability of these alternative sources is not assured and will depend on many factors (e.g., the season, how widespread the cause of the shortage is). Purchasers can update the values on Exhibit A by providing a letter to the Administrator describing the source and amount of capacity available.

Purchasers who are approved by the Administrator to use an alternative sources (thus making water available to the region) will have their Guaranteed Purchase Water Quantity (GPWQ) temporarily reduced during the period approved by the Administrator. Purchasers implementing alternative sources consistent with this mitigation measure will not be charged for that amount of water. Exhibit B illustrates how the reduced GPWQ will be calculated.

If approved by the Administrator in advance, Portland will compensate the Purchasers for the additional cost to produce or purchase water from the approved alternative source. The additional cost of the alternative source will be allocated to all Purchasers including Portland during the next rate-setting process. To receive compensation, the Purchaser securing or producing the alternative source will be required to provide substantiation to Portland that documents the costs. The compensation will be provided in the in the same year. This will look like a bill/invoice, as opposed to a rate adjustment.

In the case where a Purchaser can acquire an alternative source of water to make more water available to the region, but the costs is more than its current contracted amount from Portland, the Administrator will decide whether to allow the Purchaser to reduce its GPWQ. In other words, if the Administrator determines the cost of the additional water is too high, he/she can decide not to add it to the regional supply.

Peaking factors will not be adversely affected by offloading demand from the Portland system as described above when approved by the Administrator. Purchasers who offloads must work with Portland to prepare for the offload or for recovery from the offload to minimize impacts to peaking factors. The Administrator will have discretion to consider waiving the impacts to peaking factors for the purpose of offloading either before or after the offloads.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 3 of 7

Curtailment Measures

Pursuant to Section 14.D. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement, when the Administrator declares a water shortage, the curtailment measures included in this Curtailment Plan shall be in effect.

When the Administrator declares a water shortage, each Purchaser will be apprised of its reduction in water availability from Portland. The reduced availability will be proportional using the monthly usage estimates developed as prescribed in Section 15.A.2. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

As prescribed in Section 15.A.2. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement, if the wholesale customer did not provide demand projections, the monthly usage estimates will be the average of the last three years of actual usage for each month as a percentage to the actual usage during the peak season and off-peak season. Demand projections remain consistent with the seasonal peaking factors and minimum purchase quantities.

Examples of the calculation to derive at the amount of curtailment and Adjusted GPWQ are in Exhibit B.

It is the responsibility of each Purchaser to meet the required reduction.

All Purchasers are expected to implement their Curtailment Plans even as they seek to reduce demands on the regional system by using alternate sources that are approved by the Administrator as described in mitigation measures section of this Curtailment Plan. Such Curtailment Plan implementation is within the sole purview of the Purchaser. In addition, Purchasers will work with Portland on a coordinated curtailment message.

Purchasers will be released of the GPWQ equal to the amount of reductions mandated and will not be billed for those amounts or Purchaser may request to shift its GPWQ to another time of the year as prescribed in Section 5.F.1.(a) of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

Portland and its Purchasers will not be reimbursed for lost revenue associated with curtailment.

Pursuant to Section 5.C.3 of the Regional Water Sales Agreement, Purchasers who have existing supply agreements are subject to curtailment. In addition, Purchasers cannot enter new supply agreements during periods of mandatory curtailment as prescribed in Section 5.C.4 of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 4 of 7 Curtailment Monitoring

Pursuant to Section 14.F. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement, Portland shall monitor compliance with the Curtailment Plan throughout the duration of the declared water storage.

The basis for determining if a Purchaser is meeting its reduction target is an analysis of the difference between its Adjusted GPWQ and its actual use during the water shortage period.

WMAB recommends modification to the calculation of peaking factors during the water shortage period. The peaking factors will be calculated using the Adjusted MGP (rather than the guaranteed purchase annual average daily demand as described in Section 5.B. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.) The WMAB finds it impractical for the Administrator to enforce the curtailment measure by physically reducing the amount of water supplied to purchaser.

Examples of the modified peaking factors calculation are in Exhibit C.

The higher of the daily peaking factor during non-water shortage period or the Modified daily peaking factor will be used to determine if a surcharge needs to be imposed as set forth in Section 5.E.3. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement and for purposes of calculating annual rates as set forth in Section 5.B.3. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

If the Modified daily peaking factor of any Purchasers during water shortage period exceeds the 20% allowance, the WMAB recommends that the Administrator not honor any requests to lower the daily peaking factor for the purposes of calculating rates, pursuant to Section 5.E.3. of the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

This plan does not modify any provisions of the Regional Water Sales Agreement. In addition, WMAB may modify the plan or make other recommendations to the Administrator during a water shortage.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 5 of 7 Glossary of Terms

Adjusted Guaranteed Purchase Water Quantity (GPWQ) = Guaranteed Purchase Water Quantity less amount of curtailment.

Adjusted MGP Average Day = weighted average of MGP Average Day and Adjusted MGP average day.

Amount of Curtailment = quantities of water to reduce

Guaranteed Purchase Water Quantity (GPWQ) = The Purchaser’s guaranteed purchase quantity as identified in the Regional Water Sales Agreement.

Modified Daily Peaking Factor = ratio of the Purchaser’s daily average derived from the Purchaser’s actual highest three consecutive days of purchases during the duration of the water shortage to the Purchaser’s Adjusted MGP.

Modified Peak Season Factor = ratio of the Purchaser’s actual average daily demand placed on the City system during the peak season to the Purchaser’s Adjusted MGP Average Day.

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit A - Potential Alternative Sources

Gresham/Rockwood wells = up to 6 mgd Tualatin ASR = up to 0.5 mgd TVWD = 5 mgd to 10 mgd (depending on JWC supply situation)

WMAB Curtailment Plan updated 2018 Page 7 of 7

Appendix H 2019 seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plan

2019 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan May 30, 2019

1. Background

Each year the Portland Water Bureau (bureau) prepares a seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plan, formerly referred to as the Summer Supply Plan. Previously, the plan’s focus was on the summer and fall months, when the Bull Run is in drawdown. However, after several situations identified the need for supply planning when groundwater capacity may not be able to meet system demands, the seasonal water supply augmentation and contingency plan has been modified to address possible supply shortages year-round and is now referred to as the Seasonal Supply Plan (SSP). The SSP provides a comprehensive strategy for augmenting the bureau’s baseline water resources, if needed, to meet year-round demands. An interdisciplinary team of bureau staff prepares the plan based on current supply and demand information and analysis of resource options.

The seasonal supply strategy is designed to make the best use of existing resources to meet multiple objectives. Key objectives include water supply reliability, high water quality, water use efficiency, fish recovery, and cost management. A glossary of key terms is included at the end of this document.

Peak Season Supply During the summer of 2019, the bureau expects that sufficient water will be available to meet the range of potential supply and demand conditions that could occur in the Portland water system. The bureau will continue to focus on water efficiency and augmentation of the Bull Run supply with groundwater from the Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF) to meet peak season water demands. The bureau will also continue flow releases into the lower Bull Run River to enhance fish habitat and reduce river water temperatures. As the summer progresses, the bureau will coordinate with key stakeholders to ensure that interested parties are apprised of supply and demand conditions as they unfold.

Emergency Supply Throughout 2019, the bureau will continue to work on contingency planning to be able to supplement groundwater capacity to meet system demands if needed due to Bull Run unavailability. This contingency planning relies on the ability to off-load wholesale provider demands to other regional drinking water sources, combined with implementation of emergency voluntary curtailment and utilization of other emergency contingency resources.

The following document outlines the bureau’s plan for managing water supplies during 2019.

2. SUPPLY PLANNING OBJECTIVES The bureau wants to reliably meet the demands of all users with high quality water while effectively managing costs. To meet this overarching goal, the bureau is required to balance multiple objectives and coordinate the efforts of staff in several work groups. Page 1 of 18

Supply Reliability—Demand includes municipal and industrial users, both in the Portland service area and in the wholesaler service areas. It also includes water demand for fish, or in-stream demand. Supply reliability is ensured by carefully managing the use of primary water resources, employing conservation strategies, and preparing for the potential use of contingency resources.

Water Quality—Water quality for municipal and industrial users involves meeting all drinking water quality regulations as they apply from the source water to the distribution system. Meeting the regulations is a minimum standard for the bureau; the bureau strives to supply water that has a better water quality than that defined by regulations. This means managing the system to keep a large suite of water quality parameters within optimal ranges. Water quality is also important for fish. Temperature and minimum flows are regulated for fish downstream of Headworks at Larson’s Bridge. Managing stream temperature and flow are part of the bureau’s larger objective to contribute to recovery of federally-listed steelhead, Coho salmon, and Chinook salmon (Endangered Species Act, ESA). The water quality component of managing summer supply is complex, with operational changes having varied effects on different water quality parameters.

Cost Management—Managing potential public and private costs is important to the bureau. The primary water supply, the Bull Run Watershed, provides water through a gravity-fed system that is efficient and cost-effective. Operation of the CSSWF, the bureau’s main augmentation resource, involves greater energy costs and carbon emissions. The bureau strives to balance use of its groundwater resource and other augmentation resources to keep water provisions cost-effective while meeting all other objectives.

System Maintenance—The bureau has a goal of maintaining the equipment and operational skills needed for using the bureau’s main augmentation resource, the CSSWF. Exercising the wells and pump station help to keep equipment in repair and to identify needed maintenance. Doing so also keeps operators up to date with the process of operating groundwater and ensures that the groundwater system will work properly when it is needed. As in past years, the bureau plans to conduct a maintenance operation of the groundwater system. In 2019 the operation will last approximately ten days and produce between 180 and 200 million gallons of groundwater. In addition to preventive maintenance, the operation will also use up the supply of hypochlorite at the groundwater facility before it degrades which would require significant disposal costs.

Seasonal supply planning is a complex process that involves continually weighing multiple factors as conditions change throughout the year. The Supply Planning Group meets regularly during the reservoir drawdown period of the year to decide what operations are necessary to meet all these objectives.

3. ASSESSMENT OF PEAK SEASON DEMAND AND SUPPLY RESOURCES In late winter and early spring of each year, the bureau evaluates information available about the upcoming summer peak demand season. The bureau monitors precipitation, snowpack, and streamflow, and evaluates current and projected water demands. The population supplied by the city’s water system during the 2019 peak season will be approximately 1 million (including retail and wholesale customers and accounting for wholesale customer offloads). In an average weather year, the bureau estimates that peak season (122 days) daily average water demand would be about 120 million gallons per day (MGD). The actual average peak season demand in 2018 was 118 MGD.

Page 2 of 18 Fish in the Bull Run River also require water for their habitat needs. The bureau continues to work collaboratively with numerous partner organizations to improve habitat for federal Endangered Species Act-listed fish species in the Sandy River Basin and to reduce summer season water temperatures in the lower Bull Run River. Federal rules require protection of the listed steelhead, Coho salmon, and Chinook salmon. State and federal rules also require meeting temperature objectives designed to protect aquatic habitat. The bureau will release flows into the lower Bull Run River consistent with the Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and final Temperature Management Plan that was approved in April 2009.

Supply Probability Analysis The bureau employs the Groundwater Use Model to evaluate the need for and timing of groundwater pumping. This model does not rely on weather forecasts but uses historic weather and streamflow data to construct a set of groundwater pumping curves that are compared to actual drawdown as it progresses. The Groundwater Use Model uses current-year demand projections (generated by the bureau’s Demand Model using historical weather data), historical reservoir inflows, and anticipated fish flow releases into the lower Bull Run River to develop a series of reservoir drawdown curves – one for each weather year from 1940 to 2018. These projected drawdown curves are used to determine suggested groundwater pump rates based on the remaining volume of Bull Run storage above baseline elevations, and the calendar date. During drawdown, if the actual storage volume in the Bull Run reservoirs drops below a groundwater pumping curve, then the pumping rate corresponding to that curve is recommended to augment supply. The recommended groundwater pump rates should keep the Bull Run reservoirs above their baseline storage levels while minimizing the volume of pumped groundwater and attempt to maintain a relatively constant pumping rate throughout the drawdown season. An example of groundwater pumping curves and a hypothetical drawdown curve (based on 2015 weather, a hotter and drier than average year) are shown in Figure 1. In this example, the storage curve remains above the pumping curves until July 2, at which point the storage curve crosses the 36 MGD pumping line. In response, two of the main groundwater pumps (18 MGD each) are turned on and reservoir drawdown is slowed measurably. The blue, green, and yellow curves represent constant groundwater pump rates. The orange and red curves represent a constant supply from Bull Run with variable groundwater flow to meet demands. The orange curve is in effect from September 1 to September 30 and uses a flow of 20 MGD in each of the three conduits for a total Bull Run flow of 60 MGD. This maximizes the amount of groundwater that can be supplied while keeping all three conduits in service, as 20 MGD is currently the minimum flowrate that each conduit can supply. The red curve is in effect starting October 1 and uses two conduits for a total Bull Run flow of 40 MGD. This conserves additional water in the Bull Run Reservoirs if drawdown extends further into Fall. When conduit flows are constant, the groundwater flow rate varies from 35-80 MGD depending on demand. The light blue storage line in Figure 1 shows what the progression of drawdown would have been if no groundwater had been used. Table 1 summarizes the subsequent changes in storage and groundwater pumping made in response.

Page 3 of 18

Figure 1

Table 1. Example of applying the Groundwater (GW) Use Model to determine the timing and rate of groundwater pumping. Date Position of Storage Response GW Line Relative to GW Pumping Pumping Curves Rate July 2 Cross 36 MGD curve Turn on two main GW 36 MGD pumps August 2 Cross 54 MGD curve Turn on one additional main 54 MGD GW pump August 13 Cross 72 MGD curve Turn on one additional main 72 MGD GW pump September 1 Under 3 conduit curve Supply 60 MGD from Bull Variable Run, GW makes up the remaining demand October 1 Under 2 conduit curve Supply 40 MGD from Bull Variable Run, GW makes up the remaining demand October 30 Cross above 2 conduit Turn off all GW pumps 0 MGD curve

In actual practice, the groundwater pumping curves inform supply decisions but do not dictate them. Other factors, such as short-range weather forecasts coupled with knowledge of antecedent hydrologic Page 4 of 18 conditions in the Bull Run Watershed, the state of distribution system storage, minimum conduit flows, and the timing of the electric power billing cycle at the groundwater pump station are also taken into account in determining the timing and rate of groundwater pumping.

The groundwater pumping curves take into consideration continued flow releases from the Bull Run reservoirs into the lower Bull Run River for fish habitat needs. Released water helps reduce water temperatures in the lower river and maintain wetted habitat for spawning and rearing of steelhead, Coho salmon, and Chinook salmon. These fish species are listed as threatened under the ESA, and federal rules prohibit harming them or their habitat.

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Supply Provisions The city has developed a package of actions to improve habitat conditions for fish in the Bull Run and Sandy rivers. The HCP was developed in coordination with more than a dozen public and private organizations working on salmon recovery in the Sandy River Basin and it includes flow and water temperature commitments for the lower Bull Run River. The fifty-year HCP was approved by the Portland City Council in September 2008. The National Marine Fisheries Service approved the plan in April 2009 and issued the city an Incidental Take Permit which ensures regulatory compliance with the federal ESA. The flow commitments described within the HCP are now part of a regulatory compliance program for the bureau and will determine fish flow releases by the bureau for the duration of the plan. More information regarding the HCP is available on the bureau’s web site, www.portlandoregon.gov/water/HCP.

Minimum flow releases from Headworks during this summer's drawdown period will range from 20 to 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) from July 1 through September 30, which is equivalent to 13 to 32 MGD. Release volumes may change each day in response to the temperature of the water being released and the expected (forecasted) maximum air temperature. In October and November, minimum release volumes are a percentage of the total inflow to the Bull Run reservoirs, with a minimum of 70 cfs (October) to 150 cfs (November) during normal water years. The total volume of the downstream flow releases that occur during drawdown varies from year to year.

The total volume of the Bull Run downstream flow releases during drawdown can also change depending on the amount of precipitation that the Bull Run Watershed receives during the year. With low amounts of precipitation, two types of critically dry seasonal conditions, or triggers, can result in lower downstream flow releases: 1) a dry spring that causes early reservoir drawdown; and/or 2) dry fall conditions. These triggers provide the bureau with the option to respond by altering the flow releases for fish in the lower Bull Run River. The altered flow regime would be an earlier ramp down from spring flows after June 1st, and/or lower fall season releases (based on a percentage of inflow and both minimums and flow caps).

A critical spring can be declared anytime drawdown begins prior to June 15. If this trigger is met in 2019, the bureau may decrease the flow in the lower Bull Run River down to approximately 30-40 cfs while following a down-ramping rate of 2 inches per hour of water stage as measured at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge site on the lower Bull Run River. Critical spring conditions have occurred four times since 2010 (2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018), the first year of HCP implementation. Modeling of current demand levels with historic weather conditions and stream flows suggests that critical spring

Page 5 of 18 conditions can be expected about one year in five on average, though the past five years have had a very high incidence of critical spring conditions.

The trigger for a critical fall season is based on whether the August and September inflows to the Bull Run reservoirs are within the lower 10% of historical flows for that time period. Critical fall flows cannot be implemented more frequently than two years in a row and cannot be implemented four years after a year that has had critical fall flows implemented. For example, because critical fall flows were implemented in 2014 and 2015, the bureau could not apply critical fall flows in 2016 (two consecutive year rule) and could not apply them in 2018 nor can the bureau apply them in 2019 (four years later rule). In all cases, critical fall flows can be implemented in a given year only if the August-September low flow criterion is met that year. By definition, the City can expect to experience critical fall conditions one year out of ten on average. The City will not have the option to implement critical fall flows in 2019 counting for the four-year requirements that began in 2006. Table 2 shows conditions starting in 2006.

Table 2. History of critical spring and fall conditions starting in 2006. Year Spring Fall Conditions Flow Conditions Flow Implemented Implemented 2006 Normal Normal Critical Normal 2007 Critical Critical Normal Normal 2008 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2009 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2010 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2011 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2012 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2013 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2014 Critical Critical Critical Critical 2015 Critical Critical Critical Critical 2016 Critical Critical Normal Normal 2017 Normal Normal Normal Normal 2018 Critical Critical Critical Normal

4. EMERGENCY SUPPLY RESOURCES When the Bull Run source is not available (for a turbidity event or other situation), the bureau plans to rely on the CSSWF. However, if the Bull Run were to be unavailable when system demands are greater than CSSWF capacity, the bureau will need to reduce system demands and increase supply. This can be done through topping -off storage capacity in the distribution system to allow time to identify and implement the best options for reducing the supply shortfall. Several contingency resources identified in Table 3 will be instrumental to meet customer needs. 5. 2019 BASELINE AND SEASONAL CONTINGENCY RESOURCES The following section of this plan outlines the baseline and contingency resources available to help the bureau meet demand in 2019. Available resources are shown in Table 3. This table reflects conservative

Page 6 of 18 assumptions to ensure that the bureau can manage even extreme supply shortage situations. For example, the estimated duration of the drawdown period shown in Table 3 is 151 days. Based on historic information, this is a conservative estimate because the drawdown period should be shorter than 151 days in about 90 percent of the years. In addition, the hypothetical date at which drawdown begins that is shown in the table is June 1, which is approximately one month earlier than the average drawdown date. Drawdown has occurred as early as June 1 only four times since 1963, when Bull Run Reservoir 2 came on-line. In 2018, continuous drawdown began on May 20 and ended on October 27, lasting 160 days. For planning purposes, the seasonal supply plan uses June 1 – October 29 (151 days) for the potential duration of drawdown. Actual drawdown and refill vary each year.

“Baseline Primary Resources” include Bull Run streamflow, Bull Run reservoirs, CSSWF maintenance operation, and ongoing water efficiency. “Baseline Augmentation Resources” includes wells from the Columbia South Shore Well Field, and Bull Run Lake Increment #1. The bureau manages these resources to meet water demand and to provide the multiple benefits described in Section 2.

Based on current demand and supply projections, baseline primary, augmentation and contingency resources available for 2019 should be sufficient to meet peak season demand even in a hot, dry summer.

Page 7 of 18

Table 3. Baseline, Augmentation, and Seasonal Contingency Resource Availability for Peak Season 2019. Seasonal Water Supply Resources Potential Rate of Use Potential Volume (Billion Potential Use Period (Million Gallons a Day) Gallons) (Drawdown = 151 days, 6/1– 10/29) BASELINE PRIMARY RESOURCES

Bull Run Watershed − Streamflow Variable 9.5 – 68.3 BG Drawdown − Reservoirs 1 and 2 Variable 9.9 BG (usable storage) Drawdown

− Water Efficiency Incorporated into Incorporated into demand Drawdown demand forecast forecast − Columbia South Shore 18 MGD 0.18 BG 10 days Maintenance Operation BASELINE AUGMENTATION RESOURCES Columbia South Shore Wells SGA, 81 / 73 / 65 MGD 2.5 / 6.0 / 9.3 BG Year-Round BLA and TSA Wells1 (30 / 90 / 151 days) (30 / 90 / 151 days) (excludes wells w/ lowest operational confidence & wells off-line for repairs) Bull Run Lake Increment #1 Up to 27 MGD An estimated 0 BG Drawdown (release not (above elevation 3,164 ft) Dependent on Lake Refill permitted prior to July 15) 2 Levels. CONTINGENCY – TIER 13

Wholesale Agreement Summer 0.21-2.55 MGD; 0.18 BG; Incorporated into 122 days max (June through Interruptible Water Elimination Incorporated into demand forecast September) demand forecast Bull Run Lake Increment #2 Up to 27 MGD Approximately 0.8 BG4 Drawdown (release not (elevation 3,164 to 3,154 feet) permitted prior to July 15)2

PWB Operations Curtailment 0.75 MGD 0.02 – 0.07 BG Year-Round . Limit Tabor Operations (Res 5 and 6) . Bubbler shut-downs . Limit hydrant permits . Limit flushing Citywide Operations Curtailment 1.2 MGD 0.04 – 0.2 BG June 1 – Oct. 31 (Parks seasonal uses, irrigation, splashpads, Fountains) 0.002 MGD 0.0001 BG Nov. 1 – May 31

Voluntary Customer Curtailment 12 MGD 0.36 BG 30 days June 1 – Oct. 31 (10% demand reduction) 8 MGD 0.24 BG 30 days Nov. 1 – May 31

Wholesale Demand Offloads 5 – 16.5 MGD 0.9 BG Year-Round

1 Rates of use and potential volumes are maximums that may be achieved if the CSSWF is used at 100% capacity for full duration of the season. Normal operations apply low pumping rates early in the season and higher rates late in the season, resulting in a likely maximum of about 7 BG of augmentation.. 2 Potentially longer period, if the gravity flow rate or temperature considerations require a more prolonged discharge. 3 Contingency resources within a given tier are not listed in priority order. 4 Entire 1.4 BG typically available for release from the increment decreased by low winter refill in Bull Run Lake. Approximately half of this increment will release naturally through landslide deposits during the summer, leaving only half available for additional release. Page 8 of 18 CONTINGENCY – TIER 2

Mandatory Curtailment 25 MGD 0.8 BG 30 days (June 1 – Oct. 31) (20% of demand) 12.5 MGD 0.4 BG 30 days (Nov. 1 – May 31)

CSSWF BLA wells Year-Round PW-17 3.6 / 3.2 / 2.9 MGD 0.1 / 0.3 / 0.5 BG PW-18 9.4 / 8.4 / 7.5 MGD 0.3 / 0.8 / 1.2 BG (30 / 90 / 151 days) (30 / 90 / 151 days) Additional draft of Bull Run Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Reservoirs 1 & 2 below 9.9 BG usable storage CONTINGENCY - EMERGENCY

Bull Run Lake Increment #3 Up to 27 MGD Approximately 1.4 BG Drawdown (release not (elevation 3,154 to 3,143 feet) 5 permitted prior to July 15)2

Milwaukie Intertie (with portable 2.0 MGD 0.3 BG Drawdown pump) (less the 20 hottest days)

Vivian Wells (pump to distribution) 6.2 / 5.6 / 5.1 MGD 0.2 / 0.5 / 0.8 BG Year-Round (after 6/30/19) (30 / 90 / 151 days) (30 / 90 / 151 days) Clackamas Intertie (with portable 2.0 MGD 0.3 BG Year-Round pump)

A. Baseline Primary Resources Bull Run Water Supply Bull Run Streamflow Historical averages for total reservoir inflow, by month, are shown below in Table 4.

Table 4: Monthly statistics for inflow volumes to Bull Run reservoirs in billions of gallons (BG) based on flows from 1940-2018. Month Minimum Inflow Maximum Inflow Mean Inflow Volume (BG) Volume (BG) Volume (BG) June 2.1 29.6 10.2 July 1.7 11.4 4.2 August 1.3 9.0 2.8 September 1.5 16.4 3.9 October 1.3 29.5 10.1

Bull Run Reservoirs 1 and 2 – 9.9 BG Total Usable Storage Routine usable storage is defined as the amount available above 970 feet elevation for Reservoir 1 and above 840 feet elevation for Reservoir 2. The analysis supporting these levels is documented in a January

5 A temporary pump setup would be required to access this increment. Considerable coordination with the U.S. Forest Service would be necessary to gain approval for using this increment of Bull Run Lake. Page 9 of 18 2002 memorandum titled “Definition of Water Quality Based Threshold Elevations in the Bull Run Reservoirs and Resulting Conclusions about Volume Available for Water Supply.”

Columbia South Shore Well Field Maintenance Operation As mentioned in Section 2, the bureau plans to conduct a maintenance operation of the CSSWF. This involves producing approximately 18 MGD of groundwater for approximately 10 days for an estimated total of 180 to 200 MG groundwater. As part of this operation, there will be a 1-2-hour operation with 5 main pump units (90 MGD) to test the functionality of the new electrical equipment. Timing of this operation will be coordinated with electrical meter read dates at the groundwater pump station and degradation of the hypochlorite solution in order to minimize electrical and disposal costs. In 2019, the maintenance operation is anticipated to begin on July 15. Water Efficiency Water efficiency programs are a key component of the bureau’s summer supply strategy. These programs help reduce water demand and stretch surface water supplies during the summer period. Water savings from water efficiency are embedded in demand forecasts. In 2010, Portland received approval of its Water Management and Conservation Plan. This plan contains State-mandated conservation and water curtailment elements. Bureau water efficiency programs, including activities associated with the Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) are detailed in the plan. The bureau’s Water Efficiency Program offers technical resources and information about efficient water use to all customer classes. Programs include school assembly presentations, youth and adult education, attendance at community events, toilet rebates, meter data logging, consumption evaluation, and onsite water efficiency surveys for commercial and multifamily customers. Water efficiency devices are also distributed to all customer classes. More information about the bureau water efficiency programs can be found at www.portlandoregon.gov/water/efficiency. From May through September, the bureau increases customer-focused messages about water efficiency, particularly focused on irrigation information. The bureau publishes blog and social media messages multiple times per week, hosts an education event at the Hazelwood demonstration garden, and sends a summer bill-insert to all customers. An important supplement to Portland’s own water efficiency programs is the RWPC’s regional water conservation program. The RWPC’s program operates year- round, but targets most of its resources toward reducing summer peak season demands. The RWPC’s program consists of five key elements: television and radio ads; a comprehensive website; educational materials and conservation devices; school assembly programs; and community events and workshops geared toward homeowners, commercial property managers, landscape professionals, gardeners, and kids. Information on the RWPC’s conservation program can be found at www.conserveh2o.org/.

B. Baseline Augmentation Resources Baseline Augmentation Resources are sources of supply that are readily available for use, but are not used on a routine, ongoing basis. In 2019, they consist of the CSSWF.

Page 10 of 18 Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF) The bureau is prepared, if necessary, to augment the Bull Run surface water supply by pumping groundwater and blending it with the Bull Run supply. Groundwater augmentation contributes to supply reliability, including meeting seasonal peak daily demands and/or making up seasonal supply deficits. If seasonal forecasting indicates a potential supply deficit, groundwater augmentation early in the summer helps the bureau maintain a desirable groundwater to surface water blend ratio. Maintaining a lower blend ratio can help minimize impacts on water quality-sensitive customers, aesthetic effects, and other potential customer inconveniences associated with water chemistry fluctuations in the system. If groundwater is needed for supply augmentation, the bureau’s working target for the groundwater blend ratio is approximately 30 percent groundwater or less. However, the projected or actual supply deficit, water demand, and the timing, magnitude, and duration of groundwater use all can affect the actual blend ratio. The baseline augmentation CSSWF wells have a theoretical installed capacity of 11-12 BG over a 151-day peak season. This assumes 100 percent reliability of the well field and disregards interference effects that require wells to be cycled on and off. When wells are out of service for routine maintenance (which is normally performed during the summer months) or unavailable due to unexpected equipment failures, and well rotation is considered, the total volume of groundwater available for augmentation is incrementally reduced by the capacity of the unavailable wells. During the 2019 peak season, two wells are out of service for repairs (PW-19 & PW-26) and one well is considered less reliable due to declining performance and/or recent operational issues (PW-5). Approximately 10 BG of groundwater could be produced for baseline augmentation after the capacity of these three wells has been subtracted and well rotation has been accounted for. This is the maximum that could be achieved if the well field were operated at full capacity for the entire duration of the season. In practice, the CSSWF is not activated until the season is underway, and is operated at lower production rates early in the season and higher rates late in the season. The likely maximum volume of groundwater that could be produced in a 151- day season under normal operations is roughly 7 BG6. Operation of the CSSWF involves balancing a number of factors including water demand, water quality, infrastructure capacity, and the cost of electricity required to run the well pumps and the pump station. The three Blue Lake Aquifer (BLA) wells are the bureau’s shallowest and highest yielding wells, with the highest specific capacities and the smallest hydraulic lifts. As a result, the BLA wells produce water more efficiently (i.e. at lower electrical costs) than wells in the deeper Troutdale Sandstone Aquifer (TSA) and Sand and Gravel Aquifer (SGA). The BLA would be the bureau’s first choice of aquifers because of this higher efficiency. The SGA is the bureau’s deepest confined aquifer with the best natural protection from surface contamination. With 15 available wells, the SGA is also the aquifer with the greatest total production capacity. Although SGA pumping costs are higher, the bureau’s wells in this aquifer have good yields and specific capacities, and are therefore a mainstay of the bureau’s groundwater usage. The TSA is a moderately deep confined aquifer with fairly good protection from surface contamination and desirable water quality characteristics (e.g. high pH) for blending. However, specific capacities and yields of the TSA wells are generally lower than either the BLA or SGA wells, and the bureau has the capability to make pH and other water quality adjustments at the groundwater treatment facility.

6 Operational scenario is 14 idle days, 36 MGD for 30 days, 54 MGD for 75 days, and 63 MGD for 30 days. Page 11 of 18 Furthermore, maintaining hydraulic pressure in the TSA serves to help protect the underlying SGA from possible downward migration of contaminants. Therefore, the TSA would be used by the bureau in a more limited manner than either the BLA or the SGA. The primary reasons for TSA use would be to make up shortfalls in overall production capacity and for matching well field output with the booster pump station output. Since 1985, the bureau has used groundwater for seasonal surface water supply augmentation 15 times. The cumulative volume of groundwater pumped for seasonal supply augmentation since 1985 is 33.9 BG and the maximum single seasonal groundwater augmentation volume to date was 5.8 BG in 2015, which included an extended maintenance run in June and the subsequent augmentation run from July- November. A history of groundwater use is available on the bureau’s website at: www.portlandoregon.gov/water/groundwateruse. The method used to calculate the theoretical 151-day yield of the well field was revised in 2018 to better match observed reductions in the production rates of the wells during extended well field use in 2015 and 2017. These temporary reductions result from groundwater pumping level declines and well interference effects. Wells return to their initial capacity after extended pumping operations stop and groundwater levels recover. The time-dependent reduction in CSSWF capacity is now calculated in the following way: • From well field start-up to 30 days of pumping, an average pumping rate was calculated for each well using the observed yields over the first 30 days of pumping in 2015 and 2017; • Between 30 and 90 days of pumping, it is assumed that 90 percent of the 30-day well capacities are available; and • Between 90 and 151 days of pumping, it is assumed that 80 percent of the 30-day well capacities are available. Actual pumping data from extended groundwater operations in 2003 and 2006 provided the basis for this approximation of declines in yield over time. The bureau prepares an annual CSSWF pumping plan that describes current agreements with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and provides additional details about well field operation. Bull Run Lake Increment #1 (projected fall elevation down to 3,164 feet) The bureau considers water supply from Bull Run Lake as three distinct increments. Increment #1 is described here. The other two increments are described in subsequent sections. Bull Run Lake Increment #1 is defined as the amount of water available above a minimum fall lake surface elevation of 3,164 feet. This elevation provides a 75% probability of the lake refilling to the full pool elevation of 3,174 feet the following spring. As an example, if the minimum fall elevation is projected to be 3,168 feet in a given year, the amount of water available for use would be the increment between 3,168 feet and 3,164 feet, or approximately 0.6 BG. A portion of this increment is naturally contributed to the Bull Run reservoirs without releasing the water through the deep-water intake, as water seeps out of the lake and into the Bull Run River. The lake elevation is a key factor in the ability of cutthroat trout living in the lake to access tributary habitat for spawning. Until snowmelt and spring rains have played out (usually by early June), it is uncertain how much supply will be available from Bull Run Lake

Under the terms of the city’s easement from the U.S. Forest Service for use of Bull Run Lake, there are mitigation requirements that are triggered if water is released from the lake and it does not refill to full

Page 12 of 18 pool the following spring. In a letter dated April 17, 2013, the U.S. Forest Service agreed to updated mitigation and monitoring requirements for the remaining term of the easement through 2017, now extended through 2019. New requirements call for mitigation if, as a result of releasing water from the lake, the lake does not refill to full pool the following spring in more than one year of the remaining term of the easement when it would have refilled naturally.

In 2018, water was released from Bull Run Lake at a rate of 38 cfs starting August 20. Downstream flow increases were not as high as expected, and inspections of the lake outlet pipe showed that the pipe had collapsed. The release was discontinued August 24. Later inspections and a test release in November showed that the pipe had recovered its original shape and that water can still be released via gravity flow through the pipe. As of May 28, 2019, the lake level was 3169.5 feet elevation, 4.53 feet below full pool elevation. At this time there is no planned release of water from Bull Run Lake Increment #1, however, the precise amount available for 2019 will depend on spring season precipitation.

C. Seasonal Contingency Resources The categories of contingency resources are presented in Table 3 and described below. Tier 1 contingency resources are simpler and less costly to use than Tier 2 contingency resources, and are thus assigned a higher priority for use. In an actual situation in which the use of seasonal contingency resources is required, the bureau will consider operational issues, constraints, and opportunities existing at the time before selecting the appropriate combination of resources to meet identified needs. The resources listed within each tier are not shown in priority order. If the need for additional supply augmentation called for the use of contingency resources, the order of resource use would be decided at that time. Contingency resources to meet water demands during 2019 will be available if necessary to manage unexpected circumstances.

Tier 1 Contingency Resources Tier 1 resources include the simpler and/or less costly contingency resources available for use in summer supply augmentation. Elimination of Wholesale Requested Interruptible Water In the event of an emergency or other condition under which continued supply of interruptible water jeopardizes the reliability of the water system, the bureau may cease providing interruptible water at any time on one day’s written or verbal notice to the Purchaser. Under all other circumstances, including any augmentation to supply, the City may cease providing interruptible water at any time on 21 days written or verbal notice to the Purchaser. Bull Run Lake Increment #2 (elevation 3,164 down to 3,154 feet) The bureau can typically obtain about 1.4 BG by releasing water from Bull Run Lake Increment #2, bringing the lake down to a surface elevation of 3,154 feet. Limiting the drawdown to 3,154 feet provides 90 percent chance that the lake will refill to 3,164 feet the following spring but a very low probability of refilling to 3,174 feet. Due to low winter refill, in 2019, about half of this increment is expected to release naturally through the landslide deposits, leaving only half to be released as additional supply.

Page 13 of 18 Portland Water Bureau Operations Curtailment When Portland’s supply appears likely to be stressed, the first step in curtailment would be a reduction of water use by the bureau. These reductions could include ceasing refill of the Mt Tabor reservoirs 5 and 6, minimizing flushing activities and reducing hydrant use permits. It is estimated that this could save approximately 0.75 MGD. Citywide Operations Curtailment The City of Portland is one of Portland’s largest users. In particular, the Portland Parks and Recreation Bureau uses a lot of water in the summer months for irrigation and recreational facilities. The Portland Water Bureau Efficiency group has established contacts with Portland Parks to be able to request a reduction in water use during stress seasons. The PWB Efficiency Group is also reaching out to other City of Portland bureaus for possible water use curtailment strategies. Work with the Bureau of Transportation and the Bureau of Environmental Services are underway. Voluntary Customer Curtailment In a water supply shortage, it may be necessary and appropriate to ask customers to voluntarily reduce their water use. Issuing voluntary reduction messages informs customers of a water shortage situation. The bureau estimates that voluntary curtailment messages can reduce water use by 10% which is estimated to be 8 - 12 MGD of water savings; however, the amount of savings would vary depending on the timing and intensity of the messages. Because media messages are not limited by utility service area boundaries, it is important to coordinate the delivery of curtailment messages with other Portland area water providers and stakeholders. The bureau’s Water Management and Conservation Plan, approved in 2010, outlines implementation measures for voluntary curtailment. In addition, Section 14 of the wholesale contracts, entitled “Water Curtailment and Protection of the Water System,” provides direction for implementing curtailment actions. Wholesale Demand Offloads The bureau’s water sales agreement states that each wholesale customer can purchase a guaranteed quantity of water each month. In Fall 2018, PWB and its wholesale providers adopted a Curtailment Plan that includes mitigation measures to support regional water demands in the event of a water supply shortage. Some of the wholesale customers may be able to “off-load” a portion of water demand through the use of other resources to supplement water purchased from Portland. The wholesale customers’ alternative sources include a groundwater system developed jointly by Rockwood Water People’s Utility District (Rockwood) and the City of Gresham (Gresham), and Tualatin Valley Water District’s (TVWD) partial ownership of the Joint Water Commission (JWC). The baseline forecast for the SSP accounts for regular usage of these alternative sources by these wholesale customers. The alternative sources may also be able to provide additional offloads during an extreme water supply shortage or an emergency. Rockwood and Gresham could provide up to 6 MGD from their groundwater system depending on current pumping volumes. TVWD could provide between 5 and 10 MGD from the JWC depending on storage and treatment capacity.

Page 14 of 18 Tier 2 Contingency Resources The group of Tier 2 Contingency Resources also includes a variety of options. Tier 2 resources are significantly more complex, costly and take more time to use than Tier 1 resources. Yet they provide critical flexibility to respond to an extreme supply shortage or an emergency. Mandatory Curtailment In an extreme water shortage, the City could require water use curtailment under authority of City Code Chapter 21.32, Water Conservation Measures. The code authorizes the bureau’s Administrator to establish curtailment rules as appropriate to the situation. These rules would likely prohibit, curtail, or restrict certain water use practices such as lawn watering and residential car washing. The bureau's Water Management and Conservation Plan outlines potential measures that would be implemented in the event of an extreme water shortage. Mandatory curtailment also applies to wholesale customers. The Curtailment Plan with wholesale customers specifies an allocation methodology on water usage reduction for the wholesale customers. The bureau estimates that a 20% reduction in water use, or about 12-25 MGD of water savings could be obtained through mandatory reductions; however, the amount of savings would vary depending on the timing and intensity of the messages. The City last imposed mandatory restrictions in the summer of 1992 when the CSSWF was not available for use. Mandatory curtailment can cause substantial inconvenience for a broad range of customers. For certain business sectors (e.g., landscape and nursery), mandatory curtailment can also cause significant economic hardship. For these reasons, mandatory curtailment would be implemented only if absolutely necessary. Attachment B contains the estimated monthly demands for wholesale providers for 2019-20. CSSWF PW-17 and PW-18 If Tier 2 Contingency Resources are needed, the bureau expects to be able to bring either of the BLA Production Wells 17 (PW-17) and/or 18 (PW-18) on-line. Wells PW-17 and PW-18 are not operated due to high concentrations of naturally occurring manganese. PW-17 can provide up to 2.9 MGD. PW-18 can add an additional 7.5 MGD. Additional Draft of Bull Run Reservoirs 1 & 2 below 9.9 BG Usable Storage The bureau could also draw the Bull Run reservoirs down below the Baseline Storage Threshold. However, because the Bull Run system is not filtered, extensive reservoir drawdown poses an increased risk of creating water quality related issues.

Emergency Contingency Resources The group of Emergency Contingency Resources includes a variety of options to respond to an extreme supply shortage or an emergency. Bull Run Lake Increment #3 (elevation 3,154 down to 3,143 feet) Using Bull Run Lake Increment #3 would involve drawing the lake down to an elevation of 3,143 feet to provide about 1.4 BG of additional supply. This increment is not readily available in 2019 due to inoperability of the outlet pump and would require the use of a temporary pump. It would take considerable agency coordination to obtain approval to use a temporary pump to access increment #3. Use of the lake to this level could have significant impacts on resident fish, which in turn would trigger federal permit conditions requiring expensive mitigation measures to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat. The lake, if drawn to this level, would also likely take multiple years to refill; thus,

Page 15 of 18 limiting its availability as a water supply. (Bull Run reservoirs refill every winter because they are relatively small impoundments in a large basin. By contrast, Bull Run Lake is a large lake in a small basin). Vivian Wells The Vivian Wells (former Powell Valley Road Water District wells) include three Troutdale Gravel Aquifer (TGA) wells and three Upper Gravel Aquifer (UGA) wells, with a total combined production capacity of about 8 to 9 MGD. The currently available capacity of the Vivian wells is about 6 MGD, based on the need to perform significant upgrades to one of these wells before it can be put back into service. These repairs are scheduled to occur this summer. These wells are classified as an Emergency Resource because they are not currently piped into the supply system and can only supply the local distribution system. Milwaukie and Clackamas Interties (with portable pump) Interties exist between Clackamas and the City of Milwaukie’s system and Portland’s system. Utilizing a portable pump, each intertie could provide about 2.0 MGD.

6. CONCLUSIONS The Seasonal Supply Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for augmenting the bureau’s baseline water resources, if needed during the peak demand season. Every year the Portland Water Bureau revisits the planning process and revises the Seasonal Supply Plan according to current situations and needs. During the summer of 2019, the bureau expects that sufficient water will be available to meet the range of potential supply and demand conditions that could occur in the Portland water system.

The bureau continues to refine its approach to supply planning by integrating new tools and utilizing the increasing wealth of experience gained each supply season. The Supply Planning Group meets regularly to review the current supply conditions and make decisions about how to utilize supply resources throughout the season.

Page 16 of 18 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1. Baseline Augmentation Resources – Sources of supply that are readily available for use but not used on a routine, ongoing basis. In 2019, this consists of the Columbia South Shore wells.

2. Baseline Primary Resources – The basic supply and demand management resources that are used each year. In 2019, these include Bull Run streamflow, Bull Run reservoirs, groundwater produced in a maintenance run of equipment, and ongoing water efficiency.

3. Baseline Storage Threshold – The point at which usable baseline storage in the two Bull Run reservoirs equals zero, even though there will be 6.9 BG left in the reservoirs. The distance of a plotted line above the Baseline Storage Threshold in Figure 1 indicates the amount of routine usable storage in the Bull Run reservoirs (9.9 BG when the reservoirs are full). The distance of a plotted line below the Baseline Storage Threshold represents the amount of water (or demand reduction) that would be needed to augment the Bull Run supply to meet peak season demand. The bureau could also draw the Bull Run reservoirs down below the Baseline Storage Threshold. However, water quality risks increase substantially below this threshold. Because the Bull Run system is not filtered, extensive reservoir drawdown poses an increased risk of exceeding federal turbidity standards. Additionally, cold reservoir bottom water reserved for downstream management for endangered salmon species would be at risk of heating or mixing with warmer layers of water.

4. Bull Run Reservoirs Baseline Storage – The amount of water available above 970 feet elevation for Reservoir 1 and above 840 feet elevation for Reservoir 2 (9.9 BG when the reservoirs are full).

5. Contingency Resources – Sources of supply and demand management that require some advance planning to implement. Tier 1 contingency resources are simpler and less costly to use than Tier 2 contingency resources and are thus assigned a higher priority for use.

6. Critical Fall – A management option for reduced fish flows that can be implemented in certain years when August and September cumulative inflow is in the lowest 10th percentile of flows since 1940. If implemented, summer flow for temperature control continues from October 1-15. From October 16- 31, 50% of reservoir inflow with a minimum of 30 cfs (20 MGD) and a maximum of 250 cfs (160 MGD) is implemented. From November 1-15, 40% of reservoir inflow with a minimum of 30 cfs and a maximum of 250 cfs is implemented. From November 16-30, 40% of reservoir inflow with a minimum of 70 cfs and a maximum of 350 cfs (225 MGD) is implemented. Critical fall flows may not be implemented in more than two consecutive years and also may not be implemented in the fourth year following a critical fall flow implementation.

7. Critical Spring – A management option for reduced fish flows that can be implemented in any year that drawdown begins before June 15. If implemented, winter fish flows of 120 cfs are maintained until at least June 1; after June 1, flow can be decreased to 30 cfs until July 1, at which time summer flow for temperature control is implemented. There is no limit on recurrence of critical spring flows.

8. Curtailment – Restriction of water use due to emergencies or drought. Voluntary and mandatory curtailment include similar actions and methods, but mandatory curtailment has an enforcement component associated with it.

9. Drawdown – The period of the year when the amount of water stored in the Bull Run reservoirs is Page 17 of 18 decreasing because demand from the reservoirs (water sent downstream and into conduits) exceeds inflow to the reservoirs.

10. Flow Releases – Flows of water released from the reservoirs into the lower Bull Run River to meet flow and temperature targets developed to protect ESA listed fish. The Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has been approved by regulatory agencies and the flow release commitments are legally enforceable.

11. Groundwater Maintenance Operation – Production from the CSSWF to maintain equipment and make repairs. This is typically groundwater production of 18 MGD for ten days for a total of approximately 180 MG.

12. Interruptible Water - Water that a wholesale purchaser may purchase over and above its guaranteed purchase quantities under the terms and conditions in the water sales agreement section 6. According to the agreement the City may cease to provide interruptible water at any time in the event of an emergency, under all other circumstances, including any augmentation to supply, the City may cease providing interruptible water at any time on 21 days written or verbal notice to the Purchaser.

13. Peak Season – The period of highest water use due to warm weather and/or low incidence of rain. A 122-day period from June to September is considered for demand forecasting purposes.

14. Refill – The period when the streamflow into the reservoirs exceeds demand to town and downstream flows for fish. Refill begins when drawdown ends.

15. Regional Water Providers Consortium (RWPC) – A group of 22 water providers in the Portland Metropolitan Area. The Consortium is operated under an intergovernmental agreement and is staffed by the bureau. The Consortium has been in operation since 1997, and since 2000 has implemented a cost-effective regional water conservation campaign designed to encourage the efficient use of the region’s water supply. The Consortium also works together to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergency events. The Consortium provides a forum for study and discussion of water supply issues and coordinates the implementation of the Regional Water Supply Plan. www.regionalh2o.org.

16. Water Efficiency – The reduction of water use through more water efficient technologies, practices, and behavior changes.

17. Wholesale Demand Offloads – The reduction of demand on Portland’s system when wholesale providers utilize other sources of water.

Page 18 of 18 Appendix I Water loss audit report for fiscal year 2017–18

Table of Contents ...... 0 List of Tables ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 1. Introduction- Water Audit Methodology Overview ...... 6 1.1 Transition to Internal Auditing and Analysis ...... 6 1.2 Standard AWWA Water Balance ...... 7 1.3 Key Terms and Definitions ...... 8 2. Regulatory Summary ...... 9 2.1 Current Federal Water Audit Regulations and Policies ...... 9 2.2 Current Water Audit Regulatory Requirements in Other States ...... 9 2.3 Current Oregon Water Audit Regulations and Policies ...... 10 3. System Overview...... 11 4. Water Supplied ...... 12 4.1 Water Supplied Correction ...... 12 4.2 Volume from Own Sources ...... 13 4.3 Production Meter Error Adjustment ...... 16 4.4 Water Imported ...... 17 4.5 Import Meter Error Adjustment ...... 18 4.6 Water Exported (Wholesale Customers) ...... 18 4.7 Export Meter (Wholesale) Error Adjustment ...... 21 4.8 Water Supplied ...... 22 4.9 Water Supplied Validation Summary ...... 22 5. Authorized Consumption ...... 24 5.1 Billing Process ...... 24 5.2 Billed Metered ...... 25 i. Retail Meters ...... 25 ii. Temporary (Bulk Water) Permits ...... 26 iii. Decorative Fountains Error ...... 27 5.3 Billed Unmetered ...... 28 5.4 Unbilled Metered ...... 29 5.5 Unbilled Unmetered ...... 29 i. Spot Flushing Operations ...... 31

ii. Unidirectional Flushing ...... 32 iii. Cleaning and Draining of Tanks/ Reservoirs ...... 33 iv. Benson Bubbler & Drinking Fountain Estimate ...... 33 v. Mt Tabor Leakage and Operations ...... 35 vi. Firefighting Events ...... 35 vii. Hydrant Flow Testing ...... 36 viii. Spacer Connections Estimate ...... 36 ix. Elk Fountain ...... 37 5.6 Authorized Consumption Summary ...... 37 5.7 Authorized Consumption Validation Summary ...... 39 6. Water Loss...... 40 6.1 Apparent Loss ...... 41 i. Unauthorized Consumption ...... 41 ii. Customer Meter Inaccuracies ...... 41 iii. Systemic Data Handling Errors ...... 44 6.2 Real Loss ...... 46 i. Main Breaks ...... 46 ii. Leak Detection Approach ...... 47 6.3 Total Water Loss ...... 47 6.4 Water Loss Validation Summary ...... 48 7. System Data ...... 49 7.1 Length of Mains ...... 50 7.2 Number of Active and Inactive Connections ...... 51 7.3 Average length of Customer Service Line ...... 52 7.4 Average Operating Pressure ...... 52 7.5 System Data Validation Summary ...... 53 8. Cost Data ...... 54 8.1 Total Annual Cost of Operating Water System ...... 54 8.2 Customer Retail Unit Cost ...... 55 8.3 Variable Production Cost ...... 55 8.4 Cost Data Validation Summary ...... 57 9. Performance Indicator Summary ...... 59 10. Audit Worksheet Values Snapshot ...... 60 11. Recommendations ...... 62

11.1 Top Ranked Water Loss Control Recommendations ...... 64 11.2 Top Ranked Data Validation Recommendations ...... 65 11.3 Water Loss Stakeholder Group and Prioritizing other Recommendations ...... 66 APPENDICES ...... 67 APPENDIX I: FY 17/18 AWWA Water Audit Worksheet ...... 67 APPENDIX II: FY 17/18 AWWA Water Audit Worksheet: Performance Indicators ...... 68 APPENDIX III: Data Validity Score Summary ...... 69 APPENDIX IV: Wholesale Meter Testing Details ...... 70 APPENDIX V: Annual Cost of Operating Water System ...... 72 Appendix VI: Pressure Zones ...... 75 Appendix VII: Recommendations ...... 80 i. Explanation of Recommendations ...... 80 ii. Recommendations for Water Loss Work ...... 81 iii. Completed Recommendations ...... 87 iv. Bureau-Wide Recommendations ...... 89 Appendix VIII. Database and Information Gathering ...... 91

List of Tables Table ES-1 Five-Year Performance Indicator Comparison: Loss Normalized ...... 5 Table 4-1 Summary Water Supplied Audit Inputs ...... 13 Table 4-2 Volume from Own Sources (FY 2017/18)...... 13 Table 4-3 Groundwater- Columbia South Shore Well Field (FY 2017/18) ...... 14 Table 4-4 Bull Run Finished Water Five Year Summary by Month (rounded) ...... 15 Table 4-5 Yearly Comparison of Production Data ...... 15 Table 4-6 Import Meter Test Data (FY 2017/18) ...... 17 Table 4-7 Monthly Export Water Totals for the Past 5 Years ...... 19 Table 4-8 Wholesale Customer List and Usage Comparison (MG) ...... 20 Table 4-9 Water Supplied Validation Grades ...... 23 Table 5-1 Summary of Known Authorized Consumption Audit Inputs ...... 24 Table 5-2 Billing Cycle per Retail Meter Size FY 2017/18 ...... 25 Table 5-3 Monthly Billed Metered (MG) ...... 26 Table 5-4 Retail Consumption by Customer Type (FY 2017/18) (BG) ...... 26 Table 5-5 Yearly Comparison of Water Billed Through Temporary Construction Meters ...... 27 Table 5-6 Yearly Comparison of Total Billed Metered (MG) ...... 28 Table 5-7 Estimated Water Supplied Through Annual Hydrant Permits (MG) ...... 28 Table 5-8 Number of Unbilled but Metered Accounts (MG) ...... 29 Table 5-9 Summary of Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (MG) ...... 30 Table 5-10 Spot Flushing Operations ...... 31 Table 5-11 Unidirectional Flushing Program Volumes (FY 2017/18) ...... 32

Table 5-12 Water Used to Clean & Drain Tanks and Reservoirs ...... 33 Table 5-13 Annual Volume Estimate for Drinking Water (gals/yr.) ...... 34 Table 5-14 Benson Bubblers Calculation Methodology ...... 34 Table 5-15 Leakage and Filling at Mt Tabor ...... 35 Table 5-16 Hydrant Flow Testing (FY 2017/18)...... 36 Table 5-17 Summary of Authorized Uses with Volumes- Known and Unknown ...... 38 Table 5-18 Authorized Consumption Validation Grading ...... 39 Table 6-1 Summary Water Loss Audit Inputs ...... 40 Table 6-2 Customer Meter Test Data...... 43 Table 6-3 Tests Completed Per Meter Size (FY 2017/18) ...... 44 Table 6-4 Number of Zero Consumption Readings by Month ...... 45 Table 6-5 List of Main Break Events ...... 47 Table 6-6 Water Loss Validation Grading...... 48 Table 7-1 Summary of System Data Audit Inputs ...... 49 Table 7-2 FY 2017/18 Distribution Mains (miles) (FY 2017/18) ...... 50 Table 7-3 Transmission Mains (miles) (FY 2017/18) ...... 50 Table 7-4 Active and Inactive Service Connection Breakdown ...... 51 Table 7-5 Billing Cycle per Meter Type (FY 2017/18) ...... 51 Table 7-6 System Data Validation Grading ...... 53 Table 8-1 Summary of Cost Data Audit Inputs ...... 54 Table 8-2 Summary of Variable Cost Factors ...... 56 Table 8-3 Summary of Treatment Water Program ...... 56 Table 8-4 Summary of Pump / Tanks Sub-Program ...... 56 Table 8-5 Summary of Reservoirs/Pumps/Tanks – Utility Charges Sub-Program ...... 57 Table 8-6 Cost Validation Grading ...... 58 Table 9-1 Performance Indicator Comparison ...... 59 Table 10-1 Yearly Water Audit Value Comparisons ...... 60 Table 11-1 Yearly Water Audit Value Comparisons ...... 63

List of Figures Figure 1-1 AWWA Water Balance FY17/18 (Source: AWWA Water Audit Software) ...... 7 Figure 2-1 NRDC ‘Cutting Our Losses’ State Policies Map ...... 10 Figure 4-1-Water Production Comparison ...... 14

Executive Summary This report summarizes findings of the Portland Water Bureau’s water loss audit for fiscal year (FY) 2017/18. The report includes summaries of audit data collection methods, key performance indicators from previous years for reference, and recommendations on how the bureau can reduce water loss.

The bureau has done annual water loss audits using AWWA’s M36 methodology since FY 2012. This document summarizes the first audit completed since the bureau launched its internal water loss program. This program is housed in the Water Efficiency Division and is staffed by the bureau’s Water Loss Analyst. The Analyst works with internal stakeholders to gather data and identify opportunities to reduce loss. Past audits have been done by the consulting firm Black and Veatch, and this is the first audit done primarily by bureau staff (with support from Black and Veatch).

Key Findings

• Total loss is over 14 percent. The FY 2017/18 audit calculated a total water loss of 3,276.99 million gallons (MG), which was 14.45 percent of water supplied. For comparison, the amount of water loss in the bureau’s system is equal to the water sold to multi-family customers in the bureau’s retail service area.

• The water loss percentage does not meet State of Oregon requirements. Over the next two years, the bureau is required by the State of Oregon to draft a Water Loss Action plan and demonstrate how the bureau will reduce its water loss to less than ten percent. This is a key component of the bureau’s Water Management and Conservation plan commitments.

• Priority is on real loss. As in previous years, the largest source of loss for the bureau is real loss (largely physical water lost in the system through leaks and asset failures). Table ES-1 lists the volume of water loss in the bureau system as well as key performance indicators from the AWWA Water Audit Software. Previous years are included for reference.

• This report lists priority recommendations for implementation in fiscal years 2020 –2022. The Water Loss Analyst has collected water loss recommendations from audits previously completed by the bureau’s consultant. The analyst has also worked with the bureau’s internal stakeholder group to identify new opportunities to quantify and reduce loss. Complete recommendations are listed in Appendix VII, but priority recommendations are listed below:

o Develop a Water Loss Action Plan to comply with the Water Management and Conservation Plan, which will describe the bureau’s strategy to reduce its loss to below 10 percent. o Verify the accuracy of production meters for the water supplied calculation. Production meters are the single most important piece of data for the water audit. o Modify leak detection program and real loss reduction strategy. Steps to improve both performance and tracking of this program include: ▪ Conduct advanced pilots of technology, such as aerial, satellite, or other sophisticated leak detection techniques. ▪ Gather and evaluate detailed data on past leaks. ▪ Reprioritize leak survey teamwork. Focus leak survey work on proactive leak detection and limit leak locate work performed by this specialized team.

▪ Consider training more maintenance crews on leak locate methods and consider technology or equipment to relieve pressure on survey team. ▪ Update equipment and methods utilized by the survey team. ▪ Store leak survey data in a digital format. ▪ Change leak work order reports to track how leaks are found. Currently there is no way to tell how many leaks are found by the leak survey or by leak located calls from the public or other bureau staff.

o Continue to monitor and evaluate leakage at Mt. Tabor through active metering and reservoir level analysis. Ensure that leak rates at Mt. Tabor are calculated using the same methodology across departments within the bureau. o Verify the volume for annual hydrant (bulk water) permits. o Continue to develop strategies to track authorized water uses. Continue working with stakeholders in the identification and quantification of water uses.

Table ES-1 Five-Year Performance Indicator Comparison: Loss Normalized Water Loss Key Performance Indicators* FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Real Loss (MG) 3,308.02 3,120.91 2,724.86 2,638.34 2,812.42 Apparent Loss (MG) 505.82 407.37 414.50 429.19 464.56 Total Loss (MG) 3,813.84 3,528.27 3,139.79 3,037.92 3,276.99 Real Loss (Gal./Conn./Day) 49.47 46.63 40.49 39.04 41.53 Apparent Loss (Gal./Conn./Day) 7.56 6.09 6.17 6.36 6.86 Total Loss (Gal./Conn./Day) 57.03 52.72 46.66 43.09 48.39 Total Loss as Percent of Water 16.81% 15.45% 13.74% 13.92% 14.45% Supplied Unbilled Authorized Uses (MG) 299.30 360.93 355.22 330.94 436.00 Non-Revenue Water (MG) 4,113.13 3,889.20 3,322.04 3,243.26 3,549.17 (Loss and Authorized Uses) Non-Revenue Water as Percent of 18.15% 17.03% 15.30% 15.49% 15.96% Water Supplied Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) 2.95 2.82 2.46 2.37 2.45 Data Validation Grading 67/100 71/100 71/100 69/100 74/100 *Data from FY15/16, FY16/17, and FY17/18 was corrected to account for the City of Sandy’s use as explained in Section 4.1. Any differences in KPIs compared to previous Water Audit reports is for this reason.

1. Introduction- Water Audit Methodology Overview As in previous years the Portland Water Bureau (the bureau) conducted its water loss audit using the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M36 methodology and software (version 5). This method is the industry best practice. This water audit only analyzes the retail service area of the bureau and does not include the water systems of its wholesale customers unless explicitly stated.

1.1 Transition to Internal Auditing and Analysis In 2015 the Portland Water Bureau hired consulting firm Black and Veatch (B&V) to conduct its Water Loss Audits. B&V provided expertise and established a process to collect data and conduct a water audit using the AWWA M36 methodology. B&V collected data and conducted interviews with close to 30 individuals and workgroups throughout the bureau to provide a base level of analysis between FY 2012/13 and FY 2016/17. One of the key recommendations from B&V was to hire a full-time internal staff person to continue the auditing work and better integrate water loss best practices into bureau operations. In March 2019 the bureau hired its first Water Loss Analyst, and this report is the first year the bureau has internally prepared its water audit. The Analyst is part of the Water Efficiency Division and works across the organization to gather data and collaborate.

For this first year of internal preparation an effort was made to replicate and document the process used by B&V to ensure the results were comparable (unless a major data error or omission was observed). The Water Loss Analyst conducted the annual audit according to the AWWA methodology and in-line with State of Oregon Water Management and Conservation Plan requirements. In addition, they coordinated with the water loss stakeholder group, and facilitated the development and prioritization of water loss reduction planning and research.

1.2 Standard AWWA Water Balance The AWWA M36 methodology produces a Water Balance for the utility which is a visual representation of the data end points for all components that are collected for the water audit. This allows the auditor and utility to develop their performance indicators and set goals for real and apparent loss. This is not meant to display the loss to scale but rather help break up the individual components in a way that is more understandable to an interested party. This allows the bureau to strategically think about its largest problem areas and decide on strategies that will address them.

Throughout this document the water audit inputs that inform this water balance (such as volume of water produced or unauthorized uses) will be summarized at the beginning of each chapter and displayed in a text box at the end of their respective section. The summary at the beginning will include all related values in a given category (i.e. all forms of loss or all system data). The box at the end of each section will include the total value for that section’s water audit component (the input into the audit software such as total unbilled unmetered use or total length of pipe).

Figure 1-1 Illustrates the FY 2017/18 water audit balance for the Portland Water Bureau. This is taken directly from the audit software and all units are in million gallon per fiscal year1.

Figure 1-1 AWWA Water Balance FY17/18 (Source: AWWA Water Audit Software)

1 Note: the AWWA software uses three decimal points in its calculations, in this report they are rounded to two for readability.

1.3 Key Terms and Definitions Water Loss: The difference between the water supplied volume and authorized consumption, also equal to the sum of real and apparent loss. Includes two types of loss, Real Loss and Apparent Loss. Water loss is discussed in this document in terms of the retail water service area for the Portland Water Bureau. This excludes wholesale water use unless otherwise specified.

Real Loss: The physical water loss from a pressurized system and the utility’s storage tanks and reservoirs, up to the customer meter. Examples: breaks in mains and transmission system, leakage and overflow at utility storage tanks, leaks in service connections up to the customer’s meter.

Apparent Loss: Non-physical water loss caused by inaccuracies associated with metering, billing, data handling or unauthorized consumption. Includes all inaccuracies associated with customer metering, systematic data handling errors, and unauthorized consumption. Examples: unauthorized consumption (theft), metering inaccuracies, systemic data handling errors.

Authorized (Unbilled) Uses: This is water that is used with the permission of the water utility but is not billed through normal billing/ metering practices. This can include a variety of activities from normal utility operations (such as unidirectional flushing of mains) to specific one-off events with utility approval such as a hydrant permit for a special event.

Non-Revenue Water: Non-revenue water (NRW) is made up of real and apparent loss and unbilled authorized consumption. NRW includes water loss but also water use that is not billed through ‘traditional’ utility operations.

NRW= Apparent Loss + Real Loss+ Unbilled Metered Consumption + Unbilled Unmetered Consumption

Data Validity Grade/ Score: The AWWA Audit Software has a methodology to rate the quality and trustworthiness of a data input. Each input gets a score between 1 and 10 depending on meeting a series of criteria meant to assess the quality of the data. A higher data validity score indicates higher quality of data. In the Water Audit Software data that is more important is weighted in final scoring. There will be a data validity summary at the end of each section as well as in Appendix III.

Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI): A performance indicator quantifying the expected unavoidable leakage (real loss) in a system versus actual leakage level. It is expressed by a numeric value above 1.0 (which would be a perfect score). Mathematically it is the ratio of current annual real loss (CARL) to unavoidable real loss (UARL). This value allows utilities to benchmark, set targets, and compare itself to peers.

2. Regulatory Summary This section is designed to help stakeholders understand the regulatory environment surrounding water loss control. This is a snapshot as regulatory changes can and do occur periodically. Water loss control is increasingly important and regulated throughout the United States. National trends are summarized here as a reference point to demonstrate how regulations may evolve in the future.

2.1 Current Federal Water Audit Regulations and Policies Currently no federal regulations require water loss auditing. Although there are national standards for water devices such as toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators (in the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT92, P.L. 012-486)) water use, efficiency, and loss at the utility level is not addressed by federal regulators or agencies. Most of the tools and best practice recommendations related to water auditing come from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). AWWA and the related committees provide technical guidance and tools but do not mandate any actions.

2.2 Current Water Audit Regulatory Requirements in Other States Given the lack of federal standards, states have independently created their own requirements for tracking and reporting water loss. If a state has chosen to address water loss, most require an annual water audit but tend to not set a maximum leakage rate. Some states require the use of AWWA Water Audit Software, others like Oregon only require a systematic approach and method. As mentioned in FY 2016/17 Water Audit Report, the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) monitors state requirements for water loss work. On January 17, 2018 NRDC published an update to their initial research. Figure 2-1 displays a summary from that NRDC report. Note: Oregon updated its policies since this graphic was created. It would likely be categorized along with Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

One of the largest lessons learned from states that have required audits is the need for data quality control and validation. Texas, Georgia, California and others have offered classes on how to conduct a water audit and how to ensure the data and calculations are accurate. Colorado, Indiana, and other states are also beginning to conduct a more thorough training regimen for auditors as well.

Figure 2-1 NRDC ‘Cutting Our Losses’ State Policies Map

2.3 Current Oregon Water Audit Regulations and Policies Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 690 Division 86 requires water suppliers who request extensions of their water right permits to prepare and submit a Water Management Conservation Plan (WMCP). The WMCP must include numerous elements including an annual water audit. In December of 2018 changes were made to the OAR rules that updated terminology to mirror AWWA best practice. The language referencing water loss states is found in OAR 690-086-0150:

(a) An annual Water Audit that includes a systematic and documented methodology for estimating any un-metered authorized and unauthorized uses, and an analysis of the water supplier’s own water use to identify alternatives to increase efficiency;

(…)

(e) If the annual Water Audit indicates that the system’s Water Losses exceed 10 percent:

(A) Within two years of approval of the water management and conservation plan, the water supplier shall provide a description and analysis identifying potential factors for the loss and selected actions for remedy;

(B) If actions identified under subsection (A) do not result in the reduction of Water Losses to 10 percent or less, within five years of approval of the water management and conservation plan, the water supplier shall:

(i) Develop and implement a regularly scheduled and systematic program to detect and repair leaks in the transmission and distribution system using methods and technology appropriate to the size and capabilities of the Municipal Water Supplier or a line replacement program detailing the size and length of pipe to be replaced each year; or,

(ii) Develop and implement a water loss control program consistent with American Water Works Association’s standards.

As described in the above administrative rule, Oregon requires water providers to have a water loss rate below 10 percent. The Bureau is not currently in-line with these regulatory requirements, FY 2017-2018 audit showed a 14.45 percent water loss. The bureau is required to prepare a Water Loss Action Plan to describe to the State its strategy to reduce water loss to below the 10 percent threshold.

3. System Overview There are no significant changes to the Portland Water Bureau’s system since previous audits. The bureau’s distribution system is primarily fed by surface water from the Bull Run Watershed with supplemental water from the Columbia South Shore Well Field (groundwater). Details about these systems can be found in earlier Water Audit and Strategic Water Loss Control Plans. As in previous years only the bureau’s retail service area is analyzed in this report. Wholesale customers are responsible for water loss management in their distribution systems. The details on the water system from past audits and reports will not be repeated here. Figure 3-1 displays a map of major system facilities and supply routes.

Figure 3-1 Portland’s Water System

4. Water Supplied The Water Supplied section of the Water Audit includes the total water volume produced from the Bull Run Watershed and Columbia South Shore Well Field (CSSWF) and adds or subtracts any water purchased or sold between the bureau and other water suppliers. As in previous years, most of the water produced in FY 2017/18 is from the Bull Run Watershed (98.3 percent). Groundwater sources produced 1.7 percent of total water supplied. In addition, a small amount of water was purchased or imported from other water providers. A significant amount of water (approximately 37.1 percent) is exported and sold to wholesale customers. Table 4-1 displays the water audit inputs related to water supplied. They are defined and explained throughout this chapter.

Water Supplied = Water Produced + Water Purchased – Water exported (sold to wholesale customers)

4.1 Water Supplied Correction In previous audits B&V stated the water supplied numbers were taken from the water production meters at the Headworks facility (located at the base of Dam 2 in the Bull Run Watershed). Although there are production meters at this site, the water produced from Bull Run sources is measured at the Lusted Hill Facility where treatment is completed before being sent into the distribution system. Lusted Hill is the location the bureau uses for all other demand summaries and public reporting materials because this is where it is considered “finished water”. This subtly impacts the audit as one wholesaler, the City of Sandy, is sold water before Lusted Hill. For the FY 2017/18 the City of Sandy’s water purchases were removed from the wholesale total before being inputted into the water audit software. It would be incorrect to include given that water is taken out before the ‘water supplied’ is measured at the Lusted Hill facility. Fiscal years 15/16 and on were corrected in the summary charts of this report (since these will inform work planning and documents sent to the state). This is further explained in Section 4.6.

Table 4-1 Summary Water Supplied Audit Inputs Water Supplied

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Volume from own Sources 36,853.00 36,752.00 36,610.00 34,103.43 35,410.71 (MG/Yr.)2

Master meter error -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% adjustment (percent)

Water imported (MG/Yr.) N/A 1.14 0.00 0.03 8.48

Water imported meter error N/A 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% -0.39% adjustment (percent)

Water exported (MG/Yr.)3 13,545.00 14,406.68 14,466.00 12,827.00 13,414.09

Water exported meter error -1.50% -0.50% -0.20% -1.00% 1.02% adjustment (percent)

Water Supplied (MG/ Yr.) 22,684.24 22,833.74 22,672.53 21,666.24 22,516.19

4.2 Volume from Own Sources Table 4-2 lists the volume transmitted through the three conduits out of the Bull Run as well as from the CSSWF groundwater well field in million gallons (MG). The “Storage Tank Changes” field is to reflect the changes in storage tanks throughout the water system (post treatment).

Table 4-2 Volume from Own Sources (FY 2017/18) Bull Run Bull Run Bull Run Groundwater Total Storage Tank TOTAL Conduit 2 at Conduit 3 at Conduit 4 at Total Changes Lusted Hill Lusted Hill Lusted Hill

FY 2017-18 8,961.95 10,869.98 15,034.08 550.71 35,416.72 -6.13 35,410.60 (MG)

FY 2017/18 had a significant drop in the amount of groundwater produced at the CSSWF. This is due to the function of groundwater in the bureau’s system. Groundwater is used to augment or replace the surface water supply due to highly variable factors (primarily seasonal demand relative to surface water availability, and short-term interruptions of the Bull Run supply due to turbidity or other causes). It is not unusual for there to be high variation in groundwater use from year to year.

2 Surface water from the Bull Run Watershed is measured at the Lusted Hill treatment facility, groundwater is measured at the meter located at what is known internally as the “Groundwater Pump Station”. This is the terminal meter where all ground water enters the distribution system. 3 FY 2017/18 excludes the City of Sandy which receives untreated water.

Table 4-3 Groundwater- Columbia South Shore Well Field (FY 2017/18) GROUNDWATER FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 PRODUCED (MG)

TOTAL (MG) - 614 5,283 2,672 551

Water Production (MG) 20,000.00

15,000.00

10,000.00

5,000.00

- CONDUIT 2 CONDUIT 3 CONDUIT 4 GROUND WATER

Figure 4-1-Water Production Comparison

Table 4-4 lists the amount of water produced for the past five fiscal years broken out by month.

Note: there is a slight difference between these totals and those founds elsewhere in this document. This is due to this data being rounded. The data displayed in Table 4-4 is from the “FY 2017-18 Demand and Consumption Information Portland Water Bureau”.

Table 4-4 Bull Run Finished Water Five Year Summary by Month (rounded) FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

July 4,205 4,053 4,357 3,685 4,014

August 3,852 4,184 4,160 3,946 4,163

September 3,031 3,487 3,175 3,050 3,155

October 2,527 2,786 2,964 2,534 2,660

November 2,351 2,678 2,607 2,400 2,425

December 2,729 2,537 2,566 2,483 2,488

January 2,671 2,542 2,705 2,674 2,503

February 2,519 2,294 2,453 2,373 2,268

March 2,747 2,602 2,571 2,505 2,367

April 2,792 2,533 2,628 2,410 2,521

May 2,978 3,045 3,096 2,850 3,234

June 3,451 4,011 3,328 3,305 3,062

Summary Bull Run (MG) 35,853 36,752 36,610 34,215 34,860

Table 4-5 lists the amount of water produced for the past five fiscal years. Compared to the prior year water production increased 1.4 billion gallons (BG).

Table 4-5 Yearly Comparison of Production Data System- Wide Production Data FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Total Bull Run Produced (BG) 35.9 36.1 31.3 31.4 34.9 Total Columbia South Shore Well 0.0 0.6 5.3 2.7 0.6 Field Produced (BG) Total Water Produced (BG) 35.9 36.7 36.6 34.1 35.5

The production data continues to be continually monitored by the bureau’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and by bureau personnel. Production data for this audit is collected from meters at the Lusted Hill production and the terminal meter at the Groundwater Pump Station. This is consistent with other bureau reports.

Water Audit Component: Volume from Own Sources ▪ FY 2013/14: 35,853 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 36,752 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 36,610 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 34,103 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 35,411 MG/yr.

4.3 Production Meter Error Adjustment Production meters at Lusted Hill continue to be calibrated but cannot be tested with a second in-line meter due to the way the meter is configured. The primary production meters at Lusted Hill were installed in 2006, and the Supply Meter Error Adjustment was left unchanged since there was insufficient time to research the status of these meters before this report. Production meter accuracy is one of the most critical components of the water audit and finding a way to test these meters remains one of the highest priority recommendations.

Water Audit Component: Master Meter & Supply Error Adjustment ▪ FY 2013/14 to 2017/18: -1.5%

4.4 Water Imported The Portland Water Bureau imported (purchased) 8.47 million gallons of water from other water providers in FY 2017/18. Although the volume is relatively small, it is an increase from previous years. It is unclear if this is because these are new agreements or if this was the first year this information was captured. Bills and the water use for FY 2017/18 were collected by the bureau’s finance department. Although all sources are metered and it is not believed any meters are outside acceptable accuracy ranges, there is not a well-documented history of these purchases nor their meter testing information. This has required a reduction in the data validity grade as noted in Table 4-9. The data validation score for this component was downgraded from a 9 in FY16/17 to a 5. Further investigation should occur to ensure the data quality of these sources. Table 4-6 lists consumption by import meter.

Table 4-6 Import Meter Test Data (FY 2017/18) Water Purchases from other Percent of Meter Size Testing Percent Error MG Utilities FY 2017/18 Purchases (If Known) Schedule Registration

Clackamas River Water 0.00 0% n/a- Standby

Milwaukie City- Sherrett St 2.80 33% 3/4" Not Tested

Milwaukie City- Johnson Ck 0.42 5% 3/4" Not Tested

City of Gresham 1.38 16% Bi-Annual -0.39%

Lake Oswego- Hidalgo-Bolivar 0.01 0% 6" Bi-Annual 0.40%

Lake Oswego- Arrowwood 2.08 25% Bi-Annual

Lake Oswego- Alto Park 1.79 21% Bi-Annual

TOTAL 8.48 100%

Water Audit Component: Imported Water ▪ FY 2013/14: 0.00 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 1.14 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 0.00 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 0.03 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 8.48 MG/yr.

4.5 Import Meter Error Adjustment Meter testing data was not available for all import meters in FY 2017/18. Only two of the seven meters were tested in this fiscal year. Given that one of those meters represented less than 1 percent of water purchased it was not included in the Import Meter Error Adjustment. It appears that two of the Lake Oswego meters were tested the previous year (thus not included in this audit). The meter from Clackamas River Water was not tested because it is a backup meter. The other two meters (Milwaukie) are not tested although account for 38 percent of total imported water. For FY 2017/18 the Gresham meter was used for import meter and supply error adjustment.

Water Audit Component: Import Meter & Supply Error Adjustment ▪ FY 2013/14: N/A ▪ FY 2014/15: 1.14% ▪ FY 2015/16: 0.00% ▪ FY 2016/17: 1.40% ▪ FY 2017/18: -0.39%

4.6 Water Exported (Wholesale Customers) The bureau continues to deliver a significant amount of water to its 19 wholesale customers through 61 meters. At 13,579 million gallons (including the City of Sandy) these customers consume approximately 42 percent of total water produced by the Bureau. Table 4-7 lists the total water purchased by all wholesale customers by month.

The calculations conducted for this audit use water production data that is recorded at the Lusted Hill treatment facility. This is because Lusted Hill is where water is fully treated and sent to customers. This includes retail customers in the Portland city limit as well as wholesale customers outside of the city . However, the City of Sandy is an exception. Sandy receives water directly from the conduits from the Bull Run Watershed (before Lusted Hill). The water purchased by Sandy is not treated by the Portland Water Bureau. Rather, it is mixed and treated with other City of Sandy water sources. In previous audits this special situation was not apparent to B&V. It was assumed that the City of Sandy received treated water. Table 4-7 lists total water purchased by wholesale customer by month (including Sandy). Given the Audit input for exported (wholesale) water is an annual number this data was not re-run for the purpose of this table but was adjusted before being used in the audit software.

Table 4-7 Monthly Export Water Totals for the Past 5 Years MONTH FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)

July 1,778.17 1,673.51 1,774.35 1,482.78 1,526.91

August 1,431.24 1,614.37 1,729.98 1,525.71 1,594.10

September 1,171.33 1,506.20 1,253.88 1,128.95 1,179.49

October 806.91 1,053.38 1,164.13 958.43 1,027.78

November 674.03 873.00 1,022.15 894.18 940.78

December 1,077.04 1,069.63 990.82 906.39 870.33

January 999.26 910.78 970.32 1,012.37 997.32

February 937.02 829.05 1,030.29 793.72 858.93

March 1,050.19 1,024.47 996.75 905.81 936.68

April 1,042.56 950.26 952.15 827.42 1,000.07

May 1,094.60 1,129.09 1,285.90 1,126.18 1,313.89

June 1,473.06 1,772.94 1,295.45 1,264.70 1,333.31

Summary Water 13,535.42 14,406.68 14,466.18 12,826.62 13,580.53 Exported (MG)

Total (excluding Data for past audits not adjusted 13,414.09 City of Sandy)

Table 4-8 lists the amount purchased for the past five years by wholesale customer. The City of Tigard is no longer a wholesale customer of the bureau but is included since it was until FY 2015/16. Note some of the totals listed in Table 4-8 may be slightly different than other summary numbers due to rounding.

Water Audit Component: Exported Water ▪ FY 2013/14: 13,55 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 14,41 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 14.45 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 12.83 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 13.41 MG/yr.

Table 4-8 Wholesale Customer List and Usage Comparison (MG) FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Wholesale Customer (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)

Burlington 15.16 11.25 12.37 14.29 13.05

GNR 2.07 2.70 3.54 2.41 2.33

Green Valley 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.18

Gresham 2,089.31 2,253.13 2,220.43 2,119.96 2,139.82

Hideaway Hills 1.63 1.90 1.79 1.56 1.48

Lake Grove 129.01 132.27 107.07 134.25 158.62

Lorna 5.87 6.23 7.36 7.49 8.10

Lusted 48.93 53.96 54.82 51.25 55.61

Palatine Hill 118.42 139.00 142.82 120.90 136.74

Pleasant Home 51.41 58.74 59.28 56.69 58.53

Raleigh 190.67 207.93 221.24 184.87 199.23

Rockwood 2,290.54 2,274.21 2,234.30 2,246.50 2,254.04

Sandy, City of 0.00 171.67 172.81 154.27 166.44

Skyview Acres 8.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tigard 1,728.75 1,880.65 1,566.20 0.00 0.00

Tualatin Sandy, City of 1,546.31 1,702.19 1,581.79 1,545.51 1,636.27

TVWD 4,208.82 4,520.90 5,455.33 5,721.21 6,242.61

WashCo Addition 634.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Metzger Adjustment 0.00 100.90 119.24 0.00 0.00

TVWD- Meter Correction 0.00 409.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total TVWD 4,843.20 5,031.28 5,574.57 5,721.21 6,242.61

Two River Water 1.14 0.75 1.11 1.77 0.52

Valley View 48.98 54.72 59.31 48.37 51.25

West Slope 388.25 423.94 445.22 415.76 455.71

Total Sales (MG) 13,507.97 14,406.69 14,466.19 12,827.24 13,580.53

Total Sales Excl. Sandy (MG) Data for past audits not adjusted 13,414.09

4.7 Export Meter (Wholesale) Error Adjustment The bureau continues to test wholesale meters twice per year as stipulated in the water sales agreements. A meter is considered in acceptable range if within 97 percent to 103 percent of actual use. However, all efforts are made to maintain these meters as close to 100 percent as possible. Meters that are backups or not in service are not tested unless they go back into use. Those that go from inactive to active are tested before reactivation.

Previous audit reports were partially inaccurate when describing the ability for the water audit to incorporate meter testing information for wholesale meters. In previous reports B&V described meter testing records as not including “as found” characteristics. It appears only a summary report of test results were sent to B&V instead of the raw data from the tests conducted by the meter shop. The reports previously used by B&V for auditing only lists a pass- fail grade, however, complete details of meter test results are available from the meter shop.

In this year’s audit meter testing records for wholesale customers were pulled from the raw data exported from the Meter Shop’s “Large Meter Database”. Wholesale records are stored in this database with other large meter tests and it is likely they were unintentionally included in “retail meter error adjustment factor” in previous years. Moving forward it is important that these are separated out.

To calculate the meter error adjustment, a weighted average was created for each meter based on their individual accuracy at different flow rates (low- medium-high as determined by the meter specifications and large meter technicians). The error rate at those three flow rates were weighted further by an assumed use at each flow. The AWWA M-36 standard methodology assumes customers with large meters pull water 15 percent of the time at a low rate, 55 percent at medium rate, and 30 percent at the high rate.4 Meter technicians voiced approval of this break down but commented some may pull more at the higher flow rate. In FY 2017/18 several meters had a high over registration at the higher flow rate. While most were within the +/- 3 percent limit at all flows some were high enough to result in a net over registration average.

The issue described in Section 3.6 with the City of Sandy does not impact this input. The Sandy meters are 10” and not physically tested by bureau staff, rather, are only calibrated for accuracy.

Appendix IV lists the wholesale meters, their meter accuracy, as well as details regarding their testing schedule.

Water Audit Component: Water Exported Master Meter Error Adjustment ▪ FY 2013/14: -1.50% ▪ FY 2014/15: -0.50% ▪ FY 2015/16: -0.20% ▪ FY 2016/17: -1.00% ▪ FY 2017/18: 1.02%

4 AWWA M-36 Manual, Fourth Edition, p. 86

4.8 Water Supplied The most essential data point used for calculations in the water audit is Water Supplied value. Water supplied includes all water produced (from surface and groundwater sources), adding any water purchased from other entities (imported), and subtracting any sold (exported) to wholesale customers. This water represents the water that entered the retail water system of the Portland Water Bureau. The total water supplied value for FY 2017/18 is 22,680.01 MG.

Water Audit Component: Water Supplied ▪ FY 2013/14: 22,684.24 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 22,833.74 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 22,672.53 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 21,666.24 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 22,680.01 MG/yr.

4.9 Water Supplied Validation Summary Table 4-9 lists the data validation scored for the past five years. Details on how these grades are assigned is explained in detail in the AWWA Water Audit Software. As previously stated, the data validity score is a score given to each data point to signify the quality of the data source. Grading is on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being perfect and consistently reliable data. The grading is determined by a list of customized factors in the audit software. A grading of 10 is very difficult at many times not feasible for most utilities.

Table 4-9 Water Supplied Validation Grades Graded 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Reasoning for 2017/18 Grade Variables Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading

To increase validation, electronic Volume from calibration and physical flow testing (in- 7 7 7 7 7 Own Sources line meters or drop tests) on source meters is needed annually.

Volume from There were no changes made to the Own Sources - production meter testing, therefore its Master Meter validation score remains unchanged. 5 5 5 4 4 and Supply Testing protocols are the same for both Error Headworks and Lusted Facilities. Adjustment

It appears all import sources are metered. However, policies surrounding meter testing are unclear. Some are tested, others not depending on size and Water Imported N/A N/A N/A 9 5 provider. At least two providers were not monitored in previous years. All were within adequate levels of accuracy.

While all import sources appear to be regularly monitored. It is unclear whether Water Imported all have a meter testing requirement in – Master Meter N/A N/A N/A 3 3 their service agreement. In previous years Error some meters were not included in Water Loss analysis.

The validation will be increased if all 10” export meters are volume tested in addition to calibrated. Current testing Water Exported 7 7 7 7 7 methods do not fully meet best practice because technicians cannot physically test these large meters at high enough velocity.

Water The validation has stayed the same as Exported- there have not been any changes to the Master Meter testing protocols. Uncertainty remains on 4 4 4 4 4 and Supply the validity for 10” meters and over. Error Adjustment

5. Authorized Consumption The authorized consumption component to the water audit includes billed metered, billed unmetered, unbilled metered, and unbilled unmetered components. Each subsection of this chapter will provide more detail on the definition and examples of each use category. Table 5-1 lists the totals for each audit input. At the end of this section Table 5-17 lists all known and unknown authorized uses and their totals for the past five years. The formula used to calculate authorized consumption is:

Authorized Consumption = Billed Metered + Billed Unmetered + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

Table 5-1 Summary of Known Authorized Consumption Audit Inputs Authorized Consumption

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Billed Metered (MG/Yr.) 18,543.36 18,944.54 19,350.48 18,422.98 18,967.02

Billed Unmetered (MG/Yr.) N/A N/A N/A 19.11 93.88

Unbilled Metered (MG/Yr.) 54.60 46.86 50.05 46.04 51.35

Unbilled Unmetered (MG/Yr.) 244.69 314.07 305.17 265.79 290.77

Total Authorized Consumption 18,842.65 19,305.47 19,705.70 18,753.91 19,403.02 (MG/Yr.)

5.1 Billing Process All customers in the bureau’s service area are metered. Approximately 93 percent of customer meters are billed on a quarterly basis. Most of those meters are small, and often single-family residential customers. Customers with meters 8” and above and those with the highest use are billed on a monthly basis. Wholesale customers are also billed on a monthly basis. Most meters are visually read by a meter technician. However, in locations that are hard to get to (such as in downtown) meters may have an above ground touchpad that will allow a technician to read a meter electronically without having to open a vault and read the register. This is true for approximately 5,000 meters.

Table 5-2 Billing Cycle per Retail Meter Size FY 2017/18 Meter Size Monthly Bi-Monthly Quarterly Total (inches) 5/8 600 5,023 137,516 143,139 3/4 225 432 21,617 22,274 1 1,341 5 13,408 14,754 1 1/4 1 5 6 1 1/2 1,385 8 1,439 2,832 2 2,085 23 1,529 3,637 2 1/2 6 41 47 3 489 2 136 627 4 737 1 1,015 1,753 6 727 683 1,410 8 655 141 796 10 120 18 138 12 9 1 10 16 4 4 24 1 1 30 1 1 Total 5,494 8,386 177,549 191,429

5.2 Billed Metered The Billed metered category consists of two components:

• Retail Meters • Temporary (bulk water) hydrant permits i. Retail Meters The retail metered category includes all retail meters (excluding wholesale customers). The bureau’s retail service area includes approximately 621,200 people almost entirely inside the City of Portland. This category includes, residential, commercial and multifamily customers. All water services attached to the bureau’s system require a meter. Table 5-3 lists the total billed metered usage in millions of gallons (MG).

Table 5-3 Monthly Billed Metered (MG) Month (MG) FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

July 1,646.43 1,766.73 1,758.38 2,059.49 1,669.60

August 1,926.90 1,988.59 1,824.93 2,109.32 1,941.39

September 2,006.93 2,130.07 2,095.79 2,168.50 2,213.09

October 2,095.69 1,916.30 2,084.35 1,870.57 1,722.63

November 1,515.39 1,272.78 1,376.27 1,251.99 1,404.94

December 1,523.12 1,428.19 1,555.12 1,504.28 1,476.24

January 1,401.10 1,454.56 1,386.00 1,475.18 1,426.22

February 1,209.50 1,246.26 1,156.78 1,149.25 1,177.99

March 1,318.15 1,319.42 1,327.10 1,446.28 1,414.83

April 1,408.93 1,328.80 1,378.94 1,352.18 1,248.02

May 1,342.48 1,218.92 1,191.59 1,300.79 1,244.42

June 1,509.48 1,472.73 1,803.38 1,653.80 1,476.43

Summary (MG) 18,543.36 18,938.62 19,341.63 18,415.81 18,954.27

Table 5-4 lists the number of services and consumption in billion gallons (BG) by each retail customer type. In addition to water and irrigation accounts there are approximately 4,000 fire line services included in this dataset.

Table 5-4 Retail Consumption by Customer Type (FY 2017/18) (BG) Customer Types # OF SERVICES CONSUMPTION (BG)

Residential: Single-Family 158,015 7.7 (BG)

Residential: Multi-Family 12,609 3.2 (BG)

Commercial, Industrial, & Institutional 21,483 8.1 (BG)

Totals 192,107 19.0 (BG)

ii. Temporary (Bulk Water) Permits The bureau sells short-term water use permits for customers that do not need a permanent line but do need access to water for construction or other uses. The water is accessed through a select number of fire hydrants located throughout the service area. Short term permit holders are required to use a meter and are charged a volumetric rate in addition to the permit itself. The main goal of this program is to

limit the number of users opening hydrants as to ensure water quality is maintained and limit any stress on the system. These permit holders receive training from the bureau.

Data from these temporary construction meters (known internally as temporary bulk water permits) are collected at a regular interval and believed to be reliable. However, attempting to break up that volume into months is not considered accurate since they are typically read at 90-day intervals. Therefore, beginning in FY 2016/17 this volume is displayed only on an annual basis. It is not clear why the consumption recorded in this program rose. However, it is possible that the hiring of a new bulk water program manager in 2017 resulted in better data and tracking of customers.

Table 5-5 Yearly Comparison of Water Billed Through Temporary Construction Meters

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Annual Use (gallons) 7,511,938 5,917,793 8,851,235 7,165,089 12,749,110

Number of Permits in FY 17/18 134

iii. Decorative Fountains Error The City of Portland has 18 decorative fountains throughout the City. Many of these are historic. These decorative fountains are owned by the Portland Water Bureau and maintained by Portland Parks and Recreation (Parks) under an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). During the FY 16/17 Water Audit it was discovered that these decorative fountains were inconsistently categorized in the bureau’s billing system. This was addressed and corrected in the billing database after it was brought to light in 2018.5 However, the confusion surrounding the billing structure led to these fountains being mischaracterized in both the FY 16/17 and in FY 17/18 audits. Although the Water Bureau is the owner of these fountains, Parks receives a bill of zero dollars for each fountain. This bill is informational only, and not reflective of ownership. Therefore, this water use should be considered “unbilled metered”, not “billed metered”. The consultants who produced the FY 16/17 report were under the impression that Parks received a bill (based on use) for the fountain’s use. Again, the bill Parks receives for all fountains is only informative.

The impact of this distinction became an issue again after the FY17/18 audit was presented to stakeholders in late 2019 and as this report was being written. A quick data check confirmed that fountain accounts do appear in the “billed metered” consumption report (a report drafted in 2019). However, because the FY 17/18 data was requested as summarized (totaled) the fountains proper categorization could not be verified for this audit. For future audits the water use associated with the decorative fountains should be categorized as “unbilled metered” since that accurately reflects the fact that the bureau owns these fountains, and no one pays a bill for its use. For future audits the audit practitioner must ensure fountain use is not included in “billed metered” as to avoid double counting. The volume from this potential double counting is not believed to be large enough to skew data results substantially (approximately 26 million gallons).

5 However, there is one exception. “Elk Fountain” does not have a meter and is therefore cannot be tracked in the billing database. Its use is accordingly categorized in the audit as “unbilled unmetered” with an estimate used for its use.

Table 5-6 Yearly Comparison of Total Billed Metered (MG) Use Category FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Billed Metered 18,543.36 18,938.62 19,341.63 18,415.81 18,954.27 Temporary Bulk 7.51 5.92 8.85 7.17 12.75 Water Permits Total 18,550.87 18,944.54 19,350.48 18,422.98 18,967.02

Water Audit Component: Total Billed Metered ▪ FY 2013/14: 18,550.87 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 19,944.54 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 19,350.48 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 18,422.97 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 18,967.02 MG/yr.

5.3 Billed Unmetered The bureau’s only instance of billed unmetered water use is the annual bulk water hydrant permits. These annual permits include the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), its contractors, as well as other city, or city contracted entities, that use large volumes of water for street sweeping, sewer cleaning, and other purposes. These are unmetered, and volumes of water are estimated. Each permit can cover up to two trucks for the requesting entity. In FY 17/18 bureau staff conducted a deeper analysis of these permit holders to create an estimated use for these permits. This is the reason for the sharp increase in use in FY17/18. Table 5-7 lists that estimated annual use.

Table 5-7 Estimated Water Supplied Through Annual Hydrant Permits (MG)

FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Annual Use (MG) N/A 19.11 93.88

Number of Permits in FY 17/18 45

Number of Trucks Covered 171

Water Audit Component: Billed Unmetered ▪ FY 2013/14: N/A ▪ FY 2014/15: N/A ▪ FY 2015/16: N/A ▪ FY 2016/17: 19.11 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 93.88 MG/yr.

5.4 Unbilled Metered According to the AWWA M36 manual, customers in this category are those that are metered but receive no bill or a bill of “$0.00”. This includes metered water for Portland Water Bureau facilities and operations. It also includes commitments from the bureau or other agreements that result in a zero- dollar bill. As mentioned in Section 5.2.iii decorative fountains owned by the bureau and maintained by Parks were likely double counted in this year’s audit (in both billed metered and unbilled metered). This was largely due to the way this data was accounted for during the audit process. In future audits these fountains will be categorized as unbilled metered given that they have a meter but result in a zero-dollar bill. These amounts are not expected to significantly impact the results of the audit.

Table 5-8 lists the number of unique accounts in this category and their consumption. The number of accounts increased by two from 50 to 52 compared to FY 2016/17. Consumption increased by about 5.32 million gallons compared to FY 2016/17.

Table 5-8 Number of Unbilled but Metered Accounts (MG)

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

# of Unique Accounts 61 51 48 50 52

Total (MG) 48.54 46.86 50.05 46.03 51.35

Water Audit Component: Unbilled Metered ▪ FY 2013/14: 54.60 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 46.86 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 50.05 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 46.03 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 51.35 MG/yr.

5.5 Unbilled Unmetered Within the daily operations of utilities are water uses that are not metered nor billed. The AWWA Water Audit Software has the option to create a default values for these operations. The assumed value for unbilled unmetered use is 0.25 percent of the total water supplied. Utilities may use this default because tracking and recording all these uses is challenging. However, through the efforts of bureau staff many of the uses in this category are tracked and a bureau generated number is used for this and previous audits. As in previous years there are uses that are not captured (for example automatic flushers). However, those uses will continue to be investigated and accounted for when possible. Table 5-9 lists the major uses that bureau has accounted for. The description of how these estimates were made is presented in subsequent sub-sections of the ‘Unbilled Unmetered’ section of this report.

Table 5-9 Summary of Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (MG) FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Spot Flushing 176.48 235.55 251.09 155.22 80.53 Unidirectional Flushing 5.86 7.56 5.10 5.08 4.54 Tank & Reservoir Cleaning 24.63 33.64 11.66 67.77 10.73 (Excluding Mt Tabor) Benson Bubblers (drinking 37.72 37.32 37.32 37.72 35.70 fountains) Mt Tabor Operations and No data No data No data No data 155.28 Leakage included included included included No data No data No data No data Fire Fighting Events 4.00 included included included included Decorative Fountain (Elk No data No data No data No data 6.836 Fountain) included included included included No data No data No data No data No data Spacer Connections included included included included included No data No data No data No data No data Hydrant Flow Testing included included included included included SUMMARY (MG) 244.69 314.07 305.17 265.79 270.77

6 Due to an adding error this datapoint was not totaled with the other uses. However, it was chosen to include here for reference. This is explained in Section 5.5.ix.

i. Spot Flushing Operations The bureau manages a spot flushing program to maintain a healthy water quality in its system. Spot flushing may occur when there are customer complaints or after a water sample returns a result that is unsatisfactory. As reported by the Operations Department– “Spot, or conventional, flushing, is for water turn-over. A hydrant is opened at a low flow allowing older, stale water to leave the system while pulling fresher water to an area. During conventional flushing hydrant flow rate is kept low enough to not stir up sediment or biofilm.” The number of flushing events, the flushing duration and estimated velocity are all recorded during each event and compiled for this report. Table 5-10 Spot Flushing Operations

MONTH FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 (MG) Locations Hours Estimated Locations Hours Estimated Locations Hours Estimated Locations Hours Estimated Spot Flushed Vol (MG) Spot Flushed Vol (MG) Spot Flushed Vol (MG) Spot Flushed Vol (MG) Flushed Flushed Flushed Flushed

July 108 510 15.33 172 689 20.71 94 479 11.48 167 737 10.49 August 195 818 24.59 165 636 19.12 139 632 15.68 174 794 11.48 September 168 660 19.84 241 1004 30.18 170 835 22.16 140 671 9.66 October 184 737 22.15 239 1004 30.18 115 602 15.22 180 818 12.20 November 118 484 14.55 123 535 16.08 111 493 11.82 49 211 3.44 December 98 391 11.75 83 361 10.85 116 601 13.74 11 33 0.51 January 161 679 20.41 114 541 16.26 87 399 9.60 18 55 0.78 February 115 522 15.69 150 636 19.12 67 301 6.26 53 193 3.12 March 136 1135 34.12 169 714 21.46 134 589 12.81 82 394 5.86 April 181 734 22.06 148 675 20.29 108 452 11.73 76 401 5.67 May 108 502 15.09 197 919 27.63 157 706 14.96 119 646 8.38 June 136 664 19.96 154 639 19.21 127 570 9.75 126 1,419 8.95 SUMMARY 1,708 7,836 235.550 1,955 8,353 251.091 1,425 6,659 155.222 1,195 6,371 80.53 (MG)

ii. Unidirectional Flushing The bureau manages an active unidirectional flushing (UDF) program. As reported by Operations- “Unidirectional flushing is used to clean sediment and biofilm from the water mains. It is achieved by closing gates to create one pathway between a ‘clean’ source and a hydrant. This allows the target velocity (5-7 feet per second) to be achieved, removing the sediment and biofilm, but not the scale or tubercles, from water mains.”

Unlike spot flushing, UDF increases the velocity of flow enough to disturb and remove sediment and biofilm from the pipes. Previously, crews utilized techniques that used significant amounts of water in their flushing activities. However, methods exist to use a moderate amount of water while still achieving the goal of the program. The latter strategy will be employed by the bureau’s UDF team beginning in 2019.

By 2027 the bureau will have a filtration plant operational for water originating in the Bull Run Watershed. The bureau made the decision to systematically flush the entire distribution system before the filtration facility is completed and in use. However, the full scale of this effort will begin in FY 2019/20 after a new, larger team is hired and trained to conduct this work.

Table 5-11 Unidirectional Flushing Program Volumes (FY 2017/18) Month FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

July 454,930 499,700 958,727 892,356 1,091,630

August 1,007,120 420,950 759,240 1,347,945 -

September 1,003,790 238,800 694,050 1,053,710 506,800

October 1,749,850 581,800 610,165 523,200 28,100

November 218,500 604,600 266,665 467,300 334,800

December - 311,200 292,780 213,500 360,500

January 32,000 682,000 - 187,000 146,300

February - 910,850 64,800 - 63,900

March - 805,865 106,000 - 516,700

April 404,600 652,740 592,800 - 281,300

May 285,700 911,350 290,200 - 662,100

June 704,950 937,800 461,100 397,954 546,000

Summary (Gallons) 5,861,440 7,557,655 5,096,527 5,082,965 4,538,130

Summary (MG) 5.86 7.56 5.10 5.08 4.54

iii. Cleaning and Draining of Tanks/ Reservoirs Table 5-12 provides a summary of the monthly activities related to draining and cleaning of the bureau’s tanks and reservoirs. The draining and cleaning of tanks and reservoirs is a regular part of bureau maintenance and ensures water quality standards are met. These volumes are estimated then confirmed with the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) through an annual discharge permit. The BES report captures several activities but only reservoir cleaning and draining data are used for the Water Audit Report. There can be significant variation in the discharges from year to year. Part of this is due to episodic events that required the bureau to drain open air reservoirs when they were still attached to the drinking water system. For example, in FY 2016/17 reservoirs were contaminated and subsequently drained on multiple occasions.

Table 5-12 Water Used to Clean & Drain Tanks and Reservoirs Month FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

July 22,500 4,750,000 1,084,000 145,000 -

August 1,336,712 460,000 8,000,000 60,000,000 6,010,000

September 661,599 2,106,000 145,000 322,000 164,500

October 3,010,000 4,133,000 377,000 1,104,500 422,000

November 559,500 886,500 - 304,500 503,000

December 25,000 1,268,000 - 168,500 194,500

January 1,009,100 3,250,000 100,000 5,000,000 1,509,000

February 200,000 2,282,900 1,029,500 - 1,466,000

March 2,225,000 218,000 606,000 - 300,000

April 3,587,900 9,831,000 133,000 718,000 -

May 9,563,000 2,200,000 - 3,750 9,000

June 2,430,700 2,250,000 180,000 - 149,000

Summary (gallons) 24,631,011 33,635,400 11,654,500 67,766,250 10,727,000

Summary (MG) 24.63 33.64 11.65 67.77 10.73

iv.Benson Bubbler & Drinking Fountain Estimate Water usage through Benson Bubblers is classified as unbilled unmetered. The estimates for this use were first provided in FY 2012/13 and verified in FY 2016/17. The methodology for calculating this volume is described in the FY 2016/17 Water Audit. Unless there is a dramatic change in the bubbler program the water use estimate should remain at 37,324,170 per year. Excluded from this calculation is the use from four 4- bowl Bubblers at Pioneer Square which are metered and included in Billed Metered.

Table 5-13 Annual Volume Estimate for Drinking Water (gals/yr.) # of Est. Volume Est. Volume Est. Volume Est. Volume Est. Volume Description Fountains FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18

4- Bowl Benson 54 27,247,104 26,963,280 26,963,280 27,247,104 27,247,104 Bubbler

3 Bowl Drinking 3 1,135,296 1,123,470 1,123,470 1,135,296 1,135,296 Fountain

1 Bowl Drinking 74 9,334,656 9,237,420 9,237,420 9,334,656 9,334,656 Fountain

Total Est. Gallons 131 37,717,056 37,324,170 37,324,170 37,717,056 37,717,056

Adjustment for Four 127 35,698,752 Metered Bubblers

Note: some years of audits included slightly lower total volume due to the exclusion of a decimal place in a calculation. The calculation spreadsheet in FY 2014/15 and FY 2015/16 incorrectly used “19” instead of “19.2” for the gallon per hour cell. This small difference would not have skewed any results of the audit. Incorrect numbers were left intact in Table 5-13 as to not contradict previous reports. A full explanation of how the assumptions were created for this water use estimate is detailed in the FY 2016/17 Water Audit and is summarized in Table 5-14.

Table 5-14 Benson Bubblers Calculation Methodology # of # of Flow Hour/ Days/ Volume/Da Description Outlets Flow GPH Bowls Fountains GPM Day Year y (gallons)

4- Bowl Benson 4 50 216 0.32 19.2 18 365 27,247,104 Bubbler

3 Bowl Drinking 3 3 9 0.32 19.2 18 365 1,135,296 Fountain

1 Bowl Drinking 1 74 74 0.32 19.2 18 365 9,334,656 Fountain

Adjustment for 4 metered Bubblers -1,625,752

Total Est. Gallons 127 299 35,698,418

v. Mt Tabor Leakage and Operations In 2015 Portland City Council passed Resolution 37146 that committed the bureau to maintain the open- air historic reservoirs at Mount Tabor (Mt Tabor). Under this ordinance the bureau is committed to maintain clean water in the former reservoirs (Reservoirs 1, 5, and 6) at levels between 50 percent to 85 percent of capacity. As part of the maintenance of this site the bureau routinely drains, cleans, and refills these reservoirs. This use is captured in Section 5.5.iii Cleaning and Draining of Tanks/ Reservoirs and Cleaning Gravity and Sewer Mains. SCADA flow sensors are used to record all water added to the reservoirs after a draining event.

In addition to the water used for cleaning and filling of Reservoirs 1, 5, and 6 there is also water used to refill reservoirs due to evaporation and leaks. Through SCADA estimates the bureau estimates 178 MG per year of water is lost due to leaks. Repairs are being made to Reservoir 1 in FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20 which are expected to reduce the leakage rate though not eliminate it entirely.

Water used to maintain the Mt Tabor reservoirs (including the known leaks) is not considered real loss but instead an authorized unbilled unmetered use. The bureau reports on the water use and leakage in an annual Mt Tabor Water Management Plan and through the bureau’s Salmon Safe certification. FY 2017/18 is the first year that this use is included in the Water Audit analysis. Reservoir 1 remained empty during this period for repairs and maintenance. As more information is available and as repairs to the structures are made these leak and fill estimates will be updated.

Table 5-15 Leakage and Filling at Mt Tabor Reservoir Fill After Cleaning (MG) Replace Leakage (MG) TOTAL (MG)

Reservoir 1 0 0 0 Reservoir 5 10.87 11.89 22.75 Reservoir 6 South 37.87 25.89 63.77 Reservoir 6 North 45.09 23.67 68.76 Total (MG) 93.83 61.45 155.28

vi. Firefighting Events The firefighting event listed in FY 2017/18 is from a single large fire at a steel plant in the St Johns neighborhood. Firefighting related water use for this fire was very high and (temporarily) impacted the water pressure in the area. Calculations were made based on water pressure, number of opened hydrants, and other operational details from fire chiefs (who communicated with the bureau). SCADA was also used to cross check the accuracy of this calculation. However, given limited number of flow sensors in the system, the bureau’s operational analysis team recommended SCADA not serve as the primary tool for assessing fire use. Based on these methods it is estimated this fire used 4 million gallons of potable water.

Firefighting activities are currently untracked in the Water Loss Audit. This means that water used for firefighting is being included in the Real Loss category. The water loss analyst is currently investigating how to develop methodology that is easily replicated and justifiable which will allow the audit to include this use in the future.

vii. Hydrant Flow Testing The bureau continues to conduct a limited number of hydrant flow tests each year. The length the hydrant is open is not measured, therefore, usage cannot be estimated. This volume is believed to be minimal however if bureau chooses to increase its testing regiment it may be worth trying to set a protocol, so volume is better tracked. Table 5-16 lists the hydrant tests conducted in FY 2017/18.

Table 5-16 Hydrant Flow Testing (FY 2017/18) Static Residual Date Location Flow (GPM) Pressure Pressure

7/26/2017 SW 11th Avenue at Woods Street 65 50 955

7/26/2017 Blow off at 2947-3007 SW 11th Avenue 67 40 955

NW Corner of NW 26th Avenue & Wilson 8/3/2017 61 61 2773 Street (two points- flow is totaled)

S of 8" fire service for 10280 NE Cascades 8/16/2017 100 82 2,526 Parkway

4/18/2018 N Portland Rd 160 ft NNL Settle Rd 100 75 2,192

5/2/2018 N Harbor Gate St 70 ft EEL Lombard St 92 72 1,842

5/2/2018 N Woodrush Way 325 ft SSL Harborgate St 90 72 1,923

6/7/2018 SE corner of N Holman St and N Interstate Ave 68 65 1,894

Approximately 200 feet north of 9400 NW St 3/20/2018 62 50 924 Helens Road

Approximately 200 feet north of 9400 NW St 3/20/2018 62 40 1,350 Helens Road

viii. Spacer Connections Estimate The bureau utilizes temporary spacer connections that are not tracked. Spacer connections serve as a temporary connection between the bureau’s portion of the service line and the customer service line when a meter is being changed out. Typically, the bureau will only take out a meter or service if it has one to replace it with (or the parts to make repairs). In the unlikely event the meter technicians do not, a spacer may be used as to not leave a customer without water. This is a practice more common at other utilities that keep a smaller inventory. However, this is uncommon and avoided at the bureau. When used, these are temporary (typically, less than one day), and believed to be minimal. Therefore, no estimate was created to account for them.

ix. Elk Fountain As sections 5.2.iii and 5.4 describe most decorative fountains have a meter and are charged zero dollars for a bill. There is one exception. “Elk Fountain” does not have a meter. Elk Fountain is located at SW Main between 3rd and 4th near the Portland building. The bureau took an inventory of and estimated water use for all city fountains in 2012. Elk Fountain was believed to use 6.83 million gallons per year. As this report received final review it was discovered that Elk Fountain was not included in the unbilled unmetered total. It was a formula issue in the data collection worksheet. Therefore, its use is referenced and recorded but not included in the calculated total for unbilled unmetered. This small amount is not believed to skew the data significantly.

Water Audit Component: Unbilled Unmetered ▪ FY 2013/14: 244.69 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 314.07 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 305.17 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 265.79 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 290.77 MG/yr.

5.6 Authorized Consumption Summary The bureau has made a concerted effort to track and account for the various types of unbilled unmetered uses in its system. The AWWA Water Audit Software has an option to use a percentage default (0.25 percent of water produced). Had the bureau used the default value the total unbilled unmetered estimate would be 281.452 MG/ Yr. instead of the calculated 290.77 MG/ Yr.

While conducting this audit bureau staff identified additional uses that are not presently recorded in the audit. Some are known to bureau, but their volumes are not. Table 5-17 lists all the authorized uses that are accounted for in the FY 2017/18 Audit as well as those that do not have a volumetric estimate at this time.

Note: since the presentation of the water audit results and finalization of this report several pilots or efforts began to track some of these uses. For example, the volume used in large meter testing, the volume attributed to auto-flushers as well as re-pressurization of mains after work were all analyzed by stakeholders and the water loss analyst. Once numbers are tested for quality assurance they will be added to future audits.

Table 5-17 Summary of Authorized Uses with Volumes- Known and Unknown Water Balance Authorized Use (MG) FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 How Calculated Category Billed Metered (Retail) Consumption 18,543.357 18,938.624 19,341.633 18,415.808 18,954.271 Billed Metered Meter Temporary Bulk Water Permits 7.51 5.92 8.85 7.17 12.75 Billed Metered Meter Annual Bulk Water Permits n/a n/a n/a 19.11 93.88 Billed Unmetered Estimate- Sample Spot Flushing 176.48 235.55 251.09 155.22 80.53 Unbilled Unmetered Estimate- Sample Unidirectional Flushing 5.86 7.56 5.10 5.08 4.54 Unbilled Unmetered Estimate- Calculation Cleaning Tanks 24.63 33.64 11.66 67.77 10.73 Unbilled Metered Permit BES Unbilled Metered Accounts 48.54 46.86 50.05 46.03 51.35 Unbilled Metered Meter Estimate- Partially Benson Bubblers 37.72 37.32 37.32 37.72 35.70 Unbilled Unmetered Metered Mt Tabor Reservoir Operations* n/a n/a n/a n/a 155.28 Unbilled Unmetered Estimate- SCADA Estimate- Calculation/ Firefighting incidents** n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.00 Unbilled Unmetered SCADA Elk Fountain*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.83 Unbilled Unmetered Estimate- Sample Spacer Connections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unbilled Unmetered Estimated -Minimal Unknown Volume- Uses Known by Bureau Staff Hydrant Flow Testing Washington Park Reservoir Leaks/

Evaporation Conduit Flushing Large Meter Flow Tests US Navy Filling at Rose Parade Automatic Flushers Draining and Repressuring from

Shutdowns *This was only estimated for this year, not years prior. **This has typically been conducted on a case by case basis but without a standard methodology. This is a single fire at a St Johns Steel plant. ***Elk Fountain was accidentally excluded from the total for Unbilled and Unmetered. It is listed here for future years and reference.

5.7 Authorized Consumption Validation Summary Table 5-18 lists the authorized consumption validation grading for the past five years of audits.

Table 5-18 Authorized Consumption Validation Grading Graded 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Reasoning for 2017/18 Grade Variables Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading

To reach a validation grade of 8, the bureau will need to test a statistically Billed Metered 6 7 7 7 7 significant number of retail meters each year. This should include about 400 small meters.

Bulk water permit program manager conducted a more detailed analysis of Billed N/A N/A N/A 4 8 permit use and created a volume Unmetered estimate which led to increase in data validation score.

The bureau continues to keep excellent Unbilled 8 8 8 8 8 records of unbilled properties that Metered have a meter.

While many uses have a reasonable estimate for volume used some continue to be unvalidated estimates. Unbilled 6 7 7 7 7 Quality of record keeping also differs Unmetered significantly between work groups. 'One off's' continue to surface as data collection continues to evolve.

6. Water Loss Understanding and precisely identifying water loss requires the use of specific terminology. This includes the major loss categories such as real and apparent loss as well as non-revenue water. Below are some of the key water loss terms.

• Apparent loss includes all nonphysical water loss associated with customer metering, systematic data handling errors, and unauthorized consumption. The water is used but not accurately or fully recorded through normal metering systems.

• Real loss is the physical loss of water in the distribution system. It is calculated by subtracting the calculated apparent loss from the total water loss.

• Total water loss is the sum of both apparent and real water loss.

• Non-revenue water (NRW) includes real and apparent loss as well as unbilled authorized consumption. While it includes water loss it also includes water use that is not billed through ‘traditional’ utility operations.

Table 6-1 Summary Water Loss Audit Inputs Water Loss

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Apparent Loss: Unauthorized 56.641 57.08 56.68 54.17 56.70 Consumption (MG/Yr.)

Apparent Loss: Customer Meter 402.82 302.92 309.45 328.97 360.45 Inaccuracies (MG/Yr.)

Apparent Loss: Systematic Data 46.36 47.36 48.38 46.06 47.42 Handling (MG/Yr.)

Total Apparent Loss 521.18 505.82 407.37 414.50 464.56

Real Loss 3,282.13 3,308.02 3,120.91 2,552.32 2,812.42

Total Water Loss 3,813.84 3,528.27 3,322.04 2,912.33 3,276.96 (MG/Yr.)

6.1 Apparent Loss i. Unauthorized Consumption Unauthorized consumption is an apparent loss component that is the result of illegal use of water. bureau staff has indicated that this consumption exists. One of the most common examples given was water trucks filling illegally from hydrants. AWWA has found that for most water utilities, the amount of theft or unauthorized consumption is minimal compared to overall use. The AWWA Audit Software recommends a default value of 0.25 percent of water supplied to estimate this use. As in previous years the bureau used the default value.

Water Audit Component: Unauthorized Consumption (0.25% Default) ▪ FY 2013/14: 56.641 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 57.084 MG/yr.

▪ FY 2015/16: 56.681 MG/yr.

▪ FY 2016/17: 54.681 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 56.700 MG/yr.

ii. Customer Meter Inaccuracies The Portland Water Bureau employs a robust large meter testing program to ensure its meters are accurately billing customers. This is done because all meters inherently have some level of inaccuracy. The Water Loss Audit attempts to quantify the inaccuracy of the meter population to estimate how much water is not included in billing data but is used by a customer. Meters experiencing lower registration levels is more common as turbine meters wear down and slow over time. The more inaccurate the meter population, the higher the loss due to inaccuracy. Test data from the large meter testing program is used to calculate an estimated gallon loss.

As in previous years all new meters are tested at the meter shop to ensure they meet AWWA accuracy standards before they are installed at a customer location. The bureau’s meter shop still has the Ford meter test benches as described in previous audits.

In addition to testing new meters, the bureau tests large meters (1 ½” and above) in the field on a regular schedule. Field testing is ideal as it more accurately reflects the actual environments that meter perform in. Large meters are generally repaired in the field until they become obsolete due to unavailable parts or because they are consistently malfunctioning. If a large meter needs to be replaced meter mechanics can typically do so unless the meter is too large (then this team received assistance from the Maintenance and Construction department).

In FY 2017/18 the large meter program conducted an evaluation of 577 large (retail) meters. Approximately 4,483 tests were conducted on these meters (which averages to 7.7 tests per meter tested). This was split between ‘as found’ and ‘after adjustments’. As in the past if a meter is found to be outside of or close to AWWA accuracy limits the meter mechanic will adjust until meter reads are as close to 100 percent as possible.

Tests are conducted at ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ flow rates (as determined by their size, meter type, and AWWA recommendations). This ensures that a meter is reading accurately at all levels of use. For the water audit the customer meter inaccuracy (CMI) value is weighted at different flow rates to better represent actual consumption patterns. For example, to calculate the percent accuracy for FY 2017/18 the weighting assumes customers use 15 percent of their water at low flow rates, 60 percent of water use at medium flow rates and 35 percent of water at high flow rates. Therefore, if a meter is inaccurate at the medium but not at the low or high flowrate, the CMI value results reflects that in a way a simple average would not. The 15-60-35 ratio is the recommended weighting from the AWWA M36 Manual (if advanced meter flow data is not available).

The CMI value for large meters increased from -1.75 percent in FY 2016/17 to -1.86 percent in FY 2017/18. This is the second year in a row that this value increased. A portion of the change was due to higher inaccuracy levels in the 6” meter population. Table 6-2 lists the number of meters tested by size, their average accuracy and the value applied to the customer meter inaccuracy total. The average CMI is then weighted by percent of the total water delivered through each meter size. For meters that did not have a representative sample, previous audit data or estimates from Asset Management studies are used.

Few tests are conducted on small meters (defined less than 1 1/2”). As outlined in previous audits, small meters are replaced as they reach an end of useful life as defined by the 2007 Small Meter Study. The bureau determined it is more cost effective to replace small meters than field test them. The goal for that program is to replace 5,400 small meters per year.

In FY17/18 approximately 400 small meters were tested by meter technicians. However, these were not a random sample (such as the meters tested in the large meter program). These meters were only tested if there were problems, therefore those tests were not included in the customer meter inaccuracies calculation. The targeted small meter tests are done if there is a customer complaint or if a meter exhibits the following anomalies:

• Meters do not register • Meters have abnormally high or low consumption • A meter is damaged • Lead abatement or other health issues The percentages used for small meters CMI in Table 6-2 are percentages from a 2007 analysis completed by the bureau’s asset management department. This analysis determined that it is more economical to simply replace small meters after a certain amount of consumption rather than testing them.

As mentioned in section 5.7, it is possible that wholesale test records were mistakenly included in the retail meter CMI in previous audits. For FY 2017/18 wholesale and retail meters are separated to ensure the most accurate data possible.

Table 6-2 Customer Meter Test Data Meter Size Meter Count Percent of Count 2017/18 Percent Customer Metering (Inches) 2017/18 Audit Total Delivery Meters Tested Accurate Inaccuracy (CMI) Applied

5/8 141,758 35.03% 0 N/A 2.40%

3/4 22,089 6.83% 0 N/A 2.40%

1 14,909 9.67% 0 N/A 2.40%

1 1/4 7 0.00% 0 N/A 2.40%

1 1/2 2,768 5.85% 63 99.68% 0.32%

2 3,838 14.19% 80 99.76% 0.24%

2 1/2 47 0.00% 0 N/A 2.40%

3 607 4.67% 155 97.94% 2.06%

4 1,750 8.90% 165 97.91% 2.09%

6 1,417 7.32% 91 96.76% 3.24%

8 806 4.27% 37 100.12% 0.12%

10 140 2.02% 28 99.45% 0.55%

12 12 0.00% 0 N/A 2.50%

30 1 1.24% 0 N/A 2.50%

Billed Metered: 19,089.41 MG.

Average CMI weighted by volume of water sold through meter size: 1.86%

To calculate the "Customer Meter Inaccuracies" component, new meter test data was used for those with enough tests during the audit period. Averages from previous audits were used for 5/8”, 3/4”, 1”, 1 1/4”, 2 1/2”, 12”, and 30” meters.

Table 6-3 Tests Completed Per Meter Size (FY 2017/18) Meter Size # of Meters # of Test Flows Average Number (Inches) Tested (Before Changes) of Tests per Meter

1 1/2 61 248 4.07

2 76 321 4.22

3 155 1,314 8.48

4 157 1,418 9.03

6 87 789 9.07

8 31 304 9.81

10 10 89 8.90

TOTAL 577 4,483 7.77

Water Audit Component: Customer Meter Inaccuracies ▪ FY 2013/14: (-2.12%) 402.81 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: (-1.57%) 302.83 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: -1.57%) 309.31 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: (-1.75%) 328.97 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: (-1.86%) 360.45 MG/yr.

iii. Systemic Data Handling Errors Systemic data handling errors (SDHE) are billing issues that occur between when a meter is read, and the customer receives a bill. According to the AWWA M-36 Manual utilities that manually collect meter data (as opposed to automatic meter reading systems) have a higher risk of SDHE. Some examples include data transfer problems, such as manual reads not being transferred correctly and impacting billing, or an error is an incorrectly assigned zero to a bill. As part of its billing quality assessment the bureau regularly generates reports on bill abnormalities including zero consumption reads at properties where that is uncommon. The bureau classifies zero consumption reads into four primary categories:

• Cutoff: Used for move-out, cutoff per customer request, or collections purposes • Pull: Used for meter pulled from a location • Resen: Used for the first reading before a meter is read • RR: Regular cycle read

Of the zero consumption reads recorded by the bureau the vast majority continue to fall in the regular read cycle, meaning most zeros occur during normal meter reading cycles. Table 6-4 lists the zero reads by month.

Table 6-4 Number of Zero Consumption Readings by Month Month (Gallons) FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

July 6,116 5,235 4,761 4,796

August 5,035 5,269 5,251 5,573

September 5,706 5,727 5,473 5,670

October 6,036 6,381 5,674 6,323

November 4,628 4,979 5,109 4,857

December 6,383 5,935 5,427 5,913

January 5,871 5,293 5,969 5,939

February 6,244 6,047 5,665 5,877

March 6,889 6,844 7,178 7,066

April 5,745 5,591 5,629 5,648

May 5,151 5,758 6,309 6,232

June 6,114 6,431 6,515 6,466

Summary (MG) 69,918 69,490 68,960 70,360

B&V conducted an anomaly analysis as part of FY 2016/17 Water Audit which identified a number of meters that repeatedly displayed billing anomalies. In addition, B&V recommended the bureau consider additional tools to catch these types of issues. Additional time will need to be spent by the water analyst to better understand whether systemic data handling errors are a problem for bureau. The bureau does take several steps to ensure these are kept to a minimum. However, until the research from FY 2016/17 is expanded upon, the default value of 0.25 percent of Billed Authorized Consumption is used to quantify the apparent loss associated with this category.

Water Audit Component: Systemic Data Handling Errors (0.25% Default) ▪ FY 2013/14: 46.36 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 47.36 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 48.38 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 46.06 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 47.42 MG/yr.

6.2 Real Loss The method that the AWWA Water Audit Software uses to calculate real loss is to add all known uses of water including billed metered and the estimated apparent loss from the measured water supplied. Real loss is the physical water that leaks out of the system and is not used by a customer, the bureau, or other authorized users. This can include visible leaks such as catastrophic main breaks, background (unseen) leaks, as well as authorized uses that are not currently captured in the audit. This includes firefighting, large meter test volumes, automatic flushers (water quality devices), and other uses. Additional examples are listed in Table 5-17.

In FY 2017/18 real loss increased slightly by 175.532 MG.

An alternative to the total volumetric measurement is to measure the amount of loss in gallons per service connection per day. This allows bureau to compare itself to other utilities. Compared to FY 2016/17 the bureau saw its real loss increase from 36.74 gal per connection per day to 38.74.

i. Main Breaks In an average year the bureau experiences 180 visible main breaks, or approximately 8 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year. The industry average is 14 per 100 miles of pipe per year.7 Given that the bureau’s break average is lower than the industry, it is possible that much of the real loss in the bureau’s system is attributed to background (undetected) leakage.

Table 6-5 lists main breaks by type. This data is calculated by summarizing all leak repair work orders. The bureau gives main breaks high priority and rarely experiences main break caused outages that last more than one day. The occurrence of main breaks often spikes when there is abnormally colder weather (as was the case in FY 2016/17).

7 Folkman, Steven, "Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study" (2018). Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Faculty Publications. Paper 174. Web link: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mae_facpub/174/

Table 6-5 List of Main Break Events Location of Failure/ 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Break Blow Out 3 3 6 4

Horizontal Break 7 11 20 12 Pinhole 39 31 34 18 Seal Failure 10 7 13 5 Bell Split No Data 0 1 0 2 Vertical Break 55 98 134 53 Other 17 23 18 13 No Mode 25 20 25 6

No Leak 1 1 0 2 Total 157 195 250 115

ii. Leak Detection Approach The bureau maintains a proactive leak detection program that surveys the distribution system. This program has conducted leak detection for more than 15 years. The leak detection survey team is comprised of two full-time employees that have a goal to survey the entire service area every seven years. This team uses acoustic methods to pinpoint non-visible leaks in the system. When leaks are detected, they are submitted for repair. A full description of the program can be found in FY 2015/16 Water Audit.

As previous water audit reports have indicated the leak detection program, in its current form, cannot fully address the bureau’s needs given the scale of its real loss. There is no one solution for this, but there are opportunities that can have a positive impact on the future of the program. A full list of recommendations for leak detection program improvements are in Section 11 and Appendix VII.

1.1 Total Water Loss Water loss was calculated by deducting Authorized Consumption (19,403.021 MG/yr.) from Water Supplied (22,680.007 MG/ yr.). Apparent Loss is calculated by adding together Unauthorized Consumption (57.000 MG/yr.), Customer Meter Inaccuracies (360.446 MG/yr.), Systemic Data handling Errors (47.418 MG/yr.). Real Loss is calculated by deducting Apparent Loss (464.564 MG/yr.) from Total Water Loss (3,276.986).

Water Audit Component: Total Water Loss ▪ FY 2013/14: 3,813.84 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2014/15: 3,818.35 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2015/16: 3,222.54 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2016/17: 2,912.33 MG/yr. ▪ FY 2017/18: 3,276.99 MG/yr.

1.2 Water Loss Validation Summary Table 6-6 lists the data validation scores for the water loss section. Note a default value of 5 was given to both unauthorized consumption and systemic data handling errors since the defaults were used to estimate these volumes in the FY 2017/18 water audit.

Table 6-6 Water Loss Validation Grading Graded 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Reasoning for 2017/18 Grade Variables Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading

Default value of 0.25 percent of Unauthorized water supplied being used was 5 5 5 5 5 Consumption selected, therefore default grading of 5 is also assigned.

A weighted average of meter errors was used to determine the Customer customer meter inaccuracy value. Metering 6 7 7 7 7 However, the lack of testing (and Inaccuracies general strategy for) small meters prevents the data validation score from being higher.

Default value of 0.25 percent of water supplied being used was selected, therefore default grading Systematic Data 5 5 5 5 5 of 5 is also assigned. The bureau Handling Errors should consider creating better tracking policies around data errors.

2. System Data Data on the system is used to develop key performance indicators in the AWWA Water Audit Software. This includes length of the system, the length of service lines, the number of active and inactive service connections, as well as the average water pressure throughout the distribution system.

Table 7-1 Summary of System Data Audit Inputs System Data Summary

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Length of Mains (miles) 2,189 2,253 2,253 2,249 2,250

Number of Active & Inactive 183,206 183,359 184,359 185,157 185,553 Service Connections

Average Length of Customer 0 0 0 0 0 Service Line (feet)

Average Operating Pressure 78.0 76.4 76.3 76.3 78.7 (psi)

7.1 Length of Mains The GIS group in the Engineering department manages and maintains the electronic records of the length and size of each pipe in the system. Table 7-2 lists the pipe summary data for FY 2017/18. The bureau defines pipes 24 inches and diameter and below as distribution mains. The total length of distribution mains increased by 1.88 miles in FY 2017/18 compared to the previous year. Galvanized lines saw the greatest change as they continue to be removed from the system (field crews have observed they have high leakage/ failure rates). They are principally replaced by ductile iron.

Table 7-2 FY 2017/18 Distribution Mains (miles) (FY 2017/18) MATERIAL 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 20 24 TOTAL Cast Iron 6.21 0.67 151.80 328.11 566.21 26.22 137.13 6.16 44.52 14.14 20.80 1,301.98 Ductile 0.94 0.01 49.58 284.72 161.46 3.28 120.66 0.25 45.93 Iron 4.57 31.63 703.03 Galvanized 15.26 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.42 Steel 1.04 0.05 1.83 4.04 2.76 0.64 4.04 1.83 4.13 4.63 12.24 37.23 PVC 0.48 0.29 0.54 2.35 1.39 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 7.89 TOTAL 23.94 1.05 203.86 619.21 731.82 30.15 263.92 8.24 95.36 23.34 64.66 2,065.55 Unique/Miscellaneous pipe segments 39.14 Total Length of Distribution Mains 2,104.69

During FY 2017/18 there was very little change to the length of transmission lines. Transmission lines are defined as 24 inches in diameter or greater. There was an increase of approximately 2.53 miles partially driven by the addition of 36-inch ductile iron pipes. Table 7-3 lists the length of each type and size of transmission main.

Table 7-3 Transmission Mains (miles) (FY 2017/18)

MATERIAL 30 36 44 48 50 52 56 58 60 66 TOTAL Cast Iron 11.94 0.81 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.77 Ductile Iron 0.93 6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 7.70 Steel 1.68 17.25 14.50 6.81 15.07 9.98 15.21 10.00 6.52 10.67 107.68 Concrete 1.71 4.60 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 6.81 4.65 18.55 Cylinder Pipe TOTAL 16.26 29.43 14.50 7.49 15.07 10.08 15.21 10.00 13.33 15.33 146.69 Total Length of Distribution and Transmission Mains 2,251.38

Water Audit Component: Length of Mains ▪ FY 2013/14: 2,189 miles ▪ FY 2014/15: 2,253 miles ▪ FY 2015/16: 2,253 miles ▪ FY 2016/17: 2,245 miles ▪ FY 2017/18: 2,251 miles

7.2 Number of Active and Inactive Connections Service connections, per the AWWA software, are defined as service lines extending from the water main to supply the water to a customer meter. This includes service lines that do not have an active account or meter (inactive connections). Table 7-4 lists the total number of service connections. The service connection density of the bureau is 82 connections per mile of system pipe. This is unchanged from FY 2016/17 water audit. FY 2017/18 was the first year that an exact number of service connections were provided instead of rounded numbers for the water audit.

Table 7-4 Active and Inactive Service Connection Breakdown

Type of Customer FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Residential Single Family 152,800 152,800 153,200 153,500 153,541 Residential Multifamily 10,700 10,800 11,300 11,700 12,054 Commercial, Industrial, & Institutional 19,650 19,700 19,800 19,900 19,958 Wholesale 56 59 59 57 61 TOTAL 183,206 183,359 184,359 185,157 185,614

Table 7-5 lists the number of services by meter size that receive bills on a monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly basis. The bureau is unique in that it has this kind of mixed billing schedule.

Table 7-5 Billing Cycle per Meter Type (FY 2017/18)

METER SIZE (INCHES) MONTHLY BI-MONTHLY QUARTERLY TOTAL 5/8 600 5,023 137,516 143,139 3/4 225 432 21,617 22,274 1 1,341 5 13,408 14,754 1 1/4 1 5 6 1 1/2 1,385 8 1,439 2,832 2 2,085 23 1,529 3,637 2 1/2 6 41 47 3 489 2 136 627 4 737 1 1,015 1,753 6 727 683 1,410 8 655 141 796 10 120 18 138 12 9 1 10 16 4 4 24 1 1 30 1 1 Total 5,494 8,386 177,549 191,429

7.3 Average length of Customer Service Line Utilities frequently experience a significant number of leaks on service lines. Service lines, typically, refer to the utility’s portion of pipe which is from the main to the customer’s meter. In the context of the audit software, the length of the service line is defined as the distance from the curb stop to the meter. The bureau’s customer meters are typically located at the curb stop and before the property line (as opposed to inside the home, as is common in colder climates). Given this set up the audit software considers the average length of the service line as zero. For utilities with this set up a data validation score of 10 is given.

Water Audit Component: Average Length of Customer Service Line ▪ FY 2012/13 through 2017/18: 0 feet

7.4 Average Operating Pressure The Portland Water Bureau continues to operate a primarily gravity fed distribution system that flows east to west. The bureau’s operations staff provided a spreadsheet of the average pressure for each pressure zone. Per bureau operations: “These averages are a derived from a steady state model representing average- day conditions. Results are average model HGL and pressure at hydraulic network model "demand nodes" (model nodes having demands assigned) in each pressure zone”. These results were all averaged to provide a single average PSI (pounds per square inch) for the FY 20017/18 Water Audit. The average for this audit year is 78.70 psi. In total 171 pressure zones were included in this average. There were 38 excluded because data could not be retrieved or are no longer in service. For additional information see pressure zone data in Appendix VI.

Water Audit Component: Average Operating Pressure ▪ FY 2013/14: 78.00 psi ▪ FY 2014/15: 76.40 psi ▪ FY 2015/16: 76.30 psi ▪ FY 2016/17: 76.34 psi ▪ FY 2017/18: 78.70 psi

7.5 System Data Validation Summary The validation grades for System Data remained did not change compared to FY 2016/17.

Table 7-6 System Data Validation Grading GRADED 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Reasoning for 2017/18 Grade VARIABLES Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading

Data is provided by GIS. The values Length of Mains 9 9 9 9 9 are close to the same for all five years.

It is still assumed that the actual Number of number is within 3 percent of the Active and correct value. There is still a lack 5 6 6 6 6 Inactive Service of clarity on the status of Connections unmetered and abandoned service lines.

Average Length Service Line meters are at the of Customer 10 10 10 10 10 property boundary. Service Line

The bureau continues to employ Average good pressure monitoring Operating 7 7 7 8 8 throughout the system. The Pressure pressure has remained consistent for all audits.

3. Cost Data The cost section of the AWWA Water Audit Software is used to quantify the cost of real and apparent loss to the utility. By calculating the financial cost of this loss, the bureau can make better decisions on where to focus its efforts and how to best prioritize resources. The following cost data, as summarized in Table 8-1, can be useful when prioritizing loss reduction strategies.

3.1 Total Annual Cost of Operating Water System The total annual cost of operating the water system includes daily operations, maintenance and any long term needs to maintain the drinking water system. This includes debt services and bond repayment costs as well. It does not include any costs related to the sewer system. This data was taken from the end of year financial summary report with the consultation of the Finance Department. A full list of costs can be found in Appendix V. Table 8-1 lists the summary of the past five years of this data.

Table 8-1 Summary of Cost Data Audit Inputs Cost Data FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Total annual cost of operating $241,375,733 $215,363,187 $195,278,717 $208,780,097 $225,230,326 water system Customer retail unit (water) $3.44 $3.68 $3.94 $4.22 $4.49 cost (per CCF) Variable production cost $239.89 $234.12 $236.98 $262.99 $284.76 ($/MG)

Water Audit Component: Annual Cost of Operating Water System ▪ FY 2013/14: $ 241,375,733 ▪ FY 2014/15: $ 215,363,187 ▪ FY 2015/16: $ 195,278,717 ▪ FY 2016/17: $ 208,780,097 ▪ FY 2017/18: $ 225,367,162

3.2 Customer Retail Unit Cost The bureau uses a uniform rate per one hundred cubic foot (CCF) regardless of retail customer type. Wholesale customers have a different rate setting process and is not relevant for this section of the water loss audit. The AWWA water audit software uses this rate to quantify the cost of apparent loss to the utility. The justification is that if meters are more accurate or if theft is not occurring this would be the amount of money collected by the utility. Service charges, sewer fees, nor wholesale rates are included in this calculation.

Water Audit Component: Customer Retail Unit Cost ▪ FY 2013/14: $3.441 per CCF ▪ FY 2014/15: $3.682 per CCF ▪ FY 2015/16: $3.940 per CCF ▪ FY 2016/17: $4.216 per CCF ▪ FY 2017/18: $4.499 per CCF

3.3 Variable Production Cost The variable production cost is the cost associated with creating an additional unit of water. This cost is applied to real loss as it assumes that without leaks and breaks this cost would not be borne by the bureau. Table 8-2 lists the costs associated with power, chemicals, pump maintenance, depreciation, as well as overtime costs. Tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5 provide greater detail on the subcategories. These values were obtained from the Finance and Support Services Department. An effort was made to best capture all of the components that could be related to producing and moving an extra unit of water. Pumps are especially important for variable production costs since the more water volume that goes through these facilities, the faster they degrade.

In previous audits it was assumed that 50 percent of all bureau staff overtime charges are related to leaks. However, this may be an overestimate as the bureau regularly schedules work projects that qualify for overtime (for example, work on a major thoroughfare at night to reduce traffic disruption). This assumption was used again for FY 2017/18 for consistency, however, the amount of overtime related to real loss events/work should be analyzed and adjusted appropriately for future audits.

Table 8-2 Summary of Variable Cost Factors Component FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Power $ 1,457,758 $ 1,462,173 $ 1,534,930 $ 1,239,875 $ 1,186,882

Chemical $ 787,853 $ 715,925 $ 813,440 $ 929,938 $ 1,046,924

Pump Maintenance $ 3,116,655 $3,399,715 $ 3,257,678 $ 3,227,617 $ 3,742,241

Sub-Total $ 5,362,265 $ 5,577,813 $ 5,606,048 $ 5,397,430 $ 5,976,048

Depreciation $ 3,238,511 $ 2,516,461 $ 2,546,659 $ 3,020,713 $ 3,598,387

50 Percent Overtime - $ 510,282 $ 523,388 $ 550,561 $ 508,950

Total $ 8,600,776 $ 8,604,556 $ 8,676,095 $ 8,968,704 $ 10,083,385

VFOS | MG/Yr. 35,853 MG/Yr. 36,752 MG/Yr. 36,610 MG/Yr. 34,103 MG/Yr. 34,411 MG/Yr. Variable Production $239.89 / MG $234.12 / MG $236.98 / MG $262.99 / MG $284.76 / MG Costs

Table 8-3 lists the yearly comparison of the treatment costs.

Table 8-3 Summary of Treatment Water Program Component FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Power $ 94,418 $ 77,107 $ 73,677 $ 81,417 $ 77,400

Chemical $ 787,853 $ 715,925 $ 813,440 $ 929,937 $ 1,046,924

Pump Maintenance $ 1,393,591 $ 2,890,004 $ 2,916,153 $ 1,384,732 $ 1,635,469

Sub-Total $ 2,275,862 $ 3,683,036 $ 3,803,270 $ 2,396,087 $ 2,759,793

Table 8-4 lists the summary of the pump and tank program costs.

Table 8-4 Summary of Pump / Tanks Sub-Program Component FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Power $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Chemical $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Pump Maintenance $ 1,716,992 $ 1,993,284 $ 1,775,418 $ 1,837,563 $ 2,100,766

Sub-Total $ 1,716,992 $ 1,993,284 $ 1,775,41 $ 1,837,563 $ 2,100,766

Table 8-5 lists the yearly comparison of the reservoirs/pump/tanks/utility charge sub program costs. Table 8-5 Summary of Reservoirs/Pumps/Tanks – Utility Charges Sub-Program Component FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Power $ 1,363,340 $ 1,385,066.00 $ 1,461,253 $1,158,457 $ 1,109,481

Chemical $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Pump Maintenance $ 6,072 $ 5,618.00 $ 5,251 $ 5,320.79 $ 6,006

Sub-Total $ 1,369,412 $ 1,390,684 $ 1,466,504 $ 1,163,778 $ 1,115,488

3.4 Cost Data Validation Summary Table 8-6 lists the cost data validation grades for the past five years of audits. In FY 2017/18 the Customer Retail Unit was increased. Given the bureau does not have any sort of tiered rate structure this value should have been higher in previous years. It is believed there was a miscommunication between consultants and bureau staff. There was no impact from this on audit calculations beyond data validation score.

Water Audit Component: Variable Production Cost ▪ FY 2013/14: $239.89 per MG ▪ FY 2014/15: $234.12 per MG ▪ FY 2015/16: $236.98 per MG ▪ FY 2016/17: $262.99 per MG ▪ FY 2017/18: $284.76 per MG

Table 8-6 Cost Validation Grading Graded 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Reasoning for 2017/18 Grade Variables Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading

Total Annual Reliable electronic accounting that Cost of tracks all water system operating 9 10 10 10 10 Operating costs. Data is audited annually Water System internally and by a 3rd party CPA.

PWB has a clearly written rate ordinance. This value was lower Customer Retail than it should have been in past Unit Cost 5 6 6 6 9 audits due to confusion between (Applied to contractor and bureau staff. All Apparent Loss) retail customers have same flat volumetric rate.

Cost accounting in place and internally audited annually and 3rd party CPA every 3 years. This Variable value was calculated by factoring Production Cost 7 8 8 8 8 the pumping, treating, pump (Applied to Real maintenance, depreciation on Loss) pumps only and 50 percent of the overtime (assumed to be leakage repair).

4. Performance Indicator Summary The AWWA audit methodology produces several Performance Indicators (PIs) to allow utilities to track progress and compare themselves to peer utilities. These PIs are strategically constructed by the AWWA Water Loss Committee to limit the opportunity of changes in consumption patterns to skew the results (as is the case with a percentage of water supplied).

Performance Indicators are listed in the Table 9-1 below. The increase in data validation grading was due primarily to changes in the billed unmetered category. For example, bureau staff increased the quality of data by recalculating and then testing flow data to better estimate the amount of water used by the bulk water permit program. Record keeping for that program also greatly improved. ‘Customer retail unit cost’ also had a jump in validation scoring which helped offset the downgrade for ‘imported water’.

Performance indicators related to real and apparent loss rose, indicating an increase in water loss. This is despite the inclusion of more authorized uses. The rise in apparent loss was driven largely by higher meter inaccuracy rates. Real loss increased despite a drop in the number of main breaks compared to previous years suggesting an increase in undetected leaks.

Table 9-1 Performance Indicator Comparison Performance Indicators FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Validation Grading 67/100 71/100 71/100 69/100 74/100

Apparent Loss per service 7.56 6.09 6.16 6.35 6.85 connection per day (g/conn/d)

Real Loss per service connection 49.47 46.63 37.93 36.74 38.74 per day (g/conn/d)

Infrastructure Leakage Index 2.95 2.82 2.30 2.23 2.28 (ILI)

Real Loss per service connection n/a n/a 0.44 0.48 0.49 per psi pressure

Annual Cost of Water Loss $ 3,120,280 $ 2,734,684 $ 2,788,049 $ 2,912,328 $ 2,785,972

Annual Cost of Real Loss $ 653,041 $ 747,125

10. Audit Worksheet Values Snapshot Table 10-1 lists all the AWWA Water Audit inputs for the past five years. These are indicated throughout this document in text boxes at the end of each section.

Table 10-1 Yearly Water Audit Value Comparisons Water Supplied

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Volume from own Sources 36,853.00 36,752.00 36,610.00 34,103.43 35,410.71 (MG/Yr.)

Master meter error adjustment -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% -1.50% (MG/Yr.)

Water imported (MG/Yr.) N/A 1.14 0.00 0.03 8.48

Water imported MMEA N/A 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% -0.39%

Water exported (MG/Yr.) 13,545.00 14,406.68 14,466.00 12,827.00 13,414.09

Water exported MMEA -1.50% -0.50% -0.20% -1.00% 1.02%

Water Supplied (MG/ Yr.) 22,684.24 22,833.74 22,672.53 21,666.24 22,680.01

Authorized Consumption

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Billed Metered (MG/Yr.) 18,543.36 18,944.54 19,350.48 18,422.98 18,967.02

Billed Unmetered (MG/Yr.) N/A N/A N/A 19.11 93.88

Unbilled Metered (MG/Yr.) 54.60 46.86 50.05 46.04 51.35

Unbilled Unmetered (MG/Yr.) 244.69 314.07 305.17 265.79 313.49

Total Authorized Consumption 18,842.65 19,305.47 19,705.70 18,753.91 19,427.78 (MG/Yr.)

Water Loss

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Unauthorized Consumption 56.64 57.08 56.68 54.17 56.29 (MG/Yr.)

Customer Meter Inaccuracies 402.82 302.92 309.45 328.97 360.45 (MG/Yr.)

Systematic Data Handling 46.36 47.36 48.38 46.06 47.42 (MG/Yr.)

Total Apparent Loss 521.18 505.82 407.37 414.50 429.19

Real Loss 3,282.13 3,308.02 3,120.91 2,552.32 2,483.14

Total Water Loss (MG/Yr.) 3,813.84 3,528.27 3,322.04 2,912.33 3,087.86

System Data

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Length of Mains (miles) 2,189.00 2,253.00 2,253.00 2,249.50 2,250.00

Number of Active & Inactive 183,206 183,359 184,359. 185,157 185,553 Service Connections

Average length of Customer 0 0 0 0 0 Service Line (feet)

Average Operating Pressure 78 76.4 76.3 76.34 78.7 (psi)

Cost Data

FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Total annual cost of operating $241,375,733 $215,363,187 $195,278,717 $208,780,097 $225,230,326 water system Customer retail unit (water) $3.44 $3.68 $3.94 $4.22 $4.49 cost (per CCF) Variable production cost $239.89 $234.12 $236.98 $262.99 $284.76 ($/MG)

11. Recommendations The primary drivers to address water loss are regulatory as well as to improve utility management. Given that the bureau experiences water loss above the 10 percent threshold set by the State of Oregon, the top priority is lowering loss to meet this requirement. As Table 11-1 indicates, water loss has increased compared to past years despite the inclusion of more authorized uses (that would have previously been identified as loss). To put this volume into context the amount of water loss in FY 17/18 was equal to the water use of all multi-family residential customers (see Figure 11-1). Real loss is the largest source of water loss in terms of volume and should be the immediate focus of water loss reduction efforts.

To ensure the bureau spends its resources wisely it must also address data gaps that limit an effective cost benefit analysis for any proposed remedies. Supply meters and the values used from their readings are among the most consequential but uncertain in the auditing process. In addition, the primary tool to address leaks, our leak survey program, does not currently report enough information to utilize the team’s expertise in the most effective way. The subsequent sections in this chapter identify ways to both immediately address water loss as well as to gather better data for both the audit and to meet the long-term program needs.

Figure 11.1 FY 17/18 Water Use Comparison by User Type (BG)

Commercial, Exported Industrial, and Water Institutional, (Wholesale), 8.1 13.4 Unbilled Authorized Residential Uses, 0.4 SFR, 7.7

Apparent Loss, 0.4 Real Loss, 2.8 Residential MFR, 3.2

Table 11-1 Yearly Water Audit Value Comparisons Component FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Real Loss (MG) 3,308.02 3,120.91 2,724.86 2,638.34 2,812.42

Apparent Loss (MG) 505.82 407.37 414.50 429.19 464.56

Water Loss (MG) 3,813.84 3,528.27 3,139.79 3,037.92 3,276.99

Water Loss as Percent of Water 16.81% 15.45% 13.74% 13.92% 14.45% Supplied (Excludes Authorized Uses)

Authorized Uses (MG) 299.30 360.93 355.22 330.94 436.00

Non-Revenue Water (MG) 4,113.13 3,889.20 3,322.04 3,243.26 3,549.17 (Loss and Authorized Uses)

Non-Revenue Water as Percent of 18.15% 17.03% 15.30% 15.49% 15.96% Water Supplied

11.1 Top Ranked Water Loss Control Recommendations One of the first actions the new Water Loss Analyst took was to read through the previous reports and summarize the recommendations from each report. Appendix VII lists all past recommendations. In addition to the recommendations from B&V, the Water Loss Analyst made additional recommendations based on observations from interviews with staff or gaps in data or information. The recommendations listed below represent the most important for the quality of water audit data and the most significant opportunities for reducing water loss.

• Develop Water Loss Action Plan in compliance with the Water Management and Conservation Plan requirement for water utilities with water loss rates over 10 percent. o This plan is due two years after the WMCP is submitted (estimated Spring 2020). • Verify the status of production meter accuracy for water supplied calculation. o Consider a drop test or other methodology to ensure accuracy of production meters. o As plans are drawn-up for the bureau’s new filtration plant ensure the production meters and respective chambers at the discharge of the plant are set up to allow regular testing and calibration. • Make modifications to leak detection program. Given the rise in real loss and the strong possibility that the background leakage rate is significant, the leak detection program should adjust to reflect the scale of this problem. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the program it is recommended that the bureau transition to a data driven and targeted survey approach. o Conduct advanced pilots such as aerial, satellite, or other sophisticated leak detection techniques. o Gather and evaluate data on past leaks. Analyze historic work orders to help prioritize work and focus on problem areas or pipe cohort. Consult Maintenance and Construction staff and survey crews. o Focus leak detection staff on proactive leak detection rather than leak locate work. While identifying precise locations of leaks is important, this work can be accomplished by non-specialized staff. Leak survey staff’s priority should be finding undetected leaks. o Evaluate staffing levels for current leak detection effort. Consider adding staff to conduct leak survey work to supplement advanced leak detection until loss falls below 10 percent. o Consider training more maintenance crews on leak locate methods and technology to relieve pressure on survey team. o Update the equipment and methods used by the Leak Detection team to the most up- to-date technologies and surveying methods. Develop training schedule for staff to ensure regular training. o Store leak survey work in a digital format. This includes what areas were surveyed. Format to easily allow the data to be uploaded into GIS. o Leak reports should differentiate if a leak was discovered by survey crew. Currently there is no way to tell how many leaks are found by the leak survey crews, calls from the public, or other bureau staff. • Given the history of leaks at Mt. Tabor, continue to monitor and evaluate leakage through active metering and reservoir level analysis. Ensure that leak rates at Mt. Tabor are calculated using the same methodology across departments within the bureau. Once all improvements are made at each reservoir compare data to see if leakage decreases.

• Verify the volume for annual hydrant (bulk water) permits. o Assess the feasibility of requiring annual permit holders to be metered. o Gain clarity on significant permit holders and if their use should be more closely tracked (such as PBOT or Bureau of Environmental Services). • Continue to develop strategies to track water uses. The bureau has continued to find and create use estimates for unbilled unmetered uses. Continue this work and keep stakeholders involved in the identification and quantification process.

11.2 Top Ranked Data Validation Recommendations The AWWA Water Audit Software is an excellent tool for identifying and prioritizing weaknesses in the data utilized in the water audits. While data quality has improved it is important to continue this process and to re-examine sources in case issues were unnoticed. In FY 2017/18 the bureau experienced an increase in its data validation scoring. This is reflective of the efforts of staff across the bureau. Improvements in water use estimates, the increased identification of authorized uses, as well as the creation of consistent reporting structures has improved the quality of audit efforts. However, there is still room for improvement and there are multiple data points that are not captured in the audit under the unbilled authorized category.

The following recommendations should be considered for improving data validation:

• Volume from Own Sources (Previous Validation Score= 4 | Current Validation Grade = 4): To qualify for a grade of 5, the bureau must conduct regular accuracy tests on its production meters beyond simple recalibration. This means having the ability to test the meters in line or from a drop test. Given the issues with production meter data (confusion about using data from Headworks or Lusted Hill facilities) the bureau may consider comparing the numbers at both facilities (and subtract City of Sandy and other ‘untreated’ water users that pull from conduits before the Lusted Hill facilities). The bureau should also begin work to have an easily testable meter set up at the new filtration facility since it may be more cost effective than retrofitting sites that already exist. • Customer Metering Inaccuracies (Previous Validation Score = 7 | Current Validation Grade = 7): To qualify for a grade of 8, water meter replacement and accuracy testing must result in a highly accurate meter population. Testing should include a representative sample of meters based on age, meter type, and other factors. To improve this grade bureau should conduct a statistically significant sample of small meters. The bureau has employed a methodical replacement strategy for at least 5 years. However, the bureau has not tested whether this strategy has avoided under registering for at least 5 years. • Water Imported (Previous Validation Score= 9 | Current Validation Grade = 5): Most of the water imported by the bureau is due to special circumstances. Given the small amount and specific nature of this water it has not historically been something many in the bureau know about nor report on. In FY 2017/18 there were multiple meters that were included in this year’s audit that were not included in previous years. In addition, meter testing protocols are not consistent from one provider to another. Some meters are tested bi-annually, but at least two are not tested at all. To increase the data validation score to 6 meters should be tested annually. If the meters are consistently accurate this score may increase in later years. It is possible that some of the water included in this year’s audit was miscategorized.

11.3 Water Loss Stakeholder Group and Prioritizing other Recommendations The bureau needs to develop a strategy to reduce water loss to below 10 percent of water supplied as required by the State of Oregon. Real loss is the largest loss category by volume and is the highest priority for near-term water loss efforts. Effective water loss reduction will impact many different work groups and will require collaboration and cross divisional support.

The bureau has an existing water loss stakeholder group that meets annually or semi-annually to review water loss audit results. This group is made up of key staff from across the bureau.

As of the time of this report’s publishing the stakeholder group was already presented the audit results. In addition, there was a discussion on the priorities listed above and in Appendix VII. Some stakeholders immediately began to initiate recommendations related to their work group and practices. Recommendations that are in progress or completed are labeled as such in Appendix VII.

The Water Loss Stakeholder group will:

i. Meet semiannually to review audit results, review recommendations, and set priorities. ii. Identify and address “low hanging fruit”: There are several recommendations and data gaps that can quickly be addressed, especially if multiple work groups assist the water loss analyst. iii. Prioritize water loss work. While real loss will have the largest impact and bring the bureau into compliance with state rules, the stakeholder group should be empowered to help choose strategies and from additional recommendations. iv. Link water loss activities to major bureau wide initiatives. The water loss program recognizes that there are multiple major initiatives currently occurring at the bureau. They require a significant amount of time and effort. When applicable water loss goals should complement the efforts of the Strategic Plan, equity, and other bureau-wide efforts.

APPENDICES APPENDIX I: FY 17/18 AWWA Water Audit Worksheet

? Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Portland Water Bureau + Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2017/18 7/2017 - 6/2018

Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <------Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: + ? 7 35,410.710 MG/Yr + ? 4 -1.50% MG/Yr Water imported: + ? 5 8.476 MG/Yr + ? 3 -0.39% 0.000 MG/Yr Water exported: + ? 7 13,414.088 MG/Yr + ? 4 1.02% MG/Yr Enter negative % or value for under-registration WATER SUPPLIED: 22,680.007 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Click here: ? Billed metered: + ? 7 18,967.020 MG/Yr for help using option Billed unmetered: + ? 8 93.878 MG/Yr buttons below Unbilled metered: + ? 8 51.350 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value: ? Unbilled unmetered: + 7 290.773 MG/Yr 1.25% 24061290.773 MG/Yr Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value Use buttons to select AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: ? 19,403.021 MG/Yr percentage of water supplied OR value WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 3,276.986 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value: Unauthorized consumption: + ? 56.700 MG/Yr 0.25% 265.788 MG/Yr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: + ? 7 360.446 MG/Yr 1.86% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: + ? 5 47.418 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: ? 464.564 MG/Yr

Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: ? 2,812.422 MG/Yr

WATER LOSSES: 3,276.986 MG/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER: ? 3,619.109 MG/Yr = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA

Length of mains: + ? 9 2,250.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: + ? 6 185,553 Service connection density: ? 82 conn./mile main Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Yes (length of service line, beyond the property Average length of customer service line: + ? 10 ft boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility) Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Average operating pressure: + ? 8 78.7 psi

COST DATA

Total annual cost of operating water system: + ? 10 $225,230,326 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): + ? 9 $4.49 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): + ? 8 $284.76 $/Million gallons Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses

WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

*** YOUR SCORE IS: 74 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score

APPENDIX II: FY 17/18 AWWA Water Audit Worksheet: Performance Indicators AWWA Free Water Audit Software: WAS v5.0 American Water Works Association. System Attributes and Performance Indicators Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.

Water Audit Report for: Portland Water Bureau Reporting Year: 2017/18 7/2017 - 6/2018

*** YOUR WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE IS: 74 out of 100 *** System Attributes: Apparent Losses: 464.564 MG/Yr + Real Losses: 2,812.422 MG/Yr = Water Losses: 3,276.986 MG/Yr

? Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL): 1,149.18 MG/Yr Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $2,788,430 Annual cost of Real Losses: $800,865 Valued at Variable Production Cost Return to Reporting Worksheet to change this assumpiton Performance Indicators: Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied: 16.0% Financial: Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system: 1.6% Real Losses valued at Variable Production Cost

Apparent Losses per service connection per day: 6.86 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day: 41.53 gallons/connection/day Operational Efficiency: Real Losses per length of main per day*: N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure: 0.53 gallons/connection/day/psi

From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL): 2,812.42 million gallons/year

? Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]: 2.45

* This performance indicator applies for systems with a low service connection density of less than 32 service connections/mile of pipeline

APPENDIX III: Data Validity Score Summary Graded Variable 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Grading Volume from Own Sources 5 7 7 7 7 7 Volume from Own Sources - Master 4 5 5 5 4 4 Meter and Supply Error Adjustment Water Imported N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 5 Water Imported – Master Meter Error N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3 Water Exported 7 7 7 7 7 7 Water Exported- Master Meter and 4 4 4 4 4 4 Supply Error Adjustment Billed Metered 7 6 7 7 7 7 Billed Unmetered N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 8 Unbilled Metered 8 8 8 8 8 8 Unbilled Unmetered 5 6 7 7 7 7 Unauthorized Consumption 5 5 5 5 5 5 Customer Metering Inaccuracies 5 6 7 7 7 7 Systematic Data Handling Errors 5 5 5 5 5 5 Length of Mains 9 9 9 9 9 9 Number of Active and Inactive Service 5 5 6 6 6 6 Connections Average Length of Customer Service Line 10 10 10 10 10 10 Average Operating Pressure 7 7 7 7 8 8 Total Annual Cost of Operating Water 9 9 10 10 10 10 System Customer Retail Unit Cost (Applied to 5 5 6 6 6 9 Apparent Loss) Variable Production Cost (Applied to 6 7 8 8 8 8 Real Loss) Validation Grading 61/100 67/100 71/100 71/100 69/100 74/100

APPENDIX IV: Wholesale Meter Testing Details Meter Error # of Tests in Purchases Wholesale Provider FY 2017/18 Meter # Meter Size Notes on Meter Adjustment FY 17/18 (MG) Percent (per test) 0.99% BURLINGTON WATER DISTRICT 20154307 2 8.34 6 0.99% CITY OF BEAVERTON 20080505CMB 0 10 Back Up Meter CITY OF GRESHAM 1199093 2 16 Pass CITY OF GRESHAM 1181050 1 203.23 10 1.04% 1.02% CITY OF GRESHAM 1185476 2 205.65 10 1.01% CITY OF GRESHAM 1317469 2 148.27 8 1.00% CITY OF GRESHAM 1373573 2 10 Pass CITY OF GRESHAM 1604411 2 8 Pass 1.00% CITY OF GRESHAM 20150402 2 61.76 10 1.00% 0.98% GREEN VALLEY WATER COMPANY 20011194 2 0.25 2 1.00% HIDEAWAY HILLS WATER COMPANY 20023404 2 3 Pass LORNA WATER COMPANY 20094301 0 4 Back Up Meter LORNA WATER COMPANY 20134306 2 4 Back Up Meter Pass LUSTED WATER DISTRICT 20036024 2 6 Pass LUSTED WATER DISTRICT 70114799 0 6 Unknown LUSTED WATER DISTRICT 20084509CMB 2 5.77 4 Back Up Meter 0.99% 1.00% PALATINE HILL WD 1514790 2 136.74 8 1.00% PALATINE HILL WD 20116502 0 6 Back Up Meter PLEASANT HOME WATER DISTRICT 70114798 1 58.53 6 1.31% RALEIGH WATER DISTRICT 20096504 0 6 Meter Moved ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 1317325 0 8 Not Safe to Test ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 20078502 0 8 Back Up Meter ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 28638571 1 10 1.04% ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 70530043 2 71.52 10 1.04% 1.02% ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 20158402 2 458.08 8 0.99% SKYVIEW ACRES WC 20023301 2 3 Pass SOUTHWOOD PARK 20082101 0 2 Back Up Meter

TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70111954 2 10 Pass TUALATIN VALLEY WD 1373519 0 10 Back Up Meter TUALATIN VALLEY WD 20076503 0 6 Back Up Meter 1.00% TUALATIN VALLEY WD 20132302 2 0.31 2 0.98% TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70111953 2 6 TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70530042 0 10 Back Up Meter TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70530044 0 10 Unknown TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70530046 0 10 Back Up Meter TUALATIN VALLEY WD 70530047 0 10 Back Up Meter TWO RIVERS WATER ASSOC. 21620739 0 1 Changed every 3/4 years VALLEY VIEW WD 20026006 2 6 Pass WEST SLOPE WD 1415971 2 8 Pass LAKE GROVE 1103370 1 64.219 6 Meter Removed 1/22/18 1.00% VALLEY VIEW WD 10546784 0 3 Meter Removed 11/07/17 RALEIGH WD 70114800 2 6 Meter Removed 2/8/2019 LUSTED WD 08761315 0 6 Meter Removed 5/10/2018 ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 1618298 0 10 Meter Removed 5/30/2018 ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 1616203 1 136.740 10 Meter Removed 6/28/2018 1.00% CITY OF GRESHAM 2000166 0 10 Meter Replaced 11/29/17 CITY OF GRESHAM 16272990 0 10 Meter Replaced 8/29/17 1.00% CITY OF GRESHAM 20150403 2 4.672 10 Meter Set 08/29/17 1.07% 0.99% LAKE GROVE WATER DISTRICT 20166307 2 64.219 6 Meter Set 1/22/18 1.00% VALLEY VIEW WATER DIST 20174307 1 22.967 4 Meter Set 11/07/17 1.05% 1.00% CITY OF GRESHAM 20150404 2 5.703 10 Meter Set 11/29/2017 1.02% CITY OF GRESHAM 20160401 0 10 Meter Set 12/13/2018 LUSTED WATER DISTRICT 20186301 0 6 Meter Set 5/10/18 ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 20150405 0 10 Meter Set in 05/30/18 ROCKWOOD WATER PUD 20150406 0 10 Meter Set in 6/28/18 CITY OF SANDY F50DC316000 16 Calibrated Only CITY OF TUALATIN 6500E919000 16 Calibrated Only TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JA1A4319000 24 Calibrated Only TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JC042719000 16 Calibrated Only

APPENDIX V: Annual Cost of Operating Water System Operating Fund - Total Expenditures Annual Cost of Operating Water System SUPPLY FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Bull Run Watershed $2,505,790 $3,178,875 $4,381,611 $4,204,521 $5,803,985 $4,559,215 Groundwater $1,243,971 $1,833,129 $1,574,527 $3,625,693 $2,980,901 $3,171,062 SUPPLY TOTAL $3,749,761 $5,012,004 $5,956,137 $7,830,213 $8,784,886 $7,730,277 TRANSMISSION & TERMINAL STORAGE FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Terminal Reservoirs $58,391,845 $52,234,224 $33,142,865 $14,624,177 $23,308,918 $30,126,919 Conduits/Transmission Mains $1,190,350 $989,029 $1,525,829 $1,750,926 $2,856,590 $3,753,542 TRANSMISSION & TERMINAL STORAGE TOTAL $59,582,194 $53,223,253 $34,668,694 $16,375,103 $26,165,508 $33,880,461 TREATMENT FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Treatment $2,656,046 $3,944,715 $2,710,953 $2,719,576 $3,051,344 $4,025,531 TREATMENT TOTAL $2,656,046 $3,944,715 $2,710,953 $2,719,576 $3,051,344 $4,025,531 DISTRIBUTION FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Distribution Mains $15,493,719 $12,072,358 $15,481,308 $14,271,329 $15,768,248 $14,134,862 Field Support $15,218,997 $25,066,561 $22,407,207 $12,215,130 $6,236,714 $8,538,176 Fountains $654,488 $230,122 $96,629 $73,668 $67,992 $84,286 Hydrants $2,454,311 $2,614,397 $3,369,940 $3,233,057 $2,652,398 $2,644,447 Meters $2,264,083 $2,171,486 $2,396,006 $2,473,046 $2,274,442 $2,412,862 Pump Stations/Tanks $13,359,992 $9,204,459 $9,035,204 $15,488,799 $12,188,080 $8,866,907 Services $7,098,536 $7,091,897 $8,352,658 $8,411,912 $8,917,870 $10,452,640 Valves/Gates/Regulations $580,004 $916,356 $1,091,940 $900,217 $916,103 $1,013,257 DISTRIBUTION TOTAL $57,124,130 $59,367,636 $62,230,892 $56,067,158 $49,021,846 $48,147,437 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Water Quality & Regulatory Compliance $22,683,250 $21,071,215 $6,646,310 $5,975,131 $8,421,207 $8,266,848 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE TOTAL $22,683,250 $21,071,215 $6,646,310 $5,975,131 $8,421,207 $8,266,848

CUSTOMER SERVICE FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Customer Service $13,834,235 $13,200,292 $13,854,447 $14,923,444 $15,374,278 $17,050,794 Conservation/Sustainability $771,559 $769,588 $704,848 $846,854 $623,671 $666,954 Fountains $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grounds/Parks $610,121 $544,303 $569,744 $703,404 $844,465 $945,759 Security/Emergency Mgmt. $7,223,601 $4,546,185 $1,672,958 $1,774,923 $2,492,446 $2,383,258 CUSTOMER SERVICE TOTAL $22,439,515 $19,060,368 $17,801,997 $18,248,625 $19,334,859 $21,046,765 ADMINISTRATIVE & SUPPORT FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Bureau Support $12,730,662 $12,093,418 $12,783,758 $13,155,055 $14,747,058 $18,261,867 Employee Investment $1,916,942 $1,575,959 $1,829,916 $2,016,518 $1,980,408 $2,591,620 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Data Management $2,460,599 $2,696,092 $2,888,826 $3,124,535 $3,599,821 $3,361,027 Planning $4,355,597 $4,264,496 $4,755,165 $3,823,378 $3,273,730 $5,554,816 ADMINISTATION & SUPPORT TOTAL $21,463,800 $20,629,964 $22,257,664 $22,119,486 $23,601,017 $29,769,330 TOTAL FOR ALL PROGRAMS $189,698,696 $182,309,155 $151,272,664 $129,335,292 $138,380,667 $152,866,649 Utility License Fees (Account 546200) $5,206,300 $5,544,612 $5,821,324 $6,458,181 $6,763,752 $7,154,761 Bureau Overhead (Account 601020) ($162,919) $0 $0 Prior Year Expenditures $2,804,400 Prior Year Expenditures ($126,157) Hydro Charge ($529) ADJUSTED TOTAL FOR ALL PROGRAMS $197,582,710 $187,690,848 $157,093,971 $135,793,473 $145,144,419 $160,021,410

Additional Costs FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 POBS $2,722,413 $2,962,339 $3,217,980 $3,504,150 $3,824,094 $3,555,767 Other Cash Transfers $4,405,196 $4,931,955 $4,574,431 $5,167,228 $5,602,879 $5,886,849 Total Transfer / Other Uses $7,127,609 $7,894,294 $7,792,411 $8,671,378 $9,426,973 $9,442,616 Advances ($307,848) $62,281 $18,240 ($40,434) $11,164 Debt Issuance Costs $476,967 $ - $252,949 $ - $553,403 $0 Budget Exempt Debt Issuance Costs $908,548 $ - $ - $ - $ - Note Retirement & Int $433,817 $ - $ - $ - $ - Bond Expenses (Sub-Total) $1,819,332 $ - $252,949 $ - $553,403 $0 First Lien Bonds $31,511,080 $26,415,150 $28,151,266 $28,804,200 $34,871,663 $36,988,325 Second Lien Bonds $4,550,319 $19,313,160 $22,054,350 $22,050,100 $18,772,475 $18,777,975 Total Debt Service (Sub-Total) $36,061,399 $45,728,310 $50,205,616 $50,854,300 $53,772,475 $55,766,300

Cost of Operating Water System $242,283,202 $241,375,733 $215,363,187 $195,278,717 $208,780,097 $225,230,326

Cost Summary Adjusted Total for All Programs $197,582,710 $187,690,848 $157,093,971 $135,793,473 $145,144,419 $160,021,410 Total Transfers & Other Use $7,127,609 $7,894,294 $7,792,411 $8,671,378 $9,426,973 $9,442,616 Advances ($307,848) $62,281 $18,240 ($40,434) $11,164 $0 Bond Expenses $1,819,332 $0 $252,949 $0 $553,403 $0 Total Debt Service Payments $36,061,399 $45,728,310 $50,205,616 $50,854,300 $53,644,138 $55,766,300 Cost of Operating Water System $242,283,202 $241,375,733 $215,363,187 $195,278,717 $208,780,097 $225,230,326

Appendix VI: Pressure Zones

Count of Demand Average ADD Model ZONE Junctions Pressure (psi) ARLINGTON 600 CUMBERLAND 43 69 ARLINGTON 626 BURNSIDE 1 81 ARLINGTON 731 CORNELL 2 100 ARLINGTON 733 CHAMPLAIN 13 68 ARLINGTON 743 WARRENTON 31 77 ARLINGTON 864 TANK 69 73 ARLINGTON PUMP 990 3 76 ARNOLD 545 BOONES FERRY 18 75 ARNOLD 685 TANK 318 74 BERTHA 1048 TANK 27 68 BERTHA 615 IOWA 3 69 BERTHA 681 CHELTENHAM 4 61 BERTHA 688 26TH 44 85 BERTHA 750 SUNSET 218 82 BERTHA 805 25TH 29 81 BERTHA 819 19TH 3 77 BERTHA 845 WESTWOOD 29 88 BERTHA 874 SEYMOUR 21 71 BERTHA 937 18TH 4 83 BERTHA 962 MITCHELL 22 87 BROADWAY DRIVE 396 GIBBS 5 76 BROADWAY DRIVE 412 VIEW POINT 28 84 BROADWAY DRIVE 496 TANK 117 100 BURLINGAME 369 FULTON PARK 15 74 BURLINGAME 458 ARNOLD 32 89 BURLINGAME 465 62ND 21 64 BURLINGAME 468 MAPLECREST 7 69 BURLINGAME 473 NEVADA 53 85 BURLINGAME 473 PLUM 3 69 BURLINGAME 487 6TH 8 61 BURLINGAME 525 12TH 6 75 BURLINGAME 545 TERWILLIGER 34 81 BURLINGAME 547 LANCASTER 59 83 BURLINGAME 560 TERWILLIGER 14 84 BURLINGAME 573 62ND 7 59 BURLINGAME 584 CANBY 60 63 BURLINGAME 643 TANK 1,260 79 BURLINGTON 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW - WHEELED

Count of Demand Average ADD Model ZONE Junctions Pressure (psi) CALVARY 1043 TANK 220 102 CALVARY 935 SCHOLLS FERRY 5 126 CALVARY 943 54TH 2 104 CALVARY 963 WOODSIDE 4 73 CLATSOP 522 BARBARA WELCH 10 81 CLATSOP 576 TENINO 7 56 CLATSOP 577 NEHALEM 6 76 CLATSOP 701 BARBARA WELCH 62 85 CLATSOP 804 141ST 10 66 CLATSOP 813 TANK 31 119 CLATSOP PUMP 943 58 81 COUNCIL CREST 1017 MT ADAMS 5 57 COUNCIL CREST 1056 GALE 12 87 COUNCIL CREST 1103 FAIRMOUNT 68 95 COUNCIL CREST 1144 TANK 78 77 COUNCIL CREST 703 JERALD 38 77 COUNCIL CREST 747 PATTON 12 81 COUNCIL CREST 813 MARTINS 22 83 COUNCIL CREST 846 ALTADENA 7 77 COUNCIL CREST 850 TWOMBLY 3 71 COUNCIL CREST 896 HILLSIDE 10 93 COUNCIL CREST 932 PATTON 22 65 COUNCIL CREST 941 MARQUAM HILL 3 80 COUNCIL CREST 942 CHESAPEAKE 29 81 COUNCIL CREST 953 DOSCH 16 77 COUNCIL CREST 992 TALBOT 22 78 DENVER 272 SWAN ISLAND 52 105 FOREST PARK LOW 1044 TANK 28 82 FOREST PARK LOW 690 BIRKENDENE 5 64 FOREST PARK LOW 697 MILLER 70 87 FOREST PARK LOW 705 SILVER RIDGE 4 63 FOREST PARK LOW 742 VILLAGE HEIGHTS 38 87 FOREST PARK LOW 751 BARTHOLOMEW 11 64 FOREST PARK LOW 824 ASH 14 59 FOREST PARK LOW 840 RYAN 7 79 FOREST PARK LOW 893 PINNACLE 46 111 FOREST PARK LOW 970 HAWKINS 25 87 GREENLEAF 1082 BIRKENDENE 7 89 GREENLEAF 1088 THOMPSON 46 93 GREENLEAF 1092 HAZELTINE 12 90

Count of Demand Average ADD Model ZONE Junctions Pressure (psi) GREENLEAF 1101 PINNACLE 6 64 GREENLEAF 1134 ROYAL 9 86 GREENLEAF 1140 SKYLINE 57 73 GREENLEAF 1250 TANK 151 83 GREENLEAF 745 BIRKENDENE 2 71 GREENLEAF 892 BIRKENDENE 5 77 GREENLEAF 991 PINNACLE 17 80 GRESHAM 261 MARINE 1 93 KELLY BUTTE 280 1,306 95 KELLY BUTTE 305 2,021 68 KELLY BUTTE 338 CULLY 262 85 KELLY BUTTE 427 TANK 5,916 71 LAKE OSWEGO 759 ARROWOOD - 2 61 WHEELED LAKE OSWEGO 800 ALTO PARK 8 83 LAKE OSWEGO 884 ARROWOOD 8 92 LEXINGTON 451 112TH 4 73 LEXINGTON 463 133RD 3 64 LEXINGTON 575 118TH 9 85 LEXINGTON 657 TANK 111 89 LINNTON 313 4TH 20 72 LINNTON 326 HARBOR 15 70 LINNTON 332 WILARK 6 74 LINNTON 336 GERMANTOWN 5 89 LINNTON 372 SPRINGVILLE 5 80 LINNTON PUMP 493 65 87 MARQUAM 607 6TH 16 73 MARQUAM 736 TANK 60 68 MILWAUKIE 292 JOHNSON CREEK BLVD - 1 64 WHEELED MT SCOTT 522 TANK 125 80 PALATINE HILL 600 PALATINE HILL - 5 51 WHEELED PARKROSE 182 FB TRAINING CENTER 7 82 PARKROSE 261 TANK 636 79 PENRIDGE 1315 TANK 24 45 PITTOCK 989 TANK 17 70 PORTLAND HEIGHTS 582 BROADWAY 6 104 PORTLAND HEIGHTS 615 RIVINGTON 52 74 PORTLAND HEIGHTS 690 DAVENPORT 17 85

Count of Demand Average ADD Model ZONE Junctions Pressure (psi) PORTLAND HEIGHTS 727 BROADWAY 7 64 PORTLAND HEIGHTS 733 VISTA 62 80 PORTLAND HEIGHTS 866 TANK 217 79 POWELL BUTTE 530 FLAVEL CHECK 8 70 POWELL BUTTE 530 TANK 64 85 POWELL BUTTE PUMP 600 12 67 RALEIGH 347 TERRI - WHEELED 1 50 RALEIGH 438 DOVER - WHEELED 3 71 RAYMOND 435 TANK 338 78 RAYMOND PUMP 552 19 73 ROCKWOOD 440 HANCOCK - WHEELED 2 101 ROCKY BUTTE 390 TANK 66 98 ROCKY BUTTE PUMP 676 10 71 ROSE PARKWAY 325 TANK 110 77 SALTZMAN 362 TANK 4 46 SHERWOOD 369 PARK 9 66 SHERWOOD 381 29TH 12 90 SHERWOOD 436 CORNELL 13 83 SHERWOOD 534 TANK 60 117 STEPHENSON 763 TANK 267 70 STEPHENSON 773 VACUNA 11 79 STEPHENSON PUMP 890 56 93 SUNRISE 871 MT SCOTT - WHEELED 3 71 SUNRISE 886 CLATSOP - WHEELED 5 74 TABOR 503 MOUNTAIN VIEW 3 90 TABOR 590 TANK 129 89 TVWD 1045 MILLER - WHEELED 1 107 TVWD 426 CANBY - WHEELED 1 62 TVWD 426 GARDEN HOME - WHEELED 10 55 TVWD 426 VERMONT - WHEELED 5 74 TVWD 498 LOCUST - WHEELED 4 65 TVWD 643 FLORENCE - WHEELED 3 111 TVWD 819 NORTH RD - WHEELED 1 58 VALLEY VIEW 583 SCHOLLS FERRY - 5 95 WHEELED VALLEY VIEW 640 SHATTUCK - WHEELED 2 71 VALLEY VIEW 745 HILLSIDE - WHEELED 1 51 VALLEY VIEW 860 PATTON - WHEELED 11 95 VERMONT 458 VERMONT 104 67 VERMONT 511 BEAVERTON HILLSDALE 311 81 VERMONT 562 GARDEN HOME 129 70 VERMONT 585 TANK 178 80

Count of Demand Average ADD Model ZONE Junctions Pressure (psi) VERNON 119 GERTZ 7 47 VERNON 183 BRIDGETON 28 66 VERNON 203 HOLLAND 3 78 VERNON 211 HAYDEN ISLAND 114 72 VERNON 270 2,111 79 VERNON 362 TANK 1,633 71 WASHINGTON PARK 229 1,160 73 WASHINGTON PARK 299 420 66 WEST SLOPE 800 PRESLYNN - WHEELED 1 193 WHITWOOD 577 TANK 15 60 WILLALATIN 1055 SKYVIEW 9 62 WILLALATIN 1196 TANK 57 101 WILLALATIN 802 RED CEDAR 5 60 WILLALATIN 962 SKYVIEW 9 84 WILLAMETTE HEIGHTS 329 32ND 12 85 WILLAMETTE HEIGHTS 444 TANK 38 94

Appendix VII: Recommendations i. Explanation of Recommendations This section lists the complete set of current water loss recommendations that have come from previous audits completed by Black and Veatch and recommendations from the Water Loss Analyst that stem from deeper conversations with stakeholders. The prioritization of which to address first was presented to the stakeholder group in November 2019 and adjusted based on stakeholder group feedback.

Section ii: Recommendations for Water Loss are all recommendations specifically related to water loss, water loss audit data components, or work related to this effort. Section iii Completed Items are recommendations that have already been completed (by bureau staff). They are included as reference. Section iv Recommendations on Bureau Wide Activities are recommendations primarily from the consultant that were observed but that may only be marginally related to water loss. Some could impact the water loss work, but the amount and type of work is too far outside the scope of the water loss program. These have been retained in this audit but will likely not move forward as future work will focus on water loss reduction.

The numbering scheme is meant to make referring the recommendations easier, not to imply level of importance. The “Status” column reflects which recommendations are currently in progress or have been completed between the time of first presenting the information from the audit to the stakeholders.

80 ii. Recommendations for Water Loss Work

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Category Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report

Clarify testing and verification policies for Water Supplied Finance 2016/17 Investigate whether our accounts are listed 11 Water Supplied import meters (meters that measure the Report as 'wholesale' or in way to ensure meter Calculation: water the bureau purchases from other testing is completed. Imported Water providers).

Verify the accuracy of production meters. Water Supplied Operations: All Current error adjustments in the audit for 10 Consider using a reservoir drop test Metering Reports production meters need to be revised method or conducting flow verification in given that the official metering is addition to electronic calibration. happening at the Lusted Hill facility, not at Headworks. The bureau should consider Water Supplied independent testing for accuracy. Calculation: Metering Ensure that there is a testable meter at the Water Supplied Engineering Analyst The data from these meters will be some 60 end of the new filtration facility. The facility Rec. of the most important in the audit. should be designed and set up in a way that allows for regular testing per AWWA recommendations.

Ensure that services off the conduits (to In Apparent Loss Customer Analyst We have a small number of services for 61 nurseries and farms) are metered and Progress Service: Rec. tree farms and nurseries. It is not clear if Water Supplied conform with the bureau's policies for Meter Shop they have meters or if that use is tracked. Calculation: Own other water customers. These services are off the conduits before Sources treatment at Lusted Hill and may not be captured in audit process. Refine the calculation of Variable Variable Finance All The Water Loss Analyst discussed this on a 27 Production Costs, including split of Production Reports high level with Finance but will need to Audit Data: depreciation by asset. Include costs for Cost investigate this more closely. Variable Cost volume-sensitive (that is, dynamic) assets, Estimate such as pumps.

Conduct an extensive analysis of loss to Real Loss Bureau Wide Analyst There are tools available from the Water 66 better identify the main causes of real loss Rec. Research Foundation that can help with Real Loss: (such as service lines, transmission mains, this effort but using them will require more Understanding valves, joints, etc.). data and deeper analysis of leak locate, Real Loss Causes survey, and failure repair work.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Category Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report

Collect and better utilize information In Real Loss M&C: Leak 2016/17 This effort should include clarifying key 18 tracked in leak workorders. The bureau Progress Detection Report descriptors language, which will provide should track the following information: better analytical capabilities. Some of how the leak was identified, pipe size and these details are currently captured, but material, ground conditions, age of pipe, have not been analyzed. In March 2019, pressure, and estimate on leak duration. the Water Loss Analyst and the Maintenance Supervisor in charge of the Leak Survey implemented a system to better track how many calls are identified by proactive leak detection.

Real Loss: Leak Steps for the leak detection crew: adopt Real Loss M&C: Leak All Beginning in 2020, the Maintenance 19 Detection Data data management techniques that better Detection Reports Supervisor in charge of the Leak Detection track water survey details. Include which crew is tracking survey by quarter section areas were surveyed and pinpoint where a in GIS. Will assess after a year to determine leak was found, ideally in GIS. Move away if this method provides enough detail. from paper records. Go through and update the “active leak In Real Loss M&C Analyst There are active leak reports that began in 55 report” list. Remove any leaks that are Progress Rec. 2013. Beginning in 2019, workorders were already addressed and add any that are cleaned out. Many had been completed, missing. If there are historical work orders just not closed. decide whether to investigate, complete, or remove them.

Modify the existing water leak detection In Real Loss M&C: Leak All Water Efficiency’s FY 2020/-21 budget 1 program to ensure that the most efficient Progress Detection Reports request included an add-package to fund methods are implemented, and effective advanced leak detection efforts. The Water technologies utilized. Consider satellite or Loss Analyst is working on an RFP to move aerial survey methods and other scalable this forward. New equipment has also technologies. been tested and purchased.

Real Loss: Leak Increase advanced training for all leak Real Loss M&C: Leak 2016/17 Black and Veatch delivered a training to 17 Detection technicians. Ensure they receive training Detection Report leak detection staff. However, staff recall Strategy on a regular basis to stay aware of latest the training as a sales pitch and it is not developments in locating and marking unclear the objective was met. This strategy reported leaks. will likely need a different approach. Establish District Metered Areas (DMAs) to Real Loss Bureau Wide 2016/17 The Hayden Island pressure zone that 23 enable more accurate bottom-up leakage Report could be a good test. analysis.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes # Category Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report Conduct more detailed analysis of Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 The Water Loss Analyst needs to learn 20 systematic data handling errors. Analyze Service: Report more about internal processes before this topics such as zero consumption to ensure Billing can be done well. that problems are reported. Consider a meter lag analysis on Billed Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 Ensure loss numbers aren't being impacted 30 Metered data to align this component of Service: Report because of billing cycles compared to the audit with Water Supplied data. Billing 'production schedule'.

Apparent Loss: Analyze customer billing records (beyond Need to Apparent Loss Customer 2014/15, This is likely already happening; however, 38 Billing Data high and low reads) to detect and quantify Confirm Service: 2015/16 the Water Loss Analyst does not know the anomalies. A process for this may already Billing Reports details. Verification needed. exist but its details are not known to the auditor. Investigate Unbilled Metered accounts. Need to Unbilled Customer 2016/17 Make sure that all accounts are properly 29 Verify that billing is accurate. Confirm that Confirm Authorized Service: Report categorized per AWWA M36 definitions. these unbilled user types are consistent Consumption Billing This would be in addition to already with current policy and that current policy established Customer Service practices. is appropriate.

Conduct more extensive small meter Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 2 testing (for meters 5/8 inch to 1.5 inches). Service: Report Consider a pilot or routine study of a Meter Shop representative sample.

Assess whether meter testing performance Apparent Loss Customer All 53 goals are feasible with current staff levels. Service: Reports Analysis should include an examination of Meter Shop Apparent Loss: meter populations that appear to be out of Customer Meter AWWA guidelines (6 inch meters in Testing particular).

Use flow data from AMI and AMR pilots to Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 These are pilot projects, not meter 65 inform the customer meter inaccuracy Service: Report population data. The bureau does not have equation. Determine how much use occurs Meter Shop full AMI/AMR on its meters. at low, medium, and high flows and reflect that use in weighing the customer meter inaccuracies.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes # Category Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 Because they are large meters M &C is 24 Replace obsolete 8” and 10” retail meters Service- Report needed to complete the work. Meters are as soon as possible, given that parts are Meter Shop to be identified by Meter Shop. limited (this applies to Rockwell meters and M&C especially). Ensure that they are calibrated Apparent Loss: twice a year per AWWA recommendations. Meter Prioritize and schedule the replacement of In Apparent Loss Customer Analyst Focus on Rockwell meters and those with a 54 Replacement certain large wholesale meters. The bureau Progress Service- Rec. track record of inaccuracy. Maintenance has meters ready to install (to replace Meter Shop and Construction, Meter Shop, and Finance obsolete and less accurate ones). and M&C coordinated to move some meters up in schedule. Should assess progress each year. Conduct an analysis to ensure meters are Beyond Apparent Loss Bureau Wide 2016/17 AWWA is currently working on this issue 26 properly sized. Meters that appear to have Scope of Report and will release updated meter sizing a high risk of being incorrectly sized (based Water recommendations. on meter application and consumption) Loss should be considered for demand profiling. Water loss considerations certainly should Apparent Loss: If the current metered data does not be included in the analysis. In particular, Meter Sizing provide a high enough resolution for assess the long-term cost of improper evaluation, conduct a demand profile pilot meter and service line sizing and apparent using flow recorders. loss. The risk is many meters do not record well at low flows, especially if the meter is too big. Verify the volume of annual hydrant (bulk Apparent Loss M&C- Bulk 2016/17 This may be a continual effort to regularly 22 water) permits . Assess the feasibility of Water Report confirm. The best choice is to meter. The requiring annual permit holders to be Program purpose of this program is to provide Unbilled metered. customer service and ensure water quality. Authorized Uses: Track the volume of water used in Water Unbilled Operations- 2016/17 We currently have a routine way of 13 Hydrants Bureau hydrant flow tests. Verify that there Authorized Water Report capturing that a hydrant test was are clearly written policies to ensure data is Consumption Quality conducted by the Water Bureau, but no collected in routine manner. volumetric estimates of those tests.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Category Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report Verify that there is a consistent policy for Unbilled Bureau Wide Analyst We allow some use to test fire lines. It is 43 fire lines. Verify the status of fire line Authorized Rec. unclear how this is enforced or whether it meters, how often are they read, and that Consumption is well understood internally. there are consistent policies for their use. Verify the Bureau of Environmental In Unbilled M&C & BES Analyst We may also be over-valuing or 58 Services permits for large discharge events. Progress Authorized Rec. undervaluing the amount we are flushing/ Is there additional water used, and not Consumption dumping. measured (that is, is this number only recording discharge and not refill)? Create estimates of water used for In Unbilled M&C Analyst The Water Loss Analyst will work with the 16 shutdowns and refills/ depressurizing Progress Authorized Rec. Maintenance Supervisor to get this data during normal maintenance and Consumption (he is testing over three months). Need to construction activities, such as hydrant clean up language to reflect what field Unbilled renews or main repairs. crews call this type of work. Authorized Uses: Establish a method for tracking the water In Unbilled Customer Analyst This will be included in unbilled metered 63 Bureau Uses used during large meter testing. Progress Authorized Service- Rec. uses. The Meter Shop started collecting Consumption Meter Shop this information in late 2019. Will assess data quality in FY 2018/19 Audit. Establish a water use estimate for In Unbilled Operations- Analyst Water Loss Analyst met with Water Quality 64 automatic flushing locations. Confirm that Progress Authorized Water Rec. about this in November of 2019. Data these locations are needed given changes Consumption Quality should be readily available for next audit. to unidirectional flushing programs and The current step is to confirm calculation. other flushing procedures. Conduct more detailed analysis of Apparent Loss Bureau Wide All Multiple stakeholders have voiced 5 unauthorized consumption (theft). Ensure Reports concerns about theft from private hydrants there are official policies and procedures to and other sources. Potentially work with report and track violations. Consider a other utilities to do collaborative research study to estimate level of theft. on this. Identify and create a process to capture Unbilled Bureau Wide Analyst We have not previously asked enough 59 additional unbilled authorized uses such as Authorized Rec. Water Bureau staff to catch all of the Unbilled conduit leaks, navy ship filling, and major Consumption numerous water uses within the system. Authorized Uses: events are not captured through normal Some of these uses are significant and not Additional Uses work orders, permits, or other methods. currently recorded (such as flushing of conduits after shutdown, and leaks in conduits).

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Category Opportunity for Audit Stakeholder Which Next 3 Calculation Group Report Years Work with Portland Fire and Rescue to see Apparent Loss Operations Analyst 57 if their use (for firefighting) can be Rec. metered or estimated on an annual basis. Unbilled Investigate Portland Fire and Rescue Unbilled Bureau Wide Analyst It is possible that fire districts conduct their 50 Authorized Uses: hydrant testing. See if these are tracked Authorized & PFR Rec. own hydrant tests to insure operability. External and if use can be recorded. Consumption The Water Bureau and Portland Fire and Rescue should work together on how and when this is done. Verify categorization and metering of In Unbilled Resource 2016/17 The Analyst should confirm data for 12 fountains. Verify unmetered consumption Progress Authorized Protection Report metered and unmetered fountains (not estimates; if possible, meter currently Consumption bubblers), and confirm that we identified unmetered fountains (Elk Fountain). them all and that they are metered. Unbilled Verify and test Bubbler consumption In Unbilled Resource All Make sure metered Bubblers are not 14 Authorized Uses: estimates (possibly by metering a more Progress Authorized Protection Reports double counted in unbilled unmetered Verify Bureau Use representative sample). Consumption section (four in Pioneer Square). Install Estimates meters on Bubblers. Verify spot flushing data procedures. In Unbilled Operations: 2014/15, It is unclear whether we currently record 37 Ensure that the bureau is capturing and Progress Authorized Water 2015/16 all spot flushing. We need to check Bureau reporting all spot flushing. Ensure Consumption Quality Report of Environmental Service permits as well as volumetric estimates are accurate. cases where water is also dechlorinated. Validate the steep drop in real loss In General Audit Loss Analyst 2014/15, This could be related to Washington Park, 33 observed in FY 2015/16. Use field-based Progress Data 2015/16 and Mt Tabor Reservoirs disconnection, bottom-up analyses for this validation. Report data source changes, or other factors. Water Audit Data Quality: Other Make sure records of work items like Need to System Data Customer 2012/13, This is a quality assurance/ quality control 44 service activations and shut offs aren't a Confirm Service: 2013/14 check. This strategy is related to the part of the dataset for number of Billing Report Customer Service group since data comes connections. from Cayenta. Conduct an analysis of main breaks, loss, Real Loss M&C: Leak Analyst Work with Equity Manager to produce a 68 Water Loss and and equity. Replicate previous work that Detection Rec. more meaningful outcome. Equity used maps to compare main breaks and locations of underserved populations. Configure all active wholesale meters to Partially Apparent Loss Customer All Most are regularly tested. The priority for 4 Wholesale Meter allow for flow testing. The large Complete Service- Reports this recommendation is magmeters used Procedures magmeters are not currently tested. Meter Shop for delivery but not presently tested. Some meters are in dangerous conditions.

iii. Completed Recommendations

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Subcategory Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report Develop a weighted average for customer Complete Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 This is already happening for large meter 25 meter inaccuracies per (AWWA) M-36 Service: Report and wholesale meters, but not for small guidelines. Meter Shop meters. For future audits break down billed Complete Apparent Loss Loss Analyst 2014/15, Previous audits only pulled summarized 36 metered use by use(r). 2015/16 totals. Customer Service now provides the Report broken down totals. Customer Prioritize testing of meters by age and Complete Apparent Loss Customer 2012/13, The Assets Management Plan for large 49 Metering other factors; explore getting a separate Service: 2013/14 meters essentially created a process to database to hold all the information Meter Shop Report test, with a systematic approach that needed. made sense for the bureau. To improve the accuracy of customer retail Complete General Audit Loss Analyst 2012/13, There may have been confusion between 46 unit cost, perform a weighted average Data 2013/14 the consultant and the bureau. This was calculation (by customer class). Reports not a needed change as best practices were already being followed. Verify unidirectional flow (UDF) data Complete Unbilled Operations: 2016/17 Confirmed with UDF Manager, who has 52 Operations procedures. Ensure that we are capturing Authorized Water Report changed program and data recording Flushing and reporting on flushing activities across Consumption Quality processes. Initial audits were uncertain of the bureau. data quality and consistency. Operations Conduct daily monitoring (or record) of Complete General Audit Operations 2012/13, Might not be an issue. SCADA monitors 45 Pressure pressure variations to improve the quality Data 2013/14 pressure continuously. Monitoring of the operating pressure calculation. Reports

Remove City of Sandy water use from audit Complete General Audit Loss Analyst Analyst Completed for FY 2017/18 Audit final 51 calculations. Sandy’s water leaves the Data Rec. results. system before Lusted hills, which, is where the production total is measured. Water Supplied Verify where data is pulled for production Complete General Audit Loss Analyst Analyst Analyst worked with Operations Analysis 67 Calculation: Own values. There is some confusion about Data Rec. group in January 2020 to confirm that Sources whether data was previously pulled from production numbers come from the Lusted the Lusted Hill facility. Data used for the Hill facility. audit should be the same as the data used by the Finance group and for other bureau summary statistics.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Subcategory Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report

Continue to monitor and evaluate Mount Ongoing Unbilled Engineering 2016/17 Water Loss and Engineering are using the 3 Unbilled Tabor reservoir use and leakage through Authorized Report same methods. This process was recorded Authorized Uses: active metering and reservoir level Consumption in winter of 2019/20. Bureau Uses analysis. Ensure this figure is consistent with Engineering methodology. For Variable Production Costs, verify (or Complete Variable Finance Analyst After the Finance group voiced concerns 56 correct) estimate that 50% of overtime is Production Rec. about this number the Water Loss Analyst Audit Data: related to leak repairs. Ensure it is not from Cost worked with the Maintenance and Variable Cost bureau-wide overtime totals. Construction group to derive a more Estimate accurate number. In the future we will be able to pull overtime costs directly related to leak repairs.

iv. Bureau-Wide Recommendations

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Subcategory Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report Identify and eliminate “dead ends” in the Beyond Unbilled Bureau Wide Analyst It appears there is agreement that dead 62 system. This will reduce the need for Scope of Authorized Rec. ends are bad for water quality, lead to the flushing and improve water quality. Water Consumption need for flushing and shouldn't be Loss allowed. Yet, they seem to persist and are even being added to the system. Integrate data from standalone systems Beyond General Audit Bureau Wide 2016/17 While some of this is unavoidable, one of 28 Significant either into one data warehouse or a Scope of Data Report the clearest issues is the widespread use Initiatives common data structure to allow more Water of Access and Excel spreadsheets. A formal automated analysis of audit variables and Loss structure should be adopted, and essential data anomalies. information transferred. All stakeholders should be consulted, and data collection processes considered to reduce redundant (no value added) data entry.

Store and manage meter test and Beyond Apparent Loss Customer 2016/17 To store this would take significant 32 consumption data in an interconnected Scope of Service Report investment in formatting Cayenta this. It is data management system. Water not clear how valuable this would be for Loss Customer Service. For Water Audit purposes the value is limited since reporting would not be improved. Correct source data in Cayenta. This Beyond General Audit Customer 2012/13, This is completed when issues are found. 48 includes correcting installation dates, Scope of Data Service 2013/14 Many install dates and other data points Bureau Data purchase dates, and other issues. Incorrect Water Reports are unknown. Management data is particularly an issue for meters and Loss fire lines.

Update the current (policy) status of Beyond Real Loss Operations 2014/15, There was an effort to use some of these 42 "Demand Control Areas". Ensure meters Scope of 2015/16 as a test District Metered Areas. It is haven't degraded over time. If are still Water Reports unclear if they were maintained or maintained they may serve as proxy Loss something worth pursuing as District demand metered areas. Metered Areas.

Recommendation Recommendation and Areas of Priority Status Loss Type or Major From Notes & Updates # Subcategory Opportunity for Next Audit Stakeholder Which 3 Years Calculation Group Report

Track all active and inactive (pressurized) No Beyond General Audit GIS Group 2016/17 Per GIS Manager: all pressurized services 31 connections in the City’s distribution Action Scope of Data Report are tracked in GIS (not in Cayenta unless system in GIS. (Currently, the bureau does Needed Water there is a meter). A 'Cub Service' is one not track all inactive, pressurized Loss that has no meter, is not killed, and connections.) remains pressured. Not ideal but they do exist. A 'Branch Service' is active in anticipation for the meter and user. Continue high quality asset measurement Continual Beyond General Audit GIS Group 2014/15, 39 GIS Data in GIS (measurement of mains and Scope of Data 2015/16 distribution). Water Reports Loss Investigate and update mains that are Beyond General Audit GIS Group 2014/15, The Analyst spoke with the GIS Manager 40 uncategorized in GIS. Approximately 8 Scope of Data 2015/16 about this. This is a historical issue related percent of mains are not in a specific Water Reports to the Water Bureau taking over other category. Loss utilities. It would take digging out pipes to get this information.

Appendix VIII. Database and Information Gathering

Description of Data Department or Workgroup That Source Database/ Report Name Type of Source Requested Provided Data

Information on Source Operations n/a Interview/ Email Meters

Bull Run Supply Statistics Finance FY 2017-18 Demand & Consumption Public Summary Report Information Portland Water Bureau (pulled through SCADA)

Groundwater Supply Finance FY 2017-18 Demand & Consumption Public Summary Report Statistics Information Portland Water Bureau (pulled through SCADA)

Calibration Testing for Operations Production Meter Calibration Report(s) Interview Production Meters

Cost Data Finance Financial Summary Report FY 2017/18 Financial and SAP Database (depreciation)

Purchased Water Finance and Loss Analyst Bills Received (compiled) Billing/ Interview/ Email

Import Meters Testing External Water Providers Email Interview/ Email Protocols

Wholesale Water Statistics Finance and Customer Service Cayenta Billing

Number of Retail Meters Customer Service- CIS Cayenta Billing Implementation Group

Billed Metered Uses Customer Service- CIS Cayenta Billing Implementation Group

Unbilled Metered Uses Customer Service- CIS Cayenta Special Report Research Implementation Group

Billed Unmetered Uses Maintenance and Construction Bulk Water Permit Research

Unbilled Unmetered Uses- Water Efficiency Lists/ research Research Bubblers

Unbilled Unmetered Uses - Operations UDF Flushing Reports Access Hydrant Flush

Unbilled Unmetered- Spot Operations Spot Flushing Reports Access Flushing

Unbilled Unmetered Bureau of Environmental Services n/a Interview Gravity Sewer

Unbilled Unmetered Tanks, Maintenance and Construction OE Discharge Report Spreadsheet- Reconciled Mains, Reservoirs with BES

Unbilled Metered CIS Implementation Group Cayenta and List Billing Government

Unbilled Metered (bureau CIS Implementation Group Cayenta and List Billing use)

Billed Metered Temporary Maintenance and Construction Hydrant Temporary Permits Database Access Hydrant

Billed Unmetered- Annual Maintenance and Construction Hydrant Annual Permits Database Access Bulk Water Permits

Hydrant Flow Testing Maintenance and Construction CMMS Work Order Report

Water System Revenue and Finance Financial Summary Report FY 2017/18 Financial Expenses

Water Wholesale Rate Finance Water Rate Ordinance Financial

Sewer Wholesale Rate Finance Sewer Rate Ordinance Interview

Water Main Details Mapping and GIS GIS Geospatial

Average Pressure Operations InfoWater Hydraulic Model Data Informed Model

Number of Service Customer Service and Finance Cayenta and Financial Summary Report Billing & Public Summary Connections FY 2017/18 Report

Non-Revenue Water Loss Does not Exist Does not Exist Interviews Report

Leak Detection Equipment Maintenance and Construction Interview Interview Description

Cost- Fixing Leaks Maintenance and Construction SAP Financial

Number of Leaks Maintenance and Construction CMMS Work Order Report Pull

GIS Leak Distribution Mapping and GIS GIS Geospatial

Water Loss Activities Maintenance and Construction Interview Interview

Meter Shop Testing Customer Service- Meter Shop Interview Interview Protocols

Retail Meter Testing Tests Customer Service- Meter Shop Large Meter Database Access

AMR/ AMI Status Customer Service- Meter Shop & Interview Interview Water Efficiency

Meter Replacement Policies Customer Service- Meter Shop Large Meter Database and AMP Reports Access and AMP Reports and Procedures and Engineering- Planning

Zero Readings Customer Service- CIS Cayenta (and Specialized List) Billing Implementation Group

Meter Multipliers Customer Service- CIS Cayenta (and Specialized List) Billing Implementation Group

All raw and summarized data is stored on in the Water Loss section of Portland Water Bureau’s internal drive.

92 Appendix J Letters to affected local governments and wholesale customers

Amanda Fritz, Commissioner Michael Stuhr, PE, Administrator 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Room 405 Portland, Oregon 97204-1926 503-823-7404 portlandoregon.gov/water

Date Name Address

Subject: Water Management and Conservation Plan for the Portland Water Bureau

Dear: The Portland Water Bureau has prepared a draft Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) to fulfill the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 690, Division 86 of the Oregon Water Resources Department. Under these rules, the Portland Water Bureau, as a water supplier, shall make its WMCP available for review by affected local governments and seek comments related to the consistency with the local governments’ comprehensive land use plans. The WMCP is available on the bureau’s website here for your review. If you require a hard copy, please let me know. Please provide any comments to me within 30 days from the date of this letter. If the plan appears consistent with your Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a letter response to that effect would be appreciated but is not required. You may send comments to me via e-mail at [email protected]. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-823-7493. Thank you for your time and interest.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Geisen Project Manager

Please contact us for translation or interpretation, or for accommodations for people with disabilities. More information · Más información · Thêm thông tin · 欲了解更多信 · Дополнительная информация Mai multe informații · Подробиці · Macluumaad dheeri ah · अधिक सूचना · Tichikin Poraus portlandoregon.gov/water/access · 503-823-7432 (TTY: 503-823-6868, Relay: 711) Amanda Fritz, Commissioner Michael Stuhr, PE, Administrator 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Room 405 Portland, Oregon 97204-1926 503-823-7404 portlandoregon.gov/water

Date Name Address

Subject: Water Management and Conservation Plan for the Portland Water Bureau

Dear: The Portland Water Bureau has developed a draft Water Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) to fulfill the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 690, Division 86 of the Oregon Water Resources Department. Under these rules, the Portland Water Bureau, as a water supplier, shall make its WMCP available for review by affected local governments and seek comments related to the consistency with the local governments’ comprehensive land use plans. As a courtesy, the Portland Water Bureau is providing you the opportunity to review its WMCP during the local government review period. The WMCP is available on the bureau’s website here for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-823-7493 or at [email protected]. Thank you for your time and interest.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Geisen Project Manager

Please contact us for translation or interpretation, or for accommodations for people with disabilities. More information · Más información · Thêm thông tin · 欲了解更多信 · Дополнительная информация Mai multe informații · Подробиці · Macluumaad dheeri ah · अधिक सूचना · Tichikin Poraus portlandoregon.gov/water/access · 503-823-7432 (TTY: 503-823-6868, Relay: 711) Appendix K Comments from affected local governments and wholesale customers

The Water Bureau posted the WMCP for local government and wholesale customer review on March 12, 2020, and kept the review period open for 30 days. No one submitted comments. The City of Gresham, City of Sandy, Port of Portland, and Portland Parks & Recreation notified the bureau that they reviewed the plan and did not have any comments.

Appendix L Comments from the Oregon Water Resources Department and the public

Appendix M Notice for final orders

(To come after review)

Appendix N Final orders from the Oregon Water Resources Department approving the Water Management and Conservation Plan

(To come after review)

Want to know more about the Portland Water Bureau? Visit portlandoregon.gov/water or call 503-823-7404.