The Path to 2060: Dallas’ Long Range Water Supply Plan

The State’s 16 Regional Planning areas are identified by the letters A to P. Dallas is in Region C. December 2, 2009 Purpose of Briefing

 Provide information on the City of Dallas’ water planning process and implementation of water supply strategies to meet the needs of Dallas’ citizens and customers to the year 2060

2 Fact Sheet

 The department is funded from water and wastewater revenues, and receives no tax dollars

 Approximately 1,500 employees  Population served (treated water)

 1.3 million - Dallas  980,000+ - wholesale customer cities

 699 square mile service area

 306,000 retail customer accounts

 4,980 miles of water mains

 4,250 miles of wastewater mains

 Treated 148.0 BG of water in FY09 meeting all regulatory guidelines

 Treated 58.1 BG of wastewater in FY09

3 Water Background

 Surface water is “owned” by the State of , who in turn, grants permits for its beneficial use

 Dallas’ existing water rights were granted by the State based on serving the needs of Dallas and its customer cities

 Existing reservoirs were constructed as a result of planning actions from the 1950s

 It takes approximately 30 years to permit and construct a new reservoir

 As a result of the drought of record, Dallas initiated a series of long range water supply plans in 1959, 1979, 1990, 2000, and 2005  As a result of a drought in 1996 in which some cities ran out of water, the State initiated regional planning to ensure that the State has enough water for the next 50 years  Currently we are in the third round of regional planning  Previous plans were prepared for 2002, 2007, and now 2012

4 New Water Source Timeline Examples

NEEDS LAND ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION CONNECT FEASIBILITY PERMITTING DESIGN ACQUISITION (1-3 years) (4-8 years) TO SYSTEM (2-5 years) (5-10 years) (3-5 years) (5-10 years)

0 3 6 13 17 24 30

 Lake Ray Roberts took 25 years to build

 The U.S. Congress authorized construction in 1965  Permits granted in June 1976

 In June 1987, the gates of the dam were closed

 The reservoir filled in May 1990

 Lake Fork, existing source, was acquired in 1981

 Total time will be 29 years to connect to Dallas’ system  City paid debt service until 2005

 Right of way acquisition began in the late 1980s, construction of

pipeline and pump station began in October 2000

 Projected time for construction to be completed is January 2010 5

Where We Are Today

 Both Dallas and customer cities enjoy lower water rates because of a regional approach to water acquisition and supply  Dallas shares costs with customer cities based on a 30-year Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and has had a successful relationship with its customer cities for more than 50 years  With a “consensus based approach” in mind, Dallas and the customer cities have been meeting to revise the MOA which expires December 2009  City staff anticipates briefing City Council in January 2010 on results and proposal  Dallas and other area water agencies looking to 2060 for possible water sources  Regional approach for new water sources  Funding for new water sources is more cost effective when it is a collaborative effort  Even with conservation and reuse, additional water supply sources for Dallas will be needed by 2035

6 DALLAS WATER SERVICE AREA

COOKE GRAYSON WISE DENTON COLLIN FANNIN HUNT RAY ROBERTS LAKE

LEWISVILLE LAKE LAKE RAY LAKE HUBBARD TAWAKONI HOPKINS ELM ROCKWALL RAINS FORK GRAPEVINE WTP LAKE DALLAS INTAKE & PUMP FORNEY HUNT STATION BACHMAN PUMP (FUTURE) WTP STATION IRON TAWAKONI BRIDGE BALANCING PUMP EASTSIDE RESERVOIR STATION WTP

WOOD SOUTHEAST SMITH TARRANT DALLAS WTP (FUTURE) JOHNSON ELLIS

KAUFMAN VAN ZANDT HENDERSON LAKE PALESTINE BOOSTER PUMP STATION (FUTURE) LEGEND Water Service Area

INTAKE&PUMP Existing Water Sources STATION (FUTURE) Future Water Sources Existing Water Treatment Plant Future Water Treatment Plant

Existing Facilities Future Facilities Existing Pipeline 18vov09 Future Pipeline 7 Planning Guidelines

 Dallas’ plan is to have enough reservoir firm yield to meet water demands equivalent to the drought of record in the 1950s  Dallas’ ranking for planned new water supply sources has been based on:

 Costs – capital construction and power  Efficiency

 Environmental impact

 Likelihood for development

 Water located closer to the City is generally less expensive

 Lower infrastructure costs due to shorter pipelines

 Lower pumping (energy) costs – a recurring, annual expense

 Dallas is included in Region C as part of the Statewide water planning effort  Working with other area water providers to achieve greater economies of scale and thus reduce costs

8 Components of Water Supply Projected Demand Planning Future Needs Projected Existing Future Demand Supplies Needs Existing Supply

Reuse

Conservation

Existing 4 Project Cost Evaluation 201 Reuse $589 Reservoirs 0 Reservoirs 202 Palestine $492 0

203 Toledo $325 0 Bend

204 Fostrill $129 New 0 Reservoirs Ranking of Recommended Potential Strategies Strategies Potential Strategies

9 Dallas’ Current Water Supply Strategies Sustainability Actions

 Dallas built its water system to meet the drought of record

 The drought of record is the worst recorded drought used for planning municipal water supplies  Dallas’ drought of record was a seven year period in the 1950’s

 To minimize water usage, Dallas has undertaken several sustainability actions

 Leak detection  Maintenance and repair

 Conservation and reuse

 Actions are to sustain what we have, and add new sources to meet future growth

11 Sustainability Initiatives

 Major Maintenance Initiatives  Reduce water loss by expanding leak detection to survey system every 2.5 years instead of 5 years  Unaccounted For Water for FY09 was 9.1% (industry goal is 10%)  Increased large wastewater main assessment and replacement in support of Sanitary Sewer Initiative  FY10 budget maintains annual replacement rate of 1.5% for aged mains  Focus on Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Maintenance  For the prior three years, approximately $465M or 50% of the Capital Program addresses maintenance of existing infrastructure  For FY10, $133.7M of $293.3M of the capital program is budgeted for water/ wastewater main replacements  Dividends from enhanced conservation initiatives  34 MGD savings in water from 2001-2009  Equates to 70% of the 47.40 goal for 2060  A new 5-year water conservation strategic plan is currently underway  Reuse Initiatives – 88 MGD identified in current efforts  Indirect – working with North Texas Municipal Water District to swap reuse water • 40 MGD to • 36 MGD to Lake Lewisville  Return Flows – 12 MGD to Lake Lewisville  Direct – Cedar Crest golf course (less than 1 MGD) 12

Current Dallas Water Supply Strategies (Included in the State’s 2007 Water Plan)

 Strategies were adopted by the City Council in March 2005

 Connect existing supplies to Dallas’ system Lake Fork (currently in startup phase)

Lake Palestine by 2015 (joint pipeline study underway with Tarrant Regional Water District)  Recommended Strategies Water Conservation

Additional direct reuse Lake Ray Hubbard and Lake Lewisville indirect reuse  Contract for return flows  Lake Wright Patman floodpool reallocation

 Construct Lake Fastrill

 = in progress 13 The Path to 2060 – Water Supply of 1,036.11 MGD

Total Current Underway Likely Unsecured Need (MGD) • Lake Fork - Startup • Contract for Return Flows - Phase (102.54 MGD) various dates (71.02 MGD) • Ray Roberts/Lewisville • Lake Palestine - 2015 • Ray Hubbard Indirect • Grapevine • Wright Patman Flood Pool - 2035 (100.00 MGD) Reuse - permitted - 2012 • Ray Hubbard (100.00 MGD) • Conservation - various (60.00 MGD) • Tawakoni • Fastrill - 2045 (100.00 MGD) dates (47.40 MGD) • Lewisville Indirect Reuse - • Elm Fork of Trinity • Direct Reuse - various permitted - 2022 (60.00 dates (18.25 MGD) MGD) 376.90 268.19 191.02 200.00 1,036.11

• Our water supply in 2060 totals 1036.11 MGD 1036.11 (need) • Currently we have 376.90 MGD connected - 376.90 (current) • We are reasonably assured of an additional 268.19 MGD - 268.19 (underway) (underway) - 191.02 (likely) • An additional 191.02 MGD is likely = 200.00 • Wright Patman and Fastrill, totaling 200 MGD, are yet to be secured

• 80 percent of 2060 water needs are reasonably assured, which meets Dallas’ water needs through the year 2035 14 Recommended Water Management Strategies Progress Report

Water Projected Progress Project Status Management Supply Strategies (MGD) Lake Fork 102.54 - Pipeline construction is complete (currently in startup phase) Startup

Lake Palestine 100.0 - Study with Tarrant Regional Water District to determine corridor Corridor selection Study/Contract - Project Financing and Facilities Agreement with TRWD March 2010 Negotiations Conservation 47.40 - Conservation program underway Underway - Average annual savings are estimated to be approximately 34 MGD - April 2005 5-year strategic plan currently being updated Direct Reuse 18.25 - Cedar Crest golf course currently using direct reuse water Underway - Plans are underway to add additional facilities

Return Flows 71.02 - Obtained approximately 12 MGD of return flows as part of the Underway Reuse permit Lake Ray 60.0 - Negotiated with NTMWD for reuse swap (Approx. 40 MGD) Design Hubbard - Contract finalized in December 2008. Underway Reuse - Infrastructure to facilitate swap under design. Lewisville 60.0 - Negotiated with NTMWD for reuse swap (Approx. 36 MGD) Contract Lake Reuse - Contract finalized in December 2008. Negotiations - NTMWD Reuse permit submitted to TCEQ Wright Patman 100.0 - Region C and D Study Committee appointed by the Legislature Legislative Flood Pool - Awaiting outcome of report due Dec. 1, 2010 to Legislature and Study Raise Governor Fastrill 100.0 - Wildlife Refuge established in footprint of reservoir site Litigation Reservoir - Dallas and TWDB filed Federal lawsuit - Federal lawsuit currently at US Supreme Court 15 Water Conservation and Reuse is a Critical Component

 25 percent of Dallas’ future water need is to be provided through conservation and reuse

 Stricter conservation measures adopted in 2001 have paid tremendous dividends

 Added 4th tier water rate for residential usage over 15,000 gallons  Passed an ordinance regulating lawn and landscape irrigation: • Avoiding water runoff and waste • Maintaining sprinkler systems • Summer daytime watering restrictions from June 1 to September 30 annually • No watering during any form of precipitation • Installation of rain and freeze sensors by 2005  In 2007, the City extended the time of day watering restriction to April 1 through October 31

16 Dallas’ 5-year Strategic Water Conservation Plan

 City’s long-term planning tool to help curb water waste and improve water efficiency management  Serves as foundation for state mandated water conservation plan  Strategies include projected long-term water savings, reductions in gallons per capita usage, program costs, and implementation schedules  Updated plan to be presented to the City Council in Spring 2010

17 Initiatives from the 2005 5-year Strategic Water Conservation Plan

 Public Awareness Campaign  $1.2 million annual media campaign

 In 2007, formed partnership with Tarrant Regional Water District expanding “Save Water” message and leveraging an additional $750,000 in media exposure  Environmental Education Initiative  Collaborative effort with Sanitation dept. for grades K-12 with participation of over 15,000 students and 400 teachers  Water Conservation Mascot “DEW” received awards for video “DEW Helps Kids Save Water” on Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network

18 Initiatives from the 2005 5-year Strategic Water Conservation Plan (cont’d)

 Homeowner Assistance  Minor Plumbing Repair Program for low- income/elderly customers has replaced over 4,100 fixtures  New “Throne for Your Home” Program replaced over 7,100 toilets  Free Irrigation System Inspections for residential and commercial customers

 Industrial and Commercial Outreach Efforts

 Cooling Tower Audits  “Spray to Save” Restaurant Program with 2,977 pre-rinse spray nozzles replaced

19 Annual GPCD and Population

1350 265 1300 250 1250 235 1200 220 1150 205 Day (GPCD) 1100 190 1050 Population (1000s)

Gallons Per Capita Per Per Capita Per Gallons 175 1000

5 99 02 0 Y96 Y04 Y07 F FY97 FY98 FY FY00 FY01 FY FY03 F FY FY06 F FY08 FY09

GPCD Population

Conservation measures adopted by the Council in Oct 2001 have been positive, including a reduction of approximately 31% in GPCD from FY98 to FY09.

Note: Annual GPCD is Pumpage minus Wholesale and Industrial Sales 20 GPCD Comparisons Comparing Apples to Oranges

City Population Municipal Gallons per Residential Estimate Use Capita per (GPCD) (Ac-Ft) Day (GPCD) Houston 2,139,408 317,151 132 67 San 1,320,060 221,292 150 86 Antonio Dallas 1,243,287 333,854 240 92 Austin 728,821 123,231 151 87 Fort 676,472 117,050 154 -- Worth Total GPCD does not tell the whole story Source: Texas Water Development Board 2007 Population Estimate 21 GPCD Comparison Comparing Apples to Oranges

Dallas San Antonio  Daytime Population  Daytime Population increases 23.4% increases 3.8%

 GPCD is approximately  GPCD is over 90% residential 50% residential

 No Military Facilities  Lackland Air Force Base (has its own water supply, GPCD

includes Base’s population but not Base’s water use)

Source: Texas Water Development Board 22 Interlocal Cooperation Interlocal Cooperation Contract with Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD)

 On September 26, 2007 the City Council approved an Interlocal Cooperation Contract with TRWD that:

 Allows Dallas to share the cost of water transmission from distant sources

 First transmission project is from Lake Palestine  Provides the framework for increasing the reliability of water supplies for Dallas

 Provides Dallas the ability to obtain interim and emergency water supplies

 Dallas and TRWD have since expanded our relationship to work together to acquire Oklahoma Water

24 Potential Oklahoma River Basins for Water Supply

25 Lake Palestine Project Progress to Date

 Identified significant cost savings of almost 20 percent that can be recognized by the City and TRWD working together in the transmission of raw water from East Texas  Pipeline sizing and corridor are in the final stages of selection and review

 Pipeline design standards to be developed jointly with conceptual pipeline design beginning in Spring 2010  Development of Integrated Pipeline Project Financing and Facilities Agreement :

 Will address the financial, legal and institutional issues associated with the project and will serve as the foundation for the contractual agreement for the design, construction, funding and operation of the transmission system

26 Initial Capital Cost Summary – Connection of Lake Palestine and Third Pipeline for TRWD

Scenarios Independent Preliminary Preliminary (2008 dollars) Project Capital Integrated Project Estimate of Cost Capital Cost Savings

Dallas Connection to Lake $ 978,000,000 $791,300,000 Palestine

TRWD Third Pipeline $1,034,000,000 $826,800,000 ~20%

Total Estimated Project $2,012,000,000 $1,618,100,000 Costs

27 Lake Palestine Pipeline Corridor Under Consideration

28 Next Steps with Tarrant Regional Water District

 Dallas and TRWD are currently negotiating an

Integrated Pipeline Project Financing and Facilities Agreement  Agreement will serve to connect Lake Palestine at

significant savings to Dallas and TRWD  Initial studies will be finalized in early 2010

 Financing and project development anticipated to be

at a point to seek City Council approval to enter into an agreement with TRWD by Spring 2010

29 Return Flows and Reuse

 The City has signed a contract with the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) to exchange return flows in Lake Ray Hubbard  NTMWD has permitted return flows in Lake Ray Hubbard

 NTMWD has constructed a wetland on the East Fork of the Trinity River near the main stem of the Trinity River  Dallas has permitted return flows along the main stem of the Trinity River  NTMWD Contract will:  Exchange Dallas’ return flows from Central and/or Southside for a like amount of NTMWD return flows in Lake Ray Hubbard and Lewisville Lake  Pass NTMWD return flows through Lake Ray Hubbard until facilities can be constructed to provide NTMWD with Dallas’ Central and/or Southside return flows at NTMWD’s wetland

30 Reuse Swap with NTMWD Alternative Comparison

Length Lake Length Lake Lavon Lavon ~37.4 Miles ~11.8 Miles

Elevation Elevation Difference Difference ~80 feet ~12 feet Lake Lake Ray Ray Hubbard Hubbard NTMWD Return Flows

Dallas’ East Side East Side Reuse WTP WTP Flows Delivered to NTMWD Central Central Wetland WWTP WWTP

NTMWD Southside Southside Wetland WWTP WWTP

Alignment identified in Alignment considered in 2005 Long Range Water Supply Plan NTMWD Contract (Dallas only) 31 Sabine River Basin Additional Supply

 Talks have begun with

Sabine River Authority to:  Secure additional water supply in the Sabine River Basin  Develop run-of-the- river supplies upstream of Toledo Bend closer to Dallas  Overdraft existing reservoirs (Lakes Tawakoni and Fork)

32 Other Water Supply Initiatives

33 Lake Ray Hubbard Additional Yield

 Council approved a hydrological study

of this lake in 2006 to determine if additional water is available  Amount of water may be as much as

an additional 67 MGD, and at a minimum it will be 27 MGD  Additional water is due to additional runoff as a result of urbanization around lake  Added yield requires permitting from the State  Permit was filed in July 2007  State has asked for additional information to be

provided by Jan 2010

34 Dallas’ Alternative Strategies

35 Previously Identified Alternative Water Strategies for Dallas

 Alternate strategies within 100 miles Dallas’ share  George Parkhouse I and II (not yet built) 100 MGD

 Marvin Nichols (not yet built) 100 MGD

 Lake Texoma (Oklahoma’s share) 100 MGD

 Alternate strategies within 150 miles

 Lake Columbia (not yet built) 32 MGD

 Oklahoma water (Kiamichi/Cache basins) 100 MGD

 Lake O’ the Pines 80 MGD

 Alternate strategies within 200 miles

 Toledo Bend Reservoir 100-200 MGD

 Lake Livingston Reservoir 100 MGD

 Sam Rayburn/B. A. Steinhagen 100 MGD

 Alternate strategies within 300 miles

 Ogallala (Mesa) water 100-200 MGD

36 Alternate Water Management Strategies Progress Report

Water Projected Progress Project Management Supply Status Strategies (MGD)

Lake Texoma 100 - No progress reported Hold

George 100 - Region C and D Study Committee appointed by the Legislature Legislative Parkhouse Study - Awaiting outcome of report due to Legislature and Governor by December 1, 2010

Marvin Nichols 100 - Designated Unique Reservoir Site Legislative Reservoir Study - Region C and D Study Committee appointed by the Legislature - Awaiting outcome of report due to Legislature and Governor by December 1, 2010 Lake Columbia 35 - Designated Unique Reservoir Site Hold - Reservoir Permitted - ANRA searching for Sponsors Lake O’ the 80 - The Northeast Municipal Water District sent out a notice for the “Expression of Letter of Pines Negotiation Interest” Interest - Dallas Responded to “Expression of Negotiation Interest” in May 2008 but not chosen Oklahoma Water 100 + - Negotiated an agreement with TRWD to define relationship during lawsuit and settlement Ongoing negotiations

Sam Rayburn / 100 - No progress reported Hold B.A. Steinhagen

Lake Livingston 100 - No progress reported Hold

Toledo Bend 200 - Sabine River Basin Supply contract negotiation underway with Sabine River Authority Contract Reservoir Negotiations - Scope of work being developed for Sabine River Basin Hydrologic Study

Mesa 100 - Ongoing discussions with Mesa Water Hold Groundwater

37 Dallas’ Input into 2012 State Water Plan

38 2011 Region C Water Plan

 The Region C Planning Group consultants have prepared population and water demand

projections for the Water User Groups (i.e. Cities, water districts, etc.) in the Region C Planning Area  Upcoming Dates  April 1, 2010 - Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) submitted

to TWDB

 Summer 2010 - Public Hearing on IPP Regional Water Plan

 October 1, 2010 - Regional Water Plan to be submitted to TWDB

 January 5, 2012 - State Water Plan to be submitted to the Legislature

39 Proposed Water Management Strategies for 2011 Region C Plan

 Water Supply Strategies for Region C Plan  Water Management Strategies • Conservation • Contract for Return Flows • Recycled Water • Direct Non-Potable Use • Augmentation (Indirect) through Lake Ray Hubbard • Augmentation (Indirect) through Lake Lewisville • Connect Existing Supplies • Lake Fork Connection • Lake Palestine • Lake Ray Hubbard Overdraft • Obtain Water from Existing Reservoirs • Wright Patman Lake Flood Pool Reallocation • Develop New Reservoirs • Fastrill

New additions to list in blue and underlined 40 Proposed Alternate Strategies for 2011 Region C Plan

 Alternative Supply Recommendations • Additional Water Conservation

• Additional Recycled Water • Lake Texoma • Toledo Bend Reservoir • Lake O’ the Pines • Lake Livingston • Sam Rayburn/B.A. Steinhagen • Mesa groundwater • Marvin Nichols Reservoir • Lake Columbia • George Parkhouse • Oklahoma Water

41 Summary

 Dallas has water in reserve to meet future needs until

2035  Will need to connect Lake Palestine to meet this need  Ongoing projects with Tarrant Regional Water District to

reduce the cost to connect Lake Palestine

 Dallas is actively pursuing multiple strategies to meet

water needs beyond 2035  Conservation and reuse are an integral part of future

water supply, equaling 25% of our need  Dallas is working with regional partners to reduce

future water supply costs

42 Appendix Ongoing Lawsuits

Oklahoma  Dallas and TRWD have expanded our relationship to work together in possibly acquiring Oklahoma Water

 TRWD filed a federal lawsuit against Oklahoma claiming its moratorium on the sale of water out of the State violates the Interstate Commerce Clause

 It is anticipated that the case will proceed to trial in December 2009

Fastrill  Dallas’ lawsuit against the US Fish and Wildlife has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

 The Supreme Court asked the Solicitor's General office respond to the city's petition which takes place in only about 10-15 percent of the cases

 Of this 10-15 percent, the Supreme Court hears about 10 percent of those cases

 It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will decide in Nov-Dec if it will take the case

44