DOCSLIB.ORG

Wholesale Demand and Conservation Savings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wholesale Demand and Conservation Savings conservation BY ELLEN R. LEVIN, WILLIAM O. MADDAUS, NICOLE M. SANDKULLA, AND HEATHER POHL FORECASTING Wholesale Demand and Conservation Savings he San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is a depart- ment of the City and County of San Francisco that provides water and wastewater services, and municipal power to the city. Under contrac- tual agreements, 28 wholesale water agencies (SFPUC wholesale cus- T tomers) in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties also pur- chase water from the SFPUC (Figure 1). The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) is a special district that was created to represent the interests of 26 cities and water districts and two private utilities in the three counties that purchase wholesale water from the SFPUC regional water system. INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE WATER In all, nearly 2.4 million people rely at least partially on water supplied by the SFPUC regional water system to meet their daily water demands. DEMANDS HELPS WHOLESALE Nearly 85% of the SFPUC water supply is provided by the Tuolumne CUSTOMERS ASSESS OPTIONS River watershed via Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, 167 mi east of the San Francisco Bay Area. The remaining 15% of the SFPUC water AND DETERMINE WATER NEEDS. supply comes from Bay Area watersheds including Alameda Creek, Pilarcitos Creek, San Andreas Creek, and the San Mateo Creek watersheds via local Bay Area reservoirs (Figure 2). About 32% of SFPUC’s water supply goes to retail customers in the city; the remaining 68% is provided to wholesale customers and large retail customers outside the city. In general, the wholesale customers are located throughout the Bay Area’s different microclimates; some are in the cool coastal areas, and others are in the warmer inland areas. The wholesale customer service areas vary dramatically in size and character. Los Trancos County Water District, for example, encompasses 4.5 sq mi and serves approximately 270 residential 2006 © American Water Works Association 102 FEBRUARY 2006 | JOURNAL AWWA • 98:2 | PEER-REVIEWED | LEVIN ET AL FIGURE 1 SFPUC wholesale customer service area 1 City and County of San Francisco 2 City of Brisbane 3 City of Burlingame 4a CWS, Bear Gulch District 4b CWS, Mid-Peninsula District 4c CWS, South San Francisco District 5 Coastside County Water District 6 Daly City 7 City of East Palo Alto 8 Estero MID/Foster City 9 Guadalupe Valley MID 10 City of Hayward 11 Town of Hillsborough 12 Los Trancos County Water District 13 City of Menlo Park 14 Mid-Peninsula Water District 15 City of Millbrae 16 City of Milpitas 17 City of Mountain View 18 North Coast County Water District 19 City of Palo Alto 20 Purissima Hills Water District 21 Redwood City 22 City of San Bruno 23 City of San Jose (portion of north San Jose) 24 City of Santa Clara Source: BAWSCA 25 Skyline County Water District 26 Stanford University BAWCSA—Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, CWS—California Water 27 City of Sunnyvale Service (company), MID—Municipal Improvement District, SFPUC—San Francisco 28 Westborough Water District Public Utilities Commission accounts. Alameda County Water future water demands, water con- wholesale customers better assess District encompasses approximately servation potential, and recycled their options for meeting future water 103 sq mi and serves 77,000 resi- water potential in its retail and needs and decide how much water dential, commercial, industrial, and wholesale customer service areas. they plan to purchase from SFPUC’s institutional accounts. In addition These studies were aimed at assist- regional water system in the future. to collectively using 68% of the ing the SFPUC in making long-term In addition, the results of these stud- SFPUC’s water supply to meet their water system–planning decisions for ies yield useful information to the total demands, many of the SFPUC’s whole- sale customers have This study is one of the largest water demand other sources of sup- forecasting and conservation evaluation projects ply, such as local groundwater or water that has been undertaken in the United States. from another local wholesale water agency. the region and at gaining a better commission in terms of the potential SFPUC is currently implementing understanding of the total demand for developing incentive programs to the Water System Improvement Pro- needs of its customers. The structure encourage further conservation and gram (WSIP), a capital improvement of SFPUC’s individual contracts with water recycling in the wholesale cus- program to increase the reliability of its wholesale customers does not pro- tomer service areas. the regional water system and reduce vide the commission the authority to The studies for forecasting future its risk of failure. WSIP includes pro- impose local water supply–planning water demands, conservation poten- jects to repair and replace existing measures or alternative water sup- tial, and recycled water potential transmission and storage facilities ply use on its wholesale customers. were completed with considerable that are critical to providing a reliable These alternative water supplies interaction among the SFPUC whole- water supply to SFPUC customers. could include using locally produced sale customers, BAWSCA, and envi- In Fall 2002, the SFPUC recycled water or implementing con- ronmental groups concerned with the embarked on a number of compre- servation measures. The results of necessity of additional water supplies hensive planning studies to assess these studies were intended to help to meet future customer demands. 2006 © American Water Works Association LEVIN ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 98:2 • JOURNAL AWWA | FEBRUARY 2006 103 FIGURE 2 SFPUC water system San Francisco Lake Eleanor Lake Cherry Reservoir Reservoir Pacific Hayward Ocean O‘Shaughnessy Service Area Dam Harry W. Livermore Hetch Tracy San Francisco Bay Filter Plant San Joaquinpipelines Tuolumne Hetchy River Reservoir Foothill San Andreas Tesla Tunnel Reservoir Portal Bay Division Pipelines San Antonio Numbers 1 and 2 Reservoir Pilarcitos Yosemite Crystal Springs Dam Coastal Range Reservoir National Park Tunnel Crystal Sunol Valley Springs Filter Plant Reservoir Calaveras Palo Alto Reservoir Bay Division Pipelines Numbers 3 and 4 SFPUC—San Francisco Public Utilities Commission STUDY APPROACH SUPPORTS forecasting approaches in that it uses the benefits (potential water sav- CUSTOMER DECISIONS growth in number of accounts and ings) and costs of implementing var- It was critical to SFPUC as a water a complete breakdown of water uses ious water conservation measures wholesaler that the results of this by account type (end uses) to fore- into the future. study support the wholesale cus- cast water demands. Using an end- tomer’s decisions about how much use model also allows more consid- CURRENT WATER USE water to purchase from the commis- eration of the effects of targeted AND CONSERVATION sion in the future. Similarly, the conservation measures than is pos- EFFORTS DESCRIBED SFPUC needed a greater under- sible with a per capita or land use In 2001 and 2002, SFPUC’s standing of the potential for water demand model. wholesale customers collectively pur- conservation in the wholesale service The study approach involved the chased two thirds of their water sup- area. SFPUC representatives were res- following four steps: ply needs—approximately 170 mgd olute in forecasting future water (1) Develop baseline water (BAWUA, 2002)—from the regional demands while being able to assess demand by investigating current water system to serve a residential the effects of both passive and active water use and breaking it down into population of nearly 1.7 million peo- conservation. end uses. ple in a 460-sq-mi area. The remain- Because the SFPUC was interested (2) Investigate current and past ing demands in the wholesale service in (1) incorporating the effects of water conservation activities to area were met through a combina- existing plumbing codes and current understand the effects of such activ- tion of locally developed water sup- water conservation efforts in the ities on the baseline water demand. plies, groundwater, State Water Proj- wholesale service area into its (3) Apply the end-use model to ect and Central Valley Project water, demand forecast and (2) under- forecast future water demands while and reclaimed water. standing the potential for water con- incorporating the effects of the The SFPUC wholesale customers servation, an end-use model was con- plumbing codes and past conserva- have been practicing water conser- sidered the most appropriate tool for tion practices. vation since the mid-1970s. Water developing water demand projec- (4) Incorporate water conserva- conservation is an integral part of tions. This type of model differs from tion practices into the end-use a long-term water management straight per capita or land use–based model demand forecasts to assess strategy for the wholesale customers 2006 © American Water Works Association 104 FEBRUARY 2006 | JOURNAL AWWA • 98:2 | PEER-REVIEWED | LEVIN ET AL and BAWSCA. All of the SFPUC wholesale customers implement some degree of water conservation. Measures Used to Evaluate Thirteen SFPUC wholesale cus- tomers, representing 74% of the total water purchased from the com- Service Area Conservation Potential mission by its wholesale customers, are signatories to the California Provide: Urban Water Conservation Coun- • residential water surveys cil’s (CUWCC’s) Memorandum of • residential retrofit kits to pre-1992 homes Understanding Regarding Urban • large landscape conservation audits Water Conservation in California • water budgets for large landscape areas (MOU). This MOU was developed • public information programs in 1991 among urban water agencies • commercial water audits to encourage the implementation of • home leak detection and repair program water conservation best manage- • Xeriscape education and staff training at retail garden/irrigation ment practices (BMPs). In addition, supply houses BAWSCA, also a signatory to the • free installation of restaurant spray rinse nozzles CUWCCC MOU, is committed to • free water audits to hotels/motels implementing water conservation • financial assistance to hotels for retrofits BMPs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5
    5.6 Westside5.6 Groundwater 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.6 Westside Groundwater Basin Resources This section describes the potential effects of the WSIP water supply and system operations and associated WSIP projects on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related water resources, including Lake Merced. The proposed water supply sources under the WSIP include 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of supply every year in all years (including nondrought periods) from implementation of conservation, water recycling, and groundwater supply programs in San Francisco; in addition, the proposed water supply option includes a long-term conjunctive-use program in the San Mateo County portion of the Westside Groundwater Basin, referred to as the South Westside Groundwater Basin, as part of the drought-year water supply for the regional system. The recycled water and groundwater components of this supply would be achieved through two WSIP projects, the Local and Regional Groundwater Projects (SF-2) and the Recycled Water Projects (SF-3), which are described in Chapter 3. The potential effects of the WSIP on the Westside Groundwater Basin and related resources are discussed in the context of ongoing activities in this area occurring among the SFPUC, City of Daly City, California Water Service Company (Cal Water, the municipal water purveyor to South San Francisco), and the City of San Bruno. 5.6.1 Setting 5.6.1.1 Westside Groundwater Basin The Westside Groundwater Basin extends from San Francisco south to San Mateo County (Figure 5.6-1). With an area of about 45 square miles, this groundwater basin is the largest in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.7 Geology and Soils
    4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the geology of the Planning Area and analyzes issues such as potential exposure of people and property to geologic and soil hazards. In addition, potential seismic hazards such as ground shaking and ground failure from earthquakes, as well as differential settlement on bay fill, are discussed. 4.7.1. EXISTING SETTING TOPOGRAPHY AND LOCAL GEOLOGY The City of San Mateo encompasses a variety of upland, hillside, valley, and alluvial fan land forms. The city is situated along the northeasterly flank of the central Santa Cruz Mountains but is separated from the range both geologically and topographically by the San Andreas fault and its associated rift valley. The bedrock types that underlie the City are different from most of those found to the southwest across the San Andreas fault. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Bedrock types in San Mateo comprise the sedimentary-volcanic-metamorphic rocks of the Fransican Formation and the conglomerate, sandstone and minor mudstone of the Santa Clara formation. The rocks exist in masses having the form of blocks, slices, and wedges, which are, for the most part, separated by long inactive faults. The broad, rolling upland area which characterizes much of the western hills of San Mateo is part of an extensive uplifted surface which is scarred by the drainage canyons of Laurel and San Mateo Creeks. To the northeast, soil conditions are that of bay mud and imported fill material. These soil conditions roughly extend from San Francisco Bay to areas near the Bayshore Freeway (US 101), representing the approximate location of the shoreline in the San Mateo area before the Bay was filled.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Least Bell's Vireo Habitat Suitability in Current and Historic Ranges in California
    Wildlife Program Modeling Least Bell’s Vireo Habitat Suitability in Current and Historic Ranges in California Open-File Report 2020–1151 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover Photos: (Front) A male vireo incubating a nest in the “Mars” territory on the Middle San Luis River. Photograph taken by Alexandra Houston, U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, June 15, 2012. (Back) Least Bell’s Vireo habitat, looking east along De Luz Creek. Photograph taken by Barbara Kus, U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, May 13, 2019. Modeling Least Bell’s Vireo Habitat Suitability in Current and Historic Ranges in California By Kristine L. Preston, Barbara E. Kus, and Emily Perkins Wildlife Program Open-File Report 2020–1151 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2021 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Preston, K.L., Kus, B.E., and Perkins, E., 2021, Modeling Least Bell’s Vireo habitat suitability in current and historic ranges in California: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Loma Pneta Earthquake a Field Report by Eef'it
    THE LOMA PNETA EARTHQUAKE OF 17 OCTOBER 1989 A FIELD REPORT BY EEF'IT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Field Investigation mounted after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake under the auspices of EEFIT included engineers from academic, industrial and consultant organisations. EEFIT gratefully acknowledges the support of the many organisations listed below who provided funding and support for individual team members to parrlcipate: AEA Technology Allott & Lomax BEQE Ltd British Nuclear Fuels PLC Ove Amp & Partners Principia Mechanica Rendel, Palmer & Tritton Science and Engineering Research Council Scott, Wilson, Kirkpatrick & Partners University of Bath University of Bristol University of Cambridge University College London EEFIT particularly wishes to highlight and acknowledge the contribution of British Nuclear Fuels PLC, who generously provided additional funding to assist in the publication of this report. EEFIT was assisted in its work by manyindividuals and organisations in San Francisco, part~ularlyEQE Inc and the Earthquake Engineering ResearchInstitute. This report was edited by Dr R S Steedman, of Sir Alexander Gibb& Partners Ltd and Cambridge University, and Dr S R Ledbetter, of the University of Bath. Earthquake Engineering Field InvestigationTeam The Institution of Structural Engineers 11 Upper Belgrave Street London SW 1X 8BH EEFIT July 1993 ISBN 0 86197 110 8 i CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements 1 Contents U ... Introduction m S R Ledbetter and R S Steedman 1.0 Tectonic Setting 1-1 G Woo and R Muir Wood 2.0 Strong Motion Records 2- 1 A M Chandler
    [Show full text]
  • VII. Safety & Hazardous Waste Management
    VII. Safety & Hazardous Waste Management A. INTRODUCTION Public safety is one of the primary responsibilities of government. A risk-free environment is not possible, because we cannot always predict the forces of nature or the strength of man-made structures and effectiveness of preventative measures. Determinations of reasonable levels of safety involve tradeoffs of cost, public inconvenience and limitations on the use of private property. The Safety Element sets forth the City's goals and policies which are intended to minimize risk to people and property associated with natural and man-made hazards. B. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS BACKGROUND Earthquake Faults and Surface Rupture The San Andreas fault lies approximately two miles west of the San Mateo City boundary. Despite its close proximity, there is no evidence of significant ground rupturing in the City during the last one million years. There are no known active faults in San Mateo, and inactive faults which are present are older features which do not exhibit indications of recent motion. There is no reason to expect a recurrence of movement along these other fault traces. VII-1 Safety Element Ground Shaking and Seismically Induced Waves Past earthquakes have shown that often the underlying soil conditions pose a greater hazard to structures than the proximity to a fault. Ground shaking from an earthquake is amplified and lasts longer in unconsolidated or water saturated soils such as bay mud than in harder bedrock (see Figure S-1). Ground shaking can cause structural failure of buildings in moderate to severe earthquakes, particularly older structures built prior to the establishment of seismic safety standards in 1933.
    [Show full text]
  • PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report
    San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 Changes from the text of the Draft EIR are indicated by a dot ( ) This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper 225 Bush Street 315 Washington Street 700 University Avenue 4221 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1700 Suite 102 Suite 130 Suite 480 San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, California California California California 94104 94607 95825 90010 (415) 896-5900 (510) 839-5066 (916) 564-4500 (213) 933-6111 930385 TABLE OF CONTENTS PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN EIR Page I. SUMMARY I-1 A. Management Plan Description I-1 B. Fifield/Cahill Ridge Trail (Project-Level Analysis) I-3 C. Principal Environmental Effects I-3 D. Mitigation Measures I-11 E. Management Plan Alternatives I-13 F.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.5 San Francisco Peninsula Streams and Reservoirs
    5.5 SF5.5 Peninsula 5.5 San Francisco Peninsula Streams and Reservoirs 5. WSIP Water Supply and System Operations – Setting and Impacts 5.5 San Francisco Peninsula Streams and Reservoirs Section 5.5 Subsections 5.5.1 Stream Flow and Reservoir Water Levels 5.5.2 Geomorphology 5.5.3 Surface Water Quality 5.5.4 Groundwater 5.5.5 Fisheries 5.5.6 Terrestrial Biological Resources 5.5.7 Recreational and Visual Resources (References included under each section) 5.5.1 Stream Flow and Reservoir Water Levels The following setting section describes the streams and reservoirs on the San Francisco Peninsula that could be affected by the WSIP. The impact section (Section 5.5.1.2) provides a description of the changes in stream flow and reservoir water levels that would result from implementation of the WSIP. 5.5.1.1 Setting The SFPUC operates four water supply reservoirs on the San Francisco Peninsula: Pilarcitos, Upper and Lower Crystal Springs, and San Andreas Reservoirs. The Spring Valley Water Company built the reservoirs between 1864 and 1890. The four reservoirs and two streams (San Mateo Creek and Pilarcitos Creek) on the Peninsula could be affected by the WSIP. San Mateo Creek, and its tributary San Andreas Creek, flow southward in the rift valley formed by the San Andreas fault and then turn east, flowing to San Francisco Bay. Pilarcitos Creek also flows southward, but it turns to the west and flows to the Pacific Ocean. Figure 5.5.1-1 shows the boundaries of the drainage areas of the four Peninsula reservoirs, and Figure 5.5.1-2 shows the SFPUC regional facilities associated with these reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume One Watershed Characteristics Report Unabridged
    Watershed Management Plan Volume One Watershed Characteristics Report Unabridged 2003 Revision Prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative www.scbwmi.org Revised August 2003 ABOUT THIS VOLUME This is Volume One of the Watershed Management Plan, “Watershed Characteristics Report,” a product of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative. It is the first volume of a planned four comprising the Watershed Management Plan for the Santa Clara Basin. An abridged version of this report, which condenses the information contained in this volume, is also available. Chapter numbers and major sections in this report correspond to those in the abridged version. The abridged version can be obtained from the Project Coordinator for the Watershed Management Initiative at the address below or visit the web site, where both the abridged and unabridged versions of this report are available for review and downloading. WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR READERS The Watershed Management Initiative values community participation and welcomes your feedback for consideration in future publications. If you would like to comment on this document, or are interested in playing a part in managing our watershed, please visit our website at www.scbwmi.org. Please cite this report as: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative. 2001. Watershed Characteristics Report. Watershed Management Plan, Volume One (Unabridged). Prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, which is a stakeholder group organized to protect
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Water Quality Existing Conditions San José California
    Hydrology and Water Quality Existing Conditions for San José California Envision San José 2040 May 18, 2009 Schaaf & Wheeler CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 870 Market Street, Suite 1278 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 433-4848 Fax (415) 433-102 Hydrology & Water Quality Existing Conditions Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................................1 Regional Setting.......................................................................................................................................................1 Topography ..............................................................................................................................................................4 Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................4 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................................5 Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................................................10 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses and analyzes the flooding, floodplain management, sea level rise, and water quality characteristics of the Planning Area. Sea level rise is more thoroughly discussed in Section 4.13, Energy and Climate Change. The information provided in this section is based on a number of sources, including the City of San Mateo’s Flood Management Strategies and the Storm Drain Master Plan. 4.8.1 EXISTING SETTING SURFACE WATER The City of San Mateo is located along the edge of the San Francisco Bay in San Mateo County and consists of approximately 15.7 square miles, which includes land area and portions of the San Francisco Bay and its associated tidelands and marshlands (3.2 square miles of bay water). The City of San Mateo has several forms of surface water sources including creeks, lagoons, tidal marsh, and bay waters. Discussion of these surface waters is included in Section 4.9, Biological Resources. City of San Mateo Watersheds San Mateo County encompasses four hydrologic basins and a total of 34 watersheds, all of which ultimately drain west to the Pacific Ocean or east to the San Francisco Bay. The City of San Mateo comprises four major drainage basins – the San Mateo Creek complex, the North San Mateo complex, the Marina Lagoon complex, and the 3rd and Detroit watershed, each composed of numerous stream channels, culverts, and storm drainage piping systems. The Marina Lagoon complex is further divided into four minor drainage basins; therefore, there are a total of seven major/minor drainages basins (both artificial and natural) within the City of San Mateo.
    [Show full text]