Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
1
Santa Fe Basin Study and Reclaimed
Wastewater Feasibility Study
Prepared for the Santa Fe Commission on Sustainability
Andrew Erdmann
Water Resources Coordinator
12.14.16
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
2
Presentation Topics
• Background on Santa Fe Water
− Conservation
− Demand
• Basin Study
− Process
− Findings
• Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility Study
− Process
− Findings
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
3
Santa Fe’s industry-leading conservation
programs are working
Customers
Consumption
(gpcd)
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
4
Conservation and conjunctive use have led to
greater sustainable water supply
Potable Water Demand
Surface Water Use
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
5
Santa Fe Basin Study
• Developed through preliminary assessment of ongoing practices and public outreach
• Evaluation of water supply and demand for City-County combined water system in 2055, based on climate and population projections
• Development of proposed adaptation strategies
Reclaimed Wastewater Feasibility Study
• Still in Draft Form
• Detailed evaluation of proposed adaptation strategies
• Ranking of strategies based on Triple Bottom Line analysis
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
6
Basin Study:
Projected Climate Changes
Key Takeaways: • Upward of 75% Snowpack Reduction by the
2070s
• 5 Degree F Temperature Increase by 2050
• Higher Evapotranspiration Rates
• Potentially Greater Monsoonal Intensity
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
7
Basin Study:
Historic Climate Variability
City
Well
Field
Buckman
Well Field
Buckman Well
Field expansion
and Direct
Diversion
New water supply sources added
during times of drought
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
8
Santa Fe Basin Projected 2055 Water Supply Gap
Climate Scenario
Simulated Historic
(no climate
change)
Central
Tendency
Warm-
Wet Hot-Dry
Total Demand - Average
Annual (AFY) 21,643 22,925 22,646 23,299
Total Supply - Average Annual
(AFY) 16,488 15,550 16,304 13,976
Water Supply Gap – Difference
between Demand and Supply
(AFY)
-5,155 -7,375 -6,342 -9,323
Basin Study: Projected Gap between
Water Supply and Demand (2055)
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
9
Basin Study: Developing Adaptation
Strategy Portfolios using WaterMAPs
Preliminary Assessment
Fill Supply Gaps
Sustainable Groundwater Pumping
90% of years, deficits are less than 100 AFY
Weighted Criteria and Scoring
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
11
Basin Study: Water Reuse Availability
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Acre
Feet
per
Year
Total Demand
Reclaimed Wastewater Produced
Reclaimed Wastewater Used
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
12
Climate change will impact
supply AND demand
Shortages up to 9,300 AFY
by 2055
Expanding water reuse is
key for mitigating gaps
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
14
How Much Water is Available for Reuse?
0
1
2
3
4
5
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Mo
nth
ly A
vera
ge F
low
(m
gd
)
Assumed Releases to Lower Santa Fe River
Existing Non-Potable Reuse Contracts
1,500 AFY
Remaining Discharge Available for Additional Reuse
2,400 AFY
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
15
Water Reuse Feasibility Study Alternatives
Expand Non-
Potable Reuse
Rio Grande Return Flow
Credits
Indirect or Direct
Potable Reuse
Advanced Water
Purification Facility
Conveyance Conveyance Conveyance
Enhanced Living River and
Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Aquifer Storage & Recovery via
Lower Santa Fe River
Buckman Wells ASR
Augment Nichols Reservoir
Direct Potable Reuse
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
16
Cost-Effectiveness Varies Widely
Highest cost per
acre-foot of water
supply benefit
Lowest
cost
per AF
+130
AFY +1300 to +2300 AFY
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
17
Preliminary Alternatives Screened
to Four Using Weighted Screening
Criteria
Expand Non-
Potable Reuse
Rio Grande Return Flow
Credits
Indirect or Direct
Potable Reuse
Enhanced Living River and
Aquifer Storage & Recovery
Aquifer Storage & Recovery via
Lower Santa Fe River
Buckman Wells ASR
Augment Nichols Reservoir
Direct Potable Reuse
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
18
+2300 A
FY
• Reroute up to 3 mgd WRF discharge by pumping to Rio Grande
• Exchange for Rio Grande water
• Divert additional 2300 AFY through existing Buckman system
Alternative 2 Full Use of SJCP Rights via Rio Grande Return Flow Credits
Up
to
3 m
gd
Paseo Real WRF
Buckman WTP
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
19
Alternative 3 Enhanced Living River and Upper Santa Fe River Recharge
• Discharge to Upper Santa Fe River at Two Mile
• Living River
• Divert via upper aquifer wells below Siler Road
Up to 3 mgd
Paseo Real WRF
Recovery
Wells
Advanced
Water
Purification
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
20
Alternative 4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery via Lower Santa Fe River
• Discharge to Lower Santa Fe River at Siler Rd.
• Divert via upper aquifer wells below Siler Road
Up to 3 mgd
Paseo Real WRF
Recovery
Wells
Advanced
Water
Purification
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
21
Up
to
3 m
gd
• Up to 3 mgd to Advanced Water Purification Facility
• Pump to Buckman WTP for blending with Rio Grande raw water & further treatment
Alternative 7 Direct Potable Reuse
Paseo Real WRF
Buckman WTP
Advanced Water
Purification Facility
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
22
Decision Scores using TBL Criteria
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2: Rio Grande Return
flow credits / exchange
7: Direct Potable Reuse
4: ASR via Lower SFR
3: Enhanced Living
River & ASR
Weighted Decision Score
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL: Project Risk Mitigation
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
26
Challenges in Expanding Non-Potable Reuse:
Seasonal Demand, Limited Summer Supplies
+45 AFY
+130 AFY
Demand is Highest when Available Supply is Lowest!
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
33
Significant Potential for a
Multi-Benefit Project?
• Living River
• Soil aquifer
treatment
• Recharge
• Preserve
storage in
Canyon
Reservoirs
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
35
Climate change will impact
supply AND demand
Shortages up to 9,300 AFY
by 2055
Expanding water reuse is
key for mitigating gaps
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
36
Triple Bottom Line analysis
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL / OTHER: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL / OTHER: Project Risk Mitigation
Subcriteria and performance measures further define each criterion
Weighted criteria decision model
illustrates tradeoffs with sensitivity analyses
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
37
Decision Scores using TBL Criteria
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2: Rio Grande Return
flow credits / exchange
7: Direct Potable Reuse
4: ASR via Lower SFR
3: Enhanced Living
River & ASR
Weighted Decision Score
ECONOMIC: Cost-Effective Supply Augmentation
SOCIAL: Public Benefit and Social Acceptability
ENVIRONMENTAL: Protect and Sustain the Environment
TECHNICAL: Timely Implementability and Operability
TECHNICAL: Project Risk Mitigation
Highest Water Supply Benefit,
Lowest Cost
Minimal Additional Piping for
Future Connection
Future Stormwater
Recharge?
Use Reservoir Bypasses
for Living River
Filen
am
e.p
pt/
38
Key Takeaways
Conservation and
sustainable supplies
are critical
Expanding
non-potable reuse
would fall short of
supply goals
Higher supply benefit
more cost-effective
Full use of SJCP rights
via Rio Grande Return
Flow Credits: cost-
effective and simple