WUE Program Summary and Compliance

Drinking Water Advisory CommitteeSeptember 11, 2017

Mike Dexel

2

Office of Drinking Water’s Mission

We work with others to protect the health of the people of Washington State by ensuring safe and reliable drinking water.

3

WUE Program History―Major Events

• Muni Water Law passed in 2003

• WUE rule adopted in 2007

• Lummi case litigated 2008-2009

• Service meter deadline January 2017

4

Incremental Step Philosophy to Evaluating Program Success

• Step 1―Was WUE report submitted?

• Step 2―Were meters installed?

• Step 3―What level of water loss exists?

• Step 4―Is the level of water loss a realistic and reliable value to judge against?

• Step 5―What else does WUE report tell or NOT tell

5

What we Learned About the Annual WUE Report

• Told the story of success, without it we would know very little

– Approximately only 20-25 percent could be evaluated from planning documents

• Very high submittal rate

• Need to evaluate the content of the reports to provide effective technical assistance

• Other ODW programs/stakeholders rely on it (DWSRF, sanitary surveys, planning, USGS, ECY, etc.)

6

WUE Submittal Rate

7

WUE Non-Reporting

• Eleven water systems with little or no data to base meter installation, leakage values

• Working with RCAC to get these 11 systems on track, if not, watch out!

8

DWAG Feedback

• How has the annual WUE report helped you tell your story?

9

What we Learned About Achieving 10 Percent Leaks

• Making sense of the data takes time/effort

• Sense of accountability felt by the purveyor

• Not all leaks are real losses

• Large investment of resources in new meter technology

• Some purveyors want DOH to send letters of non-compliance

• Need to validate water use data

10

Excessive Water Loss for Systems

• Eighty-two systems averaging over 30 percent DSL

Ten systems serve 500 or more connections

• Five systems leaking over 100 million gallons per year between 20-30 percent DSL

11

Most Recent Reported Leak Percent

644713 694

273 252 286

90 94 9980 64 540

100200300400500600700800

2014 2015 2016

Num

ber

of S

yste

ms

Reporting Year

Three-Year DSL Percentage―Trending

0.1-10.0% 10.1-19.9% 20.0-29.9% ≥30%

12

Most Recent State Average DSL

9.63% 9.18%10.23%

2014 2015 2016

Dis

trib

utio

n Sy

stem

Los

s Pe

rcen

tage

Average Distribution System Losses―Trending

10% Leakage Standard

13

DWAG Feedback

• What are some of the tools your utility is using to reduce water loss?

• What’s being done to validate the data?

14

What we Learned About Meter Installation

• Costly but necessary to evaluate leakage

• Larger water systems: new meter technology (AMR/AMI) pursued

• Smaller water systems: if adopting conservation rates

– Opportunity to discuss financial viability

– Fairness that customers appreciate (pay for what you use)

15

Success Story―City of Mesa, Franklin County

• 175 connections

• Installed AMI meters

• Dropped flat rate, adopted consumption based rate

• Customers paying less per month under new rate

• AMI meters sound alarm at city hall if leak on customer’s property

• City reduced production by 50 percent after new meters and rate

• Not paying meter reader, energy and treatment costs down

16

Recent Meter Trends

17

DWAG Feedback

• What have been the biggest challenges to meter installation?

• What benefits have you realized from meter installation?

18

Ten-Year Total Production for Larger Municipalities (MG)

WSNameTotal #

Connections2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Average Production years 2007-2015 (MG)

Trendlines

SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 173,833 45,900 45,847 47,268 43,213 43,021 44,119 44,132 44,334 45,843 44,853TACOMA WATER DIVISION, CITY OF 138,202 22,359 22,053 19,844 18,505 18,755 18,488 19,181 23,286 23,061 20,615VANCOUVER, CITY OF 100,284 9,927 9,662 9,411 8,504 8,950 9,297 9,362 9,233 9,778 9,347SPOKANE, CITY OF 85,259 22,947 21,222 22,403 20,609 20,804 21,023 21,204 22,639 23,898 21,861ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 73,445 8,441 11,963 12,394 11,202 9,263 9,808 8,092 8,405 8,951 9,835BELLEVUE, CITY OF 64,961 5,410 5,910 6,120 5,493 5,736 5,714 5,884 5,975 6,048 5,810LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 43,562 3,847 3,776 3,907 3,389 3,331 3,386 3,305 3,402 3,745 3,565CLARK PUBLIC UTILITIES 33,635 4,080 4,101 4,079 3,553 3,540 3,674 3,559 3,831 4,151 3,841NORTHSHORE UTILITY DISTRICT 33,209 1,912 1,826 1,926 1,791 1,843 1,833 1,860 1,901 1,962 1,873OLYMPIA, CITY OF 33,163 3,034 2,985 2,973 2,573 2,611 2,559 2,534 2,525 2,407 2,689RENTON, CITY OF 32,627 2,957 2,704 2,769 2,509 2,493 2,411 2,425 2,509 2,669 2,605KENT WATER DEPARTMENT 32,470 2,879 2,794 2,727 2,429 2,498 2,567 2,593 2,659 2,812 2,662SKAGIT COUNTY PUD 1 JUDY RES 30,280 2,903 3,060 2,939 2,810 2,803 2,921 2,955 2,938 3,034 2,929REDMOND WATER SYSTEM, CITY OF 28,699 2,373 2,375 2,459 2,227 2,229 2,354 2,372 2,486 2,742 2,402LACEY WATER DEPARTMENT 27,964 2,774 2,658 2,595 2,199 2,243 2,396 2,416 2,483 2,633 2,488LAKEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 27,881 3,573 3,514 3,583 3,223 3,184 3,341 3,179 3,334 3,651 3,398HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT 27,870 2,370 2,391 2,379 2,183 2,152 2,182 2,160 2,314 2,422 2,284YAKIMA WATER DIVISION, CITY OF 27,637 4,548 4,649 4,277 3,775 3,523 3,724 3,646 3,820 3,759 3,969RICHLAND, CITY OF 26,768 5,436 5,343 5,377 5,152 5,313 5,079 5,594 6,543 6,201 5,560

TOTAL PRODUCTION (MG) 159,677 160,841 161,438 147,348 146,302 148,887 148,467 156,630 161,782

19

DWAG Feedback

• Have the WUE Regulations changed how your utility operates?

20

Questions?

Mike Dexel

(360) 236-3154

Michael.Dexel@doh.wa.gov