water capital improvement program history and...
TRANSCRIPT
Seattle Public Utilities
Water Capital Improvement Program
History and Status
June 10, 2011
Looking BackwardSPU Water System (circa 1990)
Two large, unfiltered surface supplies
10 open distribution reservoirs
Single pipeline from Tolt watershed
1950s water quality lab
1970s control center
Potential ESA listings (Chinook Salmon, Marbled Murrelet,
Northern Spotted Owl)
Projected need for new supply
2
SPU Water System
Supply Certainty
Water Quality and Treatment
Transmission
Distribution
Four Major Investment Areas
3
Supply Certainty Cedar River Watershed HCP
Provides legal certainty under the Endangered Species Act
for the City’s continued operations within the Cedar River
Watershed.
• $100 million over 50 years -- $60 million in the first
decade
• Approximately 30 capital projects and 60 O&M activities
in three areas:
o Management of instream flows for people and fish
o Forest and land conservation activities
o Mitigation for the blockage of salmon and steelhead
4
Drinking Water Quality Water Quality Lab (1999)
5
New lab in SODO area(former Starbucks warehouse)
Old lab (Beacon Hill Reservoir)
Drinking Water QualityReservoir Covering Program
Drivers: State Dept of Health Regulations (1994)
Post 9/11 Security
Secondary benefit – 70 acres with park and open space
potential
6
Beacon Reservoir
Constructed in 1911
Beacon Reservoir
Covering Completed 2009
Drinking Water QualityReservoir Covering Program Status
7
Project Completion Cost
Magnolia 1994 $8 Million
Lake Forest Park 2001 $4 Million
Bitter Lake 2002 $19 Million
Lincoln 2004 $8 Million
Beacon 2010 $42 Million
Myrtle 2010 $12 Million
West Seattle 2011 $33 Million
Maple Leaf 2012 $47 Million
Volunteer 2016 TBD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Number of Positive Fecal Coliform Samplesfrom Seattle's Open Reservoirs
West Seattle (2008)
Volunteer
Myrtle (2006)
Maple Leaf (2009)
Lincoln (2002)
Lake Forest (2002)
Roosevelt
Beacon (2006)
Bitter Lake (2001)
Sampling frequency was doubled to more closely
monitor impact of drought management practices on the
reservoirs.
Drinking Water QualityReservoir Covering Program
8
Source Water TreatmentTolt Treatment Facility ($91 Million)
9
120 MGD ozonation & high-rate direct filtration
Source WaterTreatmentTolt Turbidity: Before & After
10
TreatmentCedar Water Treatment Plant ($101 Million)
180 MGD ozonation & UV disinfection
11 Intake structure at Lake Youngs
Ultraviolet Treatment
TreatmentCedar Finished Water Taste & Odor
I can’t stand this water in my mouth and I could never drink it.
I would be very happy to accept this water as my everyday drinking water
Transmission and Distribution Control Center (2007)
13
1970s Control Center
New Control Center (Capacity to add DWW)
Transmission Tolt Pipeline #2 ($100 Million)
Drivers TPL1 burst in 1987, undermining confidence in the Tolt supply and
reducing the capacity of the Tolt system
Revised growth projections for East side communities
SolutionConstruct 16-mile TPL2 and replace key sections of TPL1. Cost:
$100M
14
BenefitsTolt transmission system is highly
reliable and interconnected, with
capacity for decades into the
future (given demand reductions in recent years).
Controlling CIP Costs
15
Avoiding development of new supply
Downsizing water storage and retiring facilities
Deferring projects
Taking advantage of bidding climate
Applying asset management
Using innovative contractingo Design-Build-Operate
o General Contracting/Construction Management
Controlling CIP Costs
Asset Management
16
Benefits
Increases value of SPU’s CIP portfolio
Increases benefits and reduces costs
Strong focus on customer service levels
Fosters clear accountability and transparency
Increases confidence in SPU’s ability to choosing the right
projects at the right time
Cultivates a data-driven culture with emphasis on measurement
and continuous improvement
Asset Management Business Cases
17
Example: Cedar River Watershed Road Abandonment
and Bridge Replacement Program
Developed transportation strategic plan
Clarified road standards
Increased number of roads to be abandoned
Reduced number of bridges to be replaced
Benefits: improved water quality and lower costs
Innovative Contracting Models
18
Design-Build-Operate (Tolt & Cedar) – Allocates risk to
contractor best able to manage all project phases.
Tolt Treatment Facility total cost reduction estimated at $56M
over 25 years. Cedar Treatment Facility cost savings estimated
at $45M.
General Contracting Construction Management
(Landsburg Fish Passage) – Provides cost and schedule
certainty.
Allowed selection of firm with strong experience with in-stream
construction, resolving constructability and construction
sequencing issues and cost savings to project.
Water Fund CIP
19
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
$ in
mil
lio
ns
CIP vs. Annual Debt Service1985 - 2030
Tolt Filtration$91M
Cedar UV$101M
HCP$54M
ReservoirCovering$125M
Outstanding debt retired starting 2030
Annual DebtService
CIP
Future Water CIP Spending
Priorities
20
Focus on distribution system
□ Most asset intensive: 1600 miles of watermain,15 pump
stations, 21,000 valves,18,000 fire hydrants,180,000 water
service connections and meters.
□ Continue achieving core customer service expectations –
quality, pressure, reliability; continuous analysis to optimize
investments.
Address renovation/replacement needs of
facilities
Morse Lake pumping
Support transportation projects
Questions?
21
Seattle Regional Water System
0
50
100
150
200
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Growth in Population and Water ConsumptionSeattle Regional Water System: 1975-2009
Per Capita Consumptionin GPD
Total Consumptionin MGD
P
Population
Po
pu
lati
on
To
tal C
on
su
mp
tio
n in
MG
DP
er
Cap
ita C
on
su
mp
tio
n in
GP
D
22