Union County Draft Water Allocation Policy

1
Union County Draft - Water Allocation Policy

• Board of Commissioners Workshop
• September 22, 2008

2
Agenda

• Water Treatment Capacity - Problem Statement
• Draft Water Allocation Policy Overview
• Draft Water Allocation Policy Priority Listings
  and Approach
• Discussion

3
Union County Water System Service Areas
Yadkin Basin
Catawba Basin
4
Water Treatment Capacity Problem Statement
Max. Day (Peak Day) vs. Average Day
5
Anson Service Area Historical Water Use
These Peaks Can Be Managed By Operation of the
System
6
Peak Day to Average Day Ratios for Regional Water
Utilities
7
Weekend to Weekday Peaking Factors for Regional
Water Utilities
Additional Irrigation Peak Demand Drives Capital
Cost of Capacity 15.3 M for 52 days (15) per
year
8
Current Water Availability to New Customers is
Driven by Water Restrictions
.CW-DMAG LIP may govern at times, limited
historical trend data
9
Water Allocation Policy - Overview

• Policy Layout and Attachments
• Purpose
• Need to fulfill legal obligations, if any
• Need to reserve capacity for Govt. projects
• Desire to treat projects same/if at same stage
• Desire to promote Non-residential development
• Desire to coordinate with Sewer Alloc. Policy
• Desire to incorporate flexibility for adjustments
• Need to protect public health, safety, welfare
• Priorities A-D

10
Projects
11
Water Allocation Priorities/Availability
Water Treatment Capacity Available
No Outdoor Irrigation

• Pros-
• Flexible
• Continued Irrigation Opportunity
• Maintains Revenue
• Reduces Litigation Risk
• Allows Commercial Development

Water Treatment Capacity Available
Irrigation 1 day/5
Water Treatment Capacity Available
No Water Use Restrict.
12
Other Water Allocation Policy Issues

• Designed for Flexibility
• Weather Patterns/Climate Impact Water Use
• Water Conservation Rate Structure Impacts
• Development Schedules May Vary
• Peak Capacity Relief from Lancaster Co.
• Sets as a Precedent 1-Day/5-Day Irrigation
• Trial Period
• Measure Success Adapt (Summer 09 Key)

13
Other Water Allocation Policy Issues

• Utilize No Outdoor Irrigation as Contingency Plan
• Fast-Track Public Works Water Projects
• Evaluate Water Reuse Program Development

14
Future Potential Outcome
18.0 MGD Current Capacity
15
Discussion
16
Option 1 No County Imposed Use Restrictions,
No Development Restrictions
Key Issues Pros- Revenue, Customers Allowed to
Irrigate Cons- Litigation Risk, Hydraulics, May
Reach No Development and No Irrigation Quicker
Not Recommended
No County Imposed Water Use Restrict.
Water Treatment Capacity Available
17
Option 2 1 day/5 Irrigation, Serve Priority A
Development Projects Only
Key Issues Pros- Flexible, Longer Term
Irrigation, Cons- Litigation Risk, Perceived
Over-allocation, Limits Commercial Dev.
Not Recommended
Water Treatment Capacity Available
Irrigation 1 day/5
18
Option 3 No Outdoor Irrigation, No Restriction
on Development
Water Treatment Capacity Available
No Outdoor Irrigation
Not Recommended
Key Issues Pros- Easy to Implement, Minimizes
Litigation Risks, Allows Projects/Developments
from All Priorities Cons- Impacts Current
Customers, Lost Revenue, May Drive Development
Elsewhere, May Drive Private Well
Implementation
19
Option 4 1 day/5 Irrigation, ServePriority A
and B Development Projects
Key Issues Pros- Flexible, Continued Irrigation
Opportunity, Revenue, Reduces Litigation Risk,
Allows Commercial Dev., Heightened Focus on
Tracking New Projects/Developments Cons- Perceiv
ed Over-allocation, May Drive No Irrigation
Restrictions Quicker
Recommended Option
Water Treatment Capacity Available
Irrigation 1 day/5
20
Long Term Solutions - Projects Underway to Expand
Treatment Capacity