I had some questions after last night's Town Council meeting so I called OWASA today and asked planning director Ed Holland what's up with Jordan Lake. Here's what I learned:
What kind of allocation from Jordan Lake does OWASA have now? OWASA has a level 2 allocation to draw up to 5MGD (million gallons/day). Level 2 means for an unspecified future use, and the utility spends about $12,000 a year to hang on to it, more than $200,000 since 1988.
What kind of allocation does OWASA want in the future? OWASA plans to ask the state to convert its allocation to level 1, which anticipates needing the water within the next five years. The state is reviewing allocations across the Jordan Lake regional partnership, a process that could take a year or more.
How would OWASA get the water from Jordan Lake? The state no longer allows single entities to build their own intake or treatment plant on the lake. Plus OWASA could not afford that anyway. Instead the utility would pay Cary to withdraw, treat and send the water to Durham and pay Durham to send it to OWASA.
So what's the problem? Plenty. OWASA wants to use Jordan Lake during future droughts. But 2001's Water and Sewer Management Agreement (they call it WASAMBA) restricts such transfers to emergencies (or non-emergencies if local governments that control OWASA give prior consent). Buying Jordan Lake water to prevent conservation measures and a big rate surcharge would not be considered an emergency, says Holland. (And after last night, it's doubtful that either Chapel Hill or Carrboro, which had already rejected any changes, would give their consent.)
What happened last night? The Town Council, which had previously approved the changes, reversed itself. Instead of a 7-2 vote giving OWASA the go-ahead, it voted 7-2 to take it back. (What happened? Well, council members gave their initial approval after 11 p.m. on Feb. 28. They probably wanted to go home.) Did the reversal surprise OWASA? "At this point nothing surprises me," Holland says.
What happens next? OWASA will regroup, try to seek a compromise. It could also withdraw from WASAMBA and pursue its long term water strategy unencumbered. But Chapel Hill and Carrboro appoint 7 of the OWASA board's 9 members, so you do the math.
Bottom line: OWASA is probably not going to run out of water. But there's not as much wiggle room, the agency says. Drought has taught customers how to get by with less, and with growth there is less to go around. Having Jordan Lake as a backup would let the utility drain its own, cleaner lakes longer before having to take water from polluted Jordan. "We want Jordan Lake as an insurance policy," Holland says. "Our risk will increase as demand gradually grows."
Comments
Actual vs. Example Numbers
Sun, 05/01/2011 - 19:36 — CitizenWillMark quoted quite a bit of my comment in today's CHN. I want to make clear that my example was not using specific OWASA numbers but trying to communicate the basic idea that weakening or loosening the criteria for tapping Lake Jordon requires careful consideration of our development policy.
While water engineering is not an exact science, the numbers, though, are not very far off from the actuals.
Here's my example:
Here's some actual and projected estimates pulled from OWASA and the Long-range Water Plan.
While demand fluctuates from July 2010 through Dec. use ranged from 8 MG/d to 6MG/d. Current usage can be checked here: http://www.owasa.org/WaterWatch/Default.aspx
As of today, use was 6.8MG/d with a 30 day average of 6.57MG/d.
By 2060, the expected demand is roughly 13MG/d, the high demand is 15MG/d and low demand 11MG/d. The longer out the projections are made, the more sensitive the ranges are to today's development policy.
To quote the long-range plan:
Key to the reliability of those projections is how close UNC adheres to its commitment to use reclaimed water stock at the new Carolina North campus.
For planning purposes, OWASA has determined the system of reservoirs can reliably provide a "10.5 mgd yield, which includes a 20% storage reserve (700 million gallons) that is believed to provide adequate time to implement emergency supply measures during an extreme drought"
The expected available daily allocation from Lake Jordan is 5MG/d.
What alternatives exist? There are almost a dozen. One involves expanding the phase 2 quarry capacity from 1.3 billion gallons to 3 BG. There are 2 possible models of expansion, one costing $2M and providing 3MG/d (or more than half the expected pull from Lake Jordan). The second option deepens the quarry beyond OWASA's current capability to access and will cost $36M to provide 5.5MG/d. The advantage of the quarry is the water comes from the protected watersheds our community has worked so hard to maintain.
Many factors limit sustainability.
Sat, 04/30/2011 - 22:09 — ActLocalConsecutive water rate increases were implemented for two reasons: to force conservation measures by making water extremely expensive; and to make up for a reduction in (new) connections.
If water was scarce without the new connections, how scarce would it have been had the connections occurred?
Then, the rates went up again, because -- as an affordability measure -- residents allowed their shrubs, trees and lawns to die.
If OWASA continues to claim they have sufficient water to approve every proposed development (growth), then Chapel Hillians will be forced to move long before the water runs out. That's because the school district keeps telling the town councils that they will build whatever schools are required to educate the new resulting new student. The only problem is that existing residents overwhelmingly cover the costs of providing new schools and educating the new students.
Taxes go up... services go down. It's a vicious spiral. Welcome to Chapel Hill.
Forgive my ignorance but...
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 08:02 — ClaudiusI don't understand what the downside is. Why on earth would the council vote against it if it's only provisional? And why are we going to so much trouble to prevent stream pollution for Jordan Lake if, as Sally Greene says, "Jordan Lake didn't need to exist"?
Several downsides
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 08:45 — marcoplos1) Poor water quality
2) Little or no control over activity in the huge Jordan Lake watershed. (Did you know that hydro-fracking may soon be allowed in the Jordan watershed?)
3) Reduces our commitment to conservation which is the least expensive source of supply.
4) As far as I know, there is still ongoing planning to build a regional intake on OWASA land on the west shore of Jordan. This regional arrangement would alter the independent nature of OWASA and move it closer to being part of a regional utility with other jurisdictions that have not shown proper planning, a commitment to conservation, or as strong a commitment to qater quality.
Chatham access and proposed modifications
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 09:21 — CitizenWillMark, this issue has been percolating for some time. Here's an update to OC from 2007: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/occlerks/070920A.htm
It reviews the 2007 thinking on the options. Since then OWASA has said that the State has been fairly clear the only one more tap will be allowed and it is highly likely it will go to an entity on the east side of the lake.
As of at least 2009
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:23 — marcoplosthe intake was the centerpiece of the regional agreement. At that time there was a high level of confidence that they could sell it and make it happen. I have yet to hear when this intake was taken off the table & Ed Holland's words seem crafted to avoid saying exactly that.
Check this out. There's some very interesting info here.
co dot orange dot nc dot us/occlerks/0902176b dot pdf
Links are not allowed??
Never say never...
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 13:32 — CitizenWillMark, you're correct that OWASA has been careful to leave a whole range of options open in their planning. At the same time it's been said over and over that the State will only allow one more tap - at most - into Lake Jordan.
If you want to see what water relationships currently exist check out the Jordan Lake Partnership jordanlakepartnership.org website.
The current map is here: http://www.jordanlakepartnership.org/docs/Water_Source_Mapv4.pdf
Durham is the lead agency as spelled out in the joint memorandum all the partners work under.
"The City Council of the City of Durham has voted unanimously by resolution to take a leadership role in a partnership for regional water supply planning related to Jordan Lake. The Jordan Lake Partnership signatories recognize the City of Durham’s willingness to provide leadership as the convening party for the Partnership and as such Durham will act as the Lead Agency for the Partnership’s General Activities. The City of Durham will act as the fiscal and contracting agent for the Partnership’s General Activities, and will enter into necessary contracts in support of the Partnership."
Interesting given Durham's recent activities.
From strict emergency use to less than emergency....
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:04 — CitizenWillThe point of contention is that the language change will open use of Lake Jordan for less than emergency use. The original OWASA agreement put fairly tight restrictions on usage. It also required notification of local governments in order to kick-off alternative approaches - like conservation - which might reduce the need to draw water from Lake Jordan.
Here's what the 2010 Long-range Water Plan said:
OWASA’s Long-Range Water Supply Plan identifies OWASA’s Jordan Lake water supply allocation as an important insurance policy for times of special need, but some of those circumstances may not qualify as “emergencies” under current language of the WSMPBA.
An interesting omission in this discussion is whether OWASA could control rate increases during droughts by better controlling their cost structure. There is a fixed cost to operate the utility. Part of that fixed cost involves infrastructure upgrades to support new growth or higher level of demands on the system. Reviewing how those infrastructure upgrade and connect costs are apportioned and managed would be a good first step in trying to control that fixed cost. That way, per unit charges to the customer base would more accurately reflect the "true cost of water".
Today's WCHL story said "Director Ed Kerwin said the utility must demonstrate a substantial need for extra drinking water, or the state may rescind OWASA’s allocation of the Jordan Lake supply."
How do we show a "substantial need" unless, one, OWASA underestimated their water supplies outlined in the 2010 Long-range Plan and we're facing severe shortages or, two, we plan to use the water in an on-going capacity?
As far as losing that allocation, OWASA Board Chair Merklein turned to staff during the Council meeting to explain that risk. Turns out there was no official underpinnings to that concern - essentially it was an off-hand remark at the last Lake Jordan group meeting. Council directed OWASA to firm up the likelihood of losing that allocation - which requires contacting the appropriate State entities.
Thanks, Will
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 21:30 — Claudius...But I'm still kinda scratchin' my head on this. I mean, isn't growth in CH inevitable, and shouldn't we find as many potential ways as possible to contend with it?
Urban Services Boundary
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 22:18 — CitizenWillClaudius, growth is going to happen, the question is how much and at what cost?
I think we have adequate water supplies secured for the next 50-80 years (or more) especially if we manage that resource prudently. That opinion is backed by years of OWASA projections and plans that echo the same sentiment. It appears that OWASA thought the same as recently as last year when they issued the 2010 Long-range Water Plan. Leading up to that report OWASA publicly stated on many occasions that given our community's rate of growth, the watersheds and resources our community has worked to obtain and protect were sufficient.
Lake Jordan was seen both in 2001 and in 2010 as an insurance policy for catastrophic system failure - the loss of a reservoir, water treatment plant, major feeder line or a deficiency in the water quality that the health department determines puts the public at risk.
In other words, water of last resort. The recommended language in the modification opens up the tap, to use Mayor Mark K.'s words, to use for less than emergency reasons. Further, the agreement specifically says that allotment was not meant to fuel growth and development.
The problem, of course, is how much growth the Town can accommodate before we move into the danger zone.
For example, let's say OWASA can prudently deliver 14MG/day under normal conditions. Let's then say OWASA projects that under the worst of drought conditions they could only deliver 8MG/day using local resources. What effect does weakening the restriction on Lake Jordan have on our growth policies? Do we allow growth to the 13MG/day (8MG/day + 5MG/day from Jordan) level knowing well before that OWASA will tap the lake? Do we go right to the limit of 14MG/day?
I've been lobbying Council after Council to make consideration of the impact development has on our water supplies part of the approval process. I also lobbied them and UNC to apply the same kind of consideration at Carolina North. In both cases I 've been shot down. The absence of "think blue" is a bit of a head-scratcher given how much talk of "green" there is as projects wend their way through the pipeline.
The policy and philosophical dimension is a bit broader.
Is this community willing to live and grow within its means - which is not very onerous given the current OWASA projections and the potential to implement reasonably cost-effective conservation strategies - or is it willing to open up that tap, pay whatever cost Durham or whomever owns the straw into Lake Jordan demands, to fuel growth well beyond our local limits?
We already have established one constraint based on the desire to maintain our rural boundary and avoid sprawl. The urban services boundary, which limits access to OWASA's services and mandates low density development, is one of those policies which seems to continue to have broad community support (in fact, local politicians are usually asked each election cycle to reaffirm their allegiance to that policy). One of the hotter issues that arose during the creation of the County's new uniform development ordinance involved how the County will work to maintain that boundary.
Finally, I guess it comes down to your world view. I think that a community that is self-reliant, like we were in securing adequate water supplies well before we needed them -which tries to draw sustenance from local resources - is more sustainable.
Wiggle Room?
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 17:37 — CitizenWillMark, I was with you up to the point you said "OWASA is probably not going to run out of water. But there's not as much wiggle room."
Please read the 2010 OWASA Long-range Water Plan ( http://owasa.preview.vc3.com/whatwedo/2010Long-RangeWaterSupplyPlan.aspx ). OWASA, just last year, said we had adequate supplies until 2030 where there might be a small bump in the road due to the quarry coming online. The Council clearly expressed concern that OWASA was beating the "drought, drought, drought" drum last night. As several Councilors said "What has changed?"
Suggesting there is "not much wiggle room" just plays into the kind of fear, uncertainty and doubt that seems to be collecting around this issue.