Document Kennewick_doc_6533457171

FINAL 2008 Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan Update Quad Cities Water Right Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland September 2008 – Revised July 2010 2805 Saint Andrews Loop Suite A Pasco, WA 99301-6121 (509) 546-2040 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and i Conservation Plan Update Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and 3 1.1 Regional Water Resource Issues 3 1.2 Organization of this Plan 4 2.0 Area Description 5 2.1 Geography and 5 2.2 Population of Service Area 5 2.3 Composition of Customers Served 6 2.4 Municipal Water Systems and Irrigation Districts 7 2.5 Municipal Water Rights 8 3.0 Conservation Program Components 10 3.1 Conservation Program Goals and Objectives 10 3.2 Conservation Measures 11 3.2.1 Leak Detection and Repair 12 3.2.2 Source Meter Testing and Repair 13 3.2.3 Large Meter Testing and Repair 13 3.2.4 Residential Meter Testing, Repair, and Replacement 14 3.2.5 Residential Retrofit Measures 15 3.2.6 Water Audit for Large Water Users 15 3.2.7 Water Curtailment Plan 16 3.2.8 Public and School Education 16 3.2.9 Joint Plan with Irrigation Districts to Address Urban Area Irrigation Needs 17 3.2.10 Incentives and Other Measures 18 3.3 Conservation Program Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation 19 3.3.1 Water Balance – Net Consumptive Use 19 3.3.2 Accounting of Production and Use 23 3.3.3 Non-revenue Water 24 3.3.4 Program Evaluation 27 4.0 Regional Joint Use Strategy for QCWR 29 4.1 Agreement on Water Rights Conditions 29 4.2 Initial Quad Cities Water Right Allocation and Use 29 4.3 Allocation of QCWR through 2013 34 4.4 Explanation of Mitigation Calculations 36 4.5 BiOp Compliance Plan 37 5.0 References 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and ii Conservation Plan Update List of Tables Table 2-1 City of Kennewick Summary of Climatological Information (1995 to 2007) 5 Table 2-2 City and Service Area 2007 Populations and Estimated City 2027 Populations under High Population Growth Scenario 6 Table 2-3 Number of Connections by Customer Category for the Quad Cities’ Service Areas 7 Table 2-4 Quad Cities Annual (Qa) Municipal Water Rights 9 Table 3-1 Implementation of Conservation Measures in the Quad Cities 12 Table 3-2 2007 Domestic Water Summary 21 Table 3-3 2007 Water Balance 26 Table 3-4 Unaccounted-for Water as a Percent of Production 28 Table 4-1 2005 Required Mitigation as Reported 31 Table 4-2 2007 Required Mitigation as Reported 32 Table 4-3 Quad Cities 20-year QCWR Forecast 35 Table 4-4 2013 Future Mitigation Requirements 38 Table 4-5 2027 Future Mitigation Requirements 39 List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan “Water Balance” 25 List of Appendices Appendix A – Quad Cities’ Water Right Settlement Agreement Appendix B – Wholesale Water Service Agreement between City of Richland and City of West Richland / Retail Water Service Agreement between City of Richland and Badger Mountain Irrigation District Appendix C – Water Use Efficiency Resolutions Appendix D – Quad Cities’ Domestic Summaries and Demand Forecast Appendix E – Conservation Summaries Appendix E1 – Conservation Summaries Appendix E2 – Memorandum of Understanding with Benton-Franklin Health District Appendix F – Communication with the Department of Ecology Appendix G – BiOp Compliance Plan Appendix H – Quad Cities Daily Monitoring Records (DMR) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 3 Conservation Plan Update 1.0 Introduction and Background The Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland (Quad Cities) were issued Surface Water Permit No. S4-30976P (the Quad Cities water right or QCWR) on September 15, 2003. One of the conditions associated with the QCWR is the preparation of a Regional Water Forecast and Conservation Plan to serve as the basis for serving municipal water to all municipal, industrial, and commercial users and uses within their urban service areas. The is to serve as a common demand forecast by the four cities when they update their Water System Plan (WSP) in accordance with Washington Department of Health (DOH) requirements and contains the following three elements for the Quad Cities: • Water Use Data Collection Requirements • Water Demand Forecast • Conservation Program This document updates the 2005 Interim and information from this plan will be incorporated into each of the Cities’ WSPs required by the State in 2009. This document serves as a report of the first 5 years of water conservation measures for the four cities under the conditions of the Quad Cities water right, and as an assessment of the program’s effectiveness. Where possible, previous studies and existing programs are referenced by this document to avoid redundancy and maintain the original intent and purpose of this document. Defined are the key data required to document the historical and projected future use for existing individual city water rights and the commonly held QCWR. Also outlined is how the cities calculate their “net consumptive use” of Quad Cities water right. The common or shared regional conservation program outlined in the is a continuing effort that demonstrates the Quad Cities commitment to efficient water use for the region and their agreed upon terms of the QCWR. An effective demand management program has the benefit of reducing water system infrastructure costs and pumping costs, leaving more water available for other uses, such as in-stream use/species habitat protection; municipal, agricultural, or industrial uses; recreational uses; and hydro-electric uses. Water conservation measures implemented by the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland rival some of the best programs in the state. This Quad Cities Conservation Plan highlights the individual City’s conservation programs and details the Quad Cities’ plan that implements a joint program. Given the importance of conservation in the Quad Cities region, the Quad Cities will continue their commitment to conservation as documented within this plan to meet or exceed State requirements. 1.1 Regional Water Resource Issues Water demand within the Quad Cities region is met by: 1. The Quad Cities, which supply drinking water and irrigation water to their customers. 2. Four irrigation districts, which supply irrigation water to municipal and agricultural customers, and some rural domestic customers. 3. Self-supplied industries. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 4 Conservation Plan Update 4. Users of small system or exempt wells. These water diversions are regulated along with other uses of the Columbia River system to help manage habitat for aquatic species, water rights held by other suppliers, and the State’s in-stream rights. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) approved a new application and issued Surface Water Right Permit No. S4-30976P in September 2003 for 178 cubic feet per second and 96,619 acre-feet (ac-ft) per year for incremental diversions of the Columbia River in order to meet future Quad Cities’ demands. Though the Quad Cities and other users divert water from the Columbia River system (through surface water diversions or ground water pumping), much of this water is returned to the system within the immediate area (the McNary Pool). Returns include wastewater treatment plant discharges, the North Richland Water Treatment Facility septic, irrigation water not consumed through plant uptake or evapo- transpiration, water loss through breaks or leaks in pipes, and water plant backwash performed as part of plant designed and State approved operation. The balance of water not returned to the Columbia River system is referred to as the “net consumptive use”. Factors which increase net consumptive use volumes include wastewater re-use, evaporation, and industrial consumptive use without return waters. The approval stipulated, among other requirements, that the Quad Cities develop a net consumptive use formula and then report this use as a means to demonstrate that the Cities are efficiently using and effectively managing this new water right. The Quad Cities agreed to document their combined efforts in a This document will be updated on a 6-year cycle as a common base for the four cities to develop their individual WSPs. The specific findings and requirements of the State regarding the approval of the Quad Cities water right are detailed in Ecology’s Report of Examination (November 2002). For further reference, refer to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Quad Cities (June 2002). 1.2 Organization of this Plan The remaining portion of this plan is divided into three sections. Section 2 describes the Quad Cities region, including geography, climate, population served, and water system descriptions. Section 3 describes the conservation program, showing that the updated conservation programs previously developed and implemented by the Quad Cities were based on sound program management principles, including the development of goals, data collection and measurement, and program evaluation. Examples of past conservation measures are provided to illustrate this point. Section 3 also shows that these conservation principles will carry through in the Quad Cities plan for a regional conservation program and the Cities’ individual future conservation efforts. Also described are existing and future conservation measures to be performed by the Quad Cities and how coordination occurs with irrigation districts. Section 4 provides the four Cities’ regional joint use strategy for the QCWR. The Appendices include information for further reference, including the Settlement Agreement (Appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 5 Conservation Plan Update 2.0 Area Description 2.1 Geography and Climate The Quad Cities area is located in southeast Washington State approximately 20 miles north of the Washington-Oregon state border. Geologically, the Quad Cities are near the center of the Pasco Basin on the Columbia plateau; a lowland between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Northern Ro cky Mountains to the east. Topography in this area is generally basin-like and valley bottomland-like settings, with upland plateaus. The Pasco Basin area is crossed by long mountain ridges that include the Saddle Mountains, Horse Heaven Hills, and Rattlesnake Hills. Elevations range from approximately 300 feet along the Columbia River to 3,000 feet in the peaks of surrounding mountains. This highest elevation in the area, at 3,629 feet, is in the Rattlesnake Hills west of West Richland. The climate of the area is semiarid, characterized by low annual precipitation and large interseasonal temperature variations. Strong winds from the west and southwest occur throughout the year and are responsible for high evapotranspiration rates in summer. Annual precipitation seldom exceeds 10 inches, with much of the total arriving with summer thunderstorms. Recent (1995 to 2007) climatological information for the City of Kennewick, which is representative of the Quad Cities, is summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 City of Kennewick Summary of Climatological Information (1995 to 2007) Temperature Year Annual Average Annual High Annual Low Annual Rainfall (in.) 1995 55 100 9 10.81 1996 53 104 -11 13.66 1997 55 103 13 7.80 1998 57 108 7 7.58 1999 56 101 25 4.05 2000 54 104 18 9.04 2001 55 102 22 6.16 2002 55 106 22 5.32 2003 57 107 15 6.81 2004 56 103 -6 5.23 2005 55 102 10 6.85 2006 56 109 13 10.18 2007 55 105 10 5.73 2.2 Population of Service Area The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated the Quad Cities 2007 populations as follows: Kennewick at 62,520; Pasco, 50,210; Richland, 45,070; and West Richland, 10,850; for a total incorporated population of 168,650 (Table 2-2) (OFM 2007). This population does not include the residents and businesses in the unincorporated service areas, some of whom are served drinking and/or irrigation water by the Cities. The service area of each of the Quad Cities extend beyond City limits as shown on the ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 6 Conservation Plan Update Place of Use for the Quad Cities water right, S4-30976P. Therefore, service area populations are greater than City populations. The populations of the four service areas are presented in Table 2-2. Population in the Quad Cities is anticipated to grow by roughly 61 percent in the next 20 years assuming the high population growth scenario (OFM 2007). Table 2-2 City and Service Area 2007 Populations and Estimated City 2027 Populations under High Population Growth Scenario City City Population (2007) Service Area Population (2007) City Population Projections (2027) Kennewick 62,520(1) 67,871(2) 91,106(6) Pasco 50,210(1) 54,060(3) 106,573(7) Richland 45,070(1) 45,409(4) 67,131(8) West Richland 10,850(1) 10,850(5) 21,641(9) Total 168,650 178,190 286,451 Notes: 1. City population projections from the Washington State Office of Financial Management Official April 1, 2007 Population Estimates (OFM 2007). 2. From the City of Kennewick’s Annual Water Conservation Summary Report for 2007 (Kennewick 2008) 3. From OFM and the Franklin County Planning Department. 4. From the City of Richland’s Annual Water Conservation Summary Report for 2007 5. From the City of West Richland’s Domestic Water Summary (West Richland 2008) 6. Population projection for the City of Kennewick from the 2008 Draft Benton County Comprehensive Plan (Benton County 2008). The Comprehensive Plan allotted the City of Kennewick 38 percent of the County’s projected growth, as estimated by OFM’s 2007 Population Projections (High series). 7. Population for the 2007 to 2013 period was projected from Pasco's known 2007 population (OFM and Pasco Planning Department) proportionately to the percent change in Pasco’s demand projection. Using OFM's High growth population scenario, and estimating that Pasco is and will remain 83 percent of the County's population, the City of Pasco is projected to increase in population by 47 percent between 2014 and 2027. The population and demand forecast past 2013 was projected based on this rate of growth. 8. Population projection for the City of Richland from the 2008 Draft Benton County Comprehensive Plan (Benton County 2008). The Comprehensive Plan allotted the City of Richland 28 percent of the County’s projected growth, as estimated by OFM’s 2007 Population Projections (High series). 9. This number is the average of the City’s and Benton County’s high growth projections. 2.3 Composition of Customers Served Knowledge about customer composition with each of the four service areas has allowed the Cities to tailor their conservation programs. The figures discussed in this section include the entire service area of each city, which includes customers beyond city limits (see Section 2.2 for further discussion). For example, a large residential customer base will benefit from a conservation program weighted toward the residential class. Such is the case for the City of West Richland. As of 2007, this City had 3,509 service connections within their service area, of which 3,409, or approximately 97 percent, were classified as residential customers (either single-family residential or multi-family residential). The remaining 100 connections were classified as non-residential customers, recognizing this customer segment is beginning to grow more rapidly than in past years. In 2007, Kennewick’s residential customers measured 90 percent of the total customers in their service area, with 17,407 single-family residential connections and 1,183 multi-family residential connections. The same year there were 1,924 commercial/industrial connections, and 149 institutional connections. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 7 Conservation Plan Update • The City of Pasco’s residential customers measured 89 percent of the total customers in their service area in 2007. Out of 15,566 connections, 13,439 were classified as single-family residential and 462 were classified as multi-family residential connections. Of the remaining connections, 1,308 were commercial/industrial and 357 were institutional. • Similarly, the City of Richland’s residential customers constitute 91 percent of the City’s connections in their service area. The City has 14,799 single-family connections and 1,474 commercial/industrial connections. Table 2-3 presents the number of connections by customer category for each of the cities’ service areas. Table 2-3 Number of Connections by Customer Category for the Quad Cities’ Service Areas City/Service Area Single Family Residential Multi-family Residential Commercial/ Industrial Institutional Total Kennewick 17,407 1,183 1,924 149(1) 20,663 Pasco 13,439 462(2) 1,308(3) 357(4) 15,566 Richland(5) 14,799 - 1,474 - 16,273 West Richland 3,318 91 70 30(6) 3,509 Notes: 1. Institutional connections for Kennewick consist of Kennewick’s municipal/government connections. 2. Multi-family residential connections for Pasco include Pasco’s multi-family residential and residential apartment connections classifications. 3. Commercial/industrial connections for Pasco include Pasco’s commercial, hotel/motel, industrial, and commercial irrigation connections. 4. Institutional connections for Pasco include Pasco’s fireline, municipal/government, housing authority, school district, and non-billable water connections. 5. Richland does not track connections by multi-family residential or institutional categories. 6. Institutional connections for West Richland consist of West Richland’s municipal/government connections. 2.4 Municipal Water Systems and Irrigation Districts The difference in customer composition and the mix of irrigation service providers makes the monitoring of water use in the Quad Cities more complicated than most Washington State utilities. This section provides a breakdown of municipal and irrigation water service in the Quad Cities. The four Cities’ municipal water systems supply potable water to their residential, commercial, industrial, etc. customers as well as those customers that reside in their respective UGAs. In all four Cities potable water is used as an irrigation source by some residents. Richland and Pasco also operate separate water systems for irrigation. Those Quad Cities residents that receive irrigation water are typically served by one of the four irrigation districts in the area (Badger Mountain Irrigation District [BMID], Kennewick Irrigation District [KID], Columbia Irrigation District [CID], and Franklin County Irrigation District #1 [FCID]). The Quad Cities rely on either the Columbia River or ground water aquifers, or both, as sources of water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 8 Conservation Plan Update The Cities are coordinating with the irrigation districts as summarized in Section 5.0 and described in detail in the Tri-Cities Urban Area Landscape Irrigation Plan (HDR/EES 2006). Kennewick Kennewick provides its customers drinking water and irrigation water from the ground water and surface water sources that the City owns and operates: ground water is obtained from two Ranney wells and surface water is diverted from the Columbia River. Irrigation water is also supplied to agricultural and residential customers throughout Kennewick’s service area by Kennewick Irrigation District and Columbia Irrigation District. The irrigation districts deliver untreated Yakima River water through a series of pipelines and open canals and ditches. Pasco The City of Pasco provides customers with drinking water and irrigation water from surface water withdrawals from the Columbia River. Pasco also operates a separate City irrigation water service that provides irrigation water from surface water withdrawals from the Columbia River and from nine additional wells that withdraw ground water. The City is currently planning to install one additional well to provide irrigation water. Irrigation water is also supplied to Pasco customers by Franklin County Irrigation District Richland Richland relies on the Columbia River and a network of five ground water wells to supply drinking water and irrigation water to its customers. In addition to this water system, Richland also operates two separate stand-alone water systems that deliver irrigation water to customers. Irrigation is also provided to Richland customers by Kennewick Irrigation District, Badger Mountain Irrigation District, and Columbia Irrigation District. Lastly, a small percentage of acres within the City’s UGA are supplied by private irrigation systems (HDR/EES 2006). In addition, the City of Richland has a wholesale water service agreement with the City of West Richland that allows West Richland access to Quad Cities water through the Richland water system. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix B. West Richland West Richland pumps water from seven deep ground water wells and is the only City of the four to currently rely primarily on ground water as a source of domestic and irrigation water. West Richland also has an intertie with the City of Richland allowing them to access surface water to meet summer municipal demands. Some West Richland customers are supplied irrigation water from the Columbia Irrigation District, Kennewick Irrigation District, or private irrigation systems. As discussed previously, the City of West Richland has a wholesale water service agreement with the City of Richland that allows them access to Quad Cities water through the Richland water system. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix B. 2.5 Municipal Water Rights Each of the Quad Cities individual annual municipal water rights (Qa) are shown in Table 2-4 (not including the Quad Cities water rights). These figures do not include the stand- alone irrigation systems for the Cities of Pasco and Richland. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 9 Conservation Plan Update Table 2-4 Quad Cities Annual (Qa) Municipal Water Rights City Qa (AF) Pasco 7,849 Kennewick1 16,200 Richland 56,941.8 West Richland 4,961 1. Does not include pre-1917 water rights on the Columbia River which the City purchased from KID and PP&L. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 10 Conservation Plan Update 3.0 Conservation Program Components Over the past years, the Quad Cities have developed and implemented conservation plans consistent with the 2005 Interim In 2007, the Quad Cities also began developing and implementing water conservation plans consistent with the Washington State Water Use Efficiency Rule. As each of the Quad Cities’ own programs have been implemented, they all employed four key program components to ensure the efficacy of their conservation programs, including: 1) the development and adherence to conservation goals, 2) data collection, 3) program evaluation, and 4) the provision of resources to effectively implement conservation measures. The Quad Cities regional conservation program has allowed the Cities to consolidate a number of components of their individual conservation programs with the primary benefits of sharing and leveraging resources and distribution of one unified conservation message to the public. This section outlines the Cities’ conservation goals and objectives, past and future conservation measures, and a discussion on conservation program data collection and analysis, and program evaluation. This section also documents how the Cities have used this joint regional program in their individual programs, and identifies opportunities for future coordination and consolidation. 3.1 Conservation Program Goals and Objectives Part of the success of the first 4 years of the regional conservation planning effort is due to initial development of well defined goals and the follow-up implementation of those goals by the Quad Cities. To continue the water conservation momentum built under the initial program, the Quad Cities will continue future program efforts with an understanding of the goals and objectives presented in this section. These goals and objectives will continue to be met through the conservation measures described throughout the remaining sections of this Plan: • Inform customers of simple, effective water wise activities. ° Develop a regional marketing campaign. • Encourage customers to reduce water waste and become more water wise. ° Encourage commercial, industrial, and residential customers to use water wisely. • Ensure all municipal activities and programs are water wise. ° Encourage wise use of water used to irrigate large park-like areas. • Measure the net consumptive water use from the Columbia River. ° Perform a water balance for the region every 6 years as part of the Cities’ Comprehensive Water Plan updates. ° Focus conservation program on using water efficiently. In addition, the Washington State Water Use Efficiency Rule, which went into effect on January 22, 2007, required that the Cities set an initial water use efficiency goal by ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 11 Conservation Plan Update January 22, 2008. The goals, established individually by the Cities, are described below and are documented in Appendix C. These goals and objectives will continue to be met through the conservation measures described throughout the remaining sections of this Plan. Individual goals established by the Cities support regional conservation program efforts. • The City of Kennewick’s goal, established by resolution in late 2007, is to maintain an annual average per capita demand below 170 gallons per day. This figure will be an average over a 6-year period of time beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2013. • The City of Pasco’s goals, established by resolution in January 2008, are: A residential retrofit program to provide the public with low flow shower heads, toilet tank displacement bags, leak detection tablets, and other conservation measures; Perform a water audit program for large water users by December 31, 2010; Perform water use efficiency education in the Pasco School District; Reach a goal of 12 percent or less distribution leakage standard (unaccountable water) by December 31, 2013; Reduce outdoor water use for domestic users by 2 to 3 percent by December 31, 2010; Promote public education through the annual consumer confidence report, customer bills statements, and other education materials; Ensure water sources are accurately monitored by December 31, 2010. • The City of Richland’s goals are: Maintain a water distribution system leakage loss of less than 10 percent every year; Promote education on water conservation and participate in a residential retrofit program to provide the public with low flow showerheads, kitchen sink aerators, and bathroom faucet aerators; Consider a conservation rate in the next water rate study to be budgeted for 2011; Maintain average residential water usage at 534 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) through 2013. • The City of West Richland’s goals, established by resolution in early 2008, are to: Maintain water distribution system loss to 10 percent or less (based on a 3-year rolling average); and Reduce average water usage 1 percent annually (total reduction of 8 percent by 2015) from 495 gallons per ERU currently to 455 gallons per day per ERU by 2015. 3.2 Conservation Measures The Cities are committed to maintaining and enhancing conservation activities in the region through their regional conservation program. This program includes regional coordination of conservation measures and in developing relationships with other local or regional businesses and agencies to leverage resources. The following are conservation measures implemented regionally and locally: • Leak detection and repair • Source meter testing and repair • Large meter testing and repair • Residential meter testing, repair, and replacement • Residential retrofit measures ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 12 Conservation Plan Update • Water audits for large water users • A water curtailment plan • Public and school education • Incentives and other measures These measures are described below along with a description of their implementation. Table 3-1 provides an overview of the each City’s progress in implementing these measures. Appendix E1 contains documentation of the Cities’ past conservation efforts. Table 3-1 Implementation of Conservation Measures in the Quad Cities Conservation Measure Kennewick Pasco Richland West Richland Leak Detection and Repair 3 3 9 3 Source Meter Testing and Repair 3 3 3 3 Large Meter Testing and Repair 3 3 3 3 Residential Meter Testing, Repair, and Replacement 3 3 3 3 Residential Retrofit Measures 3 3 3 3 Water Audit for Large Water Users 3 3 9 N/A Water Curtailment Plan 3 3 3 3 Public and School Education 3 3 3 3 Incentives and Other Measures 3 3 3 3 3.2.1 Leak Detection and Repair The Quad Cities will continue their ongoing implementation of leak detection and repair programs for their systems to maintain an unaccounted water loss of 10 percent or less. Each City set their annual program priorities based on operating experience, material type, and material age. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 13 Conservation Plan Update City of Kennewick: Kennewick has operated a leak detection and repair program since 1994. The City credits this program with the largest water savings of any conservation measure. To date, the City had surveyed roughly 325 miles of water distribution main, resulting in an overall cumulative conserved water estimate of over 290 MG since the program was initiated (City of Kennewick 2008). City of Pasco: The City of Pasco operates an annual leak detection program and has implemented a water pipeline replacement program to replace leaking pipelines since 1995. City of Richland: In 2007, the City completed a water main replacement program to replace the City’s original thin-walled steel water mains that were installed by the federal government in the 1940s and 1950s. The old water mains were not intended to be in service for more than 10 years, was experiencing a high percentage of water loss. Because of this replacement program, the City has experienced a significant decrease in water loss (See Table 3-4). The City’s current leak detection program is responsible for prioritizing main replacement projects. City of West Richland: The City of West Richland has recently replaced their older steel waterlines, leading to the significant decrease in unaccounted for water. The City also benefits from a significant portion of the City’s water system to be newly constructed residential service. To maintain their system, the City budgets annually for leak detection servicing and repair, with the last survey conducted in January 2008 discovering no leaks. 3.2.2 Source Meter Testing and Repair All four Cities conduct regular testing and repair of source meters to ensure accurate production volumes are measured. City of Kennewick: The City of Kennewick tests source meters for proper operation. In 2007, the City checked source meters at the Ranney Collectors and at the Kennewick Water Treatment Plant. New DP transmitters for the Raw and Finished meters at the Kennewick Water Treatment Plant were installed, scaled, and calibrated in August, 2007. City of Pasco: The goal of ensuring that water sources are accurately monitored by December 31, 2010 was adopted by City resolution on January 7, 2008. To meet this goal, the City is testing all source meters to ensure that they meet the manufacturer’s recommendations. City of Richland: The City of Richland meters all sources . The City has tested and replaced the production meters at the as part of the Water Treatment Plant upgrades in 2006. A schedule to test and repair the City’s other source meters has been developed with implementation in 2009. City of West Richland: All City wells are metered and recorded. Testing of source meters is done per manufacture’s recommendations to ensure accurate production volumes are recorded. 3.2.3 Large Meter Testing and Repair Most of the Cities have developed a large meter testing program through which they have tested large meters greater than 2” against AWWA specifications. The Cities repair or ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 14 Conservation Plan Update replace those which do not meet AWWA specifications. Per the these meters will be tested at a rate of at least 10 percent of the total large meters a year when the unaccounted for water rate exceeds 10 percent of the total diversion. In 2007, all of the Cities were below the 10 percent unaccounted-for threshold removing the requirement for testing, although many continued their programs. City of Kennewick: The City of Kennewick tested all of their 80 large meters in 2007. Of the 80 large meters, 69 met the 95 percent of better accuracy target over the three flow ranges (low, medium, and high) used in the tests. Meters not meeting this goal were repaired or replaced or are scheduled for replacement. Three 3- inch meters were installed and placed in service, bringing the City’s large meter total to 83 in 2008. City of Pasco: The City of Pasco has only 3 large meters greater than 2 inches. All have been tested. The City intends to test and replace large meters on a regular schedule. City of Richland: In 2005, 56 large meters were tested, and all met the 95 percent accuracy criteria. Due to this success, meters were not tested in 2006. In 2007, the City developed a program for ongoing large meter testing that will be implemented in 2008. The 1 ½” and 2” meters will be tested on a 4-year test cycle while the 3” and above meters will be tested on a 2-year cycle. Depending on the age of the large meters, any meters not meeting industry standards will either be placed or rebuilt and then retested to meet industry standards. City of West Richland: The City only has five connections greater than 2 inches that have recently been installed. The City is establishing a program to test all meters larger than 2 inches, per manufacturer’s recommendation. Any meter measuring less than 95 percent accuracy will be repaired or replaced. 3.2.4 Residential Meter Testing, Repair, and Replacement The Cities routinely test the performance of residential meters and all have a systematic repair and/or replacement program designed to ensure accurate measurement of water use consistent with AWWA standards or other appropriate criteria. (Normal experience indicates that poorly performing meters under read and therefore, the 10 percent unaccounted for water criteria helps monitor meter accuracy and creates economic incentive for testing). City of Kennewick: In 2007, 399 – ¾ inch to 2 inch new meters were set. In addition, 273 meters were repaired. Residential water meters will continue to be replaced when found to be defective or inaccurately measuring water use. It is also expected that some areas will be selected for replacement as part of a conversion to water meters that have the capability of being read through an automated system. City of Pasco: The City of Pasco repairs or replaces residential meters on a schedule consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations. City of Richland: The City of Richland began a residential water replacement program in 1998 to replace older residential water meters. The City has replaced all original, disc- type meters installed between 1957 and 1990. In 2008, Richland staff will begin evaluating the meters installed in 1998 and will determine if a new meter replacement program will need to be developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 15 Conservation Plan Update City of West Richland: The City of West Richland in 2005 installed 34 2” water meters in the Desert View Mobile Home Park to make the water system 100 percent metered at a cost of more than $100,000. That same year the City began an annual residential water meter replacement program in 2005. The City budgets between $25,000 and $50,000 annually to replace manual read residential water service meters with automated radio read water meters. Through the end of 2007, the City has replaced nearly 500 residential water service meters. 3.2.5 Residential Retrofit Measures Retrofit programs are one component of conservation programs in the Quad Cities. Net consumptive use is the total diverted less the total returned to the McNary Pool. As a result, retrofit systems need to be justified on efficiency and economics and not on diversion totals. In order to encourage wise water use, the Quad Cities have made a residential conservation kit available to residential customers at no direct cost to the customer. The kits include a low-flow shower head, toilet tank displacement bags, leak detection tablets, and other residential conservation measures. Distribution occurs at fairs and festivals or customers pick up a kit at the Cities’ offices. City of Kennewick: The City began their residential retrofit program in 1998, distributing residential water conservation items such as toilet bags, low flow showerheads, and leak detection tablets and no direct cost to the City utility customers. City of Pasco: Since the City’s establishment of the retrofit program in 2001, approximately 50 showerheads, 200 kitchen faucet aerators, 200 bathroom faucet aerators, and 150 toilet dye kits have been distributed to Pasco customers. The retrofit program is supported by its inclusion in the water efficiency program, adopted by resolution in January 2008, which outlines water use efficiency goals. City of Richland: The City began distributing residential water conservation items such as low flow showerheads and kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators in 1991 at no direct cost to Richland residents. In 2007 alone, the City distributed over 300 low flow showerheads and over 600 faucet aerators. City of West Richland: More than 60 percent of the City’s residential population moved into the City in new homes after 1993 when the updated plumbing code went into effect, so many of the homes already have efficiency fixtures for water conservation. For the remaining homes, the City has implemented a residential retrofit program that is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2008. 3.2.6 Water Audit for Large Water Users Large user water audits (for commercial, industrial, and institutional water users) are a means to measure the efficiency of water use at specific customer sites with the goal of detecting water waste and identify methods to improve water efficiency. Audits are also considered a customer service that may help reduce water and wastewater use costs. City of Kennewick: The City of Kennewick has a water audit program for water meters 6 inches or greater. The City currently has five water meters of this size. Water audits for two of the five meters were performed in 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 16 Conservation Plan Update City of Pasco: The City of Pasco completed all water audits for large water users by April 2008. In 2011, the City will then begin the cycle of water audits again. City of Richland: The City of Richland developed an audit program for large water users which began auditing City facilities first and will proceed to audit commercial and industrial users. An audit conducted with the Richland School District resulted in an agreement to develop a non-potable irrigation source for the Carmichael School grounds to reduce costs, potable water use, and Columbia River water diversions since the source will be local groundwater. City of West Richland: The City of West Richland does not have any large water users, and therefore does not conduct a water audit program. The City will implement an audit program in the future as appropriate. 3.2.7 Water Curtailment Plan A water curtailment plan exists for each City, with an updated plan to be prepared prior to the update of their 2009 Water System Plan. This element is intended to assist the Cities’ supply management in the event of a loss of source or lack of delivery capacity over a defined period of time or condition including an emergency event, extreme weather conditions, or catastrophe that would limit the City’s ability to meet ongoing demand. The Quad Cities are well suited to meet most supply deficiencies to a limited degree given their ability to use two primary sources of water—ground and surface water—concurrently (in varying ratios) or exclusively, or use interconnections among each City. However, unforeseen events resulting from natural disasters, source contamination, drought, or other circumstances may trigger a supply deficiency or compromise one or more Cities’ ability to maintain delivery to its customers. Recognizing that each City’s water supply system is potentially vulnerable to loss of supply, the Quad Cities prepared a basic curtailment plan focused on three stages of alert: Mild, Moderate, and Severe. For each stage, a triggering event is defined and curtailment measures listed. City of Pasco: Title 13.32 of Pasco’s Municipal Code provides the City the right to handle water shortages by giving preference to certain customers and to restrict water use for irrigation purposes. City of Kennewick: Kennewick’s water shortage program is codified in Chapter 14.05 of the Kennewick Municipal Code. City of Richland: Richland’s water curtailment program is codified in Chapter 18.16 of the Richland Municipal Code. City of West Richland: West Richland’s water curtailment plan is codified in Chapter 13.68 of the West Richland Municipal Code. 3.2.8 Public and School Education Public education is a component of the regional and individual water conservation plans in the Quad Cities area. In 2007, the Quad Cities signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Benton-Franklin Health District (“District”) to develop and implement a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 17 Conservation Plan Update water conservation public education and outreach program for the Quad Cities (Appendix E2). The Quad Cities partnered with the District because the District currently conducts water quality education within all of Benton and Franklin Counties. The term of the MOU is 5 years and is administered by the City of Richland. The components of the partnership are described below. The Quad Cities and the District will promote conservation through an annual regional water conservation media campaign which explains the importance of conservation and provides examples of easy ways to conserve. The campaign will include a mix of media types, such as radio, T.V., print, web, and press releases, and will focus on water wise irrigation and, therefore, will be implemented during the irrigation season. Website: The District will develop, publish, and maintain a water conservation website that has water conservation educational materials targeted for commercial, industrial, residential, and landscape water use. Brochure: The District will design an annual water conservation brochure. At a minimum, the brochures/flyers will be on display and available free at municipal offices where the public frequent. School Outreach: The District will acquire, develop, and distribute water conservation curriculum for local classrooms. The District may also provide classroom presentation. In addition, the Quad Cities provide tours of water system facilities to school children upon request. These tours can provide the children a meaningful link between the water they use at home, school, or other locations and the need for conservation. The City of Richland currently provides an environmental education program free of charge. Programs relating to municipal operations and the environment, such as landfill issues, recycling, composting, proper disposal of chemical products, wastewater and storm water awareness and energy and water conservation are available. Handouts, brochures, activities and video tapes are also available to enhance their own teaching program. The Water Conservation Program helps students learn about water quality and conservation. A hand-held model of groundwater is used and student volunteers add the gravel, sand, dirt, household hazardous waste and rain. Students see what happens when it rains and relate it to the proper disposal of household hazardous waste. The city’s environmental education coordinator also teams up with the Benton Franklin Health Department to provide various activities including building a water filter and cleaning dirty water, discussions using a table top ground water model, tap water tour, and Water Olympics. Informative Water Bills: The Quad Cities show water consumption history on customer water bills when applicable. 3.2.9 Joint Plan with Irrigation Districts to Address Urban Area Irrigation Needs Per the Settlement Agreement, “the Quad Cities shall pursue development of a Joint Plan with Irrigation Districts whose service areas overlap with the Quad Cities service area.” The Quad Cities have developed this joint plan with the irrigation districts whose service areas overlap with theirs to address both landscape irrigation supply and response during water shortage periods. The plan titled the Tri-Cities Urban Area Landscape Irrigation plan and was completed in 2006. The plan identifies irrigation service areas and ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 18 Conservation Plan Update landscape irrigation demand projections for the Cities and the four irrigation districts that serve within the Quad Cities service area. Strategies are described for addressing shortages, which is defined broadly to include: drought response, hydraulic capacity limitations, and water rights limitations. Associated coordination and cooperation strategies are also described. The Cities continue to coordinate landscape irrigation services with the Districts. 3.2.10 Incentives and Other Measures Incentives are typically intended to encourage customers to use water more efficiently. Incentives are appropriate for all customer types, residential to industrial, and come in a variety of forms. The Quad Cities have used incentives as an effective means to change water use behavior of residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The Quad Cities use economic incentives, which is a form of incentive common in the water conservation field. Generally, these incentives allow for the removal of economic barriers by the water supplier in order to encourage customers to choose water-wise alternatives. Water rates are designed to provide an incentive for customers to use water wisely. Customer water bills within the Quad Cities are based, at least in part, on the amount of water used and will continue to be in the future. Water consumptive use histories connected to water billings provide the educational incentive to conserve. Another example of an incentive program is the distribution of residential conservation kits to residential customers at no direct cost to the customer. The kits include a low-flow shower head, toilet tank displacement bags, leak detection tablets, among other items, and are intended to replace or retrofit existing water inefficient fixtures. Distribution of the kits occurs at fairs and festivals and customers can obtain a kit at municipal offices (previously described in Section 4.5). Many additional conservation measures have proven equally effective at reducing water waste and encouraging the wise use of water. Two commonly implemented measures in this group are irrigation management for non-residential application and recycling and reuse. Water wise non-residential irrigation management uses the latest irrigation technology to ensure irrigation practices are efficient. Application of these technologies are directly relevant to the Quad Cities internal irrigation practices of City-owned and managed properties and those of nurseries and agricultural customers. The Quad Cities have included and will continue to include upgrades to all City irrigated sites with irrigation controllers. For example, the City of Richland has completed approximately two-thirds of the installation of a $120,000 centralized irrigation computer system that communicates via radio signal. Features of the system include: • Automatic shut down of lateral lines that surpass programmed expected flows • Automatic shut down of a complete system if programmed flows are surpassed • Alarm reporting of unexpected flows and electrical malfunctions • Program control via phone lines from any location with a laptop with modem • With installation of a weather station we will have automatic program adjustment of run times and system shut down depending on weather conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 19 Conservation Plan Update • Recording of system performance due to the installation of flow meters at the point of connection • Ability to program and operate field controllers from a hand held radio on site Another commonly implemented conservation measure is recycling and reuse of water. Both of these measures result in less diversion of ground or surface water sources. In Pasco, reuse water from food processors is used as irrigation on City owned farm circles that have ground water rights. Although Columbia River water is used in the food processor’s produce wastewater spray operation, from July 10, 2000 to June 30, 2004 there was no increase in the collective water rights use due to the food processing plant operation because Ecology had granted a temporary authorization for the transfer of water rights. 3.3 Conservation Program Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation Data collection is a key component of both the Quad Cities’ individual and regional conservation programs. Data collection and measurement is used to evaluate and modify conservation programming toward more efficient and effective ends. The Quad Cities have been collecting data over the last 4 years to estimate regional net consumptive use using a water balance calculation. This requires recording of water volumes obtained from production and demand meters and estimates of unaccounted-for water volumes and non metered uses, as well as return flows to McNary Pool. The water balance, production, demand, and unaccounted-for water are shown in Table 3-2. In some cases, it was not practical to collect data, such as contributions to groundwater from septic systems, landscape irrigation water, or water loss from the drinking water distribution system. In these instances, estimates have been made based upon system knowledge and studies in other areas. The Cities will verify and refine these estimates over time. In addition to conservation goals, data collection, and program evaluation, the Quad Cities will coordinate effectively to share data and reporting formats. 3.3.1 Water Balance – Net Consumptive Use Performing a regional water balance allows for the calculation of net consumptive use, which is the volume of water not returned to the sources of supply or “consumed” by the user. Data necessary for such a calculation includes production volumes and return flow volumes. The difference of these two volumes equates to net consumptive use. The water balance also helps assess water system efficiency. Net consumptive use is measured for a specified time period, typically annualized for comparison and use with annualized water rights (Qa). It is calculated by summing the total municipal use or “water withdrawal” of pre-2005 water rights plus the use of any Quad Cities water right, less the amount of water returned to the McNary Pool or “water return”. Net consumptive use can be calculated as a combined Quad Cities net consumptive use or individually for each municipality. When looking at the individual Cities, water exchanged between the Cities through interties should also be accounted for ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 20 Conservation Plan Update to account for its consumption in the correct City. The net consumptive use calculation for an individual City is: (water withdrawals – water returns – water exported + water imported) = net consumptive use Water withdrawals – The total municipal use of water within the system to include both surface water and groundwater. • Surface water – water withdrawn from the river, treated and distributed through the drinking water system. Applies to Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland. West Richland does not have a surface diversion. The City of Richland’s and the City of Kennewick’s Ranney wells, for calculation purposes, are grouped with their surface water treatment plant pumpage. For Richland, the surface diversion provides significantly more water to the for withdrawal than what’s taken into distribution, resulting in return flow to the Columbia River through shallow aquifer recharge. For the City of Kennewick, their Ranney wells arguably contain groundwater hydraulically connected to the river. The City uses the source in combination with their surface water treatment plant under a Kennewick owned consolidated water right. • Groundwater – water withdrawn through wells and distributed through the drinking water system. Applies to both Richland and West Richland. Pasco groundwater wells connected to the municipal water supply are used for emergency purposes only and were not used in 2007 data. Water returns – The amount of water withdrawal returned to the McNary Pool consisting of wastewater treatment plant return flow, water treatment plant backwash, and portions of septic system discharge and city irrigation supplied by the potable municipal water system. • Wastewater treatment plant – discharges from the each City’s wastewater treatment plant. Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland discharge to the Columbia River. West Richland discharges to the Yakima River just upstream from the McNary Pool. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 21 Conservation Plan Update ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 22 Conservation Plan Update • Water plant backwash – Returns to the river from plant filter back-washing. Pasco discharges backwash to the river. The City of Richland’s backwash stream goes to the Columbia River directly and to infiltration beds near the North Richland Water Treatment Facility and ultimately to the Columbia River through shallow aquifer recharge. They use their NPDES discharge permit for the Columbia River seasonally when backwash volumes exceed the infiltration beds system capacity. West Richland does not have water treatment plant backwash. The City of Kennewick’s water treatment plant backwash discharges to its wastewater treatment plant and is accounted for the WWTP Return Flow. • Septic systems – Discharges from septic drain fields in non-sewered areas within the water system service areas. Septic system return flows were not included in return flow calculations pending a refinement of actual estimates. Consideration will be given to including this calculated return flow in future forecasts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 23 Conservation Plan Update • City irrigation – Returns to groundwater from irrigation water provided through the potable municipal water systems. Irrigation return flows were not included in return flow calculations pending a refinement of actual estimates. Consideration will be given to including this calculated return flow in future forecasts. Water Exported – Water diverted or produced by one of the Quad Cities and provided to another City through a water system intertie under normal, peak demand, or emergency use circumstances. This would also include any water transferred to another user outside the municipal system through agreement. Water Imported – Water received from any outside agency to supplement municipal use. Figure 1 illustrates the water balance concept and general locations of withdrawals and returns. Table 3-3 identifies the calculated net consumptive use for each City and the combined Quad Cities net consumptive use. Since the Quad Cities are uniquely situated around the Columbia River McNary Pool, and the diversion of water and return of wastewater is to the same basic body of water, the net consumptive use is the most accurate measure of conservation. Information in Table 3-3 is based on City collected data. Each of the Quad Cities has and will continue to collect the data necessary to perform its own water balance, and will refine estimates in the absence of data as new information becomes available. Updated water balances will be included in future updates. 3.3.2 Accounting of Production and Use Data The Quad Cities collect annual and production data and peak day rates, as well as calculate peak day and average day demands. Table 3-2 provides a regional summary format and data for 2007 that is being used to document production and use. This data has been compared to the data summary table from the 2004 data provided in the previous Although the water balance described in Section 3.3.1 requires only the inclusion of total demand into the balance, the accounting of demand by individual customer class is also provided. Accounting by class provides more detailed data about customer use and thereby allow for a means for water suppliers to monitor changes in demand and respond to those changes through the regional conservation program. The Quad Cities will continue measuring and annually recording volumes of water sold to institutional, commercial, industrial, residential (single and multifamily), and agricultural customers. Data collection will include annual monitoring of demand for landscape water use within the service area. In 2006, the Quad Cities, along with Badger Mountain Irrigation District, Kennewick Irrigation District, Columbia Irrigation District, and Franklin County Irrigation District prepared the Tri-Cities Urban Area Landscape Irrigation Plan (HDR/EES 2006). This document established an approach for coordinated landscape irrigation service among the cities and irrigation district, identified management and operational strategies to meet projected demands, and described the potential environmental benefits and concerns associated with identified strategies (HDR/EES 2006). ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 24 Conservation Plan Update The method of data collection is different among the Cities based on their individual capabilities. For example, not every City has the same billing system software that automatically tracks and reports volumes of water consumed by these customer classes. Where electronic data collection and reporting capabilities have differences, this report has processed the data to estimate water volumes by category and has been used to support water balance efforts described in the previous section. 3.3.3 Non-revenue Water Non-revenue water is measured annually by each City and may be either unaccounted-for or non-metered water. Examples of non-revenue water includes water used by the fire department in hydrant testing, line flushing in the system to reduce water age and maintain water quality, and other utility uses, such as street sweepers and construction. To control water loss from the non-revenue demands, each of the Cities have documented these uses within their system and subtract them from the total non-revenue volumes when calculating unaccounted-for water. The unaccounted-for portion of non-revenue water receives the most attention in conservation programs because of its association with system inefficiency. Leaks in the water system represent one of several components that elevate volumes of unaccounted- for water. The other components which increase unaccounted-for water include accounting errors, unauthorized connections, and malfunctioning distribution system controls, among others. These sources generally affect revenue to the utility rather than forcing the City to produce or divert additional water, whereas leaks in the water system force the City to divert and treat additional water and the City doesn’t receive revenue on the water lost. Leak detection and repair is a key component of each of the Quad Cities conservation program in order to maintain the water loss target of less than 10 percent of the water produced or diverted. Both the City of Pasco and the City of Kennewick conduct annual leak detection which plays a significant role in maintaining an unaccounted-for water percentage meeting the target goals of their conservation programs. Of note, a success story is in the example of the City of Richland which had previously recorded water loss percentages of 30 to 35 percent since 1996. This percentage was attributable to leaks in old steel pipes installed in the 1940s. Consequently, the City ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 25 Conservation Plan Update ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 26 Conservation Plan Update initiated an aggressive pipeline replacement program to curb this loss and spent over $27 million on replacement projects. In 1999, the City of Richland applied for and obtained a 1 percent Washington State Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loan for $7 million to accelerate the replacement program. The loan required a $3 million match from the City, for a total of $10 million for a 3-year construction period. The same rate of funding was also obtained for the second 3- year construction period that completed the water main replacement project. From the program’s inception, there has been a dramatic reduction in main leak repairs from a high of 171 main leak repairs in 1996 to only eight main leak repairs in 2006. As a result of the replacement program and a cost of $26,000,000, the City has maintained and surpassed the water loss goal of less than 10 percent. The City of West Richland has also had historically high water loss percentages. The City’s annual metered water use versus water produced was estimated at approximately ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 27 Conservation Plan Update 30 percent in their 2001 Water System Plan. This loss was attributed to a portion of the City being “unmetered” and a “sanding/flushing” process to resolve a technical problem with one of the City’s ground water sources of supply. West Richland reduced their unaccounted for water to about 14 percent in 2004 through metering and better accounting, and the resolution of the sanding in the groundwater source. It has continued to drop to a calculated 1.8 percent in 2007. Even though this water loss calculation appears to be much smaller than other exceptionally rated water systems in the State and better than typical high efficiency numbers, a large portion of the City of West Richland’s water distribution system consists of newly (within the last 10 years) installed water mains, residential meters, and connections. The City uses a zero leakage standard for the acceptance of new construction from contractors, which is more stringent than the recommended requirements of American Water Works Association (AWWA) for new construction leakage. Additionally, the City has added and rehabilitated many of their groundwater sources to include source controls that have improved metering. West Richland budgets annually for leak detection services (the last leak detection inspection was in January 2008) with no leaks discovered. The water loss numbers have been verified from their sources and the City is confident in the findings. Data will continue to be collected by the four Cities and each will continue to look for ways to increase their system efficiency. Each of the Quad Cities have marked improvements in reducing water loss over the last 4 years, which is a direct result of the effectiveness of the conservation measures implemented by the Cities and their commitment to the successful implementation of the In summary, all four Cities calculated their unaccounted-for water loss at less than 10 percent in 2007. In addition to the 2007 unaccounted-for water loss percentages, Table 3-4 presents historical water loss estimates from 2000 and 2004 for comparison. Table 3-4 Unaccounted-for Water as a Percent of Production Year City 2000 2004 2007 Kennewick 7.1% 8.0% 5.9% Pasco 8.1% 5.0% 4.2% Richland 27.2% 9.5% 4.4% West Richland 30.0% 14.0% 1.8% 3.3.4 Program Evaluation The Quad Cities will continue to monitor the effectiveness of conservation efforts under the regional program. Individual conservation measures will also be evaluated ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 28 Conservation Plan Update qualitatively or quantitatively, depending upon the type of measure. In the past, reduction in per capita demand has been used to define success with conservation efforts. However, within the Quad Cities' water balance, as discussed in this document, there is a complex mix of domestic and irrigation providers through municipal sources, irrigation districts, and private land owners that independently contribute to per capita demand. Additionally, each City has their own goals established under the Washington State Water Use Efficiency Rule that provide individual direction for each water system. Therefore, defining success of the regional program in the future will relate to the achievement and support provided for each of the Quad Cities to meet or exceed their conservation goals defined under the Water Use Efficiency Rule. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 29 Conservation Plan Update 4.0 Regional Joint Use Strategy for QCWR 4.1 Agreement on Water Rights Conditions The Quad Cities entered into the July 15, 1999 Memorandum of Understanding with Ecology, and then subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement with Ecology and CELP, for the purpose of managing the existing combined domestic water rights and the Quad Cities Water Right put to use in the Urban Growth and Place of Use of those water rights. The four cities worked with other agencies and organizations to outline an operational strategy that is designed to coordinate the domestic water uses of the four cities, to jointly promote a regional conservation program for implementation by the cities, and to seek ways to improve the overall efficiencies of the management of water withdrawals for the urbanizing water needs. Each of the four cities have historically planned and designed their own individual supply and distribution systems for their respective urban growth service areas, and coordinated joint facilities only when such joint facilities provide a shared benefit to the participants. Because of this, each city has a unique hydraulic design focused on minimizing the cost of capital facilities and pumping costs. In addition, each City has refined their systems over the last 20+ years to integrate their surface and ground water pumping systems and associated water rights. As a result, each city incorporates the benefits of the jointly held Quad Cities Water Right from both a historical and a future planning perspective. As such, the City’s individual system plans are a major consideration in how the Settlement Agreement and future plans are factored into the regional program. During the negotiations on the Conditions associated with the Quad Cities Water Right, the Cities and Ecology outlined the existing domestic water rights and the associated conditions that were retained as a part of each city's water right portfolio. These were retained for use in an integrated manner with the system hydraulics and to minimize capital improvements related to storage and cross-town transmission systems. In exchange, the cities agreed to outline and relinquish existing water rights that would not contribute to an efficiently run urban water system. Both Ecology and CELP participated in the identification of existing water right applications, permits, certificates, or claims that were to be abandoned or withdrawn. In exchange, the cities defined the water rights that they would be relying on to be used in coordination with the Quad Cities Water Right to meet their individual water system’s projected growth and operational and hydraulic designs. The Conservation Plans that were agreed to by all parties were the method in which the "combined total of use of all of the authorized water rights" would be managed to minimize and reduce where possible, the accumulative impact on the Columbia River flows. 4.2 Initial Quad Cities Water Right Allocation and Use At the time of the issuance of the Quad Cities Water Right, each city had a different near term need for new water rights. Therefore, there was agreement by all parties that Ecology would immediately make available 10 cfs Qi (equal to 7,227 ac-ft Qa) of mitigated water rights. The cities agreed to divide this initial 10 cfs amount equally (2.5 cfs to each City) and then laid out in an agreement of how additional future allocations would be shared. This agreement was an essential piece of the larger agreement to accommodate ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 30 Conservation Plan Update both the near term short falls of several cities and the realities of how each of the four city water system hydraulics and capital facilities were designed. Therefore, each city prepared their own plan on how the initial 10 cfs, or 2.5 cfs for each, would be integrated into their current operations. An additional part of the Settlement Agreement called for certain actions to be performed relating to the cities’ other existing water rights and pending applications. The cities were to complete the abandonment, relinquishment or withdrawal of the identified existing water rights and pending water right applications. Richland and West Richland were to request that Ecology process the pending water rights applications or changes per the agreed upon list so that the cities could proceed with their water system designs and water system plan updates. The cities have completed the required abandonments, relinquishments and withdrawals. The pending groundwater applications for West Richland and Richland have not, to date, been processed. West Richland, Richland, and Ecology staff have corresponded on this issue with the goal that Ecology will complete processing of these applications under the Hillis rule. If these applications are approved West Richland and Richland intend to defer increased diversions from Columbia River through use of the newly developed groundwater sources. The Quad Cities permit included provisions (Permit Condition E) requiring compliance with the federal BiOp on the Columbia River. The Cities developed a process to ensure (Appendix G) these provisions are met by doing an annual review of their diversions and mitigation compliance. The Cities completed a retroactive compliance review for 2005 and 2007. The review showed months where compliance was not achieved but overall each year’s mitigation quantity was adequate as shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Mitigation provided by Ecology was 1,747 ac-ft, short of the 5,774 ac-ft required by the Settlement Agreement. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 are projected needs showing mitigation needed in 2013 and 2027. With the above process outlined and the agreed upon date of 2008 to update the each city has outlined their short term plan for their use of the 2.5 cfs mitigated water right provided by Ecology. The following provides an abbreviated plan for each city. Kennewick Kennewick has undertaken a study to develop an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project in the Southridge area of their City to utilize the QCWR as the source of water and a natural aquifer storage system to store the water during non-peak periods of the year, when mitigation may not be required and to provide flexibility in the use of the prior and new water rights. The city has entered into an agreement with Ecology to complete the ASR pilot study, use a portion of their perfected water right to execute the plan, and provide mitigation for water use beyond the initial increment. Pasco At the time of the issuance of the Quad Cities Water Right, the City of Pasco was water right deficient. Pasco’s water usage as of the end of 2003 included a deficit that Tom Fitzsimmons (Director of Ecology at the time of the Quad Cities Water Right) had agreed that the Department of Ecology would fill as a condition of the Quad Cities Water Right being signed. The deficit for Pasco included three parts: “Hole” water of at least 2.5 cfs (a term that everyone involved in the QCWR used to describe water being used without existing approved water rights); an additional usage of water of 2.4 cfs that was being ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 31 Conservation Plan Update Table 4-1 2005 Required Mitigation as Reported (Ac-Ft) Month Diverted Return Flow Differenc e Days to be Mitigated Ac-Ft to be Mitigated Updated Available Mitigation Buckley Byerly Total January 16.01 10.90 5.11 1.00 5.11 0.00 22.47 22.47 February 15.81 10.77 5.04 7.00 35.28 0.00 20.30 20.30 March 21.32 14.52 6.80 14.00 95.20 0.00 22.47 22.47 April 8.40 4.03 4.37 22.00 96.14 187.35 18.40 205.75 May 0.35 0.00 0.35 11.00 3.85 406.95 19.02 425.97 June 0.42 0.00 0.42 26.00 10.92 299.97 18.40 318.37 July 0.66 0.00 0.66 24.00 15.84 21.78 14.32 36.41 August 0.63 0.00 0.63 31.00 19.53 0.00 14.49 14.49 Septembe r 7.55 2.41 5.14 8.00 41.12 251.46 14.02 265.48 October 28.99 14.00 14.99 4.00 59.96 355.61 22.22 377.82 November 16.61 11.31 5.30 19.00 100.70 13.46 21.75 35.21 December 15.52 10.57 4.95 17.00 84.15 0.00 22.47 22.47 Total Mitigation Needs and Availability 567.80 1,767.21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 32 Conservation Plan Update Table 4-2 2007 Required Mitigation as Reported (Ac-Ft) Month Diverted Return Flow Difference Days to be Mitigated Ac-Ft to be Mitigated Available Mitigation Buckley Byerly Total January 15.68 10.68 5.00 3.00 15.00 0.00 22.47 22.47 February 15.85 10.79 5.06 14.00 70.84 0.00 20.30 20.30 March 19.62 13.34 6.28 3.00 18.84 0.00 22.47 22.47 April 17.87 8.64 9.23 18.00 166.14 187.35 18.40 205.75 May 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 406.95 19.02 425.97 June 4.44 0.70 3.74 17.00 63.58 299.97 18.40 318.37 July 4.59 0.70 3.89 27.00 105.03 21.78 14.32 36.41 August 4.58 0.70 3.88 31.00 120.28 0.00 14.49 14.49 Septembe r 33.12 10.39 22.73 14.00 318.22 251.46 14.02 265.48 October 34.60 16.76 17.84 5.00 89.20 355.61 22.22 377.82 November 17.86 12.16 5.70 27.00 153.90 13.46 21.75 35.21 December 15.69 10.69 5.00 19.00 95.00 0.00 22.47 22.47 Total Mitigation Needed and Available 1,216.03 1,767.21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 33 Conservation Plan Update filled by a temporary assignment of water rights from a groundwater source; and, water that was committed (but has not been used) to privately owned food processor’s for an additional 1.5 cfs (total 6.4 cfs). Combining the previous deficit with the population and system demand growth occurring over the last 4 years, the city has already utilized their initial 2.5 cfs as an integral part of the existing and new water rights. They continue to manage their individual water rights to minimize use of the Quad Cities water and impacts to the instream flow control objectives on the Columbia River. The following outlines the City’s strategy to managing water rights: • Process Water Reuse Facility: The City of Pasco owns farm land that was irrigated using permitted ground water in hydraulic continuity with the Columbia River. The strategy for the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) is to provide vegetable food processors with treated Columbia River water then spray the wastewater from the food processor onto the farm land with no net increase to the collective water rights used prior to the PWRF being constructed. • Residential Outdoor Irrigation: Much of the residential growth in the City is on farm land that is irrigated with permitted groundwater. The strategy is to keep the ground water right with each subdivision to be used for outdoor watering through a separate irrigation system and keeping the impact on the Columbia River water rights to a minimum for indoor use. • Conservation Program: The City has historically supported water conservation and has implemented conservation measures. The strategy is to fulfill the commitment in the Quad Cities water right permit. Richland Richland has completed a significant system leak elimination program by replacing approximately 82 miles of thin-wall steel distribution mains at a cost of $27 million. The City’s plan for the use of the 2.5 cfs has been to integrate this water right into the matrix of water rights used for its potable water treatment and delivery system. The City also delivers untreated water for landscape irrigation to areas within its boundary and has entered into a partnership with the Badger Mountain Irrigation District for delivery of untreated landscape irrigation water to a specific area within both the City and District boundaries. These untreated systems optimize use of treatment and delivery systems. Changes to several water rights points of withdrawal may be necessary to make optimal use of available resources and to manage mitigation requirements. The distribution system repairs have been a major focus for the City and have been in addition to the conservation program elements specified in the Settlement Agreement. To implement an element of the regional water supply approach envisioned in the Quad- Cities Permit the City entered into a wholesale water supply agreement with the City of West Richland to treat and deliver water authorized for West Richland diversion under the Quad Cities Water Right through Richland’s existing Water Treatment Plant and an expanded transmission system. This agreement allows West Richland to access their initial 2.5 cfs increment of the Quad Cities Water Rights and to select the most cost effective and energy efficient pumping system to deliver their domestic water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 34 Conservation Plan Update The City is seeking some of the water right changes that they anticipated through the Settlement Agreement to implement the most efficient delivery for the water. Specifically, permitting of south Richland ground water rights included in the Settlement Agreement will defer Columbia River diversions while allowing Richland to select the most cost-effective water delivery to development occurring at remote points in its water distribution system. West Richland West Richland was also water right deficient at the time of the Settlement Agreement. The City anticipated changes and issuance of water rights listed in the Settlement Agreement that would have allowed them to access Quad Cities water through their existing ground water sources. Ecology has not yet completed those transactions, making it necessary for West Richland to immediately proceed with the Richland intertie and use of their 2.5 cfs surface water rights to meet the instantaneous demands in their system. The reality of system hydraulics have not allowed the City to maximize the use of existing ground water sources and the intertie has been used over the last two years to meet increasing demands. With the continued growth of the city, and the previous reliance on groundwater for both domestic and irrigation needs, the city continues to seek to provide hydraulic capacity at the least cost to their system customers to meet the urbanizing water needs while also implementing a stringent conservation program to curb demand. Under their conservation efforts, the city has substantially reduced their unaccounted for water and improved to the overall water management strategy. 4.3 Allocation of QCWR through 2013 Table 4-3 identifies the allocation of the 10 cfs of Ecology provided mitigated water to the four Cities. The Table also provides the Cities’ projected use of the QCWR in 2007, 2013, and 2027, to meet local needs. As shown in the Table, at the end of 2007, 5.4 cfs of the QCWR is used by the Cities. In 2013, it is projected that 12.3 cfs will be used by Pasco and West Richland, if water use were analyzed on an individual city basis. However, if the Cities’ water use is analyzed looking at the four cities as a whole, it is projected that the four cities will use 10.02 cfs of the QCWR in 2013. This reduction of 2.28 cfs is accounted by the 0.41 cfs mitigation credit obtained by the City of Kennewick (see Section 4.4), the 0.57 cfs mitigation credit obtained by the City of Richland (see Section 4.4) and timing on the use of the 1.3 cfs from the City of West Richland. In conclusion, the four cities will manage the QCWR collectively, and will not have any new mitigation requirements through 2013. This is particularly true when the Quad Cities’ net consumptive use is considered. To ensure compliance with Permit Condition E the Cities will continue to track compliance as described in Appendix B . Analysis of daily instream flow conditions at The Dalles Dam will indicate the number of days during each month when diversions must be curtailed or mitigated. The Cities will review diversion amounts under both S4-30976 and their other water rights to determine if mitigation is required during the month, and if applicable, whether the existing mitigation in place is adequate to mitigate diversions. In the fall of each year, no later than October 31, the Cities will convene to review year-to- date compliance status and project the estimated compliance status of the year in total. If the fall review indicates that year-end compliance is unlikely, the Cities will modify operational strategies as needed and consult with Ecology to discuss short-term mitigation opportunities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 35 Conservation Plan Update QCWR used (4 (6 (7 (1 (5 (3 (2 Kennewick Pasco Richland West Rich. Totals Initial QCWR allocation (cfs) 2.5 2. 2. 2. 1 (cfs) 16. 17. 30. 3. 67. (ac- 11,70 12,860 21,93 2,57 49,078 (cfs) - 4. 0. 0. 5.4 (ac- - 3,20 57 19 3,45 (cfs) 19. 23. 36. 4. 84. (ac- 13,85 17,248 26,76 3,25 61,121 (cfs) - 10. 0. 1. 12. (ac- - 7,58 20 30 8,10 (cfs) 29. 35. 44. 6. 115. (ac- 21,21 25,355 32,43 4,90 83,902 (cfs) 7.2 21. 2. 1. 32. (ac- 5,21 15,696 82 30 22,034 Available Qa Water Rights Pre-2005 Water (ac- 16,00 7,84 56,94 4,96 85,751 "Hole" Water (ac- - 1,81 - - 1,81 Initial QCWR Allocation (ac- 1,81 1,81 1,81 1,81 Remainder of QCWR (ac- QCWR mitigation credit beyond initial 10 cfs allocation (cfs) 0.4 - 0.5 - 0.9 (ac- 29 - 41 - 71 Note 1. 2. 3 4 5 6 7 The City of Richland is using part of their initial 2.5 cfs allotment of the QCWR to provide irrigation water to BMID in order serve developable land along the Keene Rd. corridor in South Richland that was not previously being served by BMID and was designated as non-irrigable within the KID boundary. The land area is 391 acres per tech memo "South Richland Irrigation Service Options Analysis" (EES, 2004). Using accepted irrigation projections from the "Tri-Cities Urban Area Landscape Irrigation Plan" (HDR/EES 2006), this table estimates current water use at 7% of the potential max for complete build out. 2013 and 2027 projections are estimated based on 25% and 100% respectively. Because the water is used for irrigation, the period of use is 6 months and the cfs amount have been adjusted accordingly. Mitigation credit for QCWR water beyond initial 10 cfs QCWR allocation provided by City of Kennewick's contribution towards its ASR project. The project expects to provide 100 ac-ft of mitigation water as a contribution by the City. With a calculated 34% annual consumptive use for the City of Kennewick, this equates to approximately 298 ac-yr of available water for use. Thi mitigation is discussed further in Section 4.4. Mitigation credit for QCWR water beyond initial 10 cfs QCWR allocation provided by City of Richland's contribution towards its Amon Creek habitat project. As discussed in section 4.4, the value contributed by the City equates to 180 ac-ft of mitigation water. With a calculated 43% annual consumptive use for the City of Richland, the Amon Creek Habitat project provides mitigation for approximately 414 ac-ft of water. 2027 City Demand QCWR used Prior to the approval of various supplemental water rights applications filed by the City of West Richland to Ecology, the City's water system was limited by the Qi constraints on individual wells. To meet peaking demands, these individual well constraints required the City to access QCWR water through its intertie with the City of Richland. In 2007, an average of 0.8 cfs was withdrawn through the intertie for four months (May - August). With approval of the City's supplement water rights applications by Ecology (Aug. 2007), the City's water system can now support the 20-yr demand projection without the need for the City of Richland intertie. However, prior to the approval of the supplemental rights, the City entered into an agreement with Richland to purchase a minimum of 100 MG per year. It is assumed that into the future, the City will take the 100 MG (307 ac-ft) over a four month period similar to 2007 and will be managed to optimize operations, system need, and impacts to the river system. The 12.3 cfs appears to show that the Quad Cities exceed the 10.0 cfs initial allocation and tapping into QCWR that require mitigation for use. However, based on a coordinated operational strategy amongst the four cities, there are opportunities to avoid using QCWR water requiring mitigation. These strategies include timing on the use of the 1.3 cfs from the City of West Richland and sharing mitigation credit for QCWR water between the four cities. The water right has been reduced by 200 ac-ft to account for the anticipated City of Kennewick ASR funding agreement with Ecology to transfer 200 ac-ft of its inchoate water rights in exchange for state funding on the water storage project. At the time of the QCWR settlement, the City of Pasco was in a water rights deficit of 2.5 cfs (in the "hole"). In addition to the 10 cfs initial allocation of the QCWR, Ecology agreed to consider the hole filled upon settlement of the QCWR and its issuance. Table 4-3 Quad Cities 20-year QCWR Forecast 96,619 City Demand QCWR used 89,[PHONE REDACTED] City Demand ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 36 Conservation Plan Update 4.4 Explanation of Mitigation Calculations City of Richland The City of Richland has participated in a habitat conservation project in the Amon Creek basin that directly affects waters within the McNary pool and Quad Cities Water Right. The project consisted of purchasing and preserving 60 acres of stream and riparian habitat in the west fork of the Amon Creek through a partnership with the Tapteal Greenway Association, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). This successful project not only satisfied mitigation commitments for WSDOT, through their contribution, for the SR-240 causeway project, but also serves to provide mitigation for future water use under the QCWR for the City of Richland’s monetary contribution to the project. The contribution by the City was $180,000 to purchase land in order to preserve portions of open space. The conservation project enhances the quality of life for Richland residents and protects sensitive habitat. In an on-going study by HDR outside of this update, the costs of water rights purchases have been studied along the West Coast (California, Washington, and Oregon) since 2004. This independent study shows that the cost of a water right is an indicator of the consumers “willingness to pay” for water supply. The study focused on transactions where a public, municipal water system was the purchaser and excluded larger federal projects. The approach has been accepted by the stakeholders involved the study and is anticipated to be adopted and published fall of 2008. According to the study, the median price of the water rights transactions studied was $1,000 per ac-ft of annual supply. Half of the transactions had prices between $860 and $2,000 (indicated by the range from the 25th to 75th percentiles). The extreme values were $300 on the low side and $5,025 on the high side, per ac-ft of annual supply. Using the median price of $1,000 per ac-ft of annual supply, the City of Richland’s $180,000 purchase would equal 180 ac-ft of annual water supply. The QCWR mitigation requirement is based on the water consumed by the City of Richland that has been calculated as 43.5 percent (see Table 3-3 in Section 3.3.1). Therefore, the 180 ac-ft of mitigation water purchased by the City of Richland would equal 414 ac-ft of annual water supply. City of Kennewick Per the Agreement between Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the City of Kennewick (Kennewick), Ecology will obtain funding from the Columbia River Management Program (CRMP) towards Kennewick’s ASR project to provide additional water storage along the Columbia River to capture water during high flow periods in the river and reduce water need during low flow periods in order to enhance in-stream flows for endangered and protected species. Money contributed towards Kennewick’s ASR project will also serve to partially mitigate Kennewick’s portion of the initial increment (2.5cfs of the initial 10cfs) of the QCWR that Ecology is responsible for mitigation. Per agreement of the Quad-Cities, this first 10-cfs increment would be shared equally amongst its members, i.e. 2.5 cfs per City, of which 2.0 cfs (or 80 percent) was considered in the settlement, without further study, to be consumptive use. The amount of mitigation provided by the project from Ecology will depend on the amount of water recovered from ASR and the total amount of the ASR project costs paid for by Ecology. As part of the agreement with Ecology, the City of Kennewick would need to transfer a portion of its perfected water right (pre June 24, 1980) into the Washington State Water ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 37 Conservation Plan Update Trust account. Kennewick would need to transfer a portion of their water right that is proportionate to the amount of CRMP funding used for the ASR pilot study and ASR project, multiplied by the amount of consumptive water from the aquifer. For example, consider an ASR project where Kennewick stores and later recovers 300 ac-ft of water for consumptive use and which costs $3 million, of which Ecology pays $2 million (two-thirds), then Kennewick would transfer 200 ac-ft (or two-thirds of the water recovered) of its perfected (inchoate) water right into the State Water Trust account to compensate CRMP for its funding of the ASR project. In this example, by Kennewick transferring the 200 ac-ft of water right into the State Water Trust account, Ecology will have fulfilled approximately 14 percent of their 1810 ac-ft (2.5 cfs) Kennewick portion of the 10 cfs initial increment of Quad-City water. 200 ac-ft contributes mitigation of 250 ac-ft of annual water right (200 ac-ft / 80% assumed consumption). 250 ac-ft is approximately 14 percent of 1810 ac-ft. Ecology would still be obligated to fulfill the remaining 1560 acre-feet for Kennewick, plus any additional amount of the initial Quad-Cities 7277 acre-feet (10 cfs) increment that remains unmitigated by Ecology. The one-third of ASR water remaining from the project (100 acre-feet), from the 1/3 monetary contribution by the City of Kennewick, would then be used by Kennewick towards mitigation credit of Quad-City water beyond the first 7277 acre-feet (10 cfs) increment. Per this report, the net consumptive use of the City of Kennewick is approximately 34 percent (see Table 3-3 in section 3.3.1). 100 ac-ft of mitigation water provided by the City of Kennewick in its ASR project would equal approximately 298 ac-ft of annual water supply. The water right Kennewick transfers into the State Water Trust account would be managed by Ecology, with 1/3 used to benefit instream flow and 2/3 for out-of-stream benefits. Per the Agreement, Ecology plans to use this 2/3 to further mitigate the first 10 cfs obligation for the Quad-Cities Permit. 4.5 BiOp Compliance Plan As shown in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5, the Quad Cities mitigation needs in the next 5 years can be met by Ecology processing the remaining settlement mitigation requirements through the Columbia River Program. To meet the projected needs of 10, 456 as-ft through 2027, as shown in Table 4-5, the Quad Cities believe Lake Roosevelt water can be used to meet demand. If Ecology fails to issue the remaining mitigation requirements from Lake Roosevelt water, it is likely a low run-off year will result in non-compliance of the BiOp. Through this the Quad Cities remains committed to working with Ecology to develop alternate sources of water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 38 Conservation Plan Update Table 4-4 2013 Future Mitigation Requirements ( Ac-Ft) Month Diverte d Return Flow Differenc e Days to be Mitigated Ac-Ft to be Mitigated Available Mitigation Additional Mitigation Required Buckle y Byerly Total January 21.90 15.12 6.78 14.00 94.92 0.00 22.47 22.47 72.45 February 21.93 15.14 6.79 15.00 101.85 0.00 20.30 20.30 81.55 March 22.17 15.35 6.82 28.00 190.96 0.00 22.47 22.47 168.49 April 23.02 11.37 11.65 30.00 349.50 187.35 18.40 205.75 143.75 May 24.00 8.21 15.79 31.00 489.49 406.95 19.02 425.97 63.52 June 29.56 9.26 20.30 30.00 609.00 299.97 18.40 318.37 290.63 July 30.58 9.61 20.97 31.00 650.07 21.78 14.32 36.41 613.66 August 30.34 9.52 20.82 31.00 645.42 0.00 14.49 14.49 630.93 Septembe r 29.41 9.19 20.22 16.00 323.52 251.46 14.02 265.48 58.04 October 23.04 11.38 11.66 16.00 186.56 355.61 22.22 377.82 0.00 November 21.99 15.19 6.80 27.00 183.60 13.46 21.75 35.21 148.39 December 21.93 14.94 6.99 24.00 167.76 0.00 22.47 22.47 145.29 Total Mitigation Needed and Available 3,992.65 1,767.2 1 2,225.44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 39 Conservation Plan Update Table 4-5 2027 Future Mitigation Requirements (Ac-Ft) Month Diverte d Retur n Flow Differenc e Days to be Mitigated Ac-Ft to be Mitigated Available Mitigation Additional Mitigation Required Buckle y Byerly Total January 51.28 36.41 14.87 14.00 208.18 0.00 22.47 22.47 185.71 February 51.49 36.59 14.90 15.00 223.50 0.00 20.30 20.30 203.20 March 52.83 37.77 15.06 28.00 421.68 0.00 22.47 22.47 399.21 April 58.44 29.69 28.75 30.00 862.50 187.35 18.40 205.75 656.75 May 63.97 22.52 41.45 31.00 1,284.95 406.95 19.02 425.97 858.98 June 82.12 26.26 55.86 30.00 1,675.80 299.97 18.40 318.37 1,357.43 July 87.74 28.28 59.46 31.00 1,843.26 21.78 14.32 36.41 1,806.85 August 86.16 27.68 58.48 31.00 1,812.88 0.00 14.49 14.49 1,798.39 Septembe r 81.04 25.83 55.21 16.00 883.36 251.46 14.02 265.48 617.88 October 61.06 31.16 29.90 16.00 478.40 355.61 22.22 377.82 100.58 November 51.91 36.95 14.96 27.00 403.92 13.46 21.75 35.21 368.71 December 51.49 36.59 14.90 24.00 357.60 0.00 22.47 22.47 335.13 Total Mitigation Needed and Available 10,456.0 3 1,767.2 1 8,688.82 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2008 Regional Water Forecast and 40 Conservation Plan Update 5.0 References Benton County. 2008. Draft Benton County Comprehensive Plan. Item 4-0 of the Chapter Four Appendix. City of Kennewick. 2008. Annual Water Conservation Summary Report for 2007. City of Pasco. 2008. Draft City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan: Volumes I and II. City of Richland. 2006. 2006 Annual Water Conservation Summary Report. City of West Richland. 2008. City of West Richland Domestic Water Summary. DOH (Department of Health). 2007. Water Use Efficiency Guidebook. DOH Pub. #331- 375. HDR/EES. 2006. Tri-Cities Urban Area Landscape Irrigation Plan. Prepared for Pasco, Kennewick, Richland, West Richland, Badger Mountain Irrigation District, Kennewick Irrigation District, Columbia Irrigation District, and Franklin County Irrigation District OFM (Office of Financial Management) Forecasting Division. 2007. April 1 Population of Cities, Towns, and Counties Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues: State of Washington. ---PAGE BREAK---