~ Water Resources Association ~

Water Resource Associations of the Delaware River Basin

Fall '06

Water Transfer and Water Accountability White Paper Recommendations are Given Go-ahead by DRBC

DRBC WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The recommendations in the two white papers below were given the go-ahead to proceed at the September 27, 2006 Commissioner's Meeting. A summary of the papers and recommendations were presented by Robert Molzahn, Prresident of the WRADRB at the meeting.

Water Transfers Subcommittee
Position Statement on Commission Review of
Inter-Basin and Inter-Watershed Transfers of Water (This is the complete white-paper)

Background
At the DRBC Water Management Advisory Committee’s (WMAC) July 8, 2005 meeting, the committee voted to establish a subcommittee to examine the issues of inter-basin and inter-watershed transfers. The impetus for this was the need to address objectives 1.1.C – 1.1.F of the Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin (Basin Plan).
This position statement, developed by the subcommittee, reflects the outcome of discussion at the three subcommittee meetings. It contains a brief summary of key conclusions and recommendations for addressing Basin Plan objectives 1.1.C – 1.1.F and identifies proposed next steps.
Three products were developed by DRBC staff to support the committee’s discussions.
1) a map and listing of inter-basin transfers
2) a summary of initiatives by other states and agencies relative to inter-basin transfers
3) a presentation (MS PowerPoint file) by Project Review staff summarizing current project review criteria for projects with and without inter-basin transfers.
A review of the 21 existing interbasin transfers revealed that, with the exception of the three largest (New York City, New Jersey Water Supply Authority Delaware & Raritan Canal, and Chester Water Authority), the sum of imports and exports equates to a net export of approximately 3.9 million gallons per day (mgd). Many of these transfers are public water supply projects with service areas that straddle the Basin boundary. A review of transfer policies from other states revealed that, in order for a project to be considered a transfer, some states designate that water must be transferred across both a hydrologic and political (e.g., municipal) boundary and/or it must be of a minimum magnitude. Such a policy for DRBC would eliminate many projects that are currently considered interbasin transfers. A similar analysis of transfers at the watershed scale is not feasible due to the extensive effort that would be required to track such projects and the wide range of watershed scales that exist within the Basin.
Findings and Recommendations
The four Basin Plan objectives 1.1.C – 1.1.F speak to transfers at the basin and watershed scale, addressing new and expanded projects separately from those already existing. The subcommittee initially looked towards defining the criteria that are necessary to more effectively evaluate the different types of transfers. DRBC Project Review staff gave a presentation to explain how projects involving transfers and projects not involving transfers are currently evaluated, and discussed with the subcommittee the level of effort involved in various options of additional review responsibilities. Staff provided to the subcommittee best available information on and an inventory of existing inter-basin transfers. Staff also researched and provided to the subcommittee information on policies and regulations of other states and agencies regarding inter-basin transfers. Based on consideration of the information provided by staff and extensive discussions, the subcommittee concluded the following:
1) Any withdrawal / discharge creates an impact of some degree on the source and destination watershed(s), even if both are the same watershed.
2) The destination of the water withdrawn (e.g., localized return, exportation or high consumptive loss) and the type of use will determine the degree of impact to the source and destination watershed(s)
3) It is likely a more effective and feasible approach to evaluate all projects using one “standard” rather than establishing a separate standard for transfer projects. .
Based on these findings, the subcommittee recommends the following:
1) The standard should address the site specific and cumulative impact(s) of the proposed project, to protect the hydrologic and biologic integrity of the source and receiving watershed(s) in a manner consistent with the Basin Plan.
2) Initiatives are underway within DRBC to explore new or additional methods and criteria for evaluating the potential impact of proposed projects. Examples include the PA cold-water instream flow methods and other methods being investigated by the Subcommittee on Ecological Flows (SEF), among others. These and similar efforts should be relied upon by the Commission to develop a uniform “standard” for project review.
3) To the extent that scientific evidence is available, the project review process should consider differences between surface and ground water divides.
In summary, in response to Objectives 1.1.C - 1.1.F of the Basin Plan, it is the recommendation of this subcommittee that the Commission adopt one standard for review of all projects as described above.
Next Steps
The subcommittee hereby presents this position statement to the WMAC as the conclusion of the subcommittee’s efforts. It is recommended that:
· These recommendations be considered by the WMAC for approval and forwarded to the DRBC Commissioners for their consideration and approval.
· DRBC staff continue working with the appropriate entities to establish review criteria from ongoing initiatives, and consolidate the outcomes into a uniform set of project review standards, including standards for evaluation of the actual source of withdrawals in areas of disparate ground water and surface water divides.
· WMAC and staff review current regulations and policies and identify any appropriate changes
· Staff develop plan, timeframe and list of necessary tools and resources for implementation
.
Meetings
Meetings of the subcommittee took place on September 25th, 2005, October 24th, 2005, January 19th, 2006 and May 9th, 2006. The following individuals participated in one or more of the meetings:

Members
Jan Bowers (Chair) Chester County Water Resources Authority
Bob Molzahn Delaware River Basin Water Resources Association
Bill Gast PA Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Miri NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Bruno Mercuri Mercuri & Associates, Inc.
Mary Ellen Noble Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Ron Sloto US Geological Survey
Joe Hochreiter Senior Environmental Consulting LLC, (for Builders League of South Jersey)
Senobar Safafar NYC Department of Environmental Protection

DRBC Staff
David Sayers Planning and Implementation Branch
Ken Najjar Head, Planning and Implementation Branch
Jessica Sanchez Planning and Implementation Branch
Bill Muszynski Head, Project Review Branch
Anthony Bonasera Project Review Branch
Carol Collier Executive Director
Bob Tudor Deputy Executive Director

DRBC WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Water Accountability Subcommittee
Position Statement

Background / History
On May 25, 2004 the DRBC Water Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) established a subcommittee to investigate the issue of water loss and water accountability in light of new methods proposed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the International Water Association (IWA). The subcommittee met on four occasions to review the Commission’s current policies related to water loss and water accountability and to discuss the new methods. The DRBC’s current policies are based on the concept of “unaccounted for water” which is no longer considered best practice. The new methods are based upon more precise definitions and more rational accounting procedures which will result in a clearer understanding of the nature of water losses and allow for easier targeting of improvements, thus lowering system water demands with subsequent benefits to the water resources of the Basin.

On March 16, 2005 a presentation was given to the DRBC Commissioners outlining the benefits of the new water accountability methods. In a brief discussion following the presentation, the Commissioners encouraged DRBC to keep up to date with developments on this topic and engage water purveyors in the Basin in a pilot study of water audit software based on the new accounting methods and led by the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee (WLCC).

Six water purveyors from the Delaware River Basin were identified to participate in the nationwide pilot study. Three of those six purveyors provided feedback to the AWWA. The comments and feedback provided to AWWA led to improvements in the software; DRBC staff participated on the AWWA WLCC and assisted in the development of the software. In March 2006, the software was approved by the AWWA WLCC and was posted on the AWWA website where it is available free to all users. Links to the software are hosted on the DRBC website.

Findings
The subcommittee determined that the AWWA/IWA water accountability method represents an improvement to the Commission’s current practices and can lead to multiple benefits for stakeholders. These benefits are described below:

For the DRBC and State Agencies the AWWA/IWA methods will:

· Improve upon the traditional approach to identifying “unaccounted for water” which is hindered by a lack of standardized terminology and lack of a rigid water audit structure.
· Provide a rational water audit structure to identifying water losses and improving water supply system efficiency.
· Provide meaningful performance indicators to help identify systems with the greatest losses.
· Contribute towards achieving objective 1.3.C of the Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin (ensuring maximum feasible efficiency of water use)

For the water resources of the Delaware River Basin the AWWA/IWA methods will:

· Identify ways to improve water supply efficiency thereby reducing water withdrawals that have no beneficial end use.
· Help to target efforts to reduce the estimated 150 million gallons per day which is physically lost from public water supply distribution systems in the Basin

For water purveyors in the Delaware River Basin the AWWA/IWA methods will:

· Help utility managers better understand their system.
· Enhance utility revenues by enabling utility managers to determine lost revenues due to apparent losses such as theft of service, unbilled connections, meter discrepancies and data errors which can significantly reduce revenues.
· Help utility managers identify real losses (such as leakage) which wastes treated and pressurized water and increases operating costs. Significant real losses indicate opportunity for improved asset management which can reduce the utility vulnerability to disruptive main bursts, service disruptions and water quality incidents.

Recommendations:
Based on the above findings the subcommittee proposes the following recommendations and next steps:
· The DRBC continue to promote the use of the AWWA/IWA water accountability methods by water purveyors in the Delaware River Basin by hosting information on its website and through other outreach methods.
· The WMAC seek approval from the DRBC Commissioners to review and evaluate current DRBC resolutions which may be impacted by the new water accountability methods.
· The WMAC propose revisions, as appropriate, to the DRBC resolutions and project application forms and reporting requirements.
· The Commissioners approve revisions to DRBC resolutions and project application forms and reporting requirements.
· Upon approval of those revisions, the DRBC should implement the revised reporting requirements using a phased approach and using, to the extent practicable, the resources of the member states, through administrative agreements. For the first [three] years following changes to DRBC resolutions the AWWA/IWA method will be the preferred format; and thereafter it should be the required format.

The subcommittee hereby presents this position statement to the WMAC for approval and recommends that it be forwarded by WMAC to the DRBC Commissioners for their consideration.

DRBC Resolutions Related to Water Accountability Issues Include:

Leak Detection and Repair (Resolution No. 87-6 Revised).
- Water supply systems asked to enumerate unaccounted-for water
- Unaccounted for water is defined as the difference between the metered ratio and 100 percent. The metered ratio is the amount of water delivered through service meters divided by the amount of water entering the distribution system

Source Metering Recording and Reporting (Resolution No. 86-12)
- Requires metering, recording, and reporting of all water withdrawals in excess of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd)

Service Metering (Resolution No. 87-7 Revised)
- Water use shall be recorded or measured by mean of a metering device that conforms to the performance specifications of the American Water Works Association
- Purveyors shall adopt and implement a program for periodic maintenance, calibration and replacement of meters to ensure meter accuracy

Reporting Requirements (Resolution No. 2001-8)
- Unaccounted for water (defined as the amount of water entering the distribution system minus the amount of water delivered through service meters). Further breakdown of unaccounted for water can be provided For example, estimated fire hydrant use, other unmetered public uses and leakage losses

Meetings:
Meetings of the subcommittee took place on August 4, 2004; September 17, 2004; November 01, 2004 and June 1, 2006. The following individuals participated in one or more of the meetings:

Members:
Mary Ellen Noble (Chair) Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Bob Molzahn Delaware River Basin Water Resources Association
Bill Gast PA Department of Environmental Protection
Dave Jostenski PA Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Miri NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Stewart Lovell DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
George Kunkel Philadelphia Water Department (PWD)
Bruno Mercuri Mercuri & Associates, Inc.
Jerry Esposito Tidewater Utilities, Inc.
Rick Risolodi Middlesex Water

DRBC Staff:
David Sayers Planning and Implementation Branch
Ken Najjar Head, Planning and Implementation Branch
Jessica Sanchez Planning and Implementation Branch