Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, Susie Smith, Patrick Lanning, and Sandra Bishop.
Others present: Randy Berggren, JoAnn Andersen, Deborrah Brewer, Jay Bozievich, Tom Buckhouse, Marty Douglass, Mel Damewood, Dick Helgeson, Steve Hill, Roseanna McArthur, Mat Northway, Jim Origliosso, Jim Wiley, John Yanov, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; and Kris Aanderud, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder.
President Anderson called the work session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) order.
WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT/CONSERVATION UPDATE
Dick Helgeson, Water & Steam Division Director, introduced the Water Demand Management/Conservation update, which he characterized as both a programmatic and communication strategy. The Board will be asked to adopt the water shortage contingency plan in the near future. Feedback was requested on the proposed conservation plans for large EWEB customers.
A. Conservation Program Status
Stephen West, Water Management Services Supervisor, outlined the campaign for conservation. He noted three objectives of the program: 1) to raise awareness of decreased availability of water and resulting need for conservation, 2) to provide specific tools for water conservation, and 3) prepare EWEB for emergency communications should the situation become more serious. Mr. West reviewed the planning document (Attachment 1), a copy of which was provided to Commissioners. Mr. West noted that two additional intern positions have been added to assist in the home water audit program.
Vice President Bartel asked what has been done with the School District. Mr. West said that they have been offered the maxi-com program; that they have made efficiency improvements, but significant conservation efforts have been slow. He noted that the district's bond funds are dedicated for the upgrade of existing facilities, which means the district asserts that there are no funds available.
Mr. Helgeson added that, in response to the low water conditions, normal maintenance activities, like flushing mains to maintain the water quality, have been curbed when deemed discretionary. Some of the activities will be rescheduled for later in the year. He estimated that this will save 500,000 gallons of water over the course of the summer.
President Anderson asked if the fountain would be off all summer. Mr. Helgeson said it would be off, but was off for both energy and water conservation purposes. Mr. West said that in 1995-1996, there was work done on the fountain to reduce the water flow. However, because children play in the fountain, there was a need keep the water clean and free from bacteria. In addition, evaporation also uses significant amounts of water. Mr. Helgeson said that the public perception was important and that efforts by EWEB to show conservation would help customers see the need to conserve as well. Mr. West said that a sign was posted to show that it was off for energy related purposes.
Commissioner Smith suggested that the signage include verbiage that the fountain was off for both water and energy conservation.
B. Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Mel Damewood, Water Engineering Manager, gave an overview of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. He said that the goal of tonight's meeting was to: 1) describe supply shortages and the system response to shortages, 2) confirm EWEB's role and responsibility to maintain water service for health and safety versus economic reasons and livability, 3) to establish clear policy directives when it comes to voluntary or mandatory curtailment and 4) to review the proposed plan and schedule for adoption in June 2001. The need for the plan includes: 1) appropriate actions to be taken in the event of a system failure, natural disaster or other emergency, 2) drought management plans will be required if drought declaration is issued, and 3) need contingency and conservation plans for renewal of water right permits.
Mr. Damewood outlined the project scope:
Mr. Helgeson noted that this plan would have given the utility more flexibility and guidance during the flood of 1996.
Mr. Damewood continued to review the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, specifically addressing Water Supply Shortage Scenarios (including Table 1 on page 8).
Jay Bozievich, Project Engineer, reviewed the System Performance During Potential Supply Shortage Events and Stages for Supply Shortage Events. He used color graphics in a computer generated presentation to demonstrate his points.
Vice President Bartel asked if the models assumed that customers continued with their normal usage. Mr. Bozievich said that the base case scenarios did not include reductions for conservation efforts by customers.
Mr. Helgeson said that the purpose of the baseline scenarios was to establish potential time frame references and Trigger Points for Stage of Shortage (Figure 6), noting when various alert stages must be issued and how long it would take to bring the system back up, including confirmation of clean water (bacteria free) flowing to customers.
Commissioner Sandra Bishop arrived at 6:30 p.m.
Vice President Bartel asked what the result would be if multiple events happen at one time. Mr. Damewood said that all situations can be distilled into terms if demand exceeds supply, when the demand exceeded the supply, with no estimated time to recovery, then a decision will have to be made regarding the declaration of an alert. He said that the critical component was the time to recovery. Mr. Helgeson added that recovery might happen very quickly, but that projected deficit rates would determine if an emergency alert was deemed immediately necessary. Mr. Helgeson said that the extensiveness of the event or multiple events would boil down to a deficit rate and what level or stage must be called.
Commissioner Smith noted that the reservoir project was ready to begin. Mr. Bozievich said that the graphs show the trigger points and the decision makers will determine the time to recovery. He showed a chart which showed that demand deficits at Hayden Bridge Plant occur during certain hours on a daily basis. During a more extended deficit, the amount of base level storage would be used to determine the need for advisory stages.
Commissioner Smith asked if the deficit necessitated a draw from the reservoirs. Mr. Bozievich continued that this would be the case.
Commissioner Lanning asked if the morning and evening irrigation strategies are used in the models. Mr. Bozievich responded that system demand was needed in the aggregate, but that specific end uses or locations were not included in the modeling. Mr. Helgeson said that the tools can be used in more discrete circumstances to demonstrate problems within smaller areas or neighborhoods.
Mr. Bozievich reviewed the three alarm levels and the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, as outlined in Table 2:
Commissioner Lanning asked if the usage during each of the alarm levels remains the same. Mr. West said no, that we would expect to see the effect of voluntary or mandatory curtailment as an event progressed in response to EWEB communications.
Mr. West continued with the computer assisted presentation, reviewing Demand Management Opportunities. He said that in the research, many conservation practices were noted. Ordinances and policies were in place to assist in the curtailment of water use. Legal counsel has been consulted to clarify EWEB's responsibility and liability. Mr. West broke out essential versus nonessential uses of water. He also reviewed Table 3, curtailment opportunities by seasons. He said that the goal of demand management was to maintain system integrity and critical service availability.
Mr. West reviewed the Strategic Response Plan, as outlined in the Water Supply Shortage Contingency Plan (page 16). He noted that the trigger points demonstrate graphically the various stages of shortage. Each stage of the plan includes external and internal communication, operations activities, demand management/curtailment programs, actions by other City and County agencies, exemptions and enforcement.
Commissioner Smith asked how the Emergency Broadcasting System would be used. Mr. West said that the emergency media system would be utilized. Commissioner Smith suggested that the CENNS program might be appropriate.
President Anderson asked if a building moratorium might be considered. Mr. West said that legal counsel has said that new customers can be treated differently. Mr. Helgeson said that the reality was that the time frame, in an emergency, was so short, that a moratorium on hookups would not be a very effective approach. New hook-ups could be delayed. Mr. West said that there may be some impacts on construction.
Mr. West reviewed the action plan and next steps included in the Water Supply Shortage Contingency Plan. He noted that a June adoption of the plan was requested.
Vice President Bartel asked how the draft plan would be distributed to the public. Mr. Helgeson said that staff was open to suggestions. He said that the accelerated process seemed important given the current energy and water shortages. He said that if the Commissioners wanted to include a public review period, the time frame may need to be extended. He added that the public feedback would provide useful information.
Vice President Bartel said that the plan generally looks good, but expressed concern that there be an opportunity for some review. He suggested that the draft be sent to an interested parties list. Mr. Helgeson said that one scenario might be to have a final draft for the Commissioner's review at the June meeting, with the potential to adopt the plan as an interim plan. This would allow for a public comment period, prior to final adoption.
Commissioner Smith said that there were several policy issues and questions which were raised. She said that while the plan was a good background, she would like to have policy issues and questions brought to the Commissioners for consideration.
President Anderson said that she liked the suggestion to adopt an interim plan, to allow procedures to be in place.
Commissioner Smith said that she felt it was important to look further at the policy issues. Vice President Bartel concurred. He said that staff did an amazing job, but that it was a huge plan. He commented that because this was such a big plan, that it was important to have more people look at the draft plan. Mr. Damewood said that the draft plan was scheduled to be distributed to other agencies in June, in an effort to get intergovernmental agreements in place. He added that the urgency of the situation had accelerated the project.
Mr. Helgeson said that the process could be redesigned, where action could be delayed until fall so that a public review process can be included.
Ms. Bishop flagged four issues which she felt were important policy decisions for the EWEB Board to address: 1) preplanning or policy was better than a reactive mode, 2) how will the health and safety hierarchy be determined, 3) establish an appeals process or be specific if no appeal is available and 4) clarification of more specific enforcement actions. She asked if there was any way to identify specific customers who are not complying with conservation and reduction requests under the pre-emergency or alert situation. Mr. Damewood said that neighbors are often the most common resources to report those who do not comply. Commissioner Bishop said that she concurred that an interim plan was important. Commissioner Lanning concurred.
Commissioner Smith said that she felt that the policy discussion was important before an interim plan was adopted. Mr. Berggren summarized the Board's direction, stating that the Board should hold a policy decisions meeting, after which it may be able to adopt an interim plan. Mr. Berggren noted that staff would highlight important policy decisions which the Board should address. After the policy discussion, the Board may be willing to act on an interim plan, but that a public outreach process should also be developed before the master plan or final adoption was taken. Commissioner Smith said that there may be some short-term notification needed before the interim plan was adopted.
Mr. Helgeson explained that the reason this contingency plan was moved up on the timeline was that currently there were no formal plans in place to guide staff, in the case of an emergency.
Vice President Bartel said that while Eugene may not be in the emergency stage, surrounding areas are considered in the emergency stage. He asked how close EWEB was to being in an emergency stage. Mr. Helgeson said that EWEB was not likely to be placed in an emergency situation, but would be emphasizing conservation. With current projections, it was not anticipated that the Governor would act for a general state of emergency, but would consider county by county requests. He said that if circumstances change, the Governor's response could change accordingly.
Vice President Bartel asked what the trigger would be for EWEB to demand curtailment. Mr. Helgeson said that EWEB was not anticipating flows to be so low that curtailment would be necessary. He said that the Board may take action to encourage conservation or curtailment.
Vice President Bartel said that having a plan in place was important, but the real call was that if the Governor was not willing to take action, then the Board has to set the level of tolerance. He said that the Board has to have a discussion on what triggers the call for curtailment.
Commissioner Bishop said that she feels a sense of urgency, that she did not want to be involved in an additional long and drawn out public process. She noted that there has been extensive public involvement in the water resource plan group. She said that she appreciated the desire to have public involvement, but that she wanted to see the plan move forward fairly quickly.
Commissioner Lanning asked if the policies and recommended process could be brought back to the June meeting. Mr. Helgeson said that this was his intent. He encouraged members to bring policy issues to staff, to ensure that all the policy questions were identified.
C. Conservation Plans for Large Customers
This item was postponed due to lack of time.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President