Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater in New Millennium "As our population continues to grow and stresses on our water resources increase, it is becoming imperative that the various components of the water resources programs be unified in philosophy and action to represent a cohesive and effective vision of how to protect these vital resources into the future." -Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1999 Balancing the Needs of People and the Environment Contents Our Current Situation A Community Challenge The Natural Water Supply Public Water Supplies Current Supply and Demand The Future Situation Estimated Future Supply Projected Future Demand Projected Water Deficit Decision-making Altematives for New Water Supplies Who's in Charge Considerations Rethinking Our Use of Water Rethinking Our Philosophy of Water Reviewing Our Goals and Aspirations Appendices A. Determining Safe Yield B. Formation of the RWSA C. Water Rates D. Trends in Water Demand E. "Lost" water F. More on Ground Water 2 4 6 8 10 12 13 14 16 17 19 21 24 24 25 26 27 27 The community faces a challenge. A public system run by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) supplies water to all residents and businesses in the City of Charlottesville and those in Albemarle County's designated development areas. Numerous studies have warned that RWSA's sources of raw water will be insufficient to meet demand in the future. 1997 projections show demand exceeding supply. The latest estimates from RWSA's consulting firm show that by the year 2050 · water demand will reach 16-21 million gallons per day (mgd), · safe yield of water from existing facilities will be only 5 mgd, so · actual demand will exceed the safe-yield supply by 13-16 mgd. Who is responsible for addressing the projected water deficit? The responsibility lies with the RWSA, as it is their mandate to provide water to meet the public's demand. In the water supplier's decision-making, however, public participation is a required component of the permitting process for new water-supply facilities. It is also a desirable component of resource management within a community. This boo klet offers citizens basic information that is both pertinent to the evaluation process under way at the RWSA and necessary for informed decision-making on water issues in the new millennium. What is the public's role? As we go to press, we anticipate a televised public meeting on April 20, 1999 where the various alternatives for addressing projected water demands through the year 2050 will be presented by the RWSA's consultants. The 7:00 p.m. meeting will be held in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia and will be video-taped and televised again at a later date. Public input will be heard at the meeting and a~erward. A copy of the preliminary report describing the proposed list of water-supply alternatives will be made available by RWSA in advance of the meeting. Call 977-2970, extension 101. What has been done to provide for future public water supply? In the 1980's, a~er studying various ways to impound additional water, the RWSA purchased land and easements along Buck Mountain Creek for a new reservoir. In 1995, the RWSA's consulting firm, Black and Veatch produced an Urban Raw-Water Management Plan. · The plan indicated that local water demand could be expected to exceed supplies in the year 2015. · It recommended that "preliminary activities shou Id beg in immediately" for construction of a Buck Mountain Reservoir; the reservoir should be brought into service by 2012; and, design and construction should be under way by 2005. Thus, a process began; however, permits for new water collection systems are not a certainty. For guidance through the permitting maze, RWSA has hired the consulting firm of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) and its subcontractor O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. The Permitting Process The federal government has regulatory requirements intended to minimize environ- mental damage by water-resource developments. The steps entail acquisition of permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission and Departments of Environmental Quality and Conservation/Recreation, as well as reconsideration of all possible water supply alternatives and the effects of a water conservation program. Other Virginia municipalities seeking to develop water resources have spent up to ten years in this permitting process. If at any point a permit is denied, another source of water must be identified and the process started over again. In 1997, VHB/O'Brien and Gere produced two Raw Water Supply Facility Permitting Analyses---one for demand and one for supply. The reports, which are a required element of the permitting process, describe how the consultants arrived at their prediction for an impending water deficit. The next step, listing and re-analyzing all the supply possibilities, is under way. The proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir is now only one of many altematives. What is our natural water supply? Precipitation. Our water supply is completely dependent upon Piedmont Virginia's mean annual precipitation of 45 inches of water. During the most severe drought year for which there are local records, 1930, precipitation totaled only 27 inches of water. The water supply system's safe yield is defined in terms of this drought of record (see appendix A). In our location, beneath the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains, water running down from the mountains or falling directly onto our landscape travels a variety of pathways at different flow rates. It percolates through forest litter and into the soil and reck layers below. Moving at this slow rate, the water remains "stored." It also descends deep into the ground at one place and then emerges again at another as a spring, or drains swiftly into streams that lead to reservoirs and lakes. Surface water fiows in above-ground streams and rivers, and locally is collected by five dams and a river intake structure. These facilities are the sources for all the public water supply to the City of Charlottesville and the "designated development areas" of Albemarle County. The remainder of Albemarle County area is served by ground water pumped from private wells. Ground water in the central Piedmont moves in unpredictable patterns through underground spaces between particles of sand and gravel strata or through rock formations. Unlike other regions across the country, our area has no well-defined aquifer that can store large quantities of water. Watersheds Watersheds are regions in which all land drains to a common point such as a river or reservoir. The common point might appear to be the "source" of water, but the source is actually a complex (eco)system of the interrelated parts making up the watershed itself. Eight major watersheds comprise the local natural water supply, as shown on the map. The watersheds are named according to the common-point destination for the waters within them. Whether you rely on a public service or pump from a well, your water supply drains from a water- shed some- where in Albe- marle County. FOrk ~ Rlvanna River W,t,r~hed Ra~idan River bed Watersl~ed ?-' Albemarle County, Virginia Where are the supplies of public water? As the sole wholesaler of water, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority commands three distinct service areas, which are defined by different locations of major infrastructure: · the "Urban Area" (includes Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and the surrounding area of Albemarle County that is designated for development by the County's Compre- hensive Plan) · Crozet · Scottsville To supply these service areas, surface water is captured, treated, and delivered to users, who may be at some distance from the contributing watershed. GLIENMORE WWTP $COTTSVILLE V~NTP Surface waters from the North and South Fork Rivanna River Watersheds provide nearly all of the pub- lic water for sale in Charlottesville- Albemarle. Sources of supply for the Urban Area (4,135 million gallons used in 1998) Sugar Hollow Reservoir in northwestern Albemarle fills from the Blue Ridge Mountains' confluence of the Moormans River North and South forks. (Watershed area, 18 square miles; usable storage volume, 360 million gallons). Ragged Mountain Reservoir, which fills partially from its relatively small (1.8-square mile) surrounding drainage area, also fills from an 18" pipeline connected to the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. The usable volume is 514 million gallons, Because of their pipeline connection, the reservoirs at Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain are managed as one system. The water is treated at Observatory Hill Plant. Our largest storage area for water, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (watershed area, 243 square miles; current usable volume, 880 million gallons) north of Charlottesville fills from the overflow from Sugar Hollow Reservoir and other tributaries into the Moormans River, from Mechums River, ivy Creek, and from the South Fork Rivanna River. This water is treated at the South Rivanna Treatment Plant. A North Fork Rivanna River Diversion facility (watershed area, 121 square miles) diverts river flow into a North Fork Rivanna treatment plant. Chds Greene Lake could also supply this treatment plant. Crozet supply (241 million gallons used in 1998') Water from the Beaver Creek Reservoir is treated at the Crozet Treatment Plant and sup- plies two Crozet areas: the area currently designated for development in the County's Com- prehensive Plan and a small residential area outside the designated development area. *Includes 100 million gallons (41%) sold to ConAgra Frozen Foods, the County's largest volume water consumer. Scottsville supply (50 million gallons used in 1998) Totier Creek Reservoir fills from southwestern Albemarle's James River Watershed and feeds into the Scottsville Treatment Plant, which supplies that area of Scottsville designated for development in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Current supply and demand: Urban-Area public water Estimated Water Supply 1997 Safe Yield1 (million gallons per day) Rivanna Reservoir 7.2 Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mtn. 4.1 N. Rivanna River Intake 0.6 Total Urban Supply ~ Safe yield is defined in appendix A. 11.9 Previous supply estimates have been higher than those shown above. Three factors have changed.2 · Debris left in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir by the severe storm in 1995 re- duced the storage volume by 71 million gallons. · Previous calculations had not allowed for silting in Sugar Hollow Reservoir, which is more gradual than in the Rivanna, but is displacing 1.5 million gal- lons per year of storage capacity (~4,000 gallons per day). RWSA's current consultants used the 1930 drought as being a more likely model for demand than the less severe 1954 drought factored in by previous consultants. 2 Source: VHB, Inc./O'Brien and Gem, Inc., Raw Water Supply Facility Permitting Supply Analysis, October, 1997. Actual Daily Demand 1998 By Sector mgd (million gallons per day) on average and percentage of the total urban wholesale volume averaging 10.7 mgd Actual Annual Demand of 4,135 million gallons of treated water produced for the Urban Area in 1998-- 527 million gallons were lost between the RWSA metered intake of raw water and metered retail sale to consumers. (In appendix E, points of loss are listed.) 3,608 million gallons were sold at retail. City retail sales 2,187 million gallons, including 625 million gallons to the University of Virginia (the City's largest volume consumer). County urban retail sales 1,420 million gallons, including 28 million gallons sold to Farming- ton, Inc. (the County's largest volume Urban-Area customer). Urban water supplies are diminishing over time. Why? Silt deposits are rapidly reducing the storage capacity of the community's largest reservoir. The streams and rivers flowing into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir carry heavy loads of suspended silt particles, which settle out upon entering the quieter area of the reservoir. 966 Total onginal volume 1,333 million gallons J1994 Measurement Usable volume 880 million gallons 2050 Projection Usable volume 151 million gallons Effect of silt deposits on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir storage capacity In 1994, RWSA consultants Black and Veatch made a depth analysis of the South Fork Ri- vanna Reservoir (bathymetric survey). Based on the survey, the estimated loss of storage volume due to silt flowing into the reservoir was 13.0 million gallons per year (-36,000 gallons per day). The effect of the sediment loading over time is shown in the chart below. Expected Changes in Estimated Safe Yields of Water Supplies [] 1997 2050 7.2 4.1 3.9 11.9 0.6 0.6 4.5 0 South Fork Rivanna Sugar Hollow/ North Fork Rivanna Total Urban-Area Reservoir* Ragged Mtn. System Intake Supply *Actually, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir will have a small yield during year 2050 and beyond, but it will be less than the 8 mgd that currently must be allowed to flow by so that the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant downstream can operate properly. Therefore, the reservoir yield for tap water purposes is zero. ]Future demand for publicly supplied drinking water "A comprehensive review of long-term water demand in the region...based on the best available data" is presented in the RWSA consultants' 1997 Raw Water Supply Facility Permitting Demand Analysis." The report explains two methods that were used to prepare estimates of future demand. Analysis Method 1: One method simply plotted the trend in historic raw-water consump* tion and extended a line into the future. At year 2050, the line indicated water demand of 20.4 million gallons per day. Analysis Method 2: Using a second method, the consultants separated out each sector of Urban-Area water demand--the Urban County, the City, and the University of Virginiam and, for each, analyzed various combinations of the following information: current water consumption per person per day (measured as total metered water sold in that sector / total population served), · population growth projected to 2050 (the University estimate was based on student-population size), · homes not yet built, but allowed for by the current comprehensive plans of the City and County (no University plan was available), and · historic demand. Results: For all combinations of the data, the estimates for the year 2050 fell into the range of 18-21 million gallons per day of water demand. The estimates indicate that more than 70,000 new residents will require public water ser- vices by the year 2050. What do these numbers assume? These demand projections are a kind of"best guess." They assume that · the current rates of population growth will continue, · levels of water consumption, estimated per resident, will stay the same, and · planned densities of residential development will remain unchanged over the next fifty years. Other questions remain. For example, future demand estimates for industrial/commercial uses of water have only been extrapolated from current levels of use. The impacts of changes in growth or demand management in those sectors have not been estimated. A calculated deficit Consultants to the RWSA, calculating the year 2050 supplies of raw water and demand for treated water as described above, find a water deficit as follows. Year 2050 demand Year 2050 safe yield (from the facilities that exist today) 18-21 million gallons per day 4-5 million gallons per day Year 2050 water deficit 12-17 million gallons per day 25 0 Safe Yield ---- --Demand 1990 2000 2020 2040 2060 Year Alternatives for new public water supplies RWSA's consultants are analyzing preliminary lists of resources for additional raw-water supplies for Charlottesville-Albemarle. It is important to remember that any alternative must meet the permitting process requirements laid out on page 3. The Preliminary List of Alternatives (As of 4/1/99. Prepared by VHB, Inc.) At South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Repeatedly dredge bottom sediments Change downstream release practices to withhold water during severe drought conditions Pump water back into the reservoir from the downstream Rivanna River Raise the dam with 4-foot or 8-foot crest controls Reduce the incoming sediment Icad Capture the treated water that is ordinarily discharged downstream from the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and pump it to Mechums River for flow into the reservoir At Chris Greene Lake During severe drought conditions, release water into the North Fork Rivanna to sup- plement supply to the intake facility, limiting the volume to either a 5-foot or 20-foot drop in water level at the lake. During high flows, pump water from North Fork Rivanna to storage at Chris Greene Lake Dredge Sugar Hollow Reservoir Install ground water wells and pipe water to South Fork and North Fork treatment plants. Store treated water in an aquifer for recovery during drought Pump water from the James River to Charlottesville Install new river intake and water treatment facility on the Rivanna River near Glenmore Country Club From Mechums River near Lake Albemarle, pump water to existing Ragged Mountain Reser- voirs At Ragged Mountain Reservoirs, raise the dam at the lower reservoir by 50 feet and store water pumped in from Mechums River during high flows List of Alternatives, continued Construct a dam and reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek Preddy Creek Moormans River North Fork Rivanna River Mechums River o ne-half mile northeast of Batesville Mechums River one mile upstream of 1-64 near Midway Buck Island Creek Implement long-term water conservation program Develop and implement a drought-management plan Detect leaks in water distribution systems and calibrate meters Criteria For Evaluating Water Supply Alternatives · Practicability (includes costs, feasibility, and logistics) · Environmental impacts · Ability to satisfy water supply needs In choosing solutions, how will the criteria be weighted? IF/hat will make certain solutions more practicable than others? Since conservation must be a part of any water supply solution, who will set goals and have responsibility for coordinating a plan for the whole com- munity? Who's in charge? The local suppliers of public water For residents of the City of Charlottesville, water delivery and sewer line systems are provided by the City's Public Utilities Division of the Department of Public Works. In Albemarle County, designated urban areas are served by public water and sewer services provided by the Albemarle County Service Authority In addition, by the terms of a 1973 "Four-Party Agreement," the City Council, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and Albemarle County Service Authority designated another major player in the provision of public water: the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. According to the Agreement, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is required to provide at wholesale the water and the sewage-treatment demanded by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Charlottesville De partment of Public Works for retail sale to the community. The RWSA is authorized to issue revenue bonds, to fix, charge and collect fees for services, and to enter into service contracts with other governmental units. Water consumers are customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority or the Charlottesville Department of Public Works. These two agencies are customers of the RWSA. Who governs the suppliers? A five-member Board of Directors governs the RWSA. It includes the City Manager, the Director of Public Works of the City, the County Executive, the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and a private citizen, who is appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors and serves as Chair. The RWSA Board appoints for itself a Citizen Advisory Committee. The Albemarle County Service Authority was established in 1964 pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act and is governed by a six-member Board of Directors appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Directors serve four-year renewable terms; they appoint the Executive Director of the Authority who governs opera- tions, The Charlottesville Department of Public Works is a department of the City of Charlottesville. Its Director reports to the City Manager, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council. Rethinking our use of water Traditionally, meeting increased water demands in a community has involved developing new facilities to collect more water (building reservoirs or tapping rivers). There are less traditional approaches gaining popularity around the country. These adjust the ways we use and manage our existing supply of water in order to make that supply go further. They have to do with increasing efficiency, reducing waste, and reusing water. Some of the alternatives cited on the preceding pages reflect these methods. Consider the following. · Water efficiency and conservation In 1997, the RWSA's consulting engineers made a rough calculation for the average daily water consumption per person in the urban service areas. To do this, they simply divided the total retail volume of water by the number of persons residing in the area of interest. Estimated volume of water used per person in the Urban-Area sectors City of Charlottesville University of Virginia Urban Albemarle County gallons per person per day 111 77 99 When a consumer uses water, that person often seeks clean dishes, a shower, or a flushed toilet--not the water per se, rather the service it provides. There are many ways more efficient service can be achieved. Pipes that transport water can be carefully inspected for leaks. The pressure at which water is piped to customers can be lowered. Through public education, customers can be asked to water lawns and gardens at specified times when the evaporation level is lowest, to landscape with indigenous plants that survive under natural rainfall conditions, and to retrofit with water-saving fixtures and appliances. By managing demand in these ways, we---individually and as a community--can maintain or even improve our quality of water service while also lowering utility bills and system-wide water consumption. With lower consumption, the need for costly supply-side improvements may be postponed or reduced. Another community's solution Increasingly, when faced with the high costs of developing new sources of water, such as constructing expensive reservoirs, communities are opting for a comprehensive water efficiency program as an alternative means of meeting demand. In 1989, officials in Ashland, Oregon started discussing what to do when a key water right expired. Consultants advised them to dam Ashland Creek. The $11 million-dollar cost was a price no one wanted to pay. On the advice of a second consultant, Ashland instituted a community-wide water efficiency program designed to save 500,000 gallons of water a day--the same amount of water that would have been provided by the dam. The efficiency program cost $825,000. In addition to saving water and more than $10 million dollars, Ashland's residents began to save more than 500,000 kilowatt-hours a year on heating water, and the annual volume of wastewater treatment was reduced by 43 million gallons. · Water pricing Unlike ground water which is used straight from a well, publicly supplied water is a manufactured product, and it is "manufactured" to drinking-water standards, even though 98-99% of it is used for purposes other than drinking. At a current wholesale cost within the Charlottesville-Albemarle urban area of ten cents per one hundred gallons, treated water has no reputation as a precious commodity. It might seem obvious that water efficiency could be achieved simply by increasing the price of water; however, changing the rate structure in some communities merely resulted in the customer readjusting to new higher rates and returning to old use patterns. To influence water consumption, it was necessary to change from a flat rate to an increasing rate for each "block" of water used. Peak-load pricing, seasonal pricing, summer surcharges, and excess-use surcharges are examples of pricing that can reduce waste, extend the life of the water source, and cure many "water shortages." · Water re-use One of the items on the RWSA's list of alternative water sources points to the possibility for making use of treated wastewater. Currently, this water flows unused downstream. In 1998, approximately 12 millions gallons per day of treated water were discharged from the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant has a permit to release up to 15 million gallons per day, an amount that is within the range of the projected water deficit. The wastewater comes from homes and businesses in the RWSA's Urban and Crozet service areas. (Four smaller wastewater treatment plants in Albemarle County serve Scottsville, Glen- more, the area of Camelot subdivision, and Stone Robinson Elementary School. The combined total for effluent from these four facilities averaged less than 0.3 mgd in 1998.) How far would the projected water, supply deficit move into the future if the community were to begin re-using the water supply it already has? How do the costs and benefits compare to other solutions? Rethinking our philosophy of water · Keeping in mind the ecosystem The capacity of a watershed to maintain its highest potential as a water holding and release system depends on its remaining a naturally functioning, healthy ecosystem. Charlottesville and Albemarle County now face a problem similar to that of many other communities across the country: How can we find a way to preserve unique aquatic ecosystems along with their imperiled inhabitants while meeting increased water demands? Effects on ecosystems We can foresee no gross changes in weather patterns that would alter our basic climate. Therefore, the most intense impacts on the natural water supply to our ecosystems can be expected from acute severe weather--droughts and floods--and from human activity. Human activities impact natural water flows both on a day-to-day basis and in relation to our management of drought and flood effects. Two severely negative human impacts related to flood and drought have been highlighted recently. Accelerated run-off after flood events (winter rain/snowmelt, summer storm) The Rivanna River Basin Roundtable's State of the Basin Report 1998 documented many negative effects on waterways as a result of floodwater running off impervious surfaces (parking lots, roofs, etc.) and areas otherwise stripped of vegetation. The negative impacts include: · sudden heavy flows that gouge streambeds and undercut stream banks, causing loss of plant life and lower flows in an enlarged bed, and · loading streams with pollutants (including fecal coliform) and suspended sediment in amounts that exceed various Virginia Department of Environmental Quality safety standards for humans and wildlife. A river runs dry In the past year, Sugar Hollow residents have raised community awareness about the lack of water in the Moormans River below Sugar Hollow Dam for as many as six months of the year. This situation points out several features of the public water system. First, to date, management practices have not been designed around guaranteeing a minimum flow back into the riverbeds below dams. Second, because of its mandate and contractual obligations, the RWSA focuses on manag- ing raw-water supplies for the purpose of meeting the public demand for tap water. In order to meet these obligations as reliably as possible over time, RWSA keeps its facilities filled at all times, and manages release of reservoir waters to treatment plants to yield the greatest efficiencies, and thus economies, in plant operations. The Four-Party Agreement which put the RWSA in the business of meeting demand for treated tap water did not at the same time charge any entity with meeting the demands from other dependents on the natural water supply. This arrangement may have had no obviously negative consequences when it was created back in 1973; the public demand for water was drastically lower at that time. Demand levels of the 1990's create a significantly different situation. The dry Moormans Riverbed may be a warning for the community on the effects of a water-management approach aimed only at meeting human demand. · Acknowledging the relationship of ground and surface waters Historically, ground water has not been a reliable, long-term source for drinking water as population density increases. Charlottesville abandoned its wells over 100 years ago, when a combination of over-pumping and over-flowing privies, caused by increased popula- tion, sent City fathers into Albemarle County to buy land for impoundment of surface water. The first mountain stream reservoir at Ragged Mountain was followed later by the Sugar Hollow Reservoir on the Moormans River and the Rivanna Reservoir on the South Fork Rivanna. Nevertheless, because ground water and surface water recharge one another (and the polluted water of one can pollute the other), urban consumers of treated surface water should be just as concerned about what happens to ground water as the County residents who depend on wells. Currently, one-half of the County's population depends directly on this fragile source for water. We do not know how much ground water is available, how much is pumped out daily from the hundreds of domestic wells, or whether all of it is safe to ddnk. We also do not know whether over-pumping is depleting the supply, and thus not only risking dry wells, but also diminishing the re-emergence of groundwater in natural springs, which contribute to the volume of surface waters. By and large, the responsibility to protect ground water is left to local jurisdictions; it is a community's responsibility to prevent its contamination, depletion, or misuse. A basic tool needed is a hydmgeologic report, which would provide, among other things, data to assure water quality and quantity. There is potential danger if development depending on ground water is pursued without regard to hydrogeological factors. Reviewing our goals and aspirations "Total water management" principles of the American Water- works Association For a ~total water management" approach, a community must begin at the local level and integrate the following principles articulated by the American Waterworks Association. Stewardship. The water utility industry cannot be concerned only with providing potable water. The role of the utility must be expanded to include stewardship of good water policy. Water utilities must position themselves to effect change in the way land and water resources are currently managed. Government. There is an urgent need for a unified water resources policy. Land and water resources planning and management must be integrated under a watershed frame- work. Policy must be based on the principles of pollution prevention, resource conserva- tion, and development strategies that are sustainable. Water conservation. Because water is a renewable but limited resource, water conserva- tion considerations should be a part of any utility's water resource planning. Conservation, encompassing supply and demand management, is appropriate to some degree for all utilities and not just those in water-short areas. Water resource management. The water industry must consider the total interaction of water with the environment, including the balances of human and ecological risk and the preservation and restoration of ecosystems. United States League of Women Voters Positions The following statements are excerpts from the formal position statements of The League of Women Voters of the United States. Natural Resources: Promote an environment beneficial to life through the protection and wise management of natural resources in the public interest by recognizing the interrelationships of air quality, energy, land use, waste manage- ment, and water resources. The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosys- tems. Resources should be conserved and protected to assure their future availability. Pollution of these resources should be controlled in order to preserve the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of ecosystems and to protect public health. Resource management: Promote resource conservation, stewardship, and long-range planning, with the responsibility for managing natural resource shared by all levels of government. Resource management decisions must be based on a thorough assessment of population growth and of current and future needs. The inherent characteristics and carrying capacities of each areas's natural resources must be considered in the planning process. To assure the future availability of essential resources, government policies must promote stewardship of natural resources. Policies that promote resource conservation are a fundamental part of such stewardship. Resources such as water and soil should be protected. Beneficiaries should pay the costs for water, land, and energy development projects. Reclamation and rouse of natural resources should be encouraged. · From the Principles of the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable 1998 · "All living things within the basin are interconnected in complex and interdependent systems, and are dependent on the quality and quantity of the basin's waters." · "All human activities should be considered in terms of their poten- tial impacts on the waters of the basin." From Sustainability Accords of the Thomas Jeffer- son Sustainability Council 1998 · "Ensure that water quality and quantity in the Region are sufficient to support the human population and the ecosystems." From the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Section 1999 · "All land uses, landowners, and residents (urban, suburban, agri- cultural, forestal) share the responsibility for preserving, protecting, and enhancing water resources in the community for current and future generations and for the biological communities with whom we share the landscape." · "As our population grows and stresses on water resources in- crease, we must increasingly strive to use these resources in an efficient manner. The more use we get out of every gallon of water leaves more in streams and ground water for the maintenance and health of natural ecosystems." APPENDICES · Appendix A. The meaning of safe yield In our water industry, the term raw-water supply refers to surface water that has been col- lected for supply to a water treatment plant. (The treatment plant's output of water clean enough to drink is referred to as finished or potable water.) To describe the amount of raw water provided by a reservoir (or a river diversion facility), a calculation is made regarding the maximum volume of water that can be reliably withdrawn during a severe drought. The estimate takes into account · the physical size of the reservoir or diversion facility, and the size of its watershed, · the maximum volume of natural water that can be expected to flow into the system un- der conditions similar to the worst drought on record, and · the duration of the worst drought on record. The result of this calculation describes the safe yield of the system. Safe-yield estimates typically do not include an amount set aside for consistently allowing water to flow past the dam or diversion and into the riverbed beyond. In other words, yield calculations for local facilities assume that the entire basin flow may be diverted by the RWSA to meet demand from customers. · Appendix B. Formation of the RWSA Prior to the early 1970's, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County independently owned and operated water-output and sewage-treatment facilities. In the early 1970's, each decided it needed additional facilities and applied to the State Water Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency for federal grants to partially fund planning and construction. The Board approved these applications on the condition that the City and County establish a single political entity to address the severe water and sewage problems that plagued both communities. There were good reasons for the State Water Control Board to place this condition on the City and County. Each needed to seek water within the same region: the Rivanna River Basin. Each needed to discharge effluent from sewage-treatment plants back into the same basin. Thus, it made sense to place the responsibility for water supply and sewage treat- ment in the hands of a single entity which would have authority over the entire region. Together, the City and County commissioned advice from Malcolm Pirnie, a consulting firm. The firm recommended creation of a Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; the Authority was constituted in 1972. The new Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was charged with providing potable water and wastewater treatment to the City of Charlottesville and to those portions of the County served by the Albemarle County Service Authority. · Appendix C. RWSA Rates Each year, RWSA sets wholesale prices for treated water according to their costs for operation and maintenance, plus principal and interest on the bonds issued to build facilities. RWSA lumps all the Urban-Area facilities together to determine costs for that sector. Charges are allocated between the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County RWSA rates for fiscal year 1999 Service Authority on the basis of the vol- Urban area umes of retail water flows to those areas, City $1.015 per thousand gallons County $1.134 per thousand gallons Water consumers pay a retail rate that re- Crozet $43,078 per month flects the wholesale charge for water, plus the costs for operations and debt service on Scottsville $17,130 per rnonth the distribution systems owned and oper- ated by the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Even though the Albemarle County Service Authority is charged different wholesale rates for the water treated in its three different service areas, as shown on the schedule above, its policy is to charge all County customers the same retail rate regardless of where they live. · Appendix D. The trends in Urban-Area Water Demand Data from the RWSA's compilation of "Urban Water Wholesale and Retail Flows By Fiscal Year" shows the following trends in Urban-Area water consumption. Trends in Annual Volume of Urban Water Demand by Sector Actual 1983 and 1998, Projected 2050 4000 3000 2000 1000 [~1983 ~1998 ~2050 [ UVA Portion of City Retail City Retail Sales Urban County Retail Sales Documented demand figures were taken from the RWSA's report, "Urban Water Wholesale and Retail Flows by Fiscal Year July 1982 - June 1998." Estimated annual numbers for 2050 are based on projections for daily water consumption given in the RWSA consultants' Raw Water Supply Facility Permiffing Demand Analysis Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, October 1997. The consultants estimated daily consumption in four ways. An average of their daily estimates for each sector was multiplied by 365 days to arrive at the annual figures given for year 2050 in the table. · Appendix E. "Lost" water described Water is "lost" when unmetered uses and system losses occur between the raw water meter- ing process and the final delivery of finished water to the end customer. The following is a partial list of points of loss: · Plant losses in the finished water preduction precess · System losses during water transmission or distribution (line breaks and leakage) · Distribution system maintenance and flushing · Fire fighting · Unmetered connections · Meter inefficiencies · Street washing · Appendix F. More on ground water While public water service relies on collection, treatment, and piped delivery of surface wa- ters, the majodty of Albemarle County residents live in areas that lie beyond the public sys- tem and depend on direct withdrawal of underground water. Likewise, in urban areas, sewer systems pipe wastewater to central treatment plants, whereas in county areas outside these systems, wastewater is released into the ground near its souree via individual septic sys- tems. Ground water is recharged through septic-field drainage and precipitation. The amount of recharge from precipitation is estimated to be about 8 to 11 inches per year; the amount of septic recharge is unknown. In addition to the private well-and-septic systems serving approximately 12,500 Albemarle homes outside the urban area, there are 16 subdivisions with private, community water sup- plies and 49 non-community-based private systems serving facilities such as schools, mo- tels, and restaurants. The Virginia Public Health Department is mandated by Title 32.1 of the State Code of Vir- ginia to regulate the design and installation of well-and-septic systems in a way that mini- mizes the risk of contaminating ground water with septic drainage. Permits must be ob- tained from the Health Department for installation of new systems Thereafter, instead of be- ing operated and maintained by trained staffs as public water systems are, a private well and its accompanying septic system, once installed, become the responsibility of the individual property owner. Acknowledgements This booklet was compiled by the Natural Resources Committee of the Charlottesville- Albemarle League of Women Voters. It is based on articles published in the organiza- tion's 1997-1998 newsletters; contributors were Donna Bennett, Treva Cromwell, Joy Matthews, Marsha Parkinson, and Richard Johnson. Additional information was provided by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and its consultants. The cover illustration was adapted from artwork created by Craig Harding for Virginia's Ground Water Protection Strategy, 1987. Editorial and design assistance was supplied by Technical Editing International, Char- lottesville, Virginia. Printing services were provided by ALC Copies, Charlottesville, Virginia.