Austin Water Oversight Committee (AWOC) Meeting Transcript – 11/12/2024 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 11/12/2024 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 11/12/2024 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [1:29:28 PM] Are we ready to roll? Great. Good afternoon everybody. I'm Leslie pool, the chair of the Austin water oversight committee, and we are meeting here at city hall on Tuesday, November 12th, 2024 at 130. Calling this meeting to order. And on the dais with me are my vice chair, Ryan alter, and council member Alison alter. The mayor is also a member of [1:30:30 PM] The mayor is also a member of this committee, and he is out of town today. And unable to attend. I think we have one speaker, Mr. Gutierrez. Adrian Gutierrez, would you like to come down to the podium? Well, we've got three minutes for you, sir. Thank you. Thanks for being here. >> Hello, council members. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I'll be short. I'm really here to address another issue that I brought forth to the council. This particular committee a few meetings ago, probably last year. And it really is about how the Austin water treats commercial customers in regards to build mitigation and repairs versus residential. We had an incident a couple of years ago at our property in district three that had a major loss of water and stuff. We got it repaired right away. I've had various inroads into council member meetings, including aides and people within the city itself through investigations and whatnot. They've recommended multiple times that we talked to [1:31:30 PM] multiple times that we talked to this particular committee in regards to that issue, and we're hoping that we can hopefully, at some point address this issue again and consider how we treat commercial accounts versus residential accounts when it comes to build mitigation and stuff. We're still looking for some kind of resolution to that. So that really is why I'm here. Just to once again bring this to everybody's attention. And I've been making efforts to get in with the various aides and stuff, and still will continue to do so, but hopefully at some point we can talk about that. >> Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. Being here today, I appreciate it. All right. Let's see. Our next item is approval of minutes. The may 9th, 2024 regular meeting of the Austin water oversight committee. And I've got a motion from vice chair alter and a second from council member Alison alter. Are there any changes or corrections and any objections to approving these? And so these minutes are approved unanimously. Discussion [1:32:31 PM] approved unanimously. Discussion and possible action. Item number two, approve the 2025 Austin water oversight committee meeting dates. Let me read these into the record. And then staff, if you could correct any of the dates that I've got here in case I don't have them right or in case there have been some last minute updates. The proposed start time for all meetings of the water oversight committee for calendar year 2025 is 1:30 P.M. All Tuesdays, and the dates essentially are every other month starting in February, February, 18, April 15, which is a really good date. June 10th. It's not my birthday. June 10th. August 19th. October 14th and December 2nd. So any changes from the dais? All right. Would you like to make a motion? Council member Allison ulster [1:33:32 PM] Council member Allison ulster makes the motion and vice chair Ryan alter. Seconds. There being no amendments or adjustments or objections to this item, these six dates for the oversight committee meetings for calendar year 2025 are adopted. Thank you all. Number three, discussion and possible action on recommendations to council regarding adoption of water forward 2024, which is Austin's integrated water resource plan and updates to Austin water's Austin water conservation and drought contingency plans. And director Ralston, are you at the podium for this? You and your team. Thank you. Understand you had some good, good responses when you took this update to the [1:34:33 PM] when you took this update to the requisite commissions. >> We did. So we have presented these plans to the water forward task force who worked with us over the last couple of years to update these plans, and they voted to recommend these plans for council approval. We will take them to water and wastewater commission tomorrow night and to the resource management commission next week, and then council on Thursday. So we have a few updates slides for you. I know we gave a briefing to the full council and you all had asked us a few questions. And so we have some slides that generally hit the high points of these plans. And then would you grab me that clicker please. And then point out some of the differences between the past plans and the these proposed plans. And answer some of the [1:35:34 PM] plans. And answer some of the questions that you all had at work session. So as you all know, and for those who may be watching and following along, Waterford is our the city's 100 year integrated water resource plan. And of course, the important part of this slide is that it needs to be adaptable to changing conditions, growth, drought and climate change and what we really mean when we're talking about adaptability is planning for uncertainty, and that's uncertainty. And when and how our city will grow. What level of severity climate change we may be facing. And then the length and severity of droughts. And when we think about droughts, we can look at the combined storage of Lakes Buchanan and Travis. Since those the dams that form those Lakes on the Texas Colorado river were built back in the 40s. And you can see the drought of the 50s and 60s, which was our previous drought record that we planned against. And then a nice long period of [1:36:35 PM] And then a nice long period of seasonal Lakes falling and filling over the course of, you know, a year or so, and then a really long and deep drought from 2008 to 2016, which is what prompted us to put together the water forward plan, which city council adopted unanimously in 2018. So this is our five year update to that plan, and we have really leaned in to the adaptive management part of this plan. This plan is founded first and foremost on water conservation, reuse of our, you know, we take water out of the Colorado river. We treat it. We deliver it to our customers. We collect it from them. We treat it again, and we put it back in the river. And then a portion of that water gets put into our centralized reclaimed water system to use for non-drinking water uses by our customers. So that's an important water supply strategy for us. And then since we are dependent on the Texas Colorado [1:37:37 PM] dependent on the Texas Colorado river for our full supply, we're looking at alternatives to stretch those supplies as well as develop new supplies. And then within the Texas, Colorado river basin, we are not the only community that depends on that river. And so our partnerships with lower Colorado river authority and other municipal and other uses in the basin are really important. So we describe this in a little more detail at the city council work session. But essentially we put together 2 million. Analyzes where we checked different levels of portfolios against different possible future scenarios. And we came up with ten portfolios that are shown in the pink dots here that essentially are for any given performance, have the least cost. And so we compared those portfolios to one another. [1:38:38 PM] those portfolios to one another. And what you can see on the right is all of these portfolios used the full suite of conservation and reuse strategies. And then we layer on a variable supply sources new supply and stretching our existing supply sources. So the recommended portfolio is portfolio six. Again on the left the full suite of conservation and reuse strategies. And we're going to talk in another presentation today about water loss control. That's an important part of our future supply. Coordinating with our customers on water use management. And our update to our water conservation plan, shifting into native and efficient landscapes. And of course, the on site water reuse and centralized reclaim system under supplies. Stretching our existing Colorado river [1:39:39 PM] existing Colorado river supplies. We have aquifer storage and recovery where we take water treated water out of our system and stored underground for use later. We have indirect potable reuse, which is taking treated wastewater, treating it even further, putting it into lady bird lake and then taking it out at the Ulrich water treatment plant, and then we have new off channel reservoir that would use lake Walter Eid long at decker dam to move water from the Colorado river into that reservoir and then treat it and put it into our distribution system. From there. Those strategies are all reliant on the Colorado river and then for new water supply strategies coming into the plan. Now, we have brackish groundwater desalination. So that's taking naturally salty water, desalinating it and then delivering it into our distribution system. So when we look at the changes between 20, the 2018 plan and the 2024 plan, [1:40:39 PM] the 2018 plan and the 2024 plan, we did a lot of work around updated climate and hydrology to really help us bracket possible futures that we need to plan for, and we leaned in on planning for uncertainty and this 100 year adaptive management pathways. So the old way of planning for the future was to identify the most probable future. And then plan for that. What we're really trying to do here is identify the range bracket, if you will, the possible futures. And then begin to implement strategies that work for the greatest number of possible futures. And then every five years we're updating that adaptive management plan so that we make sure that we stay on track and we adjust our strategies as needed. We updated our equity and affordability roadmap because these this plan will require a significant investment [1:41:40 PM] require a significant investment from our customers. And so we want to keep equity and affordability top of mind as we develop these strategies. Make sure we have a plan for a future that is fair and affordable to all of our customers. We conducted a began to conduct the Colorado river land analysis. So this is the idea, you know, one of the benefits that we have being where we are on the Texas Colorado river is that the our water source upstream is very well protected by decades of environmental protections, including the highland Lakes discharge ban, which prevents the discharge of pollutants into into the highland Lakes. And as we think about how we can extend that into the future, we're looking at what areas of our water supply basin can we protect by extending the land management strategies we already [1:42:41 PM] management strategies we already use for the water quality protection lands and the balcony canyonlands preserve in order to continue to protect our water quality for generations to come. And then, of course, we have our expanded water conservation and water loss control. So we have integrated, we have woven into the water forward plan, all of our water conservation and water loss control strategies that we'll be talking about a little bit more today. And then I mentioned the off channel storage project on lake Walter long. So that essentially covers the update to the water forward plan back in may, we brought to the council updated water conservation and drought contingency plans. These plans are required for water utilities in Texas to be updated every five years. Those plans were due in may, and council approved them with the direction to continue to update them in [1:43:42 PM] continue to update them in conjunction with the updates to the water forward plan and so that is what we did. As a reminder, the water conservation plan is a plan for all the way we use water all year round, and the drought contingency plan is focuses on ways we can reduce our water use during drought. So some changes in the water conservation plan between 2019 and 2024, we updated and expanded our metrics for all our conservation activities. We updated our water use goals based on a bottom up estimate of potential savings. So we started with what? Based on our experience over the last five years, what can we expect to achieve through water conservation. And then and then we set our water use goals based on the our our real world experience with these [1:44:45 PM] experience with these strategies. The new strategies that we've developed. And then knowing that we will assign additional resources to stretch those goals. So the goals that we have set, we don't exactly know how we're going to we don't have strategies to fully meet them, but we have a really good foundation that we know we can get there when we commit the resources to do that. So some of the new activities are the landscape transformation, additional commercial businesses. I've talked about water loss already completing the my atx water. That's our smart meter rollout. We've had a lot of success from the my water program in empowering our customers to make decisions about their water use, and then of course, public outreach and marketing continues to be a focus for us. So since may, we've made additional changes to the plan, including adding restrictions to drip irrigation. [1:45:47 PM] restrictions to drip irrigation. So drip was previously unrestricted and now it will be two days per week for drip irrigation. Similar to hose and spray irrigation is one day a week. We incorporated the expected savings from the go purple program, which council approved in March and went into effect in April. We incorporated the mitigation strategies for water loss that came out of the external review. That was completed over the summer, and we've integrated these future activities with water forward, as I mentioned earlier. So water forward has yields associated with water conservation that come directly out of the water conservation plan. And then I would really draw your attention to the quarterly and annual reporting. We've had a lot of conversations this year about where we are in water conservation and in our water use, and rather than talking about that, every five years [1:46:47 PM] about that, every five years when we bring you an updated plan, we're going to talk about it every quarter and every year so that we bring our community along with us and understanding how we're doing and meeting these goals. So in the 2019 plan, we were at a baseline of 126 gallons per person per day. So that's taking the total amount of water that we produce divided by the number of humans that we serve. And that gets us to 126 gallons per person per day. We set a five year goal at that time of getting down to 119 gallons per person per day. However, our as we discussed in work session a couple of weeks ago, our baseline stayed about the same over the last five years. And so this was really a year of understanding the reasons behind that of, as I said, a bottoms up approach to developing our strategies and understanding what our goals could be. And so we recommended [1:47:50 PM] could be. And so we recommended a goal in may of 120, a five year goal of 123 gallons per person per day. And based on the work that we've done since may, we now recommend a stretch goal of 121 gallons per capita per day as our five year goal, and then 114 gallons per capita per day in 2034. >> Shea just one quick question for you to kind of hone in on those numbers. If you could go ahead and put that slide back up. When we talk about our goals, are these goals where the city says, this is where you need to be and if you're not there, then there's some kind of action that we will take in order to make you get there. Or is this really about the community voluntarily limiting its use of water? So that as that is how we get to these goals, like the responsibility rests with the city and Austin [1:48:50 PM] rests with the city and Austin water, or is it resting with the users? >> That's a that's a really important point that where we the amount of water that we use as a community is distributed to all of our users. It's in the hands of our customers. And so what what our opportunity is to provide outreach programs, incentives that are attractive and actionable to our customers, and then our customers based on their understanding of their responsibility. Then help us achieve this goal. So we have the most robust water conservation plan that we've ever had. And we're going to do all of the strategies that are in that plan. And then we believe that based on our experience with these strategies, our conversations with other communities that are using these strategies, that it's a stretch. But when we add [1:49:51 PM] it's a stretch. But when we add the resources that we have planned to add, we believe that 121 gallons per capita per day is an appropriate stretch goal to set that we can continue to communicate with our customers, show them the progress through our reporting so that they can see the role that they have to play in meeting this goal. But you're right, this is this is not a thing that we just take. Austin water staff and go out and do the work and achieve the goal. It really requires community buy in. >> Okay, so we could essentially put that goal at any number almost, I would guess. And we would still be presented with the same issue, which is how do we educate and socialize the concerns and make sure everybody is doing everything they can every day when they turn on the faucet at their home or at their office or in a hotel room, that or in a restaurant that they are keeping top of mind the precious nature and the limited nature of [1:50:53 PM] nature and the limited nature of our water supply. That's right. Thanks. >> So moving on to the drought contingency plan changes that we made between 2016. So when in correct me Kevin, but in 2019 we just reissued our 2016 plan. Correct. Yeah. And so when lcra moved their stage one trigger to 1.1, we maintained our trigger at 1.4 million acre feet, and that 2 million acre feet, you may remember, is full lake level. So for our community, because we are we are a very large user in the river basin. We want to set that that trigger earlier so that we have time to make adjustments to our water use and then stage two is 900,000 acre feet of storage. Lcra added an inflow trigger so [1:51:53 PM] Lcra added an inflow trigger so they will look at inflows twice a year. And depending on conditions they will go into, they may go into stage two earlier than 900,000 acre feet. And so we set our trigger to match theirs. And then in stage three we added we made some adjustments to how we handle athletic fields. So it's an exemption rather than a variance, which I think just means they have to come talk to us about it. And then we go into a no warning for watering violations, but we're going to dismiss that penalty if they'll complete an online irrigation conservation course, because the goal is education. And then in stage four, lcra has required no irrigation of nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional means all the turf grass that isn't being used for sports fields and golf courses and other community interests. And then a temporary [1:52:53 PM] interests. And then a temporary moratorium on permits for irrigation systems and single family pool permits. And then we have a number of discretionary measures to save water throughout all the stages, as well as additional incentives. We have a drought surcharge in our rates when we get to stages three, four and five. >> Shea real quick on that item on the stage three, I'm wondering if maybe staff could consider some additional level that would include some kind of a penalty, should the education efforts fail. So like what's beyond stage three? We I get the idea about the incentives and the education, but there may be some instances where that hasn't worked. >> There. There definitely are even. And we're in stage two now, and there definitely are people who are relatively immune to the our encouragement. And so [1:53:54 PM] to the our encouragement. And so we do have an escalatory process for penalties in place now, safe to say, okay. All right. >> Thanks. >> So since may we've added the drip irrigation restrictions to our drought contingency plan that we talked about already for water conservation plan. And then we've we've adjusted our. Two days per week, one day per week in the various stages as the as droughts progress. We've been talking about these restrictions with landscaping and irrigation stakeholders to and we've made some adjustments to our recommendations based on the feedback from those experts. And we've made some exemptions for trees and gardens. We know that we certainly want to protect our tree canopy even in drought. And so we we're sensitive to those issues as well. As I mentioned, when we kicked off, we've been working [1:54:59 PM] kicked off, we've been working very closely with our council appointed task force water forward task force. And last week they voted to recommend all three of these plans to council for approval. And we'll be taking these to council next Thursday, November 21st. And I believe that's it. >> Great. Let's see what questions we have on the Dyess council member Ryan alter. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate the presentation. I have a couple of questions looking at slide six, the portfolio evaluations. I was curious, and this is not a question you need to answer now. Basically I have some data questions that I'm hoping y'all can send us the information ahead of the meeting on the 21st. But when we talk about the scaled cost and the performance score, I was hoping to get some [1:56:01 PM] score, I was hoping to get some numerical, not just percentages, right? So like if we're talking the difference, let's say between portfolio six and portfolio eight, it looks like that's like an 88% performance score versus a 92% performance score. What does that actually mean in terms of water savings. Same with the scaled cost. Like what what scale are we talking about in terms of cost. So if you could just help break down for us kind of here's how much water savings at what cost on a numerical element that would be really helpful. Yeah. >> We can follow up with that information. So for each of those magenta dots that are on the slide, we did a further evaluation. So beyond this initial analysis to identify the overall unit cost for the portfolio strategies. And also the ultimate water supply reliability score which is made up of the portfolios, water [1:57:02 PM] up of the portfolios, water supply, reliability resiliency and vulnerability to different drought and climate change scenarios. So we have some oh look at that. We have on the backup for this presentation on slide 3636. So we can this is just this will just show how the scores stacked up in a kind of a visual way. But we can also provide the raw scores that make up these total scores for each of the ten portfolios. And those raw scores provide the absolute value for unit cost. And then the water supply reliability component perfect. >> And then one of the strategies seems to be the big difference is the decker off lake channel versus the new off channel, which I assume basically we're talking about lady bird lake versus decker in [1:58:05 PM] lady bird lake versus decker in terms of where that off channel would be. >> So in in Waterford 18, there was a new off channel reservoir that was included. And that would have actually been the development of a off channel reservoir separate from the existing Lakes that the city of Austin owns or operates. So that was included as a 2070 strategy quite far out into the future, rather than including that within the Waterford 24 update, we have adjusted our approach to make use of lake Walter Lang as an off channel reservoir that would take water from the Colorado river and our existing water rights. When that water is available, and then store that, we would be operating that lake within a limited operating range about five feet during drought conditions, seeking to maintain that level as much as possible. >> Very interesting. Separately, the last item there, the conventional groundwater. Would [1:59:08 PM] conventional groundwater. Would that just be additional contracts with lcra to purchase more water? >> There's another line item in here that's new Colorado river supply. It's about, you know, a two thirds of the way down that list that would be additional contracts with the lower Colorado river authority for water. The bottom item conventional groundwater would be and it's not included within our water for 24 recommendations, but that was evaluated as the use of native groundwater, extraction of native groundwater from a well field somewhere where that groundwater would be available, and then treating that for use for potable drinking water. >> And do we have when we're talking about our storage, what what do we have right now in terms of I assume it would be more surface level storage? We don't have the aquifer storage component yet. So what is our either by volume or I have no concept of our current storage [2:00:09 PM] concept of our current storage capacity. >> So we currently do not have any storage reservoirs or surface water reservoirs that we as a utility are own and operate beyond the use of lady bird lake and operations of lady bird lake to potentially augment in the future our water supplies, and that will require some additional infrastructure to be able to take water from lady bird lake and move that to a water treatment plant. Right now, our water supplies are made up of state granted water rights that we have to water that runs through the Colorado river, as well as a contract for stored water within Lakes Travis and Buchanan. We have that contract with lcra. So right now the backup to our water rights is that contract that we have with lcra and the stored water in the highland Lakes. >> Got it. Okay. Just a couple others here on when we were talking about the water [2:01:10 PM] talking about the water conservation goals similar to before, I was hoping you could put some of these numbers into context. So, you know, we've gone from a 123 to 121 for our 2029 goal. If we were to look at that 119 goal that we had from 2024, if y'all could just provide like, what does that mean in terms of how much more water we would be saving if we achieved that? How much from a volumetric standpoint would we be saving systematically? >> I Ken kluge water conservation manager I don't have that number. We can send you the number in terms of gallons. What would come out of the if we went from 121 to 119? There are a number of factors that we consider when we look at these goals, and we consider changing them. First of all, we considered what we didn't make [2:02:11 PM] considered what we didn't make last time, and there was a number of reasons why we didn't make the goals from last time that we need to keep in mind when setting these goals forward. A couple other points is, first of all, that these numbers are no longer independent. They're not just in the water conservation plan as a goal, as as director roalson and I think Marissa mentioned, these are now integrated into the Waterford task force. So those volumetric numbers for one, one, 21 in 5 years were put into the Waterford model. And that determines how much we're going to save going out into the future. And when we need to start bringing on those additional supplies. So they are not they're not it's no longer an independent number. It's rolled into our our larger planning. And then also as Shea mentioned, these are considered stretch goals. And we want to stretch. We want to try to do as [2:03:12 PM] stretch. We want to try to do as much as we want because we recognize these are critical efforts, but we also want to be cognizant that in any time we have any critical planning, critical infrastructure, bridges, treatment plants or what have you, we don't want to stretch our goals too far. We're taking these very seriously, and that's why we want to make sure that they're set at a level, a goal that we believe we can match. Sure. >> And I and I get that and appreciate that. I think always when we're setting goals right, we do want to push. We also there is a balance of if you have a very aggressive goal, right. That might put things on the menu that weren't on the menu before. I just got back from San Antonio last weekend. A friend of mine was talking to me about how, you know, now, with their meters, when someone's watering their lawn on not the right day. That meter tells the water utility and they're out there either giving you a fine [2:04:12 PM] there either giving you a fine or taking corrective action. Right. And that's something that we don't do from a meter perspective, right? We have other enforcement. But I think when we start deciding how hard we want to push it, just, you know, to the mayor pro tem point about this is all dependent on human behavior. You can say whatever we want all day long, but until humans change their behavior, and I hearken back to when I was at UT, anybody familiar with parking, transportation services know they are undefeated, right? Like you park in a spot you're not supposed to park. They're going to catch you. They're going to find you. And that's just part of it. And so that changes where you park on campus. And so we have the ability to affect human behavior if we're willing to push to an uncomfortable position. And so that's just the balance I'm trying to make in terms of how hard we want to push, how aggressive do we want [2:05:14 PM] push, how aggressive do we want to be publicly in trying to get people to do what we all want and need them to do? And that kind of brings me to the when I was going through the water conservation plan, larger document. When we get to the customer programs and looking at some of the utilization and where we're having success and where we're maybe not having some success, this is a broader conversation than today. But I do think we need to look at these programs and really, in some instances, decide if the juice is worth the squeeze. You know, I'm sure you have staff in mentoring some, administering some of these programs that are, you know, a handful of participants in a year is that worth it? Should we deploy that those staff to do other programs that are being more, more successful? Should we rethink these programs? You know, I love that we're always trying new things and pushing to see where we can incentivize people to do [2:06:15 PM] we can incentivize people to do what we would like. But I would like to have a conversation about some of these programs and whether or not they're worth continuing or, or maybe exploring new options. So and hopefully that will then help us potentially get to some of these goals or even exceeding them. So yeah, I'll just add one point that as you mentioned, that my water system is being fully deployed this year and we really see it as. >> Maybe not going too far, almost a paradigm shift in terms of possibility. And we've incorporated that into this new plan, looking at how we can engage residential customers, both for new incentives and how they may save water and reduce leaks by signing up for alerts, but also engaging customers regarding the irrigation and irrigating off schedule. And just as equally, I think there's great potential in terms of engaging with the commercial [2:07:17 PM] engaging with the commercial customers using the water. So that's a lot of potential that we have within the next three years. We're hoping to gather the data and the processes and even look into the topics of water budgeting and benchmarking. After we after several years of gathering this information and this experience. So you're right on there. >> Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Sounds good. Councilmember Allison alter, did you have some questions? I did thank you for your questions. Council member Ryan alder so first of all, congratulations for getting to this point. And through the commissions, I'm hoping the other utility can can manage the same the same feat for our other plan. >> So you know what's what's great about water forward as a as a plan as the adaptive aspects of it. And I think in, in what you presented today and [2:08:17 PM] in what you presented today and what is in the plan this time around, I have a clearer sense of what's on the five year horizon than I do on the longer horizon. I think when we did the first iteration, we had a lot more charts of like, this is what's happening sort of when and I don't know. And there's a balance, but I'm just, you know, we had some very specific things that we were trying to implement that had to have very specific timetables because they involve the development. Is there a analog in this for that longer time horizon, or is it because it just seems but so much of it is the five year piece of it. Is are we just in a different place now because we've done it for five years, or how do I understand that? >> So last time around, I think you're talking about the 20 year implementation plan that we had developed. I think within this [2:09:19 PM] developed. I think within this update to the plan, we realized how important it is to make near-term course corrections and adjustments based on the success or the results that we're seeing from various programs and policies and our ability to implement projects, which is why we focused more on the five year and the more real time tracking and reporting and accountability so that we could achieve, you know, the longer term goals. I think we're also five years down the line, and many of the projects and strategies within the water forward plan are just now closer in time. So, you know, when we look at the future, well, we have future phases potentially of the on site reuse strategies, for example. Those are kind of now baked in to some of our strategies and are just kind of expectations where previously the 20 year schedule had us looking further out at the use [2:10:20 PM] looking further out at the use of things like water budgeting or expansion of our on site reuse requirements. Now, to be able to achieve our goals, we've really just baked in some of those more expansive kind of visions of the strategies into the baseline of what we would want those strategies to be. I think that our five year updates will just keep setting those five year milestones and really breaking up this huge plan into very actionable goals that we can achieve and make steady progress towards getting implementation of these strategies to where we need them to be to achieve those yields, as you mentioned, like these are very big goals that we're trying to meet, even with the yields, the goals that we've set within the water conservation plan. We don't necessarily have all of the savings identified within the water forward plan to be able to get there. So it's going to be really important for us to [2:11:22 PM] to be really important for us to be keeping up with these five year updates and then course correcting as we need to, because if we're not making those, we have to make up the water somehow. We're going to need it sooner. Rather than later. We're going to need this conservation, reuse and supplies sooner rather than later. >> So part of the reason I was thank you, part of the reason I was asking is I'm I think this is part of where council member Ryan alter's first question came from with you know, what is the scale for the costs? You know, so like how much does plan three or portfolio six, I guess is the one we landed on. How much does that cost and what is the time horizon for that. >> So we can follow up with the details of how much the overall portfolio costs were. I think that that would probably be best because the while the conservation and reuse strategies are kind of our most, sometimes our most affordable for, you know, the amount of yield that you get, those are [2:12:23 PM] yield that you get, those are included within all of the portfolios. So they're not a big differentiator between portfolios. The biggest differentiator is the supply strategies. And we've tried to balance and find a balance between reliability of supplies with the ultimate cost of the supplies. We can follow up with what the overall total cost is. But, you know, over the full, let's say, over a 50 year planning horizon, the first 50 years, it is, you know, within the several billion dollars. >> Okay. So I appreciate that. I'm just like, I don't like I have numbers here, which I appreciate for the cost. But you know, if I, if I go to the ones that are not the future supply. I might just pick one decentralized reclaim as a capital cost of 138 million. With land is 215. Like are we [2:13:27 PM] With land is 215. Like are we talking. That's what we're trying to do in the five years. Or is that over time, like like if we agree to this and we say we like these strategies for the next five years, essentially what we're agreeing to, and we're allowing you to plan for the rest. How much is it costing over the five years? >> We can definitely do. >> We have a plan for that. And any sense of what this means for ratepayers. And obviously not having the water is worse, but it just would be helpful to have some better understanding of those costs. >> Yes, we can absolutely follow up on what the costs look like within the next five years, and then we can follow up with some information on how that's incorporated into our budgets. >> Thanks. Because we don't want to prove a plan and be like, oh, we can't fund it because we didn't talk about the funding side of it. >> Yeah. And I'll say too, that as Marisa mentioned, the a lot of these strategies are ones [2:14:30 PM] of these strategies are ones that we have already been working on. And so they the cost for those are built into our cip now. So when we look for aquifer storage and recovery, for example, we have an ongoing project. It is budgeted, it is included in our cip that council approved that went into effect on October 1st. And so we are continually programing these costs into our capital budget. >> Okay. So then if you can, along with what you think is the appropriate way to understand can help us understand, you know, what are what are things that are not already captured in our plans, that we're going to have to be figuring out how to accommodate. I think that would be helpful. Perspective. And then I wanted to ask about the so for the water conservation land, it basically ends with like by these lands, which I totally agree with. And we're out of [2:15:32 PM] agree with. And we're out of money other than the funding that councilmember Ryan alter secured. But like, what do we estimate it would cost? Like if we were to purchase the land that we need for the conservation, the Colorado river land analysis? >> Yeah. Do we have a cost estimate for that? Sheri. No, not at this time. So we're in the beginning stages of developing the analysis for what properties would be most beneficial to conserve and then that would feed into the, the, the budgeting for that land acquisition. And it's important to note, you know, we have a lot of land conservation work already underway with the water quality protection lands and the balcones canyonlands preserve. And this would be, you know, above and beyond that work. So there's no we absolutely intend [2:16:34 PM] there's no we absolutely intend to continue to prioritize all of these things. >> So I would just ask that that, you know, be an important part of the bond and the climate portion of the bond that's coming forward, and that as you develop that, you also have some conversations with the folks who are doing the food plan, because you may be able to do the regenerative agriculture at the same time that you're conserving these lands. And we can accomplish multiple things, and you may have vehicles that allow us to purchase it, but but they may not. And so I think it might be a useful direction. And then the last thing I wanted to ask is about the legislative agenda. Obviously we have a new environment at the federal level, and we have a continuing one at the state level. But with respect to water, my sense is that there have been some steps that we've been able to do at the state level. We have the lower cost loans that we have available that we don't seem to [2:17:35 PM] available that we don't seem to have for the energy pieces. I believe there was a water working group during the off session. So are there things that we need to be thinking about in terms of the legislative agenda? We're going to be adopting that soon. >> So we've worked with the grow on the legislative agenda. Items that affect water. There is a lot of interest at the state capitol around water supply planning and the upcoming legislature. I had the opportunity twice in September to provide testimony to house and senate committees on reclaimed water and on site water reuse and the implementation of senate bill 1289, which I can get into if you would like. But is essentially around private side reclaimed use. And our ability to support that and so we continue to engage through the [2:18:37 PM] continue to engage through the intergovernmental relations office of the city in what I think are really productive ways. We also we have a committee within Austin water that looks at the various funding opportunities that are primarily low interest loans, provided either through the state revolving fund. We are in discussions right now with EPA on wifia loan for the walnut creek wastewater treatment plant project. And so we're constantly evaluating those low interest loan opportunities. And we've had a lot of success with using those loans as part of our portfolio of funding strategies and, and debt management strategies. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? I think we have an item to approve in front of us, and it's in the form of what looks like a [2:19:39 PM] form of what looks like a resolution. If you all would jump to the second page for the motion. And this will go on to the November 21st, 2024 council agenda. Director roalson. This is what you all are looking for us to approve here today. Is that correct? >> That that's correct. We appreciate your support. If you're able to provide it. >> Can I just ask that we have I don't have the actual resolution. I just have the item. So let me see if I can pull that up. And maybe we can do the next thing and come back to that. Unless it's in the packet. Is it in the packet. No. Where is it? Councilmember pool where is it posted? >> I'll ask miss Phillips to get copies for everybody. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, that would be good. It's. And then I'll read them [2:20:40 PM] It's. And then I'll read them while she's doing that I'll go ahead and read them into the record because they're they're pretty long. So. >> Is it on the Boston water page or is it. >> Just. >> Yeah. Got it. >> So while okay, great. I'll go ahead and read this into the record. The motion would be to recommend council approval of the following items on the November 21, 2024 council agenda. And then the items are numbered as they will appear on the agenda that has already been posted. So item number three approve adoption of water forward 2024. Austin's integrated water resource plan, which includes conservation, reuse and supply strategies and an adaptive management framework [2:21:42 PM] an adaptive management framework to respond to changing conditions to meet Austin's water needs for the next 100 years. Item number four is to approve a resolution repealing resolution 2020 40502-005, which adopted the prior water conservation plan for municipal and wholesale water use and adopting an updated water conservation plan, which describes Austin water's ongoing water conservation strategies, programs and goals as required by the Texas commission on environmental quality, item number five approve a resolution repealing resolution 2024 0502004, which adopted revised drought contingency plan and adopting an updated drought contingency plan, which includes drought or emergency response stages due to water supply [2:22:42 PM] stages due to water supply shortages. Sets targets for water use reduction and other elements required by state law as required by the Texas commission on environmental quality. And the fourth item, which is on the agenda, item number six approve an ordinance amending city code. Chapter six for water conservation to provide for new water restrictions for drip irrigation systems. Create exemptions from certain water conservation and drought response regulations related to drip irrigation. Provide for the hours of operation of splash pads during certain drought response stages, and enact other related provisions and colleagues shall recognize these items as having been briefed to us in the presentations. Excuse me. We've had over the last couple of months. So that's the motion. Would one of you like to? Well, [2:23:43 PM] Would one of you like to? Well, first we can discuss it. Does anybody you want? Okay. I'll go ahead and make the motion. And council member Alison alter will second the motion. Are there any changes or adjustments, amendments or objections to these four items? I think we can adopt all four of them as recommendations to the council in one motion. And seeing none. It is so adopted unanimously on the dais, and this represents a significant accomplishment for our Austin water utility. I want to thank all the staff for the diligence and the perseverance, and for answering our questions. There will be more questions, which is great. I really appreciate all of the engagement and I look forward to having this presented to the council on the 21st and hope for a positive response. >> I just want to get one [2:24:44 PM] >> I just want to get one clarification if I might. So the questions that we asked about the cost and whatever, we'll have those in advance of next week. Okay, great. Thank you. Congratulations. >> Thank you all for your support. Thank you for your engagement. Your engagement and your questions have made for better plans. >> This one was a long time coming. Water forward has been a really important goal for this council, and I'm glad that we're close to seeing the day November 21st. Thank you colleagues. Okay, we will go now to briefings. It looks like we have four briefings. It's 225. Hopefully we can move through these expeditiously and get good presentations, and you all will have time for any questions that you may have. And we'll kick it off with the director's report on Austin water's current events, operational readiness, regulatory updates, recognition and awards, recruiting and retention, and upcoming recommendations for council action. >> Director roalson. Good [2:25:44 PM] >> Director roalson. Good afternoon. I would like to provide you some updates on activities at Austin water. Beyond the specific items we're discussing today on the agenda, I'll start with a drought update. July's rains brought welcome relief and a bump in the lake levels, but levels have continued to decline since then. As of yesterday, combined storage in Lakes Buchanan and Travis is at 53%, with Travis at 46%. So we continue to be in stage two drought restrictions and our water conservation team continues to educate and alert customers leading into the city's budget adoption process. Austin water completed our cost of service study. This is a process we follow every 5 to 7 years to update our rates specific to each of our customer classes, we conducted ten open houses in person, one virtual as well as focus groups. We held a series of meetings with our public involvement committee, which included detailed data driven discussions on our rate [2:26:45 PM] driven discussions on our rate design. We incorporated feedback from those sessions and achieved city council support for our proposed rates, which will allow us to improve system resiliency, keep pace with a growing population, and optimize our system. We adopted rates that cover cost of service for all rate classes except residential, which we'll see rate increases phased in over time. And we continue to grow and fund our customer assistance program, which offers a discount of approximately half for enrolled customers. We continue to use a tiered rate structure to encourage conservation. And through the my atx water program, customers have near real time data on their water use. And we've seen waters, we've seen customers adjust their water use to avoid going into the next tier of rates. And the rating agencies responded favorably and affirmed our excellent credit ratings. And we also had successful bond sales and debt defeasance transactions, putting us in a very good position to fund our [2:27:45 PM] very good position to fund our very ambitious cip program. We continue to deliver high quality infrastructure projects to maintain our service levels. In fiscal year 24, we delivered $305 million in capital improvements, which is a record investment in infrastructure renewal and system resiliency. Some of that cost number is driven by inflation, but mostly it's a reflection on the high performing teams at Austin water and the capital delivery services department. And our on operational readiness. Our teams continue to focus on readiness, and all teams are reporting that winter weather preparations are complete. Power resiliency is a major focus for us, and we continue to add to our fleet of portable generators, including a new pair of 550 kilowatt generators and matching trailer mounted transformers that can be deployed separately or paired to power our larger pump stations. Again this winter, as we did last year, we're deploying a rental generator at the Davis lane pump station, which serves [2:28:46 PM] lane pump station, which serves southwest Austin, and that generator will be in place from December through March. Austin energy is conducting a major improvements project at the B creek substation, which powers the Ulrich water treatment plant. To support that work, we have deployed a fleet of rental generators to maintain backup power to Ulrich until that work can be completed, and our electrical services team has commissioned two new emergency response trailers, which can be quickly deployed to power and control lift stations when their gear is damaged by flooding or equipment failures. Our emergency management team supported several activations of our incident management team, including the planned activation for the repair to a leaking 48 inch main at the Davis lane pump station, as well as the 48 inch main failure at spicewood springs and loop 360. Both of these repairs were successful, in large part due to our ability to communicate directly with our customers through the my atx water portal and our customers response to our calls for conservation. On the topic of regulatory updates, significant [2:29:50 PM] regulatory updates, significant regulatory requirements went into effect this year, including the lead service line inventory. After a multi-year effort to complete our inventory and thanks to the diligent efforts of our predecessors at Austin water over the last 50 years, we have know lead pipes in our system. We do have about 800 galvanized steel private side service lines that need to be replaced, and we're initiating our program, a program with our customers to help them do that. On recognitions and awards. Austin water staff continue to be industry leaders in numerous areas. A few highlights since the last awoc meeting in may, assistant director Brian Borja participated in the update to the effective utility management primer, Austin water, as highlighted in the army, the automated meter infrastructure primer, which is published by the alliance for water efficiency emergency manager Rick Beaman, has been tapped to serve on the American water works association's risk and resiliency committee. Our wildlands conservation team [2:30:52 PM] wildlands conservation team participated in the development of a prescribed burn guide by the fire consortium laboratory supervisor Trinity o'neil and her team organized and hosted the first annual water quality laboratory conference here in Austin. Supervising engineer Katherine Jasinski and the water reuse team hosted and helped plan the Texas water reuse annual conference and made several presentations and conducted tours of our facilities. At that conference, Austin water was honored with the 2024 Texas impact award for the go purple program that council adopted in April, and that program was also accepted for a panel discussion at south by southwest next spring. And as I mentioned earlier, I provided testimony on our reclaim program to committees of the Texas house and senate on innovation. We continue to push the boundaries. Council approved the little bear creek aquifer recharge project, which will divert flood water from the creek into an old quarry, where it will directly recharge Barton springs. This [2:31:53 PM] recharge Barton springs. This project was founded on more than two decades of research by Austin water and watershed protection, and wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the water quality protection lands, which protect about 40% of the contributing area so that the water that we're diverting into the quarry is clean enough to do so. We are a leading contributor, contributor for a new workforce development program developed by the Texas section of the American water works association, which will provide classroom training to high school seniors so that they are able to earn a class D water license when they graduate. We're taking we're participating in that program. We help develop it, and we're taking it one step further to pair it with an internship program to provide these students real world experience. The airport held their groundbreaking for the midfield taxiway project, which will use reclaimed water for construction activities, saving 8 to 10 million gallons of drinking water per year during [2:32:54 PM] drinking water per year during the construction of that project. On the topic of recruiting and retention, we are seeing great results from our efforts over the last two years. Our vacancy rate is 8.9%. Even with the 29 positions we added on October 1st, separations were 24% lower in fiscal year 24 than they were in fiscal year 23. And our key areas continue to improve our electricians and our instrumentation and control technicians are a real bright spot. At the beginning of 2023, they were at about 40% vacancy, and today they're at 15%. Our treatment plants continue to improve, Ulrich today is at six vacancies, which is 14%. Davis has three and Hancock's has one. So they're under ten and 5% at our wastewater plants. Hornsby bend has our has our attention right now. They're at seven vacancies, which is 23%. But the other two plants, large plants walnut and south Austin, are at [2:33:54 PM] walnut and south Austin, are at two vacancy and one vacancy. So a lot of great work happening in recruiting and retention in our plants. And we are certainly seeing the benefits of converting the retention stipend to base pay. And we will continue to focus on training and organizational culture in order to maintain these gains. Upcoming requests for council action. We have a number of requests coming your way before the winter break. We'll be asking for your approval to accept FEMA grant funding through the Texas department of emergency management for a flood mitigation project to protect south Austin regional wastewater plant and Austin energy's sand hill energy center. This is a very important climate resiliency project. That's a collaboration between Austin water Austin energy, transportation and public works watershed protection, and it's led by the capital delivery services department. We also have several transactional items related to chemicals, supplies [2:34:54 PM] related to chemicals, supplies and services needed for our daily operations construction contracts for our bread and butter work of renewing our infrastructure across the city, whether that's through our renewing Austin program or in partnership with mobility projects. And we strive to clearly define these projects and the council backup materials. But we're always happy to provide additional information or answer your questions should you have any. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions for the director. Good report. And I really appreciate hearing the progress you're making on recruitment and retention. That's tremendous. Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> And thanks for the continued strong leadership that you bring to your department director. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. It's my honor. >> The next item proposed updates to water forward 2024 and Austin's water conservation and drought contingency plans. >> I believe we have made that presentation already to support [2:35:56 PM] presentation already to support your discussion of your action items very good. >> And so item number six is Austin waters distribution system, water loss mitigation strategies and this was a specific request from committee member. >> Good afternoon. My name is Matt Cullen. I'm the division manager of pipeline engineering and operations support at Austin water. And so I'm just going to give you a quick update on what we're doing at Austin. Water related to reducing water loss. So I'll go through what we do to limit water loss and how we measure that. And then I'll talk about we had a review done by expert consultant on water loss, and I'll talk about their recommendations and what we're going to be doing to implement those. And then we'll summarize and take your questions. So you know, any water utility has to [2:36:57 PM] know, any water utility has to deal with with water loss. There's going to be some level of water loss. And Austin water's been aware of that and taken it very seriously for a long time. So we take follow industry best practices related to trying to minimize water loss. That includes, you know, responding quickly to leaks. We really do very well on that. We invest in replacing the infrastructure that is the leakiest. And of course, we have a proactive leak detection program. And so despite this, despite all those great efforts that we have, this here is a graph of our ili which is depicts our water loss. And so over the last decade, you can see that number increasing, our water losses going up, not into a terrible place, but but not where we want them to be, and certainly not going in the direction we want them to go. And so that's why we, despite doing all these good things, [2:37:58 PM] doing all these good things, wanted to have an outside expert come in and look at what we were doing and give us some, some ideas of how to improve. And so that report is done. And it had about 32 recommendations in the report. And the utility has brought together our effective utility management water loss team, which really goes across the entire utility. Everything from operations and engineering to the plants and treatment and systems planning and even in finance. So we've got the team together who's focusing on delivering implementation of the recommendations that were made by black and Veatch, as who did the report. So I'm going to hit on some of the major recommendations. So leak detection is certainly something to reduce water loss. And in their review indicated what we're doing as far as our we get through our system about every [2:38:58 PM] through our system about every six years looking at all of our pipes and through their calculations, that's the right rate to go through our system. And so certainly a recommendation is to continue to do that in addition, we've got a large diameter program because the technology is different. It's it takes different stuff to do. The leak detection on the large pipes than the small pipes. Again, their recommendation, continue doing what we were doing really the suggestions or recommendations for changes on the leak detection side is working on some of our cronk contract requirements for our contract contractors that do the leak detection and managing that data, kind of leveraging the data more, more analysis of the data that we get from the leak detection, additional staff training, kind of refining what we do and strengthening training for our staff piloting of new technologies, which is really a thing we already do. The industry of leak detection is something that's really growing, [2:39:59 PM] something that's really growing, and there's a lot of interest in it. And so that's something we've done before, but we're going to continue to do on several different fronts. And basically all of this wraps up into a standard operating procedure where we can just strengthen what we're doing related to leak detection and get more out of what we're doing. Another big item, of course, is system and renewal. And before I get into the details on that, I wanted to quickly go over this just to make sure we're using the right terms. So our water mains are the bigger pipes that are out underneath the street. And you know, will serve a whole block or multiple buildings. And then we've got our water service lines, which are typically on the 1 to 2 inch in diameter. That will serve either one house or two at a time. And so that's the difference between a main and a service line. In the next two slides, I'll be talking about what we're doing for each one of those assets. So as I'm [2:41:00 PM] one of those assets. So as I'm sure you're aware and has been mentioned some already today we've got our renewing Austin program that's focused on replacing our leakiest mains, primarily our cast iron pipes and as you can look at that graph that's up there, this this one tells a really good story. Even when we started that we were better than the industry average and our our breaks per mile for our, our main lines. But through our efforts and our investment in renewing Austin, we've gotten a better even better than what the industry would say where an optimized utility operates and so that's been a good story, and we want to keep that up. You know, the pipes aren't getting younger. So we're going to we're going to keep working on this. But we've been very successful here. So on the flip side, we can talk about our service lines. So as you can see from this graph we've above the industry average in service line breaks per 1000 services. [2:42:01 PM] line breaks per 1000 services. And trickling upwards kind of in the wrong direction. And we've known that services were an issue and we've been putting efforts towards solving this issue. But clearly there hadn't been enough investment there. And so that's definitely one of the recommendations from the report, is to up our investment in this area to, to get these services replaced with less leaky services. And so this is definitely, you know, we're going through our cip planning process right now. And the next round of next cip plan will will have additional investment to replace even more services than we were already planning on replacing. And then there were some questions previously about the amount of water that we lose due to pipes that are hit during construction and impacted by construction. And so this is a quick pie chart to lay some out of, of where our losses come [2:43:03 PM] of, of where our losses come from. And so while for example, the spicewood springs break did lose, you know, several million gallons, that was a large loss in the big scheme of things over a year. This data is from our 2023 report. It's just about it's actually a little bit less than 1% of the losses that we have are from those kind of incidences. Then about 5% of the losses come from the repairs that we do. And so from from those breaks that then lead to repairs. And so we track all of that. So that's the 5% number. And then about a quarter, 24% in this data of the losses are what the industry would call unavoidable real loss. Things that no matter what you do, some seeps at joints and things like that. That's part of our illy calculation. It's the unavoidable real loss kind of the numerator of the illy. And so that's that's a quarter of what our losses are. And that [2:44:03 PM] what our losses are. And that leaves this big chunk, the 70% that are unidentified leaks. So leaks that haven't gotten to the surface. So we haven't gone and make major repairs. But also, you know, haven't been found by leak detection. And so you attack this 70% with the two things that I previously spoke about, additional leak detection and leveraging the data that we've got to improve the results that we're getting for leak detection and by system renewal, so that you have the pipes in the ground that are that are leaking less. I want to pause on this one because I think this was related to a question that that had come up in a previous meeting. I don't know if you want to stop for any questions right at this point. >> Council member Alison alter, we can finish the presentation. >> Okay. All right. >> Vice chair, did you have anything at this point? >> Okay. And so listed here are a general areas of the rest of [2:45:05 PM] a general areas of the rest of the recommendations from the report. The first two there are the proactive leak detection and the service lines just to touch on the others. The third one there is improving production meter accuracy. When we calculate our water losses. It all starts with the numbers of what comes out of our plants. And so being as precise as we can with those numbers is really important, so that we know where we are and where we stand. And so we know we have some work to do there. We'll study that additionally find out exactly the right things to do and then execute some capital improvements to improve those numbers. And then there's an item for strengthening data validation practices for large meters. So this is large customer meters a large percentage of our demand that we of what we sell to our customers go through these large meters. And so we've got a contractor that does this testing. And so this suggestion here a [2:46:06 PM] this suggestion here a recommendation from black and Veatch is that we do some more review of the results from the contractor and just validate what they're doing to strengthen our results. There and then across the water loss program, there was kind of a constant theme of utilizing our data. That's what black and Veatch did. They what's the word dashboard. They use dashboards for a lot of our data to identify and find trends, and find where there may be issues found, one with with some of our meters at the plants that we were, we've already been able to correct some issues there. And so that's their suggestions again in a number of different locations. Manage our data dashboard the data using things like power bi to review the data and strengthen what we're doing. We want to work on improving some of our estimates. This is a recommendation that they gave us. So the unbilled authorized consumption are things like [2:47:07 PM] consumption are things like flushing of water mains, fighting a fires, things of that sort. We do a very good job of that, and we're very detailed in how we estimate that. But our our formulas and how we do that, it's been a while since we've reviewed those. And so black and Veatch suggested that we go back again and take another look and make sure we're right on on course there. Okay. And then we're going to implement additional training for the water audit that we've got. We're going to have that spread more out across the utility, get more people trained along those lines. So it's kind of a broader base within the utility of those that are familiar with that auditing process. And then there's district metering areas. This is something that's technically challenging to do in a system like ours. But with the advent of army, really be a strong tool to help us get this done. We've got two district [2:48:07 PM] done. We've got two district metered areas going, going live this fall by the end of the year, and we'll be expanding that. And that will also help us reduce our water losses. So on the 21st, we will have an rca coming before council for our large diameter leak detection contract. So that's again, one of the recommendations is to continue doing that. Something we've been doing for almost a decade and a half now. And so that'll be coming through for your review. As far as implementing the recommendations, we're identifying those that we can get implemented quickly and moving on those. And then identifying those that are a little longer term and doing what we need to do now to get the ball rolling on those so that we can make these things happen. And of course, we'll be providing regular reports to all of our stakeholders. So it was a quick run through. Any questions? Great. [2:49:08 PM] questions? Great. >> Let's see about questions. Yes. Council member Allison thank you. >> That was really helpful. You know, and sort of seeing the main links in in context with what the service line leaks, I think is really helpful, but it does raise the question of, you know, what investments are we making in those service lines? One of my commissioners mentioned the and I may get how to pronounce this wrong. The polybutylene pipes that we have, we don't have lead, but we have those pipes and that those pipes are eroding. And that is likely a big part of the service line problem. Do we have dedicated funding that's allocated to replacing those? And what is the time frame and the magnitude of that project? >> Yes. So we definitely have dedicated funding to that knowing that it's the polybutylene at our at our current rate, we'd be removing those by, say, 2045. And we want to we're going to move that up. [2:50:09 PM] to we're going to move that up. We're going to put additional investment in that area. We haven't settled today on exactly what that's going to look like, but we're going through the cip planning right now. So we're going to move that up, invest more to replace them quicker. >> Yeah, I'll add to that a little bit that we polybutylene was widely used when Austin was booming and building. And so we have it in a number of areas and we know where it is. And we have developed a risk based approach because we know it fails more at higher pressures. We know once it fails, it doesn't stop failing. And so, you know, there's a number of strategies. One is we can identify those poor performin areas and put our money there first to get the faster bang for our buck. The other is that when our crews go out to repair and find that the leak is a service line, they can replace it rather than repair it. And so there are a number of different strategies that we can tools in our toolbox that we can use to make significant [2:51:10 PM] use to make significant improvement in this area. And a few years ago, we did a kind of a pilot project where we replaced a bunch of polybutylene services in one area, and then we were able to document, you know, fewer breaks, less water loss in that area. And so we know that that's an effective tool for us to reduce water loss. >> Are there any federal or state programs to assist with that? >> I don't think that that in the in the scheme of all of the things that there is federal money for polybutylene services, does not rise to the to the same level of concern as some of the other issues, but we have sufficient funding and ability to fund these programs that that we need to and, and we will continue to pursue, you know, the low interest loans that may be available for this work. >> Okay. I'll just register that it sounds like we need to speed [2:52:12 PM] it sounds like we need to speed that up from 2045. >> And we intend to. >> Yes. That's even as part of our, you know, water forward efforts. It sounds like that is a is an important strategy for the water conservation that should be incorporated. >> It it is important. It is it is incorporated. And it is part of our the suite of strategies that we have in place in order to reach our water conservation goals. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate this overview. >> Councilmember Ryan alter, vice chair Ryan alter thank you. >> Do do we utilize automated valves in the service portion of the system to shut off if someone reports a leak, we do not use automated valves. >> We roll a truck to go close that valve. >> And is that because of cost or why why would we why not I the so there was a I'm going to have to get back to you on the [2:53:14 PM] have to get back to you on the answer to that question that the answer to that predates me. >> And so I'll get back to you on that. >> And I assume the answer is similar for a meter that's on the service side. But, you know, as I was going through this and reading the report, it and maybe it's overkill, but maybe not. I mean, it seems like why don't you have a meter coming off the main, your meter at the customer side. And if those two flows aren't the same, you've got a break in between and the valve turns it off like that seems like a very intuitive solution. Maybe it's cost prohibitive, maybe not. I'm just curious, why do we not implement those kinds of tools so that we don't lose so much water? >> I would say that having two meters is not a is not an industry recommended approach in part because meters are the meters that we have deployed are very accurate, but they're not the accuracy between those two [2:54:14 PM] the accuracy between those two meters. You you may not get usable data when you compare those two meters. And then we do have leak alerts on the private on the on the private side of the meter that will through the my water program, that will let our customers know in near real time that they have a leak so that they can go find it and repair it. And we have seen a lot of really good response to that to those alerts. Yeah, do and looking at one of the pictures here for the service line slide that blue piping. >> Are we using. It seems like that seems like a flexible type of pipe. Is that what we use for our service lines. >> Do you know the answer to that? >> Yeah. Currently just about all the service lines that are going in are hdpe, high density polyethylene. The polybutylene was a blue and sometimes black, but it it didn't last like it was supposed to. All the results [2:55:17 PM] was supposed to. All the results with the hdpe have been very good to this point, but that's most of what our services are. >> And are they are they rigid or flexible? And I ask this because a neighbor asked me the other day, we had a break in our neighborhood, and we have very shifty soils where I live. And it's not the first break, it's not the hundredth break. And why don't these pipes, you know, account for that? And I said, I don't know, but well, well, I'll say that hdpe is more certainly more flexible than copper or, or the old poly. >> That's the polybutylene is really brittle. So it doesn't take much movement for, for it to fail. So it's not totally flexible, but it's much more flexible than, you know, the metal services. >> That makes a lot of sense for the item that you referenced for the 21st, for our leak detection, is that a kind of maintenance, maintenance of status quo, or are we adding, as the report talks about additional leak detection personnel to go out and try to catch some of that 70% that's just going undetected right now? [2:56:18 PM] just going undetected right now? >> So the 21st year is for our large diameter leak detection. And so that is a continuation of what we've been doing. The large diameter and the small diameter really are quite different in the large diameter. Typically sometimes we have to make changes to the pipe and taps and ports for putting. This is the smart ball that floats through the pipe. And then gets caught at the other end. So this is generally continuing what we've been doing on that end. And we've we've had some real good results there identifying both on the condition assessment side, some pipes that was the picture that I had was a pipe that we found that was near failure and able to repair it before it, before it totally failed. And then the smart ball is finding the leaks and we've had good results with with both of those. But that's what that's for. >> And do you all have plans to come forward at some point, whether it's in the budget next year or at some point to expand the leak detection team for your smaller diameter pipes, getting [2:57:19 PM] smaller diameter pipes, getting at what the report is discussing, mostly what the report spoke to was utilizing the data that we're already getting back because there is a process for calculating through the a awwa standards of how frequently. >> What's the right timeline to get through your system. And about six years based on our system and the type of system we have, six years was what the calculation came out to, and that's what we've been doing. And so they're their recommendations were to continue that, but to do these other things with more utilization of the data to focus where we're doing the work and more training and more changing up some of the contract wording, getting stronger about the reports that that we get back from the contractors and things like that. But as far as the rate of number of miles that we're covering, number of valves that we're listening to, listening to, the recommendation was to continue that load, but just leverage what we've got to get more results. [2:58:20 PM] more results. >> Got it. >> And the lastly, there was one recommendation that talked about the inaccuracies in our water meters causing 1476 million gallons per year lost. And that was valued at $8.5 million. And I'm just curious, part of the discussion was that, you know, our over two inch meters were not being replaced for the met water program. Are we considering going to larger meters or what is kind of your response to that discussion on where we are replacing our meters and not, and how that's contributing to our overall water loss? >> I'm not sure I'm. So that's apparent losses. I think that you're referring to there. That's what it sounds like. And that must be the larger meters. I, I don't know how to answer that question right off. >> That's fine. >> I just I'm curious if we're considering and growing the scope of our meter water meter replacement to, to capture some [2:59:23 PM] replacement to, to capture some of the meters were not because of their size in order to recapture some of that or prevent some of that loss. >> So one of the we'll go back and look at that recommendation so we can answer your question more completely. But I will say that the we do have a on our list. The validation of the large meters and making sure that we improve that validation so that we do have confidence in the accuracy of the large meters. Also, Matt mentioned the production meters. So those are the meters that are at our water treatment plants. And particularly for our older plants. Ulrich and Davis, when those plants were built and those and those meter vaults were built, they were built for internal use at the plant to control the plant processes. And now we are asking those meters to do a lot more work for us [3:00:24 PM] to do a lot more work for us related to more precision in how much water we're producing and putting into the system every day. And so improving the accuracy of those meters is not as simple as swapping them out for more accurate meters. The piping configurations themselves do not lend themselves to accurate flow measurement, and so that will take a construction project. And I think that's probably the $8 million that's in the report. But we'll look at it to be sure. But that will take, you know, significant sip at the plants in order to install meter vaults and meters on enough straight run of pipe that we can get accurate meter readings off of them, that's on page six eight. >> Just so thank you, whoever that person. I appreciate that. Yes. Six eight thumbing through I appreciate it. Thank you chair. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks for this for this briefing. Our last item, last briefing Barton creek wastewater interceptor report in [3:01:24 PM] wastewater interceptor report in response to council resolution number 2024 0530. Dash 116. >> Thank you. So this was a resolution from council for us to go look at the Barton creek interceptor and proposed development in the area and the ability to serve future development beyond what the Barton creek interceptor is capable of serving now. And we have done a an engineering analysis of this of these questions that were posed in the resolution. And our assistant director of engineering services, Charles solaro, is going to review the results of that analysis with you. >> Thank you. Charles Taylor assistant director of engineering services. Sorry. Let's go. Okay. The agenda, we will look at the health of the Barton creek stream. We will review representative stakeholders for the [3:02:26 PM] stakeholders for the redevelopment. We'll discuss a conceptual mopac interceptor and the rule review the challenges of relocating the Barton creek interceptor, as well. We're here today for a cause of the resolution passed on may 30th, as Shea mentioned, was to look at trying to remove Barton creek interceptor from the critical water quality zone review representatives of developers for wastewater needs and come back to you today to discuss. This is the study area. It's about 2100 acres. It's bound to the south by capital of Texas highway loop 360 to the north by Colorado river, to the east by Rabb road, and to the west by little bee creek. The Barton creek interceptor, which is shown in dark green on that map, runs parallel and west of Barton creek. The stream health watershed protection department reports that Barton creek is one [3:03:26 PM] reports that Barton creek is one of the healthier streams in Austin. The ten year environmental integrity index and the contact recreational score ranks the creek as sixth out of 49 creeks in the Austin area. Additionally, the past 15 years, the water quality score for this reach of Barton creek has between been between good and fair, and also within the last 15 years, only two out of the 23 E coli samples have been above t-c-e-q threshold. So as we discuss the development within the area, there is an existing development that occurred before the 1992 silver spring ordinance, which is the current development ordinance within this area. In general, the development prior to the 1992, not underneath. So this ordinance generally has higher impervious cover below standard of no water quality treatment, and the development tends to be [3:04:28 PM] and the development tends to be closer to the environmental sensitive areas. If redevelopment of existing development was to occur, most likely they would need to comply with the sos ordinance, which would provide for impervious cover limitation, enhanced on site water quality treatment and we would reduce the impacts to environmental sensitive areas. Additionally, to in this area, in 1996 and 1997, the Robert E Lee road interceptor in the consensus group design flow studies were commissioned and that established a maximum wastewater allocation for each section or parcel within the contributing area of Barton creek. Interceptor and Austin water has used this allocation in reviewing service extension requests for new development and redevelopment. Additionally, in 2002, the Barton creek interceptor was modified to reduce the capacity within the pipe. With that, we talked to [3:05:30 PM] pipe. With that, we talked to the several stakeholders. Oh didn't move forward. Sorry. Oh you did. I'm sorry. Oh, there we go. Sorry. Within the within the service areas. This includes the city of Westlake, the city of rollingwood, woods of Barton creek, skyway, Barton creek mall, terrace pud, and palisades west. These stakeholders include commercial and multiple multifamily properties, and the stakeholder discussed their utility service needs and the option for service plan to provide wastewater with Austin water. With that, the staff started evaluating plans for future wastewater flows. The evaluation resulted in what we are calling the conceptual mopac interceptor. The interceptor is about 13,900ft long and [3:06:31 PM] about 13,900ft long and approximately 20% of the pipe length has encroachment within the critical water quality. Erosion hazard and 100 year floodplain. I'd like to note that most of all, the encroachment is along actually Ian's creek, which is west of mopac. Additionally, we looked at the existing wastewater capacity within the system with the stakeholders plans and the majority of the projected flows are located west of mopac to serve the future flows, the conceptual mopac interceptor could be constructed for the existing capacity constraints. The Thousand Oaks interceptor from bee creek lift station to Tremont lift station and ultimately connecting to the mopac conceptual interceptor could be constructed. This option would reduce the flow to skunk hollow. Currently, the bee creek lift station force main discharges into the skunk [3:07:32 PM] discharges into the skunk hollow, which is Orange on that map would eliminate two lift stations and eliminate three mopac wastewater crossings underneath mopac, and would reduce the existing flows going to the Barton creek interceptor by 65%. This would this would the remaining wastewater flows within the service areas would go to the Barton creek interceptor. As we as we talk about the mopac interceptor, the Thousand Oaks interceptor, it it it addresses many questions or many requests in the resolution, but does not move. The Barton creek interceptor, the Barton creek receptor today is about 11,000 linear feet of mostly 24 and 36 inch fiberglass reinforced concrete pipe. Plastic pipe excuse me. This is a modern, corrosive resistant pipe. A significant portion is within the encroachment areas, and the performance of the pipe has been very good. Our data [3:08:34 PM] has been very good. Our data shows only one. So in 2015, resulting in 50 gallons due to pipe blockage. When we when we look at moving the Barton creek interceptor, the following criteria were used. We wanted to be able to provide service to all the customers. We wanted to avoid displacing homes to minimize lift stations, provide access for future operation and maintenance, avoid environmental impacts, and achieve regulatory compliance to provide service to the existing homes. The land topography is a crucial design element in evaluating alternatives on the screen to the right there is or my guess you're right. Yes. Is a topography map showing ten foot contour intervals and that's the elevations at every ten feet. The lighter yellow or the higher elevations and the darker green are the lower elevations. And this is trying to illustrate how [3:09:36 PM] this is trying to illustrate how Barton creek interceptors is at the bottom of the valley of this of this area here. And how flows go from the higher down to the lower down to Barton creek. Another way of showing this is with a cross section. Cross section would represent, if one were to actually cut the topography map and take a look at it. And this cross section is from the topography map that you looked at. As you can see, the interceptor again is at the bottom of the valley. If I were to move the Barton creek interceptor, the properties or the homes, that would be below the interceptor would no longer be able to be served. Service to that lower area would then need lift stations to take the flow from the lower elevations and pump it back up to the higher elevations. Since most of the development is up to Barton creek, most of those lift stations would still well. Most [3:10:37 PM] stations would still well. Most lift stations would be in the critical water quality and hundred year floodplain. Additionally, if we did decide to relocate the Barton creek interceptor to the east, additional crossings to have the services from the west go to the east would would need to be done as well. So to avoid any kind of lift stations or additional wastewater crossings, the Barton creek interceptor would remain for local flows. So should the city council direct the city manager to serve the new development or redevelopment of existing properties within the Barton creek, contributing Zones, we would continue to monitor the flows within the existing pipe, continue the condition assessment and monitoring of the pipe. We would initiate the preliminary engineering of the Thousand Oaks interceptor and the conceptual mopac interceptor with the Barton creek interceptor [3:11:37 PM] Barton creek interceptor remaining for local flows. As discussed, the evaluation of service extension requests within the area would follow the city's policy rather than the consensual group study, which allocates wastewater by parcel or section and to continue encouraging developments to voluntarily incorporate on site water reuse and conservation methods. And that will take questions. >> So it sounds like what you're saying is that you wouldn't recommend doing anything to remove and replace the interceptor, but you would limit the continued inflows only to residential. And then is it safe to say that any new wastewater capacity would occur on either side of the creek and not in it? They'd be different. Lift stations and different pipes that are to the east or west of the creek. [3:12:39 PM] the creek. >> So I should let Charles answer this. But the what we have shown is, as you say, the Barton creek interceptor is staying where it is. And that would not require lift stations that would allow that local service area to continue to be served by gravity pipes and any redevelopment that happens in that area would be governed by the city's codes and ordinances, by the save our springs, the sos ordinance and would therefore meet those meet those requirements for service. >> And if you were to move, go ahead. >> I just wanted to correct one thing. There is some commercial development west of mopac, so there may be a small amount of commercial development still going toward the Barton creek [3:13:39 PM] going toward the Barton creek interceptor. You had mentioned just residential, but there is some commercial development along mopac. >> Okay, so could you go back to the slide that shows the Thousand Oaks interceptor, and what's the name of the other one? >> Skunk hollow. >> That's it. Skunk hollow. That's my favorite one. Yes. Me too. That that picture. That shows the gully, which is the creek bed, is what made me think that whatever would happen on either side of the creek would be built or continue to be on either side of the creek and would not so cross the creek for the area that's in blue. >> So the blue line would be the local service area, and it's about 35% of the of the existing existing flows. So it's a third, [3:14:40 PM] existing flows. So it's a third, you know, about a third of the existing flows would be what would remain in Barton creek. Interceptor. And that would be some areas to the west, as Charles mentioned, that that currently cross the creek. But we wouldn't need any new crossings of the creek. Oh, sorry. Let me say that again. The interceptor itself is on the west, and there are crossings from the east to the west to serve the residential areas to the east. Those crossings would remain, but we wouldn't need new crossings and that's important to me for sure, and probably for a lot of other folks that we're not doing anything to increase the effluent that may be running through pipes that are in the creek bed, because we want to make sure that that pristine nature of the water over the aquifer area continues to be at the levels that it is now, which is really great. >> I was glad to hear that. But we also recognize that things change and we have to be able to [3:15:42 PM] change and we have to be able to respond to that, including the amount of development that may or may not be happening in future years, so that we are poised to be able to accommodate that without doing anything to cause deterioration of the levels of the pristine nature of. And I know I'm overemphasizing how clean the water is, but it it's actually looking pretty good. And it's got a good record and I don't want to do anything to make that to negatively affect it. So is that kind of how you are looking at this, this scenario? >> Here it is. So the idea with the mopac interceptor is to that that new interceptor would capture those flows to the west, which is where most of the redevelopment would be happening. And that, you know, some redevelopment is expected when we looked at the, the, the stakeholders that we spoke with, [3:16:43 PM] stakeholders that we spoke with, some redevelopment is happening inside of this local service area. But at those expected rates of development, the existing Barton creek interceptor can accommodate that without stressing that system. >> And some of that is because you're pulling some of the users off of it and putting them in a new interceptor. So you'd be able to replace that reduction and not increase that any. That's right. Okay. And I know the topography over there is difficult. And lift stations are super expensive. >> And I would say more than the cost of the lift stations is the environmental impact. So, you know, lift stations, the way we build lift stations now, we elevate everything above the 100 year floodplain. We install a permanent diesel powered or gas powered if gas is available, generators on those sites, we fence them. We install a lot of security. We make sure we have [3:17:43 PM] security. We make sure we have access to them. I mean, they're our lift stations today are very robust and we have a lot of alarming and controls. But mechanical and electrical equipment still fails. And so whatever our response time is to that failure is an environmental risk. So, you know, from the perspective of protecting the creek, we feel that a gravity system is the is a very well maintained gravity system is the most environmentally protective. >> Great questions. >> Councilmember Allison alter so I understand this was council initiated. You went and did the analysis and you came up with a recommendation. If council wants to do it, are you recommending it? >> Well, what I will say to that is that right now we treat that area differently than we do [3:18:45 PM] area differently than we do every other request for redevelopment. Currently, we look at the allocation, the flow allocation for each section of this service area on the basis of that consensus study from 1998, and that is the amount of wastewater flow that, that that the site in that area can send us and that is not how we manage wastewater planning. And delivery of service in the rest of our service area. So from the perspective of industry standard utility planning practices, it would be our recommendation to serve this area in the way that is consistent with our with the city's service extension request policy, with all of our codes and ordinances between between [3:19:45 PM] and ordinances between between the development services department and watershed protection and Austin water that all work together comprehensively to implement city's policies. >> Right. And our voters decided this area was not like other areas of the city. And that has served us very well for a long time. You know, hopefully this decision isn't coming before us before December. But I do think there's a Pandora's box here, and I think it needs to be looked at very carefully. You could easily, you know, just be accelerating development in that area. And that may not be the most ideal thing. I understand that there's redevelopment that can happen that can be environmentally better, and maybe that cannot happen. And we need we need to be thinking about that. But it's I'm not sure. It's as simple as yes, let's just do it in that area. [3:20:46 PM] let's just do it in that area. >> This is a fundamentally a city council policy decision, and we will implement city council policy as we have been doing since the consensus group study was completed. And that can continue until city council directs. Otherwise. >> Thank you, I appreciate that. I do think that this is an area that ought to be tread lightly and that we should have more information before you know about what we're unleashing on those other issues, beyond just what happens with the wastewater capacity. That's my view. Thank you. >> So the changes don't affect the sos ordinance, correct? It's that 9798 agreement with the how much wastewater is able to be assigned Wright. >> The sos ordinance applies to all of this area. There's just an added layer of allocation of [3:21:47 PM] an added layer of allocation of wastewater capacity that comes out of the consensus group design flows. >> And that's the piece that is unique to this location. That's right. Right. I mean, sos is also unique to this location, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the allocation of the flows. That's right. Okay. I really appreciate staff digging in on this request from the dais. It was important for us to kind of set a standard and a baseline and update the information that everybody has for what's going on over there. I know that there has been some interest in redeveloping and changing the aspects of the mall. That's on the top of that hill, which would involve significant removal or removal of a significant percentage of the acreage that right now is a parking lot. And creating parkland over there. And just, you know, kind of doing an Austin thing over on on that hilltop, which I am very interested in seeing happen. [3:22:50 PM] interested in seeing happen. Little bit of personal history for me on the west side of town, when I first moved to Austin in July of 1980, I moved into an apartment that looked out over that hilltop, and when I moved in in July, it was covered with trees and by I think it was that fall or or before a year was gone, the bulldozers were over there taking the trees down and denuding the top of that of that rise. And it took me almost 20 years to be willing to step foot in that mall that was built over there, because I watched the destruction of the forest and, and saw the, you know, the parking lots. And so it it matters what we do. And if there is a way for us to facilitate and change back to some of what [3:23:51 PM] and change back to some of what we had before that hilltop was all the trees were removed from that hilltop and that mall was built. I, I would be cheering us on for, for making those improvements. And if it means that we need to then reallocate some of the flows from the 97, 98 agreement, then I think that that is a good conversation for us to have so that we look at what is it that we're trying to achieve, what is it just to have more development, or is it actually to return some significant acreage on the west side of town to a more environmentally appropriate and pleasant situation, which I totally be for that. So and that's, that's in the future. It's not it's not something that will happen before the end of this year for sure. But I know that was what was top of mind [3:24:52 PM] that was what was top of mind for me with regard to this particular resolution, that the die is passed back in may. So thank you all for doing that investigation and providing us with this information. It's really helpful. Anything else on this item? Does anybody have anything at this point for the next meeting, which of course is going to be in 2025, looks like Tuesday, February 18th. All right. That being the case at 3:25 P.M, this meeting, the last meeting of the Austin water oversight committee for 2024, is adjourned. And thank you all so much for all of your work all year. It is so appreciated. Thank you. >> Mayor pro tem pool and council member Alison alter, if I may, thank you for your service and your support of Austin water and best of luck to you in your future endeavors. [3:25:54 PM] And council member Ryan alter, we're depending on you to stick it out with us. >> Thank you. >> Careful what you wish for. >> Thank you. >> Thanks to all. All I'm asking.