Laserfiche WebLink
RWC Water Supply Reliability <br /> <br />3. Reliability: The Water Supply And Demand Balance <br /> <br /> Comparing the water supply data shown in Exhibit 1 with the demand data shown in Exhibit 2, it <br /> is obvious that RWC is in a high risk, low reliability situation at the moment. RWC has one of <br /> the lowest levels of reliability of the BAWUA members. I also believe RWC has one of the <br /> lowest levels of water supply reliability in Northern California, although obtaining accurate <br /> measures of reliability is difficult. As a consequence, I have not collected benchmarks for <br /> comparison at this time. <br /> <br />The SFPUC water supply situation will remain unchanged until at least July 2009 when the <br />existing Master Water Sales Contract and BAWUA / SFPUC Interim Shortage Allocation Plan <br />expire and are renegotiated. It is difficult to predict the outcome of the renegotiations, but it is <br />unlikely that RWC will improve its water supply reliability from this source. <br /> <br />4. Selecting A Proper Level Of Reliability <br /> <br />What is the appropriate level of reliability? There is no exact engineering answer, but rather the <br />appropriate level is a judgment call dependent on the level of risk RWC is willing to take, and <br />how much RWC is willing to pay to minimize this risk. <br /> <br />Exhibit 3 graphically shows how water supply reliability increases with water supply additions <br />of 1,000 AFY for water conservation and an additional 1,208 for water recycling (priority <br />customers 1 and 2 in the Redwood Shores area identified by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Water <br />Recycling Feasibility Study for Redwood City, August 2002). <br /> <br />Focusing on scenario 3 (SFPUC cutback of 10%), RWC's cutback under current arrangements <br />would be 17.5%. If 1,000 AFY of additional supplies could be obtained via conservation, the <br />cutback would be reduced to 12.4%. With 1,208 AFY of additional supplies from recycling <br />(2,208 AFY total), the cutback would be a very manageable 6.3%. <br /> <br />Readers should note that the mliabilities presented are for existing water customers as of FY <br />2000/2001. As shown in Exhibit 2, water use is expected to grow 1,647 AFY over the next 20 <br />years. The thirst of this new growth needs to be quenched from new water supplies if the water <br />reliability of existing customers is not to decay incrementally. <br /> <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />