Draft Report

Utah Water System Efficiency and

Water Loss Control Pilot Program Prepared for Utah Division of Water Resources Prepared by

Draft Report

Utah Water System Efficiency and

Water Loss Control Pilot Program

Prepared for

Utah Division of Water Resources

Prepared by

Intermountain Section AWWA and

Cavanaugh

In Cooperation With

City of Orem Granger Hunter Improvement District

Kearns Improvement District

January 2017

  

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 

PROGRAM OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 2 

LARGE GROUP ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 

SMALL GROUP (PILOT UTILITIES) ....................................................................................................................................... 4 

PILOT UTILITY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 5 

GRANGER‐HUNTER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEVEL 1 VALIDATION .......................................................................................... 7 

CITY OF OREM LEVEL 1 VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 8 

KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEVEL 1 VALIDATION ........................................................................................................ 10 

A COMPARISON ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 

PROGRAM FEEDBACK ........................................................................................................................................ 13 

TRAINING FEEDBACK ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 

WATER AUDIT PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................ 14 

DATA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 14 

BENEFITS TO UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................................... 15 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER LOSS CONTROL IN THE STATE OF UTAH ........................................................ 16 

1.  DATA INPUT MODULE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 17 

2.  WATER AUDIT AND DATA VALIDITY GRADE SUBMITTAL ............................................................................................... 19 

3.  STATE DEVELOP A LEVEL 1 WATER AUDIT VALIDATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 21 

4.  WATER AUDIT AND VALIDATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (WATER LOSS TAP) .................................................. 21 

 

APPENDIX 

A.  CITY OF OREM FINAL REPORT B.  GRANGER HUNTER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FINAL REPORT C.  KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FINAL REPORT D.  SURVEY RESULTS E.  WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION LEVEL 1 WATER AUDIT VALIDATION REPORT, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

  

 

1 | P a g e

Executive Summary The State of Utah is located in an arid climate, and population is expected to double during the next 30 to 40 years. Water supply challenges and the need for robust conservation planning are driven by increasing customer demand, declining supplies, and aging utility infrastructure. Water Loss Control is an important part of water resource management for water utilities and state agencies. A 2015 legislative audit1 brought a close look at Utah’s long term water needs and the reliability of the baseline data for demand projections. This report helped provide focus on conservation initiatives as well, and the crucial role they play in long-term supply. The relationship between conservation and supply is further amplified by the US EPA guidance manual2 issued in December 2016.

In 2016 the Utah Division of Water Resources (DWRe) set forth to enhance the state’s water loss programs by implementing a pilot program to train utilities in analysis and management of non-revenue water. This pilot program was conceived and executed through a collaborative effort from DWRe, the Intermountain Section of the American Water Works Association (IMSAWWA), and Cavanaugh. The aim of this pilot training program was to guide and advance adoption of best-practices for water loss control in the State of Utah. The pilot program demonstrated willingness and ability of the pilot utilities to learn the AWWA water loss auditing & validation practices, and using the AWWA methods provided superior insight into the utilities’ system efficiency which brings benefit directly to the utilities and to the State of Utah.

The Water Efficiency and Water Loss Control program, through the training classes, surveys and pilot programs with utilities, has arrived at a comprehensive, state-wide plan for moving the program forward. Four interconnected recommendations make up the Utah’s Integrated Water Supply and Use Program:

• Develop a Data Input Module for the Free AWWA Water Audit Software that would collect monthly consumption volumes by class and monthly supply volumes by source.

• Request that public water systems greater than 3300 population submit a self-reported water audit and data validity grade, along with the data from the Input Module to the State of Utah in lieu of the Utah Water Use Data Form on an annual basis.

• Develop a Level 1 Water Audit Validation Program through DWRe to confirm the accurate application of AWWA M36 water audit methodology, identify data inaccuracies, and verify data.

• Create a Water Audit and Validation Technical Assistance Program (Water Loss TAP) to provide training and technical assistance in the State of Utah on water auditing and validation.

1 A Performance Audit of Projections of Utah’s Water Needs. May 2015. https://le.utah.gov/audit/15_01rpt.pdf 2 Best Practices for Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply. Dec 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/best-practices-water-conservation-and-efficiency-alternative-water

2 | P a g e

Purpose The Utah Water System Efficiency and Water Loss Control Program primary objectives were to introduce the American Water Works Association (AWWA) methodology and tools to reduce water loss, teach the effectiveness of the water system audit process to collect reliable water supply and use data, evaluate the potential for driving utilities’ water loss programs from audit to action, and inform policy makers of broad scale needs of statewide Training and Technical Assistance.

There are several key stakeholders and utility partners invested in the Pilot Training Program:

Organization Role Primary Contact Intermountain Section of the American Water Works Association (IMS-AWWA)

Association support; Project funding

Alane Boyd, P.E. Executive Director

Utah Division of Water Resources Agency support; Project funding Todd Stonely, P.E. River Basin Planning Manager Russ Barrus

City of Orem Pilot Utility; Project funding Lane Gray Water Section Manager

Granger-Hunter Improvement District

Pilot Utility; Project funding Clint Jensen General Manager

Kearns Improvement District Pilot Utility; Project funding Pam Gill General Manager

Cavanaugh & Associates Subject Matter Expert Will Jernigan, P.E. Tory Wagoner, P.E. Larry Lewison Drew Blackwell

Program Overview The Utah Water System Efficiency Assessment & Water Loss Control Program was designed for two separate learning workshops to be conducted over the course of two days, October 13, 2016 and October 14, 2016. The workshops were held in the Education Center at Conservation Garden Park, 8275 S. 1300 W. West Jordan, UT 84088. First, a large group workshop was offered for utilities in the state interested in learning more about the AWWA M36 Water Auditing methodology. Second, a small pilot group was selected to participate in a one-on-one session with subject matter experts to work closely on their top-down water audit. Each these program segments, large and small groups, are described in more detail below.

Large Group The large group program segment was open to all utilities across the state, but designed and targeted toward those utilities that were greater than or equal to 3,000 connections.

Development Training content for the program focused on foundational training on the AWWA M36 Water Auditing &

3 | P a g e

Loss Control Methodology. This methodology emphasizes the top-down IWA/AWWA Water Audit (water audit) and bottom-up validation practices. provided the space for participants to learn about the AWWA M36 Water Audit Methodology in greater depth. Participants learned more about concepts introduced during the webcast, with the flow of the day covering content and working through hands-on exercises with emphasis on the audit inputs and data validity grading. A training workbook was developed and distributed to workshop attendees. This material consisted of program host and resource information, an agenda, and 2 common data exercises.

Execution Preparatory Webinar On September 22, 2016, a preparatory webinar was held for utilities interested in attending the large group, one-day workshop. The workshop was made available to anyone, but had a special target audience of utilities greater than or equal to 3,000 connections (including the 3 pilot utilities). The duration was 1.5 hours. The agenda for the preparatory webinar is provided below.

Water Audit Training Class The large group workshop was held October 13, 2016. A brief overview of the environmental and regulatory drivers that have made this program relevant in the State of Utah were provided. Water Loss Control is a best management practice that brings benefits on the operational, financial, environmental and customer service fronts. The Water System Efficiency Assessment & Water Loss Control Program aims to introduce the AWWA Water Audit method and encourage widespread adoption of this best practice and a standard annual business practice. Specific objectives will be laid out, and the schedule for the program will be reviewed so participants understand the steps, timeframe, and expected outcomes. The course agenda for the day included:

Presentation: Free Water Audit Software – The AWWA water balance was introduced, exploring the components of non-revenue water (unbilled authorized consumption, apparent loss, real loss), and developing the non-volume inputs for the top-down water audit including system data and cost data. The AWWA Free Water Audit Software is the industry standard for conducting the top-down water audit. An

Agenda

1. Background for program 2. Program objectives, activities, and

schedule 3. Foundational concepts of the AWWA

M36 Water Auditing Method 4. Introduction to the AWWA Free

Water Audit Software 5. Overview of the October 13, 2016

workshop 6. Next steps to prepare for the

workshop

4 | P a g e

orientation to the free tool and demonstration was provided, as well as instructions for downloading it prior to the workshop. Presentation: Developing the Water Audit Inputs – Demonstration and explanation of the input volumes and values that are entered into the Reporting Worksheet of the Water Audit. Overview of the typical sources and types of data that go into each input. Common Exercise – Populating the top-down audit inputs with the AWWA Free Water Audit Software using a common data exercise of a fictitious water system. Attendees were provided the water system information and asked to apply the correct inputs into the Water Audit. Presentation: Validity Scoring & the Data Grading Matrix – the AWWA developed a detailed grading matrix for Water Audit inputs. Data grades are based on the utility’s policies and practices for data collection, data management, data archiving, quality control procedures, and derivation of audit inputs, and provide a quantitative measure of the reliability. Common Exercise: Developing the Data Validity Grades – Populating the data validity grades for each audit input with the AWWA Free Water Audit Software using a common data exercise of a fictitious water system. Attendees were provided the water system information and asked to apply the correct data grades into the Water Audit.

Small Group (Pilot Utilities) Development In-depth, one-on-one training and mentoring was given to three utilities as part of a pilot study. The pilot study assisted these utilities through the process (both physically and financially) so that they will become advocates for the process to other utilities. Personalized training was given on using the Water Audit tool, and in the detailed data validation process, so that these utilities are equipped with information to improve the management of their utilities. The utilities selected for the pilot program were Granger-Hunter Improvement District, City of Orem, and Kearns Improvement District.

5 | P a g e

Execution Preparatory Webinar On July 19, 2016, a preparatory webinar was held for the 3 pilot utilities enrolled in the program. The pilot utilities were highly encouraged to attend both the large scale workshop as well as the one-on-one workshop The workshop was made available to anyone, but had a special target audience of utilities greater than or equal to 3,000 connections (including the 3 pilot utilities). The duration was 1.5 hours. The agenda for the preparatory webinar is provided below.

One-to-One Pilot Utility After the pilot utilities were introduced to the program, each was provided a Water Audit Data Request form. The pilot utilities were asked to submit the requested data to the project team approximately one month prior to the workshop scheduled for October 14, 2016. The requested data items were broken down in a similar format of the top-down water audit as shown on the Reporting worksheet: Water Supply, Finished water & purchase water meter testing data, Consumption data, Customer meter testing data, System data, and Cost Data.

Pilot Utility Results During the pilot workshop, the project team worked closely with the pilot utilities completing the inputs and assigning appropriate data grades, reinforcing the basic concepts from the workshop held the day prior with utility-specific data. Below are the results of the top-down audit and summary for each pilot utility. Detailed reports from each pilot utility are included in the Appendix:

• Appendix A – Orem City • Appendix B – Granger Hunter Improvement District • Appendix C – Kearns Improvement District

1. Program objectives, activities, and schedule

2. AWWA Water Balance terms and concepts

3. Data needed and sources 4. Next steps for data gathering 5. Who and what to bring to the

October 14, 2016 one-on-one workshop.

Agenda

6 |

Pa

ge

Wat

er A

udit

Repo

rtin

g Ye

ar:

Cale

ndar

Yea

r 201

5 D

ata

Valid

ity S

core

: 54

Serv

ice

Conn

ectio

ns:

26,9

00

Mile

s of

Mai

n:

383.

4

Aver

age

Ope

ratin

g Pr

essu

re:

78.0

psi

Appa

rent

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

25

.88

Real

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

37

.28

Infr

astr

uctu

re L

eaka

ge In

dex

2.10

Valid

ity

Leve

l 1 v

alid

ated

DVS

scor

e of

54

/100

. Re

pres

ents

mid

-gra

de re

liabi

lity,

ef

fort

s sho

uld

focu

s on

both

dat

a im

prov

emen

t and

loss

redu

ctio

n. P

riorit

y ar

eas f

or a

tten

tion

are:

A.

Wat

er Im

port

ed

B.

Cust

omer

met

er in

accu

raci

es

C.

Varia

ble

prod

uctio

n co

st

Volu

me

Valu

e

7 | P a g e

Granger-Hunter Improvement District Level 1 Validation Validity: {Reference Reporting Worksheet, bottom section}

Level 1 validated DVS score of 54/100. Represents mid-grade reliability, efforts should focus on both data improvement and loss reduction. Priority areas for attention are Water Imported, Customer meter inaccuracies and Variable production cost. Next actions for each priority area to improve overall data validity:

Water Imported – During the audit year (2015) a scaling error was discovered within the SCADA electronic conversion on the import (purchase) meters. Calibration efforts corrected the error, but it was unclear how much impact the electronic error had towards meter inaccuracy. In the audit year, import water accounted for 64% of the total SIV through 8 different meters. Four groundwater wells accounted for the remaining 36%. Confirm historic testing and/or calibration efforts (and resulting documentation) from Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD). Investigate scope and feasibility of conducting hydraulic flow verification test on the 8 active meters by using insertion type testing on a downstream test tap. Develop plan, timeframe and budget for implementation of pilot tests, with ultimate aim for at least annual test frequency. Perform analysis on the raw production SCADA databases of JVWCD import meters and GHID Well sources. Investigate scope and feasibility of conducting hydraulic flow verification testing and electronic calibration on active GHID well meters for validation of VFOS. If testing on all 5 meters is not cost-feasible, consider prioritization of highest volume meters in the short term, and all finished water meters in the long-term.

Customer Meter Inaccuracies (CMI) – During this audit period, CMI were subjectively estimated to 3% inaccurate for the metered population. Limited testing and associated results were not available to establish a better understanding of the current conditions or during the audit period. GHID has a meter bench to utilize for testing meters. Moving forward establish random sampling of customer meters for statistical testing, to augment the limited testing and hopefully discovered test results performed over the past couple years. Target sampling by size, type, throughput, with sample sizes at 1% of population. Flow log sample of representative customer accounts to determine appropriate weighting by flow tier. From random testing analyze weighted test results to determine extent of variance to guide next steps, with ultimate aim to inform long-term customer meter replacement strategy. Initial implementation phase of AMI installation is planned for 2017, however the existing meters will remain.

Variable Production Cost (VPC) – from the general fund ledger the utility cost associated with water supply was not disaggregated. Therefore, in this audit period the VPC assumed an equally proportioned distribution of electrical costs between the different supply sources (Import and VFOS). Moving forward, identify the electrical meters associated with each metered source and separate the shared electrical costs between the purchase meter and well meter pumping stations. Appropriately weight the associated utility costs to the proportional volumes and re-calculate the variable production cost.

Other next actions for validity: • Establish inventory and routine tracking of unmetered uses (annual flushing) • Translate total meter count of 26,900 into best-estimate of service line counts – adjust for multiple meters on single services

lines and add for appropriately abandoned curb stops/park strips • Confirm chemical costs and paid claims from main/service breaks (we did not discuss this during the workshop) for Variable

Production Cost calculation Volume: {Reference Performance Indicators Tab} • Performance indicators review, acknowledging mid-grade reliability of metrics

o Disregarding NRW % by Volume as an unreliable indicator o Real loss in gallons per connection per day at 37.28 is mid-range, typical values are 20 to 200 o Leakage Index at 2.10, with a technical minimum of 1.0, opportunity for leakage reduction exists in the network

8 | P a g e

Value: {Reference Dashboard NRW by Cost Chart} • Annual cost of NRW approximately $865,476 • Total Real Loss annual cost at $393,115 • Customer Metering Inaccuracies annual cost at $314,930 • Next action for each should include

o Conduct a real loss component analysis for the audit year to establish leakage profile o Conduct a gap analysis to identify preliminary economic optimum targets for each of these NRW components o Design of cost-effective large meter testing & remediation program o Incorporate CMI analysis (from CMI action item) into long-term small meter asset plan o Design of cost-effective leakage management strategy including appropriate leveraging of district metered areas

in the various pressure zones, pressure optimization and active leak detection o Establish the incorporation of volumetric sewer rates into the customer retail unit cost for the select accounts

where sewer treatment triggers a surcharge.

City of Orem Level 1 Validation: 3V Assessment Validity: {Reference Reporting Worksheet, bottom section} Level 1 validated DVS score of 55/100. Represents mid-grade reliability, efforts should focus on both data improvement and loss reduction. Priority areas for attention are Water Imported, Volume from Own Sources and Billed Metered. Next actions for each priority area to improve overall data validity: Water Imported – Confirm historic testing and/or calibration efforts (and resulting documentation) from Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). Investigate scope and feasibility of conducting hydraulic flow verification test on Reach II and Reach IIA meters by either insertion type testing or drawdown testing. Develop plan, timeframe and budget for implementation of pilot tests, with ultimate aim for at least annual test frequency. Perform analysis on the raw production SCADA databases of CUWCD and Orem. Perform analysis on CUWCD backwash volume extractions vs replenishments to Alta tank. Volume from Own Sources – Investigate scope and feasibility of conducting hydraulic flow verification test on 2 spring meters and 9 well meters by either insertion type testing or drawdown testing. Develop plan, timeframe and budget for implementation of pilot tests, with ultimate aim for at least annual test frequency. If testing on all 11 meters is not cost-feasible, consider prioritization of highest volume meters i.e. Alta, Well 2, Well 5, Well 8, and Well 9 in the short term, and all finished water meters in the long-term. Billed Metered – Establish random sampling of customer meters for statistical testing, to augment the limited testing performed in 2014 and 2015. Target sampling by size, type, throughput, with sample sizes at 1% of population. Flow log sample of representative customer accounts to determine appropriate weighting by flow tier. From random testing analyze weighted test results to determine extent of variance to guide next steps, with ultimate aim to inform long-term customer meter replacement strategy. Evaluate implementation of AMR/AMI. Other next actions for validity: • Establish inventory and routine tracking of unmetered uses • Spot checks on the infamous Route 23 for verification of unbilled metered consumption – i.e. Westmore Park • Translate total meter count of 22,771 into best-estimate of service line counts – adjust for multiple meters on single services

lines and add for killed corp stops • Review & verification of consumption at golf courses (i.e. Sleepy Ridge) • Redo average operating pressure as weighted average by zone (weighting on number of connections), then compare to

total node average extracted from model • Confirm chemical costs and paid claims from main/service breaks for Variable Production Cost calculation

9 |

Pa

ge

Wat

er A

udit

Repo

rtin

g Ye

ar:

Fisc

al Y

ear 2

015/

16

Dat

a Va

lidity

Sco

re:

55

Serv

ice

Conn

ectio

ns:

22,7

70

Mile

s of

Mai

n:

360.

0

Aver

age

Ope

ratin

g Pr

essu

re:

87.1

psi

Appa

rent

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

26

.11

Real

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

66

.85

Infr

astr

uctu

re L

eaka

ge In

dex

3.26

Valid

ity

Leve

l 1 v

alid

ated

DVS

scor

e of

55

/100

. Re

pres

ents

mid

-gra

de re

liabi

lity,

ef

fort

s sho

uld

focu

s on

both

dat

a im

prov

emen

t and

loss

redu

ctio

n. P

riorit

y ar

eas f

or a

tten

tion

are:

• W

ater

Impo

rted

•

Volu

me

from

Ow

n So

urce

s •

Bille

d M

eter

ed

Volu

me

Valu

e

10 | P a g e

Volume: {Reference Performance Indicators Tab} • Performance indicators review, acknowledging mid-grade reliability of metrics

o Disregarding NRW % by Volume as an unreliable indicator o Real loss in gallons per connection per day at 66.85 is mid-range, typical values are 20 to 200 o Leakage Index at 3.26, with a technical minimum of 1.0, opportunity for leakage reduction exists in the network

Value: {Reference Dashboard NRW by Cost Chart} • Annual cost of NRW nearly $600,000 • Total Real Loss annual cost at $214,000 • Customer Metering Inaccuracies annual cost at $195,000 • Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption annual cost at $145,000 • Next action for each should include

o Conduct a real loss component analysis for the audit year to establish leakage profile o Conduct a gap analysis to identify preliminary economic optimum targets for each of these NRW components o Design of cost-effective large meter testing & remediation program o Incorporate CMI analysis (from Billed Metered action item) into long-term small meter asset plan o Design of cost-effective leakage management strategy including appropriate leveraging of district metered areas

in the various pressure zones, pressure optimization and active leak detection o Improvements to unbilled meter stock management

Kearns Improvement District Level 1 Validation Validity: {Reference Reporting Worksheet, bottom section} Level 1 validated DVS score of 46/100 for Water Audit Reporting Calendar Year 2015. The Data Validity Score suggests that priorities should be made to improve the validity before moving to targeted water loss control efforts. Priority areas for attention are Water Imported, Unbilled metered and Customer metering inaccuracies. Next actions for each priority area to improve overall data validity: Water Imported – Kearns Improvement District has two connection points with exporter, Jordan Valley. Data shared with Kearns Improvement District is in the form of invoices. Jordan Valley owns and maintains the supply meters, but it was uncertain of testing and/or calibration methods and frequency on those meters. Confirm historic testing and/or calibration efforts (and resulting documentation) from Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD). There are 2 connection points with JVWCD. JVWCD owns the meters, but Kearns Improvement District does not have testing and/or calibration results or frequency in which they are conducted. Contact JVWCD and determine written agreements regarding testing type, frequency, and data sharing. This could potentially increase data validity grade for Water Imported significantly. Unbilled metered/Unbilled unmetered – Identify all Unbilled metered and Unbilled unmetered uses. For Unbilled metered, check agreements or records of water donated to Salt Lake County Parks and any other similar water uses. Rate code 199 was categorized as ‘no billed’ and thought to be fire use, but this should be confirmed. Fire usage recommended to be coordinated with fire department. The District has 3 fire stations that come into system. Uncertain on some fire protection is being metered. For Unbilled unmetered, identify all unbilled unmetered uses, then prepare a basis of estimate for each so a volume can be used to compare against the software default (1.25% of Water Supplied). Typical unbilled unmetered uses may be, but not limited to fire-fighting and training, flushing, street cleaning, irrigation in public areas, decorative water facilities, swimming pools, construction sites, water quality testing, and/or public buildings. Customer metering inaccuracies – A default customer metering inaccuracy of 3% was applied due to lack of test result data. Customer meter testing is typically based on customer complaints. Upon customer complaints, volumetric testing is performed (perhaps a couple a month) and the results are typically pretty accurate. No bench testing performed. Not much testing done on larger meters. Meter replacement program strategy is to install/replace all meters in 8-10 years (assuming 20 yr life). Replacement criteria based on high readings. No resources to test, but could use Jordan Valley facilities. Recommend preparing a formal meter replacement program to include scheduling, population targeted (e.g., start with highest revenue gen), volumetric throughput, and age.

11 |

Pa

ge

+

Wat

er A

udit

Repo

rtin

g Ye

ar:

Cale

ndar

Yea

r 201

5 D

ata

Valid

ity S

core

: 46

Serv

ice

Conn

ectio

ns:

13,7

70

Mile

s of

Mai

n:

171.

2

Aver

age

Ope

ratin

g Pr

essu

re:

79.0

psi

Appa

rent

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

16

.99

Real

Los

ses

per s

ervi

ce c

onne

ctio

n pe

r day

44

.83

Infr

astr

uctu

re L

eaka

ge In

dex

2.61

Valid

ity

Leve

l 1 v

alid

ated

DVS

scor

e of

46/

100

for

Wat

er A

udit

Repo

rtin

g Ca

lend

ar Y

ear

2015

. Th

e Da

ta V

alid

ity S

core

sugg

ests

th

at p

riorit

ies s

houl

d be

mad

e to

impr

ove

the

valid

ity b

efor

e m

ovin

g to

targ

eted

w

ater

loss

con

trol

effo

rts.

Prio

rity

area

s fo

r att

entio

n ar

e:

• W

ater

Impo

rted

•

Unb

illed

met

ered

•

Cust

omer

met

erin

g in

accu

raci

es

Volu

me

Valu

e

12 | P a g e

Other next actions for validity: • Locate supply meter testing and/or calibration results • Establish inventory and routine tracking of unmetered uses (annual flushing) • Be sure to use correct data. Water Supplied data submitted was for Fiscal Year and totaled cumulatively. These totals

were entered into the water audit. Upon correction to a standard total for the calendar year, the initial Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) went from 14.86 to 2.61.

Volume: {Reference Performance Indicators Tab} • Performance indicators review, acknowledging mid-grade reliability of metrics

o Disregarding NRW % by Volume as an unreliable indicator o Real loss in gallons per connection per day at 44.83 is low-mid range, typical values are 20 to 200 o Leakage Index at 2.61, with a technical minimum of 1.0, opportunity for leakage reduction exists in the network

Value: {Reference Dashboard NRW by Cost Chart} • Annual cost of NRW nearly $750,000 • Total Real Loss annual cost at $355,000 • Customer Metering Inaccuracies annual cost at $212,000 • Unbilled Metered Authorized Consumption annual cost at $47,500 • Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption annual cost at $53,000 • After actions are taken to improve data validity (DVS = 50 or higher), some follow on actions may apply:

o Conduct a real loss component analysis for the audit year to establish leakage profile o Conduct a gap analysis to identify preliminary economic optimum targets for each of these NRW components o Design of cost-effective large meter testing & remediation program o Incorporate CMI analysis (from Billed Metered action item) into long-term small meter asset plan o Design of cost-effective leakage management strategy including appropriate leveraging of district metered areas

in the various pressure zones, pressure optimization and active leak detection o Improvements to unbilled meter stock management

A comparison Using the AWWA Water Audit Compiler, a comparison can be made looking at the initial water audits pre-validation and post-validation with respect to water loss reported as a volume. In each case, a thorough assessment of audit inputs and data grades resulted in a truing up of water loss volume to a lower figure. This is also accompanied by an appropriate overall data validity score for each pilot utility, to reflect the overall reliability for the loss metrics shown in Figure 1.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.050.0

100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

Granger-HunterImprovement District

City of Orem Kearns ImprovementDistrict

Data

val

idity

Sco

re

Wat

er L

oss

(gal

/con

n/da

y)

Pilot Utilitites - Water Loss AssessmentPre- vs Post-Validation

Pre-Validation Post-Validation Data Validity Score

FIGURE 1 – PILOT UTILITIES WATER LOSS ASSESSMENT

13 | P a g e

Program Feedback Feedback from program participants was gathered through various means. General discussions were held with attendees from the trainings and the pilot utilities. An electronic survey was completed (see Appendix D for complete survey results) by those that attended the training. Detailed reports were provided from each pilot utility and are included in the Appendix:

• Appendix A – Orem City • Appendix B – Granger Hunter Improvement District • Appendix C – Kearns Improvement District

Training Feedback The webinars and in-person training received very high marks as to quality, subject material covered, and effectiveness of the trainers. Some of the positive comments included:

• The presentations were responsive to the audience. Although it was obvious the presenters were practiced at this workshop, it was not a flat presentation. The group participation was well planned and executed.

• Great presentation and hands-on training using the tool.

• Interactive and relevant

One person had hoped to spend more time using the software. Another pointed out that it would be good to have homework assignments for follow-up.

A couple of attendees felt that the webinar was redundant when coupled with the in-person training. Additionally, more information was requested on how to use the audit once it was completed.

Follow-up training requests included:

• meter testing and calibrating, • refreshers and additional information on the water audit, • how other utilities have used the water audit

Suggestions for Future Training • Water Audit Basics could easily be presented in Webinar Format. The existing webinar video could be edited for

content. The video could be posted as online training on the Intermountain Section’s website in-lieu of live webinars. It would be suggested that a short test be completed by those that watch the online video to determine their competency.

• Pilot Utility representatives could be utilized as presenters to discuss their experiences using the water audit. • Meter company representatives or utility staff could make presentations on meter testing and calibrating techniques.

The Intermountain Section’s Midyear Conference is tailored specifically for operators and would be one venue for such training.

• The Intermountain Section’s Annual Conference would be one venue for refresher courses and additional information on water audits.

14 | P a g e

Water Audit Process Each pilot utility went through an intense and rigorous process to complete a water audit and develop a Data Validity Score. They have each provided a detailed report that not only included the water audit outcomes, but also reflected on the process. The full reports from each pilot utility can be found in the Appendix. The Intermountain Section asked each pilot utility to provide specific information that can be used to develop future programs.

The pilot utilities found the Free AWWA Water Audit Software and M36 methodology easy to use and descriptive enough to complete the process. The vast majority of the survey respondents also said that completing a water audit would be easy or somewhat easy, but may take some time. The effort required to complete the training, audit, and reporting was estimated to be approximately 70 hours and can be broken down as follows:

Task Hours Water Audit Training Webinar(s) 7 Data Collection 15 Participation in the Water Audit Training 16 Preparation of the Water System Audit 16 Final Reporting 20 Total 74

The 70 hours included the time to attend the webinars and training, as well as provide the reports that are in the appendix. Future efforts for these pilot utilities to complete a second audit is estimated to be much less, as they will not require training. Additionally, they each have a better understanding of where to retrieve input data. It is estimated that future audits by someone trained in the M36 methodology will take on the average 30 to 32 hours to complete.

Data Requirements The data required to complete the pilot utilities’ water audits included:

1. Water supply data – Monthly Volumes of treated water entering the distribution system. 2. Finished water & purchase water meter testing data 3. Consumption data - Volumes sold by rate code, by month for billed water. For unbilled water, any available

summary of tracking data such as flushing and fire estimates. 4. Customer meter testing data – General inventory of customer meters including count by meter size 5. System data – Miles of main, Number of active and inactive taps, General description of pressure – how many

pressure zones, and what are the ranges of pressure in each zone. 6. Cost data – Total annual operating cost for the water system, including admin (billing, management) and water

debt service, List of rate codes, and volume of water sold by rate code, Total costs for power, treatment chemicals, residuals management, and any water purchased, depreciation schedule for water system assets.

Much of the data needed to complete a water audit is similar to the data that water systems submit for the Utah Water Use Program. The Utah Water Use Program is a cooperative effort administered by the US Geological Survey and the Utah Divisions of Water Resources, Drinking Water, and Water Rights. The purpose of the program is to collect and compile water use and water diversion data from public water suppliers throughout the state of Utah. The resolution of the data submitted to the State is monthly for supply volumes by source and annual for consumption volumes by class. The Level 1 Validation process for the AWWA M36 Water Audit requires summary and supporting documentation of similar data. A key difference is

15 | P a g e

that the Level 1 Validation looks at consumption volumes by class by month rather than by year. Additionally, source production information is more detailed in the Water Use Data report.

The current Free AWWA Water Audit Software does not have detailed input for disaggregated segments for water consumption. However, the pilot utilities indicated that their existing data can easily be disaggregated into residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional use. This type of data could be helpful for the DWRe in their development of water resource studies and water management policy. The pilot utilities indicated that they were not able to easily disaggregate the consumption data by land use, region, pressure zone or topographic areas.

Benefits to Utilities All of the pilot utilities felt that the water audit process benefited their utility. The pilot utilities agreed that the Free AWWA Water Audit Software was a great tool to thoroughly review their system and processes. Overall the process helped the water systems identify priority areas to increase the reliability of their data. Long term benefits will be improved system efficiency. They also realized the importance of documenting authorized nonbilled water use. Each has a plan to move forward in identifying their water loss and improving water efficiency.

The pilot utilities plan to complete a water audit each year using the Free AWWA Water Audit Software. Additionally, those systems involved in the pilot program plan to meet together every two to three months and review the recommendations of the study.

16 | P a g e

Recommendations for Water Loss Control in the State of Utah The Water Efficiency and Water Loss Control program, through the training classes, surveys and pilot programs with utilities, has arrived at a comprehensive, state-wide plan for moving the program forward. Four interconnected recommendations make up the Utah’s Integrated Water Supply and Use Program:

Develop a Data Input Module for the Free AWWA Water Audit Software that would collect monthly consumption volumes by class and monthly supply volumes by source.

Request that public water systems greater than 3300 population submit a self-reported water audit and data validity grade, along with the data from the Input Module to the State of Utah in lieu of the Utah Water Use Data Form on an annual basis.

Develop a Level 1 Water Audit Validation Program to confirm the accurate application of AWWA M36 water audit methodology, identify data inaccuracies, and verify data from the self-reported water audits.

Create a Water Audit and Validation Technical Assistance Program (Water Loss TAP) to provide training and technical assistance in the State of Utah on water auditing and validation.

Utah’s Integrated Water Supply and Use Program shown in Figure 2 would take the place of the current Water Use Program (Figure 3) and provide the State with more accurate, validated data. The purpose of both programs is to collect and compile water use and water diversion data from public water suppliers throughout the state of Utah. However, with a small amount of extra effort by utilities and an established validation process the State can reap multiple benefits from this comprehensive program.

FIGURE 2 – UTAH’S INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY AND USE PROGRAM

Input Module

Data:Monthly Consumption Volumes by ClassMonthly Supply Volumes by Source

Water Balance and Self Evaluation

Free AWWA Water Audit SoftwareSelf-reported water auditPreliminary Data Validity Grade

Annual Submission to State

Sum of all components is equal and in balanceProvides a greater level of accuracyAll water managed by the utility is accounted for

Level 1 ValidationConfirms accurate application of AWWA M36 water audit methodology and terminology.Identifies data inaccuraciesVerifies data validity grades reflect utility practices.

17 | P a g e

FIGURE 3 – CURRENT UTAH WATER USE PROGRAM

The benefits of this statewide program will extend to both the participating utilities and the State of Utah, and are summarized as follows:

Establishes a current baseline for data reliability across the state regarding withdrawal volumes and consumption volumes, which serve as the foundation for long-term demand projections and massive capital needs for future supply

Builds technical, financial and managerial capacity for all utilities under the State of Utah’s purview Provides the State of Utah with validated water audit data to identify where the greatest needs truly exist to

better direct limited state resources. Reducing water loss supports Utah’s strategic conservation objectives. Comparable results from Georgia’s

industry-leading program can be seen in where water utilities reduced their Non-revenue water by 5% over 2 years. Real water loss was reduced by 3% over the same amount of time.

Enhances the utilities’ understanding of their systems losses, including any uncertainties that need to be addressed in the short-term before major investment in reducing losses, new infrastructure, or expansion of supply.

Provides each utility with insight into where efficiency gains can be accomplished, which improves the operational bottom line, supports optimized rate setting, and strengthens customer trust in the context of water conservation

1. Data Input Module Development Presently statewide water use data is gathered through an annual survey conducted by the Division of Water Rights. The resolution of this data is monthly for supply volumes by source and annual for consumption volumes by class. The Level 1 Validation process for the AWWA M36 Water Audit requires summary and supporting documentation of similar data. A key difference is that the Level 1 Validation looks at consumption volumes by class by month rather than by year. It is recommended that a general input module be developed that summarizes these types

Water Use Online Data EntryData:Annual Consumption VolumesMonthly Supply Volumes by Source

Annual Submission to the State

Collect and compile water use and water diversion data

Contact water providers

Contact utilities every five years.Limited verificationNo consistent processInefficient and not effective.*

* Report to the Utah Legislature, A Performance Audit of Projections of Utah’s Water Needs, May 2015

18 | P a g e

of data that could simultaneously support the functions of State data acquisition and Level 1 Validation in the Water Audit and Validation Technical Assistance Program (Water Loss TAP) presented below. The module should be built in a way that it maps easily to the corresponding inputs on the Water Use Data Form and the AWWA Free Water Audit Software, v5.0.

The water balance calculations of the AWWA M36 Water Audit do not require detailed water use data by customer class, however, these are items that a validator needs to perform a Level 1 Water Audit Validation and would be necessary if a Water Audit Validation Program is initiated as discussed in Recommendation 3.

By requesting monthly volumes of water sold by customer class within a data input module, the DWRe would be in position to better measure:

Per capita water use. Calculations for per capita water use could be based on actual residential water use. A more reliable projected estimate could be calculated for any number of variables (i.e. geographic

FIGURE 4 – GEORGIA WATER LOSS TAP RESULTS

19 | P a g e

boundaries, system size, etc…) and serve as the foundation for long-term demand projections and substantial capital needs for Utah’s future water supply.

Indoor vs. Outdoor water use. With the expanded data, better estimates for indoor and outdoor use could be developed.

Conservation efforts. Better estimates of per capita water use will result in more accurate reporting of conservation efforts. Also, regional estimates could be made that would help set conservation goals that reflect each region’s unique conditions and ability to conserve.

2. Water Audit and Data Validity Grade Submittal The water balance and Data Validity Score (DVS) within the AWWA Free Water Audit Software could help DWRe gather more reliable local water use data, which was one of the improvements outlined in the Utah State Auditor’s Performance Audit of Projections of Utah’s Water Needs. It is recommended that public water systems greater than 3300 population submit a self-reported water audit and data validity grade, along with the data outlined above in the Input Module to the State of Utah in lieu of the Utah Water Use Data Form on an annual basis.

The water balance of an audit reduces inaccuracies by comparing the distribution system input volume with the sum of customer consumption and losses. The sum of all components is equal and therefore in balance, which provides a greater level of accuracy. The water balance reflects that all water managed by the utility is accounted for.

The DVS assesses the validation, or trustworthiness, of the data inputs and would provide the DWRe with a gauge to assess the data that is submitted. The AWWA Free Water Audit Software includes a data grading capability and a calculation of a DVS, to assess the validity of the water audit data. The purpose is to describe the confidence and accuracy of the data input values and to serve as a basis for validation checks on the water audit inputs (essentially auditing the water audit).

This DVS method uses a process-based approach that also provides specific guidance for water utilities on ways to improve their data and their operations. Numerical grading (1 to 10) for each of the data inputs provides the basis for the DVS, a rating value of 1-100. The most important areas needing data validity improvement are also displayed by the Audit Software in the Water Loss Control Planning Guide (Figure 5). The DVS would deliver a win-win situation for the DWRe and water utilities in that it gives a level of accuracy of the data that the DWRe needs, and it also provides guidance to utilities on how to improve their operations to produce data of a high degree of validity and confidence.

The time and resources that it took the pilot utilities to complete their first water audit and prepare a DVS was estimated at a total of 74 hours or $3,700.00 and is summarized Table 1. Since the final reporting was required for the pilot utilities, but won’t be necessary for the Utah Integrated Water Use and Supply Program, it can be assumed that the resources needed to prepare an initial water audit for most utilities will be 54 hours or $2,700.00. Future water audits will take even less time since the utilities will not require training.

Additionally, feedback from the pilot program participants indicated openness to adopting new best practices like the water audit to help build technical, financial and managerial capacity within their organization.

20 | P a g e

TABLE 1 – INITIAL WATER AUDIT TASK COST REPORT

Task Hours Unit Costs Total Water Audit Training Webinar(s) 7 $ 50.00 $ 350.00 Data Collection 15 $ 50.00 $ 750.00 Participation in the Water Audit Training 16 $ 50.00 $ 800.00 Preparation of the Water System Audit 16 $ 50.00 $ 800.00 Final Reporting 20 $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 Total 74 $ 3,700.00

FIGURE 5 – WATER LOSS CONTROL PLANNING GUIDE

21 | P a g e

3. State Develop a Level 1 Water Audit Validation Program To ensure water data that is submitted is reliable, a validation program should be in-place. The Free AWWA Water Audit Software includes an approach to assess the validation, or trustworthiness, of the data inputs of the water audit. A Level 1 water audit validation process would:

Confirm the accurate application of AWWA’s M36 water audit methodology and terminology to the utility-specific situation

Identify evident inaccuracies and correct inaccuracies, where realistic

Verify the selection of correct data validity grades

Additional information on water audit validation can be found in Appendix F, Executive Summary from the Water Research Foundation’s Level 1 Water Audit Validation Report.

Level 1 validation would also be a necessary step for the State to make fair comparisons among water utilities as they perform their municipal and industrial water supply studies and prepare River Basin Plans. The Level 1 validation consists primarily of an interview between the validator, the person or persons who performed the audit, and other utility staff. The validation should take approximately six to eight hours to complete for each utility. Currently, the DWRe attempts to verify data accuracy for utilities every five years. Assuming that the water audit would be performed only by those utilities that serve a population of 3,300 or greater (104 utilities) and validated every 5 years, the estimated staff hours to perform this function is 168 hours or 0.1 FTE. If validation was to be done each year, the estimated staff hours would be 840 hours or 0.4 FTE.

4. Water Audit and Validation Technical Assistance Program (Water Loss TAP) The Pilot Training Program introduced the participating utilities to the key concepts of water auditing and water loss control: the water balance and awareness to separate components of non-revenue water, data validity, analyses of non-revenue water components, and prioritization of those components in planning solutions.

The approach for the next phase of a full-scale program implementation is a recommendation to focus on conducting the top-down M36 water audit (using AWWA Free Water Audit Software), and taking the audit through a Level 1 Validation (Self-Assessment) review. It is critical that the training include a heavy focus on validation. Recent work from the Water Research Foundation3,4 looked at thousands of water audits collected in jurisdictions around the United States, and indicated widespread challenges in water audit data validity. The underlying causes in data inaccuracies, as identified by the research, are not lack of competencies by the utility staff, but rather inherent characteristics of the systems that generate the data needed for the water audit – including supply metering, SCADA systems, customer metering systems, customer billing systems, and work order systems. Each of these systems in a water utility was designed for its specific purpose and is fully functional in its own right. However, these systems were not designed specifically for the purpose of extracting data to develop a precise, spatially and temporally bound water balance for conducting detailed water loss analysis. When they are called upon to provide such precise information, there are 3 WRF 7372 A & B: Water Audits and Real Loss Component Analysis. 2014-15. Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO. http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4372 4 WRF 4639: Establishing Water Utility Guidance and Methodology for Water Audit Validation. 2016. Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO. http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4639

22 | P a g e

many challenges that can arise with regard to data accuracy. Some data systems are more accommodating than others, but none of them was designed specifically for this purpose.

Training on how to populate the AWWA Free Water Audit Software is an important first step, but it is essential that the training also include a detailed understanding of validation of that data, if one wants to obtain meaningful and reliable water audit results. Having meaningful and reliable audit results every year is essential for the regulatory agencies and the water utilities alike.

Echoing the industry research noted above, the outcomes of the pilot program underscore the importance and need for broader training and technical assistance in the State of Utah on water auditing and validation. Feedback from the pilot program participants indicated openness to adopting new best practices and an overwhelming support for broader training and technical assistance in pursuit of the drivers noted above. The core focus for the Water Loss TAP should be training utilities to conduct the AWWA M36 Water Audit and providing Level 1 Validation of these audits.

The total number of water systems in Utah is 468, though the vast majority of these are very small systems. The count of utilities above a service population of 3,300 is approximately 104, which constitutes approximately 92% of the service population in Utah. The number of utilities in each category is shown in Figure 6.

FIGURE 6 – UTAH UTILITIES SERVING >3,300 POPULATION

To maximize the impact on aggregate water withdrawals in the state as well as the number of ratepayers benefiting from adoption of best practices, it is recommended that the next phase of training and technical assistance target utilities that serve 3,300 population and above. The specific scope and scale of the next phase will be dependent upon the source and level of funding available. Several states in the U.S. are leveraging the State Revolving Fund set-asides to fund training and technical assistance programs for water auditing and loss control, as these activities advance building technical, financial and managerial capacity in the water utilities. The proposed statewide Water Loss TAP would follow an implementation model (below) that has been proven very effective in Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico and California.

23 | P a g e

A minimum of 4 session locations (Cache County, Salt Lake/Davis County, Utah County, and Washington County) are recommended for waves 1 and 3 and are shown in Figure 7, to provide access to the participating utilities within a reasonable driving distance. Waves 2 and 4 will be executed via remote teleconference with each utility. It is recommended that the Water Loss TAP be implemented through the Intermountain Section AWWA, as the guiding association for the best-practices involved. IMS AWWA is also the member organization for most of the participating utilities, which provides an advantage for follow on activities moving forward.

Programs with comparable breadth and depth of training and technical assistance have been funded in Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico and California from the Ten Percent and Fifteen Percent Set-a-sides under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund as part of the state capacity development strategy. Comparable program costs in these other states have been approximately $7,000 per utility. The program

concept presented herein includes 104 participating utilities which would provide a

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

Months 1 - 5 Months 6-9

Months 10-14

Months 15-18

Webcasts & In Person Work Session Technical Theme: Water Audit Foundations & Development Outcomes: Training & guided implementation for data collection

Teleconference Work Session Technical Theme: Utility specific data review & documentation Outcomes: 105 water audits complied with preliminary data validity scoring & tailored action items for each utility, ready for submittal to the State

Webcasts & In Person Work Session Technical Theme: Reinforcing Foundations Assessing Data Validity Outcomes: Training & guided implementation for data validity assessment

Teleconference Work Session Technical Theme: Formal Level 1 Validation Review Outcomes: 105 water audits complied with Level 1 Validation & tailored action items for each utility, ready for submittal to the State

In-person technical work session locations

Spread of program participants

FIGURE 7 – DISTRIBUTION OF UTAH UTILITIES >3,300 POPULATION

24 | P a g e

reach of approximately 92% of the state’s service population, and the required program budget would be approximately $750,000. The target of 104 utilities also optimizes the economy of group interactions in Waves 1 and 3 against one-to-one interactions in Waves 2 and 4.

Appendix A

City of Orem Report

Page | 1

City of Orem Water System Efficiency and Water Loss Control Program Final Report

Introduction and Summary Performing a water loss audit has been on our list of “things-to-do” for many years. It was generally one of those projects that will be done when we have time. In our business, there are always other things more pressing to be accomplished. We found that prioritizing time to perform a water loss audit was very difficult and the uncertainty of how to begin was certainly a contributing factor. The City of Orem was approached by Todd Stonely from the Utah Division of Water Resources over a year ago about participating in a water loss audit. At the time, we had the desire and need to participate, but was having difficulty in providing the resources to perform the audit. When the State, AWWA and Cavanaugh Solutions joined forces and an invitation to become a pilot utility was extended to us, the timing was right to jump on board as the need and the resources were available. We felt it would be a great opportunity to take advantage of the experience and expertise of Cavanaugh Solutions to get us pointed in the right direction. In other words, we wanted to learn to do it right the first time. Performing the water audit provided an opportunity for us to look at the ordinary day-to-day water uses that were not being metered, recorded or billed. One example, is an unmetered drinking fountain along a very popular walking trail leading to Provo Canyon. This fountain operates 24/7 nearly every day of the year. We didn’t stop to consider how much water flows from this fountain over the course of a year as non-revenue water. With that said, one of the benefits is that we have changed our way of thinking and understand the importance of metering all incoming and out-going water, which will be both a short and long-term benefit. During the water loss audit, some of the more apparent and real losses were quantified which also brought greater understanding of why water supplied or system input numbers compared to the amount billed did not correspond. Through the audit process, we also more fully understand the importance of quantifying unbilled authorized consumption. At first, the idea of performing a water loss audit seemed like a daunting task. We felt this way because we had never performed a water loss audit with our own staff and didn’t fully understand how to get started on the right path. As we participated in, and received training and insight from Cavanaugh Solutions, our water loss audit team quickly learned the water loss audit process was not as daunting or difficult as we anticipated. We learned the free water loss audit software provided by AWWA is a great tool to thoroughly review our system and processes. Through the audit process, we identified ways we can optimize processes and identified action items that when completed, will decrease water loss and increase efficiency in many aspects of our system. Prior to performing the water loss audit, we were aware of areas where improvements could and should be made. Some areas of improvement include water used at city facilities and green spaces such as parks. Many of the meters at park locations are old meters that are not accurate and in need of repair. We did not feel the repair of these meters were a priority as the water delivered to park locations this is a very large

Page | 2

part of our non-revenue water. Through the water audit process, we realized that more accurately tracking this water, is critical to identifying areas where improvements can be made. Another area where improvements can be made is source meters. Approximately, sixty percent of the water used in Orem is surface water. This is water the City of Orem owns, but is treated at the Don A. Christiansen Regional Water Treatment Plant which is owned and operated by Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). There are essentially two large source meters that deliver water from this treatment plant to Orem’s distribution system. We have come to realize how important it is to confirm the accuracy of these meters and to receive documented proof of test data from CUWCD. We have already addressed this action item. In addition, we also have meters at each of our water sources, nine deep wells and two natural flowing springs. Currently, we have magnetic flow meters at these sources. These meters are all relatively new and in good repair. Through the water loss audit process, it has brought to light how important it is to ensure each meter is installed properly and that accurate testing and calibration occurs frequently. In the past, we tested source meters annually at best. We now want to implement a plan to perform this testing more frequently. In recent years, our large meter testing program has been one of those programs that will be done when we get the time, which is far too infrequent. We never have the time, we have to make the time. We have always understood the importance of frequently testing these meters, but resources have stood in the way of accomplishing this task as often as needed and desired. Through the water loss audit process, we were reminder of how important it is to get back on track with large meter testing, it is high on priority list of action items. During the water loss audit training and actually process, we learned that performing a water loss audit is not a difficult task. The most difficult task is getting started. One of the many action items as a result of the audit is to perform a water audit on an annual basis. Through the audit process we were very thorough and honest with how we graded each performance task so we have a good and confident benchmark to start from. For each task we recorded comments on where the information was gathered, who is responsible for the needed information and action items that when completed will ultimately increase our validity score, but more importantly improve system processes and performance. We learned the initial audit score is simply a benchmark in moving forward to improvement. We actually ended up with what we think to be a low validity score and probably is when compared to utilities that have performed water loss audits for many years. For us, it give us a starting point and a clear vision on how we can improve our system and processes.

Benefits of the Water Audit to your Organization One of the immediate benefits from the water loss audit is that it has caused us to think differently toward the importance of identifying and accurately recording non-revenue water, namely city owned facilities and green spaces. Because the Water Resources Division has not received compensation in the past for the water delivered to these locations, it has not been a high priority to repair these meters to improve accuracy. Limited funds are allocated to make repairs or replace meters where needed. Another additional benefit. is the need to more frequently test and calibrate source meters. This benefit can be immediately realized by making a testing program a priority. This also goes for large meters. The need to more

Page | 3

frequently test and calibrate large meters needs to be more fully implemented. With more resources, this benefit can also be immediately realized. One of the long term benefits from the water loss audit is we more fully understand the need to allocate the necessary resources to address the action items identified through the audit process. For many years our water rates have been so low, among the lowest, if not the lowest in the state, that we haven’t had the resources, namely manpower, to implement a large meter testing and calibration program and stick with it on a consistent basis. As the city has grown in population, manpower has remained the same or fewer. Also, we have not been overly concerned about the accuracy of meters delivering water to the City of Orem facilities and green spaces, especially parks where the highest use occurs. Due to the amount of parks and the high cost of large meters, it will take several years to replace meters in order to provide accurate usage numbers. Because an annual water loss audit will now be implemented, we will certainly continue to identify areas where improvements can be made and identify the need for additional resources. We will also identify ways to improve processes throughout the entire organization. In order to obtain the benefits identified through the water loss audit, additional time must be allocated to address the associated action items. In order to accomplish these tasks, additional man power will be needed, along with additional funds to correct deficiencies. Each of these items requiring funding which will directly impact the annual water budget and potentially water rates. Our plan moving forward is to more fully understand the water audit process, specifically M36 methodology. Now that we have basic knowledge of water loss auditing processes, we understand the benefits of frequently performing an audit. Our current plan is to perform a water loss audit annually, shortly after the end of the fiscal year. During the year leading up to the annual audit, we will work on the action items identified in this initial audit. We will prioritize and address the items that will affect an increase in efficiency the greatest with the least amount of cost.

Data and Compiling Water Audit As mentioned previously, the initial thought of performing a water loss audit seemed daunting when considering the amount of information we needed to gather to successfully complete the audit. As we began compiling the required information, we soon learned that much of the information needed was readily available or that with a little research it was readily available. The most time consuming portion of the audit was retrieving the information from the right people and placing it in the AWWA Free Water Audit Software, which is very user friendly once you understand the process and how the information will be used. We utilized the experience and knowledge of a team of four people to research the information and perform the water audit. One person representing each of the following; utility billing, water supply, distribution system and management. There was also other city personnel that were involved in compiling consumption and cost data. Overall, the estimated resources to compile the needed information is seventy man hours, at an estimated cost of just under $2,500.00. There was also a cost of $10,000.00 for each pilot utility to cover training costs. Now that we have been through a water loss audit and understand what information is needed and where to acquire it, future water audits will require less time. The time spent to collect data for future water loss audits, compared to the time spent on collecting data for this initial audit, could potentially be reduced by

Page | 4

fifty percent. Future audits could be reduced by even more as better records are kept and action items completed. For many years, we have compiled a “Water Use Data Report” for the Utah Division of Water Rights. Assuming this report is the same report as the State of Utah M&I data report, this information is collected annually and is generally due to the State in March. Last year this report was simplified and much of the information collected in the Water Use Data report is the same as what is needed to complete a water loss audit. The only noticeable difference is the source production information is more detailed in the Water Use Data report. Our current billing software is designed with the ability to disaggregate water usage into the separate categories as described; residential, commercial, industrial and institutional. However, the software has not been utilized effectively in the past for this type of reporting. We are currently designing software tools to improve our ability to provide disaggregated data for the purpose of accurately reporting water use data by usage type. These upgrades will also provide improvements to the water loss audit process.

We are currently designing software tools into our billing system with the capability of segmenting the data into single family and multifamily residential, institutional and commercial accounts.

Our billing system does not currently have the capability of providing billing data by land-use patterns, region, district, pressure zone, or topographic use. However, with considerable extra work by software programmers, this information could be extracted from our billing system.

Water Balance A picture says a thousand words. Please refer to our water balance page below.

Page | 5

The water balance indicates 9.8% water losses of the total water supplied. Breaking the overall water losses down further indicates apparent losses at 28.1% and real losses at 71.9%. Authorized consumption is 90.2% of the overall water supplied. In consideration of the overall water supplied, 14.7% of this water is non-revenue water. At the conclusion of the water loss audit, we were somewhat surprised at the water balance results. Going into the audit, is was assumed our water losses would be higher than 9.8%. Going into the water loss audit, we were very aware of deficiencies and areas where improvements could be made, the audit confirmed these assumptions. Prior to participating in the pilot utility water loss audit, we researched the water loss audit results from other utilities throughout the United States just to get a feel for their experience and results. Most of these utilities are very experienced in performing water loss audits and have performed audits for several years. As we are very inexperienced in performing water loss audits, we wanted to see audit benchmarks to get a better feel for our first experience compared to other utilities throughout the country. Many of the validity scores were in the seventy and eighty range. After completing our water loss audit and coming up with a validity score of fifty-five, we realized we have areas where improvements can be made immediately. We feel good about the results of the audit because we were brutally honest with the data inputs and our approach to the grading matrix. In comparison to other utilities our validity score may be low, but it is a good benchmark or starting point for our utility moving forward. The City of Orem has nearly 23,000 water service connections. We have gone to great lengths in an effort to identify each one and place them on our ArcGIS map. From time to time we come across a service connection that we didn’t know existed. This service may have been installed many years ago when the

Page | 6

subdivision was built and never mapped or for some reason the meter was never signed up and lost in the billing system. To help mitigate this issue, we have implemented a process of assigning a unique identification number to each water service in the billing system that is tied directly to a unique identification number in our ArcGIS map. In as much as each water service is surveyed at the time of installation using GPS equipment, we feel this will assist in making sure service connections don’t fall through cracks and are properly identified and in the billing system. We are also in the process of moving toward an automated meter reading system. We currently manually read most water meters in the system. Through this process there is greater opportunity for reading and billing errors. By implementing an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system, reading and billing errors will be reduced and meter reading accuracy improved. On-going meter testing and calibration for large meters will also improve efficiency and reduce apparent losses. We currently use a leak detection service company to identify service and main line leaks throughout the city. We provide a specific area of the city for this company to survey. As this company identifies potential leaks, we mobilize a crew to excavate and repair the leak. In recent years, this process has proven very effective in finding leaks that do not surface. The challenge with this approach is that it is not always practical to enlist their services frequently enough to identify leaks in their infancy. Our plan moving forward is to use this company to systematically perform leak detection on a more regular schedule. First of all, we will place the task of performing a water loss audit on the calendar to be completed shortly after the fiscal year. Our plan moving forward, is to perform a water loss audit each year. Now that we have performed a water loss audit, we not only understand what it takes to perform the audit, we understand the benefits. Through the year leading up to the audit, we will address the action items identified for each system attribute and performance indicator as list in the initial audit. We will begin with the action items that will provide the most benefit for improvement, with the least amount of cost.

Appendix B

Granger Hunter Improvement District Report

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

 Water System Efficiency Assessment & Water 

Loss Control Program Report 

  

Granger‐Hunter Improvement District 

December 2016 

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide results from Granger-Hunter Improvement District’s (District) involvement in a water system efficiency assessment and water loss control program recommended by the American Water Works Association Intermountain Section and the Utah Division of Water Resources. Water Utility organizations in the Salt Lake Region were encouraged to participate in a water audit pilot program. The District realized this would be an opportunity to learn more about the water audit process in addition to discovering ways to improve our operations and processes and therefore volunteered to be a participant. This exercise was to be the first water audit the District has done using the AWWA M36 methods. Upon learning about the M36 Water Loss Auditing Pilot Training Program, the District expressed interest and were invited to participate in the program (along with Kearns Improvement District and Orem City). We engaged in webinars and meetings that provided instructions on the water audit process, introduced key players and participants, and outlined responsibilities. The District was instructed to collect data associated with supply and demand of our system. Staff spent time collecting data from several sources. We collected consumption data and cost information from our Incode accounting software, water supply data from SCADA and manual readings from wells/meters, and meter and infrastructure information from GIS data and electronic/written documents. After collection of the data and been given instructions on using the audit software, District personnel worked with Cavanaugh consultants in a one-on-one focus group session. Here information was analyzed and entered in the software. Parameters included volume from own sources, water imported, billed consumption, length of mains, number of connections, annual cost to operate water system, customer retail unit cost, and variable production costs. Each of these parameters included a scoring based on confidence levels of the accuracy of the data and/or process in which it was obtained. Results from the audit consisted of a “water audit data validity score”, which the District scored a 54 out of 100, and a list of priority areas for attention. System attributes generated from the software include 254 acre-ft of apparent losses, 366 acre-ft of real losses for a total water loss of 620 acre-ft. Annual cost of apparent losses were calculated to be $120,059 and the annual cost of real losses $393,116. Apparent losses per service connection per day was calculated to be 25.88 gallons and real losses per service connection per day was 37.28 gallons. The Districts Infrastructure Leakage Index was calculated to be 2.10 (low 1.0, high 8.0+). The water audit process has provided the District with information that enabled us to derive some short-term and long-term goals as it relates to our water system. Short-term goals will consist of 1) conducting more in-depth analysis of the water supply information and the water supply meters. There currently are some minor discrepancies from SCADA information and records collected by the operations staff. 2) Calibrate the source meters. Verify that the meters are installed correctly and

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

determine if the current layout will allow an additional meter to be placed to compare or if modifications to the site will be necessary. 3) Verify that billing process are complete and thorough to help eliminate inaccuracies. 4) Evaluate in more depth the actual costs to supply an acre-ft of water (variable production cost). Long-term goals have been identified as 1) establishing a maintenance program that will verify the accuracy of meters. This will begin by focusing on large meter connections and then focus on the residential meters. 2) Revisit the Districts pipeline replacement program to determine current focus is adequate and/or the most effective. 3) Consider technologies that can identify water leaks in buried infrastructure. 4) Investigate solutions to a flushing/cleaning program that does not discharge water to waste. The introduction to utilizing the AWWA M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs methods and software has allowed the District to establish some baselines on our operations and data collection methods. These baselines will be helpful and instrumental to establishing progress and improvements in our water supply system. It is the intention of the District to do an annual water audit and use the results to update goals and potentially create new goals as new information becomes available.

District Infrastructure A brief history of our District, it was organized in 1950 as a drinking water and sanitary sewer utility provider. We serve an area of approximately 24.5 square miles. The District primarily serves residents of West Valley City, but also provide services to portions of Salt Lake County. The water system contains over 400 miles of distribution pipe ranging in size from 4 to 30 inches in diameter, about 3,600 fire hydrants, more than 8,000 valves, and 9 water storage reservoirs totaling 27 million gallons. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) provides most of the water used within our system. Over the past 10 years the water supplied by JVWCD has ranged from 65% to 85% of the total annual District volume. The District currently operates seven wells, which supply the remainder of the District water. The District serves about 120,000 people with more than 27,000 connections.

Water Audit Data and Procedures Data requested for the audit consisted of information from six areas: 1) water supply data, 2) finished water and purchase water meter testing data, 3) consumption data, 4) customer meter testing data, 5) system data, and 6) cost data. Information collected by the District for this audit were for the months between January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. Water supply for the District consists of well water and purchased water from Jordan Valley Conservancy District (JVWCD). Well production data consisted of numbers collected from water operators at the well sites and written down on log sheets. Readings from the sites were taken from totalizers on the meters or on devices close to the meters. These numbers were then transferred to a

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

spreadsheet and totals were computed for each month. Purchased water data was collected from each of our feed meters from JVWCD. That data was received from SCADA information available on JVWCD’s website login for member agencies. Data for each meter was uploaded and transferred to a spreadsheet. Totals from each meter were combined and entered into the software. Purchase water meter testing is unknown. JVWCD may test the source meters but at the time of the study we didn’t have that information. Consumption data was collected using our accounting software Incode. Reports were generated on a monthly basis for the entire District for the given year. Residential and industrial meters were all considered and collected in the database. It included all sizes and usage. Also, the District meters water used by contractors through a District assigned meter that is used on hydrants. These numbers were gathered by the Engineering Administrative Assistant and entered in the software. Customer meter testing data has been sporadic and for the most part unrecorded. There are some written documents that indicate random testing has occurred on meters and published in board reports, but for the most part, they are not very specific. The District has a test bench that was used in the past on residential meters. Some of the number reported from those tests are in the 96-99% accuracy ratings. As of this report, it has been at least a couple of years since testing has occurred. System data included specifics relating to our infrastructure. These parameters included miles of main line pipe, number of active and inactive taps, general pressures in our system, and the standard for location of customer meters. Data collected for the number of miles of main and number of connections came from our GIS database. The average system pressure was derived from our water model. All pressure zones were averaged together to get the number. The District has a maximum distance that a meter can be located from the mainline. Most meters are placed behind the curb line near the property line. This information was entered in the software. Cost data for the year 2015 was computed from a report generated from our accounting software. This report identifies all the accounts used by the District. All expenditure accounts were considered if they directly applied to the water system. Accounts that are more of a general category, we segregated those costs by a percentage basis. We made the determination that costs for overhead and administrative line items can be roughly sorted into a 5/12 water portion, 5/12 wastewater portion, and 1/6 customer service. Account information was totaled and entered into the software for a total of $20,933,409.

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

Results Based on the information that was entered into the audit software, the following results were identified:

Water Supplied: 7,739.498 MG/yr (23,752 acre-ft)

Unbilled Unmetered: 96.744 MG/yr (297 acre-ft) Authorized Consumption: 7,119.405 MG/yr (22,094 acre-ft)

Water Losses: 620.093 MG/yr (1,903 acre-ft) Unauthorized Consumption: 19.349 MG/yr (59 acre-ft)

Customer Metering Inaccuracies: 217.196 MG/yr (667 acre-ft) Systematic Data Handling Errors: 17.557 MG/yr (54 acre-ft)

Apparent Losses: 254.101 MG/yr (780 acre-ft) Real Losses: 365.992 MG/yr (1,123 acre-ft)

Non-Revenue Water: 716.837 MG/yr (2,200 acre-ft)

Length of Mains: 383.4 miles Number of service connections: 26,900

Service connection density: 70 conn./mile main Average operating pressure: 78.0 psi

Total annual cost of operating water system: $20,933,409 /Year

Customer retail unit cost: $1.45 /1000 gallons Variable production cost: $1,074/ million gallons

Annual cost of Apparent Losses: $368,447

Annual cost of Real Losses: $393,116

Non-revenue water as percent of volume water: 9.3% Non-revenue water as percent of operating sys: 4.1%

Apparent Losses/service connection/day 25.88 gallons/conn./day

Real Losses/service connection/day 37.28 gallons/conn./day

Real Losses/service connection/day/psi 0.48 gallons/conn./day/psi

Current Annual Real Losses: 365.99 MG/yr (1,123 acre-ft) Infrastructure Leakage Index: 2.10

Water Audit Data Validity Score: 54 out of 100

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:2015

1/2015 - 12/2015

Data Validity Score:54

Wa

ter E

xp

orte

dR

eve

nu

e W

ate

r

0.0000.000

Bille

d M

ete

red

Co

nsu

mp

tion

(wa

ter

ex

po

rted

is rem

ove

d)

Re

ven

ue

Wa

ter

7,022.661

Ow

n S

ou

rces

Au

tho

rized

C

on

sum

ptio

n7,022.661

Bille

d U

nm

ete

red

Co

nsu

mp

tion

7,022.661

0.000

7,119.405U

nb

illed

Me

tere

d C

on

sum

ptio

n

0.000

1,557.79296.744

Un

bille

d U

nm

ete

red

Co

nsu

mp

tion

96.744

Syste

m In

pu

tW

ate

r Su

pp

lied

Un

au

tho

rized

Co

nsu

mp

tion

716.837

7,739.498A

pp

are

nt L

osse

s19.349

7,739.498254.101

Cu

stom

er M

ete

ring

Ina

ccura

cies

217.196

Syste

ma

tic Da

ta H

an

dlin

g E

rrors

Wa

ter L

osse

s17.557

Wa

ter Im

po

rted

620.093L

ea

kag

e o

n T

ran

smissio

n a

nd

/or

Distrib

utio

n M

ain

s

Re

al L

osse

sN

ot b

rok

en d

ow

n

6,181.706365.992

Le

aka

ge

an

d O

verflo

ws a

t Utility's S

tora

ge

T

an

ks

No

t bro

ken

do

wn

Le

aka

ge

on

Se

rvice C

on

ne

ction

sN

ot b

rok

en d

ow

n

No

n-R

eve

nu

e W

ate

r (N

RW

)

Bille

d A

uth

orize

d C

on

sum

ptio

n

Un

bille

d A

uth

orize

d C

on

sum

ptio

n

(Ad

juste

d fo

r kn

ow

n e

rrors)

Bille

d W

ate

r Ex

po

rted

Gra

ng

er-H

un

ter Im

pro

vem

en

t District

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

 

 The Water Loss Control Planning Guide provides the following suggestions to focus on (score 51-70):

Audit Data Collection: Establish/revise policies and procedures for data collection. Short-term loss control: Establish ongoing mechanisms for customer meter accuracy testing,

active leakage control and infrastructure monitoring. Long-term loss control: Begin to assemble economic business case for long-term needs based

upon improved data becoming available through the water audit process. Target-setting: Establish long term-apparent and real loss reduction goals (+10 year horizon). Benchmarking: Preliminary comparisons can begin to rely upon the Infrastructure Leakage

Index (ILI) for performance comparisons for real losses (see below). General guidelines for setting a Target ILI (Range 1.0-3.0, District -2.10):

o Financial Considerations: Water resources are costly to develop or purchase; ability to increase revenues via water rates is greatly limited because of regulation or low ratepayer affordability.

o Operational Considerations: Operating with system leakage above this level would require expansion of existing infrastructure and/or additional water resources to meet the demand.

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

o Water Resources Considerations: Available resources are greatly limited and are very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to develop.

Conclusions 

Water audit process and tool The District has collected water use data and have provided basic water supply and water consumption reports in the past. The exercise of gathering specific information required to complete the AWWA M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs was new for the staff and a more in-depth process than the ones used previously. The results from using this process provides a more comprehensive analysis of the state of water consumption and the costs associated with water losses. The ability to derive a figure related to non-revenue water is valuable to current decision making as well as providing a benchmark for setting future goals. The effort required for completion of this training/evaluation is estimated to be:

Water Audit Training Webinar(s)- 7 hours (4+ staff members) Data Collection- 12-15 hours Participation in the Water Audit Training – 16 hours Preparation of the Water System Audit- 16 hours Final Reporting- 20 hours Estimated cost: 74 hours @ $50/hour = $3,700.00

Although it will not be necessary to go through the webinars and training exercises for future water audits, the time required for future audits could potentially increase. We anticipate more emphasis on data collection and field verification which will likely require more time to complete than was provided in the first attempt. The AWWA Free Water Audit Software used to compute the Districts non-revenue losses and performance indicators was easy to use and descriptive enough in the instructions and pull down menus were helpful to establish appropriate rankings. Results are easy to see and understand. It provided helpful analysis tools once the scoring has been determined to provide guidance for improving real and apparent water losses and therefore capturing revenue.

Real and Apparent Losses The water audit focuses on real and apparent losses. Real losses are the physical losses from distribution systems, and include leakage and overflows of treated drinking water from storage tanks. Apparent losses are the nonphysical losses that occur when water is successfully delivered to a water user but, for various reasons, is not measured or recorded accurately, thereby inducing a degree of error in the amount of actual customer consumption.

2888 South 3600 West • P.O. Box 701110 • West Valley City, Utah 84170-1110 • Phone (801) 968-3551 • Fax (801) 968-5467 • www.ghid.org

The District recognizes that water losses are inevitable, but improvements can be made to the system to minimize these losses. Real losses are being mediated by response time goals on water line leaks (currently response time is within an hour) and a pipe replacement program. A significant portion of the Districts water line leaks occur in cast iron pipe. The District has been actively engaged in replacement of these lines with PVC pipe. In 2013/2014, almost 80% of water line breaks occurred in cast iron pipe. There is evidence that pipeline breaks are trending down and therefore real water losses should decrease. Apparent losses will become a focal point of the District. It became evident going through the audit process that the District needs to focus more on meter calibration/accuracy and data handling/analysis errors. Therefore, the District has developed some short-term and long-term goals to try and mitigate apparent losses. Short-term goals will consist of 1) conducting more in-depth analysis of the water supply information and the water supply meters. There currently are some minor discrepancies from SCADA information and records collected by the operations staff. 2) Calibrate the source meters. Verify that the meters are installed correctly and determine if the current layout will allow an additional meter to be placed to compare or if modifications to the site will be necessary. 3) Verify that billing process are complete and thorough to help eliminate inaccuracies. 4) Evaluate in more depth the actual costs to supply an acre-ft of water (variable production cost). Long-term goals have been identified as 1) establishing a maintenance program that will verify the accuracy of meters. This will begin by focusing on large meter connections and then focus on the residential meters. 2) Revisit the Districts pipeline replacement program to determine current focus is adequate and/or the most effective. 3) Consider technologies that can identify water leaks in buried infrastructure. 4) Investigate solutions to a flushing/cleaning program that does not discharge water to waste. These goal reflect the current scoring and as we continue to do annual water audits, these goals will likely expand and adjust depending on the improvements identified each year. It is the intent of the District to get an accurate snapshot of the performance of our system and continue to look for ways to improve our efforts to maximize revenue from water deliveries and to demonstrate we are doing our best to be good stewards of such a valuable resource.

Appendix C

Kearns Improvement District Report

Page | 1

KEARNS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Water System Efficiency and Water Loss Control Program Final Report

Introduction and Summary

When Kearns Improvement District heard of the opportunity to be a pilot utility for this study, we were immediately interested because we were in the process of trying to identify the reason(s) that our unaccounted for water had increased in the previous year. Additionally, we had downloaded the AWWA free software but had not made much progress in inputting data or understanding how the software worked. As we heard the pilot program would include training on how to use the AWWA software, we became even more interested in being a pilot utility. We have been able to identify many benefits from participating in the Water Audit program. Short term benefits include inputting our system data into the AWWA software and understanding how the software works and what the software is supposed to tell us, networking with other utilities with similar aspirations of minimizing unaccounted for water and identifying priority areas to increase the reliability of our data. Long term benefits will include better tracking of unmetered water use, a better understanding of the reliability of our meters (as we implement a testing program) and eventually lower unaccounted for water as we are able to tighten our system. We found the water audit process to be very beneficial to improve our water efficiency because it helped to establish an order of which processes should be implemented and when. Prior to the pilot program, we were skipping several steps that are needed to increase data reliability. Once we increase our data reliability, we will have a very good plan on future steps to increase our system efficiency. Kearns Improvement District has opportunities to improve our data reliability by testing both our residential and commercial meters on a sample basis. Additionally, verifying the accuracy of the supply meters (from Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District) will greatly increase our ability to rely on that data. Additional areas for improvement include tracking unmetered water and documenting authorized non-billed water use. In order to obtain the full positive impact of the water loss pilot program, those that were involved in the study will meet every two or three months and review the recommendations of the study. As we complete various tasks recommended by the software, we will report on that progress and update the grading scores in the software. Also, in each meeting we will identify the next steps to be taken to increase our data reliability and/or improve our system water losses. Additionally, we will complete a water audit each year using the AWWA Water Audit Software.

Benefits of the Water Audit to your Organization

Page | 2

Some of the short term benefits that we found as a result of participating in the Water Audit program include gaining a stronger understanding of how to use the AWWA Free Water Audit Software, networking with other utilities and identifying areas that we can work on to increase our data reliability.

Long term benefits will include better tracking of various aspects of our system; including

unmetered water use and authorized but unbilled water use. Additionally, by participating in the audit, we will eventually be able to have a better understanding of our system and a more accurate measure of unaccounted for water as we increase our data reliability.

These short term and long term benefits will impact our performance as a District and the

community that we serve by increaing our efficiencies related to unaccounted for water. If we are able to decrease our unaccounted for water by 1%, it would result in savings of 72.3 acre feet of water or approximately $36,000 annually. This reduction in costs (and increase in our system efficiency) will help us to be able to pass this efficiency on to our customers by way of smaller water rate increases.

We plan to update our system data each year by completing the AWWA Water Audit Software.

Additionally, we continue to review and learn from the AWWA M36 manual. Future improvements to the Kearns Improvement District system will result mainly from the software recommendations and the recommendations of the M36 manual.

Data and Compiling Water Audit

We had four individuals (General Manager, Finance Director, Assistant Operations Manager and Meter Technician/Billing Assistant) that participated in the audit. Each participating individual assisted in gathering the information required for the study. Following is a summary of the costs and required resources for Kearns Improvement District to participate in the audit.

We conducted several meetings to compile the data needed for the water audit; including

summarizing the following:

• Finished water & purchase water meter testing data • Consumption data • Customer meter testing data • System data • Cost data

The estimated time of our planning meetings and the data compilation for the audit was 12-15 staff

hours. Now that we have compiled the data and understand how the data will be used in the software, in future years we anticipate that the data compilation will only require approximately 4-5 hours of staff time. We estimate that completing the annual update using the software will take an additional 4-5 hours of staff time.

There was a lot of information that we already had for the audit period (2015) as we had already

submitted our annual water report to the State of Utah. Information that was not required by the State of Utah report but was needed for the water loss audit included the following:

Page | 3

• Testing data of water purchase meters and documentation of customer meter testing • Summary of billed water by rate code, each month • Tracking of unbilled water • Inventory of customer meters • System data such as miles of mainline, pressure information and policy of meter

responsibility • System cost data • Volume of water sold by rate code • Water system depreciation schedule

The current Water Audit Software does not have detailed input for disaggregated segments for

water consumption. In the event that the software allows this in the future, Kearns Improvement District already has the ability to report usage by residential, commercial, industrial and institutional. Kearns Improvement District also currently tracks water usage by single family, multifamily, institutional and irrigation accounts and would be able to report this information in the future as well.

Kearns Improvement District does not currently have the ability to easily provide billing data by land-

use patterns, region, district, pressure zone or topographic areas.

Water Balance Following is snapshot of the 2015 water balance for Kearns Improvement District.

Page | 4

The Kearns Improvement District water balance indicates that our system had 85.4 million gallons of apparent losses and 225.3 million gallons of real losses. At this point in our system analysis, the apparent loss of 85.4 million gallons is a result of estimated losses resulting from customer theft, customer meter inaccuracies and systematic data handling errors. As we are able to test meters and document our billing procedures, these estimates will be replaced with more reliable data and give us a better measure of what our true apparent water losses are.

Real loss of 225.3 million gallons is an estimate of water losses resulting from all types of leaks in

our system. The estimate is based on our average system pressure. This number on our water balance will be very important to analyze after we have increased our data reliability scores.

There were various areas of our data that we thought were more reliable that the audit has

indicated. For example, we have relied completely on the meters used by our water provider. The audit brought to our attention that we need to verify the calibration/testing of those meters. Similarly, we have relied on our customer meter data as our meters are relatively new. We were surprised at the impact on our data validity scores by not having a meter testing procedure.

The software indicates a data validity score for Kearns Improvement District of 46. We are excited to

have some direction on improvements that we can make that will increase our data validity score. If we are able to put into place procedures to address the top three recommendations from the software (verify testing of provider meters, test customer meters and document unbilled, metered accounts) our score will increase to approximately 75.

Creating and implementing the Kearns Improvement water loss control program is much more

feasible with the guidance that we have received by participating in the audit. The main steps to establish our program will be to take the steps necessary to increase our data validity score. With a higher data validity score, we will then be able to efficiently and effectively analyze our system to target ways to decrease our real and apparent water losses. As we establish the program, we will lean heavily on the recommendations and methodology of the AWWA M36 manual so we can create a comprehensive program to help us reduce our non-revenue water usage.

The audit has helped us identify ways that we can reduce apparent water losses, including the

following: Verifying Water Source Meters. As we purchase approximately 93% of our water, having reliable and correct source meter readings will be essential to analyzing our system performance. We have already started the dialogue to understand what procedures are currently taking place to test/calibrate the source meters.

Establishing a Customer Meter Testing Program. While our meters are relatively new, we will be implementing a customer meter testing program for large and small meters. We have already identified equipment that will be needed to perform this testing and will include it for consideration in a future budget.

We have identified several ways that we plan to control our system real losses, including the following:

Page | 5

• Identify leaks and perform fast, quality repairs. We are in the process of implementing work order software that will help us identify areas in our system that have higher leak/break events. Additionally, we have invested in leak detection equipment over the past 2 years that will help us identity leaks within our system.

• We will monitor our system pressure as indicated in the M36 manual to ensure that we do not have excessive water pressure in our system.

Kearns Improvement District has identified various steps that will help us to have an effective water loss control program. Following are various steps that we plan on taking to increase our data validity and then eventually to start increasing ‘bottom-up’ procedures as recommended in the AWWA M36 manual:

1. Increase our data validity score by

a. Identifying the testing/calibration of water source meters b. Testing/calibrating meters that measure our well production c. Documenting unbilled, metered usage d. Implementing a customer meter testing program

2. Increase our procedures to ensure accurate customer billing

a. Use meter testing data to identify large and small meters that need to be

replaced b. Enhance internal auditing of computerized billing records

3. Strengthen our tracking of unmetered usage to increase the accuracy of unauthorized

usage

a. Develop a tracking system to estimate water usage related to water and sewer line flushing

b. Implement a procedure to estimate the water used by fire departments when they are flushing/maintaining fire hydrants

c. Document water usage that is authorized, but not metered, and develop a process to track/estimate usage

4. Target reducing real losses by

a. Identifying and repairing/replacing water lines that have a high breakage/leakage rate

b. Strengthening our leak detection program to find and repair system leaks

Appendix D

Survey Results

Survey Results: Water Audit Workout Training Survey

Question — Training Quality: Please rate the overall quality of the training.

A. Very Poor (0 out of 16) B. Poor (0 out of 16) C. Fair (2 out of 16) D. Good (2 out of 16) E. Very Good (12 out of 16)

Question — Covered subject material: Please rate how well you felt the training class covered the subject material.

A. Very Poor (0 out of 16) B. Poor (0 out of 16) C. Fair (2 out of 16) D. Good (5 out of 16) E. Very Good (9 out of 16)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A. Very Poor B. Poor C. Fair D. Good E. Very Good

Covered Subject Material

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

A. Very Poor B. Poor C. Fair D. Good E. Very Good

Quality of the Training

Question — Pace of class: Please rate how you felt about the pace of the class.

A. Too Slow (2 out of 16) B. About Right (14 out of 16) C. Too Fast (0 out of 16)

Question — Effectiveness of Trainers: Please rate the effectiveness of the trainers.

A. Very Poor (0 out of 16) B. Poor (0 out of 16) C. Fair (2 out of 16) D. Good (3 out of 16) E. Very Good (11 out of 16)

Question — Like Best: What did you like best about the workshop?

(15 responses submitted)

Name Answer

No Name Given

Good mix of presentation and hands on work. Working through a sample exercise in small groups before going over it with everyone was very effective. This approach helped prevent the individual getting left behind as the group moves forward. The optional webinar before the workshop covered mostly the same info but was good to help be up to speed for the workshop.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

A. Too Slow B. About Right C. Too Fast

Pace of the Class

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

A. Very Poor B. Poor C. Fair D. Good E. Very Good

Effectiveness of the Trainers

Delmas Johnson Interactive and relevant, multiple presenters

No Name Given It was a very helpful yet simple concept for evaluating a system. I thought it was quite well done.

Louie Fuell Interactive Training

shawn robinson the hands on filling out the audit

Rachel Shilton The presentations were responsive to the audience. Although it was obvious the presenters were practiced at this workshop, it was not a flat presentation. The group participation was well planned and executed.

Todd Stonely The hands-on approach which allowed us to become familiar with and learn the basics of the free water audit software.

Ideas about helping customer's conserve water

Danny Astill the software

Pamela Gill The information provided can be taken back to work and implemented. The presenters were very knowledgeable, patient, and presented the information very well.

Jerry Simpson The interaction with the other attendees.

Bruce Hicken I had downloaded the AWWA Water Loss software years ago, but hadn't really used it at all due to not fully understanding it. I liked how these workshops helped us to understand how to use the software and what she software could accomplish for us.

Chad Allen The example problem we worked through.

Kyle MacArthur Great presentation and hands-on training using the tool.

Alane Boyd Example Problems

Question — Done differently: What would you like to see done differently?

(15 responses submitted)

Name Answer Text

No Name Given Nothing comes to mind.

Delmas Johnson Maybe some assignments or homework for followup to reinforce what was taught.

No Name Given Nothing I can think of.

Louie Fuell The first couple of training's were redundant.

Shawn Robinson more indepth

Rachel Shilton Nothing - it really is a good format that was well executed.

Todd Stonely It would have been nice to hear more from the perspective of a utility operator or manager who has conducted regular audits.

None

Danny Astill I expected more time and training on the software itself, several hours were spent on history and purpose vs using the actual software. I believe that walking us through the full process would have been more effective and more useful. Hands on training is always more valuable but we only had limited time during the training. Hands on with visual examples would have been of more useful and effective.

Pamela Gill Nothing.

Jerry Simpson USPE has the CEU certificates printed and available for the attendees at the workshop. That may be a better way to distribute them.

Bruce Hicken Slightly faster pace. Also, there was some confusion at the beginning about which webinars to attend. Some of the information was repetitive in the kick-off meeting and the webinars.

Chad Allen If the webinar before hand is going to be done again, don't cover the same topics in the full day seminar.

Kyle MacArthur More robust discussion on how to use audits on something other than selling a meter replacement program to boards/councils.

Alane Boyd Broken up into 2 days. A lot for one day

Question — Additional Training: What additional training and/or technical assistance would you be interested in?

(14 responses submitted)

Name Answer Text

No Name Given If there are other similar software/spreadsheet type tools offered by AWWA I would like to know more. Especially if they are low cost/free and can be offered to our municipal clients to maintain themselves after we help them get set up.

Delmas Johnson None at this time.

No Name Given Asset Management. How to get utility rates to where they need to be to take care of the system.

Louie Fuell n/a

shawn robinson I would attend another training on the water audit and would like to get more people from our district involved the next time

Rachel Shilton Water operators training; seeing the meters that are in use today and learning the pros and cons of the new meters on the market.

Todd Stonely Training on the best practices associated with testing and calibrating source meters as well as how to develop a program and schedule for random testing of customer meters.

No Name Given Follow up about best available practices that other agencies are using.

Pamela Gill An annual refresher for those who attended and an annual workshop for those who have not attended.

Jerry Simpson Most of my work involving AWWA centers around D100 water storage tank design and construction. I would be interested in that.

Bruce Hicken Nothing I can think of at this time.

Chad Allen Pumping design for water transfer in multiple pipelines with any specialized software to do the analysis.

Kyle MacArthur n/a

Alane Boyd None

Question — Prior Knowledge: Prior to attending the Water Loss Training Program, what was your understanding about water loss?

A. Not Familiar at all (1 out of 14) B. Heard about it but had not actively been

working on it. (7 out of 14) C. Have been working on it. (6 out of 14)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A. Not Familiar at all B. Heard about it but had notactively been working on it.

C. Have been working on it.

Prior Knowledge

Question — Better after training? Please select how you best feel about the following statement:

"After attending the Water Loss Training Program, I feel better equipped to put a water auditing and loss control program in place."

A. Strongly disagree (1 out of 14) B. Somewhat disagree (0 out of 14) C. Somewhat agree (4 out of 14) D. Strongly agree (9 out of 14)

Question — Reach out?: Are you comfortable reaching out to the Intermountain Section AWWA and/or Division of Water Resources and contacts available to you with questions?

A. No, I don't know who to call (3 out of 14)

B. Yes, I know who to call if/when I have questionson my water audit (11 out of 14)

C. Yes, and I would appreciate someone contactingme to answer questions on my water audit or water loss program (please provide your contact information with your survey) (0 out of 14)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A. Strongly disagree B. Somewhat disagree C. Somewhat agree D. Strongly agree

Better After Training?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

A. No, I don't know who tocall

B. Yes, I know who to call C. Yes, and I would likesomeone to contact me

Reach Out?

Question — Visit Website: 11. Have you visited the Intermountain Section’s Water Audit and Water Loss Control Page at http://www.imsawwa.org/group/waterlossaudit to find resources?

A. Yes (8 out of 14) B. No (6 out of 14)

Question — What will it take to complete a water audit?: Now that you have been through training, give your perception of what it will take to complete a water audit for a water system.

A. Very easy and will not take much time to complete (1 out of 14) B. Somewhat easy, but will take quite a bit

of time to complete (8 out of 14) C. Hard work ahead (2 out of 14) D. Too difficult and not worth going

through the effort (1 out of 14) E. Do not know (1 out of 14) F. N/A. I do not work for or with a water

system (1 out of 14)

Question — Robust Input Module: Additional Data Gathering The Intermountain Section and the Utah Division of Water Resources are considering expanding the software to include additional inputs and functionality. Please address the following 6 questions if you work for or with a utility:

Would you like to see a more robust input module that breaks out the inputs into more detail (i.e. separate inputs for each water source)?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A. Yes B. No

Visit Website

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A. Very easy B. Somewhateasy

C. Hard workahead

D. Too difficult E. Do notknow

F. N/A.

Effort to Complete a Water Audit

A. Yes (5 out of 14) B. No (2 out of 14) C. Do Not Know (4 out of 14) D. N/A - Do not work for a utility (3 out of

14)

Question — Water Consumption disaggregation: The current Water Audit Software does not have detailed input for disaggregated segments for water consumption. Is your utility’s billings system able to disaggregate total billings into residential, commercial, industrial, municipal or public facilities?

A. Yes (3 out of 13) B. Somewhat (4 out of 13) C. No (0 out of 13) D. Do Not Know (2 out of 13) E. N/A - Do not work for or with a utility (4

out of 13)

Question — Additional Segmentation billing data: Is your utility’s billing system capable of segmenting the data further into single family and multifamily residential, institutional, and/or irrigator accounts?

A. Yes (4 out of 13) B. Somewhat (3 out of 13) C. No (1 out of 13) D. Do Not Know (1 out of 13) E. N/A - Do not work for a utility (4 out of 13)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A. Yes B. No C. Do Not Know D. N/A - Do not workfor a utility

Input Module

0

1

2

3

4

5

A. Yes B. Somewhat C. No D. Do Not Know E. N/A

Water Consumption Disagregation

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

A. Yes B. Somewhat C. No D. Do Not Know E. N/A

Billing Data Segmentation

Question — Regional billing data: Can your utility provide billing data by land-use patterns, region, district, pressure zone, and/or topographic areas?

A. Yes (2 out of 13) B. Somewhat (3 out of 13) C. No (2 out of 13) D. Do Not Know (2 out of 13) E. N/A - Do not work for or with a utuility (4

out of13)

Question — Per capita water use: Do you track per capita water use on a regular basis?

A. Yes (6 out of 12) B. No (1 out of 12) C. Do Not Know (2 out of 12) D. N/A - Do not work for or with a utility (3 out of 12)

Question — Size of Utility: What is the size of your utility?

A. Population served less than 3,300 (0 out of 13) B. Population served 3,300 to 10,000 (1 out of 13) C. Population served 10,000 to 100,000 (4 out of D. 13) E. Population Served greater than 100,000 (4 out

of F. 13) G. N/A - Do not work for or with a utility (4 out of

13)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

A. Yes B. Somewhat C. No D. Do Not Know E. N/A

Regional Billing Data

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A. Yes B. No C. Do Not Know D. N/A

Per Capita Water Use

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

A. Populationserved less than

3,300

B. Populationserved 3,300 to

10,000

C. Populationserved 10,000 to

100,000

D. PopulationServed greaterthan 100,000

E. N/A

Size of Utility

Appendix E

Water Research Foundation Report Level 1 Water Audit Validation

Executive Summary

waterrf.org

Executive Summary

Level 1 Water Audit Validation

Project Number: 4639 • Date Available: November 2016

Principal Investigators: Lucy Andrews, Kate Gasner, and Reinhard Sturm, Water Systems Optimization; George Kunkel,

Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting; Will Jernigan and Steve Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh

Project Advisory Committee: Rose Gavrilovic, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority; Ralph McCord,

Louisville Water Company; David Sayers, Black & Veatch; Jen Santini, American Water Works Association; and Chris

Leauber, Water & Wastewater Authority of Wilson County

Quick Facts

Water audit validation is the process of examining water audit inputs to

improve the water audit’s accuracy and document the uncertainty

associated with water audit data.

Level 1 water audit validation confirms that American Water Works

Association M36 water audit methodology was correctly applied to a

utility's specific situation, identifies evident inaccuracies in summary water

audit data, and verifies that data validity grades accurately reflect utility

practices.

While some uncertainty may persist in the water audit, the water audit is

more reliable for having been Level 1 validated.

2 | Level 1 Water Audit Validation • project #4639 • ©2016 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

What is Water Audit Validation? Water audit validation is the process of examining water audit inputs to improve the water audit’s accuracy and

document the uncertainty associated with water audit data. Though water audit validation can be conducted at three

distinct levels of rigor, all water audit validation efforts share two common goals.

Water audit validation aims to:

Identify and appropriately correct for inaccuracies in water audit data and application of methodology (Sturm et

al., forthcoming)

Evaluate and communicate the uncertainty inherent in water audit data (Sturm et al., forthcoming)

Why Validate Water Audits? In order for a water audit to effectively inform utility management and water loss control programming, it must

accurately capture the performance of a distribution system. Water audit reliability, and therefore the data informing

water loss management, is improved through water audit validation.

What are the Levels of Water Audit Validation? Because validation can vary widely in scope, aim, and effort, it is necessary to define the level and purpose of validation

before starting the validation process.

There are three levels of water audit validation that build upon water audit self-reporting. Each validation level is defined

by distinct goals, outcomes, and limitations.

Self-reported water audits have not been validated. Their accuracy and reliability have not been confirmed

(Sturm et al. 2015; Sturm et al., forthcoming).

Level 1 validated water audits have been examined for inaccuracies evident in summary data and application of

methodology. The data validity grades assigned to inputs accurately reflect utility practices (WLCC 2015; Sturm

et al. 2015; Sturm et al., forthcoming).

Level 2 validated water audits have been corroborated with investigations of raw data and archived reports of

instrument accuracy. The best sources of data to inform the water audit have been identified (WLCC 2015;

Sturm et al. 2015; Sturm et al., forthcoming).

Level 3 validated water audits have been bolstered by field tests of instrument accuracy. The water audit’s

estimate of Real Losses has been confirmed through pilot leak detection, Component Analysis of Real Losses,

and/or minimum night flow analysis (WLCC 2015, Sturm et al. 2015, Sturm et al., forthcoming).

What Defines Level 1 Water Audit Validation? Level 1 water audit validation aims to:

confirm the accurate application of American Water Works Association (AWWA) M36 water audit methodology

and terminology to the utility-specific situation (Sturm et al., forthcoming)

identify evident inaccuracies and correct inaccuracies, where realistic (Sturm et al., forthcoming)

verify the selection of correct data validity grades (Sturm et al., forthcoming)

In meeting these goals, the level 1 validation process results in:

data validity grades that reflect utility practices

identification of macroscopic inaccuracies

recommendations for advanced validation activities

©2016 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. • project #4639 • Level 1 Water Audit Validation | 3

Level 1 water audit validation does not:

correct inaccuracies in raw data that may affect summary data and audit inputs

investigate data processing and handling to identify and correct inaccuracies

study instrument accuracy through field tests to improve the certainty of the water audit

corroborate the volume of Real Losses with bottom-up or field investigations of leakage

Given these limitations, anyone who wishes to understand the performance of key water audit instruments and data

management systems; study raw data for gaps, redundancies, and inaccuracies; or document the translation of data

from measurement to summary should perform advanced validation activities.

How do I perform a Level 1 Water Audit Validation? Before a water audit can be validated, it must be compiled in the AWWA Free Water Audit Software according to the

methodology outlined in the most recent edition of AWWA Manual M36: Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. The

process of compiling a water audit is distinct from the process of validating a water audit. Additionally, the validator

should not be the person who compiled the water audit.

Level 1 validation consists primarily of an interview between the validator, the auditor, and utility staff. Five steps,

including the interview, compose the level 1 water audit validation process.

1) Receive and review the water audit and supporting documentation listed at the bottom of this page.

2) Review performance indicators for evidence of inaccuracy.

3) Review audit inputs and data validity grades and confirm correct application of methodology in a level 1

validation interview. Adjust inputs and data validity grades if necessary.

4) Review performance indicators again for evidence of persisting inaccuracy.

5) Document results, as outlined on page 4.

In the process of level 1 validation, the validator should keep in mind that the goals of a level 1 validation effort are

confirming that the water audit methodology was correctly interpreted, identifying evident inaccuracies, and verifying

that data validity grades accurately reflect utility practices. Level 1 validation will not correct – or even identify – all

inaccuracies that may be present in a water audit. Nonetheless, the potential for uncertainty in a water audit will be

better understood following a level 1 validation.

What Documentation is Necessary to Perform Level 1 Water Audit Validation? When preparing to perform level 1 water audit validation, the validator should request and receive the water audit and

the documentation necessary to corroborate key water audit inputs, methodology, and data validity grades. Though

much data likely supports the water audit, an in-depth examination of water audit data, analyses, and instrumentation is

beyond the scope of level 1 validation.

At minimum, the validator should request and receive:

Completed AWWA Free Water Audit Software

Volume from Own Sources detailed by month and supply meter

Water Imported detailed by month

Water Exported detailed by month

Supply meter testing and/or calibration documentation (if supply meters are tested and/or calibrated)

Volume of water sold detailed by month and rate code (e.g. charge status, water type, or customer class)

4 | Level 1 Water Audit Validation • project #4639 • ©2016 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

If the validator does not receive all minimally required supporting documentation, the water audit cannot be level 1

validated.

Additional supporting documentation will improve the level 1 validation process, but such information is not strictly

necessary to complete a level 1 water audit validation. Helpful supplemental documentation includes the derivations of

Customer Meter Inaccuracy, Average Operating Pressure, Customer Retail Unit Cost, and Variable Production Cost.

Additionally, audits from previous years can be collected to examine consistency from one year to the next, if previous

audits are available.

What Should a Validator Document in the Final Step of Level 1 Water Audit Validation?

The validator should document the results of the level 1 validation in the “Comments” tab of the AWWA Software or in a

comparable format.

At minimum, the validator should provide the following information:

Validator name and contact information

Results of initial performance indicator review

Summary of level 1 interview, particularly related to water audit input derivation and data validity grade

selection

Recommended changes to data validity grades and rationale

Recommended changes to water audit inputs and rationale

Results of follow-up performance indicator review

Overall impressions, including the consistency of performance indicators with system conditions and water loss

management practices

Recommendations for advanced validation and water audit improvements

While some uncertainty may persist in the water audit, the water audit is more reliable for having been level 1 validated.

References Sturm, R., L. Andrews, K. Gasner, W. Jernigan, S. Cavanaugh, and G. Kunkel. Forthcoming. “Utility Water Audit

Validation: Principles and Programs.” Project #4639. Denver, Colo.: Water Research Foundation.

Sturm, R., K. Gasner, and L. Andrews. 2015. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data

Validity. Project #4372b. Denver, Colo.:Water Research Foundation.

WLCC (Water Loss Control Committee – Software Subcommittee). 2015. Validation Level Summary. Unpublished

working document. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

©2016 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. • project #4639 • Level 1 Water Audit Validation | 5

Related WRF Research

Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Data Validity and Results,

project #4372b

Leakage Management Technologies, project #2928

Accuracy of In-Service Water Meters at Low and High Flow Rates, project

#4028

Pressure Management: Industry Practices and Monitoring Procedures,

project #4321

Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control,

project #4372a

Criteria for Optimized Distribution Systems, project #4109