Implementation of the Joint Operations Plan Regionalization of the Water Resource Carol Bryck...
-
Upload
kristian-flowers -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Implementation of the Joint Operations Plan Regionalization of the Water Resource Carol Bryck...
Implementation of the Joint Operations
PlanRegionalization of the Water Resource
Carol BryckCapstone Project
Executive Masters of Public AdministrationPortland State UniversityAdvisor: Dr. Craig Shinn
Joint Operations Plan (JOP)The JOP is an agreement between:
Clackamas River Water (CRW) North Clackamas County Water Commission (NCCWC) South Fork Water Board (SFWB)
Purpose: Effective and efficient use of the water resource for the
benefit of all customers
Timeline: Signed July 2001 Not implemented
2
Provisions of the JOPOptimizing the use of all three plants and major
pump stations
Optimizing power consumption
Facilitating expanded use of gravity flows and reservoir use
Increasing coordination among the plants
3
Clackamas River Basin974 square miles of
watershed:Water flowTimothy Lake – up river
storageDams/water
flow/hydroelectric
Demands:Water demands within
the JOP participantsResidential/domesticIndustrialAgricultural
4
See if Mike can make an electronic map showing four WTPs and city and district boundaries.
5
Why is this important?Public Benefit
Availability of Water - a limited resourceCost effective provision of necessary resourcePotential increased equitable rate structures
Water Provider BenefitsCost savings on operationsDelay of high capital cost of infrastructureEfficient and effective operation
7
Water Flows - with Trend Line
8
Water Demands
9
Capital Cost of ExpansionCapital cost for plant capacity expansion
estimated from $2 to $5 per gallon
5 million gallons per day would cost $10 million to $25 million
Estimated annual debt payment for $25 million bond20 year debt - $1.8 million per yearEvenly distributed to affected wholesale and retail
customers $2 to $3/month for the next 20 years
10
Current Rates with Additional Cost of Capital
11NCCWC SFWB
Effect on PublicRate comparison doesn't include potential cost
increases for costs above debt coverage such as:Other capital projects for replacement of aging
infrastructure;Utilities, chemicals, other materialsPersonnel costs
medical insurance coverage, PERS rates, COLA increases per contracts,
12
JOP INTERESTS
CRW – optimal plant operation, protection of territory boundaries and meeting water needs of customers – retail and wholesale
NCCWC – optimal plant operation and delivery of water to SWA, Oak Lodge and Gladstone
SFWB – optimal plant operation and delivery of water to Oregon City (current and future) and West Linn (current and future)
All – sufficient revenue to cover all fixed and variable costs
All – alternative source(s) of water if Clackamas River is compromised
13
ImplementationMeeting those interests – cooperation and a
regional/rational approach to water production and delivery
Governance Sharing resources to the benefit of all participantsSharing technical expertise across regionManagement of each entity as a partner with the
other two
14
Leadership Eliminate US versus THEM attitude
Partner on acquisition of alternative water connections/sources
Evaluate available expertise and partner for specialized servicesHydraulic Modeling Information TechnologyLab servicesGIS
15
Joint OperationsOverall benefits of big picture thinking include:
Stewardship of the watershed and all users including:Lake Oswego-TigardEstacadaCity of Milwaukie and Rockwood PUD (on wells)
Reduced rate increases for customers – greater customer satisfaction
Delayed capital construction costs – particularly at the water treatment plants
Utilization of expertise without having to hire out – use the expertise available at any of the entities
16
Joint Operations
Questions?
17
Acknowledgements
My Family – no housework since September 2011
My cohort – the most amazing and brilliant group I have ever been associated with
All of the Professors
My advisor – Thank you Dr. Shinn
18