1. Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Atlanta, GA September 5 & 6, 2006 George Kunkel P.E. Philadelphia Water Department

2. Workshop Outline The IWA/AWWA Methodology & Development of the AWWA Water Loss Control Committees Water Audit Software A Walk Through the Water Audit Software Interpreting the Water Audit data for performance tracking and benchmarking Bottom-up validation to improve the Water Audit

3. US Drinking Water Industry Shortcomings Terminology; Historically a Lack of standardized definitions of water and revenue losses Technical; Not all water supplied by a water utility reaches the customer Financial; Not all of the water that reaches the customer is properly measured or paid for

4. States Survey Findings & Conclusion 15% 10% 20% 15% 10% 15% 20% 15% 7.5% 20% 15% A better system of accounting is needed to instill better accountability in drinking water utilities

5. Unaccounted-for Water Percentage Just Doesnt Cut It! No consistent definitions for the various components of use or loss were employed Worldwide, no standard definition has been found to exist for the term unaccounted-for water Percentage indicators have been found to be suspect in measuring technical performance Percentage indicators translate nothing about water volumes and costs

6. Philadelphias Loss Control Success is not reflected by old percentage indicators

7. Improvements in Water Auditing Method developed by International Water Association Water Loss Task Force (with AWWA participation) in 2000 Supported by AWWA WLC Committee in August 2003 Committee Report AWWA WLC Committee is rewriting the M36 Publication Water Audits & Leak Detection, to be published late 2007 AWWA WLC Committee launched the Free Water Audit Software package – April 2006

8. IWA/AWWA Standard Water Balance SystemInputVolume AuthorizedConsumption RevenueWater NonRevenueWater BilledAuthorizedConsumption UnbilledAuthorizedConsumption ApparentLosses RealLosses WaterLosses Billed Metered Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption Unauthorized Consumption Customer Meter Inaccuracies & Systematic Data Handling Error Leakage on Transmission & Distribution Mains Billed Unmetered Consumption Unbilled Metered Consumption Leakage on Service Connections up to metering point up to metering point Reservoir Leakage & Overflow

9. Features of the Free Water Audit Software Package Purpose: promote standardized method for audits User-friendly tool, easy toggle between worksheets, only access to MS EXCEL is needed Designed as a basic top-down water audit Complete list of terms and definitions Performance indicators are calculated, eliminating chance of math errors Checks installed to alert questionable data Data from multiple systems can be transferred and analyzed electronically

10. Water Audit Software Development Software beta tested by 21 water utilities Accessible from AWWAs WaterWiser Website www.awwa.org/waterwiser/waterloss/Docs/waterauditsoftware.cfm Software Development Team –Andrew Chastain-Howley (chair) Water Prospecting and Resource Consulting –Alain Lalonde, Veritec Consulting –David Sayers, Delaware River Basin Commission –David Goff, P.E. Goff Water Audits and Engineering –George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department

11. Implementing AWWAs Water Audit Software IWA/AWWA method now offers a robust water auditing approach where none existed previously AWWAs Free Water Audit Software Package gives the drinking water industry a standardized tool to improve accountability and track water loss standing Leading agencies such as the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District are leading the way in promoting best practices in water management

12. On to the Software!

13. Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Atlanta, GA September 5 & 6, 2006 George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department Assessing the Water Audit Calculations and Performance

14. AWWA Quality Programs Self-assessment Peer review Benchmarking Accreditation

15. Self Assessment: Trending Your Performance Philadelphias NRW Reduction

16. Assessing Existing Regulatory Performance Indicators; 2001 States Survey Water loss policy Definition of water loss Accounting and reporting Standards and benchmarks Goals and targets Planning requirements Compilation and publication Technical assistance Performance incentives Auditing and enforcement Ten Practices queried in the AWWA States Survey Project – 43 State and 3 Regional Agencies www.awwa.org/Sections/committee/committee_view.cfm?hpid=30

17. Regulatory Agencies have customarily used an unaccounted-for water percentage Existing statues have UFW by default rather than by design –Texas is leading the way for improvement; data from over 2,000 IWA/AWWA water audits is currently being analyzed – findings available in early 2007 UFW Percentage is a weak performance indicator –No consistent definitions for the various components of use or loss have been employed –Worldwide, no standard definition has been found to exist for the term unaccounted-for water –Percentage indicators have been found to be suspect in measuring technical performance –Percentage indicators translate nothing about water volumes and costs

18. States Survey Findings & Conclusion 15% 10% 20% 15% 10% 15% 20% 15% 7.5% 20% 15% A better system of accounting is needed to instill better accountability in drinking water utilities

19. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data AWWA WATER:/STATS Surveys 1996 general survey data analyzed by the WLC Committee: –Water volume input to distribution –Water billed in various customer classes –Crude comparison of water input to total billings conducted –Results show widely varying data, typical of the times This survey was not structured to inquire directly about water loss control data

20. 1996 WATER:\STATS Data Graph

21. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) Valid Responses from 339 Water Utilities –USA Utilities: 56.7 million (19.5%)/ Canadian Utilities: 3.6 million (11.1%) 330 USA Utilities; 9 Utilities from Canada –21 Small Systems: Population less than 10,000 –222 Medium Systems: Population 10,001 - 100,000 –96 Large Systems: Population greater than 100,000 AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey Information Categories - Utility Information - Services Provided - Pipe Material - Valves - Water Conveyance - Finished Water Storage - Hydrants/Flushing - Customer Metering - Customer Service Lines - Service Line Responsibility - Corrosion Control - Water Supply Auditing - Leakage Management - Infrastructure Management

22. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) Response to Question: Do you routinely compile a Water Audit? Number of Responses/Population Served 100,001 Total YES 13 135 62 210 (62%) NO 8 87 34 129 (38%) Total 21 222 96 339 AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey

23. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.)

24. Assessing Water Utility Survey Data (Cont.) AWWA WATER/:STATS 2002 Distribution Survey

25. Improving Water Loss Control Assessments IWA Publication Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services 2000 Structure of the Performance Indicator Framework –Water Resources indicators –Personnel indicators –Physical Indicators Level of detail descriptor L1 – High Level, low detail L2- medium detail L3 – most detailed - Operational indicators - Quality of Service indicators - Financial indicators

26. Performance Indicators: IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method Operational Performance Indicators Real Losses Normalized (1), gallons/service connection/day, L1 Real Losses Normalized (2), gallons/service connection/day/psi of pressure, L3 Apparent Losses Normalized, gallons/service connection/day, L1 Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL), gal = (5.41Lm + 0.15Nc + 7.5Lp) x P, where Lm = length of mains, Nc = # connections, Lp = Length private pipe, P = ave. pressure, Psi Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Current Real Losses/UARL, dimensionless, L3

27. Performance Indicators: IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method Financial Performance Indicators Non-revenue water over system input volume, percentage, L1 Non-revenue water expressed as a percentage of the annual cost of running the water supply system, L3 (Non-revenue water = Unbilled Authorized Consumption + Apparent Losses + Real Losses)

28. Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data Confidence Grading Descriptors* A – Highly Reliable –Based upon sound records of high quality data B – Reliable –Good data, but with minor shortcomings (some missing, old or dated data) C – Unreliable –Data based upon extrapolation from a limited sample of actual data D – Highly Unreliable –Data based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or cursory inspections or analysis *taken from Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000

29. Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data Accuracy Bands* 1 Better than or equal to +/- 1% 2 Not band 1, but better than or equal to +/- 5% 3 Not bands 1 or 2, but better than or equal to +/- 10% 4 Not bands 1,2 or 3, but better than or equal to +/- 25% 5 Not bands 1,2,3, or 4 but better than or equal to +/- 50% 6 Not bands 1,2,3,4, or 5 but better than or equal to +/- 100% X Values which fall outside of the valid range, such as greater than 100%, or small numbers *taken from Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000

30. Grading the Quality of the Water Audit Data - Matrix of Confidence Grades* *taken from Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services, IWA Publishing, 2000 ** indicates confidence grades that are considered to be incompatible Accuracy Bands (%) Reliability Bands ABCD [0;1]A1** [1;5]A2B2C2** [5;10]A3B3C3D3 [10;25]A4B4C4D4 [25;50]** C5D5 [50;100]** D6

31. General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI Value Target ILI RangeFinancial Considerations Operational Considerations Water Resource Considerations 1.0 -3.0 Water resources are costly to develop or purchase Operating with leakage above this level would require expansion of infrastructure or new water resources Available resources are greatly limited and are very difficult and/or environmentally unsound to develop > 3.0 – 5.0 Water resources can be developed or purchased at reasonable expense Existing supply infrastructure is sufficient as long as leakage is controlled Resources are sufficient if good demand management measures are in place > 5.0 – 8.0 Cost to purchase or obtain/treat water is low, as are rates charged to customers Superior reliability, capacity and integrity of infrastructure make the system immune to supply shortages Water resources are plentiful, reliable and easily extracted Greater than 8.0 Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than 8.0 – other than as an incremental goal to a smaller long- term target – is discouraged. Less than 1.0 If the calculated ILI value is 1.0 or less, two possibilities exist: a) world class low leakage levels are being maintained, or b) a portion of the water audit data may be flawed. If extensive leakage control activities are not practiced, it is likely that the latter case applies

32. Performance Indicators from water utilities compiling bottom-up IWA/AWWA Water Audits Water UtilityNRWv % NRWc % App L g/c/d Real L g/c/d UARL mgd ILI WCSA, Abingdon, VA 35.017.421.673.81.31.15 San Antonio Water System 7.912.24.134.76.71.60 Metro Water Nashville 33.044.060.898.92.95.6 El Dorado Irrigation Dist, CA 14.333.936.281.81.32.25 Halifax Regional Water Commission 18.12.15.265.51.54.0 Toronto Water 11.40.67.614.36.31.17 Philadelphia Water Department 34.613.125.5121.26.111.03

33. Performance Indicators – results from software beta test water utilities, using a top-down audit approach Water UtilityNRWv % NRWc % App L g/c/d Real L g/c/d UARL mgd ILI North Wales Water North Wales, PA 8.54.20330.481.55 Wichita Water & Sewer Department 2.5 08.12.10.62 City of Calgary, AB 19.45.312.154.65.282.9 Denver Water 3.71.34.612.54.950.75 Benton Co Water District #1, Avoca AR 18.56.13.832.60.060.97 Perkasie Bor Authority Perkasie, PA 13.11.72.820.10.051.33 Moscow Water Dept. Moscow, ID 9.82.61.922.50.111.09

34. Summary – Assessing Water Audit Calculations & Performance Water Audit Software – outstanding tool to assess water loss standing and track in-house progress Performance Comparisons with other water utilities: reliable if water audit data has been validated Several means exist to grade data and normalize comparisons; standard procedures are needed to grade the data Implementation of water auditing into standard drinking water industry practices will create reliable datasets and identify best-in-class practices and benchmark levels, but work is needed to refine the procedures Texas – first large scale assessment of Water Audit data So, let the water auditing begin!

35. Water Audit Software Training Workshop Presented by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Atlanta, GA September 5 & 6, 2006 George Kunkel, P.E. Philadelphia Water Department Bottom-up Validation of the Water Audit

36. Key Validation Areas of the Water Audit Bring the people from different functional areas together to confirm the various process data that goes into the water audit Verify the Production Meter Data –The water audit starts here and errors in this data carry throughout the entire audit Learn how the customer billing system works –Billings systems have been designed for financial reasons, but we now use their consumption data for multiple purposes Recognize some key leakage factors –Gather data on leakage repair response time –Evaluate pressure levels in your system –Know your policy on customer service line leakage

37. Bring the people from different functional areas together to confirm the various process data that goes into the water audit Forming the team provides: –Knowledge from keys areas –Opportunity for improved interaction –Identification of gaps in process –Culture of accountability and team building

38. Know Your Production Metering Configuration

39. One Technique to Monitor Production Meter Accuracy

40. Learn the workings of the Customer Billing System – this generates the amount of Billed Authorized Consumption Philadelphia: Customer Metered Consumption Vs. Customer Billed Consumption –A sampling of Customer Billed Usage: 8-inch meters Month # of Accounts Usage (100 cubic feet) July 1999 71 177,312 Aug 1999 70 -134,825 Sept 1999 69 246,923 Oct 1999 68 178,278 Its important to find out what the Billing System does to Metered Data

41. Philadelphias Revenue Protection Program – Water & Revenue Recoveries of Apparent Losses

42. Breaks are Dramatic, but Leaks Lose More Water!

43. Awareness, Location & Repair Implications

44. Understand the effects of pressure on leakage levels and infrastructure

45. Who is responsible for Customer Service Connection Piping?

46. Service Line Leak Repair Times

47. How are service connection leaks handled?

48. Summary – Bottom-up Measurement & Auditing Validate and Improve the Water Audit over time Bottom-up activities include field measurements and audits; replace estimated data with actual data For most water utilities, water audit validation is evolutionary, improving over time It is key to assemble employees from the pertinent groups to contribute accurate data and knowledge of the operations Start in basic mode, and improve incrementally